Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2284
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, December 11 1996 Volume 02 : Number 004
1 Current Status of HBD
2 AHA Board of Advisors
3 Iodophor
4 hop combinations
5 HBD and Some Poor Assumptions On Rob's software.
6 MCI Mail Partial Posting Notice
7 Propane risks
8 Stuck ferment
9 RE the new hbd
10 Persimmon wine
11 No sparge brewing / AOB
12 Scotch Ale
13 Blending Batches, Brew Water, Propane
14 Homebrew Digest V2 #3
15 competitions
16 Ca++ in the barley/Brew-water
17 Yeast bite
18 whole hops/kraeusening
19 Re: yeast bite
20 yeast #1728 (scottish)
21 Centennial Hops
22 Simple explanation of no-sparge technique
23 Johnson Controls Thermostat ... Good/Bad?
24 Goofball Ideas by Aaron Herrick
25 Phosphoric Acid - food grade?
26 Re: Glenbrew Secret Brewers Yeast
27 Longshot Hazelnut Exposed!!!! and a high tech question...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:50:58 -0700 (MST)
From: Dionysus <dionysus@dionysus.aob.org>
Subject: Current Status of HBD
We are aware of the bounce backs into the digest and are working on it.
The previous version of the HBD was originally written from scratch by its
creator. It was then ported to a majordomo listserver by Shawn Steele.
In order to implement the features of the original software, Shawn rewrote
much of the code which runs the list.
When the list broke, the AOB hired an outside contractor to rebuild both
the server and the list itself. As such, it runs on a slightly-modified
version of the majordomo software. Many of the features you once had have
been removed simply because at this point it is more effective to rebuild
the system from the ground up and add features as they are necessary.
I apologize for the inconvenience that this causes to you, but please, do
not think for a minute that the AOB is going to just "let the HBD die" as
some of you have put it.
The digest will now go out every 625 lines, or approx 50KB.
The bouncing problem shall be fixed. In addition, the list of addresses
is being updated to eliminate as many of the bounces as is possible.
Regards,
Adrian Goins
100% Software Solutions
http://www.softsolut.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 03:45:40 -0700
From: Karen Barela <karen@aob.org>
Subject: AHA Board of Advisors
I appreciated hearing the concerns regarding the American Homebrewers
Association (AHA) Board of Advisors. We have not used the full strength
of the board as effectively as we would like to in the past. This is
changing. Part of this transformation is happening right now.
We are excited at the prospect of new ideas brought by new members who
will be joining this prestigious group of people. The Board of Advisors
is very important in providing advice and support to the AHA staff, the
hobby of homebrewing, and the over 25,000 members of the AHA.
There are many different parameters considered in selecting Advisors.
For example, Board members are distributed geographically around the
country and have different types of careers, to fully reflect the
diversity of our membership around the country, and around the world.
But parameters are not requirements. There are no key criteria to being
a member of the Board of Advisors; each nominee is considered separately
and individually.
The goal of the AHA Board of Advisors is to recommend activities,
programs and/or courses of action for the American Homebrewers
Association. The charge to the Board of Advisors is as follows:
To serve as an American Homebrewers Association ambassador by promoting
AHA activities and programs;
To strengthen the American Homebrewers Association as an educational
association by communicating suggestions, changes, needs and trends;
To promote the art and science of homebrewing specifically and quality
beer and brewing in general;
To support the American Homebrewers Associations' mission statement.
(To promote public awareness and appreciation of the quality and variety
of beer through education, research and the collection and dissemination
of information; to serve as a forum for the technological and
cross-cultural aspects of the art of brewing; and to encourage
responsible use of beer as an alcohol-containing beverage.)
A member of the Board is required to attend the annual meeting of Board
of Advisors, held each year at the AHA National Homebrewers Conference.
They must attend, at a minimum, every other year. In addition, there
are regular telephone conferences, letters to respond to, phone
conversations and/or mail communications to or from AHA staff and/or
Board of Advisor Members.
The AHA Board of Advisors consists of selected individuals from the
United States (+ Michael Jackson of Great Britain) who are active and
involved in the homebrewing hobby and/or craftbrewing industry. Four
members from the previous board are being retained: Ed Busch, Steve
Casselman, Fred Eckhardt and Charlie Olchowski. Michael Jackson will
become Board of Advisor Emeritus. Our goal is to have a well balanced
Board filled with advisors who represent a wide variety of homebrewing,
professional brewing, and educational experiences from diverse
geographic locations.
We appreciate the support and advice the exiting members have given us
over the years and hope they will continue to support the AHA and the
homebrewing community. George Fix is a good example. We continue to
receive his input and advice on a regular basis through his position as
a technical editor for Zymurgy.
In order to revitalize the Board of Advisors, we are considering a list
of over forty people who have been suggested as good candidates for the
Board. Out of those, about eight will be selected for entry into the
Board of Advisors. The current Board and AHA staff nominated over 40
respected individuals for their knowledge, involvement, and enthusiasm
for homebrewing. Those selected will join the Board and help us guide
the direction and future of the AHA. Those not selected may be
considered for membership at a later date.
Candidates were asked to let us know in writing if they accepted this
nomination. If they agreed to be nominated, they enclosed a brief
biography and a one page essay describing how they think they can help
the hobby and/or the AHA. The current members of the board will review
all nominees and select new members by the end of December, 1996. We
will notify everyone shortly thereafter.
The staff of the AHA welcomes your input. I cant promise that we can
act on every suggestion or incorporate all of your ideas. But we are
listening and want to serve our members in the best possible way.
Please feel free to contact us directly, at any time.
- Karen
- --
Karen Barela
President
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 karen@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 11:17:58 +1000
From: Patrick Dominick <p-dominick@adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Iodophor
Hi Brewsters
Glad to see the HBD back! I found I had to resubscribe to it (I get
the undigested version).
Anyway, my query:
I am finding it difficult to locate iodophor here in Australia. I
just noticed that the active ingredients were listed in my brand-new
copy of "Brew Ware", so I am considering getting the iodine and
phosphoric acid and making my own.
Anybody see any problems or dangers in this approach?
Cheers
Patrick Dominick
Patrick Dominick | Canberra, Australia | p-dominick@adfa.oz.au
"Give a man a beer and he wastes an hour.
Teach him how to brew and he wastes a lifetime"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 21:21:57 -0500
From: Annetmark@aol.com
Subject: hop combinations
Hi Everyone -
Its really great to be HBDing again, really missed it. In my last several
batches (mostly American Amber Ale) I have been pushing the Hops envelope a
bit - at least compared to my earlier batches. I have been using both more
hops (4-5 oz for 5 gals), and also more of the higher alpha hops like Chinook
and Columbus, that contribute to both bitterness and flavor. I have been
pleased with the results. I like Cascades, and will continue to use it, but I
want to play with some of the other great flavor hops, and also to play with
various combinations to get more complex hops profiles.
This brings me to my question - what are some of your favorite hop
combinations that you think create complimentary and complex flavors??
This is a topic that seems especially timely now, as Im sure many of you are
now enjoying some of the great hoppy and malty winter ales that I think are
some of the best examples of American brewing art. Im really impressed with
Rogues Santas Private Reserve, and Sierra Nevada has certainly done it
again with this years Celebration Ale. Hope you hopheads out there can give
me some suggestions to help in my attempts. TIA.
Hope you all have a Merry and a Hoppy -
Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle
annetmark@aol.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 23:16:30 -0600 (CST)
From: "Karl F. Lutzen" <lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org>
Subject: HBD and Some Poor Assumptions On Rob's software.
Dion Hollenbeck wrote:
> What you have to realize is that Rob Gardner "rolled his own" and if
> anyone is going to take over the HBD, they would be foolish to use
> anything but widely accepted "tried and true" mailing list software
> and the only two of those worth anything are ListProc and Majordomo.
> And pretty much, the features are fixed, unless you want to have
> someone hacking the code, and then it becomes an upgrade nightmare
> when new versions of the software come out.
I have used both ListProc and Majordomo, and have the luxury of choosing
between ListProc, Majordomo and Rob's scripts, in the effort of helping
Pat Babcock set up the new home for the HBD. I've been through all 3 and
I have to say, for the simplistic and sheer elegance of what Rob has
written, I myself don't mind putting in the time to go with the
"homebrewed" digest scripts instead of a canned pacakge. My view is the
learning curve with Rob's software is actually less than trying to deal
with the other two canned packages. In fact, after less than 30 minutes I
felt I was better than 95% sure of what everything was doing. If something
breaks code-wise, Pat and I should be able to spot it and fix it fairly
easy. I can't say this about listproc or majordomo.
We are planning on implementing all the features Rob had, plus eventually
I would like to add a couple of more, but they only have to deal with
delivery and should be completely transparent to the readers.
Until the new server is functioning and the move occurs, this is a quite
usable medium. Unfortunately, the format of this digest is not the same
as the previous and now my HTML filter is broken. Sigh...It was much
easier to read that way. Maybe I'll fix it this weekend.
==================================================================
Karl Lutzen lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
System Administrator
The Brewery http://alpha.rollanet.org/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 00:30 EST
From: POSTMASTER <POSTMASTER@mcimail.com>
Subject: MCI Mail Partial Posting Notice
- -----------------MCI Mail Internet Gateway Service Message------------------
Message Post Time: 05:29:48 GMT, Wed 11 DEC 1996
Status: Message Posted into MCI Mail - INVALID Addresses were encountered
Message Information:
From: homebrew
EMS: Internet
MBX: homebrew@dionysus.aob.org
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #3
Message Statistics:
Total Recipient Addresses In Envelope: 13
Invalid Addresses and Reasons:
607 Either no address or no MCI Mail user matches recipient information
BCC: 0005631241
EMS: MCI MAIL
MBX: 0005631241
Additional Message Information:
- ------------------------------
Received: from gatekeeper2.mcimail.com by mailgate5.mcimail.com id aa02579;
11 Dec 96 5:30 WET
Received: from dionysus.aob.org (dionysus.aob.org [205.168.231.72]) by gatekeeper2.mcimail.com (8.6.12/8.6.10) with ESMTP id FAA17978; Wed, 11 Dec 1996 05:35:39 GMT
Received: (from dionysus@localhost) by dionysus.aob.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA22118 for homebrew-digest-outgoing; Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:25:08 -0700 (MST)
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 16:25:08 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <199612102325.QAA22118@dionysus.aob.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: dionysus.aob.org: dionysus set sender to owner-homebrew-digest@ using -f
From:
To: homebrew-digest@dionysus.aob.org
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #3
Reply-To: homebrew@dionysus.aob.org
Sender:
Errors-To:
Precedence: bulk
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Dec 1996 18:35:18 +0000
From: Lance or Myra Skidmore <lrskidmore@silverlink.net>
Subject: Propane risks
Michael Otten writes regarding indoor propane use:
>If anyone has suggestions or remedies, fast responses will be greatly
>appreciated, since it's starting to get a little nipply here on Long
>Island to continue outdoor brewing.
My advice; get a warm coat. I got to see first hand what an innocent
little propane leak can do. It happened at an Officers Club at a
military base where they had a propane grill in the kitchen under a big
ventalation hood and fire extinguisher system. While changing a bottle
in an OUTDOOR breezeway, enough propane leaked back into the kitchen
through an open door to ignite with enough explosve force to tear the
inside door off the kitchen and seriously injure two people. The club
then proceeded to burn to the ground in a very spectacular fire. I was
there to photograph the inferno which could be seen for miles.
It just isn't worth it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 08:00:07 EST
From: gravels@TRISMTP.NPT.nuwc.navy.mil
Subject: Stuck ferment
Hello all,
Paul Ward writes about a stuck fermentation after using DME.
In the past I have used a lot of Dutch DME in my brews and have had
several stuck ferments. I recall this thread came up quite a while
back and it was stated (I don't remember who) that the Dutch and
Laglander DME had a lot of unfermentables. This is good if you are
looking for a sweet chewy beer but, it doesn't work for most recipies.
After having several stuck ferments I went out and purchased some
amalyase enzyme. You should be able to find this at any good homebrew
supply store. Dissolve 1 tsp. in a cup of warm water and add it to
the secondary fermenter. The beer will slowly start fermenting again.
This method works great. YMMV. Good luck!
Steve Gravel Newport, Rhode Island
gravels@trismtp.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
"Homebrew, it's not just a hobby, it's an adventure!"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 96 07:58:37 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: RE the new hbd
Subject: RE the new hbd
Sent: 12/11/96 7:56 AM
To: homebrew@aob.org
A couple of comments/quesitons for AOB:
1. You're really flying in the face of a grand tradition by renaming HBD
to V2. In particular, you've lost the running digest number count. With
one fell swoop we've gone from over 2200 running issues to two. Where's
your sense of tradition?
2. re the new header:
1 HBD technical difficulties
2 The HBD Returns!!!
3 Check
4 Good brewing burner?
5 Beer aging
6 Re: Good brewing burner?
Please add back the poster's name. It's invaluable.
3.
>The AOB will
>continue to support the Digest until it moves to its new location and
>will work closely with the new site to ensure a transparent transition
>for subscribers.
Who will now be responsible?
4.
RE Lynn Ashley's comment <73744.3234@CompuServe.COM in V2#2
>Rob Gardner restricted the daily
>output to 50KB. He provided a mechanism whereby posters could delete
>their queued posts. If a post was sub-standard or already answered, the
>poster deleted it. Given time to reflect, I purged many.
I dont suppose there is any way we can get an explaination as to why
Rob's years of fine tuning the HBD into an efficient, useful distribution
mechanism (aka code) were not carried over to the AOB effort. Isnt there
a saying about re-inventing the wheel? At the very least, it seems to me
the logic should have been portable.
Reeb!
Tim Fields .. Fairfax, VA (74247.551@compuserve.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 08:30:57 -0500
From: Jack Blackford <jblackfo@umabnet.ab.md.edu>
Subject: Persimmon wine
Does anyone have a recipe for Persimmon Wine. I am new to brewing, have
access to ripe persimmons and would like to try some in wine.
Thank you
Jack Blackford
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 07:52:19 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@i-link.net>
Subject: No sparge brewing / AOB
John Wilkinson has some Q's about no sparge brewing:
> 1) How much water should be in the mash tun before starting the runoff?
> I use a 10 gal. Igloo cylindrical for a mash/lauter tun and generally
> mash with about 16-17# of grain and water to about the 6 gal. mark.
> When I mash out the level will be between ~8 to 10 gallons. Obviously,
> the amount of water in the tun would affect the amount of runoff collected
> and the maltiness if the no sparge technique means anything. What would
> be recommended?
I think you're missing the point. Gravity does not equal maltiness. No
sparge brewing yields a maltier *tasting* beer. To answer your
question, just use the same amount of foundation water as you usually
do.
> 2) Without sparging I would assume that the runoff would be higher gravity.
> Given that, would the runoff be diluted with water to the desired gravity?
> If that is the case, why would diluting with sparged runoff dilute the
> maltiness more than diluting with plain water? Would a better solution be
> to use less grain and not dilute the runoff with water? In this case it
> would appear to me that doing this to achieve lower OG would mean using
> a higher water to grain ration. Why is this different from sparging?
Again, you're confusing gravity with maltiness. They're not the same.
By using a no sparge technique, you get a higher quality wort -- not
just a higher gravity runoff.
Stated another way, let's assume you and I each generate 5 gallons of
14P wort, but you sparge and I don't. Obviously, I have to use more
grain and dilute the runoff to have the same pre-boil gravity as you
do. If we used the same materials, fermented them with the same yeast
and under similar conditions, etc., we'll come out with beers that are
about the same FG. Do they taste the same? My experience (and I've
done probably 15 twelve gallon batches with this technique) mirrors
Jeff's and Dr. Fix's -- the no sparge beer tastes maltier.
Jeff is absolutely right when he encourages everyone to try this
technique -- it makes for a shorter, easier brew cycle, and it produces
noticeably better beer. Downside is increased cost, but with grain at
$0.75/lb, you're talking about less than $3 more for an average sized
batch. Not much to pay.
================================================================================
Cathy Ewing responds to recent criticisms of the AOB (aired, in the
absense of the HBD, in rec.crafts.brewing). Given the limited bandwidth
of the HBD and the need for this digest to stick to brewing issues, I'll
respond to her message in the newsgroup. Interested parties can follow
this thread (re:Boycott the AHA/AOB) in r.c.b. or by e-mailing me
privately.
Louis K. Bonham lkbonham@i-link.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 1996 09:42:57 -0500
From: John Penn <john_penn@spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Scotch Ale
Subject: Time:10:27 AM
OFFICE MEMO Scotch Ale Date:12/11/96
Welcome back HBD.
I recently tried to make a strong scotch ale, OG =1.090. I pitched 1084
Irish Stout Yeast sediment which I got from a secondary three weeks previous,
shook vigorously, and 24 hours later, no activity. NADA. Not sure why the
yeast died out so I started some more liquid yeast, kept it warm, and pitched
a couple of hours later as soon as bubbling started. I was worried about
leaving my wort too long without active yeast. Shook vigorously at pitching
and after two weeks my FG =1.032. I used 12# of M&F light liquid malt extract
plus 1.5# crystal malt, 3oz black patent, and .5# malto-dextrin so I wasn't
expecting such a high final gravity. I tried aerating plenty but I may have
underpitched the yeast amount so I'm wondering why the final gravity is so
high and if I should worry about bottle bombs? Should I worry or is it normal
to have a higher gravity with 1084 yeast and such a high initial gravity? At
bottling the beer was quite sweet, some butterscotch flavor but I'll have to
see how it turns out.
John Penn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:52:35 -0500
From: Mark Hansen <mhansen@ford.com>
Subject: Blending Batches, Brew Water, Propane
Thoughts in response to several HBD questions:
Daniel Goodlager...er Goodale inquired about blending beers:
Blending offers a great way to fine tune a beer. Just make sure all batches
are clean! Experiment. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with the
results. You may wish to mellow your "too hoppy" (what is that?) batch by
adding some rather sweet beer. A friend of mine has won awards with blended
beers. Remember, the good old Black & Tan is a blend!
Kirk Harralson about Brew Water:
We've been using the spigot off the back of the house, through a garden hose,
then through a charcoal canister filter with success. I suggest using a hose
with a food grade liner (they are available, look for a white liner in the
hose). We use a WaterSprite filter and purge it before each use. I do not
intend the filter to provide sanitized water, merely good tasting, nearly
chlorine free brew water. We've not experienced any bacterial problems related
to the water supply, but bear in mind that ALL the water we use in a batch gets
boiled anyway. Be sure to store your filter where it won't freeze. When it's
zero outside we keep a trickle of water flowing to prevent freezing in the
hose.
Michael Otten about Indoor Propane:
Many homes in rural areas get heating and cooking energy from propane. This
leads me to conclude that ensuring a completely leak-free system is the primary
safety consideration. Also consider that brewing using burners uses lots of
oxygen. Make sure you have VERY GOOD VENTILIATION. I know brewers who have
complained of headaches when working in a poorly ventilated area. Your
garbage can idea will tell you if you have any leaks in the submersed portion
of your system. Submersion may also prevent freezing of the tank as the level
gets low near the end of a brew session.
I hope I've helped. Cheers!
Mark Hansen
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 08:18:10 PST
From: "Pete W. Hembrow Profs PWH Phone 893-84" <FM00HEMB@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU>
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #3
*** Reply to note of 12/11/96 04:02
Please take me off your list.
***************************************************************
* Pete Hembrow, Zone Operator Facilities Management, UCSB. *
* E-Mail FM00HEMB@UCSBVM.UCSB.EDU Pager# 568-6097 *
***************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 09:59:17 -0700
From: Jeff Sturman <brewshop@coffey.com>
Subject: competitions
After some searching I am unable to find a site that lists upcoming home
brew competitions. Is there such a site? Please email any info.
TIA
jeff
casper, wy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:38:11 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Ca++ in the barley/Brew-water
In the before-time there was a thread on calcium in the mash and a
question about how much calcium is contributed from the malt.
I came across a USDA food manual that reports 32mg of calcium in 200gm
of pearled (dehusked) barley. If all of this Ca was available to the
mash, then the malt would make a contribution in the neighborhood of
44ppm of Ca for a 1.25qt/# mash thickness. This gives us a ballpark
figure and helps explain Plzen's brewing success with low Ca water.
- --
AlK writes ...
>Kirk writes:
>>What do all you "outdoor brewers" do for a water
>Good point. I use a "drinking water safe" garden hose which I got at
>Ace Hardware.
Al wrote before that he doesn't brew in the summer because of
infections. My question is how do you really dedicated types keep your
brewing water supply gardenhoses from freezing in the Chicagoland
winters ;^) Just jesting.
Glad it's back,
Steve Alexander
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:08:27 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas@lucent.com>
Subject: Yeast bite
Dave writes:
>I recently entered an ESB into competition which the judges claimed suffered
>from yeast bite. I re-evaluated the beer as I read the score sheet and I
>believe that I have isolated the effects of yeast bite palate-wise (it's
>basically a harsh bitterness right?), but I'm not sure what would have caused
>it, or how to take steps to avoid it.
Your procedure (not quoted here) seems great. Yeast bite is said to be
caused by letting the finished beer sit on the spent yeast too long. So
long that the yeast autolyse and impart a yeasty unpleasant flavour to the
beer. I have never experience it despite the fact that I often don't rack
the beer off the yeast when I should. Sometimes, I have left the beer on
the yeast (in the primary!) for nine months (it was a Barleywine) and the
beer had no off-flavours (actually, it won 1st place in the Midwest first
round of the AHA nationals last year). Yesterday, I read, coincidentally,
that bread yeast is far more likely to autolyse than brewing yeast and
from a completely different source heard a rumour that one yeast sold as
"ale yeast" is actually 1/2 brewer's yeast, 1/2 baker's yeast!
I would like to propose the following: that all the concern over autolysis
and "yeast bite" stems from the "old days" when baker's yeast was commonly
used for homebrewing beer and that with modern yeasts we simply don't have
nearly as much risk of autolysis. Sound plausable?
As for your harshness... hmmm... your beer doesn't appear overhopped,
certainly not for a 1.049 OG beer. It doesn't have an excessive amount
of crystal malt (which can give a sort of sharp flavour sometimes when
overdone). Could you have scorched it? That could give a sort of harshness.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
korz@xnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:36:05 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas@lucent.com>
Subject: whole hops/kraeusening
George writes:
I like using pellets for two reasons: they are exceedingly easy to
remove from the wort through whirlpooling, and around these parts,
I find just the contrary in my system. I use an easymasher-like screen
in my kettles and it clogs almost immediately with pellets. With whole
hops, it results in very clear (possibly too clear!) wort with virtually
no hot or cold break (I use an immersion chiller).
all to good effect. Kraeusening is the only choice (other than force
carbonating) for lagers because a properly lagered beer won't have
enough active yeast left in suspension to carbonate the beer in a
reasonable amount of time using corn sugar or speise.
My experience is very different from this. Recently, I bottled a Bock
and a Doppelbock which were fermented and lagered at 45F for three
months. I added no yeast at bottling time. Both were nicely carbonated
in three weeks at 65F.
Kraeusening is also a good choice for higher alcohol beers because the
original yeast may be too stunned to finish the job. I guess you
should choose kraeusening whenever you want to add fresh yeast for
whatever reason!
Again, the Doppelbock was 1.080 OG and I did not add any extra yeast at
bottling time. Perhaps it makes a difference that I used the whole
yeast cake from a previous 1.050 batch for the Doppelbock and I used an
Oxygenator for 2 minutes on the cooled wort. I recommend this for all
strong beers, lagers AND ales. Oh yes... I primed with corn sugar
(Reinheitsgebot schmeinheitsgebot!).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
korz@xnet.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 13:59:40 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: yeast bite
>From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
>Subject: Yeast bite
>I recently entered an ESB into competition which the judges claimed
>suffered from yeast bite. I re-evaluated the beer as I read the score
>sheet and I believe that I have isolated the effects of yeast bite
>palate-wise (it's basically a harsh bitterness right?), but I'm not
>sure what would have caused it, or how to take steps to avoid it.
According to most authorities, and my experience agrees so far, yeast bite
should not be an issue with less than 2 weeks in contact with the primary
yeast cake. I'm not sure if I've ever actually tasted the effects, but my
understanding is that it is more of a soapy flavor caused by
disintegrating yeast cells. However, partial mash techniques could account
for some harsh bitterness and/or astringency, depending on how you do it.
In an all-grain procedure, runnings from the grains are recirculated
(using the grain bed as a filter) until they are clear. This eliminates
starch and husk particles from the boil and helps assure a smooth flavor.
I am somewhat dubious about the effects of the typical partial mash
procedure, which is to simply dump the liquid into the boil.
I wonder if it isn't better to either stick with just extract or go all
the way to all-grain. Personally I took the plunge by simply acquiring a
7.5 gallon SS kettle and installing Schmidling's EasyMasher. Just drill a
hole and screw it in. If you were to go this route I suspect you might
find it very rewarding. I also suspect the supposed yeast bite problem
would be solved, as I don't see a problem with your fermentation procedure
as described.
Unfortunately it's probably not worth the trouble to come up with a method
for filtering a partial mash. I wonder if others would agree that this
particular brewing procedure may be over-rated. I wasn't overly impressed
with the beers I made this way, but now I'm quite satisfied.
Cheers and happy brewing.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 12:53:39 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas@lucent.com>
Subject: yeast #1728 (scottish)
Jeff writes:
>I've read here in the HBD that people get varying amounts of the smokey
>flavor from this yeast and I was wondering if anyone knows what conditions
>influence this flavor. Could it be fermentation temperature?
I was the one asking about that and I've gotten only a few responses
(more would be welcome). There was no correlation with fermentation
temperature. In fact, there was only one datapoint in which the yeast
did create a smoky aroma/flavour. That was with a very, very highly
oxygenated wort (a couple of minutes with pure oxygen) and a large starter.
The other three or four datapoints were not smoky (in fact, very clean)
and their fermentation temperatures were all over the place.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
korz@xnet.com
P.S. Could we bring back the explicit copyright statement at the
beginning of the HBD? Thanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 13:46:27 -0600
From: Raymond Louvier <r099g@waii.com>
Subject: Centennial Hops
I used to use Centennial Hops in all my Pale Ales, but now I can't get them
through my Homebrew supply shop. Could anyone suggest another variety of Hops
that are similar in characteristics and taste. My last batch of Centennial
Hops were 9.2% AA.
Thanks
Ray Louvier
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:11:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Simple explanation of no-sparge technique
Having been recently inspired by the pleasantness of Boddington's Pub Ale,
I decided to create a recipe for an all-grain session beer as a "house
bitter" that I could make frequently. The goal was to design the recipe so
that it would take less time to make than my usual all-grain brews, yet
still achieve superior quality.
This was the perfect opportunity to try a no-sparge technique. I acquired
some nice Marris Otter pale ale malt and did some research so I could plan
the recipe and procedure. On brew day everything worked out perfectly, so
I believe I can offer a straightforward suggestion for how to approach
this.
There are some simple principals derived from parti-gyle brewing that let
you calculate estimated OG when collecting a fractional batch of wort from
the mash. For instance, about 1/2 of the extract will be in the first
third of the runnings. About 2/3 of the extract will be in the first half
of the runnings. The complication arises when you consider all the
variables you can manipulate, including amount of grain, mash thickness,
and the amount of sparging.
To keep it simple, just plan on collecting 1/2 your boil length (say 3
gallons instead of 6). Increase the amount of grain by 33%. Calculate
your mash thickness so that you collect this amount of wort without having
to sparge (assume that the grains will absorb about .55 quarts per lb).
Dilute up to your boil length and away you go. This is a simple, practical
approach if you want to experiment with the technique.
For those of you who use a spreadsheet or other automated means of
planning your brews, all you have to do is adjust your efficiency to 2/3
of normal. If you get 85%, just plug in 56% and your grain calculations
will come out right. Adjusting the mash thickness to get 1/2 the wort
should put it somewhere within normal parameters and eliminates the
sparge.
Make sense?
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:18:06 -0500
From: "D & S Painter" <painter@axess.com>
Subject: Johnson Controls Thermostat ... Good/Bad?
Its good to have the HBD back, Hi,
Could someone who has used the Johnson Themostat (if you care to know
A19AAT-2C) please e-mail me and tell me if this product is worth it and
should I expect any problems and is there a better product out there.
Cheers from La Belle Provence
Douglas in Montreal (Still in Canada)
painter@axess.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 14:11:30 -0600
From: "Aaron Herrick" <chemstat@phoenix.net>
Subject: Goofball Ideas by Aaron Herrick
Has anyone tried canning some sludge from their secondary, then adding some
of this to starters and wort boils as nutrient? Keep in mind, I expect to
boil the heck out of it before canning. I tried drying it but after some
time in the open air it picked up a decidedly nasty smell...
Aaron
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 96 16:13:37 EST
From: "John W. Carpenter" <jwc@med.unc.edu>
Subject: Phosphoric Acid - food grade?
What exactly makes food grade Phosphoric Acid? What level of contaminates
are allowed? Would the analysis below pass for food grade? If not, why?
Color (APHA)......10
Assay (H3PO4).....85.4%
Arsenic...........0.2ppm
Chloride..........0.6ppm
Heavy Metals......0.0003%
Insoluble Matter..0.001% - Ca, Mg, and ammonium hydroxide ppt.
Iron..............0.0006%
Manganese.........0.2ppm
Nitrate...........5ppm
Potassium.........0.001%
Sodium............0.005%
Sulfate...........0.001%
Volatile Acids....0.0003% - as CH3COOH
Antimony..........0.001%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 16:34:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: neumbg73@SNYONEVA.CC.ONEONTA.EDU
Subject: Re: Glenbrew Secret Brewers Yeast
Don't know if this'll help but,
Greg Moore wrote about Glenbrew last HBD
I used it for a honey wheat last spring and I had the same long
ferment...it just would not stop! I thought it might have been due to the
honey. I also used glenbrew for my last two beers, and both were done
fermenting within 10 days to two weeks. On the whole it seems to work
well. The local homebrew shop owner likes it because she claims it lends
a fruity type flavor to lighter ales.
-bern neumbg73@oneonta.edu
kb2ebe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 1996 17:00:00 -0500
From: TheTHP@aol.com
Subject: Longshot Hazelnut Exposed!!!! and a high tech question...
Hi all,
First of all I'd like to thank all who helped me define my recipe, techniques
and grain choices. Special thanks to homebrew shop owners Kurt and Mark, to
the Boston Wort Producers who sent me the original Pilot Brew grain bill(
That was really cool. 632 lbs of grain! ), and to Carrick who gave me my all
grain legs...
Now if someone only would have told me not to forget my grinder...
aarrgg...my shoulders hurt. I couldnt find anyone to grind our malt so after
many attempts at an automated solution we spend 2 hrs on the basement floor
with a pillow case and pair of rolling pins. What a PITA!! Anyway knowing
that efficiency would greatly suffer, I tweaked up the Base malt a bit, Ended
up with 5 gal at 1.041, not too far off the mark.
Now to the Hazelnut. We used, are about to use.. Noriot Hazelnut brand
extract. Experiments went like this. We used 75ml samplers of my own Nut
brown ale and used a graduated pipette to add extract to it. We started with
0.02 ml per sample and built up (by .02) from there. At .04 ml 4 of 5 tasters
could detect the hazelnut, at .08 one person said stop. At .1 three others
said stop. I preferred it on the high side at .12. We then marched on to
attempt to figure out where the Longshot was, our best guess is between .2
and .25ml/75ml (a heck of a lot) It did not suprise us that when we did the
math for a 5 gal batch for our preference (.1) it came out to 25 ml. exactly
one bottle of Noroit Hazelnut extract. And that the LongShot is 2 bottles or
2.25 for those with no tasebuds left. These are our results. I appoligize if
the math is off a decimal place somewhere, its closer to christmas than
thanksgiving after all. Thanks again for your help.
One question to all the High tech pros out there. I was brewing at my uncles
house who is a wine consultant. Consequently he has a lab and winery in his
basement and alot of high tech equip. The pH meter was cool enough, but he
also had a light refractometer to measure sugar content. At least i think
thats what he called it. We got really bad readings from testing our freshly
sparged wort. readings like 2.1 bricks? Now if Bricks=Balling=Plato why didnt
we get reading closer to the 9-10 range? We were quite stumped. But we
relaxed, started the boil, fetched a standard hydrometerand had a homebrew.
FG. after reducing the boil and chilling was 10.2 Plato. Our only guess was
that it was callibrated for wine using Fructose and sucrose not the dextrose
we produced for brewing? Can you really do that?
Brew Hard
Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewery
Frogshot Hazelnut
Date Gravity Plato
Brewing: 11/29/96 1.041 10.2
Racking:
Bottling:
Alcohol: 0.0% (w/w)
Alcohol: 0.0% (v/v)
Batchprice:$15.19
Bottle price: $0.27
Ingredients:
2 Row 9.3 pounds 1.03 S.G. 3.5 RM 60 min mash
Victory 3.4 ounces 1.00 S.G. 1.0 RM 60 min mash
Munich 1.0 pounds 1.00 S.G. 1.0 RM 60 min mash
Cara Pils 2.9 ounces 1.001 S.G. 0.1 SRM 60 min mash
Chocolate 0.5 pounds 1.000 S.G. 37.7 SRM 60 min mash
(I would have had .5 lb caramel, but it didnt get in the car : (, I doubled
the munich it was the best i could do...)
Extraction efficiency: 56 %
Boil size: 6.5 Gallons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest V2 #4
****************************
