---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  laeuter tun design/recipes/thanks Dave/HSA/Koelsch (BrewInfo)
  Re: Peat Smoked Scottish Ales ("Brian Dixon")
  hop-free beer / beer maturation ("George De Piro")
  IBU tests ("George De Piro")
  old CO2 regulator (poregan)
  dextrins & more ("Stephen Alexander")
  re: 55 gallon drum ("Alan McKay")
  CO2 and contamination (Louis Bonham)
  O2 caps (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Definition of a good lawnmower beer ("Harry Ewasiuk")
  Hardy Hop Varieties ("Harry Ewasiuk")
  Used Corny Kegs for Sale? ("Keyes, Karl")
  Imploding Corny kegs (Harlan Bauer)
  Re:Hop Oil as a preservative? (Gary H Nazelrod)
  What is a good substance for making SG samples ("Peter J. Calinski")
  Budwiser 4.95% abv ("Philip J Wilcox")
  Cleaning converted SS keg brewpot? (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
  Just call me a fish...:-) ("William W. Macher")
  open fermentation and O2/crush/O2/slow half/sugars (BrewInfo)
  sulphate/minimash (BrewInfo)


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: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:38:39 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: laeuter tun design/recipes/thanks Dave/HSA/Koelsch

Mac writes:
>I have a couple of questions about home-built cooler type lauter tuns:
>1.      What's the most efficient or practical type container to use, a
>rectangular cooler or a Gott style round cooler?  What is the objective
>depth of the grain bed I should be shooting for?

Both shapes are pretty much the same regarding the quality of the finished
beer.  The "optimal" grain bed is said to be 18", but this is from
a commercial brewing text.  I've gotten great results from grain beds
as shallow as 6" and as deep as 24".  You have to be more careful when
it comes to adding the sparge water (in a fly (continuous) sparge) in
a shallow grain bed so you don't disturb the filter bed.  Incidentally,
recently someone posted "set the filter bed" when they meant "establish
the filter bed."  A "set mash" in brewerspeak is a "stuck runoff" so
"setting the filter bed" would be a bad thing.

>2.      What is the most efficient type of false bottom to construct, a
>perforated plastic or metal one, or will a manifold type work as well?
 
I did an experiment on this back in 1995 (see 1995 Special Issue of
Zymurgy) and found that there is very little difference between various
false bottoms when it comes to efficiency.  The decision on which to
use really comes down to personal preference.  I've never heard from
any brewer that said "when I switched to X from Y my yield increased Z%!"
I've brewed with Zapap, grain bag, manifold, perforated metal,
Phil's Phalse bottom and an Easymasher(tm).  I prefer the Easymasher
quite simply because of simplicity and ease of cleanup.  Oh, and it
requires the least recirculation.

Disclaimer: I do market a product that could be used to make an easymasher,
but I tried all the systems and stayed with a real Easymasher(tm) long
before I went into business.

***
Hans writes:
>George De Piro published his winning recipe of a Weizen.
>I also give my recipes to anyone who wants them. But I know some brewers are
>very mysterious about their recipes. A few don't even participate in
>contests if the recipe must be included. Others hand over a not correct
>recipe.
>My question: are there any ideas about this? Would it be possible to clone a
>recipe and win a competition? I myself am skeptical about this, because:

Yes.  Absolutely.

> -different mineral content of water

If you don't already know what water the original recipe used, find out.
Also, you can't follow recipes blindly... if it tastes like it has too
much sulphate, reduce your sulphate on the next batch.  It could take
multiple batches to tweak a recipe to your system and water.  A good
recipe should say "high sulphate" or "low sulphate" or "low bi/carbonate"
if this is important.

> -different supplier of malt or a different batch

A good recipe should specify the brand of malt.  Lot-to-lot differences
shouldn't be the difference between "prize winner" and "slug bait."

> -different supplier of hops or a different batch or different storage of the
>hops

This could make a difference, but use your head.  Don't buy crappy hops
stored in non-O2-barrier bags.  Consider the recipe... if it's an American
Pilsener with 4 ounces of allegedly 4% hops in 5 gallons, something is
wrong with the hops or the brewer didn't give you the real recipe.  I
once judged fruit beers at the 2nd round of the AHA National Competition.
I was the Zymurgy technical editor at the time.  When I saw the recipe,
I knew that the hopping was wrong... either the hops were crappy or the
brewer intentionally changed the recipe.  I told the managing editor to
check with the brewer and it was not a typo.  I calculated something like
50 IBUs in a beer that my tastebuds tell me had no more than 20.

> -different age (storage) of yeast

If you make a big, healty starter, you should get good performance 
from even old yeast.  The recipe should mention the starter size.  It's
true, however, that if you pitch a liter starter and the original was
made with 50ml from a Wyeast package you'll get far fewer esters and
higher alcohols.  This could be a problem (e.g Weizen, Belgian, etc.) or
an improvement (lagers).

> -and (IMO) most inportant: differences in equipment and operating procedure
>(accuracy in weighing, temperature, time).

Well, yes, there will be differences in the beers produced, but the
difference shouldn't be "prize winner" and "slug bait."  They should
be two slightly different beers, both of "prize winning" caliber.
One exception to this rule is if one brewer used blowoff or skimming
and the other didn't.  There will be as much as an 18% difference in
bitterness which could seriously change the balance of the beer.  This
should be specified in the recipe, but it rarely is.  You should know
if you guessed wrong on the first sip of the finished beer.

***
Dave writes:
>4) Others disagree, but I see the carboy/overflow hose
>as a most likely source of contamination, since it is so
>difficult to clean reliably.
 
I do appreciate Dave including the "others disagree" part.  As stated,
while I side with those that disagree, I can appreciate Dave's position.
 
Also, Dave writes:
>Clark asks if it OK to pour hot wort through the air - NO!
>always cool you wort first. Many beginners screw up
>their beer by pouring the hot wort through a strainer to
>remove the hops.  This single act will ruin your beer.
 
Well, actually, Clark asked whether or not it's okay to pour hot wort
into cold water.  While I agree with Dave that pouring hot wort through
a strainer (or splashing hot wort in general...) will lead to problems,
I have long recommended to beginners to *GENTLY* pour hot wort into cool
water.  Mind you, this is *NOT* through a strainer... I suggest the use
of a hop bag so you can *GENTLY* remove the hops (even pellets) from
the wort before pouring.  Also, I try to be specific that this method
is really for a wide-mouthed fermenter... pouring through a funnel is
likely to aerate the hot wort too much.
 
***
Ted writes:
>My favorite Koelsch is Goose Island Koelsch.  I've never had an
>authentic Koelsch from Cologne, but the Goose Island is a very good
>match for the descriptions that I've read.  It has a delicate malty
>flavor with a slight trace of noble hops.

It might match the descriptions well, but I don't believe that the
descriptions have been accurate.  None of them have mentioned DMS,
which I feel is present in all the best Koelsches I tasted in Koeln.
I like Goose Island's "Summertime" which is billed as a Koelsch,
but if I was given it blind and asked to pick what style it is, I don't
think that I would say Koelsch... I think I'd say "Blonde Ale."

Koelsches are grainy, rather assertively bitter and crisp.  Their balance
starts out slightly bitter and rises towards the finish.  There were some
without the mild DMS aroma, but these were the blander ones.  The
best, in my opinion (Gaffel, Peters, Reissdorf, Gilden, Muehlen and
Paeffgen) had an unmistakable DMS aroma, not unlike that of a mash
tun full of spent Pilsner malt.  Really!

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 17:03:02 PDT
From: "Brian Dixon" <briandixon at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Peat Smoked Scottish Ales

[snip]
>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?

I think he's referring to Scotch Broom.  It's a non-native plant 
around here,
but has basically 'infected' every single square mile in Oregon.  To 
me, it
looks somewhat like sage brush, but has nice flowers (usually yellow) 
in the
Spring.  I have no idea if this is the plant he's referring to, or 
whether it
is something anyone in his/her right mind would want in a beer, but 
maybe
it's a lead you could look into a bit further.

Good luck ... if you _want_ some Scotch Broom, let me know.  I can 
send you 
all you want!

Brian



_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 99 19:32:02 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: hop-free beer / beer maturation

Hi all,

Badger is trying to recreate a historical recipe
(quelle surprise!)  He wants to make an ale without
hops, but is concerned that it will not keep well
without the preservative effect of the hops.  He
therefore searches this tome for knowledge of
extracting the preservative quality of the hops
whilst leaving behind the aroma, flavor and bitterness.

Modern Lambic brewers use hops that are aged
for a few years, supposedly to do just that.  I have
always wondered why a Lambic brewer *cares*
about preservative qualities, though, which leads to
the following thoughts:

I believe that the preservative quality of hops is
entirely overrated.  A plethora of organisms will grow
in the presence of hops (George Fix talks about
common brewing bacteria in his book _Principles
of Brewing Science_ and not a single organism is
said to be well-inhibited by hops).  Wort is quite
easily infected, as we all know from personal
experience, despite the hops.  I think you could
safely brew a beer without hops with no worries,
as long as you are careful about your sanitation
(as you should always be).  The lack of microbial
knowledge spoiled the beers of our brewing
ancestors more than the lack of hops.

Jeff Renners Domesday ale was brewed without
hops, relying on the astringency of the oat malt to
balance the sweetness.  It was not noticeably
infected when I tasted it at the MCAB.  Theres
one real-life data point for you.
- ---------------------------------------
Tony is satisfied with his newly found kegging
knowledge and has moved on to questions about
beer maturation.  He wonders if he can keg beer
and refrigerate it after just 7-10 days of fermentation,
and if yeast will aid the maturation process
at cold temperatures.

You can keg beer that is very young, but you
risk off-flavors if you get too much yeast into the
final package.  I often keg my Hefeweizen
straight from the fermenter, but if I leave it for
too long, even at cold temperatures, it starts to
develop an annoying yeasty note (after 3 months
or so).

In my experience, the manner in
which your beer will best mature depends on many
things, including yeast strain, alcohol content, and
aroma and flavor characteristics.  If the beer
tastes "done" out of the primary, then go ahead
and package and refrigerate it (after getting rid
of the excess yeast and perhaps even settling
some of the chill haze).

The chemistry of beer maturation is not well understood.
What is known is that chemical and biological reactions
occur faster at higher temperatures.  Some lager
breweries use this idea to try to speed the maturation
process.  They will keep the beer relatively warm
(fermentation temperature) for a time (a week or so)
before chilling it to near freezing to form chill haze and
settle the yeast.  These brewers may only keep the beer
cold a short time, or they may lager it longer.

Other brewers opt for the more traditional long, cold
lagering, insisting that it gives the beer a smoother,
more desirable character.  The yeast do keep working
at cold temperatures, but they are greatly inhibited and
maturation will take longer.

The method you use is entirely up to you.  Experiment
with split batches and keep good tasting notes.
A few pointers from my own experience:

Warm maturation will help reduce beers youthful
characteristics quickly. Of course, a period of cold
lagering is useful to settle yeast and chill haze
after a week or so of warm storage.  Any beer
that requires good clarity must be aged cold until the
chill haze settles or is filtered out.

I would not store most beers above 50F (10C) for more
than a couple of weeks.  I recently had to do just that
and the results were quite interesting:

3 beers were brewed within a week of each other (a stout,
an IPA, and a brown ale) and held at ~50-55F (10-12C)
for 3-4 weeks.  The evolution of the beers flavors was
remarkable in its speed.  Unfortunately, the IPA did not
survive this unplanned experiment very well.  What started
as an incredibly estery, citrusy assault has aged into an
earthy tasting beer with about 60 IBUs of bitterness behind
the soil.  Not too pleasing.

The brown ale went the other way, displaying a bit of
chalkiness in the finish (probably due to the large quantity
of cocoa powder I tossed in the kettle) and has now aged
out pretty nicely.  I do get a bit of an autolysis note in the
brew, but nobody else does so maybe Im just crazy...

The stout survived very well, changing very little
throughout its life thus far.  So much for the idea that
full-flavored beers age poorly...(this stout has an OG
of 1.056 and used a bit too much roasted malts for its own
good, but is still pretty tasty).

I realize this went beyond Tonys query, but heck, maybe
somebody found it useful.

Have fun!

George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Malted Barley Appreciation Society
"Brooklyn's Best Homebrew Club"
http://hbd.org/mbas


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 99 22:05:45 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: IBU tests

Hi all,

A question for the chemically knowledgeable:

I performed a bunch of IBU tests on various beers
recently.  Almost every sample had an assay value
higher than predicted (substantially higher).  The Coors
Light I ran as a standard actually came out a bit on the
low side (I was expecting 9.25 and got 7).  The low
"standard" can be explained by an old beer.  The
high values on the sample beers are more difficult
to explain.

The beers tested were of various ages, the youngest
being a yeasty Hefeweizen (sampled from the primary)
and the most mature being a lightly filtered beer that is
on-line at a popular NYC brewpub.

Are there interfering substances that could affect the
results of the asay?  Can the presence of yeast adversely
affect the assay?

I used the ASBC method in which the beer is mixed
with double the volume of iso-octane with 1 mL of
1 N HCl and 50 uL of octyl alcohol.  The absorbance
of the organic phase is measured at 275 nm.

I have to say that this method does not seem to yield
results that are precise enough for the pharmaceutical
industry (which is what I am used to).
The standard "Coors Light" was run in duplicate
and the replicates differed by about 0.7 IBUs (10%).
That's quite atrocious!  I may not be a great chemist,
but I am capable of producing reporducible assays.

What gives?

Have fun!

George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Malted Barley Appreciation Society
"Brooklyn's Best Homebrew Club"
http://hbd.org/mbas


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:40:40 -0400
From: poregan at ix.netcom.com
Subject: old CO2 regulator

Long time lurker, first time poster:

I am about to get into kegging. I acquired an old CO2 regulator that was
used for a soda fountain setup. I know that it hasn't been used in at least
4 years. Should I even bother with it? It's brass, and the brass is not in
great shape (some corrosion). Should I worry about it contaminating the CO2
and thus the beer? I plan to take it to a welding supply/repair shop to
have it tested. It probably works, but I'm still worried about the inside
of it being dirty or contaminated. Anyone use a filter on their CO2 line?
What about check valves? Anyone use them? This regulator came with several
check valves (also in bad shape). I like to know everything about
everything, so I would appreciate any and all information you have.

Also, does anyone know of any companies that sell regulators and related
equipment for kegging (like check valves, hose fittings, ball and pin quick
disconnects)? I have heard of Foxx Equipment, do they have a web site? Any
advice on acquiring a CO2 tank? 

Thanks in advance,

Phil
Tampa, FL


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 06:52:30 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: dextrins & more

Dr Pivo wrote re beer dextrins ....

> fasting = 4.1
> 15 min  = 5.5
> 30 min  = 7.0
> 45 min  = 6.8
> 60 min  = 4.9
> 90 min  = 3.1

For those of us more familiar with mg/dL units, multiply by 18.  His BGL
went from a fasting 74 to 126 w/in 30 minutes of dringing the beer dextrins
implying consumable sugars are present.

In the paper I oft refer to - (EBC #12, 1969, B.S.Enevoldsen of Tuborg
Brewing) makes a fermentable fort w/ about 20% of extract as dextrins.  He
is able to convert almost all of these dextrins into maltose and maltotriose
using the two enzymes pullulanase and beta-amyase which break selective 1-4
and 1-6 glycosidic links.

Humans have alpha-amylase and intestinal alpha-(1-6) glucosidase, which
break the 1-4 and 1-6 links with less discrimination.  So there is good
support for Dr.Pivo's result.

Most beer dextrins will convert to blood glucose.

For the several people who asked me about creating low dextrin beer -
About 16% by weight of the Tuborg wort's dextrins were degradable to
fermentables using beta-amylase.  You might get a bit higher figure by using
alpha-amylase.  To get truly low residual dextrin levels you will need to
find a way to crack the 1-6 glycosidic links.

Steve




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:38:10 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: re: 55 gallon drum

Scott Abene warns :

"NEVER PUT A FULL 55 GALLON DRUM ON YOUR BURNER FOR SUPPORT."

What type of burner is that?  I can see perhaps with the tall
jet-burner types that this will be a big problem, but I'd be
willing to bet dollars to donuts that my squat little ring
burner would hold the weight no problem at all.  Of course,
it's probably not powerful enough to boil it, though ;-)

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: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:18:58 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hypercon.com>
Subject: CO2 and contamination

Hi folks:

Brook Raymond notices a possible correlation between force carbonating and
contamination rates in the data from the HBD Palexperiment, and hypothesizes
that contaminated gas cylinders might be the culprit.  To answer one of his
alluded questions, to my knowledge Brook's the first person to notice this
possible relationship in our data.  [This is exactly the kind of hypothesizing
that I had hoped collecting the mountain of data in the Palexperiment would lead
to.]

Now, is this correlation real or just a statistical fluke?  To test Brook's
hypothesis, one would need to test it directly; i.e., do you actually get any
contaminating organisms from your gas bottle / regulator / gas hoses (potential
contamination could be anywhere in the rig, but probably are most likely to be
on the inner surfaces of the gas hose, IMHO).  One way to test this would be
would be to use the ASBC test for compressed brewery air -- put 200 ml of 0.85%
saline or 0.5% peptone solution in a 500ml flask with a two hole stopper, fitted
with a long glass tube going to the bottom of the flask in one hole and a short
tube in the other.  All of this -- flask, solution, tubes, etc. -- must be
*sterile* (not just sanitized), so dig out the ol' pressure cooker.  Now hook up
the gas bottle / regulator / hose to the long tube and bubble some gas through
the solution (the ASBC MoA calls for 10 cubic feet of air, but I suspect that a
30 second shot of CO2 would be sufficient).  Now run this solution through a
sterile 0.22 micron membrane filter, and aseptically transfer the membrane to a
plate of UBA (Universal Beer Agar), TSA (Tryptic Soy Agar), or for that matter
even just plain old wort agar, incubate at 30C, and see if anything grows.   You
could, of course, transfer a colony of whatever grows to a plate of LMDA and see
if that helps identify the bug.

Anybody game for this?  I've got a load of sterile 0.22 micron membrane
filtration units (you need an aspirator or vacuum pump to use them), and I'd be
happy to provide some of them free to anyone who'll do the experiment and report
back to us.  [I'd be interested to do  this experiment myself, but at present
between doing the Clinitest experiment, the alcohol determination experiments
(along with AJ, Dave Whitman, and Bill Frazier), and several others I'm trying
to finish up, I probably shouldn't take on yet another experiment right now!]

Louis K. Bonham



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:23:07 -0700
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: O2 caps

Bryan writes:
> 
> Was there no difference because there was no evident oxidation
> in the bottles? Or did you try to oxidize some bottles and got
> equal oxidation with O2 and non-O2 caps?

Neither, or both, sort of.  Until recently I considered rapid oxidation to
be my biggest problem--my beers quickly lost their hop aroma and the malt
would become a bit harsh quite soon or even always taste that way.  A shift
towards kegging and the RIMS seems to have solved these problems, since I
have made few other changes to my procedures.

My experiment was simple, and I think the one suggested by Al: simply
bottle half with the PureSeal A caps, half with regular caps.  I would then
often try to drink the beer with my wife so that I could pour 2 bottles at
the same time (one of each of course).  A little stealing of hers for
comparison when first poured never revealed a difference.  I kept a couple
of bottles of each for quite a while in an attempt to see a difference
that, while possibly not important to me, might at least indicate that
there was some effect of the caps.  I found none.

Qualifiers:
1) The hop aroma seemed to last longer on that batch than typical, so maybe
there was less O2 to absorb. 2) Maybe O2 was never the problem. 3) Maybe
the caps were mishandled (I did not sanitize them at all).

- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:33:04 -0600
From: "Harry Ewasiuk" <shogun at ccinet.ab.ca>
Subject: Definition of a good lawnmower beer

Greetings from beyond the 49th parallel,

Being new to homebrewing, I have heard the expression "lawnmower beer". What
is it and what defines a good example of this? I am getting thirsty thinking
about this...;-)

Thanks in advance to all replies.

Harry Ewasiuk
Chief Bottlewasher
QA Coordinator
Harry's HomeBrewery

'So then I says to Borg, "You know, as long as we're under siege, one of us
oughta moon these Saxon dogs."' - G. Larson



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:42:29 -0600
From: "Harry Ewasiuk" <shogun at ccinet.ab.ca>
Subject: Hardy Hop Varieties

Greetings,

I am searching for information on hardy hop plants that will survive at my
latitude(52-53). Any information would be greatly appreciated and thanks in
advance to all replies.

Harry Ewasiuk
Chief Bottlewasher
Harry's HomeBrewery
Red Deer, Alberta, Canada

'So then I says to Borg, "You know, as long as we're under siege, one of us
oughta moon these Saxon dogs."' - G. Larson



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:51:18 -0600
From: "Keyes, Karl" <karl.keyes at gwl.com>
Subject: Used Corny Kegs for Sale?

I recall seeing a website that had used corny kegs (pin and ball type) for
$14.  I'm interested in getting a keg system but funds are somewhat limited
now and less expensive alternatives would be appreciated.  Any info on good
prices on CO2 tanks would also be appreciated.

Also, any comments as to the condition of St. Pats used corny kegs?  

Karl Keyes



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 07:56:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Imploding Corny kegs

I regularly use 208*F water to fill and sanitize Corny kegs at the brewery,
and they will not implode if allowed to cool. In addition, even if the keg
were filled hot and then emptied, the keg still wouldn't implode because the
seal on the lid is designed to hold pressure, not vacuum--the lid seal would
leak, acting as a anti-vacuum valve.

TTYL,
Harlan.

Harlan Bauer, Head Brewer           ...malt does more than Milton can
Copper Dragon Brewing Co.           To justify God's ways to man...
Carbondale, IL                                        --A.E. Houseman



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:51:07 -0400
From: Gary_H_Nazelrod at tst.tracor.com (Gary H Nazelrod)
Subject: Re:Hop Oil as a preservative?

In HBD#3010 Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> says:

>You know, getting behind on HBD has a sort of snowball effect..  you can
>never seem to catch up..  :) 

Yea, I know what you mean, currently I am only a day behind, so I can give a 
response that is not too old.

>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?

I would suggest not using the hop oil, or anything else.  If your beer did 
spoil because of no hops, would that not be more authentic?  I would think 
your beer would be less likely to spoil anyway.  I would guess that you are 
using more sanitary techniques than the brewers prior to 1500 were using; so 
you should have less spoilage bacteria, undesirable yeast, etc. in your beer 
than they had.  Also, I would guess you have less starch (food for spoilage 
organisms) in your beer than they had due to modern malting and brewing 
techniques.

Gary Nazelrod
Silver Spring MD
(still to lazy to calculate my Rennerian coordinates)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:45:29 -0400
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: What is a good substance for making SG samples

I want to make samples of liquid with different specific gravities in the
range from 1.000 to 1.150 or so.  I am looking for ideas for the substance
to mix with water.  I don't want to use malt or corn sugar because it is to
sticky.  Table salt is to corrosive.  What would be a good "salt"?  One
that rinsed off easily would also have advantages.

Each sample would be about 250 ml.  It would be nice if the substance was
such that I  could accurately predict the resulting SG from the weight of
the added substance.  I suppose that would leave out substances that absorb
water or are combined with water. 


Any ideas?

TIA

Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:35:45 -0400
From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com>
Subject: Budwiser 4.95% abv

A nice Thank You to all who fed me information. A number of sources surfaced.
Eric Dreher wrote about
http://hbd.org/brewery/library/AlClbinger.html  an interesting site for sure.
200 listings from a BATF study done in 1996.

A number of folks pointed me to Peter Ensminger's web site, including Peter
himself. It is by far the most well organized site I found.  :
http://www.npac.syr.edu/users/ensmingr/beer/beerdata.html

Mathew Hann sent me the AB phone1-800-dial-bud. This proved to be quite
usefull...after a few layers of phone operators and marketing geeks I got to a
Customer Reasearch Analyst. "Peggy" made a bunch of phone calls and tracked down
a % with a few more significant figures. Tada!!! 4.95% is what she was allowed
to give out. If more Sig Figs are needed she would have to go to the lab, find
out, and then get permission to release the info...So there you have it.
- --------------
>From a Samuel Adams press release:
"For the eight-barrel birthday brew, stones from the birthplaces of Jim and
Walter -- Cincinnati, Ohio, and Stuttgart, Germany -- were flown to Boston. The
stones were heated to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit in a neighbor's kiln, and carried
by the brewers, very carefully, through the brewery complex to the brewkettle.
After five weeks of fermentation and aging, the beer will be unveiled on May
27th during the birthday celebration at the Boston brewery.
The Sam Adams Stone Beer doesn't that get consumed at the celebration can be
enjoyed, while it lasts, at Doyle's, one of Boston's oldest drinking
establishments."
>From the discriptions it sounds like they did it right. Get there if you can.
- ---
With the industry switching over to using 68F as a standard, does anybody know
of a source for narrow range hydrometers calibrated at 68F? instead of 60F.
- --------
Did everybody catch that last post yesterday? For those that cringe when you see
the name and hit Pg down--Eric Fouch contributed some usefull information AND
some valueable opinion.  Gulp--One that I even agree with. Keep up the great
work oh ye great HBD librarians!!!
- ------
Cooking with beer. The same rules apply from cooking with wine. If its too cheap
to drink, its too cheap to cook with. Ie--Don't try to cook with your mistakes,
I made some really nasty brat's that way once... yuck.
- ------
Brook Raymond claims to have "Conclusive evidence" that contaminated samples
were caused by force carbonation.  Sorry, Brook. Thats a crock of bad science.
No way in h&)(* is there "Conclusive" evidence. I'd be suprised if there were
any other than anecdotal evidence. The CO2 we buy is as clean as the medical
grade O2 we use also. Its also no different than the CO2 the commercial
producers use. My CO2 tank gets filled from the same Tank the local brewery gets
thiers filled at. If the CO2 for force carbonating were a spoilage factor alot
of  commercial beer would be bad. (Those that dont pasturize anyway)  In the
breweries I have worked at or toured the beer is carbonated after it is filtered
(Sterile filtered in some breweries) Using Brooks theory this would introduce
spoilage organisms just before packaging. It just doesnt happen that way.  Now
if Brook wants to say that the techniques we homebrewers use to force carbonate
cause infections then he has some wiggling room, but there is no evidence of
that in the Great Pale Ale Experiment.  I have often wondered how clean my CO2
lines are, and if the little suck back that occurs occaisionly is causing me
problems. Could be? Could be not?

Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewer
Warden-Prison City Brewers
In Jackson, MI 32 Mi. West of Jeff Renner
AABG, AHA, BJCP, HBD, MCAB, ETC., ad nausium...




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:43:40 -0400
From: "Roat, Todd (ROATTW)" <ROATTW at UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Subject: Cleaning converted SS keg brewpot?

Just converted a brand new SS keg to a brewpot and wondering if there are
any special cleaning procedures following a brew - I want this baby to last
a lifetime ;^)

Todd



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 09:56:32
From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Just call me a fish...:-)

Science, Art, Experience and Opinion...OK,
I'll bite!

James_E_Pearce at nag.national.com.au expresses 
his feeling about Bad science and the HBD

>Here's a counter view: the HBD hardly 
>qualifies as science at all, and what 
>science we do see is often bad science.

>Good science requires the testing [snip] an 
>open mind.[snip] realizes that correlation 
>does not imply a causal effect [snip]

And he goes on to accuse two regular HBD 
contributors of being prime examples of 
promoting Bad Science:

>An example of bad science: the ongoing 
>"debate" between Al K and Dave Burley 
>regarding a test for sugars.

Few will argue that the HBD is a scientific forum.  It is not.  
Surprised? I am not.

I personally do not have the time or interest to prove, using the 
scientific method, that a glass of water becomes sweet when sugar 
is added to it.  I am satisfied to let my experience tell me this is the 
case.

If I use different yeasts in my brews and notice different flavor 
profiles, do I need to prove that this repeatable result is caused by 
the yeast?  It repeats for me, I get the result I want, and it will 
repeat for others I share my experience with. 

Experience...Experience...focus on that word...and contrast it 
with opinion.

Many of the HBD regular contributors we have learned to think of 
as friends (even though we may not have ever communicated with 
them directly) are sharing repeatable experiences with the rest of 
us.  If they had tried to prove scientifically each and every 
experience, they would probably not have developed to the point 
they are at today. In many cases they cite references, who have 
taken the time to prove certain things...all the better if they do.  
But the sugar water will still be sweet, or the yeast strain will still 
impact the flavor of the nectar, regardless

Science and Art both can contribute to successful brewing 
experiences.  Positive (and negative) experiences can help others 
improve their skills.  Many HBD contributors have solid scientific 
backgrounds and while they do not (usually) flaunt them, this 
wealth of scientific knowledge and understanding strongly impacts 
the content of their postings.

If we are going to target anyone, let's focus on those who operate 
in the world of opinion, frequently expressing thoughts that are 
based neither in science or experience, but simply speculation for the 
sake of it.  

Geethe original posting was an opinionand so is *this* one!

Now back to the brew kettle...

Bill

Bill Macher   Pittsburgh, PA   USA






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:06:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: open fermentation and O2/crush/O2/slow half/sugars

Dave writes:
>Also, it does not surprise me that the "open" fermentation
>gave you a consistently lower FG, since it probably
>absorbed more oxygen from the air before fermentation
>and possibly you transferred the still fermenting batch to
>carboys and deflocculated the yeast somewhat or at least
>stirred it up.  Both of of these factors will allow you to go
>nearer to the true End of Fermentation (EOF).

While rousing the yeast by transferring to a secondary would help
lower the FG for some highly-flocculent yeasts, I'm skeptical
that an open fermenter provides the wort with significantly more
oxygen, unless the lag time is excessively long.  Presumably
the wort is not being sloshed around, so the only oxygen that
is dissolving is that which is directly dissolving in the calm
surface of the wort.  If properly pitched, fermentation should
begin within 8 hours (I typically have fermentation within 8
hours for a liquid yeast starter and within 6 hours when I pitch
fresh, rehydrated dry yeast).  How much oxygen can dissolve
in calm wort like this?  AJ?  Can you try this experiment?
(AJ's the only one I know who has a DO meter handy at all times.)

Oh, and AJ, please take my advice and de-aerate your test water
as I suggested earlier: gently pour boiling water into a Corny and
pressurise with nitrogen so the cooling doesn't draw a vacuum.

***
Rod writes:
>From appearance, IMHO, the finest
>crush you can get without plugging up the plumbing is the one you want.
>Where does that lie.  Guess it depends on your system, huh!
 
Not exactly... there is another factor.  A few years ago Charlie
Scandrett posted a very detailed description of all the nasties that
we can get in our beer from overcrushed malt.  What I took away from
this post (i.e. what I remember) is that overcrushing will increase
polyphenol (aka tannin) and silicate extraction and that the majority
of the polyphenols were *NOT* in the husks, but rather in another
layer of the grain (I want to say pericarp, but don't quote me).
Regardless of where the polyphenols come from, overcrushing leads to
elevated astringency and a higher potential for haze (both chill and
permanent).

***
Keith writes:
>I used to aerate my wort by splashing and sloshing but for the last two
>batches have used  the aquarium pump/aeration stone method. Instructions
>said to run for about 5 mins for 80% saturation.  3-inch head of foam
>developed as predicted. I thought fermentation was sluggish on both
>occasions: the first a Grand Cru using La Chouffe Yeast (this finally
>fermented out after a month), and the second an ESB (OG 1.056) with
>Shepherd Neame yeast. Is 5 mins long enough? If not, how to avoid foaming
>without additives? Ditch the stone? A less powerful pump?

I switched to oxygen because I tired of waiting for the foam to subside.
Two minutes with oxygen will give you plenty of dissolved oxygen.  Did
you pitch enough yeast?
 
***
Nathan writes:
>Recently made a 10 gallon batch of brew.  Five gallons fermented in glass,
>five gallons in plastic.  The glass carboy had a stopper and airlock.  The
>plastic bucket was fitted with plastic wrap and a "daisy chain" of rubber
>bands.  During the first week, the glass obviously was fermenting more
>vigorously.  After the first week, I've racked.  The brew had an original
>gravity of 1.050 (12.5 plato?).  At racking, the glass brew was 1.016 (4
>plato?) and the plastic brew was 1.022 (5.5 plato?).  Hmmm says me!  I
>suspected this to be the case, just based on the characteristics of
>fermentation.  When I racked, I put half of each into the two secondaries,
>thereby "blending" the two.  Fermentation has kicked in, once again to
>finish the beer.  What caused this?
 
Were both halves aerated equally, or did the plastic half get less
splashing? Which one got the first half of the wort?  My guess would be
the plastic.  The second half will get more trub that the first half
and trub-less fermentations have been shown to be slower than trub-full
ones.  There has been some speculation as to why this is... some say
that trub-less wort has fewer nucleation sites for CO2 and CO2 toxicity
is the cause for the sluggish ferment.  I've heard many reports from
brewers that confirm this assertion and none to refute it.  I'm not
convinced yet, but I'm leaning that way.  By the way, Malting and Brewing
Science notes this phenomenon (in a footnote, I believe) but doesn't
speculate on why it occurs (which we are free to do... WOO HOO!).

***
Dave writes:
>First, while it is possible to extract some sugar from roots, beets
>are a classic example as Scott noted, I would guess that
>sugar made from chicory would be just about as flavorless
>as beet sugar and offer little advantage.
 
While later posts proved that it was roasted chickory, I'd like to note
that unrefined beet sugar has been reported to taste awful (in HBD... try
around 1991 or so).  *Refined* sucrose from any source will taste the
same.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 11:08:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: sulphate/minimash

Jeff writes:
>>"John Palmer" <jjpalmer at gte.net> wrote
>>The whole purpose of adding gypsum or any other salt to the mash is
>>to manipulate the mash pH.
> 
>Of course, the other thing that happens with gypsum addition is an increase
>of sulfate, which is desireable for pale ales, especially English, but
>undesireable with many other styles, especially pale lagers with noble
>hops, where it results in a harsh bitterness.  If you need to increase Ca++
>in a pilsner, try CaCl2*2H2O.  I've wondered if other Ca salts might be
>preferable, such as calcium lactate or calcium phosphate (is this
>soluble?), where the anions are normal components of a mash.  'Course,
>it's hard enough to get calcium chloride.
 
Calcium phosphate is all but insoluble, so that cans that idea.  Calcium
lactate is slightly more soluble (three times, if memory serves) but
is still not very soluble.  I again would like to argue against this
alleged "harsh bitterness" attributed to sulphate.  Also, now it seems
that somehow (probably not Jeff's fault) there is some association between
this harshness and noble hops.  The brewers of Munich, Koeln, Vienna
and Dortmund certainly use a lot of noble hops, yet their waters can have
sulphate levels of 80, 86, 125 and 280, respectively.

***
Rob writes:
>I am looking for an extract version of a CAP if
>any one has come up with one.  This raises a question about flaked maize.
>Can it be used in an extract recipe?  If so how would one go about using
>it?  If a partial mash is requried to use the maize what is the barest
>minimum of equipment needed to accomplish the task?

You do need to mash flaked maize and yes, you would have to do a partial
mash.  You could use rice syrup or rice syrup solids (a sort of DME made
from rice) to make a rice-based CAP, but I'm pretty sure whatever little
rice flavour there is would be gone by the time the syrup is made.  Sort
of like corn sugar made from corn... flavourless, right?

The bare minimum for partial mashing would be the "teabag" method in which
you use a grain bag to hold the goods and slosh them around in water.
I recommend against this because: 1) the pH is very likely to be wrong
with so much water (too high a water:grain ratio) and 2) there is no
actual laeutering (clarification... where the husks and insolubles and
lipids are held back and don't pass into the kettle).

In stead, I suggest you get yourself two 1-gallon containers that nest
(like plastic icecream containers or caramel corn containers or even
Tupperware).  Punch a hundred holes in the inner one and drill a hole
just a bit smaller than a siphon hose in the bottom edge of the outer
one.  Stuff 6" of a 36" length of siphon hose into the hole and put
a hose pinchclamp on the outside.  Now you have a mini holey-bucket
mashtun.  You can probably mash as much as 2.5 pounds of grains in this
as long as you don't go above 1.25 quarts of water per pound.

The Minimasher(tm)...

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents

---