HOMEBREW Digest #4241 Fri 09 May 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  re: early hopping and ... ("-S")
  Oktoberfest or Marzen: To age or to drink? (Jonathan Royce)
  First wort versus bittering/flavor hops (Fred Johnson)
  Re: World's scariest story (Jeff was being kind) ("Mike")
  Source of 'Real Ale' Brewing Supplies in US (james ray)
  Jalapeno Lovers Unite! ("Dewalt, Scott")
  mash temperature and pH ("Dave Burley")
  RE: Fickle malt (=?iso-8859-1?q?Joris=20Dallaire?=)
  Hop trellis and Sugar in beers. ("Dan Listermann")
  uh oh, the dreaded religion vs science thread! (Alan Meeker)
  re: hops stringing ("Mark Kellums")
  Re: hops stringing (Jeff Renner)
  Water analysis help needed please (Denny Conn)
  Stones for Steinbier (Richard Foote)
  Cheapest Beer that is Non-screwtop? (davidedge)
  Vegetables (davidedge)
  Fw: Brett ("Chad Stevens")
  Hop vine confusion (Ron Weaver)
  lambic and evolution (Chris Colby)
  Re: Faux Decoctions (Craig Agnor)
  Decongestants & Judging ("Steve Dale-Johnson")
  Decoction mashes - Schmitz process etc. ("Steve Dale-Johnson")
  Vinegary Smell in Cornie (John McGowan)
  Decongestants (Donald Hellen)
  Stone Beer (Stephen Johnson)

* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore * * 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. 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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 02:38:21 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: re: early hopping and ... Chad Stevens posted on FWH, but there is a serious misunderstanding here. "Characteristic hops flavors" are the characteristic citrusy, spicy, ... flavors that distinguish hop varieties. For example the spiciness of saaz. This is NOT the only flavor imparted by hops. Hops also impart harsh, bitter & astringent phenolics, varyingly bitter humulonic & lupulonic acids (alpha & beta acids), esters, fatty acids products, certainly other flavors. There has been growing evidence since the mid 1980s that hop character flavor and aroma (spicy, citrus,floral ...) is almost completely embodied in hop oils. Commercial oil extract are available commercially which closely emulate varietal flavor and aroma of late hop additions. The character flavor has been closely associated with oxygenated terpenoids while aroma is associated with related ketones. The "FWH effect" is related to hop character flavor. Late hop additions and dry hop additions impart a lot of hop character flavor to beer. Early boil additions impart only a little character flavor. Oddly FWH additions impart more character flavor to beer than early boil addition. This last point is difficult to explain unless some mechanism permits character flavor chemicals from FWH to survive while those from early_boil additions are destroyed. The "FWH effect" is that FWH character flavor survives the boil. There are clearly other flavors, and other flavor differences between these hop additions, but those are much easier to explain. I answered Joels question about the FWH effect by stating that hop oils and a particular chemical mechanism are sufficient to explain it. Chad disagreed and presented a long note on albumin(protein)-flavanoid complexes with no clear connection to hop flavor or FWH effect. My question remains unanswered: What on earth does protein-flavanoid complexation have to do with hop characteristic flavor ? I cited papers that show that hops only contribute a small portion of flavanoids to the beer, that flavanoids only impart bitter and harsh flavors, that flavanoids in beer appear below their taste threshold, and that beers made with absolutely no hops phenolics taste normal and comparable to beers made with hops phenolics when fresh. Chad writes ... > I have seen it suggested however, that some protein/hop constituent > complexes may survive the boil and contribute to flavor and the effect is > more robust in the mash. Who suggested it (citation please) and what does it have to do with your original statement ? A protein/hop-constituent complex isn't the same as protein/flavanoid complex. >My only point, [...] to totally dismiss some protein complex as a possible >contributor is a bit presumptive at this stage of the research game. I don't dismiss all protein complexation - but I see no evidence that it's related to the FWH effect. There is a lot of evidence that flavanoids and other phenolics have nothing to do with characteristic hop flavor. >Most of the protein related stuff I've been reading is dated after >1999 however; material Hangofer would not have had >available in 1997. Hanghofer isn't the author of the idea - L.Narziss of Wehenstephan(1995) was, and though tentative results are often published in journals, Narziss was, more likely to publish only consolidated information in this *textbook*. That doesn't mean it's the complete answer, but it does mean there is likely to be a lot of German language lit supporting the mechanism. I see NO evidence for an alternative mechanism to explain FWH effect. If you have it - let's see the citations. ==== >From there the misunderstandings are severe ..... >Note, "contribute significantly." They ain't all the flavor, rather a >significant contributor. (1*) No one said it was "ALL the flavor". Chad quotes me out of context, changing the meaning ... >"Oxygen and hop oil and nothing >else" contribute to hop flavor in the final product. NO NO NO. I said that "Oxygen and hop oil and nothing else" contribute to the FWH effect. I NEVER said this was the only hop flavor contribution to beer. The oil fraction and Narziss' mechanism is sufficient to explain the FWH effect entirely. No alternate flavor chemicals or mechanism have been proposed which would even partly explain the FWH effect. ===== I think Chad must be pulling my leg with this illogical jumble. >For the sake of clarity, an analogy. I have tasted p-lambics [...] but >they were one dimensional, [..] >[...therefore the sesquiterpenoid fraction gives one dimensional flavor] and >So, assuming there is a lack of depth and complexity in the extract, Why would we assume that ? > [...] Weather this is a 5% or 25% contribution to hop flavor ... Or whether it's a 90% or 98% contribution to *character* flavor ====== > But to say that humulene epoxides are the one and only >contributors of hop flavor seems a ... See (1*) above. The cited paper identified 21 chemical peaks, including only two humulene epoxides(HEs). The paper agrees with a conclusion by Irwin that HEs are NOT responsible for the flavor - their thresholds are too high. How does this make the HEs the "one and only" factor of hop flavor ? >But I would be very surprised indeed if all of hop flavor complexity >winds up being attributed to one class of oils and to one mechanism of >stabilization. The terpenoids have been repeatedly pointed to as the primary source of hop character flavor since Seibert's 1989 work and later studies by Chapman. No other chemicals have been associated in this way as far as I know. Again this is not "all of hop flavor complexity" (see (1*) above), but only the spicy, citrusy, distinguishing character. Chad may be surprised, but there is no other mechanism proposed or required to explain the FWH effect. - -------- Not to abuse the deceased equine, but the hundreds of different oxygenated terpenoids and other hop oil components are not all found in beer, and the hops products found in beer are not all found in hops in their original form . There are chemical reaction in the boiler, and fermenter that change the mix. No one will ever be able to say that some specific hops extract chemicals alone exactly gives the flavor of the modified hops products in beer. That's a silly quest. What can be said is that the only class of hops chemicals reliably and significantly associated with hops character flavor in beer, the oxygenated terpenoids, has an identified chemical mechanism which explains the FWH effect. BTW sesquiterpenes are also known as isoprenoids and consist of a 15 carbon structure related to steroid and sterol synthesis.. Some example structures shown here http://www.fslemi.uni-bonn.de/gewuerze/html/stralsklasse/sqt.html Here's a nice link for folks seeking a little more background on hops oils http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.1/haunold.html -Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 04:52:00 -0700 From: Jonathan Royce <jonathan at woodburybrewingco.com> Subject: Oktoberfest or Marzen: To age or to drink? Hi all: I recently bottled a Marzen/Oktoberfest and my original plan was to exert some self control and wait til the end of summer to start drinking/serving it. However, I've since started thinking about the fact that I do not have a place to keep 2 minikegs and 1 case of beer cold during the summer months (no basement and no dedicated beer fridge). Is aging therefore likely to hurt my beer, more than allow its flavor to develop? Is it really necessary to age at "cellar" temps or is a warm period of bottle conditioning okay? Two pieces of important information here: 1) I did *NOT* use a lager yeast for this brew (because again, I don't have any place cold enough to do that). Instead, I cold fermented (50-55 F) using Wyeast 1007 German ale yeast. 2) All of the bottles and minikegs are primed with sugar, so I'm not worried about oxidation (I'm assuming the yeast will scavenge the O2 in the headspace). What do people think? TIA, Jonathan Woodbury Brewing Co. www.woodburybrewingco.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 07:55:18 -0400 From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com> Subject: First wort versus bittering/flavor hops Fellow brewers, I believe I posted this call for an experiment before, but the recent thread here on first wort hopping has prompted me to call for the experiment again. The argument has been that the bitterness contribution of hops added as first wort hops is less than would be contributed if added shortly after the beginning of the boil. The idea is that break material traps the bittering compounds, and this would not occur if the hops are added after the break forms. I have yet to see the alpha acid numbers to make this argument, although I suspect it is probably true. In addition, there have been a lot of testimonies out there from reliable sources touting the flavor benefits of first wort hopping, but I've never seen controlled experiments to bring credence to these testimonies. I propose the following experiment to answer the bitterness question above and to test the notion that first wort hops contribute more flavor than these hops added later: Two beers would be brewed identically except that first beer has only a first wort hops addition (which will contribute bitterness also) and the second beer has the same amount of the same hops added 5 minutes after the boil is rolling with no other hops additions. Alpha acids are measured in the final products and triangle taste tests are performed. The beers would also be subjectively judged for hops flavor (and bitterness if you insist). The null hypothesis that there is not a significant difference in these two beers. I realize that such an experiment--as simple as it is in design--is not easy to perform well. I would do the experiment myself if I had the equipment, and I may be the only one out here who cares, so I may have to try it on a couple of small batches. Fred L Johnson Apex, North Carolina, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 07:58:58 -0700 From: "Mike" <Mike at Bronosky.com> Subject: Re: World's scariest story (Jeff was being kind) > Just another feed grain, Jeff was being overly kind to barley. It would be lucky to be that. It could end up being just another weed. One that we spray Round-Up on. Mike - --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 05:46:19 -0700 (PDT) From: james ray <jnjnmiami at yahoo.com> Subject: Source of 'Real Ale' Brewing Supplies in US Two places I have used for real ale supplies are: http://www.ukbrewing.com/ http://brewinbeagle.com/ Jamie Ray Montgomery,AL rjraybrewer at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 08:06:19 -0500 From: "Dewalt, Scott" <Scott.Dewalt at st-systems.com> Subject: Jalapeno Lovers Unite! I'd like to take my annual post to rise in defense of jalapeno beer. Dash S writes: >But is it beer ? Mom always told you not to play with your food... >Mixing the two together is colossal mistake... >If we don't agree - that's not bad. Ah, jalapeno beer. I love it. Since when is adding an ingredient a colossal mistake? Opinions and derisions. I'll continue to play with my beer and endeavor to improve on this unique style. Try it, you might find life more entertaining outside of the box. Scott http://texanbrew.com [AR: Bristol told me my mind is too weak to figure this out] P.S. Speaking of Larry Bristol, I'm ratting him out: HE HAS BREWED A JALAPENO BEER, TOO! And it had witches in it! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:03:13 -0400 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: mash temperature and pH Brewsters: Here is a quotation from the second edition of "Malting and Brewing Science" (1981) Vol 1 p 279 "..the pH of the mash or wort alters with temperature. At 65C (149F) the pH of the mash will be about 0.35 unit less than at 18C ( 65F )...... Therefore enzymes whose pH optima are known from determinations at 20C( 65F) appear to have higher pH optima in the mash, if this is cooled ,<as is usual> (DRB emphasis) before pH is determined. An infusion mash is best carried out at a pH 5.2-5.4. (pH at mash temperature - DRB) Consequently, pH in the cooled wort will be 5.5-5.8" The first edition (1971) says p. 213 "5.5 -5.7" Although my recollection in my previous comment was a 0.2 pH difference between hot and cold, my point was that the pH in older texts often refers to ( and is a result of measurement at RT) room temperature pH when looking at hot wort, so be careful. Always ask "to what pH(Temperature) are they referring?" Modern temperature compensated pH meters can be used to easily determine the actual pH at mash temperature. I don't know if the delta pH of 0.35 in the above text is an actual measurement or a calculated one ( due to assumed free energy differences), since I don't know the state of the instrumentation technology when these numbers were determined. If the latter, it is likely incorrect ( but not terribly so) as the mash has a very complex set of equilibria, solubilities, etc. The comment "as is usual" in the above text might lead one to believe the numbers were not measured. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:28:53 -0400 (EDT) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Joris=20Dallaire?= <jorisdallaire at yahoo.ca> Subject: RE: Fickle malt On Wed, 7 May 2003, Michael from Middleton, said: >Now, what you have to worry about are super-pests who >laugh at both insecticides and organic farming >methods. Given some bad luck and enough time, a nasty >fungus from Malaysia could wipe out the >world'scommercial hops fields, or some beetle from >Paraguay could wipe out the world's barley crops. As >I recall, phylloxera nearly wiped out the European >wine industry in the 19th century. I've also read >about some problems with hops. Well, Michael, i don't know why those pests have to come from Malaysia or Paraguay or other third-world "evil" countries. I'd fear more a super genetically-modified grain from Modsanto screwing up the whole ecological equilibrium. And in that field, we "civilized" countries are making our own bad luck faster every day. Soon we will have pesticid-resistant genetically adapted critters coming from everywhere. Now, *that* will be the world's scariest story. As a matter of fact, do they grow hops or barley in Malaysia and Paraguay? Just my two cents. Joris brewing in Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:58:02 -0400 From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com> Subject: Hop trellis and Sugar in beers. Steve Alexander asks about hop trellis designs. I used PVC piping to make a simple trellis. The 20' vertical poles are made from 10' 3" and 2" pipe connected by a reducer. If I had to do it again, I would use all 3". I have hooks screwed to the top that hold small pulleys strung with 1/4" braided rope. The poles are attached to a fence with hose clamps. The 20' horizontal beam is made from two 10' sections of 2" PVC pipe that are connected by a "T" which has a 18" section pointing down. The two ends have elbows that point up with 6" sections. The 2" pipe cannot support itself much less hop bines this way so I made a truss using rope. The 18" vertical section and the two elbows are drilled to anchor ropes that go from one elbow to the bottom of the 18" section to the other elbow. Tightening this rope keeps the truss from drooping. The 6" sections at the elbows are drilled to accept the poles' ropes keep the truss vertical. The truss can be raised or lowered with the poles' ropes. John Palmer asks about the common belief that cidery flavors are caused by excessive amounts of sugar. I used to make the canned kits that went out of date in our store. Believing that sugar caused cidery flavors, I used DME. These beers were undrinkably cidery without any sugar. I then made a beer for a diabetic friend that I wanted to have a very low final gravity. I made it with 50% corn sugar and grain. It was not cidery at all. Right now I have a beer on tap that is 2/3 corn sugar, 1/3 Laaglander. It is not cidery. Actually it is a bit skunky because I thoughtlessly left it out under the florescent lights. I am now fermenting a "beer" that is 3/4 table sugar, 1/4 Laaglander. I have tasted the gravity sample and it really seems to have almost no flavor. It is only slightly bitter with some hop flavor and some sweetness. I have come to the conclusion that the key to good extract beers is fresh extract. I believe that the belief that sugar causes cidery flavors is a misconception. Cidery flavors are caused by stale extract. Sugar does not cover this flavor as well as DME so cidery flavors came to be associated with sugar. Dan Listermann Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com Free shipping for orders greater than $35 and East of the Mighty Miss. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 10:59:47 -0400 From: Alan Meeker <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu> Subject: uh oh, the dreaded religion vs science thread! "greg man" opens Pandora's box: "...Given the depth with which you have studied science is it not amazing the complexity an the organization of these things? Is it not also true that they are so complex in fact that even at the highest levels of study there becomes no more knowledge only debates between expert's?" Yes, the complexity is quite amazing and our inherent curiosity compels us to try and understand this complexity. This is a large part of the drive behind the scientific enterprise. We seek to constantly improve our knowledge about the natural world and how it works. Due to work at the "highest levels of study" our knowledge does increase - in fact, it is doing so at an exponential rate! "If we as humans can not fully explain the complexity of our world in even the smallest detail: take for example light is it a particle or a wave? If we can not explain these things is it logical to assume we know how they came to be here in the first place?" Of course not. Science is just a way of looking at the world. The best we scientists can do is to say that this is our best guess about how things work given our current knowledge. Still, this approach has proven /enormously/ successful in explaining the physical world we live in. Of course, it could all change tomorrow, as indeed it has with various major revolutions in scientific thinking in the past (paradigm shifts). "...Can you then propose how it came into exist in the first place?" Sure, we can propose theories that are in keeping with the body of scientific knowledge and evidence that exist at the current time. Again, a "best guess," albeit a highly educated one. "For those that do, I have a question for you: we as a human race are evolving right? But then we keep our sick alive and attempt to prolong the life of the aged? Are we going to evolve or digress as a species? Since nature selects only the fittest to survive are we not disrupting the natural progression of life by attempting to treat people with medicine? Now many diseases are cured and I'm not suggesting we allow people to die, however by keeping them alive and if they have children we eliminate natural selection? Is that not correct?" The process of evolution merely involves the selection of the fittest organisms by passing them through the sieve of the current environment. Evolutionary fitness is usually equated with reproductive fitness - the ability to have one's genes represented in the next generation. If the environment changes then the selection criteria will certainly change, but the overall process of evolution still functions. We are certainly changing the environment, no doubt, but evolution still carries on. Put another way, selection still exists, but it is heavily influenced by human activity, as it has been since we started using tools, farming and domesticating plants and animals. "Theory's are wonderful but let us accept then for what they are THEORIES." No reasonable person would suggest otherwise. On the other hand, theories are not mere whimsical flights of fancy, but are backed by a fair amount of scientific knowledge. "There is a great rift between the science world as to creation or evolution. There are compelling arguments for each side, please investigate both before you make a decision." First, evolution, at it's most basic level, is a scientific fact not a theory, and can be easily demonstrated. What some people have a real problem with is the /application/ of evolutionary principles to create a theory of the origin of Man as having descended from pre-existing species. This is indeed a theory, not a fact. "Remember it was not to long age we bleed people to let the bad spirits out so they would get well!! Today's geniuses's in 500 years will be considered children in there understanding because" Yes, and this highlights one of the best qualities of the scientific method - that it is flexible and always open to change and improving over the long haul. This is in stark contrast to many, probably most, religions where knowledge is handed down intact from authority, inviolate and must be taken on faith. In religion, questioning one's assumptions is usually discouraged, while in science it is at the very heart of the enterprise. Thus, science is constantly in the process of re-inventing itself through the process of discovery, while religion is extremely resistant to change. It took the Vatican over 350 years to admit they were wrong about Galileo. However, it was encouraging when the Pope in '96 said that the theory of evolution appeared to be valid and is compatible with Christian faith. Indeed, many scientists are Christians as well as believers in the application of evolutionary theory to human origins. Unless you insist on a literal interpretation of the Bible (which translation by the way?) I see no reason why the two cannot be reconciled. -Alan Meeker Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:11:46 -0500 From: "Mark Kellums" <infidel at springnet1.com> Subject: re: hops stringing I'm looking at planting 20ft treated wood poles and stringing fencing wire between. Any thoughts ? (I gotta get moving on this one - the bines are already 3-4ft long). -S Steve, In David Beach's book Homegrown Hops, he uses 18' treated poles sunk 3' backfilled with gravel 25' apart with #9 wire strung between them. I've used a variation on this only I used 12' poles sunk 2' in concrete (probably overkill). It worked very well except for the wire sagging from the weight of the hop plants. I partially solved that problem by propping up the wire using 10' 2 X 2s notched at one end. Like propping up a clothes line. There's got to be a better way to keep the wire taught but we moved before I had a chance to work on that. Mark Kellums Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 11:19:44 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: hops stringing "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> writes about stringing hops: >Baling twine works quite nicely, but get the natural fiber stuff, not >the plastic. The nat.fiber stuff is biodegradable and burnable. I disagree about using the natural stuff - I did and it rotted before the end of the season and the hops fell down. Well, actually, they didn't fall down entirely, they they sagged and hung by the bines themselves. Some natural fibers may hold up a whole season - mine didn't. Now I use thick nylon twine - it's rough enough for the hops to hang onto. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 08:44:30 -0800 From: Denny Conn <denny at projectoneaudio.com> Subject: Water analysis help needed please I just got an analysis of my well water from Ward Labs (www.wardlab.com). I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at it, see if it makes sense, and give me a brief overview of my water. Here's what they said... pH 6.9 Na 9 K 1 Ca 62 Mg 13 Total Hardness, CaCO3 209 SO4 36 Cl 4 CO3 <1 HCO3 83 Total Alkalinity, CaCO3 68 I've been using this water as is about 90% of the time the last few years with good results. Sometimes a tsp. of gypsum added to the boil for really hoppy stuff, cut 9:1 with distilled water for pilsners. But a recent disaster trying to treat water for a Dort export caused me to dig into this a little deeper. Thanks for any help, Denny Conn Eugene OR (somewhere Rennerian) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 11:48:58 -0400 From: Richard Foote <rfoote at mindspring.com> Subject: Stones for Steinbier Jon Sandlin of Bend, Oregon writes: >What does the collective think about using basalt for the stones used in the >making of steinbier? Any comments will be greatly appreciated. Brewing of Steinbier is something I've been experimenting with annually the past several years. Still haven't gotten all the nuances down yet, but that's half the fun/challenge. In Germany, Rachenfels (the revivor of this ancient brewing method) uses a rock called Graywacke. By recollection, this is metamorphosed standstone. The thing about this kind of stone is that it purportedly is said to "bloom" on heating, supposedly creating greater surface area for caramelized sugars to form. Practically speaking, any heat resistant stone will work. I've been using Granite with good results. I wash and then oven-dry the rocks in preparation for the fire. SHMBO really likes to open the oven door to find a bunch of rocks taking up space. Anyway, I used to use a basket (a French...er um... "Freedom" fry deep fryer type). After repeated firings, I find it to be much worse for wear. Now, I just pop them in the coals and use gloves and long-handled tongs to yank them back out. NOTE: Count your rocks first. It's also important to check for fragments, as some may break. Hope this helps. Rick Foote Whistle Pig Brewing Murrayville, GA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:11:15 +0100 From: davidedge at hsbc.com Subject: Cheapest Beer that is Non-screwtop? We helped out at a UK beer festival by taking all the non-returnable empties from the foreign beer stall, putting the screwtops in the bottle bank and keeping all the others. Sure beats drinking that swill imho... David Edge Signalbox Brewery Derby UK ** HSBC's website is at www.hsbc.com ** ******************************************************************** This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. ******************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:14:17 +0100 From: davidedge at hsbc.com Subject: Vegetables Steve says: I hope to die from a Clostrium infection before I become so bored that I resort to adding vegetables to beer. I fancy he would not approve of our Treacle Chili Stout. A more pleasant alternative to Clostrium might be our "Mrs Beare's XXXX Nut Brown Ale", that commemorates a famous Derby publican and poisoner, by containing a small amount of arsenic. Don't try this at home kids. David Edge Signalbox Brewery Derby, UK ** HSBC's website is at www.hsbc.com ** ******************************************************************** This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely, secure, error or virus-free. The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions. ******************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:22:30 -0700 From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net> Subject: Fw: Brett - ----- Original Message ----- From: Chad Stevens To: post@hbd.org Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 8:32 AM Subject: Brett Question: To the best of my knowledge all seven of the Brettanomyces species were condensed and reclassified as four Dekkera species in 1996. Can anyone confirm this? Why do we so stubbornly hang on to Brett? "It smells 'Dekky'," just doesn't have as nice a ring to it? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- and as long as we're talkin' yeast.... re: World's scariest story--I think I liked the gyno thread better. Chad Stevens QUAFF San Diego Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 10:25:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Ron Weaver <ronweaver at yahoo.com> Subject: Hop vine confusion Well, after a little over a year of homebrewing I'm really getting into this. I planted some hop vines last year, and had a modest harvest which I gladly put to good use. Here's the problem: I can't remember which vines were Cascade and which were Nugget. Does anyone know of a way to tell the difference between the two? Can I test the hops after harvest to determine which is which? Thanks in advance for any help. Ron Weaver Buffalo Grove, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 13:26:24 -0500 From: Chris Colby <colbybrewery at austin.rr.com> Subject: lambic and evolution Lambic questions Has anyone tried to make lambic with Wyeast's lambic blend and ended up with a nice _Brett_ character, but not enough lactic sourness? How did you overcome this? I've got a one-year-old carboy of of lambic and a two-year-old carboy of lambic in my shop. I want to brew a third batch and blend them into a gueuze, but want to make the third batch as sour as humanly possible to counteract the lack of sourness in the first two. I've ordered the individual _Lactobaccilus_ and _Pediococcus_ strains and plan to make a little starter with them. I'm also considering making this year's batch larger than the first two. If it does get sour, the greater volume with help the overall sourness of the blend. I also plan to mash on the high end of the starch conversion range to leave a lot of carbohydrates that the yeast can't touch, but (hopefully) the bacteria will eventually break down. Anybody else have any other suggestions? Stuff About Evolution (not Homebrew) -- please ignore this if you aren't interested > Date: Wed, 07 May 2003 14:28:11 -0400 > From: "greg man" <dropthebeer at hotmail.com> > Subject: evolution > Since nature selects only the fittest to survive are we not disrupting > the natural progression of life by attempting to treat people with medicine? > Now many diseases are cured and I'm not suggesting we allow people to die, > however by keeping them alive and if they have children we eliminate natural > selection? Is that not correct? Science describes what does happen. It does not proscribe what should happen. If we "disrupt the natural progression of life" by treating people with medicine, good for us. > There is a great rift between the science world as to creation or evolution. Actually there isn't . . . and there hasn't been for about 175 years. Papers on evolution shows up in nearly every issue of the big, mainstream, peer-reviewed science journals like Science and Nature. Proponents of creationism do not even try to perform science. They operate solely in political forums such as textbook adoption hearings. > There are compelling arguments for each side, please investigate > both before you make a decision. A good place to investigate the creation/evolution controversy online is www.talkorigins.org. Investigating both sides of the argument is indeed the best way to understand the controversy. You'll notice that the talkorigins site, which deals with mainstream science, links to nearly every creationist site on the web. In contrast, you'll notice that creationist sites almost never link to talkorigins or any other science-related sites. However, don't take my word for it. See for yourself. Chris Colby Bastrop, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 11:59:57 -0700 (PDT) From: Craig Agnor <cagnor at emerald.ucsc.edu> Subject: Re: Faux Decoctions I find this faux decoction procedure quite interesting . Like Brian Lundeen, I'd like to hear some more about it from some brewers who have used this technique either successfully or unsuccessfully. Let's hear some specific details of the styles brewed, the equipment and methods used as well as impressions of the effectiveness of this procedure relative to traditional decoction techniques (how much time and/or effort is saved via faux decoction over say a single decoction and is the effect on flavor comparable). Below I've listed some specific questions about this procedure for William Scott and the collective. > On Wed 5/7/2003 William S Scott reponded to Brian Lundeen's post: > > I'm the culprit responsible for the Zymurgy article you quoted, and > would be glad to add a few extra comments. The Schmitz process is > briefly mentioned in volume 1 of De Clerck's "A Textbook of Brewing". > > Assuming you wish to decoct, it can save you time and effort (and > mess) if you have the ability to boil the mash directly in the > mash/lauter tun. The convenience lies in not having to pull the > decoctions, then remix them in an attempt to hit your desired rest > temperatures. Simply apply the heat to reach your temperatures, then > draw off some of the wort before boiling the entire mash. Any starches > released during the boil can then be broken down by the enzymes > remaining in the wort that you drew off earlier. You just need to cool > the mash down somewhat before reintroducing the wort. William, thanks for the follow-up post on your article. What sort of mash tun do you have? How thick is the decoction portion of your mash (say in qt/lb) and how much liquid do you draw off prior to decocting? And to the rest of the faux decocters out there, what sorts of mashing equipment are you using (i.e. what type of mash tun: Easymashers, false bottoms, slotted manifolds, ...etc.)? Can faux decoctions be done easily on a RIMS system? Has anyone tried to recirculate during the decoction instead of stirring by hand? What mashing conditions make this procedure easier? How thick/thin should the initial mash be in order to draw off enough liquid to retain some enzymes and not leave the decoction mash so thick that it is difficult to stir and easily scorched (It seems like it'd be hard to stir the entire boiling mash in a 1/2 barrel mash tun if it were as thick as my usual '~1/3 of mash' decoctions)? What techniques are used to cool the decoction back to mashing temps: cold water? an immersion chiller? recirculating through the counter flow? > I must confess that I have never used this technique to produce a > Pilsner, but it makes for great bocks, dunkels, and O-fests. I haven't > run any side by side experiments to directly compare it with other types > of decoction mashes. I wonder if this would work for a CAP. Anyone out there with a batch of 'Your Father's Faux Mustache' on hand? Sorry for all the questions, but would like to hear from the faux decocters out there before taking the plunge with this technique. Thanks & Cheers, Craig Agnor Santa Cruz, CA - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:36:50 -0700 From: "Steve Dale-Johnson" <sdalejohnson at hotmail.com> Subject: Decongestants & Judging Nils in Sacramento asks about decongestants.... I can not vouch for the impact on beer taste and aroma appreciation when using conventional pseudoephedrine decongestants (I'm always too sick to care about beer when I use these), but I _can_ vouch from personal experiece that Flonase (a topical corticosteroid typically used for allergy treatment) has not impaired by enjoyment of beer flavour or aroma in any way (quite the opposite when used to remedy congestion). My only caution would be that there is a slight floral odor to the product and it would be advisable to avoid use immediately prior to judging. Steve Dale-Johnson Brewing at (1918, 298) Miles Apparent Rennerian Vancouver, BC, Canada. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 12:41:54 -0700 From: "Steve Dale-Johnson" <sdalejohnson at hotmail.com> Subject: Decoction mashes - Schmitz process etc. As one who is just beginning to all-grain brew coming from steeping grains in extract brews, I have the following confusion about decocting a mash: I have always been told to remove the grain bag and all possible particles of grain at 170-180 and never (never, ever...) to boil the grains for fear of extacting harsh tannins from the husks. How can one do this in decoction mashes without risking the same harshness and astringency from boiling the grains?? Still just single infusion mashing, but curious..... Steve Dale-Johnson Brewing at (1918, 298) Miles Apparent Rennerian Vancouver, BC, Canada. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 17:28:08 -0400 From: John McGowan <jjm1 at comcast.net> Subject: Vinegary Smell in Cornie I gave a friend a cornie full of beer. He drank the beer and held onto the keg for about 6 months. I just got it back (the keg that is). I rinsed it out and filled it with PBW solution (5 TBSP PBW and 5 gal H2O) and let it soak for about 2 hours. The keg is immaculate inside but has a noticeable vinegar smell -- stronger than plain white vinegar. I checked the gaskets and they seem fine. Any suggestions how to get this smell out before I risk using this keg again? TIA John McGowan Hopewell, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 18:44:28 -0400 From: Donald Hellen <donhellen at horizonview.net> Subject: Decongestants Nils A Hedglin wrote: Hi, The BJCP guidelines suggest avoiding decongestants before a judging event. Why is that? I am trying to find ways to overcome my chronic congestion problems that won't also affect my judging. Is there a specific type of decongestant that is bad (antihistamines?). What about some of the new drugs like Claritin, Flonase or Allegra? ======================================== Claritin and Allegra are antihistamines. Antihistamines are not the same as decongestants and work quite differently. Flonase works different from both antihistamines and decongestants. Flonase is an inhaled nasal steroid and probably has the lowest possible side effects. I use Nasacort AQ, a drug in the same class as Flonase, and it works well for me. Nasal steroids prevent inflammation of the nasal passages and must be used for a few days before they work, but they do work very well. Antihistamines prevent histamine production, as you might have in a reaction to allergens. The newer, no-drowsy antihistamines aren't as effective for some people as the older, first-generation (i.e., Diphenhydramine/Benadryl) antihistamines. They also work, but many doctors seem to prefer to treat allergy problems in the nose with drugs like Flonase. As far as I know, Flonase would not affect your sense of smell. Nasacort does not seem to me to have affected my sense of smell, but it has prevented the nasal congestion I often would get after drinking beer, especially late in the evening. Decongestants "pry" open your nasal passages and do not treat the underlying inflammation. I'm not sure why they are discouraged in beer judging, but I would guess that it affects your sense of smell in some way. Perhaps someone with a medical degree might shed more light on this??? Donald Hellen Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 19:02:12 -0500 From: Stephen Johnson <sjohnson3 at comcast.net> Subject: Stone Beer Beer aficionados in Nashville, TN, Memphis, TN, and Little Rock, AR (soon) can savor the subtle and delightful tastes and aromas of Stone Beer at any of the Boscos breweries in those cities thanks to the brewing prowess of Chuck Skypeck and Fred Scheer. A search of the HBD archives using Chuck's name as a search term should turn up plenty of details on how to brew this style of beer, as he has posted here in the past to answer questions about the style and how he brews it. There have also been some articles in some of the trade magazines over the years, along with a Zymurgy article a couple of years ago. What I can share here is that he and Fred currently use a red granite that they get from Colorado near Denver/Boulder. At the brewery, they heat the rocks in their wood-fired (hickory) pizza ovens overnight, and place the hot rocks into a stainless basket that is lowered into the first runnings going into the kettle. The base recipe is mostly a pale malt (they use one of the Briess base malts, along with some crystal, I think). The aroma is a wonderful treat whenever I've had the privilege of being there while it is brewed. Kind of like the smell of roasting marshmallows over a campfire... This caramelizing of the high gravity wort carries over into the finished beer and provides the beer with a nice toasty flavor. I wouldn't necessarily call it a smoked character. It is a relatively light colored beer, which allows the gentle flavors to come through. Our homebrewing club, the Music City Brewers, have also helped Chuck and Fred brew some special batches for the Great American Beer Festival. These batches used the hot rocks to help raise the temp of the mash (included some wheat, oats, and rye) when we did a juniper beer. We actually used a post-hole digger to add the hot rocks into the mash! This beer ended up winning a Gold Medal for the specialty/experimental style that year. It was one of a kind... Good luck with your efforts, and please let us know about your experiences with this wonderful, yet infrequently brewed style. Steve Johnson Music City Brewers Nashville, TN Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/09/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96