HOMEBREW Digest #1085 Thu 25 February 1993

Digest #1084 Digest #1086

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  us vs Brit malt/ Fruit in beer (Lee Menegon)
  Fermenters,batch size and heat buildup (Nick Zentena)
  lagering (Steve Yavorski)
  Fermenting on trub (Carlo Fusco)
  Alcohol content of Homebrew (S. Elser)
  oxidation in the bottle (Peter Maxwell)
  yeast mutation (KLIGERMAN)
  Re: labels for laser printer (David Van Iderstine)
  Saving Yeast (SRIRACHA)
  Re: stuck conditioning (korz)
  extract barleywine (Dick Dunn)
  help (Alexander Nazarenko)
  Annual Contest -- Upstate New York Homebrewers Assoc. (Tom Kaltenbach)
  Distribution change (Pat McNamee 5-5009)
  More Beer Poetry (Paul dArmond)
  Re: Starch conversion (Nick Zentena)
  immaterial girl (Mike_Merriman)
  Appropriateness of articles (Guy McConnell)
  Yeast and Malt (Robert Pulliam)
  Re:no more syrup/hops in OH/cidery beer/extract info (korz)
  Call a spade a spade (chris campanelli)
  Re: request for extract information (Richard Stueven)
  Re: 33? (Richard Stueven)
  Re:  Other 'brewing' digests (Tom Haley)
  Wyeast Bohemian wrt attenuation (Pat Lasswell)
  SUSCRIBE (CIS309137)
  Refractometers and Hydrometers (Marc de Jonge)
  Malt roasting - help! (Michel Vandenplas)
  Laser Labels Adhesive/tale of "33" (Sandy Cockerham)
  CIS (Jack Schmidling)
  Sanitizer (Jack Schmidling)
  lager (Jack Schmidling)
  Beer Crawls (Jack Schmidling)
  Galvanized Screen (Jack Schmidling)
  Gluten in beer (Jim Grady)

Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu IMPORTANT NEWS -- PLEASE READ ----------------------------- There will be nobody reading mail sent to homebrew-request during the period Feb 8 through approx. Feb 28. This means that any requests for changes or cancellations will not be handled until the end of the month. Subscription requests will continue to be handled automatically, and the digest will continue to be sent automatically, barring any computing device catastrophes. So if you send a message here and get no immediate reply, or if the digest stops suddenly, please do not panic. Just be patient. ps. and please try to behave yourselves while I'm gone ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:20:35 EST From: Lee Menegon <necis!lmenegon at transfer.stratus.com> Subject: us vs Brit malt/ Fruit in beer Some comments on recent posts: US vs British Malt According to the data provided by a grain vendors, NorthEast Brewers Supply, they list the degree of modification for grains from 1 least modified to 4 most modified. They indicate that the British grain they stock is "4" while the US ,Klages + Harrington, as 3. I have been led to believe that the less modified a malt the longer it takes to protein rest and mash. Taking this further, that the highly modified, British, malts often do not require a protein rest hence their single step infusion mash. I have just brewed a cream ale using all US grains, my extraction rate was essentially the same as the British malt I usally use. The mash time was essentially the same since I always do a 15-30 minute protein rest. The color was the palest I have ever brewed avery light yellow/ gold I could never get a beer this pale using British malt. -Fruit in Beer I brewed a strawberry Ale this summer. What I learned is add fruit to the secondary, like dry hopping, or all the aromatic properties will be lost out the air lock during active fermentation. Lightly hop the brew or the subtle fruit flavor will be over powered. If the fruit has pectin in it add pectic enzyme or the beer will never clear, it breaks down the pectin. Remember that yeast metabolizes sugar, that sweet fruit juice will become alcohol and fruit essence. - Apple Beer? I don't know if this is a good combination, fermented apple juice is cider, and I find cidery tasting beer unenjoyable. I have had wonderful rasberry, strawberry and cranberry beers. Brewing books: As a beginner I found the Miller "Complete handbook of Home Brewing" more informative than the original Papazian book. I have not looked at the new versions. I would recommend some of the Zymurgy special issues to someone wanting to improve their knowledge. The Hops issue has useful information on more accurately determining the level of bitterness in a beer. The Yeast issue has information on yeast reuse which make liquid yeast less costly per batch. The Trouble shooting issue cover many flaor faults. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 14:23:41 -0500 From: Nick Zentena <zen%hophead at canrem.com> Subject: Fermenters,batch size and heat buildup Hi, with all this talk about the perfect fermenter design I was wondering if somebody could comment at what point does the heat buildup become high enough to affect the ferment? Also are the Wyeast preferred temps for the ferment or ambient? So does a 40-50litre ferment create enough heat to alter an ale ferment? How about lagers? Thanks Nick ***************************************************************************** I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles! zen%hophead at canrem.com ***************************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 14:11:24 -0500 (EST) From: yavo at gvls1.VFL.Paramax.COM (Steve Yavorski) Subject: lagering I'm an extract brewer with a single stage fermentation setup. Is there any way to make a lager without a secondary fermenter. I will be moving soon, and don't want to buy a carboy until after I move. I'd like to take advantage of my cold basement temperatures, though. I thought I read something in a past HBD about lagering in the bottle. Is this possible? If so, what is the procedure? Would a viable alternative be a single stage fermented steam beer? Thanks in advance, Steve Stephen Yavorski internet - yavo at ivy.paramax.com NEXRAD Integration phone - (215) 443 - 7500 Paramax Systems Corporation Ivyland, Pennsylvania Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 15:20 EST From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023 at NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA> Subject: Fermenting on trub Hello Everyone, A few months ago there was discussion in this digest about fermenting on the trub. There was some argument weither to rack your cooled wort off of the trub as soon as it settles or to forget about it and pitch. Well I did a little experiment with my last 2 batches of Scotch Ale. Batch 1: After chilling I let the trub settle for 45min and then racked the beer into a glass carboy and pitched the yeast [wyeast 1098]. Batch 2: After chilling I did not let the trub settle but I pitched right away with wyeast 1098. Observations: Batch 1 had a fast fermentation and cleared quickly. It was ready to keg in 2 weeks. Single stage fermentation. Batch 2 started in about the same time as Batch 1 but the fermentation took longer and it never really cleared up. It was ready to keg in 3 weeks. Single stage fermentation. Flavour: Batch 1 had a nice clean taste with the usual flavours associated with a dark ale, the specialty grains seemed to really come through in the beer. It was really good and did not last to long. Batch 2 is not very good at all. It's flavour and smell is musty, yeasty, and somewhat astringent. I am having a hard time giving this stuff away. Well you can say I learned my lesson and will from now on always let the trub settle and rack the beer off the trub before pitching. Carlo Fusco...........g1400023 at nickel.laurentian.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 15:36:42 EST From: elser at NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (S. Elser) Subject: Alcohol content of Homebrew Being a relatively novice brewer, I enjoy gathering new information from this digest. I have seen several references to alcohol content in homebrew recently. One dealt with siphoning trub into the secondary fermentor (creating more fuesel alcohols), the other I dug up touched upon the relationship between the body of the brew and the alcohol content. My questions: When using partial mask method (following instructions from a recipe for holding grains at specific temps for specified lengths of time, then adding the resulting liquid to more water containing extract or DME), is the temperature/time relationship the determinant factor in alcohol content of the finished beer? Some people tell me my beer seems to have higher alcohjol than they're used to (this would be commercial American or Canadian brews). I have never tried to calculate the alcohol content, but I would imagine that with mashing variations, an accurate estimate might be way off. What are the rules of thumb for starch conversion vs. temperature? I suppose the "trub" reference is a different factor in alcohol? And how does a blow-off tube affect alcohol? Thanks! Sheila Elser Please substitute "mash" for "mask" in second paragraph. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:24:42 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Maxwell <peterm at aoraki.dtc.hp.com> Subject: oxidation in the bottle I've been wondering about beer oxidising when in the bottle, due to excessive splashing in the syphoning/bottling process. Given that yeast are present in the bottle also (or else bottle conditioning wouldn't happen), why don't they simply use any introduced oxygen to multiply before fermenting the priming sugar? A reasonable answer would be that oxidation takes place more quickly than the yeast can remove the oxygen, but does anyone know the real answer? Peter Return to table of contents
Date: 22 Feb 1993 16:30:38 -0400 (EDT) From: KLIGERMAN at herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov Subject: yeast mutation Jacob Galley posted a question dealing with yeast mutation. Alcohol when metabolized can produce acetaldehyde which is mutagenic, but my guess is that since there are always spontaneous mutations occurring, if you use one yeast batch for too long a time, you wind up selecting strains that will out compete your original strains as the environment (wort) changes. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:22:01 EST From: orgasm!davevi at uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine) Subject: Re: labels for laser printer I used to use adhesive labels, and you're right, they're hell to get off. I've read on the digest here that plain paper, dipped in milk (that's right!) will hold labels on well, once dry. When re-wetted, they supposedly slip right off. I haven't tried it, as I've just plain given up labelling (too paranoid, lazy, and ill-informed, you know ;-). Dave Van Iderstine Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 17:18:46 EST From: SRIRACHA <radavfs at ube.ub.umd.edu> Subject: Saving Yeast Hallo thar homebrewers! My brewing partner and I recently started using liquid yeast and are quite pleased with the results - the cost, however, is making us wonder about whether or not we should buy a new packet every time when a strain could be reused...I guess our question is this: How have the experiences of other digesters been regarding saving the sludge? Do you seal it up with some malt extract? Do you put it into a container that would allow stoppering/airlocking? Just curious... we saw a couple of possible containers the other day, but I thought I'd beter write first...How about "Grolsch-type" bottles? Thanks in advance for any input Volker radavfs at ube.ub.umd.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 20:22 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Re: stuck conditioning Paul writes: >Peter Maxwell says his brew isn't conditioning in the bottle. I've had >similar hassles. Is there any visible sediment in the bottles? This is >the best gauge (other than opening a bottle) of how the yeast in the >bottle is doing. My guess is that the yeast count at bottling was to low. >In my case, I think this was due to fining with Polyclar. Now I swish the >racking tube around the bottom of the secondary to pick up a little of the >yeast sediment. I have also added 1/4 tsp of dry yeast to the bottling >bucket. I'd like to advise against this last suggestion, especially if you used a different liquid yeast for the primary fermentation. If the yeast you add at bottling is more attenuative than the fermentation yeast you could get exploding bottles. Also, if you are using dry yeast in the primary ferment and are bottling with the same yeast, I strongly suggest rehydrating the yeast in both cases. In a sort of newsletter from Lallemand (the yeast manufacturer), they say that dry yeast rehydrated in wort (as opposed to rehydrating in 104-115F sterile water) is more likely to produce off-flavors. I've found that the lag time was quite a bit longer when I didn't rehydrate in water in recent tests with Coopers and Lallemand yeasts. On a related note, I have written in the past warning about the use of the yeast that comes with Munton & Fison Kits (it use to be called Muntona, but now I think it just says "yeast"). I said that it gave very, very high levels of phenolic/clove aromas and flavors and that I suggested it not be used. I'd like to point out that I had not rehydrated this yeast in water (since it was not mentioned by M&F in the instructions). Perhaps if the yeast is rehydrated in water, it may be more acceptable in terms of the phenolic/clove flavors? Note that this still does not address the issue of bacterial infection of the dry yeast which was a problem years ago with the Muntona yeast (eventually the beers would become gushers... when I switched to Wyeast, I could keep the beers for years without them becoming gushers, so it was NOT my sanitation methods). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: 23 Feb 93 02:10:56 MST (Tue) From: rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Subject: extract barleywine A while back, amidst all the extract/all-grain ego-excreta, there was a comment about "tang" of extract brews with a lot of malt. The recent "found beer" note (I like it!) reminded me of an extract barleywine we've had for some years, with a fair stash turning up recently (in bottle). It was strong enough to start (1.095 OG) that we'd have been able to pick up any off-flavors or especially any tang, but nobody who's tasted it has had any complaint...either when it was young, or now, several years later. (In its youth, we did some comparisons against Old Foghorn. It came out in a dead heat. I loved it, and spent some considerable effort comparing the two:-) There was also a suggestion somewhere along the way that dry malt might be better than canned. This old barleywine was made with M&F spraymalt, so FWIW there's a possible datapoint in favor of dry. Anyone else made any comparisons, or even have any good/bad single datapoints? Most of my brewing isn't beer these days, but barleywine is the one exception I'd make, so if I brew extract I'd like to aim carefully. I'm also intrigued by the processes. I think I'd heard that the dried malt was essentially "sprayed" and evaporated by dry air and low pressure, as opposed to boiling off water. If so, this would make a good case for why dry malt would survive processing better than canned (less heat). True? --- Dick Dunn rcd at eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA ...Simpler is better. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 13:26:50 MSK From: Alexander Nazarenko <ANAZAREN%???????? at vm.gmd.de> Subject: help help END OF MESSAGE Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 6:56 EST From: tom at kalten.bach1.sai.com (Tom Kaltenbach) Subject: Annual Contest -- Upstate New York Homebrewers Assoc. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UPSTATE NEW YORK HOMEBREWERS ASSOCIATION 15th Annual Contest & 4th Empire State Open Saturday, April 24, 1993 at McGinnity's Restaurant and Party House 534 West Ridge Road, Rochester, New York Donation $5 Doors open at 6:00 p.m. Public judging starts at 7:00 p.m. COME AND JOIN THE FUN AT NEW YORK STATE'S OLDEST HOMEBREW CONTEST! *** FREE SAMPLES OF HOMEBREW *** - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THERE WILL BE 11 CATEGORIES: 1) British Ale 5) Light Lager 9) Porter 2) North American Ale 6) Amber Lager 10) Stout 3) Brown Ale 7) Dark Lager 11) Specialty 4) Belgian Ale 8) Looks Like SARANAC No entries will be accepted after April 14 (see details below). Beers can be entered at shops in: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Ithaca, or they can be shipped. CONTEST SANCTIONED BY THE AMERICAN HOMEBREWERS ASSOCIATION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONTEST PRIZES: BEST OF SHOW: A complete home kegging system 1st Runner Up: $50 gift certificate for homebrew supplies 2nd Runner Up: $25 gift certificate for homebrew supplies Prizes in each category: malt extract or other homebrewing supplies Prizes in Looks Like SARANAC: items awarded by F.X. Matt Brewery - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - For further information about entering the contest, other prizes, etc., send an email request to Tom Kaltenbach at "tom at kalten.bach1.sai.com". Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 09:04:27 CST From: patm at mallet.med.ge.com (Pat McNamee 5-5009) Subject: Distribution change Please remove me from the distribution of Homebrew Digest. Thanks. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 07:08:13 -0800 (PST) From: Paul dArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: More Beer Poetry This one is from E. A. Housman's "The Welsh Marches" via the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. Say, for what were hop-yards meant, Or why was Burton built on Trent? Oh many a peer of England brews Livelier liquor than the Muse, And malt does more than Milton can To justify God's ways to man. Paul. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 09:48:53 -0500 From: Nick Zentena <zen%hophead at canrem.com> Subject: Re: Starch conversion >Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 10:17:46 -0800 >From: atl at kpc.com >Subject: Starch Conversion Weirdness > Anyway, I put 12.25 lbs of grain into the cooler, and added 12.25 >qts of 172F water, stirred, and the temperature settled at exactly >155F, the desired temperature for this batch. I closed the lid, and How well did you stir? How long before you checked the temp? Personally I add the water first. The cooler will suck up a fair bit of temp. With my larger cooler I count on losing close to 10F to the cooler itself. I also stir quite a bit during mashin to make sure no hot spots develop. I also tend to wait 1min at least before mashing in. I'm sure hot spots mean cold spots. >let it sit for an hour. At this time, I sampled a bit of liquid from >the surface and performed the iodine test for starch conversion. >There was no color change, indicating complete conversion. Then, on a >whim, I sampled some liquid from the spigot at the bottom of the >cooler, and performed the iodine test on this as well. The test >instantly turned jet black, indicating incomplete conversion. I >thought this might be a result of fluid in the spigot itself, so I ran >about a quart of liquid through, and tested again with the same >(incomplete conversion) results. Did you do any stirring during the mash? I usually stir a little bit every 15-20mins. Also I think most people will tell you that iodine results aren't perfect. > At this point, the temperature had dropped to about 152F, so I I don't lose this much temp during 1-2hours usually. I wonder if the temps weren't evened out during mashin. >Now, the questions: >1) How is it possible to have different conversion rates in different > portions of the mash? I think that if you didn't stir at all it could. I personally don't do an iodine test. I just mash for a certain time. 1.5hours pale beers 2hours for stouts/porters. If you are worried I'd guess pulling off a sample and testing it's gravity would be better then an iodine test. Nick ***************************************************************************** I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles! zen%hophead at canrem.com ***************************************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: 23 Feb 93 10:48 From: Mike_Merriman at camb.intersolv.com Subject: immaterial girl >From the Boston Globe: "The Modern Brewer," the beer supply house in Cambridge, recently posed the following question to its discerning clientle: Do you think Madonna is a jerk? Yes, 15%, and No, 14%. A whopping 71% answered that they didn't care, which proves that people who brew their own beer are wiser that the general population. mfm Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:24:48 CST From: gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell) Subject: Appropriateness of articles Jeff Frane writes: > Subject: A Modest Proposal/Irish Ales/Snobs ^^^^^ > <<A Modest Proposal>> > > Recently, the _Homebrew_ Digest has had what seems to be an increasing > number of contributions (some very long) about people's tours through > commercial beer land. I hasten to say that I have no problem with > people writing about the microbrews they've discovered, or how much > they loved the Pacific Northwest -- in fact I think articles like this > can be quite interesting, and I've even written a few myself. > > I'm not convinced, however, that the Homebrew Digest is the right place > for such articles. Since I'm the author of the most recent of these brewery reviews, I have to disagree. From the heading of this most useful forum: "FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES" I think that brewery tour reports certainly belong. Mine was long so I broke it into three parts. It probably doesn't matter much to those who now take for granted accessible microbreweries and their products but we, here in Alabama, have had no such luxury until the opening of the micro in Birmingham. Some of the most enjoyable and informative articles in this forum have been about brewery tours. They give clues to those wishing to approximate a favorite beer on the brewing process and ingredients used in that beer as well as interesting insight on the microbrewing industry which most of us support whenever possible. Far more damaging and digest-clogging are the continued ramblings on such banal subjects as the "all-grain snobbery" thread that is *still* continuing and is even treated in some length at the end of this article containing a "modest proposal" to shorten the digest. We hear about which groups are "snobs" (are not! are too!) and why and then we are treated to lenghty articles from people in each group explaining why they, at least, do not fit this description ("I have *friends* who are all-grain/extract brewers - I can't be a snob!"). > In Usenet, there is a distinct difference between alt.beer and rec. > crafts.brewing. People who post questions (usually beginner's) about > how to make beer on alt.beer, quickly get shuffled off to rcb. Why > do we not have a similar division here -- and soon? How about let's just drop all the namecalling and criticizing articles? I'll bet that those have taken up far more space than any brewery tour articles combined. Also, there *is* another brewing list which is always short. I get both but guess which one I've found most useful thus far, warts and all. - -- Guy McConnell gdmcconn at mspe5.b11.ingr.com "All I need is a pint a day" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 08:52:48 PST From: Robert Pulliam <pulliam at monty.rand.org> Subject: Yeast and Malt Greetings Brewmiesters, Just a couple of quick questions for the collective wisdom of the HBD crowd. 1. I have just put a small amount of wyeast European Ale #1338 in a sterile Fisher bottle with some lightly hopped weak wort (around SG 1020) and attached an air lock. I would like to keep this as a starter base in my refridgerator. When do I place it in the fridge, and when, with what and how often do I feed it? 2. Is it possible to make our own specialty malts (i.e. roasted, chocolate, black patent, etc.) from a regular 2 row? How about crystals etc.? This would certainly help cut down the costs. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated. Robert Pulliam (pulliam at monty.rand.org) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 12:53 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Re:no more syrup/hops in OH/cidery beer/extract info Garland writes: >i am at the stage of omitting the 4lb can of syrup in my recipes >and using all dry malt extract and hop pellets for the first time. > >the recipe was: > >4lb stout syrup (w/hop and roast barley extracts) i have heard that >this does not ferment efficently The efficiency of the fermentation is dependent on a lot of things, one of them being the amount of yeast nutrients in the wort, another being the amount of glucose/fructose/sucrose in the wort (recall Bob Jones' et al. reports of high FGs with sucrose starters). A lot depends on the quality of the extract you use (see later in this post). >3lb dry malt extract >1/2lb dark roast barley (steeped) >and most recently the addition of 1/2lb flaked barley. first i steeped >at end of boil with dark roast, then on next batch boiled 10 min and strained >milky soup into wort. I suggest that you steep all the specialty grains before the boil (as the water is coming up to 170F -- pull them out at 170F) since you would like to coagulate any of the large proteins that you may have introduced from the grains -- which will take the whole 60 min boil. >what is the proper amount of dme to use. 6lb? dark dme is all i have >ever used. i was told that i could use 7lb light malt extract and 2 lb >"black patent." is that unmalted stuff to steep like i do the dark roast? 2 lbs is quite a bit of black patent for a 5 gallon batch. I used 1/2 lb roasted barley and 1/2 lb black patent in a recently tasted batch with two cans (6.6#) of John Bull Dark syrup and it fermented out just fine with Wyeast #1084. I'd say a pound of black patent should be enough if you are using light malt extract. >what kind of hop pellets, and what kind of boil times will i want for >my new, unknown recipe? i don't know what flavor hops are good for >which brews, but i am sure there is the obvious hop and procedure for >the stout/porter i am trying to brew. I used 3 ounces of Clusters for the boil and a half-ounce of Cascades in the fermenter (after the kraeusen fell), but I would recommend adding another 1 ounce of Fuggles or Goldings for the last 15 minutes of the boil (for flavor). >can i grow decent hops in mid ohio? Sure. Give them plenty of sun, plenty of string to climb (15-20 feet!) and lots of water (6-7 gallons per plant, per day). ***************************** Karl writes: >My first batch with chocolate malt matured yesterday, so I had some friends >over and generally it's a yummy beer. However, I still have that slight, >annoying cidery taste. I did add about 150g of sugar beet molasses besides >the malt extract and coarsely ground chocolate malt. Is it perhaps too >refined of a sugar and adds mostly alcohol and not much flavor? Other >suggestions? It's not the level of the refinement, it's the type of sugar. Too much sucrose (cane or beet sugar), dextrose, glucose or fructose will give you cidery flavors. It may not be all your fault -- it could be the fault of your extract (see below). **************************** Dan `Stout' Wiesen writes: >how about providing extract brewers with information and >characteristics of malt extract? Pick up the Zymurgy special issue on Extract Brewing. It has a listing of virtually every extract brand that was available at the time (1986?). One popular extract that was not available at the time is Northwestern. I've spoken to the manufacturer and it is made from 100% barley malt (except the Bavarian Weizen which is 65% wheat malt 35% barley malt) and contains no other sugars, flavors or colorings. The hopped extracts contain the equivalent of 10 IBU of pre-isomerized hop extract (from unlisted hop varieties, alas) for a 5 gallon batch in one 3.3 lb box. (Therefore two 3.3# boxes in a 5 gallon batch will give you 20 IBU). Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:29 CST From: akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli) Subject: Call a spade a spade What with the over-abundance of interesting and informative braying about extract vs all-grain brewing, I have taken the liberty of compiling a list which, I feel, best summarizes the characteristics of the two types of brewers: Extract: Scum of the earth, lazy, ignorant, obtuse, oppressed, white bread with no crust, born-out-of-wedlock complainers. All-grain: Scum of the earth, pompous, swaggering, self- righteous, ill-tempered, intolerant, vain, incestuous braggarts. Naturally I've left out the more colorful descriptors so as not to offend the under-aged (or humor-impaired). So it seems that no matter which brewing technique you employ, you fall into one of the two categories. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but this is one scum-of-the-earth who would like to put this topic to bed. And if we don't do it toot sweet, I'll be forced to post about other beer-related topics even more vulgar than farting. And let me tell you, there are a few. You have been warned. chris campanelli Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 12:07:18 -0800 From: Richard Stueven <gak at wrs.com> Subject: Re: request for extract information In HBD# 1083, Dan `Stout' Wiesen vaguely remembers a mention of a comparative study of malts conducted by a Saskatchewan (yea, his home province) university. He also vaguely remembers some difficulty in obtaining the results of that study. I don't think Martin will mind my re-posting of his article from HBD# 698. If he objects...well, I'll owe him (more) beer. have fun gak 107/H/3&4 - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:03:42 PDT From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah at PacBell.COM> Subject: Sugared Extracts A discussion of the adulteration of malt extracts with corn sugars has been going on over in the newsgroup rec.food.drink, and Paul Chisholm of Bell Labs asked me to let HBD in on the secret. I started the whole fracas by making a cryptic reference to recent research that cast the purity of extracts in doubt, and Doug DeMers of Amdahl immediately asked for sources, and more information. So the following day I posted this: The flap all began in Zymurgy, Vol. 13 #5, Winter 1990. On page 15, in Dan Fink's "Brew News" column, was an item describing a report presented by Professor Michael Ingledew of the University of Saskatchewan to the 1990 meeting of the American Society of Brewing Chemists, on research he and his colleagues were doing on the composition of malt extracts. This research, a combination of High Performance Liquid Chromatography and fermentation studies, disclosed the substantial unlabeled presence of glucose syrup, invert syrup/liquid sucrose, and high fructose corn syrup in the extracts tested. They also discovered poor fermentation from some extracts, due to a deficiency in the free amino nitrogen content normally provided by barley malt (had any stuck fermentations lately?). In the presentation, they did not identify the extracts tested. I don't have to tell you what a storm that raised! The AHA followed up on it, and in Dan Fink's column (page 14) in the Summer 1991 issue of Zymurgy (Vol. 14 #2) they published a letter from Professor Ingledew in which he said that they indeed were NOT planning to release the names of the extracts tested. They felt they couldn't be sure whether the adulteration was done by the manufacturers, or by the distributors. They also felt their sample might not be representative, as they had only tested 44 "lager" extracts, and no "ale" extracts (their terms). They didn't feel they had the time or money to handle either additional testing or possible legal action. They also felt that the burden of following up on the problem they'd identified rested with the brewing industry, through the marketplace. Then Professor Ingledew closed with this paragraph: In spite of my comments above, I have complete confidence in the results obtained in my lab by my colleagues. There is no doubt that some manufacturers are profiting from the addition of lower cost corn sugars to malt extract. Well! Where does that leave us? Neither of the articles made it clear what percentage of the extracts tested had been "juiced", or to what degree. And, of course, we have no idea what they were testing. I hope you're not too terribly depressed. = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = - ------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 12:10:06 -0800 From: Richard Stueven <gak at wrs.com> Subject: Re: 33? Once and for all, the reason they put "33" on Rolling Rock bottles is to keep people guessing about the reason they put "33" on Rolling Rock bottles. have fun gak 107/H/3&4 Return to table of contents
Date: 23 Feb 93 11:29:00 PST From: Tom Haley <tah at ccgate.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM> Subject: Re: Other 'brewing' digests There has been quite alot of discussion lately about throwing yeast into other liquids besides wort. I think that most people who get into brewing do so for the fun of fermenting. That being said, I thought I would help encourage this by posting what I know about other digests. Mead digest submissions mead-lovers at nsa.hp.com requests mead-lovers-request@ nsa.hp.com FTP site: sierra.stanford.edu anon FTP, pub/mead/ cider digest submissions cider at expo.lcs.mit.edu requests to cider-request@ expo.lcs.mit.edu Raw digest archives available for ftp only export.lcs.mit.edu Anyone know of others? Lets encourage fermentation! tom Tom.Haley at ScrippsRanchCA.NCR.COM Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 19:03:53 PST From: Pat Lasswell <patl at microsoft.com> Subject: Wyeast Bohemian wrt attenuation Data point: I just bottled a bock (15.5B/SG 62) fermented with the Bohemian yeast. I chose it because I wanted a high terminal gravity. Instead, I ended up with a very alcoholic, dry beer. Hmmm. If it weren't so clean, I'd swear it was Belgian. Fermentation temps were in the low 40s and 30s; and -- as I recall -- the saccharification rest was held at 158 (2-decoction mash). Ars Zymurgia patl at microsoft.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 20:17 PST From: CIS309137 at axe.humboldt.edu Subject: SUSCRIBE PLEASE ENROLL ME IN THE HOMEBREW MAIL LIST Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 11:29:41 +0100 From: dejonge at geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge) Subject: Refractometers and Hydrometers In HBD1084 John Cotterill writes: >Brew Dudes and Dudettes, >I have been using a refractometer for a few months now. This past weekend >I decided to do an experiment to see how the refractometer readings match >up to hydrometer readings on beer. I filled my test jar with an IPA and >put my hydrometer in and it read 1.015. I took a drop of the IPA and put >it on my refractometer and it read 8.2% Brix. Converting this number to >points S.G., its about 1.032!! What gives here? BTW, both numbers are >temperature corrected. Sounds ok: I did a simple experiment once with a bit of unfermented wort, adding (96%) alcohol volumes to see the effect on measured density: F.G.= density of wort without the alcohol. Numbers in the table are the measured values (with a hydrometer) after adding the percentage of alcohol given in the columns (All values +/- my accuracy; your mileage had better vary.... ) %AbV-> F.G. | 1 2 4 6 8 - ------------------------------------ 1020 | 1019 1018 1014 1011 1009 1030 | 1029 1028 1025 1021 1017 1040 | 1038 1036 1032 1029 1026 So, I would guess that your beer, with 32 gravity points of sugars, contains a little over 8% alcohol by volume, which produces a 1015 hydrometer reading.... Marc de Jonge (Who fears this hobby may be getting out of hand:) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 13:36 GMT+200 From: Michel Vandenplas <mvdp at maties.sun.ac.za> Subject: Malt roasting - help! Maybe a better subject title would be Homebrewing in Darkest Africa. One of my many problems (as a novice there are of course many others) is that the only malt I can buy at a reasonable price, is unroasted. The grain makes a good pale ale (to my unrefine Naturally, while I like pale ales, I'd like to make some darker brews. To this end I've roasted some of the grain at between 100-110C. This grain has then been mixed with about 70% unroasted grain and extracted, giving a darker colour to the beer. Is this Lastly, I've been using my wife's rolling pin to crush the grain. Does anyone have any inexpensive and easy alternatives to this? I'm surely loosing a lot in extract potential this way. Many thanks to all the digest contributors from whom I've gleaned advice - without their knowledge that is :-). Regards Michel Return to table of contents
Date: 24 Feb 1993 08:02:38 -0500 (EST) From: Sandy Cockerham <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L at LILLY.COM> Subject: Laser Labels Adhesive/tale of "33" Last HBD someone asked how to apply the labels they make on the laser printer. Stolen directly from an old HBD-- MILK!!!!! I have used this technique. I used skim milk, dipped the label in and smoothed out the bubbles. It held extremely well. Non-toxic too! On another note, the story I heard regarding the 33 on the Rolling Rock label, which by the way is not stuck on with milk :) When the designs for the RR labels were submitted, they were numbered. The one chosen was (you guessed it) #33. As the tale goes, when it went into production someone neglected to take the 33 off and it has been on the label ever since. Sandy C. From: COCKERHAM SANDRA L (MCVAX0::RX31852) To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com") Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:40 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: CIS >From: lawson at acuson.com (Drew Lawson) >I would like to point out that there is a great difference between CompuServe and the Digest. That is that most CIS users do not read all the message threads.... Also, of course, the Digest has developed ARF antibodies and will likely react to even borderline messages if they are from you. Good points, both. But perhaps the former is a symptom of the latter. Just a point of reference, I have lost interest in CIS for exactly that reason. It would cost a fortune to read all the articles and there is no way to sort out what is worth reading. People have no qualms about posting messages such as "Good idea, Bob." and the board is loaded with them, probably even the majority. Even a thread with one's own name in the subject can lead to endless drivel but you keep reading it so as not to miss anything that might be appropriate. I think the dicipline forced on people by knowing that everyone has to at least download what one writes is a tremendous house cleaner. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:39 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Sanitizer >From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav at bnr.ca> >Subject: re: idophor, rinse/reuse >JS relates his experiences with iodophor sanitizer: I've had no problem with my brand of iodophor ('iosan') changing colour during normal use. Here is the sequel to my experiments: Two test tubes with 1 oz to 1 gal idophor, lids screwed on tight.. One tube remained undisturbed. The other shaken vigorously at regualar intervals. For several weeks, no change in either. It has been about a week since I last looked but yeasterday, I was astounded to note that, the control was totally clear and the one that had been shaken was still the original color. Any ideas now? I will do it a again with more controls but this is totally surprising to me. JS Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:40 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: lager >From: Joe Boardman <boardman at amber.Colorado.EDU> >Subject: an HBD-inspired yeast experiment >Does anybody want to hazard a guess about the taste differences? Does "clean" really mean anything? Is anybody going to be in Boulder in about 2 months to try some in person? Does anybody "know" they can tell them apart in a double-blind test? I'll report back if there's interest. I would hazard a guess but in about a week I will have the results from my own similar experiment. At the moment, I will bet that a new thread on "Lager Snobs" is not far off. Keep us posted. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:40 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Beer Crawls Re: Jeff Frane on Beer Crawls I have posted an article in response to many postings several times over the past two weeks and it has yet to get into the digest. I try to minimize bandwidth by combing many responses into a single posting. Obviously, the Digest software is sorting out long messages and "clensing" them. In order to fool the system, I have broken it down into many short ones and eliminated the ones that no longer have relevance. Whether people agree with what I say or not, I suggest that responses to current discussions are more relevant and in line with the objectives of this forum than long feature articles on commercial beer and establishments. I won't go so far as to say they do not belong here but perhaps they could be saved till the Digest gets the "slows" again. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:41 CST From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Galvanized Screen >From: hopduvel!john at linac.fnal.gov (John Isenhour) >Subject: galvanized hardware cloth ok for sparging? >I've been wanting to build a mash/sparge cooler with a mesh filter as the rigid manifold arrangement sits a little too high off the bottom of my cooler. I havent been able to locate brass or stainless mesh locally but I found some 1/8" galvanized hardware cloth. I haven't heard of anyone using this - is there a problem? I used galvanized hardware cloth on the original EASYMASHER (tm) for several dozen batches and soo no problem with it. Zinc is a common mineral suplement in vitimin pills so I see no reason not to use it. Not sure why you want to use 1/8" mesh. I use 30 mesh (30 wires/inch) in the EM and it works very well. The original used widow screen, whatever that is and it also worked well. The only source I have found for SS screen is McMaster Carr but I have to buy about $50 worth. Not too practical if you are only making one. > Also, what is a reasonable minimum length of mesh if its rolled into a tube? Don't quite understand what you are doing but the tube in the EM is 6 inches long and 3/8" in diameter. It is pinched off at one end and slips over 3/8" copper tubing on the other. The tubing is bent so the screen rests on the bottom. This handles the entire task of the false bottom, slotted tube and other such devices. js Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 9:06:40 EST From: Jim Grady <jimg at hpwarga.wal.hp.com> Subject: Gluten in beer I believe that this was discussed before, or at least something similar, but I do not know how it was resolved. We will be having company over for dinner in a couple weeks and one of the people coming cannot have any gluten in his diet. The question naturally is, would homebrew be a problem? The discussion earlier was along the lines of how much wheat is in the beer but "The Cook's Companion" says that barley has some gluten too (albeit, not as much as wheat). Furthermore, it says that gluten is a protein. This makes me ask a couple questions: 1. Is it some of the protein that settles out in the hot or cold break? 2. Is it one of the proteins responsible for aiding head retention (if indeed proteins are responsible)? After all, wheat is high in gluten and wheat malt is often recommended to aid head retention. 3. Is it a protein that is broken down in the protein rest or in the malting process? e-mail or posting is fine. I will summarize any e-mail responses I get. Thanks for your help. - -- Jim Grady |"Talent imitates, genius steals." Internet: jimg at wal.hp.com | Phone: (617) 290-3409 | T. S. Eliot Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1085, 02/25/93