HOMEBREW Digest #2736 Wed 10 June 1998

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Response to MCAB Complaint [con't] (Louis Bonham)
  AHA-Rezac-Round One Fiasco...Jethro Report ("Rob Moline")
  Air Stones ("James Dorau")
  TED HULL: email problems (Tom Alaerts)
  RE: Competitions ("John Lifer, jr")
  AHA Bashing ("Raymond Johnson")
  Barleywine Aging, Priming, and Bottling (Richard S. Kuzara)
  Spiced beer / Stuck in Seattle / Higher alcohol production ("George De Piro")
  Response to MCAB Complaint (Louis Bonham)
  Ancient Wyeast ("C Perilloux")
  FREE 1" Rigid Foam Insulation ("Lerner, Neal")
  Hop Drive (Kyle Druey)
  re: Old Wyeast Pack (OCaball299)
  Not so sour? (Charles Hudak)
  RE: Curry Beer ("Timothy Green")
  curry; competitions; condemnation; CAMRA; creating fusels; c-size; chile beer (Samuel Mize)
  natural gas/propane orfices (John Wilkinson)
  FW: point of clarification- SS fermetors ("Frank E. Kalcic")
  Public Thanks... (Mark T A Nesdoly)
  GCHC/NHC First Round Winners (Denis Barsalo)
  Black Treacle (oberlbk)
  De-leading the surface of Brass (John Palmer)
  beer stabalizers ("Sandlin, Jonathan Mark - BUS")
  Curry beer (Al Korzonas)
  RE:  Stuck in Seattle ("Mercer, David")
  RE: open vs. closed fermentation ("Hubert Hanghofer")
  DMS and cooling (Al Korzonas)

BUZZ's Buzz-Off competition is June 27-28. Information is available at www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff or via R. Mattie at rpmattie at voicenet.com. NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:09:01 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: Response to MCAB Complaint [con't] [continuing] One risk of the "QS only preliminary round" format is that despite being selected as the "best" QS beer by the preliminary round panel, the "winning" beer might place lower than another QS beer in the final ribbon standing because, as anyone who has ever been involved in a competition will tell you, different judging panels often give different results. And, of course, this is exactly what happened to Mr. Murphy. With this in mind, the MCAB's response to Mr. Murphy -- which I wrote him weeks ago -- can be summaried thusly: (1) The MCAB will not, cannot, and does not act as an appeal board for the decision of the QE's. It is 100% up to the QE's how they certify MCAB qualifiers. While reasonable minds can differ on the wisdom of any decision (indeed, we have lots of disagreement on the MCAB Steering Committee on lots of topics), we've promised our QE's that we would not try and micromanage them or second guess their decisions, and we're not gonna start now. (2) The fact that Mr. Murphy's beer won in the "stout" category does not conclusively establish that it was the best dry stout in the competition. It simply means that a panel of judges decided that it was the best of the stouts (dry and sweet) -- presented to them. Another panel -- which evaluated only dry stouts -- decided that another beer was a better dry stout, and should thus get the nod for the QS certification. Which panel should control? The BHC decided in advance that the "QS only" panel's decision would control, and they followed their rule to the letter. (3) The crux of Mr. Murphy's complaint is that the final round panel decided that his beer was a better stout than the beer that was certified, and thus it was "obviously" the better beer. Again, different panels often differ on beers; beer judging is inherently subjective. It's a simple fact of life. We could probably submit the two beers to ten different panels and get differing results. While Mr. Murphy's beer was certainly excellent, who's to say which beer was "better"? You could debate the issue forever. (4) As I have repeatedly asked Mr. Murphy, what does he want? Does he want an apology from the MCAB? From the BHC? Or does he really want the MCAB to bend the strict rules and make an exception so that he can enter? I've told Mr. Murphy that if he's asking for the last thing, he need only ask and I'll put it in front of the steering committee for a vote, although I personally would strongly argue to the Steering Committee that we should not be granting any "exception invitations". (By way of response, he's not asked me to put it to a vote.) The MCAB truly wants to be the kind of national competition we have all been clamoring for -- well run, well judged, low cost, truly nonprofit, and most of all responsive to the needs and wants of the amateur brewing community. To this end, if you've any complaints about the way the MCAB is being run, feel free to write. We do listen, and I *will* get back to you. Best regards -- Louis K. Bonham Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:40:00 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: AHA-Rezac-Round One Fiasco...Jethro Report The Sad, But True, Jethro Gump Report AHA-Rezac-Round One Fiasco... Having spent the majority of my day off dealing with e-mails on this subject....I will state my final position, and also what I have learned.... 1) The current situation is but one more brick in the wall, as far as many are concerned regarding the AHA and competitions.... The arguments presented were well reasoned and documented.... 2) The troubles here predate Brian....indeed they predate any that have even recently held any position in the AHA.... 3) Nothing I have seen or heard is able to alter my basic premise....Brian remains part of the solution for the AHA.... Yes, an incredible balls-up has occurred.......I wasn't there, so anything I relate to you can only be the result of second hand info.....but, I have been in intimate contact with many of the players that surround the AHA/AOB, and for more than just a few years now....and It continues to be obvious to me that what the AHA needs more of are folks like Rezac....passionate, dedicated fellas that have done the arithmetic, sat down with their families...and actually calculated how acceptance of the position with AHA would influence their lifestyle....Indeed, how much money his family could afford NOT to make....so that Brian could do what I do........work in the industry that we love.... at incomes that don't even begin to make sense, just to be 'there'...working at what we love....in my case commercial brewing....in Brian's case, serving the AHA membership.... (I also know this as a result of having applied for and been through final rounds of consideration for a position of Administrator for the IBS...) We are both fortunate to have partners that make enough income to allow us to pursue our passions....but believe me when I tell you that there are still sacrifices that have to be made to justify this .... I have known Brian for some time now, both personally and professionally...and will never sit quietly while he is made a scapegoat for actions and decisions that were never his to make.....only his to try and salvage.... His trouble is that he will never relinquish his personal feelings of responsibility for...and instinct to achieve completion of the missions that the organization he works for undertakes.. In his role of Administrator of the AHA, he has never had the authority to act on his vision of the best interest's of the membership....he has only apparently had the good fortune to be in the hot seat when the dung heap had to fall on someone..... Finally, I would hope that he be allowed to state his own position on the current situation....as I have previously posted, he is on vacation....and rather than even sending a voice mail to his AHA phone (which he does monitor)...I would rather not disturb what I hope to be a relaxing time for he and his family... Gotta tell you, Jethro's quite sick with this whole affair...I know what's what...and what's not...and Brian does not deserve this... Jethro Gump "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 01:56:55 -0500 From: "James Dorau" <rtsa20 at email.sps.mot.com> Subject: Air Stones Can an aquarium-type airstone be attached to the CO2 intake within a 'corny' keg for force carbonation? If so, I assume a certain length of vinyl tubing is required to bring the airstone towards the middle or bottom of the keg. Or is this only ok for carbonating but would create problems when being used to actually push the beer out of the tap. Suggestions anyone? Thanks, James Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:25:43 +0200 From: Tom Alaerts <TomA at BUT.BE> Subject: TED HULL: email problems Sorry to bother the other people on the list with this posting, but I don't see another way. Ted, I just can't reply to you. Your mail address is thull at brwncald.com <mailto:thull at brwncald.com> , is it? Please contact me again. Tom Alaerts (toma at but.be) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 05:33:35 -0500 From: "John Lifer, jr" <jliferjr at misnet.com> Subject: RE: Competitions Hey, John, sounds like you made a really good beer, I'm wondering though, are you a member of the BWPs? and associated with that - is the beer selected brewed by a member? If so, maybe you should join before you enter the beer again.:) What the hey, just a thought. I agree with you 110%. The winner is the winner! > If you notice from the winner's list, the BHC qualified > the 3rd place beer in the stout category as the dry stout for MCAB. > According to the BHC, my beer didn't qualify for MCAB because they > decided to qualify beers from the first round of judging. - -- Cornelius Ball Lock Kegs for Sale See Web page for details. http://www2.misnet.com/~jliferjr/Kegs/Default.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:31:54 -0400 From: "Raymond Johnson" <JOHNSONR2 at state.mi.us> Subject: AHA Bashing First, I will admit that I do not read HBD religiously, and I may have missed some key discussions in this disturbing thread. With that said, I dare say that few, if any of us would be discussing anything related to beer without this organization. If you have a problem with the AHA, then write to those responsible for bad decisions, and policies. Words like; "Down with the AHA", are irrational, and just plain rediculous. Many of us should remember the old days of homebrewing, and how few resources and supplies there were. Look at us now. Is there any beer we can not brew? Do any of us really think we'd have these options without the efforts of the AHA? It is shameful to forget those who's shoulders we stand on today. In other words, quit bitchin' about the little things, and be thankful for what you have and what's been done for you. Christ!!! Give 'em an inch, and they'll take a mile every time. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 06:09:39 -0600 From: rkuzara at wyoming.com (Richard S. Kuzara) Subject: Barleywine Aging, Priming, and Bottling I posted the following to the RCB news group and received no response (probably due to my provider) so I will post here where my E-mail feed is reliable. Thanks. "I'd like to bottle my barleywine that has been in the secondary for 6 weeks. I then expect to bottle condition (age) it for 9 months or a year. Is this acceptable? Or should I wait 9 months before bottling? Also, should I prime it when bottling and how much corn sugar per 5 gallon batch - 1/2 cup? Do I need to use yeast when priming - if I bottle and prime in 8 weeks and if I bottle and prime in 9 months." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 98 08:30:55 PDT From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net> Subject: Spiced beer / Stuck in Seattle / Higher alcohol production Hi all, Dave in Seattle has experienced a stuck fermentation after pitching the slurry from a 1.5 litre starter into 5 gallons (or so) of 1.080+ beer. That's a pretty severe underpitching. A normal gravity beer should be pitched with the slurry from a 2 liter starter (at the very least). High gravity fermentations are much more challenging to the yeast, and therefore more yeast should be pitched. It is really best to make a "normal gravity" beer with the yeast, and then pitch that slurry into your high-gravity brew. As for what to do now: I'd grow up some more yeast and pitch it into the keg. Use an airlock so that CO2 pressure doesn't inhibit yeast growth. Of course, it could just be that I am making all this up, and that your beer should be done fermenting and taste great at less than 50% apparent attenuation. It's so hard not to be sarcastic lately... - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marc (at JPullman127 at aol.com) asks about a recipe for a good spiced beer. While I don't have one, I judged a Indian-curry spiced brown ale at the World Homebrew Contest in 1996. It was probably the best spiced beer I have ever evaluated. I (much) later found out that it was brewed by Brian Rezac. The beer went all the way to the "Jim Koch" round (where it didn't stand a chance because there was no way he was going to market something that unique.) So out with it, Brian. Send Marc the recipe! - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Victor asks about the causes of higher (fusel) alochol production in beer. As I have somewhat recently posted, you can seldom say "always" or "never" in brewing (life in general, too), but here is one of those times: Higher alcohol production is always increased by increased yeast growth. So, anything that encourages tremendous yeast growth will increase those nasty higher alcohols. You mention that your fermentation temperature may have gotten quite high at times. How high? That could be the answer. Most ale yeasts will behave quite nicely in the low 60's F (~17C). Try not to exceed that by too much. Or perhaps you are just "inventing" this off character to confuse others and get attention for yourself? Sorry, sorry, I'll try to stop... Have fun! George De Piro (Dizzy as a bumble bee in a twister in Nyack, NY; those who know me get it) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 08:52:59 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: Response to MCAB Complaint Hi folks: John Murphy takes umbrage with the MCAB selection process used at the Boston Wort Processors competition last February. This is, of course, not news to either me or Ken Jucks (honcho of the BHC), as we have both exchanged voluminous correspondence with Mr. Murphy. However, now that he has to chosen to press his case in the court of public opinion -- which he has every right to do -- allow me to respond on behalf of the MCAB. (Forgive the bandwidth consumption, but I feel it is absolutely essential that public complaints such as this be promptly and directly.) The format of the MCAB is simple. The MCAB Steering Committee -- composed of unpaid volunteers, who do their work largely by e-mail -- selects Qualifying Events ("QE's") and Qualifying Styles ("QS's"). QE's "certify" the winners in the QS's to the MCAB, and those entrants qualify to enter the MCAB in that QS. QE's are given four simple MCAB rules: (1) accept beers from anywhere (e.g., no entry restrictions based on geography or club membership), (2) feature all the QS's, (3) use the BJCP Style Guide, and (4) meet certain minimal judge requirements for the QS panels. Beyond this, the MCAB leaves the QE's free to run their own competition as they see fit -- we don't try to micromanage their affairs, although we're happy to help in whatever way we can and answer whatever questions come up. One question that came up last January was whether QE's had to make each QS a separate ribbon category. The MCAB's response was that while we would prefer that each QS be a separate ribbon category, we understood if competition wanted to feature a QS as a subset of a larger category, particularly for those QS's that typically draw only a handful of entries. (E.g., rather than having a separate ribbon category for trippel, a QE could include it in a larger category (Belgian strong ale).) However, the MCAB advised that if a QE wanted to go this way, they would need to have a mechanism by which they selected the best QS beer to certify to the MCAB, regardless of whether or not it won a ribbon in the larger category, and under no circumstances could a non-QS beer be certified. There are two basic ways that QE's have used to handle this situation. One is that the highest placing QS beer in the larger ribbon category is certified as the MCAB qualifying beer. The other is that all QS beers in the larger category will be grouped together and evaluated in a preliminary round, with the "best" beer selected in this "QS only" preliminary round certified as the MCAB qualifier. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but as the MCAB leaves it up to the QE's to decide how their competition will be run, we let them make the decision. The BHC decided, in advance of the competition, to use the "QS only preliminary round" method. Let me assure everyone that this *was* decided in advance -- Ken Jucks and I discussed it well before the competition. [continued] Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:45:46 +1000 From: "C Perilloux" <peril at bigpond.com> Subject: Ancient Wyeast Regarding the 14 month old Wyeast 2042 which Peter Ryan bought from the local brewshop, two points: 1) You can't blame Wyeast. The homebrew shop owner is the one who controls the age of his stock. At least Wyeast stamps a date on the packet, so you can tell before you buy it (unless it's mail order) how old it is. 2) In any case, 14 months does NOT mean dead yeast. It will take a lot longer to rise, probably. But if it's been refrigerated the whole time, it'll work. I know. I've used 12 to 18 month old ones before with good results. (I can't always blame the shop; I sometimes leave them in my own fridge for months.) A side note on Wyeast longevity: I found a truly ancient Wyeast package in my Dad's fridge on a trip home last year. I don't remember the exact age, but it was 4 to 5 years old! I popped it just to see if it would take off, and two weeks later, as holiday was ended, the thing was bulged and "ready". Sadly, I didn't have time to brew with it, but a quick sniff and taste (yum!) indicated that it was indeed beer yeast. Gawd I wish I'd had time to brew with it, just to see if it was still viable and clean. So Peter, I'd take it up with the shop owner, but only to the extent that he'll replace it IF it doesn't take off. I bet it'll be OK. Relax! And more on the subject of Wyeast dating. I bought a packet of American 1056 over Christmas. December 29th. The date on the packet was hard to read, but it was either 26/28/29 DEC '97! Now did they jet that packet from the production line in Oregon to a little homebrew store in New Orleans? Possibly. Or do they date a whole week's production with one date? I would certainly hope that they don't PRE-date items (hard to imagine getting away with that). Curious. Calvin Perilloux Turrella, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:52:25 -0400 From: "Lerner, Neal" <NLerner at mcp.edu> Subject: FREE 1" Rigid Foam Insulation With the summer temps upon us and the talk about refrigeration, I wanted to give a pitch for some FREE STUFF!! I have quite a bit of blue 1" rigid foam insulation, certainly enough to make a couple of chilling cabinets. You can have it for free if you're willing to come down to the Boston/Brookline area. Let me know. Neal Lerner nlerner at mcp.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 19:08:46 -0700 From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net> Subject: Hop Drive >Second, whilst I appreciate that you wished to investigate the top >fermenting properties of the yeast, there are only two reasons to skim >the brew: (1) It's climbing over the top of the fermentation bin, and >the wife doesn't understand these things. (2) You want to keep some >yeast for another brew. Other than those, leave it alone, it's as happy >as a pig in muck in its warm sweet wort! Apparently, the Germans seem to think that skimming the ferment is beneficial: "After 12 hours the so called hop drive takes place, in which the rising yeast carries hop resins and trub particles to the surface of the fermentation. If beer is fermenting in open vessels, these particles can be removed using a slotted spoon or scraper. This practice is done within the next 24 hours to ensure a clean fermentation and to minimize the amount of unwanted substances in the harvest yeast." Warner p. 73 I have noticed a difference in beers where the krausen has been skimmed after the "hop drive". Al K has experimented with this and indicates a 15% difference in bitterness (actually, he tested blowoff vesus non-blowoff, but it is basically skimming or not skimming). I now skim the krausen, after the hop drive, only when the krausen head has a lot of crap in it, otherwise I just leave it alone. It was reported here last week by Michael Rose that Pick 'n' Save has 10 gallon Gott coolers for $17.99. I am happy to report that I purchased my 10 gallon cooler at McFrugals for the same price. I talked to the store manager and he indicated this was a one time seasonal item. Walmart sells the same item for $36. Kyle Druey Bakersfield, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:02:57 EDT From: OCaball299 at aol.com Subject: re: Old Wyeast Pack >>Peter Ryan writes: >>Can't locate an email address for Wyeast so that I can tell what I think of >>selling stock to a consumer 14 months after manufacture particularly when >>one of the four keys to successful fermentation is listed on their pack as >>"use the freshest yeast possible". Does anybody have an email address for >>Wyeast? >>I don't have an email address, but their web site is http://www.wyeastlab.com >>Tim Green I've been able to contact them when I've had questions at brewerschoice at wyeastlab.com (WyEast Laboratories) Omar Caballero - Aurora, IL "Live long and prosper" - Mr. Spock ... and have another Homebrew! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:14:06 -0700 From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at adnc.com> Subject: Not so sour? Micah writes: >Next grip. This is in regard to sour mash brewing. This topic comes up over >and over again. Sour mash brewing is not a way to make psuedo-lambic. It is a >legitimet brewing technique that is often used to produce beers with a very >soft and full mouth feel. Quite the oppposite of a lambic. >How many out there in HBD land have actually tasted a pale or amber ale that >is sour mash? >Likely a small percentage, I am certain. > >Just for the record, A SOURED MASH OR SOURED WORT WILL NOT YEILD A SOURED >BEER ( assuming that the wort is boiled at some point after souring ) > Wrongo b'dongo! I've sourmashed many beers, usually to recreate the sourness of Guiness when making a dry stout. I've also used it for fruit beers to make pseudo lambics. The beer definately WILL be sour...period. Now obviously the degree of sourness depends on the length of the souring rest but trust me, it will get sour. The only batch of beer that I had to toss as a professional brewer was a stout that soured too much and was undrinkable. Boiling will *not *remove the acidity (volatile acidity is somewhat of a misnomer). If your beers are not coming out sour, you are not letting the mash sit long enough. I'd be happy to provide anyone great instructions...tried and true, for souring a mash and I'd be happy to serve Micah a properly soured beer to prove to him that he's wrong. L8R Charles Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:21:09 -0400 From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen at ix.netcom.com> Subject: RE: Curry Beer In Papazian's book The Home Brewers Companion there is an all grain recipe for what he calls Coconut Curry Hefeweizen. From the looks of the recipe, it contains the major spices found in currys. I ke no judgement as that I have not tried to make or drink it. Tim Green Mead is great... Beer is good... (But beer is much faster) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:18:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: curry; competitions; condemnation; CAMRA; creating fusels; c-size; chile beer C-size? Well, it just HAD to start with C. Greetings to all. Jack has corrected his oversight. Go ahead. :-) - - - - - - - - - - > From: JPullum127 at aol.com > Subject: curry beer Papazian has a recipe for a curry-flavored beer, either in New Complete Joy of Homebrewing, or in Homebrewer's Companion (I don't recall). I've never brewed it, can't testify yea or nay. It may be a good starting point. - - - - - - - - - - > From: John Murphy <jbm at ll.mit.edu> > Subject: Competitions and categories > In light of the recent discussion on how to run a competition "the right > way," I'm curious how many people consider the following description the > right way to qualify beers for MCAB: If it's in line with their published rules, it's the right way. If not, it isn't. If their rules as published were ambiguous, that's a problem they should correct. I haven't studied their published rules. Is there a specific rule you think they have ignored? If you just don't like the rules they've chosen, play in another sandbox or build your own (as they have done). - - - - - - - - - - > From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7 at osu.edu> > P.S. In general, it seems that we who read and contribute to these pages > are too swift to condemn, and too impatient and uncharitable to give the > benefit of the doubt. I would like to see more helpful tips and > educational discussion here. We could do with less condemnation and > placing blame. -HB It's a terrible, terrible thing, and it's your fault. :-) Well put. - - - - - - - - - - > according to CAMRA > (Campaign for Real Ale) guidlines, once opened, the barrel should not have any > external CO2 gas applied to it. ... I, and many others, > are bitterly opposed to this ruling, and believe that cask-breathers, which > allow low pressure CO2 to enter the cask as beer is drawn off, should be > permitted. I don't know CAMRA politics. Might it be possible to establish a category of, say, "preserved" or "freshened" real ale, which has the blanket of CO2? That way the purists can find the changing-taste, pseudo-medieval experience they want, and everyone else can get Real Ale that is as fresh as when the cask was opened. It's probably already been considered and discarded. I mention it in case it seems a workable idea. This would be a good forum in which to get such a ball rolling. - - - - - - - - - - > From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren at smtp.cdie.org> > Subject: What leads to the creation of higher/fusel alcohols? > I live in a group house and we were trying to cut down on the gas bill > ... Can the fluctuation in > fermentation temperature lead to the formation of higher alcohols? > ...when the heat was turned up it was REALLY turned up. >From what I've read, excessive heat is the likely culprit. Fluctuation can make the yeast fall out early, and can probably lead to off flavors, but warm fermentation is the usual suspect for fusel alcohol. Also, make sure you have filtered out, or siphoned off of, the hot break. > Is there something else I should be looking at? You should be watching Babylon 5 on TNT. Oh, about the beer... Next time, you might want to get a tub of water and set the fermenter in it. This will act as a thermal buffer, keeping the fermenter at a steadier temperature. First, set out a tub of water for a couple of days, and take its temperature -- see where it tends to settle. If it stays around 65-75, you're OK for an ale. If it gets warmer, you might want to put a wet towel or T-shirt over the fermenter, to cool it by evaporation. Put the end of the towel or T-shirt in the tub of water to keep it wet. - - - - - - - - - - > From: Stephen Harrington <sjharrington at yahoo.com> > Subject: Size Matters > Following the advice of *every* billboard in LA, I decided to try my > hand at a BIG Beer. ... My question is, how does one > determine what the FG should be? You can probably assume the FG will be about 25% of the OG. Or, do a forced fermentation. This is simple. You take a sample (say a cup or so), dose it heavily with yeast, and put it in a warm (80F) place. It will ferment out fully (and may taste terrible, but who cares). Measure this to get your expected final gravity. It's usually done by taking a sample before the yeast is pitched, but it should work OK for this purpose by taking a sample now. If you used dry yeast, I'd just get another pack. If you used a liquid yeast, I think you could use a dry yeast and still get a good estimate; it may be less exact, but it's much cheaper than another smack pack. - - - - - - - - - - > From: cag17 at cornell.edu > Subject: Ginger Chile brew... am I nuts? Well, you're part of HBD. 'Nuff said. > I was thinking 4-6oz ginger and 6-8 roasted jalapenos. If you're going to roast the jalapenos (or cut them open) I'd suggest you take out the seeds and inner membranes. This is where the capsaicin fire is mostly stored. Using just the flesh, you'll get more chile flavor, and still get plenty of fire. Also, fresh chiles will vary in heat, taking out the seeds and membranes will reduce that variance, so you'll have better control repeating the recipe. I've heard of good results this way, and also by just using unroasted, uncut chiles in the secondary. The undamaged chile skin keeps the beer away from the membranes and seeds. I dunno about the flavor balance, you might want to do some one-gallon batches to get into the ballpark -- maybe split your five-gallon gingered batch between one-gallon secondaries, with different chile dosage levels. It's such a rarity, and such a matter for individual taste, I don't know if anyone CAN give you good advice. Your suggested dose sounds reasonable as a starting point. > I would add the ginger to the boil, and after the primary ferment, add > the jalapenos and maybe a little more ginger to the secondary. I'd add the ginger late in the boil, maybe at end minus five minutes. You don't want to boil out the aromatics. Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 98 10:05:35 CDT From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: natural gas/propane orfices What are appropriate orfice sizes for propane and natural gas jet burners? Is it variable? I have jet burners I suspect are jetted for methane but I use propane. I can't seem to get a moderate flame without soot. It burns fine at higher levels. The orfice looks large to me but I need to measure to see if that is my problem. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 98 08:47:48 -0700 From: "Frank E. Kalcic" <fkalcic at flash.net> Subject: FW: point of clarification- SS fermetors In Jim R. Fortes' post in HBD #2735, he incorrectly identified the fermentor at the website listed as my creation. I wish it were. Actually, I used the photos for ideas and inspiration. I too, looked at purchasing or having a conical made for me, but ran into the same stumbling block that Jim had. Namely $$$$. A few suggestions I had forwarded to Jim : 1) do you really need the conical feature? You will appreciate its function primairlyif you are harvesting your yeast. Otherwise a racking arm will do a better job of removing the clear beer from the trub. 2) A closed fermentor with an "IN" CO2 fitting combined with a racking arm will allow you to transfer under pressure (allowing filtering if you wish) and preventing infections or oxidation through exposure to air. 3) once you have a conical you now have to find a way to keep the temp at the correct level during fermentation. It can be done, but walk in coolers or glycol jackets and pumps are not inexpensive. Better to stick with something that will fit in a fridge or chest freezer. FYI I stayed away from the conicals available on the market and opted to have SABCO modify their 1/2 Bbl keg fermentor as follows: *1.5" TC flange welded to the side of the keg just below the lower strengthening ring. (this is the racking arm port) *get rid of the plumbing and fittings that run from the bottom of the keg to the top & the temp gauge (more fittings =more hiding spots for nasties) *use one of the Cornelius fitting on the top for a pressure release valve with a pressure gauge. The other CO2 fitting will be connected to a tube immersed in a liquid filled bucket (airlock) during initial fermentation and then to an external CO2 supply when racking. *the cornelius lid can be removed to manually scrub the interior of the fermentor. (use a plastic scrubbie so as not to remove the passivation) One can also carbonate naturally with this system if desired. Just remove the blow off tube near the end of the ferment and set the pressure release at the desired level. The biggest drawback with a racking arm is that you will have to invest in a TC valve ($135 - $150)and a few TC fittings. This TC clamp allow fairy good seal while the arm is rotated to lower the liquid inlet. The racking arm can be made by any local welder that has TIG capabilities. Lastly one can look at surplus dairy locations for misc. equipment, but note the conical slope should be 60 Deg. Anything less and you will have too much yeast and trub sticking to the cone. Check out http://www.capecod.net/~mduffley/fpage2.htm for some good photos on a racking arm and what I consider a really nice/ functional fermentor. I've been using my new fermentor / racking arm since January and am really pleased with its ease of operation, cleaning and overall function. Frank E. Kalcic <`)))>>< <`)))>>< <`)))>>< <`)))>>< <`)))>>< Return to table of contents
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290 at mail.usask.ca> Subject: Public Thanks... I just wanted to say a public thank you to the very kind people of the Marquis de Suds homebrew club in Calgary Alberta. Randy Davis and his wife Joanne were kind enough to put my wife and I up for a couple of nights last weekend. I drove out to write the BJCP exam on Saturday, and we were invited out to their summer wind-up BBQ that evening. Great food, and very friendly people. They went out of their way to make us feel welcome. Again, thanks. On the old Wyeast thread: a friend was given a very old pack from a homebrew shop. I think it was >2 years old or so. [Exactly how old was it, Steve?] He had no problems with it. It still swelled, and it worked just fine. Also, last summer I bought a discounted pack that was over a year old, and I only got around to using it a few months ago (it was about 18 months old at the time). It worked absolutely fine. It was the German Wheat 3333. I also remember reading an account on rcb about someone who lost a smack pack under the seat of their car, and didn't find it for over a year. In that time, it endured a Canadian winter and summer: something like -30C to +30C. It still worked too. In short, don't worry about the age of the pack. Only worry if it doesn't swell. - -- Mark Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:14:28 -0400 From: Denis Barsalo <denisb at cam.org> Subject: GCHC/NHC First Round Winners Attention: The 1998 Great Canadian Homebrew Competition was a success, with 170 entries from across Canada. This is the first year that we have combined the GCHC and the first round of the American Homebrewers Association's National Homebrew Competition (NHC). Winners of this competition automatically move on to the next round of the NHC. Visit our web site to get a complete list of winners. http://realbeer.com/caba/98_GCHC_winners.html Denis Barsalo Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:44:45 -0400 From: oberlbk at NU.COM Subject: Black Treacle Tony Barnsley had sent me a message with a recipe for Old Peculier. I have since managed to lose his email address. Tony, please send me a message with your email address. Separate issue: In my attempt at making Old Peculier, I managed to burn some malt extract onto the bottom of my SS pot. I have used a green scrubbie and still cannot remove it. Any suggestions on how to get it off my pot??? I have already tried a 3 day soak in Powder Brewery Wash. Brent Oberlin East Hampton, CT Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:11:57 -0700 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net> Subject: De-leading the surface of Brass Welcome back, Victor. To de-lead the surface of brass, soak the item for roughly 5 minutes in a 2:1 volume ratio of Distilled Vinegar (5%by volume) and Hydrogen Peroxide (3% by volume). Eg. 2 cups Vinegar to 1 cup H2O2. The brass will turn a buttery gold color as it cleans. If the solution turns blue, then the copper is dissolving which exposes more lead to the surface, and you have to start over again with a fresh solution. Someone wrote me last week and mentioned that they had left it in way too long and their part turned black. Buffing with steel wool or scotchbrite in vinegar would be a good idea then, followed by the de-leading procedure.. John Palmer Monrovia CA (not far from the Rose Bowl) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:15:50 -0700 From: "Sandlin, Jonathan Mark - BUS" <SANJM304 at bus.orst.edu> Subject: beer stabalizers I recently found some information on beer stabalizers. I am specifically interested about two products: silica hydrogel and pvpp. Are these stabalizers avaliable to homebrewers? Any information would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, everybody, for your help in the past. Jon Sandlin Corvallis, OR Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:34:51 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Curry beer Marc asks about curry beer. Yes, I've made one. It was a roaring failure. Not because it wasn't good, but because it was out-of-style. You see... every year the Chicago Beer Society holds the "Spooky Brew Review" competition. Since it is around Halloween, there is a "Scariest Beer" category. About 6 or 7 years ago, I was making an entry for this category and looked in the cupboard for some scary additives. I didn't quite catch the notion of how scary some of the entries can be. Previous winners include: * a map of the Mississippi valley with a hole in it which was placed over the neck of the bottle and when the bottle was opened, the beer gushed over the map, * a bottle which contained "Creepy Crawlers" which rode out of the bottle on a cloud of foam, and * a bottle which contained baby squid (which turned the beer purple, incidentally)... now *that's* scary! To make a short story long, I simply took a teaspoon of McCormick (sorry) Curry Powder and soaked it in an ounce of vodka for a week. I then opened a bottle of carbonated beer and put in a few drops. BJCP National judge Steve Hamburg said "not scary at all... probably would have done well in the Herb and Spice category." Perhaps if I would have soaked 12 teaspoons of Curry Powder in 12 ounces of vodka and then added a few drops of beer? Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:55:27 -0700 From: "Mercer, David" <dmercer at path.org> Subject: RE: Stuck in Seattle Thanks George. You are correct, of course. I did under pitch (although not by as much as it seems - when I wrote that it was a 1.5 liter starter, I should have mentioned that I had fed it twice, so it was really closer to the yield from 3 liters. Plus, I use a magnetic stirrer - which I have found has had a significant positive effect on the amount of yeast I get from a typical starter. Also, I dissolved a lot of pure O2 into the wort prior to pitching.) But I can't get around the fact that I should have pitched more yeast. I'll take your advice and re-pitch some more yeast. Only I'm inclined to rack again into a carboy before I do. There isn't a lot of head space in the keg (the beer comes up to the edge of the intake tube) and I'm assuming that re-pitching will result in a new kreuzen. I'm also assuming that I do NOT want to re-oxygenate this thing. Are both assumptions correct? Dave in Seattle Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 20:00:29 +0200 From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hhanghof at netbeer.co.at> Subject: RE: open vs. closed fermentation Al wrote in HBD2733: "I also question the statement (which Warner does not reference -- I just checked) that (in Warner's words), yeast collected from open fermentations retain "vitality" through hundreds of repitchings while yeast from closed fermentations must be recultured after 10 uses. To make such a blanket statement about every strain of yeast, this simply *cannot* be true. I know of several breweries using closed fermenters and are repitching yeast many times Warner's limit of 10." This is by far no blanket statement and well documented by our experience and German literature. I don't know Warners book yet but I think it focuses on wheat and thus not on "every strain of yeast". For example it's known that wheat yeast, when repiched in cylindroconical fermenters, looses its ability to produce 4VG (clove character). -Narziss wrote, that 4VG can be held in the desired range of 1.2-1.7ppm, if yeast is only used for 2-3 *closed* fermentings. This may explain differences in wheat beer characteristics produced from starter cultures vs. repitched yeast - as has been reported lately on this forum. Among the local breweries that I know, those with closed primary fermenters usually have weekly repitching schedules and use aerobic propagators - both for wheat *and* for lagers. ~~~~~ ...BTW, I feel open fermentation is often confused with some kinds of "covered" fermentations (eg. using blow off tubes) because of lacking definitions. I think Sam Mize gave the perfect one in HBD2733: "...where air is allowed relatively free access to the fermenting wort, or at least the krausen..." I do so in sealing the fermenter with a sheet of linen or cotton to keep dust an critters out. The sheet has been sanitized in boiling water an dried on a line - so there may be air born nasties onto it. Be careful with air drying or true open fermentation in "flowery" environment, I've heard flowers and blossoms may carry wild yeasts ...that's the reason I never buy flowers for my wife ;-). Otherwise there's no need to worry about infections as long as you keep to standard (!thorough!) sanitation practice, pitch a healthy amount of viable yeast and rack into closed fermenters / bottle when the krausen falls (otherwise you risk oxidation defects and excessive diacetyl formation, too). In general, using open fermenters, you can expect a more vigorous and faster primary fermentation, especially if aeration is on the lower side. Effects on beer character are desirable for certain classic beerstyles, especially for wheat. IMHO CHEERS & sehr zum Wohle! Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:11:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: DMS and cooling Jack takes me to task for using "weasel words" [my term] like "can," "may" and "I feel." These words were chosen specifically because every brewers experience and senses are different. Now let's get down to what I really was saying: * I explained how slow cooling produces more DMS than fast cooling, * I explained how slow cooling can still produce a low-DMS beer, * I noted how the tasters' senses could even be a factor. What I was responding to, was a statement made by two people, who said that, for them, slow cooling was not a problem and they extrapolated this as being true for others, suggesting a grand conspiracy amongst the homebrew information mongers who were getting rich by foisting fictitious faults and imagined improvements (take that Dr. Pivo! ;^). I was simply pointing out reasons that you and the other poster may have been happy with your slow-cooled beers, *BUT* that other brewers may not be so blessed. I used the word "excessive" rather than 1.573 mg/l because the proper amount for one beer style (say, Munchner Helles or Koelsch) may be excessive for another (say, Wit or Bitter). Finally, need I remind you Jack, that I'm a BJCP Master judge and one doesn't reach this level by telling every entrant that their beer has excessive DMS. If I had, I would have long since been banished from the BJCP or put on permanent dump bucket duty. Don't worry folks... Jack likes to tease me like this, just to keep me on my toes. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ P.S. Check out http://www.dahl.com/scrap.htm and then go to Dave's Raves. No, that's not our Dave, but rather Dave McBride. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/10/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96