HOMEBREW Digest #1863 Sat 21 October 1995

Digest #1862 Digest #1864

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  green crud (Ronald Moucka)
  Re: Home Brewing Without Failures by H. E. Bravery (Jerry Miller)
  Re: O2 saturation, styles (Jim Dipalma)
  Comments about The Pratical Brewer (J Dudley Leaphart)
  wort chillers and brewer's bible ("Taber, Bruce")
  Homebrew newsletter (Matthew C. Brady)
  Lagering - in carboy or in bottles? (Curt.Abert)
  Starting out ("Lepley, Bryan J")
  Farenheit to Celcius conversion (w.r.) crick" <crick at bnr.ca>
  please remove me from mailing list (MZEIS)
  Re: Stuck Mead (William Shelton)
  Hops pellets, trub, and filtering (William H. Kitt, Jr.)
  Kinney, cleaning & sanitizing chemicals, IPA recipe (SandBrew)
  WYEAST 1056 / Parallel propagation (Brian Pickerill)
  Beta-amylase at 140F (60C) (Steve Alexander)
  Beer Label Books? ("Kail M. Brenneman")
  Sam Adams Triple Bock, aeration (Neal Christensen)
  Chill out, vegemighty, sassy fricas, cab driver ale (Russell Mast)
  mashing (Jim Busch)
  re: pros/cons of fridge/freezer and a RIMS note (BigBrad)
  Using yeast starters (Holmes)
  yeast nutrient (James Murphy)
  Mashing temperatures & saccharification (Steve Alexander)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! October 3 thru October 13: The digest !!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if !!! you make any requests during this time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****************************************************************** * 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. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org 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: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:25:59 GMT From: rmoucka at omn.com (Ronald Moucka) Subject: green crud Brewers, A quick question for the collective: In my keg refrigerator I try to keep a couple of kegs on tap at all times :^). However, occasionally I don't get to tap off a cold one from one of the kegs for a few days or more. Last week I taped off a pint, only to see what I thought was a small hop particle floating in the glass. No big deal I thought, until upon closer inspection I realized it was not a piece of hop, but a chunk of green slime. After disassembling the cobra head tap, I found a whole slug of it covering the rubber portion of the tap. I'm wondering if this is due to the little bit of beer left in the mouth of the tap. If so, have any of you run into this, and if you have, what did you do? This particular brew wasn't all that good to start with, but the green slime certainly didn't help it any. Many TIAs .:. :.:. _|~~~~| ( | D | Ron Moucka, Brewmaster \| B | DayBar Brewing, Ltd., Fort Collins, Colorado `----' rmoucka at omn.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:36:36 -0400 From: Jerry Miller <gmiller at CS.SunySB.EDU> Subject: Re: Home Brewing Without Failures by H. E. Bravery >Jerry Miller asks about Home Brewing Without Failures by H. E. >Bravery. Well, my copy is 20 years old (Cover price $0.95) so this >information may or may not be of any use: Published by ARC Books, 219 >Park Ave S, New York NY 10003.... Dave (T.), Thanks for the information. I myself never used Bravery's recipes verbatim, but rather as a guide for proportions and (especially) adding the correct amount of sugar to charge the bottles when making "gaseous beer" (to quote Bravery). Thanks again. Jerry Miller http://creb.rad.jhu.edu/u/miller/internet/gam.html Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 11:07:11 EDT From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: O2 saturation, styles Hi All, In HBD#1861, Dion writes about aeration with pure O2: >Regarding O2 and foaming, I use a SS 2 micron stone for O2 injection >and it foams a good bit, but not too badly. However, I do my >injection in a closed corny keg so foaming (no matter how much) is not >a problem for me. I've used pure O2 and a SS airstone to oxygenate batches in 6.5 gallon carboys, haven't had any foaming problems. The regulator pressure is set very low, about 3 psi, just enough to push small bubbles through the airstone. I've heard it's undesirable to use higher pressure, the bubbles come out too large, and less O2 is dissolved in the wort. With the low pressure setting, a 1" thick foam cap forms quickly, very creamy looking, like the head on a Pub Guinness. After running the O2 for 20 minutes, there is still just the 1" foam cap, it never gets much larger than that. As to oversaturation: >I hate to disagree here, but according to George Fix (I heard this >from his lips directly) research he has done for an upcoming book >definitively proves that it is *impossible* to oversaturate wort with >O2 at atmospheric pressure. He went on to say that if you measure the >O2 content right after injection, it may be too high, but that within >a couple of minutes, it will drop to exactly the right level for >maximum effectiveness for yeast growth. I read an article by Dr. Fix on this topic recently, and that was his conclusion. ************************************************ Regarding the thread on styles, I think Rob Lauriston nails a couple of the pertinent issues sqaurely on the head: >Some people try a beer and then want to pigeonhole it into one style or >another. There is absolutely no reason to think that a beer does or should >fit into any recognized style at all, and it is certainly not a shortcoming >of a beer if it doesn't. You like a beer or you don't. Absolutely. I've tasted a number of beers that would not do well in competition because they did not neatly fit a recognized style, yet were delicious. IMHO, there are at least a couple of different approaches to homebrewing. When brewing with the intent of entering a competition, I'll use very specific ingredients and procedures in order to hit the narrow set of parameters that define a given style. When brewing with the intent of developing new recipes, I get creative with the selection of ingredients, will modify procedures, etc. I find it's rarely necessary to dump the results of these experiments. :-) Rob continues: >As for homebrew competitions OTOH, I feel that beers are best judged against >a set of sensory characteristics which are defined before hand; the idea is >that it is better to try to establish a goal and measure how well a brewer >achieves it than to see how well a brewer pleases the preferences of the >judges of a particular competition. I think this is really the value of style definitions. As judges, we *need* an objective framework against which the brewer's knowledge of and skill at controlling the brewing process may be measured. Without such a framework, competitions would have to be decided purely on the judges' subjective impressions. As to the historical aspect of styles, it's been correctly pointed out that it's difficult to brew historically accurate reproductions of original styles, due to the evolution of agriculture and technology. Al K writes: >Regarding historical depth to styles, perhaps there isn't and it would be >quite refreshing to see someone try to take a crack at "Original Porter" >albeit in the Specialty category. Sure we can't buy brown malt anymore, >but who says we can't try and make it at home? Actually, there are some maltsters still producing a product called brown malt, Hugh Baird and Great Western among them. This malt has a color rating of about 70L, and I've read it contributes a very sharp, bitter flavor. I am dubious that this product is "historically accurate", since it could not be used as a base malt, which brown malt was in original porters. Another difficulty that would be encountered in trying to reproduce an original porter is that the strains of hops specified in documentation of the original recipes no longer exist. The type of yeast used was apparently never documented, and is a complete mystery. I think this example demonstrates the problems with using modern style guidelines as a historical reference. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 09:52:04 -1000 From: jdud at mcn.net (J Dudley Leaphart) Subject: Comments about The Pratical Brewer I'm looking for comments about the book The Pratical Brewer by the Master Brewers Association of the Americas. Are the articles well written, accurate, and up to date, is it worth the money, etc? TIA J Dudley Leaphart Billings, MT jdud at mcn.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 11:48:00 EDT From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER at NRC.CA> Subject: wort chillers and brewer's bible In # 1861 Rolland Everitt asks about the advantages of a wort chiller. He also asks about the problems of trub getting stuck inside the chiller. My view is that a chiller is very cheap and easy to make, and easy to use. I have followed the thread on immersion vs. counter-flow chillers and I feel that the counter-flow is way too much work for little added benefit. I realize that this is not the case with a more elaborate brewing setup, but for the basic pot-on-the-burner setup that most home brewers use, the immersion chiller is perfect. My chiller is just a piece of coiled copper tubing and it cools my wort to pitching temperature in 20 minutes. I never have to worry about nasties hiding inside because only tap water runs through it. Its easy to clean. I simply rinse it off. It is sterilized at every use by putting it in the wort 10 minutes before the end of the boil. Using a chiller allows you to finish your brewing MUCH faster and reduces the chances of infection. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Let me offer a piece of advice to novice brewers everywhere. - Keep those questions coming. Don't be put off by high level discussions on enzymes, alpha-amylase, or those water analysis posts from a couple of months ago. (Could anyone understand those? Just kidding.) The HBD is for everyone. There is an incredible amount of knowledge represented by the regular readers. But I would make one suggestion. BUY A BOOK. My opinion is that anyone who is past the point of following those crazy directions that come with the kits should invest the $10 - $15 in a good reference book. For the beginner there is of course The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing (TNCJoHB) by Charlie Papazian or The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing by David Miller. There are a few others as well. I promise that a good reference book will be indispensable to you. You will have the answers to most of your questions at your finger tips. I can't imagine brewing without my books to help me keep all the information straight. Bruce Taber in Canada's capitol taber at irc.lan.nrc.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:29:24 -0400 From: hm758 at cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Matthew C. Brady) Subject: Homebrew newsletter Please send me your newsletter. Either electronically or mail to Matt Brady 1629 Pleasantdale Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44109 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:03:08 -0500 From: abert at flanders.isgs.uiuc.edu (Curt.Abert) Subject: Lagering - in carboy or in bottles? Hi all, I have been brewing for about 2 years now. In the past, I pretty much only brewed ales (as they are in general easier and definately faster). As my brewing experience has grown (and after I got my hands on a couple of extra refridgeraters, I have begun to experiment with lagers. Last March, I brewed an Oktoberfest that fermented at 45 - 50 degrees F. I didn't really feel like spending the time to bottle, so I just popped the carboy in an extra fridge to lager (at about 34 degrees f.) throughout the summer. I finally got around to bottling in August, primed with 3/4 cup corn sugar, and let it condition at about 60 - 70 degrees F. (room temperature). I have been trying a few bottles to see how it is comming along, and it is just barely carbonated. It is crystal clear, tastes great, just no carbonation. My question: Did I lager so long that too much of the yeast settled out? In the future, should I consider bottling sooner and have an extended bottle-conditioning/lagering stage? What does the collective net-wisdom have to say? I know my beer isn't ruined, it is just too flat. I want to go to kegs soon, just have to save up to purchase the setup. Thanks, Curt Abert abert at geoserv.isgs.uiuc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:18:43 EST From: "Lepley, Bryan J" <BLEPLEY at NMU.EDU> Subject: Starting out I would like to start homebrewing. I know there are a lot of kits out there to start with. Are there any particular ones and someone could refer me to? Thank you very much, Bryan Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 11:30:39 +0000 From: "bill (w.r.) crick" <crick at bnr.ca> Subject: Farenheit to Celcius conversion Tim Fields asked about degrees F to C conversions F = C*9/5 +32 or C = (F-32)*5/9 Bill Crick Brewius, Ergo Sum! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:41:01 -0400 From: MZEIS at aol.com Subject: please remove me from mailing list please remove me from mailing list Return to table of contents
Date: 19 Oct 1995 12:44:45 -0400 From: William Shelton <William.Shelton.0206973 at nt.com> Subject: Re: Stuck Mead Brian Travis writes>>>#1 Any ideas why the champaigne yeast I re-pitched = failed to "ignite"?<<< It is more likely that the yeast are undernourished and anemic. Remeber = that honey, unlike malt, is low in nutrients. I rarely make meads with = fruit, prefering straight meads, but I usually add much more nutrient (1 = to 2 tablespoons for 5 gallons) and I also add yeast energizer (1 to 2 = teaspoons for 5 gallons). Additionally, Meads with gravities above 1.100 are notoriously difficult = to start and maintain fermentation. Many people brew high sugar content = meads by starting at a lower gravity and then feeding additional honey to = the mead in progress after the gravity has dropped. >>>#2 What effect will the ale yeast I added today have on the mead?<<< Just a guess, but assuming you do add new Champagne yeast shortly after = the Wyeast 1056, I would expect very little difference from an all = Champagne yeast batch. In general My mead making has always been less predictable than my beer = making. Bill Shelton william.shelton at nt.com NORTEL Federal Systems Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:38:10 -0400 (EDT) From: wkitt at melpar.esys.com (William H. Kitt, Jr.) Subject: Hops pellets, trub, and filtering As a novice homebrewer, I have only brewed with extracts and hops pellets. I have not been able to remove the hops from the wort, or prevent them from being transferred to the secondary fermenter. Is this why my beer has such a strong (too strong for me) hop taste? Assuming that I stay with hop pellets (that's what is available at the nearest homebrew store), how can I remove the hops from wort? Is it advisable to put them in one of those fine mesh bags I have noticed at the brew store, or do they need to float around in the boiling wort to be fully effective? Would a kitchen strainer be effective (and would that also effectively remove the coagulated matter from my use of Irish moss)? Thanks, Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:49:23 -0400 From: SandBrew at aol.com Subject: Kinney, cleaning & sanitizing chemicals, IPA recipe Hi there, I have been lurking around the HBD for awhile now and finally thought it time to post. First I want to join in the congrats to Kinney Baughman for his medal at GABF. I first met Kinney at the homebrewers conference at Estes Park, CO in 1985. Back then we were both just gifted amateurs hoping to make better beer someday. Now we are both brewing pro. To everyone out there with the dream, just keep on. Make good beer and you can find a way to make a living at it. Kinney had asked, at some time in a past posting, about different cleaning and sanitizing chemicals. We here at SandLot, and at other breweries in Colorado, are using some great stuff made and distributed by Five Star in Denver. Their cleaner is a NON-CAUSTIC alkaline cleaner called PBW. This stuff is GREAT!! It is very safe to use, can even be shipped UPS without any haz-mat surcharge. For homebrewing it is a godsend. All you need to do is fill up a dirty carboy with hot water and 3-5 ozs. of PBW and let it sit overnight and it is CLEAN. PBW was designed as a clean-in-place cleanser, so it needs no scrubbing. It does a great job on beer stone in our kettle. We just CIP after every brew and once a week we CIP with a phosphoric/nitric acid mix and our kettle stays clean and shiny. For sanitizing, nothing we have found beats Oxine. This is chlorine-dioxide and is suberb. For more info on these goodies contact Bob Nold at PNOLD at aol.com. I have no interest in this company just an interest in everyone making the best possible beer. In that vein, I would like to share with everyone my IPA recipe that won two gold medals at GABF in '92 & '94 when I worked for the Hubcap Brewey in Vail, CO. The same recipe won the gold this year from the Hubcap in Dallas, TX. Vail Pale Ale (for five gallons) 10 lbs. Bairds English two-row Pale Ale malted barley 1 lb. Bairds English two-row 50-60 crystal malt (mash at 68 C for 90 min.) 1.2 oz. Centennial hop pellets (90 min. boil) 1.2 oz. Centennial hop pellets (60 min. boil) 1.2 oz. Cascade hop pellets (10 min. boil) 1.2 oz. Cascade hop pellets(end of boil) Force cool and ferment with your favorite ale yeast (1056 works well). Rack into secondary, add finings and 1.2 oz. for Cascade whole hops. Let sit in secondary for three weeks, rack into serving vessel and force carbonate. ENJOY. Your equipment may give you different results but what you want to shoot for is O.G. 1.055 F.G. 1.016 IBU 62. Finally I would like to offer myself and the rest of the brewery staff as a resource to all the HBDers. I am a certified beer judge, I have judged the last two GABFs and have won seven medals at GABF in my five year stint as a pro brewer. I am now hooked up with Coors as Brewmaster of The SandLot Brewery at Coors Field, so on the many questions that you may come up with that I have no idea about, I can toss them over to the rocket scientists in Brewing R&D. So send us some E-Mail. I can't promise to read the HBD everyday so that is the best way to get hold of us. If any of you are in Denver, stop by Coors Field and check us out. If you E-mail me in advance and come by during the week, I might be able to give you a tour. Cheers, Wayne Waananen SandLot Brewery Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: WYEAST 1056 / Parallel propagation In #1859, Richard Smith <72154.516 at compuserve.com> reported a "nasty, green apple smell" with a couple of batches of WYEAST 1056 manufactured in September. Well, I don' know the exact manufacturing date of the 1056 I recently used, but I am certain that it was produced in the last couple weeks of september because I received it in the first week of October and remember that it was the newest I had ever gotten--it was only about 10 days old. It swelled an inch in like 3 hours, and smelled great in the starter--no problems at all, though this is the first time I have used this yeast. (I'm showing my inexperience here, I know--I have used SNPA yeast before, if that counts... ;-) I tried the parallel yeast propagation technique (as in the yeast faq) but I only made 3/4 gallon (needed some head space in my 1 gallon canning jar) and only bottled 3, 12 oz bottles and used the rest to start a recent batch. No off smells in that, either. With repitching, I figure I can get at least 8 batches out of this, and I was ready to brew, so I didn't have to step up again before brewing. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:02:16 -0400 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Beta-amylase at 140F (60C) In Homebrew Digest #1859 (October 17, 1995), Geoff Scott writes: >Steve is looking for a discussion of lower temperature saccharification >rests. It seems clear to me that although slow at 60 degrees, >saccharification is going on. As Steve points out, maximum fermentability >is achieved somewhere around 60. But that's as far as we agree. >Steve: >>I'm not overly enamoured of the higher amylase activity at 65C as a >>homebrewer. A-B may be in a hurry when they brew; I can afford the >>extra 30 minutes. A homebrewer's greater difficulty is in controlling >>the process. I suspect that by timing a primarily beta-amylase rest >>and a primarily alpha-amylase rest that I can achieve tighter control ... >It's interesting to note that although a mash at 60 gives max >fermentability, a mash at 65 gives max extraction. I know, craft brewers >are not mainly concerned with extraction but it illustrates that beta and >alpha amylases do not work in isolation. For this reason I don't think it >can be as neat as separate rests for beta and alpha at their respective >optimum temperatures. In a mash around 65 where both are active, I can >think of two ways alpha helps beta do its job. Alpha amylase is the more >important liquefaction enzyme, it facilitates water uptake in the starch >granules so that beta can get to work. Secondly, alpha can break 1-6 links >connecting the side chains of starch to make more ends available to beta. >So Steve, I'm afraid you'll have to stop mashing so low and come up to >around 65 like some of the rest of us. (Just kidding) To be honest, my >main objection to low saccharification rests is the resulting beer - too >dry for my tastes. > >regards, > >Geoff Scott The papers, graphs, texts I've seen only show comparable extraction results for single temperature mashes. I have no doubt at all that a single temperature mash at 65C (the M&B Science graphs indicates a peak at 65.5C) produces greater extract than a 60C mash when mashed for the same amount of time. I didn't suggest a single temperature mash, nor mashing for the same amount of time. My practical suggestion was that timed/program mash temperatures around 60C and 70C may provide better process control. If your beers are too dry adjust the times. For example if your 45' at 60C/30' at 70C mash produces a too-dry result, then try 25' at 60C/50' at 70C mash. You are also quite right in indicating that alpha amylase increases the number of 'end' sites available for beta-amylase degradation. (See the note below about beta-amylase activity at non-end sites) It appears from my recent reading that the RATIO of the number of end sites made available by alpha-amylase and the amount of saccharification by beta-amylase per unit time is nearly the same at 60C as at 65C. Of course the reactions occur at a rate about 1.4 times higher at 65C, but both activities increase by the same factor. So something other than the beta-amylase is responsible for the increased in extraction you mention. You note the grist solid hydration. In addition running the mashes for the same length of time disregarding the decreased activity at 60C is a significant factor - but I doubt that it explains the entire difference. Starch granule gelatinization (discussed in previous posts) clearly is greater in a single temp 1 hour mash at 65C than 60C. Another factor is that at the higher temperature the rates of diffusion of soluables out of the grist are improved, by how much I don't know. I recently took a trip to a local university science library and found among the **25 shelves** of books on enzyme chemistry(!!!), a couple of interesting bits of information - consider this information preliminary - I certainly have a lot more reading to do. The initial activity of enzymes is exponential with temperature and for a large class of enzymes activity doubles for every 10C increase in temp. Between 60C and 65C we should expect about a factor of 1.41 (sqrt(2)) increase in initial activity. Activity is also dependent on concentrations of enzyme and substrate. Enzyme degradation or denaturing rate is also exponential with respect to temperature and the exponent is dependent on the ionization temperature of the enzyme. A lot of info is available regarding degradation protecting ions primarily calcium ions helping to prevent degradation of enzymes that weakly attach to calcium. I hope to read more on these topics for specific enzymes. There seems to be some controversy over beta-amylase activity sites. My interpretations of the section of Boyce, Allender et al, 'Enzyme Chemistry' that I was reading (from volume 5 I believe) was that the classic view, we all know, is that beta-amylase separates the 1-4 bond and releases the two coupled glucose molecules from the 'end' of the starch chain which produce (in another related reaction) maltose. The more controversial but supported view is that beta-amylase can also degrade other 1-4 bonds. The relevent temperature graph indicated multi-site activity to be significant below 30-35C, from 35-58C the activity was mostly single site, then multi-site activity again increased rapidly above 58C. This could explain the increased fermentability for low temperatures mashes since the greater single site activity produces fermentable maltose while the multi-site activity would create more complex polysaccharides. My interim conclusion is that this *IS* a complex issue ! Thanks Geoff, Stevea Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:13:21 -0700 From: "Kail M. Brenneman" <kbrennem at maxwell.mdc.com> Subject: Beer Label Books? I'm looking for books which contain either a collection of beer labels (preferably older) or have numerous labels prominently displayed. Is anyone aware of any books that fit this description? kmb... "cogito ergo suds" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 13:15:55 -0700 From: stoner1 at ix.netcom.com (ROBERT STONE JR ) Subject: beer Hello there, a friend of mine gave me your address and thought I could use it because I make beer. Nice guy. Anyway, I tried to get you at the www and did't make it...http://guraldihgp.med.umich.edu/beer and also at the ftp...mthvax.cs.miami.edu path: /pub/homebrew.* and of course your e-mail which I hope works. If any of these address's are wromg could you please let me know. I would like to get on your mailing list and this is what this is all about. Here is my e-mail address: stoner1 at ix.netcom.com Let me know if you need anything else. thanks Bob:) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:22:29 -0600 From: nealc at selway.umt.edu (Neal Christensen) Subject: Sam Adams Triple Bock, aeration Howdy: Have any of you tried the Sam Adams special Triple Bock - 1995 Reserve. I recently sampled a bottle and found it very interesting! In fact, if I were given it during a blind taste test I might not identify it as beer. It is packaged in an 8 or 10 oz. blue bottle with a cork. The accompanying tag describes the beer as similar to a port or Madeira - I would agree. It really doesn't have any carbonation. The beer is fermented with ale yeast at 'warm' temperature - so it is not really a bock as I think of bocks. It is strong and full bodied like a Triple Bock or a Belgian Triple, but is a style of its own. The stats on this are really amazing. The beer is brewed with almost 1 lb. of malt per bottle, resulting in an OG of 40 degrees Plato - wow! Maple syrup is also added to the brew - I can taste that. This beer was brewed in 1995 so it is a little young for consumption considering its strength. I have stuck one away and will try to save it for next year, but that may be difficult. In general, I liked the Triple Bock allot (my wife did not), but it is unlike anything I have ever had except maybe Madeira (which my wife also did not like). It is meant to be sipped and consumed in small quantaties - unlike most of the beer I brew! I would like to hear others' opinions on this one, and maybe we can revisit it in a year and see how it has changed. Question for Dion: Yesterday you mentioned that you aerate in a closed corny - so foaming is not a concern. You also mentioned that George Fix suggests that wort cannot be over-oxygenated at normal atmospheric pressure. But aren't you oxygenating under pressure, and could that result in too much oxygen in solution for some time after releasing the pressure and applying the air lock? I like the in-line aeration method as described in Brewing Techniques. You can inject O2 right in-line, avoid foaming problems, and get immediate results. I have seen this done in breweries, and it seems to make sense. Dion, you have the stone and the oxygen tank, so why don't you set it up in-line. What advantages do you see in aerating for several hours in the fermenting tank? I don't have an aeration system yet - but I do pitch a bunch of yeast slurry. On my next batch, I'm going to try the simple method of using a tube with small holes to pull in air as the wort exits the boiling pot on the way to the fermentor. What would be better in the long term, in-line or in the fermentor? Neal Christensen Missoula - A Place Sort Of Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 15:47:58 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Chill out, vegemighty, sassy fricas, cab driver ale > From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt) > Subject: wort coolers necessary? Obviously not, since you're making beer without one! :-) Seriously, I've found my beers improved with chilling. Your best bet would be to borrow (or buy, if you got the dough) a wort chiller and try it. I think you'll like it. Overnight cooling risks infection more than a quick chilling. Also, I never have problems cleaning bits of trub from my wort chiller. I simply rinse it thoroughly (better than I spell, anyway) as soon as I'm done, while it's still warm, etc. After a brief rinse, the water coming through my chiller tastes and looks like it's straight from the tap. By the way, how is your beer now? Good, great, medium, hazy? How's yer head retention? > From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> > Vegemite Beer > Does anybody know what I am talking about, and if so, do you know what = > causes this fault? Vegemite has a burnt flavor to me. (Both times. Once to see if it killed me, once to see if I liked it. I didn't.) I've had burnt flavors coming from beers which had cool-side oxidation. I once (accidentally, I swear) aged a beer for over a year in a PET bottle. 2-liter. I had two of them, and one of them tasted good after about 4 weeks, then I lost the other one. During that time, enough oxygen slipped through to "burn" the beer. (Maybe others wouldn't call it burnt, but I do.) The beer also turned significantly darker during this time. > What glasses are favoured by HBD readers for judging? Big ones! (Depending on whose beer...) > From: Mark Thompson <mthompso at mail.utexas.edu> > Subject: Sassafras > I can verify that is not illegal to sell sassafras. Having lived a good > portion of my life in Louisiana I have had my fair share of file' gumbo. > The file' is actually nothing more than ground sassafras leaves. On the jar > I have in front of me right now, there is no warning whatsoever nor is there > any mention of any processing done to the sassafras. The roots or bark, I forget which, have a toxin/carcinogen/somethingin that is not present in the leaves. Also, the flavor of the leaves and the root is very different. (To my tongue...) > On a beer related note, file' has an aroma very similar to hops. I used > some in a Pale Ale and it came out very good. I couldn't discern the file', > but it didn't detract from the beer at all. I'll have to try that someday. I love a good bowl of gumbo, and I love a good beer... > From: Mike Morgan <morgan at aavid.com> > Subject: CABERNET SAUVIGNON ALE > Now its kegged... taste pretty good....kinda like that KRIEK BEER only with > a taste of the world's finest wine grapes. > > I think I'll send this one to the SAM ADAMS WORLD BEER CONTEST. I know it > will be original. Actually, the same folks that bring us Kriek beer also make a lambic with grapes. (I believe it's called Moose Cat, or something like that.) So, it might not be original (depending on the rest of the flavor profile) but it sounds pretty good either way. Have you ever experienced Deja Vu? -R Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 16:57:04 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: mashing Al writes: <Since you used <two different malts, how can you compare the results and blame them <on beta-amylase. You may be right, but then you can't really be sure, <right? I agree it would have been a better test is I had the good fortune of useing the same malts. I dont think it made much of a difference in the action of the beta amylase, while I think it may have had a impact on the total extract difference. I cant argue that the UK malt had more betas or more active betas and this therefore made more maltose, rather I think one can argue that the action of the betas on the starches produced more maltose. Then again if you have more starch..... When I mash using any good Pale ale malt the ADA doesnt differ much, but when I adjust the maltose rest I can see definite changes in the ADA. But your certainly correct that its just a data point and the same malt would have been a better test, problem is Im out of malt right now! >amylase as a function of temperature. This graph indicates a roughly >three-fold decrease in fermentable product as the temperature rises >from 60C to 63C !! Thankfully mashing an all-grain wort is a much >more forgiving process than this. One problem in reaching an This is interesting as other more recent authors (Moll) have cited 63- 65C as the optimum temp for beta amylase. It seems the more books you check the more diff numbers there are! Charlie writes about a passion (obsession?): <1/ Winowing out most of the malt husks ( 75-85%) at crushing. Including them <in a bag at mash, but excluding them at sparge. I'm looking for a massive <reduction in phenols. You going to use a mash filter, filter press, strainmaster, Lambert filter? <5/Hop back, then fast plate heat exchanger cooling.(8-10 minutes) Oh, this is a 3 gallon brewery? Or a 3 inch ID exchanger? <6/Flotation tank coldbreak separation over ~16 hours at 0C while aerating. That exceeds normal floatation by 8-10 hours. At 0C, expect very high DO levels. <7/ Centrifuge before transfer to fermenter at pitching temperature. Ive never heard of prefermentation centrifuging. Why? <Modern "Ice" beer <is simply a filtering improvement that eliminates the need for heat <pastuerization. Actually its just a gimmick with higher alcohol (except in Buds case where they do add water to adjust the levels). Micro/sterile filtration is not new, remember "cold filtered,m nver heat pasteurized". This predated the Ice craze. <f/ The six packs of packaged beer may be centifuged on a continous carosell <after conditioning, to further compact the sediment if necessary. Someones paying for all this! I dont see what this last step will do. This practice is exactly what Sierra Neveda does, but I dont think they go this extreme! Have fun, drink real ale, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 15:43:27 CDT From: BigBrad <BPLUMMER at SYSUBMC.BMC.COM> Subject: re: pros/cons of fridge/freezer and a RIMS note Jay writes: >I'm ready to invest in a brewing fridge. I've seen some of you mention >that you use a chest-type frezzer - others use an upright refridge. >What are the pros/cons of each? Hi, Jay. I bought a 14 cu ft chest freezer and installed an external temp controller. Very easy to do. I can fit eight(8) corny kegs at the same time. My Co2 is external. The one thing I had to do was come up with a way to get to the beer. Drilling holes in a chest freezer can cause problems (understated). I designed a 'collar' to fit around the top edges of the box and raised the lid by 6 inches. This gave me a drilling surface for my taps. I have 5 installed. My Co2 line also goes through the collar. I have a 'T' installed with one line going to a quick disconnect that runs at the pressure set at the Co2 tank. This is set to around 20 psi for soda and quick carbonating. The other line goes to an in-line regulator which steps down the pressure to 8 psi for beer serving. This goes to a manifold wich has seven(7) lines for the kegs. That way I can be carbonating 'green' beer and serving the aged beer at the same time. I like the ability to have a nice selection on tap at any given time. Those are the pros....I can't think of any cons for my situation. YMMV On another note: I have been compiling equipment for my compact RIMS. Little Giant pump, SABCO keg/kettle, Bruprobes on order. Can't wait. Thanks to Joe Stone, Bob and Joe from JB, and the HBD collective for the education. I'll let y'all know when it's completed and tested. - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Brad Plummer \ / BMC Software, Inc. \ If this gets any better, I won't be / Houston, Texas \ able to guarantee the FULL 3 minutes. / bplummer at sysubmc.bmc.com \ / - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Many times I speak for BMC Software. This ain't one of 'em. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 95 17:09:18 -0400 From: joep at informix.com (Holmes) Subject: Using yeast starters Hi all, Just want to share my thoughts on yeast starters. I have recently started using starters. I use the Wyeast smack-pack and make a starter from there. What a difference it makes in the carboy!! The fermentation starts faster (~4 hours vs. ~12-20 hours), is more active (completely subjective viewpoint here), and seems to finish cleaner. I've also gotten my FG down somewhat (even with an OG of > 1.055), but that may be due to better aeration techinques as well as the yeast starter. For a five gallon batch, I'm pitching the slurry from a 22 oz bottle, which was grown out of the slurry of a 12 oz bottle, which came from the smack-pack. Just some thoughts.... joe. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Joe Pearl, Sr. Sales Engineer, Informix Software, Inc. | | 8675 Hidden River Parkway, Tampa, FL, 33637 813-615-0616 | | Opinions expressed are solely my own. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler. ALBERT | | EINSTEIN | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 14:10:08 -0700 (PDT) From: James Murphy <murphy at gordy.ucdavis.edu> Subject: yeast nutrient Hi, I'm getting ready to fire up a Christmas Ale (malt extract) next week. This is the first recipe I've used that calls for yeast nutrient (there is 3/4# of honey, 6.5# LME, and 1.5# specialty grains) and I have a few questions on how to use it. I looked thru the HBD archives but didn't find anything on this, my apologies if I'm resurrecting an old thread. 1). The recipe (5 gallons) does not state how much yeast nutrient to use. Are there any rules of thumb for this? Is it based on volume of wort or pounds of honey? 2). Does this need to be sanitized? If so, how? 3). I'm using liquid yeast and will use a starter. Do I add the nutrient to the starter, or do I wait and add it to the cooled wort when I pitch the starter? Any other helpful hints on using yeast nutrient are also appreciated. TIA. Jim Murphy - Davis, CA jjmurphy at ucdavis.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 17:24:59 -0400 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com> Subject: Mashing temperatures & saccharification In Homebrew Digest #1860 (October 18, 1995), Derrick Pohl writes: >I've been following the recent thread on mashing temperatures, >saccharification, etc. with the greatest interest. Just one quick >question: when people speak of "sweetness" vs. "dryness" of the finished >beer, are we really talking about finishing gravity (F.G.)? That is, is a >"sweet" beer one with a higher F.G., and a dry beer one with a lower F.G.? >Further, does "body" correlate with these? Look, here's a little chart - >have I got it straight? > >Higher temp. mash Lower temp. mash >Higher F.G. Lower F.G. >Sweet vs. Dry >Full-bodied Light-bodied >"Big" mouth-feel "Thin" > >[Disregarding the effect on these of yeast and adjunct grains - focussing >only on mash temperatures.] Sweet/Dry differentiates the presence/absence of substantial amounts of sugar, detrins, smallish polysaccharides in the final beer. Under normal conditions the yeast will consume virtually all of the fermentable sugars, so in 'normal' bear we are trying to determine the amount of non-fermentable saccharides. Gravity is just a density reading and so really just measures everything in solution including proteins, sugars, water, alcohol, yeast in suspension and all the minor chemicals. You can't just measure FG of two different beers and assume to know much about their sweetness/dryness on that basis, but given the same OG and yeast and other conditions being similar you should expect the sweet beer to have a higher FG. With that said I'd concede the first three lines on your list. DeClerc is said to have conclusively demonstrated that big body and mouth-feel are due to medium sized protein in solution and NOT due to residual sugars as is the common wisdom. I don't have access to DeClerc's book, but the protein <==> mouthfeel+body association is repeated in several other brewing texts, usually referring to DeClerc. I don't have any reason to doubt this from my own experience. It would be an interesting experiment to add sugar to a 'thin' low body beer to see if it effects the perceived body. Coors would be a likely candidate, but I refuse to touch the stuff even for the cause of Knowledge. Classic dry stouts certainly aren't 'bone-dry' but they clearly demonstrate a dry style with big mouth feel and body from protein (and resulting head). Stevea Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1863, 10/21/95