---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  Re: Homebrew Digest #753 (November 01, 1991) (Frank Mayhar)
  Re: food grade plastics (Bob Devine  01-Nov-1991 1414)
  Dave Line's saccharin (GARY MASON  01-Nov-1991 1558)
  Colored bottles (STROUD)
  Deep Sigh (Jeff Frane)
  Honey, Peristaltic Pumps, Coriander Head... (Brian Schuth)
  canning wort (The Hop Devil)
  glass & plastic & light (Brent Ball)
  STUFF (Jack Schmidling)
  An IBU ? 4 U (Frank Tutzauer)
  Dry Malt (Eric Rose)
  Perception ("Russ W. San Fran/CA")
  Canned Guinness Draft!?! ("Russ W. San Fran/CA")
  Grolsch, what again O'Connor? (OCONNOR)
  Plastic / CO2 Pressure / Old Grolsch Bottles (Desmond Mottram)
  bad smell from brew (d1wzm)
  Brew Video (Chris Shenton)
  Mt. Hood hops  (Mark Stevens) <stevens at stsci.edu>
  Hangovers (Tom Dimock)
  wort chilling (akullber)
  The siphoning controversy... (Dave Rose)
  Lightstruck beer:  The myth of green light and 525 nm (STROUD)
  Country Journal article (GARY MASON - I/V/V PCU - 603-884[DTN264]1503  04-Nov-1991 2133)


Send submissions to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues!]
Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 20:35:04 GMT
From: fmayhar at hermes.ladc.bull.com (Frank Mayhar)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #753 (November 01, 1991)

In article <9111010800.AA15752 at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com>,
     Brent Ball <staf1282%slcsl.bitnet at utcs.utoronto.ca> writes:

|> [..] Last spring I made a batch of Australian Ale and over-carbonated it
|> more than just slightly. Nary did a bottle break.
|> The only probl em was upon opening the beer because it blew the wire
|> closure/porcelain cap clear off the bottles!!!!! This were reinstalled without
|> trouble.

Several years ago (while we were still in college, in fact), my (ex-)wife
attempted a batch of ginger beer.  She bottled it using a bunch of Grolsch
bottles that we had accumulated.  Well, needless to say, this didn't work
too well.  No exploding bottles, fortunately, but lots of self-emptying ones.
I took a couple outside to try to open them without severely damaging ourselves
or the apartment.  On each of them, I just *barely* touched the wire holding
the stopper on, and the stoppers were out of here.  We never did find them.
And the ginger beer went almost as far.

She never tried to make ginger beer again.  :-)

(_I_, on the other hand, have my second batch of homebrew fermenting away in
my closet, and my first batch in bottles [and part of that already consumed].)
- -- 
Frank Mayhar  fmayhar at hermes.ladc.bull.com (..!{uunet,hacgate}!ladcgw!fmayhar)
              Bull HN Information Systems Inc.  Los Angeles Development Center
              5250 W. Century Blvd., LA, CA  90045    Phone:  (213) 216-6241

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 13:35:04 PST
From: Bob Devine 01-Nov-1991 1414 <devine at cookie.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: food grade plastics

Jim Culbert asks:
> If I could line my primary with a disposable liner then I'd have a "new"
> plastic primary each time I brewed. A trash bag would do the trick, [...]

Several things to beware of:
 - it is unlikely that the bags are sanitized
 - the garbage bags that I've smelled (oh no, my secret vice is now public)
   have a lot of out-gassing.  I know that the plastic used in such
   food-grade containers such as cheap canteens take a while to lose
   their smell, so this is likely affect your beer aroma (phenolics?)

So, this is really an idea that is a false economy.  You can
buy a new plastic carboy from a water for about $6 and amortize
that cost over a dozen batches for an amazing pennies per day...

Bob Devine
[ hmmm, time to put some sunblock 20 on my bottles to stop skunkiness! :-) ]

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 15:59:23 EST
From: GARY MASON 01-Nov-1991 1558 <mason at habs11.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject: Dave Line's saccharin

I never have seen an answer to this...or even a discussion, that I can 
remember.  Line specifies one saccharin tablet (characterized as the one that 
has the "sweetness" of one tsp of sugar) per gallon in many of his recipes. 
What does that mean?  The residual sweet taste, with no intentional addition 
of fermentables?  If so, what can one substitute for the same result?  If one 
uses sugar, it will ferment, and presumeably lose it's "sweetness".  Again, I 
assume that what he wants is the sweetness in the finished product only.

While I'm here...I have seen several tables relating various malts, etc. 
through the amount of sugar they represent. Am I correct in assuming that it 
is this relationship (rough as it is) that one is to use to convert grain 
recipes to extract recipes?  For example (I have no data in front of me), I 
would assume that the ratio of dry extract to syrup in such a table would be 
1.1:1 (or .91), given that most recipes specify 3.3# of syrup or 3# of dry 
extract.

I think I am getting serious again.  Nothing like a trip to Real Ale country 
to get you going strong again.

Cheers...Gary

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1991 16:39 EST
From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com
Subject: Colored bottles

IN HBD # 753, Darryl R. sez:

"I consider the bottle color to be, if not a momily,
at least irrelevant.  I come to this conclusion as the result of one
experiment, and what I hope is common sense....You can take a beer in any
bottle, green, brown
or clear, and expose it to the sun for as little as 15 minutes and
be amazed at the strength of the reaction.  I use Budweiser for the
experiment, in long neck bar bottles (heavy, dark brown), even though
Bud has almost no hops.  From this, I conclude that bottle color is
irrelevant for commercial beers:  if they are poorly treated, it
doesn't matter what color the bottle is."


Sorry, Darryl, but I think that your experiment is basically flawed.  I think
that it would be akin to taking two pieces of wood, soaking one of them in
water for a day, then burning them both up with a flamethrower.  The
conclusion?  Water doesn't affect the ability of a stick to burn!

The problem is that by putting the bottles in the sun, you are  putting them in
an extreme environment, one which most bottles will never see.  The sun is a
high intensity light source (summertime in LA?) and puts out large amounts of
UV and blue light.  None of the colored bottles are totally opaque and as you
have discovered, they all skunk quickly.

A better experiment would be to put the bottles under fluorescent light and
incandescent light at varying distances and for varying times, trying to
simulate what a bottle of beer might go through on a retailers shelf.  Under
those conditions I'd put my  money on the brown bottles being much more
resistant to skunking.

I think that if we are talking about moderately mistreating beer (as in letting
it sit under a store's lights for some time), the color of the bottle DOES
matter.  Ever wonder why the skunky beers that you get off store shelves are
generally in green bottles?  When was the last time you had a skunky Heinekin?
When was the last time you had a skunky SN pale ale?

Steve   

Return to table of contents


Date: 01 Nov 91 19:25:44 EST
From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Deep Sigh

To Jack Schmidling:

Jack, if you don't want comments don't ask for them.

For the record, I have taught introductory homebrewing to somewhere between 100
and 150 people and all-grain brewing to 50-60. As far as I can tell, most of
these people are still brewing and some of them are participating in this
digest. So much for your theory that I'm frightening people away from "our
hobby."

It is true I'm not interested in teaching people how to make "instant coffee."
I've offered people plenty of money-saving suggestions, but my emphasis is on
making high-quality beer. None of my students have ever qualified as "mush
brained."

To Tamar:

I love barleywines and see nothing wrong with Dave Miller's recipe, except that
I would not use sugar at all. On the other hand, I don't see any need to do the
primary fermentation any different than the usual carboy. I filled my
cooler-mash tun with grain (seven kinds of malt) to get a four gallon batch.
After primary fermentation in a carboy, I racked to gallon jugs (yes, with
fermentation locks) where it matured for six months. The beer was great
(although Dave Miller thought it was too dark) and still is, four years later.
I've had excellent barleywines that were partial mash-extract beers but I wanted
an all-grain beer--and besides, it's cheaper. It did take a lot of work, and I
had to wait a long time to drink it, which is why I can't understand making only
two gallons as Miller suggests.

Two things: I didn't sparge at all, but used only the liquid in the mash. I
boiled for 2 hours to reduce it to four gallons. I initially pitched a pure
champagne yeast, as Miller and others have suggested. It pooped out after two
days. Fortunately, I had some ale fermenting alongside and ran a couple of pints
of that into the barleywine wort. It took off like a maniac and fermented the
beer from 1.094 to 1.025 (at racking). The only real flaw in the beer are some
banana esters which I'm convinced came from the champagne yeast. Of the
microbrewers I know who brew barleywines, NONE use anything but their regular
ale yeast.

The British barleywines I've tasted were virtually still and too syrupy for my
taste. A too-young Thomas Hardy (about 1 year old) tasted like cough medicine.
After four years, it's better. My barleywine was ready to drink a few weeks
after bottling, although it's even better now. (I have no idea why it should
have matured so quickly, but BridgePort's Old Knucklehead was likewise (perhaps
the lack of sugar in each recipe?) Unlike Miller, I would suggest aging the beer
in bulk, then bottling. I know that wines age better in higher volumes, and have
also heard that Thomas Hardy in pints ages better than that bottled in nips.

To Darryl: You know, I think you're right. That's why I always love that Mexican
beer in the black-painted bottle. <Aagh! Just kidding!> Seriously, it's clear
that not everyone *has* gotten the message about light-struck beer. Otherwise,
why would it keep cropping up at beer judgings? If you're going to drink your
beer in a closet, it doesn't matter what kind of bottle it's in, but I still
think it's courting trouble to use Sam Smith bottles as some homebrewers use.
Everytime I sit in the courtyard at Produce Row, sipping a pint of Sierra Nevada
I try to set it in someone's shadow. I'm the nervous type.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 17:08:04 PST
From: Brian Schuth <bschuth at igc.org>
Subject: Honey, Peristaltic Pumps, Coriander Head...

Pat Patterson asks:

>Has anyone tried using honey instead of (corn) sugar at bottling time?
>If so, what amount of standard off-the-shelf clover honey is equivalent
>to the usual 3/4 cup of sugar?

and Norm Pyle writes:

>I primed my Christmas brew with honey (typical clover honey
>from the local supermart).  I used 1/2 cup boiled in a couple of cups of
>water for a 5 gallon batch.  Is this going to do it? 

My own experience is this--honey is made of sucrose (very easy for yeast
to break down) and is concentrated.  I bottled a batch last year using
slightly less than 3/4 cups and had a gusher on my hands--no explosions,
but a good long wait for all that cream colored foam to turn into black
stout!  Err on the side of too little rather than too much, and LET US
KNOW if you do it right!  I've heard this question asked in a lot
of places and have yet to hear a real answer, just a bunch of hypotheses
(um, like this one :) ).

Bob Murphy writes:

>The coriander isn't real
>strong, but is  noticable.  Some people have a hard time identifying it. 
>For some reason they all seem to lack much head, maybe the oils in the 
>coriander?

Certainly the oils in the coriander, I think.  I've had the same problem,
and I used 2 oz. coriander for 15 min after the boil--not very long,
but long enough.  Try brewing coffee with some fresh ground coriander in
it--the naturally oily coffee gets some good sized mini-pools of oil
when you throw in the coriander.

>the suggesstion in HBD #752 that the use of
>a peristaltic pump might be a good solution was just too much.

Here, here!  I've done the Absolut-mouthwash-suck away siphon technique for
three years, and nary an infection yet!  Faugh on chemistry-set brewing!
Thank you, Dave Rose.






Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Nov 91 19:31:19 CST
From: hopduvel!john at linac.fnal.gov (The Hop Devil)
Subject: canning wort

Check the special issue of Zymurgy about yeast.  There are several
good articles on culturing, the one I wrote on sterile transfer
involves a simple modification to canning jars to insure sterile transfer,
and using a syringe to move the yeast from purchased pure culture
pak to various culture vessels.  I even do that in a glove box, but
its probably not a requirement on a small scale with just a
few 'generations' used before a fresh culture is introduced.

I have brewed in a variety of environments, and sanitation is
something that can be almost ignored in some cases, and is a real
requirement in others.  IMHO its better to start off a little
overzealous in sanitizing than make a bad batch of beer.  This does
not mean I soak everything is 50k PPM of CLO4, I admit I was heavy
handed with the clorox when I first started brewing, but I only 
use about 50 ppm at the max anymore. (CLO4 test strips are a
restaurant supply houses - cheap)
 
- -- 
John, The Hop Devil                       
renaissance scientist and AHA/HWBTA certified Beer Judge 

Return to table of contents


Date: 	Sat, 2 Nov 1991 09:30:10 -0500
From: Brent Ball <staf1282%slcsl.bitnet at utcs.utoronto.ca>
Subject:      glass & plastic & light

I am new to this forum and maybe someone has asked this already, but here goes!
I've been hearing a lot about the glass vs. plastic ferementers debate. I have
gone through several food grade plastic primaries over the years and now that I
think about it, I see a direct correlation to the fact that my best beers were
brewed in the NEW pails. My logbook confirms this suspicion. So I tend to agree
with the person who says change your platic fermenters after 10 batches or so
(at this point, this number is quite arbitrary and I would appreciate further
comment on what is "the right number") Now I would like to add a twist to the
conversation; after about 5 days or so I transfer my brew from the plastic
primary pail to a glass carboy secondary to finish up. This is a clear glass
vessel and it sits in the corner of my sunlit kitchen (no direct sunlight
though). Am I doing light damage to my beer in the process of making it? Should
my glass secondary be relocated to my dark (and bit damp) basement or could
I simply loosely cover the carboy by placing over it a big(D size) photographic
paper "light resistant" bag (this should attenuate all UV)? I guess if I used
exclusively stainless vessels this point would be moot but unfortunately my
pocketbook isn't that deep right now. By the way, I too use an enameled boiler
and it still has its handles and enamel coating in tact. It is 7 years old now
and even sees use from my wife during jam season. Finally, I would like to
appologise for my terrible typing in my last submission. It should have been
proofread but I was in a rush to complete it.

Regards,
Brent Ball

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Nov 91 22:17 CST
From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: STUFF

 
 
 To: Homebrew Digest
 Fm: Jack Schmidling
 
 Re: Martin L.
  
 > In the interim, I've had great results from the enameled kettles.  I'd feel
 more than just a bit hesitant, though, to use them with one of those
 Mega-Burners that turns the bottoms of kettles cherry-red.
 
 I am sure you value my opinion dearly but for what it is worth,  mine sits on 
 top of a 2500 deg, forced air melting furnace and brings 7 gals to a boil in 
 about 15 min.  I suspect talk of cherry-red bottoms on a kettle full of water 
 is a bit of a rhetorical flourish.  But even so, you can't possibly hurt a 
 steel kettle on anything even that hot.  I originally tested it on a 5 gal 
 aluminum kettle but I felt very uncomfortable doing it and was just asking 
 for trouble.
 
 >The thinness of the steel also would preclude my ever even considering 
 drilling any sort of hole in the kettle.
 
 I can't speak for new ones but I put a small spiggot and fittings on my 15 
 year old one and don't know how I ever brewed without one.  You will never 
 have to worry about the handles comming off again.
 
 Fortunately, if UPS comes through, tomorrow's batch will be boiled in my new 
 SS pot thanks to whoever pointed me to Rapids.  I will still mash in the 
 enamel one on the kitchen stove because there may be some advantage in having 
 the boiler ready while sparging.  That however, still leaves me with rusty 
 beer.
 
 >Red Star produces *LOTS* of esters.  Primarily banana esters to be exact.
 If you have been using Red Star all along, you may have been convering
 up many of the defects (like oxidation) that we suggest you may have in
 your beers.
 
 Thank you. I have already been warned and EDME is going into tomorrow's 
 batch.
 
 From: Jay Hersh <hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu>
 
 >The presence of phenolics which the clove-like.....
 
 BINGO!
 
 The second most recent batch (just about drinking age now) has precisely that 
 taste and aroma.  Aside from that anomily, it is possibly the best tasting 
 beer I have ever made.  It also happens to be my first all (commercial) grain 
 batch and drinking it has become almost a mystical experience.
 
 Where did those bloody cloves come from?   I used 6 row barley but the same 
 guy who told me that oxidation causes a cidery taste sold me the "barley".  
 He couldn't possibly have sold me wheat malt, could he?
 
 From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067 at compuserve.com>
 
 > My tap(s) are mounted on the front door. There is a
 drip pan underneath, mounted with sheet metal screws, that easily holds the
 weight of a beer glass--even a full one. The only aerators I know of are
 sparklers that are used with some beer pumps--not for CO2 driven systems.
 
 I hate to be so bold, but it appears that even you could learn something by 
 watching "BREW IT AT HOME".  In the cozy privacy of Ken Pavechevich's little 
 conference room at the Baderbrau brewery, he demonstrates his version of the 
 "Pilsner pour".  
 
 He pushes the handle back, the glass fills up with foam and sets it down to 
 settle out before doing it again.  Then he pulls the handle forward and fills 
 three glasses of beer in the traditional "American" way which we all enjoy 
 while watching his silly foam settle down in the first glass.  He claims that 
 it is a special tap only avaialable in Europe.
 
 >I repeat my previous offer: Come to Portland next May and taste beers at the 
 Oregon State Fair. Out of the 150-200 beers, I guarantee there will be some 
 that are badly oxidized; once having tasted such beer, I also guarantee you 
 will not question the use of the term "cardboard."
 
 Thanks for the offer but I just got the name and phone number of the local 
 brew club and I will pursue the idea here.  Sounds like good family fun.
 
 From: microsoft!larryba at cs.washington.edu
 
 <Jack: to get a clear idea of what oxidized beer tastes like, purchase some
 bland bottled beer (rhinlander is popular out here, Old Milwaukee should do
 fine), open it up, dump a little beer out, get some air in, re-cap, shake
 well and store somewhere warm (>100f) for a week.  later, cool to normal
 serving temperatures and serve.  It should be pretty awful.  Hopefully
 your test beer will never get that bad.
 
 I am not sure why you say that if you read the details of my experiment.  The 
 rigor with which I attempted to oxidize the sample makes your process look 
 like doctoral thesis from Masterbrew U.
 
 >To get a similar example of light struck, get another bottle and simply
 set it out in the sunlight for a week or two.  Don't use Miller (in clear
 bottles) - that has been doctored to be resistant to light struck.
 
 Damn!  I have been collecting Miller bottles cause I like to look at my beer.
 
 From: pyle at intellistor.com (Norm Pyle)
 
 >All the anti-Schmid-etism around here is starting to wear thin.....
 
 Sure is, thanks.  However, think of all the extra publicity my video gets 
 responding to all the whiners.  Silly, people...
 
 >BTW, I'm no fan of commercial advertising.  Maybe we should start a
 rec.crafts.brewing.new_products? 8^}
 
 The one thing it would certainly prove is the idiocy of all the bitching 
 about my one little plug.  My guess is that it would sit dormant for about 
 six months until "BREW IT AT HOME, THE SEQUEL" is released.
 
 
 js
 
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1991 11:01 EDT
From: Frank Tutzauer <COMFRANK at ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: An IBU ? 4 U

     I'm trying to calculate IBUs given certain hop schedules, or, conversely,
what quantity of hops to add at what times in order to reach a target IBU. 
I've been using the equations in Charlie II, and they're pretty
straightforward.  The problem is that to calculate percent alpha acid
utilization, Charlie refers you to a table that lists the %AAU for various
specific gravities and boil times.  If I match my s.g.'s and boil times to the
chart, I sometimes end up with hop weights like 1.2 oz.  Since my scale is not
too precise, I would like my hop additions to be in ounce or half-ounce units. 
I don't want to round off because that can result in IBU swings of about 10
points, more than I'm willing to tolerate.  Using some experimentation along
with some linear interpolation of the tabled entries, I can get numbers like I
want.  The problems with this approach are:  a) it takes several trial and
error attempts; b) it sometimes requires double linear interpolation (the
table is a two-dimensional table, so if I want, say 50 minutes at an s.g. of
1.050, I have to interpolate between 45 and 50 minutes and between s.g.'s of
1.040 and 1.070, or vice versa--it's not clear which interpolation should be
performed first); c) it seems there has to be an easier way.
     Surely, %AAU can be written as a continuous function of two variables
(time and s.g.).  I understand why Charlie provided a table--most homebrewers
are probably not the tech weens that many of the HBD people are, so a table is
easier for the person who's afraid of equations.  Still, I would like to see
the equations.  So, I guess my IBU ? 4 U is this:  What is the formula for
expressing %AAU in terms of boil time and s.g.  This question is not answered
in any of the half-dozen or so books I've got.  It sounds like something that
would be in Fix, but I'm not yet competent enough to have purchased it.  Can
anyone help me out?
IBU and you be me...
- --frank


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 3 Nov 91 18:14:59 EST
From: Eric Rose <rose at aecom.yu.edu>
Subject: Dry Malt

     On a recent trip to my local homebrew shop, I purchased the ingredients
called for in the "Wheat Amber" (?right name?) recipe in the Cat's Meow.  It
called for 3 pounds of "dry malt extract."  I asked the shopkeeper for this
and he brought three bags of a beige powder out of his fridge, which did
indeed say "dry malt" on them.  My question is, how do I use the stuff?
(I naively thought the "dry" in dry malt meant "not sweet" or something,
and that it would be liquid like other malt extracts).

Do I just put it into the wort with the can of bitter extract called for
in the recipe?  Any other technique needed?  Please advise, many thanks,

- -- 
            Eric Rose
            Albert Einstein College of Medicine
            1300 Morris Park Avenue
            Bronx, NY  USA

     Disclaimer:  All opinions expressed herein are the official positions of
     the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx
     Municipal Hospital Center, the American Medical Association, the City of
     New York, and Albert Einstein himself.

Return to table of contents


Date: 03 Nov 91 19:37:26 EST
From: "Russ W. San Fran/CA" <72300.61 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Perception

(It seems my Internet connection has been broken form my LAN at work.  I sent
this originally on 10/30/91.  Appologies if it should be redundant by now.

RW...)

Jack Schmidling comments:

>>I use Bud as the low limit and Baderbrau as the upper.  Anything in >>between
is acceptable, if not necessarliy desirable.  I am not very >>sophisticated but
I can not drink bad beer, even if I made it.  As I >>certainly have made bad
beer on occasion, I know what lies beyond the >>lower limit.  I have, however
never made beer that tastes like cider or >>cardboard.

Jack, as far as "you" are concerned your beer has never tasted like cider or
cardboard.  These are flavors (along with many others found in beer) which
different people have different sensitivities to.  This is why I suggest you
have an independent palate, preferably one that has experience with homebrew,
taste your experimental brew against your control batch.  Many people like some
of the flavors/aromas which occur as "flaws" in brewing.  This is especially
true of fruity esters which show up in many ales.

As far as cardboard is concerned, it isn't so much the taste as the aroma which
exibits a character which comes closest to that of "wet cardboard".  This is
not to say that it "is" the smell of wet cardboard, but that, when many people
perceive it in beer, it "reminds" them of the smell of wet cardboard.  It is a
device to describe an off aroma in the brew, as are many other terms which
brewers use to verbalize what their senses tell them about beer.

If you are happy with your beer as it is, then keep on brewing as you are. 
However your position that things like oxidation and off flavors/aromas don't
exist or occur, simply because you have not experienced them, is poor science. 
 Perhaps your environment allows you to brew with a casual attitude towards
certain accepted practices and still succeed.  I have no idea since I don't
know you or your beer.  When you begin to get feedback from other brewers you
may get confirmation of your abilities, or you may find that there are some
things in your beer which you are not aware of.  Enter a competition where your
beer will be judged anonymously and then review the judges' comments with an
open mind.  Get a second opinion, Jack.

RW...


Return to table of contents


Date: 03 Nov 91 19:38:01 EST
From: "Russ W. San Fran/CA" <72300.61 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Canned Guinness Draft!?!

(Again, apologies if this shows up twice.  I suspect my connection to the
Digest via Internet is gone for the moment.  RW...)

THIS IS NOT A COMMERCIAL ENDORSEMENT

I had the good fortune to be invited to attend a very special beer happening
(am I dating myself with that term?) recently by Tom Dahldorf of the California
Celebrator.  The event was Guinness' unveiling of their new product, Pub
Draught Guinness.  Now, I can hear the lot of you saying to yourselves "Yeah,
yeah, another 'draft beer in a can', big deal".  But this one is different. 
For the most part this product actually does what it is supposed to do!

Anyone who has had Guinness Stout on draught and from a bottle knows there is a
vast difference between the two brews.  The brewery makes no secret of the fact
that the recipes are different not only between the kegged version and the
bottled, but also between different bottled markets.  Now the folks at Guinness
have developed a system which dispenses their stout from a can in such a way as
to rival a pub tap.  They have been working on this for some 20 years and the
final method was preceded by over 100 failed attempts.

The problem has always been the fact that draught Guinness is (or should be)
dispensed with a mixture of Nitrogen and CO2 gasses rather than the
conventional CO2 alone.  The nitrogen is used because it makes very fine
bubbles while it is not absorbed into the brew as the CO2 is, thus it does not
"over-carbonate" the beer.  Also a special faucet is preferred which, in
combination with the gasses, creates that wonderful creamy brown head which
lasts to the bottom of the glass.  The new can combines the original kegged
stout recipe with technology which creates the draught effect to a tee.

Dr. Alan Forage, creator of the technology, was on hand to explain the
mechanics of the new can.  This is the way the system works:  The 16.9 ounce
can (containing 14.9 ounces of beer) is fitted with a small plastic device
(Guinness calls it a "smoothifier") which sits in the bottom of the can.  This
device has a pocket or cavity which is open to the atmosphere via a pin hole in
its top.  The can is evacuated of oxygen and filled with beer.  Prior to
sealing the can, a dose of liquid nitrogen is added to the beer.  The can is
closed and as the liquid nitrogen warms a pressure is created.  The pressure
forces about 1% of the beer and nitrogen into the plastic cavity.   When the
can is opened, the pressure is released and the small amount of beer in the
cavity is forced back through the pinhole quite violently.  The agitation
created by this "geyser" mixes the nitrogen with the beer in such a way as to
reproduce the tap handle character.  Open up the first empty can you have in
order to see what the "smoothifier" looks like.

Prior to serving, the beer must be chilled.  Guinness suggests a two hour stint
in a refrigerator, with a target serving temperature of 45-50 degrees (if
opened while warm, the beer gushes with excess force).  This is the one area
where flavor will be variable since most American refrigerators hold their
temperatures closer to 35-40 degrees.  We all know the colder the beer the less
the flavors are perceptible.  Education will be the key here.  The entire
contents should be emptied into a 16 ounce glass.  The head which forms is
exactly like that of the draught version.  And yes, it does last to the bottom
of the glass.

How does it taste?  In my opinion, this is virtually the same as what you get
at a well maintained pub.  The texture is right on.  The flavor is wonderful. 
I suspect there may be some slight differences as a result of the volume of the
package (14.9 ounces vs. 15.5 gallons) but I didn't notice any.  According to
Declan Maguire, group marketing director of Guinness Import Company here in the
U.S., extensive taste comparisons were made throughout Ireland and England
during the development of the product.  This includes side-by-side blind
tastings with the original version.

The cans come in packages of 4.  The suggested price is $5.99.  The stout is 4%
alcohol by volume.  Guinness is releasing the new product in the San Francisco,
Chicago, and Baltimore/Washington D.C. areas to begin with.  Locally, Safeway
stores are carrying it at $3.00/2 cans.  The cans can be recycled just like
other aluminum ones.  I suspect the insert is made from the same plastic which
is used to coat the inside of the can and will burn off during the recycling
process.

Congratulations to Guinness on the success of this new package.

RW...


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Oct 1991 17:57 EST
From: OCONNOR%SCORVA%SNYBUFVA.BITNET at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
Subject: Grolsch, what again O'Connor?

SOrry to add one more comment--but since I'm not going to tell you to
replace the gasket like everyone else, I thought I throw in my $.25
(inflation, you know).

Anyway, my friend Dwight, who shall remain nameless, doesn't like them
because he thinks the neck causes the beer to pour funny.  Causes too
much bubbling or something.I dunno.  I
don't mind them because of ease of bottling.  I've got about 125 or
so, and I got 'em from bottle return centers.

One suggestions tho', if you plan to enter any of your beers in
contests, make sure you bottle some homebrew in 12 ounce or 16 ounce
regular bottles.  Many AHA contests will not take Grolsch type
bottles.  I usually put 6-10 bottles/batch in regular bottles.

Keep on Brewin'

Kieran O'Connor

oconnor at snycorva.bitnet

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 11:25:27 GMT
From: des at swindon.swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram)
Subject: Plastic / CO2 Pressure / Old Grolsch Bottles


> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 8:37:56 CST
> From: dbeedle at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu (Dave Beedle)
> Subject: CO2ing preasure kegs..
> 
>     Hit there!  I have a plastic 2 (or so) gallon preasure keg which I bought
> with the idea of cutting down on bottling.  Well, after having used this once
> I've decided that oxydized beer is bad and I just don't wanna do it so...would
> it be feasable to put some preasure fittings on the keg for C02.  I envision
> an input and a preasure release valve/gauge thing.  Having not messed with CO2
> before I don't know if I'm off base here or not.  Assuming I'm not...where can
> I get the fittings and CO2?  There is a thing called an autoinjecter but these
> go for about $40 and use CO2 cartridges.  I'm hoping I can do better.  Any
> tips?   Thanks!
> 
> TTFN
> 
> - --
>   Dave Beedle                                     Office of Academic Computing
>                                                      Illinois State University
>   Internet:  dbeedle at rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu                     136A Julian Hall
>     Bitnet:  dbeedle at ilstu.bitnet                           Normal, Il   61761
> 

Plastic pressure barrels with cheap CO2 injectors and cylinders are very 
common here in the UK. Can't you get them in the States? Ask your home brew
supplier if they are made or imported. If you get no joy, I suggest you 
import them yourself and make a small killing!

Rgds, Des

- -----------------------------------

> From: darrylri at microsoft.com
> Subject: ref recent glass v. plastic discussion
> 
> >    You suggest -"going to plastic with good sanitation"-. The rap on
> > plastic is that it CANNOT be sanitized for more than a few use cycles;
> > after a while it \\will// scratch, and bacteria in the scratches are
> > extremely hard to kill. The plastic will also adsorb bleach and release it
> > into the wort, giving room for some unpleasant flavors which can be
> > perceived at extremely low levels---that's a Hobson's choice for you! This
> > suggests that anyone who uses a plastic fermenter should do only a small
> > number of batches before throwing it away (or downgrading it to a
> > bottle-soaking tub) and getting a new one.
> 
> I would disagree with this dismissal of plastic, although I would tend to
> agree with your reasons.  I use nothing but plastic right now:  a 32 gal.
> plastic food grade trash can for primary and polycarbonate carboys for
> secondaries.  But I don't use bleach for sanitizing:  I use boiling
> water.  This allows me to sanitize with heat instead of chemicals, and
> the heat works even if there is not direct contact between the water and
> the undesirables.  It is true that the inside of my primary is stained and
> rough, and has been so for a couple years now, but I have had no difficulties.
> 

[stuff deleted]

I have been mashing, boiling, fermenting and barreling in plastic for ten 
years now and only ever had one batch go bad - after sterilising with 
boiling water instead of chlorine based cleanser!!! So take care Darryl.

Yes it does scratch, yes they probably harbour bugs, but they CAN be killed, 
and a proprietory chlorine cleanser such as Chempro SDP does not impart any 
taint to the beer, (though I'd expect bleach to - I'd never use it).

I speak from experience, not theory.

> 
> 		--Darryl Richman
> 
> 

Desmond Mottram

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:14:52 CST
> From: caitrin lynch <lyn6 at midway.uchicago.edu>
> Subject: English Bitter
> 
> I am trying to duplicate the English Bitter Ale I had in England this summer,
> specifically, Hook Norton Best Bitter. Any suggestions.
> 
> Nick.
> 

Get a copy of Dave Line's "How to Brew Beers Like Those You Know". This has
recipies for hundreds of famous British beers, and I'd expect Hook Norton 
Best to be included. I can find out details of Publisher, ISBN if you mail 
me.

des at swindon.ingr.com

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: 30 Oct 91 01:40:25 EST
> From: don karon <72730.103 at compuserve.com>
> Subject: Grolsch-oid bottles
> 
> Has anyone experienced any problems using resealable bottles
> like the ones Grolsch comes in?  Before I go out and drink
> 40 Grolsch's I wanted to make sure this was indeed a clever
> idea.
> 

I have reused Grolsh bottles for beer and Elderflower Champagne (which 
produces considerably more pressure than beer) with no problems. I'd say 
drinking 40 Grolsch's was a very good idea anyway, and you can always get 
the deposits back if you're not satisfied.

> 

Rgds, Des

des at swindon.ingr.com
 ..ingr!nijmeg!swindon!d_mottram


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 12:52:28 MET
From: d1wzm at dtek.chalmers.se
Subject: bad smell from brew

A few months ago, one of my friends
& I brewed a batch of Cooper's Lager.

When we bottled it it smelled terrible,
but the smell has disappeared & the 
beer is OK to drink.

(I have tasted a few bottles & I'm still
 alive 8-))

rgds hk "wiking" wiklund
d1wzm('at' is missing on the keyboard)dtek.chalmers.se

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 09:31:04 EST
From: Chris Shenton <chris at endgame.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Brew Video

Doesn't the AHA have a video on homebrewing for beginners, staring all your
favorite (:-) stars, like Papazian, et al?

Just wondering -- might save us all some time...

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 09:31:47 EST
From: (Mark Stevens) <stevens at stsci.edu>
Subject: Mt. Hood hops 


In Homebrew Digest #754, David Odden (dodden at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
writes that he's hooked on Mt. Hood hops but that his supplier is not
carrying them any longer.

Dave: Switch suppliers.

I just place an order on Friday with Alternative Garden Supply in
Illinois. They have this year's harvest of Mt. Hood hops in stock.
(I'm also hooked on Mt. Hood.) They also just had an ad in the 
latest special Zymurgy issue for Northwestern extracts, $4.95 for
3.3 pounds....this is a great deal....about $2 less than I can
do locally.  You can contact them at (800)444-2837.

Cheers!
- ---Mark Stevens
   stevens at stsci.edu


Return to table of contents


Date:         Mon, 04 Nov 91 10:05:02 EST
From: Tom Dimock <RGG at CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu>
Subject:      Hangovers

- --> Warning! This post is based on "old wives tales" backed up by
experience! On the other hand, it does seem to work for me....  <--

Hangovers seem to have at least three components: dehydration, Vitamin B
imbalance, and toxins (fusel oil, for example).  The first two you can
deal with by washing down a fairly large dose of Vitamin-B complex with
lot of water before retiring.  When bladder pressure gets you up, drink
more water.  The toxins you can only deal with by not ingesting them
to begin with, which means not brewing them into the beer if possible.
As to what by-products contribute to hangover, and how much, I'd guess
that that is highly specific to the individual?  Anybody know any facts
in this area??

(BTW - someone asked whether fusel is an oil or an alcohol. My dictionary
defines Fusel Oil as "a mixture of amyl alcohols obtained as a by-product
in the fermentation of grains.)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 04 Nov 91 10:47:56 -0500
From: akullber at BBN.COM
Subject: wort chilling


I've only brewed 3 batches, but I've found the following method chills the
wort immediately.

The night before brewing, I boil 4 gals. of water.  I let it cool over night
to room temperature in a sanitized pail.  In the morning, I transfer it to
my 5 gal. sanitized carboy.  I then store it in my chest freezer for about
7 hrs.  It gets a slight amount of ice on the surface.  It is at about
35 degrees F.

The boiling wort cools to about 70 instantaneously when added into the cold
water.

Anybody see anything wrong with this method (besides the obvious "don't forget
and let the carboy freeze & crack")?

Alan

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 11:46 EST
From: Dave Rose <CHOLM at HUBIO2.HARVARD.EDU>
Subject: The siphoning controversy...

Chip Hitchcock writes:
>Dave Rose <CHOLM at HUBIO2.HARVARD.EDU> writes:
>>$2 you can get a rubber carboy top that has two holes, one for your
>>racking tube and one to blow in.

>I tried this on the advice of a local supplier; I've never gotten a
>cap that could hold in the air pressure needed to push the wort over the
>crook of a racking tube (people who have heard me sing can attest to my lung
>power, however misdirected). It's possible these caps only work (for
>siphon starting) with the (relatively squat) 5-gallon carboy; I have only 6's
>and 3's---

	I have used mine for 5's and 7's, and I've never had a problem.  True,
if you just blow into the think it leaks a lot.  I just squeeze it tight 
around the neck of the carboy when I blow, and it works fine.  I will say that
some friends to who I recommended this device have never gotten it to work, and
I am at a loss to explain why, since I have never gone over to watch their
technique.  However, in my hands, it has never failed.  

	Chris Shenton chimes in:
>Seems to me blowing air from your lungs and mouth into the carboy
>isn't much better than getting your mouth over the racking tube. I'd think
>you'd introduce all kinds of ugliness into the wort. 

	This is a reasonable expectation, but it turns out to be wrong.  I work 
in a yeast lab, and we routinely innoculate cultures by blowing yeast out 
pipettes into culture tubes; by blowing some bubbles in the culture, the yeast
get mixed up.  This absolutely does not lead to contamination, or I would
never finish my thesis (granted I STILL might never finish, but that is another
issue).  I have actually done the experiment you suggest, but with a slight
modification.  There are three tubes: 
	1. Spit in the tube.
	2. Blow bubbles through a sterile pipette.
	3. Blow into the tube, or cough or whatever.

	Tubes 1+3 will become contaminated, but tube 2 will be clean.  Saliva
certainly does contain micro-organisms, so tube 1 is no mystery.  But, 
apparently, breath is sterile. In tube 3, your breath is directing airborne
beasties from the air into the tube.  In short, breathing into the carboy is
not a problem, as long as you don't drool into it or something.
						Dave Rose
					CHOLM at HUBIO2.HARVARD.EDU


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1991 11:55 EST
From: STROUD%GAIA at leia.polaroid.com
Subject: Lightstruck beer:  The myth of green light and 525 nm

It's amazing how many responses have been generated by Daniel Butler-Ehle's
posting in HBD 751 concerning the skunking of beer.  It's certainly a good
subject to "air out".  Tom Strasser's posting in HBD 753 was excellent and
visibly demonstrated the vast difference in light absorptivity between green 
and brown bottles.

I must question some recent statements in HBD concerning the relationship
between green light and the lightstruck aroma of beer: 

Algis R Korzonas writes in HBD #753:

>Fluorescent lights and the Sun produce considerably
>more GREEN light than incandescent lights.  It is true that they
>also produce more UV, but it is green light (see below) that we
>are concerned about when it comes to skunky (or catty - no skunks
>in the UK, you see) beer.

Here's a part of a post from Darryl Richman in HBD 609:

>Light struck is defect noticeable by a skunky or catty aroma.  This is
>brought on by a transformation in one of the hop constituents under the
>influence of green light.

Chip Hitchcock in HBD 752 said:

>"HOWEVER, skunkiness in beer has been specifically pinned down to a
>photolysis of hop extracts at ~525nm; this is well within visible light
>(~450-~750nm)."

And from John, the Hop Devil in HBD #753:

>Boiling hops alters the Alpha acid groups to Isoalpha acids
>(isomerization). These Isoalpha acids are unstable in the presence
>of light - a reaction occurs with sulfurous proteins resulting in
>3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol, a mercaptan which is perceptible at the
>PPB level.  The frequency of the light that causes this reaction is 520
>nanometers, which is blue-green. 

*******************
First, a little information for anyone out there who is unfamiliar with the
electromagnetic radiation:  Visible light is generally recognized as light 
whose wavelength falls between 400 and 700 nanometers (nm).  Light with shorter
wavelengths (<400 nm) is called ultraviolet light and light with longer
wavelengths (>700 nm) is called infrared light.  Photographic chemists consider
the visible spectrum to be roughly divided into red light (600-700 nm), green
light (500-600 nm), and blue light (400-500 nm).  There are gradations within
this range of course, so that light at ~500 nm would look blue-green, etc.  
From this range of wavelengths we get the red/orange/yellow/green/blue/indigo/
violet spectrum of the rainbow.

I am challenging the assertion of postings in this forum that green 
light (and the "magical" 520 or 525 nm wavelength) is somehow 
responsible for the skunking of beer.  

>From every scientific article that I have ever read, it is the high-energy part 
of the visible spectrum (i.e. blue light), roughly from 400 - 500 nm, that 
causes most of the damage to beer (ultraviolet light does as well, but that 
is a different subject for a different time).  

I would refer you to my posting in HBD #729 (the excerpt from 
the article by Denis De Keukeleire and references therein).  
There is also an interesting article entitled "Photochemistry and 
Beer" in The Journal of Chemical Education, Vol. 59, # 1, 1982, 
p. 25 in which the absorption spectra of brown and green bottles 
are shown.  According to this article, "It is now well known that 
the light sensitivity of beer extends from the UV to about 500 nm."
There are numerous other useful references in this article.  

Even George Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science", refers to the 
damaging wavelengths of light being 400-500 nm.

I am very curious as to the origin of the numerous references to 
green light and especially to the 520-525 nm wavelengths of light 
being detrimental to beer.  To the four people listed above and to 
anyone else who has made similar claims, I would ask for 
references to substantiate your allegations.

Steve Stroud

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 21:36:53 EST
From: GARY MASON - I/V/V PCU - 603-884[DTN264]1503 04-Nov-1991 2133 <mason at habs11.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject: Country Journal article

There was a several page article on homebrewing in the November/December issue
of Country Journal. Liberally laced with data and advice from Papazian, it was 
not very cohesive - certainly not enough to get going with (my opinion).  It
was enough to pique interest in a conversational way.

Cheers...Gary

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #755, 11/05/91
*************************************
-------

---