HOMEBREW Digest #2965 Sat 27 February 1999

[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

  Overdid the mash out? (Greg Remake)
  re: hops promote body (Mark Tumarkin)
  Propane manifold (Joy Hansen)
  MCAB II ("Louis K. Bonham")
  MCAB Recap -- Part II ("Louis K. Bonham")
  The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
  Starch testing Feb. 25 HBD post (Joy Hansen)
  Re: Yeast from bottles (VQuante)
  Listerling, Schmidmann and their mills ("David C. Harsh")
  dunkelwiezenbock (JPullum127)
  ball valves, MCAB recipes, propane manifolds (Lou.Heavner)
  RE: EASYEAST ("Christopher Tkach")
  MCAB Recap -- Part I ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Relief (Paul Dey)
  Weyermann Malt ("Braam Greyling")
  fridge fans (fridge)
  More airplane beer (Paul Edwards)
  What's in a Name (Drewmeister)
  Airplane Beers. (Rod Prather)
  grind it (Jim Liddil)
  Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute (Eric.Fouch)
  Re: Maris Otter (Jeff Renner)
  Kitchen strainer (Jeff Renner)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition. Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org 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 COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:16:11 -0600 From: Greg Remake <gRemake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu> Subject: Overdid the mash out? Hi all, I may have screwed up a Kolsch I brewed a couple of weeks ago. I added too much heat when I mashed out, and the mash temperature went to almost 180F. The brew has been in the primary at 60F for two weeks now, and is still extremely cloudy, much more so than usual. I'm hoping this is just the yeast (Wyeast 2565 Kolsch) which I'm trying for the first time and is still working, but I'm afraid I got a lot of starch released with the high mash out temperature. I used an infusion mash at 152F for 75 minutes (iodine test) with 9 lbs. pilsner malt and 1 lb. wheat malt for a 7 gallon boil. The boil went well, with normal amounts of hot and cold break, which I avoided when transferring from the kettle. Pitched a large 2 qt. starter (stepped up twice, decanted) and had a lag time of about 6 hours. Could the haze be due to the wheat? Whatever is the source of the haze, should it clear in the secondary if I wait long enough? The clarity (or lack thereof) is not a big deal to me, but if it's starch I'm afraid it will taste like crap. Has anyone else made this mistake or had similar problems, and if so, is there anything I can do at this point to improve the results? Thanks for any wisdom you can share. Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:28:25 -0500 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: hops promote body Alan Meeker wrote: Last night my wife came home from the store and presented me with a bottle of hair conditioner. The brand is Willow Lake "Hops, Apricot, and Almond Conditioner." The label says it contains natural hop extract for "increased body." Too bad it doesn't have any hop aroma to it. Maybe I'll add some to the secondary the next time I do a protein rest with today's highly modified malts.. Alan, Ummm, hops, apricots and almond - sounds like an interesting flavor combo, and yeah, body would be a good thing, but the oils in the condtioner would probably have a negative effect on head retention. Maybe you could try adding it to a still mead where head retention would not be an issue. Mark Tumarkin Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 10:37:50 -0500 From: joytbrew at halifax.com (Joy Hansen) Subject: Propane manifold Just a quick word of warning that you should give considerable attention to. 1. Propane from the tank is HIGH pressure and home grown hose connectors between the tank and the regulator are an absolute No-No. Running several burners through a single regulator will most likely overwhelm the capacity of the regulator and limit control of the burners. So . . . 2. I constructed the manifold of 3/8 inch brass pipe and plumbed the regulator(s), which came with the burner(s) , directly to the manifold. The hose connecting the is made for high pressure and obtained from Southern States. The hoses from the regulator to the burners can be home grown because the propane is low pressure. 3. Use teflon tape or pipe dope manufactured specifically for use with propane plumbing. 4. Open the propane valve ONLY enough to assure adequate gas flow for the burners. This allows you to shut the gas off if something goes wrong (like a leak at the tank valve or fittings). Full open valves invite a severe burn and/or explosion. Doesn't happen often, but it could happen. This is a common safety requirement when using acetylene. BTW, if you do any infusion temp ramps, I've added a special bracket to the keg support to hold a 4 gallon SS pot. The rack stays in place when the keg is used. This allows me to boil water for infusion and run a decoctin right along side the mash tun. Works for me! Good luck, Joy"T"Brew Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:54:07 -0600 From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at hypercon.com> Subject: MCAB II Hi folks: Before I recap the recent MCAB, some important information on MCAB II . . . . There's been a bit of confusion regarding the Qualifying Events and Qualifying Styles for MCAB II. Although I announced them here last year, and all of the QE's have been listing the correct QS's in their promotional materials, the confusion stems from the fact that the MCAB website still has the old (MCAB I) information up. (We're working on a new MCAB webpage as I write.) The first two MCAB II Qualifying Events (Kansas City and Boulder) were held last weekend, and the third (Boston) is this weekend. The next QE (March 27, entries due March 13) is the World Cup, hosted by the Bay Area Mashers. Information on it can be found at its website: http://www.bayareamashers.org/worldcup/worldcup.htm The next QE's will be the Sunshine Challenge (Florida) and the Heart of the Valley Competition (Oregon) in May, followed by the BUZZ-Off (Pennsylvania), Spirit of Free Beer (Virginia), and BUZZ Boneyard Brewoff (Illinois) in June, and then the Dixie Cup (Texas) and Canadian Masters (date/location tba) in the fall. Check the MCAB website: hbd.org/mcab in a week or so for the contact information on these competitions. Ken Jucks of the Boston Wort Processors recently posted the list of Qualifying Styles for MCAB II. We'll have it up soon on the MCAB website, but in the interim you can see it at the BWP website: http://www.wort.org/BHC/bhc.html As always, drop me a note if you have questions, comments, complaints, etc., on MCAB II matters. Louis K. Bonham Organizer, Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:00:11 -0600 From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at hypercon.com> Subject: MCAB Recap -- Part II [MCAB Recap, cont'd] (5) Finances . . . I should have the formal accounting of the MCAB completed shortly (waiting for the final invoice from the bus company to come in, as well as seeing whether a couple of promised local donations materialize). As I promised last spring, it will be posted on the MCAB website. Our total budget for the event -- not including the value of in kind prizes and financial donations earmarked for specific prizes -- was well under $4,000 and, as described below, if we sell off our remaining inventory of T-shirts the event will break even. In short, I think the MCAB succeeded its our goal of offerring a competition and first-class technical conference at no charge to the attendees and entrants -- the money we raised was from things like bus passes, food, raffle tickets, and MCAB T-shirts, as well as a few cash donations. While the expenses have all been paid, at present the Foam Rangers are still "in the hole" a bit, primarily because we still have a supply of MCAB T-shirts that have been paid for but still need to be liquidated. (Disclosure: I personally have committed to reimburse the Foam Rangers if ultimately there is a deficit.) If we can sell most of the remaining shirts at a modest profit or all of them at cost, we'll probably break even. (For those of you wanting to get one, please call DeFalco's of Houston (713-523-8154) -- they're $15 plus shipping. If you're a club, competition, or homebrew shop and would like to buy 20 or more in bulk, e-mail me.) If you like the concept of the MCAB, please consider buying a shirt -- it'll help us close things out, plus they look really cool . . . . Some people have wondered why we did not simply charge admission or entry fees for the MCAB. There were three reasons for this. First, under Texas law, it is illegal to charge entry fees for homebrew competitions or for admission to homebrew competitions. While we could have winked at the law by making such fees nominally for admission to the technical conference, etc., due to a veiled threat I received last fall from a disgruntled nonqualifier to the MCAB (no, it was not from anyone who complained about the MCAB in the HBD), I wanted to make absolutely sure that everything was done in very strict compliance with Texas law. Second, based on our projected attendance figures, we figured that T-shirt sales, bus passes, and similar voluntary assessments would yield sufficient cash to cover expenses. (Actual attendance was about 25% below expectations, due in part to the American Airlines sickout.) Third, and most importantly, one of the fundamental principles of the MCAB was to make the competition and technical conference as accessable as possible. Charging admission (cf. the substantial registration fees charged in the past to attend the AHA NHC) would have been contrary to this goal, particularly where, by planning, scrounging, and negotiating, the costs of producing event could be reduced to a manageable amount. It may be that the St. Louis Brews will decide to charge nominal registration fees for MCAB II -- that will be up to them. The goal of the MCAB, however, is and remains to operate on a truly nonprofit, breakeven basis, and to keep the costs to the amateur brewing community as low as possible. (6) Recipes -- Reading the recipe sheets reveals a number of real suprises. The big shocker was the American Brown Ale winner (Chris Lavoie). This beer received some of the highest scores in the competition, and two very-well known BJCP master judges who judged it in the category round could not say enough good things about it. Other people who tried it during the competition made a point of telling me that they wanted the recipes. Guess what . . . . it was an extract/partial mash brew!! Will the recipes be published? All of the MCAB brewers agreed to allow the MCAB to reprint their recipes (it was not manditory for them to do so, but none of the declined our request), and I have a plan to reproduce all the recipes, score sheets, and brewer information sheets in a little softbound publication; all proceeds of which would go to help put on MCAB II. (Lest there be any doubt, I will not make any money whatsoever putting it together.) Of course, the MCAB brewers themselves are perfectly free to publish, post, exploit, or do whatever else they want with their recipes. Enough for now. Louis K. Bonham Organizer, Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 12:08:34 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report The Jethro Gump Report Recently, I have had a few questions from homebrewers on the subject of differentiation of wine, beer, and distiller's yeasts. In the course of discussing this with Mr. Clayton Cone, he has forwarded to me some responses to similar questions from the past. Like always, he is very happy to have this info disseminated to the HBD. I'll tell you one thing on a personal level, it is a grand thing to be associated with him, one more man from the brewing/fermenting business that is generous to a fault in his willingness to assist others learn more. >>From: <SNIP> >>Any idea what distillers yeast is - is it more like wine, beer or ale >>yeast? Rob, This is in reply to your question regarding the difference between wine, beer and distiller's yeast. As I mentioned in my presentation at MCAB, the old terminology such as top and bottom, hi and low alcohol fermenting, good flocculation, etc. are becoming less meaningful. Perhaps it would be wise for me to put together a presentation strictly addressing this question, giving good references such as Dr. Graham Stewart. Clayton Cone >>-----Original Message----- >>From: <SNIP> >>Sent: Thursday, December 31, 1998 5:12 PM >>Subject: bakers yeast vs brewers yeast >> >>what is the difference they are both referred to as S. Cerevisaie? >>Can CO2 pressure affect yeast attenuation? >>stuck fermentations? >>high maolecualr weight alcohol production (beer defect)? >>I know its a lot to answer but please try to (vital info)\ >-----Original Message----- >From: George Clayton Cone >To: <SNIP> >Date: Friday, January 01, 1999 3:47 PM >Subject: RE: bakers yeast vs brewers yeast >You have asked some very good questions. > >The classification or taxonomy of yeast is not an easy topic to tackle >since >DNA is becoming an integral part of grouping yeast according to Genus and >Specie. The separation of yeast into bread, beer, wine and distillers >yeast >is becoming less defined and important. There is a lot of overlapping. >Saccharomyces (genus) cerevisiae (specie) covers a large group of yeast >(many hundreds referred to as strains) with very similar abilities to >ferment a large number of sugars and other carbohydrates. The minor >difference in the sugars that each of these yeast can ferment or >metabolize >is not enough to put them in a different specie group. However, these >minor >differences are very important with regards to the final product of their >fermentation. The by-products such as mano-proteins, poly saccharides and >flavor compounds are also extremely important. > >Yeast selected for bread making must be a strong fermenter and handle the >maltose sugar. .The production of subtle aroma and flavor compounds is not >so critical. The yeast does not need to clump or flocculate and settle at >the end of fermentation. > >Yeast selected for beer making must be able to handle the maltose sugar >and >the higher saccharides maltotrios and maltotetrose (for final attenuation) >plus produce specific, desirable flavor and aroma compounds. > >Yeast selected for distillery products (whiskey etc) must have similar >fermentation characteristics as beer yeast because the worts are similar. > >Yeast, for wine production, does not need to handle maltose and higher >sugars. Fermentation by products such as flavors, aromas, mano-proteins >and >poly saccharides are vitally important. Fermentation temperature >range >and settling properties are also important. > >The Lallemand's Danstar strains of beer yeast have been selected for >their ability to be aggressive fermenters, handle all the sugars up to the >dextrins, attenuate, flocculate and produce desirable flavor, aroma and >mouthfeel compounds. > >CO2 does effect yeast. Up to 1/2 pound pressure (psi) CO2 stimulates yeast >growth and fermentation. At 5 - 6 psi (Champagne pressure) all yeast >growth >ceases but alcohol can still be produced. This is taken into account when >designing fermenters. Usually large fermenters are horizontal to minimize >hydrostatic pressure at the bottom. This is usually not a problem for brew >pubs and home beer makers. > >If you have a weak yeast, the added problem of CO2 pressure can cause the >yeast to be sluggish and possibly even become stuck. > >Fermentation in the bottle, to produce natural carbonation, is effected >only >to a small degree by the pressure. The amount of sugar that should be >present will produce only a couple pounds of pressure (more will explode >bottle). > >Pressure does incourage the yeast to produce a slight increase of higher >alcohols. These higher alcohols can be a plus for some styles of beer and >palates. It can be a minus or defect to other palates. > >Let me know if any of what I have said is not clear and I will try again. > >Clayton Cone Rob, I hope that the message that I forwarded on to you answer you question regarding distillers yeast. The long history of distiller's yeast verses beer yeast indicated that the distiller's yeast was more robust, vigorous and alcohol tolerant. Most beer yeasts were required to produce around 5% alcohol at a rather leisurely pace. Distilleries required the yeast to produce 8-10% alcohol at a more rapid pace at higher and mostly uncontrolled temperatures. Often times bakeries selected yeast from distilleries rather than breweries for this reason. It was very important that both beer and distiller's yeast be able to ferment maltose and the higher sugars. Today, there is more known about the effect of nutrients on alcohol production and tolerance. The ceiling for alcohol production for both beer and distillery yeast are well above 15%, perhaps above 20%. Some distilleries have no interest in the yeast's ability to ferment higher sugars; special enzymes convert all the starch to glucose/fructose, and there are no higher sugars in molasses for Rum production. Clayton Cone BTW, Mr. Cone has an article on dried yeast in the new Zymurgy.. Cheers! Jethro Gump Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net Lallemand Web Site consultant jethro at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 13:36:49 -0500 From: joytbrew at halifax.com (Joy Hansen) Subject: Starch testing Feb. 25 HBD post At the risk of being flamed (learning new tricks) for responding to such a basic question related to mash of malts, etc. here's my experience(s). 1. The rate of conversion of modern malts is very rapid and I've seen complete conversion (RIMS) via iodine test within 15 minutes of a rest temperature of 145 degrees. My experiences which follow are with use of RIMS. 2. My experience(s) for a negative starch test depend on the clarity of the sample. If the liquor is clear, I get a negative starch test quite early in the mash. If the sample is turbid, I get a + starch test. Even after an hour of mash at 145 degrees, I get a + starch test; however, the reaction is delayed for a couple of minutes. 3. My experience(s) at a saccharification temperature of 155 to 158 degrees continues from (2) above until the sample with particulate requires more than a minute to develop a red/brown color (different from the iodine color). 4. My brewing water is very high in bicarbonates and this makes preparation of proper water quite difficult. I must boil/cool the brewing water to decompose the bicarbonate, which precipitates out much of the associated calcium I need for proper mashing. How much bicarbonate varies because the municipal water is drawn from 5 wells, each with a different chemistry. I don't know which is today's water, so I've taken the average. This results in variations in the pH and efficiency of the mash. The last brew required an hour and a half at each the 1st and 2nd saccharification temperature. The pH paper indicated a pH of 5.4? I'm always reluctant to add gypsum, calcium carbonate, or calcium chloride in excess. So, I add 85% phosphoric acid and try to get the proper pH of 5.3 to 5.8. Just a small amount of bicarbonate residual seems to buffer the mash to 5.8 (marginal for conversion). 4. So, what's an anxious brewer to do? IMHO, the unconverted starches carried into the brew pot and then into the chilled wort can be disasters in the making. I error on the side of being sure that the particulate in the iodine starch test does not blacken. Ideally, this particulate is filtered out in the recirculation at run off and sparge. It can be done; however, I've chosen to achieve complete conversion and accept turbid run off when it happens. 5. The RIMS facilitates extended mash rests with constant temperature. Or, the adjusting the pH with the addition of calcium or acid. The RIMS mixes these pH adjusters into the mash quickly. Unlike infusion mashes where the temperature must always drop from the strike temperature. 6. When I was using a picnic cooler for mashes, the temperature gradient through out the grain bed, when sparging with 180 degree water, varied by almost 20 degrees (only my experience). 7. The unknown effect of malts from the same manufacturer having different Kovat's index / modification and the milling distribution of the malt in my Schmidling mill are acceptable "Murphy" effect for my brewing sessions. All this stuff makes my Homestead Joy"T"Brew concoctions not to any style, but very drinkable! Cheers, Joy"T"Brew Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:39:53 EST From: VQuante at aol.com Subject: Re: Yeast from bottles Petr Otahal <potahal at postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote: > Why doesnt everyone just restart their yeast from their own home brew > bottles by building up from the sediment in the bottle? Isnt this a lot > less complicated than having to use agar and stuff? Surely you could do > this at least a few times without getting many mutations and the like. Good question, Pete, done that a couple of times and never had problems with it. Just drunk out two bottles of homebrew - poured very carefully - and took the sediment to build up a starter. You can use that way of "harvesting" at least three or four times before the taste starts to change. It's waaay easier, than to harvest and store the yeast under complicated conditions. And you can store the yeast (together with your homebrew) in the fridge for at least one year without taking care of it! But: Be careful not to drink out all your bottles with your favourite yeast culture... Next day you do not only have a bad hangover, but in addition you will miss these little beasties and have to buy new ones... :-) Volker Volker R. Quante Brunnenbraeu Homebrewery Brewing and working in Warsaw / Poland, but definitely a German Homebrewer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 14:58:14 -0500 From: "David C. Harsh" <David.Harsh at uc.edu> Subject: Listerling, Schmidmann and their mills Listermann and Schmidling have been talking mills again... Dan said >"I tried to reproduce the claims made by Jack's promotional >material with an adjustable Maltmill.... Jack said >Again for the record, that statement was paraphrased from a report >submitted by George Fix after an evaluation of one of the first >MM's ever shipped. The data is NOT paraphrased, it is his data. So, the question is directed to George Fix: How did you do this? What spacings did you use on the tested mill, what grain did you use, and at what rate did you grind the grain? Also, how did you analyze the size fraction? Give some details please. What I do know is that single pass through a hand-cranked MaltMill with the settings that Jack describes will not produce the results under discussion here. Jack also wrote >...I sent samples to Sieble Institute along with samples from your mill > and the results more or less corroborate the fact that the MM provides >"about the same distrubution" and I went away satisfied. Just as long as you go away, we'll be happy... ;) Remember the start of this discussion was the QDA claim that using the distribution listed in the Practical Brewer will result in better homebrew. This so-called IDEAL DISTRIBUTION is irrelevant to homebrewing except as a very general guidline. It's different for the mega-scale people since lautering efficiency has a big impact on their bottom line. The end result, of course, is that both mills produce similar size distributions, and equal quality beer can be produced from both mills. You can say the same for any other grain mill, excluding the KitchenAid mixer attachment and the Corona, since they are actually flour mills. One other comment about Jack's ad: It claims that grain is actually milled across the entire length of the roller. The hopper design prevents more than the center 50% from being used and if you motorize, the effective roller length is reduced even more since the grain doesn't have time to spread out over the entire roller length. End result? Most grain goes through near the .030" gap and you get a satisfactory crush. Jack has in the past claimed that the non-adjustable mill works similarly to the adjustable one and this is probably why. So buy which ever mill suits you and your beer won't know the difference. Dave Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League, Cincinnati, OH O- 0.5 miles west of Listermann Manufacturing Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:06:58 EST From: JPullum127 at aol.com Subject: dunkelwiezenbock in early december i brewed a dunkelwiezenbock. i shared a bottle last night with an experienced beer judge who commented " this one absolutly should go to a competition. "it really came out extraordinarily well and i thought i would share it. 5 lb munich malt 2 lb 2 row barley 6 lb briess wheat extract 2oz. mt hood pellets aa=4.1 at 60 minutes 2 oz. choclate malt wyeast 3333 german wheat yeast (i really liked this yeast) mash at 142 for 20 min then154 for 40 minutes o.g.=1.068 fg1.018 fermented at 62-64 degrees cold conditioned for a month Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 16:19:53 -0600 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: ball valves, MCAB recipes, propane manifolds Greetings, There sure is a lot of interesting discussion on valves. I have to ask though... are we talking upstream from the wort chiller? There cleaning is less of an issue, just like it is in a mash tun vs a fermenter. Who needs good flow control? Are you measuring the flow rate? How? Are you controlling the valve automatically or manually? Granted, my system is driven by gravity rather than a pump, but my only flowrate issue is sparge water which slows down as the HLT level drops. I just watch the lauter tun level and occasionally adjust the sparge valve when the lauter level begins to fall. Even in a RIMS system, it would seem that once the desired flow rate is established, you wouldn't want or need to muck with it anymore. Am I missing something? After the wort is chilled, I suspect most homebrewers don't rely much on valves unless they are kegging. Oh, except for those plastic valves you see mounted on the bottom of plastic pail fermenters. I imagine these need to be removed and disassembled each time they are used to properly clean and sanitize. Those with pumps could use the technique described by Dave Miller (and probably others) by making a loop of all tubing, valves, etc which the cool wort/beer will contact and circulate cleaning and sanitizing solutions. But again, I'm curious. Is anybody trying to regulate flow from the fermenter? Aren't you just going into a secondary, keg, or bottles where you want as fast a flow as possible without splashing or oxygen pickup? BTW, if you really want flow control with sanitary valves, I think H.D. Baumann is one of the key suppliers to the pharmaceutical industry, but may be a bit out of reach for the typical homebrewer. Thanks John V for the recipe. Wish I could have attended the MCAB. It sounds like it was a lot of fun. Congrats and I hope others will share their award winning recipes as well. Alan Dowdy asks about a propane manifold. I will have to go home and look at my setup, but my gas grill has two burners under the hood and a side burner for beans all on one propane tank. You could find similar setups at Home Depot or anywhere that sells gas grills. Of course it really isn't Bar-B-Que unless it's wood fired, is it? ;) Cheers! Lou Heavner - Bar-B-Queing Pork Spare Ribs over Pecan Wood for the wife's birthday today in Austin, TX and hoping it doesn't rain til tomorrow Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 18:36:02 -0500 From: "Christopher Tkach" <tkach at mediaone.net> Subject: RE: EASYEAST Joe/Bob/Everyone- I've used Easyeast quite a few times, and really like it, to the point where if given the choice of Wyeast or Easyeast, I'll pick Easyeast. Its true, there isn't enough yeast to pitch into 5gals without waiting 24-36 hrs for fermentation to start. However, there is enough so that one step up is sufficient to get the lag down to 4-6 hrs. >From what I've heard, all Easyeast strains are straight from Wyeast, and usually sport the same strain name. Well, at least that was the case a year or so ago, when they only offered a few strains. Just my $0.02. - Chris Dover, NH bob mccowan writes; >Joe: According to Don at Stout Billy's in Portsmouth, EASYEAST is produced >by a microbiologist from UNH. It started out as a custom product for Stout >Billy's, and I guess it has branched out from there. Last time I looked, >they had quit a variety of yeast available. I have brewed with it and had >no problems. However, even though Don assured me that there is enough yeast >to pitch 5 gallons of wort, I think the lag time is too long; I prefer to >step the yeast up once before pitching. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 11:57:22 -0600 From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at hypercon.com> Subject: MCAB Recap -- Part I MCAB I Recap: What a party! What a weekend! I'm still digging out from lots of post-MCAB matters, as well as playing catchup on a lot of work-related stuff that has piled up whilst I was off playing MCAB organizer, but here're my quick stream-of-consciousness post-MCAB I thoughts, comments, and announcements . . . . (1) First and most importantly, many, many thanks to all our sponsors!! Because of generous financial contributions from Crosby & Baker, Ltd. and the Home Wine and Beer Trade Association, as well as a generous and substantial in-kind contribution by the Siebel Institute, MCAB BOS winner John Childs will be attending a Siebel Short Course. (Now *that's* a prize!) In addition, John will be receiving his choice of 3 sacks of Schreier/DeWolfe-Cosyns malt courtesy of Schreier Malting Company, a year's supply of yeast (12 vials) courtesy of Whitelabs, a copy of "A Sip Through Time" donated by author Cindy Renfro, and a really cool engraved stainless tap handle in the shape of a mash paddle (fabricated and donated by Phil Endacott of Houston). The other six best of show finalists will each receive a 10-gallon corny keg (courtesy of SABCO) and a sack of Biooriginal organic malt. First place category winners will receive a sack of Malt Montana malt, as well as a 2 lb selection of hops from HopUnion and a 500g brick of yeast from Lallemand, in addition to a gold-colored MCAB tap handle (courtesy of Brewing Techniques maganize and Sculpture Concepts). Second place winners will receive a bag of Briess malt extract, a 1/2 lb selection of hops from HopUnion, a 500g brick of yeast from Lallemand, and a silver MCAB tap handle. Third place winners will receive a 1/2 lb selection of hops from HopUnion, a 500g brick of yeast from Lallemand, a vial of yeast from Whitelabs, and a copper MCAB tap handle. (I will be sending letter to all MCAB winners in the next week or so detailing who they should contact with the various sponsors to arrange delivery of their in-kind prizes, and I will similarly be in touch with all the various prize sponsors on these matters.) In addition, thanks to the Saint Arnold Brewing Company, our hosts for the weekend, and Bradleys Restaurant and Brewery, Two Rows Restaurant and Brewpub, Victory Brewing Company, the Orchid Lounge, and the Houston Brewery for donations of beer sampled at the Friday night tasting. Finally, thanks to all the companies who donated prizes and promotional items for the MCAB raffle, which raised over $700 toward defraying the costs of the MCAB: Boondoggles Brewery & Pub, Brewing Techniques Magazine, Bradleys Restaurant and Brewery, Liquid Bread, Inc., Shipyard Brewery, Evans Brewery, Listerman Manufacturing, Inc., and Cindy Renfrow. (2) The technical conference was a resounding success! Thanks go out to George Fix, Paul Farnsworth, Dave Miller, Clayton Cone, Raplh Olson, and Chris White for taking the time to appear and share their knowledge with us. (3) Thanks to all of our fine judges, especially those of you who traveled to Houston for the specific purpose of helping us with MCAB I. (And no thanks whatsoever to the American Airlines pilots union, whose sickout caused a number of folks (especially out-of-town judges) to have to miss the MCAB entirely.) Many of the panels had two or sometimes even three master judges, and the final BOS panel was composed of three of the best judges anywhere: Scott Birdwell, Dan Hall, and Dave Miller. The ballots make very interesting reading . . . and yes, I've got them sorted and copied, and I'll be mailing them out in a week or so. (4) Obviously, there were a lot of people who worked very hard to make the actual event a success, especially the members of the Foam Rangers, KGB, and Mashtronauts clubs of Houston. Special thanks go to Steve Moore (Competition Director), Dave Slamen and Jimmy Paige (Head Stewards), Brian Ellis (KGB Czar and head bus wrangler), Rich Sommers (Mashtronauts' Mission Controller and head banquet chef), Wayne Smith (Foam Rangers' Grand Wazoo), and, of course, Scott Birdwell (DeFalco's of Houston). [continued] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 19:05:35 -0700 From: Paul Dey <alldey at uswest.net> Subject: Relief John Varady writes: "This recipe has been well >>>relieved<<< in contests..." Uhh, which way to the mens room? I just had this awesome porter and.... Can't get away with anything around here! Paul Dey Cheyenne, WY Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:07:15 +200 From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.com> Subject: Weyermann Malt Hi, John Wilkinson asked about Weyermann Malts: I have been brewing with only Weyermann malts for more than 2 years now. Never had a single problem. If you have problems , take it back so that they will know there is problems. I love their malts and surely dont want it to become bad quality. Regards Braam Greyling Snr. Design Engineer Azona(Pty)Ltd tel +27 12 6641910 fax +27 12 6641393 Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 07:48:38 -0500 From: fridge at kalamazoo.net Subject: fridge fans Greetings folks, In HBD#2964, Glyn Crossno asks if it's normal for the exterior fan on his new beer fridge to run all the time. Without knowing more about the type of fridge this is I can offer only general information. Modern domestic refrigerator/freezers often have multiple fans. The exterior fan moves air across the condenser coil when the compressor runs. An interior fan runs continuously to circulate air in the refrigerator cabinet (some models stop the fan when the door is opened), and a fan in the freezer comparment moves air across the evaporator coil when the compressor runs (some models run this fan continuously). Some models run the external (condenser) fan during and/or after the defrost period for a time to help evaporate any water that accumulates in the condensate pan during defrost. If the beer fridge is a commercial cooler of some type, it may run the compressor and fans continuously and control cabinet temperature by throttling the amount of refrigerant entering the evaporator coil. There are many possible variations so I can't be more specific. Please post more specifics if a more-detailed response is needed. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at kalamazoo.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:31:53 -0500 From: Paul Edwards <pedwards at iquest.net> Subject: More airplane beer Jay wrote: >I'd be a bit leary of checking them with your luggage, more from the baggage >handlers than the unpressurized luggage compartment. Either may break the >bottles, but the former is probably more likely. First off, the baggage compartment of a commercial jetliner, while unheated/un-airconditioned, is indeed pressurized when the passenger compartment is pressurized. Many of my friends and I have successfully checked coolers of bottle beer along with our luggage on domestic flights. The key is to wrap each bottle as if you were going to ship it to a competition. Bubble wrap (available at any office supply) works great. Just make sure the bottles don't rattle. And tape the cooler shut really well with packing tape that has the nylon fibers in it. Don't write "Beer" on the cooler, tho. ;-D OTOH, when coming home from Belgium a couple of years ago, my wife and I managed to pack 12 liters of beer from Westvleteren, Hanssen's, Achouffe, Rochefort, and a few I can't recall into our carry on along with a fair amount of glassware. We did so many to make getting thru customs at O'hare easier. Happy flying, - --Paul Edwards Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:38:35 -0500 From: Drewmeister <drewmstr at erols.com> Subject: What's in a Name Sorry HBDers, I don't use an alias to hide or anything. All of my friends know who it is, and another list I'm on they know who I am. My name is Andrew (Drew) Nix, I live in Frederick, MD and have been brewing for about 5-6 years (since Summer 1993). I am a member of the Frederick Original Ale Makers (FOAM). I do all-grain, partial mash, and extract, but have made a New Year's resolution to do 50% all grain this year at the minimum. I've been getting the HBD for about 1-2 years or so, but just recently started participating. Drewmeister drewmstr at erols.com http://www.erols.com/drewmstr/flyfish.html "Fishing is the part of life that's filled with more or less regular successes, and failures that don't really matter because there'll always be a next time." - J. Gierach Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 09:50:41 -0500 From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> Subject: Airplane Beers. I traveled for a living for over 10 years. I started back in the late early 80's when microbrew beers were just getting popular and were'nt as readily available on a national basis. I FREQUENLY packed sixpacks of local beers that weren't available in my locality in my suitcase and checked the baggage. Never had a broken bottle, a popped top or a leaky cap. I have also packed home made wines in my bag and never lost a cork. I don't know that I would recommend this though. I don't know how many times my bags made it into the unpressurized chambers but they were certainly cold and ready to drink when I hit the ground. Although aware of the low pressures, I was more concerned about the baggage handlers and usually wrapped each bottle sparately in a piece of clothing. I think that chances of loosing a bottle are slim. The problem is, as I understand it, that some of the baggage compartment are pressurized and some aren't. My tests were of course uncontrolled so it is possible that my bags never made it into unpressurized chambers.. Beer is important, you can always wash your clothes. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 08:20:42 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at VMS.ARIZONA.EDU> Subject: grind it > For those who are not aware of our structure, here's a quick primer. The > AOB is the umbrella company which houses shared staff in >administration, marketing, production, information services and customer >service to work to the goals of the divisional organizations of the AHA, >the Institute for Brewing Studies and Brewers Publications. AOB also >does international work. We also have an affiliate division, the GABF > (Brewing Matters). The way it works on the Income/Expense side is that > Brewing Matters (GABF) provides a management fee to the AOB for the >work AOB staff does on the festival, which is extensive, and AOB >employee salaries already include the work on the GABF. > > The GABF is a celebration of the diversity of beer and beer culture. The > Designated Driver program, limited size of pours, trained security staff > and widespread availability of soda and non-alcoholic beer stations > promote the responsible consumption of beer as an alcoholic beverage > part of our mission. We also have over 1000 AHA members who attend >this event. And 1000 is a small percentage of the 35,000 people that attend. And what percentage of the 35,000 are homebrewers, since the AOB claims it is their primary reason for tax exempt status? And I'll keep grinding until the axe handle is gone. On the AOB 990 tax form it says: "What is the Organization's primary exempt purpose? PROMOTION OF HOMEBREWING" Yet the AOB spends more per issue for the New Brewer (the magazine for homebrewers with 10 barrel homebrew systems). What, the IBS is publishing figures on the data of brewing establishments run by homebrewers like Fritz Maytag? Jim Liddil jliddil at vms.arizona.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:48:00 -0500 From: Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com Subject: Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute HBD- Far be it from me to complain about the content of the HBD. I am fully capable of paging down. So, rather than beating them (the self serving individuals who are openly touting their products in this forum) I decided to join 'em! The Bent Dick YoctoBrewery now offers a discreet Male Escort Service (partially sponsored by Bagley's Feed and Grain Storage). Since all escorting will be tastefully provided by me, I reserve the right to refuse escort service on an individual basis. Criteria that could be used for escort refusal may include weight, sex, sexual orientation, personal hygiene, and net worth. Note: One refusal criteria could cancel out another. Thank you Eric Fouch Bent Dick YoctoBrewery and Dude Ranch Kentwood MI Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 10:56:41 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Maris Otter Bill Whittaker <puffnstuff1 at prodigy.net> wrote:The >shopkeeper suggested I try a malt called Maris Otter for the main part of >the mash. Trouble is, I forgot to ask him about the specifics of the malt >so I can use the data to formulate a recipe. Can anyone tell me some of >the specifics of this malt? Unfortunately, I can't tell you much because Maris Otter is a barley, not a malt. It is a traditional (pre WWII, I believe), low protein English malting barley that can be malted in a variety of styles. It is considered by many brewers to be superior to more modern varieties, so it continues to be grown, although less and less. While there are some maltsters that still floor malt barley, yours probably is not floor malted. It is probably a pale ale malt, color about 3-4L, well modified, and will give you much the same extract as other pale malts. Michael Jackson argues that barley variety is more important than is commonly realized. See his article A TREND THAT GOES AGAINST THE GRAIN in the Summer,1995, Vol. 4 #3 Malt Advocate http://www.realbeer.com/maltadvocate//u95/U95JCKSN.html for discussion on how modern varieties are crowding out only slightly older, apparently more superior (for brewing and distilling) varieties such as Maris Otter and Golden Promise. In it, Jackson describes how he could detect the lower quality in a batch of freshly distilled Macallan whisky that came from a batch of malt where a supplier had substituted 50% of some lesser quality variety of barley. Traditional British brewers insist on these older varieties as well. A caveat - just because it is a superior malteing barley variety doesn't mean that your malt is superior. At least one HBDer reported what he felt was an inferior batch of Maris Otter. 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, 26 Feb 1999 11:14:52 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Kitchen strainer Jim DiPalma <dipalma at omtool.com> recommended >There is an existing device, a very complicated one, the culmination of >years of research and application of the latest available technologies. >It's called a kitchen strainer. Inexpensive, very effective at removing >foam while leaving liquid wort behind, and never needs calibration. But is it Y2K compliant? 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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/27/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96