HOMEBREW Digest #2583 Mon 15 December 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		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

  Denature temperature of Pectin Enzyme (Mike Allred)
  Concerns about AHA Vienna/Oktoberfest ("Alan McKay")
  SS Fermenters ("Eric Schoville")
  Carboy Spigots ("Mark Knopf, Roanoke, Va.")
  blowoff/sweetness/covered boil/lager yeasts/pH/efficiency/flaked (Al Korzonas)
  Aqua yeast ranching & botulism (Tim Martin)
  Conical Fermenter Idea (Andrew Stavrolakis)
  Re: Grain Mills (brian_dixon)
  Cylindriconical Fermenter (Joe Stone)
  iodine test (Al Korzonas)
  Re: AHA Vienna and Oktoberfest Guidelines ("Brian M. Rezac")
  another siphon starter (Adam Holmes)
  American Porters (Mark Peacock)
  What means "0,0 % VOL" in non-alchogolic beer? (al_ru)
  Re: sparkler effect, dispense pressure ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Octoberfest beers (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
  Dispense Pressure (Richard Byrnes)
  Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment (Jeff Renner)
  Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment (Alan Edwards)
  Re: New BT Column (Dion Hollenbeck)
  Topping off/Adding water during the boil (Steve Armbrust)
  Courage DIRECTOR'S BITTER (barley)
  who owns the recipe? (long) (Richard Byrnes)
  Beer Bugs (Paul Ward)

===================================================================== Beer is our obsession, and we're late for therapy! 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... ftp://hbd.org /pub/hbd/digests ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer">ftp://ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:10:41 -0700 From: Mike Allred <mballred at xmission.com> Subject: Denature temperature of Pectin Enzyme What is the optimal temperature of Pectin Enzyme and when is it denatured? I recently made a fruit mead which I held at 145 deg for 15 min to pasteurize it. I do not like using Camden and I didn't want to boil the honey. I added the peptic enzyme at 145 deg and I'm not sure if the temperature was too hot for it to work. The only references that I have found deal with using it with a Camden process that doesn't include heat. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:24:45 -0500 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: Concerns about AHA Vienna/Oktoberfest George De Piro expresses his concerns about the new AHA Vienna/Oktoberfest guidelines. I can't agree more with you, George. I'm afraid that what we're slowing seeing is the americanisation of beer styles. This, of course, being driving by the AHA. I'm not saying that brewers abroad are changing their recipes to suit Americans. What's actually happening is that brewers on this continent by-and-large really don't have a clue what a real Vienna, Oktoberfest, Alt, Kolsch (the list goes on) tastes like. Slowly what we're seeing is that the competitions are being overwhelmed by beers that aren't at all brewed to style. So instead of rejecting these beers out-right, the AHA slowly migrates the styles guidelines to suit the submissions. Within 5 years I predict that the only beers we'll see in AHA competitions are "American-XXX". i.e. Americanised versions of all our favorite beer styles. Completely unforgivable, IMO. -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Enterprise Networks Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
Date: 10 Dec 97 10:59:31 -0800 From: "Eric Schoville" <ESCHOVIL at us.oracle.com> Subject: SS Fermenters Alan recently posted a question on whether an opening in a SS fermenter should be large or small. I say go for a large opening! I use a 10" opening in my converted keg primary fermenter. During fermentation, I just put a stock pot lid on top. This system has worked very well for 7 batches with no infections. After moving to open primary ferments, I am never going back! The large opening makes cleaning a snap and easy sanitation and large volume make converted keg primary fermenters great. To top it off, I got this keg for $5 at a garage sale! Eric Schoville in Dallas, TX Mangled owner of the Bloody Garage Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:08:02 -0500 From: "Mark Knopf, Roanoke, Va." <knoroa at rbnet.com> Subject: Carboy Spigots (Lurker status off) I've read the threads in the archives regarding drilling of carboys and the precautions needed, etc., but haven't seen much mention of the "carboy spigot" being flaunted in the latest HB rags. Do they have anything new worth looking at or is it a coffee urn spigot, and drilling-holes-is-your-responsibility-instructions? As with most HB'ers always interested in new ideas and the best way to find out is by asking the collective. TIA to all. The HBD is a great thing... Mark Knopf Roanoke, Va. (In geographical relation to Jeff... east until you smell it, south until you step in it...) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:58:38 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: blowoff/sweetness/covered boil/lager yeasts/pH/efficiency/flaked Kevin writes: >1) Is there an advantage to fermenting in a smaller vessel so that the krausen >blows all the foam and funk out of a tube, or is it better to ferment in a >larger vessel so that one does not lose that volume of beer. I've done an experiment on this and published my results in Brewing Techniques. The bottom line is: the only significant difference between blowing off (or skimming) the dirty head and letting it fall back into the beer is the bitterness. You lose about 15% of the bitterness if you remove the dirty head in some way (dropping is another way). >2)Is there an adjunct that can be used to make a "sweet stout" if one is >lactose maldigestive? Bad choice of words... "adjuncts" are non-enzymatic sources of starch (e.g. potatoes, unmalted grains, etc.). Dave Line has used saccarine to sweeten beers, but the snag is that it's also bitter, so you have to back-off on the bitterness a little. >4) Is it better to boil in a covered pot to maintain a more constant volume, >or to boil in an open pot and have the volume reduce during the course ofthe >boil? No. You must boil uncovered (at least part of the boil and ideally, during the whole boil) or you will have excessive DMS in your finished beer. It will smell like cooked corn. *** George writes: > Talking to Wyeast is next to useless (I've been told by them that > lager yeast won't grow well at 72F). Some lager yeasts make excessively sulphury beer. Other ones (like Wyeast #2035) make very nice, delicious ales. *** AJ writes: >It isn't the pH of the water that has the major influence but rather its >alkalinity. Absolutely, but more accurately, the pH of the *mash* is what is important. >water quite a bit. From memory, a kg of patent malt contains the >equivalent of several (5?)mL of concentrated (hardware store strength) >hydrochloric acid. This implies that we can use hardware store hydrochloric (Muriatic) acid for brewing. While it may be perfectly okay, I feel it is much safer to use only FDA-approved, or "food grade" acids. On a related note, I wonder how many homebrew supply stores are selling sidewalk salt as calcium chloride... this stuff is definitely not food grade and can contain all kinds of impurities. I've heard some can be poisonous, but don't know for sure. >In the case of pale malts (which also contain some acid but much less >than the high kilned) the principal source of acid is the reaction of >calcium in the water (if there is any) with phytin in the malt which >releses hydrogen ions. In this case the pH is determined largely by the >relationship between the calcium content of the water and the water's >alkalinity. One of the advantages of decoction mashing with low kilned >grains is that more phytin gets hydrolyzed releasing (assuming calcium >is available) more H+ thus dropping the pH further at each decoction. Are you sure about this? I thought that phytase is what acts upon the phytin. I suspect that because phytin works around 90F, that boiling would certainly denature it. Is this simply *another* way for the H+ to be released? *** Ken writes: >I recently completed an analysis of four brew sessions -- two batch-sparge >(thanks to Michael Crowe) and two full-sparge -- and found that the wort >trapped in the grain was significantly higher in gravity than the "free" wort <snip> >of sparge water (as in batch sparging). However, in all four cases, the >amount of sugar retrieved from the grain was much higher than predicted, by >15%, 25%, 46%, and 49% in the four sessions. Barry's data show an increase of >20.5/17.2 = 19% from first positive indication to plateauing of the readings. >I was not able to deduce any particular correlation between brewing parameters >(mash thickness, overall gravity, etc) and the amount of "excess" gravity that >resulted. I'd like to hear more... could you post more details of this experiment? When you write "full-sparge" I presume you mean "fly sparge" or "continuous sparge," as opposed to the "fill, drain, fill, drain..." of batch sparging, right? If I don't have this right, could you also give details on this? *** Charles writes: >It'd be hard to flake roasted barley (not to mention unnecessary) since >it's quite friable. Don't know how malsters feel about the idea of roasting >flaked barley either. In any event, it is that pre-gelatinized stuff. You can buy toasted flaked barley from the UK. When I was a retailer, I believe I got it from L.D.Carlson (a homebrew wholesaler). It wasn't roasted... it had a nice "breakfast cereal" character. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:08:53 -0500 From: Tim Martin <TimMartin at southwest.cc.nc.us> Subject: Aqua yeast ranching & botulism Hey Neighbors, I've had good luck freezing yeast so last week I thought I would try storing yeast under distilled water. I could not find much literature on the subject so I made most of the procedure up as I went. Poured yeast from bottom of fermenter into gallon jug, let settle, poured off beer, froze half and put the other half into sanitized mason jars and poured distilled water right from the jug on top of the yeast, put on lid and placed on shelf in a dark cool room. I thought I should have boiled the distilled water but I figured distilled water was pure and by this point I just couldn't do one more step. Then I started to thinking.... this seems too easy, what keeps this from spoiling or yes.....BOTULISM. Yes I am paranoid. You guys saved my life. I used to be very careless with my canning and wort storing procedures before the "botulism" thread. Now I just make up fresh wort each time but this yeast under water has me a little nervous. By the way the Ph of my beer was 4.5 at racking time so I guess the yeast is at Ph 4.5, this should help. Can any one with more experience help me or lead me to some literature for this intriguing process. Thanks, Tim Martin * Cullowhee, NC * (near nobody) P.S. - this is not an attempt to restart the thread. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:06:45 -0500 From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu> Subject: Conical Fermenter Idea Hello All, I just had an idea for a cheap easy way to build a conical fermenter with bottom drain spigot. How about using 6 inch PVC pipe, fitted with reducers and a valve at one end, and capped at the other, attached to a verticle stand? I calculate that 24.5 liters (approx 6.5 gallons) would require a 4.5 foot length of pipe that would be easily manageable. Would there be a problem using PVC to ferment in? and then using as a secondary for a couple of weeks? Any comments? or are some ideas better left to die a natural death? Private or public response, your choice. Thanks, Andrew Stavrolakis andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu ************************************************************ Andrew J. Stavrolakis Controller LASPAU: Academic and Professional Programs for the Americas 25 Mount Auburn Street Cambridge, MA 02138 phone:617-495-0543 fax: 617-495-8990 email:Andrew_Stavrolakis at harvard.edu http://www.laspau.harvard.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 97 15:07:12 -0800 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Grain Mills [snip] >I am browsing for a malt mill and have narrowed it down to a few. I am >looking at both the Valley Mill (tm) and The MaltMill (tm). The price >difference is negligable at $30 difference, with the MaltMill being the >heavy. However, after viewing both their websites, I am compelled to >believe that the MaltMill is a much more rugged piece of machinery and >probably the better buy. The Maltmill fixed width roller model is only a >few dollars more than the Valley Mill adjustable, but the Valley has a >much larger hopper and comes with a adapter for the motorizing. ( I am >presuming that they mean a cheap 3/8" drill). >Anyway, any testimony from the collective? [snip] Marc, I'll put my vote in for the Valley Mill, although you won't go wrong with either. I'll also strongly vote for going with an adjustable mill, regardless of who's mill you buy. EVEN THOUGH Jack Schmidling will respond and say he gets fine results with smaller kernels such as wheat with the fixed-gap MaltMill, I much prefer being able to tighten the mill one click and get a perfect crush with the smaller grains. Plus if you decide to experiment with any other grains such as sorghum (downright tiny), you'll appreciate the adjustability. You'll have the mill for many years, so you may as well get the best. Anyway, back to the Valley Mill. Yes, the factory built hopper is much larger and carries about 8 or 9 lbs of grain. The latest version of the mill has steel bearings. I think Jack uses solid rollers on his mill, and I don't know if the Valley Mill has solid or hollow, but believe me, it makes less difference to your mill than how much running over a fly affects the ride in your car. The drill adapter is easy to use. I use a DeWalt cordless drill to run mine and the grain just whips right through the mill and comes out perfect. I've got maybe a couple hundred pounds of grain through it. Before I bought it, I spoke to a guy at a brew-on-premises (BOP) in Nashville where I was visiting on business about his usage of the mill. He had one installed for his clientele, and had it motorized with a pulley, belt, and some kind of an old electric motor. He'd had it installed and used daily for 2 years and it still worked like new. Mine is still like new too, I just blow the grain stuff out after each use and put it away. It quickly disassembles and stores in a small flat area in one of my boxes of homebrew stuff. I really think that you could buy one of Jack Schmidling's MaltMills, or go with the Valley Mill and do just fine. I see them as being fairly equivalent, both are beyond anyone's requirements for quality and durability. The adjustability and larger hopper for a smaller price than Jack's smaller-hopper and nonadjustable mill was what helped me decide, and I've never regretted it. Jack's caught a lot of flack for his small hopper and for the nearly unavailability of the adjustable mill ... I don't know why he doesn't add a larger hopper and work harder at selling the adjustable mill. Stuck in his ways I guess. Causes business to go to other outfits though. Good luck, and feel confident about any of the choices you've listed. They're all fine machines. Brian ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:08:54 -0800 From: Joe Stone <joestone at cisco.com> Subject: Cylindriconical Fermenter I think Frank Kalcic started the fermenter thread. I've been exchanging E-mail with Frank offline. Since there seems to be extended interest, I thought that I'd pass this along... I had a cylindriconical fermenter made from a 10 gallon Cornelius keg. The bottom of the keg was cut off and a 60o cone was welded in its place. The cone was fashioned from two "half-cone" pieces of stainless steel. The tip of the cone was welded to a 1" standard male pipe thread fitting. I use a 1" brass ball valve. The capacity of the fermenter is approximately 12 gallons. I understand the issue of threaded versus sanitary fittings and valves. But I paid $45 for the used Cornelius keg. The cone and fitting were welded for free. I couldn't justify putting a $150 valve on a $50 fermenter. If I have problems with infection, I will consider replacing the fitting and the valve. This is the information that I have on the welding and electro-polishing techniques that were used to assemble the fermenter. The information is somewhat second-hand and I can't say if it is completely accurate. The outfit that did the work makes food processing equipment for the Kellogg's company. If I get more information, I will pass it along. > The fermenter was purge welded. It was heli-arced with a nitrogen gas purge > which basically frees the weld environment of oxygen and makes a very hot > clean weld which penetrates throughout the thicknes of the weld. That's why > it looks like it is welded inside and out. The electro polishing process I > don't understand that well but basically it was polished by hand and machine > buffer first then it was treated with a chemical bath and electrically > charged similar to chrome plating but no chromium is used in the bath. > Basically it is just plated without any metal alloys. What this does is eat > off the top oxidation layer of the metal and leaves a clean surface. I will > try to find out more about it from the guy who did it for me. Upjohn uses > this process quite a bit when reparing their ingredient tanks or making > modifications to existing tanks. I have only been using the fermenter for about a month. I'm currently fermenting my fifth batch of beer in it with no signs of infection (knock on wood). I've been using the bottom drain to purge the trub and yeast which has settled into the tip of the cone. This seems to be very effective. Currently, I have been siphoning the beer into a five gallon glass secondarying using a racking cane. Ultimately, I plan to leave the wort/beer in the fermenter for two weeks, purging the trub and yeast after a week and using an extended beer-out dip tube and CO2 pressure to transfer the beer to a keg (beer-out to beer-out). I can't recommend this approach, yet, only because I don't have enough experience to say that the design and the use of a threaded fitting aren't prone to infection. I think that the existing keg fittings, dip tube and port work beautifully in the fermenter application. Of course, it would be nice if the port were a little larger for cleaning, but this is true of any Cornelius keg. Joe Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:58:57 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: iodine test Dave writes: >I do the test this way: > >Take a ~10 milliliter mash sample which contains the grain, >place it in the microwave and boil it briefly, cool slightly and >then run the test. > >I know AlK's objections in the past has been about "hidden" >starch being released this way, but I don't believe this objection >is well-founded, relative to having an easy test which is truly >a measure of remaining starch. Actually it is this difficult to react = My objections to this method are based upon more than 10 years of brewing and reading brewing texts and journals, and were explained in the past... perhaps not with enough detail. I'll try again... If you simply take a sample of the liquid part of the mash and test it with iodine, any colour is a reaction with the starch that remains in solution in the mash. This is what we *really* want to test. We want to stop mashing when the starch in solution is converted. If you boil a sample which contains some grain, you are releasing starch that is *inaccessable* to the enzymes. It is an *unrepresentative* sample of the mash. What do we care if there is some starch still left that is *stuck* in the steely tips of the malt? Our enzymes *can't* reach it. That said, I don't do the iodine test at all... I adjust my pH (usually unnecessary), use a MaltMill(tm) for milling my malts/grains and mash a specific length of time (at least 1 hour at or above 155F and at least 1.5 hours below 155F). Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:43:28 -0700 From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org> Subject: Re: AHA Vienna and Oktoberfest Guidelines George De Piro wrote: > Just a quick AHA Style Guidelines comment. If you don't care about > the AHA, style guidelines, or beer judging, page down now. > > Have many of you read the latest guidelines for Vienna and Oktoberfest > beers? > > I have.... George, No. You haven't. What you have read is the "almost final version" of the 1998 AOB Style Guidelines. I know, I sent them to you. We do use the AOB's final version as a starting point for the AHA's guidelines, but the two don't necessarily have to match exactly. These two sets of guidelines have different publishing deadlines. We offered the "almost final version" of the 1998 AOB Style Guidelines to IBS and AHA members, BJCP judges and other groups and individuals to solicit their input on suggested changes. I did explain in the accompanying note that all suggested changes would be considered. I also said that if the suggested change was a major one, it would have to be table to next year's guideline revisions. > I did write the AHA about this, and have been ignored. I don't expect > immediate change, but acknowledgment of this flaw would be nice. You are not being ignored. Your suggestions have been grouped with all the suggested revisions (and we've received quite a few) and are now going through the evaluation process. The Association of Brewers will, again, consider all suggestions and solicit input from various industry experts as well as take historical aspects and scientific profiles of the styles into account. I want to also mention that this is a continuing process from year to year. We are always open to suggested revisions of the AOB or AHA Beer Style Guidelines. This year we made a more concerted effort to make the "almost final version" of the guidelines available to a larger group, directly soliciting and encouraging input. It was my idea to post the offer on the BJCP's JudgeNet, and it is important to have a dialogue about your concerns. Everyone that has requested the guidelines for review will be receiving an email explaining which suggested changes were accepted and which were not and why. We just aren't that far yet. > Using these new guidelines, the AHA NHC gold medal-winning Oktoberfest > that I brewed in 1996 would have been panned for being too big for > style (its OG was 1.062). I guess I'll have to change my recipe (note > extreme sarcasm). Actually, the 1998 AHA Style Guidelines for Vienna and Marzen/Oktoberfest are the same as they were in 1996. The change that you are referring to in the 1998 AOB Style Guidelines is: 1997 version, "Fruity esters are minimal, if perceived at all." was changed to: 1998 version, "Fruity esters may be minimally perceived." This isn't a big change. > Just because many commercial brewers here and abroad produce > Oktoberfests that are essentially Viennas is no reason to eliminate > the higher gravity, traditional Oktoberfest from the guidelines. One note on strengthening your argument is to provide examples of the traditional Oktoberfests with the higher gravities. I don't mean the actual beers. (Although I would be happy to receive them!) What I mean is the statistics (O.G., F.G., alc/vol, etc..). I want to reiterate that the AOB and AHA are listening, but your suggestions have a better chance of being approved if you prove your case with facts, such as specific beers, history, published reports, references, etc. This is the criteria that we use to make revisions. - Brian Brian Rezac Administrator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) Boulder, CO 80302 brian at aob.org (e-mail) U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:28:07 -0700 (MST) From: Adam Holmes <adamholm at holly.ColoState.EDU> Subject: another siphon starter Someone posted a note about starting a siphon with a rubber bulb to fill the siphon. Another idea: Use what we use everyday here at the toxicology lab- squirt bottles (the kind of bottles they use to squirt Rocky Balboa as they scream "Get in their and pulverize that guy!"). It has a thin tip so it easily fits into your siphon tube. I don't know where you'ld buy one. Maybe at your local Don King boxing outlet. Adam Holmes Fort Collins, CO Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:57:49 -0600 From: Mark Peacock <xpeacockx at chicagonet.net> Subject: American Porters George De Piro says: |John asks what kind of beer he made by fermenting a porter wort with a |lager yeast. | |The answer is very simple: a porter! In the Mar/Apr 97 issue of Brewing Techniques, Ben Jankowski's article on American Porters proposes a couple of porter sub-styles (pre-flame disclaimer - I am not, nor have I ever been accused of brewing to style!) using bottom-fermented yeast: "Pennsylvania porter...is a bottom-fermented, ester-free beer with fair-to-medium mouthfeel. "Prosperity porter can be bottom or top fermented and has a chewy dextrin mouthfeel..." The article also provides three "Classic American Porter Recipes". The Pennsylvania Porter suggests Wyeast New Ulm or St Louis American Lager yeasts. The Happy Valley recipe suggests Wyeast California Common lager yeast. George's example of Yuengling Porter as a bottom-fermented porter is right on point. I used to consume and enjoy Yuengling Porter by the case when I lived in Philadelphia's Art Museum district some years ago (because you could only buy beer by the case back then). The Brewing Techniques article has a table showing the strengths/gravities of American porters such as Yuengling, Sierra Nevada and Anchor. All in all, a very informative article. Mark Peacock Hinsdale, Illinois xpeacockx at chicagonet.net (remove the x's to reply) ... though I would have flown over Jeff's house today if the snow hadn't crushed my travel plans Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:18:11 From: al_ru at usa.net Subject: What means "0,0 % VOL" in non-alchogolic beer? Hello, all! I am interested by making of non-alchogolic beer (with maximum low contents of alchogol as possible). Whether someone can explain to me - what means marks "0,0 % VOL" on some industrial non-alchogolic beers (for example, "Holsten") and which maximum contents of alchogol in such beer? Why in ingredients list of this beer ("Holsten") are not specified yeast (is it making without fermentation)? Thanks in advance for the answers - this information is very important for me. Direct e-mail is OK. Al. ____________________________________________________________________ Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:34:09 -0500 (EST) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Re: sparkler effect, dispense pressure On Sun, 7 Dec 1997 mwmccaw at ix.netcom.com wrote: > Here it is: > 1) Get yourself a ten cc syringe, no needle necessary or wanted. > An "oral" syringe will work just dandy, and may be easier to come by in some > parts of the country. > 2) Draw your beer normally, minimizing splashing, etc. - LEAVE A GOOD THIRD > OF THE GLASS EMPTY!! > 3) Suck 10 cc into the syringe, and force it out rapidly into the beer. > 4) Watch in amazement as the huge whipped-cream consistency head develops. > > That's it! works anywhere, wins bar bets, amazes friends, and is cheap! > In step 3, is the syringe in the beer or just above it? 20 miles NNW of Jeff Renner and 0 miles from myself :) _________________________________________________________ Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company - --------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 07:38:36 -0500 From: brewmaker1 at juno.com (Jeffrey C Lawrence) Subject: Octoberfest beers Fellow beer connoisseurs, At last nights planning committee meeting of our brewclub, the Kenwood Fermenters, I volunteered to host the March meeting on Octoberfest beers. I would like suggestions of where to find some reference materials so I can give a good class on that style of beers, including the why's and where fores of the beer. I have limited access to the WWW so book type printed references will be greatly appreciated. In closing, I have one last thing to say: Eat you heart out Bill!!!! Thank you. Jeff Brewmaker1 at Juno.com Return to table of contents
Date: 11 Dec 1997 08:54:10 -0500 From: Richard Byrnes <rbyrnes2 at ford.com> Subject: Dispense Pressure Mike McKay posted an article describing his draught system in a chest freezer. He keeps his dispense pressure set at 8 lbs and claimed to keep a Kolsch carbonated at 3.3 vols at 48 degrees for 6 months. Sorry Mike, if your chest freezer is at 48 Degrees and your pressure is set at 8 lbs, your carbonation will be about 1.8 vols or less. I have no doubt that your Kolsch stayed carbonated for 6 months, that means your kegs dont leak! If you actually carbonated your kolsch at 26 lbs, you would have about 3.3. Vols, but unless you keep your dispens pressure set that high, every glass you pour increases the headspace in your keg and nibbles away at that carbonation level. The trick to a properly designed draught system is to decide ahead of time what temp you want to serve at and what level of Carbonation you want (most ales are around 2.5 vols, most lages are at 3 or higher) Now use the following chart to set your pressure, and it will be the same for carbonating and dispensing, this is called a balanced system, one setting, no dinking around. Volume 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 40F 6.8 9 11.2 13.4 15.5 17.7 42F 7.7 10 12.2 14.4 16.7 18.9 44F 8.6 10.9 13.2 15.5 17.8 20.1 46F 9.5 11.8 14.2 16.6 19 21.3 48F 10.4 12.8 15.3 17.7 20.1 22.6 50F 11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8 52F 12.2 14.8 17.3 19.9 22.5 25.1 54F 13.1 15.7 18.4 21.1 23.7 26.3 56F 14 16.7 19.5 22.2 24.9 27.6 58F 15 17.8 20.6 23.3 26.1 28.9 60F 15.9 18.8 21.6 24.5 27.4 30.2 Now, the way you balance a system is by adjusting the length of your hose, a 3/16th id flexible beverage hose give 3 lbs of pressure drop per foot, so if you want 3.3 vols at 48degrees, you would need to carbonate at about 25 lbs, now if you served at 25 lbs with a short hose, it would be like shooting beer out of a fire hose at full blast. start with 9 feet of hose between the keg and tap, you should have a gentle flow, about an ounce a second if memory serves correctly, with a nice head, not too much foam. If the beer is coming out too slow, start lopping off hose about 6" at a time. Make sure your hose has no kinks, this will cause turbulence in the lines and a lot of foam. Good Luck! Rich Byrnes Founder/Prersident Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr Pre-Production Systems Analyst \\\|/// phone #(313)323-2613, fax #337-9628_______o000_(.) (.)_000o rbyrnes2 at ford.com (_) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:25:58 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment In HBD 2580, KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com> and Mike McCaw <mwmccaw at ix.netcom.com> each wrote about using a syringe to imitate a sparkler: >Thought I'd toss in my favorite way (from an old Zymurgy tip) Not just any old anonymous Zymurgy tip, but one by yours truly, first posted here and then in Z. I called it a "30 Cent Beer Engine," but someone else suggested the name "Pocket Beer Engine." Wish I'd thought of that. I think there's a product with a ready name there for someone. Anyhow, try it. It really is neat. But be careful. After I posted here, I got lots of positive feedback, but one brewer chipped a tooth using it! It seems that he didn't allow enough head room on a well carbonated beer, and to prevent the foam overflowing, he lunged forward to sip it off and hit his tooth on the glass. I suppose the manufacturer of such a product would have been liable. Good Lord, maybe I'll get sued. Will you defend me, Louis? Ah, the hazards of beer. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 07:59:48 -0800 From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com>, HBD#2580: | | Thought I'd toss in my favorite way (from an old Zymurgy tip) of | obtaining a cheap imitation of Real Ale Head (and it works with bottled | beer as well): take a syringe (sans needle!), draw up a few cc's of | beer from the glass, and shoot the sharp stream violently back into | the beer. Kicks up a beautiful head and whips the beer itself into a | fluffy mousselike texture. I've tried this idea and like the difference. But, not having a syringe with me at all times, I have sort of...uh...improvised (I hate to mention this) by "emulating" the action of the jet-stream of beer with my mouth. Suck up a bit and *spit* it back into your glass in a high-velocity stream. Works beauty! (But don't let anyone see you do this. ;-) -Alan Edwards, Fremont, CA Return to table of contents
Date: 11 Dec 1997 08:44:33 -0800 From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at vigra.com> Subject: Re: New BT Column >> Louis Bonham writes: LB> Well, it's finally almost here -- the long-awaited RIMS LB> v. Decoction article (featuring the results of two different LB> "mash-out" experiments) is now in the can and is slated to be LB> published in the Jan-Feb issue of BT. And for those of you who don't know anything about RIMS other than it generates heated discussions in the HBD, the same issue will have an article by yours truly on the what, why and how of RIMS systems. Not construction, but down to earth info to help you decide if this is something you would want to investigate further as well as a list of resources. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:50:05 -0800 From: Steve Armbrust <SteveA at thepalace.com> Subject: Topping off/Adding water during the boil In HBD #2580, Tom Clark asks about topping off his boiling wort with boiling water. I do something similar. I too use a 6-gallon brewpot, which isn't quite big enough to hold all the wort after sparging an all-grain batch. So I add as much to the brewpot as will fit comfortably without danger of boilover, and then I start a smaller 5-quart "staging" pot boiling with some of the remaining wort. Once the the wort in the brewpot starts boiling and the foaming subsides, I add boiling wort from the smaller pot to top it off. Then I add more to the smaller pot and get it boiling again (much faster than the large pot) and top off when enough evaporates from the brewpot. This way I end up with a full five gallons at the end of the boil. Works for me. Steve Armbrust in Portland, OR (I don't have an atlas handy, so maybe someone can let me know how far that is from Jeff Renner) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:21:50 -0500 From: barley <mkitt at mnsinc.com> Subject: Courage DIRECTOR'S BITTER In HBD #2579, Charles Hudak was looking for a recipe for Courage DIRECTOR'S BITTER. I found this one in "Brew Your Own REAL ALE at Home" by Graham Wheeler and Roger Protz (Published by CAMRA): O.G. 1046 In the mash tun Pale malt: 4150g (82%) Crystal malt: 380g (7.5%) Black malt: 25g (0.5%) In the copper Maltose syrup: 500g (10%) Target hops: 28g (start of boil) Styrian Golding hops: 15g (start of boil) Hallertau hops: 6g (last 15 minutes) Styrian Golding hops: 6g (last 15 minutes) Irish moss: 1tsp (last 15 minutes) Styrian Golding hops: 5g (dry hopped in cask) Hallertau hops: 5g (dry hopped in cask) Typical characteristics Brewing method: Single infusion mash, top fermented.\ Mash liquor: 11 litres Mash temperature: 66 degrees C. Mash time: 90 minutes Boil time: 2 hours Alcohol content: 4.7% Final gravity: 1011 Bitterness: 34 EBU Final volume: 23 litre. NOTES Courage Directors is parti-gyled with Courage Best Bitter, and therefore shares the same grist. In fact, the Bristol brewery pactises high gravity brewing, whereby they brew only on ehigh gravity beer (about OG 1053). This standard beer is then diluted at the casking stage with de-oxygenated and UV sterilised water. The only difference between the range beers is the amount of water and caramel added when they cask it. They also use a whirlpool and therefore use hop pellets. - --------------- Hope that helps. Regards, Michael Return to table of contents
Date: 11 Dec 1997 13:36:08 -0500 From: Richard Byrnes <rbyrnes2 at ford.com> Subject: who owns the recipe? (long) Saw this on rec.food.cooking and thought it was timely! IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUERY RECIPES This is in response to your inquiry regarding the copyright registration of recipes. Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject LIBRARY to copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there CONGRESS is a combination of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Protection under the copyright law (Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying a preexisting work. Copyright protection may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the copyright law are met. To register the directions or instructions of a recipe or cookbook, send the following three elements in the same envelope or package to the Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20559. 1. A completed application Form TX; 2. A nonrefundable filing fee of $20.00; 3. A nonreturnable deposit of the work. The deposit requirements depend on whether the work has been published at the time of registration: If the work is unpublished, one complete copy. If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies of the best edition. If the work was first published in the United States before January 1,1978, two complete copies as first published. If the work was first published outside of the United States, one complete copy of the work as first published. If the work is a contribution to a collective work, and published after January 1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective work. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems or methods. How Long Does Copyright Registration Take? A copyright registration is effective on the date of receipt in the Copyright Office of all the required elements in acceptable form, regardless of the length of time it takes to process the application and mail the certificate of registration. The length of time required by the Copyright Office to process an application varies from time to time, depending on the amount of material received and the personnel available to handle it. It must also be kept in mind that it may take a number of days for mailed material to reach the Copyright Office and for the certificate of registration to reach the recipient after being mailed to the Copyright Office. You will not receive an acknowledgement that your application for copyright registra- tion has been received (the Office receives more than 500,000 applications annually), but you may expect: A letter or telephone call from a copyright examiner if further information is needed; and A certificate of registration to indicate the work has been registered, or if the application cannot be accepted, a letter explaining why it has been rejected. You might not receive either of these until at least 120 days have passed. If you want to know when the Copyright Office receives your material, you should send it via registered or certified mail and request a return receipt. For further information, write: Information Section, LM-401 Copyright Office Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20559 If you need additional application forms for copyright registration, call (202) 707-9100 at any time to leave your request as a recorded message on the Copyright Office Forms Hotline in Washington, D.C.; please specify the kind and number of forms you need. If you have general information questions and wish to talk to an information specialist, call (202) 707-3000. You may also photocopy blank application forms; however, photocopied forms submitted to the Copyright Office must be clear, legible, on a good grade of 8 1 /2-inch by 11-inch white paper, suitable for automatic feeding through a photocopier. The forms should be printed, preferably in black ink, head-to-head (so that when you turn the sheet over, the top of page 2 is directly behind the top of page 1). Forms not meeting these requirements will be returned to the originator. : .: S .. . M 7 >.U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992-312-433/40,050 Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr Pre-Production Systems Analyst \\\|/// phone #(313)323-2613, fax #337-9628_______o000_(.) (.)_000o rbyrnes2 at ford.com (_) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:21:29 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Ward <paulw at doc.state.vt.us> Subject: Beer Bugs Tad in Athens (Georgia) asks about freezing bugs. At last something I know about,...being cold. Tad doesn't describe his bugs, but they are probably what we call grain weevils around here, a little beetley thing that refuses to become extinct. Sorry Tad, but I don't think your winter's going to get rid of them. I know you're having a 'helluva' winter this year and may have to put on a sweater soon, but I doubt your having a cold enough spell to do much harm to these demons. They seem able to go dormant for a while, then once you warm them up, they start walking all over your grain again. The center of your grain bucket may not even get much below freezing what with all that grain insulating it. Even if all the bugs did freeze, they probably have a scazillion egs in the grain husks just waiting to hatch when conditions permit. I really don't think you'll get rid of the pests, so learn to live in harmony with them. Freezing them prior to crushing your grain will help the beetles crack into several uniform size pieces (textbook), and their exoskeletons will aid in sparging. Use this grain up and thoroughly clean yor grain bin before re-use. I don't know how small a weevil egg is, but I'm quite certain you don't want to leave any in your bin for the next batch of grain. Now, let me tell you about the winters when I was a boy,...... Paul in Vermont, where it's 20 degrees colder than Jeff Renner. - -- You know, I kind of liked Ebeneezer Scrooge before all those ghosts scared the good sense out of him. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/15/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96