HOMEBREW Digest #1747 Fri 02 June 1995

Digest #1746 Digest #1748


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


Contents:
  Smoking grain, dude/sanitizing caps/styles/kits ("Harralson, Kirk")
  Re: CO2 regulator in fridge (LBRISTOL)
  Vacuum Sealer (Nachman, James)
  re: Hop' n Gator (Pete Bronder)
  Keg to Boiling Pot (Bob Sheck)
  Big Yeast Experiment,  Part 1 (Michael Froehlich)
  Big Yeast Experiment,  Part 2 (Michael Froehlich)
  Speaking of beerstyles... (Jeff Frane)
  Big Yeast Experiment,  Part 1 (Michael Froehlich)
  Breweries! (Shawn Steele)
  Oak Barrel Experiment (Terry Terfinko)
  ...no subject... ("Matthew W. Bryson")
  Yeast's need for zinc (kevin)
  Judge not, lest you be JCP yourself? (Russell Mast)
  Signing off of Homebrew Digest and not Beer-L (Brandy Rega)
  Papazian's Red Marzen (Troy Howard)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# 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. 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 ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 31 May 95 11:47:01 EST From: "Harralson, Kirk" <kwh at roadnet.ups.com> Subject: Smoking grain, dude/sanitizing caps/styles/kits If I could offer a tip to anyone contemplating using smoked grain, crush the grain BEFORE you smoke it! I briefly rinsed the grain before smoking it, as suggested in this digest, and it was a nightmare to crush -- I had to take my mill apart to clear it. I dried the grain on cookie sheets in a warm oven, but obviously there was still considerable moisture inside the grain. I could not detect any rancid odors or taste through the smoky characteristics, but I'm not convinced they were not there. I also think it lost some of the smoky flavor in the drying process. Next time, I will crush it and smoke it the night before I mash. On sanitation -- I used to boil my bottle caps, but it was a big mistake. I could never get sufficient carbonation, regardless of how much priming sugar I used. One day I accidently left two beers in the freezer too long. Instead of the bottles breaking, they "oozed" frozen beer from under the caps. After inspecting several caps, it was obvious that the plastic lining was unseating during the brief boil. After switching to a mild bleach soak, the caps seal great, and I can get any level of carbonation I want. On styles -- I think they can be very useful. The five part series on Belgian beers that appeared in this digest some months ago was a true education for me. I often see people chastising newer brewers who ask for a recipe to clone a particular brand. This is how I learned how to brew! Recipes designed to emulate well-known beers like Pete's Wicked Ale and Anchor Porter, for example, help you develop a good sense of what combinations of specialty grains, adjuncts and hops make up different flavor profiles. On using kits -- The best home brewed stout I ever drank was from an extract kit. If I ever make a wheat beer, I will use a kit just to avoid any sparging hassles. I routinely make wines from the 28-day kits, and am very, very pleased with them. Kits definitely have a place in my brewing regimen. Kirk Harralson Bel Air, Maryland Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 11:14:17 CDT From: LBRISTOL at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM Subject: Re: CO2 regulator in fridge Jeff Renner suggests that the regulator pressure reading is not affected by the temperature of regulator, and depends only on the temperature of the kegs: > I don't think so. This last statement is strictly true, but it doesn't > affect the problem here. The pressure inside your keg is what your > gauge is measuring and your regulator is regulating. As the temperature > of the delivered CO2 quickly drops to the ambient fridge temperature, it > will drop in pressure, and the regulator will deliver more gas, > resulting in the exact same equilibrium as if the tank were in the > fridge and delivering cold gas at the same psi. You won't need to > adjust the pressure setting at all. When my regulator was inside the fridge and set to deliver 10psi at 45F, the amount of CO2 dissolved was appropriate. When it was moved outside of the fridge and read 10psi at 75F, the pressure actually delivered to the keg was clearly lower, causing foaming to occur, and carbonation level dropped significantly over the next few days. When it was raised to 17psi at 75F and allowed to equalize (so that normal carbonation was restored) and then moved back inside the fridge to read 17psi at 45F, the beer became excessively overcarbonated. So the theory may sound logical, but it does not stand up in the face of observed data. Your statement that the regulator is measuring the pressure at the keg is not correct; the regulator measures the pressure at the source end of the line (at the regulator itself) and not the "output" (keg) end. As you imply, the CO2 will reach an equilibrium temperature, and this is the effective temperature that determines how much CO2 is actually delivered. But this temperature clearly does *NOT* match that of the keg (45F); it is not exactly that of the regulator either (75F). It is somewhere in between, and will depend on the relative masses of the CO2/tubing/etc in the different temperature "zones". In my case, all of this and (most importantly) the fact that the regulator and CO2 bottle are acting as a heat sink, the effective temperature is much closer to 75F than 45F - so much so, in fact, that to my observation, the temperature inside the fridge is insignificant, and is essentially dominated by that of the CO2 regulator. At least, this theory matches my observations. - -------------------------------------------------------- | Larry Bristol | A brave, Zen-like effort! | | SYSUBMC.BMC.COM | | | (713)918-7802 | ... but it fails. | - -------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 13:24:02 EST From: james.nachman at cellular.uscc.com (Nachman, James) Subject: Vacuum Sealer There is a possibility that I will be receiving a large amount of hops in the near future. Does anyone know of a company that sells a high quality vacuum sealer and the oxygen barrier bags that many retailers use to seal their hops with. Thanks, Jim james.nachman at cellular.uscc.com RF Engineer United States Cellular Corporation Chicago \\///// (.) (.) - -----------o000---(_)---000o------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:14:51 -0400 (EDT) From: Pete Bronder <pb0q+ at andrew.cmu.edu> Subject: re: Hop' n Gator >Back in the 70s Pittsburgh Brewing Company put out a fruit >tasting beer called Hop'n Gator that was based on Gatorade, >which had been invented by a professor at the University of >Florida. It was a terrific thirst quencher. Since then >I've started brewing my own beer and would like to find a >recipe that comes close to Hop'n Gator to try. Pittsburgh >Brewing Company stopped making it in the late 70s, I think. >Any help out there? Try calling Pittsburgh Brewing Co. at: 412 682-7400 Pete Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by NIMUE.HOOD.EDU From: BSHECK at NIMUE.HOOD.EDU (Bob Sheck) Subject: Keg to Boiling Pot Since I last posted to the list, I've made the move to all-grain. As with many other situations in life, I don't know why I didn't start it sooner! While we were returning from the beach 2 weeks ago, We stopped by the Corning Outlet Store and I picked up another glass 5 gal carboy (they're $12) and found a 12" SS Pot lid (for about $11). The 6 gallon pot it fit on was $70 - too much that day. I had this old Coors 15 gal SS keg I found in the barn, and finally got around to cutting a 12" diameter hole in the top so that shiny new lid would have a place to live. To get the hole in the right spot, I eyeballed the centering of the lid on top of the keg. I wedged the lid down tight using a thin strip of wood pushed through the keg's handles and over the top of the lid handle. Then I took a small square of sponge dipped in paint and pushed it around the outside diameter of the lid. When it was dry, I removed the lid to find a perfectly delineated guide-line. Nothing high-tech here! I found a "Bullet Tip" drill bit at the hardware store which I used to drill many holes around the circumference- the outside of my 1/4" drill hole touching the edge of my painted line. The drill cost around $5, but it was worth it at twice the price! It just got dull at the last 2 or 3 holes. After drilling many holes, I finished off the cut with a carbide tipped saber-saw blade. Then I ground down the excess with a grinding wheel mounted in my drill until the lid fit. Whew! Spent another 30 minutes scrubbing the cutting oil out of the keg and trying to polish up the scratches on the outside. I think the whole job took about 4 hours. Drilling the holes took the longest- I'd drill a couple of holes (dipping the drill in oil 2 times per hole) and then let the drill cool off, while I would cool off with Home-brew!) Boiled up some water in it to make sure it was clean. Memorial day found me doing up a batch of all-grain ale. No more worries with the pot boiling over! Had a rowdy boil going, but nary a drop got more than 3/4 way up the keg! I'm thinking of doing double-batchs (10 gals) in the future. Maybe even extracts or partials, again, too! Bob - --> Nuclear Families _DO_ Glow in the Dark! BSHECK, ME-SHECK, abendigo! BSHECK at NIMUE.HOOD.EDU >>>-------==The Sheckinator==------<<< (301) 696-3928 I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.- Groucho Marx Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:24:19 -0700 From: froeh at trojan.naa.rockwell.com (Michael Froehlich) Subject: Big Yeast Experiment, Part 1 <part 1 Big Yeast Experiment > Our club, the Long Beach Homebrewers, conducted a yeast experiment. We brewed an all grain batch of mild pale ale on a 1 barrel system. The recipe is this: For 30 gallons: The Big Yeast Experiment Pale Ale 41 lbs Klages (American 2 Row Lager malt) 14 oz Cascade Whole hops, 60 minutes in a grain bag Starting Gravity = 1.042 at 60 deg F The recipe was simple in order to accentuate the yeast flavor contribution. No finishing hops were used. The beer was then divided into 12-1 gallon cider jugs, 1-6.5 gallon plastic bucket, and 1-15 gallon fermentor. Most of the yeasts were dry but a few second generation yeasts and 1 Wyeast packet were used. Only 1 packet of yeast was used for all dry yeasts and the Scottish Ale yeast. All yeasts were fermented at room temperature (60-75 deg F). Only 1 lager yeast was used and it developed a strong diacetyl flavor. The experiment was a lot of work and took 10 hours to make the beer and 5 hours to bottle but it helped us to appreciate the flavor contribution of yeasts. We would like to do this experiment again using Wyeast Ale Yeasts and then get into lager yeasts but for now, here are the results of the first in a series of tests of commercial yeasts: 1 Red Star Bread Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.009, ok taste 9 May - Tasted not bad 21 May - Not available 2 Glenbrew Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - most active 17 April - still working 18 April - cloudy, still working 25 April - Gravity 1.004, cidery taste 9 May - cidery and estery taste 21 May - Very carbonated, very clean taste, nice 3 Windsor Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.014, ok taste 9 May - Very clean and good taste 21 May - Soft tasting, watery compared with Glenbrew, smooth and clean but uneventful 4 Doric Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - No activity 16 April PM - No activity 17 April - No activity, add another pack of yeast 18 April - active and cloudy 25 April - Gravity 1.015, very smoky taste 9 May - Smoky taste 21 May - Bread like aroma, kind of clean tasting but not pleasant to smell, dry taste 5 Munton & Fison Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - Started 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.012, clean taste 9 May - Fruity and sweet tasting 21 May - Big carbonation, loud pop upon opening, slight chill haze, citrusy taste, dry, not too much hop aroma, hop bitterness lingers, bitterness comes through. 6 Wyeast Scottish Ale Yeast, liquid, no starter, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - Big lump at top of beer 16 April PM - Big lump at top of beer 17 April - Active 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.008, slightly smoky taste 9 May - Light sweet taste, mildly smoky 21 May - Big, big carbonation, real loud pop upon opening, foamy, clear, nice taste, back side of tongue sweetness, great beer, very little sediment, settles quickly upon moving bottle around. 7 London Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.016, ok taste 9 May - Slight sweetness, mild smoky aroma 21 May - A little off tasting, taste hop bitterness more, dry sweet taste /* Michael Froehlich |~~| O O froeh at thor.naa.rockwell.com | |) "Cheers!" > |__| \__/ */ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:27:44 -0700 From: froeh at trojan.naa.rockwell.com (Michael Froehlich) Subject: Big Yeast Experiment, Part 2 <part 2 Big Yeast Experiment > 8 Nottingham Ale Yeast ( batch #108719510302 ), dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - No activity 16 April PM - No activity 17 April - Started finally 18 April - Still active 25 April - Gravity 1.015, light smoky taste 9 May - Odd taste not characteristic of Nottingham 21 May - Funky, skunky aroma, clear, slight banana taste, a little overcarbonated, tastes good 9 Coopers Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - Blew air lock out, very active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.012, very good taste 9 May - Very clean like lager, adds no yeast flavor 21 May - Bad initial aroma but dissipates quickly, clean taste, sweetish finish, citrusy flavor, clear 10 Wyeast Bohemian Lager Yeast, second generation, slurry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - most active 17 April - active 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.011, sulfur aroma 9 May - Very good taste, malty, clean 21 May - Very carbonated, loud pop upon opening bottle, slight chill haze, stale aroma, very strong diacetyl taste, clean otherwise. 11 Telfords Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clear, yeast is compacted 25 April - Gravity 1.015, good taste 9 May - Tasted Good 21 May - Lots of carbonation, nice head, slight chill haze, great mouth feel, no flavor contribution from yeast, good taste 12 Telfords Ale Yeast, second generation, slurry, 15 gallon fermentor 2 Hours - Started, very active 16 April AM - Almost finished 16 April PM - settling 17 April - Clearing 18 April - Clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.015, good taste 9 May - Tasted great 21 May - Not available 13 Edme Ale Yeast, dry, 6.5 gallon fermentor 2 Hours - No notes taken 16 April AM - No notes taken 16 April PM - No notes taken 17 April - No notes taken 18 April - No notes taken 25 April - No notes taken 9 May - Tasted Good 21 May - Ok head retention, big bubbles, clean taste, slightly funky aroma 14 Control Batch, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - No activity 16 April PM - No activity 17 April - No activity 18 April - No activity 25 April - No activity 9 May - No activity 21 May - No activity Yeast FG - ---------------- ------ 1 Red Star Bread Ale Yeast 1.009 2 Glenbrew Ale Yeast 1.004 3 Windsor Ale Yeast 1.014 4 Doric Ale Yeast 1.015 5 Munton & Fison Ale Yeast 1.012 6 Wyeast Scottish Ale Yeast 1.008 7 London Ale Yeast 1.016 8 Nottingham Ale Yeast 1.015 9 Coopers Ale Yeast 1.012 10 Wyeast Bohemian Lager Yeast, second generation 1.011 11 Telfords Ale Yeast 1.015 12 Telfords Ale Yeast, second generation 1.015 13 Edme Ale Yeast Unknown >From our results, the Glenbrew yeast is the most attenuative, followed by the Wyeast Scottish and Bread Yeasts. The Wyeast strains produced the most yeast flavor in the finished beer and they will be very interesting to test in a future experiment. Because of problems found in the Doric and Nottingham yeasts, we called the supplier. Our supplier checked his yeasts and came up with similar results from the Doric and Nottingham strains. Apparently, these yeasts were old. We pulled these 2 yeasts from the shelves and got fresh ones. Sorry for the long post but hey, this is beer research. /* Michael Froehlich |~~| O O froeh at thor.naa.rockwell.com | |) "Cheers!" > |__| \__/ */ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:31:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Frane <gummitch at teleport.com> Subject: Speaking of beerstyles... I am tasked with writing a column on beerstyles for Brew Your Own magazine. Now I love brewing beer, drinking beer, and writing about beer, but I don't believe that *anyone* can be a reliable source of recipes for every beerstyle known. I need help! What I hope to do is draw on the expertise of brewers I can reach on the Digest or through the Internet. If you have a recipe that really and truly sums up a particular beer style (or subcategory), please get in touch with me. I shall give all credit where credit is due. My interest is in providing brewers, especially new brewers, with some Truth. The catch (you knew there was a catch, right?): I have to taste the beer. How else to know? I mean, Zymurgy can run recipes that took awards in AHA-run competitions, but I don't have that resource. All I have is my (highly-tuned) mouth. I am particularly interested in recipes that will work for new brewers, although there is a place for all-grain recipes in each column. I am also especially interested in good lager recipes. I'm primarily an ale brewer, and my hands-on experience with lagers is limited. People willing to help can reach me by e-mail (gummitch at teleport.com) or care of the magazine. - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:14:47 -0700 From: froeh at trojan.naa.rockwell.com (Michael Froehlich) Subject: Big Yeast Experiment, Part 1 <part 1 Big Yeast Experiment > Our club, the Long Beach Homebrewers, conducted a yeast experiment. We brewed an all grain batch of mild pale ale on a 1 barrel system. The recipe is this: For 30 gallons: The Big Yeast Experiment Pale Ale 41 lbs Klages (American 2 Row Lager malt) 14 oz Cascade Whole hops, 60 minutes in a grain bag Starting Gravity = 1.042 at 60 deg F The recipe was simple in order to accentuate the yeast flavor contribution. No finishing hops were used. The beer was then divided into 12-1 gallon cider jugs, 1-6.5 gallon plastic bucket, and 1-15 gallon fermentor. Most of the yeasts were dry but a few second generation yeasts and 1 Wyeast packet were used. Only 1 packet of yeast was used for all dry yeasts and the Scottish Ale yeast. All yeasts were fermented at room temperature (60-75 deg F). Only 1 lager yeast was used and it developed a strong diacetyl flavor. The experiment was a lot of work and took 10 hours to make the beer and 5 hours to bottle but it helped us to appreciate the flavor contribution of yeasts. We would like to do this experiment again using Wyeast Ale Yeasts and then get into lager yeasts but for now, here are the results of the first in a series of tests of commercial yeasts: 1 Red Star Bread Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.009, ok taste 9 May - Tasted not bad 21 May - Not available 2 Glenbrew Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - most active 17 April - still working 18 April - cloudy, still working 25 April - Gravity 1.004, cidery taste 9 May - cidery and estery taste 21 May - Very carbonated, very clean taste, nice 3 Windsor Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.014, ok taste 9 May - Very clean and good taste 21 May - Soft tasting, watery compared with Glenbrew, smooth and clean but uneventful 4 Doric Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - No activity 16 April PM - No activity 17 April - No activity, add another pack of yeast 18 April - active and cloudy 25 April - Gravity 1.015, very smoky taste 9 May - Smoky taste 21 May - Bread like aroma, kind of clean tasting but not pleasant to smell, dry taste 5 Munton & Fison Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - Started 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.012, clean taste 9 May - Fruity and sweet tasting 21 May - Big carbonation, loud pop upon opening, slight chill haze, citrusy taste, dry, not too much hop aroma, hop bitterness lingers, bitterness comes through. 6 Wyeast Scottish Ale Yeast, liquid, no starter, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - Big lump at top of beer 16 April PM - Big lump at top of beer 17 April - Active 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.008, slightly smoky taste 9 May - Light sweet taste, mildly smoky 21 May - Big, big carbonation, real loud pop upon opening, foamy, clear, nice taste, back side of tongue sweetness, great beer, very little sediment, settles quickly upon moving bottle around. 7 London Ale Yeast, dry, 1 gallon glass jug 2 Hours - No activity 16 April AM - active 16 April PM - active 17 April - done 18 April - clearing 25 April - Gravity 1.016, ok taste 9 May - Slight sweetness, mild smoky aroma 21 May - A little off tasting, taste hop bitterness more, dry sweet taste /* Michael Froehlich |~~| O O froeh at thor.naa.rockwell.com | |) "Cheers!" > |__| \__/ */ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 11:09:52 -0600 From: Shawn Steele <shawn at aob.org> Subject: Breweries! Everyone wants to know what breweries they can visit while on vacation or when moving and quite often those requests end up here on the homebrew digest. The Institute for Brewing Studies has created a web site with all of the Canadian and United States Breweries listed, as well as a large number of other breweries from around the world. The listing is still under construction, but we posted it anyway. The site is located at: http://www.aob.org/aob/brews/brewlist.html (Colorado Server) http://alpha.rollanet.org/AOB/brews/brewlist.html (Missouri Server) and in Australia: http://rschp2.anu.edu.au:8080/aidan/aob/brews/brewlist.html (I've been having a few technical difficulties, so give the Australian site a week or so to become fully operational, a ftp monster has been eating the files that's how popular they are! :-) Thanks to the guys at The Brewery and Aidan Heerdegen for maintaining the mirror sites. Hope that helps everyone who wanted to know which breweries were where, Shawn P.S. The brewery list is NOT yet available from our info at aob.org e-mail server. I'll probably be working on that after our conference. Shawn Steele Information Systems Administrator Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 118 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 shawn at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://www.aob.org/aob (web) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 14:50:17 EDT From: Terry Terfinko <terfintt at ttown.apci.com> Subject: Oak Barrel Experiment I have had an interest in aging beer in oak barrels for some time. Not having access to a barrel, I convinced Jim Mosser, owner of our local homebrew shop, to get a barrel and conduct some research. Over the last 3 months Jim conducted some experiments and documented the results. Here is a copy of his documentation. Oak Barrel Experiment - Jim Mosser - May, 1995 I'd like to take a moment to address the research end of the experiment. First of all, I have never encountered as much misinformation or disinformation about any other aspect of brewing than with these barrels. I've concluded that it's impossible, in many cases, to separate the good info from the bogus info. Some of the info almost seems to be generated by ego alone: i.e. "It's true because I say so," etc. (that's a general statement only, folks!). Anyway, I finally decided to forego all of the hoopla, and simply plug ahead on my own. Having done that, here is a general chronology of what I've done to date. About the experiment itself, I focused totally on the aging side of oak barrel use, and not dispensing. An experiment with priming and dispensing might happen at a later point, but I'm not really of the opinion, at this time, that it's a practical idea. First, the barrel. The one I chose to work with was a 3 gallon barrel made of American white oak, which was charred on the inside. It was built in New England, and was brand-new. I went with a three gallon barrel because I figured that, since the smaller the barrel, the higher would be the ratio of oak to beer. In other words, if I could make this whole thing work with a 3 gallon barrel, a 5 gallon barrel would be even easier. The first order of business was to brew a batch of beer. To this end, I chose a pre-hopped beer kit (Arkell's GWR Strong Bitter, manufactured by EDME), adjuncted with one half pound of dry malt. The yeast used was a re-propogated bit of Chico ale yeast. I opted for simplicity, because I wholly expected that I might lose the batch of beer for one reason or another. This batch went well enough, and spent nearly four weeks in primary and secondary fermenters, at which point I prepared the barrel. First, I filled the barrel with water. It leaked a bit, but after a few hours the wood swelled up, and the leakage stopped. So far, so good. I then emptied the barrel and refilled it a couple of times, just to clear out any excess bits of loose charred matter. At this point, I filled the barrel with hot water and a substance called Barokleen, which is essentially a blend of soda ash and lye. This stuff stayed in the barrel for three days. I then repeated the process, as this was supposed to leach tannins out of the oak, and I'm sure many of you have heard about perported high tannin levels in American white oak. Anyway, after all of this, I soaked and rinsed the barrel with cold clean water five or six times over the next few days, always leaving the barrel full. I then sterilized the barrel with a blend of sodium metabisulfite and citric acid (following the instructions on the package), and re-rinsed the barrel about a half- dozen times after that with clean cold tap water. Finally, I was ready to fill it with beer. I simply siphoned directly from a carboy, put a stopper and airlock in the bung hole, crossed my fingers and prayed to the beer gods for good fortune. From the get-go, I drew a small amount of beer each day, to monitor the flavor. By day three, I began to notice the oak for the first time, and it grew in intensity with each day. At day six the beer had developed a marvelous balance, but by day eight it was becoming overly oakey in character. Finally, I pulled the beer on day ten, and bottled it. I simply rinsed the barrel out twice with cold water, and let it sit, full. Meanwhile, I had brewed a second batch of beer, this one a barley wine. I had read more than once that with new barrels, it might be advantageous to use high gravity beers the first couple of times, in order to leave a beer "imprint" in the barrel. This beer was another kit: EDME barley wine, along with a 1kg can of Morgan's dark crystal Master Blend, and a re-propogated bit of Wyeast Scottish ale yeast. The starting gravity was 1.072, and I gave it a two week primary fermentation in glass. I prepared the barrel with the sodium metabisulfite and citric acid as before, and rinsed it five or six times. I then racked the barley wine into the barrel. After a couple of days, I dry-hopped the beer with 1/3oz of Kent Golding pellets. After two weeks, the beer had developed an oak flavor, but not nearly as oppressive as the previous batch. Furthermore, that first batch of beer (the Arkells), after a month in the bottle, had begun to lose it's oakiness to the point that it has become very drinkable. This has caused me to conclude that it's probably OK to let the beer sit in the barrel, even if the oak flavor seems to reach an excessive point, because that flavor does recede somewhat with aging. Now, I have brewed a batch of imperial stout (O.G. 1.065), and that will be the next beer to get the oak treatment, once I've decided to pull the barley wine. Finally, my conclusions to date. Well, as I expected, the first batch was a little harsh, but certainly drinkable, and it has improved in the bottle with age. The second batch is maturing beautifully, and the oak flavor seems to have reached a peak and stayed there. I have experienced no infection problems whatsoever, and, unless I have overlooked something, it appears at this stage that American white oak barrels are nothing to be afraid of, with regard to conditioning beer. The oak flavor, of course, is, regardless of strength, a matter of personal preference. Frankly, I have never tasted anything quite like it, and I am becoming rather fond of it. Since it's a good idea to keep these barrels full at all times, I'm simply going to keep putting batch after batch of beer in there, and see what happens over time. For all of you who have contacted me about this subject, I want to express thanks for your interest, and also your individual suggestions and offered information on the subject. It's all been very helpful. For anyone interested in any experiment updates from this point on, I can be reached at 1-(800)-900-8410. I also want to thank Terry Terfinko personally for goading me into this experiment. I hope this information will be of value to some of you. The experiment's been a lot of fun, and I've also learned a bunch. Well, that's it for now. To all of you, Good Brewing! Jim Mosser Email: None yet! Phone 800-900-8410 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 95 15:01:45 EDT From: "Matthew W. Bryson" <MWBryson at lanmail.rmc.com> Subject: ...no subject... The following was included as an attachement. Please use UUDECODE to retrieve it. The original file name was 'EMAIL.TXT'. begin 666 EMAIL.TXT M/D1A=&4Z(%1U92P at ,S` at 36%Y(#$Y.34 at ,#DZ,S8Z,S at at +3`T,#`-"CY&<F]M M.B!H8G5S:$!P<'!L+F=O=B`H:&%R<GDI#0H^4W5B:F5C=#H at 2&<-"CX-"CX at M("` at ("` at ($$ at <75I8VL at <75E<W1I;VXN(%-H;W5L9"!-97)C=7)Y(&)E(&%D M9&5D('1O('1H92!B;VEL+"!J=7-T(&%F=&5R#0H^8F]I;&EN9RP at ;W( at =&\ at M=&AE('-E8V]N9&%R>3\-"CX-"CX-"CY(87)R>0T*#0H at ("!)('1H:6YK('1H M870 at >6]U)W)E('-U<'!O<V5D('1O(&UA:V4 at 82!T96$ at 86YD(&%D9"!A="!B M;W1T;&EN9R!T:6UE(&9O<B`-"FUA>&EM=6T at 9FQA=F]R(&%N9"!A<F]M82XN 4+ at T*#0H at ("` at ($1U:V4 at 3G5K96T` ` end The following was included as an attachement. Please use UUDECODE to retrieve it. The original file name was 'EMAIL2.TXT'. begin 666 EMAIL2.TXT M#0H-"CY))VT at <&QA;FYI;F< at 82!R;V%D('1R:7` at ;V8 at =&AE(&9O;&QO=VEN M9R!S=&%T97, at <V]O;CH-"CX at ("!.97< at 2F5R<V5Y+"!-87)Y;&%N9"P at 1&5L M87=A<F4L(%9I<F=I;FEA+"!096YN<WEL=F%N:6$L($YE=R!9;W)K+"!$0RX- M"CX-"CY)('=O=6QD(&QI:V4 at =&\ at 9V5T('-O;64 at <F5C;VUM96YD871I;VYS M(&]F(&5X8V5P=&EO;F%L(&)R97=P=6)S(&%N9`T*/FUI8W)O8G)E=V5R:65S M(&EN('1H97-E('-T871E<RX at ("A)(&AA=F4 at =&AE('!U8FQI<W0 at 9G)O;2!T M:&4 at 87)C:&EV92XI#0H^#0H^268 at >6]U(&MN;W< at ;V8 at 86YY(&)R97=P=6)S M(&]R(&UI8W)O<R!T:&%T($D at <VAO=6QD;B=T(&UI<W,L('!L96%S92!%+6UA M:6PN#0H^#0H^("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at ("` at M("` at ("` at ("` at (%1H86YK<RX-" at T*("` at 22!D;VXG="!K;F]W(&%B;W5T(&%N M>7!L86-E(&5L<V4L(&)U="!H97)E(&EN(%)I8VAM;VYD+"!602P at =&AE($QE M9V5N9"`-"D)R97=E<GD at :7, at =&]P(&YO=&-H+B!4:&4 at 4FEC:&)R874 at 0G)E M=V5R>2!A;'-O('-E<G9E<R!S;VUE('!R971T>2!G;V]D(`T*8F5E<G,L(&%L M=&AO=6=H($D at <&5R<V]N86QL>2!D;VXG="!R871E('1H96T at 87, at :&EG:&QY M(&%S($UI8VAA96P at 2F%C:W-O;BX-" at T*64U-5BP-" at T*("` at ($1U:V4 at 3G5K "96T` ` end Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 13:02:37 -0600 (MDT) From: kevin at wheels.aar.com Subject: Yeast's need for zinc Just a quick bit of info that I ran accross sometime ago, that was later echoed in reading George Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science", and I summarize it below for your brewing pleasure.... I was searching the Chemical Abstracts at the local university on the subject of yeast nutrients & minerals. I found an abstract that studied yeast's need for zinc. It found that the optimum amount of zinc needed in the wort was 0.5 ppm, and that NONE of the worts studied had enough zinc, and were seriously deficient. In this study, they found that if they did add zinc to the wort, it would produce a more rapid and healthy fermentation. As I recall, Fix's book also mentions that some breweries add zinc to their wort, and target the same 0.5 ppm concentration. My water has 0.0095 ppm zinc, which is well below the 0.5 ppm! I have no idea how much the malt contributes, but Fix's book indicated it doesn't add much. I brew in 23 litre amounts, and that comes out to 11.5 mg per batch. While I haven't done THIS, you can get zinc supplement tablets at the health food stores, that contain 15 mg each, which could be trimmed to size. However, I have added zinc to my beers, but from another source. I didn't have two identical worts sitting side by side to compare, so I can't say what (if anything) it did, but it certainly didn't hurt either. I offer this because I don't see much comment about it when discussing water treatment, and from what the Abstracts says, it probably would help. Happy brewing! Kevin - -- Kevin Hass WB0DPN ! ! PGP public key by request via email kevin at wheels.aar.com ! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:08:02 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Judge not, lest you be JCP yourself? My nemesis : --Contains line(s) greater than 80 chars in length -- > Subject: Chimay Yeast for Belgian Pale Ale? Yes. > From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> > I don't believe there is anyone out there as an "all-grainer" who > exclusively brews all-grain batches, is there? Yes. > I believe all but the most die-hard 'all-grainer' use extracts to some extent > - OG bolstering, bottle/keg priming, in their milk (Try it! Its' great!). I don't think I'm a die-hard, but I only use extract in milk and for starters. If I'm not going to do a full mash, etc, I just make a mead or something. Chances are I'll end up making an extract brew in the next year or two again, but for now all-grain is my new toy, and I'm going to keep playing with it. > From: JPinero111 at aol.com > Subject: subscibe me No. Nyah. :-) > Subject: The Sparge from Hell > Does anyone have any ideas as to what might have gone wrong? What temp sparge water did you add? (Did you add any?) > From: "Keith Royster" <Royster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> > Subject: unpopular threads > > Paul Patino and others write pleading for other HBD'ers to drop the > mercury thread. While I personally agree that nothing new has been > contributed to this thread in quite a while, I also don't feel it is > my place, or anyone elses, to decide what gets discussed and for how > long (as long as it is remotely brewing related, which the mercury > thread is). However, you do feel that it's your place to tell Paul where his place is? Do you know what bizarre irony you engage in when you ask someone to stop posting asking other people to stop posting stuff? > It is my view that the HBD threads can take care of > themselves, without the need for others to tell us what should and > should not be discussed. Then why are YOU telling Patino (and others) what they can and cannot discuss? He has a right to express his opinion about that thread. > But don't waste BW telling others to drop the subject. Are you aware that you are wasting bandwidth in order to ask someone to stop wasting bandwidth by asking others to not waste bandwidth? Do you know what that makes ME? Do you know how many fingers I'm holding up? I insist that this thread about asking people to not ask other people to drop the mercury thread be dropped at once. > From: hbush at pppl.gov (harry) > Subject: Hg > > A quick question. Should Mercury be added to the boil, just after > boiling, or to the secondary? I usually use a mercury-back just before my cooling coil. I have, however, had many delcious beers that were dry-mercuried. > From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> > Subject: XG Samples/Quayle/Creativity/Missing Man Formation > stack us up like cord-wood! E tu, Russell (in 1743)? Yes, I always drink the stuff in my hydrometer flasks. In fact, when bottling, Jake and I have been known to use a pilsener glass to take samples with. "Just in case". > From: korz at iepubj.att.com (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) > >I recently lost some points on a Bock in a contest because it was too > >reddish, and it should have been more brown. > > Those judges should take a look at Paulaner Salvator. Yeah, I had some about a week after the contest, and the color is really close to mine. > If you know the judges, you should politely confront > them with this misjudging. But, checking the style guidelines, I think they may have been doing things 'by the book'. The long and short of it is this - I love that beer, the way it tastes, the way it looks, everything. (It was a little overhopped at the time, too, but had only been bottled 2 weeks before, after lagering in the secondary for many moons. Anyway, I had some the other day and it's magnificent.) And, I got good comments and a good score on it. And, I learned something. I didn't end up with a ribbon for it (got one in a diff't category with a lower score), but that's really not why I entered. > Once they settle down, I'm quite sure > that some kind of formal, feedback procedure will be initiated to allow > entrants to report judging errors. There has been much discussion about this > and I'm sure it is in the works. In this case, I think it was a "judgement call" if you'll pardon the pun. I probably only lost 1-2 points on it, and, except in the case of an obvious mix-up, I don't think I would bother with the trouble. (Unless I was a point or two away from top banana...) > Chapeau Banana Lambik ;^). Ew. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 15:16:48 -0400 From: Brandy Rega <brega at TSO.Cin.IX.net> Subject: Signing off of Homebrew Digest and not Beer-L Hi, I wrote earlier to sign off of homebrew digest and I was given advice on how to signoff of Beer-l instead. One problem I have is my address when I signed on to homebrew digest may have been different: brega at tso.uc.edu. I would like to sign off ASAP, so please send help (and you don't have to post this). Also, I lost the address to sign on and off. Thank you. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 12:30:15 +0000 From: troy at opthalmos.jsei.ucla.edu (Troy Howard) Subject: Papazian's Red Marzen Has anyone tried making "Hesitation Red Marzen" from Papazian's TNCBHB? I was fishing around for a recipe for a red ale this morning, and came across this. Looking at the recipe, I can't see how it would be "red". The grain bill calls for (from memory) 5 lbs 6-row pale 2 lbs Munich 1 lb toasted pale (toasted in a 350F oven for 10 minutes) I know Munich is on the dark side (~10L), but I still can't see this being very red. So if you have tried it, how did it turn out? Did the lack of crystal make it seem a little "thin"? Or does the Munich compensate? TIA and cheers, -Troy - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Troy Howard | Live fast, troy at oculus.jsei.ucla.edu | die young, Jules Stein Eye Institue, UCLA | and leave a good looking corpse. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1747, 06/02/95