HOMEBREW Digest #3126 Thu 02 September 1999
![[Prev HBD]](/img/previous.gif)
![[Index]](/img/index_button.gif)
![[Next HBD]](/img/next.gif)
![[Back]](/img/Back.gif)
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:
My perspective on HSA (BrewInfo)
Wyeast & Whitelabs (Terry)
Secondaries contribute to CO2 toxicity??? (Paul Shick)
retailers & suppliers (Scott Birdwell)
acidity testing, ice beer (Dave Burley)
Septic Brew (Peter Owings)
re: BT "replacement" (John_E_Schnupp)
Warning: deadly beer ("Doug Moyer")
16th Annual Dixie Cup (David Cato)
Zymurgy bashing (Randy Ricchi)
hop esters ("Arnold Chickenshorts")
Re: accurate volume measurement (Scott Murman)
Re: Grain to extract conversion ("Thomas D. Hamann")
re: BT and Suporting those that Su (John_E_Schnupp)
Life insurance and alchol drinking(Bob Fesmire) (Ballsacius)
RE:- Pumpkin (other uses there of) ("Darryl Downie")
Pumpkin Ales -- Let's Not Add Pumpkin But Tell Everyone We Did ("John or Barb Sullivan")
re: Yeast in Orval/Hoegaarden (piatz)
BT etc./Disclaimer/Measurement (AJ)
O'fest decoction recipe ("Sieben, Richard")
CO2 "not for human consumption"? (Julio Canseco)
Imperial Stout with raisins? ("T. Van Nunnery")
Colonial Brewing (Jeffrey Donovan)
re: BT/AMBREW & Liquid Volumes (Lou.Heavner)
Water Measurements ("Peter J. Calinski")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* The latest are the Gadgeteers Digest (gadget at hbd.org) and the Home
* Brew Shop Owners' Discussion Forum (brewshop at hbd.org).
* Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
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: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:29:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo)
Subject: My perspective on HSA
Once upon a time (May), Dr. Pivo writes:
>You might recall, that trying to grab this wiley invisable goon by the
>tail, I did a little 'spurment last year with "HSA".
>
>I split a batch and let half go flying throught the air at boiling
>temperatures, the other treated gently as pie. When mature, I sent them
>through a "triangle test" (a sort of standardised way to see if there is
>a perceptual differnence).
>
>Now I do a lot of these things, and it is frightening to see how things
>like: fermenter geometry, air space in a secondary, and sheer volumes of
>ferment can make perceptable difference in how fast the beer matures,
>and where it ends up.... simply frightening.
>
>I can't pretend to say that I've got a handle on most of these
>variables, just that they are variables worth paying attention to, and
>which my tasters can pick out. Sometimes I even just "switch kegs"
>between glass fillings without telling folks, and the more sharp
>palleted invarioubly notice: "Say, this one has a more pronounced hop
>flavour", even when what I have done differently within the batch can be
>quite subtle different fermenting conditions.
>
>Knowing this, I was quite careful to keep all other variables exactly
>the same for these two beers except the "kamikaze ride through the air".
I did a similar experiment and got similar results: I could not tell
which was the HSA batch...
HOWEVER... this was an experiment done at a time when my techniques were
well beyond my initial fumblings in the homebrewery. I do know, from
personal experience, that HSA *does* have a profound effect on the finished
beer, but this was in early batches and only in retrospect can I say it
was indeed HSA that was at fault.
Since this experiment, I have given HSA quite a bit of thought and wondered
why I got such differing results. When I read the post that Dave from Siebel
submitted here, saying that HSA should not be considered an issue for
homebrewers, I discussed this offline with him (this was before I had read
his second post). In the course of this discussion, I may have hit upon
a reason that my initial accidental HSA batches had big flavour problems
whereas my "controlled" experiment (and perhaps Dr. Pivo's too) didn't.
The way I conducted my experiment, was that I made a small batch of wort,
split it in half, oxygenated one half while it was hot and oxygenated the
other half after cooling. Then, I quickly cooled the HSA half. Consider
that the oxygenated hot wort was only hot for perhaps 10 minutes! Perhaps
it takes some time for the oxygen to react with the wort compounds. This
could also explain why A-B can successfully use air to scrub DMS out of
their hot wort (I suspect they chill it immediately afterwords).
Another factor was that those early batches were quite dark (and, in all
likelyhood, had lots of melanoidins). My test batch and all of A-B's
massive-production beers are frightfully pale. If George Fix didn't
first propose that melanoidins are one of the main culprits associated
with HSA damage, he certainly was the first to introduce it to the
homebrewing community. Perhaps you need a certain amount of melanoidins
to have HSA produce noticeable damage.
(As an aside: the way I understand it, the melanoidins are said to be
oxidised and then they later release the oxygen to other beer compounds
(like oxidising alcohols to unpleasant aldehydes) during storage.)
So, that means I need to find the time to repeat my experiment, this time
with a darker recipe and with keeping the oxidised wort hot longer.
I suggest anyone trying this experiment keep these factors in mind too.
I believe that HSA should not be ignored among homebrewrs. I'm trying
to figure out how damaging it is and what factors surrounding it are
important. So far, everyone regarding HSA seems to be polarised into
the two extremes: it's critically damaging... or... it's benign.
I suspect the real answer is somewhere in between, and depends on factors
such as time and recipe.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:11:10 -0400
From: terry at brewfellows.com (Terry)
Subject: Wyeast & Whitelabs
There has been recent discussion about Wyeasts attempts at locking up
exclusives with brew shops. Well, one development that came up today is
that I was informed that my wholesaler will no longer be carrying Whitelabs
yeast and that there is no longer any wholesaler carrying Whitelabs and I
will have to Get Whitelabs directly from the company in San Diego. So in
this case the free market everybody crows about just bit the customer in the
ass. I am going to have to return to ordering from San Diego and paying for
FedX shipping. Which will have to be passed on to the customer. Competition
can be a benefit but when one company has the clout to corner a market and
drive out legitimate competition through exclusiver distribution arrangments
nobody wins (can you say AB ?). Because I really like the product I will
continue to stock it but don't bitch to me when the price goes up.
Terry White
Brewfellow's Fermentation Services
http://www.brewfellows.com
Better Living Through Fermentation
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:14:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Secondaries contribute to CO2 toxicity???
Hello all,
I have a quick data point related to the usual ongoing battle about
whether or not to use a secondary fermentation for ales. I just kegged two
carboys of CACA, one of which sat in the primary for three weeks. The other
was in a secondary for two weeks (I used the yeast cake for a barleywine.)
At kegging, the secondaried carboy was much more carbonated than the other.
My guess is that the large yeast cake in the primary provided more nucleation
sites for CO2, keeping the carbonation levels down. It happened in this case
that both carboys were completely fermented out (1.049 down to 1.008 with
Nottingham dry yeast,) but this might be a nice thing to keep in mind for
those who are having problems getting a complete fermentation. One factor
often cited as causing incomplete attenuation is CO2 toxicity. Keeping the
wort on the primary yeast cake for a longer period MAY help alleviate this.
Or maybe not....
Paul Shick
Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:35:31 -0500
From: Scott Birdwell <defalcos at insync.net>
Subject: retailers & suppliers
In HBD #3121
Marc Sedam wrote...
<snip>
>Where's the problem? Don't you try to make sure your customers use you
exclusively somehow (good service, cheap >prices, coordination with
clubs, etc.)?
<snip>
Yes, I do try to give my customers the best service, fair (not
necessarily "cheap") prices, and I do co-ordinate with the various area
clubs. I like to impart some of the knowledge that I have accumulated in
the last 21 years in this business. This is the value that we add to the
products that we sell. I don't expect or demand, however, that my
customers patronize only my shop, although, I obviously wish they
would. This something that I cannot control, and, unlike homebrew
suppliers, my customers don't print catalogs or post up entire websites
telling the world what products they use or offer. Likewise, Chris
Farley could assure Wyeast that he carries only their products, but then
all Wyeast need do is procure a copy of his catalog or check out his
website to discover this is not the case. Thus your analogy between
distributors and retailers versus retailers and customers just doesn't
hold up.
and Chris Farley wrote...
<snip>
However, I fear a situation developing in which "exclusive" Wyeast
dealers get better prices on their
yeast, and are able to retail yeast at a lower cost than retailers that
choose to carry competitors' products. This kind of policy is more
likely to alienate retailers.
<snip>
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Marc Sedam wrote...
<snip>
I tried to resist this one, but couldn't. So, what you're saying
is that it's bad for Wyeast to undercut the competition based on
cost alone? I thought discussions a few months back said it was
GREAT to undercut the competition based on price alone.
<snip>
You missed the boat on this one. Wyeast isn't trying to "undercut the
competition based on cost alone" here. They aren't trying to beat White
Labs by undercutting them on price, they are pressuring retailers to
drop White Labs altogether by offering discounts on Wyeasts products.
These discounts are NOT to be based upon volume, but solely upon the
retailer agreeing NOT to handle their competitor. I ran this one by my
attorney (an intellectual properties one at that. . .) and he agreed
that this isn't the most ethical practice, and it may or may not be
legal. He indicated that this may, indeed, be illegal if the company
making the offer operates a virtual monopoly and is trying to eliminate
smaller competitors entirely. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but this is, at
best, hardball, and, at worst, just plain sleazy.
Marc Sedam wrote...
<snip>
I seem to recall reading things like "If you can't beat the price of
competitors, get out of the business.", when referring to HB shops and
owners who were trying to make a living. . . <snip> Maybe HBers should
start going directly to Wyeast and getting these savings from the
manufacturer. Cheaper is cheaper, right?
<snip>
Boy, you must be a homebrewer! Prices just can't get cheap enough for
you, huh? When your favorite homebrew supplier goes out of business
because he couldn't make a decent living doing what he loves, maybe
you'll reconsider the pricing structure. Besides, Dave is not foolish
enough to sell directly to homebrewers. It would be a royal pain in the
ass for Dave, plus he would lose just about every retail supplier
account that he currently has. I hope you were joking on this one.
Marc Sedam wrote...
<snip>
And you further say that the end result could be less choice than
currently exists on the market? Either shops become exclusive Wyeast
suppliers by taking advantage of the offer or react too strongly to
Wyeast's overture and stock solely White Labs (or YCKC) yeast (some of
course will do neither).
<snip>
I don't know if the end result will be less choice or not. I certainly
can empathize with Chris' plight regarding the dilemma of whether or not
to except the discounting at the expense of less selection. He is
competiting with the other big mail order houses and pricing is very
sensitive. Makes me kind of glad that I'm a modest-sized retailer, too
small to be offered such discounts.
Marc Sedam wrote...
<snip>
And retailers might be alienated? Hmmmm. Sounds like it's OK for
retailers (and small breweries) to squeeze out the competition but they
get kind of upset when someone tries to impose an economy of scale on
them.
<snip>
What world do you come from? It certainly isn't the homebrew retail
world! I don't know any retail HB supplier that is in a position to
"squeeze out the competition." At best we can simply wait out the "me,
too" suppliers that jumped on the homebrew bandwagon thinking they were
going to make some easy bucks. Let me tell you, Marc: There ain't no
easy nor big bucks to be made in this business! It's hard work and you
do it because you have a passion for it or you will tire quickly and
move on to something that you can make the big bucks at.
That's my two cents worth, anyway!
Scott Birdwell
Homebrew Proprietor (and proud of it!)
DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:47:08 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: acidity testing, ice beer
Brewsters:
JackS asks about using an acidity testing kit for
cheese and wine. In the US, Tartaric acid is the
standard for wine and I believe the standard is
Lactic acid ( lower MW than tartaric) for Cheese.
This why you have a different volume for each.
In Europe I believe they still adhere to sulfuric acid
as the standard for both. But times are a changin'.
Always specify what the standard is when specifying
% acidity. This has nothing to do with pH or barely
because both systems are buffered.
- --------------------------------------
Actually Eric Lande's explanation of "ice brewed"
beer may be incorrect, depending on the brewer
and its marketing department. In making of lagers,
sometimes the beer is partially frozen which produces
fine ice crystals which contain tannin /protein
complexes a.k.a. "Chill Haze" Filtering of these
crystals produces a clear beer and also has a positive
effect of reducing a green beer taste without long aging.
Any ice removed must be re-instated as water before
sale to avoid the penalty of artificially increasing the
alcohol content without a distillers license.
- ------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:21:49 -0400
From: Peter Owings <peteo1 at mindspring.com>
Subject: Septic Brew
Paul Niebergall expresses concern over dumping yeast sludge into his septic
system. Don't worry! I think you're well on your way to producing an
organic Brown Ale. I hope the sludge was Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley Ale) as
it's always proven a winner in my brown ales. As for hops, you might try
Kent Goldings. They taste real good when you eat them and adding them to
the system is a snap. (As an afterthought, make sure you use pelletized
hops as they won't do as much damage to your internal mash tun.) Remember,
don't be too anal about brewing. Just go with the flow and do what comes
naturally.
P.S. I've also produced some outstanding Mexican Lagers using this method.
Gotta love that Taco Bell!
Pete Owings
Tongue firmly implanted in cheek!
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:59:27 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: re: BT "replacement"
>Any thoughts? Any volunteers for the production team? (Need strong HTML
>skills, your own ISP through which to reach the HBD server, and the time
>to work on projects...)
Sounds interesting, unfortunately I don't fall into may of the perquisite
categories. I've never worked in HTML, I don't have internet access at
home and am somewhat limited in my time due to the nature of my job
(field service support).
However, I'm certain I could contribute an occasional article. I'm a
tinkerer and a gadget guy. Earlier this year I put together an article
for BT that was supposed to be published in the current issue (that looks
like it won't happen). It was about making a cap for 3L PET bottles that
would allow them to be used as a type of mini-keg. I've also made a bunch
of "special" fittings from off-the-shelf plumbing parts and was thinking
of putting something together along those lines as well.
I guess what I'm saying is that I could/would contribute an occasional
article, probably along the equipment/construction lines. Good luck in
getting a team together. Keep us posted.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:37:52 -0400
From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com>
Subject: Warning: deadly beer
So, have you seen the new Coors Light commercial? You know the one: Howie
Long uses cans of Coors Light to defend the buxom babe from rattlesnakes.
Apparently one taste of the stuff kills the snakes instantly. I've always
known that the stuff was vile, but I never realized that such a risk was
associated with drinking it. Now, I am not aware of any research that shows
a correlation between consumption of Coors Light and death amongst humans,
but I am loath to take any chances. So, please, don't let your friends drink
Coors Light. It's not worth risking death.
Brew on!
Doug Moyer
Salem, VA
Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:59:33 -0500
From: David Cato <dcato at neosoft.com>
Subject: 16th Annual Dixie Cup
The 16th Annual Dixie Cup Homebrew Competition will be held October 22-23,
1999 in Houston, Texas. The Dixie Cup is one of the last qualifying events
for MCAB II to be held in St. Louis in March 2000.
Entries will be accepted between October 1 and October 15. Entries received
by October 9 are $6 per entry; after October 9 the cost is $10 per entry (so
get those entries in early).
This year's special Dixie Cup style is Big and Stupid. To qualify for the Big
and Stupid category, your beer must weigh in with a minimum original gravity
of 1.070. That takes care of the Big part. The Stupid part is where your
originality and creativity come into play. Do you have a creation that just
doesn't fit anywhere? Something you did that nobody else would think of
doing? Bizarre combinations of styles (a rauch-weizenbock laced with copious
quantities of Cascades) or something so strange it doesn't even belong in the
Novelty category (jelly doughnut IPA). Use your imagination, but it must be
drinkable. No Burnt Sheetrock Imperial Stouts here.
Judging will take place in open sessions on Wednesday, October 20, and Friday
and Saturday October 22 and 23. All judges are invited and encouraged to
attend.
The speakers at this year's milli-conference on Saturday morning are Randy
Mosher, Gregg Smith, and Pete Takacs. As usual, Fred Eckhardt will present a
beer and food tasting Friday night.
A BJCP exam will be held on Thursday evening, October 21. If you are
interested in taking the BJCP exam, please contact Scott Birdwell at
defalcos at insync.net or Charles Vallhonrat at atomicbrew at pdq.net before
October 1.
Complete details can be found at the Foam Ranger web site,
www.foamrangers.com. If you have any questions, or need additional
information, please contact David Cato at dcato at neosoft.com.
- --
David Cato
Houston, Texas
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:15:47 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Zymurgy bashing
In the August 31 HBD, regarding BT's going out of business, Jim Liddil wrote:
"Indeed unless the AHA is willing to publish less mainstream stuff and pay
editors to screen aritcles, I think they are not a real valid option. Of
course it would be great if the powers that be could prove me wrong. Maybe
BYO is willing to take off where BT left off?"
I have to respond.
Obviously, there have been numerous anti-AHA/Zymurgy posts to this forum.
I've been receiving Zymurgy longer than I have Brewing Techniques, and I
have almost all of the Brewing Techniques issues.
Personally, I think that all the anti-AHA sentiment that we read here is
juvenile bullshit. A couple of loudmouths that can't stand the thought that
someone is making more money than they are sound off, then all the other
juveniles join in on the bashing, and revel in their new-found cyber-club.
But that's not the reason for my post.
Does anyone REALLY believe that Brew Your Own is a better brewing rag than
Zymurgy? If so, you've got to be kidding, or you have your head up your
ass. Brew Your Own is the most rookie-oriented mag out there.
Over the years, Zymurgy has put out articles that continue to be timeless
pieces of information.
Zymurgy put out an article on kegging back when I was thinking about
kegging, but was intimidated about the whole process. After reading that
well thought out article, I felt confident enough to do it and never looked
back. Since then, BT had an article on kegging. I read the article, but
found nothing there that wasn't already covered in Zymurgy.
A few years ago Zymurgy put out an article on Belgian beers that I still
refer to when I brew my tripels and wits. I read a lot of brewing
literature and I haven't seen anything that tops that article on the
subject of how to brew Belgian-style beers.
Zymurgy had an article on British Bitters, called "Confessions of two
Bitter Men", or something like that. Another great, timeless article.
These are just a few of the many excellent articles Zymurgy has put out
over the years, and they continue to put out many fine articles.
Sure, they've been around for awhile. They're bound to hit a stretch now
and then when it's tough to come up with something new and exciting to
write about on the same subject they've been writing about for years.
That's the way it is in any specialty magazine. I subscribed to Organic
Gardening for about five years in the early eighties and I finally thought
" all these articles look the same". I quit subscribing. I'm sure there
were new gardener subscribers to fill my place. I didn't start ranting to
anyone who would listen about how OG sucked, because that was not the case.
Finally, I'd like to say that I, too, enjoyed my subscription to Brewing
Techniques. I'm sorry to hear it may be gone, it has been a great magazine.
I do hope that they plan to take care of their subscribers (supporters),
since I renewed for two years just one issue before they folded. They
didn't have a problem cashing my check even though they knew they would'nt
be around much longer.
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:22:34 PDT
From: "Arnold Chickenshorts" <achickenshorts at hotmail.com>
Subject: hop esters
I appear to have upset AJ with my comments.
My sincere apologies, AJ: it is not your fault you repeat things read in
"several breing texts" (sic) when the texts themselves are in error.
The hop esters form a very significant fraction of a beer's ester profile,
yet are ignored as a possible source of contribution, in all homebrewing
texts and most "professional" texts. This is not AJ's fault, yet seeing the
same oversight again repeated prompted a hastily written note from an
inebriated mind.
AJ shows some initiative by determining possible levels of beer ethyl
hexanoate given typical methyl hexanoate levels found in hops. The trouble
is, I was being a little simplistic by implying methyl hexanoate was the
*only* hop ester that contributed to the total amount of beer ethyl
hexanoate.
The possible contributors are a small army of candidates. For example, the
hexanoate family may come in saturated, unsaturated or terpenoid forms,
branched or straight chain acid. The actual compounds are many, and there
are a great deal of hop oil compounds that are yet to be determined. See the
review by Sharpe ("The Essential Oil of Hops" J. Inst. Brew. 1981, v87
pp96-107). So simple calculations as performed by AJ are interesting, yet
invalid, since straight chain methyl-hexanoate represents only a small
proportion of the total of the hop hexanoate esters, which are the
candidates for transesterification to ethyl hexanoate. (Ethyl
transesterification BTW is the main type, due to the far larger amounts of
ethanol found in beer than higher alcohols)
So how do we determine whether hops contribute significantly to ethyl
hexanoate levels? Easy. Brew a control beer and vary the amount of hops.
Measure the headspace composition of the beers using gas chromatography. Not
so easy at home, but this is precisely the experiment performed by Murakimi
et al ("Effect of Hopping on the Headspace Volatile Composition of Beer"
JASBC, 1989, pp 35-42). In comparison to the control beer, a beer
kettle-hopped with Hallertauer hops had 14 times the level of ethyl
hexanoate. (the fuggle hopped beer had 7 times the amount of this ester).
The study does not give exact details of the hopping techniques used, but it
appears the control beer was completely unhopped and the test beers just
kettle hopped with different bittering hops to just 25 IBU. The fact the
tests showed such strong results with (presumably) just bittering hops
really makes one wonder what would happen with late or dry hops, when one
considers the fact that esters are quite volatile and largely driven off by
boiling (aren't they?).
The rule of thumb from Murakimi appears to be that fermentation controls
esters from acetates to butyrates, but esters formed from more complicated
acids such as hexanoates and upwards (and branched acids) are largely
hop-derived. Different hops produce different ester profiles.
There are far more of these esters than are commonly mentioned: possibly
several hundred exist in beer. Although any one may be below threshold, the
cumulative effect is large. This just shows up the inherent problem in
traditional threshold values (ie. testing each compound in isolation), but
don't get me started on that story!
Arnold Chickenshorts
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:29:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: accurate volume measurement
aluminum restaurant 1 gal. pail, with markings for 1 qt., and 1 liter
divisions. one of the best investments i've ever made, and always
being borrowed. like Jeff, I don't know why these items aren't
stocked by homebrew shops, but I suspect economics plays a big role.
-SM-
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:07:11 +0930
From: "Thomas D. Hamann" <tdhamann at senet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Grain to extract conversion
Charles T. Major wrote in #3124 that 6.6 pounds is 2kg,
it's actually 3 kg, thought I'd make a quick correction
to make sure that Dagzy's headed in the right direction!
Thomas in AustrANALia.
-
ASGARD HEIMBRAUEREI HAHNDORF
...l, Met und Apfelweine...
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 00:38:15 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: re: BT and Suporting those that Su
Rick,
>I also subscribe to Zymurgy and Brew Your Own. It is my opinion that not
>subscribing to
>>these magazines is counterproductive. I dare say that if more people
>subscribed to BT
>they would have been able to continue publishing. I believe that our hobby
>is a relatively
>small one and because of that, if we want publications, we need to subscribe
>and support
>them, even if we don't agree with everything the publisher does. Even if we
I suppose I'm one of the guilty. I did post that I probably wouldn't
subscribe to another magazine. Rick makes some excellent points. I joined
the local homebrew club, even though I can't make the meetings due to
my work schedule, because I wanted to support them and my craft. Joined
the ARRL and local ham radio club and I can't make any of their meetings
either for the same work related issues (working night shift sux).
It is my opinion that the majority of the $$$ necessary to publish a
magazine comes from the advertisers, not the subscribers. The subscription
probably barley covers the shipping, let alone all the other costs and
salaries of the employees. I was a subscriber to a motorcycle magazine,
HotXL that folded not because there wasn't a good circulation base (it sold
out every issue) but because the advertisers didn't see a value add.
SO, not only is it important to subscribe, but it is important to let the
advertisers in the magazine know their money is well spent. Buy their
products and let them know where you saw the advertisement. This is a
democracy and biggest vote you cast is not in a local or national election.
The most important vote you cast is the one you cast with the dollar bill.
While I won't rush out and subscribe to every brewing magazine, Rick's
comments have made me reevaluate my position. I don't want my hobby and
craft to fade into oblivion. I will support it. I will subscribe to
another but the first love of BT will remain.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:49:40 EDT
From: Ballsacius at aol.com
Subject: Life insurance and alchol drinking(Bob Fesmire)
Interesting thing just happened to me. I recently applied for some life
insurance. My agent called and said that I was approved...but....at more than
twice the original quote. Needless to say, I was flabbergasted. He then went
on to explain. It seems that my SGPT and my SGOT which are liver enzyme
levels were "elevated". He said it could be one of two things 1. "fattty
Liver" or, 2. Alchol use. I explained more than likely it was alchol use. I
consider my intake of Homebrew moderate at 1-2 drinks per day average,
sometimes more and sometimes less. He said the insurance co's really frown on
the elevated levels (Drunk driving deaths, etc.). Has anyone out here heard
of this before? I was under the impression that moderate alchol intake was
"good" for the heart(heart disease, etc). So...drink for your heart but don't
drink for your liver and insurance company. He suggested getting the
insurance at this level for 3 to 6 months, cool off on the drinking(try not
to drink anything), then reapply with another company. Has anybody dealt with
this situation before? What are some ideas? HELP! private e-mail okay.
Bob Fesmire
Pottstown, PA
Madman Brewery (soon to be defunct if this drought and my insurance co have
there say!)
Ballsacius at aol.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:11:29 +0930
From: "Darryl Downie" <dagzy at senet.com.au>
Subject: RE:- Pumpkin (other uses there of)
Just a side issue on pumpkin, I was told of a way to make Pumpkin Rum very
easily. You take a Butter-nut pumpkin and cut the top off nice and clean
then you scoop out the seeds. Then you fill it with sugar, put the top back
on and secure it with toothpicks then you hang it up in a nylon stocking.
When the pumpkin shell starts to weep you know that you have some pretty
potent stuff. I have never tried this myself but an old acquaintance swears
by it. I suppose that wild yeast in the pumpkin or on the skin ferment the
sugars etc to give you a rummish liquor.
On the same note my Dad told me of how they used to make jungle juice in New
Guinea during WW2. They used to take a coconut with milk in it and bore a
hole in the shell, then they would stuff some sultanas or raisins in the
hole and jam a stick in the hole to seal it tight. When the stick blew out
they knew they could drink it. UUUGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! He never owned up to what
it tasted like but at the time who would care.
All the best and Keep Brewin.
Darryl
Adelaide Australia.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:47:39 -0500
From: "John or Barb Sullivan" <sullvan at anet-stl.com>
Subject: Pumpkin Ales -- Let's Not Add Pumpkin But Tell Everyone We Did
This posting is meant to rile up all pumpkins and pumpkin lovers. Page
down if you cannot stomach pumpkin persecution, gourd gouging, zucchini
zingers or squabbling over squash.
I have never tasted pumpkin in a pumpkin ale. I've tasted pumpkin pie
spices but not pumpkin.
If you simply want to learn how to mash this type of adjunct, have at it.
You will learn something.
If you want to make a pumpkin ale with any chance of detecting pumpkin
flavor, skip the spices. However the chances of anyone really liking this
are about as high as finding someone who likes raw or cooked, unseasoned
pumpkin.
If I wanted to make a pumpkin ale, I'd skip the pumpkin altogether : )
Let's not do it but tell everyone we did.
John Sullivan
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:01:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: piatz at sgi.com
Subject: re: Yeast in Orval/Hoegaarden
Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au> asks:
> I have a fresh bottle each of Orval and Hoegaarden Grand Cru. Is it
> known whether the yeast in such bottles is the yeast or yeasts used
> in fermentation, or are they special, bottle conditioning yeasts?
> Failing that, has anyone had any experience using yeast cultured from
> Orval / Hoegaarden bottles?
As far as I recall from my tour of Orval several years ago, the primary
yeast will be present but several additional strains are added during
secondary including a brettanomyces strain. I think Orval pitches four
or fives strains for secondary. Note, the bottles are aged for nine
weeks before they leave the brewery. The date on the bottle should be
five years from the bottling date. For more detail you can read my
trip report in the MhBA newsletter at
http://reality.sgi.com/piatz_craypark/march1998.pdf
Steve Piatz Eagan, MN
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:13:30 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: BT etc./Disclaimer/Measurement
Many people wrote to me privately making suggestions, offering their
services in helping to BT and commenting on the difficulties (expenses)
that even publishing a newletter would entail. Many of these also posted
here. First off thanks to all these are in order not only from me
personally but also from all of you who would potentially benefit from
their offers and advice.
That said, it appears (yesterday's post i.e. #3124) that Pat Babcock is
well underway in trying to come up with a solution and my take at this
point is that we should all offer our assistance to him in any way we
can in this endeavor. His post names the skills required.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I just want to make it perfectly clear that the A.J. mentioned by Phil
Yates. in the context '"Big Hairy Jeff" my motorcycling mateand his pal
A.J.' ain't me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jeff Renner wants to know how we measure water volume. I have a 2L
stainless steel pitcher with a scale stamped on the inside that I use
for small volumes. For larger volumes I measure the distance from the
rim of the vessel (stockpot/fermenter) to the surface of the liquid. My
programmable calculator (ever at hand on brew day) computes the volume
based on this distance. Multiply by 0.9615 if the water/wort is hot and
that's it.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:11:47 -0500
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at Aerial1.com>
Subject: O'fest decoction recipe
Dave Riedel asked about his proposed decoction schedule for an Octoberfest
beer. I think you plan will be fine but I will tell you what I would do a
little differently (and I get 90 to 93% mash efficiency with decoction
mashing in a picnic cooler).
I would dispense with the acid rest at 104F since you have no dark grains,
instead go up to a protien rest temp of 127F with your strike water (1.25
qt/lb)and hold it for 15 minutes. Then take 40% of the volume of your mash
for a decoction, and take the thickest part of the mash, leaving as much
liquid behind as possible. YOU WILL NEED TO HEAT THIS DECOCTION SLOWLY AND
STIR CONSTANTLY SO AS NOT TO SCORCH IT! (I know, I've done it and it is a
certified bitch to clean the pot later.) I have found no need to stop at
saccrification temps during this process because you are bringing the heat
up slowly enough that it converts somewhat anyway and the enzymes were
preserved in the thin main mash left behind. Boil this decoction for 15 to
20 minutes and slowly add it back to the main mash. Best results are
obtained if you have someone else present to stir the main mash while you
add back the decoction and take temperature readings of the main mash to
ensure you don't overshoot the next temperature step. You are now after
your 149 to 150F saccrification temperature, don't overshoot and if you
undershoot, it's ok to infuse with boiling water (in fact it's a good thing
to use some infusions during the saccrification rest so the mash is a little
thinner for the next decoction and to help set up the filter bed later.)
Hold 149 until saccrification is complete as far as an iodine test will tell
you, then take a second decoction of 50% of the volume of the mash, taking
the thinnest part of the mash. This decoction you can boil like a banshee
as it is not likely to scorch. Boil for 15 minutes and return to main mash
to hit 167 degrees for mashout. Sparge with 170F water and run off slowly
as you can.
I would be interested to hear what efficiency you got with a 6 gallon batch
because when I did 5 gallon batches in my picnic cooler I consistently got
85% efficiency, but when I went to 10 or 11 gallon batches I was at 90 to
93% efficient (dependent on whether or not I had help stirring the mash when
adding back the decoctions). My theory is that I was able to better control
the temperature changes to the mash with the additional mass on the larger
mashes.
Good luck and enjoy the brew session,
Rich Sieben
Island Lake, IL
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:17:21 -0400
From: Julio Canseco <jcanseco at arches.uga.edu>
Subject: CO2 "not for human consumption"?
Greetings,
I had run out of CO2 cartridges for my mini-kegs and since the HB shop I
usually go to is a bit out of my way I decided to go to Wal-Mart and buy
the cartridges by the BB guns isle. They did have the cartridges in 12
grams. They had two brands and one of them (made in Hungary) said on the
box "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" yes, they shouted it too. What gives? I
thought CO2 was CO2. I got the box that didn't have any warnings (made
in USA) but before I put it in I would like to hear from the brewborg.
Is Hungary downwind from Chernobyl? Will I glow in the dark? TIA.
julio in athens, georgia
"you don't have to call me darling .............
darling"... David A. Coe
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:21:50 -0400
From: "T. Van Nunnery" <tnunnery at sces.org>
Subject: Imperial Stout with raisins?
Ok, I might be imagining things but I think I recently saw a recipe for
an Imperial Stout that used chopped golden raisins. I have searched
through the normal channels and anywhere I may have read about it
recently but can't seem to locate it again. Does this ring a bell with
anyone? Thanks!
T. Van Nunnery
Columbia, SC
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 06:30:42 -0700
From: Jeffrey Donovan <jeffrey at promash.com>
Subject: Colonial Brewing
Hello group, well yesterday I must had some type of lapse and gave a bogus
URL.
For those of you interested in the history of Colonial Brewing, the correct
URL is: http://www.colonialbrewing.com .
Comments/Suggestions welcome. If you have any material you think would be
of value to this site please by all means contact me regarding submission.
You can reach me at jeffrey at promash.com.
Cheers!
Jeffrey Donovan
The Sausalito Brewing Co.
ProMash and PilotBrew Software
jeffrey at promash.com
http://www.promash.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:40:41 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com
Subject: re: BT/AMBREW & Liquid Volumes
Jeffrey Donovan <jeffrey at promash.com> posts:
>However, another one of my favorite brewing magazines, American
>Brewer, may be taking up some of the slack. I have been in
>discussions with publisher Bill Owens recently, and he has decided to
>really beef up American Brewer with more technical articles and
>features for micro/home brewers. While American Brewer already has
>some of the finest writing talent in the brewing industry, Bill is
>also contacting some of the regular authors of BT in the hopes they
>can now write for American Brewer as well.
I am also sad to hear of BT's demise. It is doubly sad since I had
just resubscribed and have received 1 or none issues since mailing in
my subscription. Triply sad since this is exactly what happened with
another rag I used to get. That was Buffalo Bill Owens' "Beer the
Magazine" which was targetted towards beer consumers as opposed to
home brewers. Although I did get a decent extract based IPA recipe
submitted by Charlie P from its pages, but I digress. I will check
out American Brewer, but when "Beer the Mag" went belly up, I had just
subscribed and never saw a penny back from it. I try to send a
"subscription" donation to HBD around the holidays, but if I get
anything back from BT, I plan to make an additional donation to HBD.
It's worth it even if it never fills any of the void left by the loss
of BT. My only regret is that I didn't discover BT sooner than I did.
Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> posts:
>We read all about all kinds of equipment from jet burners to
>refractometers, but never a very basic one - liquid volume measures.
>Hop and grain scales, yes, but what do most folks do about measuring
>water? Surely you don't use your kitchen 1 cup pyrex measures, do
>you?
I have the ubiquitous 40 Qt Polarware SS pot for a kettle. I
accidentally discovered it is exactly 40 cm tall. I happen to have a
meter stick and it works +/- .25 inches full scale. All my plastic
pail fermenters are marked on the outside with indelible magic marker
in gallon increments. My bottling bucket is calibrated in qts on the
inside from the factory. Sadly, I can't remember where I got it and
don't know how I will replace it when it needs to be retired. So
nothing touches its inner surface except bleach, beer & primings, hot
water, and a soft sponge. I mash in a Gott cooler which is calibrated
in Qts and Liters on the inside from the factory. I use another
calibrated Gott cooler for a hot liquor tank which supplies sparge
water. I add mash water with 2 Qt plastic juice pitcher and it's good
enough for me to fairly quickly hit my temps +/- 2 DegF, usually spot
on.
Cheers!
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX
Lagniappe Brewing - Something extra in every sip....
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:14:22 -0400
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: Water Measurements
In HBD #3125, Jeff Renner wrote:
________________________________________________________________
>My water measurements for 5 gal. are terribly inaccurate
This prompts me to write about something that's been on my mind for some
time. We read all about all kinds of equipment from jet burners to
refractometers, but never a very basic one - liquid volume measures. Hop
and grain scales, yes, but what do most folks do about measuring water?
Surely you don't use your kitchen 1 cup pyrex measures, do you?
______________________________________________________________
I use only plastic buckets and carboys for everything including the boil,
no metal pots. I used a magic marker to draw rings around all my plastic
buckets in one gallon increments. I measured the first one with a 4 quart
measuring cup then transferred the measurements to the rest of the buckets.
Usually I can see the level of the liquid through the plastic. Sometimes
I need to shine a light into the bucket to help distinguish the liquid
level. With these marks I don't need any external site tubes to know the
level.
For carboys, the office supply stores sell a marker that writes on glass
(and can be rubbed off). Make sure the carboy is dry or the marker won't
mark.
To help as a guide in drawing the lines (rings), I use an old belt wrapped
around the vessel. Just move it up to the next gallon mark and make sure
it is even all around. Then draw the next line.
It is hard to believe how much easier the brewing process is with these
marks. I seldom have to make any measurement. HLT, mash, boil, and
fermenter levels are always visible.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner
Return to table of contents
HTML-ized on 09/02/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96