HOMEBREW Digest #999 Tue 27 October 1992
Digest #998
Digest #1000
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Mini Batches. Approach/Bottles (SLK6P)
more on vinegary cider (oxcommed)
pellet hops (Laura Conrad)
ragi and koji ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Smithwicks recipe.. (Paul Andrews)
Wyeast European Ale Yeast (Joe Rolfe)
RE: bottling from keg (James Dipalma)
potassium sorbate (berthels)
HBD Field Report: Footnote (Phillip Seitz)
Does dry hopping slow the terminal fermentation? (Dennis J. Templeton)
Water Quality (Mike Mahler)
re: Decoction and Tannin Extraction (Darryl Richman)
beer & new companies (devine)
brewpubs (Scott Murphy)
1992 Dixie Cup results (Sean C. Lamb 335-6669 Loral)
pediococcus / BAA (Brian Bliss)
Lauter tuns (korz)
Roller Mill from Junk (Michael Biondo)
Weeping Radish brewpub (hjl)
efficiency/crystal caramel malt/EBC (Victor Reijs)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Oct 1992 01:07:42 -0600 (MDT)
From: SLK6P at CC.USU.EDU
Subject: Mini Batches. Approach/Bottles
This is in response to a post by:
Chris Cook
cook at uars.dnet.nasa.gov$
on brewing small batches. (I'm way behind so this has probably been
answered ten times already! SOrry...)
What I've chosen to do for the sake of experiment- is to brew a base beer
I feel comfortable with (and pretty certain of- ya know, no frills, just
lots of hops!) and then pull some aside for 1 gallon batch, and modify
the hell out of it. I recently made a Pumkin Beer (way scaled down from
the Pumkin mash in the Meow...) Fruiting a third of a fifteen gallon
batch works well.
Just pull some wort aside at the end of a boi- and steep it w/fruit.
What it sounds like you're after is mini-mashes. I haven't done that.
When I put in the time (most every sunday) to do a mash, I prefer not to
waste time with only one gallon. So I've scaled up. BUT- it is quite
do-able, and some author type had a system for mini mashes geared at an
introduction to mashing. You may need to modify equipment to handle a smaller
volume, yet still establish an adequate grain bed.
As for gallon jugs... Go but some cider or cransberry juice. Drink it,
or ferment it! and you've got a jug! You'll just have to find the right
stopper. I have a few, some from the lab, some from juice. Right now
I have two working on a cranberry mead (that was one bottle!)
Happy hopping. Go for it! J.Wyllie SLK6P at cc.usu.edu
------------------------------
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 13:27:06 +0000
From: oxcommed at vax.ox.ac.uk
Subject: more on vinegary cider
Following my earlier posting(s) on vinegary cider, here is
another thought, which follows a discussion with a Herefordshire
cidermaker last weekend.
Cider naturally has a high acidity, but this is, initially
at least, due to malic acid. I'm not sure that my palate
would distinguish between malate and acetate very well,
given a general appley background. So it may be that what
seems at first to be vinegary cider is actually acid with
malate. Apparently during the maturing process the malate
is converted into citrate which makes the flavour less "rough"
but this can take several months.
I realise that I implied in my first post that naturally-
conditioned beer has a short shelflife. I was thinking
about cask-conditioned ales here (I bottle very little of my
beer) - of course bottle-conditioned beer keeps almost for
ever (given the chance). Interestingly, cask cider does
not rely on a pressurised CO2 blanket for preservation, but on
the thick layer of aerobic fungus, dead animals, etc. which
forms on the surface of the liquid. So they say, anyway.
P.
==========================================================
Paul Hilditch Phone +44 235 555440
MediSense, Inc. Fax +44 235 553462
Abingdon, UK oxcommed at vax.ox.ac.uk
==========================================================
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 09:59:14 EST
From: lconrad at wilko.Prime.COM (Laura Conrad)
Subject: pellet hops
I have used pellet hops rather than leaf hops for my last two batches,
and both of them have been seriously overhopped.
It could be that the scale I use at home to weigh the leaves is
calibrated differently than the scale at the home brew shop where I
weighed the pellets. However, Dave Miller hints that extraction rates
for pellets may be higher than for leaves.
Does anyone have a formula (formal or informal) to compensate for this
effect, or experience to suggest that the effect is minimal and
doesn't need to be compensated for?
That is, if you would use 2 ounces of 6% alpha leaves, would you use
1.7 or 1.5 ounces of 6& alpha pellets?
Thanks,
Laura
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 10:34:07 EST
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu>
Subject: ragi and koji
eurquhar at sfu.ca writes:
> Ragi is a symbiotic combination of yeasts and fungi
> (Endomycopsis yeast and Amylomyces fungi are most prominent in Indonesian
> ragi).
Just to clear up what appears to be a common confusion: yeast ARE
FUNGI. I asked a local mycologist about where yeast appear in the
fungus taxonomy (I was taking a class in mushroom identification from
him at the time). He said that modern classification systems place
"yeast" in several classes, depending on their characteristics. For
example many budding yeast, of which Saccharomyces are our favorite
example, are in the Ascomycetes, while fission yeast (which split into
two "identical" cells, rather than budding) are in a different class
(I don't remember which).
I think the reclassification has been based on similarities and
differences in the DNA sequences of the various yeasts & fungi.
Anyway, the upshot is that the above sentence should read "Ragi is a
symbiotic combination of yeasts and other fungi..."
=Spencer W. Thomas | Info Tech and Networking, B1911 CFOB, 0704
"Genome Informatician" | Univ of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu | 313-747-2778, FAX 313-764-4133
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 1992 11:56:12 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Andrews <PANDREWS at HPB.HWC.CA>
Subject: Smithwicks recipe..
Hi,
I'm looking for recipe that will give me a brew as close as possible
to Smithwicks. Anyone out there ever done anything like this?
Paul Andrews:Health and Welfare Canada, Ottawa, Ontario
pandrews at hpb.hwc.ca
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 10:52:56 EST
From: Joe Rolfe <jdr at wang.com>
Subject: Wyeast European Ale Yeast
hi all,
any one used Wyeast European Ale Yeast?? any comments on it??
it has been said (by i assume Wyeast) that this is a slow fermenter.
it also said the is left a brew with a malty flavor (unattenuative).
my story:
brewed a starter of great proportion (6 gallons). let it ferment till the
head fell. brewed a 1.049 batch of 40 Gallons, cooled and pitched the entire
6 gallon stater. it was slow to bubble and never got going (like others
have done). even the starter was slow (head took long time (many days) to
fall). the gravity after a week has only gotten down to 1.030 or so. it
still bubble occasionally. temp of the beer has been in the lower 60's F
thru-out the week.
side note here: i usually do a "fast ferment", and i did on this one also.
the fast ferment is down to 1.010, this after a week - which is good, maybe
a little lower than i would like it but it did ferment out. so i know the
problem is not the yeast/wort. my guess is the yeast like it warm.
to give it the possible warmth it may need i have turned on the heater in the
room where the ferment is taking place. overnite it did not seem to make
much differnece. Rousing does not appear to make much of difference either.
any daya point from the net???
joe
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 11:32:56 EST
From: dipalma at banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: bottling from keg
Hi All,
In HBD#998, Jay Marshall asks:
>A question to those of you who keg...
>If you want to put some of your wonderful kegged brew into a bottle for
>consumption elsewhere, what methods do you use? I am just starting to
>keg and would still like to be able to take some along occasionally.
I bottle from my kegs frequently using a procedure I learned from
Bill Slack.
A day or so in advance, put 40psi on the keg, and get it
cold, about 40F or so. This will get the beer fairly well carbonated.
Sanitize some bottles, and put them in the freezer an hour or so
before bottling. Get a piece of poly tubing long enough to fit all the
way to the bottom of the bottles, and slip it over the end of the
picnic tap. Place a catch basin on the floor in front of the fridge,
this process can get a little messy. Attach the CO2 tank, bleed all
the pressure from the keg. Put just enough gas on to dispense the
beer (5-7 psi or so) in order to avoid excess foaming. Insert the tube
all the way to the bottom of the bottle. Fill slowly with beer, raising
the tube as the bottle fills, keeping the end of the tube just below
the surface of the beer. Adjust flow to minimize foaming. You'll figure
it out by the second bottle. Fill all the way to the top, leave no
headspace. Don't worry if it overflows a little. Cap *immediately*,
the CO2 will come out of solution quickly. I use Fischer swingtops so I
can cap the bottle with one hand, and don't have to screw around with
another piece of equipment, a bottle capper. If you use crown caps,
keep a cap in the capper if it has a magnetic insert. The sooner you
can get the cap on, the better. Voila, a sediment free bottle of
homebrew, ready for a road trip.
Cheers,
Jim
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 11:57:32 EST
From: berthels at rnisd0.DNET.roche.com
Subject: potassium sorbate
According to the Merck index, sorbic acid, and it's potassium salt are both
"mold and yeast inhibitors". Better luck next time! SJB
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 16:46 GMT
From: Phillip Seitz <0004531571 at mcimail.com>
Subject: HBD Field Report: Footnote
In my last report I forgot to mention that the Woodforde's Brewery
refers to their beer Baldric as "A strong evil brew with the
pungent essence of old socks." Anheiser-Busch, look out!
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 12:08:15 -0500
From: djt2 at po.CWRU.Edu (Dennis J. Templeton)
Subject: Does dry hopping slow the terminal fermentation?
In all the posts on dry hopping, I don't recall a diuscussion of the effect
I've seen in my last two batches of PA.
Both batches were all grain, with 90% pale malt and 10% dark crystal, and
SG's of around 1040. For the first I used the yeast described here
recently from Young's brewery, and the second time I used Wyeast 1056. THe
major differences were when I added the dry hops (cascade pellets).
The first time I made a major blunder. I added 1 oz of cascade pellets to
a 7 gal batch too soon, in retrospect. This was on day three of an active
ferment, when I would normally switch from a blowoff tube to an air lock.
Well, with the hops debris and the tendency of the Young's yeast to float
anyway, I got a slow ooze of junk up through the lock of what looked like
baby poop. A major mess. The real problem, though, after all that was
cleaned up, was that the ferment continued at a slow pace for 4 full weeks.
Sheesh, I wanted to bottle but it just kept going and going. I figured
that it was a quirk of the new Young's yeast.
For the second batch, with 1056 I wised up and waited until fermentation was
very slow. Maybe I should have waited another couple of days, but I was
leaving town and wanted to bottle when I got back. The hops this time
stayed in the carboy, but when I got back the ferment was still trickling
along. Now it's three weeks and there is still active CO2 production, and
suspended yeast and sediment.
I've never had ferments take so long to complete; I frequently bottle at
day 10 (without dry hopping). It seems that either 1) The hops have slowed
the pace of the ferment by half or more, so it drags on and on, or 2) The
hops have somehow increased the amount of available fermentables in the
batch, maybe by increasing the fermentability of the higher sugars.
Do you guys have experience with similar phenomena? One thing for sure is
that I will wait next time until the carboy is dead still before adding the
dry hops....
dennis
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 11:08:08 EST
From: mm at workgroup.com (Mike Mahler)
Subject: Water Quality
For those of you with municipal water problems, I'd like
to reccomend a water filter that I've been using for 3 years.
It's made by Amtek and is also available at Sears for about
$170 (however, a local place sells the original Amtek version
for $100 on sale). It's an under kitchensink model and filters
chlorine and chloramine out of the water EXTREMELY well. It
uses two charcoal canisters in series and has a nice water
fountain style faucet you can attach to your sink. The typical
plastic hoses used for brewing fit over the end perfectly
which makes filling the brew pot simple while it's heating
on the stove. You can also use other cartridges for different
level sof sediment, even down to 5 microns.
The replacement cartridges are $8.00 for the carbon, 20 micron,
($5.00 on sale usually and they last about 1000 gallons, less
with our water which has ALOT of chlorine). They have another
cartridge that claims to filter out heavy metals, including lead
and it's $22.40 for one, so I'm not sure you need to use two since
they package them as singles while the others are two
in a package. I use the carbon ones and a whole house filter
downstairs with a 20 micron sediment filter, which helps extend
the life of the carbon filters upstairs at the sink (they die
from clogging usually, not from dead charcoal).
Anyway, considering beer is most affected by the water you use,
it's a wise investment, not to mention that you'll have clean drinking
and cooking water.
Michael
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 09:24:54 PST
From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com>
Subject: re: Decoction and Tannin Extraction
The question of extraction of tannins is complex, and I do not have an
answer. I have got an opinion, however, which I will express in this note.
Although it would seem that the common advice to not boil grains (that
will be used as flavoring adjuncts in an extract brew) conflicts with
the whole notion of decoction mashing (where the thickest part of the
mash--a concentration of the grist with little water--is boiled
vigorously), that is not necessarily so. The two processes are used
for different reasons and in different environments.
Decocting is used to obtain the best extract with less than fully
modified malt. Such malt, which we have often characterized here as
continental malt, not only has a lower diastatic power (fewer enzymes),
but has more of its starch locked up in a tight, hard protein matrix,
which protects the starchy food source from attack by molds until the
seed breaks the matrix down to make use of it. As modification
proceeds, more of the matrix is dissolved. If the malt is not well
enough modified, some amount of starch will be unavailable to attack
and degradation by enzymes. Boiling the malt in a decoct, through heat
and mechanical action, breaks open the remaining matrix.
(BTW, my experience with the imported continental malts available now
is that there is little additional extract to be gained from decoction.)
When using malts as an adjunct to extract brewing, we are interested in
obtaining the aroma and flavor from the grain. It would be nice if any
starches available were converted to sugars, but it is my perception
that this is not usually a focus of the brewer. In this process, a
small quantity of malt is added to a relatively large amount of water;
its enzymes are highly diluted, and the phytic acid formed is much
weaker than in a full mash, making it much less likely that any
alkaline buffering in the mash liquor can be overcome.
Glen Anderson is, in my opinion, definitely on the right trail in
surmising that acidifying sparge water may reduce tannin yield.
It is this same pH concern that occurs at the end of the sparge, when
many brewers will terminate the collection from the lauter tun while
there is still some measurable extract being obtained (often at 1.010
or even higher)--because the pH has risen above, say, 6. As the acid
wort is drawn off during sparging, the water replacing it has a
stronger and stronger effect on the pH in the mash bed. This leads us
to the same situation as occurs in the extract brewing above. In these
situations of higher alkalinity, higher temperatures will increase
tannin extraction. I do not know what the exact relationship is
between temperature, pH, and tannin extraction.
--Darryl Richman
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 10:22:20 -0800
From: devine at postgres.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: beer & new companies
Genentech, a Bay Area biotech company, recently opened up its new
headquarters building. A large bronce statue is placed in a prominent
spot. What is unusual about the statue is that it is of the 2 founders
sitting at a table drinking beer. It is intended to capture the initial
discussion they had over a couple of beers that has lead to the current
successful company.
Beer has a long history of being a catalyst for new ventures. I think
it was Compaq computer that started off in the same way (Rod Canion drew
a picture of a portable computer on a napkin).
I suspect there is a difference from wine, which is typically drunk
after the company has been established.
Bob Devine
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 10:51:37 MST
From: scott at gordian.com (Scott Murphy)
Subject: brewpubs
I will be driving x-country next week. If you know of any brewpubs
etc. in Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, or Minnesota, please Email me.
thanks
scott
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 12:55:43 CST
From: Sean C. Lamb 335-6669 Loral <slamb at milp.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: 1992 Dixie Cup results
Ok, Brew Fans! Here they are! The results of
the 9th annual Dixie Cup Galactic Homebrew
Competition and extravaganza!
There were 589 entries in this year's DC!
First, the only stuff that really matters,
the club points!
The Dixie Cup stays in Houston this year,
with the Foam Rangers taking 83 points!
Club scores were:
83 Foam Rangers
39 No. Texas Homebrewers Alliance
31 Cowtown Cappers
18 Boston Wort Processors
13 Bluff City Brewers
11 Oregon Brew Crew
10 Bradenton Brewskis
9 Crescent City Home Brewers
9 San Joaquin Worthogs
6 Malt Hoppers
5 Black Hole Brewers
5 Unfermentables
3 Bock'n'Ale-ians
3 Carolina Brewmasters
3 Chicago Beer Society
3 Washoe Zephyr Zymurgists
1 Bay Area Mashtronauts
1 Borderline Brewers`
1 Homebrewers of Philadelphia and
Suburbs
1 Sonoma Beerocrats
38 Points awarded to non-affiliated
brewers
Best of Show Results
Meadmaker of the Year
Buck Wycoff - Foam Rangers
Unnamed - Still Mead
BOS - Extract
Jim Fitzgerald - Boston Wort Proc.
Unnamed - Imperial Stout
BOS - All Grain & BOS Overall
David Wright - Bradenton Brewskis
Hyperbrau - Strong Scotch Ale
High Point Brewer
John Manczuk - Cowtown Cappers
2 2nd Places and 2 1st Places
American Lights 12 entries
1st Bernard Greener
2nd Steve Golas/Darden Bourn
3rd Charlie Gottenkieny NTHBA
Pilseners 18 entries
1st Dougls Lindley Crescent City
2nd Eric McClary Washoe Zyphyr Zym.
3rd David Guillebeau Oregon Brew Crew
Hon. Mention - Tim Case Foam Rangers
Munich Helles Lager 15 entries
1st Joe Mellon/Tom Henderson NTHBA
2nd Dave Diehl Foam Rangers
3rd Douglas Lindley Crescent City
Dortmund Export Lagers 9 entries
1st LeRoy Gibbins/Chris Todd Foam Rangers
2nd Bill Murphy Boston Wort Procs.
3rd John Jacy Foam Rangers
Oktoberfest/Maerzen/Vienna 27 entries
1st Mike Fertsch Boston Wort Procs.
2nd Jim Lopez San Joaquin Worthogs
3rd Jim Lopez San Joaquin Worthogs
Steam Beer 8 entries
2nd Scott Icenhower / John Don
(only 2nd place awarded here! Judged
by Tim Herring of Anchor B.C. and
Fred Eckhardt!)
Continental Darks 5 entries
1st Philip Schlect Bradenton Brewskis
2nd John Jacy Foam Rangers
Traditional Dark Bocks 9 entries
1st Greg Greener
2nd Steve Roberts Foam Rangers
3rd Ken Haycock NTHBA
Light (Helles) Bocks 8 entries
1st John Manczuk Cowtown Cappers
2nd LeRoy Gibbins Foam Rangers
3rd Joe Mellon/Tom Henderson NTHBA
Strong Lagers 8 entries
1st Charles Sule/Bryan Hardy Foam Rangers
2nd Joe Mellon/Tom Henderson NTHBA
2nd Bill Murphy Boston Wort Proc.
Altbier/Kolschbiers 18 entries
1st Richard & Susan Nelson Malt Hoppers
2nd John Donaldson
3rd Don Cooper Foam Rangers
Light Ales 12 entries
1st Dan Duke/Robin Geiger Black Hole Brwrs
2nd Tim Thompson/Irv/Mike Foam Rangers
3rd Jim Harper Foam Rangers
Classic Pale Ales 35 entries
1st John Manczuk Cowtown Cappers
2nd Phil Rahn Bluff City Brwrs
3rd John Kipp Borderline Brwrs
India Pale Ales 18 entries
1st David Guillebeau Oregon Brew Crew
2nd Dean Doba Foam Rangers
3rd Albert C. Hymer Bock'n'Ale-ians
American Pale Ales 30 entries
1st Phil Rahn Bluff City Brwrs
2nd Douglas Lindley Crecent City
3rd Albert C. Hymer Bock'n'Ale-ians
Hon. Mention - A. L. Kinchen NTHBA
Hon. Mention - Mark Shelton NTHBA
Brown Ales and Milds 17 entries
1st Phil Rahn Bluff City Brwrs
2nd Chales Sule/Bryan Hardy Foam Rangers
3rd John A Fries Sonoma Beerocrats
California/Texas Brown Ales 22 entries
1st Ed Cutrell Foam Rangers
2nd Vance Neal NTHBA
3rd David Lupin Foam Rangers
Traditional Porters 36 entries
1st Jim Lopez San Joaqin Worthogs
2nd Dennis Urban
3rd David Lupin/Ben Dacres Foam Rangers
East Coast Porters 10 entries
1st Jim Woll NTHBA
2nd Ray Daniels Chicago Beer Soc.
3rd Paul Mellander NTHBA
Sweet Stouts 12 entries
1st Rob Stenson Cowtown Cappers
2nd Norm Malone Foam Rangers
3rd John Gordeuk Bay Area Mashtrnts
Dry Stouts 28 entries
1st Thomas Nelson NTHBA
2nd Roman Davis Carolina Brewmstrs
3rd Charlie Gottenkieny NTHBA
Old Ales 16 entries
1st James Creech NTHBA
2nd Lou Carannante/Ron Kline Foam Rangers
3rd Timothy Walters NTHBA
Barley Wines 19 entries
1st David Guillebeau Oregon Brew Crew
2nd J. P. Rappenecker Foam Rangers
3rd Robert Grossman HOPS
Imperial Stouts 16 entries
1st Jim Fitzgerald Boston Wort Procs.
2nd Dave Hammaker
3rd Harold Doty Foam Rangers
Hon. Mention - Tim/Irv/Mike Foam Rangers
Trappist Ales 16 entries
1st Jeff Humphreys Foam Rangers
2nd John Manczuk Cowtown Cappers
3rd Bob Haupert NTHBA
Strong Scotch Ales 11 entries
1st David Wright Bradenton Brewskis
2nd Lou Carannante/Ron Kline Foam Rangers
3rd Jeff Humphreys Foam Rangers
Light Wheat Beer 27 entries
1st Dave Diehl Foam Rangers
2nd J. P. Rappenecker Foam Rangers
3rd Bob Gorman Boston Wort Procs.
Amber & Dark Wheat Beer 10 entries
1st Ed Kesicki
2nd Lou Carannante/Ron Kline Foam Rangers
3rd Howard Moreland Boston Wort Procs.
Hon. Mention- Stephen Clark Crescent City
Novelty Beer 30 entries
1st Brian Kelly Unfermentables
2nd John Manczuk Cowtown Cappers
3rd J. Andrew Patrick Foam Rangers
Fruit Beer 28 entries
1st Tom Crawford
2nd Richard Coggins
3rd John Melton Malt Hoppers
Specialty Beer 15 entries
1st Ted Smith Cowtown Cappers
2nd Paul Mellander NTHBA
3rd Allen L. Ford Bock'n'Ale-ians
Still Meads 30 entries
1st Buck Wycoff Foam Rangers
2nd LeRoy Gibbins Foam Rangers
3rd Jim Hill Foam Rangers
3rd Steve Sturgen/Ed Parker Foam Rangers
Sparkling Mead 14 entries
1st Carlos Kelley Cowtown Cappers
2nd Mark Koiner NTHBA
3rd Robert Perry Foam Rangers
This year's milli-conference on Sat. morning
include a slide show by Mr. Brad Kraus of the
Santa Fe B.C. showing the gritty realities
of small-scale brewing, a lecture by
Mr. Rodney Morris on oxidizing reactions
in wort, and a slid show by Mr. Fred
Ekhardt of breweries he's known and
loved.
All in all it was a wonderful weekend,
and we hope that all of you out there
in net.land consider attending and/or
entering next year.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. _ . _____________
|\_|/__/| / \
/ / \/ \ \ / Happy! Happy! \
/__|O||O|__ \ \ Joy! Joy! /
|/_ \_/\_/ _\ | \ ___________/
| | (____) | || |/
\/\___/\__/ // _/
(_/ ||
| Real ||\ Sean Lamb (slamb at milp.jsc.nasa.gov)
\ Beer //_/ Loral Space Info Systems
\______// Houston, Texas, USofA, Earth, Sol
__|| __||
(____(____)
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 13:18:38 CST
From: bliss at csrd.uiuc.edu (Brian Bliss)
Subject: pediococcus / BAA
So I'm finally catching up with the 10-5 to 10/13 backlog of hbds
that arrived while I was away...
>So I head down to the basement yesterday after work to start gathering
>bottles and from a distance the beer in the carboy looks like it has
>started to ferment again 'cause there's some sort of head on it. I move
>in for a closer look. My draw drops, my eyes roll back in my head,
>a blood-curdling cry echoes throughout the house. The surface of the
>beer is covered with a thin white scum. It's kind of lacy looking with
>little fuzzy nodules here and there with vein-like things extending
>into the film. It looks like the stuff the people had on them when they
>crawled out of the pods in "Invasion Of The Body Snatchers."
A pediococcus infection has a ropy, lacy appearance.
Note that Pediococcus is used in lambic fermentations,
requiring extended amounts of time to do its stuff.
Too bad you hopped the heck out of the batch, or you
might have a shot at converting it to a pseudo-lambic.
- -----
>Yesterday I heard a third-hand report of some difficulties they're having
>at Beer Across America. (For those of you who are not familiar with BAA,
>it is a mail-order service you can "subscribe" to, in which every so
>often (once a month?) they send you a six-pack of a beer from some
>microbrewery (a different one each time) and a bill for something like
>$12.95 including shipping. While this may seem a bit expensive for a
>six-pack of beer, it's worth it to many subscribers if most of the beers
>are not available in their areas.)
>
>The problem they're having is, you might say, one of being too successful
>for their own good. They've had so many respondents subscribe to the
>service that the amount of beer they have to ship out each round has
>gotten quite huge. So huge that many smaller brewers, the ones they had
>most hoped to give visibility to through the service, are unable to
>produce a full shipment of beer for the BAA. So the BAA sends out mostly
>beers from the relatively larger microbreweries.
>
>Although I am not currently a BAA subscriber, I like the idea and would
>like to see it succeed. Perhaps they could develop a system where they
>don't send the same beer to every subscriber every month.
I suscribe to them, and personally, I wish they would create specialized
mailinglists. I would definitely rather be on a dark ale mailinglist -
I'm sick of receiving pilsners!
I was really happy in May when they sent out Dock Street Amber (IMHO,
the best brew they've carried), and another red ale to boot. This month's
selection was 2 pilsners, which has kind of got me p.o'ed. They
have yet to send out a porter or a stout, and seem to be going with
"mainstream" beers, afraid to deviate from the norm and piss anybody off.
Case in point: last month they sent out Ed's Cave Creek pilsner. Now
they advertized Ed's Cave Creek Chili beer, but you had to special
order it, probably thinking it was too exotic to be the selection of
the month. I subscribe to BAA so I can expand my beer horizons, and
wish they'd open up a little, sending out some off-the-wall stuff, even
if there's a person or two who may not like a particular selection.
I should also get off my butt and on the phone and talk to a person
in charge, instead of bitching about it on the hbd...
bb
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 14:09 CST
From: iepubj!korz at ihlpa.att.com
Subject: Lauter tuns
I thought that I had covered this before, but since there still seems to
be some confusion as to the theory behind the statements, I have, through
the magic of ascii graphics, illustrated the theoretical basis for my
contention that runoff from a single point is less efficient (in terms of
extract) than runoff from multiple points. I have also taken this opportunity
to illustrate a third system, used by some, which I also feel is inferior to
the lautering system described as SYSTEM #2. All these diagrams are gross
exaggerations of the paths of the sparge water and, at the least, the "first
runnings" will make their way to the outlet, wherever it may be. Note that
the law of physics upon which all three of these theories are based, is:
"The sparge water will tend to take the path of least resistance."
[Actually, it is a phenomenon called "channelling"].
SYSTEM #1
Lautering system which draws runoff from a single point:
| |
| |
| |
|------------top of grain bed---------|
|.\ /|
|..\ /.|
|...\ \ | / /..|
|....\ \ | / /...|
|.....\ \ | / /....|
|......\ v | v /.....|
|.......\ | /......|
|........\ | /.......|
|.........\ v /........|
|..........\ /.........|
|...........\ /..........|
|............\ /...........| ....
|.............\ /............| .... <-- these areas
|..............\ /.............| .... represent
|...............\ /..............| "stagnant"
|................\ /...............| sparge
|.................\ _________________|__V water
|..................\ | \
|.................. |___________________ |
|_____________________________________| | |
Once "the sparge water (indicated by arrows) finds the path to the outlet,"
it will continue to take the shortest path to the outlet, leaving much of
the grain barely touched by the sparge water. In addition to the direct
path, some channelling would occur along the walls and bottom of the
container.
*****************************************************************************
SYSTEM #2
Lautering system in which the runoff is drawn from multiple points from
the bottom, such as the "Zapap Lauter Tun" described by Charile Papazian,
the "spargebag*-in-a-bucket system" described by Dave Miller, or the
"slotted-copper-tube-manifold-in-a-picnic-cooler" (sorry, don't know who
introduced this system):
| |
| |
| |
|------------top of grain bed-------| * Note that I specifially
| | say "spargebag" as opposed
| | to grainbag. To me the
| | | | | | | difference is that the
| | | | | | | former has non-porous sides
| | | | | | | whereas the latter has
| | | | | | | porous sides. See system
| | | | | | | #3, below.
| | | | | | |
| v v v v v |
| |
| |
| | ....
|\ /\ /\ /\ /\ /| .... <-- these areas
|.\ /..\ /..\ /..\ /..\ /.| .... represent
|..\ /....\ /....\ /....\ /....\ /..| "stagnant"
|--- ------ ------ ------ ------ ---| sparge
| ^ __|__V water
| | \
| perforated or mesh bottom _____ |
|___________________________________| | |
Since the path of resistance to any of the holes at the bottom is equivalent,
the runoff should exit through each of them in approximately equal amounts,
thereby roughly equally distributing the sparge water throughout the entire
grain bed. Actually, if you've got several hundred holes, the stagnant
areas would be so small, that they would be inconsequential to the efficiency.
As in system #1, channelling would also occur along the walls of the container.
*****************************************************************************
SYSTEM #3
Lautering system in which the runoff is taken from multiple points on
the *sides* and bottom, like the "grainbag-in-a-bucket" system:
grainbag (100% mesh bag)
/
| | <---' | |
| : : |
| | | |
| :----------top of grain bed--------: |
| | / / / / /\ \ \ \ \ | |
| : <-' / / / / \ \ \ \ `-> : |
| | / / / / \ \ \ \ | |
| : <--' / / / \ \ \ `--> : |
| | / / / \ \ \ | |
| : <---' / / / \ \ \ `---> : |
| | / / / \ \ \ | |
| : <----' / / . \ \ `----> : |
| | / / \ \ | |
| : <-----' / . . \ `-----> : |
| | / \ | |
| : <-------' / . \ `--------> : | ....
| | . . . / . \ . . . | | .... <-- these areas
| : . . v ... v . . : | .... represent
| | . . . ....... . . . | | areas which
| :_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ : | are touched
| ______|__V by less
| \ sparge water
| _________ |
|______________________________________| | |
In this case, the path of least resistance is the "holes" in the mesh bag
in the sides, near the top of the bag. In ascii graphics, this was very
hard to illustrate, but my intention was to show that more sparge water
would tend to exit the bag near the top, less would exit partway down the
side of the bag, less and less as we look at points further down the side
of the mesh bag.
In summary, it is my contention that system #2 is the most efficient of
these three systems and virtually all lautering systems can be approximated
by one of these three systems.
Al.
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 14:31:24 CST
From: michael at wupsych.wustl.edu (Michael Biondo)
Subject: Roller Mill from Junk
A good while back there appeared in the digest a series of posts
re. the possible use of conveyor belt rollers in fabricating a
roller mill. While I don't exactly recall what all was said, I
seem to remember the thread ending with someone actually pricing
new rollors and finding the cost way to prohibitive.
Well, the idea always stuck in my head. So one afternoon I
decided to call around to a few scrap/salvage/junk yards to see
what I could find. Sure enough, they all had scrapped/junked
conveyor belts.
So with a little scrounging, I've found my roller mill, basically
complete and ready to go. As it turns out, it's not conveyor belt
rollers that you are after - the piece you are really after is
called a 'tail-end'. It's the unit at the end of the conveyor
which the belt wraps around, and optionally, which provides the
driving force for the belt.
The unit I found consisted of two rollers, 18" long by 6" dia. that
are ball-bearing mounted onto two side plates. Each side plate has
adjustment bolts to position one of the rollers in relation to the
other. The other roller is the driving roller and had a 6" chain
sprocket mounted on the end of the shaft. A simple crank arm can
easily be bolted right to the sprocket for hand operation or the
sprocket removed and replaced by pulley for a motorized operation.
As I said, basically complete & ready to go and, all for only
25 bucks. Of course it was pretty badly rusted but a trip to a
friendly sandblaster made short work of that.
After getting it cleaned up, I mounted the side plates to a
wooden base, adjusted the roller gap to .050", fabricated a hopper
to hold the grain and mounted a crank arm to the chain sprocket - a
functional roller mill. With hand operation, the unit will crush
a pound of grain in less than a minute. The crush is of roller mill
quality ie. well crushed kernal with husks intact.
That's about it from the mill front ...
Mike Biondo
michael at wupsych.wustl.edu
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 15:57 EST
From: hjl at gummo.att.com
Subject: Weeping Radish brewpub
Visited "The Weeping Radish", a brewpub on Roanoke Island in Albermarle
sound near Nag's Head in North Carolina. It's part of a German restaurant
whose proprietor is originally from Bavaria, near Munich. They brew three
beers, a helles and an amber, which are "always" on hand, and an Oktober-
fest which isn't. There is a brewery tour available which turns out to be
just standing around looking through a large window while the tour guide
talks. It's interesting enough though, and I wouldn't let a bunch (25)
of tourists get any closer to my wort either.
We heard about some of the difficulties they encountered in getting started:
At the urging of his brother, the owner imported a "brewery" from Germany,
which turned out to be a container full of pipes, tanks and pumps with no
hint at all regarding assembly or operation. (The brothers no longer speak to
each other.) There were also no provisions at the time to allow brewpubs in
North Carolina, a situation which the owner was instrumental (through his
state Assemblyman) in getting corrected. The Feds insisted on a seperate
bonded warehouse to store finished (i.e. taxed) goods. He solved this problem
using a technique employed by the local tobacco industry; a line painted
on the floor dividing the bonded section from the unbonded. Another rule
required that the beer be dispensed from a "portable" container. He had
planned to serve the brew directly from the lagering tun (about 300 gallons)
via pipes to the bars. That one was avoided by attaching wheels to the tuns
(they never move).
They get their malt from Briess already cracked. Some was passed around.
I was impressed by the uniformity. Every grain was perfectly cracked (none
were crushed) and there was no flour at all. For the helles they use a mix
of 2-row and 6-row pale barley (unspecified ratio) mashed at 160F for one hour
and sparged at 170F for about one hour. The sparging effluent was visible
and was absolutely clear. Hops are Hallertauer and Saaz with a one hour
boil using superheated steam piped through a coil in the brewpot, which
is stainless steel. The guide didn't know the detailed hop schedule nor
the gravities but said the beer is "about 5%" alcohol. A very substantial
counterflow heat exchanger chills the wort to about 50F in fifteen minutes.
Fermentation is with "Bavarian" yeast for one week at 50F in open vats.
Fresh yeast is shipped regularly from Germany and is not reused. We were
told of batches which were discarded because of the yeast being delayed
in customs. They lager at 45F for six weeks "except sometimes in the
summer when we run short".
Amber beer is achieved by the addition of what appeared to be chocolate malt.
Four people seemed to comprise the brewing staff. While we were there, three
of them were standing around (on break?) and one was filling bottles. Once
a year a brewmaster from Bavaria spends six weeks correcting any bad habits
picked up since his last visit.
The product is sold only at the pub either in glasses, one liter Grolsch-
type bottles or one gallon mini-barrels (tin cans). Prices are $1.75 for
8 oz, $3.00 a half liter, $5.00 a liter, $6.00 for the Grolsch-type bottle
($4.00 for a refill) and $11.00 for a mini-barrel.
Total production is 26,000 gallons per year.
The helles is good but a bit variable. I tasted two batches. Both were
true to type but one tasted cleaner than the other. I liked the amber
better. All the beers were better than the food.
The name derives from a snack food customarially served in the owner's
home district to accompany beer. A large, mild radish is sliced into
a spiral; salt is sprinkled into the cut and the radish is reassembled.
The salt draws moisture out of the flesh. The resultant solution dribbles
down the sides of the radish, giving the appearance of tears.
Hank Luer
.//'
Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 22:03:55 +0100
From: Victor Reijs <Victor.Reijs at SURFnet.nl>
Subject: efficiency/crystal caramel malt/EBC
Hello all of you,
Two subjects:
- crystal malt and caramel malt
There is a big difference between these two!
crystal malt: the grain is soaked in water and kept at 65
Centrigrade (for one hour), so that the strach in the
grain is converted to sugar. After that the grain is
heated to 110 - 120 centigrade. The water evaporates and
the sugar gets a crystal like structure. (depending on
the length of the heating the crystal malts gets darker)
caramel malt: after the sprouting of the grains, they are
heated to 160 centigrade. The grain gets the color of
chocalate or caramel.
- efficiency
I define efficiency as being:
eff1= 'total amount of extracted sugar' * 100 /
'total amount of fermentable sugar in malt'
Sometimes people define efficiency (in my opinion wron-
gly) as being:
eff2= 'total amount of fermentable sugar in malt' *
100/'total weight of malt'
I would say: eff1 is the efficiency, which is dependant
on the method of brewing/experience of brewer. Eff2 is
more a natural parameter, by nature some malts have more
fermentable sugar then others. It is dependant on the
natural process of growing and dependent on producing the
malts.
Now I have a question related to the color of the malt. I
understand that there is defined in US the SRM or Lovibond (by
definition both are different). In Europe we have EBC (its
definition is: the number of ml of jodide in 100 ml water
which give the same color as the beer). My question to you is:
What is the definition of SRM and Lovibond?
All the best,
Victor
Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #999, 10/27/92