HOMEBREW Digest #2413 Wed 07 May 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 1 of 4) (KennyEddy)
  No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 2 of 4) (KennyEddy)
  No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 3 of 4) (KennyEddy)
  No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 4 of 4) (KennyEddy)
  Pressure Cooking First Runnings (XKCHRISTIAN)
  Re: that homebrew "kick" (Brian Bliss)
  botulism/haze maze (smurman)
  Tip Bank (smurman)
  Botulism ("Nathan L. Kanous II")
  CIP cleaner (Evan Kraus)
  Question about yeast and high-gravity brewing ("Bruce Gill")
  stout desserts (kathy)
  The cost of good beer. Really! (Some guy)
  FW: NA Beer ("C&S Peterson")
  Brew Club Discussion ("Bridges, Scott")
  CT local interest/recipe request (Guy Mason)
  BRAVO!!! (pbabcock.ford)
  Compressor cycling on your refrigerator (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Brewpubs in Indianapolis, IN ("C&S Peterson")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com (Articles are published in the order they are received. If you have "spam-proofed" your reply address, you *WILL NOT* received an acknowledgement from the autoresponder.) To SUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com containing the word "subscribe", without the quotes, in the body of the message. NOTE that if you have "spam-proofed" your reply address, your subscribe request *WILL NOT* be successful! To UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "unsubscribe", without the quotes to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com. NOTE that if you have "spam-proofed" your reply address, your unsubscribe request *WILL NOT* be successful! BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L Thanks to those who have made the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at http://hbd.org If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Please don't send 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 from: brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@ brew.oeonline.com)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:49:00 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 1 of 4) {Part 1 of 4} Chas Peterson asks about assaying alcohol content of beers brewed to be "non-alcoholic". Chas, I have a long-winded dissertation on the general topic here, so to cut to the chase and address your particular question, see "NA Method #4" below (in Part 3 of 4), for some comments on the method you used and a report on the result of the "alcohol reduction". For general information, read on... The topic of non- and low-alcohol brewing comes up occasionally on the HBD. Having been recently scolded by my doctor to reduce my alcohol intake, I've been exploring this topic myself and can report on what I've found. This post is split into four parts, the rest of which (hopefully) follow immediately (I've twice been bit by the "8K Limit Exceeded" robot; sorry for the multiple parts). People may wonder, "What's the point of brewing NA beer", but as in my case, health and other factors often come into play. Diabetics, recovering alcoholics, dieters, folks on medication, and plain old teetotalers can benefit from this information. If I may step briefly upon my soapbox, I'll propose that taking a break from alcohol without having to take a break from good beer is a worthwhile pursuit. One unexpected benefit from cutting (way) down on my beer drinking: my palate has drastically sensitized to many flavor subtleties I've obviously been missing in the past, and I certainly enjoy the occasional beer moreso as a result. I take my limitation as a challenge to find new means to beer appreciation. I think most of you would agree that homebrewing is not the pursuit of the ultimate *buzz* but rather the pursuit of the ultimate *beer*. But I know too that many of you ARE in it simply for the buzz; you may hit the Page-Down key at this point. First, let me point out a great patent search engine at http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/ It has over two million patents in its database, is fully seachable with simple or complex search strings, and you can even purchase a copy of the complete patent online for a nominal fee. You could also take the patent number to your local library which should have a complete copy and a copy machine. Anyhow, I used this search engine to search for patents relating to non- and low-alcohol brewing, in an effort to explore the range of methods that have been developed/disclosed for non- and low-alcohol brewing. The list of techniques presented here is in all likelihood neither complete nor comprehensive, but from what I have researched I'd say it covers a great percentage of the methods in use. Many "low-alcohol" techniques are easily adapted by the homebrewer; "no-alcohol" methods are typically much more difficult at "our" level. I'll use the term "NA" to mean both non-alcoholic and low- or reduced-alcohol brewing or processing. Legally, alcohol content below 0.5% by volume is considered "non-alcoholic". Interestingly, I recently saw a report on the 'net by a university (Pittsburgh? can't remember) claiming that many fruit juices such as regular orange juice can contain close to 0.5% alcohol as a result of natural fermentation of the fruit sugars by wild yeast. It certainly *isn't* just for breakfast anymore... {Part 2 of 4 follows} ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, Texas KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:47:43 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 2 of 4) {Part 2 of 4} *************************** Low- and No-Alcohol Brewing *************************** NA methods can be split into two groups -- those that remove alcohol from conventionally-brewed beverages, and those that do not produce alcohol in the first place (or produce reduced amounts of it). ********************** Homebrew-Ready Methods ********************** There are a few methods that the homebrewer can use to create reduced-alcohol beverages: 1) Simply create a very low-gravity hopped wort and drink it without fermenting it. This techniques has appeared on the HBD in the past. Cara-pils seems to be a favorite base malt due to its high dextrin content and minimal sweetness; it can supposedly be primed and bottled since the cara-pils reportedly won't ferment (much). Gravities of around 1.010 to 1.020 are used, and roasted or crystal malts can be added to enhance character. This is truly "non-alcoholic" (but not if primed), but is it beer? I tried this method a couple of times, with barely passable results. There are complex reactions that take place in a fermentation which contribute significantly to what we think of as beer character, and eliminating fermentation can result in only an approximation of "beer". However, it's easy and it's worth a try, and as I said, adding specialty grains can help greatly in producing a tasty beer-like drink. I found that acidifying the wort, either during or after the boil and chilling, to about 4.5 pH (close to a fermented beer's pH) helps drastically improve the flavor (though it adds a bit of tartness). Also, go easy on the hop levels. Hop bitterness is very harsh and grassy prior to fermentation (taste your next bitter wort for a convincing demonstration). I wonder if CO2 scrubbing of this wort might modify the hop character somewhat, and whether fining would help reduce hop phenols & tannins. Acidification definitely helps. Also, because of the low malt content, there probably isn't enough residual protein to give decent heading, though heading agents could perhaps be used to compensate. Extract brewers can use this method, though the presence of fermentable sugars in extract leaves the risk of unwanted bacterial or wild yeast fermentation and/or spoilage. Commercial examples of this method are sold in various places around the world as "malta", and Pappa Charlie has a recipe in his second book. 2) Produce a low-gravity wort and ferment it, resulting in a low-alcohol "real" beer. This has been covered several times in the various publications, most recently by Kirk Fleming in the April 1997 Brew Your Own ("BYO") magazine (an earlier BYO article on NA brewing is available on-line at The Brewery). I just kegged a low-alcohol porter that is remarkably good (considering!) and comes in at 2% ABV. Here are some thoughts on this method: With a regular brew, you start a wort at, say 1.050 gravity and finish at, say, 1.015. When your beer is done fermenting, what do you have? The change in gravity is due to the conversion of sugars to alcohol, CO2, water, and other yeast by-products. If the entire contents of the wort were fermented into alcohol, the final gravity would be less than 1.000 due to the presence of alcohol (SG ~ 0.78). So the final gravity being greater than 1.000 indicates that other "stuff" is left over. This stuff is mostly unfermentable sugars ("dextrins") and proteins. These contribute to "body" and "mouthfeel", along with head formation and other characteristics. If you can make a wort with little fermentable sugar but with the "normal" amount of residual "stuff", you should conceivably get pretty close to "real beer" without all the alcohol. One snag is that other yeast by-products, for example esters, are often desirable and would only be present in low amounts due to the minimized yeast acitivity. Also remember that alcohol itself is a significant part of the beer's flavor character, so a 100% perfect "fake" is perhaps not even possible. Is it really "beer" if there isn't any alcohol? I mashed my porter with a single infusion at 160F (71C). At this temperature, beta-amylase (which produces simple fermentable sugars) is quickly denatured, leaving alpha amylase (which produces complex, unfermentable sugars) to attack the starch. I used "pale ale" malt as a base (and "normal" amounts of roasted and crystal malts); doing a single high-temp mash with regular "pale" malt (e.g., pils) might encourage serious protein haze unless a protein-degradation rest were done (see the last month's worth of HBD's for discussion of that topic). Extract brewers can experiment with different brands of extract in order to find one which results in high final gravity; Laaglander is reputed to be such a beast. Ray Daniels' excellent book "Designing Great beers" has a table of various extract brands along with measured attenuation levels (page 15). This might be a good place to start your research. Back to my porter. I ended up with a 1.030 OG and a 1.014 FG, for an apparent attenuation of 53% (compare to typical attenuations of 65% to 70%), and now I have a brew with satisfying fullness and flavor with less than half the alcohol as regular homebrew (and about 100 calories per 12 ounces). However, one other "stuff" thing that was noticibly weak was "maltiness". This should perhaps come as no surprise based on the reduced volume of base malt used (in order to achieve the low OG). Maltiness arises in large part from melanoidins, which can in turn arise from mash and kettle reactions (simple sugars + amino acids + heat) as well as the malting process itself. I used 2 lb munich malt and 3 lb pale ale malt, hoping that the realtively high melanoidin content of the munich malt would boost maltiness; it may have, but just not enough. Next time I'll try 100% munich, or I may even pressure-cook some of the first-runnings wort to enhance melanoidin production (a "pseudo-decoction"). The no-sparge brewing method might be of some help too (see HBD's from around Christmas). The use of 100% munich malt may require a protein rest in a pale beer; haze wouldn't necessarily be a problem in the porter although other benefits of a protein rest with this malt might be desirable. The trick is to avoid beta amylase activity as much as possible. One final note on this method. I used Wyeast Irish Ale, noted for its low attenutation, to further discourage full fermentation. Dave Burley has recently noted deClerck's assertion that *all* yeast will 100% ferment all fermentables given the right conditions, so whether yeast selection is really a factor in controlling attenuation can perhaps be questioned. {Part 3 of 4 follows} ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, Texas KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:49:13 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 3 of 4) {Part 3 of 4} 3) Brew a normal-strength beer, monitor the gravity, and stop fermentation when a target amount of alcohol is produced. Some of the flavor benefits of fermentation are thus obtained. Fermentation can be halted (or at least drastically slowed) by filtering out the yeast (1 to 5 micron pore size). You almost have to keg this beer, since yeast must be present to bottle-condition, and this obviously would resume the fermentation ("glass grenade" time!). Chemical pasteurization is another possible alternative, though finding a suitable "yeasticide" is an issue. Heat pasteuration is possibly an option, and that provides a nice segue to another popular alcohol-reduction technique, which is to... 4) ...brew a normal-strength beer, then heat to evaporate the alcohol. Jack Schmidling wrote an article on this a while back (available on-line at The Brewery) and the method has been repeated in several other media. The idea is that since alcohol boils at about 175F (80C), and water boils at 212F (100C), the alcohol can be selectively removed while leaving the "rest" of the beer behind. The resulting product can be kegged or primed and bottled (add fresh yeast since you just killed the original colony!). In HBD #1609, Maribeth Raines reports on her UV spectrophotometric assay analysis of alcohol content after applying this method to homebrew. The results she obtained indicated that in no case (including a half-hour of vigorous boiling!) did the alcohol reduce below 2% abv, calling into question the usefulness of this technique (though under controlled "lab" conditions she did have a brief success in achieving 0.5% abv -- please visit the HBD archive to see her full report). In addition, my own experience, as well as that of others having reported in the HBD in the past, is that other deleterious effects such as off-flavors, oxidation, and reduction of hop character can and do occur. If I'm only going to reduce to 2% abv, I'll stick with my low-gravity/160F mash schedule. Why doesn't this method work well? Remember that water boils at 212F (at sea level), yet a pot of water at 212F will not just suddenly disappear -- it takes time. Same with alcohol -- it will take a long time to remove the majority of the alcohol. At the same time, evaporation of water will accelerate at 175F, so you lose water along with the alcohol. Over the period of time it takes to reduce the alcohol to very low levels, a lot of water will be lost as well. Certainly that can be made up with fresh water, but the point is that 15 minutes probably won't do it; according to Raines, it probably can't be done in the kitchen at all. Another problem with this method is that it technically falls under the umbrella of "distillation", which is illegal, even though you're not collecting the evaporating alcohol (right?). 5) Brew a normal-strength beer, then freeze to separate the (frozen-ice) water & beer from the (still-liquid) alcohol. Again, The Brewery has an article detailing this approach. This method, like heating, is only partially successful at separating alcohol from beer, since much of the alcohol stays tied up with the ice in microbubbles and slush. Also, most of the "beer flavor" reportedly stays with the alcohol rather than the water. One solution is to heat the alcohol fraction and recombine the remaining "beer essence" with the leftover ice/water, but now you're back to the problems outlined above in #4. This method is probably also illegal (deliberate concentration of alcohol). 6) Simple dilution of "normal" beer. You can probably imagine the results without even trying it... {Part 4 of 4 follows} ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, Texas KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:47:42 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 4 of 4) {Part 4 of 4} ****************** Commercial Methods ****************** A quick laundry list of commercial methods of *removing* alcohol from "normal" beer include *licensed* distillation, dialysis, reverse-osmosis, ultrafiltration, pervaporation, and replacement of some of the malt with hydrogenated starch hydrolysate (see patent #4680180). Sorry -- I'm not personally familiar with the mechanical and chemical details of many of these processes, so please don't ask me for details. Use the patent search to bring up the relevent documents if you're interested. One other interesting commercial method that seems to come up in several patents is often referred to as "cold-contact fermentation". Essentially, a wort is pitched with a huge concentration of yeast (40 million to as much as 135 million cells per ml) and holding it at near-freezing temperature. Apparently the yeast will metabolize some or all of the fermentables without producing much if any alcohol, or perhaps there's something else about the contact of this much yeast with the wort at low temperatures that gives the wort a desirable beer-like flavor or character. In any case, the wort is "cold-contacted" with the yeast as such for a brief 10 to 30 hours, then filtered, artificially carbonated, and packaged. Some patents refer to dilution to achieve 0.5% max abv, so it's hard to tell whether this method inherently *prevents* alcohol production or or simply reduces it. Any of you yeast gurus have any information on what the biochemical details of the "cold contact fermentation" process are? Does this result in full fermentation without alcohol production? What's going on here? I suppose the homebrewer could try this by racking wort from the kettle onto a full yeastcake (or three!) from a freshly-racked batch, fermenting for a spell (12-24 hours) in a refrigerator, then filtering and packaging (probably force-carbonating unless the beer is truly fermented out). If anyone has the equipment and inclination to try this, the information would be of great use to many of us. If the typical yeast cake is not an adequately high pitching rate for five gallons (for 100 million+ cells/ml), try it with only a gallon of wort. Well, that about wraps up what I've found out about NA Brewing. As usual, comments are welcome, and any additions to this list would be worth posting too. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, Texas KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 19:49:12 -0800 (PST) From: XKCHRISTIAN at ccvax.fullerton.edu Subject: Pressure Cooking First Runnings hello all HBDers, I am interested in pressure cooking some of my first runnings, to see what the wonderful effects will be... I'm thinking of filling the pressure cooker up half way and boiling it for 15-20 mins. The cooker is too shallow to hold the 1 quart jars I have. I could use a small bowl but I can get more by filling up the pressure cooker half way. After boiling the first runnings, should I add the wort: 1. back through the mash 2. into the boiler while sparging 3. to the boiling wort? I am pretty sure we want to add it it to 2 or 3 above. TIA Keith Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 May 97 23:02:41 CDT From: Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com> Subject: Re: that homebrew "kick" I would hazard a guess that it is a higher concentration of Methanol and/or Fusel Alcohols in your homebrew that get you drunk faster on comparatively less volume (alcohol percentage being approximately equal). Most storebought brew is relatively "clean" on the alcohol scale, by comparison, with quite a few exceptions. Phenolic compounds can also set off allergic reactions which can, in moderation, be mistaken for an ethanol "high". Have you ever sat down and got drunk on a bottle of Skyy vodka? It's distilled 4 times, and (presumably) one of the purest sources of ethanol ("pure", ignoring the ~ 60% water) available. The difference is amazing - no flushness or immediate lighheadedness, no ringing in the ears, (no taste, either), but it is a different feeling than being drunk on whiskey or beer. Another theory is the amount of hops in homebrew... bb Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 00:08:50 -0700 From: smurman at best.com Subject: botulism/haze maze The botulism thread won't go away, and it shouldn't until it's resolved IMO. A number of questions about safety have been posed, and they are all excellent questions. Unfortunately, the answers require that someone goes into a lab and tries to grow botulism on beer wort. Until that happens we won't have any guidelines for the safe storage of wort. Right now the best experience we have comes from the food processing arena where they've found that foods of a pH typical of beer wort should be processed with a pressure canner to ensure that everything is safe. That's the best information we have at the moment. The other point of view on this issue seems to feel it requires a fatality before they are willing to change the way they prepare wort for starters. Certainly that would remove any questions. We're not talking about ruining 5 gallons of beer here, we're talking about no longer breathing. I would love for someone to come out and say that beer wort can be vacuum stored with no risk under conditions X and Y because it contains Z, but until that day I think it makes sense to consider taking precautions, or use a safer method to prepare your $0.25 or $0.75 worth of starter. // There are some topics that I read about on the HBD, that I must admit give me some amusement. One would be HSA, but I'll leave that for another day. Another is this whole business of haze, finings, clearing etc. Finings have mainly been used to clear beer quicker for serving to paying customers. Obviously, this isn't much of a concern for homebrewers. So I have to ask, "Why are some of you putting so much shit into your beer?". Irish moss, gelatin, chopped fish guts, your wifes' panty hose. Have you people no limitations? I know I'm not doing things much differently from the rest of you, and I've rarely seen a beer that didn't "clear" on it's own. Granted, if you put 2 lbs. of dextrin malt into your single temp. mash you're going to have problems, but otherwise I can't see why so much energy is expended on this subject. Perhaps those of you with clarification problems don't use a 2nd'ary after the fermentation is over? SM (sipping botulism-free, haze-free homebrew) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 00:16:09 -0700 From: smurman at best.com Subject: Tip Bank I'm sure you're all familiar with the idea of a favor bank; sometimes you deposit sometimes you withdraw. I've gotten a lot of tips since I found the HBD a while back (where was it hiding?), and I thought I'd try making some deposits into the HBD tip bank. I live in a 1 bedroom apartment, and I have a full all-grain setup, so some of the tips are useful mainly for people in similar situations. The first thing I would recommend is that you do not live with your S.O. if at all possible. Some members of the species do not find things like jars of yeast sludge so interesting that they want them on the kitchen table. Most of us have a brew closet where the fermenting goes on, and for storage. The larger hardware stores will sell rubber matting for about $1 per foot. I got enough to cover the floor of my brew closet, and so many times it has saved my butt from spills that I could kiss it. I deal with my full carboys of water or whatever in the bathtub. The carboy then has to be just leaned over to empty until it's a managable weight. I have a shower massage where the supply hose disconnects, and I can use that for rinsing (the carboy you freak). I replaced the faucet tap on my kitchen sink with one for a standard garden hose fitting. Very key. The night before I weigh out the grain into a double-layered paper grocery bag. The spent grains then get put in a hefty bag, which goes back into the grocery bags. This is pretty sturdy, and easy to carry. I made a "floating mash thermometer" by poking a whole in a pie tin and sticking my cheap metal dial thermometer through. The pie tin will sit on top of the viscous mash, while the thermo probe is submerged. Doubles as my sparge water sprinkler by poking more holes in the pie tin. Hopefully these will be enough to get me out of debt. SM http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy for misc. stuff. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:21:54 -0400 From: "Nathan L. Kanous II" <nkanous at tir.com> Subject: Botulism Mark Ellis posted that Clostridium botulinum and yeast are anaerobes and aerobes, respectively. He also pointed out that Clostridium sp. have what may appear to be a limited temperature range for growth. I'm sorry, but these things aren't what I see as the risk in homebrewing. Homebrewers are concerned with Clostridium botulinum spores. If you were to "hot water can" or pressure can wort starters, you will effectively drive off all oxygen from the wort as well as from the headspace as the starter solution boils. This IS an anaerobic environment which WOULD be useful for Clostridium botulinum to live and produce the toxin. The toxin is heat labile. If you pressure can your starters, no problem. You put in the extra work to more effectively eliminate any worry. If you "hot water can" or can in a hot water bath. Boil your yeast starter before you use it. In fact, if you plan to do that, why make the starter in advance, make it when you need it. Nathan in Frankenmuth, MI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:26:02 -0400 From: Evan Kraus <ekraus at avana.net> Subject: CIP cleaner For those of U looking for a cleaner that is safer than caustic I have been experimenting with a non-caustic cleaner called PBW from Five Star Products. It appears to work as well as caustic without the problem of chemical burns. The only problem is that it works at aproximately 140 Deg so for the home brewer care must be taken as with any hot liquids. It will remove Hop residue in the kettle and also takes care of the proteins left from fermentation. I also works well as a cleaner that can be applied with a Scotch Brite pad. They recomend a light acid wash with no rinse prior to the PBW cleaning, but I haven't been using it and still having excelent results. I have also used it on copper with no problem. I have no affiliation with Five Star !!!!!!!! INFO on PBW: www.fivestaraf.com - -- Evan Kraus Evan Kraus INC. Phone & Fax (404) 713-1111 Email: ekraus at avana.net http://www.avana.net/~ekraus/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 May 97 11:54:35 UT From: "Bruce Gill" <b2g at msn.com> Subject: Question about yeast and high-gravity brewing I've seen several discussions on high-gravity brewing, but I don't recall a resolution to this point. I'm planning my annual high-gravity Holiday ale (for 1998!) -- working up a recipe for a flavored imperial stout, with a OG in the 1000-1200 range. My ususal yeast-handling method for a brew like this is to make a series of starters (two or three), each higher in gravity than the one before. The final starter will be approximately the same high-gravity as the intended batch and 3/4 gallon -- since I aerate the starter continuously (with an aquarium pump), I end up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 cups of slurry. An alternative method I'm considering is to first brew a normal-gravity stout, racking to secondary, and leaving a much larger quantity of yeast which will then be used immediately for the high-gravity brew. The my first method gives me a smaller quantity of yeast (still a healthy amount), but yeast that is acclimated to working in a high-gravity environment. The second method gives me a whole lot of yeast. Any thoughts from the collective about this "quality vs. quantity" issue? Many thanks, Bruce Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:24:48 -0500 From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: stout desserts Having just brewed batches of dry stout and not-so-dry stout, I was wondering if there are any killer recipes of desserts made of stout, brownies, vanilla ice cream and topping that you'd recommend for the dessert lover. Desserts with other ingredients are welcome also. cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:31:38 -0400 (EDT) From: Some guy <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: The cost of good beer. Really! Greetings Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Well, here I go! Getting all torqued off on beer prices again. In this month's RBPMail there is an article entitled "Craft Beers Resist Price Pointing" which pretty much says craft brewers cannot compete with AB/Coors/Miller (understood, of course!) and therefor charge "what they need" and market to a "non-price sensitive market". Sounds mighty noble, anyway. I still believe there are a whole lot that base their prices on greed rather than need. But that's capitalism in a free market. I accept and respect that - just don't lie to me! Anyway, that's not the part that torqued me off. What got me was some yahoo justifying $70 and $100 per-case prices for Belgian Lambics and Trappist ales because of the cooperage and warm rooms - expenses most consumers don't consider. He then alludes to the production time for most brewpub ales in a manner that seems like casting aspersions! Well, bite me, Mr. Feinberg! The breweries cited have maintained and staffed those facilities for many a decade - centuries, in some cases! Nothing at all new. Most who enjoy lambics understand lambics. Most who understand lambics acknowledge the cooperage. And there's nothing technical nor expensive about the Trappist "warm rooms", as you imply. So then, why exactly *does* something that costs roughly $0.45 US (or so I'm told) on the street in Belgium cost $6.00 here? Cooperage? Nope! Bite me again, Mr. Feinberg! Warm rooms? Nope! Bite me once more, Mr. Feinberg! Shipping and import costs? Uh-uh. Bite me again, Mr. Feinberg! Greed? BINGO!!!! What the market will bear, son. So don't lie to me. It really comes down to this: those that consume the good and great beers in America are intelligent and knowledgeable about that which we enjoy. Few non-beer-snobs would even touch a lambic, for instance, much less enjoy it. Intelligent people hate having their intelligence insulted. I recommend that beer importers and brewers just be straight with us. I won't quit drinking my favorite brews just because someone is making a fistful of dollars off of it. But I may if some dip-stick expects me to believe his pleas of poverty and assinine excuses for gouging. Sanity check: I do recognize that there are many micros and pubs struggling to stay in operation. Some of these make inspiring brews and are not getting the exposure they need to develop a following and stable market. (And some really suck and *need* to go out of business so that they stop damaging the image of the craft brewing industry.) Unfortunately, it is the plight of these brewers that the greed-based brewers lay claim to when justifying their prices. Recognizing this, I know that a reduction of prices for craft brews could significantly diminish the number of start-up craft breweries and brewpubs. And this is not desirable. But I'm entitled to gripe, no? See ya! Pat Babcock | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for pbabcock at oeonline.com | therapy..." -PGB brewbeerd at aol.com | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point janitor@ brew.oeonline.com | at the end of your day as every sentence Home Brew Digest Janitor | requires proper punctuation." -PGB Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html Home of the Home Brew Flea Market Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 May 97 13:19:04 UT From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com> Subject: FW: NA Beer HBDers - I got several replies to my post on near-NA beer. This from Spencer Thomas (Thanks Spence!) looks to be a good way to get a rough estimate. I'll try to post my findings later. For those that warned me against giving out the near-NA beer to my friend, I can assure you that I do not intend to even offer this beer to him without taking reasonable precautions (such as taking a conservative estimate of alcohol and other measures). But your warnings are certainly well considered and I may simply be content to consume this beer myself. Chas Peterson Laytonsville, Md. - ---------- From: Spencer W Thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 9:04 AM To: C&S Peterson Subject: Re: NA Beer >From http://realbeer.com/spencer/attenuation.html: - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Alcohol content ... Ralph Snel (ralph at astro.lu.se) wrote: A quite simple way that will give accuracy up to 0.1% is to boil off all the alcohol and substitute by water. This means boiling down to less than a third of the original volume in most cases, it's not that hard to smell if there are alcohols in the vapour. Fill with water so you have your original volume and take the difference in gravity, then look up alcohol content in the table: SG Alcohol SG Alcohol SG Alcohol diff. vol % diff. vol % diff. vol % 0 0.00 10 7.18 20 16.00 1 0.64 11 7.98 21 17.00 2 1.30 12 8.80 22 18.00 3 1.98 13 9.65 23 19.00 4 2.68 14 10.51 24 20.00 5 3.39 15 11.40 25 21.00 6 4.11 16 12.30 26 22.00 7 4.85 17 13.20 8 5.61 18 14.10 9 6.39 19 15.10 10 7.18 20 16.00 From: Technisch handboek voor de amateur wijn- en biermaker by Leo van der Straten ISBN 90-245-0969-6 - ---------------------------------------------------------------- You'll need quite accurate measurement both of volume and of SG to make this work at the low end of the scale, though. =S Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 97 09:55:00 EDT From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess at mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM> Subject: Brew Club Discussion Kenny writes: >Scott Bridges said that George de Piro's reply to Pat Babcock's article about >homebrew club meeting speakers was perhaps not appropriate for this forum. >While the HBD does seem to gravitate heavily toward the mechanics of >brewing, the success or failure of a homebrew club can have a significant >effect on one's source of information and enthusiasm for brewing, and thus I >think it's a very relevent topic. >[snip] >At the risk of being publicly flamed (oh yeah, like that'll be a first), I'd >like to *encourage* the more successful clubs to offer their recipes for >success on this forum. It weighs directly upon our brewing skill, and it'll >make better brewers of us all. Actually, what I meant to say was that others may view *continued* discussion (including my post) about clubs as outside the bounds of the HBD. I didn't mean to imply that George's post was inappropriate (I meant no flamage towards George). Anyway, I personally agree with you, Kenny. I like the occasional side discources. I can only take so much enzyme-pressure decoction-what-does-well-modified-really-mean talk :). To my point, it must interest others as well, since I've also gotten a number of emails from folks offering their experiences and also asking for pointers. Thanks to those of you who responded. I don't have time post more now, but I'll compile what I've gotten so far and post later. If anyone is interested in keeping this up, I'll be happy to continue it (either here or off-line). Scott B. (so I don't get confused with the other Scott) President, Palmetto State Brewers Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 10:24:24 -0400 From: Guy Mason <guy at adra.com> Subject: CT local interest/recipe request Greetings Fellow Beerlings: CT local interest : 1. Anyone out there know of store in central CT (Cheshire/Waterbury) that stocks 10gal round Gott coolers? 2. Any brew clubs in the same area looking for new members? Recipe Request : My brewing partner in crime finally got a lagering fridge and we are looking for a good 10 gal. all-grain Marzen recipe. We hope to split the 10 gal. batch (5 each) and use different yeasts to compare the results. (I can't really taste any difference, let me try another...) Thanks - -- guy See that fish on the reef, with the big shiny teeth? That's a moray... (Sung to the tune of Amore) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 10:21:52 EDT From: pbabcock.ford at e-mail.com Subject: BRAVO!!! Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock.ford at e-mail.com VO Body Launch Specialist- PN150/1 EAP ****>>>> PLEASE USE PF5 WHEN REPLYING TO THIS NOTE!!!! <<<<**** Subject: BRAVO!!! Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your sparkler-delivered "nitrogenated" stout... Bravo - nay! a big BRAVO!!! to Dave Burley for his post regarding the whipping of gasses into the head BY THE SPARKLER! I whole-heartedly agree with this post! It is not the gas - it is the action of the SPARKLER HEADand/or the FORCE at which the brew is delivered! BRAVO!!! Just to qualify something though: the partial pressure of CO2 desired in the headspace is dependent on the temperature at which the bulk of the beer is at during dispense. Also, as we all know (CPR to a dead horse), the carbonation level is style dependent. The driving pressure, as Dave indicates, is also system dependent. The point being that your dispense pressure should never be taken as rote. It must be determined for the conditions of your particular draught system. Now: does anyone want to reopen the draught system and style flesh-wounds? <Snigger!> I'll bring the salt... Best regards, Patrick G. Babcock PN150/1 Launch - Edison Assembly Plant (908)632-5930 x5501 Route 1 South, Edison, NJ 08818-3018 Fax (908)632-4546 Page 800-SKY-PAGE PIN: 544-9187 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:27:31 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Compressor cycling on your refrigerator >From: LINUSNLILA at aol.com >Subject: One solution for compressor cycling on your refrigerator >...So what I did with my temp >controller, which can be set for a narrow "deadband", is immerse the >thermocouple (probe) in a 12 oz mason jar of water. The temperature of the >12 oz mason jar of water changes at about the same rate as any bottled beer I >have in the fridge, so it won't freeze, but not nearly as quickly as the air >temp in the fridge, so the compressor doesn't have to work as hard. It works, >too; it keeps the water temp +/-2 degrees F of the setpoint, without cycling >very much... Seems like a good idea, I am planning to try this: A 2 or 3 inch piece of vinyl tubing over the sensor. This should slow the rate of heat transfer from the air to the sensor thus slowing the response to quick changes in temperature. Haven't tried it yet but it seems easy to do. Good luck Ron Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 6 May 97 15:07:50 UT From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com> Subject: Brewpubs in Indianapolis, IN HBDers - I will be heading out to Indianapolis next week and anticipate a few hours in the afternoon to partake of the local brewpub scene. I am considering a visit to the Alcatraz Brewing Co, or one of the Circle V pubs. Has anyone been to either of these? Any recommendations/descriptions? Private email is fine. Thanks, Chas Peterson Laytonsville, Md Return to table of contents