HOMEBREW Digest #2885 Thu 26 November 1998
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/Back.gif)
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:
crystal vs. caramel/ABG classes (Al Korzonas)
crystal and fermentability (Al Korzonas)
re: aluminum question (Dave Hinrichs)
dunkelweizenbock (JPullum127)
Another source of metallic taste ("Benjamin H. Hall Jr.")
Puyallup ("Steinkamps")
Hop Pellets ("Steinkamps")
Re: Kraeusen pronunciation? (ulfin)
Lauter Tun Flow Modeling (GuyG4)
Pronunciations (GuyG4)
My CAP (COOKIE)
Say WHAT?!? (pbabcock)
Al Kettle Gunk (Kyle Druey)
Furstenberg (Ken Houtz)
Labeling Bottles (MaltyDog)
CO2 toxicity and sight glasses ("silent bob")
priming sugar for kegging Pale Ale ("Victor Farren")
As the deadline rapidly approaches... (PCA)" <RPena1 at pca.ml.com>
[Fwd: An idea for computerized recipe exchange] (Rod Prather)
Exchanging computerized recipes ("Kensler, Paul")
Clear Beer ("NFGS")
Site (sic) glass (Spencer W Thomas)
Mixing Yeasts (Jim & Patti Hust)
Advice needed with beets ....for color... (LEAVITDG)
hBd or hbD or Hbd (Herbert Bresler)
Re: Yeast propagation, canning wort (Matt Comstock)
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
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!
Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen) Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been te what it says below).
Coincidentally, I ran across a post by the well-respected Martin Lodahl
on Dr. Michael Lewis while I was looking for a writeup on kraeusening
a few minutes ago. Recently, there was a question about whether it is
worth it to attend the American Brewers' Guild classes. For this reason,
I'm reposting Martin's 1994 HBD post.
Al.
>In HOMEBREW Digest #1459 Steve Armbrust asked:
>
>> I just got a brochure from the American Brewer's Guild on several
>> classes they offer. (The address is Davis, CA, and it mentions Dr.
>> Michael Lewis, so it might be affiliated with UC-Davis).
>
>I don't believe so. Lewis is, as far as I know, but I believe this
>is a separate venture.
>
>> They're offering a 2-day, weekend series ("Brewing Science for the
>> Advanced Homebrewer" and "Special Topics for Advanced Homebrewers")
>> that's actually being offered here in Portland, OR on Aug 27-28. Cost
>> for both days is $200.
>>
>> Does anyone know anything about these classes? Are they worth going to?
>> I've got a half-dozen or so all-grain batches under my belt. Would the
>> classes be too advanced for me? Too easy?
>
>I took a number of courses from Dr. Lewis under the auspices of
>U. C. Davis Extension (I guess I'm a slow learner), and developed
>some decided opinions in the matter. I'm passing these on _as_
>_opinions,_ and they pertain to the courses he taught on the same
>subjects under different auspices several years ago; you can decide
>for yourself how relevant they are to the present question.
>
>Dr. Lewis has been the head of the only university-level brewing
>program in the United States for over 30 years, during which time he's
>also done consulting work, and is presently associated with a company
>selling equipment and services to brewpubs and microbreweries. Yet,
>there's a depressing sameness to the beers his graduates produce:
>clean, competent, flavorless, boring. He was a principal in a brewpub
>in Davis that during its short life produced some of the most horrid
>beer on the west coast, by nearly universal agreement. I found those
>facts difficult to reconcile until I took classes from him. There isn't
>space in an HBD item to go into detail, but the "broad brush" is that
>in the commercial classes I took he made it very clear that he feels
>Bud to be the pinnacle of beer's development, and craft-brewed beers to
>be clearly lesser products, not to be taken seriously (except,
>presumably, as income sources). In a pub-brewing course, he repeatedly
>stressed that on-premises brewing is "a marketing ploy," dismissing the
>notion that there's any reason at all to drink the stuff when "better"
>beer is available. From that standpoint, his recommendations to
>stick to extract beers and dry yeast make perfect sense; if you're
>going to be making swill anyway, you might as well do so the easy way.
>In those same commercial courses he never missed a chance to sneer at
>homebrewers, which always drew squirms of discomfort from the students,
>virtually all of whom were active or former homebrewers. When I took
>his advanced homebrewing course I was surprised to see that it wasn't
>really all that advanced; if you've done a few all-grain batches, I
>suspect you'll feel your $200 was pretty much down the drain. He talked
>a bit about yeast culturing (nothing not in the Yeast FAQ, as I recall),
>and rather more about mashing theory and practice, and there he put
>forward as fact his notion of the uselessness of the protein rest. He's
>ridden that horse pretty hard for several years now, but such support
>for it as there once was has largely evaporated, except among his grads.
>Most of the class were unaware of the story behind it, and drank it up.
>He very strongly favors the single-temperature infusion, and if pressed
>can find something nice to say about the temperature program (step) mash,
>but feels decoctions are a waste of time, unless your malt is
>"inferior." Others, of course, disagree. The concept of styles also
>came in for a drubbing, with the (deliberate) phenolic content of
>Bavarian Weizens ridiculed as a "flaw."
>
>You get the picture. There was valuable material in the classes I took
>from him, but mostly concerning the commercial aspects of the business.
>Nothing I got from him on the subject of brewing has been useful, and
>some of it led me to make flavorless, boring beers, until I realized the
>cause and adjusted my approach, but I was an experienced homebrewer when
>I first began taking his classes. I must say, however, that the same
>amazing sense of self-assurance (he seems completely untroubled by
>doubt) that allows him to be so attached to a set of opinions as to
>label them as fact also makes him one of the most entertaining
>instructors and storytellers you'll ever meet. It may be worth the
>money just to see the show.
>
>So that's my opinion. I have labeled it as such; don't expect a
>similar courtesy from him.
>
> - Martin
>
>= Martin Lodahl Systems Analyst, Capacity Planning, Pacific*Bell =
>= malodah at pacbell.com Sacramento, CA USA 916.972.4821 =
>= If it's good for ancient Druids runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
>= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! (Unk.) =
>
>
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 15:33:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: crystal and fermentability
Another old topic... sorry.
Dave (Humes) writes:
>According to Mort's explanation, amylopectin is preferentially
>hydrolyzed during the production of crystal malts. This presumably
>results in fermentable extract in the case of crystal malts. For
>dextrin malts, which are stewed at a higher temperature, the balance
>is more towards non-fermentable dextrins.
Who said that dextrin malts are stewed at a higher temperature?
Can you provide a reference? This is the first I've heard of this.
Whether it is true or not is moot to the original question.
Let's not lose sight of the fact that the original question was...
Will mashing crystal malts convert some of their unfermentables
into fermentables?
The answer is, yes, although, based on Mort's post, not as much,
perhaps, as you might expect.
Interestingly enough, it was this question back in 1990 or so, that
prompted me to contact Dr. George Fix and ask him his opinion. Basically,
he said that he adds crystal malts for their flavour and aroma and
controls fermentability of the wort with his mash temperatures and
not with the addition of crystal malts.
It's primarily extract+specialty brewers that use crystal malt to
control fermentability and this concept can take some time to abandon
when one begins brewing all-grain.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:51:23 -0500
From: Dave Hinrichs <dhinrichs at quannon.com>
Subject: re: aluminum question
Just catching up here. Another source of pots AL or SS is a used restraunt
supply house. For those of us in the Twin Cities area A-Z in Princeton is a
very cool place to shop (just a happy customer). I got a 60qt SS with drain
and cover for $150 it was used but still had the mfg label on it.
> BTW - Heavy duty al pots are NOT cheaper than ss. The prices of
>the WearEvers are absolutely breathtaking, and the Vollraths are not
>cheap. Standard duty al is quite a bit cheaper, but not inexpensive. Try
>auctions at restaurants going out of business. I've had no luck at flea
>markets and garage sales, but you never know.
> Probably the only way you can actually purchase the things new is
>through a restaurant supply distributor (what I did).
Dave, on the other side of cheeseland from Jeff. Go Vikes
***************************************************************
* Dave Hinrichs E-Mail: dhinrichs at quannon.com *
* Quannon CAD Systems, Inc. Voice: (612) 935-3367 *
* 6101 Baker Road, Suite 204 FAX: (612) 935-0409 *
* Minnetonka, MN 55345 *
* http://www.quannon.com/ *
***************************************************************
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 18:08:51 EST
From: JPullum127 at aol.com
Subject: dunkelweizenbock
i was just given approx 6 1/2 lbs of briess wheat extract and told to try
something unusual with it. as i am not a fan of the clove/bananna/phenol of
most wheat beers i was thinking of a dunkelweizen bock using wyeast 3333
german wheast yeast. would i be better off using more wheat extract,partial
mashing some munich malt,or using something else to bump up the fermentables
and deepen the color.? i was thinking of using mt. hood /saaz for hops.
thanks for your thoughts marc
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:22:38 -0600
From: "Benjamin H. Hall Jr." <bhall at edge.net>
Subject: Another source of metallic taste
Hi all,
I recently had a couple of batches spoiled by a really nasty metallic
taste. I was therefore looking at all parts of my brewing process. I
happened to notice a splash in one of the boiling kettles (I boil with
two 5 gal SS pots on an electric stove). It came from the range hood
which was poorly installed and had been poorly cleaned and scratched
with oven cleaner in the past. I tasted the water still clinging to the
hood and it tasted wretchedly familiar. I now boil with a towel to mop
up the condensing water under the hood and ponder the completion of the
new kitchen free brewing system.
Ben Hall
Metropolitan Lynchburg/Moore County TN
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:36:35 -0600
From: "Steinkamps" <EnW_Steinkamp at email.msn.com>
Subject: Puyallup
Puyallup is obviously pronounced "pull ya'll up"
Ed Steinkamp
Allen, TX
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 21:07:46 -0600
From: "Steinkamps" <EnW_Steinkamp at email.msn.com>
Subject: Hop Pellets
Thanks to all who responded to my frustration regarding hop pellets. Those
who responded with equal frustration seemed to have converted from whole
leaf to pellets. (I converted because I moved from Seattle where whole leaf
hops were more plentiful than around Dallas, where I live now) I was using
a SS screen (easy-masher) in my kettle which allowed the whole leaf hops to
filter the trub. Well, pellets make a SS screen, chorboy or anything else
into more of a cork than a filter.
The suggestions were:
1) Bag the pellets so they don't get the spluge everywhere. Pay attention
that the bag does not get stuck under the outflow pipe and scorch in the
bottom of the kettle. (Burnt nylon does not make a nice rauchbier.) Expect
10% degradation in hop utilization.
2) Design the recipe one gallon larger. Whirlpool, settle and pull from
edge with siphon or, if you have a pot with a drain, leave whatever is below
the drain. The smaller diameter tubes (like on the easymasher) seem to get
clogged very easily, so don't put anything on the end of the 1/2 drain tube
and let her rip.
3) Brew with whole leaf hops. (duh)
Thanks for all the input.
Ed Steinkamp
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:15:35 -0500
From: ulfin at mail.portup.com
Subject: Re: Kraeusen pronunciation?
Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach at nctm.org> writes:
>
>Was it old Stroh's commercials that talked about
>kraeusening?
It wasn't Stroh; it was Old Style.
>They said "KROY-sen."
It's not "KROY-sen"; it's "KROY-zen".
>(And wasn't it Stroh's that made a big deal about
>being fire-brewed? As if gas flame versus electric
>heat makes a difference
It's not "gas flame versus electric"; it's gas vs.
steam. Yes, it *can* make a difference...typically
not considered a desirable one, though.
Dan Butler-Ehle
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:40:10 EST
From: GuyG4 at aol.com
Subject: Lauter Tun Flow Modeling
John Palmer kindly asked me to report on lautertun flow modeling to the HBD.
Thats kinda tough without graphics, but I'll do my best. To the best of my
knowledge, I'm the only one yet who's been goofy enough to do this, so please
consider this bit of esoterica "original research" . Over the past 6 months
or so, I've had a pleasant email discussion with John regarding this, because
his interest in lauter design led him, like me, to work toward an efficient,
simple, and functional lautertun design. My professional prejudice led me
toward drains, used in zillions of applications for removing fluid through
porous media. After looking at John's empirical experiment, I attempted to
model fluid flow under constant head conditions to see if we can predict
radius of influence of drains in a typical homebrew sized lauter, and to
evaluate what configuration might be the best.
As someone suggested, one must apply Darcy's Law at numerous points within the
grainbed to do that. I applied MODFLOW, the U.S.G.S. Modular Finite
Difference Ground Water Model, (MacDonald and Harbaugh, 1988).
MODFLOW is a three-dimensional, unsteady state, non-homogeneous, anisotropic
flow model, perhaps the most applied three-dimensional flow model in the
world. It is typically used to arrive at solutions of complex ground water
flow problems in areas of complicated geology and hydraulics. In this case,
the material was assumed to be isotropic and homogeneous with respect to flow,
and as a constant head case was desired, steady state was assumed. Because it
involves vertical flow, however, a numerical solution to the 3-dimensional
flow equation is warranted.
I'll now outline the assumptions in the model for any of you who wish to
critically evaluate this work, in words I hope the layman can appreciate.
Assumptions include constant fluid potential (aka constant head) between the
sparge water surface and the drain for the majority of time during lautering.
In this model, head is held constant at the thickness of the grain,
approximately 20 cm. The model assumes no leakage through the walls of the
lautertun. This is called a "no-flow boundary condition", and holds true for
the sides, ends, and the bottom of the tun.
The drain is of adequate capacity to remove the sparge water. This capacity
is approximately 0.01 m^2/sec, a typical value for drains. Hydraulic
conductivity is a measure of the ability of grain to conduct flow. This has
been experimentally determined (see HBD# 2069), and in this case is assigned a
value of 0.1 cm/sec. A value of 0.25 cm/sec was experimentally determined, my
previous work on this used 0.025 cm/sec as design assumption, but later work
suggested that may be too conservative. The system was assumed isotropic(non-
directional) with respect to flow. My home system is designed to the lower
value, and I've never, ever, ever had a stuck runoff, even considering all the
corn, rye, oats, and other junk with which I brew. Effective porosity
(porosity available for flow) of the grain was assumed to be 0.3, or 30%.
Total porosity was set at 0.4. These values are assumed based upon grain size
comparison with geologic materials for which the model was designed. The tun
is 25 cm wide, 40 cm long, and the grain is 20 cm deep. A model grid of 40
columns, 25 rows, and 20 layers was constructed. All layers have equivalent
hydraulic conductivities. Another model was run on a cylindrical tun 0.45 m
in diameter. Values for hydraulic head are calculated at the center of each
grid cube using the 3D Transport equation.
The effects of drains installed 0.03 meters (3 cm) above the base of the
lautertun were simulated. Conclusions are as follows:
The model predicts hydraulic head distributions very similar to John Palmer's
empirical results. They strongly suggest that a double drain system lauters
grain in homebrew-sized equipment in a significantly more efficient fashion
than single drains. Flowpaths through the larger volume of grain are shorter
overall, thus increasing the opportunity for rinsing a greater volume of grain
in a given time. Modeling indicates that flow regimes are maintained in each
system and complete rinsing will occur, though, throughout the volume of
grain in a typical homebrewers lautertun.
A false bottom system is generally considered superior to a drain, based on
complete rinsing via gravity drainage through grain. Modeling indicates
hydraulic pressure overcomes this advantage, and completely rinses grain
beneath, below, and at the edge of the lauter system. This is also
illustrated in the final stages of John's empirical study, wherein the entire
grain media is saturated with color.
In general, this little bit of esoterica indicates that drains work really
well at the physical process of rinsing grain of goodies. It indicates Darcy's
law is indeed applicable to the flow of fluid through porous media, even if it
is barley malt, and it suggests that double drains are probably better than
single drains, but that single drains will work anyway.
Guy Gregory
GuyG4 at aol.com
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Spokane, WA.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 22:51:33 EST
From: GuyG4 at aol.com
Subject: Pronunciations
Incidentally, thanks for asking how to pronounce Will-am-it. And good luck on
pronouncing p-u-AL-up. As a native of the NW, I was criticized by graduate
school professors for not being able to pronounce Lake Memphremagog, and
Mississquoi, even though I was from the NW and could pronounce other screwy
indian names like "Seattle" and "Wampum". The locals, just like in French
Canada, appreciate it when you try. It'll probably get you a free beer,
especially if you keep your wallet in your front pocket...(take that,
newyoakers).
Now, is Saaz pronounced "Saws" (like handsaws) or "Saaz" (like Utah Jazz), or
otherwise?
All of you bring light into my day. Thanks, folks.
Guy Gregory
GuyG4 at aol.com
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Spokane, WA
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 20:04:11 -0800
From: COOKIE at ucrac1.ucr.edu
Subject: My CAP
Brewers,
Brewed a pseudo CAP. Here is how it went. It's a long post but
might be somewhat entertaining for you.
I took 15 lb American 6-row and did a double crush at the standard
setting on my Malt Mill. It looked like the grain was very course not like
the way 2-row crushes--not much flour but big chunks of grain. It was not
easy doing the second pass. Had to gently push the grain down the hopper.
Is this typical of a second pass for 2 or 6 row?
Mashed 15 lb. 6-row with 2 lb. flaked maize at 150 for 30 mins, 158
for 40 mins, and mashed out at 168 for 15 mins. I recirculated until wort
was clear and it was beautifully clear!
I heat sparge water up in a keg with a spigot on it. I empty it into my
GOT Cooler and put it up above my mash tun on a stand. Works very well
for me. Well the keg I heat sparge water in is also my boiler. I began
sparging into my kettle and about 15 minutes later my helper/eyes (young
nephew) says, "Hey, where is all that water coming from under that kettle?"
My heart immediately dropped because I knew exactly what it was! I left
the spigot open when I drained it into my sparge tank. I lost about 2 or 3
quarts of beautifully clear wort. I continued to sparge and got 6 gallons of
runnings before my gravity got to 10 and I decided to stop. The gravity was
at 45 and I wanted it to be at 48-50 for 10 gallons! I had plenty liquor in
the mash tun and in the sparge tank.
With 2 big starters going, 2 fermentors sanitized, frig all cleaned out
with space for the 2 fermentors, and many thirsty friends and family
members, I did the unthinkable. I added 3 lbs of light LME to the boil and
brought the volume up to about 11 gallons. The gravity was at 50 and all
was sort of OK. When taking the gravities before adding the extract, it was
a beautiful golden yellow (as far as I could tell), and after adding the
extract, it turn substantially darker--even I could tell with my poor vision. I
was heart broken for selling out on America ;-) just like the big boys...
Planning to get approximately 30 IBs I FWHed 1 oz Saaz, 1.5 oz
Cluster 60 mins, 2 oz Saaz 10, 1 oz Saaz at flame out. Boil went perfect.
Drained 6 gallons into the first fermentor and got about 1.5 gallons in the
second one. Gravity reading between fermentors read 1060! I added some
water to the second fermentor and brought the gravity down a bit.
The wort going into the fermentor is never very clear--should it? Is this
a sign of not boiling vigorously enough? I usually get a nice small ripple of
a boil. Should I turn the heat up a bit and boil harder and just keep adding
more make up water? Or should I take out my chiller, stir the wort and
get the whole hops to form a better filter bed for my Easy Masher?
Beer looks great but not exactly what I wanted. I'll try the CAP again
for sure. Some improvements to my system that will be coming up real
soon is to add a simple sight glass to gage how much liquid is in kettle,
mash tun, and sparge tank. I don't do a very good job of feeling the side of
the boiling kettle to measure liquid levels (obviously);-( This is much easier
to do with cold kegs in the frig. I've also been writing Santa for a new
pump, disconnects and tubing.
PS Pat and Carl,
I would like to say thank you for all that you do to keep this
invaluable resource going. I would like to send a few bucks your way.
Please let me know where to send it. Please post here to the digest because
I am sure others will want to know as well.
God I love brewing.
Keith
Chatsworth CA
kchris1 at lausd.k12.ca.us
Enjoying drinking hand crafted beer with my friends and family, but still
pealing the skin off my kettle.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:31:58 -0500 (EST)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Say WHAT?!?
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
On Tue, 24 Nov 1998 Dan Butler-Ehle was overheard saying:
> >Was it old Stroh's commercials that talked about
> >kraeusening?
>
> It wasn't Stroh; it was Old Style.
Bzzzzzt! Wrong-O, buster. It was Stroh's. Most definitely. I doubt that
Old Style could have also used the same catch phrase without somehow
infinging on Stroh's, but it was DEFINITELY a Stroh's advertising catch.
Mebbe both, but I don't recall ever hearing or reading it in any Old Style
advertisements. Having lived in Detroit my entire (give or take a small
percentage here and there) I was literally INUNDATED with Stroh's
commercials...
>
> >They said "KROY-sen."
>
> It's not "KROY-sen"; it's "KROY-zen".
Yup, they did say KROY-zen. Actually, it was KROY-zen-ing, but that's
picking nits. Of course, they never said much more about it that that they
did it; not what it was. This would leave the typical beer consumer
saying: "Well? So what?!?"
>
> >(And wasn't it Stroh's that made a big deal about
> >being fire-brewed? As if gas flame versus electric
> >heat makes a difference
>
> It's not "gas flame versus electric"; it's gas vs.
> steam. Yes, it *can* make a difference...typically
> not considered a desirable one, though.
Hmmm. Why's that? Unless caramelization is undesirable, it becomes a
matter of heat is heat, as the original poster alludes to. Being a larger
brewery, I'd imagine the kettles and/or processes were designed to prevent
unwanted caramelization, so the point still becomes a big "so what?" in
terms of their advertising gimick...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:02:03 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: Al Kettle Gunk
Regarding the use of al pots for brewing:
>try this... take your clean aluminum pot and a piece of paper,
>fold the paper a couple times and rub vigorously on the inside
>of the pot for about 10 seconds, then look at the paper (an
>exaggeration, but this gray gunk is getting into your beer);
You really want to leave the "gray gunk" on the inside of your al
kettle. This oxidized layer minimizes the amount of aluminum ions that
are transferred to your finished beer. The inside of my al kettle is
dark gray/charcoal (but smoothe, no scale or chunks!), and I can't taste
al in my beer.
>to add to this experiment, boil a couple cups of water in your
>clean aluminum pot for about 15 min. and then pour the result
>into your favorite beer glass, let it cool, look at the color,
>and taste it...
This is key with al kettles, do not scrub them so they are shiny! Just
wipe the gunk out with a soft sponge, so that the oxidized layer
remains.
Is Kentwood, MI near Mars? -Home of the famous Fouch Pouch, 2 tools in
one.
Kyle
Bakersfield, CA
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 98 04:54:39 -0500
From: Ken Houtz <kenhoutz at nut-n-but.net>
Subject: Furstenberg
- -- [ From: Ken Houtz * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --
Just west of the Fox River on the south side of Elgin, Illinois there used
to be a German Restaurant called Dieterle's. It was a nice, moderately
priced (not cheap) family restaurant and among other delectibles they served
a very good Beef Rouladen.
They also served Furstenerg Beer. This is a very clean German Lager, well
balanced (to my taste) in every way. My goal is someday to be able to make a
Lager like that.
Has anyone out there heard of this small family brewery somewhere in the
Black Forest ? Any suggestions as to a recipe ?
I'm still doing extract (DME) + steeping crystal malt but want to gather the
courage to go all grain some day.
Comments appreciated.
Ken Houtz Port Charlotte, Florida
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:58:41 EST
From: MaltyDog at aol.com
Subject: Labeling Bottles
I have about 80 bottles (or so) that I need to label. I have designed
a color label that I can print on a Deskjet printer. I would like to
use a labeling method that will allow the labels to soak off easily
afterwards, so the bottle can be reused. I tried my first experiment
with soaking the labels in milk, which I had read about somewhere
(maybe here?) some time ago. The labels stick on well (I have yet to
try to soak them off); however, the colors from the printer bled somewhat.
I printed, as said, with a deskjet printer. I used plain white paper to print
on.
Does anyone have any suggestions on a technique that will allow:
1) Labels that are easily removable afterwards, by soaking, yet will stay on
until then.
2) Non-bleeding colors (maybe I should use a different paper?)
3) Not as important, but since we're talking about 80 bottles, here--something
that's not too extremely labor intensive.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Bill Coleman
MaltyDog at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 06:00:22 PST
From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil at hotmail.com>
Subject: CO2 toxicity and sight glasses
Hello fellow brewers,
Agitating a yeast starter is well known to increase both the rate of
yeast reproduction, and the maximum population. Most people contribute
this to exposing more yeast cell to the wort, and therefore feeding them
more. I have long contended that this may be true, but more significant
is the removal of CO2. CO2 is way more soluble in water than most
gasses, because it forms carbonic acid instead of remaining as dissolved
gas. This carbonic acid greatly reduces the pH. So that I can speak
more authoritatively, the next time I make a starter, I will take a pH
reading pre and post agitation during active fermentation. If anyone
has a starter going now, and beats me to it - go ahead!!. More evidence
for this is this: If you want a mead to finish in about 2 weeks, adjust
the pH up into the high 5's with CaCO3. You will have to re-acidify for
balance, but it the carboy will bounce around the floor!!!
As for sight glasses, I have a 10 gal SS HLT with a thermometer threaded
into a nipple welded into the pot. I removed the thermometer, and
placed a double male (MPT? ;*) ) threaded nipple, and a "T" fitting in
between the pot and the thermometer, the third limb of the "T" is
pointed up with a hose barb fitting threaded into it. A piece of tygon
goes up from the hose barb and is clipped into one of those racking cane
holder clips at the top of the pot. It is easily replaced if it gets
cloudy, it was cheap, and it is pretty much unbreakable. The drawback
is that it only measures over 3 gallons.
Happy Brewing
Adam
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:05:37 -0500
From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren at smtp.cdie.org>
Subject: priming sugar for kegging Pale Ale
I have a 10 gallon batch of Pale Ale, and I want to keg half of it. I
usually carbonate by cooling the beer and pressurizing w/ CO2, but I want
to try natural carbonation. I remember hearing that less priming sugar is
needed for kegs. I usually use 3/4 cup of priming sugar when bottling.
If less is needed for kegs, what is the magic number?
Thanks, and have a great Thanksgiving.
Victor J. Farren
Research & Reference Services
PPC/CDIE/DIO/RRS
Tel: (202) 661-5842
Fax: (202) 661-5891
E-mail: vfarren at rrs.cdie.org
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:10:03 -0500
From: "Pena, Roland (PCA)" <RPena1 at pca.ml.com>
Subject: As the deadline rapidly approaches...
I just wanted to remind everyone that the deadline for PALE ALES' annual
homebrew contest, "The Hoppiest Show On Earth '98" is this Friday,
November 27th. All entries must be received by November 27, 1998. Drop
off entries at Princeton Homebrew, 148 Witherspoon St, Princeton, NJ 08542
(609-252-1800), or The Little Shop of Hops, Manhattan, NY.
Our URL For contest entries is:
http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html
Judging will take place on Dec. 5th in Skillman, NJ. If you would still
like to volunteer your services, send an email to paleales at altavista.net.
Be sure to provide your contact information.
Roland Pena
President, PALE ALES
roland at ml.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:37:02 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: [Fwd: An idea for computerized recipe exchange]
> Tim,
>
> I too am interrested in setting a standard for recipe exchange in the
> beer and wine on line groups.
>
> I read your notice about exporting and importing beer recipes in the
> Digest. I am a long term wine maker but have only made beer on a few
> occasions. I have been considering re-entering the hobby because of the
> resonably recent advent of 5 gallon soda kegs for carbonation and
> storage. (I
> hate bottling). That is as soon as my wife will let me put up the
> money for the kegging system.
>
> First, the defacto standard for exchange of recipes is and has been
> MealMaster (often notated MM). This is a text standard developed in
> the late 80's for exchange of recipes on the BBS's. MealMaster itself
> is not currently being upgraded but there are multiple food recipe
> programs like Master Chef, Master Cook and my favorite Now You're
> Cooking, just to mention a few. All of these formats recognize
> MealMaster import text.
> I guess I fail to see the difference between a food recipe and a beer or
> wine recipe. A pound of this, a tablespoon of that mix together
> according to a specified routine and voila, a fine souffle oh.....
> uh...... Pale Ale.
>
> There are also several conversion programs that allow the easy
> conversion of generic text recipes into importable text recipes. For
> example, I have almost finished the conversion of Cat's Meow 2 into MM
> text format so I can upload them to my Now You're Cooking cookbook. It
> takes me about 15 to 30 minutes to reformat an entire chapter. 30 minutes
> for that 57 recipe chapter. I am on chapter 10 and I am waiting on
> permission to re-release this cyber recipe book to the public. Free, of
> course.
>
> You did mention a recipe CALCULATOR. What is this. What sort of
> calculations are being performed with respect to the recipe. Could you
> give me an example of a few of these programs. What data is being
> provided. Is the data a part of the standard recipe information of
> item, quantity and units or is there other information to be included.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:14:00 -0700
From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler at wilcom.com>
Subject: Exchanging computerized recipes
Tim said:
"Being a home-brewer and computer programmer has led me to explore the
various recipe calculators that are out there. While many of them do a
good job formulating, printing, and saving recipes, none I have found
enables true sharing of recipes between brewers... No program out there,
that I know of, allows you to pull a recipe from the web and work with
it on your home PC without typing it in again."
Tim,
Take a look at Pro Mash (www.promash.com) (No Affiliation, YYY). It
saves recipes and brewing sessions in separate files, making them very
easy to exchange. The creator has even set up a BBS type area on his
web page where users can exchange recipes, sessions, notes, etc.. Of
course, the limitation to this program is that it does not use a
"standard" method of information exchange like XML, so you can only
exchange back and forth with other ProMash users.
Have fun!
Paul Kensler
Plano, TX
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:16:36 -0800
From: "NFGS" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com>
Subject: Clear Beer
In hate to complain, BUT, after seeing article after article on clear beer I
have had it. I did try the mess when it first came out and could not drink
it. I wondered why any one would. If you like this # at *#!0 just go out and
buy it and don't clutter up the digest or waste your time trying to
reproduce it.
Frank
NC
fjrusso at coastalnet.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:19:15 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Site (sic) glass
*SIGHT* glass (because you see through it).
Not *SITE* glass. That would be a mug with "hbd.org" engraved on it.
Thank you.
=Spencer (6 miles east of Jeff Renner)
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 09:04:13 -0600
From: Jim & Patti Hust <jhust at navix.net>
Subject: Mixing Yeasts
I currently have a Scotch Ale nicely fermenting. I had tried to
activate the yeast from the dregs from a bottle of Fullers 1845. I did
not think it was working so at brew day I got out a quart of "yeast
cake" I had harvested from the last batch I made with Thames Valley 1275
(Wyeast). I pitched it and was going to pour out the Fullers experiment
when much to my surprise upon tasting theFullers, it was tasting like
beer! I then also pitched the Fullers step-up yeast. I am sure no
problems will occur in this beer since the properties are similar
enough, but what happens in the next generation of yeast if I try to
harvest this "bastardized" yeast? Will mutations occur? Should I just
throw away the bottom 2nd generation? I have never mixed yeasts before
and am very curious. Any help from someone who has mixed them will be
added to my data bank of home brew knowledge .
Jim Hust
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 10:37:16 -0500 (EST)
From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU
Subject: Advice needed with beets ....for color...
Date sent: 25-NOV-1998 10:31:14
I have just brewed a pretty HUGE beer (beaucoup malt and honey) to make a
real high gravity ale. In the mash I placed a chopped (preboiled) beet. I
was interested in both the flavor and color. Actually, I had to put most
of the liquid in, and little of the beet itself in that my boiler was right
at the top!
The color was wonderful...to the point that I want to call this one "Purple
Haze"....but after the boil the color seems to have melded into the wort.
Does anyone know whether I could/ should extract more liquid from several
beets by boiling, and add this to the secondary? I am of course worried
that there may be starches or off flavors that could be departed along with
the color...
Any ideas? Or perhaps there is a safer way to impart purple to a 5 gallon
batch?
...Darrell
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/
_/Darrell Leavitt _/
_/INternet: leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu _/
_/AMpr.net: n2ixl at amgate.net.plattsburgh.edu _/
_/AX25 : n2ixl at kd2aj.#nny.ny.usa _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:10:29 -0500
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu>
Subject: hBd or hbD or Hbd
Jason Gorman asked (tounge-in-cheek), "is the correct pronunciation of the
HBD, hBd or hbD?
...and...
Pat Babcock answered (relatively seriously), "AITCH BEE DEE as if it's
three separate words..."
I submit (mostly seriously) that this is not a question of pronounciation,
but one of philosophy. If you consider yourself a participant in this
forum because you are a brewer who just happens to be at home, then you
might say hBd. If you stress the importance of your kitchen as the
environment from which you brew, then for you perhaps this is the Hbd. And
for those of you who don't brew much at all, but browse these pages mainly
to consider it's contents (or for those of you who merely consume the
homebrew of others) they might say hbD. All are equally correct for each
one's point of reference. And all provide us with interesting and useful
information. It is indeed fortunate for all of us that we have
contributions from all types: hBders, Hbders and hbDers.
Feeling very thankful for the HBD this Thanksgiving, I wish you all the
best....
Good luck and good brewing,
Herb
Bexley, Ohio
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 11:23:29 -0500
From: Matt Comstock <MComstock at shepherdcolor.com>
Subject: Re: Yeast propagation, canning wort
Dave
Canning is a piece of cake. If you buy 'Ball' brand jars, they always come
with a little instruction manual. Also, most places that sell jars sell the
'Ball Blue Book' that explains a lot about canning. To can, you need to buy
some equipment, too. For just the heat-type canning you'll need a 4-gallon
(?) stock-pot along with some other trappings. I guess you could use your
brewing pot, but our canning pot is covered in hard water deposits and
doesn't look appealing. The other trappings include a rack to lift/submerse
jars in the canner, jar clamps to pick them up, and probably some other
stuff. I think these usually come as a package. Total, including stockpot,
trappings and jars (lids usually come with the jars, but they are supposed
to be single use and next time you can you'll need to buy a pack of lids.
The twist on part, the bands, are reusable), will probably run at least $50.
To can, you just boil jars, take them out and fill them, put lids/bands on,
and boil the filled jars for a specified length of time (read recipe). It
is important not to tighten the lids/bands on real hard prior to putting in
the canner (uh, learned the hard way). The lids end up being held on by
vacuum. The boil sterilizes the contents and ejects some air. When the
jars cool, a vacuum develops holding the lid on.
However, I've read pressure canning is preferred for wort. I know nothing
about pressure canning. Maybe someone could discuss this.
I've read many times that just microwaving wort to boiling, and subsequent
cooling prior to use is so simple, why bother canning? The starters I've
made, I just boiled wort on the stovetop, cooled quickly in an ice bath and
used directly after aerating. Canning is easy, but takes a little time to
set-up. I think stovetop or microwave preparation of wort immediately prior
to use is the best way to go - particularly if you are talking small
(<1-gallon) volumes. Knowing I just boiled it is so much more reassuring
than wondering if the canned wort is infected, has botulism, blah, blah....
By the by, may I add my thanks to Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen.
Latersville,
Matt
Return to table of contents
HTML-ized on 11/26/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96