---

	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:
  Questions (Al Korzonas)
  Open versus closed fermentation (Al Korzonas)
  torrefied wheat (Andrew Stavrolakis)
  Too Tasty to be commercial?,140F hold ("David R. Burley")
  Storing yeast (Al Korzonas)
  Iodine Test ("David R. Burley")
  Irish Moss types (smurman)
  Pils versus Pilsener (nathan_l_kanous_ii)
  homebrew cooking - beer batter (smurman)
  Franks Dilemma/My dilemma ("Eric Fouch")
  Re: Grain Mills Hoppers and Telescopes (Jack Schmidling)
  Primary Gravity - Bock ("Grabowski")
  Pin-lock Fittings ("Larry N. Smith")
  [Announce] CABA Web Site ("Andrew W. Avis")
  Ale vs. Wine Yeasts ("Andrew W. Avis")
  In defense of Maris Otter (nathan_l_kanous_ii)
  RE: glass / RE: large grain hoppers ("Keith Royster")
  Insulation & whirlpools ("Dave Draper")
  Blow off Airlock, Oats (Rust1d)
  Yeast for big ale (Andrew Stavrolakis)



=====================================================================
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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:31:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Questions

Jeffrey writes:
>1.  I'm thinking of shelling out the $$$ for a stainless steel
>mash/lautering tun.  What is the best way to stabilize temperatures
>during mashing
>steps?  Is there a good way to insulate these things? (Keep in mind I
>live
>in New England and have to brew in my garage)

Stainless steel is a pretty lousy conductor of heat.  I have done quite
well with my stainless steel mashtun without insulation, even at 30F
ambient (outdoor) temperature.  I'm still looking for the perfect
insulation (one that is easy to attach, whose fibers won't get into
my beer and is fireproof) but if you are willing to take it off while
heating, you can use regular foam house insulation.  Velcro helps make
it easy to put on and take off.

>2.  I own a Foxx counter-pressure bottle filler that I haven't had much
>luck with.  Pat Babcock over on AOL gave me a few pointers.  Any
>experience
>with these things?

Yes.  Replace those tiny needle valves with better valves.  Replace
the beer and CO2 valves with 1/4-turn ball valves and the bleeder valve
with a proper $5.00 needle valve from Ace Hardware.  You also want to
cool the beer to between 33 and 40F for best results.

>3.  What exactly is a "hop-back" and what are the advantages of this
>gadjet over dry-hopping?

It's basically a container with a screen in the bottom.  It is used
to strain out whole hops after the boil and you can add additional
whole hops to the hop back (aka hop jack) for aroma.  Dry hopping
lends a more powerful aroma than that you get from a hop back because
the hops stay in contact with the beer far longer and because many
compounds evaporate from the hops used in the hop back because it
is used with hot wort.  You also run the risk of aerating your hot
wort when using a hop back (you want to cool your wort before aerating).

>4.  I usually don't worry too much about hop sludge/trub in my primary
>and the beers come out tasting fine.  What are the advantages of
>minimizing
>or getting rid of this stuff before pitching yeast?

Hop sludge can clog the airlock or blowoff tube.  Fermenting on the 
break can increase higher alcohol production and has been implicated
in causing a "soapy" flavour in the beer in at least one experiment.

>5.  the "beer stone"...does anyone have one of these?  I picked one up a
>little while ago but haven't gotten around to trying it.  Do they work? 
>Why would I use this to force carbonate a Corny keg when the old way is
>pretty effective?  Would they be useful to lightly carbonate beer in
>growlers
>(even though the directions say never to do this!)?

The stone may increase the rate at which the beer carbonates, but I
don't think it is significantly faster.  I would call these stones
optional.  You also may want to consider how difficult they would be
to sanitize... boiling/pressure-cooking/autoclaving are the only 
reliable ways.

>6.  I've never been able to produce a "nutty" flavor in one of my brown
>ales or porters.  Does toasting grain accomplish this?

Oxidation can lend a nutty character.  Yes, toasting pale malts can give
a nutty character, but remember that you will be killing your enzymes.
You will have to use some untoasted pale malts for their enzymes when
you mash in addition to the toasted malt.  Don't say "but some recipes
in books include toasted pale malts and don't have any untoasted pale
malts in them..." these recipes are wrong and are teaching you to make
starchy beer.

>7.  My favorite pale ale is Whitbread.  Does anyone have a clone recipe
>that closely approximates this?

Bitter recipes are amazingly similar.  0-5% crystal, perhaps a touch of
dark malt, maybe a few percent of flaked wheat or barley and the rest
is Pale Ale malt.  English hops for bittering, flavour and aroma.
The key to duplicating a beer is getting the same yeast.  You can buy
Whitbread Ale yeast from a variety of sources.  I have not compared
beer made with these yeasts side-by-side with Whitbread and note that
Whitbread has changed the yeast used in their *beer* perhaps 7 years
ago.  It used to be a mixed-strain yeast... now the beer is made with
a single-strain yeast.

>8.  I just tried an Orval Trappist ale and found it to smell like a men's
>urinal at a seedy gas station.  Was this beer spoiled or do true
>connoisseurs like Michael Jackson actually fancy that urinal-fresh
>flavor?

Orval moves slowly and you can often get very old beer at some stores.
I've never had one that smelled like urine regardless of how old it
was, however.  Perhaps it is an issue of semantics.  Did it smell a little
like leather or horses?  That's from the Brettanomyces in Orval.  Younger
Orval smells strongly of Goldings... older Orval smells more like a
horse blanket.  Both are outstanding.  Enjoying beer with a strong
horsey aroma is an aquired taste.  You probably wouldn't like Cantillon,
Boon Marriage Parfait, Lindemann's Cuvee Rene or Hanssens till you learned
to like it.

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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 15:52:24 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Open versus closed fermentation

Dave writes:
>Kevin TenBrink says:
>
>>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.
>
>Two opinions exist on this subject.  Those who choose to do
>"closed" fermentations and those who choose to do "open"
>fermentations.
>
>The old British Burton Union system is a system not unlike
>that used by many homebrewers in which the foam, protein, yeast
>and hop residue is forced up a tube and out of the primary.
>It was touted as producing a "cleaner" beer, but remember when
>it was being used and that most British beers at the time were
>fermented in really open fermenters exposed to the air and all
>its organisms. Skimming was a popular pastime of the brewing
>crew as yeast bite was believed widely to result from the head
>falling back into the brew.  Likely beer produced by this open
>method was highly infected and this infection was a source of
>yeast bite. The Burton Union Scheme was a labor saver and
>probably reduced infection as freshly cleaned kegs were used
>as the fermenter and then sent off to the pub. The fact that it is
>no longer used should tell you something.

You have a few misconceptions about the Burton Union System (BUS in
this discussion), which *is* still being used by Marston's and at
least one (much smaller) brewer near Burton.  Firstly, the blowoff
method of brewing (in which you use a closed fermenter (usually glass)
with a tube affixed to the top that diverts the foam created
into a second container) is only superficially similar to the
BUS because in the BUS, the "blowoff" is allowed to run back into the
casks when the foam turns back into a liquid.  In the blowoff method
of fermentation, you do not re-introduce the blown-off liquid back
into the fermenter.  Secondly, the casks (not kegs!) are hundreds
of gallons (I can't find the exact capacity on the web and my books
are at home) and are *fixed* in place -- they do not remove casks!
See http://www.breworld.com/marstons/union.html .  Any likelyhood
of less infection is offset by the fact that the troughs into which
the foam goes are *open* to room air.  Finally, as I said before,
Marston's still uses the Burton Union System.  Incidentally, most ale
brewers in the UK still use open fermenters and most of them *still*
skim.

>The closed ( carboy and hose attached to lead the foam away)
>fermenter's main appeal to homebrewers is that, at first glance, it
>appears to be more resistant to infection from outside sources.
>The first few times you use it, all may go well and that is the real
>danger of this method. Infection is insidious.  It is my opinion and
>others agree (and others differ) that, unfortunately, this overflow
>tube is difficult ( nearly impossible IMHO) to clean of this gunk and
>represents a potential harbor for unwanted microorganisms.

Yes, there is a potential infection problem, but I'm willing to bet
that there are more infections from scratched plastic fermenters
than from blowoff tubes.

>The primary rule to good sanitation is that a surface must not have
>any coating on it or it is impossible to disinfect it.  This is difficult
>to do *reliably* inside of a hose IMHO.  A minor variation on this
>theme is the use of a 6.5 gallon carboy to prevent the foaming over
>and prevent subsequent contamination  by collapsed foam
>returning to the carboy from the hose.  My comment - why not use
>an open fermenter that you can clean by physically scrubbing
>instead of a carboy?

Because it is difficult to lift and carry a flimsy plastic fermenter.
If you do use a plastic lid it is very easy to suck airlock liquid
in when you deform the fermenter by carrying it and then set it back
down again.  Furthermore, as I said before, plastic scratches and
those scratches are likely to harbour wild yeasts and bacteria.

>If you use this closed method be prepared
>to be disappointed every once in a while as you produce an
>infected batch or three. Inspect the hose carefully and soak it in hot,
>strong bleach solution for as long as you can. Here,recently,
>brewers using this closed method listed their various approaches
>to trying to get this gunk out of the hose. None appeared
>particularly effective to me.

You've been critical of me for questioning the Clinitest without
experience, but it's okay for you to question blowoff hose cleaning
methods with which you have no experience?  Ahh, ahh, ahh... ;^).

>I prefer to use an "open" plastic fermenter as the primary
<snip>
>This way I can get to the grungy ring, left by the fermentation,
> -using some elbow grease and a plastic scrubber or paper towel
>that hot water/bleach soaking cannot easily remove.

Ever tried it?  A 1-day soak in PBW or a week in 200ppm chlorine bleach
makes that grungy ring wipe off easily.  Again, are you speaking from
experience?  I am.  I've used both open and closed fermenters.
Incidently, those plastic scrubbers are likely to scratch your fermenter.

>I have never
>had an infection from this system. Others using the closed system
>cannot say that.

I can.  I have *never* had an infection from a blowoff method batch.
Those few batches from two summers ago in which I was getting a
faint clovey character were done in 6.5gal glass carboys and there
was no blowoff.  I have abandoned *intentionally* causing the 
fermenter to blow off, but I can't sit around and have you make
accusations that it is inherently likely to result in infections.
I've brewed about 100 batches using the blowoff method and have
won between 50 and 100 ribbons with those beers (I'd have to look
at by brewing logs to see exactly which ribbons were won with
which fermentation systems).  Incidentally, I solved the clovey
character problem by switching to filtered air and then oxygen
for aeration (still using the same fermenters and blowoff hoses).

>As far as "cleaning" the beer by overflowing goes, I believe
>the majority of the gunk goes to the side of the small fermenter
>(unlike large commercial fermenters) and sticks there. =
>Also remember that even though this gunk looks pretty awful,
>it was in your wort at the beginning and now it is not soluble.  =

Incorrect.  If that were the case, then the beer made with the blowoff
method would not have had about 15% lower IBUs than beer made from the
same wort but where the head were allowed to drop back into the beer.
See my article in Brewing Techniques (approx. June 1996) for the details.
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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:48:32 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu>
Subject: torrefied wheat

        
Well, I received alot of response regarding the use of Maris Otter malt with
torrefied wheat and stuck sparges.  Thanks to all who replied.

The culprit appears to be the Otter.

I don't think it's got the backbone to stand up to a double decoction mash.
I made another batch of pale ale this weekend with almost the same ratio of
torrefied wheat to M-O, but with no decoction (single temp infusion) and had
no sparging problems.

FWIW,

 -Andrew
andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu

(ranting and raving in Boston as the Patriots snatch defeat from the jaws of
victory)


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:18:20 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Too Tasty to be commercial?,140F hold

Brewsters:

What is going on?

I read this recent comment from BreWorld:
- ---------
"* Durden Parkers Old Ale Fest
One of the most bizarre and unnoticed of regular events..... met,
 as they do every year in December, for their old ale festival.
The beer is accompanied by food and the idea behind the evening
is very simple. The beer must be made to a brewer's recipe that
is over 100 years old and so should the food.

Much traditional English fare, therefore, was devoured and
 washed down with an impressive range of Amber ales, Porters,
and Stouts of  with impressive pedigrees, recipes coming from
breweries such as Usher's, Jennings and Simmons.... =

Most of the beers...... were all first rate, and highly authentic.

<<<<Despite being brewed to genuine brewers' recipes all the =

offerings were totally uncommercial, being much to highly flavoured =

for either today's palates or today's marketing men.>>>>>"
- ---------
I can only say AAAAAGHhhh!!!!!!
- -----------------------------------
Kyle Druey did a nice number manipulation with his series of
mashes in an attempt to discover a relationship between a hold
at 140F and the %AA.  I was surprised to see this, since I believe
such a relationship doesn't exist. How then can his hard numbers
match up with my cognitative dissonance?

I was puzzled by the results since the enzyme activity at 140F =

is mostly proteolysis with some beta amylase activity and a low =

amount of alpha amylase.  I would predict that a 70C(158F) hold
temperature would be instrumental in producing a high dextrin level.
Longer hold times at 140F would possibly produce more sugar
( within limits) and a lower FG / higher AA.

When I read later in his presentation, I understood how he
got these results.  Thanks for being so thorough to include all the
relevant information, Kyle.

Kyle said:
- ---------------
 -the time at 158 F is determined by subtracting 90 from the amount of  =

 time spent at 140F
- -----------------
I thought "Huh?  Why not a constant time at 158F?"  Maybe 90
minutes, for example? Then I understood.  This constraint on total
hold time is the source of this apparently  "impossible" relationship.
The longer hold at 140F is actually a shorter hold at 158F and will
produce a higher %AA , particularly since it takes you 15 minutes
or so to get to 158F.  During that time the beta amylase and alpha
amylase are active.You are actually getting a lower efficiency since
not all the starch is getting converted and thereby producing fewer
dextrins wih tth shorter hold at 158F. A longer hold at 158F (presuming
there is starch available) will produce more dextrins and lower the AA.
Do you have a few points where this was not done and you held
for a constant time at 158F?

I would predict that a longer hold at 158F would produce a higher FG =

and a lower AA within some kinds of limits. The limits would depend
on the lifetime of beta amylase at 158F to a large extent and therefore
be dependent on the mash thickness, pH and other stuff, I believe.   =


Kyle's restriction to total hold time of 90 minutes is the cause for this=

apparent interaction IMHO.

His equation says:
- ----------------
Time  at  140 F =3D -162.3 + (259.8*AA) + (115.5*SU) + (0*ST)

AA =3D desired apparent attenuation
SU =3D percent of extract as sugar
ST =3D percent of extract as stewed malt

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

This is a puzzling representation, since the normally independent
variable of time is a dependent variable. Not holding at 158F
with no sugar added will produce an AA of  about 97%AA if you
set time  at  158 to zero  =


So, from this result it appears that stewed malt is adding no
higher sugars which changes the AA.  I find this a little strange for
crystal malt at first glance since I think of steeping as an extract
brewer's activity and devoid of enzymes.  Also, I would have
guessed it might have some of the higher sugars and increase the FG .
Looking at this fact that you did an all grain RIMS mash ( lots of
enzymes) , It is explicable since any sugars/starches would be
treated just like other sugars/starches and not really affect the
percentages.  This says that the steeping ( or addition) in all grain
cases should be done at the end of the mash when the beta amylase
is gone, as I do, to prevent the chewing up of these special sugars.

If you don't hold at 140 F and don't add sugar, a hold at 158F(70C)
produces a % AA of 162.3/259.8  =3D 62.4%
as the minimum %AA for your system ( 15 minute heatup from =

140F to 158F)..  =


Increasing the hold time at 140F(60C) actually decreases
time at 158F and increases the  % ( not necesarily the amount =

on a given grist) of fermentable sugar and the %AA. So this makes =

sense.

At 97.5 minutes (I assume in the equation AA is a fraction??  If not =

this doesn't make sense) AA =3D 1 So I guess %AA =3D 100%.  =

his would be an interesting experiment which I doubt would agree =

with your equation, since as you heat up to 158F and beyond,
alpha and beta amylase will be active to produce the dextrins.   =


Adding straight sugar should increase the %AA.  In your equation, =

shouldn't the coeffcicent for the sugar be negative, since it would
take less time to get to the higher %AA? =


A better representation of his results are =


Time at  158F <eq> 90-Time  at  140F =

 <eq>  90 + 162.3 - 259.6*AA - 115*SU =


note <eq> is used for an equals sign since if I use an "=3D" sign
it writes funny things.

or T(158) <eq> 252.3 -259.6*AA -115*SU

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

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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:24:19 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Storing yeast

Dave writes:
>Secondly, if you want to store yeast for a long period do it in
>sterile water and not a fermented out beer. This will minimize the
>possibilities of infection and the dormant yeast will last longer.

I suggest that the additional transfer of the yeast is a far more
likely source of infection than having the yeast under spent wort.
I can't comment on the relative viability under beer vs. water because
I've never stored yeast in water, but I have revived yeast from three
year old bottle-conditioned beers.

My rule of thumb is that the likelyhood of infection is proportional
to the number of transfers of the wort/yeast/beer.  I try to transfer
each as little as possible.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:17:45 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Iodine Test

Brewsters:

George De Piro says about my suggestion for infusion mashers to
improve the iodine test procedure by boiling the  mash sample =

which includes malt grains.  :

>  If you follow Dave's advice, you will NEVER get a negative iodine =

>     test, no matter how long you mash.  I would really hate to read abo=
ut

>     somebody getting turned off of all-grain brewing because they mashe=
d =

>     for 10 hours trying to achieve 100% conversion efficiency using
Dave's =

>     iodine test method.
     =

George, I can only conclude that you've NEVER tried this method
modification, since I have and it works.  I do get to a point where
the test is no longer positive for starch within a normal
saccharification time.  Please try my suggestions before you
comment with this kind of emotional stuff. I would hate for new =

all-grainers to wonder why their beers were all cloudy from starch
when they follow Charlie P's test methods and short
saccharification times.
- -------
AlK says on this subject, based on his reading:

>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.

I guess the problem is you, like George, have never tried this
modified test either. =


As far as your model of what goes on in a saccharification,
while not totally incorrect, I would have to say that it needs some
modification. =


1) Starch is not soluble in water to any great extent

2) Conversion of starch by the alpha amylase takes place at the
solid/liquid boundary and solubilizes the starch to the extent that
it is eventually available in the solution for enzyme attack.  That
solution however may be inside the malt grain ( where I believe =

enzyme concentration is the highest)  and not necessarily in the
bulk of the wort.

3) Gelatinization of the starch does allow the surface of the =

starch to get in position to be hydrolysed by the enzymes, but
does not dissolve it.

4) Enzymes are soluble in the water, but I suspect they spend most
of their time bound up with the starch and not floating freely
around in the solution.

5) Ken Schwartz' study shows the concentration of sugar in the
wort is higher in the grain than in the bulk of solution.  My
interpretation of this is because that is where the majority of the
conversion takes place.  As time progresses and the conversion
of the starch reaches completion, this will no longer be true,
since the sugar will diffuse into the bulk of the solution. This is
why I believe it takes 45 - 60 minutes and a lot of water to free
the sugars from the grain by  "on-the-fly"  (continuous) sparging. =


6) Even Charlie P recognizes this and in his second book ( Handbook...)
he suggests that the grains in the mash be squeezed between
two spoons and this liquid be the subject of the iodine test. =

I contend that an even better improvement is to boil the grains
briefly and cool in a metal spoon before the test.

I do not believe that if you hold a mash in the liquefying stage =

( i.e. in the range where alpha amylase is active) long enough
that any starch will escape attack by this enzyme. So boiling will
not give a mis-leading result - quite the opposite.  The boiled =

grain will give a true picture of remaining starch.  I cannot picture
starch being stored in a grain where it is forever unavailable to
enzymes - kinda goes against my experience with Mama Nature.

I do believe it is possible that a brewer could not hold long
enough for this starch to be converted particularly if s/he holds at the
low T end where reaction rates are slow.  This is precisely what this
iodine test is all about - to prevent such a mistake.

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: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 16:58:14 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: Irish Moss types


I've read in a few different sources lately (actually I think most are
simply parotting a single source) that not all forms of Irish moss are
the same.  However, it isn't clear from the references whether it's
meant that different forms of Irish moss, i.e.  flaked, powdered,
etc. will behave differently, or if Irish moss prepared for brewing is
somehow chemically processed differently.  I'm curious, because the
local bulk food store sells Irish moss flakes, and I'm wondering if I
could just pick up 1/2 lb. or so and save some $$$.

SM
located 30 minutes south of the Anchor Steam (TM) brewery

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 20:18:56 -0400
From: nathan_l_kanous_ii at ferris.edu
Subject: Pils versus Pilsener


I have a friend who has been to Germany a couple of times.  His father is
from Germany.  They insist that there is a difference between a Pils and a
Pilsener.  I don't doubt them, I'm just curious what the technical
differences are.  The only differences that they describe are that Pils is
only available on tap and it takes 7 (or is that 12?) minutes to pour from
the tap.  What is the difference?  TIA

Nathan in Frankenmuth, MI



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:32:02 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: homebrew cooking - beer batter


One hot summers day, not so long ago, somewhere is South Carolina or
maybe Georgia, a good ol' boy was doin' sum fishun.  He looked at the
piss-warm can of Bud in his hand, and the butt-ugly catfish he'd just
wrestled into the boat, and a lightbulb went off in his head.  He ran
and got some grits and a frying pan, and thus was invented beer
batter.

OK, maybe it didn't happen that way, but it could have.  There must be
thousands of different recipes for beer batter floating around, but
almost all of them follow the same basic pattern,

1 cup flour
6 oz. beer
1 egg
1 tbsp. vegetable oil
seasoning

There are probably infinite variations on this theme, for instance you
can use corn flour, or separate the eggs into whites and yolks, or
whatever.  Experimentation is definitely encouraged with this recipe.
You can use about any kind of beer you want.  If you come from the
Julia Child school of cooking, then whatever is in your glass at the
moment will do fine.  As for seasonings, if you think it will taste
good then it probably will.  A short list would be chile powder,
onion, garlic, pepper, Worstechire, teriyaki, thyme, honey, lemon,
cocoa, cumin, nutmeg, ... You get the picture.

The basic idea is to combine the flour, seasonings, and oil in a bowl,
then beat the egg and combine with the beer.  Add the beer stuff to
the flour stuff and mix well.  You want to mix until there are no more
lumps of flour.  If things are too runny, then add some flour, if
things are too hard add some beer.  Once you have everything mixed to
your satisfaction, you'll dip things into the batter and completely
coat them, then remove them from the batter and fry them up.  You want
the batter to be a little runny, but not too runny that nothing sticks
to whatever you're dipping. 

As for what to fry, well once again your imagination is the limit.
Filets of fish work really well, especially the crappy tasting ones
that were all you managed to catch that day.  Catfish, rockfish,
snapper, and the like are classic.  Simply put enough oil in a frying
pan so that the filet will "float", and heat it at a medium-high
setting.  Cook until the filet is a golden brown on both sides,
usually about 3-5 minutes per side.  Beware the hot splattering oil.

If you have a deep fryer, or a wok, where you can submerge things
entirely, then you can make onion rings, or french fries, or beer
batter shrimp tempura, or just about any vegetable you can dip in
batter and deep fry.  This is a big hit with the kids.  They love to
play with the messy batter and then drop them in the frying oil and
watch them float to the top as they fry.  The onion rings and french
fries make good eatin' too.

Bon appetit

SM
about 3 hours north of the SLO Brewing Co.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:55:08 -0500
From: "Eric Fouch" <fouches at iserv.net>
Subject: Franks Dilemma/My dilemma

HBD-
Frank Klaassen Says he:

1. Boiled 2.5 cups of water w. 5 tbsp of malt.
2. Put into small jug sterilized (with bleach) and fitted w. an airlock.
3. Gave it a good shake.
4. Placed in dark place for 1, 2, 3 days. No action.
5. Tried shaking again. No action.
6. Tried putting it near the rad. No action.

And wonders why there's no activity.  Well, he has good aseptic technique
to get no activity, but basically, it looks like he forgot the yeast!   8^>

I did the same thing for a WST:  I "brewed" a cider with 4 gallons cider,
5# honey and a cup of malt extract.  I heated the whole mess up to 160 F
for a while, then cooled and racked it onto the yeast cake from a
pDopplebock made with Widmer Bros Hefewiezen yeast.  While racking into the
carboy, I diverted part of the flow into a sterilized 500 ml flask and
airlocked it.  One week later NO activity.  Am I really that good, or is
there something else going on here?  I don't know if the cider had
preservatives (it was out of a bulk container at a fruit market) but the
primary is going along fine.  

I was thinking that by racking the cider onto the yeast cake from my
pDopplebock primary, I would circumvent the cider having poor yeast
nutrients, and get a finished fermentation in reasonable time.  Is this
sound reasoning, or do the yeasties need nutrients during their anaerobic
phase?

The pDopplebock was 1.040 at racking after one week (OG 1.085).  My
ferments are usually done in about a week, but this was the first time I
fermented at around 60-64 F as opposed to 68-72 F.  I suppose the yeast is
just working slower- It's still showing steady activity.
Anyone know the temperature range for alt yeast?  Anybody surprised my WST
is showing no activity   (I can hold it in my hand and my body heat will
make it bubble, but shaking does nothing)? 

As always, TIA.

Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI
"Relationships are give and take- find a weakness and exploit it"  -Guy
Gregory
"You're only as adicted as you are secretive" -A recovering alcoholic












Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:07:17 -0800
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Re: Grain Mills Hoppers and Telescopes

You wouldn't believe the interesting responses I got to this which
I inadvertently sent to the Amateur Telescope Making list....

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

I don't wish to engage in a spitting contest but Brian's posting
deserves a few comments.

From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com

" EVEN THOUGH Jack Schmidling willrespond and say he gets fine results
with smaller kernels such as wheat with the fixed-gap MaltMill...

It is less important what I say than what thousands of customers
tell me.  I have yet to hear from one who has a problem crushing
anything with a fixed MM.  People might prefer or feel that
the adjustable mill does a better job and I certainly will not
argue with them.  In fact, that's why we sell both.

"Anyway, back to the Valley Mill.  Yes, the factory built hopper is much
larger and carries about 8 or 9 lbs of grain...

I was under the impression that the hopper held 5 lbs which is hardly
"much larger".  Please confirm you numbers, on second thought...
see below.

"  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.....

On the other hand, I feel comfortable putting our Lifetime waranty
on our mill and I would not with hollow rollers.  Our first 40 mills
had hollow rollers and we abandoned the approach as a long term
liability problem and many of those have since been eaten.

"  The drill adapter is easy to use....

The MM requires no adapter.  Just remove the handle and chuck
up the drill.  Not the best way to motorize a mill but again,
thousands of folks do it.

" Jack's caught a lot of flack for his small hopper....

What you call flack is simply people not understanding how simple it
is to make a hopper as large as one wants for the MM.  A 5 gallon
bucket with a one inch hole in the bottom becomes a 25 lb hopper
for free.  We have been offering our Large Hopper Adapter for years
for people wanting a permanent arrangement without putting any
effort into it.

It seems obvious to me that if someone really needs
a large hopper, the nominally larger one on the other mill doesn't
offer much.  If one is hancranking, it is meaningless as one is
always looking for an excuse to take a rest anyway.

As there seems to be a bit of misunderstanding about the hopper issue
I just recently updated the MM web page to include a color photo of
a mill with the LHA and links to other users showing how they have
used their own ingenuity to deal with increasing the hopper capacity.

> and for the nearly unavailability of the adjustable mill ...

This one leave me clueless.  We have been selling roughly equal
numbers of both types for over 5 years.  We build them in alternate
lots and there is no way one is more available than the other.

" I don't know why he doesn't add a larger hopper....

I fail to see any incentive for shipping a 5 gallon bucket to a
customer.

" and work harder at selling the adjustable mill....

Actually, I would consider that a dis-service to the community.  In
spite of the fact that the adjustable mill is more profitable to sell,
pushing it on a user who will never use it, is not my way of doing
business.

"  Stuck in his ways I guess......

You got me there...

"  Causes business to go to other outfits though.

There's plenty for all of us.

BTW, this may go beyond what is needed but keep in mind that my
pricing is based on the fact that 99% of our sales go through
retailers, the real grass roots homebrew suppliers.  I could
even undercut Listerman, if I chose just to sell directly to the
end user.  In addition to the high quality, backed by the lifetime
warranty.... you need to keep that in mind when comparing prices.
I have chosen to sell through dealers and the other company has
chosed to bypass them.

So there you have my anti-flak.

js


- -- 
Visit our WEB pages: 
                        Beer Stuff.........http://ays.net/jsp
                        Astronomy.......http://user.mc.net/arf
             ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 22:01:40 -0800
From: "Grabowski" <jaygrab at softfarm.com>
Subject: Primary Gravity - Bock

I brewed a bock and has been fermenting at 50 degrees for 4 weeks.  It was
an all grain with a dbl. decoction mash.  I used the Wyeast Bavarian and
aerated well (O2 and a stone) and pitched a healthy starter.  It started to
ferment after 32hrs and has been going ever since, currently bubbling once
every 10 sec.  I checked the gravity after 3 weeks and it was 1.032, I
checked 10 days later and it was the same.

Question- is there anything I can do to further reduce the final gravity? 
Re- pitch some yeast?  Ferment at a higher temp for the balance of the
primary?

The sample I tasted had a good hop to malt balance, but obviously too
sweet.

Your help is appreciated!!!

JG

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 21:25:45 +0000
From: "Larry N. Smith" <lnsmith at montana.com>
Subject: Pin-lock Fittings

I notice that ball-lock fittings for "corny" kegs are available 
everywhere. Does anyone know where I can get replacement beer and/or 
gas fittings for my 7 pin-lock kegs? Two or three of my beer fittings 
have become badly corroded near where the poppet valve bracket is 
held in.
Thanks
Larry

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:05:31 -0700 (MST)
From: "Andrew W. Avis" <aavis at freenet.calgary.ab.ca>
Subject: [Announce] CABA Web Site


Brewers:  I have been developing the Canadian Amature Brewers Association
web site, and it is just now ready for public consumption.  Please feel
free to drop by at www.realbeer.com/caba/ and let me know what you think. 

The site is aimed mostly towards Canadian homebrewers and CABA members,
but there are some recipes & articles that may be of general interest.

Thanks for the bandwidth,

Andrew (in Calgary - way north of most HBDers, but not too north to grow
hops!)
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Avis - aavis at freenet.calgary.ab.ca   tel 403.276.8738


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 23:18:35 -0700 (MST)
From: "Andrew W. Avis" <aavis at freenet.calgary.ab.ca>
Subject: Ale vs. Wine Yeasts


While I'm posting to HBD, I may as well ask this question:
Why is oxygenation not an issue w/ wine yeasts, at least not in the home
wine making literature that I've read?  I was quite suprised to read that
ale & wine yeasts are actually the same kind of yeast (obviously different
strains) - so why do you not oxygenate your must when you must (heh heh)
oxygenate your wort?

Thanks in advance,

Drew Avis

- ------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Avis - aavis at freenet.calgary.ab.ca   tel 403.276.8738


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 07:28:00 -0400
From: nathan_l_kanous_ii at ferris.edu
Subject: In defense of Maris Otter


I've been using Maris Otter Pale Malt exclusively for my ales for about the
last 18 months.  This malt is absolutely delicious, IMHO, and I have never
had any difficulty sparging.  I do use a step mash which includes a rest
between 135 adn 140 deg F to improve head retention.  I don't know if that
is what makes my sparging easy or not.  In fact, the only sparges that I've
had get stuck were ones utilizing pumpkin in the mash.  I've made belgian
wits with 50% flaked wheat as well as a rye beer with 40% flaked rye.  The
rye beer was slow, but not stuck.  I could open the 1/2 " ball valve all
the way and had a "perfect" 1 hour sparge for 5 gallons.

Anyhow, I think the Maris Otter Pale Ale Malt is great stuff!!

Nathan in Frankenmuth, MI



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:31:16 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net>
Subject: RE: glass / RE: large grain hoppers

Mike writes:

> also, does anyone know where I might get a glass airlock?

I missed this question the first time around.  Otherwise I would have
responded directly to Mike.  My local HB store carries them and you
can reach them online at http://www.homebrewadventures.com 

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

A few people have mentioned a way to build a very cheap and large
grain hopper for your mill using an inverted plastic carboy. I came
up with this idea about a year ago and have placed a photo of it on
my RIMS web page. Just use the address below and follow the link to
the "Other Gadgets" page. 

Keith Royster - Mooresville/Charlotte, North Carolina

email: keith at ays.net
http://www.ays.net/brewmasters -Carolina BrewMasters club page 
http://www.ays.net/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery)
http://www.ays.net/movingbrews -pumps and accessories for advanced homebrewers

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 08:35:43 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Insulation & whirlpools

Dear Friends,

Just a quick update and thank-you to the helpful folks who have 
contributed input on my keg insulation and whirlpool questions.  On 
the first question, it was suggested to me that it may not even be 
necessary to insulate the keg at all, given the high thermal mass of 
SS, so for the next batch I will go "bareback" and see just what kind 
of T loss I get (if any).  Or, as they say in Australia (I swear they 
do, ask Andy W.), I'll just have to "suck it and see."

On the second question, I've had conflicting input.  Some have 
suggested that the hop-pellet component to my post-chill goop might 
impede a good cone forming, but others (notably Jim Busch) have said 
hop pellets are the ideal for same.  To test this one, I will try the 
whirlpool on my next batch which will be made with whole hops.

I'll report back on these results after the holidays when most people 
resume reading the digest.

Happy holidays to all,

Dave in Dallas

5393 miles (8679 km) WSW of Hubert Hanghofer, 1383 miles (2225 km) 
WSW of George dePiro, 659 miles (1061 km) SSW of Jethro Gump, 1440 
miles (2318 km) ESE of Dave Sapsis, and right across town from Paul 
Kensler.
- ---
*****************************************************************************
   Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
   ddraper at utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
                 Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
It helps to have someone else evaluate your beer. ---Bruce deBolt


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:41:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Rust1d <rust1d at usa.net>
Subject: Blow off Airlock, Oats

Blow off Airlock:
I have been using the new Wyeast Northwest ESB yeast for the last few
months. This stuff likes to form a huge krausen. I usually ferment 5.5
gallons in a 6.75 gallon carboy with airlock in place and seldom have the
krausen reach the airlock. Not so with this yeast. It keeps rising up and
out of the airlock (and all over the carboy and floor). I boil my airlocks
(like GDeP boils his blow-off hose) and fill with sanitizer (iodophor) so I
am not worried so much about dirty krausen falling back into my brew. I do
worry about the spooge that collects around the stopper in the carboy neck.
When the stopper is removed there is crust around the rim that I do not want
to fall into the brew. So other then switching to a blow off hose, I need a
solution to keep any spooge that comes out of the airlock off the neck of
the carboy.

The solution I came up with is to take an aluminum ashtray and cut a small
hole in the center just big enough for the airlock to barely fit through.
Slip this between the airlock and the stopper and you have a nice little
tray to catch spooge overflow. I am not recommending this as a blow off tube
replacement but rather as a fail safe for those odd batches that storm the
airlock. This allows you to replace the soiled airlock with a clean one
without concern of contamination around the stopper.


A note about oatmeal:
I made a barley wine last january with 25% oats. A recent sampling revealed
a crystal clear brew with a looong lasting head and nice mouthfeel. There is
some chunky sediment in the bottles (6.5 oz coke) that is probably protein
haze that has settled over the year. All in all, I think this will be a
winner on New Years Eve.

- --
John Varady                     http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing                The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA                    rust1d at usa.net                                 


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 09:39:35 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu>
Subject: Yeast for big ale

Steven Smith seeks...

>In the seemingly eternal search for the ultimate 
>doppelbock-type ale recipe (too impatient for lager), I'm seeking a 
>yeast recommendation.       

I also love big clean malty doppelbocks, and I usually brew from the wyeast
stable.  That said, I have had excellent results using Danstar Nottingham
DRY yeast in fermenting out a big (1.102) beer hopped to only 30 IBUs.  The
result, after only a month in the bottle, was a hugely malty, silky beer.
The yeast doesn't have much presence, allowing the malt flavors to shine
through.

I pitched 1 sachet per gallon of wort, and fermented at 65F.  OG=1.102
FG=1.020 (certainly not wimpy in the ETOH department)  I'd call this a
barley wine except for the low IBU's and lack of fruitiness or winey
flavors. This beer screams MALT.  Also, it carbonated nicely with no special
considerations or repitching.

Don't completely disregard dry yeast, sometimes it's just the thing,
especially for pitching adequate amounts of yeast for big beers.

Cheers,

Andrew

andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu 


Return to table of contents

---