HOMEBREW Digest #2744 Fri 19 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

  Hop plants look sick (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  RE: Return of the Son of AHA Bashing ("Ludwig's")
  Guinness Nitrogen Bubbler (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Whirlpool, Mulberrys, BW (John Varady)
  re: Add the black malt late (Charley Burns)
  fruit usage; bottling buckets?? (Select Group)" <a-emoore at microsoft.com>
  attitudes (Paul Niebergall)
  Suspicions Confirmed (Paul Niebergall)
  re: stirring in priming sugar ("Curt Speaker")
  Big 10 with a Big Halt / a Phree hint ("Jay Spies")
  Re: BJCP exam (Scott Bickham)
  BJCP exam in Portland (Scott Bickham)
  Dubbel recipe questions (Steven Gibbs)
  Trub removal / FAN in malt extracts / Rogue Shakespeare Stout clone recipe? (Bill Goodman)
  water screening test strips (Daniel S McConnell)
  CABA Flavour Seminar (Denis Barsalo)
  Re: Fermentation chiller idea ("Ludwig's")
  Hey, all you gadget guys...Steam injection.... (william macher)
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Dextrins and head retention ("Scott Nichols")
  RE:Primetabs ("Marc Battreall")
  Vacuum Pumps and bottle filling ("S. Wesley")

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, 17 Jun 1998 12:40:42 -0400 (EDT) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Hop plants look sick Yikes!! My hop plants aren't looking too well. Most of the leaves have developed a brown/dead looking area on the tips. This is present on both the large older leaves as well as the small new leaves. Does anyone have any idea what might be causing this?? - ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life." -Jim Squire -Alan Meeker Johns Hopkins Hospital Dept. of Urology (410) 614-4974 __________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:44:03 -0400 From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig at us.hsanet.net> Subject: RE: Return of the Son of AHA Bashing > Hi All, > > In HOMEBREW Digest #2741 Tue 16 June 1998, "Mark S. Johnston" > <msjohnst at talon.net> said: > > > This year the problem [with the AHA..... STOP! That's it. I've had it. I've been dutifully paging down whenever I smell an AHA bashing post. But entirely too many of these posts require at least two pokes of the page down key. When you string several of these suckers together, why, that's a lot'a pokes, dudes. > I sincerely hope that Brian Rezac will > publicly address this point when he returns to his keyboard. > I sincerely hope not. Dave Ludwig Flat Iron Brewery SO Md Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:42:26 -0400 (EDT) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Guinness Nitrogen Bubbler We were discussing the little nitrogen producing devices found in cans of draft Guinness stout at linch yesterday. Does anyone know how these devices actually work? - ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life." -Jim Squire -Alan Meeker Johns Hopkins Hospital Dept. of Urology (410) 614-4974 __________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:41:55 -0700 From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Whirlpool, Mulberrys, BW Steven Braun asks about creating a whirlpool in his kettle and is wondering if pumping 3 gallons a minute from the bottom to a return valve in the side will create the vortex necessary. This is probably much more then is necessary. A couple of quick swirls in the kettle with a spoon should get things spinning enough to form a cone of trub in the center. It is not necessary to create a real whirlpool (A Descent Into The Maelstrom?) to achieve this effect! - -- AlK gives info on different berries and I was wondering if any one has info on mulberries. I have a tree in the yard that is drooping with ripe fruit and it is all I can do to keep up with the harvesting. So far I have collected a gallon of berries over 3 days and expect to get another gallon or two over the next couple of weeks. What is the sugar content of the fruit and what should I make with it? Currently I plan on juicing the berries and boosting the gravity of the juice to about 1090 with honey and fermenting. Does anyone have any tried and true uses or recipes for mulberries? Lacking a press, what is the best way for me to extract the juice? - -- I made a no-sparge barley wine last Friday with 100% Hugh Baird Pale Ale and 100% Styrian Goldings. Due to the darker kilning of English Pale Ale and RIMS, the color came out a lot darker then I expected. The aroma off the airlock is incredible with nice flowery, spicy notes. I used 26.5 lbs of malt and mashed at 150-2F for 90 mins. I collected 7 gallons of first wort and boiled this down to 5 gallons over 90 mins to arrive at a final gravity of 1100. Over 1/2 a pound of Styrians were added during the boil for a target of 75 IBUS. This was pitched with 10 gms Nottingham Dry and finished in 4 days at 70F. (This is a test run of a recipe I am put together for a commercial outfit here in Philly. If all goes well, 6-10 bbls will be brewed and I'll be one proud rooster come its release in early '99). An additional 1.5 lbs of crystal 40 was added to the mash and a second mashing of the grains was done at 160F for 60 mins. This yielded 7 gallons of second wort which was boiled down to 5 gallons of 1052 SG wort. I added some flavor hops at 30 & 15 mins and then transferred the hot wort on top of the spent hops from the big ale and chilled. A lot of gravity and bitterness is left behind in the spent hops from the big ale, so I usually will not even attempt to bitter the small beer, preferring instead to let the bittering come from what is in the hop-goop left behind and the small contribution from the 30 min hops. I have done this big/small beer several times and it is very easy to figure the gravities of each. I expect to get 50% efficiency from the first mash and 25% from the second mash. It only adds about an hour+ to my overall brewing day, but I have an extra kettle so I am able to have both boiling simultaneously. John ...I will drain that glass again... John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program Glenside, PA rust1d at usa.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 98 10:47 PDT From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: re: Add the black malt late Larry talks about adding black and other roasted malts late in the mash (mashout to be specific) and its affect on taste - smoother. I second this motion - try it. I recently brewed a 3 gallon batch of Strong Scotch and made the mistake of calculating hop additions based on 5 gallons. Needless to say it came out WAAAYYYYY too bitter. To correct the situation, I decided to brew a 2 gallon batch of the exact same recipe, only NO hops at all. Being a strong scotch, I just took the first runnings (mashed at 158F, 60 min), shooting for about 1.086 OG (hit. 1.078 with 2.5 gallons). Knowing that I left a ton of sugar in the mashtun and unwilling to toss it out, (and after consuming an inordinate amount of homebrew that Saturday) I decided to do a gyle brew, sort of. I concocted a batch of specialty grains: .5 lb black, .5 lb roasted, .5 lb chocolate, .5 lb Vienna, .5 lb flaked rye. Tossed it into the now pretty dry mash tun, added a couple gallons of hot water and mashed it at about 153F for 20 minutes, and then sparged. Ended up casting 3 gallons of wort at 1.050 into the primary. Last Saturday I tasted it when transferred to secondary and was amazed at how smooth the flavor was (SG 1.012), although the sucker is the BLACKEST beer I have every made or ever seen. I think its a porter... Anybody want to discuss that (I mean, it COULD be a stout)? It'll be a bitch to duplicate though. I'm really looking forward to blending the two scotches to see how that comes out. Should be fun. Charley (blending, experimenting and just foolin around) in N.Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 11:30:40 -0700 From: "Eric Moore (Select Group)" <a-emoore at microsoft.com> Subject: fruit usage; bottling buckets?? In digest 2742 Al gave us some excellent advice on amounts of berries to use in a batch: Raspberries ~ 1lb/gallon Blackberries ~ 1.5 - 2lb/gallon Strawberries ~ 2lb/gallon Blueberries ~ 2-2.5lb/gallon This is EXCELLENT!! Would you be so kind as to suggest the amounts of peaches and apricots as well? TIA. And in other discussions re: primetabs the use of a bottling bucket is discussed. Personally I quit using mine. I just prepare my priming solution, cool it, add it to my secondary (carboy), swirl gently with my racking cane, and bottle about 15 minutes later when the caps are boiled and the bottles are out of the dishwasher. I just leave the racking cane resting on the trub with the bottle filler at the other end. I've done at least ten batches this way, and if there is a slight variation in carbination levels between bottles I can't detect it. And I have no problems with the yeast cake being drawn into the cane, the orange dealy-bob at the end seems to do its job. Now you do need to be sure your siphon does not have bubbles at the racking cane/plastic tubing interface. To dispell these (I always end up with them) just raise the tubing higher than the racking cane as you fill the first bottle. Sure the first one has a little extra air in it, but at least I didn't oxygenate the whole batch by trying to 'quietly' rack into my air filled bottling bucket. And one less item to sanitize and then clean up!! Eric Moore Little Pin-Head Pico Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:30:47 -0500 From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: attitudes Sam writes: >By Ghu, you're right. Let them wait in the dark. If they realize they'll >get help eventually, they'll just ask another question. In fact, we >shouldn't answer their questions at all. Can't they read books? All I am suggesting is that the overly pompous tone prevents a lot of people from posting to the HBD. Nobody gets left in the dark. Their questions just get answered off-line in a calmer, more enjoyable venue - private e-mail. So instead of increasing the amount of public knowledge that is available to everyone in the HBD, information is effectively being driven off-line. Kind of ironic, isn't it? In the never ending quest by zealots to improve the depth and volume of brewing knowledge, the information available is continually narrowed down to the same tired speeches coming from a few individuals. Well done! >So folks, remember: never apologize, never explain. And none of us >here cares about your personal life. You don't have to explain why >you're responding to antique threads: you have Paul's permission. I care about personal life, it's just that as a home brewer, I realize how boring other home brewers personal lives can be ;) >> All of the head bashing from those up on high causes homebrewers >>to believe that they cannot possibly brew good beer and that all of >>their hard efforts will be rewarded with crummy beer. >This would be more convincing if it were ever raised after a newbie >was told to do a bunch of hard things. No, it's generally raised after a >hard-fought debate between long-term, hard-core hobbyists has made .>itclear that there are opinions on both sides of the issue. There it is again, a vague reference to the belief that only hard-core or long-term hobbyist should be involved in discussion on the HBD. Who reading the HBD on a regular basis isn't a long-term, hard core hobbyist? If you are reading this right now, you probably fit the profile. >So we shouldn't warn people about possible problems, even if we're >right? Or are you suggesting that we should censor our discussions >among ourselves in case the "children" are listening? You've missed my point entirely. And I'm don't understand your point at all. If by using the word censor, you mean to exercise self control (a form of self inflicted censorship) and choose your words carefully so you don't sound pompous or arrogant, then I am all for it. I am in no way implying that we dumb down the HBD or limit the nature and complexity of the scientific posts. Please explain your position. >Take your unsolicited commercial e-mail elsewhere, you dirty spammer. I've been called worse.- - - - - Paul Niebergall Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:34:42 -0500 From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Suspicions Confirmed Apparently, my suspicions are correct. There are more than just a few people who think the HBD can be overbearing at times. These are some examples of e-mail I have received from the collective (Names withheld to protect the innocent): >Paul, >Thanks very much for your piercing and accurate comments to our >brothers at the HBD. You are completely right about what you say and >also right about the kind of response you can expect from the >pundits. I have been sifting through hate mail for the past week >ever since I chose to share my notions about beer mythology, and yes, >most of the comments have generally told me how inferior a product I >must be making. So I guess that's it. If you don't do it my way >that only means that your beer couldn't win a contest. ================ >Paul writes: >>> Of course the usual response I get when I post this type of rant is >>> that a) I am a slob, b) I don't have a trained palette, c) I am not >>> worthy enough to detect such things, or d) some other such >>>nonsense. >My favorite is, "You don't have a Gold Medal (and I do), so you're wrong." ================ >Boy did you shake the nest!!! They will be talking about this one for >weeks!!! ================ >Paul: > Excellent points and excellent analogy. I just thought you might >like to know your posting was one of the best ""grousing" type postings >in a long while. And I don't mean "grousing" in a negative way; it's just >my way of separating the two types of postings: "grousing" and >"informational." The HBD desperately needs good grousing every once >in a while to put things in perspective, and most of these are petty, >snitty, and aren't even worth looking at. Yours was exceptional. ================ >Paul: Your comments echoed my feelings exactly! ================ >Paul: >Score one against the self appointed (anointed?) jack*sses that inhabit >(inhibit?) the HBD. ================ >Paul - >I found your post to be extremely . . . >uh . . . >FUNNY !!!!!! >The HBD needs to loosen up a bit; get our >collective thumb out of our ass. Well timed, good man. >;-) ================ >Almost sounds like Al K. ================ > Hahahahahah! > This posting was even better than your last one, and that one was >good. (I commented to you about that one as well.) The whole thing >was great and once again hit the nail exactly on the head, and at one >point actually made me laugh out loud; a first for any HBD posting, ever. >Congratulations. You obviously have a black belt in the art of sarcasm. >I love it. >Just as the HBD sometimes needs these people about whom you >grouse, it also needs people like you as well to put them in their place >when they start pontificating, and to point out that they are taking >themselves entirely too seriously. Your new title shall be the "Anti-Al." >Don't be modest, you've earned it. >Most Amused (once again,) Brew on, Paul Niebergall Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:44:50 EST From: "Curt Speaker" <speaker at safety-1.safety.psu.edu> Subject: re: stirring in priming sugar Randy Pressley was recently discussing the need (or not) to stir your priming sugar solution into your finished beer before bottling. My rationale for stirring it in is as follows: Many of my ales finish up at 1.00X. I typically dissolve 3/4 cup of corn sugar in 2 cups of water and boil for 10 minutes to sanitize and then add that to my beer and stir. 3/4 cup of corn sugar in (less than) 2 cups (after boiling) probably has a much higher gravity than my finished beer. I would be worried that it would go straight to the bottom of the bottling bucket and be drawn off in the first few bottles of brew. By giving it a quick stir, I more evenly distribute the corn sugar solution into the beer, and should have more consistant carbonation from bottle-to-bottle. Does this seem reasonable and/or correct? Why or why not? Cheers Curt Curt Speaker Biosafety Officer Penn State University Environmental Health and Safety speaker at ehs.psu.edu http://www.ehs.psu.edu ^...^ (O_O) =(Y)= """ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 16:49:45 +0000 From: "Jay Spies" <spiesjl at mda.state.md.us> Subject: Big 10 with a Big Halt / a Phree hint All - First and foremost, thanks to all who provided help and guidance on recipies / aeration and pitching techniques / fermentation hints for my belated batch of Big 10 Barleywine. However, I have run into what I feel is a snag, though it may be only perceived on my part. First, the specifics: I used the grain bill and hop schedule for the Big 10 sent to me (17 lb 2-row, 5 lb 30L crystal, 1.5 oz Galena, 2 oz Cascade, 2 oz Willamette, mashed at 156 for 90, boiled for 90). Got tremendous extraction; 5 gal final volume at 1.116. Pitched onto a sizable Edme ale cake and aerated with pure O2. All was well, with volcanic blow off for about 2 days, and then everything came to a screeching halt. I took a hydro reading -- 1.062. 4 days later, with 1 bubble every 7-10 seconds -- 1.058. My question is, is this a normal situation? At what gravity did folks pitch the Champagne yeast? Is high 50's *too* high? Should I wait it out for the full 2 weeks and see then what my SG is? Should I shake the fermenter to agitate the yeast off the bottom? (The layer of yeast / trub-y spooge is at least 1" thick, if not more). Should I sit down next to the fermenter and give that B-wine what for until it picks up the pace? Any help or comments would be appreciated. One advantage of waiting until after the Brew-Off is that there are probably a tremendous amount of datapoints on this subject floating around. So don't be shy with those responses!! BTW, with a good number of folks talking about using 10-gallon Gotts and Phils Phloaters, I thought I would share a gadget hint that has been of tremendous value. I have continually had problems with the false bottom floating up at dough-in, leaking grains under the edge of the bottom and clogging up the works, even when I tried to manually hold the bottom down with a potato masher while simultaneously stirring and doughing in (there's a mental picture . . .) Compounding this problem is the fact that the Gott that I use has a small bump right in the middle of the bottom where the exit elbow sits, making it hard to get a flush fit. After many exasperating sparges where I had to blow into the outlet tube every 5 seconds or so to clear the damn thing, I finally found the perfect solution. Take exactly 35" of 3/4" ID vinyl tubing (this fits around the bottom diameter of the Phalse bottom and the cooler wall, leaving just enough room to fit in a stopper / bulkhead and outlet tubing. Get 2 #3 solid stoppers. Soak the tubing in hot water so it becomes pliable, and jam one of the stoppers completely inside the tubing. Fill the tubing with BB's. Stopper the other end in exactly the same manner. Place this "snake" around the outside of the Phalse bottom before adding your strike water, and dough in as usual. The weight of the snake holds the Phil's bottom down, and the width of the tubing ensures that there is a tight seal between the cooler wall and the edge of the Phalse bottom. The snake weighs about 7 pounds. The B-wine was the 1st batch that I used this for, and *not one* husk leaked through. I also got crystal clear runoff after about 2 pints of recirc. No water leaked into the tubing, so the BB's were dry, and didn't contaminate the mash. Try it, it works like a champ. Sorry for the b-width, just had to share this (for me) freak of discovery. Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:05:18 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Bickham <srb at t4.lanl.gov> Subject: Re: BJCP exam Dennis Waltman asked: It seems that the Study Guide for the BJCP Exam makes it clear it is important to know commerical examples to common beer styles. My question is the various study guides seem to list the brewery at times, and other times the name of the Beer. Which is expected for the exam? - ---- Either, or both, are acceptable. For example, you could list Westmalle as the brewer and name of a dubbel and tripel, but for California Common, Anchor Steam would be better than just Anchor. It depends on whether the name of the beer is the same as the style. He also asks: Also when dealing with Commercial Styles that have a geographical necessity in the name for beers sold (such as Lambic, Kolch, etc.), is it then by necessity that only those Commercial Styles from that region are looked for, i.e. A Kolch-style beer out of its region; or a made-like-a-Lambic from Great Britain. - ---- It is preferable to list a bona fide brewery, but I would personally accept something like "Wolf Canyon Brewing Company in Santa Fe makes a credible Koelsch-style ale," though some graders may be reluctant to accept it they have not heard of the brewery. Good luck, Scott Bickham Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 15:10:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Bickham <srb at t4.lanl.gov> Subject: BJCP exam in Portland We have had several inquiries regarding whether a BJCP exam will be offered at the AHA conference in Portland. These are generally coordinated with the AHA, but they have not expressed an interest this year or even bothered to reply to my e-mail. In any case, it would be a shame to break the string of 13 conferences where the BJCP exam has been offered, so we are moving on without the AHA. The tentative date is Friday, July 24 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., at the conference hotel (the Doubletree Lloyd). To register or recieve a copy of the 1998 BJCP Exam Study Guide, contact me at bickham at trail.com. The study guide may also be downloaded from http://www.trail.com/~bickham/ Good brewing, Scott Bickham BJCP Western Exam Director Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 14:21:59 -0700 From: Steven Gibbs <gibbs at lightspeed.net> Subject: Dubbel recipe questions C. Peterson wrote asking questions on the color of a Belgian Dubbel. The style guidelines say that 14'L is on the dark side of the color characteristics. My last Dubbel was also around 14L and I think it compares well with most of the commercial examples. I used 80L Crystal and very little chocolate, but I used Belg. Biscuit and a good amount of Munich 10L. My problem was with too low of a fermentation temp. It was approx. 60' and I think it would have had a much better ester profile if I had used 70-72'F. I really like brewing Belgian style and if you make a good interesting beer with Belgian ale yeast I don't know anyone who could say it's really out of style. That seems to be the real beauty of Belgian beers. There is a premium on creativty without the rigid constraints of The Purity Law or anal retentive brewing authorities. Don't get me wrong, there is a place in the craft for beers created and brewed using exacting standards and style characteristics but I don't think we should ever lose sight of the creative sides of our brewing brains. Happy Brewing Steve Gibbs--- Bakersfield FOAM Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:29:03 +0000 From: Bill Goodman <goodman at APWK01G1.nws.noaa.gov> Subject: Trub removal / FAN in malt extracts / Rogue Shakespeare Stout clone recipe? A couple of questions: (1) I'm somewhat confused by things I've read recently regarding trub removal from wort. From what I gather (and do correct me if I'm wrong), hot trub is bad as it leads to fusel production, and cold trub is OK, provided the fermented beer doesn't sit on top of it for too long after primary fermentation is complete. My question: How does one get rid of hot trub, while not necessarily getting rid of cold trub? (2) A while back, there were some HBD postings saying that malt extracts are generally FAN-deficient. Is this true of *all* malt extracts? If not, which ones are OK? I'm specifically curious about either Alexander's Pale LME or Northwestern Gold DME, because I'd like to use either one as the base for my extract beers. (3) Has anyone attempted a Rogue Shakespeare Stout clone? From various sources including the bottle, Rogue's Web site and their newsletter, I've been able to determine the following: Original Gravity: 15 degrees Plato (OG 1.061) Apparent Attenuation: 77% (FG 1.014) Base malt: Harrington/Klages pale Specialty Grains: Crystal (135-165L?), Beeston Chocolate Adjuncts: Roasted barley, 5% rolled oats Hops: Cascade (69 IBU) 33.5% of the grain bill are specialty grains/adjuncts >From Jim Busch's "All About Grain 101", at http://hbd.org/brewery/library/Malt101.html, come the following suggestions: Dark Crystal (Caramel Malt) 120 L: 5 to 15% will lend a complex bitter/sweet caramel flavor and aroma to beers. Chocolate Malt (Roasted, black malt): Small quantities lend a nutty flavor and deep, ruby red color while higher amounts lend a black color and smooth, roasted flavor. Use 3 to 12%. Roast Barley (Black, Unmalted Barley): Use 10 to 12% to impart a distinct, roasted flavor to Stouts. Judging from the flavor of Shakespeare Stout (big, burnt, bitter and chocolatey) and from all of the above, I decided to maximize usage of roast barley and chocolate malt at 12% each. The rest of the grain bill is then 5% flaked oats, 66.5% pale malt, and 4.5% dark crystal malt. Then I used the Beer Recipator to work up the following recipe: Batch size: 5.5 gallons (5 gallons, really; I'm assuming a 0.5 gallon loss to whole hops, trub, etc.) 9 lb. 12 oz. Klages 2-row pale 11 oz. Crystal 135-165L 1 lb. 12 oz. Beeston chocolate 1 lb. 12 oz. roasted barley 12 oz. flaked oats Mash: infusion, 65% efficiency (is this too low?) Boil 1 hour Hops: 4 oz whole leaf Cascade (6.2% AA), 50 minutes before end of boil (utilization calculated using Tinseth method); 69 IBU Will this beer even come close to the flavor profile of Shakespeare Stout? Will it even be drinkable? Am looking for some expert advice. Thanks much! Bill Goodman Olney, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:31:25 -0400 From: danmcc at umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell) Subject: water screening test strips Orion has announced a new test strip product, AQUAfast, that is described as: "Cost-effective test strips for pH, chlorine, iron, copper, peroxide, nitrate, nitrite and total hardness [that] give immediate, reliable results; eliminate need for calibrators." Sounds to me like a lot of significant brewing-related analytes. I'll give them a test drive and report back. DanMcC (who does not work for Orion) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:59:16 -0400 From: Denis Barsalo <denisb at cam.org> Subject: CABA Flavour Seminar Attention Potential BJCP Judges: CABA (The Canadian Amateur Brewer's Association) is holding a Taste Perception and Flavour Seminar July 11th in Toronto, Ontario. Presented by professional brewer, microbiologist and BJCP beer judge Michael Ligas. This event promises to be an important step for anyone who's interested in passing the BJCP exam or for any existing judge who wants to sharpen their skills or upgrade their status in the BJCP program. For additional info visit CABA's web site at http://realbeer.com/caba. Denis Barsalo Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:47:39 -0400 From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig at us.hsanet.net> Subject: Re: Fermentation chiller idea George De Piro said: > I have an idea for a fermentation chiller, but am unsure how well it > will work. I welcome input from all of you that know a thing or two > about heat transfer. > > I built a cold box that I keep at ~37F (2.8C). My idea is to keep a > reservoir of cold water in the box, with a copper coil running through > it. This coil will be hooked up to another coil outside of the cold > box. This second coil will be immersed in water in an insulated > container of some sort (this will be called the "fermentation > reservoir"). The fermenters will sit in the water with the second > coil. A pump will circulate the liquid between the two coils. Sounds like a neat idea George. Problem with the coil to coil system is that you would need some kind of acumulator or tank tee'd off the plumbing to help bleed out all air and allow for expansion/contraction of the fluid. My suggestion would be to simplify. Build a flat coil and set inside the cold box - minus the the resevoir. A flat coil would take up minimal space. Better yet, how about a short piece of 6 inch pvc (say 2 ft or so) and place a copper coil inside with a fan/blower on one end. Then just pump the liquid directly from your fermentation reservoir through that coil. That way,all conduction surfaces get some agitation which improves heat transfer. Even the fermenter outer surface fluid get agitated by the pump action. You could set up the inlet/outlets to promote a current around the fermentor. Should work fine. Have fun. Dave Ludwig Flat Iron Brewery SO Md Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 21:58:09 From: william macher <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Hey, all you gadget guys...Steam injection.... Hello everyone! Sorry for the length of this post... I have posted this to the steam list...and am copying it here, in case anyone can give me some pointers... Naturally, some of the background is over simplified...so please take it for what it is worth, and don't be too critical of the Brewing related facts! I am really asking for input related to a steam injected rims! My only claim is to produce drinkable beer! Tastes good to me and my friends...:-) Any and all advice/comments welcomed! Thanks... Steam Injection advice needed... I have been lurking on the Steam List for a short time[and the HBD a lot longer!], and hope that someone may be able to give me some advice related my hobby, beer brewing! I know that most posting here seem to address industrial considerations, and if I am out of line...please just delete this message... So now on to my questions...followed by background explaining why I am asking them: Questions refer to a system in which liquid is drawn from a tank, which holds a grain/water mixture. The mixture in the tank is to be heated to selected temperatures between 105 and 167 degrees F. A pump maintains a constant re-circulation of about 2 to 3 GPM for a period of 60 to 90 minutes. The tank holds a maximum mixture of about 20 LB of grain and 8 gallons, or so, of water. The total amount of grain/water mixture can vary somewhat. Question 1) Is there a conceptional advantage to injecting the steam into a re-circulating liquid stream (being pumped through a pipe), over just injecting it directly into the water/grain mix in the tank (the mash tun, to which the heated liquid is being returned)? Question 2) If I inject steam into the re-circulation line after the pump, how should I do it. A piece of tubing inserted in the line (using appropriate compression fittings for a seal) ? Many small holes in the tubing, and a crimped end, as compared to just dumping the steam out of the tubing end? Question 3) Is it likely that the Heat of Condensation will be distributed rather quickly through out the liquid in the re-circulation line? (I mean, as compared to producing "plugs" of higher temp liquid moving through the line pushed by cooler liquid...) Question 4) Should I do something to induce turbulence in the line at the point where the steam is being injected, for the purpose of attaining a uniform temperature more quickly? BACKGROUND TO QUESTIONS [Cut a lot of basic stuff out here....] ...For a system of this hobby size, it looks like a normal household pressure cooker can be adapted at the steam source. Actually, the steam pressure will be very low, couple pounds at most, likely less. A fitting will be installed in the pressure cooker, either in the side or the lid, and all standard safety devices will remain in place. I have seen the damage that can be done when a household pressure cooker lid comes off...once is enough! Fortunately, my wife, kids and I were standing outside of the house when the thing [full of veggie soup] came apart...Boom!!! What was that, honey?....[design defect in the pressure cooker...] I see two options for injection of the steam. A) Steam can be injected in the middle of the grain bed, using a loop of tubing with a number of small holes drilled in it...this has been done successfully by others, or: B) Steam could be injected in the re-circulation line, after the pump, before the liquid is returned to the top of the grain bed (not sure if anyone is doing this or not). Concerns Enzymes in the liquid will be denatured if the liquid temperature is raised above something like 165F. (It is probalby OK if only some of the liquid is temporarilly raised above 165 F.) I know that injection of steam into the grain bed works. I am not sure about injection in the re-circulation line. I suppose that because the grains likely hold most of the enzymes, that injection of steam into the liquid after the pump would not be a problem. It is _not_ clear to me what happens when the steam is injected into a liquid. For example, if I injected steam in the pipe after the pump, say with a piece of tubing with many small holes in it, is it likely that the transfer of heat would be so quick, from small bubbles of steam, that very little of the liquid being pumped would feel the full +212 F temperature of the steam? Overheating of small parts of the liquid does not seem to be a problem. I cannot be real specific, but I have heard of brewers with electrical heating elements in their RIMS scorching the liquid and still making beer from it, indicating that all the enzymes were not denatured in the process. Any advice that anyone can give will be greatly appreciated! Bill Macher in Pittsburgh, Pa...USA macher at telerama.lm.com is my email address.... Bill Macher macher at telerama.lm.com Pittsburgh, PA USA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 23:45:13 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report The Practical Brewer... Had a conversation with Connie Hanner, Senior Administrator for The MBAA, regarding the PB...current cost is 35 USD, and 4 USD for postage (in the lower 48 states), sent First Class. Brewers in other locations should call to see what fees would apply for shipping. The book was discounted to 20 USD for the conference, but is back to it's original 35 $ price. When the new issue is out sometime around the new year there will be another round of discounting on the old, (current) edition. Considering the cost of many other publications, this is a good value, even at the full price..contact Connie at 414-774-8558 to order, or 2421 N. Mayfair Rd., Wauwatosa, WI, 53226. As we discussed the new edition, Connie spoke of the original edition, first published in 1946, in a Question and Answer format. There is a possibility that this book may be reprinted in the not so distant future. I would love to buy this one! The MBAA is also gearing up for their conference, Sept 20-24th, in Minneapolis. Those of you that might be inclined to attend should reference the list of papers to be presented at the web site www.mbaa.com to see if there is sufficient interest to justify the 200 USD fee for a daily pass to attend all technical sessions and social activities. Understanding that the traditional member base of the MBAA is the 'brewing scientist' and that these folks have always been, until perhaps very recent times, employed by a major brewery, one can recapture one's stomach from the floor at the cost of this event. But, times change, and the MBAA has recognized that there is another valid brewing community in emergence, and this is reflected by the inclusion in the new TPB of sections relating to the modern craft brewer. Indeed, when we spoke of the MBAA and IOB, and their relative positions on the 'Planet Beer,' Mary spoke with enthusiasm of the current evaluation of the possible convergence of the 2 organizations , to some degree. She had even been recruited by the IOB to assist them with their desire to get involved with the American craft brewers, but she was happy to stay where she is. But, the whole point of this report is the fact that when I asked if there might ever be a 2nd or even 3rd tier of membership, that the seriously technical homebrewer could get in on, she said that this had never before been considered, but might be acted upon, should there be enough interest. And as she said, there being only one level of authority that had to be swayed by the concept, Bruce Pegnall, CEO, any of you folks that would get off on the high tech, state of the art brewing world should let her know of your interest, so that she can present it to him. She spoke of the need for the big brewers to get away from the concept of 'proprietary information,' and the with-holding of knowledge that this results in. In her own words, "When it comes to information and education, there are no boundaries." I found this very refreshing.....now if I could only afford them! Raise Your Glass, Ladies and Gentlemen!! Mike Urseth, publisher of the MidWest Beer Notes, is getting married on the 20th of June to Kay Moen....(no relation to Alan Moen, Editor). Mike has been a long time supporter of not only the pro brewing community, as one would expect, but also the homebrewers of the world. When asked if we could expect the soon to be Mrs.. Urseth to rein him in and create a kinder, gentler publisher, he replied that the opposite was his goal, "I intend to fully corrupt her. I already have her riding motorcycles, next is the BJCP certification!" Jethro asks that you send a message of congratulations, to do so via e-mail....to beernote at realbeer.com . Another good guy, Mike is! Congratulations! Gak Returns To The Mainland...Swaps Grass Skirt For Cheese Head!! Richard Steuven, AKA Gak, "Beer Is My Life," still smarting from his defeat by the forces of evil that prevented him and his partners from opening a BP in Hawaii, after they had built, at no small expense, a building to house the operation, is back on the mainland and on his way to take over the reins as Head Brewer at Egan's BP in Green Bay, Wisconsin. Despite the setbacks in the Pacific, Gak had a big grin on his face when he passed through Des Moines with his 'Partner in Crime,' Paris. Jethro wishes him luck and is envious of those in GB who will get to enjoy his brews! Jethro Gump "THe More I know About Mike Urseth, The Happier I Am To Know Mike Urseth!" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 22:11:02 -0600 From: "Scott Nichols" <snichols at digitech.com> Subject: Dextrins and head retention Al Korzonas writes: >The sugars typically used by Belgian brewers >are "candi sucre" which is really virtually 100% sucrose. >Since sucrose is 100% fermentable, there would be nothing >left to contribute to head retention and, in fact, sucrose >(as well as other simple sugars) are foam negative and >*reduce* body and mouthfeel. Your points regarding Belgian ales are well taken. However, I still believe there is something unique about Belgian ales, aside from their high gravity, that produce their thick and creamy head. Candi sucre is *virtually* 100% sucrose, but sucrose itself, as a disaccharide, is not directly fermentable. It is broken down into glucose and fructose where are 100% fermentable. However, they are not fermented 100%. There are two related comments to this discussion in "Belgian Ale" by Pierre Rajotte. First, he claims Candi Sucre is fermented 95%. Second, he states, "It is claimed that candi contributes to good head retention in a high-gravity, lightly hopped beer." I believe the data that we are missing to draw a conclusion would be which dextrins interact with the mid-weight proteins to produce the claimed benefit to head retention. I also don't believe that the fermentable sugars left in beer reduce mouth-feel. They do not enhance mouth-feel, but they do not reduce it. Al Korzonas Continues: >Finally, an "adjunct" is defined as a non-enzymatic starch source >(like flaked wheat, pearled barley, potatoes or steel-cut oats). The Practical Brewer defines an adjunct as "non-malt carbohydrate materials of suitable composition and properties which beneficially complement or supplement the principal brewing material." I think sugar, as used in Belgian ales, qualifies for this definition. Scott Nichols Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:27:38 -0400 From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net> Subject: RE:Primetabs Kevin Peters asks: I recently saw an advertisement for these. According to the description, they are 500mg tablets of corn sugar used for bottle priming. Suggested rate is 2 to 5 tablets per bottle. Has anyone out there actually tried these, and what were the results? Kevin, I wrote a short report a while back and posted it to the HBD about this new product. I received a nice thank you e-mail from the manufacturer. You can search the archives for the actual post. It was a few months back but for sure in 1998. In short, I found that they worked pretty much as advertised. I used 2 tabs in 12 oz. bottles of lower carbonated style beers (bitters, English Ale etc) and three tabs in higher carbed brews (most lagers) and found the results satisfactory. They work out great for me because I kegged most of my brew and bottle a few for hand outs, competitions, and the like. They are definitely worth buying at least one pack to experiment for yourself. If I remember, they are only a couple of bucks for a pack of 250??? Good Luck, Marc ====================== Captain Marc Battreall Backcountry Brewhouse Islamorada, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 06:16:45 -0700 From: "S. Wesley" <sWesley at maine.maine.edu> Subject: Vacuum Pumps and bottle filling Dear Peter, I used to use a hemostat to clamp the hose from the bottling bucket when filling bottles. I usually pulled the hose up from the bottom of the bottle as it filled and clamped it a few inches from the end before moving on to the next bottle. If you have a pair of hemostats you have a handy, sanitary way to start a siphon. Boil the hose, pick it up out of the pot full of sanitized water using the hemostats to pick it up and clamp each end of the hose. Attach it to your racking cane and you are ready to go. If you really want to use your vacuum pump you should be aware that depending on the design of the pump and the conditions under which it is used it is possible to get backstreaming of oil from the pump. Many pumps depend on oil for the seal and if the lines have any substantial vacuum in them the oil can slowly creep back up the line. This is of course exacerbated if the lines are left under vacuum when the pump is off. I hope that this would not be an issue for your application, but you never know. How big is the stuff which is clogging your bottle filler anyway? Do you really want it to wind up in your bottles? If the stuff which is clogging your filler is from pellet hops have you considered using hop cones exclusively? Best Wishes Simon Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/19/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96