Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4416
HOMEBREW Digest #4416 Wed 03 December 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:Loathing the water in Las Vegas ("Andy and Tina Bailey")
re: tackling oxygen utilization ("-S")
Re: burner sooting (Tom Davidson)
Flax 2nd & 3rd data points ("Chad Stevens")
RE: Basement brewery ideas ("Don Anderson")
re: digital thermometers ("-S")
re burner sooting (Eric Hood)
Too Much Foam From Keg (HQ BIC)" <donald.miller@dcma.mil>
Home RO units ("A.J deLange")
Re: Basement brewing ("Drew Avis")
Boulder, CO ("Berggren, Stefan")
Sooting propane burners (Thomas Rohner)
Re: adding lactose in stouts (Jeff Renner)
Re: burner sooting (Demonick)
Re: burner sooting (Craig Agnor) (David Towson)
Cleaning SS fermenters ("Gary Smith")
Corny long term storage ("Gary Smith")
Turbo Scrubber ("Hedglin, Nils A")
Protein rest ("Gordon Strong")
WLP830 German Lager Yeast (susan woodall)
It IS beer related, tha knows (Randy Ricchi)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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. Note that the Digest now
automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of
your time, anyway :^)
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.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 20:42:05 -0800
From: "Andy and Tina Bailey" <atmlobailey at cox.net>
Subject: re:Loathing the water in Las Vegas
Doug Hurst states/asks
"Jeff Rankert gives us a geologic run-down of the Colorado river basin as an
explanation for mineral content of Las Vegas tap water. Correct me if I'm
wrong (and I may be) but doesn't Las Vegas water come from a quickly
diminishing aquafer under the city rather than from the Colorado river?
Never-the-less I'm sure its mineral content is influenced by many of the
same sources."
Actually, the Las Vegas drinking water comes primarily from the quickly
diminishing Colorado River. Lake Mead is down over 60 feet in the last few
years as exploding population, and the lack of snowfall on the west slopes
of the central rockies are taking their toll.
Andy in Las Vegas
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 23:45:36 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: tackling oxygen utilization
Apologies for the confusion, but Frederecks reply to this message probably
appears before this (slightly revised) post.
Fredrik asks ...
Chas Bamforth wrote in an article on the topic that oxidation will reduce
saturation levels of oxygen (~16ppm) in wort in 8 hours. That doesn't
help develop a good rate constant. Creates an upped bound tho'.
In pitched wort I've seen figures in the 20 minute to 1 hour range for the
"disappearance" of oxygen.
>2) Rough reduction rate of dissolved oxygen in beer?
I don't have a number for that one. I've seen some quantitative studies of
the chemical fates of oxygen in beer. That doesn't help with the rates at
all.
>One question are the regulation of which alternative pathways that utilize
>oxygen in yeast.
Yeast apparently don't have a storage mechanism for oxygen. It's used to
unsaturate existing fatty acids, to convert existing squalene to sterol, and
for respiration. It's also somehow involved in significant changes to the
mitochondria. Aside from glucose (and other sugar) repression of
respiration(crabtree) I don't imagine that there is a good model for the
distribution of oxygen. There are some odd factors, like colder
temperatures creating more unsaturated FAs. There is a strong relationship,
suggestive of stochiometery, in the reduction of glycogen and the conversion
of squalene to sterol. The oxygen requirements for "normal" brewery
fermentation vary widely, (by a factor of 5 roughly) based on variety of
yeast. Some yeasts will repeatedly ferment normal brewery wort when it is
once oxygenated to 8ppm of oxygen. Other yeasts require over 40ppm
(multiple O2 additions) to complete fermentation.
>Another is to what extent molecular oxygen is "used" external to the cell
>oxidizing beer and wort compounds.
In a once-oxygenated wort it's probably something like 80-90% used in the
yeast based on the 8 hours vs 20-60minute uptake times. That's a ballpark
guess. Some oddities here too. Yeast will rapidly uptake oxygen when
pitched and unoxygenated. This is followed by a low uptake period till they
reach another peak 16-24 hours after pitching. IOW the yeast uptake rate
is quite variable.
>Also what possibly flavour impact does this alternative uses of oxygen
have?
If I was smart I'd pass this hot-potato.
One of the worst flavor outcomes - the creation of trans-2-nonenal from
oxidized linoleic acid - is due to oxygen somewhere prior to fermentation.
Only the final degradation phase appears in the bottle.
Oxygen in the fermenters, to the extent it is not used by yeast *probably*
winds up in the same places it does in beer- about 95% oxidized polyphenols
and sulfites with relatively minor flavor consequence. The problem is that
we don't know enough about the other 5% and this small amount can have an
overwhelming flavor consequence. Some of this remainder oxidized is
involved in creating staling compounds - for example aldehydes. BTW Narziss
suggest that beers should have a modest 8-9ppm of sulfite for "optimal"
stability. Sulfite is not only an active anti-oxidant, but prevents several
unrelated oxidation processes in beer.
More interesting - the inclusion of relatively minor mounts of oxygen during
late fermentation causes a clear reduction of esters in beer - a major
flavor impact.
Excess oxygen beyond yeast requirements does not substantially increase
yeast growth or reduce fermentation time, but does reduce the storage time
before the beer becomes unstable.
JIB v105, pp237-242, Bamforth
J.Am.Soc.Brew.Chem, 57(1):24-28, Nyborg et al
JIB v105,pp269-274 Noel et al
J.Am.Soc.Brew.Chem, 58(1):30-37, Uchida&Ono
are good reading on the topic.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 23:46:06 -0500
From: Tom Davidson <tj.davidson at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: burner sooting
>Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:31:16 -0800 (PST)
>From: Craig Agnor <cagnor at emerald.ucsc.edu>
>Subject: burner sooting
>
>I've got a 'King Kooker' propane burner (~170,000 BTU - is this a 'ring'
>style burner?). I've been using this burner now for several years with no
>trouble whatsoever. However the last few brews have seen a dramatic
>increase in the amount of soot produced.
>
>
Take a length of coat hanger wire and jab it a few times through the air
shutter and poke out the spider nests. Also knock any loose rust out of
the burner but my money's on the spiders.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:59:58 -0800
From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net>
Subject: Flax 2nd & 3rd data points
Y'all,
To rehash, I made a beer a while ago with gelatinized flax mucilage (the
snotty outer coating which is almost entirely pentose sugars which are used
commercially for foam stabilization as in fire fighting foam) in the mash
and it had a way groovy head.
Well, batch primed and bottled an ESB and added about an 1/8th of a tsp. of
mucilage to one of the bottles at bottling time. Let sit for a month, in
the fridge for a week, decanted one regular ESB and one with mucilage side
by side.
Results: foam stood for identical periods on both beers. Dense one inch
head at pour, 1/2" at one minute, 1/4" at two minutes, 1/8" lingered to the
bottom of the glass on both beers. Interestingly, the bubbles appeared to
be slightly smaller and more consistent on the flax foam but this did not
translate to better retention. Flavor and aroma where identical.
Mouthfeel, color, and clarity were identical. Here's the weird part,
bitterness was perceived as being slightly greater in the flax beer. At
first I thought it was just me, but I gave both beers to my brother who
knows nothing about beer and asked him which he liked better and why, and he
liked the non-flax beer because it wasn't quite as bitter. The mucilage is
virtually tasteless. It is possible the same flavor receptors that perceive
flax flavor, perceive hop bitterness and are as a result, stimulated to a
greater degree. Interesting.
Flax beer #3: I boiled 3 oz of flax in 1/2 gallon of water and strained the
mucilage from the seed (which wasn't easy because even with that much water,
it made for a very viscous mess) and added to the wort at the beginning of
the boil. I made an intentionally boring beer; 11 lbs 2 row, 1 lb crystal
40 for an eight gallon batch. Step infusion: 122 for 20 min., 132 for 25
min., 152 for 30 min. Irish ale yeast. I wanted something highly
fermentable, low viscosity, low mouthfeel, low head to accentuate any
contribution the flax might have. Kegged, forced carbonated, in the fridge
for a week. The foam on this beer, what little there is, exhibits
disproportionation, that is it's got big bubbles and little bubbles at the
same time. It ain't very good foam and it doesn't last more than 30
seconds. The OG was 1.048 and FG was 1.014; without the flax this should
have finished a great deal lower. This beer definitely has mouthfeel. And
I think that is the problem with the head. Arabinose and zylose are
actually foam inhibitive at concentrations greater than 5% (?) at which
point the base liquid becomes too viscous to support a foam. The taste is
something like a whole wheat dinner role at Thanksgiving that should have
cooked for another ten minutes; bready with a dirty edge. All in all, it's
a flop. I will not be adding flax to the boil again any time soon. Of
additional concern, because pentose sugars do not ferment out and may be
consumed by spoilage bacteria, were this stuff in a bottle it would probably
be a time bomb.
I think I'll go back to playing with flax in the mash some more.
Chad Stevens
QUAFF
San Diego
http://www.quaff.org/afc2004/AFCHBC.html
America's Finest City Homebrew Competition, February 2004
- -----------------------
Nature never forms spirituous liquors;
she rots the grape upon the branch;
but it is art which converts the juice into wine.
Count Chaptal, Bible Commentary (1820's?)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 21:08:16 -0800
From: "Don Anderson" <beer_guy at comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Basement brewery ideas
Thanks one and all for your ideas on my basement brewery. You
have brought up some things that I hadn't thought of and
confirmed that some others are worth doing.
Rob: Good point! Is that the voice of experience I hear talking?
;-)
Thanks,
-Don Anderson
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 02:35:02 -0500
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: digital thermometers
>One is by Taylor, about $20
>at Target, and the other by Polder, about $25 at
>amazon.com.
It's clear that these digital oven thermometers have a lot of nice features,
but the probes stink. Has anyone examined how the probes are made ? If
it's a simple thermocouple and the type could be determined ...
-Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:57:19 +1000
From: Eric Hood <eric at macchoice.com.au>
Subject: re burner sooting
> If memory serves, the soot results from incomplete combustion of fuel
> and I suspect an inefficient mix of fuel and oxygen as the culprit. Is
> this correct? If so, how can I repair my burners? I've tried
> disassembling the burners (unscrewing the ring) and cleaning them out,
> but
> this didn't solve the problem. Anyone else out there run into this
> problem and come up with a simple solution?
>
If you go to a welding supply shop you will be able to buy a set of tip
cleaners which are used to clean oxy acetylene nozzles, this should fix
your problem.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 07:35:02 -0500
From: "Miller, Donald (HQ BIC)" <donald.miller at dcma.mil>
Subject: Too Much Foam From Keg
Folks,
I have a had a problem with a little too much foam from my kegs as I
prepare for my annual holiday party. My brews conditioned in the keg at
room temperature. I blasted each with about 30 lbs of CO2 to get a good
seal. After conditioning, I used my Bleeder Value with pressure gauge
to bleed off to about 7 lbs for dispensing. This still appears to be
too much pressure as all I get is a glass full of foam. This occurs on
my pale ale, cream ale, stout and hefeweizen so I don't think it is brew
specific. Any ideas what is causing this maximus foamus???
Don
Donald A. Miller
Transformation Team
Phone: 703-428-1474
Cell: 571-236-3914
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:39:11 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Home RO units
Modern home RO units toss more like a gallon or a gallon and a half for
each gallon of filtered water produced. Most of the units come with a
small storage tank and separate spigot so you only take the RO water
you need for cooking, brewing etc. You couldn't run RO water to the
whole house anyway through metal pipes. They'd be gone in a couple of
years.
A.J.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 09:24:21 -0500
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Basement brewing
Lots of good comments on Don's question about a basement brewery. Leo Vitt
adds:
"Lots of ventilation."
I would say: Go electric, and your ventilation requirements are a lot
simpler. In that case you're simply venting excess moisture rather than
trying to make up O2 and venting CO. With a new 20' cord on my system, I
now have a basement (winter) and back deck (summer) brewery!
Drew Avis ~ Ottawa, Ontario
- --
http://www.strangebrew.ca
"Is there anything more beautiful than a beautiful, beautiful flamingo,
flying across in front of a beautiful sunset? And he's carrying a beautiful
rose in his beak, and also he's carrying a very beautiful painting with his
feet. And also, you're drunk."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 08:44:40 -0600
From: "Berggren, Stefan" <Stefan_Berggren at trekbikes.com>
Subject: Boulder, CO
Dear HBDR's
My brother has just recently relocated to Boulder, CO and is interested
in getting involved with a homebrew group (I think he is moving towards
the light so to speak...) So what I would like to find out is what clubs
are out there and where there might be some good pubs and beer stores.
I appreciate any input via the digest or private.
P.s. What is on tap or bubbling in peoples basements this winter?
On tap in my cellar
1.) English Porter
2.) English Mild/Brown
3.) English IPA
4.) Olde Fashion
Root-beer
Stefan Berggren - Madison, WI
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:06:25 +0100
From: Thomas Rohner <t.rohner at bluewin.ch>
Subject: Sooting propane burners
Dear Craig
i don't know how your "king cooker" is built. But the ones we get
here are ring style burners as well. They have a sheet metal ring
to adjust the air(oxygen). It's fixed with a screw. To adjust i open
the screw and adjust the air opening while i check the flame. It
works like a injector pump.(the propane sucks the air in)
So there has to be a opening for the air between the propane inlet
and the holes in the ring. Try to find it and adjust it.
Hope this helps.
Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 13:43:08 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: adding lactose in stouts
"mike sullivan" <mikesullivan666 at msn.com> asks:
>Does anyone know if adding lactose changes the gravity of wort? And if it
>does, how much? I am pretty new to home brewing and any help would be
>appreciated.
Mike
The short answer is, yes, by about 45 points, if it's the same as
other sugars (although it may be slightly different for lactose than
other sugars, it will be close). One gallon of lactose made up to a
gallon of solution would be 1.045.
Now the long answer from this ex science teacher, whose kids used to
say he could never give the short answer.
Specific gravity measures how much heavier a liquid is than pure
water. If you put a gallon of something, say beer wort, on one side
of a balance and a gallon of water on the other side, how much weight
would you have to add to the light side to make it balance? In the
case of beer wort, it might be that you have to add a half pound to
the water side. This would mean that the ratio of the wort to the
water was (weight of gallon of water + 1/2 lb)/(weight of gallon of
water). Since a gallon of water weighs 8.34 lbs, this would be
8.84/8.34, or 1.060. (This would make a fairly strong beer).
Dissolving lactose in water will increase its specific gravity,
unless, of course, it also increases the volume of the solution by
the same proportion.
Adding a pound of sugar to a gallon of water (8.34 lbs) will produce
9.34 pounds of solution. However, there will be a bit more than one
gallon of solution, as was discussed here a week or two ago. The
sugar "takes up some space."
If did not increase the volume of the solution, you'd have a gallon
of solution that weighed 9.34 lbs. Dividing 9.34 by 8.34 (the weight
of a gallon of water) gives 1.12, so the specific gravity of this
would be 1.120.
However, since dissolving a pound of lactose in a gallon gives us
more than a gallon of solution, we must make our gallon of solution
slightly differently. Dissolve the lactose in three quarts, say, of
water, then top it up to get one gallon of solution. This, of
course, has less than a gallon of water in it, so it weighs less than
9.34 pounds.
We can calculate how much it would weigh since we know from
references that the specific gravity of this solution is 1.045 - it
weighs 1.045 times as much as a gallon of water (8.34 lbs), or 8.70
lbs.
From this we can calculate how much water there is in the gallon of
solution by subtracting the pound of lactose from 8.70 lbs, which
gives us 7.70 lbs of water.
Hope this helps you to understand what's going on here.
If not, just figure 45 points.
Jeff
- --
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:40:29 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: Re: burner sooting
Craig Agnor asks:
>... If memory serves, the soot results from incomplete combustion of fuel
>and I suspect an inefficient mix of fuel and oxygen as the culprit. Is
>this correct? ...
That is correct. There should be a mixture adjustment on the unit
somewhere. Look for a butterfly ring. You can turn it and adjust the
amount of air drawn into the burner. This ring is adjusted until the flame
is completely blue.
Domenick
Seattle, WA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 16:07:39 -0500
From: David Towson <dtowson at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: burner sooting (Craig Agnor)
In HBD 4415, Craig has a problem with soot.
I assume this is a propane burner. Soot comes from poor combustion. That
means you have either too much gas, or not enough air. Too much gas could
come from the pressure regulator being turned up too far, or possibly from
a leak around a removable jet (if your burner has such a thing). Also, if
the gas jet is made from some super soft material, or if you have reamed it
out in the process of trying to clean it, it is possible that the jet has
been made larger, thereby allowing it to admit too much gas. As for the
air side of the situation, that is usually controlled by a rotatable
shutter on the burner, and it might have been bumped along the way, causing
it to admit too little air. If so, then it's an easy matter to turn it
open some more to restore the blue flame. If none of these things seem to
explain your problem, then my bet is that the regulator has malfunctioned,
and it needs to be replaced.
Dave in Bel Air, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:41:38 -0600
From: "Gary Smith" <mandolinist at ameritech.net>
Subject: Cleaning SS fermenters
Hi,
I'd like some opinions on sanitary dealings with
stainless fermenter care & feeding.
I just bought the sabco fermenter and am getting
a conical fermenter as well. All I've used for
fermenting over the last 20+ years has been
glass carboys. I've always cleaned the fermenters
well and then the day of racking I sanitize the
fermenter using (lately) Star San & then grain
alcohol around the mouth of the fermenter.
Now I'm using stainless where things have
to be disasembled, placed in PBW & then
re-assembled & then sanitized.
As to the fermenter, it sounds like every time
I use it I need to disassemble all the fittings
and soak them in PBW & then re-assemble.
What about the interior? while the rotating arm
is out I can't fill it with PBW and if there's a lot
of material on the sides after fermenting I'll
need to clean this off. So the question is
chicken or egg... Do I remove the fittings
clean them and replace & then fill the
fermenter with PBW or... Clean the interior
with PBW & then remove & clean the fittings?
Also, Do I need to turn it upside down to let
the top part have full contact?
I have another question on long term sanitary
storage but I'll leave that for the answers to
the Following (Corny) question.
Thanks,
Gary
Gary Smith
CQ DX de KA1J
http://musician.dyndns.org
http://musician.dyndns.org/homebrew.html
"Give a man a beer and he'll drink for five minutes.
Teach him where the beer is, he'll drink for a lifetime and get it himself".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 17:02:14 -0600
From: "Gary Smith" <mandolinist at ameritech.net>
Subject: Corny long term storage
Hi,
I've been trying to wean myself from bottles :) and
have been buying more corny kegs. I now have
ten of them. My big picture is to have another
ten or so more of which several will be in long
term aging roles for mead. It's the other ones
I'm curious about.
I want to devote an afternoon to cleaning them
with PBW and then use Star San to sanitize. I
then want to put them aside and label as ready
to use. Doing all the work on the same day
can be inconvenient so I want to do all the
cleaning ahead of time. I did that with one and
hadn't planned on opening it but rather had
planned on racking into it directly.
By chance I opened the cover & looked inside
& there was this small milky white pool of star San
which had collected at the bottom. I remember
when I called the company to ask about the
foaming in bottles & wether it would kill the
yeast or affect the taste & the answer was a
strong no. I'm not sure about the accumulation
of star san but for long term empty & "ready to
go" Corny storage it seems like the remaining
star San in the bubbles & on the sides will pool
& turn milky.
Has anyone ever found this to be a problem?
I've planned on filling the cornys with CO2 after
draining the Star San so they'd be ready for the
next use be it tomorrow or six months away.
Anyone doing this? If so, what are you doing
to clean & prep the cornys for future use?
Thanks!
Gary
Gary Smith
CQ DX de KA1J
http://musician.dyndns.org
http://musician.dyndns.org/homebrew.html
"Give a man a beer and he'll drink for five minutes.
Teach him where the beer is, he'll drink for a lifetime and get it himself".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:31:50 -0800
From: "Hedglin, Nils A" <nils.a.hedglin at intel.com>
Subject: Turbo Scrubber
Hi,
Has anyone tried the Turbo Scubber advertised in Brew Your Own? Their
websites are www.turboscrub.com or www.carboyscrubber.com. It looks
like a good idea, but I'm curious about it's affect on glass carboys.
Also, how easy is it to clean the bottom of the carboy?
Thanks
Nils Hedglin
Sacramento, CA
[1978.7, 275.3] Apparent Rennerian
In Heaven there is no beer, that's why we drink it here,
And when we're gone from here, our friends will be drinking all the
beer.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 21:20:23 -0500
From: "Gordon Strong" <strongg at voyager.net>
Subject: Protein rest
I'm not trolling or trying to start a religious war, but what are
current opinions on protein rests in the 122F range? I'm not really
looking for anecdotal information, but rather referenced sources (or
first-hand information from modern brewery practices).
My personal opinion is that it's unnecessary with modern malts, but
that it may be useful when adding starchy adjuncts (although I tend to
prefer 131F for 10-15 min). Is it unreasonable to suggest that one try
a single infusion mash and only add a protein rest if a starch haze
results? Or to reduce or eliminate a protein rest if poor head
retention and/or thin body results? Of course you may choose other
mash schedules for other reasons (e.g. step mashing an alt for greater
attenuation, decoction mashing a bock for melanoidin development). For
purposes of this discussion, let's assume we're just talking about
conversion without undesirable side-effects.
I find a lot of information on the subject is quite dated and/or is
just repeating information without any attempt at verifying it.
Certainly malts have changed over the last decade or so. Certainly
malts will vary by type and maltster. I'm just wondering if there are
any generalizations that can be drawn.
Thanks,
Gordon
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:09:20 -0800
From: susan woodall <woodsusa at moscow.com>
Subject: WLP830 German Lager Yeast
can anyone give me any advice or their perspective on WLP830 German
Lager Yeast. What are this yeasts flavor characteristic and profile?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:29:12 -0500
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us>
Subject: It IS beer related, tha knows
I found this on a kayaking bulletin board, of all places. It is beer
related (somewhat) and I think kind of humorous. The author does seem to
have a slight bias, though ;^)
ORIGIN OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES
The division of the human family into its two distinct branches, liberals
and conservatives, occurred some 20,000 years ago. Until then all humans
coexisted as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers. A thousand
generations ago, in the pivotal event of societal evolution, beer was
invented. This epochal innovation was both the foundation of modern
civilization and the occasion of the great bifurcation of humanity into its
two distinct subgroups.
Once beer was discovered, our prehistoric forefathers decided it was time
to settle down. Making beer required grain, and securing a steady supply of
it ordained the invention of agriculture.
After that was accomplished, ancient man quickly, and unfairly, consigned
actual cultivation to women.
Men couldn't just run off, willy-nilly, however. Neither the glass bottle
nor the aluminum can had yet been invented, so it was necessary to stick
pretty close to home, and the brewery.
This left our male ancestors with a lot of time on their hands, and led to
the division of the species, which persists to this day.
Some men tried to conserve remnants of the old way of life (hence the term
"conservative") by spending their days in the open field in the dangerous
pursuit of big game animals. At night they would roast their prey at a big
barbecue, and afterwards sat around the fire drinking beer, passing wind
and telling stories.
Other, more timid, souls stayed closer to home. They are responsible for
the domestication of cats and the invention of group therapy. Mostly, they
sat around worrying about how life wasn't fair and concocting elaborate
schemes to "liberate" themselves from inequity (thus their designation as
"liberals"). In the evening they gathered around their fire, nibbling on
fruit and nuts, sharing their innermost feelings.
Today some liberals try to pretend they're really sort of conservative, and
sometimes succeed in confusing people. The following are a few tips to use
in distinguishing the two types.
By definition liberals believe in big government and high taxes. Life is
unfair and the government is there to do something about it. Most people
are too stupid to spend untaxed income wisely, they say, and high taxes
allow liberals in government to do a better job of it.
Conservatives don't like government, and, aside from the military, wish it
would just go away. They hate taxes, regulations, speed limits, and small cars.
Typical conservatives are Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, Rush
Limbaugh and, up there with the Big Man in the Sky, the incomparable John
Wayne.
Typical liberals are Dustin Hoffman, Shirley McLaine, Pee Wee Herman,
Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Barbra Streisand, Ted Turner and his former wife,
the traitor Jane Fonda.
All conservatives drink beer. American beer.
Some liberals like imported beer, but most prefer white wine or foreign
water from a bottle.
Liberals like to drive Volvos and Saabs because they're made in socialist
Sweden. They like to eat weird food because it's un-American.
Your basic conservative vehicle, especially in Alaska, is the Chevy
Suburban. It's big, it's American, it's four wheel drive, and it sucks up
the gas. Conservatives eat beef, which they (surprise!) like to barbecue.
Big game hunters are conservative. Interior decorators are liberal.
Liberals invented the designated hitter rule in baseball because it wasn't
"fair" to make the poor pitcher take his turn at bat.
Conservatives, inspired by a remark of the legendary Pittsburgh Steeler
linebacker Jack Lambert, believe quarterbacks should be required to wear
skirts, so they can more easily be distinguished from real football players.
James Brown and Ray Charles are conservatives. Michael Jackson and Milli
Vanilli are liberals.
Most social workers, personal injury lawyers, journalists, and group
therapists are liberals. Most ranchers, loggers, professional soldiers, and
steeplejacks are conservatives.
Liberal jurors distrust the prosecutors and police. Conservatives figure
the defendant must be guilty or he wouldn't be on trial.
Most conservatives not only believe in the death penalty, they would
cheerfully implement it, personally, if called upon to do so.
Liberals think capital punishment is a barbaric relic, and unfair to boot.
Liberals believe Europeans are, generally speaking, far more enlightened
than Americans. Conservatives think Europeans are basically decadent, as
evidenced by their complete absence in wars.
Typical conservative movies are "Raising Arizona," "Patton," and "Conan the
Barbarian."
Typical liberal movies are "Prince of Tides," "Last Tango in Paris," and
"The Big Chill."
The quintessential liberal is the handicapper, the person who decides how
much extra weight to saddle the faster horses with in order to make the
race "fair."
The American cowboy, of course, is your basic, full bore conservative. A
hundred years ago an Englishman in South Dakota was trying to find the
owner of a huge cattle ranch. He rode up to one of the ranch hands and
asked, "Excuse me, but could you tell me where to find your Master?" To
which the cowboy replied, "That sumbitch hasn't been born."
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4416, 12/03/03
*************************************
-------
