HOMEBREW Digest #1304 Wed 22 December 1993

Digest #1303 Digest #1305

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Sg/particulate (Brian Bliss)
  clip art requests (George Tempel)
  Trying to boycott the Mega-brews (Samuel Adam's)
  Re: Problems with Dark ales (npyle)
  Weissbeir (Jeffrey L. Duerk)
  Hoptech and "handeling" charges (Gary S. Kuyat)
  Raw honey vs processed (Aaron Morris)
  Re: malt extraction efficiencies (Ed Hitchcock)
  SS Mash/Lauter Tun (WHEATON_JOHN/HPBOI1_03)
  Rager's hop utilization curve (/R=HERLVX/R=AM/U=KLIGERMAN/FFN=KLIGERMAN/)
  storing lagers in bottles (Mark Bunster)
  Questions on: Hop storage and Step Infusion (Ed Oriordan)
  raw honey (Mark Bunster)
  Copper bottom Stainless Steel brewpots (Tom Clifton)
  Keg Infection? (Phil Brushaber)
  Carastan malt (Chuck Mryglot X6024)
  yeast washing, Briess malt extract (Michael L. Kovacs)
  Re: Raw Honey vs Processed (Ritchie Kolnos)
  5 Liter Mini Kegs (Fred Waltman)
  chillers/aletimes/dryhop/complications/haze/bottlefill/when2bottle/doppelbock (korz)
  quickFerments/"champagne"bottles/CO2-storing/WitYeast/metallic flavor (korz)
  various musings (garyrich)
  Re: Words of Wisdom (Jeff Frane)

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: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 03:08:16 -0600 From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss) Subject: Sg/particulate "Bill Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu> writes: >[snip] >>Undisolved particles (including colloids) do not affect the measurement of >>specific gravity. A easy to visualize example is to imagine a lake of pure >[snip] > >This is not correct. Both suspended (undisolved) solids and dissovled solids >will affect the specific gravity measurements. That is so long as they >remain suspended in solution. In fact this phenomenon is used to measure >the size of colloidal soil particles. If you have any doubts about this >try the following. Take a trub laden sample off of the bottom on you >boiler shake it well to suspend all the solids and quickly measure the >specific gravity (before the junk settles out). Then leave the sample sit >until the junk has all settled to the bottom of the sample tube. Now >measure the specific gravity again. You will find that the second reading >gives a lower Sg than the first. The difference may or may not be large >enough to be of concern but suspended solid definetly do affect the >measured Sg. The "junk" in question is protein coagulate. When mixed into a solution, it does not raise the SG as would sugar. This would seem to imply that it has a lower SG than wort. Yet it falls to the bottom. Why? >From an observational standpoint, I have noticed that the SG measurements increase after the trub falls out (i.e. the wort mixed with trub has a lower SG than does the clarified wort). One would think it would decrease. ** i.e. why doeshit sink? ** One cannot discount the possiblitly that this is due to temperature correction error or other measurement errors on my part. I have never, however, observed a SG decrease after clarification, and have obseved increases several times. bb Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 08:47:14 +0000 (U) From: George Tempel <tempel at MONMOUTH-ETDL1.ARMY.MIL> Subject: clip art requests clip art requests Thanks for all of the requests for mac/brew clip art. I cannot possibly reply to all of you in any semblance of promptness, so here's what I'll do. I am going to create a clip art package and post it to sierra.stanford.edu for the world as a shareware package of my artwork. The fee for use of such will be quite liberal: send me a bottle of homebrew AND give me a mention regarding your label artwork. Sounds reasonable. I'll post the clip art after christmas. george Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 10:08:22 -0500 From: ambroser at apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Samuel Adam's) Subject: Trying to boycott the Mega-brews Good Luck trying to boycott A.B. (BUD) products! I think you would have a more easier time trying to boycott water! :) Since "nearly one out of two beers is an A.B. product" (a direct quote from the St. Louis beer tour, since they sold 86 million [more or less] barrels in a year) a "strong" boycott would probably "hurt" their sales by .001%. Just had to add my $.02 since I feel you are wasting your time. Sorta like when teenagers were supposed to "boycott" the Beatles and destroy any kind of "things" they had relating to the Beatles. It was silly. (If you aren't in your 30's or later you probably don't remember) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 8:25:22 MST From: npyle at n33.stortek.com Subject: Re: Problems with Dark ales John Walaszek writes: >Hello everyone, I am looking for some help in determining why >I am having problems with Dark Ales. I have brewed about >25 all-grain ales and every attempt at a dark one (3 stouts >and 1 porter) I have ended up very disappointed. I brew alot of >pale ales and brown ales and these have all been very consistent. > >I think my problem may have to do with water chemistry, Lately >I have used pre-boiled Chicago City water. I usually do not >check ph and don't really add any mineral salts. > >The problem is all 4 of these beers have had a distinctly >musky-like aroma and flavor. None have really tasted as >roasty as I have intended. The beers seem thin tasting >as well and maybe even faintly sour. My usual procedure is >add add crushed grain to 3 gallons 175F water. Rest at >153-155F for 90 minutes. Sparge for about 45 minutes. >Boil 90 minutes. Chill using chiller. John, I have the very same problems (great pale/amber beers, lousy dark beers), although I haven't brewed as many batches as you. I suspect your guess about water chemistry is correct, and I am in process of investigating my water chemistry (request sent out yesterday to the city utilities). It looks like I'm going to have to quit ignoring the ingredient which makes up 99.9% of the beer - the water! Time to crack the books, but in the meantime, any HBD gems would be appreciated. Oh, I would describe my dark beer attempts as astringent, murky, thin, not malty at all. Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 10:40:40 -0500 From: jld3 at po.CWRU.Edu (Jeffrey L. Duerk) Subject: Weissbeir Recently I had a chance to try a Weissbeir at Berghoff's in Chicago, and loved it! Since then, I've had every other variety that I can get my hands on. Now I'd like to try to make one. From what I can tell, one of the critical components is the specific strain of yeast, yet I have not been able to locate one that would be appropriate (or at least good), nor have I found a reliable recipe. If anyone has any experience in this area, a recipe to share, and yeast info, I'd appreciate either a posting here, or directly to me at jld3 at po.cwru.edu Second, those of us fortunate enough to live near Great Lakes Brewery here in Cleveland have been thrilled once again at their Porter, IPA, and Christmas Ale. I bought a twelve of the Christmas Ale for my brother (who regularly attends the Portland Ore. beer festivals): he's going to have to settle for a six. Jeff Duerk- Case Western Reserve University Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 10:52:27 EST From: Gary S. Kuyat <gsk at sagan.bellcore.com> Subject: Hoptech and "handeling" charges Full-Name: Gary S. Kuyat I had read some comments on fruit extracts and was interested in trying a raspberry and blueberry for myself. I called Hoptech and placed an order for 1 each. Total weight for this order < 1lb. Being somewhat familiar with shipping costs, I asked for UPS BLUE (second day). When I received the package I was billed $9.75 in shipping and handling on a $12 product order! I called the company and was told that a $4 "handling" fee was charged to me since my order was < $30. This is something that folks should know! The extracts taste fine, but Hoptech's rediculous S&H fees left a bitter taste in my mouth... - -- -Gary Kuyat gsk at sagan.bellcore.com (908)699-8422 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 10:37:07 EST From: Aaron Morris <SYSAM at ALBANY.ALBANY.EDU> Subject: Raw honey vs processed Bob Surratt queries about the difference between raw and processed honey. The main difference is that processed honey has been heated, and filtered. Heating makes the honey less viscous/more fluid so it will pump through hoses and pass through filters easier. The filters (usually fine cheese cloth) remove the foreign material (dust, pollen, bee's wax, spare bee parts) from the honey. Heating also drives off volatile enzymes from the honey, which may change the flavor. Commercial honey may also be a blended of different varieties of honey. Raw honey is simply honey that has not been processed. When I extract and bottle my honey, I use cheese cloth to filter out foreign matter, but no heat is involved (preserving the volatile enzymes) and I make attempts to keep clover honey separate from aster honey, etc. For true Raw Honey, find a local beekeeper. Disclaimer: Answers provided by a hobby beekeeper ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 11:58:01 -0400 From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca> Subject: Re: malt extraction efficiencies dmorey at iastate.edu gives the following list of extract efficiencies. Some of the values don't seem right, so I've appended the values I have that differ from those listed >Ingredient: pt. gallons / lb I have: >Malt extract 35 >Dry spray malt 42 43 >Corn sugar 37 45 >Cane sugar (yuk) 44 45 >Brown sugar 41 44 >Rice syrup 36 >Dextrin powder 42 >Pale malt 31 36 >Lager malt 31 35 >Munich malt 26 30-33 >Mild ale malt 27 29-34 >Crystal malt 22 29-31 >Wheat malt 34 (this seems high) 39 >Cara pils malt 23 29 >Roast barley 27 (isn't this high also?) 29 >Chocolate malt 27 " 29 >Black patent 27 " 29 >Honey 38 >Molasses 45 42 Note that the extraction rate for mash ingredients are a theoretical maximum, not the expected rate. Thus, a good homebrew setup typically gets 80% of theoretical maximum, or about 30 pts/lb/gal using pale ale or lager malt. The extract efficiency of 6 row is about 20% less than 2 row. With that I bid ye all a happy Holiday season, I'm unsubscribing for the duration of 1993... ____________ Ed Hitchcock ech at ac.dal.ca | Oxymoron: Draft beer in bottles. | Anatomy & Neurobiology | Pleonasm: Draft beer on tap. | Dalhousie University, Halifax |___________________________________| Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 09:26:00 -0700 From: WHEATON_JOHN/HPBOI1_03 at hpdmd48.boi.hp.com Subject: SS Mash/Lauter Tun Item Subject: d:\beer\mashlaut.txt I am in the process of installing an "easy-masher" type of set up to eliminate the screen for my SS keg lauter tun so I can scrape the bottom when raising the temp. My heat source is from the bottom and I do step mashing. The nipple welded in t he bottom of my keg is 1/2" dia. and I installed fittings to have a 1" copper tube with a cap come across the bottom about 1" from the bottom. This tube will be slott ed and serve as my filter mechanism. Anybody tried this? Any suggestions on improvement? I plan on doing a test batch in a couple of weeks with this. The reason for not using a rolled up screen is the durability of it when I am mixing the grain during mashing. Also, the $$. I can easily bump the slotted tube with out knocking it off and I can get the grain moving under it easily to min. temp. inconsistancies. I want to keep the expense to a minimum and still have good brew. The copper tube and brass fittings were nominal at $12. My current SS keg lauter tun is like this..of course not to scale.... | | | ______________________|welded SS nipple where + are threads | SS sheet +++|-+++ | 1.5" space ++|--+++ coupling, brass ball valve, barb |__________________| NO HEAT - hand transferred from 11 gal SS mash kettle where is has been mashed. This is what I plan.....for MASH/LAUTER tun | slotted 1" copper. w/cap (about 12" long) | ____________ _ |welded SS nipple where + are threads | || | |+++|-+++ | ||_^_^_^_^_^_|_|++|--+++ coupling, brass ball valve, barb about 3/4" |__________________| from bottom HEAT - no transfer necessary I would appreciate any comments. jw Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 11:00:20 -0500 (EST) From: /R=HERLVX/R=AM/U=KLIGERMAN/FFN=KLIGERMAN/ at mr.rtpnc.epa.gov Subject: Rager's hop utilization curve I must preface this by saying this is not a flame %)! I was quite amused by a recent post trying to fit Rager's hop utilization rates to a second or third order polynomial expression. I enjoy seeing you techies spin the numbers almost as much as reading posts from Jack Schmidling!! But be real!! The hop utilization rates are ranges over 5 min intervals. If you plot the midpoint of the ranges versus utilization and even add 0 for 0 time, you get just as good a plot with a linear fit r^2=0.99 for y=0.576x (where y is the % util., and x is time) then you do with second a third order polynomials (r^2=0.98). We cannot be very accurate with hop utiliz. rates to several decimal places since the alpha acid levels are only approximate. It might be fun but it is only an exercise in curve fitting. (By the way you can't just drop data points because they don't give the correct esthetic look! So for all practical purposes y=0.6x would be accurate enough. Sorry for rambling on, by I'm in the government and here to help you! Andy Kligerman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:43:01 EST From: Mark Bunster <mbunster at hibbs.vcu.edu> Subject: storing lagers in bottles A rather obvious question, but one seemingly not answered by Papazian: once you've bottled a lager (eg, a nice dark single bock), how you should store the bottles? Is it useful to keep them at temps below 60F? Is it better to keep them colder but constant (eg in a fridge), or not quite as cold but varying with the weather (eg on a porch)? And as long as I've got you all here, what is the possible off flavor damage to a lager sitting primary and secondary for about 4 1/2 weeks total? (Discounting contamination; I'm just wondering about the thick layer of trub at the bottom, which may or may not be bad, seeing as how it's naturally a bottom fermenter). Don't try honey in an IPA. Well, you can, but the sweetness confuses a little bit with all those hops. I think it will mellow with time, but I think there are better recipes to include honey in than an IPA. Happy beeridays, M - -- Mark Bunster |Exchange conversation if you dare-- Survey Research Lab--VCU |Share an empty thought or a laugh. Richmond, VA 23220 | mbunster at hibbs.vcu.edu | (804) 367-8813/353-1731 | -edFROM Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:59:39 -0500 From: edo at marcam.com (Ed Oriordan) Subject: Questions on: Hop storage and Step Infusion Hello, Question 1) I store my hops (pellets) in the freezer. They are not in oxygen barrier bags, but in little heat sealed plastic bags. Would it help presserve them if I put them (still in the bags) into a glass jar and filled the jar with CO2, and then closed the jar and put it in the fridge. Obviously it's not much work to do it, but will it be worth it? I know pellets are pretty stable already. Question 2) In reading Miller's, Lines, and Papazians books the only one who addresses step infusion mashing by using a picnic cooler is Papazian. Does anybody out there use a step infusion in a cooler? Papazian gives the following numbers (working from memory here) For 1 step infusion - Add 1 qt 165 H20 per 1lb grain (Target 155F) For step infusion - Add 1 qt 128 H2O per 1lb grain (Target 122F) Add .5 qt 212 H2O per 1lb grain (Target 155F) I have also found that the .5 qt he purposes does not get me to 155, but more like 145 I was afraid to add more boiling H2O(making it even thinner) so I did a partial decoction(more work than I wanted). What are the consequences of the mash being so much thinner (than his 1 step infussion, it's 50% thinner) during the final step???? Should I use less H2O in the first step and use it in the second? Should I just add as much boiling water as needed to get to 155? Does anybody do a step in a cooler, if so what numbers do you do(temps and volumes per lb)? I am to lazy to stove top mash, and I don't want to build an insulated box, so please limit answers to what I should do for cooler mashing. The reason I am doing a protein rest is I was under the impression I needed to with 2 Row Breiss (Klages that is Harrington) to prevent chill haze and to get some needed yeast nutrients. Is that the case. Thanks for the replies Ed O' edo at marcam.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:06:56 EST From: Mark Bunster <mbunster at hibbs.vcu.edu> Subject: raw honey I think the diff betwene raw and processed honey is mostly filtration. Raw honey has lots of bee parts in it (legs, stingers, other private bee substances we're not to mention on HBD), and filtration takes some of that out. I don't suppose it will make a serious diff since you should be heating the honey before you add it, but why have more bits of stuff in your beer? Papazian suggests filtered clover honey works best. - -- Mark Bunster |Exchange conversation if you dare-- Survey Research Lab--VCU |Share an empty thought or a laugh. Richmond, VA 23220 | mbunster at hibbs.vcu.edu | (804) 367-8813/353-1731 | -edFROM Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 11:15 EST From: Tom Clifton <0002419419 at mcimail.com> Subject: Copper bottom Stainless Steel brewpots I was out doing some Christmas shopping yesterday, and just happen to have looked at some nice heavy Revere stainless stockpots that had copper bottoms... Too bad they didn't have any 32 quart size. The 20 quart were $60 without lids. In any event, has anybody tried electroplating the bottom of a stainless pot to apply a copper cladding? Are the metals compatible etc??? I do know that that a bath of copper sulphate, a copper anode and a battery charger will let you plate steel (nails etc) but when you get into stainless (chrome/nickel?) will it will it still work? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:57:33 CST From: philb at pro-storm.metronet.com (Phil Brushaber) Subject: Keg Infection? A couple of days ago I left a message about getting a medicinal/metallic off-taste in my brew after stainless steel kegging. A number of people were kind enough to reply and I now conceed to a potential other problem. I'd appreciate hearing from you if you think I am on the right track, or if you have experienced/solved a similar problem. Since I did not experience the problem with every kegged/brewed batch, I wanted to blame something in an individual batch process or ingredient. But it could also be that some of my kegs have a bacterial/contamination problem while others do not. Let me say that I clean every keg before reuse and that I sanitize them by filling them with an Idophor solution for about 20 minutes before re-kegging. I even push in the little stopper at the top of the fill tube to release air and get solution up the tube. But I'll admit I have never ripped these kegs appart and pulled the little liquid and gas knobs appart. I was thinking of cleaning them in either an idophor or bleach solution. I know that bleach does bad things to stainless, but I would only soak them for about 20 minutes and then rinse. If I am on the right track, I'd appreciate hearing if someone else might have solved this problem and what kind of off-tastes they were getting. The off taste is had to describe, but it is definately not like Coke or Sprite. I did change the large O ring, but obviously not the little ones inside the liquid/gas connectors. Gotta get a handle on this problem. I refuse to drink/serve bad beer. I hate to go back to bottling (where I have had no problems with off tastes on any batches and essentially used similar ingredients/process). Thanks in advance for your insight. - ----- Internet: philb at pro-storm.metronet.com UUCP: metronet.com!pro-storm!philb Bitnet: philb%pro-storm.metronet.com at nosc.mil Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 12:53:36 EST From: cmryglot at disney.CV.COM (Chuck Mryglot X6024) Subject: Carastan malt Can someone please tell me what carastan malt. I have not seen it in the HBshop I frequent but have seen it mentioned here and in recipies. Also, some recipies call out light and dark crystal. What is the color guideline for 'light' and 'dark'. Many thanks.... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 14:24:05 -0500 From: kovacml1 at post01.alb.alcoa.com (Michael L. Kovacs) Subject: yeast washing, Briess malt extract I am a novice extract brewer (2 batches so far) and would like any input on the following items: 1. Yeast washing - I have read the yeast FAQ and the section on yeast washing seems pretty self-explanatory, but I would like some clarification from anyone out there who is using this technique. I just racked a 5 gal. batch from my priamry fermenter and had a pretty good layer of yeast (I think...) on the bottom. It was the same whitish layer the settles to the bottom of my bottles. The Yeast FAQ says to add sterile water to the fermenter, and swirl it around to loosen everything. Then to dump this into the first sterile 1 qt. mason jar. After this step it says to agitate the mason jar and wait for the mixture to separate into layers. After racking, my fermentor did not seem to have much more there other than the yeast (not much hops or sediment from the malt) I guess my exact question is... "Will it be pretty obvious which is yeast and which is sediment?" Also, assuming reasonable precautions are taken in sterilizing the mason jars and water, how high is the risk of infecting the yeast in the process. The process of yeast washing appeals to me not just for the savings, but also for the idea of having a ready supply of yeast handy that I am happy with. I am also interested in eventually culturing yeast. Any opinions on this? Is it worth the effort? It seems like it is considerably more involved. 2. Briess malt extracts - I recently went in on a 60 lb. pail of Briess malt extract. The price was a significant savings over buying it 6 or 7 lbs. at a time. An issue of Zymurgy had an article on extract brewing and it favorably mentioned Briess. Does any one have any experience using this extract in bulk. I'm not sure exactly how I'll deal with measuring it out considering how gooey malt extract is in general. Any advice in this area will be appreciated. (I do intended to make the leap to all-grain when I can afford the equipment and I feel I am ready for the process. Is there anything like an all-grain FAQ out there on the internet?) thanks, Mike Kovacs If replying directly, please mail to: kovacs01 at ssw.alcoa.com Return to table of contents
Date: 21 Dec 93 14:28:34 From: Ritchie Kolnos <Ritchie_Kolnos at notes.worldcom.com> Subject: Re: Raw Honey vs Processed > Can anyone tell me the difference in raw honey vs. the processed > variety? Is the raw lower in sugar content since it hasn't been > boiled, driving off some of the water? As a beekeeper who uses his own honey in various homebrews, I can tell you that there is little difference between raw and processed honey. Any raw honey that I bottle and sell has to be between 15-18% water (or else it could spoil and ferment). Processed honey (the kind you might buy in a large grocery store), has been pasturized, filtered, and blended to appeal to the tastes of the American consumer. For your information, most of the processed honey sold in the United States is now imported from South America. Since raw honey has not been pasturized, it is possible that you could introduce some bacterial "nasties" to the wort, but I'm sure these would be eliminated during the boiling process. As far as sugar content, it is variable in raw honey, but I don't think it makes much difference. When using honey in any recipe I am more concerned with the flavor of the honey (lightness vs. darkness) than with the water content. I have found that the source/flavor of the honey does sometimes affect the taste of the brew. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 13:02:46 -0800 (PST) From: waltman at netcom.com (Fred Waltman) Subject: 5 Liter Mini Kegs In HBD #1303 Diane Palme writes about 5 Liter Mini-kegs. These sound like the same ones that Brew Ha Ha in PA has been selling. I got a set two weeks ago and my first beer is conditioning. Other people have told me they have had great luck with them and I hope to add further data after New Years. BTW, has anyone had any luck taking these as carry on luggage on a plane? I am not so much worried about the trip, but rather what security would say as they went thru the X-ray machine. Fred Waltman Marina del Rey, CA waltman at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 15:21 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: chillers/aletimes/dryhop/complications/haze/bottlefill/when2bottle/doppelbock James writes: >1) why are wort chillers recomended? isn't an ice water bath almost as >effective? If it works for you, then great. I used to use an ice bath, but it did not cool fast enough and my icemaker didn't make enough ice -- I had to buy some. >2) do ales normally have that short of an optimal fermentation time (the >kreusen had settled after only about 36 hours)? "Optimal" is an odd word selection. The yeast will decide what's optimal for them. This time is dependent on strain, temperature, oxygen, starter size and original gravity. You can minimize the time by aerating well and using a big starter. Higher temps will increase ester production (fruity flavors/aromas) in addition to decreasing fermentation time and increasing the hospitability for bacterial infections. >3) because of the high gravity boil the beer is not as bitter as i want it, >so i was thinking about dry hopping in a secondary. is there a recomended >time to do this or can i do it any time after the kreusen settles? also, Dryhopping will not add bitterness. Ideally you want to add dryhops when the beer is almost done because evolving CO2 will scrub out some of the hop aromatics. If you are sure you need more bitterness, you can make up a hop tea by boiling just hops in water and then straining the liquid into your beer. If you boil 45-60 minutes, you will add only bitterness (no flavor or aroma). >can someone give me a range for the amount of hops to use in the secondary >(i know i didn't say how bitter our beer is right now, but i just want to >know if most people use 0.5 oz. or 8 oz when they dry hop)? I use between 0.5 and 2 ounces. >p.s. not that anyone cares, but i'm with lan and andrew on this AOL thing. > F*% at censorship! I'd like to point out that you "censored" yourself, which is what I advocate. For what it's worth, Lanny and I have reached common ground off-line on this topic and knowing Andrew, I'm certain that his IDEAS and not his WORDS were the reason for him being censored -- for this, I too, am outraged. *********** Timothy writes: >patience. So my first question is. If the beer is comming out good, why >complicate matters? An expample of what I mean is the use of of oxygen and >a bubbler system to airate the wort prior to pitching. Is this really >nessasary? I just shake the hell out of my primary a few times after It's not, but I read the HBD for new ideas for my own brewing and to help out with questions. Much of the discussion is strictly academic, but some has practical applications if you add it to other information you have read or experienced earlier. To use your example, for a 1048 ale, you don't really need anything but shaking your carboy, but for a 1120 lager, you will need to do more than that to get enough O2 in solution. *********** Brian writes: > chill haze, two batches were satisfactory, and the rest suffered from > haze problems that had nothing to do with chill-haze. These beers are > cloudy even when warm. Could it be too hot a sparge? Too hot a sparge water (above 170F or so) can liberate unconverted starch. Your Corona setting (*larger* malt fragments) would simply increase this effect. ********* Jim writes: >THis is one of my pet peeves too. I think the inspection is fine for >rings, yeast cake/cloudiness, etc, but comments on "low fill levels" >can be erroneous. The problem seems to stem from homebrewers who bottle I'm with Spencer on this one. The inspection line is more of a note to myself. If I don't find a problem with the beer, I don't even mention it in the scored section of the form. By the way, I try to remember to check for sediment, so I know if this is a bottle-conditioned or CP-filled bottle. ********** Doug writes: >into the secondary at which point it slowly bubbled away. Well, five days >later it is still bubbling at a rate of about every 3 seconds which is >completely different than batch 1 and batch 3 (an Australian Lager using >Ale yeast). Is this normal activity or have I done something wrong? Is it See my comments above on what affects fermentation time. Apart from sanitation there's little anyone can do to make an undrinkable batch -- I'm sure you did nothing wrong. >Is it safe to bottle while it is still fermenting like this? NO! Wait for the fementation to go down to about 1 bubble every 1 to 2 minutes. > Is there any good way to get a second SG reading >without the risk of contaminating the brew? Yes. Using good sanitation techniques, take a sample, measure SG and drink the sample (don't put it back into the brew). >I would really like to get this >batch into the bottle so I can expedite the drinking (hopefully be able to >have a few with friends on New Years!!!) Don't rush the brew. It's better to drink some quality microbrew for New Years than to spoil (overcarbonate) a batch by rushing it. >Other questions: Are Australian Light Malts supposed to produce a golden >colored beer/ale/lager (this is the color of straw)? Being Australian has nothing to do with golden-ness. "Light" or "Gold" extracts from the US, UK, Belgium, Germany, etc. all will make a golden colored beer -- some darker than others. If you cannot get a golden beer from any extract, I suspect you are aerating your wort when it is hot, which will darken it considerably. >How close will a dopplebock be to the real thing if I >use ale/beer yeast (I am not yet set up to do real Lagers)? It's not so much the yeast as the temperature. You will get a much fruitier beer than a Doppelbock -- more like a Strong Scotch Ale. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 15:25 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: quickFerments/"champagne"bottles/CO2-storing/WitYeast/metallic flavor John writes: >Short Ale Fermentations? When you use Extract with lots of active yeast, >then you can have quick fermentations because of the simple sugars present; >compared to All Grain where more complex sugars are present. This is not really correct -- a quality extract wort made from all-malt extract will have a similar sugar profile to an all-grain wort. Crummy, dextrose-stretched extracts could make for a different sugar profile, but that would make for a longer, less-vigorous ferment due to the shortage of FAN (amino acids, for yeast nutrition). >Capping Champagne bottles - All of the domestic champagne bottles can be >recapped with standard bottle caps. There are some French ones that have >bigger openings. I believe Cook's bottles (if it's not Cook's then it's some other US sparkling wine) don't take standard US crown caps. But I agree that most US sparking wine bottles do take the standard US crowns. Most european sparkling wines have the larger opening, but there are a few that do take the standard US crown cap (I believe Dom Perignon is one, so buy a lot when you find it on sale). ************ Conn writes: >means of kegging. My reaction? great to see such innovation. Dave Line actually >proposed storing the pressure from the _primary_ fermentation for later use, >which would overcome the need to prime with triple the normal My fears would be: 1) that the pressure from the *complete* primary fermentation could get very high, even to the point of affecting the yeast and the possiblity of explosion, and 2) primary fermenation often releases or produces undesirable gasses (DMS and some sulfur compounds, for example) and you would not want to use these. I believe that the commercial brewers "srub" their CO2 before reuse. *********** John writes: >However, sometimes this doesn't quite work out, and I have to make a choice >as to whether or not I should add brewing water at this stage to top up the >carboy or leave the space in the carboy and hope the beer is still producing >enough CO2 to protect it from oxygen. What is the consensus on this? Is >topping up detrimental to the beer or is it at least less harmful than oxygen? When you rack fermenting or fermented beer, you will invitably release some dissolved CO2 (thanks to the partial pressure at the top of the siphon hose) so this will serve as a CO2 blanket as long as you use an airlock on your secondary. 1" is certainly not worth worrying about, but even if it was more, I'd say the topping up is unnecessary. If you do top-up, use boiled water so you don't introduce dissolved O2. ************* Michael writes: >they haven't put it into production. If you can't find a white beer yeast or >are not ready to make a yeast starter from a slant, you might try the Wyeast >Bavarian Wheat Ale yeast. Wyeast *has* released their "Belgian White" yeast. On the other hand, a customer of mine has brewed some excellent Witbiers using Wyeast Bavarian Weizen yeast. >This may be one of my crazier ideas, but I think it might get you closer >to Celis than using a regular ale yeast. The Wyeast Wheat Ale yeast haso >some Lactobacillus Delbrukii in it which would simulate the secondary >lactic fermentation that Pierre and company do. What do the rest of you >out there think? Woah! That's Saccharomyces Delbruckii, not Lactobacillus Delbruckii, that is in Wyeast Bavarian Weizen (#3056 -- #3068 is all S. Delbruckii, BTW). ************** Phil writes: >I know that many of your secondary in stainless steel cornelius kegs. >I like to do this as it takes up less space in my lagering refigerator. >This summer I encountered this off-taste problem with a couple of >American Lager's I brewed, did the primary in glass and then the >secondary in stainless. The off-taste is hard to describe. At first >I thought it was astringency, but it is more like a yeasty, metallic >taste. The taste persists even after filtering through a .5 micron >filter. It has happened when I've secondaried in stainless (about >5 total batches) but never when I've secondaried in glass (about >2 batches). I don't think your problem is from the Stainless. Check your water chemistry (check for high Calcium or Magnesium levels) and then check your malt freshness. Stale malt has been known to give metallic flavors (see the Troubleshooting issue of Zymurgy). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 93 14:23:18 PST From: garyrich at angel.qdeck.com Subject: various musings >------------------------------ > >Date: Sun, 19 Dec 93 22:35 CST >From: akcs.wally at vpnet.chi.il.us (John Walaszek) >Subject: Problems with Dark ales > >Hello everyone, I am looking for some help in determining why >I am having problems with Dark Ales. I have brewed about >25 all-grain ales and every attempt at a dark one (3 stouts >and 1 porter) I have ended up very disappointed. I brew alot of >pale ales and brown ales and these have all been very consistent. > >I think my problem may have to do with water chemistry, Lately >I have used pre-boiled Chicago City water. I usually do not >check ph and don't really add any mineral salts. I think you may have indeed diagnosed your own problem. From what I recall, most Chicago water is very soft. The dark grains that you are using will make the mash more acidic, in fact that why they were used historically. Most dark ale districts were those that had hard water and the acidity of the more highly roasted grains was used to counteract the high alkalynity of the water. What may be happening in your case is that the acidic dark grains are dropping the mash ph below the ideal for conversion. you could try to get a ph reading from the mash, but I've never been able to read my cheap litmus papers in a dark mash. I would just add a teaspoon or so of calcium carbonate to it when you mash in and see what happens. Since the carbonate levels in my town often get as high as 300ppm, I've never needed to do this myself. > >------------------------------ >From: palme at am1.icgmfg.mke.ab.com (Palme) >Subject: Reusable 5l kegs ... > >Hi All! > >I saw a pretty nifty little gadget on the shelf of my local homebrew >shop/microbrewery. (Ok, ok, so Dan shares floorspace with Lakefront. Sip >and buy. Sip and browse. What a racket!) It's a reusable 5l stainless >keg, similar to the "party kegs" one can purchase at the liquor store. A >set of 4 comes with a resuable tapper/dispenser. (I won't mention the >price, just yet) So, any thoughts? Ideas? Anyone out there *have* one >of these? It sure would be nice to get away from bottling 2 cases every >time. I would see putting up two of these kegs per batch and then one >case of bottles for "dispersal." > >Comments *always* appreciated ... > >D. > >- --- >Diane Palme, EIT I have a set of these from Brew-Ha-Ha. I liked them a lot at first. They are a lot easier than bottling. They are also quite convienent and they fit in the fridge in the kitchen. Like everyone else that's used them at first I had problems with overpriming. You have to use a very light touch (<1/2 cup corn suger in 5 gallons) or they just produce foam. Too much pressure can even damage the can. Even after I mastered this I still had major foaming problems. I think that the dispenser could really use a hose type spigot so that the keg pressure could be brought down before the beer hits your glass at 90 miles an hour. Since my main experiments with the cans were with last summer's wheat beers, you can imagine the mess this made. Now a few months later it seems that the tapper/dispenser (aka the expensive part) is damaged. I can't put in a co2 cartridge without most of the gas just blowing out the back and being wasted. Once I lose ~half the gas this way it still seems to have some sort of slow leak that means the beer will be flat by the next day. I don't recall doing anything savage enough to the tapper that should have broken it this way, but I do have 2 small children, so all bets are off... I was dissapointed enough with them that I kept saving those nickels and dimes and got a fridge for the garage and and a real kegging setup. If I lived in a small apartment I think I would have stuck with the cans longer, just because they are so much more space efficient. As it is I think I will donate them to a freind that does live in an apt. > >From: <GNT_TOX_%ALLOY.BITNET at PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU> >Subject: magazines > >Two basic questions for you guys: > >1- Is it possible to buy Zymurgy, without having to join the AHA. Every home brew store that I've ever been in has individual copies for sale. > >2- What do you people think of _Brewing_Techniques_ magazine? I love it, though it hasn't yet had an issue that's really lived up to the standard set by the first issue. It's still good enough that I will re subscribe without a qualm when the time comes. Gary Rich | Quarterdeck Office Systems, Santa Monica CA garyrich at qdeck.com Nobody listens to my opinions, so why I should bother disclaiming them? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1993 15:11:36 -0800 (PST) From: gummitch at teleport.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Words of Wisdom > From: "J. Andrew Patrick" <andnator at genesis.Mcs.Com> > Subject: Free Speech Vs. "Professional Language" > > Much to my surprise, since posting my 1st message about the blatant > censorship that I encountered at the AOL Beer Forum, several HBD > readers have expressed opionions that I "got what I deserved" for > using such terrible language. Al Korzonas, Michael T. Lobo, and, > GNT_TOX%ALLOY.BITNET at PUCC.PRINECTON.EDU (whoever that is!) have > written (either publicly or privately) to indicate their opinions that: > > 1) AOL was justified in censoring me for using "profane" language, and/or I'm not much in agreement with the three you mention above, but isn't AOL a commercial venture? I mean, didn't you pay for that service? I would say that, if so, you are strongly misusing the word "censoring". If they owns the turf, they get to make the rules. If they think "pissed off" is naughty, then they certainly have the right to refuse to post it. If I publish a magazine, and chose not to publish an article of yours, either because it's badly-written or because I don't like your language, I'm entitled to leave it out. You're entitled, of course, to publish your own damn magazine. > I believe that I have an inalienable right to express myself in cyberspace > in the same manner as I do in real space. This is just your basic First > Amendment principle applied to the on-line world. If I am forced to > drastically alter my on-line persona because of a few prudes who don't > like seeing words like "orgasm" or "pissed off" in the HBD or AOL Beer > Forums, then I am being forced to live a lie, to pretend to be somebody > that I am not. > > Is this REALLY what we want?? > No. What we really want is for people to be reasonably polite. If this means that people occasionally need to temper their language, I don't see this as trampling on your rights. You *do*, of course, have the right to shoot off your mouth any way you like -- you shouldn't, however, expect that other people should either like it or necessarily tolerate it. I would suggest it would be a good rule that no one say "on-line" something they wouldn't be willing to say to another person's face -- and risk getting popped one in the snoot. > From: dmorey at iastate.edu > Subject: Potential Extract of Dark Malts > > > Greetings fellow homebrewers and beer lovers, > > This is my first posting on HBD. I have been doing all grain > brewing for about a year and a half and have a question about expected > extract from dark grains. I have compliled a list which was created > by averaging values from multiple sources. Most sources i have found > don't cover potential extract of dark malts very much. So I would > like to hear the wisdom of the brewers out there. Here is the list I > have compliled up to this date: > > Cane sugar (yuk) 44 Hey! Save the criticism. Sugar is much-maligned, but many who do so do not know whereof they speak. > Roast barley 27 (isn't this high also?) > Chocolate malt 27 " > Black patent 27 " I would be most curious to know where you got these figures. As far as I know, the actually amount of extract you can expect from these sources is: zero, zip, nada. - --Jeff Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1304, 12/22/93