HOMEBREW Digest #2887 Sat 28 November 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

  St.Louis Brews homebrew competition (Jack Baty)
  a more viscous alternative to milk (ThomasM923)
  Re: Cheap 240VAC GFI??? ("John A. MacLaughlin")
  say what (JPullum127)
  re: SHMS questions ("Ludwig's")
  Re: All Munich By Mistake (Jeff Renner)
  re: ABG classes ("Bridges, Scott")
  Sighting Citations (Bob.Sutton)
  RE:Yeast Propagation & Wort Canning ("Marc Battreall")
  lambic pellicle in bottles (Paul Kensler)
  Re: Removable bottlelabels ("Brian Dixon")
  Fire Brewing, sticky rye, sticky labels, volunteer malt ("David R. Burley")
  Glassware (Bob)
  Re:Xmas draws near . . .(new BrewPot) (Jim Wallace)
  New thermometer / diacetyl rest / roggen lauter / 100% Munich malt ("George De Piro")
  Re:  Glass Carboy Valve ("Robert G. Poirier, Jr.")
  Brewing Language (pgarofalo)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for the 1998 St.Louis Brews Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition yet? Details: http://www.stlbrews.org 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 obtained from hbd.org. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Happy, Jeff? ;-) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:23:23 -0600 From: Jack Baty <jack at wubios.wustl.edu> Subject: St.Louis Brews homebrew competition The 1998 St.Louis Brews Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition will take place on 11 and 12 December. Entries are due by 5 December. Visit www.stlbrews.org for details. You still have time to get your entries in! Jack Baty St. Louis, MO Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:14:28 EST From: ThomasM923 at aol.com Subject: a more viscous alternative to milk Fred L. Johnson wrote: "I would love to hear some suggestions for a more viscous, water-soluble alternative to milk. Being more viscous would avoid the problem (creeping around to the front of the label) altogether." How about making a thin paste from a mixture of powdered milk and milk? Thomas Murray Maplewood, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 06:13:33 -0500 From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net> Subject: Re: Cheap 240VAC GFI??? In HBD #2886 Thomas Murray <ThomasM923 at aol.com> wrote > . . . is this the same thing as a ground fault interrupt? I can't be certain from the catalog description, but it sounds like a basic (e.g., 120v) GFCI whose "neutral" leg meets the insulation requirements for use on the second line of a _balanced_ 240v circuit. If I have guessed right about this it would be acceptable for any two-wire (plus ground but no neutral wire) balanced load such as a water heater element or a 240v motor, but not for an unbalanced load such as a range or a clothes dryer or anything which contains a 120v motor. The phrase ". . . cannot be used as a circuit breaker. . ." suggests that this device is not designed to be mounted in a service panel but instead requires either a box or a bulkhead (a panel). If you are really lucky, a phone call to the vendor will connect you with someone who is not just an order taker but has actually seen the device and can answer your questions truthfully. Failing that, it might be worth $10 just to find out. In my experience, surplus circuit breakers are next to worthless because they are designed to mount in industrial equipment that has been obsolete for twenty years or more; that's why the breakers are surplus. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:14:39 EST From: JPullum127 at aol.com Subject: say what now pat how could you ignore falstaff and blatz. in omaha in the 60's they were king. (and the memory of a grain belt still makes me shudder). a few years ago the old equipment from the long defunct falstaff plant here was sold to china, an impressive sight on the news taking those huge tanks out through a wall i remember. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:34:48 -0500 From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig at us.hsanet.net> Subject: re: SHMS questions Thomas Murray asked: > I would like to start planning a SHMS type brewing system and I am looking for > some info to help me to get started. First, I was wondering if anyone had ever > measured the temperature of the water after it exits the mash tun. Of course > this data would be useless without knowing the temp at the intake and the > length and diameter of the copper tubing, so I need that info also. If you can > provide the rate of flow, that would be useful also. > Second, I was wondering if it would be better to have a shorter length of 1/2" > tubing or a longer length of 3/8" tubing for the heat exchanger. There is a > greater surface area ounce per ounce if 3/8" tubing is used. Man, where does the time go? Been meaning to respond to this one but been kinda busy. Far as measuring the exit temperature of my SHMS coil, haven't done it. I generally keep the HLT temperature around 175 deg F (that is the source of hot water pumped through the SHMS coil). My mash coil consists of 8 ft of 1/2 inch OD copper. Some considerations when designing your coil: 1) To minimize overshooting your target mash temperature when temperature boosting, minimize the thermal mass of your coil. I generally get 1/2 to 1 deg F overshoot using 170 - 175 deg HLT water. I've put temperature data on my web site at: http://www.us.hsanet.net/user/dludwig/index.htm 2) Depending on how you plan to use your mash, you still want enough coil to get reasonable temperature boost rates. If your going to boost your mash temp from room temp to mash temp, you may want to keep your coil large enough to do that in a reasonable amount of time. During my last mash, I boosted 9 lbs of malt and 10 qts of water from 85-135 deg F in 8 min with HLT temp around 160 deg and 133-151 deg in 3 min with the HLT at 190 deg. I'm pretty happy with that. YMMV. 3) Don't skimp on your pump. I'm using a Little Giant Model 3-MD-MT-HC which is rated at 8.3 GPM with 1 ft Head and it seems to be adequate. 4) Don't worry too much about optimizing the mash coil. You can always compensate for an undersized coil by using higher HLT temps and vice versa for an oversized coil. I'm currently designing a SHMS controller which will thermostatically control the mash temperature by turning the pump on and off. That way I can kick back during long mashes. The controller is based on the Parallax Basic Stamp II and uses two DS1620 digital thermometers as temperature sensors for the HLT and the Mash Tun. I eventually want the control the HLT temperature while using an electric heating element. The controller includes a three-way power supply that has a variable DC power source for the mash mixer. The long pole in this project is me trying to learn to PBASIC, which they say is easy, but that's relative ;). Cheers! Dave Ludwig Flat Iron Brewery SO MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:25:31 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: All Munich By Mistake vland1 at juno.com (Vernon R Land) "Starchbier R Us" wrote: >Subject: All Munich By Mistake > >The other day I stopped by my local beer store for 8 lbs. of pale malt >and 0.5 lbs. of Munich malt. The intelligent clerk gave me 8 lbs. of >Munich and 0.5 lbs. of pale. I didn't notice until I drove home and >began to crack it open. Being frustrated and tired, I mashed it using a >step routine for 2 hours. By iodine test, incomplete conversion due to >what me brain thinks is lack of enzymes. Can this batch be saved? It >is in the secondary fermenter and very dark but not black like a stout. >Initial gravity = 1.045, after 2 days = 1.020. I am thinking of adding >some Nottingham dry to wring all I can out of this starchy mix, original >yeast was Edme. Munich malt should have sufficient enzymes to mash itself (a some adjuncts as well). I have made many all-Munich beers, including a recent Dunkel using all dark (16L) Durst Munich. If your mashing routine works for Pilsner malt, there's a good chance it will work on Munich, although if it's a barely adequate routine, it might fail with the lower enzyme level of Munich. Are you sure you the beer is starchy? Did you do the iodine test on the mash liquid, not the grains? You'll always get a positive iodine test on the grain as it reacts positively to the cellulose. Did the wort look starchy? Did it test positive? You may not have a problem. If it is starchy, Nottingham yeast won't ferment any more of the starch than the Edme did (which is none). Your high terminal gravity may be a reflection of your mash schedule and the Munich malt, which I find finishes higher than Pils. My suggestion is to make sure it's done fermenting, then bottle it and drink it up before any problems manifest themselves. Good luck. 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: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:10:51 -0500 From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges at sc.slr.com> Subject: re: ABG classes Al writes: >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. > >[Martin Lodahl post deleted] I just want to make a few comments about the repost of this opinion and the ABG classes. I've taken one - about 3 yrs ago on opening a brewpub/micro. I certainly have no quarrel about Martin's opinion of Dr. Lewis having never met him or taken one of *his* classes directly. Since I've heard this opinion about his philosophy before, I assume that there is something to it. However, that said, I think a 4-5 year old opinion about anything in brewing, especially one concerning the American craft brew industry has questionable relevance. The ABG was pretty new then (I think) and quite probably, their classes in 1994 bear little resemblance to now. The class I took was pretty informative. I had done extensive research prior to taking the class, so some of the class material merely validated what I had found out on my own. Granted it wasn't on brewing specifically, but it was chock full of useful information. The only complaint I had was that it was on *both* micros and brewpubs. There definitely is some cross-over material, but as I was interested in opening only a micro, the portion on running a restaurant was essentially a waste of time for me. I said as much in the critique at the end of the class. I found out later that they have now split their class into 2 separate ones, so I feel somewhat gratified that others must have shared my opinion. It also shows that they do update the course material. The ABG seems to have experienced people on their staff (many trained at UC-Davis of course - if you consider that a negative...). I'd be much more interested in hearing a 1998 opinion of what their classes are like. Were I considering taking one, I definitely wouldn't want to draw any conclusions based on a 1994 opinion (regardless of how valid it may have been at the time). Just another data point.... Scott Columbia, SC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:44:06 -0500 From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com Subject: Sighting Citations Thanks to Spencer for having the insight to cite: >*SIGHT* glass (because you see through it). >Not *SITE* glass. That would be a mug with "hbd.org" engraved on it. Now if we could have some help pronouncing "sight" (I'm still struggling with tur-KEY) Outtasight! Bob Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:32:40 -0500 From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net> Subject: RE:Yeast Propagation & Wort Canning Dave Russell asks about preparing (canning) wort for yeast starters in HBD 2884: DR> <snip> First question I have, I have never DR> canned anything. Any special equipment involved in the canning DR> process. I know there are jars and lids/seals involved. How do you go DR> about canning wort? Any help would be appreciated. Dave, Canning is actually a poor choice of terms, it's more like "jarring" (if there is such a word). In it's simplest form it can be done by boiling the wort for at least 15 minutes or so and pouring it into Mason type jars, screwing on the two piece lid tightly and refrigerating until it is ready for use. Alot of brewer's use this method with good results. Another method used is to boil or dissolve the extract (preferably light DME) in the appropriate amount of water for the desired specific gravity, pouring it into the same type Mason jars, loosely attach the lid, place the jars in a pressure cooker (the so called special equipment that some refer to as an pseudo autoclave) and cook it for 15+ minutes at 15 psi as per the instructions for the cooker. I picked up a used one in almost brand new condition at a local junktique for $10. I have also seen small ones at K-Mart and Wal-Mart for $20 I think. This method is what is commonly referred to as canning. Kind of like our Grandmother's do with jellies, jams, fruits, and the like. This method gets you as close to "sterile" as wort can be. Of course, this method has come under some fire in the past in this forum regarding how long is it safe to keep it stored and still use it. I won't even address that issue because it means volumes and volumes of text! (Run a search of the archives using the word "Botulism" and you will spend a lifetime sorting through the results I guarantee!) Personally, I only can up enough wort for the total volume of the starter I am making divided up in increments of two. In other words if my final starter volume will be 2000 ml I start the first step with 500 ml, double it to 1000 ml, and then double it for 2000 ml. I just recently started pouring off the spent wort after each step only leaving the fresh slurry behind as opposed to pitching the entire volume of 2000 ml. The results have been favorable. This method is assuming that I start from a new liquid yeast culture package (i.e. Wyeast, Whitelabs, etc.) If I start from a yeast slant or plate, my first two incremental steps are usually 25 ml and 250 ml and then doubling each step up there after. And sometimes, I re-pitch the slurry from the previous batch if I am brewing a similar style beer within two weeks or so. Then the procedure is to add about 500 ml of fresh wort back into the slurry (which is usually 750-1000 ml) to give it a "jump charge" so to speak. The possibilities of yeast pitching and practices are many. You just have to fool with it until you find what works for you. That's half the fun! DR> There was no discussion on creating wort, and directly bottling it in DR> sanitized bottles. My thoughts were to create a batch the size DR> necessary to fully step up my starter, then bottle & fridge the wort. DR> This wort wouldn't be around for more than the "week" needed to step up DR> the culture for pitching. Why wouldn't this method work? Maybe there was no discussion here in the HBD, but look in Charlie Papazian's New Complete Joy of Homebrewing if you have it and I bet you'll see that very method. Charlie's method is almost identical to the first one I explained above except he uses 12 or 22 oz. brown beer bottles instead of Mason jars. It's been a while since I browsed through that book but I recollect it vividly as the way I did it when I first started using yeast starters. To answer your question, yes, this works just fine. Just make sure the wort has not spoiled prior to pouring it into your starter and ruining it. If in doubt, re-boil it and allow it to cool. If you're still worried about it after a second boil, pour it down the drain. I'll add a few pointers that work for me. Use distilled water or as pure water as you have available. Keep the SG of the starter in the 1.030 - 1.040 range. Don't be afraid to let a little of the trub that settles to the bottom get into starter because it contains alot of the compounds that the yeast needs to grow. And I also throw in a small pinch (about 1/4 tsp) of yeast nutrient in the boil (per quart of wort). A few hop pellets for their anti-bacterial properties never hurt either. And most importantly, yeast need oxygen as part of their life cycle and any way you can get it to them will improve the vitality and number of cells. Remember that you are trying to multiply your yeast cell count and not make beer! In almost every homebrewing text you will find methods for building up starters and ways to can wort. Most of these texts, including TNCJOH are somewhat dated, but the methods haven't changed much through the years. If you want a great current reference, Al Korzonas' book, Homebrewing Volume One, springs to mind. You can get info about picking up a copy of this fine book on Al's website at http://www.brewinfo.com (NA, just an owner) I hope this helped answer your questions. Have A Hoppy Holiday Season! Marc ======================== Captain Marc D.Battreall Islamorada, Florida batman at terranova.net captainbrew at hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:40:55 -0600 From: Paul Kensler <paul.kensler at ibm.net> Subject: lambic pellicle in bottles I somehow knew this would happen, so I probably should have asked this question _before_ bottling, but... I recently bottled a 1-year old lambic, using a little bit of corn sugar and a fresh yeast (S. Cerevisiae) starter to prime. A couple of weeks after bottling, the bottles have all developed a thin layer at the top - it looks just like the pellicle that forms during lambic fermentation. The lambic is otherwise clear and delicious, with no signs of infection (other than the desired Brett. and Ped. infections!). I fermented the batch initially with an American Ale yeast, then with Brettanomyces Lambicus and Pediococcus Cerevisiae cultures from GW Kent, plus dregs from Cantillon and Boon lambics I had. At bottling time, the lambic still had a thin pellicle in the carboy. I racked the lambic out to a bucket, being careful not to splash or aerate, and to siphon out without taking up any of the yeast/sediment from the bottom or the pellicle from the top. Now, my questions: 1. I have never noticed the bottle pellicle in any commercial lambics (even the non-filtered traditional examples), and this is my first homebrewed lambic. Is this normal? 2. Is there any way to avoid the bottle pellicle in future batches? Maybe let it age in the primary longer? I have read that the pellicle will often drop if disturbed - If I let the bottles sit for a while, will it drop out? 3. Finally, for you judges out there - given that this is a lambic (a purposely infected beer), will this bottle pellicle count against me in competitions? My guess is, "yes, but not as much as it would if the beer were a Helles Lager". Thanks for the help, Paul Kensler Pondering pellicles in Plano, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:18:57 -0800 From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex at proaxis.com> Subject: Re: Removable bottlelabels >Bill Coleman wants easily removable bottle labels but found that soaking >this Deskjet labels in milk caused the print to bleed. > >I have been able to simply brush the milk onto the back of the plain paper >label with some success. You need to do this pretty carefully and with as >little milk as possible. Otherwise, the milk will creep around to the >front of the label an smear the print. Also let the labels dry really >well (hours) before trying this. > >I would love to hear some suggestions for a more viscous, water-soluble >alternative to milk. Being more viscous would avoid the problem >altogether. >- -- >Fred L. Johnson >Apex, North Carolina >USA Well Fred (and Bill), my solution isn't a "more viscous, water soluble alternative to milk", but it certainly does result in the characteristics you are looking for: easily removable labels, no residue left on the bottles after removal, sticks very well (stays stuck), does not cause ink-jet (or other) inks to bleed (because it doesn't soak through paper). It's also easier to use than milk or other adhesives. What is it? 3M brand Spray Mount Artist's Adhesive (white can ... not the black "Super 77" stuff you find in many places). If you read the label, you see that it results in repositionable bonds. You know, like a Post It (tm) note. Difference is that it sticks better. You print and cut out your labels first, placing them face down on something you don't care about, say old newspaper. Spray 2 or 3 light coats of the Spray Mount on the backs, and let dry for about 5 minutes. Then just press the labels onto the bottles. They stay stuck. Picking at a corner then pulling the label off is all you have to do to get them back off, and no glue residue is left behind. The labels also slip off easily when soaked first. Other companies, notably DURO, make repositionable bond type spray adhesives too. You can experiment with these others, e.g. DURO seems 98% as good as the 3M stuff, if you can't find the 3M stuff. Good luck, Brian Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:49:51 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Fire Brewing, sticky rye, sticky labels, volunteer malt Brewsters: Our lager/leader says" I SWEAR.." And offers his references - like beer posters and a friend in the business to back up his contention that Stroh's is a fire brewed beer to 2000 degrees and that they used KROY-Zsening as a catch line. Well, being a Buckeye by birth and having spent many evenings in the beer bars ( er library) along High Street in the early 1960s while attending Ohio State University ( go Bucks! and sorry Blue {8^) ) Strohs became my favorite beer. It had that certain something (was it the firebrewing or the kraeusening?) that I liked ( maybe it was the alcohol). I can confirm Pat's contentions. I can also confirm his contention that he probably never heard Old Syle say anything about kraeusening. I never tasted or heard of Old Style in Ohio until the 1980s or early 1990s and that was in Sandusky on the lake. How long has Old Style been produced? Perhaps it was not available in Ohio and Michigan until recently. If so, there would have been no advertisements. - --------------------------------- AlK comments on his recent rye beer mash and confirmed another brewer's 3 hour sparge by having one himself. I noticed some years ago when making my first version of Roggenbier that the viscosity of the rye ( 60% rye, 30% barley and 10% wheat) wort was extremely temperature dependent. A small drop in temperature would result in a large increase in the viscosity. I guessed that this was the reason these worts often get Stuck, since they cool off in the lauter tun. After placing the mash in the lauter tun ( a zapap style) I opened the tap full bore and stripped off the wort in five or so minutes - clouds and all and began to heat it in a kettle while quickly I sparged a gallon or so with near boiling water. When the temperature of all the combined runnings were up to 170-180F, I then put the combined mixture back through the lauter bed slowly and then sparged with hot water. I had a normal sparge time and the wort was clear. The beer was excellent. I know that this is the opposite of what is recommended to prevent a stuck sparge ( "never let the bed go dry") - I did. It worked for me since this was the only way to keep the temperature up while the high OG (viscosity) wort was coming off the bed and I have done it that way since. Point is keep the viscosity down by keeping it hot ( be sure to mash out at a high temperature) and dilute it before you put it slowly over a grain bed where it can cool off due to the long time of the lauter. I have also thought about adding hot water to a partially filled lauter and adding the mash in stages along with hot water, but have never tried it, since the above method works well for me. - -------------------------------- I use a paste I make from either cornstarch or wheat flour made up with 1 tlb of starch or flour in a 2 cup pyrex measuring cup. Make up this slurry in 8 oz COLD water, shaking it in a shaker to remove all lumps before you bring it to a boil in the microwave. You must stop and stir ocasionally or do it in a pan with constant stirring. Remove any lumps with a sieve. I built a glue spreader from a wooden dowel about 2" in diameter and a flat, 4X6X2" or so rectangular rubbermaid dish with a nail in either end acting as an axle for the roller. The roller is half submerged and it dips in the glue as I roll the label. This works pretty well, except for putting the bottles in ice water. Use a plastic bag around the bottles or use a rubber band to keep the label on. I found that it helps with some of the heavy grades of paper to dip the entire label in water briefly before applying the glue, so as to prevent wrinkling of the label. These labels come off easily in hot water and it is cheap. - ------------------------------------ I sincerely doubt that malt would sprout as AlK and others have contended, since the seed would have likely sprouted during malting if it was going to and it surely would not sprout after toasting to 110F and higher. I find it even more preposterous that a CRUSHED malt kernel would sprout in someone's mulch pile after being soaked in hot water and heated to 170F and higher. Chances are that this was another form of grass than Barley sprouting from the compost pile. I don't think that AlK's suggestion to plant malt directly will work. Maybe he was being facetious and I missed the smiley face {8^). 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: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:52:51 -0800 From: Bob <bob at urbanartifacts.com> Subject: Glassware Friends of the HBD Well it appears we have survived the Clinitest debate, are now deep into the "how to pronounce" wars, but I think I can see end of the Aliminum, (Al-u- minimum-mm) saga... but dear friends about the very way we serve our treasured product? Who among us uses the "standard" 16 oz. pub glass for all our beers? Obviously this is not the correct glass for all styles. For instance after living in Germany for three years I can attest that hardly ever did I encounter that ubiquitous pub pint glass, but a wonderful array of stemmed and decorated beer glasses! How many of us cool the glass in some ice prior to serving-- as I do? How many prefer the dry glass method? Anyone use the dreaded frozen mug apporach? And of course the sure-fire cure for chill haze is still, the stoneware mug. What say ye all? Lets hear what you do to serve your beer. Bob Houston Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:21:58 -0500 From: Jim Wallace <jwallace at crocker.com> Subject: Re:Xmas draws near . . .(new BrewPot) >chance to visit), but since I saw a *20* gallon stockpot on sale for >about $140, I'm leaning toward this as my Xmas request. How >durable/cleanable are aluminum pots?? I know it's a softer metal than >SS, but will it pit with repeated boilings of a relatively low pH wort? ......... I have bought my 15 G pots for $145-160 ... it seems aluminum at almost the same price is a not so great deal (unless you absolutely need the 20Gal).... alum will not take the regular beating that stainless will ___________________________________________ JIM WALLACE ... jwallace at crocker.com http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace ___________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 98 19:10:58 PST From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net> Subject: New thermometer / diacetyl rest / roggen lauter / 100% Munich malt Hi all, I am currently brewing and using a new toy: a Polder "Thermo Timer." It is an electronic thermometer with a 6.5 inch (16.5 cm) stainless probe attached to a braided metal cable. It reads in either degrees F or C and has a temperature alarm (so I can sit here typing while remaining confident that I will not overshoot my target temperature). It also has a countdown timer. Not bad for ~$22. The only drawback is that the probe cannot be immersed beyond the junction with the cable. While it can handle up to several hundred degrees, it cannot handle water in the probe. The instructions say to simply bake it to dry it out should the probe become water-logged. I own millions of shares of Polder stock, so keep that in mind when reading the above review. - ---------------------------------------------------- Once again the issue of diacetyl rests comes up. Since I have the text handy I will once again re-post some info. Searching the archives is an an option, though... Yeast make alpha acetolactate (AAL), not diacetyl. AAL is relatively tasteless. AAL oxides to diacetyl (oxidative decarboxylation) over time in beer. Heat and oxygen speed this up. Yeast that have NOT been exposed to oxygen post-pitching can and will metabolize diacetyl. If your beer has a lot of AAL it won't taste like diacetyl, but over time it will become diacetyl-ridden. How can you tell if your beer has a lot of AAL? Simple: Take two aliquots (samples) of the young beer. Put one in a loosley covered jar and heat to about 150F (60C) for 20-30 minutes while keeping the other sample cool. Smell and taste both samples. If the heated sample tastes buttery and the cool sample does not, the beer has a lot of AAL and requires a diacetyl rest. If both samples are not buttery, you have no AAL to deal with (note: if this beer becomes buttery later on you will have a good idea that the source of diacetyl is a pediococcus infection). If both samples are buttery, try a diacetyl rest. A diacetyl rest works because at the higher temperature the AAL gets converted to diacetyl and then gets metabolized by the yeast. If you lager the beer at low temperatures diacetyl reduction will occur, but at a much slower rate. As an added data point, I have used Wyeast Munich lager yeast (2308) with no diacetyl rest with fine results (and yes, I am able to perceive diacetyl with some acuity). - -------------------------------------------------------- Just to add to the data points, my 60% rye MALT beer was mashed intensively with rests at 40C (104), slow ramp (with rests along the way) up through 55C (130F) and decocted. The mash set up like concrete. Perhaps protein rests are completely useless...they hurt head retention and body when you don't want them to and don't do anything when you do want them to! Those of you who have been reading these pages for a while know my opinion about p-rests... - -------------------------------------------------------- Several people have recently (last month or so) mentioned making beers with 100% Munich malt and having a tough time achieving conversion. This is very puzzling. German Munich malts have plenty of enzymes and can (and are) used as nearly 100% of the grist by many brewers (including myself). If you are not getting conversion either the particular brand of malt you are using is of questionable value or something else is wrong (pH off, thermometer off, misreading the iodine test, etc.). Oops, there goes that temperature alarm, got to run! Have fun! George de Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:46:19 -0800 From: "Robert G. Poirier, Jr." <bpoirierjr at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Glass Carboy Valve Greetings!! I haven't seen any responses to the following yet, so, I thought I'd give it a try... In HBD #2878, Randy said he would like to try to cut through his glass carboy in order to install your basic bottling bucket valve assembly... WARNING!!!! DO NOT (really, PLEASE!!) ATTEMPT THIS ON YOUR OWN!!!!! (You'll notice the lack of smileys above - that's because I'M SERIOUS!!!) I've seen the same add Randy mentions in various brew mags, and I have to admit, at first I was intrigued, and I even thought about how I could do it myself. Then I bounced back into reality and I forgot all about it. I'm not sure how they install those valves in the carboys - whether they're brand new carboys that were made with the hole there intentionally, or, if somebody drilled through the carboy... Whatever. The big thing to remember here is DO NOT TRY TO DRILL THROUGH A CARBOY!!!!! EVER!!!!!!! Unless, of course, you make your living boring through thick panes of glass, in which case you'll probably know exactly what you're doing... It's VERY dangerous. You remember all the horror stories that were posted a while back about people dropping carboys and shards of glass flying about? Well, the same exact thing can happen if you try to drill into a carboy (or any piece of glass, for that matter - unless you're prepared and you know what you're doing). The big difference is that what happens when you drop a carboy is usually and accident, but, what will happen if you try to drill through a glass carboy is completely intentional!! (Ignorance is no excuse.) I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers here - I'm just trying to convey my horror at the thought of somebody drilling....... You know... Please, be safe when brewing!!! Brew On & Prosit!! Bob P. East Haven, CT bpoirierjr at worldnet.att.net ( at home) bob_poirier at adc.com ( at work) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:48:55 -0500 From: pgarofalo at juno.com Subject: Brewing Language In light of the recent posts concerning "site" glasses and those "pallets" in our mouths, I thought I'd chime in with a couple of my pet peeves: First, and most common: the word "premise" used where "premises" is intended, especially in the phrase "brew on premise". Literally, this is something we all do: my usual premise is that I'll end up with excellent (or at least drinkable) beer. FWIW: premise is an idea, notion, supposition. Premises is a location. Many brewing-related periodicals need to get this straight! Secondly, Belgium is a country. Belgian is an adjective referring to things native to said country. Therefore, it is not possible to use Belgium malts to make a Belgium ale...unless you are serving it with France fries. ;-) Finally, I remember the term "kraeusened" used in Schaefer commercials in the mid-60s (I was a mere lad). Go figure! Peter Garofalo Syracuse, NY (closer to Jeff renner than you'd expect) ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/28/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96