HOMEBREW Digest #3261 Tue 29 February 2000

[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

  Bill Pfeiffer ("Ken Schramm")
  traditional breweries / consistency in brewing ("George de Piro")
  Weizen stuff ("George de Piro")
  Fruit Beer Sludge? ("Jeremy J. Arntz")
  Yeast Growth/Continuous agitation/&more ("Stephen Alexander")
  Re: Use of peat smoked malt (KMacneal)
  William's Keg Carbonator Stone ("SCHNEIDER,BRETT")
  Enameled Kettle Handles ("Dick & Cecilia Kuzara")
  Bruheat Burning,Musty taste, SS vs Al (Dave Burley)
  Weizen secondary needed? ("Alan Meeker")
  Re: hp and pulley for motorized mill query ("Peter J. Calinski")
  2nd Annual Palmetto State Brewers Open -Judges Call ("H. Dowda")
  I like 'em young and yeasty... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  Where to get Beer in Charlotte, NC ("H. Dowda")
  Re: Trials & errors of a beginner (Jeff Renner)
  lactic acid ("Paul Niebergall")
  Glaring Error (AJ)
  Re-pitching ("John Todd Larson")
  Explosive ferment (geeks)
  re: 6th Annual Boston Homebrew Competition Results! (Jeff McNally)
  RE: hp and pulley for motorized mill query (LaBorde, Ronald)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * AOL members: Visit the AOL Homebrewing boards before they're gone! * Go to aol://5863:126/mBLA:185893 * Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 * See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:19:27 -0500 From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk at resa.net> Subject: Bill Pfeiffer This weekend was at the same time a very trying and very satisfying weekend for the Ann Arbor Brewers Guild. In preparing for the AHA Y2K conference in June, Bill Pfeiffer offered to craft the Commemorative Mead. Between his commitment and the mead making session, Bill was diagnosed with cancer, which had spread throughout his body before being diagnosed. He has been enduring chemo-therapy and holding out hope to make the conference, to see his son graduate, and to pursue all of his life's many passions. We bottled the mead this past Saturday. Bill is at home now. He has had enough of the hospitals and chemo-therapy, and is making the most of his remaining days with the help of Hospice. He is very short on time (he outlived his doctors short prognosis by making it to Saturday), and getting the mead bottled was a major concern. We had frogged around trying to find bottles until Jason Henning reached Rob Moline (Jethro Gump), who arranged a donation of the needed bottles from Abita Brewing Co. Through Jason's and Rob's work and determination, the bottles arrived in the nick of time. Steve Klump (AABG, formerly of Stroh's and now a long distance member of the group) came through with caps, Phil Wilcox prepared a dazzling and appropriately commemorative label, and the club rallied a large group to complete the bottling. We were truly running on borrowed time, and I am very proud of and grateful to those who kicked in to make this happen. Rob, Paul Gatza, and the AHA Board of Advisors made the day even more satisfying and emotional by awarding Bill its first ever Lifetime Achievement Award, which I presented to Bill on Saturday. Bill has contributed immensely to the AHA, to the BJCP (he is a founding member who helped chart the course for beer judging and competition), and to the world of brewing and mead making. He is like an early rock-and-roller: He has been an influence on people who don't even know who he is or what he has accomplished. You can pass along regards at <meadmaker at livingonline.com>. Please keep him in your prayers. Thanks, Ken Schramm Troy, MI [Editor's note: I was one of the number who turned up at Bill Pfeiffer's for the bottling of the commemorative mead. And to say goodbye to a dear friend and a great brewer. In the short time I've known Bill, we have formed a lifetime of friendship. This is not because I'm anything special. No. It is entirely Bill's doing. Bill quietly inspires those around him to attain greatness in our brewing. I remember when I first met Bill at the first AABG meeting I was ever invited to. It was at AABG member Spencer Thomas' house the summer of 1995. Scott Henry (faithful sidekick) and I took Spencer's invite and travelled to Ann Arbor to meet with these people, many of whom we only knew from their postings to the HBD. I recall standing there, empty glass in hand and this salt-and-pepper haired gentleman filled it with a beer he made to "empty his pantry" of all the odds and ends he had laying around. What I tasted was a perfectly balanced, deliciously malty Belgian Tripel. "Wow! Who is that guy?!" I asked. "Bill Pfeiffer" was the response. I made good beer, but nothing so masterfully concocted from "odd and ends" as that. As Ken points out, Bill was perfecting aspects of the brewing craft we all now take for granted while we were all still mucking about with table sugar and bread yeast or swilling Budweiser. Over time, mead caught Bill's interest, and there has never been another meader like him. No-one makes mead the way Bill does, no one attains his level of perfection in the finished product. Bill remains my idol in brewing. If there's a miracle to be had, I would pray that Bill is somehow spared. As a fellow AABG member said recently: "Where there's life, there's hope. Where there's eternal life, there's eternal hope." After the rather emotional presentation of Bill's most deserved award, Bill tearfully told us that he was going to miss all of us. No, Bill. It is you who will be deeply missed. In my belief system, where you're going, you can still participate in our lives. It is we who will be bereft of you and reminded of our own mortality with your passing. Go with God, my friend - if that is His will. Please remember Bill in your prayers and thoughts. Pat Babcock Canton, MI 2/28/00 1:42 pm] Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:08:32 -0500 From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com> Subject: traditional breweries / consistency in brewing Hi all, I usually ignore Jeff Irvine's (aka, Dr. Pivo) virulent posts (they all qualify as such), but he spat out a rather contradictory idea that I feel like commenting on. I'm in that sort of mood. In recent posts he belittles beers that are made using such radical, modern techniques as high pitching rates. He specifically states: "If you visit a "traditional brewery" (there's (sic) not that many left) you will be surprised at two things: 1) How variant there (sic) methods are form (sic) that that is reccomended (sic) here. 2) How bloody brilliant there (sic) beer is." He then recommends a country which Americans might like to visit to get a glimpse of traditional brewing: "A closer to hand example for the Yanks might be "Belize". They haven't been able to afford to change anything, and you might see the value in that." Back to me: What a ridiculous way to try to make a point: make a vague, general statement about how great so-called traditional breweries are, and then cite a country that relatively few have ever visited as a good place to see traditional breweries. I was in Belize in 1991. At the time there was one (yes, one) operating brewery. They made two styles of beer: a bland, insipid light lager and a relatively pleasant, though unexciting Caribbean Stout. The name of the brewery was Belikin. I still have the t-shirt. While Belize is a beautiful country and well worth visiting, it is a far cry from a Mecca of traditional brewing (or any brewing for that matter). Belikin stout is slightly more interesting than the stuff you get elsewhere in Central America, but it is hardly worth the trip. Go for the Mayan ruins and the world's second largest coral reef (there is a big difference between numbers one and two), not the beer. There was one other brewery in Belize, I think it was named "Crown" (I seem to recall a label with a red crown on it). The reason I am having such a hard time remembering the name is because they were not actually brewing while I was there. They couldn't seem to make a consistently palatable product, and therefore could not stay in business. One bartender mentioned that the beer tended to make people sick, in the tradition of Egypt's Stella lager, I suppose. On to a slightly different topic: what is a "traditional brewery?" Jeff says that there are hardly any left, but I think it really depends on what you consider traditional. Is it size? Is it equipment? I believe it is attitude more than anything else. If a brewer is determined to produce high-quality, accurate interpretations of traditional styles (perhaps while exploring some new possibilities), I would say they have a great, traditional attitude. When customers drink their beers, they will be happy to drink a good-tasting product and be educated as to what a good version of that style tastes like. If a brewer is determined to use antiquated equipment and out-dated techniques to produce unique beers for the local population, that again is a great traditional attitude. What of brewers that cling dogmatically to old techniques and equipment, producing unstable beer and then marketing the damaged product far from home? Is this still "traditional?" What service does that do for the brewing industry or the consumer? Samuel Smiths is a great example of such brewery. They use ancient equipment and out-dated techniques to produce beer that cannot travel, then export it all over the world. People drink these beers long after they have passed their prime and believe that "good" beer tastes rather unpleasant (or convince themselves that paper is a good flavor). How does that help maintain traditional brewing? This leads to another topic that has been touched upon lately: consistency in brewing. It seems that some people view consistency with a degree of disdain, reserving the word for use when describing megaswill. In my experience, consistency is as important (and harder to achieve) for the home and small commercial brewer as for the big ones. Why? Because if I'm going to spend the better part of my day destroying the kitchen to make a few cases of beer, it had damn well better be good, and be what I expect! Yes, I have had serendipity smile upon my house and bless me with an accident of the highest caliber, but more often than not mistakes don't work out so well. In a small commercial brewery like a brewpub, it is also critically important to have some consistency. My customers expect their favorite beer to taste pretty much the same regardless of which batch they are drinking. The best I can do, like a homebrewer, is to take good notes and try to duplicate everything as closely as possible. It's not easy. Why is this so hard to do at the level we all brew at? There are several reasons: 1. We don't typically have access to laboratories and large tasting panels. 2. We don't have much control over our raw materials. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that 20% or more of the hops we use are mislabeled. 3. We don't have tremendous control over our procedures. The equipment at a small brewery is about as primitive as it gets. It may look modern, with the gleaming steel and LED displays, but the beer is almost always made entirely by hand. The flashing lights at my place are about as useful as those on the bridge of the original starship Enterprise. 4. This may be the most important reason the bigger brewers can be consistent: blending. Even with all of the controls the megabrewers have in place, there will be variability from batch to batch. By blending different batches together they obtain consistent results. Blending is only possible when you are brewing a relatively narrow product line (like Coors or Cantillon; who would guess you could see those two breweries in the same sentence!). At the brewpub, I was able to blend out one batch of over-hopped blonde ale, but I rarely have that much tank space free. At home that was not a possibility because I never brewed the same style frequently enough. In conclusion, just because a beer is made at a "traditional" brewery doesn't mean it's worth the water it's made from. Some are great, some are not, and most won't be any good outside of their home town. Consistency is not a bad word when it is used in brewing, and is desirable at any level of brewing. Have fun! George de Piro C.H. Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station (518)447-9000 http://evansale.com (under perpetual construction) Malted Barley Appreciation Society Homebrew Club http://hbd.org/mbas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:27:14 -0500 From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com> Subject: Weizen stuff Hi all, Jim Cave disagrees with my view of the lack of importance of secondary fermentors for Weizenbier. He writes that it is useful for reducing the yeast count in the beer. This is true, but this can be done without moving the beer to a secondary fermentor. Just move the carboy to a cold place. If you are planning on keeping the beer in the carboy for more than a couple of weeks, then I would move it off the yeast as Jim suggests. He also writes: "Finally, if you are bottle conditioning with a lager yeast, it's best to minimize the amount of ale yeast in the beer, just in case you have a "funky happening going on" between the two yeast strains." Back to me: Please explain what this "funky happening" can be. Unless you are filtering the beer, there will be a substantial amount of the original Weizen strain in the beer. More importantly, why would you bother to condition the Weizenbier with lager yeast? The only value I can think of is that lager yeasts are more resistant to autolysis than Weizen yeast, but why should that concern a homebrewer? Homebrewers have complete control over their beer from inception to serving. Keeping the beer cold and drinking it fresh will help much more than adding a lager yeast. The whole thing about calling Weizen a "mixed style" because some commercial examples are conditioned with lager yeast is a bit ridiculous, in my mind. In fact, the entire "mixed styles" heading in the AHA style guidelines is pretty wacky, and does more to confuse people than clarify beer styles. Have fun! George de Piro C.H. Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station (518)447-9000 http://evansale.com (under construction) Malted Barley Appreciation Society Homebrew Club http://hbd.org/mbas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:03:17 -0500 From: "Jeremy J. Arntz" <arntz at surfree.com> Subject: Fruit Beer Sludge? After about 5 days of fermentation activity slowed in the airlock of my batch of apple ale. So, I opened the lid to check the S.G. of my brew when I was stunned to see this brownish-green sludge had grown/collected on top of the apples. At first I was sure my brew had molded over. but as looked more carefully the apples hadn't rotted. they had barely browned. It appears that after the initial foam subsided that it left a sludge on top of the apples.. Anyone had this experience or have any idea if this truly is the case..? Thanks, Jeremy arntz at surfree.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:36:36 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Yeast Growth/Continuous agitation/&more I'll try to keep it brief but ... - -- Roger A writes ... >tehre is a problem I have with his analysis of yeast growth, to wit: Oh come now Roger, clearly your problem is not the 'analysis', but that you hold a grudge against me . > "Note that if we pitch REALLY big as in lager brewing, then 75% of the > final yeast cake is new growth, if you pitch really small, as from a > smack-pack, then maybe 99% of the final yeast is new growth. The > difference in flavor is not likely due to the difference of 75% vs 99% > new yeast growth. Adding an extra 32% (100*(99/75 -1)) of off-product > doesn't give the sort of night-and-day differences that underpitching > causes." > > Well, if we have 75% new growth, then the 25% reproducted only three > times its orig9inal biomass, however if we have 99% new growth, the > result is about 100X increase in biomass, to me that is significant > yeast growth and would probably have a perceptible impact on beer > character. Growth is defined as change in yeast mass and not the factor by which cell count or mass increases as you suggest. I would direct you to any standard treatment on the topic. Your argument that the underpitched yeast must multiply 99 times versus 3 is correct but irrelevant. I think you must admit that there is no conceivable physical mechanism by which creation of flavor chemicals is related to the amount of multiplication. Do you really believe that single cell that multiplies ninety-nine-fold somehow creates much more of a flavor impact than a trillion cells that 'only' double in count ? The point you seem to miss is that *if* the flavor problems caused by underpitching were due to an increase in yeast mass growth, as some HB books suggest, then the differences would be relatively small. Such a small difference is not the primary factor in the very substantial flavor differences that appear in underpitched worts. What is much more important are the growth conditions. For examples sterols and UFAs have three potential sources - wort (from malt & hops), dissolved O2 which permits synthesis and the pitched yeast cell lipid reserves. The wort can provide only a small portion of needs, and also the dissolved O2 is only marginally capable of supplying the all sterols and UFAs which appear in the final yeast cake. So actual pitched yeast sterol and UFA reserves are an extremely important factor in the total available sterols and UFAs, and so underpitching limits these lipids in the final yeast population, and can have dramatic effects on growth, fermentation rate, attenuation, and the production of fermentation flavor by-products. Underpitching doesn't damage beer flavor primarily because the amount of yeast growth is greater, but because the growth conditions differ, particularly toward the end of fermentation. When the yeast run into nutritional roadblocks it causes metabolic changes that can result in relatively large amounts of flavor active by-products. === Dave Burley asks, >Anyone care to explain how agitation causes the >formation of fusel alcohols? Mechanical or shear stress cause the release of some haze forming materials, mannan and certain glucans and extracellular enzymes (like invertase) from yeast. Why fusels should be formed at a higher rate is unclear to me, but it's pretty clear the rough ride yeast get on a stir plate is not very good for beer. It is good for yeast growth however. === Nat Lansing writes ... >Steve A. replied, >>AB's microbiologic controls are legend. They are certainly not >>tolerating the levels of contamination you quoted for Danstar.<< >Good to know that A-B ( biggest purveyor of crap-beer in the world) at >least has clean yeast. Non-sequiteur, Nat. You said ... >Do you think large commercial breweies are working >with 100% pure pitching yeast? and I responded that their controls are much better than those you site, not that their beer is superior. >How would one explain the toxic fermentation >byproducts that give a large number of drinkers a >headache before they finish a single can? There isn't any very good evidence about what causes hangover headaches besides dehydration and poor liver function. Fusels have long been suggested , but there isn't much evidence to support it.. "Toxic fermentation byproducts" is an almost meaningless term since it includes ethanol and esters. I am not aware that very many people complain about hangovers from AB products, but if they do then it's a good bet that it's not from fusels or infection by-products. since AB products are notably low in these. >>Acid washing is performed after several brewing cycles >>by micros and small breweries and will cause abnormal >>growth patterns afterwards. Acid wash yeast must be regrown >>to a normal state, or at least the resulting beer must be mixed with >>normal beer for QA reasons. >The three breweries I've been in used a common yeast and _do_ wash >each batch. Washed - or acid washed ? Two different things. >Perhaps this yeast has adapted to work in this fashion. Acid washing causes problems for the cell walls of the yeast and abnormal budding - among other things. It's pretty unlikely that they could adapt to this. >In my own >experience with that yeast I know it loses approximately 10% >attenuation per each batch _not_ washed >(I assume from not being deflocculated). Acid washing does de-floc yeast, but so does the presence of fermentable sugars. I've NEVER seen any source that even hints that acid washing improves attenuation - tho' it reportedly often reduces viability. The idea that 10% of attenuation is lost per repitching without an acid wash is an effect so huge that if it were true it would appear in big red letters on the front of every brewing book printed. The stated purpose for acid washing yeast is to kill non-yeast beer infectious organisms that are more sensitive to the acid wash - not to defloc or improve attenuation. If your breweries are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then infection is the source of the problem. I can't speak to the flavor impact of acid washing from personal experience - it is too easy to reculture on the HB scale. -S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:17:01 EST From: KMacneal at aol.com Subject: Re: Use of peat smoked malt I've brewed 2 beers using peat smoked malt. The first was a Scotch Ale and the other a porter. In both cases I used 1/2 lb. of peat smoked malt and was pleased with the results. The smokiness was present without being overpowering -- nowhere near a rauchbier, but definately not subtle. Keith MacNeal Worcester, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:25:18 -0500 From: "SCHNEIDER,BRETT" <SCHNEIDERB at morganco.com> Subject: William's Keg Carbonator Stone Well, I just had my first chance to use this new toy, a belated xmas gift since they were out of them when the order was first placed (in time for the big day). My inital findings are: you NEED to be sure it is pushed a fair distance into the inlet dip tube or the poppet gets stuck in the open position and you get a beer guyser when the gas is removed. Somehow,either the little rubber gasket piece or a sharp edge on the end of the ss tube grabbed a hold of the mushroomed-over end of the poppet shaft and wouldn't let go, or something ele I missed went away by pusing the whole assembly farther down the inlet dip. First I tried to change the poppet innard, but that didn't work. So, I pushed it in about another 1/4" and now it's better. Only 24 hours on the gas but so far it seems pretty neat. Not too much foaming up eother whwn I had to relieve pressure to work on the inlet - only the third try did something come out the lid valve, but I changed lids at the same time and tonight I'll sample the IPA to see final results. Just a data point for the collective for a (so far) happy customer.... bas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:46:15 -0700 From: "Dick & Cecilia Kuzara" <rkuzara at wyoming.com> Subject: Enameled Kettle Handles I boil in an 33 quart enamel canning kettle (probably the standard kettle of this type obtainable at hardware stores, etc.). I lift this kettle by the handles (carry it from stove to counter) when containing about 6 gallons of boiling hot wort. Has anyone experienced trouble with the handles coming off? This would be severe (I have taken to wearing rubber boots when carrying the kettle but that would not protect the house/floor from the hot sticky wort). Dick Kuzara - rkuzara at wyoming.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:36:10 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Bruheat Burning,Musty taste, SS vs Al Brewsters: Sean O'Sullivan asks how an electric brew kettle he has used for a decade can suddenly started burning his brew when he tried a protein rest and wonders if it is the protein rest which is causing the problem. It is not the protein degradation during the protein rest which mysteriously caused your brew kettle to burn your batches, that is pretty certain. It possibly is due to the fact that your heater has more power going through it than in the past for one of several possible reasons 1) Co-incidental with your protein rest experiment your heater controller went awry, unlikely as that might seem. Ask the manufacturer for some guidelines to test this out. 2) your starting brew is colder and more heat is being applied. 3) The control has a burned" spot on it from being on the same spot for a decade causing malfunction. Alternatively 4) For some reason, pehaps mash thickness, the heat generated by the heater can't depart from near the heater and it burns the sugar Try using a thinner mash. Sean, I spend two fun years as a Post-doc at Swansea and still have good friends there. Are you with the University ? Cymru am Byth! Jachyd Da! - ------------------------------------- Wayne Love asks about that "musty" taste he gets when he reuses a yeast cake from a previous brew and about an Aluminum vs SS kettle. Wayne, it is possible that taste you are experiencing is an infection or possibly the beginning of yeast autolysis if you are keeping the yeast around at room temperature in beer, although I would not descibe either as musty. If you have an infection, as you are early in your brewing career, now is the time to upgrade these necessary skills in sanitization. Use boiled water for rinsing, bleach or other sanitizing agent to keep everything clean, clean, clean. If you still have such a problem, I suggest that before you recycle a yeast cake that you give it a wash with 1% tartaric acid, three rinses with boiled cooled water and then use this in a starter. Pitch the yeast slurry after overnight cooling to allow you to pour off the starter beer. Aluminum works just fine as many past discussions have indicated, but I suggest you look into using two 5 gallon cheap SS kettles. These boil faster on two burners and are much easier to handle and store. The thin metal can cause some potential problems with high heat, so consider some sort of heat deflector on the burner between the kettle and the burner if this is a problem. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:37:46 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Weizen secondary needed? Guess I'll throw in my two cents worth on this one. I have to agree with George in that I don't see any need for a secondary with Bavarian Weizens. I've used mostly Wyeast's 3068 and always gotten excellent results with this yeast. I bottled my last 3068 Weizen after just ONE week in primary and had no problems with yeast autolysis. No extra yeast or lager yeast was used to bottle condition. Also, the beer was stored at room temp. On the other hand, it tasted so good maybe it didn't last long enough to develop any off-flavors... ;) -Alan Meeker Lazy Eight Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:02:59 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Re: hp and pulley for motorized mill query I just motorized my homemade mill this weekend. Here are the details: Motor (salvaged from I don't remember what): Dayton 5K-045 115V, 1500 RPM, 3.4 Amps, 1/10 hp, 60 cycle. Motor pulley: 1.5 inch diameter Roller pulley: 10 inch diameter Belt: Service King 4L350 1/2 x 35 FHP Roller diameter: 1.68" It worked quite well. The motor doesn't have a lot of starting torque so sometimes, with the hopper full, I have to "bump" the big pulley to get it started. It doesn't slips however. The belt tension is just the weight of the motor. You might need the roller diameter to get an idea of the tangential velocity of the grain at the crush point. Good Luck. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:31:39 -0800 (PST) From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com> Subject: 2nd Annual Palmetto State Brewers Open -Judges Call BJCP judges are invited (ugh...begged) to sign up to participate in the 2nd Annual PBS Open April 8, Columbia, SC. Contact: Jim Griggers brew at conterra.com or reply to this post http://www.sagecat.com/psbcomp2.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:47:22 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at mail.jhmi.edu> Subject: I like 'em young and yeasty... Howdy, I have to agree with George DePiro on this one. I don't secondary my weizens any longer because I find that I prefer the flavor of younger weizens. So I drink them as soon as I can and a secondary is a waste of my time. I also don't care for "klar" or "kristal" weizens, because I think the suspended material actually adds flavor and mouthfeel that I want in my weizens. Stability has not been an issue as they don't last long. Of course, this is just how I prefer my weizens. Be all means, do the experiment for yourself. Mike Maceyka Baltimore and Takoma Park, MD Why yes, this is related to my thesis... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:26:12 -0800 (PST) From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com> Subject: Where to get Beer in Charlotte, NC Where do you get beer in Charlotte, NC. Near Adam's Mark? What happened to Johnson Brewing in Charlotte. Web site dead. Thanks __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:24:13 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Trials & errors of a beginner Wayne Love <lovews at auracom.com> has some questions: > would appreciate if some kind soul could take the time to >prepare a list of the most often used abbrev. and acronyms and what they stood >for. Someone has done this and has it on his web page, I think. Or you could check the archives at http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/cgi-bin/dothread. There was talk at one time of puting a FAQ at the HBD web site ( http://hbd.org ), but there doesn't seem to be one yet. <snip >1) The problem is that twice now I've had a batch that has an almost musty >unpleasant after taste. <snip> It's very difficult to identify this without tasting it. You don't say where you live, so I can't recommend a club, but if there is a club near you, join it! It's a great way to get objective (sometimes) or at least different evaluation of your beer and some ideas for remedying the problem. >2) This brings up another question. Is there a standard set of terminology >used to describe off taste? Lots. There is a flavor wheel that was developed by Morton Meilgard of Stroh's several decades and refined since. I think it is published by the American Association of Brewing Chemists. It may be on their web page. There have also been some articles in the late Brewing Techniques magazine http://brewingtechniques.com/ on flavor evaluation. There might also be something at >3) How long and at what temperature can I keep my ale in the secondary >fermentor before I could run into problems? At cellar temperatures of 55F or lower, many, many weeks. At your 64F, several weeks. > >4) How long and at what temp and under what pressure can I keep ale in my >corny kegs? I have a stout and ESB from this summer in my cellar (50F, they were in a temperature controlled freezer at 54F until the cellar closet got cold enough). They are both still in fine shape. I keep them at aboput 4 psi for low carbonation, and use a pocket beer engine in the glass to get a creamy head and even more mellow carbonation. A pocket beer engine is a narrow outlet 5 or 10 cc syringe. I use an oral irrigator. You suck up a few cc's of beer, then squirt it back into the glass. Be sure if it's very carbonated to leave lots of head space for foaming. With my low carbonation, I get about 3/4 inch of tight foam. Someone pointed out that rather than calling it a pocket beer engine, I should call it a pocket sparkler. I guess that's more accurate, but I like the other name. > >5) I need to purchase a new stock pot. Has anybody had any problems using >aluminum instead of stainless steel? For about half the cost I can buy a much >thicker and sturdier aluminum one. I've been brewing in aluminum for seven or eight years with no problem. For three or four years I have used a three vessel RIMS using 10 gallon, 5mm thick aluminum stock pots. This is thrashed out occasionally here, but generally with less vigor than before. I think it's pretty well accepted that there are no prolbems with aluminum now. The reason it isn't used commercially is that you can't use caustic on it for cleaning in place and it is soft. I've had no problem. A BT article several years ago showed no aluminum pickup in wort boiled in aluminum. I get no flavor pickup, including in light, delicate American lagers. What's more, aluminum has *much* greater heat conductivity than stainless steel. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:24:55 -0600 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: lactic acid lee preimesberger writes: >I ended up using what seemed to be an obscene amount of it considering >it's strength ( ~ 1 teaspoon of 88% solution for a mash of ~ 11 lbs pale >malt). From the bit I snagged from the bottling bucket, it sort of seemed >to have a weird taste, I think >1) How much of this stuff can you dump into the mash without it being >detectable or killing all your friends or family members? >2) How much do people who know what they're doing normally use of this >stuff? :-) My tap water weighs in at 9 to 10 on the pH scale. Because of this, I regularly add lactic acid to both the mash infusion water and the sparge water to lower the pH. I measure the lactic acid with a syringe that is marked in milliliters (you can get a fairly accurate one at a pharmacy for measuring cough medicine and the like for kids) and I use a pH meter to keep track of the adjustments. I guess you could use a tiny graduated cylinder (0 to 10 mL) for the measurements, but the lactic acid is quite viscous and sticks to the sides. A syringe works best. I bulk treat ten gallons at a time since this gives me enough water to mash and sparge a typical 5-gallon batch of all grain beer. Anyway, I have kept a fairly good record over the years of the initial pH, the final pH, and amount of lactic acid that I added to the tap water. Here is what works for me: 3 to 5 milliliters of 88 percent lactic acid added to 10 gallons of tap water at a pH of 9 to 10 lowers the pH down to the 6 to 7 range. I do not try to hit some magic "optimum" pH of 5.whatever. All I know is my tap water is unacceptable as is and I try to lower it down to what I consider something that is more acceptable. Other than that, I simply do not worry about it. (If the water came out of the tap anywhere between a pH of 6 and 8, I probably wouldn't do anything at all.) FWIW - The medicine syringe indicates that 5 mL is approximately equal to 1 teaspoon. I would not however, try to measure the lactic acid with a set of kitchen measuring spoons. Too much room for error. As for taste, I always taste the treated water and compare it to the original tap water just to make sure I didn't do anything wrong. I definitely can taste a slight difference. The treated water is a little more "sour" tasting. Not real sour like vinegar, just a little sour, barely sour at all. Most of the sourness that I perceive is probably all in my mind. I had my wife taste samples of treated and un-treated water and she could tell that there was a difference, but could not explain what it was. Even when I suggested "sour", she did not agree. Anyway, the treatment makes great beer. Hope this helps. Paul Niebergall Burns & McDonnell pnieb at burnsmcd.com "Illegitimis non carborundum" Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:36:07 -0500 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Glaring Error I must apologize for a glaring error in yesterday's post. Everywhere I used gm/L it should be g/dL i.e. grams per deciliter. For grams per liter multiply by 10. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:58:37 -0800 From: "John Todd Larson" <larson at amazon.com> Subject: Re-pitching I have never tried re-pitching yeast, but thought I may give it a try. I am looking for the absolutely easiest approach and own no lab or special equipment. I kegged my beer from a secondary this past Saturday. I left about 1/2" of beer covering the thin layer of yeast, put on an air lock and put the whole carboy in the fridge. What should I do to use this yeast next weekend? Any and all thoughts are much appreciated. Todd J. Todd Larson Treasury Manager Amazon.com larson at amazon.com (206) 266-4367 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:57:33 +0000 From: geeks at worldnet.att.net Subject: Explosive ferment Well, it finally happened to me. I've read and snickered about it for the last few years, and it finally happened to me. Sigh. I brewed a barley wine/imperial IPA, or whatever, and had the thing pitched with a gallon of well-aerated yeast, and did a few shots of O2 into the wort. After 3 hours a nice, steady 'blort-blort' was heard from the guest bathroom /fermenting room, which I temperature control with a heater. I went to bed with visions ( err, tastes ) of good homemade beer in my mind. Until my wife woke me up and said, in a half-panicky voice "dear, your beer blew up, and its STILL leaking." groan. So, there is a big 'target' of splooge on the bathroom ceiling, and lots of collateral splooge all over the walls, mirror, sink, vacuum cleaner, and heater. And there's about 1/2 gallon of partially-fermented beer/wort on the floor. groan. Anyway, does anyone have any suggestions on how to clean up the hoppy splooge on the ceiling and the walls? It's a cheap, semi-gloss, looks-like-non-latex white paint. My guess is to let it dry, gently scrape off what I can, and, perhaps, use a tsp solution to gently wipe off what's left. Any of you 'experienced' types care to offer suggestions? Snickers and laughs of derision will be quietly absorbed, advice greatly appreciated. Thanks, Sticky in Golden Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:08:35 -0500 (EST) From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff McNally) Subject: re: 6th Annual Boston Homebrew Competition Results! Hi All, For all that remember, I posted an IPA recipe in HBD #3183 (01-dec-1999) in response to a request for info on cloning HopDevil/Tupper's IPA. In HBD #3258 (02-25-2000), Tim Holland posted the results from the recent Boston Homebrew Competition thusly: >Best of Show >1) Geoffrey McNally, IPA, Tiverton, RI (South Shore Brew Club) Well, believe it or not, this is the same IPA that I posted the recipe for! Enjoy! Hoppy brewing, Jeff ========================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250 Naval Undersea Warfare Center email: Systems Development Branch mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW: Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:05:55 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: hp and pulley for motorized mill query >From: scott at wilderglass.com >My query to the group is what horsepower motor? What diameter pulleys on >the motor and roller shaft respectively? The motor I use was from a Kenmore washing machine. I used it because it was free, (from my old washer), and seemed perfect for the job. It is easily removed with only a couple wrenches. The motor is a 2-speed 1045/1700 rpm motor with a belt pulley already on it that is about 1 inch in diameter. I use a long belt from the motor to the 5 inch pulley at the mill shaft. The motor is used at the 1045 speed which gives 1045 rpm / (5/1) = about 209 rpm. This is just about the perfect speed for my Maltmill. This motor is a capacitor start with tremendous starting torque, and I can easily start the mill with the hopper full. Things just purr along and I can crush 20 pounds in 3 or 4 minutes. The mounting is a little tricky because it uses four threaded studs extending out from the face of the motor (looking at the pulley), but all I did was to use a couple pieces of angle iron with the studs secured to the angle iron, then this mounted to the wooden bulkhead wall into which I cut slots for tension adjustment. I will have some photos soon of the mill on my web page, just not yet - first need to shovel more dirt and plant grass in the yard. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu http://hbd.org/rlaborde Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/29/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96