Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0751
This file received at Mthvax.CS.Miami.EDU 91/10/30 03:12:26
HOMEBREW Digest #751 Wed 30 October 1991
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re: Bass Ale (Desmond Mottram)
CO2ing preasure kegs.. (Dave Beedle)
Homebrew Digest #750 (October 29, 1991) (Jeff Close)
Re: Wyeast in the refrigerator (Beer_Luser)
Stovetop burning (Bob_Konigsberg)
re: Jeff Frane's Seattle observations (darrylri)
ref recent glass v. plastic discussion (darrylri)
Wit Biers (STROUD)
Help. Stuck Fermentation (Peter Glen Berger)
Re: Homebrew Digest #750 (October 29, 1991) (Jim Bishop)
Cheap and easy brewing (Hi Jack!) (Chris Shenton)
More on Ceramic Pots (Martin A. Lodahl)
Coriander Beers (C.R. Saikley)
Taste and various other comments (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Recipe: Wee Heavy/Old Ale (Martin A. Lodahl)
Stuff revisited (LONG) (Jay Hersh)
Wyeast in the refrigerator (Jay Hersh)
Welding stainless (Andy Levitt)
I DO KNOW! (Jeff Frane)
Bottles of skunks and cans of worms ("Daniel Butler-Ehle")
English Bitter (caitrin lynch)
Grolsch-oid bottles (don karon)
Send submissions to homebrew@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@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 9:47:14 GMT
From: des@swindon.swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram)
Subject: Re: Bass Ale
Ron Ezetta writes:-
> A desire for Bass Pale Ale led me to the Cat's Meow. A recipe titled
> "Bass Ale" (A big zero on the originality index) on page 25 is
> as follows:
>
> 6 to 7 lbs pale malt (2-row)
> 1 lb crystal
> 1 pound demarara or dark brown sugar
> 1 ounce Northern Brewer (1 hour boil)
> 1 ounce Fuggles (boil 30 minutes)
> 1/2 ounce Fuggles (steeped 15 minutes)
> ale yeast
>
> Has anyone tried this potion?
>
> I'm considering replacing the 1 pound of dark brown sugar with 2 ounces
> of molasses - comments?
>
This is very similar to one I tried when attempting to replicate Wadworths
6X with the help of Dave Line's "Brew Beers Like Those You Know"(?). It was
very good: dark, rich and strong with a brownish head.
The sugar will make a difference, demarara imparts a lighter taste and
colour to dark brown. I used light brown sugar and it was still noticable.
If you use molasses I suspect the colour and taste will remain but the beer
will be weaker, which may be what you want.
I used Fuggles for the copper and Goldings for late; no dry hops. I also
used too much of them, nearly 3 oz each. But I think the quantities given
above may be too little, I'd go for 1.5 or even 2 oz each. I take it it's a
4 gallon batch?
>
> -Ron Ezetta-
>
> ------------------------------
Desmond Mottram
des@swindon.ingr.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 8:37:56 CST
From: dbeedle@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@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu 136A Julian Hall
Bitnet: dbeedle@ilstu.bitnet Normal, Il 61761
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 10:28:01 EST
From: Jeff Close <jclose@potomac.ads.com>
Subject: Homebrew Digest #750 (October 29, 1991)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 91 11:29:51 PST
From: Ron Ezetta <rone@badblues.wr.tek.com>
Subject: Bass Ale
...
1/2 ounce Fuggles (steeped 15 minutes)
ale yeast
Has anyone tried this potion?
I'm considering replacing the 1 pound of dark brown sugar with 2 ounces
of molasses - comments?
-Ron Ezetta-
Just that it will add the obvious bitterness that molasses has
(blackstrap much more than light), and that molasses is 1/2 as sweet
as raw sugar.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 11:13:04 EST
From: Beer_Luser@zymurgy.ignorance.institute.edu
Subject: Re: Wyeast in the refrigerator
On Mon, 28 Oct 91 12:02:09 EST, cjh@vallance.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock) said:
Chip> The yeast issue of ZYMURGY warns ... that sudden temperature changes
Chip> of >15-20 F can stun yeast so badly it never recovers
You mean I shouldn't be storing my Wyeast in the freezer, defrosting in the
microwave, then dumping right into the boiling wort??
:-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 09:33 PST
From: Bob_Konigsberg@3mail.3com.com
Subject: Stovetop burning
In reference to Jeff Frane's comment about messing up the stove top, I
finally figured this one out. I have made several batches, only to find
that the stove top got burned and yucky. I first assumed this was from
some minor boil-over that I failed to notice. It turns out that many
stoves, unless scrubbed daily, have a thin film of grease or oil on the
enamel surface, and the reflected heat from the bottom of the boiler is
baking and then burning that grease/oil onto the enamel surface where is
is almost impossible to remove. The solution: Scrub the surface of the
stove very clean *before* the wort boil (preferably with a nylon scrub
pad so as not to scratch the enamel), and there will be no more burned
on mess on the enamel afterwards.
BobK
------------------------------
Date: Tue Oct 29 06:41:26 1991
From: darrylri@microsoft.com
Subject: re: Jeff Frane's Seattle observations
> To Darrylnowinseattle: I noted your reference to the Roaster in the CIS beer
> forum; didn't you find it a little pricey? O'course, coming from LA... Have you
> yet made it to Big Time or the Trolleyman? Liz and I were planning on spending
> last Monday in Seattle, visiting coffee roasters and Liberty Malt but instead
> spent the whole day and $400 getting the car fixed in Monroe. Feh! Have you
> tried Thomas Kemper Oktoberfest? Is it still on the shelves? (If you've had it
> on tap, I don't want to know.) Just thought you'd like to know: Portland's pubs
> are better!
The Roaster is not cheap, that's for certain, but compared to Father's
Office, perhaps the best place to drink micros in LA, where a pint regularly
costs $4 (!), it's still a bargain. Naturally, Big Time and Red Hook are
less expensive. TK's Oktoberfest was the first NW beer that passed my
lips when I arrived: it was available in the supermarket I walked up to
after I got off the bike. Lovely stuff, but I would condem it with Sam
Adams Oktoberfest as being of the NA Micro variant of styles with too
much hops. And with regard to Portland's drinking establishments v.
Seattle's, I'd ask you not to put me into that position! Both sides
would likely take an outsider like myself (from the unwashed south)
and string me up.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Tue Oct 29 06:32:49 1991
From: darrylri@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.
> Note that the figures for the 1989 Nationals showed that the incidence
> of top (1st-3rd place) beers brewed in plastic was HALF their incidence at
> entry; this brings up the question of what those results would have been
> if they were subdivided by the age/#-of-uses of the plastic and the type of
> beer (heavier beers being more likely to mask the off-flavors of traces of
> infection or chlorine).
I would suggest that there are other potential interpretations: there is
a strong aversion from plastic among the more experienced brewers--I would
point you out as an example--and the experienced brewers, through their
experiences, would tend to produce better beers. In any event, I would
not try to draw any strong conclusions from these crude stats.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 09:22 EST
From: STROUD%GAIA@leia.polaroid.com
Subject: Wit Biers
Brian Capouch asks about Blanche des Neiges.
It is brewed by the Huyghe Brewery in Ghent, Belgium, the people who also
produce the stunningly strong triple-style ale known as Delerium Tremens (aka
Mateen here in the states).
Your nose isn't fooling you Brian, there's coriander in that beer, as well as a
strong orange aroma.
Both coriander and orange (curacao) are traditional flavorings in Belgian wit
(white) beers. The premier Belgian wit is Hoegaarden, made from 45% wheat, 5%
oat (both unmalted) and 50% malted barley. There are lots of imitators,
including Dantergemse, Steendonk, Brugs Tarwebier, and others. All of them
have similar spicing profiles. They're great hot weather biers.
As a note of interest, the new Celis Brewery currently under construction in
Austin, Texas, will produce a wit beer in the Hoegaarden style. Those of you
in that area should look for it around Christmas.
Steve Stroud
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1991 13:15:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Peter Glen Berger <pb1p+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Help. Stuck Fermentation
My ginger beer was fermenting for about a week very nicely. As of
yesterday, it seemed to have stopped. The SG had dropped from (about)
1.070 to 1.020. I am using Whitbread Ale Yeast. Taking a risk, I
rousted the yeast this morning; I don't know if that had any effect
yet.
It actually doesn't taste terrible at this point, just a little too
sweet. I am worried that if I try to bottle it, however, no
carbonation (or too much!) will occur. So, do I:
1) Roust some more, splash the wort around, etc.
2) Pitch some champagne yeast.
3) Some other option that I haven't thought of yet.
Please respond quickly!
Thanks,
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Berger || ARPA: peterb@cs.cmu.edu
Professional Student || Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu
Univ. Pittsburgh School of Law || BITNET: R746PB1P@CMCCVB
Attend this school, not CMU || UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Goldilocks is about property rights. Little Red Riding Hood is a tale
of seduction, rape, murder, and cannibalism." -Bernard J. Hibbits
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 08:23:40 -0500
From: Jim Bishop <jim@mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #750 (October 29, 1991)
Now that I have home brewing on rn can you remove me from you mailing
list it's to much to keep up with.
Thanx Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 11:25:48 EST
From: Chris Shenton <chris@endgame.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Cheap and easy brewing (Hi Jack!)
Jack's looking into ways to make brewing cheaper and easier; aren't we all,
to a point.
One of the most interesting and amusing of the homebrew mailorder
`catalogs' I've seen in from Stew's Brew. He sells one (1) kind of malt and
it's cheap. (others here have told me they like it). He's now offering
liquid cultures, but writes about how to can and culture it to make it
affordable. Also, how to make some homebrew gadgets for little money.
Quite an eccentric but informative catalog/newsletter -- his emphasis seems
to be on mashing cheaply and easily. I encourage you to check it out.
(sorry, I don't have the address here, but he advertises in Zymurgy)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 10:55:20 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hplabs!pbmoss!malodah>
Subject: More on Ceramic Pots
In HOMEBREW Digest #750, Jeff Frane made some interesting statements
concerning ceramic-on-steel kettles:
> The problem with enamel cookpots isn't just the handles
> falling off ... but the fact [?] that enamel is crap, and quickly
> cracks through to the metal--which rusts.
Odd. This has not been my experience at all. Yes, if an enameled
steel kettle is banged around enough it will crack, and yes, if
cracked it will rust. But I have one kettle I've used more than 2
years as a mashtun and boiler that is still uncracked (except on the
outside, where the handle came off), and another I've used much
longer than that (a fifty-cent yard sale special) that's both
cracked and rusted, a fact which seems to have only a cosmetic
effect, as I have no reason to believe it has ever added anything to
the beer. Personally, I'd love to have a 40-qt, restaurant-grade
stainless steel stockpot (with lid), but unless the Cookware Fairy
leaves one in my kitchen, I'm not likely to have one soon. 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 doubt
that either the enamel or the comparatively thin steel could stand
much of that treatment. The thinness of the steel also would
preclude my ever even considering drilling any sort of hole in the
kettle.
Then:
>The main problem with using the kitchen stove for brewing is damage to the
>stove. Pots which overhang the burners or lap between two burners,
>reflect heat downward onto the enamel surface of the stove--which seems
>to be very hard on the enamel. (This is NOT a momily, this has been
> observed by these very eyes!)
This may vary on a stove-to-stove basis. My stove has been in
nearly-continuous use for some 80 years, and after being replaced as
a cookstove after WW II by one of them new-fangled stoves with a
pilot light, was relegated to the wash-house where it was always
used with multi-burner coppers, until I bought it to use as a
cookstove again. Its enamel is in great shape, except where the
handle of the copper used to hit the side of the oven.
I agree completely about the advantage of the wort chiller.
Concerning Jack Schmidling:
>If I may say so, I feel that your desire to make brewing beer easy and
>inexpensive is commendable, but it seems at times that you are more
>interested in hastily debunking traditional brewing practices than in
>achieving this goal.
>(Take note of someone like George Fix, who is applying real scientific
>methodology to homebrewing.) Quick and easy isn't always the answer;
>sometimes all you get is instant coffee.
>
>And please note Dick Dunn's comment in re: oxidation and cardboard (not
>cider) and the excellent commentary from Rad Equipment and JaH.
I couldn't have said it better.
Then:
>On the question of darkening beer: It's possible that the darkening is
>a result of extreme oxidation ... Certainly oxidation is responsible
>for a brown discoloration in white wines. Somehow, though, it doesn't
>seem likely that this would happen in the short beer ferment. ???
No ferment required. I was amazed at how much paler my pale ale was
when I began chilling in the kettle, rather than pouring hot wort
through a strainer into the fermentor. The chapter on browning
reactions in George Fix's outstanding book, "Principles of Brewing
Science" explains why.
= Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst =
= 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: Tue, 29 Oct 91 12:15:44 PST
From: grumpy!cr@uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: Coriander Beers
From: Brian Capouch <brianc@zeta.saintjoe.EDU>
>One of the beers was called "Blanche de les Nieges" (or something
>somewhat close to that). It was brewed in Belgium, and came in an
>enameled 330 ml bottle.
>My question: I swear I can taste coriander in this beer. My friend
>thinks the subtle, aromatic flavor comes instead from hop oils or
>dryhopping. Visits to Jackson's guides didn't turn up anything.
Never heard of Blanche de les Nieges, but Belgian beers aren't known
for their hop character. There are some Belgian brews made with coriander,
however. For commercial versions check out Dentergems or Hougarden (sp?),
they are both excellent examples of Belgian White Ales. The coriander
adds a unique "flowery" component to both the aroma and flavor.
I brewed my own attempt at a Belgian White some years back. The
recipe isn't handy, but I used lots of unmalted wheat with a pale
malt mash, some stale hops, a Chimay yeast, and added coriander
(about 1tbs) to the fermenter a few days before bottling. At bottling
time I decided that the coriander wasn't pronounced enough, so I added
1/4 tsp. to half the bottles. As you might expect, coriander was the
dominant flavor in that half. The result didn't quite match a Belgian
White, but the beer was really enjoyable nonetheless.
Anyone else out there experimented with coriander beers???
CR
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 10:42:39 -0800
From: hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hplabs!hpcsos.col.hp.com!hp-lsd.col.hp.com!hplabs!ihlpl!korz (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: Taste and various other comments
Mark Nightingale writes:
>In the past few digests I have noticed several people slaying David Miller's
>book TCHOHB. Specifically, that it was no good for beginners.
I first read Papazian and a four page handout from my supplier and then
began brewing. Recently, I started reading Miller's TCHOHB. I'm about
3/4 finished with the book and have found only a few things with which
I disagree (I don't have them at hand - maybe when I'm done reading, I'll
post my concerns). I feel that either Papazian's TCJOHB or Miller's TCHOHB
are fine books for beginners, but if I had to offer a book to a beginner,
I would choose Papazian. There's a lot more information not specifically
about brewing that I found interesting, the writing is more conversational,
and the whole attitude about brewing less intimidating. I think that if I
would have read Miller first, I may have been intimidated into delaying
my first batch till I found an expert to help me. Granted, even after
Papazian, I was a bit nervous on my first batch, but I did it without any
private coaching and it turned out quite well. I suggest reading Papazian
first, followed immediately by Miller (brew a year before reading Fix).
*****
Jack Schmidling writes:
>Nothing exotic. A can of John Bull amber and 10 cups amber dry.
>Red Star yeast and hallertau hops. I can't grade it on any official scale
>but it tastes about typical of the extract beer I have been making for 20
>years. I would put it in the middle of my Bud to Baderbrau scale.
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.
Jay writes:
>>Jack could you please describe for us what you perceive are the
>>characteristics of oxidized beer?? I'm not convinced you know what it is.
Jack replies:
>You are asking the wrong person. I have been "oxidizing" my beer for years
>and it was not untill people told me that it should taste "cidery or
>cardboardy" that I started getting sensitive about it.
One more time: cidery "flavors" come from too much cane or corn sugar while
cardboardy (or sherry-like I'd like to add) come from oxidation. While on
the subject, I tasted homebrewed "beer" two weeks ago while in Ontario and
it was a textbook case of cidery beer. My guess was that the brewer used
3/4 cane sugar to 1/4 malt extract (residual sweetness). If I hadn't been
told it was beer, I wouldn't have known.
Jay:
>>I ask this in all seriousness because many people have "blind
>>spots" in their sensory perception, while others just don't know what to
>>look for in the flavor.
I'd like to add that our tongues only identify four distinct flavors. The
rest of flavor perception is done with the nose. You don't have to taste
cardboard to know the " cardboardy taste." Wet some corrigated cardboard
and smell it. This goes back to answer Jack's ravings about cardboard
flavor which (for obvious reasons) I chose to omit from my reply.
Jack:
>The reason people win awards for their beer is not because it "tastes better"
>but because it fits into a set of previously agreed to rigid standards of
>what "normal" beer should "taste" like.
^^^^^
No, within a set of predefined characteristics of a particular *style*.
Jack:
>Can tens of millions of Americans be wrong?
Yes.
Jack:
>They love Bud and given a comparison, most of them will still prefer it to
>"normal" beer.
A-B Bud is vile. Bottom line. Labatt's Bud is less vile. Most American
men drink beer because it is cheap, gives you a buzz and because if they
drank wine coolers they would be ridiculed. Men in Wisconsin, the beer
"center" of the U.S., used to drink whiskey till the government raised
the taxes on hard liquor. They turned to beer, and only then did so many
beer companies grow there. (My reference is an article in a 1988 or 89
Zymurgy on the history of beer.) Advertising companies decide which beer
is the one you should drink. Given an honest choice, most "beer drinkers"
would probably rather drink soda pop, but society has forced them to learn
to like a bitter liquid that, I'm sure you'll all agree, takes some time
to get used to. If you're learning to like something you don't like, you
can learn to accept additional annoyances, like those in Bud. My grandfather
used to smoke. He used to buy the finest tobbacco and the finest rolling
papers. During WWII, a Russian soldier asked him for a cigarette. The
Russian soldier hated the cigarette and asked how my grandfather could smoke
such an awful thing. You see, Russian soldiers were not issued cigarette
papers... they used to roll in newspaper. Without the smell of burning
printer's ink, the Russian soldier hated the cigarette.
*****
Jacob Galley asks where to get a deal on carboys in Chicago.
Try Sparkling Spring (look in the Yellow Pages under water... well, under
the "water" category). I just bought six glass carboys full of distilled
water, paid the $6 deposit and never looked back.
Al.
korz@ihlpl.att.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 12:15:18 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hplabs!pbmoss!malodah>
Subject: Recipe: Wee Heavy/Old Ale
I'm glad to see recipes being posted to HBD on a pretty regular
basis now. Here's one I'm very pleased with:
Holiday "Wee Heavy" (really an Old Ale)
Ingredients for a 5-gallon batch:
10 lb 2-row pale malted barley
2 lb 80Lovibond crystal malt, smoked
8 oz wheat malt
1 oz chocolate malt
1 lb brown sugar (in boil)
Bittering hops: 1 oz Northern Brewer (7.4 AAU)
Dry hops: 1/2 oz Willamette, 1/2 oz Hallertauer,
1/4 oz Cascade
3/4 cup light dry malt extract (priming)
Wyeast 1098 "English" (Whitbread) ale yeast
Process:
Mash water: 18 qts @ 140F, pH 5.3
Mash-in: 5 minutes @ 130F
Protein rest: none
Conversion: 60 minutes, 158-150F
Mash-out: 168F, 5 minutes
Sparge: 5 gallons @ 168F, pH 5.7
Boil: 90 minutes, w/ bittering hops @ 30 minutes
SG: 1.070 TG: 1.020
Specifics: It's confession time. This was intended to be a
Scottish "Wee Heavy", but works much better as an Old Ale. I just
haven't quite captured that uniquely malty characteristic of Scotch
ales, but I'm still trying. I really began this batch about a week
before brewing day by boiling my brewing water. I have about 750ppm
of hardness in my well water (this changes dramatically, I've
discovered), and much of it, apparently calcium carbonate,
precipitates out when boiled. A couple of days later I started the
yeast culture growing. Then I tried smoking the crystal malt over a
peat fire, which really wasn't terribly successful in imparting
peaty flavors to the malt. Next time I'll get the peat really
soggy; perhaps that will work better.
The mash was punctuated only by the handle coming off my kettle (I'm
sure you're all tired of hearing about that, but if one person
escapes a scalding because they heard of such a thing happening ...)
and by conversion long, long before the 60 minutes I'd expected.
I let it "go the distance" anyway, while I thought of ways to work
around the missing handle. The sparge proved too much for my kettle
to deal with, and I ended up with an extra 10 bottles of 1.034 wort
that will come in handy as yeast starter. The rest of the brew
session and the fermentation was routine. I dry-hopped 3 days after
pitching, and bottled 4 weeks later.
How is it? Well, I brewed it for Thanksgiving, but I doubt any will
survive that long. It's rich, vinous, with complex port-like ethers
and not a hint of astringency (a common hard-water problem) or off-
flavors. Next time I brew it, though, I'll delete the wheat malt
(plenty of head, for the style, without it) and the brown sugar (the
vinousness is too much for a Scotch ale), substitute 2 lbs dextrine
malt or flaked barley (still mulling this over) for an equal weight
of pale malt, and smoke the cystal more heavily. Possibly cut back
a little on the priming extract, as well. I can always find flaws
with my beers, but on the whole, I'm delighted with this one!
= Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst =
= 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: Tue, 29 Oct 91 18:09:31 EST
From: Jay Hersh <hersh@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Stuff revisited (LONG)
> Fm: Jack Schmidling
>
> From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
>
> >Suggestion: DON'T say "applejack" unless you really mean it! You'll save
> >yourself a lot of grief and harangues on liquor laws and the dangers of
> >home distillation. Applejack is a distilled spirit--in effect, it's
> >distilled cider.
>
> Wrong! It's distilled FERMENTED cider.
Umm saying it's distilled cider is acceptable. Typically the British refer to
the fermented product as cider, and the unfermetned stuff as simply juice.
Here in the States the terminology differs (to the dismay of many Brits).
Juice is filtered apple juice, cider is unfiltered apple juice, and Hard Cider
is the fermented product.
I'm sure EVERYONE knew what Dick meant, since the process of distillation
typically requires that the precursor already have some alcohol in it, and that
this alcohol is distilled to a higher concentration.
So let's not pick nits...
> >Could we get this one straight? Oxidation leads to the cardboardy taste.
> >Cidery is something entirely different.....
>
> It is really wounderful to have all such confusion made "straight" by a
> simple declaration. Unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of
> brewers who disagree with you. I don't happen to be one because I have
> tasted neither in beer and am simply trying to learn something.
Ah but FORTUNATELY a large number of Judges agree with this. Those that don't
got the question WRONG on the judge certification test!
> You are asking the wrong person. I have been "oxidizing" my beer for years
> and it was not untill people told me that it should taste "cidery or
> cardboardy" that I started getting sensitive about it.
>
> >I ask this in all seriousness because many people have "blind
> >spots" in their sensory perception, while others just don't know what to
> >look for in the flavor.
>
> This is true but unless something is inherently distasteful, the rest is
> totally subjective.
As I said, some just don't know what to look for in the flavor.
Apparently it is not totally subjective. Judges are able to detect and agree
upon flavor defects present in beer. Typically the more experienced the judges
the more more capable they are of accurately isolating flavor components
present. This has nothing to do with subjectivity (people's personal
preferences for styles and/or flavors) and everything to do with perceptual
abilities. Fortunately it is quite possible to "train one's palatte" by
exposing to beers doctored with specific substances served side by side with
undoctored "reference" samples of the same beer. As I mentioned I have had
great success in training individuals to recognize flavor components which they
either did not previously detect, or detected but could not associate a "label"
(the proper name for the flavor component) to. This encompasses 2 types of
training, first palatte sensitization, and second cognitive abilities.
The first is teaching people how to detect a substance in the milleiu of
flavors, the second is teaching them to associate the proper name with that
sensation.
> When you consider the wierd stuff people intentionally put in home brew, the
> fact that the vast majority of Americans prefer Bud, along with the
> subjective nature of taste, one can't help but wonder about the meaning of
> "normal" flavor.
Seems you misunderstood, though I though I was clear here, the "normal" flavor
referred to was for a SPECIFIC STYLE of beer from a SPECIFIC MANUFACTURER, so
normal has nothing to do with "weird stuff" homebrewers use, or the vast
majority who prefer Bud, it has to do with what people who normally drink that
style of that brand expect the flavor to taste like.
> The reason people win awards for their beer is not because it "tastes better"
> but because it fits into a set of previously agreed to rigid standards of
> what "normal" beer should "taste" like.
Not quite. The reason people win awards for their beer is because the beer they
have brewed is free of flavor defects and it's flavor best typifies the flavor
defined for the specific category in which the beer is entered. There is no
such thing as "normal" beer, rather there 2 major criteria, abscence of flaavor
defects, and appropriateness for style.
>Can a million Frenchmen be wrong? They don't even like beer.
Not quite true. While wine does outsell beer in France there are several French
breweries, and the Biere de Garde style which is uniquely French. Belgian beers
are also quite popular in France.
>Can tens of millions of Americans be wrong? They
> love Bud and given a comparison, most of them will still prefer it to
> "normal" beer.
As before you have totally ignored the context in which the term "normal" was
used and applied you own.
> The same can be said for any skill. I do not, but one could take the
> position that it sure seems stupid to spend so much effort and training to
> learn how to not like something.
The training is not to learn how to not like something, rather to learn how to
identify it. For some flavor compounds their presence in some styles is defined
as improper, while for other styles it is deemed desirable. The presence of
phenolics which the clove-like aromas and flavors of many wheat beers are
attributed to is such an example. While no one can say that a particular beer
is good or bad in general since this is subjective, it is possible to say that
a particular beer is appropriate/inappropriate for style, where the definition
of that style is typically based upon either a single "classic" beer that
defines the style (say Steam beer for example), or a rane of common
characteristics of beers brewed to that style (Stout or Oktoberfest are
examples here).
In general while it is conceivable that for certain objectionable flavor
components which just about everyone would agree are undesirable there is
someone who considers this flavor tasty, or at least not objectionable, then
it's presence in a beer regarding the description of that beer as good/bad
would be subjective. However, if the profile of a style excludes that flavor
component as being part of the styles flavor profile, then the presence of that
component is always inappropriate for style, and is not a subjective matter.
I hope this more clearly explains the difference. This is one of things that I
often have to get across to new judges who I am paired with, just because you
like the beer doesn't mean it is appropriate for style in the context of
judging.
> I never said it would be conslusive. I am not even defending the splashing
> and foam in the video. I have changed my process and discuss it later in the
> video. What I am trying to do is verify the allegations made about the
> procedure with a simple experiment. If the intentionally rough treatment nor
> my past twenty years experience produce something that I find objectionalble,
> then I will be less concerned about minor infractions of the "proper"
> procedure.
Well perhaps I am mistaken, but this seems to be a little retreat of what I
perceived your earlier position to have been. It appeared to me that you were
dismissing the problem of oxidation offhand as just another "momily" when in
fact I think it is a legitimate concern to both commercial brewers and
homebrewers, and is in fact quite a well understood chemical phenomena.
If you have never experienced it in your years of brewing then as I suggested
perhaps you have a blind spot wrt perception of it, perhaps your palette is not
trained to detect it, or you consider it a desirable flavor component, perhaps
despite your brewing technique (which if I understand correctly from your past
descriptions introduces air into the beer upon bottling) fast consumption of
the beer or favorable storage conditions (cool or cold temperatures) minimized
the development of off flavors.
There are a host of factors which can mitigate the problematic effects of
oxidizing the beer upon bottling. That doesn't mean I would recommend to new
brewers using a technique which is known to introduce air into the beer during
bottling. Since it takes little or no effort to reduce the introduction of air
into the beer at bottling time, and the effects of oxidation upon beer are
pretty well understood by brewing chemists, to me it is just common sense to
take those steps that reduce introduction of air into the beer at bottling time.
I see no point in playing Russian Roulette with my brewing (to which I devote
both time and $$) and prefer to take REASONABLE steps to insure the quality of
it's outcome. Also I see no great conspiracy in trusting the knowledge of
hundreds of years of brewers and scientists. It's not like someone is
profiteering off my bottling without the addition of excess air at bottling
time.
There is no grand conspiracy I see to cause me to distrust well founded
research and conclusions on the effects of oxygen upon fermented beer.
While I agree that there are perhaps certain "momilies" espoused as truth in
the realm of brewing which are worth investigation, the negative effects of
oxygen on beer is not what I would have considered to be the next great brewing
debate of the century, rather I consider it a pointless revisitation of a well
understood chemical process, and hope we can close this issue and move on to
other more fruitful discussions.
- JaH
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopfen und Malz, Gott erhalts
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 18:13:24 EST
From: Jay Hersh <hersh@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Wyeast in the refrigerator
Chip sez:
>The yeast issue of ZYMURGY (what an oxymoronic-sounding line!) warns, as
>have a few people on this list, that sudden temperature changes of >15-20 F
>can stun yeast so badly it never recovers-
I believe that the temperature change of Warmer->Colder is substantially more
damaging to the yeast than the other way around. ie a drop for an ale yeast
from 60->40F will damage the the yeast more than raising it suddenly from
60->80F.
Just wanted to clarify for those less experienced with liquid yeasts in
particular.
- JaH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 15:16:28 PST
From: Andy Levitt <andy@hprascal.rose.hp.com>
Subject: Welding stainless
I recently took a welding class from a local High School. It was
a quick intro to many kinds of welding on may different metals, so be
wary of my advice.
We did a bit of stainless welding. While TIG may be better, stainless can
be welded with an arc welder and special stainless steel rods. I'm no
pro, but the stainless welds I did with the arc welder looked pretty good.
I did warp the crap out of the sheet though. It'll be a while before I
try it on my stainless car.
I'm not sure if you need DC, or you can get away with a cheap AC buzz box.
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
|Andy Levitt | Systems Technology Division / General Systems Lab |
|Hewlett Packard | andyl@hprpcd.rose.hp.com |
|Roseville, CA | (916) 785 - 5603 |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 29 Oct 91 18:46:46 EST
From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067@compuserve.com>
Subject: I DO KNOW!
Having apparently been the one to set Mark Nightingale off, in my criticism of
Dave Miller's text, I have in fact gone back to check my memory. As a veteran of
ten years' book reviewing, I know how important it is to read carefully. As Mark
points out, the caveat is included suggesting people might brew an ale instead.
On the other hand, having spent a single paragraph on that, Miller proceeds to
demonstrate over the next ten pages how to brew an "American Light" with rice
syrup and dried lager yeast (he says the liquid yeast is too much bother for
beginners). The process includes the need to get the beer down to 50^F (max.
60^F), which I submit is a whole lot more difficult for the beginning brewer
than opening a package of Brewer's Choice yeast. I dunno, maybe it's a regional
thing. Miller seems to think that beginning brewers will be most familiar with
Bud-style beers. My own experience teaching beginning brewing has been that--in
this area, anyway--new brewers are familiar with microbreweries and imported
beers and are interested in brewing something like BridgePort or Widmer or ...
Miller is, I believe, from the St. Louis area and his experiences are no doubt
different.
To Art Hebert: I have a refrigerator like yours and simply ignore the freezer
unit (it's pretty small). I don't know a thing about refrigeration but it looks
to me as though the freezer was integral to the system; won't catch me messing
with something like that. 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.
To Jack Schmidling: We are getting a little testy, aren't we? Saying that "it's
distilled cider" is "Wrong! It's distilled FERMENTED cider" is not only picky,
it's borderline innacurate. We have, after all, two forms of cider: sweet and
hard. They are both cider. Hence, "Applejack is distilled cider" is accurate.
Not perfectly concise, maybe, but certainly not "Wrong!".
Perhaps you could amplify the statement you make to Dick Dunn that a large
number of homebrewers disagree with his distinction between cardboard flavor and
cidery flavors. I've not heard much confusion on this previously. 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."
I'd also like to hear some amplification of your comment to Rad Equipment that
differences in sensory perception are "totally subjective." You are too hastily
dismissing an important point about tasting beer, that some people have blind
spots--or are hypersensitive--to certain flavors. My soon-to-be-wife, Liz, seems
to have one for the above-mentioned cardboard; I've met others who were acutely
sensitive to diacetyl, still others who didn't seem to notice it. The point is,
Jack, not whether people *like* those flavors or not, but whether they can even
detect them.
Coming from someone who says he's never tasted anyone else's homebrew, your
judgments about why people win awards for their beer sound strange.
To Ken Weiss: I'd assume that anything with Blanche in the name was a white beer
(witbier), a revived beerstyle. I'd also say you were right: coriander is a
likely ingredient. A Eugene brewer named Chris Studach brewed a fantastic white
beer last year; I shall ask him for permission to reproduce his recipe.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 16:37:42 EST
From: "Daniel Butler-Ehle" <DWBUTLER@MTUS5>
Subject: Bottles of skunks and cans of worms
I have heard many arguments about what color glass bottles should
be in order to avoid light-struck beer. It is my understanding,
however, that hardly anything (including beer) reacts with visible
light; it is the ultraviolet light that reacts with stuff in the
beer (often said to be the hops, but the jury is still debating) to
cause that skunky, light-struck taste (as exhibited overpoweringly
by every imported Pilsner Urquell I've ever had).
The large output of UV is the primary distinction between light from
such sources as fluorescent lights and the Sun and light from weaker
UV producers like incandesent light. This is evidenced in the
phenomena Jay Hersh reported to us a few days ago: (HBD #749)
"most if not all green and clear bottled beers get light damaged
(this can happen as fast as 45 minutes in sunlight or artifical [sic]
light like flourescents [sic] seen in beer coolers worldwide) and the
damage is so prevelant [sic] that it is difficult to get non-light
damaged beers."
However, my current belief (subject to change without notice) is that
the color of the bottle has nothing to do with it.
A few years ago, a big scare arose about sunglasses. The scare
resulted from the theory that because the color or shading of the
lenses affects only _visible light_ that when we wear sunglasses and our
irises open in response to the decreased visible light, we must therefore
be subjecting our retinae to unnaturally large amounts of UV.
Well the truth to the issue never received much attention. Sunglasses,
especially glass ones, naturally reflect most UV. Even the cheapest
glass sunglasses block a greater percentage of UV than of visible
light, and thus wearing them is better than not wearing them.
What's this got to do with beer? What's true for glass lenses is true
for glass bottles. The color of the bottle affects only the visible
light. (That's why it has color in the first place.) Glass, regardless
of color, stops most UV. Therefore, beer in brown bottles should be no
more or less susceptible to light damage than beer in green or even clear
bottles.
Any comments? I ain't no physicist, so I'd like to hear from someone who
knows. We got any opticians out there?
Daniel Butler-Ehle "A pitcher's worth a thousand worts"
DWBUTLER@mtus5.cts.mtu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 91 21:14:52 CST
From: caitrin lynch <lyn6@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.
------------------------------
Date: 30 Oct 91 01:40:25 EST
From: don karon <72730.103@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.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #751, 10/30/91
*************************************
-------
