Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1064
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/01/27 00:28:07
HOMEBREW Digest #1064 Wed 27 January 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
World's Greatest, Barleywine (Jack Schmidling)
COPS (FSAC-PMD) <pburke@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
COPS (FSAC-PMD) <pburke@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Beer Survey (brians)
Nitrosamines (George J Fix)
re:Beer Survey - anybody seen it? (Carl West)
pvc v. copper (dave ballard)
Corona versus JSP MaltMill (korz)
brown ale or porter?/samuel smith's (Tony Babinec)
Keg pressures/hose lengths (korz)
brown ale quick correction (Tony Babinec)
Wyeast #1056 vs. #1098 (korz)
Goose Island homebrew store (Jacob Galley)
FAST Fermentation (Ron Karwoski)
RE: freezing pellets, low pilsner yield (James Dipalma)
California Common yeast (Russ Gelinas)
wort chiller questions (Mike Zulauf)
Colour Units (Murray Robinson)
Bluebonnet Brew-off (bryanb10)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 19:30 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: World's Greatest, Barleywine
>From: bradley@adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)
>The most fun I had with my clothes on was at the CBS first Thursday
meeting at Goose Island.... Interestingly, the world's greatest brewer (tm?)
didn't attend, although he threatened to do so publicly, right here in the
HBD.
When I found out that the World's Greatest judge of beers was unable to
re-arrange his honeymoon plans, I decided that it just was not worth my
effort. Had I known you were going to be there, I most certainly would have
been there to frustrate you. Imagine have to pick which of my three beers
really was the World's Greatest.
A WARINING to all: Do NOT trust to random luck. Phone ahead!
>From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067@compuserve.com>
>Subject: Barleywine Yeast Method
>On the subject of proper yeasts for barleywines, I'd like to offer
my own suggestion, having brewed a couple successfully.
This is probably not (maybe?) related to yeast but it is a good segue anyway.
This past Sunday, I took a customer to lunch at the Goose and we did their
sample program. All the beers were interesting and worth the taste.
However, the barlywine was absolutely vile. My guest says this is what
barleywine tastes like and I politely dissented but did not argue. The
customer is not always right but there is little to be gained by arguing with
one.
I am not sure of the correct nomenclature but it tasted like the
screenprinting ink I use smells. Back in the days before I cultured yeast, I
had made beer with that taste, more than once. I recognize it as a defect
and not just something unique to barleywine because I never have made
barleywine.
Anybody have barleywine at the Goose lately?
js
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 7:46:51 EST
From: "Peter J. Burke" (FSAC-PMD) <pburke@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: COPS
Not nerely enough has been written in regards to that
certain COPS episode, so here is some more.
I sent aletter voicing my complaint to the producer of
the show. His reply, full of vague apologies and
bureuocratic bs, is enclosed:
COPS
Barbour/Langley Productions
Dear Mr. Burke,
Thank you for your letter regarding the home brewing episode
of COPS.
Please realize that COPS is a video verite show, filmed without
a script, rehearsals, narration or whatever. What we see while
accompanying the police is what you see -- right or wrong.
In the episode you question, the officer does make the point
that home brewing is legal, and nowhere is there any mention
of beer. The suspect was, in fact, supposedly making tequila
and whiskey.
We have however brought your complaint to the attention of the
police, and we truly regret any misrepresentation -- which was not
our intent. COPS has never prfessed to do anything other than
reflect actual incidents while following our nation's police
departments in carrying out their duties.
sincerely,
Malcolm Barbour
Executive Producer
As you can see, a truly bogus excuse. He desreves more hate mail.
PROST !!!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 7:46:51 EST
From: "Peter J. Burke" (FSAC-PMD) <pburke@PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: COPS
Not nerely enough has been written in regards to that
certain COPS episode, so here is some more.
I sent aletter voicing my complaint to the producer of
the show. His reply, full of vague apologies and
bureuocratic bs, is enclosed:
COPS
Barbour/Langley Productions
Dear Mr. Burke,
Thank you for your letter regarding the home brewing episode
of COPS.
Please realize that COPS is a video verite show, filmed without
a script, rehearsals, narration or whatever. What we see while
accompanying the police is what you see -- right or wrong.
In the episode you question, the officer does make the point
that home brewing is legal, and nowhere is there any mention
of beer. The suspect was, in fact, supposedly making tequila
and whiskey.
We have however brought your complaint to the attention of the
police, and we truly regret any misrepresentation -- which was not
our intent. COPS has never prfessed to do anything other than
reflect actual incidents while following our nation's police
departments in carrying out their duties.
sincerely,
Malcolm Barbour
Executive Producer
As you can see, a truly bogus excuse. He desreves more hate mail.
PROST !!!!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 15:13 GMT
From: brians <brians_+a_neripo_+lbrians+r%NERI@mcimail.com>
Subject: Beer Survey
MHS: Source date is: 26-Jan-93 09:21 EDT
John Isenhour asks about the bright yellow choose-a-mug beer survey. I can
report that one arrived at our house last week, and that we took a similar
tack in answering it (i.e. listing "most often" brands of some obscurity
rather than Xing the mug of some megasuds). However, I can't help anyone
figure out where the names came from; though I've got my name on several
beer related lists, the survey came addressed to my wife, who is on no such
thing. Of course, we queered the results by making her name answer to my
habits, but that's a risk you take when you just mail out your surveys. I
should add that they promised a "free mystery gift" for completing the
survey - the bait did its trick, as I would never have bothered with it if
there weren't something in it for me. I just hope this isn't something to
help research Zima ClearMalt, or something equally horrifying; I expect my
mystery gift will be a voucher for a beverage I'd rather not have, in any
case. Anyone else?
Brian Schuth
brians%neri@mcimail.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 09:39:02 -0600
From: gjfix@utamat (George J Fix)
Subject: Nitrosamines
The work that first showed that nitrosamine is a potential carcinogen is
summarized in the following:
Environmental Aspects of N-nitroso Compounds, Proceedings of a
Working Conference held at the NE Center for Continuing Education,
Univ. of New Hampshire, 22-24 Aug. 1977, IARC Publ. No. 19 (1978)
Following this report, a technical committee was formed and headed by
Dr. W.A. Harwick of Anheuser-Busch, Inc. This lead to various procedures
that could be used to control N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) levels in malt.
Their findings were published in the MBAA Tech. Qr. (Vol.17, No.4, 1980).
For the record, the highest NDMA level reported was in Bamberg Rauchbier.
It contained 5-15 parts per billon, and not 5 ppm as reported in HBD. This
also was the level reported in their malt. The NDMA levels of beer is typically
9-10 times lower than in the malt used.
I feel it is perfectly legitimate to raise the possibility that beer with
higher than normal nitrosamine levels could be a health hazard. Nevertheless,
there are many aspects of this issue I do not fully understand. For example,
population data shows that Bamberg has one of the highest rates of beer
consumption in Germany (no small feat!), yet its cancer and death rates
are near (and in fact slightly below) the average in Germany. I conjecture
if the fair citizens of Bamberg smoked cigarettes at the same rate they
consume Rauchbier, and if at the same time everyone else in Germany did not
smoke, then the Bamberg cancer and death rates would 5-10 times the German
average. This is a fair comparison since most German beer has very low NDMA
levels. While a formal linkage between cigarette smoking and cancer has not
been established, just about anyone's data shows that it is indeed real. If
Rauchbier is a health hazard, why doesn't this show up in the data? People
in Bamberg have been drinking this beer throughout the 20th century, and in
fact even longer.
There has been a serious "social cost" associated with the ban on smoked
malt. One casuality has been a beer called "Smoked Porter". It is a
natural for brewpubs. For example, it and smoked salmon are a marriage
made in heaven, especially if capers are added as well. It is possible
for a brewpub to buy regular malt, and then smoke it themselves. Alaska Br.,
a micro, is doing just that, and at the same time winning all sorts of
ribbons at the GABFs for their version of smoked porter. Nevertheless,
the brewpubs I have been associated with have been reluctant to brew
a version for fear they would be accused of poisoning their customers.
It doesn't take much of this sort of thing to totally trash a small
commercial operation.
For the record, the Belgium base malts have very low NDMA levels, and
in fact are lower than most US malts. Other than that, they are perfectly
fine for brewing!
George "smoke malt not cigarettes" Fix
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 10:24:37 EST
From: eisen@kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West)
Subject: re:Beer Survey - anybody seen it?
Six data:
Yup, I got one too, so did the wife, but I'm not
an AHA member and neither is she.
On the other hand, neither got 'The Brewspaper'.
Carl
WISL,BM.
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jan 1993 10:57 EST
From: dab@cc.bellcore.com (dave ballard)
Subject: pvc v. copper
hey now- anybody out there have a cooler tun using a pvc manifold instead of
copper? positive/negative comments? anyone? anyone?
dab
oh, btw, cans of guinness pub draft have begun popping up here in
piscataway, nj, so keep your eyes open if you haven't seen it near
you yet...
=========================================================================
dave ballard
dab@cc.bellcore.com
=========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 11:30 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Corona versus JSP MaltMill
This post may come as a surprise to those who have followed my
battles with JS over the last year, but being a BJCP beer judge
teaches you the importance of being just and unbiased, which is
what I feel compelled to do regarding this point also.
Roy writes:
OBTW, blind side-by-side comparisons between grists crushed with a
corona mill and a "you know who" rollermill have shown the corona
crushed grist to be superior. The Corona Mill produced less flour
and smaller starch granules and the husk was left more intact.
Analysis was done by several professional brewers and scores of
accomplished homebrewers.
I find this so incredibly hard to believe, I find it difficult to
avoid calling it a lie. With the proper adjustment, the Corona can,
indeed, produce smaller starch granules, but contrary to Roy's statement,
this will invariably produce *more* flour and *shred* the husks into
very small pieces.
Jack and I have this on-again/off-again war going on and during
one of the cease-fires, I purchased a JSP MaltMill. I have compared
the crush with the MM against the crush done by various other means,
including the Corona, and I must honestly say that the MM crush is
*far* superior to the Corona and all other methods short of a $5500
professional rollermill. I have used the MM with over 17 different
varieties of malted and unmalted barley and there has *never* been any
splintering of husk material by the MM as is *always* the case with
the Corona.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way... on March 31, 1992,
George Fix wrote:
>Jack has built a first rate mill that is
>worth every penny he is asking for it. The metal work, the
>heart of any mill, is extremely impressive. When the mill first
>arrived, the first thing we did was to compare the quality of the
>crush with that obtained from the commercial mill at the Dallas
>Brewing. For the record the latter cost between $5000 and $6000.
>There was absolutely no difference between the two.
Al.
P.S.
Roy also writes:
>9:40 Added the 6 gal of 180F mash water to picnic cooler mash/lauter
> tun. Plastic tubing manifold system. Igloo 36 Qt.
>
>9:45 Doughed in grist when temp of strike water is ~175F.
For the record, "doughing-in" is the addition of water to the grist
(which is highly recommended) not vice versa. Adding the grist to
the strike liquor will work, but will create much more balled starch
than the opposite (see Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer").
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:07:08 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: brown ale or porter?/samuel smith's
In the last HBD, Shreefal presents the following recipe for
comments:
brown ale recipe
4 # light liquid extract
2 # english 2-row malt <--- lager or ale malt?
1/4 # chocolate malt
1/4 # black patent malt
1 # light brown sugar
1 oz Goldings in the boil
1/2 oz Cascade boiling hops and finishing <--- is that 1/2 oz
each for boiling and
finishing?
ale yeast
I'd like to comment on the recipe and the brown ale style. This is
not a flame!
The AHA style guidelines for the english brown ale are:
1.040 - 1.050 SG
15 - 25 IBUs
15 - 22 color
Assuming the usual 5 gallon batch, the above recipe will produce a
beer in the mid-to-high 1.050s. I played with it a bit in Chris
Campanelli's BRF program, but the gravity math would go
approximately as follows:
32 - 36 points of gravity for the liquid extract
10 points of gravity for the 2 pounds of malt
5 points of gravity for the highly roasted malts
8 - 9 points of gravity for 1 pound of sugar
So, strictly speaking, the beer is too big to be a brown ale. In
gravity and color, it is more like a porter. 1/4# each of
chocolate malt and black malt will give the beer a dark brown-red
color.
What about hops? As indicated, I don't know whether the hopping is
intended as:
1 oz Golding in boil 1 oz Golding in boil
1/2 oz Cascade in boil OR 1/2 oz Cascade for finish
1/2 oz Cascade for finish
Assuming a one-hour boil, the left hop schedule will produce
something like 30 IBUs, which is better suited to a porter, while
the right hop schedule will produce something like 25 IBUs, which
is suited to a brown ale.
A brown ale is brown in color and malt-accented in flavor. While
there are different variants of brown ales, sample some Newcastle
Brown Ale or Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale.
How about getting some color and flavor from dark crystal malt?
For example, assuming a 5-gallon batch and 75% extract efficiency:
7-8 # pale malt (OR 5 # dry malt extract)
1 # 80L (dark) crystal malt
should produce an appropriate flavor and body. For an attempt at
a "nut" flavor, try instead:
7-8 # pale malt (OR 5 # dry malt extract)
1 # 10L (light) crystal malt
2-3 ounces roasted barley
In either of the above, you can substitute some brown sugar for the
pale malt or dry malt extract. I wouldn't use more than 1 pound of
sugar. While pure refined sugar will ferment perfectly, brown
sugar has some added molasses that will leave some residual
unfermentables and their flavors in the beer.
Samuel Smith's Nut Brown ale is very nicely hopped. To get some
hop flavor, which I think I taste in this particular beer, try a
hop addition at 20 minutes to end of boil. Samuel Smith's uses a
unique yeast and fermentation setup. For a bit of diacetyl
(butterscotchy) flavor in the beer, perhaps Wyeast Irish ale yeast
might be tried.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:14 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Keg pressures/hose lengths
Michael writes:
>because of the high pressure. Well, the first glass of Weizen looked like
>airport runway foam, and I was not about to go through the 1/3 keg ritual with
>this one. I could see the beer leaving the keg ok, but about 5" into the hose,
>the foam was starting and by the cobra tap - foam-a-rama. The hose was ~24"
>long. I cut my hose with the cobra tap so it was only 2 inches long, and
>viola! no more foam! Needless to say, this really made my weekend...so much,
>that we tapped a second keg ( an IPA ) on Sunday to see if it was a fluke,
>and it also poured great from the start...
It seems that many, many brewers have problems getting their kegging systems
to work properly. What is often forgotten (as Michael noted) is the length
of the liquid-side hose. David Miller has a great article in the 1992
AHA Conference Proceedings on kegging systems.
The CO2 dissolved in the beer will come out of solution eventually. We
would like most of it to come out of solution in our mouths, not earlier.
*When* the CO2 comes out of solution is based upon many things, including:
the temperature of the beer,
the pressure on the gas-side of the keg,
the length of the liquid-side hose,
the diameter of the liquid-side hose,
the smoothness of the walls of the liquid path
(note this includes any gunk on the inside of the walls of the
pickup tube, fittings, hose and faucet),
the amount of constriction of flow in the faucet, and
the cleanliness of the glass.
I dispense my 54F ales at between 7 and 12 psi (depending on the style),
down a 6 foot, 1/4" ID FOXX SUPERFLEX hose and (as Michael said) let the
keg cool for a good 24 hours so the force-carbonated beer can dissolve
the CO2 you pressed against it.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:36:05 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: brown ale quick correction
Here is what a portion of the brown ale post should say:
32 - 36 points of gravity for the liquid extract
10 points of gravity for the 2 pounds of malt
2 points of gravity for the highly roasted malts
8 - 9 points of gravity for 1 pound of sugar
Sorry!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:27 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Wyeast #1056 vs. #1098
Scott writes:
>Rob Bradley asked about culturing Sierra Nevada dregs. Isn't there three
>different strains involved in the fermentation, as well as three initially
>in the Wyeast 1056 pouch? The first strain starts rapidly, but isn't
>tolerant to ethanol and settles out rapidly, and then a second strain takes
>over. The third strain starts very slowly, but is responsible for the
>bottle conditioning. I have heard of very slooow fermentations from
>yeast cultured from SNPA dregs, so maybe only the third strain is viable
>at that time. Any comments?
I think you're talking about the Whitbread yeast. SNPA yeast and Wyeast
#1056 are both single-strain yeasts, whereas Whitbread and Wyeast #1098
are three-strain yeasts. Slow fermentation from SNPA dregs might be
attibuted to under-oxygenation by brewers used to dry yeasts (which require
a lot less oxygen than Wyeast or dreg-cultured yeasts) or by extended
lag times resulting from temperature shock (be careful that your starter
and wort are as close to the same temperature as possible).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 12:35:59 CST
From: Jacob Galley <gal2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Goose Island homebrew store
Sorry to waste bandwidth, but does anyone in Chicago know when the
Goose Island branch of Alternative Garden Supply will be opening?
Jake.
"JUST DO IT yourself." <------------- Jacob Galley / gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 13:37:44 CST
From: rak@mayo.EDU (Ron Karwoski)
Subject: FAST Fermentation
I've seen articles in the past that suggested pouring a new batch
of wort over the trub remaining in the fermenter after racking
off for bottling. I gave this a try last weekend and recommend it
if for nothing else than the entertainment value. Fermentation
started in less than an hour, and after four hours the fireworks
had commenced. I have never seen such a vigorous fermentation!
The blowoff tube resembled flowing lava and I kept getting up
during the night to see if disaster (overflowed blowoff jar) had
struck. Luckily, the blowoff tub was longer than normal and the
height of the bend never allowed much wort to be blown off. I'm
sure that at least a gallon would have been blown off under normal
conditions. Fermentation was basically complete in less than 20
hours. I'll be racking to a secondary soon and I'll let you know
how it taste after bottling. Lag time is definitely not a problem
with this method.
=============================================================
Ron Karwoski Internet: rak@bru.mayo.edu
Biomedical Imaging Resource
Mayo Foundation
Rochester, MN 55905
===============================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:50:29 EST
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: freezing pellets, low pilsner yield
Hi All,
In HBD #1063, Peter Maxwell asks:
>Al gives us some interesting figures for hop storage which apply for, I
>presume, whole hops. I'm wondering what the figures would be for hop
>pellets stored at -18C (i.e. in the freezer).
>In fact, is storing pellets in the freezer a good idea? Is any harm likely
>to come to them?
I use pellets exclusively, and always store them in the freezer. Pellets
tend to keep better than whole hops, storing them in the freezer seems to
prolong the shelf life even further. I've used pellets that were stored in
this manner for 4 to 5 months, the beers came out fine, I didn't *notice*
any funny flavors or effect on hop utilization. On the other hand, I`ve
read that sub-freezing temperatures can rupture the lupilin glands.
Assuming for the moment that this is true, how much of a problem would this
be with pellets? IMHO, the milling and pressing processes used to make
pellets would rupture the glands anyway. Comments, anyone??
***************************************************************
Also in HBD #1063, Tim Roaix asks:
>This year (the second year I've been brewing) I decided to try a lager
>since I now have a new unheated area below an addition to the house
>which keeps an ambient 40-45 degree temperature during the winter.
>(I'm in the market for a used fridge...just haven't got one yet).
>My question is: I bought 'Pilsner' malt, and according several sources
>including the calculations in Darryl Richmond's (c) shareware
>spreadsheet, for brew 1 I should have received a 1.044 O.G.
>However I ended up with 1.038 (pilsner light?). For brew 2 I compensated
>and 'aimed' for 1.052 and ended up with 1.043.
>Both times I rested at 130 degrees for 45 minutes, then through a
>combination of adding some boiling water and
>heating existing mash brought the temperature to 156. I mash using
>a GOTT water 'cooler' which tends to lose only about a degree in 30
>minutes (after which I heat a little of the mash and bring it back to
>proper temperature). I mashed for 90 minutes, then poured the mash
>into a kettle, broke at 168, poured the mash into my sparging setup
>and did about a 45-50 minute sparge with 168-170 degree water.
>I guess my question is: Is Pilsner grain typically low-yeild? Did I
>do something wrong (this is my first attempt at lagering).
>Just for the detail, the first beer used Danish Lager Wyeast. The
>second used Wyeast #2206.
>Every other all-grain brew I've made to date (15) hit the O.G. within
> .02, except both these using Pilsner malt (from the same homebrew supply
>shop).
Tim, do you know to what extent the pilsner malt was modified? I get
German pilsner malt that has a very low degree of modification. On two
occasions in the past, I used this malt as a base malt for light colored
ales. Both times, I used a step mash with rests roughly similar in times
and temperatures to what Tim described. The first batch, I got 27 pts/lb,
and 26 for the second. I consistently get 30-32 pts/lb using step mashing
and highly modified malts, 34 pts/lb using decoction mashing and under-
modified pilsner malt. IMHO, the combination of undermodified malt and
step or single infusion mashing will produce lower yields, the use of
these malts calls for decoction mashing.
If the modification rating cannot be obtained from the supplier, there
are a couple of other ways to determine the degree to which a malt has been
modified. Chew a few grains, if the malt is undermodified, the tips of
the grain will feel hard and steel-like against the teeth. The degree of
modification can also be determined by examining the length of the
acrospire. Use a razor or penknife to scrape away the husk, there will be
a fibrous looking growth that's a slightly different color than the rest
of the kernel. If the length of this growth is 1/2 to 3/4 the length of
the kernel, the malt is undermodified. If the length of the acrospire is
3/4 or more the length of the kernel, the malt is highly modified.
There are pilsner malts available that are highly modified, I know
Munton & Fison produces such a malt, I'm sure there are others.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:53:29 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: California Common yeast
What's the optimum temperature range for Wyeast's California Common
yeast, aka. Steam (tm) beer yeast? My Wyeast profile listing must be
out of date as CC yeast is not even listed; Jeff F., do you have the
latest version? Fwiw, it's fermenting madly at 60 degF.
RussG.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 14:56:34 -0700
From: Mike Zulauf <zulauf@orbit.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: wort chiller questions
Howdy All!
I have a few questions regarding wort-chillers. I am interested
in making my own chiller. The type I have decided on is a copper coil
immersed in an ice-water bath. The reason for this style is the desire
to conserve water (Colorado being a fairly arid state.)
I am curious if anyone else uses this type of chiller. If so, how
well does it work? How long does it take to chill 5 gallons of wort to
a reasonable temperature? How much ice is required? What length of
what diameter tubing was used?
Anything else I should know before leaping in and just making the
thing? Enquiring minds want to know!
Thanks for any and all replies,
Mike Zulauf
zulauf@orbit.colorado.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 12:27:01 +1030
From: Murray Robinson <robinm@mrd.dsto.gov.au>
Subject: Colour Units
I have just found a new supplier for my grain requirements who has data
sheets on the malt available. Specifically, it mentions a colour rating
expressed in degrees EBC as opposed to degrees LOVIBOND. What is the conversion
factor between the two units.
Also the product specification mentions the following:
SPECIFICATION PALE MALT WHEAT MALT
Colour 2.7 degrees LOVIBOND 4.5 degrees LOVIBOND
Total protein eg 11.5% 14.5%
Soluble protein eg 5.0% 8.5%
Kolbach index eg 43 (no units) 61 (no units)
Diastatic power 70 degrees L 160 degrees L
Viscosity 1.65 cp 1.60 cp
Need I concern myself with any of these quantities? If so which ones are important
and what do the units mean? Does the above specification indicate a malt of good
or average quality?
Cheers,
Murray.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 93 23:10:58 EST
From: bryanb10@aol.com
Subject: Bluebonnet Brew-off
x It's Back!...
x Announcing
x The Seventh Annual
x BLUEBONNET BREW-OFF
x HOMEBREW COMPETITION
x March 5-6, 1993
x Dallas / Fort Worth, Texas
x with
x Beer Judge Certification Program Ex
am
x
xFellow Homebrewers,
xIn Texas, the bluebonnet is a symbol of beauty and pride, especia
lly during
xthe spring when they blanket the countryside. The coming of spring in 1993
xis no
exception, as we usher in that time of year with this year's edition
xof the BLUEBONNET BREW-OF
F. In a few short weeks, the judge's score sheets
xwill be in, and the mugs and ribbons awarded.
This means that NOW is the
xtime to gather your brews and make travel plans.
x
xThis ye
ar's competition will be bigger and better than ever with an expanded
xformat which will include sp
eakers, demonstrations, and activities to
xsupplement the greatest collection of homebrews we have
ever known. Did I
xhear somebody say "Pub Crawl!"?
x
xWe invite homebrewers everywhere
to join the Cowtown Cappers, the Arlington
xHomebrewers, and the North Texas Homebrewers Associatio
n for two days of
xadventure such that has not been experienced before.
x
x
Thank You,
x The 1993 Bluebonnet Committee
x
xClubs: Please make copies of th
is brochure and its enclosed entry forms
xavailable to your members.
x
xEligibility
x
The 1993 Bluebonnet Brew-off Homebrew Competition is open to all
xnon-commercial, home- produced
beers. Beers produced on the premises of
xcommercial breweries are ineligible.
x
xEntri
es
xEach entry shall consist of three (3) bottles, free of commercial labels or
xother ident
ifying markings which are not part of the entry label.
xThe minimum size for entry bottles is 10 o
unce. Bottles which do not
xconform to these standards will be disqualified. The preferred bottle
for
xentries is the 12-ounce brown longneck.
x
xBrewers may enter any categories, with
the restrictions that only one entry
xmay be submitted for any one sub-category, and that no more t
han two entries
xmay be submitted for any one overall category.
x
xAll bottles should be
clean, with a properly completed entry label attached
xby rubber band. Please do not use tape or
glue! Bottles will be presented
xat the judging tables, and the use of any material which may caus
e a label
xto be difficult to remove during entry logging may cause it to be ineligible
xfo
r awards. The sole purpose of the bottle label is to match an entry to a
xrecipe form, so that we
may assign an entry number to it. Once this is done,
xthe label is removed.
x
xBe sure
that each entry has an accompanying recipe form which is completely
xfilled out, since this is our
source for all information concerning that
xentry. With the expanded category list we are using th
is year, it is
ximportant that you designate exactly the category and sub-category on this
x
form so that your beer will be judged according to the style you wish.
x
xEntry Fees and Dea
dlines
xEntry Fee for entries received by 1:00 PM, Feb. 20 (Saturday) is
$6.00/entry.
xLate E
ntry Fee for entries received by 1:00 PM, Feb. 27 (Sat.) is $7.00/entry.
xCurrent members of recogni
zed homebrew clubs may discount each entry by $1.00.
x
xFinal deadline for entries is 1:00 PM
, February 27, 1993.
xAbsolutely no entries will be accepted after this deadline.
xThere wil
l be no exceptions to this deadline!
x
For More information contact:
x The Winemaker Shop
Phone: (817) 377-4488
x 5356 W Vickery
x Fort Worth, TX 76107
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1064, 01/27/93
*************************************
-------
