Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2144
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/08/13 PDT
Homebrew Digest Tuesday, 13 August 1996 Number 2144
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
I've had enough... (Marty Tippin)
5L kegs ((William P Giffin))
Re: Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 2) (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
Dial-type Thermometers (bturnbaugh@kktv.com)
La Chouffe (Bob Waterfall)
Comment to the Collective on Nokomaree ((David C. Harsh))
autolysis and secondaries/Victory vs. Munich (korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com)
KitchenAid Grain Mills (Michael Beck)
"Surrender" Nonsense ((Dennis J. Templeton))
identity of mystery recipe (Gregory King)
wheat decoction/secondary fermenters (M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace@mac))
Re: wyeast belgian wit (Kit Anderson)
Re: wyeast belgian wit (Kit Anderson)
Re: sanitation, ((Nigel Townsend))
re: A Specific Question about Specific Gravity (Ken Parsons)
giving recipies / adding amylase during mash ("Keith Royster")
Brewheat use ("CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865")
re: fruit beer musings ((Dick Dunn))
re: recipes (sharing them) (bob rogers)
When to pick hops (michael j dix)
nokomaree redux (m.bryson2@genie.com)
Event stuff (Kyle R Roberson)
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info@aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty Tippin <martyt@sky.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:06:52 -0500
Subject: I've had enough...
Well, I've had about enough of the degeneration of the HBD and will be
unsubscribing shortly. Seems to me that the decline of this forum started
about the same time the AOB took over and screwed everything up.
Coincidence? I dunno. But I've got better things to do with my time.
If anyone needs me, I'll be lurking in rec.crafts.brewing instead...
- -Marty
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Marty Tippin | Tippin's Law #24: Never underestimate the
martyt@sky.net | power of human stupidity.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my 2-Tier Converted Keg Brewing System Design Plans
and other homebrew gadgets at http://www.sky.net/~martyt
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: bill-giffin@juno.com (William P Giffin)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 14:33:38 cst
Subject: 5L kegs
Good afternoon,
I counter-pressure fill my 5L keg when I use them. It is a great way to
get the beer into the little rascals and you are sure that they will not
be over carbonated.
Works Great!
Bill
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 13:55:02 CDT
Subject: Re: Al's Posts vs the Truth (Part 2)
I was just about to send this to Michael directly, but then I noticed that
he included the HBD on what should have been sent via private email. Since
Michael has taken this to HBD, I feel compelled to respond via HBD to
defend myself. Please note that this was initially written as private email
to Michael. I probably would not have been as thankful for his criticism
of me had I realized earlier that he was posting this to the HBD.
As for the Subject, for the record... Al tries his very best to post the
truth and to help fellow brewers. He's not perfect, but he has good
intentions.
Michael--
The knee-jerk reaction to Wheeler was, just as you called it. I am
in the process of writing a pair of books and therefore felt it was a bad idea
to criticize Wheeler's book on HBD... it would look to everyone as if
I was simply trying say how my book is better. In stead, I did something
worse... frustrated, I overreacted to Wheeler's article, indeed criticized
points that I simply misread and frankly mucked things up quite a bit. As
you pointed out, this diluted my credibility in my posts and perhaps my
book too. Shame on me.
If you are interested in my comments on Wheeler's book (some of which I
compiled for an offline discussion with another brewer, but never posted)
please email me. I don't plan to post them. Since these are the things
that initially drove me to slam Wheeler, perhaps they are relevant.
My contradictions of Burley, I feel, were quite a bit more than "is so...is
not" as you suggest. Burley is quite a character. We have been arguing
this point off-line (I, somewhat from textbooks, but mostly from practical
experience and Steve from the textbooks and "enzyme kinetics" perspective)
and it is still going on. If you are indeed interested in what we have
been saying, you should have joined our off-line group. If you want to
hear what we have said to date, I've saved it. I can ask Steve, Charlie
and Dave if they mind if I send you a copy (it was private email, after all).
Let me know.
>I followed closely your argument with Dave Burley regarding conversion and
>beta amylase. I was shocked when you demanded that he quit "posting
>misinformation" simply because he held a different perspective than you. It
No, I'm afraid you are wrong here. He was indeed posting misinformation.
I used the strongest possible, civil language I felt was appropriate for the
HBD in an effort to break his spirit. It was clear to me that this was not
your usual arguer. I had hoped that I could cut off the thread with my
post. It did not work.
>was a bit insulting to the general HBD readership as well, IMHO, when you
>expressed fear that the statements of you "gurus" might mislead the newbies,
>and that it would be better to have the conversation in private email and
>then post a summary.
I did not use the term "gurus," I don't think. My concern was indeed for
the beginners. Seeing two opposing "facts" battling it out does not help
anyone who is new to the whole topic. They simply don't know enough to
judge who's right and this is a source of confusion. The discussion between
us is still going on... we would have all been banned from the HBD by now.
> While some welcomed such an idea because the discussion
>-cum-pissing contest was wearing thin, to me it simply demonstrated your
>egotism. We brewers are, as far as I can see, a reasonable cross-section of
>the general public, and most of us are able to think for ourselves.
I don't disagree that you can think for yourselves, but besides it getting
boring and taking up an unreasonable amount of bandwidth, beginning mashers
and potential mashers do not have the depth of knowledge to know who's "facts"
are right: Dave's, Jim's, Steve's or Al's? Please note that Jim Busch was
the first to contradict Dave. None of this has anything to do with ego.
Regarding determining lactic versus acetic acids by smell only:
>This is rather disingenuous. Taste relies on info from both tongue and nose;
>this olfactory involvement does not render vinegary sourness a pure aroma.
I'm sorry, but the difference between vinegar and lactic acid by humans can
only be determined by smell and not taste (tongue). On the tongue they both
are simply sour. This was my point and I stand by it. My assertion was
confirmed by a subsequent poster, I believe.
Your points are well taken and I will try to be less reactive, but I am
passionate about beer and brewing and my intentions have always been noble
(although it may not appear that way at times). I only recently came up
with the idea of writing a book. I assure you it is well-researched and
contains no speculation without saying clearly that it's speculation. No
shooting from the hip.
I want to believe that this pair of books will be the best available brewing
texts for homebrewers. They contain information collected from sources
such as Malting and Brewing Science, DeClerck, the Proceedings of the ASBC
and Brawwelt. It distills this info into practical knowledge usable by the
homebrewer. It also contains a lot of insight from HBD. I like to think
that if there's one thing I've learned well on HBD is how to explain things
to beginners. I've used this skill in my books, I hope, to make advanced
knowledge accessable. I wrote these books primarily because I saw a need.
If they make me some money, great, but I didn't think of them as moneymakers
to begin with.
I appreciate your feedback... I will do my best.
Let me know about whether you want the Wheeler comments and/or the
beta-amylase discussion notes.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: bturnbaugh@kktv.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 13:07:20 -0500
Subject: Dial-type Thermometers
Hi All, I am looking for S-S dial type thermometers, the
kind you can screw into a fitting welded to the side
of a S-S keg/mashtun. I called American Science &
Surplus and the lady there said they don't carry them.
Any info on phone#'s and stock #'s would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks: Bob T.
------------------------------
From: Bob Waterfall <waterr@albany.net>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:34:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: La Chouffe
Mark Peacock says:
>Chastened by earlier posts not to request recipes, I will instead ask for
>directional suggestions for development of a La Chouffe-like beer.
That's good because all I have are sugestions. Back in hbd 1984, I stated
that La Chouffe seemed to have a lot of honey character (attributed to
2,3-pentanedione, not the use of honey in the recipe). Subsequent
discussion in the next several digests suggest that choice of yeast and
other fermentation parameters like aeration and pitching rate may affect the
amount of pentanedione and other vicinal diketones (eg., diacetyl) in the
beer. I suggest searching the archives (online at
http://alpha.rollanet.org) for La Chouffe, dione, diketone, vdk, etc. for
any clues as to what you need to get that honey character that (to me
anyway) would be vital for reproducing La Chouffe. My search uncovereed the
possibility that there are additional herbs and spices at work than just
coriander.
>Is La Chouffe a wit-like beer without the lactic acid component?
Not in my opinion.
>Is Jim Busch's Esprit d' Boire recipe from Winter 95 Zymurgy a better
starting point?
Jim could address this better than I, but from what I recall it was supposed
to be a Belgian Strong Ale, which is also what I would call La Chouffe. So,
yes.
On a different topic, let's all take a deep breath, count to 10 and not bite
when the fisherman trolls these waters.
Bob Waterfall <waterr@albany.net>,
Troy, NY, USA
------------------------------
From: dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 15:52:03 -0400
Subject: Comment to the Collective on Nokomaree
AOL claims that they want to know about abuse of the usenet from
their members. So, if you send mail to ABUSE@AOL.COM and include the text
from Noko's postings, maybe they'll do something about it if enough people
bring it to their attention.
My only further comment on the nameless wonder will be to forward
copies of all of his/her/its postings to aol with a request that they do
something about it. I recommend you all do the same.
Did you notice the comment "mean spirited and nasty... behind an
anonymous keyboard" in the last posting? Did I miss the name in noko's
postings or was this a self-reference?
Dave
------------------------------
From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 15:40:35 CDT
Subject: autolysis and secondaries/Victory vs. Munich
Gregg writes:
>is there any real benefit to be gained by racking to a secondary, other than
>avoiding autolysis? My own experience leads me to believe that Miller,
>Papazian, et al might just be blowing smoke when they warn against autolysis
>setting in after a month or so in the primary. Has anyone actually had a batch
>go south due to autolylisized yeast?
Not me. I think that part of this reason is that back when Papazian and
Miller started forming their brewing knowledge:
1. there were few good, healthy yeasts available,
2. liquid yeast was not available,
3. rehydration of dry yeast was not usually done,
4. little was known in amateur brewing about glycogen levels and yeast
starvation.
I think that with healthy yeasts, rehydration of dry yeasts, big starters
from liquid yeasts, pitching shortly after high kraeusen and not letting
the fermenter ever get too warm (say, over 75F) we could easily go four
weeks without any off-flavours from autolysis. My Barleywine, which one
a 1st in the 1st round of the 1996 AHA Natiionals sat in the primary for
nearly 9 months! The temperature was kept between 60 and 65F and I pitched
twice, once after cooling (effectively a 4 liter starter) and once again
(dregs from a 2L starter) when the beer seemed to stick at 1.035 (down from
1.102) -- FG was 1.027. The reason I say "effectively" a 4 liter starter
is because I routinely make big starters by fermenting a 2L starter till
it settles, pouring off some of the spent wort and then adding fresh wort.
I can then pitch a much larger "effective" starter while adding only a
fraction of the spent wort. Oh... the yeast was Wyeast #1056 American Ale.
Similarly, Steve writes:
>Al, reading this comment startled me. I guess I realized that you could
>make some styles of beer very satisfactorily with only a primary
>fermentation, but what about lagers and diacetyl reduction?
As Steve guessed, most of my beers have been ales, but since I posted this
(i.e. Fri, Sat and Sun ) I've brewed two lagers and eight fruit beers (split
batch). Those 10% were indeed lagers and fruit beers. I do use a 2ndary
for lagers (because they really do sit around for months on the dregs and
don't have the flavour intensity of a Barleywine to cover *any* off flavours)
and fruit beers (in which I usually need to make room for the fruit).
In a related post, Rob writes:
>Racking to secondary has numerous benefits with only a few drawbacks:
>
>1) Secondary fermentation allows time for yeast to drop and allows
> time for your beer to clear naturally (via tannin-protein complexing)
I just leave the beer in primary longer.
>2) A two-step process frees up your primary fermentor and allows the
> brewer to bottle or keg as time permits (weeks to months)
Except for my two 20gal HDPE, one 20gal Oak and one 50L demijohn, all my
fermenters are 3-, 5- and 6-gallon glass carboys. Altogether I've got
about 40 fermenters. Right now, about 18 of them are full (thanks to
the eight 1.5-gal fruit beers in 3-gal carboys).
>3) Two-step fermentation allows much of the dissolved CO2 to outgas
> and yields more consistent carbonation for bottled beers
This is incorrect. The amount of CO2 in solution is simply a function
of temperature. All the time in the world will not reduce the amount
of dissolved CO2 in the beer at a given temperature. Yes, more CO2
may bubble out in the secondary, but that's only because of fermentation,
rise in temperature during racking or agitation during racking.
>4) Clarity can be assessed easily and fining agents may be added
> as desired. While Polyclar, Si Gel, and bentonite seem to work
> quickly, gelatin takes longer in my brewery.
I sometimes use finings, but usually these are on lagers for which I do
use a secondary. I have used Isinglass in the primary for several Bitters.
There were no problems with it although I could not stir it in -- I just
poured it into the carboy.
On the subject of clarity, the yeast will settle out. I have gotten comments
from judges regarding the amount of yeast on the bottoms of my bottles like:
"nice lunar landscape..." so I do sometimes have more yeast in the bottles
than most, but this is also a function of how long I keep the beer in the
primary and how stingy I am siphoning every last drop out of the primary.
***
Don writes in his mystery recipe:
>4 lb Victory or Dark Munich
These are two very different malts and I don't want anyone to get the idea
they are equivalent. Dark Munich is made by kilning green malt at a higher
temperature than that used for Pils, Pale Ale, Vienna or (presumably) lighter
Munich malts. Victory is made similarly to DeWolf-Cosysns Biscuit. They
are made by taking a normally-kilned malt like Pilsner and then roasting it
lightly at high temperatures. The resulting flavours are quite different,
the Victory and Biscuit having a toasty flavour with some similarty to bread
crust.
Just say 'Yes' to Wyeast... sorry Jim, we are all entitled to our opinions.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
------------------------------
From: Michael Beck <101465.1255@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 12 Aug 96 17:02:38 EDT
Subject: KitchenAid Grain Mills
Does anyone have any FAQs, tips, or lessons learned from using a KitchenAid
mixer with the grain mill attachment for cracking 10 to 20 pounds of grain?
Mike Beck
101465.1255@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: djt2@po.cwru.edu (Dennis J. Templeton)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:12:59 -0400
Subject: "Surrender" Nonsense
Last week Al ended another lengthy post with
>Surrender Dave... ;^).
>Al.
>Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
>korzonas@lucent.com
>Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas
Which I view as an admission that the intent of this flame battle was not
to promote good brewing but rather to prove the machismo of Mr K. This is
pointless, and makes reading the HBD an unpleasant event. (You can
copyright that one too).
BTW I am a research scientist who knows what "sterile" means, but I find it
ridiculously pedantic to castigate someone for using "sterile" instead of
"sanitize". This is a catchword that causes politically correct responses
by AHA types hoping to to distinguish those who are "in" from the "outs".
Who among us thinks that Al's two liter starter is 100% saccharomyces?
(Make that 100.000000000% for Al's desired level of precision.)
Sulfites are good tools to reduce bacteria and molds in wine (and even beer).
Baking your bottles will kill (nearly) all microorganisms. In neither case
can you prove that the result is sterility, since the proof is the absence
of bacteria, and you cannot sample the whole, under all situations.
Let's get back to discussing beer, and not trying to prove ourselves.
On a related note, is there a digest reader that has a kill file?
Dennis
------------------------------
From: Gregory King <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:27:09 -0500 (EST)
Subject: identity of mystery recipe
Don Trotter <dtrotter@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> posted the following challenge:
<<<<<
I'll let you guess the style and what commercial beer it is an attempt at.
7 lb US, 2-row (Klages)
7 lb US, 2-row pale (Harrington)
4 lb Victory or Dark Munich
1 lb Crystal 10L
1 lb Crystal 20L
1 lb Crystal 40L
1 lb Crystal 90L
1-2 oz Chocolate malt
0.5 oz Centennial 60 min
1.0 oz Centennial 40 min
1.0 oz Centennial 20 min
1.0 oz Centennial 5 min
Bitter to the tune of 40 IBU
>>>>>
That's an easy one, Don. Coors Light. What do I win?
Greg King
gking@arserrc.gov
------------------------------
From: M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace@mac)
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 17:05 -0600
Subject: wheat decoction/secondary fermenters
collective homebrew conscience:
mike spinelli asked about boiling only the wheat malt for a decoction
weizenbier. can anybody think of a reason why this is a bad idea? the
only criticism i can think of is that you won't extract a lot of malty
flavors from the barley malt, but, hey, it's a wheat beer, right? it seems
to me this would emphasize the maltiness of the wheat malt over the barley,
plus you're physically breaking down every last bit of wheat malt, which is
very desirable considering the typical crush you get with the stuff. the
main purposes you utilize the barley malt for are enzymes and filterbed, and
you avoid the tannin extraction almost entirely, which i should point out,
i've never really had a problem with, but some apparently have.
i say go for it, mike. and let us know what happens. outstanding.
regarding racking to a secondary fermenter, i've done this with a few
beers this spring, particularly a couple of pilsners that i gradually
lowered the temperature on in the freezer after about a 10 day primary,
and i noticed the flavor was very good, but i did not fine either of them,
and they have a bit of chill haze. neither of them have even a suggestion
of diacetyl flavor, which supports the belief that keeping the
yeast in contact with the beer helps to reduce it. the next time i brew
these beers, the only change i'm making is fining them. if they're still
hazy, i'll consider racking, but i don't want to change anything if i don't
have to.
i have heard people claim that letting the beer sit on the primary sediment
too long can lead to "old" or "stale" flavors in the beer. they were not
specifically referring to full-blown autolysis (burnt rubber). does anybody
know why this might be true? my pilsners really don't support this claim,
but they were at below 40 degF for the majority of the extended period
on the sediment. perhaps typical ale fermentation temperatures
would result in a damaged product? yeast experts? is there a gray area
of flavor impairment by yeast that's not quite to the autolyzed state?
my $.02 on the recipe debate: i personally believe that technique is vastly
more important than a list of ingredients. and i support the free exchange
of information that will help all of us to brew better beer, regardless
of who wins the competitions. i was under the impression that this was why
this forum was created, and this is why i participate.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
From: Kit Anderson <kit@maine.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:03:49 -0500
Subject: Re: wyeast belgian wit
>At 02:50 AM 8/8/96 EDT, you wrote:
>>regarding your post on wit brewing:
>>
>>i don't agree with your assessment of the lengthy fermentation
>>as a result of the brewer's technique and not the yeast itself.
>>i've made several all-grain batches using wyeast belgian white
>>in the past year, recently using a pint starter. in all cases,
>>the fermentation was initially vigorous but then dropped to a
>>continuous slow level for up to four weeks before finishing.
>>from responses to earlier posts, i've learned that this seems to
>>be a commonly experienced situation with this yeast. the only
>>methods i think that can improve my technique would be to 1)
>>grow a much larger starter (1/2 gal+) or 2) aerate with O2.
>>either should help, but given my experience with other wyeast
>>varieties, i don't think that they should be necessary for any
>>old joe homebrewer to produce a good beer quickly.
>>
>>maybe i'll try the brewtek variety sometime.
>>
>
>Hi, Ted. Being a natural born science major, I went and bought a new pouch
of Wyeast and put it in a 1/2 gal starter after activating. It has taken a
week, but is not clearing. The fermnentation is not nearly as vigorous.
>
> So..... The culture Wyeast is now selling is not the same as they had
originally. I still have a slant of that. I'll be interested to taste any
difference. It acts a lot different than BrewTek's wit and saison as well as
Yeast Labs and GW Kent. I have a slant of Celis from a micro lab in Texas
and it is the same as BrewTek's.(IMHO) Get that yeast. Life will be much
better.
>
- - ---
Kit Anderson
Bath, Maine
<kit@maine.com>
The Maine Beer Page http://www.maine.com/brew
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Kit Anderson <kit@maine.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 18:03:49 -0500
Subject: Re: wyeast belgian wit
>At 02:50 AM 8/8/96 EDT, you wrote:
>>regarding your post on wit brewing:
>>
>>i don't agree with your assessment of the lengthy fermentation
>>as a result of the brewer's technique and not the yeast itself.
>>i've made several all-grain batches using wyeast belgian white
>>in the past year, recently using a pint starter. in all cases,
>>the fermentation was initially vigorous but then dropped to a
>>continuous slow level for up to four weeks before finishing.
>>from responses to earlier posts, i've learned that this seems to
>>be a commonly experienced situation with this yeast. the only
>>methods i think that can improve my technique would be to 1)
>>grow a much larger starter (1/2 gal+) or 2) aerate with O2.
>>either should help, but given my experience with other wyeast
>>varieties, i don't think that they should be necessary for any
>>old joe homebrewer to produce a good beer quickly.
>>
>>maybe i'll try the brewtek variety sometime.
>>
>
>Hi, Ted. Being a natural born science major, I went and bought a new pouch
of Wyeast and put it in a 1/2 gal starter after activating. It has taken a
week, but is not clearing. The fermnentation is not nearly as vigorous.
>
> So..... The culture Wyeast is now selling is not the same as they had
originally. I still have a slant of that. I'll be interested to taste any
difference. It acts a lot different than BrewTek's wit and saison as well as
Yeast Labs and GW Kent. I have a slant of Celis from a micro lab in Texas
and it is the same as BrewTek's.(IMHO) Get that yeast. Life will be much
better.
>
- - ---
Kit Anderson
Bath, Maine
<kit@maine.com>
The Maine Beer Page http://www.maine.com/brew
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: nigelt@delm.tas.gov.au (Nigel Townsend)
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 09:21:53 +1000
Subject: Re: sanitation,
"John Penn" in HBD 2142 asked about using bleach
.
> Should I periodically remove the spigot and soak it separately as a possible
source of contamination around the rubber gasket?<
I do not do this each time, but will if it has been stored for a couple of
months, or a "mould" has developed inside (still damp when stored!), then I
will take the tap out and soak it. I always run bleach through my tap
when I drain it, so that any bugs inside get a shot of bleach too. I feel
(unproven) that there is a potential for an air bubble to form inside the
tap, preventing bleach contact with all the surface. I could be wrong, but
dont feel that it is worth the risk.
Nigel Townsend
Hobart, Tasmania
------------------------------
From: Ken Parsons <klondike@sonnet.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 17:59:40 -0700
Subject: re: A Specific Question about Specific Gravity
Dynamic Don posed a problem where 1 lb dextrose was added to 1
gallon H2O. What is the resulting specific gravity?
Don calculated that the specific gravity should be 1.060 rather than
the 1.040 listed in his reference source.
The calculations he used look reasonable. The portion that looks
shaky to me is the measured volume increase due to the addition of the
dextrose. It appears that an assumption was made that the 1/4 cup of
dextrose was equal to 0.25/2.66 or 0.094 lb. This would only be true if
the dextrose was packed to the same density as was used in the reference
calculations. A more accurate determination could be obtained by
weighing out the dextrose and measuring the resulting increase in volume.
Other inaccuracies could be introduced by the volume measuring device.
Was it a graduated cylinder that might have a +/- 1% accuracy or better
or was it a flask that may have only a +/- 10% accuracy?
I used a different approach to arrive at the answer. I first
calculated the Plato value and then converted to specific gravity.
Plato is (mass extract/mass wort)*100. 1 lb dextrose is added to 1
gallon H2O. 1 gallon H20 = 8.327 lbs. The total mass of the solution
would be 1 + 8.327 = 9.327 lbs. The Plato would be (1/9.327)*100=10.72P.
At low gravities the specific gravity is approximately equal to
1+(Plato*4)/1000)) or 1+(10.72*4)/1000))=1.043. This would be in fairly
close agreement with Don's reference. Based on this calculation the
total volume of the solution should be about 4.064 liters.
Klondike Ken
------------------------------
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 22:07:51 +0500
Subject: giving recipies / adding amylase during mash
Don Trotter <dtrotter@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> writes:
> How many of us give up our recipes?
>
> Seeing all the recipe requests in HBD doesn't make me feel well.
> Can't any of the requesters develop their own recipes? It really
> isn't difficult. A little light reading and a little light math, or
> a recipe formulation program is all it takes.
Perhaps nobody else will admit it, so I will. Yes Don, some of us
can't develop our own recipies......yet! Brewing is a wonderful
blend of science AND art. While I thoroughly enjoy both of these
aspects of brewing and want to excel in them both, I am much more
lacking in the creative side of things. While I may catch on quickly
to the equations and concepts of what's happening in the boiling
kettle, I'm a little slower to learn what grains contribute what
flavors and how the whole thing will/should taste in the end. Sure I
can read that crystal imparts this flavor, and carapils that, but it
takes an artistic talent to be able to understand how all of those
flavors will mesh together. Especially when trying to duplicate a
specific beer. Therefore, I learn by example (after example after
example). So please, keep sending in recipies.
- -------------------------
On another note, I have some left-over powdered amylase and was
wondering if I should consider using it in my mash. I originally
bought it to fix a couple of stuck fermentations but haven't used it
since. Rather than waste it, I was toying with the idea of adding it
to my mash. Any comments or suggestions? Will it improve my yield?
Is powdered amylase mostly alpha or beta, or an even mixture? How
much?
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
"Where if the kudzu don't gitcha, the Baptists will!"
mailto:keith.royster@ponyexpress.com
@your.service: http://dezines.com/@your.service
Carolina BrewMasters: http://dezines.com/@your.service/cbm
My RIMS page: http://dezines.com/@your.service/RIMS (rated COOL! by the
Brewery)
------------------------------
From: "CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865" <CHUDSON@mozart.unm.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 20:30:18 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Brewheat use
I am in need of information on the Brewheat Electric kettle. After 10 years I
have decided to look into an electric boiling vessel and if any one can help it
would be greatly appreciated. Specifics, I am looking for any Info on all grain
use of one of these toys,can it be used to kettle mash and what types of drains
does it have? I have already decided on the 220 volt model.
Thanks
Chuck Hudson
Albuquerque NM
chudson@mozart.unm.edu
------------------------------
From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Date: 12 Aug 96 20:58:42 MDT (Mon)
Subject: re: fruit beer musings
Curt Speaker wrote:
>...I also understand the conventional logic: Fruit added to the primary
> loses many of its desirable tastes and smells due to CO2 scrubbing; volatile
> esters that give fruit most of its smell and flavor are blown out with the
> CO2 that is produced by vigerous fermentation...
Like Curt, I've heard this argument...and also like Curt (comments later in
his note) I've tasted some dandy empirical evidence against it. Now, I'd
admit that more of my experience is with meads (i.e., melomels), and the
primary fermentation of a melomel isn't quite as wild as a fruit beer, but
it's not tame by any means.
Beyond that, consider that fruit wines are, almost by definition, made with
the fruit in the primary fermentation, and they don't seem to have any
trouble retaining fruit character!
I could also wonder what effect the difference in alcohol has...during the
primary fermentation, there's a lot of extraction from the fruit early on
(noticing how it fades) when the alcohol is relatively low.
Is there a real basis for the advice against adding fruit to the primary?
Has somebody done a careful side-by-side comparison? Are those of us who
use fruit in the primary just making up for the loss by using more fruit--
or is there any loss at all?
Also, KennyEddy@aol.com wrote:
> >From what I've gathered (and I think AlK touched on it recently), perception
> of fruit in beer relies heavily on *aroma* and *sweetness*, moreso than fruit
> "flavor". Since the fruit causes additional fermentation, the alcohol thus
> produced "thins" or "dries" the beer (FG's of around 1.000 or even less are
> not unheard of). To enhance the fruit character, be sure to brew such that
> you leave a higher-than-normal degree of residual sweetness...
It's true that a little bit of sweetness will bring out a fruit character.
On the other hand, more alcohol will more readily carry the fruit character
to the nose.
Again, appealing to mead (because I know it better and because it's an edge
case relative to beer), you can find yourself at 0.992 FG, 10-12% alc v/v,
and plenty of fruit character. A tiny bit of residual sweetness if you can
get it still does wonders to enhance the fruit, but it's still there even
if the melomel is bone-dry and 2-3x the alcohol of a beer.
- ---
Dick Dunn rcd@talisman.com Boulder County, Colorado USA
...walstib
------------------------------
From: bob rogers <bob@carol.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 23:46:59 -0400
Subject: re: recipes (sharing them)
i think that the homebrewer who declines to share a recipe is a small person.
as a homebrewer you have no commercial interest by definition.
if someone can use your recipe and produce a better beer then you need to
work on your technique.
my mom has a shoebox full of blue ribbons from the county fair for baking
and jams and such. she has never hesitated to share a recipe for the simple
reason that someone with experience can derive the recipe (or one that
produces the same results) with very little effort. shoud there be a
commercial interest they will be able to duplicate any desired results with
ease.
in fact, the only person who will be set back by your not sharing a recipe
is a beginner, who will be unable to identify the various flavors and
textures of your brew, and a beginner is not likely to be your competition
anyway.
all that said, here is my recipe for a wit sort of beer:
6# 6 row, 1#cara-vienna, mashed at 155F for about 2 hours. i added 1/2 oz
7.8% (old) cluster hops and 1.5# honey at the start of the boil.
when i shut of the heat at the end of the boil i added 3/4 cup of freshly
pounded coriander seed.
the resuting beer does not have quite as much orange flavor as Wit!, but it
is very drinkable. i think next time i will use less coriander, maybe 1/2 cup
bob
brewing in the heart of the bible belt.
bob rogers
bob@carol.net
------------------------------
From: michael j dix <mdix@dcssc.sj.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 96 10:11:53 PDT
Subject: When to pick hops
I picked my Hallertauer vine just last week, in San Jose, Calif.
I wait for the cones to get to the "crunchy" state when rubbed
with the finger tips. I might have picked them a bit too soon:
Some but not all of the "petals" had turned that clear light shade
of green. But the yellow "glands" were a good size, and my sample
smelled great when rubbed firmly.
I hate to let them go too late, when they look sun-bleached and
the glands fall out of the cones.
Mike Dix
------------------------------
From: m.bryson2@genie.com
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 96 04:18:00 UTC 0000
Subject: nokomaree redux
I'm about to make a comment that is brewing related only in that it is a
thread I have followed on the HBD for a while. Anyone not interested, page
down now.
With the sporadic HBD service lately, I apparently missed whatever
comments that NOKOMAREE( or whatever) made that really seemed to irk some
people. I then viewed with amusement the exceptionally numerous replies that
ensued. Did it not occur to anyone that this person was just trying to push
people's buttons to get a response? That is a favorite tactic of a few in a
lot of newsgroups( I know, the HBD is not a newsgroup). Such a plethora of
responses waste time/bandwidth like that stupid Good Times virus scare. It
seems to me that simply ignoring "stuff" instead of falling for the dangled
bait might reduce similar occurences. Or maybe I am just naive. It just
seems to me that this digest is too valuable a resource to let a little
irritation interrupt our brewing discussion.
Feel free to flame away at me on my spambox.
Matthew Bryson
------------------------------
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 1996 23:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Event stuff
I went to the Prosser Wine and Food Fair last weekend as I
mentioned in a previous post about the GABF. It was dominated
by the wineries, but they had three microbreweries in
a tent at the end of the field. It was very well received and all
three breweries ran out of beer by 8:15pm or so. But...
The micros could not bring more beer in after the festival started.
The micros could not display bottles, they could only use kegs.
The micros could not sell beer to take out.
The wineries had runners whos job it was to keep them supplied with
wine as they ran low.
The wineries could display their bottles.
The wineries could sell wine by the case or by the bottle as
people left the festival.
I don't know whether these inequalities are based in state, county
or city law or in the law of whos ball it is makes the rules. To be
fair, I should mention that the festival BOUGHT the beer from the
micros and the brewery reps were serving it and chatting up the
festival goers. So they can make up whatever rules they want. I just
don't know if they have a reason for the difference between how they
treat wine and beer.
While it was hot, the lines were VERY long in front of the
micro tent!
Good time was had by all, I believe.
Kyle
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2144
****************************
