HOMEBREW Digest #3052 Wed 09 June 1999

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

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

  dextrines ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Spam and beer? ("Sieben, Richard")
  Smacked Pack Longevity; White Sugar in Real Ale (David Lamotte)
  White Sugar in English Ales (Dan Listermann)
  Compiled Responses to Yeast Question ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
  Manchester Yeast ("Paul Niebergall")
  Yeast numbers/fast ferments (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Sugar in Beers, Fast Fermentation (Dave Burley)
  Rotten eggs and Ayinger yeast (BioCoat)
  stout rule of thumb ("Bayer, Mark A")
  RE: Artful Brewing ("Daske, Felix")
  Problem with bleaching bottles (Matt Birchfield)
  white sugar in Real Ale (Stephen Cavan)
  Spam slippage (Some Guy)
  coffee in the brew ("Dave Blaine")
  Missed the BUZZ OFF ... any other competitions coming up? ("Brian Dixon")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99 * (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off! * Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff) Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:46:09 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: dextrines Steve Alexander makes some interesting observations: << >I think dextrines, are by definition, what remains when the amylases have << >worked to the limits of their liquification. or << >Dextrins are unfermentable polysaccharides because they cannot be << >broken down by the amylases in the mash. << Those are definitions of "LIMIT dextrin", not dextrin. The first quote back is from my post, I believe in brewing terminology, limit dextrins are to what we are commonly referring. I will _assume_these are "malto-dextrin" as compared to plain ol' dextrins that are used to make paste. Could you tell me if acid hydrolysis would produce limit-dextrin or the "other" dextrins? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:50:47 -0500 From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at aerial1.com> Subject: Spam and beer? Since when did the HBD start accepting Spam mail for publication? The last two posts on #3051 were clearly not beer related. I hope everyone sends them an e-mail in protest. Speaking of Spam, I wonder how that tastes with a good stout? (there now it is a beer related post!) Anyone have an idea how long one of the White Labs yeast cultures are good for? I purchased one about a month ago and it was already a month old then. I am sure I can step it up, but I am concerned about autolysis. It is a California Common yeast. Now that we are fully in summer, what is the maximum temp I can successfully ferment this as a steam beer without giving it too much of an ale characteristic? Private e-mails ok. Thanks Rich Sieben As a matter of fact, yes I did grow up in the brewery. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:55:18 +1000 From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Smacked Pack Longevity; White Sugar in Real Ale Mark Tumarkin has a smacked pack and doesn't know what to do with it. I too have had the same thing happen to me with a pack of 1055 that was especially imported for me direct from the states (Thanks Tidmarsh). I popped it in the fridge for a few weeks and found that it was a bit sluggish to wake up in the starter. It performed very much like yeast recovered from a bottle conditioned commercial ale. The other thing that I noticed was that the yeast had settled very tightly into the bottom of the pack. Just be sure to give it a good shake before snipping it open. If however there is no action in the starter after 48hrs, I would not take the risk. - ------------------------------ Jon Yusko wonders on the use of White Sugar in the Real Ale book. Graham Wheeler concedes in his introduction that there is some amount of guesswork required to match the grist formulation stated by the brewers to the observed OG etc. The amount of sugar stated was often needed where the brewer had 'forgotten' to mention the use of sugar in their recipes. As all the recipes in the book have been formulated with a fairly low mash efficiency (75%), I tend to either cut the sugar in half ( using Dextrose instead of white sugar) or leave it out completely. Graham does post to the UK HBD (uk-homebrew at ale.co.uk), so you could possibly post there if you require any additional info. Have fun... David Lamotte Brewing down under in Newcastle N.S.W. Australia ps cansomeonetellmehowtofixmyspacebar ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:05:27 -0400 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: White Sugar in English Ales Jon Yusko ( jyusko at rsacom.com) asks about English ales and white sugar as mentioned in Wheeler and Prostz's books. I have been a great fan of these books since I Mr. Wheeler gave me two of them in Brighton at the HWBTA conferance in '94. We went up to London afterwards where I had a Beamish stout. Upon our return to the States I brewed a batch of Beamish per his book. I immediatly determined that this guy knew something. It has come to the point where I brew completely gonzo ( 100% rye beer ) or I brew based on Wheeler's books. You should know that I used to try to make all malt English ales and was never happy with the results. When I discovered that almost all of them use sugar at some level or another, my ales made a great improvement. The taboo against sugar is an overreaction to the abuse found on kit instructions. The only problem with Wheeler's early books was that they were accurate to a fault. As I understand it Protz interviews the brewers and picks their brains as best as he can. Wheeler takes this information and trys to duplicate the brews on a homebrew scale. The earlier books had ingredients that were difficult to find -a lot of invert cane sugar, glucose syrup, maltose syrup and barley syrup. When I heard that he was working on another book ( Brew Classic European Beers at Home) I contacted him to tell him that we Americans had a hard time finding some of the sugars in his earlier books and some substitution guidance would be nice. He explained that the British also had a hard time finding these sugars, but the reason they were in the book was that that is what the commercial brewers used. It seems that he decided to make the substitutions directly in the recipes. I have brewed a bunch of them and found that they do not suffer in the least. Words of caution about the recipes are that Wheeler does not want you to be disappointed in the yield of you mashes so he based the recipes on 25 points per pound per gallon. I usually do much better than this so I recalculate the grain bill based on my usual extraction rate. His hop bitterness is based on only 20% utilization so I usually take his IBU info and recalulate it based on 30% especially for low bitterness beers such as milds. Dan Listermann dan at listermann.com 72723.1707 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:21:40 -0500 From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton at iastate.edu> Subject: Compiled Responses to Yeast Question I'll dispense with the gratuitous insults and get right to the meat: In general, the respondents to my earlier plea for information referred me to the Lallemand web page. (http://www.lallemand.com/brew/beer_yst.html) One intrepid soul also sent some very nice first hand data regarding his use of Nottingham. His experience closely paralleled my own, so I can derive some sort of smug satisfaction in the fact that I'm not alone in thinking that Nottingham is extremely neutral. Unfortunately, not one single respondent sent me any methodology tips. That is, how to test these yeasts under varying conditions with different worts. I will probably devise my own methodology, share it here at a later time and then provide my results. Muchas gracias to all the people who took time to respond to my question, both through email and here in this forum. Now I return you to your regularly scheduled program... Jeff Kenton "If you can't be nice, at least have the decency to be vague." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:49:53 -0500 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Manchester Yeast Last week, somebody (forgot who) posted a question about the use of Lallemand Yeasts. I just brewed 5 gallons of Wheat Beer (50 percent Belgian DC malted wheat and 50 percent Belgian DC pils malt) and used the Lallemand's Manchester strain of dried yeast. Why the Manchester strain in a wheat beer, you ask? Well, I was picking through a box of yeast packets looking for a really fresh packet of the Nottingham strain (supposedly the most neutral flavored strain). Most of the expiration dates stamped on the packets were for August 99. I inadvertently moved one row over, found a packet with an expiration date marked December 99 and thought I had a really fresh packet of Nottingham. Anyhow, when I got home I ended up with two really fresh packets of the Manchester strain. So much for style on this one. I havnt brewed with dried yeast in quite awhile. This was the first brew in my new location so I really appreciated NOT having to wake up one of my dormant liquid samples that I have in the fridge. After I mixed the yeast packets with warm water to hydrate, I pitched the mix into my boiled and cooled wort. After 12 hours nothing was happening. 18 hours, still nothing. At this point I had to go out of town, so I put the carboy in the sink (I was not going to come home to a mess this time), affixed a blow-off tube, and left. When I got back late the next day, the beer was bubbling away fine. Anyway, a little long on the lag time I thought. I aerated as usual (vigorous carboy rocking), re-hydrated, and pitched two packets of seemingly fresh yeast. Even my somewhat under pitched liquid yeasts batches take off quicker than this batch. It seems to me when I used to use dried yeast exclusively, they always got going within a few hours. Has anyone else experienced long lag times with Lallemand yeast (Manchester, Nottingham, or otherwise)? Paul Niebergall Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:11:07 -0400 (EDT) From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Ian's yeast Howdy, Ian works in a molecular biology lab (which molecules?) and grows his yeast in his lab. One beer done this way finished fermenting much more quickly than previous batches, down from two weeks to 4 days. This is not only normal but desired, as others are surely posting. As to the questions you ask: 1. Is there such a thing as adding too much yeast and having too fast a fermentation, if so what are the possible consequences? Yes, it is possible to over pitch, but you have not done so. In fact, if I recall the numbers correctly, commercial brewers pitch on the order of 10^7 cells/ml/degree Plato (one degree Plato is about 1.004 for beers under 1.048). You pitched on the order of 2x10^5 cells/ml/degree plato. The consequences of over pitching are "yeast bite," but I have never knowingly tasted this effect. One of the consequences of pitching lots of yeast that I have encountered is that the yeast more quickly die, called autolysis (apoptosis?), and the off flavors I have tasted associated with this process are best described as "rubbery" or "sulfury" or "meaty" depending on the beer, the yeast, temperature, time... To prevent this from occuring you want to get the beer off of the yeast cake once fermentation is done, which leads us to: 2. Once fermentation has finished is it recommended to bottle right away or is the beer OK to sit in the carboy for a week or so You should bottle your beer as soon as possible, but a week in the carboy will probaly not be a problem, and I have gone as long as a month with certain yeasts. The yeast will really determine timing in its probability to autolyze and its flocculation characteristics. Temperature and perhaps higher ethanol content increase autolysis, and the more the yeast drop out of suspension the fewer get transfered to the bottle, so carbonation can be slowed. Not having used your yeast, you'll just have to do the experiment yourself. My suggestion would be to bottle soon, within a week or two. If it is going to take much longer, perhaps you should transfer to a secondary container to get the beer off the yeast which have already dropped out of suspension. I think you will be pleased with the results. Good luck. Mike Maceyka Baltimore, MD Yeast ranching instead of thesis writing... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:04:40 -0400 (EDT) From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Yeast numbers/fast ferments Ian Smith had some questions concerning yeast starters... >The first few brews that I made were from kits and they turned out OK, >fermentation time was 7 days in primary 7-10 days in secondary. The yeast >from the kit was one of those little packets of dry no-name ale yeast. The relatively slow ferments here were likely due to pitching too few yeast (underpitching), depending on the viability of the dry yeast packet and whether or not you amplified the numbers (step-up) before pitching. >I work in a molecular biology lab so I took advantage of a ready supply >of plates and media to streak out the yeast and since I've switched to >extract and specialty grain, I've been using this plate and others I've >made since as my yeast source. I would pick a colony , innoculate a 500 >ml starter, and grow it up in the lab at room temp either in a shaker at >220 rpm or with a stir plate. Both methods have produced plenty of >yeast,(roughly 10 g wet cell weight, or 4x10^10 cells) which I would then >pellet and bring home in a 10 ml slurry. Ahhhhh good, another molecular biologist! Welcome. Did you by any chance know Cal Harley while he was there? Is Silvia Bachetti still up there? Mike Maceyka and I are also Mol. Biologists (he's just stepped his foot into the "Is brewing an art or a science?" quagmire on the HBD) and, in this past year, we have focused much of our attention on getting adequate yeast straters. If you can search the HBD archives on the web, check out posts related to "stir plates" we had some discussions on their use in making starters and recommended yeast innoculum size. Basically, if you can get to 2 x 10^11 cells that is a good number for pitching in a 5 gallon batch (though this is supposedly still an order of magnitude lower than commercial pitch rates!!). Both Mike and I have taken pains to use sufficiently large pitches this past year and (empirically) we both have seen improvements in the resulting beer quality. We find that if we grow up a 1 liter YPD culture using 2X the amount of glucose called for we can hit the 200 billion mark at saturation. A key point, both for good growth of the starter and having that starter ultimately be in good shape for pitching, is to make sure the culture is WELL AERATED. I use a stir plate and flask with the largest surface area I can get my hands on. Mike is more fortunate, being in a lab that routinely uses yeast - he has a 30 degC shaking water bath which is ideal. If coming off of streak plates you might want to pick several well formed, well isolated colonies to avoid accidentally selecting that one colony that decided to mutate... >My last batch of beer was pitched Monday night (SG 1.040 23L volume) and >Saturday morning I racked it to the carboy (SG 1.009) and there has been no >visible yeast activity since. So fermentation was complete in about 4 >days instead of the 2 weeks previously experienced. Did you use a larger starter than in the past? Did you perhaps oxygenate the wort better this time before pitching (potentially decreasing the lag time)? I'd say 3-4 days is a pretty good amount of time for primary fermentation. >So my questions are: >1. Is there such a thing as adding too much yeast and having too fast a >fermentation, if so what are the possible consequences? There is at least one scientific paper that I know of showing that overpitching can lead to reduced yeast viability but I have doubts about their conclusions. I have also seen brief mentions of adverse conditions supposedly resulting from overpitching. There have been discussions here on the HBD concerning pitch size, yeast growth potential, and growth cessation due to nutrient depletion. The basic idea here is that there is a tradeoff between the utilization of the wort nutrients to "grow yeast biomass" vs "making beer." You can search the old archives for info on these topics or just post another question, I'm sure people will jump all over it. As far as your average homebrewer goes, is it likely we'll ever be overpitching? Not bloody likely. I'd have to grow up the equivalent of 10 L saturated YPD culture just to get up to the commercial pitch rate (which, one reasonably assumes is not going to lead to problems from overpitching. On the other hand, I suppose you could argue that for commercial brewers high throughput is obviously going to be a big factor in how much they are pitching - are they perhaps compromising a bit on quality in the finished product in order to maximize yields?? Also, the commercial rate may be more for LAGER yeast than for ALE - you need higher pitch rates for the lager, I'll have to check on this. >2. Once fermentation has finished is it recommended to bottle right away >or is the beer OK to sit in the carboy for a week or so Sitting for a week or so /probably/ won't hurt but, like many things in brewing, the answer is often "it depends." For instance, over time the yeast will autolyze which can definitely cause off flavors in the final beer. At what rate this will happen depends on a number of factors such as overall health of the yeast (itself dependent on many variables eg - sufficient oxygen during starter growth and primary ferment, availaility of nutrients in the wort, etc), the strain of the yeast, the temperature, the type of beer (if high alcohol and you have a low alcohol tollerant yeast it might croak). Many people rack over to a secondary container, usually for further clearing and conditioning before bottling. Hope this helps, Alan Meeker Johns Hopkins Univ. Sch of Medicine Baltimore, MD. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:05:29 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Sugar in Beers, Fast Fermentation Brewsters: Jon Yusko asks with disbelief, after reading the Wheeler book on how to make real ales, if the Brits use sugar in their ales. Yep, just like the Belgians. ( some use rock candi sugar and some are more modern) And they have for at least a century, if not longer. I believe the First World War was the excuse for a widespread use when homegrown grain was limited, but the sugar trade with the West Indies was still open and a British franchise., The Second World War was their excuse for reducing the OG, since the German U-boots closed the Atlantic trade routes. Oh, how economics and war have interacted to reduce competition for the best taste and produce inferior tasting beers now thought to be "normal" even "Real" and form the basis for judging. Sugar reduces the nitrogen content of the grist for a given OG, an important clarity factor in single infusion beers. It also increases the amount of beer which can be produced from a given plant. I, too, have read that sugar produces a "cidery" beer, but expect it has to do with perhaps inexperienced brewers using too much, not boiling the sugar to sterilize it and pitching too low a yeast population such that there was an infection in the beer. I did all these things ( and did a warm fermentation!) and I got a cidery taste according to my notes of 1969. Using around 10% sugar and boiling the syrup will produce a good result with proper pitching as my later beers ( a knock off of a Newcastle Brown Ale) demonstrated. To copy modern British Ales, use table sugar (sucrose) or as some of the brewers do (Old Peculier comes to mind) use molasses for a taste from the adjunct. Based on my own taste, I believe that Corona (at least what I used to drink in Mexico) has a large portion of the cane in it. This makes it lighter in color and cheaper to make ( after all it IS the blue collar drink of Mexico). Interesting, huh? The use of unmalted grain adjuncts is sort of like adding sugar, except there are subtle flavors and characters imparted by corn and rice which have become part of the expected character of certain beers.. - -------------------------------------- Ian Smith asks about his speedy fermentation. Ian, one of the mistakes beginners make is to confuse the apparent lack of CO2 being evolved with thinking the fermentation is finished. Sometimes, when you rack you may wonder "Huh, why did this fermenting batch stop fermenting when I racked it?" Answer: It didn't, you just kicked out the excess CO2 when you racked it and it may "restart" in a few days. The fermentation goes exponentially slower and even more as the yeast flocculate and fall from the wort, especially when the CO2 bubbles which suspend yeast are gone. It may also be that you removed a big chunk of the yeast from being in contact with the wort when you racked it. Also this batch may have finished faster since you may have fermented it at a higher temperature. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:15:48 EDT From: BioCoat at aol.com Subject: Rotten eggs and Ayinger yeast I have been fermenting a Dortmunder for 2 days now and am getting a very strong sulfur/rotten egg smell. I am using the Ayinger yeast from YCKC . Has anyone else seen this behavior with this yeast? Thanks in advice Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:18:40 -0700 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: stout rule of thumb collective homebrew conscience_ mark s. wrote: >Hi. I'm looking for a little "rule of thumb" guidance for my next partial >mash dry stout effort.<snip> >I'd like to add about 1 lb. of roasted barley and 1 lb. of >flaked barley to my mash, but I'm concerned that 3 lbs. of pale malt will >not have the diastatic power to convert the flaked barley. if you are concerned about enzyme capability due to adjunct percentage, i believe you will want to optimize your mashing conditions to get max. performance from the enzymes. if your water does not contain sufficient alkalinity, and you try to mash 1 pound of roasted barley in a 5 pound mash, you will not be in the optimum ph range for alpha amylase. one thing you may want to consider is not adding in all the roasted barley until you've given the pale malt and flaked barley some time together to get the majority of the starch converted. you can always add some or all of the roasted barley later to get some color and flavor. there was an article in bt a while back that gave some data on how roasted malts affected the mash ph. you may want to seek that out if you know what the alkalinity of your water is. i know this does not address your adjunct percentage question, but it might help your mashing. hey, i thought i saw a couple of spam-beer recipes in the last digest. doesn't that violate the hbd purity law or something? brew hard, mark bayer stlmo Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:22:08 -0700 From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF at bcrail.com> Subject: RE: Artful Brewing MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA clearly presents his thoughts when he, in HBD#3049, discussed the notion of brewing as science. I was hard press to fault Michael's explanation of why he thought brewing was science, and would like to add that I enjoyed his rhetoric. Although I am flattered that Michael considers me a scientist, due to my regularly close proximity to brewing equipment and my ability to use said equipment to "create" beer, I will exercise my right to "... have healthy skepticism about what other brewers say,..." and disagree <G> I, too, could not begin to describe to you the meaning of art. However, I can describe how I feel when I perform activities which "people who should know say" constitute art. Elated, light, creative, fulfilled (spiritual or otherwise), magical, etc. I used to gain mental and physical energy from singing, playing a musical instrument, painted, etc. Things which I no longer do - various reasons, all psychological. I now get this artful energy from baking, cooking, and brewing. I have just 'come down' from an artful experience of parti-gyle brewing. Using the many resources available to me, not the least of which is this very digest, I created 3 gallons of Strong Belgian and 6 gallons of "Honey Scotch" ale from about 15 lbs of grain, 1 lb of adjunct, 2 lbs of clover honey, and Belgian Abbey and London Ale yeast strains. The 'experience' lasted about 4 days cumulating on Sunday with a 10 hour brewing session (need to by a 5 gallon pot for the first 1/3 BIG beer). Are these beers brewed to style (...) NOT strictly speaking - a little adjunct is in the Scotch Ale, London ale yeast and the honey may not be appropriate (?) that, in part, is the creative bit. I need science to 'explain' brewing to me, I need science to make quick adjustments, I need science to help taste the results of my efforts however, the art of brewing, cooking and baking help define who I am. Call it what you will. kind regards, Felix Fallen Rock Home Brewery Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:46:52 -0400 From: Matt Birchfield <peridot at usit.net> Subject: Problem with bleaching bottles Hi All, I have had this happen only once before, and I'm not sure what's going on ... 2 days ago I made a fresh bleach solution in preparation for bottling an IPA today. I immersed ~3 cases of bottles in the trash can full of bleach solution. Getting ready to bottle I rinsed all of the bottles with VERY hot tap water and put them on the drainer, racked and primed the beer in the bottling bucket, and started to fill. It was then I noticed what looked like grit on the inside of almost every bottle. What is the grit? It looks a lot like the deposits in the kettle after boiling and cooling my hard water. My only guesses are that (1) maybe since my water is pretty hard there's some kind of reaction going on, and (2) I put just enough bleach in 15 gallons of water to be able to smell it, and maybe this is too much. I bottled it anyway because I had to get to work and was already midway in the process ... I figure after it carbonates I'll just keep in in the fridge and drink it relatively quickly (I did fill a champagne bottle that didn't seem to have the deposits for comparison). Has anyone else had this experience? Thanks in advance for any info you may be able to provide. Matt Birchfield Blacksburg Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:38:49 -0600 (CST) From: Stephen Cavan <cavanst at duke.usask.ca> Subject: white sugar in Real Ale Jon Yusko asked about the use of white sugar in the Brew Your Own Real Ale book by Wheeler and Protz. They do mention somewhere in the book not to use white sugar, and what they suggest is caramelized invert sugar. Look for this in the stores as Golden syrop. Tate and Lyle make some, but Roger's Golden syrop is great (and costs about $1 per litre in Canada). Do read the labels here however, as not all Golden syrop is pure cane sugar. The cheaper stuff has a of of other things in as well. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:29:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Spam slippage > Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:50:47 -0500 > From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at aerial1.com> > Subject: Spam and beer? > > Since when did the HBD start accepting Spam mail for publication? The last > two posts on #3051 were clearly not beer related. I hope everyone sends > them an e-mail in protest. Speaking of Spam, I wonder how that tastes with > a good stout? (there now it is a beer related post!) Thanks for the sentiments, Richard, but then they'll just have all your e-mail addresses to add to their collection. Just ignore them. Time for the summer SPAM warning note.... During the summer months, when the queue is small (less than a day), it is possible for spam to slip into the Digest between the last time a janitor checks his e-mail and the time at which the Digest publishes. Our moderation is such that messages publish UNLESS they are removed. This gives the benefit of an uninterrupted Digest should both Janitors perish in some transcontinental cataclysm. This is what happened in the 6/8/99 Digest. Thanks to those who took it in stride and refrained from complaining (that never puts us in a good mood) or cajoling the janitors. And no, Phil. I would not like a spam sandwich any time soon... - See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:15:57 -0400 From: "Dave Blaine" <i.brew2 at telebot.net> Subject: coffee in the brew I want to try coffee in my next stout but want to avoid the oils that may kill off the head. One suggestion was to brew the coffee and freeze it, which should make the oil rise to the top where it could be scraped off. Anyone have any other ideas? Has anyone had good luck with freeze dried coffee? Does this still contain the oils? Does it taste as good in the stout? Any help appreciated. Please e mail me at i.brew2 at telebot.net. _____________________________________________________________________________ World's First Provider of FREE 800# U.S. Toll Free Voicemail to Email Service Get your own FREE voicemail, fax and Paging account at http://www.telebot.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:58:54 -0700 From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex at proaxis.com> Subject: Missed the BUZZ OFF ... any other competitions coming up? I have a 140-Schilling Scotch Ale (OG 1.110, 9.2% ABV) that everyone insists I *must* enter in a contest ... anyone know of one coming up? I know it's a bit late in the year for that, but hey! The beer's here now not then! Brian Dixon in Oregon Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/09/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96