Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1884
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/11/15 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1884 Wed 15 November 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Re: ss airstones (Tim Fields)
40-60-70 and highly modified malts (Tim Fields)
OG and chemistry (Tom Lombardo)
Salt City Brew Club Winners (fwd) ("Kieran O'Connor")
Yeast Nutrient (Tim Fields)
dry hopping & gushers (Greg Heiler)
grain mill suggestion summary / force carbonation ("Keith Royster")
BRF v2.0 released! (chris campanelli)
Re: Blue Fin Stout (Jeff Renner)
When is a boil a boil? ("Dan Wilson")
skunky/correction (Dan McConnell)
Mead (Jeff Knaggs)
Shipping Boxes, Keg Headroom (Bill Rust)
Re: Partial mash in 10 gallon coller. (Krste Asanovic)
SA Stock Offering/ SA Recipe information ("Have you seen Lucky?")
Re: MotoMaltMill (Mark E. Thompson)
Re: Wyeast redux (Jeff Frane)
Re: Grain Mill/Manifold Slits (Jeff Benjamin)
Heirlom Grains as Adjuncts (Stephen_W._Snyder)
Boiling Stones for Wort? ("NORM R SMITH")
Prefer Extract Brewing? (Michael K. Cinibulk)
re: Manifold Slits (KennyEddy)
beer names (Bryan L. Gros)
sand, yet more on yeast ("Tracy Aquilla")
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! 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: 14 Nov 95 07:49:11 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: ss airstones
in #1882, AGNORCB@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu writes:
>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
Got mine thru Brewers Resources catalog. There are certainly other
sources. No afffiliation, etc. Dont have the number handy tho (try 800
directory at 800-555-1212).
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: 14 Nov 95 08:06:09 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: 40-60-70 and highly modified malts
Hello All,
I've read and reread Dr. G. Fix's postings concerning a 40 60 70 (deg
centigrade) mash schedule, and am still unable to nail down whether this
schedule is a "good thing" or a "bad thing" or "either way" for use with
highly modified malts. Did this discussion ever settle down firmly in
any camp? On a related note: 1) is this schedule covered in Fix's
(first?) book, and 2) is there really a second book on the way?
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 07:12:38 -0600 (CST)
From: favt3tl@rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US (Tom Lombardo)
Subject: OG and chemistry
OK, here's one for all you chemists out there:
As I was aerating my wort the other day (and noticing all the nice
foamy stuff on top), It occurred to me that by adding air to the wort,
I'm probably affecting my SG. I normally measure OG *after* I aerate.
So tell me, IMGRR? (is my gravity reading ruined)?
Thanks,
Tom
*******************************************
Homebrewers get better head.
Tom Lombardo (favt3tl@rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US)
*******************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:24:11 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor@syr.edu>
Subject: Salt City Brew Club Winners (fwd)
Subject: Salt City Brew Club Winners
Below please find the list of winners from our recent contest (Nov 11) We
had 270 entries, and 40 judges particpating. Thanks to all who judged,
stewarded, and entered our contest.
Kieran
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kieran O'Connor
koconnor@syr.edu
Syracuse, N.Y. USA
In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Classic English Pale Ale (13 entries)
1st Francois Espourteille, Latham, NY
2nd Kieran O'Connor, Syracuse, NY
3rd Ron Maliwacki, Binghamton, NY
Brown Ales (17 entries)
1st Bill Cronise, Syracuse, NY
2nd Denniss Everett, Syracuse, NY
3rd Matt House, Syracuse, NY
Light Lagers (17 entries)
1st Mickey Kramer Syracuse (Boh. Pils)
2nd Tom LaBarge, Syracuse (Germ. Pils)
3rd Rich Loud, Ballston Spa, NY (Boh. Pils)
Dark Lagers (17 entries)
1st Lee Turner, Baldwinsville, NY Dopplebock
2nd Peter Garofalo, Syracuse Oktoberfest
3rd Mark Zaccheo, Phillipsburg, NJ Munich Dunkel
Specialty (14 entries)
1st Martin Stokes, Old Town, ME, Xmas beer
2nd Chuck Lutz, Montgomery, NY
3rd Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY
Herb/Smoked Beers (15 entries)
1st William Schreher, Tully, NY
2nd John Zelazny, Webster, NY
3rd Martin Stokes, Old Town, ME
Bitters/IPA
1st Mike Lucia, Endicott, NY, ESB
2nd Roger Haggett, Endicott, NY, ESB
3rd Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY IPA
American Ales
1st Rober Bullock, Syracuse, NY Steam Beer
2nd Tom LaBarge, Syracuse, NY, Altbier
3rd Tim Olsen, Rensselaer, NY American Pale Ale
Belgians
1st Francois Espourteille, Latham, NY Belg. White
2nd Bill Heller, Pennelville, NY, Belg White
3rd Gary Maraia, Cicero, NY, Strong Ale
Meads
1st Patrick Bigelow, Watertown, NY Sparklinh Metheglin
2nd Chuck Lutz, Montgomery, NY, Sparkling Hippocras
3rd John Carlson, Denver, CO Still Metheglin
Ciders/Cysers
1st Brian O'Malley, Hamburg, NY NE Style Cider
2nd Brian O'Malley, Still Cyser
3rd Pat McHenry, Syracuse, NY Still Cyser
Melomels
1st John Carlson, Denver, CO, Still Melomel
2nd Lee Turner, Baldwinsville, NY Sparkling Melomel
3rd Bill Heller, Pennelville, NY Sparkling Melomel
Stouts/Porters
1st Martin Stokes, Old Town ME, Classic Dry Stout
2nd Dave Manley, Limestone, NY Robust Porter
3rd John Barnes, Marcellus, NY Imperial Stout
Wheats/Kolsch
1st Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY Kolsch
2nd Peter Garofalo, Syracuse, NY Germ. Wheat
3rd Mark Croshek, Denver, CO Germ. Wheat
Fruit Beer
1st Peter Garofalo, Syracuse, NY
2nd John Zelazny, Webster, NY
3rd Andrew Jones, Rochester, NY
Scottish Ales
1st Matt Hanley, Dave Grimes, Strong Scottish Ale
2nd Jim Taylor, New Paltz, NY Strong Scotch Ale
3rd Frank Deveney, Baldwinsville, NY Scottish Export
Strong Ales (B-Wines, Strong Ales)
1st Bill Giffin, Maine B-Wine
2nd Roger Haggett, Endicott, NY B-Wine
3rd Keith Houck, North Carolina B-Wine
Best of Show:
Beers
1st Matt Hanley-Dave Grimes, Strong Scotch Ale
2nd Lee Turner, Dopplebock
3rd Francois Espourteille, Classic English Pale Ale
The winner of the beer best of show won a $200 gift certificate to a
local brew shop.
Mead/Ciders
Only First place was given for meads/ciders since there were only three
categories in the BoS.
1st Place: Brian O'Malley, NE Style Cider.
Mead/Cider BoS winer won a $50 gift certificate to a brew shop and 3
bottles of commercial mead.
------------------------------
Date: 14 Nov 95 08:29:40 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast Nutrient
Hello All,
After using yeast nutrient for the first time, I have to post in strong
support of it's use! After reading HBD postings and other articles
associating low FAN levels with extracts, I decided to try using some
yeast nutrient in hopes it would improve the fermentation. I brewed an
all extract recipe (Phil Fleming's Xmas Ale). The yeast nutrient pkg
called for 1 tsp per gal; I used 4 tsp for a 5 gal batch. Wyeast 1007
German ale yeast. Fermented in a 6.5 gal carboy. Within 24 hrs of
pitching, I had to add a blowoff tube (!) because of the activity.
Fermenting at 64F.
With the exception of Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan :-), this is the most
active all extract ferment I've had. By far. At the risk of making a
very subjective and un-replicated conclusion, and not knowing if this is
normal activity for 1007, I would strongly advise you extract brewers to
try some yeast nutrient with your next batch.
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:41:04 -0500
From: gheiler@hoppy.kodak.com (Greg Heiler)
Subject: dry hopping & gushers
Love that slap me in the face dry hopped beer. Have been dry hopping
all batches for a years or so. I do mini-mashes and until recently have
had no problems.
Recently I aquired some Brittish whole leaf hop and have dry hopped with
them. The types are Bramling, East Kent Golding & Challenger.
Previously I had used plugs and pellets for dry hopping. The beer
turned out good but when I pour into a glass the cold pale ale
instantly foams up and fills the glass. When it settles, I'am left with
1/5 of a glass. I noticed ring around the collar on the bottle and
suspect a bacteria infection. Since I propagate yeast, in this case YL
Brittish Ale, I chain brew and have this problem in 2-3 batches. All of
which I used these whole leaf hops for dry hopping.
I'am very careful with my bottles, caps, priming sugar and equipment.
Religious about sanitization. I suspect the hops were contaiminated and
infected the beer. Further evidence is the extended resurgence of air
lock bubbling after dry hopping.
Does the wisdom concur this is a bateria infection? Is dry hopping with
whole leaf riskier than plugs or pellets?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:09:56 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: grain mill suggestion summary / force carbonation
I would like to thank everyone who responded recently to my request for
suggestions for a grain mill. I had erroneously thought that the Glatt
mill was *the* mill and was concerned about the company's recent demise.
Many HBDers quickly convinced me that, while the Glatt mill is a quality
mill, Jack Schmidlings MaltMill is by far the favorite. Now if I can just
get my local homebrew store to carry them.....
Of the nine responses I received, eight people said that the MaltMill was
a very high quality mill. One of these eight even owned the Glatt but
recommended the MaltMill. Comments regarding the MaltMill include:
"bullet-proof"; "indestructable"; "no plastic gears"; "excellent grain
crush"; and "the warrenty is valid even if you motorize it". Apparently
there is an adjustable and non-adjustable version. Most people said the
non-adjustable works just fine if you crush only barley malts. Wheat and
other odd grains would require the adjustable type.
On a slightly humorous note, the one poster who did not recommend the
MaltMill used a Glatt and was very happy with it. I responded to him
regarding a concern that the plastic gears in the Glatt have been known to
break (according to the other eight responders) and that it would be
difficult to replace them now that the company is no longer. The next day
I had a note from him stating that he had tried to crush the grains for
an IPA and his gear broke! Is that Murphy's Law, or what!? Luckily for
him he had some backup mills.
##########################################################################
And now for my question regarding carbonation. I've seen it stated many
times on the HBD that naturally carbonated beer has better carbonation
than beer that is forced carbonated in kegs, but I've never seen an
explanation. If I remember correctly, many of you beleive that the
carbonation from priming bottles or kegs gives finer bubbles than the
coarser, soda-pop type bubbles that you get from force carbonating.
My question is, can anyone explain this alleged phenomenon? I've used
both proceedures for carbonating my brew, and I'm not sure I see any
difference. And I also can't imagine a scientific explanation for why it
would make such a difference. Is this just another HBD MOMism that should
be put to rest, or can someone explain the mechanics behind it all?
Keith Royster - NC DEHNR - Mooresville, NC, USA
Voice: (704) 663-1699 x252
Fax: (704) 663-6040
email: KRoyster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us
etalk: KRoyster@ws21.mro.ehnr.state.nc.us
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 07:56 CST
From: akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli)
Subject: BRF v2.0 released!
Now that the short-lived hoopla over the Windows 95 release has finally
subsided, the really BIG software release announcement for 1995 is:
Beer Recipe Formulator v2.0
"Son of Zippy"
BRF is out, it's available and it's still free. New features include
inventory control, full-blown AHA style descriptions and the ability to
save recipes and brewing notes to disk.
BRF continues to be a DOS-based recipe formulator. System requirements
are MS-DOS 3.3 or higher and 640K RAM. BRF may be run from either hard
disk or floppy.
You can obtain a copy of BRF v2.0 from one of the following sites:
- Homebrew Digest archive site
- No Tarmac Brewing BBS (DC): (703) 525-3715
- HBU BBS (Chicago): (708) 970-9778
- HBU BBS (Milwaukee): (414) 238-9074
The file name is BRFV20.EXE. The HBD archive site has graciously taken
the time to uuencode & compress an additional copy named BRFV20.EXE.UU.Z.
Chris Campanelli
akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 09:48:59 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Blue Fin Stout
In HBD 1883, Kit Anderson says, regarding Blue Fin Stout,
> Ringwood yeast is used and is available from Yeast Labs
> as their London yeast.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeast Lab A09, English Ale, is Ringwood. London Ale, A03, is
Whiteshield.
Here are the complete Yeast Lab IDs from a post last December by Dan
McConnell, producer of Yeast Lab liquid cultures:
A01 Australian Coopers
A02 American Chico
A03 London Whiteshield
A04 British Whitbread
A05 Irish Guinness
A06 Dusseldorf W164
A07 Canadian Molson
A08 Belgian Brigand
A09 English Ringwood
L31 Pilsner W34/70
L32 Bavarian W206
L33 Munich W308
L34 St Louis A/B
L35 California Anchor
W51 Bavarian Wheat W66
W52 Belgian Wheat Bruge
M61 Dry mead Pasteur champagne
M62 Sweet mead Steinberger
3200 Brettanomyces Cantillion
3220 Pediococcus Cantillion
- -----
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: 14 Nov 1995 09:02:09 GMT
From: "Dan Wilson" <DWILSON3@EMAIL.USPS.GOV>
Subject: When is a boil a boil?
Greetings to the collective
While brewing this weekend a question came up that has bugged me since
I started brewing. When is a boil a boil? When I get close to boiling,
(this is with extract) I can hear what sounds like a large group of
marbles rioting. But no bubbles on the top. About 5 minutes later Mr.
Bubble shows up. The recipe called for removing the grains when
boiling commenced. So when did it? I've also seen that grain bags
should never be boiled. Why's that? And finally, when grain is used in
the recipe (like crystal, or chocolate malt) is that what's referred
to as a partial grain batch?
Here's a comment that may get some noses out of joint, sorry about
that. With the controversy about SA buying votes at the gabf, lets
consider for a moment those that sold their vote for a lousy tee
shirt. I personally would have happily snagged the shirt and then
voted for the best beer, not necessarily SA. I wonder if most people
did that anyway. I don't see what the big deal is anyway. Welcome to
capitalism! :-) I have my asbestos suit on, ready for flames.
Cute but Corny Signature Line
Dan Wilson
(dwilson3@email.usps.gov)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:06:12 -0500
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Dan McConnell)
Subject: skunky/correction
From: harperj@olympus.net (Jim Harper)
>
>I've never had a skunky batch until now......... Is there any
>way to rescue it, at this time, or should I chuck it or just tell my
>friends it is a Molson recipe???
>
>Dan McConnell suggested adding fruit, so I added one half cup and three
>quarters cup of pure apple juice to two pint test bottles..... In the meantime,
>anyone with experience in rescuing skunky batches please advise me.
I'll admit that I had to drop back and punt on that one. What I had in
mind was a whopping load of fruit to mask the skunk. Maybe one of the red
fruits or peaches. It's still a good question. Someone is bound to have a
better alternative.
*******************************
From: kit.anderson@acornbbs.com
[Deleting Kit's make-you-wanna-run-out-and-have-a stout discription of
Shipyard's stout]
> Ringwood yeast is
>used and is available from Yeast Labs as their London yeast.
Corection: English Ale-A10 is Ringwood (the source was an East Coast
brewery, BTW).not London-A03.
Dan McC
"I gotta go for the gusto"
KimB (ex SO who quoted a *really* bad beer commercial as she was dumping me)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:26:37 -0500
From: jak@absoft.com (Jeff Knaggs)
Subject: Mead
> ...
> I see no bubbles rising or other signs of active fermentation. Is this
> typical for a mead fermentation? Am I just worrying too much? Or is
> something amiss? Osmotic trauma, anyone? Thanks for any help. After
> becoming somewhat adept at making beer, I now again feel reduced to a
> bright green, flaming newbie.
>From one newbie to another...
My first batch was prep'd in the same fine fashion as yours -- brew first...
read FAQ & others later. After about a week I had zippo signs of activity,
I had the carboy in my wine-cellar @-65F, moved it upstairs to a warm closet
@75+F, stuff took off like a volcano...
1. move it to a warmer location, (don't worry)
2. my bee-keeping honey supplier says, some batches
seem to ferment slower than others, dependent on differnces in honey.
(don't worry)
3. The white stuff on top is probably coagulated wax and proteins
(don't worry)
4. If you didn't add any acid, do! It helps invert sugars. If you
don't have "acid-blend" (Malic/Citric/Tartaric), many *old* recipes
call for lemon juice (Citric)
(don't worry)
5. Yeast nutrient is highly recommended by all modern mead
references. (don't worry)
Jeff Knaggs
jak@absoft.com <- we don't make mead,beer, or wine at work.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 11:26:54 -0500
From: Bill Rust <wrust@csc.com>
Subject: Shipping Boxes, Keg Headroom
Mark Peacock of Birmingham, MI said...
>I want to ship a couple of cases of homebrew from my femto-brewery =
>(outside of Detroit) to a condo in Lake Tahoe for the ski season. Any =
>suggestions on carrier and packing method, and any idea on cost would be =
>appreciated.
I have used old 'Beer of the Month Club' shipping boxes in the past. You
can only
ship 12 at a time, but I had absolutely no problems with shipping! If you
can't get
them, you can try to make an equivalent. They are laid out like this...
top view
/+-------------------------+ <-- 2 layers of corrugated
/ |+-----------------------+| cardboard
/ || | | | | | ||
| || --+---+---+---+---+-- ||
| || | O | O | O | O | || O = beer bottle
| || --+---+---+---+---+-- ||
| || | O | O | O | O | || Styrofoam top & bottom
| || --+---+---+---+---+-- ||
| || | O | O | O | O | ||
| || --+---+---+---+---+-- ||
| || | | | | | || <-- outer row of cells empty
| |+-----------------------+|
| /+------------------------/
|/_________________________/
You could probably make one out of a long neck case from your neighborhood
liquor
store.
Curt asks...
>Can I keg up, say, 4 of the 5 gallons in a batch and bottle the remaining
>gallon? Is there any problem with the additional head space created by only
>filling the keg 80% of the way up (yes, I will purge the head space w/ CO2)?
>I am looking forward to being able to keg up my brew, but I would also like to
>hold back 8-10 bottles as gifts, for competitions, etc.
I've been kegging for the past year and a half, and I have done that very
thing a
couple of times. It works great, but if you carbonate naturally, make sure to
adjust for the lower volume of beer. If you force carbonate, make sure to purge
carefully, otherwise you will force oxygenate you beer! I use CO2 to force
rinse
water out of the dip tube immediately before filling. The CO2 falls to the
surface
of the beer, and helps to ensure an oxygen-free keg. Hope this helps.
Cheers.
- --------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rust, Master Brewer | Jazz is not dead,
Jack Pine Savage Brewery | it just smells funny!
Shiloh, IL (NACE) | -FRANK ZAPPA
- --------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 08:35:49 -0800
From: Krste Asanovic <krste@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: Re: Partial mash in 10 gallon coller.
>>>>> Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca> writes: *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?
After about a dozen partial mash batches, I moved up to all-grain
mashes in a 10 gallon cylindrical cooler with a slotted PVC manifold.
I would worry about the grain bed depth with only 4 pounds of grain.
If you've managed a partial mash or two, I'd strongly recommend just
going straight to the full mash when you have the equipment together.
It's really not much extra work or time compared to a partial mash
(you actually save the "stir in the syrup" step), the mash *will*
convert, and it's cheaper too!
Krste
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:44:05 EST
From: "Have you seen Lucky?" <johnm@giant.IntraNet.com>
Subject: SA Stock Offering/ SA Recipe information
A few people have inquired about the status of the Boston Beer CO. (Sam Adams)
stock offering. An article in the local paper indicated that the consumer
offering of 990,000 shares at ~$15/share had sold out. The stock is expected
to go off at between $10 and $15 some time this month.
I recently received some promotional literature from SA including a brochure
with some recipe formulation information for all of their brews. Reprinted
here without permission of course.
John McCafferty
Chelmsford, Ma
Merrimack Valley Brewers
Brew S.G. Malts Hops
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Lager 1.052 2-Row Harrington, German Hallertau
Crystal Tettnang Tettnanger
Boston Lightship 1.032 2-Row Harrington, German Hallertau
Crystal Tettnang Tettnanger
Boston Stock Ale 1.056 2-Row Harrington, Saaz, Fuggles,Goldings
Crystal
Honey Porter 1.058 2-Row Harrington, Kentish Goldings
Crystal, Chocolate, Fuggles, Saaz
Munich
Cream Stout 1.056 2-Row Harrington, Fuggles, Goldings
Crystal, Wheat
Chocolate, Roasted
Barley
Scotch Ale 1.069 2-Row Harrington, Fuggles, Goldings
Chocolate,Crystal,
Munich, Peated malt
Double Bock 1.081 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Tettnanger
Crystal Tettnang Hallertau
Dark Wheat 1.046 2-Row Harrington, Saaz,
Wheat Malt, Roasted Tettang Tettnanger
Wheat Malt, Chocolate
Malt
Cherry Wheat 1.050 2-Row Harrington, Saaz,
Crystal, Munich, Tettang Tettnanger
malted wheat
Octoberfest 1.055 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Tettnanger
Crystal, Munich Saaz
Winter lager Varies 2-Row Harrington, Saaz, Kentish Goldings,
Crystal, Wheat Malt, Tettnang Tettnanger
Munich
Cranberry Lambic 1.040 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Tettnanger,
Wheat Malt, Saaz
Triple Bock 1.176 2-Row Harrington, Tettnang Hallertau
Chocolate
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 8:36:27 PST
From: Mark E. Thompson <markt@hptal04.cup.hp.com>
Subject: Re: MotoMaltMill
Full-Name: Mark E. Thompson
> Date: Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:00:57 MST-0700
> From: "Dave Ebert" <Dave.Ebert@UCHSC.edu>
> Subject: Helping Santa
...
> Secondly, if Santa gets me s JS mill I'll want to motorize it.
> Suggestions?
I used an 8" pulley on the mill and a 1 or 1.5 on the 1700rpm 1/4 hp
motor. The problem was that the shaft on the mill is 3/8" (i think)
and the smallest pulley that i could find was 1/2". I had to come up
with a shim arangement. Otherwise the thing works great. I did have
to increase the size of the hopper and put a new screen over the rollers
though.
Good luck.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 09:17:49 -0800
From: jfrane@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Wyeast redux
>The complaint leveled against Wyeast was that the label did not accurately
>reflect the contents of the package, and when they were called on this
>publically, they threatened lawsuit.
I have already noted that this is a mis-statement of the actual incident,
and suggested that you verify your facts before continuing to make this claim.
The fact that you corresponded with the homebrewer in question doesn't
mean that you have all the facts -- did you likewise correspond with
Wyeast?
In point of fact, homebrewer X was not threatened by lawsuit for "calling
Wyeast" on anything, but for a series of other activities that extended
far beyond writing criticism -- which may well have been justified. If
you are interested in the facts, once again I suggest that you contact
Dave Logsdon directly and try to get the "other side" of the story, as
you mention.
The label was ill-advised; I believe the original decision was made on
account of space limitations and the accompanying literature available at
the retail level reflected the blended nature. I also think it was a
bad decision, and it has been corrected. The implication has been that
this was a case of blatant fraud, and I know for a fact that this is not
the case. I've known Dave for more than a decade; I've been around to watch
the development of Wyeast, to prod him when necessary and to nag him at
times. He is a resolutely honest person, and runs a very clean operation,
and he is the hardest-working person I've ever known.
It gripes me no end, frankly, to see the case so badly mis-stated.
This was all I was saying, and given
Why must a homebrewer need to bring this to the attention of the
>homebrewing community in the first place, and worse, why is he/she
>threatened with lawsuit for doing so? Most of us will shut up when
>threatened with lawsuit--we have jobs, homes, families, in a word, we have
>something to lose--but that doesn't change the veracity of the initial
>statement. I agree that the flow of information requires responsibility, but
>it also requires the FREEDOM to flow.
>
Once again, please check with Dave and get the other side of the story
before you continue to spread this calumny that the poor innocent
homebrewer, merely seeking to spread the truth, was crushed by Jim Koch
(whoops!) in a lawsuit, threatening the poor innocent little homebrewer's
livlihood.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 10:15:54 MST
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Grain Mill/Manifold Slits
"Matthew Hanley" <mwhanley@mailbox.syr.edu> writes:
> While browsing in the local homebrew shop yesterday, I saw
> a new grain mill. It's made by Murcato (sp?), the folks from Italy
> that make the manual pasta makers.
I bought a Marcato for my first grain mill, and used it for quite
some time. Advantages: inexpensive, gives a good crush, adjustable.
Disadvantages: very low throughput (due to hopper size, and the small
hopper opening doesn't allow grain to feed really well), messy - produces
a good bit of flour around the work surface.
I "motorized" it - found a flat-head screwdriver that fit perfectly in
the slot where the handle went, cut off the handle, and put the shank
into the chuck of my drill - I could mill a pound of grain in about 2.5
minutes. Slow, but usable. By hand, it would take you all day. Using
the drill is quite noisy, as well.
I eventually spent the money on a JSP MaltMill, and haven't regretted it.
THaby@swri.edu asks:
> Ola Brewers, I'm in the process of building a copper manifold for my lauter
> tun and I have some questions.
> 1. How many slits per inch?
> 2. What orientation are the slits?
> 3. In the lauter tun do the slits face up or face the bottom of the tun?
I use about 1 slit per cm, or 2.5 slits/inch. The slits go
perpendicular to the length of the pipe; you don't need to slant them or
anything. Cut them about one-half to one-third the diameter of the
pipe. In the tun, the slits go face down against the bottom of the pot.
For more details, grab the all_grain_equipment file from the FTP achives;
my post with complete plans for my manifold setup should be in there.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji@fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Think! It ain't illegal yet." -- George Clinton
------------------------------
Date: 14 Nov 95 12:28:49 EST
From: <Stephen_W._Snyder@metcapw1.ccmail.compuserve.com>
Subject: Heirlom Grains as Adjuncts
Dear Collective,
Does anyone have any experience using Spelt or Quiona as adjuncts? A
local supermarket here in Seattle has raw Spelt, Quiona and a couple
other funcky grains that I can't remember. I would be interested in
malting these grains also, so any tips anyone could provide would be
useful. I checked old issues of HBD and there was little information
on Malting at home. Thanks in advance.
Stephen W. Snyder
Systems Analyst/Powerbuilder Developer
MetLife Capital Corporation, Seattle, Washington
Stephen_W._Snyder@metcapw1.ccmail.compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 11:51:03 cst
From: "NORM R SMITH" <NRSMIT@ccmail.monsanto.com>
Subject: Boiling Stones for Wort?
Got a quick ? for everyone: For years I've used different types of
boiling stones in various Chemical applications. Would it be possible
to use something similar when boiling Wort? I would imagine that if
it were possible, one could control the boil a bit more, and avoid
boil-over.
Any ideas?
Cheers,
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 12:49:31 -0500
From: Michael K. Cinibulk <cinibumk@ml.wpafb.af.mil>
Subject: Prefer Extract Brewing?
Since subscribing to the HBD (last Spring) I have seen many brewers post that
they have finally made the move to all-grain and will never go back (to all
extract). But, I can not recall anyone saying that they tried all-grain and
decided to go back to extract because it was too time consuming, or equipment
was too expensive, or the difference was not worth it, or it was simply a
PITA. Is it really true that everyone does not go back once they've tried
all-grain? For now I am happy with extract and frankly, do not have the time
or resources to try all-grain. What about partial mashing; is there anyone
that found this to be a good compromise (if one was necessary)?
Mike Cinibulk.............cinibumk@ml.wpafb.af.mil
Bellbrook, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 12:52:32 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: re: Manifold Slits
Tim Haby writes:
>Ola Brewers, I'm in the process of building a copper manifold for my lauter
>tun and I have some questions.
>1. How many slits per inch?
>2. What orientation are the slits?
>3. In the lauter tun do the slits face up or face the bottom of the tun?
Conventional Wisdom seems to say to cut across and about halfway through your
tubing every half inch, and orient your slits to the bottom of the tun. A
recent article in Brewing Techniques makes it more scientific by relating the
total cross-sectional area of the cuts to the outlet area. If there's less
area in the outlet than the slits, your flow rate will be limited. If you
have the opposite condition, then your outlet is the only limiting factor.
This is the condition you are after.
You can calculate the outlet area using
Area = 3.14 x half the diameter x half the diameter
or pie-are-squared for us math nerds.
The slots each contribute
Area = half the circumference x slot width
= 3.14 x half the diameter x slot width
Assuming a hacksaw makes a cut about 0.030" wide, halfway through a 1/2"
inside diameter pipe, each cut contributes 0.024 square inches of flow area.
If your outlet is also 1/2" inside diameter, its area is 0.785 square
inches. Thus you need 0.785 divided by 0.024 slots minimum (which is 33).
Now you'll want to assume the grain will partially block some of the slit
area (but not necessarily "clogging" the slit), so increase this by say 50%
(I'm pulling that figure from a sunlight-deprived portion of my anatomy). So
figure on about 50 slits. Going further, if you cut them every 1/2", you
then need 25 linear inches of pipe/tubing. An 8" - 9" diameter circle or a
7" per side square would provide about enough tubing.
The Brewing Techniques article also discusses fluid flow distribution as it
relates to different types of collection devices. A false bottom, with its
evenly-distributed pattern of inlet holes, is "ideal". Gravity drives wort
straight down evenly across the grain bed. A pipe manifold causes some
"channeling" since the fluid flowing straight down into a slit has an easier
time than the fluid that has to flow "sideways" or at an angle to find a pipe
with an opening. An "Easymasher" type arrangement of a single rolled screen
or pipe makes for worst efficiency since wort to the sides of the Easymasher
has a tougher time flowing to the outlet in the absence of the boost that
gravity gives the wort directly above the Easymasher. YMMV, and this is all
dependent on a lot of things. Easymasher fans swear by the efficiency of the
system. But it raises good points for thought.
The manifold I used in my Coleman Drinking Water 5 is made from 1/2" copper
pipe in the shape of a square, but I added a "crossbeam" member to improve
distribution (closer approximation of a false bottom). I drilled 3/32"
diameter holes straight through the pipes and fittings about every 1/4" using
a drill press (beats the hell out of cutting slits). The larger diameter of
the fittings compared to the pipe actually suspends the pipe above the cooler
bottom, so the bottom holes are not at all "blocked". In addition, I toss a
cut-to-size piece of 8 hole-per-inch nylon needlepoint backing mesh over the
manifold, in effect creating a false bottom in addition to the manifold.
While it isn't rigid like a true false bottom, it does significantly
increase the drainage area. I rotate the pipe sections a few degrees so that
the mesh isn't directly over the pipe holes. I *assume* the mesh is helping
the extraction and sparging, but the bonus points really come from the fact
that it protects the manifold from the onslaught of my stirring spoon!
A plani-spiral loop of soft tubing is another popular choice, since it
presents itself as a close approximation to a false bottom because of the
close & even distribution of slits across the grain bed. Again, drilling
holes instead of cutting slits would make fabrication much more relaxing.
By the way, Tim, it's "hola" with an "h". Pero te entendemos.
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Tejas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 10:23:59 -0800
From: bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros)
Subject: beer names
>John Boots <jboots@pacifier.com> writes:
>...
>The Brewmeister and Brewmistress of the Purple Helmet Brewing Co. are
>preparing to release three new products. The DOMINATOR is our newest
>stout, and we are releasing two wheat beers, Patti's Vestal Virgin
>Dunkelweizen and an as yet unnamed Hefeweizen.
To many brewers, a name like DOMINATOR implies that the beer is a
doppelbock. While I like when brewers get creative with the names of
their beers, I like to stick with tradition also. My two cents.
- Bryan
bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 13:43:53 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: sand, yet more on yeast
In Digest #1881:
Mark Melton <piobaire@accessnv.com> sez:
[snip info on sand]
>as red pepper. Silt is composed of grains smaller than sand and silicon
>dioxide silt inhaled over a long period of time can result in silicosis.
>This fact is the excuse for the regulatory actions of OSHA and other
>government agencies. To extrapolate from the bad effects of silt-sized
>silicon dioxide to bricks, which have a minor component of SiO2, or even
>sand (which may or may not be composed of SiO2) is so ludicrous and
>intellectually dishonest as to be worthy of the French Revolutionary
>solution.
I agree that OSHA goes way overboard most of the time, but I happen to know
more than one bricklayer with silicosis. It's a nasty way to go too,
coughing up blood and all that. There are many different types of brick and
they aren't all made from the same clays. Firebrick is mostly SiO2 and
bauxite. Working with it over many years can easily kill you if you don't
protect yourself.
Then in Digest #1883:
Harlan Bauer <crosen@wwa.com> sez:
>Well, apparently my comment about Wyeast ruffled a few feathers.
I'm certainly not offended and my feathers aren't ruffled. However, I think
this critical issue merits further discussion.
>1.) I personally corresponded with the individual homebrewer involved
As have others.
>For example, FRUIT DRINK may not be labeled as FRUIT JUICE; there
>are legal definitions distinguishing one from the other. Labels are also
>required to list ingredients in decreasing order of volume or quantity
Is a package of Wyeast a food product? I don't really know. I've never seen
the ingredients listed on a can of malt extract either. In fact, most items
I buy for brewing do not have the ingredients listed, including such things
as yeast nutrient, yeast energizer, hop pellets, etc. I don't know for
certain, but maybe the FDA doesn't consider these items to be food (I doubt
if anyone ever eats them). It's also possible that you've recently consumed
food products which do not have the ingredients listed on the package. I
have in front of me one such item (vending machine snack crackers).
Interesting, isn't it?
>given that Wyeast has in essence admitted that their package was misleading
>by changing it
I would not make this assumption. I doubt if it's just a coincidence, but
they aren't necessarily "admitting" anything by changing the package. I
believe the real reason the package was changed was to avoid similar
problems in the future. Some people apparently assume that these packages
contain pure, single-strain cultures. Wyeast probably felt that this change
was necessary to make it more clear that this is not the case.
>If the package contains anything in addition to Brettanomyces then
>the label should reflect that fact.
Oh, but it does! You said yourself that the package states: ADVANCED YEAST
CULTURES. To me, this indicates that there is yeast in there. Fairly simple,
isn't it? Brettanomycetes are bacteria, not yeast. Since the product is
intended for brewing, I assume the yeast is S. cerevisiae (it is). There are
also some Bret. sp. bacteria in there as well. I think even the old label
made that clear, but the new label goes one step further.
>Unlike most of the yeasts Wyeast sells, this particular yeast was labeled as
>a specific strain (note the use of the latin) and not as a general style.
Not really. It's labelled as an "advanced YEAST culture" containing B. brux.
It does not state (or even imply) that it is a pure bacterial culture. In
fact, none of their packaging implies that the cultures inside are pure, and
several of their 'strains' are actually mixtures. This is a fact well-known
by many homebrewers. It might be a bit confusing to the uninitiated, but it
has always been clear to me what's in that package of #3278: yeast and bacteria.
>and worse, why is he/she threatened with lawsuit for doing so?
They threatened to sue because someone claimed that they (Wyeast) were
willfully and knowingly deceiving the public. In essence, they were publicly
accused of fraud. Responding to such accusations with the threat of a
lawsuit was appropriate, IMO. I don't think there was any intent to deceive
potential customers and the accusations which were made by the individual
had the potential to negatively impact the company's image, as well as
sales. Thus, the accuser might also be libel for defamation.
>threatened with lawsuit--we have jobs, homes, families, in a word, we have
>something to lose--but that doesn't change the veracity of the initial
You seem to assume that those statements were factual. I would not make that
assumption and they may even be untrue. As far as I know, the veracity of
those comments has never been confirmed. Both "sides" have something to lose.
>statement. I agree that the flow of information requires responsibility, but
>it also requires the FREEDOM to flow.
No one has taken away anyone else's freedom here. What they did was to
inform the accuser that if he persisted with his accusations that they would
respond by challenging him in court. He is still free to accuse all he
wants, but in court, he would be required to provide evidence to support his
claims and to pay restitution if he can not provide reasonable proof. There
is this pesky little concept called due process, you know? Everyone in the
US has the right to confront their accusers and to cross-examine them, to
ask to examine the evidence, etc. How else could Wyeast respond to
accusations of fraud?
Tracy in Vermont
aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1884, 11/15/95
*************************************
-------
