HOMEBREW Digest #3187 Mon 06 December 1999

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

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

  rusty rollers (Mike Uchima)
  Dry Hopping/Hop Teaing ("Troy Hager")
  Prohibition (Nathan Kanous)
  Marga Mills / Celebration Ale ("Paul Ward")
  Re: RIMS Comments:Grainbed flow and increased ramp times ("Martin Brungard")
  ramblings on Nottingham, AHA, & mills ("Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell")
  Brillo and SS304 kegs (jdickins)
  FWH Experiment (Louis Bonham)
  So Long And Thanks For All The Fish ("Phil and Jill Yates")
  RE: High Gravity Brewing ("Frank J. Russo")
  Dry ice carbonation, (Dave Burley)
  RE: carcinogens (Demonick)
  Re: Sister Star ("Robert J. Waddell")
  Braggot/Bracket (Ted McIrvine)
  pickled eggs (kathy/jim)
  First Lager Season questions ("scott")
  Cancer Testing (RCAYOT)
  Sweet Corn and RIMS History (WayneM38)
  Dry Ice for carbonation ("Sean Richens")
  FWH: First Wort Hazing?? (Bret Morrow)
  RE: Oxidized yeast starters / undermodified malts ("gdepiro")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:18:17 -0600 (CST) From: Mike Uchima <uchima at enteract.com> Subject: rusty rollers Jack wrote: > Having said that, unless you live on Bermuda or Key West, > your concern is probably unfounded. Once a mill is put into > use, the dust on the rollers does a pretty good job of inhibiting > rust. ...unless you're like the guy who posted to rec.crafts.brewing a while back, asking if anyone else was having problems with their MaltMill rollers rusting. Turned out he was actually rinsing the mill off after each brew session, with his garden hose! :-) - -- == Mike Uchima == uchima at pobox.com == Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:02:25 -0800 From: "Troy Hager" <thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us> Subject: Dry Hopping/Hop Teaing Fellow HBDers, Pete offers up some very good questions about the specifics of dry hopping. In the past I have used the *dry* hops in a mesh bag method and do not feel that I have achieved much success. In fact I think that in some cases I have actually increased the hop flavor quite a bit by adding hops to the secondary, but seems like the aroma is still not there. For my current ale on tap I used a hop tea. I added one drop of lactic acid to about a quart of water. (My water's pH is pretty high and I read somewhere that with higher pH you can extract some of the tanins from the hops) I boiled the water for about 15 mins to sanitize it. I then added 0.75 oz of Columbus (in a hop bag) and boiled them for a couple minutes. I then chilled it down to room temp. I tasted the hop tea and it was very stong! Tasted very bitter and grassy! I then added the tea and the hop bag to the keg. After a few days I tasted it and, wow, the hop bitterness, flavor, and aroma was out of control!!! It also had a extremely grassy flavor. The flavors seemed to stick in your mouth for many minutes after you swallowed. I got scared and didn't want to ruin the beer so I sanitized a wire and fished the hop bag out after four days. After that, the over-the-top bitterness and hop flavors diminished sigificantly and now, after about 3 weeks, it is down to fairly normal rates. It is still pretty hoppy (bitterness and flavor) and I tend to feel that this was caused by the hop tea because I did not over hop in the kettle. Also, I still taste a slightly grassy note that I know is from the tea. So, some more questions are: 1. I feel that dry hopping adds a lot of hop flavor and in my experience, a little hop aroma that diminishes as the beer ages. This seems slightly contradictory to the traditional brewing mantra of "Dry hopping adds aroma." I feel that the hop tea (as I did it) added a lot of bitterness, a lot of flavor, and some aroma, but also it added a lot of grassy notes as well. Have others had this experience? 2. Should we acidify our hop tea water to avoid extracting various nasties? 3. When using a hop tea, should you just add the tea or both the tea and the hops to the secondary? 3. I feel that Pete's questions about temperature and time making the tea are very important. 4. How long should we dry hop? 5. How do the pros do it??? Brew on. -Troy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 14:25:40 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Prohibition I just got a message that mentions an anniversary. I wasn't there and don't remember, but the message said that Prohibition was repealed Dec 5, 1933. It looks like Sunday would be a good day to have a beer. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:46:47 -0500 From: "Paul Ward" <paulw at doc.state.vt.us> Subject: Marga Mills / Celebration Ale On 12/02/99, J. Kish said: >Badger Roullett said he likes his Marga Mulino Mill. > I want one! Does anybody know who sells this mill? >I even contacted the Merchant of Vino in Michigan, and >they aren't handling them. Is there a distributor >that can supply them? Help! J. - Although I've heard of some homebrew shops having the Marga mill, I bought mine at a kitchen supply store. The retail price on the mill was around U.S. $80, but I got it on sale for $40. I can't judge it against any other as it's the only mill I ever owned, and the way the thing is put together, it's probably the only mill I ever will own. Also in the same issue Paul Shick said: >Thank goodness that Sierra Nevada is shipping its Celebration Ale as far >East as Clevelnad this year. Believe it or not, they even shipped it as far east as Vermont this year! What a fantastic beer! But where's the yeast in the bottom of the bottle? Paul in Vermont paulw at doc.state.vt.us Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:14:26 EST From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: RIMS Comments:Grainbed flow and increased ramp times Rod Prather wrote some interesting comments on RIMS: "I saw what you see, a potential for much faster ramp times that are limited by the grain bed. I see this not as a laminar flow problem but simple fluid flow resistance. If you pump more wort through the grain bed you end up with bitter beer. My answer, yet untested, was to have a grain bed bypass. A second port that would "rob" wort from above the grain bed via an Easymasher or a Scrubbie Thingie and mix it with the grain bed flow wort. This would increase the flow to the heat exchanger without increasing the actual grain bed flow. This is also a system to help increase ramps in dense grain bills like cereal mashes and barley wines." A few days ago, someone mentioned the use of a Reverse RIMS setup during mashing so that there is an upflow through the grain bed instead of the normal downflow. I thought this was a great idea since it allows a higher flow rate through the entire system. I'm a civil engineer with a great deal of experience with flow through porous media (soil and rapid sand filters), so I could see the merit in the reverse flow idea. Wort scorching is directly related to energy density. The energy density in a RIMS is equal to Watts divided by Flowrate. Watts are equal to Joules per second and Flowrate is cubic meters (or gallons) per second. This leaves us with Joules per cubic meter (or BTU per gallon, or whatever) for the energy density. To reduce scorching, two options are available, reduce the wattage or increase the flowrate. I've looked into wattage control and see that we can use a PID to reduce the power by varying the on/off cycle time or we can use a dimmer switch. The lowest cost dimmer I've found is $60 for 1500 watt capacity and the lowest cost PID setup I've found is on the order of $230. Conversely, increasing the flowrate by doing an upflow is going to cost very little for many RIMS. The comment that Rod made above regarding higher flow rates creating bitter beer troubles me. The Reverse RIMS setup would give me the opportunity to safely increase the flowrate during mashing and temp steps to reduce scorching. I cannot see any reason why an increased flow through the grainbed would cause an increase in the bitterness of the finished wort. I'm assuming the bitterness could possibly come from tannins in the grain, but the chemical equilibrium in the wort shouldn't change just because the liquid is flowing through the bed faster. Does anyone else have knowledge that the bitterness will increase with higher flowrates? I'm in the process of creating a RIMS and my system could easily allow me to reverse the flow through the grainbed during mashing. All I need to do is change the flow outlet fixture sitting on top of the grainbed into a filter style inlet/outlet. I'm using stainless steel hose reinforcement as the filter under the grainbed, so I'll just add another one on the top of the bed to filter the wort during the reverse flow. Lautering will still go in the normal downflow direction. Unless someone can see a reason why using a high rate upflow through the grainbed would be bad, I'm going to try this idea. One idea that Rod had to decrease the energy density through the RIMS heating chamber was to have a bypass in the system to allow a higher flowrate through the chamber. I can see a problem with this proposal because it will end up overheating the wort on top of the grainbed. And since all the flow is not going through the grainbed, the heated wort will not be distributed through the bed as quickly. This idea may not provide the results we are ultimately looking for, no wort scorching. I'm hoping that someone will pipe up regarding the bitterness/flowrate issue and explain it in some more detail. Martin Brungard Tallahassee, FL "Meandering to a different drummer" ______________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:44:06 -0800 From: "Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell" <defalcos at insync.net> Subject: ramblings on Nottingham, AHA, & mills Paul Shick was wondering why his lag time with Nottingham yeast was so long. We at DeFalco's have sold this yeast for a number of years with little or no trouble with lag times, whatsover. However, we don't usually deal with the puny little 5 gram packets. We buy in bulk and package in 12 gram packets for 5 gallon batches. They really take off! What little negative feedback we've received is from customers who've bought supplies from competitors (Tsk! Tsk!) and gotten the 5 gram packets. I know this doesnt' make sense. You would think the professionally packaged yeast would hold up better, but this has not been our experience. I do have one question for Paul and one observation. The question is regarding your re-hydration: You said you re-hydrated the yeast and even took pains to prevent thermal shock, but you didn't make any comments on the activity of the yeast in the "quasi-starter." Did the yeast foam up and turn the water turbid? If so, then I suspect the problem was the temperature of the basement. Sixty degrees is pretty darn cool for most ale yeast to reproduce! Not exactly incubation temperature! I would think you would have better luck pitching your "quasi-starter" and leaving the fermenters at normal room temperatures until visible signs of fermentation kick in, before moving them to the cool confines of your basement. I suspect the Nottingham will ferment at 60 degrees, once it is already up and going, but doesn't "grow" well at this temperature. Unfortunately, this is not exactly a problem here on the Gulf Coast. As to the Midwest Brewer, I say "Chill out, and have a couple of homebrews!" As a retailer and former member of the Board of Advisors, I've had more than my share of beefs with the AHA/A0B. However, Ray Daniels is a very knowledgeable guy and I, for one, am going to adopt a "wait and see attitude" on his impact on Zymurgy and New Brewer. I think there is real potential for growth and healing here. Granted, after BJCP-gate, Home Beverage Supplier-gate, AHA Classic Style Books-gate, Jim Parker-gate, and Brian Rezac-gate, I'm a little skeptical. Maybe I'm just hopeful that Ray can move the AHA in the direction of filling in the much felt BT void. Folks, BT is gone, and is not likely to re-appear anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong here). Let's wait and see what happens rather than dismiss the appointment out of hand. If Ray and Amal realize their potential, I might even eat my words and start selling Zymurgy, again. JDpils at aol.com is asking about grain mills. I would say you're in an enviable position, as, unlike a few years ago, there are a number of good mills now, any of which will do the job more than adequately. I had a Schmidling adjustable malt mill as one of my shop mills and had mixed results, but in all fairness, this is undoubtedly more wear and tear than any individual hombrewer would ever give a mill. Jack's non-adjustable one works just as well, with fewer headaches and at a lower price. He was good with customer support. We currently are carrying the Valley Mill, and in the year or so we offered them, I've been very impressed. They adjust very easily, although I personally question the need for adjustment on the vast majority of grains currently available (again, Jack's non-adjustable mill is gapped about right). The Valley Mill is easily motorized, a real plus if you're crushing a lot of grain at one time. We're still waiting for Dan Listermann's new, improved Philmill to arrive. His old one worked well, it just didn't look very impressive, and unfortuately this inhibited sales. I looked at the Automatic at the HWBTA convention and it looks very solidly built, but it has brass bushings, not ball bearings, and is priced a bit steep for my tastes. There's a similar one made in Colorado, but for the life of me, I can't remember the brand name. One of my customers has one and seems very happy with it. Like the Automatic, it comes in close to $200. We received the Marga Mill when they first came out, but sent them back immediately. I wasn't impressed at all. We had a short-lived BOP here in town that had a nice little modestly priced mill (from Brewers Resource in Camarillo, CA, I recall). As for the stainless-steel rollers, Jack's right, unless you live in an extremely humid climate and are planning on keeping your mill in the garage, I don't think rust and corrosion will ever be an issue. That's my two cents worth, anyway. Okay, maybe it was more like five or six cents worth. Later. . . Scott Birdwell DeFalco's Houston, Texas Not so far from Jeff Renner astronomically speaking Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 00:34:57 GMT From: jdickins at usit.net Subject: Brillo and SS304 kegs I would recommend that you stay far away from brillo on stainless, as it will embed itself into the keg and rust. As for scotch brite pads, I'd stay away from them too, they will scratch stainless steel. Don't believe me? Try rubbing a glass bottle with one and you will see scratches appear as if by magic. Glass is much harder than your 304 SS, so it will scratch that much easier. What do I use? Stainless steel chore boys. They work wonderfully on all my stainless gear and they leave very very few scratches. jim (in memphis) >Bob Scott <rrscott at jps.net> wrote: >David Sweeney asked about using steel wool and Brillo pads on SS. As a >data point, Navy galleys (kitchens) are prohibited from using metal >cleaning pads. The metal pads eventually break down and provide metal >slivers that can get into food or be rinsed down drains that on ships >have valves further downstream that can get scored or clogged. Home >use is at the individual's risk. 3M's Scotch Brite pads with the >appropriate cleaner work just as well (std. disclaimers) and don't wear >out the pots. >Bob Scott >>Won't rust, bits and pieces of the steel wool get embedded in the scratches >>and they will rust. Is this true? If so, why can we use Brillo pads on our Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:29:47 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hbd.org> Subject: FWH Experiment Hi folks: In response to comments made by Jim Layton about FWH, the question again comes up whether one should calculate IBU utilization numbers from a FWH addition by just assuming your full boil time, or whether the utilization goes up or down materially from this number. To my knowledge, there's not been a study on this (if anyone's seen one, I'd like to read it). Ergo, time for another experiment . . . Here's my proposed methodology . . . please comment . . . . Materials: 3 liters 14P sweet wort 3 x 1.000g high alpha hop pellets approx 100mls yeast slurry Prepare 3 liters of 14P sweet wort by whatever method (full grain mash, reconstituted high-quality malt extract, whatever). Split this into three equal portions (+/- 5mls) and begin heating (ideally, on identical hot plates or stove burners). Batch 1 -- FWH -- When the temp hits 80C (176F), add 1.000g of high alpha hop pellets. Record the time it takes from this addition until boiling begins. Boil for one hour, then crash cool to 20C (68F) in an ice water bath. Pour everything (wort, hot break, hops, etc.), into a sanitized 1000ml graduated cylinder or volumetric flask (use a funnel if necessary), use a bit of cooled boiled water to rinse the boiling container (add these rinsings to the graduated cylinder / volumetric flask), and make up the total volume to 1000ml with cooled boiled water. Separate the wort from the hot break and spent hops by using a filter funnel and coarse filter paper (a coffee filter would be ideal), with the wort draining into another sanitized container for fermentation. Pitch with 25mls of the yeast slurry, agitate, and airlock. Batch 2 -- 60 minute control. When this batch begins boiling, add 1.000g of the hops. Boil for 60 minutes, then cool, make to volume, filter, pitch, agitate, and ferment identically to the FWH batch. Batch 3 -- 60 minute + FWH time control. When this batch starts boiling, add 1.000g hops. Boil this batch for 60 minutes PLUS the amount of time it took the FWH batch to boil after the hops added (e.g., if it took the FWH batch 10 minutes after the time the hops were added to start boiling, the total boil time for this batch should be 70 minutes). Cool, make to volume, filter, pitch, agitate, and ferment identically to the FWH batch. After the batches have fermented out and the yeast has dropped, pull approximately 50ml samples of each, centrifuge lightly to remove any additional yeast, and test the supernatent for IBU's using the ASBC methodology. There should be a slight difference between the IBU levels of batches 2 and 3, owing to the longer boil. (E.g., an additional 15 minutes of boil should increase the IBU's about 10%.) The IBU level of batch 1 is, of course, the interesting data point, so that we can see if it is close to that of batch 3 or batch 2, or materially less than batch 2. What say the real scientists amongst you? Any glaring flaws in the methodology? How many times would this experiment have to be repeated to give a satisfactory n value? Etc., etc., etc. LKB Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:09:40 +1100 From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates at infoflex.com.au> Subject: So Long And Thanks For All The Fish By the time you read this (if you read this) I will simply not be here. Not that this is a suicide note. Not that I am distressed about not having a RIMS. Not that the continual stream of love letters from Eric Fouch (addressed to Jill) have in any way affected my decision. Not that anyone here would in fact give a rats! But my decision is final. We are moving house, moving home, moving right out of the city! And until I pick up the shattered pieces of my closed down brewhouse, and a few other personal grief's which have occurred in the process, I am signing off from the HBD. But unlike Doc Pivo, Eric Panther and Arnold Chicken Shorts, I will return. And thinking of lost posts, or last posts, where is Steve Alexander? We never did get to see the "Brave New Brewery Mark III"! Thanks all for a lot of good information and I hope a bit of fun along the way. I was going to have a jibe at Alan Mackay but I can't knock a bloke who owns a Valley Mill. All the best for Christmas if I don't get back on line by then. And a special thanks to Pat Babcock for the trouble you endure in keeping the HBD alive, and the trouble you endure from the likes of me. Not to mention your friendship! Cheers Phil Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:19:26 -0500 From: "Frank J. Russo" <FJRusso at coastalnet.com> Subject: RE: High Gravity Brewing .....it entailed producing a more highly concentrated wort using both less water in the mash and sparge, then after boil, diluting with water to obtain the desired S.G...... This is how I started my homebrewing. I simply lacked the equipment to deal with larger volumes. Having a source of heat was no problem. Since I was not boiling to remove volume I could keep my boil times down to 60 minutes. My boil volume was ~ 4 gallons. Of course the S.G. of my brews were right where I wanted them to be. My volume may shift +/- 1/2 gallon but made no difference. Yes, this was for finished batch size of 5 gallons. I was pleased with doing it this way and I still am. Not all my batches are done this way. NO special reason. Good luck with your and let me know how I comes out. Frank Russo FJRusso at Coastalnet.com "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it." Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:06:54 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Dry ice carbonation, Brewsters: Jeff (Good) Luck asks how much dry ice to add to a bottle to get carbonation. I don't recommend it, but here's how to do the calculation. The MW of carbon dioxide is 14 + 2X16 = 46. So 46 grams will produce 22.4 liters at STP. One bottle of beer is 12 ounces (~ 320 ml). One volume of CO2 in one bottle will be 0.32 * 46/22.4 = 0.657 grams of dry ice. How many volumes you need will depend on how much carbon dioxide is already in the beer. The risk with this procedure is the error in adding such a small amount of dry ice as a few grams to a bottle is that you could easily produce a bottle bomb unless you have a way to accurately do this. I don't know how to do it. The other possibility is that the CO2 will not come to equilibrium with the liquid right away and the pressure in the bottle headspace may be higher than predicted until it does. Other brewers with pressure-gauged CO2 tanks can use a device like a Carbonator (R) or Ken Schwartz' SS bicycle tube air valve/soda pop top to produce carbonated beer quickly. This is a much safer route as the pressure of the gas over the liquid is controlled and is independent of the CO2 already dissolved,so that only the amount of gas needed for correct carbonation is added. Check the HBD archives. - --------------------------------------------- Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:16:23 -0800 From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: RE: carcinogens From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> ...snip... Go back to HBD #3186 Sat 04 December 1999 and read Alan's post. Totally OT. Alan's comments on why massive dosing is done during carcinogen testing is correct. Often the incidence of cancer is so rare that with typical doses you have to use too many animals and wait too long of a time to get results. This is wasteful and incredibly expensive. You simply can not do a 1,000,000 rat 3 year experiment. For our rat lovers out there, Federal animal testing laws dictate how much space each rat must have and limits how many in a cage. Laws dictate air flow, air quality - basically everything. Also, for valid testing you NEED healthy, happy, unstressed animals. Animal testing is EXPENSIVE! Sorry, for the testing rant - now back to our show. So, the massive dosing rationale is valid. Are the results valid? Well, it depends. The is some good evidence that carcinogenicity is a threshold phenomenon. We eat carcinogens in EVERYTHING. A single cup of coffee has more carcinogens in it than ANY Amercian municipal water supply. In fact, caffeine is used as a laboratory mutagen. How do plants compete with each other? They don't have limbs or claws or teeth, and they sure can't run. Chemical warfare. Every plant puts out its own unique contingent of noxious chemicals to ward off other plants, fungus, insects, mammailian predators and parasites. Why do you think hops make bittering compounds? Why do you think barley has tannins? Why do you think that celery smells like celery? When you eat the plants you eat the chemicals, and very, very many of them are carcinogens and mutagens. Arrgghhhh! We're all gonna die! That may be so, but it's not going to happen from eating carrots or celery. Our bodies have evolved in an environment where we are bombarded by carcinogens, toxins, and mutagens at every turn, and our bodies have a capacity to render most of these compounds harmless. In short, we have a threshold below which carcinogens are not harmful. Now, not for every carcinogen, the thresholds differ for different classes of compounds, etc., etc., etc., and yada-yada-yada, standard disclaimers apply. But, in general, we have a threshold capacity to deal with carcinogens. The problem with massive dose testing is that if this threshold hypothesis is true (I think that it is), then massive dosage testing is invalid and basically useless. It will tag harmless substances as harmful at a very high rate. It will unneccessarily alarm huge numbers of people while at the same time numbing them to any REAL dangers. How many time have you heard someone say, "Everything is harmful", or "Jeesh, everything will kill you", then take a drag on a cigarette - which, by the way, if abused, WILL kill you. Should we stop this kind of massive dose testing? Of course not. It's the best that we can do at the moment and you should always use the best tools available. In the future tissue culture and/or cell-based studies may replace much of animal testing. I agree with both Dave Burley and Alan Meeker. Massive dose testing is often a crock, but it's the best crock we have. Until something better comes along we are stuck with it. At least it errs way off to the safe side. If you are interested, check the publications of Dr. Bruce Ames. His father invented the Ames Test, and he is a major proponent of the threshold hypothesis. One last thing. What do I do to help bolster my own personal thresholds? I eat anti-oxidants. I won't even mention any particular anti-oxidants nor sources of such because this is NOT medical advice nor should it be considered a guarantee of long life and happiness and grandchildren. If you're interested look it up. The Net is a wonderful thing. Domenick Venezia Venezia & Company, LLC Maker of PrimeTab (206) 782-1152 phone (206) 782-6766 fax orders demonick at zgi dot com FREE SAMPLES! Enough for three 5 gallon batches. Fax, phone, or email, name, shipping address (no P.O.B.) AND phone number (for UPS in case of delivery problems - I will never call you). Sorry, I'm covering shipping, so lower 48 only. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 09:45:49 -0700 From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw at dimensional.com> Subject: Re: Sister Star Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> writes: >Has anybody actually >brewed a 5 gallon batch with that huge quantity of bittering hops? Was it >drinkable? Nathan, I brewed a 10 gallon batch a couple of years ago in my Pico(tm) system and found that it is probably mis-named. It should have just been called "Hop Stew". I used all whole hops and I could hardly stir it. I figured that I lost about a gallon to retention in the hops when I drained it into the carboys. However, it was one of the best tasting brews that I have ever made and I certainly will brew it again. Only next time I'll use pellets in large muslin bags that my spousal unit makes for me and I might have to weight them down with a horse shoe or some such device. I might even FWH the entire hop charge just have another data point. I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it off the bed at night. Women... --Pat Babcock *** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! *** **************************************************************************** RJW at dimensional.com / Opinions expressed are usually my own but Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared. ICQ #7136012 Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus Longmont, Colorado **************************************************************************** (4,592 feet higher than Jeff Renner) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 13:13:37 -0800 From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Braggot/Bracket Braggot should have a balance of honey and malt flavor. Some brewers believe that hops should not be used in traditional braggot, but personally I like them to 1) balance the sweetness and 2) help with the hot break. (Some traditional mead makers also like to use wild yeast and acid additions to add some sourness to balance the sweetness. This is not my preference, but is a widely-practiced option.) Here is a braggot recipe which is inspired by Belgian Tripel, and I might increase the honey to 7 lbs the next time I make it: 10.5 lbs Belgian Pils, mash at 145 for 2 hours with 1 tsp of Water crystals (gypsum & magnesium) and infuse to 170 for sparge. 1 Oz Perle 8 AA boil, 1 Oz Kent Goldings (20 min) Turn off heat, stir in 5 lbs of Clover honey and 1/2 oz Cascade hops Chill & Ferment with a highly-attenuative Belgian Yeast Clarifying braggot or mead is tricky. If you use Sparkaloid (tm) plan on using multiple rackings after giving the braggot a chance to settle. In any case, a long secondary fermentation (3-12 months) is good. I've never entered Braggot in a competition. All local beer judges have either never tasted braggot or only tasted mine. > From: RobertJ <pbsys at pbsbeer.com> > Subject: Braggott > > Members of our local club have been discussing braggots, but none of us > have brewed, or even tasted one, but the idea of brewing a batch has it's > appeal. Could someone direct me to a good recipe, perhaps with a definition > of characteristics to look for? > > If anyone has judges comments from a competition that go with the recipe, > that would be very helpfull. > > Thanks > Bob - -- Dr. Ted McIrvine McIrvine at Ix.Netcom.Com College of Staten Island/CUNY "Music is the hidden arithmetical exercise of a mind unconscious that is calculating." Gottfried Leibniz, quoted in Lorenz Mizler's Musikalische Bibliothek Unsolicited commercial E-Mail will be charged a$200 fee for Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 11:50:17 -0400 From: kathy/jim <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: pickled eggs I'd like some suggested recipes for the pickled eggs often served in bars from jars on the counter. TIA.....cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi post to kbooth at waverly.k12.mi.us Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:18:13 -0800 From: "scott" <Cuckold at cornerpub.com> Subject: First Lager Season questions Have brewed my firs two Pilsner lagers thus far. I have a chest freezer that holds 4 carboys. First 10 gal. batch fermented great at 45-50 deg. I then racked, then gradually worked the temp down to 35 deg. Question 1: While one beer is lagering, will it hurt it any to raise the freezer temp for a week, so your next batch can primary ferment? Question 2: After lagering for 2-3 months, will there be enough active yeast leftover to carbonate with corn sugar? Will I need to add a secondary yeast? Am planning on having kegging capacity by next month, which will probably help me in that dept. Thanks for all your help Scott http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/3768/Brewery.html Return to table of contents
Date: 04 Dec 1999 14:48:29 -0500 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: Cancer Testing Alan Meeker goes on about the strategy behind mega-dosing suspected chemicals to animals for testing. Alan forgets that the mechanism for getting cancer is NOT so well understood that one can claim that a 1000 times dose gives a 1000 times chance of seeing the effect! This is just absolutely not so! In high quality studies, the chemicall substance under study has to be tested at BELOW TOXIC LEVELS. That is you are not supposed to increase the mortality of the mice/rat etc at the testing dosage. This is because of the problems with carcenogenicity testing in the past that has led to many problems. Look at the millions of dollars that we are required to spend asbestos abatement. The facts are that asbestos does cause health problems, but the form of the asbestos has much to do with that, most of what we have "abated" has posed not harm, we just do it because of political pressure. Take another example, I pump my own gas, and I expose myself to benzene in the gas a a level much higher than OSHA would allow in my laboratory, why? It is because pumping gas for myself is not an occupational hazard! While I am on a roll about Gasoline, what would you say is the greatest hazard associated with gasoline? I would say it is the fact that it can form EXPLOSIVE mixtures with air, plus its high flamability. But what warning of that hazard is there at the gasoline dispensing station? NONE! Oh sure, there are signs that say no smoking, but those are everywhere today, there is a "health" warning that is so vague that it is really meaningless, what else? Oh yeah you can only dispense gas into an "approved" container, and oh yeah, one more thing, there is a seal from the town's weights and measures there to assure you you are not getting ripped off, where is the real informaiton about the hazards of gasoline? these other measures are there because of a bunch of LAWYERS, they are there to protect the gas station owners, and you be dammed! So next time you are pumping gas, take a look around and see what is really being perpetrated in the name of "safety" and then consider how reliable someones claim of product safety or danger is. The answer is take care of your own ass! Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:10:07 EST From: WayneM38 at aol.com Subject: Sweet Corn and RIMS History <<In a message dated 12/4/99 1:06:56 AM Central Standard Time, "Steve Potter" <spotter at meriter.com> writes: Subject: Dried Sweet Corn and Sister Star IPA Hello, With all the talk about dried sweet corn, it occurs to me that last year I ran into some freeze dried sweet corn at the Spice House in Milwaukee. It was individual kernels and was as sweet as candy. I am sure that it is pricy, but perhaps a Milwaukee HBDer would be kind enough to check? <snip> Cheers, Steve >> Hi to Steve from MKE! The spice house can be found at: http://www.thespicehouse.com/ Dried sweet corn is about $15.00 per pound plus shipping. Great place for brewing spices, but they don't have dried bitter orange peel....... ;-( On another thread regarding Rodney Morris and the first RIMS. Anyone out there know Rodney? This has been posted before but is still interesting reading. A patent on a recirculating homebrewing mash system first submitted in 1986 from a gent in Canada: (4,754,698) http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-1988+0+944796+4+0+41545+OF +100+193+51+beer+OR+recirculation Have Fun! Wayne Botanist Brewer Big Fun Brewing Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:14:44 -0600 From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca> Subject: Dry Ice for carbonation Jeff: I'll leave the details to you, but you know what you're trying to achieve. The steps are: 1 - assume you already have 1 volume CO2 in your beer after secondary (you can check the actual value for your temperature using the Recipator, but that's a typical value at cellar temperature). 2 - figure out how many more volumes CO2 you need to reach your target. 3 - calculate the amount of dry ice needed by weight at 44 g dry ice = 22.4 L CO2 gas (this also depends on temperature, but the actual performance of the procedure introduces far more error). 4 - divide by the number of bottles. Rack the beer into bottles, then start weighing out your 2/3 g pellets. As you toss each pellet into a bottle of beer, slam the cap on before it foams all over the place, and crimp it on. I would wear goggles while doing this. This might be more practical with kegs, but I figure that if you weigh out 100 g glucose it will still be 100 g when you're ready for it 5-50 minutes later. The dry ice is a bit of a moving target. I once dropped a pellet of dry ice in a beer as a joke. It was messy, but don't let me discourage you. Sean Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:57:50 -0500 From: Bret Morrow <bret.morrow at prodigy.net> Subject: FWH: First Wort Hazing?? Greetings all, I have been using FWH for about 2 years and have had some problem with temporary hazes. This has not been much of a problem as it clears in the 'frige within a week or two. This last batch, however, didn't get Irish Moss and has a permanent haze. The potential link between FWH and the temporary haze was identified to me through the HBD archives by George DePiro (are you out there George?). He mentioned that hazing could result from extended exposure of the wort to the hops. There are, of course, many other potential haze forming practices in brewing. I can NOT say that I have kept these consistent through out this time period and it is likely that some other haze forming component has strongly contributed to the haze problem. With this said, any comments on FWH (or dry hopping) and hazing? On a second, related issue. Once several years ago, I brewed a batch of light ale with friends, one of which was suppose to bring the hops, but he didn't make it to the homebrew shop in time. We already had the mash going, so we decided to go ahead and boil the wort and added the yeast. After the primary and secondary fermtations, we got the hops and boiled them in water (w/ lactic acid), cooled it and filtered out the big hop parts. We added the resulting lime green liquid to the finished beer and kegged it up. Wow, was that batch clear!! This procedure was never repeated but I thought about doing it as a haze reducing procedure. Any thoughts? Bret Morrow Hamden, CT P.S. George--Tourette's disease is associated with a lot more than physical and vocal tics (sometimes swearing)--it is strongly associated with obsessive compulsive symptoms. Does this new description of Tourette's seem to fit you as well as you implied? (Hope not!) Although, most brewers are slightly obsessive, right? Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 01:41:31 -0500 From: "gdepiro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com> Subject: RE: Oxidized yeast starters / undermodified malts Howdy all, Alan ponders: > Hmmmmm perhaps we're getting our signals crossed a bit? What I'm worried > about is that the starter is /already/ oxidized at the time of pitching, > not that it will become oxidized during the early phase of the > fermentation > when there is some oxygen present in the virgin wort. As you > point out, the > wort oxygen will typically be used up by the yeast in the first > 30 minutes... Yes, I am not communicating effectively. Alan continues: > Maybe we are preparing our starters differently? I grow my starter to > saturation with continuous air exposure throughout so it is guaranteed to > already be well oxidized by the time it is ready for pitching. At pitch it > is probably as oxidized as it is ever going to get! I only continuously aerate the first couple of steps here at the pub. The last two steps, at 3 gallons and 30 gallons, are only aerated at the beginning. I do this because of the stuff that Alan fears: adding 10% oxidized beer to my main batch. If I had the money, I would prefer to grow yeast with continuous aeration and centrifuge it out of solution. Letting it settle here at the pub is not an option (not enough tank space or time for that, although more money could fix that, I suppose). - ---------------------------------- About that undermodified malt from Czech.: Jim Liddil mentions that modern American brewing theory is to have the maltster do all the work. Other brewers must believe this, too, because undermodified malts are so hard to find anywhere in the world. Jim points out that many brewers do not have the time, equipment, or desire to use undermodified malts and asks for my opinion. I agree. Yes, as a homebrewer I decocted almost everything, figuring out how to decoct without protein rests. I liked the results, as did many fellow homebrewers. When I started here at the pub, equipment limitations forced me to accept infusion mashing as my only means of brewing. I have found that modifications to the malt bill can help to duplicate the flavor of a decocted beer (not perfectly, of course, but acceptably). I use large amounts of Vienna and Munich malts, and also add DWC aromatic malt and Weyermann melanoidin malt to many brews. My infusion-mashed, commercial Hefeweizen tastes much like my single-decocted homebrew version. I simply use no pilsner malt. The grain bill is 60% Weyermann light wheat malt and 40% Weyermann light Munich malt. The flavor is very malty (which is also accented by the extremely low hopping rate). My homebrew Weizen used equal amounts of pilsner and Munich malt with a single decoction. A good thing about not decocting is that there is less handling of the mash, which means that there is less opportunity for oxidizing it. Also, decoction mashes are harder to lauter (as Jim Busch points out). My Weizen is already a 2 hour runoff; why make it even longer! I do miss the aroma of decoctions, though. Mmmmm. Maltilicious. As a homebrewer I probably will buy some of this malt and brew with it, just to see what it is like. I may use it here at the pub, but don't feel a burning urge to increase my day's length and complexity at the moment. Have fun! George de Piro C.H.Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station (518) 447-9000 Malted Barley Appreciation Society Homebrew Club http://hbd.org/mbas Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/06/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96