Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1882
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/11/13 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1882 Mon 13 November 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
opinions and Wyeast ("Tracy Aquilla")
Flat Beer (Ian Smith)
Re: An additional Anaerobic Racking ("Michael A. Owings")
Re: Chlorine (Robert Waterfall)
Chlorine in America (Michael Higuchi)
Partial-mash strainer hole size/Cooler question (Dave Riedel)
Binford ToxiTherm 4000 (Rob Lauriston)
BREWING HELP (Jeffrey=Hamel)
BREWING HELP (Jeffrey=Hamel)
...no subject... (Jeffrey=Hamel)
Instant heat ("Rich Byrnes")
Re: hardness test strips...the source ("Tracy Aquilla")
HBD Reader Program (KennyEddy)
Brewing water and Brita filters (David M. Muzidal)
Sam Adams Bashing & Blue Fin (HAROLD.SILVERMAN)
Chapeau Lambic [sic]/Home Brew Technique.../Yeast complaints (Algis R Korzonas)
Scotch Ale recipe (Todd Mansfield)
SA Honey Porter (Michael Kerns)
Alcohol Calculations (Kirk R Fleming)
Stainless Steel Airstone Request (AGNORCB)
Scuba Tanks for Keg (GriswoldJ)
Ain't That Peculier (KennyEddy)
Hopping in Scotch ales (Stuart Anderson)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! November 5 thru November 11: The digest
!!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if
!!! you make any requests during this time
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************************************************
* 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.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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@alpha.rollanet.org
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, 10 Nov 95 12:32:04 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: opinions and Wyeast
In Digest #1880 Joe Clayton <claytonj@cc.tacom.army.mil> sez:
>"Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu> in one article says:
>
>> ... I doubt if it's wise (or responsible) to post unsubstantiated
>>claims like this to r.c.b or the digest (or to spread rumors
>>by repeating hearsay). Publicly questioning the quality of their
>>products and/or their sense of business ethics probably won't solve
>>your problem, but it is likely to land you in court!
>
>Then in another article says:
>
>>... I actually tested the three 'most popular' brands at the time:
>>Glatt, Phills, and the MaltMill. I think the others are basically
>>junk compared to the MaltMill. Maybe there's a reason Glatt went
>>belly-up?
>
>Isn't that a contradiction in the same digest? ;-)
I can see now how one might get that impression, but no, I don't think I
contradicted myself. I was specifically referring to statements people have
made suggesting that Wyeast is doing something illegal or unethical. While I
certainly did publicly question the quality of of some specific products, I
never stated or implied that these mill manufacturers might be doing
something unethical or illegal and that's an important distinction. I think
it's acceptable to state that you have a problem with a product or that
you're dissatisfied with certain products. In fact, I would encourage this
as it contributes to the discussion. However, if one suggests that a certain
manufacturer is doing something illegal or unethical, you'd better have some
damn good evidence to support your claim if you don't want to be sued for
libel. In any case, it's your choice; I'm not a censor. To clarify, I never
meant to imply that people should keep their complaints to themselves, just
that they might want to consider the potential repercussions of certain
insinuations. FWIW, there was a case a couple of years ago where someone was
successfully sued to the tune of $40,000 for libelous statements posted to
usenet (don't say I didn't warn you). Just think before you type!
>I don't recall anyone saying Wyeast was knowingly selling bad 1056 yeast.
I was specifically referring to the following:
Harlan <blacksab@siu.edu> said:
>>>be reminded that Wyeast was caught selling Brettanomyces yeast (that's how
>>>the package was labeled) when in fact the package contained mostly Ale
This implies that they were "caught" deliberately doing something "wrong".
It's hearsay, unsubstantiated, and potentially libelous.
>>>So don't expect Wyeast to be forthcoming about any real or percieved
>>>problems with their products.
This implies that they intentionally sell "defective" merchandise.
I hope that clears the air. If you still don't get my point, email me.
Tracy in Vermont
aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 10:29:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: Flat Beer
I recently made an ale and after a 3 day primary and 4 day secondary
(1.058 OG - 1.008 FG) I primed with 3/4 cup corn sugar and bottled. The
bottles have been at 70 F for 2 week and not a CO2 bubble in sight !
What could be wrong and how do I fix it without re-bottling ?
Thanks,
Ian Smith
(303) 530-2626
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 11:24:12 -0600 (CST)
From: "Michael A. Owings" <mikey@waste.com>
Subject: Re: An additional Anaerobic Racking
I should point out here, in case the original message was unclear:
I DO NOT DUCK TAPE THE ORANGE CAP TO THE CARBOY!!! I tape the gas-out
line from the tank to the blow stem on the orange cap (my gas out line
would not fit the tap, otherwise.) NEVER TAPE THE CAP TO THE CARBOY.
There is no need to do so, in any case, since the seal should be quite
good without tape.
>From the original post:
=========================
After filling the
secondary carboy with CO2 to purge any air present, I attached the gas
out line from my tank to the second hole (the one used to blow into for
starting a siphon) on the carboy cap. It fit rather poorly, so I used
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
a little duck tape to secure it. I then attached a hose to the racking
cane and ran it into the secondary.
===========================
The reference to "It fit ..." above is indeed ambiguous. I was referring
to the hose, NOT the carboy cap. Thanx to Ken for pointing this out,
and my apologies for any confusion my failure to edit before posting may
have caused.
On Fri, 10 Nov 1995, Ken Schroeder wrote:
<stuff deleted>
> I did find a troubling technique in Micheals method. Micheal duck tapes the
> organge two hole cap to his carboy for better seal. This is potentially
> dangerous. If, by odd chance, something goes wrong, Micheal could have
==============================================================================
Michael Owings Chief of Operations
Uncle Leroi's Hazardous Materials Storage and FemtoBrewery New Orleans, LA
==============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:25:33 -0500
From: Robert Waterfall <waterr@rpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Chlorine
Several people have commented on the chlorine bleach and dioxins connection.
Here's my two cents. First, I'm an environmental engineer, but water
pollution by organochlorines is not my specialty. That said, what I've
heard (pretty much second-hand and half-remembered) about chlorine bleach
and dioxins is a problem that occurs when bleaching paper so it's nice and
white. In that process, you have high concentrations of hypochlorites and
of organics of the
general shape needed to form dioxin molecules. This can
lead to the formation of very small quantities of chlorinated dioxins, but
(some think) it only takes a little.
The problems occur with paper plant effluents (which can be plenty nasty
even without dioxins) and if you ingest the paper or leach the dioxins out
of it somehow. You might have noticed all the unbleached paper coffee
filters available. They hit the market shortly after the bleach/dioxin hit
the news (in a minor way) a few years back. Why didn't the mainsteam media
make a fuss? Choose your favorite conspiracy theory. Or perhaps the first
reports were exaggerated or misunderstood.
Oh yeah, beer! I wouldn't worry about this in terms of beer-making at any
level of production. Massive doses of chlorine may however kill the bugs
in your septic system. Since we haven't seen any posts about that, I guess
homebrewing doesn't generate enough of a load to cause any problems. Of
course I wouldn't expect it to since I use more bleach in a load of laundry
than for a batch of homebrew.
Bob Waterfall,
Troy, NY, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 19:57:16 GMT
From: mhiguchi@ix.netcom.com (Michael Higuchi)
Subject: Chlorine in America
Jay LaBonte wrote:
> If my Environmental Conservation courses and my memory serve me
> correctly chlorine reacts with organic compounds in nature to form
> organochlorines like Dioxin - you know Dioxin? That nasty cancer
> causing stuff that has been the scourge of EPA Superfund sites for
> years now. <snip>
and then Rob Reed wrote:
> don't understand if the use of chlorine results in the formation of
>hazardous chemicals as you say, why hasn't the mainstream media brought
>it to our attention and why aren't swimming pool chemicals containing
>chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, and chlorine containing drinking water
>under investigation by the EPA? Can you elucidate us?
Well, you're both kind of right. As far as I know, chlorine in water
doesn't react to form dioxins (of which I think there are 75 types).
Chlorine and bromine, which are common disinfectants used in drinking
water, do react with organic material to form chloroamines, chlorides,
and trihalomethanes (THM) which include chloroform, bromoform,
bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane. THM in drinking water
_is_ regulated by USEPA, with the maximum allowable level set at 100
micrograms per liter.
The reason this is allowed is that the health risk caused by _not_
disinfecting is astronomical, and other technologies (such as
ozonation) are considered too expensive. How much _can_ people pay
for water?
Now back to your regularly scheduled beer-gramming.
Regards,
Michael Higuchi
Geologist, Engineer, and Groundwater Cleaner-upper
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 12:09:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
Subject: Partial-mash strainer hole size/Cooler question
A number of digests ago, I questioned Dave Miller's recommendation of drilling
hundreds of 3/16th inch holes in a plastic bucket to make a partial-mash
strainer. The responses I received generally agreed that 3/16ths seemed too
big- one brewer had already tried this set-up and it clogged up on him. Two
people suggested that I use a grain bag.
So, armed with a grain bag, I tried a partial mash stout last weekend. In
general, all went well. However, "Miller's-hole's" made for one heck of a fast
sparge. There was absolutely *no way* I could 'add liquid to cover the grains
and add more as the level drops below the surface of the grain bed', (unless I
poured in about a gallon at a time). My SG ended up 3 points below Miller's
predicted value. Is the low SG likely the result of the very short sparge time?
This is my first attempt at mashing/sparging, previously I was using extracts
and steeped specialty grains, so feel free to correct me if I've got something
wrong here.
*Comment:
In any case, I think perhaps Miller's 3/16ths hole size in "Brewing the World's
Great Beers" may be a typo. I don't recommend it. It seems to me that a
smaller hole size would 1) eliminate the use of a grain bag and 2) enable a
slower sparge rate. Am I wrong?
*Question:
This mashing stuff is great fun.... I haven't even tasted the beer yet and I'm
already hooked. With one eye on the future, I'd like to get a 10 gal cooler
to mash/sparge in. Is it possible to sparge a partial-mash amount of grains
(about 4 pounds) in one of these big coolers? Or will the bed be spread too
thinly?
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC Canada
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 12:20 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: Binford ToxiTherm 4000
In HBD # 1879 : "Merchant, Thomas E" <temercha@hsv23.pcmail.ingr.com>
mentions decreased performance of his Binford ToxiTherm 4000.
> I'm thinking "more power". Has anyone been successful at modifying it
for better performance? If so, what did you do? Thanks.
Yeah, the Hg bath is great, but heating it is a PITA. I had to use my
dihydrogen monoxide generator in series with several indoor propane stoves
to turbocharge the heat exchange. I like to fire it all up in the basement
before I go to bed, then I can cool in after breakfast. Don't forget to
lock all your doors and windows before you turn in! I use the excess heat
to melt down the guts of car batteries. The metal you can get out makes
funky soft sculptures. I like to make beer steins out of it, it's so soft
and workable.
- Rob
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:28:30 EST
From: Jeffrey=Hamel%MRL%MSDTWK@vines.msd.ray.com
Subject: BREWING HELP
I am brewing my first batch after being away for two years. My problem is
I added yeast to my 5 gal batch after it was cooled.
Nothing happened after 4-5days.
I added more yeast, Again nothing happened after 2-3days.
What went wrong ?? any help would be appreciated
Thanks in Advance
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:28:30 EST
From: Jeffrey=Hamel%MRL%MSDTWK@vines.msd.ray.com
Subject: BREWING HELP
I am brewing my first batch after being away for two years. My problem is
I added yeast to my 5 gal batch after it was cooled.
Nothing happened after 4-5days.
I added more yeast, Again nothing happened after 2-3days.
What went wrong ?? any help would be appreciated
Thanks in Advance
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:36:08 EST
From: Jeffrey=Hamel%MRL%MSDTWK@vines.msd.ray.com
Subject: ...no subject...
cancel article Nov10,13:38,29879
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:44:26 EST
From: "Rich Byrnes" <rich.byrnes@e-mail.com>
Subject: Instant heat
Binford Schminford, Nuclear Rods-HA! (As if Homer Simpson would start
brewing)
Caution, actual story to follow!
George Goble, Computer Geek Engineering god from Purdue University (PU)
and his buddies hold an annual bar-b-que, where the emphasis got to be
on how fast they could get the charcoal ready, last year they reached
their pinnacle, by dumping 3 gallons of liquid oxygen on a grill with
60lbs of charcoal and a burning cigarette they produced a fireball that
reached 10,000 F. instantly, the charcoal was ready to go in 3 seconds.
Now, how to use that on a pico system, hmmmmm. Could you imagine the
scorch thread that would follow :-)
P.S. Caution, liquid Oxygen is heavier than air (no, really!) and if you
spill it in your basement, you will be missed (so will any identifiable
part of your anatomy, except maybe a dna strand here and there,(and
who knows how reliable that is anymore)
If anyone's interested in proof of this story, just check out
Mr. Goble's web-site. Photo's and video clips included!
http://ghg.ecn.purdue.edu/
Rich Byrnes
Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen
Please pay attention to the next few lines
I have been scolded for telling people to
ignore them because I do. Happy Al?
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
B&AO Pre-Production Color Unit \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520 (.) (.)
Rich.Byrnes@E-mail.com_____________________o000__(_)__000o
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 95 15:53:54 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Re: hardness test strips...the source
I received several requests for this information so I'm emailing and posting.
Aqua-Check 5-in-1 test strips are manufactured by Environmental Test
Systems. Their phone is 800-452-0206, ext. #12. The distributor I bought
them from is called Mid-City Supply (219-294-5551); ask for the inside sales
dep't. If you call the manufacturer they'll refer you to a local
distributor. Unless you're on the left coast, Mid-City is probably your best
bet; no minimum order and they take plastic. These strips test for free
chlorine, total chlorine, hardness, total alkalinity, and pH. These aren't
the best pH strips though. I recommend ColorpHast test strips for monitoring
pH. They make some with a narrow pH range that's ideal for brewing. I get
mine right here in the lab, so I'm not sure where you can buy them, but most
of the major scientific suppliers stock them (or a similar product). I think
a few homebrew suppliers have them now too.
Good luck.
Tracy in Vermont
aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 16:24:29 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: HBD Reader Program
Pat Babcock was kind enough to post my Windows HBD Reader utility at
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Download it and see if it enhances your HBD experience!
I believe this program is a big improvement over "hbdbrow" in the following
ways:
1) Ability to print and save individual articles;
2) Copy'n'Cut'n'Paste capability, plus a unique Clipboard "Add" feature
to append to rather than replace the Clipboard contents*;
3) Easier article-to-article navigation.
*The Clipboard Add feature is nice, say, if you want to "collect" bits of
thread into one "document".
Full search/search again capabilities and font adjustment are included.
Enjoy!
Ken
The BurpenFahrten Brewery
Ken Schwartz, prop.
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 15:55:01 -0600
From: David.Muzidal@dssc.slg.eds.com (David M. Muzidal)
Subject: Brewing water and Brita filters
My local water treatment plant treats the water with chloramines,
which supposedly cannot be boiled out of solution like free
chlorine can (discussed in the Zymurgy '95 "Great Grains" issue).
So I bought a Brita filter since it has a carbon filter and
eliminates up to 90% of the chlorine. The filter also reduces
lead, copper, odors, particulates and softens the water without
adding sodium. This all seems desirable. However, the last point
may be causing me some trouble. The pH of the water out of my tap
is 8.0. After filtering it through the Brita, the pH is ~5.2!
Here are my local (Plano, TX) water stats:
(all numbers are mg/L, which is the same as ppm)
Calcium (Ca) 30 Magnesium (Mg) 3
Sodium (Na) 9 Bicarbonates (HCO3) 92
Carbonates (CO3) 0 Sulfate (SO4) 27
Chloride (Cl) 12 Total Alkalinity 75
Noncarbonate Hardness 19 Total Hardness 94
Chlorine residue 2.8 pH 8.0
What I *think* has happend is that in reducing the temporary
hardness of the water, all of the bicarbonates were removed
allowing the calcium to pull down the pH. Is this correct?
If so, adding up to 1 tsp. of calcium carbonate to correct the
pH *should* be OK. My last partial mash with 2lbs of Briess
two-row, 2lbs DW-C Caramunich and boiled Brita water resulted
in a mash pH of ~4.9. Stouts and porters may require too
much calcium carbonate to raise the pH into the correct range.
Are there any chemically literate folks out there who can
provide any explanations or suggestions regarding this?
How should I treat this water? Keep using the Brita (it does
have some advantages) and add calcium carbonate, or should I
just use a plain carbon filter and boil the water?
Inquiring minds want to know! - Thanks.
David Muzidal
Electronic Data Systems
David.Muzidal@dssc.slg.eds.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 1995 14:20:00 -0500
From: HAROLD.SILVERMAN@BAIN.sprint.com
Subject: Sam Adams Bashing & Blue Fin
I must say that I am a little disturbed about the recent Sam Adams
bashing which has been going on. I may be biased, as I am from Boston, but
while I have little knowledge of S/A's business practices (except that they
are indeed a contract brewer), I think that they (and Pete's to name
another) should be given some credit. I believe that S/A has contributed
greatly to a rise in the level of the tastebuds of mainstream America. So
while the majority are still swilling Bud and worse, many of their
companions are indulging their taste buds with some flavor.
I am not contending that the brewers at Sam Adams are brewing the
finest craft beer in America. I personnaly tend to prefer many beers
brewed by Harpoon brewery (again I'm showing my bias towards Boston beers),
but it is nice that in just about every bar or restaurant I can at least
get a nice Sammy.
I am especially bothered by those who have implicitly or explictly
lumped S/A and Pete's with the Big Three. When was the last time that A/B
or any of their oversized brethren were willing to mass produce any of the
following: a wheat (not to mention a Cherry Wheat), a bock, a stout, a
porter, or a fruit beer. All of which the Boston Brewing Company does
regularly.
On another note, I have a question. I am especially fond of
Stouts. Until last May I went to school in Brunswick, ME (Bowdoin). While
there I occasionaly indulged in Shipyard Blue Fin Stout and absolutely love
it. I even think it was even better than the Guiness I drank in Galway,
Ireland. I am wondering from any of you who are lucky enough to know
anything about it, what makes its distinctive flavor? And where can I get
it down here in the Boston Area? Personal E-Mail if people think it isn't
important enough for the digest.
Harold Silverman
(no association of any kind with Boston Beer Company, Pete's, Harpoon, or
the people who make that wonderful Stout)
harold.silverman@bain.sprint.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 9 Nov 95 14:21:55 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Chapeau Lambic [sic]/Home Brew Technique.../Yeast complaints
Ron writes:
>Last night I had a truley unique beer, Chapeau Mirabelle Lambic, a true
>Belgian lambic flavored with plum juice.
Sorry, it's not a true Belgian lambiek/lambic... it is a beverage (I wouldn't
even call it a beer) wich has a few percent lambiek/lambic (which is a
spontaneously-fermented, very sour wheat beer) added to what is otherwise
a regular ale and a great deal of fruit syrup. Why add the lambiek/lambic
at all? So you can put the (now chic) name on the label. Belgian law says
that anything labeled "Lambiek" or "Lambic" or "Lambik" must contain some
beer that has been spontaneously fermented.
>It had a very sweet taste like
>the fruit juice had just been added and none of the sugars had
>fermented out. Every fruit beer I have had including Kriek and
>Framboise have had fruit flavor but none of the sweetness. My question
>is how do they do this? The only thing I can think of is to filter out
>the yeast, add the juice, keg it and force-carbonate it using a CP
>filler to bottle with. Am I on the right track?
You've got it right, but to make something that tastes like those syrupy
sweet Chapeau beverages, you need to use syrup, not juice.
At the risk of sounding like a jerk, I ask: why bother? If you really want
fruity drinks, just get some fruit syrup, add a little water and vodka,
force carbonate and then CP bottle. In my opinion, it is far too much work
and takes too much time (2 to 3 years) to make a plambiek (pureculture lambiek)
only to cover up all its flavour and unique aromas with fruit syrup. If you
are going to go through the expense of getting the proper microbiota and go
through the long, time-consuming effort to make a plambiek, shoot for a
pgeuze/pgueuze and if that doesn't turn out quite right, then add real
cherries, real raspberries or real plums and make pkriek, pframboise or
pmirabelle.
***
Michael writes:
>Throughout my short career, I have NEVER taken a
>temperature, specific gravity reading or virtually any other measurement
>imaginable. Every batch turns out just as well as any homebrew I've ever
>had. For the most part, I use kits or malt extract, although I may
>proceed to a partial mash in the not-too-distant future. My question is
>then, "Why bother with all those measurements, if they aren't absolutely
>necessary?" Any comments????
You can make perfectly good beer without taking any measurements -- heck,
you could even make perfectly great beer without even weighing ingredients!
Personally, I do both take measurements and weight ingredients, but that's
mostly because if I hit upon a spectacular beer, I want to be able to
reproduce it.
The only measurements I feel are important in extract brewing are the
temperature in which you rehydrate dry yeast (90-110F or so) and the temp
of the wort into which you pitch yeast. You can simply guess and still
make good beer, however. For years, I didn't even have a scale -- I would
just buy 2 ounces of hops and if I needed 1.75, I would simply use 7/8 of
the package.
When it comes to all-grain or partial mashing batches, temperature gets
a little more important. If you overshoot your saccharification temperature
you can denature (ruin) your enzymes and the resulting liquid will not be beer,
but rather a mixture of starch and water -- a sort of runny wallpaper paste.
***
Tracy writes (quoting Eric):
>>It would be
>>difficult for any single brewer to state unequivocally that a problem is due
>>to the yeast producer and not to their own bad sanitation or recipe. Only
>
>Absolutely true, especially depending on at which point the "problem" is
>detected. That's part of the reason one should take it up with the supplier
>before posting public complaints.
This may be true in the case of a package of yeast that is suspected of being
infected, but that is not the case here. At issue is a product that for two
years now has been labeled as "Brettanomyces Bruxellensis" and was found by
a homebrewer to have contained mostly Saccharomyces and a small amount of
Brettanomyces. Sure, it is possible that the Saccharomyces was introduced
via bad technique, but my suspicion was that it was indeed a mixed-strain
yeast.
In yesterday's HBD, Jeff says that suppliers had been informed all along that
this is a blend and not a single-strain yeast. I am a retailer and I had never
received any such information until recently. A few weeks ago, I received a
letter stating that this yeast was always a mixed-strain yeast and that only
the name was being changed. My own personal tests with this yeast when it just
came out (not microbiological, but rather by brewing with it) indicate that
it did not contain a lot of Saccharomyces and, in fact, *acted* as if it was
100% Brett. Perhaps initial packages were 100% Brett and this was later
changed.
Now, I have been dealing with Wyeast for over three years and their quality,
customer service and responsiveness are probably the best of all my suppliers.
If there was some change in the yeast, I'm certain that it was done with good
intentions. If there was some mislabeling, I'm certain that it was done with
no intent to fool anyone. If someone suspects a problem with a particular
batch of yeast, I would recommend contacting your supplier first (even though
I would contact Wyeast also) -- at the least, it allows them to pull the
allegedly bad yeast from their fridge till they resolve the issue. In the
case that spawned this discussion (mixed-strain or single-strain) I think that
contacting Wyeast before posting might have been a more prudent approach.
Even so, this is all based upon my peripheral knowledge of this situation and
there may be other facts which complicate this issue.
Incidentally, I don't keep the packages till the batch is in the bottle, so I
write down the date code from the bottom of the package in my logbook, just
in case there is a problem.
Here's the bottom line for me: I have brewed over 170 batches of beer and
cider, at least 140 of them with Wyeast yeast... the handful of problems I
had among these batches were traced back to something *other* than the Wyeast.
Honestly, I'm a very satisfied customer and end-user.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 95 00:12 EST
From: Todd Mansfield <0002033006@mcimail.com>
Subject: Scotch Ale recipe
>Date: Sat, 04 Nov 95 18:14:00 -0600
>From: alejandro.midence@ssanctum.com (ALEJANDRO MIDENCE)
>Subject: Scotch Ale recipe
>
>Hi, all, I've got something of a prob. You see, I was reading greg's
>book on Scottish Ales and I found a recipe which I found kinda doubtful.
> IF any've got the book, have a llook see at pages 115, 116.
>
>I'm wondering if anyone has brewed a similar recipe to this:
>
>Ibu = 25-30
>og: 1.075
>fg: 1.016-1.020
<snip>
>My questin is:
>
>Shouldn't there be more hops? Lord, that's a sweet brew, both of them.
About 6 weeks ago I made the 90 Schilling Scotch Ale, following the recipe
(page 115) pretty closely. It's aging in a keg now, so I managed to pull a
taste without disturbing it too much. It was still a little green, but is
coming along nicely!
Bitterness dominant in the flavor profile? No. Appropriate for style? I
think so.
Details...
OG=1.078 FG=1.020
1% roast barley
99% pale malt
0.75 oz Chinook (10.9%AA) for 60 min. (just over 28 IBU, as I calculate it).
Key point: pull the first (strongest) runnings and carmelize them during
sparge.
Give it a try! I'll be making this one again.
Todd Mansfield Cincinnati
tmansfield@mcimail.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 13:06:23 -0700
From: mck@yar.cusa.com (Michael Kerns)
Subject: SA Honey Porter
I was wonderinbg if anyone out there has ever made a batch similar to Sam
Adam's Honey Porter or knows of a recipe giving similar results. I am a
novice, extract-only brewer looking to do my first porter. As I haven't
used honey yet are there any specific varieties that lend themselves better
to brewing than others? Any help would be appreciated. I'd also like to
add the information on the HBD has been incredibly useful. Thanks!
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 22:23:42 -0700
From: flemingk@USA.NET (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: Alcohol Calculations
In #1881 Todd (troat@one.net) was getting disagreement in percent alcohol
calculations when using the three scales on a typical hydrometer. He was
using the following formulae to compute percent alcohol by volume (abv):
Balling: (Balling1-Balling2)(.42)(1.25)
Pot Alc: %1-%2
SG: (OG-FG)(105)(1.25)
and he got the following results (I've done minor editing):
> My last batch calculations were as follows:
> Balling: (14.75-4)(.42)(1.25) = 5.6%
> Pot Alc: 7.5-1.0 = 6.5%
> SG: (1.060-1.015)(105)(1.25) = 5.9%
I don't know where the constants in the above two equations come from,
but if you use those given in the Summer 1995 Zymurgy magazine (p. 57)
and a very good conversion approximation for Plato to sg, you may get
better agreement in your numbers. From the Zymurgy article:
76.08(og - fg)
A%w = -------------- (1)
1.775 - og
and percent alcohol by volume is:
A%w(fg)
A%v = ------- where 0.794 is the density of alcohol (2)
0.794
Substituting (1) into (2) gives:
95.82fg(og - fg)
A%v = ---------------- (3)
1.775 - og
Combine eqn (3) with the following Plato-to-sg approximation:
sg ~= 259/(259-P) (4)
and using P1 to mean original and P2 to mean final readings, simple
substitution is (3) yields the ridiculous:
95.82[259/(259-P2)][(259/(259-P1)) - (259/(259-P2))]
A%v = ----------------------------------------------------
1.775 - 259/(259-P1)
95.82*(259^2)*(P1-P2)
= ---------------------------- (5)
(259-P2)^2*(200.7 - 1.775P1)
In the table below created from eqn (5) the top row is the final and the
first column the original Plato reading:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
- ---------------------------------------------------------
6 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 .5 .0 --- --- ---
7 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.1 .5 .0 --- ---
8 3.6 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.6 1.1 .5 .0 ---
9 4.2 3.7 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.1 .6 .0
10 4.8 4.3 3.8 3.2 2.7 2.2 1.7 1.1 .6
11 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.2 1.7 1.1
12 5.9 5.4 4.9 4.4 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.3 1.7
13 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.4 2.9 2.3
14 7.1 6.6 6.1 5.6* 5.1 4.6 4.0 3.5 2.9
15 7.8 7.3 6.8 6.2* 5.7 5.2 4.7 4.1 3.5
16 8.4 7.9 7.4 6.9 6.4 5.8 5.3 4.7 4.2
17 9.1 8.6 8.1 7.5 7.0 6.5 5.9 5.4 4.8
18 9.7 9.2 8.7 8.2 7.7 7.1 6.6 6.0 5.5
19 10.4 9.9 9.4 8.9 8.4 7.8 7.3 6.7 6.2
20 11.1 10.6 10.1 9.6 9.0 8.5 8.0 7.4 6.8
Interpolation between the two asterisked numbers for Todd's
og = 14.75P and fg = 4P yields 6.1% abv. Even though sg 1.060 really
equals 14.66P, and 1.015 is closer to 3.83, since Todd's reading errors
were consistent the results are the same: abv of 6.1%. The calc using
eqn (3) above and sg's of 60 and 15 yields 6.1% abv.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 15:56:16 -0500 (EST)
From: AGNORCB@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Subject: Stainless Steel Airstone Request
Hi!
Does anybody know where I can get stainless steel airstones for wort aeration?
I have tried all the local pet stores and Wal Mart stores to no avail.
I am attempting to construct the wort aeration system described by Dave Miller
in the May/June 1993 issue of Brewing Techniques. Thanks in advance
Craig Agnor
Graduate Student - Physics
Miami University
Oxford, OH
agnorcb@muohio.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 11:23:52 -0500
From: GriswoldJ@aol.com
Subject: Scuba Tanks for Keg
In HBD 1881, Russ Kruska <R.KRUSKA@CGNET.COM> asks
>>A dive master friend of mine who likes homebrew recently
>>noticed that my 5 lb. CO2 cylinder was made by the same
>>French firm that makes his scuba tanks. Is it possible to
>>use such tanks for CO2 ?? Has anyone out there done this ??
It's been years since I dived last, but I believe that the valve threads in
CO2 and air cans
are different, so that the regulators couldn't be mixed up (possibly
suffocating a really dumb diver). That would make it difficult. Getting a
scuba tank filled with CO2 might present it's own interesting challenges at
the filler's, too <g>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 16:11:32 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Ain't That Peculier
A few weeks ago I mentioned an Old Peculier clone that I had made. I finally
got around to doing a side-by-side comparison with the "real thing". I'lll
try not to hurt myself patting myself on the back, but I came VERY close!
The recipe is a melding of Mike Fertsch's (FERTSCH@adcl.RAY.COM) Cat's Meow
recipe and the late Dave Line's recipe from "Brewing Beers Like Those You
Buy", as well as various tips & ideas I have picked up here and there.
Color: Mine was slightly (but noticably) darker. Adding a bit of tap water
to lighten the color eventaully resulted in identical hue and intensity.
*Aroma: Almost identical. Both had the same rich buttery nose, but Old
Pecilier was slightly sweeter smelling.
*Flavor: Again, almost identical. The level of bittersweet molasses flavor
was so close between them. In actuality, with my eyes closed I couldn't tell
which was which.
*Suggested tweaks to recipe: Since the color was darker but the taste was
the same, I think I would reduce the dark malts by maybe an ounce or two to
reduce the color and to let the treacle's aroma come through more without
greatly affecting the flavor. This should bring the recipe about as close as
mere mortals can come.
**Note: I used Lyle's Black Treacle and some demerara sugar which I brought
back from a trip to Scotland. I don't know whether regualar molasses is
close enough (maybe someone could comment) but supposedly treacle is
available in the US from THE BRITISH EMPORIUM 130 N. Main St Grapevine TX
76051 (817)421-2311. I suspect you could substitute "sugar in the raw",
turbinado, or candi sugar for the demorara. I wouldn't use brown sugar
because the demorara is not as intense as brown sugar.
Here's the recipe I used:
5 lb 2-row British Pale Ale malt (@80% eff) or 3.5 lb pale DME
8 oz black patent malt (steep 30 min @155F if using DME else mash w/pale
malt)
8 oz chocolate malt (ditto)
1 lb demerara sugar (add to boil)
4 oz treacle (add late in boil to help preserve aroma)
1.5 oz Fuggles (4.5%) 60 min (no finishing hops)
Wyeast London
2 oz lactose (added to secondary during racking form primary)
65 deg F in glass primary 1 week, 65-70F in glass secondary till still &
clear.
Kegged & force-carbonated.
OG = 1.044
FG = 1.011
Again, I would reduce the dark malts by 1-2 oz for "identical" color. Note
that the malt should contribute only 33 points to the beer -- the treacle,
lactose, and sugar contributes the rest.
Go ahead -- get Peculier!
Cheers & beers,
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 11 Nov 1995 20:11:02 -0800
From: Robert_Anderson@mindlink.bc.ca (Stuart Anderson)
Subject: Hopping in Scotch ales
Alex writes of the low hopping rate in Noonan's Scotch Ale recipes. As one
who grew up in the Edinburgh area and passed many happy hours drinking pints
of Campbell Hope & King's, Deuchar's, Fowler's, Usher's, Younger's, McEwan's
& etc I can vouch for the predominantly low hopping.
With the notable exception of the odd IPA, the light and heavy and draught
ales were always malty. Perhaps something to do with the cold, damp
environment and also ideal as a chaser to a wee dram.
I have brewed the modern 80/- and 90/- all grain recipes of Noonan's and
received good reviews from other transplanted Scots. My hobby was born out
of necessity as here in Vancouver there are no Scottish ales available apart
from McEwan's Scotch Malt Liquor which is hardly a session beer.
Given the recent thread on roasting grains to amber and brown styles it
would be interesting to attempt the 1850 recipes which call for up to 10% of
these hard to find malts.
Cheers
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1882, 11/13/95
*************************************
-------
