Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1893
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/11/25 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1893 Sat 25 November 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
dispensing pressure (Ronald J. La Borde)
Re: Young's Ale yeast (Jeff Frane)
re: Grain Mills ("Harralson, Kirk")
Boston Beer Stock Offering (Jeff Hewit)
170 degrees. (Russell Mast)
Pressure losses, Lautering stuff ("Manning Martin MP")
Fermenter Seals and IBUs ("Fleming, Kirk Mr.")
Re: Propane alternatives/Watney's (Brian Pickerill)
Re: Any wine makers out there? (Michael Wolter)
Priming temperatures ("Dave Draper")
SUDS and caramel sugar (Andy Walsh)
Re: dispensing pressure (hollen)
Irish Moss (Rian Rademeyer)
M&F Malts Consensus (Jim Overstreet)
Re: Budmilloors Recipe (Mitch Hogg)
Weissbier (Hettsmac)
Re: Stuck Sparge using a Phalse Bottom (Steve Gabrio)
Time for partial mash = 8 minutes (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca>
RE: Sam Adams Comments 1 (WALZENBREW)
Sam Adams Reply 2 (WALZENBREW)
SS airstone and sterile air filter (PSedgwick)
Hops and Boilovers ("Philip Gravel")
Re: cider fermentation question ("Renald Chabot")
Charlotte, NC brewpubs (CLAY)
Airlocks- Never again! (Merino Lithographics)
Bernz-O-Matic O2 Reg. (Geoff Scott)
******************************************************************
* 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: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:27:32 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (Ronald J. La Borde)
Subject: dispensing pressure
Many apologies, I have made a dreadfull mistake in my last post.
>I noticed MUCH more foam from the shorter hose than from the seven foot
>hose. So I simply swapped the hose/tap gizbobs from one beer keg to the
>other. No surprise to see the greater amount of foam upon dispensing was
>still from the longer length hose.
What I meant to say was the shorter length hose always dispensed beer with
more foam.
I could not have made a more confusing statement than what was done. Sorry.
I did proof read the post (really) before it was sent. This experience
makes me more accepting of other mistakes, typos seen from time to time.
It's easy to do.
- --------------------
At first the beer head/foam dispensing was a mystery to me until I finally
began to realize that the beer could be lightly carbonated yet produce a lot
of foam upon dispensing. The foam seems to come from the beer being whipped
up by rapid movement (usually caused by a lot of pressure). On the other
hand a highly carbonated beer could be dispensed without much foam if it is
dispensed slowly with little agitation.
What I do now is look at the beer in the glass once it has been dispensed
and after a few minutes I will see tiny bubbles rising from the bottom from
a well carbonated beer.
If the beer has low carbonation, even if it has a lot of foam on top, I
will not see the bubbles rising from the bottom. The beer can be swirled,
shaken, taped and bubbles will not appear. I use commercial beers as a
rough yardstick to practice with.
Happy Brewing
***************************************************************
* Ronald J. La Borde | *
* Work (504)568-4842 | "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both *
* Home (504)837-0672 | get dirty, and the pig enjoys it." *
* Metairie, LA | *
***************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:11:12 -0800
From: jfrane@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Young's Ale yeast
James Hojel asks about a yeast from the Young's Brewery.
Without knowing for *certain*, I would point out that Wyeast is
now offering London Ale Yeast III (I can't tell from the fax,
but it's either 1818 or 1318, probably the latter). These
are part of the special order strains; if you want them,
you'll have to nag your retailer. If the yeast strains do
well, they will be added to the regular list.
At any rate, given that they already have one strain out from
the *other* London brewery, there's a good possibility that
this yeast will answer for James.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 12:12:21 EST
From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh@roadnet.ups.com>
Subject: re: Grain Mills
"MSG Richard Smith" writes:
<snip>
>Anyway, it takes me about 45 minutes to mill 20lbs of grain on my
>philmill, and the mill does a terrific job adjusting to different
>grain sizes. This helps a lot since I normally use 3-5 different
>types of grain and they often require a different setting for the
>right crush. Drawbacks are (1)it needs a better chute for collecting
>the grains, and (2) it doesn't look as good as the JS Mill IMO. My
>$0.02.
<snip>
I found a huge funnel at a discount store that fit perfectly into the
opening of the mill. It did not support itself, as the 2 liter pop
bottle it replaced did, but that was quickly remedied with a couple of
screws. If you can't find one that fits directly, you could probably
route the opening through the neck of a pop bottle, secured with a
little duct tape. Now I just start the mill and let it run until it
is finished -- no refilling the hopper. As for (2), you're on your
own :-)
Kirk Harralson
Bel Air, Maryland
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 1995 22:16:52 -0500
From: jhewit@freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit)
Subject: Boston Beer Stock Offering
I heard today that the Boston Beer stock offering was
over-subscribed by 200%. I hope I'm one of the lucky 1 in 3
who'll get to own a piece of the action. I understand that it
will be traded on the NYSE under the symbol SAM.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hewit Eat a live toad first thing in the morning,
Midlothian, Virginia and nothing worse will happen to you
for the rest of the day.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 12:18:08 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: 170 degrees.
Spencer Thomas writes :
> A good visual/auditory indication of 170-180F is that a layer of steam forms
> above the water, and it starts to make noise (that pre-boiling "roar" :-).
>
> Works for me, anyway.
But, if you're steeping grains in the water, and they are on the bottom of
the kettle, they will interrupt that noise. (Though the steam test still
works, that is affected by humidity and air pressure and temperature in your
kitchen. Probably not all that much, though.
-R
------------------------------
Date: 22 Nov 1995 13:44:22 U
From: "Manning Martin MP" <manning_martin_mp@mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Pressure losses, Lautering stuff
On pressure drop in dispensing lines, Wade wrote:
> different size and length of dispensing hose does not change
>the overall pressure drop through the system, it just shifts it
>around a bit. The overall pressure drop is the difference
>between the pressure in the keg and the pressure in the
>atmosphere. So, by changing the size or length of hose you
>are simply changing the proportion of the pressure drop that
>is taken along the length of hose.
And Al said: >No, no, no, no.
Yes, yes, yes, yes! Wade is absolutely right! The total pressure drop IS
from the pressure in the keg (where the beer is not flowing) to the exit of
the faucet where it's velocity must be sufficiently low (so that the beer
doesn't go to foam as it splashes in to the glass) that it IS essentially at
ambient pressure. If you try to drop the pressure (suddenly) at the faucet,
the high velocity/low flow rate combination will indeed cause it to foam.
The trick is to move the pressure loss upstream in the line (just as Wade
said). Interestingly, a restriction at the beginning of the hose (using a
pinch clamp, say), which assuredly results in a rapid (local) static pressure
drop, is a way to make a too-short-and-too-large delivery line work.
Maybe Al misunderstood Wade's comment, because he went on to say, correctly,
> HOSE LENGTH AND DIAMETER *DO* MAKE
>A DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PRESSURE DROP FROM THE >TANK TO THE
FAUCET. If you have too short a hose or too large a >diameter hose, you will
have not enough pressure drop from the CO2 >tank to the faucet and too much
pressure drop from the faucet to the >atmosphere and subsequently the CO2
will come out of solution >instantly as the beer comes out of the faucet
(read FOAM)
On lauter flow visualization - John P. and Al; you both need to get a grip!
Sketches conjecturing on the behavior of a fluid passing through a porous
medium to a localized sink were probably first made by Leonardo. Kidding
aside, a common-as-dirt (sorry) modern analogy is that of ground water flow
into a drainage pipe.
Al also wrote:
>Don't forget that there's also an article in the Great Grains Special >Issue
of Zymurgy which makes it *less* scientific by simply splitting >a single
mash between 6 different types of lauter tuns.
I agree, *much less* scientific. The way in which the mash was split-up
leaves me with considerable doubt as to the value of the extraction levels
quoted for each system (to two decimal places of SG points, or 0.03%, yet!).
Varying amounts of extract could well have been delivered to each lauter tun
as the mash was distributed. Also, the fact that no underletting was done
could have had a varying effect on the mechanical performance of each design.
While this could have been mitigated by stirring each lauter mash and
allowing it to resettle, the volume of wort recirculation required to clear
the run-off would still be suspect. The article did not say if any stirring
was done or not. Time permitting, a number of individual runs on each
system, with the results averaged, is the right way to make such a comparison
By the way, as long as we're sensitive to giving proper credit, what was
Steve Hamburg's role in this endeavor? The text of the article refers to the
experimenters as "we," yet there's only one name on the by-line. What gives?
MPM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 12:32:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk Mr." <FLEMINK1@CISF.AF.MIL>
Subject: Fermenter Seals and IBUs
Bill Kitt in #1890 asked why folks use different methods for sealing
their carboys and so on. No mystery here--gear is supplied by a
spectrum of manufacturers and built by the brewers themselves. I use
a food grade 8 gal plastic storage container, and don't seal the lid
at all. When I see a good kraeusen, I remove the lid completely. Different
folks do different stuff, and in my opinion make way too worrying is done
over the airborne risk. This isn't a denial of the
existence of airborne Bad Things, but krauesen-covered wort is apparently
very resistant to infection.
As a modest contribution to the IBU thread I have the following you
should be aware of:
Using SudsW 4.0 I dialed in a 90 gallon 1.045 recipe, for which I
want 10 IBU. I had to add 160 ounces (!) of 3.2% aa hops to get
about 8 IBU. Using Glenn T's online "Hop-o-Matic" calculator
determined that 16 ounces would yield 10.3 IBU for the same 3 bbl
batch size. Although SudsW has several minor bugs that are fairly
obvious, this alleged bug could be insidious since I don't know at
what batch size it goes wacky. If you try but can't reproduce this
on your machine, please email me.
Kirk R Fleming / flemingk@usa.net / Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: Re: Propane alternatives/Watney's
>Kirk writes:
>>viable one yet. Unfortunately, my house is all electric and has no
>>natural gas hookup, which would be my first choice....
Often the gas company will pay for a line to your house to get you
on the hook, so to speak. (I like gas btw). My problem was that
I have a slab foundation. Man, it pained me to put in a new electric
stove last year.
- -------------
Greg Tucker <gtucker@moa.com> asks:
>Does anybody know how to remove the metallic labels off the Watney's 22 oz...
Use HOT water and dish washer detergent. In 20-30 minutes, they will
come off very easily. Worse case senario is that you have to use a plastic
scrubbie and a couple strokes of elbo grease. Amonia is the other answer to
this question, but I prefer electrosol (bbrite is the exact same thing, near
as I can tell, only 10x the expense.)
- --Brian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 14:49:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Wolter <wolter@daisy.dickinson.edu>
Subject: Re: Any wine makers out there?
>Let's face it... brewers are 'hands-on' folks. Beer doesn't very readily
>make itself. Wine on the other hand occurs spontaneously. Squeeze it, wait
>a while and then drink it. None the less, it is an interesting pursuit - as
>long as you have lots of patience. Perhaps easier to make but much longer to
>appreciate. And you must make much larger quantities since you only make it
>once a year. I've made a total of <3> vintages so far. It's fun but beer
>produces results much faster and lends itself to much more variety and
>experimentation.
I have to object to the idea that wine can be made only once a year and
that wine is more limited in variety than beer. This may be true if you
define wine very narrowly, as being made from freshly pressed grapes and
nothing else. But wine can be made from all sorts of things at any time
of the year. Any fruit can be used (cranberry and peach are personal
favorites) as well as other things. Ok, my potato wine may have been
questionable, but the tea wine was excellent (wakes you up while it gets
you drunk...). Even if you are making fruit wine, very good wine can be
made from frozen concentrates or frozen fruit (or even jars of fruit
preserves), so you are not limited to the harvest season.
When you've made wine from every fruit, vegetable or other liquid you can
think of, make them over again using honey instead of sugar for new taste
variations. Or try mixtures of different fruits, or use apple cider as
the base, or start adding spices. All beer is made from some form of
malted barley. Isn't that more limiting?
You can make hundreds of different types of wine from ingredients you can
buy at the local grocery store, and they are usually much cheaper than the
same volume of beer. You can also base wine on homegrown ingredients,
such as raspberries or blackberries (easy to grow and prolific). Since
wine is stronger and you don't drink as much (in theory), you save even
more money.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. To answer your question: I
don't know of a general wine making list (I think there is a news group)
but there are lists devoted to mead making and cider making. I can give
you the addresses if you can't find them.
-Michael Wolter
wolter@dickinson.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 09:41:40 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper@mq.edu.au>
Subject: Priming temperatures
Dear Friends, I had a question today from a lurker who'd read my
priming notes. He'd fermented a beer at ale temperatures and then
chilled it to near-lager temps for about a day in order to help
clarity. His question was whether to prime assuming the ale
temperature or the colder temperature. My response was to use the
ale temperature because I thought it unlikely that the beer could
absorb sufficient CO2 from the air at the colder temperature to
reach the same level of CO2 content that a beer fermented at that
temperature would have (keeping in mind that CO2 solubility is
higher at lower temperature and that production of CO2 during
fermentation maintains CO2 levels at near-saturation in most cases).
If one was going the other way for some reason, i.e. a beer had
been fermented at a colder temperature but then raised to warmer
temperatures for a time, I would say that one should prime assuming
that warmer temperature because it would be quite easy for the beer
to lose the CO2 it contained at the colder temperature. What I
don't have a good feeling for is how long the re-equilibration would
take at that higher temperature. 24 hours? 72? a week?
I thought this would be of enough general interest to post here. Any
comments welcome--email or post, but post might be more appropriate.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"Pitching your yeast at 70F instead of 90F *does* (in my experience)
improve the taste of your beer." ---John de Carlo
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper@mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 11:35:18 +1100 (EST)
From: awalsh@crl.com.au (Andy Walsh)
Subject: SUDS and caramel sugar
Hello.
I know you are all going to think I am crazy or stupid (or both), but has
anyone noticed anything unusual about the SUDS4.0 bitterness calculations?
When I use Tinseth's numbers on my home computer I get IBU values about 20%
below what I would expect in comparison to Dave Draper's tinibu program (I
recommend this to all BTW, as it makes much better use of wort gravity than
the SUDS program does). When I use *identical* (I swear!) numbers in my work
computer (I have only ever done this once, outside of working hours, just to
check, of course!), I get more realistic numbers.
For instance,
80g of 7.3% aa for 60 mins in 1.050 wort
40g of 4.5% aa for 15 mins in 1.050 wort
40g of 4.5% aa for 2 mins in 1.050 wort
vol=45 litres
I get,
tinibu => 35.3 ibu
home computer => 30.3 ibu
work computer => 36.9 ibu
I believe tinibu gives me realistic numbers. I obtained utilisation numbers
from Glen Tinseth's 1.040 column of his new data from his website.
I know enough about computers to realise that this is not supposed to
happen! Has anyone else noticed anything like this? I should also point out
SUDS tells me to add negative amounts of water in the step infusion part of
the program. It does not seem to like metric units much.
###########
On caramelising sugar in a microwave.
I know this has been discussed before, but I was unable to use Spencer's
thread search program to find anything relevant on old HBDs. Has anyone
tried a foolproof way of caramelising sugar in a microwave? How much sugar
and water and how long on what setting, are good for a hint of caramel
flavour in beer?
TIA,
*************************************************************
Andy Walsh from Sydney
email: awalsh@world.net (or awalsh@crl.com.au if you prefer)
I still don't know what a Wohlgemuth unit is.
*************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 09:32:59 PST
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: dispensing pressure
>>>>> "Ronald" == Ronald J La Borde <rlabor@lsumc.edu> writes:
Ronald> Algis R Korzonas writes:
>> therefore you have pressure drop. HOSE LENGTH AND DIAMETER *DO* MAKE
>> A DIFFERENCE IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PRESSURE DROP FROM THE TANK TO
>> THE FAUCET.
Ronald> Yes, I fully agree. It is an easy thing to observe, you can
Ronald> do it with a minimum of difficulty yourself. I had recently
Ronald> brewed and pressurized two beers with the regulator set at
Ronald> about 30 psig. One keg happened to have a one foot length of
Ronald> hose to the tap - the other had about seven feet of 3/16
Ronald> diameter hose. Both beers had been sitting in the fridge for
Ronald> about a week.
Ronald> I noticed MUCH more foam from the shorter hose than from the
Ronald> seven foot hose. So I simply swapped the hose/tap gizbobs
Ronald> from one beer keg to the other. No surprise to see the
Ronald> greater amount of foam upon dispensing was still from the
Ronald> longer length hose. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Did you make a mistake? Your agreement with Al in the first paragraph
states that you agree hose length matters. Your second paragraph says
that when you switched the hose, the foamiest was still the same keg.
In my mind, this is a contradiction and you are saying that the hose
length does *not* matter. Typo???
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:34:07 -0200 (GMT)
From: Rian Rademeyer <rrad@lss.co.za>
Subject: Irish Moss
I use Irish Moss in all my beers as a matter of course. I know that it is
some type of sea weed but I use it cos most ale recipes call for it. Is
there a chemical reaction; how does this clear the boiling wort? If
this was covered in previous correspondence I would appreciate someone
pointing me in the right direction to get info on how it effects the
final beer. ie .do some of the proteins that change the flavour/heading
profile get settled out. Why add for the last 15 minutes of the boil?
Just Curious.
Rian Rademeyer Cape Town, South Africa rrad@mail.lss.co.za
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 06:42:13 -0700
From: wa5dxp@mail.sstar.com (Jim Overstreet)
Subject: M&F Malts Consensus
On my request for help with M&F Pale and Lager malts, the consensus was
that the pale malt is highly modified, and single infusion near 150 works
just fine. All extolled the excellence of the pale malt for making fine
ales.
Only one respondent on the M&F Lager, and it was very negative. He said
it just would not clear under any circumstances. Since I have a sackfull,
I'll report on my results. By the way, I got this M&F lager from a famous
micro who used to use DWC malts and switched to the M&F malts, but I don't
know just why (could be "bean-counters" at work??).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:20:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Mitch Hogg <bu182@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Re: Budmilloors Recipe
On Sat, 18 Nov 1995 Bruce Taber wrote:
> Well, here goes. I've been thinking about this for a long time. I think
> I'm finally ready to do it. I'm ready to ask the unaskable. I'm ready to
> attempt what no homebrewer worth their weight in wort should ever try
> to do. I'm going to try to brew a Budmilloors.
.......
> I enjoy trying to educate my friends by offering them homebrew representing
> different beer styles than those they are used to. Unfortunately, many
> people don't want to be educated. They want a beer that tastes like every
> other beer they've ever had. Well, I'd like to be able to give them
> what they want. After all, they are my guests. This is why I'm looking
> for a good Budmilloors recipe (or a Labolson for my fellow Canadians).
Be very careful here, Bruce. While I've never resorted to corn or other
adjuncts, I have intentionally made my last couple of all-grain batches
fairly pale and bland in an attempt to appeal to my Labbat's 50-drinking
friends. However, it appears that I have underestimated them. A few days
ago, we went out to a bar and my girlfriend promptly ordered a pitcher of
the darkest, heaviest beer they had on tap. I guess I looked surprised,
because she turned to me and said, "I needed a change. The stuff you've
been making recently is too much like all the popular commercial beers. I
liked your beer better when it was darker, nuttier, more flavourful".
Well gee whiz; you think you know somebody. At any rate, I have learned
my lesson. I will no longer aspire for mediocrity. I will no longer
underestimate my friends. Now, where did I put all those porter recipes I
used to have?
Mitch.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 10:58:58 -0500
From: Hettsmac@aol.com
Subject: Weissbier
Dear Weissbier Fans,
Here is the summary of replies that I got about my question:
"How to brew a real nice (banana) Weissbier"
Yeast:
Almost all suggested using Wyeast # 3068 Weihenstephan rather than Wyeast
#3056 bavarian wheat
Fermentation:
Higher temperature (>65 F) gives more banana,
lower temperatures gives more phenol (clove like)
Mashing:
Two brewers said only decoction gives a good result
the other replies all suggest a 3 step infusion mash.
Grist composition:
Most brewers use a 50:50 mix of barley and wheat 10-12 lb per 5 gal batch.
One brewer even used 100% wheat, which surprised me because I thought wheat
doesn't have enough enzymes (but he admits: "yeah, my starch tests always
show incomplete conversion".) Another brewer confirmed that: "You don't need
to use 6 row. Wheat malt has more than enough enzymes to convert itself, and
6 row leaves a husky, grainy flavor on the finished product"
Hoping:
The opinion on hoping is not to use high alpha hops for bittering, rather
noble hops like Hallertauer, Tettnang and Saaz and no aroma hops at all!!! I
quote: "Weizens are supposed to have no hop flavor or aroma, late additions
are not appropriate. ... The combination of hop flavor and clove is very
unpleasant, it tastes *very* phenolic."
I am closing here and thank you all very much for your tips. I am debating
with myself what I am going to do next have a homebrew or go to the shop and
buy Weissbier supply. Yeah, may be in this order.
Robert Hett, Hudson, Mass
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 08:28:49 -0800
From: gabrio@eskimo.com (Steve Gabrio)
Subject: Re: Stuck Sparge using a Phalse Bottom
<ruderman@esca.com (Curiouser and curiouser...)> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Has anyone ever experienced a stuck sparge using a Phil's Phalse
>Bottom in a 10 gallon Gott cooler?
>
Yeah, I had a couple of problems:
1) The Phil's Phalse bottom wants to float which lets grain get
underneath it. I bent a piece of copper tubing to fit snuggly
around the inside the Gott cooler and place it on top of the
Phalse bottom.
2) The bottom of a Gott cooler has a small dome in the center that
would contact the elbow fitting in the Phalse bottom and seal it
off. I drilled a couple holes in the side of the fitting just
below the Phalse bottom. BTW, since I had this problem, I've
seen Phalse bottoms that already have the extra holes in the
fitting.
Haven't had a stuck sparge since.
Steve Gabrio
gabrio@eskimo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 12:02:45 +0000
From: "bill (w.r.) crick" <crick@bnr.ca>
Subject: Time for partial mash = 8 minutes
Someone in some HBD commented on the time to do a partial mash.
I do mine in the microwave. Its great! It only takes 8 minutes.
No, seriously even in the microwave it takes 1 1/2 hrs.
Ten minutes to heat the initial infusion water. An hour in the
microwave to do the actual mash steps. 20 minutes to sparge.
This is for about 2 lbs of grain, which isn't much, however
after you program the old nuker, you can go cut the lawn while it
does the mash for you;-)
Bill Crick - crick@bnr.com
Brewius, Ergo Sum!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:32:34 -0500
From: WALZENBREW@aol.com
Subject: RE: Sam Adams Comments 1
Wow! Love to start (or continue) a spirited discussion! Especially if it's
about something I feel strongly about - like Sam Adams and making
quality beer ubiquitous.
Alan P. Van Dyke writes in HD1890:
>>Keep in mind who they're competing with - and the competition's
>>firmly entrenched and enormous distribution networks (not to mention
>>their million $ ad budgets selling image and sex).
>In the prospectus of their stock offerings, they say that Boston Beer
>Co.'s competition is Sierra Nevada, Pete's, & Anchor, and other
>craft-brewers. I don't remember A/B, Coor's, or Miller being
>mentioned. This is basically Koch's own admission.
It'd be suicide to claim to take on the giants on their own turf. The
prospectus is right that the other craft brewers are the main
competition - but only if you assume that drinkers don't switch between
factory swill and craft beer. Jim Koch's marketing blitz is really
focused on getting swill drinkers to switch. Koch is smart enough to
know that capturing 1% of the swill market is a hell of a lot better
than 20% of the craft market.
And as far as the actor in the commercials: When was the last time you
saw any movie actor do his own stunts? Or heard a commercial of any kind
on the mass media for a craft beer? I'm impressed by ANY commercial for
a craft beer. There's nothing that says that quality beer is not compatible
with mass production and mass marketing - it works in Europe with
Guinness (one of the largest breweries in the world and one of the best
beers in the world) and the Munich breweries, so why not here?
>What about the lawsuit issues? Koch is filing lawsuits left & right
>against just about anyone he can. He threatened to sue a brewpub here
>in Austin for serving Sam Houston Austin Lager. Koch cliamed to own
>the trademark on Sam Houston. He also keeps harrasing Boston Beer
>Works, a small Boston brewpub, because he claims he owns the rights to
>the name of Boston.
Most definitely he should sue. In the highly competitive marketing world
your names and trademarks are your LIFE. Terms like "Boston" and "Sam" (most
of us call Sam Adams simply as "Sam") are the means that the public uses to
identify Boston Beer Company's products - and, like any company posed with
the threat of somebody ripping off their name to promote a competing product,
they have every right in the world to take all legal measures possible to
prevent this from happening.
What would happen if the Boston brewpub would come out with names for their
beers like Boston Ale or Boston Lager? This would be an obvious
trademark infringement. Same with calling any other beer "Sam", regardless
as to who the "Sam" in question is - especially a closely alliterative name
like "Sam Houston Austin Lager."
Interesting exercise: Name your commercially-marketed microbrew Peter's Lager
or Horseshoe Curve Steam Engine Beer and count the days before you're served
with a suit. You probably won't have to wait very long.
I caught a lot of flack a long time ago with my brewing friends for fiercely
siding with Rolling Rock's lawsuit against Triple Rock Brewing Company's
(Berkeley, CA) use of the beer name "Roaring Rock", which was an obvious
trademark infringement. Why do I feel this way? Because trademark
infringement is a CRIME every bit as reprehensible as software piracy or
copyright infringement. And it doesn't matter if it's a big guy vs. a little
one. It's still a crime, a ripoff of somebody else's efforts, and any
business has the legal right to try to stop it.
So much for now.
Prosit!
Greg Walz
WALZENBREW@aol.com
Pittsburgh PA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 16:32:39 -0500
From: WALZENBREW@aol.com
Subject: Sam Adams Reply 2
OK - more on this Sam Adams business:
Rob Lauriston in HD1991 writes:
>Micro-brewed beer is quality beer only if it happens to suit your
>tastes. Putting down the major breweries or the people who prefer
>their products seems to me to be self-serving egoism. And hypocritical
>when one slams those drinkers as puppets of publicity. The sheep of
>the beer market don't all flock to industrial brew. There are lots of
>people who buy micro-products only to seem cool and follow a fad. Then
>they extoll the 'quality' of their highly-oxidized, acetic mugful of
>DMS. When you want examples of off-flavours for beer-judge training,
>micros usually have something to offer.
All I can say is AMEN. The growing number of "beer snobs" is rapidly
becoming the bane of this whole movement. He then goes on to write:
>For example, Greg Walz writes in # 1888 writes, "Sorry, but this
>misses the point. What matters is HOW THE BEER TASTES." You can make
>this your priority, but is there any reason why you SHOULD?
>...
>Put a label on your homebrew and see if you don't appreciate it more.
Gee, Rob, the last time I looked taste was the main difference between
drinking beer and drinking a mixed drink, or drinking quality, full-
flavored beers and drinking swill. Unless you're out to get drunk, what
other rational reason is there for drinking beer, and, specifically, a type
or brand of beer, than taste? Image? Sex? Would Budweiser be a better
beer if they put an artsy label on it and marketed it like a craft beer?
True,
a label can make a beer seem to taste better, and the proper glass
definitely can, but only if you have a great-tasting beer to start with.
Finally, Kelly Jones writes in HD1891:
>(2) Cranberry 'Lambic' - A lambic is a beer sponataneously fermented in
>the Lembeek region of Belgium, has flavor components contributed by a
>wide variety of microflora, such as Brett, Dekera, Pedio, and Lacto.
>SA Cranberry Lambic is none of these.
Have you ever bought a Burgundy wine made in the Napa Valley of California?
"Burgundy" is an "appellation controlee", or trademarked name in France
referring to the region in which it was produced, not it's taste. However,
in California (and New York State) it's used as a simple flavor descriptor.
And the California wineries don't use the suffix "style" either. Cranberry
Lambic is really no different. Just as I don't expect California Burgundies
to taste as complex as the genuine item from France, I don't expect a
Cranberry Lambic to taste like it was made and blended in the Senne Valley.
What the name DOES give me, however, is some indication that the beer in
question will have fruit in it and will be tart.
If you really want to go after somebody for misleading the public - try
Pierre Celis. If his "Pale Bock" that's really an English Pale Ale isn't
grossly and unfairly misleading the public then what is? Yes I know he
supposedly has to do this in Texas because of the archaic liquor laws
defining "ale" as a strength, but this kind of restriction didn't stop Sierra
Nevada from calling their Bigfoot a "Barleywine-style Ale" when BATF said
they couldn't call it a "barley wine". If Celis had been more inventive he
could
have gotten around this - he could have called it a "bitter", for example.
Or he could have put some sort of description in the label's fine print. And
this also doesn't explain why it's still called Pale Bock without any sticker
or explanation when I see it in in the coolers in the Northeast. At least
with a Cranberry Lambic I know I'm getting something made with fruit that
will taste tart.
>We each have to make our own decisions about what products we buy, and
>whether we judge a product strictly on it's own merits, or whether we
>take into consideration the actions of company management. Many
>people choose not to patronize companies which promote racism,
>destruction of the environment, etc. Some choose not to buy beer from
>false-advertising, lawsuit-happy, suit-wearing businessmen. I prefer
>to buy beer made by brewers, not lawyer/marketers. To each his own.
And MY choice is to drink good beer, based strictly on it's merits, whether
it's made by Jim Koch, Fritz Maytag, my fellow brewers, or myself. And
if the big boys ever get serious about making fine, full-flavored high
quality
all-malt beers with taste, I won't hesitate to drink these, either.
Personally, one of the things that bugs me the most about the
present state of the good beer revolution is having to go to "trendy"
places full of yuppies and/or self-righteous politically-correct types to
drink good beer when I go out, because these seem to be the only places at
present that attempt to serve more than one or two varieties of good beer.
I'd much rather drink homebrew at home or with my friends than go to places
like this. I believe in choice - I should be able to go anywhere, a sports
bar, a neighborhood bar, even a country and western bar, and be able to drink
the good beer of my choice - like people can in Europe. And it's
people like Jim Koch who are going the distance to make this happen.
More power to him.
Prosit!
Greg Walz
WALZENBREW@aol.com
Pittsburgh, PA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 17:44:02 -0500
From: PSedgwick@aol.com
Subject: SS airstone and sterile air filter
In HBD #1889 chuck@mcs.com wrote:
>My question is, where can I get the SS airstone. I called Brewer's Resource
and
>asked the size of their SS airstone. They said it was 33 microns! At that
size,
>I'll continue using my chrome plated copper diffuser from American
Scientific.
>Anyone know where to get something between a 1 and 2 micron airstone?
Brewer's Resource also sells a 0.22 micron sterile air filter for $3.90.
They recommend replacing it after 10 batches. Attach the input of the
filter to your air/O2 source, connect the output to your sanitized tubing and
airstone and away you go. Be careful not to get the inside of the filter wet
as it will clog.
Paul Sedgwick
PSedgwick@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 23:37:17 -0600 (CST)
From: "Philip Gravel" <pgravel@mcs.com>
Subject: Hops and Boilovers
===> Steven W. Smith discusses hops preventing a boil over:
> In the techniques/trivia/is-it-just-me category: I've consistantly found
> that if my wort is in immediate danger of boiling over, a small amount of
> hops tossed in calms Mr Bubble down to a manageable level. This is typically
> my first addition of hops - (very) roughly 3 tablespoons of pellets hurled
> downward through the foam. My assumption is that the hops oils did the
> tricks. Any comments from Those Who Have Clues?
I've had the opposite experience. If the wort is near boiling and I add
some hop pellets, the boil immediately begins frothing up and, if not
handled, boils over. I stop the boil, let it sit for a few minutes, and
then add the hop pellets.
- --
Phil
_____________________________________________________________
Philip Gravel Lisle, Illinois pgravel@mcs.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 01:44:23 +0000
From: "Renald Chabot" <rchabot@ivic.qc.ca>
Subject: Re: cider fermentation question
In HOMEBREW Digest #1891
>Some have suggested 2 lbs. of brown sugar dissolved in water and
>champagne yeast should be added -- is that really necessary ?
>I'm not in a hurry. Anyone ever try letting it ferment itself
>out?
Regarding to cider fermentation, I did try both the process you
suggest. Dont worry, the natural fermentation is working well. And
give pretty good results... The thing is that you never know if
the microorganism taking place first are realy Yeast! It could
be... mould or such other indesirable creature :-o .
For that reason I suggest you to increase apple juice temperature
to 20 - 25 degre C as soon as you decide to begin fermentation.
This will give a chance to natural Yeast. Then, once the
fermentation is proporly installed, try to cool down the
temperature for a slow fermentation.
Since natural yeast are possibly less resistant to alcool than
selected champagne yeast, you will probably not get a full sugar
fermentation. It might give you a slightly sweet cider which is,
IMHO, not bad at all ;-).
This year, for the first time, I tried two fermentation processes,
one natural and the other started with commercial Yeast and both
with the same pressing. The initial specific gravity was 1052 and
roughly two months later, it is still fermenting slowly for the
natural one with a 1010 gravity comparing to 1000 gravity for the
other. The fermentation temperature is about 18 degre C. If you're
patient, I will give you my appreciation in a few months.
In both cases, the major thing is the clarification. It has always
been difficult to obtain a clear product, even after several
months in the jug. This time, I would try filtration before
bottling. Or if someone else have any suggestions, you're
wellcome :-)
I count on your indulgence for the relative english i've used
here. I was born in a french country and I try to do my best with
Sheakespeare language.
Renald Chabot Quebec
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 1995 21:06:22 -0500 (EST)
From: CLAY@prism.clemson.edu
Subject: Charlotte, NC brewpubs
Will be in Chrlotte Sunday night a coupla weeksdd hence. Will have
transportation. Brewpubs? With good food?
Thanks,
Cam lay
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 21:36:42 +1000
From: merino@cynergy.com.au (Merino Lithographics)
Subject: Airlocks- Never again!
I sympathise with the "what to put in the airlock" and "how to cope with
blowoff" threads.
I finally got sick of airlocks and went scouting.
If you look under "Food Processing" equipment in your Yellow Pages, you will
eventually find suppliers to the yoghurt and other small fermenting industries.
A "Two Way Relief Valve"
1/ Is made from polyethylene, seals with a nut and washer.
2/The smallest handles about 15,000 litres an hourand is 3" high.
3/It works on a *one way* ball valve about the size of a ping pong ball.
However "two way" means it can be set for vacuum or pressure, your choice.
4/ It cannot suck back. Your plastic fermenter might suck it's belly in a
bit though, in adverse conditions.
5/ The best part, it costs about Aust$5.50 !
If your fermenter sits in a garden-type pot tray, just let it blow off and
wash it into the tray. No cleaning of airlocks or worry about suck back. The
industrial solution!
BTW, please note my new address, I have moved.
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 1995 08:10:04 -0500
From: gscott@io.org (Geoff Scott)
Subject: Bernz-O-Matic O2 Reg.
Bill Marks said,
>The other day I was in a hardware store and saw a Bernz-O-Matic
>Oxy-Propane torch rig for home welding and brazing. It was about $50.
>The bottle of oxygen that came with it was the same size as the typical
>propane bottle for a propane torch except thatit was bright red. The
>regulator that screwed onto the bottle was EXACTLY like that pictured for
>the "Oxygenator" rig being advertised in Zymurgy. The refill bottles were
>only $7. I tried to call Bernz-O-Matic and Weller to see if they sell
>just the oxygen regulator as a replacement part.
I bought one of these several years ago but haven't used it since getting
an oxy-acetylene rig about five years ago. The regulator pictured in
Zymurgy looks the same to me too. I can't help with a phone number though.
I was surprised by the amount of wort the ad said one could oxygenate with
one bottle. The orange oxygen tanks are under fairly low pressure so they
don't hold very much and they cost 8 to 10 bucks (Canadian) each. It
certainly is an expensive way to weld. I normally just aerate my wort but
a few weeks ago I needed a vigorous starter on short notice so I used the
Bernz-O-Matic regulator to oxygenate. My big oxy-acetylene tanks are
stored at my parents house or I would use pure O2 more often but I find the
old Bernoulli tube and shake technique works well for me. One drawback to
buying the regulator as a replacement part instead of from the company
advertising in Zymurgy is that you wouldn't get the air stone.
regards,
Geoff Scott
gscott@io.org
Brewing page http://www.io.org/~gscott
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1893, 11/25/95
*************************************
-------
