HOMEBREW Digest #1770 Sat 01 July 1995

Digest #1769 Digest #1771

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Bad chile beer - Diagnosis? (Brian McGovney)
  Seeking London (and area) places to drink and stay (Martin Wilde)
  Water Synthesis Series on the Web ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  re: diacetyl for ESB/IPA (Keith Frank)
  Re: #2(3) Homebrew Digest #1766 (June 27, 1995) (RobHaiber)
  Motorizing the Maltmill(tm) - Recommendations sought... (Robert S Wallace)
  hop freshness (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  hop identification (Rob Lauriston)
  copper vs stainless steel ("terence tegner")
  copper vs stainless steel ("terence tegner")
  Blank Mail Note (Tom_Tills.wbst214)
  Laaglanders malt (RevEd - Ed Blonski)
  Grain bags, Seltzer etc. (Steven Lichtenberg)
  Ultra hops? (Steve Zabarnick)
  Sam Piper's rebuttal on Styles & Judging (dhvanvalkenburg)
  search for Real Ale book (Chuck Wettergreen)
  no more bottles! (ClearBeer)
  Yeast Ranching Guide for Busy(Lazy) People (ESMPD)" <gcunning at Census.GOV>
  Secondary fermentation in plastic bucket (larry.carden)
  Crushed Lupulin Glands? (Ken Schroeder)
  malt vinegar (MILLER.SA)
  How's my agua? (Jeff Guillet)
  Whole Hops vs. PPProcessed (Norman C. Pyle)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# 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. 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 ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 12:27:46 -0700 From: chemist at io.com (Brian McGovney) Subject: Bad chile beer - Diagnosis? Merry met to one and all. I've recently made my third batch of beer, a chile ale listed in the (Winter?) Zymurgy as a silver medal winner. Opened it on May 25, and it tasted .. pickled? Vegetal? Sulfurous? These words all come to mind, in that order. So I let it sit for a month. Still there, very little diminishment. I'll let it sit for a few more months if neccesary (the recipe stated it was judged after four months in the bottle), but I must admit I am beginning to Worry. My sanitary precautions are second to none (my fiance often worrys about my mental health re: kitchen anality), and I used bleach water on *everything*. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to save this very spicy beer, which I would love were it not being overpowered? Here's the recipe: For 5 Gallons U.S.: 5.5 lbs. light DME 1 lb. Cara-Pils Malt 1.75 oz. Cluster Hops (boiling) 7.0% alpha-acid 1.25 oz. Willamette Hops (bittering) 4.5% alpha-acid 0.75 oz. Willamette Hops (aroma) 4.5% alpha-acid 14 g. Yeast Labs Whitbread Ale Yeast 10 chopped serrano chile peppers 0.75 c. dextrose (priming) O.G. = 1.050 F.G. = 1.022 NOTES: Grains steeped for 15 min at 150-165 F. Hops added to boil at 0, 40, and 55 min, respectively. One hour boil. Chiles added at end of boil, pasteurized for 15 minutes, threw all into carboy w/cold water. Fermentation began VERY sluggishly 17 hours after pitching. Transferred to secondary after one week. Toward the end of fermentation, the sediment seemed to "creep up" the sides of the carboy a little. This leads me to suspect contamination, dagnabbit. Any advice will be appreciated and rewarded with civic kickbacks, a piece of the local numbers racket, and possibly election to public office. Posted answers preferred for teaching purposes, but email is OK. Thanks a lot in advance! -Brian "yeah, but my CHILI chili worked out great!" McGovney chemist at io.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 12:48:00 PDT From: Martin Wilde <Martin_Wilde at ccm.jf.intel.com> Subject: Seeking London (and area) places to drink and stay Looks like I will have the rare opportunity to spend two nights in London next month. I will probably stay in the Victoria Station area since I will be car-less. Are there any good recommendations of where to drink and stay while in the London area? thanks Martin Wilde Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 95 14:16:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: Water Synthesis Series on the Web For those who've been following AJ deLanges's wonderful water series with enthusiam and anticipation, I've been capturing his posts and loading them up at The Brewery web site for your continued enjoyment. I know quite a few readers have privately encouraged AJ to continue producing solutions for the remaining 'brewing towns' listed in Dave Draper's Waters of the World paper (also at the Brewery), so I anticipate adding those results in as time goes by. Please take a look at what I've done and feel free to send me suggested improvements regarding the *organization* of the information. Any comments regarding the analyses themselves and chemistry in particular should of course be directed to AJ. The tables are at "http://alpha.rollanet.org/~fleming/watersyn.html" through the graciousness of Karl Lutzen and Mark Stevens. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 15:56:57 -0500 From: keithfrank at dow.com (Keith Frank) Subject: re: diacetyl for ESB/IPA ***** from Bruce Debolt ***** Graham Barron - I tried to e-mail you but it bounced. On 6-28 Graham asks: >Finally, I'd like to solicit opinions from everyone about a good ale >yeast that will give me a firm but not overpowering diacetyl flavor. I recently did an interesting split batch experiment with an IPA, 1.060 OG. I split an identical IPA wort, 1.060 OG, into two fermenters, one with Wyeast 1056 (American Ale), the other with Wyeast 1968 (ESB). Both fermented out to a FG of 1.013. The differences in taste are interesting. The 1056 beer is bitter from the beginning, sort of an "in your face" bitterness, but the 1968 beer has a mellow diacetyl taste at the beginning, then the bitterness kicks in and lingers nicely. I like them both but prefer the ESB version, as do most people I've given them to. I think the Wyeast 1968 yeast will work for you. By the way I didn't do any "dropping" as you may have read on recent posts, just the usual careful racking with minimum aeration. Another thing I noticed was that when I poured the first bottle of Wyeast 1968 IPA, it smelled just like Redhook ESB, which is one of my favorite commercial beers. Now I know what yeast to use to try to duplicate it. I've seen Redhook clone recipes posted using Wyeast 1098? English Ale, but I think 1968 might work better. This was the first time I'd tried this yeast, after reading many positive comments on HBD. I will definitely use it more often. I'll post the details of the recipe, conditions, etc. in a few weeks. Bruce DeBolt Lake Jackson, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 15:42:50 -0700 From: RobHaiber at eworld.com Subject: Re: #2(3) Homebrew Digest #1766 (June 27, 1995) In reply to James.M.Herter's RFI on starting a home-brew club: JAMES, The Association of brewers has a file on this, or if you are on eWorld you can download a fully formatted file in the Beer & Brewing Central. I am sysop of B&BC. The AOB address for this file, and others, is: <<info at aob.org>> More information can be requested from the Association's AUTOMATED information e-mail line by sending e-mail to info at aob.org and including one or more of the following key words in the body of the e-mail. Please do not expect a "real person" to read e-mail sent to info at aob.org. AHAINFO: Request more information about the American Homebrewers Association, including membership information. CATALOG: Request our on-line catalogue. HOWTOBREW: A short guide explaining how to brew your first batch of homebrew! CALENDAR: The American Homebrewers Association's Calendar of Events. CLUBLIST: The AHA's list of registered homebrew clubs. (58K file). GABFINFO: Information about the upcoming 1995 Great American Beer Festival. STYLES: The 1995 National Homebrew Competition Style Guidelines. (Verbose descriptions of the styles) CHART: The Style Guidelines Chart. This file is a table of gravities, IBUs, colors, etc. Please note that this chart is 120 characters wide and will not display properly on 80 column screens. NHCRULES: The 1995 National Homebrew Competition Rules. (Excluding the style guidelines in the STYLES file.) WINNERS: The winners list of the 1995 National Homebrew Competition. INDEX: Partial index of "zymurgy", 1985-1994. STARTCLUB: How to start and run a homebrew club. TEACH: How to teach a homebrew class. CRAFTBREW: The Institute for Brewing Studies' Craft-Brewing Industry chart. AOBINFO: General information about the Association of Brewers and its four divisions. HBDAY: A quick fact sheet about National Homebrew Day, May 6, 1995. BEERTIME: Schedule for Planet Beer, the American Homebrewers Associations National Homebrewers Conference. Other Internet services: WWW Users: Check out our World Wide Web site! The URL is: http://www.aob.org/aob Membership Send e-mail to expire at aob.org to find out Verification: how to check your expiration date by e-mail. (I'm still testing this, please send comments to comments at aob.org). E-mail orders: Send e-mail to orders at aob.org (AHA membership is $29 for Domestic, $34 Canadian, or $44 International) Customer service: Send e-mail to service at aob.org Please note that we are currently adding more information to the Association of Brewers' info line, so keep checking and stay updated on what's happening at the Association of Brewers. If you have any comments about this utility, please send e-mail to webmaster at aob.org. American Homebrewers Association, "zymurgy", and Great American Beer Festival are registered trademarks of the Association of Brewers. All contents of the Association of Brewers' info e-mail line are copyright 1995. All prices are subject to change. Hope this helps. Rob Haiber, sysop Beer & Brewing Central Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 1995 17:47:25 CDT From: Robert S Wallace <rwallace at iastate.edu> Subject: Motorizing the Maltmill(tm) - Recommendations sought... Fellow Homebrewer-tinkerers: I am seeking information from successful motorizers of the JSP Maltmill (tm), regarding: 1. Optimal roller speed for good overall crush (non-adjustable mill). 2. Motor speed and horsepower used. 3. Pulley ratios for drive and driven pullies. Plus souces for said pulleys. I recently posted a similar query to the Usenet group rec.crafts.brewing and received a few useful replies; I'd also like to sample the relevant wisdom here on the HBD, and compose/post a summary of how to motorize this excellent unit to both groups, based upon received responses. At present I have 1 inch drive and 7 inch driven pulleys available to me. With a 1725 rpm motor this gives a 246 rpm roller (shaft) speed. Does this fall in the range "acceptable" for milling grain, including malted wheat? Will I over-fragment/flour the grain at this speed? Source for larger diameter driven pulley with "thin" bore to fit the MM shaft? To save HBD BW, please reply to: rwallace at iastate.edu; I will post all summaries and cc to those responding. Thanks for your help. Rob Wallace, Iowa State Univ. Botany Dept., Ames, IA 50011 rwallace at iastate.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Jun 95 13:16:00 -0500 From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: hop freshness Paul writes: >The US- type hops in plug form are a new >generation of pellet types, taken from US to UK, turned into plugs and >shipped back to US. The quality varies! In the US, unless you buy your hops >in at least 5 kilo bales, sealed under vacuum, and keep them frozen, plugs are >better than anything else you can buy. With all due respect, Paul, I beg to differ. One retailer I'm familiar with buys his whole hops from Freshops and HopUnion in 10 to 25 pound bags in the early fall, right after harvest. He then immediately splits them up into 1 pound and 1 ounce oxygen-barrier packages and purges with CO2 before heat sealing. These are all stored cold until his customers buy them. I would say (and I'm sure you would agree) that with this type of procedure the hops are as good as if not better than plugs. Homebrewers have the advantage over commercial brewers in that they are able to afford to buy their hops packaged in small packages and they have the room to store several months worth of hops in the freezer. I visited a half dozen or so breweries in Britain last year (from Edinburgh to Faversham) and although the bulk of their hops were stored cold, the current open (50kg?) bale just sat open at room temperature. In one brewery there were three or four bales sitting out at room temperature! >They are not as good as the best >fresh East Kent Goldings [whole] hops you get in Kent, but what is! Surely! Ideally, one would like to travel to London every year for the GBBF then wander around the UK till the hop harvests are done and then bring back a year's worth of East Kent Goldings (yum!). However, I think the USDA might have something to say about that! Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 01:09:13 -0700 From: robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Subject: hop identification Scott Bratlie asked about identifying hop varieties on the bine. Wanting to start a thead, I'll pig on BW with meagre knowledge and hope hop-growing lurkers will show me up. The best ID on your hops will be if someone can track down the Washington State development link. Meanwhile... I'm in the same situation as you, having hops that are growing without knowing what variety they are. I bought some hops from the local nursery; on the hills around here some people use them as quick covers for the tall posts supporting decks, etc. The shape of the leaf is one means of identification. I had a pamphlet from Haas which gave the typical leaf shape of different varieties. Hops have lots of different leaf shapes. They range from the simple spade shape (deltoid, I think the botanists would call it and that's the end of the jargon I know), to three pronged and five pronged leaves. I also had bines growing from two known varieties, Willamette and Mt. Hood. Mt. Hood was also a hybrid, and I noticed (what seemed to my horticultural ignorance to be peculiar) that different leaves on the same bine were different shapes, and some leaves were 'mitten shaped'; that is, spade shaped on one side and on the other side was half of a three-pronged leaf -- if you can picture that. So if yours is a hybrid, you might also have a variety of leaf shapes that make ID more challenging. My unknowns had broad deltoid leaves and I casually call them Cluster or Cascade -- well, I actually call them Swan Lake hops after the nursery where I bought them. My Willamettes have a five-pronged leaf with narrow fingers. I have also noticed that on mature stalks, with the thickness of pencils, some are pale green and some (Mt . Hood) are dark (brownish-red). I don't know if this can be used for ID or not. As you say, ID is not much of a problem. Deciding how to brew with them can be a problem. One theory is to use them for aroma because the alpha isn't known. Then you have to judge whether the aroma is desirable. It's hard to go from evaluation of dried hops to evaluation of hops on the bine, because the ones on the bine are moist and growing. You try to smell them between your hands and all you get is the smell of fresh mowed grass -- green and wet. Last year I used most of mine in bittering brown ales. With some acidity from the malt, the exact hop bitterness balance was less important. Rob Lauriston, The Low Overhead Brewery <robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca> "Moderation in all things, especially moderation" Vernon, British Columbia Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 16:09:20 +0200 From: "terence tegner" <tegbrew at iaccess.za> Subject: copper vs stainless steel Could the brains on the HBD please tell me why a pressurised fermenter made out of copper is constructed from 1 mm material whereas a stainless equivalent needs 3 mm material? Is copper tougher that stainless or are there other factors that I know nothing about? Your wisdom would be appreciated. I am still convinced that beer brewed in copper has a much rounder taste and more body than the same recipe brewed in other types of vessels. Am I alone in this conviction? Thanks to all of you out their for your individual and collective help in the past. This is what the HBD is all about IMHO. I do wish the robot would get its brain seen to as I get withdrawal symptoms every time it hic-cups and I don't get my HBD fix. regards Terence Tegner. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 16:00:01 +0200 From: "terence tegner" <tegbrew at iaccess.za> Subject: copper vs stainless steel Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 05:30:58 PDT From: Tom_Tills.wbst214 at xerox.com Subject: Blank Mail Note >Plugs. An obvious drawback of plugs, BTW, is that the pressure used to >Create them is enough to burst probably all of the lupulin glands in the >flowers. This should, in theory, expose them more to oxygen. Combine that >with the long boat ride(s), and I can certainly believe the poor assessment I thought we were comparing plugs to pellets. I don't see how pressing the plugs would expose the lupulin to more oxygen than grinding them into little bits, then using pressure to create little plugs made up of those little bits. If the manufacturer cares about his product anyway, the hops would be immediately be packaged in oxygen barrier bags for transport. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 08:38:57 -0500 From: reved at ix.netcom.com (RevEd - Ed Blonski) Subject: Laaglanders malt Ok, so colour me naive, colour stupid, (some of you will just laugh and chalk it up to being a Rush fan!:) ) I went to a local brew store (actually not so local as its an hour from my house. Lovely living in the boonies!) and bought 12 lbs of Laaglanders malt, thinking it sounded good for a barley wine. I ask the wisdom of the digest about this and recieved three very helpful (if not disappointing) replies from Algis R. Korzonas, Michael MacGuire, and John Glaser (not a Rush fan!:) ) They have told me that Laaglanders is not the malt to use. Then I see in the 6/26 issue of the digest a blurb about how one brew shop stop selling Laaglander because of complaints. So, my question is, what do I do with 12 lbs of this malt? I've got two cultures of Belgian Abbey yeast going right now, and I don't know what to do? I've got a pound of cystal malt, and 6 lbs of Munton and Fison light malt extract. Can I add 3 lbs of the Laaglanders and get a nice dark beer? Again, I put myself on the mercy and wisdom of the digest! BTW, please send me any outstanding Barley Wine recipes you may have. I have Cats Meow II, and John Glaser sent me one, but the more the merrier! TIA *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* *Rev. Ed Blonski (reved at ix.netcom.com) "But I'm young enough to remember* *Christ Lutheran Church, LC-MS the future and the way things * *White Cloud, MI ought to be!" NP * *Rush fan (the band and the man!) * *-----------------------------------------------------------------------* Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 09:13:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Steven Lichtenberg <steve at inet> Subject: Grain bags, Seltzer etc. In response to recent postings from Troy and Robert in reference to using Zapap tuns and/or grain bags I thought I would relate my experiences. Prior to switching to my current set up using a copper manifold in my mash tun, I used a grain bag in a bucket set up. I took a piece of thin fabric, in my case an old drapery sheer, and cut it to fit my plastic fermenter. I sized this bag to fit snugly to the diameter of the fermenter and made it long enough for a 4" cuff over the top of the bucket. I then put elastic in the top seam tight enough to fit overthe bucket snugly. The bag goes into the bucket prior to adding the grains and mash continues as usual. At sparge time, just open the vavle at the bottom of the bucket as needed and add sparge water to the top. Works great as you can mash and lauter in the same vessel, grains are held back and all the other benefits of AG brewing are realised. I only changed to the copper manifold system as I increased the size of my brewery and the bag system would no longer be effective in my current set up. _______________ Martin asked about his flat seltzers. Commercial soda dispensing systems use a carbonator pump to carbonate the water as it is being dispensed. This allows for the high volume needed by these systems. Most of these run at 60-65 psi. That is why you see fountain soda with that great big head nad relatively little carbonation in the soda. The only way to keep ANY carbonation in the soda is to put lots of CO2 into the line. Try upping the pressure on these tanks to 60psi and see if this makes a difference. Keep in mind that the kegs we all use were originally made for the soda industry and are designed to handle VERY high pressures (I think they are tested to 150 psi). Hope this helps-- **** ---- "There's always time for a Homebrew!" ---- **** O|~~| ------------ Steven Lichtenberg --------------- |~~|0 `--' ---------- steve at inet.ttgva.com ------------- `--' -------- Programmer/Analyst - TTG --------- ---------- Alexandria, VA ------------ ----------------------------------- ENJOY LIFE--THIS IS NOT A REHEARSAL Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 11:18:23 -0400 From: steve at snake.appl.wpafb.af.mil (Steve Zabarnick) Subject: Ultra hops? Is anyone familiar with the a hop variety called ultra? I recently won some in a competition and would like to know what type of beer style in which they would be appropriate. I believe the alpha acid percentage was 4%. Steve Zabarnick Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 08:25:42 PST From: dhvanvalkenburg at CCGATE.HAC.COM Subject: Sam Piper's rebuttal on Styles & Judging Again I bring you Sam Piper's comments. As before responses can be made to my Email at: dhvanvalkenburg at ccgate.hac.com. First a few comments of my own. Sam is an excellent brewer and contest judge. He has won many of S. Calif. contests, including at least one best of show that I am aware of. Incidentally the best of show was a peppermint porter. Now, that's creativity for you and I don't think it was entered in the porter category. Don --------------------------------------------------------------------- In the past year I've written a number of essays for the Barley Bandit Homebrew Club Newsletter, The Brew HaHa. Some, my "Beer Crafter" series, are designed to inspire quiet thought and have touched on the spiritual and historical aspects of brewing. But I have also written an opinionated, cantankerous, and humorous series designed to engender debate. These are my "Beer Curmudgeon" essays, one of which, about beer styles, was copied onto the Internet by my friend, Don Van Valkenburg. Not having a modem or a mailbox myself, I'm a Net neophyte and was surprised at the response I got. Thanks to all who took the time to read or respond, and if you are not yet bored to death with either me or the subject, here's a few more words, this time intended for the Internet, and reflective of your feedback. First, I'm a little surprised at the reaction I got to the essay, for I've usually been a champion of excellence and a "go for it" kind of guy. Though to listen to me criticize standards and categories one could get the idea that I'm just a ham and eggs brewer, somebody content to drink whatever he ferments, without a care to quality, growth, or the achievements of those who came before him. But had I anticipated the large audience I got and the fact that I was speaking to people who did not know me, I might have been more precise. Let me be so now. Most people who took issue with me focused on the anarchy they thought would prevail without style standards, largely in the hundreds of contests that now exist. Many also spoke of the challenge and learning opportunity presented by striving to brew a beer within a certain style. These points are, I believe, valid. I could easily champion them myself. But for the sake of our mutual growth, I would like to throw out a challenge: let's see if we can hold conflicting ideas in our minds and our debate, suggesting that both may be true. The poles of thought within our debate may be like the difference between Jazz and Classical music. Like classical music, with it's narrow prescriptions for form, tonality, balance, meter, and arrangement, brewing to a style standard does not allow for much variation as the styles tend to be defined and interpreted, but they do develop one's skill as a brewer. Also, they make judging rather easy from an evaluative perspective: if you know the style definition and your palate is working, no problem. It gets to be rather objective, so long as you don't have to tell a Bitter from a Pale Ale. Consensus is easy to reach. However, in my previous essay [and in my remarks now] I hope to champion creativity. One of the hallmarks of homebrewing, and I think one of the essences of our hobby, is the extent of creative experimentation we can do. This is what distinguishes us from the professional brewer, who is subject to the rigors of the market place. Budweiser, Miller, Coors-- these guys cannot in all honesty make a beer that is only enjoyable by a small group or in very specialized conditions. Their business is based upon large economies of scale. Micro brewers, thank God, can take greater risks and go after narrower niches, but still they must have a market that will pay their expenses or they are out of business. Pub brewers have even greater opportunity for variation, but they still have to sell their beer to hundreds of people, who also have to come back and buy more, or goodbye grundy tanks. But not Homebrewers! We can go where they cannot, and we do, but I don't think that our contests, our judge training, and our style definitions address these unique qualities of our hobby. I do see a difference between homebrewers and professional brewers, and I think it is important for each group to support the special needs of themselves. Something that is special and unique to homebrewers is our jazzy creativity, our stretching of definition, our tendency to add and delete steps, ingredients-- what have you. But do our contests encourage us to be homebrewers, or do our contests encourage us to imitate professional brewers? I do not believe that the purpose of homebrewing is to suck up to professional brewers or to live within their constraints. Don't get me wrong- I have the utmost respect for commercial brewers. I might like to be one myself some day. But while we both make beer, we operate in different milieus. I believe that homebrew clubs and homebrew competitions should encourage and foster the uniqueness of homebrewing. I do not subscribe to a perspective that sees commercial brewers and beers as better than homebrewers or as something homebrewers should strive to emulate. I see us as different. But I don't see that our style guidelines or our competitions recognize that fact. I would argue that despite the obvious skill as a brewer one achieves in brewing to traditional styles, that in the process of rigorous judging to those styles one is encouraging a person to brew to past or present commercial market choices, with the result that what is special about HOME brewing is being sacrificed and replaced by what is special to PROFESSIONAL brewing. What would I do? I have three suggestions. They may not all be compatible with each other, but while the BJCP is in a period of reorganization, perhaps those in the fray would like some input. 1. Add a criterion to the evaluation process to allow a judge to grant points for creative variation on a style. Even more important, integrate into judge training an expectation for judges that they be flexible and able to tell a flaw from a successful variation. [No, that's not easy, and my arguments have never been designed to create a cop-out but to honor the hobby. ] 2. Abolish the specialty and the fruit-beer categories, forcing judges and brewers to come to grips with our creativity. Maybe a cherry porter should be in the porter category. 3. Double up some categories: have a competition for Classical Porter, and a separate one for Porter variations. This last idea might be worth an experimental try by someone out there with a contest large enough to do this in a category or two. Finally one last thought. Is Jazz musical anarchy? Many would argue that it is. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 12:42:59 -0500 From: chuckmw at mcs.com (Chuck Wettergreen) Subject: search for Real Ale book Does anyone know if CAMRA sells it's publications in the US? I'm looking for _Brewing_Your_[Own?]_Real _Ale_at_Home_. It is supposedl;y published by CAMRA. Is this the same book written by Graham Weeler and Roger Protz? Is this the correct title? I'm in the Chicago area and am interested in a local supplier. TIA, Chuck /*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/* Chuck Wettergreen chuckmw at mcs.com Geneva, Il /*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/*/* Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:47:19 -0400 From: ClearBeer at aol.com Subject: no more bottles! Hi Scott: I saw your post on HBD and thought I would offer you my views since I have tried just about every way imaginable to keep from bottling beer. Party Pigs: these 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 gallon kegs work pretty good. But be aware that the self inflating bladders which go into them have a short shelf life and if they are too old they don't dispense all the beer. Then you are stuck looking at good beer and no way to get it out. The bladders go for about $3.50 each plus shipping. 5 Liter Minis: these 1.32 gallon kegs work even better! Since the dispensing system is CO2 in an external bulb, if you run out of CO2 just pop a new bulb in and pour away. Try to find the system that uses 16gram bulbs, they work the best. Also these kegs are easy to fill and there is no clamping system with lots of screws like the pig has. 16gram bulbs are $1.25 each in a 10 pack. Cornelius Kegs: after using the previous two methods with good but not fantastic results I decided to try a real kegging system. This is the best. Easy to fill, easy to clean and VERY easy to drink. The only draw back is the size. You will need an extra frig or some other method of cooling, unless you are a bachelor and don't use your frig for food! I have seen used 5 gal. Corny kegs for $20, used CO2 tanks with regulators for $50. All you will need is a couple of fittings and hoses. You also mentioned "force carbonating", the pig and the minis cannot be forced carbonated. You will have to prime them and deal with the sediment. But the Corny kegs can be forced at 30psi and believe me not having to deal with the sediment is great. My last batch took 2 1/2 weeks to brew and I kegged it directly from the secondary (no priming bucket). I forced carbonated the keg and started drinking it the next day, didn't have to wait two weeks like you do with the pig or the minis. I think having a Corny keg for home and a few minis to take to friends is the best of both worlds. Good luck, Larry Hawley Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 13:53:27 -0400 (EDT) From: "Jerry Cunningham (ESMPD)" <gcunning at Census.GOV> Subject: Yeast Ranching Guide for Busy(Lazy) People Hi everybody, I know there are better ways to propogate yeast than my method - they have been discussed here by persons much more qualified than I. But hey, I don't have a lot of time to step up yeast cultures from a slant to a frothing 10 gallon starter from hell. (This is not a slam at people who do this - actually, I'm quite envious). I originally wanted to propogate yeast to save money. I'm not sure if the extra effort is worth it just to save a few bucks a batch. What _does_ make it worthwhile is the great starts you get using the 2nd (or later) "generation"! Here's my method: Extra stuff you need: - -------------------- Pyrex measuring cup lighter grain alcohol q-tips 12 oz beer bottle (for storage) -or- whatever you use to make a starter I use the yeast from the secondary, since I figure it's already been "washed" once, and probably has a higher yeast:trub ratio. I've heard some people suggest that you are grabbing less-floculant yeast this way, but I haven't noticed this in practice. Extra things to do when bottling: - -------------------------------- * Sanitize measuring cup, bottle, cap (if storing) or stopper & airlock (if making starter). * When racking to bottling bucket, keg, or whatever - leave a small amount of beer covering yeast at the bottom of the secondary. * Swirl the carboy to resuspend the yeast (and yes, some trub). * Swab with alcohol and flame: mouth of carboy, spout of measuring cup, and the mouth of the bottle. * Pour yeast into measuring cup. Pour yeast from cup to bottle/starter. Cap and store in fridge, or put airlock on your starter and watch it go! (my last starter was foaming out the airlock in about 8 hours). I've had great success with this admittedly less than ideal method the last year or so. I usually don't go more than 3-4 generations before starting from a fresh culture, and I've only tried it with Wyeast 1056 (American), Wyeast 1028? (London), and Wyeast 2112 (California). It's a middle-of-the-road approach for those of us who don't have a lot of free time. Jerry Cunningham Annapolis, MD Return to table of contents
Date: 29 Jun 95 09:35:00 -0500 From: larry.carden at pscmail.ps.net Subject: Secondary fermentation in plastic bucket Tom Williams writes: >Questions: >1. Why are plastic buckets unsuitable for secondary? >2. Is the answer to question #1 serious enough to warrant siphoning >(and aerating) the beer twice just to reuse the glass carboy? >I normally use my glass carboy for primary, siphon to the plastic >bucket for secondary. At bottling time, I put the priming sugar >solution in the glass carboy and siphon back to it for bottling. I >haven't noticed any problems with this, but I am always on the lookout >for improvements. Answers: 1. Secondary fermentation is an extended period of time. The plastic buckets allow air in (the plastic is air-permeable), over time, and oxygen is bad for beer (and other foods). So the top homebrewers, Papazian's books, etc., recommend using a glass carboy for secondary fermentation. 2. You can very easily siphon without aerating. Just don't allow the beer to splash. Keep the end of the tube under the beer. >From all the advice I've read, if you use a plastic bucket during fermentation, it should be for primary, as long as the yeast completes fermentation within a week. Some low flocculating yeasts, such as Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan, have taken 2 weeks to ferment in my primary carboy! I would not want to use a plastic bucket for that, although maybe in a plastic bucket the 2 weeks would be reduced... Another disadvantage of plastic buckets is that they are not as easy to sanitize, in the long run. In my experience, they are harder to clean the smell out of, after being used for fermentation. Plastic is easily scratched, and bacteria can hide in the scratches and crevices. That's what the books say. You may get pleasing results with your approach, and after all, that's all that matters. For me, using a glass carboy all the way just puts more factors in my favor, and results in a consistently great beer. I don't like to waste the time and money of a bad batch. My first homebrew was fermented in a plastic primary, and I will never go back. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 11:47:44 PDT From: kens at lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder) Subject: Crushed Lupulin Glands? Norm writes that the pressure to create hop plugs would "burst probably all of the lupulin glands." IMHO, do not support this theroy, in fact, I tend to disagree. But, I have no evidence to support either argument. Does anybody have evidence (nothin but the facts...;-) to support either side of this "bursted lupulin gland" argument? I am brewing with plugs this weekend. I will try to pull some of the cones out of the boil as soon as the cones are "freed" from the plug and examine the glands. I'll report back what a non-magnified visual expection yeilds. This brings up another question : what about pellets and crushed (ground) lupulin glands? I can see an argument for the oxygen exposure, if the hop are not properly stored. IMHO (again), all hops should be in a sealed oxygen barrier bags and placed in a freezer. Flowers, pellets, plugs and "leaves". This should solve the oxygen issue. Should "perfect" storage be an issue, I believe, in equal conditions, plugs and pellets should perform about the same in oxygen exposure issues. Any evidence to support this? I still support the, idea that plugs are the superior packaging form for most homebrewers, if not all brewers. I am looking to support or invalidate my opinion with facts. Hoppy Brewin' (of course) Ken Schroeder Sequoia Brewing Return to table of contents
Date: 29 Jun 95 14:59:25 EDT From: <MILLER.SA at ocf.compuserve.com> Subject: malt vinegar *Message: From: MILLER.SA at OCMTV01 Date: 6/29/95 2:43PM To: >internet:homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com at OCF_INFORM Subject: malt vinegar Contents: Text item: Text_1 Have any of you tried making malt vinegar, perhaps as a side project? If so I would be curious to know the procedure. The only brand I've been able to find is Heinz which has a fairly large amount of corn extract...(the Bud-Mill-Ameri-swill of the malt vinegar world I guess). :) Thanks, Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 20:38:00 GMT From: jeff.guillet at lcabin.com (Jeff Guillet) Subject: How's my agua? I recently got my water quality report from my water company. I've been brewing extracts for the last year and a half and am ready to take the plunge to all grain Would some kind soul please tell me how my water is and what I should do to correct any problems? Alkalinity (CaCO3) 54 mg/l Calcium 21 mg/l Chlorine 0.54 mg/l Chloride 20.5 mg/l Hardness (CaCO3) 84 mg/l Iron 0.014 mg/l Magnesium 5.3 mg/l pH 7.7 Potassium 0.5 mg/l Sodium 16 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids 101 mg/l Did I leave anything out? Thanks very much for your expertise! BTW - Samuel Adams new Scotch Ale is *delicious!* (Jim Koch be damned). Nice malty, peat smoked taste. The new Sam Adams Cherry Wheat, however, sucks. WAY too much cherry for me. -=Jeff=- Pacifica, CA jeff.guillet at lcabin.com * CMPQwk 1.42-R2 * Reg #1757 * Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 95 15:31:12 MDT From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: Whole Hops vs. PPProcessed I can't let these comments by Ken Schroeder go unchallenged (nothing personal, Ken, maybe too much lupulin in my brain): >The quality of hop plugs, IMHO, is outstanding. Pellets produce a >glop at the bottom of my mash tun which the wort will not flow through. >The quality of the hop bitterness, flavor and aroma seems fair to good. >Pellets are execellent for dry hopping. The compact size makes them easy >to get into the carboys. I have yet to see a bag of "flowers" contain I find the aroma from fresh whole hops to be as good as it gets. Also, whole hops are easier to separate from the wort, which for me is more important than a little hassle getting them into the neck of the bottle. OTOH, I'm not doing much dry hopping anymore. If I want do it, I just add them to my kegs nowadays. >mostly flowers. These bags should be called cone leaves or crushed cones. I think the problem here is the source of your whole hops. I buy my hops mail order, previously from The Hop Source and now from Just Hops (who bought out THS). The quality of these hops is wonderful compared to what I've seen in the local retail homebrew stores. The price is much better as well. I buy at least a 6 month's supply each time, to make it more convenient. Yes, this fills up my freezer, but what the heck. I'd rather see it stuffed with green bags of humulus lupulus than with bread and bagels as my wife would have it. As far as the condition of the cones, they are not 100% intact cones, but they are usually in pretty fine shape, with a bright green color, and no signs of oxidation. >Flowers tend to oxidize, which not a problem with properly stored pellets >and plugs. Flowers quality seems to go up and down and many times appear ALL HOPS TEND TO OXIDIZE. This is not debatable. If you store your hops cold in barrier packaging this is not much of an issue no matter what form the hops come in. >light green and brownish, a sure sign of aged hops. Probably the best >testimony to plugs is the 90% plus cones I find in the mash tun after >boiling. My hop utilization went up when I switched to plugs. That may be >a subjective determination, but almost all who know my beers claim an >increase in hoppiness. It is my hope that the superior packaging (IMHO) >becomes popular and we may find plugs for all of our favorite hop varieties. Plugs are a good form of hops, as are pellets. What I don't understand are those who claim that taking fresh hops and chopping them into tiny bits, then using great pressure (and its associated heat) to form them into pellets, is going to improve them! And how can you take fresh whole hops, send them across the ocean, compress them until all of the lupulin glands burst and are exposed to oxygen, then send them back across the ocean, and claim they are better? Pellets and plugs are more compact and sometimes easier to dry hop with. I just can't buy the claims that hops are improved by processing them. Russell (two L's) Mast and I have been discussing this via email. He's seen a lot of poor quality whole hops in retail stores, as have I. For whatever reason, by the time they make the retail scene they aren't *usually* in the best shape. I think this is why pellets and plugs have gained such a good reputation. They take up less freezer/refrigerator space so they are probably treated better by distributors and retailers who have limited cold space. They may even store better under adverse conditions, which might explain their reputation for better consistency, though I've never seen proof of this. I honestly don't think most people have ever seen good whole hops, at least not consistently good ones. I never did until I started mail ordering them, and until then, I guess I didn't really know the difference. Fresh whole hops are available to homebrewers today, so seek and you will find, brew with them and you will be happy, IMHO. Cheers, Norm Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1770, 07/01/95