HOMEBREW Digest #2833 Fri 25 September 1998

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

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

  1998 Ozark Homebrew Competition (Dave Justice)
  Re: Enzymes - temps more (Jeff Renner)
  Again ? ("Steve Alexander")
  CAPital experiment (Tom Herlache)
  was re: Enzymes - temps more ("Steve Alexander")
  HERMS (Pete Perez)
  Sleeman's Honey Brown (Ralph Link)
  Guiness clone ("silent bob")
  brewing high (Michael Cullen)
  Clinitest fuss ("Kris Jacobs")
  Partial Mashing ("David M. Campbell")
  RE: Clone Brews (Guy Mason)
  EZ keg/bottle filler (michael w bardallis)
  Beerfridge Question:  GFCI outlet okay? (Robert J Haines)
  Polite response ("David R. Burley")
  Shipping beer ("NFGS")
  Re: Stepping up Starters ("Brian Dixon")
  Another Test (MaltyDog)
  lauter tun size (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  clone brews--the book (Vachom)
  an ad?... maybe. (quite long) Czech Transplant. ("Dr. Pivo")
  yeast varieties (Biggiebigg)
  Hop museums (John Wilkinson)
  Mashin' in the Tun ("William Warren")
  Guinness Duplication (Dan Listermann)
  Cider season is fast approaching ("Victor Farren")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet? Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:02:22 -0500 (CDT) From: Dave Justice <davej at nwark.com> Subject: 1998 Ozark Homebrew Competition Just thought I'd grab a little bandwidth to announce the 1998 Ozark Homebrew Competition (AHA Sanctioned) to be held in Fayetteville, AR on Saturday, October 31, 1998. Entries are due Oct 19-26. Details are at http://holodeck.uark.edu/ohc98/ohc98.html. AHA Style guidelines will be used. Best of Show wins a new SABCO brew kettle (converted keg) and a trophy. Medals will be awarded in style categories. Prizes will also be awarded for most total points(1st=3pts,2nd=2pts, 3rd=1pt), best ale, and best lager. The event is hosted by the Fayetteville Lovers of Pure Suds and Ozark Brewing Company. Several fun beer-related events are planned for the weekend, so feel free to contact me for additional information. Dave Justice OHC 98 Competition Organizer Fayetteville, AR 845 miles S-SW of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:26:02 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Enzymes - temps more Steve Alexander wrote: >From the long awns I think it had to be barley not wheat. Actually, some wheat is bearded. I've grown it. A better diagnostic would be if it were naked (wheat) or husked (barley), although naked barley is not unknown. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:28:44 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Again ? Everyone should sigh a sigh of relief that I canned my 8K respond on Clinitest. You may want to page down anyway. I'd like to see any additional Clinitest results from anyone (else), esp in regard to beers with SG over 1.060. Without it this is my last Clinitest post regardless of the attacks. David writes ... >I guess I missed how you determined how dextrinous these >beers were [...] HBD2801 where you yourself posted on Clinitest has my analysis. >In the absence of knowing what >the Clinitest result was at the end of the fermentation, your This information is not absent - you just refuse to accept it. I reported 1/2% Clinitest at EOF. >strong ale information could be easily explained if the higher >alcohol content caused premature flocculation and your Or maybe a dingo ate my yeast, or aliens abducted them. >carbonation did not complete fully -as I noted before. As for "carbonation did not fully complete" - this sample was kegged not primed. I also bottled a small portion of this batch 0.63% added glucose, with no additional yeast and after ~30 days the carbonated bottle beer also read 1/2% Clinitest. This should dispel the notion that the yeast were KO'ed by the alcohol level or other silliness. Last time David claimed that I was challenging the Clinitest. Now he claims I am using it to measure dextrins. Then he rejects data based on false assertions about priming and premature flocculation. >Please, when you repeat your various fermentations, check There is no need to repeat my tests, I've already reported that >1/4% at EOF in certain beers. Reproducing the result a hundred times can't convince someone who rejects refuting information with made-up assertion. And David responds to AlK ... > You are >correct that I repeatedly ignore your unsupported comments in number >3 as should every other HBD reader I supplied the support for this in HBD #2801 re the Tuborg wort. David apparently hasn't read it The NONfermentables alone in a 1.043SG 63Cmash wort hit 1/4% Clinitest.. Obviously increasing the mash temp or the SG will take us farther from the dogmatic range by increasing the concentration of non-fermentable reducing carbs. I'd really just like to see data points from someone other than Me/David/AlK. Anyone got 'em ?? Otherwise I'm getting a <1/4% reading on this topic - time to bottle it. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:40:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Herlache <th22 at cornell.edu> Subject: CAPital experiment In HBD 2824, 9-15-98, Jeff Renner replied to a CAP recipe question: >A couple of thoughts. First, corn should also give essentially no color. >It will, of course, add more flavor than rice, perhaps not what you want. This brings up the results of an experiment a friend and I did this spring. Christoph, who is an enologist, wanted to know what flavor contributions corn made to beer. To find out we brewed two beers side-by-side. One beer was 80% Breiss 6-row malt and 20% New Hope Mills unfortified corn meal, the other was 80% Breiss 6-row malt and 20% dextrose (percents expressed as extract). Both beers were doughed in at 104F while the cereal cooker mash progressed. I pulled a corresponding portion of the 'dextrose' mash and did a decoction with it to try to keep both processes as similar as possible. The cereal cooker mash/decoction was added back, and the temperatures of the mashes were ramped through 130F to 149F and held there for 1 hour. The beers were sparged to volume (12 gal), and hop additions (Hallertauer and Tettananger) were made (I weighed the hop additions to within 0.05g, so the beers had very close to the same hopping rate). Each wort was split into 2 four-gallon lots, and the slurry of 1l of Wyeast 2035 was pitched into each lot. A small amount of dextrose had to be added to the sugar beer to bring the gravity up (it was 0.003 SG points lower). Fermentation was done at 55F. Unfortunately, the temp in the cool-room rose to 61F during the 3 weeks of primary fermentation. Tasting #1--transfer from primary to secondary. At this tasting there were notable differences between the two beers, but each lot from within one beer tasted the same. The corn beer had a noticeable 'creamed corn' flavor. Surprisingly, this beer was also noticeably less bitter. I think this was due mostly to the sweet taste imparted by the 'creamed corn' flavor. The beers were then lagered in a 35F cold room for 10 weeks (I was too busy to do it at 6 weeks). Then the beers were chilled to 28F and plate-and-frame filtered at 3 microns through DE. Tasting #2--racking into the carbonator after 3 micron plate-and-frame filtration. The dextrose beer may have been slightly more bitter at this point, but I couldn't repeatably pick it out. The 'creamed corn' flavor had completely disappeared from the corn beer. Both beers were carbonated to appx. 2.5 V CO2, and allowed to recover from 'bottle shock' for 1 week at 35F. Tasting #3--I can't tell the two beers apart at serving temperature (around 45-50F). There is no discernible corn taste in the corn beer, and the bitterness levels are identical, at least to my pallet. I've had several friends try them, and they cannot tell them apart either. Both beers are ever-so-slightly fruity, which may be due to the unintended high primary fermentation temp, although it seems more like a floral/hoppy fruitiness to me. The 20% corn beer does have a <underline>very</underline> slight corn flavor to it if I let the beer warm to room temp, but it's much more subtle than I had been expecting. Both of them are really good, IMHO. So, where did all that corn flavor go? Was it lost in the long lagering stage for some reason? Tom Herlache th22 at cornell.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:56:48 -0400 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: was re: Enzymes - temps more Apologies to Jeff Renner who already responded to this post before I revised it. Jeff Renner writes ... >From context, I suspect that what Steve meant to write was that these >grains would or would not convert themselves, not that they would "malt." Actually that they would have much lower diastatic power - but from Morts post this appears not to be the case for oats and rye. Triticale and sorghum work too. Corn alone has been used in some native fermented beverages - tho the DP might still be quite low - don't know. So what grains can't achieve a DP of say half that of malting barley ? Maybe I've been misled about this. == >>Just as a side note - a few years ago I noticed a barley shoot in my compost >>heap. [,,,] >C'mon, Steve. That *had* to have been from some other source. (And I think >that black patent is malted). Should have said roasted malt, not black patent. >From the long awns I think it had to be barley not wheat. Still it's extremely unlikely that any unmashed grist made it to the compost heap and the sprout was from the middle of a grist dump spot. I can't explain it so I won't try. In a separate email AlK pointed out that this grain had to have been accidentally included unmalted from the maltster. This sounds likely - but I still doubt it entirely missed the mill or the mash tun. It's very seldom that a single barley sprout gets this much posthumous attention. I'm impressed. SteveA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:50:32 -0400 (EDT) From: PetenApril at webtv.net (Pete Perez) Subject: HERMS I am contemplating converting my gravity setup into a HERMS. I read about this setup at www.PBSbeer.com. In a nutshell, they used an immersion chiller in the hot liquor tank and a pump in a recirculating setup to pump the wort thru the immersion chiller sitting in the hot liquor tank to heat up the wort to step up the mash temp. Well that is what I want to do. I have a BruHeat that I picked up for $15 that I use so that I can heat up sparge water and such indoors. I plan on hanging an immersion chiller inside the bruheat (being sure not to let it sit on the heating element), then using the bruheat to heat the water inside it and pump the wort thru a regular old immersion chiller hanging in the bruheat to heat up the wort. Does this sound reasonable? When I return the heated up wort to the mash tun, should I pass it back in the top thru the sparge arm or is there a better way? Will this sufficiently raise my mash temp? What temp should I keep the water in the bruheat at (ie what temp should i heat the wort up to before returning to the mash tun when trying to raise the mash temp?)? Can anyone reccomend a controller that I can add to this setup to program to turn the pump on and off when the mash temp changes ? Or even better yet, program to read a thermometer and follow a step mash schedule? Thanks, Pete Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:52:52 -0500 From: Ralph Link <rlink at escape.ca> Subject: Sleeman's Honey Brown I have recently been introduced to a Beer made in Trenton Ontario, brewed by Sleeman Brewery. It is called "Sleeman's Honey Brown" it is lager and I really enjoy the favour. Would anyone out there, probably a Canadian who might have a clone recipe for this very nice beer. If you can help please send private e-mail or post for everyone to share. Thanks group. "Warm beer and bread They say it will raise the dead" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:45:33 PDT From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil at hotmail.com> Subject: Guiness clone Hey folks, I got a couple of request for the complete recipe for my guiness clone. I e-mailed a couple of responses, but I think that the attatchments failed. So her it is... 15.2 lbs marris otter pale ale 2.2 lbs british roasted barley 2.0 lbs flaked barley 1.6 oz of 14.8 alpha nugget hops (whole leaf) Yeast: 1056 or Irish ale, 1056 is too clean and Irish ale is too estery, I prefer 1056, but Irish ale at a low temp might be ok also. Single infusion mash at 150F for 60 minutes, and of course, hold out 1/2 gallon of first runnings, add too it a few grains of raw malt, and at kegging or bottling time boil it and add it into the main batch. And don't be afraid of the horrible smell. Use irish moss if you like, and lots of chalk if your water is low. It won't readily dissolve, so you can stir a couple of teaspoons right into the mash. To avoid the inevitable thread on water treatment, mash pH, solubility of CaCO3, and the like, DON'T FORGET, the alkalinity of all of this chalk is only going to buffer the acidity from, the large amount of roast. DON'T go and acidify your strike water to dissolve it, or you defeat the purpose. Good luck to all, and share your improvements on this strategy for duplicating guiness. Happy Brewing! Adam ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:45:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Michael Cullen <mcullen at netcom.com> Subject: brewing high 'tis true Operation Hypoxia has been eclipsed. Stay tuned for details. Mike Cullen Long Beach, Calif mcullen at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:37:18 -0400 From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake at net-link.net> Subject: Clinitest fuss Ummm, what ever happened to using the good ole hydrometer to get an indication of how much reducible sugars are left in your beer? Kris testing after fermentation: "Well, it's down to 1.010! Excellent! It's done, time to keg!" and that's that. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:09:40 -0400 From: "David M. Campbell" <David.Campbell at po-box.esu.edu> Subject: Partial Mashing I am a novice brewer who up to this point have only made recipes using extracts exclusively. I am considering a partial mash for my next recipe, but it seems much more complicated and I am wondering how much of a difference the addition of specialty grains will make in the final outcome of my beer. Also, what advice would you have for someone considering a partial mash for the first time? Thanks in advance, Dave Campbell Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:05:27 -0400 From: Guy Mason <guy.mason at matrix-one.com> Subject: RE: Clone Brews Hi all, This is in response to Chuck Mryglot's request for info on the book "Clone Brews" by Tess and Mark Szamatuski. Tess and Mark run a homebrew shop called Maltose Express in Monroe, CT. While I have not read "Clone Brews" yet, I will get a copy (autographed of course) ASAP. I have tried several of their recipes that make it into the book and was very happy with them. Their clone of Pete's Wicked Ale is nothing short of amazing. Disclaimer : I have no affiliation (sp?) yada, yada, yada. If you are planning to open a homebrew shop and want to see how it's done right stop in to Maltose Express. Also it doesn't hurt that Tess and Mark are just plain good people who will go out of their way to help. Guy Mason Cheshire CT "The tax you to death state" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:50:26 -0400 From: dbgrowler at juno.com (michael w bardallis) Subject: EZ keg/bottle filler John W sez: "The crude CP filler I made consists of a #2 drilled stopper (#3 if using the plastic water bottles) with a length of racking cane through the hole. ... There will be more O2 in the bottle while filling than with a proper CP filler but for short term storage it doesn't seem to matter." A few years back there was a ZYMURGY 'road test' feature on CP bottle fillers, and the _lowest_ package air level was attained using the method John mentions. The trade-off was that it had the lowest CO2 retention (approx. 80%, as I recall) of all due to more foaming. That foaming purges the headspace pretty effectively; in fact, most older commercial bottling lines use percussion or water-jetting to stimulate fobbing just prior to capping the bottle. Mike Bardallis Allen Park, MI Only three more weeks to RAF.... _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:15:20 -0400 From: bjhaines at juno.com (Robert J Haines) Subject: Beerfridge Question: GFCI outlet okay? HBD'ers (and especially Forrest if you're tuned in!), Luck smiled upon me this weekend and I scored a secondhand apartment-sized fridge for free. I've already checked to see that it works, so once I get it cleaned up a bit, I'll be moving it into the brewerey ... er, uh, basement. I'll need to run a 110 AC line to where it will reside. BTW, I'm comfortable doing wiring work. I'll be tapping off an existing circuit, and can easily take my choice of going downline from a GFCI outlet (therefore getting GFCI protection for the new outlet) or going in before it (resulting in a conventional, non-GFCI-protected outlet). I'd rather have the extra level of protection that the GFCI affords (damp basement, ya know?), but I don't want to have the fridge compressor (operating "normally") tripping it all the time. BTW, the outlet I just used to check out the fridge was GFCI protected and didn't trip, but that was only a short (24-hour) test. Since there's homebrew at stake, I want this fridge not to cut out! Suggestions and advice are appreciated! Thanks, Bob Haines - BJHAINES at JUNO.COM _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:44:10 -0400 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Polite response Brewsters: AlK says: "My polite response..." Maybe you had your caps keys on for your whole message by mistake then? No one reading the message could have mistaken this and your condescending attitue for politeness. Unfortunately it is difficult to re-write history when it is already written down. Keep on brewin' Dave Burley Kinnelon, NJ 07405 103164.3202 at compuserve.com Dave_Burley at compuserve.com Voice e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:58:01 -0700 From: "NFGS" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com> Subject: Shipping beer All of the recommendations given for shipping beer should be used. But in addition I have one more, of course. No matter how careful you are sooner or later a bottle will either break or explode (pop its top) and the contents will come out. Therefore you need to be able to contain the fluid so it does not leave your package. I have many times packages wine and put it in my suit case and flown across country. Never have I arrived at my destination with my clothes saturated due to a broken bottle. Lets face the luggage handlers at the airports are worst than the Post Office, UPS or FedEx. I bag the bottles using either 1 gallon baggies or 2-3 small trash bags. I do not rely on a single plastic bag to confine the liquid because it can puncture so I use 2. Then I package as the other recommendations stated. Frank fjrusso at coastalnet.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:36:54 -0700 From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex at proaxis.com> Subject: Re: Stepping up Starters Bill asks about stepping up starters, and whether or not to keep the original wort in the stepped up starter each time, or just using the slurry. The short of it is yes, keep the original starter wort. This is very typical. For example, make a 2-cup starter (pint), then when high krausen is just starting to wane, add another 2 cups, etc. up to whatever size you want (1/2 gal, 1 gal). The long of it though, as expressed by Darryl Richman in the AOB Classic Series text "Bock", is that there's nothing wrong with just using the slurry. As long as you don't wait so long that autolysis (self-feeding) occurs, longer than around 2 weeks that is, there is no problem in waiting until high krausen is past, and sedimentation is well underway prior to doubling the starter. It just adds a day or so to each stage of the doubling. And, since you'd be (gently) pouring off most of the tired wort and then adding twice the volume of fresh sweet wort, it'll take just slightly longer to finish high krausen for each stage ... but not more than say 12 hours or so. You can also wait with pitching your starter until sedimentation has occured so that you can just pitch the slurry. This is absolutely acceptable, and also the typical practice for large starters (1/2 gal and larger). High gravity brews ought to have around 1 cup of _slurry_ pitched in them, and that requires a starter of around a gallon to achieve. Pitching the whole gallon would adulterate the brew by 20%! Another advantage to doubling starters a few times is that your yeast gets to have a gentle introduction to the (always) higher specific gravity of your primary wort. I'll explain in a moment, but this results in reduced risk of osmotic shock ... especially with the high gravity brews. And that in turn reduces the risk of mutations occuring (which may give you 'wild yeast' characteristics in your beer). I brewed a Dusseldorf style Altbier one time that appeared to have this problem ... never could decide if it was a wild yeast infection or a problem with mutated yeast, but I've been careful ever since. Anyway, the way to ease your yeast up to the specific gravity of the wort is to start it at the recommended gravity (1.020 to 1.030), then use the _brew's intended original gravity_ for each doubling. If you are keeping the original starter wort in the starter (what I do), then this will move the starter halfway towards the brew's OG with each doubling. For example, if you're brewing a wort with SG 1.080, your starter starts out at 1.020, and you double 3 times to produce a gallon of starter, then the starter gravities would be like this: 1-pint = 1.020, 1-quart = 1.050, 1/2-gal = 1.065, 1-gal = 1.072. The first doubling causes the largest move (30 points), and that is completely acceptable. As the gravity, and stress on the yeast, increases, the jumps are smaller. With the final gallon, let it go to sedimentation and pitch the gravity-acclimated yeast into your wort. Works like a champ! And the process is very simple! Have fun, Brian "in Corvallis, Oregon, 2231 miles west of Jeff Renner" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:36:35 EDT From: MaltyDog at aol.com Subject: Another Test I have been doing some careful scientific study, and I have found another, better scientific test to find out the end of fermentation. A pregnancy test! After all, yeast is alive, isn't it? If there's still food for it to eat, then it's still alive. Pregnancy tests tell if there's something alive in there. Wallah!! Scientific accuracy! If everyone on this digest doesn't agree that this is a one-hundred percent fool-proof test for end of fermentation, I'll tell you what I'm going to do; I'M GOING TO KEEP SENDIING THIS POST AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU ALL SHUT UP AND AGREE WITH ME!!! Thank you for your time. Bill Coleman MaltyDog at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:07:24 -0400 From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil> Subject: lauter tun size collective homebrew conscience: corky asked about what size of gott cooler to go with - 5 or 10 gallon. it sounded like he was going to use it for mashing and lautering, since he asked about false bottoms. one of the things that will be a factor, depending on which false bottom is decided upon, is grain bed depth for the vorlauf. trying to brew a 5 gallon batch of a low gravity beer (bitter, etc) or a wheat beer (not much husk in the mash) in a 10 gallon cooler could result in a grain bed depth that would prevent the wort from clearing during recirculation. very shallow grain beds in combination with some of the more typical false bottoms (slotted screen, etc.) won't clear quickly, if at all. there's too much disturbance of the grain bed too close to the bottom, and the bed can't act efficiently as a filter. if you don't care about wort clarity, it's not an issue. brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:14:43 -0500 From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us> Subject: clone brews--the book Chuck asked yesterday about reviews of the book Clone Brews by Tess and Mark Szamatuski. Just so happens I received a copy of that book yesterday as a gift. I flipped through it last night. The recipes are organized by geographic origin. The result is (and this may be the books biggest weakness) that there are a relatively large number of recipes for contemporary light lagers (e.g. Tiger, Singha, Foster, Molson Ice [!], Maccabee, Negro Modelo, etc.). Although more homebrewers are becoming interested in brewing CAPs, I'm not sure how many out there want to brew up a batch of Molson Ice. . . .maybe I'm out of the loop. There are plenty of German, British, Belgian, Dutch and American clones, however, to keep classic style purists happy. The book came at just the right time as I'd gotten some yeast ready to brew this weekend and have been lackadaisical about working on a recipe. In looking for something within my yeast's profile, I also noticed another of the book's limitations: quite a few of the beers listed are not readily available to me. I thought about brewing the Shepherd Neame IPA recipe, but I have never tasted that beer nor can I get my hands on it even in the swanky liquor store that stocks lots of cool beers. Now, if your purpose is solely to brew some good beer, who cares if you can't pony up a bottle of the namesake to compare. But then, the book seems to anticipate a bit of competition--you against the defining standard clone--but a potentially educational kind of competition, more on that later. If you have access to lots of different kinds of beers and/or have tasted many of them near their places of origin, this limitation won't exist. The graphics on the page are modern and user friendly, a bit like frames on a web page or like contemporary magazine graphics. Each recipe is presented with a little blurb describing the flavor profiles of the beer at the top of the page. A partial mash recipe dominates most of the rest of the page with easy to read instructions on mash schedule, hop additions. In two left margin side bars appear "mini-mash" (base malt substituted for some of the extract) and all grain mash recipes. Access to a wide range of ingredients is implicit in all of the recipes. Perhaps the best part of each recipe is a prioritized list of yeast selections. Each recipe has at least two yeast suggestions, all liquid or bottle cultures. The book also contains a short introduction with some crucial technical data--an explanation of their use of HBU figures instead of IBUs and how to calculate HBU, extraction rate (70%) at which all grain recipes are calculated, etc. I think this information makes the book useable to homebrewers with a wide range of technological savvy. I was happy to read the authors' comments to the effect that their object is not to introduce homebrewers to the blind pursuit of reproducing commercial beers but to introduce them to one way of discovering styles, and developing a more discerning palate and, more importantly, their own tastes. The authors encourage users of the book to "tweak" recipes to accommodate their own preferences. All in all a cool book, worth the money. I find myself gravitating more and more to single brewer recipe books. I have several collections of award winning beer recipes, but I've grown a bit tired of calculating that brewer's extraction rate then reinterpreting the recipe into my system's capacities. That's just pure laziness on my part, though. More legitimately, however, I'm always a bit stumped by bizarre and missing information in some of these collections. Case in point, an award winning extract doppelbock recipe I saw in a major brewing magazine lately: O.G. 1.085 and F.G. 1.043! Now, unless the F.G. is a typo, it seems to me that this beer should have been smarmy, sickening sweet mess. Even though the problem with this beer is the obvious result of some remediable error(s) in fermentation, chances are I and, I argue, other homebrewers, are going to flip along to the next doppelbock recipe to find something that fits their ideal in practice and final product, even if the recipe did win an award. Award winner collections always seem to contain a number of these oddities or, often, recipes with all kinds of missing info--recipes with no hydrometer readings, no mash or hop schedules, etc. For homebrewers with even an intermediate knowledge of brewing techniques, the absence of this information makes the recipe unappealing. The Szamatuski's book, on the other hand, gives homebrewers a solid base from which to brew their clone beers, a potentially educational premise for any homebrewer. Mike New Orleans, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:44:29 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se> Subject: an ad?... maybe. (quite long) Czech Transplant. I just can't help myself. I've had another one of my "projects". This one's been in the works awhile, and has finally come to fruition, and I'm feeling pretty cocky and proud.... and I think it's unique. It started in the Autumn of 1990, when I was in Prague. While attending some scheduled meetings there, I left the hotel at 8:00 A.M., while the rest of the group was snoozing, and met Dr. Eduardo Roel in the door on the way out. We looked into each other's eyes, raised our eyebrows, and burst out laughing simultaneously. Yes, like little kids about to engage in something naughty, we both knew we were on our way to our first "Hostinec" of the day. Sitting over our glasses of Popovice, we shared our common history and passion. He had lived in Czechoslovakia for eight years in the 70's, and I had been sniffing around cellars there since 1983. Since I was passionately interested in the brewing craft that produces Czech beers, and both of us in drinking them, the idea was born of "exporting" the technology. Not just the "recipes", and ingredients, mind you, but the whole thing. This initial haphazard daydreaming, has incurred my picking up the pace of my cellar wanderings (something that I do not find too unpleasant, and is not hard to convince me to do), and while I am more of a "dreamer", Dr. Roel is more of a "doer", and earnestly began with the "business" side of things. At that very moment of our first discussion, East and West Germany were reuniting, and the implications of what that would eventually do to Czech beer, were not at all apparent. Things began changing rapidly in old "Czech Land", with the investment of foreign capitol, and the usual "conglomerate-rationalise-liquidate-modernise" strategy taking it's toll of not only numbers of breweries, but the actual production technique and quality. This sort of meant, that with each trip, I was never quite sure what I was going to find when I got there, and sometimes we would be comparing "yesterda's" to "today's" technology (and taste). What has been particularly enjoyable, has been the joy with which different people have met the idea (if not seen it's economic solvency), the generosity in helping out, not only with contacts, but with different parts of "the process", and even after mutual trust was established, the willingness to share "in house" secrets. It's been great to see "Real Live" Brewmasters, very open to speculation about what actually is going on in the process, and despite the depth of their knowledge, a keeness to appreciate traditional methods as the means to make "beautiful" beer, even if modern market pressures are pushing them away from its usage. Moreover, within this single style (svetly lezac), it's been interesting to see how varied the process can be at different breweries when dealing with it. It's also rewarding to see them "breaking the rules" of modern production, and producing such a lovely result. It turns out there has never been any "absolute" correct numbers, isn't now, and never will be...... I think there could be a tiny lesson here, somewhere, for many of the HBD contributors (Gosh, I'm impressed with myself for putting that so discretely and politely). Anyway, about 1994-5 there crystallised out, that there was a visionary, in Mr. Stanislav Bernard of the Humpolec (est. 1592) Brewery (now named "Bernard" beer, and brewery). The moment I tasted "Bernard Pivo", I was on the phone to Dr. Roel the same evening. It turns out that at this family owned brewery, Mr. Bernard had seen that the real style was starting to disappear, refused to modernise and expand, and realised that there would always be a demand for the "real" stuff... he just kept raising his prices to match inflation, and pay for his more labour intensive, less efficient process.... and still has a demand far larger than production. Even better... It turns out, when broached by Dr. Roel, he thought the idea was a good one, and was willing to take part. As Eduardo, and I would thumb through catalogues of microbrewery equipment, I'd howl at him to put away the ones with the Cylindro-Conical Tanks, and whine about increased convection, more intense fermentation, early removal of trub and the like.... while Mr. Bernard's reaction was much more laconic and patient ... "Yes. You can make beer like THAT if you want. Many people do." The "ultimate" solution, was to have an Engineer working with Bernard, design the whole brewery. It has the lovely hand hammered copper brewhouse that guests think "is neat", but the "guts" inside is an exact miniature replica of Bernard's double decocter. So the brewery's in place, the moravian malt is shipped up, the Saaz hops, Bernard's fresh yeast culture.... only one thing missing. I bet you thought I was gon'na say.... no. I may be good, but I'm not that good. In steps Jaroslav Soukal. He not only has the requisite 5 year Fermentation Science Engineering degree from Prague, has worked at Bernard as a brew master, but is a helluva nice guy. It goes with the "contract". As the first stuff is about to roll out of the lagering tanks (by my tastes, about 8-10 days left), it all seems a bit of a miracle. I really don't know of any other place where a "Classic Beer" has exported it's entire technology and design to a micro brewery, and seen to it so thoroughly, that it is faithfully reproduced down to the final product. The beer is called "Bernard", the place is called "Oel Kliniken" (in English: "The Beer Clinic".... where else did you think "Dr. Pivo" would be associated), and it is located in Linkoeping, Sweden. Licensing laws are a bit funny in Sweden, and at present, all production is already contracted to a private group, and in that sense, not open to the public. I might mention that, as a romantic, I have no economic interest at all in this place, just a hell of a lot of emotional investment. As usual, I'm just chasing dreams, and the hard, everyday "permit applying", "investor seeking", etc. etc., reality of actually making something like this work, has been taken care of by Dr. Roel, while I sit on the side lines, with one index finger firmly inserted in my nose, sipping different beers, and wondering why such and such a procedure is done, and what effect it could have on the final product, and continually fiddling in my own cellar to find out if I'm guessing right..... while others are actually getting the work done. Anyway, if any of you "beer hounds", have reason to pass through Sweden, try and let me know well ahead of time (I can be outside of the country for many months of the year), and I'll try and arrange to let you get a peak inside, and more importantly, a taste. Since we can't legally sell this beer to you at this point, I guess you'll just have to taste for free (business never really was one of my strong points). I sure hope this thing flies economically, 'cuz if it does, I think there are a lot of folks here who are just gon'na LOVE the next "project". Dr. Pivo (certain spellings have been altered to be ASCII compatable. Speakers of those languages should recognise the intended term. Other misspellings can be unintentional, and resultant of my very rewarding years of study at the "Quayle School".) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:20:29 EDT From: Biggiebigg at aol.com Subject: yeast varieties Some time back I seem to remember some discussion about the origins of some of the commercially available pure yeast strains (ie wyeast, yeast lab, etc). If memory serves me right, someone got it straight from the horses mouth in a discussion with Dave Logsdon of Wyeast. Does anyone here on the hbd have any kind of comprehensive list of the origins of the yeasts commercially available. How about it Mr. Logsdon (are you out there on the hbd emailing list???) I would appreciate any help anyone can give me on this. Feel free to email me directly to save the "bandwidth" on the hbd forum. THANKS in advance! "Beer is the enemy of mankind. We must get rid of it, glass by glass." Jim Huskey biggiebigg at aol.com Salina, Kansas Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98 12:39:19 CDT From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: Hop museums Bob Devine asked: >Does anyone know if the UK hop museum is still going? Al thought >there was one in Kent but I had heard a rumor it was closed or >scaled back to be open only sporadically. A friend of mine visited a hop museum in Kent last spring. He said many of the hop farms have been converted to B & B's (he and his wife stayed at one) but that the hop museum was still open. He found it quite interesting. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: 24 Sep 1998 12:00:53 U From: "William Warren" <wwarren at geron.com> Subject: Mashin' in the Tun 9/24/98 Mashin' in the Tun M y fellow home brewers; I am ready to make the move to all-grain brewing. Lately, I have been making 2.5 gal of all-grain home-brew, but now I would like to brew a full batch of clean beer. I only have one problem. I need a mash-tun. I have one of those big coolers and I would to transform it in to a mash tun. What I need is some really good directions on how to turn an ordinary cooler into a killer mash-tun. If you know how to make one, I would appreciate the help on this project. If you could also list the materials. Cheers! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:17:33 -0400 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: Guinness Duplication Jim Bush writes: <Regarding Dans use of Saurmalz in his Guinness clone, I have to wonder what the pH of the mash was with 3% saurmalz and I gather 10% Roasted Barley.... Also, acidulation of the mash is very different indeed from the methods Guinness uses of blending sour beer with regular stout. The concept is very interesting but I wonder about the implications of water chemistry and overall pH of the resultant wort. I would also be sure to measure the pH of the final beer from the spigot. Dan, let us know how this technique works for you as it would certainly be a very easy way if it works in practice.> I just kegged the stout today and I gotta say that it came out better than I expected. I don't have any Guinness around right now, but it is unquestionably similar. I am going to do a back to back and see what should be adjusted the next time. We didn't take a pH reading when we mashed, so I can't speak to that. I will say that it converted in about 45 min with no problems. I didn't take an OG, but the FG was about 1.008. The pH of the beer now, before the CO2 has had a chance to calm down, is around 4.0. Dan Listermann Check out listermann.com Don't forget - 2 "n"s. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:18:50 -0400 From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren at smtp.cdie.org> Subject: Cider season is fast approaching I know this isn't a beer question but it is related so here goes. I live in Washington, DC and want to know if someone in the area knows where I can rent or borrow a cider press. A friend of mine has a house in Winchester VA which is surrounded by apple orchards. I was planning on going there and picking up a bunch one of these weekends and making cider. While I am down there I could easily pick up extra apples if anyone is interested. Victor J. Farren Research & Reference Services PPC/CDIE/DIO/RRS Tel: (202) 661-5842 Fax: (202) 661-5891 E-mail: vfarren at rrs.cdie.org Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/25/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96