Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3646
HOMEBREW Digest #3646 Wed 30 May 2001
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
force cooling of wort ("John Zeller")
Mash runoff clarity ("John Zeller")
Iodine strength ("spam-zapper")
H:W Huh ? ("Stephen Alexander")
re:Pressure Fermenting (Jim Adwell)
Yeast fermentation temp (Bruce Carpenter)
Re: Mash runoff clarity ("Drew Avis")
concerning H/W ratio of fermenters (Jim Adwell)
re:Mash runoff clarity (Jim Adwell)
Iodine (AJ)
Siphon helpers (JE)" <steinbrunnerje@dow.com>
CAP experiment -- Student's t (Frank Tutzauer)
Cold Break in the Fermenter ("Dennis Collins")
New old brew pot ("Ken Miller.")
Grain Storage & Bottle Conditioning ("Hedglin, Nils A")
Washington DC/Brew Pubs (Jamy Magro)
Australian Beer Glasses (Ernie)
Re: Mash runoff clarity (RoyRudy)
*
* 2001 AHA NHC - 2001: A Beer Odyssey, Los Angeles, CA
* June 20th-23rd See http://www.beerodyssey.com for more
* information. Wear an HBD ID Badge to wear to the gig!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* 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.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 22:50:52 -0700
From: "John Zeller" <jwz_sd@hotmail.com>
Subject: force cooling of wort
Tammy wrote:
"When I make my soap I force cool my lye solution by using ice instead of
water. So, to force cool the wort, add 1/2 weight of ice cubes"
There is a substantial risk of bacterial contamination when using ice to
cool hot wort. Ice can, and often does, harbor bacteria. I'm sure it works
well for making soap, but I think I will keep using my immersion chiller
instead. I do use ice with an additional coil to pre-chill the cooling
water, but that is as close as I want ice to come to my wort.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 23:13:13 -0700
From: "John Zeller" <jwz_sd@hotmail.com>
Subject: Mash runoff clarity
Brian wrote:
"There are some ugly rumours circulating in another forum that people are
getting brilliantly clear runoffs from their mashes. <snip> But I now find
myself suffering from "runoff envy" and I would like to know what I'm doing
wrong."
Brian,
I don't think you are doing anything wrong at all and I think the guys are
exaggerating somewhat. My wort has never been crystal clear no matter how
much I recirculate. Don't let it bother you at all. I only recirculate a
few quarts until there are no large particles in the runoff. The clarity of
the sparge runoff has little to do with the clarity of the finished beer in
my experience.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 01:49:14 -0600
From: "spam-zapper" <spam-zapper@home.com>
Subject: Iodine strength
on Mon, 28 May 2001 09:49:55 -0400, "Neil K"
<neilk27@hotmail.com> wrote:
"...tincture of iodine to use for a starch
conversion test (my first all-grain batch!) The
drugstore, however, sells two strengths--a 2.5 %
and 5% concentration..." Which one should I get
Get one of each. Mix them together and you
will have a 7.5% solution. Now there are
brainiacs on the list that will tell you that
you will end up with 3.25%, but don't listen to
them. They will most likely have you testing
you beer for sugar diabetes too!!! Ask your
self this - if you have an apple that weighs 5
ounces and one that weighs 2.5 ounces and put
them on the scale at the same time how much will
they weigh? 7.5 ounces, of course. Trust me -
I am an expert because I say so.
Plus with the stronger solution, your starch
conversion will happen faster - you might expect
shaving .0001 seconds off the test. And with
stuff that strong, don't mess around with a
small spoonful of mash for test - pull out about
a gallon or so. If you use Phil Yates'
centrifuge (the same one he used on that bloody
[bloody after he got done!!] cat) along with a
filter made from the cat fur Phil had to pick
off the walls after centrifuging said cat, you
will be able to return the mash to the tun (the
iodine having been filtered out).
Due to the high concentration of iodine, there
is one small danger you have to work with. You
will need to test the iodine itself for
excessive sugar - Cl*n*t*st is highly
recommended for this. If you should ever detect
sugar above 10ppm, immediately evacuate the area
and call the HazMat folks - your iodine, if not
handled properly will implode with such force
that the earth will be sucked in and inverted
into an position upside down relative to what it
is now. This will put AU in the northern
hemisphere, meaning that the Aussies will be
above the Yanks and Brits meaning that we will
see nothing but Aussie bum when we look up.
************
OK, nuff funnin'. Why don't you get a bottle of
each. Mix an equal portion of each to get three
solutions - 2.5, ~3.25, and 5. Use each of them
at each test point during your next brew. If,
each of the tests, all three concentrations give
the same result, then the rest of us will buy
the cheapest. However, if you get different
results, then we definitely need to have a
discussion about why the difference.
Reality is that which still exists even after you stop believing in it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 07:08:21 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: H:W Huh ?
Overall I'm very impressed with the quality of posts on the CAP/H:W
experiment. There are certainly folks out there who have much to
contribute. I would like to respond to some questions/points directed at
me.
Del Lansing writes ...
> there is not a lot left open for misinterpretation; but the H:W ratio
>does relate directly to surface area:volume ratio [...]
H:W and Surf:Vol are NOT directly related ratios Del. They can be varied
INDEPENDENTLY. Take a fixed fermenter shape like a cylinder,. choose any
arbitrary H:W ratio and any arbitrary Surf:Vol ratio and you can create a
cylinder which has both ratios. The two are unrelated.
>>I don't have specifics of DeClerk's experiment but I'll wager that it was
>>not designed to eliminate other factors and the conclusion that it is H:W
>>ratio isn't the only plausible conclusion from the data.
>
>I get it, without any facts or "experimental design" comments, or research
>of your own, you have concluded DeClerk has to be wrong.
Not at all. I strongly suspect DeCleck never wrote this vastly sweeping
conclusion that H:W *causes* poor fermentation performance. That isn't the
sort of thing one concludes from a limited set of experiments. Most likely
he made a statement of correlation over his limited range of experiments.
Later his less cautious readers overgeneralized from correlation in a
limited domain to causation in the general case. The method and conclusion
of the original experimental work would tell us a lot.
>I have not seen any data from you to support your position that
>fermenter geometry (or H:W ratio) does not matter.
Because I never said nor meant this. I said H:W was not *causative* of poor
fermentation performance. That is very different from "doesn't matter". It
likely correlates in some domains, but I see no reason to think it is
causative. This isn't news - this is exactly what I've been saying all
along.
It's unlikely that DeClerk performed the vast number of controlled
experiments needed to eliminate confounding variables and test the general
premise over a wide range of H:W and shapes. Anyway I don't need to perform
or cite extensive experiments to refute this. I just need to show a
counter-example, like a corny or test tube ferment w/o the sort of defects
ascribed to high H:W.
===
Harsh Dave Harsh writes ...
>> ...thoughtful and well read...
>
>Been a while since I've been called that. I must be slipping. ;)
My mistake Dave ;^)
- --
>> Dave, I agree that circulation can be a function of general geometry, but
is
>> certainly NOT a function of H:W ratio independent of these other factors.
>
>Circulation is strong function of the shape of the vessel: [...]
>Essentially, a 1 foot cube would produce the same [...]
I'm all ears Dave. If you can write the equations that show that
circulation induced shear forces are entirely dependent on H:W and not
dependent on other factors like volume your argument becomes much more
plausible. I doubt this can be done and so far you've just the handwaving
argument. Circulation, shear and cross-section in a 2.5:1 H:W test-tube vs
cornie are certainly different and also quite likely not higher (circ,
shear) than *every* 1:1 vessel.
>> Flocculation is a consequence of yeast metabolic processes.
>
>It is also a physical process as a result of fluid shear and statistics.
>It is well accepted that there are biochemical changes on the cellular
>surface that enhance flocculation, but shear induces flocculation.
(Low) shear flocculation is a real effect, but it only applies to yeast
cells which are already flocculent. The shear only floccs cells whose
surfaces have changed.
>A high aspect
>ratio fermenter will have less cross-sectional area for the circulation
>induced by fermentation.
Sorry - no. Area is not determined by H:W. Does a 3:1 corny have the same
cross section as a 3:1 test tube ?
>Yeast are just particles in the fluid continuum and behave as such.
Hardly. There were numerous papers back in the 1st half of the 20th century
trying to model yeast as particulate and they've largely failed. They're
not a colloidal suspension, they don't follow stokes law and their
sedimentation properties are time variable. If you find a model to match
all the evidence it would be quite a breakthrough.
>Steve - if you want to convince me: Give a physical explanation of how
>the fermenter geometry will produce changes in the fermenting wort and
>how those changes will explain the observed effects of aspect ratio.
>What is your hypothesis?
See - you haven't been reading. My contention is that there is no such
effect if you control for other variables. Adding my "guess" to yours
would be fruitless. I agree that you have created a proper chain of
relations, (H:W -> shear -> early flocculation) which if demonstrated to be
causal would explain the effect. I doubt the relations hold, 1/ that H:W
implies greater shear regardless of volume and, 2/ that shear alone can
flocc growing yeast. This last I am quite sure is in error. There has been
a lot of research in the past decade on flocculation.
>[...] , but it is interesting that
>the best way to floc and remove yeast cells is by cooling, [...]
I'm sorry, but do we have some lovely parting gifts ....
'Cold causes flocculation' is an HB momily !! Cold actually PREVENTS
flocculation in most yeast. One study which anyone can access is on the
ASBC website vol 58(3) pp108-116, by Jin et al., "Effect of Environmental
Condition on the Flocculation of S.cerevisiae" for example. Their ale
strain ... "showed stronger flocculation at higher temperatures (P<0.001) in
the range 5C-25C." I've some JIB papers that show the same. Some yeast
show little temp effect, some floc poorly at low or high temps. But as a
rule, cold does NOT cause flocculation and often prevents it.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 08:47:39 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jim@jimala.com>
Subject: re:Pressure Fermenting
Keith Menefy writes:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that pressure fermenting helped improve
lagers. (Can't find where I read it). Just changed my system to be able to
do this. I am using a blow off tube into 18 inches of water. Thought that
would increase the pressure quite a bit but on looking it up find that it is
around half a pound/sq.in. Hardly seems worth the trouble.
1. Does anyone know if pressure fermenting really works?
2. What sort of pressure is required?
3. Is there a easier way to get an increase in pressure in the fermentor?
Well, there is a US patent, 4068005, which claims:
A method of accelerating the fermentation of a lager-type beer comprises
conducting the fermentation at an elevated temperature with or without
exogenous agitation while maintaining the dissolved carbon dioxide
concentration in the fermentation liquor at a level approximating that
found in a fermentation liquor during a normal supersaturated lager-type
bottom-fermentation. The level of dissolved carbon dioxide is maintained
at about 1.5 to about 2.0 cc per cc of beer by use of an overpressure of
2-20 psig of carbon dioxide.
The idea being that one can ferment one's beer at a higher temperature for
less time, thus saving on refrigerating costs and moving the product out
the door faster, which would be important to a mega-brewer like Millers,
Of interest to homebrewers, I suppose, is that this method will cut down on
fusel oils, esters and other nasty things during the ferment, thus making a
cleaner tasting beer. I haven't experimented with pressurized
fermentation, and probably won't. If you are going to try it, DO NOT try
to pressurize a glass carboy ; use a cornie or other container designed for
pressure.
The patent goes into more detail about all this. You can find it at:
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&
u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='4068005'.WKU.&OS=PN/4068005&RS=PN/4
068005
or you can search for 4068005 at:
http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/srchnum.htm
Cheers, Jim
Jim & Paula Adwell
jimala@ptd.net
jimala@jimala.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 07:56:53 -0500
From: Bruce Carpenter <bruce@dtconline.com>
Subject: Yeast fermentation temp
Greetings,
I have a question regarding published fermentation temperatures of various
yeasts. Are the recommended ranges referring to ambient temp or wort temp?
Also, what are the consequences of higher fermentation temps (75-80 degrees
ambient for 65-72 recommended)?
Thanks in advance,
Bruce
- --
Bruce Carpenter
Birmingham, AL
bcarpenter@appleonline.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:05:36
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Mash runoff clarity
Brian Lundeen complains of "runoff envy", which might be better described as
"haze halitosis" or even "pernicious protein precipitate pouting". Just to
increase your angst, Brian, check out a shot of a sparge I did last year:
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_avis/inside2.html (7th photo down) where you
can clearly see the bottom of the pot through an inch of first runnings. To
be honest, I only get runnings this clear once every three or four batches,
usually there's a bit more haze. If the crush is just right, the conversion
temps hit on the button, and the stars in alignment, I get crystal clear
runnoff after recirculating maybe 10 litres.
Is cloudy runoff a problem? I guess the real question is, are your finished
beers as clear as you'd like? I've read many times about the link between
clear sweet wort and clear finished beer, but most my beers end up as clear
as I'd like, regardless of how cloudy the runnings are.
Cheers!
Drew Avis, Merrickville
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_avis/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 09:18:50 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jim@jimala.com>
Subject: concerning H/W ratio of fermenters
>From patent no. 4068005 (issued 1976 - see my previous post in this issue
for details on this patent):
There is increasing use of large, very deep fermenting tanks in the
brewing
industry. The volatiles concentration is frequently less in the beer from
these tanks than occurs in a conventionally fermented lager beer (7).
This
is a result of excessive dissolved CO.sub.2 due to the much greater tank
depth--often five times as deep as conventional lager fermentors. This
increased dissolved CO.sub.2 concentration overrepresses yeast growth and
concomitantly volatiles formation.
Note that this concerns large industrial scale tanks, not our piddly 5-10
gallon homebrew fermenters. On this large scale, fermenter geometry does
indeed matter.
On the homebrew scale, high dissolved CO2 levels due to fermenter geometry
do not exist (unless one is fermenting 5 gallons in a very tall, small
diameter pipe). One could, however, ferment under CO2 pressure in a cornie
keg, and presumably have over-repressed yeast growth.
>From Stephen Alexander's recent post:
Mr.Fix sited a number of fermentation performance problems with high H:W
cornie keg fermenters. Very high diacetyl levels (350ppb), extremely long
fermentation time (twice as a long as a control 22-24 days), and high FG
(2P
above a control).
With 'over-repressed yeast growth' one would expect to have long
fermentation times, a higher than normal final gravity, and poor diacetyl
reduction.
Perhaps Mr. Fix has confused industrial tanks with homebrew fermenters.
Just a thought.
Cheers, Jim
Jim & Paula Adwell
jimala@ptd.net
jimala@jimala.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 09:54:50 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jim@jimala.com>
Subject: re:Mash runoff clarity
Brian Lundeen writes:
There are some ugly rumours circulating in another forum that people are
getting brilliantly clear runoffs from their mashes. Phrases like "crystal
clear" and "clear as finished wine" are being bandied about with reckless
abandon. Needless to say, this is extremely distressing. The best I can seem
to accomplish is a slight haze in my Pyrex Recirculator, or measuring cup as
they are often labelled in housewares. Of course, this is only really
noticeable in those few very light beers that I have made from DWC Pils
malt. Most of my beers are on the dark side so its hard to judge the clarity
in those. But I now find myself suffering from "runoff envy" and I would
like to know what I'm doing wrong.
I've found that if you squint real hard while lautering, the run-off looks
pretty clear, even if it has big chunks in it. Using an opaque run-off
tube will help with your frame of mind, too.
Seriously, this might or might not be helpful to you, but I also have been
getting remarkably clear run-offs lately. Here's what I have been doing:
1 - been crushing malt and grain more coarsely than I used to. I get a bit
less efficiency, but a faster run-off. Perhaps this helps with clarity,
also. Note: I use a Corona mill.
2 - been adding oat hulls to my mash, because I have been using a large %
of my home-malted rye. I don't actually need the oat hulls, but the
run-off is faster with them (~ 1/2 lb per 5 gallon mash).
3 - been mashing-out at ~170F. A bit high for the purists, but it works
just fine with no astringency detectable. Again, a faster run-off, for
sure. I let the mash settle for ~5 minutes with the mash-stirrer off
before starting the run-off.
4 - been adding ~10% buckwheat to my mash; perhaps the hulls help.
Perhaps one or more of these is affecting the clarity of the run-off. Or
maybe it's the phase of the moon, who knows? :)
Cheers, Jim
Jim & Paula Adwell
jimala@ptd.net
jimala@jimala.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 09:57:42 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Iodine
For testing the presence of starch it doesn't matter what the strength
of the iodine solution is. If you are using it to estimate SO2 levels in
your beer then that's a different matter.
A.J.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:03:02 -0400
From: "Steinbrunner, Jim (JE)" <steinbrunnerje@dow.com>
Subject: Siphon helpers
Steven Parfit wrote:
>My unsanitary habit of "mouth starting" the siphon is the suspected
culprit... picked up a "MightyVac" type pump... a tad on the expensive
side ($36).<
I use the Fermtech (NAYY) Auto-Siphon to transfer from pot to
fermenter, and also to collect hydrometer samples. I've used it with
a bottling cane and PrimeTabs (again, NAYY) for bottling directly
from the secondary. I picked mine up at a local homebrew shop for
less than US$10, although I don't remember the exact cost. An easy
pump to start the siphon, and if I lose siphon in mid-transfer due
to fermenter-bottom gunk, etc., one stroke gets it moving again
without stirring up the bottom or risking contamination. It's made
my brewing a lot easier.
http://www.fermtech.on.ca/
I haven't used it nor do I know the price, but the Carboytap (once
more, NAYY) looks similar.
http://www.fermentap.com/carboytap.html
Jim Steinbrunner
Midland, MI
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:08:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Frank Tutzauer <comfrank@acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: CAP experiment -- Student's t
Just a couple of minor comments/clarifications on AJ's very thoughtful post
from yesterday's digest:
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
>Steve...suggests a test which I think we could do: several brewers
>prepare a wort and split it between Corny's - one filled to a high H:W
>ratio and the other to a lower and allow fermentation to complete.
>...and look for a significant difference in the scores (using, of course,
>Student's t test which was designed for exactly this purpose - comparing
>beers).
First, recognize with this design that wort volume is perfectly confounded
with aspect ratio.
Second, make sure you use the correct t-test. "Student's t" is the name of
the distribtution, not the test, and there are a variety of "t-tests" using
this distribution. With this design you want a matched-pairs t-test,
sometimes called a paired t-test or a correlated t-test. It is essentially
a one-sample t-test on the differences between the fermenters. You do
*not* want to use an independent-samples t-test. This would be the
appropriate statistic if we used one group of brewers with one aspect
ratio, and a separate (independent) group of brewers with the second aspect
ratio. But here, as we have *one* group of brewers, each doing two (i.e.
paired) measurements, then the paired t-test is appropriate.
If, dear reader, you are not into statistical theory, don't sweat it.
These are trivial tests to conduct.
Oh, and AJ is right in that Student's t was originally designed for
comparing *beers*!!! If I recall correctly, the distribution was derived
by a fellow at Guinness, but because he couldn't publish under his own name
he used instead the name "Student."
--frank
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 13:55:22 -0400
From: "Dennis Collins" <dcollins@drain-all.com>
Subject: Cold Break in the Fermenter
Hello all,
This question is for those of you who use counter flow chillers. Lately
there has been much discussion on keeping out the hot break and hop pellets
from the boil pot via whole hops, the bazooka screen, whirlpooling, etc.
Well what about the cold break? If you use a counter flow chiller, 100% of
the cold break goes into the fermenter. What is the impact of the cold
break on primary fermentation? For that matter, what is the impact of the
hot break and hop pellet residue on primary fermentation? If you rack
within 4 or 5 days, does any of it matter?
I ask this question because I am seriously thinking of using a counter flow
chiller for speed, but was curious about the resulting cold break in the
fermenter.
Dennis Collins
Knoxville, TN
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 15:14:59 -0400
From: "Ken Miller." <kgmiller2@yahoo.com>
Subject: New old brew pot
Yard sale season is upon us and my wife arrived home with a 24 quart pot to
add to the brewery. For just $12!!!!
Anyway, the pot looks to be Stainless Steel. I can find no information
stamped on it. Any way to verify if it is SS of aluminum? It feels heavy
enough to be SS.
Also, its definately been well used. No dents and the handles are solid.
However, it is kind of a dull grey, and has some stains on the outside. The
inside has a burn mark in the bottom. Any advice on how to clean it up and
maybe get it looking a little better.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:51:35 -0700
From: "Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin@intel.com>
Subject: Grain Storage & Bottle Conditioning
Hi there,
I just made a stout batch yesterday & have some extra grains & hops left
over I need to store. Luckily, my wife is a kitchen gadget collector, so we
have one of those vacuum sealers for food. I sealed up them up, but I was
wondering if the grains should be refrigerated? I have the hops vacuumed
sealed & am storing them in of the the drawers in our frig.
One of the pretty consistant problems I've had with my batches is a lack
of carbonation in the bottle. In my 1st batch, I put the almost boiling
water with the cane sugar directly into the wort, so I could have killed off
some yeast. Also, I stored the bottles in my basement which was in the
mid-60s degrees. But the strange thing is that I tried 2 bottles of this
batch this weekend & one was relatively flat & one was pretty carbonated. I
surprised to see both with different carbonation levels. In my 2nd batch, I
made sure to allow the sugar to cool 1st. I stored the bottles down in the
basement for 1 day, but then moved them upstairs into the house (once I
learned that the bottles should be stored at room temperature for about a
week to get the fermentation going). But this batch still seems
under-carbonated. I'm using the recommended amount of cane sugar (1 cup,
3/4 cup, I don't remember just now). I was wondering if it could be a
problem with my capping. I have an old stand capper that I've always
assumed was pretty good. Any ideas or suggestions?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:49:47 -0400
From: Jamy Magro <jamymagro@juno.com>
Subject: Washington DC/Brew Pubs
Brewing Collective:
Just wanted to pass along two datapoints for those that might be
interested as well as future searchers of the archives.
I just spent the Memorial Day weekend in Washington, D.C. helping a
friend move. Since I was in our nation's capitol, I decided to see what
brewpubs were available. Due to time restrictions because of the move, I
was only able to check out two pubs.
The first was J. Paul's, which is located in the Georgetown area of DC,
(3218 M Street). They had quite a few beers on draft but it only looked
like they had two of their own beers on tap. The J. Paul's Amber was a
typical red/amber beer with a nice rounded taste. The J. Paul's Wheat
was more of an American wheat beer with a crisp taste and I did not
notice any esters or banana flavors. J. Paul's has a good selection of
food from steaks to Maryland Crab cakes.
The second was John Harvard's Brew House, located in downtown DC near the
IRS building, (1299 Pennsylvania Avenue). This restaurant boasts 5 to 6
brews on tap as well as a cask conditioned ale on pump. I started off
with the beer sampler in order to make up my mind. They had an American
Light Ale (Budmilleroors-clone), Pale Ale (not very hoppy but light and
refreshing), DC Steam Beer (a thick head and good flavor), Pennsylvania
Avenue Porter (strong, dark, and toasty flavored), Maibock (sweet tasting
with an alcohol finish). The cask conditioned ale was served slightly
cool from the pump and was very clean tasting with a low carbonation
level. The food was great (from Pesto Salmon to Meatloaf) and the
service better than what you expect.
Obviously, I have no affiliation (yada yada) but I wanted to share these
two great places to have a meal and a good beer while in our nation's
capitol. Enjoy.
Brew hard,
Mr. Jamy Magro
Attorney/Homebrewer
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 20:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: erniebaker@webtv.net (Ernie)
Subject: Australian Beer Glasses
Hi folks, am about to brew some Australian beer and could think of
nothing
better than to drink them out of Australian beer glasses. I have tried
all over and came up with nothing.
I know you no longer use pint glasses in your pubs but was thinking that
some homebrew supply shops would have some for sale..... Interested in
"Carlton", "Castlemain's 4X" or whatever. Would be a great help if you
knew of a shop that had them in Melbourne.
Thats for your help, I also collect pints and do not have any from
Australia.
You can post here or direct.....
Ernie Baker
USMC retired
29 Palms, CA
erniebaker@webtv.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:54:23 -0700
From: RoyRudy <royrudy@nvbell.net>
Subject: Re: Mash runoff clarity
"There are some ugly rumours circulating in another forum that people are
getting brilliantly clear runoffs from their mashes. Phrases like "crystal
clear" and "clear as finished wine" are being bandied about with reckless
abandon....."
If your runoff gets noticably clearer afer you've collected for a while,
then you probably should recirc some more. A 90 min mash going through
various temps will produce a more clear wort than a single temp infusion.
Cheers! Roy Rudebusch
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3646, 05/30/01
*************************************
-------
