HOMEBREW Digest #2349 Sun 16 February 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  visiting Belgium for groups (Ronnie BAERT)
  Beer Yeast Bread (Chico Seay)
  ale yeast temps (Jerry Cunningham)
  Sulfur Smell and Bottling (Bernard D Hummel)
  Re: Beer Yeast Bread (Jeff Renner)
  Wheeler..Part 3 (Rob Moline)
  Wheeler..Part 4 (Rob Moline)
  Bioriginal malt (Daniel S. McConnell/DSMBook)
  AHA President (cathy)
  Zinc anti-skunking ("David R. Burley")
  More botulism (Mark Taratoot)
  Candi Sugar Source (Dave Hinkle)
  Re: Errors and bitterness (Scott Dornseif)
  Stickelbract Hops (Fred Waltman)
  Munich and Maize (Paul Sovcik)
  AOB/AHA: The $100,000 Question (Louis Bonham)
  re:8 gal. pot too small for a 5 gallon batch (Charles Burns)
  Water treatment question (Harlan Bauer)
  Botulism and freezing (Mark Preston)
  Corrections (A. J. deLange)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at: http://brew.oeonline.com/ If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 14:32:56 PST From: Ronnie BAERT <Ronald.Baert at hookon.be> Subject: visiting Belgium for groups Hello beerfanates, A few weeks ago, some HB'ers asked me for info of our little country, Her= e some information that probaly could be used, it is not complete, howeve= r on the web you will find more info on Peter Crombeck's pages, see below= . I have adapted the text for individuals (couples or alone-travelling). = If you see <"AL">, it means that they accept individuals. Some breweries = can be visited individual if you wait until a bus is arrived, for example= , The Dolle Brouwers in Esen near Diksmuide, have 2 guided visits on satu= rday, you can visit them together with the bus people. The text below is orriginaly written for an Engish Beerclub, who is visit= ing Belgium. They asked info for a short 2-day trip. Of course, there are= many other small breweries who can be visited, for example Achouffe near= Bastogne in the Ardens, where General Patton has had his battle on Chris= tmass 1944. For those who will buy beer collections: The warehouse "Delha= ize" (Lion group) has large collection, however if you go to the special = beer shops, you will find all you need. Such shops you will find everywer= e in and around towns and villages. Here comes the text: I understand that you and your club will visit our country in September. = First of all congrats with the 20th annyversary of the club! here the answers: 1) Visitting Trappist breweries =3D difficult, only possible on "open doo= r" days, last time was november 5th. However you may ask, sometimes they accept groups. You will find most info concerning breweries on the web on Peter Crombeck= 's pages, also in Englisch: http://www.dma.be/bier/beer.htm his E-Mail address: PCrombeck at AntwerpCity.be it is the "office of tourism= " for beer minded people. 2) Anything special in September? Not that I know, however. begin septemb= er there is each year OPEN BEDRIJVEN WEEKEND, this is a weekend that some= factories are open, In '95 I visited a brewery in Oudenaarde. 3) Nice places (in order..)<"AL"> 1. Brugge (Bruges), of course. 2. Gent(Ghent) 3. Brussels and Antwerp 4. Oudenaarde Interesting Musea: (Brewery museums) In Bruges, Mout en Brouwerij museum v.z.w. 't Hamerken, Nieuwland, 10, = B-8000 Brugge tel 050/330699.<"AL"> In Alveringem (near Ieper): "Mout en Brouwhuis De Snoek" (very beautiful = and complete brewery museum), that is 45 minutes from Bruges,for a guided= tour in Englisch, call Ms Gilberte Trenteseaux, Fortum, 40, B-8690 Alver= ingem, restaurant De Snoek, tel 058/289674 (during world warr, this brewe= ry was the only Belgian Brewery behind the Yser, the river which was the = frontline between the Allies and the Germans, this brewery was continious= ly brewing for the Allied forces, thanks to that beer, the Allies won wwI= !. Visitting this museum can be combined with visitting "brewery de doll= e brouwers" in Esen, together with a visit to the battle fields of WWI. = Also not so far away from this place is the Hopmuseum in Poperinge, near = the French border: Gasthuisstraat, 71 B-8970 Poperinge, tel via tourist = info of village of Poperinge, tel 057/334081.<"AL"> In Brussels: "Brouwerijmuseum", grot Markt 10, B-1000 Brussel. tel 02/511= 4987 <"AL"> and "Brussels museum van de gueuze", Gheudestraat 56, B-1070 Brussel.<"AL"> Most visits cots 70 .. 100,- BEF per person, always 1 drink included. Gui= de =3D sometimes 500 .. 800 BEF/group. 4) Pubs with the largest collection of beers in the world: in Gent at "De= Dulle Griet", "Het Bierhuis aan de waterkant" and "De Hopduvel", all in = Gent.<"AL"> 5) "Smaller" Breweries you can visit: In the village of "Esen" near Diksmuide and Ieper: "Brouwerij De Dolle = Brouwers" Roeselarestraat, 12, B-8860 Esen-Diksmuide, tel 051/502781, the= y brew only in the weekend, guided visits in Dutch and French, on request= Englisch =3D possible. It is not very clean over there, you will be surp= rised that they are able to make beer! In Bruges: "Brouwerij Straffe Hendrik"<"AL"> Walplein 26 B-8000 Brugge. = tel 050/332697, costs 120 BEF/person, 1 drink included, a good lunch 300.= ..400 BEF. In Ertvelde, =3D 20 km noth of Ghent: Brouwerij Bios, Lindenlaan, 25, B-9= 068 Ertvelde, tel 09/3445071 and 3440094 only for small groups, 2 months = order before. In Oudenaarde: brouwerij Liefmans, Aalststraat 200, B-9700 Oudenaarde tel= 055/311391 fax 055/319486. <"AL"> Also brewery Roman in Oudenaarde accepts guided tours, from time to time,= adress and info : look at Peter Crombecks' pages I could not find it her= e in my notebook. There are also some in the other provinces and in the Ardens, but I under= stand you have only a few days.. the most interesting places that I menti= oned are not so far away from Ostend or Calais, so this will save time = for UK visitors. Home brewing clubs: There are only 2 active clubs in Flanders that I know: The Largest one is near GEEL, 50 km East of Antwerp, the name is "Wijn- = en Biergilde Saters en Bachanten", they have a large, confortable and nic= e private pub, and I am shure they will keep it open on some time in the = weekend if other clubs are visiting them. Info via Jules Molenberghs, Aardseweg, 171, 2440 GEEL, phone 014/852715. The other HB and wine making club is the "Reynaert Wijngilde" and they = have a nice small pub, situated near Lokeren, they have 80 members, their= "private" pub is 15 km East of Ghent, were I live. I am member of the = steering comittee of that club and I am responsable for teaching brewing = and for making our magazine, the "Reynaert Gazette" a magazine, written = in Dutch. Of course we will keep our pub open if you come over on an arranged time.= <"AL": open each 1st and 3rd sundaymorning of the month from 10.30 til = noon, and other weekends on saturdaymorning, same hour.> You can contact = me via E-mail, My address is Boskapellaan, 48, B-9080 Lochristi, tel BE/(= 0)9/3552847. If you like, I will ask the brewery "Reinaert" in Lochristi (3km from whe= re I live, 12 km east of Ghent), if they accept visitors, it is a small = brand new and modern brewery. The owner is a professor which teaches in = the famoes brewery school of Ghent (students come over from many countrie= s to learn brewing there..) BEURPS! (Prononce the EU as in Gueuze please!) satistfied? Be welcome! Ronnie Baert. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 8:19:05 CST From: cseay at TUblue.pa.utulsa.edu (Chico Seay) Subject: Beer Yeast Bread Chris Carolan wrote, in re: Beer Yeast Starter for Breads: I dissolve 1 tsp of DME in the water, which provides the yeast with the maltose it knows and loves. Let it sit at room temp for at least 12 hours.... Chris: Does this sit out, in the open, or is it covered? I ask this because I fear that the point of using beer yeast to make bread may be being defeated by the proliferation of wild yeast after a few iterations of starter feeding. I'm sure the "beery" yeast character comes through on the first few rounds of bread, but I'm concerned that the possibly more vigorous wild yeasties may be crowding our little pedigrees out. Comments? (PS, I tried this recently with a covered bowl, with not much success) chico seay cseay at TUblue.pa.utulsa.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:06:51 -0500 From: Jerry Cunningham <gcunning at census.gov> Subject: ale yeast temps Erik wrote: > I always ferment ales at around 60 deg., with every strain. Doing >so will not harm the beer at all, in my own opinion. [snip] No offense to Erik, but I'd be very careful about blanket statements like this. While I do agree the the Wyeast temperature ranges are a little conservative, 60F is too low for some strains. For instance, in my experience, London III (1318) just plain ol don't like cold temps. I've fermented with this strain and had problems as high as 64F (sluggish ferments, high FG - very frustrating!). It's _very_ nice at 69F, though. - Jerry Cunningham Annapolis, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:06:55 -0500 (EST) From: Bernard D Hummel <hummelbe at pilot.msu.edu> Subject: Sulfur Smell and Bottling George De Piro writes: Somebody (don't know who) wrote in about bottling a beer that had a sulphury smell. He/she was wondering if it would dissipate with time. I don't know. I always allow hydrogen sulphide to vent from the beer by lagering in a carboy until the odor is gone. Once the beer is in a closed system, the gas cannot escape in a reasonable amount of time. I don't know if yeast will break down hydrogen sulphide. You may have to hold your nose, or drink it when you have a cold. Just a data point. During my limited brewing experience I also made a beer that had a very strong sulfur smell. (It was a Munich Helles partial mash using Wyeast 2112 California at about 65F) I bottled this beer and popped one open after a week and had to vent out the house. Strangely, the beer tasted good but the smell was horrible. I didn't notice any 'typical' signs of infection so I assumed it was the yeast. I left the beer sit for another week at 65F then lagered a case for 2 weeks in the refrigerator. To my delight, the sulfur smell was completely gone along with the chill haze! So I would say not to give up hope on this beer, it will get better with time. BTW, the beer also had a hint of a crisp, almost minty taste. Any ideas what causes this. I can't even decide if its good or bad but I sure did enjoy drinking that batch. Ben Hummel in Lansing Michigan Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:13:22 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Beer Yeast Bread In Homebrew Digest #2346, Bryan <grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu> writes >Arnold asks: >>> From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> >>> >>> I'd suggest boosting the yeast activity by making a sponge using the yeast, >>> all of the liquid, and 1/3 - 1/2 of the total flour and letting it ferment >>> for 1 - 3 hours before adding the rest of the ingredients. >>Wouldn't you want to add the sugar to the "sponge" to feed the yeast? > >Good question. I thought that bread yeast can generally "ferment" flour, >so you don't generally need to add sugar to bread (although you may >want to). I assume that ale yeast generally cannot ferment flour (starch). > >I don't see what the benefit of using beer yeast for baking would be; bread >yeast is the right tool for the job. You don't need to add sugar to bread dough or sponges for the yeast. There are enough natural sugars in flour for yeast to feed on for a while, and bread flour has up to 0.1% malted barley flour added to convert starch to sugar in a longer ferment (rise), since yeast cannot effectively utilize starch. I know you'll wonder how this works, since you all know that you need to gelatinize starches and mash at ~150F. Remember that enzymes were "designed" to work at grain sprouting temperatures, they just do it more slowly, and they act on starch granules that were damaged in the milling process, which makes the starch available to the enzymes just as heat gelatinization does. Even flour without added malt has some amylase. Baking yeasts are the same species as ale yeast (_Saccharomyces cerevisiae_) and were derived originally from ale yeasts. Baker's yeast is only about 150 years old and was originally called German yeast. A great deal more on this subject's history and the use of brewer's yeast in baking can be found in Elizabeth David's excellent book _English Bread and Yeast Cookery_, Viking Press 1980. I agree that for most purposes, you might better use the yeast selected for the purpose, but it can be fun to try. I like spiralc at ix.netcom.com (Chris Carolan)'s suggestion of using strong top cropping yeast, especially since that would have been typical of old English brewing yeasts. I have got some nicely flavored bread in the past using ale yeast, but some were unpleasantly fruity. The successes came, I think, from the low activity of the ale yeast, which allowed other microbes naturally present in the flour to make their contribution. This can be done by using small amounts of bread yeast instead, or, even better, sourdough cultures. For more information on this, read the newsgroup: rec.food.sourdough and its FAQ at http://mindlink.net/darrell_greenwood/sourdoughfaqs.html A lot of brewers bake and vice versa. I recommend it, especially sourdough,which doesn't have to be particularly sour, but is simply leavening with a stable culture of wild yeast and lactobacillus. And no, you don't have to worry about it contaminating your beer. Just use normal sanitary precautions. I've been doing both along side one another for years with no trouble. Yeast Culture Kit Co. http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckcotbl.html sells a nice Parisian culture that I got from a baker who got it from a very famous traditional Parisian bakery. It comes with my detailed instructions, which can also be downloaded from the YCKC site. Standard disclaimer - I just gave Dan the culture and instructions. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:57:01 -0600 From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net> Subject: Wheeler..Part 3 Wheeler/Part 3. Victorian porter During the early part of the nineteenth century porter began to change character. Pale and amber malts were becoming cheaper than brown malt; thus the London porter brewers gradually began to use equal parts of pale, amber, and brown malts in their grist rather than all brown. Pale and amber are unsmoked malts, therefore the smoky flavour of porter must have decreased with the decreasing proportion of brown malt although amber malt does have its own unique flavour. Apart from the changes in the grist, London porter was still made as it always was; supplied as mild and stale in two separate casks, the stale being matured in the great maturation vats. The porter or entire made by the smaller brewers or country brewers was usually quite different to that made by the large London brewers. The most important difference was that these beers were porter taste-alikes dispensed from one cask. There was no ageing or staling process as practised by the London porter brewers. The country brewers relied upon the use of special dark malts and other ingredients to provide the distinctive characteristics of their porter or entire. High proportions of brown malt were still used by the smaller brewers, so the smoky flavour of country-brewed porter was probably still apparent. Ordinary black malts were employed to colour the beer and to provide a sweet acrid flavour, but the early nineteenth century saw the emergence of special patent black malts that were very acidic in nature and country brewers tended to use these to impart an acidic tang to the beer which presumably was an acceptable substitute for the acidic sourness of genuine London porter. From about 1840 onwards pale ale was making massive inroads into porter consumption and by 1865 there was more pale ale drunk in London than porter. Porter consumption went into rapid decline during the latter half of the century, with a brief revival of interest at the turn of the twentieth century. By the end of the nineteenth century most the porters had some black malt in their grist, most were dark in colour, and all were dispensed from a single cask, although some were still aged for an extended period. Whitbread did not demolish the last of their porter ageing vats until 1918. By the latter half of the nineteenth century there were many different variations on the porter theme. London porter, brown in colour and aged for an extended period was considered to be the genuine thing, but there was also country brewed "entire", black in colour and relying upon special ingredients for its characteristic flavour, but not aged for any length of time. Some of these porters or entires were soured by the addition of about ten per cent stale beer to the cask, and some of them were not; they were simply black in colour with little else in the way of characteristics to distinguish them from any other beer. Porter was always the weakest and therefore the cheapest beer in a brewer's range. At the turn of the nineteenth century porters had an original gravity of about 1075, by the 1870s this had dropped to about 1055, and by the turn of the twentieth century this had dropped to about 1050. Nithsdale's Practical Brewing, of 1924 gives a typical porter as being OG 1040 which is very weak when one considers that in the same book ordinary bitter is given as OG 1055 and mild as OG 1050. A modern porter has a gravity of about OG 1040. It might be a doorway The origin of the term "porter" is somewhat of a mystery and the answer has probably been lost is the mists of time. My pet theory is that the moneyed, and no doubt learned, gentlemen who originally aged the beer simply chalked the Latin "potare" on the end of the cask when it had aged far enough - meaning potable or ready to drink; indeed, ready for potation. A dry sense of humour, possibly that of street porters, did the rest. Another of my theories to explain the origin of the name, which certainly does require a sense of humour to believe, is based upon the assumption that Ralph Harwood's Entire really was the origin of term Porter and relies upon the pronunciation of "entire". Those with wit could conceivably pronounce it as "Entirie", thus Entry, thus Porta, and so to Porter. *** END OF ARTICLE 1 *** End of Part 3. Rob Moline Little Apple Brewing Company, Manhattan, Kansas. "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:58:52 -0600 From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net> Subject: Wheeler..Part 4 Wheeler/Part 4 The next article is a Home Brewing article printed in "What's Brewing" sometime in 1994. It does not say much more than in the above. I include it because it includes an interesting quotation from Rees Cyclopedia of 1813. The passage, however, is certainly much older than 1813. These books tended to be published for years unchanged. The same passage appears verbatim in another encyclopaedia of 1830. *** START OF ARTICLE 2 *** Porter seems to be the flavour of the year. Every brewer and his cat seems to have introduced a Porter over the last few months, presumably due to renewed interest in the stuff. It would be foolish, if not controversial, to try to define what a modern Porter actually is. Porter's heyday lasted from about 1700 to the pale ale revolution in the mid 1800's; and was still popular at the beginning of this century. During this time it passed through several transformations and spawned a great many imitations. To confuse matters further, the Porter brewed in London was quite a different drink to that brewed in the countryside. The subject is complicated and I have been forced to review my own theories about Porter on more than one occasion. There are, however, one or two important points that most commentators on Porter seem to have missed. The original Porters of the early 1700's were brown beers, brewed from brown malt; as were almost all beers of the day. Brown malt was just about the only malt that was made in those days and it is, by definition, a smoked malt; smoked over a hardwood fire of oak, beech, or hornbeam. Smoking was considered to be an important part of malting and enhanced the flavour, for much the same reason that whisky malts are smoked over peat today. The only characteristic that set Porter apart from any other brown beer of the day was that Porter was deliberately soured by adding a percentage of sour beer to freshly brewed beer. This souring sometimes took place at the brewery, in which case the drink was known as "Entire", but it was more usual for it to be done at the pub. The London Porter brewers supplied two grades of beer; Mild and Stale, and these were mixed in appropriate proportions in the drinker's tankard to give him his preferred degree of acidic tang, in much the same way as modern drinkers mix mild and bitter. Sadly, this point is always missed by historians commenting on Porter who, when they come across references to stale (sour) beer being mixed with mild (fresh) beer, immediately dismiss it and rabbit on about notions of poor hygiene and malpractices by unscrupulous publicans. Souring was not a malpractice, it was a deliberate flavour enhancer and the whole foundation of the Porter phenomena. Joseph Bramah's biographer fell into this trap when discussing an illustration in Bramah's 1797 patent for a beer engine. He states, "The fourth beer cask in Bramah's cellar contrasted sadly with the hygienic notions suggested by his filtration and cleansing arrangements; in the drawing it is labelled Stale Porter!" However, as the author was writing about Bramah from an engineers viewpoint, the slip is understandable. The same cannot be said about the dozens of other "beer writers" who have also misread the evidence. I have yet to read any account on the history of Porter in which the writer has actually got it right. Our very own Nick Redman, Whitbread's archivist, fell into the trap himself. In his article on the history of Porter in What's Brewing June 1992 he has this to say: "Other hazards for the unwary drinker included the mixing by publicans of mild and stale porters by means of two pumps attached to one spout in the bar." He qualifies this statement by quoting a passage from an 1813 encyclopaedia: "By dextrously changing his hold to the handle of the next pump draws both kinds of beer at the same spout; and an indifferent observer supposes that since it all comes from one spout it is entire butt beer as the publican professes over his door." However, when the passage he used is quoted in full, it throws a completely different complexion on the subject. Here is the offending passage in full: "All the London Porter is professed to be "Entire Butt" as indeed it was at first but the system is now altered and it is very generally compounded of two kinds, or rather the same liquor in two different stages, the due admixture of which is palatable though neither is good alone. One is mild, the other stale Porter; the former is that which has a slightly bitter flavour from having lately been brewed; the latter has been kept longer. This mixture the publican adapts to the palates of his several customers and effects the mixture very readily by means of a machine containing small pumps worked by handles. By dextrously changing his hold to the handle of the next pump draws both kinds of beer at the same spout; and an indifferent observer supposes that since it all comes from one spout it is entire butt beer as the publican professes over his door." The author of that passage was not saying that the resulting drink was not Porter, he was saying that it was not Entire Butt. He was simply saying that "the system is now altered" and that Porter was not usually compounded at the brewery, but compounded at the pub. Adapting the mixture to the palates of the customers is hardly deception. Stale beer was twice the price of mild beer because it had to be kept for a year or more until it had turned acetic, or sour. The souring, I am fairly sure, was produced by acetic acid bacteria. The high alcohol content and hop rate of early beers would probably keep lactic acid bacteria at bay. The primary reason for the London brewers storing their Porter in huge ageing vats for periods exceeding a year was to allow acetification to take place; a slow process. Vinegar was commercially manufactured in exactly the same way, and I am sure that it was this process that the London Porter brewers were imitating. There are references in old brewing books to the brewers turning Porter into their shallow cooling trays after fermentation and leaving it to stand for twenty-four hours before vatting. This was done ostensibly to flatten the beer, but what it also did was to aerate it, and this would considerably aid the process of acetification. The original Porters were not, as is commonly supposed, jet-black in colour, but a translucent brown. They had a rich, smoky flavour derived from the brown malt, as did all beers of the day, and a winey aftertang produced by the deliberate souring; a flavour much esteemed by Londoners. Some brown malt is still made today, but it is rare, and unlikely to find its way into our home brew shops. It is not difficult for the home brewer to smoke his own malt with the appropriate equipment, but that is outside the scope of this particular article. *** END OF ARTICLE 2 *** End of Part 4. Rob Moline Little Apple Brewing Company, Manhattan, Kansas. "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 11:24:06 -0500 From: danmcc at umich.edu (Daniel S. McConnell/DSMBook) Subject: Bioriginal malt >From: George Schamel <george.schamel at den.mmc.com> >I just received an information packet from this company, Bioriginal >Malt. They make organic barley malt and malt extract. Has anyone >out there (Is there anyone out there?) used this malt or heard of this >company. I asked a similar question last July ....no response. This is a certified organically grown Harrington 2-row from Saskatchewan. I have not used the extract, but just finished a 50 lb bag of this malt. One of our local brewpubs has used it to produce an organic IPA, but as usual, I missed it while it was on tap. The data look similar to the regular Harrington with a bit more diastatic power. Protein 11.56 FAN 174 diastatic 153 color 1.59 (ASBC) extract 81.8% moisture 3.6% It converts very quickly. One of the beers was made with this malt as 100% of the grain bill at 10P and another at 13P with 5% oats (this one with orange and coriander). Of peculiar note was an almost greenish protein that rose to the top of the fermenters of both beers on the second day. This is a VERY pale malt. Taste is....like malt. I have a dismal vocabulary when it comes to describing grain. One of the professional brewers claims that it ferments faster than regular malt, but I'm unconvinced. It's a bit more expensive than regular 2-row, other than that it performed like other 2-row in this limited sample. I will not go out of my way to find this malt, but will use it again. DanMcC Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:32:16 -0800 From: cathy <cathy at aob.org> Subject: AHA President We received a request yesterday over the service line asking us to confirm Karen Barela's resignation. Karen has resigned in order to pursue other opportunities in the brewing industry. Her service and contributions have been appreciated over the last 6 1/2 years. Karen was very involved in providing educational opportunities for the homebrewing community. She took the National Homebrew Competition from 1,000-3,000 while maintaining its integrity, reputation and educational value. She has represented the AHA with professionalism, sincerity and enthusiasm never wavering from presenting a balanced program for American homebrewers. The strength of our Assocaition's structure is that we are all actively involved with the AHA, ensuring that Karen's departure will not delay any AHA projects. Be watching for new member benefits soon. Like most companies, we do not announce resignations, but will be announcing a new AHA leader soon. Cheers! Cathy Ewing - -- Cathy Ewing Vice President Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 120 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 cathy at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org/aob (web) Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Feb 97 11:55:28 EST From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Zinc anti-skunking Brewsters: Steve Alexander comments: > I came across a patent application in a food sciences book that > describes adding 0.5 ppm to 5 ppm of zinc to wort (added as zinc > sulphate) to decrease hops skunking. The claim is that the zinc > fortified wort would cause the yeast to expel a large amount of H2S > (rotten egg odor) which is scrubbed by the CO2 escaping. This reduces > the amount of sulphur in the finished beer and the skunking reportedly > needs sulphur for one of the intermediate steps. > It is a nice thought and thanks, Steve, for passing it along but, in the absence of real data, like, did they actually skunk a beer by shining light into it and analyzing for prenyl mercaptan?, I am skeptical. Fermentation can produce H2S without the presence of hops ( anybody use Montrachet yeast in their wines recently? Some lager yeasts also, but the hops confuse the picture ) The source is apparently sulfur containing amino acids and derivatives. In the absence of more information, the possibility exists that the patent authors learned how to screw up yeast metabolism causing the generation of hydrogen sulfide by adding zinc salts to the ferment. If so, this has absolutely nothing to do with the photochemical reaction of iso-alpha acids to produce prenyl mercaptan. Before adding zinc to my beer, I would like to have some actual data from the patent or book that it really stopped or reduced photochemical skunking. Any idea of the RDA for zinc? Toxicity? Pharmacists... Steve, can you supply more info or at least the references? On this same subject, does anyone have a professional study showing things like an absorption spectrum of iso-alpha acids, photochemical efficiency, etc.? Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:58:23 -0800 (PST) From: Mark Taratoot <taratoot at PEAK.ORG> Subject: More botulism In HBD 2346, David R. Burley writes: "On the botulism thread, I read recently that honey was a major source of botulism spores. Which doesn't surprise me a bit, but I wonder how honey wheat and mead makers deal with it. DO they boil the honey losing all that distinctive honeyness? Based on the discussions so far, I would be loathe to add unboiled honey to a fermentation. Comments? " This is an excellent question, and one which I have been pondering myself. About a year and a half ago, I mostly quit making beer so I could keep all my fermenters full of mead. I never boil honey. I have never worried about botulism. I think that with such easy access to USNET and HBD, it is easy for people to spread information, much of which is suspect. The response I am about to give is also suspect, and should not be taken as "truth." It is, however, my understanding of pasturization. I am specifically suspect of the outright claim that temperatures above 240F are REQUIRED to kill clostridium spores. Pasturization is a combination of temperature AND time. For most "bugs," holding for a brief time at boiling will be sufficient. Likewise, pasturization can be achieved by holding at 160F for about an hour (this figure is from memory; don't assume it is correct). At different temperatures, a different amount of time is required. Remember Louis Pastuer? He made the "hay infusion" in gooseneck beakers to refute spontaneous generation? As it turns out, he was lucky that he chose the amount of time to hold his infusion at boiling; some bugs that live in hay require an hour of boiling to kill. When you are canning vegetables at home, if you leave, say, jars of green beans in a hot water bath (let's say it is boiling at 212F, just for fun), you are VERY unlikely to process for the amount of time it would take to denature all botulism spores; the beans would turn to MUSH! Not very fun to eat as cocktail hour d'ourves! This (as far as it is logical to me) is why we use pressure cookers to can low-acid foods; the processing time must be shorter than would be required at lower temperatures. As another aside, many people now use steam canners rather than hot water bath or pressure canners. Steam canning is NOT APPROVED BY THE USDA! As home canning is not a prevalent as it once was, money has not been spent researching how well steam canning works. However, many modern canning books recommend steam canning as processing time is reduced, and foods don't get as mushy. So, when I make mead, I bring my water to about boiling, turn off my stove, add my honey and any other additions, make sure the must is between 160F and 170F, then leave it alone to cool! This assures pasturization. I would propose that it IS, in fact, safe to can wort in a boiling water bath PROVIDED the processing time IS long enough AT THAT TEMPERATURE to provide pasturization. I am not a microbiologist. This is just how I understand pasturization. I am interested in this issue and hope that at some point we can all figure out what the "truth" is. - -- Mark Taratoot "...though my problems are meaningless, taratoot at peak.org that don't make them go away." -Neil Young Return to table of contents
Date: 14 Feb 1997 10:17:10 -0700 From: Dave Hinkle <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com> Subject: Candi Sugar Source I've been following the discussion on making your own candi sugar, and just wanted to mention a source for this that hasn't been mentioned. An Asian food market I go to has both "white" and "yellow lump sugar". Some of the labels say "rock sugar", but it is basically white or amber rock candy sugar. I think it was selling for $.79 per one pound box. I have no idea if the "yellow" is carmelized or not, but based on the ingredients printed, it is not food coloring (it just lists cane sugar water as the only ingredient on either type). Might be worth checking it out before spending the time to make your own. They have other things you might use for brewing, like all kinds of refined starch (rice, corn, wheat, tapioca), usually at prices much lower than American grocery stores. How about a chocolate tapioca porter? ;-) But please, no MSG! Dave Hinkle Phoenix, AZ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:10:32 -0500 From: Scott Dornseif <RoundBoy at shoga.wwa.com> Subject: Re: Errors and bitterness >I really don't enjoy argueing with you Dave. I'd much rather agree on >everything, but it seems that most often you misinterpret my assertions >and no matter how many ways I try to rephrase my point, you don't seem >to get it. Could someone else perhaps try to paraphrase my point? > >Al. > >Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL >korz at xnet.com I'll give that a try! Dave, What *I* THINK Al is trying to say is... "I just cannot handle being wrong or not having the last word." Maybe I just misunderstand you guys too. I think I may have been wrong before. Scott Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 10:36:42 -0800 (PST) From: Fred Waltman <waltman at netcom.com> Subject: Stickelbract Hops Jorge Blasig (<gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy>) asks about Stickelbract hops: They are from New Zealand. The ones I have (pellets) are 12% AA. You can use them for bittering and I have used them for aroma -- it depends on whether or not you like the aroma. A couple of other NZ hops that are readily available are Green Bullet (gotta love that name) and Super Alpha. Fred Waltman Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co. fred at brewsupply.com *or* waltman at netcom.com http://www.brewsupply.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 13:05:06 CST From: Paul Sovcik <U18183 at UICVM.UIC.EDU> Subject: Munich and Maize Two quick ones: Has anyone used both Munich malt and Flaked maize in the same beer? What were the results? I have recently found that additon of 1/2 to 1 lb. of Munich malt to my grain bill (partial mashes or all grain) in 5 gal batches really adds a complex, wonderful malt flavor. This additon really gave that extra 10% to my last few pale ales - even though it is not really appropriate for pale ales, I guess. Well, my most popular batches with the general public ( serving for block parties, neighbors, etc. ) usually have been brewed with the addition of flaked maize. This seems to lighten body and flavor enough to make the beer acceptable to most people, regardless of it being used in a lager or ale. I just wonder what will happen if you marry the taste of malty Munich and Corn together.... could be bad, but I have a feeling it may be good, or at least it will make some non beer geeks sit up and notice. Any suggestions for me before I brew up a batch for the next party? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 13:17:59 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: AOB/AHA: The $100,000 Question We hear from the AOB majordomo: >As you know, Jim Liddil has requested space to post our 1995 IRS tax >return. As we have explained in the past this is public information >which can be obtained through the IRS office or if you visit our offices >in Boulder Colorado. > >One reason we ask people to come to our office to review these documents >is because there can be some confusion in the format presented (after >all there is 35 pages). To keep AHA members informed we publish >financial information about the AHA annually in Zymurgy (fall 1996). Uh huh. Perhaps you can explain why the AOB feels it does not have to comply with the law signed last July which *requires* a nonprofit to provide a copy (not just inspection access) of its form 990's to anyone who asks? [Refusals to do so subject the violator to a $5,000 fine per incident.] >To help put our tax form contents in perspective, I've attached >additional data which may be helpful. [snip] >Serving our members, including AHA and IBS, as well as the brewing >communities, is always our primary goal. Then WHY don't you speak to the issues that I and others have raised? [I'll forebear from reposting recent r.c.b. stuff on this topic -- if there are HBD readers without newsgroup access who are interested, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy.] If you've got nothing to hide, why are you hiding? Louis K. Bonham lkbonham at phoenix.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 12:54 PST From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: re:8 gal. pot too small for a 5 gallon batch I have been using an 8.3 gallon kettle for the last year doing full wort boils in many many 5 gallon batches. I start with 7 - 7.5 gallons of wort and boil down to 5.5 - 5.75. I have to watch the beginning of the boil and cut the heat down a bit when the boil first starts but I can easily control the boilover problem as long as I've had less than 3 pints of homebrew during the sparge. Charley - --------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems Elk Grove Unified School District cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us 916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 16:03:49 -0600 From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer) Subject: Water treatment question I've been reading some conflicting numbers in various texts concerning the amount of ions that are added to water from a particular salt. I wonder if someone could double check these numbers and see if I've got them right. All are for one gram of salt in one gallon of water: MgSO4--37ppm Mg & 145ppm SO4 CaSO4--61.5ppm Ca & 147ppm SO4 CaCl--140ppm Ca & 124ppm Cl NaHCO3--75ppm Na & 190ppm HCO3 NaCl--104ppm Na & 160ppm Cl CaCO3--???ppm Ca & ???ppmCO3 TIA, Harlan ********************************************************************* * * * Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can * * Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. * * <blacksab at midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman * * * ********************************************************************* Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 09:24:18 +1100 (EST) From: prestonm at labyrinth.net.au (Mark Preston) Subject: Botulism and freezing G'Day all, Having read all the arguements about botulism leaves me to ponder. Why not freeze the wort?? Cheers Mark Preston prestonm at labyrinth.net.au Brewing Beer in Melbourne, Australia.. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 00:20:10 -0500 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Corrections CaCO3(s) + H+ --> HCO3-(aq) + Ca++ is 2 equivalents of CaCO3 absorbing 1 equivalent of acid. Then HCO3- + H+ --> H2C03 absorbs another equivalent so that the statements should have read something to the effect that 2 equivalents of chalk will absorb 2 equivalents of acid but that if one equivalent of acid is used to dissolve the stuff only 1 additional can be absorbed. It's amazing how obvious these flubs are _after_ they have been posted. A. J. deLange - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Please Note New e-mail Address Return to table of contents