HOMEBREW Digest #3010 Wed 21 April 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

  Hop reference books (Gail Elber)
  Re: Cleaning beer lines/etc ("Curt Abert")
  17th Annual Cal. State Fair Comp. (Robert Arguello)
  Iodophor Contact Time ("Fred L. Johnson")
  Hop Oil as a preservative? (Badger Roullett)
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Over carbonation = acidity? ("Colin Marshall")
  Re: wyeast for fruit beer (Scott Murman)
  Taste and length of fermentation ("Anthony & Julie Brown")
  re: WARNING : extremely rude ("Alan McKay")
  btu's on a 55 gallon drum ("Ratkiewich, Peter")
  re: Brewing good, science bad? ("Alan McKay")
  Ebulliometry (AJ)
  Kegging system (Nathan Kanous)
  more on cooking with beer ("Jim Kingsberg")
  Too-thick mashes (and rudeness) (Joel Plutchak)
  Trick to 'Stop" carbonation? (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
  Cold conditioning and chill haze (Domenick Venezia)
  Hop Rhizomes available? (Mark Warrington)
  Re: rates of enzyme activity (Matthew Arnold)
  Big Bew 99 Chat (Brad McMahon)
  RE: WARNING! extremely rude. (Scott Abene)
  Peat Smoked Scottish Ales (Rod Prather)
  May/June 1999 Zymurgy Article on Pale Ale (Dave Humes)
  How Many BTU's are needed... ("William W. Macher")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier! Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99. Details on the HBD Competition Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier! 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: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:57:16 -0800 From: Gail Elber <gail at brewtech.com> Subject: Hop reference books Jeffrey asks: >2) Is there a definitive book on hops out there which someone can > recommend? The Hop Atlas (Barth, Klinke, and Schmidt; available from Hans Carl Verlag [www.brauwelt.de]) costs $110 -- maybe you could get it on interlibrary loan from an ag school library. It contains more than you would ever want to know about the history and current practices of hop cultivation worldwide and a good deal about the history of brewing, but not so much about the characteristics of the varieties, though it does have photos of cones and leaves of the German varieties. Much cheaper and more useful for brewers is Brewing Techniques' 1998 Brewers' Market Guide, which contains a directory of pretty much every hop in the world with its specifications, plus information from Mark Garetz on how to understand the specifications. Price is $7.50 +s&h; call the number below to order. Gail Elber Associate Editor BrewingTechniques P.O. Box 3222 Eugene, OR 97403 541/687-2993 fax 541/687-8534 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:56:19 -0500 From: "Curt Abert" <abert at flanders.isgs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: Cleaning beer lines/etc Hi All, In HBD #3007, Doug Moyer askes about cleaning beer lines: > How do those of you with complex multi-tap systems keep everything > clean? I currently have three or four cobra taps, but when I am done > building my dispense system, I will have two three-tap towers. I have one of those 'keggerator' refridgerators, but replaced the single-tap tower with a 3-tap tower. I usually clean/flush the lines *at least* once a month, and every time a keg runs dry. I fill an empty keg with 2 gallons of hot water, add 2 Tbs. of One Step, slosh the keg around well to dissolve the sanitizer, and flush each beer line (disconnecting and reconnecting the lines to the keg with sanitizer). I initially flush a quart or so into a line, disconnect and move on to the next. This leaves some sanitizing solution in the line. After flushing each line twice, I empty the sanitizing solution from the keg, refill with hot water, and flush each line again. One Step is a no- rinse sanitizer, but I rinse anyway. I highly recommend getting a multi-tap tower if you have the means. When I used to dispense from cobra-taps, I always had some level of carbonation problems that I could never quite resolve. Since the installation of the tower, all problems seem to have been solved (except that now my kegs seem to get empty alot faster...). I got mine from A.D.M Amalgamation (no affiliation, just a happy customer). Their URL is: http://www.admainc.com/index.dbm Also, in HBD #3008, Mark Bayer wrote: > there is a billboard on interstate 70 in st. charles county, missouri, that > shows a bird dog in the middle of a tall grassy field "pointing" to a cooler > emblazoned with the budweiser logo. the caption to the ad is "because it's > budweiser". i have this creative urge to edit the billboard and repaint the > dog in another position next to the cooler, but being back in the stl area, > i'd probably get a visit from a couple of hired goons..... But that would be awesomely funny! I'd probably drive off of the road doubled over in laughter if I ever saw anything like it. Cheers, Curt Abert Champaign, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:38:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com> Subject: 17th Annual Cal. State Fair Comp. PRESS RELEASE: The Gold Country Brewers Association, (GCBA), and the California State Fair are sponsoring the Seventeenth Annual California State Fair Home Brew Competition. The competition is open to all home brewers of at least 21 years of age and who are residents of the state of California. Beers must be made in the home for private, (non-commercial), use. Entries must be received between April 1, 1999 and May 15, 1999. All entries will be kept in cold storage until final judging on June 27, 1999. Judging will follow the official BJCP style guidelines. All BJCP beer and mead categories will be judged. Competition information and entry forms are available on-line at: http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/comp.htm Rosettes will be awarded for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in each category. Rosette and Golden Bear Trophy will be awarded for the "Best of Show". Interested judges are invited to register. E-mail Dave Sapsis at GCBA at ns.net if you would like to serve as a judge at the competition. Best of luck! Robert Arguello California State Fair Home Brew Competition Coordinator Gold Country Brewers Association robertac at calweb.com (530) 759-1006 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 07:05:37 -0400 From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Iodophor Contact Time Joy Hansen writes regarding the contact time required with Iodophor: > G.Fix published some statistics on the effectiveness of various popular > sanitizers used for both home and commercial breweries. IMHO, 12.5 ppm > would take about an hour of contact time to effect marginal sanitation > for beer spoilage organisms. I don't have the knowledge or the > equipment to test the sanitizers. Possibly most home brewers don't? I > suggest that home brewers accept the test results and recommendations of > recognized individuals such as G. Fix. > > The contact time for beer organisms using idophor is at least 5 minutes > at 25 ppm. The concentration for Star San is about 100 ppm with the > same contact time. It's important to recognize that the declarations > for sanitizing on most packages are for E. Coli and NOT FOR THE COMMON > BEER SPOILAGE ORGANISMS. It is not clear where Joy is quoting George Fix's results and where he is inserting his own opinion. Since the contact times recommended by Joy are much longer than indicated by the manufacturer which Joy indicates are for E. coli, have Joy (or George) performed the control experiment to demonstrate that they get contact times to kill E. coli similar to those posted by the manufacturer. Without the control, I'm not convinced the two experiments (manufacturer vs. Fix) are comparable. - -- Fred L. Johnson Apex, North Carolina USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:47:45 -0700 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: Hop Oil as a preservative? Greetings and Salutations.. You know, getting behind on HBD has a sort of snowball effect.. you can never seem to catch up.. :) My question is this.. I work a lot on recreating Pre-1600 beers and ales. How can I get the benefit of Hops without the Flavor? (why??!?! you shout? calm down, let me explain) In many cases prior to 1500 the English did not use hops in ALE (beer was the term for when you added hops, and came from the Dutch), and I wan to make a couple to see how they taste. I want to avoid hops, BUT I don't want my beer to spoil. Is there a way to get the preservative qualities of hops, without the flavor? Like hop oil? in minor amounts? other ideas? - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven "It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:26:38 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report >From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen at scronline.com> >Subject: Sanitizers, corny "O" rings, MHCs >The contact time for beer organisms using idophor is at least 5 minutes >at 25 ppm. The concentration for Star San is about 100 ppm with the >same contact time. It's important to recognize that the declarations >for sanitizing on most packages are for E. Coli and NOT FOR THE COMMON >BEER SPOILAGE ORGANISMS. It is perhaps also important to note that sanitizers ARE sold and rated to negate the impact of PEOPLE spoiling organisms. Primary among them is E.Coli...... I am certainly no scientist, but for me the ability of a sanitizer to effect and neutralize a pathogen indicates an ability to neutralize the beer spoilers....which aren't always pathenogenic.......(Of course, if they were, we wouldn't have vinegar, no?) With all respect to Joy and her reference, Mr. Fix, who rates among my brew-gods..... I learned years ago, and have successfully employed for years, a technique I learned from the past Head Brewer of Boulevard Brewing, Bill Cherry... As Joy states, 25ppm of Iodophor needs a contact time of 5 minutes.....but 12.5 ppm employed for 10/60 works as well... By employing a fresh mix of 12.5ppm in a 'Clean In Place' setup on my fermenters, hoses and Heat Exchanger....running it for 20/60 before I went home, the night before a brew....and running it again the next morning...I was able to enjoy just a wee bit of a more economical use of my chems....... Of course, YMMV.... BTW, in regards to Star-San, I know many who love it, including my former Head Brewer, Steve Zimmerman, for many of the reasons that Joy relates... And while I am a 'Dyed in the Wool' 5 Star fan...I just never got to love Star-San........ For one, it goes cloudy, obscuring visuals....2, it's soapy to the feel........ Call me peculiar, but I guess I am allowed that.... As for flavours from sanitizers, despite my past surgical background, where it was not uncommon to observe Iodophor and saline mixes introduced abdominally...I am no longer a believer in any "No-Rinse" regime... I will sanitize till the cows come home....but I always give a city h2o rinse before my beer hits the fermenter.... Cheers! Jethro Gump Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net Lallemand Web Site jethro at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" es Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:09:16 +1000 From: "Colin Marshall" <byoah at argay.com.au> Subject: Over carbonation = acidity? A kit brew that I did in August '97, with Wyeast #2278, ended very much over gassed, probably as a result of being bottled too early. Although the beer was drinkable, it tasted quite acidic - not vinegary. I drank it but didn't really enjoy it. Recently, 6 stubbies (375 ml bottles) surfaced from the back of a cupboard. The first one I drank (not surprisingly) had the same faults. So I degassed them for an hour, recapped them and stuck 'em in the fridge. Several days later I shared them with some mates, and the unanimous appraisal was that they were the finest home brewed beers any of the lads had ever tasted. The beer seemed to be soooooo smooooth, compared to its previous character. My question (thank you for your patience) is this: did the overabundance of CO2 in the beer cause the excessive acidity we first tasted? Does this acid have a name? Colin Marshall. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:11:47 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: wyeast for fruit beer Anthony Brown wrote: > Hey, anyone have any ideas as to the best wyeast to use when brewing a > fruit beer? I've made too many fruit beers in my days, and I would recommend a very neutral ale strain such as Wyeast 1056. The idea is to highlight the fruit contribution, which isn't much really, and a flavorful strain will simply overwhelm. I'd use a low hop schedule, and go light on the specialty malts as well. Very little of that fruit flavor actually ends up in the glass. -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:28:58 CSTCDT From: "Anthony & Julie Brown" <brown32 at web1.ecol.net> Subject: Taste and length of fermentation Just a query from a more inexperienced homebrewer. I am relatively new to brewing (6 or 7 batches) and was wondering about the optimal time for fermentation. Since I keg my beer and refrigerate it afterwards, will this inhibit the yeast from optimally "aging" my beer or will it continue to age and mature under refrigeration. If so, would it be feasable to keg after as little as 7-10 days when fermentation stops or does the yeast still need time to "work" at adequate 60-75 degree temperatures for ales?? Any thoughts? PS. thanks to all who have answered many of my kegging questions as of late....all responses were very helpful. Tony B. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:42:02 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com> Subject: re: WARNING : extremely rude FWIW I didn't find it all that rude, really. Naming names was arguably poor judgement, but given the content of what was being said, I'd have to say that it probably had to be done. Aside from that, I didn't find the message in the least bit rude. It expresses an opinion, and does so very strongly. But that really helps make a point, which probably should be made. cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay OS Support amckay at nortelnetworks.com Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395) Nortel Networks http://zftzb00d/alanmckay/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:41:39 -0400 From: "Ratkiewich, Peter" <PRATKIEWICH at ci.westport.ct.us> Subject: btu's on a 55 gallon drum In HBD #3009 Scott Church writes: <Does anyone know a "formula" for how much heat (BTU's) is needed to bring "X" amount of water to a boil in "X" amount of time. I would like to find out what it would take to use a 55 gal steel drum as a Boil Kettle/Mash Tun.> Sorry Scott I don't have a formula but I do have a data point, and sort of a stupid brewer's trick too!. Being rather empirical, I tried an experiment the other day to try out a planned 52 gallon system that me and my partner are building. - Filled up a 52 gallon vessel with water and placed it on my Camp Chef high pressure burner, (60k BTU?). (I took the legs off so it would be close to the ground). The water temp started at about 40 degrees F, as was the outside temp. it was somewhat windy so I put up a wind screen. I adjusted the flame so that it was as high as possible without rounding the bottom of the 2 foot diameter pot. In approximately an hour and a half the burner brought the temperature up from 40 degrees to about 160 degrees. At this point however, the flame had heated the asphalt drive up enough to make it soft. One leg of the burner started sinking in and the pot started listing to the east...end of experiment... emptied the pot quick with a long siphon hose, successfully not burning my lips!. I do however consider the experiment a limited success. Consider the following: On a 52 gallon system generally we would strike in with approximately 25 gallons if our ratio is 1 qt per pound and you assume a 100 pound grain bill. If we start heating our strike in water early in the session, we'll be up to 168 degrees in about three quarters of an hour. (Most of the time we won't be brewing in direct wind and 40 degrees but rather in a well ventilated garage, so the temp outside the vessels will be greater than 40 degrees, and we won't lose BTU's to wind chill). The sparge water is the biggest problem, but even if it takes 1-1/2 hours to bring it up to 168-170 degrees, we're still well within a 90 minute to two hour mash time. Once we mash out and begin to run off, as long as we heat as I runoff, we are theoretically still only raising the temperature of the 52 gallons of wort from around the 160's to 212. I estimate about another 45 minutes to bring it to a boil. ( just enough time to have lunch, a chilled homebrew and a cigar). Now the biggest problem that I see in this whole scenario is maintaining the mash temp. That we intend to solve by heating the sparge water a little earlier, and running the mash through a heat exchanger in the sparge tank. As you might expect, me and my partner are preparing the above system for a trial run as soon as we get the fittings welded in place. Sounds like you may be considering the same. Any ideas, suggestions, other stupid brewer's tricks? P.S. always run your burners over a concrete floor if possible to avoid a leaning pot! Happy brewing! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:01:16 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com> Subject: re: Brewing good, science bad? Thomas Murray says : "I am not one of the very scientifically enabled, but I don't have a problem with deep brewing science being discussed here. First of all, there is room for it, second, we can sometimes (albeit on the third or fourth read) learn something from these guys." Point well taken, and indeed, everyone can stand to learn a bit now and then. And your "quality control button" comment is right- on, too. The one thing to watch out for, however, is not to automatically believe someone just because they know how to throw around a bunch of big, fancy words. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of people in here who know this stuff really well - because there most certainly are. At this point I think a quote from my homepage is appropriate : "Our reluctance to buy into electonic advice stems simply from our 15+ years experience on the internet, which has earned us the knowledge of how easy it is to make yourself look like an expert in such a forum. Take that statement self-referencially to your current hosts if you please. You should be cautious of all information you obtain from the Internet (whether it be about brewing, or some other topic altogether), unless you can be absolutely certain that the person or people you are getting it from can be trusted." Personally, I do know an awful lot of brewers whom I've never met in person, but whose opinions and experiences I trust implicitly. But I also know an awful lot more whom I don't. cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:52:18 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Ebulliometry Phil Wilcox & Phil DeVore ask, with respect to ebulliometry correction for residual extract: 1. Can this method be applied to beer analysis? 2. And if so, how accurately? The first question is, of course, the easier to answer and the answer is "yes". Weissler writing in Hardwick, "Handbook of Brewing", Marcell Dekker, NY 1995 has a table of corrections taken from the Juerst Ebulliometer manual. Rather than plagiarize this table here's a fit: Correction = 0.00063088+ 0.014268*(True Extract)% ABW. True extract is in P. This fit's peak error is 0.0006%. Note that it is for ABW. The table starts at 3 P for which the correction is 0.043%. I have found it expedient to dilute the beer 1:1 with DI water. This has a couple of advantages: 1. You get more stable boiling point readings 2. You reduce the TE (in the vast majority of cases) to the point where the correction is so small you need not consider it so that... 3. You don't have to determine TE which is, IMO, a PITA. The disadvantages are that you 1. Double the sensitivity of the test to error in reading the thermometer 2. Add a second source of error from the dilution measurements. I believe the improved stability of the readings more than offsets No. 1 I can't really answer the accuracy question because I don't have enough data at this point. Some of us are looking at various methods for alcohol determination and we hope to provide the community with data on exactly this sort of question eventually. If an anecdotal data point is of any value the IPA I reported on recently measured: Method ABV S.G. Calculation 5.84% Ebul. w/ dil 5.40% Ebul. w/o dil 5.55% Enzyme 5.64% Distillation 5.46% Dichromate 5.50% - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:59:55 -0500 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Kegging system I'm a little behind, but this has been a "hot" topic. "Anthony & Julie Brown" <brown32 at web1.ecol.net> writes: > >I am going to start kegging my beer soon and can't >decide what size co2 canister to purchase. I can >get a 5# for $35 or a 15# for $50. The 5# would fit >in the frige better but the 15# is more economical. >Any suggestions as to which one would serve me better. >Plan to have 2 kegs tapped at a time. HELP!! Many posters have mentioned the economy of buying 15lbs versus 5lbs, but the difficulty of "lugging" the 15lb cylinder to "parties". Don't forget, you can use an "extra" cornie as your CO2 tank for using on the road. Just put in lots of pressure and connect the "empty" CO2 filled corny to the inlet on the beer keg. If it's not attached for significant amounts of time, it can't overcarbonate the beer and weighs much less than the 15lb cylinder. Just a thought.... nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:06:57 -0500 From: "Jim Kingsberg"<jdkingsb at hewitt.com> Subject: more on cooking with beer Since my days as the grill man and chief chili maker at the college pub , Ive always added beer or wine to the chili. As we had Old Style on tap, the cheap stuff went in. For some reason, adding the beer during the boil had a different taste than adding it at the beginning of the boil/simmer (but hey, making chili is an art, not science). So, lately Ive added a stout to chili. Wow. you gotta try that. The roasty flavors can shine through even heavy spicing. Absolutely wonderful. Here's a question for the general collective: I know there is, I beleive attributed to Italian cuisine, vodka soup. Has anyone recipes for soup with beer as an ingredient? Im actually considering something like a miso soup with some belgian ale or weiss (weiss would be a little cheaper), though Im not sure if sour notes would be retained. Thanks in advance, Jim Kingsberg Fugowee Brewery, Evanston, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:27:32 -0500 (CDT) From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu> Subject: Too-thick mashes (and rudeness) In HBD #3009, Steve Alexander wrote: >Al's comments to Matt who read a post of mine regarding the Fix mash >schedule were on the mark too. Not only is a mash thickness of 2qt/lb >not too thin, but there is pretty good evidence that mashes as thick as >1.5qt/lb are actually too thick. The unavailability of water (trapped by >the starch) slows amylolysis. Could you elaborate on that? In approximately 5 hours, I'll be mashing in a Strong Bitter at 1 qt/lb, based on the research of Ray Daniels for his book _Designing Great Beer_ (see my "rude" comments below). He says (QDA: paraphrased from memory) that British-style bitters and pale ales have historically used a thick, single-infusion mash. Have the British been missing something all these years? Is the research misleading? Could I be brewing better biiter beers by using a thinner mash? (I generally use a 1.25 to 1.5 qt/lb ratio, and rarely above that.) ==== A word about "Dr. Pivo's" self-described rude comments. I tend to skip a lot of the in-depth, scientific discussion, too. However, I would rather trust those like Dave B., George D., Al K., George F., and Ray D., who have a lot of brewing experience backed by solid science and research, over a few people whose only evidence seems to consist of "because I said so, and never trust authority." But that's just me. - -- Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:49:59 -0400 From: "Roat, Todd (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU> Subject: Trick to 'Stop" carbonation? this is an odd request. Put 3/4 lb boiled corn sugar into a secondary of beer because I found it had stopped fermenting at 1.026 (down from 1.056). I did this to increase the ETOH content by 1% or so. I wouldn't mind the fullness of a 1.026 beer, but I didn't want 3.2% beer. Anyway, it worked great, essentially bottling the beer in the secondary - I had some foam develop and a storm of CO2 bubbles racing up sides of carboy and out airlock. Problem now is that it has been going strong this way for 2+ weeks and I need it to stop to bottle and, more importantly, free up that secondary to get a primary batch transferred (been in primary a bit long now). I cant just bottle it for concern of exploding bottles since the CO2 is still constantly being produced. Any ideas, tricks, experiences? Thanks Todd Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:49:26 -0700 From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Cold conditioning and chill haze From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com> > I recently made a British bitter and put the secondary carboy in the > refrigerator around 30 degrees for three or four days. There were some > ice crystals that were left behind when I racked it to the keg. When I > dispense it at cellar temperature (around 55-60 degrees) the beer has a > beautiful clarity. If I dispense it colder, it has chill haze. > > How long does one have to cold-condition to eliminate chill haze? What > am I doing wrong? First, since it's a British Bitter and should be served at 55F I'd say you're not doing anything wrong and you have absolutely hit the nail on the head! Chill haze is caused by polyphenols which are protein/tannin complexes. At room temp these are soluble, at refrigerator temps they precipitate out of solution. They will eventually settle out, but at best it takes weeks and at worst it takes months. Since chill haze has no flavor contribution, and since some of my favorite commercial beers always or sometimes suffer from it, I no longer consider it a major defect. In fact, I now consider it a reminder that real beer is a living beverage - cold, it's a bit cloudy, warmer, it's crystal clear. Kind of magic. I know nothing of your brewing process, but generally, anything that reduces the amount of medium sized protein or reduces the tannin extraction from the grain will reduce chill haze, as will various fining agents. Most malts today are highly modified, and protein rests are a pain and of dubious utility (flame suit on :-), so it's probably easier to try to limit the tannin extraction. Over sparging or sparging too hot are probably the most common culprits. Next time use another pound of malt and stop your sparge sooner (SG 1.020-1.015) and see what happens. Cheers. Domenick Venezia Venezia & Company, LLC Maker of PrimeTab (206) 782-1152 phone (206) 782-6766 fax orders demonick at zgi dot com Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:57:21 +0100 From: Mark Warrington <mark.s.warrington at usa.dupont.com> Subject: Hop Rhizomes available? Hi all, I moved in Nov. 98 and transplanted my three year old hop roots to my new abode and replanted them at that time. They don't seem to have survived the winter. Does anyone know who still has rhizomes available at this time of the year? Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:03:27 GMT From: marnold at ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold) Subject: Re: rates of enzyme activity On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:16:48 -0400, you wrote: >Al's comments to Matt who read a post of mine regarding the Fix mash >schedule were on the mark too. Not only is a mash thickness of 2qt/lb >not too thin, but there is pretty good evidence that mashes as thick as >1.5qt/lb are actually too thick. The unavailability of water (trapped by >the starch) slows amylolysis. OK, I reviewed my brew log and my mash thickness ended up being somewhere in the vicinity of 2.3-2.4 qt/lb. Am I pushing my luck here, or isn't it a problem? I had to add enough boiling water to raise the mash temperature from 104F all the way to 158F. I'm planning on brewing again within the week and would be interested in trying this method again. One of the reasons this interests me is not so much for the science of it all, but for the ease of it all. I can use hot tap water (with a pinch of campden tablet to remove the chloramine) to get to the rest at 104F and then simply add boiling water to get to my desired saccrification temperature. Much less juggling with water temperature, grain temperature, thermal mass and all that rot. To each their own, but I find it helpful. Thanks again! Matt P.S. Not that you asked, but the Green Bay Rackers competition, Titletown Open V, is coming up on May 15! Get your entry forms at http://www.rackers.org/open.shtml - ----- Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club http://www.rackers.org info at rackers.org Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:48:35 +0930 From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au> Subject: Big Bew 99 Chat > Jethro said: > >Big Brew 99 WebSite..... > > Al Korzonas sez... > >>Say... while I'm at it, can someone volunteer to set up a way for us > >>in the field to upload .gif's to the AHA website during the Big Brew? > >>Last year we had some interesting conversations while we all brewed > >>together. It would be even better if the sites could send in photos. > >>It would be more convenient than if we put them on our websites and > >>posted links to them, right? > >I am aware of certain attempts to put together a Chat Line for the Big Brew > >'99. To my knowledge, no firm outcome has been concluded. > >Scott Braker-Abene has graciously responded in the affirmative, when I > >asked if his site might be utilized for Big Brew. For those of you unaware > >of this site, I would invite you to peruse > >http://skotrat.dynip.com/skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ .....on the 1st of > >May....to follow the action... > >It's the only tried, tested and proven such site, and would be best able to > >cope with the demands of over 100 sites communicating with each other. Sounds good. Just to let people know that my site will have a live internet connection (we are getting sponsorship from a local ISP) on the day. We did this on the strength of the AHA saying they would have a chat room open. I hope they do get it running in time. If not, Skotrat's site will be it. As we are in Australia, we will be celebrating on May 2nd, so that we can be celebrating at the same time as you guys. We are starting at 10 AM local time (Zulu + 9.30, US East coast: May 1st 8.30pm) and we are having a synchronised toast with the Japanese Homebrew Club site at 12.30PM local (US East 11PM). If anyone can be online at that time it would be great to get you involved too. Prost! Brad Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Abene <skotrat at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: WARNING! extremely rude. Dr. Pivo writes a diatribe discussing how amused and wonderful and how passive he is and how he lets things go... Then turns around and talks down to people like George and Dave. You sir are a contradicting hypocrite of your very own methods and words. Get over yer bad self cuz baby you ain't all that. Stand up for the poop you have peddled and fight for the argument that you have started. I believe someone called Al K. a "putz" here once. They were wrong... You Dr. Pivo... You sir are being a putz. C'ya! Scott "Talk to the Hand Baby!" Abene === ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT Scott Abene <skotrat at mediaone.net> http://skotrat.dynip.com/skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page) "This Space Currently for Rent... Inquire within" _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:54:51 -0500 From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> Subject: Peat Smoked Scottish Ales Most of you may remember several months back a discussion about the use of peat smoked barley in Scotch Ale. Some felt that it was not used at all. I thought it to be a common ingredient and a few agreed with me. I became curious and searched the internet for Scottish breweries that had email addresses. One person finally responded and directed me to a brewing historian and author in Edinburgh named Charles McMaster. I wrote him a letter via snail mail and today I recieved a reply. A letter written by hand in a quite floral printed caligraphers script. This is an excerpt which I found especially interresting. Some of the letter is quite difficult to read so please excuse inaccuracies in a few of the specifics. - ----------- By the turn of the 19th century, the Scottish Brewing industry was heavily concentrated in the Central Lowlands, in places such as Edinburgh, Alloa and [another city that I couldn't decipher from the letter]. These were not peat cutting counties and malt would be pretty universally coal or coke malted as most scottish brewers were also maltsters and produced their own malt. Peated malt was produced in the Highlands of Scotland (where there was no coall) for the whiskey distilling industry but there was little commercial brewing [of beer] north of the highland line and as a result there is little or no tradition of peated or smoked beers in Scotland and such as have appeared can be considered an abberation. I believe this misconception regarding scotch ales in general arises from Craig Noonan's book.............. Charles Mc Master Author of "The Beer Drinkers' Companion" John Dallas, Co-author So I guess I can eat crow on this one. Although there have been occasional experiments on scottish ales using peated barley these have been primaily short lived products and have never been considered a scottish style. My thanks to Mr. McMaster for taking the time to draft this explanation. He also mentions several hop substitutes indiginous to Scotland. These he says were typically used in Wee Heavy and other Scottish beers and ales. One I have heard of, others I have no knowledge of. Those he mentioned are spruce, broom, rowan (?) and myrica. Spruce, if course, is well known as a hop substitute and if abused produces a flavor resembling PineSol. Does anyone know anything about the other three. Does broom refer to broom cane of the type grown in the US (Illinois) for manufacture of straw brooms or is this another plant? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 99 11:21:01 -0400 From: Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net> Subject: May/June 1999 Zymurgy Article on Pale Ale Greetings, The May/June 1999 issue of Zymurgy includes an article by Terry Foster, author of "Pale Ale" in the Classic Beer Style Series published by Brewer's Publications. The cover of the issue describes the article by Mr. Foster as "Secrets of the Perfect Pale Ale." Now, while I have the greatest respect for Mr. Foster and his knowledge of Pale Ale, this article has the appearance of heavy handed editing to leave out the "secrets" and encourage the reader to buy the new edition of the Pale Ale book. Lets look at each of principal ingredients of a pale ale; malt, water, hops, and yeast; and see how each is addressed in the article. Malt It starts with quite a long discussion of the differences between 2-row and 6-row base malts. I'm not sure I see the relevance of this in the context of the limited space of a magazine article. Are homebrewers really asking themselves whether they should use 2-row or 6-row? Next he discusses the appropriateness of the single infusion mash for pale ale at 150F +/- a few degrees. There's some good information here, but nothing really new. He explicitly makes no recommendation on specific base malts stating that both British and American maltsters all produce high quality malt. But, there's just got to be differences, and here's where some discussion of the properties of some different base malts would have been helpful. Then, he goes on to discuss carmel and crystal malts. Here's where I hoped to learn something. This segment is divided into two sections titled "Carmel Malt" and "Crystal Malt." This would imply to me that he thinks they are different. He gives a nice description of the production technique and properties of carmel malt, but then makes no recommendation on how to use them in your beer. The following "Crystal Malt" section starts right off with recommended usage levels, but states nothing about how or why crystal malts are different from carmel malts or why you would choose one versus the other. I continue to wonder if there is a difference. The truth is out there... Water Hmmm.... Water is not discussed in the article. This is definitely an area where a little information could help elevate your pale ale to the next higher level of quality. I realize that an in-depth treatment is not possible in the context of such an article, but it should at least be mentioned. Hops This section has some good information including effects of the bittering hop on hop aroma, qualitative differences in hop bittering, and issues relating to loss of aromatic oils in the homebrewing setting. My only criticism of this section is that some more specific recommendations of hops for bittering and late hop character would have been helpful. Yeast Mr. Foster makes some specific recommendations on dry yeasts but states that he's reluctant to make recommendations on liquid yeast or yeast cultures because "so many of the strains available are propietary and so many exist that I have been unable to try them all." I don't understand this at all. The selection of an appropriate yeast to complement your selected malt and hop profile can mean the difference between your beer presenting itself as a wonderfully complex medely of flavors and aroma versus a dissonant chord. OK, he hasn't been able to try them all. But at least he could have discussed the properties of some different liquid yeasts appropriate for the style and under what circumstances you would choose one yeast versus another. The propietary issue eludes me. If a yeast is truly propietary, then I would assume it is not available for homebrewers and there's little point mentioning it. If it is available, then let's here what he has to say about it. I have not seen the second edition of Mr. Foster's book. I can only hope that these issues are more fully addressed in the book. But, it is disappointing that the Zymurgy article left out so many of the important details. Sorry for the length of this post. - --Dave - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------- Dave Humes <humesdg1 at earthlink.net> Dave Humes - ----------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:37:40 From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: How Many BTU's are needed... HI All... Scott Church <schurch at gte.net> asks how many BTU's are needed to heat water to a boil... A BTU is the amount of heat it takes to raise one pound of water one degree F. A US gallon of water weighs about 8.33 pounds. Say you had 50 gallons of water in your 55-gallon steel drum. Starting temperature is 60F. Boiling is 212 F. at sea level. (Gallons) x (LB/gallon) x (Deg. F. Increase) = BTU's needed 50 x 8.33 x (212-60) = 63,308 BTU Total BTU's needed to raise the liquid temperature is about 63,300 for water, and probably nearly the same for wort. The exact number depends on the specific heat capacity of the liquid being heated. We probably do not need to worry about being exact in our calculation, due to various heat losses that differ with each person's system. 63,308 BTU is the amount of energy that is needed to be put (and kept) in the liquid, over whatever period of time you want take to raise to liquid to boiling. For one hour, that is 63,308 BTU/hour. You will need more than this amount of energy of course, as heat will be lost from the drum by radiation, etc., etc. This is heat input to the liquid. There are many inefficiencies that must be considered. You naturally need a much bigger burner than 63,300 BTU/hour rating if you want to heat 50 gallons of water(wort) to boiling in one hour. The above calculation should give you a starting point. And since there are 150,000 BTU burners available (Is this rating BTU/HR?) it sounds like your goal is easily attainable. Bill Bill Macher Pittsburgh, PA USA Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/21/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96