Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0546
HOMEBREW Digest #546 Wed 28 November 1990
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
German purity Law, homebrewing newsgroup (adietz)
Re: * The Newsgroup Question/The Official Answer * (SILL D E)
Yeast Culturing (Pete Soper)
Heavy beers -- all-grain problem? (Chris Shenton)
newsgroups (Jay Hersh)
Yeast Culturing (Martin A. Lodahl)
Aeration vs. Oxidation (Martin A. Lodahl)
Chilling and Trub (Martin A. Lodahl)
Re: Homebrew Digest #544 (November 26, 1990) (Perry A. Trunick)
brew on airplanes (durbin)
Soda kegs - how do I sanitize them (Mark.Nevar)
re: dilutions (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Re: Homebrew Digest #545 (November 27, 1990 ("st. stephen")
Maple Beer (Alec Jessiman)
I.P.A. Recipe Wanted (John Cotterill)
Weiss Beer (Paul Ford 312/702-0335)
Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr@hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr@hplabs.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues]
Archives are available from netlib@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 26 Nov 1990 14:00 EST
>From: hplabs!ames!rutgers!bellcore.bellcore.com!hera!afd (adietz)
Subject: German purity Law, homebrewing newsgroup
First things first. Where can I find a copy of the German purity law?
Yeah, yeah, I read about it in TCJOH, etc., etc - but I've never actually
read the declaration itself. I'd like to. While drinking my kreausened beer.
Second - my opinion on this rush to become a usenet newsgroup: Don't.
Occasional mentions of the Homebrew Digest on rec.food.drink are enough to
direct people this way if they're interested. Opening up to general postings
lowers the signal-to-noise ratio (endless conversations on the merits of
Bud over Coors over Miller over Busch. Anyone who's ever drunk a beer posting
and posting and posting. Think about it) and invites never-ending flame wars.
Sorry, but most people just *don't* relax, don't worry, have a homebrew.
I also like getting this
happy bit of mail each morning. It's how I start my day, or afternoon if
our server is slow. Our newsgroup server, on the other hand, is never less
than 3 days backed up. Sound familiar? Think about subject postings getting
stretched out over weeks because network delays vary delivery time.
Fantastic. Boy, I really want to read Coriolis effect flames from every
physics-freshman-who-just-had-a-Sam-Adams-yesterday for a month each Fall.
I personally promote this digest by trumpeting the quality of the postings.
It's the reason I subscribe, the reason the people I work with subscribe,
and I'd guess the reason most everyone subscribes. So don't screw it up.
Reasonably relaxed,
-A Dietz
Bellcore, Morristown
bellcore!hera!afd
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 08:17:58 EST
>From: SILL D E <de5@stc06.CTD.ORNL.GOV>
Subject: Re: * The Newsgroup Question/The Official Answer *
From: Rob Gardner
As I've told many people in the past, I have no intention of turning
the Homebrew Digest into a newsgroup.
I don't really care that much one way or the other, and I respect your
decision and your right to do it your way, but I'd like to point out
some problems with your rationale.
1. Reduced audience - everyone can get email, but not everyone can
get news. Gateway the list to news, you ask? I certainly don't
have time to do it, and I think it will have an adverse affect-
see #3 below.
Someone else could set up and maintain the gateway. The only impact
it would have on you is that you'd have a smaller mailing list to
maintain. As for the possible adverse effects mentioned in #3: that's
another issue, let's not count it twice.
2. Drastic decrease in 'conversational' style of the digest- email
reaches most everyone in well under a day, but news takes several
days to reach some sites. Not everyone will be able to keep up with
the latest discussions with such a time lag. And does anyone else
notice that answers sometimes appear on news before the questions?
That could be just me, but...
News statistics regularly show that the vast majority of articles are
delivered in a day. By the second day, 90-95% have reached their
destination. Considering the number of uucp-connected sites that only
pass news and mail once daily, that's not too bad.
3. Drastic decrease in "signal to noise" ratio. People are constantly
rejoicing over the wonderful SNR we enjoy here, and whining about
how bad it is in most newsgroups. I can only predict the same fate
for the digest were it to become a newsgroup, or if it were even
gatewayed.
Signal-to-noise ratio in a newsgroup is highly dependent upon the
format and topic of the group. The RISKS digest (comp.risks), which
is gatewayed to a mailing list too, has the highest S/N ratio of *any*
newsgroup I've ever read. Peter Neumann, it's moderator, would
probably we willing to discuss the S/N ratio and moderator workload
issues with you, if you're interested.
What would be the advantage of converting?
As you mention later, reduced mail load for your system is one benefit
you'd receive. Another is fewer add/remove requests. Probably the
biggest benefit would be to homebrew subscribers who prefer the news
interface to mailing lists or who simply don't like receiving mailing
lists in their personal mailbox.
Wider exposure? It seems
that anybody who finds rec.food.drink (or rec.food.homebrew?) and is
interested in homebrewing simply winds up subscribing to the digest
anyway. Well over 900 (yes, nine-hundred!) people seem to have
confirmed this theory. Also, the Digest is listed in the Network
list-of-lists, which is kind of an electronic yellow pages.
There's no doubt that many have found the digest through one avenue or
another, but there's also no doubt that even more would participate if
it was available as a newsgroup.
The only advantage I can see at all to converting would be to reduce
mail traffic at my site.
That ignores the advantages readers/participants would get.
While we're on the
subject of conserving network bandwidth, remember that a digest is
only sent to those on the mailing list, while a newsgroup goes
literally everywhere, including may sites where it may not be read.
Numerous calculations have been performed that show a mailing list
with over a hundred or so recipients consumes more bandwidth than a
newsgroup. That's one of the reasons news exists. Each article is
sent to each site only once, whereas the same mail message may pass
through a site many times on its way to various destinations.
I hope nobody considers it presumptuous of me to declare this case
CLOSED.
Perhaps it is a little premature.
My biggest objection to the anti-newsgroup side is the elitist
attitude. Sure, our S/N is higher than it would be if everyone knew
we existed and could participate without having to subscribe. But is
maximal S/N ratio our ultimate goal? Isn't the sharing of homebrewing
information among interested parties our raison d'etre? I mean, if we
want to be elite and selective, shouldn't we have minimal proficiency
requirements? Wouldn't our S/N ratio increase if we only let
homebrewer's with demonstrated proficiency post? Sure it would, but
it would also make HBD a significantly less useful source of
information for the average homebrewer.
-Dave
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 21:33:51 EST
>From: Pete Soper <soper@maxzilla.encore.com>
Subject: Yeast Culturing
Others have described their adventures with culturing Sierra Nevada yeast from
a bottle of SN beer. Here are my two cents.
I've "plated out" SN Pale Ale on petri dishes of wort-agar twice. The first
time I put about 20 microliters (two dabs from an inoculating loop) onto the
agar. The beer was from the top of the bottle but I'd shaken it and let it sit
upside down for two hours to distribute the yeast. I got only two colonies and
they became visible after more than a week.
Recently I used the technique usually described. That is I poured off most
of the beer, swirled the yeast sediment and then poured the "dregs". But for
the wort-agar dish I only used perhaps 1/2 milliliter. (The mouth of the bottle
was sterilized with an alcohol flame). It still took over a week but this time
I got around ten colonies per square centimeter all across the dish with
nothing visible except yeast (i.e. no molds or bacteria). But extrapolating to
a guestimate I'd say there were on the order of 10000 yeast cells in the dregs
of that bottle and to me that is a very, very small number. In the first case
the SN beer was about 4 months old while the second bottle was two months old.
At this point if I were going to make a starter from bottles of SN I'd take
the advice posted some time ago and combine the dregs from multiple bottles. I
also think that given the very small amount of yeast involved it would be
critical to sterilize the bottle lips and very carefully prepare the starter
bottle and wort. I feel lucky to have brought back a bunch of glass fermentation
locks from England (expensive unobtanium over here) so I can run all the parts
and the starter wort through a pressure cooker and make truly sterile starters.
After ten days the colonies on the second dish are around a millimeter and a
half in diameter each. In a few more days I'll pitch one into about 20ml of
wort and a day later use this to inoculate slants. With this and finishup of
a dish of Wyeast 2308 colonies I'll have eight strains on slants and I intend
to go with these as exclusively as possible during the next several months.
Taking a week for the SN colonies to become visible to the naked eye
represents about a fourth to a third the growth rate with fresh Wyeast
cultures. The only slower growth I've seen was from a sample of a Belgian beer
called "Bios" in which I had given up on the dish after a few weeks and then
noticed a few colonies around a month after streaking. It is anybody's guess how
old the Bios was since there is no date code available. Judging by the crummy
track record around here I would say it was a year old, at least.
Has anybody else read Teresa Fahrendorf's article "Building an Incubator and
Home Lab Culturing" in the latest AHA conference proceedings? In particular I'm
interested if any of you have used HLP (Hsu's Lactobacillus-Pedicoccus Medium)
to see what is growing in your homebrew setup. Combined with Fix's article in
the same proceedings it seems like we are fast entering the stage where it is
possible to really determine just where we stand as far as microbiological
purity. I haven't called Siebel and Son's yet to see what is needed to obtain
this. I hope they are not like Fisher, requiring a company account and frigging
financial statements to give you the time of day.
It's funny but the more I play with yeast the more I find myself spiraling in
on use of just a couple strains. If stranded on a cold desert island (with
plenty of malt and water) I think I could last out a few years with Wyeast
1028 and 2308. Or maybe just 1028; but those malty clean lagers are so nice.
Best to leave it at two!
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Soper (soper@encore.com) +1 919 481 3730
Encore Computer Corp, 901 Kildaire Farm Rd, bldg D, Cary, NC 27511 USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:43:41 EST
>From: Chris Shenton <chris@asylum.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Heavy beers -- all-grain problem?
I'm interested in doing a all-grain Dopplebock. I've done a couple
all-grain batches and would prefer to stay with grain if I can. Miller,
however, indicates that doing a real heavy all-grain beer can be a problem.
In his recipe for Dopplebock, he uses extract, and boils down a
larger-than-needed volume to concentrate the wort. Have any of you had
success with this or other techniques? I imagine Imperial Stouts would have
the same problem... Recipes appreciated, of course :-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 10:26:02 EST
>From: hersh@coco.ctc.tasc.com (Jay Hersh)
Subject: newsgroups
Why not just periodically post the digest request address on rec.food.drink.
Many homebrewers read rec.food.drink and from my understanding many of them
find their way to the digest from their because the digest is a more interesting
and intelligent format for discussion than many newsgroups tend to be, though
rec.food.drink is pretty flame free.
I know that we recently posted adress info on the compuserve BBS and I believe
that a few of the compuservers are now listening in here, though I think they
have to deal with truncated digests as it appears compuserve has some arbitrary
limit on incoming mail messages in ascii format.
Anyway I think periodic posting on rec.food.drink will give those interested a
pointer to the right place with only minimal hassle to the operator, besides
if you can get newsgrops you can get the digest but not the other way around.
JH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 90 9:56:50 PST
>From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah@PacBell.COM>
Subject: Yeast Culturing
In HOMEBREW Digest #539, Justin A. Aborn has apparently been reading
Rog Leistad's book ...
>The claim is that with absolute sterility you can produce large
>amounts of perfectly uncontaminated yeast cultures ...
>Has anybody heard anything like this? Last I knew, yeast put out
>their own pesticides that killed non-yeast invaders. If they do
>this, why do I have to be *so* careful as long as I start with a
>reasonable yeast population?
Because only SOME strains of yeast, the so-called "killer strains",
are able to overcome a rival colony that's already established. For
the others, the potential of alien invasion is always there, and is
never more serious than when pitching yeast populations are small.
That's why sanitation is such an issue, and why closed fermentors
are so desirable, especially in the summer, when airborne
populations of wild yeast and bacteria are at their highest. To
introduce a contaminant microorganism to the inoculum would be
potentially disastrous to your beer, so Leistad recommends pressure
canning virtually everything, to assure even contaminant spores are
dead. While you might get away with less, I know of no other
way to be absolutely sure of the purity of your yeast culture.
Personally, I wouldn't depend on the yeast's ability to fight off
invaders.
= Martin A. Lodahl Pac*Bell Minicomputer Operations Support Staff =
= malodah@pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) =
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 90 10:18:03 PST
>From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah@PacBell.COM>
Subject: Aeration vs. Oxidation
In HOMEBREW Digest #540, Kinny Baughman sez:
>In HBD #539, Marin Lodahl says:
>>Pouring hot wort, even gently, is an invitation to oxidation.
>Paradoxically, aeration of the wort *prior* to pitching the yeast is
>recommended in that the yeast needs some oxygen in order to
>metabolize properly. During a tour of Sierra Nevada that I took this
>summer on the way to the AHA conference, Ken Grossman pointed out that
>they aerate the wort at the halfway point through their chilling
>process.
I want to be perfectly clear about this: aeration and oxidation are
not the same thing. As Kinny says, aeration before pitching is
vital for proper yeast growth. But that aeration must take place
when the wort is cool or cold. Why? The principle cause of the
"cardboardy" flavors and other effects associated with oxidation in
beer is the oxidation of alcohols into aldehydes, which have very low
sensory thresholds. The melanoidins produced during malting and the
boil moderate this reaction. These melanoidins, if in the reduced
form, strongly retard the process, serving as a sort of natural
preservative; if in the oxidized form, they have the opposite
effect. Oxidizing the melanoidins requires energy, usually
available in the form of heat, so the more available heat, the
faster the reaction can proceed. If you pour hot wort through a
sieve to another container, you're providing very efficient aeration
in the presence of lots of heat, and have just oxidized your
melanoidins, which will lead, later on, to aldehyde production.
For a detailed discussion of this process: Fix, George:
"Principles of Brewing Science", Brewers Press, 1989; start at page
130.
= Martin A. Lodahl Pac*Bell Minicomputer Operations Support Staff =
= malodah@pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) =
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 90 11:10:42 PST
>From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah@PacBell.COM>
Subject: Chilling and Trub
In HOMEBREW Digest #541 there were a couple of postings related to
an area that's had perhaps too much of my attention. In the first
of these, Russell Greenlee is ...
> attempting to quickly cool my hot wort to the low 30s (F) as
>recommended by Miller and Noonan. I have a counter flow chiller ...
> ... that chills boiling wort to tap water
>temperature (50 - 60F). I have tried running the cooled wort through
>another 18 feet of 1/4 ID copper tubing immersed in an ice bath with
>limited success (i.e. a 5 degree temp. drop at reasonable flow rates).
>My next experiment is to try using rock salt on the ice to lower its
>melting point and thereby increasing the temperature difference
>between the wort and the cooling bath. Has anyone out there come up
>with a technique for quickly chilling wort to around freezing?
Not with the kind of speed counterflow chillers usually provide. My
immersion chiller takes over an hour to get my wort from boiling to
near-freezing, but only the first 20 to 40 minutes (depending on
water temperature) of that are needed to get down to normal pitching
temperatures. Those last few degrees are dearly bought. I hesitate
to suggest it, but you might need a second pass through the chiller,
with icewater circulated through the jacket, to get the temperature
down that low. I usually switch from tap water to icewater at about
80F.
In the same issue, Don McDaniel repeated a frightening experience I
once had, and for the same reason:
> ... yesterday I cooled my wort (with an immersion chiller),
>racked it into the carboy allowing maximum aeration, and pitched
>a thoroughly activated yeast. This morning I went down to the cellar
>to rack the wort off of the trub and into my primary. So far, so
>good. There was a bit of krausen in the neck of the carboy and the
>fermentation lock was bubbling merrily. I performed the transfer and
>went off to work ...
And fermentation apparently stopped, before really starting.
> ... How can I rack
>the wort off the trub without leaving the (ale) yeast behind. If
>I can't have it both ways, which is more important, the trub
>or a fast yeast takeoff?
I did the same thing, with the same results. The yeast did
eventually recover, but never seemed to have anything like the vigor
of that first 10 hours or so. So I re-read Miller, and noticed:
>Miller says he chills to just above freezing, allows it to warm to
>fermentation temp overnight, then racks and pitches. Sounds good to
>me but I have no way to chill to 35 F, and I don't like the idea of
>leaving wort sitting around at 60-70 F without yeast.
I don't like it either, but it seems to work. So well, in fact,
that I use this method most of the time, the exceptions being when I
run into a problem with my recirculation setup (rare, now), or in
the summer, when the volume of wild airborne contaminants makes it
seem too risky, even for me. My primitive temperature controls make
summer beers less than ideal products, so the degree of improvement
obtained is not so significant.
Others have probably reached other conclusions, but I prefer to let
a fermentation go undisturbed to completion, even if I haven't
removed the trub. If I remove it before pitching, using the Miller
method, then I just let the yeast accumulate on the carboy floor,
and go single-stage, unless I'm trying to maximize diacetyl
production. If I don't remove the trub before pitching, I'll
usually let it proceed for at least a week before racking.
Developing a way to chill to 35F or so is a nuisance, but not as
difficult as it may first seem. A frequent contributor to
this forum, Pete Soper, has done considerable experimentation along
this line, and has published his results in earlier issues. I've
fashioned a simple icewater recirculation system, and it works just
great. After trying several different pumps (failures included one
that attached to my astonishingly noisy electric drill, and the pump
from a 5,000 CFM evaporative cooler), I've settled on a little Teele
pump with hose fittings on the inlet & outlet. After initial
experimentation with a system of valves & hoses Rube Goldberg would
have loved, I now just reconnect the chiller to the pump. I use
the sink as an ice bath. My total investment in all this is still
under US$30, though I admit to having been very lucky concerning that
Teele pump. Try recirculation!
At this point I'll lapse into an odd silence for a few weeks, while
tasting in Belgium and northern France (bieres de garde!). If I run
across anything the Digest readers would find
interesting/astonishing, I'll report! Au revoir ...
= Martin A. Lodahl Pac*Bell Minicomputer Operations Support Staff =
= malodah@pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) =
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 90 20:14:33 -0500
>From: ag297@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Perry A. Trunick)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #544 (November 26, 1990)
RE: Travelling with homebrew. . .I haven't done it yet, but I
would be cautious if you take it through the X-ray. If they see
bottles of liquid, they SHOULD ask you to open your case. If
it looks suspicious, I would hope they would ask you to remove
it (no offense about your beer, just that I prefer to err on
the side of caution when I'm on the plane).
You might try bottling in some standard bottles and explain
that you are taking the beer to a friend (very true). The problem
is the crowns. I found Rolling Rock returnable bottles a good
choice for buy-from-the-party-store bottles. They have painted-on
labels and don't require a lot of soakng to remove paper labels.
That is if they still do that kind of bottle. With a plain crown,
they should pass muster -- unless a security guard recognizes
that Rolling Rock doesn't brew an opaque beer (like stout).
Maybe there are folks who have encountered resistance to carrying
on homebrew. If you don't want it shaken around, try putting it
in a catalogue case with other carry on items and keeping it with
you. Check it and you can expect beer-soaked clothes for the rest
of your trip. The Samsonite commercials aren't far from wrong
when they show apes handling baggage (apologies to home-brewing
baggage handlers out there, you wouldn't do that).
- --
The most important thing you have to know
in life is yourself.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 13:55:46 EST
>From: durbin%cuavax.dnet@netcon.cua.edu
Subject: brew on airplanes
I have been carrying beer on international flights from germany to the states
atleast 6 times. I have always carried, usually 20 1/2 liters, the beer in
carry on, with no problems. My roomate used to just check in as baggage
a plastic case until he had taken away by the folks loading the plane in
Germany. They told him that a bottle broke and that they couldn't let the beer
drip all over everyone else's luggage. The person who talked to him wasn't
security but a person who loaded planes. After that incedent he packs them in
a box & puts dirty laundry around them. As far as the law us concerned beer is
not regulated, at least federaly, only spirits. I always carry the customs
pamplet with me. I'm going this X-mas and plan to bring a case back of beer,
will let you all know if there are any troubles.
Just brewed my 2nd batch of homebrew can't wait to taste it!
Prosit!
Phil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 12:38:35 mst
>From: Mark.Nevar@hp-lsd.cos.hp.com
Subject: Soda kegs - how do I sanitize them
I finally got some soda kegs to use. I need to know how to sanitize
them. Cleaning isn't too hard, but I'd like to hear your procedures
on kegging. This is how I see it:
Clean keg.
Sanitize - bleach ? what about the valves ? Leave them on, boil, what ?
Add priming syrup.
Inject a little CO2 to act as a buffer (CO2 should sink to botom).
Rack beer to keg.
Install lid.
Inject CO2 to seal o-ring.
Seems easy enough, but how do you clean/sanitize the keg itself ?
Here's a report on Brewpubs I hit while vacationing in LA:
State Street Brewing Company / Brewhouse Grill, Santa Barbara
Small Brewpub, extract based, whitbread yeast. Brewery housed
next to bar in glass enclosed room. Decent pub food.
Three brews:
German Lager - similar to DAB, although a little maltier.
State Street Ale (a British Ale) - no head (as expected), but flat and cloudy
Porter - Best of the group.
They all had cute names, but I forget them. Reasonable prices, the 22oz glass
was 3.00. Bottled microbrews available, but not moving.
Belmont Brewing Company, Long Beach
Larger, with indoor and outdoor dining. On the beach. All-grain.
Extensive food menu.
Their "own" yeast strain. Brewery operations in open view behind bar.
Three brews:
Marathon Ale - a light bodied ale, ok, more fot the Bumiller crowd.
Full Sail Ale - a amber ale, much better
Long Beach Crude - a porter, advertised as not bitter (no available that day)
10oz glass - 2.00
16oz glass - 2.50
They also make their own birch beer at .95 a glass. It was very good.
Eureka Resturant and Brewery, Santa Monica
They wouldn't serve us. I was wearing shorts and a relax... t-shirt.
They said t-shirts were not allowed. This is Wolfgang Puck's new place.
Valet parking. Many businessmen. Many suits. Way too many tuxes.
We didn't know it was Puck's place until later that evening when we saw
our relatives. The place had a 2-week waiting list for dinner. I berated
the matre'd for a good 5 minutes before we gave up. I did manage to try the
beer in another resturant the next day. American Pilsner style. I was
glad they didn't let us in. Avoid this place like the plague.
Mark Nevar
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 12:39:17 mst
>From: hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!ihlpl!korz (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: re: dilutions
I would like to point out that when diluting beer (anywhere except
in the primary) if you have oxygen in the water, you risk oxidation.
Remember the four phases of the yeast life cycle (see TCJoH by
Papazian): fermentation is anaerobic -- oxygen is supposed to be all
used up during resparation. I have heard that a little oxygen introduced
after the completion of the resparation phase can still be used up,
but a lot of oxygen will cause oxidation (I'm quite confident).
You can remove oxygen (along with chlorine if you have chlorinated
tapwater) and, naturally, kill-off nasties simply by boiling (and
then chilling) the water. As usual avoid aerating the water when
adding it into the beer.
Al.
Just say no to newsgroups ;^).
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 15:08:59 EST
>From: "st. stephen" <ST402836@brownvm.brown.edu>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #545 (November 27, 1990
Hi,
I've been gathering bottles to fill with all the wonderful homebrew
we've got bubbling away, and i was wondering if there's anything wrong
with using wine bottles. I didn't see them mentioned in the recent
discussion of bottles/soda bottles etc. I don't think that you can cap
them with the normal bottle capper thing, but i thought that you could
use those reusable Champaign-cap-things. Is there a problem with the bottles
not able to handle the pressure?
If anyone's tried this, or has some suggestions please send me info.
Thanks,
steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 17:57:45 EST
>From: jessiman@kepler.harvard.edu (Alec Jessiman)
Subject: Maple Beer
Driving through some of the backroads of New Hampshire recently, I was
struck by an idea that I just can't leave alone - maple beer. I am guessing
that these flavors would go together well. I started a batch with 3.3 lbs
light malt extract, 2 lbs. light dry malt, 1 1/2 oz. cascade hops, and 1 cup
pure maple syrup (tapped from a tree in Brookline, N.H.). I simply boiled
the syrup in with the malt, and I am hoping for the best. Has anyone tried
something like this before? With what success/failure? I decided a maple
flavor might best accentuate a light ale, but maybe maple in a stout would
be good, too.
If all else fails I'll add butter and drink pancakes.
Alec Jessiman (jessiman@kepler.harvard.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 90 16:56:30 PST
>From: John Cotterill <johnc@hprpcd.rose.hp.com>
Subject: I.P.A. Recipe Wanted
Full-Name: John Cotterill
I am looking for some good all-grain recipes for India Pale Ale.
Please pass anything along to me via the digest or Unix-mail.
Thanks in advance.
John Cotterill
johnc@hprpcd.rose.hp.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 1990 13:25:19 CST
>From: CS_PAUL@gsbvxb.uchicago.edu (Paul Ford 312/702-0335)
Subject: Weiss Beer
A couple of questions:
1) Proportion of Wheat in a Wiess Beer:
I'm a great fan of wiess beer and finally tried to brew one a few weeks
ago (my second all-malt brew). I used 2# wheat malt and 7# barley malt
on the advice of my friendly neighborhood brew store owner. Then I read
the blurb on the side of German import 4-pack Wiess beer (can't recall
the brand) which indicated that their beer was 70% wheat. Seemed
surprisingly high to me. My only other source on this is Papazian -- I
seem to recall his recipe uses a pound or two of wheat for a 5 gal
batch. Anybody have an opinion to offer on this range of proportions?
What is the effect of varying the proportion of wheat malt in a weiss
beer? Favorite recipes? Is brewing wiess beer as an ale even
acceptable? (Haven't bottled my attempt yet.)
2) Butterscoth Flavor:
On another tack, several years ago I brewed a beer that ended it with a
kind of 'butterscotch' (but not sweet) aftertaste. Not overwhelming,
just a tad cloying, enough so that I didn't rush to finish it all off.
I recently rediscovered some bottles of this beer and cracked one open.
The multi-year aging didn't seem to hurt it too much, but it didn't help
it either, the butterscotch is still there. Now that I'm reading this
great newletter maybe someone much wiser in the ways of homebrew can
answer my question: what is this off flavor and what causes it? My
notes on this beer tell me it was made with 2 cans of malt extract, 1
pale, and 1 amber, some crystal malt and Red Star ale yeast. Of some 15
batches this is the only time I've run into this flavor.
Thanks,
Paul Ford
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #546, 11/28/90
*************************************
-------
