HOMEBREW Digest #1860 Wed 18 October 1995

Digest #1859 Digest #1861

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Re: Pump Aeration Foam & fridges (Jay Reeves)
  Styles Again (Ken Schroeder)
  RIMS Process/Temperature Control ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  Low/no alcohol ("Bruce Eckert/Info Systems/Holland Community")
  Web sites (eg Homebrew Flea Market) via email (Kelly E Jones)
  Thanks and Hops in Starters; Effective?? (Robert S Wallace)
  white spots revisited (Rolland Everitt)
  Re: Styles Again (CHARLIE SCANDRETT)
  Re: Re:   Pump Aeration Foam (Jack Stafford)
  Mead- Slow(No) Start w/Re-pitched Yeast (Brian Travis)
  green stuff (DONBREW)
  Carbonater (dludwig)
  oak in IPAs/styles/enamel pots/flat bock (Algis R Korzonas)
  root beer apology (Scott E. Bratlie)
  Mashing temperatures & saccharification (Derrick Pohl)
  Re:   1056 and little green apples (Tim Fields)
  metric conversion (Tim Fields)
  Sanatizing questionSanitizing questions (PAUL_TULLY)
  Pumpkin Ale (PAUL_TULLY)
  Injection of Oxygen ("Todd A. Darroch")
  IPA and Oak (Delano Dugarm 36478)
  Re[2] RIMS process questions ("Keith Royster")
  Hello Goodbye (Jerry Miller)
  Re: Re[2] RIMS process questions (hollen)
  Re: Concrete Roller (Todd Kirby)
  Wort Chiller Construction Question (Guy A. DeRose)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! October 3 thru October 13: The digest !!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if !!! you make any requests during this time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****************************************************************** * 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. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org 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: 16 Oct 95 15:22:05 EDT From: Jay Reeves <73362.600 at compuserve.com> Subject: Re: Pump Aeration Foam & fridges Bob (Btalk at aol.com) & Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> talk about their air pump setups/woes. Here's what I've done: I made a double hole stopper. In one hole I insert a racking cane & attach a SS "air stone" via various tubing pieces to the end. I insert the air pump hose (?1/4"?.) in the other end of the cane (curved end) . In the other hole of the stopper I insert a short piece (3") of 3/8 hard tubing (broken piece of an old racking cane). I then use short pieces of various dia tubing on that to step up to a 5/8 tube which I run into a bucket of water. I turn the pump on for 15 minutes at a time and let the foam blow into the bucket. I use an electronic timer ($20) to automatically cycle the pump for the next 4 or 5 hours: on for 15 min, off for 1 hour. After that, I remove the assembly and replace with a 1" blowoff tube. I loose less than a qt of wort but that can easily be accounted for in advance. The reason I use a 5/8 tube for the blow-off is because it takes less pressure to push the foam thru the hose as compared to the same length of 3/8 tube. Now I need a little guidance and advice: I'm ready to invest in a brewing fridge. I've seen some of you mention that you use a chest-type frezzer - others use an upright refridgerator. What are the pros/cons of each? -Jay Reeves Huntsville, Alabama, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 12:18:07 PDT From: kens at lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder) Subject: Styles Again Charlie Scandrett and Rob Lauriston have started the styles thread up again. To summarize from the last go round on this thread, it was generally agreed by the paticipants, that styles are the common standards by which beer is judged. As contrived as the styles may be, brewing to a style helps any brewer refine brewing skills. The goal in refining brewing skills is to be able to brew to a style and be consistant with each batch (RIMS anyone?). This is about all that was agreed upon during the last conversation on this topic. Charlie and Rob point out that styles are linked to history and due to the evolution of agriculture and technology, it is very difficult to brew true to the orginial style. This idea has a lot of merit. But, in my opinion, style definitions are based on today's interpretation of yesterday's style. There is no reason to cask a barrel of beer and send it in a non-refigerated slow sailing boat through the tropics to it's finial desitnation. Because this is no longer common practice, the IPA style has evolved. Today's style "guideline" for IPA leans toward a much more balanced beer without any mention of the oak flavor imparted by the cask trip in the slow boat. The style has evolved, reflecting today's brewing environment. I like to think styles are referanced to historical styles and are modified by modern brewing practices. The most styles do evolve as time marches on. Charlie and Bob's irritation source, IMHO, seem to be borne from the ridged definitions applied by a standard bearing association. I must agree that the current condition of style "guidelines" that are most often employed by competitions seem out of step with the current brewing practice. This opinion appears to be acknowledged by both the AHA and BJCP. The BJCP, I believe, is attempting to redefine styles and the sugested catagories the styles belong to. I am ignorant of any attemps from the AHA to do the same. We, the brewers, have influenance to the BJCP process, but I do not know the mechanisim of that influance. Help anyone? Short of changing the style "guidelines", competitions have the power to define styles and catagories employed in that competition. A large porporton of competitions rely on the AHA "guidelines" because they are recognized by virtually all brewers and judges as one "definition of beer characterisitics". Coordinating a competition is a tremendous amount of work, the AHA "guidelines" relieves a lot of work. It is just plain easy to do. On the left coast there are a few examples of competitions that have taken the time to evaluate the styles and their catagories. The Mayfair competition, organized by the Maltose Falcons, is a great example. They have taken the AHA "guidelines" and realigned many styles and their catagories. They have defined a couple of styles that are not in the AHA "guidelines". The "World Cup of Beers" (held by BAM?) catagorizes via country of style origin, totally rejecting the AHA catagories. The California State Club Homebrew Competition (San Andreas Malts) shortened the number of styles and catagories and included a entry subcatagory of "other", for those beers which do not conform to the stated styles of a catagory but are similar. The AHA "guidelines" are just that, guidelines. Each competition may alter those "guidelines" to suit the needs and desires of that competition. Creating a new style is not hard to do. Obtaining the hard facts (color, bittering units, ect.) may be a little expensive (lab testing), but best estimates should suffice until the style is widely recognized. The verbal description of the overall characteristics is required and should be a relatively easy task. The object in defining a style is to give the "guidelines" of the styles characteristic so a beer may be evaluated by agreed evaluation criteria. Recognition of a style is very difficult. The "hegemonistic" (great word Charlie) quality of standard organizations may prove the largest road block. Again, the BJCP may have a mechanism to circumvent this issue. I am ignorant of any attempt by the AHA. Because a style is not "recognized" does not preclude it's use in a competition. It just is not recognized by one or another standards association. Big deal. We, the brewers, have the power to define styles and catagories. We may choose to influance standards organizations or employ new styles in our competitions. Charlie claims "the market....will begin to rationalize styles." I disagree. I believe it is the influential brewers, both commercial and homebrewer that will define new styles. I think, as more brews take on a particular unique style, the brewers will demand the style be seperate from other styles. I believe the experienced judges will recognize that a style is emerging as larger number of competition entries don't not quite fit current style guidelines but yet, have common characteristics. One or two breweries producing a new style may not have enough horespower to create a new style. (Unless the one or two breweries are the likes of Budswilloors!) Hundreds of competition entries should. I am convinced that both the AHA and the BJCP are willing to listen to our opinions. The problem is finding the method to having our opinions heard in a strong enough voice that these standards associations are encouraged into action. Is there such a style as American or Californian Stout? Hmmm...... Ken Schroeder Sequoia Brewing (Redwood City, Ca.) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 15:28:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: RIMS Process/Temperature Control Steve Dragon (dragonsc at aol.com) asked about where to pick up the temperature. He noted getting different temperatures everywhere in the system. I see two criteria: you'd like to get a good representative temperature, one that best describes what the bulk of the enzymes see during the mash, and, you'd also like to read the temperature in such a way as to guarantee no overshoot or scorching. The only way you can get a "good representative temperature" that I can think of is to either design or use the system in such a way as to eliminate gradients. This means you can't have channeling in the grain bed, and *may* mean the tun should be insulated too. If you can do this, then the first criteria is met with the probe placed anywhere--it just doesn't matter. The main motivation for building a RIMS is to maximize temperature control of the Whole Mash. It does no good at all to control the heater effluent temp to a knat's ass, only to have it cool down 10 degrees at the walls of the tun, IMO. The best way to meet the second requirement is measure the temp of the wort downstream of the heat application source. If you're using a heating chamber, then you should measure either in the chamber or at the exit of the chamber. If you heat the bottom of the tun (with any method) then measure in the pipe exiting from the tun. Yes, you want to control the Whole Mash temperature, but it's THIS temperature that absolutely cannot be allowed to go above the setpoint (at least not by some unknown amount). > How critical are these temperature points? Well, I'll be opinions vary on this one, but...I did a stovetop all-grain recently, using recirculation by hand to control temp. Batch One was controlled very well at about 152F, and the beer turned out tasty, but just a tad thinner than I wanted. My notes said "mash at about 154F next time to enhance body". Okay. I duplicated the recipe and procedure down to the millisecond/ microgram, but dorked up the temperature control. Almost 45 minutes of the Big Rest was done at precisely 150F, with the final 15 min done at about 154F. Result: noticeably watery porter. That's all I have to say about that. YMMV. KRF Colorado Springs --------------------------------------------------------------- I may not know a helluva lot, but I'll know even less tomorrow. --------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:25:18 EST From: "Bruce Eckert/Info Systems/Holland Community" <BPE at zonker.hoho.org> Subject: Low/no alcohol I have a question for the collective wisdom out there. How can a homebrewer reduce (or even eliminate) the alcohol content of his brew? With the variety of non-alcohol commercial "beers" available now (some LOOK like they are probably good) I am wondering if whatever commercial techniques are used can be transferred to homebrewing. Of course, I would PREFER to hear about techniques that do not affect the taste ... - ---------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Eckert / Director, Info Systems / Holland Community Hospital / Holland Michigan USA bpe at hoho.org - ---------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:26:29 GMT From: Kelly E Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com> Subject: Web sites (eg Homebrew Flea Market) via email Patrick Babcock proposed posting his Homebrew Flea Market to the Digest on a regular basis. I voted no, but I'll offer the following alternative to those web-impaired brewers who would like to see such info: Web pages can be accessed via email (text only, obviously) by using a WWW email server such as Peter Flynn's. To get information on this, send email to webmail at www.ucc.ie with HELP as the text of the message. To retreive a web page, mail to the same address using the single-line message GO <url> where <url> is the uniform resource locator, for example GO http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/4sale.html to get Patrick's fleamarket page. Hope this helps a few people, Kelly Portland, OR Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 17:16:18 CDT From: Robert S Wallace <rwallace at iastate.edu> Subject: Thanks and Hops in Starters; Effective?? Beery G'day to you all, First, thanks to those responding to my query about the banana blasting qualities of Wyeast 1214 (Abbey); the takehome on this is that it is a notorious isoamyl acetate producer, almost regardlesss of temperature. Some recommended better pre-pitching aeration; one said use a wit yeast (3944) or an altbier yeast (don't know how this would hold up to high OG/high alc. concentration, though). Encouragingly, some experience is out there that their banana beer from hell conditioned after 6-12 months into something wonderful. I'm packing mine away into a deep dark cold part of the cellar to be revisited next summer..... Question/Comments du jour..... USING HOPS IN STARTERS..... What component of the hop chemical profile has been shown to be of bacteriostatic value? (Note - it is not bacteriocidal, per se, nor is it "antiseptic" as has been also disseminated). Of course, using hops for bittering requires a boil induced isomerization of alpha acids, etc. If it is not this isomerized organic acid which confers bacteriostatic properties to the sweet wort, what is it? Is/are the compound(s) known, and more importantly, what is/are its/their solubility. For example, is it necessary to boil hops for extended periods to obtain bacteriostatic properties in starters, or is it sufficient to heat to boiling for wort sterilization purposes as well as solubilzation of the active compounds. I like having the possible 'built in' advantage that using hops in starters may confer, but in practice does anyone have any data (or short of this, opinions) as to how long hops (I use pellets) need to be boiled to obtain bacteriostatic effects (I could care less about bittering my starters; I decant the supernatant anyway, and only pitch the slurry of a 2-3 liter starter.)? Have any experiments been done along these lines? I think many homebrewers would like to know this if they use starters regularly (I always do); furthermore, suitable extracts might be developed including the bacteriostatic compounds which would enable a few drops of extract to keep potential infections at bay, particularly when yeast are successively repitched. Data?? Thoughts?? Opinions?? Speculation?? [I'm sorry if I am resurrecting an old thread, but I don't recall ever discussing this in recent HBDs, nor ever getting an adequate answer from printed info.... please direct me if I'm wrong or mis-/under-informed.] Good brewing, Rob Wallace - --- Robert S. Wallace Assistant Professor of Botany "In cerevisia veritas est." Dept. of Botany - Iowa State Univ. Ames, Iowa 50011-1020 rwallace at iastate.edu FAX: 515-294-1337 +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_ooo000ooo_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 18:24:38 -0400 From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt) Subject: white spots revisited A couple of weeks ago I posted a message describing white spots which appeared inide the bottles of a 4-week-old batch of ale. I asked whether these were yeast or bacteria colonies. Their appearance was soon followed by a considerable increase in carbonation, and a tendency toward gushing. The flavor and aroma of this ale were fine - quite good in fact, but being afraid that spoilage was in progress, and that explosions were iminent, I consumed the batch. None of those who assisted in its disposal had any complaints. Several people have responded to me privately to say that they thought the spots were yeast. One or two had seen something similar (although nobody mentioned the gushing). I used Edme dried ale yeast for that batch, and am still wondering what the spots are all about, and in general, what the symptoms of bacterial and wild yeast contamination are. I hope those more knowledgeable than myself will clue me in. Private responses or public are welcome - I will post a summary. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 08:52:52 +1000 From: CHARLIE SCANDRETT <merino at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Re: Styles Again Ken Schroeder replies: >Charlie Scandrett and Rob Lauriston have started the styles thread up >again.(SNIP) With some trepidation! >Charlie and Rob point out that styles are linked to history and due to the >evolution of agriculture and technology, it is very difficult to brew true >to the orginial style. This idea has a lot of merit. (SNIP) > I like to think styles are referanced to historical styles and are modified by modern >brewing practices. The most styles do evolve as time marches on. I hope so, but like most evolution, it is slow and a bit of a mystery!. >Charlie and Bob's irritation source, IMHO, seem to be borne from the ridged >definitions applied by a standard bearing association. I must agree that the >current condition of style "guidelines" that are most often employed by >competitions seem out of step with the current brewing practice. (SNIP) >. I am convinced that both the AHA and the BJCP are willing to listen to our opinions. The problem is >finding the method to having our opinions heard in a strong enough voice that these >standards associations are encouraged into action. >Is there such a style as American or Californian Stout? Hmmm...... It is always worth risking a few flames to get such well researched, thoughtful and balanced replies. Being relatively new to the Internet, I can often make statements in ignorance of past discussions and events. However I always end up much better informed. Thanks Ken. Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 17:21:10 PDT From: stafford at alcor.hac.com (Jack Stafford) Subject: Re: Re: Pump Aeration Foam >Bob (Btalk at aol.com) writes in #1855 about aerating with an aquarium pump: >My experience is that the foaming is so great that it becomes a >humongous PITA, even with 5 gal of wort in a 6.5 gal carboy. >I can run the air pump for about 10 min, then have to shut it off and wait >20-30 min for the foam to subside before I can turn the pump on again. 3 or 4 >of these cycles is the limit of my patience. Why not attach a 1" dia. blow off hose? Run your smaller diameter tube attached to the air pump and stone inside that fat one. Immerse the open end of the big tube in a pint container with a little sanitizing solution in the bottom. When you're done aerating, just reel in the smaller tube out the open end of the big one. Leave the big tube in place for the massive rocky head that typically appears the next day. Personally, I'm too cheap to use the powered aereation method. I just shake the hell out of the carboy (or bucket). It works pretty good. I could see the logic behind power aereating batches of 10 gallons or more. 10 gallons of beer probably weighs a ton. Jack stafford at alcor.hac.com Costa Mesa, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 20:30:01 -0400 From: btravis at cy.com (Brian Travis) Subject: Mead- Slow(No) Start w/Re-pitched Yeast A question for the brewing gurus out there... Though I am a fairly experienced beer brewer, I recently racked my first ever batch of Mead to a secondary fermenter and I carefully salvaged and refrigerated about 24 ounces of thick yeast sediment from the bottom of the carboy. I had used 3 packs (about 21 grams) of Red Star champaigne yeast along with a teaspoon or so of yeast nutrient (some stuff called "fermax") in that batch and had seen a rapid, vigorous and thorough fermentation result. I pitched the salvaged yeast into a second batch of mead this past Sunday, along with a teaspoon of the "fermax" nutrient, fully expecting to see another rapid fermentation start - perhaps even MORE rapid than the first batch considering the much larger quantity of yeast being pitched. I should note that I have repitched yeast frequently in my 35 or so batches of beer brewed previously, so I was careful to insure that #1, the temperature was under 80 deg F (75 F when the yeast was pitched) and #2 that the wort (excuse me - the 'must') was vigorously aerated prior to pitching the yeast. I always use liquid yeast cultures in my beer, but went with the dried champaigne yeast in my mead and figured there would be no problems with re-pitching the sediment from the dried yeast. Unfortunately, some 32 hours after pitching the yeast there is NO sign whatsoever of fermentation. Since all my nearby homebrew stores are closed Mondays, I could not acquire any more champaigne yeast and in the effort to get some sort of fermentation going before the bacteria get a foothold, I pitched a Wyeast 1056 starter that I was culturing up for my planned beer batch this week. My questions for the collective: #1 Any ideas why the champaigne yeast I re-pitched failed to "ignite"? Is it possible that the alcohol level of the mead killed the yeast rather than the yeast going dormant after converting the available dextrins? Is re-pitching yeast in meads a brewing no no? #2 What effect will the ale yeast I added today have on the mead? (I plan to add more dried champaigne yeast tomorrow evening, but felt it essential to get some sort of fermentation head start on the bacteria.) Perhaps I should note that the original batch from which the yeast was salvaged started at 1.088 OG and at racking to secondary was .992 gravity. This occurred within a month and the mead is already essentially clear. (Recipe is Papazian's "White Angel Savior Mead" with 3 lbs of prickly pear fruit & 13.5 mesquite honey). The batch that failed to "ignite" is a higher gravity "sweet mead" with 7.5 pounds of raspberrys and 20 lbs of "generic" honey (OG 1.135). I used frozen raspberries but a check of the package indicated pure 100% fruit (no yeast inhibiting preservatives). Your input will be greatly appreciated! TIA! Brian Travis btravis at cy.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:40:20 -0400 From: DONBREW at aol.com Subject: green stuff John Palmer sez: >Brass and Bronze are primarily copper and are safe for drinking water usage. >Some alloys contain a small percentage of lead to aid machining and these may >be soaked in a 2:1 vol:vol solution of white distilled vinegar and hydrogen >peroxide (common grocery store varieties) for 15 minutes to dissolve off any >surface lead. The metal will turn a buttery gold color when its done. If the >solution turns green, it means its past done and you are starting to dissolve >copper. > My question is does the vinegar or the H2O2 cause the green stuff. Also how do you fix the misteak ;-) or is any damage done? Come to think of it should I have put silicon tape on the heating element threads in my copper heating chamber to avoid one of those unlike element electrolytic thingies, or if there is a worry in that regard, would grounding the copper do the job? Don Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 22:31:02 -0400 From: dludwig at ameritel.net Subject: Carbonater Hey all! I found a used device called a "carbonater". Consists of a motor(probably 1/4 hp, small brass or bronz pump, a tank about the size of a propane torch canister and made out of SS. The tank has electrical power feeding into a connector on top. Somewhere on the device was stamped 190 psi. The name plate had the manufacturer as "AVCO" (or something like that-definitely a four letter name starting with "A") with "dispensing equipment" printed on it. Anybody know what this thing does? Is it a device for carbonating beverages? Brewing in the land of pleasant living! Southern MD Dave Ludwig Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 13:53:33 CDT From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: oak in IPAs/styles/enamel pots/flat bock Charlie writes: >is just a heavily hopped Pale Ale with a more romantic name. If someone calls >it an IPA, shout "where's the oak?!" Sorry Charile... the oak used in UK beer casks (and lambiek/lambic casks for that matter) is *european* oak and imparts virtually no flavour or aroma even when new. After a few uses, it adds absolutely no flavour or aroma. American oak does add a lot of oaky flavour, but is not used for beer casks (it was used for Ballentine's IPA years ago and their IPA did indeed have an oaky flavour). Note that there is a small amount of oak flavour imparted by fresh european oak, most notably in Rodenbach Grand Cru. Considering that the beer sits in these huge oak tuns for 3 years and that the tuns are disassembled so the staves can be scraped to expose fresh wood, but that Rodenbach Grand Cru has but a mild oakiness shows how little oak flavour is imparted by european oak. Surely the ship to India did not take 3 years and they probably did not use brand new casks. Charlie also says: >1/ Why can't an excellent American Bock beat a very good Helles Bock in a >competition? They are close enough to be compared and contest. Of course it could, but only if the American Bock was judged as an American Bock and the Helles Bock as a Helles Bock. Head-to-head the American Bock (e.g. Augsburger Bock, Frankenmuth Bock...) would be far too weak and watery compared to Ayinger Mai Bock, Einbecker Mai Ur-Bock or Forschungs St. Jakobus Bock. Judged as American Bocks, these three would be tossed out for being too big and too alcoholic for style. Finally, Charlie says: >Let the brewer woo the palate within broarder categories! Is something broken? Does something really need fixing? Yes, there are some commercial beers that don't fit into the current AHA guidelines (Orval, for example), but how many people (although I'm not saying that this is Charlie's or Rob's motivation) calling for relaxing the guidelines are asking to do so in response to some judge writing that their beer was "too this for style" or "not enough that for style?" Judges' jobs are tough enough already without having to artificially broaden the categories that MOST judges have agreed are close to the mark. Regarding historical depth to styles, perhaps there isn't and it would be quite refreshing to see someone try to take a crack at "Original Porter" albeit in the Specialty category. Sure we can't buy brown malt anymore, but who says we can't try and make it at home? **** Calvin writes: >I suggest not using enamel pots like that. It's difficult, if even >feasible at all, to repair the damage you'd do to the enamel by drilling. My EasyMasher is mounted in an enamel pot and although I know there is a tiny amount of rust forming down there, I have not (in about 30 batches) noticed any metallic or rust-like flavours in any of my beers, even the very mildly-flavoured ones. *** Calvin writes (regarding DANVATH's uncarbonated bock): >Is there any yeast sediment at all in the bottles? >If so, it might just need (even more) time to carbonate. Perhaps almost >all the yeast had settled out, and the beer racked off was nearly yeast- >free. While Calvin had some other very good suggestions, I don't think that settling of yeast is a likely candidate for undercarbonation. I have bottled several beers with no additional yeast that had sat in secondaries for 3, 6 or even 12 months and had no carbonation problems. Now, if the beer was very strong (8%, 9%, 10%...) and the wort was underaerated, then fresh yeast (a la Pierre Rajotte) added at botting might help. Dan noted that the fermentation was "very long." This can be an indicator that the wort was underaerated. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 21:16:02 -0600 From: bratlie at selway.umt.edu (Scott E. Bratlie) Subject: root beer apology I apologize for th line wraping that I did in my root beer posting. Also I have recieved a couple of responses regarding the root beer recipe. This recipe was not fermented but bottled when cool. it does have alchol , but less than 1% (I let my daughters drink a bottle at night and they don't get goofy, so no worries). Also the worry about bottle bombs with naturaly carbonated soda is real. A friend's wife took two bottles that I gave them out of the fridge and left them out, well to put a long story short they had a interesting science experement hypothesis testing session. Scott Bratlie Missoula, Montana Bratlie at selway.umt.edu "A nation may lose its liberties in a day and not miss them in a century." Montesquieu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:16:50 -0700 From: pohl at unixg.ubc.ca (Derrick Pohl) Subject: Mashing temperatures & saccharification I've been following the recent thread on mashing temperatures, saccharification, etc. with the greatest interest. Just one quick question: when people speak of "sweetness" vs. "dryness" of the finished beer, are we really talking about finishing gravity (F.G.)? That is, is a "sweet" beer one with a higher F.G., and a dry beer one with a lower F.G.? Further, does "body" correlate with these? Look, here's a little chart - have I got it straight? Higher temp. mash Lower temp. mash Higher F.G. Lower F.G. Sweet vs. Dry Full-bodied Light-bodied "Big" mouth-feel "Thin" [Disregarding the effect on these of yeast and adjunct grains - focussing only on mash temperatures.] - ----- Derrick Pohl <pohl at unixg.ubc.ca> Vancouver, B.C., Canada Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Oct 95 07:52:42 EDT From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> Subject: Re: 1056 and little green apples In #1859, Jack from West Point asks about Wyeast 1056: >Has anyone else had this problem with the September crop of Wyeast 1056? nope - all fine here. Since Wyeast stamps a specific date, I imagine there is more than one Sept batch. Were all yours the same date? Could there be something with your yeast nutrient? I am building a starter from what I think was a Sept 1056. I'll let you know if anything crops up. "Reeb!" - Tim Tim Fields...Fairfax, VA 74247.551 at compuserve.com _or_ timfields at aol.com (weekends) timf at relay.com (non-brewing time) Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Oct 95 07:52:44 EDT From: Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> Subject: metric conversion Hello all, Would someone please post a conversion formula for converting metric temp into arcane Fahrenheit so I can follow along with some semblance of usefulness? I'm not about to ask posters to do the conversion for me :-), so a formula would be helpful. "Reeb!" - Tim Tim Fields...Fairfax, VA 74247.551 at compuserve.com _or_ timfields at aol.com (weekends) timf at relay.com (non-brewing time) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 06:05:00 -0600 From: PAUL_TULLY at HP1700.desk.hp.com Subject: Sanatizing questionSanitizing questions I'm new to homebrewing and I'm about to attempt my second batch of beer (the first batch came out great). I have a few questions concerning sanitation and I though I'd post them here to get your opinions. What is the best sanitizer to use? I recently read in a homebrewing book that B-Brite is not a sanitizer, it's a cleanser. Is a household bleach solution a better sanitizer to use? Also, has anyone tried the new no rinse C-Brite? I also read (same book) that bottles can be sanitized by heating them in your oven at 200 degrees for 10 minutes. Is this a good idea? Does anyone use this process? What is the best way to sanitize your bottle caps? Is it necessary to boil them or can you just soak them in a sanitizer solution. Won't boiling have an effect on the rubber seal inside the cap? I appreciate any comments or suggestions. Please feel free to post responses or write to my personal e-mail at: E-Mail MEHY09A at PRODIGY.COM PAUL_TULLY at HP1700.desk.hp.com Thanks Paul Tully Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 95 06:08:00 -0600 From: PAUL_TULLY at HP1700.desk.hp.com Subject: Pumpkin Ale The following is a Pumpkin Ale recipe that I am about to brew. My question > is, what is the procedure for cooking the pumpkin? Do you bake it? Boil > it? Cut it into larger pieces? Small pieces? > > Yield - 5 gallons > > Ingredients > > 2 - 3.3 lb. cans Light Malt Extract of your choice or 6lbs. light Dried Malt Extract. > > 1 1/2 oz Mt. Hood Hop Pellets > 6 lbs. pumpkin meat (2 small) > 1 Burton Water Salt > 1 tsp. Irish Moss > 1/2 tsp. Vanilla Extract or 1/2 Vanilla Bean cut open > 1/2 oz Tettnager Hop Pellets > Liquid Yeast > 1 tsp. Cinnamon > 1/2 tsp. Nutmeg > 1/2 tsp. Allspice > 1/2 tsp. Mace > 1/4 tsp. Clove > > Peel and remove seeds from pumpkin and cook until soft. In your brewpot, > add your malt, Mt. Hood Hops and cooked pumpkin meat and boil for 30 > minutes. Add burton Water Salt and Irish Moss and boil for 15 minutes > more. Add finishing hops and boil for 5 minutes more. > > Primary ferment to SG 1030, rack to secondary fermenter and add the > spices. > > You help is greatly appreciated! Please feel free to post any responses or > write to me at: > > E-Mail MEHY09A at prodigy.com or > Paul_Tully at HP1700.desk.hp.com > > Paul Tully Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Oct 95 08:21:57 EDT From: "Todd A. Darroch" <75602.1137 at compuserve.com> Subject: Injection of Oxygen While touring a micro brewery recently a saw a large tank of oxygen which promped me to ask. Hey, what do you use the oxygen for? The brewmasters reply was that the wort is injected with it after its chilled and prior to pitching. Do we all need to go to our local gas supplier and make a purchase? Would it improve the beer? I sure does sound alot better than shaking the carboy. Todd A. Darroch Birmingham, Alabama Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 01:31:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Delano Dugarm 36478 <ADUGARM at worldbank.org> Subject: IPA and Oak In HBD 1856 Charlie Scandrett posted a very lively article about beer styles, and used as an example India Pale Ale. Here he repeats the old canard that IPA must be oaky. It ain't true, folks. I've been researching for a talk on IPA for our local homebrew club, so bear with a long post. The reason homebrewers originally thought IPA must be oaked is that Ballentine Brewing Co. told them so. Come to think of it, they still give that story on the bottle label of their IPA. This goes to show that bottle labels aren't the best way to learn history. The best source for the history of India Pale Ale is Thom Tomlinson's two part article "IPA and Empire" published in _Brewing Techniques_ vol. 2, no. 2 & 3 (1994). At the end of the article he tackles the wood issue, and maintains, "My research indicates that the oak used for cask production in 19th century Britain was harder and contained fewer tannins than the oak we use in this country. I find no evidence that oak casks used in shipping contributed to the beer's flavor profile." In a response to a letter to the editor, he also points to contemporary British practice, where brewers are horrified at the idea of an oaky beer. Regardless of the quality of the wood, a 19th century IPA would not taste of the oak because the cask was probably lined. We know from Wahl and Henius, the 1908 source book for American pre-prohibition brewing practices, that American brewers used varnishes and brewer's pitch to line both wood fermenters and wooden casks. According to Wahl and Henius, American brewers used these substances to a) keep the wood from flavoring their beer, and b) keep the beer out of the pores of the wood, where an infection might take up residence. From the descriptions of how to apply first aid to brewers injured when the pitch they are heating (to soften it) burst into flame, I'll stick with glass and stainless. Why did people think that Ballentine's oaky IPA was the proper example of the style? Because it seems to have been the only one available in the US from at least World War II till 1975, when Anchor first issued its Liberty Ale. Tomlinson guesses that Ballentine was the last example of an American IPA style, based on stronger tasting American oak casks, but I think that the oak taste might have just been an eccentricity of Ballentine. I love India Pale Ale, and am always disappointed to encounter a home-brewed version that tastes like gnawing on a tree. I say keep the wood out of the beer. Delano DuGarm Arlington, Virginia adugarm at worldbank.org Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 09:15:58 +0500 ET From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: Re[2] RIMS process questions Dion states: > I put my temp controller probe in the wort stream before the heater and > the digital temperature readout in the outflow stream from the heater. > <snip> I base my system calibration on the fact that if the outflow of the > wort from the heater is 158F, the mash will eventually come up to 158F and > cannot ever exceed that. > > <snip> If you adjust your setpoint based on the mash temp, you will > *always* get returning wort several degrees hotter than your mash setpoint > until equilibrium is reached and I feel that this is not a good plan, > especially if you are trying to mash at the upper limits of an enzyme's > range. I think limiting the wort outflow temp is much safer, but you do > have to deal with the mash lagging behind. It sounds like you are basically using two temperature readings, although a computer chip (temp controller) is monitoring one for you. For those of us that are EE challenged and are willing to control things manually, I wonder if two simple thermometers could achieve the same goal. Here's my idea: Place one thermometer before, and one after an electrical hot water heater element whos heat output is controlled by a dimmer switch. Then manually lower the power to the heating element as the outlet temperature approaches your set point. Once the two thermometers read the same temperature you are at equilibrium and you can turn the element off, until it's time for the next temp ramp. I must admit that I don't even have a RIMS system (or even an all grain system for that matter) yet. I'm just trying to think ahead as I plan to build both very soon. So, my question is, how naive is my idea? Does it sound like too much work? Or conversely, is Dion's statement that the outlet temp should not exceed the set point not true? I know many of you have a RIMS setup using a propane cooker as the heater which would be difficult to monitor inlet temp. How do you keep from denaturing your enzymes by over heating, or is this not a real concern? Keith Royster - Mooresville, NC, USA (KRoyster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us) >O.J. Simpson's email address: OJ at //.\\.[Esc][Esc] (think about it) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 13:56:56 -0400 From: Jerry Miller <gmiller at CS.SunySB.EDU> Subject: Hello Goodbye Hi All, This is my first - and probably only - post to the list since I subscribed several months ago. I just haven't had the time to go through all the mail I get, so I've been saving the digests for possible future reference. I have a question, for which I'd prefer that responses go to me directly (for the above reason), although you may also want to post them for the benefit of others: If anyone is familiar with a book by a British author named Bravery on brewing beer, ale, stout, cider, and mead, could you tell me where I can buy another copy? (I had it about 20 years ago when I made my first beer.) Also a tidbit of information: marjoram (the spice) was used in making early beers, prior to the discovery of hops. I learned this from a cooking ency- clopedia - it works! (I tried it in my first beermaking attempt, in which I did everything from scratch, including malting the grain.) Thanks for any info. Jerry Miller Jerry at Creb.Rad.JHU.Edu GMiller at CS.SUNYSB.Edu http://creb.rad.jhu.edu/u/miller/internet/gam.html Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 07:10:03 -0700 From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: Re[2] RIMS process questions >>>>> "Keith" == Keith Royster <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> writes: Keith> It sounds like you are basically using two temperature Keith> readings, although a computer chip (temp controller) is Keith> monitoring one for you. For those of us that are EE challenged Keith> and are willing to control things manually, I wonder if two Keith> simple thermometers could achieve the same goal. Here's my Keith> idea: Place one thermometer before, and one after an electrical Keith> hot water heater element whos heat output is controlled by a Keith> dimmer switch. Then manually lower the power to the heating Keith> element as the outlet temperature approaches your set point. Keith> Once the two thermometers read the same temperature you are at Keith> equilibrium and you can turn the element off, until it's time Keith> for the next temp ramp. This is a perfectly feasible solution. In fact, I did it with a simple on/off switch until I got my temp controller working. The only problem with both solutions is that you can get distracted and in the case of an on/off switch, turn it on when you meant to turn it off. Since the lag is long, this can be disastrous (as I nearly found out). It is quite easy to overshoot by 10 degrees before you realize what is occurring. Granted, the dimmer makes it easier to control. The dimmer is a fine way to work your way into RIMS economically, it just removes one of the benefits of a temp controller, you have to be on the edge of your chair controlling the temp the whole time. Keith> How do you keep from denaturing your enzymes by over heating, Keith> or is this not a real concern? This is definitely something I am concerned about. If you get any answers that are not posted, I would appreciate getting a copy very much. I would assume that denaturing of enzymes would be done in a decoction because the removed portion is boiled. However, there is a portion left behind which is not subjected to high heat and therefore retains lots of enzymes. In a RIMS, you are potentially subjecting all the enzymes to excessive heat. Thanks, dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen at vigra.com Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 10:35:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Todd Kirby <mkirby at isnet.is.wfu.edu> Subject: Re: Concrete Roller I thought C.D. Pritchard's use of concrete rollers was quite interesting. Seems like an excellent idea, however I'm curious how much of the flour at the end of the grind might have been concrete dust? Did you coat the roller with anything to prevent this problem? Chemicals from concrete dust are supposedly harmful to breathe, so I would think you would want to avoid getting it in your wort as well. Would it be possible to coat the roller with epoxy or polyurethane as a preventative? Comments anyone? Is his beer ruined? Todd Kirby Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 08:17:03 -0700 From: derose at Alice.Wonderland.Caltech.EDU (Guy A. DeRose) Subject: Wort Chiller Construction Question I am finally making an immersion chiller for my beer (after about a dozen extract and partial-mash batches) out of copper tubing and have the following question. How should I clean the copper to remove any oils or solvents from the manufacturing process (3/8" x 50' of "refrigerator coil"), and should this be done before or after bending the tubing into its final form? I have a process in mind, but won't mention it now so as to not bias any opinions anyone with expertise in this area might have. Thanks in advance for your help. Guy A. DeRose Physicist, Homebrewer, KE6JTN, PP-ASEL Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1860, 10/18/95