HOMEBREW Digest #4529 Tue 27 April 2004

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


                  Beer, Beer, and More Beer
      Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!

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

  Travel from NHC in Las Vegas to Siebel Course in Durango ("Keith Lemcke")
  yeast starter question ("Steve B")
  Re: Barley in beer (Jeff Renner)
  Dinner Parties and Gender (Alexandre Enkerli)
  One Step Question ("Eric R. Theiner")
  Re:  calories in alcohol (Jeff Renner)
  beertools article ("Dave Burley")
  Re: low carb beers in BYO (Chris Colby)
  Re:  calories in alcohol (bob.devine)
  American Hop Museum--Toppenish WA ("Janie Curry")
  Lambic Questions ("Brad Allen")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. 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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:25:55 -0700 From: "Keith Lemcke" <klemcke at siebelinstitute.com> Subject: Travel from NHC in Las Vegas to Siebel Course in Durango Some of the participants in our upcoming Siebel Institute Advanced Homebrewing Course in Durango, Colorado are coming directly from the National Homebrewers Conference in Las Vegas. Durango lies about 600 miles from Las Vegas, making for a spectacular one-day drive through some of the most scenic terrain in America's Southwest. The I-40 highway will take you through the state of Arizona, affording amazing views of deserts and canyons along the way. You then travel through the northwest corner of New Mexico, gradually climbing into the hills and mesas of southwest Colorado to arrive at the campus of Fort Lewis College in Durango. It will make for an unforgettable start to a fun-filled week of education and entertainment. If you would like a copy of the directions and route map for the trip from Las Vegas to Durango, just send an e-mail to me at klemcke at siebelinstitute.com. For info on the Advanced Homebrewing Course, check out the Courses section on our web site at www.siebelinstitute.com. Keith Lemcke Siebel Institute of Technology Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:02:53 -0400 From: "Steve B" <habenero92 at hotmail.com> Subject: yeast starter question Just a silly thought occurred to me last night. When creating a starter for a Hefeweizen or any other wheat-type beer yeast, would it be better to use a wheat/malt DME as opposed to an all malt DME? S Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:08:03 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: Barley in beer Steve Alexander <-s at adelphia.net> wrote: >My experience when malting 6-row feed barley, (including measures >to reduce phenolics) is that it gives a clear and somewhat offensive >phenolic flavors when used in large quantity. I expect the flavor would be >noticeable and yet acceptable at 10-20% of grist. This was not my experience at all. I had good results, which I think I posted hear at the time. In fall, 1995, I malted some 6-row seed barley I bought from Farmer Zastrow (who grew and cleaned it) in central Wisconsin, where my sister lives. It was a fun project tracking down a farmer who saved his own seed barley. My brother-in-law was an elementary principal, and his janitor knew the farmer. I think he wanted $4.00 for a one bushel sack. I insisted on paying him $7. That's how tourists drive up the prices for the locals. I malted 12 lbs in a zapap by soaking it for three days until it chitted, changing the water 3x/day, 60F ambient. Then I rested it (floor malted in my garage) for four days, wetting 5x/day and turning occasionally. It sprouted very un-uniformly, and on average, I probably over-modified it. I dried it in the clothes dryer in two muslin sacks on the permanent press setting for 8 hours. They made an incessant thumping racket, and it made a mess inside the dryer with broken kulms that escaped the sacks. I imagine it could have been a fire hazard. I cleaned it out regularly during the process but wife was still unhappy. (I haven't repeated this). Then I sifted out the dried, shriveled kulms and kilned it in my pizza oven (every home should have one) for one hour at 160F, then finished at 200F for one hour, Dortmunder specs per an article in Zymurgy. It smelled wonderfully malty - better than any store bought. Some months later I brewed 8 gallons of CAP with 9.5 lbs of this malt plus 1 lb. Durst pils and 3 lbs corn (I wished I had got some corn from Farmer Zastrow but this was just flaked corn). I did a 30 minute rest at 132F, thinking that my protein levels could stand it, then boosted it with boiling water to ~144, then 158 with heat and recirculation. Despite using a half pound more than my usual malt bill, I came up short on SG and added 1.4 lbs light dry malt extract, and still ended up at 1.048 rather than my usual 1.051. Unfortunately, this was also the batch I tried first-wort hopping with Cluster hops, and I got a strong black currant flavor from that that was unpleasant. However, my tasting notes say, "Otherwise, very nice - quite malty," and I recall that it was maltier than my usual. I didn't record anything about clarity, body or head retention, so I think this must have been normal for my CAPs, which is to say, good. This was a fun experiment, but all in all, not worth the trouble. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:18:40 -0300 From: Alexandre Enkerli <aenkerli at indiana.edu> Subject: Dinner Parties and Gender Thanks to those who replied to my query about bringing beer at dinner parties. I also received private replies including another endorsement for Garrett Oliver's /The Brewmasters Table/ and a comment from someone who helped convert a friend to homebrewing through bringing homebrew (mostly APAs and Dubbels). Overall, strong beers seem to be preferred, perhaps to compare more closely to wine. One of my favourite beers is Unibroue, brewed close to Montreal (but recently bought by Ontario's Sleeman Brewing and Malting) which might be the perfect dinner party beer: most of their beers are strong Belgian-style ales on lees and they sell in 750ml bottles with champagne-style popping corks. They do seem to make a good wine replacement. At the same time I send my query about dinner parties, I was discussing gender differentiation in beer tastes. Most people seem to agree that men and women have large ranges of tastes but these ranges aren't necessarily coextensive. An interesting thing is that several people seem to agree that a number of women enjoy wits and/or Belgian ales more than more bitter beers. As some of the replies on wine replacements at dinner parties brings up somewhat similar categorizations, there might be a parallel between the major alcohol divide (wine and beer) and the major gender divide. It might not be such a strong parallel, but it's fun to look at. Wasn't there some data on North America women drinking wine more than beer? The perceived sophistication of both wine and Belgian beers might also help explain these phenomena. Ale-X in Moncton, NB, very soon to be back in Montreal, Qc Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:06:22 -0400 From: "Eric R. Theiner" <rickdude02 at earthlink.net> Subject: One Step Question Was there a collective groan when Nathan asked about One Step? Here I come for some more free advertising.<g> Seriously, Nathan, I wouldn't use One Step on your oxygen activated caps. When I do use them (which is rare-- kegging is so much easier), I don't sanitize because I have heard (this is hearsay only) that there are potentially deactivating reactions with just about any sanitizer that you use. Can anyone with real knowledge of that weigh in? Secondly, since I was accused of rhetoric by Dave (and I say that lightly-- I don't think Dave meant to impugn my character, and he DID say that he liked my other product, Straight-A), I simply want to clarify my position: 1) One Step is not registered as a sanitizer for hard surfaces. This is not due to lack of confidence in the product, but because the EPA has caused the registration process to be prohibitively expensive for small businesses. Even a big operation like Five Star cannot afford to register their own sanitizers (they sub-register Star San and the like, which is free if you buy the registrant's raw materials). 2) The active ingredient in One Step IS registered as a sanitizer, although for aqueous environments rather than hard surfaces (two areas of use require to distinct registrations). The manufacturer does not see enough market potential in my area to register for hard surfaces, but there is enough market potential in bio-remediation and water clarification to support the current registration. 3) I don't mean to waffle when I say that one minute will provide a log 5 reduction in existing microbial life. I am a scientist and have a hard time with absolutes. This is why the companies that I work for have marketing people to take the gray stuff that people like me produce and turn it into black and white for the general public. 4) I'm not sure where all the contact time confusion came from, but it really is 1 minute for a log 5 and 5 minutes for a log 7. (That means 1 minute should be enough to sanitize, but 5 minutes can be even better.) In all seriousness, I hope this helps. Rick Theiner LOGIC, Inc. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:37:34 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: calories in alcohol Bob Devine <bob.devine at worldnet.att.net> wrote >Math pop quiz -- If your liver can convert 8 - 10 grams/hour >(roughly 1/3 to 1/2 ounce) and if a bottle of beer contains >that amount, can you drink an entire 24-bottle case of beer in >one day at the rate of a bottle per hour and not get legally drunk? The standard rule of thumb is that you can handle one standard drink per hour, but this doesn't agree with your 8-10 grams of alcohol metabolized per hour. I think the difference is in part that a bottle of standard beer has more like 14 grams of alcohol. There is a problem with English units, of course, with two different units both called "ounce" (fluid ounce, 29.57 ml, and ounce avoirdupois, 28.35 grams), which confuses things. A typical US beer (such as Budweiser) contains 5% abv, which means that a 12 fl. oz. bottle contains 0.6 fl. oz. ethanol. So this is already higher than your estimated amount. A 1.5 fluid ounce jigger of 80 proof (40% abv) spirits or a 5 fluid ounce glass of 12% wine contains the same amount. Since ethanol has a SG of about 0.79, this means that the amount of ethanol in a drink weighs about 14.0 grams. (And of course, when we drink a pint and kid ourselves that it's just one drink, or a bottle of IPA, or a heavy pour of 101 proof bourbon, and again kid ourselves, it's more. Not that I ever do this.) So is the rule of thumb that we hear in health class and other places, that we can metabolize a drink per hour, wrong? Sounds like it from your 8-10 grams per hour. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:50:04 -0400 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: beertools article Brewsters; Kenneth Peters asks for comments on an article http://www.beertools.com/forum/index.php?post=6297#anchr-6297 by "eric" in which he states that (malto)dextrines do not contribute to mouthfeel and that what gives good mouthfeel in unknown. Well, it has been known for some decades that it is the protein fraction which is the major contributor to mouthfeel. I suspect the sweetness from the decomposition of some of the maltodextrins in contact with the saliva has a positive effect also. As far as early wort hopping goes, I believe the major effect is due to the co-precipitation of specific ( and perhaps rough tasting) bittering components in the hops with the denatured protein as the boil starts. No proof. I have been unimpressed with the effect in my experiments. G. Fix had a different opinion. Maybe because I used only noble hops, as is my practice. If this co-precipitation mechanism were the case, this would make hops usage less efficient but might allow the use of rougher ( and cheaper) hops in place of the noble hops. I have no idea where eric gets his knowledge that no German brewer is using FWH, no reference, but that is a major component of his argument. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:30:04 -0500 From: Chris Colby <colbybrewery at austin.rr.com> Subject: Re: low carb beers in BYO In the April 26, 2004 Home Brew Digest, "-S" offers some criticisms of the low-carb beer in Brew Your Own (BYO). As the author of the piece (and editor of the magazine), I thought I'd respond. Although I disagree with much of "-S"'s assessment, I would like to say that I welcome his criticisms and the critiques of other homebrewers for anything that appears in BYO. > The first few paragraphs start off well enough discussing the popular Atkins > diet as the motivation for low carb beer. Then the article then deviates > from the obvious "elephant" issue. . There is no description of the type > of carbs in beer nor the type of carbs of concern to Atkins dieters. This > is a bit like discussing electricity without mentioning current and > voltage. There is little indication that there even are distinguishable > carbs. BYO is a homebrewing magazine, not a dieting magazine, and the article was written with that in mind. There are different kinds of carbohydrates in beer and I did indeed make little effort to differentiate between them. I did this for two reasons. First of all, in the previous issue we ran an article by John Palmer on sugars. In it, he covered the types of carbohydrates in wort and the order in the which they are metabolized by yeast. Secondly, although following the Atkins diet is one reason you might want to brew a low-carb beer, there are others. I will admit that if you expected the article to be a treatise on the Atkins diet, you would likely be disappointed. However, the article was not about the Atkins diet, it's about making low-carb beers. Whether you regard the introduction to the piece as an "elephant" or just a lead into the article is up to you. > This is exemplified in the attempt to measure beer carbohydrate > using a type of diabetic blood sugar meter which only registers glucose > (most strip meters use a glucose oxidase enzyme reaction specific to > glucose). The author may as well have used a pH meter to measure total > carbs. Apparently no thought process exists behind this dismally misguided > effort beyond, "I have hammer, therefore everything is a nail". The reason for the attempt to use a blood glucose meter is explicitly spelled out in the article -- many homebrewers would like to have a simple way to measure carbs in beer. They may think that a blood sugar meter would work. I show that, in fact, this is a poor choice. The rationale was not "I have a hammer, the problem must be a nail." The rationale was "you may have this 'hammer' in your house -- is it the right tool for the job?" > There are several sweepingly erroneous statements, for example that certain > flavors ("Sweet and malty are out") are unavailable in a low-carbohydrate > beer. Malty flavors are primarily due to tiny amounts of Maillard products > which do not add any considerable carbohydrate, and there are plenty of > non-carbohydrate sweeteners in use, including in alcoholic beverages. This > particular assertion is central to designing beers and is also apparently > dead-wrong. The sentence "-S" quotes comes in a section of the article devoted to "normal" beers. A sweet beer -- made the "normal" way is obviously going to a be a beer that has a relatively high carbohydrate concentration. Similarly, the grains that contain more Maillard products typically contain more unfermentable carbohydrates. Later in the article, I discuss adding sweetness and reducing residual carbs, making sweetness possible. (My own, admittedly small scale, experiments indicated to me it was hard to get any maltiness in beer, although I agree it's theoretically possible.) Taken as a blanket assertion, my statement "Sweet and malty are out" is false. Placed in the context of the article, I don't think it is misleading. > [. . .] There is no consideration for the > fact that Beano's intended purpose is to degrade non-Atkins type complex > carbs, which don't matter, into simple ones. A proper look at this issue > would require a serious analysis of the actual sorts of carbs present in > well attenuated beer and which are degraded by the respective enzymes. A serious analysis of the actual sorts of carbs present in beer would indeed be of interest to "hard core" Atkins types. If I had written the article for an Atkins publication, I should be taken out and whipped (with wet noodles?). In actuality, I wrote it for BYO readers -- most of whom I believe would find this analysis very boring. As it is, I tried to write the low-carb article to be as accessible as possible to homebrewers. Yet, the most common complaint I've heard is that it was too technical. > The article suggests that the first mention of Beano in Brewing > appeared in BYO circa May 2001. I myself posted about Beano in HBD#3012, > Apr 1999, and I certainly wasn't the first. The article ignores the brewing > issues involved in adding starch based Beano tablets to the fermenter. I did not know this. I will retract this claim on our Mail page. (If "-S" will email me, I can publish a letter from him, explaining his criticisms.) > After discussing the reduction of residual enzymes the author launches into > a completely counterproductive discussion of adding vast amounts of > artificial sweeteners with carbohydrate bulking agents to the highly > attenuated beers. No support for this action appears tho' the author > boldly states that sweeteners counteract the thin body of well attenuated > beers, also that one can (and by implication should) add an equivalent > amount of sweetener to make up for the lowered gravity due to Beano. My advice was based on some trials I did. I felt that Splenda did a pretty good job of adding back sweetness and mouthfeel. > Did > the author think that the dextrins reduced by Beano were sweet flavored > (they aren't) and therefore deserved replacement with equivalent sweetness ? All but the driest beer have some sweetness to them. Adding Beano reduces both the sweeteness and mouthfeel in a beer. Adding Splenda adds some of this back (although the flavors are not exactly the same and the ratio is -- I think -- a little off). Adding Splenda to beer does not replace the exact equivalent (from a flavor or mouthfeel perspective) of what Beano takes away from a finished beer. But, I think it does a pretty good job at 'doctoring" the flavor to make it more acceptable. Upon rereading the article, I agree that I could have made this much clearer. > Does he not realize that the malto-dextrin Splenda bulking agent is exactly > the sort of carb he just removed from the beer ? There are different kinds of malto-dextrins. Some are digestable by humans (and, I think, certain yeasts such as _S. diastaticus_). Others are indigestible. It's not clear (to me at least) that the carbohydrates Beano works on are exactly the same as the malto-dextrin in Splenda. > He concludes the section > suggesting the addition of 12-16 ounces (by volume?) of Splenda to a typical > beer ! Yes, by volume. The article say 12-16 oz. and gives the metric equivalent as 355-473 mL. > Tho' a much smaller amount of sweetening might be useful, the author > would be well advised to consider non-carbohydrate body & mouth-feel agents > such as proteins or (non-Atkins carbo) glycerol.. Good idea. I hadn't thought of that. > A table of nice HB recipes with apparently fictitious carbohydrate content > listings is included. Where the writer could possibly have gotten these > figures is unexplained. I ran out of space to cover a "quick-and-dirty" way to estimate carbs in beer; the article explicitly states that the figures in the recipes are estimates (not measurements) and that the actual amount of carbs in a homebrewers beer will depend on how it is brewed. > [. . .] Someone's asleep at the wheel on the editorial staff. I'll consume some tasty, tasty carbs in the hopes of waking myself up. Chris Colby Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 18:34:54 +0000 From: bob.devine at att.net Subject: Re: calories in alcohol > I wrote > >Math pop quiz -- If your liver can convert 8 - 10 grams/hour > >(roughly 1/3 to 1/2 ounce) and if a bottle of beer contains > >that amount, can you drink an entire 24-bottle case of beer in > >one day at the rate of a bottle per hour and not get legally drunk? This question was actually inspired from a news story I read in the past month about a practice at an Ivy League (Yale, I think) that encouraged the 24-beers-a-day based on the old rule-of-thumb and the quote from Norm of the "Cheers!" tv show -- "24 beers in a case; 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not." Imagine the typical frat boy declaiming, "And ya won't get drunk!" Science roolz, dude! Jeff Renner does the calculations and finds a mismatch. > So is the rule of thumb that we hear in health class and other > places, that we can metabolize a drink per hour, wrong? Sounds like > it from your 8-10 grams per hour. I agree, it is wrong. Or it is correct only as a loose rule over a short time period. Extrapolating to just 24 hours shows the problem. A good survey of alcohol metabolism and portion sizes is: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1997/oct29/alcohol101.html According to that link, metabolism is 6-8 g/hr for a 154 lb man (both values might be too low for a HBD reader ;-) and a typical lager has 18 grams of alcohol. So using their numbers, for every beer you need almost 3 hours to totally metabolize the alcohol. Bob "weeding out the slow neurons since the 1970s" Devine Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:26:18 +0000 From: "Janie Curry" <houndandcalico at hotmail.com> Subject: American Hop Museum--Toppenish WA While out cycle touring through the Yakimah Valley wine country last week, I stumbled across the American Hop Museum. It's a small museum established by a hop grower cooperative in the Yakimah valley. Overall, well worth the visit if you are in the area visiting tasting rooms. They offer a guided tour, and have a nice collection of antique implements. Admission is $2. The address is 22 South B Str., Toppenish WA, phone 509-865-4677. The museum curator wasn't too excited about their web page, but they plan to put some work into it. Here's the link. www.americanhopmuseum.com. If you want a good lunch head for the Pioneer Kitchen, 227 S. Toppenish Ave (closed on Sunday). Typical small country restaurant food. I had one of the chicken fried steak sandwiches...most excellent. Up the street from the hop museum you can find Pioneer Foods, a producer of flavored coffee syrups and specialty soft drinks. This company is owned by a sweet old couple and they really enjoy giving tours and tastings. Their prices on flavored coffee syrups are very reasonable! Struck up a conversation with a hop grower and the chief founder of the museum. Dismal news for the American hop growers overall. Weak dollar in Europe and the production of hop varieties with 14-16% Alpha Acids have forced growers to cut back hop production by 50%. Higher AA levels and better extraction methods have lead to increased production of hop extract. Most of the country's hops are grown in the Yakimah valley so you can imagine the ecconomic impact. The grower mentioned that hop picking equipment that normally sells for $1M now goes for $35K. He mentioned that one grower is trying to cater to microbreweries by growing different and unique hops, as most producers are growing for the mega-swill producers and remain very secretive about the development of new varieties. Overall, I couldn't get over the hospitality and friendliness of the locals. The local wine producers that owned and operated the wineries we visited (not the big ones with the "wine chick" out front pouring tastings) were very gracious and talked for an hour or so. Matter of fact, we had to cut our bike rides in half because we spent so much time talking. Todd in Idaho KE4ALG Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:50:47 -0700 From: "Brad Allen" <ballen at globexplorer.com> Subject: Lambic Questions I am working on putting together a Lambic/Gueuze recipe. Not sure if anyone here has much experience, but I have a few questions. 1. Has a Lambic blend is this all I need? Do I need this and a standard ale yeast? Or do I need this and other bacterial/wild yeast cultures (i.e. bruxellensis, lambicus, pediococcus) 2. All of the recipes I find on the web have the bacterial/wild yeast cultures pitched after primary fermentation. Why is this? To me spontaneous fermentation happens (in Belgium) when all of these bacteria fall in to the wort at the same time. Thanks for any help Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/08/04, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96