HOMEBREW Digest #1283 Sat 27 November 1993

Digest #1282 Digest #1284

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Liquid vs. Dry (Jim Posey)
  200 IBU's and Old British Beer recipes (Geoff Cooper)
  beer clip art (George Tempel)
  re: almost there (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)
  re: brew belt problem (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)
  Rauchbier replies & Zymurgy recipe correction (WESTEMEIER)
  Cider Problems (sean v. taylor)
  _very_ low s.g. (James Clark)
  thanks (James Clark)

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: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 02:53:44 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Posey <dodger at quack.kfu.com> Subject: Liquid vs. Dry A Beginners Query. I've recently begun brewing and have only used WYEAST Liquid yeasts. All batches showed activity 12-32 hrs. after pitching, and all have taken at least twice the stated "normal" time to finish fermenting. Some simple batches have taken 2 weeks, more complex batches 6 weeks. My carboy sits in a room heated to 70~ and sanitation doesn't seem to be a problem. (They all taste great!) I know the WYEAST is underpitching, but... Which is better, all around for the entry- level brewer, liquid or dry? email to me at dodger at quack.kfu.com or post any info you think deserves sharing. Thanks very much in advance. Jim Posey ps I enjoy reading everyones opinion, but not over and over again. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 11:38:39 +0000 From: G.A.Cooper at qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper) Subject: 200 IBU's and Old British Beer recipes >From: Mark Garetz <mgaretz at hoptech.com> >Subject: 200 IBUs > >Al Korzonas writes in response to my posting of a >historical reference that IPAs of the time had IBU >ratings of around 200! > >My first reaction was that this can't be right! So > > [snip] > >But the same reference also states that "20 lbs per quarter >of the best hops shall be used" for ales and porters brewed >for the India government. > >Assuming the same 5% alpha and OG of 1.080, this translates to >203 IBUs at 30% utilization (Rager's formula unmodified). >Using my more conservative utilization of 20%, we still get a >whopping (hopping?) 143 IBUs! Yes. There are references to hopping rates of 20 lbs per quarter, and yes the formula does equate this to 200 IBUs (but how accurate is the formula when extrapolated to these extremes?) Rather than adding hop extract to get some theoretical level of IBU, why not try brewing a beer with this hop rate? >So Al is right (or close anyway). These musta been some beers! They are, I can assure you! > Has anyone ever brewed or tasted beer this >bitter? Yes. A number of times. The Durden Park Old British Beers book gives the following recipe for one Imperial gallon (1.2 US gal): Original India Pale Ale OG 70 3lb Pale Malt 2.5 oz Goldings Hops An infusion mash and 90 min boil - I leave the detail to you. The recipe corresponds to the heaviest IPA shipped from Burton-on-Trent in the 1830s according to the reference. Simmond's of Reading were shipping an almost identical formulation (2.9lb pale malt plus 2.25oz hops) in 1880. It should be matured for *at least* eight months (it was a long way to India) Give it a go Mark >BTW, in case anyone's interested, the reference I'm using is >The Manual of Brewing: Scientific and Technical by Egbert Grant >Hooper, 1891. Ref: W H Roberts, The Scottish Ale Brewer, 1837, and the Courage Brewing Archives. ************************ And while people are publishing recipes from our book :-) >From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG> >Subject: Error in Zymergy > > When reading Ed Westemeier's article in zymergy about the old (as in >historical) English recipes, I noted that the extraction/efficiency rates >for these recipes are out of line. These are for 6 U.S. gal recipes. >For example, the Usher Stout: > > 18 oz pale malt. > 6.5 oz carapils > 4 oz black xstal > 2 oz xstal > 2 oz Amber > 2 oz Brown > ALL RECIPES in the Old Beers Book and when reproduced in Zymurgy are FOR 1.2 US GALLONS. That is one Imperial gallon Make the Usher's Stout it's well worth it. Not only that, but I used that grist formulation (at about a factor of two) to produce an Imperial stout at OG 106. I tasted it for the first time last week and it is superb. > This logic does not seem to follow for the Whitbread porter: > 2.5 lbs pale malt > 7 oz brown > 2.5 oz Black --- 1.060 O.G. 6 gallons Again, a wonderful beer with a simple recipe. >So....what gives? The recipes are out by a factor of 5. And I think it was my fault that the error arose. Geoff [Currently G.A.Cooper at qmw.ac.uk; from 1st Jan 94 will be G.A.Cooper at gre.ac.uk] Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 20:41:27 +0000 (U) From: George Tempel <tempel at MONMOUTH-ETDL1.ARMY.MIL> Subject: beer clip art beer clip art coyote... I too am a Mac/Homebrew person, and would love to share in any clip art you run across. As for coyotes, how 'bout some of the stylized southwestern ones you see in the media now adays? I think there's one you could modify; it comes with either Adobe Illustrator or Photoshop as a sample poster, but you could base your stylistic coyote on that one. george Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 10:04:26 -0800 From: mfetzer%ucsd.edu at chem.UCSD.EDU (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer) Subject: re: almost there James, congratulations on getting set up! As to your questions, yes, 5 grams of dry yeast should be plenty. Some people want to pitch the larger packets, or two small ones, and the more you get in there, the better, but 5 is enough. Be sure to aerate *very* well. Doesn't matter how much yeast you put in if there's no oxygen for it to use... no, there should be no problems using the liquid extract instead of dry. I have heard arguments that syrup is better, because it has not been as highly refined as the dry, and I've heard counterarguments that syrup is just dry with water added back. In either case, you don't do *worse* by using syrup. One caveat: syrup is equivalent to dry plus 20% water, so, if your recipe calls for 5 lbs dry, you need 6 lbs syrup. Mike - -- Michael Fetzer pgp 2.2 key available on request Internet: mfetzer at ucsd.edu uucp: ...!ucsd!mfetzer Bitnet: FETZERM at SDSC HEPnet/SPAN: SDSC::FETZERM or 27.1::FETZERM Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 10:04:33 -0800 From: mfetzer%ucsd.edu at chem.UCSD.EDU (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer) Subject: re: brew belt problem EKELLY at admin.stmarys.ca writes: >a home environment. She believes that the surface temperature of >the brew belt (100 degrees +/- 5) kills the yeast which is in the >general vicinity of the belt (1 to 2 inches). She claims that this >area which is void (or almost) of yeast is a natural incubator for >nasties which can grow rapidly at 100 degrees with little or no >yeast to worry about. I've never used one of these gadgets, but I'd say your friend is right. Beer yeast *does* thrive at 75, and anything over 90 is not good for it. On the other hand, ~100F is perfect for the nasties to breed in. Why do you bother with the setup? Even tho your basement may be at 60, if your wort is at 75 when you pitch, it will take hours if not a couple of days to equilibrate down to 60. Why not just put a jacket of glass wool around the carboy/fermenter? When it eventually reaches 60F, it's still (barely) warm enough to ferment ales. You might also be able to put some insulation between the brewbelt and the fermenter, so it doesn't come in direct contact with the wort, or even a second waterbath that you keep warm, and put the fermenter in that. One thing's for sure: I'd brew my next batch without the belt, and see what happens. Mike - -- Michael Fetzer pgp 2.2 key available on request Internet: mfetzer at ucsd.edu uucp: ...!ucsd!mfetzer Bitnet: FETZERM at SDSC HEPnet/SPAN: SDSC::FETZERM or 27.1::FETZERM Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 18:53:52 -0400 (EDT) From: WESTEMEIER at delphi.com Subject: Rauchbier replies & Zymurgy recipe correction Many good ideas about my rauchbier aroma question: Bob Jones suggests that Rauchbiers can be divided into the ones that are drinkable and ones that win competitions. He also advises me to decide if I'm brewing them to my taste or for competitions. I agree completely. As a Certified judge myself, I can appreciate the problem of the jaded palate after a half dozen score sheets. I think I'll forget the competition aspects of it and just brew the beer I enjoy. By the way, I was surprised that so many people asked why I would bother with the style. The fact is that the only commercial example I know of in this country (Kaiserdom) is pure swill. I don't know if it's a shelf life problem or what, but if that's your only experience with the style, you're right to question my sanity. It's nothing at all like what you'll find in Franconia. Brew some yourself (or come to Cincinnati and try mine) to see what it's really like. A fine Oktoberfest with a subtle smokiness that adds to the flavor and doesn't compete with it. THAT'S Rauchbier! Mike Schrempp suggests "dry smoking" by adding a few handfuls of smoke in the secondary. This is a marvelous idea, and I'll give it a try, but I use pretty thick smoke and I don't know if I can force it through the narrow neck of a carboy. His other suggestion sounds more practical. I've already sent off my $29.95 for an EasySmoker (tm). Ulick Stafford's idea of bubbling smoke through the secondary is probably more practical, but I don't feel comfortable with the infection risk in such an arrangement. Intriguing thought, though! Mark Bunster's idea of smoking the finishing hops is also very intriguing. It may not have a large effect, but if the smoke is kept fairly cool, it might work. Ed Quier's idea of putting apple wood charcoal in the primary is interesting, but I guess it won't impart much smoke flavor or aroma. I'm very curious to hear the results of the attempt, however! Thanks to all for the suggestions and interest. ++++++++++++++ ZYMURGY RECIPE ERROR Jim Cave asks about the (obvious) error in the recipe quantities in my Zymurgy article. Others also probably missed the correction so here it is again: The quantities shown are for ONE _Imperial_ gallon, NOT 6 US gallons. To convert to 5 US gallons, multiply everything by 4.2 To convert to 6 US gallons, multiply everything by 5.0 The Zymurgy editor has promised me that a correction will appear in the next issue. No one is really sure how it happened, but it is clear that it would not have occurred if they had sent out proofs for review prior to printing. Ah, deadline pressures! Again, apologies to all for the recipe errors. Ed Westemeier Cincinnati, Ohio westemeier at delphi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 93 20:07:51 EST From: sean v. taylor <sean at chemres.tn.cornell.edu> Subject: Cider Problems Well, I opened up my first bottle of cider last night and I was very disappointed. It was well carbonated, crystal clear, and altogether okay but for one thing: it had an overpowering sulfur flavor. The good cider flavor was there, and the added cinnamon was as well, but the sulfur was the dominant flavor. Yuck. My guess is that I overdid the campden tablets. Outside of adding them and sterilizing with a weak (as advised in a winemaking book) solution of metabisulfite, I don't know how else I could have gotten the sulfur flavor in there. Anybody have any other ideas? I took sweet cider (read:unfermented) added some cane sugar to raise the S.G., some tannin, acid blend, yeast nutrient, and champagne yeast. It fermented in primary for one week, and in secondary for about one month. I bottled and it has set for about one month. Any ideas on what went wrong? Does it just need to age longer? Can I salvage this stuff? Thanks for any advice, Sean V. Taylor sean at chemres.tn.cornell.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 21:18:50 -0500 From: jeclark at ucdavis.edu (James Clark) Subject: _very_ low s.g. my friend and i tried to make our first batch of beer today (try being the operating word). it was a semi-disaster, but between a cracked carboy and burnt malt extract on the bottom of the pan (dude, are we supposed to stir this?) we got the stuff racked. here's the problem: we weren't really that exact with our water. we just cooled the wort, dumped it in with some cool water and topped off the carboy (good thing we had three of them available) so that there was about three or four inches of air space left. we thought we had it, but the starting gravity was way too low. the recipie says o.g. should be about 1.036 and ours was 1.014. so, should we just throw it out and start over, or can we introduce some super- concentrated wort, or should we even worry about it? or should we just call it "unintentional light beer"? Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1993 21:49:16 -0500 From: jeclark at ucdavis.edu (James Clark) Subject: thanks i'm sorry, i was going to put this in the last letter, but i forgot: just in case i forgot to reply to anyone who sent me info, i really apreciate the help and encouragement i received in reguards to our first batch (to bad it didn't turn out better, but the blame for that rests on our heads alone). i feel like a leach because i get all this help, but i'm not really able to contribute to the HBD in a positive way (yet). anyways, thanks again. - --james Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1283, 11/27/93