FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  Apple Cider - The Saga Continues (Richard Childers)
  St. Louis Brews (JPJ)
  Brewing Safety ("Bob Jones")
  Twist-off longnecks. (Chris McDermott)
  Yeast . . . who is right ?? (Kevin Krueger)
  Yeast . . . who is right ?? (Kevin Krueger)
  sprecher black bavarian (Tony Babinec)
  Grafting Hops onto Marijuana roots?==>SuperHops? (30PCALVIN)
  Re: making spice extracts (Arthur Delano)
  Starting liquid yeast  (parsons1)
  Iodophor & glass (korz)
  Rogue AI programs (korz)
  belgian cara-pils/belgian malts/revival porter (Tony Babinec)
  Spray malts ? (David P. Peden)
  The Real Weizens Reveale (jim busch)
  Keg Pressure, Crushing (Jack Schmidling)
  sulfur smell/Wyeast shyness (korz)
  Carbonating Mead & No-sparge mashes from Micah Millspaw ("Bob Jones")
  Re: MashThickness/Oxidation/MetallicFlavor (korz)
  rousing the yeast (TPH)
  Cantillon Lambics in DC (Mike Sharp)
  Re: WeirdStarter/BlowoffTubeCleaning/Baderbrau (korz)


Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
    (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
    listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
    message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 00:23:42 PST
From: Richard Childers <rchilder at us.oracle.com>
Subject: Apple Cider - The Saga Continues


I've gotten enough response that I'm guessing others are interested in the
cider experiments I've been doing recently, so I thought I'd summarize my
recent tests.

I've been waiting for the most recent batch, bottled in 22 oz. bottles, to
become drinkable. Generally, I test for 'drinkability' by examining the cap
curvature - if it is depressed, or concave, it has room for further natural
carbonation. If convex, IE, puckered upwards, it's definitely ready. ( I like
my homebrews with a head. ) This also helps identify bottles ready to blow ..

I have another batch, made strictly from those yeasts on the apples when they
were pressed, acquired from a batch of unpasteurized apple cider purchased
in Northern California. As has been noted previously, this natural yeast pop-
 -ulation is not composed of one strain, more, many strains, possibly even a
complex ecosystem unto itself in the wild. I'm brewing cider to see what the
difference in taste between natural and Champagne ciders might be, and I'll
see if it's possible to maintain this culture across multiple generations - or,
using that starter culture, to evolve towards another culture derived from the
first one that is stable and produces quality cider, if the culture as it is,
is not a stable ecosystem within the microclimate that is the cider jug.

It occurs to me that a microecosystem composed of many interacting parts might
be more resistant to mutation, as each niche occupant would be dependent upon
its divergent - but still coresident in the ecosystem - niche occupants, which
would collectively reject it from the ecosystematic interchange - IE, refuse to
participate with its nurture, and thus, cause it to _not_ flourish, where those
which did not diverge from the norm, as enforced by N divergent but related
microorganisms, _would_ flourish ... a sort of additional natural selection.

That is, where a single culture might be subject to mutation, there might be
in the set of all possible combinations of yeasts, certain yeasts which, when
combined in the correct proportions, formed stable ecosystems naturally resis-
 -tant to mutations, using the above mechanism. A home brewer's dream, and per-
 -haps an explanation for why, long, long, ago, brewers seemed to have selected
for such combinations ( a mysterious business, no one seems to know how these
came about as far as I know, they're kind of hand-me-downs from whomever start-
 -ed thew brewery or acquired from other breweries ) - or Nature helped.

Speaking of nature, maybe I should publish in _Nature_.		(-:

Back to cider ... the latest batch was made with champagne yeast, and although
it's not yet fully carbonated, it _was_ effervescent, with many very small
bubbles throughout and a deliciously sweet, fruity taste, the bubbles likely
a consequence of the champagne yeast.

I've been recycling the champagne yeast and the batches seem to be evolving
towards an improved quality ... or maybe I just waited longer this time.  (-;


- -- richard

=====
- -- richard childers		rchilder at us.oracle.com		1 415 506 2411
         oracle data center  --  unix systems & network administration

                    Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.

Return to table of contents


Date: 03 Dec 92 11:40:48 EST
From: JPJ at b30.Prime.COM
Subject: St. Louis Brews




Help!!!

   I'm going to be moving to the Greater St. Louis area in about 5 days.  Can
anyone suggest worthwhile brewpubs, micros, and hb stores in the area?  What
are the good local brands?  I don't want to waste any time!!!  Thanks

+------------+
| Jim Jedrey +------+
| JPJ at B30.PRIME.COM |
+-------------------+


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 07:43:17 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Brewing Safety

As Wayde Nie pointed out in the last HBD brewing safety IS important. I 
like beer, but I wouldn't give my life for it. I would not use ANY 
electricity around a brewery setup of any type without all electric devices 
being connected through a GFI. Water + electricity = DEATH! I have had 
several thing in my brewery cause the GFI to trip, possible saving my life. 
I don't think safety is mentioned often enough to brewers, I ask Terri 
Farendorf to give a talk on safety at an AHA conference several years ago.
She did mention safety in her talk, however, she seemed hesitant to preach 
about it. She was severly burned with hot water at a brewery. There are 
lots of thing to get you while brewing, hot water, breaking glass, 
electricity, heavy objects on your toes, grain mills milling your fingers, 
high pressure CO2 tanks, gas explosions from propane or natural gas, etc.

Think about safety before relaxing,

Bob Jones, stepping down from soapbox

Return to table of contents


Date: 03 Dec 1992 11:13:58 -0500
From: Chris McDermott <mcdermott at draper.com>
Subject: Twist-off longnecks.

 Twist-off longnecks.
>Date: Wed, 2 Dec 92 16:08:49 GMT
>From: baker at dfwdsr.SINet.SLB.COM (James Baker - Dallas Seismic)
>Subject: bottles
>
>
>       A minor thing:  I usually get my bottles the old-fashined way, I earn
>       them.   I went to the beer store to buy some long-necks and noticed
>       something.  All of the longnecks from the big guys had SCREW-ON caps.
>       Is this just in our area, or has someone else noticed it?
>       (Please, no preaching.)

I think that you'll find that the biggies make two types of longnecks.  The
first type, the kind you saw, are for sale to the general public.  The second
type are sold to drinking establishments and are often called (at least in this
part of the country) 'bar bottles'.

The first type have twist-off caps, and are intended for disposal or recycling.


The second type use the traditional gotta-use-a-bottle-opener crown cap, and
are intened for reuse.  They tend to be much sturdier than the first type,
because they are to be reused (refilled), as opposed to recycled, where bottles
are melted down to make new bottles.

Anyway, the upshot is that you want the second type and not the first.  You
might find them at a liquor, but more likely you won't.  You will be able to
find them at a bar or resturaunt.  The trick is to get someone to give or sell
you the bottles.

By the way, these bottles usually come in heavy duty, waxed cardboard cases
that are quite good for the storage of homebrew.

 -
Christopher K. McDermott                  Internet:  mcdermott at draper.com
C.S. Draper Laboratory, Inc.              Voice:     (617) 258-2362
555 Technology Square                     FAX:       (617) 258-1131
Cambridge, MA 02149 (USA)




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 10:30:57 CST
From: krueger at comm.mot.com (Kevin Krueger)
Subject: Yeast . . . who is right ??

As I stated in my previous post on HBD, I am relaying the info. for
restarting yeast that was given to me by a homebrew store.  I am
doing this because I am confused about when to pitch yeast in the beer.
I have heard two different stories and I believe there is a correct
answer since yeast culturization is supposed to be a science.  Here
goes it . . .

"To rehydrate, use water only, not wort, approximately 1/4 cup water
to 1/4 oz. yeast.  The optimum temperature range is 104 to 115
degrees F.  Temperatures below 84 can create "cold shock", and too
hot a temperature can kill the yeast cultures.
1) Add the yeast to water, not water to yeast.
2) Allow the yeast to sit in water for 5 to 10 minutes before
stirring, never longer than 30 minutes.
3) If the wort temp. is 16 or more degrees greater than starter
temp., gradually add quantities of wort to yeast, waiting 5 to
10 minutes between additions.
4) Add starter to same temperature wort to avoid phenolic aroma
and plastic taste."

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but Papazian's book says that the wort
should be 78 d. F or below in order not to kill the yeasties.  I have
always done it that way, but my homebrew store guy says that it is
not correct yeast technique.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this ??  Any references would be 
great so as I can have a clear mind on yeast.

Kevin

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 10:30:57 CST
From: krueger at comm.mot.com (Kevin Krueger)
Subject: Yeast . . . who is right ??


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 9:28:51 CST
From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: sprecher black bavarian

Russ Wigglesworth mentions Sprecher Black Bavarian in a previous HBD.
A number of us in Chicago are big fans of that beer--it's arguably
Randy Sprecher's best beer.  I think of it as being roughly in the
Kulmbach style.  In broad terms, this beer is "bigger" than a Munich
Dunkel, and gets some of its color and flavor from highly roasted grains.
Randy has described the grain bill on brewery tours, but I don't recall it
now.  Russ's characterization of BB as a lager counterpart to a porter is
probably a good one.  Between Sprecher Black Bavarian and Lakefront's
East Side Dark, Milwaukee has two delicious dark beers with way more
character than American Dark or the popular imports (e.g., Beck's Dark).
The only difficulty is getting your hands on these beers, as they are
only available in the Milwaukee area.  

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1992 11:44 EDT
From: 30PCALVIN%UNCSPHVX.BITNET at VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject: Grafting Hops onto Marijuana roots?==>SuperHops?

So,
A long time ago at a party some guy told me that since hops and
pot are the same type of plant you could graft them together and
the resulting hop flowers would contain the THC that the MJ would
have had.  Seemed suspect to me.  If it were true, and _I_ knew
about it, it seemed that someone with lots of land up in Washington
state would be growing the stuff (legally, I guess) and we'd see
this stuff on the market, (and then splashed across the headlines
of Time, Newsweek, and the like as the next "designer drug" that's
infiltrating our schools).

Anybody ever hear of this being tried?  Did it work?

Curious minds are cranking away,
Phil

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 12:16:35 EST
From: Arthur Delano <ajd at oit.itd.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: making spice extracts


XLPSJGN%LUCCPUA.bitnet at UICVM.UIC.EDU writes about trying a gloegg 
essence from scratch:
]I opted to get a bag of these spices - cinnamon, cardamom seed, rasins
]dried orange peel, and some others I can't remember now - and a bottle
]of Ever Clear grain alcohol to soak them in with the hopes of making
]my own "extract" or "Glo:gg essence".  Here's the question, though:
]How exactly do I go about making such an extract?

first, the beer will do a fine job of extracting flavors and odors from
the spices on its own: i've simply added them at the end of the boil
and let a few bits float in the primary.

Second, (if the beer's already brewed), try making a tea with the herbs:
boil them in water for 5 or 10 minutes, and add the tea to the beer.

Third, (if you're dedicated to making an alcoholic extract), there are
several ways to go.  The easiest is to simply put the spices and alcohol
in a jar and leave it be for several weeks or several months.  Swirl
the jar every so often.  A somewhat faster method is to use a double-
boiler to heat the alcohol and its contents.  Do not let the water in
the heater pot boil!  The ingredients will still have to cool and steep
for a while.  Note that the final alcoholic content of this stuff will 
be far greater than the 65% of the commercial gloegg mix: you will have
to thin it down with water (and possibly sugar if the commercial gloegg
mix is sweet).

I would be wary of adding alcohol to beer, because the final mixture
combined at bottling time might kill the yeast and produce a batch of
flat beer.  Since there are other methods of adding spices to beer
which are known to be successful and require less work, making an
alcoholic extract seems extravagant.

AjD

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 10:42:19 -0500
From: parsons1 at husc.harvard.edu
Subject: Starting liquid yeast 


In #1025, Kevin asked why his starter cultures were wimping out.  
First of all, you should add 2 tablespoons, not 2 teaspoons of dme to 1c. 
of water.  You probably aren't giving the little beasties enough to eat
with just 2 tsp.
The paper you got from Red Star recommends restarting yeast with water.
This would be useful advice if you were using dried yeast (which needs to 
be rehydrated before primed).  There is no point in adding plain water
to a liquid culture.

Jed 				parsons1 at husc.harvard.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 11:27 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Iodophor & glass

Iodophor contains some iodine compound and phosphoric acid right?
I faintly recall in Noonan's book, that phosphoric acid should not
be used in contact with glass.  Can someone verify this?  I don't
have my books here and Jed's post today triggered something in my
head.  Perhaps we have something to worry about?
Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 11:58 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Rogue AI programs

Don't trust every rogue AI program that comes along.  They are not
organic like us and don't have to worry about their health.  The
fact is, that THC, the active ingredient in cannabis, enters your
body and never leaves.  I have a problem with anything that does this.
Scientists have reported that the THC builds up in your body (I've
heard in your brain and in your genetals, but this could be propaganda)
and can cause problems down the road.  My advice is to stick to hops.

Now, all I need to do is figure out what I'm going to do with all
these dead brain cells if I ever make it to BJCP Master judge...

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 12:27:05 CST
From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: belgian cara-pils/belgian malts/revival porter

The Belgian Cara-Pils ARF mentions in a previous HBD is best
thought of as a light crystal malt.  It has a color rating of 8L.
It should not be confused with U.S. Cara-Pils, which has very
little color, is very hard and "glassy," and is generally used to
add dextrins, and therefore body, to the beer.

It seems that the way to get caramel/crystal malt flavor is to add
larger proportions of a lighter crystal malt to your grain bill. 
The Belgian Cara-Pils, at 8L, and Belgian Cara-Vienne, at 20L, are
two good lighter crystal malts for this.  Being crystal malts,
these malts can be steeped.  

To get malt flavor, use Belgian Munich (8L) or Belgian Aromatic
(25L), or equivalent German light or dark Munich malts, in some
proportion.  Note that these malts must be mashed.

The Belgian Biscuit malt can be used in recipes that call for
"amber" malt.  It has a color rating of about 22L, and has a
"biscuity" flavor.

To make "brown malt," take pale ale malt and toast it in your oven
for 50 (that's right!) minutes at 400 degrees F.  This is a
suggestion from Randy Mosher.

Some old recipes for porter called for 9 parts pale malt, 5 parts
amber malt, 5 parts brown malt, and 1 part black malt.  So, in that
spirit, we offer the following recipe:

Revival Porter

5 pounds pale ale malt
2.5 pounds amber malt (Belgian Biscuit)
2.5 pounds brown malt (homemade, see above)
0.5 pound dark (80L or dark) crystal malt
0.5 pound black patent malt

10-15 HBUs Fuggles for bittering, plus whatever flavor and aroma
additions you want

ale yeast

Your mileage may vary with the above grain bill.  Also, given that
this is a revival porter, you might adjust the grain bill so that
your starting gravity is higher, say 1.070, rather than adhere to
current AHA porter style guidelines.  You'll be brewing a stout
porter.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 10:27:32 PST
From: davidp at woodstock.ds.boeing.com (David P. Peden)
Subject: Spray malts ?

The last two batches I have attempted to make a bitter simular to 
Red Hook. I have purchased bulk (55 pounds) of Laaglander Extra Light
spray malt, my problem is that both batches OG were 1.050-1.055 and 
finished at 1.028. I used both a Wyeast (Irish) for first batch, and
Muton and Fison dry (2 packages) for the second batch. My question is
are there a large amount of unfermentables in spray malts in general, 
or is this a problem with the Extra light variety ? I have not had a 
problem with cans of malt extract finishing so high.
David Peden

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 13:32:26 EST
From: jim busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: The Real Weizens Reveale

Today, my eagerly awaited copy of Eric Warner's book on Weizens
arrived from Brewers Publications.  As some of you may know, I
share Eric's enthusiasm for german weiss beers.  While I have 
brewed quite a few all grain weizens, including employing 
decoction mashing, a quick reading of the book has shed lots
of new insight on the process of replicating an authentic 
weiss beer.  I wholeheartedly recommend this book to any brewer
who wants to learn more about this wonderful and challenging 
style of beer.  

Some of the more interesting points that I caught during my 
skimming of the book:

Weizen yeast is indeed a single cell clone of S. Cerevisiae,
and NOT delbruckii.  Lactobacillus delbruckii is indeed used
in the production of Berliner Weiss, but in Bavaria the weiss
beers are made with S. Cerevisiae, and not S. delbruckii.  This
has been a misnomer in the homebrewing community for some time,
and it is nice to find an authoratative source to dispel this.

It is very important to begin the mash cycle at around 100F.
This is due to the desire to produce a significant amount of
4-vinyl guaiacol during fermentation.  The precursor to this
is ferulic acid, which is decarboxylized into 4-vinyl guaiacol
by the yeast.  In order for this to occur, the ferulic acid
must be present in its free form.  In order for this to happen,
the ester bonds that bind ferulic acid to pentosanes in grains
must be broken.  This occurs optimally at 111 F and 5.7 pH.
Since I had been ommitting the dough in at 95F, I was not
optimizing the reduction of these bonds.  I had been doughing
in at 128F for a protein rest at 122.  It would seem that 
it is beneficial to dough in at 99F, raise to 117, then 122
and finally 127 during the protein rest stages.  Single or
double decoctions would then be advised.  If a single decoction
is employed, the boil(malt) stage should be 30 to 40 minutes!    

Another benefit of doughing in at 99F, is to maximize protease
enzyme activity.  This will aid in protein breakdown and lead
to an easier lauter.

Another interesting note is that use of an open fermenter will
aid in the production of esters, phenols and higher alcohols.
And as has been mentioned here in the past, elevated temperatures
increase this effect.

Much has been said about the quality of some of the books from
Brewers Publications.  While I hesitate to endorse the entire
line of classic beer styles, they are certainly well worth the 
small cost when a product like Eric's or George & Laurie's is
published. Well done! Prost!

Jim Busch





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 11:00 CST
From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Keg Pressure, Crushing

 
 To: Homebrew Digest
 Fm: Jack Schmidling
 
 >From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
 
 >   One more anecdotal point about the filling straight from the tap
    method.. He had used  forced carbonation, and had gone a little overboard, 
 as he kept the    beer under 40 psi at 40F.  The beer was so highly 
 carbonated, it    foamed violently as soon as it hit the end of the tap, 
 making it   impossible to fill a bottle. After about 30 minutes of trying, 
 all we had achieved was an incredible mess, one-half gallon of homebrew
    sitting in a catch basin, another half-gallon sprayed about his cellar
    floor, six bottles half-filled with foam, and two very chagrined
    homebrewers.
 
 Believe it or not, the solution would have been to increase the keg pressure. 
  It is hard to overcome the resistance to increasing the pressure when you 
 get too much foam but that's the way it works.  No matter how much co2 
 pressure it was carbonated with, there is always a higher pressure at which 
 the beer will flow without foaming.  The problem is, it may flow so fast that 
 it blasts the bottom of the bottle and foams there.  I know the feeling you 
 describe because I have been there and that is what drove me to trying 
 counter pressure filling again.
 
 >Subject: Mashing & sparging from Micah Millspaw
 
 >2) the crush was actually too coarse (I WANT a roller-mill!!!! Santa???)
 
 <This is problably less than ideal but is not as likely a culprit as would
 be a too fine crush.
 
 Far be it from me to argue with a certified expert but this is contrary to 
 the physics of the process.  The efficiency of the mash conversion is 
 inversely proportional to the particle size of the starch granules, i.e, the 
 finer the crush, the higher the extract efficiency.  Large particles do not 
 get properly wetted and can go through the entire process and remain dry 
 starch.
 
 Just for the hell of it, I brewed a 500 ml test batch with uncrushed malt and 
 got a gravity of 1.002.  The efficiency was not worth calculating.
 
 The problem with too fine a crush is not efficinecy, it is potentially cloudy 
 beer and stuch sparges.  It is also highly over-rated as a problem and this 
 opinion comes from one who sells roller mills.
 
 I have previously commented on the fact that the perceived evils of too much 
 flour are all out of proportion to reality.  Flour actually promotes extract 
 efficiency as long as there is enough husk to keep it out of the runoff.  
 This not only depends on the mill but also on the mashing process and 
 lautering system.
 
 js
 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 13:01 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: sulfur smell/Wyeast shyness

chuckm writes:
>   I am currently fermenting a 5 gallon batch made from Laaglander DME
>using Wyeast 2206 bavarian lager. Now, on the third day of primary I have
>a strong sulfur-like smell coming from the brew.
>
>   2. Is my batch ruined or is this just a phase it is going thru

It's just a phase.  Wyeast Munich has a similar phase in which it smells like
home perm solution.  Let it ferment out, bottle it and then lager it at 40F
for 4 months and everything will be forgiven.  In the case of my home perm
solution bock, four months of lagering got it in the best-of-show at one
competition and a 2nd place in the Bock category in two other competitions.

**************
Kevin writes:

>I am trying Wyeast for the second time and am a little concerned as
>my first attempt failed.  So I guess I am a little gun shy or over-
>worried about some stinking yeasties.

Well, concern about the health of your yeast is good -- especially liquid
yeast because it is a bit more fragile than dry yeast.

>I have the "break the seal, wait until package is 1" thick" routine
>down quite well.  I am confident I did that right.  I mixed the yeast
>with an 85 degree solution of 1 cup water and two teaspoons of m.e.
>and airlocked it in a sterile bottle.  I saw activity in one day.  The
>activity stopped at the end of the same day.  Did it run out of food ??

I think that 85F is a bit high, but it seems okay if the yeast actually
still made CO2 for a day.  Two teaspoons is not very much DME -- I use
1 ounce (weight) per 8 ounces (liquid) of water.  I hope you did not
simply heat water to 85 and then add the DME.  You should boil it for
a couple of minutes to sanitize the water and the DME.  I think it did
run out of food.  1 ounce (weight) of DME lasts my yeast about 2 days.
>
>I prepared the wort the next day.  Threw the yeast mixture (70 degrees F)
>into the wort (78 degrees F) and there has been no activity for 12+

Again, you need to be careful with temperature differences -- they will
shock the yeast into dormancy or worse!  It's not so critical going from
a room temp starter into a slightly warmer wort.  I'd say you were within
a resonable temperature, but a few degrees more or if the wort was 8F
LOWER than the starter, you could have been in trouble.  A 12 hour lag
time with liquid yeast is not bad.  I've had 36 hour, even 48 hour lag
times with Wyeast and the beer came out delicious!  Note that aeration
is much more critical with liquid than dry since the dry yeast is well
oxigenated before drying.

>hours.  I guess I am curious what stage my yeast ended up at in the 
>bottle and what happens to it when I pitch it.  I have heard that I
>should pitch at krausen so my yeasties are active when introduced to
>the wort.  On the other, there are other theories about pitching the
>stuff, so I guess there may be no right answer.  However, I have a 
>little sheet from my local homebrew shop about starting yeasts and
>I'd like to post here for any comments.  It is supposedly reprinted
>from some big yeast co. like Red Star.  The interesting info. on the
>sheet is the fact that they recommend restarting the yeast with water
>only.  I'll post tomorrow for any comments.

The little sheet is for dry yeast -- the rehydration is completely
different from the starter used for liquid yeasts.  You could use
a starter with dry yeast, but you would still have to rehydrate first.

>It seems to me, at this stage anyway, that the dry yeast is almost worry
>free since you know right away if it started.  I guess I'm paranoid 
>because I paid three bucks for this stuff and it didn't work last time.
>S'pose I shouldn't worry since ... since . . . I AM A HOMEBREWER !!

A few years ago, in the Yeast special issue of Zymurgy, there was a
comparison of liquid and dry yeasts.  The dry yeasts all came up with
bacterial infections.  These days, we have quite a few more dry yeasts
to choose from, Coopers, Lallemand Nottingham (which was used by Dick
Van Dyke to make this year's 1st place stout in the Nationals) and Lallemand
Windsor, to name three that appear to be very good.  I don't know if
these yeast's bacterial counts are down to acceptable levels, but in the
short term, they make great beer.  Many brewer's swear by Whitbread dry.

What I'm trying to say is that some dry yeasts make bad beer and some
make good beer.  Less than a year ago, I posted that I would never use
a dry yeast again, but have since reconsidered after tasting some beer
made with Coopers yeast.  I've also made some with Nottingham and
Windsor, but have yet to taste it.  I still use Wyeast for most of my
brews and I simply could not get the woody character of my Pale Ale
without Wyeast #1028 London Ale, but I look at it as having three more
yeasts (Coopers, Nottingham and Windsor) to choose from in addition to
the yeasts from Wyeast.

P.S. I don't use Whitbread not because I think it's a bad yeast (it's not)
rather because I'm not that fond of the very "bready" flavor of Whitbread
beer.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 11:21:31 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Carbonating Mead & No-sparge mashes from Micah Millspaw


Subject: Carbonating Mead from Micah Millspaw

>1) Should I carbonate the mead and if so how?

Sure, sparkling mead is a very nice option. I have been making mead for
some time and have found that the only consistent way to carbonate the
mead is by artificial means. Trying to bottle condition mead can be dicey.
I like to filter the yeast out of the mead and then force carbonate in
a soda keg. I later counter-pressure bottle the mead to avoid exposure
to oxygen, as meads are quite sensitive to oxydation. 

micah
======================================================================
> Fm: Jack Schmidling
 
> After reading an interesting article on barleywine by Micah in the current 
> issue of the Celebrator, I bagan to wonder about the reasons for thick 
> mashes.  He recommends using a megadose of malt in a mash of about normal 
> consistancy, to produce a high gravity wort without sparging.  George Fix has 
> also written about the advantages of minimal sparging.
> So I ask, why do we sparge at all?  Why not just mash 10 lbs of malt in 10 
> gallons of water, drain it off and start boiling?

> Can anyone support this legend with actual experience?
 
Well Jack, I'll take a shot at it.
 IMHO there are many advantages to the first running type of mash
some of these being thats its easy and less equipment oriented than the sparge
type. Also there are some very definite effects as far as beer stability is
concerned, there is less opurtunity for hot oxygen reactions, there is
the ability for greater and more stable melanoidins to be formed, as well
as the collection of greater concentrations of lipids to be collected (lipids
can greatly effect head retention).
 The down side is that it is not very efficient for brewing a single
batch of beer,(since it takes a *#$% pot of grain) unless it is a high 
gravity one and then you are trading off grain cost with the convienence of 
a shorter boil (with out the volume reduction problem).
 It is possible to make this more viable by making more than one
batch of beer from the same by remashing the same grain. I think that this
work quite well it just takes more fermenters and two boils and a long
day.
 From what i've read, sparging is relatively new to brewing, only
the last 200-250 years. Prior to this time beers were made separately
from the first, second and third runnings of a mash. According to T. Foster
porter was the first type of beer to be produced by a sparged mash.
By sparging less grain could be used to make more beer of an intermediate
gravity. The advent of the sparge to brewing made it less time consuming 
and less labor intensive. This made it possible to produce more beer in what 
appears to be a more efficient manner, and it was the eve of the industrial
revolution in Europe.

So this might be it, Jack, the origin of industrial beer and its host of sins.
I say blame it on budmilco.

micah
12/2/92

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 12:04 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: MashThickness/Oxidation/MetallicFlavor

Paul writes:
>2) What will remove the chlorine from my water?

What about an activated charcoal filter?

Jack writes:
> After reading an interesting article on barleywine by Micah in the current 
> issue of the Celebrator, I bagan to wonder about the reasons for thick 
> mashes.  He recommends using a megadose of malt in a mash of about normal 
> consistancy, to produce a high gravity wort without sparging.  George Fix has 
> also written about the advantages of minimal sparging.
> 
> So I ask, why do we sparge at all?  Why not just mash 10 lbs of malt in 10 
> gallons of water, drain it off and start boiling?

The simple answer is, to extract more sugars.  We could, theoretically,
compensate for the lost sugars with more malt, but it would be a waste.

Some history is needed regarding Barleywines and English brewing in general.
First, some nomenclature: the wort that comes out of the mash, without
sparging is called the first runnings.  (Although I don't recall it used
elsewhere, J.X.Guinard's "Lambic" refers to second and third runnings
(I believe) which would be the sparge -- and one style of Lambic ferments
the first, second and third runnings separately and then combines them.
But I digress).  In England, they used to (and some may still do, as well
as some breweries in the US) make up a BIG mash and then use the first
runnings for a Barleywine and then sparge the grains to make a wort for
a Mild.  We could do that too if we have the capacity and time.

> The search through my references was not very satisfying on the subject.  It 
> seems that the most repeated reason is that the enzyme efficiency is reduced. 
> But like so many other "problems" that claim this as the evil, the solution 
> is to simply mash a little longer or use more malt.

I don't have my books here at work, but I believe that Miller says a thick
mash favors one of the amylase enzymes (alpha or beta, I don't recall) and
a thin mash favors the other.  I think this might be the data you're missing
for the complete picture on this.
> 
> Noonan goes one step further and says a "thick mash improves enzyme 
> performance.  In a thin mash, proteolytic and other heat-labile enzymes are 
> destroyed in the course of the rest: in a thick mash, they may survive into 
> the saccharification range."

Note that Noonan is implicitly talking about a *decoction* mash.  Naturally,
since he's the homebrewing's biggest proponent of decoction mashing -- note
that at the time he wrote the book, pilsener malt was much less modified
and a lot of what he writes needs to be read with that in mind.
> 
> This makes no sense at all.  It reads more like a description of the survival 
> rate of wildebeasts as a result of herding than of chemestry.

Consider it in the context of a decoction and it tends to make a bit more
sense -- but I agree with you, it's a bit confusing.  I have a number of
gripes with Noonan -- many things he has written in his book "Brewing Lager
Beer" are COMPLETELY wrong and this one borders on wrong -- I would need to
re-read the whole chapter to know what be tried to say and see if he's just
overcomplicating it or he goofed again.  Don't get me wrong, Noonan's book
is still very valuable, I feel that ideally, you need to read Charlie's,
Miller's, Noonan's and George Fix's books (in that order) to really get a
complete picture.  There's a lot of minor discrepencies between these authors'
books and after reading all of them and brewing a few years, only then
does the truth rise to the top.
> 
> Sparging is a "simple" and efficient way of extracting the sugar from the 
> grain but all other things being equal, it would be more conveninent to use a 
> thin mash and just a small final sparge to rinse out anything left behind.
> It would also greatly simplify that first plunge into all grain beer.

Sure -- the added benefit of a thin mash is that it has more thermal
inertia and if you stir well, you have less chance of overshooting
temperatures.

***********************
Bruce writes:
>Subject: What exactly is oxidation?
>
>I would like some information on what exactly is oxidation of wort and
>what are the effects (both ill and otherwise) on the flavors of the
>beer, how does it occur, how to avoid/prevent it, etc.

Oxidation of cooled, finished beer (i.e. at racking to the secondary or
during bottling) will give your beer a wet-cardboard aroma or a sherry-like
aroma.  In most beers it is unwelcome (Chimay Grand Reserve being one
exception).  Hot-side aeration (aeration of hot wort) causes a darkening
of the beer (the oxidation of melanoidins) and a different flavor change
(one that was discussed recently, most notably by George, but I'm afraid
I didn't quite understand the flavor description and was going to ask him
about it in person next time we could have a beer together -- I'll bring
the Bateman's).

Avoiding oxidation is simple in concept -- don't aerate the beer while it
is hot (above 80F) or after it begins to ferment.  In principle, this
means siphoning gently, avoiding splashing and purging with CO2 prior to
transfer if this is available (don't go out of your way -- this is extreme).
>
>Also, now that I've got your attention here, I noticed a slight
>metallic aftertaste on my last batch (a wheat).  It was only barely
>detectable, but definately there.  What are some of the possible
>culprits that might have given the beer this characteristic?

Several things can give you metallic flavors.  The most common are contact
with iron, mild steel (not Stainless) or aluminum, metals in your water
supply (try filtering or buy bottled), and "hydrolysis of the cereal lipids
followed by oxidation of unsaturated free fatty acids," according to Rao
Palamand in the Troubleshooting Special Issue of Zymurgy (Vol 10, No 4 --
BUY IT!  IT'S VERY INFORMATIVE!).  The solution to this last source is
to use fresh grains or grains that have been stored well (not oxidized).

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date:    Thu, 3 Dec 92 14:51 EST
From: TPH at PSUVM.PSU.EDU
Subject: rousing the yeast

Help!  I mixed up Papazian's Holiday Cheer, orange peels, ginger, cinnamon,
etc...pitched dry Red Star yeast  and the next morning had great action
with good blowoff.  Then it quit.  For three days the specfic gravity
has not dropped at all.  Is there any way to save it?  I assume that
there is no fermentation taking place.  How does one rouse yeast?
The temperature was high 60's to low 70's.

Another question:  Does it matter whether you use 7 lbs of DME or 7 lbs
of liquid extract?  It seems to me that the liquid would be more dilute
so they should not be equivalent.

Thanks for any help.
                    Tom Hettmansperger

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 14:35:53 EST
From: Mike Sharp <msharp at cs.ulowell.edu>
Subject: Cantillon Lambics in DC

Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com> writes:
> It appears that beers from the Brasserie Cantillon are now available
> in the Washington, D.C. area.
>...
> so I don't know who the importer
> is.  My specialty beer sources in Virginia haven't heard of the stuff.

This is being imported by World Wide Imports (aka Maurice Coja of
the Brickskellar)  I believe World Wide lists its address as
somehwere in VA, but I don't know for sure.  Odds are good these
are in short supply.  Usually (from what I've seen so it may not be fact)
the Brickskellar folks bring in beer mainly for themselves and only sell
a little bit of it to stores.

I had a few bottles of this from the Belgian diner given a few months
batch in Boston.  I've still got at least one bottle in the fridge.

Cantillon is a _wonderful_ example of what a lambic should be (IMHO).
It is a traditional lambic _NOT_ a syrupy sweet product for the
mass market (like some lambics that will be left unnamed).
The only products that I've had that are Cantillon's equal (and possibly
better) are the Frank Boon products and these should be available
early next year if my sources are right.  (a company in NY will
be importing Boon)  Thats not to say I'd turn down a Timmermans,
St. Louis, of any of a host of other lambics.

	--Mike

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Dec 92 12:04 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: WeirdStarter/BlowoffTubeCleaning/Baderbrau

Alan writes:
>I started a yeast culture the other day.  Took the dregs of two bottles
>of homebrew from a batch of beer that was brewed with first generation
>Wyeast Bohemian pilsener. The "wort" I used was a approximately a pint
>of water and a little less than a half a pound of granulated sugar that
>was boiled for 5 minutes. When it cooled I threw in a teaspoon of yeast
>nutrient as well. The day after the starter was starting to bubble, I
>noticed some almost clear agglomerations floating at the top of the
>wort. Some of the same stuff was in suspension as well as lying on the
>bottom. The stuff reminded me of the meat of a lemon (you know, floating
>around in ice tea) although it is absolutely colorless. The gas
>emanating from the airlock smelled like yeast.
>
>Yesterday, I threw the stuff out since I didn't want to waste a batch of
>beer not knowing whether it was an infection or not. Before chucking the
>stuff into the sink, I poured the starter into a glass. The
>agglomerations that were present before dissolved completely. Not a
>trace of them in the glass.
>
>Can a starter look like this without being infected? Can it be some sort
>of bacterial contamination or or can it be the yeast nutrient?  I've
>never seen a bacterial infection before so I have no idea what one looks
>like.  The brew that I cultivated the starter from was the first batch
>I've done with liquid yeast and the starter I used then sure didn't look
>like this last one.

I think what you might have had there were perhaps sugar crystals.  It seems
to me that you had quite a hefty gravity for your starter.  I use 1 ounce
of light dried malt extract per 8 ounces of starter (boiled about 10 minutes).
That gives me about a 1020 wort.  My understanding about the negative effects
of high-gravity starters is that the yeast have trouble multiplying in them
(and while I'm on the subject of yeast, it's highly UN-recommended that you
re-hydrate dry yeast in anything other than plain 100F water).

***********************
dab writes:
>the gunk out.  I currently use a 1" i.d. tube that works really well 
>but is a total bitch to clean, especially after a particularly violent
>batch.

I haven't used the glass tubes, but I don't have a lot of trouble cleaning
my blowoff tubes.  The ones I use for regular (non-fruit -- long, messy story)
beers are 5/8" OD, and 1/2" ID.  After use, I just soak them in 200ppm Cl
bleach solution (1 tbsp per gallon) overnight then run hot water through
them.  They get stained from the blowoff and turn whitish from the bleach,
but I don't worry about it.  If one gets really gunked-up, I use a method
mentioned a few years ago in the HBD by someone: a wire and a piece of cloth
(just like cleaning a rifle).

**************************

Steve comments, after an informative post on Pavichevich Brewing's financial
troubles:
>
>I'll bet that a lot of US micros are in similar shape........

I think that Pavichevich's problems are a bit worse than many others.  I have
not been there, but I've heard from those who I trust and have visited.  It
seems that Ken went whole-hog when buying the equipment for the brewery.  All
the equipment was purchased new and of the finest quality. Conversely, I have
been to Chicagoland's newest and smallest brewery, Golden Prairie (I believe
that's the name).  Not nearly the size of Pavichevich, of course, but it's
solvent.  Everything was purchased used or built by the brewmaster/owner,
Ken (a different one).  It's a small place that brews a good, tasty beer
and selling at a volume (kegs only, for now) that pays the bills.  Quite a
contrast.

Al.

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1026, 12/04/92