---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          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 *********


Contents:
  Even scarier story (Pat Casey)
  A generalized triangle test ("Frank Tutzauer")
  Commercial Kegs (NO Spam)
  Proper Steinbier Lithology (guy gregory)
  Recipe for Spaten Optimator? (Glenn M Gardner)
  NHC 2nd Round:  Call for Judges and Stewards (Steve McKenna)
  How popular is Cascade hops? (Jeff Renner)
  Chile Beer ("Scott")
  HSA (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Jalapeno Lovers Unite! (Larry Bristol)
  Harshness and water chemistry, take two (Michael)


*
* 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: Sat, 10 May 2003 16:04:28 +1000
From: Pat Casey <pat at bmbrews.com.au>
Subject: Even scarier story

Pat D.'s original post about the possible evolution of malting/mashing
resistant barley was humorous - that so many respondents did not see the
humour is really scary.

Pat



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 11:07:34 -0400
From: "Frank Tutzauer" <comfrank at buffalo.edu>
Subject: A generalized triangle test

I meant to post this a couple of weeks ago when the thread was still
active, but it's the end of the semester and I've been absolutely
slammed with work.

Anyway, I've been giving some more thought on how to conduct a
"triangle" test when one has more than two beers.  BTW, I'm glad to
see that Paul's Big Brew tasting of 8 beers went well.  It looks like it
was informative and fun.  And Paul's approach was exactly my first
thought:  Conduct a triangle test on each possible pairing.  The
problem with this approach is that if each judge is to triangle-test
each pairing, then the number of beers to be sampled gets ridiculously
large.  As the number of beers grows arithmetically, the number of
pairings grows combinatorially.  With two beers, there's only one
pairing, but as the number of beers grows to eight, there are, as Paul
correctly notes, eight-choose-two = 28 possible pairings.  And if each
pairing generates a triangle test, then there are 3*28 = 84 samples to
be tasted.  There's got to be a better way.  (Paul dealt with this by 
not having every judge taste every pairing.)

I approached the problem from a different angle.  The first thing to
notice is that a triangle test is not only a test of difference, but
also, quite obviously, a test of sameness.  If a judge correctly
identifies the different beer, then, perforce, the judge has
identified the two beers that are the same.  So another way to
approach the general idea of the triangle test is to pull aside, as a
standard, one of the beers that's the same.  Have the judge taste the
standard, and then ask the judge to identify which of the two
remaining beers (the test beers) is the same as the standard.  We once
again are left with a binomial problem to which we can apply the
methods previously discussed (though, of course, the appropriate test
probability is no longer 1/3 but rather 1/2).

How would this work for, say, 4 beers?  Here's how:  Randomly order
the beers and number them 1 through 4.  Pour samples of beers 1
through 3, and identify them as standards.  Pour samples of beers 1
through 4 as test beers (without identifying them to the judges, of
course).  Have the judges taste each of the 4 test beers and decide
which is the same as Standard 1, which is the same as Standard 2,
which is the same as Standard 3, and which is different from each of
the standards.  Conduct 4 separate z- or binomial tests with a test
proportion of 1/4.  A significant result means that the beer under
consideration is sufficiently different from the other three that it
can be consistently identified.  With a little care concerning
probabilities, one could also make claims such as "Although beers 1
and 3 can't be distinguished from each other, they can be consistently
distinguished from beers 2 and 4."

Whenever many beers are to be tasted, there will be problems with
palate fatigue and the inability of the human brain to hold numerous
facts in mind at once.  But, nonetheless, note the quite dramatic
improvement in terms of the number of samples to be tasted.  With 4
beers, pairwise triangle tests would require tasting 18 samples
instead of the 7 required by the generalized test.  With 8 test beers,
the 84 samples from pairwise triangles is reduced to 15 samples in the
generalized test.  Heck, I've seen flights at competitions with more
than 15 samples.

To put it in general form:  If we have N judges who are to distinguish
among T test beers, choose T-1 of them as standards.  Have the judges
attempt to determine which of the T test beers matches each of the T-1
standards, and which matches none of them.  For each beer, count how
many of the judges correctly identified it, and test the null
hypothesis that the proportion of correct identifications is greater
than 1/T.

If you chose to do a z-test of proportions, the formula that I
published in HBD 4229 is NOT correct.  That was for the very specific
case of a test proportion of one-third.  To conduct a z-test for each
of the i = 1, 2, ... , T beers, the general formula is:

z = (P - t)/sqrt[t(1 - t)/N]

where

P = the proportion of judges who correctly identified beer i
  = (no. of judges who correctly identified beer i) divided by N; and
t = 1/T 
  = probability of identifying beer i by chance.

The critical value for a one-tailed, 5% level of significance is 1.64.

One problem here is that as the number of test beers increases, the
test proportion grows small, and, as I mentioned before, the adequacy
of the z-approximation decreases.  A common rule of thumb is that the
z-test is appropriate if the product of N and the proportion is
greater than 5.  So for 8 beers, you'd need around 40 judges, which
you might not have.  In such a case, you should use a binomial, and a
spreadsheet set up along the lines suggested by A.J. would be
sufficient.  Actually, I think I'll table the critical values of the
binomial for the particular proportions of interest to brewers and
I'll post the tables in the HBD for those who don't want to mess with
something more complicated.  

But it'll have to wait until I'm done grading my final exams!

 --frank in Buffalo






Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 12:01:14 -0400
From: NO Spam <nospam at brewbyyou.net>
Subject: Commercial Kegs


Saw the recent posting asking for info on how to
use Hoff Stevens Kegs for homebrew.  I'd also like
to know where to find info on this, and also about
using regular Sanke kegs.

I understand Sanke kegs can be dangerous if not opened
properly, and also that there is a special tool for
filling and cleaning them.  Anybody know what the tool
is, where to get it, how much it costs, etc?

>From what I can determine, Hoff Stevens Kegs seem
ideal for hombrewing use.  It looks like all you
have to do is drill out the bung in the side, clean
and sanitize the keg, then fill it and put in a
new bung.

I suppose it would be easiest to prime, and naturally
carbonate in the keg, but I'm not a fan of keg priming.
I like clear beer and don't want to have to pull off
pint after pint of cloudy, yeasty beer.  So how does
one force carbonate a Hoff Stevens?  Again, I suppose
there's a special tool involved?  I doubt you can just
do it using the regular Hoff Stevens keg coupler?

I am concerned that alot of the Hoff Stevens kegs seem
to be made of aluminum.  I have an older Schmidt's
keg that is stamped "Alcoa", so I know it is aluminum.
Are these safe to use, can beer such as a bock or
dopplebock you wanted to age for months be stored in
them long term without any ill effects or health risks?
I know there's a debate as to use of aluminum brewpots,
but what about kegs?

Lastly, I've heard the Golden Gate kegs are supposedly
the best for homebrewing use, but are really hard to
come by, and that these are often also mistaken for
Hoff Stevens alot of the time.

Thanks in advance for info.

Bill



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 13:39:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: guy gregory <ggre461 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Proper Steinbier Lithology

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.

Well, as a geologist, homebrewer and sometime visitor
to Bend, I offer the following practical advice. 

Basalt is a wonderful rock to use for steinbier, with
a couple of problems.  Basalt is a volcanic rock, and
like all volcanics, it entrains some water.  When you
heat this rock, it may begin to shard, that is, chips
and cracks may form quickly from expanding entrained
water.  The rock may explode.  Traditionally,
steinbier is made with granite or metamorphic rocks,
which usually lose their water during formation, or
contain the water in mineral species rather than as
captured little bits. 

To test:  Heat it up in a fire.  If it breaks, its
probably not what you want. Stand back, those shards
can be sharp!

Good luck!

 

=====
Guy Gregory
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Spokane WA
(1660.4, 294.3) Rennerian



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 19:47:54 -0500
From: Glenn M Gardner <ggardner at juno.com>
Subject: Recipe for Spaten Optimator?

This stuff is seriously addicting, and I would like to do my share to
make the world a little fuzzier.
Anyone have any suggestions on a recipe?
Thanks
Glenn
Plano, TX



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 21:07:53 -0500
From: Steve McKenna <mckennst at earthlink.net>
Subject: NHC 2nd Round:  Call for Judges and Stewards

The 2nd Round of the AHA National Homebrew Competition will be held June 
19-20 in conjunction with the National Homebrewers Conference at the 
Holiday Inn O'Hare International in Rosemont, IL.  Judging sessions are 
Thursday 1:30-5:30 and Friday 9:00-noon, with a judges' breakfast Friday 
8:00-9:00.

Please help us evaluate some 672 of the best homebrews in North 
America!  We need lots of judges to pull this off.  If you are a BJCP 
judge, or a pro with judging experience, and plan to be at the conference 
or merely in the neighborhood, please send me a note.  Here's what I need 
to know:

1.  Your BJCP rank and membership number.
2.  Which categories do you have entries in?
3.  Which categories do you prefer to judge?
4.  Which categories do you prefer not to judge?
5.  Which judging sessions are you available for?

Steward volunteers are also welcome.  For more details on the conference, 
please check out the website at http://www.chibeer.org/aha03.

Cheers,

Steve McKenna
NHC2003 2nd Round coordinator
mckennst at earthlink.net
(630) 305-0554




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 09:40:32 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: How popular is Cascade hops?

Brewers

On the Oz Craftbrewing group, there is a discussion of the Australian 
hop variety Pride of Ringwood, which is a distinctive part of the 
profile of Australian mainstream lagers, and so, is generally 
disliked by Aussie homebrewers, or craft brewers, as they prefer to 
call themselves (homebrew being that strong, nasty stuff your uncle 
brews with lots of sugar).

One of the brewers suggested that their dislike of POR hops was 
similar to Yanks' dislike of Cascade hops:

>It does seem that Ozzies have a Hatred for POR, as the Yanks have a hate
>for their Cascade Hop

I replied that I didn't think we particularly felt that way about 
Cascade, and I was told that this came from the Skotrat chat group 
(based here in the US).

My feeling is that Cascade is regarded highly for its purpose - the 
new generation of American pale and amber ales, and to some extent 
for American interpretation of other ales such as porters and stouts. 
I like Cascade lots for this.  It also seems to go well with 
Centennial.

In my early days of brewing, we never knew what kind of hops we were 
getting - they were in one ounce lots in brown paper bags that were 
stapled shut.  They were very stale!  Then around 1975 or so we got a 
brew shop at a town 20 miles south of here that cared about quality. 
They decided to sell only Cascade pellets, but we customers still 
didn't know what variety they were unless we asked.  They were just 
hops.  When I discovered that there were other varieties, I started 
asking for them, and in time we got them.

So I put to this group - what are our thoughts about Cascade hops?

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: Sun, 11 May 2003 09:53:21 -0700
From: "Scott" <sejose at pacbell.net>
Subject: Chile Beer

Hello!

A recent issue of Zymurgy contained an article on brewing chile beer.  So
now I'm up for brewing such a beer. What I am looking to achieve is chile
flavor with just a hint of heat in the mouth, with the warmth becoming
evident as the beer makes its way to the stomach, where the glow is
sustained.

My question to the collective is this:

I notice there are two methods for producing chile beer; one way is to do a
first wort addition, another is to steep after fermentation.  Does either
method produce the effect I desire better than the other?

Also one can produce either a green chile beer or a red chile beer.  Is one
preferrable for producing a warm glow with chile flavor such as I desire?

The Zymurgy article did not touch on these questions of mine, so I put it to
the collective.  I'll be brewing next Sunday, so the time is now!

Thanks

Scott




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:08:28 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: HSA

Bill Tobler <wctobler at sbcglobal.net> writes from Texas that when a friend

>circulates his HLT, the return line is above the
>water line sometimes.  The return line is too short.  I said something
>stupid like, "Wow, you're aerating your hot liquor!"  I saw the worry lines
>pop up, and he got worried.  Does he have anything to worry about?

I think it's never a bad idea to minimize hot side aeration.  It's 
not a good thing, even if it's not demonstrably bad in some cases. 
It should be easy to fix, so why not do it?  He may not notice a 
dramatic difference, but it might be just a little edge over what he 
was brewing before.

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: Sun, 11 May 2003 19:46:25 -0500
From: Larry Bristol <larry at doubleluck.com>
Subject: Re: Jalapeno Lovers Unite!

On Thu, 8 May 2003 08:06:19 -0500, "Dewalt, Scott" 
<Scott.Dewalt at st-systems.com> wrote:

> 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.
> Scott
> http://texanbrew.com

Lots of opinions are being expressed.  So, should I have to be the one who 
points out that opinions are like Aholes --- everyone has one?  [And most 
of the time they are full of s**t.]

Be that as it may, here is mine [opinion, that is]:  I actually agree with 
that offered by Mr. Dash S.  The very idea of putting jalapeno [SIC! SIC! 
SIC! --- and I'm still looking to get that chauvanistic gringo that does 
not allow the use of inyas in the HBD!] peppers in beer is really quite 
annoying.  [BTW: Is this "Mr. Dash" thing some sort of Freudianism?  Does 
not Mrs. Dash have something to do with spices and all that?  But I 
digress.] 

Yes, as Scott points out, I also brew such a beer.  But in my defense, I 
wish to call attention to the name I have given this beer:  "Cerveza 
Chingaquedito con Chili".  OK, let's see.  Everyone should get the 
"cerveza" part --- that's "BEER"!  And the "con chili" is equally easy 
- --- it's just "with pepper".  And all that leaves is...

Now before anyone gets too excited, "chingaquedito" actually has little to 
do with that rather vulgar Spanish word that appears to be its base.  
"Chingaquedito" only means "annoying but subtle".  [Well, OK, maybe I 
would not use the word in polite company, but after all, this IS only the 
HBD for crying out loud, about as far away from "polite company" as one 
can get!]

Is it beer?  Well, I have to say that it looks like beer, it smells like 
beer, it tastes like beer, and that taste goes great with tamales!  [Oh, 
what a givaway!]  Well, at any rate, I have to say it is.  It certainly 
is not a DUCK, after all.  But I have to be honest --- it is an annoying 
little chingadero.  [I will leave that one as an excercise for the brave 
at heart].

> P.S.  Speaking of Larry Bristol, I'm ratting him out:  HE HAS BREWED A
> JALAPENO BEER, TOO!  And it had witches in it!

But, of course it did, Scott.  ALL of my beers have witches in them.  
After all, I PUT them in my beer on purpose!  What do we do with witches?  
Burn them, of course.  [Is this not simply another word for oxidation?]  
And what do we burn APART from witches?  "MORE WITCHES!"

So here we are, talking about that dang DUCK again... [sigh]

- -- 
Larry Bristol [Cunning Linguist]
The Double Luck
Bellville, TX
http://www.doubleluck.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 20:58:10 -0500
From: Michael <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Harshness and water chemistry, take two

Thanks to those of you who responded to me off-line about this.

The brewer formerly known as Steve asked what I meant by harshness. In
affected beers, the harshness isn't necessarily immediately obvious.
However, the beer has a lingering, bitter harshness on the back of the
tongue. There may be a bit of a metallic element to it, too.

Steve asked about corrosion in the kettle and possible contamination with
iron; this isn't an issue with the kettle, fortunately, and I performed
the experiment with a smaller, decidedly un-corroded kettle.

To try and figure out the nature of my problem here, I made three
mini-beers with a pound of DME and half an ounce of hops (AA in the range
of 4.5-5%). I used softened water for the first batch, unsoftened water
from a garden hose for the second, and a combination of spring water
and distilled water for the third. The water was adjusted to a pH of
6.0 with 10% phosphoric acid, which was probably overkill.

I used some partial bags of pellet hops for the hops--Fuggles,
Williamette and Hallertau. If I'd been thinking, I would have mixed them
and added a third of the mixture to each beer. I boiled each for an
hour.

The one stupid thing I did was to throw the hops for the garden
hose beer into the hot (almost but not quite boiling) water for a couple
of minutes before adding the extract (I was on the phone at the time and
a bit distracted). Will plain water extract anything nasty? It wouldn't
surprise me either way.

Anyway, upon tasting the wort after cooling the worts made with the
softened and unsoftened water were both affected with the harsh aftertaste
I described above. The wort made with the spring/distilled water did not
have the harsh aftertaste.

I am fermenting them now, so we'll see...
- --Michael


Return to table of contents

---