Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2583
HOMEBREW Digest #2583 Mon 15 December 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:
Denature temperature of Pectin Enzyme (Mike Allred)
Concerns about AHA Vienna/Oktoberfest ("Alan McKay")
SS Fermenters ("Eric Schoville")
Carboy Spigots ("Mark Knopf, Roanoke, Va.")
blowoff/sweetness/covered boil/lager yeasts/pH/efficiency/flaked (Al Korzonas)
Aqua yeast ranching & botulism (Tim Martin)
Conical Fermenter Idea (Andrew Stavrolakis)
Re: Grain Mills (brian_dixon)
Cylindriconical Fermenter (Joe Stone)
iodine test (Al Korzonas)
Re: AHA Vienna and Oktoberfest Guidelines ("Brian M. Rezac")
another siphon starter (Adam Holmes)
American Porters (Mark Peacock)
What means "0,0 % VOL" in non-alchogolic beer? (al_ru)
Re: sparkler effect, dispense pressure ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
Octoberfest beers (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Dispense Pressure (Richard Byrnes)
Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment (Jeff Renner)
Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment (Alan Edwards)
Re: New BT Column (Dion Hollenbeck)
Topping off/Adding water during the boil (Steve Armbrust)
Courage DIRECTOR'S BITTER (barley)
who owns the recipe? (long) (Richard Byrnes)
Beer Bugs (Paul Ward)
=====================================================================
Beer is our obsession, and we're late for therapy!
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...
ftp://hbd.org /pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 10:10:41 -0700
From: Mike Allred <mballred@xmission.com>
Subject: Denature temperature of Pectin Enzyme
What is the optimal temperature of Pectin Enzyme and when is it denatured?
I recently made a fruit mead which I held at 145 deg for 15 min to
pasteurize it. I do not like using Camden and I didn't want to boil the
honey. I added the peptic enzyme at 145 deg and I'm not sure if the
temperature was too hot for it to work. The only references that I have
found deal with using it with a Camden process that doesn't include heat.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 12:24:45 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: Concerns about AHA Vienna/Oktoberfest
George De Piro expresses his concerns about the new AHA
Vienna/Oktoberfest
guidelines.
I can't agree more with you, George. I'm afraid that what we're slowing
seeing
is the americanisation of beer styles. This, of course, being driving
by the AHA.
I'm not saying that brewers abroad are changing their recipes to suit
Americans.
What's actually happening is that brewers on this continent by-and-large
really
don't have a clue what a real Vienna, Oktoberfest, Alt, Kolsch (the list
goes on)
tastes like. Slowly what we're seeing is that the competitions are
being
overwhelmed by beers that aren't at all brewed to style. So instead of
rejecting these beers out-right, the AHA slowly migrates the styles
guidelines
to suit the submissions.
Within 5 years I predict that the only beers we'll see in AHA
competitions
are "American-XXX". i.e. Americanised versions of all our favorite beer
styles.
Completely unforgivable, IMO.
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: 10 Dec 97 10:59:31 -0800
From: "Eric Schoville" <ESCHOVIL@us.oracle.com>
Subject: SS Fermenters
Alan recently posted a question on whether an opening
in a SS fermenter should be large or small. I say go
for a large opening! I use a 10" opening in my
converted keg primary fermenter. During fermentation,
I just put a stock pot lid on top. This system has
worked very well for 7 batches with no infections.
After moving to open primary ferments, I am never
going back! The large opening makes cleaning a snap and
easy sanitation and large volume make converted keg
primary fermenters great. To top it off, I got this
keg for $5 at a garage sale!
Eric Schoville in Dallas, TX
Mangled owner of the Bloody Garage Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 16:08:02 -0500
From: "Mark Knopf, Roanoke, Va." <knoroa@rbnet.com>
Subject: Carboy Spigots
(Lurker status off) I've read the threads in the archives regarding
drilling of carboys and the precautions needed, etc., but haven't seen
much mention of the "carboy spigot" being flaunted in the latest HB
rags. Do they have anything new worth looking at or is it a coffee urn
spigot, and drilling-holes-is-your-responsibility-instructions?
As with most HB'ers always interested in new ideas and the best way to
find out is by asking the collective.
TIA to all. The HBD is a great thing...
Mark Knopf
Roanoke, Va. (In geographical relation to Jeff... east until you smell
it, south until you step in it...)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:58:38 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: blowoff/sweetness/covered boil/lager yeasts/pH/efficiency/flaked
Kevin writes:
>1) Is there an advantage to fermenting in a smaller vessel so that the krausen
>blows all the foam and funk out of a tube, or is it better to ferment in a
>larger vessel so that one does not lose that volume of beer.
I've done an experiment on this and published my results in Brewing
Techniques. The bottom line is: the only significant difference between
blowing off (or skimming) the dirty head and letting it fall back into
the beer is the bitterness. You lose about 15% of the bitterness if
you remove the dirty head in some way (dropping is another way).
>2)Is there an adjunct that can be used to make a "sweet stout" if one is
>lactose maldigestive?
Bad choice of words... "adjuncts" are non-enzymatic sources of starch
(e.g. potatoes, unmalted grains, etc.). Dave Line has used saccarine
to sweeten beers, but the snag is that it's also bitter, so you have to
back-off on the bitterness a little.
>4) Is it better to boil in a covered pot to maintain a more constant volume,
>or to boil in an open pot and have the volume reduce during the course ofthe
>boil?
No. You must boil uncovered (at least part of the boil and ideally,
during the whole boil) or you will have excessive DMS in your finished
beer. It will smell like cooked corn.
***
George writes:
> Talking to Wyeast is next to useless (I've been told by them that
> lager yeast won't grow well at 72F).
Some lager yeasts make excessively sulphury beer. Other ones (like
Wyeast #2035) make very nice, delicious ales.
***
AJ writes:
>It isn't the pH of the water that has the major influence but rather its
>alkalinity.
Absolutely, but more accurately, the pH of the *mash* is what is important.
>water quite a bit. From memory, a kg of patent malt contains the
>equivalent of several (5?)mL of concentrated (hardware store strength)
>hydrochloric acid.
This implies that we can use hardware store hydrochloric (Muriatic)
acid for brewing. While it may be perfectly okay, I feel it is much
safer to use only FDA-approved, or "food grade" acids.
On a related note, I wonder how many homebrew supply stores are selling
sidewalk salt as calcium chloride... this stuff is definitely not
food grade and can contain all kinds of impurities. I've heard some
can be poisonous, but don't know for sure.
>In the case of pale malts (which also contain some acid but much less
>than the high kilned) the principal source of acid is the reaction of
>calcium in the water (if there is any) with phytin in the malt which
>releses hydrogen ions. In this case the pH is determined largely by the
>relationship between the calcium content of the water and the water's
>alkalinity. One of the advantages of decoction mashing with low kilned
>grains is that more phytin gets hydrolyzed releasing (assuming calcium
>is available) more H+ thus dropping the pH further at each decoction.
Are you sure about this? I thought that phytase is what acts upon the
phytin. I suspect that because phytin works around 90F, that boiling
would certainly denature it. Is this simply *another* way for the H+
to be released?
***
Ken writes:
>I recently completed an analysis of four brew sessions -- two batch-sparge
>(thanks to Michael Crowe) and two full-sparge -- and found that the wort
>trapped in the grain was significantly higher in gravity than the "free" wort
<snip>
>of sparge water (as in batch sparging). However, in all four cases, the
>amount of sugar retrieved from the grain was much higher than predicted, by
>15%, 25%, 46%, and 49% in the four sessions. Barry's data show an increase of
>20.5/17.2 = 19% from first positive indication to plateauing of the readings.
>I was not able to deduce any particular correlation between brewing parameters
>(mash thickness, overall gravity, etc) and the amount of "excess" gravity that
>resulted.
I'd like to hear more... could you post more details of this experiment?
When you write "full-sparge" I presume you mean "fly sparge" or
"continuous sparge," as opposed to the "fill, drain, fill, drain..."
of batch sparging, right? If I don't have this right, could you also
give details on this?
***
Charles writes:
>It'd be hard to flake roasted barley (not to mention unnecessary) since
>it's quite friable. Don't know how malsters feel about the idea of roasting
>flaked barley either. In any event, it is that pre-gelatinized stuff.
You can buy toasted flaked barley from the UK. When I was a retailer,
I believe I got it from L.D.Carlson (a homebrew wholesaler). It wasn't
roasted... it had a nice "breakfast cereal" character.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:08:53 -0500
From: Tim Martin <TimMartin@southwest.cc.nc.us>
Subject: Aqua yeast ranching & botulism
Hey Neighbors,
I've had good luck freezing yeast so last week I thought I would try
storing yeast under distilled water. I could not find much literature on the
subject so I made most of the procedure up as I went.
Poured yeast from bottom of fermenter into gallon jug, let settle, poured
off beer, froze half and put the other half into sanitized mason jars and
poured distilled water right from the jug on top of the yeast, put on lid and
placed on shelf in a dark cool room. I thought I should have boiled the
distilled water but I figured distilled water was pure and by this point I
just couldn't do one more step.
Then I started to thinking.... this seems too easy, what keeps this from
spoiling or yes.....BOTULISM.
Yes I am paranoid. You guys saved my life. I used to be very careless
with my canning and wort storing procedures before the "botulism"
thread. Now I just make up fresh wort each time but this yeast under
water has me a little nervous. By the way the Ph of my beer was 4.5 at
racking time so I guess the yeast is at Ph 4.5, this should help. Can any
one with more experience help me or lead me to some literature for this
intriguing process.
Thanks,
Tim Martin * Cullowhee, NC * (near nobody)
P.S. - this is not an attempt to restart the thread.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:06:45 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu>
Subject: Conical Fermenter Idea
Hello All,
I just had an idea for a cheap easy way to build a conical fermenter with
bottom drain spigot.
How about using 6 inch PVC pipe, fitted with reducers and a valve at one
end, and capped at the other, attached to a verticle stand? I calculate
that 24.5 liters (approx 6.5 gallons) would require a 4.5 foot length of
pipe that would be easily manageable.
Would there be a problem using PVC to ferment in? and then using as a
secondary for a couple of weeks? Any comments? or are some ideas better left
to die a natural death? Private or public response, your choice.
Thanks,
Andrew Stavrolakis
andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu
************************************************************
Andrew J. Stavrolakis
Controller
LASPAU: Academic and Professional Programs for the Americas
25 Mount Auburn Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
phone:617-495-0543
fax: 617-495-8990
email:Andrew_Stavrolakis@harvard.edu
http://www.laspau.harvard.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 97 15:07:12 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Grain Mills
[snip]
>I am browsing for a malt mill and have narrowed it down to a few. I am
>looking at both the Valley Mill (tm) and The MaltMill (tm). The price
>difference is negligable at $30 difference, with the MaltMill being the
>heavy. However, after viewing both their websites, I am compelled to
>believe that the MaltMill is a much more rugged piece of machinery and
>probably the better buy. The Maltmill fixed width roller model is only
a
>few dollars more than the Valley Mill adjustable, but the Valley has a
>much larger hopper and comes with a adapter for the motorizing. ( I am
>presuming that they mean a cheap 3/8" drill).
>Anyway, any testimony from the collective?
[snip]
Marc,
I'll put my vote in for the Valley Mill, although you won't go wrong
with either. I'll also strongly vote for going with an adjustable mill,
regardless of who's mill you buy. EVEN THOUGH Jack Schmidling will
respond and say he gets fine results with smaller kernels such as wheat
with the fixed-gap MaltMill, I much prefer being able to tighten the
mill one click and get a perfect crush with the smaller grains. Plus if
you decide to experiment with any other grains such as sorghum
(downright tiny), you'll appreciate the adjustability. You'll have the
mill for many years, so you may as well get the best.
Anyway, back to the Valley Mill. Yes, the factory built hopper is much
larger and carries about 8 or 9 lbs of grain. The latest version of the
mill has steel bearings. I think Jack uses solid rollers on his mill,
and I don't know if the Valley Mill has solid or hollow, but believe me,
it makes less difference to your mill than how much running over a fly
affects the ride in your car. The drill adapter is easy to use. I use
a DeWalt cordless drill to run mine and the grain just whips right
through the mill and comes out perfect. I've got maybe a couple hundred
pounds of grain through it. Before I bought it, I spoke to a guy at a
brew-on-premises (BOP) in Nashville where I was visiting on business
about his usage of the mill. He had one installed for his clientele,
and had it motorized with a pulley, belt, and some kind of an old
electric motor. He'd had it installed and used daily for 2 years and it
still worked like new. Mine is still like new too, I just blow the
grain stuff out after each use and put it away. It quickly disassembles
and stores in a small flat area in one of my boxes of homebrew stuff. I
really think that you could buy one of Jack Schmidling's MaltMills, or
go with the Valley Mill and do just fine. I see them as being fairly
equivalent, both are beyond anyone's requirements for quality and
durability. The adjustability and larger hopper for a smaller price
than Jack's smaller-hopper and nonadjustable mill was what helped me
decide, and I've never regretted it. Jack's caught a lot of flack for
his small hopper and for the nearly unavailability of the adjustable
mill ... I don't know why he doesn't add a larger hopper and work harder
at selling the adjustable mill. Stuck in his ways I guess. Causes
business to go to other outfits though.
Good luck, and feel confident about any of the choices you've listed.
They're all fine machines.
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 15:08:54 -0800
From: Joe Stone <joestone@cisco.com>
Subject: Cylindriconical Fermenter
I think Frank Kalcic started the fermenter thread. I've been
exchanging E-mail with Frank offline. Since there seems to be extended
interest, I thought that I'd pass this along...
I had a cylindriconical fermenter made from a 10 gallon Cornelius
keg. The bottom of the keg was cut off and a 60o cone was welded in its
place. The cone was fashioned from two "half-cone" pieces of stainless
steel. The tip of the cone was welded to a 1" standard male pipe thread
fitting. I use a 1" brass ball valve. The capacity of the fermenter is
approximately 12 gallons.
I understand the issue of threaded versus sanitary fittings and
valves. But I paid $45 for the used Cornelius keg. The cone and
fitting were welded for free. I couldn't justify putting a $150 valve
on a $50 fermenter. If I have problems with infection, I will consider
replacing the fitting and the valve.
This is the information that I have on the welding and
electro-polishing techniques that were used to assemble the fermenter.
The information is somewhat second-hand and I can't say if it is
completely accurate. The outfit that did the work makes food processing
equipment for the Kellogg's company. If I get more information, I will
pass it along.
> The fermenter was purge welded. It was heli-arced with a nitrogen gas purge
> which basically frees the weld environment of oxygen and makes a very hot
> clean weld which penetrates throughout the thicknes of the weld. That's why
> it looks like it is welded inside and out. The electro polishing process I
> don't understand that well but basically it was polished by hand and machine
> buffer first then it was treated with a chemical bath and electrically
> charged similar to chrome plating but no chromium is used in the bath.
> Basically it is just plated without any metal alloys. What this does is eat
> off the top oxidation layer of the metal and leaves a clean surface. I will
> try to find out more about it from the guy who did it for me. Upjohn uses
> this process quite a bit when reparing their ingredient tanks or making
> modifications to existing tanks.
I have only been using the fermenter for about a month. I'm currently
fermenting my fifth batch of beer in it with no signs of infection
(knock on wood).
I've been using the bottom drain to purge the trub and yeast which has
settled into the tip of the cone. This seems to be very effective.
Currently, I have been siphoning the beer into a five gallon glass
secondarying using a racking cane. Ultimately, I plan to leave the
wort/beer in the fermenter for two weeks, purging the trub and yeast
after a week and using an extended beer-out dip tube and CO2 pressure to
transfer the beer to a keg (beer-out to beer-out).
I can't recommend this approach, yet, only because I don't have enough
experience to say that the design and the use of a threaded fitting
aren't prone to infection. I think that the existing keg fittings, dip
tube and port work beautifully in the fermenter application. Of course,
it would be nice if the port were a little larger for cleaning, but this
is true of any Cornelius keg.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 17:58:57 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: iodine test
Dave writes:
>I do the test this way:
>
>Take a ~10 milliliter mash sample which contains the grain,
>place it in the microwave and boil it briefly, cool slightly and
>then run the test.
>
>I know AlK's objections in the past has been about "hidden"
>starch being released this way, but I don't believe this objection
>is well-founded, relative to having an easy test which is truly
>a measure of remaining starch. Actually it is this difficult to react =
My objections to this method are based upon more than 10 years of
brewing and reading brewing texts and journals, and were explained in
the past... perhaps not with enough detail. I'll try again...
If you simply take a sample of the liquid part of the mash and
test it with iodine, any colour is a reaction with the starch
that remains in solution in the mash. This is what we *really*
want to test. We want to stop mashing when the starch in solution
is converted.
If you boil a sample which contains some grain, you are releasing
starch that is *inaccessable* to the enzymes. It is an *unrepresentative*
sample of the mash. What do we care if there is some starch still left
that is *stuck* in the steely tips of the malt? Our enzymes
*can't* reach it.
That said, I don't do the iodine test at all... I adjust my pH (usually
unnecessary), use a MaltMill(tm) for milling my malts/grains and mash
a specific length of time (at least 1 hour at or above 155F and at least
1.5 hours below 155F).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 18:43:28 -0700
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian@aob.org>
Subject: Re: AHA Vienna and Oktoberfest Guidelines
George De Piro wrote:
> Just a quick AHA Style Guidelines comment. If you don't care about
> the AHA, style guidelines, or beer judging, page down now.
>
> Have many of you read the latest guidelines for Vienna and
Oktoberfest
> beers?
>
> I have....
George,
No. You haven't. What you have read is the "almost final version" of the
1998 AOB Style Guidelines. I know, I sent them to you. We do use the
AOB's final version as a starting point for the AHA's guidelines, but the
two don't necessarily have to match exactly. These two sets of guidelines
have different publishing deadlines.
We offered the "almost final version" of the 1998 AOB Style Guidelines to
IBS and AHA members, BJCP judges and other groups and individuals to
solicit their input on suggested changes. I did explain in the
accompanying note that all suggested changes would be considered. I also
said that if the suggested change was a major one, it would have to be
table to next year's guideline revisions.
> I did write the AHA about this, and have been ignored. I don't
expect
> immediate change, but acknowledgment of this flaw would be nice.
You are not being ignored. Your suggestions have been grouped with all the
suggested revisions (and we've received quite a few) and are now going
through the evaluation process. The Association of Brewers will, again,
consider all suggestions and solicit input from various industry experts as
well as take historical aspects and scientific profiles of the styles into
account.
I want to also mention that this is a continuing process from year to year.
We are always open to suggested revisions of the AOB or AHA Beer Style
Guidelines. This year we made a more concerted effort to make the "almost
final version" of the guidelines available to a larger group, directly
soliciting and encouraging input.
It was my idea to post the offer on the BJCP's JudgeNet, and it is
important to have a dialogue about your concerns. Everyone that has
requested the guidelines for review will be receiving an email explaining
which suggested changes were accepted and which were not and why. We just
aren't that far yet.
> Using these new guidelines, the AHA NHC gold medal-winning
Oktoberfest
> that I brewed in 1996 would have been panned for being too big for
> style (its OG was 1.062). I guess I'll have to change my recipe
(note
> extreme sarcasm).
Actually, the 1998 AHA Style Guidelines for Vienna and Marzen/Oktoberfest
are the same as they were in 1996.
The change that you are referring to in the 1998 AOB Style Guidelines is:
1997 version, "Fruity esters are minimal, if perceived at all." was
changed to:
1998 version, "Fruity esters may be minimally perceived."
This isn't a big change.
> Just because many commercial brewers here and abroad produce
> Oktoberfests that are essentially Viennas is no reason to eliminate
> the higher gravity, traditional Oktoberfest from the guidelines.
One note on strengthening your argument is to provide examples of the
traditional Oktoberfests with the higher gravities. I don't mean the
actual beers. (Although I would be happy to receive them!) What I mean is
the statistics (O.G., F.G., alc/vol, etc..). I want to reiterate that the
AOB and AHA are listening, but your suggestions have a better chance of
being approved if you prove your case with facts, such as specific beers,
history, published reports, references, etc. This is the criteria that we
use to make revisions.
- Brian
Brian Rezac
Administrator
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
Boulder, CO 80302 brian@aob.org (e-mail)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org
(web)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 20:28:07 -0700 (MST)
From: Adam Holmes <adamholm@holly.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: another siphon starter
Someone posted a note about starting a siphon with a rubber bulb to fill
the siphon.
Another idea: Use what we use everyday here at the toxicology lab- squirt
bottles (the kind of bottles they use to squirt Rocky Balboa as they
scream "Get in their and pulverize that guy!"). It has a thin tip so it
easily fits into your siphon tube. I don't know where you'ld buy one.
Maybe at your local Don King boxing outlet.
Adam Holmes
Fort Collins, CO
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 21:57:49 -0600
From: Mark Peacock <xpeacockx@chicagonet.net>
Subject: American Porters
George De Piro says:
|John asks what kind of beer he made by fermenting a porter wort with a
|lager yeast.
|
|The answer is very simple: a porter!
In the Mar/Apr 97 issue of Brewing Techniques, Ben Jankowski's article
on American Porters proposes a couple of porter sub-styles (pre-flame
disclaimer - I am not, nor have I ever been accused of brewing to
style!) using bottom-fermented yeast:
"Pennsylvania porter...is a bottom-fermented, ester-free beer with
fair-to-medium mouthfeel.
"Prosperity porter can be bottom or top fermented and has a chewy
dextrin mouthfeel..."
The article also provides three "Classic American Porter Recipes". The
Pennsylvania Porter suggests Wyeast New Ulm or St Louis American Lager
yeasts. The Happy Valley recipe suggests Wyeast California Common lager
yeast.
George's example of Yuengling Porter as a bottom-fermented porter is
right on point. I used to consume and enjoy Yuengling Porter by the
case when I lived in Philadelphia's Art Museum district some years ago
(because you could only buy beer by the case back then). The Brewing
Techniques article has a table showing the strengths/gravities of
American porters such as Yuengling, Sierra Nevada and Anchor.
All in all, a very informative article.
Mark Peacock
Hinsdale, Illinois
xpeacockx@chicagonet.net (remove the x's to reply)
... though I would have flown over Jeff's house today if the snow hadn't
crushed my travel plans
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 1997 23:18:11
From: al_ru@usa.net
Subject: What means "0,0 % VOL" in non-alchogolic beer?
Hello, all!
I am interested by making of non-alchogolic beer (with maximum
low contents of alchogol as possible). Whether someone can explain
to me - what means marks "0,0 % VOL" on some industrial non-alchogolic
beers (for example, "Holsten") and which maximum contents of alchogol
in such beer? Why in ingredients list of this beer ("Holsten") are not
specified yeast (is it making without fermentation)?
Thanks in advance for the answers - this information is very important
for me. Direct e-mail is OK.
Al.
____________________________________________________________________
Get free e-mail and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 06:34:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Re: sparkler effect, dispense pressure
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997 mwmccaw@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Here it is:
> 1) Get yourself a ten cc syringe, no needle necessary or wanted.
> An "oral" syringe will work just dandy, and may be easier to come by in some
> parts of the country.
> 2) Draw your beer normally, minimizing splashing, etc. - LEAVE A GOOD THIRD
> OF THE GLASS EMPTY!!
> 3) Suck 10 cc into the syringe, and force it out rapidly into the beer.
> 4) Watch in amazement as the huge whipped-cream consistency head develops.
>
> That's it! works anywhere, wins bar bets, amazes friends, and is cheap!
>
In step 3, is the syringe in the beer or just above it?
20 miles NNW of Jeff Renner and 0 miles from myself :)
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 07:38:36 -0500
From: brewmaker1@juno.com (Jeffrey C Lawrence)
Subject: Octoberfest beers
Fellow beer connoisseurs,
At last nights planning committee meeting of our brewclub, the Kenwood
Fermenters, I volunteered to host the March meeting on Octoberfest
beers. I would like suggestions of where to find some reference
materials so
I can give a good class on that style of beers, including the why's and
where fores of the beer.
I have limited access to the WWW so book type printed references will
be greatly appreciated.
In closing, I have one last thing to say:
Eat you heart out Bill!!!!
Thank you.
Jeff
Brewmaker1@Juno.com
------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 1997 08:54:10 -0500
From: Richard Byrnes <rbyrnes2@ford.com>
Subject: Dispense Pressure
Mike McKay posted an article describing his draught system in a chest freezer.
He keeps his dispense pressure set at 8 lbs and claimed to keep a Kolsch
carbonated at 3.3 vols at 48 degrees for 6 months. Sorry Mike, if your chest
freezer is at 48 Degrees and your pressure is set at 8 lbs, your carbonation
will be about 1.8 vols or less. I have no doubt that your Kolsch stayed
carbonated for 6 months, that means your kegs dont leak! If you actually
carbonated your kolsch at 26 lbs, you would have about 3.3. Vols, but unless
you keep your dispens pressure set that high, every glass you pour increases
the headspace in your keg and nibbles away at that carbonation level. The
trick to a properly designed draught system is to decide ahead of time what
temp you want to serve at and what level of Carbonation you want (most ales
are around 2.5 vols, most lages are at 3 or higher) Now use the following
chart to set your pressure, and it will be the same for carbonating and
dispensing, this is called a balanced system, one setting, no dinking around.
Volume 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3
40F 6.8 9 11.2 13.4 15.5 17.7
42F 7.7 10 12.2 14.4 16.7 18.9
44F 8.6 10.9 13.2 15.5 17.8 20.1
46F 9.5 11.8 14.2 16.6 19 21.3
48F 10.4 12.8 15.3 17.7 20.1 22.6
50F 11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8
52F 12.2 14.8 17.3 19.9 22.5 25.1
54F 13.1 15.7 18.4 21.1 23.7 26.3
56F 14 16.7 19.5 22.2 24.9 27.6
58F 15 17.8 20.6 23.3 26.1 28.9
60F 15.9 18.8 21.6 24.5 27.4 30.2
Now, the way you balance a system is by adjusting the length of your hose, a
3/16th id flexible beverage hose give 3 lbs of pressure drop per foot, so if
you want 3.3 vols at 48degrees, you would need to carbonate at about 25 lbs,
now if you served at 25 lbs with a short hose, it would be like shooting beer
out of a fire hose at full blast. start with 9 feet of hose between the keg
and tap, you should have a gentle flow, about an ounce a second if memory
serves correctly, with a nice head, not too much foam. If the beer is coming
out too slow, start lopping off hose about 6" at a time. Make sure your hose
has no kinks, this will cause turbulence in the lines and a lot of foam.
Good Luck!
Rich Byrnes
Founder/Prersident
Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
Pre-Production Systems Analyst \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #337-9628_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2@ford.com (_)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:25:58 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment
In HBD 2580, KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com> and Mike McCaw
<mwmccaw@ix.netcom.com> each wrote about using a syringe to imitate a
sparkler:
>Thought I'd toss in my favorite way (from an old Zymurgy tip)
Not just any old anonymous Zymurgy tip, but one by yours truly, first
posted here and then in Z. I called it a "30 Cent Beer Engine," but
someone else suggested the name "Pocket Beer Engine." Wish I'd thought of
that. I think there's a product with a ready name there for someone.
Anyhow, try it. It really is neat. But be careful. After I posted here,
I got lots of positive feedback, but one brewer chipped a tooth using it!
It seems that he didn't allow enough head room on a well carbonated beer,
and to prevent the foam overflowing, he lunged forward to sip it off and
hit his tooth on the glass. I suppose the manufacturer of such a product
would have been liable. Good Lord, maybe I'll get sued. Will you defend
me, Louis?
Ah, the hazards of beer.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 07:59:48 -0800
From: Alan Edwards <ale@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: One More Sparkler Thingy Comment
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>, HBD#2580:
|
| Thought I'd toss in my favorite way (from an old Zymurgy tip) of
| obtaining a cheap imitation of Real Ale Head (and it works with bottled
| beer as well): take a syringe (sans needle!), draw up a few cc's of
| beer from the glass, and shoot the sharp stream violently back into
| the beer. Kicks up a beautiful head and whips the beer itself into a
| fluffy mousselike texture.
I've tried this idea and like the difference. But, not having a syringe
with me at all times, I have sort of...uh...improvised (I hate to mention
this) by "emulating" the action of the jet-stream of beer with my mouth.
Suck up a bit and *spit* it back into your glass in a high-velocity
stream. Works beauty!
(But don't let anyone see you do this. ;-)
-Alan Edwards, Fremont, CA
------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 1997 08:44:33 -0800
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen@vigra.com>
Subject: Re: New BT Column
>> Louis Bonham writes:
LB> Well, it's finally almost here -- the long-awaited RIMS
LB> v. Decoction article (featuring the results of two different
LB> "mash-out" experiments) is now in the can and is slated to be
LB> published in the Jan-Feb issue of BT.
And for those of you who don't know anything about RIMS other than it
generates heated discussions in the HBD, the same issue will have an
article by yours truly on the what, why and how of RIMS systems. Not
construction, but down to earth info to help you decide if this is
something you would want to investigate further as well as a list of
resources.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
http://www.vigra.com/~hollen
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 08:50:05 -0800
From: Steve Armbrust <SteveA@thepalace.com>
Subject: Topping off/Adding water during the boil
In HBD #2580, Tom Clark asks about topping off his boiling wort with
boiling water.
I do something similar. I too use a 6-gallon brewpot, which isn't quite
big enough to hold all the wort after sparging an all-grain batch. So I
add as much to the brewpot as will fit comfortably without danger of
boilover, and then I start a smaller 5-quart "staging" pot boiling with
some of the remaining wort. Once the the wort in the brewpot starts
boiling and the foaming subsides, I add boiling wort from the smaller
pot to top it off. Then I add more to the smaller pot and get it
boiling again (much faster than the large pot) and top off when enough
evaporates from the brewpot. This way I end up with a full five gallons
at the end of the boil.
Works for me.
Steve Armbrust in Portland, OR
(I don't have an atlas handy, so maybe someone can let me know how far
that is from Jeff Renner)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 12:21:50 -0500
From: barley <mkitt@mnsinc.com>
Subject: Courage DIRECTOR'S BITTER
In HBD #2579, Charles Hudak was looking for a recipe for Courage
DIRECTOR'S BITTER. I found this one in "Brew Your Own REAL ALE at Home"
by Graham Wheeler and Roger Protz (Published by CAMRA):
O.G. 1046
In the mash tun
Pale malt: 4150g (82%)
Crystal malt: 380g (7.5%)
Black malt: 25g (0.5%)
In the copper
Maltose syrup: 500g (10%)
Target hops: 28g (start of boil)
Styrian Golding hops: 15g (start of boil)
Hallertau hops: 6g (last 15 minutes)
Styrian Golding hops: 6g (last 15 minutes)
Irish moss: 1tsp (last 15 minutes)
Styrian Golding hops: 5g (dry hopped in cask)
Hallertau hops: 5g (dry hopped in cask)
Typical characteristics
Brewing method: Single infusion mash, top fermented.\
Mash liquor: 11 litres
Mash temperature: 66 degrees C.
Mash time: 90 minutes
Boil time: 2 hours
Alcohol content: 4.7%
Final gravity: 1011
Bitterness: 34 EBU
Final volume: 23 litre.
NOTES
Courage Directors is parti-gyled with Courage Best Bitter, and therefore
shares the same grist. In fact, the Bristol brewery pactises high
gravity brewing, whereby they brew only on ehigh gravity beer (about OG
1053). This standard beer is then diluted at the casking stage with
de-oxygenated and UV sterilised water. The only difference between the
range beers is the amount of water and caramel added when they cask it.
They also use a whirlpool and therefore use hop pellets.
- ---------------
Hope that helps.
Regards,
Michael
------------------------------
Date: 11 Dec 1997 13:36:08 -0500
From: Richard Byrnes <rbyrnes2@ford.com>
Subject: who owns the recipe? (long)
Saw this on rec.food.cooking and thought it was timely!
IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUERY
RECIPES
This is in response to your inquiry regarding the copyright
registration of recipes. Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes,
formulas, compounds or prescriptions are not subject LIBRARY to
copyright protection. However, where a recipe or formula is
accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an
explanation or directions, or when there CONGRESS is a combination
of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright
protection.
Protection under the copyright law (Title 17 of the United States
Code, Section 102)
extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a
tangible form (a copy).
"Original" means merely that the author produced the work by his
own intellectual effort,
as distinguished from copying a preexisting work. Copyright
protection may extend to
a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the
requirements of the copyright law are met.
To register the directions or instructions of a recipe or cookbook,
send the following three elements in the same envelope or package
to the Register of Copyrights, Copyright Office, Library of Congress,
Washington, D.C. 20559.
1. A completed application Form TX;
2. A nonrefundable filing fee of $20.00;
3. A nonreturnable deposit of the work. The deposit requirements
depend on whether
the work has been published at the time of registration:
If the work is unpublished, one complete copy.
If the work was first published in the United States on or after
January 1, 1978,
two complete copies of the best edition.
If the work was first published in the United States before
January 1,1978, two
complete copies as first published.
If the work was first published outside of the United States, one
complete copy
of the work as first published.
If the work is a contribution to a collective work, and published
after January
1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective
work.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's
expression in literary,
artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to
names, titles, short
phrases, ideas, systems or methods.
How Long Does Copyright Registration Take?
A copyright registration is effective on the date of receipt in
the Copyright Office of all
the required elements in acceptable form, regardless of the length
of time it takes to
process the application and mail the certificate of registration. The
length of time required
by the Copyright Office to process an application varies from time
to time, depending on
the amount of material received and the personnel available to
handle it. It must also be
kept in mind that it may take a number of days for mailed material
to reach the Copyright
Office and for the certificate of registration to reach the recipient
after being mailed to the
Copyright Office.
You will not receive an acknowledgement that your application
for copyright registra-
tion has been received (the Office receives more than 500,000
applications annually), but
you may expect:
A letter or telephone call from a copyright examiner if further
information is needed;
and
A certificate of registration to indicate the work has been
registered, or if the
application cannot be accepted, a letter explaining why it has been
rejected.
You might not receive either of these until at least 120 days have
passed.
If you want to know when the Copyright Office receives your
material, you should
send it via registered or certified mail and request a return receipt.
For further information, write:
Information Section, LM-401
Copyright Office
Library of Congress
Washington, D.C. 20559
If you need additional application forms for copyright
registration, call (202) 707-9100
at any time to leave your request as a recorded message on the
Copyright Office Forms
Hotline in Washington, D.C.; please specify the kind and number of
forms you need. If
you have general information questions and wish to talk to an
information specialist, call
(202) 707-3000.
You may also photocopy blank application forms; however,
photocopied forms
submitted to the Copyright Office must be clear, legible, on a good
grade of 8 1 /2-inch by
11-inch white paper, suitable for automatic feeding through a
photocopier. The forms
should be printed, preferably in black ink, head-to-head (so that
when you turn the sheet
over, the top of page 2 is directly behind the top of page 1). Forms
not meeting these
requirements will be returned to the originator.
: .:
S ..
. M 7
>.U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992-312-433/40,050
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
Pre-Production Systems Analyst \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #337-9628_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2@ford.com (_)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 14:21:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Ward <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Beer Bugs
Tad in Athens (Georgia) asks about freezing bugs. At last something
I know about,...being cold.
Tad doesn't describe his bugs, but they are probably what we call
grain weevils around here, a little beetley thing that refuses to
become extinct.
Sorry Tad, but I don't think your winter's going to get rid of them.
I know you're having a 'helluva' winter this year and may have to put
on a sweater soon, but I doubt your having a cold enough spell to do
much harm to these demons. They seem able to go dormant for a while,
then once you warm them up, they start walking all over your grain
again. The center of your grain bucket may not even get much below
freezing what with all that grain insulating it. Even if all the
bugs did freeze, they probably have a scazillion egs in the grain
husks just waiting to hatch when conditions permit.
I really don't think you'll get rid of the pests, so learn to live in
harmony with them. Freezing them prior to crushing your grain will
help the beetles crack into several uniform size pieces (textbook), and
their exoskeletons will aid in sparging.
Use this grain up and thoroughly clean yor grain bin before
re-use. I don't know how small a weevil egg is, but I'm quite
certain you don't want to leave any in your bin for the next batch of
grain.
Now, let me tell you about the winters when I was a boy,......
Paul in Vermont, where it's 20 degrees colder than Jeff Renner.
- --
You know, I kind of liked Ebeneezer Scrooge before
all those ghosts scared the good sense out of him.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2583, 12/15/97
*************************************
-------
