Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2887
HOMEBREW Digest #2887 Sat 28 November 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:
St.Louis Brews homebrew competition (Jack Baty)
a more viscous alternative to milk (ThomasM923)
Re: Cheap 240VAC GFI??? ("John A. MacLaughlin")
say what (JPullum127)
re: SHMS questions ("Ludwig's")
Re: All Munich By Mistake (Jeff Renner)
re: ABG classes ("Bridges, Scott")
Sighting Citations (Bob.Sutton)
RE:Yeast Propagation & Wort Canning ("Marc Battreall")
lambic pellicle in bottles (Paul Kensler)
Re: Removable bottlelabels ("Brian Dixon")
Fire Brewing, sticky rye, sticky labels, volunteer malt ("David R. Burley")
Glassware (Bob)
Re:Xmas draws near . . .(new BrewPot) (Jim Wallace)
New thermometer / diacetyl rest / roggen lauter / 100% Munich malt ("George De Piro")
Re: Glass Carboy Valve ("Robert G. Poirier, Jr.")
Brewing Language (pgarofalo)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for the 1998 St.Louis Brews Happy
Holidays Homebrew Competition yet? Details:
http://www.stlbrews.org
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source
in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items
originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is
exempt from the above. Happy, Jeff? ;-)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 1998 23:23:23 -0600
From: Jack Baty <jack@wubios.wustl.edu>
Subject: St.Louis Brews homebrew competition
The 1998 St.Louis Brews Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition will take
place on 11 and 12 December. Entries are due by 5 December. Visit
www.stlbrews.org for details. You still have time to get your entries
in!
Jack Baty
St. Louis, MO
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 01:14:28 EST
From: ThomasM923@aol.com
Subject: a more viscous alternative to milk
Fred L. Johnson wrote:
"I would love to hear some suggestions for a more viscous, water-soluble
alternative to milk. Being more viscous would avoid the problem (creeping
around to the front of the label) altogether."
How about making a thin paste from a mixture of powdered milk and milk?
Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 06:13:33 -0500
From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam@clark.net>
Subject: Re: Cheap 240VAC GFI???
In HBD #2886 Thomas Murray <ThomasM923@aol.com> wrote
> . . . is this the same thing as a ground fault interrupt?
I can't be certain from the catalog description, but it sounds like
a basic (e.g., 120v) GFCI whose "neutral" leg meets the insulation
requirements for use on the second line of a _balanced_ 240v circuit.
If I have guessed right about this it would be acceptable for any
two-wire (plus ground but no neutral wire) balanced load such as a
water heater element or a 240v motor, but not for an unbalanced load
such as a range or a clothes dryer or anything which contains a 120v
motor.
The phrase ". . . cannot be used as a circuit breaker. . ." suggests
that this device is not designed to be mounted in a service panel but
instead requires either a box or a bulkhead (a panel). If you are really
lucky, a phone call to the vendor will connect you with someone who is
not just an order taker but has actually seen the device and can answer
your questions truthfully. Failing that, it might be worth $10 just to
find out.
In my experience, surplus circuit breakers are next to worthless because
they are designed to mount in industrial equipment that has been obsolete
for twenty years or more; that's why the breakers are surplus.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:14:39 EST
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: say what
now pat how could you ignore falstaff and blatz. in omaha in the 60's they
were king. (and the memory of a grain belt still makes me shudder). a few
years ago the old equipment from the long defunct falstaff plant here was sold
to china, an impressive sight on the news taking those huge tanks out through
a wall i remember.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:34:48 -0500
From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig@us.hsanet.net>
Subject: re: SHMS questions
Thomas Murray asked:
> I would like to start planning a SHMS type brewing system and I am looking for
> some info to help me to get started. First, I was wondering if anyone had ever
> measured the temperature of the water after it exits the mash tun. Of course
> this data would be useless without knowing the temp at the intake and the
> length and diameter of the copper tubing, so I need that info also. If you can
> provide the rate of flow, that would be useful also.
> Second, I was wondering if it would be better to have a shorter length of 1/2"
> tubing or a longer length of 3/8" tubing for the heat exchanger. There is a
> greater surface area ounce per ounce if 3/8" tubing is used.
Man, where does the time go? Been meaning to respond to this one but
been kinda busy.
Far as measuring the exit temperature of my SHMS coil, haven't done it.
I generally keep the HLT temperature around 175 deg F (that is the
source of hot water pumped through the SHMS coil). My mash coil consists
of 8 ft of 1/2 inch OD copper. Some considerations when designing your
coil:
1) To minimize overshooting your target mash temperature when
temperature boosting, minimize the thermal mass of your coil. I
generally get 1/2 to 1 deg F overshoot using 170 - 175 deg HLT water.
I've put temperature data on my web site at:
http://www.us.hsanet.net/user/dludwig/index.htm
2) Depending on how you plan to use your mash, you still want enough
coil to get reasonable temperature boost rates. If your going to boost
your mash temp from room temp to mash temp, you may want to keep your
coil large enough to do that in a reasonable amount of time. During my
last mash, I boosted 9 lbs of malt and 10 qts of water from 85-135 deg F
in 8 min with HLT temp around 160 deg and 133-151 deg in 3 min with the
HLT at 190 deg. I'm pretty happy with that. YMMV.
3) Don't skimp on your pump. I'm using a Little Giant Model 3-MD-MT-HC
which is rated at 8.3 GPM with 1 ft Head and it seems to be adequate.
4) Don't worry too much about optimizing the mash coil. You can always
compensate for an undersized coil by using higher HLT temps and vice
versa for an oversized coil.
I'm currently designing a SHMS controller which will thermostatically
control the mash temperature by turning the pump on and off. That way I
can kick back during long mashes. The controller is based on the
Parallax Basic Stamp II and uses two DS1620 digital thermometers as
temperature sensors for the HLT and the Mash Tun. I eventually want the
control the HLT temperature while using an electric heating element. The
controller includes a three-way power supply that has a variable DC
power source for the mash mixer. The long pole in this project is me
trying to learn to PBASIC, which they say is easy, but that's relative
;). Cheers!
Dave Ludwig
Flat Iron Brewery
SO MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 09:25:31 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: All Munich By Mistake
vland1@juno.com (Vernon R Land) "Starchbier R Us" wrote:
>Subject: All Munich By Mistake
>
>The other day I stopped by my local beer store for 8 lbs. of pale malt
>and 0.5 lbs. of Munich malt. The intelligent clerk gave me 8 lbs. of
>Munich and 0.5 lbs. of pale. I didn't notice until I drove home and
>began to crack it open. Being frustrated and tired, I mashed it using a
>step routine for 2 hours. By iodine test, incomplete conversion due to
>what me brain thinks is lack of enzymes. Can this batch be saved? It
>is in the secondary fermenter and very dark but not black like a stout.
>Initial gravity = 1.045, after 2 days = 1.020. I am thinking of adding
>some Nottingham dry to wring all I can out of this starchy mix, original
>yeast was Edme.
Munich malt should have sufficient enzymes to mash itself (a some adjuncts
as well). I have made many all-Munich beers, including a recent Dunkel
using all dark (16L) Durst Munich. If your mashing routine works for
Pilsner malt, there's a good chance it will work on Munich, although if
it's a barely adequate routine, it might fail with the lower enzyme level
of Munich. Are you sure you the beer is starchy? Did you do the iodine
test on the mash liquid, not the grains? You'll always get a positive
iodine test on the grain as it reacts positively to the cellulose. Did the
wort look starchy? Did it test positive? You may not have a problem. If
it is starchy, Nottingham yeast won't ferment any more of the starch than
the Edme did (which is none). Your high terminal gravity may be a
reflection of your mash schedule and the Munich malt, which I find finishes
higher than Pils.
My suggestion is to make sure it's done fermenting, then bottle it and
drink it up before any problems manifest themselves.
Good luck.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:10:51 -0500
From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges@sc.slr.com>
Subject: re: ABG classes
Al writes:
>Coincidentally, I ran across a post by the well-respected Martin Lodahl
>on Dr. Michael Lewis while I was looking for a writeup on kraeusening
>a few minutes ago. Recently, there was a question about whether it is
>worth it to attend the American Brewers' Guild classes. For this reason,
>I'm reposting Martin's 1994 HBD post.
>
>[Martin Lodahl post deleted]
I just want to make a few comments about the repost of this opinion and the
ABG classes. I've taken one - about 3 yrs ago on opening a brewpub/micro.
I certainly have no quarrel about Martin's opinion of Dr. Lewis having never
met him or taken one of *his* classes directly. Since I've heard this
opinion about his philosophy before, I assume that there is something to it.
However, that said, I think a 4-5 year old opinion about anything in
brewing, especially one concerning the American craft brew industry has
questionable relevance. The ABG was pretty new then (I think) and quite
probably, their classes in 1994 bear little resemblance to now. The class I
took was pretty informative. I had done extensive research prior to taking
the class, so some of the class material merely validated what I had found
out on my own. Granted it wasn't on brewing specifically, but it was chock
full of useful information. The only complaint I had was that it was on
*both* micros and brewpubs. There definitely is some cross-over material,
but as I was interested in opening only a micro, the portion on running a
restaurant was essentially a waste of time for me. I said as much in the
critique at the end of the class. I found out later that they have now
split their class into 2 separate ones, so I feel somewhat gratified that
others must have shared my opinion. It also shows that they do update the
course material.
The ABG seems to have experienced people on their staff (many trained at
UC-Davis of course - if you consider that a negative...). I'd be much more
interested in hearing a 1998 opinion of what their classes are like. Were I
considering taking one, I definitely wouldn't want to draw any conclusions
based on a 1994 opinion (regardless of how valid it may have been at the
time).
Just another data point....
Scott
Columbia, SC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 10:44:06 -0500
From: Bob.Sutton@fluordaniel.com
Subject: Sighting Citations
Thanks to Spencer for having the insight to cite:
>*SIGHT* glass (because you see through it).
>Not *SITE* glass. That would be a mug with "hbd.org" engraved on it.
Now if we could have some help pronouncing "sight" (I'm still struggling with
tur-KEY)
Outtasight!
Bob
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:32:40 -0500
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman@terranova.net>
Subject: RE:Yeast Propagation & Wort Canning
Dave Russell asks about preparing (canning) wort for yeast starters in HBD
2884:
DR> <snip> First question I have, I have never
DR> canned anything. Any special equipment involved in the canning
DR> process. I know there are jars and lids/seals involved. How do you go
DR> about canning wort? Any help would be appreciated.
Dave,
Canning is actually a poor choice of terms, it's more like "jarring" (if
there is such a word). In it's simplest form it can be done by boiling the
wort for at least 15 minutes or so and pouring it into Mason type jars,
screwing on the two piece lid tightly and refrigerating until it is ready
for use. Alot of brewer's use this method with good results. Another method
used is to boil or dissolve the extract (preferably light DME) in the
appropriate amount of water for the desired specific gravity, pouring it
into the same type Mason jars, loosely attach the lid, place the jars in a
pressure cooker (the so called special equipment that some refer to as an
pseudo autoclave) and cook it for 15+ minutes at 15 psi as per the
instructions for the cooker. I picked up a used one in almost brand new
condition at a local junktique for $10. I have also seen small ones at
K-Mart and Wal-Mart for $20 I think. This method is what is commonly
referred to as canning. Kind of like our Grandmother's do with jellies,
jams, fruits, and the like. This method gets you as close to "sterile" as
wort can be. Of course, this method has come under some fire in the past in
this forum regarding how long is it safe to keep it stored and still use it.
I won't even address that issue because it means volumes and volumes of
text! (Run a search of the archives using the word "Botulism" and you will
spend a lifetime sorting through the results I guarantee!) Personally, I
only can up enough wort for the total volume of the starter I am making
divided up in increments of two. In other words if my final starter volume
will be 2000 ml I start the first step with 500 ml, double it to 1000 ml,
and then double it for 2000 ml. I just recently started pouring off the
spent wort after each step only leaving the fresh slurry behind as opposed
to pitching the entire volume of 2000 ml. The results have been favorable.
This method is assuming that I start from a new liquid yeast culture package
(i.e. Wyeast, Whitelabs, etc.) If I start from a yeast slant or plate, my
first two incremental steps are usually 25 ml and 250 ml and then doubling
each step up there after. And sometimes, I re-pitch the slurry from the
previous batch if I am brewing a similar style beer within two weeks or so.
Then the procedure is to add about 500 ml of fresh wort back into the slurry
(which is usually 750-1000 ml) to give it a "jump charge" so to speak. The
possibilities of yeast pitching and practices are many. You just have to
fool with it until you find what works for you. That's half the fun!
DR> There was no discussion on creating wort, and directly bottling it in
DR> sanitized bottles. My thoughts were to create a batch the size
DR> necessary to fully step up my starter, then bottle & fridge the wort.
DR> This wort wouldn't be around for more than the "week" needed to step up
DR> the culture for pitching. Why wouldn't this method work?
Maybe there was no discussion here in the HBD, but look in Charlie
Papazian's New Complete Joy of Homebrewing if you have it and I bet you'll
see that very method. Charlie's method is almost identical to the first one
I explained above except he uses 12 or 22 oz. brown beer bottles instead of
Mason jars. It's been a while since I browsed through that book but I
recollect it vividly as the way I did it when I first started using yeast
starters. To answer your question, yes, this works just fine. Just make sure
the wort has not spoiled prior to pouring it into your starter and ruining
it. If in doubt, re-boil it and allow it to cool. If you're still worried
about it after a second boil, pour it down the drain.
I'll add a few pointers that work for me. Use distilled water or as pure
water as you have available. Keep the SG of the starter in the 1.030 - 1.040
range. Don't be afraid to let a little of the trub that settles to the
bottom get into starter because it contains alot of the compounds that the
yeast needs to grow. And I also throw in a small pinch (about 1/4 tsp) of
yeast nutrient in the boil (per quart of wort). A few hop pellets for their
anti-bacterial properties never hurt either. And most importantly, yeast
need oxygen as part of their life cycle and any way you can get it to them
will improve the vitality and number of cells. Remember that you are trying
to multiply your yeast cell count and not make beer!
In almost every homebrewing text you will find methods for building up
starters and ways to can wort. Most of these texts, including TNCJOH are
somewhat dated, but the methods haven't changed much through the years. If
you want a great current reference, Al Korzonas' book, Homebrewing Volume
One, springs to mind. You can get info about picking up a copy of this fine
book on Al's website at http://www.brewinfo.com (NA, just an owner)
I hope this helped answer your questions.
Have A Hoppy Holiday Season!
Marc
========================
Captain Marc D.Battreall
Islamorada, Florida
batman@terranova.net
captainbrew@hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 12:40:55 -0600
From: Paul Kensler <paul.kensler@ibm.net>
Subject: lambic pellicle in bottles
I somehow knew this would happen, so I probably should have asked this
question _before_ bottling, but...
I recently bottled a 1-year old lambic, using a little bit of corn sugar
and a fresh yeast (S. Cerevisiae) starter to prime. A couple of weeks
after bottling, the bottles have all developed a thin layer at the top - it
looks just like the pellicle that forms during lambic fermentation. The
lambic is otherwise clear and delicious, with no signs of infection (other
than the desired Brett. and Ped. infections!). I fermented the batch
initially with an American Ale yeast, then with Brettanomyces Lambicus and
Pediococcus Cerevisiae cultures from GW Kent, plus dregs from Cantillon and
Boon lambics I had. At bottling time, the lambic still had a thin pellicle
in the carboy. I racked the lambic out to a bucket, being careful not to
splash or aerate, and to siphon out without taking up any of the
yeast/sediment from the bottom or the pellicle from the top. Now, my
questions:
1. I have never noticed the bottle pellicle in any commercial lambics
(even the non-filtered traditional examples), and this is my first
homebrewed lambic. Is this normal?
2. Is there any way to avoid the bottle pellicle in future batches? Maybe
let it age in the primary longer? I have read that the pellicle will often
drop if disturbed - If I let the bottles sit for a while, will it drop out?
3. Finally, for you judges out there - given that this is a lambic (a
purposely infected beer), will this bottle pellicle count against me in
competitions? My guess is, "yes, but not as much as it would if the beer
were a Helles Lager".
Thanks for the help,
Paul Kensler
Pondering pellicles in Plano, TX
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 11:18:57 -0800
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Re: Removable bottlelabels
>Bill Coleman wants easily removable bottle labels but found that soaking
>this Deskjet labels in milk caused the print to bleed.
>
>I have been able to simply brush the milk onto the back of the plain paper
>label with some success. You need to do this pretty carefully and with as
>little milk as possible. Otherwise, the milk will creep around to the
>front of the label an smear the print. Also let the labels dry really
>well (hours) before trying this.
>
>I would love to hear some suggestions for a more viscous, water-soluble
>alternative to milk. Being more viscous would avoid the problem
>altogether.
>- --
>Fred L. Johnson
>Apex, North Carolina
>USA
Well Fred (and Bill), my solution isn't a "more viscous, water soluble
alternative to milk", but it certainly does result in the characteristics
you are looking for: easily removable labels, no residue left on the bottles
after removal, sticks very well (stays stuck), does not cause ink-jet (or
other) inks to bleed (because it doesn't soak through paper). It's also
easier to use than milk or other adhesives. What is it? 3M brand Spray
Mount Artist's Adhesive (white can ... not the black "Super 77" stuff you
find in many places). If you read the label, you see that it results in
repositionable bonds. You know, like a Post It (tm) note. Difference is
that it sticks better. You print and cut out your labels first, placing
them face down on something you don't care about, say old newspaper. Spray
2 or 3 light coats of the Spray Mount on the backs, and let dry for about 5
minutes. Then just press the labels onto the bottles. They stay stuck.
Picking at a corner then pulling the label off is all you have to do to get
them back off, and no glue residue is left behind. The labels also slip off
easily when soaked first. Other companies, notably DURO, make
repositionable bond type spray adhesives too. You can experiment with these
others, e.g. DURO seems 98% as good as the 3M stuff, if you can't find the
3M stuff.
Good luck,
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:49:51 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Fire Brewing, sticky rye, sticky labels, volunteer malt
Brewsters:
Our lager/leader says" I SWEAR.." And offers his references -
like beer posters and a friend in the business to back up his contention
that Stroh's is a fire brewed beer to 2000 degrees and that they used
KROY-Zsening as a catch line.
Well, being a Buckeye by birth and having spent many evenings in the
beer bars ( er library) along High Street in the early 1960s while
attending Ohio State University ( go Bucks! and sorry Blue {8^) )
Strohs became my favorite beer. It had that certain something (was
it the firebrewing or the kraeusening?) that I liked ( maybe it was the
alcohol). I can confirm Pat's contentions. I can also confirm his
contention that he probably never heard Old Syle say anything
about kraeusening. I never tasted or heard of Old Style in Ohio until
the 1980s or early 1990s and that was in Sandusky on the lake.
How long has Old Style been produced? Perhaps it was not available
in Ohio and Michigan until recently. If so, there would have been
no advertisements.
- ---------------------------------
AlK comments on his recent rye beer mash and confirmed another
brewer's 3 hour sparge by having one himself. I noticed some years ago
when making my first version of Roggenbier that the viscosity of the rye
( 60% rye, 30% barley and 10% wheat) wort was extremely temperature
dependent. A small drop in temperature would result in a large increase
in the viscosity. I guessed that this was the reason these worts often
get
Stuck, since they cool off in the lauter tun.
After placing the mash in the lauter tun ( a zapap style) I opened
the tap full bore and stripped off the wort in five or so minutes
- clouds and all and began to heat it in a kettle while quickly I sparged
a
gallon or so with near boiling water. When the temperature of all the
combined runnings were up to 170-180F, I then put the combined mixture
back through the lauter bed slowly and then sparged with hot water.
I had a normal sparge time and the wort was clear. The beer was
excellent.
I know that this is the opposite of what is recommended to prevent a
stuck
sparge ( "never let the bed go dry") - I did. It worked for me since
this
was
the only way to keep the temperature up while the high OG (viscosity)
wort was coming off the bed and I have done it that way since. Point is
keep the viscosity down by keeping it hot ( be sure to mash out at a
high temperature) and dilute it before you put it slowly over a grain bed
where it can cool off due to the long time of the lauter. I have also
thought
about adding hot water to a partially filled lauter and adding the mash
in
stages along with hot water, but have never tried it, since the above
method
works well for me.
- --------------------------------
I use a paste I make from either cornstarch or wheat flour made up
with 1 tlb of starch or flour in a 2 cup pyrex measuring cup. Make
up this slurry in 8 oz COLD water, shaking it in a shaker to remove
all lumps before you bring it to a boil in the microwave. You must stop
and stir ocasionally or do it in a pan with constant stirring. Remove
any lumps with a sieve.
I built a glue spreader from a wooden dowel
about 2" in diameter and a flat, 4X6X2" or so rectangular rubbermaid
dish with a nail in either end acting as an axle for the roller. The
roller
is half submerged and it dips in the glue as I roll the label. This works
pretty well, except for putting the bottles in ice water. Use a plastic
bag
around the bottles or use a rubber band to keep the label on.
I found that it helps with some of the heavy grades of paper to dip the
entire label in water briefly before applying the glue, so as to prevent
wrinkling of the label.
These labels come off easily in hot water and it is cheap.
- ------------------------------------
I sincerely doubt that malt would sprout as AlK and others have
contended,
since the seed would have likely sprouted during malting if it was
going to and it surely would not sprout after toasting to 110F and
higher. I find it even more preposterous that a CRUSHED malt kernel
would sprout in someone's mulch pile after being soaked in hot water
and heated to 170F and higher. Chances are that this was another
form of grass than Barley sprouting from the compost pile.
I don't think that AlK's suggestion to plant malt directly will work.
Maybe he was being facetious and I missed the smiley face {8^).
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 15:52:51 -0800
From: Bob <bob@urbanartifacts.com>
Subject: Glassware
Friends of the HBD
Well it appears we have survived the Clinitest debate, are now deep into
the "how to pronounce" wars, but I think I can see end of the Aliminum,
(Al-u- minimum-mm) saga... but dear friends about the very way we serve
our treasured product?
Who among us uses the "standard" 16 oz. pub glass for all our beers?
Obviously this is not the correct glass for all styles. For instance
after living in Germany for three years I can attest that hardly ever
did I encounter that ubiquitous pub pint glass, but a wonderful array of
stemmed and decorated beer glasses!
How many of us cool the glass in some ice prior to serving-- as I do?
How many prefer the dry glass method?
Anyone use the dreaded frozen mug apporach?
And of course the sure-fire cure for chill haze is still, the stoneware
mug.
What say ye all? Lets hear what you do to serve your beer.
Bob
Houston
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 17:21:58 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace@crocker.com>
Subject: Re:Xmas draws near . . .(new BrewPot)
>chance to visit), but since I saw a *20* gallon stockpot on sale for
>about $140, I'm leaning toward this as my Xmas request. How
>durable/cleanable are aluminum pots?? I know it's a softer metal than
>SS, but will it pit with repeated boilings of a relatively low pH wort?
.........
I have bought my 15 G pots for $145-160 ...
it seems aluminum at almost the same price is a not so great deal (unless
you absolutely need the 20Gal)....
alum will not take the regular beating that stainless will
___________________________________________
JIM WALLACE ... jwallace@crocker.com
http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace
___________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 98 19:10:58 PST
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: New thermometer / diacetyl rest / roggen lauter / 100% Munich malt
Hi all,
I am currently brewing and using a new toy: a Polder "Thermo Timer."
It
is an electronic thermometer with a 6.5 inch (16.5 cm) stainless probe
attached to a braided metal cable. It reads in either degrees F or C and
has a temperature alarm (so I can sit here typing while remaining
confident that I will not overshoot my target temperature).
It also has a countdown timer. Not bad for ~$22.
The only drawback is that the probe cannot be immersed beyond the
junction with the cable. While it can handle up to several hundred
degrees, it cannot handle water in the probe. The instructions say to
simply
bake it to dry it out should the probe become water-logged.
I own millions of shares of Polder stock, so keep that in mind when
reading the above review.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Once again the issue of diacetyl rests comes up. Since I have the text
handy I will once again re-post some info. Searching the archives is an
an option, though...
Yeast make alpha acetolactate (AAL), not diacetyl. AAL is relatively
tasteless.
AAL oxides to diacetyl (oxidative decarboxylation) over time in beer.
Heat and
oxygen speed this up. Yeast that have NOT been exposed to oxygen
post-pitching
can and will metabolize diacetyl.
If your beer has a lot of AAL it won't taste like diacetyl, but over time
it will become
diacetyl-ridden. How can you tell if your beer has a lot of AAL?
Simple:
Take two aliquots (samples) of the young beer. Put one in a loosley
covered
jar and heat to about 150F (60C) for 20-30 minutes while keeping the
other
sample cool. Smell and taste both samples. If the heated sample tastes
buttery
and the cool sample does not, the beer has a lot of AAL and requires a
diacetyl
rest.
If both samples are not buttery, you have no AAL to deal with (note: if
this
beer becomes buttery later on you will have a good idea that the source
of
diacetyl is a pediococcus infection).
If both samples are buttery, try a diacetyl rest.
A diacetyl rest works because at the higher temperature the AAL gets
converted
to diacetyl and then gets metabolized by the yeast. If you lager the
beer at low
temperatures diacetyl reduction will occur, but at a much slower rate.
As an added data point, I have used Wyeast Munich lager yeast (2308) with
no diacetyl rest with fine results (and yes, I am able to perceive
diacetyl with
some acuity).
- --------------------------------------------------------
Just to add to the data points, my 60% rye MALT beer was mashed
intensively
with rests at 40C (104), slow ramp (with rests along the way) up through
55C (130F) and decocted. The mash set up like concrete. Perhaps protein
rests are completely useless...they hurt head retention and body when you
don't
want them to and don't do anything when you do want them to! Those of
you
who have been reading these pages for a while know my opinion about
p-rests...
- --------------------------------------------------------
Several people have recently (last month or so) mentioned making beers
with
100% Munich malt and having a tough time achieving conversion. This is
very
puzzling.
German Munich malts have plenty of enzymes and can (and are) used as
nearly
100% of the grist by many brewers (including myself). If you are not
getting conversion
either the particular brand of malt you are using is of questionable
value or something
else is wrong (pH off, thermometer off, misreading the iodine test,
etc.).
Oops, there goes that temperature alarm, got to run!
Have fun!
George de Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 21:46:19 -0800
From: "Robert G. Poirier, Jr." <bpoirierjr@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Glass Carboy Valve
Greetings!!
I haven't seen any responses to the following yet, so, I thought I'd give
it a try...
In HBD #2878, Randy said he would like to try to cut through his glass
carboy in order to install your basic bottling bucket valve assembly...
WARNING!!!! DO NOT (really, PLEASE!!) ATTEMPT THIS ON YOUR OWN!!!!!
(You'll notice the lack of smileys above - that's because I'M SERIOUS!!!)
I've seen the same add Randy mentions in various brew mags, and I have to
admit, at first I was intrigued, and I even thought about how I could do it
myself. Then I bounced back into reality and I forgot all about it.
I'm not sure how they install those valves in the carboys - whether they're
brand new carboys that were made with the hole there intentionally, or, if
somebody drilled through the carboy... Whatever. The big thing to
remember here is DO NOT TRY TO DRILL THROUGH A CARBOY!!!!! EVER!!!!!!!
Unless, of course, you make your living boring through thick panes of
glass, in which case you'll probably know exactly what you're doing...
It's VERY dangerous. You remember all the horror stories that were posted
a while back about people dropping carboys and shards of glass flying
about? Well, the same exact thing can happen if you try to drill into a
carboy (or any piece of glass, for that matter - unless you're prepared and
you know what you're doing). The big difference is that what happens when
you drop a carboy is usually and accident, but, what will happen if you try
to drill through a glass carboy is completely intentional!! (Ignorance is
no excuse.)
I hope I didn't ruffle any feathers here - I'm just trying to convey my
horror at the thought of somebody drilling....... You know...
Please, be safe when brewing!!!
Brew On & Prosit!!
Bob P.
East Haven, CT
bpoirierjr@worldnet.att.net (@home)
bob_poirier@adc.com (@work)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 1998 23:48:55 -0500
From: pgarofalo@juno.com
Subject: Brewing Language
In light of the recent posts concerning "site" glasses and those
"pallets" in our mouths, I thought I'd chime in with a couple of my pet
peeves:
First, and most common: the word "premise" used where "premises" is
intended, especially in the phrase "brew on premise". Literally, this is
something we all do: my usual premise is that I'll end up with excellent
(or at least drinkable) beer. FWIW: premise is an idea, notion,
supposition. Premises is a location. Many brewing-related periodicals
need to get this straight!
Secondly, Belgium is a country. Belgian is an adjective referring to
things native to said country. Therefore, it is not possible to use
Belgium malts to make a Belgium ale...unless you are serving it with
France fries. ;-)
Finally, I remember the term "kraeusened" used in Schaefer commercials in
the mid-60s (I was a mere lad). Go figure!
Peter Garofalo
Syracuse, NY
(closer to Jeff renner than you'd expect)
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2887, 11/28/98
*************************************
-------
