Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3187
HOMEBREW Digest #3187 Mon 06 December 1999
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:
rusty rollers (Mike Uchima)
Dry Hopping/Hop Teaing ("Troy Hager")
Prohibition (Nathan Kanous)
Marga Mills / Celebration Ale ("Paul Ward")
Re: RIMS Comments:Grainbed flow and increased ramp times ("Martin Brungard")
ramblings on Nottingham, AHA, & mills ("Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell")
Brillo and SS304 kegs (jdickins)
FWH Experiment (Louis Bonham)
So Long And Thanks For All The Fish ("Phil and Jill Yates")
RE: High Gravity Brewing ("Frank J. Russo")
Dry ice carbonation, (Dave Burley)
RE: carcinogens (Demonick)
Re: Sister Star ("Robert J. Waddell")
Braggot/Bracket (Ted McIrvine)
pickled eggs (kathy/jim)
First Lager Season questions ("scott")
Cancer Testing (RCAYOT)
Sweet Corn and RIMS History (WayneM38)
Dry Ice for carbonation ("Sean Richens")
FWH: First Wort Hazing?? (Bret Morrow)
RE: Oxidized yeast starters / undermodified malts ("gdepiro")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:18:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@enteract.com>
Subject: rusty rollers
Jack wrote:
> Having said that, unless you live on Bermuda or Key West,
> your concern is probably unfounded. Once a mill is put into
> use, the dust on the rollers does a pretty good job of inhibiting
> rust.
...unless you're like the guy who posted to rec.crafts.brewing a while
back, asking if anyone else was having problems with their MaltMill
rollers rusting. Turned out he was actually rinsing the mill off after
each brew session, with his garden hose! :-)
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@pobox.com ==
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 12:02:25 -0800
From: "Troy Hager" <thager@hcsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Dry Hopping/Hop Teaing
Fellow HBDers,
Pete offers up some very good questions about the specifics of dry hopping.
In the past I have used the *dry* hops in a mesh bag method and do not feel
that I have achieved much success. In fact I think that in some cases I have
actually increased the hop flavor quite a bit by adding hops to the
secondary, but seems like the aroma is still not there.
For my current ale on tap I used a hop tea. I added one drop of lactic acid
to about a quart of water. (My water's pH is pretty high and I read
somewhere that with higher pH you can extract some of the tanins from the
hops) I boiled the water for about 15 mins to sanitize it. I then added 0.75
oz of Columbus (in a hop bag) and boiled them for a couple minutes. I then
chilled it down to room temp. I tasted the hop tea and it was very stong!
Tasted very bitter and grassy! I then added the tea and the hop bag to the
keg.
After a few days I tasted it and, wow, the hop bitterness, flavor, and aroma
was out of control!!! It also had a extremely grassy flavor. The flavors
seemed to stick in your mouth for many minutes after you swallowed.
I got scared and didn't want to ruin the beer so I sanitized a wire and
fished the hop bag out after four days. After that, the over-the-top
bitterness and hop flavors diminished sigificantly and now, after about 3
weeks, it is down to fairly normal rates. It is still pretty hoppy
(bitterness and flavor) and I tend to feel that this was caused by the hop
tea because I did not over hop in the kettle. Also, I still taste a slightly
grassy note that I know is from the tea.
So, some more questions are:
1. I feel that dry hopping adds a lot of hop flavor and in my experience, a
little hop aroma that diminishes as the beer ages. This seems slightly
contradictory to the traditional brewing mantra of "Dry hopping adds aroma."
I feel that the hop tea (as I did it) added a lot of bitterness, a lot of
flavor, and some aroma, but also it added a lot of grassy notes as well.
Have others had this experience?
2. Should we acidify our hop tea water to avoid extracting various nasties?
3. When using a hop tea, should you just add the tea or both the tea and the
hops to the secondary?
3. I feel that Pete's questions about temperature and time making the tea
are very important.
4. How long should we dry hop?
5. How do the pros do it???
Brew on.
-Troy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 14:25:40 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Prohibition
I just got a message that mentions an anniversary. I wasn't there and
don't remember, but the message said that Prohibition was repealed Dec 5,
1933. It looks like Sunday would be a good day to have a beer.
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 15:46:47 -0500
From: "Paul Ward" <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Marga Mills / Celebration Ale
On 12/02/99, J. Kish said:
>Badger Roullett said he likes his Marga Mulino Mill.
> I want one! Does anybody know who sells this mill?
>I even contacted the Merchant of Vino in Michigan, and
>they aren't handling them. Is there a distributor
>that can supply them? Help!
J. - Although I've heard of some homebrew shops having the Marga mill, I
bought mine at a kitchen supply store. The retail price on the mill was
around U.S. $80, but I got it on sale for $40. I can't judge it against any
other as it's the only mill I ever owned, and the way the thing is put
together, it's probably the only mill I ever will own.
Also in the same issue Paul Shick said:
>Thank goodness that Sierra Nevada is shipping its Celebration Ale as far
>East as Clevelnad this year.
Believe it or not, they even shipped it as far east as Vermont this year!
What a fantastic beer! But where's the yeast in the bottom of the bottle?
Paul in Vermont
paulw@doc.state.vt.us
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 17:14:26 EST
From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: RIMS Comments:Grainbed flow and increased ramp times
Rod Prather wrote some interesting comments on RIMS:
"I saw what you see, a potential for much faster ramp times that are limited
by the grain bed. I see this not as a laminar flow problem but simple fluid
flow resistance. If you pump more wort through the
grain bed you end up with bitter beer. My answer, yet untested, was to have
a grain bed bypass. A second port that would "rob" wort from above the
grain bed via an Easymasher or a Scrubbie Thingie and mix it with the grain
bed flow wort. This would increase the flow to the heat exchanger without
increasing the actual grain bed flow. This is also a system to help
increase ramps in dense grain bills like cereal mashes and barley wines."
A few days ago, someone mentioned the use of a Reverse RIMS setup during
mashing so that there is an upflow through the grain bed instead of the
normal downflow. I thought this was a great idea since it allows a higher
flow rate through the entire system. I'm a civil engineer with a great deal
of experience with flow through porous media (soil and rapid sand filters),
so I could see the merit in the reverse flow idea.
Wort scorching is directly related to energy density. The energy density in
a RIMS is equal to Watts divided by Flowrate. Watts are equal to Joules per
second and Flowrate is cubic meters (or gallons) per second. This leaves us
with Joules per cubic meter (or BTU per gallon, or whatever) for the energy
density. To reduce scorching, two options are available, reduce the wattage
or increase the flowrate. I've looked into wattage control and see that we
can use a PID to reduce the power by varying the on/off cycle time or we can
use a dimmer switch. The lowest cost dimmer I've found is $60 for 1500 watt
capacity and the lowest cost PID setup I've found is on the order of $230.
Conversely, increasing the flowrate by doing an upflow is going to cost very
little for many RIMS.
The comment that Rod made above regarding higher flow rates creating bitter
beer troubles me. The Reverse RIMS setup would give me the opportunity to
safely increase the flowrate during mashing and temp steps to reduce
scorching. I cannot see any reason why an increased flow through the
grainbed would cause an increase in the bitterness of the finished wort. I'm
assuming the bitterness could possibly come from tannins in the grain, but
the chemical equilibrium in the wort shouldn't change just because the
liquid is flowing through the bed faster. Does anyone else have knowledge
that the bitterness will increase with higher flowrates?
I'm in the process of creating a RIMS and my system could easily allow me to
reverse the flow through the grainbed during mashing. All I need to do is
change the flow outlet fixture sitting on top of the grainbed into a filter
style inlet/outlet. I'm using stainless steel hose reinforcement as the
filter under the grainbed, so I'll just add another one on the top of the
bed to filter the wort during the reverse flow. Lautering will still go in
the normal downflow direction. Unless someone can see a reason why using a
high rate upflow through the grainbed would be bad, I'm going to try this
idea.
One idea that Rod had to decrease the energy density through the RIMS
heating chamber was to have a bypass in the system to allow a higher
flowrate through the chamber. I can see a problem with this proposal because
it will end up overheating the wort on top of the grainbed. And since all
the flow is not going through the grainbed, the heated wort will not be
distributed through the bed as quickly. This idea may not provide the
results we are ultimately looking for, no wort scorching.
I'm hoping that someone will pipe up regarding the bitterness/flowrate issue
and explain it in some more detail.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
"Meandering to a different drummer"
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 16:44:06 -0800
From: "Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell" <defalcos@insync.net>
Subject: ramblings on Nottingham, AHA, & mills
Paul Shick was wondering why his lag time with Nottingham yeast was
so long. We at DeFalco's have sold this yeast for a number of years
with little or no trouble with lag times, whatsover. However, we don't
usually deal with the puny little 5 gram packets. We buy in bulk and
package in 12 gram packets for 5 gallon batches. They really take off!
What little negative feedback we've received is from customers who've
bought supplies from competitors (Tsk! Tsk!) and gotten the 5 gram
packets. I know this doesnt' make sense. You would think the
professionally packaged yeast would hold up better, but this has not
been our experience. I do have one question for Paul and one
observation. The question is regarding your re-hydration: You said you
re-hydrated the yeast and even took pains to prevent thermal shock, but
you didn't make any comments on the activity of the yeast in the
"quasi-starter." Did the yeast foam up and turn the water turbid? If
so, then I suspect the problem was the temperature of the basement.
Sixty degrees is pretty darn cool for most ale yeast to reproduce! Not
exactly incubation temperature! I would think you would have better
luck pitching your "quasi-starter" and leaving the fermenters at normal
room temperatures until visible signs of fermentation kick in, before
moving them to the cool confines of your basement. I suspect the
Nottingham will ferment at 60 degrees, once it is already up and going,
but doesn't "grow" well at this temperature.
Unfortunately, this is not exactly a problem here on the Gulf Coast.
As to the Midwest Brewer, I say "Chill out, and have a couple of
homebrews!" As a retailer and former member of the Board of Advisors,
I've had more than my share of beefs with the AHA/A0B. However, Ray
Daniels is a very knowledgeable guy and I, for one, am going to adopt a
"wait and see attitude" on his impact on Zymurgy and New Brewer. I
think there is real potential for growth and healing here. Granted,
after BJCP-gate, Home Beverage Supplier-gate, AHA Classic Style
Books-gate, Jim Parker-gate, and Brian Rezac-gate, I'm a little
skeptical. Maybe I'm just hopeful that Ray can move the AHA in the
direction of filling in the much felt BT void. Folks, BT is gone, and
is not likely to re-appear anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong here). Let's
wait and see what happens rather than dismiss the appointment out of
hand. If Ray and Amal realize their potential, I might even eat my
words and start selling Zymurgy, again.
JDpils@aol.com is asking about grain mills. I would say you're in
an enviable position, as, unlike a few years ago, there are a number of
good mills now, any of which will do the job more than adequately. I
had a Schmidling adjustable malt mill as one of my shop mills and had
mixed results, but in all fairness, this is undoubtedly more wear and
tear than any individual hombrewer would ever give a mill. Jack's
non-adjustable one works just as well, with fewer headaches and at a
lower price. He was good with customer support. We currently are
carrying the Valley Mill, and in the year or so we offered them, I've
been very impressed. They adjust very easily, although I personally
question the need for adjustment on the vast majority of grains
currently available (again, Jack's non-adjustable mill is gapped about
right). The Valley Mill is easily motorized, a real plus if you're
crushing a lot of grain at one time. We're still waiting for Dan
Listermann's new, improved Philmill to arrive. His old one worked well,
it just didn't look very impressive, and unfortuately this inhibited
sales. I looked at the Automatic at the HWBTA convention and it looks
very solidly built, but it has brass bushings, not ball bearings, and is
priced a bit steep for my tastes. There's a similar one made in
Colorado, but for the life of me, I can't remember the brand name. One
of my customers has one and seems very happy with it. Like the
Automatic, it comes in close to $200. We received the Marga Mill when
they first came out, but sent them back immediately. I wasn't impressed
at all. We had a short-lived BOP here in town that had a nice little
modestly priced mill (from Brewers Resource in Camarillo, CA, I
recall). As for the stainless-steel rollers, Jack's right, unless you
live in an extremely humid climate and are planning on keeping your mill
in the garage, I don't think rust and corrosion will ever be an issue.
That's my two cents worth, anyway. Okay, maybe it was more like
five or six cents worth. Later. . .
Scott Birdwell
DeFalco's
Houston, Texas
Not so far from Jeff Renner astronomically speaking
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 00:34:57 GMT
From: jdickins@usit.net
Subject: Brillo and SS304 kegs
I would recommend that you stay far away from brillo on stainless, as it
will
embed itself into the keg and rust. As for scotch brite pads, I'd stay
away from
them too, they will scratch stainless steel. Don't believe me? Try
rubbing a glass
bottle with one and you will see scratches appear as if by magic. Glass
is much
harder than your 304 SS, so it will scratch that much easier. What do I
use?
Stainless steel chore boys. They work wonderfully on all my stainless
gear and
they leave very very few scratches.
jim (in memphis)
>Bob Scott <rrscott@jps.net> wrote:
>David Sweeney asked about using steel wool and Brillo pads on SS. As a
>data point, Navy galleys (kitchens) are prohibited from using metal
>cleaning pads. The metal pads eventually break down and provide metal
>slivers that can get into food or be rinsed down drains that on ships
>have valves further downstream that can get scored or clogged. Home
>use is at the individual's risk. 3M's Scotch Brite pads with the
>appropriate cleaner work just as well (std. disclaimers) and don't wear
>out the pots.
>Bob Scott
>>Won't rust, bits and pieces of the steel wool get embedded in the
scratches
>>and they will rust. Is this true? If so, why can we use Brillo pads on
our
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 23:29:47 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@hbd.org>
Subject: FWH Experiment
Hi folks:
In response to comments made by Jim Layton about FWH, the
question again comes up whether one should calculate IBU
utilization numbers from a FWH addition by just assuming
your full boil time, or whether the utilization goes up or
down materially from this number. To my knowledge, there's
not been a study on this (if anyone's seen one, I'd like to
read it).
Ergo, time for another experiment . . .
Here's my proposed methodology . . . please comment . . . .
Materials:
3 liters 14P sweet wort
3 x 1.000g high alpha hop pellets
approx 100mls yeast slurry
Prepare 3 liters of 14P sweet wort by whatever method (full
grain mash, reconstituted high-quality malt extract,
whatever). Split this into three equal portions (+/- 5mls)
and begin heating (ideally, on identical hot plates or stove
burners).
Batch 1 -- FWH -- When the temp hits 80C (176F), add 1.000g
of high alpha hop pellets. Record the time it takes from
this addition until boiling begins. Boil for one hour, then
crash cool to 20C (68F) in an ice water bath. Pour
everything (wort, hot break, hops, etc.), into a sanitized
1000ml graduated cylinder or volumetric flask (use a funnel
if necessary), use a bit of cooled boiled water to rinse the
boiling container (add these rinsings to the graduated
cylinder / volumetric flask), and make up the total volume
to 1000ml with cooled boiled water. Separate the wort from
the hot break and spent hops by using a filter funnel and
coarse filter paper (a coffee filter would be ideal), with
the wort draining into another sanitized container for
fermentation. Pitch with 25mls of the yeast slurry,
agitate, and airlock.
Batch 2 -- 60 minute control. When this batch begins
boiling, add 1.000g of the hops. Boil for 60 minutes, then
cool, make to volume, filter, pitch, agitate, and ferment
identically to the FWH batch.
Batch 3 -- 60 minute + FWH time control. When this batch
starts boiling, add 1.000g hops. Boil this batch for 60
minutes PLUS the amount of time it took the FWH batch to
boil after the hops added (e.g., if it took the FWH batch 10
minutes after the time the hops were added to start boiling,
the total boil time for this batch should be 70 minutes).
Cool, make to volume, filter, pitch, agitate, and ferment
identically to the FWH batch.
After the batches have fermented out and the yeast has
dropped, pull approximately 50ml samples of each, centrifuge
lightly to remove any additional yeast, and test the
supernatent for IBU's using the ASBC methodology.
There should be a slight difference between the IBU levels
of batches 2 and 3, owing to the longer boil. (E.g., an
additional 15 minutes of boil should increase the IBU's
about 10%.) The IBU level of batch 1 is, of course, the
interesting data point, so that we can see if it is close to
that of batch 3 or batch 2, or materially less than batch 2.
What say the real scientists amongst you? Any glaring flaws
in the methodology? How many times would this experiment
have to be repeated to give a satisfactory n value? Etc.,
etc., etc.
LKB
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 23:09:40 +1100
From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates@infoflex.com.au>
Subject: So Long And Thanks For All The Fish
By the time you read this (if you read this) I will simply not be here. Not
that this is a suicide note. Not that I am distressed about not having a
RIMS. Not that the continual stream of love letters from Eric Fouch
(addressed to Jill) have in any way affected my decision. Not that anyone
here would in fact give a rats! But my decision is final.
We are moving house, moving home, moving right out of the city! And until I
pick up the shattered pieces of my closed down brewhouse, and a few other
personal grief's which have occurred in the process, I am signing off from
the HBD.
But unlike Doc Pivo, Eric Panther and Arnold Chicken Shorts, I will return.
And thinking of lost posts, or last posts, where is Steve Alexander? We
never did get to see the "Brave New Brewery Mark III"!
Thanks all for a lot of good information and I hope a bit of fun along the
way. I was going to have a jibe at Alan Mackay but I can't knock a bloke who
owns a Valley Mill.
All the best for Christmas if I don't get back on line by then. And a
special thanks to Pat Babcock for the trouble you endure in keeping the HBD
alive, and the trouble you endure from the likes of me. Not to mention your
friendship!
Cheers
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:19:26 -0500
From: "Frank J. Russo" <FJRusso@coastalnet.com>
Subject: RE: High Gravity Brewing
.....it entailed producing a more highly concentrated wort using both
less water in the mash and sparge, then after boil, diluting with water to
obtain the desired S.G......
This is how I started my homebrewing. I simply lacked the equipment to deal
with larger volumes. Having a source of heat was no problem. Since I was
not boiling to remove volume I could keep my boil times down to 60 minutes.
My boil volume was ~ 4 gallons.
Of course the S.G. of my brews were right where I wanted them to be. My
volume may shift +/- 1/2 gallon but made no difference. Yes, this was for
finished batch size of 5 gallons.
I was pleased with doing it this way and I still am. Not all my batches are
done this way. NO special reason. Good luck with your and let me know how I
comes out.
Frank Russo
FJRusso@Coastalnet.com
"There is only one aim in life and that is to live it."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 09:06:54 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dry ice carbonation,
Brewsters:
Jeff (Good) Luck asks how much dry ice to
add to a bottle to get carbonation. I don't
recommend it, but here's how to do the
calculation.
The MW of carbon dioxide is 14 + 2X16 = 46.
So 46 grams will produce 22.4 liters at STP.
One bottle of beer is 12 ounces (~ 320 ml).
One volume of CO2 in one bottle will be
0.32 * 46/22.4 = 0.657 grams of dry ice.
How many volumes you need will depend
on how much carbon dioxide is already in
the beer. The risk with this procedure is the
error in adding such a small amount of dry ice
as a few grams to a bottle is that you could
easily produce a bottle bomb unless you
have a way to accurately do this. I don't
know how to do it. The other possibility
is that the CO2 will not come to equilibrium
with the liquid right away and the pressure
in the bottle headspace may be higher than
predicted until it does.
Other brewers with pressure-gauged CO2
tanks can use a device like a Carbonator (R)
or Ken Schwartz' SS bicycle tube
air valve/soda pop top to produce
carbonated beer quickly. This is a much
safer route as the pressure of the gas over
the liquid is controlled and is independent
of the CO2 already dissolved,so that
only the amount of gas needed for correct
carbonation is added.
Check the HBD archives.
- ---------------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 08:16:23 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: RE: carcinogens
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
...snip... Go back to HBD #3186 Sat 04 December 1999 and read
Alan's post.
Totally OT.
Alan's comments on why massive dosing is done during carcinogen
testing is correct. Often the incidence of cancer is so rare that
with typical doses you have to use too many animals and wait too long
of a time to get results. This is wasteful and incredibly expensive.
You simply can not do a 1,000,000 rat 3 year experiment. For our rat
lovers out there, Federal animal testing laws dictate how much space
each rat must have and limits how many in a cage. Laws dictate air
flow, air quality - basically everything. Also, for valid testing you
NEED healthy, happy, unstressed animals. Animal testing is EXPENSIVE!
Sorry, for the testing rant - now back to our show.
So, the massive dosing rationale is valid.
Are the results valid?
Well, it depends. The is some good evidence that carcinogenicity is a
threshold phenomenon. We eat carcinogens in EVERYTHING. A single cup
of coffee has more carcinogens in it than ANY Amercian municipal water
supply. In fact, caffeine is used as a laboratory mutagen. How do
plants compete with each other? They don't have limbs or claws or
teeth, and they sure can't run. Chemical warfare. Every plant puts
out its own unique contingent of noxious chemicals to ward off other
plants, fungus, insects, mammailian predators and parasites. Why do
you think hops make bittering compounds? Why do you think barley has
tannins? Why do you think that celery smells like celery? When you
eat the plants you eat the chemicals, and very, very many of them are
carcinogens and mutagens.
Arrgghhhh! We're all gonna die!
That may be so, but it's not going to happen from eating carrots or
celery. Our bodies have evolved in an environment where we are
bombarded by carcinogens, toxins, and mutagens at every turn, and our
bodies have a capacity to render most of these compounds harmless.
In short, we have a threshold below which carcinogens are not harmful.
Now, not for every carcinogen, the thresholds differ for different
classes of compounds, etc., etc., etc., and yada-yada-yada, standard
disclaimers apply. But, in general, we have a threshold capacity to
deal with carcinogens.
The problem with massive dose testing is that if this threshold
hypothesis is true (I think that it is), then massive dosage testing
is invalid and basically useless. It will tag harmless substances as
harmful at a very high rate. It will unneccessarily alarm huge
numbers of people while at the same time numbing them to any REAL
dangers. How many time have you heard someone say, "Everything is
harmful", or "Jeesh, everything will kill you", then take a drag on a
cigarette - which, by the way, if abused, WILL kill you.
Should we stop this kind of massive dose testing? Of course not.
It's the best that we can do at the moment and you should always use
the best tools available. In the future tissue culture and/or
cell-based studies may replace much of animal testing.
I agree with both Dave Burley and Alan Meeker. Massive dose testing
is often a crock, but it's the best crock we have. Until something
better comes along we are stuck with it. At least it errs way off
to the safe side.
If you are interested, check the publications of Dr. Bruce Ames. His
father invented the Ames Test, and he is a major proponent of the
threshold hypothesis.
One last thing. What do I do to help bolster my own personal
thresholds? I eat anti-oxidants. I won't even mention any particular
anti-oxidants nor sources of such because this is NOT medical advice
nor should it be considered a guarantee of long life and happiness and
grandchildren. If you're interested look it up. The Net is a
wonderful thing.
Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152 phone
(206) 782-6766 fax orders
demonick at zgi dot com
FREE SAMPLES! Enough for three 5 gallon batches. Fax, phone, or
email, name, shipping address (no P.O.B.) AND phone number (for UPS in
case of delivery problems - I will never call you). Sorry, I'm
covering shipping, so lower 48 only.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 09:45:49 -0700
From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw@dimensional.com>
Subject: Re: Sister Star
Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu> writes:
>Has anybody actually
>brewed a 5 gallon batch with that huge quantity of bittering hops? Was it
>drinkable?
Nathan, I brewed a 10 gallon batch a couple of years ago in my Pico(tm)
system and found that it is probably mis-named. It should have just been
called "Hop Stew". I used all whole hops and I could hardly stir it. I
figured that I lost about a gallon to retention in the hops when I drained
it into the carboys. However, it was one of the best tasting brews that I
have ever made and I certainly will brew it again. Only next time I'll use
pellets in large muslin bags that my spousal unit makes for me and I might
have to weight them down with a horse shoe or some such device. I might
even FWH the entire hop charge just have another data point.
I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system. 'Cept for that
gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
off the bed at night.
Women...
--Pat Babcock
*** It's never too late to have a happy childhood! ***
****************************************************************************
RJW@dimensional.com / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell / perhaps shared. ICQ #7136012
Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus Longmont, Colorado
****************************************************************************
(4,592 feet higher than Jeff Renner)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 13:13:37 -0800
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Braggot/Bracket
Braggot should have a balance of honey and malt flavor. Some brewers
believe that hops should not be used in traditional braggot, but
personally I like them to 1) balance the sweetness and 2) help with the
hot break. (Some traditional mead makers also like to use wild yeast
and acid additions to add some sourness to balance the sweetness. This
is not my preference, but is a widely-practiced option.)
Here is a braggot recipe which is inspired by Belgian Tripel, and I
might increase the honey to 7 lbs the next time I make it:
10.5 lbs Belgian Pils, mash at 145 for 2 hours with 1 tsp of Water
crystals (gypsum & magnesium) and infuse to 170 for sparge.
1 Oz Perle 8 AA boil, 1 Oz Kent Goldings (20 min)
Turn off heat, stir in 5 lbs of Clover honey and 1/2 oz Cascade hops
Chill & Ferment with a highly-attenuative Belgian Yeast
Clarifying braggot or mead is tricky. If you use Sparkaloid (tm) plan
on using multiple rackings after giving the braggot a chance to settle.
In any case, a long secondary fermentation (3-12 months) is good.
I've never entered Braggot in a competition. All local beer judges have
either never tasted braggot or only tasted mine.
> From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
> Subject: Braggott
>
> Members of our local club have been discussing braggots, but none of us
> have brewed, or even tasted one, but the idea of brewing a batch has it's
> appeal. Could someone direct me to a good recipe, perhaps with a definition
> of characteristics to look for?
>
> If anyone has judges comments from a competition that go with the recipe,
> that would be very helpfull.
>
> Thanks
> Bob
- --
Dr. Ted McIrvine McIrvine@Ix.Netcom.Com
College of Staten Island/CUNY
"Music is the hidden arithmetical exercise of a mind unconscious that is
calculating."
Gottfried Leibniz, quoted in Lorenz Mizler's Musikalische Bibliothek
Unsolicited commercial E-Mail will be charged a$200 fee for
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 04 Dec 1999 11:50:17 -0400
From: kathy/jim <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: pickled eggs
I'd like some suggested recipes for the pickled eggs often served in
bars from jars
on the counter. TIA.....cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
post to kbooth@waverly.k12.mi.us
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 10:18:13 -0800
From: "scott" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: First Lager Season questions
Have brewed my firs two Pilsner lagers thus far. I have a chest freezer
that holds 4 carboys. First 10 gal. batch fermented great at 45-50 deg. I
then racked, then gradually worked the temp down to 35 deg.
Question 1:
While one beer is lagering, will it hurt it any to raise the freezer temp
for a week, so your next batch can primary ferment?
Question 2:
After lagering for 2-3 months, will there be enough active yeast leftover to
carbonate with corn sugar? Will I need to add a secondary yeast? Am
planning on having kegging capacity by next month, which will probably help
me in that dept.
Thanks for all your help
Scott
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Salon/3768/Brewery.html
------------------------------
Date: 04 Dec 1999 14:48:29 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Cancer Testing
Alan Meeker goes on about the strategy behind mega-dosing suspected
chemicals to animals for testing. Alan forgets that the mechanism for
getting cancer is NOT so well understood that one can claim that a
1000 times dose gives a 1000 times chance of seeing the effect! This
is just absolutely not so! In high quality studies, the chemicall
substance under study has to be tested at BELOW TOXIC LEVELS. That is
you are not supposed to increase the mortality of the mice/rat etc at
the testing dosage. This is because of the problems with
carcenogenicity testing in the past that has led to many problems.
Look at the millions of dollars that we are required to spend asbestos
abatement. The facts are that asbestos does cause health problems,
but the form of the asbestos has much to do with that, most of what we
have "abated" has posed not harm, we just do it because of political
pressure. Take another example, I pump my own gas, and I expose
myself to benzene in the gas a a level much higher than OSHA would
allow in my laboratory, why? It is because pumping gas for myself is
not an occupational hazard! While I am on a roll about Gasoline, what
would you say is the greatest hazard associated with gasoline? I
would say it is the fact that it can form EXPLOSIVE mixtures with air,
plus its high flamability. But what warning of that hazard is there
at the gasoline dispensing station? NONE! Oh sure, there are signs
that say no smoking, but those are everywhere today, there is a
"health" warning that is so vague that it is really meaningless, what
else? Oh yeah you can only dispense gas into an "approved" container,
and oh yeah, one more thing, there is a seal from the town's weights
and measures there to assure you you are not getting ripped off, where
is the real informaiton about the hazards of gasoline? these other
measures are there because of a bunch of LAWYERS, they are there to
protect the gas station owners, and you be dammed! So next time you
are pumping gas, take a look around and see what is really being
perpetrated in the name of "safety" and then consider how reliable
someones claim of product safety or danger is. The answer is take
care of your own ass!
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:10:07 EST
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Sweet Corn and RIMS History
<<In a message dated 12/4/99 1:06:56 AM Central Standard Time,
"Steve Potter" <spotter@meriter.com> writes:
Subject: Dried Sweet Corn and Sister Star IPA
Hello,
With all the talk about dried sweet corn, it occurs to me that last year I
ran into some freeze dried sweet corn at the Spice House in Milwaukee. It
was individual kernels and was as sweet as candy. I am sure that it is
pricy, but perhaps a Milwaukee HBDer would be kind enough to check?
<snip>
Cheers,
Steve
>>
Hi to Steve from MKE!
The spice house can be found at:
http://www.thespicehouse.com/
Dried sweet corn is about $15.00 per pound plus shipping. Great place for
brewing spices, but they don't have dried bitter orange peel....... ;-(
On another thread regarding Rodney Morris and the first RIMS.
Anyone out there know Rodney?
This has been posted before but is still interesting reading.
A patent on a recirculating homebrewing mash system first submitted in 1986
from a gent in Canada: (4,754,698)
http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-1988+0+944796+4+0+41545+OF
+100+193+51+beer+OR+recirculation
Have Fun!
Wayne
Botanist Brewer
Big Fun Brewing
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:14:44 -0600
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens@sprint.ca>
Subject: Dry Ice for carbonation
Jeff:
I'll leave the details to you, but you know what you're trying to achieve.
The steps are:
1 - assume you already have 1 volume CO2 in your beer after secondary (you
can check the actual value for your temperature using the Recipator, but
that's a typical value at cellar temperature).
2 - figure out how many more volumes CO2 you need to reach your target.
3 - calculate the amount of dry ice needed by weight at 44 g dry ice = 22.4
L CO2 gas (this also depends on temperature, but the actual performance of
the procedure introduces far more error).
4 - divide by the number of bottles. Rack the beer into bottles, then
start weighing out your 2/3 g pellets. As you toss each pellet into a
bottle of beer, slam the cap on before it foams all over the place, and
crimp it on. I would wear goggles while doing this.
This might be more practical with kegs, but I figure that if you weigh out
100 g glucose it will still be 100 g when you're ready for it 5-50 minutes
later. The dry ice is a bit of a moving target.
I once dropped a pellet of dry ice in a beer as a joke. It was messy, but
don't let me discourage you.
Sean
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 20:57:50 -0500
From: Bret Morrow <bret.morrow@prodigy.net>
Subject: FWH: First Wort Hazing??
Greetings all,
I have been using FWH for about 2 years and have had some problem with
temporary hazes. This has not been much of a problem as it clears in
the 'frige within a week or two. This last batch, however, didn't get
Irish Moss and has a permanent haze. The potential link between FWH and
the temporary haze was identified to me through the HBD archives by
George DePiro (are you out there George?). He mentioned that hazing
could result from extended exposure of the wort to the hops. There are,
of course, many other potential haze forming practices in brewing. I
can NOT say that I have kept these consistent through out this time
period and it is likely that some other haze forming component has
strongly contributed to the haze problem. With this said, any comments
on FWH (or dry hopping) and hazing?
On a second, related issue. Once several years ago, I brewed a batch of
light ale with friends, one of which was suppose to bring the hops, but
he didn't make it to the homebrew shop in time. We already had the mash
going, so we decided to go ahead and boil the wort and added the yeast.
After the primary and secondary fermtations, we got the hops and boiled
them in water (w/ lactic acid), cooled it and filtered out the big hop
parts. We added the resulting lime green liquid to the finished beer
and kegged it up. Wow, was that batch clear!! This procedure was never
repeated but I thought about doing it as a haze reducing procedure. Any
thoughts?
Bret Morrow
Hamden, CT
P.S. George--Tourette's disease is associated with a lot more than
physical and vocal tics (sometimes swearing)--it is strongly associated
with obsessive compulsive symptoms. Does this new description of
Tourette's seem to fit you as well as you implied? (Hope not!)
Although, most brewers are slightly obsessive, right?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 01:41:31 -0500
From: "gdepiro" <gdepiro@mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Oxidized yeast starters / undermodified malts
Howdy all,
Alan ponders:
> Hmmmmm perhaps we're getting our signals crossed a bit? What I'm worried
> about is that the starter is /already/ oxidized at the time of pitching,
> not that it will become oxidized during the early phase of the
> fermentation
> when there is some oxygen present in the virgin wort. As you
> point out, the
> wort oxygen will typically be used up by the yeast in the first
> 30 minutes...
Yes, I am not communicating effectively. Alan continues:
> Maybe we are preparing our starters differently? I grow my starter to
> saturation with continuous air exposure throughout so it is guaranteed to
> already be well oxidized by the time it is ready for pitching. At pitch it
> is probably as oxidized as it is ever going to get!
I only continuously aerate the first couple of steps here at the pub. The
last two steps, at 3 gallons and 30 gallons, are only aerated at the
beginning. I do this because of the stuff that Alan fears: adding 10%
oxidized beer to my main batch. If I had the money, I would prefer to grow
yeast with continuous aeration and centrifuge it out of solution. Letting
it settle here at the pub is not an option (not enough tank space or time
for that, although more money could fix that, I suppose).
- ----------------------------------
About that undermodified malt from Czech.:
Jim Liddil mentions that modern American brewing theory is to have the
maltster do all the work. Other brewers must believe this, too, because
undermodified malts are so hard to find anywhere in the world. Jim points
out that many brewers do not have the time, equipment, or desire to use
undermodified malts and asks for my opinion.
I agree. Yes, as a homebrewer I decocted almost everything, figuring out
how to decoct without protein rests. I liked the results, as did many
fellow homebrewers. When I started here at the pub, equipment limitations
forced me to accept infusion mashing as my only means of brewing.
I have found that modifications to the malt bill can help to duplicate the
flavor of a decocted beer (not perfectly, of course, but acceptably). I use
large amounts of Vienna and Munich malts, and also add DWC aromatic malt and
Weyermann melanoidin malt to many brews. My infusion-mashed, commercial
Hefeweizen tastes much like my single-decocted homebrew version. I simply
use no pilsner malt. The grain bill is 60% Weyermann light wheat malt and
40% Weyermann light Munich malt. The flavor is very malty (which is also
accented by the extremely low hopping rate). My homebrew Weizen used equal
amounts of pilsner and Munich malt with a single decoction.
A good thing about not decocting is that there is less handling of the
mash, which means that there is less opportunity for oxidizing it. Also,
decoction mashes are harder to lauter (as Jim Busch points out). My Weizen
is already a 2 hour runoff; why make it even longer!
I do miss the aroma of decoctions, though. Mmmmm. Maltilicious.
As a homebrewer I probably will buy some of this malt and brew with it, just
to see what it is like. I may use it here at the pub, but don't feel a
burning urge to increase my day's length and complexity at the moment.
Have fun!
George de Piro
C.H.Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station
(518) 447-9000
Malted Barley Appreciation Society Homebrew Club
http://hbd.org/mbas
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3187, 12/06/99
*************************************
-------
