HOMEBREW Digest #3126 Thu 02 September 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

  My perspective on HSA (BrewInfo)
  Wyeast & Whitelabs (Terry)
  Secondaries contribute to CO2 toxicity??? (Paul Shick)
  retailers & suppliers (Scott Birdwell)
  acidity testing, ice beer (Dave Burley)
  Septic Brew (Peter Owings)
  re: BT "replacement" (John_E_Schnupp)
  Warning: deadly beer ("Doug Moyer")
  16th Annual Dixie Cup (David Cato)
  Zymurgy bashing (Randy Ricchi)
  hop esters ("Arnold Chickenshorts")
  Re: accurate volume measurement (Scott Murman)
  Re: Grain to extract conversion ("Thomas D. Hamann")
  re: BT and Suporting those that Su (John_E_Schnupp)
  Life insurance and alchol drinking(Bob Fesmire) (Ballsacius)
  RE:- Pumpkin (other uses there of) ("Darryl Downie")
  Pumpkin Ales -- Let's Not Add Pumpkin But Tell Everyone We Did ("John or Barb Sullivan")
  re: Yeast in Orval/Hoegaarden (piatz)
  BT etc./Disclaimer/Measurement (AJ)
  O'fest decoction recipe ("Sieben, Richard")
  CO2 "not for human consumption"? (Julio Canseco)
  Imperial Stout with raisins? ("T. Van Nunnery")
  Colonial Brewing (Jeffrey Donovan)
  re: BT/AMBREW & Liquid Volumes (Lou.Heavner)
  Water Measurements ("Peter J. Calinski")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies. * The latest are the Gadgeteers Digest (gadget at hbd.org) and the Home * Brew Shop Owners' Discussion Forum (brewshop at hbd.org). * Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one * line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and * instructions for use. 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: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:29:59 -0500 (CDT) From: brewinfo at xnet.com (BrewInfo) Subject: My perspective on HSA Once upon a time (May), Dr. Pivo writes: >You might recall, that trying to grab this wiley invisable goon by the >tail, I did a little 'spurment last year with "HSA". > >I split a batch and let half go flying throught the air at boiling >temperatures, the other treated gently as pie. When mature, I sent them >through a "triangle test" (a sort of standardised way to see if there is >a perceptual differnence). > >Now I do a lot of these things, and it is frightening to see how things >like: fermenter geometry, air space in a secondary, and sheer volumes of >ferment can make perceptable difference in how fast the beer matures, >and where it ends up.... simply frightening. > >I can't pretend to say that I've got a handle on most of these >variables, just that they are variables worth paying attention to, and >which my tasters can pick out. Sometimes I even just "switch kegs" >between glass fillings without telling folks, and the more sharp >palleted invarioubly notice: "Say, this one has a more pronounced hop >flavour", even when what I have done differently within the batch can be >quite subtle different fermenting conditions. > >Knowing this, I was quite careful to keep all other variables exactly >the same for these two beers except the "kamikaze ride through the air". I did a similar experiment and got similar results: I could not tell which was the HSA batch... HOWEVER... this was an experiment done at a time when my techniques were well beyond my initial fumblings in the homebrewery. I do know, from personal experience, that HSA *does* have a profound effect on the finished beer, but this was in early batches and only in retrospect can I say it was indeed HSA that was at fault. Since this experiment, I have given HSA quite a bit of thought and wondered why I got such differing results. When I read the post that Dave from Siebel submitted here, saying that HSA should not be considered an issue for homebrewers, I discussed this offline with him (this was before I had read his second post). In the course of this discussion, I may have hit upon a reason that my initial accidental HSA batches had big flavour problems whereas my "controlled" experiment (and perhaps Dr. Pivo's too) didn't. The way I conducted my experiment, was that I made a small batch of wort, split it in half, oxygenated one half while it was hot and oxygenated the other half after cooling. Then, I quickly cooled the HSA half. Consider that the oxygenated hot wort was only hot for perhaps 10 minutes! Perhaps it takes some time for the oxygen to react with the wort compounds. This could also explain why A-B can successfully use air to scrub DMS out of their hot wort (I suspect they chill it immediately afterwords). Another factor was that those early batches were quite dark (and, in all likelyhood, had lots of melanoidins). My test batch and all of A-B's massive-production beers are frightfully pale. If George Fix didn't first propose that melanoidins are one of the main culprits associated with HSA damage, he certainly was the first to introduce it to the homebrewing community. Perhaps you need a certain amount of melanoidins to have HSA produce noticeable damage. (As an aside: the way I understand it, the melanoidins are said to be oxidised and then they later release the oxygen to other beer compounds (like oxidising alcohols to unpleasant aldehydes) during storage.) So, that means I need to find the time to repeat my experiment, this time with a darker recipe and with keeping the oxidised wort hot longer. I suggest anyone trying this experiment keep these factors in mind too. I believe that HSA should not be ignored among homebrewrs. I'm trying to figure out how damaging it is and what factors surrounding it are important. So far, everyone regarding HSA seems to be polarised into the two extremes: it's critically damaging... or... it's benign. I suspect the real answer is somewhere in between, and depends on factors such as time and recipe. Al. Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL korz at brewinfo.com http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:11:10 -0400 From: terry at brewfellows.com (Terry) Subject: Wyeast & Whitelabs There has been recent discussion about Wyeasts attempts at locking up exclusives with brew shops. Well, one development that came up today is that I was informed that my wholesaler will no longer be carrying Whitelabs yeast and that there is no longer any wholesaler carrying Whitelabs and I will have to Get Whitelabs directly from the company in San Diego. So in this case the free market everybody crows about just bit the customer in the ass. I am going to have to return to ordering from San Diego and paying for FedX shipping. Which will have to be passed on to the customer. Competition can be a benefit but when one company has the clout to corner a market and drive out legitimate competition through exclusiver distribution arrangments nobody wins (can you say AB ?). Because I really like the product I will continue to stock it but don't bitch to me when the price goes up. Terry White Brewfellow's Fermentation Services http://www.brewfellows.com Better Living Through Fermentation Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:14:27 -0400 (EDT) From: Paul Shick <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> Subject: Secondaries contribute to CO2 toxicity??? Hello all, I have a quick data point related to the usual ongoing battle about whether or not to use a secondary fermentation for ales. I just kegged two carboys of CACA, one of which sat in the primary for three weeks. The other was in a secondary for two weeks (I used the yeast cake for a barleywine.) At kegging, the secondaried carboy was much more carbonated than the other. My guess is that the large yeast cake in the primary provided more nucleation sites for CO2, keeping the carbonation levels down. It happened in this case that both carboys were completely fermented out (1.049 down to 1.008 with Nottingham dry yeast,) but this might be a nice thing to keep in mind for those who are having problems getting a complete fermentation. One factor often cited as causing incomplete attenuation is CO2 toxicity. Keeping the wort on the primary yeast cake for a longer period MAY help alleviate this. Or maybe not.... Paul Shick Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:35:31 -0500 From: Scott Birdwell <defalcos at insync.net> Subject: retailers & suppliers In HBD #3121 Marc Sedam wrote... <snip> >Where's the problem? Don't you try to make sure your customers use you exclusively somehow (good service, cheap >prices, coordination with clubs, etc.)? <snip> Yes, I do try to give my customers the best service, fair (not necessarily "cheap") prices, and I do co-ordinate with the various area clubs. I like to impart some of the knowledge that I have accumulated in the last 21 years in this business. This is the value that we add to the products that we sell. I don't expect or demand, however, that my customers patronize only my shop, although, I obviously wish they would. This something that I cannot control, and, unlike homebrew suppliers, my customers don't print catalogs or post up entire websites telling the world what products they use or offer. Likewise, Chris Farley could assure Wyeast that he carries only their products, but then all Wyeast need do is procure a copy of his catalog or check out his website to discover this is not the case. Thus your analogy between distributors and retailers versus retailers and customers just doesn't hold up. and Chris Farley wrote... <snip> However, I fear a situation developing in which "exclusive" Wyeast dealers get better prices on their yeast, and are able to retail yeast at a lower cost than retailers that choose to carry competitors' products. This kind of policy is more likely to alienate retailers. <snip> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Marc Sedam wrote... <snip> I tried to resist this one, but couldn't. So, what you're saying is that it's bad for Wyeast to undercut the competition based on cost alone? I thought discussions a few months back said it was GREAT to undercut the competition based on price alone. <snip> You missed the boat on this one. Wyeast isn't trying to "undercut the competition based on cost alone" here. They aren't trying to beat White Labs by undercutting them on price, they are pressuring retailers to drop White Labs altogether by offering discounts on Wyeasts products. These discounts are NOT to be based upon volume, but solely upon the retailer agreeing NOT to handle their competitor. I ran this one by my attorney (an intellectual properties one at that. . .) and he agreed that this isn't the most ethical practice, and it may or may not be legal. He indicated that this may, indeed, be illegal if the company making the offer operates a virtual monopoly and is trying to eliminate smaller competitors entirely. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but this is, at best, hardball, and, at worst, just plain sleazy. Marc Sedam wrote... <snip> I seem to recall reading things like "If you can't beat the price of competitors, get out of the business.", when referring to HB shops and owners who were trying to make a living. . . <snip> Maybe HBers should start going directly to Wyeast and getting these savings from the manufacturer. Cheaper is cheaper, right? <snip> Boy, you must be a homebrewer! Prices just can't get cheap enough for you, huh? When your favorite homebrew supplier goes out of business because he couldn't make a decent living doing what he loves, maybe you'll reconsider the pricing structure. Besides, Dave is not foolish enough to sell directly to homebrewers. It would be a royal pain in the ass for Dave, plus he would lose just about every retail supplier account that he currently has. I hope you were joking on this one. Marc Sedam wrote... <snip> And you further say that the end result could be less choice than currently exists on the market? Either shops become exclusive Wyeast suppliers by taking advantage of the offer or react too strongly to Wyeast's overture and stock solely White Labs (or YCKC) yeast (some of course will do neither). <snip> I don't know if the end result will be less choice or not. I certainly can empathize with Chris' plight regarding the dilemma of whether or not to except the discounting at the expense of less selection. He is competiting with the other big mail order houses and pricing is very sensitive. Makes me kind of glad that I'm a modest-sized retailer, too small to be offered such discounts. Marc Sedam wrote... <snip> And retailers might be alienated? Hmmmm. Sounds like it's OK for retailers (and small breweries) to squeeze out the competition but they get kind of upset when someone tries to impose an economy of scale on them. <snip> What world do you come from? It certainly isn't the homebrew retail world! I don't know any retail HB supplier that is in a position to "squeeze out the competition." At best we can simply wait out the "me, too" suppliers that jumped on the homebrew bandwagon thinking they were going to make some easy bucks. Let me tell you, Marc: There ain't no easy nor big bucks to be made in this business! It's hard work and you do it because you have a passion for it or you will tire quickly and move on to something that you can make the big bucks at. That's my two cents worth, anyway! Scott Birdwell Homebrew Proprietor (and proud of it!) DeFalco's Home Wine & Beer Supplies Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 18:47:08 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: acidity testing, ice beer Brewsters: JackS asks about using an acidity testing kit for cheese and wine. In the US, Tartaric acid is the standard for wine and I believe the standard is Lactic acid ( lower MW than tartaric) for Cheese. This why you have a different volume for each. In Europe I believe they still adhere to sulfuric acid as the standard for both. But times are a changin'. Always specify what the standard is when specifying % acidity. This has nothing to do with pH or barely because both systems are buffered. - -------------------------------------- Actually Eric Lande's explanation of "ice brewed" beer may be incorrect, depending on the brewer and its marketing department. In making of lagers, sometimes the beer is partially frozen which produces fine ice crystals which contain tannin /protein complexes a.k.a. "Chill Haze" Filtering of these crystals produces a clear beer and also has a positive effect of reducing a green beer taste without long aging. Any ice removed must be re-instated as water before sale to avoid the penalty of artificially increasing the alcohol content without a distillers license. - ------------------------------------ Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:21:49 -0400 From: Peter Owings <peteo1 at mindspring.com> Subject: Septic Brew Paul Niebergall expresses concern over dumping yeast sludge into his septic system. Don't worry! I think you're well on your way to producing an organic Brown Ale. I hope the sludge was Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley Ale) as it's always proven a winner in my brown ales. As for hops, you might try Kent Goldings. They taste real good when you eat them and adding them to the system is a snap. (As an afterthought, make sure you use pelletized hops as they won't do as much damage to your internal mash tun.) Remember, don't be too anal about brewing. Just go with the flow and do what comes naturally. P.S. I've also produced some outstanding Mexican Lagers using this method. Gotta love that Taco Bell! Pete Owings Tongue firmly implanted in cheek! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:59:27 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: BT "replacement" >Any thoughts? Any volunteers for the production team? (Need strong HTML >skills, your own ISP through which to reach the HBD server, and the time >to work on projects...) Sounds interesting, unfortunately I don't fall into may of the perquisite categories. I've never worked in HTML, I don't have internet access at home and am somewhat limited in my time due to the nature of my job (field service support). However, I'm certain I could contribute an occasional article. I'm a tinkerer and a gadget guy. Earlier this year I put together an article for BT that was supposed to be published in the current issue (that looks like it won't happen). It was about making a cap for 3L PET bottles that would allow them to be used as a type of mini-keg. I've also made a bunch of "special" fittings from off-the-shelf plumbing parts and was thinking of putting something together along those lines as well. I guess what I'm saying is that I could/would contribute an occasional article, probably along the equipment/construction lines. Good luck in getting a team together. Keep us posted. John Schnupp, N3CNL Dirty Laundry Brewery Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:37:52 -0400 From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com> Subject: Warning: deadly beer So, have you seen the new Coors Light commercial? You know the one: Howie Long uses cans of Coors Light to defend the buxom babe from rattlesnakes. Apparently one taste of the stuff kills the snakes instantly. I've always known that the stuff was vile, but I never realized that such a risk was associated with drinking it. Now, I am not aware of any research that shows a correlation between consumption of Coors Light and death amongst humans, but I am loath to take any chances. So, please, don't let your friends drink Coors Light. It's not worth risking death. Brew on! Doug Moyer Salem, VA Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:59:33 -0500 From: David Cato <dcato at neosoft.com> Subject: 16th Annual Dixie Cup The 16th Annual Dixie Cup Homebrew Competition will be held October 22-23, 1999 in Houston, Texas. The Dixie Cup is one of the last qualifying events for MCAB II to be held in St. Louis in March 2000. Entries will be accepted between October 1 and October 15. Entries received by October 9 are $6 per entry; after October 9 the cost is $10 per entry (so get those entries in early). This year's special Dixie Cup style is Big and Stupid. To qualify for the Big and Stupid category, your beer must weigh in with a minimum original gravity of 1.070. That takes care of the Big part. The Stupid part is where your originality and creativity come into play. Do you have a creation that just doesn't fit anywhere? Something you did that nobody else would think of doing? Bizarre combinations of styles (a rauch-weizenbock laced with copious quantities of Cascades) or something so strange it doesn't even belong in the Novelty category (jelly doughnut IPA). Use your imagination, but it must be drinkable. No Burnt Sheetrock Imperial Stouts here. Judging will take place in open sessions on Wednesday, October 20, and Friday and Saturday October 22 and 23. All judges are invited and encouraged to attend. The speakers at this year's milli-conference on Saturday morning are Randy Mosher, Gregg Smith, and Pete Takacs. As usual, Fred Eckhardt will present a beer and food tasting Friday night. A BJCP exam will be held on Thursday evening, October 21. If you are interested in taking the BJCP exam, please contact Scott Birdwell at defalcos at insync.net or Charles Vallhonrat at atomicbrew at pdq.net before October 1. Complete details can be found at the Foam Ranger web site, www.foamrangers.com. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact David Cato at dcato at neosoft.com. - -- David Cato Houston, Texas Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:15:47 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: Zymurgy bashing In the August 31 HBD, regarding BT's going out of business, Jim Liddil wrote: "Indeed unless the AHA is willing to publish less mainstream stuff and pay editors to screen aritcles, I think they are not a real valid option. Of course it would be great if the powers that be could prove me wrong. Maybe BYO is willing to take off where BT left off?" I have to respond. Obviously, there have been numerous anti-AHA/Zymurgy posts to this forum. I've been receiving Zymurgy longer than I have Brewing Techniques, and I have almost all of the Brewing Techniques issues. Personally, I think that all the anti-AHA sentiment that we read here is juvenile bullshit. A couple of loudmouths that can't stand the thought that someone is making more money than they are sound off, then all the other juveniles join in on the bashing, and revel in their new-found cyber-club. But that's not the reason for my post. Does anyone REALLY believe that Brew Your Own is a better brewing rag than Zymurgy? If so, you've got to be kidding, or you have your head up your ass. Brew Your Own is the most rookie-oriented mag out there. Over the years, Zymurgy has put out articles that continue to be timeless pieces of information. Zymurgy put out an article on kegging back when I was thinking about kegging, but was intimidated about the whole process. After reading that well thought out article, I felt confident enough to do it and never looked back. Since then, BT had an article on kegging. I read the article, but found nothing there that wasn't already covered in Zymurgy. A few years ago Zymurgy put out an article on Belgian beers that I still refer to when I brew my tripels and wits. I read a lot of brewing literature and I haven't seen anything that tops that article on the subject of how to brew Belgian-style beers. Zymurgy had an article on British Bitters, called "Confessions of two Bitter Men", or something like that. Another great, timeless article. These are just a few of the many excellent articles Zymurgy has put out over the years, and they continue to put out many fine articles. Sure, they've been around for awhile. They're bound to hit a stretch now and then when it's tough to come up with something new and exciting to write about on the same subject they've been writing about for years. That's the way it is in any specialty magazine. I subscribed to Organic Gardening for about five years in the early eighties and I finally thought " all these articles look the same". I quit subscribing. I'm sure there were new gardener subscribers to fill my place. I didn't start ranting to anyone who would listen about how OG sucked, because that was not the case. Finally, I'd like to say that I, too, enjoyed my subscription to Brewing Techniques. I'm sorry to hear it may be gone, it has been a great magazine. I do hope that they plan to take care of their subscribers (supporters), since I renewed for two years just one issue before they folded. They didn't have a problem cashing my check even though they knew they would'nt be around much longer. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:22:34 PDT From: "Arnold Chickenshorts" <achickenshorts at hotmail.com> Subject: hop esters I appear to have upset AJ with my comments. My sincere apologies, AJ: it is not your fault you repeat things read in "several breing texts" (sic) when the texts themselves are in error. The hop esters form a very significant fraction of a beer's ester profile, yet are ignored as a possible source of contribution, in all homebrewing texts and most "professional" texts. This is not AJ's fault, yet seeing the same oversight again repeated prompted a hastily written note from an inebriated mind. AJ shows some initiative by determining possible levels of beer ethyl hexanoate given typical methyl hexanoate levels found in hops. The trouble is, I was being a little simplistic by implying methyl hexanoate was the *only* hop ester that contributed to the total amount of beer ethyl hexanoate. The possible contributors are a small army of candidates. For example, the hexanoate family may come in saturated, unsaturated or terpenoid forms, branched or straight chain acid. The actual compounds are many, and there are a great deal of hop oil compounds that are yet to be determined. See the review by Sharpe ("The Essential Oil of Hops" J. Inst. Brew. 1981, v87 pp96-107). So simple calculations as performed by AJ are interesting, yet invalid, since straight chain methyl-hexanoate represents only a small proportion of the total of the hop hexanoate esters, which are the candidates for transesterification to ethyl hexanoate. (Ethyl transesterification BTW is the main type, due to the far larger amounts of ethanol found in beer than higher alcohols) So how do we determine whether hops contribute significantly to ethyl hexanoate levels? Easy. Brew a control beer and vary the amount of hops. Measure the headspace composition of the beers using gas chromatography. Not so easy at home, but this is precisely the experiment performed by Murakimi et al ("Effect of Hopping on the Headspace Volatile Composition of Beer" JASBC, 1989, pp 35-42). In comparison to the control beer, a beer kettle-hopped with Hallertauer hops had 14 times the level of ethyl hexanoate. (the fuggle hopped beer had 7 times the amount of this ester). The study does not give exact details of the hopping techniques used, but it appears the control beer was completely unhopped and the test beers just kettle hopped with different bittering hops to just 25 IBU. The fact the tests showed such strong results with (presumably) just bittering hops really makes one wonder what would happen with late or dry hops, when one considers the fact that esters are quite volatile and largely driven off by boiling (aren't they?). The rule of thumb from Murakimi appears to be that fermentation controls esters from acetates to butyrates, but esters formed from more complicated acids such as hexanoates and upwards (and branched acids) are largely hop-derived. Different hops produce different ester profiles. There are far more of these esters than are commonly mentioned: possibly several hundred exist in beer. Although any one may be below threshold, the cumulative effect is large. This just shows up the inherent problem in traditional threshold values (ie. testing each compound in isolation), but don't get me started on that story! Arnold Chickenshorts ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:29:01 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: accurate volume measurement aluminum restaurant 1 gal. pail, with markings for 1 qt., and 1 liter divisions. one of the best investments i've ever made, and always being borrowed. like Jeff, I don't know why these items aren't stocked by homebrew shops, but I suspect economics plays a big role. -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:07:11 +0930 From: "Thomas D. Hamann" <tdhamann at senet.com.au> Subject: Re: Grain to extract conversion Charles T. Major wrote in #3124 that 6.6 pounds is 2kg, it's actually 3 kg, thought I'd make a quick correction to make sure that Dagzy's headed in the right direction! Thomas in AustrANALia. - ASGARD HEIMBRAUEREI HAHNDORF ...l, Met und Apfelweine... Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 00:38:15 -0700 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: re: BT and Suporting those that Su Rick, >I also subscribe to Zymurgy and Brew Your Own. It is my opinion that not >subscribing to >>these magazines is counterproductive. I dare say that if more people >subscribed to BT >they would have been able to continue publishing. I believe that our hobby >is a relatively >small one and because of that, if we want publications, we need to subscribe >and support >them, even if we don't agree with everything the publisher does. Even if we I suppose I'm one of the guilty. I did post that I probably wouldn't subscribe to another magazine. Rick makes some excellent points. I joined the local homebrew club, even though I can't make the meetings due to my work schedule, because I wanted to support them and my craft. Joined the ARRL and local ham radio club and I can't make any of their meetings either for the same work related issues (working night shift sux). It is my opinion that the majority of the $$$ necessary to publish a magazine comes from the advertisers, not the subscribers. The subscription probably barley covers the shipping, let alone all the other costs and salaries of the employees. I was a subscriber to a motorcycle magazine, HotXL that folded not because there wasn't a good circulation base (it sold out every issue) but because the advertisers didn't see a value add. SO, not only is it important to subscribe, but it is important to let the advertisers in the magazine know their money is well spent. Buy their products and let them know where you saw the advertisement. This is a democracy and biggest vote you cast is not in a local or national election. The most important vote you cast is the one you cast with the dollar bill. While I won't rush out and subscribe to every brewing magazine, Rick's comments have made me reevaluate my position. I don't want my hobby and craft to fade into oblivion. I will support it. I will subscribe to another but the first love of BT will remain. John Schnupp, N3CNL Dirty Laundry Brewery Colchester, VT 95 XLH 1200 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 04:49:40 EDT From: Ballsacius at aol.com Subject: Life insurance and alchol drinking(Bob Fesmire) Interesting thing just happened to me. I recently applied for some life insurance. My agent called and said that I was approved...but....at more than twice the original quote. Needless to say, I was flabbergasted. He then went on to explain. It seems that my SGPT and my SGOT which are liver enzyme levels were "elevated". He said it could be one of two things 1. "fattty Liver" or, 2. Alchol use. I explained more than likely it was alchol use. I consider my intake of Homebrew moderate at 1-2 drinks per day average, sometimes more and sometimes less. He said the insurance co's really frown on the elevated levels (Drunk driving deaths, etc.). Has anyone out here heard of this before? I was under the impression that moderate alchol intake was "good" for the heart(heart disease, etc). So...drink for your heart but don't drink for your liver and insurance company. He suggested getting the insurance at this level for 3 to 6 months, cool off on the drinking(try not to drink anything), then reapply with another company. Has anybody dealt with this situation before? What are some ideas? HELP! private e-mail okay. Bob Fesmire Pottstown, PA Madman Brewery (soon to be defunct if this drought and my insurance co have there say!) Ballsacius at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 19:11:29 +0930 From: "Darryl Downie" <dagzy at senet.com.au> Subject: RE:- Pumpkin (other uses there of) Just a side issue on pumpkin, I was told of a way to make Pumpkin Rum very easily. You take a Butter-nut pumpkin and cut the top off nice and clean then you scoop out the seeds. Then you fill it with sugar, put the top back on and secure it with toothpicks then you hang it up in a nylon stocking. When the pumpkin shell starts to weep you know that you have some pretty potent stuff. I have never tried this myself but an old acquaintance swears by it. I suppose that wild yeast in the pumpkin or on the skin ferment the sugars etc to give you a rummish liquor. On the same note my Dad told me of how they used to make jungle juice in New Guinea during WW2. They used to take a coconut with milk in it and bore a hole in the shell, then they would stuff some sultanas or raisins in the hole and jam a stick in the hole to seal it tight. When the stick blew out they knew they could drink it. UUUGGGHHHHHH!!!!!! He never owned up to what it tasted like but at the time who would care. All the best and Keep Brewin. Darryl Adelaide Australia. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 05:47:39 -0500 From: "John or Barb Sullivan" <sullvan at anet-stl.com> Subject: Pumpkin Ales -- Let's Not Add Pumpkin But Tell Everyone We Did This posting is meant to rile up all pumpkins and pumpkin lovers. Page down if you cannot stomach pumpkin persecution, gourd gouging, zucchini zingers or squabbling over squash. I have never tasted pumpkin in a pumpkin ale. I've tasted pumpkin pie spices but not pumpkin. If you simply want to learn how to mash this type of adjunct, have at it. You will learn something. If you want to make a pumpkin ale with any chance of detecting pumpkin flavor, skip the spices. However the chances of anyone really liking this are about as high as finding someone who likes raw or cooked, unseasoned pumpkin. If I wanted to make a pumpkin ale, I'd skip the pumpkin altogether : ) Let's not do it but tell everyone we did. John Sullivan Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:01:02 -0500 (CDT) From: piatz at sgi.com Subject: re: Yeast in Orval/Hoegaarden Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au> asks: > I have a fresh bottle each of Orval and Hoegaarden Grand Cru. Is it > known whether the yeast in such bottles is the yeast or yeasts used > in fermentation, or are they special, bottle conditioning yeasts? > Failing that, has anyone had any experience using yeast cultured from > Orval / Hoegaarden bottles? As far as I recall from my tour of Orval several years ago, the primary yeast will be present but several additional strains are added during secondary including a brettanomyces strain. I think Orval pitches four or fives strains for secondary. Note, the bottles are aged for nine weeks before they leave the brewery. The date on the bottle should be five years from the bottling date. For more detail you can read my trip report in the MhBA newsletter at http://reality.sgi.com/piatz_craypark/march1998.pdf Steve Piatz Eagan, MN Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 13:13:30 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: BT etc./Disclaimer/Measurement Many people wrote to me privately making suggestions, offering their services in helping to BT and commenting on the difficulties (expenses) that even publishing a newletter would entail. Many of these also posted here. First off thanks to all these are in order not only from me personally but also from all of you who would potentially benefit from their offers and advice. That said, it appears (yesterday's post i.e. #3124) that Pat Babcock is well underway in trying to come up with a solution and my take at this point is that we should all offer our assistance to him in any way we can in this endeavor. His post names the skills required. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I just want to make it perfectly clear that the A.J. mentioned by Phil Yates. in the context '"Big Hairy Jeff" my motorcycling mateand his pal A.J.' ain't me. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Jeff Renner wants to know how we measure water volume. I have a 2L stainless steel pitcher with a scale stamped on the inside that I use for small volumes. For larger volumes I measure the distance from the rim of the vessel (stockpot/fermenter) to the surface of the liquid. My programmable calculator (ever at hand on brew day) computes the volume based on this distance. Multiply by 0.9615 if the water/wort is hot and that's it. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:11:47 -0500 From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at Aerial1.com> Subject: O'fest decoction recipe Dave Riedel asked about his proposed decoction schedule for an Octoberfest beer. I think you plan will be fine but I will tell you what I would do a little differently (and I get 90 to 93% mash efficiency with decoction mashing in a picnic cooler). I would dispense with the acid rest at 104F since you have no dark grains, instead go up to a protien rest temp of 127F with your strike water (1.25 qt/lb)and hold it for 15 minutes. Then take 40% of the volume of your mash for a decoction, and take the thickest part of the mash, leaving as much liquid behind as possible. YOU WILL NEED TO HEAT THIS DECOCTION SLOWLY AND STIR CONSTANTLY SO AS NOT TO SCORCH IT! (I know, I've done it and it is a certified bitch to clean the pot later.) I have found no need to stop at saccrification temps during this process because you are bringing the heat up slowly enough that it converts somewhat anyway and the enzymes were preserved in the thin main mash left behind. Boil this decoction for 15 to 20 minutes and slowly add it back to the main mash. Best results are obtained if you have someone else present to stir the main mash while you add back the decoction and take temperature readings of the main mash to ensure you don't overshoot the next temperature step. You are now after your 149 to 150F saccrification temperature, don't overshoot and if you undershoot, it's ok to infuse with boiling water (in fact it's a good thing to use some infusions during the saccrification rest so the mash is a little thinner for the next decoction and to help set up the filter bed later.) Hold 149 until saccrification is complete as far as an iodine test will tell you, then take a second decoction of 50% of the volume of the mash, taking the thinnest part of the mash. This decoction you can boil like a banshee as it is not likely to scorch. Boil for 15 minutes and return to main mash to hit 167 degrees for mashout. Sparge with 170F water and run off slowly as you can. I would be interested to hear what efficiency you got with a 6 gallon batch because when I did 5 gallon batches in my picnic cooler I consistently got 85% efficiency, but when I went to 10 or 11 gallon batches I was at 90 to 93% efficient (dependent on whether or not I had help stirring the mash when adding back the decoctions). My theory is that I was able to better control the temperature changes to the mash with the additional mass on the larger mashes. Good luck and enjoy the brew session, Rich Sieben Island Lake, IL Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:17:21 -0400 From: Julio Canseco <jcanseco at arches.uga.edu> Subject: CO2 "not for human consumption"? Greetings, I had run out of CO2 cartridges for my mini-kegs and since the HB shop I usually go to is a bit out of my way I decided to go to Wal-Mart and buy the cartridges by the BB guns isle. They did have the cartridges in 12 grams. They had two brands and one of them (made in Hungary) said on the box "NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION" yes, they shouted it too. What gives? I thought CO2 was CO2. I got the box that didn't have any warnings (made in USA) but before I put it in I would like to hear from the brewborg. Is Hungary downwind from Chernobyl? Will I glow in the dark? TIA. julio in athens, georgia "you don't have to call me darling ............. darling"... David A. Coe Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 09:21:50 -0400 From: "T. Van Nunnery" <tnunnery at sces.org> Subject: Imperial Stout with raisins? Ok, I might be imagining things but I think I recently saw a recipe for an Imperial Stout that used chopped golden raisins. I have searched through the normal channels and anywhere I may have read about it recently but can't seem to locate it again. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Thanks! T. Van Nunnery Columbia, SC Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 06:30:42 -0700 From: Jeffrey Donovan <jeffrey at promash.com> Subject: Colonial Brewing Hello group, well yesterday I must had some type of lapse and gave a bogus URL. For those of you interested in the history of Colonial Brewing, the correct URL is: http://www.colonialbrewing.com . Comments/Suggestions welcome. If you have any material you think would be of value to this site please by all means contact me regarding submission. You can reach me at jeffrey at promash.com. Cheers! Jeffrey Donovan The Sausalito Brewing Co. ProMash and PilotBrew Software jeffrey at promash.com http://www.promash.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:40:41 -0500 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: re: BT/AMBREW & Liquid Volumes Jeffrey Donovan <jeffrey at promash.com> posts: >However, another one of my favorite brewing magazines, American >Brewer, may be taking up some of the slack. I have been in >discussions with publisher Bill Owens recently, and he has decided to >really beef up American Brewer with more technical articles and >features for micro/home brewers. While American Brewer already has >some of the finest writing talent in the brewing industry, Bill is >also contacting some of the regular authors of BT in the hopes they >can now write for American Brewer as well. I am also sad to hear of BT's demise. It is doubly sad since I had just resubscribed and have received 1 or none issues since mailing in my subscription. Triply sad since this is exactly what happened with another rag I used to get. That was Buffalo Bill Owens' "Beer the Magazine" which was targetted towards beer consumers as opposed to home brewers. Although I did get a decent extract based IPA recipe submitted by Charlie P from its pages, but I digress. I will check out American Brewer, but when "Beer the Mag" went belly up, I had just subscribed and never saw a penny back from it. I try to send a "subscription" donation to HBD around the holidays, but if I get anything back from BT, I plan to make an additional donation to HBD. It's worth it even if it never fills any of the void left by the loss of BT. My only regret is that I didn't discover BT sooner than I did. Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> posts: >We read all about all kinds of equipment from jet burners to >refractometers, but never a very basic one - liquid volume measures. >Hop and grain scales, yes, but what do most folks do about measuring >water? Surely you don't use your kitchen 1 cup pyrex measures, do >you? I have the ubiquitous 40 Qt Polarware SS pot for a kettle. I accidentally discovered it is exactly 40 cm tall. I happen to have a meter stick and it works +/- .25 inches full scale. All my plastic pail fermenters are marked on the outside with indelible magic marker in gallon increments. My bottling bucket is calibrated in qts on the inside from the factory. Sadly, I can't remember where I got it and don't know how I will replace it when it needs to be retired. So nothing touches its inner surface except bleach, beer & primings, hot water, and a soft sponge. I mash in a Gott cooler which is calibrated in Qts and Liters on the inside from the factory. I use another calibrated Gott cooler for a hot liquor tank which supplies sparge water. I add mash water with 2 Qt plastic juice pitcher and it's good enough for me to fairly quickly hit my temps +/- 2 DegF, usually spot on. Cheers! Lou Heavner - Austin, TX Lagniappe Brewing - Something extra in every sip.... Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:14:22 -0400 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Water Measurements In HBD #3125, Jeff Renner wrote: ________________________________________________________________ >My water measurements for 5 gal. are terribly inaccurate This prompts me to write about something that's been on my mind for some time. We read all about all kinds of equipment from jet burners to refractometers, but never a very basic one - liquid volume measures. Hop and grain scales, yes, but what do most folks do about measuring water? Surely you don't use your kitchen 1 cup pyrex measures, do you? ______________________________________________________________ I use only plastic buckets and carboys for everything including the boil, no metal pots. I used a magic marker to draw rings around all my plastic buckets in one gallon increments. I measured the first one with a 4 quart measuring cup then transferred the measurements to the rest of the buckets. Usually I can see the level of the liquid through the plastic. Sometimes I need to shine a light into the bucket to help distinguish the liquid level. With these marks I don't need any external site tubes to know the level. For carboys, the office supply stores sell a marker that writes on glass (and can be rubbed off). Make sure the carboy is dry or the marker won't mark. To help as a guide in drawing the lines (rings), I use an old belt wrapped around the vessel. Just move it up to the next gallon mark and make sure it is even all around. Then draw the next line. It is hard to believe how much easier the brewing process is with these marks. I seldom have to make any measurement. HLT, mash, boil, and fermenter levels are always visible. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY 0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/02/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96