HOMEBREW Digest #2738 Fri 12 June 1998

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Re: Starter Gravity Calculations (Jim Bentson)
  MCAB rule interpretation (Samuel Mize)
  Sluggish ferment w/ Chimay yeast (Dean Fikar)
  Lambics ("Jason Gorman")
  Recognition for uncommon kindness (Ron Warner)
  Chi Supplies -- thanx! (Jason McKee)
  Cleaning copper plumber's nightmare ("Ludwig's")
  Blueberry vs Raspberry? (Tom Alaerts)
  How to assess recipe quality? (Tom Alaerts)
  AHA Bashing (Tony Barnsley)
  MCAB coda (Louis Bonham)
  Quest for Pale Ale with Briess:Update ("Frederick L. Pauly")
  Re: Response to MCAB Complaint (Spencer W Thomas)
  wyeast 3068 (Lenny Garfinkel)
  Open Ferment-Right or wrong? ("Marc Battreall")
  Wiesse/mit Yeast ("George Litchfield")
  RE:AG Equip (You can let go of the button now: EM vs Phill's) (Brian Pickerill)
  Re: Book review request (Jeff Renner)
  cooling isn't cool? (long and rather pointless) ("Dr. Pivo")
  cycling fridge on and off (NAZELROD)
  Rye Pale Ale - Questions (Charley Burns)

BUZZ's Buzz-Off competition is June 27-28. Information is available at www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff or via R. Mattie at rpmattie at voicenet.com. 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, 10 Jun 1998 15:33:54 -0400 From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at longisland.com> Subject: Re: Starter Gravity Calculations Hi All: I've been catching up and noticed the thread about how to find the gravity of starters for yeast made from extract. I had always ASSUMED that the information on the Wyeast package is correct but to my surprise it is WAY OFF if you are using dry malt extract powder. Wyeast states on the back of their smack-packs that 1/3 cup of extract in 1 pint of water will give a 1020 starter. Due to the HBD thread on this issue I got curious. As a test I weighed out 1/3 cup of DME and found that loosely packed it weighed around 2 oz. Using 45 pts per pound of extract per gallon of water as the potential gravity of DME then 2 ounces weight = 1/8 lb and one pint = 1/8 gallon so the starter garvity will be 45 x (1/8) / ( 1/8) = 45pts or 1045!!! nowhere near the value of 1020 that Wyeast gives. Maybe the answer lies in dry vs syrup. I never use syrup so could someone accurately weigh out a cup and send me the data?? To check this calculation I just made a starter using 3.5 oz(weight) of DME dissolved in 24 oz(volume) of water. I boiled slowly enough to minimize evaporation. After chilling to 65 deg F, I measured the gravity at 1055, the theoretical gravity would be 45 x (3.5/16) / ( 24/128) = 52.5 points or 1052.5. Considering there is always evaporation, then this is very close since I ended with a little less than 24 oz of liquid . The bottem line is that if you use Dry Malt Exract Powder for your starters then to calculate the starter gravity use this relation: For each ounce by weight of extract dissolved per cup of water you will get a gravity 45 x (1/16) / ( 8/128) = 45 pts for each ounce (weight) of extract per cup of water. To illustrate, using the data from above, 3.5 oz of extract in 3 cups ( 24 oz) of water gives 3.5 / 3 = 1.167 oz extract per cup in my starter. Therefore my expected gravity would be 1.167 x 45 = 52.5 points or 1052.5 as the starter gravity which is the same figure as calculated above and verified by measurement Hope this helps Jim Bentson Centerport NY. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 15:19:46 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: MCAB rule interpretation Greetings to all. After reviewing the MCAB traffic on HBD, and the MCAB web site, I am prepared to express my opinion about the MCAB results from the Boston Wort Processors competition last February. (Friends -- who needs 'em?) Mr. Murphy, you have my sympathy. No matter how justified the result turns out to be, it must have been a nasty shock for you. The MCAB steering committee had to decide what to do if a Qualifying Style was not made a separate ribbon category. I think their decision, as expressed by Mr. Bonham, was reasonable and consistent with their published rules. However, this rule interpretation was not published (I can't find it on their web site, anyway) -- so people were not aware of how the contest is being administered. There may have been other points that needed clarification. If it wasn't obvious to the Steering Committee and competition organizers, I feel sure it won't be clear to all of us. My only firm suggestion to the MCAB would be to publish such interpretations as they find necessary in running the MCAB. They might look over their Steering Committee minutes and see what other things needed needed clarification, and publish those clarifications. (Always happy to suggest more work for other people. I'm sure Mr. Bonham can bill these hours at the same rate as for his other MCAB work... If there's any way I can help, up in Dallas, please let me know. Transcribing taped minutes or notes, for example.) Rule #1 as published is -- how shall I put this -- perhaps not unambiguously edifying to the outside observer, for this case. It says: The MCAB is open to all brewers who are certified as having won first place in a MCAB Qualifying Style at a MCAB Qualifying Event. Press releases have said: Winners at each Qualifying Event in [MCAB] subcategories will be invited to enter the MCAB in that style. First place winners at Qualifying Events in [MCAB styles] will receive an invitation to enter the MCAB in that style... This certainly sounds as if the MCAB qualifiers will be among the First-Place winners from the event. I can make out the fracture line between winning in a contest category and winning in the Qualifying Style, but I have to look hard to see it. The other method that Mr. Bonham described seems more intuitive: "the highest placing QS beer in the larger ribbon category is certified as the MCAB qualifying beer." One obvious problem is that most competitions don't rank more than the top three or four in a category. What if none of these is in the MCAB sub-category? For instance, if the MCAB category were Sweet Stout or Imperial Stout, there would be no MCAB winner from Boston. I'm sure there are other problems with both approaches. Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:47:51 -0500 From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net> Subject: Sluggish ferment w/ Chimay yeast I brewed my first Belgin Trippel 16 days ago using a very simple grain bill consisting of 15 lbs. pils malt and 2 lbs. of table sugar (OG 1.078). I mashed at 141 for 30 min., 151 for 15 min., and 159 for 30 min. I pitched the slurry from a 3 qt. starter cultured from a bottle of Chimay Red, aerated well, and fermented for 14 days at 60-62F. The bubbling had slowed to about once per 7-8 sec. and, thinking the ferment was near complete, I checked the SG and found it at only 1.031. I cranked the temp up to 66F for 2 more days at which time I had to rack to a keg secondary since I needed my primary for a new batch. The SG was 1.027 at racking on day 16 (today) and I'm getting very little activity several hours later (2 bubbles / min. at 72F). I'm doubtful that I'm going to get to less than 1.020 which is what I'd hoped for. The beer tastes pretty good, though a little sweet. I don't detect any off flavors. Is there anything I should do now? I don't have any more Chimay yeast so I can't build up another starter and repitch. My new batch in the primary is a dunkelweizen pitched with a very active starter of Wyeast 3068. Should I take a pint or so of this and toss it into the trippel? I'm wondering if a hint of clove/banana from the 3068 might be interesting in a trippel, as well as getting the SG down a few more points. Should I throw some dry yeast (Nottingham?) into the secondary? Any help would be appreciated. Dean Fikar - ------------- dfikar at flash.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 18:04:49 PDT From: "Jason Gorman" <riverdogbrewery at hotmail.com> Subject: Lambics I am planning on making a lambic, but I don't have any old hops. Is there a way to turn fresh hops into stale hops quickly? I want to brew it up in the next couple of weeks. Also, does anyone have a good recipe for a lambic (besides what is on CM)? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:40:09 -0400 From: Ron Warner <rwarner at annap.infi.net> Subject: Recognition for uncommon kindness I won't take much b'width here but I feel compelled to declare to the group the appreciation I have for the assistance I have received from the FridgeGuy from Michigan. Mr. Duddles has spent very valuable time giving me instruction/direction in great detail and clarity regarding a refrigeration conversion project. He is a true educator and deserves recognition for his willingness to share his expertise with the group so gently and clearly. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:29:00 -0500 From: Jason McKee <jmckee at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Chi Supplies -- thanx! Thanks for all the suggestions on supply shops. I hope to be brewing again soon. (Oh, will I ever finish unpacking?) Also thanks for the tip about the Goose Island meetings. I hope to make the next one. Jason McKee Chicago Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:46:31 -0400 From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig at us.hsanet.net> Subject: Cleaning copper plumber's nightmare I'm about finished with a new brew gadget (plumber's nightmare). Basically, several copper manifolds with copper fittings and brass ball valves soldered in place. What's the best way to clean up all the flux and other crud that ends up on and around the joints? I'm especially concerned about inside the pipes,obviously, so scrubbing is kind of hit-or-miss. Right now the plumbing is soaking in dishwasher detergent. I have some powdered copper cleaner and thinking about a soak in that, also. Any help would be appreciated. Dave Ludwig Flat Iron Brewery So Md Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:28:51 +0200 From: Tom Alaerts <TomA at BUT.BE> Subject: Blueberry vs Raspberry? Perhaps this question is just a matter of taste: for my first fruit wheat beer I have decided to use frozen fruit (these days 7 times cheaper than fresh fruit over here), the 2 interesting bags available are blueberry and raspberry. But raspberry is still 1.5 times more expensive than blueberry. Since I think of using some 3kg (6.6 lbs) fruit, the financial difference is not negligible. So are there people who homemade both kinds of beer? I have not tasted a blueberry beer yet, and I would like to know if one or the other is obviously significantly better than the other. Greetings, Tom Alaerts PS: there was also a bag of "woods fruit" (perhaps badly translated): which contains a bit of everything: raspberries, blackberries, those small strawberries you sometimes can find in the woods, blueberries and "red" berries (don't know the English expression). Has anyone already tried such a mix? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:41:51 +0200 From: Tom Alaerts <TomA at BUT.BE> Subject: How to assess recipe quality? Perhaps it's just me, but I am often puzzled by the recipes you can find on the net. For example: You can find 5 clone recipes for a certain commercial beer. But the contents of the recipes often differ widely! And of course, the comments of each recipe usually state that "it is the best beer I have ever tasted". So one of those recipes must be a lot closer to the real thing, but is it possible to predict this? Okay, I know you can check whether the malts and hops are in balance, but otherwise, it is often difficult to choose. As a practical example: I am no style nazi, but I once tried a chouffe clone recipe and, while it was okay (not heavenly as the real thing), only with a lot of imagination, you could taste similarities...Any comments? Tom Alaerts Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 10:14:51 +0100 From: Tony Barnsley <Tony.Barnsley at riva-group.com> Subject: AHA Bashing Hi all, Having followed the various threads on this I thought that I'd just like to ask a couple of questions. 1) How can I measure the Alpha acid content of home grown hops. I have access to a college standard laboratory so assume in my naivet that I will have all the equipment required. 2) Can anybody point me to the formulas required to convert European Colouring Units into Lovibond and or SRM and vice versa. I do apologise for posting questions on brewing to this forum which is obviously dedicated to bashing the AHA :-> Personal replies OK. Wassail ! Tony, M.i.B (Mashing in Blackpool, Lancashire, UK) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 05:37:42 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: MCAB coda Hi folks: A brief coda and surreply to the MCAB thread . . . > As I have told Louis, I would like the BHC to do the right thing and honor > their entry form, which is qualify the winning dry stout of the '98BHC. When > > they refuse to do so I felt it was important to make Louis aware of my > opinion and the disservice done to MCAB if this was allowed. I regret that > he sees this as complaining and a request for some special exception. > Again, the only thing I ever asked was to qualify the winning dry stout of > '98BHC. I refuse to tell the BHC or MCAB how to fix their problems, but I > will suggest that they do fix them. Sorry, John, but I'll have to ask you for at least the fourth time. What *concrete* action do you want the MCAB -- or the BHC -- to take? And if you're not asking for the MCAB to grant you a waiver, then what *do* you want me to do? If all John is seeking is to inform the MCAB of the problem, believe me, we're been aware of it for months. Will we "fix" the problem? Well, our QE's have learned from this experience that if they use larger ribbon categories and go with a "QS only preliminary round" format, they may face this situation. [In response, most have just decided to go with the "highest finishing" QS method instead.] But as to "fixing" John Murphy's specific problem, the only possible "fixes" I can see that might satisfy Mr. Murphy are (1) the BHC decides to decertify the current dry stout qualifier, and substitute Murphy, or (2) the MCAB grants Murphy a waiver, and thus there would be two dry stout entries from the BHC. Solution 1, if it is even possible, is wholly the province of the BHC. Solution 2? Again, if Mr. Murphy wants this, he need only ask and I'll put it before the Steering Committee for a vote, but I personally think it would be a big mistake for the MCAB Steering Committee to set the precedent of granting any exceptions. > I might add that some of these "strict" rules were not posted at the MCAB > website until AFTER I had contacted Louis. The rules on the MCAB website were proposed, debated and agreed to among the Steering Committee members, and circulated among QE representatives in January and early February of this year. To the charge of having a lot to do and not getting them in final form to the MCAB webmaster for posting at that time, I'll plead guilty . . . that's my fault. Would the timely posting of those rules have changed anything in this case? Nope. > I have been contacted by at least one MCAB Steering Committee member who > feels this is "beaurocractic nonsense" and that "next year is too late to > correct this year's mistakes." I couldn't agree more. Yes, one Steering Committee member has privately disagreed with the BHC's decision, and apparently copied Mr. Murphy with his opinion. Other Steering Committee members have disagreed with that member's assessment. The overwhelming consensus of the MCAB Steering Committee is that regardless of the wisdom of the BHC's decision, who and how the BHC certifies as an MCAB qualifier is up to the BHC. In closing, despite the inevitable hiccups that take place when you're starting something new, the MCAB *is* developing into the "Champions' Championship" we'd hoped for. Scan the list of the "Who's Qualified?" page on the MCAB website, and you'll see some of the most recognized names in amateur brewing . . . Fix, Korzonas, DePiro, Plutchak, Rager, Stroud, Gottenkieny, Vallancourt, etc. If you haven't qualified yet, there are still four more QE's to go. Louis K. Bonham Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 07:52:56 -0400 From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m at avery.med.virginia.edu> Subject: Quest for Pale Ale with Briess:Update First let me say my experience is with only two 50 pound bags of Briess 2 row malt. But that said, the experience was bad. Beers with harsh flavors needing months to mellow had me checking every aspect of my brewing. Finally I switched to Weissheimer pilsner and made a wonderfull pale Ale that was ready to drink in 10 days. So now I can relax in the knowledge that my brewing technique is ok and not worry about the quality of the homebrew I'm going to have. But, how can we know if the grain is of good quality? Are there any simple tests besides brewing a batch? Rick Pauly Charlottesville,VA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 08:33:55 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Response to MCAB Complaint So your only real bitch is with the different meanings that you and the BHC assign to the term "winning dry stout". They elected to define it as "the dry stout that was judged the best during a round of *dry stouts only*". You elect to define it as "the dry stout that was judged the best during a round of *all stouts*". These are, to my mind, two equally valid definitions. I agree, the situation is confusing and frustrating, and I would probably be equally as frustrated as you are, in your shoes. (I'm still waiting to see whether my dry stout's placement in the SoFB competition qualified me for the MCAB.) I ran into a similar situation a few years back in the Madison "Big & Huge" competition. They judge beers in the individual style categories, and also in generic "big ale" and "huge ale" categories. I submitted a beer that took 1st place in the "huge ale" category, but NOT in its style. Different judges, different times, different bottles. Who knows. It happens. There are several reasons why your beer might not have been judged best in the qualifying round for the style. One is the oft-mentioned variability in judging. Another is that possibly the bottle that was evaluated in that round was just not as good for whatever reason. Beer judging is inherently subjective, and there will be variation. As someone pointed out in an earlier message today, "making a world record in a qualifying heat doesn't get you the gold medal." Of course, the opposite applies, too. I'm sure we have all seen cases where the athlete who was expected to take the gold screwed up in the qualifier and didn't make it to the gold medal round. If it was me, I'd send the beer off to a few more competitions. If it's really *that* good, it'll qualify. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:53:35 +0300 From: Lenny Garfinkel <lenny at inter.net.il> Subject: wyeast 3068 Does anyone on this list have experience with Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan wheat? I grew up a smack pack a couple weeks ago and it grew slow but fine. I wasn't ready to brew so I put it in the frig for about two weeks. I opened it two days ago and poured the contents into 400 ml wort to make a starter, but the growth has been very sluggish. I'm not going to use it. Comments anyone? Lenny Garfinkel Leonard Garfinkel, Ph.D. New Projects & Technology Biotechnology General Kiryat Weizmann Rehovot Israel Tel: 972-8-9381256 (office) 972-8-9451505 (home) FAX: 972-8-9409041 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:06:11 -0400 From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net> Subject: Open Ferment-Right or wrong? A few days ago I responded to a post from a guy wanting opinions and experiences on open fermentation. I responded to him privately and echoed the same post here. Almost instantly an individual saw fit to critique me for my opinions and experiences. I did not make this post to get graded on my use of proper open fermentation techniques and beer judging qualifications. Just wanted to help the guy out. Read on and see if you see a pattern here as well as in A LOT of the more recent HBD's. Keith Simmonds responds to my post to another person: KES>>First, making a British Pale Ale, why did you need to perform a 3 step KES>>mash? A simple infusion mash is all that's needed with this type of KES>>beer. Yeah, well that is probably true in most brewing circles. But, want ever happened to personal choice? Is there a rule book somewhere that I have not read? The simple fact remains that with "my" brewing equipment I get a much higher yield using a step mash and I sometimes make extra wort to store away for yeast starters, topping up, and the like. (That is, if that's ok ) KES>>Could this have led to your 'candy, raisiny' aroma and taste? I don't know for sure. My post was not an inquiry. It was a response to a guy who asked for testimony from the collective regarding open fermentation experiences. I was just relating mine to him. KES>>Second, whilst I appreciate that you wished to investigate the top KES>>fermenting properties of the yeast, there are only two reasons to skim KES>>the brew: (1) It's climbing over the top of the fermentation bin, and KES>>the wife doesn't understand these things. (2) You want to keep some KES>>yeast for another brew. Other than those, leave it alone, Same answer as above. I simply wanted to try it. Plus if you had read on before you immediately tried to discredit me you would have seen that I was indeed saving the yeast. I think I read somewhere that a lot of British breweries practice this?? KES>>Your fermentation times seemed extremely protracted. I usually reach KES>>quarter gravity in around 3 days, and run into the barrel a day later. KES>>As a confirmed 'open fermenter', I'd be interested in reading your KES>>'cons' against the practice. There's nothing difficult about it, no KES>>need to bubble oxygen through the wort Maybe the times are a bit longer than yours. Temperature, pitching rate, specific gravity, and a number of other factors might be different. I did not mention any of these in my post. As far as the "cons" go, I did not see any significant ones other than I rusted the hell out of my brass/stainless steel spigot from sitting in cool water for a week, but that's my own stupidity. What I "did" say was that I am sure that there are pro's and con's to open fermentation. You obviously didn't read my post very well, or read to much into it. Once again, this is the way that "I" do it. That doesn't make it right or wrong, just a matter of personal preference. I think alot of times if folks would remember that brewing is just as much an art form as it is a science, much like cooking or making statues from a chunk of wood , they wouldn't be so quick to critique other people's procedures or methods. Captain Marc Battreall Backcountry Brewhouse Islamorada, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 08:52:55 -0500 From: "George Litchfield"<george_litchfield_at_amer-supp at ccmail.dowjones.com> Subject: Wiesse/mit Yeast Can anybody advise on how much yeast,and priming type /amount to add to 5/6 gals, of Wiesse at bottling time. Can anybody help with an extract recipie for Hacker-Pschore type Wiesse. (brown bottle) Thanks in advance. george.litchfield Return to table of contents
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: RE:AG Equip (You can let go of the button now: EM vs Phill's) Kevin TenBrink asks: >I recently saw 10 gallon orange rubbermaid cylindrical coolers for 39$ >at a discount recreation supply store near my house. I did not inspect >them closely enough to get part numbers or anything. I am in the >"research phase" of going to all grain brewing and am wondering if this >is the kind of thing I can do my mashing in and if so if this is a >decent price for this piece of equipment. If this is indeed what I >need, is there a way to retrofit a different spigot onto these coolers >so that you dont have to hold that push button in the whole time you are >sparging? That's a decent price, but not a lot less than retail (Recent quote from HBD shoppers at "Wally World" was $36.) I got mine for $28 at a mega sporting goods going out of business sale. And yes, you do remove the normal spigot: To infusion mash and lauter in the same vessel you need some sort of false bottom which may or may not incorporate a spigot. Thankfully, some of our best brewing minds have figured out ways for us not to have to "hold that push button in!" :) First, I'd like to say that I haven't found the need to add any foam to the lid on the Rubbermaid cooler. I get _maybe_ 1 degree temp drop over an hour. Five or 10 gallon batch mashes. This is recent though and not during any really cold weather brewing sessions. As for the false bottom, basically there are two commercial options. Either the Easy Masher for Gott (Rubbermaid) or the Phil's Phalse bottom (12") will work nicely. Or you could make your own (cut/drilled copper tubing or home-grown EM). I opted for the 12" Listerman phalse bottom. At about $18, it was cheaper than the EM for Gott. Besides, I had an EM already and had none of Phil's toys. Last weekend, while taking advantage of a cold snap and brewing a weizen, the Phil's got horribly stuck and I had my first "mash from hell." (I have mashed several times prior to getting the Gott.) BTW, this was my fault anyhow, and not the Phil's as I overshot my protein rest and really didn't have one to speak of. 140F for 15' then 150F for 45', w/50% wheat malt, in case you're interested--not a recommended mash schedule. I ended up transferring the stuck mash into a 5 gallon pot w/ Easy Masher. That was stuck at first, too. Blowing into the outlet tube didn't help. Stirring near the screen didn't help. I was getting desperate and decided to add some sparge water to see if it would thin it out and help. It did. Now, I may never know if it would have helped the Phil's or not, but I doubt it. I was thinking that the added weight of the sparge water wouldn't help, but stirring it all up was enough to get the EM going. The EM for Gott is probably less likely than the Phil's to get stuck, but the choice is already made in my case. BTW, if you get the EM for Gott, I'm not sure but I think that it comes with all that you need including the spigot. Check with your retailer. Sometimes I see bubbles in the outlet hose when using my (regular) EM. I'm not losing sleep over HSA, since production here rarely meets demand, but I know it's not a good thing. I don't see air with the Phil's, it let through bits of grain, and wants to "phloat" up at mash in. It also fits rather loosely in the 10 gallon cooler, which is where I think the grain is getting through. (probably need to heed HBD wisdom and put some hose cut lengthwise around it.) I think that the EM can sometimes allow a bit of air in through the spigot valve. Maybe it's just my particular EM. BTW, the first thing I did when I bought the EM was to file off the ridge and de-lead the surface brass--the 'ridge' is not the source of the air in the hose. It seemed a lot worse Saturday when the sparge was nearly still stuck. Looked like I had an airstone in the outlet tube. It stopped once the grain bed got established. The Phil's Phalse Bottom needs a piece of 3/8" ID racking hose, a short, 3/8" copper tube, and a #3 stopper to get through the Gott wall. There is no spigot. A #2 stopper (fits a bottle) will work if you leave the Gott's rubber gasket installed. Watch out, it can come apart while mashing if you aren't careful. Also, since there's no spigot, you will need a hose clamp, or at least some vice grips or something, else you will have to hold the hose the whole time you're sparging... Cheers, - --Brian Pickerill, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie, IN PS. I guess we'll never see an "Easy Chiller." Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:36:34 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Book review request Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com> wrote of " a new >book by Charles Bamforth<snip> titled, "Beer: Tap into the Art and >Science of Brewing".<snip> I >was wondering whether any homebrewer(s) had seen and read this >book and would be willing to review it here." I have read it, have marked it up with about 20 post-it notes with comments, and will post a review as soon as I find time. Probably this millenium. Meanwhile, I will say that it is an excellent book that fills a niche for homebrewers. Good, easy to understand explanations of the science involved, and he doesn't shy away from real chemistry, although Domenick will probably not find anything he didn't already understand in this area. I'll tantalize you all with a controversial quote that I marked (AlK will like this) from p. 12, "The export of beer first took off with British imperialism in the nineteenth century and with the shipping of vast quantities of so-called India Pale Ale (I.P.A.), a product still available from several Brewers in the home market today. This beer was of relatively low strength, to suit drinkability in hotter climes, but was well hopped, as hops have preservative qualities." Low strength?! By what standard? Certainly not by today's, and I don't think by the standard of the time, either. We've always heard/read that it was a strong beer for preservative purposes. But his argument about the suitability of lowwer strength for the hot climate does make sense. Other than this, I don't think there was anything I disagreed with, and there was some new info for me. His explanation of protein hydrolysis made it quite understandable to me. I had a vague idea of what it meant, but not on a molecular level, in spite of having had chemistry thru organic. He has a good discussion of yeast O2 needs and respiration, FOOP (he says there really is such a thing), and says "Brewing scientists have a long way to go before they fully understand the very complex area of beer oxidation," and gives a good discussion of what is known. He mentions in passing an ale style called "Dalsons" (p.40). Any idea what he means by this? A typo for Saisons? So, don't hold your breath waiting for my review, but the book is on my desk prodding me. I certainly found it a worthwhile addition to my library. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 15:49:52 +0000 From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se> Subject: cooling isn't cool? (long and rather pointless) Jack Schmidling has made some preposterous statements. He dares to state that slow cooling after boiling will have no negative effects upon the finished beer. Since this bold and sweeping statement violates every precept of the most elementary brewing technique.... there's just a chance that it might be true. I believe I share with Mr. Schmidling a certain ammount of scepticism regarding many of the "have to's" of brewing. Much of my smirkiness is born out of a personal irritation at myself, when I find that I have followed for years, methodology that I have faithfully believed, but that not only under a little ridgid testing can turn out to be "poppycock", but even counterproductive. Despite my crumudgeonly-sceptical-mean-suspicious-doubting-"I'm from Missouri" attitude, I have hung onto the belief that the initial cooling to about 65-70C was pretty important, and I can only illustrate this by example (without involving DMS, cold break proteins, polyphenol binding, or Snow White and the Seven Shrunken Zymurlogical Sycophants ). By 1983, I chased down what I believed to be the best tasting beer in the world in old Bohemia. Since oddities like myself slipping behind the Iron Curtain for the express purpose of crawling through lagering cellars, or digging up hop rhisomes outside of Zatec were unheard of then, I was allowed pretty much "free reign" as a recurrent eccentric (as long as it was after noon, when all the members of "THE PARTY" had gone home for the day). Since my approach was not to apply previous theory, but simply see "how" these wonderful things were made, I assumed that there was "a reason" for each thing I saw. At the brewery where "the best beer in the world" was made (name withheld out of respect for the brewmaster, the reason for which will be evident later). The beer out of the boiler was dumped on to a HUGE stainless steel tray with 20 cm high walls on legs OUTDOORS in a crappy shed with a corrugated iron roof (I'm sure this is sending shivers up and down the spines of folks with bacteriophobic tendencies, and HSA paranoia). In our usual polyglot jibberish (Czech-English-German-Latin) I asked the brewmaster why (since I had also seen similar setups where they had rooms with copper floors, and plate running a bit up the walls used for similar purposes). He replied simply that the first 30-35 degrees were crucial to the cold break, and I left it at that. Now, while this beer may have not had the "refined" taste of, say, a "Coors" or a "Bud", what it DID have was simply sublime. A whole mouthful of intermingleing flavours, that were, to me, in perfect balance. Curiously, as soon as the Czech brewmasters had shaken the great Russion bear off of their back, they had their legs knocked out from under them by a more insidious invader---"Market Economy". This same brewery is now bought up by a major conglomerate, and CKT's, wet crushes, circulating external boilers, and the latest of everything have replaced the old stuff, and there is no longer malt sprouting on the cement floors, or "curing in the silos", and the beer is "quite ordinary". Now, instead of us tripping over hoses down in the lagering cellar, with a copper pitcher to tap out of tank #22, we sit with a stainless pitcher, leaning back with our feet up on a bench full of computers, and stair out through a plate glass window at row after row of CKT's, and the brewmaster looks at me and says "everything that was beautiful, is gone". The only thing fun about it, is watching the "windows" program on the computer, and watching the tanks contents change colour on the display, when you induce flow by tapping out a new pitcher.... a far cry from watching an old gaffer skim the primary, but still, it's something. Do I sound bitter? You bet your bottle capper I'm bitter. Bitter as hell. They are now following "all the rules" of modern production, and they now have a product with a shelf life of one year that they can produce in three weeks, instead of one that had a bottle life of 10 days that took twelve weeks to produce. They also now have a quite ordinary commercial product (no DMS or diacetyl problems here!)........instead of the eighth wonder of the world. So let's get back to Jack Schmidling's proposed "no cooling effect". This is such an easy hypothesis to test, I don't see why this suggestion has caused the release of enough hot air to launch the Goodyear blimp, in explaining its irrationality... why not just test it? My curiosity is pricked enough to do so, and I think it would be nice if others did so as well, and see what people come up with. If you have a counter flow external chiller, it is easy pie to just rack only half and let the rest sit in the kettle overnight, and then ferment them side by side. If you have an immersion cooler you will half to rack half off and then dip it in one or the other. I plan to do so, and I'll probably include one where I rack while hot into something with a lot of splashing (still wondering why the HSA boogie man never seems to visit my beers with comparatively sloppy handleing, and I've got to find that awesome threshold somewhere!) If someone else goes to the trouble of doing a similar thing it would be quite nice. If you do expend the effort PLEASE don't just report back your opinions about what you thought it tasted like--- we are all ridiculously fallable when it comes to reinforcing our own beliefs. Arrange at least a single blind tasting, and hopefully a double blind, and you'll get some results that will be of greater value that the habits of Onan. If you are unsure of how to set up a single or double blind study, you will find a description at... http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/columns/jirvine/proteins.html once you stumble through the nonsense. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 09:58:16 -0400 From: NAZELROD at tst.tracor.com (NAZELROD) Subject: cycling fridge on and off Hi Folks, The electric co. in my area charges three prices for electricity. $.02 for off hours, $.04 for intermediate hours, and a whopping $.20 for peak hours. The peak hours are 12 noon to 8pm. I was thinking about putting a timer on my beer fridge, so it would not run during the peak hours. Question: Will it be harmful to the fridge to be turned off for 8 hours a day and then turned back on? I am not really concerned about the fluctuation in the temp of the beer, but I will measure it if I try this. Gary Nazelrod Silver Spring MD Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 98 07:45 PDT From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: Rye Pale Ale - Questions After tasting a pint of Mary Lou's Rye Pale Ale at Hopstreet in Sacramento, I just had to make some. When I asked her about the recipe she went straight to her notebook and gave me both the grain bill (by percent) and hop schedule, although I hopped it with her schedule I used my own IBU calcs, targeted 40 IBU's. Anyhow, I ended up using the following grist: Rescue Rye (5 US Gal) 7 lbs Hugh Baird Pale Ale 2 lbs DWC Munich .5 lbs Crystal 100L .5 lbs Malted Wheat 1 lbs Malted Rye .5 lbs Flaked Rye Mashed at 156F-152F for 70 minutes, 165F 10 minute mashout 1.25 quarts per pound, no water treatment (I've got pretty hard well water, great for pale ales). Boiled 75 minutes (hop schedule at home, I'll post entire recipe if anybody want's it). Chilled to 70F in about 12 minutes with immersion chiller. OG 1.055 (5.5 gallons) Wyeast 1056, 12-16 oz slurry from previous batch IPA. Temp at 60-63F 10 days. I got a TON of cold break. Did this come from the rye? If so, was it the malted rye or the flaked rye? Should I have done a protein rest on the rye (it would trash the pale ale malt) and if so, what temp is recommended for the rye (protein rest)? FG: 1.015 (wanted about 1.011-12). Its a very rich, full bodied beer, not what I expected. Does rye typically produce more dextrins along with all the protein? Should I have mashed a bit cooler or fermented a bit warmer? Or did the yeast just get tired and poop out early? The beer does have a sweet finish. Unbelievably creamy head. Not a huge head which I would have expected based on the amount of protein, but certainly very fine bubbles and very creamy, almost like it was being pushed with Nitrogen. Is this also a result of the rye? I plan on talking with Mary Lou again to ask her these questions too. She's a great brewer by the way (no affiliation) and I enjoy all of her beers. Good ribs too. Her Rye Pale Ale was crisper, less sweet and had more hop flavor than my clone. Charley (with too many questions) in N. Cal PS - no diacetyl in this batch (so far) Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/12/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96