Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1742
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/05/29 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1742 Sat 27 May 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
HOMEBREW DIGEST #1715 (AP (Ian Bishop)
Sam Piper's excellent essay (Alan_Marshall)
Re-pitching yeast (Matt_K)
Re: Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper (part II) (spencer)
Re: Full Sail IPA (Jeff Frane)
Mercury health effects (Dr. David C. Harsh)
Thanks for the Oatmeal! ("Palmer.John")
translations (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Creativity and Styles (Russell Mast)
Purple Brain (Russell Mast)
Extract qualities, etc. (Jeff Guillet)
Kegged beer through cold plate (knetlb)
Styles (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Fining agents ("Mark A. Melton")
Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper (FLATTER)
Sam Piper for president (Eric Bender)
Help! (Filtering Wort) (molloy)
Priming (barber eric stephen)
5-25-95 HBD (barber eric stephen)
Pump priming (was: PICO brewing systems) (Dion Hollenbeck)
Headstart Yeast Co.? (Nikolaus Matheis)
Water in NYC (DSWPHOTO)
knifeing the grain bed/ (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
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: Fri, 26 May 95 00:01:15 EST
From: ibishop@tanus.oz.au (Ian Bishop)
Subject: HOMEBREW DIGEST #1715 (AP
HH> Ian, liquid yeast cultures have made a large impact on the quality
HH> of my beer, high temperature ferments or not. I believe I know of a
HH> couple of yeasts from Wyeast that would perform well a bit warmer.
HH> One is the Belgian White yeast, which I believe would be a fine
HH> yeast for other Belgian styles,
Hmmm. Some good food for thought anyway. Maybe I'll pick up a liquid
culture when I'm next in the big city (I'm practically outback) and have
a play, based on the great response I got through the digest, thank to
everyone.
HH> prefer warmer climes. An obvious guess would also be the Wyeast
HH> American Ale yeast, which is a very clean fermenter. I suspect it
HH> will throw some interesting esters at hotter temps but would remain
HH> cleaner than most yeasts.
Personally, I don't mind a few interesting flavours, as it adds more
variety to the beers I drink while watching the footy! I've just
bottled an Armstrong New Zealand Lager, which I fermented at an average
of about 27C and after just a week in the bottle, it is showing signs of
being a beautiful brew. I used a combination of two yeasts. Both
packets, the dry which came with it, and a Wander dry. Rehydrated and
had my fastest kick start ever - less than two hours.
There was a lag in the fermentation. I think I got caught out on this a
couple of times. The brew seems to stop fermenting for a few hours, and
then builds up to a couple of bubbles a minute for another day or so. I
guess I was fortunate I couldn't bottle immediately as this seems to
have really improved the resultant product.
HH> BTW, you can also try a simple water bath for your fermenter (bucket
HH> in a bucket approach) with some cloth draped over the fermenter into
HH> the water. Evaporative cooling is an amazing thing if your climate
HH> is dry enough. Good luck.
We are *extremely* dry. In summer, when I run my refrigative air-
conditioner a lot, I can sit my fermenter in front of it during the day
and maintain a little control. During the day, with temps hitting
anything up to 45C, evaporative cooling didn;t work :-(
May you brew long and often!
- --------------------------------------------------------------
>From the desk of Ian Bishop - The Mad Muso of Mount Isa, Aust.
Please Direct All Flames to \DEV\NUL or 0:0/0 - Thanks!!
All Real Replies to IBISHOP@TANUS.OZ.AU or 3:640/706
- --------------------------------------------------------------
- ---
* RM 1.3 A1824 * "Bother," said Pooh, as he fell into the nitric acid bath.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 10:18:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan_Marshall <AK200032@Sol.YorkU.CA>
Subject: Sam Piper's excellent essay
At first I was tempted to add my own "Bravo!" to the chorus of Kudos
following the posting of Sam Piper's essay "Style and Creativity".
While I agree with some of what he writes, I have my concerns as well.
Like Sam, I do not want to inhibit the creative juices of brewers.
Innovation and experimentation is to be encouraged, and when the
results are good, it should be rewarded. I submit that our economic
and consumer system does this: Good products and innovations will be
recognized, even if they don't fit into predefined categories. When a
new style becomes popular enough, I would expect that we would see a
new competition category that encompasses the style. If not, then
this is where Sam's criticisms should be aimed.
Sam uses the example of the American Pilsner as an example of "sheer
banality and lack of product differentiation". In some respects, I
would not argue with him about that. I would also suggest that the
category be renamed to "Pale, flavour-impaired, adjunct-laden
beverage" but this would not suit some organizations' need to
prostitute themselves for big brewery money. The fact is that the
American Pilsner style is the result of a century of evolution brought
on not by ecological or consumer forces, but by accountants and
marketing dweeps. If there had been a standard definition of "Pilsner
Style Lager", used in competitions over the past one hundred years, we
would not now be seeing what should be a noble moniker being used as
an appelation on the more ignoble and base of beers.
Consider the innovations that have come to the market under the
"Samuel Adams" label: Cranberry Lambic, and Triple Bock, to name two.
These beers have their following. There seems to be ample evidence
that Jim Koch is a shrewd enough businessman that he would not be
promoting and selling money-losing brands. These beers have won
awards and been judged as being good to excellent. Yet these are the
very same beers often held up as examples of the stylist whoredom of
Boston Brewing which is one of the reasons this company is boycotted
by many beer affecionados. They should have been honest about the
styles, and marketed the Cranberry Lambic as "Cranberry Brown Ale" and
not used "Bock" in the name of a top-fermented beer like the Triple
Bock.
My concern is that the lack of standards and definitions allow the
bean counters and marketing and sales dweebs to debase product quality
by producing cheaper, poorer products, the way American Pilsner barely
resembles Pilsners. In Canada, Molson is marketing a poor imitation
of a bock as a double bock, when it barely has bock strength. I can
point to Jackson's books and say that this beer isn't what it claims
to be. Next I expect Molson and Labatt to start marketing clones of
their Export or 50 as "Molson Burton Ale" or "Labatt Yorkshire Bitter"
Of course, there is another downside of clearly defined style
categories, beyond the concerns raised by Sam: Over-zealous
legislators and regulators that might latch onto definitions as a
means to control the beer market. Somehow, in Ontario, there is a
regulation that stipulates that a porter is not and ale. We are all
familiar with state laws that tie appelations such as ale and bock to
the alcoholic content of the beers, regardless of their true style.
Let's hope that no one wants to stifle creativity in brewing. The
organizations responsible for the categories must be responsive and
flexible, while at the same time preserving the standards of
historical styles. This balancing act requires a great deal of wisdom
and level headedness, characteristics that seem to disappear when
people choose to politicize issues.
Finally, thank you, Sam, for such a well-written and thought-provoking
article.
Cheers, Alan
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 10:18:47 edt
From: Matt_K@ceo.sts-systems.ca
Subject: Re-pitching yeast
Message:
David Boe writes about re-pitching yeast:
> The result was astonishing, By the next morning I was in high >
krausen with a very active ferment.
Ditto here. I have seen lag times as short as 1-2 hours.
> Bill also says he was on the 14th generation of yeast in that
> particular batch. This also flies in the face of the conventional
> wisdom of only repitching yeast 3 generations.
Perhaps ignorance really is bliss. We have re-used the Irish Ale
slurry for a grand total of 19 batches. Now, these were not all done
sequentially but we split the slurry a couple of times and gave it to
some friends. We never washed the yeast or did anything other than
putting the stuff into sanitized mason jars and then into the fridge
where it stayed up to 2 months. Batches made using this yeast seemed
to get better and better. This yeast finally went sour on us and it
was sad to see it go but 19 batches for $5 ain't bad. All in all I can
heartily recommend re-using the slurry from the primary (or the
secondary). It's easy, fun, and cheap!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 11:10:21 EDT
From: spencer@med.umich.edu
Subject: Re: Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper (part II)
> dhvanvalkenburg@ccgate.hac.com wrote:
> Can you imagine a master chef in any restaurant in the world who wants
> his Veal Florentine to be exactly like James Beard's ... or anyone
> else's?
Ah, but would you want a Veal Florentine that was, say, missing the
spinach? Would you call it "Veal Florentine" at all, or something
else? This is how I see styles. If you take out the spinach, it's
not Veal Florentine any more. If you add chocolate malt to a Pilsner,
it's not a Pilsner any more. But within the parameters of "Pilsner",
there's a lot of room for creativity and variation.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 08:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeff Frane <gummitch@teleport.com>
Subject: Re: Full Sail IPA
>
> In reply to: ai752@lafn.org (Tom Lahue)
> Subject: Full Sail IPA - Hops
>
> Tom Lahue asked this question:
>
> >I recently had a pint of Full Sail IPA and would like to try to
> >duplicate the hop flavor and bittering. Anyone in Oregon or Washington
> >know any info on how this beer is hopped?
>
I missed the original query, but the answer: British Challenger hops
(pellets) 100%. And I can not state unequivocally that at home as well,
these make an incredible beer.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 12:07:26 -0400
From: dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu (Dr. David C. Harsh)
Subject: Mercury health effects
At the risk of beating a dead thermometer, here are some hard numbers about
Mercury what it will do to you. The short answer is "nothing", but here
are details:
In the "NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards" the Time-Weighted Average
exposure limit to Hg vapor is 0.05 mg/m3, based on up to 10 hour days and a
40 hour work week. The upper limit of permissible exposure is 0.1 mg/m3.
The guide lists a concentration of 10 mg/m3 as causing "immediate danger to
life or health".
So much for numbers - what happens if you are exposed? {reference: CRC
Handbook of Laboratory Safety, 2nd Edition, 1971} Primary physical
symptoms include gingivitis, emotional instability, and muscular tremors.
Still, note the following passage:
"...the measures to prevent mercury poisoning do not need to be
either heroic or hasty, since six months to two years of regular daily
exposrue would be required before symptoms would develop from ordinary
spills of mercury, and symptoms will generally subside as soon as the
exposure is discontinued. However, extreme concentrations from heated
mercury could cause symptoms of acute mercury poisoning within several
hours." from p. 334
If you've broken a thermometer, you don't need to worry about acute short
term effects of low level exposure, but you should clean up the mess as
much as possible. If there is enough mercury spilled, the equilibrium
concentration at 25 C would be 20 mg/m3 in your brewhouse - well above the
recommended exposure limit.
I don't have a reference for this, but I vaguely recall reading about the
dental amalgam "problem" as low levels of mercury leaching out over time.
Seems like removing them would cause more exposure than leaving it there,
but I'm opionated.
One of the many hats I wear around here involves lab safety and we
generally try to discourage people from using mercury thermometers whenever
possible - a good alcohol thermometer will be just as accurate and avoid
the potential problems. This way you don't have to rely on the largesse of
fellow brewers to "dispose" of your contaminated brew kettles ;)
My opinions are my own, etc.
Dave
************************************************************
* Dave Harsh *
* Newsletter Editor for the Bloatarian Brewing League *
************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 1995 09:11:49 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer@ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Thanks for the Oatmeal!
Hi Group,
I want to thank everyone for sending in their knowledge of Oatmeal. I will post
a summery next week when I have some time. Our first baby was born over the
weekend, Jessica Miyuri Palmer.
I am trying to find time to rig up a fixture over the mash tun so she can stir
during temperature raises but I think I am getting too caught up in the bottle
warmer and bottle holder (since she wil have her hands full). I tried utilizing
a sports bottle, but the straw was giving Jessica problems. By having the
bottle suspended near her she can have access to it as she feels fit, without
me having to employ any duct tape as with the sports bottle scenario.
The other techinical hurdle is keeping her awake after she feeds, I am looking
into a timer that would only make the bottle available after each Rest is
reached, so she could eat and fall asleep during the Rest when the mash doesnt
need stirring. By the way, for you other brewers contemplating this method of
stirring the mash, I have found Velcro (tm) to be extremely effective for
positioning the baby. It allows a "Quick Disconnect" capability between the
Mash Tun and the Boiler. TTFN,
John J. Palmer - Metallurgist for MDA-SSD M&P
johnj@primenet.com Huntington Beach, California
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 95 10:20:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: translations
Wanted: translators
I need someone to translate a dozen or so beer-related sentances from English
into German, French and Flemish. While I know that I won't be able to carry
on a conversation with anyone who doesn't know at least a little English, I
think it would be much easier to get my beer-related questions answered if
I was able to ask them in the native language. Help?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 11:55:03 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Creativity and Styles
> Subject: Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper (part II)
I've really enjoyed the Sam Piper articles about the death of creativity
on the flat, cement porch of stylistic conformity. Nonetheless, I think
there _is_ room for creativity _within_ a given style. All of Haydn's
symphonies followed the "symphonic form" and yet he was very creative.
A similar situation exists with Petrarch's Sonnnet.
> I am just sick of contest judges who fault stout beers for not tasting
> exactly like Guiness.
Such behavior is a travesty, and those judges deserve a good spanking. But,
at the same time, does it make sense to judge this Stout against a Bavarian
Weizen? Not really, IMO.
Finally, I'd like to say that if you've brewed a great stout that doesn't
taste like Guinness, and a judge pans you for that or anything else, to blazes
with the judge. You don't need his silly old prize. The reward of a good
beer is in the drinking. You, and your friends if your into that "generosity"
stuff. Not some stuffy judge.
I recently lost some points on a Bock in a contest because it was too reddish,
and it should have been more brown. But, I -like- it ther color it is. And
I don't need a prize to tell me it's good beer. I like prizes, don't get me
wrong, but I like my beer my way more than I like prizes.
While the shake-up in judging standards may be an opportunity for improvement
in homebrewing, the "problem", if there is one, is with individual homebrewers.
Brew what _you_ want to brew. If it fits in a category, enter it into a
contest. If not, send the extra bottles to me, and I'll send you a
certificate declaring you "officially cool".
And if you compromise your creativity and joy of homebrewing for the sake of
some silly prize, well, that's your problem, not some judge or certifying
organization.
If I want Guinness, I'll buy it in the store. Nonetheless, I'd bet the top
prize winners in "Stout" in most competetions are excellent beers, whether or
not they spent more effort making them "like Guinness" than they did making
them "great".
Wow, I had intended this to be a three or four line response. Oops.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 12:07:04 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Purple Brain
> From: hbush@pppl.gov (harry)
> Subject: A Purple Heart for Homebrewing?
>
> Enough of that, my real question is: Is my beer ruined?........
Depends. Did you drop a full carboy and have one of your legs cut off
with glass splinters? If so, the protein in your blood should help unstick
your ferment, and add a lot to mouthfeel. (Assuming you used enough copper
and that secret spice in there.)
-R
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 16:46:00 GMT
From: jeff.guillet@lcabin.com (Jeff Guillet)
Subject: Extract qualities, etc.
ggarnett@qrc.com (G. Garnett) writes:
G>There sure are a lot of them, and I've often wondered what the
G>difference between the various brands and types is. In many cases,
G>all the manufactuer tells us is "light", "amber" or "dark", but
G>clearly all light extracts aren't created equal. Is there an extract
G>FAQ, or even just a list of the commonly-available types and their
G>approximate compositions?
G>It would be nice to have a little more knowledge about what to expect
G>when selecting extracts; rather than trying to figure it out through
G>hindsight and guesswork.
I wholeheartedly agree! I'm sure this would be an invaluable resource
to extract brewers. Anyone out there up to the task?
-=Jeff=- Pacifica, CA
jeff.guillet@lcabin.com
* CMPQwk 1.42-R2 * Reg #1757 *
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 14:14:59 EST
From: knetlb@smtp-gw.spawar.navy.mil
Subject: Kegged beer through cold plate
I currently dispense kegged beer from a freezer in my basement. I'd like to
dispense using an undercounter frig in my kitchen using a cold plate. I've
found cold plates at a reasonable price. Has anyone had success with this
method?
TIA
Bob Knetl
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 95 13:33:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Styles
Every now and then this topic of the purpose of styles and style guidelines
crops up. The argument usually is that styles are limiting creativity.
Don posts an article by Sam Piper:
> The problem with judging and standards is what I call the American way
> of success death. Because rooted in a standard is the expectation of
> replication, o loss of individuality, of mass production for mass
> consumption by the masses of consumers. It's great for commodities,
> car parts and anything to do with manufacturing or repair. But in the
> world of arts and appreciation, a standard has to define a level of
> quality, not limiting characteristics.
The author either does not understand all the variablity in brewing, the
difficulties of judging or is very narrow-minded. First, varibility.
I could give 5 brewers the same recipe and I'll bet that no two will taste
exactly alike. There are just too many variables: mash tun design,
heating methods, measuring of ingredients, mash tun geometry, kettle
geometry, water differences, heat sources, temperatures (mash, boil,
fermentation and conditioning) and finally "house character" which is
usually the local benign microflora.
Secondly, how are we to judge a beer without a set of guidelines? How can
we compare an English Brown with a Bohemian Pils? We could just judge
beers by how much we liked them, I suppose? But then what would the
scoresheet say? Aroma: nice hop aroma; Appearance: good colour, clarity,
head; Flavour: some malt, good balance, decent bitterness; Body: yes;
Drinkability: I like it. Score: 40. No longer would we be giving ribbons
for how good an ESB one can brew, but rather how much a *particular* judge
likes your beer. You think competitions are crap shoots now!?!?
> and gratifying, and to define those terms by experience of tasting the
> beer at hand and not by how closely that beer tastes like another?
No, you are missing the point of competitions. No guideline is a single
point in the multidimensional beerspace. Guidelines are always ranges of
OG, ABV, IBUs, maltiness, hop flavour & aroma and yeast characteristics.
Judging has three main goals:
1. helping the brewer identify and solve problems in his/her procedure,
2. helping the brewer determine how good a beer they brewed within a set
of guidelines, and
3. picking a winnner.
The first could still be possible without guidelines: is it astringent?
does it have vegetive aromas? is it sour ? [hmmm... what if the brewer
WANTED it sour? -- perhaps they like Berliner Weiss and Lambik -- OOPS,
there are those evil *styles* again...]. The third might be possible too,
but say you got 300 beers? Well, then give each judge 10 beers and have
each pick their favorite. Each of those beers gets a ribbon:
"Bob's favourite" "Ginger's favourite" "Steve's favourite"
"Jim's favourite" "Tony's favourite" "Roger's favourite"
"Tom's favourite" "Ed's favourite" "John's favourite"
and so on.
Those 30 beers would go to the Best of Show where there would be one
judge who would pick his/her three favourite beers. So what would this
prove? All your ribbon would represent is that you pleased the palate
of one judge. Put more than one judge on a flight? Hmmm? Well, on
what grounds would they find commonality? "I like this one because it has
more malt." ... "I like this one because it has more hops." Stalemate.
> I am just sick of contest judges who fault stout beers for not tasting
> exactly like Guiness.
While it may be true that Guinness is an excellent Dry Stout, it is narrow-
minded to think that one of us could not brew a tastier Dry Stout and rather
pretentious for anyone to think that they could brew a perfect clone of
Guinness. Few judges are so narrow-minded to give out 45's to the beers
that match their one standard beer perfectly and 19's to those that don't.
Those judges who are like that should be tossed out of the programme. Even
if a judge does write "Too sweet for style -- taste this against a glass
of Guinness." is probably just trying to help you identify the difference
between a sweet stout and a dry one.
> The more we succumb to beer style standards, the less room there is
> for the individual, be that person a consumer, a brewer, or a business
> man.
There is plenty of room for individuality even when there are guidelines
in place. Most guidelines overlap quite a bit and there are few beers
that would not fit into any category. We need guidelines to narrow the
target at which we are aiming on a particular brewing or judging session.
If you just throw whatever malts you have together and throw in whatever
hops you have and pitch whatever yeast is handy you might make a drinkable
beer and one that is very tasty, but then don't complain when it does not
fit into any style... just don't enter it... enjoy it!
Al.
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 95 14:34:27 EDT
From: "Mark A. Melton" <75452.277@compuserve.com>
Subject: Fining agents
The disparity of experience with IM and gelatin suggest that other factors are
at least as important as the presence or absence of these materials, or that the
method of use is critical. Hence, formal statistical tests, such as that
mentioned by Andy Walsh, should be performed. However, I think at least a 3x3
anova with replications would be needed with exactly the same wort, or better a
3-way anova with different worts. As I am approaching 65 I doubt if I still have
the time left to run such tests, but others may be willing to to them. The
conclusions I drew were based on extract, partial mash, and all-grain mash
brews. The extract brews were clearest at bottling and had little if any trouble
with chill haze. Of the others which involve at least 50% mash wort, considering
only the extremes of clarity and murkiness, there is no relation to use of IM or
gelatin. A few of the murkiest were brewed with IM and a few of the clearest
were not. Clearly something else is more important. I should add that I have
used dry and reconstituted IM, at rates between 1/2 tsp to 1 Tbs per 5 gal.,
usually added during the last 20 minutes of the boil; I boil for 45 min. to
1:15, usually no more. I have added gelatin from two days before bottling up to
about an hour. Half a day or even 24 hours is not enough to avoid the ppt on the
sides of the bottle that I mentioned. Any clarification that gelatin causes is
vitiated by the ppt which is barely more dense than the beer and tends to swirl
up in a cloud when pouring. I have observed the same thing with isinglas. I have
not tried egg white or ox blood which are other flocculating agents that I have
read about. In all cases, removal of the wort or beer from the trub ("dropping")
before fermentation begins in earnest and again before bottling seems to be the
best practice. I have never, ever, had any trouble with the yeast falling out
hence see no reason to add something to make it happen. I think I can attribute
lack of clarity at bottling time to too short a boil; however the presence of IM
did not help in at least some of those cases.
Finally, when dealing with multivariate systems long experience is useful but a
single observation is worthless, so I tend to discount declarations of faith.
The best thing to do with sacred cows is to puncture them!
Slainte,
Mark A. Melton
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 13:46:55 -0640
From: FLATTER%MHS@mhs.rose-hulman.edu
Subject: Styles and Creativity by Sam Piper
In his message titled Styles & Creativity, Sam Piper expresses the
following opinion:
Can you imagine a master chef in any restaurant in the world who wants
his Veal Florentine to be exactly like James Beard's ... or anyone
else's? Hell no. It had better be different, it had better be
excellent, and any gourmet should be prepared to appreciate both
dimensions of the dish!
The problem with judging and standards is what I call the American way of
success death. Because rooted in a standard is the expectation of
replication, a loss of individuality, of mass production for mass
consumption by the masses of consumers.
++++++++++++++
Ever since God created Adam, man has been trying to name and classify
what he saw [Gen 2:19]. It helps us communicate what we want. [If I
ordered a Veal Florentine in a restaurant and got a dish that tasted like
James Beard had made it, I'd be happy. If I got a porterhouse steak
instead, I'd be questioning the server!] Contests are held to compare
what we have at hand to a representation of that name we've assigned. By
separating beers into classes, we convey our expectations.
Just because the American Kennel Club didn't pick Lassie as best of
breed, it doesn't mean she won't save Timmy from this week's peril. The
same holds true of style groupings in beer contests. I agree with you
that I would deem my stout a failure if it tasted EXACTLY like Guiness
[in spite of the profit potential], but it's likely to win the dry stout
competition. When I brew, I want a finished product that tastes good.
Period. As an example, I read that weiBen has a hint of clove. Since
more is always better, I added three teaspoons of ground clove to my
first wheat. If it were compared to commercial examples, the judge
couldn't stop laughing long enough to fill out the score card. That
doesn't make it a bad beer. It just means that is a poor example of the
standard. [Perhaps it would do better in herb beers.]
The point is, if I wanted to explain to someone what a stout was, I
wouldn't give them a Pilsner Urquell. I'd give them a Guiness. While
PilUr is an excellent example of that style, it's a horrid example of a
stout. A fair portion of the homebrewers out there consider it a
challenge to hit a given standard exactly. They spend countless hours
trying to make a wit that tastes exactly like Celis White. We need those
people too. They help define what I create. Just don't expect me to
stop combining ordinary ingredients in strange, yet exciting,
combinations!
- --------------
Neil Flatter Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology
Chemistry - Math (CMA) Department of Chemistry Stockroom Manager
Novell Supervisor 5500 Wabash Avenue 73
(812) 877 - 8316 Terre Haute, IN 47803-3999
FAX: 877 - 3198 Flatter@Rose-Hulman.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 14:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric Bender <benderec@ttown.apci.com>
Subject: Sam Piper for president
In response to Sam Piper's article in HBD #1738 & 1740 on "Styles &
Creativity", I just have to say BRAVO! I have had the same feelings ever
since I entered the hobby three years ago, but was never able to convey
the message so eloquently. If only everybody was a free thinker like Sam.
As the late, great Frank Zappa once said; The "optional point of view"
(anything that deviates from the fraudulent "norms" being merchandised by
instant religions and other branches of the mind-control industry) is now
an endangered species in America. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is
merely ignorant. Many people in the U.S. have a good excuse for being
uneducated (our schools...even the government will admit to that), but
hard-core american ignorance, and the way in which it is worshiped and
rewarded here,is a disease. Please excuse the political outburst, but I
just got hammered (In the national AHA contest) on a couple delicious
beers that were deemed "not true to style".
P.S. By the way, I meant for president of Sam's local beer club.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:07:43 -0400
From: molloy@tcpcs3.dnet.etn.com
Subject: Help! (Filtering Wort)
I like using hop pellets, and I don't want to change.
I just had my first run at inverted fermenting with the Fermentap system.
My straining methods are not sufficient to remove the h-pellet meterial
and it clogs up the drain valve. The meterial is also saturated with
good beer. I feel that I must remove 98% of this meterial to allow the
Fermentap system to function properly.
I currently use a fine mesh screen (fry pan screen) to filter the
cooled wort. The screen must be rinsed 5 times during a 5 gal.
dump into the carboy. Approx % removal of h-meterial 75%
I want to avoid spending money on a pressurized filter system.
I would not have a problem filtering the hot wort, and then cooling if
need be.
Pre-thanks to any respondeez
P. Molloy, trying to stay inverted in kalamazoo but loosing.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:34:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: barber eric stephen <barber_e@einstein.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Priming
Last night I primed a batch of pale ale
prior to bottling per usual. I have reason
to believe that the sugar solution was not
cooled enough, i guess I figured that 120 oz.
of 60~70 degree F beer would not be harmed by
< 10 oz of warm, or even hot priming solution.
Well when I dumped the sugar in, a sort of fizzy
head developed. I tried not to think of the
cosequences and bottled on. As I used my bottle
filler, which normally fills with minimal turbulance,
I noticed that the headspace filled with a sort of
creamy head. This has never happened before, IMBR?
Was the priming sugar too hot? I did cool it, but not
as much as usual, probally down to 120~130 degree F.
Not much I can do now, but bring the experiance
to you other bottlers out there. I will post the pepsee
challange results of this otherwise encouraging brew.
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 15:40:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: barber eric stephen <barber_e@einstein.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: 5-25-95 HBD
I was dropped from HBD, probally for making such
a dumb bottling mistake last night (the beer gods work
in mysterious ways). Can someone forward a copy of HBD
posted on 5-25-95, and 5-26-95 to be safe, I'm waiting
closly for the knowledge of all you good folk.
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 95 12:38:10 PDT
From: hollen@megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Pump priming (was: PICO brewing systems)
This is a general statement about magnetic pumps used in brewing
(people have been in particular referring to the March pumps sold with
the PICO brewing systems).
Magnetically coupled pumps are *not* self-priming since they have an
impeller which does not touch the impeller housing at all, so there is
no way for them to create a vacuum like flexible rubber impeller pumps
do. Therefore the manufacturers always recommend that the pumps be
placed *below* the level of the liquid being pumped and that the input
tube/hose does not go up at any place. In this manner, these pumps
are gravity primed.
I have never seen a PICO system, so I cannot comment on their design,
but it is my opinion that anyone who would design a system with a
gravity feed pump and not put it at the lowest point in the system
with at least *several* inches of head to do a *good* job of gravity
feed, has done a poor job of designing the system. Needing to prime a
pump is not only annoying, but is also dangerous to the pump. It
isn't until you get to the $300 or so models of March magnetically
driven pumps that they have carbon bushings and can run dry. Any of
the less expensive models must *not* run dry or they risk damage.
Making sure to have a good head to gravity prime the pump is very
important for long life of the system.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: hollen@megatek.com
Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 13:40:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nikolaus Matheis <psu04289@odin.cc.pdx.edu>
Subject: Headstart Yeast Co.?
I was at my local brewshop just the other day, and the owner pointed my
way to a yeast company he had heard of. This yeast company is called (I
think?) Headstart Yeast Co. and specializes in "wild" strains just
perfect for Belgians, such as Oud Bruin w/Lactobacillus. The company is
supposedly based out of Kentucky. I would appreciate any info. regarding
this company and would just love to dispense with the 88% lactic acid in
my pLambics, Saisons, Oud Bruins, and Wits. Personal e-mail is great.
Please respond soon, as my current term in school is over soon along with
my e-mail priveleges.
Belgian Nik -"Spice is the vatiety of beer."
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 17:05:47 -0400
From: DSWPHOTO@aol.com
Subject: Water in NYC
First of all, I want to thank all that responded to my last (and first)
posting on Trub. The response was great. I feel I no longer need to lurk in
the shadows, in fact I might just gripe abit and really feel like part of the
collective.
My question today is about brewing water. I want to go to partial or all
grain and would like to know if anybody in New York City can tell me about
the specs on the water. Or is there a known source of bottled water available
that is good for brewing. Please email me or post to the collective. Thanks.
Now for the gripe!
I recently placed and order from Hop Tech in California. I found
them to be quite knowlegable and helpful on the phone. I ordered some
equipment and one of their "Pacific Coast Brewing Co." kits. The kit was
complete with malt extract, hops, ect. but without any mention of the
ingredients. When I called to find out at least what kind of hops they were
supplying in the kit I was told that they could not give out that
information. They said the "PCB Co." does not allow them to give any
information concerning their brewing kits. As a homebrewer I am always on the
look out for a good brew. Making beer by no means stops me from purchasing
beer. What's the big secret? I know it took someone awhile to formulate their
own recipe but I've found (except in this instance) that most people in the
brewing world (especially HomeBrewers) are more than happy, even excited to
share their beer knowledge. I don't think I am going to put the "PCB Co." out
of business with my five gallon set up.
I would love to hear anybodys comment on this matter. Lets make it an open
discussion. Thanks.
David.
------------------------------
Date: 25 May 95 16:18:00 -0500
From: korz@iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: knifeing the grain bed/
Craig writes:
> I'm home now with the _The Practical Brewer_ in front of me. Here's what the
>Master Brewers Association of the Americas has to say on grain beds:
>
<snip>
> it to the top of the grain bed and redistribute it down through
> the classifying particles. During this and subsequent lautering
> processes, it is important that the lautering knives be operated
> in a manner that the dough layer immediately above the plates is
> not disturbed. The knives should, however, be kept operating at
> or just below the interface between the wort and the grain bed to
> keep the gelatinous layer from sealing the bed.
>
<snip>
>So with the caveat (sp?) of "an undisturbed mash", the husks are actually the
>top layer of the grain bed during the sparge. I quoted the whole paragraph
>because I thought it was a sinister way to re-introduce the "knife the grain
>bed during the sparge" thread ;^) It also brought up what could be a reason
>for some stuck sparges: to little agitation of the top of the bed during
>water additions lets the gelatinous ( = protein (can you say wheat?)) layer
>seal the bed and no water flows. Craig's stuck sparge advice of the day:
>if you have a stuck sparge, as a first attempt at fixing it, give the top
>couple of inches of the grain bed a quick stir with a spoon or knife. It
>might work.
Let's think a bit about what's in the laeuter tun at the end of the mash.
If all went well, all your soluble starch will have been converted to
sugars and will be in solution. So, what is in your laeuter tun is a
sweet liquid and a bunch of insoluble stuff. This insoluble stuff is going
to be husks, bits of acrospire, some lipids (fats), some gums... basically
all the parts of the grain that were not starch, soluble protein or sugar.
So the husks don't "fall to the bottom of the grain bed," for the most
part they *are* the grain bed.
Now you stir up this mess and put it into a container that has some small
holes in the bottom. When you draw-off the liquid, at first the smaller
pieces of insoluble stuff is going to flow through the holes. This is
the cloudy runnings. As time and the runoff progresses, pieces too big
to flow through the holes are going to build up a layer which will trap
smaller pieces. This is the filter bed. Everthing above it can, and
sometimes does, trap smaller pieces, which is good because if all the
small pieces made it to the very bottom, eventually smaller and smaller
pieces would be required to make it through the gauntlet of the filter
bed and the flow would subsequently stop.
I feel that in an all-barley mash, if you get a set mash (stuck runoff),
it is probably due to too-fine a crush. Too cool a temperature in the
case of a *very* thick wort could also be a problem, but I feel it is less
likely. I believe that Craig makes a good point regarding the possibility
that gummy mashes, like those that contain a lot of wheat (or, for that
matter, other grains like oats) can produce a too-dense layer of that
fine, gelatinous material which might prevent sparge water from flowing
thorugh the mash. I agree that if this happens knifing the grain bed is
indeed the only alternative, but would suggest just knifing only the top
1/2" and see if that works. For future batches with this recipe, I would
try adding or increasing the length of rests in the temperature ranges that
break down the gummy materials (e.g. beta-glucans, proteins, etc.). It
is better to fix the problem rather than to work around a symptom.
Regarding the Practical Brewer book's recommendation which implies that
the rakes *must* be run during the laeuter, I feel that it is wrong to
say that this is true for all systems and for all mashing techniques.
Since you re-introduced the topic, I'll repost my response from 940722:
>Jim writes:
>>Stirring the lauter is not great but it is also not bad. What
>>you want to do to increase efficiency/yield is to "knife" the
>>lauter beginning about halfway through the lautering. Dont
>>knife too deep, but by "rakeing" the grains you will help to
>>eliminate channeling that can occur.
>
>I'm afraid I have to disagree with you Jim. I contend that raking (sp?)
>would INCREASE channeling since the "knives" cutting through the grain
>bed would create channels (sort of like 3-D rivers) through the bed and
>that the sparge water would have a tendancy to continue to travel down
>these paths of least resistance. Granted, this is not my area of expertise,
>but I've talked to my dad (his degree is in Civil Engineering where channeling
>through soil is the issue) about this and he seemed to agree that my theory
>on the grain bed is probaby valid.
>
>During a tour I took of Chicago Brewing Company, I noticed that their rakes
>were on during the lauter. I later asked brewmaster Greg Moehn about the
>rakes and he was very forthcoming. He said that they (if I recall correctly)
>run the rakes 5 minutes and then stop them for 25. They tried this ONCE on
>a batch of Heartland Weiss and could not restart them. Talk about set mash!
>They had to shovel the grain out by hand. By the way, the rakes at CBC run
>at 1/2 rpm.
>
>While studying for the BJCP exam (back in April), I recall reading in Hough's
>"The Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing" that rakes were *not* essential in
>infusion mashes, but *are* for decoction mashes. He said that the boiling
>of the decoctions boils out the trapped air which gives infusion mash grain
>beds some boyancy. It's this lack of boyancy, Hough said, which is what
>makes the rakes necessary when lautering a decoction mash.
>
>Al.
Al.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1742, 05/27/95
*************************************
-------
