HOMEBREW Digest #3217 Mon 10 January 2000

[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

  Valley Mills (MaltHound)
  barleywine carbonation ("Alan Meeker")
  RE: Politics, Agronomic or Beer, What's it gonna be? ("Fred Kingston")
  GMOs - again ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  More on GM (RCAYOT)
  microwave sterilizing?? ("Alan Meeker")
  re: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine (Jeff)
  Moving, skimming, chill proofing, dictionary skills (Dave Burley)
  Re: chill haze (Jeff Renner)
  GM and Brewing? ("Scholz, Richard")
  microwaves ("Dr. Pivo")
  Remove the breaks or not?? ("Alan Meeker")
  RE: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine (LaBorde, Ronald)
  7th Annual America's Finest City Homebrew Competition ("Peter Zien")
  Getting un-personal, the MIY2K Conference ("Ken Schramm")
  Questions and Ramblings ("J. Doug Brown")
  AOB/AHA Representation - For REAL?? (Robert S Wallace)
  Help needed on All Grain ("Russ Hobaugh")
  Tannins ("Paul Niebergall")

* 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, 7 Jan 2000 09:16:44 EST From: MaltHound at aol.com Subject: Valley Mills In HBD 3215 Joe Kish <jjkish at worldnet.att.net>asks: "So, where is a good place to buy a Valley Mill? What's the price?" Joe, You can buy Valley Mills directly from the manufacturer at: http://www.web.net/~valley/valleymill.html Valley Brewing Equipment 1310 Surrey Avenue Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA K1V 6S9 call (613) 733-5241 The price there is $138.50 (US) which includes $19.50 shipping & handling. As an aside, I have never understood why mailorder merchants insist on charging for "handling". Shipping, sure, but wouldn't they have to "handle" the mill if they were wholesaling it to a retailer? It's just a flimsy excuse to mark-up an item IMO and should be included in the quoted price. They also are carried by a few homebrew shops, but I am told by my local HBS owner that the retail markup is not very good (only ~10%), therefore, not many retailers want to carry them and prefer to do business with one of the other mill manufacturers. I own one of the earliest models with the plastic bushings. Not nearly as nice as the current model with Ball Bearings, but a great mill none the less. I have run well over 500 Lbs of grain through this mill under power and it is still going strong. The ONLY thing that I would have prefered feature wise is if the rollers were of a larger diameter. I also own a Brew-Tech mill which is adjustable and has larger 2-1/2 inch rollers running in bronze bushings. That mill seems to give a superior crush but it is not as easy to use as the Valley due to the mill's configuration. Cheers, Fred Wills Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:20:16 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: barleywine carbonation Mike in CT asks about carbonating his barleywine: > Unfortunately, the beer never carbonated for some odd reason. > Anyway, how can I get it carbonated in time for a March contest? Why didn't it carbonate in the first place? If you added priming sugar it could be that your yeast has technically speaking "pooped-out." Were you relying on residual yeast in suspension from the primary fermentations? What yeast did you use? Maybe they have reached their limit as far as alcohol toxicity goes if it's a big barleywine or they could be mostly dead/ flocced out if the barleywine has been lagered for a year or so as is commonly done with these big beers. You could try adding an active champagne yeast culture but this might be risky if there is an abundance of fermentable sugar around you might get over-carbonation. If you had time and wanted to do this with yeast I'd suggest you first add champagne yeast to mop up all the residual sugars, then bottle with more champagne yeast and priming sugars but you're running out of time. My guess is you'll have to go the force-carbonation route... -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:31:04 -0500 From: "Fred Kingston" <Fred at Kingstonco.com> Subject: RE: Politics, Agronomic or Beer, What's it gonna be? John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins at earthlink.net> Posts: > ------------------------------ > > Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2000 23:42:17 -0600 > From: John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins at earthlink.net> > Subject: Insults > > I, for one, did not find Dave B.'s comments about GM seeds insulting and > don't see how any reasonable person could. How about we get back to > brewing and leave the environmentalist and other political discussions > to the proper forum. AND THEN PROCEEDS TO POST: > ------------------------------ > Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 00:17:46 -0600 > From: John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins at earthlink.net> > Subject: GM seeds > >As far as genetically modified seeds, yes, we have been modifying our And: > >Many organic minded people stock and trade vegetable/fruit seeds that > >have linages from hundreds of years back. They don't trust the same > >folks that gave us DDT. AND: > DDT saved millions of people on this earth from starvation and, I > > And: > > >Luckily, farmers are getting the message REAL quick. Europe and Asia AND: > I suspect many European restrictions on U.S. food exports are more > rooted in protectionism than in alarm over GM seeds. The Europeans, Make up your mind John.... or at least follow your own damn advise. Fred Kingston Kingston & Company http://www.KingstonCo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 09:23:15 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: GMOs - again On Wed, 5 Jan 2000 Dave Burley commented on GM: > As far as these GM potentially >causing problems by crossbreeding >in nature it won't happen because >these plants are <sterile> as Robin >points out. I just need to point out one glitch in this assumption. If we are talking about plants such as hops barley and wheat, then fine. Many GM varieties of plants come about from selective/cross breeding techniques and *MAY* be sterile as a result. However, once we start talking about things such as brewer's yeast and bacteria, which multiply by binary fission, we have a whole new ballgame. Crossbreeding is not an issue with these little buggers since they reproduce asexually but they can share pieces of DNA by various means, such as through transposons and plasmids. It's not as easy in nature as it is in the lab because we create the environments and situations which are condusive to these phenomenon, but it can still happen on occasion "in the wild". As for planned sterility and other growth limiting factors of GMOs, I don't care. If company X spent Y million $$ on developing a new technology then they damn well better be able ensure their profits and protect their technology. Anyone who thinks big business is around for some altruistic purpose is naive. It all about the buck. Don't get me wrong, I like GM. It makes for prosperous crops, good food and has the potential to enhance the quality of life for many third world nations who would love to have even our U.S. table scraps. For those of you who may be more interested in GM and it's safety issues visit http://www.fda.gov/oc/biotech/default.htm. It's a good starting place for getting educated. Glen Return to table of contents
Date: 07 Jan 2000 08:24:45 -0500 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: More on GM The reason for GM foods is not to trap growers into some kind of devious plot, it is pure economics. The cost of seed goes up (more money in the seed producers pocket) the cost of pesticide/herbicide goes down (less money for the chemical producers, sometimes the same company). OR the herbicide resistent crops allow the planting and treatment of farm land at one time rather than waiting for the roundup to dissipate before planting. These things help farmers grow food for less money. The reason for making GM food seeds sterile is also very easy to understand, if they were not sterile, then the seed producer would only be able to sell them once! Now for the Monarch Butterfly problem, well what exactly was the experiment? I read in Scientific American that 25% of th eMonarch Butterflys that fed on milkweed treated with pollen from BT producing corn died. The report did not say 25% MORE died! How many butterflies died as a control? Very poor reporting by SciAM! The other question would be how many monarch butterflies would die as a result of overspray of pesticide? I believe that it is avery real possibility that the genetic traits like roundup resistance, or BT producing corn will eventually find its way into some wild plants at some time. I just don't believe that this will be a total disaster. Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:30:27 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: microwave sterilizing?? John S Thompson asked about the possibility of sterilizing w/ short microwave hit: - --------------------------------------- I have some petri dishes which I use for streaking out yeast. I was wondering if a short blast in the microwave, say 5 to 10 seconds, would sterilize a thin layer of wort/agar. If so, this would eliminate the need to steam them. One could boil them in the microwave, but that gets pretty messy... - ------------------------------------- Microwaving in this manner will not sterilize. It will at best get the liquid portion up to boiling but boiling is not sufficient for true sterilization. Anyway, you would only be boiling for a few seconds. Steam is much more effective than just boiling and pressure cooking is the best of all since it allows you to reach even higher temperatures. Sterilization requires that you kill heat-resistant bacterial endospores and this takes about 20 minutes at autoclave temps so merely boiling for a few seconds would be theoretically insufficient but of course it depends upon what type of contaminants are present in your media... -Alan Meeker Baltimore Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:50:39 -0500 (EST) From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) Subject: re: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine Hi All, Mike in Middletown, CT (venesms at NU.COM) wrote: >I've been thinking of: 1) pouring a dozen or so bottles into a corny keg; >2) pumping up the CO2 real high (how high?); 3) chilling the corney keg >pretty cold (how cold?), 4) then carefully transferring the beer into bottles >with a racking wand; and 5) capping immediately. A fellow homebrewer in my homebrew club had the same exact problem and came up with a solution that is so simple, it is very easily overlooked. Simply take your uncarbonated bottles, remove the caps, and place the full bottles in a sanitized and purged Corny keg. Stack them together so that they can't tip over. After you get as many in there as you feel you can comfortably fit, seal up the keg, and pressurize it. Get the keg as cold as you can and set the pressure to achieve the desired carbonation level at that temp. Once the full bottles are force carbonated, release the pressure on the keg, remove the full bottles, and cap immediately. This method avoids pouring the beer out of the bottles and having to re-bottle later. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ========================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250 Naval Undersea Warfare Center email: Systems Development Branch mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW: Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:06:23 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Moving, skimming, chill proofing, dictionary skills Brewsters: Peter Santerre is moving and asks how he can ship his CO2 cylinder, since the moving company won't do it. I suspect the simplest way is to put it in the trunk of your car. Having just suffered the indignities of moving this past summer, I went through the same thing with my propane tanks and CO2 cylinders. I ditched the propane tanks and bought some new ones here , but with my CO2 tanks, I convinced them that it was OK because these were really the same as fire extinguishers which they had no problem shipping. Their point with propane is they have to pass through tunnels and the like on roads and don't want to do it illegally. I don't blame them for that or for not wanting a truck full of propane gas from a leaky valve. - ---------------------------- Ken Smith asks about skimming "the scum" off the fermenter during the fermentation. That scum in top fermenting ale yeasts is a combination of yeast and complexed tannins and proteins. It tastes very bitter and has perhaps led to the idea that leaving it there will cause excess bitterness in the beer. However, it is insoluble as demonstrated by it coming out of solution and cannot make the beer bitter. There is more than one opinion on skimming as you indicated, but this technique probably comes from early home brewing books which emulated old time British brewing which did do skims as a part of their open vat process. This skimming method may have been a way of reducing infection from other beasties captured on the surface of the fermentation. These other beasties may have given the beer a bad taste if they fell into the beer and led to the idea that skimming was to prevent "yeast bite". If you cover your fermenter with a plastic sheet this will not be a problem. Some homebrewers advocate a truly open fermentation with no cover, but note the incredible difference in surface to volume ratio between 5 gallons of beer and several thousands of gallons in deep fermenters. IMHO I find this is taking unnecessary risks of infection for no payback. I believe few professional brewers today advocate open fermentation in a non-clean room (i.e. under positive pressure and filtered ) environment. They often use automatic skimming based on overlow from the fermenter, which also reduces the chance of infection A few years ago , Al Korzonas did an experiment in which he demonstrated that it didn't make any difference to bitterness, skimming or not. Ergo, leave well enough alone and don't skim. You just risk infection. I use a 6 gallon waste basket covered with a plastic sheet for my primary and I don't have any problems associated with intentional or unintentional overflow methods. This "open" fermentation method is necessary if you plan to skim. If you plan on using this yeast again and you have a TRUE top fermenting yeast, that forms a thick pad on the surface you may wish to skim about 2 -3 days into the fermentation and then a day or so later to capture a purer yeast free from potential spoilers. Wash it with cold, sterile distilled water to remove soluble organics and store under sterile distilled water in the refrigerator between fermentations. Use a plastic paint edger as your skimmer. It is big enough to carry most of the yeast in one swipe. This reduces the open time and minimizes the potential for infection from repeated skims with a smaller spoon or whatever. - ------------------------ Lou Heavner asks about chill proofing barleywines without keeping them in the refrigerator to clarify naturally. I am fortunate that I can store mine in cornies before bottling, so I have never used, but have read of using silica treatments to reduce chill haze. Anyone use this? Check Williams Brewing,as I think I saw some silica there. They may have some tips. - ----------------------- Alan Talman fell for an old joke. Of course "gullible" is in the dictionary. That's the point. You figure it out. {8^) - ----------------------- Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:00:45 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: chill haze Lou.Heavner at frco.com has a problem with chill haze in his barley wine: >A couple weeks before New Years, I put a case in >the fridge. On New Years Eve, I opened the first bottle and it looked >more like fresh unfiltered apple cider than beer. <snip> I looked at the >bottles which had been refrigerated since October and >they were clear except for the bottom inch or so which was very >cloudy. and asks: >Can anybody guess what may be going on here? No mystery here - you've just described what happens with chill haze. The protein/tannin complex precipitates out, but as the particles are very small and nearly the same density as the beer, it takes time for them to settle to the bottom of the bottle. If the October bottles are left in the fridge another month or so, the beer will be compeltely clear. This is what happens in lagering. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:21:06 -0500 From: "Scholz, Richard" <RScholz at refco.com> Subject: GM and Brewing? Stephen Alexander writes in HBD 3215: > Clearly we are trading other species for added human population. We could choose to limit population or alternatively we could do as our yeast and grow till the limits are reached and flocculate. -S > Given the preponderance of evidence the human race has shown us over the past 10 millenniums, can you seriously believe they/we will do anything else but flocculate eventually? On to Brewing: As I pull together the parts for my mash mixer, I wanted to get another set of opinions on the speed of the blades. I thought a slow 3 rpm would keep things moving without grinding or aerating the mash. My recollection from my professional days at Rheingold, was that the mash paddles moved slowly in the tun, just enough to mix the mash and keep the temps even. So, what the consensus? I know some have faster speeds and some use slower. Last week, we had some band width on how much torque is necessary and how paddle design effects mixing but as I look back in the archives I still need to resolve if I need a faster motor. TIA --- Richard L Scholz Brooklyn, NY (212) 587-6203 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 17:02:30 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: microwaves Use of microwaves for sanitizing comes up now and again. Microwaves work just fine. 18 seconds caused "no growth" on a prepared agar for me. In reviewing my 'spurment with this, I'm guessing that it is actually the agar that is functioning as a heat transfer medium at these exposure times rather than direct heating of the little bacteria spuds. Planning a follow up on this to look into that, but just haven't got 'round to it yet. The original I wrote on this subject was "pretty long"... you might want to look in Dejanews in RCB, if interested. Looking at some other literature, it seems that they can even be used for Thermophilus spores, so I'd say they can be pretty effective. If you're working with petri dishers anyway, it's pretty easy to streak the agar with pathogen crud of your choice (perhaps a booger?), zap them, and see what happens. Failing that, you could just listen to a lot of advice on why it won't work. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:11:56 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Remove the breaks or not?? Along the lines of the recent questions about early racking, etc. I went back and did a little digging into the question of whether or not it is beneficial to remove the hot and cold breaks. Here's a brief summary of what I found. This is by no means an exhaustive analysis! The papers cited below have pretty extensive reference sections if anyone wants to go further. In the Nov/Dec BT Ron Barchet had an article on Hot Trub. His conclusions were basically: 1) Hot break is mostly protein and eliminating this material takes out a lot of high molecular weight proteins which could later react with tannins to cause chill haze. 2) Total removal of the hot break material may negatively impact the beer's body and head-retention 3) (paraphrasing and condensing) "...effective removal is critical because it can smear the yeast cell walls impeding transport (of nutrients) leading to head-retention problems, poor stability, and harsh bitterness." Now to me these effects on the quality of the resultant beer don't seem to follow directly from "smearing" the yeast cell walls. However, in later references it is claimed that leaving a lot of break material around means that your yeast cake will become significantly contaminated with trub which can then be carried over into your next fermentation if you are re-pitching this yeast. This idea of trub carry over causing problems makes more sense to me as a potential cause of the quality defecits Barchet lists so maybe this is what he is referring to (?). 4) pH doesn't affect trub amount much unless it falls below 5.0 where break formation falls off sharply. The best sedimentation takes place at pH = 5.0 - 5.2 5) In the conclusion he states "Removing hot trub is essential to producing a quality beer." In the Mar/Apr BT Barchet wrote on Cold trub: 1) Opinions vary on how important it is to remove. 2) Studies have shown that total removal of all the cold break leads to decreased yeast growth and viability and increased levels of acetate esters. 3) Trub particles act as nucleation sites for dissolved CO2 and their absence leads to higher CO2 levels which, in turn, inhibit yeast growth and fermentation. 4) Removal of some of the break material has been shown to improve yeast viability, improve the quality of the finished beer, and be beneficial to the beer's stability. 5) In high gravity situations yeast may benefit from the presence of cold trub. 6) Most American brewers no longer remove cold trub. A research paper (kindly supplied by Steve Alexander) entitled "The Influence of Trub on Fermentation and Flavor Development" by Lentini, Takis, Hawthorne, and Kavanagh has some interesting results. They use "trub" to mean both hot and cold break material: 1) The presence of trub led to better fermentation performance but had detrimental effects on flavor, processing, and on the ability to get good yeast for repitching. 2) Their work as well as literature review point to three main causes of such effects -- the lipid content of the trub, the nucleation ability of trub particles, and the impact on zinc availability (zinc gets bound up by trub, especially the hot break material) 3) In test fermentations increasing the trub concentration caused decreases in volatile esters while it caused an increase in the production of higher ("fusel") alcohols. The ester effect is also dependent on the types of lipid present in the trub 4) The presence of trub and the lipid composition of the trub had big effects on the lipid profiles of the yeast. 5) In their summary they conclude: "While trub has some benefits in increasing fermentation activity, it does have a significant influence on flavor (i.e. decreased esters and increased fusel alcohols) To achieve the desired volatile ester profile of a specific beer type, it is necessary to have the correct balance between the amount of trub present in the wort and the level of wort oxygenation." And one more research paper (thanks again Steve!): "Wort Trub Content and its Effects on Fermentation and Beer Flavor" by Schisler, Ruocco, and Mabee. This paper makes pretty much the same points as the previous one plus: 1) In flavor analysis there is a preference for beers made from clarified wort. Though both beers were judged acceptable the less favored beer was faulted for "spoiled fruit and caramel characteristics" - the caramel seemed to be the deciding factor in the negative assessment. 2) Though there were differences in ester levels detectable by lab analyses (GC), no differences in the fruitiness of the beers was noted by the tasters so these differences were probably below threshold values. 3) While other sources seem concerned that the ability of trub to bind zinc will lower the availability of this essential yeast nutrient these authors propose that trub may actually act as a reserve depot for zinc that the yeast may use later in the fermentation. What's the take home message for us homebrewers? It looks like HOT BREAK material is potentially troublesome and removal of most of this material is probably a good idea although total removal may not be desirable. This is probably moot anyway since we really can't remove all of this at home unless you're using a kick-ass filtration system. I don't know for sure but it seems that most breweries do take steps to remove the hot break (by whirlpooling for example). Whether they do this for practical reasons like easier product handling (such as filtration) or for quality reasons (or both) I don't know. What about COLD BREAK? There are some conflicting results here but again, it looks like it is probably a good idea to remove most of the cold break material. This seems especially true if you are planning on repitching your yeast. The fact that most American breweries don't worry about cold break removal and the above research articles indicating that while there are flavor effects they are relatively small (though there are conflicting statements on this issue) seems to indicate that removal of the cold break shouldn't be a /huge/ concern (again unless you are planning on re-pitching the yeast). However, it seems to me that we have to factor in the fact that there are often major differences between what macro- and micro- breweries do and what we as homebrewers are capable of doing. I could certainly envision break material having a negative impact on my home brewed beer. We typically don't filter our beer and our bottling practices may introduce significant amounts of oxygen thus the stability of our beer may be compromised compared to a larger brewery. On the other hand, if we underpitch and/or poorly oxygenate our worts then the trub could serve as a supply of essential yeast lipids and sterols. Then there's the nucleation effect which could be important especially in high gravity worts so it is a bit complicated. My own comparisons using split batches with and without trub led me to believe that lots of trub carry-over can have negative impact on the taste and I suspect it was primarily oxidation of trub lipids though this is just a hunch. Certainly there are plenty of oxidizable ployphenols in the trub and these could also lead to bad flavors, astringencies and hazes. Overall, my practice is going to remain - remove most of both the hot and cold break. Pitch high, aerate well and avoid oxygen pick up as much as possible after fermentation gets going. Hope this was helpful -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 11:45:42 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: Rescuing Uncarbonated Barley Wine >From: venesms at NU.COM >1) pouring a dozen or so bottles into a corny keg I would siphon it if at all possible to avoid agitation and oxygen pickup. Then purge out the air. >2) pumping up the CO2 real high (how high?) 35 PSIG, then rock for about 4 minutes, let it rest a few hours. >3) chilling the corney keg pretty cold (how cold?) 34f >4) then carefully transferring the beer into bottles >with a racking wand; and 5) capping immediately. This should work fine, that is the way I normally bottle except for the first step. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu http://members.xoom.com/rlabor/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 10:16:55 -0800 From: "Peter Zien" <PZ.JDZINC at worldnet.att.net> Subject: 7th Annual America's Finest City Homebrew Competition Dear Homebrewers, The Quality Ale & Fermentation Fraternity (QUAFF) is pleased to once again sponsor the 7th Annual America's Finest City Homebrew Competition in San Diego, California. The Competition will take place on Saturday, March 4, 2000. Entries will be accepted from February 14th through February 25th, and the fee is $6.00 per entry. Please register your entries on-line at www.softbrew.com/afchbc or contact the organizer for a hard copy of the entry packet. Judges and stewards are invited to register on-line as well. Please ship entries to: AFCHBC c/o AleSmith Brewing Company 9368 Cabot Drive San Diego, CA 92126 * "Walk-in" entries will be accepted by San Diego County homebrew shops during the February entry period. The new 1999 BJCP & AHA Competition Style Guidelines will be used for judging all beverage styles. In addition, we will judge a special category of Ancient, Medieval, and Indigenous Beers. (See www.softbrew.com/afchbc for more on the special category and the new style guidelines.) Good luck!!! Peter Zien, organizer pz.jdzinc at worldnet.att.net (858)459-4540 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:17:59 -0500 From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk at resa.net> Subject: Getting un-personal, the MIY2K Conference Thanks for the reality pats, Jim Liddil and Pat Babcock. I will stick to brewing and beer-related subjects myself, and tone down the rhetoric from now on. And speaking of beer, and things to eat with beer, the initial smoking session for the AHA Y2K confab has come off with great success. Several large pieces of smoked Alaskan king and sockeye salmon are in the deep freeze awaiting their demise at ClubNight and the Hospitality suite. I even blended an old batch of porter and some Belgian Grand Cru with a whacked-out spice blend in the water pan for a truly complex smoked finish. For those seeking to out-do the AABG, I will also be smoking pheasants, turkey breasts, cheese, and possibly some venison. I may also be enticed into making a batch of jerky, depending on time available. I have heard from three more clubs regarding the hospitality suite, and have even gotten a request for a specific shift from one club, which I will honor. If other clubs would like shifts, or individiuals have beers they would like to serve and need to be paired with clubs on a shift, please let me know. I would like to print up a guide to the paticularly interesting offerings at club night. If your club is bringing something you are particularly proud of, please let me know, and I'll work to provide some form of treasure map, as it were, to the goods. I am wondering if there is interest in a session on small batch bourbon or single malt scotch tasting for the conference. There would be a small charge (approx $15?) and some logistical hoops to jump through, but if there is demand, it would be worth it. E-mail me if you are interested. Yours brewly, Ken Schramm Troy Michigan 168 days until the last best homebrewed beer party of the old millennium, or - the best homebrew party of the new millenium, depending on your perspective. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 18:40:27 +0000 From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown at mteer.com> Subject: Questions and Ramblings Hello, Does any body know the SG of some liquid malt extracts, ie John Bull Light? I would also like to know something along the lines of 1/4 cup dry malt extract mixed with 4 cups water increases the SG of the water by ####. I am working on a web page to help people create starters with SGs the same as the batch they are brewing to help the yeast in their acclimatization period. Now as for the ramblings part. Due to service provider issues my email and web sites have been changed locations. Please update your bookmark to my site if you had one. Thanks for your time Doug Brown - -- J. Doug Brown - Fairmont, WV Sr. Software Engineer jbrown at mteer.com jbrown at ewa.com www.labs.net/kbrown www.ewa.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 13:11:08 -0600 From: Robert S Wallace <rwallace at iastate.edu> Subject: AOB/AHA Representation - For REAL?? On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 15:07:59 Paul Gatza <paulg at aob.org> wrote: Subject: AOB Board Reorganization < Mega-snip... > > The new structure will allow each division to have > decision making power for the future of the association > and their respective divisions. What level of decision making power?? Controlling, or merely "advisory"?? > "The reorganization of the AOB Board to include direct > representation of our members and expert professionals > is a logical stage in the evolution of our 21 year old > Association", says Charlie Papazian, the AOB president. My main question: Does that include dethroning CP for the benefit of the group if it deems so? > Each divisional board of advisors will continue to > function as separate entities from the AOB Board > of Directors. This decision has been embraced by > both AHA and IBS members. "I feel that there is a > commitment from Charlie and the staff to move all > of the divisions of the AOB forward and to engage > in meaningful action and representation. What level of truly representative control will the 'new' board have relative to the previous functional (total?) control of the AHA by CP and cronies? It seems that we have heard this song before several times, each followed by some debacle, leaving the AHA leaders with egg (trub, spent kraeusen, hop resins, etc.) on their collective faces. > The brewers are excited to have a say A controlling or influencing 'say' or just a "say"...??? > in the issues and promotions affecting > our industry", states Larry Bell, owner of > Kalamazoo Brewing Company. > Charlie Olchowski, the AHA Board of > Advisors chair, adds "The homebrewing hobby > remains viable and still serves as the proving > ground for many future brewers." The first statement in the post that most can agree to... > This a monumental new relationship to have > homebrewers sit by the side of the working > professionals of the brewing community, and > together forging ahead with the agenda of the AOB." Sorry, Paul, but the track record of the AHA so far has been so poor as to leave a significant level of skepticism in the minds of many. Despite the 'enthusiasm' suggested above, history tends to repeat itself. New subordinate AHA/AOB leadership has seemingly not worked in the past. Perhaps it's the Captain of the vessel that causes the ship to repeatedly run aground. True representation with CONTROL might remedy the situation ....... at least there is a step in the right direction... (congratulations, Jethro!). Perhaps this new leadership (albeit still subordinate to CP) will be different ?? All eyes are upon you (again). Rob Wallace Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 15:37:50 -0500 From: "Russ Hobaugh" <Russ_Hobaugh at erm.com> Subject: Help needed on All Grain I just racked my 2nd all grain batch into the secondary last night. And boy do I have some questions. It is a Fullers ESB clone, and my grain bill was: 9 lb. Marris Otter 8 oz British Crystal (50-60) 11 oz flaked maize 1 oz British black patent. Water treatment: distilled water with 1 tsp. of DME/gallon. I mashed this at at 153 for 90 minutes. Added 2 quarts boiling water for mashout, waited 10 minutes, and then sparged with 170 degree water over a 1 hour span. I used a zapap system to lauter. First runnings were about 1.080, I stopped at about 1.004. Total was about 6.5 to 7 gallons. Boiled for 90 minutes. SG was only 1.042. And now the questions. Why is my extraction so low? If I am figuring correctly, this was only about 55%, how can I get that up. I was shooting for an ESB with a SG of 1.054, and ended up with 1.042. I had a similar experience with my first ag--an irish stout. The zapap is uninsulated, could that contribute to the low efficiency? What is an "average" extraction rate(if there is such a thing)? Without buying a RIMS, how can I improve this, or should I be content with 55%, and count on that and increase the amount of grain I use to compensate? This recipe came from Wheeler and Protz' book "Brew Your Own British Real Ale". The hops called for were .8 0z of Challenger, .5 oz of Target for 90 minutes, and .5 of EKG for 15. I thought this was a lot of hops for an ESB, but followed the directions. It was VERY bitter, which has subsided only slightly. Anybody else think he calls for WAY to many hops in most of the recipes in this book or is it just me? This tastes much more like an English IPA than any ESB or Bitter, especially Fullers. Russ Hobaugh Goob' Dog Brewery Birdsboro PA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:41:47 -0600 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Tannins Well I asked for scientific evidence that oversparging leaches excess tannins that negatively impact the final flavor of home brew. Louis Bonham was kind enough to cite a reference that is supposed to prove just that (Lewis & Young, Brewing,1996). Now lets look at the data and see exactly what we have. On page 95 a chart summarizes lab data which depicts the relative levels of wort gravity and polyphenols (and other things) during the sparge. An excerpt is provided below: Gravity Polyphenols (Plato) (ppm) 20 315 10 260 5 200 3 150 1 110 Nothing surprising here, as you sparge the wort gravity drops and so does the polyphenol concentration. Note however (as Louis points out), that there is a rise in the polyphenol concentration RELATIVE to the wort gravity. >The relative levels of polyphenols and wort gravity >remain fairly constant until wort gravity goes below about 6 >P (SG 1.024), at which point the relative polyphenol levels >begin to rise dramatically. By the time you get to SG 1.010, the >polyphenol levels (relative to wort gravity) are over *ten >times* as high as they were at the beginning of the sparge He goes on to say: >Stated differently, if you took samples of first wort and >oversparged wort from the same mash, diluted the first wort >to the same gravity as the oversparged wort, and then >measured the polyphenol levels, you'd find that the >polyphenol levels in the oversparged wort was ten times that >of the diluted first wort. Sounds pretty dramatic doesnt it. Disastrous, some might claim. TEN TIMES the polyphenol concentration! But remember we are talking in "RELATIVE" terms here. Sure the "RELATIVE" concentration of polyphenols goes up. However interesting this may be, there is only one thing that truly matters: the final concentration of polyphenols in the wort that is collected. This is what will impact the flavor of your beer. It simply does not matter what the relative concentration of tannins is doing with respect to the wort gravity that you are collecting at any given moment. It may be interesting, but at least in this context, it does not matter. The total polyphenol concentration decreases with time; therefore, the longer you sparge, the LESS polyphenol contributon you get in your wort. >However, it is pretty well established that, >relative to wort gravity levels, the harder you sparge, the >more tannic materials (as well as fatty acids and mineral >compounds) you'll get. While this may be true, how much do the last runnings actually contribute to the final polyphenol concentration in the collected wort? The fact is, the more you sparge the LESS you are contributing to the bottom line; the final polyphenol concentration in the collected wort. This is because you are diluting a relatively high initial concentration of polyphenols. Lets look at it another way, that data shows that if you stop the sparging at a gravity of 10 degrees P, the polyphenol concentration in the collected wort will end up somewhere between 315 and 260 ppm. If you continue to add wort at lower polyphenol concentrations, you will continue to dilute the polyphenol concentration in the collected wort. Say you have 1 gallon of wort at 10 degrees P with a polyphenol concentration of 300 ppm. If you add a second gallon of wort at 5 degrees P and 200 ppm polyphenols you end up with 2 gallons of wort at about 7.5 degrees P and a polyphenol concentration of 250 ppm. If you add a third gallon of wort at 3 degrees P and 150 ppm polyphenol concentration, you end up with a total of 3 gallons of wort at a gravity of 6 degrees P and a polyphenol concentration of 233 ppm. Notice that (baring any math errors that I have made which I am sure someone will find and beat me about the head and shoulders for not checking my numbers) the relative concentration of polyphenols relative to wort density goes up from 30, to 40, to 50 ppm per degree P, but at the same time the total polyphenol concentration in the collected wort drops from 300 ppm to 233 ppm. Not a problem. I am sure that some body will make the argument that if you keep on sparging and collect say 50 gallons of wort and the last 25 gallons contribute no fermentable sugar at all but polyphenols were still being contributed at a measurable rate, you will end up with a higher concentration in the wort after you boil the 50 gallons down to 5 gallons. Now even I would classify that as oversparging! Paul Niebergall Burns & McDonnell pnieb at burnsmcd.com "Illegitimis non carborundum" Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/10/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96