HOMEBREW Digest #945 Tue 11 August 1992

Digest #944 Digest #946

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Hop aromatics and aging ("John L. Isenhour")
  Lactic acid (korz)
  Dry malt extract priming and fermenting mead (hjl)
  re bubble size (Chip Hitchcock)
  Re: Mash out at 170F (Andy Phillips)
  Sassafras; Low cal ginger beer (John Oswalt)
  Sassafras; low cal ginger beer (John Oswalt)
  AutoMash(tm) ("John Cotterill")
  Back issues (KIERAN O'CONNOR)
  Wheat allergies (Scott Bickham)
  chili pepper beer (Roy Styan)
  Styrofoam Cooler Death Toxins in Your Beer? (pmiller)
  Mashing Idea... (Scott James.)
  Thanks & Hop Packaging (Alan Edwards)
  Bleach sanitation (JKL)
  NA beers from Micah Millspaw (BOB JONES)
  Source of USP CaCL2(H20)2 (Larry Barello)
  Crazy Horse (Tom Dimock)
  ANOTHER MOMILY? and sundry other stuff (Jack Schmidling)
  Re:  Source of USP CaCL2(H20)2 (Gerald Andrew Winters)
  Wort chillers revisited ("Mr. Pete")
  It's not too late for summer beers (Phillip Seitz)
  Ascorbic acid (Chuck Coronella)
  Brewpubs in Pittsburgh (Bill Fuhrmann)
  APOLOGY TO FRANE (Jack Schmidling)
  truncated digests (DBIRCH)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) **Please do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 07 Aug 1992 10:24:14 CDT From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov> Subject: Hop aromatics and aging homebrew at tso.uc.EDU Ed Westemeier writes: (thanks for the picking info, I will be using your advise shortly:) >The main advantage of drying hops before using them is to standardize >the alpha acid content in a given quantity. Some major brewers claim >that storage improves hops (especially the noble ones), but I doubt if >the homebrewer would find it worthwhile unless you're brewing lambics. I would like to reiterate some info I posted around HBD #180:-), I found a study that showed that different hops had various aging characteristics, some actually had improved aromatics after aging, which I found suprizing. Here is a repost of the info, first is a followup I did to avoid confusion. - ----begin repost---- Date: Thu, 29 Jun 89 21:17 EDT The article I referred to concerned aging hops (and its subsequent effect on hoppiness when brewed) not on the effects of its aging after turning into beer (I think thats why the authors called it 'potential hoppiness'. After 11 years of brewing, I use only hop flowers, and avoid pellets when I can. (...) - ---- I was reading an article from THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF BREWING CHEMISTS "Changes in Hop Oil Content and Hoppiness Potential During Hop Aging" Foster and Nickerson 1985, when I ran into the following... Four catagoies of hop types became apparent... 1. High hoppiness potential when fresh and retains it after aging Kirin II, Wye Challenger, Wye Target 2. High potential when fresh, lost after aging Cascade, Galena, Brewers Gold ^^^^^^^ 3. These show an increase of hoppiness with aging (!!!) Hersbrucker, Tettnang, Record, Fuggle, Blisk, Eroica, Hallertau, M.F., Willamette, and Styrian. ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ 4. Low hoppiness when fresh, low when aged (these were discribed as 'good keepers' but not good aromatic hops) Negget, Cluster, Perle, Columbia, and Olympic The Kirin II hop had and an aged 'aromatic' compound level of 9.68 micro-L per gram, with a 'citrus' value of 24.56. Most of the other hops had values in the 3.0 to 5.0 range! Does anybody on the net know where I can get some of this variety of hop? It looks like a really good aromatic. - ----end of repost---- I hope this doesnt cause a reverb in wais:-) The HopDevil. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 10:09 CDT From: korz at ihpubj.att.com Subject: Lactic acid Bob writes: >their damage. The yeast do eventually finish up the job, but the beer >is already trash at that point (Unless you LIKE lactic acid). As a matter of fact, I do. If you don't, I suggest you stay away from Cantillon Lambics. But seriously, there are several styles in which lactic acid is a required component, namely Lambic, Flanders Brown and Berliner Weiss. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 11:32 EDT From: hjl at gummo.att.com Subject: Dry malt extract priming and fermenting mead Sam Isrealit asked about the amount of dry malt extract to use in priming. He quoted 1.25 cups as producing too little head. Volume of the batch was omitted. My experience when shifting from corn sugar to dry malt extract was that a 25% increase in sugar volume produced about the same level of carbonation. For a 5 gallon batch, I am currently using one cup of dry malt extract for the prime and get consistently good carbonation and head volume and retention. Regarding fermentation of honey to make mead: About eleven years ago I bought five gallons of wild-flower honey, diluted it to a specific gravity of 1.1 (wine strength), added acid blend (tar- taric, citric, malic) to .9% and sprinkled in five sachets (5g ea) of dry montrachet wine yeast. This produced about 25 gallons of liquid. It was January and both the water and the fermentarium (New Jersey cellar) were cold. I waited. Nothing happened. After three weeks I took a gallon of the solution upstairs to the kit- chen (75 degrees F), confidently fitted a fermentation lock and waited. Nothing happened. After another three weeks I got a book and read about "Making Mead" (name of book). Book said that honey has an enzyme which inhibits the growth of yeast (clever bees) and to destroy the enzyme, you boil the honey solution (as in mead kitchen). Not wanting to risk changing the flavor of the honey, I tried another approach. I got about one pound of grapes (thompson seedless - no flavor), crushed them, strained the juice, and added one sachet of yeast. Fermentation was active the next day. I added half as much honey solution as grape juice. Fermentation continued unabated. I re- peated the 50% addition every day until I had 15 gallons of activ- ly fermenting mead at which point I pitched it into the remaining (and still quiet) solution. Subsequent fermentation proceded nor- mally and the mead was (and still is) good. In retrospect, I probably could have achieved the same result by boiling a pint of the honey solution. Hank Luer Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 11:51:05 EDT From: cjh at diaspar.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock) Subject: re bubble size wrt korz's query about differing bubble sizes (and hence differing tastes) with various methods of priming: Miller reports the same allegation (size related to malt/cornsugar) and dismisses it as being untrue if beers are compared \after/ carbonation of the malt-primed is complete---corn sugar ferments quicklyt enough that the CO2 takes a while to properly dissolve (he says), while malt ferments much more slowly and is finely divided from the start. I can't argue this from personal experience; I don't have any good simple comparisons. Miller appears to have some prejudices (strong preference for lagers, pushing people into mashing too soon) but this seems plausible. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 9:32 GMT From: Andy Phillips <PHILLIPSA at LARS.AFRC.AC.UK> Subject: Re: Mash out at 170F There's been a bit of correspondence on the HBD recently about the stability of enzymes at different temperatures (eg. on whether mash-out at 170F kills amylases), and the effect of mash thickness on the wort. I have access to a literature database that I periodically search for brewing references. One paper I pulled out and subsequently sent off a reprint request for was by Robert Muller (Brewing Research Foundation, Redhill, Surrey, England), entitled "The effects of mashing temperature and mash thickness on wort carbohydrate composition" (Journal of the Institute of Brewing (1991) Vol 97, pp85-92). The author is interested in producing normal gravity, but low fermentability worts for low alcohol beers. His results can be summarized as follows (I won't attempt to reproduce his graphs in ASCII). At 65C [149F in old money], the half life of alpha amylase is 42 minutes; that of beta amylase is 15 minutes. Thus, after 30 min at 65C, there remains 62% of the alpha amylase activity and 25% of the beta amylase. At 80C [176F], both enzymes are less stable: the half life of alpha amylase is about 13 minutes, that of beta amylase about 6 minutes. The loss of beta amylase at both temperatures is exaggerated by the observation that there is much more alpha-amylase activity present to start with: the total potential activity of alpha amylase at 65C is 88g of starch hydrolysed per gram of [pale] malt; in contrast, the total potential activity of beta amylase is 3.5g of maltose produced per gram of malt. The loss of beta amylase due to temperature denaturation will therefore be more significant than loss of alpha amylase. This loss of beta amylase results in a higher proportion of malto-dextrins, which are non-fermentable (at least with ale yeasts: modern super-attenuating strains, such as used for diet beers, are less choosy). A mash carried out at 80C thus produces a wort which is only 20-30% fermentable, compared with the 65C wort which is about 80% fermentable. Using this data, it's possible to draw the following conclusions about the consequences of a "mash-out" at 170F [77C]: 1) Beta amylase will be almost completely destroyed, but 25% of the alpha amylase activity will survive (and will be more active at the higher temperature). 2) This alpha-amylase may break down any starch remaining in the mash, preventing starch haze in the final product (but increasing the malto-dextrin content). 3) The main purpose of mash-out is probably a combination of (2) and to aid in the flow of the sugar solution from the husks (as suggested previously), due to the decreased viscosity of the wort at the higher temperature. Sorry this went on so long. Andy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 09:55:29 PDT From: megatest!jao at Sun.COM (John Oswalt) Subject: Sassafras; Low cal ginger beer Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 09:56:41 PDT From: megatest!jao at Sun.COM (John Oswalt) Subject: Sassafras; low cal ginger beer Fellow homebrewers, I've made several batches of "root beer" from root beer concentrates, which contain the same sort of artificial colors and flavors as commercial root beers. I would like to make real root beer, from recipies posted here and on the net. However, I have never seen the essential ingrediant, sassafras root, for sale anywhere in this country (USA). The Bread of Life, a Bay Area health food store I frequent, has sassafras bark, but no sassafras root. So my questions: Can sassafras root be obtained in the United States? Is it even legal in the USA? Can root beer be made from sassafras bark? On another, related subject: I made ginger beer using the recipe Jack Schmidling gave in HBD 928, and it turned out well. Based on my experience in "extract" root beers, I made a low cal version by substituting an appropriate amount of sweet-and-low for half the sugar. I think you can get away with using even more artificial sweetener than this, though of course you can't eliminate all the sugar: yeast can't live on sweet-and-low. I'll try 25% sugar 75% sweet-and-low and report on the results. I don't know about you all, but I have to watch calories, and if I drink sugary soft drinks, I can't drink homebrew. jao Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 10:10:51 PDT From: "John Cotterill" <johnc at hprpcd.rose.hp.com> Subject: AutoMash(tm) Full-Name: "John Cotterill" About a year ago, I was interested in buying the AutoMash(tm) as I have heard many good things about it. When I contacted Scientific Brewing Systems, I was informed that the small unit (described in the last HBD) at $599 was no longer available. They have replaced it with a unit that is quite a bit larger (18lbs of grain max - I think). This unit came at the price of about $1200. Too much for my budget. The folks at SBS stated that there were lots of requests for larger systems. Lots of their sales were to clubs or groups of homebrewers who were buying a unit to share. Since the costs were also being shared, and to make the unit as versatile as possible, they designed the larger unit. I think it is called the MightyMash(tm). Things could have changed in the last year, so beware.... JC johnc at hprpcd.rose.hp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 13:25 EDT From: KIERAN O'CONNOR <OCONNOR%SNYCORVA.bitnet at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> Subject: Back issues Folks- If you need a back copy of the HBD, there are a couple of ways of getting one: 1) FTP directly to sierra.stanford.edu, and then change driectories to pub/homebrew/incoming. Then get the issue by number. 2) Send mail to listserv at sierra/stanford.edu and send a message with one word: "help". Listserv will help you do the rest. 3) Use bitftp. A pretty handy server at princeton, it will ftp for you (I use it sometimes, even tho' I *can* ftp. Send to bitftp at pucc and send this message FTP sierra.stanford.edu binary USER anonymous cd pub/homebrew/incoming get 943 QUIT At the get line, substitute the issue number for the one you want. If you want more than one, put another get line in. Up to ten requests can be made. This little script can be editied to deal with any ftp site, just change the address. BTW, some folks only on the internet may get a note from BITFTP saying that it wont do it for you. Sorry about that. Any further questions, e-mail me. Kieran Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 14:13:43 EDT From: bickham at msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham) Subject: Wheat allergies Recently my sister found out that she suffers from an allergy to wheat. That means that she should stay away from any type of food made from wheat grain or flour. So what does this have to do with beer? Well, beer is listed as one of the substances to avoid, except for "some beers that are made without wheat." This sounds ridiculous, since most beers are not made from wheat, and there would not be any problems. If the doctor included wheat and barley in the same class, then by definition this would include all beers. The biggest problem I have with his prognosis is that the contribution of wheat to beer is completely different from making products with wheat flour. The husks are filtered out in the sparge and are not present in the beer, while the proteins and starches are broken down and mostly metabolized by the yeast. My belief is that unless my sister is allergic to a specific protein in wheat that survives malting, mashing, boiling with hops and fermentation, then there is no foundation for the doctor to advise her to stop drinking "most" beers. Does this sound plausible, or is there any other information we should be aware of? Happy Brewing, Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 11:34:37 PDT From: rstya at sparky.mda.ca (Roy Styan) Subject: chili pepper beer I went down to Portland for the Origon Brewers Festival, and I fell in love with Cooper-Smith's chili pepper beer. So now I have to make some. Has any one out there made something like this before? If so, how many chili's should I add? Are some types better than others? I don't want to blow my head off, but I do like the distinct, spicy taste the peppers imparted to Cooper-Smiths. Also, any hints on hopping rates for this style of beer would be appreciated as well. Thanks, Roy Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 14:10:44 CDT From: pmiller at mmm.com Subject: Styrofoam Cooler Death Toxins in Your Beer? (Sorry about the first botched posting...) Greetings All! >From a recent thread on styrofoam: >> I'm not a chemist, but I don't think styrofoam reacts with water >> in any way. > Me either, but I thought it was pretty certain that when a styrofoam > container contained hot liquid, it releases some carcinogen into the > liquid. (Disclaimer: this is hearsay.) Just for the record, polystyrene (the thermoplastic used to make styrofoam) is _very_ inert and I wouldn't worry about dying bizarre, agonizing deaths from ingesting it in _its pure form_. The problem, if there is one, will be from any unreacted styrene monomer remaining in the polystyrene. (I think this is what Jake was referring to with his comment.) Your nose is a pretty sensitive detector, so if you can't smell any styrene in your styrofoam, I wouldn't worry about it. And believe me, you'll know styrene if you smell it -- it stinks to high heaven. (There's a lot of styrene in polyester casting resins used to make fiberglass auto bodies, canoes, and such. If you've ever worked with that stuff you know the industrial strength wooden-stake-between-the-eyes-headache-causing chemical odor that I'm talking about.) According to the Merck Index, styrene is 'sparingly' soluble in water so your sweet wort shouldn't leech much of it out assuming that there is some there. (Styrene _is_ soluble in alcohol so I suppose you could always 'clean' the surface of your cooler by rinsing it with a hot water/alcohol mixture, but I think this is overkill.) The LD50 for styrene is 660 mg/kg in mice (ingested). Roughly, that means that if you fed one thousand mice who weighed 180 pounds 2 oz of styrene, five hundred of them would die. (The other five hundred would probably be on their knees retching and looking at you with malice in their beady little eyes...) Styrene is _not_ listed as a carcinogen in the Merck Index (11th ed., 1989). Finally, according to the Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Engineering, the recent trend in the production of food grade polystyrene is focusing on reducing the levels of residual styrene to improve odor and taste characteristics (from 800 ppm to 200 ppm). Reading between the lines, the taste and odor of styrene must be pretty noticable, and if you're not experiencing odor and taste problems with your picnic cooler and coffee cups, I'd guess you don't have anything to worry about. The bottom line: Mashing in styrofoam picnic coolers should be no problem. Phil Miller (pmiller at mmm.com) PS. Just out of curiosity, everybody _is_ using food grade PVC tubing for siphoning, right? (-: Just kidding, just KIDDING!! :-) Disclaimer: Like most scientists speaking on topics not directly in their field, I know just enough to get into trouble. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 13:37:01 MDT From: scojam at scojam.Auto-trol.COM (Scott James.) Subject: Mashing Idea... The other day I saw a hot water heater sitting on a curb...I wondered how this might work for mashing. My tap water is 140F, maybe a hot water heater could be modified (top cut off? and connected to accurate thermostat...) to mash homebrew? I think this would be ideal if brewing large quantities..15 gal. or filling several carboys (yeast comparison experiments in common wort, etc.) Also, I never heard any response about culturing yeast on Tofu (soy bean curd, very high protein). Does anyone think this would work as a poor man's substitute for agar? Maybe this could be a cheap way to streak yeast and separate mixed cultures? - --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Scott James (N0LHX) scojam at Auto-Trol.COM Ham - Guitarist - HomeBrewer - Pilot Auto-Trol Technology - --=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 92 12:49:05 PDT From: rush at xanadu.llnl.gov (Alan Edwards) Subject: Thanks & Hop Packaging THANKS Thanks to all those who answered my mash out question. Thanks to Jeff Frane (a.k.a. The Horses Mouth) for clearing up that cold break question. Cold break is apparantly a continuous process that starts at 60 centigrade (140F). I plan on trying a full mash next time. I keep learning more and more from this group of people. I'd like to take the time to thank everyone who contributes to the HBD. How do other homebrewers get along without this forum? Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. HOMEGROWN HOPS Carl West (in HBD #942) gave us some very good hints for how and when to pick hops. He also writes: | The hops are now in jars in the freezer, I'll dry them when I get home | from Pensic. Any body see a problem with that? I'm far from an expert, but I remember reading in my handy-dandy hop growing book (you know, the small paperback with hops all over the cover--sorry, it's at home right now) That you shouldn't put hops in the freezer before drying. They will turn to mush over time, like cooked spinach, or lettuce that you leave in the fridge too long. (I don't know how long you will be gone, Carl.) It doesn't take me any effort for to dry hops. I spread mine out in the bottom of an open cardboard box, one layer thick, and let them sit in the garage for two days. They are out of the sun and warm. (My garage gets up to 100F these days.) The guy who wrote the hop homegrowing book says that he has a friend who lays them out in his attic. There might be something to drying them quickly, but I can't see how two days of sitting out would hurt--they've been outside for several months already. John The Hopdevil writes (in HBD #943): | Whats the best way to store homegrown hops? Should I press them into | a brick? For storage of freshhops I have been using the thick shiny | (mylar?) plastic bags that had laser cartridges in them, I air them | out for a few days and wire tie the regular gallon ziplock bag inside | it. Yikes! I cringed when I read that. Where I work, toner cartridges are classified as hazardous waste--seriously! I wouldn't want those bags anywhere near anything that even comes close to my mouth. I hope you are at least cleaning them very well. I pack my hops into glass jars. Baby food jars are a good size for me. (Refer to my posts in HBD #937) -Alan .------------------------------------. | Alan Edwards: rush at xanadu.llnl.gov | Member: The Hoppy Cappers | or: alan-edwards at llnl.gov | homebrew club, Modesto, CA `------------------------------------' Return to table of contents
Date: 07 Aug 1992 15:20:49 -0600 (MDT) From: JKL <JLAWRENCE at UH01.Colorado.EDU> Subject: Bleach sanitation In HB943, Jeff Frane writes: >Change them both, why don't you. If you're sanitizing with the right >concentration of chlorine you shouldn't have to rinse at all, and you're >pretty much defeating the purpose by throwing that water onto your >sanitized surfaces -- try using boiled water if you feel a need to >rinse. OK, I'll bite. What's the "right" concentration of chlorine? I thought you had to rinse until there wasn't any more smell. Won't any chlorine left on the equipment kill all the good stuff? (I'm currently using 1-2 Tbl. of chlorine bleach per 1 gal water.) - Jane Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 14:48 PDT From: BOB JONES <BJONES at NOVAX.llnl.gov> Subject: NA beers from Micah Millspaw Help for jack; I most likely posted something about this before but I'm not sure. Jack has been playing with his NA's again and found that by adding water to them after alcohol removal they do taste better. The important thing is to add the right amount of water to restore the beer to its pre-alcohol reduced state. Too much and it will taste thick and slimey like some of the commercials IMHO, too thin and there won't be any taste. So what to do, first take the specific gravity of the beer before you evaporate off the ethanol, then take the specific gravity after your evaporation procedure. The difference is the amount of water that you need to add. There is however a problem, water and ethanol have different densities, so you must allow for this. So you need to add more water to lower the specific gravity than the amount of alcohol that you removed. I have a crude formula, but it is very volume related, and the results are subjective. After all you have to drink it to verify. This should be valid for 5 gallon batches and ignors some factors that I desided were not pertenent to homebrewing NAs. ( delta G * 8.339 )128 = H2O oz delta G is the difference in specific gravities before and after ethanol evaporation. Readings must be taken at, or adjusted to 60 degrees F to be valid. specific gravity expressed as .010 or.013 for example have fun with this Micah Millspaw ============================== =Thrown out of the = =Hoppy Cappers homebrew club = =Modesto, CA. = ============================== Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 92 11:15:10 PDT From: polstra!larryba at uunet.UU.NET (Larry Barello) Subject: Source of USP CaCL2(H20)2 In HBD #942, Gerald writes: >... >Larry, I would like to know of a supplier for Calcium Chloride dihydrate. >I remember purchase this stuff. By the way, I tried to email Larry >directly on this but my mailer bounced it back to me. I got it from All World Scientific, Lynnwood, WA. 1-800-28WORLD 500gm, USP of the dihydrate cost $15 - a rip off since 55gal drums go for $.75/lb! But, then, at 5gm/batch it will last a long time. There will be an additional charge to have it shipped to your address. I suspect it is minimal. Cheers! - -- Larry Barello uunet!polstra!larryba Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 92 17:47:51 EDT From: Tom Dimock <RGG at CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu> Subject: Crazy Horse In HBD 912, Mike Fertsch said: > URGENT! Just because certain people have been offended by > Heileman's Crazy Horse malt liquor, Congress wants to force > Sam Adams, William Penn, and maybe even Buffalo Bill, to > change the names of their beers! Think that's > over-reacting? Then: > > Write your Representative and demand that the "Crazy > Horse" Amendment be stricken from Bill HR 5488! > Better yet, FAX your letter: THE BILL GOES TO THE > HOUSE ON JULY 1ST! > > Thursday, 25th June, the US House Appropriations Committee > voted to add the "Crazy Horse" amendment to HR 5488, a Bill > to authorize $22.8 BILLION in appropriations for -- look at > this! -- the US POSTAL SERVICE, the BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, > TOBACCO AND FIREARMS, and other TREASURY DEPT. agencies! > The "Crazy Horse" amendment forbids manufacturers and > distributors of *all* alcoholic beverages from using the > names of DEAD historical figures to sell their products. > [BATF already forbids the use of names of LIVE historical > figures without their permission, protecting us from, say, > "Dan Quayle Potatoe Beer".] The amendment was approved by > the Committee on a show of hands by 29 to 11 votes, with > the advocacy of Mr. Frank Wolf (R-VA), so it has > considerable support on the Committee. -- additional commentary deleted ---- Well, I did call my congressman (Matt McHugh, who is not running for re-election :-( ) and he responded: Dear Mr Dimock: My Ithaca office told me that you called regarding the so-called "Crazy Horse" language in the Treasury Department appropriations bill that the House considered last month. I appreciated hearing from you, and wanted to take this opportunity to discuss this with you. The language was removed from the bill on a point of order. House rules do not allow legislation to be attached to an apporpriatons bill - - that is, they require that only rules directly affecting how government funds are spent be addressed in those bills. The senate has no similar prohibition, and so it may attach similar language to its version of this bill. I understand that when you called, you said you had heard that the amendment would prohibit the use of the names of historical personages on alcoholic beverages. That is not true. The amendment would have given the Treasury Department authority to prohibit use of a name if it could damage or alter that person's reputation. The language was drafted specifically to allow the Department to prohibit use of the name of the Indian chief Crazy Horse. When he was alive, Crazy Horse campaigned against alcohol use among Indians. His tribe and his descendants oppose the use of his name to sell alcohol. Moreover, the company planning to use his name plans to target Indian markets for the product. Although it may be legal, the plan to use his name to promote the very thing he opposed is clearly reprehensible. Thanks once again for contacting me about this. Your concerns are always welcome. Best regards. Sincerely, Matthew F. McHugh Sounds like another case of irresponsible action on the part of one money-grubbing brewer having to be restrained by laws which will probably cause headaches for years to come in totally unrelated situations. What ever happened to voluntary ethical behavior??? Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 92 23:00 CDT From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: ANOTHER MOMILY? and sundry other stuff To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling ANOTHER MOMILY BITES THE DUST! Well, sort of. The counter-intuitive warnings of using bleach to sanitize stainless got to be more than my skeptical mind could handle so I decided to do some simple experiments. Exactly one week ago, I made a solution of 1 part bleach to 1 part water and did the following with it: Poured several ounces into the depression near the handle of the lid of my 10 gallon Polar kettle. Placed a strip of 5 mil SS sheet metal in the solution along with a lab type wafer forceps, a kitchen spoon and some sheet metal screws. Unfortunately, all my kegs are full so I could not include them in the experiment. Not surprisingly, one week later, there is not the slightest clue of any reaction on the kettle, forceps or SS strip. However, very strange things happened to the spoon and screws. The spoon has a tiny pit that develops a "rust flower" within hours but after a week, nowhere else but that single spot. The screw heads remained bright and shiny with not the slighted hint of corrosion even under high magnification with a metalurgical microscope. However, the threads looked like they were boiled in acid. Large pits and holes all over the place. After writing the above, I did find some inconspicuous signs of incipient corrosive action in one spot on the lid. This one is tough to summarize but it would seem that even in very strong concentrations, there is normally little risk of damaging most stainless vessels that we deal with if bleach is used as the sanitizing solution for the short period of contact time typical of cleaning our equipment. I would further add that, in the concentrations most OTHER people use, i.e. one ounce of bleach per gallon of water, the risk is probably zero. I can not begin to explain what happened to the spoon or screws but I guess I would not leave bleach in a keg to keep clean till next use without a few test runs first. However, to slosh a little bleach around in it and then to thoroughly rinse it seems a totally safe way to sanitize it. I sanitize my fermenter by boiling a bit of water in it just prior to filling so I don't need to deal with the bleach. >Al Korzonas writes (in HBD #941): | In his talk on wort chillers at the Conference, Jeff Frane said the most | enlightening (to me) fact of the whole conference: that cold break begins | at 65F. Wow! >I have neither heard it before nor does it match experience nor do I believe a word of it. I think it can safely be identified as a MOMILY until further evidence is offered. FRANE says Centigrade. Good example of the virtue of counting to ten (24 hrs in this case). MOMILY dismissed. >From: Conn Copas <C.V.Copas at lut.ac.uk> >Subject: Re : MASHOUT v.s. SPARGING >However, I have reservations about systems in which heat is applied directly to the mash, and that includes stove-top mashing and buckets with heating elements. My experience is that these systems give some of the character of a decoction mash and thus result in a relatively dextrinous wort, presumably because beta amylase doesn't survive the direct heating very well.... Good example of why brewing is so much fun. Noonan wrote an entire book on the virtues, merits and wonders of decoction mashing and you say it ruins the beer. >From: korz at ihpubj.att.com >Subject: Re: Why mash out?/Zapap lauter tun >Back to kettle mashing for a second. If you've got a non-removable false bottom, you cannot stir the liquid that is closest to the heat and it would seem to me that Jack's pipe-and-windowscreen kettle would also make stirring at the very bottom of the kettle inconvenient, at the least. Both these cases are invitations for scorching both the mash and the wort. Thanks for the segue. My first attempt at a single kettle mash/lauter tun had the traditional false bottom. This was a SS plate with a zillion holes, laboriously drilled/punched in that sat on three SS posts over the pipe/screen/spigot gizmo. It had all the problems you suggest. The mash scorched, big bunches got under the plate and on the second try, it got so bad that I had to remove it, to finish the batch. Well, that was lucky part of invention. As it is impossible to get the plate back in under 10 pounds of grain, I had to sparge without it and I anticipated disaster. Well, the wort ran clear after about 3 ounces and I completed the sparge without a hitch and you know the rest of the story. I have made exactly 20 batches using this method and the only change I have made was to switch to copper and brass from galvanized pipe and window screen. The size and form of the strainer are such that nothing gets stuck under it and one quickly develops a slight hump up over the pipe in the stirring routine. I know it's tough te believe something so simple can work so well, but so it goes........ Finally, the following was posted to usenet in respponse to a discussion on extract efficiency and I might as well insert it here. EXTRACT EFFICIENCY I computed the extract ratio of my last ten batches and got the following numbers: 27, 27, 26, 30, 28, 27, 25, 28, 29, 28 So that we are all using the same prayerbook, I calculated the ratio as follows: gals/lbs X gravity. The gravity being the first two digits following the zero after the decimal point. i.e. 1.050 = 50 e.g. 7 gal/10 lbs = .7 X 50 = 35 All of these (as have all my all grain batches) have been made by kettle mashing as described in my article called "Easymash". There is one very significant point to consider before one abandons one's current system in despair of achieving widely publicized ratios. It is easy to come up with the wrong numbers if the volume is not accurately known. For example, if in the above, a gallon of wort was left behind in the trub and not included in the calculation, the actual yield would have been 40. This may seem like it is cheating but just because you throw it away, does not mean it is not part of the net sweet wort. The early design of EASYMASH left about an inch of wort on the bottom of the kettle and it took me awhile to figure out that this was part of the equation. The new design leaves less than a quart behind. In any case, one can and should recover this (lost wort). You can pour it into a gallon jug and refrigerate it overnight. It will settle out nicely and you can pour off the clear wort into the fermenter or save it for starting the yeast for the next batch. js ~. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 12:21:37 -0400 From: Gerald Andrew Winters <gerald at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Source of USP CaCL2(H20)2 Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 92 13:13:55 EDT From: "Mr. Pete" <ENM09857%UDELVM.BITNET at VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> Subject: Wort chillers revisited Fellow Brewers----- Just a quick note on chillers. If you're interested in being very efficient (thermodynamically speaking), and want to save water, what about making the best of both worlds? Here's what I'm thinking: Instead of connecting your counter-flow chiller to your faucet, why not invest a few bucks in an inexpensive submersible (sump) pump and a big bucket. Use the bucket to serve as a reservoir of ice water (use the milk carton trick) in which the pump is placed. Circulate the chilling water for a few minutes to cool the tubing before starting the wort through. It is probably a good idea to have a pinch-clamp on the wort outlet and plenty of extra ice handy to get the wort cooled to the desired temp (20-25 deg C). So anyway, that's my contribution to the continued progress of happy home brewers all over, for whatever it's worth (my contribution, that is). And don't forget, A.I.E. Mr. Pete Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 22:14 GMT From: Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com> Subject: It's not too late for summer beers Summer here in Washington, D.C. is usually an exercise in survival, with extremely hot days and high levels of humidity. What's needed is a tasty low-gravity summer beer that you can drink a lot of. We're having some Belgian guests later this month, and to keep them well watered I whipped up the following recipe. The idea was to combine the gravity and carbonation of an English mild with the color and flavor of a Pacific Northwest amber (Hale's Moss Bay Extra is my favorite). The hop bitterness and flavor is quite citrus-like, and dominates the flavor profile. This is rather standard for West Coast beers but pretty explosive in comparison to ordinary commercial brews. It turned out quite nicely, and amazingly fast: from kettle to beer glass in 15 days (see disclaimer below). Cheap, too. Citadel Summer Amber 3.3 lbs. American Classic light liquid extract 1 lbs. Laaglander light DME 0.5 lbs. crystal malt (40L) 1 tsp. irish moss flakes (10 mins) 0.5 oz. Cascade pellets (60 mins.) 1.5 oz. Cascade pellets (20 mins.) 1 oz. Cascade pellets (0 mins.) 1 oz. Cascade pellets (in secondary) (all hops 5.1% alpha) 2 packages Munton & Fison ale yeast, rehydrated 80 grams corn sugar for priming (about 1/2 cup) Batch size: 5 gallons Original gravity: 1.033 Final gravity: 1.010 Primary: about 18 hours Secondary: 11 days Disclaimer and Notes: As a member of the basement-impaired I brew in my house, where the temperature is 80F during the summer. The temperature undoubtedly helps with the short brew time--but if it works, why not? I did use a wort chiller (immersion type) to protect against infection. I used dry yeast because I was too impatient to start a liquid yeast, and M&F was what I could get at the local brewing store. The third hop addition went in right after the end of the boil, just before hooking up the wort chiller. Next time I'll probably use 60L crystal to increase the color a bit, and skip the first hop addition altogether. The beer is plenty bitter already, and the hop flavor is the most important element. (line above should read: "(immersion type) to prevent infection." Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 21:09 MTS From: Chuck Coronella <CORONELLRJDS at CHE.UTAH.EDU> Subject: Ascorbic acid Howdy! I can vaguely remember, way back when, a discussion in this forum regarding the addition of ascorbic acid (also known as vitamin C) to a brew for the purpose of preventing oxidation. Is this done at bottling time? In what quantities? I s'pose one could add food grade vitamin C available at any pharmacy or grocery store, right? The reason that I'm interested is that I have a batch of mead that's ready for bottling. Actually, it's an apple mead (cyser), and it was probably ready 4 months ago! I'm really getting paranoid about oxidation; I under- stand that meads are more succeptible to oxidation than beers. I have no experience with meads; this is my first. I'd really be interested to hear from anyone who's added a.a. to a mead before, and especially about deleterious flavor effects. Cheers, Chuck Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 18:39:15 CDT From: fiero at pnet51.orb.mn.org (Bill Fuhrmann) Subject: Brewpubs in Pittsburgh Anyone know of brewpubs in the Pittsburgh, PA area? Bill Fuhrmann, aka fiero at pnet51.orb.mn.org "You don't know what you've got till it's gone." - Joni Mitchell Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 92 21:57 CDT From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: APOLOGY TO FRANE To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling It appears that I misinterpreted Jeff's comments about writing for Wyeast and my remarks about him having a financial interest in the company's well being were apparently incorrect. I will not repeat what he told me privately because I would be just passing on information I have no way of proving but I do suggest that he clarify the issue to the group so that there is no misunderstanding. I apologize for any anguish caused to Jeff or anyone else. js Return to table of contents
Date: 10 Aug 92 11:51:25 SAST From: DBIRCH at eleceng.uct.ac.za Subject: truncated digests I noticed Al Taylor mentioned that he recieved a truncated digest on the sixth. I had the same problem, and have had it with a few other issues. The interresting thing is that when I got a friend to forward me a copy, that one also got truncated. So does anyone have a likely explanation? Dave Birch UCT Cape Town Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #945, 08/11/92