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


Contents:
  Out of the Office ("Chatt-Mike")
  Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993) (UNIX.HOMEBRW1 on Thu, Jan 21, 1993 3:45 AM)
  solder (Michael Gildner)
  Munich Malts (George J Fix)
  Re: Brews Paper (Daniel Roman)
  Brews Paper / Grain mill rollers (Jeff J. Miller)
  nitrosamines (Russ Gelinas)
  Re: Kegging  (David Resch)
  Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993) (Michael_Merriman)
  Keg pressures ("Bob Jones")
  Stuck Pilsner Urquell (Don McDaniel)
  Re: Barleywine Yeast & questions ( Neil Mager )
  steel cut versus rolled oats (Tony Babinec)
  RE: Hop Question and others, too (Darryl Richman)
  Wyeast (thutt)
  RE: No lag in old Wyeast (James Dipalma)
  Re: new publist (Carlo Fusco)
  Re: No lag in old Wyeast (John DeCarlo)
  Bitter Recipe (caitrin lynch)
  Artificial Sweeteners (korz)
  Wyeast Lager (korz)
  Decoction, Congratualtions (Jack Schmidling)
  Tennents Milk Stout (korz)
  The Brews Paper (Scott Bickham)
  re: trivia (Drew Lawson)


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: 21 Jan 1993 03:46:03 GMT
From: "Chatt-Mike" <MSMAIL.CHATTM at TSOD.lmig.com>
Subject: Out of the Office


I am out today.
I will be back in the office Friday 1/22
(This is a pre-recorded message.)

_______________________________________________________________________________
From: UNIX.HOMEBRW1 on Thu, Jan 21, 1993 3:45 AM
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993)
To: HOMEBREW(UNIX.HOMEBRW1); Chatt-Mike
File(s): MEMO 01.21.93 03.37



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:19:44 EST
From: mmlai!lucy!gildner at uunet.UU.NET (Michael Gildner)
Subject: solder


Recently, I've seen some mention of lead-free solder being a bad
thing for homebrewing.  Evidently the tin in lead-free solder 
can react with beer.  I didn't realize this several months ago
when I made my wort chiller.  I constructed the chiller with soft
copper tubing.  The coils didn't stay together very well so I
put I spot of solder between each coil of the chiller to help keep
it rigid.  Now with all this recent talk of the incompatibility
of solder in brewing I've starting worrying.  

How does the solder react negatively with beer/wort?
Is there some attribute I might recognize in my beers that point to
solder contamination?
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to cleanly remove 
the solder from the copper coils? 
What would be an efficient way to keep a soft copper coils
together so they form a nice cylinder?

Thanks for any responses.

Mike Gildner
gildner at mml.mmc.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:48:17 -0600
From: gjfix at utamat (George J Fix)
Subject: Munich Malts

Darryl Richman writes:

>Lets clear up a misconception here. Real Munich malt, whether
>domestic or imported, has enzymes. It has sufficient enzymes to
>convert itself, and perhaps just a bit more. If you want to make a
>real dark Munich lager, then use Munich malt. I've made several bocks
>with high percentages of Munich (60-80%) and it works just fine.

Anyone who has had the good fortune of tasting Darryl's bocks know
they are more than "just fine". They are sensational! His version
which took 1st place in the AHA nationals a few years ago was one
of the finest bocks I have ever tasted, amateur or commercial. The
following is data which support his observations. D-C stands for
DeWolf-Cosyns, while G-W stands for Great Western. Their 2-row
malt is a Klages-Harrington blend. DP stands for diastatic power,
it is a measure of the strength of the malt's enzyme system. The
symbol "_" means too low to measure.

                                   DP       Yield(%)     Protein(%)
                                  -----    ---------     -----------
BASE MALTS   D-C Pale Ale          60        76          10.0  
             D-C Pils             105        75          10.0 
             G-W 2-row            135        76          12.5

COLOR MALTS  D-C Munich            50        77           9.9

ROASTED MALTS D-C Caravienne       _         72           8.9 
              D-C Caramunich       _         72          10.6
              D-C Special B        _         66          10.0

NOTES:

1. The strength of the enzyme system of the Munich is not dissimilar to
that of the pale ale. Practical experience has shown that if DP > 40,
then the grains will have sufficient enzymes to convert their own starch.
The roasted malts do not have much in the way of an enzyme system, but
Darryl noted this in his post.

2. For those who missed the yield discussions on HBD, the following are
points on the yield-gravity point line:

              yield(%)      pts./lbs./gals.
             ----------    -----------------
               60              28
               65              30
               70              32
               75              34.5
               80              37

3. The yields quoted were obtained under laboratory conditions. It is
generally not possible, nor desirable in most circumstances, to achieve
these in a practical brewing situation.

4. I have found that both the color and roasted malts have starch with a
large number of 1-6 links. These will not be broken in a normal mash. Thus
these malts will always make nontrivial contributions to the dextrin pool,
even if they are included at the start of the mash.

5. Many highly respected maltsters in the US claim it is impossible to make
color and roasted malts from two row barley. The low protein levels of the
D-C malts indicate that they indeed come from 2-row barley, and very high
quality to boot. Sonja, noted as Europe's best 6-row barley, never has
protein levels below 13%. Hector, a mid-western feed barley (which I sometimes
fear finds other applications as well!), never falls below 14%.

George Fix


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 9:48:50 EST
From: roman at tix.timeplex.com (Daniel Roman)
Subject: Re: Brews Paper

Guess I'm not the only one who got this.  When I first saw it I thought
it might be interesting, but that was only before got past the cover to
find that most of the items listed on there were what turned out to be
joke articles.  The biggest teaser was "Exclusive Clintion on Homebrew
Interview".  I thought at first, this paper must be good if they got an
interview, once you get to the "article" they state that they wrote the
Clinton staff and did not get an interview so they made one up.

After that I did not know if ANY of the articles was supposed to be
serious (or the ads either).

For $15 a year they can keep it.

BTW, they even spelled George Bush --> Geroge Bush !!!  :-] 
- -- 
_________
Dan Roman  GEnie: D.ROMAN1  Internet: roman at tix.timeplex.com  //
American Homebrewers Association member        Only AMIGA!  \X/

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 8:51:51 CST
From: jmiller at anubis.network.com (Jeff J. Miller)
Subject: Brews Paper / Grain mill rollers


In HBD #1060 Norm Pyle writes about the Brews Paper being poorly edited
and needing a bit more polish.  Well, I'm glad somebody other then myself
felt this way toward it!  With all the material that is available I just
can't see sending money to these people for a poorly published paper.

Mr. Charlie P. if your listening:  If these people did get there mailing
list from the Zymurgy subscription list I would like to indicate that I
don't appreciate Zymurgy selling/giving my name to them.

OK... I'm done bitching now...  On to grain mill rollers.

I've settled on using some 6" pipe that I got from some local pipe
fitters.  I figured the bigger teh diameter the better the grind.
I'll be welding sides to the pipe and then welding a bar through the
centers.  The bar will get mounted in pillow blocks and the pipes
spun by a motor with a belt.  This is pretty much a nock off from
the one in Zymurgy.  On additional feature that I plan to add is
to put a scroll on the pipe to pull the grains toward the center.

Cost.... grrr... I got the stuff from a guy that loves to swill my
brew but he charged me full price for that stuff rather then simply
pulling some scrap for me.  Ended up being just under $20 for 2 18"
sections.

- -- 
Jeff Miller                 Network Systems Corporation
Advanced Development        7625 Boone Avenue North
jmiller at network.com         Minneapolis MN 55428   (612)424-1724

Return to table of contents


Date:    Thu, 21 Jan 1993 9:54:01 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS at UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: nitrosamines

Jack, I've asked this before, and since you brought it up, I'll ask
again:  What is the level of nitrosamines in fire-kilned malts, 
especially as compared to what one might get in a grilled entry at
the local pub?  It doesn't make sense to me to avoid ordering a stout
when your hamburger on a toasted roll has orders of magnitude more n.amines 
in it anyway.

Russ

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:23:14 MST
From: resch at craycos.com (David Resch)
Subject: Re: Kegging 

>5) Pressurise the keg to 25 psi and place in a cold fridge for a day or so.
>
>6) Remove keg from fridge and roll it vigorously to disolve the CO2 into the 
>   beer. Replace keg in the fridge.
>
>7) When ready to serve beer, bleed excess pressure from keg and connect gas 
>   line set a about 7 psi to push beer from the keg.
>
>
>Any comments?

In my opinion, skip step 6 and just leave the beer in the fridge at 25 psi for
1 or 2 more days, depending on the carbonation level desired.

Shaking the keg simply increases the rate at which CO2 dissolves into the beer.
By not shaking, carbonation takes a bit longer, but you don't disturb the yeast
and protein sediment that precipitates when the beer is put into the fridge. 

Dave

Return to table of contents


Date: 21 Jan 93 10:24
From: Michael_Merriman at camb.intersolv.com
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993)

           
          Re:  Motorizing the Corona.

          I simply removed the handle, inserted a bolt into the
          threads, cut off the head with a hacksaw, and attach a
          power-drill to the bolt.  I typically crush about 10-15 # at
          a pop, and with the drill, this takes about 10 min.  I'm
          sure I could get that down to two minutes if I had a 10#
          hopper, but I haven't gotten around to that yet....maybe
          that old bottling bucket would be just the right size.

          But...I'm not really impressed with the results of the
          corona overall.  Anyone with a source for a reasonably
          priced roller mill?

          mfm 617 252-4561
          Michael_Merriman at INTERSOLV.com
          Kendall Sq, Cambridge, MA 02142

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 07:46:46 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Keg pressures

Jim Ellingson's notes on kegging in the last digest were right on, I would 
like to point out one additional thing that most keggers overlook. Your 
regulator gauge may not read your real keg pressure. 
This is due to the pressure drop across check valves that may (should) be 
in your CO2 lines. I have experienced about a 2 psi drop across each check 
valve. I have one at the regulator output and one at each output from my 
gas manifold. This means I must set my regulator to 16 psi to get 12 psi at 
my kegs (16psi - 4psi=12psi). Your systems may vary.

Bob Jones

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:47:26 -0700
From: dinsdale at chtm.eece.unm.edu (Don McDaniel)
Subject: Stuck Pilsner Urquell

Robert Haddard asked about a highish final gravity of 20 on his attempt
at my Czech Pilsner recipe:


I don't recall what my final gravity was, but I know it didn't
ferment out really dry.  I wouldn't call 20 stuck.  Depending on the yeast,
that's in the normal range.  However if you're kegging, there's no reason
you can't forgo priming and see what develops.  If it is too flat after
lagering, you can always force-carbonate it then.

Don McDaniel

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:04:51 EST
From: neilm at juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Neil Mager )
Subject: Re: Barleywine Yeast & questions


korz at iepubj.att.com writes:
 > 
 > If you can get a hold of some relatively fresh Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
 > or SN Porter or Stout (I'm assuming you can't get Wyeast 1056 in France),
 > you could culture it and use that exclusively.  Chico Brewing Co. uses
 > this yeast for their Bigfoot Barleywine, so you can too.
 > 
 > 
 > Al.


  What about a yeast culture from Thomas Hardy? Will that work or
  has the high alcohol content mutated the yeast. In December, Micah had
  mentioned making Barleywines when their kids were born. Anyone
  have a copy of Micah's Barleywine recipe?

  On a similiar note, Miller mentions that it is difficult making
  an all-grain Barleywine and his recipes call for adding extract.
  He never fully explains what the problem is. Is the problem the
  quantity of grain needed to get the og high enough without
  adding extract? Or is there some other problem?



   Neil

- --
===============================================================================
Neil M. Mager
MIT Lincoln Laboratory       Lexington, MA
  Weather Radar - Group 43

Internet                    <neilm at juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Voice                       (617) 981-4803
===============================================================================



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:32:35 CST
From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: steel cut versus rolled oats

It's been said before on the net, but can't be said enough.

Steel cut oats are not gelatinized.  You might first soak them
overnight.  You must boil them (say, 45 min) to gelatinize them.  In 
my experience, echoed by someone on a recent HBD, they soak up a lot
of water and can be quite gummy and starchy.  Once gelatinized, they 
must be mashed.

An easier alternative exists in rolled oats, such as are commercially
available from Quaker Oats.  You'll find these in 3 forms:  original,
quick, and instant.  The original and quick differ in that they take
5 and 1 minutes, respectively, to cook into oatmeal.  For homebrewers,
the Original are the hulled whole oats run through rollers, and are
therefore gelatinized.  The quick and instant are thinner cuts.  You
can add rolled oats straight into the mash.

Another easier alternative is flaked oats, sold through homebrew supply
shops.

Does anyone have a source for malted oats?

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 10:22:19 PST
From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Hop Question and others, too

"C. Lyons / Raytheon-ADC / Andover, MA" <LYONS at adc3.adc.ray.com> writes:
> When adding boiling hops, does the selection of the type of
> hop (Kent Goldings, Northern Brewer, Cascade, etc.) make any
> difference on the final taste profile?  I am wondering if I only
> need to be concerned about getting the number of IBUs correct, or if it
> is significant to get the correct number of IBUs from a particular hop when
> attempting to duplicate recipes/styles.  I understand that hops
> added for flavor and aroma do give the beer destinct characteristics,
> but I am curious if anyone believes that the boiling hops do?

This is a topic that doesn't get much attention.  I believe that the 
reason is that once we engineering types (well, most of us do seem to 
fit that description, don't we?) have a way to hang a number on 
something, we feel it must be solved and move on to the next problem.  
If only there were a way to describe hop aroma with a number...

Anyway, it is my personal opinion that more than just bitterness is 
extracted from hops, even during a long boil.  I feel that the low 
alpha hops tend to provide a cleaner, crisper flavor with a more 
pleasant, less cloying aftertaste in the finished beer than many of the 
high alpha varieties.  (These were developed, after all, in order to 
satisfy bean counters and not brewers.)  I also find that using a 
minority contribution from some of the high alpha hops -- sometimes 
exactly those varieties I don't like the most as the only bittering 
contributors -- can add "complexity" and interest to a beer.  If this 
doesn't make sense, well, then I guess I'll have to renounce my 
membership in the ACM.

cook at uars.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook, NMOS Quality Engineer - 
(301)386-7807) writes:
>   1) In Greg Noonan's book "Brewing Lager Beer," he describes decoction
>      mashes using phrases like "...draw off the thickest third of the
>      mash..."  Look, after all the stirring he describes, isn't the mash
>      pretty uniform?  Could someone who does this describe what the
>      "thickest" or thinnest part is, and how you draw it off?

If you let the mash rest for 10 or 20 minutes, the "thickest" or 
heaviest part will settle to the bottom of the tun.  I've seen folks 
use the restaurant 1 quart steel ladles to pick it up, but I use a half 
gallon Tupperware measuring cup.  Since I use an 80 quart (yes, that's 
right) picnic cooler for 15 gallon batches, the grain bed is not too 
deep, and I can get a bottom sample pretty easily.

>   4) Oh, and finally, is everyone being honest with their grain extraction
>      rates?  I realize the pressure to talk up your extraction points and
>      all, but are we talking reality here?

I would claim that I am getting about 30-31 pts/lb/gal, but it's also 
the case that my measurement may not be very accurate.  Since I make 15 
gallons batches -> 25-35 lbs. of malt, and since I have to weigh it out 
about 2 lbs. at a time, there is a great possibility for error to creep 
in.  However, I don't believe it to be systemic in one direction, so it 
might be self cancelling.  Or this might be the purest rationaization.

		--Darryl Richman


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:12:55 EST
From: thutt <thutt at MAIL.CASI.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Wyeast

      Question:  Where can I get information on the strains of Witbread
      The only one I can find has no number, and is simply called
      Witbread Ale Yeast.

      Has anyone ever seen a German Ale yeast that comes in green 5 gram
      packets?  I opened it up, and it looked and smelled like sawdust. 
      I rehydrated it, but it still smelled and looked like sawdust.  I
      threw it out and used something else.

      I'd rather eat $1 on yeast than $30 on a whole batch.  Was I wrong?


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:22:50 EST
From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: No lag in old Wyeast


Hi All,

  In HBD #1060, Rob Bradley writes:

>WYeast says on their package the it will take n days for an n-month-old
>package to puff out.  I cracked a 4-month-old package of 1008 (German)
>yesterday.  At 24 hours it was already getting fat.  The ambient was
>60 or even lower, so I'm sure it would have been fully puffed in 24
>hours at 68-70.  This is slightly inconvenient as I'd been planning
>to brew Sunday.  Has anybody had the same experience with 1008?  With
>other strains?

   At the end of the summer, my local homebrew supplier was tossing out
Wyeast packages that were more than 5 months old, and replacing them
with fresh stock.  I obtained some of the old packages gratis, including
a 1098 culture that was 9 months old.  I intended to burst the inner
package, and if it swelled, to try culturing it.
   I popped the package on a Wednesday night, by Friday morning, ~36 hours
later, it was ready to burst.  I pitched it into a starter, when I returned
from work Friday night, the starter was vigorously fermenting.  I ended
up using it to brew that weekend, got a lag time of about 4 hours, and
primary fermentation completed in 2 days.  This particular culture turned
out to be one of the most vigorous I'd ever used.  Both of the other
"outdated" packages(1084, 1338)swelled within 2 days of popping the package,
I got viable yeast out of both of them.
   IMHO, there is no correlation between the date code and the time
required for the package to swell, as I've also had 1 month old packages
take 6 days to swell.  As Rob mentioned, this is inconvenient, as timing
if fairly important.  This inconsistency is one factor that lead me to
start culturing yeast in the first place.  I can reliably grow a pitchable
starter from a slant in 3 days.

                                   Cheers,
                                     Jim

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:23 EST
From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023 at NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA>
Subject: Re: new publist

Hello again,

In my efforts to update the publist in the archives I have hit a snag.
I spoke to John R. Mellby, who created the publist and he told me there 
will be an update shortly. So in order not to duplicate his work I will 
send him all the replies I have recieved to date. Thanks to all those 
who responded to my message.

Carlo Fusco   g1400023 at nickel.laurentian.ca



Return to table of contents


Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 13:21:51 EST
From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: No lag in old Wyeast

>From: bradley at adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)

>WYeast says on their package the it will take n days for an n-month-old
>package to puff out.  I cracked a 4-month-old package of 1008 (German)
>yesterday.  At 24 hours it was already getting fat.  The ambient was
>60 or even lower, so I'm sure it would have been fully puffed in 24
>hours at 68-70.  This is slightly inconvenient as I'd been planning
>to brew Sunday.  Has anybody had the same experience with 1008?  With
>other strains?

Well, I have often wondered about this, as all my packages are
ready in about 24 hours, no matter how old they were.

So let's take a step back and wonder about these instructions.
If yeast double their population in about 3 hours, then in 24
hours they could increase their population by a factor of 2^8, or
256.  So in 4 days, they could increase their population by a
factor of 256^4 (4,294,967,296), roughly 4 billion (US).

OK, so some of this time is spent producing CO2 and not
reproducing, say 6 hours, so divide everything by 4 and get 1
billion.  Does this mean that Wyeast expects only 1 yeast cell in
1 billion to be alive after 4 months?  Sounds pretty unlikely to
me.

Anyway, if more than 999 in 1000, say, of the yeast cells have
died, you probably are going to have some problems, maybe?  In
which case you shouldn't ever need more than a factor of 2^10 or
so, requiring 30 hours or so, plus some time for CO2, say a day
and a half.

Now there are lots of unspoken assumptions, such as doubling
rates being applicable at 70F or somesuch.  Still, as someone who
knows nothing of yeast growth, I would appreciate some feedback
on this to see if I am seriously off anywhere (which I expect I
am).

Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org)
Fidonet:  1:109/131

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:35:55 CST
From: caitrin lynch <lyn6 at midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Bitter Recipe

Recently I have had several bitters at various microbreweries in Chicago and
Boston, and want to try to duplicate them (extract). To my mind what makes
them distinctive is the malty beginning and the bitter finish. Previous
attempts to make anything like this ends up as my generic pale ale. Any
suggestions. Thanks.

Caity

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:54 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Artificial Sweeteners

Christopher writes:
>I have also experimented with the addition of sweet-n'-low during
>bottling.  I use dry yeasts, and decided to try David Line's
>suggestion (p. 21, Brewing Beers Like Those You Buy, "However if
>you can only get home brew beer yeasts instead of the recommended
>commercial 'Brewer's Yeast' the flavour balance can be acceptably
>restored by adding five saccharin tablets").  I have found that 10
>packages of sweet-n'definitely adds too much sweetness (more is
>not better, in this case).  I have also experimented with five
>packages of sweet-n'-low and believe this to be my best batch
>yet.  Many people have enjoyed this ale, and I found that this
>batch disappeared quickly (leaving me with three earlier
>batches).  Even with 5 packages of sweet-n'-low the sweetness
>could be lowered slightly.  Next I will try 4 packages.  Has
>anyone else using dry yeasts expermented with artificial
>sweetners?  If so, I'd be interested in hearing your comments.

Christopher -- I doubt you will get much support from this digest's
subscribers for your use of Artificial Sweetener.  People have commented
on Dave Line's use of saccharin on the HBD a few years ago, and most posters
said something like, "well, you do what you want, but *I'M* not putting
saccharin in *MY* beer."  The note about Brewer's Yeast that you quoted
from Line is key to this whole issue.  If you like beers with considerable
residual sweetness, I suggest you try Wyeast #1338, European Ale.  It
leaves the most residual sweetness of any of the Wyeasts or dry yeasts.

To me it seems a shame to use the finest ingredients (better than most
industrial brewers) and put in a lot of your time and then use an
artificial sweetener.  Try the #1338 -- I wouldn't be surprised if you
stuck with the liquid yeasts and quit with the saccharin.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:07 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Wyeast Lager

Erik writes:
>Also, in the same episode, Steve Tollesfrud had some trouble with
>Wyeast lager yeast.  I brewed a batch using the same yeast and had
>the same problem.  After pitching I put the fermentor in a
>refridgerator at about 45 degrees F.  I had no action for 4 days
>and nothing happened until I warmed the wort to 65 degrees.  I
>kept it at that temperature until primary fermentation stopped,
>and then slowly eased the temperature back down to 45.  Racked
>to secondary and kept at 45 deg for 1 month.  Racked to bottling
>bucket, and I am now aging in the bottles at same temperature.
>
>     I tasted the beer before bottling and it is quite good.
>After bottle conditioning it should be delicious.
>
>     Has anyone else had this problem with Wyeast lager?

I made a batch of bock that has done quite well in several competitions
using Wyeast #2308.  The way that I did it was, incubated the popped
package at 68F, chilled the completed wort down to exactly (as close as
I could) 68F, aerated very well, pitched the yeast, and put the carboy in
the crawlspace which was at 57F for 12 hours.  After the 12 hours, a small
bead of kraeusen was forming, so I put it in the beer fridge at 50F.
After two days, I lowered the temp in the beer fridge to 45F and that's where
it stayed for the six weeks of primary and secondary fermentation.  After
bottling, I lagered the beer in the bottles at 40F for 4 months (till the
perm nose went away ;^).

The recipe has been posted here before, it's called Bo^bs B. Birthday Bock.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:00 CST
From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Decoction, Congratualtions

 
 >From: cook at uars.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook, NMOS Quality Engineer - 
 
 
 >  1) In Greg Noonan's book "Brewing Lager Beer," he describes decoction
      mashes using phrases like "...draw off the thickest third of the
      mash..."  Look, after all the stirring he describes, isn't the mash
      pretty uniform?  Could someone who does this describe what the
      "thickest" or thinnest part is, and how you draw it off?
 
 Nice to know there are other critical readers out there.  I simply ignore 
 this bit of advice.  Even if you let it settle, you could hardly "draw" off 
 the thickest part.
 
 I routinely do a partial dicoction, if for no other reason than just to have 
 something to do while waiting.
 
 After STIRRING, I remove 3 quarts to a separate kettle and bring to a boil.  
 I add this back to the mash and stir till the temp is again uniform and then 
 do it again.  I can get three or four of these in during the one hour mash 
 and it is about what is required to maintain the sacc temp and the last one 
 starts it on the way toward mashout temp.
 
 I make no claims about the usefulness of this but as I said, it keeps my
 humble brain active.
 ...............
 
 CONGRATUALTIONS to Dave Wiley for taking First Place in the First Annual Net 
 Brew-Off.  Dave scored 44 out of a possible 50 points.  Yours truly was 
 honored with 38.
 
 We all thought the organizer, Mark Nightingale absconded with the goods as he 
 has never responded to email since soliciting the entries.  He now says they 
 decided to wait six months to "age" the beer properly and announced the 
 results by mail.
 
 Don't know if excuses are necessary but considering that my entry was my 5th 
 all grain batch, I could have done much worse.  The negative comments were, 
 over carbonated and needs more malt.  Considering that I only used 8 lbs of 
 malt in the 7 gal batch, it is not surprising and I am now using 12 lbs.  I 
 now force carbonate and CP bottle so I am ready for the next Net Brew-Off.
 
 js
 
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:40 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Tennents Milk Stout

Gary writes:
>Has anyone out there had a brew called "Tennents Milk Stout"?
>I had one when I was in St. Maartin in november but I
>have never seen it here in the states.
>It was stronger than a Guinness Stout in taste and in
>alcohol.

I had one somewhere between Martinique and Barbados (it helps to make
friends with bartenders on cruise ships -- it was from his private stock)
and saw some in a grocery store near the dock in Bridgetown, Barbados.
I too, have never seen it outside of the Caribbean, but this does not mean
it is not available -- just a data point.

I don't recall it being strong in alcohol, but indeed it was stronger in
flavor than Guinness.  It's not really fair to compare it with Guinness,
however, as Guinness is a dry stout and as you can tell from the name,
Tennents *Milk* Stout is a sweet stout.  A bit drier than Dragon Stout
(made by D&G in Kingston, Jamaica and *available* in the US), but the
sweetness is up there.

An interesting note about Guinness in the Caribbean.  The Guinness I had
in Jamaica, was also made, under contract, by D&G.  The Guinness I had in
Barbados was made by Banks (again, under contract) in Barbados.  I don't
recall 100% percent if this was on the label, but on the cap these two
beers said "GUINNESS -- FOREIGN-STYLE STOUT," I believe.  The Guinness
that we get in the Chicago area, is made in *DUBLIN* and the label and
caps say "GUINNESS EXTRA STOUT."  According to the AHA style descriptions,
"Foreign-style Stout" is a dry stout with a higher OG and associated alcohol
level.  The bottled Guinness that we get in the US is definately stronger
in alcohol than the Guinness in Ireland -- that's a documented fact.  I
seem to recall that the Guinness I had in the Caribbean was a bit sweeter
than the stuff we get from Dublin, but I could not say for sure without
a side-by-side comparison.  I think I may have brought back one full -- 
we'll see.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:27:26 EST
From: bickham at msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham)
Subject: The Brews Paper

I received my copy of this already infamous newspaper yesterday,
and in spite of the bad language and grammer, I managed to get
through most of it.  I was not impressed.  In addition to the
lack of content or humor in most of the articles, I found many
of the comments to be blatantly sexist.  But before someone quickly
points out that several members of the Brews Paper staff are indeed
women, just let me say that the same goes for many of the mens'
magazines that are found at your local news stand.

The most depressing thing about it is that our names were almost
certainly given to the newspaper by the AHA.  I had thought the
AHA was making an effort to treat homebrewers of either sex equally,
and not delegate the women to the chore of bottle washing, but the support
of the Brews Paper definitely convinces me that they are still mired
in the 80's.  I think that in the future, the AHA should do more 
research before handing out their mailing list to such a low-budget, 
low-quality publication such as this.  I'm sorry to waste your time.

Scott

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:38:50 PST
From: lawson at acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: re: trivia


>>Trivia question:
>>
>>Which Beatles song refers to homebrewing?
>
>I searched and searched, but never found the answer!
>
>have fun
>gak
 
"Rock 'n' Roll Music" meantions homebrew (in one recording, at least),
but not homebrewing.
+---
Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
lawson at acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1061, 01/22/93