---

	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:
  Home Brewer's Beer Walk-In Cooler Ideas  -  approx 5' by 6' area ("Reed,Randy")
  Re: Overmodified (crap) malts (David Elm)
  Re: Motorised Valley mill (David Elm)
  re:  What are spicy-assed mudbugs? (MADwand)
  hazy beer & high temp rests/proteins/chlorophenols/malt rant (George_De_Piro)
  RIMS Construction/Mash Stirrer (bob_poirier)
  plastic beer/Clinitest/batch vs. fly/Kriek kits/oxygen/partial mash (Al Korzonas)
  Makkoli ("Dr. Dwight A Erickson")
  RE: Can beer fight cancer? (Mark Weaver)
  Hops Prevent Cancer (Kelly S Underwood)
  Iodophor (ricjohnson)
  Williams Mash System (Steve Krause)
  Yeast Skimming/Cropping ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
  Malt extracts/Installing ball valve in aluminum (Steelbrew)
  sobbing over fobbing? (Charles Hudak)
  more on bugs | priming (John Bowerman)
  Wyeast XL and Starters (Paul Edwards)
  Crayfish ("David R. Burley")
  Re: Porter (Steve Jackson)
  Repositionable labels/Jim's filtering comments (Chas Peterson)
  Party Pigs (Randy Lee)
  Specialty Malts (jamorris)
  Excellent Explanation (Mike York)
  Re: Diacetyl/Mash Efficiency (Bill Goodman)



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: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:43:08 -0500
From: "Reed,Randy" <rreed at foxboro.com>
Subject: Home Brewer's Beer Walk-In Cooler Ideas  -  approx 5' by 6' area

Dear Amateur Brewers,

Can anyone out there shed light on building and cooling a small walk-in 
area in a basement? I live in the Northeast United States and my basement 
does not stay cold enough in the summer to keep my beer "happy."

Here are my initial thoughts:

Instead of buying another refrigerator and temperature controller for my 
cases of homebrew, kegs and commercial beers obtained from near and far, I 
would like to build a small area in my basement about the size of a walk in 
closet. The temperature would be maintained at about 50 to 55 degrees F.

Having this space would keep my homebrew away from warm summer basement 
temperatures, would protect my special imported beers from the heat, and 
allow me to serve kegs of ale using a shank and tap installed through the 
wall, and over a sink. Lagers would still be served from my serving fridge 
at 45 degrees.

Question: If I build a well insulated space of about 5 feet by 6 feet 
(floor to ceiling height), what are the considerations regarding cooling it 
to 50 --55 degrees year-round? For example, can I just use a "window unit" 
air conditioner for this? Do they go down that low? Can I easily modify the 
thermostat or should I use my temperature controller that I use on my 
fermentation fridge? Can I vent it in the basement or does it need to be 
vented outside? Should I try to vent to the basement in winter (to help 
heat the house) and vent to outside in summer (to contribute to the global 
warming situation :^)

I have heard of the wine cellar cooling units that control air temperature 
and humidity, but they are quite expensive. If I rarely open the door to 
this area, could I use one of my existing refrigerators to cool the entire 
area or is this asking too much?

Anyone have any experience building and using a home beer walk-in cooler? 
Thanks in advance for the help!

Randy

=====================================================
"Homebrewers are like dogs teaching each other how to
chase cars."----------------------- Ann Reed
=====================================================
+-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
+Local*Brewing*Company++++++++++++++++++++++++
+RREED at FOXBORO.COM+++++++++++++++Surfing*the++
+Randy*Reed++++++++++++++++++++++Information++
+BJCP*Recognized++++++++++++++++SuperBikePath+
+Beer*Judge/Potscrubber++++++++++++++++&++++++
+South*Shore*Brew*Club+++++++++++++Web*Wired++
+(Boston,*MA*Area*-*South)++++++++++++World+++

Visit SSBC at http://members.aol.com/brewclub/

+-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:26:30 -0700
From: David Elm <delm at cadvision.com>
Subject: Re: Overmodified (crap) malts

>George de Piro says:
>...
>Well I cant speak from Marris Otter experience but I can speak at great
>length about the poor service and quality that we receive from the big
>maltsters here in Australia.

  I don't know how far your club wants to go for malt but Westcan Malting
in Alix, Alberta, Canada sells to home brewers, micros, and large breweries
in Canada, USA, South America, and Japan.  Locally we can buy a 50Kg bag.
Export may be a minimum of a container.  Check http://www.westcanmalt.com
They have a single product, a pale malt (1.7) Harrington 2-row, protein 10.5%
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Elm  delm at cadvision.com  (403)932-1626 888-660-6035 fax:(403)932-7405
   Box 7, Site 16, RR 2, Glendale Rd., Cochrane, Alberta, T0L 0W0, Canada



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 11:26:31 -0700
From: David Elm <delm at cadvision.com>
Subject: Re: Motorised Valley mill

>I have a Valley mill with which I crush my grains. I want to motorise it.
>How strong must the electrical motor be and what  is the optimum rpm 
>speed to which I can let the rollers run ?
>With optimum I dont mean necessarily the fastest, I still want to 
>obtain a good consistent crush.

  Valley Brewing Equipment, in a brochure, write about using the mill at
300 RPM connected to a power drill.  My setup and two others that I have
seen use a GE gear moter (170RPM) direct connected via a rubber coupling
to the shaft.  I got the gear motor from SURPLUS CENTER  at 800-488-3407.
The part number is 5-1098 and it was $25US+shipping.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Elm  delm at cadvision.com  (403)932-1626 888-660-6035 fax:(403)932-7405
   Box 7, Site 16, RR 2, Glendale Rd., Cochrane, Alberta, T0L 0W0, Canada



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 20:30:02 GMT
From: MADwand at earthling.net (MADwand)
Subject: re:  What are spicy-assed mudbugs?

On Wed, 18 Mar 1998 00:16:29 -0500, in rec.crafts.brewing you wrote:

::Date: Mon, 16 Mar 98 16:52:16 est
::From: paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
::Subject: What are spicy-assed mudbugs?
::
::JBDers,
::Bodie in #2662 mentions how IPAs and spicy-assed
::mudbugs go so well together.
::
::Can you south'nas enlighten me as to what this creature is?

Crawfish from Louisiana.  You don't know what you are missing.

But if you didn't know what they were, how'd you know they are a
"south'nas" product?

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 13:48:59 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: hazy beer & high temp rests/proteins/chlorophenols/malt rant

     Hi all,
     
     Kirk asked why his all-grain beers have been suffering from chill haze 
     while his extract ones did not.  He mentions that his thermometer was 
     reading 10F too low.  He also wonders why he achieved starch 
     conversion if he was mashing so much hotter than recommended.
     
     First, he achieved conversion because alpha-amylase is good up to 168F 
     (75C) or so.  Mash out doesn't denature it, contrary to what most 
     (all?) homebrew texts state.  Of course, because beta-amylase only has 
     a 10 min. life span at 158F (70C), worts made at this temp will be 
     highly unfermentable.  A good mash schedule for a lactose-free sweet 
     stout!
     
     Why are the beers hazy?  Well, my guess is that it isn't chill haze, 
     but starch haze.  Since Kirk's thermometer was off by 10F, he was 
     mashing out at 178-180F (81C) instead of 168-170 (75C).  That could 
     cause unconverted starch trapped in the steely tips to be released, 
     with not enough amylase around to convert it.  Beer with a permanent 
     starch haze would be the result.  As a test you could do an iodine 
     test to the mash after a 180F mash out (or you could just not do a 
     180F mash out...).
     
     Are you sure the haze is only present in cold beer, or is it just 
     worse when it is cold?
     --------------------------------
     Sam Mize talks about all sorts of stuff.  He asks about my post in 
     which I mention that, according to Kunze, it is protein degradation 
     products that cause chill haze.  Sam postulates that these would also 
     be broken up by a protein rest, and therefore help reduce haze.
     
     If a protein rest is done at a low enough temperature, and for enough 
     time, than yes, you can achieve a significant amount of large and 
     small protein degradation.  You will also end up with thin, headless 
     beer!
     
     That is one danger of doing a protein rest at all with modern malts; 
     they are already well-modified enough to not need a rest between 
     113-135F (45-57C).  Of course, if you use Munton's malt, like I did, 
     you'll want to ADD protein to the wort...perhaps a good time to try 
     that old "cock ale" recipe...
     
     Sam also asks about the taste of chlorophenols.  Within the past month 
     AJ and I posted a discussion about the flavors of different phenolic 
     compounds.  Search the archives for details.
     
     In summary, everybody has the potential to taste chemicals in a 
     different way from the person next to them.  At Siebel we were doing a 
     fair amount of "spiked beer" tastings.  The chlorophenol I tasted 
     (ortho-chloro-phenol) smelled like a swimming pool at 8 ppb.  AJ has 
     smelled other chlorinated phenols that are medicinal (to him). 
     -------------------------------
     Norm responds to my post about Munton's Marris Otter malt.  I think 
     some people may be a bit confused, so I'll clarify myself:
     
     Marris Otter is a strain of barley.  My post in NO way meant that all 
     Marris Otter malt is bad.  It is, in fact, a fine barley that can 
     produce exceptional malt.  I have used Crisp malting's Marris Otter 
     with nothing but wonderful results.
     
     Malt modification is much more a function of how the maltster treated 
     it.  Different varieties need to be treated differently, but many 
     barleys are capable of becoming fine malt when handled correctly.
     
     My complaint is with the maltster, MUNTON.  They are the one's who are 
     at fault here for producing crap and sending it here rather than 
     feeding it to some mad cow off in an English field somewhere...
     
     By the way, I called the Northeast sales rep for Munton, and he said 
     that Marris Otter will soon disappear from English farms.  That is 
     quite sad...
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 98 08:33:39 -0600
From: bob_poirier at adc.com
Subject: RIMS Construction/Mash Stirrer


        Good Morning, HBD!
     
        I've brewed a few all-grain, and many partial mash batches, and 
     I've been happy with the results.  However, I still have problems with 
     mashing:  Mashing-in & reaching the correct initial temp; Maintaining 
     & changing the mash temp.
        For partial mashes, I follow the suggestions of the boys at the 
     Seven Barrel Brewery, and use my oven to maintain the desired mash 
     temp.  This works out pretty well, but your ordinary, run-of-the-mill 
     oven isn't designed or intended to maintain such low temps (100-170 
     deg F).  So, I'm looking for new & exciting ways to brew all-grain 
     batches!
        The Jan/Feb '98 issue of Brewing Techniques Magazine explores the 
     debate between infusion & decoction mashing.  They go on to give 
     detailed explanations of each technique.  The idea of constructing my 
     own RIMS intrigues me immensely!  
        The article lists a bunch of RIMS related web sites and possible 
     sources for RIMS related hardware/components.  To say the least, I've 
     been doing a lot of surfing and research the past few weeks!  
     Fascinating!!  And I'd like to thank all of those individuals who were 
     kind enough to provide info about their own RIMS on the web.
        So, my first question is, about how much cash are we talking about 
     for setting up just the one vessel, converted to the actual RIMS?  The 
     rest of the system can be added on piece by piece, correct?
        Secondly, are there any discernible advantages to incorporating a 
     mash stirring paddle into the RIMS?  I can remember encountering only 
     one such system, and it was offered for sale by a professional outfit. 
      I don't remember seeing a paddle on any homegrown RIMS.
        Well, any tips/tricks/advice/info would be greatly appreciated!
     
        Bob Poirier, Jr. - East Haven, CT
        bob_poirier at adc.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 14:28:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: plastic beer/Clinitest/batch vs. fly/Kriek kits/oxygen/partial mash

Dave writes:
>Tim Burkhardt has a plastic taste in his bottled beer =
>that wasn't there before bottling. This taste is often =
>associated with phenols and such.  Possibly what =
>you taste is due to the beer oxidation during bottling. =
>If you are using a bottling bucket - don't.  Add the =
>priming sugar solution to each bottle ( 48 teaspoons =
>in 8 ounces) and siphon from the secondary directly =
>into the bottle.  You avoid beer oxidation and don't have =
>to sterilize the bucket, your stirrer, etc. Using a priming =
>starter will also reduce the effects of oxidation as the =
>yeast are active from the beginning.

While it's true that oxidation of polyphenols can lead to
phenolic/plastic taste, a much more likely culprit is
a mild wild yeast infection.  Many wild yeasts are producers
of plastic/clovey aromas and flavours.

As for this priming method, it is far less precise than
bulk priming.  The old method of priming was to put
granular sugar (undissolved) into each bottle.  This
technique is pretty much no longer used among mainstream
US homebrewers (although I've seen some ads for granular
sugar-measurers in Australia).  Gentle racking is not
much more likely to cause oxidation than pouring primings
into the bottles.  And since I really can't recall the last
time I had any oxidation comments from judges on any of my
beers (even year-old normal-gravity beers and multi-year
Barleywines), I tend to believe that my methodology (see
two or three HBDs ago) is sound.

***

Dave writes:
>value for the batch.  I suggest you also try Clinitest as it =
>will tell you with an equal or greater degree of precision =
> - compared to a hydrometer - if your main fermentation is =
>finished - faster and a smaller sample.  Combining =
>these two techniques, Clinitest and the forced =
>fermentation ( while you also do a wort stability test =
>as George suggests) will tell you as close as you care =
>to know if it's bottling time. =

How quickly we forget.  Please see Andy Walsh's magnificent
post in HBD #2584 for the methodology and other background
information, but here's the bottom line on Clinitest:

   Clinitest reads low for the major sugars left after fermentation.
   Maltotriose typically forms 10% of wort gravity in an all malt wort. eg.
   1.050 wort has ~5 SG points of maltotriose.The lowest measure on Clinitest
   is 0.25%, corresponding to about 4SG points of maltotriose as being the
   minimum resolution for this sugar. One of the most common fermentation
   disorders is an inability to ferment this sugar. Clinitest will not
   normally detect this. In addition, as one does not know the final sugar
   composition, a reading on Clinitest of 0.25% could mean very different
   things since it does not measure the different sugars to the same degree of
   accuracy.
 
   Conclusion - Clinitest does not give an accurate portrayal of final sugar
   concentrations. It may be useful as a general fermentation indicator, but I
   won't rush out to buy one. However, if you want a glucose monitor, Diastix
   are great! Anybody know how to measure maltotriose?

***
Jim writes (in an excellent post where he corrects my post on sparge rates):
>If this were not the case , we would be able to dump all the sparge water in
>the tank at once, stir and collect all the sugar in one drain. The very fact
>that we must drain the sparge and replace it with fresh water makes me think
>that there is some solubilty limiting factor at play. Again I stress that
>this is postulation, as I don't know the actual solubility limits. Comments
>anyone?

I believe that the benefit of a continuous sparge (aka fly sparging) over
a batch sparge (where the grain bed is drained, then refilled, then drained,
etc.) is that there will always be some trapped wort in the grain bed.  If
you batch sparge, the gravity of the wort trapped will be equal to the
gravity of the last draining.  In a fly sparge, you (theoretically) have
lower gravity runnings remaining trapped in the grain bed when you stop.
Frankly, it's all theoretical and if you have a system in which there is a
lot of chaneling, batch sparging will be *more* efficient than fly sparging.

***
Jon writes:
>Has anyone ever used one of the Kriek kits that are available? Or, does
>anyone have any suggestions on how to make these kits taste more authentic,
>yeasts,etc?

I once made a batch from *two* Brewferm Kriek kits.  I followed the
directions except that I used two cans of extract rather than the one
plus corn sugar recommended in the instructions.  The resulting beer
was faintly a cherry beer with nothing near the sourness of a true
Kriek Lambic.  To make these kits taste more authentic... I recommend
that you buy much less expensive domestic wheat extract (yes, I know
that true Lambics are made with raw wheat, but we're talking extract
here) get some Brettanomyces yeast and Lactobacillus bacteria from
either Yeast Lab, The Yeast Culture Kit Company, Head Start Brewing
Cultures or (as a last resort) Wyeast and add your own cherries after
a year in the primary.  It will also help join the Lambic Digest and
to read its back issues.

***
Someone who didn't post their name writes:
>Secondly, make sure
>you aerate your starter well at first, but remember that fermentation is
>an anaerobic process.  The yeast needs oxygen to get started, but once
>started, it will be harmed by additional oxygen.

Not exactly.  Once the alcohol level begins to get substantial, oxygen
will oxidise the alcohols to aldehydes, but early in the fermentation,
oxygen will primarily increase the diacetyl in the finished beer.  See
the photo tour of The Old Brewery - Tadcaster on my website for a
pretty graphic example of fermenting wort oxidation!

***
Gregg writes:
>If I have a partial mash, I would use much less grain than a full mash
>and make up for this in extract. In most cases, just a little over
>enough diastatic grain is included in the bill to convert whatever
>adjuncts there may be(cara-pils, flaked barley, oats, etc.). Given this
>scenario, if the recipe calls for a large percentage of specialty grains
>that have no enzymes and don't need enzymes, does one still include this
>in the mash with the mash water ratio of 1-1.5qts/lb? It really wouldn't
>be a problem with a full all-grain mash, but given the now-low
>percentage of diastatic constituents, wouldn't this be detrimental to
>the mash?

My gut feeling is that it is *theoretically* detrimental (because
the products of saccharification actually impede the action of the
enzymes and crystal malts will simply add more of these products),
HOWEVER, in practice, I don't think that the difference would be
tasteable.  Note also, that if you have very high-bicarbonate (i.e.
high alkalinity) water and you are making a dark beer, the dark
grains will lower the pH into a more reasonable range (one that
favours the enzymes and also reduces polyphenol extraction).  On the
other hand, if you have very low alkalinity water, adding dark
grains could lower the pH too much and interfere with the action
of the enzymes.  In other words... it depends on your water and
your recipe.

***

I'm sure you'll all be glad to hear that I'm all caught up now...

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: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 12:44:10 -0700
From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro at plix.com>
Subject: Makkoli

Greetings to all,

Does anyone out there have a receipe for a Korean brew called Makkoli
? (pronounced Mah Koh Lee)

If so, I'd be most appreciative if ya could send it to me (private
e-mail OK)

http://colvillechiro at plix.com

THANKS !



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:38:13 -0500
From: Mark Weaver <HeadBrewer at eci.com>
Subject: RE: Can beer fight cancer?

Another interesting point regarding cancer and alcohol:

Now, this does not pertain to beer but:

A recent 30 year study of 35,000 French men who drank
three glasses of wine a day, had no cancer what-so-ever,
even if they smoked... Anything over three glasses and they
had problems with their livers, anything under three glasses
and the effects were greatly diminished.

Prost!
Mark




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:40:06 -0500
From: underdog63 at juno.com (Kelly S Underwood)
Subject: Hops Prevent Cancer

For those who were looking for more info on Hops and cancer:


*** Scientists Say Hops May Help Prevent Cancer ***

Corvallis, OR - According to Oregon State University researchers,
*xanthohumol,* a compound commonly found in hop plants, is toxic to
cancer
cells and may actually help protect humans from the deadly disease. The
University*s studies indicate that the compound, known as a *flavonoid,*
inhibits an enzyme called *cytochrome P450,* which is known to activate
the
cancer process in cells. Researchers also reported that some flavonoids
enhance the effectiveness of enzymes called *quinone reductase,* that can
block active cancer-causing substances already at work in the body. Lead
researcher Donald Buhler, an agricultural chemist, cautioned reporters at
the
press conference where his team*s research was announced, that these
findings
should not be used to endorse more beer consumption. He said if the
results of
the study pan out, scientists may be able to make the compound available
in
pills or other concentrated forms. Make mine a Sierra Nevada Bigfoot and
forget those pills!

HappyHours.com BrewsGram #4 - March 18, 1998 - Terry Soloman, Editor
              America's #1 On-Line Beer Newsletter!

Kelly Underwood
Gales Ferry, CT

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:28:43 -0500
From: ricjohnson at SURRY.NET
Subject: Iodophor

Al K. writes
I've seen everything from 1 minute to 15 minutes for iodophor,
so I usually use 15 minutes for fermenters, hoses, airlocks, etc.

I usually put about a gallon in my carboy shake it around for about a minute
and then let it drain for approx 10 min.  Am I the only one that does this?
I have had no infections lately. BTW what dilution is best for no rinse? I
was told by my shop to use a cap-full per gallon.  I have moved up to big
bottles. The caps on the big bottles are bigger than the small bottles, but
I still use a cap full.

Richard Johnson
Mt. Airy, NC



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 17:39:36 -0500
From: Steve Krause <skrause at new-vista1.com>
Subject: Williams Mash System

I have reading HBD for several months and just received the Williams
Mashing System as a birthday gift. As a result I am about to brew my
first all grain batch,after brewing with kits and extract recipies for
about on and off for about 15 years. What I would like to know if anyone
has had any experiance using that system,and what the results were


thanks 
Steve Krause


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:55:43 -0500
From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: Yeast Skimming/Cropping

Got a batch of Munich Dunkel that just started fermenting today usingt a
healthy 1.8L Wyeast #2206 Bavarian Lager yeast starter. I want to crop
or skim the krausen off the top because of what I have read in alot of
texts (mainly Noonan's Brewing Lager Beer). First off, is this really
necessary to aid in diacetyl reduction and to improve the smoothness of
the finished product? And secondly, should I salvage the skimmings for
either a secondary re-pitch or further usage? I have heardand read of
reviving/cleaning the skimmings and using them to augment the secondary.
Anyone have any ideas or comments in this subject?

Please hurry, a good krausen head is building as of this posting.

Cheers,

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 21:59:14 EST
From: Steelbrew <Steelbrew at aol.com>
Subject: Malt extracts/Installing ball valve in aluminum

Hans E. Hansen writes:
>Does anyone have any information on the comparitive 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.

Try this site:
http://triton.cms.udel.edu/~oliver/firststate/tips/maltextract.html.
Lots of good info including what you're after. BTW, I just have to get in a
lick for my favorite extract, Alexander's pale. I use this as my "base malt"
in several different styles, from pales to porters, and it works great. Not to
mention my supplier sells it in bulk for $1.85/pound! It finishes at a low
gravity. If a higher TG is needed, I steep dextrinous (is that a word?)
specialty
malts or do a 155-158 degree partial mash.
******************************************************************************
**********
I recently purchased a 15 gallon 3004 aluminum Vollrath pot. I understand
that 3004 is some kind of aluminum alloy, and I was wondering if it could be
welded. If so, does anyone know of a capable welder in the Olympia/Tacoma
area? Has anyone successfully installed a drain valve with compression 
fittings into one of these pots? Thanks,

Dan Fox
Olympia, Wa.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 22:08:55 -0800
From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: sobbing over fobbing?



George writes about foaming probs with his tap system:

>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.  
>

A couple of things to look into. How clean are your faucets? Beer faucets
need to be cleaned regularly. It is amazing at how much crap accumulates in
your faucets in a short amount of time.  If your faucets are clean, look at
every inch of your draft system for burrs or other edges that could be
providing nucleation sites and causing foaming. Specifically, I'd look at
your dip tube (especially the top, near the poppet), the poppet, the tank
plug, and all of your tubing to fitting connections. Assuming that
overcarbonated beer is not the problem, it is usually dirty draft equipment
or damaged draft equipment which causes foaming problems.

You might consult the back of the rapids catalog (assuming that you haven't
already) for tubing specifics to set up your system. I think that you are
supposed to shoot for a pressure at the tap of only 2-3 psi. Based on the
fact that the length and diameter of the tubing cause the pressure to drop
from the keg to tap (longer and narrower tubing cause more drag on the
liquid flow and cause more of a pressure drop; some types of plastics cause
more drag than others) you should calculate your tubing length based on
your normal keg pressure in order to get down to the required pressure at
the tap. Most draft systems use 5/8" lines until the last couple of feet
and then drop down to 3/16" to the tap shank.

Good luck; been there done that ;(

C--

Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!)
cwhudak at adnc.com
ICQ# 4253902
"If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs."
- --David Daye




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 16:58:30 -0800
From: John Bowerman <jbowerma at kfalls.net>
Subject: more on bugs | priming

Oooh!! The light's bright ...

In HBD #2665 Kirk Lund wrote:

> ... 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?

As I see it, not stirring would would lead to statification in the
priming bucket, and
therefore different levels of priming sugar in bottled beer.
Although I've only been
brewing for a little over 3 years now,  the technique I use has
never given me
any problems.

I start to transfer beer to my priming bucket (gently to prevent
aeration)
with the tubing at an angle to impart a swirling current
(whirlpool?).  About the time
1/2 to 1 gal of beer is in the bucket, I  add my priming solution
(plus any finings) by gently
pouring down/along my brewing paddle (it may be the only thing I
remember from
high school chemistry).  After the rest of the beer has been
transfered I give a gentle stir
or 2, wait a couple of minutes, then start bottling.  Works every
time.

In HBD # 2666 David Burley wrote:

> 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.

Sounds like "Slipper Lobsters", if so I'm envious.  They've been
on my shopping list
of things to eat for some time.  However, if this was at "Doyles
on the Quay" then you
have my condolences (highly overrated -- they overcook shellfish
something horrible).

I highly reccomend "Hawks" just outside Lafayette, LA for some of
the best crawfish
(concievably even the best) I've ever eaten.  Go for the 5 lb
platter.  The extra seasoning
has lots of character, but it ain't for sissies.  The beer was
merely wet.

 ... back to the shadows.

John Bowerman
Bad Dog Brewing
Klamath Falls, OR

I must be God.
Every time I pray,
I find I'm just talking to myself.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 06:58:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Edwards <pedwards at iquest.net>
Subject: Wyeast XL and Starters

John (& the collective);

I read with interest your post to HBD about the Palexperiment.

Kudo's to Dave Logsdon for providing the yeast.  However, I would caution
you that the XL packs, while containing significantly more yeast than the
50 ml smack packs, do not seem to contain sufficient yeast to meet the 
1x10^6 cells per ml per deg plato pitching rate many of us try to acheive.

When the XL packs first appeared in a our local HB shop, a few of us tried
side-by-side comparisions of XL pitched directly versus using a starter.
In all cases the XL packs pitched directly had 12-16 hour lags versus 2-6
hour lags using 2 to 3 liter starters. (When using the starters, we
decanted the spent wort first and only pitched the slurry). Certainly
12-16 hours is better than 24-36 hours, but I feel 2-6 hours is even
better and easily acheivable.  All yeast was about 1 month old, based on
the embossed date on the smack pack.

Now, the XL packs do offer the advantage that one may skip the 50 ml to
500 ml step-up (10:1 increase) and pitch the XL pack directly into a
larger volume of starter wort. That to me makes the XL worth the extra
buck.  Not all  Wyeast varieties are available in the XL size.

My friend Jim Liddil may disagree with me about Wyeast, but I still prefer
their products over others on the market.  I don't have the time, space or
inclination to to be much of a yeast rancher, starting at the slant level.
With Wyeast when the pack swells, I know I'm good to go.  With the "vial
yeasts", I don't have any idea.

Just my $.02 worth.  Good luck with the Palexperiment.  I'm looking
forward to reading the results.

- --Paul Edwards
  pedwards at iquest.net





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:18:15 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Crayfish

Brewsters:

Donald Smith says that being from the Old South he says
"crawfish" not "crayfish" for dem good eatin' spice bugs. I have
always found this surprising, since the word "crayfish"
comes from the French equivalent  "ecrevisse".
I would have thought with all that Arcadian (Cajun) influence
it would be pronounced as "crayfish" in Louisiana and
surrounds. In SE Ohio where I grew up we said both. Then
we also said "snake feeder" and "dragonfly" for the same bug.
Guess we were transitional, linguistically speaking.
- ---------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'


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

Voice e-mail OK 


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 05:27:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Porter

In HBD #2666 (March 20, 1998) Wayne Kozun wrote:

>>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).

Actually, this is exactly how porter was developed. In the days before
its creation, many pub patrons would order an "entire." This was a
beer comprised of a mix of the house beers, typically something
lighter (relatively speaking -- pale malts and therefore pale beers
hadn't been developed yet) and somthing darker, and often with the
addition of some old or stock ale. Needless to say, publicans found it
a bit of a hassle to mix up pint after pint of entire.

That is why a London brewer whose name escapes me (my references are
at home and I'm not) at the moment set out to create a beer that would
replicate the appearance and flavor of porter, allowing publicans to
serve from one cask instead of several. This beer came to be known as
porter, possibly due to the fondness among men of that occupation for
the beer.

Porter was made at varying strengths, the strongest of which was
sometimes called "stout porter." As time went by, the strong version
of porter came to be more popular and, as Wayne mentioned, the
"porter" part of the name was dropped. Eventually, porter was pretty
much dropped as well (Guiness, which started out as a porter brewery,
kept making one until the 1970s). The style was revived by the
microbrewery movement and has since become a very popular style again.

For more information on this wonderful style, you can check out
Michael Jackson's Beer Companion, Ray Daniels' "Designing Great Beers"
or the Classic Styles Series book on porter.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:38:54 -0500
From: Chas Peterson <chasp at digex.net>
Subject: Repositionable labels/Jim's filtering comments

HBDers -

I wanted to thank Jim for seeking out what appears to be a decent
alternative to labeling beer.  I've always found it a PIA to put a coded
sticker on the top of each bottle.  I know what it means, but my guests
don't.  "Say Chas, whats a SZB? Or a APA, or..." you know what I mean.  One
question though, how did the ink-jet perform.  I attempted to make labels
with this kind of printer before, but found them to bleed ALOT.  Is the
label made for injets, like the toothed tranparancies?

Also, just one comment on Jim's filtering observation.  I too found that
filtering will *clean* up the flavor of lighter beers quickly, but I also
found that this effect is temporary.  Given sufficient time (talking many
weeks here), I found my unfiltered beers to be as clear as the filtered
ones.  The only difference was a slight reduction in bitterness in the
filtered product.  I do admit to using polyclar for unfiltered homebrew.
I might be interesting if AJ had keep a bottle or two unfiltered and
compared the filtered/unfiltered beers for clarity and flavor.  I just want
to warn those those embarking on the filtering journey -- its relatively
expensive for both your pocketbook and more importantly time.

Of course this kind of thinking does not apply well in the commercial
environment where speed is of the essence.

Enjoy,

Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
===========================================================
Chas Peterson					chasp at digex.net
Director - Product Development			301-847-4936
Custom Enterprise Networks


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:19:45 -0600
From: Randy Lee <rjlee at imation.com>
Subject: Party Pigs

Bob the BOCK member sez:
>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.

The base part of these are probably the same thing (the major plastic
piece). The party pigs come in two flavors: ones set up for refill and
the other not.

the ones set up for refill have a bolted down head piece whereas the
ones not mean for refill have a head piece that is held together with a
crimped part. Much cheaper. Without the right equipment, you can't get
these to work at home.

I'm sure that if these things were not meant to come back to the brewery
for refill that they would be putting them out in the crimp style since
the cost differential is significant. 

Randy Lee
Viking Brewing Company
Dallas, WI
http://www.win.bright.net/~results


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 16:51:30 -0500
From: jamorris at washington.navy.mil
Subject: Specialty Malts

I sent this question to the digest a few days ago, but our server here
on the ship crashed at the same time I was ready to receive the replies.
Darn ships!  If you responded, please retransmit.  Your time is
appreciated...

- ----------

Thanks to all of you that helped me before.  Your responses were awesome
and gave me a wealth of knowledge.  Since then my better half sent a
copy of TNCJHB.  My order will be waiting when I get home.

My order included 1 lb of cara-pils dextrin malt.  I wanted the benefits
of crystal malt without the added color.  I thought it should be treated
as the other crystal malts and then I read that dextrin malt required
mashing.  Now I'm concerned that I won't be able to use it without going
too in depth.  Should I scratch the cara-pils and go with a light
crystal malt or will I in fact be able to use it a a 'regular' crystal
malt?

Thanks in advance
Ron Morris
USS George Washington



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 08:09:55 +0000
From: Mike York <myork at mail.asheboro.com>
Subject: Excellent Explanation

Jim,

Just wanted to thank you for an outstanding explanation titled "Subject:
HopDevil credit/filtering" in you latest post.  

Mike


>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.
>


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 20 Mar 1998 15:03:24 +0000
From: Bill Goodman <goodman at APWK01G1.nws.noaa.gov>
Subject: Re: Diacetyl/Mash Efficiency

Capt. Marc Battreall <batman at terranova.net> wrote:

> 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 had wondered where one could find Ringwood yeast for homebrewing, as
I'd love to attempt brewing something a la Maryland's Wild Goose
brewery's Amber or Golden Ale, in which the Ringwood yeast delivers a
nice buttery (er, diacetyl) flavor.  But is Wyeast 1187 really
Ringwood?  A search for "1187" in the Wyeast Brewing Yeast Product List
Web page (http://www.wyeastlab.com/beprlist.htm) yielded:

> 1742 Swedish Ale yeast
> Stark beer Nordic-style yeast of Scandinavian origin, floral nose malty
> finish. Flocculation medium; apparent attenuation 68-72%. (64-74o F) A.K.A.
> 1187.

- --
Bill Goodman
Olney, MD


Return to table of contents

---