HOMEBREW Digest #2834 Sat 26 September 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 1998 AHA National Awards Post (Paul Gatza)
  Clinitest (Al Korzonas)
  Columbus, Ohio beer scene/ Alt (Mark Garthwaite)
  clinitest (Jim Liddil)
  Re: Glucose monitor (Old Man Scanlon)
  AHA medal snafu (Dean Fikar)
  Stability of yeast on slant ("Ed D'Anna")
  Brewing with different grains ("Steinkamps")
  dryness nee: astringency ("Michel J. Brown")
  GFCI receptacle for fridge (fridge)
  Mash out (question) (LEAVITDG)
  kegs on planes ("Spinelli, Mike")
  A-B Mash Times (Clint Thessen)
  Re: Stepping up Starters (Martin A. Gulaian)
  Clinitest Cage Match (PAUL W HAAF JR)
  McEwans and Bottles ("Penn, John")
  Re: CAPital experiment (Jeff Renner)
  RE:RE: Stepping up starters (Tim Burkhart)
  re: lauter tun size ("McConnell, Guy")
  re: HERMS (The Holders)
  Pregnancy test ("silent bob")
  RE: EZ keg/bottle filler (John Wilkinson)
  question re: potatoes as the source of fermentables ? (LEAVITDG)
  Osmotic Shock - was Re: Stepping up Starters (Gary H Nazelrod)
  re: HERMS (Ronald Babcock)
  Carmel in Beer ("Adam G. Fisher")
  Pacific Brewers Cup Deadline Extended! (The Holders)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet? Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html 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: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:05:53 -0600 From: Paul Gatza <paulg at aob.org> Subject: Response to 1998 AHA National Awards Post Yes the AHA came up a new and creative way to botch another aspect of the 1998 National Homebrew Competition. The medals were sorted with the mailing labels, but once the boxing and sealing happened, the labels were placed one box over causing several misdirected packages. We identified the cause as a voodoo witch doctor cursing the competition because he could not find a recipe for Shrunken Head Stout in Zymurgy. Truthfully we don't brainstorm new ways to frustrate homebrewers. I apologize that a mistake was made in the shipping. Regarding your charge of "placing several calls with the AHA director and other members of the AHA staff," Your name does not appear on my answering machine log or in my received e-mails folder. I talked to several award winners over the phone and everyone got the same story: The competition literature states that award distribution will occur in October. We were planning on sending them early as a courtesy before our outreach at the GABF began. To correct some misinformation in your post--Brian is AHA Membership Development Director and I am AHA Director. We are working together on the last pieces of the 1998 NHC. I am handling the distribution of prizes. I am trying to ascertain where each specific medal landed. I am first communicating with the people that we know did not receive the right medal, then I will coordinate the shipping of medals from brewer to brewer, then I will handle the reimbursement of shipping costs. Regarding the "exuberant salaries of consulting authors," I personally feel that the range of $100 to $200 per article that the AHA pays authors in Zymurgy to be reasonable. Infrequently, we may reimburse travel expenses for individuals, such as for Byron Burch to speak at the AHA Conference in Portland. Our Board of Advisors, which includes several authors, serve on a volunteer basis. You ask "is this the future of the AHA." The answer is no. The future of the AHA is to promote the hobby of homebrewing, to continue to work toward legalizing homebrewing in all 50 states, to continue to produce homebrewing educational projects such as Zymurgy, to work with our network of 760 (and growing) homebrew clubs, and to encourage public participation in AHA-sponsored events, such as the NHC, Big Brew, Sanctioned Competition Program and Club-Only Competitions. Regarding your decision to not renew your AHA membership, John, I understand that you must do what you must do. I apologize for the negative experience you had with the NHC this year. Mistakes do happen. If you decide that the other work that the AHA does is important to you as a homebrewer, or decide to give the NHC another try in the future, you are certainly welcome to participate as a member/entrant. - -- Paul Gatza Director American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX PO Box 1679 paulg at aob.org -- E-MAIL Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org -- AOB INFO U.S.A. http://www.beertown.org -- WEB Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:10:17 -0500 (CDT) From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com> Subject: Clinitest Dave writes: >Clinitest is nearly perfect in that it >measures all reducible sugars in beer. These are all fermentable. Wrong. They are *NOT* all fermentable. Many (unfermentable) dextrins have reducing ends and thus would cause a positive response on Clinitest. This was my initial suspicion (why I initially felt the test may be suspect) and why I still contend that some beers will read greater than 1/4% "glucose" when they are indeed fully fermented. See http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/articles/clinitest.html for the full explanation. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:06:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Garthwaite <mgarth at primate.wisc.edu> Subject: Columbus, Ohio beer scene/ Alt I'm going to be in Columbus, Ohio the first weekend of October and am wondering if anyone has reccommendations for beers/brewpubs/micros to be found in the area. Private email to mgarth at primate.wisc.edu please. Thanks in advance. Brewed an alt *just* prior to all of the recent discussion of the style so I've been pleased to see all of the attention it has received. I'm very pleased with the result. I did a single decoction and used only German malt as the base. Fermented with Wyeast 1338. I first-wort-hopped (which was probably a no-no for an alt but what the heck...it's MY beer darn it!) It tastes more like a Fest beer and surprisingly lager-esque. My question is whether there is even a chance of finding a genuine alt here in the States to get an idea what it should taste like? -Mark Garthwaite Madison, WI Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 14:14:55 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: clinitest I'm not going to say much about it except that some of you may want to do a search at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/databases/freemedl.html and look at what comes up. As a researcher I am more than aware of precision and accuracy issues. And also the number of papers about ingestion of the tablets is also something to think about if you have children. Jim Liddil mentally no where near anybody Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 19:34:53 -0400 From: scanlonr at ici.net (Old Man Scanlon) Subject: Re: Glucose monitor Dave_Burley wrote >As far as I know, a glucose monitor would not work because at >the end of the fermentation there is no glucose left and in fact, >it probably disappears early in the fermentation. These monitors >have very specific membranes which limit the detection to glucose >alone. As a regular user of a One Touch II blood glucose meter, I *had* to try testing my ready-to-bottle beer (do diabetic homebrewers have their own newsgroup?). I can confirm that it doesn't work. Doesn't matter whether or not there's any glucose in the beer; it fails the meter's sanity checks for sample validity. And you're out one more precious drop of homebrew. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 20:59:43 -0500 From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net> Subject: AHA medal snafu John writes about the screwup regarding the AHA medals and says he won't renew his AHA membership. I really do sympathize with his annoyance with the screwup but my take on this is a little different. I'm one of the ones that got the wrong medal. My wife got a very polite call from someone from the AHA today who apologized and explained the whole mess and requested that I mail the medal I received to the proper recipient and someone else is going to me mail me mine. To me, this is not a real big deal. I was thrilled just to win anything. This was my first AHA/NHC entry and I'll definitely enter again next year, if for no other reason than I feel like the experience level and quality of the judging was so good - especially in regards to my beers that didn't win anything where I felt like I got better feedback than I have gotten in some regional competitions with the same beers. Medals and ribbons are great but my main goal in entering a huge contest like the AHA/NHC is to get good, constructive feedback which I felt like I got. In all fairness to the regionals, they do the very best that they can but because of sheer numbers they have to use alot of novice judges (like me!). Dean Fikar dfikar at flash.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:05:21 -0400 From: "Ed D'Anna" <edanna at webt.com> Subject: Stability of yeast on slant I have been using yeast from slants for about two years now, and have greatly enjoyed the convenience, quality and economy it affords. While my friends who don't do it themselves think I must be very knowledgeable about yeast, the fact is that I have a bunch of questions for anyone who is, indeed, truly knowledgeable. I have noticed that fresh slants produce a quicker fermentation and greater yeast quantity than older slants (say, 6 months to a year), but I have compensated by making an additional step-up and have not noticed any appreciable deterioration in my beer's flavor as a result. So, what happens to yeast from a slant when it gets old? What limits its effective utility? Is it low viability? If so, wouldn't extra "stepping-up" compensate? Is it yeast mutation? If so, how much cell growth is occurring in a refrigerated slant and at what point should I abandon them? If I can get readily apparent yeast growth from a slant more than a year old (or even two years old, for that matter), what would I risk by using it other than slow (or non-) starting? I'm looking forward to learning more about this. Thanks in advance! Ed D'Anna Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 23:22:26 -0500 From: "Steinkamps" <EnW_Steinkamp at email.msn.com> Subject: Brewing with different grains Brewing with Quinoa I've heard stories that the old men in the Inca communities would make beer by chewing Quinoa and spitting into a pot. The expectorant was collected from several men and left to ferment. I chewed a few grains, but they got stuck in my teeth, so I stopped spitting and decided to malt the quinoa. I basically followed the process in Noonan's original "Brewing Lager Beer". I baked the moist grains in a covered roasting pan at 160 F similar to the process for crystal malt. After about eight hours at 160 f the quinoa was a golden brown in color with a sweet, nutty flavor. My first batch was designed to evaluate the flavor contribution of the malted quinoa. I decided to brew a one gallon experimental batch. Big mistake. All of my equipment is geared towards 5 to 10 gallon batches. It just doesn't work with one gallon. I struggled through and made a mess of my entire nano-brewery (the garage) using the following recipe: Target O.G. = 1.048 SRM = 13 IBU = 20 1.5 lbs Gambrinus 2-row pale Assumed extract potential of 72% 1.5 lbs Malted Quinoa Assumed extract potential of 70% .08 oz Galena (The only thing in the freezer) 60 min Alpha acid unknown .08 oz Galena 15 min " .08 oz Galena 1 min " Wyeast American Ale liquid yeast Dough-in with water at 170, but something went wrong and I ended up with a mash temp of 142 F. Boiled a thick quart, added back to mash. Mash temp at 148 F. Boiled another thick quart, added it back to mash . Mash temp at 153 F. One hour rest. Actual Gravity = 1.042 with volume of 4 liters. The head retention of this beer was remarkable. The flavor was malty with a toasted nutty flavor from the quinoa. Maybe too nutty. For the second brew I went for 5 gallons with the following recipe (target O.G. 1.040): 5.50 Pale Assumed extract potential of 72.0% 2.08 Quinoa Assumed extract potential of 36.0%; Color 10.0 lov (WAG) 0.75 Caramel Assumed extract potential of 70.0% Hops: 0.24 Galena 60 min 0.47 Hallertauer 10 min 0.47 Hallertauer 0 min 0.0% 0.00 Yeast: Wyeast 1968 - London ESB This was a great beer. It was light and nutty, with great head retention and color. The quinoa gave a distinctive that was nice, but not overpowering. I would recommend using malted quinoa up to about 25% for a unique, tasty brew. This brew was a while ago, but I might go looking for another source of quinoa so that I can brew another batch right after I get done with another altbeer. BTW I made my first altbeer recipe based on Fred Eckhardt's description on pages 42 and 43 of the 1991 special zymergy and on Michael Jackson's description on pages 52-56 of the winter 1994 zymergy. I don't recall BT "Brewing in Style" ever covering Alt Beer. Have they? Ed Steinkamp I am a relatively new resident of Dallas Texas, USA where you can mash at 122 F by simply putting your cooler in the sun. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 02:47:58 -0700 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: dryness nee: astringency >Michel writes (quoting me): >>Why would astringency have anything to do with the amount of adjunct >>used? >> >>Well, Al, *some* non-malt grains have a certain amount of dryness to >>them that is perceived as astringency. Like Rye, or Oats. Good things >>when used in the right proportions, but when overdone, can cause REAL >>excessive dryness akin to astringency. >> >>I do believe you are mistaken to blame astringency on adjuncts. >> >>Perhaps, perhaps not -- I made a perfectly good Oatmeal stout last >>spring, and it had a 2.5#/gal grain bill, with 2# of the grist coming >>from Quaker Oats. After aging a few weeks, it started to develop some >>dryness I've not noticed in lesser amounts. Too, a friend made some >>"Roggenbier" last year that was basically a Bavarian Pils with a *POUND* >>of Rye added. It was so dry that it made my eyes water! My tongue felt >>like it had been grabbed by someone with a towel. Both beers were good >>when first conditioned, but within two weeks, developed an unpleasant >>dryness. Batches made later with lesser quantities of Oats/Rye were >>excellent, and remained so for the end of the last glass 8*) > >As I said before, a pound of rye or rye malt should not cause unpleasant >changes in flavor. I think that perhaps other factors could be causing >the problem. My RyePA had 5# of rye malt and 7# of Pale Ale malt for >5 gallons (that's right: 29+ points/lb./gal). I don't recommend this much >rye unless you are very patient... it took me 3 hours to take 7 gallons >of runnings! > Well, *should*, and *did* are two different subjects, but I still keep an open mind. What other factors could cause this dryness IYHO Al? I know it wasn't my process or procedures, as I've made this brew many times, and when I added more than my usual amount of Oat meal, I got a cloying dryness in the aftertaste. 3 hrs to do a 7 gallon sparge -- no wonder you got 80% extraction efficiency! Next time maybe try a b-glucan rest? > >One other thing to consider is that rye *appears* (I'm not 100% sure) to be >high in ferulic acid (the precursor or 4-vinyl guaiacol, the compound that >gives Weizens their "clovey" character). I used a very neutral yeast (I >believe it was Wyeast #1056 American Ale) and I got some 4-vinyl guaiacol! >Note that 4VG is a phenolic compound and if it were oxidized, it could >lend some very irritating astringent character. > I don't know about the ferulic acid factor with regards to Rye malt, but where would this oxidation be coming from all of a sudden? My beers (with that one exception of Oatmeal Stout) are long keepers that taste as good a year after they're made (if I can keep them around that long what with all the thirsty relatives, friends, etc...). > >I discussed this whole issue off-line with the original poster and we >came to terms that it was a matter of semantics and that it probably >wasn't the adjuncts that added the astringency. The question of ferulic >acid and oxidized 4VG could explain the astringency, but then wouldn't you >specifically say "rye" and not the general term for non-enzymatic starch >sources: "adjuncts?" > In that particular case I'll take your word ;^) And yes, I would more than likely say Rye, or Oatmeal, or whatever. But IMHO, any ingredients other than malted barley constitutes an adjunct, not so? Maybe we can arrange to do some experiments with Rye, and see how much ferulic acid, if any, is present, and if any of it is capable of being oxidized into polyphenols. What do you think, Al? > >I believe that we are in agreement once we get through all the semantics, >for which I perhaps am too much of a stickler... > Perhaps so, but I prefer that we all use the same vernacular, and use it consistently, just for being able to communicate and understand one another. > >Al. > Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR} 2222 miles due west of Jeff Renner homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 07:50:45 -0400 From: fridge at kalamazoo.net Subject: GFCI receptacle for fridge Greetings folks, In HBD #2833, Bob Haines would like to use a GFCI- protected circuit for his basement fridge and asked if there is any reason not to do so. I like to use a GFCI-protected circuit wherever moisture may be present. A GFCI shouldn't trip unless there is current going someplace that it should not go. I have successfully used GFCI receptacles for my brewing freezers and other equipment in my basement for years without incident. I also use a GFCI in my RIMS. I have yet to see any of them trip. The garage receptacle I use for my RIMS is on the same circuit as the receptacles in one of the bathrooms in our house. Both are GFCI-protected. I experienced a tripped circuit breaker once in mid-mash as my wife plugged her hair dryer in and we overloaded the circuit. The GFCI did not trip because we simply used more current than the breaker was rated for. The GFCI would quickly trip if current went some place that it shouldn't. I got my worst electrical shock from an old fridge with a bad ground, as I grabbed its metal handle while standing barefooted on a concrete floor. I couldn't let go and had to force myself to fall in order to get free of the fridge. It seemed like time stood still. I had time to figure out what I had to do in order to get free, and could feel the current changing directions as it passed through me. All of this happened in a second or less, and I hurt like hell for several days afterward. I was very lucky. After that experience I am sold on GFCI protection and use it liberally. In Bob's case, I would definitely use the GFCI. If it trips, find out why and repair the problem. I'd rather risk losing some homebrew than my life. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at kalamazoo.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 07:54:59 -0500 (EST) From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU Subject: Mash out (question) I have read that mash out is important (~168 degrees) so as to kill the enzymes. But I am unable to find anywhere (I just ordered the George Fix book) WHY? What is the reason for this, or what is harmed by NOT doing a mash out? My problem (one of them ) is that I like to understand why.... Darrell Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:08:03 -0400 From: "Spinelli, Mike" <paa3983 at exmail.dscp.dla.mil> Subject: kegs on planes HBDers, Do the airlines permit you to transport kegged homebrew across the country? I'd like to take a 3 gallon cornie to California and maybe even the CO2 tank as well? Thanks, Mike Spinelli, Cherry Hill NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 07:32:04 -0500 From: Clint Thessen <cthessen at mdc.com> Subject: A-B Mash Times Hi Folks, I'm sorry it took me so long to share this information... but I sort of forgot about it. Over Labor Day weekend here in St. Louis we had a fair and air show. The best part of the show you ask... the Blue Angels, magnificent all the time. Anyway, after the airshow my wife and I were looking for something to do and walked by the A-B travelling Beer School. I said, "Hey it's air conditioned let's go in." So we entered and received about a 40 min lecture on how A-B produces beer. Actually pretty informative. The most interesting fact is how they produce Bud-Lite vs. regular Bud. Now, I've been reading all the back issues of the HBD starting with 1992. I'm up to Oct 94 right now. I've read alot about speculation of how the big boys create their lite beers. The opinion that stands out is Jack S.'s. He speculates that they just brew a Bud and then dilute for Bud-Lite. I have yet to read in the HBD if this was resolved, so I'll tell you what the A-B brewmaster stated. He said that they do about a 30 min mash for Bud and then do about a 2 hr mash for Bud-Lite. This long mash breaks a higher percentage of complex sugars to simple sugars that the yeast can eat. This explanation seemed to make sense to me. Comments? Also, would someone be so kind as to inform me (E-Mail is fine) of good micros/brewpubs to visit in Chicago. My wife and I will visiting there the second weekend of October. Take it easy. Clint Thessen 35 miles west of McGuireLand USA 550 miles (via highways) southwest of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 08:56:58 -0400 (EDT) From: mag6 at po.CWRU.Edu (Martin A. Gulaian) Subject: Re: Stepping up Starters Brian Dixon writes... >Bill asks about stepping up starters, and whether or not to keep the >original wort in the stepped up starter each time, or just using the slurry. > >The short of it is yes, keep the original starter wort. This is very >typical. For example, make a 2-cup starter (pint), then when high krausen >is just starting to wane, add another 2 cups, etc. up to whatever size you >want (1/2 gal, 1 gal). > >The long of it though, as expressed by Darryl Richman in the AOB Classic >Series text "Bock", is that there's nothing wrong with just using the >slurry. Seems like one reason to keep the wort is to prevent infections - once the starter is "beer like" and therefore resistant to infection because of the alcohol and pH and what not, you want to keep it that way. >... >Anyway, the way to ease your yeast up to the specific >gravity of the wort is to start it at the recommended gravity (1.020 to >1.030), then use the _brew's intended original gravity_ for each doubling. >If you are keeping the original starter wort in the starter (what I do), >then this will move the starter halfway towards the brew's OG with each >doubling. For example, if you're brewing a wort with SG 1.080, your starter >starts out at 1.020, and you double 3 times to produce a gallon of starter, >then the starter gravities would be like this: 1-pint = 1.020, 1-quart = >1.050, 1/2-gal = 1.065, 1-gal = 1.072. This won't work because the starter is always fermenting down. If it gets down to, say, 1.010 by the time you add more wort, the gravity will end up halfway to 1.080 (1.045 or so) after the wort addition. - -- Marty Gulaian - Cleveland, Ohio Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:27:37 -0400 From: haafbrau1 at juno.com (PAUL W HAAF JR) Subject: Clinitest Cage Match I think we should look to the WWF for guidance on the Clinitest debate. Put the champions of each side of this heated debate in a cage, and whoever's side comes out alive is the opinion the rest of us will revere!! 8^} It might not actually solve anything, but it'll certainly be fun to watch while sipping a homebrew or two. Hey Jeff, can you guess where I am from my sig line? Paul Haaf 7 mi. south of the Jersey Devil, 10 mi. west of the Tun Tavern Brewpub, and 40 mi. north of Kokomo's Brewpub haafbrau1 at juno.com ___________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:33:33 -0400 From: "Penn, John" <PennJE1 at SPACEMSG.JHUAPL.edu> Subject: McEwans and Bottles I meant to post this yesterday, sorry. ... as for bottles, try a liquor store. I found a case of 16oz returnables for $4 and 12 oz at $2.50 a case. Don't pay $12 for a case of empties, you can get good bottles filled with beer for a bit more than that empty price. McEwans, one of my favorites. Yes it is supposed to be 9.5% abv. OG ~1.088, FG a relatively low 1.015. There was a post years ago in the HBD with a McEwans recipe but I found it too sweet. My best scotch ale recipe to date was posted in the HBD a few months ago. It does not taste like McEwans but it was very, very, very good. The secret per Charley Burns suggestion was to boil part of the recipe, namely 4# of malt extract in 1 gallon of water until it carmelized and was nearly as thick as the original extract. It was probably 1/3 gallon left after over 2 hours of boiling. A very nice aroma and caramel flavor, not butterscotch though like McEwans. The aroma is almost gone after a few months but the beer is still excellent, I drink maybe one of these a week so it should last a little while. Some yeasts produce more diacetyl than others but I think it would be very hard to duplicate the strong butterscotch flavor of McEwans. I would avoid lactose and malto-dextrin to achieve sweetness. A large part of the sweetness is due to the relatively low bittering rate, ~35 IBUs, for such a high gravity beer. An increase in FG will also result in the perception of sweetness too. In order to achieve an abv above 8% where most yeast poop out you need to pitch a large starter, maybe 1/2 galllon of Wyeast 1728. The scottish ale yeast 1728 will handle the high gravity but its taste is identical to McEwans export, not McEwans Scotch ale. Good luck and let us know how your beer turns out. If you can't search the HBD and find the scotch ale recipe I posted a few months ago, email me and I'll try to look it up. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:14:12 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: CAPital experiment Tom Herlache <th22 at cornell.edu> reports on a well designed and executed experiment on a subject dear to my heart. The only problem is that I don't like the results! Iconoclasts are never popular. ;-) A few thoughts. I'm not sure just what you meant by creamed corn flavor/aroma. This is how DMS is often described, but it comes from the malt and not corn. I myself don't get a corniness from DMS, but rather more a beeriness. I do get a corn character in my CAPs, which I have always attributed to the corn, but I don't know for sure. I do know that using sugar goes against my purist grain, but that's no reason to close my eyes. I used to use it in similar proportions in my early brewing days (20+ years ago). Cooper's uses it. Many (perhaps a majority?) mainline North American breweries use it rather than corn or rice (Stroh's comes to mind) and have for years - Wahl and Henius (1902) include recipes using it. It allows a simpler brewing process and greater capacity. Corn starch has also been used in the past - simpler than grits. Surely it has less flavor than corn. Maybe not in the final process. I wonder if the 3 micron filtering had any affect. I find that my beers clear beautifully without it. Perhaps it removed some of the corn charqacter. I certainly don't know. I'd love to have others repeat this experiment. As for me, I'll continue to do it the hard way. That's why I use cereal mashes rather than flaked corn. I like fussing, and I'll probably continue to think that it makes a difference. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:29:52 -0500 From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart at dridesign.com> Subject: RE:RE: Stepping up starters I've got my very first starter batch growing right now (#1338 for a D-Altbier) and Brian Dixons response brings up a question. Would the wort in the smack pack be acceptable for the first step up (ie. the 1020-30sg step)? For my first whack at liquid yeast I popped the pack and let it expand a bit. I then dumped it in my starter vessel and fed it with 6.5 oz. sterile 1045 wort. Next with a pint of 1045 and so on... The target og for my altbier is 1046, far from high gravity, but I'd like to correct my process fromthe get go! So once again...when I get to making that Old Ale and Barleywine, would the popping the smack pack be a gentle enough first feeding before ramping up the SG? Tim Burkhart Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:55:52 -0600 From: "McConnell, Guy" <GuyM at Exabyte.COM> Subject: re: lauter tun size Mark Bayer writes: > corky asked about what size of gott cooler to go with - 5 or 10 gallon. <snip> > trying to brew a 5 gallon batch of a low gravity beer (bitter, etc) or a > wheat beer (not much husk in the mash) in a 10 gallon cooler could result in > a grain bed depth that would prevent the wort from clearing during > recirculation. <snip> > if you don't care about wort clarity, it's not an issue. In my recommendation to Corky to go ahead and buy the 10 gallon cooler now instead of later, I suggested using an Easymasher in the lauter tun. Doing this will take care of clarity issues, even with a shallow grain bed (in my experience). Whether you purchase it or make it yourself, the Easymasher is just what it says. Of course, it's just my advice and worth at least what you paid for it. :-) Guy McConnell /// Loveland, Colorado /// guym at exabyte.com "Gimme oysters and beer for dinner every day of the year, and I'll feel fine..." Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:24:21 -0700 From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com> Subject: re: HERMS <page down alert> WARNING: RIMS, HEARMS(tm), TECHNO-WEENIE CONTENT! </page down alert> In digest #2833, Pete asks about HERMS. Pete, When I first built IGOR, my HEARMS(tm), there were very few examples of this process on the web. Now it seems to be evolving into an accepted standard. Without knowing the wattage of a Bruheat setup, I'd advise that more is better for heat exchange using a standard immersion coil. IGOR98 currently uses a 1650W 120V element in the HLT, and step mashing is marginal in 12 gallon batches. IGOR99 will benefit from a 240V upgrade, thanks in no small part to his escape from apartment life, and performance should increase. Wort return should be done in a fashion that will keep the wort from splashing, and a sparge arm would not fit this description. Make some sort of a manifold that returns the wort back into the liquid. Many simple manifold variations can be found on the web, just do a search for "RIMS". IGOR keeps his HLT temperature around 170, and keeps the heat on while performing a mash step to lessen any temperature lag. IGOR99 should have enough wattage in the HLT to make this a non-issue. I'd definitely recommend adding automation to HERMS, since HEARMS(tm) is much more user friendly. When it comes to controllers, there are many types that can be used. I'd recommend getting the Omega handbooks, available from http://www.omega.com. Many of your questions about controllers can be answered from these books, although there are certainly many other brands available. The technology keeps getting better in temperature controls and the price keeps going down, so you can benefit from this. Good Luck, and long live the gadget d00ds! Wayne Holder AKA Zymie Long Beach CA http://andinator.com/zymico Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 10:33:03 PDT From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil at hotmail.com> Subject: Pregnancy test Hell Folks, I read with great pleasure, maltydogs post about using pregnancy tests to determine the presence of living yeast, and therefore lack of completion of fermentation. I have also found this method to work exceptionally well, and have also employe it in testing the viability of my starters and slurries for re-pitching. I have found "Clear Blue Easy" to be the most accurate. A plus sign means there is still yeast, and therefore there must still be fermentables. A minus sign, and it's clear! go ahead and keg. Also, after a few too many homebrews one night, I decided to determine some other uses for this test, and good news!! I am ready to bottle. In all seriousness, in the short time that I have been a participant in the HBD, I have seen a great deal of stress caused by the clinitest thread. May I humbly suggest that if anyone wants to debate the minutia of Clinitest that they do it privately, and that general non-inflammatory questions like "how do I get one" and "tell me about your experience with it" continue to be posted. I just hate to see a group of people as charming and intelligent as homebrewers cause each other such grief, but I also don't want to see new innovatians and peoples experience with them not get posted for fear of abuse. Thanks to all for the tons of great info, and keep it coming, but lets keep it civil, and lets keep ongoing heated debate in the realm of private E-mail. It saves HBD bandwidth (which I apologize for monopolizing so much of with this post), and makes the digest that much more enjoyable. Thanks, and happy brewing, I'm going for a beer! Adam ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 98 12:45:05 CDT From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: RE: EZ keg/bottle filler Mike Bardallis wrote: >John W sez: > >"The crude CP filler I made consists of a #2 drilled stopper (#3 if using >the >plastic water bottles) with a length of racking cane through the hole. > ... There will be more O2 in the >bottle while filling than with a proper CP filler but for short term >storage >it doesn't seem to matter." > >A few years back there was a ZYMURGY 'road test' feature on CP bottle >fillers, and the _lowest_ package air level was attained using the method >John mentions. The trade-off was that it had the lowest CO2 retention >(approx. 80%, as I recall) of all due to more foaming. That foaming >purges the headspace pretty effectively; in fact, most older commercial >bottling lines use percussion or water-jetting to stimulate fobbing just >prior to capping the bottle. I had forgotten about the Zymurgy test but what I was thinking of was the O2 in the bottle as I fill it. That may not be significant either. I think the longest I have stored a bottled filled this way was 3-4 weeks but I have not noticed any staling. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:05:42 -0500 (EST) From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU Subject: question re: potatoes as the source of fermentables ? I am thinking of experimenting with fresh potatoes as a source of fermentables in a Potatoe-Something Ale. I assume that they should be boiled real well...then can I just mash them with an equal amount of malt? Anyone have experience or care to advise me on this truly experimental brew? ..Darrell Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 14:59:59 -0400 From: Gary_H_Nazelrod at tst.tracor.com (Gary H Nazelrod) Subject: Osmotic Shock - was Re: Stepping up Starters In hbd2833 "Brian Dixon" <mutex at proaxis.com> says in response to a question from Bill. <snip the basic answer to Bill's question> This next part has always confused me for the many years that I have lurked here and have heard this many times. >Another advantage to doubling starters a few times is that your yeast gets >to have a gentle introduction to the (always) higher specific gravity of >your primary wort. I'll explain in a moment, but this results in reduced >risk of osmotic shock ... especially with the high gravity brews. And that >in turn reduces the risk of mutations occuring (which may give you 'wild >yeast' characteristics in your beer). I brewed a Dusseldorf style Altbier >one time that appeared to have this problem ... never could decide if it was >a wild yeast infection or a problem with mutated yeast, but I've been >careful ever since. Anyway, the way to ease your yeast up to the specific >gravity of the wort is to start it at the recommended gravity (1.020 to >1.030), then use the _brew's intended original gravity_ for each doubling. >If you are keeping the original starter wort in the starter (what I do), >then this will move the starter halfway towards the brew's OG with each >doubling. For example, if you're brewing a wort with SG 1.080, your starter >starts out at 1.020, and you double 3 times to produce a gallon of starter, >then the starter gravities would be like this: 1-pint = 1.020, 1-quart = >1.050, 1/2-gal = 1.065, 1-gal = 1.072. The first doubling causes the >largest move (30 points), and that is completely acceptable. As the >gravity, and stress on the yeast, increases, the jumps are smaller. With >the final gallon, let it go to sedimentation and pitch the >gravity-acclimated yeast into your wort. Works like a champ! And the >process is very simple! The flaw that I see in Brian's math is this. When you add the 1-pint of 1.080 starter to the 1-pint of 1.020 starter, the original 1-pint is no longer 1.020. It has dropped to ~1.008. This results in a 1-quart starter of 1.044, not 1-qt of 1.050. This is a move of 36 points not 30 points. Now with each addition the jumps are not getting smaller, they are staying about the same. I am not saying that this is not an excellent method for making a starter. It is better than what I normally do. The argument for reducing osmotic shock does not make sense. Perhaps someone who understands this concept better than I, can reduce my confusion. Gary (suffering osmotic confusion) Nazelrod Silver Spring MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:09:03 -0600 From: Ronald Babcock <rbabcock at rmii.com> Subject: re: HERMS Pete Perez asked about a HERMS system in HBD# 2833: ************************ I developed a HERMS system about a year ago and couldn't be happier. As far as returning the heated wort to the MLT you want to be careful not to introduce oxygen into the wort. I built a H return with 45 degrees. elbows at the ends to gently return the wort to the MLT. This works quite well as long as you are careful to purge all the air out of the return. If you have sufficient surface area for the heat exchanger and a good flow rate you can raise the temperature 1.5 - 2 degrees. per min. I generally maintain the HLT containing the heatexchanger at 180 degrees. This has worked quite well and achieves conversion in about 30 minutes but continue to hold for a period of 1 hour. I built in an electric bypass valve to continue to recirculate the wort bypassing the heatexchanger to give me the temperature control I desired. When the valve is energized the wort flows through the heatexchanger and bypassed when the valve is de-energized. This facilitates the addition of electronic controls to raise and maintain the temperature as needed to do a step mash or to hold the temperature of a infusion mash. I decided to divert the wort from the heat exchanger instead of cycling the pump to raise and maintain the temperature allowing the pump to run consistently, maintaining an even temperature throughout the grain bed. This will also add a lot of life to the pump. The controller can be as simple as a thermostat or a more sophisticated controller such as a PID. I am using a thermostat at the present time and have found that the response time of the system doesn't require a PID to prevent over shooting the desired temperature or cycling. I have been working on programming a basic stamp to control the process using the computer to download the program to the stamp enabling the system to follow a step mash schedule. I just setup a older computer in the brew area to have my brewing programs and recipes close at hand. This may allow me to write a program using an I/O card to control the system. I know a lot of the things I am doing will not give produce better beer than I was brewing before but gives me a lot more consistency to the quality brew I am producing now. This is a hobby and I am by nature a tinkerer... Pictures of the system and more information can be seen at http://shell.rmi.net/~rbabcock/ Ten miles SW of the GABF. Ronald Babcock - rbabcock at rmii.com - Denver, CO Home of the Backyard Brewery at http://shell.rmi.net/~rbabcock/ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 16:26:04 -0400 From: "Adam G. Fisher" <agfisher at tiac.net> Subject: Carmel in Beer Hello Everyone, Has anyone out there every try to add caramel (Like the kind used for caramel apples) into a beer. Any experience in this matter would be much appreciated. Adam Fisher Boston, MA. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 13:31:43 -0700 From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com> Subject: Pacific Brewers Cup Deadline Extended! The Long Beach Homebrewers are please to announce: The entry deadline for the 1998 Pacific Brewers Cup, an AHA sanctioned competition, has been extended to Oct. 10th. The competition will follow AHA rules governing homebrew competitions. Information on the competition can be obtained off of our web page at http://mozart.andinator.com/PacCup98/ or by calling the competition chairman, Rob Wise at (562) 435 - 6188, ext 208. Judges and Stewards are still needed, and online registration for either is available via the website listed above. This competition will be held October 24th at the Rock Bottom Brewery and Restaurant, Long Beach CA. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/26/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96