Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2507
HOMEBREW Digest #2507 Tue 16 September 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Re: Converting pre-boil SG to post-boil SG (Spencer W Thomas)
AHA "guidelines" ("Dave Draper")
Little Apple (Samuel Mize)
Opps! (Chris Cooper)
Plant crystals,Sugar/starch,Iodine test,explosive roasting ("David R. Burley")
Modification indicators ("David R. Burley")
Fridge Won't get cold (Mark Polnasek)
Russian Rye Beer Bread... ("Samuel W. Darko")
Thanks/FWH and "HSA" (216) 397-4352" <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Sucanat for a Wee-Heavy ("David J. Vanness")
SG Prediction pre-boil --> post-boil, and another Q (Loren Crow)
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
Maltas Buenas de Venezuela (KennyEddy)
Rob Moline and the Little Apple Debacle (Jim Arbuckle)
8 oz bottles, Aging Barleywine (Charles Burns)
I can't tell my butt from a pipe! (Junius Adams)
re: Sparge Volume Calculation (Richard Scholz)
Ersatz HEPA Filter for Laminar-Flow Hood (KennyEddy)
recipes ("Bryan L. Gros")
2nd Annual Music City Brew-Off (Steve)
Pectin/Amylase enzyme use ("Eric Fouch")
"Bring Out The Holy Hand Grenade!" ("Rob Moline")
Converting pre-boil SG to post-boil SG ("Fred L. Johnson")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@realbeer.com
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
hbd.org /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
E-mail...
ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with
the word help for instructions.)
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 10:14:28 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Converting pre-boil SG to post-boil SG
If you've got 6 gallons @ 1.040 before the boil, then you've got 240
"point-gallons" (= 6 * 40) of sugar in the wort. After the boil, you've
still got 240 "point-gallons", but you've got only (say) 5 gallons, so
the gravity is (240 / 5) / 1000 + 1 = 1.048.
This is pretty close. You'll lose a little bit of gravity to
precipitated protein, and you've got to count in the wort that's left
behind with the hops in your total.
To take a post-boil sample without worrying about sanitation, you can
do this: Take the sample from the hot wort, and chill it to measure
the gravity. Then toss it or return it to the (still hot) wort. Any
organisms it may have picked up during the sampling will be quickly
killed by the still near-boiling wort.
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:23:59 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: AHA "guidelines"
Dear Friends,
As part of George Fix's excellent post in #2505 on first wort
hopping, he wrote:
> The commercial beer in this [Koelsch] style that I most admire is
> the one brewed by Kurfursten in Bonn. Unfortunately, it is
> completely out of category as far as the AHA guidelines are
> concerned. (The same is true for most the top versions brewed in
> Koeln). E.g., it has an OE of 12.5P (1.050) and BU = 32 mg/l. Since
> none of these beers are imported to the US, judges generally have
> only the AHA guidelines to go on. As a result I made a conscious
> decision to brew down my beloved Furfursten model to assure it would
> be taken seriously. It was vastly inferior to the real thing, but I
> feel the FWH did recapture at least part of the complexity I recall
> from my visits to Bonn.
I have never commented on the AHA's perceived shortcomings, although
much of the writing I have seen on the subject has struck a chord with
me. But this just makes me quite agitated. If GEORGE FIX has to dumb
down a recipe to meet an AHA guideline, something is very, very wrong,
and I say it sure as hell ain't George's concept of what constitutes
Koelsch!
This is not the first example that has been noted about problems
with the AHA guidelines. I don't much care about the political
contentiousness that has arisen regarding the AHA, but when it comes
to the nuts and bolts of beer in this way, it makes me think enough
is enough. An alternative is called for. Who's with me?
Cheers, Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
ddraper@utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
I am speaking from a materials perspective... ---John Palmer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 09:53:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Little Apple
Greetings, all,
Someone in HBD2505 referred to the new brewer at Little Apple posting
Rob Moline's GABF-winning recipe on AOL. I agree that this was a
contemptible act, apparently trying to "buy" good feelings and/or to
harm Mr. Moline.
However, I oppose the suggested electronic hooliganism for revenge.
It's mean-spirited, it cheapens our moral position, and promoting
it in this forum opens HBD up to criticism, if not legal problems,
as having "advocated" mail-bombing someone.
A courteous note of disapproval (like what the poster sent to the brewer)
is appropriate. Certainly we can continue to let people know our
opinion of Road Apple Brewery -- sorry, Little Apple -- and now of
its new head brewer.
Mr. Moline, is the release of this recipe a significant issue FOR YOU?
Or did this shot cross you far astern (as I hope)?
I would certainly expect that the skill of the brewer matters far
more than the paper recipe in creating medal-winning beer.
Best to all,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:41:32 -0400
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper@a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: Opps!
Hi all!
This is the tale of the foolish brewer who didn't clearly mark the
hop supply in his beer fridge. Our story starts a couple weeks
ago when the time had been obtained (the hardest part of any brew
session) to brew up a batch of Oatmeal Stout. The brew session
(all grain using my new, recently detailed, 7-gallon Rubbermaid
mash tun) progressed without incident, when it was time to add
hops I went to my beer fridge and got a bag simply marked with
a "C" in my own hand, Centennial I thought. The brew was doing
well in the primary and at racking I took a sample for gravity
check, all was right on track, as is my habit I tasted the
sample ----- my first reaction (a very short lived one!) was
malt oh how swee---------HOLY COW IS THIS BITTER !!!!!!!!!!!!!.
What could have happened? Upon rethinking my brew session and
reviewing my notes, there is was "Hops C-(Centennial)", as
I pondered my notes a hunch told me to check my supply inventory
list. Have yor guessed the answer yet?
I had no Centennial hops and "C" must equal Columbus (alpha 17.4%).
Oh the pitty of it all. So now I find myself hummbled before the
collective hearing a ghostly utterance in the distance -- IMBR --
and asking for your suggestions and sympathy. My first thought
is to add Lactose put it in a keg and leave it for a while
(can you say Milk Oatmeal Stout) and call it "Good Morning Ale",
Any ideas on how much Lactose to use (I calculate the IBU's at
126) and how long it will take to mellow a bit? TIA 8^)
Chris Cooper , Commerce Michigan --> Pine Haven Brewery <--
Chris_Cooper@hp.com --> aka. Deb's Kitchen <--
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:57:12 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Plant crystals,Sugar/starch,Iodine test,explosive roasting
Brewsters:
H. Houck suggests using "plant crystals" as a
dehumidifier mistakedly thinking, I guess,
these are silica gel. They aren't. They are
crosslinked polyacrylamide and are made to
absorb water and then give it up as the soil
goes dry.
Not what you want to remove moisture from
an area, as it will tend to stabilize it at a high level.
The main thing to keep a refrigerator dry
is to make sure it is sealed tightly.
Chemical dehumidifiers (Calcium chloride, etc.)
intended for a basement can be used carefully.
- ------------------------------------------
Dave Johnson says:
>Question: Why does a potato's taste change from bitter to sweet after
>boiling or baking?
>Answer: Starch is broken into sugars.
I doubt it. More likely the bitter alkaloid
from this relative of the nightshade has
been hydrolysed and the minor sweet taste
comes from the starch hydrolysis caused =
by the enzymes in your saliva.
The absence of bitterness allows this
sweet taste to come through.
Otherwise, maybe we should just boil our
mashes instead of holding them at
various temperatures?? =
Starch can be hydrolysed to sugars at
reduced pH because this does work with
concentrated HCl solutions of starch as I recall,
but this phenomenon will hardly cause a
problem with my suggested modification
to the iodine test of boiling a small portion
of the wort in the microwave before testing =
for starch with iodine. =
- ------------------------------------------- =
On that same subject AlK says:
>So, if you are doing an infusion mash, but boiling your samples for
>the iodine test.............. can liberate starch that you simply can't
>get at in the mashtun. Why would you want to boil the sample
>anyway? Don't you simply want to know if the starch that was =
>released to the liquor was converted or is there still some in solution?=
Well for one thing, the majority of the
malt starch is not gelatinized and is not
"released to the liquor" since it is very poorly
soluble. The whole point of boiling the =
sample is to gelatinize the starch and get it
into solution where it can react with the iodine.
I find the application of the iodine test to
infusion mashes to be inconclusive =
and often incorrect.
As you indicated, you are happy with your
intuition and experience to tell you when to
terminate the saccharification and therefore
never do the iodine test anymore. Perhaps =
the inconclusiveness of this test applied to
an infusion mash was a contributing factor.
I suggest you give my method a try and you
will find that with a properly milled sample, =
held long enough, =
you will not get a positive starch test
- ----------------------------------------------
Ken Schwartz' suggestion to "flash" roast
crushed malt (based on DeClerk's suggestion =
to roast malt flour) worries me if you have
a gas oven. Don't do it if you have very finely
divided flour as you may get an explosion.
Be careful!
- -------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
=
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:57:09 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Modification indicators
Brewsters:
SteveA says:
>Several measures are standard and specific to proteins and other malt
>nitrogen carriers including total malt protein(% of malt mass), soluable=
(sic)
>protein(% malt mass), total and soluable (sic) nitrogen (% malt mass) an=
d
>Soluble (to total) Nitrogen ration(SNR %).
>Soluble nitrogen ratio(SNR) would seem a reasonable measure of protein
>degradation to me (and the folks at IoB). =
Well, Steve, DeClerk would disagree with you
and IoB, apparently, saying on page 230-231
of Textbook of Brewing:
- --------------
"Kolbach has suggested using the relationship
of soluble nitrogen in the percentage of
total nitrogen as an indication of the
total modification of the malt. =
This relationship can vary between 28% and 48% =
He considered that a higher value than
41% indicated very good modification.,
35-41% good modification and
values lower than 35% insufficient modification.
But the proportions of soluble nitrogen
in malt is <<by no means>> a suitable
index for assessing modification, because
towards the end of flooring, hydrolysis of
complex nitrogenous compounds, =
such as the proteins, is almost entirely
compensated by resynthesis. In fact so much
so is this the case, that towards the fifth day
on the floor, the malt shows no further
increase in the Kolbach index while the
difference between coarse-fine grinding
continues to diminish
Thunaneus and Schroederheim have shown
that the proportion of soluble nitrogen in malt
depends to a large extent on the variety of barley
A third reason why the percentage
soluble nitrogen cannot be considered =
as an index of modification is the the
hydrolytic degradation of malt proteins does
not depend on the total amount of nitrogenous
matter in the corns, but upon the
activity of proteolytic enzymes.
Assuming, for example, that there =
is 4% of soluble nitrogen in two samples
of malt, and that the nitrogenous matter
of the malt has been degraded to
the same extent, then if one sample
contains 12% and the other 10% of protein,
The Kolbach indices will be 33 and 40 respectively,
which is very different for the =
same degree of modification
The determination of soluble nitrogen
cannot therefore be used as an index =
of modification, but merely indicates the
amount of nitrogen which will be
present in the wort."
He goes on for a few paragraphs discussing
other methods and then says on page 232:
"To sum up, therefore, it may be said that
the analysis of various nitrogenous fractions
of malt gives valuable information about
the composition of the wort, but is of
little value as far as modification is concerned."
- -------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:16:55 -0400
From: Mark Polnasek <dolt@mnsinc.com>
Subject: Fridge Won't get cold
Subject: fridge won't get cold
I just bought a second used fridge for my garage so I can dedicate
one to fermenting temps and the other for serving homebrew from
kegs. My problem is that, after hooking it up and letting it run for
the entire weekend, it has only gotten down to 50dF. Does anyone
have any ideas on what might be involved to fix this? Do fridges
loose freon like cars and need recharging sometimes?
Thanks!
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina -
Keith,
Yes, it may be low on freon. After it has been running for awhile,
look at the back. Look on the compressor where the large (1/4") line
returns to the compressor from the interior of the fridge. If there is
frost on that line or it is really sweaty, then it is low on freon. Also
check out the freezer. If it's an older one the freezer should be frosted
all over. On the newer fan type there is no coils to see.
A quick charge from a repairman will get you going again.
Mark P.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 11:25:37 -0500 (EST)
From: "Samuel W. Darko" <sdarko@indiana.edu>
Subject: Russian Rye Beer Bread...
Anyone who can give Don any information about the production of Russian
Rye Beer Bread may send it my way as well. My email address is
Sdarko@indiana.edu.
Thanks in advance,
Sam Darko
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 08:15:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "PAUL SHICK (216) 397-4352" <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Thanks/FWH and "HSA"
Hello All,
A heartfelt thanks to all who responded to my trials with the
Sabco false bottoms. A wide variety of suggestions appeared in the
HBD and by private email. Most seemed to agree that a combination of
high recirculation rates and too thin a mash caused the collapses. I
plan to keep a thicker mash and restrict the flow rate to about 1 qt
per minute on my next batch. If I still have problems, I may try Mike
Spinelli's (sp?) idea of SS screws to support the center of the false
bottom. In short, the HBD group has made a very frustrating series
of events much easier to deal with. Thanks again.
George Fix had some interesting comments on First Wort Hopping
and "HSA", by which I assume he meant Hot Side Aeration. I propose we
add "Home Site Advantage" as another possible meaning. I agree strongly
with both his assertions. The flavor that comes through from FWH is quite
different than anything I've been able to get from late-kettle additions.
The best description I've come up with is that it's a "softer and more
elegant" hop flavor. On the HSA topic, I was able to hand deliver my Vienna
to Great Lakes Brewing in Cleveland for the NHC second round, which was no
doubt a factor in its doing well. A recent HBD thread on "Home Club
Advantage" is perhaps further evidence in this direction. One wonders what
beer actually goes through when being shipped across the continent on UPS.
Certainly extended time in hot trucks would expose any HSA (the aeration
kind) or other wort handling problems. Maybe we can get UPS to arrange
a fleet of refrigerated trucks, rather than just being thankful that
they're willing to ship homebrew at all!
George, when does the new book actually appear?
Paul Shick
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 12:14:27 -0500
From: "David J. Vanness" <dvanness@students.wisc.edu>
Subject: Sucanat for a Wee-Heavy
I have searched the HBD archives for information on Sucanat and found very
little. In particular, people mentioned they were going to try it, but
then never reported their results.
I have heard that brown sugar is a common ingredient up to 7-10% of the
grain/adjunct bill. So, I came across Sucanat -- and snuck a little taste.
In my opinion, Sucanat is to Brown Sugar what Urquell is to
Budweiser(U.S.). Absolutely delicious! I went ahead and bought 1lb. to go
with the rest of the bill: 3lbs Marris Otter, 3lbs Klages, 3 Lbs Hugh-Baird
Stout malt, 1lb Munich Light, 1 lb flaked barley, 1lb Carastan, .5 lb
English Choc., .4 lb Beechwood smoked.
I mashed at a 40/60/70 schedule with a p-Decoction (ala Charlie Scandrett)
and added the sucanat to the boil. So, anyway, I ended up about 6 points
low on gravity, based on my usual 78% efficiency -- got 1.071 (a little low
for a wee-heavy). I assumed a 1.040 for Sucanat -- was I off on that
guess, or just on my technique?
In short: what are folks' experience with this unique sugar? How does it
test in the final product? What styles does it fit? Anyone have any
decent data on its gravity contribution?
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:00:33 -0500
From: crowld@rapidramp.net (Loren Crow)
Subject: SG Prediction pre-boil --> post-boil, and another Q
Many thanks to all those who responded to my query in this morning's
digest. I'll try to summarize the results.
The formula (which I *almost* had right) is straight algebra (as put by
Dana Edgell):
>Let
>sg1 = s.g. before boil
>sg2 = s.g. after boil
>v1 = volume before boil
>v2 = volume after boil
>
>sg2 = 1. + (sg1 - 1.)*v1/v2
What I had neglected was adding 1 to the apodosis, which is simply the
weight of the water. I knew my number couldn't be right, but couldn't
figure out why.
But Dave Draper and several others questioned the need to avoid measuring
the SG after the boil for sanitation reasons. It appears I may have been
over-cautious. Moreover, because some of the sugars are lost during the
boil and transfer to the fermenter (carmelization, wort left in the hops,
etc.), and since uncoagulated proteins also affect the SG, it appears that
my method does not accurately predict the OG. Therefore, I shall measure
the boiled wort, too, from now on, but still being very careful not to
infect it!
Now, since I already have your ears (or rather, your eyes), I have another
question:
I've always sparged by letting the hot liquor run over the grains, without
any water standing on top of them. This gave me lousy efficiency because
the grain bed did not stay hot enough (I don't use a sparge arm, but simply
siphon the hot liquor through a bottle with holes in it, standing there the
whole time). Last time, though, I tried following Miller's method of trying
to maintain at least an inch of sparge water on top of the grain bed. I
ended up with a very cloudy wort, despite making a valiant effort to
clarify it, which is only now beginning to clarify in the secondary. I
think having water standing on top of the grains actually caused this by
stirring up particles into the standing water. Does this seem reasonable?
Have I misread Miller on this matter? Is there a better way to sparge that
will eliminate this problem?
I mash and sparge in a rectangular cooler, so the grain bed is never very
deep--4 inches at most. I've never got really *clear* wort, but this batch
was much worse than usual. And it doesn't appear that I got really great
effenciency even at that: with 14# of grain, I ended up with a 1.41 SG in 8
gallons.
Next time perhaps I'll try the "batch sparge" method and see whether that
works for me.
As we say down here in Texas, y'all are great! I really do appreciate your help.
Loren
==========================================================================
# Loren D. Crow, Ph.D. ++ Office Phone: (903) 927-3219 #
# Department of Religion ++ Fax: (903) 938-8100 #
# Wiley College ++ #
# 711 Wiley Avenue ++ Email: crowld@rapidramp.net #
# Marshall, TX 75670 ++ WWW: http://www.rapidramp.net/Users/crowld #
==========================================================================
One fine day, a student came to the rabbi and said, "In the olden days
there were men who saw the face of God. Why don't they any more?" The rabbi
replied, "Because nowadays no one can stoop so low."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 13:01:19 PDT
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
AOL Barleywine...
While I have been on the fence for quite some time about sharing my
recipe, especially with the many HBD'ers that have requested it, and with
Fal Allen, who is writing a book on BW'S....I have always politely, I hope,
refused, 'cos I felt that this was one of the things with which I could in
the future, aid in feeding myself and my family.
But, I must admit I was not happy to hear of this
matter. Stating that the recipe was mine, announcing intent to never use
it, but then offering to give away my stock in trade, could only represent
one thing to me.
How far one comes from being immensely proud of representing them to
this. I know that you must get tired of reading about the whole bloody
thing.
It is obvious to me that without being a subscriber to AOL, I may have
never heard of this, except for the actions of unknown friends in the
probrewers community, like Tomme Arthur, and others in the community, who
have already offered support, not 'cos they necessarily give a stuff about
me, but who are also upset by the these actions.
As for the stated "no hop alpha's were recorded,' they were and are on my
computer, and the computer of Steve Zimmerman. At the time Steve was a
former assistant of mine, not at that time engaged in the brewing business.
(It's hard to keep good help when they are paid under $8K)
He is now the HB'r of Court Ave in Des Moines, and at my request at that
time, re-crunched the numbers for me, prior to brewing, and offered
suggestions, some of which I used, some not. I have in the past publically
stated this, but at least he, armed with all the info, has integrity enough
to respect my wishes.
Mr. Kimbrough was not working for LABCO at the time that the recipe he
revealed was conceived nor executed. The fact that he revealed a worksheet
tells me where he got it, but that's another story. I guess it should be
pointed out that Mr. Kimbrough was once an assistant brewer for me, being a
personal friend of, and having been recommended for the job by the general
manager. In my last conversation with the owner, I recommended him for his
current position.
The best desired outcome for me personally, is that he and the
management realize that such actions are not in their best interest, and
rather than only harming me, they are making unwise business decisions that
can only tarnish their reputation. Then maybe they will leave me alone, and
let me get on with it.
My offer to the company to assist them with any info they may need still
stands, as the most important loyalties of all, are and must remain, to the
customers.
As for Mr. Kimbrough personally..... perhaps he has only fallen in with
a 'bad crowd,' I know that he has had second thoughts on this, and has
requested that the AOL posting be deleted. If you have opinions on this to
share with him, so be it. But, please don't bombard his e-mail with a
thousand spams.
This will be my last post on this subject on this forum. I owe this
forum much, and I apologize to the collective for this distraction from the
normal course of brewing info.
Now, lets get back to business.....
>From: Gus <buerkl@cooper.edu>
>Subject: New York State HB Laws
>I'm planning on starting a homebrew club here at The Cooper Union in
>Manhattan. I need to provide the authorities at school with all of the
>relevant state and city statutes regarding homebrewing. Also a
>possible concern (of theirs) is the non-profit status of an educational
>institution.
> Where can this information be found? In addition, if someone who
>has done this before could offer some advice, it would be a big help.
Info regarding state laws on homebrewing can be found at the AHA/AOB
webpage. Brian Rezac posted info on the webpage in HBD 2505. If I'm not
mistaken, the AHA also has a guidebook on starting a club. Phone
303-447-0816, and hit zero to get an operator to connect you with
publications. And of course, I have always found the state alcohol
licensing authorities to be most willing to provide the ETOH statutes upon
request. They may charge a fee for this, but you can find out.
As for the city, call the city clerk, (not the clerk of the courts), and
ask.
To be honest, all brewing clubs, or groups I have known that teach
homebrewing as part of a 'extension' group of courses at uni's or the like
tend to hold regular meetings off campus, after the initial theory is
taught on campus, largely as a result of the members desire to actually
drink the brew. Many campuses do not allow ETOH to be consumed without some
red tape, unless the president of the university is a member! ;-)
And many states prohibit the transportation of homebrew out of the home,
unless it is being transported to an 'organized tasting or competition,' so
including a monthly club comp will aid in avoiding problems in this regard.
Do you mean that the club you propose is to be registered as a
non-profit, or that the school is concerned about their status?
I wish you success on your club....if you would like, I will send you,
or any one else who asks, a copy of the Constitution of the Savannah
Brewer's League, an Homebrew club I am pleased to say I had some input on,
in it's initial formation. It is modeled on the Constitution of the North
Florida Brewers' League of Tallahassee, my first club, who graciously had
given us permission to use it. I'm sure neither of those clubs would mind.
Just e-mail me....
Jethro Gump
Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer@ames.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:38:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Maltas Buenas de Venezuela
Through the generous efforts of our Venezuelan correspondent, Lorenzo
Barquin, I was able to sample four of his country's commercial maltas. The
brands were Brahma, Maltin, Regional, and Caracas. I found them all to be
very similar to each other, though some differences were noted. All of them
were far better than Malta Hatuey, the only malta available in my area.
Brahma was my favorite of the four. Caracas weighed in at SG = 1.055+ while
the others were 1.050. If you recall, Hatuey was a whopping 1.065, and the
differences between these three gravities was significant. I thought the
lighter maltas were much more drinkable, with an almost cola-like character
that I really enjoyed.
Dark as these babies were, I could detect no "roasted" character and I
surmise that the color is derived largely from caramel coloring. Also, there
were varying levels of "sweetness' between the samples, and I suspect
correspondingly variable amounts of non-malt sugars, though brewing technique
could certainly account for this as well.
Based on my samplings, I recommend making maltas closer to the 1.050 gravity
than the 1.065, to avoid a too-syrupy product. Actually, any gravity between
1.030 and 1.050 would probably do, depending on your taste. As has been
stated before, hopping is very light, almost imperceptible. It's hard to say
how much to use, since (a) the end product is very sweet and may need more
hops to offset it, but on the other hand (b) during beer fermentation, a lot
of the hop cahracter is lost, which wouldn't be the case with malta. I'd
shoot fof IBUs in the teens first time out and go from there.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 14:34:59 -0400
From: Jim Arbuckle <JimArbuckle@compuserve.com>
Subject: Rob Moline and the Little Apple Debacle
I am not familiar with Mr. Moline's trials and travails at the Little App=
le
Brewing Co., so I can't say whether he owns the recipe in question or
whether it became the intellectual property of his former employer. =
Without knowing, Mr. Kimbrough's action's, while boorish and naive, =
don't seem to be motivated out of any malicious intent. Mr. Arthur's
suggested response does. =
If we grant that Mr. Kimbrough has been boorish, it would seem to me
that Mr. Arthur's missive to him is more than sufficient to correct his
behavior. Spamming the poor sod is nothing more than a malevolent =
sophomoric prank. Suggesting that his innocent wife be spammed is =
contemptible. =
Just leave it alone.
Jim Arbuckle
JimArbuckle@Compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 97 12:38 PDT
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: 8 oz bottles, Aging Barleywine
Does anyone have a source for 8 ounce brown bottles?
Do I really need to age this barleywine. It turned out almost as good as
expected and really doesnt' have any "rough edges". Its only been in
secondary for a week (dry hopping with whole EKG) and for me tastes great.
What's the reason for aging a barleywine for months on end?
Charley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 15:27:43 -0400
From: Junius Adams <AdamsJ@gwgate.nhlbi.nih.gov>
Subject: I can't tell my butt from a pipe!
Edgar Allan Poe writes in "The Cask of Amontillado:
I said to him: "My dear Fortunato, you are luckily met. How
remarkably well you are looking to-day! But I have received a
pipe of passes for Amontillado, and I have my doubts."
"How?" said he. "Amontillado? A pipe? Impossible! And in the
middle of the carnival!"
According to my research, a pipe is a wine measure equal to 4
barrels, or 2 hogsheads, or one half tun or 126 wine gallons. The
use of the term "wine gallon" (as opposed to any other kind of
gallon) intrigued me; so I looked up "wine gallon"
A wine gallon is a former English gallon of 231 cubic inches;
equal to the present U.S. standard gallon. This definition
explains why the US gallon equivalents of tun, butt, etc. are
integers. Further research revealed that a wine gallon was less
than a gallon of beer (the present imperial gallon). Thus, since a
pipe and a butt are both 126 US gallons, it would appear that a
pipe is the same as a butt. I have, however, been able to shed
no light on why there is a difference in terminology between a
pipe and a butt. It is nice to know, nonetheless, that a gallon of
beer has more volume than the corresponding gallon of wine.
There was no mention of botulism or a rest at 122 degrees in
any of these vessels.
Cheers!
Jay Adams
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:33:30 -0400
From: Richard Scholz <rscholz@gsidev.ml.com>
Subject: re: Sparge Volume Calculation
Ian Wilson asks:
on Wed, 10 Sep 1997
a question on: Sparge Volume Calculation
>In designing a recipe, I determine the following:
>Grain bill weight 16lbs
>Final Volume 9 gallons
>Water Volume 16 gallons
>Mash in at 1.33 gal(sic qts?)/lb 5.3 gal
>how much of this should be assigned to sparge volume?
I usually do 10 gal batches and mashin at ~ 1qt/lb
(4 gals for this grain bill) then maybe add 2-3 gals
for temp raises. Then sparge with the better part of 10 gals.
Remember most of your sparge water drains though the bed but
slightly less than half of the mash water comes out of the malt.
This leaves you with ~12+ gals of wort to boil. After evaporation,
hops hydration and that last bit that gets left behind
(spilled/measured or left in the bottom of kettle etc.)
I end up with 10 gals if I'm lucky.
So for a batch this size, 10 gals of sparge water is about right.
Hope this helps and remember YMMV ;-)
- --
Later,
Richard L Scholz
rscholz@ml.com U
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:33:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Ersatz HEPA Filter for Laminar-Flow Hood
I recently obtained a BT back-issue with plans for a laminar-flow hood "for
under $100", which seemed like a nifty toy for yeast ranching given my sloppy
sterile technique (no problems so far...). It's basically a plywood box with
a blower fan pressurizing it; the air comes out first through a standard
furnace pre-filter, then through a HEPA filter (99.97% effective at 0.3
micron), producing a horzontal (laminar) wind of sterile air which keeps
ambient bugs from reaching your goodies. A plexiglass hood extending from
the front of the box allows you to see what you're doing while enclosing all
your stuff in said sterile air flow.
Problem is, I can't seem to find a HEPA filter for less than the $100 this
whole thing is supposed to cost (checked McMaster-Carr and Cole-Parmer so
far). I was however browsing the local Home Depot (while picking up my new
7-gallon mash tun!), and noticed several types of "high efficiency" furnace
filters.
At least two of them claimed to be "effective" at removing sub-micron
particles. Now, I suspect that for $10 it isn't 99.97% effective, but would
I get close if I stacked two or three (or even four) of these babies
together? One of the filters was 3M's "Filterete" line; the other name
escapes me but was a similar product. The 3M unit had a 1000 "effectiveness
rating", whatever that is.
Am I worse off blowing a few particles from a less-than-HEPA box directly at
my fungus farm as opposed to letting them drift down without the box?
Any thoughts? Or thoughts about where to get reasonably-priced HEPA filters?
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 13:39:42 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: recipes
Brewboy1@aol.com wrote:
>Subject: Fwd: Rob Moline and the Little Apple Debacle
>
>...Yesterday, September 8th while scanning the brewing boards on AOL, I came
>across the following post:
>
>From: Bkkimbro@aol.com
>
>Hey folks. My name is Bret Kimbrough and I am the head brewer at the Little
>Apple Brewing Co. in Manhattan, KS. Last year, our brewery won the gold
>medal in the Barleywine Style Ale category at GABF. Since the recipe was
>that of the former head brewer, I don't plan to ever make this beer again, so
>I thought I would share the recipe with you.
>(recipe snipped)
>[he replied]
>This is just a short email to let you know that by posting the recipe for the
>Little Apple barleywine, you have just violated the unwritten code of ethics
>concerning brewing. Though I am not a friend of Mr. Moline's, I wish to
>express my anger over the posting of HIS gold medal winning recipe. This is
>not an issue for discussion. These things just do not happen. ...
I don't think that posting the recipe for Rob's hallowed barleywine was
a violation of brewing ethics. It was a violation of common decency.
It is unacceptable to give away something that isn't yours.
Unfortunately, there's not much that can be done, since recipes can't
be copywrited. Too bad an HBD boycott of LABCO won't hurt business much.
I just wish I had stopped by on my trip to California a couple months ago...
- Bryan
gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:40:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve <JOHNSONS@UANSV5.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: 2nd Annual Music City Brew-Off
The Music City Brewers Homebrewing Club is proud to announce
the 2nd Annual Music City Brew Off, Saturday, October 25, 1997
at Boscos Nashville Brewing Company in Nashville, TN.
We invite all homebrewers to submit entries in any of the AHA
recognized style categories at a cost of $5 per entry (3 bottles),
and $4 for each additional entry. Entries will be accepted at
Boscos in Nashville between Friday, Oct. 10, and Friday, Oct. 17.
Please drop off entries during non-peak hours. This year, we are
not allowing entry walk-ins on the day of the competition.
Entry details can be found on our website at:
http://www.theporch.com/`homebrew1
or requested by e-mail: JOHNSOSM@CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU
or by calling Steve Johnson (MCB President): 615-327-4100
John MacDougall (Newsletter editor): 615-383-4038
Chuck Bernard (MCB Treasurer): 615-902-9177
This notice is an invitation to homebrewers and qualified judges
and stewards who are interested in participating in what should
prove to be a great weekend in Nashville! Last year
(our first competition), we had over 120 entries, awarded prizes in
8 categories, and learned quite a bit from the experience.
Judges in this AHA-sanctioned event will be judging beers in all of
the AHA approved style and sub-style categories. This year, we
will be expanding our prize pool to 13 pre-determined categories
to facilitate one flight of judging on Saturday. Therefore,
preliminary judging rounds may be necessary before Saturday
and will be conducted by BJCP certified judges. This year, we are
expecting at least 150 entries (a conservative estimate) for the
following reasons:
1) There is an increased interest in homebrewing in Tennessee now
that it is a legal activity;
2) This is the final leg of the three competitions that are
awarding points towards the selection of the Tennessee Homebrewer
of the Year, and the other two competitions earlier this year in
Memphis and Knoxville both saw an increased number of entries;
3) We know how to put on a great event in Nashville!
With the success of our first AHA-sanctioned competition last year,
we are planning to make this year's event even better. There will
be a party for event sponsors, judges, MCB club members and
competition staff on Friday night, featuring great food, beverages
and our own touch of Southern hospitality. Saturday will feature a
closed judging session at Boscos, including a pizza buffet for
competition judges and stewards, and a public Best Of Show round,
with the BOS brewer's prize being an opportunity to brew one of
his/her recipes with Hans Johnson at the Big River Brewing and
Grille Works. After the results are tallied, we will also announce
the winner of the Tennessee Homebrewer of the Year competition,
whose prize will be the opportunity to brew one of his/her
prize-winning recipes with Chuck Skypeck of Boscos. Lots of other
prizes and merchandise will be given away along with ribbons for 1st,
2nd, and 3rd place brewers in each of 13 beer and mead categories,
along with plenty of door prizes. Finally, the club will be hosting
a pub crawl after the prize ceremony and will provide transportation
for judges, stewards, competitors, and staff to some of the local
brewpubs and other Brew-Off sponsors in downtown Nashville. And
if that isn't enough, the Rolling Stones will be playing in town on
Sunday, and there will be plenty to see and do within walking
distance of the concert at Vanderbilt's Dudley Field before,
during, and after the show!
The Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 00:24:09 -0400
From: "Eric Fouch" <fouches@iserv.net>
Subject: Pectin/Amylase enzyme use
HBD-
I have been using some pectin ezyme in some of my fruit beers lately, but I
have a few questions regarding it....
The spartan instructions say to us it before fermentation. My MO was to
sanitize the fruit, add the PE (about 0.5 tsp in general) and let it sit
for a little while, then either add some fermenting beer to the fruit to
ferment out, or add the fruit to the secondary. My questions would be what
temperature and/or pH favors the activity of pectin enzyme? How long
should it take it to do it's little nasties? Should I worry ;) about
adding infection when I add the fruit to the secondary (when I ferment the
fruit separately, I will sanitize the fermented fruit in a hot water bath
and transfer to the sceondary quickly to avoid any C. botulinum activity
(sorry))? This question is partially sparked due to my first attempt at
making my own hot sauce- some blenderized hot chillys ;). I added some PE
'cause the blender heated 'em up pretty good, but the pH has got to be way
down pretty low, right (I also added vinegar to thin it out some)?
Also, an extract brewing freind asked me about partial mashing his starchy
adjuncts with that amylase enzyme instead of pale malt. How feasible is
it? Does the bottle contain alpha and beta amylases also? Can the same
temperature profiles be used (unlike Kalamazoo Brewing Co., as we know they
only recirculate their mash at one temp - 170)?
Anyway, it's late, I'm tired, and just woozy enough to go to bed now.
Eric Fouch
efouch@steelcase.com
Capsaicin Co-Pilot
Bent Dick Yoctobrewery
Kentwood, MI
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 97 00:35:46 PDT
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: "Bring Out The Holy Hand Grenade!"
"Bring Out The Holy Hand Grenade!"
>From: Wesley McDaniel <wmcdanie@marlin.utmb.edu>
>Subject: First mash
>Hello all! I am getting ready to do my first all-grail brew.
Your questions about water are best answered by someone who knows the
subject, like Kenny Eddy....but with bottled spring water, you can take the
Jethro approach and just go for it....(there is not enough info to try to
answer the question....which spring?,....what's in it?...etc,) .....R.O.
water will definitely require some salts.......
But I am most delighted to see you doing your first
"all-grail"......(little bits of levity are nice)
I recommend two Hail Mary's, then followed by the blessing of the Holy
Hand Grenade.......
(Sorry, couldn't resist......I saw your typo earlier, but have had other
issues to think about, but knew I would have to get back to this one!)
Of course, best wishes on going to grain! This is the next step to better
beer. You will see a vast difference in all aspects of your product! Of
course, when the stuff is ready, I would love to taste it! (Never had a
holy beer before!) Good Luck!
JG
Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer@ames.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer@ames.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 1997 07:31:47 -0400
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Converting pre-boil SG to post-boil SG
Loren asks:
Does anyone have a formula for predicting the SG of 6 gallons (post-boil)
of wort on the basis of a pre-boil measurement? I don't like to take
measurements after the boil, if I can help it, because of sanitation.
The gravity of the wort above that of water is inversely proportional to the
volume containing the buoying compounds:
(Preboil S.G. - 1) X original volume = (Postboil S.G - 1) x final volume.
or
((Preboil S.G. - 1) x original volume) / final volume = (Postboil S.G - 1)
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2507, 09/16/97
*************************************
-------
