HOMEBREW Digest #1246 Wed 13 October 1993

Digest #1245 Digest #1247

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  carboy handles (summary of [mostly non]responses) (Dick Dunn)
  re: Maple syrup/sap (Dick Dunn)
  Re: SLOW counterflow (Mike Zentner)
  Boiling wort question ("Robert K. Toutkoushian")
  Stuck Fermentation? a Beginner's Question (Chris Seiders)
  William Younger #3 (Todd Jennings)
  beer & statistics (Jim Sims)
  COPS--again! (Kieran O'Connor)
  GABF results (Chris Pencis)
  UK hops (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
  GABF XII Winners ("James Spence/Am. Hmbwrs. Assoc.")
  will the real bogeyman please stand up (Paul Boor)
  Beer Mix, Smoked Porter ("Cisco" )
  SLOW counterflow (npyle)
  Batch Sparging (Ulick Stafford)
  Judging (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Wort Processors Mill Evaluation (larryba)
  Yeast Growth/ Starter Size (COYOTE)
  bogy vs boogy (Bob_McIlvaine)

Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 12 Oct 93 01:13:37 MDT (Tue) From: rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: carboy handles (summary of [mostly non]responses) A while back, I asked for first-hand negative experiences with "carboy handles" (the plastic-cushioned wire-loop handles that attach to the necks of carboys). Put simply, "Has anyone ever seen one of these suckers snap the neck off a carboy?" The answer seems to be "no". I'm sure a lot of us have heard some anecdotal, urban-legend, FoaF horror stories, but I've heard no direct accounts of failures. I have to qualify that slightly: I did hear from one person who had put a carboy handle on a 25-liter (6.5 gallon) carboy, and had seen some (my interpretation) crazing around the neck. It didn't actually break off, but he was (justifiably) scared away from using it. The reason I discount this one data point is that the carboy handles are not designed to fit that size of carboy. Obviously they weigh more, but the main issue is that the neck diameter is different. 5-gallon (and 3-gallon) carboys, the ones I've been able to check, are 2" diameter (50-51 mm if you will) within about a mm. The carboy handles are designed to fit this; the point is that they need to fit snugly, but not tightly, so that they hold a circle around the neck without generating any local points of high stress. (It's like picking up the carboy by the neck with your thumb and index finger forming a circle.) This requires that they match the neck. A 25 liter carboy has a neck diameter more like 59-60 mm, which is way more than a standard carboy handle can accommodate; if you try to force it on, you'll probably end up overtightening it and cracking the neck. Summary: - This is reality. I'm reporting results, not telling you what to do. If lawyers must be uncaged, they should be on a short leash. All I'm saying is that nobody who responded had any failures with the handles on 3 and 5 gallon carboys. - A full carboy weighs a bunch; *any* sharp shock--regardless of whether a handle is involved--can break it. They are sturdy but not indestruc- tible, so be careful but not paranoid. - Remember, Mother Nature bats last. If anyone has any useful evidence to add to this, I'll be glad to accumulate it and report back. ("It works for me" is not useful at this point...because basically, they work for everyone so far.) --- Dick Dunn rcd at eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
Date: 12 Oct 93 01:49:17 MDT (Tue) From: rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: re: Maple syrup/sap > ...I have been brewing extracts for a few years and now want to try > something different. I also make my own Maple syrup... Hmmm...I think I'd be willing to trade either mead or barleywine for maple syrup, even (1:1 vol)! >...I have heard of people > using this in beer and also using the uncooked sap instead of water... I have had a maple-syrup mead that was nothing short of remarkable. It was one of those things where the mead-maker offered it tentatively, as "you may find this a bit unusual but I think it's interesting"...I liked it enough that the next time there was a general mead-tasting among friends, I said "Be SURE you invite <Z> and tell him to bring a bottle of the maple!!!" It does seem to be one of those things that you either like or don't, no middle ground. If you don't like real maple syrup, you probably won't like it. (If you've grown up with imitation maple, you may well not like it.) My wife is a Brit; she doesn't care for this mead at all. But she looks askance at various other new-world foods. There's the usual mead-maker's dilemma, applying equally to beer here: "What will this incredibly-sweet raw substance taste like after there's NO sugar left in it?" I'd think the raw sap wouldn't do much. Isn't the ratio for boiling-down substantial, like more than >>5 (that is, 2^-5)? This mead I'm talking about used syrup at a rate somewhere between >>3 and >>4, so you wouldn't get that sort of taste level using sap even if you used sap to replace ALL of the brew water. (I'm not sure how the difference between mead and beer affects the situation here...some factors say you'd want more maple flavor in beer, some say less.) Maple in beer is obviously an idea with merit, worth exploring, but also one that will require experimentation to figure out what works. It seems you'd want a relatively light (*not* lite!) beer, probably with more malt and less hops than average, to let the tang of the maple come through with- out getting swamped by the hops, and let the maple-sugar be accented by the malt sweetness. Add a fair bit of crystal? Probably no really dark grains. This is intuition speaking--not direct experience, just back- ground. --- Dick Dunn rcd at eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 07:54:18 -0500 From: zentner at ecn.purdue.edu (Mike Zentner) Subject: Re: SLOW counterflow Dave (drose at husc.harvard.edu) wrote: >the thing? Zymurgy says 20 ft in their article. Dave Miller in his book >says it must be at least 40 ft. I looked into prices for copper tubing, 40 feet is excessive, 20 is minimal. If you go with my suggestion here, that is, use 3/8 " tubing NOT 1/4, I have had good success with 30 feet. Length isn't the only important variable, you also have to consider the diameters of your inner and outer tubing, flow-rates, cold water temperature, and so on. Point is, you could probably get by with 10' if you really cranked up your cold water flow. If you start going with too long of a tube, though, some of the crud from the cold break can "gel" in your tubing and really slow down the rate (recent potato and rye brews demonstrated this to me). >worth it to build a longer one. I bought 50ft of garden hose (a lot >cheaper than tygon tubing), 50 ft of 1/4" copper tubing, and built a 40 ft >chiller (10 feet of the hose going to the connecting lines). I did the exact same thing on my FIRST try, without reading anything about how to build one, etc... It was a miserable failure, so I upped the diameter of tubing from 1/4 to 3/8, and it works greaat. As Usual: 1) Make sure the inside of your tubing is free of machine oils (mine was not) 2) I will supply free my online plans for building a wort chiller to anyone who asks. Mike Zentner zentner at ecn.purdue.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 08:24:21 -0500 (CDT) From: "Robert K. Toutkoushian" <TOUTKOUS at vx.cis.umn.edu> Subject: Boiling wort question Hello: I have a question concerning how to properly boil wort. I have noticed that often my O.G.'s are considerably lower than what are listed in similar recipes, even though I have been using the same quantity of fermentibles, and was wondering if I could be "overcooking" the wort. When I first started out, I would combine my extracts & water, bring to a boil, and leave on low heat for 1 hour. Lately, I have been bringing the water to a boil first, then adding my extracts, returning to boil, and then continue boiling on high for 1 hour. What leads me to think that I could be overboiling the wort is that (1) I tend to get a lot of gunk (i.e. extracts and malts) sticking to the bottom of the boiling pot, even with frequent stirring, and (2) after 1 hour, the level of the wort seems a bit lower than the starting level, and I tend to get about 44 bottles out of a supposedly five gallon batch. My question to the wise homebrewers out there is this: once you bring the wort to a boil, do you reduce the heat to keep it at a low boil, or do you continue to go full blast on high heat? Also, does it help to bring the water to a boil before adding the extracts, etc.? As I noted above, the O.G. for my last batch were about 0.020 below what I thought it should have been, and while fermentation took place and all, the gravity fell from 1.030 to 1.010, which means that the alcohol content is also a bit lower than I had expected for this particular batch. Thanks in advance for any help. The books that I have seen usually say something along the lines of "continue boiling for 1 hour," but I guess there could be degrees of boiling (no pun intended). Rob Toutkoushian University of Minnesota INTERNET: toutkous at vx.cis.umn.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 07:59 -0600 (MDT) From: Chris Seiders <SEIDERS at HANDI.MED.UTAH.EDU> Subject: Stuck Fermentation? a Beginner's Question ICAgICBTaW5jZSB0aGlzIGlzIG15IGZpcnN0IHBvc3QgdG8gdGhpcyBsaXN0LCBw bGVhc2UgYmVhciB3aXRoIG1lLiAgSSBhbSBuZXcNCmF0IGJyZXdpbmcsIGFuZCBo YXZlIHJlY2VudGx5IHN0YXJ0ZWQgbXkgc2Vjb25kIGJhdGNoIG9mIGJyZXcuICBJ IGhhdmUNCmVuY291bnRlcmVkIHNvbWUgdGhpbmdzIHdoaWNoIEkgaGF2ZW4ndCBl bmNvdW50ZXJlZCBiZWZvcmUgKG5vdCBzdXJwcmlzaW5nIG9uDQpvbmx5IHRoZSBz ZWNvbmQgYmF0Y2gpIGFuZCBhbSBsb29raW5nIGZvciBzb21lIHdvcmRzIG9mIGFk dmljZS9lbmNvdXJhZ2VtZW50Lg0KSSBzdGFydGVkIGFuIGFsbC1leHRyYWN0IEJy b3duIE51dCBBbGUgb24gU2F0LiBBZnRlciBib2lsaW5nIHRoZSBleHRyYWN0IGZv cg0KMSBociBJIGFkZGVkIGl0IHRvIG15IDUgZ2FsbG9uIGdsYXNzIGNhcmJveSBh bmQgYnJvdWdodCBpdCB1cCB0byA1IGdhbGxvbnMNCndpdGggd2F0ZXIuICBJIHRo ZW4gY29vbGVkIHRoZSBjYXJib3kgaW4gYSB3YXRlci9pY2UgYmF0aCB1bnRpbCBp dCBjb29sZWQgdG8NCjc2+EYgYXQgd2hpY2ggcG9pbnQgSSBoeWRyYXRlZCB0aGUg d29ydCBieSByb2xsaW5nIHRoZSBjYXJib3kgYWxvbmcgdGhlDQpraXRjaGVuIGZs b29yIGFsb25nIHdpdGggc29tZSBtYW51YWwgc2hha2luZy4gIEkgdGhlbiByZWh5 ZHJhdGVkIG15IHllYXN0DQooMTRnKSBpbiAxLzIgY3VwIG9mIDkw+EYgd2F0ZXIg Zm9yIDE1IG1pbiBiZWZvcmUgYWRkaW5nIHRvIHRoZSB3b3J0Lg0KRmVybWVudGF0 aW9uIGJlZ2FuIHF1aWNrbHkgKHdpdGhpbiAzIGhvdXJzKSBhbmQgYWxvdCBvZiBj cmFwIGJsZXcgb3V0IG9mIG15DQoxIiBibG93b2ZmIHR1YmUgKGFwcHJveCAyIHF1 YXJ0cyBibG93b2ZmKS4NCg0KTm93IHRoZSBwcm9ibGVtOg0KICAgICBJIG5vdGlj ZWQgdGhhdCB0aGUgYmxvd29mZiBzdGFnZSBoYWQgcHJldHR5IG11Y2ggc3RvcHBl ZCBhcyBvZiBsYXN0DQpuaWdodCAoTW9uLikuIEkgcmVwbGFjZWQgdGhlIGJsb3dv ZmYgdHViZSB3aXRoIGEgZmVybWVudGF0aW9uIGxvY2ssIGJ1dCBpdA0Kbm93IGFw cGVhcnMgYXMgaWYgZmVybWVudGF0aW9uIGhhcyBzdG9wcGVkIGNvbXBsZXRlbHks IGllIEkgZG9uJ3Qgc2VlIGJ1YmJsZXMNCmNvbWluZyB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBsb2Nr LiAgTXkgcHJldmlvdXMgYmF0Y2ggd2FzIGEgc3RvdXQga2l0IGFuZCBmZXJtZW50 YXRpb24NCnNlZW1lZCB0byBjb250aW51ZSB0aHJvdWdoIHRoZSBsb2NrIGZvciBh dCBsZWFzdCBhIGdvb2Qgd2VlayBhZnRlciByZW1vdmluZw0KdGhlIGJsb3dvZmYu IE15IGNhcmJveSBpcyBsb2NhdGVkIGluIGEgY2xvc2V0IHdoaWNoIGtlZXBzIGl0 IGF0IGFib3V0IDc0+EYuDQpJcyB0aGlzIG5vcm1hbD8gIFNob3VsZCBJIHdhaXQg YmVmb3JlIGJvdHRsaW5nIG9yIGdvIGFoZWFkIGlmIHRoZQ0KZmVybWVudGF0aW9u IGhhcyBzdG9wcGVkPyAgQWZ0ZXIgb25seSAzIGRheXM/ICBQbGVhc2UsIG9oIHZl dGVyYW5zIG9mDQpob21lYnJldywgcGFzcyBkb3duIGFueSB3aXNkb20geW91IG1h eSBoYXZlIG9uIHRoaXMgc3ViamVjdC4gSSBhbSBiZWNvbWluZw0KcXVpdGUgY29u ZnVzZWQvZnJ1c3RyYXRlZCBzaW5jZSBJIGZlZWwgbGlrZSBJIGFtIHN0aWxsIHNo b290aW5nIGluIHRoZSBkYXJrDQp3aXRoIGVhY2ggc3RlcC4gVGhhbmtzIQ0KDQpD aHJpcyBTZWlkZXJzIChTRUlERVJTQEhBTkRJLk1FRC5VVEFILkVEVSkNCg0K Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 09:51 From: TODDJ.SRVRHOST at test.readmore.com (Todd Jennings) Subject: William Younger #3 From: toddj at readmore.com (Todd Jennings) I have heard of a brew by the name of WILLIAM YOUNGER #3; read about it in a soccer magazine, actually. In the mag article, the brew is described as "the ruin of a good many young men". The article goes on to refer to the beer as the preferred brew of LAGER LOUTS, the British football hooligans we hear so much about. Is there anyone who can tell me what the story is with this apparently British beer, i.e. what is the style, and where can one get it here in the States(if anywhere)? I assume it's a bitter ale, but perhaps I am off the track here. Can't wait to find out!! -Todd Jennings- **** | |> Cheers! |__| Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:15:41 EDT From: sims at pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims) Subject: beer & statistics >>From: Bob_McIlvaine at keyfile.com >>Subject: Mashout & Algebra >> >>most of us got into home brewing because we >>wanted a better beer and wanted to have some FUN >>getting it. YUP >>Beer making has been going on for centuries, >>without algebra and statistically designed >>experiments. But statistics was INVENTED by a brewer, if memory serves, trying to produce consistent brew. I'm not sure if that's something to be proud of or not ;-) jim Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:01:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Kieran O'Connor <koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu> Subject: COPS--again! Well--it happened again. in the Syracuse area, WSYT, the local Fox affiliate showed the infamous COPS episode with the guy with Homebrewing equipment. Anyone got those addresses available--and did it run in other areas? This show was on at 10 PM monday nite. Kieran O'Connor E-Mail Address: koconnor at mailbox.syr.edu Syracuse, N.Y. USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 9:40:57 CDT From: chips at coleslaw.me.utexas.edu (Chris Pencis) Subject: GABF results Thanks to Norm for the interesting post on the GABF...one thing, is this sort of the AHA nationals for breweries? Is there an AHA nationals for brewers? Could someone please take the time and post info on winners in all categories or e-mail me or perhaps just regular mail me a list of winners? I'd like to know these things so I could have a good reference list of just what is a good old amber, barlywine, specialty etc. so I can better develop my palate. Any other palate development techniques other than birth and drinking lots of different beers? Thanks again, email address below. Actually there's a fax # here so if anyone doesn't want to write or already has the info on paper.... Thanks - Chris ====================================================================== |Chris Pencis chips at coleslaw.me.utexas.edu | |University of Texas at Austin Robotics Research Group | ====================================================================== Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:02:40 -0500 (CDT) From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570) Subject: UK hops J.S. Hough ("Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing") lists a few hops used in the UK. I don't have access to them and haven't used them. alpha Target 11.5 Northdown 11.2 (seedless) Yeoman 11.0 Challenger 9.8 (seedless) Zenith 9.0 These hops are all modern hybrids developed at Wye College in Kent. Fuller's ESB uses a blend of a number of them. One reason for the blend might be that these hops vary in their resistance to diseases such as wilt, downy mildew, and powdery mildew. Return to table of contents
Date: 12 Oct 93 10:57:17 EDT From: "James Spence/Am. Hmbwrs. Assoc." <70740.1107 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: GABF XII Winners Okay, here they are. The winners of the Great American Beer Festival. Cheers! If there is not a medal listed in a category, it means that the missing medal was not awarded in the category. BREWERY, LOCATION, MEDAL, CATEGORY, BEER NAME Holy Cow! Casino Cafe Brewery, Las Vegas, Nev., Gold, Classic English Pale Ale, Holy Cow! Pale Ale Great Lakes Brewing Co., Cleveland, OH, Silver, Classic English Pale Ale, Burning River Ale Pike Place Brewery, Seattle, Wash., Bronze, Classic English Pale Ale, Pike Place Pale Ale High Country Brewery, Boulder, Colo., Gold, India Pale Ale, Renegade Red Anchor Brewing Co., San Fransisco, Calif., Silver, India Pale Ale, Liberty Ale CooperSmith's Pub & Brewing Co., Fort Collins, Colo., Bronze, India Pale Ale, Punjabi Pale Ale Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., Chico, Calif., Gold, American Pale/Amber Ale, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale Humbolt Brewery, Arcata, Calif., Silver, American Pale/Amber Ale, Red Nectar Heritage Brewing Co., Dana Point, Calif., Bronze, American Pale/Amber Ale, Red Fox Rockies Brewing Co., Boulder, Colo., Silver, Traditional Bitter, Boulder Amber Steelhead Brewery & Cafe, Eugene, Ore., Bronze, Traditional Bitter, Emerald Special Bitter Rockies Brewing Co., Boulder, Colo., Gold, Scottish Ale, Wrigley Red Golden Pacific Brewing Co., Inc., Emeryville, Calif., Silver, Scottish Ale, Golden Gate Red Ale Dempsey's Sonoma Brewing Co., Petaluma, Calif., Bronze, Scottish Ale, Sonoma Irish Ale Big Time Brewing Co., Seattle, Wash., Gold, Blonde Ale, Prime Time Tied House Cafe & Brewery, Alameda, Calif., Silver, Blonde Ale, Alpine Pearl Pale Alaskan Brewing Co., Douglas, Alaska, Bronze, Blonde Ale, Alaskan Pale Ale Great Lakes Brewing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, Gold, Porter, Edmund Fitzgerald Porter Marin Brewing Co., Larkspur, Calif., Silver, Porter, Pt. Reyes Porter Butterfield Brewing Co., Fresno, Calif., Bronze, Porter, Tower Dark Ale Dempsey's Sonoma Brewing Co., Petaluma, Calif., Gold, Dry Stout, Ugly Dog Stout North Coast Brewing Co., Ft. Bragg, Calif., Silver, Dry Stout, Old No. 38 Stout Jones Street Brewery, Omaha, Neb., Bronze, Dry Stout, Ryan's Irish Stout Seabright Brewery Pub & Restaurant, Santa Cruz, Calif., Gold, Sweet Stout, Seabright Oatmeal Stout Oasis Brewery, Boulder, Colo., Silver, Sweet Stout, Zoser Stout San Diego's Riptide Brewery, San Diego, Calif., Bronze, Sweet Stout, Oatmeal Stout Vermont Pub & Brewery, Burlington, Vt., Gold, Strong Ale, Auld Tartan Wee Heavy Pacific Coast Brewing Co., Oakland, Calif., Silver, Strong Ale, Imperial Stout Pizza Deli and Brewery, Cave Junction, Ore., Bronze, Strong Ale, Steelhead Snug Harbor Old Ale Rogue Ales, Newport, Ore., Gold, Barley Wine, Old Crustacean Pike Place Brewery, Seattle, Wash., Silver, Barley Wine, Old Bawdy Barley Wine Big Time Brewing Co., Seattle, Wash., Bronze, Barley Wine, Old Wooly Marin Brewing Co., Larkspur, Calif., Gold, Fruit, Vegetable, Bluebeery Ale Tied House Cafe & Brewery, Alameda, Cal., Silver, Fruit, Vegetable, Passion Pale Eske's Brew Pub/Sangre De Cristo Brewing Inc., Taos, N.M., Bronze, Fruit, Vegetable, Taos Green Chile Beer Celis Brewery, Austin, Texas, Gold, Herb, Spice, Celis White Silo Brew Pub, Louisville, Ky., Silver, Herb, Spice, Yuletide Ale Anchor Brewing Co., San Fransisco, Calif., Bronze, Herb, Spice, Our Special Ale New Belgium Brewing Co., Fort Collins, Colo., Gold, Specialty, Abbey Trappist Style Ale Coors Brewing Co., Golden, Colo., Silver, Specialty, Winterfest Spanish Peaks Brewing Co. LTD, Bozeman, Mont., Bronze, Specialty, Raspberry Honey Alaskan Brewing Co., Douglas, Alaska, Gold, Smoke Flavored, Alaskan Smoked Porter Rogue Ales, Newport, Ore., Silver, Smoke Flavored, Welkommen Stoudt Brewing Co., Adamstown, Pa., Silver, Bock, Bock Boston Beer Co., Boston, Mass., Bronze, Bock, Samuel Adams Double Bock Florida Beer Brands, Orlando, Fla., Gold, Amber Lager, Old West Amber Boston Beer Co., Boston, Mass., Silver, Amber Lager, Samuel Adams Octoberfest Rhomberg Brewing Co., Davenport, Iowa, Bronze, Amber Lager, Rhomberg Classic Amber Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Gold, Dark Lager, Lowenbrau Dark Joseph Huber Brewing Co., Inc., Monroe, Wis., Silver, Dark Lager, Berghoff Dark Blitz-Weinhard's Brewing Company, Portland, Ore., Bronze, Dark Lager, Henry Weinhard's Dark Beer Pennsylvania Brewing Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., Gold, Munchner Helles & Dortmunder Export, Penn Light Lager Los Gatos Brewing Co., Los Gatos, Calif., Silver, Munchner Helles & Dortmunder Export, Los Gatos Lager Stoudt Brewing Co., Adamstown, Pa., Gold, European Pilsner, Pilsener Sudwerk, Privatbrauerei Hubsch, Davis, Calif., Silver, European Pilsner, Hubsch Brau Pilsner Riverside Brewing Co., Riverside, Calif., Bronze, European Pilsner, Golden Spike Pilsner Evansville Brewing Co., Inc., Evansville, Ind., Gold, American Lager, Drummond Bros. Lone Star Brewing Co., San Antonio, Texas, Silver, American Lager, Lone Star Brewski Brewing Co., San Diego, Calif., Bronze, American Lager, Brewski Brew Pub Classic G. Heileman Brewing Co., La Crosse, Wis., Gold, American Light Lager, Special Export Light Lone Star Brewing Co., San Antonio, Texas, Silver, American Light Lager, Lone Star Light Brewski Brewing Co., San Diego, Calif., Bronze, American Light Lager, Brewski Brew Pub Light Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Co., Chippewa Falls, Wis., Gold, American Premium Lager, Leinenkugel's Limited Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Mo., Silver, American Premium Lager, Budweiser Stevens Point Brewery, Steven Point, Wis., Bronze, American Premium Lager, Point Special Pabst Brewing Co.-Tumwater, Milwaukee, Wis., Gold, American Dry Lager, Olympia Dry Jones Brewing Co., Smithton, Pa., Silver, American Dry Lager, Esquire Extra Dry G. Heileman Brewing Co., La Crosse, Wis., Gold, American Malt Liquor, Mickey's Malt Liquor Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Silver, American Malt Liquor, Magnum Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Mo., Bronze, American Malt Liquor, King Cobra New England Brewing Co., Norwalk, Conn., Gold, Dusseldorf Altbier, Atlantic Amber William & Scott Brewing Co., Culver City, Calif., Silver, Dusseldorf Altbier, Rhino Chasers North Coast Brewing Co., Ft. Bragg, Calif., Bronze, Dusseldorf Altbier, Alt Nouveau Lonetree Brewing, LTD, Denver, Colo., Gold, American Lager/Ale-Cream Ale, Country Cream Ale Genesee Brewing Co., Inc., Rochester, N.Y., Silver, American Lager/Ale-Cream Ale, Genesee Cream Ale Minnesota Brewing Co., St. Paul, Minn., Bronze, American Lager/Ale-Cream Ale, McMahon's Potato Ale Heavenly Daze Brewery & Grill, Steamboat Springs, Colo., Gold, German Wheat, Heavenly Hefe Weizen August Schell Brewing Co., New Ulm, Minn., Silver, German Wheat, August Schell Weizen HOPS! Bistro & Brewery, Scottsdale, Ariz., Bronze, German Wheat, HOPS! Hefe-Weizen Odell Brewing Co., Ft. Collins, Colo., Gold, American Wheat, Easy Street Wheat H.C. Berger Brewing Co., Ft. Collins, Colo., Silver, American Wheat, Whistlepin Wheat Marin Brewing Co., Larkspur, Calif., Bronze, American Wheat, Marin Hefe Weiss Champion Brewing Co., Denver, Colo., Gold, English Brown Ale, Home Run Ale Deschutes Brewery, Bend, Ore., Silver, English Brown Ale, Bond Street Brown Ale Coyote Springs Brewing Co. & Cafe, Phoenix, Ariz., Bronze, English Brown Ale, Bison Brown Ale Walnut Brewery, Boulder, Colo., Gold, American Brown Ale, Old Elk Brown Ale Butterfield Brewing Co., Fresno, Calif., Silver, American Brown Ale, Brown Ale Lost Coast Brewery & Cafe, Eureka, Calif., Bronze, American Brown Ale, Downtown Brown Evansville Brewing Co., Inc., Evansville, Ind., Gold, Non-Alcoholic, Birell N.A. Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Mo., Silver, Non-Alcoholic, O'Doul's Pearl Brewing Co., San Antonio, Texas, Bronze, Non-Alcoholic, Pabst Non-Alcoholic Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:26:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul Boor <PBOOR at BEACH.UTMB.EDU> Subject: will the real bogeyman please stand up The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd Edition) defines bogeyman or variants bogyman, boogeyman or boogyman or boogieman, as a terrifying specter; a hobglobin. Jack Schmidling ought to get himself a decent dictionary, especially for those words he intends to use in the titles of his articles. Return to table of contents
Date: 12 Oct 93 08:26:42 MST From: "Cisco" <FRANCISCO at osmo.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> Subject: Beer Mix, Smoked Porter Andrew Baird says: > > I believe the beer mix is a nitrogen and C02 mix, and will reduce the > problems with over carbonation of beer, if the keg is kept on tap for a > prolonged period. This sounds great, as I prefer my beers with little > carbonation anyway, (I am a native Briton after all). However, are there any > disadvantages to using a Nitrogen/C02 mix. > You are correct about the gas mixture of the "beer mix" sold at refill stores. It definitely cures the well known problem of eventual overcarbonation when kegs are kept online for extended periods. I also prefer the English ales and don't like the amount of carbonation that is so common for American beers. The only drawback to the "beer mix" is that you can't force carbonate your kegs. I have found that I prefer to let my ales naturally carbonate, usually takes about 3 weeks, the gas bubbles in solution are very tiny and give a great long lasting creamy head. I have found over the years that the addition of 4oz of wheat malt to all my brews gives great head retention. I'm never in need of having to wait for carbonation to complete because I always have two kegs on tap with at least 2 kegs waiting to go on tap so my ales are always nicely aged by the time they finally go on tap. Smoked Ales: I recently made a Pecan smoked porter that has turned out wonderfull! I have a real smoker - where the fire pit sits off to the side of the smoke chamber- and I smoked 2 pounds of Belgian Bisquit malt for one hour. The temperature remained 110-120 F. I started 8 charcoal briquets and when they formed a white ash layer I arranged them in a double row and placed a one foot piece of pecan wood on top (be sure that when you smoke anything that the wood does not have ANY remaining bark attached as this will impart a very bitter flavor). I adjusted my flues to maintain the temperature for one hour. The grain was then removed and put into a bowl and covered until the next day when I ground all the grain. The smoked flavor is not too subtle and not too overpowering and blends very well with the recipe of my favorite porter. I just kegged it so it will be awhile before it gets rotated in line to the taps, there are two kegs ahead of it - one is a raspberry ale using the extract from Hoptech. John Francisco (Cisco) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 9:52:20 MDT From: npyle at n33.stortek.com Subject: SLOW counterflow Dave says about his new counterflow wort chiller: > Well, after 7+ years of cooling my wort in the bathtub, I finally >decided to make a wort chiller. I decided on a counterflow design because >it is supposed to be more efficient and because I cant imagine it is >really as hard to sterilize as some maintain. I had a design for one from >one of the zymurgy special issues (all grain brewing?) and it looked >straightforward. One question I had was what is the optimal length for >the thing? Zymurgy says 20 ft in their article. Dave Miller in his book >says it must be at least 40 ft. I looked into prices for copper tubing, >etc, and determined that, economies of scale being what they are, it was >worth it to build a longer one. I bought 50ft of garden hose (a lot >cheaper than tygon tubing), 50 ft of 1/4" copper tubing, and built a 40 ft >chiller (10 feet of the hose going to the connecting lines). > Well, I used the contraption a few days later. It certainly did a >fine job of cooling the wort, but it is SLOOOOOW. It took about 50 >minutes for 5 gallons of wort to pass through this baby! This is not much >faster than my bathtub method (although I recognize that each little bit >of wort cools down very fast indeed, contributing to a good cold break). >All the while the water is running and I am feeling guilty about wasting >so much, and besides I hoped that building this thing would save me some time. Well Dave my counterflow chiller (about a month old) is only slow when my choreboy (in the kettle) gets clogged with hops (I'm going to shy away from pellets whenever I can in the future). The normal, unclogged rate is about 5 gallons in 25 minutes, if memory serves. The difference is that mine is made with 3/8" copper tubing, not 1/4". This is considerable. When mine slows down (choreboy cloggage), I turn the cooling water down to a trickle. The last time this happened it took less than 10 gallons of water to cool 5 gallons of wort to pitching temperature (but it took over an hour). Oh, mine is only 30 feet long and it does a wonderful job. I suspect I could get away with a shorter one. I suggest one of three routes: 1) take it apart and replace the 1/4" tubing with 3/8" tubing, 2) cut it in half to make two chillers in parallel, or 3) change it to an immersion chiller (these work very nicely). The problem with 2) is that the plumbing is guaranteed to get real interesting. Dave goes on talk about other chiller hurdles: > Another general question that I have is how do people direct the >wort into their counterflow chillers. In the past I always imagined that >i would just hook it up in series with my hopback, but recent talk about >the evils of hot-side aeration have spooked me on this idea. The >alternative is to siphon directly from the brew kettle, but this has its >own problems (the old mouth-on-the-siphon-hose conundrum, and the problem >of hops clogging the chiller (yes, I know about the chore boy solution but >it seems to me that that is going to leave a lot of hard-earned wort in >the kettle)). So, what do people do about that? I don't have a hop-back but my kettle has a ball valve mounted at the bottom. I have copper tubing compression fittings to attach my chiller directly out of the bottom of the kettle. Since my kettle tap is not exactly at the bottom of the kettle I use a small brass elbow on the inside of the kettle and it takes wort almost directly off the bottom of the kettle (very little losses). Anyway, it is all gravity fed and works like a charm. I don't know about hop-backs and such, I'm a low tech (in this respect) dry-hopper. Joel asks about draining the first runnings, adding sparge water, and draining again to simplify his sparge. This works fine, Joel. If it is easy for you, do it. You might even try 3 of these "batch sparges" for more efficiency. The only drawback I can think of is that you are losing the original runnings right away, which help buffer the goods. It is possible your pH will drop more quickly during the subsequent sparges, requiring acidification of the sparge water to avoid tannin extraction. I've never really had a problem with it (i.e. no astringent beers) but I don't take my sparges too far. I usually get 25-27 points which indicates there is a fair amount of sugar and other stuff left in the grist, which I presume maintains the pH (not a lot of measuring going on). good luck, norm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:39:59 EST From: Ulick Stafford <ulick at michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu> Subject: Batch Sparging Joel Birkeland in 1245 asks about batch sparging. It is my understanding that this is the old fashioned way of doing it. In past times the first runnings would make a big beer, the second runnings (after resuspending the mash) a normal beer, and the third runnings - a mediaeval version of Bud Light. The reason for continuous sparging is that it is more efficient, and doesn't have the problem of resetting the bed, but for homebrew purposes I am sure there would be little problem. Or alternately get a big picnic cooler that you can fill with all of your sparge water. Re Hydrogen sulfide - this is a normal breakdown product when protein amino acids containing sulphur are decayed - and well, fermentation is really controlled food decay. __________________________________________________________________________ 'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s at &* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng. Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556 | ulick at darwin.cc.nd.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:50 CDT From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Judging From: mferts at taec.com (Mike Fertsch) >It is neither boring nor unenlightening. I simply stated my opinion about much of the drudgery that necessarily goes along with a competition. You are entitled to yours. >Ideally, judges ARE experts in the styles they are judging. That's nice but the real world is NOT ideal. > Every judge in the program knows broadly what pilsners are supposed to taste like. "Every" and "broadly" are the key words here and I won't argue with them but my point was that I would rather have my beer judged by an expert in that catagory. >My point here is that certain judges are EXPERTS, and can pick beers out of a lineup. I already acknowledged that presumption. The problem arises from the fact that many can not. > A broad knowledge of styles, a good palate, and a good understanding of what can go wrong in beers is more than adequate for judging almost all competitons. This is what the BJCP fosters. Fostering doth not equate to create. The key here is palate. The other aspects can be memorized in a few hours but palate takes years to develop and my guess is that very few judges have it to a confidant degree of certainty. This is obvious from the "negotiating" that goes on AFTER they have arrived at their own opinion. >How was this competition run? How many entries?..... You seemed to have missed the whole point of my posting. It was run competantly, professionally and in a friendly manner that made it a memorable experience. I simply proposed a system of judge qualification that would be more satisfying to me both as a competitor and as a judge. >From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) >In an attempt to patch over those holes, there is a movement afoot to develop a specific style certification in addition to the BJCP certification. Sounds like I hit a nerve. That's certainly a step in the right direction but it seems like putting the cart before the horse. It would be just as rational to qualify experts up front of the overall certification and it would fill the ranks of experts much faster. >From: andrewb6 at aol.com >Subject: Regulators, Beer mix, and enamel pots. >Has anyone tried mounting a "Slotted T drain" in an enamel-on-steel pot? Obviously welding is out of the question, and I imagine that chipping/splintering of the enamel would be a problem too, but are there any fittings (perhaps an o-ring or a compression type) that will be strong, seal well, and still hold up to the rigors of boiling wort? Not sure what a "Slotted T drain" is but if you use a spigot with a male thread and a female connector on the inside, you can make a leakproof compression fit. The only hooker is you have to rethread them with straight threads as they are normally supplied with tapered pipe threads. Drilling holes without chipping is not a problem as long as a small pilot hole is drilled first. >From: birkelan at adtaz.sps.mot.com (Joel Birkeland) >1) Is a continuous sparge really necessary? Has anyone tried just draining all of the mash liquor out of the tun, refilling with the sparge water all at once, letting it sit, and then draining it? Since I use a easymasher of the Schmidling design, re-establishing the filter bed would not really be a problem. This seems to me to be much easier than monitoring the flow from my sparge vessel into the mash for half an hour. What seems intuitive is not always so. Someone posted an article a year or so ago that explained it in terms so simple, that even I could understand, why this is not so. It has to do with the gradual dilution effect and that the grain is always meeting up with a differential between it's remaining sugar and the disolved sugar in the sparge water. The greater this differential is, the more sugar will be removed. It is also easy to see that in the last batch, after stirring the water and mash, the whole liquid will arrive at some gravity. When the liquid is drained, the liquid held by the grain will be that gravity and that sugar is lost. By continually sparging, the gravity of the liquid left in the grain will be that of the last running and of no interest. js Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 12:53:08 -0400 From: polstra!larryba at uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: Wort Processors Mill Evaluation In HBD #1241, Jack writes about mill issue: > > Sounds like a fun time was had by all and the context and tone of the report > indicate that it does not require much serious debate. However, there are a Actually, it sounds like all the mills, with the exception of the original corona were more than acceptable. Price, availablility and the volume of grain to be crushed seemed like the decision points - not crush quality. > ... > First of all, the MM used in the evaluation does not represent current design > which will indeed crush one lb of malt in under 14 seconds with a hand crank > and 5 lbs per minute with a motor is like falling off a log. I can vouch for the speed and quality of the current MM design, having purchased one of the first with the knurled roller. I am sure one can crush 1lb in 14 seconds with the hand crank, but my arm falls off when doing 20lb crushes and I take much longer, say 30 sec/lb. >... > Finally, a note on crush quality.... > > The most misunderstood aspect of the grist resulting from milling of malt for > brewing is the bogyman known variously as flour, dust, fine particles, powder > etc. I would rank the need for unscathed husks as number two. The emphasis > on both of these results from the problems created by crude grain grinders > combined with poorly designed and/or operated mash/lauter tuns. I agree that grit size and uniformity is more important than husk damage. this is most true about modern 2-row grains. I have personally used two lauter designs: a perforated false bottom and a slotted copper manifold. In both cases too fine a grind is a disaster regardless of the quality of the husks. The problems are two fold. First the flour tends to ball up and make a dough that is dry inside. This occurs during mash in and is a royal pain to get rid off. I have seen folks try to avoid this by mashing in a little grain at a time, stirring vigorously between additions. Still when fully mashed in, those pesky balls of dough continue to float to the surface. Second problem is the stuck sparge. I had never seen one until I used a roller mill that was set way too close (.025") and the sparge locked up after a couple quarts. No dribble, nothing. Just like the valve had been closed. The malt mill I have produces a course crush (e.g. looks like cornmeal) with pretty much intact husks. I have lautered a 15.5 lb mash and recovered 11.5 gallons of 1.046 wort in 20 minutes. That is .034pt/lb/gal for you guys interested in the efficiency game. Since it was a pils, using only pils malt, the number wasn't too unexpected. I guess my point is that with modern, fully modified malts (Please, can anyone point me to a commercially available malt that isn't?) fine crushes DON'T GAIN YOU ANYTHING but problems. Look at malt specifications: they describe the difference between course and fine crush extract yeilds. typically the difference is 2% or less. Smaller numbers are indicators of higher quality (and degree of modification). So, to summarize: any of the mills mentioned in the Crush off should work fine. I have used homemade roller mills, coronas, corona knockoffs the malt mill and converted coffee grinders. The only one that was consistently bad was the coffee grinder. All others could be adjusted to produce great crushes fast lauters and excellent extracts. > > The perfect grist for mashing would be molecule sized particles of malt from > which all the husk has been removed. It would wet perfectly, disolve > instantly and produce 100% yield of crystal clear wort. This is a gross simplification. Malt contains more than husk, starch and enzymes. All the gums, protein, cellulose, etc. are best left in matrix rather than trying to filter them out. - -- Larry Barello uunet!polstra!larryba Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 11:15:51 -0600 (MDT) From: COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu> Subject: Yeast Growth/ Starter Size >Jonathan Knight >Grinnell, Iowa *Jonathan asked about slow starts and long ferments... >My typical procedure is to boil up one cup of D.M.E. in a solution which, >after some evaporation, turns out around 750-800 ml. Should I use more >D.M.E. in the first place? Or should I step-up the first starter into a >second? If I do that, do I make a stronger solution the second time (as in >more extract per volume of water)? I'd love to hear from anyone who wishes >to share their experience and expertise on this subject as a fellow- >chronically-underpitching-homebrewer.>> > Just a little primer on yeast growth and metabolism: Growth vs. Time (low and high starting populations) __________________________________________________________________ | * * | * * X X X | * X * X Pop | * X * X (init) | * X * X *=HI | * X * X X=LO | * X * X |*X* X X * X - ---------#########-----TIME----------------------------------------- This is only a cartoon. Had this been a real graph there might be data to support it. Take it as you will- can you speak "hypothetical?" With a low starting population the lag time before exponential growth is lengthened. It is during this period that the greatest danger of infection exists. A high starting population will result in a narrower growth curve, whereas the smaller pop. will grow slower, for a longer time. It is reasonable to believe that the small init. pop will never acheive the maximum population of the high start. There are definite benefits to a high starting population, and definite disadvantages to a slow start. I can't imagine you could "overpitch" a wort- unless you collected the yeast from ten brews and added inadequate fermentables to make them live. If the yeast run out of nutrients they may turn to unfavorable metabolic pathways. But I'd be inclined to think that if you supply a full bodied wort and sufficient aeration to the number of yeast collected from as much as a 1 gallon starter will do no harm. A good process for growing up a starter- I use a 200 ml starter of about 020 sp gr. for a colony from a plate. For a liquid yeast- say a 500ml initial starter. Same sp. gr. Grow this for a day or two. Let settle- Collect yeast sediment, add to a fresh wort of a slightly higher sp. gr. say 030 in a larger volume- 500 ml (culture), 800 ml (liquid). Grow up 1 day. Till active ferment. Brew Day: Take some of the wort from the sparge and boil quickly. Cool and combine starter with equal volume of fresh wort. By the time the boil and cool are done this will be active. Cool wort and pitch. You should get a good start. Stepping up the volume and strength of the starters will allow the yeast to both increase in number and acclimatize to the brew gravity. G'luck. Hope this helps. John (The Coyote) Wyllie SLK6P at cc.usu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 13:34:08 EDT From: Bob_McIlvaine at keyfile.com Subject: bogy vs boogy I believe both definitions that Jack mentioned in previous postings are correct at the correct point in history. I also won't attempt to dispute the the spelling in either case. But...I have it on rather good authority that before both of the definitions mentioned, the phrase "Don't let the boogy man get you!" was coined. The tribal pirates of the south sea islands whose commodities included un-willing slaves (read kidnapped young'ins) were called Boogymen. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1246, 10/13/93