Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2215
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/10/04 PDT
Homebrew Digest Friday, 4 October 1996 Number 2215
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Mike Donald, Digest Janitor-in-training
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
PPBT qualifications (Jim Busch)
Beer Stuff (eric fouch)
Review of Brew Ware (Mike Donald)
GABF PPBT (Jeanne Colon-Bonet)
Barley Wine Yeast (Ray Gaffield)
Descrip. of dry yeasts (Robert Parker)
plambics, pellicles, filters (Jim Liddil)
disconnects/extract rye/reusing Nottingham/waxy scum/decoction (korz@xnet.com)
Well Water (David A. Reid)
RE: Racking off yeast scheme (John Wilkinson)
Re: GABF judging, hazelnut beer, pale malt (Jeff Frane)
Mini Kegs (Rick Lambert)
Peat Smoked Malt ((Charles Burns))
Re: kegging high-gravity beers (Brian Bliss)
hops and dogs (bob rogers)
Cornie keg fitting specs? (Louis Bonham)
inexpensive digital thermometer (bob rogers)
Mac Brewing Software (Stephen Ross)
Re: PPBT qualifications (Derek Lyons)
GABF Judging/ Airstones /FWIW (Rob Moline)
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,
homebrew-digest-owner@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.
COPYRIGHT:
As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 14:51:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: PPBT qualifications
Dion wrote:
<As far as Homebrew Club competitions are concerned, the majority of
<them have BJCP qualified judges, which are *real* qualifications. The
<BJCP qualifies that one can pass both a written and and a beer
<evaluation test with minimum score and does not advance in rank
<without additional higher test scores *and* experience points. Being
<a BJCP qualified judge is a *meaningful* qualification.
And since the judges are selected from homebrewers, mostly, it makes
sense to have some checkpoint as to basic understanding. IMO, experience
points have little to no relationship to ones ability to accuratly
judge beer. Im a fan of the BJCP, dont get me wrong here, but its
no guarentee.
<Do the "professionals" have equally as thorough of a qualification
<process as the BJCP certification, or can you qualify merely because
<you make money from brewing or selling beer?
Many of these folks would be embarrassed to have to take the BJCP test
in order to "prove" some base qualification. Embarrassed or not,
many just wont do it. It costs money, takes several hours out of
a busy schedule and who wants to take an essay exam to prove something
that may be well established in the industry already? Years ago I
struggled with these same questions before taking the exam. I did
and I am certified. Would I do it again from my perspective today?
Not sure. I certainly dont look down in any way to others in the
industry who choose not to go the BJCP route. By and large these
folks are highly qualified to evaluate beers. That said, I see
plenty of questions in the awards but Im not about to say the judges
were flawed in some form for selecting on the basis that they did.
Even the ugly duckling gets lucky sometime, and in beer shipping and
handling anything could and does happen. There are not that many
Krones and SMB Technik bottling lines in the industry today although
thats changing all the time.
BTW, a lot of the PPBT are from the beer writing industry.
<When I bought my 0.22 micron inline air filter from Heartland Hydroponics,
<the person I talked to on the phone said absolutely do NOT run water
<through the filter, because liquids were too big to pass through the
<hydrophobic membrane. My question is, given the admonition I recently
<received, how does one sanitize the inline filter?
You dont need to sanitize the .2 micron filter! Sanitize the out
side tubing and airstone and leave the filter dry, the filter takes
regular air/bacteria and delivers just air.
Jim Busch
See Victory Brewing at:
http://www.victorybeer.com/
------------------------------
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc@mcimail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 14:15 EST
Subject: Beer Stuff
Date: Thursday, 3 October 1996 3:01pm ET
To: STC012.HONLY@STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: Beer Stuff
In-Reply-To: Way Cheap Operations
Perhaps this post is a bit premature, but somtimes I have that problem
("I just think about baseball").
At any rate, I wanted to brag about my El-Cheapo EZ Masher Knockoff (Tm).
What I did was modify an aquarium undergravel filter (cut to fit in the
bottom of my plastic primary fermenter, boxed off the ends and bottom with
polycarbonate sheeting and drilled a hole in the side for a drain hose).
The hose I used is a food grade plastic hose of the proper OD to fit
snugly inside the ID of my fermenters' spigot. Total cost: about $5.00.
I then tried my first partial mash, a cereal mash using 3#s Munich (remember
the mushroom post?) and 1# Vienna with 8oz granulated Tapioca just for kicks.
I crushed the malts using the fine cheese grating wheel on my Krups meat
grinder & cheese grater. Most of the malt got crushed between the wheel and
the housing. It looked a little finer than the pre crushed stuff you buy,
but I saw a lot of whole husks, and not much powder. Once again, at no extra
cost (I'm truly the cheapest of bastards). The down side is it took about an
hour to crush 4#s.
Combining 2#s malt and the Tapioca, I used the old 50-60-70 mash, then boiled
it for 30 minutes, added the rest of the malt and gave it the old 50-60-70
mash and sparged with about a gallon of 75C water, basically a no-sparger. To
this I added a can of hopped Bock extract, some Hallertuar hops and it's
happily ignoring me in the secondary right now.
*WARNING* I welcome comments and constructive criticism, but if you belittle
my technique, I'll smile when I drink it down.
Oh yeah- to make this little endeavor even cheaper, I used a quart jar of
yeast (4 to 11) the Brewmaster at the local brewpub pulled off a 7 BBL
secondary of stout.
Mo' money, Mo' money, Mo' money!
I plan on bottling the secondary dregs for future use. Now if I could
just get free malt...
E-man
CEO
Bent Dick YactoBrewery
Kentwood MI
"I am NOT a crook"
------------------------------
From: Mike Donald <mpd@plaza.ds.adp.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 12:11:03 PDT
Subject: Review of Brew Ware
Patrick asked if anyone had read Lutzen and Stevens new book Brew Ware:
Yes, I have. I reviewed it for the current Sept/Oct issue of Brewing Techniques
and I will reprint the unedited review here.
Brew Ware -
How to Find, Adapt, and Build Homebrewing Equipment
by
Karl Lutzen and Mark Stevens.
Storey Publishing, Pownal, Vermont, 1996
300 pages
Lutzen and Stevens, the authors of Homebrew Favorites - a collection of public
domain recipes from the Internet, have done it again. Their latest effort is a
compilation of the many homebrewing equipment and gadget ideas that have been
discussed on the Internet over the past several years. The book was written
with the experienced brewer in mind, someone that has developed a need for
gadgets to facilitate the brewing processes. Logically, most of the material
in the book is oriented to the grain brewer. There are chapters devoted to
discussing and building Grain Mills, Mash/Lauter Tuns and Kegging. There are
also chapters that deal with equipment used for growing and drying hops and
yeast culturing; probably the first time these topics have been addressed from
the equipment angle.
The book is a bit awkward getting off the ground, though. The look and text on
the cover conveys the impression that this book is for the beginner. It is,
but it's for the beginning gadgeter, not the beginning brewer. Someone who
picks up the book expecting to learn how to brew will be quickly overwelmed by
the apparent need for lots of equipment. This impression is not helped by the
fact that the first chapter compares the homebrewing processes with commercial
microbrewery processes and the second chapter is concerned with materials and
processes for building a Three Tier, Gravity Fed All-Grain system. The
treatment of these topics is well done, it's just a matter of the reader's
expections when getting into them. An experienced brewer, looking for ideas on
how to build his all-grain brewing system will be right at home.
The chapters proceed in much the same order as the brewing processes do. While
this is logical for organizing an overall brewing system, it does not follow
the normal learning curves for most brewers. Presenting the equipement ideas
that can be applied to extract and extract with specialty grain brewing first
(ex. wort chilling, bottling), may have been a better way to arrange the
comprehensive information this book presents.
The individual gadget ideas that are presented in each chapter are easy to read
and well illustrated. The illustrations of the various ideas are drawn by
Randy Mosher, notable brewer and author of The Brewer's Companion. Many of the
drawings are done in drafting style, showing the reader how the item is
manufactured and assembled. Ideas are laid out clearly, listing materials,
parts, tools and assembly steps. There is even a section in the back listing
suppliers for commercial equipement and common parts as well as those hard to
find items like food grade RIMS pumps.
Lutzen and Stevens have brought together a lot of material for this book. They
have contacted and quoted the original authors of some particularly notable
ideas that were previously published to the Internet. Likewise they have
reviewed and compared notable commercial products when discussing grain mills,
lautering and fermentation systems. This book will be a welcome addition to
the library of any brewer looking to learn new methods and facilitate their
current processes.
**************
John Palmer - Metallurgist
johnj@primenet.com
Palmer House Brewery and Smithy - www.primenet.com/~johnj/
------------------------------
From: Jeanne Colon-Bonet <jmcb@jeanne.fc.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:36:31 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: GABF PPBT
Introduction: Manager of Great American Beer Festival Professional Panel
Blind Tasting(96,95,94), assistant manager(93), table captain(92),
steward(91) and server(90).
My husband Glenn and I have been organizing the GABF PPBT for three years
now. The politics involved are incredible. Glenn manages the 100 some
volunteers we bring in each year as well as do most of the data base
forms and reports, etc... I do all of the things related to the judges:
scheduling the judging (who judges what, when), invitation lists (who gets
to come), who is considered a judge, etc... The decision as to who is
added to the judge list as well as to who is invited each year is determined
by the board of directors each year.
The process of managing such an event is incredible, we start about Feb. each
year and go through the month of Nov. Until last year I did judge recruiting,
now I get interest from all walks of life and actually have to turn down
good palets in hopes of being able to get them on the panel in the next year.
It sounds like most of the issues I hear on HBD are because of lack of
information about the GABF PPBT. Let me try to be informative here.
All year long I receive letters of interest to join the panel. I request
a resume and 3 letters of recommendation. The resume should list beer and
brewing related experience and education, anything that might give me
an idea of what kind of palate you have. The references come from people
in the industry who can contest to your palate, professionals. If I get
a reference from the local liquor store manager it doesn't count. More
likely is a reference from Seible Institute of Brewing Studies in Chicago.
Usually if a person is interested in getting on the panel they work hard
to get excellent references. I have no problem in letting an individual
know that a reference is weak. A reference from me is weak, a reference
from Michael Jackson is strong, a reference from someone already on the
panel who brews and wins medals is good.
In Feb/March of each year the board of directors and myself review the
source list. 30% of the initial invitations go out to new additions to
the source list (never judged at GABF before, have their resume in and
the tree letters of recommendation), 30% of the invitation are sent out
to judges outside of the USA. The remaining 70% of the judged inside
the USA are distributed across the states such that regions of the states
that have a lot of breweries have better representation: ie CA and CO will
have a fair number of judges where as IL and OH will have maybe one.
The response has been very good 70% of the people I invite can come.
GABF does not pay for transportation to the event for the judges. Once
they get here we reimburse them for meals, provide some meals and will
pay for accommodations if they are willing to share with another judge.
They also get the run of the festival, a badge will get them into all
events.
There is a list of judges, their affiliation, and location in the GABF
program book every year. Every year I am overwhelmed by the level of
expertise the judges bring. All of the people on the panel live and breath
beer every day. Most of them do two to three tastings in a day. Some
of them can pick up such minute levels of defects in a product it's
amazing to me, and I am no longer easily dazzled by these experts.
There is discussion about BJCP. The majority of the judges on the panel
are BJCP certified in various levels, which is not required to be on the
panel. The majority of the judges on the panel have been through many
other educational and testing institutes around the world and come with
very high recommendations. Sieble Institute in Chicago is one of the
big ones. To require a BJCP certification would be silly for a judge
who has a doctorate in brewing studies.
Scheduling: This year it took me four long days to schedule the PPBT.
I had 37 different categories, 69 judges, 4 sessions and 1401 beers.
I do not get the final number of beers in a category or the names of
the judges who can come until 1-2 weeks prior to the event. This is
due to brewerys dropping out, changing products, etc... and judges
ability to travel changing. Each judge is required to provide a
list to me of their top 12 categories which they have the most
experience. They cannot judge a beer for which they have ANY affiliation
to and they let me know that, as well as categories for which they feel
uncomfortable judging. I cross check everything with what breweries
entered as well. The judges are provided the same style descriptions
as the brewers. I also try to balance the panels such that I may have
3 American and 3 German judges judging German styles - all
would have chosen those styles as one of their top 12. This balances
the panel mostly because Germans judging Americans brewing German styles
have the tendency to be highly critical of the American brewers, I do
the same with English styles etc... The English judging the Classic
English Pale Ales is a good example of this - No Gold, Why? The top
beers in the final round were using American hops.
Medals: There were only eight medals not awarded. Some may say *only*??
This is great compared to past years. This is mostly due to some new
judging protocols we gave the judges - also we asked that either Glenn
or I be called into any panel which decides not to award a medal in a
style. I was called in many more than 8 times. Sometimes a group of
judges butt heads and just need a mediator, we mostly ask them to re-read
the style guide, the protocols, and ask for a re-pour of their top beers.
I never put my palet on the table, I am the organizer, I always leave it
up to them. Neither Glenn nor I were pulled into final round of the
Fruit beer judging this year :-( I had a talk with ALL of the judges
from the final round panel to find out what happened ( we were just as
disappointed as everyone else ) I was assured of the beers on the
table only two were of medal class. Given I set up that panel and I
believe they were the best of the list to judge it I support the
decision. All of the other seven medals not awarded either Glenn or
I sat in on the panel. The judges work very hard to come to agreement
sometimes will spend a whole hour on ranking three beers. On any of
the seven they had major discussions, tried very hard to give out the
hardware, but what they had in front of them just was not of the quality
or style adherence expected in a GABF medal - an award that has been
molded and defined by the last ten years of the GABF PPBT. That's
what defines the quality of these medals is the judges.
I hope this information helps all those who are curious. I do not
believe HBD is really the place for this forum so I encourage those
of you who want more info ask Glenn or I directly. It is my
impression that most of the flames to the GABF PPBT are due to
misunderstandings 'if you only knew' but I agree that it can always
use improvement and we are always open to suggestions.
BTW
- - none of my friends are on the panel - but judges on the panel have
become my friends.
- - the beers are refridgerated for both the fest and PPBT as soon as
they are received.
Jeanne M. Colon-Bonet
PPBT Manager GABF 1996
------------------------------
From: Ray Gaffield <ray_gaffield@il.us.swissbank.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 15:12:30 -0500
Subject: Barley Wine Yeast
Hi,
I'm interested in making a Barley wine soon and I was
wondering if anybody had any suggestions on a good yeast to use.
Specifically I wondering ;
Is there a good liquid yeast to use ? Seems like
most recipes suggest dry yeast or don't suggest a particuliar yeast
at all.
Can "Alt" beer yeast be used ? I want to make a
more malty barley wine, like Rogue, but I'm afraid with the Alt beer
yeast it will either be too malty, or not alcohol-tolerant
enough,or both for this style.
Also,since this is an extract beer, has anybody tried using any
wheat malt to aid head retention ? Syrup, dried , or other /
Thanx,
Ray Gaffield
------------------------------
From: Robert Parker <parker@rcltel.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:35:02 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Descrip. of dry yeasts
Many have expounded the benefits of liquid yeast, and I use it too. An
important fact, however, is that dry yeast is VERY convenient. Some among
us claim (and I believe them) that they make excellent beer with dry
yeast. The convenience factor is now compelling for me, and I'd like to
see a discussion of the various quality/traits and procedures of dry yeast
brands. You know, much like the way we have detailed descriptions of
which liquid yeasts to use in different styles.
I've checked the Yeast FAQ; only limited descriptive info. Please chime in
with experiences.
Rob
parker.242@osu.edu
------------------------------
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL@AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 13:52:19 -0700 (MST)
Subject: plambics, pellicles, filters
Joe said:
> What I have have attempted on some recent (last 4 mos. or so)
> lambics that I've made is to ferment in plastic. I noticed on some earlier
> attempts that I had a difficult time developing a nice pellicle of Pedio on
> the lambics in glass. Flavor stayed quite bland, and I used either Boon,
> Cantillion or Hanssens starters in them.
Pedidiococcus damnosus is a bacteria and does NOT form a pellicle (crust) on
the beer. The crust is composed of brettanomyces and/or other oxidative yeasts
in the beer. Aeration intially probably has little to do with development of a
pellicle over the long run (1-2 years). If the beer is acetic now it maybe
vinegar in a year.
Kelly wrote, about filters:
> Folklore! True, most of these filters are made from expanded PTFE, or
> Gore-Tex. True, Gore-Tex won't pass loose water droplets freely. That
> doesn't mean that liquids can't be forced through the filter with a little
> bit of pressure. If you have the filter I'm thinking of, it was made to fit
> on the end of a syringe. Try filling a syringe with sanitizer and squirting
> a few cc's through.
You risk rupturing the filter. This material is hydrophobic, and thus you are
better off sanitizing it using an organic solvent like 70% EtOH solution. This
alos helps to dry the filter out. A 70% solution is a better sanitizer than
100% EtOH. You can follow the 70% with 100% EtOH to fully dry the filter.
Iodophor can probably be forced through the filter probably due to the
surfactant it contains.
Jim
------------------------------
From: korz@xnet.com
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:59:44 -0500
Subject: disconnects/extract rye/reusing Nottingham/waxy scum/decoction
Darrin writes:
>Even when I loosen the
>hose clamps I gotta tug like all hell to get the hose off that thing. Being
>such a PITA that it is I rarely do it. So how is everyone else easily pulling
>their gas hose off the keg conects?
I have a 4-way splitter (called an "air manifold" by Foxx): three ball
lock connectors and one "air" sprayer from Ace Hardware.
***
Also Darrin asks:
>Does anyone have any suggestions for brewing extract/specialty grain rye
>beer?
Sorry, you'll have to mash it and for that you will need some barley malt,
I think, not just crystal and black malts. The rye malt may have enough
enzymes, I don't know, but judging from the gummyness of the mash, I think
lautering would be virtually impossible without some barley husks (or rice
hulls) in there.
***
Greg writes:
>I was wondering if it's also okay to do this [reuse yeast]
>when a dried, reconstituted yeast (such as Nottingham) is used.
Sure... I've done it. Nottingham is very clean (bacteria-wise)
and I had no problem with a second generation of it.
***
Kevin writes:
>I recently brewed a extract/specialty grain stout. When I racked it to the
>secondary I noticed a waxy looking whitish film over the top of the beer. Now
>that it has been in the secondary for a few days, it is still there. The beer
>did not taste strange when I racked it. I did use flaked barley and flaked
>wheat in this batch (steeped with my specialty grains). What could this be?
>Any chance of it going away?
I don't know what exactly it is, but I suspect that it came from the flaked
barley and flaked wheat. You had no enzymes in your steep and as a result,
the flaked grains added mostly starch. I don't think it will go away, but
if you rack the beer out from under it carefully, it will probably not be
noticeable in the glass.
***
George writes:
I've noticed two people say that they have used substantial quantities
of rye with no lautering problems. As you have all read, this is NOT
my experience. I think I may know part of the reason.
My Roggen beer was double decocted. Contrary to what one might think,
decocted mashes have LESS structure than infusion mashes and are
therefore sometimes more difficult to lauter (they even look "mushier"
than infusion mashes).
Proteins are a large part of what gives a grain it's structural
support (along with cellulose), and decocting does a wonderful job of
breaking them down.
I agree 100% that decoction mashes are "mushier" and more difficult to
lauter, but I have read (in Hough's "Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing")
that the boiling of decoction mashing boils-out the entrained air from the
mash and makes the mash less bouyant. I think this is the main reason
for decoction mashes being harder to lauter. Rye clearly makes it even
harder.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
------------------------------
From: David A. Reid <DXR@mcul.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 17:05:06 -0400
Subject: Well Water
;) Newbie Lurker Mode Off!
I implore the collective wisdom to help answer a perplexing question:
I have recently moved to a house with a well and not city water. All of my
brewing has been done with city
water, but I would like to try my next batch (an English Ale) utilizing the
unique characteristics of our local
water supply. My question is should I use the water from the softener, tap in
prior to it being softened, or
does it matter? I have been told that the softened water may have a higher
sodium content, although I do not
believe this to be the case since the softener rinses out the brine after each
cleaning cycle. Although my well
is not the equal of Burton-on-Trent, it is actually excellent for drinking
softened or not, and may add some add
character to my ale. My other alternative is to buy spring water at the local
market. Any comments would be
appreciated.
Thanks in Advance!
Dave Reid
Business Development Analyst
Michigan Credit Union League/CUcorp
------------------------------
From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 16:35:55 -0500
Subject: RE: Racking off yeast scheme
In HBD #2212 Craig Wynn proposed pumping the sediment out of a plastic carboy
by extending a tube to the bottom and repeatedly squeezing the carboy to force
the sediment up the tube and out of the carboy, leaving sediment free beer.
The problem with this, as I see it, is that the sediment I have observed has
not been very liquid. When I siphon the beer off, only the sediment directly
under
the siphon tube gets sucked up. In my kegs there is usually sediment on the
bottom when they empty with only that part around the down tube sucked up, and
that mostly seems to be when the keg empties and the CO2 scavenges it.
Creative thinking, though.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
From: Jeff Frane <jfrane@teleport.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 15:19:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: GABF judging, hazelnut beer, pale malt
Dane Mosher wrote:
>I wanted to put in my $.02 on the quality of the judging at the
>festival. Although I can't claim to have tried all the medal winners,
>I can say that the medal winners I did try seemed worthy of the honor.
>On the other hand, I also believe that the quality of American
>microbrews as a whole still has a long way to go.
>
I have attended two microbrewers' conferences in the last 2.5 years;
while these weren't the GABF (still haven't gone to that), there was a
LOT of beer poured in both cases, and I made a concerted effort to taste
as many as possible (a very selfless guy, you see). In general, the
beers were either boring, bad or not terribly exciting. Very few of them
were worth the sort of noise that we like to make about craft beers. Over
time, I've come to a few conclusions. All, I hasten to add, my own opinion.
1. There are a lot of people brewing beer that aren't very good at it.
Just because someone has a job making beer doesn't mean that they're skilled,
or craftsmen and a lot of them don't even notice the flaws in their own beer.
2. There is a lot of bogus labeling of beerstyles. As Dane noted, he
was found a number of "Kolsch" that weren't worth drinking; probably even
more that weren't even close to the style. Same goes for "altbiers",
"weizens," you name it. Not to mention all those "British" beers full
of Cascade hops.
3. A lot of brewing technology simply isn't up to snuff. We make fun of
the big breweries all the time, but they do know how to get beer from
Point A to Point B (as long as it isn't Stevens Point), without ruining it.
Beers arrive at places like the GABF in poor condition, not just because
they were roughly handled in transit, or had to travel a few hundred miles
but because they were poorly packaged to begin with. What is pretty tasty
down at the local brewpub can taste like complete swill after being
hastily bottled and packed to Colorado, but even the people with real
bottling lines can be very sloppy.
4. As Dane writes, brewers have a long way to go. Some of the beers we
tend to admire the most (from places like Bavaria, Belgium, etc.) come out
of breweries with hundreds of years of history. Craft breweries have been
around about 10-15 years, and they've got a lot to learn.
Greg Moore wrote:
>
>
>Well, ok - no one has the rogue hazelnut recipe. I've heard that the
>longshot hazelnut was a bit heavy on the hazelnut extract. Also
>heard that the recipe for the beer was on the bottom of the carton.
>Does anyone have the longshot recipe they can send me and I'll try to
>modify it to be closer to the rogue variety?
>
The recipe ran in Zymurgy a couple of years back, when it was the beer
brewed for the National Conference by Chris Studach (that's his picture on
the Rogue label, btw). Wasn't a terribly complicated beer, as I recall,
with the hazelnut flavor coming from an extract. Dig back in the archives
and you'll find it.
>From: Jim Cave <CAVE@PSC.ORG>
>Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
>Subject: What is Pale malt:
>
> Al Korzonas writes that we shouldn't be using the term "Pale malt" in
>reference to lager or pils malts. This would cause unecessary confusion.
>Unfortunately, both Canada malting and Gambrinus refer to their products as
>"Pale Malt" and these are "lager type" malts. Since Canada malting is the
>world's largest malting conglomerate, I think we need to advise people of the
>term "Pale Malt" and its designation.
>
Technically, Al is right, but "pale malt" is widely recognized, and
probably used more frequently than "lager malt". As Jim notes, Great
Western and Gambrinus use it, probably to avoid the implication that it's
not suitable for ales (although they also make excellent pale ale malts now,
that make even better ales). As long as we're not misusing terminology,
we might as well stick with common language.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
From: Rick Lambert <Lambert@tencor.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 16:15:01 -0700
Subject: Mini Kegs
Greetings Hoppy People!
I have been brewing for 5 yrs now and using bottles exclusively, and
have been interested in using CO2 cartridge driven mini-kegs. I have
looked at the different mini-keg systems around, and am very curious
indeed.
I am sure some are better than others, and like everything in
homebrewing there is a effective way to do it versus 10 bad ways! Has
anybody had any luck with a particular system or technique for using
mini-kegs
TIA
Rick Lambert
- --
"If you're gonna succeed in this world, ya gotta adapt"- Muddy
Mudskipper
------------------------------
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 16:54 PDT
Subject: Peat Smoked Malt
Ken writes:
<snip>
> 1/4 to 1/2 lb of smoked malt (like Hugh Baird Peated)
>will add a unique subtle smokiness without completely overpowering the brew,
>but be sure that's what you want before you use it.
This is not what I have experienced. I made a scotch ale (all grain) and
used only 1.75 ounces of the Hugh Baird Peat Smoked malt. I mashed it along
with Hugh Baird Pale Ale (about 9 lbs if I remember right) in a 5 gallon
batch. The resulting scotch ale was so smoky strong, it blew away any other
flavor. Tastes like smoked water. Its still in the keg in the fridge
hopefully some day to mello out a bit. Every week I go pour myself a 4 oz
taste. Its been over a month now, no change.
And the worst part is the homebrew shop guy even warned me this might happen.
Charley
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems
Elk Grove Unified School District
cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us
916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax)
http://www.el-dorado.ca.us/~cburns/
------------------------------
From: Brian Bliss <brianb@microware.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 20:01:27 CDT
Subject: Re: kegging high-gravity beers
> Malty Bill asks about kegging his soon-to-be-made Imperial Stout. His
> main concern is that it may not develop the proper complexity if he
> force carbonates rather than bottle conditions.
If it turns out good, at least bottle half the batch. Just speaking from
experience, bottle carbonation has a more cutting, acidic bite that
complements high-gravity brews, as opposed to the smoother keg carbonation
(which complements lower-gravity brews of most types...)
Of course, if you're not going to give it time to develop any complexity,
then keg it!
bb
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: bob rogers <bob@carol.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 23:07:20 -0400
Subject: hops and dogs
i know spent hops are very dangerous for dogs.
does anybody _know_ if growing hops are bad for dogs?
and/or
would dogs even eat them?
i want to know, because i have some rizomes in the fridge i want to plant on
the back fence, but i would much rather throw them away if max might get
sick or die.
bob- brewing in the heart of the bible belt.
bob rogers bob@carol.net
------------------------------
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@i-link.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 22:09:24 -0500
Subject: Cornie keg fitting specs?
Quick question -- what are the diameter and thread spec's for popit
valves on a cornelius keg (supposedly ball and pin lock are the same).
It doesn't look like NPT.
Private e-mail is fine. Thanks -----> LKB
------------------------------
From: bob rogers <bob@carol.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Oct 1996 23:47:56 -0400
Subject: inexpensive digital thermometer
radio shack (std. disc.) now has a lighted indoor/outdoor F/C digital
thermometer on closeout for $10. the range listed in the specs only goes up
to 120F, but it has a probe, so you can check the serving temp of your beer,
the inside of your fridge, etc..
bob
bob rogers bob@carol.net
------------------------------
From: Stephen Ross <rossst@duke.usask.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 21:54:00 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Mac Brewing Software
Hi Craig, I use Brewer's Notebook. It's ok, but not perfect. 1.1 is the
version, and some annoying features include having to reenter the OSG and
FSG whenever you want to calculate apparant attennuation or alcohol
content. Otherwsie it's fairly decent, but nothing you couldn't do
yourself with Framemaker...
It's also primarily for the extract brewer. Brewmeister, also available
through FTP like Brewer's Notebook, is for the all-grainer, or advanced
partial masher. You can use for extracts if you have good info about your
extracts.
Stephen
------------------------------
From: Derek Lyons <elde@hurricane.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 00:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: PPBT qualifications
At 02:51 PM 10/3/96 -0400, you wrote:
>industry who choose not to go the BJCP route. By and large these
>folks are highly qualified to evaluate beers.
And where do they *GET* that qualification? That is the crux of the
question here.
Simply because they can judge their *own* product does not make them
qualified to judge,(or more impotantly familiar with), a wide range of beers.
How is a megaswill professional (The bulk of the industry, no slam, just
truth) qualified to judge a weizen?
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 1996 01:24:22 -0500
Subject: GABF Judging/ Airstones /FWIW
The Jethro Gump Report
GABF....Yes, the mega's really do provide that much support, just think
about how much it would cost you to take responsibilty for cold trasport and
storage of all that beer from all over the country....of course AB can
afford it and probably get a really nice tax deduction, but I'm glad I
didn't have to pay to get my five 160 pound kegs the 500 miles to Denver,
not on top of the entry fee!
And the large numbers of categories for the lagers is a perennial
bitchin point... But when you look at it there are only 4 categories like
this, Lager, Light Lager, Premium Lager, and Specialty Lager....I say let
them have it...you may notice that most micro's and brew-pubs wouldn't go
near a lager beer..... 'Cos they are too damned hard to make WELL. ANY
defect shines like a flashlight in your eyes when you get pulled over. (And
take up too much time, and tanks, etc.)
There is always moaning amongst brewers who didn't win....and this
is always going to happen...if a brewer doesn't have the wherewithal to
believe that he can or does make the best, he shouldn't be in the
game....and this kind of attitude will also be reflected by the fact (in
Jethro's opinion), that brewers are too close too their own products and
lose objectivity. I am sometimes unable to step back and see things
clearly, and that's when it's time for a trip to another pub for someone
else's beers.
The thing that GABF does provide is objectivity, and this is ensured
by the Blind tasting...no one knows who's beer they are evaluating, and the
high number of foreign based judges helps too. The concept that these judges
may not be qualified is a new one on me. I have heard this said about other
comps, but but have never heard anyone voice doubts about GABF judges
qualifications, neither winners nor those who haven't. I feel it is a
non-issue, and have always felt this way.
It was my opinion before the 96 GABF, that this comp in past years
was the best comp for the above stated reasons. When all a judge see's is a
randomly generated number on a glass, there is no room for playing favorites.
This being said, it is still my opinion that the GABF, like ANY
OTHER comp, is a crap shoot. You get a good beer past the first round, where
they dismiss any beer that doesn't fit the style, or has major defects, and
from that point on, it depends....on which judges you get, what time of day
they judge your beer, did you CP fill the bottles well (my biggest worry),
did you select the right category for the beer, did the judges get enough
sleep, and on and on....
Crap shoots involve luck- Was I lucky that the brewer who beat my
Barleywine in the World Beer Cup decided not to bring it to GABF? Or did he
truly feel that his other beers were better, as the staff said? Maybe he
didn't have any left? Realizing that barleywine wasn't there allowed me to
go back to another priority worry, the CP filling.
As for Kolsch...the judges are simply saying that the best Kolsch
entered was true to style, but did possess some defect or flaw. The judging
criteria, and I'll paraphrase, goes like this....Bronze, true to style, good
example, but with some flaws or defects...Silver, excellent representation
of the style, but with minor flaw or defect...Gold, excellent representation
of the style, with no flaws or defects.
And I don't believe I have ever had a good Kolsch...most brewers
can't seem to get it right....but then, I've never been to Cologne, so how
the hell would I know!
Hell, some brewers from my region claim that their beers didn't even
make it to the PPBT, that they got lost in transit. True or not, I know my
beers went to the same facilty for storage and shipping and apparently, mine
made it OK......HEY, I get it!!! My porter, stout, smoked porter and IPA got
lost in the mail!!!! YEAH, that's it!!! Hell, they HAD to be STOLEN, right
out of the same box my barleywine was in, those BAS****'S!!!!! ;-)
Airstones- I use an inexpensive sintered steel stone of 15 micron porosity
to aerate.......30 bucks from Charles McElevey...(206)-932-6877. I would
prefer a finer porosity, but the price goes up as the pore size comes
down...and this one seems to work OK for me.
FWIW- I did taste the IPA that beat mine.....clearly superior...the
stout...I liked mine better, and thats why I brew it that way...but theirs
was a great beer.....the porter was much better than mine....and I didn't
get to try the smoked beer, they had run out before I got there...
Now that's JUDGING...the BEST beers always run out first!
Jethro (GET A MILL!!) Gump
Cheers!
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about
beer!"
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2215
****************************
