HOMEBREW Digest #1203 Fri 13 August 1993

Digest #1202 Digest #1204

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Re: murphy's in a can (Geoff Cooper)
  Zymurgy Light Beer Request ("Manning, Martin P")
  Culturing yeast from bottled beers (Marc de Jonge)
  Re: water filters -- a data point (Jeff Mizener)
  S. cerevisiae & S. delbrueckii (Geoff Cooper)
  Petes (Rich Ryan)
  Re: Mini Kegs and Briess DME (Hardy M. Cook)
  Murphy's in cans (12-Aug-1993 1015 -0400)
  To Secondary or not to Secondary (cush)
  re: sanitation 'criticism' (Jim Sims)
  chipotle (LLAPV)
  Grolsch bottles (Jim McManus)
  RE: Weihenstephan #68 source (James Dipalma)
  Re: Aeration (Jason Goldman)
  Blackberry Mead (Andrew Cluley)
  Re: Water, Chiles (Jeff Benjamin)
  recipe formulation - relax! (tims)
  The Tumbleweed Report (Part 4) (Kinney Baughman)
  Re: Red Hook's Malt (Jeff Frane)
  Open letter to Zymurgy (Jim Larsen)
  Tannic verses (Joel Birkeland)
  Rapid chilldowns after boiling (GONTAREK)
  Re: Recipe Formulation (TAN1)
  Irish Moss revisited (Gordon Baldwin)
  Re: Chiller conversion  (Drew Lynch)
  Kegged Chili-Beer (lanbrew)
  fermenting a lager (Patrick Casey)
  Hot pepper sauce ("John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y")
  Re: extraction rates/Klages (korz)
  First Batch (CCAMDEN)
  Tabasco pepper question (kj)
  Home Brew Competition (brewerbob)

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 13:26:31 +0000 From: G.A.Cooper at qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper) Subject: Re: murphy's in a can dab at cc.bellcore.com (dave ballard) writes >hey now- at a place called the hog sty bay cafe on grand cayman i ordered >murphy's stout and got a can that looked identical to a guinness pub >draught can! it was tall and skinny and had directions about chilling, >opening, etc. there was also a little logo thingy that proclaimed the >can to be murphy's "draughtflow system" with a patent pending. > >has anyone else seen these cans? it tasted fine, although i detected a >little more "canny" taste than guinness. is this the same doohicky that >guniss uses or did murphy's invent/copy one of there own? There are 3 different dohicky systems now patented and used in the UK for draught beer in a can. The Guinness system has been described here before. The "draughtflow" system is owned by Whitbread and, for example, is used by them in Boddingtons. I don't know the commercial relationship 'twixt Murphy's and Whitbreads. The draughtflow system has a larger capsule containing pressurised N2. The 'lid' of the capsule contains a tiny hole (in the middle) which is closed, whilst the can remains under pressure, by the end of a 'peg' protruding from the centre of the 'base' of the capsule (the 'base' being the opposite side to the 'lid'). As the can is opened, its pressure drops, the N2 in the capsule expands thus flexing the lid away from the peg and thereby opening the tiny hole through which most of the N2 now passes. Hey presto! If this is the system in Murphy's, there is an interesting demonstration you might attempt. The nature of the system is such that not all the N2 escapes and the capsule is still under slight pressure. Identify which is the lid by locating the hole. Using a suitable implement (eg the edge of a coin) gently prise the lid off the body of the capsule. With a 'pop' the lid will fly across the room. OF COURSE be careful about 'flying object' And if you are the type that hasn't any common sense and sue at the drop of hat, don't do it, or don't bother sueing - the UK civil laws are different from the US. :-) Geoff - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Geoff Cooper Phone: +44 71 975 5178 Computing Services Fax: +44 71 775 3221 QMW e-mail: G.A.Cooper at uk.ac.qmw Mile End Road London, E1 4NS Return to table of contents
Date: 12 Aug 1993 20:43:51 -0600 From: "Manning, Martin P" <manning#m#_martin_p at mcst.ae.ge.com> Subject: Zymurgy Light Beer Request I was just this morning thinking that no one had responded to the posting by Elizabeth Gold requesting information on amateur-brewed light beer. Today Dick Dunn did the unthinkable - he asked WHY? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 15:07:09 +0200 From: dejonge at tekserv.geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge) Subject: Culturing yeast from bottled beers Recently I came across some interesting statistics of the 1990 and 1991 open championships for amateur brewers ,organised by "de Roerstok" in tilburg. They have published a booklet with a lot of information on the homebrew entered in this competition. Since questions pop up every now and again about culturing yeast from bottles, I will summarize a nice table from this (without permision, so destroy this before you read it): The #1 field indicates the total number of entries, #2 is the number that scored over 6.4 (assuming that these are succesful attempts), the score is the average score on a scale of 0[Yech]-10[Yum] for the 'over 6.4' beers (Not quite sure if Yech and Yum are SI units or Imperial) Beer/brewer #1 #2 Score - -------------------------------- Achouffe 3 2 7.5 Arcener tarwe 2 1 6.5 Brugs Tarwe 9 2 7.1 Brugse Tripel 2 2 7.4 Chimay 16 7 7.7 Christoffel 1 1 6.8 Corsendonk 3 2 8.0 Dentergems Wit 2 2 6.9 Dommelsch 3 1 6.6 Drie Ringen 2 1 6.5 Duvel 2 1 6.6 Erdinger Weisse 2 2 6.9 HertogJan Tripel7 3 7.6 Hoegaarden 9 4 7.5 La Trappe 4 3 7.7 Lowenbrau weiss 1 1 7.0 MacChouffe 1 1 8.5 Oerbier 1 1 7.7 Rochefort 1 1 6.6 Schneider 1 1 8.6 Verboden Vrucht 3 3 6.9 Westmalle 9 6 6.9 West Vleteren 5 4 7.6 Wieckse witte 1 1 7.3 Note 1: The fact that a certain yeast gives a good score does not mean that it is the original brewing yeast of the beer. For some of the above I'm almost certain that a bottling strain has been cultured; but then, if it tastes good who cares ? Note 2: Of the top 12 of 1991 only two beers were brewed with cultured yeast (Chimay and West Vleteren). Marc de Jonge (dejonge at geof.ruu.nl) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:36:43 EDT From: hpfcla.fc.hp.com!scr!sead.siemens.com!jm (Jeff Mizener) Subject: Re: water filters -- a data point I have been using a T-10 carbon filter on the cold water line in my kitchen for 3 years now. I replace the filter every 6 months or so. I extract/adjunct brew and sanitize with bleach. I rinse and brew with water out of the tap that has been filtered. I have yet to have an infection. I boil about 2 gallons and top up to five with water out of the tap. Searching about madly for a piece of wood upon which to knock, I say that there has never been a problem with this method. The reasoning is that the water coming into the filter and surrounding the filter on the inlet side is sanitized. I flush the filter out by letting the water run for a minute before using it for anything critical, and bacteria never have a chance to take hold. I got mine from American Brewmaster and paid less for it (and it's a big under-sink filter) than something cheaper-looking at the hardware super-store. Cheers, Jeff Mizener +------------------------------------+ | Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. | | Somewhere near Lizard Lick, NC | | jm at sead.siemens.com | +------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 14:41:52 +0000 From: G.A.Cooper at qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper) Subject: S. cerevisiae & S. delbrueckii There's been a little discussion about the 'correct' name of this yeast. I know little about the technicallities, but I can add a few more 'facts'. (I like facts 'cos they can cause such good arguments) When I first saw reference to S. delbrueckii (yes I first came across it on HBD), I checked my catalogue from the AFRC National Collection of Yeast Cultures (NCYC) and found that no such yeast was listed, so I was a bit confused. My confusion was relieved when I located a couple of yeasts that had been originally deposited under the name S. delbrueckii, but now were classified with a different name. I found S. cerevisiae strain number 92, deposited in 1933 by A.C.Chapman, original deposit name S. delbrueckii, NCTC 3964. (NCTC = National Collection of Type Cultures, Collindale). There was no ATCC number. So I concluded that the S. delbrueckii were really just strains of S.cerevisiae, but that (home) brewers used the term S. delbrueckii as a convenient 'handle' by which they could refer to a particular strain (or strains). I also found Torulaspora delbueckii (perfect form of Candida colliculosa) with 10 strains listed, all of which had been originaly deposited under a different name (I was amused by S.inconspicuous. NRRL Y-7435). One of these, number 408, had been deposited as S delbueckii var mongolicus. I think I shall stick with my first assumption, which corresponds nearest to that of Jim Busch. Perhaps because it gives me a warmer feeling :-). That is, S. delbrueckii might not be the correct name, but when we use it, we refer to those yeasts, now considered strains of S. cerevisiae that have particular properties of interest to us; namely they make good wheat beer. OK. So that contains a few more facts; what's the truth? Geoff (who cares about the truth if it makes good beer) Cooper Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:57:10 -0400 From: Rich Ryan <ryancr at install4.swin.oasis.gtegsc.com> Subject: Petes > I saw this recipe in the cats meow 2. Can anyone suggest how > I would convert this to an extract recipe. Pete's Wicked Clone Source: Richard Stern (rstern at col.hp.com) 10/16/92 Ingredients: 8-9 pounds, pale malt 1 pound, crystal malt 1/4 pound, chocolate malt mash at 155F 1/2 ounce, Cascade (60 min boil) 1/4 ounce, Chinook (60 min boil) 1/2 ounce, Cascade (10 min finish) Wyeast #1056 Procedure: Mash malts at 155 F. Add 1/2 ounce Cascade and 1/4 ounce of Chinook for boil. Use 1/2 ounce Cascade to finish. Comments: I've requested a recipe for Pete's Wicked Ale, but nobody sent one, so I guess I'm going to have to wing it. This recipe is based on the GABF program, which says " Pete's has: pale, crystal and chocolate malts, and Chinook and Cascade hops. OG: 14P" (Isn't that 1.056?) Pete's is pretty malty with a low hop bitterness and aroma. I think the malt combination should be ok, as long as I get enough body from the 155F mash temperature. > Rich Ryan > Chantilly, VA > ryancr at swin.oasis.gtegsc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:18:01 EDT From: hmcook at boe00.minc.umd.edu (Hardy M. Cook) Subject: Re: Mini Kegs and Briess DME Subject: Mini Kegs I bought, use, and like the 5 liter mini kegs. Some stores sell imported. commercial beer in these kegs. These can be reused if you have a tapper like the one that comes with the Brew Ha Ha offer and DO NOT use the method recommended with the purchase. I too had foaming problems until the found the secret of the tapper. Once the pressure gets low, add only a little bit more of CO2 and then turn the CO2 back to the off position; in other words, don't keep the CO2 pressure on -- after a few seconds, turn it off and proceed. Subject: Q: Briess DME After reading Dr. Raines's posting on HBD concerning contaminated Briess DME, I wonder if there is a way to identify "bad" lots. I recently purchased from Brewers Resource 25 lbs of Briess, Brewers Gold DME. I first brewed with it only a few days ago, but I brewed a Trippel with 10 lbs of the Briess. I would really hate to find out in four months that I brewed with the contaminated lot. Hardy M. Cook HMCook at boe00,minc.umd.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 07:18:33 PDT From: 12-Aug-1993 1015 -0400 <ferguson at zendia.enet.dec.com> Subject: Murphy's in cans >Date: 11 Aug 1993 13:00 EDT >From: dab at cc.bellcore.com (dave ballard) >Subject: murphy's in a can [...] >has anyone else seen these cans? it tasted fine, although i detected a >little more "canny" taste than guinness. is this the same doohicky that >guniss uses or did murphy's invent/copy one of there own? Yup, sure have seen 'em and I have perhaps 1 or 2 left in my closet. When I went to Ireland last year (Oct '92), I grabbed a couple of 4-packs to bring home w/ me. When I first sampled it, i thought it was better then guinness in a can. Pretty much the same design as guinness, as far as i can tell. I've had guinness in a can that one can buy in the states. the ones i brought back from ireland, imo, we better tasting then the cans bought in the states. unscientific datapoint, fwiw! :-). jc ferguson Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 09:21:58 -0500 (CDT) From: cush at msc.edu Subject: To Secondary or not to Secondary In HBD1202 John in Boise writes that he and many brewers in his area do not use a secondary fermentation. I know this has been discussed several times, but I thought I would throw in my $.02. For quite a while I did not do a secondary fermentation: I fermented in primary for about a week, then bottled. The result was beer that primed very quickly, but seemed to have a slight but harsh flavor undertone. The bottles also had a fair amount of yeast sediment. I came to wonder if the harse undertone was a result of yeast autolysis. I then tried shifting to doing a one-week primary fermentation, followed by a one-week secondary fermentation. The secondary step is actually more of a rest to allow yeast to settle and thus be separated from the brew. After bottling, the result is brew that primes more slowly, but throws less yeast sediment. That harse undertone also appears to be gone, and the beer is noticeably smoother. My conclusion: the settling of yeast that occurs in secondary produces a smoother brew than a single-step fermentation gives. You can make a drinkable beer faster using just a primary, but I amusing a secondary settling step from now on.... - -- > Cushing Hamlen | cush at msc.edu > Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc. | 612/337-3505 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:41:48 EDT From: sims at pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims) Subject: re: sanitation 'criticism' >>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 09:09:40 EDT >>From: bszymcz%ulysses at relay.nswc.navy.mil (Bill Szymczak) >>Subject: Re: Sanitation >> >>In HBD1200 Al Korzonas writes: >> >>>In Marybeth Raines' article on Sanitation, it's a real shame that she >>>failed to mention iodophor and a recently new sanitizing agent, marketed >>>under the name "One Step," which is peroxide-based and comes in powder >>>form. I would have been very interested in her recommended contact times >>>for iodophor and OneStep. (....stuff deleted) >> >>While we're still giving out constructive criticism of Maribeth >>Raines' article in Brewing Techniques on Sanitation, there was Well, while we're being 'constructive', I'll add my 2 cents. I sent her email about not mentioning B-Brite, which I had acquired from my local homebrew shop and later realized was not labelled with a 'dosage' recommendation. She replied that she didnt know the 'dosage', but would call the manufacturer. She did, and replied to me in about 2 hours via email. Kudos, jim Return to table of contents
Date: Thursday, 12 August 93 09:31:12 CST From: LLAPV at utxdp.dp.utexas.edu Subject: chipotle Howdy, In HBD #1202, Tom mentions how chipotles may be too spicy for beer. This was not the problem with the beer I discussed in #1201. One of the two bottles was too spicy; the other was quite tolerable in terms of spiciness. My warning is against putting the chipotle pepper directly into the bottle with the beer. The results were inconsistent & made an otherwise good beer undrinkable. Chipotles themselves, in terms of overall chili pepper spiciness, are about mid-spicy, according to the measuring technique known as the Scoville units. Bell peppers rank low, like around 10, jalapenos (& by extention, chipotles) are around 2500-5000, serranos around 5000-7000, and habaneros around 3 billion (my figures may be a little off). Please don't get me wrong; chipotles will hurt you if you just pop one into your mouth. I'm just saying that if the spiciness of serranos can be controlled, then the spiciness of chipotles can be controled. Mexicali Rogue sounds like good stuff. Any idea how the make it? Happy brewing, Alan, Austin (where there's a Tex-Mex restaraunt on every corner) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:35:26 EDT From: Jim McManus <jjm at Think.COM> Subject: Grolsch bottles Mr Cox and Bill were talking about Grolsch bottles and sanitation of them along with a few other things. I have been using a mixture of Grolsch, Fischer Amber and regular bottles with about every batch. I use the Grolsch and Fischer bottles for myself and the regular bottles go to friends. :-) Anyways, all I do is soak all the bottles in the tub with a good amount of bleach for an hour, rinse them, and bottle. Nothing fancy. I haven't had a problem yet (10+ batches). Also, keep in mind, the bottles I get are from a Package Store that my roomate works at so I'd consider these worst case type of bottles. As far as carbonation goes, I notice 0% difference from bottle to bottle. I keep all my bottle together in the dark, so I wouldn't expect a difference. There might be a difference if you had all the bottles exposed to light I guess. The bottles are great to use if you can find them. It beats the heck out of capping. jjm Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:53:27 EDT From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) Subject: RE: Weihenstephan #68 source Hi All, In HBD#1202, chuckm at pbn73.cv.com wrote: >I've a few questions regarding weissbier yeast. >2. dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) in hbd 1201 >writes that there is a difference in the pre and post 1992 >versions of this yeast. How do I know which one I get? I've received a few similar inquiries via private email, so I thought I'd post and reassure all concerned. The information I have is that the yeast that did not perform well is no longer commercially distributed. After about one year, it simply stopped producing spicy, phenolic flavor characteristics, so it was replaced with another strain quite some time ago. I obtained the older, non-performing strain from the yeast bank of a local homebrew club, where it had apparently been stocked for a long time. What added to the confusion was that a member of this club, who is a mutual acquaintance of Jim Busch and myself, had a weizen yeast that he listed as "W66". The two different numbers, in addition to the disparate performance, contributed to the false perception that there were two different strains in circulation. I've exchanged email with Jim on this issue, and he's assured me that the strain currently being distributed as Weihenstephan #68 is displaying considerably greater staying power than it's predecessor. Having brewed a few batches with it, I can personally vouch that this is a great weizen yeast, and recommend it without reservation. Cheers, Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:29:12 -0600 From: Jason Goldman <jason at gibson.sde.hp.com> Subject: Re: Aeration Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 08:54 CDT >From: Subject: Aeration arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes: > Last week I put together an aquarium pump type aerator for the weekend batch > to see what all the excitement was about myself. > > After following Miller's procedure, I found that the commencement of > fermentation was, if anything, later than it would have been using my > standard procedure of simply squirting the wort into the fermenter. ... > > The idea of getting fermentation started in "3 to 8 hours" was enough to > tweek my interest but I believe I fell into another trap created by > non-critical writing; viz., he failed to mention whether he was talking about > ale or lager and the fermentation temperature. > > I can only now presume that he was talking about ale yeast at room temp and > my entheusiasm has fallen an order of magnitude. I use the aquarium pump idea in conjunction with my normal methods of aeration. I've tried this for numerous batches of ale and one batch of lager. My normal aeration method is to splash the beer while siphoning it into my carboy and periodically stopping the siphon and shaking the carboy vigorously. I noticed a slight improvement in lag times for all of the batches. Lag time is controlled by a lot of variables. Pitching volume (and what stage the pitched yeast are in) probably has a greater effect on lag time than the aquarium pump. BTW, I would expect that Miller was almost certainly talking about ale yeast in his 3-8 hours figure. Jason jason at gibson.sde.hp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:03:09 -0700 From: drew at eskimo.com (Andrew Cluley) Subject: Blackberry Mead Doew anyone have a good recipe for Blackberry Mead? E-mail me direct. Thanks. Drew Cluley > Seattle Wa. drew at eskimo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 9:38:51 MDT From: Jeff Benjamin <benji at hpfcbug.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: Water, Chiles > ...city water should be OK. We can all thank COORS for portraying > the image that pure Rocky Mountain water is the key to making smooth beer. > This isn't the case at all, but, many people believe it is. Certainly the water is only a small part of what goes into a fine beer, but the importance of a good water source (especially for large commercial breweries) can't be underestimated. I think one of the reasons that the Pacific Northwest and Colorado have become large brewing centers *is* for the water -- it simplifies things greatly if you can just use the city supply. Water here in Fort Collins is great right out of the tap; I don't have to pre-boil or add minerals or anything. Some slight drift here... > Habaneros are so spicy, that you would have to use so little that, > again, you would miss out on the chili pepper taste. In fact, one big > complaint about habaneros in cooking is that no flavor comes through > because the amount used is so small. And it's a crying shame, too. Habaneros (also known as Scotch Bonnets) have a wonderfully fragrant, sweet aroma that complements food, and probably beer, very well. Does anyone know of "de-capsiacin-ized" habaneros or habanero essence without the fierce burn? Where's the chile-pepper mailing list? Why is there a rec.food.sourdough but no rec.food.chiles? Thank goodness we have HBD and rec.crafts.brewing. - -- Jeff "you ought to see my hot sauce collection" Benjamin Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado "Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium." - T.S. Eliot Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:18:03 -0700 From: tims at ssl.Berkeley.Edu Subject: recipe formulation - relax! To the person who was worried about "wasting" 10 - 15 gallons as they "perfected" a recipe: My plan for formulating a recipe is to find one of a similar style, either all-grain or extract based, and copy its proportions of pounds of grain or pounds of extract to hops (IBU's). Add any other ingredients in the proportions you think, being on the gentle side (better to underdo than overdo). I have used this philosophy for perhaps 15 batches, and have always had very drinkable results. I don't worry that "it doesn't taste exactly like Bass," because I don't care that much - if it is a well-made beer, they taste great. As always, R,DW, HAHB! Cheers, Tim Sasseen Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 12:19:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR at conrad.appstate.edu> Subject: The Tumbleweed Report (Part 4) Having covered the equipment we're using at Tumbleweed, now I'm really going to bare my soul concerning the brewing procedures, ingredients, and recipe decisions we faced. I find this part particularly interesting because here is where we found it necessary to scrap ideas that had been cast in stone for us as homebrewers. All sorts of factors caused us to rethink basic procedures. Clearly, our main concerns were the change in scale and the economics of trying to make money. It's funny how money (or the lack thereof) can influence decisions! Ingredients and Materials: The biggest question was whether we were going to continue with the extract beers Tumbleweed was brewing with and brewing, in all honesty, rather poorly. Should we go all-grain? Or bear down on producing a decent extract beer? Since I've been brewng all-grain beers for 12 years, I thought long and hard about the feasibility of all-grain brewing in 40 or 60 gallon batches. To go that route we would have had to design an awfully big insulated mash tun. We would have had to worry about the ever changing mineral content of the town water we were using. We had to worry about where to store and grind the grain in an already overcrowded space. As if this wasn't daunting enough, we would be looking at 12 hour brewing days. With my teaching duties at ASU and the demands of operating BrewCo, I frankly didn't have that kind of time. So we decided to brew with extracts. Since this was, in some sense a "cheat", we figured we'd cut no corners on the rest of the process. We would use pure yeast cultures, fresh hops, specialty grain infusions, and filter our water. Extracts were appealing because (1) storage was easy (we already had a walk-in cooler), (2) it cut our brewing day down to 6-8 hours, and (3) we could count on a certain stability in the malt product and didn't have to worry about the variability in the quality of grain and the headache of wrestling with our water. We had enough to worry about already so far as redesigning the equipment and getting used to brewing on a larger scale was concerned. Later, after we got all these factors under control, we figured we could consider the move to all-grain. The decision to brew with extracts still bothers me. I could see myself making excuses (like I'm doing now) to my brewing buddies and my newly acquired peers in the commercial brewing world. But this was no time to be dogmatic. Instead we had to be realistic about the physical brewing environment and the market we were trying to crack. I've had enough bad all-grain beers to know that the decision to go all-grain was not going to ensure a high quality product. And I've had enough outstanding extract beers to know that it *is* possible to brew a decent beer using extracts. Technique is everything. We inherited some pretty sorry ingredients when Burton and I signed on. The extracts were old and stale. The hops were pelletized and God knows how well they were stored before we got them. Still we brewed with what we had and the difference between what we brewed and what was brewed before was noticed by all. The quality improved even more once we started getting fresh malt, fresher hops, and instituted the hop back. Regarding our market, we had to be realistic about what the common drinking public was going to expect from us. We figured they wanted a beer that was a huge cut above Budmiller. No problem. But I didn't really expect them to come in and be disappointed if they weren't drinking beers comparable to a Pilsner Urquell, a Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout, or a Liberty Ale. Neither did we expect, nor have we found, very many beer drinkers that are going to get down to the level of criticism that we have come to expect from ourselves and our fellow homebrewers. So, what the hell, we resigned ourselves to the conclusion that the extracts, though unlikely to produce that godalmighty awesome beer we all dream about, would allow us to turn out a fairly reliable, quality beer that would be as good or better than anything the average guy ever drank out of a bottle and would impress 99% of the people who walked through our door. And they have. Most of the homebrewers who come into Tumbleweed are surprised to learn they're drinking an extract beer. We started out using Premier's 100% malt extract. It comes to us in 5 gallon pails and is as clean as a whistle. So far we've found that it doesn't attenuate below 1.012. The color is not as light as Alexander's, which we've just began experimenting with. The Alexander's is very light in color and attenuates to below 1.010. Our present feeling is to use the Alexander's on our lighter beers and stay with the Premier for our heavier ales when we want the higher terminal gravities. We like the idea of using two extracts because this gives us some diversity in the different beers we brew. We're also playing with Briess at the moment but the results aren't in as yet. If we find that they all produce clean beers then we'll play around with mixing them together for single batches to add even more complexity to the malt side of the flavor profiles. Of course, these aren't just straight extract beers. We only buy light malt extract and depend on specialty grain infusions/steepings as the water comes to a boil to add grain character to the beer. Nothing new here. 1000's of homebrewers have been doing this for years. (To be continued) - --------------------------------------------------------------- Kinney Baughman | Beer is my business and baughmankr at conrad.appstate.edu | I'm late for work. - --------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:05:29 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Re: Red Hook's Malt Domenick Venezia writes: > > I called the Redhook Brewery and spoke to Thomas Price, a very nice and > helpfull guy. Sorry, Al, but there is no wheat malt in their Summer > Rye. Here's the scoop: > > 10% flaked organic rye > 5% Munich > 85% 2-row barley (probably Briess) ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ Given that the Red Hook Brewery is within 175 miles of Great Western's Vancouver, WA plant (and in the same state), this seems bizarre if not completely unlikely. As far as I've been able to determine over the years, virtually every west coast brewery gets their base malt fm GW. Even if the quality of their malt wasn't the question, surely shipping rates would be. - --Jeff Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT) From: jal at plaza.ds.adp.com (Jim Larsen) Subject: Open letter to Zymurgy The following item, in response to Elizabeth Gold's request for light beer recipes, bounced on its way to her Compuserve address. > Elizabeth, > > Do you propose publishing in Zymurgy beer recipes which you have neither > tried nor even tasted? > > This is not the sort of responsible journalism that would keep Zymurgy > at the fore of the homebrewing industry. > > Jim > > > > Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 11:28:12 MST From: birkelan at adtaz.sps.mot.com (Joel Birkeland) Subject: Tannic verses I was wondering if anyone out there can give me some advice about treating my water for brewing. Our water here in Phoenix is very hard and very alkaline, (pH ~ 8). As I recall, the hardness number is about 250 (ppm?) and the alkalinity is about 170. I tried my first partial mash a few weeks ago, tasted the results last night, and it is OK, but had noticeable tannic astringency. I recall hearing that the pH of the sparge water has a strong effect on tannin extraction during sparging. For the record, I kept the sparge water at or below 168 deg F, and I had to cut the sparging short because another user needed the kitchen resources. The initial runnings were > 1.080, final > 1.020. TIA for your help. Joel Birkeland Motorola SPS birkelan at adtaz.sps.mot.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 07:58:48 -0400 (EDT) From: GONTAREK at JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU Subject: Rapid chilldowns after boiling Hi all! I've been a homebrewer for about a year now, and since I live in a small apartment, I can only brew from extracts and partial grain recipes. A few days ago, I saw a brief post on the HBD where someone said NOT to dump a boiling hot wort into a carboy filled with cold water. Why not? I know Papazian says to do this, and while I would not jump off a bridge if he told me to, I had never heard otherwise (I am a new subscriber to HBD). My brews have all been quite good (if I don't say so myself), so I don't know what the problem is with doing this. Please, someone, set me straight. I'd like to get the facts. Thanks in advance, Gontarek at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu Rick Gontarek Dept. of Biology Johns Hopkins Univ. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 12:19:38 PDT From: TAN1%SysEng%DCPP at cts27.comp.pge.com Subject: Re: Recipe Formulation John Montgomery writes in HBD 1202 >Should I just "waste" 10 - 15 gallons of brew for each style until I get it just the way I want it or is there some publication that offers particulars of and suggestions for recipe formulation? If beer the is drinkable it is never a waste (obvious but worth mentioning!). The 1991 Special Styles issue of Zymurgy has a wealth of information concerning styles. The Cat's Meow here on the net also has literally hundreds of recipes classified by style, although not as tightly classified as the Zymurgy issue. Most issues of Zymurgy also have the style guidelines describing the characteristics of a style for competition entry. There are also many books which have specific recipes included, the Winners Circle comes to mind offhand, but there are several. As a final tidbit there are also computer programs which can help you formulate recipes to duplicate styles. My program, the Brewer's Workshop, has the style definitions from Zymurgy built in and calculates gravity, bitterness and color so you can match those characteristics of a particular style. Please note that there are other programs that do the same thing, I am not trying to make this a commercial. People tend to get very touchy on the net when they smell advertising. I would recommend starting with the styles issue and working from there. There were also two good articles in the first issue of Brewing Techniques, one by Darryl Richman on recipe formulation and another article on recipe formulation using a spreadsheet. Hope this gets you started in the right direction. Prosit! Tom Nelson Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 8:21:33 PDT From: gbaldw at zaphod.usin.com (Gordon Baldwin) Subject: Irish Moss revisited Going back to an earlier discussion about using higher ammounts of Irish Moss, I have a data point. I brewed last weekend and I upped my IM rate from 1 teaspoon to 1 Tablespoon per 5 gallon batch. After racking to the secondary the beer is already a lot clearer. The interesting thing was the sediment in the bottom of the primary. I use a plastic bucket for the primary and ususlly the sludge in the bottom is a slurry of hop particles and other small particle precipitate. Kind of a loose mud consistancy. With the higher rate of IM it had more the consistancy of large flake oatmeal. It had large chunks of what I think is protien. I will be interested in the difference in body. I won't be able to do a direct comparison as my kegs should be arriving today and the bottles are going to the recycler. Unless there is someone in the Olympia WA area that wants 4 cases of well used bottles (I am keeping a couple cases) Gordon Baldwin gbaldw at usin.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 12:49:07 -0700 From: Drew Lynch <drew at chronologic.com> Subject: Re: Chiller conversion > Actually, one of my ideas was to convert to a chiller (I can't come up > with a descriptive name) in which there is one coil sitting in a > bucket of sorts. The bucket contains cold water, maybe ice water, and > the coil contains the wort. The cooling liquid could, probably should > be flowing in/out. The wort would be siphoned through the coil, > cooling it. Stoelting makes something like this for several hundred > dollars, which I refuse to pay. Anyone done this? Anything I should > be aware of? Norm, I did this, and you can have it if you want it. I am building a true counterflow chiller tonight. I had to run _huge_ amounts of water through the damn thing to get sufficient cooling, and that's not PC out here in drought land. I put 50' of 3/8" od? copper tubing in a 5 gallon bucket, and attached garden hose fittings to the bucket as well. When I tried to attach a hose to the outflow to use the water in the garden, the top of the bucket kept popping off, if I used enough cold water flow to chill the wort enough. Drew Lynch Chronologic Simulation, Los Altos, Ca. (415)965-3312 x18 drew at chronologic.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 16:15:18 EDT From: lanbrew at aol.com Subject: Kegged Chili-Beer I have done quite a few chili-beers in the past, including one on draft. Here's how: I used 5 ounces of serrano and jalapeno peppers in the last 15 minutes of the boil. The peppers were halved and seeded. Since the batch size was 10 gallons, the heat and flavor from the chilis was very subtle. My partner bottled his half and I kegged mine. Desiring more chili character, I decided to "dry-chili" the brew. Using a muslin hop bag and a generic zip-tie, I contained approx. 1 ounce of dry whole peppers and 1 ounce of serrano peppers (fresh) halved and seeded. I boiled the whole works for about 5 minutes to sanitize and threw it into the keg. The beer had already been carbonated and was chilled. Within three days the brew went from mild to hot, with incredible complexity and depth. I opened the keg and removed the bag 'o' chili, re-sealed the keg and purged the O2. Afterward, I noticed two things: 1) The beer did not become tainted one bit in the four months I had it on tap, so the process, although unorthodox, resulted in no obvious flaws. 2) Within a week of "dry-chiling" the beer fell brilliantly clear. Hmm. . . Overall, a very good experience and I'll try it again. Lanny Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:29:43 EDT From: pacasey at lexmark.com (Patrick Casey) Subject: fermenting a lager Is there any way to ferment a lager without using a refridgerator and one of the fancy thermostats? For example, what's wrong with shoving the carboy into the normal fridge? Does the temperature fluctuate too much? Or does the thermal mass of 5 gallons of beer buffer this temperature change sufficiently? Thanks! - Patrick Patrick A. Casey pacasey at lexmark.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 17:21:07 EDT From: "John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y" <calen at vnet.IBM.COM> Subject: Hot pepper sauce I've been following the recent thread about hot pepper sauce in brews. Please forgive me if this has been posted before. The hot pepper sauce itself is fermented. This is what I remember from a documentary about Tabasco Sauce. The red peppers, presumably red chiles, are macerated and comprise the mash. They ferment in wood barrels under a layer of salt which is about an inch thick. Particulars are a trade secret, as such I don't know them. The yeast, any additives, i.e. sugar, and type of wood I'd have to guess. This all happens on an island in Louisiana, so I'd assume that it's a rather warm ferment. The stuff sits for about three years, after which the salt is removed, the barrel emptied and the mash is infused with vinegar. The whole magilla is then pressed and bottled. If you've got some gallon bottles around, a bunch of peppers, and lots of patience, why not give it a shot? (How's mine? What, are you kidding?) Regards, John R. Calen -- calen at vnet.ibm.com (All disclaimers apply) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 16:43 CDT From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Re: extraction rates/Klages RBSWEENEY writes: >I put together the following list of maximum extraction rates for grains based >on some information obtained from a few extremely charitable HBD subscribers >and from Dave Miller's book Brewing the World's Great Beers. There are two >numbers listed for a few of the grain due to source discrepancies (Miller's >figures are in lower caps) and I was wondering if someone with more knowledge >than myself about such matters would lend a hand and tell me the *right* number >to use. Thanks. <snip> >MALT EXTRACT (DRY) 45 ? >MALT EXTRACT (SYRUP) 35 ? <snip> The snag is that each manufacturer's extracts have very different numbers. I've found less variability in dry extracts, but syrups I've used go all the way from 35 up to 40. LAGER 2-ROW 35 1.7 LAGER 6-ROW 31 1.7 PALE ALE 36 3 PILS 2-ROW 35 1.2 Again, potential varies by maltster and the condition of the malt when you get it. Are there a lot of different malts available to us homebrewers? You bet: DeWolf-Cosyns, Crisp Maris Otter, Ayinger, Briess, Great Western, Minnesota Malting, Gambrinus, Munton & Fison, Golden Promise (not just yet, but I'm working on it -- it's the malt used by Caledonian Brewing Co. to make what's marketed in the US as McAndrew's Scotch Ale), Canada Malting... just to name a few. Since we're on the subject of malt, I'd like to mention that Klages is no longer grown commercially. It's replacement is Harrington. After a few years, barley tends to lose it's disease resistance and the growers switch to a new strain. Currently, like I said, it's Harrington. If your retailer is really selling you Klages, then it's very, very old. Alas, even the wholesalers don't really understand this too well and some still contend that they are wholesaling Klages, so it may not be your retailer's fault, then again, shouldn't he/she know these kinds of things? On the bright side, there's no doubt on the pronounciation of Harrington ;^). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 19:06:57 -0400 (EDT) From: CCAMDEN at delphi.com Subject: First Batch Hello to everyone. I am new here and have read a couple of issues of the HBD and I plan on checking out back issues. This is very timely for me, as I plan on starting my first batch of homebrew this weekend. Are there any suggestions that anyone would like to make to me regarding this first attempt? I have read the Papazian book, have assembled my supplies and equipment, and read the book. I feel like I am ready. I will be making a Nut Brown Ale with a Muntons kit. I've noticed some discussion here and at rec.craft.homebrew about chilling the wort. Should I be concerned about this? (Although I have made mental plans to accomplish it if I have to.) Any advice that anyone has will be welcomed. I am excited, and I'm trying hard to relax, not worry and look forward to having a homebrew. Cary Camden ***Imagine a witty phrase here*** Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 20:42:27 -0400 (EDT) From: kj <kj at world.std.com> Subject: Tabasco pepper question Hi! As a fan of *hot* food, I've been enjoying the discussion about using chili peppers in beer. I love Tabasco(R) sauce, and I was wondering if anyone knew what kind of pepper is used to make it? The ingredient list is as follows: Vinegar, Red Pepper and Salt. I'd like to use those peppers to make a chili beer. I have access to the official Tabasco(R) cookbook, but it doesn't identify the pepper type either. :-( Any ideas? kj. kj -Somewhere in the Terran system Internet: kj at world.std.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 20:52:05 EDT From: brewerbob at aol.com Subject: Home Brew Competition To: All Home Brewers >From BrewerBob at aol.com Subj: Homebrew competition Press Release: The Northeast Florida Society of Brewers, in conjuction with The Hogtown Brewer of Gainesville, FL and The Home Brewery of Brooksville, FL, announces it's 1st Annual First Coast Brewer's Challenge, an AHA sanctioned homebrew competition open to all home brewers. Entry deadline is October 29, 1993, with final judging to be held on November 7, 1993. Beer styles for this competition are Pale Ale and Stout. Fee is $6.00 per entry. First prize will include $50.00 in beer related merchandize, second prize will include $20.00 in merchandize. Three bottles of beer will be required for each entry. For information, contest rules and entry forms, contact Bob Gammie (904) 241-8879 (RobertG211 at aol.com), Chuck Cummins (904) 292-2166, or Joe Bryant (904) 399-3367 (Prodigy BPNS42A) or write to: Brewer's Challenge, 354 Magnolia Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1203, 08/13/93