HOMEBREW Digest #632 Wed 08 May 1991

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Belgian Lambics mailing list (Mike Sharp)
  SF brewpubs (Eric Simmon)
  Re: cheap malt extract (BAUGHMANKR)
  Re:  looking for second brew book (John DeCarlo)
  Re: Siphoning Method (John DeCarlo)
  Re:  Wort Straining (John DeCarlo)
  Re: Removing Cold Break (John DeCarlo)
  Re: Homebrew Digest #630 (May 06, 1991) (Jean Hunter)
  a non-beer related cooling question (krweiss)
  bottle contamination worries (krweiss)
  Carapils (C.R. Saikley)
  Re:  Homebrew Digest #631 (May 07, 1991) (Darryl Richman)
  Fermentables in Dark Malts (Don McDaniel)
  Cheaper extract. ("DRCV06::GRAHAM")
  Siphoning tip (Carl West x4449)
  hop growing question  (Carl West x4449)
  SN culturing question (Carl West x4449)
  Re: Oregon Brew Bashing (David Lim)
  looking for brewpot (mbharrington)
  sanitizing bottles (mbharrington)
  unsubscribe (Michael Westmore)
  Maibock == Heller Bock (07-May-1991 0923)
  Hunter phone number (Ken Johnson)

Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com [Please do not send me requests for back issues] Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 May 91 8:21:28 EDT From: msharp at hawk.ulowell.edu (Mike Sharp) Subject: Belgian Lambics mailing list Hi! Just wanted everyone to know that the Belgian Lambics mailing list is up and running. This has started as a relativly technical forum so may not be for everyone. Currently most of the articles center around two test batches, the techniques used to make them, and the behavior of the specific bacteria/yeast. Anyway, my point for posting this was to let everyone know the new addresses: lambic at cs.ulowell.edu for submissions lambic-request@ cs.ulowell.edu for administrative junk --Mike Sharp Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 09:29:36 EDT From: simmon at eeel.nist.gov (Eric Simmon) Subject: SF brewpubs I am going to be in San Fransisco next week for a conference. Could someone please send me a list of good brewpubs and microbreweries to check out while I'm there. Also, I want to brew a good, dry hopped, extract pale ale. Anybody have any good recipes? Any good Dopplebock recipes? Please Email. Thanks Eric D. Simmon simmon at eeel.nist.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 1991 10:19 EST From: BAUGHMANKR at CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU Subject: Re: cheap malt extract >Some friends and I recently purchased some 60-pound, 5 gallon buckets >of malt. We paid wholesale prices, and picked it up it directly from >the processor. Our price was $50.00/bucket, with a minimum purchase >of three (or maybe it was five). That works out to $0.83/pound, which >we were quite pleased with. Unfortunately this was a one-time deal >that I don't think we can repeat, but it does give you an idea of what >a supply shop must pay. Don't forget that most shops can't pick up those 60-pound pails directly from the processor so their prices reflect an appreciable shipping charge. Kinney Return to table of contents
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1991 10:19:13 EDT From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo) Subject: Re: looking for second brew book >From: mbharrington at UCSD.EDU >I own Papazian's book and love it dearly. I'd also like to get >something else, just for a second opinion and more recipes. I'm >considering Miller's book, but just thought I'd see what y'all >thought of it before I paid for it. Any comments? What do you want the book for? I think that Miller's book is more useful for brewing technique than Papazian's. Papazian has some interesting recipes, especially for us extract brewers. I also like Byron Burch's _Brewing_Quality_Beers_ as a concise description of brewing. Once you get into it, there are lots of other books on specific topics. Anyone have a Brewing/Beer Book Bibliography on-line? John "I only have about two dozen books related to brewing so far" DeCarlo Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org) Fidonet: 1:109/131 Return to table of contents
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1991 10:28:02 EDT From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo) Subject: Re: Siphoning Method >From: huyink at npdiss3.StPaul.NCR.COM (Dave Huyink) >I siphon twice with every batch, once from the primary fermenter >(food grade plastic) to the secondary (glass carboy) and once >more from the secondary to the bottles. I start the siphon by >sucking on the tube. > ... >With very little practice, you can start the siphon and pull the >tube out of your mouth before the beer actually reaches the end >of the tube. >... >I am probably more careful than I have to be about sanitation >since at the bottling stage the beer is already fermented OK, let me say that I have not had any problems with contamination, but I may be lucky in what resides in the air and dust in my house. On the other hand, I love to *taste* the beer, as fresh as I can. *Therefore*, I start the siphon with my mouth, and drink a little bit of it, before transferring the siphon to the container. I do this when racking to the secondary and when racking to my priming bucket before bottling. Now, I don't know what I would do about tasting the beer if I changed methods, and wouldn't want to give that up. John "*I* like the taste at all stages" DeCarlo Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org) Fidonet: 1:109/131 Return to table of contents
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1991 10:28:58 EDT From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo) Subject: Re: Wort Straining >From: Bob Hettmansperger > <Bob_Hettmansperger at klondike.bellcore.com> >I also have a rather large funnel with a metal screen >near the bottom to strain the wort as I pour it into the carboy. >Well, I tried it for the first time last night, and when I went >to pour the boiled wort into the carboy, I found that the screen >got clogged almost instantly from the hops. I use this method (though I plan to try the whirlpool and siphoning someday) and equipment. You need to keep a spoon or something to stir the hops around so they don't clop up the funnel. Every so often I stop and dump the hops into a pan and continue on. The hop bed on the strainer helps get more of the hot break particulates from getting into the fermenter (I am told). It works best with two people, but my funnel fits nicely and stably in the carboy neck, so I can manage it myself. Oh, and you can try a hop bag to keep your hops in if you want to make the hop cleanup easier. Then you can put the bag on the screen and pour through that without causing any clogging. Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org) Fidonet: 1:109/131 Return to table of contents
Date: Tuesday, 7 May 1991 10:29:55 EDT From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo) Subject: Re: Removing Cold Break I went back and read the _zymurgy_ article, "The Trouble with Trub". Let me quote a few portions: "Hot break and cold break should be removed before fermentation to create easy access for the yeast to the nutrient base, as well as to delete negative flavor components." Followed later by: "The consensus on cold break influencing the flavor of the beer is mixed. It is well-documented that total removal of cold break creates negative attributes for the fermentation cycle and the final flavor spectrum. ... However, the advantage of cold-break removal is apparent with respect to vitality of the yeast reuse." So, my interpretation was to remove as much of the cold break as you can, but not *all* of it. Though it isn't discussed, presumably the oft-used methods we homebrewers use *don't remove all the cold break*. So I decided not to worry. Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo at f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org) Fidonet: 1:109/131 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 07 May 91 11:09:13 EDT From: Jean Hunter <MS3Y at CORNELLA.cit.cornell.edu> Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #630 (May 06, 1991) Davin Lim asks if a microwave oven would be any use in sterilizing. No, because they heat so unevenly that you might melt one part of your plastic hose while another part barely warmed up. The microwaves themselves do not have sufficient energy to disrupt the DNA of contaminating bacteria. Micro waves are like radio waves; they have a wavelength longer than visible light. You would need UV light or the even shorter wave X-rays to decontaminate your equipment. The only use I know for a microwave in brewing is to warm your sterile stock of malt extract agar before pouring out some new slants. Or to pop some popcorn to go with that great home brew. --Cheers, Jean Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 08:19:43 -0700 From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu Subject: a non-beer related cooling question Get those flamethrowers ready -- this is a non-brewing related query! A net.correspondant of mine has a 300 gallon marine aquarium. The intense lighting and high capacity pumps needed to support this monster are raising the water temperature to an unacceptable level. For about $1400 she could buy a stainless steel thermostatically controlled chiller to maintain 75 degrees. She's looking for a lower cost solution. It occurred to me that the participants in HBD might have some good suggestions on a cut rate way to maintain a mass of salt water at a set temperature. I thought of using a stainless coil inside a small refrigerator, with a Hunter energy monitor to maintain the temp. Any other/better ideas? Design parameters: Must achieve about a 10 degree drop from ambient temperature. Must maintain temperature +- 1 degree F. Must be non-corrosive and non-toxic (i.e. copper tubing is probably out) Must cost less than $1400 Thanks for your consideration. Since this is non-brewing related, please direct all replies to me at krweiss at ucdavis.edu, and I'll summarize if anything comes in that looks like it would be of general interest. Ken Weiss Manager of Instruction Computing Services U.C. Davis Davis, CA 95616 916/752-5554 krweiss at ucdavis.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 08:19:49 -0700 From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu Subject: bottle contamination worries >Date: 05/06/91 >From: Joe Kendall <SYSHJK%GSU.EDU at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> >Subject: Bottling and cleanliness > > I'm about to bottle my first batch of homebrew in about a week. I'd like to > clean and sanitize my bottles the night before I bottle. I'm worried that > doing this will allow the bottles to get contaminated. How long can I expect > a bottle to remain sanitary when it's sitting on a counter in a clean kitchen? > Should I cover the bottles? Store them upside down in their cardboard box? > Thanks in advance for the help. Joe, I run my bottles through the dishwasher as I drink 'em, and keep them in a kitchen cabinet until I'm ready to bottle. No sanitizing, no nothing. I keep them right side up and uncovered. I have (please don't strike me down for hubris, Lord!) never had a problem with contamination. I think you'll be reasonably safe, assuming the bottles are clean to begin with. Ken Weiss Manager of Instruction Computing Services U.C. Davis Davis, CA 95616 916/752-5554 krweiss at ucdavis.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 09:49:39 PDT From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley) Subject: Carapils From: BAUGHMANKR at CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU >How do they malt Cara-pils so that it doesn't have any convertible >starches? Carapils is made very much like crystal malt. It goes thru the same steeping and germination periods that all malt does. After germination, pale malt, Munich malt, chocolate malt and black patent malt are dried and then roasted to the desired degree. Crystal malt and carapils are not dried. They are raised to saccharification temp while still moist, allowing starch->sugar conversion in the hulls. Crystal malts are then raised to a still higher temp to allow carmelization of the newly formed sugars. This is why crystal adds residual sweetness, the carmelized sugars taste sweet, but are not fermentable. Carapils is dried at a lower temp, so it does not go through the carmelization that crystal does. The amount of dextrin in carapils is controlled by the temp during starch->sugar conversion. If you mash with carapils, you can convert these dextrins into simple sugars, thereby losing those elements that the maltster so painstakingly provided. Given that the conversion takes place in the uncracked grains, I don't think that it's accurate to say that carapils has no convertible starches. Here is an attempt at ascii graphics : BARLEY | | ------------------------------------ | | | | FLAKED MALT BARLEY | | | | ------------------------- ROASTED | | BARLEY | | CARAPILS PALE MALT | | CRYSTAL MUNICH | CHOCOLATE | BLACK PATENT Hope this helps, CR Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 09:57:29 -0700 From: darryl at ism.isc.com (Darryl Richman) Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #631 (May 07, 1991) I'd like to second Martin Lodahl's impressions of the west coast first round of the national competition. Anyone who sent a beer to San Francisco owes a debt to Russ Wigglesworth, Brook Ostrom, and Paddy Giffen. I salute you for the best run competition I've experienced. We also owe thanks to Anchor Brewing for allowing the use of their excellent facilities. Behind the scenes, Russ had all of the entries on his computer, and the results were tallied within an hour of the collection of the last judging sheet. I think that the biggest flight tasted was 11 beers, the average more like 7 or 8. With 35 or so judges this weekend, three judges per flight, and two flights per day, this was a most professional event. I hope that the other sites can carry on in this Grand Tradition in the making. > HBD's own > Darryl Richman and C.R. Saikley, for example, are even better in > real life than in print. Wull, garsh. >blush!< Ya ain't so bad yerself. (Oww! I seem to have strained my arm reaching behind my back! ;-) --Darryl Richman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 11:15:44 -0600 From: dinsdale at chtm.unm.edu (Don McDaniel) Subject: Fermentables in Dark Malts in HBD 631, Dale Veeneman says: > Second question (also related to recent discussion): I know > ^^^^^^ >that dark grains have no fermentables, so there is no need to >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >mash. However, Papazian recommends cracking all speciality >^^^^ >grains, put in the cold water, bring to boil, and then remove, >while Burch says to put uncracked dark grains directly in the >boil for the whole time. I've done it both ways, and while I >haven't noticed strong tannins with Burch's method, I still >wonder what's really better? I'm not the sage that some of the more experienced contributors to this digest are, but I am an all-grain brewer with ten batches of experience. (So much for establishing credibility) I feel compelled to respond to Dale's highlighted statement which, judging from other recent postings is a common misconception. Dark grains have no enzymes with which to convert starch to sugar. Enzymes are produced in the sprouting or "malting" process. They are naturally produced to allow the seed to convert its starches into sugar which can be metabolized (wrong word for a plant I'm sure) in the growth of the plant shoot. The sprouting of the grain is then stopped by the maltster so that we brewers can use the enzymes and starch at our convenience. Dark grains are kilned at high temperatures. This roasting carmelizes some of the starches and de-activates the enzymes. There ARE still starches which may be converted to sugars if the grains are mashed with pale malts which have excess enzymes. Miller's figures for extract are 24-25 points of gravity per pound per gallon for dark roasted malts. This compares with 35-36 points for typical pale malts. In my recipe formulation I account for the fermentables in dark malts and my OGs have been coming in very close to my calculated expected gravities. So, if you want to get the most of your malts...MASH. Don McDaniel dinsdale at chtm.unm.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 7 May 91 15:15:00 EDT From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet at drcvax.af.mil> Subject: Cheaper extract. In 630 comment was made about not finding liquid extract for less than $2.00 per pound. In #631 a brewer fell into a deal of less than a dollar per pound. While this is not likely to be repeatable, I have found $1.33 to $1.50 per pound at several mail order shops if you purchase a five gallon bucket, (60 lbs.) of extract. Alternative Beverage, 800 365-BREW, sells a "Concentrated Wort" which is, they claim, pure extract, in 5 gallon buckets for $91.25. This is just above $1.50 per lb. The Homebrewer's Store, 800 TAP-BREW sells their own extract, Premier and Telford's extracts in the 5 gallon buckets for $75 to $80. This is as low as $1.25 per pound. My local supplier, also a mail oerder shop, Jasper's Homebrew Supply in Litchfield New Hampshire, don't know the phone, will sell extract at $80 per five gallons. Now, these prices don't include shipping, and shipping on a 66 pound net package can run as much as $25 from coast to coast. I suggest you use the one nearest you, and call others for the bulk prices. Many places don't carry the 5 gallon buckets, but might if the demand goes up. There is another issue here; will it spoil. If you get pasteurized extract, probably not, if it's unpasteurized, it will grow alien life forms in several months if it's unused. There is a cure for this. If your extracts grows, put it in a large pot, your wort pot will do, and bring it to pasteurizing temperature, about 158 F. Hld it there for a few minutes and ladle off the surface scum and mold, or whatever grew. This should reclaim the extract and render it perfectly useful. This is a trick maple syrup folk have used for years should their syrup develop mold. Even pasteurized syrups will grow on you if they are left long enough. The above procedure will work for them, too. If this is at all unsafe, I would appreciate the word of a qualified commenter. The moral is: Brew a lot, or buy with a friend and split it up. This business of $9.95 for 3.3 lb. cans is far too expensive for my taste. Dan "Beer made with the Derry air, (Derry, New Hampshire)" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 12:28:32 EDT From: eisen at kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West x4449) Subject: Siphoning tip - siphon hose - A \ - (don'tcha love ascii graphics?) - - B - - To start, be sure that your hose is all uphill. - If it isn't, you'll get air bubbles in the hose which / will probably break the siphon before it's begun. ! / ! Draw the beer up to point A in the hose. Then pinch or ! / ! kink the hose or simply maintain suction and push part ! / ! B of the hose down below C level and fasten it there, !^^^/^^C^! gently release the pinch, kink, or suction. Your siphon is ! / ! now ready to flow whenever you lower the end of the hose ! / ! below C level, and it will stop when you raise it above C ! Beer ! level. (There is hysteresis in the system due to the !________! inertia of the liquid in the hose, it won't stop instantly) Cheers, Carl Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 14:22:09 EDT From: eisen at kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West x4449) Subject: hop growing question In all the descriptions I've read about growing hops, they describe trellises that are 12 to 20 feet off the ground. Is this to avoid some sort of pest? Or does it make the whole project more convenient somehow? (hard to believe). Maybe it's to keep vines from running into each other? Also, in the planting instructions from Freshops it says that rizomes of the same kind may be planted as close together as three feet, but different varieties should be at least five feet apart. Anyone know why? Carl Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 15:04:45 EDT From: eisen at kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West x4449) Subject: SN culturing question I'm attempting to culture the yeast from the sediment from a bottle of Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. I poured off (and drank :) all but the last 1/2" of beer, flamed the lip of the bottle, and added about 1/2" of weak sterile wort and sealed up the bottle with a fermentation lock. I figured that keeping some of the beer involved would help keep the bacteria down, and what better place to grow a yeast than where it's been surviving nicely (I hope/assume) 'til now. Everyday I shook it up to aerate the wort and stir up the sediment/yeast. About four days later I added about another inch of weak sterile wort. I've continued the shaking routine. There has never been a `head' on the wort, but there have been a few bubbles and the fermentation lock looks like it might be glubbing about once a day. The liquid has always been clear, whatever's in there settles very quickly. A week and a half later there is about an 1/8" of sediment in the bottle. SOMETHING is growing in there. Is there any test short of brewing a small batch that'll tell me if I got it? Those of you who've had success with this sort of thing, does this sound like a success so far? This is my first attempt, so I have no idea. Carl Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 15:34:14 MDT From: David Lim <limd at sulu.Colorado.EDU> Subject: Re: Oregon Brew Bashing I understand where Florian (florianb at chip.cna.tek.com) could have easily found some less-than-ideal local micro-brews at the groceries. Sigh.... the one thing I miss the most about leaving Portland (even above the fantastic winsurfing in the Gorge) was the abundance and variety of brewpubs. I lived in the neighborhood of NW Portland (the artsy, eccelctic, increasingly yuppie, but-still-a-whole-lot-better-than Beaverton, part of town) and was easily within a three miles of about *six* brewpubs - Bridgeport, Portland Brewing, McMenamins (I could never spell this right) Tavern and pool, the Blue Moon (another McMenamins), Widmer (really the Heathman Deli), some other McMenamins in a hotel on 23rd. Talk about a *real* pub crawl... There's now probably a few new establishments since I left - almost two years ago. My favorites were Bridgeport, Widmer's, and Portland Brewing. They had the most consistent products and the cask-conditioned Blue Heron Ale at Bridgeport was heavenly. The McMenamin products are not so consistent, but can be excellent on occasion. Anyway, I *do* feel that having microbreweries WILL eventually make for better beer all around. I just don't buy the line that Bud, Miller, Coors, etc... shouldn't be knocked because they're "extremely consistent and If any homebrewer who tries to make them would understand how difficult it really is, blah, blah, blah..." Consistency and repeatability do NOT make a beer great. Clean and refreshing are adjective that can well be applied to water as well as beer. As more communities become exposed to a wider variety of beers at a *LOCAL* level, and understand that fine beer can be made right next door (as opposed to some bohemian castle in a long-lost land, far, far, away...) the demand for such products will only grow. I seem to recall that micro-brew beer consumption in the Portland metro area (yes, even Beaverton) is approaching the levels of consumption of mass-marketed beer. With education comes appreciation (of fermentation? sorry...) Even if there are example of less than perfect-beer, it's still a whole lot more fun than seeing Hamms, Bud, and Blitz as the only choices on the menu (oh, I forgot the import Corona.) As the micro and pub brewers begin to mature, it *is* inevitable that the product quality *must* improve - otherwise they will drop by the wayside. -Davin Lim (now a Colorado resident and trying to support the local brewpub and microbrewery busineses as well as I can.) (limd at sulu.colorado.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 14:49:17 PDT From: mbharrington at UCSD.EDU Subject: looking for brewpot Great Fermentations of Santa Rosa has a 33 gallon brewpot (ceramic on steel) for $36.95 + shipping/tax. Seemed like a great price to me. Anyone have comments or suggestions for a better place to get a brewpot on a starving student's budget? Thanks in advance... - --Matt Matthew B. Harrington Internet: matt at ucsd.edu University of California at San Diego Recycle or Die. Biophysics Think! It's not illegal yet. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 14:52:19 PDT From: mbharrington at UCSD.EDU Subject: sanitizing bottles I'm about to sanitize my bottles for my first batch of homebrew. Some of the bottles came from the recycling bin in my dormatory (sp?) so I can't vouch that the people that drank from them were healthy. Should I soak the entire bottle under water+bleach overnight? Or is filling the bottle sufficient? Help! I can't relax and have a homebrew knowing that I could get hepatitus or something... Thanks, Matt Return to table of contents
Date: 7 May 91 17:17 -0500 From: Michael Westmore <umwestm0 at ccu.umanitoba.ca> Subject: unsubscribe Please remove me from the mailing list. Thankyou. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 16:42:50 PDT From: 07-May-1991 0923 <hannan at gnpike.enet.dec.com> Subject: Maibock == Heller Bock Thanks all for the Maibock (May Bock) descriptions. It makes me feel better knowing what I'm drinking ;-) As someone mentioned via private email, bock doesn't mean dark at all. Closer inspection of a 6-pack holder revealed the added generic name of Heller Bock, and I know that Hell means light in German, so light colored strong beer is a rough enough description. Thanks, Ken Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 May 91 21:47:37 PDT From: kjohnson at argon.berkeley.edu (Ken Johnson) Subject: Hunter phone number Damn. I bought the wrong thermostat. O.k., now I'll start my search for the Hunter AIR STAT which may or may not be had at Home Depot where I bought and will return the wrong item. Just in case my search comes up with nothing, does anyone have Hunter's phone number? kj Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #632, 05/08/91 ************************************* -------
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/29/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96