---

	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:
  Re: Pot caramelizing wort (Paul Shick)
  Re: Water treatment (CALAMIDA Alessandro)
  Take one down.../ kegged mead (Paul Haaf)
  chlorine vs. iodophor (Marc Sedam)
  re: Hops in Beer and Dutch (Tidmarsh Major)
  Phosphate removal using Calcium (Matt Brooks)
  Aussie Big Brew 99 sites (Brad McMahon)
  Recipe standardization (David)" <drussel3 at ford.com>
  lawnmower beer (Vachom)
  Oxy-cap sanitaion ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Brewpubs in France? (mark)
  RE: Hallertau Hops -- Summary ("Jeffrey A. F. Hittinger")
  Recent issue of BT uninteresting? ("Brian Dixon")
  In defense of CACA (Paul Shick)
  hop + sulfate ("Bayer, Mark A")
  mead yeast starters (Bryan Gros)
  SO4/SO4/PO4/Distillation (AJ)
  Contamination from CO2 (Bryan Gros)
  Just another sulfate taste ("Dr. Pivo")
  Honey Beer ("Trevor Good")
  implosion... not! (BrewInfo)
  Has anyone kegged Mead? (Ted McIrvine)


Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99
(http://burp.org/SoFB99); Oregon Homebrew Festival 5/22/99
(http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/fest.html); Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99
(http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)

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, 26 Apr 1999 08:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Re: Pot caramelizing wort

 


Hello all,

	Brian Dixon asks about what to expect from his initial
foray into pot caramelizing wort.  Brian described using his 160K
burner on the first runnings (it sounds pretty explosive!)  I've
only tried this with a smoked Scotch ale, but the results were
pretty amazing.  The caramel flavors you get this way are very
different from what you get from crystal malts.  It blends really
nicely into the flavor of a wee heavy, at least in my limited 
experieince.  I boiled my first runnings on a wimpy stovetop burner,
reducing about 4 quarts to less than 1 quart over about 25 minutes.
Brian, I might worry a bit about scorching, using a 160K burner. 
In my case, the Scotch ale had some peat smoked malt that might have
masked any scorched flavors.  On the other hand, a wee bit of scorching
might add a note of complexity to your wee heavy.

   			Paul Shick 
 			Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH

 



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 14:35:52 +0200
From: CALAMIDA Alessandro <alessandro.calamida at fiat.com>
Subject: Re: Water treatment

In HBD #3014 AlK wrote:

<snip> However, modern water
treatment aside, traditionally, the beer that was brewed
in these famous brewing cities (Munich/Munchner Dunkel,
London/Porter, Burton-upon-Trent/Pale Ales...) was made
with untreated water. Today, they can make Pils in Dublin,
but back then, they couldn't. <snip>

What I'd really love to see are  "*suggested* water profiles" associated to
beer style definitions. 
Is it so absurd? Isn't water the main ingredient of beer, after all ?

Water content for the various ions could be given as "acceptable ranges",
some could even have "don't care" values.

Yes, I have those tables with water profiles for the main brew cities, but
one has to know where a given style is brewed AND I guess not every style
comes from those few cities.



	Alessandro Calamida


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 08:34:46 -0400
From: Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com>
Subject: Take one down.../ kegged mead

As far as not having bottles to 'pass around', how about filling a
growler?  I use  emptied and washed bottles of 'Mississippi Mud' for my
growlers.  They are dark bottles with a wide mouth, and they're 32 oz. 
Two of them is almost a 6 pack. and the carbonation stays in the second
while you're working on the first.  BTW, 'MM' is a black & tan available
in New Jersey and there's a 'gator on the bottle.  Do I here banjo music?
8-)

Beware of kegged mead!! Personal experience has shown me the error of my
ways.  No it hasn't, I'll probably do it again, when I free up the
current mead keg.  Storing at room temp seems to have no ill effect, and
I've had it in the keg for over 2-3 months.  The only problem is that it
disappears faster.  Enjoy. 
Salut,
Paul Haaf

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:02:40 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: chlorine vs. iodophor

Joy Hansen wrote in HBD #3014:

<snip>
"Of course, the chlorine wouldn't have much effect on the idophor;
however, the lack of chlorine in the city water could introduce beer
spoilage organisms into the nutrient rich environment of my wort!"
<snip>

Is this true?  I would guess that, if the local water authority used
sodium hypochlorite (plain ol' bleach) to chlorinate the water that it
WOULD affect the iodophor.  Hypochlorite (and chloramines, methinks) is
basic, while iodophor is in a phosphoric acid solution, as I recall. 
Just for fun, I poured a few drops of bleach into an iodophor-laden
carboy.  The ruddy color disappeared immediately, signifying to me that
all the sanitizing properties associated with iodophor were now over.

Would it be possible for iodophor to have limited sanitizing abilities
in water heavily treated with chlorine?

Marc Sedam

"Ideas you may believe are absurd ultimately lead to success!"
			-last night's fortune cookie


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:28:36 -0500
From: Tidmarsh Major <ctmajor at samford.edu>
Subject: re: Hops in Beer and Dutch



Badger writes:
>I would love to get my hands on the recipe.  what source it from?

The source is an unpublished 14th C manuscript held by the Reynolds
Historical Library at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, and the
subject of my recently completed dissertation.  I have excerpts
(including the mead recipe on folio 20r) on the web at
http://parallel.park.uga.edu/~tmajor/MS/

>I mean to say, that beer is what they called ale with hops... which 
>was primarily a product of the Flemish.  . . .
>When you say Late addition, do you mean Late period meaning (to my sca
>brain) 1500+?  There really is no distinction now-a-days..   I have
>vague memories of Ale and beer coming into such usage around 1300?  
>(QDA)  Don't have my brewing library in my head.
 
I haven't done any research about when the distinction arose, so my
dates are guesswork, but it seems to have arisen around the time the
Dutch began importing beer to England, somewhere around the early 15th
C, so it seems my definition of late (as in late Middle Ages) is
similar to yours.  I have an article at home on the words ale and beer
in Germanic, and I'll be happy to dig up the reference if you're
interested in historical linguistics.
 
waes hael,
Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:29:24 -0400
From: Matt Brooks <mabrooks at erols.com>
Subject: Phosphate removal using Calcium

In HBD 3003....
>>Secondly, extreme amounts of calcium in the brewing
>>liquor ( maybe by using the more soluble chloride)
>>precipitate too much of the phosphate and the pH falls
>>and, more importantly, the mash and wort is starved of
>>phosphate. A bad thing for the mash pH and the yeast.

And a response in 3014....
>This is a good point and I will check my pH next time, but I'm pretty
>sure that it was reasonable.


You would have to use an awful lot of CaSO4 or CaCl  to precipitate
phosphate (PO4) in water or wort.  In the field of Water Treatment,
phosphate is removed with quicklime or CaO (generally added in a slaked
form of CaOH2), when added in this form the pH of the water rises
quickly.  I t is important to note that this is not an equivalent per
equivalent based
reaction as many chemical reactions are, it is a pH dependent reaction
and phosphate WILL NOT PRECIPITATE (as hydroxyapatite) UNTIL THE pH
REACHES 11.0 (or higher), after which point there is no stopping the
reaction less you add an acid to lower the pH below 11.0.

I seriously doubt anyone would/could be adding enough Calcium (Ca
anything) to get the pH up above 11.0 ?  (even if your alkalinity was
low to begin with)

Matt B.
Northern VA.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 00:39:06 +0930
From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Aussie Big Brew 99 sites

If the other Australian sites involved in Big Brew 99 could
drop me an e-mail, that would be nice. Some of you may not be aware 
that we are co-ordinating with other international sites, and we would
love to have you aboard.
In fact any other international sites involved, write and say hello.

Brad


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:02:19 -0400
From: "Russell, D. A. (David)" <drussel3 at ford.com>
Subject: Recipe standardization

Al Korzonas #3013: 
"A good recipe should say "high sulphate" or "low sulphate" or "low
bi/carbonate" if this is important... A good recipe should specify the
brand of malt... if one brewer used blowoff or skimming and the other
didn't.  This should be specified in the recipe, but it rarely is..."

These are great points.  When I first started out, I created my own
"format" for documenting my recipe for my self.  The format I now get is
from my "brewing formulation software", of which I have suggested some
formatting changes to the program creator.  

Is there any accepted format that is out there?  Has the AHA or BJCP
organiztions set about a standard format?  (I know of the AHA recipe
form, but there are many missing pieces there)  Should the brewing
formulation software developers set about standardizing this?  Anyone
else got any comments?


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 11:23:13 -0500
From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: lawnmower beer

In HBD #3013 Harry asks for a definition of lawmower beer.  Let's work
backwards and infer such a definition.  Imagine a July Louisiana day, 90F at
9am, 80% humidity.  The lawn's a mess, consequent spousal disapproval.   As
you yank futilely on the starter cord of the recalcitrant mower, you
envision a beer awaiting you at the end, or perhaps a beer or two midway.
Paradoxically, as the sweat clouds your vision, that beer comes into greater
focus.  Is it a stout?  The stomach jumps in revulsion at the prospect of
the roasty darkness of this brew that belongs to moments of quiet leisure in
a cool pub.  An IPA--closer to it, the hops aroma laying siege to the
thirst, but then such a strong beer. . . .power tools. . . .severed hand.  A
kolsch or a pilsener, then?  Ideal, yet wouldn't it be a bit regrettable to
gulp down these difficult-to-brew styles and miss all of their charming
subtleties?  

The parameters of this beer begin to emerge:  a thirst-quenching session
beer light in gravity, low to medium hop bitterness, an easy-to-brew beer.
The simplest option:  bag the third parameter and buy it.  Some homebrewers
quite justifiably argue that one should not waste time brewing a beer that
is going to be swilled in a frenzy of thirst slaking.  Perhaps, these
brewers would argue, this is the only defendable raison d'etre for Coors.  I
have to admit I fall into this pattern of thinking occasionally.  Luckily, I
have a local brewery, Dixie, that brews a respectable, ricey CAP that's
worlds tastier than Coors and makes it possible for me to support locally.
But more often, I have on hand my summer house beer, an American wheat.
This all-purpose, low-gravity brew is a true thirst quencher, yet in slower
moments the back-of-the-throat, flowery dryness imparted by the wheat and
the straight-forward yeast (1056) proves to be an enjoyable subtlety.  Best
of all, the combination of the simplicity of the recipe and the fact that
I've brewed it so many times makes for a short brew session.  This style is
much abused by style purists who argue that its central characteristic is
the lack thereof, but I think it's the macdaddy of lawnmower beers.

Mow beer,

Mike
New Orleans, LA  


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:49:40 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: Oxy-cap sanitaion

I had reported what a person at one manufacturer of oxygen
scavenging caps had told me. Al K says,

"Secondly, this goes against what the lead engineer of the original
oxygen-absorbing caps told me personally (on the phone).  He
recommended bleach solution at a rate of 200ppm free chlorine or
iodophor at a rate of 12.5 to 25 ppm titratable iodine."

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just saying what the the guy told me,
that chlorine and iodophor are both oxidizers and will instantaneously
destroy the oxygen scavenging capabilities of the caps. I talked
to the other company that makes the caps with the clear liner.
Perhaps the formulations are dissimilar enough that chlorine will
effect one but not the other.

>>Posting 5: Extracted from file:  1009
>>Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:20 CST
>>From: korz at iepubj.att.com
>>Subject: Re: Smartcaps
>>
>>Someone (sorry) asked about SmartCap(tm) sterilizing.
>>
>>A few months ago, Craig Martens posted a "letter" written by Bruce 
Zenner
>>who headed the development of SmartCaps for Aquanautics.  He said that
>>indeed the oxygen scavenging is activated by exposure to high humidity
>>and that boiling would render the caps virtually equal to regular caps.

>>He suggested that a water/household bleach solution or sodium
metabisulphite
>>should be used to sanitize the caps.

>>Al.
 

Is the "he" that suggested using sodium metabisulphite, Bruce Zenner, who

headed the developement of the caps?



 


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 18:52:34 +0200
From: mark <shrike.cars at accesinternet.com>
Subject: Brewpubs in France?

Hi fellow beer digesters,

I will shortly be taking a trip around France, I was
wondering if anyone knew of any brewpubs in
France? Maybe a webpage or a listing? (But not
the allaboutbeer page, I have seen it already and
know of these) Are there any new ones?

Please e-mail me direct as well as post to the digest,
I do not always have time to read the Digest...

Thanks!

Prost!
Mark
mark at awfulquiet.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:54:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jeffrey A. F. Hittinger" <jhitt at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: RE: Hallertau Hops -- Summary

In HBD #3006, I asked:

>1) Does Hallertau Hallertau actually exist, or is this just really sloppy
>   nomenclature?  If the latter, when one refers to Hallertau or
>   Hallertau Hallertau, which strain do they actually mean?  I would tend
>   to think that it is the latter, and what is meant by the vague
>   appellation is a noble Hallertau hop like Mittelfrueh or it's closest
>   descendent, since strains like Tradition are meant to provide 
>   Mittelfrueh-like characteristics from a heartier plant. 
>
>2) Is there a definitive book on hops out there which someone can
>   recommend?  I find that most of the books on homebrewing overly
>   simplify the discussion on hops.

Thanks to all who replied.  Here's a summary of the information which I have 
obtained:

On the Nomenclature of "Hallertau" hops:
- ----------------------------------------
According to Garetz ("Using Hops"), German hop names have a traditional form 
which reflects information about the growing regions and strains.  This is an 
important piece of information, since the quality of the hops is highly 
dependent on the environment in which they grow.  For instance, noble European 
hops, when transplanted to North America, lose their noble qualities.    

German hop names typically have two or three parts. The first part of the name 
should be an adjective referring to the region in which the hops were 
grown, for example, Hallertau, Hersbruck, or Spalt.  The second part of the 
name describes the variety (cultivar) by the region where the strain 
originated; typically, this is constructed by adding the suffix -er to the 
region name.  Thus, hops originating in the Hersbruck region would be 
called Hersbrucker, and if that hop strain were grown in the Hallertau region, 
it would be called "Hallertau Hersbrucker".  Thus, "Hallertau Hallertauer" 
would be a type of hop originating in the Hallertau region ("Hallertauer") as 
well as grown in the Hallertau region.  "Hallertau Hallertau", from my 
original question, is not a valid name.

Now, there can also be a third label which specifies a particular substrain.
One of the noble hops is "Hallertauer Mittelfrueh", which, if grown in the 
Hallertau region, is actually "Hallertau Hallertauer Mittelfrueh".  In German 
"Mittelfrueh" means "middle-early", and denotes that this hop matures 
"middle-early" in the growing season.  However, other subvarieties have been 
developed there, such as "Hallertau Hallertauer Tradition".  As far as I know, 
sub-varietal names have no particular convention.

What makes things difficult is that parts of the name are often dropped.  For 
instance, "Hallertau Hallertauer Mittelfrueh" is often just referred to as 
"Hallertauer Mittelfrueh".  In polite company, the adjective "Hallertau" is 
understood, but, in general, this name is vague since it does not tell you 
where the hop was actually grown.  You might also see "Hallertau Hallertauer", 
but this gives no clue as to which subvariety it is, and subvarieties can be 
quite different.

So, be careful when buying hops, and try to get as much information as 
possible.  The labeling more often then not will be vague, and, in my 
experience, most distributers in this country poorly label their products; I 
wouldn't expect them to adhere to the German labeling structure.  If you want 
German Hallertau Hersbrucker hops, and they just say "Hallertau Hersbrucker" 
or "Hersbrucker", don't assume that they're German - ask.  American-grown hops 
are no substitute for the European counterparts of the same name.


References on Hops:
- -------------------
Here are some of the books people have suggested, in no particular order:

 Books
 -----
 "Using Hops" by Mark Garetz
  The most popular reference, perhaps because of it's price and availability.
  It has a good section on hop varieties, but several respondents have 
  questioned the accuracy of some of the more technical aspects of the book, 
  like his formulae.  Price is $16.95 +s&h from Amazon.com; you can often 
  obtain this book from homebrew supply shops.

 "Homebrewing - Volume I" by Al Korzonas
  This book gets a lot of praise.  It has a chapter on hops and an appendix 
  of 95 hop varieties.  Price is $17.00 (including s&h); from Sheaf & Vine,
  http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/

 "The Classic Guide to Hops", Zymurgy Special Issue (1997), v20, n4.
  IMHO, the most valuable article in this is "What's your IBU?" by Michael Hall
  which compares the methods for calculating IBUs recommended by several 
  authors of books on brewing.  There are also articles on hop physiology, 
  growing hops, hop history, etc.  Price is $9.95+s&h; from the AHA,
  http://beertown.org/cgi-bin/mvend/catalog

 "The Hops Atlas" by Barth, Klinke, and Schmidt
  Joh. Barth & Sohn is the oldest hop trading company in the world, located in 
  Nuremberg, Germany.  Gail Elber, Associate Editor of Brewing Techniques, 
  writes:
  "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."
  Price is $59.00 +s&h; from Joh. Barth & Sohn, http://www.johbarth.com/

  "Brewing Techniques' 1998 Brewers' Market Guide"
    Gail Elber, Associate Editor of Brewing Techniques, writes:
   "[This] 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 Brewing Techniques at (541) 687-8534 to order.


Here are some web sites on the subject of hops in no particular order:

 URLs
 ----
http://hbd.org/brewery/Library.html#Hops
http://www.realbeer.com/hops/
http://www.breworld.com/hops/
http://www.johbarth.com/
http://www.bohemiahop.cz/
http://www.john-i-haas.com/variety.htm
http://www.hopunion.com/educat.htm
http://www.uvm.edu/~pass/perry/hops.html


Thanks to:
- ----------
Stephen Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Herb Bexley <BreslerHS at aol.com>
Gail Elber <gail at brewtech.com>
Al Korzonas <korz at brewinfo.com>
Tom Plunkard <tommagic at ix.netcom.com>
Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Bill Tobler <WCTobler at brazoria.net>

J-
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. F. Hittinger              Office:  (734) 764-7573
W.M. Keck Foundation CFD Laboratory  CFD Lab: (734) 936-0107 
Department of Aerospace Engineering  Fax:     (734) 763-0578
The University of Michigan           Pager:   (734) 651-9586



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 09:58:33 PDT
From: "Brian Dixon" <briandixon at hotmail.com>
Subject: Recent issue of BT uninteresting?


I guess I didn't really have to continue the thread, but someone 
recently posted something like "Is it just me or was the recent issue 
of BT uninteresting?"  Well Wally, I think that any time a rag has at 
least one article that's interesting or applies, then I'm pretty 
lucky ... considering the extremely broad range of readers out 
there.  In this case, the 2 articles that stand out (in order) in my 
mind are a) the article on removing chloramines by the forever-
inspiring A.J. deLange (thanks, A.J.!), and b) the all-electric 
brewery.  In the case of the water treatment, a very brief read of 
the very first part of the article explains why we should be 
concerned and what the current municipal water treatment trends are.  
The rest of the article explains what chloramines are, what risks 
your brew has when these are present and how to get rid of them.  
(For more info, try this web site: 
http://www.ccwa.com/chloramines.htm, Central Coast Water Authority 
(Santa Barbara, CA))  And on the all-electric brewery, it seems like 
I've seen a bunch of questions around here from people in types of 
housing or situations where the use of propane or natural gas is not 
a good idea, e.g. basement brewing, apartment brewing, brewing in 
closed garages etc.  Seems like that article is pretty self-
explanatory for those that need it.  I guess the original poster of 
the "uninteresting" statement must have pure water and an open garage 
(cool!).  In any case, I just wanted to get this off my chest.  
Thanks for the bandwidth!

Brian


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


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: In defense of CACA


Hello all,

	The queue has been kind of short lately, so I thought
this might be a good time to continue a thread started by Jeff
Renner, before he became the center of the homebrewing universe.

	Like many others, I was inspired by Jeff to try making
a Classic American Pilsener, which aside from being a great beer style
has a nice acronym.  It's a style I've really grown to like, and I
usually do at least two 10-12 gallon batches of it a year.  My 
recipes vary considerably in terms of hopping or percent of maize in
the grist, but they're pretty faithful to Jeff's vision.  (Except for 
the yeast:  I find Wyeast 2112 California lager  at  50F yields a clean, 
malty finish, even with a pretty low mash temperature.)  As Jeff has
said here repeatedly, it's a beer anyone can enjoy:  tasty and subtle
enough for "real" beer drinkers, but accessible enough for those more
used to megaswill.

	My only complaint about the style is that it's too popular
a beer to take so long to mature!  My friends who throw large parties
are always after a keg or two of CAP, often on fairly short notice.  
In desperation, I've taken to making the "sort of ale" variant of
a CAP, the Classic American Cream Ale (hereafter referred to as CACA.)
I'm convinced that this is at least as nice a beer style, but that its
unfortunate acronym will keep it from widespread popularity.

	Following Jeff's lead, the grist of a CACA should include
10+% maize, to add grainy sweetness and lightness of body.  This is
balanced by fairly assertive hopping, 35 or so IBUs, much beyond the
AHA guidelines for a cream ale. I've grown to like the style even more 
than CAP lately, because a fairly clean ale yeast still adds just a bit 
of fruitiness onto the CAP flavor profile.  This seems to add some nice
complexity, without being distracting.  CACA is also a great style for 
using first wort hopping (with American versions of Hallertau-type hops,) 
because the hop flavor isn't as hidden as much as it is in fruitier British
styles.  Finally, a CACA can be quite ready to drink in 2 or 3 weeks from
brewing, if you use a clean dry yeast (like Danstar's Nottingham.)  This
makes a popular party beer convenient!  Of course, any fairly clean
American or Canadian ale yeast would work as well, or better, but for
quickness and convenience, it's hard to beat the Nottingham.

	So, without anyone asking (or before you can ask me not to post
it,) here's a recipe for a CACA.

Unfortunate Acronym CACA (11 gallons)
	OG 1.054
	FG 1.010 (Pretty good attenuation, eh?)

	17 lbs Briess 2 row
	 2 lbs Weissheimer Munich
	 3 lbs Briess flaked maize  (I'm still a wimp about cereal
		cooking, or I might try grits.  Sorry, Jeff.)
	1.5 oz US Liberty whole hops (4.1%) First Wort 
	2   oz German Perle pellets (7.0%) 60 minutes
	1   oz US Hallertau whole (3.9%) 10 min
	.5  oz US Liberty 		 10 min
	.5  oz US Hall.			 steep while cooling
	1   oz US Liberty		 steep  "      "
	4 5g pkgs Danstar Nottingham yeast
	(.5 tsp Irish moss added to kettle  at 20 min, if you're
		planning to serve this fairly young.  Otherwise
		skip this.)

I use a converted keg "semi-RIMS" setup, but it should be easy to
adapt these procedures to any system.  

Dough in the grains with 7.5 gallons 166F water (w/ .5 tsp gypsum, 
1 tsp CaCl2 for my water (kind of "average")) to hit 152F.  Rest
30 min, then apply heat and recirculate to raise to 158  at 45 minutes,
164F at  60 min, begin runoff.  (Remember to add the FWH hop charge to 
the kettle before beginning the runoff.) Sparge w/ 7-8 gallons 170F 
water, treated with 1.5 tsp 10% phosphoric acid (again, works for MY 
water. YMMV)  Collect 12.5 gallons in brewpot in 25 minutes (yeah, 
I know, too fast, but I still think you get less astringency with a 
faster runoff and I'm willing to live with an extra pound or two of 
malt...)  Wait a few minutes after reaching boil to add the bittering
hops, etc.  Cool as usual (my immersion chiller takes at least 30 
minutes, so that I probably get more bitterness out of my late hop
additions than some;) to about 70 F. Pitch yeast (you should rehydrate
the dry yeast, of course, but the world won't end if you don't.) If 
the fermenting temperature is to be a bit low, you might consider pitching
the yeast  at 75 or so F, to add more fruitiness.  Aerate well (especially 
if life is too chaotic to rehydrate properly.)  Ferment  at 65F for 2-3 
weeks, keg.  I force carbonate with 30psi  at  65F, shaking for 5-7 minutes, 
then chill.  Serve  at  45F to emphasize the malt profile.

	It ends up being a surprisingly interesting beer, with a nice
balance between malt and bitterness, pervasive hop flavor from the FWH,
but with a nice added slightly fruity note from the ale yeast.  The kegs 
certainly disappear quickly!
                                                
   			Paul Shick 
 			Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH

 



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 10:57:54 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: hop + sulfate

collective homebrew conscience_

al k wrote:

<snip>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.


*speculation mode on* (i.e., pgdwn if you need hard evidence)

perhaps higher sulfate levels in wort do not bring about an absolute
harshness, but rather depend on the hopping level.  so if you have 150 
ppm
of sulfate and you're brewing a pilsner, you would see a difference 
once you
got beyond, say, 30 ibu's.  with 50 ppm of sulfate, you could go to 45 
ibu's
without creating a harsh profile, etc. (caution:  these numbers are 
pulled
out of thin air to illustrate the unproven hypothesis.  do not put them 
in
your database.)

if you're brewing munich helles, klsch, vienna lager, or dortmunder, 
you
may not have to worry because your bittering level has not reached the
"threshhold" at which the water supply's amount of sulfate brings out
perceptible and objectionable harshness.

the brewers in these cities would have discovered this effect 
empirically.
they would not have had a laboratory to analyze it; instead they would 
have
cut back on the kettle hops until the beer tasted okay, gradually
establishing the classic style associated with their city.

*speculation mode off*

brew hard,

mark bayer
saint louis missouri

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 12:44:34 -0700
From: Bryan Gros <bryang at xeaglex.com>
Subject: mead yeast starters

What is the best way to make a yeast starter for a mead?
Should I use honey and yeast nutrient to simulate the conditions
where I want they yeast to ferment?

Or should I use a malt starter to provide extra nutrients/amino
acids and whatever?

thanks.

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros
Oakland CA




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:23:55 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: SO4/SO4/PO4/Distillation

Larry Maxwell describes the taste of Bass as chalky. I'll buy that but
I'm more inclined to say the taste is "mineral". One can easily get some
idea of part of what the various salts do in beer by naking up solutions
of epsom salts (magnesium sulpahte), baking soda (sodium bicarbonate),
gypsum (calcium sulphate), table salt (sodium chloride) and calcium
chloride in various strengths and tasting them (start with dilute
solutions first). Though authors write that magnesium and bicarbonate
are bitter, don't expect epsom salts, for example, to pucker you the way
a 70 IBU Pils does. These salts are bitter but it is a very subtle
bitterness in the quantities found in ever Burton water. By the way,
don't swallow any but the smallest amount of these test solutions. Even
plain old table salt can make you sick. I say that because you will
probably find that you have to put a lot of salt into a sample to get it
to the point where you really taste it.

As I said, that's part of the story. The issue here is really the
synergism between sulfate and hops. About the only way to really
appreciate that is to prepare some wort, split it into two batches,
supplement the sulfate in one (befor boiling) and make two beers with
identical hopping levels. It is ineteresting to do this with noble hops
such as Saaz and with an English variety such as the classic East Kent
Goldings. I'm not sure whether to call the effect of even modest levels
of sulfate on Saaz as astringent, bitter, harsh or just "not too good".
I think I lean towards "harsh".

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Al K asks about an economical method for removing sulfate. I guess
"economical" means different things to different people. This aside the
only practical methods that I can think of off hand are reverse osmosis
and anion exchange. The former removes (to greater or lesser extent) all
ions so that makeup with supplemental salts is necessary. The latter
swaps sulfate for some other anion. While I'm pretty certain that
special exchange configurations could be had the most common anion
exchange is for (OH)- and resins which do this are usually combined with
cation exchange resins which substitute H+ for the cations. Thus the pH
of the water processed through the combination stays the same. This
water is thus deionized and must also be supplemented with desired
anions.

For the home brewer the easiest way to control sulfate is to dilute with
deionized water, suplementing with salts for any desired ion which is
diluted more than desired.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joy Hansen mentions the precipitate which forms when iodophore is used
in bicarbonate waters. Actually it is not, I believe,  the bicarbonate
which causes the precipitate but the calcium (and pehaps magnesium)
which, with the bicarbonate comprise the "temporary hardness". I too
have reasonably bicarbonate water (alkalinity 80 - 100) with hardness a
bit over 100. When used as is, the precipitate forms. When run through a
home water softenter which substitutes sodium for Ca/Mg the precipitate
does not form. The softener does not change the bicarbonate level. I
seem to recall reading somewhere (quite possibly here) that iodophor is
acidified with phosphoric acid (this should be easy enough to verify and
if I get a few minutes spare I'll do that). If so, I suspect the
precipitate is calcium phosphate which is extremely insoluble in water.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* *

Al K writes about a couple of fellows who killed themselves with their
moonshine. I'll bet they drank the "heads" and/or "tails". The former
contains aldehydes and ketones which are quite poisonous (most of us
know the effects of acetaldehyde poisoning through hangovers) and the
latter higher alcohols. The Germans call these "fusel" which means "bad
booze".



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:24:58 -0700
From: Bryan Gros <bryang at xeaglex.com>
Subject: Contamination from CO2

Brook Raymond wrote:
>I checked out Brewing Techniques web page and found and interesting article
>describing an brewing experiment (sorry can't remember the Title at the
>moment, but I'm sure many of you are aware of this study since the
>participants were from HBD).

>Anyway, I poked around with the data and found conclusive evidence that
>contaminated samples were caused by force carbonation.<snip> About
>half of the naturally carbonated samples were contaminated, but all of the
>forced carbonated samples were contaminated

As others have said, this observation is hardly conclusive evidence. An
interesting observation though. 

It seem unlikely that the assortment of bacteria that Louis measured would
be living in a CO2 environment under 800 pounds of pressure.

Perhaps, though, it is kegging that tends to lead to an increase in 
contamination. I have wondered about this myself (yes, I was one of the 
infected people, and I did keg and force carbonate. Good beer, though...)
I probably don't do a very thorough cleaning as often as I should. I
wonder what is lurking inside of the poppet valves, in the crannies of 
the disconnects, etc. Fighting mold in my chest freezer is a constant
battle.

Just yesterday, I took George deP's advice and tried cleaning inside
of the long tube in the keg. I didn't have anything to clean a gun barrel
as recommended, so I straightened a coat hanger and took a piece
of rag and shoved it through. Went in white, came out brown. Apparently,
lots of gunk builds up in the dip tubes.

My keged beer has never tasted off, but after bottling it and shipping
it across the country, I can understand why it wasn't perfectly clean.
I'm stepping up my sanitation routine...

  - Bryan

Bryan Gros
Oakland CA
gros at bigfoot.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 22:57:58 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se>
Subject: Just another sulfate taste

There has been some discussion of late, and at previous times, about the
exact taste of "Sulfates".

Having had the occasion to drink some sulfates on repeated occasions, I
might describe how that came about, how you yourself can recreate it,
and my impressions of the flavour.

When doing "sheet-rocking" (this is called "dry-walling" in some English
speaking countries, but I don't recall which) If I sit my coffee cup
down, and then really go at trying to fit a piece around a window with a
jig-saw, and create a pile of dust in the air, I get a Calcium Sulfate
or "gypsum" blast on my next swig from the cup.

I would describe it as slightly astringent (though nowhere near so as
its cousin Aluminium Sulfate, or Alum, with which a simple touch on your
tongue, will turn your face into a raisen), slightly bitter (which is,
after all, a close relative of astringency), and in more aesthetic
terms, describe it as a "clean, dry taste".

I kind of like it.... wouldn't dream of covering my mug when doing such
work.

But then again, that's just my description, and won't help anyone else
taste it by proxy.

Perhaps the best way to understand its taste, is to, well, er, uh "taste
it".(now there's a novel idea).

I hate to propose such broad experimentation, without any means of
confirming your results, but should you not be planning on doing any
sheet-rocking, with a full coffee cup beside, if you have any gypsum
around for brewing or mask making purposes, perhaps you might mix a
little bit in a beverage (hey! how 'bout a beer?).

It's pretty distinctive, and then you would know exactly what it tastes
like.

You wouldn't then have to follow my taste description, but could make up
one of your own (we do perceive things differently).

And then I could read your description and tell you that you were
"wrong".

Wouldn't that be fun?

Dr. Pivo



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 15:25:39 -0600
From: "Trevor Good" <t.good at printwest.com>
Subject: Honey Beer

I have recently brewed a mead and a Honey Cinnimon Wheat beer thinking that
the flavour of the honey would remain. I appreciate the dryness that the
honey adds ( it compliments the cinnimon flavour beautifully ) but i would
like to leave the honey flavour. The only way I think this will work is to
prime with honey. Has anyone done this? How much would I use on a five
gallon batch? Is there another way to leave the honey flavour in the beer?

Also I would like to thank all the people who responded to my question about
diabetics and beer. All information was appreciated. To keep you up to date
my friend brewed his second batch recently.

Trevor Good
I got more questions than answers



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 16:51:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: implosion... not!

I wrote:
>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.

For the record, I was not expecting implosion, but rather the drawing
of air into the keg, which would spoil the purpose of this exercise
(to de-oxigenate the water).

Al.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 20:30:27 -0700
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Has anyone kegged Mead?

Alan McKay <amckay at ottawa.com> asked about kegging mead.  Perhaps my
most successful mead (at least the judges thought so) was a plain mead
that went through a 3 month fermentation, was kegged and served at a
party, and then lagered cold for another three months before bottling
and victory in a competition.

I suspect that kegging the mead left a blanket of CO2 that minimized
oxidation while letting some of the flavors mellow and blend.  However,
I don't serve kegged mead at parties without a warning on the keg so
that my guests are aware that they are quaffing a beverage of wine or
champagne strength instead of my usual 45 gravity house bitter.

Cheers
Ted

And good luck on that move, Alan.  I'm fortifying my sister-in-law with
mead tonight because her family is moving.


Return to table of contents

---