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