HOMEBREW Digest #1299 Thu 16 December 1993
Digest #1298
Digest #1300
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
re: Mead questions (Dick Dunn)
Trappist, oatmeal stout, and red ale recipes (Cree-ee-py Boy)
RIMS? (Al Gaspar)
re: AOL Censorship (Michael T. Lobo)
lagering questions (Mark A Fryling)
Kegs -vs- stock pots (Will B. Blalock)
Bottle Inspection (Geoff Reeves)
Pure Oxygen Sources ("Mark T. Berard")
Oxygen and hydrometers (Ulick Stafford)
SS pots and welding ("Bill Kitch")
Munton & Fison address... (Steven Tollefsrud)
Re: First Cider Attempt (Jeff Benjamin)
New Book on Hops (George J Fix)
Re: Lauter Tun Design (Jay Hersh)
RE: chopsticks / RE:Reusing yeast (Bill Sadvary)
Suggestions for a dark beer? ("Ray Siemens")
Scotch Ale (Bryan L. Gros)
HWBTA Annual Competition ("Norman Dickenson")
O2, Bottle inspection Quest ("Rad Equipment")
Malt boil (James Kendall)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1295 (December 11, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1291 (December 07, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1292 (December 08, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1294 (December 10, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1293 (December 09, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1296 (December 13, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1297 (December 14, 1993) (jmuns)
Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1289 (December 04, 1993) (jmuns)
bottle "sparkler"/multiple hydrometers/hard cider/lagering (Keith MacNeal 15-Dec-1993 1338)
Cloying Sweetness, Why? ("Taylor Standlee")
when to bottle/bottle inspection/Fuggles in the boil (korz)
Uh Oh! (Jeff Frane)
Head Retention ("Anderso_A")
Re: First Cider Attempt (yeebot)
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: 15 Dec 93 01:16:13 MST (Wed)
From: rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Mead questions
John (XLPSJGN%LUCCPUA.BITNET at UICVM.UIC.EDU, whatever that might mean!)
writes about mead for his honeymoon:
[startup info deleted]
> The mead is now racked into 2 1gal. bottles (one is full to the neck,
> the other about only 1/2 full). OG: 1.055; SG at racking: 1.010.
OK, with starting gravity only 1.055, this is intended to be light.
> The taste before pitching was exquisite, with an almost perfect
> balance between the honey, ginger and razberries (about a pound of
> those) However at racking, the fermentation seemed to have hurt the
> flavor, with an off flavor best described as like A & D Ointment!...
Would you consider trading one brand name for another and describing the
taste as "Listerine"? If so, "do not panic; this is perfectly normal"!
It's the taste of a young mead. I've been able to avoid it with the right
yeast, but if it happens it's nothing to worry about.
>...The "bouquet" seemed to have soured as well, offering a smell more like
> ripe yeasties (like when we clean our carboys after bottling). Is
> this normal and/or will these flavors mellow and balence within a few
> months? That's question #1.
It's hard to tell from the description, but it doesn't sound out of the
ordinary. Meads *do* take longer to finish, and they get some pretty weird
characters at early stages along the way. The best I can advise is that if
you smell/taste something that is *obviously* wrong, you've got a concern,
but if you only find something strange, that you can't characterize, don't
worry.
> Question #2...[fermentation temp]
> ...roomand do give off some heat (I'd estimate that it's a steady 80F
> though I've not yet monitored the temperature)...
Meads tend to do OK with higher temps. (They ferment slower anyway; higher
temps seems to move them along quicker, mostly without bad effect.) 80F
does seem a bit high, not unreasonable but more than you might like.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd at eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 3:34:20 -0600 (CST)
From: Cree-ee-py Boy <BIRMINGH at FNALV.FNAL.GOV>
Subject: Trappist, oatmeal stout, and red ale recipes
In HBD 1297, Aaron Birenboim asks:
> would somebody out there be kind enough to send me a nice abbey ale
>recipe. I'm leary of those in rojette's book. (all grain and
>candi-sugar preferred.)
Well, I don't have it with me, but the recipe in Dave Miller's
_Complete Handbook of Homebrewing_ is one with which I have had good
results.
While we're on the topic of recipes, I've seen requests for
recipes for both oatmeal stout and red ale. I was brewing both at the
time, but I hadn't bottled yet so I decided to keep my mouth shut until
I learned how they turned out. So, without further ado:
Barney's Flat Oatmeal Stout
---------------------------
6.0 lb DeWolf-Cosyns Pale Ale malt
1.0 lb (Briess?) roast barley
1.0 lb flaked barley (the stuff Kent sells)
1.0 lb Quaker oats (the 5-minute stuff)
2 oz Northern Brewer pellets (alpha=6.8, 60 min)
Yeast Labs American Ale yeast (3rd consecutive pitch)
Single infusion mash in 12 quarts water for 2 hours at 150 degrees
OG 1051 FG 1014
Don't be fooled by the name; this is not a Barney Flats clone. I
just thought it'd be a cool name. (Does anybody know where I can get a
postscript file of a certain dinosaur covered with tire tracks?)
Two words for you: SET MASH. I normally do not mash out, and even
when I do I usually only do a cursory mashout. I strongly recommend you
get the mash temperature to 170 degrees before running off, and do not
let it cool. It was so much trouble that I swore at pitching that
unless this beer was heavenly, I'd never make another. I'm going to try
to make one with cocoa and coffee this weekend.
This is an extremely smooth beer, with a goodly but not
overwhelming roast barley flavor. The only problem is that it is still
flat after a couple or three weeks in the bottle because I left it in
the secondary long enough that there was very little yeast in
suspension. Pouring it from a 1-foot height doesn't generate any head
to speak of (can *your* beer do this?)
Butt Pimple Ale
---------------
9.0 lb DeWolf-Cosyns Pale Ale malt
.5 lb DeWolf-Cosyns Caravienne
.5 lb DeWolf-Cosyns Biscuit malt
.25 lb DeWolf-Cosyns Special B
.25 lb DeWolf-Cosyns caramel pils
.8 oz 50/50 mix Willamette/Cascade (alpha=6.0 avg, 60 min)
1.0 oz 50/50 mix Willamette/Cascade (alpha=6.0 avg, 30 min)
.25 tsp Irish Moss flakes (15 min)
1.0 oz 50/50 mix Willamette/Cascade (alpha=6.0 avg, 15 min steep)
Yeast Labs American Ale yeast (5th consecutive pitch!)
The respective alphas of the Cascade and Willamette are 7.4 and
4.6. The 50/50 mix is by weight, and whole hops were used for both.
Mash in 14 quarts water for 90 minutes at 153 degrees.
OG 1060 FG 1020
I call this "Butt Pimple Ale" because it's big, it's red, and it's
been a pain in the ass.
This has turned out pretty well. I had some problems with it,
namely that it stopped fermenting at around 1030, but I racked from the
7-gallon carboy into a 5-gallon jobber before I measured the SG. So,
when I moved it closer to the water heater, I had to install a blowoff
tube. When it stopped blowing off, I installed an airlock and moved it
back to the normal fermentation area, at which point it began blowing
off AGAIN.
This was the fifth re-pitching from this yeast purchase, and the
yeast seemed to behave differently from previous pitchings. Previously
a cake of yeast would form on top of the beer and remain there after
fermentation was complete. Also, the yeast had not seemed to hate the
lower (60 degrees or so) temperatures quite so much (although my
roommate turned the heat off over Thanksgiving, so the beer may have
gotten even colder than that.)
In any case, this beer has a medium-red color, pretty good body,
and a slight bite in the finish which I don't think is from hops. It
has some hop flavor, but I'd like more. It seems to have little hop
aroma, but I don't trust my nose right now. I'll likely brew this
again, but perhaps dry-hopped next time.
I only bottled this beer last night, so things could change. I'll
tell more when I know it; e-mail me if you want to know more.
- --
Phillip J. Birmingham birmingham at fnalv.fnal.gov
"Tampering in God's Domain since 1965!"
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 07:07:45 CST
From: Al Gaspar <gaspar at STL-17SIMA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: RIMS?
This is a dumb question. I haven't seen the Zymurgy article that George Fix
wrote. What does RIMS stand for? What is a RIMS? How many RIMS can stand on
the head of a pin? Thanks.
Cheers--
Al
- --
Al Gaspar <gaspar at stl-17sima.army.mil>
USAMC SIMA, ATTN: AMXSI-TTC, 1222 Spruce St., St. Louis, MO 63103-2834
COMMERCIAL: (314) 331-4354 AUTOVON: 555-4354
relay1.uu.net!stl-17sima.army.mil!gaspar
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 08:53:06 EST
From: mlobo at sentry.foxboro.com (Michael T. Lobo)
Subject: re: AOL Censorship
Greetings:
Before a flame war develops, I want to add my $.02 RE: Lan's mail
in HBD 1298
IMHO we should continue to abide by what appears to be an unspoken but
followed forum etiquette.
I like the way things are run and the absence of expletives is welcome -
( you want that, check out alt-tasteless-jokes {:^) )
There's no need to "..all speak with more rarified language."-(Lan)
,nor do I think anyone expects us to. This is a forum on homebrewing...and in
the words of that _famous_ brewmeister, Charlie P. -
"relax, and have a homebrew"
If you have a problem with a forum/newsgroup/etc, you can unsubscribe or give
the sysop grief and/or appeal to fellow forum readers. This is the HBD forum-
maybe the AOL problems should be kept there.
Not a flame, just a small brain dump. If you have the need to flame, mail me
directly.
Michael _I'm going to Munich tomorrow..oh Joy_ Lobo
______________________________
Michael T. Lobo 508 549 2487
Foxboro Co.
mlobo at foxboro.com "I Love beer, beer loves me; when I drink too much,
my beer speaks for me" -Monty
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 9:11:18 EST
From: Mark A Fryling <mfryling at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: lagering questions
Howdy,
We (my housemate/brewpartner and I) are about to embark on our first true
lagers and I would like to pick the collective HBD brain. The plan is to make
first an amber fest-style lager and then a double bock. I have a very swollen
packet of wyeast bohemian lager yeast which will be made into a 1L starter
tonight so that we will brew thursday or friday. The fermentation and lagering
will be done in our back room which is now a relatively constant 52 F and will
probably get down into the 45-47 F range in Jan. and Feb. The questions are:
1) Should I start fermentation (ie primary) directly in the cold room or
should I begin in the basement (about 62F) and then move to the cold room after
things get really perking? and 2) Does someone out there have some good extract
recipes for these styles? Something approximating Wurtzburger Hoffbrau's
octoberfest would be nice for the amber and something like Paulaner Salvator
would be great for the Dopplebock. I already have a mental approximation but
some experienced advice would be appreciated.
Send your replies directly unless you have something of general interest.
Thanx,
Mark Fryling
<mfryling at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
"Patience is a virtue, have it if you can. Seldom had by woman, never had by
man."
source unknown
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 8:53:29 CST
From: Will B. Blalock <willb at hp3.imed.com>
Subject: Kegs -vs- stock pots
Full-Name: Will B. Blalock
I have a few comments concerning an item in the last digest that
questioned the use of kegs -vs- real stock pots.
No doubt that if you have deep enough pockets for real SS stock
pots, it is the superior choice. Actual pots have extra metal on the bottom
to aid in even heating. They have lids that fit, and are easier to clean.
The problem I am having with pots is that if you try to find one any bigger
than 20 quarts or so, the price seems to escalate exponentially. I have
been checking restaurant supply wearhouses and pots that range from 10 to
20 gallons price from $100 to $200. The formula seems to approximate
$10/gallon (actually a linear progression.)
My only problem with SS kegs is ... I can't find any!!!
I have called almost every keg retailer in my area and South Houston
and they are telling me the same thing, "Those went out about a year ago."
I called beer brewerys and their distributors only to be turned down. In
short, I may have to buy stock pots since I can't find any SS kegs. There
are plenty with SS casing, but they all now have aluminum casks. My next
and only step is to start putting ads in the local want ads. I may get
lucky, yet I too am begining to wonder if kegs are worth all this trouble,
especially when you consider the job of re-conditioning I have to go
through after finding them.
Will Blalock
Houston Texas
willb at imed.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 08:53:20 -0700
From: reeves at lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves)
Subject: Bottle Inspection
>The AHA beer judging form starts off, after identification of the
>style and the judge, with the category "bottle inspection". There
>are no points awarded in this category, just comments. I have
>several questions, such as:
>
>What is the purpose of this section? Recently I received comments in
>this section of "short fill" and "low fill line". e
>
>Chuck Wettergreen
This is one of my pet peeves with respect to judging. The bottle can
actually tell you a lot about possible problems with the beer inside. A
white ring around the neck can indicate bacterial infection. Lots of head
space can sometimes cause oxidation. I've even judged bottles that are half
(yes half) full of trub! Some judges feel they have to write something in
the bottle inspection portion and the most common comment is something
about the fill height. A few years ago as the AHA members generally became
more aware of the problems of oxidation there developed an attitude that
the bottle should ideally be filled exactly to the top with no air at the
top. This idea is absurd! Yes, if the beer is oxidized then lots of air in
the bottle neck could be the problem and it is worth noting on the judging
form. If the beer is not oxidized then you can fill as short as you like
and no one should comment on it. I counter-pressure bottle much of my
bottled beer and the bottle can be only half full and still have no oxygen
in it. I've actually commented on bottles being too full in the bottle
inspection portion. When is a bottle _too_ full? When you have to be
careful opening it. My advice to other judges is that for 99% of the beers
we judge should just have "OK" in the bottle inspection area. My advice to
people having their beer judged is to ignore most bottle inspection
comments unless they are related to the flavor of the beer. Of course no
one asked my advice ;-) Chuck just hit that beer-judge-snobbism nerve.
Geoff
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| A brewery is like a toothbrush, everyone should have their own. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Geoff Reeves: NIS-2, Mail Stop D-436, Los Alamos National Laboratory |
| reeves at lanl.gov (internet) or essdp2::reeves (span) |
| Phone (505) 665-3877 |
| Fax (505) 665-4414 |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 10:01:27 EST
From: "Mark T. Berard" <mtberard at dow.com>
Subject: Pure Oxygen Sources
Recently (HBD #1297) Bob Jones asked about adding pure O2 to his wort:
>From: bjones at novax.llnl.gov (Bob Jones)
>Is there an inexpensive source for pure oxygen to use in wort oxygenation?
>Anyone out there using pure oxygen for wort oxygenation?
And Jim Busch responded (HBD #1298) that he was using a NEW welding O2 supply:
>From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
>Sure! Despite reading that it is best to use FDA approved O2, I went
>out and bought a tank of welding O2 (new). My local Phd/lab friend
(snip)
Given the "tinkering" bent of most of the people here, I just wanted to
comment that old equipment shouldn't be used with pure O2, especially
the regulator. O2 requires a special regulator, and it shouldn't have
been used for ANYTHING else. O2 is highly oxidating, and so any oil or
grease in your lines, especially the regulator, could ignite and explode.
If this happens in the regulator, you have a nice schrapnel bomb, plus a
ready supply of O2 now feeding the flames in your ruined garage, making
it hard for the rescue team to pull your body out and rush you to the ICU.
Serious bummer. With equipment designed for the job, no problem. With the
wrong equipment, this would make a steam supply pressure cooker bomb that
people have worried about here look like childs play.
Also, I agree that nothing will live in the pure O2 environment. Your only
worry would be contaminant gases. So I doubt Jim needs to bother with the
0.2 micron filter. Anyway, relax. Don't worry. Have a homebrew. But
don't hurt yourselves! Don't let Hazard Hog get you.
Safety Pup SCIENCE! mtberard at dow.com
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 11:14:10 EST
From: ulick at michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu (Ulick Stafford)
Subject: Oxygen and hydrometers
In hbd 1298 Jim Busch mentions oxygen use. I would warn him that levels
over 14 ppm can be harmful. I read this figure in a chemical technology
encyclopedia's section on beer (Kirk-Othmer, I think). From a practical
point of view, this means that care must be exercised when O2 is used to
oxygenate. The limit of oxygen solubility when air is used is around
8 ppm, which is related to the partial pressure of oxygen in air, 0.21.
This means that aeration with air, while safe, is less than optimum.
However, wort saturated with oxygen may have over 30 ppm of oxygen (the
dissolved sugars may lessen the amount of oxygen that can dissolve
in wort relative to water, but probably not by toomuch). Breweries,
naturally, will have the money to pay for dissolved oxygen probes, but these
are not within homebrewers budgets.
Hydrometers - I seem to remember that Cole-Palmer sent me a supplement
to their catalogue that had many hydrometers listed and hte ones I
considered professional were $30-40. However, I seem to have lost that
supplement. In their regular catalogue all the hydrometers seem to cover
a large range. Still, they might be worth a call 1-800-323-4340.
Someone wanted Jim Koch address to send poison pen letters. The letter I
received from him today mailed without a stamp from Nashua, NH listed
The Boston Beer Works, The Brewery, 30 Germania St., Boston MA 02130 as an
address. Incidentally I also got a letter from the AHA going on about how
great they are (is this all a sign of insecurity on the part of both
organisations?) and inviting me to the AHA 15th Anniversary Hombrew Rave, to
be held in Denver on December 4, 1993, with a RSVP date of Nov 22. Still
efficient as ever!
P.S. How come Molson Ice bottles have alcohol content printed on them? Is
the bureau of anus touchers and fondlers becoming a little less, anal?
__________________________________________________________________________
'Heineken!?! ... F#$% 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: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 11:18:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Bill Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: SS pots and welding
I was wondering if the aluminum and/or copper cladding on the
bottom of the better SS pots made it difficult of impossible
to weld a spigot in place?
WAK
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 16:04:59 +0100
From: steve_t at fleurie.inria.fr (Steven Tollefsrud)
Subject: Munton & Fison address...
>From: Patrick_Waara.WBST129 at xerox.com
>Can someone send me the address of Munton & Fison? I have a problem with one
>of their products which needs to be brought to their attention.
Munton & Fison plc
Cedars Factory
Stowmarket, Suffolk
England
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 9:34:07 MST
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: First Cider Attempt
Scott Majdecki (scottm at hilbert.cypress) wrote:
> It tasted like a nice, very dry cider, but had an alcohol aftertaste.
> I'm wondering what might be the problem...
Did you take any specific gravity readings? May I suggest that you
simply made very strong cider. Let's look at the recipe:
> 4 gallons natural cider
> add 5 lbs clover honey diluted to 1 gallon w/ water
I don't have any of my references here, so I may be a little off on my
numbers, but assume the natural gravity of the cider is ~1.050, and that
1 lb of honey (in 1 gal water) is ~1.032. Thus your recipe has
50*4+32*5 = 360 "gravity points", divide by the final volume of 5
gallons to get 72. So your original gravity was ~1.072, which is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 7% potential alcohol. Pretty potent
stuff. If you don't want as much alcohol, cut back on or eliminate
the honey entirely.
I have my first batch of cider fermenting myself, and it's original
gravity was 1.070. It fermented further than any beer I've ever made,
going all the way down to 0.995! This gives it an alcohol content
of about 8%, and you definitely can taste it. I'm looking forward to
enjoying it--a little bit at a time.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji at hpfcla.fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 10:56:23 -0600
From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: New Book on Hops
The following reference has just come to my attention:
Chemestry and Analysis of Hop and Beer Bitter Acids
M. Verzele and D.DeKeukeleire, Eds.
Developments in Food Science
Vol. 27
Elisvier Sc. Publ., New York and Amsterdam
1991
418 pages
I have only had a chance to give this one a quick first reading, but from
this perspective it really looks good. It is loaded with ideas relating
to alpha measurement, some of whom seem elementary and potentially
"homebrewable". The general discussion on hops is technical but quite
good. They appear to take the cohumulone issue head on!
Dr. Verzele is at the prestigious brewing school at Univ. of Ghent in
Belgium. He wrote the outstanding article (IMHO) on hops in the Brewing
Science sequence edited by Pollock.
Given the publisher of this new book, it is likely to be found in many
university libraries.
George Fix
George Fix
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 12:08:24 EST
From: Jay Hersh <hersh at x.org>
Subject: Re: Lauter Tun Design
from Jack S.... (I know I'm probably gonna regret this :-)
> We exchanged mail on this subject but you failed to mention the hole size of
> the lauter tun false bottom. It looks to me like another classic example of
> how scaling down commercial equipment to hombrew sized batches just does not
> work very well. 3/32" holes are probably too large for the geometry of a
> homebrew tun.
Jack, what would the scale of the brewery have to do with the sizing of the
holes in the lauter bottom?? This is a function of the size of the grain itself
as the purpose is to server as a seive allowing wort ot pass through but grain
to remain behind?? Can you explain the basis of your comment linking the size
to the scale of the brewery??
> I hate to sound like a broken record, but all your problems will go away if
No, really you don't :-)
JaH
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 11:58:57 est
From: Bill Sadvary <SADVARY at DICKINSON.EDU>
Subject: RE: chopsticks / RE:Reusing yeast
>1. Re-using Lager Yeast in Fermenter: I was wondering what risks
>or advantages there would be if I ferment a second batch on top
>of the yeast left in my primary after siphoning off the previous
>batch.
I do this all the time, sorta. I brew one batch with the fresh yeast
(using a yeast starter- fyi) and three days or so later, when I rack
this batch to the carboy, I pitch this yeast into yet another starter.
In a day this starter is real active and ready to be pitched into the
second batch. I have skipped the creation of the second starter and
just went ahead and pitched the sludge into the 2nd batches' wort.
I've never had any problems with either method and it does allow you to
get two uses out of one yeast pack. I did get an infection or wild yeast
once when I tried to get a third use by using the sludge of the 2nd batch.
But, they may or may not have been the sludges fault. So to be safe, I
only go for the dual use.
> A quick suggestion on how to get all the extracty out of poly bags
>(or cans for that matter). Ladle a bit of the hot (recently boiled) water
>into the bag and swish it around until the remaining extract has dissolved
>in the water. Dump the water into your brewpot. If you're worried about
>putting too hot water in the bag, you could even use a bit of hot tap water
>and still not risk any infection since it's done before the boil. The
>range hood and chopstick methods seem too complicated for me, but what do I
>know, I'm just a college student.
This is similar to my method but requires rubber gloves (dish gloves,
whatever). The very first thing I do when I start to brew is to take the
bag of syrup malt extract out of the frig and soak it in the sink 1/2 full
of hot tap water. Begin heating the brew pot water. When it reaches about
170 (or so) degrees turn off the heat. Cut open your bag of M.E. and
slowly dump it into the soon-to-be wort while mixing. When you reach the
point where not much more is flowing out, open the bag and dip it into the
wort and allow it to fill as much as possible. Of course, you should have
your gloves on before that step! Shake the hot liquid around in the bag and
dump it into the wort. It may take another scoop to get all of the malt
out of the bag. With this method I can get almost every drop of malt out of
the bag. And, if you're careful, and once you get used to it, it's really
not messy at all. ..and it only requires one person. ..but then what do I
know, I used to be a college student. ;-)
-Bill Sadvary
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 09:04:33 PST
From: "Ray Siemens" <siemens at unixg.ubc.ca>
Subject: Suggestions for a dark beer?
I want to take a stab at brewing a dark, thick beer, much like a Guiness,
and was wondering if anyone out there might have some ideas on the matter.
Recipe favorites would be gladly accepted.
Cheers,
Ray Siemens
University of British Columbia
siemens at unixg.ubc.ca
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 09:30:08 PST
From: bgros at sensitivity.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros)
Subject: Scotch Ale
Anyone got a good Scotch Ale recipe to share? Any secrets for getting
that maltiness? a wee heavy recipe?
Thanks.
- Bryan
Return to table of contents
Date: 15 Dec 1993 09:46:08 -0500
From: "Norman Dickenson" <norman.dickenson at Sonoma.EDU>
Subject: HWBTA Annual Competition
Subject: Time:9:10 AM
OFFICE MEMO HWBTA Annual Competition Date:12/15/93
I recently received entry materials for the annual Home Wine and Beer Trade
Association's Homebrew Competition. I have entered this competition for a
number of years as I had perceived it to be a well run
and competitive competition on a national scale. I am feeling reluctant
to enter this competition this year for several reasons. Entries are due
by the end of January. The actual judging will be held at the end of March
and the winners won't be announced until the Association's annual conference
will be held in UK in June. Homebrew is a fragile product which when brewed
to the *lighter* styles has the potential to change in character fairly
rapidly. When one is not pasturizing or filtering, shelf life is short. I
just have problems with any competition which incorporates exceptionally
long lag periods between the entry date and
the actual competition. Not announcing the competition results for another
three months seems ridiculous. Competitions are for the competitors, not for
organizatinal self aggrandizement. But perhaps I
am missing a piece to this puzzle. Can anyone shed light on the rationale
for this strange schedule?
-Norman-
Return to table of contents
Date: 15 Dec 1993 10:00:22 -0800
From: "Rad Equipment" <rad_equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.edu>
Subject: O2, Bottle inspection Quest
Subject: O2, Bottle inspection Questions Time:8:46 AM Date:12/15/93
>> Anyone out there using pure oxygen for wort oxygenation?
>Sure! Despite reading that it is best to use FDA approved O2,
>I went out and bought a tank of welding O2 (new)
Two possible issues come to mind. FDA O2 as used for medical applications has
been rumored to contain an anti-fungal agent. I have not been able to get this
firmly confirmed nor denied by my contacts in the medical world. Industrial
grade O2 may not contain any bugs but may contain oil or other contaminants
which do not cause problems with normal applications.
>Does actual bottle condition, ie. scratched or sanded, have
>anything to do with judging the beer?
No, not really. However, there is a school of thought which believes that
presentation is a factor. If you send in a beer which is in a shoddy container
it may indicate a lack of appreciation for the stuff inside and a general
sloppy attitude towards brewing. Mind you, I am not advocating this point of
view just relaying it. I suspect the inspection bit is a hold over from the
early days when many more beers arrived at competitions containing
contaminants. I don't know that it has any value now especially since the AHA
does not consider it point-worthy.
Perhaps a discussion of this on JudgeNet would get other explanations and/or
support or get it removed from the sheets.
RW...
Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: Rad_Equipment at radmac1.ucsf.edu - CI$: 72300,61)
UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:14:51 EST
From: James Kendall <kendall at ltee.hydro.qc.ca>
Subject: Malt boil
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1295 (December 11, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1291 (December 07, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1292 (December 08, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1294 (December 10, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1293 (December 09, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1296 (December 13, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1297 (December 14, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:37:10 EST
From: jmuns <jmuns at ccmail.mis.semi.harris.com>
Subject: Rule: Re: Homebrew Digest #1289 (December 04, 1993)
Text item: Text_1
I will be in California from Dec 04 thru Dec 14. I can be reached by email
account "JMUNS" or Voice mail - Work: (407) 724-7402 Home: (407) 543-1323
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 13:50:42 EST
From: Keith MacNeal 15-Dec-1993 1338 <macneal at pate.enet.dec.com>
Subject: bottle "sparkler"/multiple hydrometers/hard cider/lagering
Regarding some stuff in HOMEBREW Digest #1298:
>From: Conn Copas <C.V.Copas at lut.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re : Simulating an English beer engine
>Now here's one for the engineers: I would like to add a sparkler to my
>_bottled_ beers.
Didn't Guinness do something about this before their Draughtflow system? Thee
was a syringe packaged with each 4/6 pack of beer. Upon pouring the beer into
the glass you stuck the syringe down into the glass of beer, sucked beer into
the syringe and without removing the syringe squirted the beer back into the
glass.
- ------------------------------
>From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
>Now, anyone know where to buy a professional hydrometer
>for under $125?? The bummer is you need two, one for OG, and one for FG,
>and yet another for "high OG".
Why are 3 hydrometers necessary?
- ------------------------------
>From: scottm at hilbert.cypress (Scott Majdecki)
>Subject: First Cider Attempt
>This is my first attempt at Canadian style sparkling hard cider.
>My problem/question is that after ~2 weeks in the primary
>I racked to secondary and of course had to sample. It tasted like
>a nice, very dry cider, but had an alcohol aftertaste. I'm wondering
>what might be the problem, or if the aftertaste will mellow during
>secondary.
...
>Any explanation for the alcohol aftertaste.
I think it is because you made an apple mead and not hard cider. All of that
honey you added is going to boost the alcohol content. It should mellow with
age. From what I've read, this could take about a year.
- ------------------------------
And now for my own question:
What are the pros and cons of lagering in secondary vs. lagering in the
bottle?
Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 11:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Taylor Standlee" <standlee at humanitas.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Cloying Sweetness, Why?
I tested a bottle from our latest batch of Spiny Lobster Ale, a tried
and true recipe, and was chargrined to find that it had no head retention,
large bubbles that fizzled in the mouth and a cloying sweetness (I hesitate
to say sherry like sweetness because I was very careful not to expose the
hot wort or raw beer to air). The recipe I follow is:
7 # 2-Row
1 # Amber Crystal
1/2 # Wheat (for head)
1/2 # Dextine
1 oz Chocolate Malt
1/2 tbs Irish Moss
1 oz Hallertau 45 min
1 oz Hallertau 5 min
Wyeast American/Chico Yeast (made into a 1qt starter)
All grains mashed at 152 for 1.5 hours, sparged with 3 gallons of 165 H2O.
1.5 hour boil, hops added as scheduled. Wort was cooled with a copper wort
chiller to 70 degrees in 35 minutes at which time the yeast was pitched.
Vigorous fermentation began in 6 hours. Fermentation was conducted in the
garage in at temps between 55-63 degrees. Bottled with 1 cup of DME.
(Note: the bottling tank had been used to bottle a batch of root-beer, but
was soaked, steralized, and rinsed 2 times before reuse).
I was very careful in steralizing EVERYTHING. It has been in the bottle for
2 weeks and this flatish sweet stuff is really depressing me. Any ideas as
to what went wrong?
****************************************************************
Taylor Standlee
standlee at humanitas.ucsb.edu
Department of Germanic & Slavic Languages & Literatures
University of California Santa Barbara
Phone:(805)-893-2131 FAX: (805)-893-2374
****************************************************************
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 14:36 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: when to bottle/bottle inspection/Fuggles in the boil
Jim writes, quoting me:
>> From: korz at iepubj.att.com
>I usually wait till the airlock is bubbling less
>> than once per minute, often waiting till it's less than once per two minutes.
>
>If you have good experience with this method, fine. But if you are tweaking
>variables all of the time, like I often do, please take a hydrometer reading
>to determine when to keg/bottle. The 'ole bubbles per unit time can be
>quite misleading.
I'd like to discuss this a bit. The cases where I could see the "bubbles
per unit time" method to be misleading are:
1. if there was a big temperature swing in the middle of the ferment
(which could cause your yeast to go dormant for a while),
2. if you are used to doing ales and then do a lager (which will have a much
lower bubbling rate throughout the ferment -- I think I waited till 5min
between bubbles on the last Bock I did (at 45F)),
3. mixed yeasts (the Whitbread triple-strain (Wyeast #1098) has been reported
to have a slowdown in the middle of the ferment, for example), and
4. high-alcohol (very high OG) brews (I know I should have tested the FG on
a recent Imperial Stout -- I would have done something had I realized that
my FG was 1050 (OG was 1120) *before* I had bottled).
Have I missed some?
I agree that hydrometer readings are a good idea, especially if a particular
batch is extreme or did not behave normally.
Let's discuss this.
**********
Chuck writes:
>The AHA beer judging form starts off, after identification of the
>style and the judge, with the category "bottle inspection". There
>are no points awarded in this category, just comments. I have
>several questions, such as:
>
>What is the purpose of this section? Recently I received comments in
>this section of "short fill" and "low fill line". I also received a
>"nice bottle" comment. I see that this inspection could be
>used to inspect for the ring that is supposed to be indicative of
>certain types of bacterial infection. I also understand that low
>fill *could* be indicative of potential oxidation, although oxygen
>absorbing bottle caps *may* negate potential oxidation risk from air
>in the bottle. However, if no points are awarded, what's it there
>for?
Partly for historical reasons, but I think it may be just to remind
judges to look at the headspace and perhaps the sediment before pouring.
This information can be used later if a problem in the beer is found and
suggestions for improvement are in order. I use this area also in small,
regional competitions to mention the AHA National rules to the brewer if
they used a raised-design, oversized or swing-top bottle.
>Do oxygen absorbing bottle caps negate the potential for in-bottle
>oxidation?
I don't think they negate it, but I feel that the effects of oxygen on
beer are much more detrimental when the wort is hot than when you are
bottling. I'm in the midst of an experiment on this topic. Experiments
have shown that these caps *do* increase hop aroma longevity.
>Does actual bottle condition, ie. scratched or sanded, have
>anything to do with judging the beer?
It should not, but let's be realistic... a scratched, scuffed, old
bar-bottle may start the judges off (subconsciously) on the wrong
foot. Consider two term papers, one typeset the other printed on an
9-pin printer with an old ribbon. I'll bet the typeset one has a
measureable advantage.
**********
Chris writes:
>In his book on Pale Ale, Terry Foster includes a table of
>hops varieties and suggested uses in Pale Ale. He
>recommends Fuggles hops for aroma/finishing only, and not
>for bittering. Aside from the modest AA content of
>Fuggles, is there any other reason why I shouldn't have
>used them last week?
Cost per AA content -- consider the cost of putting 180 IBU worth of
2.3%AA Saaz in an Imperial Stout! There has been some debate, here
and elsewhere, about whether the type of hops used in the boil make
a difference. I, personally, feel that it does make a difference and
avoid using two hops which I have found to give a "rough" bitterness
even if used only for a 60-minute boil: Chinook and Clusters. Everyone
has different tastes, however... try them for yourself and see if you agree.
As for Fuggles in the boil -- I use them often.
Al.
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1993 15:45:32 -0800 (PST)
From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Uh Oh!
Chris Amley writes:
>In his book on Pale Ale, Terry Foster includes a table of
>hops varieties and suggested uses in Pale Ale. He
>recommends Fuggles hops for aroma/finishing only, and not
>for bittering. Aside from the modest AA content of
>Fuggles, is there any other reason why I shouldn't have
>used them last week?
Gee, Chris, I hope you've had all the children you wanted! You haven't
actually drunk any have you!!!???
Urf.
Terry Foster was waxing a bit snobbish. Fuggles is, in fact, a fine hop
(so is its clone: Willamette), and makes a very nice late addition. Of
course the Classic (TM) finishing hop for English ales is East Kent
Golding -- but there are a lot of really good English hops that British
brewers use, including Fuggles.
Really, they're just fine.
- --Jeff
Return to table of contents
Date: 15 Dec 93 12:14:00 EST
From: "Anderso_A" <Anderso_A at hq.navsea.navy.mil>
Subject: Head Retention
Message Creation Date was at 15-DEC-1993 12:14:00
Greetings,
I've been having erratic head retention problems of
late: i.e. some batches are fine & some are lousy (even
though carbonation is fine). I've tried protein rests,
addition of wheat malt, as well as other malts perported to
increase head retention but with no concrete results. Now I
have a new theory on which I'd like some feed-back.
Polyclar. I don't use this on my darker beers & they
generally have the good head retention. When I do use the
Polyclar (2 tsp/5 gal) I do get a clearer beer, but in
general these "clearer" beers don't keep a head. Am I
barking up the wrong tree, or is there a common thread here?
Basically, do I have a trade-off: clarity vs. head for my
light colored beers?
TIA,
Andy A
Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 93 19:11:20 EST
From: yeebot at aol.com
Subject: Re: First Cider Attempt
Scott,
My explanation for the alchoholic aftertaste: Alchohol! Probably lots of it.
My last batch made with 4gal cider, 2lbs honey, and Sherry Yeast produced a
batch around 10%. With all that honey in your batch, still producing a "very
dry" cider, my guess is that all that honey has been converted! I wouldn't
doubt your batch is 12%+ alchohol. Your batch will mellow with age, wait at
least a month after bottling for yummy results. I know some who wait at least
a year. A hypothesis: Cider that is made with honey (actually a "Cyser") may
take longer to mellow than ciders made with sugar adjuncts. Mead, made
primarily from honey, has always seemed undrinkable under a year or so.
Anyone with comments/ideas?
Also: Good idea to rack often. Whenever 1/8" to 1/4" of sediment settles.
Question: What's the difference between Canadian, British, New England, etc.
styles of cider?
Letmeknowhowitgoes!
Michael Yee
Angst Brewing Co.
yeebot at aol.com
Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1299, 12/16/93