HOMEBREW Digest #1001 Thu 29 October 1992

Digest #1000 Digest #1002

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Homebrewer Gran Prix (Chuck Cox)
  Re: Micah's magical starter (Mark N. Davis)
  dry hopping and fermentation (KLIGERMAN)
  Caramel, Lauter Tuns (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Freezing yeast (Dennis J. Templeton)
  Pittsburgh HB supply stores (Karl F. Bloss)
  Plastic Kegs/Rotocasks (Phillip Seitz)
  freezing yeast ("Daniel F McConnell")
  re: counter pressure filling (jim busch)
  Re: chrystal malts (Victor Reijs)
  When to add the fruit... (Mike Tavis)
  Election Day, Thursday, N ("PEART.WNETS385")
  Cream Ale? (GREG PYLE)
  u.k. pub request (Jim Grady)
  kegs, filters, bottles (Tony Babinec)
  Question on Heineken's "Oude Bruintje" (Fritz Keinert)
  Sparge system runoff ("Bob Jones")
  Re: Question on Heineken's "Oude Bruintje" (Victor Reijs)
  Specialty malts (George J Fix)
  SNPA Responses (SynCAccT)
  Differences between Light, Amber, and Dark extracts (Ron Ezetta)
  Address change (Operator)

Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) **Please do not send me requests for back issues!** *********(They will be silenty discarded!)********* **For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 13:57:28 EST From: chuck at synchro.com (Chuck Cox) Subject: Homebrewer Gran Prix I know you all are anxiously awaiting the results from the Homebrewer Gran Prix. The Gran Prix is an official activity of the Dixie Cup which went Galactic this year. The Malibu Gran Prix is an 'adult' kart track. We compete in a time-trial format. The cars are small open-wheeled fiberglass-body cars, similar to Formula 440 racers, but with less power. They use detuned snowmobile engines & drivetrains (2-stroke, centrifical clutch, continuously variable transmission). The track is very twisty (approx 15 turns) and is of similar size and comlexity to a small autocross/solo course. The number of competitors has basically doubled every year. The weather was excellent, and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. I look forward to next year's competition. There is a 'trophy' for the winner. I have a magnetic sign that says "World's Fastest Homebrewer". I displayed it on my car for the 92 racing season, and it'll be on my car for the 93 season. Maybe someone will take it away for the 94 season (NOT!). (I don't recommend leaving it on for street driving, it gets too much attention from the revenue collectors, er, cops). Competitors are constantly asking me if there is a secret to winning. Winning at the Gran Prix requires the same skills as racing big cars, but is much safer. My tips for novices: - practice, practice, practice (if you have a safe, legal car, enter some local autocross/solo events) - correct seat position (the harness should hold you in place, and you should be able to comfortably reach all controls) - think ahead (its too late to do anything about what the car is doing now, you need to think about what you are going to do next) - weight transfer & car control (these cars are underpowered and tend to plow, but can be made to seriously oversteer under braking. you need to maintain speed through the turns and use the brake pedal to help steer) - racing line (the course is very twisty with a variety of complex turns, sweepers, and chicanes. you need to use the correct line to win. you need to know which turns are critical, and which turns to sacrifice.) - instruction (take a racing or driving school. local sports car clubs often offer inexpensive training and practice) ============================================================================== 3rd Homebrewer Gran Prix - 10/18/92 Malibu Gran Prix - Southwest Freeway, Houston, Texas Results: PLACE TITLE NAME TIME - ----- --------------------------- ----------- ----- 1 Galaxy's Fastest Homebrewer Chuck Cox 54.91 2 Fastest Married Homebrewer Steve Stroud 55.91 3 England's Fastest Homebrewer Simon Spiller 56.30 4 Texas' Fastest Homebrewer Scott Henderson 56.71 5 Fastest Overeducated Homebrewer Dr. Steve Black 57.10 6 Helotes' Fastest Homebrewer Al Ford 57.31 7 Fastest Homebrew Newsletter Editor Mike Fertsch 57.70 8 Fastest Homebrewing Pilot Harold Doty 58.11 9 Waltham's Fastest Homebrewer Bob Gorman 58.50 10 Galaxy's Fastest Female Homebrewer Sarah White 60.05 11 Brookline's Fastest Homebrewer Bill Murphy 60.10 12 Galaxy's Slowest Homebrewer Jim Fitzgerald 60.50 ============================================================================== SHAMELESS PLUG: Have you ever dreamed of sponsoring a real race car? SynchroSystems is sponsoring the Silent but Deadly Racing Team which is designing and building an electric race car. This is not some flimsy little politically-correct pansymobile, but a full-fledged race car that will compete head-to-head with internal combustion cars in the New England autocross/solo circuit. If this car is reasonably competitive, national TV and magazine exposure is virtually guaranteed. I have sponsors for all the major components (chassis/body, motor, batteries, transmission, tires, generator, and control system). My original plan was to have the car ready for the 94 season, but there is a *LOT* of sponsor pressure to have something for the 93 season. In order to compete next year, we need about $5k to buy a tow/support truck and car trailer. Sponsors will be provided space on the car (and truck/trailer) to display a logo (or whatever). Drop me a line if you are interested. - -- Chuck Cox <chuck at synchro.com> In de hemel is geen bier, daarom drinken wij het hier. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 17:40:33 PST From: Mark N. Davis <mndavis at pbhya.PacBell.COM> Subject: Re: Micah's magical starter Brewsters, I know that this goes back a little in the HBD history (~2 weeks) but that's life. Basically I'd just like to share an experience that I had this weekend using Micah's yeast starter solution of powdered sugar, yeast nutrient, and water. This past Saturday I decided that I would compromise my dedicated football viewing time on Sunday, and brew up my first attempt at a Scotch Ale, while still focusing on the Raider game of course. I therefor decided to make up my yeast starter that day, so I could get my usual one day head start for my yeasties. Being the risk taker that I am I decided to give Micah's starter solution instead. This was a real big stretch for me since my standard starter solution is vastly different, using corn sugar in place of powdered sugar (what? me sarcastic?) I made up about a pint of his starter and tossed it into my custom yeast starting receptacle (OK, so its an old mayo jar) to cool to pitching temp. I then sprinkled my standard dried Edme Ale yeast packet into the solution, and loosely screwed the lid on. Having accomplished this, I went all the way across the kitchen to go play with my petri dishes since I am now a neophyte yeast culturer. Not more than 5 minutes later, I turned to check on my starter, expecting to see whether all of the yeast had sunk yet, and to my surprise there was already a good 1.5" krausen bubbling away in the jar. At that point I thought to myself, 'Hey, this stuff is pretty good.' That turned out to be the understatement of the week. I left the kitchen for maybe 20 minutes or so and returned to find 'The Blob' oozing all over my counters. What we're talking about here is bionic yeast starter solution. Never in my experience have I ever seen yeast so motivated to spawn. After swabbing up the mess I looked inside the jar and there was a good half inch of slurry already sitting in the bottom, and the oozing krausen was still growing. I then went through a series of sessions where I tightened the cap, shook like a mad man, and then loosened the cap to relieve the pressure. Each time this managed to dissolve most of the foam back into solution, and removed most of the CO2 in suspension. Like clockwork, every 10 minutes it was back at high krausen. This went on for 2-3 hours, and when it finally showed signs of slowing I had well over and inch of healthy yeast slurry on the bottom of the jar. As I woke early Sunday morning (actually earlier than thought since I forgot about daylight savings) to go begin the brewing process, I started by checking on my starter. Low and behold it was dead to the world. There was plenty of slurry but no activity. I'm assuming that the rabid yeast feeding frenzy had already depleted its sugar supply. I was half afraid of openning the jar for fear of attack by the aggressive little beasties, but I took the risk and inserted my nose anyway. I was hit by the overwhelming aroma of fresh yeast so I was pretty confident nothing went amiss. So the brewing went pretty well, but the Raiders lost to the &*#$ing Cowboys. After immersion cooling the wort, stirring in a few cubic yards of O2, and pitching the bionic yeast culture, I set the carboy aside to do its stuff. A few hours down the road the airlock began that assuring bubbling. About six hours after pitching I took one last peek before retiring for the night. Sure enough there was a healthy 1/2" krausen forming and the airlock was cruising along at about a bubble every few seconds. Things were looking better, but I was still pissed over the Raiders lack of offense. The following morning I woke and immediately ran down to check on progress (OK, so maybe I hit the head first...) and I discovered that gremlins had snuck in overnight and replaced my carboy with a fermented out batch of beer. I mean there was only the slightest remains of krausen to be seen, and the airlock was down to a measly little 45 seconds between clunks. Could this stuff have hit high krausen and actually fermented out in one night? I know that Edme tends to be quick, but by quick I usually think of 2-3 days of real active fermentation followed by a few more days of slowing down. The way things look right now, I might as well just dump a straw into my fermenter and chug away! This morning I sat and watched what was left of life in the carboy, and timed the airlock at 2:00+ minutes between glugs. Pertinent details to set up questions: - Grain bill was 7# 2-row, 1# munich, 1# 10'L crystal, 1/4# black patent - Starch conversion: 15 min at 130'F, 70 min at 156'F, 5 min at 168'F - Sparged with 5 gallons H2O at 165'F, acidified with citric acid - Added 1 cup molasses to boil - SG - 1.042 (a little disappointing, but attributed to watching football too much and not enough attention to sparge >:-) - Fermented in garage at ~60-70'F, maybe down to 55'F at night - I followed the same basic procedures that I've been using for the past several batches now. The only differences is that I've moved since my previous batch, so this is the first brew in my new house. So here comes the questions: 1) Is this rapid yeast attack due to the encouragement from the starter? 2) Has anyone else ever had such rapid results? 3) Am I just a blessed brewer? My plans are to rack to secondary tonight and at that point I'll take a gravity check. Maybe that will shed a little light on what happenned. Of course I'll taste a little sample while I'm at it, so if you don't see a follow up then you'll now that something toxic was created >:-( Brew on Garth, Mark Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Oct 1992 22:49:41 -0400 (EDT) From: KLIGERMAN at herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov Subject: dry hopping and fermentation In regard to a posting in HBD#999, I too have also had cases where after dry hopping in the secondry fermentation seemed to continue indefinitely. This lead to a beer with an overcarbonated and extremely large head. I believe this is due to the introduction of wild yeast into the secondary along with the hops. I don't think it is due to bacterial infection, since there were no off flavors or ring at the bottle neck. This happened about 50% of the time that I dry hopped. I believe that the wild yeasts are fermenting the usually non-fermentables. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 92 21:22 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Caramel, Lauter Tuns To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling >From: joseph at joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Nathan Hall) >I'm still looking for an answer to my "Crystal vs. Caramel" question of a week or so ago. The answer may be so simple that it evades the experts. I read somewhere that in the UK they call it Crystal and in the US we call it Caramel, or was it the other way around. At any rate "they" forgot to tell us. I can believe that they are used interchangably for a malt that is more or less pre mashed in the malting process and has no enzymatic contribution. There are many variations but I think using crystal vs caramel is not the best way to define them. >From: iepubj!korz at ihlpa.att.com >I thought that I had covered this before, but since there still seems to be some confusion as to the theory behind the statements, I have, through the magic of ascii graphics, illustrated the theoretical basis for my contention that runoff from a single point is less efficient (in terms of extract) than runoff from multiple points. Unless I missed something, the only confusion seems to result from a lack of understanding of what I wrote in my response which was, the only response I saw. Perhaps, I didn't make myself clear so I will try again. Al's nifty drawings and descriptions correctly describe what goes on in a STATIC system. Channels, tunnels, dead spots and dry spots will indeed develop in ANY lautering system. As Al noted, the more outlet points in the system, the less significant these problem areas become. However, as I pointed out, the process I am promoting is NOT a static system and all the arguments brought up by Al are not relevant. The unique screen pickup in this system does not demand a well settled grain bed to provide a clear run-off. Therefore the entire mash can be thoroughly stirred and mixed at regular intervals during the sparging process. This breakes up any channels that may have developed and redistributes the mash within the water column. I suspect that this would actually provide a much MORE effective extraction regime then depending on the number and location of outlet points. What seems to make this point so hard to grasp is the fact that the other systems all have large spaces under the grain bed that must be cleared of turbid wort before sparging can actually begin. Wort is recirculated, there are painfully complicated systems for flushing these areas out and endless discussions about how much wort must be recirculated to get it to work. The EM system runs clear after only a few ounces are drawn off initially and continues to run clear even after thorough stirring of the mash. I have only heard from a handful of people who have tried my process but so far, they seem to be delighted with the results. I offered Al an opportunity to tour the World's Greatest Brewery but unfortunately, he declined. I will publicly extend my offer to Al or anyone else who wants to bring his/her favorite lautering device over here and do a side by side mash, under controlled conditions, to put to rest the notion that simple things just can't work. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 08:54:04 -0500 From: djt2 at po.CWRU.Edu (Dennis J. Templeton) Subject: Re: Freezing yeast In response to a recent posting about freezing yeast cultures, I'm posting the methods that we use in our research lab for freezing and recovering yeast. I have used similar methods for a while to culture ale yeast (1028) and I don't see why it should not work for nearly all organisms of importance to brewing. Translating the methods from the lab to the kitchen is another issue, and has been dealt with occasionally here. We grow yeast in a rich medium, that can be substituted in the brewery with a simple wort: 1-2 tablespoons DME in a cup of water. In the lab we autoclave to sterilize the medium; in the kitchen I have found that making the wort up in mason jars with lids works well; I boil the jars and all in a covered kettle (better still a pressure cooker) for 45 minutes. To freeze your favorite culture, make up two different jars with medium: 1 with DME in water, the other with DME in water:Glycerine (glycerol) 4:1 (i.e. 20% glycerol in water) Sterilize both. Inoculate the water culture with your _best_ culture source; ideally, this will be a single colony from a petri dish (another topic altogether) using a sterile loop (or a long thin wire heat sterilized). Grow the culture for a few days at room temp, until it is distinctly cloudy. I don't worry about excluding air, since the culture is nearly absolutely sterile. If your innoculum is less certain (i.e. the dregs from your last bottle) there is a chance that you'll have other beasties in with your yeasties. When the culture is dense, but before it's sat around too long (i.e. it is as healthy as it can be) pour the glycerol medium into the culture bottle, and mix. I dispense this into sterile vials using a sterile pipette. Now, what to do in the kitchen. For sterile vials, I would recommend small glass vials, maybe 1/2 ounce with black bakelite caps. These can be sterilized in the oven (try one first) maybe 400 degrees F for an hour. Any small jar that seals well and can be heated should be ok. You might be able to boil them to sterilize, but this seems awkward. For a sterile pipette, you could boil a medicine dropper. Pharmacies sell these for giving medicine to kids, and they should be boilable. Fill the vials about half way. Now, we store our cultures in the lab in an ultra-low freezer; -80 degrees C. I have kept these cultures at -20 (my home freezer) with good results, but the liquid doesn't seem to freeze reliably. My 6 month old cultures have ice at the top and a brown liquid layer at the bottom, where most of the yeast are. To use the culture, you CAN just dump it into the starter, since the glycerol (10% of 1/2 ounce (15 ml)) is less than a half teaspoon (1.5 ml). Better, though, is to simply take a small innoculum from the vial. Take the vial out of the freezer and warm it until it just starts to thaw. Sterilize your loop (or wire) on the stove, and while hot, stick it down the side of the vial, to the bottom where the yeasties are. Then either streak your loop onto an agar petri dish for colonies, or dip it into a sterile jar of medium (wort) for your starter culture. Put the vial back into the freezer. This way, a few vials should last eons, as long as the vials are not fully thawed each time. I don't know the lifetime of the yeast in a kitchen freezer, but it is indefinite in the lab freezer. Microbiologists know the advantages of working from single colonies, in that rare mutations are removed from the culture at the beginning of each experiment. I would highly recommend for those who maintain your own cultures learning how to streak for single colonies. I may offer suggestions for this if it seems useful. in the future. good luck, dennis Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 09:16:33 -0500 From: blosskf at ttown.apci.com (Karl F. Bloss) Subject: Pittsburgh HB supply stores Anybody in HBD-land know of any good supply stores in downtown or north Pittsburgh? I'll be there this weekend and figured I'd pick up supplies for the next batch. Thanks in advance! -Karl PS: Happy belated 1000th! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 14:22 GMT From: Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com> Subject: Plastic Kegs/Rotocasks In HBD 1000 John Williams asked for help with his plastic cask. I assume he was referring to the gizmos sometimes referred to as Rotocasks--in effect, a fake plastic cask that often lies on its side and has a tap on the dispensing side as well as a screw-on lid on top. The screw-on lid has a built-in injector port for CO2. I've just come back from England where we visited several homebrew shops (more on this in an upcoming post), and was fascinated by these things. In British-style homebrewing these are used as both secondary fermenters and kegs (ie a British cask). The idea is that following the primary fermentation the beer is racked into the cask along with the priming sugar, finings (isinglass, typically), and any dry-hopping. In theory the beer ferments to completion and clears, and in doing so creates sufficient CO2 to carbonate the beer and to provide pressure to push it out of the cask. If you run out of pressure you can top off the CO2 with a device that looks like a cigarette lighter refill and takes cartridges like those used for seltzer. There's nothing shameful about using these--there's a photo of one on the cover of CAMRA's homebrewing guide--but there is a trick. The trick is that you probably can't use them to brew American-style beer--or more accurately, beer with American levels of carbonation. So don't fight it--just go British and dare to brew beer that isn't fizzy, as they would say. The Pale Ale volume in the Brewers Publications series is full of advice, and suggests using slightly over 50 grams of corn sugar for priming 5 gallons. (A cup of corn sugar weighs about 160 grams, so 3/4 cup is about 120; I never use more than 100 grams, and for British-style stuff have gone as low as 80.) Anyway, I found these casks to be quite interesting, and potentially a great deal easier than either bottles or kegs. The only problem is that you need to store it in a cool place; if not for the fact that we don't have a basement, I'd have bought one. Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Oct 92 09:41:20 U From: "Daniel F McConnell" <Daniel.F.McConnell at med.umich.edu> Subject: freezing yeast Subject: Time:9:39 AM OFFICE MEMO freezing yeast Date:10/28/92 In response to: >Subject: Glycerol for freezing yeast? >I've heard that a product called the Yeast Bank uses glycerol to >protect samples of yeast for storage in the freezer. Can anyone >out there describe the steps and quantities needed to perform this >process? I'd like to have a "homebrew" version of this product. Here is a method for cryopreservation of yeasts. Required is a 0.5 mL sample that contains 10E6 to 10E7 cells/mL. To this is added an equal volume of a sterile 10% glycerol (glycerine) solution. The vials (sterile, plastic) are frozen in two stages. Primary freezing at -30C for two hours allows the cells to dehydrate. Secondary freezing in liquid nitrogen at -196C for storage. At -196C the average survival levels are 65% for Saccharomyces. Data is scant on the shelf-life but evidence suggests that losses are very slight for up to 8 years. Now for a homebrew version. Since most of us do not have access to liquid nitrogen our shelf-life is reduced considerably. You can either purchase sterile glycerol or sterilize it in a pressure cooker. The same for water. Prepare a 10% solution and add about 1-2 mL to an equal volume of a good starter culture to give a final glycerol concentration of 5%. The trick is finding sterile plastic tubes, although screw cap glass may work as well. These can be stored in a non-defrosting home freezer (ca -20C to -30C). Cultures should be rapidly thawed in warm water (35C) while mixing. I have had good luck with this method and have maintained yeast cultures for >2 years that have still remained viable. The advantages are that repeated subculturing is not needed and therefore the integrity of the strains is maintained. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 9:58:38 EST From: jim busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: re: counter pressure filling In the last digest, roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) writes: >Don't let anybody talk you into buying a counter-pressure filler! >The best way to put up a few bottles from a keg: ^^^^ >Sterilize bottles and caps >Chill bottles with caps on >Chill beer very cold >Attach a length of hose about 2 inches longer than the >bottle to the spigot. While this method apparently works to a certain extent I would have to object to the claim that this is the best method, clearly it is not. A counterpressure filler is a natural simple device that does exactly what it is supposed to when designed and used properly. The whole idea is to fill the beer under proper CO2 dispensing pressure without introducing oxygen. Any method that employs a "tube over the spigot" will reduce the CO2 level in the bottle. I built a counterpressure filler using several "T`s" a shutoff valve and an extra CO2 tap. I fill 2L jugs in 30 seconds, keeping the Co2 level the same as in the keg. I have kept the jugs in the fridge for weeks (dont even sterilize!) and they are great. Cost: $10. Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 16:05:30 +0100 From: Victor Reijs <Victor.Reijs at SURFnet.nl> Subject: Re: chrystal malts ==> From: SOMAK at FITKJES2.bitnet > Hello Victor| I am Markku Koivula from Finnland. I saw your > definitions of the differences between chrystal and caramel > malts, and I am wondering. C. Papazian says in his book (The > New Complete Joy of Homebrewing) that chrystal malts are made > by first gently kilning them a short time, then "mashing" them > by raising the temperature in the owen to 100 - 110 Celsius, > and finally kilning them as usual, in temperature of 80-100 C. This process discription is totally diferent I see: - sprouting of the grains (what is the english term?, the grains get small roots) - then kilning them (that means at some high temperature) - then mashing at 100 - 110 C - then kilning them at 80 - 100 C The process I describes for crystal malt was: - sprouting of the grain - the masking them at 65 C (1 hour) - then kilning them at 110 - 120 C [EBC 10] The temperature of 65 C is to get as much sugar in the crystal malt as possible. (65 C is the optimum termperature for the enzymes). I have the idea that the method you are using is almost the same as for amber/biscuit malt (see further below, although the temps are different) > He don't mention caramel malts. The proces here is: - sprouting the grain - kilning them at 160 C [EBC 100] (light malt this is 80 C [EBC 3-5], dark/munchener malt it is 100 C [EBC 20] and black it is 200 C [EBC 1000]) > I am just making malts myself, because here in Finnlands it is > nearly impossible to get good malts, and I cannot buy chrystal > malts and other special malts nowhere. I have previously done > as is told in Papazian's book, and I think my results have been > good (alltough I cannot make comparisons). > Now I just wanted to know which is your source of knowledge. This information comes out of a few Dutch books (so a copy will not help;-). But it seems to be the normal parctice over here. Beside crystal malt we also have amber/biscuit malt. The proces is: - sprout - kiln 80 C - mash 65 - 66 C (1 hour) - kiln 150 C This malt has more taste and color (EBC 50-100) then crystal malt > I have never heard that the grains that have not yet been kilned > are mashed in water. But why not, I think it sounds logical. > As you see, every country has its own methods. All the best, Victor > Snowy greetings from Finnland > > Markku Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 10:08:56 est From: mtavis at saturn.hyperdesk.com (Mike Tavis) Subject: When to add the fruit... About a year ago I tried a fruit beer which unfortunately die of an infection. I suspect that the fruit which I added right after the boil is what contaminated the batch. For my next attempt I thought I would add the fruit earlier in the boil and hopefully remove the chance of infection. I've been reading different recipes in preparation and I've seen a wide variance in when people add the fruit. There seems to be the following four possibilities: -- in the mash -- during the boil -- as the boil is removed from the heat -- in the fermentor (primary and/or secondary) What I was wondering was what are the relative advantages/disadvantages of these choices? Thanks in advance. - -- Mike o o| Michael Tavis, HyperDesk Corporation o o| Suite 300, 2000 West Park Dr., Westboro, MA 01581 ---+ E-mail: mike_t at hyperdesk.com (508) 366-5050 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 15:21 GMT From: "PEART.WNETS385" <6790753%356_WEST_58TH_5TH_FL%NEW_YORK_NY%WNET_6790753 at mcimail.com> Subject: Election Day, Thursday, N Date: 28-Oct-92 Time: 10:16 AM Msg: EXT03715 Election Day, Thursday, November 3 is a company holiday, but the libr ary willbe open. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1992 10:48 EST From: GREG PYLE <S1400067 at NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA> Subject: Cream Ale? Hey There, My friend and I were discussing cream ale the other day. He was asking what the difference was between "ale" and "cream ale". I couldn't answer him. Upon his ever so studious investigation, he discovered that cream ale was brewed with both ale and lager yeasts. My question to all of you is if lager yeasts are used at lower temperatures for lager purposes and ale yeasts are used at room temperatures for ale purposes, then at what temperature does one brew a cream ale for the best results? This, I think, becomes important since lager yeasts tend to form esters at room temperatures.Are the presence of these esters desirable or undesirable in cream ales? Thanks for your indulgence, Greg Pyle Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 10:48:19 EST From: Jim Grady <jimg at hpwalq.wal.hp.com> Subject: u.k. pub request I will be in England on business next week and my collegues and I would appreciate any recommendations from the experts on pubs to visit. We will be in Bristol for 3 days and Oxford for 2 days. Thanks in advance. - -- Jim Grady |"Talent imitates, genius steals." Internet: jimg at wal.hp.com | Phone: (617) 290-3409 | T. S. Eliot Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 9:53:01 CST From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec) Subject: kegs, filters, bottles Kent Dalton asked some questions about filtering. Steve Daniel gave a good talk on filtering at AHA National in Milwaukee this year. A version of the talk should be in the latest Beer and Brewing (proceedings of the Milwaukee conference). After reviewing the pros and cons of different filters, Steve Daniel came down in favor of the filter sold by The Filter Store. If I am remembering correctly, everything you need, including a 0.5 micron filter, costs in the neighborhood of $80. You can call them, ask for the catalog, and mention that you're interested in the homebrew filter setup you read about in Zymurgy. The process of filtering goes something like the following. Chill your beer. Rack it into a sanitized keg. Make sure the filter setup is sanitized. Using your CO2 tank, push the beer from the keg, through the filter, and into a second keg. Force carbonate the beer in the second keg. Steve said that in his experience the filter could be re-used up to perhaps a limit of 200 gallons, at which point the filter is clogged and should be replaced with a new one. Note that you replace only the filter, not the filter housing and tubing! Thus, filtering seems to take you down the path of consuming the beer from the keg, and bottling from the keg as needed. And, this is good. Once the beer is siphoned into the first keg, you will keep it under CO2 and not expose it to air, wherein microbes and oxygen lurk. For bottling, use either a counterpressure filler, or use the technique suggested in recent HBDs of attaching some hose to your cobra valve and quietly siphoning. The trick is to insure that the bottled beer has the right carbonation. A suggestion I've seen is to add 0.2 to the pressure you would otherwise aim for in the keg. Thus, if you intend a pressure of 2.48, pressurize the beer to 2.68 on the thought that there is some loss in transferring the beer to the bottle before capping. For the very useful pressure-temperature chart, as well as suggested pressure ranges for beer styles, see Byron Burch's article in Beer and Brewing vol. 9 (?), "A Great System for Draft Beers," or the last chapter of Dave Miller's latest book, "Brewing the World's Great Beers." Both sources talk about kegging and bottling from kegs. One final point: Should you filter? With good technique and ingredients, you can often produce a very bright, clear beer without filtering. However, in the case of some styles such as light American lager, you probably should filter the beer for the required clarity, especially if you intend to enter the beer in competition. Filtering will certainly produce a brilliant, bright beer, which will get you points on appearance. On the other hand, the downside to filtering is that the filtered beer has the yeast scrubbed out of it, putting it more at risk should it come in contact with any bacteria or wild yeast. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 10:07:32 CST From: Fritz Keinert <keinert at iastate.edu> Subject: Question on Heineken's "Oude Bruintje" Since Victor Reijs offered expertise on Dutch beers, maybe he or somebody else can answer this one: In an Indonesian restaurant in Amsterdam, I had a Heineken beer I think was called "Oude Bruintje" ("old brownie"). It was quite sweet and not very strong (2% alcohol). Basically, it tasted like partially fermented dark beer, or maybe beer mixed with unfermented wort. Quite pleasant, my wife especially liked it. We were not able to find that beer anyplace else, not even in pubs specializing in Heineken. Has anybody else tasted this before? How is it produced? By the way, we also ran into a wheat beer (Valkenburg ?) that tasted just as sweet. Is that a style of beer common in the Netherlands? Fritz Keinert (keinert at iastate.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 08:11:02 PST From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov> Subject: Sparge system runoff On the subject of sparge systems, I would point out that if possible you should try to minimize the hydrostatic pressure across the grain bed to minimize grain bed compaction. This can easily be done if you place your outflow slightly below the grain bed liquid level. Crude ascii graphic to follow...... | | |-------------| | | ==== outflow -> | mash | || | | || | | || | | || | |==== |-------------| The type of false bottom you use is MUCH less critical in a system like this, IMHO. I use a pump in my system and can not use this technique. Bob Jones Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 17:40:22 +0100 From: Victor Reijs <Victor.Reijs at SURFnet.nl> Subject: Re: Question on Heineken's "Oude Bruintje" ==> From: Fritz Keinert > > In an Indonesian restaurant in Amsterdam, I had a Heineken beer I > think was called "Oude Bruintje" ("old brownie"). It was quite sweet Offically it is called "Oud bruin" (old brown). But just to order such a beer you would indeed call it that way. > and not very strong (2% alcohol). Basically, it tasted like partially > fermented dark beer, or maybe beer mixed with unfermented wort. Quite > pleasant, my wife especially liked it. It is a typical Dutch beer, I think (if not let us know). It has 2 - 3.5 % vol. alc. Yeast is used which works at the bottom of the vessel. Normally one step decoction, to mature some 3 weeks, you can store it for some 4 to 6 weeks. To be drinken at 6 - 8 C. Furthermore it is sweet! > > We were not able to find that beer anyplace else, not even in pubs > specializing in Heineken. Has anybody else tasted this before? How is > it produced? A small recipe is (from a book called: The international beer brew book, in Dutch): (5 litre) 350 gram light extract 350 gram dark extract 100 gram brown sugar (the unrefined;-) 15 gram Hallertau hop 100 - 200 gram of lactose (unfermentable sugar) With malts: 600 gram light malt 300 gram dark malt 50 gram black/chocaloate malt 100 gram brown sugar 15 gram Hallertau hop 100 - 200 gram of lactose OG 1030 FG 1004 alc. 3.5% vol. alc. > > By the way, we also ran into a wheat beer (Valkenburg ?) that tasted > just as sweet. Is that a style of beer common in the Netherlands? > Could very well be. All the best, Victor Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 10:30:56 CST From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Specialty malts Terminology for speciality malts has not been uniform, and this has lead to some inconsistencies in product names at various homebrew outlets. Debating the appropriateness of the terms used strikes me as neither interesting nor useful. I personally like the approach taken by Victor Reijs, i.e., describe the grain by the way it is actually made. In this regard, there appears to be two major categories: Class 1 - Grains are roasted. Class 2 - Grains are not roasted, but they are dried at a high temperature in the kiln. In Class 1 there are three important subcategories: 1a - Unmalted barley is roasted. 1b - "White malt" is roasted. ( White malt is fully germinated, but either has not been dried in a kiln or only slightly so.) 1c - "Green malt" is roasted. (Green malt consists of germinating barley.) During our visit to the UK this summer Laurie and I got to see several malting companies, and in particular H&B. The latter classified grains in category 1c as follows: i - light carastan 13-17 L ii - carastan 30-40 L iii - crystal 70-80 L iv - dark crystal 100-160 L The traditional categories for Class 2 are the following: 2a - Vienna 5-10 L 2b - Munich 10-20 L At the time Laurie and my book was written, the nonroasted malts (i.e., those in Class 2) that were available all came from high protein 6 row barley (typically Glenn or Morex in the US and Sonja in Germany). Thus, we were faced with a "garbage in, garbage out" syndrone. In particular, the results from a large number of competitions showed that English and/or German malts from Class 1c were preferred by a very wide margin. It is important to note that these malts come from top 2 row barley (Maris Otter and Archer in the UK, Triumph in Germany). Today the situation has dramatically changed with the color malts from Belgium. We are currently playing around with versions of our recipies where 2/3 of the color malts are replaced with the Belgium Cara-Vienna and 1/3 with Cara-Munich. This has given a Lovibond value (which is the same as SRM or ASBC color) in the range 7-9 L. Reversing the proportions is also of interest, and yields (at least for us) a color in the range 10-12 L. As noted in an earlier post, the color of the Cara-Munich from Belgium is well above the classical range cited above. Laurie and I feel that the UK and German malts in the Class 1c tend to give a "toffee" or "caramel" flavor tone. On the other hand, we are picking up something like a "nutty" effect from the Class 2 malts from Belgium. We would both be extremely interested in the results other brewers are getting from any of the Belgium malts. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: 28 Oct 92 17:11:37 GMT From: SynCAccT at slims.attmail.com Subject: SNPA Responses I would like to thank all of you that responded to my SNPA question about the viability of the sediment on the bottom of the SNPA bottles. The concensus is that it is the same yeast that SN uses to do the primary. It seems that the yeast is excellent to use to brew an SNPA clone, as long as the bottles you use have been stored well, that is, not in a hot warehouse or in the back of a truck for a week. You could pitch the dregs from a couple of bottles into a starter to build up enough for a 5 gallon batch, but I would recommend plating it out to a petri dish to make sure you've got a single and active sample. I was also told that Wyeast 1056, the American ale yeast, is the same or similar strain used by SN, and they call it Chico Ale yeast. For reproduceable results, spend the $3.50 on a pack of 1056. I'm going to make my first batch from the bottom of the bottle rather than from the 1056, just because it seems more difficult, and the more elements of complexity I can introduce into my project batches, the better I like it. Here's an all grain receipie and some comments that I received: 10# Klages 2-row pale malt .5# Cara Pils Malt .5# Crystal (40L) Malt 1 oz Perle, 6.8% AAU, 60 minutes .5 oz Cascade, 5.5% AAU, 30 minutes .5 oz Cascade, 5.5% AAU, 5 minutes 1 oz Cascade, 5.5% AAU, dry hop in secondary (optional) 1 quart #1056 yeast starter 3/4 cup priming sugar O.G. 1.048, F.G. 1.008 - 1.014, 33.6 IBUs Mash temperature 153-155F. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale, the bottle product, has a starting gravity of 1.052, while Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, the draft product, has an SG of 1.048. The draft product tastes a bit sweeter, too. Malts in the grain bill include pale malt, crystal malt, and dextrine malt (aka cara-pils). Hops used are Perle and Cascade. The yeast is their own, which you can culture from the bottle or obtain as Wyeast "American" ale. Comments: the crystal malt is fairly dark for some color, the cara-pils is there for added body and sweetness. But, don't overdo it with the specialty grains. The relatively high starch conversion temperature will promote body and sweetness. Perles are the signature bittering hop, while Cascades are for flavor and aroma. If I remember, SNPA comes in at about 32-35 IBUs, and the above hop schedule should get you in the ballpark. I don't believe Chico dry-hops SNPA, but go ahead if you so desire. Thanks again.....Glenn Anderson EMAIL==> gande at slims.attmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 09:12:29 PST From: rone at alpine.pen.tek.com (Ron Ezetta) Subject: Differences between Light, Amber, and Dark extracts Randall Holt asks: > What's the difference between Light, Amber and Dark Malt extracts? Good question. Unfortunately, extract producers do not list ingredients on the can. This uncertainty makes recipe formulation, at best, guess work. You can make some educated guesses. The light extracts probably contain two-row, and maybe some filler, like corn sugar. The amber extracts probably have some crystal, or maybe some chocolate malt. The dark malt extracts? Roasted barley? Chocolate malt? 100L crystal? I dunno. My recommendation is to pick a good quality bulk light extract. The bulk extract I use seems to make a good one for one substitute for two-row barley. At least the gravity and flavor characteristics are consistent. Then use specialty grains to provide the character you are looking for. Another, less desirable method, is to select a light, amber, and dark extract, and make a batch of each one (say 5-7 pounds of extract, lightly hopped). Now you will have a flavor and starting gravity profile of each extract to base follow-on recipes. Anyway, the uncertainty of the extracts contents that has driven me to partial and full mashes. Once the brewer becomes comfortable with the brewing process, its a natural progression to partial mashes. -Ron Ezetta- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 92 09:24:46 PST From: jboly at atmel.com (Operator) Subject: Address change Host LIME no longer exists; please change the following address ECOSTELLO at LIME.atmel.com TO: ECOSTELLO at FIG.atmel.com Thank you, Edward Huang System Manager Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1001, 10/29/92