HOMEBREW Digest #2862 Thu 29 October 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: Vectored Flow ("Ludwig's")
  Yeast for barleywine (Adam Holmes)
  Re:"Fake" lagers (ThomasM923)
  IBU's (Louis Bonham)
  Cleaning keg dip tubes (Ken Houtz)
  Rusty freezer interior (fridge)
  Campfire Porter ("Spies, James")
  US malts ("Jim Busch")
  Re:  Cereal Mash; Dixie Brewery (Jeff Renner)
  No Aroma Hopback ("Timothy M. Dugan")
  Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe? (Christophe Frey)
  even more on First Wort Hopping (Jeremy Price)
  re: Primetabs (Tidmarsh Major)
  Re: Perhaps going all grain? (Andrew Ager)
  Classic American Pilsner (Gordon Strong)
  mounting a thermometer in a SS pot? (Badger Roullett)
  FWH ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Home Grown Hop Alpha Acid Guesstimation (Christophe Frey)
  Re: Cleaning dip tubes (Alan Edwards)
  Munchner Dunkel (Al Korzonas)
  Malt drying (Al Korzonas)
  tsetinilc (Jim Liddil)
  IBU's,   pLambic,   Excel spreadsheet and Altitude ("silent bob")
  All grain - maybe (Blink)
  I like a little head but..... (Chuck Cubbler)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event On Earth yet? Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html 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: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:26:46 -0500 From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig at us.hsanet.net> Subject: Re: Vectored Flow > John writes: > >Then you need to consider how much area you need to cover. A manifold > >pipe can adequately lauter an area of 2-3 inches to either side, which > >means that you can space your manifold pipes 4-6 inches apart to achieve > >good coverage of the lauter tun bottom. > > ...and later: > > >If you use a manifold or Easymasher (tm) type setup, deeper is better > >because as you approach the drain, the flow becomes vectored toward the > >drain resulting in more flow thru the grain around the drain, and > >less(slower And Al K. writes > I don't disagree with either, actually, but I've always questioned whether > these differences (which look big in theory) are actually big enough to > cause a noticeable difference in yield. I did a very preliminary test > using various lauter tun designs (see my article in the Great Grains > Special Issue of Zymurgy)... just to see if there were *radical* differences > in yield... and found that the differences appear to be relatively small. > I haven't thought about this subject in quite a while but this thread sparked something. My thoughts on this are that the flow through the mash is a function of pressure gradient through the mash and flow rate out of the mashtun. So for a given flowrate out of the mashtun, the flow rate throught the mash is a function of pressure gradient. Assume that the exit of the mashtun is level with the lauter manifold and assume an single copper tube with slits and you just let the liquid dribble out. The greatest pressure gradient extends up the middle of the mash to the top and that is where the greatest flow is. As you fan out from this center area, the pressure gradient over the distance traveled decreases and the flow rate decreases. So a higher proportion of the sparge liquid sitting on top of the mash is going down the middle. That's sounds like an extreme case though. In reality, the deeper and narrower the grain bed, the less disproportionate the flow becomes. Now lets go the the bottom of the mash tun. I would bet that there is little flow along the bottom because there is no pressure gradient unless you have channeling somewhere around the perimeter. The higher you go above the level of the manifold, the more pressure gradient extending out to the perimeters pulling the liquid throught the grain. That would imply that there is a volume near the bottom edges of the mashtun that don't get adequately sparged. You could increase the flow in these areas by suction lautering by lowering the exit point of the mash tun or pumping out of the mashtun which most of us do anyway. Having said all that, I think that mashtun geometry is a significant factor and I think that taller and narrower would be better for an easy masher type setup (single pickup) and that the short and wide mashtuns would benefit from multiple branches in the lautering manifold. Boy I hope this makes sense when I read it in the morning. Cheers! Dave Ludwig Flat Iron Brewery SO MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:17:07 -0800 From: Adam Holmes <aaholmes at lamar.colostate.edu> Subject: Yeast for barleywine I was going to make my first barleywine and had some questions about yeast. I have read that you should choose an alcohol tolerant yeast with med. to high attenuation. Profiles of yeast cultures often list the attenuation but I haven't seen much said about how alcohol tolerant each culture is. I've only seen a mention that WyEast #3944 (Belgian White Beer) is alcohol tolerant but that's about it. So, anyone know what is or isn't alcohol tolerant? The question is kind of academic to me because I am going to repitch WyEast #1028 (London Ale) from a pale ale batch in progress. Would love to hear other's successes, failures, tips on getting proper attenuation in their barleywines. I'm especially curious about the need to repitch yeast when transferring beer to the secondary fermenter. Do you make a fresh culture up for this or wash/repitch yeast from the primary? I plan on an OG of 1.100 with a target IBU of around 85. private email OK Thanks, Adam Holmes Fort Collins, CO p.s. to the guy who was curious about going all-grain who lived in an apartment: DO IT. I just started making all-grain beers and they taste amazing. I'll never touch extract again. I also live in a small apartment with a crappy stove but I just straddle my pot over two burners and set them on high. Takes some time to get 7 gallons boiling but I still find time to brew even in the midst of going to graduate school. Good Luck. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 01:09:58 EST From: ThomasM923 at aol.com Subject: Re:"Fake" lagers Randy Ricchi writes: "I was wondering if anyone has used it to brew lager-style beers such as pilsner, Octoberfest, Bock, etc., and if so, did you feel the yeast made a good pseudo-lager?" Randy, Why don't you experiment with a real lager yeast? The California common strain is supposed to ferment well at around 60 degrees. Wyeast and other companies offer this strain. Thomas Murray Maplewood, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:04:56 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: IBU's Pete wrote: > When using the various software packages for recipe formulation, usually > there is a choice for hops calculation method. I was wondering the > inherent differences between the methods (Tinseth and Rager) and why > they yield vastly different number in terms of IBUs. For my recipe, > they yielded values of about 25 and 48 or so. Remember that all IBU "calculators" are really just rough "estimators" -- there are simply too many variables to accurately predict IBU's across the board. The differences you're seeing stem from Messrs. Tinseth and Rager making different assumptions about utilization rates. In doing the labwork for the HBD Palexperiment, the ranges of IBU's for beers brewed from, literally, the same ingredients varied from about 50 to 75 (there were also two over 90, but I suspect that those two results were artifacts), with a distribution on a rough bell curve with the peak at about 64 and most of the beers being within 5 IBU's of this figure. Of the commonly used formulas, Rager was the most accurate in this instance, predicting 61 IBU's for the recipe. However, the wide variance of results from this experiment -- which used identical amounts of hops from the same lot -- points out the inherent problem with relying on any formula: there are just too many other variables that are not accounted for in these formulas. The *only* way to know your IBU's is to physically measure them in the finished beer. Once you have this data for several beers, you will probably have a decent idea of what *your* utilization rates are for *your* system and procedures, and thereafter you could tweak Tinseth/Garetz/Rager's formula to give more accurate guesses. But the bottom line is that the only way to know your IBU's is to measure them. > When books are written about styles, is there a given standard method > that is used?? For example in Daniels book or Papazians?? When reporting the IBU's of commercial beers, measured IBU levels are usually given. When Ray's book reports the IBU levels of beers at the NHC, however, I believe that he was simply reporting what the individual brewers claimed -- and thus they could have been using a spectrophotometer, Rager, Tinseth, Garetz, or a dartboard to get these figures. (As far as Papazian, I have no idea what (if any) methodology he uses -- but I would wager a considerable sum that the IBU levels of his recipes are not based on measured IBU's.) Louis K. Bonham Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 98 06:56:34 -0500 From: Ken Houtz <kenhoutz at nut-n-but.net> Subject: Cleaning keg dip tubes - -- [ From: Ken Houtz * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] -- George, I tried the .22 but my lineup was too good. That little bullet went straight through and never touched the sides at all. So I got my .338 Win Mag and tried again. Yep, clean as a wistle but now a different problem. The tube is too big to go back into the keg fitting. Guess I'll stick with my old method which is a long stemmed brush and some Comet. Ken Houtz Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:41:11 -0500 From: fridge at kalamazoo.net Subject: Rusty freezer interior Greetings folks, In HBD#2860, Robert Arguello asked how to repair a rusty freezer interior. I have a new chest freezer that is showing signs of rust where the factory didn't caulk the seams of the cabinet liner and the edges didn't get any paint. Since my freezer is still new, I'll dry it out well when my dopplebock is finished fermenting and apply a good mildew-resistant silicone caulk. Where rust breaks through the paint on the cabinet liner, some effort will be required to make a good repair. I'd recommend wire brushing the affected areas to remove any loose rust or paint. Then apply a liquid "rust converter" available in many automotive departments. The rust convertor prevents further corrosion and reacts with remaining rust on the surface to form a hard coating. I would then paint the liner with an "epoxy" appliance paint. I suspect this is really a polyurethane of some sort, but the paint seems to be harder and more durable than other paints available in spray cans. When painting or otherwise coating the interior of a chest freezer, keep in mind that whatever you apply will affect the heat transfer from the freezer's contents to the refrigerant coils located in the cabinet walls. Keep any applied coatings THIN! After the paint cures, I would apply a mildew-resistant silicone caulk to any seams in the cabinet liner. Lastly... Put a container of Damp-Rid inside the freezer to help keep the humidity down. I have had good results with it in my own freezers, only getting a slight moisture build-up during the most humid summer months while fermenting multiple carboys of lager. Give it a try. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at kalamazoo.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:18:12 -0500 From: "Spies, James" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: Campfire Porter All - I recently made a porter (or what I thought was a porter) from a few recipies culled from the Cat's Meow/Gambrinus archives. My aim was to make a full-bodied, sweetish porter (not a dry, woody/smoky porter). Here's the problem: none of the recipies for *all-grain* porter that I found described the amount of residual sweetness left in them. So, drawing what I could, here's the recipie I pieced together (problems will become evident momentarily). 5 lbs. Marris Otter Pale 5 lbs. Weyermann's Munich 1 lb. 90 lov. crystal ~14 oz. Chocolate malt ~3 oz. Black Patent malt - ------ 1 oz Chinook pellets (11.2 AA -- 60 min) 1 oz whole leaf Cascade (5.2 AA -- K.O.) - ------ 2 packets rehydrated Edme Ale yeast - ------ single infusion at 157 for 60 min - ------ sparged 7 gallons, pitched 5.5 galllons at 1.054 I think I *way* overdid it on the dark malts. The wort smelled like a leftover campfire, which was definitely *not* what I intended. My question for the omnipotent masses is what can I do fix what I am sure will be somewhat of a p-rauch porter? It's still in primary, but I can smell the burnt/toasted odor from the airlock. I intentionally mashed high to leave some unfermentable dextrins, so I'm hoping that the FG will be in the low 20's. Any way to add something that will counteract the burnt odor/taste, or am I stuck with it ?? TIA, Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:36:24 +0000 From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com> Subject: US malts While I certainly respect the brewing experience of Fred Scheer I would like to submit some anecdotal experience with domestic malts. In previous microbreweries that our brewmasters worked, they used Briess or Froederts base malts. While they would convert almost by looking at em with hot water, the rich malt depth of character that I love in the best Munchner Helles or Export Hell's seemed absent. This was true no matter if decoctions or other methods were employed. When we started our own micro we went with German malts for all of the base and specialties. Guess what, that elusive depth of malt character and snappy crisp finish came back in the exports, helles and pilsners. Of particular note is the Munich malts that have been discussed here of late. Making an authentic Ur-Maerzen bier just never worked with domestic malts even using some Vienna 2 row malts. Even with decoctions and German Munich malts it is difficult to get that lovely toasty, nutty somewhat bready aromas that I love from the likes of Hacker Pschorr Oktoberfest. If Fred can make a Munich (or pils for that matter) malt that can rival those from the old world it would be a great advance for domestic brewing and I wish him well. While our brewdays would be slightly shorter with domestic malts, in the end the judgement is not made on the length of the brewday but on the quality of the end product. As farmers, maltsters and brewers all have directly conflicting interests, the end malt will always be a compromise between the high yield desires of the farmer, the uniform ease of malting needs of the maltster and the quality/ease of brew needs of the brewmaster. Prost! Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:59:06 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Cereal Mash; Dixie Brewery "Matthew J. Harper" <matth at progress.com> writes: >In today's Digest Jeff Renner (A little less than 1/2 a country away) >discusses >using a cereal mash on coarse corn meal for hiS CAP. The procedure he >describes >*sounds* like a decoction to me. Am I missing something, or is it just >another name since it's not (so much...) malt that gets boiled? It certainly is like a decoction, but differs in that it is not part of the main mash that is removed and boiled but the adjunct grains and a small amount of malt (which helps liquify the cereal mash) that are mashed and boiled separately, then added to the main mash. It is the traditional (100+ years) way of handling cereal adjuncts in American beers, and is not only useful from a production standpoint, but also for the flavor. Of course, in very delicate, modern American beers, this flavor (and color) change is kept to a minimum. ++++++++ Last week I visited the Dixie Brewery in New Orleans. Kevin Stewart (UC Davis product), the brewmaster, was wonderfully generous with his time (they don't do tours, but I had an intro). They have an astoundingly antiquated plant (built in 1907 with some salvaged slightly newer equipment from Jax and other closed breweries) that the Kevin and staff seem to keep together with the proverbial chewing gum and baling wire. They use about 1/3 rice and use malt and some amalase in the cereal mash. What they produce in spite of their equipment is nothing short of a true American treasure, at least the unpasteurized draft. In the bottle and pasteurized it is merely a better than most delicate modern American "Pilsners." Unpasteurized, while still delicate and subtle, it has real complexity of malt and hops and beautiful balance. Not a CAP in my mind, but special nontheless. I brought home two unpasteurized bottles and will do a triangular taste test with the pasteurized version with some AABG members soon. I may write up a more complete report on Dixie and Acadian, which I also visited, also in New Orleans, whose Pilsener is the best Czech-style Pils I have had in this country (double decoction with Briess malt, BTW). 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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:16:01 -0600 From: "Timothy M. Dugan" <tdugan at netins.net> Subject: No Aroma Hopback Back in HBD #2855 I asked about using a hopback to keep the Break/Hops out of the fermenter, but not wanting any hop aroma. My thought was to stick the hopback after the counter-flow chiller. After thinking that through all the way, that would be a stupid idea as you are now passing clean, cool wort over hops. An invitation to disaster. I did get numerous ideas from other brewer, my favorite idea being... Bret Morrow wrote: I have successfully used the spent whole hops from the boil to filter. It shouldn't add any new hop aroma. Hope this helps. Randy Erickson wrote: According to Noonan, Scottish breweries often use spent hops (and grains) from a strong batch to make a economical small beer. Spencer Thomas wrote: How about grabbing some spent hops from the kettle and using them? This is so obvious. I don't know why I didn't think of it. Some other ideas which would work... Ray Kruse wrote: You might try using nylon hop bags and stainless scouring pads in some sort of arrangement acceptable to your hop back. Jeff A. McNally wrote: (Y)ou could boil some hop in water to drive off the aroma and then use them in your hopback. Art Beall (Ninkasi Winner Art? Congratulations) wrote: (Y)ou probably could use rice hull as a filter medium. When possible I'm going to pull some spent hops from the kettle. If I know a batch isn't going to use any whole hops, then I'm going to boil some hops in water, and use that. Thanks for everyone who responded. It was very helpful. Tim M. Dugan tdugan at netins.net p.s. I also want to thank everyone on the HBD, I have learned sooooo much over the last two years. I hop one of these days I can start adding to the digest, not just keep taking! Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Oct 1998 09:59:35 -0500 From: Christophe Frey <cfrey at ford.com> Subject: Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe? to: post@hbd.org At our brew club meeting last night, a relative newcomer to the hobby was concerned that his porter, brewed last Saturday and given two packets of dry yeast, had either completed its fermentation already or was stuck. I gave him typical advise regarding hydrometer readings, but in the general conversation that followed, the following question came up that I thought I would present to the collective. Assuming you have your wort in a carboy for awhile, and an airlock fixedon top, would it be safe to rouse the yeast by splashing it around (ie, take the carboy and shake it up). While several of us indicated that it would be better to gently swirl the wort, one individual suggested that since the brew had been fermenting, the headspace within the carboy should be filled with CO2, thus mitigating any concerns regarding aerating the wort. The argument gave me a moment to pause and realize that on the face of it, what AL had said made sense . Assuming the headspace is indeed filled with CO2, is there any reason to concern oneself with violently shaking and rocking the carboy, thus rousing the little yeasties awake? What say yea? Sincerely, Chris P. Frey Strategic Planning & New Product Development 337-1642 chris.frey-ford at e-mail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:24:41 -0500 From: Jeremy Price <pricejy at email.uc.edu> Subject: even more on First Wort Hopping All wrote, >Jeremy writes: >>I started first wort hopping many of my beers about a year ago, and I am >>very pleased with the results. First Wort hopping (FWH) is just as it >>sounds; you add your bittering hops directly to the first runnings of the >>wort. The acidity of the wort facilitates extraction of the alpha acids in >>the hop. > >Have you read this somewhere or are you speculating? I believe this >shouldn't be correct. As the acidity of the wort goes up, the utilisation >goes down and the acidity of the "first wort" is actually lower than that >of the wort later in the boil. If it's true that acidity has something >to do with the utilisation, then I'd be interested to read about it... >however, I think we all need to be careful to not make any rash assumptions >and introduce new incorrect concepts into our collective brewing knowledge >base. Excuse me, I typed lower pH when I meant Higher pH. The pre-boil pH facilitates better hop utilization. Here is a reference: http://www.brewery.org/brewery/library/FWHsummaryDD0396.html I wasn't trying to introduce an incorrect concept into the collective, I simply mistyped. It happend. this is a discussion group; It should be a place for brewers to express ideas and opinions; it should not be the archived bible of brewing science. >As for increasing or decreasing the hops, in the experiment Dr. Fix sited, >they did not compensate for the fact that they would get more bitterness >from moving the aroma addition to FWH. I do not understand why you would >even suggest that the hops might be increased. Nobody, to my knowledge, >has suggested they should be. I am just relaying what I read in the article, here is the quote "As far as the use of hops is concerned, the alpha-acid quantity should not be reduced even in the case of an improved bitterness utilization" >On the contrary, in my experiment (which, admittedly was done with a very >large amount of FWH) I found a muddled bitterness obscured by excessive hop >flavour. I certainly would not have called the bitterness "cleaner" or >"sharper." I found that there was virtually no hop aroma contributed and >that the FWH added primarily bitterness and hop flavour. I would STRONGLY >discourage brewers from using FWH or any hopping later than T-60 minutes >in Altbiers because neither hop flavour nor aroma are typically found in >the non-Sticke version of this style. My experiment, was done with Czech >Saaz, incidentally. > >Al. I have to disagree, I have first wort hoped many of my recent beers and have been very pleased with the results. I don't add ALL the hops to the first running, only the bittering and a portion of the aroma hops. I still add some intentional flavor / aroma hops as needed. But what I have noticed in all of my FWH beers so far, is a better cleaner bitterness. As for my alt, after boiling for 1.5 hours with three oz of FW hops, the hop aroma is minimal; almost completely masked by the Malt, but I enjoy it! And isn't that the most important thing? The link below describes some other home brewer's experience with first wort hopping. http://www.hbd.org/~ddraper/beer/1stwort.html Jeremy Price Blotarian Brewing League Cincinnati, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:34:13 -0600 From: Tidmarsh Major <ctmajor at samford.edu> Subject: re: Primetabs I got a packet of Primetabs (corn sugar tablets) from William's Brewing, http://www.williamsbrewing.com. They were a little bit pricey compared to regular corn sugar, but they sure made bottling my Barleywine of indeterminate volume easier, since I just sanitized more bottles than necessary and dropped sugar tablets into them as I needed them, rather than trying to determine volume by comparing the weight of the full keg to the empty. Tidmarsh Major Birmingham, Alabama tidmarsh at mindspring.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:04:30 -0600 From: Andrew Ager <andrew-ager at nwu.edu> Subject: Re: Perhaps going all grain? The Greenman <greenman at sdc.org> wrote: >I haven't been brewing long, but the idea of All-graining is really >tapping at my brain. All of the recent posts by very happy All-grainers >has gotten me thinking about going all grain. Go for it! See below for more. >I have the distinct advantage of having a kitchen entirely devoted to >brewing. I eat with my fiance, and we do all the cooking at her place >so my kitchen is crammed with brewing supplies (i.e. pots, bottles, >fermenters, bottles, specialty grains, extracts, culturing equipment >etc) My fridge is entirely devoted to lagering > >However, I do have a problem. I live in an appartment with an electric >stove. I make good beer with it (since I made a buffer to go between >the pot and the element) However, it has two main settings-off and burn >the dial is useless. This shouldn't be that much of a problem. If you mash in a cooler, you don't need a fine temperature control on the stove, and if you're worried about getting 5-7 gallons of wort toa boil, the easy way around that is...smaller batch sizes. I brew 3-gallon all-grain batches, and can do a full boil on my stovetop with little problem (although I'm finally thinking about moving up to a larger kettle in order to do some bigger beers). If all you're doing on the stovetop is heating sparge water and boiling, you're set. Good Luck! Andy Ager Beer Geek, Beer Judge Chicago, IL Homebrewer Ordinaire - --Chicago Beer Society -- Silver Medal Homebrew Club of the Year, 1998 -- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:13:13 -0400 From: Gordon Strong <strongg at earthlink.net> Subject: Classic American Pilsner Thanks to Jeff Renner for continuing to step up with references and experience with this style. I was fortunate enough to judge both Jeff's best-of-show CAP last year in Michigan and Dr. Fix's first place CAP at a recent competition in Cincinnati. Both were Damn Fine Beers. I'd like to try them side-by-side; it would be a tough call. Are there any credible commercial versions of this style (particularly in the midwest)? One of the perks of judging (and brewing for that matter) is getting to sample these little-known styles. But I'm looking for examples that might be more accessible to non-brewers/judges. Anyone? Gordon Strong Beavercreek, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:36:07 -0800 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: mounting a thermometer in a SS pot? Greetings, from that wacky medieval guy... ok, so this is a modern day question, but i do that to... I have seen posts/webpages from people who have thermoters mounted in the wall of their pots. How can i do that, and without welding.... can i have so i can remove my thermometer too? for using on other things.. badger ********************************************* Brander Roullett aka Badger (2300 miles West of Jeff, Seattle, WA) 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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:41:08 -0800 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: FWH Our resident maltster Fred Scheer wrote: >While I was brewing in Europe, we made some test's with FWH. >To make a long story short, we observed that with increasing >IBU's ( above 20 ) the Hop Aroma got lost as IBU's increased. >Below 20 IBU, we got more Hop aroma as IBU's decreased. >...We concluded that dry hoping was a better way >of getting a Hop aroma in a beer with more than 20 IBU's; I thought the point of first wort hopping (FWH) was to increase hop flavor, not aroma. Did you mean that with higher IBUs (lots of FWHs) you detected less aroma because it was masked by bitterness and flavor hops? Not sure if that makes sense... But I agree with your conclusion, that dry hopping is the way to go for hop aroma. - Bryan Bryan Gros Oakland, CA Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Oct 1998 14:58:14 -0500 From: Christophe Frey <cfrey at ford.com> Subject: Home Grown Hop Alpha Acid Guesstimation to: post@hbd.org I have mentioned in earlier posts my harvesting of our esteemed janitor's (Pat Babcock) Cascade hop crop. I am getting ready to brew up a 20 gallon batch of SNPA (my 8th iteration-love this stuff!) and I want to try to utilize his hops for both aroma and flavor. Now, I know that the IBU's for aroma (I toss them in T-1 minute before the end of the boil) are virtually non-existent, but the flavor addition at T-15 minutes does impart some IBU's. I have used the assumption that I get approximately a 5% utilization factor for the 15 minute addition. While it won't make a huge difference, I want to be able to estimate my IBU's for this brew. Most Cascades I have brewed with have had 3.5%aa - 5%aa. Here is my assumption: because I have picked the hops myself, carefully handled them to loss a minimum of delicate lupin glands, I am assuming that the hops have a HIGHER than average alpha acid content. I am taking a swag and guesstimating maybe 6.0aa. I know that this is a weak assumption, but what about the overall premise that homegrown hops have higher aa due to the minimal handling? What say yea? Sincerely, Chris P. Frey Strategic Planning & New Product Development 337-1642 chris.frey-ford at e-mail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:31:02 -0800 (PST) From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: Re: Cleaning dip tubes | "dead-eye" renner wrote: | | >I've found that while the .22 cal. brush works OK, a much more thorough | >way is to use the .22 bullet itself. Just line up the dip tube *exactly* | > . . . Paul Edwards (nice last name ;-) wrote: | My method is similar, but here in Indiana we can buy copper-jacketed | .22's, so lead build-up is not a problem. For those of you forced to use | . . . YOW! I'm sure everyone *knows* that this is a joke. but let's not forget to add those smileys (or <grin>s if you wish). In this case, you all should add LOTS of smileys, since not getting this joke could result in death. Sorry, but I did lose some of the morbid sense of humor I once had...right around the time I had children. -Alan Edwards in Fremont, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:55:46 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Munchner Dunkel Rob writes: >Can anyone point me towards information on a grain bill for this beer. I was >thinking 50% Pils malt, 48% Munich malt, and 2% chocolate. Am I close? >That's % extract, of course :-) I would in stead recommend 0% Pils, 100% Munich and 0% chocolate. Recall why this beer was the colour it was... There is a significant amount of bicarbonate in the water of Munchen. The brewers discovered that they could make fine beer from their regular malt, but had trouble with astringency and conversion when they used paler malts. (Actually, all malt was rather dark originally, it's just that other towns' waters allowed the maltsters to make the malt paler when the technology allowed it, whereas in Munich, the water kept the "regular" malt dark.) Therefore, their specifications called for higher-kilned malt from their maltsters. Eventually, they learned about pH and water chemistry and learned how to make pale beers from pale malts, but traditionally, Munchner beer was amber and was made from 100% Munchner malt. Incidentally, in Vienna, they had slightly less bicarbonate and slightly more calcium (which reacts with the malt to lower pH) and therefore the Vienna brewers could use slightly paler malt than their Munich counterparts. Hence, Vienna malt is between Munich and Pils in colour. Some brewers of modern Munchner Dunkels do indeed add a touch of darker malt (like Koenig Ludwig), but I suggest beginning with a batch of the original and then adapt it to your taste in subsequent incarnations. By the way (okay, this is the last one), the current AHA guidelines say a chocolaty flavour is required, which is incorrect. The soon-to- be-released new BJCP guidelines have fixed this problem and negotiations are underway to work towards unified guidelines. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:34:36 -0600 (CST) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Malt drying Jon Sandlin writes: >I am looking forward to doing some home malting. I believe you will have grater success if you change your last name to "Saladin." Sorry, couldn't resist... If you don't get it, see: http://www.fuglsang.dk/malting.html or http://web195b.bbnplanet.com/malt/plants/herent.htm On the other hand, you may want to change your last name to "Floor Malting"... See: http://www.breworld.com/the_grist/9604/floormlt.html Sorry... didn't get enough sleep last night and I'm getting a little punchy. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:17:00 -0700 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: tsetinilc The latest issue of Zymurgy is a mess. The AHA director says that yeast "respirate" and the yeast road test involves pitching a bunch of yeast at variable concentrations and unknown viability into the same wort and trying to draw conclusions. I think they should have used the Clinitest to see if the worts were really fermented out. >From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> >Subject: pLambic (maybe) > > >Last February I brewed my first pLambic and it went thru its phases but >without fruit. Oct 20th I managed to get 10# of fresh raspberries and >mushed them up and stewed them at 160F, cooled them and added to the >plastic bucket of Lambic stock. The yeast didn't get recorded but I'm >sure it was Wyeast for Lambic. > > >Later I found a copy of the Lambic book by the Ass'n of Brewers series >and it said to add the fruit after a week of primary fermentation. > > >What should I do next and how long should I wait to bottle? You did not need to heat the fruit. Just carefully add it to the beer. There should already be enough acid to inhibit most bugs and minimum aeration will inhibit mold. But it's lambic who cares. WRT the recipes in "Lambic" I suggest you largely ignore them. All the times mentioned etc are not correct. But who would buy a book that suggests waiting years to make beer? Some have suggested the series in BT on lambic was OK. :-) >From: "Dave Whitman" <dwhitman at fast.net> >Subject: yeast storage under sterile buffer solution > > RESULTS OF MY EXPERIMENT SUGGEST THAT KH2PO4 BUFFER > SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVES YEAST SURVIVAL DURING EXTENDED STORAGE. > Experimental Details: > Cultures of Wyeast 1968 and 3068 were grown on SG 1040 wort agar slants. > Vials containing either reverse osmosis water or r/o water with 2% KH2PO4 > were pressure cooked for 20 minutes at 15 psi, then allowed to cool to room > temperature. > Small samples of yeast solids were transferred into the vials using a > flame-sterilized loop. What was the cell number and viabilty based on methylene blue at the time the cells wer placed into the vials? And what was the exact volume of fluid in each vial? > > The vials were then sealed and stored at room > temperature in the dark. A total of 4 vials were prepared: 2 yeast strains > each under either r/o water or 2% buffer. > After 3 months, I estimated viability of each sample using the methylene > blue test given at: http://www.cbs.knaw.nl/publications/online/2aquic.htm > Dead cells get stained blue, whereas live cells bleach the dye and remain > unstained. > For each vial, I counted stained and unstained cells in multiple regions of > at least two microscope slides. A minimum of 800 cells were counted for > each vial. The percentage of unstained cells was calculated for each region > examined, and an estimate of stdev was made by comparing the results for > each region. You n value is small and you have no idea what the cell number in the vials was to start with. Did you take repeated samples from each vial and repeat the procedure? 800 cells may be a statistically small value for the actual number of cells in the vial. > > Results: > --- % unstained cells ---- > Yeast Strain pure water KHP buffer > 1968 77 +/- 9 97 +/- 2 > 3068 88 +/- 4 96 +/- 1 > The effect is rather dramatic. For Wyeast 1968, the number of dead cells > was 8 times higher in the pure water sample than in 2% buffer! T-tests > indicate that the increase in viability in the buffer relative to r/o water > is statistically significant for both yeast strains. OK all you stats guys that blasted me. I don't think applying a t-test to such a small sample size with single measurements means a thing. Methylene blue staining is largely unreliable except for fresh samples. And when viability is below 80% it is considered useless. The only real test is to plate a known number of cells and see how many colonies develop. Staining or lack there of is not a true indication of the ability to grow. > > Limitations of the experiment: > My statistics are just a bit bogus, because the samples aren't totally > independent. Then why present them? Also the water storage method was developed as a field method. Find some something new and then you can just put it into water until you return to the lab. The CDC has publsihed work showing yeast can survive for 10 years. Phosphate buffer may be a good idea in the right hands. But it has certain limitations. It is a very good nutrient media unlike water. So anytime tou open a vial your technique has to be very good since anything else that might get in will grow like crazy. It is why we always add azide to our hplc buffers. Water does not have this tendency. This experiment needs to be carried out for a year and then see how the numbers fall. And since we can't debate clinitest let's debate calcium and it's effect on gelatinization. Marc Sedam wrote an article in BT and reported some info from Noonan. Noonan states in his book that calcium has a postive effect on gelatinization (not saccharifiaction and enzymes). Many have written articles and simply regurgitated this statement. I've already debated this point with Marc and BT showed little interest in my obsession about minute details. Marc and I have scanned the literature and I've asked various cereal researchers and gottne e-mail answers. So can anybody shed further light? Jim www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:43:50 PST From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil at hotmail.com> Subject: IBU's, pLambic, Excel spreadsheet and Altitude Hello Freinds, I have been away for a couple of days, and in catching up I saw a couple of things that I thought I could respond to in a somewhat intelligent manner: Someone asked about the difference IBU calculation methods. The special issue of Zymurgy on hops has an excellent article on this including correction factors for several variables including boil temp, type of hops, gravity etc. The author uses several of the methods to calcualate the IBU's, and then compares the actual IBU's measured at Seibel for that beer. I used a combination of the methods and correction factors that made sense and seemed significant to me, and then used that composite method to calculate the scenerio in the article, and came very close. If anyone wants it, E-mail me, I don't have on me at the moment. Someone wants to add rasberries to a pLambic in very late secondary. Go for it! I have tasted homebrewed pLambics that use this method, and they are excellent. The advantage is that you can taste the beer now, and decide if it is good enough to add expensive fruit to, and you lose less of the fruit character. The disadvantage is that the fermentation of the fruit could take a while. Consider re-pitching some of the beasties, and choose which ones based on you opinion of the pLambic. If you think it needs more acidity add Pediococcus or Lactobacillus. If it needs more "horsey" add more Bret. Beware that this still may not give you an earthshaking ferment as the new bugs (micro-organisms not fruit flies) *sorry-had to* will be inhibited by acidity and alcohol. Good luck, and send me some!!! Whoever wanted the Excel spreadsheet, e-mail me. I have one that I have put alot of work into, and that I think works very efficiently, and gives alot of info. You are welcome to it as long as you don't mind letting me know when you find one of my screw-up's (not that I think that many exist, I have found it to be accurate). Lastly, since a great deal of discussion was put into altitude, I will close my message as follows: Happy Brewing, Adam C. Cesnales in Austintown, Ohio: about 250 miles south east of, and 800 feet above Jeff Renner. P.S. Please children, cleaning your brewing equipment with a firearm should not be attempted at home. ;^) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) From: beermonster at brewer.org (Blink) Subject: All grain - maybe Greenman was asking about all grain. Over here in the UK propane burners are few and far between, most people using electric elements. You can make a perfectly viable 3 vessel brewery (HLT, Mashtun, Copper) with polyprop plastic buckets and 2.7kw or 3kw kettle elements or similar elements. Two elements in each would help speed the process up no end. You drop down to one for boiling once boiling in the copper. You shouldn't blow up your electrics as you will only use two elements max at any one time. The HLT and copper would be plastic buckets and the mashtun is a coolbox. Use copper manifolds in the bottom of the copper and mashtun, immersion cooler, phils or home made sparge arm and bobs your uncle. A 3 tier brewery when the HLT is on the microwave, mashtun on the worktop, and copper on the floor. You may even squeeze in a pump to save any lifting:-) Don't know what elements you've got available in the US but you seem to have a bigger choice than over here, although you're at 120 volts? Cheers Graham Head Brewer and Kegwasher, Blinks Brewery, Derbyshire, England. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:53:07 -0500 From: Chuck Cubbler <chuck at maguire.com> Subject: I like a little head but..... Greetings to all, A question for the collective.... I've recently begun kegging my homebrew in 5 gal cornies. After force carbonating (ala Robert A.), I get a nice, creamy head, as I had expected. Even my wife was impressed. However, after consuming a little more than half of the keg, I begin to experience very foamy pours. In fact, probably half of each 12 oz glass is foam. Typically, I pour two at a time (one for each of us), and then 10 minutes or so later, two more. Guy at the homebrew supply said to turn up the pressure, that the CO2 is coming out of solution. (By the way, I'm using a Sears Beermeister, with the plumbing converted for the corny kegs.) He suggested that I turn up the pressure, so I did, from about 12psi to about 18 psi. What I get is a faster pour, still mostly foam. Now, I've not modified the stock plumbing at all. There is approx 6 ft (guessing really) of 3/8 ID tubing between the beer-out fitting and the tap. I've also had this same experience with store-bought kegs of (expletive deleted)-Light. Maybe what I need is another person's explanation of what is happening here. I've had some college chemistry and physics, so I can handle some techie stuff (le Chatlier's Principle, etc.). It just didn't ring true the way the supplier explained it. Should I have the pressure up higher from the get-go, thus preventing the CO2 from coming out of solution? Is it too late once this happens? Or do I maybe have a leak in the plumbing or something? Thanks in advance. ========================================== Chuck Cubbler Homebrewin', Harley Ridin' Libertarians of New Jersey Take the Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml ========================================== Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/29/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96