Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4406
HOMEBREW Digest #4406 Fri 21 November 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:
Recipe classification (Michael)
sabco fermenter ("jim")
Beer Classification and BJCP Styles ("Robert Humphrey")
Digest version Opinion-Lundeen Said THat ("Rob Moline")
Correction of PPG Units Post of 11/18 (John Palmer)
another take on the Sabco fermenter (Dane Mosher)
alcohol/sugar soln data (David Harsh)
Carbonation Level for Dunkelweizen ("Don Scholl")
More on sugar ("A.J deLange")
re: Digest, Classification (R.A.)" <rbarrett@ford.com>
The art and science of styles ("Dave Draper")
Temp controllers ("Dave Burley")
When to carbonate lager? ("Michael O'Donnell")
RE: Digest, Classification (eIS) - Eastman" <stjones@eastman.com>
RE: Digest mode & Classification (Steve Funk)
Silicone tubing (David Radwin)
Flemish Red FAQ ("Raj B. Apte")
RE: newsgroups and BJCP classes (Brian Lundeen)
RE: Flocculation ("Steve Smith")
Way OT but very amusing ("Jason G. Pavento")
Re: Classification (Robert Sandefer)
Re: Saflager 34/70 ("Drew Avis")
Another Cleaning/Sanitizing Option For CFCs ("Kerry and Dell Drake")
RE: RANCO controllers (Bob Hall)
Re: Subject: Which Temp Controller & freezer should I get?? ("Brian K. Smith")
Re; Yeast mixtures ("Houseman, David L")
BJCP styles (Tim & Cindy Howe)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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, 19 Nov 2003 23:36:27 -0600
From: Michael <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Recipe classification
Alex in Montreal asks about recipe classification. As I don't brew for
contests, I don't worry too much about it. I tend to make everything a
little darker (my last pale ale looks like a nut brown). At the same time,
the BJCP style classification serve as a useful summary of centuries of
brewing tradition.
My goal is usually just to make a beer I like. At the same time, I may
want to try a new technique (mash hopping is on my list, for instance),
or to see what happens if I use this particular hop in my beer. It's a
good thing I'm not particularly interested in consistent results.
I've only been interested in cloning one commercial beer, New Glarus'
Belgian Red (with mixed luck--a little too thin and not tart enough, but
not too far off). On the other hand, New Glarus has a brown ale I really
like, and I might try recent Zymurgy recipes for Bell's Two-Hearted Ale
or Victory Hop Devil...
Michael in Middleton WI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:44:20 -0500
From: "jim" <jimswms at cox.net>
Subject: sabco fermenter
Just to add to what others have said.. I've got one too. All in all, I like
it. I've never owned a conical though. Unlike Mike, I kept the sight glass,
although for reasons unrelated to the "sight glass". I hook up my CF chiller
to the tubing and fill through it. Also, the adaptor they supply is really
good for taking samples throughout fermentation using gravity. You can't do
that through the corny fittings.
I agree that the top can get plugged up during a strong fermentation. that
happened once..
This fermenter has lots of built in features which are pretty nice.
transferring under pressure and such.
For cleaning, I take apart all the fittings/siphon, and clean those
separately, then fill the entire keg up with a PBW solution. Let that sit
overnight, then siphon it out through the bottom via gravity. I generally
fill it on the counter, then siphon into the sink, so, I never have to lift
it.
For sanitizing, I sanitize fittings individually with iodophor. Reassemble,
then put a little water in the keg. Put it on my burner and let it boil for
10 min. or so. then I can close it up, and it's done ready to be filled.
I've never tried to harvest yeast out of it, even though Sabco claims you
can. I just don't see how it would work all that well. that is definitely a
down side to it. A conical would be much better in this regard.
Would I buy another? I don't know. Am I looking to replace it? Absolutely
not!
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:04:44 -0600
From: "Robert Humphrey" <RobertHumphrey at ev1.net>
Subject: Beer Classification and BJCP Styles
Alex in Montreal asks
"What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in
fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly
think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use
characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and
determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness?"
Although I don't have the expertise that most readers of this digest have, I
have been brewing on and off for a while. I have progressed from brewing
what was recommended to me by my LHBS, to trying to mimic favorite store
boughts, to finally just experimenting until I found a few brews that I
totally enjoy drinking, sharing, and brewing. I have never entered a brew
competition, and I doubt that any of my favorite brews would fit right into
a BJCP style, but that's okay. I also cook competitively, and not just your
typical Texas _BQ cook-off, but many varied foods: from the usual Chili,
Brisket, Ribs, to Beef Stew, Enchiladas, Chicken and Dumplings, right on
down to Cheesecake. In every cook-off I've competed in there has always
been an "open" category. Do they have this in Home Brew Competitions? If
they do, then I'd probably be interested. Please excuse the length and
rambling but I typed this after 4 pints of something close to an Abbey Ale.
Thank God for spell check.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:55:33 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Digest version Opinion-Lundeen Said THat
Digest version Opinion-Lundeen Said That
Brian Lundeen said that...and well said!
Gump
From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: Re: Non-digest version
From: "Rob Moline"
>individual message people who do not understand the importance of trimming
>the message to which they are replying. Sometimes an entire message is
>regurgitated to which a line or two is added.
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:12:03 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: Correction of PPG Units Post of 11/18
Randy Ricchi sent me a note pointing out my deviation from standard
solution chemistry procedure:
I had said, "Sucrose raises the gravity by 46 Points (1.046) when 1
pound is
dissolved in 1 gallon of water"
and what I should have said was, "When 1 pound of Sucrose is dissolved
in water to make 1 gallon of solution, the specific gravity is 1.046."
Doing it the other way would only equal a gravity of about 1.043,
because the total volume does increase by about 6% as AJ noted
yesterday. Thanks Randy for noticing my error.
And I disagree with Fred's assertion "that the expression of the units
as
points/pound/gallon can and almost always does yield incorrect results,
depending upon the order of operations. I submit to you that most
(all?) spreadsheets and mathematics operations will return an incorrect
result if you simply perform the operations from left to right as they
are written."
I have never had a problem with it. I guess I have always understood
the concept. I don't know who came up with the expression, but it has a
nice ring to it and I guess the parenthesis in the nomenclature got
dropped along the way. PPG is more intuitive to me than trying to
figure out why the unit for the weight percent of sucrose in solution
was named after a Greek philosopher.
(that was a joke)
John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:34:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Dane Mosher <dane_mosher at yahoo.com>
Subject: another take on the Sabco fermenter
I would suggest to anyone thinking of getting the
Sabco fermenter to consider getting the Sabco yeast
brink instead. (http://www.kegs.com/yeastbrink.html)
A friend of mine has one of these and has let me
borrow it a few times, and it works great as a
fermenter.
On the plus side, it doesn't have the vinyl tubing
sight glass (which is worthless IMO anyway) that the
"fermenter" has. It's also $130 cheaper.
On the down side, it doesn't have a thermometer.
However, a Fermometer that my friend stuck to the side
of the keg seemed to work well--at least as well as it
would on a carboy. Also, there's no adjustable
racking arm on the yeast brink. I think my friend
trimmed an inch off of the dip tube to keep yeast from
getting sucked up on transfers, and that worked well
without leaving much beer behind.
I enjoyed using it and thought it was pretty easy to
clean too.
Dane Mosher
Fort Worth, TX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:13:57 -0500
From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net>
Subject: alcohol/sugar soln data
Greetings-
After reading the posts from:
> Sugar things ("A.J deLange")
> Sugar to Alcohol Imponderable ("Todd Carlson")
I realize my "off the top of the head" numbers were off by more than a
few percent...
Dave Harsh
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:17:46 -0500
From: "Don Scholl" <dws at engineeringdimensions.com>
Subject: Carbonation Level for Dunkelweizen
Hello, I'll be bottling my Dunkelweizen tomorrow and I would like to know a
carbonation level (volumes CO2) that you use or is specified for it.
Don Scholl
Twin Lake, Michigan
(140.9, 302.4)Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:45:20 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: More on sugar
It occurred to me this morning that my statement that the volume
changes when sugar is added to water would be an excellent illustration
of the use of my high school teacher's units trick and that people
might want to know how to calculate the amount which is quite simple.
All the needed data is in the ASBC tables or both Plato and Specific
gravity from another source. Take 10 Plato. A 10 Plato solution is one
in which there are 10 grams of sugar in 100 grams of solution. Thus
there must be 90 grams of water. According to the table (or conversion
by any means derived from the table) a 10 Plato sucrose solution has a
specific gravity of 1.0400 and, thus a density, of 0.998203 (density of
water at 20 C) times that i.e.1.0381 gram/cc. The solution weighs
100grams so 100 grams/1.0381 grams/cc = (100)/(1.0381) grams/grams/cc
= 96.32 grams/gram/cc = 96.32 (gram/1)/(gram/cc) = 96.32
(gram/1)*(cc/gram) = 96.32 cc. The original 90 grams of water had a
volume of 90/.998203 = 90.16 cc so the solution volume is 96.32/90.16 =
1.068 times the original water volume or 6.8% greater. Note that since
the calculated volumes are divided by one another the .998203 constants
cancel and can be ignored . The fractional increase is simply
(100/SG)/(100 - P). At 20 P the specific gravity is 1.083 so the volume
factor is (100/1.083)/(100 - 20) = 1.154 and so the volume is 15.4%
greater.
A.J.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:10:22 -0500
From: "Barrett, Bob (R.A.)" <rbarrett at ford.com>
Subject: re: Digest, Classification
Alex, in Montreal asks:
What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in
fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you
mostly think of commercial examples you want to clone?
Our homebrew list had quite a varied discussion on this topic a few
weeks ago. The discussion originated around a beer from a local
microbrewery that to many people did not represent what the beer
was called. The beer is called pilsner. Many members think the
beer does not represent a pilsner. Some feel the brewer doesn't
know what he's doing when he makes this beer. Sometimes when
they taste it there is a little more sulfur. Other times it's cleaner or
maybe there is more hop flavor present. The homebrew club
members are using the BJCP style guidelines to determine the
quality of the beer. What we found out from the brewer is that the
beer is actually a kellerbier. In Germany this is a beer that is
fermented with lager yeast and then cold conditioned for a short
period of time and then served. The yeast that is used does not
highly flocculate and so the beer, when first served after the cold
conditioning period appears cloudy. Over several weeks in the
keg the beer begins to clear and the flavors change as well. The
brewer knows exactly what he is doing and is making the beer
that he wants to make. The so called "home brewer experts" have
no idea what the brewer is trying to do and judge the beer from it's
name and the BJCP style guidelines. What many of us have found
is that this pilsner is something that is very, very special. There is
nowhere else in the U.S. where this beer is made. We are extremely
lucky to be able to experience the flavors that kellerbier possesses.
For me, the BJCP style guidelines are for beer competitions only.
When any brewer brews a beer, they should be able to call it
whatever they want. The important thing to me is: do I like it? Not:
"this pale ale should have more hop aroma and more carbonation".
The brewer should be able to make the beer however they want.
When you taste someone else's beer always ask them: "did it turn
out the way you wanted it?" "Do you like it?" If their answer is
yes, then you have to decide if you like the beer this brewer has
brewed. Don't try to make a determination about whether or not
this beer scores a 25 or a 45. Beer is beer. Drink it and enjoy it.
For those that want to compete, the BJCP style guidelines are there
to judge against.
By the way, the microbrewery I reference above is Leopold Brothers
of Ann Arbor. The brewer, Todd Leopold has given me a new way
to appreciate beer. By the way it tastes. Not by how it matches the
BJCP style guidelines.
We Make the Beer We Drink!!!!
Bob Barrett
Ann Arbor, MI
(2.8, 103.6) Rennerian. Thanks for inviting us to the party last
Saturday, Jeff!!!!! Go Blue!!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:16:26 -0700
From: "Dave Draper" <david at draper.name>
Subject: The art and science of styles
Dear Friends,
Alex in Montreal asks in #4405 about classification styles, focusing on
BJCP but asking in general about adherence to style guidelines. One
of my favorite perennial topics. :-)
Being a blend of artist (musician) and scientist myself, I very much
appreciate that brewing is both art and science, as Alex alludes. For
me, style guidelines serve several purposes. First, I learned to love
particular styles of beer that were already established by decades and
centuries of brewing history-- not too many trappist smoked wheat
strawberry blonde stouts out there on the commercial market. So
when I began to brew my own, I naturally desired to replicate the
experience of drinking one of those styles I love, and I'm sure most
brewers have felt the same way.
As I got better at what I was doing, and developed the skills to be
able to formulate recipes "from first principles" as it were, styles
gained an aspect in addition to its original one: they serve as targets
that allow me to demonstrate to myself (and others, when I enter in
competition) that I know how to brew-- that given a stylistic target, I
can hit it (or nearly so).
And finally, now that I've been doing this awhile, I will on occasion
concoct something that may not fit neatly into a given style, merely
because I feel like it. I might tweak a bitterness level or color or what
have you, or (rarely) come up with something entirely new. I'm not
the least bit shy or embarrassed to do that :-) and I really don't think
any serious brewer would be either. When I indulge myself in this
way, it's much more an artistic endeavor, but it's based on the
knowledge I've gained by being more "scientific" (and the point on my
geeky head has been known to be pretty sharp over the years).
Someone once made a great analogy about this, likening brewing to
figure skating. Being able to hit a stylistic target is like the skater
going through the compulsory figures-- the turns, figure 8s, and so
on. This would be like trying to nearly exactly duplicate a style as
closely as possible. Branching out by tweaking the bitterness, color,
etc is like one of the routines that are judged: a combination of tools
used in the compulsories but put together with the artistic choices of
the skater. Finally, making that trappist smoked wheat strawberry
blonde stout is ice dancing: Anything goes!
Bottom line for me is that I pride myself on being able to brew
competently enough to reproduce a given style and alter it to suit my
tastes. I think most brewers are well served by spending the time to
hit stylistic targets if for no other reason than it gives confidence that
when one *does* branch out, one has a hope of obtaining the desired
result.
Cheers, Dave in ABQ
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David S. Draper, Institute of Meteoritics, Univ New Mexico
David at Draper dot Name
Beer page: http://www.unm.edu/~draper/beer.html
Don't pick your nose. ---Domenick Venezia
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:41:16 -0500
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Temp controllers
Brewsters:
Bret Morrow asks about Williams Brewing temperature controllers. I went for
two of the cheap mechanical controllers you are looking at. Don't.
On my two freezers I went nuts trying to get them to work properly. We're
talking calibration, etc, etc. Don't know why, but when I spent the extra $50
per for the II electronic version, my freezers worked perfectly over all
temperature ranges.
Spend the extra bucks. The digital readout is very nice and the various
control options for the controller may come in handy. Standard setup works
great.
To Williams' credit, they took them back even after I had fooled with them
unsuccessfully for 3 months - Grrrr. and gave me credit. That's good business.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 08:06:38 -0800
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo at stanford.edu>
Subject: When to carbonate lager?
Hi All,
I am brewing my first lager, a Vienna. It spent a month in the primary at
55, and now is in kegs in my chest freezer at 34. My question is when I
should carbonate... I pushed it into kegs under about 10 lbs of pressure,
so it is still under some pressure. While it is lagering, should I release
any pressure that builds up, or should I just let it go? When should I
carbonate it?
Thanks for suggestions,
Mike
Monterey, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:18:02 -0500
From: "Jones, Steve (eIS) - Eastman" <stjones at eastman.com>
Subject: RE: Digest, Classification
I agree with the majority - keep the HBD in digest format.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandre asks what beer classifications we use to decide what to brew.
My answer is "All of the above".
First I'll give my opinion on the BJCP styles, with the caveat that I'm
a great proponent of the BJCP (and the AHA). The purpose for the BJCP
styles guidelines is strictly as a basis for judging homebrew in
competitions. They are not meant to define commercial styles, but where
applicable they do specify commercial examples that are representative
of their definition of that style. The actual style guidelines are an
ever changing, living entity, and (here's the opinion part) I believe
that changes are made as a response to the changing profile of what
homebrewers are entering into HB comps.
If competition statistics show that entries in a style decrease
dramatically over time to a point where there is a much smaller number
of entries, that style may end up being dropped because it is no longer
popular amongst homebrewers entering competitions. And if they show that
there are an increasing number of entries that seem to fit a style that
doesn't exist, that style guideline will probably end up being created.
For example, if lots of people start making Baltic style Porters and
entering them into the Specialty/Experimental/Historical category, then
a third sub-style of Porter may be added in the next revision. I know
that at least one competition (the Palmetto State Brewers Open) adds an
additional Stout Category (American Stout), and they have their own
guideline for it modelled after the BJCP style definitions (Aroma,
Flavor, Mouthfeel, etc.). Another example of a style that is on the
increase is Imperial IPA. I believe that when you see the new Styles
Guidelines sometime next year you'll see some of these categories added,
as well as other changes.
That said, I brew what I want to brew. Sometimes I try to nail a style
right-on. Other times I will try to clone something I've had
commercially, but is not a tightly defined style. And on a few occasions
I'll try something really different (ever had an imperial stout
fermented with HG Trappist Ale yeast?). Maybe I'll brew a Maibock with
English or American hop varieties.
Steve Jones, Johnson City, TN
State of Franklin Homebrewers (http://hbd.org/franklin)
[421.8 mi, 168.5 deg] AR
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:49:40 -0800
From: Steve Funk <steve at hheco.com>
Subject: RE: Digest mode & Classification
First off, as my Grandfather would say, ..."if it aint broke, don't fix
it"... I must echo the opinion of so many others here and would not
want to the HBD in a non-digest version. I won't repeat the numberous
reasons why.
Alex in Montreal debates the use of BJCP style guidelines.
> What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in
> fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly
> think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use
> characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and
> determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness?
Notice the snipage :)
For me, I brew recipes based on my personal tastes. Usually when I
think about brewing a beer I consider these factors (in order but not
always):
Ale or lager, flavor, alcohol content, degree of maltiness, level of
bitterness, and color. I don't look up a BJCP style and then try to
emulate it, although I did when I first started brewing and that helped
understand which ingredients imparted various qualities. However,
sometimes I look up which BJCP classification will fit my recipe. This
isn't to say I don't try to emulate a beer that I particularly enjoyed
from time to time. I just don't limit my recipes to conform to a
particular BJCP classification. In fact, some of my beers don't really
fit any BJCP-defined style and that doesn't bother me a bit. I brew for
myself.
Steve Funk
Stevenson, WA
[1887.2, 290.3] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:59:35 -0800
From: David Radwin <dradwin at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Silicone tubing
> From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu>
> I don't have an vinyl tubing. I have silicone tubing. It's more
> The stuff was not easy to find at the time. Your local hardware/home
> despot doesn't carry it. I ended up ordering full rolls from the
> manufacturer and sold off smaller pieces to other HBDers. It ended up
> at about $1.25/ft as I recall.
You can buy random lengths of 3/16" ID and 1/2" ID food grade silicone
tubing at http://morebeer.com and a variety of diameters at
http://mcmaster.com. NAJASC.
David in Berkeley CA
- --
David Radwin
This email account forwards to trash. Reply to
news at removethis.davidradwin.com.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:23:20 -0800 (PST)
From: "Raj B. Apte" <raj_apte at yahoo.com>
Subject: Flemish Red FAQ
All,
I'm trying to write a FAQ about Flemish Red Ale,
although much of the material is common to lambics as
well. I appreciate any and all comment but
particularly hope that knowledgeable sour ale brewers
will share their insights.
thanks,
raj
http://www.parc.com/apte/flemishredale.shtml
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:37:19 -0600
From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: newsgroups and BJCP classes
Domenick Venezia, demonick maker of little sugar pills, writes:
> ... and all the other brainless, pointless, worthless noise
> that one sees in newsgroups.
>
While what you write is not untrue, I think it gives a grossly one-sided and
unfair portrayal of newsgroups. While I read the HBD for advanced topics,
and to gather in the wisdom of a number of regular contributors, I find
newsgroups much more useful to me on a day to day basis.
My regular haunt is rec.crafts.brewing, and while it has the odd idiot, it
also has a high number of helpful, knowledgeable people. I don't mind the
noise, I often find it amusing, I even partake from time to time, and if I
don't want to deal with it, it is easily ignored. The noise level is more
than made up for by faster responses, and the ability to get a really
involved back and forth discussion going on a topic.
I stand by my comments regarding keeping this as strictly a Digest, because
I think you do run into problems when you open things up to real time
messaging in people's inboxes. However, I would also encourage any new
brewers in here to check out the real-time forums like rcb. There's a lot of
good signal to be had.
Alexandre Enkerli starts what will undoubtedly be remembered as one of the
great flame wars in HBD history, on a par with Clinitest and fermenter
geometry, with:
<snip>
> But the BJCP style guidelines may have unfortunate
> results with some people, if taken to mean more than what
> they are. I don't want to sound confrontational or
> accusatory. I'm just looking
> for different ways to classify beer.
>
Clearly, someone that protests as much as Alex does about NOT wanting to be
flamed, secretly, deep down is hoping for a good toasting. So here it comes,
brace yourself....
Piffle! (Ooh, I hope that doesn't trigger Pat's filters)
You can make any beer you like. If you want to produce an Apricot Chile
SchwarzWit that is dry-hopped with Cascade, then nobody will stop you or
think any less of you, and you will undoubtedly find success with it at the
March in Montreal competition (OK, there's a personal thing there, never
mind). ;-)
However, the BJCP guidelines provide a necessary framework for evaluating
beers, and I think for the most part, do a good job of reflecting recognized
beer styles, and allowing for interpretation on the part of the brewer. You
mention wanting a different way to classify beer, but what do you propose,
and why would it be an improvement over the BJCP classes? Different for the
sake of being different is not necessarily better.
This is not to say that I think the BJCP system is perfect. I don't much
care for the catch-all categories. You know, the
Experimental-Specialty-Historically-Non-Denominational-Fruit-and-Nut-Small-M
ammal classes that offer such a wide-open stylistic acceptance that they
should never, ever be considered for inclusion in any overall points
championships, such as, but not necessarily exclusively, the Ninkasi Award!
(Not that I'm trying to pick on a particular target here, not in the least).
;-)
Sorry, I got sidetracked there. Personally, I like to try and brew to style
because I think it is more challenging. I must confess, I often try to push
the envelope to satisfy my creative side, and occasionally find recognition
for such efforts from my peers. I have never been a cloner. If I want
Pilsner Urquell, I will buy Pilsner Urquell. However, if I want to produce
my own creation in the general style of such a beer, the BJCP guidelines are
an excellent starting point for approaching that task.
Cheers
Brian, in Winnipeg
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:55:14 -0700
From: "Steve Smith" <sasmith at in-tch.com>
Subject: RE: Flocculation
Dave Burley commented that rousing yeast should be done by stirring or
racking the beer. It seems that many people instead will slosh or swirl
their beer inside the fermenter, thereby not exposing the beer to the air or
other contaminates. I swirled the beer inside my carboys mid-way through
secondary fermentation when using a highly flocculant yeast, Wyeast 1968
London ESB. Wyeast's website states that 1968 requires additional aeration
and agitation. I still haven't bottled, so can't comment on my results. I
know that according to Papazian, disturbing the beer after pitching the
yeast is not a good idea.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:50:11 -0500
From: "Jason G. Pavento" <whiplash at juno.com>
Subject: Way OT but very amusing
Hello fellow geeks. Considering the movie references I see on this list
from time to time, I figure many of you will get a kick out of this.
http://www.style.org/unladenswallow/
Jason Pavento,
Rehab Homebrewing,
Walpole MA 02081
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:15:20 -0500
From: Robert Sandefer <melamor at vzavenue.net>
Subject: Re: Classification
Alex Enkerli asks about beer classification and styles.
As it turns out, I have been thinking about the concept of styles and beer
classification for a while.
For someone trained in the sciences (biology, chemistry, and psychology),
current beer classification systems leave something to be desired:
simplicity. Now, to be sure, there are a lot of beers out there and
therefore a few style terms are being tossed about, but still, I as a
drinker and as a brewer would appreciate a certain level of consistency and
logic.
Take for example, the dark beers of British origin: brown ale, porter, and
stout. The copy of AHA style guidelines I have lists 2 browns (English and
Ameican), 2 porters (robust and brown), and 4 stouts (dry, foreign, sweet,
and imperial), and 2 of the 4 stouts specifically mention the presence of
roast barley character. Now, who decided roast barley character was a
defining feature of stout? In addition, who decided black patent made a
porter robust and chocolate malt made a brown porter? What grain does brown
ale get? If we defined any British ale with chocolate malt as a brown ale,
any with black patent as a porter, and any with roast barley as a stout,
things would be simplier at least--3 grains, 3 styles. Or we could let any
dark grain be in these beers and define based on gravity: <1.050 for a
brown, >1.050 but <1.060 for a porter, and >1.060 for a stout. Or the
styles could be color-based.
My problem with the modern style definitions I have seen is that they are
too complicated; they try to define beer by all the above variables and
more: alcoholic strength, mouthfeel, bitterness, hops flavor and aroma,
etc. Does a brown ale really stop being brown because it has more hop
flavor than it would have in Britain? A problem with such detailed
definitions is how are they applied consistently and accurately to a
specific beer? How do you make sure a beer fits only one style? Of further
interest, where is the line between styles? At exactly what point does a
brown ale become a porter? Or a bitter become a pale ale?
I think it is important to remember what styles are supposed to do: in my
opinion, styles let the drinker know what to expect from a beer. Styles do
not have to describe all variation found in beer: A hoppy porter can be
exactly that a hoppy porter; it doesn't have to be described as an American
Porter, or whatever else. In other words, there is inter-style variation,
and there is intra-style variation.
For those interested in the concept of styles, I suggest reading Designing
Great Beers by Ray Daniels. As far as I can tell, it is the only home-
/craft-brewer aimed book that tries to determine how to brew various styles
of beer by looking at actual beers (rather than philosophizing).
To answer Alex's actual question, I have read quite a bit on brewing and
most articles/books have certain commonalities for each style. I use these
"common" styles but don't get bent out of shape if I decide to use an
unusual ingridient. I never "clone" beers, and I always think about the
specific characteristics (malt-hop balance, hops flavor, yeast flavors,
carbonation, etc) of each brew.
Sorry for the length.
Robert Sandefer
Arlington, VA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:25:39 -0500
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Saflager 34/70
Dave in Victoria asks about Saflager 34/70. This is my favourite DCL lager
yeast, though I need to play with S-189 a bit more to be sure ;-). I've
fermented it at 48F (which is at the bottom of the suggested range) no
problem. It threw no diacetyl that I could detect.
Happy lagering!
Drew Avis ~ Ottawa, Ontario
- --
http://www.strangebrew.ca
I think the mistake a lot of us make is thinking the state-appointed shrink
is our friend.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:34:05 -0500
From: "Kerry and Dell Drake" <arcticmallards at cox.net>
Subject: Another Cleaning/Sanitizing Option For CFCs
I have the St Pats convoluted CFC. It's worked great for the past two or so
years. After use I flush it with hot water and then with compressed air;
then it's stored open so it can dry. While I'm brewing, I put it in the
oven at 350 DegF for 45 minutes (it mounts via a home-made quick release
mechanism). I then run about a quart of hot wort through it with the water
off to flush out any thing that may have been left behind. It may waste a
little wort, but it seems worth it given the ease of the procedure.
Kerry
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:34:06 -0500
From: Bob Hall <rallenhall at toast.net>
Subject: RE: RANCO controllers
Bret Morrow stated "I read in the archives about "Ranco" controllers that
are available
"everywhere"--but I don't know exactly where."
Bret, I went down to the local hardware and had them look one up in the
Grainger catalog. They ordered it for me and the cost was much less than
that typically advertised in the brewing catalogs.
Bob Hall
Napoleon, OH
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 21:11:11 -0500
From: "Brian K. Smith" <ibrewalot at charter.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Which Temp Controller & freezer should I get??
I recently built a kegging system with a 5.0 cubic foot freezer (Woods
from Home Depot) and am using the controller from William's Brewing (The
Controller, I believe). They both work great. I used the "collar"
system shown step-by-step in the following link:
http://www.oregonbrewcrew.com/freezer/freezer.html. The directions were
easy to follow and the results have been great. I ran two taps out the
front, CO2 tank inside, Nitrogen/CO2 mix tank outside with a gas line
going thru the collar, and room for 3 Corny kegs inside.
I found the freezer without the controller would go to 22F at its
warmest, so the controller was really necessary. Check out the
link...you won't be sorry! ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:00:14 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Re; Yeast mixtures
The use of more than one yeast in a beer was the topic of an excellent talk
by Dr. Chris White at Iron Hill Brewery in Newark, DE a few weeks ago to an
audience of local brewers (and a few homebrewers). I won't try to re-create
his talk here but will briefly summarize that the blending of yeasts is done
with positively received results. The yeast choices and the timely of them
in the wort are chosen for specific results. Since the majority of the
flavor characteristics result from early fermentation, pitching a yeast
early for it's flavor contribution is appropriate. Later in fermentation
one would pitch a yeast that contributes more to lowering the gravity than
contributing to flavor components. Blending of wort fermented with
different yeasts is one approach but also pitching more than one strain at
the same time is also done. Lambics are a great example where this is done
routinely. If you get a chance to listen to Chris' talk, by all means do,
it's well worth it.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:34:00 -0500
From: Tim & Cindy Howe <howe at execulink.com>
Subject: BJCP styles
Alex in Montreal asks about beer styles:
>What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in
>fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly
>think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use
>characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and
>determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness?
>Part of the reason I ask is the BJCP. Now, really, I have an immense
>amount of respect for those who made the BJCP possible. They did a
>wonderful thing for several brewers and their collective beer knowledge
>is mind-boggling. But the BJCP style guidelines may have unfortunate
>results with some people, if taken to mean more than what they are.
>I don't want to sound confrontational or accusatory. I'm just looking
>for different ways to classify beer.
Beer classifications are just that. Classifications. BJCP classifications
are based on how a particular type/style of beer has historically been
made. This wonderful hobby of ours has been around so long that there is a
distinct 'localization' to the way that many beers are made, local hops,
yeasts & choice of malts being the main determining factors. From the
perspective of judging contests, it makes sense that these guidelines be
adhered to, because when you start blurring the lines of the
classifications, you ultimately have no classifications, and then I guess
you end up with brewer's anarchy.
That being said, when *I* brew, I don't adhere to BJCP classifications. My
best bitter, for example, contains Hallertau (US) hops and Munich malt.
BJCP says that isn't a bitter, but any Englishman that has tried this beer
has said that it's one of the best bitters he/she has ever tasted. The key
in this case is the yeast. But if you were to put a Koelsch yeast in a
stout for example, what would you have? You may have a great beer, but you
have neither a Koelsch nor a stout. Does it really need to be 'classified'?
The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that you make a choice - brew
for yourself, brew for contests or brew to compare yourself to the big
boys. If you brew for yourself, you can put roasted barley in your lager,
or Fuggles in your Koelsch. If you want to put your beer up against
others', it makes sense to have a level playing field for all - that's
democracy after all.
Cheers,
Tim Howe
London, Ont
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4406, 11/21/03
*************************************
-------
