Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1663
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/02/21 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1663 Tue 21 February 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
re:IBU Arguments/spoiled starters/CO2-filled keg... (usfmchql)
Dual kettle IBU calculation (Robert Mongeon)
Lots o stuff (c-amb)
TRASH V homebrew competition (RCBEER)
please cancel my subscription (Stan VanDeWetering)
Holy Gott, look at all this stuff! (Christopher P. Weirup)
Dropping = Racking?! / My new Web Page (John J. Palmer)
Wichita Competetion ("Lee Bussy")
Re: IBU formulas (Zeek67)
Re: Wheeler on "Dropping" (Tel +44 784 443167)
Extended Mashes ("DAVID SCHLEEF")
Re: BJCP Judge Rank Questions ("Lee Bussy")
Internet resources for the Homebrewer ("Keith Royster")
GOTT mash tun/lauter information ( Neil Mager )
chicago brewpubs (Tim Lawson)
Superb gas burners (mlloyd)
Extraction rate help! (Jeff Stampes)
Bonehead Update ("Harrington, Stephen J")
Use of leftover wort for yeast starter (Chris Strickland)
Re: BJCP Judge-Rank Questions... (Spencer.W.Thomas)
Garetz's Book (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Klages, water ("Harralson, Kirk")
overpitching/poor body/pale ale ("Timothy P. Laatsch)
Grain Mill: Roller Texture (andrew keegan)
AHA/IBU (Norman Pyle)
******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
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.
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
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 14:34:11 EST
From: usfmchql@ibmmail.com
Subject: re:IBU Arguments/spoiled starters/CO2-filled keg...
-=> There is an on-going discussion about IBUs and hop utilizations...
A point I feel is being missed in the current discussion regarding whose hop
utilization formulas should be golden on what day, I think we are missing the
point of having them at all. The benefit, IMHO, is that having a consistent
method of determining IBUs will assist in duplicating the results of a
recipe's author when attempting to do so. Miller's method, in his TCHBOHB, of
saying to use xx IBUs of XXXX hops is a good start as samples of any one
specific hop variety taken from different sources (be that 'source'
geographical, conditional, or temporal) are not created equal. Perhaps the
nextlogical step on this path would be to add the author of the equation used
to determine the IBUs of the resulting brew.
Calibrating your pallet; or using your own utilization equation or method are
irrelevant when brewing an unfamiliar beer style from a written source. Having
hops quoted per expected contribution to the overall bitterness, given the
calculation used, will.
Just my opinion.
-=> In HBD 1660, Art McGregor asks about his contaminated starters.
The acidity of your beer aids in combating infection. Your starter worts, on
the other hand, do not have that capability. More than likely you will
experience no problems using your sanitation methods for bottling your beer
(as you reportedly haven't had any problems to date). I do, however, boil my
caps a little longer than that. Usually around 15 minutes. It may be brewers
superstition, but somewhere I came up with a rule of thumb that, if it has to
be boiled, it has to be boiled at least 15 minutes.
Adding hops is said to help. Refrigeration, in this case, would just delay the
action of the offending beasties. They'd still be there, just colder.
I use canning methods to prepare my starters using a 15 minute pressure canner
boil at 15 psi. You can do the same with a longer boil in a water-bath canner
(ie: your brewpot). Just make sure the water boils, that it does so for about
a half an hour, and that the mason jars are under at least two inches of
water. I've never experienced an infection in one of these rascals...
-=> In HBD 1661 Algis Korzonas comments on the CO2 keg to Beer Keg gravity tap
method...
Is my face red... Algis, you are quite correct. ;-) The post did read very
'blue sky'. And the CO2 will eventually diffuse with the incoming air.
However, this is really no different than the preventative methods we use to
avoid oxidation while racking (following a CO2 purge); unless, of course, you
are using a totally closed system. More 'containment' than prevention.
To further thoughts on this subject, my 'CO2 keg' is equipped with a pressure
relief valve which remained open only for dispensing beer, and for
're-purging' with CO2 in effect, enriching the CO2 environment contained
inside - this contributed greatly to my success with this method.
I apologize to anyone who may have read more into the method than was intended
(and I nod to A.K.). The laws of statistical physics, regrettably, still
apply.
-=> Matt K asks about B-Brite...
In its less costly form, B-Brite is known as Arm & Hammer Super Washing Form.
Sodium Carbonate, for the most part.
-=> Tom Gehrmann asks whether to buy a ss or an enamel pot...
My vote goes to the ss. Easier to clean, and won't rust if you chip it.
"The land of milk and honey? At least we can make mead." - Lost passage from
The Book of Exodus
Patrick G. Babcock
USFMCHQL@IBMMAIL
(313)33-73657 (V)
(313)59-42328 (F)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 1995 15:49:13 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Mongeon <rmongeon@together.net>
Subject: Dual kettle IBU calculation
Hello everyone,
I've got a question I've been pondering for some time now. It envolves
calculating IBU when boiling in 2 different kettles. I don't have the
cash to invest in a 7.5gal kettle so I have to use my existing 16 and
20 quart brew-pots to brew my all-grain batches. My method now consists
of filling both pots up and boiling the wort down so that the entire batch
will fit into the 20 quart pot. Once done, I take a hydrometer reading so
I can calculate an accurate IBU reading. Because the batch will equal 5.5
gallons in the end I use that as my volume amount. This seems to work
very well as my beers all come out balanced. My question is this:
If I hop the two batches separatly, but together, how do I calculate the
IBU for the total batch when the SG of the two kettles are different. Can
I take two hydrometer readings and plug them into the equation using
5.5 gallons as the total? Would the total IBU then be equal to the sum of
both batches?
----------------------------- Thanks in advance ------- Rob Mongeon -------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 95 17:50:24 +0000
From: c-amb@math.utah.edu
Subject: Lots o stuff
Hi all!
I went into lurking mode for the last several months due to the unexpected
time demands of opening my homebrew supply store. But now that everything
is underway, and I am down to a resonable 70 hours a week, I seem to have
a little time to become more active in the digest :-)
Several people wrote to me for info about opening a store while I was
trying to get everything up and running. However, in the transfer of
computer equipment I lost all my old mail. So, if you asked me some
questions and I rudely ignored you please ask again.
First my question,
I am confused about the Great Western Malt. I know (?) that it is 50%
klages. However, I have seen Klages refered to as both a pale and a lager
malt. I know that Klages is a barley strain not a malt variety. However,
is it made into both Pale and Lager malts? I have ordered it as both and
I seem to get the same bags of malt from Great Western so I am a little
confused.
> I suspect that the problem was not in the headspace, but in the container
> itself. All the "pressure barrels" I've seen coming from the UK have been
> made of polythene (called polyethylene in the US). This plastic is
> notorious for being permiable to oxygen and, despite what appears to be
How does this relate to the Party Pig? Have people noticed their beer
getting stale during storage in a Pig?
Matt_K@ceo.sts-systems.ca wrote:
> Message:
> I feel kind of stupid asking but what is B-Brite and where can I get
> it? I tried several homebrew stores and drew a blank.
>
B-Brite is a santizer/cleanser which cleans with active oxygen. It also
contains sodium carbonate and sodium silicate.
It is a product of Crosby and Baker whom your supplier should know about.
If your supplier carries one-step cleanser this can be used as a substitute
as they are nearly identical in my understanding.
Jim Cave wrote:
> Here is what Wheeler says about Dropping (Wheeler and Protz. 1993.
> Brew your own real ale at home. ISBN: 1-85249-113-2
>
> "After the ale has been fermenting for a couple of days, when it has
> attenuated to about half of the original gravity.....
> "The beer should be syphoned from one container to another, taking
> care to leave as much yeast and sediment as possible behind in the primary
> vessel and taking care to admit the minimum of air into solution; although
> some air may be beneficial for certain strains of yeast. This can be
> achieved by using a syphon tube, the outlet of which should always be kept
> submerged under the transferred beer......The quality of the ale is much
> improved by dropping."
>
> So....Wheeler says _not_ to admit a lot of air during dropping but
> don't be too anal about it!
This is really interesting. "Brew Your own Real Ale at Home"
was written at the same time Graham's book "Home Brewing, the Camra Guide"
was updated. If fact, they were published at the same time. In "Home
Brewing", Graham writes:
"The dropping system is an alternative to the single vessel fermentation
system. With this system, when the beer has fermented a day or two, it
is "dropped" into a secondary fermentation vessel leaving the dirty primary
yeast head, mutant yeast cells, trub, and other debris behind....The
advantages of the dropping system are that the dirty primary yeast head
and the debris on the bottom of the vessel gets left behind, and the yeast
gets thoroughly roused. However, a good many active yeast cells are also
left behind on the bottom of the vessel, and some highly flocculant yeast
strains *require* re-aeration to encourage the yeast to multiply and restore
the yeast count to resonable levels [emphasis mine]. It is this re-aeration
that is the stumbling block for many home brewers due to the fear of airborne
infection. It is true that re-aeration goes against the normal rules of
sound home-brewed beer, but it is my view that the advantages of the dropping
system outweigh its risk......[the dropping should be done after the yeast
has gone anaerobic, about 36 hours after pitching. Or when roughly half the
fermentable material has been used]...It is safe to run the beer from the
primary vessel to the secondary vessel via the tap because aeration is
required.....Alternatively, the beer can be siphoned from one vessel to
another and re-aeration performed [by pouring the wort from one fermentation
bin to another a few times, generating plenty of violent, mechanical,
sloshing action.]"
So either Graham simply forgot to update this section of "Home Brewing"
or he simply didn't feel that "Brew Your Own Real Ale..." was the proper
book to introduce such a controversial topic. He does spend much more time
discussing "dropping" in "Home Brewing" than in "Brew Your ..." so I would
tend to belive that he simply didn't want to make "Brew Your..." too
confusing.+
If and when I have the time I will try a split batch to explore the
advantages or dissadvantages of dropping with aeration and without.
It would seem that it would only be advantageous for highly flocculant
yeast. Graham does mention that "It is probably true that the performance
of some yeast strains is improved by dropping whereas other yeast strains
object to it. I have always used the dropping system and have never had
difficulty."
Well, sorry about such a long post. I seem to have been more anxious to
rejoin the fold than I thought.
Mark Alston
(c-amb@math.utah.edu)
The Beer Nut, Inc.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 10:53:48 -0500
From: RCBEER@aol.com
Subject: TRASH V homebrew competition
The Three Rivers Alliance of Serious Homebrewers will be hosting their fifth
homebrew competition on may 20 in Pittsburgh Pa.
The deadline for entries will be may 6..
Last year we had 180 entries and just enough judges. If you are interested in
judging or entering this competition please send a message to me or call Greg
Walz at 412-331-5645 and we will mail you an entry/judging packet. If you
plan on entering and judging you can hand carry your entries if you pre
register them before the competition deadline.
Ralph Colaizzi
rcbeer@aol.com or
75444,1225@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 09:22:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Stan VanDeWetering <vandewes@ucs.orst.edu>
Subject: please cancel my subscription
please cancel my subsription- thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 13:43:41 -0500
From: cerevis@panix.com (Christopher P. Weirup)
Subject: Holy Gott, look at all this stuff!
First off, let me thank everybody who responded to my request for Gott
mash/lauter tun information. I got a lot of responses and wasn't able to
reply to each and everyone, so my thanks go out to you now. Hopefully in
the not-too-distant future I'll be able to share my Gott "expertise".
A number of people were as interested in the Gott cooler setup and
requested that I forward this information to them or post on the digest.
See how there was quite of bit of information, I didn't want to use all
that bandwidth. Therefore, if anyone wants this Gott info, you can e-mail
me and I'll send you the info in a handy digest format.
The Homebrew Digest In Action. It's a beautiful thing.
Thanx again!
Chris Weirup
cerevis@panix.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 12:15:45 -0800
From: johnj@primenet.com (John J. Palmer)
Subject: Dropping = Racking?! / My new Web Page
Hi Group,
I was just reading Saturdays HBD and saw Jim Caves post on Wheeler.
Do you mean to tell me that we have been getting excited about racking to a
secondary fermenter for Ales!? No wonder it greatly improves the beer! I
have been using a secondary since my second batch and havent looked back.
We have had discussions of Single vs Two Stage Fermentation before with
pros on both sides, but I have always thought I got a smoother clearer beer
out of Two Stage.
Here I was wondering if Dropping was something new. Did everybody else
realize this? Am I the last one again? At least I didnt fall for the
Coriander thread.
**
By the Way, I have hit the 90% mark on my new Web page located at:
www.primenet.com/~johnj/
It is the Palmer House Brewery and Smithy and contains my How to Brew file,
will contain my other writings on zymurgical metallurgy, has my winning
Chili recipe, and my How to make Chainmail Armor files (if you are
interested). Parts of it are still under construction and I am running out
of weekend.
Cheers,
John
Brewing is Fun!
johnj@primenet.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 21:36:00 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb@southwind.net>
Subject: Wichita Competetion
This is probably one of the last notices about the Wichita
Competition coming up in March (who was that cheering???!!)
Date: March 25th, 1995
Deadine: March 17th, 1995
Classes: All Beer, Mead and Cider
For info contact: Me (duh!)
Judges seats still available, beds for brewers offered.
- --
-Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... |
leeb@southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! |
Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb |
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 23:42:14 -0500
From: Zeek67@aol.com
Subject: Re: IBU formulas
Richard Webb writes:
>What does
>this tell us? It tells us that we are GUESSING as to what leads to hop
>utilization and bitterness. We know what makes it go up and down, but
>we are clueless as to the 'real' numbers.
I encountered the same problem when trying to come up with a formula on a
post several months ago. I found that everyone is using different
utilization percentages. A book I read by (Englishman) Graham Wheeler stated
that most homebrewers get a maximum of only ~20% utilization. This seemed to
work for me based on previous batches. (I adjust for gravity, time).
What percentage rates were used for the different ibu's given in your post?
Also, I have read several places that there is no significant increase in
utilization after a 60 minute boil. Have you found otherwise?
~Zeek
ZEEK67@AOL.COM
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:19:06 +0000
From: Brian Gowland <B.Gowland@rhbnc.ac.uk> (Tel +44 784 443167)
Subject: Re: Wheeler on "Dropping"
In HBD 1661, Jim Cave <CAVE@PSC.ORG> wrote:
>
> Here is what Wheeler says about Dropping (Wheeler and Protz.
> 1993. Brew your own real ale at home. ISBN: 1-85249-113-2
>
> [Part of quote cut]
>
> "The beer should be syphoned from one container to another, taking care
> to leave as much yeast and sediment as possible behind in the primary
> vessel and taking care to admit the minimum of air into solution; although
> some air may be beneficial for certain strains of yeast..."
>
> [Rest of quote cut]
>
> So....Wheeler says _not_ to admit a lot of air during dropping but
> don't be too anal about it!
The text from "Brew Your Own Real Ale At Home" has, to a great extent,
been condensed from Graham Wheeler's first book "Home Brewing - The CAMRA
Guide" which I consider to be more complete. Here's what he has to say in
this book....
"The advantages of the dropping system are that the dirty primary
yeast head and the debris on the bottom of the vessel gets left behind, and
the yeast gets thoroughly roused. However, a good many active yeast cells
are also left behind on the bottom of the vessel, and some highly flocculant
yeast strains require re-aeration to encourage the yeast to multiply and
restore the yeast count to reasonable levels. It is this re-aeration that
is the stumbling block for many home brewers due to the fear of airborne
infection. It is true that re-aeration goes against the normal rules of
sound home-brewed beer, but it is my view that the advantages of the
dropping system outweigh its risks".
Having read this for the first time in many months, I can see that
the wording is "....some highly flocculant yeast strains require re-aeration..."
and not that it should be done as a matter of course as I have been suggesting
in the past. This was a mis-interpretation by myself when I originally read
the section many months ago and resulted in me re-aerating everytime. In saying
that though, I have discovered that the British ale strains that I use, tend to
cope with re-aeration well and so I will continue to re-aerate as a matter of
course. What is interesting is that my two favourite strains so far (Wyeast
and Yeast Lab's British Ale strains) are supposedly only medium-flocculant
according to Zymurgy Summer 1994 and that the only yeast that I have had
trouble with (Wyeast #1007 German Ale) is supposedly highly-flocculant as
detailed in the same article - go figure!
Cheers,
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 11:57:40 +0200
From: "DAVID SCHLEEF" <SCHLEEF@hali.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de>
Subject: Extended Mashes
In HBD 1662 Robert Mech writes: I would think that if for instance
the mash time at 154 for 1 hour, was extended to lets say 1.5 hours,
you could increase your extract efficency.
Extending your mash times will not neccesarrily increase your
extract. If your using well modified malt and you're treating your
water properly(Beta-amylase works best when the water is slightly
acidic)in addition to a relatively thin mash(1:3.5 or so), then the
times you are using should be more than adequate, assuming those
times do not include the time you're spending to reach your target
temperatures. In the lab I've gotten 80%+ effenciency by using well
modified malts(munich light, Kongress Maischverfahren) and holding my
various temperatures no longer than 30 minutes each. I hope this
helps some,
Dave Schleef
TU-Muenchen, Weihenstephan
"mit Weihenstephan faengt Bier an."
dschleef@hali.edv.agrar.tu-muenchen.de
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 06:55:49 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb@southwind.net>
Subject: Re: BJCP Judge Rank Questions
Jim Powell asks about the BJCP:
Good questions Jim. As some of you know, alot of these are subject
to change but here's what's current (to tyhe best of my knowlege):
> What is the BJCP?
The BJCP is the Beer Judgce Certification Program started jointly by
the AHA and the HWBTA as a means of providing quality judging and
helpfull feedback to brewers entering their efforts into
sanctioned/recognized competition.
> How does one become a judge?
Practice, practice, practice! ;) Alot of studying up on the worlds
beer styles, sampling commercial examples and experience are the best
ways. Most start judging local contests and stewarding at larger
ones to gain experience/knowlege and to prepare for the examination.
The current certification examination is a gruelling 3 hour essay
test with 4 tastings thrown in for good measure. The test is
formidable but it does help to ensure that the feedback ou receive
from your entries into a competition is helpfull and hopefully
correct (we're human too).
> How does a judge go about obtaining the next highest rank?
You must score a certain level on the exam to be eligible to rise to
the next level and have the appropriate level of experience points
which are awarded by judging at, stewarding at or organizing
competitions.
> Are there classes to take; fees to pay?
Many clubs hold preparation classes but the bulk of the knowlege you
must get on your own through personal study and experience.
The fee for 1st time takers of the exam is currently $50 and $30 for
re-takes. There are currently no yearly dues or maintenance fees.
> Is there an anual membership fee for a judge to maintain his present rank?
Again, not currently. All that is required is that you continue to
judge competitions that present themselves. There is no "magic
number" of competitions that you need attend to maintain your status.
> Does a judge have to take future classes/exams to maintain his present rank?
No, but the better ones will try to maintain proficciency and
increase their knowlege of individual styles.
> What type of power is invested into each judge at each given rank?
The only power is to be able to help brewers with their beers. A
higher level is really a thing for the judges themselves. There are
many good judges out there that aren't even members of the program.
> What can these judges do with their certificates?
Buy a beer at a local tavern for $2.50? :) The certificate is really
a donation to the brewers in his or her community. The judge donates
his time to competitions to better the craft.
> Can the obtained skills and knowledge of a judge be used to offer a service
> to breweries?
Yes and no. The program is volunteer only but it is the only
nationally recognized accreditation program in the US. I suppose if
you were to solicit your services then it would add some credibility
to your efforts.
Hope that clears some things up for you. I'm sure others will add
their oopinions to mine and you will be painted a better picture of
the program as a whole.
- --
-Lee Bussy | The 4 Basic Foodgroups.... |
leeb@southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women! |
Wichita, Kansas | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb |
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 09:50:00 EST
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: Internet resources for the Homebrewer
Hello all!
I've recently joined a local Brewing Club and the president is
requesting help in writing the news letter. I thought a short
article on all of the great Internet resources for the homebrewer
might make for an interesting article. One problem, though, is that
I'm new to this Internet stuff and I also (temporarily?) only have
access to e-mail so all I get is this Digest. So my request is
this... I would like my fellow homebrewers out there to send me info
on any Brewing/Beer related internet mailing groups, Usegroups, WWW
sites, etc... And remember, I'm new to this, so a brief description
of the site, what can be found there, and any relavent/specific
instructions for accessing would be greatly appreciated. I will also be
glad to forward the compiled info to anyone who requests it. TIA!!!
+------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Keith Royster | NC-DEHNR / Air Qualtiy |
| n1ea471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us | 919 North Main St. |
+------------------------------+ Mooresville, NC 28115 |
| "I think I ran over my | Voice: (704) 663-1699 |
| Dogma with my Karma." | Fax: (704) 663-6040 |
+------------------------------+-------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:10:26 -0500
From: neilm@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Neil Mager )
Subject: GOTT mash tun/lauter information
There is an archive I put together about 18 months ago containing many
articles about lauter-tun/mash-tun design for all-grain brewing.
Its at ftp.stanford.edu, in
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer/docs/all-grain-equipment.Z
I gathered posts from several years worth of hbd's to put it together.
There's several other archives and files that'll be helpful there
also.
Good luck,
Neil
===============================================================================
Neil M. Mager
MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington, MA
Weather Radar - Group 43
Voice (617) 981-4803 (W)
Internet neilm@ll.mit.edu
===============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 10:54:16 EST
From: Tim Lawson <lawson@clcunix.msj.edu>
Subject: chicago brewpubs
I've heard that there are 3 new brewpubs in Chicago. I haven't been
there since last May but plan on going again this May. Can anyone give
me the names & addresses (& any info on their beers) of these brewpubs?
(I know about Weinkeller's, Goose Island, & Berghoff's). Thanks in
advance!!
Tim Lawson
Cincinnati, Ohio
lawson@clcunix.msj.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 09:04:10 EST
From: mlloyd@cuix.pscu.com
Subject: Superb gas burners
Does anyone have any experience or words of wisdom regarding the Superb
gas burners? I was looking at one the other day at Liberty Malt Supply
in Seattle. I believe I have read that their heat output is -only-
35,000 BTUH which strikes me as somewhat low.
Please post to the group your experience or opinion on this product.
Thank you.
Michael G. Lloyd
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 07:55:41 MST
From: jeff@neocad.com (Jeff Stampes)
Subject: Extraction rate help!
Ick! I made a batch of all-grain honey ginger lager on Sunday, and while
most everything appeared to go quite well, My extraction rate...well...it
stunk! I'll briefly summarize my procedures (so as to not create another
100 line description of my brewday...)...
Grain Bill: 9 lbs. German 2-Row Pils, .5 lb. Dextrine, .5 Lb Wheat Malt
.25 Lb Crystal Malt - 20L (Oh I wish they had the 10L :)
Mashed in grains with 11 qts. boiling H20 in coleman cooler. Mash stablized
at about 155F...After 75 minutes, temp was down to 151F, so an additional 3 qts
boiling H2O was added to bring the temp to 159F...45 minutes and temp was
down to 156F. Transferred mash to Phalse Bottom lauter-tun, and sparged with
4 gallons 170F H2O. Boiled 60 minutes with hops, 4 oz. grated ginger root and
2 lbs. honey. FDinish hopped, cooled, pitched, etc. (I could tell you a REALLY
funny story about a 1/4 full carboy getting knocked onto it's side and
rolling down a flight of wooden steps into our front yard, without cracking
or losing a drop! But I'll save that for an aeration antecdote). Anyway,
when it was all said and done, I ended up with a OG of 1.047. At LEAST
15points lower than I had wanted...I figure this is about a 47% yield?
What am I doing wrong? What water chem,otry affects yield? Oh collective
hbd wisdom, save my next batch!
- -- Jeff Stampes -- NeoCAD, Inc. -- Boulder, CO -- jeff@neocad.com --
- -- Ultimate Frisbee...It's not just for dogs anymore. --
- -- Any fool can make bread out of grain...God intended it for beer! --
------------------------------
Date: 20 Feb 1995 09:55:59 -0800
From: "Harrington, Stephen J" <sharrington@msmail4.hac.com>
Subject: Bonehead Update
It's alive, it's alive.........
The 'cursed' SNPA starter has been raised from the dead. After about 4 days
of looking at the dead starter, I had pretty much written it off (until I read
a post from someone who said that it took them a long time to culture the
yeast from a Chimay). I have long sinced brewed, so I guess I will use this
one for my next batch (I plan on doing the same thing but experimenting with
mash schedule to see how it impacts extraction/clarity, etc.). My question
is, how can I tell if the starter is any good? It has led a troubled life and
I really do not trust it. Is it as simple as smelling it, or should I take a
taste of the 'beer' and see if it is bad?
Cheers,
Stephen Harrington
Manhattan Beach, CA
P.S. How does one avoid having the hops they are dry-hopping with clog up the
airlock?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 13:09:17 -0500
From: cstrick@iu.net (Chris Strickland)
Subject: Use of leftover wort for yeast starter
I've been trying to figure out ways to use the left-over wort. Kraustening
was a failure because of the extra crap it left in my beer (I have to filter
each bottle to drink it). So I thought, why not make a hopped LME and
freeze it. So after straining I took the left over wort and boiled it some
more to thicken it, then froze it in the freezer. Is there any reason why I
shouldn't use this as a yeast starter?
- --------------
Chris Strickland
cstrick@iu.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 13:53:48 EST
From: Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: BJCP Judge-Rank Questions...
Well, the answer to that is in flux at the moment, given the AHA
pull-out from sponsorship of the BJCP to establish their own program.
However, you can look at the "Judgenet Archive" at the following
addresses:
ftp: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu in /pub/judge
gopher: guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu
www: http://guraldi.hgp.med.umich.edu/Judge/
(capitalization important)
The best file to look at is probably 'studyguide_v2'.
=Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI
------------------------------
Date: 20 Feb 95 10:19:00 -0600
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Garetz's Book
Thanks to David for pointing out my mistakes. Indeed, I should not have
let my zeal interfere with the facts. I should have brought in my copy of
his book to check the text before commenting.
However, regarding my referring to "Garetz's *Laws* of Hop Utilization,"
what I had feared *DID* in fact occur. Many, many unsuspecting homebrewers
have bought the book and have brewed with the formulas that Garetz published
and they have brewed overhopped beer with them. Even experts among us were
forced to dump batches as a result of these formulas. How many copies of
beer calculation software have been distributed with these formulas? See
what I mean? All the disclaimers in the world did not protect these brewers
from the waste of ingredients and time.
No, David, I did not check my copy before engaging my keyboard, but the fact
remains that the formulas are so far off from reality, that even the
disclaimer, in my opinion, was not strong enough. In my opinion, it should
have read like this:
"I've done a few isolated tests on a few beers, but most of these formulas are
guesses. The beer brewed with these formulas could have as much as twice the
expected IBUs. I'm sorry that I could not be more accurate and did not have
the time to test all the formulas, but I have been advertizing this book in
numerous magazines for over six months and this book is already late, so I
despite the fact that I'm presenting untested formulas, I'll just try my luck,
hope nobody sues me, and maybe get the formulas right in the second edition.
This way, you're sure the buy the second edition, right?"
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 14:16:20 EST
From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh@news.roadnet.ups.com>
Subject: Klages, water
Just now catching up on about a week's worth of digests:
Seems as if there is a difference of opinion on how best to mash
domestic 2-row. I was always under the impression that domestic 2-row
did not need a protein rest. I have had chill haze problems with
single step mashes, but didn't make the link to less body and/or
mouthfeel. Haze is not a priority with me, but body definitely is. I
have always relied on the temperature ranges in TNCJOHB for the
different rests (protein, sacc., etc.). The quotes attributed to Dr.
Lewis would seem to indicate these ranges to be different for Klages.
Is this correct? Has he (or anyone else) ever quantified the benefits
of using various step programs for Klages? After reading this post, I
dug out the Sept/Oct 1994 issue of Brewing Techniques in which Dave
Miller discusses the pros and cons of step vs. single infusion for
domestic 2-row malts. The article left me with the impression that
either method would produce good beer. I have used the 40-60-70 mash
described by George Fix, and liked the results, even though it extends
an already long brew day. I have thought about trying Papazian's
schedule (something like 122F for 30 min, 146-152F for 60 min, 168F
for 10 min...). Would this be better for domestic 2-row?
We had a representative from the local water company at one of our
brew club meetings (Northern Maryland). He said that our water supply
is very shallow and affected greatly by run-off, if I remember
correctly. A water analysis done today would be completely different
from one done next week, and was therefore meaningless. I used to
follow water treatment as written in recipes until I realized the end
result would of course be dependent on the water I started with. I
see a lot of beginning brewers doing the same thing. I wonder why
recipes often give amounts of gypsum, etc. to add without stating the
targeted concentrations. The one area I know I could improve on is ph
monitoring. Not having a ph meter, I have to rely on papers that
range all the way from a tan, semi-medium brown to a brownish
semi-medium-dark tan. Needless to say, when checking mash runoff that
contains dark malts, I don't have a lot of faith in my numbers.
Kirk Harralson
Bel Air, Maryland
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 14:32:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Timothy P. Laatsch <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>" <LAATSCH@kbs.msu.edu>
Subject: overpitching/poor body/pale ale
Hey HBDers,
Yesterday I brewed an all-grain Munich (OG 1.052) and poured the chilled wort
directly onto the dregs of the primary from my last Munich. This may have
been a bit of a no-no given the amount of break material and hop residue on
the yeast-cake. Regardless, it's been done. I aerated 30 minutes following
"pitching" and noticed the airlock bubbling almost immediately after being
placed on the carboy (6-gal). I moved the beer to my lager fermentation room
(50 F) and checked it 4 hours later just out of curiosity. It had a huge head
and the airlock was bubbling at about 60/min! I was astounded. This morning
(15 hours after pitching) the airlock was bubbling so fast I could hardly count
the bubbles coming out, but I estimate the rate to have been somewhere around
120 bubbles/min. And this is lager yeast! I'm concerned that the large
amount of yeast may have resulted in overpitching this batch, which can lead
to oxygen depletion, autolysis, and sulfury odors in the beer (or so I've
read). I plan to rack to secondary as soon as the head starts to recede.
Will this avoid the above-listed problems? What other problems could result
from this very rapid burst of activity? Am I just worrying too much?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
POOR BODY:
Many of my extract beers were lacking body and seemed a little watery despite
using the appropriate volumes of water and no dilution. This is one of the
big reasons I switched to all-grain----I was hoping for better body and more
maltiness. Now, some of my all-grain batches are suffering the same
problem. I've stopped doing protein rests, tried adding cara-pils, and mash
in the high-body end of the spectrum (158 F). I'm at a loss and REALLY
want to correct this situation. I realize the above-info is sketchy, but can
anyone suggest anything---I can give more details by private mail if necessary.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
PALE ALE:
In hopes of correcting the above problem with poor body, I plan to do a
series of pale ales to refine my mashing/sparging techniques. Below is the
basic recipe I plan to use:
8.0 lbs briess 2-row pale malt
1.0 lbs 20L crystal malt
0.5 lbs cara-pils
BC Kent Golding hops (24 IBU according to the LATEST v. of SUDSW)
---bittering, finishing, and dry-hopping
I thought that I might start with a standard single-infusion mash and
experiment from there (working towards the 40/60/70 schedule).
Any suggestions on mashing programs or recipe modifications would be
appreciated.
Thanks in advance for any help.
Bones
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Timothy P. Laatsch
Graduate Student in Microbial Ecology/Bioremediation
Michigan State University / W.K. Kellogg Biological Station
Kalamazoo, MI
laatsch@kbs.msu.edu
"...and your face looked like somethin' death brought with him
in his suitcase..."----WZ
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 17:18:49 -0500
From: andrew keegan <akeegan@kierkegaard.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Grain Mill: Roller Texture
I am attempting to build a grain mill and I have read that
many people recommend or at least talk of texture on the
rollers. My question is what type of texture? Is this simply
rough vs. smooth or is there some sort of pattern or teeth idea?
I am starting with smooth 2" diameter maple dowls.
Any help or guidance would be appreciated. Private email preffered
and if anyone else is intrested I will forward them the info.
Thanks alot,
Drew Keegan (akeegan@trudeau.helios.nd.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 95 16:32:46 MST
From: Norman Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: AHA/IBU
Jeff Hewit writes:
>Lately, I have seen much trash talk on HBD and R.C.B regarding
>the AHA. I don't profess to know much about how the
>organization is run, or what lead to the rift with the Beer
>Judges. However, as a relatively new brewer (1 year, 12
>batches), I have found membership in AHA to be very helpful. (I
The AHA is designed to bring new brewers into the fold, and they do a very
good job of this.
>just renewed my membership for 2 years.) When I first asked AHA
>for info, I received a package that include some very helpful
>hints. I also find ZYMURGY very helpful and interesting. In
>response to those who complain that it is a "catalog," I find the
>adds helpful as I search for sources of equipment and
After you've been brewing for 3 years or so, those ads get very tiring. How
many times do I need to sift through the same ads for Charlie P slogans and
sayings? After you've seen them 10 or 20 times you start to wonder if the
magazine couldn't fill that space with something a little more useful.
>ingredients. As far as judging goes, the only judge I worry
>about is me. I brew beer to satisfy my taste, not to score
>points and win trophies. Overall, the AHA is addressing my
>needs as a homebrewer, and I will continue to support it.
I do the same thing, but I also appreciate the need for organized judgings
and such. I also wonder how the AHA can make such rash decisions (like
withdrawing support of BJCP) without even a discussion from the hundreds
(thousands?) of members affected by these decisions.
I don't think the AHA supports experienced brewers like they do the
beginners. One might argue that more experienced brewers don't need as much
help, which may be true, but we all pay the same fees, right? Each year when
renewal comes around we have to decide for ourselves whether we are getting
our money's worth from the organization.
on the same subject, Scott Bickham writes:
>I agree that Zymurgy is a decent publication, especially with the
>improvements that have taken place in the past year. The advertising is
>a little bothersome, but it has some usefulness when you're searching
>for ingredients and I'd rather have it there than see the price of
>the magazine increase. The AHA has significantly helped the craft of
Ah, but you can now have both the advertising AND a price increase! Price
goes up to $33 next year.
>homebrewing, but remember that they are motivated by profits and will do
>anything they feel is necessary to protect their position.
Regarding renewal, I'm not sure I will; I'm riding the fence. The current
issue of Zymurgy is a quality issue, probably the best I've seen in over a
year. This makes the $33 a little more bearable.
**
Fred Waltman brings up a very good point:
>There has been much discussion about calculated vs. measured IBU's in
>homebrew. One common thread seems to be that people are taking the IBU
>numbers on the raw hops as gospel. It would seem that if you are going to
>try and fit actual IBU numbers to a formula, you should also send in a
>sample of the hops used to see what their actual amount of alpha acids
>are. The difference between actual alpha acid and the number written on
>the package may explain some of the wild variations
Bingo! If you are buying your hops from a local homebrew store, I'd ask a
LOT of questions: Who do you buy your hops from? Do you separate them
yourselves into 1 oz. packages? How is this done? Do you use O2 barrier
packaging? Does your supplier? How are they stored? etc. etc. etc.
If you buy hops from The Hop Source (now owned by Just Hops) or HopUnion, or
HopTech, then I think the alpha acid is probably pretty accurate. Once I
discussed with Glenn Tinseth the issue of rechecking alpha acid late in the
hop season (many months after harvest). He indicated that if the hops are
stored properly (barrier packaging, purged, low temp) then the %AA will not
have changed much from the original value, and can be used as is. The good
hop outlets will store properly, but I've seen very few retail stores who do
it right.
One other issue that comes to mind is weighing the hops. I've seen a dozen
different scales used to weigh hops (mostly small food scales), and most of
them won't give you a guaranteed accuracy. They are probably all "pretty
close" but you don't really know how much error you are adding at this simple
step. Using a laboratory-grade scale is a different story, but many of us
haven't invested in one. I for now, have taken the tack of aiming for
precision, rather than accuracy. If I have as a foundation the ability to
duplicate a certain bitterness within acceptable limits, I can take it one
step further and adjust it upwards or downwards to meet a goal. This is
basically the same argument as Rich Webb's. Another thing to think about.
Cheers,
Norm
(I still think having Fort Collins, or Seattle, or San Francisco in your
.signature constitutes "rubbing it in", but I can live with that!!!)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1663, 02/21/95
*************************************
-------
