HOMEBREW Digest #4406 Fri 21 November 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 *********

  Recipe classification (Michael)
  sabco fermenter ("jim")
  Beer Classification and BJCP Styles ("Robert Humphrey")
  Digest version Opinion-Lundeen Said THat ("Rob Moline")
  Correction of PPG Units Post of 11/18 (John Palmer)
  another take on the Sabco fermenter (Dane Mosher)
  alcohol/sugar soln data (David Harsh)
  Carbonation Level for Dunkelweizen ("Don Scholl")
  More on sugar ("A.J deLange")
  re: Digest, Classification (R.A.)" <rbarrett@ford.com>
  The art and science of styles ("Dave Draper")
  Temp controllers ("Dave Burley")
  When to carbonate lager? ("Michael O'Donnell")
  RE: Digest, Classification (eIS) - Eastman" <stjones@eastman.com>
  RE: Digest mode & Classification (Steve Funk)
  Silicone tubing (David Radwin)
  Flemish Red FAQ ("Raj B. Apte")
  RE: newsgroups and BJCP classes (Brian Lundeen)
  RE: Flocculation ("Steve Smith")
  Way OT but very amusing ("Jason G. Pavento")
  Re: Classification (Robert Sandefer)
  Re: Saflager 34/70 ("Drew Avis")
  Another Cleaning/Sanitizing Option For CFCs ("Kerry and Dell Drake")
  RE: RANCO controllers (Bob Hall)
  Re: Subject: Which Temp Controller & freezer should I get?? ("Brian K. Smith")
  Re;  Yeast mixtures ("Houseman, David L")
  BJCP styles (Tim & Cindy Howe)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. Note that the Digest now automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of your time, anyway :^) 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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:36:27 -0600 From: Michael <grice at binc.net> Subject: Recipe classification Alex in Montreal asks about recipe classification. As I don't brew for contests, I don't worry too much about it. I tend to make everything a little darker (my last pale ale looks like a nut brown). At the same time, the BJCP style classification serve as a useful summary of centuries of brewing tradition. My goal is usually just to make a beer I like. At the same time, I may want to try a new technique (mash hopping is on my list, for instance), or to see what happens if I use this particular hop in my beer. It's a good thing I'm not particularly interested in consistent results. I've only been interested in cloning one commercial beer, New Glarus' Belgian Red (with mixed luck--a little too thin and not tart enough, but not too far off). On the other hand, New Glarus has a brown ale I really like, and I might try recent Zymurgy recipes for Bell's Two-Hearted Ale or Victory Hop Devil... Michael in Middleton WI Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:44:20 -0500 From: "jim" <jimswms at cox.net> Subject: sabco fermenter Just to add to what others have said.. I've got one too. All in all, I like it. I've never owned a conical though. Unlike Mike, I kept the sight glass, although for reasons unrelated to the "sight glass". I hook up my CF chiller to the tubing and fill through it. Also, the adaptor they supply is really good for taking samples throughout fermentation using gravity. You can't do that through the corny fittings. I agree that the top can get plugged up during a strong fermentation. that happened once.. This fermenter has lots of built in features which are pretty nice. transferring under pressure and such. For cleaning, I take apart all the fittings/siphon, and clean those separately, then fill the entire keg up with a PBW solution. Let that sit overnight, then siphon it out through the bottom via gravity. I generally fill it on the counter, then siphon into the sink, so, I never have to lift it. For sanitizing, I sanitize fittings individually with iodophor. Reassemble, then put a little water in the keg. Put it on my burner and let it boil for 10 min. or so. then I can close it up, and it's done ready to be filled. I've never tried to harvest yeast out of it, even though Sabco claims you can. I just don't see how it would work all that well. that is definitely a down side to it. A conical would be much better in this regard. Would I buy another? I don't know. Am I looking to replace it? Absolutely not! Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:04:44 -0600 From: "Robert Humphrey" <RobertHumphrey at ev1.net> Subject: Beer Classification and BJCP Styles Alex in Montreal asks "What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness?" Although I don't have the expertise that most readers of this digest have, I have been brewing on and off for a while. I have progressed from brewing what was recommended to me by my LHBS, to trying to mimic favorite store boughts, to finally just experimenting until I found a few brews that I totally enjoy drinking, sharing, and brewing. I have never entered a brew competition, and I doubt that any of my favorite brews would fit right into a BJCP style, but that's okay. I also cook competitively, and not just your typical Texas _BQ cook-off, but many varied foods: from the usual Chili, Brisket, Ribs, to Beef Stew, Enchiladas, Chicken and Dumplings, right on down to Cheesecake. In every cook-off I've competed in there has always been an "open" category. Do they have this in Home Brew Competitions? If they do, then I'd probably be interested. Please excuse the length and rambling but I typed this after 4 pints of something close to an Abbey Ale. Thank God for spell check. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:55:33 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Digest version Opinion-Lundeen Said THat Digest version Opinion-Lundeen Said That Brian Lundeen said that...and well said! Gump From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com> Subject: Re: Non-digest version From: "Rob Moline" >individual message people who do not understand the importance of trimming >the message to which they are replying. Sometimes an entire message is >regurgitated to which a line or two is added. - --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:12:03 -0800 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com> Subject: Correction of PPG Units Post of 11/18 Randy Ricchi sent me a note pointing out my deviation from standard solution chemistry procedure: I had said, "Sucrose raises the gravity by 46 Points (1.046) when 1 pound is dissolved in 1 gallon of water" and what I should have said was, "When 1 pound of Sucrose is dissolved in water to make 1 gallon of solution, the specific gravity is 1.046." Doing it the other way would only equal a gravity of about 1.043, because the total volume does increase by about 6% as AJ noted yesterday. Thanks Randy for noticing my error. And I disagree with Fred's assertion "that the expression of the units as points/pound/gallon can and almost always does yield incorrect results, depending upon the order of operations. I submit to you that most (all?) spreadsheets and mathematics operations will return an incorrect result if you simply perform the operations from left to right as they are written." I have never had a problem with it. I guess I have always understood the concept. I don't know who came up with the expression, but it has a nice ring to it and I guess the parenthesis in the nomenclature got dropped along the way. PPG is more intuitive to me than trying to figure out why the unit for the weight percent of sucrose in solution was named after a Greek philosopher. (that was a joke) John Palmer john at howtobrew.com www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:34:41 -0800 (PST) From: Dane Mosher <dane_mosher at yahoo.com> Subject: another take on the Sabco fermenter I would suggest to anyone thinking of getting the Sabco fermenter to consider getting the Sabco yeast brink instead. (http://www.kegs.com/yeastbrink.html) A friend of mine has one of these and has let me borrow it a few times, and it works great as a fermenter. On the plus side, it doesn't have the vinyl tubing sight glass (which is worthless IMO anyway) that the "fermenter" has. It's also $130 cheaper. On the down side, it doesn't have a thermometer. However, a Fermometer that my friend stuck to the side of the keg seemed to work well--at least as well as it would on a carboy. Also, there's no adjustable racking arm on the yeast brink. I think my friend trimmed an inch off of the dip tube to keep yeast from getting sucked up on transfers, and that worked well without leaving much beer behind. I enjoyed using it and thought it was pretty easy to clean too. Dane Mosher Fort Worth, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:13:57 -0500 From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net> Subject: alcohol/sugar soln data Greetings- After reading the posts from: > Sugar things ("A.J deLange") > Sugar to Alcohol Imponderable ("Todd Carlson") I realize my "off the top of the head" numbers were off by more than a few percent... Dave Harsh Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:17:46 -0500 From: "Don Scholl" <dws at engineeringdimensions.com> Subject: Carbonation Level for Dunkelweizen Hello, I'll be bottling my Dunkelweizen tomorrow and I would like to know a carbonation level (volumes CO2) that you use or is specified for it. Don Scholl Twin Lake, Michigan (140.9, 302.4)Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:45:20 +0000 From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net> Subject: More on sugar It occurred to me this morning that my statement that the volume changes when sugar is added to water would be an excellent illustration of the use of my high school teacher's units trick and that people might want to know how to calculate the amount which is quite simple. All the needed data is in the ASBC tables or both Plato and Specific gravity from another source. Take 10 Plato. A 10 Plato solution is one in which there are 10 grams of sugar in 100 grams of solution. Thus there must be 90 grams of water. According to the table (or conversion by any means derived from the table) a 10 Plato sucrose solution has a specific gravity of 1.0400 and, thus a density, of 0.998203 (density of water at 20 C) times that i.e.1.0381 gram/cc. The solution weighs 100grams so 100 grams/1.0381 grams/cc = (100)/(1.0381) grams/grams/cc = 96.32 grams/gram/cc = 96.32 (gram/1)/(gram/cc) = 96.32 (gram/1)*(cc/gram) = 96.32 cc. The original 90 grams of water had a volume of 90/.998203 = 90.16 cc so the solution volume is 96.32/90.16 = 1.068 times the original water volume or 6.8% greater. Note that since the calculated volumes are divided by one another the .998203 constants cancel and can be ignored . The fractional increase is simply (100/SG)/(100 - P). At 20 P the specific gravity is 1.083 so the volume factor is (100/1.083)/(100 - 20) = 1.154 and so the volume is 15.4% greater. A.J. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:10:22 -0500 From: "Barrett, Bob (R.A.)" <rbarrett at ford.com> Subject: re: Digest, Classification Alex, in Montreal asks: What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly think of commercial examples you want to clone? Our homebrew list had quite a varied discussion on this topic a few weeks ago. The discussion originated around a beer from a local microbrewery that to many people did not represent what the beer was called. The beer is called pilsner. Many members think the beer does not represent a pilsner. Some feel the brewer doesn't know what he's doing when he makes this beer. Sometimes when they taste it there is a little more sulfur. Other times it's cleaner or maybe there is more hop flavor present. The homebrew club members are using the BJCP style guidelines to determine the quality of the beer. What we found out from the brewer is that the beer is actually a kellerbier. In Germany this is a beer that is fermented with lager yeast and then cold conditioned for a short period of time and then served. The yeast that is used does not highly flocculate and so the beer, when first served after the cold conditioning period appears cloudy. Over several weeks in the keg the beer begins to clear and the flavors change as well. The brewer knows exactly what he is doing and is making the beer that he wants to make. The so called "home brewer experts" have no idea what the brewer is trying to do and judge the beer from it's name and the BJCP style guidelines. What many of us have found is that this pilsner is something that is very, very special. There is nowhere else in the U.S. where this beer is made. We are extremely lucky to be able to experience the flavors that kellerbier possesses. For me, the BJCP style guidelines are for beer competitions only. When any brewer brews a beer, they should be able to call it whatever they want. The important thing to me is: do I like it? Not: "this pale ale should have more hop aroma and more carbonation". The brewer should be able to make the beer however they want. When you taste someone else's beer always ask them: "did it turn out the way you wanted it?" "Do you like it?" If their answer is yes, then you have to decide if you like the beer this brewer has brewed. Don't try to make a determination about whether or not this beer scores a 25 or a 45. Beer is beer. Drink it and enjoy it. For those that want to compete, the BJCP style guidelines are there to judge against. By the way, the microbrewery I reference above is Leopold Brothers of Ann Arbor. The brewer, Todd Leopold has given me a new way to appreciate beer. By the way it tastes. Not by how it matches the BJCP style guidelines. We Make the Beer We Drink!!!! Bob Barrett Ann Arbor, MI (2.8, 103.6) Rennerian. Thanks for inviting us to the party last Saturday, Jeff!!!!! Go Blue!! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:16:26 -0700 From: "Dave Draper" <david at draper.name> Subject: The art and science of styles Dear Friends, Alex in Montreal asks in #4405 about classification styles, focusing on BJCP but asking in general about adherence to style guidelines. One of my favorite perennial topics. :-) Being a blend of artist (musician) and scientist myself, I very much appreciate that brewing is both art and science, as Alex alludes. For me, style guidelines serve several purposes. First, I learned to love particular styles of beer that were already established by decades and centuries of brewing history-- not too many trappist smoked wheat strawberry blonde stouts out there on the commercial market. So when I began to brew my own, I naturally desired to replicate the experience of drinking one of those styles I love, and I'm sure most brewers have felt the same way. As I got better at what I was doing, and developed the skills to be able to formulate recipes "from first principles" as it were, styles gained an aspect in addition to its original one: they serve as targets that allow me to demonstrate to myself (and others, when I enter in competition) that I know how to brew-- that given a stylistic target, I can hit it (or nearly so). And finally, now that I've been doing this awhile, I will on occasion concoct something that may not fit neatly into a given style, merely because I feel like it. I might tweak a bitterness level or color or what have you, or (rarely) come up with something entirely new. I'm not the least bit shy or embarrassed to do that :-) and I really don't think any serious brewer would be either. When I indulge myself in this way, it's much more an artistic endeavor, but it's based on the knowledge I've gained by being more "scientific" (and the point on my geeky head has been known to be pretty sharp over the years). Someone once made a great analogy about this, likening brewing to figure skating. Being able to hit a stylistic target is like the skater going through the compulsory figures-- the turns, figure 8s, and so on. This would be like trying to nearly exactly duplicate a style as closely as possible. Branching out by tweaking the bitterness, color, etc is like one of the routines that are judged: a combination of tools used in the compulsories but put together with the artistic choices of the skater. Finally, making that trappist smoked wheat strawberry blonde stout is ice dancing: Anything goes! Bottom line for me is that I pride myself on being able to brew competently enough to reproduce a given style and alter it to suit my tastes. I think most brewers are well served by spending the time to hit stylistic targets if for no other reason than it gives confidence that when one *does* branch out, one has a hope of obtaining the desired result. Cheers, Dave in ABQ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- David S. Draper, Institute of Meteoritics, Univ New Mexico David at Draper dot Name Beer page: http://www.unm.edu/~draper/beer.html Don't pick your nose. ---Domenick Venezia Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:41:16 -0500 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: Temp controllers Brewsters: Bret Morrow asks about Williams Brewing temperature controllers. I went for two of the cheap mechanical controllers you are looking at. Don't. On my two freezers I went nuts trying to get them to work properly. We're talking calibration, etc, etc. Don't know why, but when I spent the extra $50 per for the II electronic version, my freezers worked perfectly over all temperature ranges. Spend the extra bucks. The digital readout is very nice and the various control options for the controller may come in handy. Standard setup works great. To Williams' credit, they took them back even after I had fooled with them unsuccessfully for 3 months - Grrrr. and gave me credit. That's good business. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:06:38 -0800 From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo at stanford.edu> Subject: When to carbonate lager? Hi All, I am brewing my first lager, a Vienna. It spent a month in the primary at 55, and now is in kegs in my chest freezer at 34. My question is when I should carbonate... I pushed it into kegs under about 10 lbs of pressure, so it is still under some pressure. While it is lagering, should I release any pressure that builds up, or should I just let it go? When should I carbonate it? Thanks for suggestions, Mike Monterey, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:18:02 -0500 From: "Jones, Steve (eIS) - Eastman" <stjones at eastman.com> Subject: RE: Digest, Classification I agree with the majority - keep the HBD in digest format. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Alexandre asks what beer classifications we use to decide what to brew. My answer is "All of the above". First I'll give my opinion on the BJCP styles, with the caveat that I'm a great proponent of the BJCP (and the AHA). The purpose for the BJCP styles guidelines is strictly as a basis for judging homebrew in competitions. They are not meant to define commercial styles, but where applicable they do specify commercial examples that are representative of their definition of that style. The actual style guidelines are an ever changing, living entity, and (here's the opinion part) I believe that changes are made as a response to the changing profile of what homebrewers are entering into HB comps. If competition statistics show that entries in a style decrease dramatically over time to a point where there is a much smaller number of entries, that style may end up being dropped because it is no longer popular amongst homebrewers entering competitions. And if they show that there are an increasing number of entries that seem to fit a style that doesn't exist, that style guideline will probably end up being created. For example, if lots of people start making Baltic style Porters and entering them into the Specialty/Experimental/Historical category, then a third sub-style of Porter may be added in the next revision. I know that at least one competition (the Palmetto State Brewers Open) adds an additional Stout Category (American Stout), and they have their own guideline for it modelled after the BJCP style definitions (Aroma, Flavor, Mouthfeel, etc.). Another example of a style that is on the increase is Imperial IPA. I believe that when you see the new Styles Guidelines sometime next year you'll see some of these categories added, as well as other changes. That said, I brew what I want to brew. Sometimes I try to nail a style right-on. Other times I will try to clone something I've had commercially, but is not a tightly defined style. And on a few occasions I'll try something really different (ever had an imperial stout fermented with HG Trappist Ale yeast?). Maybe I'll brew a Maibock with English or American hop varieties. Steve Jones, Johnson City, TN State of Franklin Homebrewers (http://hbd.org/franklin) [421.8 mi, 168.5 deg] AR Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:49:40 -0800 From: Steve Funk <steve at hheco.com> Subject: RE: Digest mode & Classification First off, as my Grandfather would say, ..."if it aint broke, don't fix it"... I must echo the opinion of so many others here and would not want to the HBD in a non-digest version. I won't repeat the numberous reasons why. Alex in Montreal debates the use of BJCP style guidelines. > What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in > fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly > think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use > characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and > determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness? Notice the snipage :) For me, I brew recipes based on my personal tastes. Usually when I think about brewing a beer I consider these factors (in order but not always): Ale or lager, flavor, alcohol content, degree of maltiness, level of bitterness, and color. I don't look up a BJCP style and then try to emulate it, although I did when I first started brewing and that helped understand which ingredients imparted various qualities. However, sometimes I look up which BJCP classification will fit my recipe. This isn't to say I don't try to emulate a beer that I particularly enjoyed from time to time. I just don't limit my recipes to conform to a particular BJCP classification. In fact, some of my beers don't really fit any BJCP-defined style and that doesn't bother me a bit. I brew for myself. Steve Funk Stevenson, WA [1887.2, 290.3] Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:59:35 -0800 From: David Radwin <dradwin at sbcglobal.net> Subject: Silicone tubing > From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu> > I don't have an vinyl tubing. I have silicone tubing. It's more > The stuff was not easy to find at the time. Your local hardware/home > despot doesn't carry it. I ended up ordering full rolls from the > manufacturer and sold off smaller pieces to other HBDers. It ended up > at about $1.25/ft as I recall. You can buy random lengths of 3/16" ID and 1/2" ID food grade silicone tubing at http://morebeer.com and a variety of diameters at http://mcmaster.com. NAJASC. David in Berkeley CA - -- David Radwin This email account forwards to trash. Reply to news at removethis.davidradwin.com. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:23:20 -0800 (PST) From: "Raj B. Apte" <raj_apte at yahoo.com> Subject: Flemish Red FAQ All, I'm trying to write a FAQ about Flemish Red Ale, although much of the material is common to lambics as well. I appreciate any and all comment but particularly hope that knowledgeable sour ale brewers will share their insights. thanks, raj http://www.parc.com/apte/flemishredale.shtml Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:37:19 -0600 From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca> Subject: RE: newsgroups and BJCP classes Domenick Venezia, demonick maker of little sugar pills, writes: > ... and all the other brainless, pointless, worthless noise > that one sees in newsgroups. > While what you write is not untrue, I think it gives a grossly one-sided and unfair portrayal of newsgroups. While I read the HBD for advanced topics, and to gather in the wisdom of a number of regular contributors, I find newsgroups much more useful to me on a day to day basis. My regular haunt is rec.crafts.brewing, and while it has the odd idiot, it also has a high number of helpful, knowledgeable people. I don't mind the noise, I often find it amusing, I even partake from time to time, and if I don't want to deal with it, it is easily ignored. The noise level is more than made up for by faster responses, and the ability to get a really involved back and forth discussion going on a topic. I stand by my comments regarding keeping this as strictly a Digest, because I think you do run into problems when you open things up to real time messaging in people's inboxes. However, I would also encourage any new brewers in here to check out the real-time forums like rcb. There's a lot of good signal to be had. Alexandre Enkerli starts what will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the great flame wars in HBD history, on a par with Clinitest and fermenter geometry, with: <snip> > But the BJCP style guidelines may have unfortunate > results with some people, if taken to mean more than what > they are. I don't want to sound confrontational or > accusatory. I'm just looking > for different ways to classify beer. > Clearly, someone that protests as much as Alex does about NOT wanting to be flamed, secretly, deep down is hoping for a good toasting. So here it comes, brace yourself.... Piffle! (Ooh, I hope that doesn't trigger Pat's filters) You can make any beer you like. If you want to produce an Apricot Chile SchwarzWit that is dry-hopped with Cascade, then nobody will stop you or think any less of you, and you will undoubtedly find success with it at the March in Montreal competition (OK, there's a personal thing there, never mind). ;-) However, the BJCP guidelines provide a necessary framework for evaluating beers, and I think for the most part, do a good job of reflecting recognized beer styles, and allowing for interpretation on the part of the brewer. You mention wanting a different way to classify beer, but what do you propose, and why would it be an improvement over the BJCP classes? Different for the sake of being different is not necessarily better. This is not to say that I think the BJCP system is perfect. I don't much care for the catch-all categories. You know, the Experimental-Specialty-Historically-Non-Denominational-Fruit-and-Nut-Small-M ammal classes that offer such a wide-open stylistic acceptance that they should never, ever be considered for inclusion in any overall points championships, such as, but not necessarily exclusively, the Ninkasi Award! (Not that I'm trying to pick on a particular target here, not in the least). ;-) Sorry, I got sidetracked there. Personally, I like to try and brew to style because I think it is more challenging. I must confess, I often try to push the envelope to satisfy my creative side, and occasionally find recognition for such efforts from my peers. I have never been a cloner. If I want Pilsner Urquell, I will buy Pilsner Urquell. However, if I want to produce my own creation in the general style of such a beer, the BJCP guidelines are an excellent starting point for approaching that task. Cheers Brian, in Winnipeg Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:55:14 -0700 From: "Steve Smith" <sasmith at in-tch.com> Subject: RE: Flocculation Dave Burley commented that rousing yeast should be done by stirring or racking the beer. It seems that many people instead will slosh or swirl their beer inside the fermenter, thereby not exposing the beer to the air or other contaminates. I swirled the beer inside my carboys mid-way through secondary fermentation when using a highly flocculant yeast, Wyeast 1968 London ESB. Wyeast's website states that 1968 requires additional aeration and agitation. I still haven't bottled, so can't comment on my results. I know that according to Papazian, disturbing the beer after pitching the yeast is not a good idea. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:50:11 -0500 From: "Jason G. Pavento" <whiplash at juno.com> Subject: Way OT but very amusing Hello fellow geeks. Considering the movie references I see on this list from time to time, I figure many of you will get a kick out of this. http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/ Jason Pavento, Rehab Homebrewing, Walpole MA 02081 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:15:20 -0500 From: Robert Sandefer <melamor at vzavenue.net> Subject: Re: Classification Alex Enkerli asks about beer classification and styles. As it turns out, I have been thinking about the concept of styles and beer classification for a while. For someone trained in the sciences (biology, chemistry, and psychology), current beer classification systems leave something to be desired: simplicity. Now, to be sure, there are a lot of beers out there and therefore a few style terms are being tossed about, but still, I as a drinker and as a brewer would appreciate a certain level of consistency and logic. Take for example, the dark beers of British origin: brown ale, porter, and stout. The copy of AHA style guidelines I have lists 2 browns (English and Ameican), 2 porters (robust and brown), and 4 stouts (dry, foreign, sweet, and imperial), and 2 of the 4 stouts specifically mention the presence of roast barley character. Now, who decided roast barley character was a defining feature of stout? In addition, who decided black patent made a porter robust and chocolate malt made a brown porter? What grain does brown ale get? If we defined any British ale with chocolate malt as a brown ale, any with black patent as a porter, and any with roast barley as a stout, things would be simplier at least--3 grains, 3 styles. Or we could let any dark grain be in these beers and define based on gravity: <1.050 for a brown, >1.050 but <1.060 for a porter, and >1.060 for a stout. Or the styles could be color-based. My problem with the modern style definitions I have seen is that they are too complicated; they try to define beer by all the above variables and more: alcoholic strength, mouthfeel, bitterness, hops flavor and aroma, etc. Does a brown ale really stop being brown because it has more hop flavor than it would have in Britain? A problem with such detailed definitions is how are they applied consistently and accurately to a specific beer? How do you make sure a beer fits only one style? Of further interest, where is the line between styles? At exactly what point does a brown ale become a porter? Or a bitter become a pale ale? I think it is important to remember what styles are supposed to do: in my opinion, styles let the drinker know what to expect from a beer. Styles do not have to describe all variation found in beer: A hoppy porter can be exactly that a hoppy porter; it doesn't have to be described as an American Porter, or whatever else. In other words, there is inter-style variation, and there is intra-style variation. For those interested in the concept of styles, I suggest reading Designing Great Beers by Ray Daniels. As far as I can tell, it is the only home- /craft-brewer aimed book that tries to determine how to brew various styles of beer by looking at actual beers (rather than philosophizing). To answer Alex's actual question, I have read quite a bit on brewing and most articles/books have certain commonalities for each style. I use these "common" styles but don't get bent out of shape if I decide to use an unusual ingridient. I never "clone" beers, and I always think about the specific characteristics (malt-hop balance, hops flavor, yeast flavors, carbonation, etc) of each brew. Sorry for the length. Robert Sandefer Arlington, VA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:25:39 -0500 From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Saflager 34/70 Dave in Victoria asks about Saflager 34/70. This is my favourite DCL lager yeast, though I need to play with S-189 a bit more to be sure ;-). I've fermented it at 48F (which is at the bottom of the suggested range) no problem. It threw no diacetyl that I could detect. Happy lagering! Drew Avis ~ Ottawa, Ontario - -- http://www.strangebrew.ca I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink is our friend. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:34:05 -0500 From: "Kerry and Dell Drake" <arcticmallards at cox.net> Subject: Another Cleaning/Sanitizing Option For CFCs I have the St Pats convoluted CFC. It's worked great for the past two or so years. After use I flush it with hot water and then with compressed air; then it's stored open so it can dry. While I'm brewing, I put it in the oven at 350 DegF for 45 minutes (it mounts via a home-made quick release mechanism). I then run about a quart of hot wort through it with the water off to flush out any thing that may have been left behind. It may waste a little wort, but it seems worth it given the ease of the procedure. Kerry Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:34:06 -0500 From: Bob Hall <rallenhall at toast.net> Subject: RE: RANCO controllers Bret Morrow stated "I read in the archives about "Ranco" controllers that are available "everywhere"--but I don't know exactly where." Bret, I went down to the local hardware and had them look one up in the Grainger catalog. They ordered it for me and the cost was much less than that typically advertised in the brewing catalogs. Bob Hall Napoleon, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:11:11 -0500 From: "Brian K. Smith" <ibrewalot at charter.net> Subject: Re: Subject: Which Temp Controller & freezer should I get?? I recently built a kegging system with a 5.0 cubic foot freezer (Woods from Home Depot) and am using the controller from William's Brewing (The Controller, I believe). They both work great. I used the "collar" system shown step-by-step in the following link: http://www.oregonbrewcrew.com/freezer/freezer.html. The directions were easy to follow and the results have been great. I ran two taps out the front, CO2 tank inside, Nitrogen/CO2 mix tank outside with a gas line going thru the collar, and room for 3 Corny kegs inside. I found the freezer without the controller would go to 22F at its warmest, so the controller was really necessary. Check out the link...you won't be sorry! ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:00:14 -0500 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: Re; Yeast mixtures The use of more than one yeast in a beer was the topic of an excellent talk by Dr. Chris White at Iron Hill Brewery in Newark, DE a few weeks ago to an audience of local brewers (and a few homebrewers). I won't try to re-create his talk here but will briefly summarize that the blending of yeasts is done with positively received results. The yeast choices and the timely of them in the wort are chosen for specific results. Since the majority of the flavor characteristics result from early fermentation, pitching a yeast early for it's flavor contribution is appropriate. Later in fermentation one would pitch a yeast that contributes more to lowering the gravity than contributing to flavor components. Blending of wort fermented with different yeasts is one approach but also pitching more than one strain at the same time is also done. Lambics are a great example where this is done routinely. If you get a chance to listen to Chris' talk, by all means do, it's well worth it. Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:34:00 -0500 From: Tim & Cindy Howe <howe at execulink.com> Subject: BJCP styles Alex in Montreal asks about beer styles: >What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in >fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly >think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use >characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and >determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness? >Part of the reason I ask is the BJCP. Now, really, I have an immense >amount of respect for those who made the BJCP possible. They did a >wonderful thing for several brewers and their collective beer knowledge >is mind-boggling. But the BJCP style guidelines may have unfortunate >results with some people, if taken to mean more than what they are. >I don't want to sound confrontational or accusatory. I'm just looking >for different ways to classify beer. Beer classifications are just that. Classifications. BJCP classifications are based on how a particular type/style of beer has historically been made. This wonderful hobby of ours has been around so long that there is a distinct 'localization' to the way that many beers are made, local hops, yeasts & choice of malts being the main determining factors. From the perspective of judging contests, it makes sense that these guidelines be adhered to, because when you start blurring the lines of the classifications, you ultimately have no classifications, and then I guess you end up with brewer's anarchy. That being said, when *I* brew, I don't adhere to BJCP classifications. My best bitter, for example, contains Hallertau (US) hops and Munich malt. BJCP says that isn't a bitter, but any Englishman that has tried this beer has said that it's one of the best bitters he/she has ever tasted. The key in this case is the yeast. But if you were to put a Koelsch yeast in a stout for example, what would you have? You may have a great beer, but you have neither a Koelsch nor a stout. Does it really need to be 'classified'? The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that you make a choice - brew for yourself, brew for contests or brew to compare yourself to the big boys. If you brew for yourself, you can put roasted barley in your lager, or Fuggles in your Koelsch. If you want to put your beer up against others', it makes sense to have a level playing field for all - that's democracy after all. Cheers, Tim Howe London, Ont Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/21/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96