---

	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:
  RE: Altbier (George Smith)
  Sparge water temp. (Keith Busby)
  Why do mash enzymes work and chemistry of head retention ("Jenny and Peter Stockham")
  Alts, new use for extract, TSP, C+H (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Crystal malt in Oktoberfest ("George De Piro")
  things to do in denver when your drunk (JPullum127)
  Rauchbier (Dan Listermann)
  High Mash Temp, Low Attenuation ("Greg Lorton")
  Secondary Barley WIne ("David R. Burley")
  Re: Flaked Rice (Jeff Renner)
  Cloudy Beer (keith  christiann)
  favorite base malts - results (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
  All grain Brewing, first timer. ( Bob Fesmire ) (DGofus)
  lagering in caves (kathy)
  Yeast flavor contributions (EFOUCH)
  Re: Moisture content of hops / Polyclar / large Wyeast packs (Spencer W Thomas)
  Morgans Specialty Malt Kickers Comparison With Specialty Grains ("Michael O. Hanson")
  Orange light doesn't skunk? (Dan Cole)
  Hefe Weizen ("Mike Piersimoni")
  Re: Iodophor (Jim Graham)
  bottle capper circa 1926 (AlannnnT)
  Guiness Trick (Badger Roullett)
  Re: Dry Hops ("Tkach, Christopher")
  Green Hop Beer ("Tomusiak, Mark")
  Priming Sugar Rates (Mark Riley)
  TSP is a crime in NY (AlannnnT)
  mead/raleigh beer ("Richard Allison")
  General/Clinitest ("Steve Alexander")


No you're not crazy: the HBD server went down at app 3pm 9/13 and returned
to life noon 9/14. Our apologies for the outtage...

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, 11 Sep 1998 16:07:24 -0600
From: George Smith <gpsmith at atmel.com>
Subject: RE: Altbier

Al Korzonas said:

"You may wonder why I'm so passionate about Altbier...  I'll tell you that
I wondered that about Roger Deschner when he used to rant and rave about
homebrewed Altbiers and the AHA guidelines being "completely wrong."
But then I visited Duesseldorf and tasted the beer and realised why
Roger was so passionaate about Altbier.  Of the homebrewers that I know
that have visited there, it's rare that it doesn't become one of their
favourite styles."


For those of us who have not been to Duesseldorf and brew to the AHA
guideline, could someone post their method and ingredients for brewing a
true Duesseldorf Altbier?  I for one would appreciate it since I have brewed
several Altbiers and enjoyed them.  Thanks!

George Smith
Woodland Park, CO



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 21:25:33 -0500
From: Keith Busby <kbusby at ou.edu>
Subject: Sparge water temp.

During my last brew session, I noticed that the temperature of the mash
during sparging dropped gradually to somewhere around 150F, this despite it
having been raised to 168 for mashout (I raise temperature slowly and stir
frequently to get as accurate a reading as possible) and despite sparge
water being heated to about 170. I can't say I have noticed this before,
but it may have happened. I use a three-tier system with probe thermometers
in 10 gal. stainless pots and propane tanks under each pot. I usually turn
the burner off after mashout temperature is reached, although I left the
burner under the sparge tank on low this time. The extract I got from quite
a heavy grain bill was rather low, so I am guessing this was due to sugars
not being able to flow adequately (I believe I sparged slowly enough). So:
if the temperature of the mash at the level of the probe (about 3 inches
from the bottom of the pot) falls when using 170F sparge water (it passes
through hole sin a copper sparging ring and falls 4-5 inches onto the grain
bed) should I raise the temperature of the sparge water to, say, 180F (as
recommended by Mosher in _The Homebrewer's Companion_) or leave the burner
on low under the mash tun or both? The literature seems to suggest that too
high a sparge temperature extracts too many tannins. And would the
temperature at the bottom of the mash be too high if I left the burner on?

Any advice appreciated. Private e-mail is fine.

Keith Busby


Keith Busby
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
University of Oklahoma
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel: (405) 325-5088. Fax: (405) 325-0103


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 15:21:49 +0930
From: "Jenny and Peter Stockham" <jennyandpete1 at bettanet.net.au>
Subject: Why do mash enzymes work and chemistry of head retention

Hello all

Can anyone explain to me the chemistry behind good head retention or give me
a relevant reference or link? Most of my brews are partial mash (1kg per 22
litres) and I have noticed a considerable improvement compared to full
extract brews, in that  'Coke head' is much less pronounced and the head
often consists of much finer bubbles. Why?

Does the evaporation process used to produce an extract remove components
which are important to the head?

How much better is the head on full mash beers?

How much does the quality of the head depend on the extract, and what
components of the extract are important? ( eg proportions of sugars, ions,
protein etc.....)

Another chemistry question

the diastase enzymes work best at around 60 to 65 degrees or there abouts.
What
do you think the evolutionary pressure was for the development of enzymes to
work at this temperature? These enzymes would be fairly well inactive at
temperatures the barley would experience in the field (if not, could we mash
at 25 degrees C?) Are these enzymes present in wild barley? I understood
that most proteins denature at high temps, and only specially
adapted thermophilic organisms had enzymes that could cope.
Please help.
I enjoy your wise dialogue in HBD and I look forward to your replies

Thanks

Pete




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 23:38:34 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Alts, new use for extract, TSP, C+H

Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> asks me if I've tried the Widmer
Hefeweizen/Zum Uerige yeast.  I have it on a plate now and I will brew
as soon as it is ready, I hope Tuesday.  Following Al's advice I will
use virtually all Munich with a little chocolate.  I will neglect his
advice and will use some FWH because I like the results so much, styles
be damned!

Does anyone have any experience wrt ferment temp for this yeast for an
alt?

This beer will be available at the NCHF if it turns out OK, for those
who are interested.

In addition to the problems mentioned in the recent Zymurgy alt article,
what do people think of these:
1) suggestion to do a protein rest
2) suggestion to steep starchy malts (and to take them to a high temp
rather than hold at 150F)
3) apparent error in estimated IBUs
4) ommision of suggestion of all munich or munich/pils extracts like
that from William's Brewing?
5) suggestion to use domestic tettnanger (fuggles)
6) idea that the alt should have 40 IBUs
7) statement that proteins and dextrins increase head by increasing
viscosity
******************************************************
Scott, our own beer chef, reminds me that I have an idea to share.
I enjoy the occaisional malted milkshake.  I used to use Carnation
malted milk for the malt flavor, but have started using the dry malt
extract I keep around for starters.  Yum!  Much better and a fair bit
cheaper too.  I use about 2T/8oz, but that's a guess because I don't
measure it.

******************************************************
I posted this a while back when people were asking about deposits when
using TSP, and I didn't get an answer:

> Is it possible that the problems reported with TSP are the 
> precipitation of calcium phosphate?
> 
> > "Anton Verhulst" <verhulst at zk3.dec.com> writes:
> 
> > Since TSP has been getting a bad rap from the Environmental 
> Protection Agency,
> [snip]
> > I'm anticipating the day when TSP will be banned in the US and have
> > boughtwhat I anticipate to be a lifetime supply (10 pounds).
> 
> I have largely given up on TSP in favor of NaOH ("lye" or "caustic").
> While potentially a little more dangerous than TSP it seems to me that
> the hazards are similar in nature and magnitude and it is cheaper and
> easier on the envionment (as far as I know anyway).  Does TSP offer
> any cleaning power other than the high pH?

******************************************************
Gadget gurus should take note of the latest C+H Sales catalog.  This is
a supplier of used/surplus stuff of all kinds--electronics, optics,
motors, pumps, etc.  Their phone # is 800-325-9465.  They have 2 nice
pumps for someone wishing to step up a bit in power from the standard
March models discussed here frequently.  Both are magnetically coupled
centrifugal pumps made of seemingly food grade and temp resistant
materials, only problem is the voltage, one is 100V, the other 230. 
They say the 100 can do intermittent duty at 120.  $80 and $90.  No
affiliation other than I am a satisfied customer (I bought my pump
there).
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 98 08:17:24 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: Crystal malt in Oktoberfest

Hi all,

Wayne asks about using crystal malt in Oktoberfestbier, with Pils
malt as the base.  I would advise against this, especially if Spaten's 
festbier
is your target.  It is perhaps the least caramel-like of the festbiers 
(and one of my favorites).

Munich and Vienna malts are the key.  The Fix book is out of date.
Back when they wrote it there were no decent Munich malts available to 
us,
but now there are.  Weissheimer is quite a toasty Munich malt, while 
Weyermann
is a bit less toasty (but very malty) and comes in a light and dark 
grade, allowing for
better control over the beer's color (and a different flavor profile).

Use Vienna or Munich as the base malt.  You could just stop right there 
and have a perfectly
good grain bill.  If you want a bit more color you could use a dash of 
light crystal malt, but
limit it to 3% or less of the total grain bill (my opinion).  If you are 
not going to decoction mash
you could add a dash of aromatic malt, too (that would deepen the color 
a bit, so omit any
crystal in this case).

Have fun!

George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:56:57 EDT
From: JPullum127 at aol.com
Subject: things to do in denver when your drunk

i am going to denver for the great american beer festival , any must hit
places and special recommendations? i have allready heard of falling rock
taproom for belgians, any others?


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 12:17:52 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Rauchbier

"Riedel, Dave" asked about Rauchbier:

>Can anyone suggest some grist percentages?  For
>example, using the Weyerman Rauchmalt.. do you
>simply use this for the base malt?  


I have followed Graham Wheeler's recipe for Schlenkerla twice.  It is 98%

rauchmalz and 2% chocolate made to a OG of 54 and a bitterness of 30 IBU
with hallertau.  This style tends to be very polerizing.  Either you love

it (me) or you hate it.  my supply is getting low so I should think about

doing another one.  The mash smells of cooked ham.

Dan

Check out our website at listermann.com   ( remember - two "n"s)

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 09:37:12 -0700
From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton at cts.com>
Subject: High Mash Temp, Low Attenuation

To the HBD Collective Wisdom...

Last weekend I brewed a sweet stout, loosely along the lines discussed by
Badger and George De Piro about three weeks ago in HBD.  I included honey
and brown sugar in the brew kettle (as mentioned in Badger's recipe in HBD
2803), and had a 60-minute saccharification rest that averaged 161F (~72C)
(as mentioned in George's post in HBD 2802).  Actually the mash temperature
varied from 159 to 164F, but seemed to average around 161.  The mash passed
the iodine test.  The OG was 1.059.

After a fairly active fermentation for four days, things in the primary
quieted down, and I transferred to secondary on the fifth day.  The gravity
reading when I transferred was 1.032, for an apparent attenuation of around
46%.  Since about 1/4 of the fermentables were the honey and brown sugar
added to the brew kettle, the amount of fermentables from the mash must
have been quite a bit less.

This is the highest saccharification temperature that I've ever used, and
its the lowest apparent attenuation I've ever gotten.  The beer sample
tasted pretty sweet.  I know it's supposed to be a sweet stout, but is this
too sweet?  The questions I have are:
1.  Is this apparent attenuation reasonable for a 161F saccharification
temp?
2.  Is this as far as the fermentation is going to go?
3.  Should I add some champagne yeast to try to get a bit more
fermentation?

The last thing I want is to bottle this beer in a few weeks and then have a
series of exploding bottles in the garage a week or two after that.  Any
experience, anecdotes, and comments are appreciated!!!

Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA
Go 'Cats!  Beat Stanford!


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 13:14:42 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Secondary Barley WIne

Brewsters:

Keith Busby says:

"I am about to add champagne yeast to secondary to finish off a
Barley Wine.
Should I aerate or just swirl to get the new yeast suspended?"

I definitely would not aereate.  Take a small amount of the wine
and after hydration of the yeast for 10-15 minutes in a cup or so
of cooled, boiled water, add this mixture to a pint or so of your beer.
Make sure that it will ferment what sugar is left in the beer before
adding it to the remainder. If it won't start, you may need nutrients.
Add this active "Starter" to the rest of your wine.

Make sure the yeast you are using is a Sacc. Bayanus and not
the Sacc. Cerevisiae named "Champagne" by Red Star.  This
latter yeast is not a Champagne yeast despite its name and may
not go above 12% alcohol and is not good at restarting.  Sacc.
Bayanus may go as high as 18% given the right conditions.
It is very useful for starting stuck fermentations.
- ------------------------------------
James Spies says:

"Leave bentonite for the cat litter (it's the main ingredient in
"clumping" cat litter).  Although effective, it has the general
consistency of sewage sludge once added to your mead, and
makes racking a nightmare (especially if your secondary is in
a carboy)."

Actually Bentonite settles very quickly and down hard if prepared
as I suggested.  I have never had the experience of difficulty in
racking the wine off it.  Bentonite's main purpose is to remove
excess protein from wines low in tannin like meads. This is
often the source of the cloudiness and may never clear. Although
you should have used it before the fermentation, you could also
try pectic enzyme - especially if you heated your honey to above
170F to sterilize it.

I suggest you use pectic enzyme followed by Bentonite. 

- ---------------------------------------------


Keep on brewin'


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

Voice e-mail OK 





Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 16:56:30 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Flaked Rice

 skotrat at mediaone.net wrote:

>I can also say that flaked rice in  a proportion of more than 12% to the
>rest of the grain bill starts to react like Elmers (sp?) Glue and can become
>problematic. If I had me druthers I would stick to Flaked Maize for all my
>Pre-Prohibition Pilseners.
>
>Unfortunately I like the color (or lack of color) that the Flaked Rice gives
>the brew. Although from my readings Rice should give no flavor... I do
>believe that some flavor is given to the beer by the rice.

A couple of thoughts.  First, corn should also give essentially no color.
It will, of course, add more flavor than rice, perhaps not what you want.

Second, while I have never used flaked rice, I think that a separate cereal
mash  would eliminate the glue problem, even with higher amounts of rice.
Mash the rice with 1/3 as much malt (6-row for style) with enough water to
keep it loose at ~153 for at least 15-20 minutes, then bring it to a boil.
With flaked rice you shouldn't have to boil for too long, with raw broken
rice, you'd need to boil for maybe 45 minutes.  This, of course, would
darken your final beer but produce some nice flavors from the melanoidins.
Then add this back to the main mash which you have cleverly let sit at an
appropriate temperature for an appropriate time so that the cereal mash
addition brings you to the next rest temperature.

Here is my most recent schedule:

Time 00:  Mash in cereal mash, into oven at 153F
Time 15:  Mash in main mash 104F
Time 50:  Bring cereal mash to boil
Time 60:  Cereal mash boiling
Time 100:  boiling water and bottom heat w/ recirc. to ramp main mash to 140F
Time 120-125:  Add cereal mash to main mash yield 147F
Time 125-133: bottom heat and recirc ramp to 156F
Time 155-160 Ramp to 160F (foam stand rest)
Time 175 heat to 170 mashout

This was a rather time-inefficient mash, but it worked great - good malty
taste and corn expression from the long cereal boil.  Killer foam stand.  I
could have shortened the cereal mash time but I was busy doing other stuff.
I increased my time at 140F from 30 to 45 minutes and lowered my second
saccharification rest from 158 to 156 to increase my attenuation to 75%.
It had been 70%, which was a little low for style.

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: Sat, 12 Sep 1998 16:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: keith christiann <kchris1 at lausd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Cloudy Beer

Hello All,

I have been trying to crash cool a few kegs of PA.  After 3 weeks in the mid
30s, it is still cloudy.  I believe it is yeast in suspension (but I have been
wrong before).  The yeast is the Nottingham dry, which is supposed to flock
well.  I racked this beer from primary (after 2 weeks) into Cornys.  It sat in
the frig with 15 lbs. pressure for about a week and it kept getting more and
more carbonated...;-) so sampling became more frequent...  It is good ya
know.  Now I have carbonated cloudy beer!  

Questions:
Should I hit the beer with a dose of gelatin or wait it out?  

Will gelatin work on carbonated beer?  

Can I tell if it is a chill haze by letting a glass sit out at room temp for an
hour or so?

TIA for guidance
Keith     



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 12 Sep 98 18:08:32 MST
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net>
Subject: favorite base malts - results

	Here are the results of my very unscientific poll of HBD readers
regsarding their preferences for ale and lager base malts:

	3 - Maris Otter Pale Ale Malt (Crisp Malting)

	3 - Hugh Baird (one reported problems with recent batch)

	2 - Munton & Fison Pale Ale

	1 - Paul's Pale Ale malt

	1 - Canadian Malting Harrington

	1 - Gambrinus "ESB Malt

	1 - Great Western 2-row

	1 - Briess Pale Ale Malt (Hugh Baird?)


	3 - Durst lager

	3 - DeWolf Cosyns pilsner malt

	1 - Weyermann pilsener

	1 - Weissheimer Pils

A few people wrote saying that they had no "favorite" but reported on the
malts they use regularly. I did not include them in the results. Based on
this feedback, I've decided to stay with DWC pils but I will try either the
Maris Otter or Gambrinus (I read other good things about this malt...and
it's almost local!).






Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 10:43:09 EDT
From: DGofus at aol.com
Subject: All grain Brewing, first timer. ( Bob Fesmire )

Thanks to all who replied about my desire to try all grain. I am going to make
the plunge( read-investment ;^). I am concerned though on converting my
extract recipes to all grain. Any help or guidance would be appreciated. Also,
I will need a good source for my grain. I have been told that $ wise, it would
be best to by bulk grain. English two row has been reccomended as a great base
malt. I will also need a grain mill and would like some guidance on that
purchase. Any help or advice would be well appreciated. Thanks to all in
advance.

Bob Fesmire
Pottstown, PA 
Dgofus at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 09:37:08 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: lagering in caves

The use of caves to get a stable temperature to age beer and wine is
classic, but this only gets a temperature of 55F or so unless ice was
used to lower the temperture.

Does Jeff or anyone know if ice was used in Bohemia or Bavaria in
addition to lagering in tunnels or caves?  Somehow I have "ice caves" in
my mind as the ancient home of lager beer.  Was ice used in St Louis or
Cincinnati?

The importance of ice in 19th century brewing of lager beers may have
been in lagering as well as in shipping via railroad cars.

I visited an ice cave in Idaho once which formed ice as a natural
refrigerator.  Wind pressure compressed air which then escaped from a
higher pressure cave area thru a constriction into a lower presssure
chamber where it expanded and formed ice and chilled the chamber. 

Pioneers use it as a cold storage chamber and ice source.

I wonder if the lagering  caves of Bohemia, Bavaria and Austria had
manual ice storage, or natural ice formation in the storage areas, or
were just cool at 55F? 

just wundering???   cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi




Return to table of contents


Date: 14 Sep 1998 11:50:43 -0400
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: Yeast flavor contributions


HBD-
There have been some comments on yeast flavor contributions to beer in the
last few HBD's, and since there is no football worth watching in Michigan
(when WILL they figure out that Charlie Batch has to carry the Lions?), I
thought I would share some results from a pseudo yeast experiment recently
performed by me.

Here's what I did- Brewed an ESB type base wort:
5# pale ale malt
2# Munich malt
11oz Crystal Malt
Mashed at 154F with 10 qts. water at 170F.
FWH with 1oz Northern Brewer
Bittered with 1 oz Northern brewer (60min)
I collected the sweet wort in my 5 gallon fermenter (dropped for aeration) for
mixing, then siphoned into 5 - 1 gallon jugs (more dropping).
Into each 5 gallon jug I inoculated a different Yeast strain:

							O.G.	F.G.	Apparent Attenuation
							1.050			(published)

Belgian Trappist          	(Wyeast 3787)				1.015		75-80%
Belgian Strong Ale 	(Wyeast 1388)				1.015		73-77%
Belgian Wheat		(Wyeast 3942)				1.015		72-76%
Widmere Hefeweizen	(WLP320, per Scott Murman)		1.015		70-75%	
Bells Amber Ale yeast	(?)					1.020*		?

All the 1 gallon fermenters were put into a Son-of-a-Fermentation chiller, and
fermented at 70F (to accentuate any flavor differences) for 15 days.  Each was
primed with 1 ounce of corn sugar and bottled on the 23rd of July.  *The Bells
batch was over carbonated (yes, the carbonation level was high for all of
them, but the Bells was more so) which leads me to believe that it wasn't done
fermenting when the others were- they should all have finished at 1.015.

Flavor "analyses":
I modified the Palexperiment Evaluation Sheets used in Oregon to evaluate the
flavor differences of the Great Pale HBD Ale Experiment (in-other words, I
whited-out all the oxidation and butt-flavor comments) for use in getting a
flavor profile of each beer.
The Analysts:
Three "uneducated" (flavor component wise) beer buddies, the brewmaster from
BOBs House of Brews, and a trained chef.
One of the beer buddies excused himself after the first tasting, claiming to
have soiled his palate on a couple of BOB's Broomaster Stouts.  What a way to
go!
The brewmaster has had formal training (what's the name of that school in
Wisconsin?), and my chef buddy and fellow HBD'r (how's it going, Matt?)
probably has good taste buds, right?

Anyway- After digesting the comments on all the sheets, I can make these
general, anecdotal comments on the flavor contributions due to the different
yeast strains:

Belgian Trappist          	(Wyeast 3787)
This yeast produced the spiciest beer- tart, earthy and spicy.
				
Belgian Strong Ale 	(Wyeast 1388)
The major discernable flavor component was citrusy, with a sweeter finish.
				
Belgian Wheat		(Wyeast 3942)				
This was the second spiciest beer- definite clove notes, along with some
grassy flavors.

Widmere Hefeweizen	(WLP320)	
Not surprisingly, this was the maltyest (maltiest?) beer, with a sweet malty
aroma and flavor.

Bells Amber Ale yeast	(?)				
The hops were most accentuated in this beer.  More hops aroma and bitterness.
Perhaps the rumors that this yeast is actually 1056 are true?

Caveats-
This was not a true taste panel- every body had had a few before we started
tasting (after all, it was Mug Club night).
Also, there was no "standard", like an example using Wyeast 1056.

Even so, the differences in flavor were very easy to pick out.  The five beers
could easily have been thought to be from completely different batches.
Speaking of batches, have I mentioned that Charlie Batch's the best QB Detroit
has?

Questions?  Comments?  Flames? (I'm pretty thick skinned- fire away!)

Eric (You Ignorant Slut!) Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood MI

"Happiness is an injured Scott Mitchell."- Me

"TAKE YOUR LIFE YOU LOSER!!!!!! OOOHHH- OOOOOOHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!" - Sam Kinison






















Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 12:21:25 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Moisture content of hops / Polyclar / large Wyeast packs 

>>>>> "George" == George De Piro <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> writes:

    George>   Overdosing with PVPP can
    George> undesirably alter beer flavor because too much phenol will
    George> be removed (Steve A. should like that I included that).

An anecdote:

Some years ago, a friend & I brewed a 10 gallon batch of Vienna
together.  We fermented using the same yeast and under similar
conditions.  He fined with PolyClar and I didn't.  His beer was
crystal clear (mine was "only" clear).  My beer tasted maltier.

Whatever.... :-)

=Spencer


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 16:06:48 -0700
From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson at winternet.com>
Subject: Morgans Specialty Malt Kickers Comparison With Specialty Grains

Hello Fellow Homebrewers:

Has anybody used Morgan's specialty malt kickers?  If so, how do they
compare with using specialty grains?

Thanks in advance,


Mike Hanson




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 06:17:30 -0400
From: Dan Cole <dcole at roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Orange light doesn't skunk?

I was just reading the Aug-Sept'98 edition of AleStreetNews
(www.alestreetnews.com) and there is an article about Unibroue (the
Canadian micro that specializes in Belgian styles). They are rolling out a
new brew (a Pilsener, yes I know that it isn't a Belgian style) in a
**clear** bottle. Knowing that clear bottles give no protection to the
beer, they use orange lights in their brewery, because their "technical
research came up with orange lights to retard the skunking process."

Has anyone heard of this before?

Dan Cole
Roanoke, VA



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 08:27:06 -0400
From: "Mike Piersimoni" <msp at dplus.net>
Subject: Hefe Weizen

Hey everyone

Need some info on Hefe Weizen
Made a batch the other day and it is now in the primary.
My question is, the recipes I've seen all call for a secondary ferment.
The fellow in the Home-brew shop I frequent tells me the secondary
ferment is not necessary for this style.
It's basically a Bavarian dry extract brew.
Very low hops.
And if the secondary is not needed, how long should it stay in the
primary before I bottle  (he also said the Germans do not keg Weizen
only bottle)
My guess is about 4 weeks.
What's your opinion.

Mike



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 19:06:59 -0500
From: Jim Graham <jim at n5ial.gnt.com>
Subject: Re: Iodophor

Yes, I'm a bit behind on the HBD....  :-)

On Thu, Sep 03, 1998 at 12:18:44AM -0400, Paul Niebergall
<pnieb at burnsmcd.com> wrote:

> The information comes from  the oldest (and one of the most respected)
> home brew shops in the our area.  In a  newsletter that was recently
> issued, it was stated that Iodopher doesn't work in an alkali soution
> (specifically above a  pH of 8.5).

:-)

I'm the poor sucker who ended up discovering this for them...the hard
way.  Oh, btw, as it turns out, one of the things that they found out
when I mentioned this problem to them was that, with that type of
iodophor, if the pH isn't in the right range, not only is it not a
sanitizer, it actually ends up being a *BREEDING GROUND* for bacteria.

Here's what happened...and what I've learned.

The water here on Okaloosa Island (Ft. Walton, in NW Florida) is normally
at or just above 8.5.  Those are the official stats, btw, provided by the
local water/sewer department.  I'd been getting my Iodophor from a local
brewmaster, and had never had any problems---just lots of good beer.  I
bought my own from the above homebrew shop, and as soon as I switched to
it, started having lots of problems with infected batches.  I noticed
something about (homebrew) Iodophor and pH in the St. Pat's catalog, and
started to understand what was going on....

What was the difference?  Phosphoric acid.  The local brewmasters (all
of them are homebrewers and active members of our homebrew club, btw)
had never heard of Iodophor that was anything other than iodine and
phosphoric acid.  As it turns out, the Iodophor sold in a lot of (all?)
homebrew shops is just iodine.  The Iodophor with phosphoric acid
doesn't care what your water's pH is---it just loves to kill the
little nasties that want to ruin your beer.  The other stuff is
finicky about pH, and in our area, is quite useless w/o adding some
kind of acid.

End result:  I recently bought a gallon of Iodophor from the same
brewmaster I was getting it from (for free...but that wasn't going to
go on forever) before.  And as one might expect, once I switched back
to it, and after I did a complete shakedown on the brewery (all new
yeast, clean all kegs and carboys with caustic, followed by a good
nuking with boiling water, etc.), nothing but good beer again....

Later,
   --jim

- -- 
73 DE N5IAL (/4)               MiSTie #49997         < Running Linux 2.0.21 >
jim at n5ial.gnt.net || j.graham at ieee.org  ICBM / Hurricane: 30.39735N 86.60439W

          ===  Do not look into waveguide with remaining eye  ===



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1998 18:19:02 EDT
From: AlannnnT at aol.com
Subject: bottle capper circa 1926

I recently came across a sturdy all metal bench capper. It is still
functional. Some of the old ones have wooden bases- this one all steel.  I
sandblasted it clean and clear laquered it to keep it from rusting. The
following words are cast into the sides. Maybe someone out there has a similar
one? 

MFG. By F.P.Rexhouse. MFG. Co
Poughkeepsie. N.Y.

"Junior Bottle Capper" 1926
Patent APPLIED FOR.

(the quotation marks are in the casting)

One of the customers in my hardware store gave it to me, because he knows I
brew beer. 

Best Brewing,
Alan Talman
E Northport NY


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 11:00:01 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com>
Subject: Guiness Trick

> From: Rich Byrnes <rbyrnes2 at ford.com>
> Subject: Nitrogen Dispensing...
> preessure and get a BEAUTIFUL creamy head and the trademark "dancing
> bubbles of Guiness"

I use a Corney keg with a Bar tap placed directly on the keg *(Phils Phacet
Adaptor, Phil, learn to spell.. :)* and i dispense at 10 PSI, and get that
Cool Guiness Trick no problem.  love to watch it, and so does my girlfreind.
we have a glass, watch it settle out, and then drink.. what more could you
ask for!!    No nitrogen, no Stout faucet, nothing.  go figure.

*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger

Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html

In the SCA: 
Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 14:17:58 -0400
From: "Tkach, Christopher" <tkach at cabletron.com>
Subject: Re: Dry Hops

Back in my days as a geotech engineer, we always expressed
moisture content in terms of dry weight....its the only true
known as the wet weight can vary depending upon a variety of
environmental factors.

To find the moisture content we would take an initial mass (Mi),
usually around 50 grams, of a quantity of soil, dry it in the
oven at 120-130 C for a few hours, take another mass (M2), put
it back in the oven for another hr or so, and take a final mass
(Mf).  If the 2nd, and 3rd mass were the same, the sample was
said to be at its dry weight, if not put it back in the oven
and repeat.

                      Mi - Mf
  Moisture Content =  ------- * 100
                        Mf

Now, nothing really new there, but here's something that might
be of interest.  When drying samples with high amounts of organic
matter (such as hops are!), you couldn't use high temps due to
carbonization of the organics (ie burning the hops), so what you
did was dry the sample at 80 C for an extended period of time,
usually 1-2 days, checking the mass as in the steps above. There
is an ANSI standard for all this, but I can't remember the #
anymore, something about killing off the weak brain cells?
I'm sure someone else out there knows it, if your really
interested in some boring reading...heck there probably is one
for determining the moisture content of hops.

Hope this helps,
 - Chris
Dover, NH


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:32:58 -0700
From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com>
Subject: Green Hop Beer

Greetings all...I just found an interesting article for those who might
be considering making beer with green hops.  It is on Michael Jackson's
beer page, and apparently there is British brewery that makes a special
beer each year with freshly picked green hops.  The article can be found
at:

http://www.beerhunter.com/documents/19133-000114.html

Cheers, Mark Tomusiak, Boulder, Colorado.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 15:15:14 -0700
From: Mark Riley <mriley at netcom.com>
Subject: Priming Sugar Rates

This question was asked about 2 years ago but I can't find any
replies in the archives (it was posted just before the HBD went
kaput for a couple weeks so that may explain it).

Basicly, I've read three articles that all suggest different
priming rates when using glucose (corn sugar) and sucrose
(cane or table sugar) to carbonate beer in the bottle.  The rates
below are those suggested by the various authors to generate
1 volume of CO2 (I've taken the liberty of expressing all figures
in grams/liter):

  Mark Hibberd (http://hbd.org/brewery/library/YPrimerMH.html)
  gives 4.6 g/L for glucose and 4 g/L for sucrose.

  Dave Draper (http://brew.oeonline.com/~ddraper/priming.html)
  gives 3.7 g/L glucose and 3.5 g/L sucrose.

  Finally, Michael Hall (Zymurgy, Vol. 18 No. 2 Summer 1995)
  gives 4 g/L glucose with no explicit value given for sucrose.

Hall's article is the only one to explain how he derived his
priming rate.  Using the simple chemical formula for ethanol
production from a monosaccharide (glucose):

  C6H12O6 -> 2(C2H5OH) + 2(CO2)

He shows that 88g of CO2 is produced for every 180g of
glucose.  Since there is 1.96g of CO2 in 1 liter at STP,
the 180g of glucose produces 44.9 liters of CO2 or 
4.01g glucose produces one liter of CO2 at STP.  Doing a
similar calculation for sucrose, I get 3.82 g/L.

Obviously, fermentation is more complicated than
the above equation implies and I'm wondering if that may
explain the discrepancy in the various priming rates.
George Fix (in PoBS) mentions Balling's relationship
indicating 2.0665kg extract produces 1kg alcohol and
0.995kg CO2.  However, "extract" actually consists of
maltose, glucose, sucrose, dextrins and other sugars,
so I'm not sure that Balling's relationship can be applied
here.  For the sake of argument, Balling's figures indicate
that 48.1% of the weight of extract goes to CO2 production
which is darn close to the 48.9% indicated by formula
for the fermentation of glucose above (88g/180g).

Needless to say I'm a bit confused since these priming
rate articles are referenced extensively on the net
and they just don't agree.  Draper mentions that a fuller
writeup of his and Hibberd's articles appears in the
July/August 1996 issue of Brewing Techniques.  
Unfortunately (for me) I don't have access to it at the
moment - perhaps someone could relate some of the details
of it (like what priming rates did Draper and Hibberd
finally agree on???)  Any of you in possession of one of
those expensive brewing tomes ;-) care to pipe in on this
subject so we can put this issue to rest?

Thanks for any and all feedback,

Mark Riley
The Beer Recipator - http://hbd.org/recipator



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 19:14:12 EDT
From: AlannnnT at aol.com
Subject: TSP is a crime in NY

TSP is not "legal" to distribute in New York. (It looks too much like crack or
something) Some stores may have old stock they can legally sell, but they
cannot replenish their inventory.

In New York it is legal to bring homebrew to your church. It is legal to bring
homebrew to your Mom. But-- it is not legal to bring it to your local homebrew
shop.

Best Brewing,
Alan Talman
from New York, the regulation capital of the western world. 


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:10:52 -0700
From: "Richard Allison" <geobrewer at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: mead/raleigh beer

thanks for the info everyone on clarifying the mead.  unfortunately i
cannot use
patience since it is for my wedding in april.  if it's not ready there'll
be plenty of homebrew.  

jonathan in #2823 wrote:

>>so you are in apex? do you find raleigh, nc and the surrounding area to
be
totally lacking in good brewpubs/breweries? greenshield's beer to me is
average
to mediocre. Carolina Brewery in Holly Springs is okay. their keg beer is
pretty good but they don't have much variety. their bottled beer isn't
worth
buying imho. i understand chapel hill has a good brewpub but haven't been
there.<<
  

rick says take a tour on saturday of carolina brewing company in holly
springs.  they are super nice and you get all the free beer you want. 
their cask-conditioned at TS Elliot's is very good.  TS elliots is probly
the best place to get beer in raleigh (42nd street is also good i hear).

top of the hill brewpub is chapel hill is good, if pricey.  to get good
local microbrew variety in north carolina head to the mountains.  boone and
asheville both have good breweries and bars.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:37:46 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: General/Clinitest

Well the sudden and simultaneous reappearance of David Burley and Al Korzonas
on HBD does have me wondering about conspiracy theories and multiple
personalities. Perhaps this will be covered in the next X-files movie ;^)

Good to see them both posting again. And some very good discussions of alt too
Al, Jim.

AJ kindly posts some additional test showing remarkably drops in zinc levels in
finished beer.  Since yeast are known to be a   good source of zinc it might be
educational to understand how zinc levels vary from wort to beer.  Still I
suspect from the data provided that the  lit is correct and that zinc in wort
(break removed) is quite low and that addition of roughly 0.5ppm zinc to wort
is a generally good thing re yeast growth.

AlK points out correctly that fusel alcohol production by yeast drops at both
very low and very high amino acid levels.  Of the two distinct mechanisms
involved in fusel oil production though, the synthetic mechanism, active at low
amino acid levels is almost certainly the dominant factor in excessively fusely
beer.  The yeast strain is of course important (51 to 88ppm range over a
selection of yeasts in one study), and certain genetically selected yeast
variants with requirements for leucine and valine also do not substantially
produce the corresponding fusel oil (the synthetic mechanism is absent).  A
couple references point out that although ale yeasts are noted for producing
more fusels (and fusels may be an important flavor component of ales in
moderation) that at the same temps (10C) ale and lager yeast produced
comparable amounts of fusels.  Anaerobic conditions cause higher fusel levels
(not surprising). Continuous agitation (like those plate stirrers!) create
higher fusel levels too !

I did/do stop short of suggesting added amino acids to prevent fusel
production, but OTOH a couple hundred ppm of the aminos described (leucine,
isoleucine, valine) should generally inhibit the synthetic mechanism.  Also
note that underpitching cause additional amino acid production so drives the
fusel levels higher.

VDKs - the idea recent implied that VDKs and acetaldehyde are only
reassimilated by lager strains is apparently incorrect.  VDK production is
inherently related to amino acid utilization too.  Diacetyl formation can be
'strongly suppressed' by L-valine additions.  A similar relationship appears to
stand between 2.3-pentanedione and isoleucine.
- --
Washing machine as centrifuge - I've estimated my 'Whirlpool's spin dry cycle
at about 36g's.  The literature suggests figures from 3,000g's to 10,000g's for
10-15 minutes for yeast separation.  I seriously doubt that a washing machines
spin cycle will do the job and still seek an improved method.
- --

David R. Burley writes ...

>Unfortunately, these results may or may
>not be meaningful as a means of evaluating Clinitest or my
>observation that, in my experience of several decades, a reading
>of <1/4% glucose indicates the fermentation is finished.
 ...
>Commercial beers may not always be fermented to dryness,

There was no suggestion that Clinitest  results were in doubt, except  for my
note that the eyedropper is not an accurate means of creating a measured
dilution of beer.  I was not evaluating Clinitest, but rather it's utility in
determining the end of fermentation

>Steve's results are very interesting, but they do not indicate a fault
>in Clinitest, rather, perhaps in Steve's interpretation of his results
>based on his implied ( but unstated) assumption that all
>commercial beers are fermented dry.

Even Freud allowed that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  The interpretation
is yours David.  Note also that homebrew may not always be fermented dry
either.

Your point that residual fermentables remain in filtered commercial beer is
well taken, but this fails to explain the correlation of higher Clinitest
readings with stronger and more dextrinous commercial beers or my strong ale.
Obviously more data would be needed for me to support this correlation fully
too.

In my initial post I analyzed the reducing NONfermentable sugar content of a
rather fermentable wort - numbers from and EBC paper produced at Tuborg.  There
the conclusion was that the non-fermentable sugar content alone is sufficient
to cause finished beer clinitest readings above 1/4%.  The other table
referenced (M&BS 2nd ed, tbl 22.5) shows several non-primed commercial beers
with posited residual levels of NONfermentables above the 1/4% as glucose
levels too.  Whether commercial brewers do in fact remove all fermentable
sugars does not impact the conclusion of the original post, tho' it does impact
the interpretation of the tests of commercial products in the second post.

>Just remember that it is extremely unlikely that Clinitest with its
>history of nearly a century in Chemistry is wrong.

No one has implied that Clinitest or the Fehling or Benedict test is
inaccurate, tho' you bring this up 3 times in your post David.  What is in
question is Clinitest result interpretation as regards the completion of
fermentation.

Steve Alexander







Return to table of contents

---