Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2736
HOMEBREW Digest #2736 Wed 10 June 1998
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:
Response to MCAB Complaint [con't] (Louis Bonham)
AHA-Rezac-Round One Fiasco...Jethro Report ("Rob Moline")
Air Stones ("James Dorau")
TED HULL: email problems (Tom Alaerts)
RE: Competitions ("John Lifer, jr")
AHA Bashing ("Raymond Johnson")
Barleywine Aging, Priming, and Bottling (Richard S. Kuzara)
Spiced beer / Stuck in Seattle / Higher alcohol production ("George De Piro")
Response to MCAB Complaint (Louis Bonham)
Ancient Wyeast ("C Perilloux")
FREE 1" Rigid Foam Insulation ("Lerner, Neal")
Hop Drive (Kyle Druey)
re: Old Wyeast Pack (OCaball299)
Not so sour? (Charles Hudak)
RE: Curry Beer ("Timothy Green")
curry; competitions; condemnation; CAMRA; creating fusels; c-size; chile beer (Samuel Mize)
natural gas/propane orfices (John Wilkinson)
FW: point of clarification- SS fermetors ("Frank E. Kalcic")
Public Thanks... (Mark T A Nesdoly)
GCHC/NHC First Round Winners (Denis Barsalo)
Black Treacle (oberlbk)
De-leading the surface of Brass (John Palmer)
beer stabalizers ("Sandlin, Jonathan Mark - BUS")
Curry beer (Al Korzonas)
RE: Stuck in Seattle ("Mercer, David")
RE: open vs. closed fermentation ("Hubert Hanghofer")
DMS and cooling (Al Korzonas)
BUZZ's Buzz-Off competition is June 27-28. Information is available at
www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff or via R. Mattie at
rpmattie@voicenet.com.
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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@hbd.org
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.edu/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: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 09:09:01 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: Response to MCAB Complaint [con't]
[continuing]
One risk of the "QS only preliminary round" format is that despite being
selected as the "best" QS beer by the preliminary round panel, the "winning"
beer might place lower than another QS beer in the final ribbon standing
because, as anyone who has ever been involved in a competition will tell you,
different judging panels often give different results. And, of course, this is
exactly what happened to Mr. Murphy.
With this in mind, the MCAB's response to Mr. Murphy -- which I wrote him weeks
ago -- can be summaried thusly:
(1) The MCAB will not, cannot, and does not act as an appeal board for the
decision of the QE's. It is 100% up to the QE's how they certify MCAB
qualifiers. While reasonable minds can differ on the wisdom of any decision
(indeed, we have lots of disagreement on the MCAB Steering Committee on lots of
topics), we've promised our QE's that we would not try and micromanage them or
second guess their decisions, and we're not gonna start now.
(2) The fact that Mr. Murphy's beer won in the "stout" category does not
conclusively establish that it was the best dry stout in the competition. It
simply means that a panel of judges decided that it was the best of the stouts
(dry and sweet) -- presented to them. Another panel -- which evaluated only
dry stouts -- decided that another beer was a better dry stout, and should thus
get the nod for the QS certification. Which panel should control? The BHC
decided in advance that the "QS only" panel's decision would control, and they
followed their rule to the letter.
(3) The crux of Mr. Murphy's complaint is that the final round panel decided
that his beer was a better stout than the beer that was certified, and thus it
was "obviously" the better beer. Again, different panels often differ on beers;
beer judging is inherently subjective. It's a simple fact of life. We could
probably submit the two beers to ten different panels and get differing
results. While Mr. Murphy's beer was certainly excellent, who's to say which
beer was "better"? You could debate the issue forever.
(4) As I have repeatedly asked Mr. Murphy, what does he want? Does he want an
apology from the MCAB? From the BHC? Or does he really want the MCAB to bend
the strict rules and make an exception so that he can enter? I've told Mr.
Murphy that if he's asking for the last thing, he need only ask and I'll put it
in front of the steering committee for a vote, although I personally would
strongly argue to the Steering Committee that we should not be granting any
"exception invitations". (By way of response, he's not asked me to put it to a
vote.)
The MCAB truly wants to be the kind of national competition we have all been
clamoring for -- well run, well judged, low cost, truly nonprofit, and most of
all responsive to the needs and wants of the amateur brewing community. To this
end, if you've any complaints about the way the MCAB is being run, feel free to
write. We do listen, and I *will* get back to you.
Best regards -- Louis K. Bonham
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 00:40:00 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: AHA-Rezac-Round One Fiasco...Jethro Report
The Sad, But True, Jethro Gump Report
AHA-Rezac-Round One Fiasco...
Having spent the majority of my day off dealing with e-mails on this
subject....I will state my final position, and also what I have learned....
1) The current situation is but one more brick in the wall, as far as many
are concerned regarding the AHA and competitions....
The arguments presented were well reasoned and documented....
2) The troubles here predate Brian....indeed they predate any that have
even recently held any position in the AHA....
3) Nothing I have seen or heard is able to alter my basic premise....Brian
remains part of the solution for the AHA....
Yes, an incredible balls-up has occurred.......I wasn't there, so anything
I relate to you can only be the result of second hand info.....but, I have
been in intimate contact with many of the players that surround the AHA/AOB,
and for more than just a few years now....and
It continues to be obvious to me that what the AHA needs more of are folks
like Rezac....passionate, dedicated fellas that have done the arithmetic,
sat down with their families...and actually calculated how acceptance of the
position with AHA would influence their lifestyle....Indeed, how much money
his family could afford NOT to make....so that Brian could do what I
do........work in the industry that we love....@ incomes that don't even
begin to make sense, just to be 'there'...working @ what we love....in my
case commercial brewing....in Brian's case, serving the AHA membership....
(I also know this as a result of having applied for and been through final
rounds of consideration for a position of Administrator for the IBS...)
We are both fortunate to have partners that make enough income to allow us
to pursue our passions....but believe me when I tell you that there are
still sacrifices that have to be made to justify this ....
I have known Brian for some time now, both personally and
professionally...and will never sit quietly while he is made a scapegoat for
actions and decisions that were never his to make.....only his to try and
salvage....
His trouble is that he will never relinquish his personal feelings of
responsibility for...and instinct to achieve completion of the missions that
the organization he works for undertakes..
In his role of Administrator of the AHA, he has never had the authority to
act on his vision of the best interest's of the membership....he has only
apparently had the good fortune to be in the hot seat when the dung heap had
to fall on someone.....
Finally, I would hope that he be allowed to state his own position on the
current situation....as I have previously posted, he is on vacation....and
rather than even sending a voice mail to his AHA phone (which he does
monitor)...I would rather not disturb what I hope to be a relaxing time for
he and his family...
Gotta tell you, Jethro's quite sick with this whole affair...I know what's
what...and what's not...and Brian does not deserve this...
Jethro Gump
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 01:56:55 -0500
From: "James Dorau" <rtsa20@email.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Air Stones
Can an aquarium-type airstone be attached to the CO2 intake within a
'corny' keg
for force carbonation? If so, I assume a certain length of vinyl tubing
is required to bring
the airstone towards the middle or bottom of the keg. Or is this only
ok for carbonating
but would create problems when being used to actually push the beer out
of the tap.
Suggestions anyone?
Thanks,
James
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:25:43 +0200
From: Tom Alaerts <TomA@BUT.BE>
Subject: TED HULL: email problems
Sorry to bother the other people on the list with this posting, but I
don't see another way.
Ted, I just can't reply to you. Your mail address is thull@brwncald.com
<mailto:thull@brwncald.com> , is it?
Please contact me again.
Tom Alaerts (toma@but.be)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 05:33:35 -0500
From: "John Lifer, jr" <jliferjr@misnet.com>
Subject: RE: Competitions
Hey, John, sounds like you made a really good beer,
I'm wondering though, are you a member of the BWPs?
and associated with that - is the beer selected brewed by a member?
If so, maybe you should join before you enter the beer again.:)
What the hey, just a thought.
I agree with you 110%. The winner is the winner!
> If you notice from the winner's list, the BHC qualified
> the 3rd place beer in the stout category as the dry stout for MCAB.
> According to the BHC, my beer didn't qualify for MCAB because they
> decided to qualify beers from the first round of judging.
- --
Cornelius Ball Lock Kegs for Sale
See Web page for details.
http://www2.misnet.com/~jliferjr/Kegs/Default.htm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:31:54 -0400
From: "Raymond Johnson" <JOHNSONR2@state.mi.us>
Subject: AHA Bashing
First, I will admit that I do not read HBD religiously, and I may have
missed some key discussions in this disturbing thread.
With that said, I dare say that few, if any of us would be discussing
anything related to beer without this organization. If you have a problem
with the AHA, then write to those responsible for bad decisions, and
policies. Words like; "Down with the AHA", are irrational, and just plain
rediculous.
Many of us should remember the old days of homebrewing, and how few
resources and supplies there were. Look at us now. Is there any beer we
can not brew? Do any of us really think we'd have these options without
the efforts of the AHA? It is shameful to forget those who's shoulders we
stand on today.
In other words, quit bitchin' about the little things, and be thankful for
what you have and what's been done for you. Christ!!! Give 'em an inch,
and they'll take a mile every time.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 06:09:39 -0600
From: rkuzara@wyoming.com (Richard S. Kuzara)
Subject: Barleywine Aging, Priming, and Bottling
I posted the following to the RCB news group and received no response
(probably due to my provider) so I will post here where my E-mail feed is
reliable. Thanks.
"I'd like to bottle my barleywine that has been in the secondary for 6
weeks.
I then expect to bottle condition (age) it for 9 months or a year. Is this
acceptable? Or should I wait 9 months before bottling? Also, should I
prime it when bottling and how much corn sugar per 5 gallon batch - 1/2 cup?
Do I need to use yeast when priming - if I bottle and prime in 8 weeks and
if I bottle and prime in 9 months."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 98 08:30:55 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: Spiced beer / Stuck in Seattle / Higher alcohol production
Hi all,
Dave in Seattle has experienced a stuck fermentation after pitching the
slurry from a 1.5 litre starter
into 5 gallons (or so) of 1.080+ beer.
That's a pretty severe underpitching. A normal gravity beer should be
pitched with the slurry from a
2 liter starter (at the very least). High gravity fermentations are much
more challenging to the yeast,
and therefore more yeast should be pitched. It is really best to make
a "normal gravity" beer with
the yeast, and then pitch that slurry into your high-gravity brew.
As for what to do now: I'd grow up some more yeast and pitch it into the
keg. Use an airlock so that
CO2 pressure doesn't inhibit yeast growth.
Of course, it could just be that I am making all this up, and that your
beer should be done fermenting
and taste great at less than 50% apparent attenuation. It's so hard not
to be sarcastic lately...
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc (at JPullman127@aol.com) asks about a recipe for a good spiced beer.
While I don't have one,
I judged a Indian-curry spiced brown ale at the World Homebrew Contest
in 1996. It was probably
the best spiced beer I have ever evaluated. I (much) later found out
that it was brewed by Brian Rezac.
The beer went all the way to the "Jim Koch" round (where it didn't stand
a chance because there was
no way he was going to market something that unique.)
So out with it, Brian. Send Marc the recipe!
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Victor asks about the causes of higher (fusel) alochol production in
beer.
As I have somewhat recently posted, you can seldom say "always" or
"never" in brewing (life in general,
too), but here is one of those times:
Higher alcohol production is always increased by increased yeast growth.
So, anything that encourages tremendous yeast growth will increase those
nasty higher alcohols. You
mention that your fermentation temperature may have gotten quite high at
times. How high? That could
be the answer. Most ale yeasts will behave quite nicely in the low 60's
F (~17C). Try not to exceed that
by too much.
Or perhaps you are just "inventing" this off character to confuse others
and get attention for yourself?
Sorry, sorry, I'll try to stop...
Have fun!
George De Piro (Dizzy as a bumble bee in a twister in Nyack, NY; those
who know me get it)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 08:52:59 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: Response to MCAB Complaint
Hi folks:
John Murphy takes umbrage with the MCAB selection process used at the Boston
Wort Processors competition last February. This is, of course, not news to
either me or Ken Jucks (honcho of the BHC), as we have both exchanged voluminous
correspondence with Mr. Murphy. However, now that he has to chosen to press his
case in the court of public opinion -- which he has every right to do -- allow
me to respond on behalf of the MCAB. (Forgive the bandwidth consumption, but I
feel it is absolutely essential that public complaints such as this be promptly
and directly.)
The format of the MCAB is simple. The MCAB Steering Committee -- composed of
unpaid volunteers, who do their work largely by e-mail -- selects Qualifying
Events ("QE's") and Qualifying Styles ("QS's"). QE's "certify" the winners in
the QS's to the MCAB, and those entrants qualify to enter the MCAB in that QS.
QE's are given four simple MCAB rules: (1) accept beers from anywhere (e.g., no
entry restrictions based on geography or club membership), (2) feature all the
QS's, (3) use the BJCP Style Guide, and (4) meet certain minimal judge
requirements for the QS panels. Beyond this, the MCAB leaves the QE's free to
run their own competition as they see fit -- we don't try to micromanage their
affairs, although we're happy to help in whatever way we can and answer whatever
questions come up.
One question that came up last January was whether QE's had to make each QS a
separate ribbon category. The MCAB's response was that while we would prefer
that each QS be a separate ribbon category, we understood if competition wanted
to feature a QS as a subset of a larger category, particularly for those QS's
that typically draw only a handful of entries. (E.g., rather than having a
separate ribbon category for trippel, a QE could include it in a larger category
(Belgian strong ale).) However, the MCAB advised that if a QE wanted to go this
way, they would need to have a mechanism by which they selected the best QS beer
to certify to the MCAB, regardless of whether or not it won a ribbon in the
larger category, and under no circumstances could a non-QS beer be certified.
There are two basic ways that QE's have used to handle this situation. One is
that the highest placing QS beer in the larger ribbon category is certified as
the MCAB qualifying beer. The other is that all QS beers in the larger category
will be grouped together and evaluated in a preliminary round, with the "best"
beer selected in this "QS only" preliminary round certified as the MCAB
qualifier. There are advantages and disadvantages to each, but as the MCAB
leaves it up to the QE's to decide how their competition will be run, we let
them make the decision.
The BHC decided, in advance of the competition, to use the "QS only preliminary
round" method. Let me assure everyone that this *was* decided in advance -- Ken
Jucks and I discussed it well before the competition.
[continued]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:45:46 +1000
From: "C Perilloux" <peril@bigpond.com>
Subject: Ancient Wyeast
Regarding the 14 month old Wyeast 2042 which Peter Ryan bought
from the local brewshop, two points:
1) You can't blame Wyeast. The homebrew shop owner is the
one who controls the age of his stock. At least Wyeast stamps
a date on the packet, so you can tell before you buy it (unless it's
mail order) how old it is.
2) In any case, 14 months does NOT mean dead yeast. It will take
a lot longer to rise, probably. But if it's been refrigerated the whole
time, it'll work. I know. I've used 12 to 18 month old ones before
with good results. (I can't always blame the shop; I sometimes
leave them in my own fridge for months.)
A side note on Wyeast longevity: I found a truly ancient Wyeast
package in my Dad's fridge on a trip home last year. I don't remember
the exact age, but it was 4 to 5 years old! I popped it just to see if
it would take off, and two weeks later, as holiday was ended, the thing
was bulged and "ready". Sadly, I didn't have time to brew with it, but
a quick sniff and taste (yum!) indicated that it was indeed beer yeast.
Gawd I wish I'd had time to brew with it, just to see if it was still
viable and clean.
So Peter, I'd take it up with the shop owner, but only to the extent
that he'll replace it IF it doesn't take off. I bet it'll be OK. Relax!
And more on the subject of Wyeast dating. I bought a packet of
American 1056 over Christmas. December 29th. The date on the
packet was hard to read, but it was either 26/28/29 DEC '97!
Now did they jet that packet from the production line in Oregon to
a little homebrew store in New Orleans? Possibly. Or do they date
a whole week's production with one date? I would certainly hope
that they don't PRE-date items (hard to imagine getting away with
that). Curious.
Calvin Perilloux
Turrella, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:52:25 -0400
From: "Lerner, Neal" <NLerner@mcp.edu>
Subject: FREE 1" Rigid Foam Insulation
With the summer temps upon us and the talk about refrigeration, I wanted
to give a pitch for some FREE STUFF!! I have quite a bit of blue 1"
rigid foam insulation, certainly enough to make a couple of chilling
cabinets. You can have it for free if you're willing to come down to
the Boston/Brookline area. Let me know.
Neal Lerner
nlerner@mcp.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 19:08:46 -0700
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: Hop Drive
>Second, whilst I appreciate that you wished to investigate the top
>fermenting properties of the yeast, there are only two reasons to skim
>the brew: (1) It's climbing over the top of the fermentation bin, and
>the wife doesn't understand these things. (2) You want to keep some
>yeast for another brew. Other than those, leave it alone, it's as happy
>as a pig in muck in its warm sweet wort!
Apparently, the Germans seem to think that skimming the ferment is
beneficial:
"After 12 hours the so called hop drive takes place, in which the rising
yeast carries hop resins and trub particles to the surface of the
fermentation. If beer is fermenting in open vessels, these particles
can be removed using a slotted spoon or scraper. This practice is done
within the next 24 hours to ensure a clean fermentation and to minimize
the amount of unwanted substances in the harvest yeast." Warner p. 73
I have noticed a difference in beers where the krausen has been skimmed
after the "hop drive". Al K has experimented with this and indicates a
15% difference in bitterness (actually, he tested blowoff vesus
non-blowoff, but it is basically skimming or not skimming). I now skim
the krausen, after the hop drive, only when the krausen head has a lot
of crap in it, otherwise I just leave it alone.
It was reported here last week by Michael Rose that Pick 'n' Save has 10
gallon Gott coolers for $17.99. I am happy to report that I purchased
my 10 gallon cooler at McFrugals for the same price. I talked to the
store manager and he indicated this was a one time seasonal item.
Walmart sells the same item for $36.
Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:02:57 EDT
From: OCaball299@aol.com
Subject: re: Old Wyeast Pack
>>Peter Ryan writes:
>>Can't locate an email address for Wyeast so that I can tell what I think of
>>selling stock to a consumer 14 months after manufacture particularly when
>>one of the four keys to successful fermentation is listed on their pack as
>>"use the freshest yeast possible". Does anybody have an email address for
>>Wyeast?
>>I don't have an email address, but their web site is
http://www.wyeastlab.com
>>Tim Green
I've been able to contact them when I've had questions at
brewerschoice@wyeastlab.com (WyEast Laboratories)
Omar Caballero - Aurora, IL
"Live long and prosper" - Mr. Spock
... and have another Homebrew!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 07:14:06 -0700
From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak@adnc.com>
Subject: Not so sour?
Micah writes:
>Next grip. This is in regard to sour mash brewing. This topic comes up over
>and over again. Sour mash brewing is not a way to make psuedo-lambic. It is a
>legitimet brewing technique that is often used to produce beers with a very
>soft and full mouth feel. Quite the oppposite of a lambic.
>How many out there in HBD land have actually tasted a pale or amber ale that
>is sour mash?
>Likely a small percentage, I am certain.
>
>Just for the record, A SOURED MASH OR SOURED WORT WILL NOT YEILD A SOURED
>BEER ( assuming that the wort is boiled at some point after souring )
>
Wrongo b'dongo! I've sourmashed many beers, usually to recreate the
sourness of Guiness when making a dry stout. I've also used it for fruit
beers to make pseudo lambics. The beer definately WILL be sour...period.
Now obviously the degree of sourness depends on the length of the souring
rest but trust me, it will get sour. The only batch of beer that I had to
toss as a professional brewer was a stout that soured too much and was
undrinkable. Boiling will *not *remove the acidity (volatile acidity is
somewhat of a misnomer). If your beers are not coming out sour, you are not
letting the mash sit long enough.
I'd be happy to provide anyone great instructions...tried and true, for
souring a mash and I'd be happy to serve Micah a properly soured beer to
prove to him that he's wrong.
L8R
Charles
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:21:09 -0400
From: "Timothy Green" <TimGreen@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: RE: Curry Beer
In Papazian's book The Home Brewers Companion there is an all grain recipe
for what he calls Coconut Curry Hefeweizen. From the looks of the recipe, it
contains the major spices found in currys. I ke no judgement as that I have
not tried to make or drink it.
Tim Green
Mead is great...
Beer is good...
(But beer is much faster)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 09:18:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: curry; competitions; condemnation; CAMRA; creating fusels; c-size; chile beer
C-size? Well, it just HAD to start with C.
Greetings to all.
Jack has corrected his oversight. Go ahead. :-)
- - - - - - - - - -
> From: JPullum127@aol.com
> Subject: curry beer
Papazian has a recipe for a curry-flavored beer, either in New Complete Joy
of Homebrewing, or in Homebrewer's Companion (I don't recall). I've never
brewed it, can't testify yea or nay. It may be a good starting point.
- - - - - - - - - -
> From: John Murphy <jbm@ll.mit.edu>
> Subject: Competitions and categories
> In light of the recent discussion on how to run a competition "the right
> way," I'm curious how many people consider the following description the
> right way to qualify beers for MCAB:
If it's in line with their published rules, it's the right way. If not,
it isn't. If their rules as published were ambiguous, that's a problem
they should correct.
I haven't studied their published rules. Is there a specific rule you
think they have ignored? If you just don't like the rules they've chosen,
play in another sandbox or build your own (as they have done).
- - - - - - - - - -
> From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
> P.S. In general, it seems that we who read and contribute to these pages
> are too swift to condemn, and too impatient and uncharitable to give the
> benefit of the doubt. I would like to see more helpful tips and
> educational discussion here. We could do with less condemnation and
> placing blame. -HB
It's a terrible, terrible thing, and it's your fault. :-)
Well put.
- - - - - - - - - -
> according to CAMRA
> (Campaign for Real Ale) guidlines, once opened, the barrel should not have any
> external CO2 gas applied to it. ... I, and many others,
> are bitterly opposed to this ruling, and believe that cask-breathers, which
> allow low pressure CO2 to enter the cask as beer is drawn off, should be
> permitted.
I don't know CAMRA politics. Might it be possible to establish a category
of, say, "preserved" or "freshened" real ale, which has the blanket of
CO2? That way the purists can find the changing-taste, pseudo-medieval
experience they want, and everyone else can get Real Ale that is as fresh
as when the cask was opened.
It's probably already been considered and discarded. I mention it in case
it seems a workable idea. This would be a good forum in which to get such
a ball rolling.
- - - - - - - - - -
> From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren@smtp.cdie.org>
> Subject: What leads to the creation of higher/fusel alcohols?
> I live in a group house and we were trying to cut down on the gas bill
> ... Can the fluctuation in
> fermentation temperature lead to the formation of higher alcohols?
> ...when the heat was turned up it was REALLY turned up.
>From what I've read, excessive heat is the likely culprit. Fluctuation
can make the yeast fall out early, and can probably lead to off flavors,
but warm fermentation is the usual suspect for fusel alcohol.
Also, make sure you have filtered out, or siphoned off of, the hot break.
> Is there something else I should be looking at?
You should be watching Babylon 5 on TNT. Oh, about the beer...
Next time, you might want to get a tub of water and set the fermenter in
it. This will act as a thermal buffer, keeping the fermenter at a
steadier temperature. First, set out a tub of water for a couple of days,
and take its temperature -- see where it tends to settle. If it stays
around 65-75, you're OK for an ale. If it gets warmer, you might want to
put a wet towel or T-shirt over the fermenter, to cool it by evaporation.
Put the end of the towel or T-shirt in the tub of water to keep it wet.
- - - - - - - - - -
> From: Stephen Harrington <sjharrington@yahoo.com>
> Subject: Size Matters
> Following the advice of *every* billboard in LA, I decided to try my
> hand at a BIG Beer. ... My question is, how does one
> determine what the FG should be?
You can probably assume the FG will be about 25% of the OG.
Or, do a forced fermentation. This is simple. You take a sample (say a
cup or so), dose it heavily with yeast, and put it in a warm (80F) place.
It will ferment out fully (and may taste terrible, but who cares). Measure
this to get your expected final gravity. It's usually done by taking a
sample before the yeast is pitched, but it should work OK for this purpose
by taking a sample now.
If you used dry yeast, I'd just get another pack. If you used a liquid
yeast, I think you could use a dry yeast and still get a good estimate; it
may be less exact, but it's much cheaper than another smack pack.
- - - - - - - - - -
> From: cag17@cornell.edu
> Subject: Ginger Chile brew... am I nuts?
Well, you're part of HBD. 'Nuff said.
> I was thinking 4-6oz ginger and 6-8 roasted jalapenos.
If you're going to roast the jalapenos (or cut them open) I'd suggest you
take out the seeds and inner membranes. This is where the capsaicin fire
is mostly stored. Using just the flesh, you'll get more chile flavor, and
still get plenty of fire.
Also, fresh chiles will vary in heat, taking out the seeds and membranes
will reduce that variance, so you'll have better control repeating the
recipe.
I've heard of good results this way, and also by just using unroasted,
uncut chiles in the secondary. The undamaged chile skin keeps the beer
away from the membranes and seeds.
I dunno about the flavor balance, you might want to do some one-gallon
batches to get into the ballpark -- maybe split your five-gallon gingered
batch between one-gallon secondaries, with different chile dosage levels.
It's such a rarity, and such a matter for individual taste, I don't know
if anyone CAN give you good advice. Your suggested dose sounds reasonable
as a starting point.
> I would add the ginger to the boil, and after the primary ferment, add
> the jalapenos and maybe a little more ginger to the secondary.
I'd add the ginger late in the boil, maybe at end minus five minutes. You
don't want to boil out the aromatics.
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 98 10:05:35 CDT
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: natural gas/propane orfices
What are appropriate orfice sizes for propane and natural gas jet burners?
Is it variable? I have jet burners I suspect are jetted for methane but I use
propane. I can't seem to get a moderate flame without soot. It burns fine
at higher levels. The orfice looks large to me but I need to measure to see
if that is my problem.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 98 08:47:48 -0700
From: "Frank E. Kalcic" <fkalcic@flash.net>
Subject: FW: point of clarification- SS fermetors
In Jim R. Fortes' post in HBD #2735, he incorrectly identified the fermentor
at the website listed as my creation. I wish it were. Actually, I used the
photos for ideas and inspiration. I too, looked at purchasing or having a
conical made for me, but ran into the same stumbling block that Jim had.
Namely $$$$.
A few suggestions I had forwarded to Jim :
1) do you really need the conical feature? You will appreciate its function
primairlyif you are harvesting your yeast. Otherwise a racking arm will do
a better job of removing the clear beer from the trub.
2) A closed fermentor with an "IN" CO2 fitting combined with a racking arm
will allow you to transfer under pressure (allowing filtering if you wish)
and preventing infections or oxidation through exposure to air.
3) once you have a conical you now have to find a way to keep the temp at
the correct level during fermentation. It can be done, but walk in coolers
or glycol jackets and pumps are not inexpensive. Better to stick with
something that will fit in a fridge or chest freezer.
FYI I stayed away from the conicals available on the market and opted to
have SABCO modify their 1/2 Bbl keg fermentor as follows:
*1.5" TC flange welded to the side of the keg just below the lower
strengthening ring. (this is the racking arm port)
*get rid of the plumbing and fittings that run from the bottom of the keg to
the top & the temp gauge (more fittings =more hiding spots for nasties)
*use one of the Cornelius fitting on the top for a pressure release valve
with a pressure gauge. The other CO2 fitting will be connected to a
tube immersed in a liquid filled bucket (airlock) during initial fermentation
and then to an external CO2 supply when racking.
*the cornelius lid can be removed to manually scrub the interior of the
fermentor. (use a plastic scrubbie so as not to remove the passivation)
One can also carbonate naturally with this system if desired. Just remove
the blow off tube near the end of the ferment and set the pressure release
at the desired level.
The biggest drawback with a racking arm is that you will have to invest in a
TC valve ($135 - $150)and a few TC fittings. This TC clamp allow fairy
good seal while the arm is rotated to lower the liquid inlet. The racking arm
can be made by any local welder that has TIG capabilities.
Lastly one can look at surplus dairy locations for misc. equipment, but note
the conical slope should be 60 Deg. Anything less and you will have too much
yeast and trub sticking to the cone.
Check out http://www.capecod.net/~mduffley/fpage2.htm for some good photos
on a racking arm and what I consider a really nice/ functional fermentor.
I've been using my new fermentor / racking arm since January and am
really pleased with its ease of operation, cleaning and overall function.
Frank E. Kalcic
<`)))>>< <`)))>><
<`)))>>< <`)))>>< <`)))>><
------------------------------
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca
From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290@mail.usask.ca>
Subject: Public Thanks...
I just wanted to say a public thank you to the very kind people of the
Marquis de Suds homebrew club in Calgary Alberta. Randy Davis and his wife
Joanne were kind enough to put my wife and I up for a couple of nights last
weekend. I drove out to write the BJCP exam on Saturday, and we were
invited out to their summer wind-up BBQ that evening. Great food, and very
friendly people. They went out of their way to make us feel welcome.
Again, thanks.
On the old Wyeast thread: a friend was given a very old pack from a
homebrew shop. I think it was >2 years old or so. [Exactly how old was it,
Steve?] He had no problems with it. It still swelled, and it worked just fine.
Also, last summer I bought a discounted pack that was over a year old, and I
only got around to using it a few months ago (it was about 18 months old at
the time). It worked absolutely fine. It was the German Wheat 3333. I
also remember reading an account on rcb about someone who lost a smack pack
under the seat of their car, and didn't find it for over a year. In that
time, it endured a Canadian winter and summer: something like -30C to +30C.
It still worked too. In short, don't worry about the age of the pack. Only
worry if it doesn't swell.
- -- Mark
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:14:28 -0400
From: Denis Barsalo <denisb@cam.org>
Subject: GCHC/NHC First Round Winners
Attention:
The 1998 Great Canadian Homebrew Competition was a success, with 170
entries from across Canada. This is the first year that we have combined
the GCHC and the first round of the American Homebrewers Association's
National Homebrew Competition (NHC). Winners of this competition
automatically move on to the next round of the NHC. Visit our web site to
get a complete list of winners.
http://realbeer.com/caba/98_GCHC_winners.html
Denis Barsalo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:44:45 -0400
From: oberlbk@NU.COM
Subject: Black Treacle
Tony Barnsley had sent me a message with a recipe for Old Peculier. I have
since managed to lose his email address. Tony, please send me a message
with your email address.
Separate issue:
In my attempt at making Old Peculier, I managed to burn some malt extract
onto the bottom of my SS pot. I have used a green scrubbie and still
cannot remove it. Any suggestions on how to get it off my pot??? I have
already tried a 3 day soak in Powder Brewery Wash.
Brent Oberlin
East Hampton, CT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 10:11:57 -0700
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: De-leading the surface of Brass
Welcome back, Victor.
To de-lead the surface of brass, soak the item for roughly 5 minutes in
a 2:1 volume ratio of Distilled Vinegar (5%by volume) and Hydrogen
Peroxide (3% by volume). Eg. 2 cups Vinegar to 1 cup H2O2.
The brass will turn a buttery gold color as it cleans. If the solution
turns blue, then the copper is dissolving which exposes more lead to the
surface, and you have to start over again with a fresh solution.
Someone wrote me last week and mentioned that they had left it in way
too long and their part turned black. Buffing with steel wool or
scotchbrite in vinegar would be a good idea then, followed by the
de-leading procedure..
John Palmer
Monrovia CA (not far from the Rose Bowl)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:15:50 -0700
From: "Sandlin, Jonathan Mark - BUS" <SANJM304@bus.orst.edu>
Subject: beer stabalizers
I recently found some information on beer stabalizers. I am
specifically interested about two products: silica hydrogel and pvpp. Are
these stabalizers avaliable to homebrewers? Any information would be
greatly appreciated. Thank you, everybody, for your help in the past.
Jon Sandlin
Corvallis, OR
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 12:34:51 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Curry beer
Marc asks about curry beer.
Yes, I've made one. It was a roaring failure. Not because it wasn't
good, but because it was out-of-style. You see... every year the Chicago
Beer Society holds the "Spooky Brew Review" competition. Since it is
around Halloween, there is a "Scariest Beer" category. About 6 or 7
years ago, I was making an entry for this category and looked in the
cupboard for some scary additives. I didn't quite catch the notion
of how scary some of the entries can be. Previous winners include:
* a map of the Mississippi valley with a hole in it which was placed
over the neck of the bottle and when the bottle was opened, the beer
gushed over the map,
* a bottle which contained "Creepy Crawlers" which rode out of the bottle
on a cloud of foam, and
* a bottle which contained baby squid (which turned the beer purple,
incidentally)... now *that's* scary!
To make a short story long, I simply took a teaspoon of McCormick (sorry)
Curry Powder and soaked it in an ounce of vodka for a week. I then
opened a bottle of carbonated beer and put in a few drops. BJCP National
judge Steve Hamburg said "not scary at all... probably would have done
well in the Herb and Spice category."
Perhaps if I would have soaked 12 teaspoons of Curry Powder in 12 ounces
of vodka and then added a few drops of beer?
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 10:55:27 -0700
From: "Mercer, David" <dmercer@path.org>
Subject: RE: Stuck in Seattle
Thanks George. You are correct, of course. I did under pitch (although
not by as much as it seems - when I wrote that it was a 1.5 liter
starter, I should have mentioned that I had fed it twice, so it was
really closer to the yield from 3 liters. Plus, I use a magnetic stirrer
- which I have found has had a significant positive effect on the amount
of yeast I get from a typical starter. Also, I dissolved a lot of pure
O2 into the wort prior to pitching.) But I can't get around the fact
that I should have pitched more yeast. I'll take your advice and
re-pitch some more yeast. Only I'm inclined to rack again into a carboy
before I do. There isn't a lot of head space in the keg (the beer comes
up to the edge of the intake tube) and I'm assuming that re-pitching
will result in a new kreuzen. I'm also assuming that I do NOT want to
re-oxygenate this thing. Are both assumptions correct?
Dave in Seattle
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 20:00:29 +0200
From: "Hubert Hanghofer" <hhanghof@netbeer.co.at>
Subject: RE: open vs. closed fermentation
Al wrote in HBD2733:
"I also question the statement (which Warner does not reference -- I
just checked) that (in Warner's words), yeast collected from open
fermentations retain "vitality" through hundreds of repitchings
while yeast from closed fermentations must be recultured after 10
uses. To make such a blanket statement about every strain of yeast,
this simply *cannot* be true. I know of several breweries using
closed fermenters and are repitching yeast many times Warner's
limit of 10."
This is by far no blanket statement and well documented by our
experience and German literature. I don't know Warners book yet but I
think it focuses on wheat and thus not on "every strain of yeast". For
example it's known that wheat yeast, when repiched in cylindroconical
fermenters, looses its ability to produce 4VG (clove character).
-Narziss wrote, that 4VG can be held in the desired range of 1.2-1.7ppm,
if yeast is only used for 2-3 *closed* fermentings.
This may explain differences in wheat beer characteristics produced
from starter cultures vs. repitched yeast - as has been reported lately
on this forum.
Among the local breweries that I know, those with closed primary
fermenters usually have weekly repitching schedules and use aerobic
propagators - both for wheat *and* for lagers.
~~~~~
...BTW, I feel open fermentation is often confused with some kinds of
"covered" fermentations (eg. using blow off tubes) because of lacking
definitions. I think Sam Mize gave the perfect one in HBD2733:
"...where air is allowed relatively free access
to the fermenting wort, or at least the krausen..."
I do so in sealing the fermenter with a sheet of linen or cotton to
keep dust an critters out. The sheet has been sanitized in boiling
water an dried on a line - so there may be air born nasties onto it. Be
careful with air drying or true open fermentation in "flowery"
environment, I've heard flowers and blossoms may carry wild yeasts
...that's the reason I never buy flowers for my wife ;-). Otherwise
there's no need to worry about infections as long as you keep to
standard (!thorough!) sanitation practice, pitch a healthy amount of
viable yeast and rack into closed fermenters / bottle when the krausen
falls (otherwise you risk oxidation defects and excessive diacetyl
formation, too).
In general, using open fermenters, you can expect a more vigorous and
faster primary fermentation, especially if aeration is on the lower
side. Effects on beer character are desirable for certain classic
beerstyles, especially for wheat.
IMHO
CHEERS &
sehr zum Wohle!
Hubert, brewing in Salzburg, Austria
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 13:11:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: DMS and cooling
Jack takes me to task for using "weasel words" [my term] like "can,"
"may" and "I feel." These words were chosen specifically because every
brewers experience and senses are different.
Now let's get down to what I really was saying:
* I explained how slow cooling produces more DMS than fast cooling,
* I explained how slow cooling can still produce a low-DMS beer,
* I noted how the tasters' senses could even be a factor.
What I was responding to, was a statement made by two people, who
said that, for them, slow cooling was not a problem and they
extrapolated this as being true for others, suggesting a grand
conspiracy amongst the homebrew information mongers who were getting
rich by foisting fictitious faults and imagined improvements (take
that Dr. Pivo! ;^).
I was simply pointing out reasons that you and the other poster
may have been happy with your slow-cooled beers, *BUT* that other
brewers may not be so blessed. I used the word "excessive" rather
than 1.573 mg/l because the proper amount for one beer style
(say, Munchner Helles or Koelsch) may be excessive for another (say,
Wit or Bitter).
Finally, need I remind you Jack, that I'm a BJCP Master judge and
one doesn't reach this level by telling every entrant that their
beer has excessive DMS. If I had, I would have long since been
banished from the BJCP or put on permanent dump bucket duty.
Don't worry folks... Jack likes to tease me like this, just to keep
me on my toes.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
P.S. Check out http://www.dahl.com/scrap.htm and then go to Dave's Raves.
No, that's not our Dave, but rather Dave McBride.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2736, 06/10/98
*************************************
-------
