HOMEBREW Digest #4347 Fri 12 September 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  Re: real milk stout; tamarind beer ("Chad Stevens")
  Re: Thank you Dr. Cone (John Palmer)
  Importance of water percentage during the boil ("Steve Smith")
  Morland "Hen's Tooth" Clone ("Chris Hart")
  Re: Beer for Beer Tasting Party! (larry)
  Re: Spent grain bread/note to Gump ("Spencer Tomb")
  RE: Building Tap Handles ("Brian Morgan")
  Re:  I don't like SPAM...changes are working (hollen)
  Correction on bread recipe ("Harlan Nilsen")
  Re: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes (Michael Owings)
  Re: er: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes (Christopher Swingley)
  Shelf life of iodophor (Danny Breidenbach)
  Bigfoot Barley Wine Clone? (Mark Beck)
  RE: Fullers Vintage Ale ("Leonard, Phil")
  re: Fullers Vintage Ale ("Mark Tumarkin")
   (Randy Ricchi)
  Whey In Stout (Mike Lewandowski)
  Fortnight of yeast (Ken Schramm)
  Fortnight Of Yeast Web Site ("Rob Moline")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:19:50 -0700 From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net> Subject: Re: real milk stout; tamarind beer Raj: I love to make cheesecake, mostly because I love to eat cheesecake. When I lived in Lebo, KS I had two dairy goats and more milk than I knew what to do with...well I did know what to do with it: I made cheese for cheese cake. I used citric acid to coagulate the curd and used the whey to make various wheat beers and stouts. I think I used as much as 50/50 water to whey and everything converted fine. I haven't done it in a long time and I can't remember if it was worth the trouble (I do remember it was a lot of trouble). But it is certainly doable. Tamarind. Me gusto Tamarindo mucho. Y por eso, I've made two tamarind beers. Neither was a success. The most recent was a chapotle tamarind dopplebock. The pucker factor was way up there. I think tamarind has potential, it's just going to take someone more patient than I to figure the stuff out. I used one pound raw pods, hulled and seeded, boiled in 1qt.? water and added to secondary. It was too much. Try 3/4 or 1/2 a pound for a five gallon batch. Maybe a tamarind Oud Bruin? FWIW, Chad Stevens San Diego, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 21:26:48 -0700 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com> Subject: Re: Thank you Dr. Cone Rob had a great idea, putting together a Thank You gift box of breweriana from all of us that benefitted from his correspondence. While I am sure it does not contain anything he doesn't already know, I will send him a signed copy of my book, because I have really benefitted from his generous advice over the years. He is a nice guy to chat with at the conferences and MCAB and I am sure he would appreciate cards and local brewpub T-shirts and the like too. I could also send him one of these inflatable Briess barley stalk things that I have laying around here, but he probably has enough of them already. ;-) I thought they looked good hanging in the living room, and the kids enjoyed hitting each other with them, but then my wife came home from the store and I had to put them away. ;-( John Palmer john at howtobrew.com www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 00:21:24 -0600 From: "Steve Smith" <sasmith at in-tch.com> Subject: Importance of water percentage during the boil How important is it to follow the recipe recommended water percentage when boiling the wort during extract brewing? I would imagine that if an amateur like myself chooses to change any part of a recipe I'm working from, I reduce my chances of obtaining a successful outcome. Nevertheless I will explain my situation. I had been brewing extract recipes (including steeped grains) that called for adding water to total 2.5 gallons of wort for the boil, later added to cold water to make 5 gallons of beer. I decided to upgrade from a ceramic coated canning pot brewpot, up to a stainless steel brewpot, and decided it would be a good idea to buy one that would hold a double batch of wort, based upon the volume as stated above, which I thought to be typical. I found a good price for a 26 quart pot and bought it. Now I want to make 10 gallons of Scotch Ale, but the recipe calls for bringing the wort-to-be-boiled volume to 3.5 gallons to make five gallons of beer. A double batch would require 7 gallons of wort, which is 28 quarts..., too much for my brew pot. Thus the question, would it hurt my beer to reduce the water percentage during the boil, making up for it later when adding cold water immediately after chilling the wort? Again, common sense tells me to make two separate batches when a recipe calls for a wort volume that won't fit in my pot when doubled. Also, an experienced brewer friend mentioned to me that double batches aren't necessarily a good idea anyway, because of the longer time it takes to bring the wort to a boil (on a stovetop), especially after adding the extract. Is that true? Thanks for clarifying! Steve A. Smith Missoula, MT Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:31:16 -0400 From: "Chris Hart" <rhayader at bellsouth.net> Subject: Morland "Hen's Tooth" Clone I've been enjoying this digest for some time now and finally, I'm ready to post a question. Has anyone out there had Morland's "Hen's Tooth" Ale? My wife brought one home last night from a store in Jacksonville and we gave it a try. It was very much like an Old Speckled Hen with more body and a deeper flavor, although I'd swear it's exactly the same yeast. It was fantastic, IMHO and I immediately thought, "I wonder if there's a clone recipe out there somewhere..." I asked her to get more the next time she went to Jax and I would try to propagate the yeast in the bottom of a couple of the bottles. (Did I mention it's bottle-conditioned?) Now all I need is a recipe! I only extract brew right now, but I am willing to move on up to grain. I know this will be the only way to get the flavor of this beer right. Can anyone help me out? Chris Hart Hart's Valet Drycleaning 1000 NW 51st Terrace Gainesville, FL 32605 339-0324 rhayader at bellsouth.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:51:07 -0500 (CDT) From: larry at doubleluck.com Subject: Re: Beer for Beer Tasting Party! On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:38:04 -0400, "Don Scholl" <dws at engineeringdimensions.com> requested: > Good morning! My wife and I are throwing a beer tasting party for our > friends at the end of February 2004. I will brew all beers being served. > What I need from everyone are ideas of 4-5 types of beer to serve and what > food and/or dessert to serve with them. I have a dessert suggestion! Brew up a nice English stout (not soured) and use it to make a "Stout Float"! A local brewpub/restaurant had this item on their menu (before they closed their doors). I do not have the exact proportions of ingredients, but it was essentially like this: Into a large glass, place one chewy chocolate brownie and a couple of scoops of ice cream. [I recall that they used vanilla; chocolate will seem to be gilding the lilly a touch!] Fill the rest of the glass with stout. Just in case it is not obvious to someone that (real) chocolate and stout mix to form a wonderful flavor profile, try this! A few years ago (before I encountered the "stout float"), I was munching on some chocolate chip cookies and suddenly I found myself in one of those "Got Milk?" commercials. The answer was "no", but I did find a bottle of stout in the fridge. Umm, umm, good! - --- Larry Bristol Bellville, TX http://www.doubleluck.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:10:41 -0500 From: "Spencer Tomb" <astomb at ksu.edu> Subject: Re: Spent grain bread/note to Gump Greetings all. About a year ago I convinced the baker at our local brewpub (The Little Apple Brewing Company) to resume baking their hamberger buns with some spent grain in the mix. I can get his bulk baking recipe to share on the Digest if there is an interest. Gump? Hi Rob. Just wanted you to know that I am getting back to brewing at home. I still have notes from some of our conversations. Spencer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:14:46 -0400 From: "Brian Morgan" <brian-morgan at cinci.rr.com> Subject: RE: Building Tap Handles Bob Pelletier asks: >>Anybody have any good instructions? I'm not sure where I got this site, but I've used his ideas, and works fine: www.frugalbrewer.com/articles/taphandle.htm (for some reason, the site seems down right now, but 2 weeks ago it was fine...) Also check out: www.taphandles.com Brian Cincinnati Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 09:33:33 -0400 (EDT) From: hollen at woodsprite.com Subject: Re: I don't like SPAM...changes are working > As a data point...in the few days that Pat made the change to "mask" the > HBD email addresses my junk email content has dropped by at least 50%. > I always wondered how I got so much junk in my inbox...now I know. > Thanks for making the change. It's already made a real difference. > Marc Sedam Marc - You must just have a lucky coincidence. If your address had been harvested before, it is still being used today unless the spammers get bounces. Once they glom onto an address, they do not let it go while it does not bounce. You have seized on a momentary lull as "fact" and attributed it incorrectly to what Pat has done. While I thoroughly laud the move by Pat, we will not see any results for months, maybe years due to the way spammers "bank" addresses. respectfully, dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck Email: hollen at woodsprite.com Home Page: http://www.woodsprite.com Brewing Page: http://hbd.org/hollen Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:11:13 -0500 From: "Harlan Nilsen" <ramnrah at nebi.com> Subject: Correction on bread recipe I see that I made a typo on the recipe for spent grain bread. I'm truly sorry about this and realize I should have proof read it before hitting the button. At least it was not a mistake on a batch of homebrew. THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF BREAD FLOUR IS 2.5 CUPS!!!! Again, my deepest apologies. Harlan 32nd Street Brewery Located in the middle of our great nation. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:10:13 -0500 From: Michael Owings <mikey at swampgas.com> Subject: Re: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes I've always used Fix's definition for no-sparge brewing See: http://brewery.org/brewery/library/YMltGF92.html also see: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html for a discussion of no-sparge versus batch sparge. This author (Ken Schwartz) also recommends using a very thin mash or (better) thinning the mash prior to runnoff to maximize the first runnings. My understanding of no-sparge has been that only the first runnings are taken -- no sparge water is added at all. In the first cite above, Fix is indeed using more starting mash water, but this is to compensate for the increased amount of grain (which keeps the grist/water ratio the same between the two recipes). No charge of sparge water is added. I did find a definition identical to yours, however at: http://www.strandbrewers.org/html/nosparge.htm In this case, the author asserts that a single (large) charge of hot water is added prior to the runnoff. Adding to the confusion, other authors seem to differentiate between "pure no-sparge" and "no-sparge", where the former involves simply taking the first runnings, and the latter adding a single charge of hot water prior to taking the runnings. As to efficiency question: YMMV, but batch sparging (and here I refer to taking the first runnings, followed by a large charge of hot water) has simply not affected my efficiency compared to fly sparging. I am taking the same amount of runnings either way. Checking my notes -- Using either technique I got typically in the low 80% range. While the efficiency might occasionally stray (79-80% up to 86-87%) this was never a function of fly-versus batch technique as far as I can tell (no-sparge is, of course, another story entirely). Much of this variance may be attributable to measurement error or inaccurate/oudated/best-guess max extraction info for a particular ingredient. In any case, lately I've abandoned fly sparging altogether. CSwingle writes: ====== No-sparge and batch sparges are less efficient because the sparge water comes to equilibrium with the sugars in the grain and then you drain off the mixture (I'm a computer scientist / ecologist, so this may not be a very scientific description. . .). You won't get all of the sugars this way because you're not continuously adding fresh water that has the capacity to absorb and carry additional sugars not removed earlier in the sparging. ====== While I see your point here, it's ultimately a question of degree. In the case of batch sparging (at least as I practice it -- first runnings -- then water charge), this has /never/ been the case. If there is an efficiency difference, then it is minute at the homebrewing scale -- at least with my lautering system. As always, YMMV. As to batch sparging with only a single large charge, this is not my usual practice, so I really can't speak from experience. It may be that draining the richest solution off first and adding a fresh charge of water is what makes the difference. Here's my best (and perhaps totally wrong) guess as to why: Obviously, the sugar solution should be at equilibrium throughout the lauter tun more or less uniformly (during a batch sparge). The grains themselves, however, have a tendency to trap a portion of the this solution, meaning that on a single charge of hot water, a significant fraction of the solution becomes inaccessible (about, what, .2 gal/lb?) on any single charge of water. It may be that once the first runnings (the very richest solution) have been taken, the second charge is sufficently dilute such that the "trapped" portion doesn't significantly detract from the final gravity. Assuming a grist of 12 lbs of grain with first runnings already taken leaving 2.4 gallons trapped in the grain, an addition of 6 gallons of sparge water for the batch might bring the total liquid volume in the tun up to 8.4 gallons (of which 2.4 gallons is inaccessible, trapped in the grains). My guess would be that new 8.4 gallon sugar solution is sufficently dilute that the remaininder trapped in the grains is not missed by the time the second runnings are combined with the first wort. The actual efficiency lost may only be a couple of percentage points -- probably pretty close to my measurement error. Cheers -- m ==== Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web: http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:31:12 -0800 From: Christopher Swingley <cswingle at iarc.uaf.edu> Subject: Re: er: Color in no-sparge / batch sparge recipes -S * -S <-s at adelphia.net> [2003-Sep-09 21:57 AKDT]: > Christopher Swingley says, > > > It is my impression from what I've read on the subject > > (including the article in the recent Zymurgy) that color isn't > > affected by efficiency > > I can't imagine exactly how to interpret that statement numerically. Well, what I meant by efficiency is mash efficiency (what percentage of sugars you are able to extract from grain with a known maximum value -- i.e. 1# 2-row in 1 gallon = 1.037 at 100% efficiency), and the meaning of my statement was to query whether it is indeed true that the color you get from grains does not relate in an obvious way with mash efficiency. > I *suspect* that statement above means that if you sparge and collect > N gallons of wort from X lbs of a particular grist that your color > won't vary widely despite efficiency differences. Yep. That's what I meant. > The proportion of 'color' in the early runnings is even > greater than the relative proportion of extract in these early > runnings! There is some decent evidence that the malt flavor is also > more concentrated in the first running than is extract. Gotcha. So both color and malt flavors come through early in whatever sparging procedure you're using. The result is that a no-/batch-sparge recipe, scaled up from a fly sparge recipe will likely be darker and have more malt flavor, despite having the same gravity. The fact that you're noting a more concentrated malt flavor is good news, because it *may* mean that you could scale back the darker malts slightly when using a less efficient no-/batch-sparge recipe without losing the malt flavor profile. > The point is that a change to the brewing process, like undersparging, > seldom impacts only one beer parameter. It would be nice if we have > independent control of color, flavor, extract concentration etc ... but we > don't. You change one and the others inevitably change. You'll need to > experiment with the batch or undersparging methods and see if you can > produce desirable results within the interdependent constraints. Yes, good point. No-/batch-sparging aren't the same as fly sparging, and you won't get the same beer. Since I find no-/batch-sparging so much easier, I am curious about what the differences in the final beer are. From my experience, and what you're saying, it sounds like a scaled up recipe sparged using one of these simpler methods is likely to yield a darker, maltier flavored beer. Quantifying how much maltier and darker would be good, but both of these parameters are hard to objectively measure. > As long as I'm on an opinion rant ... Also let's not be slaves to > fashion. If you make your best tasting pseudo-pils with no-sparge but > the color is several notches darker than the bohemian ideal - then > scr*w the style guidelines. If a beer tastes great and looks great > yet doesn't meet some abstract guideline ... where is the fault ? > Style classifications are a useful means of separating beers into > groups of comparables, but a style is not intended to be an end in > itself. I completely agree. I don't really care what a "Robust Porter" is supposed to be. What I do want is to look at my grain bill and my procedures and be able predict what I'll get when I crack open my first bottle. Most of this predictive ability comes from personal experience and experimentation, which I'm all for :), but it's great to hear from others and their own results. Thanks for the great information! Chris - -- Christopher S. Swingley email: cswingle at iarc.uaf.edu IARC -- Frontier Program Please use encryption. GPG key at: University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:02:39 -0500 From: Danny Breidenbach <dbreiden at math.purdue.edu> Subject: Shelf life of iodophor Hey, Any guesses as to the shelf life of iodophor that is not diluted (at least not beyond its concentration when purchased) and has been kept in a dark and cold-to-hot-to-everything-in-between place? - --Danny in West Lafayette, Indiana Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 13:01:38 -0700 From: Mark Beck <beckmk at whitman.edu> Subject: Bigfoot Barley Wine Clone? Anyone out there have a good all-grain clone recipe for Bigfoot Barley Wine? The Sierra Nevada website has a fair amount of information, but I'd appreciate any input into developing a recipe. Thanks, Mark Walla Walla, WA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:42:19 -0500 From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard at dsionline.com> Subject: RE: Fullers Vintage Ale I still have three bottles of this (1999). I wish I had 50. I think it is considered an old ale. Philip [612 251.4 AR] Overland Park, KS Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:32:10 -0400 From: "Mark Tumarkin" <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: Fullers Vintage Ale Greg writes: "My brother-in-law gave me a boxed bottle of Fullers Vintage Ale (1999). The label says the bottle can be stored for years. Is it a barley wine? Old ale? I'm wondering if, at four years of age, it might already be past its prime, and if I should drink it now. Or is this worth saving for a while longer?" I've only had Fullers Vintage Ale once, but remember it as a very nice old ale/strong ale. It doesn't have the hop level to be a barley wine, though there's enough to balance the malty sweetness. Lots of caramel, fruity esters, especially dark fruit (plum/raisin). Not huge, but a strong alcohol presence.Very nice beer with a beautiful presentation - both the bottle itself & a very nice wooden box. The question of age is hard to answer. Do you know how it was stored? Did your brother-in-law have it for the four years, or buy it off the shelf recently? Vintage ales can be truly wonderful, especially if cellared properly. Ideally, you want to store them at a stable cellar temp (50-55 F), in a dry, dark environment. Unfortunately, they are often not treated well and thus can sometimes be less wonderful than they could have been (if that makes sense). Four years is plenty of time for a beer to age; though if treated well, it can improve with even more aging. It's sort of a crap shoot - whenever you open a bottle of vintage beer it could have passed its prime, or it could be getting better & better. At the end of this month, I'm going to have the opportunity to participate in a tasting of Thomas Hardy Ale. It will be hosted by Jim Ritchart, one of our Hogtown Brewers members who has an incredible beer cellar, including a lot of vintage Belgian beer. This tasting will include 6 or so aged vintages, including one from 1968 (I believe this was the first year for Thomas Hardy. I am really looking forward to this experience. It will be an afternoon with a small group of beer geeks, with truly awesome beer (hopefully in good condition), paired with aged cheeses......like the old beer commercials said, guys it doesn't get any better than this! I'd like to ask a question relating to aging beers. What is your opinion of the best way to cellar corked beers? With wine, you'd lay the bottle down on its side to keep the cork from drying out and losing its seal. With beer, the more common practice seems to be to store them upright. Which do you think is better? and why? thanks, Mark Tumarkin Hogtown Brewers Gainesville, FL and be sure to enter your aged old ales & barleywines in our upcoming Hogtown Brew-Off, details and entry info at http://www.hbd.org/hogtown/Brewoff.html Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:15:29 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us> Subject: Can anyone here give a decent description of the flavor profile of White Labs WLP002 (English Ale), and/or White Labs WLP007 (Dry English Ale)? The website is not much help, as their description for WLP007 is: (snip) >Clean....similar to WLP002 in flavor profile, but is 10% more attenuative. This eliminates the residual sweetness... So we look to the description for WLP002, which states: This yeast will leave a beer very clear, and will leave some residual sweetness. So this tells me that the WLP007 is clean, and dry. That's about it. Sounds a lot like Wyeast 1056, aka Chico, aka American ale yeast. Lame flavor descriptions. Can anyone here do better? TIA. Randy Hancock, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:14:08 -0400 From: Mike Lewandowski <mlew5 at charter.net> Subject: Whey In Stout I was also interested in the effects of whey in stout. I made a batch of cheese out of 1 gallon of milk. I then saved all of the whey, and subsequently added it to the boil of my stout. The thinking was that I wanted to kill the cheese bacteria before they could do weird things to my stout. Well, as far as I and other members of my homebrew club could tell, the whey didn't add much character. Perhaps more whey was needed. I'm not sure. It was an interesting experiment. I hope you have more luck. Mike Lewandowski Mountain Ale and Lager Tasters Asheville, NC Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:40:15 -0400 From: Ken Schramm <schramk at mail.resa.net> Subject: Fortnight of yeast Rob; Thanks to Dr. Cone and to you for providing this service. I'll drop a copy of "The Compleat Meadmaker" in the mail for the good Doctor this weekend. Such efforts make for better beers and meads. I'm in your debt. Ken Schramm Troy, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 22:53:12 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com> Subject: Fortnight Of Yeast Web Site Fortnight Of Yeast Web Site The "Fortnight of Yeast," by Dr. Clayton Cone has been compiled and is online at http://consumer.lallemand.com/danstar-lalvin/fortnightyeast.html or go to www.lallemand.com , click on "Brewing," then "Homebrewing," then "Fortnight Of Yeast." On behalf of Dr. Cone, enjoy! Special thanks to Brent Riese and Trang Dai Nguyen. Cheers! Gump "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/13/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96