---

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

Contents:
  another cheap shot at Sham Adams (Dick Dunn)
  Re: [Aluminum Boiling Vessels] (Dr. T. Andrews)
  Batch #17, and Excessive Bitterness (Dr. T. Andrews)
  HB DIG #'s 155 and 158 Reinheitsgebeer, etc. (florianb)
  Re: Homebrew Digest #157 (May 23, 1989) (Crawford.WBST129)
  Stronger Beer, Better Yeast, Real Music, Boston, Rodenbach (pri=9 Marc San Soucie ms 019-890 x76723)

Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com


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

Date: 24 May 89 22:34:27 MDT (Wed)
From: hplabs!utah-cs!cs.utexas.edu!raven!rcd (Dick Dunn)
Subject: another cheap shot at Sham Adams

To try to be slightly fair, I *do* think Samuel Adams makes a decent beer.
It's not outstanding--it is by no stretch of the imagination the best beer
in America--but at least it's competently made, decently hopped, and has
some body.

Now, about their marketing...

I worked the early Great American Beer Festivals for a while--that's the
summer fling the AHA sponsors with various American brewers, mostly small,
bringing in beer to taste.  It was a fun thing to do.  People were coming
out in droves and getting interested in beer.  They were paying some
attention to what they were tasting.  Sure, some people got drunk, but
overall it was a very positive thing, because something about the setup
made people pay attention to the beer.

Naturally, as soon as the beer festivals started gaining some attention,
there was some value attached to winning the voting, even though it was
just a straw poll of a random group of people.  And although the beer was
mostly being served by people recruited by AHA, some of the breweries were
sending their people to stand around and talk about the beer.  At this
stage it was good, because it gave the brewers a chance to educate people
to what they were trying to do.  They also got a chance to hear what people
thought about their beers in direct comparison to other beers, mostly
micros.  The beers that won in the early GABFs were, IMHO, some of the
truly outstanding beers I've had.  The top three in various years included
this and that Anchor beer, Sierra Nevada stuff, Grant's...man, that's
significant!  Grant's is *not* mainstream beer.  You get people
appreciating that sort of beer; you're making some progress in teaching
people what beer is all about.  The Palo Alto Brewing Company (which made
wonderful beer while they existed) actually brought in a beer engine and
set it up.  It was a pain to use, having it attached to a folding table,
but it gave a chance for people to find out what it was, and how you pump
beer instead of letting the carbonation do it, and how that makes a differ-
ence for an English-style ale.

Then, over the space of a couple of years, things quickly turned very com-
mercial.  Suddenly it was a Big Thing to win the competition.  Trinkets
started to show up--try our beer and get a hat, or opener, or...  The
brewers started getting more actively involved, and not just talking about
their beers but promoting them in the voting.  Perhaps the biggest factor
in the change was that the brewers started doing the pouring.  And, where
the AHA volunteers were carefully coached to pour light--it's a tasting,
after all--and to be very careful about people starting to get tipsy, the
brewers were not all careful about this.  Some of them recognized that if
they poured a nice full glass, they somehow earned a vote...and yes, if
you're getting impatient for the punch line, Samuel Adams was one of the
leaders in this trend to turn a tasting into a hard sell.  They also
figured out another line to reach the crowd, namely that significantly more
than half the crowd, especially the ones who were "tasting" heavily and
would cast or influence the vote, were male.  So all of a sudden they've
got an attractive female "brewer's assistant" dressed to draw attention!
Hey, they know how to sell beer, just like on TV!  The year I saw that, I
was only attending, but it was my last year at GABF.

I enjoyed talking to the folks from River City (good beer...RIP), Sierra
Nevada (won't forget Budpeople tasting their first Bigfoot!), Grants (Bert
Grant is the Gordon Bell of brewing, I think), Newman, Hale's, and
others...but I can't stomach what the folks from Samuel Adams did to
try to pervert the GABF to their uses.  Now, it wouldn't have happened if
AHA had recognized the problem and nipped it in the bud (sic), but that
doesn't excuse the brewers.  Nor was Samuel Adams the only brewer doing it,
although IMHO they certainly led the pack.  Things went further down from
there...a year or two after the last one I attended, I heard some reason-
ably serious reports of influence-peddling in the pro judging of the
beers.  It doesn't matter whether they were true or not; they indicate how
far the competitions had sunk.  And I see Samuel Adams as one of the
pivotal influences in converting the significance of the GABF from sub-
stance to style.  It's their choice, but I don't have to like it.

(One thing I ought to be clear about:  When there were allegations of
influence games behind the pro judging of commercial beers, there were
people in AHA trying to get it out in the open and get it straightened
out.  But I don't think they succeeded.)
---
Dick Dunn	{ncar;ico;stcvax}!raven!rcd		(303)494-0965
			or	rcd at raven.uucp

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 May 89 6:41:54 EDT
From: Dr. T. Andrews <tanner at ki4pv>
Subject: Re: [Aluminum Boiling Vessels]

THere is another reason to avoid the aluminum boiling vessel besides
the obvious health risk.  Aluminum imparts a nasty flavour to most
anything cooked in it.  Avoid it, and you have eliminate one source
of off-flavours in your beer.

					Dr. T. Andrews, Systems
					CompuData, Inc.  DeLand
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 24 May 89 20:43:22 EDT
From: Dr. T. Andrews <tanner at ki4pv>
Subject: Batch #17, and Excessive Bitterness

Well, it wasn't that long ago that someone wrote about fear that his
beer would be too bitter, and with hope that it might age.  I am
writing this from home, and near at hand is the balance of a mug-full
of batch #17.  Extra-strong heavily hopped wheat beer, made in the
middle of winter.

It was very bitter.  After a month in the bottles, it was too bitter
to enjoy.  Not green, but too strong and too bitter.  After two months,
the same.  But, after four months, I have some very fine beer.  No
samples available via e-mail, of course (I did carry some up to share
with family on a recent trip), but I will offer the advice that a
strong, hoppy beer sometimes requires that you wait.

Relax, don't worry, {be happy,have a homebrew}.  Let that bitter
stuff sit in the bottles for a few months.  Be prepared to share.

					Dr. T. Andrews, Systems
					CompuData, Inc.  DeLand
--
...!bikini.cis.ufl.edu!ki4pv!tanner  ...!bpa!cdin-1!cdis-1!ki4pv!tanner
or...  {allegra killer gatech!uflorida decvax!ucf-cs}!ki4pv!tanner

Return to table of contents


Date: 25 May 89 10:39:20 PDT (Thu)
From: florianb%tekred.cna.tek.com at RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: HB DIG #'s 155 and 158 Reinheitsgebeer, etc.

Wouldn't you know my Mac would break down just as I needed it to 
defend myself...

Now look, HB readers,  let's once more check my wording again:

>I believe more important than the ingredients are the contents of
>the brewing water and the brewing process.  I hold that one reason
>why American beers are so awful is that strict attention is not
>paid to the proper temperature processes during the brewing.
>This leads to nasties developed in the fermentation that come back
>to haunt you after drinking.  I also believe that the poor brews
>I had in Germany were a result of sorry water or inexpensive
>brewing practices by certain Brauereis.

Al writes:

>majors).  As a matter of fact, the majors use all kinds of
>computer control to make sure their beer comes out very consistent.
>Sloppy brewing practices generally will cause bacterial infections

Darryl Richman writes:

>I believe that you are mistaken on this point.  If there is one thing
>that the major American brands have, it is process quality control.
>You can debate all you like about whether you like the product they
>make, but they are world renowned for their consistent ability to make
>it.

Now look once more at my statements.  I didn't say anything about
consistency, quality control, or bacteria.  I said they don't pay
attention to *proper* temperature process.  Please refer to Miller's
discussion in The Complete Handbook of Homebrewing on the temperature
process in German brewing vs. the temperature process in US brewing.
He provides a good explanation for the appearance of various chemicals
during different stages of the brewing process as a function of 
temperature.  The presence of these chemicals is what I attribute
hangovers to, in part.

It is possible to buy really cheap beer in Germany which is so bad,
it makes some of our lagers taste like nectar of the gods.  I attributed
this poor quality to shortcuts in the brewing practice, similar to those
mentioned by Miller in his book.  Apparently, those German beers were
made in the Reinheitsgebot tradition of ingredients.         

Darryl continues:

>Save for man made contaminants in the brewing water, it seems very
>unlikely that the water brings on hangovers.  I think you were much
>closer to the mark in discussing fermenting practices;  many have
>attributed hangovers to the content of higher alcohols and fusel oils,
>which often result from runaway fermenting temperatures.

Maybe, and maybe not.  The citizens of Stuttgart regarded their beer
with greater favoritism than the more southern Bavarian brews 
(naturally), and they firmly believed that their beer was made with
the finest ingredients and with the greatest care.  None of this 
explains why I got such terrible hangovers from drinking relatively
little of their local brews.  However, even the residents of 
Stuttgart don't drink their water.  I can see why--it tasted like
&*#$.  I proposed the water quality as a possible reason for the
beer sickness.  Sorry.  I didn't know speculation was so dangerous.

holos then writes:

>American breweries do, in general, ferment at higher temperatures than
>the Germans--54 degrees instead of 48, say.  They also use different
>yeasts and far different ingredients.  This adds up to radically different
>beer.  But to claim that A-B doesn't pay attention to *any* aspect of
>brewing is laughable.

...and a lot of other comments about Budweiser.

I didn't say anything about Budweiser.  If I made you laugh, OK.  Look,
I am a relative novice to brewing.  There are a lot of things I don't
know.  But this I know.  I brew excellent home beers.  I drink a lot of
them.  I have never had even the slightest hint of a hangover from them.
Some commercial beers make me feel awful the next day after relatively
few consumed.  My position on this is that it's either the water or 
the process.  What else could it be?

Sure, the US breweries can make consistent grog.  I don't disagree with
that.  Who cares about consistency when you are brewing swill?  I am
going to stick to my guns on the question of bad beer in the US.  I 
challenge anyone on this net or anywhere else to come up with a better
explanation for the ill-health effects of US beer, which is outside
of the hypothesis of poor water and/or temperature process which I have
proposed.  I've also thought of additives, preservatives, vitamin B
in homebrew, etc., but I can find holes in all those hypotheses.

Hey! This has been fun!  Good work, readers.  But please, don't wait
until my Mac breaks next time you want to flame.

Now I have a question...

I brewed up a batch of home bitters and got it into the carboy just 
before ripping up our kitchen for a remodeling.  It's been in the
carboy for about 6 weeks now, at room temp.  Should I take it to
a friend's house for bottling, or go ahead and wait another month
to bottle it after the kitchen is finished?  What are the hazards?

Cheers!

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 25 May 89 15:33:38 CDT
From: rds at vogon.cray.com (Bob Swanson)

CAMRA

I am interested in joining CAMRA.  Does anyone
out there have their address and the
membership fee for a U. S. resident?

My home brew is getting better every
time, thanks to the great information
and advice in this group.

Regards.

Bob Swanson
Cray Research
rds at hall.cray.com

Return to table of contents


Date: 25 May 89 11:00:08 PDT (Thursday)
From: Crawford.WBST129 at Xerox.COM
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #157 (May 23, 1989)

"From: Darryl Richman <darryl at ism780c.isc.com>

"I used an 8 gallon aluminum pot for a couple years, until I graduated to a 15
"gallon brewery last fall.

I have been interested in setting up my own brewery (preferably building 
it myself).  Could you tell me more about it?  I am currenly using a Bruheat
boiler with little success.

Greg Crawford
 

Return to table of contents


Date: 25 May 89 14:53:43 EDT (Thu)
From: hplabs!decvax!wang!mds (pri=9 Marc San Soucie ms 019-890 x76723)
Subject: Stronger Beer, Better Yeast, Real Music, Boston, Rodenbach

Opinions From The Ether:

In Digest #154 Gary Benson writes about a "weak" porter and other things
that stir up my opiniona reflexes. Some comments:

-  If you want more kick in your porter, leave the recipe as is, except
   raise the malt level from 5 pounds to 6 (or 7 or 8). I have been making
   stouts for personal consumption, and once for an experiment I made a
   real crankcase job - 12 pounds of fermentable malt and an additional
   3 pounds of flavorings and stuff. Yow! I don't recommend it, but there's
   no denying the alcoholic content. Messy brewing, though, and a seven-gallon
   primary fermenter can't take it. Boom!

-  Cooler fermentations and early transfers to the secondary seem to smooth
   things out even more.

-  I tried a brew with 6 pounds of light malt, a touch of roasted, hops, and
   Red Star. In fact my first seven beers were Red Star beers. I have become
   convinced that Red Star is a Bulgarian product designed to decrease the
   quality of Western beers. I can taste Red Star in every beer that used it.
   Edme, Doric (very smooth), Leigh&Williams, Wyeast (tricky but worth it),
   Whitbread, etc. Anything but Red Star! Be suspicious of anyone who sells
   you Red Star without offering alternatives.

-  The rising lumps of stuff are your yeast's way of thanking you for giving
   them all that great stuff to eat and shit into. Happy yeasts, even if they
   are Red Star.

-  George Winston is to music as Coors Light is to homebrew. How about
   something with a little more body to it? Liz Story? Ry Cooder? Scriabin?
   Tuxedomoon? Even Miles Davis?

More notes about the Boston brewing scene. Give a welcome to the
Cambridge Brewing Company, in Kendall Square Cambridge. So far I'd say his
beer still needs some adjusting, but he's got a nice setup, the prices are
good, the food is fine (anything but Commonwealth's!). Commonwealth still
has the best stout around (though Manhattan's porter is better), and Harpoon
is by far my preference from a bottle, but Cambridge has a nice comfortable
atmosphere and a friendly brewmaster.

Finally, does anyone out there know how to make something like Rodenbach?
This Belgian delight is one of the loveliest beers I have ever set mouth to,
and I would like to be able to make flavors in that ballpark. Recipe
suggestions?

    Marc San Soucie
    The John Smallbrewers
    Massachusetts

Return to table of contents

---