HOMEBREW Digest #1139 Wed 12 May 1993

Digest #1138 Digest #1140

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  FX Matts (Karl A. Sweitzer)
  Going Blind, Egg Drop Soup, Worms (Jack Schmidling)
  Koch, GABF, and Ancient History ("Marlene Spears")
  Fast fermentation - is this a problem? (David Hinz)
  Honey & Contests ("Anderso_A")
  Chang ("/R=FDACB/R=A1/U=RIDGELY/O=HFM-400/TN=FTS 402-1521/FFN=Bill Ridgely/")
  sugars/belgian beer brewing (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570)
  beer color in Fix&Fix VMO (Frank Tutzauer)
  review of THREAD v2.1 (Frank Tutzauer)
  Anchor Steam practices: a compilation (Frank Tutzauer)
  Sam Adams (esonn1)
  Possible problems with Wyeast 1028 (Al Richer)
  Re: All grain instructions - how's this look?  (Drew Lynch)
  Re:canned Guinness & other beers (Jim Busch)
  Hefe Weissbier advice (mgg)

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 11 May 93 08:54:19 EDT From: envkas at sn370.utica.ge.com (Karl A. Sweitzer) Subject: FX Matts The FX Matt Brewing Co is now supporting the homebrew community too. They have the been the gracious sponsor of the Mohawk Valley Friends of Beer for about two years now. They converted a room in the back of their "Brewery Shop" into a test kitchen where we have taught homebrew classes and where we hold our meetings. They now also sell homebrew supplies. Their Associate Brew Master, Jim Kuhr, is also a homebrewer. He has made 5 gal batches right in their lab! He and the Senior Brew Master Norm Grisewood are also studying for the BJCP exam. Pam Kuhr runs the homebrew shop. All of the people at the brewery have been very open about information and techniques, but don't try to ask about recipes. Our homebrew club has had the luxury of going on private tours with the brew masters. Other homebrew clubs have also arranged tours with the brewery. Their address is 811 Edward St, Utica, NY 13502 To answer Kirk Anderson's questions, they do use high kraeusen wort to prime their lager beers. They also recycle the CO2 that is produced in fermentation for use later for purging empty storage vessels, etc.. Karl Sweitzer envkas at sn370.utica.ge.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 08:04 CDT From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Going Blind, Egg Drop Soup, Worms >From: Steve Dempsey <steved at longs.lance.colostate.edu> >Subject: Re: Methanol (aka wood alcohol) >Methanol production requires: 1) the proper yeast (wild yeasts) 2) unique fermentables (cellulose == wood, grain husks) The "going blind" momily has nothing to do with making beer or even with distilling white lightn'n. It has to do with the fact that, in the good old days, unscrupulous producers, middlemen and even a well meaning friend would add commercial alcohol to booz to streatch his fermented/distilled mash. If he used the wrong kind of alcohol, either methanol or denatured ethanol, the result was poison and one of the symptoms could be blindness. There is no way you can make anything that will cause blindlness by mashing, fermenting and distilling the kind of stuff normally used in beer and whiskey. ............... While on momilies, let's talk about the rolling boil and "great hot-break" momily. I have always been a bit disappointed with the sleazy little bits of coagulated protein in my brew kettle. I boil on my aluminum melting furnace for at least 90 minutes in a 16 gal kettle. I can bring 10 gal to a furious boil in about 15 minutes. Several weeks ago, I did a batch on my kitchen stove with an EASYMASHER installed in an 8 gal kettle just to prove that it can be done without any fancy burners. The result was a "boil" that I would describe more as a circulation and I do not recall seeing a single bubble break the surface. In spite of this, I evaporated the six gallons down to 5 and had coagulated protein floating around that I could have made lasagna with. So it would seem that if one wants "great hot-break", ease up on the heat. I also made believe I didn't own a wort chiller and let it cool naturally to pitching temp and, after cleaning and sterilizing the kettle, did the primary ferment in it. It is now clearing nicely in a carboy and last night's sample would indicate that it is not significantly different from any other ale I have made with the same ingredients and far more bother. I wait with BATED* breath. * It has been pointed out to me that "baited breath" results from having a mouth full of worms. js Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 09:54:58 EDT From: "Marlene Spears" <hopfen!marlene at uunet.UU.NET> Subject: Koch, GABF, and Ancient History Being a senior citizen of the Kochpeace foundation, I thought I'd recollect for the young whippersnappers on HBD and flame a little to warm the hearts of the gray haired set. For you reference hounds, Summer 1987 issue of American Brewer magazine, page 15, Vince Cottone's article: "Beer & Loathing in Denver: The Great American Beer Festival 1986"; and Fall 1987 issue AB, page 26, Vince Cottone continues: "Movement in the Right Direction: The Great American Beer Festival". Koch introduced the "sex even sells contract beers" slant at the 1985 GABF. Until he came along, the popularity contest actually had something to do with the taste of the beer. But he added freebies (baseball caps and tee shirts?) and had solicitous servers working the crowd. He won that year. The next year, he had some competition (Pennsylvania Pils had a nice Blonde urging you to try "the beer with body"), but his freebies turned the Trick again. In 1987, however, Koch had some strong competition in the ballot stuffing category. He almost lost to Boulder Brewing, but he managed to pass out hundreds of free GABF tickets through his "assistants", with the only string being "vote for my beer". So he won again. BTW, it was Lightship that year, not the Boston Lager, which never won three years in a row. His advertising is kinda like saying George Bush won the Presidential election three times in a row (1980/1984/1988). Get the picture? No? Well, in 1988 Koch wasn't ALLOWED to compete in the GABF "Best Beer in America" contest. So the GABF organizers belatedly got the picture. By then, though, they'd lost a lot of support from the sensible Northwest folk who had set up their own Oregon Brewers' Festival and didn't invite Smadams, even though it was indeed being produced under contract by H. Weinhard's. But enough of history. Get back to your brew kettles! - -- - -------------- marlene at hopfen.rsi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 09:07:19 CDT From: hinz at memphis.med.ge.com (David Hinz) Subject: Fast fermentation - is this a problem? <Insert standard greeting of your choice here> I've done about a half-dozen batches, including my first all-grainer last weekend, and each of them have something in common - they all ferment out quicker than Papazian says they will. I don't know if this is a problem, a good sign, or what, so here's the details..... For my last batch ("Silver Dollar Porter", all-grain) I used Wyeast "British Ale" (1098????), pitched into a quart of starter wort a day ahead of time. There was a bit of foam on the surface of the starter but no krausen to speak of. (foam was maybe 1/8" thick). I pitched it anyway because the wort was ready for it. I chilled the wort to 75(F). The next morning, I got up, the wort was fermenting wildly, I needed to use a blow-off tube in a 6.5 gallon carboy. That's another thing Papazian says you'll never need to do, but I've done it on two batches. The strange thing is the temperature of the wort was up to 82(F), even though it was cool in the house that night. I started the batch on Saturday, and this morning the bubble rate was down to once every 30 seconds or so, which to me means time for the secondary, and/or wait until saturday or sunday and bottle. It seems that that is the pattern, I brew one saturday and bottle the next. From what I've read, however, it's usually several to many weeks between cooking & bottling. I can see a couple of possibilities here. 1> I'm just getting a good start with my yeast, and I'm worrying, 2> I'm not letting it finish (probably not the case, I bottle when the gravity stops moving for a couple of days and the bubbles are once/90 seconds), or 3> I should pitch at a lower temperature. So, what's the deal? or is it 4> (insert reason here)? Thanks for any info you can help with. Dave Hinz P.S. The many responses I got about going all-grain were fantastic, thanks to anyone who I might not have written to personally. The advice, hints, and "Don't forget"s were quite helpful! Return to table of contents
Date: 11 May 93 05:05:11 EST From: "Anderso_A" <Anderso_A%55W3.CCBRIDGE.SEAE.mrouter at seaa.navsea.navy.mil> Subject: Honey & Contests Message Creation Date was at 11-MAY-1993 09:35:00 Greetings, I've a couple of questions I'd like to raise: 1. I just bottled a honey-beer. Honey contributed approximately 40% of the fermentable sugars. The OG was 1.060 and the FG was 1.007. I used Wyeast 1056, so I expected from 70 to 75% attenuation and an FG of around 1.016. I also had the beer spend 2 weeks in primary and 2 weeks in secondary. a. Does honey ferment to a greater attenuation? b. Did the long time in the fermenters combined with the use of honey cuase it to ferment to so low an FG? c. When I sampled a small portion during bottling the beer seemed to be full bodied. Am I worrying about nothing? 2. I just received the results from the two beers I entered in the "Nations Capital Spirit of Free Beer Competion". I'm not complaining about the results, but rather I'm not certain as to the purpose. I was told that I would be able to get helpful feed-back on my entries. In some caes I did, in other cases there would be no comments and just a number (lower than the maximum score). For feed-back purposes that sucks. However, if the purpose of the competion is simply to pick the best beer in each category, then I guess that is acceptable. Please inform me - just what is the purpose of these competitions? Thanks Andy Anderson Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 10:12:00 EST From: "/R=FDACB/R=A1/U=RIDGELY/O=HFM-400/TN=FTS 402-1521/FFN=Bill Ridgely/" at mr.cber.fda.gov Subject: Chang In HBD #1138, Mark Elliott writes: >I have a question for you beer scholars out there. This past weekend my father-in-law and I were quaffing a couple, and he asked me if anyone on the network had ever mentioned "Chang". >At any rate, he said it is a brewed beverage, consumed during social and sometimes at ceremonial gatherings (sometimes spelled as "Chan" by those in Tibet). Said it was quite strong, and (given the altitude) would really 'do a number on you'. He wants to know if anyone out there in HBD Land knows a full history and recipe. Well, since my colleague Wendy Aaronson and I will be giving a presentation on chang at this year's AHA Conference, I suppose this puts us in good position to help with your question. Chang is one of many names given to the indigenous grain beers brewed throughout the Indian subcontinent and the Himalayas. The Indians call the beer pachwai and brew it mostly from rice. Nepali chang is brewed from rice, millet, barley, and occasionally corn. In Tibet, the beer (usually spelled "chung") is brewed almost exclusively from barley. The key ingredient, however, is not the grain but the yeast cake known variously as bakhar (India), marcha (Nepal), or phap (Tibet). Preparation of yeast cake is a cottage industry throughout the region, and there is considerable pride taken in the quality of the various cakes produced regionally. Consensus among the Tibetans in our area is that yeast cakes from Darjeeling make the finest chang. The yeast cakes contain a combination of Saccharomyces and other fungi, primarily Aspergillus and Mucor. The various microflora work in combination to convert the starch in the unmalted grains to sugars and then ferment them. The resulting beer is fairly low in alcohol initially but has potential to become quite strong if left to ferment for an extended period. Preparation of chang is fairly simple. The grains (approximately 1/4 kilo per liter or roughly 2 lbs per gallon of finished chang) are washed, boiled until soft, then drained and spread out on a nampo or shallow basket. The yeast cake is crushed, mixed with a little flour or tsampa (Tibetan barley malt powder), then worked thoroughly into the cooled grain. The whole mass is then covered (traditionally with banana leaves) and left to ferment. After several days, much of the mass is liquified and converted to young chang. At this stage, it can be consumed as a thick gruel, or the remaining grain can be strained out, making a true beverage chang. As mentioned earlier, the beer can be left to ferment further and will become stronger over time. Chang is consumed regularly in the home as well as at weddings, funerals, and other ceremonial occasions. A large body of tradition (and music) has been built over the centuries to accompany the ceremonial consumption of both young and old chang. Anyone interested in these indigenous beers may want to attend our presentation at this year's conference. Wendy and I will be serving our own interpretations of chang as well as chicha (the ancient corn beer of the Andes). It should be a lot of fun, and we look forward to meeting many of the regular HBD contributors. Nemaste! Bill Ridgely ridgely at cber.cber.fda.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 1993 09:47:58 -0500 (CDT) From: tony at spss.com (Tony Babinec 312 329-3570) Subject: sugars/belgian beer brewing William Kitch had some comments on sugars in the last hbd. Here are some comments on his comments. Brown sugar (in USA) is refined white sugar with added molasses. Molasses is any of various thick syrups produced in refining sugars. There are two or three distillations, of which the thickest is blackstrap molasses. As blackstrap molasses is strongly flavored, look for mild molasses. Treacle is found in England, and is similar to molasses. Whether or not there are any differences in process or end result, what I can find as demerara or turbinado sugar appears to be the same thing. It is rocky and light amber in color, and is only partly refined. Various forms of this sugar are widely available. Turbinado sugar can be found in health food and natural food stores. I recently saw a 5 pound bag at GNC for about $6. Raw Sugar and Sugar in the Raw are available at commercial grocery stores. Sucanat(tm) can be found in 1 pound cans. Does anyone have any domestic sources for candi sugar? I recently got my hands on some from Belgium. The sugar is either light -- kind of frosty white, not glassy clear like rock candy -- or dark (brownish or dark amber). It also comes in two sizes -- small and large. I think Rajotte says somewhere that the simple sugar mix in candi sugar is desirable. Also, he says that sugars are used for coloring. A pound of the dark candi sugar added to a beer made with only pale malts would result in an amber-to-brown beer. The other reason to add sugar is to produce a high-gravity beer that is not all malt, because at high gravities an all-malt beer can be quite weighty and palate-satiating. In a similar vein, homemade brown malt (say oven-toast pale malt for 40 minutes at 400 degrees F) or Special-B (200 - 220L) malt used in small amounts will provide coloring without adding much of a flavor contribution. Note that Rajotte's recipes avoid highly-roasted grains (chocolate malt, black malt, roasted barley) and also avoid large additions of crystal malt. Honeys should be experimented with in brewing. Light honeys, such as clover honey, alfalfa honey, thistle honey, or even orange blosssom honey, could be used in light-colored beers, while darker honey, such as buckwheat or autumn wildflower honey, could be used in amber to dark beers. One of the Mad Brewer's beers -- is it Oerbier? -- uses some honey. Finally, isn't invert sugar directly assimilable by the yeast? Other sugars must first be inverted or otherwise broken down by the yeast. Return to table of contents
Date: 11 May 1993 11:44:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Frank Tutzauer <COMFRANK at ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> Subject: beer color in Fix&Fix VMO All right, the semester's finally over, and I've got time to catch up on my digests. I've got quite a few questions and tidbits that have been accumulating, and now that activity on the digest has slowed somewhat, coupled with my new found time, it's time to post. First, let's start with Vienna, Marzen, Oktoberfest by George and Laurie Fix. I just recently purchased this book and it's dynamite, although, as usual, Brewers Publications has done a sloppy job of printing. One of the first things I did was dig up the errata sheet posted by Laurie Fix way back in HBD 859. I seem to have the first printing, and I don't know if a second printing is yet out, but I did catch an error not listed on the correction sheet. In particular, on pg. 88 they are discussing the calculation of beer color. The example they are using has 7.5 lbs of 1.8L malt and 9/16 lbs of 20L malt, which gives a Lovibond rating of 7.5(1.8) + (9/16)(20) = 13.5 + 11.25 = 24.75. But when they normalize to 5 gallons, they calculate 25.75/5 = 5.15, which is a mathematically true statement, but has the wrong numerator (25.75, instead of 24.75). I believe the correct equation should be 24.75/5 = 4.95. Relatedly, concerning the nifty graph on p. 91 showing Lovibond as a function of dilution water added to a 20ml sample of 17L Michelob dark: I fit an exponential decay model to the data in the graph, and thought those of you who program or otherwise need the equation would be interested. The model is: y = a + b*exp(-c*x) where y is the Lovibond to be calculated, x is the dilution in ml, and the constants are a = 1.6545419 b = 15.354601 c = 1/65.709196. The fit of the model is excellent (R2 = .999996), but only use it in the range 17L to 2L. The reason is because, as Darryl Richman points out in HBD 854, the curve flattens past 17L. The exponential decay, of course, does not, so extrapolating beyond 17L will give you major bad numbers. Return to table of contents
Date: 11 May 1993 11:44:53 -0400 (EDT) From: Frank Tutzauer <COMFRANK at ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> Subject: review of THREAD v2.1 Those of you who search back digests with Tom Kaltenbach's THREAD program for the IBM PC will be happy to know that Tom has released a new version, THREAD 2.1, which introduces a few improvements over version 1.2. (See Tom's announcement in HBD 1127 and HBD 1131 for archive info, etc.) For those of you who have never used it, THREAD allows the user to input one or more search strings which the program then searches for in specified HomeBrew Digests. Because it is tailor made for the HBD, THREAD is much faster than generic text-search programs, and easily allows the user to follow a discussion thread, locate a specific article, or gather all articles on any subject of interest. NEW FEATURES The enhancements of version 2.1 that I particularly like are: 1. Overwrite protection. When the user specifies an existing file for output, THREAD 2.1 gives the user the choice of overwriting, appending, or aborting. 2. Numerical-order searches. Version 1.2 searched the digests in the order in which they appeared, whereas 2.1 searches them in numerical order. This is convenient if you want to interrupt the search midway through, so that when you return you can easily pick up the search where it left off. 3. Keyword highlighting. When an article is displayed on the screen, all occurences of the keyword(s) are highlighted, making it easier to discern the context within which the keyword is used. 4. Improved cursor movement. The user can use the up and down arrow keys and PageUp and PageDown to move through the found article. 5. Naive multitasking. In version 1.2, THREAD would search for a message, display it, and then continue the search after the user had read the message and decided whether or not to keep it. In version 2.1, the program continues searching *while* the user is reading the previously found message, thus greatly decreasing the apparent search time. 6. Search statistics. When in automatic mode, THREAD displays a count of the number of files and messages searched, the number of matches found, and the number of matches written to the output file. The file count, in particular, is useful inasmuch as it gives you an idea of how much progress has been made if you are searching a really huge number of digests. PERFORMANCE Being the geek that I am, I decided to do some comparative speed tests between the old and new versions. I happened to have 82 digests in a directory, so I used these to compare version 1.2 to 2.1. The machine I used is a very old 8086, so we're talking sloooow. I began by conducting a very broad search. I simply searched for "beer" in the 82 digests, and put the programs into automatic search mode (in the interactive mode, there really *is* no comparison--because of the naive multitasking, THREAD 2.1 wins hands down). THREAD 1.2 completed the search in 6 minutes and 20 seconds. THREAD 2.1 took 6 minutes and 58 seconds--slightly slower. I don't know why--maybe because of the search statistics. Next, I wanted to do a search that required a lot of gyrating because of a complicated boolean search, so I had the programs search for "malt and mill or maltmill but not miller". After I input this search criterion, I realized what a doofus I was since if the program found "malt" and "mill" it would also find "maltmill"--still, since the program evaluates the string anyway, the search criterion still meets my standard of being a (needlessly) complicated search. Anyway, THREAD 1.2 took 12 minutes and 17 seconds, whereas THREAD 2.1 finished in 12 minutes flat. Finally, I wanted to see how the programs would fare on a faster machine, so I copied the 82 digests to my 80486 (33 MHz) and reran the the above "malt ... not miller" search. THREAD 1.2 finished in 1 minute and 2 seconds, and THREAD 2.1 completed in a mere 43 seconds. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN FUTURE VERSIONS Only two things. The first is rather picky: When in automatic mode, while the program is updating the search statistics, the cursor jumps around the screen in an annoying fashion. This wasn't a problem in the previous version, because there weren't any search statistics. A list of files searched scrolled up the screen, so the cursor wasn't a problem. In the new version, although I *like* the search stats, I just wish the cursor didn't jump around. (I told you it was picky.) The second enhancement I would like to see, though, is more substantive. Currently, when input strings are connected with logical operators, the program parses the input by simply resolving the operations left to right. I would like the ability to use parentheses to control the parsing. For example, someone wanting to read articles about the beer color in Vienna, Marzen, Oktoberfest (sound familiar?) might reasonably want to conduct a search for (George or Laurie or Fix) and (SRM or Lovibond). Currently, the only way to do so would be to conduct *two* searches. One for "George or Laurie or Fix and SRM" and another for "George or Laurie or Fix and Lovibond". This works, but a single search would be nicer. Unfortunately, my guess is that it would take quite a substantial revision of the logic of the program to allow parenthetic input. Even as it is, however, Tom's THREAD program is a gem. Before I got it, I would use Magellan or WordPerfect or something, and it took *hours* to search my HBD collection. Now I can finish it in minutes. Thanks, Tom! - --frank p.s. In addition to being a good programmer, Tom must be a pretty fair brewer, too. He took first place in the porter category at the recent Upstate NY Homebrewers Assoc. annual competition. Congratulations. Return to table of contents
Date: 11 May 1993 11:45:28 -0400 (EDT) From: Frank Tutzauer <COMFRANK at ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu> Subject: Anchor Steam practices: a compilation Now that I mash, I thought I would try again to mimic Anchor Steam. My extract version was pretty decent, but it missed in a few key respects that I thought I might be able to rectify by mashing. In anticipation of brewing an Anchor Steam clone, I went through all my back digests as well as other materials I had lying around, and collected every scrap of information I could find. I have compiled it in a collection of notes, which I have printed below. My purpose is two-fold. First, discussions of Anchor Steam come up every so often, but always in little bits and pieces. I thought it would be a good idea to have everything in one place. Second, of course, I want to *brew* this beer, so I thought by publishing this in the digest you could tell me what I've got right, what I've got wrong, and what I've got missing. I cite my references by number in square brackets. A lot of the things I say below I say as though they are undisputed facts, when, in reality, they are opinions and guesses (we are back-engineering, after all). So, when I say something like "Anchor Steam is brewed with an upward infusion mash [1]" what I really mean is: "ACCORDING TO REFERENCE 1, Anchor Steam is brewed with an upward infusion mash." *I* don't have any first hand knowledge of the material below. Of all the references, number 1 is the most trustworty (it's Fritz Maytag's article in the Beer Styles issue of Zymurgy). Finally, I want to express my thanks to everyone on the digest who contributed the information I am summarizing, and also to Tom Kaltenbach for THREAD version 2.1, without which I would not have been able to compile these comments. Ok, here we go: GRAIN BILL Anchor Steam is all-malt [1,5] made from 2-row pale malt [1,3,5,6,7] and crystal (caramel) malt [1,3,7]. No one has reported the proportion of pale to crystal, but this ratio will be in large part influenced (but not completely determined) by the gravity of the wort and color of the finished beer. See SPECS below. MASH AND SPARGE Anchor Steam is brewed with an upward infusion mash [1] that varies according to the particular malt varieties [1]. A typical (common?) mash schedule consists of 3 different temperatures [3], with a mash out of 160F [2] and, I believe, a protein rest of 125-126F. My evidence for the protein rest is an inference on my part from reference [6]. My copy of reference [6] is actually a reprint from BREWERS DIGEST, and on the cover of the reprint is a great big color photograph of Fritz Maytag standing next to what is very clearly the mash tun. An easy-to-read temperature dial on the tun reads 52C, which is 125.6F (unless I've miscalculated). I suppose it's possible that they were actually heating or cooling the tun at the time of the photograph, and the temperature was on the way up or down, with the photo being snapped at the moment that it was 52C. I find it easier to believe, however, that they were at a *rest* point, which says "protein rest" to me. In any event, they conduct a 2-hour sparge [3] with 160F water [2]. BOILING AND HOPPING Anchor boils for one and a half hours [3] with whole hops [5,6] added throughout the boil [3]. They use "a significant amount" of Northern Brewer hops [1], and bitter at a level of 33 IBUs [1], although others have claimed the rate is 40 IBUs [4]. I am inclined to believe the lower figure since it comes from Fritz himself. The quantity of hops used is approximately 1 pound per barrel [6], which (if I am correct that a barrel is about 31 US gallons), amounts to a shade over 2 and 1/2 ounces per 5-gallon batch. Although most agree that Anchor uses only Northern Brewer hops in its steam beer [e.g., 7], one occasionally sees other hops mentioned, for example, Hersbrucker [4] or Galena [7]. With regard to dry hopping, the common wisdom is that Liberty Ale is the only regular Anchor product to be dry hopped, although there is indirect evidence to the contrary. In particular, reference [5] is promotional material that I received from the Anchor reps at the 1992 Buffalo Beer Fest. (Actually, they were probably representatives of the local distributor of Anchor Steam). Although the section on Anchor's steam beer does not *explicitly* state that it is dry hopped, the Liberty Ale entry says: "Hops are added [to Liberty Ale] during aging (a process called dry-hopping) [to] further heighten the aroma. This is one of the secrets behind the notable bouquets of *all* Anchor Brewing's beers." Parentheses are theirs, brackets are mine, and the emphasis on *all* is mine. This sentence would seem to imply that Anchor Steam is dry-hopped. I asked one of the Anchor reps if my understanding of the sentence was correct. He was clue free, and I commented (jokingly and good-naturedly), "Gee they sent the wrong guy down here." A while later (when I went back for seconds), the rep had obviously checked it out, because he made a point of dragging me over to the side to tell me that, "Yes, they do double-hop it." Double-hop?!? Well, I figured he meant dry hop. In any event, take this dry-hopping information with a grain of salt. It is based on inference and the remarks of a local distributor, rather than someone who actually worked in the brewery. Just from taste, I personally believe Anchor Steam is *not* dry-hopped. FERMENTATION A bottom-fermenting yeast is pitched at 60F [1]. Most everyone suggests using Wyeast California Lager, but I have also had good success with Wyeast American Lager. The fermentation is conducted at 60F [3], and the peak temperature is limited "very carefully" [1]. The fermenters are shallow copper pans. Anchor typically conducts a 3-day primary and a 3-week secondary [7]. The beer is lagered at 50F [3]. CONDITIONING Anchor Steam is kraeusened [1,7] to give 2.8 volumes of CO2 [1]. It is conditioned in the low 50s (degrees F) [1], and the carbonation takes place in sealed stainless-steel containers over several weeks time [6]. It is flash- pasteurized at 170F and bottled so as to have extremely low levels of oxygen, with only CO2 in the headspace [7]. SPECS O.G. = 1.049 - 1.050 [1] F.G. = approx. 1.013 [1] IBU = 33 [1] SRM = 11-13 [1] Alcohol = 3.9% (weight) [7] 4.7% (volume) [1] REFERENCES 1. Maytag, Fritz (1991). California common beer. ZYMURGY, 14, 50-52. [This is Fritz's article on Anchor Steam look alikes for the Traditional Beer Styles special issue.] 2. Fix, George J. (Jan. 15, 1992). Sparge temperatures. HomeBrew Digest #1068. [George is citing Mark Carpenter of Anchor Brewing.] 3. Sassen, Tim. (April 13, 1993). Tips gleaned from Anchor brewing tour. HomeBrew Digest #1132. 4. Dipalma, Jim. (Dec. 1, 1992). Re: Wyeast 2112, counter pressure bottling. HomeBrew Digest #1028. [Jim is recalling a tour report posted "some time ago" in the Digest. He says his IBU figure is from Eckhardt.] 5. No author. (Aug. 1984). Going against the grain. TWA AMBASSADOR, pp. 36-38. [This is promotional material I received from Anchor at the Buffalo Beer Fest.] 6. Kellett, Ann H. (June 1988). The first little national brewery. BREWERS DIGEST, reprint. [Again, promotional material. I don't know if the photograph of Fritz appears in the actual journal, or just on the reprint.] 7. Dunn, Dick. (Dec. 5, 1991). Notes from a tour of Anchor. HomeBrew Digest #777. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 11:58:08 -0400 From: esonn1 at cc.swarthmore.edu Subject: Sam Adams As Steve Stroud says, some of Sam Adams is brewed in the Jamaica Plain section of Boston (which actually used to be the center of brewing in Boston because of its better than average water quality) but when I went on a tour there, they said 5% of their beer is brewed there. The rest is contract brewed all over the country and at a place in Germany. The reason they cited should sit will with all of you HBDers: freshness. Just as Anchor's beer is either unavailable or scarce on the east coast, because Sam Adams says it's concerned about it beer traveling over long distances and thus delivering a less fresh product to the consumer. I guess the way they justify calling it a micro-brewer is that it brews in smaller batches than AB or Miller and each brewery serves a specific area. Decide for yourself. One other interesting note on SA is that even though they say they are so concerned with freshness, they pasteurize all their bottled beer because "we're worried a distributer will not take care of it properly and the consumer will blame us for a lousy product." So if you want to judge SA you should find it on tap. Eugene Sonn esonn1 at cc.swarthmore.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 12:47:03 EDT From: richer at desi.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Al Richer) Subject: Possible problems with Wyeast 1028 I don't know if anybody else is going to be there, but I am going to be in Atlanta in early June for the DECUS Symposium. If anybody else is there, feel like getting together to talk a little homebrewing, and drink a little beer? But now on to brewing stuff... Recently I made a generic stout using Wyeast London Ale yeast, rather than my usual Irish Ale yeast. The recipe is (from memory) as follows: 9 pounds klages 1/2 pound chocolate malt 1/2 pound roast barley 1 pound 80L crystal 3/4 stick brewers licorice 2 ozs. fuggles (hazy on this...) 1 pound brown sugar I used my standard infusion mash at 152F, boiled for 90 min. with 3 hops additions, force-chilled and pitched. The yeast (a 1-qt starter) took 36 hours to take off, then pumped up to a nice krauesen. This is all well and good. Now comes the funny bit... It fermented for 4 weeks... I have never had a situation like this happen with any of my beers. It seemed like the yeast went super-attenuative, as the FG stopped at around 1.008. The stuff it produced is drinkable, but hellaciously alcoholic and with a pronounced particulate haze that seems to be yeast. There are two possibilities here. The first is that I am just not used to using domestic malts (I've used Brirish malts up till now). The second is that the 1028 did something wierd. I consider the second a possibility, as I split the pack and made slants when I brewed this batch. The slants look really wierd in comparison to the slants of 1084 that I usually have. Anybody think it'd be worth the effort to send one of these to the Lodgsons at Wyeast? * When I say the cultures looked odd, I mean that, instead of forming a white layer on the surface of the agar, they formed a slimy white layer, replete with bubbles from the CO2 they were everting. It looked lie yeast, but really odd. I don't think it was a contamination problem, either, as all 12 of the slants came out exactly the same, with no other wilds or bacteria. Yours, Al Richer - -- Alan J. Richer | Interleaf, Inc. | Waltham, Ma., U.S.A. Mail: richer at hq.ileaf.com All Std. Disclaimers Apply The Klingon Army knife. Don't leave home without it. - Klueless the Scavenger - -- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 09:19:46 -0700 From: Drew Lynch <drew at chronologic.com> Subject: Re: All grain instructions - how's this look? > >Select recipe & obtain ingredients. > > >Start Yeast pack (2-3 days before brewing) In practice, the Wyeast package is usually swollen nearly to bursting in one day. Give it two or three only if it is several months old. > >Add yeast to quart of starter wort (~12 hours before brewing) Good idea. > >Preboil 10 gallons of "brewing water", put in carboys when cool. (night > before brewing) You only need to do this for extract brewing. All the water you use for all grain will end up being boiled in the brewkettle. > >Bring 1.33 qt H2O per pound of grist to 130 degrees (f) in mash kettle. > > >Add above water to grist, protein rest for (60?) minutes at 122 deg. > >Adjust pH to about 5.3 if needed A protein rest is only necessary for undermodified malted barley. If you still wish to do a protein rest, about 20 minutes is sufficient. > >Start sparge water in cooker kettle, bring to 170(?) degrees. How > >much? I usually sparge with 5-7 gallons 170-180F water. > >Raise mash temp to 155 deg, hold at this temp until conversion is done. > (Can I do this with boiling water? How much do I use?) > >Adjust pH if needed > >Test for conversion with Tincture of Iodine If you skip the protein rest, adding 171F water to room temperature grain will usually net you about 155F with about 1+ qt per lb of grain. The rule of thumb (for the temperature range desired) is that 1 lb of room temp grain will drop the temp of 1 qt of water 16-18 degrees. I heat some extra, as the mash tun will usually absorb some heat. For 1 10lb mash, I heat 12-14qts water to 173 for my desired 155 mash temp. When you are off a couple of degrees, add a *LITTLE* hot or cold water, stir, and check temp. > >Raise temp of mash to 175 deg, for (20?) minutes, to mash-out. I don't think you need to hold the mash out temp at this stage, as it will be at this temp all during sparge. > >Pour mash into lauter tun, let it compact, recirculate runoff > >until clear. Avoid compaction. It seriously slows sparge rate. > >Put sparge water into sparging vessel, start the sprinkler. Keep the > liquid level right around the top of the grain bed by regulating flow in > and out of lauter tun. Collect this wort in the cooker. Keep about 1"-2" of water above the grain bed. This will help prevent compaction. Regulate your in/out flow to get about 1 gallon of sweet wort in about 10 minutes. > >Plug in cooker, bring to boil, add hops per schedule, boil per recipe. > > >Immersion chill, rack, pitch, shake, ferment, rack, settle, rack, prime, > bottle, keep in kitchen for a week, put it in the basement, wait, wait, > wait, drink, MMMMmmmmmmmmmm. > > --- > > > Note that some of the times may be inaccurate, I'm doing this from memory, > 30 miles away from my books. Those, obviously, will be adjusted as needed. > > Please e-mail or post if you can suggest improvements. I can't read R.C.B, > so posts to the HBD would be better. > > > Thanks for any input, > Dave Hinz Looks Good. Have fun Drew Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 15:04:06 EDT From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: Re:canned Guinness & other beers In the last digest Jack comments on several beers: <Date: Mon, 10 May 93 08:00 CDT <From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) <Subject: Musings on Commercial Beer < My C-P bottler is down for re-design so I bought a bunch of commercial stuff < to take to a party. Always wanting to turn a beer drink into a learning < experience, I bought some things I have wanted to try/compare. And I thought you could just pull the tap and decarbonate the beer into a bottle! Wait a minute, didnt you follow the "how to build a CP filler" that I sent you :-) < Draft Guinness in the can is not only lousy beer but the nitrogen gizzmo is < just plain silly. I thought the beer had a metalic taste and was lacking in < anything worth mentioning. Utter nonsense! I live in the Washington DC area where the canned Guiness was test marketed, and I can attest to absolutely GREAT canned Guinness. There is nothing silly about a device that works, and works well. The nitrogen has nowhere to go until the can is opened, then it gradually rises through the beer much the way a good draught version does. I have always enjoyed extra stout, even in my *shudder* Bud days. The differences in the draught vs extra are well documented. I have always loved draught stout and this device actually results in a very good version of canned draught beer. I do believe it is the best canned beer I have ever had. < Bass ale was about as bland as the Guinness but lacked the metalic taste and < just about any other, for that matter. No comment on Bass. < Take the coloring out of Beck's Dark and you have Beck's regular. It seems a < bit more beerish but hardly in line with the color. This is a bit harsh, no? There are dark malt notes in Becks, albeit not like a Munchner Dunkles. In defense of Becks, it is an all malt beer now, even if it was not in the past. It often manifests the metallic flavor that can occur in many beers, especially some German beers made with Tettang hops. < The good news (strike me dead) was Miller Reserve Pale Ale. I tried the "all < barley" larger a few months ago and it seemed a farce but this stuff is real < ale. It's fruity and wonderful. It has a very marvey aroma and the taste < that follows is exactly was you expect from the aroma. By far the best beer < to come out of the biggies in decades. No doubt they found the right < combination of chemicals to do the trick but at least it tastes like beer. < It does not taste like my ales but rather like most of the ales I taste at < club meetings and the experts tell me that is what it is supposed to taste < like. < Havnt had it. Good report from a quality local brewmaster, though. Still gotta wonder about "all barley". Sure doesnt sound like "all malt" to me. < Needless to say, I wait with baited breath to hear what others think of it. I bit. Probably lots of others too. Good brewing, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 11 May 93 16:00 EDT From: mgg at usl.com Subject: Hefe Weissbier advice I've been fortunate enough to experience a variety of true bavarian Weissbiers (mit Hefe) in Bavaria and now I want to make the real McCoy. I'm using the Papazian "lovebite weizenbier" recipe. I brewed on Sunday and the fermentation is going well. My question is that earlier in the book (pg 147) he described the general weizenbier method as "Traditionally, the special top-fermenting yeast is filtered out before bottling or kegging, at which time a more flocculant (better settling) lager yeast is added for natural bottle conditioning." The recipe doesn't call for this. This is my first attempt at Weissbier and would like to know if the addition of lager yeast is recommended. I don't do any filtering when racking the beer (other than leaving the sediment in the fermenting pail), so I believe some yeast would end up in the bottling pail. A response to HBD or email will be greatly appreciated. I'll summarize email if thats what I recieve. By the way, southern Germany makes for a great vacation as well as beer tour. (I suspect you're not suprised by this. :-)) I say this since the major and minor tourist towns all had at least one local brewery which always had several great beers. (The only mediocre beer I had was an export beer I had at the airport on the way home.) Prague Czech. also falls into this category. In response to: From: greenbay at vnet.IBM.COM Subject: Hops/2 Liter Bottles 2) I heard a customer at a homebrew store saying that homebrew could safely bottled in 2 liter bottles. Does anybody have any information on this? Bob Crowley While bottling my first batch I ran out of beer bottles. In desperation I began using anything vaguely resembling a beer bottle (various juice bottles and one 2 liter soda bottle). I was making a porter which prescribed 5 weeks aging in the bottle. In general I don't recommend these bottles since it didn't seem like I was getting a good seal. Thanks to tolerance from the beer gods all turned out pretty well. I did add plastic wrap between the bottle and cap to increase the seal. The juice bottled beer had limited carbonation/head. However the beer in the 2 liter soda bottle had almost the same amount of carbonation as true beer bottles. So if you're ever in a desperate situation, don't look a gift bottle in the mouth. :-) Mark Gintner mgg at usl.com Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1139, 05/12/93