Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1246
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/10/13 00:28:07
HOMEBREW Digest #1246 Wed 13 October 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
carboy handles (summary of [mostly non]responses) (Dick Dunn)
re: Maple syrup/sap (Dick Dunn)
Re: SLOW counterflow (Mike Zentner)
Boiling wort question ("Robert K. Toutkoushian")
Stuck Fermentation? a Beginner's Question (Chris Seiders)
William Younger #3 (Todd Jennings)
beer & statistics (Jim Sims)
COPS--again! (Kieran O'Connor)
GABF results (Chris Pencis)
UK hops (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
GABF XII Winners ("James Spence/Am. Hmbwrs. Assoc.")
will the real bogeyman please stand up (Paul Boor)
Beer Mix, Smoked Porter ("Cisco" )
SLOW counterflow (npyle)
Batch Sparging (Ulick Stafford)
Judging (Jack Schmidling)
Re: Wort Processors Mill Evaluation (larryba)
Yeast Growth/ Starter Size (COYOTE)
bogy vs boogy (Bob_McIlvaine)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 93 01:13:37 MDT (Tue)
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: carboy handles (summary of [mostly non]responses)
A while back, I asked for first-hand negative experiences with "carboy
handles" (the plastic-cushioned wire-loop handles that attach to the necks
of carboys). Put simply, "Has anyone ever seen one of these suckers snap
the neck off a carboy?"
The answer seems to be "no". I'm sure a lot of us have heard some anecdotal,
urban-legend, FoaF horror stories, but I've heard no direct accounts of
failures.
I have to qualify that slightly: I did hear from one person who had put a
carboy handle on a 25-liter (6.5 gallon) carboy, and had seen some (my
interpretation) crazing around the neck. It didn't actually break off, but
he was (justifiably) scared away from using it. The reason I discount this
one data point is that the carboy handles are not designed to fit that size
of carboy. Obviously they weigh more, but the main issue is that the neck
diameter is different.
5-gallon (and 3-gallon) carboys, the ones I've been able to check, are 2"
diameter (50-51 mm if you will) within about a mm. The carboy handles are
designed to fit this; the point is that they need to fit snugly, but not
tightly, so that they hold a circle around the neck without generating any
local points of high stress. (It's like picking up the carboy by the neck
with your thumb and index finger forming a circle.) This requires that
they match the neck. A 25 liter carboy has a neck diameter more like
59-60 mm, which is way more than a standard carboy handle can accommodate;
if you try to force it on, you'll probably end up overtightening it and
cracking the neck.
Summary:
- This is reality. I'm reporting results, not telling you what to do.
If lawyers must be uncaged, they should be on a short leash. All I'm
saying is that nobody who responded had any failures with the handles
on 3 and 5 gallon carboys.
- A full carboy weighs a bunch; *any* sharp shock--regardless of whether
a handle is involved--can break it. They are sturdy but not indestruc-
tible, so be careful but not paranoid.
- Remember, Mother Nature bats last.
If anyone has any useful evidence to add to this, I'll be glad to
accumulate it and report back. ("It works for me" is not useful at this
point...because basically, they work for everyone so far.)
---
Dick Dunn rcd@eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 93 01:49:17 MDT (Tue)
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Maple syrup/sap
> ...I have been brewing extracts for a few years and now want to try
> something different. I also make my own Maple syrup...
Hmmm...I think I'd be willing to trade either mead or barleywine for maple
syrup, even (1:1 vol)!
>...I have heard of people
> using this in beer and also using the uncooked sap instead of water...
I have had a maple-syrup mead that was nothing short of remarkable. It was
one of those things where the mead-maker offered it tentatively, as "you
may find this a bit unusual but I think it's interesting"...I liked it
enough that the next time there was a general mead-tasting among friends,
I said "Be SURE you invite <Z> and tell him to bring a bottle of the
maple!!!"
It does seem to be one of those things that you either like or don't, no
middle ground. If you don't like real maple syrup, you probably won't like
it. (If you've grown up with imitation maple, you may well not like it.)
My wife is a Brit; she doesn't care for this mead at all. But she looks
askance at various other new-world foods.
There's the usual mead-maker's dilemma, applying equally to beer here:
"What will this incredibly-sweet raw substance taste like after there's NO
sugar left in it?"
I'd think the raw sap wouldn't do much. Isn't the ratio for boiling-down
substantial, like more than >>5 (that is, 2^-5)? This mead I'm talking
about used syrup at a rate somewhere between >>3 and >>4, so you wouldn't
get that sort of taste level using sap even if you used sap to replace ALL
of the brew water. (I'm not sure how the difference between mead and beer
affects the situation here...some factors say you'd want more maple flavor
in beer, some say less.)
Maple in beer is obviously an idea with merit, worth exploring, but also
one that will require experimentation to figure out what works. It seems
you'd want a relatively light (*not* lite!) beer, probably with more malt
and less hops than average, to let the tang of the maple come through with-
out getting swamped by the hops, and let the maple-sugar be accented by
the malt sweetness. Add a fair bit of crystal? Probably no really dark
grains. This is intuition speaking--not direct experience, just back-
ground.
---
Dick Dunn rcd@eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 07:54:18 -0500
From: zentner@ecn.purdue.edu (Mike Zentner)
Subject: Re: SLOW counterflow
Dave (drose@husc.harvard.edu) wrote:
>the thing? Zymurgy says 20 ft in their article. Dave Miller in his book
>says it must be at least 40 ft. I looked into prices for copper tubing,
40 feet is excessive, 20 is minimal. If you go with my suggestion here,
that is, use 3/8 " tubing NOT 1/4, I have had good success with 30 feet.
Length isn't the only important variable, you also have to consider the
diameters of your inner and outer tubing, flow-rates, cold water temperature,
and so on. Point is, you could probably get by with 10' if you really
cranked up your cold water flow. If you start going with too long of a tube,
though, some of the crud from the cold break can "gel" in your tubing and
really slow down the rate (recent potato and rye brews demonstrated this
to me).
>worth it to build a longer one. I bought 50ft of garden hose (a lot
>cheaper than tygon tubing), 50 ft of 1/4" copper tubing, and built a 40 ft
>chiller (10 feet of the hose going to the connecting lines).
I did the exact same thing on my FIRST try, without reading anything about
how to build one, etc... It was a miserable failure, so I upped the diameter
of tubing from 1/4 to 3/8, and it works greaat.
As Usual:
1) Make sure the inside of your tubing is free of machine oils
(mine was not)
2) I will supply free my online plans for building a wort chiller to
anyone who asks.
Mike Zentner zentner@ecn.purdue.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 08:24:21 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Robert K. Toutkoushian" <TOUTKOUS@vx.cis.umn.edu>
Subject: Boiling wort question
Hello:
I have a question concerning how to properly boil wort. I have
noticed that often my O.G.'s are considerably lower than what are listed in
similar recipes, even though I have been using the same quantity of
fermentibles, and was wondering if I could be "overcooking" the wort.
When I first started out, I would combine my extracts & water, bring
to a boil, and leave on low heat for 1 hour. Lately, I have been
bringing the water to a boil first, then adding my extracts, returning to
boil, and then continue boiling on high for 1 hour. What leads me to think
that I could be overboiling the wort is that (1) I tend to get a lot of
gunk (i.e. extracts and malts) sticking to the bottom of the boiling pot,
even with frequent stirring, and (2) after 1 hour, the level of the wort
seems a bit lower than the starting level, and I tend to get about 44
bottles out of a supposedly five gallon batch.
My question to the wise homebrewers out there is this: once you
bring the wort to a boil, do you reduce the heat to keep it at a low boil,
or do you continue to go full blast on high heat? Also, does it help to
bring the water to a boil before adding the extracts, etc.? As I noted
above, the O.G. for my last batch were about 0.020 below what I thought
it should have been, and while fermentation took place and all, the gravity
fell from 1.030 to 1.010, which means that the alcohol content is also a
bit lower than I had expected for this particular batch.
Thanks in advance for any help. The books that I have seen usually
say something along the lines of "continue boiling for 1 hour," but I guess
there could be degrees of boiling (no pun intended).
Rob Toutkoushian
University of Minnesota
INTERNET: toutkous@vx.cis.umn.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 07:59 -0600 (MDT)
From: Chris Seiders <SEIDERS@HANDI.MED.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: Stuck Fermentation? a Beginner's Question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------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 09:51
From: TODDJ.SRVRHOST@test.readmore.com (Todd Jennings)
Subject: William Younger #3
From: toddj@readmore.com (Todd Jennings)
I have heard of a brew by the name of WILLIAM YOUNGER #3; read about it
in a soccer magazine, actually. In the mag article, the brew is
described as "the ruin of a good many young men". The article goes on to
refer to the beer as the preferred brew of LAGER LOUTS, the British
football hooligans we hear so much about.
Is there anyone who can tell me what the story is with this apparently
British beer, i.e. what is the style, and where can one get it here in
the States(if anywhere)? I assume it's a bitter ale, but perhaps I am
off the track here. Can't wait to find out!!
-Todd Jennings- ****
| |> Cheers!
|__|
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 10:15:41 EDT
From: sims@pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: beer & statistics
>>From: Bob_McIlvaine@keyfile.com
>>Subject: Mashout & Algebra
>>
>>most of us got into home brewing because we
>>wanted a better beer and wanted to have some FUN
>>getting it.
YUP
>>Beer making has been going on for centuries,
>>without algebra and statistically designed
>>experiments.
But statistics was INVENTED by a brewer, if memory serves, trying to
produce consistent brew. I'm not sure if that's something to be proud
of or not ;-)
jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:01:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kieran O'Connor <koconnor@mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: COPS--again!
Well--it happened again. in the Syracuse area, WSYT, the local Fox
affiliate showed the infamous COPS episode with the guy with Homebrewing
equipment. Anyone got those addresses available--and did it run in other
areas? This show was on at 10 PM monday nite.
Kieran O'Connor
E-Mail Address: koconnor@mailbox.syr.edu
Syracuse, N.Y. USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 9:40:57 CDT
From: chips@coleslaw.me.utexas.edu (Chris Pencis)
Subject: GABF results
Thanks to Norm for the interesting post on the GABF...one thing, is this
sort of the AHA nationals for breweries? Is there an AHA nationals for
brewers? Could someone please take the time and post info on winners in
all categories or e-mail me or perhaps just regular mail me a list of
winners? I'd like to know these things so I could have a good reference
list of just what is a good old amber, barlywine, specialty etc. so I
can better develop my palate. Any other palate development techniques
other than birth and drinking lots of different beers? Thanks again,
email address below. Actually there's a fax # here so if anyone doesn't
want to write or already has the info on paper....
Thanks - Chris
======================================================================
|Chris Pencis chips@coleslaw.me.utexas.edu |
|University of Texas at Austin Robotics Research Group |
======================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:02:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
Subject: UK hops
J.S. Hough ("Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing") lists a few
hops used in the UK. I don't have access to them and haven't
used them.
alpha
Target 11.5
Northdown 11.2 (seedless)
Yeoman 11.0
Challenger 9.8 (seedless)
Zenith 9.0
These hops are all modern hybrids developed at Wye College in Kent.
Fuller's ESB uses a blend of a number of them. One reason for the
blend might be that these hops vary in their resistance to diseases
such as wilt, downy mildew, and powdery mildew.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 93 10:57:17 EDT
From: "James Spence/Am. Hmbwrs. Assoc." <70740.1107@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: GABF XII Winners
Okay, here they are. The winners of the Great American Beer Festival. Cheers!
If there is not a medal listed in a category, it means that the missing medal
was not awarded in the category.
BREWERY, LOCATION, MEDAL, CATEGORY, BEER NAME
Holy Cow! Casino Cafe Brewery, Las Vegas, Nev., Gold, Classic English Pale Ale,
Holy Cow! Pale Ale
Great Lakes Brewing Co., Cleveland, OH, Silver, Classic English Pale Ale,
Burning River Ale
Pike Place Brewery, Seattle, Wash., Bronze, Classic English Pale Ale, Pike
Place Pale Ale
High Country Brewery, Boulder, Colo., Gold, India Pale Ale, Renegade Red
Anchor Brewing Co., San Fransisco, Calif., Silver, India Pale Ale, Liberty Ale
CooperSmith's Pub & Brewing Co., Fort Collins, Colo., Bronze, India Pale Ale,
Punjabi Pale Ale
Sierra Nevada Brewing Co., Chico, Calif., Gold, American Pale/Amber Ale, Sierra
Nevada Pale Ale
Humbolt Brewery, Arcata, Calif., Silver, American Pale/Amber Ale, Red Nectar
Heritage Brewing Co., Dana Point, Calif., Bronze, American Pale/Amber Ale, Red
Fox
Rockies Brewing Co., Boulder, Colo., Silver, Traditional Bitter, Boulder Amber
Steelhead Brewery & Cafe, Eugene, Ore., Bronze, Traditional Bitter, Emerald
Special Bitter
Rockies Brewing Co., Boulder, Colo., Gold, Scottish Ale, Wrigley Red
Golden Pacific Brewing Co., Inc., Emeryville, Calif., Silver, Scottish Ale,
Golden Gate Red Ale
Dempsey's Sonoma Brewing Co., Petaluma, Calif., Bronze, Scottish Ale, Sonoma
Irish Ale
Big Time Brewing Co., Seattle, Wash., Gold, Blonde Ale, Prime Time
Tied House Cafe & Brewery, Alameda, Calif., Silver, Blonde Ale, Alpine Pearl
Pale
Alaskan Brewing Co., Douglas, Alaska, Bronze, Blonde Ale, Alaskan Pale Ale
Great Lakes Brewing Co., Cleveland, Ohio, Gold, Porter, Edmund Fitzgerald
Porter
Marin Brewing Co., Larkspur, Calif., Silver, Porter, Pt. Reyes Porter
Butterfield Brewing Co., Fresno, Calif., Bronze, Porter, Tower Dark Ale
Dempsey's Sonoma Brewing Co., Petaluma, Calif., Gold, Dry Stout, Ugly Dog Stout
North Coast Brewing Co., Ft. Bragg, Calif., Silver, Dry Stout, Old No. 38 Stout
Jones Street Brewery, Omaha, Neb., Bronze, Dry Stout, Ryan's Irish Stout
Seabright Brewery Pub & Restaurant, Santa Cruz, Calif., Gold, Sweet Stout,
Seabright Oatmeal Stout
Oasis Brewery, Boulder, Colo., Silver, Sweet Stout, Zoser Stout
San Diego's Riptide Brewery, San Diego, Calif., Bronze, Sweet Stout, Oatmeal
Stout
Vermont Pub & Brewery, Burlington, Vt., Gold, Strong Ale, Auld Tartan Wee Heavy
Pacific Coast Brewing Co., Oakland, Calif., Silver, Strong Ale, Imperial Stout
Pizza Deli and Brewery, Cave Junction, Ore., Bronze, Strong Ale, Steelhead Snug
Harbor Old Ale
Rogue Ales, Newport, Ore., Gold, Barley Wine, Old Crustacean
Pike Place Brewery, Seattle, Wash., Silver, Barley Wine, Old Bawdy Barley Wine
Big Time Brewing Co., Seattle, Wash., Bronze, Barley Wine, Old Wooly
Marin Brewing Co., Larkspur, Calif., Gold, Fruit, Vegetable, Bluebeery Ale
Tied House Cafe & Brewery, Alameda, Cal., Silver, Fruit, Vegetable, Passion
Pale
Eske's Brew Pub/Sangre De Cristo Brewing Inc., Taos, N.M., Bronze, Fruit,
Vegetable, Taos Green Chile Beer
Celis Brewery, Austin, Texas, Gold, Herb, Spice, Celis White
Silo Brew Pub, Louisville, Ky., Silver, Herb, Spice, Yuletide Ale
Anchor Brewing Co., San Fransisco, Calif., Bronze, Herb, Spice, Our Special Ale
New Belgium Brewing Co., Fort Collins, Colo., Gold, Specialty, Abbey Trappist
Style Ale
Coors Brewing Co., Golden, Colo., Silver, Specialty, Winterfest
Spanish Peaks Brewing Co. LTD, Bozeman, Mont., Bronze, Specialty, Raspberry
Honey
Alaskan Brewing Co., Douglas, Alaska, Gold, Smoke Flavored, Alaskan Smoked
Porter
Rogue Ales, Newport, Ore., Silver, Smoke Flavored, Welkommen
Stoudt Brewing Co., Adamstown, Pa., Silver, Bock, Bock
Boston Beer Co., Boston, Mass., Bronze, Bock, Samuel Adams Double Bock
Florida Beer Brands, Orlando, Fla., Gold, Amber Lager, Old West Amber
Boston Beer Co., Boston, Mass., Silver, Amber Lager, Samuel Adams Octoberfest
Rhomberg Brewing Co., Davenport, Iowa, Bronze, Amber Lager, Rhomberg Classic
Amber
Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Gold, Dark Lager, Lowenbrau Dark
Joseph Huber Brewing Co., Inc., Monroe, Wis., Silver, Dark Lager, Berghoff Dark
Blitz-Weinhard's Brewing Company, Portland, Ore., Bronze, Dark Lager, Henry
Weinhard's Dark Beer
Pennsylvania Brewing Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., Gold, Munchner Helles & Dortmunder
Export, Penn Light Lager
Los Gatos Brewing Co., Los Gatos, Calif., Silver, Munchner Helles & Dortmunder
Export, Los Gatos Lager
Stoudt Brewing Co., Adamstown, Pa., Gold, European Pilsner, Pilsener
Sudwerk, Privatbrauerei Hubsch, Davis, Calif., Silver, European Pilsner, Hubsch
Brau Pilsner
Riverside Brewing Co., Riverside, Calif., Bronze, European Pilsner, Golden
Spike Pilsner
Evansville Brewing Co., Inc., Evansville, Ind., Gold, American Lager, Drummond
Bros.
Lone Star Brewing Co., San Antonio, Texas, Silver, American Lager, Lone Star
Brewski Brewing Co., San Diego, Calif., Bronze, American Lager, Brewski Brew
Pub Classic
G. Heileman Brewing Co., La Crosse, Wis., Gold, American Light Lager, Special
Export Light
Lone Star Brewing Co., San Antonio, Texas, Silver, American Light Lager, Lone
Star Light
Brewski Brewing Co., San Diego, Calif., Bronze, American Light Lager, Brewski
Brew Pub Light
Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Co., Chippewa Falls, Wis., Gold, American Premium
Lager, Leinenkugel's Limited
Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Mo., Silver, American Premium Lager, Budweiser
Stevens Point Brewery, Steven Point, Wis., Bronze, American Premium Lager,
Point Special
Pabst Brewing Co.-Tumwater, Milwaukee, Wis., Gold, American Dry Lager, Olympia
Dry
Jones Brewing Co., Smithton, Pa., Silver, American Dry Lager, Esquire Extra Dry
G. Heileman Brewing Co., La Crosse, Wis., Gold, American Malt Liquor, Mickey's
Malt Liquor
Miller Brewing Co., Milwaukee, Wis., Silver, American Malt Liquor, Magnum
Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Mo., Bronze, American Malt Liquor, King Cobra
New England Brewing Co., Norwalk, Conn., Gold, Dusseldorf Altbier, Atlantic
Amber
William & Scott Brewing Co., Culver City, Calif., Silver, Dusseldorf Altbier,
Rhino Chasers
North Coast Brewing Co., Ft. Bragg, Calif., Bronze, Dusseldorf Altbier, Alt
Nouveau
Lonetree Brewing, LTD, Denver, Colo., Gold, American Lager/Ale-Cream Ale,
Country Cream Ale
Genesee Brewing Co., Inc., Rochester, N.Y., Silver, American Lager/Ale-Cream
Ale, Genesee Cream Ale
Minnesota Brewing Co., St. Paul, Minn., Bronze, American Lager/Ale-Cream Ale,
McMahon's Potato Ale
Heavenly Daze Brewery & Grill, Steamboat Springs, Colo., Gold, German Wheat,
Heavenly Hefe Weizen
August Schell Brewing Co., New Ulm, Minn., Silver, German Wheat, August Schell
Weizen
HOPS! Bistro & Brewery, Scottsdale, Ariz., Bronze, German Wheat, HOPS!
Hefe-Weizen
Odell Brewing Co., Ft. Collins, Colo., Gold, American Wheat, Easy Street Wheat
H.C. Berger Brewing Co., Ft. Collins, Colo., Silver, American Wheat, Whistlepin
Wheat
Marin Brewing Co., Larkspur, Calif., Bronze, American Wheat, Marin Hefe Weiss
Champion Brewing Co., Denver, Colo., Gold, English Brown Ale, Home Run Ale
Deschutes Brewery, Bend, Ore., Silver, English Brown Ale, Bond Street Brown Ale
Coyote Springs Brewing Co. & Cafe, Phoenix, Ariz., Bronze, English Brown Ale,
Bison Brown Ale
Walnut Brewery, Boulder, Colo., Gold, American Brown Ale, Old Elk Brown Ale
Butterfield Brewing Co., Fresno, Calif., Silver, American Brown Ale, Brown Ale
Lost Coast Brewery & Cafe, Eureka, Calif., Bronze, American Brown Ale, Downtown
Brown
Evansville Brewing Co., Inc., Evansville, Ind., Gold, Non-Alcoholic, Birell
N.A.
Anheuser-Busch, St. Louis, Mo., Silver, Non-Alcoholic, O'Doul's
Pearl Brewing Co., San Antonio, Texas, Bronze, Non-Alcoholic, Pabst
Non-Alcoholic
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 10:26:09 -0500 (CDT)
From: Paul Boor <PBOOR@BEACH.UTMB.EDU>
Subject: will the real bogeyman please stand up
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (3rd Edition) defines
bogeyman or variants bogyman, boogeyman or boogyman or boogieman, as a
terrifying specter; a hobglobin.
Jack Schmidling ought to get himself a decent dictionary, especially for those
words he intends to use in the titles of his articles.
------------------------------
Date: 12 Oct 93 08:26:42 MST
From: "Cisco" <FRANCISCO@osmo.CCIT.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Beer Mix, Smoked Porter
Andrew Baird says:
>
> I believe the beer mix is a nitrogen and C02 mix, and will reduce the
> problems with over carbonation of beer, if the keg is kept on tap for a
> prolonged period. This sounds great, as I prefer my beers with little
> carbonation anyway, (I am a native Briton after all). However, are there any
> disadvantages to using a Nitrogen/C02 mix.
>
You are correct about the gas mixture of the "beer mix" sold at
refill stores. It definitely cures the well known problem of eventual
overcarbonation when kegs are kept online for extended periods. I also
prefer the English ales and don't like the amount of carbonation that
is so common for American beers. The only drawback to the "beer mix"
is that you can't force carbonate your kegs. I have found that I
prefer to let my ales naturally carbonate, usually takes about 3
weeks, the gas bubbles in solution are very tiny and give a great
long lasting creamy head. I have found over the years that the
addition of 4oz of wheat malt to all my brews gives great head
retention. I'm never in need of having to wait for carbonation
to complete because I always have two kegs on tap with at least
2 kegs waiting to go on tap so my ales are always nicely aged by the
time they finally go on tap.
Smoked Ales:
I recently made a Pecan smoked porter that has turned out wonderfull!
I have a real smoker - where the fire pit sits off to the side of the
smoke chamber- and I smoked 2 pounds of Belgian Bisquit malt for one
hour. The temperature remained 110-120 F. I started 8 charcoal
briquets and when they formed a white ash layer I arranged them in a
double row and placed a one foot piece of pecan wood on top (be sure
that when you smoke anything that the wood does not have ANY remaining
bark attached as this will impart a very bitter flavor). I adjusted
my flues to maintain the temperature for one hour. The grain was then
removed and put into a bowl and covered until the next day when I
ground all the grain. The smoked flavor is not too subtle and not too
overpowering and blends very well with the recipe of my favorite
porter. I just kegged it so it will be awhile before it gets rotated
in line to the taps, there are two kegs ahead of it - one is a
raspberry ale using the extract from Hoptech.
John Francisco (Cisco)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 9:52:20 MDT
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: SLOW counterflow
Dave says about his new counterflow wort chiller:
> Well, after 7+ years of cooling my wort in the bathtub, I finally
>decided to make a wort chiller. I decided on a counterflow design because
>it is supposed to be more efficient and because I cant imagine it is
>really as hard to sterilize as some maintain. I had a design for one from
>one of the zymurgy special issues (all grain brewing?) and it looked
>straightforward. One question I had was what is the optimal length for
>the thing? Zymurgy says 20 ft in their article. Dave Miller in his book
>says it must be at least 40 ft. I looked into prices for copper tubing,
>etc, and determined that, economies of scale being what they are, it was
>worth it to build a longer one. I bought 50ft of garden hose (a lot
>cheaper than tygon tubing), 50 ft of 1/4" copper tubing, and built a 40 ft
>chiller (10 feet of the hose going to the connecting lines).
> Well, I used the contraption a few days later. It certainly did a
>fine job of cooling the wort, but it is SLOOOOOW. It took about 50
>minutes for 5 gallons of wort to pass through this baby! This is not much
>faster than my bathtub method (although I recognize that each little bit
>of wort cools down very fast indeed, contributing to a good cold break).
>All the while the water is running and I am feeling guilty about wasting
>so much, and besides I hoped that building this thing would save me some time.
Well Dave my counterflow chiller (about a month old) is only slow when my
choreboy (in the kettle) gets clogged with hops (I'm going to shy away from
pellets whenever I can in the future). The normal, unclogged rate is about 5
gallons in 25 minutes, if memory serves. The difference is that mine is made
with 3/8" copper tubing, not 1/4". This is considerable. When mine slows
down (choreboy cloggage), I turn the cooling water down to a trickle. The
last time this happened it took less than 10 gallons of water to cool 5
gallons of wort to pitching temperature (but it took over an hour). Oh, mine
is only 30 feet long and it does a wonderful job. I suspect I could get away
with a shorter one. I suggest one of three routes: 1) take it apart and
replace the 1/4" tubing with 3/8" tubing, 2) cut it in half to make two
chillers in parallel, or 3) change it to an immersion chiller (these work very
nicely). The problem with 2) is that the plumbing is guaranteed to get real
interesting.
Dave goes on talk about other chiller hurdles:
> Another general question that I have is how do people direct the
>wort into their counterflow chillers. In the past I always imagined that
>i would just hook it up in series with my hopback, but recent talk about
>the evils of hot-side aeration have spooked me on this idea. The
>alternative is to siphon directly from the brew kettle, but this has its
>own problems (the old mouth-on-the-siphon-hose conundrum, and the problem
>of hops clogging the chiller (yes, I know about the chore boy solution but
>it seems to me that that is going to leave a lot of hard-earned wort in
>the kettle)). So, what do people do about that?
I don't have a hop-back but my kettle has a ball valve mounted at the bottom.
I have copper tubing compression fittings to attach my chiller directly out
of the bottom of the kettle. Since my kettle tap is not exactly at the bottom
of the kettle I use a small brass elbow on the inside of the kettle and it
takes wort almost directly off the bottom of the kettle (very little losses).
Anyway, it is all gravity fed and works like a charm. I don't know about
hop-backs and such, I'm a low tech (in this respect) dry-hopper.
Joel asks about draining the first runnings, adding sparge water, and draining
again to simplify his sparge. This works fine, Joel. If it is easy for you,
do it. You might even try 3 of these "batch sparges" for more efficiency. The
only drawback I can think of is that you are losing the original runnings right
away, which help buffer the goods. It is possible your pH will drop more
quickly during the subsequent sparges, requiring acidification of the sparge
water to avoid tannin extraction. I've never really had a problem with it
(i.e. no astringent beers) but I don't take my sparges too far. I usually get
25-27 points which indicates there is a fair amount of sugar and other stuff
left in the grist, which I presume maintains the pH (not a lot of measuring
going on).
good luck,
norm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:39:59 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick@michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Batch Sparging
Joel Birkeland in 1245 asks about batch sparging. It is my understanding
that this is the old fashioned way of doing it. In past times the
first runnings would make a big beer, the second runnings (after
resuspending the mash) a normal beer, and the third runnings - a
mediaeval version of Bud Light.
The reason for continuous sparging is that it is more efficient, and
doesn't have the problem of resetting the bed, but for homebrew purposes
I am sure there would be little problem. Or alternately get a big
picnic cooler that you can fill with all of your sparge water.
Re Hydrogen sulfide - this is a normal breakdown product when protein
amino acids containing sulphur are decayed - and well, fermentation is
really controlled food decay.
__________________________________________________________________________
'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s@&* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng.
Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556
| ulick@darwin.cc.nd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 11:50 CDT
From: arf@mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Judging
From: mferts@taec.com (Mike Fertsch)
>It is neither boring nor unenlightening.
I simply stated my opinion about much of the drudgery that necessarily goes
along with a competition. You are entitled to yours.
>Ideally, judges ARE experts in the styles they are judging.
That's nice but the real world is NOT ideal.
> Every judge in the program knows broadly what pilsners are supposed to
taste like.
"Every" and "broadly" are the key words here and I won't argue with them but
my point was that I would rather have my beer judged by an expert in that
catagory.
>My point here is that certain judges are EXPERTS, and can pick beers out
of a lineup.
I already acknowledged that presumption. The problem arises from the fact
that many can not.
> A broad knowledge of styles, a good palate, and a good understanding
of what can go wrong in beers is more than adequate for judging almost
all competitons. This is what the BJCP fosters.
Fostering doth not equate to create. The key here is palate. The other
aspects can be memorized in a few hours but palate takes years to develop and
my guess is that very few judges have it to a confidant degree of certainty.
This is obvious from the "negotiating" that goes on AFTER they have arrived
at their own opinion.
>How was this competition run? How many entries?.....
You seemed to have missed the whole point of my posting. It was run
competantly, professionally and in a friendly manner that made it a memorable
experience.
I simply proposed a system of judge qualification that would be more
satisfying to me both as a competitor and as a judge.
>From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
>In an attempt to patch over those holes, there is a movement afoot to
develop a specific style certification in addition to the BJCP
certification.
Sounds like I hit a nerve. That's certainly a step in the right direction
but it seems like putting the cart before the horse. It would be just as
rational to qualify experts up front of the overall certification and it
would fill the ranks of experts much faster.
>From: andrewb6@aol.com
>Subject: Regulators, Beer mix, and enamel pots.
>Has anyone tried mounting a "Slotted T drain" in an enamel-on-steel pot?
Obviously welding is out of the question, and I imagine that
chipping/splintering of the enamel would be a problem too, but are there any
fittings (perhaps an o-ring or a compression type) that will be strong, seal
well, and still hold up to the rigors of boiling wort?
Not sure what a "Slotted T drain" is but if you use a spigot with a male
thread and a female connector on the inside, you can make a leakproof
compression fit. The only hooker is you have to rethread them with
straight threads as they are normally supplied with tapered pipe threads.
Drilling holes without chipping is not a problem as long as a small pilot
hole is drilled first.
>From: birkelan@adtaz.sps.mot.com (Joel Birkeland)
>1) Is a continuous sparge really necessary? Has anyone tried just
draining all of the mash liquor out of the tun, refilling with the
sparge water all at once, letting it sit, and then draining it? Since
I use a easymasher of the Schmidling design, re-establishing the filter
bed would not really be a problem. This seems to me to be much easier
than monitoring the flow from my sparge vessel into the mash for
half an hour.
What seems intuitive is not always so. Someone posted an article a year or
so ago that explained it in terms so simple, that even I could understand,
why this is not so.
It has to do with the gradual dilution effect and that the grain is always
meeting up with a differential between it's remaining sugar and the disolved
sugar in the sparge water. The greater this differential is, the more sugar
will be removed.
It is also easy to see that in the last batch, after stirring the water and
mash, the whole liquid will arrive at some gravity. When the liquid is
drained, the liquid held by the grain will be that gravity and that sugar is
lost. By continually sparging, the gravity of the liquid left in the grain
will be that of the last running and of no interest.
js
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 12:53:08 -0400
From: polstra!larryba@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: Wort Processors Mill Evaluation
In HBD #1241, Jack writes about mill issue:
>
> Sounds like a fun time was had by all and the context and tone of the report
> indicate that it does not require much serious debate. However, there are a
Actually, it sounds like all the mills, with the exception of the original
corona were more than acceptable. Price, availablility and the volume of
grain to be crushed seemed like the decision points - not crush quality.
> ...
> First of all, the MM used in the evaluation does not represent current design
> which will indeed crush one lb of malt in under 14 seconds with a hand crank
> and 5 lbs per minute with a motor is like falling off a log.
I can vouch for the speed and quality of the current MM design, having purchased
one of the first with the knurled roller. I am sure one can crush 1lb in 14
seconds with the hand crank, but my arm falls off when doing 20lb crushes and
I take much longer, say 30 sec/lb.
>...
> Finally, a note on crush quality....
>
> The most misunderstood aspect of the grist resulting from milling of malt for
> brewing is the bogyman known variously as flour, dust, fine particles, powder
> etc. I would rank the need for unscathed husks as number two. The emphasis
> on both of these results from the problems created by crude grain grinders
> combined with poorly designed and/or operated mash/lauter tuns.
I agree that grit size and uniformity is more important than husk damage.
this is most true about modern 2-row grains. I have personally used
two lauter designs: a perforated false bottom and a slotted copper manifold.
In both cases too fine a grind is a disaster regardless of the quality of
the husks. The problems are two fold. First the flour tends to ball up
and make a dough that is dry inside. This occurs during mash in and is a
royal pain to get rid off. I have seen folks try to avoid this by mashing
in a little grain at a time, stirring vigorously between additions. Still
when fully mashed in, those pesky balls of dough continue to float to the
surface. Second problem is the stuck sparge. I had never seen one until
I used a roller mill that was set way too close (.025") and the sparge locked
up after a couple quarts. No dribble, nothing. Just like the valve had been
closed.
The malt mill I have produces a course crush (e.g. looks like cornmeal) with
pretty much intact husks. I have lautered a 15.5 lb mash and recovered 11.5
gallons of 1.046 wort in 20 minutes. That is .034pt/lb/gal for you guys
interested in the efficiency game. Since it was a pils, using only pils
malt, the number wasn't too unexpected.
I guess my point is that with modern, fully modified malts (Please, can
anyone point me to a commercially available malt that isn't?) fine crushes
DON'T GAIN YOU ANYTHING but problems. Look at malt specifications: they
describe the difference between course and fine crush extract yeilds.
typically the difference is 2% or less. Smaller numbers are indicators of
higher quality (and degree of modification).
So, to summarize: any of the mills mentioned in the Crush off should
work fine. I have used homemade roller mills, coronas, corona knockoffs
the malt mill and converted coffee grinders. The only one that was
consistently bad was the coffee grinder. All others could be adjusted
to produce great crushes fast lauters and excellent extracts.
>
> The perfect grist for mashing would be molecule sized particles of malt from
> which all the husk has been removed. It would wet perfectly, disolve
> instantly and produce 100% yield of crystal clear wort.
This is a gross simplification. Malt contains more than husk, starch and
enzymes. All the gums, protein, cellulose, etc. are best left in matrix
rather than trying to filter them out.
- --
Larry Barello uunet!polstra!larryba
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 11:15:51 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P@cc.usu.edu>
Subject: Yeast Growth/ Starter Size
>Jonathan Knight
>Grinnell, Iowa
*Jonathan asked about slow starts and long ferments...
>My typical procedure is to boil up one cup of D.M.E. in a solution which,
>after some evaporation, turns out around 750-800 ml. Should I use more
>D.M.E. in the first place? Or should I step-up the first starter into a
>second? If I do that, do I make a stronger solution the second time (as in
>more extract per volume of water)? I'd love to hear from anyone who wishes
>to share their experience and expertise on this subject as a fellow-
>chronically-underpitching-homebrewer.>>
>
Just a little primer on yeast growth and metabolism:
Growth vs. Time (low and high starting populations)
__________________________________________________________________
| * *
| * * X X X
| * X * X
Pop | * X * X
(init) | * X * X
*=HI | * X * X
X=LO | * X * X
|*X* X X * X
- ---------#########-----TIME-----------------------------------------
This is only a cartoon. Had this been a real graph there might be data
to support it. Take it as you will- can you speak "hypothetical?"
With a low starting population the lag time before exponential growth
is lengthened. It is during this period that the greatest danger
of infection exists. A high starting population will result in a narrower
growth curve, whereas the smaller pop. will grow slower, for a longer time.
It is reasonable to believe that the small init. pop will never acheive the
maximum population of the high start.
There are definite benefits to a high starting population, and definite
disadvantages to a slow start. I can't imagine you could "overpitch" a
wort- unless you collected the yeast from ten brews and added inadequate
fermentables to make them live. If the yeast run out of nutrients they
may turn to unfavorable metabolic pathways. But I'd be inclined to think
that if you supply a full bodied wort and sufficient aeration to the number
of yeast collected from as much as a 1 gallon starter will do no harm.
A good process for growing up a starter-
I use a 200 ml starter of about 020 sp gr. for a colony from a plate.
For a liquid yeast- say a 500ml initial starter. Same sp. gr.
Grow this for a day or two. Let settle- Collect yeast sediment, add to
a fresh wort of a slightly higher sp. gr. say 030 in a larger volume-
500 ml (culture), 800 ml (liquid). Grow up 1 day. Till active ferment.
Brew Day: Take some of the wort from the sparge and boil quickly. Cool
and combine starter with equal volume of fresh wort. By the time the boil
and cool are done this will be active. Cool wort and pitch. You should
get a good start.
Stepping up the volume and strength of the starters will allow the yeast
to both increase in number and acclimatize to the brew gravity.
G'luck. Hope this helps. John (The Coyote) Wyllie SLK6P@cc.usu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 93 13:34:08 EDT
From: Bob_McIlvaine@keyfile.com
Subject: bogy vs boogy
I believe both definitions that Jack mentioned
in previous postings are correct at the correct
point in history. I also won't attempt to dispute the
the spelling in either case. But...I have it on rather
good authority that before both of the definitions
mentioned, the phrase "Don't let the boogy man
get you!" was coined. The tribal pirates of the
south sea islands whose commodities included
un-willing slaves (read kidnapped young'ins)
were called Boogymen.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1246, 10/13/93
*************************************
-------
