---

	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:
  Diacetyl/Mash Efficiency ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
  Lager beer with wrong malted barley (Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii)
  Why is my beer so dark (DonaldS107)
  crap malts ("David Hill")
  PH meters (John Wilkinson)
  Personalized Labels ("Jim Bermingham")
  Party Pigs (feldman)
  RE: Motorised Valley mill (John Wilkinson)
  Inferior Malts, Hot break (Jim Bentson)
  Palexperiment (John Varady)
  Foam from Kegging (ghanson)
  CO2 cyl position (John Yust)
  Big Brew '98 - FAQ #1 ("Brian Rezac")
  Proteinase Rest is Bunk? (Kyle Druey)
  Priming,Saltiness,Bugs ("David R. Burley")
  Sparge water delivery (Rich Hampo)
  RE Malt Extract Database ("Mark Nelson")
  EBUs, and Priming (John Penn)
  Stirring the priming bucket ("Dave Draper")
  Porter (Wayne_Kozun)
  My error on Victory Hop Devil IPA ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  Ferm Temp Variations - Esters? (Charles Burns)
  Recognizing DMS (Tim Burkhart)
  HopDevil credit/filtering ("Jim Busch")
  Re: Priming, Chill Haze, Saltiness (brian_dixon)
  Re:grains in an extract recipe (Mike Beatty)
  Re: Extract attenuation (brian_dixon)
  Pizza Pans ("J. Matthew Saunders")



Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition
3/22/98. Surf to http://www.wp.com/hosi/companno.html for more
information...

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.org

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://ftp.stanford.edu/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, 18 Mar 1998 13:37:00 -0500
From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: Diacetyl/Mash Efficiency

Hello All,
remember a while back when I was in search of the origin of the
"Ringwood/Norwich Ale Yeast"? Well, I received alot of posts about the
characteristics of said yeast and what I can expect. Lots of consensus
regarding the diacetyl levels of this yeast and now that my batch is
finished and in the keg, I can definately confirm that this yeast does
indeed throw ALOT of diacetyl. Funny thing, all the brews at the brewpub
where I acquired this yeast at did not have any detectable
diacetyl...hmmmm.... go figure! I assume that it is a slight difference
in the fermentation processes for sure. Anyway, I attempted a short, 2
day diacetyl rest which obviously did little or nothing to reduce the
level. The brew is still good, just not what I expected. So if you get
ahold of some of this yeast [Wyeast #1187] considered yourself warned!!

I did my first decoction mash lastnight and discovered that my mashing
efficiency level increased from 70-75% to about 90%. I am not sure if it
is due to the decoction, or the new grain mill I have been using. I
assume the decoction. My new Maltmill (tm) is the same mill that my
buddy at the homebrew shop where I get my grains uses, so chances are
the results are the same. I did a single decoction for my first one
because I didn't want to get too involved. I pulled off about 1/3 of the
main mash, raised it to 158F, held it for 10 minutes, and then raised it
to a boil for about 10-15 minutes. Then I returned it to the main mash
and stabilized the temp. at 130F, held for 20 minutes, and then
continued my regular step mash routine. As it turns out, the final
result was an SG of 1.064 when all I was calculating was 1.054-1.056.
The beer is a Munich Dunkel and although the numbers don't align with
the AHA Style Guidelines, it'll probably turn out to be one heck of a
brew for sure. I'll let ya'll know how it comes out and if anyone wants
the recipe, let me know.

Cheers,

Marc

- -------------------------------------------------- 
Captain Marc Battreall
Islamorada, Florida
Future site of "The BackCountry Brewhouse"



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:22:02 -0500
From: Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii at ferris.edu
Subject: Lager beer with wrong malted barley

Just a quick question.  How much different would a lager be if it were
prepared from pale ale malt?  In particular, a dunkel.  I wouldn't ever try
it with a pilsner, it simply wouldn't work.  But what about a dunkel?
TIA
nathan in frankenmuth, MI




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 15:25:46 EST
From: DonaldS107 <DonaldS107 at aol.com>
Subject: Why is my beer so dark

I am on my second batch, the beer is great but am baffled by the darker color
that I am getting.

Batch One
John Bull Lager substituting LIGHT DME for corn sugar
45 min boil
and got a dark copper color

Batch TWO
Coooper Austrailian Lager substituting LIGHT DME for corn sugar
15 min in the pot just bairly bringing to a boil
It is in the secondary fermentor now and appears to be slighly lighter than
the first.

It is great beer, just not what I was shooting for. Can anyone offer advice ?


SPICY MUDBUGS

As a native Mississippian, I do feel qualified to answer this question.  They
are crawfish, boiled with a bunch of cayene pepper. Dem's good eatin'.  Please
note that I said CRAWFISH, crayfish are something that an 11th grade bio.
student disects.


Thanks,

Donald Smith


I thought that I might have boiled too long and caramalized the sugars(?) so i
decreased my time on the second batch.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 07:00:53 +1000
From: "David Hill" <davidh at melbpc.org.au>
Subject: crap malts

Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au>
started off saying :=

" I can speak at great length about the poor service and quality that we
receive from the big maltsters here in Australia."


And finished after certain a splenic venting with

"I hate Joe White, all of the Carlton United Fascists and their
subsidiaries"

I can assure Jon that our experience is vastly different with Australian
maltsters.

when we contact them:-
We acknowledge that we are not one of their significant customers.
We telephone  well in advance of our buying trip,
We tell them what we want,
We courteously request the malt in 50Kg sacks,
We don't pretend that we know more about their business than they do
We remember the name of who ever we deal with
and we get excellent service and excellent product.


Because their production system is set up to service bulk customers with
their bulk handling equipment it is a major inconvenience for them to fill
our tiny little order,
an inconvenience that it behoves us to politely acknowledge.

If Jon's rantings have any effect at all it will be to close the door on the
small customer.

Thanks Jon that's just what the homebrewing industry needed.
David Hill.   davidh at melbpc.org.au      :-)>




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 16:26:25 CST
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: PH meters

There has been discussion lately of PH meters and AJ and others have said a
good PH meter would be 200+ US$.  I have a $40US meter I bought from
Williams Brewing a few years ago.  It is a Hanna Checker 1.  It doesn't say
anything about temp correction.  Is it worth using at all or should I just
ditch it and use PH strips?  Currently it is not working and I was thinking
of replacing the probe (about $20US from Williams) but would like to get some
opinions on whether or not this would be throwing good money after bad.
If it is reasonably accurate for mash PH measurement would I need to correct
for temp since it does not indicate any automatic correction?  If so, where
would I find a correction procedure.  Or, as I asked earlier, should I just
junk it and stick to strips?

Thanks for any help,

John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 16:50:27 -0600
From: "Jim Bermingham" <bermingham at antennaproducts.com>
Subject: Personalized Labels

How many of you make make your own labels for your brew, or would if you
could only get the things off when you rebottled?  If you are using office
address labels (Avery type) you know this is all but impossible.
I requested, and received, samples of a "Repositionable" label from
"DeskTopLabels" and ran the following test:
1) Printing with inkjet printer.
Result: The color on the Repositionable label was superior to that on an
Avery label.
2) Applied and removed a label on a bottle 6 times.
Result: The corner that I peeled up to get a grip on to remove did not stick
too well on the 6th time I applied the label.
3) Placed the bottle in the refrigerator for 8 hours.
Result: The label was still stuck when removed.  When the bottle reached
ambient temperature I removed and reattached the label.   No Problem the
label stuck.
4) placed the bottle in the freezer for 8 hours.
Result: The label was still stuck when removed from the freezer.  When the
bottle reached ambient temperature I removed and then reapplied the label
with no problem.
5) Placed the bottle in the oven at 150 degrees F.
Result: when removed the label was peeled about 1/8 inch on the sides.  When
the bottle reached ambient temperature pressure on the peeled sides
reattached the label.  I then removed and reattached the label with no
problems.
6) Placed the bottle in the dishwasher after a load of dishes were ran but
before the dry cycle, exposing the label to 100% humidity at high heat.
Result:  The label came off.  But that's what we want isn't it.
All in all I think the labels did very good.  You can put your labels on
your brew you are giving to friends and when you get the bottles back simply
remove the label, wash the bottle and then reapply the label when you refill
the bottle.
If anyone is interested in these labels DeskTopLabels can be reached at
www.desktoplabels.com or phone 1-800-241-9730, Fax 612-531-5764. My point of
contact was marty_marion at qm.meyers.com

Jim Bermingham
JackAss Brewery
Millsap,TX 76066



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 17:54:33 -0500
From: feldman at lexmark.com
Subject: Party Pigs


On a recent trip to my local mecca of liquor.  I spotted an interesting
thing.  It was a Party Pig full of Tommy Knocker brew.  I have tried a
Tommy Knocker before, (Maple I believe) and it was okay, but that is not
what sparked my interest.  I have a kegging system, but have trouble
fitting my kegs in the fridge, without removing some shelves. These Party
Pigs in a box were like 28 bucks and said that they were not reusable.  Are
these the same thing as the Party Pig that I thought about buying before I
got my kegging system??  It says on the side that it does contain metal
parts and to take it to a recycling center yadda yadda yadda.  If this is
the same thing that people are paying big bucks for, why not buy it full of
beer and get it essentially for "free".  If you know anything about these
Tommy Knocker Party Pig To Go packages please do tell.  Sounds like a
bargain for the homebrewer interested in Party Pigging.
Thanks,

Bobby
BOCK Member
(Brewers of Central Kentucky)





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 98 17:14:27 CST
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: RE: Motorised Valley mill

Braam Greyling asked about motor requirements for a Valley Mill and
optimum roller speed.

I don't know the minimum needed but the 1/3 horse motor I use certainly
loafs.  I am sure a much smaller motor could be used but that was what I
had on hand.  I run the rollers at about 437 rpm as that was the maximum
step down I could get with available pulleys and without using multiple
stages of reduction.  This is faster than recommended by Valley but I have
had no problem in the 2 years and several bags of grain worth of use.  I use
a very loose v belt between the pulleys so the rollers will stop if a rock
is ingested.  Even with the loose belt I have no problem with slip.  This
leads me to believe a motor a fraction of the size of mine would suffice.

Is all this vague enough?  Oh well, I hope it helps some anyway.

John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 19:59:14 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net>
Subject: Inferior Malts, Hot break

Recently Georg DePiro wrote
>     
>     Overmodified malt would have a lower yield than normal malt, and would 
>     also explain the lack of hot break I observed.
>     
>     I just got off the phone with my supplier.  He not only confirmed that 
>     over 10% of the kernels he examined were overmodified, but that he has 
>     had problems with the quality of M & F malts in the past (burnt 
>     crystal malts).  I seconded his complaint of burnt M & F malts 
>     (chocolate malt that looked more like black patent).  While I was on 
>     the phone he checked kernels from a bag of Weissheimer and found no 
>     overmodified kernels in a handful.
>     
>     Any other brewers out there who think that some maltsters may cut 
>     loses by sending the crap to the really little brewers and overseas 
>     markets?


I have been using Marris Otter   from Crisp Malting as my base malt for over
a year now and have had no such trouble. I have had considerable trouble
with those 1 lb bags of Chocolate Malt that ID Carlson markets through many
of the local homebrew shops. As George found with the M&Fchocolate malt it
also looks like and tastes just like Black Patent malt and in addition I am
always getting a burnt taste from it. I have tried 5 different 1 lb  bags
with the same result.

My suggestions:
1) Keep each other informed when we think we are getting bad grain. Try to
be objective so that we don't blame  mistakes we make, such as scorching, on
the grain quality.

2) Join a brew club and try to buy higher quality malts in bulk from a
distributor.

3) Try to get friendly with a brewpub that produces beer you like. It may be
possible that they will add a bag or two to their order for you.Advance pay
and pick up the grain promptly.  Have your brewclub hold a meeting or two at
the place to establish a relationship.


Also Doug Moyer wrote:
As I bring my wort to a boil, there is a lot of fairly fine foam that forms
on the surface, which passes through my kitchen strainer if I move it too
quickly. I can
get a lot of it out with patience, but it takes several minutes. Is this
the hot break? What the heck is hot break, anyway? What does it look
like?

Doug; Try using a small nylon screen like the material used for hop bags or
a fish tank strainer. This is what was used ( on a larger scale) in the
brew-pub I worked in. A much simpler way, and the way I use at home, is
simply use a large spoon to skim the foam and a little of the liquid wort.

 MBS pg 456 describes the hot break (also called hot trub) as follows:
"As the boil continues some proteins are coagulated and some, together with
simple nitrogenous constituents, interact with carbohydrates and/or
polyphenolic constituents (tannins). The insoluble precipitate resulting
from these interactions is the 'break' or 'trub'. Part of the break
separates form the boiling wort( the hot break) but a further amount
precipitates as the wort is cooled (cold break)."

pg 514 goes on "The hot trub is made up of protein-tannin material plus
insoluble salts, some hop resin material, and a significant proportion of
lipid material that was present in the sweet wort and hops. Trub particles
may be as big as 5-10mm diameter but in any conditions of shear break down
first into particles of 30-80 microns and then to elementary particles of
 .5-1.5 microns."

The practical implication is that some of the hot break is in that foam you
are describing and it is useful to remove and discard it. Normally this is
done in the early part of the boil before the hops go in. It requires a good
rolling boil to form the break.

Jim Bentson
Centerport NY
- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz





- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 20:09:52 -0500
From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net>
Subject: Palexperiment

An update on the Palexperiment for those interested.

Louis Bonham will be providing laboratory testing on all 47 beers brewed
for the experiment. Louis will be testing each beer for the following: IBU,
color, FG (using a pycnometer), and bacteria contamination tests (LDMA), %
alcohol, and possibly CO2 levels. Louis will also be working with me on
writing the experiment up for his column in Brewing Techniques.

Dave Logsdon of Wyeast has agreed to donate 47 packages of their new XL
smack packs. This will hopefully allow each of us to by pass making a
starter and all start from the same source and strain of yeast.
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: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:54:14 +0000
From: ghanson at widomaker.com
Subject: Foam from Kegging 

Help!  I have searched the HBD for '97 & '96, read Zymurgy's Kegging 
issue from '95, called Rapids, but I can't solve my problem.

I've been homebrewing for over 2 years, all grain since the fourth 
batch.  Have put three beers through my new system that is mounted 
through the door of an old reefer:  Corny kegsx2.  Rapids brand 
double faucet, one hooked to 5.5 ft, the other to 6.5 ft of 3/16" 
vinyl Rapids brand beer tubing.  CO2 is run w/ 5/16" tubing from a 
double  pressure gauge Tap-Rite regulator through the reefer wall to 
a double ganged modular plastic CO2 distributor which runs to two 
Corny kegs.  I have run a fairly standard OG 1.063 pale ale, a Munich 
Dunkel, and a honey ale through the system.  I have used various 
methods to carbonate, but the last was carbonated at 12psi  at  40F.  In 
a standard English pint 'bitter-style' pub glass (that is clean) I 
get about 1/2" of beer and the rest foam.  I open the faucet 
completely and run the beer down the side of the glass.  I have tried 
pumping  at  
  the smallest pressure I can manage and still get flow, 2 lbs, 4lbs, 
6lbs, 8lbs, 10lbs, 12lbs, and 14lbs (this last was what the Rapids 
guy suggested)  Each and every time, almost all foam!!  The beer is 
great once the foam goes down, but what a pain.  I've tried pulling a 
second glass behind the first, without shutting the faucet, but no 
difference.  

I've got foam everywhere!!  Help :-)
TIA,
George Hanson



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 00:05:09 -0800
From: John Yust <yust at icx.net>
Subject: CO2 cyl position

Greetings fellow safety concious brewers,

Denis Barsalo asked about putting his CO2 cylinder on its side on top of
his refrigerator in HBD #2662. I don't know how well the cylinder would
work on its side - not too well I would guess, but that isn't really the
problem here. The idea of putting the cylinder on top of the fridge is
dangerous. Even if the cylinder is secured to the top of the fridge you
still have to lift it up there. If you drop it and break the valve off
the top you have a big problem. The cylinder will take off like an out
of control rocket. Keep all cylinders upright and close to the floor.
They really should be chained so they can't fall over too.

John Yust
Knoxville, TN


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:38:59 -0700
From: "Brian Rezac" <brian at aob.org>
Subject: Big Brew '98 - FAQ #1

# 1
- ---------------------------------------------------
In my post on HBD #2664, I said:
> Big Brew '98 is being sponsored by Lallemand Inc., Briess Malting Company
> and Schreier Malting Company.  Because of their support, there's is no
cost
> to homebrewers to participate in Big Brew '98.

I have had a few inquiries on this and evidently, I didn't term this
clearly.  I didn't mean to imply that the AHA will be supplying
ingredients.  Each individual brewer will buy his or her own ingredients.

A better term would have been, "there is no entry fee for homebrewers to
participate."  Also, you do not need to be an AHA member to participate. 
The sponsorship money will cover the costs to produce, promote and organize
Big Brew '98, as well as prizes and awards.

I apologize if I have caused any misinterpretation.

# 2
- -------------------------------------------------------
Another comment that I received was,
> If this was a slick way to get an email address for spamming, nice job!

The AHA does not send spams.  I, too, have been spammed and I completely
understand anyone's reluctance to relinquish their email address.  So let
me explain how I will handle your email requests in order to circumvent any
spamming.

First of all, you are sending an email to me personally, not the AHA.  I
will take responsibility to ensure that the AHA will not use or distribute
your email address in any way other than for disseminating information on
Big Brew '98.

When you send me the initial email requesting the Big Brew '98 Rules, I
will respond to each email individually in order to avoid a group list of
homebrewers' email addresses falling into the wrong hands.  After I
respond, I will keep the message until April 24, 1998 (the deadline for Big
Brew '98 site registration).  I am saving the messages to send a reminder
to register before the deadline.  On April 24th I will delete your message
along with your email address.  If you do not want a reminder, mention that
in your initial email and I will delete your message immediately after I
respond.

The next email that you send (I hope) will be to register your Big Brew '98
Brewing Site.  All this information, including the Site Director's email
address, will be entered in a database and the email address added to a
Site Directors' list server.  This list server will be used only for
coordinating and disseminating information on Big Brew '98.  I will be
asking all the '98 Site Directors if they will let me keep their addresses
to send them information if we decide to organize another Big Brew in 1999.
 These email addresses will not be used or distributed for any other
purpose.

I asked for any interested homebrewers to send for the Big Brew '98 Rules
because it would take up a lot of bandwidth if I posted the Rules directly
to the HBD.  We hope to get them on our website soon and we are
snail-mailing them to all AHA Registered Homebrew Clubs.

# 3
- -------------------------------------------------------
I have received a few inquiries as to whether we will include batches
brewed at Brew-On-Premises (BOPs) or at commercial breweries or brewpubs.

Let me answer that by stating that our intention is to celebrate beer and
brewing by brewing the same recipe together across the nation (or world). 
It is, specifically, National HOMEBREW Day, however, we don't want Big Brew
'98 to interfere with any of your current plans or traditions.  We would
rather they compliment each other.  I encourage you to participate any way
you can.

When we collect the data, we will require information on how, where and
what type of brew system was used.  There is a good chance that Guinness
Media, publisher of the Guinness Book of Records, will only accept
homebrewed batches in their tally.  And the AHA will be awarding prizes to
different homebrewing sites.  However, the AHA will report the all the
statistics on Big Brew '98, including different breakdowns, totals and
grand totals.


In closing, I want to emphasize that we want Big Brew '98 to be fun.  Jim
Parker, Amahl Turczyn and I are homebrewers and, like many of you that have
already emailed me, we are very excited about this event.  There's no
"catch" or ulterior motive.  We developed Big Brew '98 to include any and
all homebrewers.  I encourage you to participate.

E Pluribus (Br)Unum!
{From Many, One (Brew)!}

 -  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
U.S.A.                                             http://beertown.org




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 22:35:40 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: Proteinase Rest is Bunk?

Brew Dudes, now I have even more protein rest confusion:

George DP posted this a few weeks ago and I thought it was a typo, now
he reiterates it again:

  >It seems that the common homebrew book notion that protein rests are
  >good for reducing chill haze is not correct.  Kunze talks about how
  >it is the degradation products of high molecular weight proteins that
  >cause haze.  Doing a protein rest will actually increase haze
  >potential!

Homebrewing lore requires us to incorporate a high temperature
proteinase rest (122 F to 140 F) in order to reduce chill haze when
mashing moderately modified malts.  Now two brewing wizards in the last
month indicate that this may be bunk:

1)  Kunze, as referenced by George, mentions that degrading HMWP to MMWP
will actually increase chill haze!

2)  The Siebel expert indicated that a protein rest at 135 F will not do
much of anything.

What's up with this?  I thought perhaps we had reached an HBD consenus
that when mashing with less well modified malts (whatever that means) a
rest in the 132 F to 140 F region will chop HMWP to MMWP, which reduces
chill haze, increases mouthfeel, and produces a better foam stand.  Now
I find out this notion may be bunk.  Anyone care to step up to the plate
and clarify this?  We might have more success finding a cure for cancer
than resolving this.

Atleast we have reached common ground that a low temperature peptidase
rest in the 113 F to 122 F region is only beneficial in generating
adequate yeast nutrients for FAN deficient malts.  This is great news,
but a rest in this region is probably not needed with todays malts that
contain high FAN levels.

Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:10:24 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Priming,Saltiness,Bugs

Brewsters:

KIrk Lund says:

>1) Several batches back while bottling, I followed the advice of one my
>books (Dave Miller's?) and poured the hot sugar water in the bottom of
>my bottling bucket.  I then racked the beer from secondary onto it and
>bottled without stirring......That particular batch resulted in half
>the bottles overcarbonated and half that are flat, so I've gone back
>to stirring.  Any opinions, personal experiences, etc. regarding
>stirring vs not stirring when priming?

Yep, but not one the gatekeepers among us would like to hear.
Ditch the bottling bucket. It is just one more potential source of
infection and thing to clean and permits oxidation of your beer
at a time the beer is most sensitive. Plus it always has the
potential for irregular carbonations as you have noted.  It takes
less time and is better for your beer if you add the priming
solution to each bottle and then add the beer directly to the
bottle. I also suggest you use the priming solution method
(again a point of contention with the gatekeepers) I recently
described here which has active yeast in it. This further
avoids oxidation, since the active yeast can immediately
take up some of the oxygen.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirk Lund also says:

> Another strange characteristic of that Dubbel and IPA is
 some sort
>of flavor that my mouth seems to interpret as saltiness,
 or at least very
>similar to saltiness.  Others who try those beers don't relate
the flavor
>to salt.  I used Reverse Osmosis water and added 1 tsp
yeast nutrient, 1/4
>tsp Calcium Chloride (to adjust mash pH). 


With all grain batches you don't need yeast nutrient.
That may be the source.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Etymological notes:

In Sydney, Australia I have had Botany Bay Bugs which
look like some kind of really prehistoric (I'm sure they are)
shellfish that has been stepped on by an elephant. They
are oblong and flattish with segmented tails.

I also fondly recall my shock at being served an "appetizer"
of three dozen crawfish in a Parish just south of the
Sunshine Bridge on the ol' Mississip'  in Louisiana,
just before the 2 pound lunch of catfish and fries. I'm
sure we had a few Jax or something. Good food and lots of it.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:11:46 -0500
From: rhampo at ford.com (Rich Hampo)
Subject: Sparge water delivery

Greetings,

I have been following the thread about sparge water delivery
(i.e. kitty water bowl device, float arm, ...) and wanted to 
share my experience.
I use an insulated cooler to hold the sparge water on my countertop,
put the latuer tun on a chair, and collect the wort in a pot
on the floor. I use a 4-5 foot section of 1/4" OD plastic tubing
(the tubing for running water to a refrigerator icemaker) to
siphon the sparge water into the lauter tun (I drilled a hole in the
top of the cooler). I need no flow control on the sparge water because 
if I set up my lauter tun to deliver 1 quart per 1.5 minutes to the boiler,
the natural siphon flow exactly balances the outflow of the lauter
tun. You can fine tune the flow of sparge water by raising or lowering
the vessels - I actually put the sparge vessel on 2" worth of books
on the counter

Works for me & no moving parts.

Brew on!

Richard Hampo
H&H Brewing Ltd
Livonia, MI
Only 3 miles NW of the HBD server


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:22:05 -0500
From: "Mark Nelson" <menelson at mindspring.com>
Subject: RE Malt Extract Database

Hans asked about attenuation characteristics for malt extracts in digest
#2665.  Here's a link to a database that the First State Brewers maintain.
Hope this is informative.
http://triton.cms.udel.edu/~oliver/firststate/tips/maltextract.html

Mark Nelson
Windhund Brauerei
Atlanta Georgia



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:25:11 -0500
From: John Penn <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: EBUs, and Priming

                       Subject:                               Time:10:03 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          EBUs, and Priming                      Date:3/19/98

I noticed on a recent hopped malt from M&F that it said 25-35 EBUs.  What is
an EBU (European Bittering Unit?) and are they equivalent to IBUs?  Any idea
why the EBUs vary so much?  I know that Morgan's hopped malts give you 15 IBUs
if you mix (i.e dilute) per the instructions while the M&F had quite a range
of EBUs based on the recommended recipe/dilution.

Kirk asks about priming and notes the uneven carbonation if you don't stir the
sugar mix in your bottling bucket.  
- -- Yes, it is OK to stir but just be gentle and you shouldn't have any problem
aerating your beer.  I try to use my siphon to set up a swirling circulation
in the bottling bucket to help mix it but then I stir a little at the end just
so I don't have uneven carbonation problems with priming.

John Penn
Eldersburg, MD



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 08:24:44 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Stirring the priming bucket

Dear Friends,

In #2665 Kirk Lund reported that a recent batch came out half 
overcarbonated and half flat after the oft-used procedure of racking 
the beer on top of the priming solution, and asked if anyone else had 
had similar problems.

This is pretty much standard procedure for many brewers, and I think 
most would say they have not experienced such problems.  I certainly 
haven't in the 150+ batches I've bottled that way.  One thing I try 
to ensure is that the tubing from my fermentor into the bottling 
vessel sort of curls along that vessel's bottom, so that the beer 
enters the vessel in such a way that a sort of whirlpool is formed 
right away.  This is very gentle, mind you, and I try to minimize 
aeration as per normal.  I've never seen the slightest inconsistency 
in carbonation using this method.

Hope this helps,

Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
   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
 ...when you think about it, everything makes sense.
    ---Ginger Wotring



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:37:45 -0500
From: Wayne_Kozun at otpp.com
Subject: Porter

>From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
>Subject: half/half, filtering, chlorine, O2 caps, protein
>
>Can they be mixed?  Sure.  Can you do a single recipe that will taste like
>a half-n-half?  Sure, something like a porter -- which was developed as a
>one-pour substitute for pouring together darker and lighter beers.

I really doubt that porter was developed as a hybrid of light and dark
beers.  Porter came before stout as stout was originally called stout
porter, and the porter was eventually dropped (see the Guinness article in
the Spring 98 issue of Zymurgy).




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:12:59 -0600
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu>
Subject: My error on Victory Hop Devil IPA

Mea Culpa to Ron Burchett and Bill Kovaleski, the brewers of Victory Hop
Devil IPA. I said Jim Busch. Sorry. BTW, the beer I was discussing is from
the Victory Brewing Company in Downingtown, PA.  Someone alertly sent me
the correction info.

Thanks

Jeff

Jeff Kenton                 Ames, Iowa
jkenton at iastate.edu         brewer at iastate.edu




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 07:32 PST
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Ferm Temp Variations - Esters?

Made a nice big porter yesterday after work (1.066). The only yeast I had 
lying around was 16 oz of Scottish Ale Yeast, 1728, not a big ester 
producer. My basement is staying between 60F and 63F day in and day out 
right now.

I was thinking of raising the ferm temp to about 70F in the hopes of 
producing a few more esters (a good porter needs a dose of esters) but did 
not (yet) becuase the brew produced 5.5 gallons and there wasn't much head 
space left in the 6.5 gallon fermenter - didn't want to scrape it off the 
ceiling this morning.

The question - now that its bubbling away nicely, if I raise the temp at 
this point, will it still produce the esters? I thought I read somewhere 
that the ester production was in the initial stages of fermentation (yeast 
replication). I'm afraid at this point I might just get higher alcohols and 
not the esters that I want.

Charley (lamenting loss of fruity aromas in the porter) in N. Cal



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 09:24:59 +0000
From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart at dridesign.com>
Subject: Recognizing DMS

AJ typed in a post a couple of days ago, "(I use 'Rock to train BJCP
candidates in recognizing DMS)."
Does anybody have a list of commercially available beers that might help in
recognizing certain aroma/flavor defects and/or benificial attributes.
Example: Rolling Rock=DMS, "Brand X" English Ale=Diacetal, "Brand Y"
Belgian=Horse blanket, "Brand Z"=goaty, etc... I know I can find some of
this by pouring (no pun intended) through Jackson's books and others, but
has anyone compiled a quick and easy list? Thanks.
Tim Burkhart
Kansas City
mailto:tburkhart at dridesign.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 10:48:55 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: HopDevil credit/filtering

Jeff Kenton writes some glowing prose about our beloved HopDevil IPA 
and credits me with the job well done.   While I have a small role as 
a director of Victory Brewing, I really must give the credit to Ron 
Barchet, Bill Covaleski and our maniac_on_premise Mike.  They are the 
day to day brewers, and movers/shakers at Victory.  I help design and 
pilot brew some of our ales, and I had a small contribution in 
brewing 3 pilots for HopDevil IPA just over 2 years ago.   While I 
spent many years homebrewing HopDevil_like ales/IPAs in 5, then 10 
and then 31 gallon batches, I was extremely pleased to taste the 
first HopDevil that came from the brewery that Ron and Bill built.  
It has always exceeded my expectations and I give all of the credit 
to the talents of Ron, Bill and Mike.  (but the *best* beers from 
Victory are the lagers!)

There was some discussion regarding filtering homebrew recently.  I 
have done some filtering over the years and in my opinion it really 
can help out a beer depending on style and aging time.  HopDevil IPA 
is great on cask but is also a crisper, cleaner and snappier beer in 
filtered form.   AJ brought one of his excellent lagers to a BURP 
meeting last Sat and it was filtered to a brilliant clarity and all 
of the crisp lager traits jumped right out at you.   AJ confided to 
me that this was a very young lager, but I couldn't tell at all from 
taste and aroma, and he had just filtered it that morning.  I use a 5 
micron filter from the filter store in NY,  and of late have filtered 
beer right off the unitank into corny kegs.  If you can get the beer 
cold enough in the uni, you can trap some chill haze but I have been 
more interested in bulk yeast removal.   A nice added benefit is my 
kegs are much easier to clean when the beer is filtered.

Sad tales about poor malt quality.   I can say that I have not seen 
any of these quality problems with German malts, but then Victory 
buys direct from the Bamberg maltster.  Of late Ive been very 
impressed with the German Munich malts and the high quality Dunkles 
and Alts you can make with it.

Prost!

Jim Busch




HopDevil IPA - Menacingly Delicious!
"One of the best IPAs in the country" -
D. Brockington, Seattle, WA.


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 08:34:45 -0800
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Priming, Chill Haze, Saltiness

     
     >1) Several batches back while bottling, I followed the advice of one 
     >my
     >books (Dave Miller's?) and poured the hot sugar water in the bottom 
     >of
     >my bottling bucket.  I then racked the beer from secondary onto it 
     >and
     >bottled without stirring.  Basically, I read in the book that 
     >stirring
     >needlessly increases the risk of oxidation and that you should simply
     >rack the beer on top of the priming sugar since that will 
     >(supposedly)
     >mix the sugar sufficiently.  That particular batch resulted in half
     >the bottles overcarbonated and half that are flat, so I've gone back
     >to stirring.  Any opinions, personal experiences, etc. regarding
     >stirring vs not stirring when priming?
     
     I use another priming technique I haven't seen around here.  Yes, I 
     use corn sugar and water like most people, but I add it to the beer 
     differently.  Rather than pour it into the bottom of your bottling 
     carboy or bucket, I pour it right into the beer in the secondary.  
     Actually, I pour it through a turkey baster so that the priming 
     solution can enter the beer below the surface.  The reason for doing 
     it this way is that the secondary's air space should be full of CO2 
     (as long as you remove the airlock carefully).  Any accidental 
     splashing should have a minimal chance of aerating the beer or priming 
     solution.
     
     After adding the priming solution to the secondary, then I rack to the 
     bottling carboy (or bucket).  I think by pouring the the priming 
     solution into the secondary then racking, you get a better mix without 
     having to stir.  But just in case, I do gently stir the beer sometimes 
     (in the bottling carboy), but carefully hold the spoon so that all the 
     swirling action is deep in the beer and no splashing takes place.  In 
     comparing stirred versus unstirred batches using this method, I have 
     not noticed any variation in carbonation, either within a batch or 
     from batch to batch.
     
     Brian



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:55:10 -0500
From: Mike Beatty <mbeatty at ols.net>
Subject: Re:grains in an extract recipe

Hello all-

I would like to thank everyone who responded to my question about
preparing and steeping grains. I must have received 20+ replies which
really helped out.

Next question is, I am using liquid extract and dry extract, along w/
the grains and hops. The only dark liquid available (at the time) was
John Bull - I unknowingly picked up a "hopped" version. If I plan on
using my own hops, should I return this and get something "unhopped". Is
the amount of hops in the liquid extract adequate for my purposes? I am
brewing a stout, using both Williamette (sp?) and Cluster hops.

Thanks!
- -- 
Mike Beatty
Intelligent Business Solutions
________________________________________________
Adopt a Collie! Check out: <http://www.collie.net/~pcc>
________________________________________________
Do you believe in Macintosh? <http://www.evangelist.macaddict.com/>


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 08:52:40 -0800
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Extract attenuation

     
     >Does anyone have any information on the comparative attenuation
     >characteristics of the different brands of extract?  i.e. - which 
     will
     >make a thinner or richer brew?  I know Laaglanders tends to finish
     >with a higher gravity, but what about M&F, Telefords, Edme, John 
     Bull,
     >etc.?  Any info on Breiss bulk (barrel) malt?  Does dry extract 
     >finish higher
     >or lower than liquid - or does it matter?
     >
     >I have seen people reference some ancient issues of Zymurgy, but I
     >don't have access to these.  Also, the info could be obsolete.
     
     Hans,
     
     Daniels' book "Designing Great Beers" has a table like you are looking 
     for.  It's one of the best that I've seen, but beware.  Extract 
     manufacturers do not have strict labeling laws applied to them.  As a 
     result, even extracts labeled "all malt" can have a number of 
     different types of sugars added to them.  I read of a study done in 
     Canada, and written about in BrewingTechniques (1993 I think) that 
     told about one "all malt" example that didn't have _any_ malt derived 
     sugars in it, and showed that nearly _all_ the others in the sample 
     (40 types) had at least some non-malt derived sugars in them!  But 
     anyway, I'll get off the soap box.  The bottom line is that without 
     stricter regulation and labeling laws, manufacturers are going to feel 
     tempted to reduce cost of manufacturing by adjusting the amounts of 
     non-malt derived sugars in the extracts.  If malt prices are on the 
     rise, I'd expect the glucose/fructose/sucrose components in the 
     extracts to rise, and the maltose/maltotriose components to drop.  
     Hopefully the big name extract companies will some day start a trend 
     and use not _accurate_ and _honest_ labeling, but will provide 
     information important to brewers (pts/lb, degrees L/lb/gal, etc.).  So 
     anyway, even a table such as the one in Daniels is then at risk of not 
     being entirely accurate.  But it's a good start.  Good luck!
     
     Brian



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:34:48 -0500
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm at vt.edu>
Subject: Pizza Pans

Mike Spinelli asks:

>Anybody know where I can buy a SS pizza pan like the ones you
>see made of aluminum?

I've seen them at both Wal-Mart and K-Mart.  Specialty food stores carry
them too, but charge about a 1/3 more.

Cheers!
M.




Return to table of contents

---