Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2741
HOMEBREW Digest #2741 Tue 16 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:
Conical Bottoms ("John S. Thomas")
Trip to England (Wade Hutchison)
re: small fridge fermentation chiller ("TES")
Gott EM, PU (Jack Schmidling)
Bamforth's book and weak pale ale. ("Graham Wheeler")
re: HBD contest winners (NAZELROD)
Kettle outflow system; FWH ("Bret Morrow")
Alpha Acids/Color (AJ)
Add the black malt late ("Larry N. Smith")
PrimeTabs (Kevin Peters)
Starter gravity/foam retention (Dave Humes)
Whirlpool creation ("Steven Braun")
Return of the Son of AHA Bashing ("Mark S. Johnston")
RE; Alternate bottle filling Technique (Jerry Minasi)
Attitudes (Paul Niebergall)
Alternate Bottle Filling Technique - Vacuum (Dan Schultz)
stuck fermentation (John Herman)
Old Yeast and spores (David Lamotte)
AHA Whining ("Randy Erickson")
Oops ! (Anthony Capocelli)
BJCP Exam (PDWaltman)
So Jethro is the new spokesperson? (Jim Liddil)
Polycar - My Datapoint (Clint Thessen)
Re: AHA (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Blueberry vs. Raspberry? (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Testing momilies (Spencer W Thomas)
FWH (Dan Pillsbury)
Words of wisdom (Bill Giffin)
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: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 10:29:32 -0700
From: "John S. Thomas" <jthomas@iinet.com>
Subject: Conical Bottoms
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 $$$$.
Frank E. Kalcic writes a few suggestions for Jim Fortes.
1) Do you really need the conical feature? You will appreciate its function
primairly if you are harvesting your yeast. Otherwise a racking arm will do
a better job of removing the clear beer from the trub.
Frank I am not convinced that small batch brewers do not need a conical
bottom fermentor. Carboys work fine and many have the gold to prove it, I
will buy that! But for some reason humanity is always looking for a better,
more efficient and more sanitary way. Seems to be our nature. Also most
brewpub and micros I have visited spend big bucks on conical bottom
fermentors. People have invented gadgets that will turn a carboy over so it
looks and acts like a conical bottom fermentor. There has gotta be a
reason. There must be a need. Life is more fun with a conical.
Consider this, filling from the bottom and aerating inline before the bottom
valve is less risky and much easier. Removing dead yeast cell everyday from
the bottom valve is quick and easy. Open the large valve at the apex and
drain off the dead yeast daily. Takes five minutes and you also get a
specific gravity reading too boot. Spray the valve with a diluted solution
of bleach and no infection risk. Verses pouring wort in through the top
and the attendant infection risks and back breaking labor. Verses
transferring wort after sitting on the yeast for a week or so is risky and
labor intensive.
The conical bottom is a big improvement in labor saving and infection risk
reduction. All transfers are in a closed, not exposed to the air, system.
Yeast is not left on the bottom to impart off flavors. The secondary
fermentation vessel, transfer risk, siphons and labor to transfer are
history. The racking valve and arm eliminates the siphons and associated
risk. Everything that falls out of suspension will collect at the apex
above the large one-inch valve because of the 60 degree angle cone. This
angle has survived the ages, it works.
2) 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.
Temperature maintenance is easy. Copper tubing, insulation jacket, pump and
holding tank for cold water are not that expensive and the pump can be use
to move wort from the kettle to the Hop Jack and fermentor before the
cooling cycle begins. The problem with moving carboys and iceboxes is
lifting them out and stirring up the yeast. I guess we are back to labor
saving devices, yeast on the bottom and infection risk again.
3)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.
Frank you worry about the cost of pumps and jackets but are willing to spend
$135 to $150 on a tri-clover fitting for a racking arm. What is wrong with
the lab clamp originally offered on the HBE fermentor or the new racking
valve and arm? You can take them off and sanitize with ease. The racking
valve is standard equipment with all new fermentor sizes plus you can buy a
racking arm with ball lock or you can make your own and save a few bucks. I
will even show you how.
Frank because HBE is my business someone may find fault but look at the
reasoning it, like the conical, will stand the test of time.
John S. Thomas
Hobby Beverage Equipment Co.
909-676-2337
jthomas@minibrew.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 14:42:41 -0400
From: Wade Hutchison <whutchis@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Trip to England
Well, in a little over a week, I'm going to hop across the pond and
spend about 3 weeks in England and Scotland. I was wondering if the
collective had any advice for "must see" spots to visit. I'm already
planning on going to Tadcaster and trying to get a tour of the Sam Smith
brewery, which I understand is only available on weekends. Anyone
confirm or deny this? I'm also planning on stopping by Traquair House
in Scotland and checking out at least the guest house and grounds, if
not the brewery. We'll be in Portsmith, London, York, and Edinborough, so
if anyone has reccomendations for these locations relating to beer, food,
scotch or beer, please let me know. Post here, or private email will be
fine. Thanks in advance.
-----wade hutchison
whutchis@bucknell.edu
Wade Hutchison, College Engineer
Bucknell University, College of Engineering
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~whutchis
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:23:35 -0400
From: "TES" <tom@struzik.com>
Subject: re: small fridge fermentation chiller
Hello all -
I came into possession of a small dorm fridge after college. It is cube
model that uses the 'freezer' compartment to cool the rest of the fridge.
Using heavy insulating board (that is around 2" thick & coated with a
tin-like metal), I created a small lagering fridge that holds one 5 gallon
carboy. I would be happy to describe it in detail to anyone interested, but
the synopsis is;
1. I first took a couple small pieces of plywood and made a small frame in
the shape of an upside-down 'T' & re-enforced it with metal brackets.
2. Attached a box made from the insulating material to one side of the 'T'
3. Attached the compressor & all the other fridge components to the other
side of the 'T'
4. Put the 'freezer shelf' inside the new insulated box. This part is a
little tricky and requires you to bend the shelf out somewhat flat. It also
requires that this be done without damaging in any way the pipe that goes
from the compressor to the 'freezer shelf'
5. I made a lid from the same material & it sits on top of this box held
down by a couple of bungee cords.
6. I then added a thermostat control to regulate temp.
I guess that it is not the prettiest thing in the world, but it works great.
Apart from the items mentioned previously, it is made from a couple of rolls
of duct tape & spray foam insulation. I have lagered several batches in it
& I have no complaints. It could probably be made to hold 2 carboys if it
was kept in a relatively cool place.
- Tom
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:41:45 -0700
From: Jack Schmidling <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Gott EM, PU
(Brian Pickerill)says:
Subject: RE:AG Equip (You can let go of the button now: EM vs Phill's)
"Thankfully, some of our best brewing minds have figured out ways for us
not to have to "hold that push button in!" :)
Another JSP first. No spigot.. no button.
Just for the record, the "Gott" version of the EM was not my idea
and I have never used one. A retailer on the west coast was buying
standard EM's and throwing away most of the hardware and selling
them for coolers. He talked me into supplying only what he needed
and the product was born. All we added was a bored stopper so the
customer didn't have to hunt one up. One simply pokes this into
the hole in the cooler and puts a hose on the end. The flow can
be controller with a hose pincher or simply by lifting the end to
the level that provides the proper flow.
" BTW, this was my fault anyhow, and not the Phil's as I overshot my
protein rest and really didn't have one to speak of. 140F for 15' then
150F for 45', w/50% wheat malt, in case you're interested--not a
recommended mash schedule.
Well, I'm glad you are satisfied that you found the problem but I
would not bet a penny on the hypothesis.
"I ended up transferring the stuck mash into a 5 gallon pot w/ Easy
Masher. That was stuck at first, too. Blowing into the outlet tube
didn't help. Stirring near the screen didn't help.
Stirring near the screen is the best way to convert an EASYmasher into
a STUCKmasher. Don't ever do it. the best cure is to stir the
entire mash, blow to clear the screen and go out for a LONG beer.
Rushing only makes matter worse.
Remember, the screen is NOT a filter, the grain bed is. All the screen
does is keep the spigot from clogging. As I have said many times,
I suspect one could sparge without the screen but I don't have the
chutzpa to try it. Besides, it would be bad for business.
" BTW, the first thing I did when I bought the EM was to file off the
ridge and de-lead the surface brass--the 'ridge' is not the source of the
air in the hose....
Where else could it be coming from? Maybe a crack in the hose?
"PS. I guess we'll never see an "Easy Chiller."
It's hanging in my brewery. Not so easy to make but very easy
to use. I just look at it and ponder how easy it is to just
let it hang there and let nature cool the wort. But it's even
easier if you just turn the page when you come to that part of
the brewing bibles.
..........
I suspect Dr Pivo will enjoy my new web page wherein I describe in
abject humility, the World's Greatest Brewery. In particular, the
fact that experts can't tell difference between my PU clone and the
real thing. This is only reinforced by the fact that REAL connoiseurs
prefer mine.
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff......... http://ays.net/jsp
Astronomy....... http://user.mc.net/arf
ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 21:26:02 +0100
From: "Graham Wheeler" <Graham.Wheeler@btinternet.com>
Subject: Bamforth's book and weak pale ale.
Jeff Renner's comments on Charles Bamforth's "Art & Science of Brewing"
were very welcome. However, I would suggest that Charles Bamforth is
correct when he states that Export India Pale Ale was a relatively weak
beer (he did use the word relatively). Certainly my limited researches on
the subject came to the same conclusion. I think this is another of those
cases where someone somewhere erroneously wrote that IPA's were strong
beers (as one would naturally expect them to be), and it has become etched
in stone ever since.
Documents, particularly price lists, from various breweries for the late
1800's show that export pale ale *was* weaker than that brewed for home
consumption. Export Bass pale ale of about 1887 was OG 1060-65: that for
home consumption 1070-75. Unfortunately, old price lists do not give any
indication of hopping rate, and trying to interpret surviving recipes is
difficult. James Herbert in "The Art of Brewing", 1871, states: [India Pale
Ale] "This class of ale is brewed similar to the pale ale for home
consumption; the difference in the two articles being this: the export beer
has less saccharine and more hops infused." He doesn't elaborate on this
much, other than state that pale ale for home consumption is brewed at 26lb
(1073-ish).
Bamforth is incorrect, though, when states that "The export of beer first
took off with the shipping of vast quantities of so-called India Pale Ale."
Porter and brown beers were exported in even "vaster" quantities long
before pale ale hit an ususpecting public. At it's peak 1832-33 import of
pale ale into India was 12,000 bbls (UK 36 gals), and by 1835-36 this had
dropped to a mere 6,780 bbls. Compare this with 23,000 bbls exported to
Europe in 1787 through just one port, Hull. Figures from the London ports
for the same period would certainly make 23,000 bbls look like a drop in
the ocean. No doubt IPA was sold in various other parts of the world
successfully, but it would seem, from an export point of view, that pale
ale was never what it was cracked up to be.
Graham Wheeler
High Wycombe
England
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 16:49:19 -0400
From: NAZELROD@tst.tracor.com (NAZELROD)
Subject: re: HBD contest winners
"Jim & Shelly Wagner" <wagner@toad.net> writes:
>Subject: HBD contest winners
>
>Just a quick congradulations to the HBD subscribers who placed in the 1998
>Spirit of Free Beer Homebrew contest, especially to George De Prio and
>George Fix for taking 1st and 3rd respectively in BOS...there were 439
>entries....good job guys!!!
>
>P.S. Gary Nazelrod....if you are out there, forgive me....I've just never
>seen a post from you.
>
><<<<<<Stoney Creek Brewing>>>>>>
>**********Pasadena, Maryland********
> Established-1994
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
I have been faithfully lurking for about 5 years, with very few posts. It is
quite an honor to be sandwiched between The Georges for BOS. The HBD has been
the most important factor in the quality of my beer.
thanks
Gary Nazelrod
Silver Spring, MD
Now back to lurk mode!
(maybe I will delurk a bit more often)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 15:39:34 PDT
From: "Bret Morrow" <bretmorrow@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kettle outflow system; FWH
Greetings,
I am modifying 2 kegs into boiling kettles by adding a 1/2 inch copper
outflow system with a ball valve. I have seen several versions on the
web which use a stainless steel nipple welded into the keg. I do not
wish to do this. It sounds extremely painful ;-> Has anyone modified
their keg using off the shelf fittings? A complete list of fittings
necessary and directions would be appreciated. I am also planning on
adding a sight gauge.
On a related note, is there any concern regarding the propane burner
(35,000 BTU) unsodering the joint on the dry side of the ball valve?
With regards to first wort hopping (FWH):
"To Make Small Beer, Take a large sifter of Bran, Hops to your Taste, -
Boil these 3 hours then strain out 30 Gallons into a Cooler..."
-George Washington
First in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen,
AND first in wort hopping
TIA with my appologies for the last comment,
Bret Morrow
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 19:05:14 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Alpha Acids/Color
Tony Barnsley wanted to know how to measure the alpha acid content of
hops. ASBC has two methods. In both step one is to extract the acids
with toluene. Five grams of freshly ground hops are extracted with 100
mL toluene by shaking for 30 minutes. In the spectophotometric methoh a
5 mL aliquot of the toluene extract is diluted to 100 mL with methanol.
This dilution is in turn diluted with alkaline methanol to get the
absorbtion of the second dilution into the optimum range of the
spectrophotometer at 325 and 355 nm. The photometer is zeroed on a blank
made diluting 5 mL pure toluene using the same procedure as for the
sample and the absorbance of the sample then measured at 355, 325 and
275 nm (i.e. the photometer must have UV capability). Alpha acid is
determined by an equation linear in the three absorbances. A similar
equation with different coefficients gives beta acid.
Alternatively, alpha acids can be determined by conductimetric titration
with lead acetate. Toxic pyridine is involved.
Both of these seem more trouble than they are worth (but e-mail if you
want more details). Another thought would be to brew identical batches
of beer with a single hops addition using equal amounts of hops of known
acid content and the unknown hops. Measurement of relative bitterness
of the beers (acids are extracted with iso-octane and absorbance
measured at 275 nm - the procedure is much simpler, nasty toluene is not
involved and you have beer as a by product of the test) then gives the
realtive alpha acid content of the hops.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Color relationships (H.B.S &Y, p 811):
EBC = 2.65*SRM - 1.2
SRM = 0.375*EBC + 0.46
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 23:11:27 +0000
From: "Larry N. Smith" <lnsmith@montana.com>
Subject: Add the black malt late
I must say, the most interesting, and possibly most useful thing I've
learned on this forum lately was the concept of adding "black malts"
late in the mash. I recently brewed a "clean-up" stout that differed
from my previous stouts by adding roasted barley and some black
patent at mash-out, rather than at the start of the mash.
Upon tasting the beer tonight, as I was transferring it into the
secondary, boy am I impressed at the strong aroma combined
with a smoothness in flavor that I have not had previously.
I must say that my recipe (if you could call it that) included a
bunch of black grain, 1 lb of roasted barley and 1/2 lb of black
patent, in a grain bill that totalled something like 11.5 lb to attain
a SG of 1.058. I was skeptical when I tasted it tonight and was
surprised with the lack of a distinctly "toasted" flavor bite.
In my years of brewing (15?) I'm amazed that I didn't hear or think
of this technique before. I would definitely suggest experimenting
with "late" additions of black grains in the brewing of stouts,
porters, or good-ol' black HOMEBREW!
(on the topic of competitions, LET THE JUDGES DECIDE!)
Larry in Montana
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 08:11:14 -0400
From: kpeters@ptd.net (Kevin Peters)
Subject: PrimeTabs
I recently saw an advertisement for these. According to the
description, they are 500mg tablets of corn sugar used for
bottle priming. Suggested rate is 2 to 5 tablets per bottle.
Has anyone out there actually tried these, and what were
the results?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 98 09:26:20 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net>
Subject: Starter gravity/foam retention
*** starter gravity ***
Why does Wyeast recommend a gravity of 1.020 - 1.030 for a starter? I can
think of lots of reasons why you would't want the starter gravity to be
too high, but 1.020 is less than half the gravity of most "normal" beers.
I would think it would be good to get the yeast acclimated to your wort
gravity while it's still in the starter. Also, wouldn't you get a
somewhat higher cell count from a more normal gravity starter? What's the
tradeoffs between using a low gravity starter and one closer to a more
normal gravity beer?
*** foam retention ***
I remember a few weeks ago someone saying something about excessive
foaming prior to or during fermentation (such as during aeration) making
less material available for foam in the finished beer. I also recall that
this was blown off as an old thread that periodically resurfaces but with
no supporting data or references. Well, I was just thumbing through the
new book "Beer: Tapping into the Art and Science of Brewing", by Charlie
Bamforth and it seems that the author has a rather strong opinion on the
subject. Let me quote from page 146: "Second, any foaming during the
process [fermentation] reduces the amount of material that will survive to
support the head on the finished beer in the glass. To minimize this
foaming, many brewers add antifoam agents, most frequently those based on
silicone. It is essential to remove them efficiently in the filtration
operation; otherwise they will damage the head in the beer itself."
Although I have not heard of this author prior to this writing, according
to the cover flap he is a recognized authority in brewing science. In any
case, I think the idea needs to be given some credibility. It's probably
worth doing some tests comparing the results of aeration using pure O2
compared to air, since in order to get equivalent levels of dissolved O2,
considerably more foam production results from using air.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net> Dave Humes
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 07:45:08 +0000
From: "Steven Braun" <visualdelights@powernet.net>
Subject: Whirlpool creation
I am in the process of converting a 15 gallon keg into a brewing kettle. I
have studied and examined every web page I could find and have a good idea
of what I am doing. BTW thanks to everyone who has taken the time to create
these sites, they are wonderfully helpful. What I am thinking about doing is
putting a 1/2 inch stainless port about 1/3 the way up the keg wall,
attaching an internal elbow and then using the pump to create a whirlpool
after the boil. I would be drawing off the bottom. Will the pump at about 3
gallons a minute be able to create the vortex I need? Has anyone done this
that could shed light on my theory? or should I just forget about it and
have another pale ale?
Steven Braun
Rindshine Brewing
Reno, Nevada
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 11:06:52 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst@talon.net>
Subject: Return of the Son of AHA Bashing
Getting back to the spark that triggered this thread:
I have attended NHC First Rounds as a judge for several years now. I've
talked with the organizers each time, and assisted them a bit during the
'96 and '97 comps. The problem as I see it is that the comp has actually
gotten beyond the control of the AHA.
No! This is not a blanket defense of the AHA. I believe that they LET it
get out of control. The process involves the AHA selecting a site within
the specified region. (The region being drawn as a demographic of the
number of entries received during last year's NHC.) The site is usually
selected based upon the location of a volunteer or volunteers who agree to
host and organize the event. Sometimes the AHA approaches them, sometimes
they approach the AHA. If it works out, the same person is expected to
continue as host until they get sick of it.
When you volunteer as a host, you are given a budget for mailing, copying,
lunch for judges, and other incidentals. The AHA also provides some other
materials, but nothing extra. Those of you attending sites where parties,
brewery tours, dinners, or other events were staged should be aware that
they were sponsored completely by the host volunteers, NOT the AHA.
In some cases the budgets provided are sufficient. In other cases they are
not. Last year the AHA was more responsive to increasing budgets slightly
where needed. I'm not sure if that's always the case.
It is a LOT of work to run a competition site with 500 to 800 (at times)
entries -- even with a single bottle. It is often more work than one or
two people can handle. And is relatively thankless. Judges are
dissatisfied with site conditions. Entrants are disatisfied with their
scoresheets. The site hosts take a good bit of flak for a lot of things
beyond their control. (As does the AHA.) The burnout rate is indicated by
the number of times the site changes over the years.
This year the problem appeared to be that either no one volunteered, or
the volunteers pulled out. In either case, the specific fault of the AHA,
as I see it, was in not lining up a backup. Even at the last minute, some
work could have been done to alleviate the situation.
This comp has grown from 4 sites a couple years ago to 8 sites this year.
The AHA needs to get better control of it if they are going to continue in
this vein. I would also suggest that they, as a sponsoring organization,
put a bit more into it. The entry fees are sufficiently high to offer at
least a few rewards and percs to those working the comp. A free ticket to
the Conference on the other side of the country is a nice gesture, but may
be financially useless when travel and lodging must also be obtained.
Sorry. I'll let us get back to brewing now.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 12:47:38 -0400
From: Jerry Minasi <jminasi@banet.net>
Subject: RE; Alternate bottle filling Technique
Comment on your HBD article.
This is how I bottle my beer without leaving any beer behind:
First, and most important, I have found that by using liquid yeast, that I
get a very firm yeast cake. I prefer Wyeast 2112, 1007 . I use plastic
pails, with a drain valve mounted about one inch above the bottom.
When fermentation stops, in about a week-ten days, I can transfer to my
secondary, (glass carboy), for dry hopping. I can tip the pail and drain
all the clear beer off the top of the cake.
Two weeks later, with a fine hop bag tied over the end of my racking cane,
I syphon the beer out into the plastic pail, (Now my bottling pail). Add
the priming sugar sirup, stirring gently but thoroughly so as not to
aerate. I place the pail on a milk case next to my sink, hook up my
bottling, spring tip filler, and fill.
I too use a vacuum pump.Here's how:
After cooling my wort from the boil, I strain the hops out and transfer the
wort into my glass, 5 Gal. carboy. Let it stand for 2 or 3 hours. All the
break material settles to the bottom one inch.
I syphon out about 3/4. How much you syphon out depends on the size of you
collection bottle.
Then I hook up my vacuum pump, with an extra valve teed into the vacuum
pump line. this is so I can immediately stop the suction.
(Don't like to suck beer into the pump...Guess why I decided to add this!).
The vacuum pump line is connected to the "out" tube of the drilled stopper
of a two gal. collection bottle. The "in" tube of the stopper connects to
my racking cane that I hold in the 5 gal glass carboy.
This method give me very clean wort with no break material. All I have left
in my primary, when racking, is firm, reusable yeast. I save the yeast
cake in quart containers, refrigerate, and reuse in my next batch. I have
stored this yeast for over two months.
Keep on brewing...It just gets better!
Jerry Minasi jminasi@banet.net Shirley, Long Island, NY
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 10:50:58 -0500
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Attitudes
Marc wrote in HBD2739:
>>No sweat man....it's not you in particular, and I apologize if it
>>appeared to be aimed at you as an individual, it's just that it seems
>>that the HBD (which I too rely on for help and guidance) has become a
>>bashing forum for the self appointed so-called experts. (not implying
>>you!)
Cheers! My sentiments exactly. What particularly annoys me is the
attitude of a few individuals who think it is their sole responsibility in life
to respond to every question posted in the HDB. Like it is their job or
something. I don't know how many times I've have read a post that
begins like this:
"Sorry I haven't been able to get to all of your posts lately. I've been on
vacation (busy at work, in the hospital, whatever). I will try to answer all
of the posts over the next few days, so please be patient........"
Like anyone gives a rats *ss. Anyway, when I challenge these people
(and you know who they are), I usually get a very noble response that
goes something like this:
"I care about home brewing and I am just trying to help further the hobby.
Newbies need my advice so that the overall quality of home brew can
improve and I am on the forefront of this crusade. Your sarcastic posts
are are hurting all homebrewers because thay are un-scientific and may
cause an unsuspecting newbie to try something different, make bad
beer, become disappointed, and then drop the hobby all together"
All of which sounds great and is extremely hard to argue with. Except
now, after thinking about this for a couple of years, I think I have come
up with a reasonable position and it goes something like this:
All of the head bashing from those up on high causes homebrewers to
believe that they cannot possibly brew good beer and that all of their
hard efforts will be rewarded with crummy beer. This attitude is very
self-defeating and can cause people to stop brewing. I would argue that
more people have stopped homebrewing because it has become too
complicated to enjoy than have dropped homebrewing because someone
forgot to warn them about HSA.
It is not the information that I dispute, it's the delivery.
Anyway more sarcasm to follow ;)
Dr. Pivo suggests that we should conduct an experiment to test the "no
cooling effect". I say great, but we won't be able to rely on the data
generated because anyone foolish enough to take part in this experiment
obviously doesn't have a refined enough taste to evaluate beer properly.
I suggest that all samples be sent to me. I have impeccable taste and will
render my personal opinion on your beer. Also, please enclose a check
for $200 dollars with each sample so that I can have the samples
analyzed by GC/MS for flavor components and back up my evaluations
with hard data.
Anyway, sorry for the wasted bandwidth (ooh, I'm a dirty bandwidth
waster).
Paul Niebergall
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 08:50:12 -0700
From: Dan Schultz <dschultz@primenet.com>
Subject: Alternate Bottle Filling Technique - Vacuum
Using a vacuum to pull the beer into the bottles is novel but I would
try it on a few bottles first before using it on an entire batch. The
vacuum will pull some of the CO2 out of solution leaving more work for
the primer. Your beers will likely be flat. You can try to compensate
with more priming sugar but an overdose could lead to bottle bombs.
Here's a alternative solution: Get a bottling bucket that has a spigot
at the bottom. No siphon hassles here.
Burp,
-Dan
>From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
>Subject: Alternate Bottle Filling Technique---Comments needed..
>I am always frustrated when I bottle because I can't get all the beer at
>the bottom of the bucket. If I use the choreboy or the plastic tip on a
>acking cane, a lot of beer gets left behind. Without these, debris clogs
>the Phil'sPhiller. I have ruined many bottles of beer trying to clear the
>Philler; they get too much air. Since I have access to a vacuum pump (but
>no CO2 equipment) I thought I would try something different.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 13:39:56 -0400
From: John Herman <johnvic@interport.net>
Subject: stuck fermentation
Recently I brewed a stout, the OG was 1.051, but after 2 weeks the FG
was 1.026. I bottled it anyway, and of course it's sweet and way over
carbonated. I believe the problem was a stuck fermentation. What could
I have done to save this batch? Pitch more yeast?
Thanks,
John Herman
johnvic@interport.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 11:04:33 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Old Yeast and spores
G'day
Three related events seems to have converged on me over the past week
or so.
Firstly, I enjoyed the feedback from brewers following Peter Ryan's
complaints of Old Wyeast Pack, and their successes with packs of
varying antiquity.
Secondly, I finally got around to us using a Bohemian Pilsener yeast
packaged by an Australian Yeast company and was ashamed to find that I
had been sitting on it for over a year. It was supplied in a small
PET bottle with a covering of sterile wort. The deposit looked very
dark and powdery, but I proceeded to pitch it into a 200 ml starter.
It took about 10 days for the first signs of activity to appear, and
another 4 days for full starter activity. I have now got about 10 ml
of dark slurry.
I am reluctant to use it, and was about to dump it when I read in
"Brew Classic European Beers at Home" in the section about yeast
starters on p34
"...If a yeast takes longer than three or four days to show activity,
this indicates that the vegetative yeast cells have been killed
somehow or have died of old age, and only the spores have survived.
The spores will survive almost indefinitely and can be cultured up..."
Now I have never heard of brewing yeast spores. Does anyone know if
this is correct ? If so, are starters produced from spores different
in any way from 'normal' yeast, mutated etc. Could this account for
my sloooooow starter ?
Any thoughts or information would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
David Lamotte
Brewing Down Under in Newcastle NSW Australia.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 09:47:48 -0700
From: "Randy Erickson" <RANDYE@mid.org>
Subject: AHA Whining
An additional thought:
I had the pleasure of meeting and judging two flights
at the western Regionals in Nevada City, CA with
Amahl Turczan (sp?) of AHA. A nice guy, and a
knowledgeable judge. When I expressed surprise
that the AHA had sent reps to the Regionals and
asked if they had someone at each site, Amahl
replied "No, just two" --- himself here and one other
out East.
I think that I had always been under the impression
that the AHA has a huge staff dedicated to
accomplishing their nefarious goals, but it may be
that they are actually a rather small organization.
Presumably, there is not a lot of cash left over
after paying Charley's salary!
Not that this in any way excuses or makes up for
the shortcomings, but I know that I had a different
perspective than what the real situation is.
Unfortunately, Amahl has taken a real (brewing)
job and is by now ex-AHA. From what I gather, the
AHA intends to not replace him, so even more of
the work (and no doubt criticism) will fall on Brian
Rezac.
Randy in Modesto
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 1998 00:48:24 -0400
From: Anthony Capocelli <acapocelli@pol.net>
Subject: Oops !
This is a group therapy letter ! I was
brewing what looks like a wonderful 4
gallon batch of Brown Ale !
It was actually six gallons but as I was
racking into the primary from my kettle
I made the mistake of turning away for
a few minutes and suddenly noticed a lovely
cool brown liquid creeping quietly around my
feet which after a moment of silent introspection
I realized was likely my wonderful brown ale.
I turned to see a puddle the size of the
great salt lake ( and now equally as
useless) surrounding my fermenter and slowly
expanding like the rising tide occassionally
does up my street. I tossed the tubing back
over the fermentor, threw around a hundred
four letter words, blamed the disaster on my
wife and went on to pitch the yeast.
Question, is there anyone else as dopey as I ?
Thanks for listening, I feel better now?
Tony C.
Broad Channel, NY
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 23:53:45 -0400
From: PDWaltman <awapuhoq@mindspring.com>
Subject: BJCP Exam
It seems that the Study Guide for the BJCP Exam makes it clear it is
important to know commerical examples to common beer styles. My question
is the various study guides seem to list the brewery at times, and other
times the name of the Beer. Which is expected for the exam?
Also when dealing with Commercial Styles that have a geographical necessity
in the name for beers sold (such as Lambic, Kolch, etc.), is it then by
necessity that only those Commercial Styles from that region are looked
for, i.e. A Kolch-style beer out of its region; or a made-like-a-Lambic
from Great Britain.
Thanks in Advance
Dennis Waltman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 21:40:06 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: So Jethro is the new spokesperson?
>From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
>Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
>
> The Jethro Gump Report
>
>New AHA Director Appointed....
> Paul Gatzo, proprietor of the Boulder, Colorado, homebrew shop, "What's
>Brewing," has been appointed to the position of AHA Director, effective in
>about 6 weeks, Jethro's southeastern correspondent reports.....
> You read it here first.......on the Jethro Gump Report!
> Jethro welcomes Paul aboard, and wishes him the best in his new position. I
>can guarantee one thing, he has a damn fine staff.
So the AOB/AHA can't see fit to tell us about Jim Parker resigning in the
summer Zymurgy and here you are telling us about the new director before it
appears on the AOB web site or TechTalk.
And having now finished both Altbier and Barleywine (the new BP books) I
have to do a 180 and say Altbier really is badly written. Al K should have
fun with this one.
And maybe Russ W. can show the AHA how to run a successful homebrew
competition in oregon.
Better Brewing Session: How to Hold a
Successful Homebrew Competition
Russ Wigglesworth, director of the
Beer Judge Certification Program, will
offer his insights into what it takes to
put on a first-class homebrew
competition. He'll cover everything
from rounding up judges to sending out
scoresheets after the event.
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 07:39:21 -0500
From: Clint Thessen <cthessen@mdc.com>
Subject: Polycar - My Datapoint
Hi Folks!
James Tomlinson writes about the use of Polycar... dry or
wet, add to beer warm or cold, before or after dry
hopping. Obviously, I can only speak from my short
experience with the stuff, once (I told you it was short). I
typically have clear beer before it goes in the fridge prior
to consumption. However, I am usually afflicted with chill
haze. (Right now... I still am doing partial mashes. Just
looking for a good cooler to make the switch) I actually
had bought a package of polycar for my Mom's peach
brandy (very yummy I might add... the brandy you jokers)
but she didn't use it. So, I decided to use it for a batch of
red ale. Right, wrong or indifferent; I put the Polycar in a
pot with about a pint of water and boiled it for about 10
minutes. (it didn't stick to the bottom). I chilled it, and
then added it to the beer a couple of days prior to bottling.
The beer temp was in the upper 60's F. Performed my
normal bottling and aging ritual. Pulled from the fridge the
first bottle and it was clear... very satisfying. No ill effects
that I could perceive. Will I use it again? Sure, if I ever
remember to pick some up before I bottle a batch. Just
my datapoint.
On another note. I bottled a bavarian weizen last
week. I used wyeast bavarian dunkle weizen yeast and
for the first time I was able to keep my ferment temps in
the upper 60's F during the summer. I tasted a little and
perceived a good clovey taste yet didn't catch a whiff of
bananas. Will this aroma increase with age or will I need
to use a different yeast or different ferment temps. The
recipe hilights are 6lbs of 45/55 wheat DME, 1lb 60L
crystal (or is that carmel : ) ), 1lb of 2-row, and 2 oz of
Saaz. I know, the crystal probably isn't right for the
style... but I just wanted to know how it would taste.
Da Svedanya
Clint Thessen
O'Fallon, MO (Just 40 miles WNW of Anheiser Busch)
Home of the River City Rascals - Old Tyme Baseball
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:42:51 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: AHA
Lee, I fully sympathize with your experience. You write:
> Lately in general it's been difficult to recruit people to judge
> and steward ...
I can't help but think that one of the reasons for this is that the
number of competitions, and the total number of entries in those
competitions, is increasing faster than the number of judges. I know
it's true around here. We went from one summer competition (State
Fair) to 3 in the last 3 years. All three of these are scheduled
within a one month period, and all three are connected to other
events, so they can't be rescheduled. Naturally, this divides and
exhausts the judge population.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:49:46 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Blueberry vs. Raspberry?
>>>>> "Alan" == Alan Folsom <folsom@ix.netcom.com> writes:
Alan> ... Blueberry gives a
Alan> very subtle flavor which fades overtime to an indistinct
Alan> fruitiness.
I recently had a wonderful blueberry *wine* (from Earle Estates
Meadery, near Seneca Lake, in New York State). I asked, and she said
that they crushed blueberries and used the juice alone. It had an
interesting nutmeg undertone which, she said, came from the seeds.
I don't know where you'd get "cold pressed" blueberry juice, nor how
much you'd need to use to get good blueberry character in your beer.
I'd guess at least 20%, though. I bet it would be expensive. :-)
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:59:03 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Testing momilies
When comparing the results of brewing experiments, the *triangle
test* provides a good protocol to follow.
First, the test should be blind -- someone else should pour the beers,
and you should have no hint as to which is which.
Second, *three* glasses should be poured. Two of them have one of the
beers, and the third has the other. You should NOT know which is
which, of course.
You then taste, sniff, etc., and record your impressions of *all
three* glasses.
Then, if you've found differences between the beers, you count the
difference ONLY if you did NOT find it between the two that are the
same and you DID find it with the different beer. The idea is to
reduce "random" taste effects.
Of course, you should also have more than one taster so you can
combine results for higher reliability.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 08:08:57 -0500
From: lordofbrewing@webtv.net (Dan Pillsbury)
Subject: FWH
I'm appealing to the wisdom of the collective on a question on FWHing.
>From my understanding of the process the aroma constituents of the hops
are somehow bound within the wort prior to the boil. Having recently
moved from the kitchen to the great outdoors thanks to a Brinkman cooker
I now have the capability to have the wort boiling as it runs from the
sparge. My question is, to gain the full effects of FWH should I wait
until the sparge is done and full volume is collected before the wort to
a boil? Is boiling the wort too early in the process driving off any
benefits which are gained from FWH?
Brewing the good life without the AHA in Omaha,
Dan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 10:40:46 -0400
From: Bill Giffin <billg@ctel.net>
Subject: Words of wisdom
"Sour flavors - Don't blame the products, Face up to the fact that your
procedures are not sanitary enough. Bacteria infections often enhanced by
warm brewery temperatures, and sluggish fermentiations is to blame for sour
beer. "
Isn't that advice just wonderful?
Bill
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2741, 06/16/98
*************************************
-------
