---

	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:
  Wheat Beer - 120F rest or not? (Dave Humes)
  Altbier and caramel/crystal malts (Steve Cavan)
  Re: Update on Safale dry yeast (Mat Farrington)
  spent grains (kathy)
  create a survey of tasting notes (Robert Parker)
  Re: RIMS Ideas (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Flat False Bottoms ("John S. Thomas")
  Long Time Bottle Conditioning ("Rosenzweig,Steve")
  Belated Big 10 / Wedding brew ("Jay Spies")
  Re: Bitter/Sweet Help Needed (Matthew Arnold)
  Competitions - YES!/Labels and Forms (Ken Schroeder)
  Big Brew Barleywine Fermentation (Daryl Bookout)
  Water Report ("A. J. deLange")
  Re: Mash/Sparge One Day (irajay)
  Mr. Beer (EFOUCH)
  orange peel ("Bryan L. Gros")
  commercials for profiling (Dave Sapsis)
  twist-cap bottles ("Chris Storey")
  homebrew cooking - mustard follow-up (Scott Murman)
  Williams Brewing (Marty Brown)
  yeast taxonomy (Dirk Server)
  RE: mash/sparge one day, boil the next ("Grant W. Knechtel")


BURP's Spirit of Free Beer competition is June 6-7 and entry information
is available by contacting Jay Adams (adams at burp.org).


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: Fri, 29 May 98 00:33:41 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Wheat Beer - 120F rest or not?

Greetings,

I'm getting ready to do a Bavarian wheat beer and I'm wondering about
whether I should use a protein rest or not.  I'm planning on using 50-60%
wheat in the recipe (probably Briess), about 5-10% German Munich malt, and
the balance Briess two-row pale brewers malt.  It seems to me that many of
the desirable characteristics of wheat would be comprimised by a protein
rest if the wheat malt is already highly modified.  I want a fairly
significant body, very good foam formation and stability, and I don't care
if it is cloudy.  From the Briess specs, it looks like it's fairly well
modified, but then they don't give you a whole lot of information.  My
only real concern is that there may not be enough FAN for a strong
fermentation with a high percentage of wheat malt.  Any suggestions?

Thanks in advance.

- -- 
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net>                  Dave Humes
- -----------------------------------------------------------



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 May 1998 23:51:08 -0600
From: Steve Cavan <cavanst at duke.usask.ca>
Subject: Altbier and caramel/crystal malts

Picking up a thread that has been around over the last week weeks I
guess:

From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Altbier/Crystal vs. Caramel malts
	First about the Altbier book.  I don't have this
	book yet but I was very concerned about its quality
	when I read an article about Altbiers written
	by the same author.  In this article, the author
	showed that he is completely confused about protein
	rests, their use and what temperatures do what
	things to the final beer.  Then I read where Art
	says that crystal and caramel malts are included
	in a recipe for Altbier.

Just to cloud the issue with facts, Dornbusch in _Altbier_ page 38 is
describing various types of "color malts" (caramel, crystal, chocolate
and black) and claims that they are used "extremely sparingly or not at
all in altbiers". So he seems to be right about the traditional part of
the brew story. On the other hand, several recipes offered in the book
do call for caramel or crystal malts. Perhaps he is attempting to adapt
recipes to local supplies.


***
	Crystal versus Caramel malts.  I've read that in the
	past they were made differently, but in recent years
	(certainly everything we get now) the two terms are
	interchangeable.  That is not to say that Durst 60L
	crystal is going to taste just like Weyermann's
	Cara-Munch II or like DeWolf-Cosyns CaraMunich...

I would suggest that a careful sampling of caramel malt and crystal malt
will show a big difference. The trick is to find some real crystal malt
which I think is only made in Britian. The North American maltsters make
a caramel malt, but call it crystal. I actually have Caramunich and
Medium Crystal (both 60 Lov) before me, and the crystal is like glass,
and not something to chew. The residual flavour is a simple  sweetness,
to me.  The Caramunich has not been taken to the glass stage, and can be
chewed. The flavour is perhaps more complex, caramelish maybe, toasty.

I think Noonan suggests that the caramel class is easier and cheaper to
make, and thus is becoming standard. 

For Pale Ales or British Bitters, I personally use caramel malts when I
use North American 2-row base malts, because they need some help in
building a good profile. I find that when I use a Britsh base malt such
as Maris Otter, 100g of crystal to 3kg of base malt is all I need for a
complex and rounded ale.

Cheers, Steve


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:40:51 +0930
From: Mat Farrington <mat at holon.net>
Subject: Re: Update on Safale dry yeast

Paul Ward wrote:
> 
> I had posted previously about a new (to me anyway) dry yeast I was
> trying from the United Kingdom called Safale.

Cool!  Someone else who uses it.  Yep, Safale S-04 dried ale yeast, by
DCL Yeast Ltd of Surrey, UK.

I've been asking for opinions on rec.crafts.brewing and got no replies. 
I've now done three batches with the stuff and am very impressed.  I
have also used the Saflager S-23 yeast on a batch which is currently in
the primary.  The sachet says genuine lager yeast. The ferment is giving
off sulphur smells and bubbling happily at 14C, so it certainly is
behaving like one.

> This Safale is rather impressive stuff!  1.044 O.G. down to 1.008.
> Crystal clear beer.

I've been getting sub 10hour lag times with one 11.5g sachet in 20L of
20C wort and 68-70% drops in gravity after 7 days at 18-20C.

> The yeast had flocced
> amazingly tight.  I was able to tip the fermentor to get virtually
> all the beer off the yeast cake without stirring up anything.

Hehe, yep.  The cake looks like the one formed after using a liquid
yeast.

> This beer dropped so bright I'm concerned about having enough yeast to
> prime (I know, should be plenty).

Very bright indeed. I've found it takes a while to carbonate.  I did a
split batch of a fuggles-hopped bitter, half using Coopers yeast, the
other Safale.  The Safale took three weeks to get up to full carb.  The
Coopers took six days.

Other comparisons.  The Safale batch tasted a lot cleaner (the Fuggles
really shone thru.  The malts (pale crystal and a bit of choc) were
distinguishable and smooth).  The head and lacework were more persistent
and finer.

>         - strong fermentation
>         - high attenutation
>         - solid flocculation
>         - neutral flavor.

I'd agree on all except the high attenuation.  I'd say mid (i.e., I'm in
agreement with the notes on the side of the sachet).

> 
> Of course it may all taste like crap after conditioning, but I kind
> of doubt that.  I'll post a followup in a couple of weeks.

The rather pleasant soft bready yeast flavour of the Safale mellows and
fades, the carbonation climbs slowly, the sediment packs down real
tight, the end clarity is remarkable.

The Safale half now tastes, looks and feels like the bitter I wanted to
make, the Coopers half now tastes like "Coopers" bitter if you get my
drift.  :-)

I've had similar success with the two pales I have brewed since.

Can anyone comment on the Saflager?


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 08:33:24 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: spent grains

I've used spent brewing grains in baking by drying and grinding in a
coffee bean  mill.  It does reduce the volume on the loaf and probably
should be added at the end of kneading so the sharp fibers doesn't cut
the gluten that is being developed.  A marginal addition to the bread at
best, but it is a novelty to talk about is loaf volume isn't important. 

cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:42:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Robert Parker <parker at parker.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: create a survey of tasting notes

I'm looking to the hbd for help to improve my neophyte ability to evaluate
beer.  I'd like to gather tasting notes on a relatively brief (5-10) list
of beers from those among you that excel in beer evaluation. I'd like to
use the power of broad sampling to identify beers/tastes on which there is
wide agreement. I rarely feel comfortable with one person's description as
taste perceptions and choice of descriptors can vary so much. My intent
would be to buy 6 packs of the evaluated beers and start exercising my
tongue.

There are 2 aspects: 

1. Selection of the beers. I'd like beers that are widely available to HBD
readers as well as beers that illustrate particular flavors (even if these
flavors are 'flaws'). The point here is NOT a popularity contest nor to
identify beers that represent a particular style. I simply want to
identify the tastes whatever the style or quality.

2. Collection of the notes.  I volunteer to compile an organized list if
people email evaluation notes to me. At a minimum, I would make it
available to all readers by posting (if short) or individual emails (if
long). I would also offer it to The Brewery and any other web site that
wants it.

As for the beers to include, let's start simple. Maybe Sam Adams Boston
Lager and one or 2 others from the SA line, Pete's Wicked Ale and one or 2
others from that line, Bass, Pilsener Urquell, Guinness, and perhaps a few
of the bigger US brands with distinguishing characteristics (cream corn,
green apples, cooked vegetables, etc.). Suggestions?

I'd like to start with a focus to help interested, enthusiastic *novices*. 
Maybe it will grow with time, however.  Please respond with thoughts and
suggested beers. 

Rob Parker
Columbus, OH
parker.242 at osu.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:15:31 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Re: RIMS Ideas

>From: kbjohns at peakaccess.net (Kenneth B Johnsen <NADB>)

>He's correct in that the HLT temp can not be changed quickly but what
he
>misses is that the temp of the HLT has a fairly wide temperature range
>160-175 with a properly designed coil

Some time before I begin the next temperature step up, I raise the HLT
temp about 10 degrees above desired final step temp.  Then, when I begin
pumping, the mash temp goes up, and the HLT temp comes down, this allows
faster temperature increase in the mash because I have the stored heat
that has been built up in the HLT to give me a running start.  As I
approach the desired target mash temp, I adjust power to the HLT and get
it right on final temp.
 
>The other advantage of the coil in HLT is the speed with which temp
>increases can be done. 8.5 min from 120F to 150F with 17 Lbs of grain
and
>1.3qt/lb of water.

Right, see above.  Also, in my system, the coil in the HLT is loose,
just thrown in, and if I rock it during stepping, things go along
noticeably faster.

Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com


Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 06:48:57 -0700
From: "John S. Thomas" <jthomas at iinet.com>
Subject: Flat False Bottoms

Date: Tue, 26 May 98 16:13:44 -0000
From: Mike Isaacs <misaacs at bigfoot.com>
Subject: Mashing Equipment

Mike asked:

What type of hop screen will work best for the boiler?

Use a Hop Jack - see Randy Moshers article buck a pound brewery and the hop
percolator - I call this a hop jack.  Article is in Oct Nov 97 BT page 38.

I have a thought or two and hope it starts a discussion for you.

A flat false bottom is superior to a dome shaped false bottom in a mash tun
and
the flat false bottom is superior to copper tubes with slits.

The reasons are:
Flat false bottoms
1. Higher extraction rates because the pressure is even.
2. Less chance of channeling because pressure is even
3. Wort does not run to the low sides
4. Less chance of leaking grain around the edges.
5. More complete stirring of the mash.  Everything three quarter inch above
the screen gets moved.
6. Easier to clean and replace, no up spout, elbow and tube for removal of
wort.
7. The screen can be supported with a ring that holds it above the valve.
8. No screwdrivers or bigger hammers needed.

Screens Vs tubs with slits
1. screens pull the wort evenly, the pressure is even across the top
2. tubes must draw toward the tube requiring more movement and more chance
for channeling or missing the good stuff lautering is trying to recover.
Mike you might consider shallow grain bed depth theory Vs the narrow deep
bed depth one finds with a Gotts Cooler.  The Practical Brewer suggests a
lauter tub is a large diameter to depth ratio (I read this as 1 high to 3
wide) while a mash tun is one to one high Vs wide.
Now that I am on the subject, who gets carried away, I know you asked about
boilers and not mash tuns, you might consider the mash tun as a cereal
cooker and the lauter tub as a filter, a device to separate the wort from
the grain.  After all isn't this what we do?
If you buy this so far consider the kettle, or the extra one if you expand
to 10 gallon batches, as a cereal cooker.  A stainless steel kettle as a
cereal cooker seems to offer more alternatives of which the major one is
heat control.

Then think about a lauter tub and does the Gott Cooler really work well,
considering your time, extraction, repair, clean up, heat effects, life,
cost etc as a filtering device?

The combination mash lauter tub is from many years ago and was a great idea.
The combination vessel was wide and flat, read 1 unit high and 3 wide.  Next
time you are in San Francisco visit

Fritz Maytag at Anchor and look at his mash tuns.  They fits the description
perfectly.
With quality SS kettles and double bottoms, it is now much easier to
separate the two functions.

Regards,
John S. Thomas
Comments on HBD or private welcome
jthomas at iinet.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 07:33:02 PDT
From: "Rosenzweig,Steve" <Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com>
Subject: Long Time Bottle Conditioning

FWIW I've got some anecdotal evidence on long time bottle conditioning:

Couple of years ago I brewed a lager that ended up sitting in the 
 basement in a carboy for about 6 months - when I bottled it it took 
 awhile, but after maybe 3 weeks or so was fully carbonated.  Granted 
 it was not a high gravity beer, but the time in 2ndary was excessive.  
 In 80+ batches so far I haven't had to reopen any bottles to take 
 extreme measures to get carbonation (dang! - just cursed my dopplebock 
 and braggot in the 2ndary!)

The usual suspect in long bottle conditioning is too cool a temp for 
 the yeast.  Try keeping the cases in a warmer area for another couple 
 of weeks or so and test again.  The hardest part of bottle 
 conditioning  is the wait - especially if you force carb some in a PET 
 bottle or a keg!  Then again - try making mead - the wait can be quite 
 a bit longer . . . 

Another tip; I typically will bottle 4 - 7 oz bottles to use as 
 samplers so that I don't "waste" too much in my testing.

Steve
Brewing in Ontario NY


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:51:06 +0000
From: "Jay Spies" <spiesjl at mda.state.md.us>
Subject: Belated Big 10 / Wedding brew

All -

Being unable to participate in the BigBrew 98, and also being out of 
my hometown of Baltimore for the GABF >:-/  , I would like to brew a 
belated 5-gallon all grain batch of Jethro's Big 10/20.  Due to the 
relatively low traffic on the HBD, I will attempt to play in the 
street a bit with some elementary questions.  (watch out for buses...)

First, the recent thread about yeast aeration / over and underpitched /
sterol / fatty acid use has left me somewhat woozy.  Not being the 
pointy-headed type, I thought that to increase the yeast count for 
the Big 10 batch, I would brew an innocuous amber ale beforehand 
for use at a friend's wedding.  I was going to pitch about 3 packets 
of rehydrated Nottingham's into the ale, and then when fermentation is 
finished, rack the Big 10 onto the Nottingham's yeast cake and let 'er 
rip.  My question is, considering the large cake that I am likely to 
have after the smaller beer, how much should I aerate the Big 10/yeast 
cake combo?  Oxygen stone?  Shake and roll method?  Minimal aeration?

Also, I can't seem to locate the Big 10/20 all grain recipie.  If 
someone has it, could you send it to me?  Lastly, any recommendations 
for a good all grain amber ale that is clean and slightly hoppy?  (mass 
wedding appeal is what I am after here)  Recipies appreciated . . .

As always, TIA -

Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
spiesjl at mda.state.md.us



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 15:03:53 GMT
From: marnold at netnet.net (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Re: Bitter/Sweet Help Needed

>There is a beer brewed locally that is just wonderfull called
>Tuppers Hop Pockets by Domminion Brewing in Virginia. It is more
>bitter than SNPA or Anchor Liberty and yet it has a very distinct
>sweet component behind the bitterness and hop flavor.
>My question to the great collective is, How do they do that?

To my taste buds, copious amounts of flavor hops add a sweet, almost sugary
taste to the beer. It's interesting that you mention this, because I had a
heavily hopped pale ale at a local brewpub last Saturday. It was heavily dosed
with Centennial and another hop that is escaping me for the moment (I want to
say Perle). At any rate, it was quite bitter with a lot of hop flavor so it
gave me this odd rush of bitterness followed by another rush of sweetness.

Am I the only one who thinks this? I find it to be particularly noticeable with
Cascade and Centennial for some reason.

Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org        info at rackers.org


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 09:26:14 -0700
From: Ken Schroeder <knj at concentric.net>
Subject: Competitions - YES!/Labels and Forms

Ken Schramn thoughtfully questions competitions:

Ok, so I'm a naturally competitive guy. In my not so humbled opinion
competitions are good for the hobby. Competitions not only help us
improve our technical chops but it is where a lot of social interaction
takes place. After all how many brewers go to the competitions and
awards ceremonies? Where else can you meet brewers on a semi regular
basis (other than those of your club)? From my experience, I've seen
wannabe pros get that essential contact at competitions and be able to
land an assistant brewers job. I could go on and on but, competitions
are a reason to attract brewers form all levels to meet in a casual
atmosphere and just mingle. Besides, winning ribbons is a blast.

On another note, BJCP contests seem to be "friendlier" to the entrant
than our friends a AOB..er...AHA.

John Varaday asks about competition labels:

I haven't experienced any competitions which accept provided labels only
labels and forms. But then I avoid the AHA Nationals (another subtle jab
at AHA) and I'm sure there are a few contests which will require only
their forms. To be sure the alternative label/forms are acceptable put
it in roughly the same size and form the competition provides. This
enable the organizers to have neat stacks of paper and info where they
want it. Makes their job easier. I know it is easier to make your own
forms. Using a couple of good templates greatly reduces the time it
takes to fill out forms.


And to jump on the bandwagon : 

	THANKS PAT!
	THANKS KARL!
You guys exemplify what is good about brewers and brewing : everyone
shares and helps eachother...wish the rest of the world was like that.


Ken Schroeder
Sequoia Brewing 

(from the Santa Cruz Mountains where its now rained well over 100 inches
this year...glad it isn't snow to be shoveled)




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:43:49 -0500
From: Daryl Bookout <bookoutd at hub.ofthe.net>
Subject: Big Brew Barleywine Fermentation

Hello all,

I participated in Big Brew 98 in Lubbock, Texas.  I made a 5 gallon 
extract batch, while the other brewers made a 10 gallon all-grain batch. 
 I have a question concerning fermentation.

Used a quart of London Ale slurry and had a vicious fermentation for ~ a 
week, then it slacked off.  After 2 weeks in the primary, there was no 
more action so I racked to the secondary.  I added 2 packages of 
champagne yeast and still had no further activity.  I created a starter 
with some high gravity wort and more champagne yeast, added this, and 
after 3 days, still no more fermentation.

OG - 1.100
SG at racking time 1.038

I know there's something wrong, I figure the alcohol level is already 
too high for the yeast to do it's stuff.  Any suggestions as to what I 
can do to get it to finish fermenting?

TIA for any help.

Thanks,
Daryl Bookout
Account Manager
Avatech Solutions, Inc. - Lubbock
DBookout at Avat.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 12:40:29 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Water Report

Brent Oberlin wrote about his water presenting the following data on it.

Hardness:  53.4 ppm
pH:  6.8
Manganese:  0.2 ppm
Fe:  Trace amounts

and from a separate test by, presumably, a different testing service

Lead 0.015 ppm
Copper   1.3 ppm
Sulfate  14 ppm
Chloride 68 ppm
Sodium 5 ppm

These numbers are, perhaps unsurprisingly, inconsistent among themselves
and inconsistent with other items of information given in the post. Most
obvious is that the cations (sodium, potassium and magnesium) total 1.27
mEq/L whereas the anions (sulfate and chloride) total 2.23 (all
approximate and ignoring copper and manganese.) Cations and anions must
balance on the mEq scale thus we know we have erroneous data.
Furthermore, the pH says that there is some alkalinity which would only
run the anion count up higher and make the imbalance worse. The fact
that flakes precipitated during the boil is evidence that some
bicarbonate (the source of alkalinity is present) though I am surprised
that water with hardness at only 53 ppm would precipitate chalk.

Manganese at 0.2 ppm with iron in trace amounts is, while I won't say
impossible, unlikely. It is much more common to see around 0.2 ppm iron
with traces of manganese. Either of these will leave ugly stains in the
toilet either of which should be removeable by citric acid. If iron is
present at this level the water and beer should taste quite tinny. If it
is indeed manganese, it should taste quite bitter.

Chloride at 68 ppm (1.94) mEq/L with sodium at  5 ppm  (0.217 mEq/L) is
also unusual as the typical source of these ions is plain old salt. Are
you sure there isn't a misplaced decimal point in the chloride number?
6.8 mg/L (.194 mEq/L) would match the sodium number better and allow for
a modest alkalinity of about 40 ppm as CaCO3.

But we can speculate for ever as to which number or numbers might be the
source of error. What you really need to do is get a  good water report.
Find a laboratory that will measure the "significant 7" as a minimum.
These are pH, alkalinity, calcium (or calcium hardness), magnesium (or
magnesium hardness), sulfate, chloride and chlorine (note to Ken
Schroeder: these latter two are quite distinct - boiling and standing
will not reduce chloride ion though they will reduce chlorine and
chloramine). As you know you have Mn and/or Fe these should be measured
too. If you can't find a lab that will do the tests locally, get in
touch with me and I will do the tests (I charge a  fee for this).



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 10:42:05 +0000
From: irajay at ix.netcom.com
Subject: Re: Mash/Sparge One Day

Randy,

Thanks very much for your post about the above subject.  I have often 
thought about the benefits of breaking up the brewing process, but as 
you, the only things I have heard have been reasons why it is 
dangerous to do so.  It is good to hear that someone has actually 
done it without all those dire predictions coming true.  

I would hasten to add that this particular subject is not the only area where 
people are convinced of the dangers of following a particular 
practice.  I have recently been reading copy from people who are 
convinced that any water added to wort has to be sterilized or the 
batch will infect.  It was news to me inasmuch as I never thought to 
add sterile water over the twenty five or so years I have been 
brewing and have never noticed a problem with it.  Just think of all 
the great beer I might have had if I had simply sterilized the water.

Anyway, thanks for your note and the debunking and I will certainly 
give your method a shot.

Ira Plotinsky


Return to table of contents


Date: 29 May 1998 14:03:19 -0400
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: Mr. Beer


HBD- and John L (Welcome to the hobby!)

John L is wondering to what end he might put his efforts regarding brewing and
his Mr. Beer machine.

My suggestion would be (if you didn't want to pitch the 'Machine) would be
this:

Get the "regular" brewing equipment- 7 gallon glass or plastic fermenter,
bottling bucket, a 3, 4, or 5 gallon SS or ceramic on steel boil pot, various
hoses, racking canes, hydrometers, etc.

Brew up a 5 gallon batch per the instructions found at The Brewery
(hbd.org/brewery/), prime it for bottling, bottle half, and put the other half
in your Mr. Beer.

This way you can store some in bottles, have some on tap, and increase your
production.  You'll probably be impressed at how the quality improves from
using that standard Mr. Beer kit!

"Have Fun"
"Brew On"

Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 11:15:42 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: orange peel

Wit beer are often (always?) spiced with dried Curacao
orange peel.  
Q:  will this dried orange peel last a long time, or
do you want to use "fresh" dried peels?  

I have some really dry, hard, grey peels at home that
I've had for 18 months or so and I wonder if they're 
still worth using.

Thanks.
*******
John Varady writes:
>Somebody mentioned entering two beers into the same category of the same
>contest recently. Isn't this a no-no? or contest dependant?
>
>Also, do most contests required you to use the entry forms & labels they
>provide, or will any generic form do? I ask because I added a feature to my
>software to print Entry/Recipe forms and Labels, but I called Jay Adams in
>regards to the upcoming BURP contest and he said I had to use the
>forms/labels supplied. I didn't ask why, I just used tier forms.

Generally, competition rules state that only one entry is allowed per 
brewer per category.  But the rules vary.

Someone else asked about the legality of recapping a commercial beer
and entering it.  There is no way for an organizer to catch this beer,
but it is dishonest and is frowned upon.

As for official labels, it depends on the organizer.  For all the competitions
that I've been involved with, the format of the label doesn't matter, and
entries arrive with a whole spectrum of labels.  It is the information
that is important, not the format.  Most competitions provide forms and
lables, usually the AHA forms.  Most competitions request the recipe
as part of the entry, but except for the AHA Nationals, I haven't seen
any club use the recipes nor complain if you don't include the recipe.
Not that I have any problem giving away my recipe, but I usually either
don't take notes or don't have them handy when filling out the entry
form.  So I often make something up.


  - Bryan

Bryan Gros	gros at bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
Visit the new Draught Board homebrew website:
http://www.valhallabrewing.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 13:22:06 -0700
From: Dave Sapsis <DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov>
Subject: commercials for profiling


Jeff asks:

>Is there a good resource out there for sensory evaluation that includes
>commercial beers that I don't need to spike? I know about rolling rock
and
>DMS, and bud and acetaldehyde. Others? Webpages that satiate this need?


I have always found Redhook products to be outstanding sources for
diagnosing diacetyl.  Too bad they actually have become pretty
consistent, 'cause those of us that remember the old days also remember
RedHook for some of the funkiest things ever put to bottle.

 ....Being Friday I think I'll go home and play with my AstroGlide.

- --dave, chillin' in Sacto



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:40:08 -0400
From: "Chris Storey" <cstorey at nexicom.net>
Subject: twist-cap bottles

Brewsters!

I have been using 500 ml plastic bottles for about 4 years now. I would
like to start using regular 341ml twist-cap bottles for a change. That's
the most popular bottle here in Ontario anyways. My question is, can I use
used twist-cap bottle caps. They have already been crimped by the brewery.
Obviously, they cannot be taken off with a bottle opener. I twisted one on
the other day and it looked like a good fit. The price for these bottles is
only $2.40 per 24.  I can get 12 ounce non twist-cap glass bottles here in
Ontario, but they want $14.00 for a case of 24. Not! I have tried in the
past with regular caps on twist-cap bottles, but had very little success. 

                       TIA, Chris Storey
                            
                       


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 14:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: homebrew cooking - mustard follow-up


This is a follow-on to the recipe for mustard I posted a while back.
Since then, a few people have written to me because their attempts
didn't really come out spicy at all.  This puzzled me, because the
almost universal reaction to homemade mustard is amazement at how
spicy and flavorful it is compared to store-bought.  My specualation
was that it was a difference in mustard seed quality, but really this
didn't seem likely to me.  I had hoped to have time to experiment to
discover the cause, but fortunately I think someone has figured it
out for me.

Steven Smith wrote to me that he indeed did some experiments, and
found that overcooking the mustard will result in a rather tame
product.  I went back and checked the archives, and sure enough, there
I wrote "simmer for about 15 minutes".  I really can't remember what I
did with that batch or why it turned out for well for me, but it seems
reasonable that heat could drive off some of the mustard volatiles.
Most mustard recipes don't require heating at all; you simply mix some
mustard, vinegar, sugar, and whatnot together.  Homebrew mustard does
require some heating though to reduce the water content of the beer.
As Steven suggested, the best method is probably to wait until the
mixture is reduced to about the right consistency, then stir in your
ground mustard and remove the heat.

Those of you still trying to get something spicy might give this a
try.  Sorry about posting a possibly misleading recipe.  The good news
is that it seems to have motivated a number of people to experiment
with making their own mustard.

SM



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 18:15:22 -0700
From: Marty Brown <martinbrown at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Williams Brewing

Ralph Link recently posted a diatribe about Williams Brewing not shipping
to Canada. I can imagine his disappointment in not being able to purchase
his few items from them, but let's not slam a very fine mail order firm
just because they wont't go to what is probably a major hassle in shipping
a few poppets through the Canadian Storage, er, strike that, Canadian
Postal system. I've dealt with Williams for a number of years and have
always found them incredibly helpful. They publish a great catalog and
their products are priced fairly. 

As for their web site being out there where Canadians can see it, well,
welcome to the Internet. Do you have a method in mind where your internet
access will only show you pages of websites that will ship to Canada or do
you just like to complain? C'mon Ralph, get over it. 



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 May 1998 12:16:58 +1000
From: Dirk Server <mminsw at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: yeast taxonomy

John Varady has a problem with my comment about all yeasts being
currently known as Saccharomyces Cerevisiae.

The comment arose from Dr. Charles Bamforth's new book (1998). He says
 ...

"Since the early 1980's, though, taxonomists have declared that all
brewing yeasts should be classified as S. cervevisiae on the basis of
their DNA properties."

He goes on to say that wine yeasts and bakers yeasts are also of the
same terminology, but how Carlsberg still employ the term S.
carlsbergensis for lager yeast which was introduced in 1883, by Emil
Christian Hansen.

I figure he'd know. I suggest HBD readers just use the terms ale and
lager yeasts if they want to avoid sounding pompous!

Dirk.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 20:35:31 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: RE: mash/sparge one day, boil the next

Randy Ricchi writes in HBD 2725 about mashing/sparging one night, and 
boiling the next. 

<snip>" 
I simply sparged until I collected the amount of wort I wanted, then I
covered the wort and let it sit until the next day (sometimes until 4:00
p.m., when I get home from work).
<snip>
I also never added the hops the night before, preferring to wait until I
was into the boil the next day, adding my first (bittering) hops with 60
minutes left in the boil.  I can't comment on such an extended 'first wort
hopping'.  My gut instinct scares me away from it."

This is precisely the technique I used on my last batch, a barleywine.  I
was first inspired to try it when I had a stuck sparge completing after
midnight.  I covered the collection pot and let the run off go, then 
boiled in
the morning.   This seemed preferable to making the dumb mistakes I
often make when finishing late, like spilling half a batch.

Last batch, finished sparge after dark, covered carefully after barely
coming to a boil, then brought the batch back to a boil after work the
next day.  The batch seems to be fine, just finishing primary
fermentation.  I also overnight first wort hopped, it doesn't seem to have
further affected hop flavor, the finished beer will tell.  No sign of any
infection, I suspect boiling before the overnight rest will have precluded
that.  Key would be covering while still above pasteurization
temperature, to avoid encouraging an airborne infection. 

The other problem I could think of would be DMS formation, and the later
boil should eliminate that as well.  I think this is a technique which 
I'll use
more often, when I can't wangle an entire brew day.  It does use a bit
more propane to reheat for the boil. 
 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents

---