HOMEBREW Digest #2923 Sat 09 January 1999

[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. Pats / long mashes / steam (Lee Menegoni)
  Beer as a sports drink musings... (Paul Morstad)
  Re: HBD 2914 - Beer Conner (VQuante)
  Locating Homebrew Supplies (Lau William WT)
  Believe wyeast? NOT! (Jim Liddil)
  fruit fly bitter - judge's comments (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  RE:  St. Pats opinion ("Kensler, Paul")
  Boston Homebrew Competition announcement (Ken Jucks)
  Opinions, pronunciations. ("Steven W. Smith")
  not paying attention again ("Gradh O'Dunadaig")
  Hugh Baird malts ("A.J. Zanyk")
  Some good news ("Inv.P.J. Reilly")
  Alcohol determination by refractometry [long] (Louis Bonham)
  Barking Up the Wrong Tree, and Expectations Unfulfilled (St. Pat (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
  Biere de Garde Recipe (Jim Bentson)
  Fermenters ("Bill Bansemer")
  Another pronounciation of "Gueuze" ("Michael Maag")
  mead marinade (Mark Tumarkin)
  RE: I'm turning red!!!!!!! ("S. Wesley")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition. Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup 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. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. 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. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:08:39 -0500 From: Lee Menegoni <Lee.Menegoni at digital.com> Subject: St. Pats / long mashes / steam George Marshall posted a forwarded email complaint about St Pat in Texas yesterday. I think this complaint is an out of line slam of an established and reputable business (many happy customers have posted to HBD). It was Christmas time - back orders are likely UPS can have lengthy delays at that time of year. I have had problems like this with other mail order companies like LL Bean I still do business with them because they have quality products and service. The explanation below seems reasonable: The lengthy delay was somewhat due to us (we were out of the blue drum that you ordered on Monday evening 1/7/98 for $3) as well as four shipping holidays for UPS. We have heard from numerous customers who shipped to their residence before and after the Xmas holiday and they've all had lengthy delays with UPS. It is to be expected this time ofyear. Sorry you aren't happy with our service. We feel you are unfairly judging us during the XMas season. I have never done business with them but have used their web site for information or links. They offer an impressive selection of goods . As the proprietor noted: Fritz Maytag, of Anchor Brewing Company told me that his beer wasn't for everyone, I have taken his advise and St. Patrick's isn't for everyone either. We treat people with honesty and respect and expect it return. I have to agree with the proprietor, some folks are constant whiners and the paltry profit made on the sale isn't worth all the time taken away from servicing other customers. RE : length of mash time - why continue to mash after iodine test is negative The principle effect will be the sugar profile. Long mashes typically will result in the reduction of more complex, less fermentable, sugars into simpler, more fermentable, sugars. The key for recipe replication is consistent temp and time at temp batch per batch. Not sure what effect it has on protein, most likely little since the protein reducing enzymes would have been denatured by the time at mash temp. Steam: Steam can be very effective at raising mash temp. I know a brewer that injects steam directly into the mash on their RIMS system, very effective for rapid temp rise. BE CAREFUL. Steam is invisible and can severely burn you. DO NOT disable ANY safety devices on your pressure cooker. DO NOT connect the steam outlet to where the weight goes and rely on the pressure relief valve for safety. If the steam outlet gets clogged it could result in the discharge of a massive amount of steam due to the depressurizing of the pressure cooker. Under pressure the water will remain liquid when the pressure is reduced it will become gas. Instead drill the lid and either tap or connect a valve by someother secure means and use this as a steam source. This method also eliminates the possibility of sucking the mash back into the pot since the outlet valve is off when no steam is needed. Lee Menegoni Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 10:41:30 -0600 (CST) From: Paul Morstad <pjm at cavern.uark.edu> Subject: Beer as a sports drink musings... On Thu, 7 Jan 1999, Request Address Only - No Articles wrote: > Beer as a sport drink ("Victor Farren") > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 11:08:27 -0500 > From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren at smtp.cdie.org> > Subject: Beer as a sport drink > > As a homebrewer who also strives to stay physichally fit, I have been > thinking about including homebrew in my exercise regimen, as a post-workout > sport drink. We all know that beer is loaded w/ calories and nutrients > that the body can quickly absorb. I have often read in running books that > long distance runners frequently quaff a low-alcohol beer to rehydrate and > quickly give their muscles the nutrients they need to recover. > > Instead of drinking the swill known as 'lite' beer, I would rather > enjoy a tasty homebrew. I want the beer to be low in alcohol, but high in > nutrients and high in taste. I figure I could brew a regular strength > beer (1.040-1.050) and just mash it at a high temp (158) to get a lot of > unfermentables, and then ferment w/ a low attenuating yeast. I am > thinking of something along the lines of a 'bitter' or IPA seeing that > I like the hoppy, crisp beers. > > Anybody have any comments/insights? > > 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 > Victor & all, Regarding beer as a post-workout restorative, I've found it to be quite effective, depending of course on the type/style of beer. Last late summer/early fall (it was still quite hot here in Arkansas), I was looking to brew a simple extract ale that I could reproduce easily, with fairly basic and inexpensive ingredients, etc., that would be a nice thirst quencher, yet would naturally have the all the wonderful qualities of freshly brewed beer, (e.g., *flavor*). I was more or less shooting for an English style "session" beer (lower in alcohol), an "ordinary bitter." Though it was low in alcohol and a beautiful golden-copper color, style wise, I rather missed the mark -underhopped! Yet I realized this turned out to be an advantage in the thirst quencing department, as more and more I found myself reaching for this beer after running or Nordic Track workouts, even craving it during! I too tend to prefer drier, more heavily hopped beers, but there's something vaguely uncomfortable about big hops when what your body (mouth) is craving is water. To me, after a fairly strenuous hike on a hot day, a Bavarian Weizen is more satisfying than say, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale or it's ilk. At any rate, your mileage may vary, but before brewing that hoppy post-work out ale, try something similar from the liquor store and test if it really satisfies your post-excercise thirst as well as something less hoppy; you might be surprised (I was). I'd be happy to share the (very basic, 5 gallon, extract) recipe for my "work out ale" to interested parties, just send me an e-mail. Anyone else with beer-as-sport-drink experiences to share? -Paul ____________________________________________ paul j. morstad academic, research, and client services university of arkansas, fayetteville "I totally swooned. But I'm a Minnesotan and a Lutheran, so I swooned inwardly." -Dan Wilson of Semisonic (on meeting "The Artist" -formerly known as Prince) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:57:51 EST From: VQuante at aol.com Subject: Re: HBD 2914 - Beer Conner Ted Sadler wrote: >>> a beer conner had the responsibility of testing a new batch of beer for complete fermentation <<< I'm a little late reading the hbd's - sorry. Chrismas holidays were too long... Read about this funny way of testing some months ago - but it was performed in another way: The beer conners in medieval Germany sat on a wooden bench, which was soaked with wort, not with beer. And if they stood up after half an hour, the bench did have to stick to their a..., a..., another word, please! Otherwise the wort wasn't strong enough. Volker R. Quante Brewing and working in Warsaw / Poland, but definitely a German Homebrewer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:34:40 -0500 From: Lau William WT <william.lau at phwilm.zeneca.com> Subject: Locating Homebrew Supplies I am looking to locate a source for homebrew supplies in the Newark, DE area (near Wilmington). E-mail replies are fine (william.lau at phwilm.zeneca.com). Thanks in advance. Bill Lau Sr. Compliance Specialist Phone 302-453-4948 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:45:28 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: Believe wyeast? NOT! - > From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> > Subject: Crow Under Glass > > Well, I guess I get a large serving of crow. Drosphilia Melangaster, the > red eyed vinegar fly, the common pest in breweries and wineries, does > not appear to carry yeast. David Logsdon of Wyeast said as of yet they > had found no evidence of yeasts in these little pests. He also said > that since thesample was small and not totally definitive. No tests > have been done on fruit flies. Fruit flies are not the brewery pest > we are familiar with. Here are just few references I found. Jim Liddil SCREENING OF YEASTS FROM BRAZILIAN AMAZON RAIN FOREST FOR EXTRACELLULAR PROTEINASES PRODUCTION Source Systematic & Applied Microbiology. 21(3):353-359, 1998 Aug. Abstract Eighty seven yeast strains representing 34 species isolated from Parahancornia amapa fruit and associated Drosophila flies collected in the Brazilian Amazon rain forest, were screened for proteinase production. Proteolytic activity was tested through casein hydrolysis in solid medium supplemented with 0.5% casein and glucose. Among 23 strains, 18 from genus Candida and 5 from Pichia were caseinolytic and produced proteinases in yeast carbon base liquid medium supplemented with casein 0.01%. The proteolytic activity was tested on pH ranging from 2.0 to 9.0 in correspondance to the pH of the cultures media in which the yeasts were grown. Six highly proteolytic strains: Candida parapsilosis AP153A, C. krusei AP176, C. sorbosa DR215, C. sorbosa AP259, C. valida AP209A and C. sorboxylosa AP287 were selected and the pH optima of production and the proteolytic activity were determined. In general the secretion of proteinase was maximum throughout the exponential and the stationary phases. Greater production occurred in acidic culture and high activity was observed at pH 3.0, 4.0 and 5.0. [References: 33] YEASTS VECTORED BY DROSOPHILA QUADRUM (CALLOPTERA GROUP) IN TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS Source Revista de Microbiologia. 27(2):87-91, 1996 Apr-Jun. ISSN 0001-3714 Author Keywords Yeasts. Drosophila. Habitat choice. Diversity. KeyWords Plus Communities. Populations. Resources. Brazil. Abstract Yeast-Drosophila interactions in Tropical Rain Forests of Brazil are specialized when compared to temperate ecosystems, and tropical species of Drosophila have preferences that vary in the degree of choice of yeasts. Yeasts associated with Drosophila of the forest-inhabiting tripunctata, willistoni and guarani groups are probably of fruit origin. They differ from yeasts isolated fi om the fasciola subgroup flies of the repleta group, which seem to colonize epiphytic cacti in the forest canopy. The yeasts vectored by Drosophila quadrum (calloptera group) were surveyed and compared with the communities associated with the flies of tripunctata, willistoni, guarani and the cosmopolitan melanogaster group in forest sites of Rio de Janeiro. The yeasts vectored by D. quadrum included Candida guilliermondii, Debaryomyces melissophilus, Debaryomyces vanriji, Kloeckera apis, Pichia membranaefaciens and Rhodotorula rubra as most frequent species. These yeasts are usually associated with flowers and deteriorating fruits in the forest, indicating that D. quadrum feeds preferably on flowers and fruits in advanced states of decomposition. The yeasts associated with the calloptera group were similar to yeasts isolated from the tripunctata and guarani flies that probably occupy similar niches on the forest floor and vicinities. The calloptera flies had a lower niche overlap with flies from the fasciola subgroup, and from the willistoni and melanogaster groups in the sane forest. [References: 26] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 12:45:23 -0500 From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil> Subject: fruit fly bitter - judge's comments collective homebrew conscience: well, since i've been gone on vacation, there has been a wicked debate going on regarding my beer. let me write a few things about the beer's production, and then present the judge's comments. please page down if you have no interest, this could be one of my longer posts: beer recipe & production: grist bill: 6.4 lbs m&f pale ale malt, .5 lb dwc caravienne crushed at 11 setting on philmill salts: 1 tsp gypsum added to mash mash: 25 min. at 110 degf; ramp 25 minutes to 150 degf; 10 min. at 150degf; 80 min. at 156-146 degf. mash ph of sacch. rest = 5.3 (room temp) o.g.: 1.040 f.g: 1.013 hops: 2.25 oz. willam. at 60 min.\ 1 oz. same at 5 min.\ .5 oz. of e. kent goldings dry for 24 days. bitterness: 37 ibu's (tinseth) i screwed up and used 5.5 gallons of sparge water instead of the planned 4.5 gallons. hey, it was the first batch of the year. sparge tank temps ranged from 177 to 166 deg f. sparge took 75 minutes and the final runnings ph/s.g was 5.3/1.011. sparge water ph = 5.7 (lactic) wort ph ( at room temp): 5.3 after 1 tsp. of caco3 added. boil t = 90 minutes. this was the first batch i brewed this year on a new system. i previously brewed with an enamel kettle on the stovetop. i got a new 15 gallon pw kettle and did the boil outside for the first time. as a result, i think my hop utilization got a little better. the boil vigor was noticeably stronger than in the past. this is speculation of course, but it's based on my 6+ years experience with the old kettle and the 75+ beers i produced with it. primary fermentation was at ~ 72 degf. room temp was ~68 degf for all of this time. yeast = wyeast 1028 starter stepped up three times. lag time was 7 hours. fruit fly was discovered stuck to foam in top of flask, under saran wrap. maximum time fly was in foam: 1 hour. most of the foam and the fly were removed with a boiled stainless spoon. the fly was never in contact with the liquid part of the starter. starter at pitching (3-4 days later) smelled and tasted fine. this was my first attempt at cp bottle filling. i had it in my head that a lot of co2 would be lost in the time between pulling the filler out and capping the bottle. the net result of this is that the beer was overcarbonated in the bottle. i know because i bottled 4 of them and only sent 3 to the comp. i tasted the 4th bottle the next day and it had a standing bead of carbonation at ~50degf. not appropriate for a bitter. i should have tasted it before i shipped the beer. when i taste the beer out of the keg, i find a lack of malt presence and the balance is over to the bitter side. there is an acidity present, also. there is a noticeable hop aroma. there is a dryness that borders on harshness or astringency, that is exacerbated by higher carbonation levels. here are the judges' comments: subcategory: ordinary bitter judge #1 (bjcp recognized) aroma: initial fruity nose\ appearance: nice color & clarity - head could be a bit better \ flavor: initial taste is a bit sweet, but it then turns somewhat sour with a distinctive astringent aftertaste. balance is toward hoppy side.\ mouthfeel: body is good, but somewhat overcarbonated. \ overall: a clean looking beer that is close to style, but it lacks balance. hop variety may be a problem - also watch tannin extraction during mash/steep. maybe back off on bittering hops? judge#2 (bjcp certified) aroma: nice fruity esters. low hop aroma. \ appearance: nice color & clarity, head ok. \ flavor: fruity up front, fades quickly, but dries out too much, well balanced. hops fit in well but don't dominate.\ mouthfeel: thin, ok. maybe a bit too carbonated & astringent\ overall: very nice, drinkable beer. good job. lower the carbonation a little bit. judge#3 (novice) aroma: esters with a little malt, low hop aroma\ appearance: golden amber. good clarity. \ flavor: some buttery flavors, astringent. hop bitterness low. \ mouthfeel: carbonation too high. body more medium than thin. some astringency. \ overall: astringent and buttery flavors dominate beer. try different yeast and temps. the only comments i see that don't fit with my assessment of the beer are the comments on buttery flavors and the hop bitterness being low. i've tasted diacetyl-laden homebrew, and i don't pick it up in this beer. maybe the judge has a lower threshhold for it. the first place beer scored a 31. my beer scored a 29. these are lower than usual scores, but my own assessment of my beer is that it's only about a 32 or 33 max, if carbonated properly. so there it is. if i were to try this again, i would: 1) include some vienna malt or switch base malts to something with a more kilned flavor; 2) eliminate the gypsum; 3) only sparge with 4.5 gallons and shorten up the sparge to 45-60 minutes; 4) back off on bittering hops; 5) increase hops to 1.5 oz. at 5 minutes beob. 6) don't overcarbonate the beer. george de piro suggested that the beer be plated out to see if abnormal levels of bugs exist in the beer. i would be willing to pay shipping for any volunteers out there; i have no such equipment yet. brew hard, mark bayer great mills, md Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 11:00:30 -0700 From: "Kensler, Paul" <paul.kensler at wilcom.com> Subject: RE: St. Pats opinion Marshall George experienced shipping delays and poor customer service from St. Patrick's Homebrew Supply, saying: "...I find this lack of respect to customers to be terrible, and I will NOT ever be a customer of theirs. I feel it's my duty to pass this on. Has anyone else had this sort of dealings with St. Pats?" For what its worth, I order from St. Pats maybe 2-3 times a year, and have always received my order promptly and have been satisfied. I have never ordered from St. Pats at Christmas time, but UPS did lose a package I sent to my Dad this year, so they're the ones on my bad list. On occasion I travel to Austin, and have always enjoyed shopping or browsing their store downtown (next to delicious Waterloo Brewpub), and have always been treated fairly. As always, YMMV, NAYYY Paul Kensler Plano, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 13:05:37 -0500 (EST) From: Ken Jucks <jucks at firs3.harvard.edu> Subject: Boston Homebrew Competition announcement I am pleased to announce the Fifth Annual BOSTON HOMEBREW COMPETITION to be held on February 27, 1999 in Boston Mass. This competition is sponsored by and run by the Boston Wort Processors. Entry deadline has been set as the 20th, and must be received by that date. This competition will again be one of the early Qualifying Events for the 2nd year of the Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing (MCAB) (see http://www.hbd.org/mcab for details and MCAB qualifying sub-styles) that many of y'all have been reading about on this forum so this is your early chance to qualify for the MCAB finals in year 2000. This competition is also part of the New England Homebrewer of the Year series. We draw many Master and National rank BJCP judges to this competition each year! All of the information anyone needs to enter the competition or to judge in the competition can be found at http://www.wort.org, including entry forms, bottle labels, judge registration forms, dropoff and mail-to info, etc. I encourage all of y'all who are interested in this competition to obtain your information through this channel. For those of y'all who don't have web access, e-mail myself (Ken Jucks, jucks at cfa.harvard.edu) with your e-mail and snail-mail addresses and I will get you the required information ASAP. Thanks and good luck brewing!! Ken Jucks Coordinator for the 1999 Boston Homebrew Competition jucks at cfa.harvard.edu 617-496-7580 (w), 781-276-7985 (h) http://www.wort.org <-- See this site!!! *** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 11:37:02 -0700 (MST) From: "Steven W. Smith" <SYSSWS at gc.maricopa.edu> Subject: Opinions, pronunciations. Marshall George asks opinions of an unfortunate exchange between St. Pat's and an unknown customer. It sucks to try and get anything mail-order around the holidays; 1.5 weeks isn't bad unless he paid for overnight shipping or somesuch. I don't think St. P. did anything heinous. Just my opinion. If you're in the market for a new supplier I'd like to humbly recommend a local shop that I've always been very impressed with, GunnBrew - www.gunnbrew.com. As I said, they're local so I don't use their mailorder but Paul Gunn runs an awesome shop and is very responsive to customers. No affiliation, I'd just really like to keep him in business for my own benefit. I was checking out the impressive list of pronunications on the HBD.ORG page and have a few submissions: Lambic : SOW-er bel-jun beer Framboise : bel-jun RAZZ-berry beer Peche : bel-jun PEECH beer HTH, eieio. Steven W. Smith, Systems Programmer Glendale Community College. Glendale Az. syssws at gc.maricopa.edu (hoping my carboy in the storage room outside stays below 70F ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 10:55:44 PST From: "Gradh O'Dunadaig" <odunadaig at hotmail.com> Subject: not paying attention again to get to the point, i have been using dry yeasts for my homebrew and i decided to try a Wyeast for a change. i thoroughly read the instructions, except for the part about needing days to incubate. so i have my boiled wort and my flat packet of Wyeast. My question is: Will the wort be ok sitting in the covered pot on the stove or did i screw it all up? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:50:45 -0500 From: "A.J. Zanyk" <ajphoto at columbus.rr.com> Subject: Hugh Baird malts Does anyone carry a full line of Hugh Baird malts? I have searched the internet and surfed all the "Big" Homebrew supply stores. Some stores have a couple malts. Some can special order, but what am I going to do with 55# of several specialty malts. I would like, if possible, to find a supplier that stocks these grains so I can buy what I need when I need it. A.J. Zanyk SODZ Brewclub Columbus, Ohio Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:56:36 -0500 From: "Inv.P.J. Reilly" <preilly at exis.net> Subject: Some good news I just saw this article on the net and thought some of your forum members might be interested. YT P.J. Reilly Norfolk, VA +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Beer may inhibit carcinogens 2:13 p.m. ET (1913 GMT) January 7, 1999 NEW YORK, Jan 07 (Reuters Health) Japanese researchers have given beer drinkers something to cheer about as they hoist a pint. Beer, they say, may protect against certain carcinogens that are produced in food when it is cooked. But the identity of the helpful compound or compounds in beer is still unknown, according to the report in the January issue of the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, published by the American Chemical Society. In their study, the researchers tested 24 different beers, including 17 lagers, four stouts, two ales and one nonalcoholic beer from 11 countries. All but the nonalcoholic beer and one lager showed "potent inhibitory effect'' against mutagens found in several types of heterocyclic amines (HAs), according to study authors. The stouts were the most effective. Japanese sake, red and white wines, and brandy were also effective, but whiskey was not, nor was ethyl alcohol in the concentration found in beer. In their study, the researchers took various components of beer and tested them against several HAs that are directly mutagenic in bacteria. Those components were also administered orally to mice together with a HA. Changes in the genetic material in the liver cells of the mice that received the beer were less than in those mice that received only the HA. The researchers conclude that something in beer, possibly the hops, the plant phenols or some other component yet to be discovered, are responsible for the popular drink's apparent anticarcinogenic powers. Previous studies on beer consumption and cancer risk have been conflicting. Several studies have linked beer consumption to colon cancer and lung cancer. But another study cited by the authors suggested that moderate beer consumption may reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. SOURCE: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry January 1999. comments at foxnews.com 1998, News America Digital Publishing, Inc. d/b/a Fox News Online. All rights reserved. Fox News is a registered trademark of 20th Century Fox Film Corp. Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 14:26:03 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: Alcohol determination by refractometry [long] Hi folks: [Warning: hard-core beer geek information follows. <g>] Many of us use a refractometer to assay the gravity of wort during the mash or before fermentation starts. Once fermentation begins, however, the alcohol in the wort/beer skews the reading because it has a different refractive index than water; i.e., it causes light to bend more than water. As a result, a beer that actually has a specific gravity of, say, 1.010 (as measured by a hydrometer, pycnometer, digital density meter, etc.) might read as 5.5 degrees Brix (SG 1.022) on a refractometer. Because of this significant discrepancy, the conventional wisdom has been that refractometers are useless once fermentation starts. (I plead guilty to being one of the parties promulgating this.) In fact, the difference between the actual specific gravity and the "apparent" gravity as measured by a refractometer has long been used as a method of determining the alcohol content of beer. Indeed, DeClerck notes that the SG + refractometer method he describes was adopted as the official method of assessing alcohol content in Germany on the 1930's. The problem, however, in using the formulas such as the Berglund, Emlington, and Rassmussen regression equasion cited by DeClerck is that they typically call for refractometer measurements of the beer in Refractometer Scale Units (a/k/a Zeiss Units), which was the scale used on the old immersion refractometers. (Most refractometers used today measure in terms of Refractive Index readings ("RI"), or in degrees Brix (% sugar; essentially equal to degrees Plato) . The relationship between Zeiss Units and RI is polynomial -- IOW, there's not a simple conversion factor between the two.) In doing the labwork for the HBD Palexperiment, I researched these conversion issues, and have derived a formula that appears usable by most homebrewers with a refractometer, a good narrow scale hydrometer (or pycnometer + milligram balance, or other exotic SG measurement device), and some basic tables. As you will see, there is a bit more to be done to make it more user friendly, but I submit it to the HBD collective for use, comment, and revision. To determine alcohol content, take a sample of the beer (100 mls or whatever amount you typically use for gravity determination). Degas the sample (shake it in a flask, use a blender on low, etc.). Warm/chill the sample to 20C, and determine its specific gravity at this temperature. Now put a drop of this degassed, 20C sample in your refractometer and note the measurement. Record your refractometer reading in terms of the refractive index ("RI") of the sample - --if your refractometer reads in degrees Brix, you'll need to use a conversion table such as found in the CRC Handbook (look for a table showing the "Index of Refraction of Aqueous Solutions of Sucrose") to convert degrees Brix (percent sugar) to RI. [At present, I have been unable to find a formula that provides this conversion. If anyone knows of one, lemme know and I'll revise the formula.] Using this data (SG and RI of the sample at 20C), calculate the alcohol by weight (A) of the sample as follows: A = 1017.5596 - (277.4 x SG) + RI ((937.8135 x RI) + 1805.1228) While you're at it, you can use this data to calculate your Real Extract (RE): RE = 194.5935 + (129.8 x SG) + RI ((410.8815 x RI) - 790.8732) (These formulas were derived from those contained in DeClerck and others from a 1980 ASBC Journal article by K.J. Siebert, and have been checked against examples given in those articles as well as in the ASBC Methods of Analysis.) Example: SG 1.0104, Refractometer reads 5.5 Brix. According the the CRC Table, 5.5 Brix = 1.3411 RI And thus: A = 1017.5596 - 277.4(1.0104) + 1.3411(937.8135(1.3411) + 1805.1228) A= 1017.5596 -280.2850 - 734.1465 = 3.1281 ==> 3.1% RE = 194.5935 + 129.8 (1.0104) + 1.3411(410.8815(1.341) - 790.8732) RE = 194.5935 + 131.1400 - 321.6806 = 4.0529 ==> 4.1% If you want percentage alcohol by volume, you'll need to use the ASBC conversion tables (again, if anyone knows the formula to convert alcohol by weight to alcohol by volume, lemme know). Caveats: While this basic procedure is approved by the ASBC, the official ASBC method uses a different formula that includes a factor derived from experimentally-derived calibration curves for each type of beer, because factors like ash content, color, etc., can marginally affect the results. Of course, if you need to really need to know your alcohol content to the nearest 0.01%, then such methods are necessary (indeed, you're probably better off just using the approved distillation or GC methods). Further, while these formulas give results of within 0.1 of the values given in the textbook examples in the references cited above, my derivation of them has been purely on paper -- I did not derive them by any sort of independently researched empirical data. Additionally, remember that garbage in = garbage out. This method works *only* if you take accurate gravity and refractometer readings, and errors in either will dramatically skew the results. (For instance, in the example above, if the gravity reading was misread as a 1 point higher, the resultant alcohol content would be about 0.3% lower (i.e., 2.8% alcohol rather than 3.1%). So use calibrated instruments and know that the temperature issues are important. Nevertheless, with good instruments and some care, I suspect that most of us can use this method to get reasonably accurate results. Try it out and lemme know if it works for you. Of course, if there are errors in this, lemme know. Louis K. Bonham PS -- using a similar formula, it is also possible to track your gravity throughout a fermentation using only a refractometer (i.e., if you have an accurate OG reading to start with, you can calculate your actual SG from a refractometer reading and the OG figure -- IOW, you'd need only a few drops of beer to check the gravity, rather than a hydrometer sample). But that is another story . . . . . . Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 15:27:53 -0500 From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products at humphreypc.com Subject: Barking Up the Wrong Tree, and Expectations Unfulfilled (St. Pat > From: "George, Marshall E." <MGeorge at bridge.com> > Subject: Opinion Poll - Does St. Pats Care About It's Customers? I Don't Original email to St. Pats (name removed by request of author): > I called in and spoke to a gentleman the week before > Christmas and he said it shipped on Monday. That would have been the 14th of December. > Well that was nearly 2 weeks ago. If this shipment has not > been sent yet please cancel my order and credit my card. At this point the package has been consigned to UPS and could have been tracked by anyone with web access (as "name removed" appears to have). > I wish there was a resonable explination for the service > I have received. That would depend on how one defines "reasonable" (or "was", "is", etc. #;-] ). If it includes shipping a complete order within seven calendar days (_including_ a hold for a back-ordered item), and shipping delays during the heaviest UPS traffic load of the year (Mr. George's post does not specify how far the delivery point is from Texas, nor are any facts disputed.) Is the customer always right? NO! If that customer's expectations aren't in tune with reality. Several times in my career I have "persuaded" a customer that they would be best served elsewhere. I was more than happy to scrape those bozos off onto one of my competitors (let them waste *their* energy trying to please 'em!) The missing bit of information is the tone and content of the telephone conversation. It may have been the *real* key to our understanding Lynne's reply. > This is the response from St. Pats: > ... > Good luck to you in your homebrewing, I'm sure we will both be happier > if you did business elsewhere, Could she have phrased it more delicately? Probably. Was it unreasonable? Perhaps not. Standard disclaimer applies. Never have bought anything from St. Pat's (although I *have* received polite replies to inquires from Lynne). Maybe I'll stop in next time I'm in Austin. Mark (diggin' my brewhouse out from under 'bout two-and-a-half feet of snow) in Kalamazoo Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 16:39:17 -0500 From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at longisland.com> Subject: Biere de Garde Recipe Since we are seeing way too few recipes posted I am giving one a French Country Ale (Biere de Garde) I just made and really liked. Since I have never tasted a true Biere de Garde, I can't vouch for the style. I just like the taste and it is quite different in flavor compared to your typical British ale.I waited until the beer was finished and mature before posting, a practice I wish others would adopt. ( Too many recipes end with "I haven't tasted it, I hope it is OK") Biere De Garde - Adapted from Bier de Garde St Arnould "Reserve du Brasseur" - pg 97 Wheeler & Protz "Brew Classic European Beers at Home" Batch Size 5.5 Gallons Grain: 6.9 lbs. DWC Light Munich 5.1 lbs. Ireks Vienna 0.75 lbs. DWC "Special B" Total of 12.75 lbs Yeast: Wyeast 1726 Belgian Abbey II Started yeast 48 hours before brewing in one pint of 1040 starter ( 1/3 cup Dry Malt per pint). Stepped up an additional two pints (total of three pints) after 24 hours. Hops: 0.5 oz. Hallertau Northern Brewer Plugs at 7.4% alpha for 60 minutes 1.0 oz. English Fuggles Plugs at 4.6% alpha for 60 mins. Total IBU's approximately 30 Water : I have soft water with very low minerals. Mash: 1.1 quarts per lb = 14 qts of mash water. Treated with 1 tsp of gypsum and 1 tsp of Calcium Carbonate. Acidified to below pH 7.0. I measure out and treat my mash water the night before. It helps dissolve the minerals. Sparge: For a 5.5 gallon target, I collect 6.75 gals for the 90 min. boil and have found that pre filling my lauter tun and draining fills the "trapped volume" so I calculate my total water as 6.75 gals + .211 gals per lb of grain for absorbed water left in the grain after sparging.This has worked out perfectly for all my brews. For this recipe I needed 9.67 gals total water. Subtracting the 14 qts for mashing gives 24.7 qts ( roughly 6 gals) for sparging. I treat this with acid to bring the pH to the 5.4 - 5.8 range ( again the night before) Procedure: Approximate Fix's 40 C - 60 C - 70 C Step Mash Schedule: I mash in a heatable kettle and have a separate lauter tun. Even if I had a Gott cooler I would kettle mash and use the cooler only for lautering as I can keep a thicker mash. 1) Heated the 14qts of mash water to 109 F/ 43 C. Doughed in and hit target of 104 F/ 40 C. Acid Rest 30 min Measured pH of cooled sample = 5.3 2) Heat mash to 58 C/136 F and hold for high end protein rest for 30 min. 3) Heat mash to 68C/154 F and hold for sachrification rest till converted (iodine test). I only needed 30 min. 4) Mash-out at 168 F / 76 C and rest 10 min. 5) Transfer to lauter -tun. Added sufficient 175 F / 80 C sparge water to cover by 2-3 inches.Stir and wait to settle 6) Sparged with 6 gals of 175 F water in 1 hour. 7) 90 minute boil, add hops after first 30 minutes.Add 1 tsp rehydrated Irish Moss at last 15 min. 8) Chill to 65 F, aerate with Oxygen and pitch yeast. Specific Gravity = 1061 9) Primary ferment in glass. Huge blowoff. Lost 1/2 gal. Yeast looked like it was boiling. 10) Primary Ferment 7 days at 65 F 10) Rack to secondary ( glass) Specific Gravity = 1017 at day 7 11) Secondary Ferment in glass for 14 days at 65 F. 12 Primed with 4 0z. corn sugar and bottled. Specific Gravity = 1014 13) Bottles left at room temp 9 days then moved to 45 F storage. Enjoy and post your good ones also ( after tasting). Jim Bentson Centerport NY Tasting Comments: 1) First tasting after 4 weeks in bottle. High ethanol taste, VERY fruity( raisins and sultana as the book said) 2) After 8 weeks tastes are blending better. Must serve this around 45 F. If allowed to warm too much the ethanol gets very strong and leads to a molasses like flavor. Serve at 45 F for best results. People really like this beer. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 16:27:20 -0600 From: "Bill Bansemer" <wbanseme at amfam.com> Subject: Fermenters I would like to find out how others do there primary fermenting. What do you ferment in ? do you use siphonless method ? glass or plastic ? I have Sean in catalogs and in the local shop a plastic bucket with a inverted tube valve. I would like to know if anyone has used a item like this. At the present time I use a 10 gallon plastic bucket with a lid as a primary then transfer to a glass carboy as a secondary buy siphoning... Your input would be appreciated. Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 18:49:38 -0500 From: "Michael Maag" <maagm at rica.net> Subject: Another pronounciation of "Gueuze" I just reviewed my cherished copy of "The Beer Hunter" (The video from the Discovery Channel). In "The Burgundies of Belgium" Michael Jackson mentions the word several times. He pronounces gueuze as "gerz" (like the ger in gerber) (or gurr like a dog growl). He also says "gueuzer" (like Berliner) and pronounces it "gerzer" It inspired me to break out a bottle of Chimay, which further inspired me to plan a Belgian Ale as my next batch. Mike 8*) In the middle of the Shenandoah Valley Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 19:01:28 -0500 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: mead marinade I have been brewing for several years, but recently (Nov. 1) made my first batch of mead. It was amazingly simple - a gallon of orange blossom honey, 3/4 cup of dry light malt extract (for nutrients), prix de mousse (sp?) yeast and five gal water. I recently got an old refrigerator with a temp controller. It has made a tremendous difference in my beers and I'm sure it has been beneficial for the mead. It is now just two months old, is pretty clear, and very drinkable. It has a very good honey nose, a spicy citrusy taste, and is much, much smoother than I had expected at this stage. I know that it will continue to improve with age so this past weekend I racked the majority of it into a 3 gal carboy and bottled the rest. I will attempt to let the carboy go for a year before bottling. I will try to refrain from drinking the ones I've already bottled as much as possible, but willpower only goes so far. What is the general consensus as to weather mead ages better in bulk in the carboy or individually bottled? Is there a difference? And I have also been wondering about concerns with airlocks over a long period of time. Obviously you have to watch evaporation, but what is best to fill the airlock with? water? vodka? When I was done racking there was still a some mead at the bottom of the carboy as I was being careful not to suck up the settled yeast into the almost clear mead. I certainly didn't want to throw it away, so I had a thought - I have used homebrew as a base for marinades quite sucessfully in the past. So I poured it into a tupperware bowl and put it into the fridge overnight. The next day it had settled out very well and I poured the mead into another container, carefully leaving the yeast behind. I then added some commercial barbeque sauce, mixed it well and added chicken parts. I allowed it to marinate till the next night. It was excellant. The chicken came out very moist and with a great flavor. Try it with the dregs of your next batch of mead, it's great. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 19:23:54 -0800 From: "S. Wesley" <sWesley at maine.maine.edu> Subject: RE: I'm turning red!!!!!!! Dear Rod A colleague of mine once told me he suffers from a similar complaint. He told me that he and many other members of his family have an adverse reaction, like the one you describe, to alcohol of any sort. I suggest you try some wine and some spirits and see if they produce the same result. I don't know if he suffers from hypertension, but I tend to think not. Regards, Simon A. Wesley The problem is, I taste tested it the other day, before the dry hop, and when I came up stairs my wife commented that my face was bright red. The redness stopped just above my chest. It subsided after about an hour. I wrote it off. Just out of curiosity, and to use my new .100 range hydrometer, I checked the gravity again tonight and drank the test tube of wort, about 4 or 5 oz. Within 15 minutes, my face turned bright red again. WHAT HAVE I DONE? Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/09/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96