Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4149
HOMEBREW Digest #4149 Mon 20 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: competition conundrums, BJCP exam, and yeast advice (Brian Lundeen)
Re: Muriactic acid (Tony Verhulst)
Berliner Weiss ("Houseman, David L")
RE: Muriatic Acid ("Mike Sharp")
RE: More wine stuff... ("Mike Sharp")
Re: Basement Brewing with propane burner ("Mike Sharp")
Re: "other" stuff (Wil)
first all grain stout (Teresa Knezek)
Fw: Brewhouse efficiency ("Mike Maag")
220 Volt Electric Boiling Kettle (Andy Buhl)
yeast and legal action (ensmingr)
Attenuation Control (Fred L Johnson)
Re: BJCP Levels ("David Houseman")
Re: Diacetyl Rest (Pete Limosani)
Is WLP810 a Slow Fermenter (Stuart Lay)
Re: BJCP Judge Test (hand-written vs. computer vs. the clock) ("Tidmarsh Major")
Re: Writing on the BJCP exam... ("Tidmarsh Major")
Brewhouse efficiency ("Michael O'Donnell")
Re: brickbats, plowshares, etc. (Teresa Knezek)
weihenstephaner lager (Calvin Perilloux)
BJCP Levels (hand written test) (Calvin Perilloux)
How to turn your home into a boombox, local shops, and a recipe question (guy gregory)
RE: Is WLP810 SF Lager a slow fermenter? ("Lou King")
No more brewers resource? (jim williams)
Variable results using milk as a label adhesive (Kevin White)
re: dusty malt ("Steve Alexander")
MCAB 6 QE's ("Louis Bonham")
Re: dusty malt (Fred L Johnson)
re: too much extraction efficiency ("Steve Alexander")
Pumpernickel (Jeff Renner)
*
* 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: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:19:23 -0600
From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen@rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: competition conundrums, BJCP exam, and yeast advice
Mark Tumarkin writes:
> Brewing for an upcoming competition can take a little
> advanced planning, even two months is too short for many
> styles.
Mike Dixon (who we now know is lurking out there) has solved this problem by
having EVERY style of beer on tap ALL the time. ;-)
Bev Blackwood II writes:
> I have heard they are considering shortening the essay portion of the
> exam and adding some multiple choice questions, so maybe there's hope
> for you yet.
>
Allow me to be serious (it will be brief) and suggest that this seems like a
bad idea. As a student, I loved multiple choice. To me, it was on a par with
open book. The answer is basically given to you. Yes, there are tricks to
make picking out the correct answer a little more difficult, but if you have
a passing familiarity with the information, all you have to do is look for
the answer that jogs your memory. An analogy would be a stage actor who
relies on the prompter for each of the lines.
At the judging table, a judge is in no position to have their library of
references at their disposal. There is nothing there to provide helpful
prompts. The judge must know the necessary information, and be able to
recall it from memory without other aids. By turning to multiple choice
questions, I am concerned that we will be certifying judges who have not
demonstrated an ability to do this.
Steve B writes:
>
> I was recently having a conversation with a co-worker about
> the health
> benefits of drinking fermentables with the yeast still in the
> container.
> Her doctor had recommended this course of action during a
> bout with anemia.
> The doctor specifically suggested stout or ale.
And the last line suggests to me that the doctor does not have the necessary
knowledge to recommend any particular yeast over another for its health
benefits. Amazing how one slip-up can ruin someone's credibility.
Right, Dan? ;-)
C'mon Dan, I'm sorry that it seemed like the entire howli^H^H^H^H^H Canadian
contingent was ganging up on you, but bitter sarcasm is not the correct
response. Relax with a homebrew, laugh about it, then go fire your buyer and
laugh some more. ;-)
Cheers
Brian Lundeen
Brewing at [819 miles, 313.8 deg] aka Winnipeg
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 12:50:29 -0500
From: Tony Verhulst <tony.verhulst@hp.com>
Subject: Re: Muriactic acid
> I am wondering about the suitability of muriactic acid as a cleaner for
> home brewery use. I have an opportunity to get some that a friend no
> longer wants/needs. Is it okay to use on stainless, copper, brass?
Muriactic acid is another name for hydrochloric acid. Having spent 10
years profesionally in a chem lab, my advice is to not bother. It's
pretty nasty stuff and dangerous if not used properly. So, why use it
if
you don't need to - and you don't. Cleaners like "Bar Keepers Friend"
and "Powdered Brewery Wash" (PBW) will clean anything that you'll come
across.
That said, a dilute solution (25% or so) does a pretty good job of
cleaning
stainless steel but you still will want to minimize contact time - and
use latex gloves, wear clothes that you won't mind getting holes in.
I wouldn't even think of using it on copper or brass.
You may need a weak acid solution to "passivate" stainless steel but you
can use plain vinegar (acetic acid) for that. BTW, Muriactic acid is
dirt cheap at any hardware store.
Tony V.
http://home.attbi.com/~verhulst/RIMS/rims.htm
PS. I heard that ATT broadband has been sold to Comsat so I'll be
forced to change email and web site adresses. This rots (not the word I
was thinking of :-) maybe it's time to get my own domain name.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:26:02 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: Berliner Weiss
The discussion thus far about making Berliner Weiss focused on adding
lactobacillus to the wort in the form of a pure culture. I've made a
couple of these and followed the process of adding some malt to the warm
wort. Basically, after making the wort, let it cool to 70-80oF. Toss in a
lb of crushed malt; I used some plain 2-row I had lying around for awhile.
Covered the top of the wort with some plastic wrap to keep air out and let
this sit for several days. The longer it sits, the worse it smells. The
worse it smells the more sour it will be. Try 2-3 days. Then I siphoned
this off the grain and any trub to a kettle again, brought it up to 170oF
for 15min to pasteurize the wort so that it would not continue to sour (or
skip this and let it keep going), cooled to pitching temperature and used a
neutral ale yeast (Kolsch would be great). Bottled when done with maybe
1.25-1.5 cups corn sugar / 5 gallons -- this is a very effervescent beer.
This worked very well and won a couple ribbons.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:35:48 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Muriatic Acid
Richard Foote asked about Muriatic Acid
Richard,
I prefer using caustic to clean stainless...corrosion rates increase as pH
goes down, and HCL is one of the most corrosive. HCl isn't a good thing for
Stainless Steel. Nitric acid is used to passivate, but I'd stay away from
the muriatic acid (HCL) for cleaning.
Dan the Reamed One said:
"WOW! It looks like I will just have to get used to the freshly reamed
one."
Just remember, it wasn't us that did the reaming! It was your buddies at
C&B...and by proxy, DCL. ;^)
Regards,
Mike Sharp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 10:55:51 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: More wine stuff...
Brian Lundeen wrote:
Mike Sharp writes:
> This surprises me. I've always assumed the wine kits were
> concentrated using ultrafiltration.
I will defer to your first hand knowledge of the process since I have none.
This was related to me by what I considered to be a knowledgeable source
some time back. I suspect heat is a factor in colour extraction for reds,
and I would also assume that heat is involved in producing a product that is
shelf stable.
Mike Replies:
Oh no, I didn't mean to imply I had first hand knowledge about the making of
wine kits, I was involved in a system that concentrated grape juice as a
food product. I guess it's the stuff that gets added to all those drinks
that say "contains REAL juice!"
I'm definitely curious about how the wine kits are produced, though. I
could see using ultrafiltration for a white grape, but the reds...? Unless
they're more like a Nouveau style. I suppose pasteurization would be
inevitable, though--or irradiation.
Are the wine kits even concentrated in the first place??
Regards,
Mike Sharp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:00:10 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Basement Brewing with propane burner
Re: Basement Brewing with propane burner
In regards to all the comments regarding: Basement Brewing with
propane burner
I'm wondering why basement brewers that use flame for heat don't
enclose the flame in a firebox, and use a flue for exaust gas...like
your furnace or hot water heater does? A flue fan can help with the
poor geometry of the fire box.
Regards,
Mike Sharp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:19:30 GMT
From: Wil@thebeermanstore.com
Subject: Re: "other" stuff
>As for the "other" news I stirred up last week. Many of y'all have
>written to say you're shocked no more traffic is on the HBD about it.
>I'm not.
If that is what it takes to be the "largest homebrew store" in the
USA and to be the first shop EVER to do just about everything in home
brewing, then you can have it. I'll pass.
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!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:25:52 -0900
From: Teresa Knezek <teresa@mivox.com>
Subject: first all grain stout
Popped open the first bottles of my first all grain brew last
night... my boyfriend liked it, and it actually had some noticeable
alcohol content, so I did something right... Sadly, it doesn't taste
at all the way I wanted it to. I don't like the aroma, and the flavor
isn't nearly as complex my first stout (which had wonderful overtones
of chocolate, and an almost smoky flavor). It's not a bad beer, it's
just not the beer I wanted to make.
So, I've been hunting around, and I've found tons of info about
converting grain recipes to partial extract versions, and there are
whole books of reverse-engineered clone recipes for commercial
beers... but there doesn't seem to be a single resource for
converting extract recipes to grain.
The flavor on my first every batch of stout was heavenly. It was
based on 6.6 pounds of John Bull unhopped dark malt extract syrup...
and I would kill to find an accurate grain conversion for that
extract. I tried to keep the rest of the recipe as similar as
possible, but was at the mercy of the local shop's owner as to what a
grain equivalent for the extract would be, and his guess obviously
wasn't on the money...
Can anyone help out here? Has someone, somewhere, ever bothered to
reverse-engineer the grain bill for John Bull Dark LME?
- --
:: Teresa ::
http://rant.mivox.com/
In The Beginning there was nothing, which exploded.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 07:47:14 -0500
From: "Mike Maag" <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: Fw: Brewhouse efficiency
> >Various calculations put my
> > efficiency between 75.6% and 78%.
> > I'm not sure if a longer sparge, or a batch sparge will help, so I
> > am going to experiment.
Steve A:
> Well do experiment - you'll learn a lot that way.
>
> I've nothing against your mission to increase your efficiency from the
> 75-78% range but that's really a good figure IMO.
Me:
Interesting. I was wondering what you meant by "not
too high", so efficiency can be too much of a good thing.
S-
> A continuous sparge is probably more efficient than a batch sparge, but a
> continuous sparge does not extract evenly (more extraction at the top, less
> at the bottom). In practice the sparge type makes only a minor difference.
Me:
Seems like 2 batch sparges using the required water to
get enough in the kettle would get maximum fermentables
without leaching nasties, from the standpoint of not over-
sparging areas of channeling in the grain bed, or not
oversparging the top of the grain bed while leaving sugars
in the bottom. By two batch sparges, I mean adding sparge
water to the mash at mashout using sparge water to the top
off the lauter tun (if the tun is large, use half the sparge water).
During mashout, you mix the sparge water throughout the mash.
Let set for 15 min. Sparge, (after recirculating till clear runoff),
then add the rest of the sparge water.
Mix thoroughly, to insure fresh water is getting to all areas of the
lauter tun, let set for 15 min. then sparge again (after recirculating)
Any sparge water which would not fit in the tun on the 2 nd
sparge should be added like a "fly" sparge.
Seem to me, the uniform distribution of water, twice, should give
maximum extract without extracting nasties.
I will brew the same ale, as an experiment, but I will batch sparge
as described.
Maybe I can get better yield without appreciable nasties.
Mike Maag, in the Shenandoah Valley, VA.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 21:11:19 -0500
From: Andy Buhl <buhlandr@pilot.msu.edu>
Subject: 220 Volt Electric Boiling Kettle
I have seen several questions relating to the appropriate elements
for use in regulating electric boiling kettles. The consensus seems to
be that maintaining a boil only requires something in the area of a 3000
watt element, while anything up to about 7000 watts greatly reduces the
time required to achieve a full boil. Unfortunately, I am not nearly as
clear on the best way to reduce the power going to a 6000-7000 watt
element. I have seen several posts mentioning series 555 (???) timing
circuits use and even links to plans for building them. Unfortunately,
building electronic circuits from scratch is where I draw the line on skills
I'm willing to pick up for the sake of brewing. Bottom line: does anyone have
suggestions on where I can scavenge, order, or buy off the shelf an appropriate
controller for this purpose?
Thanks!
Andy Buhl
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 01:02:47 -0500
From: ensmingr@twcny.rr.com
Subject: yeast and legal action
In HBD 4148 ( http://www.hbd.org/hbd/archive/4148.html#4148-1 ),
Mark Vernon mentioned that Chris White (White Labs) threatened
legal action if anyone cultured and re-sold one of his White Labs
yeasts.
I have long been wondering just who *owns* all these different
yeast strains anyway. Surely, Chris White got his yeast from
somewhere. In fact, the White Labs web site identifies WLP002 as
"a classic ESB strain from one of England's largest independent
breweries", WLP023 as "from the famous brewing town of Burton
upon Trent", WLP500 as "from one of the six Trappist breweries
remaining in the world", etc, etc. Can't one of these breweries
threaten legal action against Chris White? Just who *owns* these
different yeast strains? What exactly does it mean to *own* a
yeast strain? Why can't someone just re-culture a White Labs or
Wyeast yeast and sell it? I can sell a sprig from the hop plant
or seeds from the tomato plants that I grow in my own backyard
(at least I think I can). Why not yeast from White Labs or
Wyeast?
Maybe an HBD lawyer like Lou Bonham (Hi Lou! Are you still out
there?) can answer.
Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
http://hbd.org/ensmingr
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:01:21 -0500
From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson@portbridge.com>
Subject: Attenuation Control
In Martin's recent post to the HBD regarding attenuation control he stated:
> For instance, you could mash to produce a highly fermentable wort and convert
> it with a low attenuation yeast. Conversely, you could produce a less
>fermentable wort and convert it with a higher attenuation yeast.
In my experience this is simply not true. If we confine our discussion to
the customary, commercially-available brewing yeasts (i.e. excluding wild
yeasts and other exotic varieties), "low attenuating" yeast is very likely
to convert a "highly fermentable" wort, and a "high attenuating" yeast will
not be able to convert a "low fermentable" wort. The attenuation by a yeast
is HIGHLY dependent upon the wort itself, moreso than the particular strain
of commercial yeast selected. If all other factors are controlled, the
sugar profile of the wort is much more important than the yeast selection in
determining attenuation.
In my opinion, it is rather misleading to publish attenuation values for a
yeast in the manner that is currently being done by commercial providers and
has contributed more to the "stuck fermentation" posts than any other single
factor. I dare say that a majority of the "stuck fermentations" reported
here were due to nothing more than a wort that simply was not fermentable to
the degree stated on the package of the yeast.
Only under controlled, standardized conditions could a yeast be accurately
described by its attenuation potential. Such wort standardization simply
isn't practiced by the yeast companies. If a standard wort were (could be)
produced, one should more informatively report a mean plus/minus a standard
error of the attenuation, not a minimum and maximum, i.e., a range. Even
then, this would only allow one to compare between yeasts--it would NOT tell
you what the attenuation would be of YOUR wort.
In comparing yeasts, I pay no attention to the descriptions of attenuation
published by the manufacturers, especially if the published attenuation
ranges overlap at all.
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 09:44:57 -0500
From: "David Houseman" <housemanfam@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: BJCP Levels
Philip says "Sorry, that doesn't hold water. Most, if not all, of the
forms I've gotten back from competition had no more than a couple dozen
words on them. Writing a few dozen words on a form is much different than
writing 10 multi-page essay answers."
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. My
hand hurts as much after a flight of judging as it did when I took the exam.
Personally I don't think cheating is the issue in allowing computers as it
is fairness. Unless every examinee taking the exam has the same
opportunities, it's not being fair to those that don't have, can't afford,
or can't use effectively a laptop. Not just in the exam you take but in all
the exams across the country. Frankly if someone isn't willing to put out
the effort to write for this exam, perhaps they should consider whether this
is really the right activity for them.
David Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:09:24 -0500
From: Pete Limosani <plimosani@rcn.com>
Subject: Re: Diacetyl Rest
In #4148, George asked:
1. Sometime back someone mentioned a Diacetyl Rest while he was making
his beer. Would someone please explain what this is or when you do it
or how.
George, I've only been brewing lagers for a couple years, so others
with more experience may pipe in, but I'll contribute my 2 cents...
When primary fermentation is winding down, you can raise the temperature
(low to mid 60s is good) and let the beer sit at this temperature from one to
several days. This will cause the yeast to metabolize the diacetyl that is
created during fermentation.
I typically ferment at about 52*. To prepare for the rest, I raise the
temperature
in my fridge a few degrees a day for a couple days. Then I take the fermenter
out of the fridge. My fridge is in my basement where the temperature stays at
about 65* for the winter. During the summer the basement is too hot, so I
leave it in the fridge at about 60-62*.
I don't think a precise temperature is as important as a temperature rise.
In other words, if you ferment at 45*, a rest in the high fifties may suffice.
I typically rack to the secondary fermenter right before I begin the rest.
This gets rid of the nasties in the trub and keeps any latent yeast from
autolyzing during the warmer temps of the rest.
Some sources say that you should begin the rest when the beer is about 2/3
attenuated. For a 1.050-->1.014 beer, this would be at 1.026. I have not had
good luck with this approach. I find that I get under-attenuated beer.
This might be partly because I reduce the temperature too fast and may be
partly because of particular yeast strains I use. When I put the beer back
into the fridge, I try to have the fridge at about 58* and reduce it by
about 3*
per day until I get it to lagering temps of ~34*. This doesn't seem
unreasonable to me, but maybe it is too severe for some yeasts.
I use Wyeast 2278 a lot and this yeast seems to like to fall out quickly with
even a slight temp drop. At least that has been my experience after using
it about 6 or 7 times. Then again, I have not noticed much diacetyl in this
strain, so I stopped performing rests with it. Four to six weeks of cold
lagering with this strain seems to remove the little apparent diacetyl that
it produces. (And a slight amount of diacetyl may even be desirable if
you are trying to clone something like Pilsner Urquell.)
Anyway, when I do perform a diacetyl rest, I wait until the beer is at
1.020 or lower. Usually, during the two or three days of the rest, the temp
rise gets the yeast going again and it typically attenuates most of the rest
of the way, so then I move right to lagering without worrying about
under-attenuation because of the temperature drop.
Some strains of yeast may not need a rest, while others will still have
noticeable diacetyl even after a good rest (Weihenstephan #308). I
only used 308 once and had to lager it a long time.
I remember reading a about a technique once (it may have been on this
board) where you start your fermentation at 48* and raise the temperature
one degree per day for 14 days. Then, you rack to a secondary and
reduce the temperate two degrees per day until you reach lagering temp.
This incorporates a built-in diacetyl rest and has very slight temp
changes. I haven't tried it yet, but think I will.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 08:44:07 -0800
From: Stuart Lay <zzlay@yahoo.com>
Subject: Is WLP810 a Slow Fermenter
I've brewed five California Commons using WLP810 and all of them reached
final gravity in ten days or less. If this seems quicker than what
you're experiencing, the difference may be that I don't have a fridge or
way to control temperature. The warmest my steams have fermented have
been 70, but three stayed within White Labs recommended 60-65.
One thing I have noticed with this yeast is a medicine-y smell in the
finished beer. Two of my five attempts (including one between 60-65
degrees) have resulted in off flavors. The first was so bad I had to
dump it and I switched from Iodophor. The second (a November batch) is
drinkable but not real good (Star San this time).
Probably not the yeast, but I've had a lot easier time brewing good beer
with WLP-001. I think my next steam will wait until I've got a brew
fridge.
stuart
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:06:08 -0600
From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: BJCP Judge Test (hand-written vs. computer vs. the clock)
On 17 Jan 2003 at 0:13, John Doherty wrote:
> With this test, as with most, either you know the answer or you don't.
> Giving some extra time (I'd actually like to see more time than 3 hours)
> will only help people - BS is BS, and a grader isn't going to give you
> bonus points because you wrote 3 pages of it per question - you'll
> probably lose points for aggravating them! But someone who truly has
> real information to put down on paper could benefit from a little extra
> time.
I won't presume to speak for the BJCP test designers, but in general,
essay exams test more than just how much the writer knows. One
purpose for
having time limits is to require the writer to analyze and evaluate
his or
her knowledge and to include only the most relevant and important
information in the answer (hopefully in a reasonably organized form).
The
BJCP exam may limit writing time for reasons other than merely
limiting
the amount of time necessary to grade the exam.
Tidmarsh Major
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:06:08 -0600
From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Writing on the BJCP exam...
On 17 Jan 2003 at 0:13, BDB2 wrote:
> It
> also places extreme burdens on the proctors to verify there isn't
> cheating going on. God help the poor proctor who has to learn to
> traverse a UNIX file structure to see if there are hidden files, or
> rummage through the Windows temp files. Not only that, the proctor has
> to neglect the other folks taking the exam to look over someone's
> shoulder regularly.
Test-taking software is available that would alleviate many of those
concerns. There are at least 2 programs that run a basic word
processor
from a floppy disc and disallow access to the hard drive (as well as
recording attempts to access the hard drive). If anyone is interested
in
pursuing this idea, drop me a note off-list and I'll look up the
information about the software, which is beginning to be used on law
school exams.
If the purpose of the BJCP exam is to find out what the test-takers
know, why shouldn't the test-takers be allowed whatever tool best
allows them to present their knowledge?
Tidmarsh Major
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 10:39:54 -0800
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo@stanford.edu>
Subject: Brewhouse efficiency
>Thanks to all who responded. Various calculations put my
>efficiency between 75.6% and 78%.
All of the posts were, indeed, interesting and informative. For the other
all-grain newbies on the list, I want to recommend the article by John
Palmer in the most recent Zymurgy. It has a great background on a lot of
the numbers that go into the calculations.
cheers,
mike
monterey, ca
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:12:45 -0900
From: Teresa Knezek <teresa@mivox.com>
Subject: Re: brickbats, plowshares, etc.
On or thereabout 1/18/03, Steve Alexander spoke thusly:
>I've copied her in the hope that she'll reply to HBD and explain just why
>she refused Marc's order.
All in all, while I generally refuse to do business with anyone who
repeatedly proves themselves to be a jerk to my friends and
acquaintances for no good reason, I can happily excuse myself from
even trying to figure out whether this is the case here...
It seems, when I read their shipping policies, that St. Pats has
absolutely no interest in doing business with small purchasers in
Alaska. I am not allowed to buy ingredients at all, must buy at least
$100 worth of equipment (not including shipping) in each order, and
can only have my merchandise shipped via DHL. It seems my business is
just not worth their time or trouble.
The only good thing I have to say about that policy is that at least
they're up front about it, so I know not to even bother starting to
fill up a shopping cart.
- --
::Teresa : Two Rivers, Alaska::
[2849, 325] Apparent Rennerian
"It has been my experience that folks who
have no vices have very few virtues."
-- Abraham Lincoln
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 15:47:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux@yahoo.com>
Subject: weihenstephaner lager
'gregman' writes about Weihenstephan's lager beer:
>> My main question about the grist formulation is does this beer
>> have wheat in it? Considering the body of this beer I think
>> it does either that or raw barley? Or maybe raw wheat?
Doubtful. If any brewery in Germany were to stick with
Reinheitsgebot, even for exporting to ignorant foreigners ;-),
it would be Weihenstephan. That means no unmalted barley,
and no wheat in their lager. But it certainly doesn't
rule out carapils, aromatic, or other "malty" malts.
I reckon, on a blind guess, that's what they're doing.
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 16:07:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux@yahoo.com>
Subject: BJCP Levels (hand written test)
Phil Leonard writes, regarding the BJCP exam::
>> I agree completely with Alan about having to handwrite the answers.
>> I can type many times faster than I can write (assuming you with
>> to be >> able to read the writing). Since this is a timed test
>> the speed of writing (typing) is very much an issue.
Ah yes, I remember how my hand nearly fell off when I took that exam.
As a computer programmer, I'd have LOVED to use a keyboard!
The handwritten test provides a "level playing field".
A painful one, I might add, though.
But perhaps most importantly, the handwritten (hence time-limited)
test requires that one know precisely and clearly which points are
most important in regards to the question. Not enough time for all
the questions? Join my club! I couldn't get it all down, either.
But what I did early on during the test was to write a reasonable
amount on each item and then add further information on some of them
later, before the clock ran out.
As for cheating, it would happen. Boy, would it be eeeasy to have
a full set of pre-written text responses to loads of possible
questions, and how long does it take to pull up a window and
cut & paste? And right off the top of my head I know a couple
of guys who would do it in an instant. Sigh. Very sad, but they
exist. (There are not people I have contact with now, for those
of you who know me. Anyway, if you're reading this list, you're not
one of them.)
Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 17:14:56 -0800 (PST)
From: guy gregory <ggre461@yahoo.com>
Subject: How to turn your home into a boombox, local shops, and a recipe question
Folks, propane is heavier than air. If you persist in
putting it in your sealed basement, get an
explosimeter, put it on the floor, and when that
atmosphere reaches 25 percent of the lower explosive
limit, get your kids out of the house. Then go back
and stir the mash if you want.
Local homebrew shops. Ah, the controversy. If your
shop is lousy, he'll go broke without you. If your
shop is great, he'll never get rich from you, even if
they double charge for yeast or some such nonsense...I
mean, 10 years ago you'd give five times what we're
paying now for great yeast in convenient packages.
Now we're whining. Jim's Home Brew in Spokane is the
greatest, fair price, great service, quality product,
and nobody there seems to be dressing much better than
me.
What's the latest thinking on CAP recipes and Rye beer
recipes? Personally, I'm liking Saaz hops exclusively
in my CAP, and I find rye beer is made for Amarillo
hops. Anybody have opinions?
=====
Guy Gregory
Lightning Creek Home Brewery
Spokane WA
(1660.4, 294.3) Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 20:49:35 -0500
From: "Lou King" <lking@pobox.com>
Subject: RE: Is WLP810 SF Lager a slow fermenter?
Mike -
Last time I did a batch of steam beer with WLP810 (9/21/02), it had a
lag time of 5 hours, and fermented out after only a week. I left it in
the fermenter another week and the SG didn't change. My records show a
temperature which is unlikely, so I probably forgot to record the temp
in promash, but it was probably around 65 degrees. I had pitched a 24
oz starter (about 700 ml).
Lou
Ijamsville, MD
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:18:00 -0700
> From: "Michael J. Westcott" <westy@commspeed.net>
> Subject: Is WLP810 SF Lager a slow fermenter?
>
> Did a search of the archives and could not find anything
> related to this question so I thought I would post it. I have
> a 1.054 OG brew fermenting rather actively for 14 days as of
> tomorrow. Temperatures have been between 60-62F for duration
> of primary. Wonder if anyone has had same experience with
> this yeast. Pitched 1 liter starter just past high krausen
> and had first signs of fermentation at about 8 hours after
> pitch. First time I have used this yeast. Thanks, Mike.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 23:01:18 -0500
From: jim williams <jimswms@cox.net>
Subject: No more brewers resource?
Damn. I needed to order some yeast, and it looks like they are out of
business. Too bad, it was great dealing with them! I am in need of a new
yeast supplier, preferably one offering yeast on slants as brewtek did. Does
anyone have any ideas?
Cheers,
jim
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 23:15:13 -0500
From: Kevin White <kwhite@bcpl.net>
Subject: Variable results using milk as a label adhesive
I use milk to affix paper labels to bottles. I have noticed that
sometimes the dried labels simply drop off the bottle and
sometimes they adhere so well they have to be soaked off. I've
had some that survived an entire weekend in an ice-water bath in
a cooler.
Does anyone know what causes this different behavior?
Kevin White
Columbia, MD
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 08:36:38 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: dusty malt
Fred Johnson's happened on some very dusty or flour-y
malt from Munton's which his shopowner thinks is 'normal'.
It's not.
A sack of malt with a high percentage of flour sounds like a
packaging error or a grain weevil infestation to me. I doubt
you can crush a malt to 8% flour without destroying the sack.
Something seems wrong in any case.
Fred - Assuming you bought a 25kg sack of malt as packed by
Munton's and not something repackaged at an HB shop I think
you'll find that they will stand behind their product. Munton's
is a class act - always has been.
If the HB shop won't take this off-product back contact
Munton's directly.
http://www.muntons.com/index.html
There's a full sheet of email contacts at
http://www.muntons.com/common/htm/contact.htm
Maybe they can explain what you are seeing. I'm confident
you'll get a good response from them. Either way - drop
HBD a note when you get this resolved.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 14:13:36 -0600
From: "Louis Bonham" <lkbonham@houston.rr.com>
Subject: MCAB 6 QE's
Greetings all:
First, an apology . . . I've been completely under water for a number of
weeks with various business and family matters, and so I've been more
than a bit derelict in responding to e-mails, not to mention tending to
MCAB stuff.
As far as MCAB QE's for 2003 (and the years beyond) . . . .
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Accordingly, unless the organizers
of the individual competitions decline, he following will be the MCAB
Qualifying Events ("QE's")for MCAB 6:
Boston Homebrew Competition
Kansas City Bier Meisters Competition
Regale and Dredhop
World Cup of Beer
Bluebonnet Brew Off
Drunk Monk Challenge
Sunshire Challenge
Spirit of Free Beer
BUZZ-Off
Aurora Brewing Challenge
Dixie Cup
Happy Holidays Homebrew Competition
Heart of the Valley Competition
Further, while the MCAB reserves the right to make additions or
subtractions to this list in the future,
the first twelve of these competitions will be "presumptive" MCAB QE's
in all future years (meaning, unless the MCAB decides to terminate a
competition as a QE, it will remain a QE in all future years). The
Heart of the Valley Competition and Novembeerfest will similarly be
considered "presumptive" QE's but we will stick with our prior practice
of alternating them . . . meaing the Heart of the Valley competition is
a QE in odd numbered years (2003, 2005, 2007, etc.) and Novembeerfest is
a QE in even numbered years (2002, 2004, 2006, etc.).
Meanwhile, if you've not done so, check out the MCAB website
(http://hbd.org/mcab) for details on MCAB 5, coming up in a couple of
weeks in the Northern Virginia area. Looks like another killer beer
geek weekend in the making! (Now if I can just get a certain case to
settle so I can be there too . . . )
As always, lemme know if you have any questions, etc.
Louis K. Bonham
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 18:37:56 -0500
From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson@portbridge.com>
Subject: Re: dusty malt
Steve Alexander has suggested that I take up the issue of the very dusty
malt with the homebrew shop owner from which it came or with Muntons
directly.
I must clarify that although I mentioned that the homebrew shop owner
regularly sifts the bulk malt when he packages these in smaller quantities
for his customers, he has quickly stated that what I have experienced is not
the normal and was more than willing to accept back the 25 kg bag (minus
what I had used). I was willing to use it after I had sifted the bag
through his ingenious homemade, motor driven sifter.
I wish to emphasize that this shop owner is genuinely interested in
providing to his customers the finest quality products he can, and he goes
WAY beyond the expected to please his customers. His shop is exemplary.
I should also clarify that the dust in this malt is tan in color, not white
like flour, although it certainly may contain a significant amount of
convertible starch. I should have taken the advice of the shop owner and
experimented with the dust by mashing a small beaker of this stuff just to
determine how convertible it was. (I was simply too lazy to play with it
and left it behind in the shop.)
I think I will take this issue up with Muntons as Steve has suggested.
Incidentally, this was the original, unopened, Muntons bag of malt and not a
repackaged product I was using. I'll report back after I get Muntons reply.
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:02:27 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: too much extraction efficiency
Mike Maag asked,
> Interesting. I was wondering what you meant by "not
> too high", so efficiency can be too much of a good thing.
Yes !
If you just extracted more high quality wort from the grist then higher
efficiency would be wonderful. The problem is that late runnings are
inferior to 1st wort and early runnings in flavor quality.
M&BS says ..."Last runnings [..] are of higher pH, lower extract, rich in
polyphenols and silica than earlier worts. They are also richer in certain
lipid materials, notably linoleic acid. All these characteristics may be
detrimental therefore some breweries, concerned more with quality of the
final beer than the cost of it's production, will discard final runnings."
Linoleic is a fatty acid that is the precursor of state cardboard
aldehydes - btw.
In Wolfgang Kunze's 'Technology of Brewing and Malting' (the Weihenstephan
undergrad textbook) he states..."Towards the end of sparging increasing
amounts of undesirable material (polyphenols and bitter substances from
husks, silicic acid, etc.) pass into solution [table of extracts given]. If
one wishes to produce high quality beer, the spent grains must not be
extracted too much i.e. not sparged too long."
I think that any runnings, certainly after a 1st batch sparge are *slightly*
detrimental to overall beer flavor. The no-sparge proponents would argue
that any lautering at all increase inferior flavors and they may be right!
Clearly somewhere before the runnings drops to SG1.000 there is a point
where you are increasing the flavor damage moreso than you are increasing
the efficiency and extract. The art of brewing is calling that point.
A few rules of thumb ---
According to the texts, total water (mash+lauter) should be under 8L/kg of
grist. That's 3.75qt/lb in US HB terms. I think that the upper bound for
HB use should be around 3.25 or 3.5qt/lb. Less water implies lower
extraction efficiency.
Late runnings should be cut-off when the SG drops to 1.012 - 1.015 range.
At that point you are flirting with a lot of phenolic flavors. The way
to do this is *NOT* to chill the samples but to use a hydrometer at the
runoff temp and correct for it. My recollection is that 165F runoff reads
about 12 points low - so a reading of SG1.000 to 1.003 at 165F is time to
cut the sparge.
Adjusting sparge water pH to 6.0 or lower (but above 5.0) should help reduce
the extraction of flavor-negative substances from grist.
Keep the sparge water temp below 80C(176F) [according to Kunze].
- --
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
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 22:20:49 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner@comcast.net>
Subject: Pumpernickel
Brewers
I have had several requests for a recipe for authentic Westphalian
pumpernickel. Here is one that is rather large, but it can be
reduced. It's actually pretty easy to make.
The basic ingredient is coarsely broken rye kernels, called rye chop
or coarse pumpernickel meal in the bakery trade. You might be able
to get a friendly bakery to order some for you. I get it in 50 lb
bags for around $10.00. Or you could buy rye kernels from a feed
store or food coop and grind it yourself.
The loaves are sour fermented for three days, then baked at 225F for
8-14 hours in covered pullman loaf pans, which are long, rectangular
pans with sliding covers. You can bake it in regular bread pans with
foil covers.
This bread is dark, dense, moist, chewy and very aromatic. Organic
acids and alcohols formed by the fermentation form aromatic esters
and the baking produces dark, flavorful Maillard reaction products.
For five large loaves:
*Day One
2 oz. active dry yeast (optional, you can rely on "wild" yeasts on the rye)
10 lbs rye chop
26 cups water
Hydrate yeast in one cup of water at 105 F (or use half as much
instant dry yeast and mix with rye meal before adding water.
Mix well into a loose porridge, let ferment at 75-80F if possible in
covered bucket
*Day Two
Add 6.5 lbs rye chop, mix well, return to bucket to ferment
*Day Three
6.25 lbs rye chop
8 oz. salt
Mix well (sort of knead) until it achieves some degree of
cohesiveness (this requires a professional mixer, but smaller amounts
can be done by hand). This will be a wet, stiff consistency rather
like potter's clay, not like typical bread dough. Let rest for two
hours, mix again, divide, shape into long "rolls,", roll in rye chop
to cover on all surfaces. Put into pans (grease if they are not
non-stick), press down into pans to flatten tops. The loaves should
fill pans 2/3's. Cover, Let rise about two hours until risen 50% to
fill the pans. If using foil covers, weight the tops to keep tops
flat.
When risen, bake in oven at 225F with pan of water to provide
moisture in oven. I bake 14 hours.
When baked, remove from pans, let cool. Slice very thin when cool.
Tastes great with thin sliced Westphalian ham, other lunchmeats,
cheese, smoked fish, or just butter. Goes great with any good German
style beer.
Anyone who tries this please report back to the HBD readership on your results.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner@comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4149, 01/20/03
*************************************
-------
