HOMEBREW Digest #1087 Mon 01 March 1993

Digest #1086 Digest #1088

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  ? lagel ? (MAXWELLS)
  Yeast Ranching (atl)
  Re; Sanitizer (Jay Hersh)
  fruit beers/secondaries for lagers/trub/alcohol/bottle oxidation (korz)
  Re: Extract Information (CCASTELL)
  O2'ing your wort (Sherman Gregory)
  Austin, TX Brewpubs (BLAST)
  NOTE 02/26/93 08:04:18 (CWEMAIL!WAUTS)
  AHA Sanctioned Competition (wauts at cwemail.ceco.com)
  Decoction (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Celis White recipe (Mark Zaleski)
  Review of a new RIMS system - Part 1 (George J Fix)
  Review of a new RIMS system - Part 2 (George J Fix)
  Tried a few commercial brews,Seeking Alt recipe and local beer judge (Ford Prefect)
  kegs and mass consumption (Mike Deliman)
  Irish "Red" Ales (Darryl Richman)
  Madonna survey (Hans Vahlenkamp)
  unfermentables/email size/ferment temps (korz)
  Refractometers and Hydrometers (Peter Maxwell)
  Laaglander high FG/poetry ("Sweet, Timothy")
  BOOK REVIEW & A PROPOSAL (James Thompson)
  Korean malt extract (I kid you not) (Joseph Nathan Hall)
  dry-hopping vs. hop nose (Roy Rudebusch)
  Laser Labels Adhesive (Jim Manda)
  Laser Labels Adhesive (Jim Manda)

Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu Maccabee beer isn't very good.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 10:58 PST From: MAXWELLS at axe.humboldt.edu Subject: ? lagel ? I have a question about a lager (?) beer I brewed about six weeks ago. To start with I'm an intermediate brewer who uses both extract and grains I find, that the combination of the two usually yields a great flavor. I don't quite go to the extent of mashing (still not quite sure on the procedure) - what I do is boil the grains for about 45min at 150deg,then I strain the resulting "extract" into my brewpot and combine it with the canned extract. I usually use either one can or bag of extract and about 5 lbs. of grain (although how much extract I end up with is a mystery to me). Anyway, for this recipe I used 1lb of Munich Malt, 1lb Malted Wheat, 4 cups pale malted barley, 1/2lb corn sugar, and a 3.3lb can of John Bull unhopped light malt extract. I also used Saaz hops for primary and Mt. Hood for aromatic. And to start with I used Wyeast European Lager liquid yeast. The problem is this - after the brewing process, when the beer was cool enough to add the yeast I realized the package was about 3 months old, and had not yet risen (I gave it two days, and assumed it would be done... usually when I use the liquid ale yeast it is newer) Not really thinking I added the yeast anyway and put the fermentor outside (Humboldt temp is about 45-50 deg this time of year) After two days, there still was no sign of fermentation so I panicked and went out and bought two packages of dry ale yeast (couldn't find dry lager yeast). After adding that and moving the fermentor back inside, fermentation showed up within twelve hours...So I left the primary inside for 12 days and then put it into the secondary and put the carboy back outside. I left it out there for about 3 weeks (hoping the lager yeast would kick back in). So I guess my question is this, now that I've bottled I can't decide to let it age at room temp or in the refrig...I put half of the batch in the fridge and half at room temp...there is sediment building at the bottom of the bottles in both cases and both still have a very light color...I just hope it is not ixidized...Any ideas if this beer is an ale , lager, or maybe its a lagel?> anyway any suggestions would be appreciated... thanks...the Humboldt Hophead #| ] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 11:14:21 -0800 From: atl at kpc.com Subject: Yeast Ranching I have recently seen and contributed to threads on the various ways to save yeast from one batch to another. Especially after realizing the per batch cost savings of all grain brewing, the price of a Wyeast packet was a large percentage (20%) of the total cost of each batch. I decided to try to maintain my own yeast stock. My first method was to simply place a portion of the trub from primary or secondary fermenter into a glass milk bottle and attach a fermentation lock. To reuse this yeast, I either simply pitched the whole thing into the next batch, or "re-started" it with some fresh wort. This worked fine as long as the yeast was reused very quickly. This was a particular problem for me, as I like to use different yeast strains for different brews, and rarely use the same yeast twice in a row. If you don't brew weekly, this problem would worsen. Another potential problem here is that successively reusing the yeast does increment the generation count, and many of the yeasts we use, Wyeast American Ale for example, are known to mutate rapidly with succesive generations. After a few tries at the "saving the trub" method with various results, I went out and bought the Zymurgy special issue on yeast. Most of what follows is my experience using the information from that volume. If you decide to try what I've tried, I highly reccomend it's purchase. My local BrewShop, Fermentation Frenzy in Los Altos, Ca, carries assorted yeast cultures on agar slants. These slants may be used in two ways. One is to wash all the yeast from the slant into a small (500ml) starter, and when it is just past high kraeusen, pitch it into you cooled wort. This will net you a small savings over Wyeast, as the slants are $2.50 each. The most economical method is to use an innoculation loop (a small wire at the end of a stick) that has been flame sanitized to pick up a minute portion of the yeast from the slant, and rinse it (yeast) off into a very small (50-100ml) starter. When this is at high krauesen, pitch this starter into a 500ml starter, and use as above. I now perform one more step and pitch this 500ml starter into a 1l starter and pitch that into my wort after high krauesen. I have found that each "step" takes one to two days. This method has the additional benefit of keeping the master culture at the same generation. For my starter vessels, I use 500ml and 1000ml ehrlemeyer flasks, with matching stoppers and fermentation locks. I home can wort for use as starters and for priming my beer. I purchased a case of Ball 1 pint canning jars ($7.50), filled them with highly hopped 1.040 extract based wort, attached the lids loosely, and set them in a boiling water bath for about 30 minutes. If you have a large enough pressure cooker, that's better than the boiling water bath, but resist the temptation to "speed cool" the cooker or remove the pressure lock as it will cause the jars of wort to come to a boil again and spew their contents into the pressure cooker. As the jars cool, the lids suck down and seal the jars tightly. It is a good idea to let the wort cool and trub settle before pouring it into the canning jars, otherwise, you will loose several ounces of wort when you use them. The wort does come to a second boil in the boiling water bath, so don't worry about infection. Quality control is as easy as making sure the lids are difficult to remove when using the canned wort. This may sound like a lot of work, but it sure beats boiling up small starters when you need them, and is easier than reserving gyle from each batch. While attending the Brewers Luncheon at Gordon Biersch in Palo Alto (thanks for the info gak!) the head brewer, Mike Ferguson, was generous enough to trade me a liter of yeast straight from the secondary fermenter for a few of my best brews! I decided at this time that I needed to try making my own slants to preserve yeast that I collected from other sources such as breweries or purchased Wyeast packets. Sterile slants can be purchased through the brewshop for $1.50, and saving the acquired yeast can be as easy as using your innoculation loop to streak a tiny (read invisible) portion of yeast onto the surface of the slant. Store this at room temperature for a few days, *LOOSELY CAPPED*. Soon you will see a bit of milky white growth on the slant. It can then be used as described in the previous paragraph, and stored in the refridgerator for up to 6 months. BE WARNED: It is active, and if the cap is screwed on all the way it CAN explode!! At this point, after collecting a number of empty slant bottles, I decided to try making my own slants and plates for yeast culturing. Plates are nice because you can grow a larger culture and check for discoloration (infection). They are not a good choice for long term storage of yeast, as they are not really sealed, and will eventually become infected. I purchased a assortment of bottles, a couple of petri dishes and a bottle of powdered agar from our local chemist's supply, LabPro in Sunnyvale, Ca. The agar was quite expensive, $24.50 for 100g. This agar does not contain any nutrients or sugars to feed the yeast. It can be compared to gelatin, as it's purpose is to set wort into a semi solid mass for culutring yeast. I place a rounded tablespoon of agar into 1 cup of boiling wort. This is then poured into the slant bottles, which are then run through a process similar to home canning. Before they cool, they are set on an angle so when the agar hardens, it forms an elliptical surface larger than the diameter of the slant bottle itself. Be careful when choosing bottles for slants, avoid soft plastic seal inserts as they will melt in the pressure cooker/boiling water bath. The wort/agar mixture is also poured into the sanitized petri dishes and allowed to harden. Set these aside for a week, and re-pour any that show *any* signs of growth. (Note: I occasionally ignore the last safety tip, and haven't been caught by it yet...) You can also preserve unused wort/agar by canning in a larger jar. The next step I suppose, is to get a microscope, and learn all about what I am looking at through it. We'll see... Hope this answers some questions, Drew Andrew Lynch, Kubota Pacific Computer, Santa Clara, Ca. atl at kpc.com Movin' to Montana Soon, Gonna be a Saccharomyces tycoon.... Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 14:47:56 EST From: Jay Hersh <hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu> Subject: Re; Sanitizer > Here is the sequel to my experiments: > > Two test tubes with 1 oz to 1 gal idophor, lids screwed on tight.. is this right, 1 oz to 1 gal.?? That is 10 times the amount recommended for usage. If this is indeed correct does this test really tell us anything since the concentrations are an order of magnitude above what people normally use?? hoping that was a typo.... JaH - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 14:50 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: fruit beers/secondaries for lagers/trub/alcohol/bottle oxidation Lee writes: >I brewed a strawberry Ale this summer. What I learned is add fruit to the > secondary, like dry hopping, or all the aromatic properties will be lost out > the air lock during active fermentation. Lightly hop the brew or the subtle I agree 100%. >fruit flavor will be over powered. If the fruit has pectin in it add pectic >enzyme or the beer will never clear, it breaks down the pectin. Remember that I did not use pectinase and the beer cleared wonderfully. I did not, however, boil the fruit to sanitize (this will definately set the pectins), rather I froze it and then blanched it in 212F water. *************** Steve writes: >I'm an extract brewer with a single stage fermentation setup. Is there >any way to make a lager without a secondary fermenter. I will be moving You can, but the long ferment on the trub and dead yeast is why you need a secondary (if you did an ale that took 8 weeks to ferment out a secondary would be recommended), not that fact that it's a lager. You can go ahead and do it in just a primary, but the resulting beer *may* have yeasty and sulfury flavors. I'd go with the steam until you get a secondary. ************** Carlo writes: >Well you can say I learned my lesson and will from now on always let the >trub settle and rack the beer off the trub before pitching. I've done similar tests and for ales, I don't really worry about the trub, use the blowoff method (do you?) and my single-stage ales have beer turning out quite well. I have do say that I have many data points contrary to yours. Maybe the blowoff is the difference? ************* Sheila writes: > My questions: When using partial mash method (following instructions from >a recipe for holding grains at specific temps for specified lengths of time, >then adding the resulting liquid to more water containing extract or DME), >is the temperature/time relationship the determinant factor in alcohol content >of the finished beer? Some people tell me my beer seems to have higher alcohol >than they're used to (this would be commercial American or Canadian brews). I Yes. Lower mash temperatures, i.e. around 148F, will give you a more fermentable wort and thus the final result will be a higher alcohol beer. >have never tried to calculate the alcohol content, but I would imagine that with >mashing variations, an accurate estimate might be way off. What are the rules >of thumb for starch conversion vs. temperature? Low temps (~148F) will give you a more fermentable wort and higher mash temps (~158F) will give you a less fermentable wort (higher FG, lower alcohol). > I suppose the "trub" reference is a different factor in alcohol? And how >does a blow-off tube affect alcohol? Fermenting on trub reportedly increases fusel (higher) alcohol production. These higher alcohols can indeed have more "alcohol flavor" which may give the impression of a stronger drink. Some higher alcohols give your beer a "solventlike" flavor/aroma, like paint thinner or model airplane glue. The majority of the alcohol in your beer is ethanol and this can be calculated from your specific gravity. It's not difficult, thanks to an HBD post by Tom Kuhn in August of 1989: > OK, for all of you who _hate_ algebra but _can_ plug numbers into a >formula (or formulas into a program), here is the relationship between >initial specific gravity (SG1) and the temperature at which it was >measured (T1), final specific gravity (SG2) and the temperature at which >it was measured (T2), and percent alcohol by volume (A), corrected to >60 F. (All temperatures are F.): > > > {0.0190 x (T1 - T2)} + {131.25 x (SG1 - SG2)} = A > > >Based on Papazian, p. 47: > > (SG1 - SG2) x 105 = % Alcohol by weight > > (% Alcohol by weight) x 1.25 = % Alcohol by volume > > > and on Doug Roberts (HBD #236) > > (T x 1.449E-4 - 0.009) + SG(uncorrected) = SG(corrected) ************************* Peter writes: >I've been wondering about beer oxidising when in the bottle, due to >excessive splashing in the syphoning/bottling process. Given that yeast are >present in the bottle also (or else bottle conditioning wouldn't happen), >why don't they simply use any introduced oxygen to multiply before >fermenting the priming sugar? Because the yeast multiply and respire due to the concentrations of oxygen *AND YEAST* in the "wort" not just oxygen. When you introduce yeast into your oxygenated wort, they first respire *not* until they run out of oxygen, but rather until they reach a certain concentration. They then shift into the fermentation phase and the rest of the oxygen in the wort (if there's any left) is scrubbed out by the CO2 produced. At cellar or fridge temperatures, the oxidation takes some time, but I would suspect that the yeast aren't interested in it at bottling time, only in the sugar. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 93 15:26 From: CCASTELL.UNIX11 at mailsrv2.eldec.com (CCASTELL) Subject: Re: Extract Information Al Korzonas writes: > Pick up the Zymurgy special issue on Extract Brewing. It has a listing > of virtually every extract brand that was available at the time (1986?). That's correct, it's the 1986 Special Issue (vol. 9, no. 4). The article is "AHA Definitive Guide - The Lowdown on Malt Extracts" by Jill Singleton. I happen to have it at my desk because I've been thinking about writing to someone about getting updated information (e.g., AHA, HBD). The article says "This Guide will be updated periodically." (I wonder what the period is.) It's the best information I've seen, but it is incomplete. The table includes information such as Dry or Syrup, Package Size, Yeast Included?, Hop Flavored?, Barley Type, BU per can, BU per pound, and Ingredients. Quite a lot of the bittering information is left blank, as is a good deal of the Barley Type and Ingredients. Other information that would be useful might be hops type (not given in the ingredients), more detail concerning Barley Type and Ingredients, and possibly some sort of color expectations. I think Dan `Stout' Wiesen is asking for more complete information. (I'd send some to him, but unfortunately I don't have any. I've looked around Compu$erve a little, but haven't found anything there, either.) Hopefully, there is information that can be sent to Dan. I look forward to seeing an updated report. Charles Castellow ccastell at eldec.om Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1993 15:46:43 -0800 From: sherman at qualcomm.com (Sherman Gregory) Subject: O2'ing your wort As I promised, I checked with the brewmaster at my local hang-out (Callahan's) about what type of oxygen he uses to oxygenate his wort. He confirmed that oxygen is often sold with a fungicide in it. He said that most companies also have it available without the fungicide. So, you just have to make sure when you order it, that you specify the non-fungicide version. Return to table of contents
Date: 25 Feb 1993 21:49:32 -0600 (CST) From: BLAST at sn01.sncc.lsu.edu Subject: Austin, TX Brewpubs I have to make a trip to Austin, TX next week... Anyone got the latest on brewpubs there? Thanks, Bruce Ray Deep C Software Return to table of contents
Date: 26 Feb 1993 08:04:08 GMT From: ceco!CWEMAIL!WAUTS at uunet.UU.NET Subject: NOTE 02/26/93 08:04:18 To: HBD From: Tom Stolfi(wauts at cwemail.ceco.com) Subject: AHA Sanctioned Competition The BIDAL SOCIETY OF KENOSHA is holding their 7th Annual Regional Homebrew Competition April 23 & 24, 1993. This competition is open to all homebrewers and awards will be presented in all categories. Last year over 200 entries were judged. All homebrews will be evaluated by BJCP and experienced judges(please contact if you are interested in judging). This competition is part of the 1993 MIDWEST BREWER OF THE YEAR series. All entries must be received by April 16, 1993. For further information email your request to WAUTS at CWEMAIL.CECO.COM Tom Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 09:15 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Decoction >From: cook at uars.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook) >A few weeks ago I asked what Noonan meant in his reference to removing "...the thickest third..." of the mash. There were several answers posted, but they reinforced my impression that people were interpreting Noonan's directions in different ways. I hate to sound pompous but Noonan's book is replete with such incongruities. In many cases he seems to be simply repeating information someone else gave him and he does not have the background to sort out the contradictions. In others, he doesn't seem to be able to put himself into the readers shoes and try to understand what he is saying. I would also like to point out that his book is loaded with useful facts and details and they are only spoiled by not knowing which ones to believe. Having said that, here is the procedure I have developed to incorporate decoction into my Easymash process. I bring the mash to the low end of saccharification temp using the gas flame. I them scoop several quarts of mash and heat this to boiling in a separate kettle. I just dip in and take what I get. I add this to the mash and after through mixing I do it again. I find that I can do this three times during an hour mash and keep the temp within the proper range. The fouth time takes me toward mashout and I then turn the fire back on to complete it. This provides about a 60% decoction. I make no claims for the results aside from giving me something to do while mashing as I ponder all the virtures Noonan claims for decoction. js Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 9:34:08 CST From: markz at hangdog.sps.mot.com (Mark Zaleski) Subject: Re: Celis White recipe >aderr at BBN.COM Requested a recipe for Celis White I do not know of any recipes that emulate that exact beer, but I do know that anyone who wants the Celis White yeast can get it through Paul Farnsworth at U of TX, San Antonio. He runs a small yeast culturing operation on the side. I don't have the address handy, but can post@ a later date. -Mark Zaleski markz at hangdog.sps.mot.com Motorola, Austin, TX P.S. The Celis "Bock" that you saw on the shelves is not a Bock at all, but a product made to compete with Shiner Bock (blech!) down here in TX. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 09:54:08 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Review of a new RIMS system - Part 1 The following review will appear in a future issue of Zymurgy. I have posted it on HBD to get pre-publication comments. DISCLAIMER> I am not involved financially or otherwise with the company producing this product. BRD, a company for whom I consult, does not do systems less than 7 bbls. They are not involved, nor have any interest in, the product discussed below. Finally, I am also doing consulting work for Crosby and Baker, and they too will not be involved with the system reviewed below. A New RIMS System RIMS stands for recirculating infusion mashing system. The fundamental ideas were developed by Rodney Morris, a noted brewer and microbiologist. His overall concept, described in several publications, is truly remarkable. First of all, his concept addressed in a direct way many problems found in conventional homebrew mashing systems such chronic low yields, poor grain mixing, and turbid runoffs. Moreover, his system addressed these problems in a highly original way. The reviewer is not aware of anyone, commercial or amateur, who consided a continuously circulating mash during the saccharification rest. That, of course, is the heart of Rodney's concept. Shortly after the early articles on RIMS appeared, many people started to build versions in the 1/2 to 1 barrel range, volumes which are finding wide spread favor by equipment oriented homebrewers. The reviewer did not get the opportunity to taste beer made by all of these systems, but the ones tasted were very disappointing. Rodney's prototype did make good beer, but it was much smaller. It hard to characterize the various defects encountered, but the overall malt character of each was less than ideal, and often had an outfront grain astringent tones. Also in each case the brewers told me that they got better results with their stove top mashing systems. Micah Millspaw, a noted homebrewer, told me that he had given up on the idea of a large RIMS system, and that he could do better going in different directions. Micah's system, by the way, is quite impressive, but is based on a no circulation philosphy, and therefore is quite different from the one discussed in this review. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 09:55:11 -0600 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Review of a new RIMS system - Part 2 It was in this context that I met Conrad Keys of Houston, Texas. At the 1991 Dixie Cup he informed me that he had designed a new and improved RIMS system. I was very skeptical, and tried to talk him out of it. The main reason for doing this review is to "eat corn" in public, for he was able to do what I thought was impossible. This became clear on Saturday, August 29, 1992. On that date both Rodney and I were invited to Houston to witness a full 1/2 bbl. brew on his new system. We were simply astonished. The first thing noted was the controllers on the system. Electronics is one of Conrad's strong suits, particularly in dealing with the nonlinear effects inherent in the circuits in these types of controllers. The result is a totally automated system, with which the brewer can exert precise control. The mash was started at 125F, and this was held for 30 mins. This was followed by a transition to 154F at the classic monotone rate of 1F per min. The circulation was started at this point, and much to my surprise, not only was there no frothing or foaming, there were even no air bubbles present. Later analysis of the finished beer indicated that there was no hot side aeration during the recirculation. In fact, the beer was exceptionally smooth with a mellow malt flavor. Rodney brought a refractometer so the increase in SG was monitored throughout the duration of the mash. It had peaked by 10 mins. into the rest at 154F, and conversion as determined by the iodine test was obtained after 15-20 mins. The ultimate yield was a whopping 72%, or 34.5 pts./lb./gal. The system was designed so that at the end of the mash the hot sparge water is pumped through the entire system ahead of the mash tun creating a self cleaning effect. This was followed by a brilliantly clear runoff. The clarity of runoffs has always been a strong point of all the RIMS built. At the end of the day Rodney told me before leaving that this indeed was the best realization of his ideas. I have not had the opportunity to talk with Conrad about prices and related issues. Apparently, he wants to produce a variety of different variations of his basic design, including 1/2, 1, and 2 barrel systems, each likely being in a different price range. All of these systems will be fabricated from 304 stainless. The workmanship on the current prototype is first rate. The system itself has a highly attractive and professional appearance. Interested readers should contact Conrad at 713-666-9735. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 07:54:19 -0800 From: sag5004 at yak.ca.boeing.com (Ford Prefect) Subject: Tried a few commercial brews,Seeking Alt recipe and local beer judge Sorry about stuffing this all into one post, Okay maybe not that sorry :-) 1) Tried a few commercial brews: a) Emerald City Ale, from Emerald City Brewing Company and it says "where it rains it pours" on the bottle. I found it to be a somewhat lifeless boring beer (glad I only bought 1 bottle :-). I think the snappy saying should be "where it rains its poor" b) Altbairisch Dunkel from Ayinger. I liked this one. Is this a good commercial example of an Alt? If not where can I find one? 2) I am looking for an Alt recipe. All grain is prefered but not necessary. Is it a lager/or / ale? I looked in my copy of winners circle last night and saw that some people lagered and some didn't. The type of yeast didn't provide me a clue either. Mark me down as confused. Also I wouldnt mind a recipe for your favorite red/amber ale that isnt too strong. I need to brew up a storm for my wedding reception (end of July) and it was suggested that I might want to bring beer for 200 or so. You can probably guess what I am doing with my weeekends for awhile :-) 3) I really want to become a better judge of beer and would like to get some inputs from some local (in and about Seattle) judges. I have a "brown ale" that is very dark, and I am pretty sure it is not to style and am wondering what I have (other than a beer that seems to be evaporating with at alarming rate). I was hoping somebody could come over have a taste and let me know what it is that I have and how to converge more closly with the desired style. Thanks for your time and patience. stuart galt boeing computer services sag5004 at yak.boeing.com bellvue washington (206) 865-3764 or home (206) 361-0190 #include <standard/disclaim.h> I don't know what they say, they don't know what I say... Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 08:43:20 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Deliman <miked at wrs.com> Subject: kegs and mass consumption Hello Brewers and Consumers, Having aquired 1 1/2BBL keg and 1 1/4BBL (pony) keg, I'm about ready to take the mass production/consumption plunge. (Well, actualy, I'd like to produce a pony keg of pale before May, when NASCAR hits sears point!) Could someone out there who has managed to collect the kegging info please send me a copy?! (the whole shootin' match, please! :-) Thanks much, -mike P.S. I may be all grain, but I'm still lazy as the dickens, and do it just for fun. If I'd have learned from an extractor, I would be brewing that way. The crux of the issue is, as gak sez, to "have fun"! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mike Deliman, 800-USA-4WRS, FAX 510-814-2010, WRS 2400bd BBS: 510-814-2165 email: miked at wrs.com (inet) or [sun,uunet]!wrs!miked (uunet) Snail Mail: Wind River Systems, 1010 Atlantic Ave, Alameda CA 94501 USA - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 93 18:36:20 PST From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com> Subject: Irish "Red" Ales As a further note on this style, the February issue of "What's Brewing," the newspaper of CAMRA, contains an article by Michael Jackson about the state of brewing in Ireland. Here are a few notes from the article that relate to the discussion: On Irish Ales: All ale producers in Ireland are owned by Guinness. These include Cherry's (in Waterford), Smithwick's (in Kilkenny), and Macardle's (in Dundalk). Jackson describes them as all using some roasted barley, which would tend towards giving them all a common color. He says "Of the Irish ales that I have tasted over the years, most have tended toward a buttery, malty sweetness, tather than a hoppy dryness. If we accept that hops were first used in Bohemia or Bavaria, and came via Northern France and Flanders to Britain, it is reasonable to assume that their use arrived rather late in Ireland." On George Killian Lett's Red Ale, he notes that he has tasted the varieties brewed under license in France and Colorado. "The Lett's brewery had a Ruby Ale before it closed in the 1950s, so I cannot wholly accept the popular story that the Irish brewers were inspired by the success in the 1960s of Younger's Tartan." On Irish Red Ales in general: "Why Irish ales tend towards a reddish colour, I am not sure. Malting techniques do vary from one country to another, and that may have had something to do with it in the past." --Darryl Richman Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 15:25:47 EST From: Hans Vahlenkamp <hvahlenk at lorax.trenton.edu> Subject: Madonna survey Mike Merriam writes in HBDigest #1085 > ... Do you think Madonna is a jerk? ... I totally disagree with his implied insult to Madonna. She may be different from most people, but you cannot deny that she is very cool and very interesting. IMHO the HBDigest is no place for such a criticism. Mike, consider yourself flamed ;^) P.S. Don't take this too seriously... Hans Vahlenkamp Trenton State College hvahlenk at trenton.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 13:07 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: unfermentables/email size/ferment temps Chris writes: >Hi, I was wondering what grains have significant amounts of >unfermentables etc.... i.e. >I like my beers to have a heavy malty taste.. just like when you put >loads of 'malted milk' in your milkshake... I beleive that is a barley >malt. It sure is. I suggest Laaglander Light Dried Malt extract for the most unfermentables available to homebrewers in an extract. Crystal malts have quite a bit of unfermentables also. >Question remains what type of unfermentables are we talking about here? Complex carbohydrates. The carbohydrates in our worts range from the simplest (glucose) to the most complex (starch). Of course we would like to minimize the amount of unconverted starch in our worts. These carbohydrates are a continuum of complexity, glucose, fructose, sucrose, maltose, maltotriose... etc. The simplest carbohydrates are fermentable by virtually all strains of yeast. As the complexity of the carbohydrates increases, less and less strains are able to ferment them (that's why some strains of yeast are said to be more attenuative -- they are able to ferment the more complex types of carbohydrates, the ones some less attenuative strains cannot). Some carbohydrates are not fermentable by any beer yeast, for example lactose. Lactose is thus used by some brewers to make sweet stouts. [I'm no biologist, but I'll bet money that Lactobacillus *is* able to ferment lactose, by the way.] I'm not sure where melanoidins fit into this puzzle -- I'm sure they are responsible at least in part for malty flavors (consider the difference in flavor between sucrose and caramel made from sucrose). Perhaps others who know can take over here and explain? ******************** Jack writes: >Figured out how to beat the system. I posted 7 articles yesterday and all >got acknowledged except the two that were 40 lines long. The longest one >acknowledged was 33 lines. Here is the "long" one in two parts... I don't think it's the length in lines, rather the size in bytes. I know that the HBD rejects any post longer than 8K. I also know that if I post a long and a short post around the same time, the short one always gets in faster than the long. I think the routing algoritms in the machines that route from my machine to the HBD server have a tendency to delay longer posts (perhaps till the evening when phone rates are lower?). Finally, you may have restrictions on mail length on your own machine -- ask your administrator. *********************** Joe writes: >Nick asks >> with all this talk about the perfect fermenter >> design I was wondering if somebody could comment at >> what point does the heat buildup become high enough >> to affect the ferment? Also are the Wyeast preferred >> temps for the ferment or ambient? So does a >> 40-50litre ferment create enough heat to alter an >> ale ferment? How about lagers? > >well Nick, I would guess that you would like to keep >the primary ferment temp as close to the recommended temps >as possible (65F for ales, 55F for lager). I would say that >depending on the flavour profile you want anything more than >+/- 10F is too much. Smaller batches, from my limited playing I agree with everything Joe wrote, except the recommended temperatures. In my opinion, the recommended fermentation temperatures for ales are between 60F and 75F (but you can go a little higher if your yeast is very neutral, i.e. does not make too many esters/higher alcohols/ phenolics). For lagers, depending on the yeast, the recommended fermentation temperatures are between 40F and 55F. Some will ferment a bit lower, but I wouldn't push it too much. Get to know your yeast. I stick to relatively few yeasts that I've gotten to know over the years and I can tell when things are going well or when the yeast is not happy. Occasionally, I add another yeast to my stable and at first everything it does is a mystery. I've had some trouble getting a handle on Wyeast Belgian Ale, I think I'll stick to 1 gallon batches till I figure these beasts out. Al. Al Korzonas Palos Hills (near Chicago), Illinois, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 13:52:21 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Maxwell <peterm at aoraki.dtc.hp.com> Subject: Refractometers and Hydrometers Marc de Jonge writes: > I did a simple experiment once with a bit of unfermented wort, > adding (96%) alcohol volumes to see the effect on measured > density: > F.G.= density of wort without the alcohol. > Numbers in the table are the measured values (with a hydrometer) > after adding the percentage of alcohol given in the columns > (All values +/- my accuracy; your mileage had better vary.... ) > > %AbV-> > F.G. | 1 2 4 6 8 > - ------------------------------------ > 1020 | 1019 1018 1014 1011 1009 > 1030 | 1029 1028 1025 1021 1017 > 1040 | 1038 1036 1032 1029 1026 > So if I measure the FG with a hydrometer to be 1.018, how do I know if it's really 1.030 with 8% or 1.020 with 2%? Or does this matter? How, then, do I calculate what the % alcohol of my beer really is? Peter Return to table of contents
Date: Friday, 26 Feb 1993 17:52:33 EST From: "Sweet, Timothy" <TSWEET%WVNVM.BITNET at VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU> Subject: Laaglander high FG/poetry 1. I'm new to the list and to home brewing and have seen a couple of mentions of the fact that Laaglander DME does not ferment as completely as some others. So I have a question about this: In my current batch I was using the specs. from Papazian's chart for "special red bitter"--6 lb. amber DME (I used Laag-ed lander) and 1/8 lb. roasted unmalted barley (which I brought to a boil and then strained out). The OG was 1050; fermentation seems to have stopped and the FG is 1030. This seems too high. has something gone wrong--incomplete fermentation--or would this be a reasonable FG? (Sorry--forgot to note that I am brewing 5 gal.) The beer seems a bit too sweet for my taste. 2. I sometimes quote the lines from Housman ("malt does more than Milton can" etc.) but I know them not from "The Welsh Marches" but from "Terence This Is Stupid Stuff" (from the collection A SHROPSHIRE LAD)--and for this reason I quote tham with a certain self-conscious irony. The next lines of the poem read: Ale, man, ale's the stuff to drink For fellows whom it hurts to think: Look into the pewter pot To see the world as the world's not. Read the whole poem, rather than the snippet from the Oxford book of quotations and you wil get a new view of the famous lines. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:45:25 -0800 (PST) From: James Thompson <sirjames at u.washington.edu> Subject: BOOK REVIEW & A PROPOSAL Since there are often requests for information about locations of brewpubs and microbreweries in HBD, I thought I would pass on some information in the form of a book review, and a proposal. BOOK REVIEW Johnson, Steve. ON TAP: The Guide to U.S. Brewpubs. Clemson, SC: WBR Publications. paperback, 314 pp. $15.95. I just received my copy of this publication yesterday. As it purports to be in the subtitle, it is a complete directory of U.S. brewpubs, "including brewery restaurants and microbrewery taprooms and tasting rooms," so the definition of "brewpub" has been extended slightly. I would agree with Mr. Johnson, however, that his extension is the most useful for this sort of directory. (He is even polite enough to provide an appendix of establishments, listed by state, that were not included because they did not fit his admittedly liberal definition of "brewpub." The entries are listed by state, with each establishment listed in alphabetical order for each state. Every state's section starts with a map to provide a general orientation of where they are. Each entry distinguishes between brewpub and microbrewery, provides complete address, phone number, hours, styles (and names!) of the beers brewed/sold, types of food, entertainment, or special events, whether they have their own parking, smoking policy -- and just about anything else he could find out. For its directory listings alone this book is a treasure trove. But he also provides interesting introductory material about the recent history of microbreweries in this country (short!), the brewing process, and a glossary of beer-related terminology. It is also illustrated throughout with cartoons, microbrew beer labels, and beer quotes. As regards the Washington section, I am sorry to relate that you can cross out page 283, for the Noggins Westlake Brewpub is no more. (Heavy sigh!) ON TAP is priced at $15.95 and is available from WBR Publications, PO Box 71, Clemson, SC 29633. Don't be silly, of course I have no monetary connection with WBR Publications! PROPOSAL I would strongly urge anyone who might be traveling the country to get a copy of this book. I'll keep my copy handy and when I see the occasional request for such info, I'll e-mail said party with relevant data and remind them of the existence of this book. However, my proposal is this: if you will e-mail me the authors names, titles, publishers, and price of books that are guides to your local (state or city), I will compile them and share it with this forum. For example, we have a book for Seattle entitled SEATTLE BREWS which is a complete guide to the pubs, micros, and taverns of this great beer city. Whaddya say? Jim Thompson/Seattle WA sirjames at carson.u.washington.edu Disclaimer: Our opinions are only our own, aren't they my Precious? Five things these Chestertonian youths revere: Beef, noise, the Church, vulgarity and beer. -- Anonymous Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 93 08:05:47 EST From: joseph at joebloe.maple-shade.nj.us (Joseph Nathan Hall) Subject: Korean malt extract (I kid you not) I saw something new and different yesterday. I was browsing through a local Oriental food store. First I located some semi-polished unenriched rice for a sake project. Above that I saw some wheat starch. Then some potato starch. Then some mung bean starch. "Hmm," I says to myself, "This might be fun to try in a beer one of these days." Then, of course, right next to it I see the "malt powder" and several other things (wheat & rice flour, etc.) with labels on them saying "It is illegal to make wine at home for sale." The "malt powder" I saw was Korean and came in reasonably priced bags of about 1 lb. Now, of COURSE I am not even beginning to suggest that this stuff might be of any particular quality or use in brewing beer, but I suppose I will have to at least look into it! More than anything else I just think it's amusing .... ================O Fortuna, velut Luna, statu variabilis================ uunet!joebloe!joseph (609) 273-8200 day joseph%joebloe at uunet.uu.net 2102 Ryan's Run East Rt 38 & 41 Maple Shade NJ 08052 Copyright 1993 by Joseph N. Hall. Permission granted to copy and redistribute freely over USENET and by email. Commercial use prohibited. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 07:43:00 -0500 From: roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) Subject: dry-hopping vs. hop nose From: roy.rudebusch at travel.com DH:>that the way to DH:>retain good hop aroma is to dry hop in a *sealed* secondary, so the goodies DH:>aren't lost thru the air lock. Is that safe in plastic/glass? Hop nose is achieved by boiling pellet hops for two min. and loose hops for 5 min. Dry-hopping seems to contribute mostly to palate flavor. The best way to achieve maximum hop nose would be to utilize a "hop cage". Run hot wort through these hops on the way to a counterflow chiller. This would be "distillation" of the volatile hop compounds. Here is Pale Ale I just brewed: 11 Gal 1060 14# U.S. 2-row 4# Munich, Ireks 4# CaraVienne 2# Aromatic 30 HBUs Centennial finished with 1 1/2 oz Centennial loose hops (boiled 5 min.) Chilled with immersion chiller W-1028 repitch. OBTW, I have also discovered that filtering tends to *improve* the hop flavor and hop nose of a beer. The beer flavors are cleaned up thus allowing the hop goodness to shine through. Brew on. * OLX 2.2 * If your mind goes blank, remember to turn off the sound. Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Feb 93 10:11:48 EST From: Jim Manda <70322.2634 at compuserve.com> Subject: Laser Labels Adhesive To: >INTERNET:homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Date: 26 Feb 92 From: 70322.2634 at COMPUSERVE.COM (Jim Manda) Subject: Laser Labels Adhesive Sandy writes: >Last HBD someone asked how to apply the labels they make on the laser >printer. Stolen directly from an old HBD-- MILK!!!!! I have used this >technique. I used skim milk, dipped the label in and smoothed out the >bubbles. It held extremely well. Non-toxic too! Great idea, Sandy. Tried it myself on some regular old computer paper. I used __industrial__ strength 1 percent milk. Works like a champ. Thanks for the tip. -Jim Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1087, 03/01/93