Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4151
HOMEBREW Digest #4151 Wed 22 January 2003
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:
Re: barleywine overcarbonation ("Tidmarsh Major")
wheat beer (Alan McKay)
re: Brewers Resource (Paul Kensler)
BJCP exam format / Selling someone else's yeast & the LHBS (David Harsh)
RE: LBHS Chatter ("Vernon, Mark")
Re: too much extraction efficiency ("Steve Alexander")
Re: converted keg brew pot ("Michael O'Donnell")
Wheat beer questions (LJ Vitt)
Re: Homebrew efficiency - advice from the Court Jester ("Kent Fletcher")
Best HB shop in Boston/providence area (jim williams)
no-mashout brewing - re: What up wi'dat? ("Steve Alexander")
re: Ownership of yeast strains (Rama Roberts)
Writer's cramp... ("Leonard, Phil")
RIMS pump ("Sam Taylor")
Apple Juice for yeast starter (Jeffrey Gordon)
Re: multiple choice BJCP exam (Nate & Brenda Wahl)
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 12:50:30 -0600
From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: barleywine overcarbonation
On 18 Jan 2003 at 0:13, Request Address Only - No Articles wrote:
> Palmer says as temperatures decrease, you need *less* priming sugar.
> What's up with that? I can see how the beer would absorb the CO2 more
> quickly at lower temperatures, but shouldn't the system (head
> space/beer) reach the same equilibrium given enough time?
As gases are more soluble at lower temps, the cooler beer starts out
with more CO2 in solution at ambient pressure than a warmer beer at
ambient pressures, so less additional CO2 is needed for proper
carbonation levels.
Tidmarsh Major
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 07:27:25 -0500
From: Alan McKay <amckay@neap.net>
Subject: wheat beer
Daniel,
A Hefeweizen is supposed to be cloudy - so no protein rest.
For authentic recipes I also go to Hubert's site
http://www.netbeer.co.at/ Look for the English mirror, then recipes.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
http://www.bodensatz.com/
The Beer Site (tm)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 05:29:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Kensler <paul_kensler@yahoo.com>
Subject: re: Brewers Resource
Jim,
What's the news you heard about Brewers Resource?
Their website is active at both the old
www.brewtek.com and the new www.brewersresource.com...
accepting orders and still carrying all their slants.
Did someone tell you they went out of business or
closed?
Regards,
Paul Kensler
Gaithersburg, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:21:05 -0500
From: David Harsh <dharsh@fuse.net>
Subject: BJCP exam format / Selling someone else's yeast & the LHBS
Greetings-
On the possibility of changing the exam:
People have mentioned talk of changing the BJCP exam to include
multiple choice, fill in the blank, or other short answer question
formats. I believe this discussion ended a couple of years ago and the
conclusion was it would not be effective. I wasn't personally involved
in the process, but someone who was involved explained it to me as
follows (some of the details here may not be exact, but I believe that
I have the substantive idea of what occurred - if there are any
significant errors, anyone who was involved should feel free to correct
them)
It is my understanding that potential questions were solicited from
active judges. The questions were then examined from a pedagogical
standpoint: are they unambiguous, and is there a correlation between
them being answered correctly and an overall high exam score. (these
sorts of correlations are very common in standardized tests and almost
any computer graded exam) After all was said and done, about two dozen
useful questions were obtained for possible use on the exam. This
doesn't provide a large enough pool of questions to allow a true test
of knowledge using these sorts of questions. The list of questions
would soon leak out and you'd have a group of free points for anybody
with friends.
So, there aren't enough useful questions available to have a reasonable
test with either multiple choice or short answer format.
On the current format and the "writing requirement"
There is, IMO, a bias in the format of the exam towards those of us
with academic backgrounds - you won't do well if you don't write ~10
pages of text, because the amount of information expected takes up that
much space. I'm also of the opinion that the ability to memorize and
spit out the details of various styles and historical details is not
nearly as important as the ability to provide good scoresheets. Let's
be honest - you have the style guideline provided to you in 99% of the
competitions if you need it.
On the other hand, the question pool for the exam even in the current
format isn't that big. You pretty much know from the start that you'll
have the following questions:
1a. Describe the BJCP
1b. Give 5 reasons for boiling wort.
2,3,4,5,6: Compare and contrast these (three) beer styles
(two of these will be "style associated with this city or region")
7: Give a recipe for the specified style.
8,9: Explain how to get or avoid these three characteristics
10: Discuss this ingredient/technical issue of brewing
The bottom line is that if you study a little, you'll pass and if you
study a lot, you'll do well. I'm not saying its easy or claiming that
the exam isn't a pain in the *ss, but the content just isn't a secret.
I do think that tasting is undervalued because I've had far to many
judges who think comments along the line of "good for style" or
"excellent attempt at a difficult style" count as useful feedback on a
scoresheet. Some form of continuing education/scoresheet review would
be helpful here, but that's a logistical nightmare for an organization
based on volunteer labor.
So I don't think the BJCE is perfect, but am not really sure how it
could be changed and improve the quality of the judges we get from the
program.
- -----------------------------
Mark Vernon mentioned legal action from Chris White if anyone cultured
and resold White Labs yeast:
I can't speak to the legal claim that Chris White could actually claim
ownership of subsequent generations of yeast that he sells, but if you
are selling "White Labs" yeast by name, I think you are asking for
trouble. On the other hand, if you maintain a yeast bank and offer
samples for free to any member that provides his/her own culture
medium, you'd probably be in the clear.
My totally untrained legal mind (well, I do watch Law and Order) says
that selling yeast under a commercial name means you are using that
company reputation to promote your product and I'm pretty sure Chris
White isn't going to want to put his name behind your (possibly
questionable) propagation techniques.
The main result of this activity is that you are annoying your LHBS
proprietor to save $4 on a batch of beer - whether that's worth it is a
call you have to make. You didn't say how much he supports your club
or how much business he gets from you already. That's an important
part of the decision, IMO.
Dave Harsh Cincinnati, OH
Bloatarian Brewing League
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:46:37 -0600
From: "Vernon, Mark" <mark.vernon@pioneer.com>
Subject: RE: LBHS Chatter
Wow Wil you sound like almost as big a jerk as our guy :) But seriously you
cant think for a minute that a club supplying 10ml starters to its members
is really competing that much with your yeast business can you? I mean if I
get a 10ml (yes we only did 10ml starters) then I have to step that up
multiple times using....hmmmmm DME that I had to buy somewhere, like maybe
my LHBS? You have to buy your glassware somewhere to do these step
ups....hmmmmmm maybe my LHBS? All that chatter about tax-ids, and license
and such is baloney - (btw we are a registered non-profit). And we are doing
nothing like "repackaging Coke syrup" very bad analogy - we never claimed
this was anything but what it was a yeast starter from our bank. Any way
this was just the tip of the iceberg for our LHBS...here are a couple more
examples..."No I can't sell you that bag of grain its my last one and then I
wont have any", or "No I wont sell you that bag, Its on the bottom of the
pile and I don't want to dig it out"....now that's customer service. And as
for not putting club flyers out....that is just bad business sense, here we
are a club of 35+ brewers that do monthly club competitions - which means
our members need to buy lots o' stuff...Hamm seems if I had any business
sense what so ever I would want to point all my customers to a club that
encourages them to brew (which means they have to buy stuff...wow what a
concept). If you want to discuss this more we can take it off line, but you
wont ever convince me that a club yeast bank is all that much of a threat to
a LHBS...let alone one that actually provides good solid service.
Mark Vernon
Once the game is over, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
-- Italian Proverb
- -----Original Message-----
From: Wil@thebeermanstore.com [mailto:Wil@thebeermanstore.com]
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:17 PM
To: post@hbd.org
Cc: Vernon, Mark
Subject: Re: LBHS Chatter
Vernon, Mark wrote in HBD #4148
>Okay I have been biting my tongue for a bit on this and cannot hold back
any
>longer
Welp Mark, I think you should bite you tongue a bit longer. Its just
amazing, I have a fellow here in SC that uses the exact same line
"support your LHBS but only IF THEY SUPPORT YOU" word for freaking
word. Are you two related? Anyway, you say you want support from your
LHBS and then go on to tell the HBD how you tried to completely NOT
support you LHBS by trying to go around him and under cut him at every
turn. And what's worse is you expect him to like it. Sorry son, it has
never worked that way and never will. Let me start of by asking you a
few questions. Who do you work for? What product or service do you
produce. Any unions in your line of work? Lobbyist? trade
organizations? Counsels? perhaps copyrights or trademarks? Business
laws involving licenses, zoning, insurance in your area? Hummm. What
does this have to do with selling yeast? Well, If I were to go out and
get my hands on Coke syrup, repackage it and call it something else
and sell it, do you think The lawyers at Coke would just over look it?
Not just no, but HE*L NO. I think I would have gone a bit further than
just tell White Labs about you, I would have asked to see your
business license, your sales tax numbers and perhaps looked into your
zoning laws. Not for profit you say, Bunk, You were producing and
selling a product. Besides, not for profits have laws, licenses and
paperwork to follow too. A club selling only to club members you say,
again Bunk, think Sams club and others.
Your LHBS has to deal with ALL of this and if your going to compete,
then lets make it a level playing field. Perhaps you think you were
treated unfairly...I think you got off easy.
Flyers, We don't need no stinkin' flyers. I have to ask you, Would you
put up a advertisement for a club/business/co-op/non-profit that was
competing directly with you in your business? I bet not. Besides, The
argument your LHBS is a valid one to any one that has a business.
I put up NONE. Look who's whining now!
Wil Kolb
The Beer Man
Plaza at East Cooper
607 B Johnnie Dodds Blvd
Mt. Pleasant SC 29464
843-971-0805
Fax 843-971-3084
www.thebeermanstore.com
Wil@thebeermanstore.com
God bless America!
This communication is for use by the intended recipient and contains
information that may be privileged, confidential or copyrighted under
applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby
formally notified that any use, copying or distribution of this e-mail,
in whole or in part, is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender
by return e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. Unless
explicitly and conspicuously designated as "E-Contract Intended",
this e-mail does not constitute a contract offer, a contract amendment,
or an acceptance of a contract offer. This e-mail does not constitute
a consent to the use of sender's contact information for direct marketing
purposes or for transfers of data to third parties.
Francais Deutsch Italiano Espanol Portugues Japanese Chinese Korean
http://www.DuPont.com/corp/email_disclaimer.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:38:52 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: too much extraction efficiency
Several folks have asked me
> just curious why chilling a sample for a hydrometer reading isn't
> recommended. Are their particles in suspension that are of interest?
The *only* reason to measure the hot runoff is that it's faster than
chilling a sample.
During a continuous sparge, when you are trying to determine when the runoff
gravity falls to 1.015 so you can cutoff the sparge you don't have 10
minutes to permit chilling the runoff to 60F.
Running the hot wort directly into a hydrometer jar, taking a reading and
adding the require 10 or 15 points of temperature correction isn't the most
accurate method, but it's much faster and accurate enough.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 08:37:21 -0800
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: converted keg brew pot
to get everything out of the kettle, I use a perforated ss screen (from
www.morebeer.com, search under "False Bottoms and Hopbacks"). A bent tube
goes from the outlet on the side to the space under the screen. the system
works reasonably well... when I use pellet hops, I end up with a lot of
trub in my fermenter, even with hop bags. Whole hops form a mat on the
screen and are much cleaner.
Also, make sure that your fittings on the outside bend far enough down and
are tight all the way to below the intake. Otherwise, you feel very silly
when it sucks air and you lose the siphon with 1/2 your beer drained out of
the kettle. When this happened to me this weekend (doh!), I decided to
call it an "aeration step" and dumped the carboy back into the kettle to
get the tube full and flowing again.
As for the boil, I find that with 6 gallons in the kettle, I can generally
peek in through the steam and see it boiling. A thermometer through the
side helps too. Maybe after you get a chiller, this will be a non-issue.
>I just recently acquired a 1/2 (Sankey) keg and converted it to my new
>brew pot. Since
>I usually do 5 gallon (extract) batches, I'm only boiling about 3
>gallons of wort. I plan
>to boil more once I get a wort chiller for it.
>
>A problem I noticed with the larger brew pot is that it is harder to
>tell if the wort
>is boiling, because of the level of the wort and because of not be able
>to see through
>the steam. I had considered one of those glass weights that sit on the
>bottom of a pot
>and clang as the liquid starts to boil. I was curious the clever ways
>that homebrewers
>have developed in determining when the wort is at a full boil?
>
>A second question concerns transferring and filtering the wort to the
>fermenter. I plan
>on putting an outlet on the side (near the bottom, but above the seam)
>to drain the wort,
>since I don't have a stand to mangae with a bottom drain. I imagine
>that I'll have to tip
>the keg as the level gets lower, but that's alright. Are there better
>ways to transfer to
>wort from a converted keg? I usually strain the wort through some sort
>of screen as I
>transfer it to remove most of the hops, however, a good portion of the
>cold break material
>makes it through. How important is it to remove this material when
>transferring to the
>primary fermenter? Are there better filters/strainers to use?
>
>Thanks for the help.
>
>Wyatt Francis
>Denton, TX
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 09:01:23 -0800 (PST)
From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4@yahoo.com>
Subject: Wheat beer questions
>Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 13:04:22 -0500
>From: "Lyga, Daniel M."
>Subject: Wheat beer questions
>Hello.
>I am planning my first attempt at a true wheat beer in the next week
>or so; I have had success with several batches of Kolsch. I would like to
>make a German wheat with a grain bill of about 53% wheat & 47% 2-row... and
>I have a couple of questions:
>1. Is a protein rest required with this much wheat? (I really wouldn't mind
>a cloudy appearance)
>2. I am planning on using a weizen yeast strain (wy3068). Are there any
>other special considerations (must dos) that I need to ensure I get plenty
>of clove, banana, and phenolic flavor/aromas?
I have made weizens with and without doing a protein rest. I don't
consdier it to be necessary. I one time I skipped it, I got a beer
that was significantly cloudy - that is a good thing for a weizen.
It did not remain that way beyond a month or two.
Tempeture is important during fermentation to get these characteristics
from weizen yeast. wy3068 -- I think that is Wheinstephan. I have used
it. At 75F, the banana is very strong. At 68F these characteristics
are low in my opinion. I think 70F is reasonable.
I don't like to use the desciprion phenolic to describe the clove,
banana, bubble gum aromas. I think of them as esters. I say that
because the word phenolic brings out images of infections.
=====
Leo Vitt
Rochester MN
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 10:07:13 -0800
From: "Kent Fletcher" <kfletcher@socal.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Homebrew efficiency - advice from the Court Jester
I must respectfully disagree with Stephen A. on a recent point:
> Choosing low efficiency (but better flavor) is one area where HBers can
> afford to outpace the commercial brewers. Malt is cheap compared to
> time or good beer.
>
> [lipids leech late in the lauter, the vessel with the pestle is the brew
> that is true - where is Danny Kay when you need him ?]
>
> -S
>
Actually, the vessel with the pestle has the pellet with the poison, the
flagon with a dragon has the brew that is true! Any Fool ;) knows that!
Kent Fletcher
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:14:31 -0500
From: jim williams <jimswms@cox.net>
Subject: Best HB shop in Boston/providence area
I'm looking for a recommendation on a good shop. I live in Providence and
don't mind driving too far. An hour or so. The only shop here is extract
related. Nice guy, but, he didn't even know 10L crystal existed. Enough
said.. I'd like a good selection of liquid yeasts and grains.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:57:56 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: no-mashout brewing - re: What up wi'dat?
Nathaniel P. Lansing writes ...
>I remember way back when discussing the value
>of mashing out and the improvement of foam/mouthfeel;
>I was blasted
The no-mashout brewing discussion was primarily about extraction efficiency,
not the side topic of foam mouthfeel and you were doing as much "blasting"
as anyone, Del.
>I was blasted
>because the experiment was conducted
>with the mash tested at a water grist ratio of 6:1.
>This was described as out of line with normal brewery
>practice and way too thin of mash. Now I read:
[...]
>>According to the texts, total water (mash+lauter) should be
>>under 8L/kg of grist. [...]
>
> That describes a a water/grist ratio of 6.6:1 to 8:1,
Del, I sincerely like you and appreciate all you're good advice on wine &
such, but you have really missed the point here. You are confusing
MASH_WATER:GRIST ratio of 6:1 with the entire (MASH+LAUTER_WATER):GRIST
ratio of 6.6:1 to 8:1. Those are two very different things.
Real world infusion mashes use about 2.5:1 MASH water (1.25qt/lb) and
another 5:1 in LAUTER water (2.5qt of lauter / lb) for a total_water:grist
ratio around 7.5:1.
Del's experiment apparently used 6:1 MASH water ... that's 3qts of water per
lb of grist in the mash. No one uses that much water in a real-world
mashes. Such thin mashes have different extraction rates and enzymatic
activity rates. You can't extrapolate that experience from a 3qt/lb lab
mash to a 1.25qt/lb HB mash blithely.
>maybe that
>study of foam active components wasn't that out of line from
>normal brewery practice?
Yes, the method was outside normal practice because of the very thin mash,
and the foam rest was off-topic since it wasn't demonstrated to be
responsible for normal foam in beers from normal thickness mashes.
Del's argument as I understand it was that one couldn't produce beers with
normal levels of foam and head without a mashout rest. When the details were
finally revealed it was based on a paper that describes enhanced levels of
foam positive glyco-proteins (not foam itself) following a 71C or 72C mash
rest in a very thin mash.
1/ 71C or 72C is not mashout temperature.
2/ The degree of foam enhancement from this rest is unspecified in the
paper. Even if it were measured this cannot be directly applied to a
conventional thickness mash.
3/ Stating that a 71C rest will improve head gives no basis to say that
no-mashout brewing will not have acceptable head. The dependence of normal
foam levels on a 71C rest is an unproven assertion. It's just not a valid
argument. Wheat improves head too, but wheat isn't necessary for normal
acceptable beer head.
4/ I and others have gotten normal head with no_mashout
5/ Few HBers or Craft brewers perform a specific head/foam rest yet their
foam isn't defective.
To squelch the upcoming misdirections:
1/ I am NOT an advocate of no-sparge brewing. I believe it can be done
successfully and have produced a number of good beers this way but I am not
promoting it.
2/ I completely agree that a 71C rest has the *potential* to improve
foam/head. The degree to which it actually improves head and the extent to
which the same enzymatic activities take place in conventional thickness
mashes haven't been demonstrated. "Probably some", and "probably not enough
to be critical" is my guess.
An dat's wutup wi'dat.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:22:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Rama Roberts <rama@retro.eng.sun.com>
Subject: re: Ownership of yeast strains
A.J. deLange wrote:
The world changeth. One of the oldest, most persistent and, IMO,
charming traditions of the brewing profession over the years has been
the willingness of one brewer/brewery to supply yeast to another without
question. This tradition has certainly benefited many a homebrewer who
lives near a micro or regional. But this tradition too seems to be
disappearing, as have so many others, because of the lure of a few extra
bucks.
Funny you say that. I went on a tour of the Pyramid Brewery in Berkeley, CA
this weekend, given by a "head brewer". At the end of the tour, I told him I
was a homebrewer and if I could bring in a quart jar to collect some yeast. He
said that's unlikely because they use proprietary yeasts that the brewery
wouldn't want to give it out. (He then went on to say pitching a White Labs
tube into a 5 gallon lager batch was more than sufficient, but I'll let Pyramid
worry about why they employ someone that clueless).
BTW, Pyramid apparently uses lager yeast for the popular wheat beers, so maybe
its a good thing I avoid the yeast strains used my Pyramid...
- --rama
SF bay area
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 15:46:53 -0600
From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard@dsionline.com>
Subject: Writer's cramp...
> Oops Phil, you're leaking like a sieve; any judge form received back
> with
> only a few dozen words is not a good example of what should be done.
I really hate it when I start leaking....
I may be "leaking" but I have a 3-ring binder full of score sheets to backup
my statement. Don't shoot the messenger.
Philip
- ---------- Internet E-mail Confidentiality Disclaimer ----------
PRIVILEGED / CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION may be contained in this message. If
you are not the addressee indicated in this message or the employee or agent
responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you are hereby on notice
that you are in possession of confidential and privileged information. Any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly
prohibited. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify
the sender by reply e-mail. Please advise immediately if you or your
employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind.
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my firm shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 10:56:17 +1300
From: "Sam Taylor" <samt@peace.com>
Subject: RIMS pump
Hi HBD
I've come across a very cheap 2nd-hand diaphragm pump. Is this type of pump
appropriate for a RIMS system? The throughput is around 1L/minute, it's an
old type with two pistons sticking out. I'm not planning a RIMS at the
moment, but I might be one day.
There's a similar, but bigger one which will do 2.4L/minute - would this be
more appropriate?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 14:18:27 -0800
From: Jeffrey Gordon <jgordon@library.ucsb.edu>
Subject: Apple Juice for yeast starter
Oftentimes instead of dealing with making a starter with malt extract, I'll
just
buy a quart bottle of apple juice and use that. I pour out about four ounces
and pitch a Whitelabs tube into it. It has worked for me. Sometimes, I chill
it and decant the cleared "cider" leaving the compacted yeast; sometimes
I just shake it up to get yeast into suspension and pitch it with minimal
(as far
as I can tell) impact on flavor. I'm always careful to check that the
apple juice
has no preservatives. I get little lag time and good fermentations doing this
and haven't seen any downside. I'm told by some brewer friends of mine that
the yeast might become "trained" on the simpler sugars of the apple juice,
but one would expect high finishing gravities and I haven't. It's hard to
believe
that the yeast would lose the ability to ferment the more complex sugars in
wort over the course of a couple of days. Does anyone see other potential
problems with this method?
Also, and relatedly, when making slants, for my growth medium I mix one-half
cup of apple juice and one-half cup of water, heat to near boiling and
dissolve
in 1 tablespoon of agar. This seems to work well also. Blasphemy?
Jeffrey Gordon
Santa Barbara, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 22:20:48 -0500
From: Nate & Brenda Wahl <cruiser@coastalwave.net>
Subject: Re: multiple choice BJCP exam
Both Brian Lundeen and Tom Karnowski refer to multiple choice
questions as being relatively poor choices for judge exams.
Unfortunately, most of these questions you see around are poorly
written. A properly constructed multiple choice question can be made to
test knowledge and higher cognative levels (like comparison, summary,
and evaluation), and could take several minutes to answer. The question
needs to be written such that at least three of the four choices are
plausible answers; the examinee must read the question carefully to
determine which of the answers is correct for the stated conditions.
The examinee must pick the "most correct" answer.
For instance, a question on a beer being too dark for style could list 3
or 4 real darkening mechanisms (grainbill, kettle reactions, oxydation)
as choices; the examinee would have to differentiate which one of the
choices was right based on the information provided in the question
(otherwise to style, no off flavors, some caramel overtones; this would
indicate kettle reactions as the mechanism). Not nearly the same as
"Which of the following causes darkening of wort?" where the choice may
be more obvious (teleprompter).
What happens is you are putting the effort into creating the question
rather than in the grading of a written response on the same topic. The
same expertise is needed either way, both in its creation and its
answering correctly. A good question could take up to an hour or so to
write, and then should have a good review by a qualified judge or two as
a sanity check. Pay me now or pay me later. The benefits are in the
more consistent grading of the answers, quicker results, and the effort
only needs to be done once.
Good testing involves looking for both breadth and depth of knowledge,
and the measuring the ability to compare and contrast; either an essay
or a good m/c test can do this. The m/c test questions naturally
spot-test to the desired depth of knowledge if written well, and a good
test made with enough of them, evenly distributed throughout the topic
areas, can cover the subject to test for breadth. A lot of government
and industries have switched to this type testing, and it seems to work
very well.
You'd end up with your brain still as tired, but at least your hand
would feel better!
My 4/25-bit worth as an adult educator and homebrewer.
Cheers
Nate Wahl
Oak Harbor, OH, (65 miles, 146 degrees, first home brewery on the left.)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4151, 01/22/03
*************************************
-------
