Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0771
This file received at Mthvax.CS.Miami.EDU 91/11/29 03:14:00
HOMEBREW Digest #771 Fri 29 November 1991
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Various (wbt)
Re: Homebrew Digest #769 (November 27, 1991) (Kevin Hough)
WEBBING (Jack Schmidling)
Yeast musings... (Todd Enders - WD0BCI )
Draught Guinness in Cans / keg stealing (korz)
Re: "Chimay" & bacteria (korz)
Apology, announcement, copper scrubbers and diacetyl (BAUGHMANKR)
Describing beer tastes (Bryan Gros)
Triple Decoction Video (Norm Hardy)
PERFECT BOTTLE PITFALLS (ALTENBACH)
faucet adapter (Chuck Coronella)
Posting Recipes (Conn V Copas)
Faucet Adapters (Martin A. Lodahl)
Not Chimay's Fault! (Martin A. Lodahl)
Lambic, Schmambic. (Martin A. Lodahl)
Galvanized Mesh (larryba)
Re: TSP vs Washing Soda (larryba)
Re: cutting a keg (Mike Sharp)
Re: Bottles (Phoebe Couch)
Bottles, more Ethics, and On Premises Brewing (H.W.) Troup <HWT@BNR.CA>
EASYMASH (Jack Schmidling)
Re: Homebrew Digest #769 (November 27, 1991) (Robert Orr)
new masher in town (Mark Nickel)
A quotable beer quote (S94WELKE)
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: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:09:12 EST
From: wbt@cbema.att.com
Subject: Various
Keg deposits:
I called the local Anheuser-Busch brewery and asked them. I was
told the following:
The kegs cost $70-$75 each in large quantities; $150 each bought singly.
It is illegal to "refill a container that doesn't belong to you." It
was implied that this is a federal law.
It is illegal destroy or modify these kegs in any way, as they remain
the property of A-B, Miller, etc.
There is no method for the breweries to trace their kegs effectively.
I.e., so long as you don't invite a federal marshal over to help
brew, you're not likely to get caught.
A-B locally did prosecute several people a couple years ago for cutting
up kegs to make barbecues.
I then asked about returnable bottles. A-B told me that they're a bit
different, as they're essentially "community property." That is, the
bottles are all the same, and it's not uncommon for A-B to get a bottle
from another brewery returned in one of their cases. They just go ahead an
use them. Also, the bottles cost them about 2 cents each, and they figure
it break-even if the bottle makes five passes through the system before
being discarded.
In short, A-B doesn't like the idea of people keeping their kegs, but
they don't mind homebrewers using their bottles.
Galvanized screen:
Normal "window screen" and other galvanized products have a zinc-based
coating. Zinc itself is not particularly toxic when ingested (please
*don't* take this at carte blanche to chow down on zinc, folks; it can make
you sick, even if it won't kill you). Many vitamins contain zinc
*compounds* (most commonly zinc oxide, I believe); I'm not sure if metallic
zinc is metabolized differently or if zinc poisoning only occurs when a
certain threshold concentration is crossed.
However, the galvanizing alloy often contains additions of other nasties,
most notably antimony, lead, cadmium, and our old friend, aluminum. I
would *highly* reccommend against using galvanized metal in brewing. Even
without the toxicity question, zinc should be readily attacked by the acidic
mash, and I would suppose the dissolved zinc ions would affect your beer's
flavor.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus cbema!wbt
Quality Engineer Network Wireless Systems wbt@cbnews.att.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 10:15:57 PST
From: skis@olivej.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Kevin Hough)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #769 (November 27, 1991)
srussell@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell) writes:
>
>"Big Dog" Sterling Udell asks:
>
>>And now my question: I've heard that prolonged soaking in the proper
>>chemical will make even the most recalcitrant labels float right off.
>>Problem is, I can't remember _what_ chemical it is. Bleach? Ammonia?
>>Something like that? Anyone know?
>
>I find that bleach does virtually nothing to the glue used to affix labels to
>glass, but that a 2-12 hour soak in a moderately-strong ammonia solution
>(same strength you'd use to clean your kitchen floor after brewing and before
>your wife comes home :-) works just fine. However, a bit of elbow grease is
>required for foil labels such as Miller Lite; the ammonia can't penetrate the
>foil the way it can the paper.
>
>And the required word of warning: rinse bottles well after the ammonia soak;
>NEVER let ammonia and bleach come into contact with each other.
I've been using clorinated TSP to sterilize equipment and bottles. I get the
TSP from my local brew shop. I found that it takes only a few minutes in the
soak for the labels to loosen. The same problem with foil labels exists with
this stuff too. I don't know if regular TSP would work the same as the
clorinated stuff.
Skis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 10:17 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: WEBBING
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
From: Eric Mintz <ericm@bach>
Subject: Specific Gravity before and after boil
> I expected the SG to be higher due to the evaporation from the boil, right?
WRONG! The SG dropped!
>The only explanation I could think of is that the trub (before
precipitation -- that is, while still in solution) contributed some tourn.
the SG. Either that or I screwed up my before-boil measurement :-).
I would suspect the latter. It is easy to do and the former? Well, I won't
say what seems obvious. I will leave that to the chemists.
On my last batch, I was stunned to find that the gravity of the first 5 gals
was only 1.030. I stirred it up and measured again and got 1.040. It
aparently stratified. The total of eight ended up about 1.030 but boil down
yielded 6 gals at 1.045.
From: korz@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Re: window screen
>I'm a bit confused here. I thought the idea was to put this into the
bottom of a stainless steel keg so you can heat the mash on a burner.
The plastic coating Roger suggests might be a good idea for a lauter
tun to be used for a decoction mash but not for step infusion.
I can't speak for the follow-on but my original posting was to provide a
simple, one-kettle system that does everthing. The spiggot-pipe-screen goes
into the bottom of your favorite kettle. It is used for a directly heated
mashing cycle and sparging, then later for the boil. I proposed (and used)
an enamel/steel kettle for economy and availability but it would also work in
a cut down keg or any other kettle..
> I, personally, would avoid plastic (recent heat trasfer arguments
notwithstanding) so close to the burner.
Yucho!
> I still contend that "common" windowscreen should be avoided, but (as
someone mentioned) brass screen is available.
Just a detail, but it's copper not brass. Brass contains zink and would be
no better than galvanized steel if zink bothers you.
....... Question ......
I have noticed that ALL of my (5) all grain batches exhibit a head
charasteristic that Baderbrau calls "webbing". A lacy net of drying foam
adheres to the glass as it is being emptied and for hours after.
I just finished the last of my extract beers (2 months old) and it did not
exhibit this charasteristic nor do I recall that any of them ever did. They
have a nice frothy head that lasts till empty but leave the glass sparkling
clean.
Is webbing a character to be sought after?
Is it obtainable in extract beer?
Is it unique to all grain beer?
BTW, that last extract beer were the Oxidation control and test sample. The
result is still the same after 60 days. No obvious difference in the two.
Just in passing, I do not want to disinter the subject. I will mention that
I had to blend in some current all grain to both to bring the flavor up to
current standards.
For those afraid to try all grain, I can simply say that (for me), the
quality of my beer has made a quantum leap forward. It was like falling off
a log.
I do not doubt that some people can make good beer with extracts but I can
now honestly say, I don't think I ever did. All grain brewing takes a bit
more time and effort but the satisfaction is immence. Dollar-a-gallon beer
is also no small part of the compensation.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 13:05:17 -0600
From: Todd Enders - WD0BCI <enders@plains.NoDak.edu>
Subject: Yeast musings...
This is strictly speculation (and therefore subject
to enlightenment by those who know more than I on the topic
of yeast mutations and metabolism), but I was reviewing
my yeast culturing practices, and am wondering if the following
scenario might not hold true...
1. Start fresh culture from a known source (like a Wyeast
packet).
2. Brew and bottle a batch
3. reculture yeast from dregs of "current" batch.
4. Repeat steps 2 & 3 for several (>5) generations.
I don't believe it's exactly fair to call this yeast the
same strain as you started with. Why? Well, consider that by
using yeast from the bottle, you would tend to pick up the more
attenuative cells that are left in suspension and still active.
As one repeats this process over several generations of reculture,
one is artificialy selecting a more attenuative population, no?
Could this process be extended in the other direction also?
i.e. taking the cells that fall out of fermentation first, again and
again over several generations, and develop a *less* attenuative "sub-
strain". How exactly do breweries develop their own strains? (I know
they come up from single cell isolates, but is there really that much
difference in a population of S. cervesae?) How can you select for
traits such as ester production (type and quantity) without doing many
long months of test batches? Color me curious :-).
===============================================================================
Todd Enders - WD0BCI ARPA: enders@plains.nodak.edu
Computer Center UUCP: ...!uunet!plains!enders
Minot State University or: ...!hplabs!hp-lsd!plains!enders
Minot, ND 58701 Bitnet: enders@plains
"The present would be full of all possible futures,
if the past had not already projected a pattern upon it" - Andre' Gide
===============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:38 CST
From: korz@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Draught Guinness in Cans / keg stealing
Last weekend I tried the Draught Guinness in Cans. It was good,
but not great, in my opinion. Much lighter in body than the
bottled version. It *did* taste very much like the on-tap
version I've had in two places in Chicago (Dublin, Ireland is another
story, I would imagine). I have to agree with Michael Jackson who
rates the Draught version with 3 stars and the bottled version with
4 stars. I like my stout THICK. The homebrewed stout I have on tap
at home now is about the consistency of bottled Guinness but a little
sweeter and it has more roasted barley flavor. I don't have the
recipe here at work, but I'm almost positive it's two cans of John
Bull unhopped dark, 1/2 lb roasted barley, 1 oz of cascade pellets
for the 1hr boil and 1/2 oz of whole cascades in the primary, Wyeast #1084
"Irish Ale" yeast, fermented with blow-off at 68F.
On kegs: I kept a keg I got from a brewpub in town. I forfitted the
$45 deposit, which I'm sure is more than they paid for it. It had
the brewpub's label glued on top, partially obscuring the industrial
brewery's imprint (Miller Brewing Company, I believe). I purchased
the tap and hoses new from Foxx Equipment Company. I plan to use it
for beer made specifically for parties (15.5 gal). I think I'll
brew in it too as soon as I get replacement bungs and a stopper
big enough to fit the bung hole.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:59 CST
From: korz@ihlpl.att.com
Subject: Re: "Chimay" & bacteria
Bob writes:
> I have a ques for all you master brewers out there!! Last Feb I made two
>diff batches of a Chimay Ale. I cultured the yeast/bacteria from a couple
>of bottles a couple of diff times. Since then I have made a couple of British
>ales (went all grain!!) and they have been infected (&$%#&*%#). They have a
>white ring around the bottle neck just like the Chimay. My question is did
>the bacteria take over my brewing basement??
First of all, Chimay should not have any active bacteria in it. It is
brewed from cultured yeast. From you post, it was not clear if the
Chimay bottle necks had the ring or your "Chimay-style" bottles had the
ring. If the original Chimay had a ring, it was bad. In any case, you
obviously *do* have a bacterial infection in your brewery. Are you using
plastic fermenters? I suggest switching to glass carboys (or SS as
recently mentioned). Are your racking hoses old? If so, change them.
I'm assuming that you are using some kind of sanitizer on everything that
comes in contact with your beer. Just think through your procedure
carefully and I'll bet you can identify where the weak link is in your
sanitation.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 15:37 EDT
From: BAUGHMANKR@CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU
Subject: Apology, announcement, copper scrubbers and diacetyl
First a public apology for my flame a couple weeks back. The lesson
learned was that honey attracts more flies than vinegar. Jack and I
have talked by phone and aired and smoothed over our differences. The
situation is this. The flame wars are over. There is no longer any
reason to bait anyone in the Digest.
We are here to talk beer.
We are back to normal.
Let's keep it that way.
A measure of Jack's interest in this affair is beheld in the quality
of his last several posts. Personally, I look forward to any and all
such posts by him, as well as everyone else, in the future. Happy
days are here again.
Now on to other matters....
OK. I admit it. I've been worrying!
There was a post a couple months back about how a pot scrubber had
added a metalic taste to the finished beer. I responded by pointing
in the direction of a stainless steel scrubber. I have since
contacted Chore Boy and asked about their scrubbers. That particular
brand is made of PURE copper. So if you plan on using the pot
scrubber in a mesh bag technique for filtering out hops from the
boiler, search out the Chore Boy brand. Pure copper can't impart a
metallic taste to beer. If it does, then the commercial boys are in
big trouble.
Several people have contacted me about having difficulty with this
method. This week-end, for the first time, I too had problems with
the siphon becoming stuck towards the bottom of the pot. I was able
to continue the siphon by placing the boiler on the bottom of an
inverted 5 gallon enamel pot, increasing the 'vertical drop' between
the boiler and the fermenter. I also tried rinsing off the mesh bag
by holding it under running water for a bit. That seemed to help
things as well.
A comment about sparging technique:
> If cost is a
> concern here, then the system that Charlie Papazian suggests, with two plastic
> buckets, is certainly a better solution. The buckets are cheap, and it only
> requires some long boring minutes with a drill to put an adequate number of
> holes in the upper bucket.
One concern I've always had with the bucket in a bucket lauter tun
system is the capillary action that's bound to occur down the sides
between the grain and the bucket. Any and all water subject to this
phenomenon would miss the grain all together and contribute to a less
efficient sparge. Dave Line speaks to this in _The Big Book of
Brewing_ and thus recommends using a sparging bag. I've never tested
this but it seems a valid point.
Larry writes concerning his diacetyl problem:
> Now, if I rememeber correctly, from Dave Miller ( TCHOHB)
> that Diacytal is primarily a yeast byproduct (as apposed to DMS that
> can be produced by bacteria). Anyone know if there are specific
> bacterial strains that produce diacytal?
I'm not sure about bacteria but I've always understood that the only
method for diacetyl reduction we as homebrewers have is to let the
beer rest on the yeast cake for a day or two past primary
fermentation. Thus my question is: Did you use a two stage
fermentation process for that beer and when did you rack? Perhaps
George Fix can speak to this with more authority than I.
Happy Thanksgiving to you all--that most of American of holidays when
we asked the Indians over for a big feast and then told them to get the
hell off our land!
Cheers,
Kinney Baughman | Beer is my business and
baughmankr@conrad.appstate.edu | I'm back at work
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 13:22:14 PST
From: bgros@sensitivity.berkeley.edu (Bryan Gros)
Subject: Describing beer tastes
I just tried Winterhook ale and would like to know how experienced
tasters/judges would describe this beer. I would say it was hoppy,
medium body, and not much else. It was a little too bitter for
my tastes (hopheads take note).
This may be way off from a "professional" opinion, so I'l like to
see what they would say. Thanks.
I guess you have the holiday weekend to try it for yourselves.
- Bryan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 15:06:43 PST
From: polstra!norm@uunet.UU.NET (Norm Hardy)
Subject: Triple Decoction Video
Just released: a FOUR hour video showing the ins and outs of decoction
mashing. Its a stirring experience.....
I've been brewing for 6 weeks. I know everything.
Haha
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 15:04 PDT
From: ALTENBACH@NSSPA.llnl.gov
Subject: PERFECT BOTTLE PITFALLS
IN HBD 769 GUY D. MCCONNELL RECOMMENDS IBC BRAND ROOT BEER BOTTLES AS THE
ALMOST PERFECT HOMEBREW BOTTLE.
THESE BOTTLES COME UNLABELED AND HAVE A BEAUTIFUL EMBOSSING, MAKING THEM
VERY ATTRACTIVE FOR HOME-CONSUMED HOMEBREW. HOWEVER, DON'T TRY TO WIN ANY
NATIONAL AWARDS WITH THEM. THE RULES FOR THE AHA NATIONAL HOMEBREW
COMPETITION EXPRESSLY PROHIBIT ANY "RAISED GLASS DESIGNS". THESE RULES ARE
ENFORCED UNMERCIFULLY. I ONCE HAD MY ENTRY DISQUALIFIED FROM THE FINAL ROUND
OF THE AHA NATIONALS DUE TO SOME SMALL RAISED LETTERING HALFWAY UP ONE SIDE
OF A 12 OZ BROWN IMPORTED BEER BOTTLE. I HADN'T NOTICED THE LETTERING, BUT
A SEARCH OF MY BOTTLE COLLECTION TURNED UP A FEW MORE OF THE FORBIDDEN SPECIES.
ON DELABELING DOS EQUIS BOTTLES: I'VE BEEN SUCCESSFUL USING A BRASS BBQ BRUSH
WITH BUILT IN STEEL SCRAPER (AND HOMEBREWERS MUSCLE) AFTER A LONG SOAK.
TOM ALTENBACH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 16:59 MTS
From: Chuck Coronella <CORONELLRJDS@CHE.UTAH.EDU>
Subject: faucet adapter
Like Bob Mastors, I'd like to know more about the faucet adapter available
from Williams Brewing.
>Date: Tue, 26 Nov 91 09:02:26 MST
>From: mastors@Central.Sun.COM (Bob Mastors)
>Subject: faucet adapter
>
>Williams Brewing sells a faucet adapter system that can
>be used to quickly add and remove a bottle washer in
>addition to other stuff.
>
>Does anyone out there have one of these and if so: ...
I have that wonderful bottle rinser, and I also have a homemade wort
chiller that attaches to the sink faucet. It's such a hassle to screw
these things on and off, particularly my wort chiller. I'm definitely
interested in any product that will allow me to snap on and off these
tools. Will this product do the job? If so, how do I get in touch with
Williams Brewing? Is there anything else that might do the job better? Am
I asking for too much? Am I asking too many questions?
Thanks,
Chuck
P.S. Did EVERYbody notice that HBD 769 had no flames? Hot spit!!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1991 14:40:44 +0000
From: Conn V Copas <C.V.Copas%loughborough.ac.uk@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Subject: Posting Recipes
A while back, we had a thread on formats for posting recipes. The issue
never
got resolved, as far as I am concerned, so I am reviving it for discussion.
My main point is that, whilst I appreciate recipes, there is something I
appreciate far more, and that's recipe formulation. The former is data, and
the latter is information, so to speak. What this implies is that there are
three fundamental questions which every post should consider : (a) What was
the recipe trying to achieve ? (b) Why were things done in the way they
were
done ? (c) How well were these goals met ? I suspect that in many cases we
can do without descriptions of the mechanics of mashing, boiling or
fermenting.
The best way of illustrating my concerns is to analyse a recent post.
No slight intended to the author - it looks like a solid recipe and was
interesting enough to have already generated some discussion.
>6 lbs. dark dry malt (M&F)
>2 lbs. amber dry malt (M&F)
> .75 lb. roasted barley
> .5 lb. black patent
>1 lb. crystal malt
>2 CUPS (not lbs) Quaker Oats
>2 oz. fresh Bullions hops (boil)
> .6 oz. fresh Willammette hops (finish)
>Whitbread Ale Yeast
>
>Add hops in last 5-6 minutes of the boil. All specialty grains should
>be cracked, first. Soak the specialty grains & Quaker Oats in cold
>water for 15 minutes, bring to a boil, remove grains with strainer as
>wort comes to a boil. This has an awful hot-break, and needs to be
>nursed for about 5 minutes before you can leave it safely. I went
>light on the Oatmeal because the oils in it tend to be detrimental
>towards head retention.
>
>Comments: This beer improves substantially after about 2 weeks in the
>bottle, as hop aroma subsides and the large amount of roasted barley
>assumes it's place in the forefront. It's my favorite beer to date,
>but if I were going to brew it again I might cut back on the roasted
>barley by about .25 lb, and lessen the boiling hops (either to 1 oz.
>of Bullions, or 1.5 of some lower alpha hop). Whitbread ale yeast was
>used because of the low attenuation rate: this stout is NOT sweet,
>but has lots and lots of body.
>
One of the first things I noticed about this recipe is that it employs a
number of different malts and specialty grains, even for a stout. There are
two types of roasted grain, one of which is known to impart a harsher
flavour than the other, with each having different effects on the colour of
the head. I would love to have known whether this mixture was by design or
by accident. If the former, the possibilities for taste interactions
between
all this stuff are mindblowing, and I would have liked more details.
Comments
like "It tastes great, you should try it" are just not enough to stimulate
me into
replicating it.
Is the recipe too bitter ? Well maybe yes and maybe no. First of all, what
sort of style was being aimed for (presumably an Irish type stout ?). What
are the brewer's own preferences ? (eg, I regard a beer as being
sufficiently
bitter when it starts to strip enamel from teeth, and would happily use
Bullion in a lager :-). How was the balance between malt and hop ?
(a terminal gravity figure would have been useful). What about the serving
temperature, which is crucial if one begins to talk about strength of
flavour ?
This brew was obviously bottled, but I frequently see other recipes which
don't
specify, leaving me to guess about comments regarding smoothness and head
texture.
Here's some more speculation. Is there a chance that it was the large
amount of roasted grain rather than the hops which caused the astringency ?
In
which case, maybe it's premature to comment until the brew has aged three
months.
Some indication of the water treatment then also becomes useful.
I realise my comments have the potential to intimidate beginning brewers,
but
that's not the intention. I'm interested in all recipes, whether they're
kits, extract or all-grain. What I'm appealing for is more consideration of
the audience. A simple test which one could apply is this : will other
people
be able to understand what the recipe was trying to achieve, and has it
been persuasive ?
Conn V Copas tel : (0509)263171 ext 4164
Loughborough University of Technology fax : (0509)610815
Computer-Human Interaction Research Centre
Leicestershire LE11 3TU e-mail -
G Britain (Janet):C.V.Copas@uk.ac.lut
(Internet):C.V.Copas%lut.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 11:24:57 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hplabs!pbmoss!malodah>
Subject: Faucet Adapters
In HOMEBREW Digest #769, Bob Mastors asked:
> Williams Brewing sells a faucet adapter system that can
> be used to quickly add and remove a bottle washer in
> addition to other stuff.
>
> Does anyone out there have one of these and if so:
Have had one for a couple of years.
> a) does it leak
Not to any noticeable extent.
> b) is it easy to snap connectors on and off the adapter
Yes, rather.
> c) do you like it
Love it.
= 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: Wed, 27 Nov 91 12:24:12 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hplabs!pbmoss!malodah>
Subject: Not Chimay's Fault!
In HOMEBREW Digest #769, b_turnbaugh described infection problems
after brewing with Chimay yeast cultures, saying:
> ... They have a
> white ring around the bottle neck just like the Chimay. My question is did
> the bacteria take over my brewing basement??
Sounds like SOMETHING did, but I very much doubt it was related to
your Chimay culture. I've used Chimay cultures and worse
(Pediococcus damnosus, Brettanomyces bruxellensis, etc.) in my
brewing, and have never seen a white ring around the neck of one of
my bottles, except in the imitation lambics where ropiness was
deliberately induced. This is not a normal feature of Chimay's
inoculum, in my experience.
> ... [fermentation] seems to take a couple of days to get going.
The fact that you mentioned this suggests to me you've formed a
hypothesis, and it's one I agree with.
> ... Should I start making quart
>starters instead of 10oz starters?? Should I get down on my hands an knees
>and scrub everything with clorox??
Sounds like a good start to me, Bob. I'd guess your infection has
environmental origins, and that you'll do well both to address the
environment, and to get fermentation to take off as quickly as
possible to minimize the infection's "contribution" to the finished
beer. Good luck!
= 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: Wed, 27 Nov 91 14:53:26 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hplabs!pbmoss!malodah>
Subject: Lambic, Schmambic.
In HOMEBREW Digest #769, Bob Hettmansperger noted:
> Re: Samuel Adams Holiday Classics
>I bought this package with much enthusiasm, primarily because of the Cranberry
>Lambic. Having never tried a lambic before and REALLY liking Sam
>Adams ...
Sorry, but you still haven't. I haven't tried the Sam Adams
"Cranberry Lambic", and probably won't, as I can't support the
appropriation of the name of a specifically regional style for the
purpose of marketing a beer made outside the region and with
different methods. To find out how a lambic really tastes, seek out
a bottle of Timmerman's, of Mort Subite, Belle Vue, or if all else
fails, Lindeman's. If in your search, you find a source of
Cantillon, PLEASE LET ME KNOW!!!
> ... Well, I wasn't impressed. In fact, the taste reminded
> me of what my mouth tastes like the morning after having too much
> the night before.
Having participated last night in a vertical tasting of Sierra Nevada
Celebration Ales ('87 - '91) that somehow led to a horizontal
tasting (the tasters having lost the ability to remain vertical %*)
of single-malt Scotches, I find your analogy painfully descriptive,
just now. The taste in my mouth is not in the least lambic-like.
> What went wrong? Is this a typical lambic?
Not even close. The term "lambic" covers a wide range of flavors,
but they are generally sharply sour, with varying degrees of
fruitiness, and a very clean finish. Some have "horsey" or "mousy"
flavor notes, but all are clean, clean, clean. I highly recommend
trying a real lambic -- you'll either love it or loathe it, there
seems little middle ground. Happy hunting!
= 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: Wed Nov 27 10:09:27 1991
From: larryba@microsoft.com
Subject: Galvanized Mesh
Jack mentions the kind of screening his sparge system uses:
| I believe that "hardware cloth" is galvanized steel. I currently am
| taking a zink suplement with my daily vitimins so I doubt that any
| zink leaching off the little bit of screen would do anything other
| than save a few more of my brain cells.
Hold the vido presses! remember the article a week or so about cadmium
poisoning? That galvanized steel mesh is probably not coated with
food grade Zinc; it is probably contaminated with lots of random heavy
metals.
SS or copper/brass would be a much better choice for long term health.
------------------------------
Date: Wed Nov 27 11:10:37 1991
From: larryba@microsoft.com
Subject: Re: TSP vs Washing Soda
I think the only thing special going for Washing Soda is it is dirt cheap.
I don't know what the problem was for the guy who got a white film
on his bottles. *Any* alkaline environment will eventually etch glass.
Washing soda is pretty damn alkaline. Good call on using something acidic to
remove the film. Also, an alkaline environment will dissolve aluminum and
make aluminum hydroxide/carbonate - i know: i used this technique to make
hydrogen bombs, er, ballons in high school. Perhaps that was the source of
the film.
TSP is great stuff too. I don't use it simply because I don't have any.
I got the tip on using Washing Soda (primary ingredient in all dish and
clothing washing detergents) from a friend of a friend who is a chemist.
Now days, I pretty much just use a squirt of Dawn liquid detergent or the
Dishwasher when washing bottles or brewing equipment. TSP and washing soda
are pretty hard on my hands and I am too lazy to use gloves.
- larry barello
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 3:55:49 EST
From: Mike Sharp <msharp@cs.ulowell.edu>
Subject: Re: cutting a keg
Yet another way to cut a keg is to use an autobody 'zip saw'. Its
an air driven saw that uses ~4" diameter abrasive wheels. Its small
enough to cut a nice circle in the top of a keg, and if it binds in
the cut it won't 'kick', just bind (at least at something less than
super industrial air line pressures. I run 120+PSI at 13 SCFM). The
down side is that you need to know someone who has one. The tool
itself isn't expensive. At least not as tools go, anyway. The 5HP
compressor you need to run it is though.
Oh, this saw will cut the top of a keg off in about half an hour if you
work at it. It should take 2 or 3 wheels. I believe the wheels are $1.50ish
each at the moment.
--Mike
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 91 17:30:57 PST
From: ithaca!amber!phoebe@uunet.UU.NET (Phoebe Couch)
Subject: Re: Bottles
I usually use *very* hot water to soak the labels off(sometimes with TSP).
The glue soften up and you can peel the label off and rinse off the glue on the
other side while the bottles are still warm.
As for strong sturdy bottles, I like most UK imports:
Bass ale, Guinness, Mackenson and Watneys, etc,
As for domestic bottles, Anchors are great.
Sam Adams labels are harder to remove but the bottles are fairly sturdy.
Caution: never use Fosters, not just because they are green,
but they tend to break when you cap them.
Last time I needed bottles urgently, I tried to buy them off a street people
in Berkeley ( with a shopping cart full)
at 25 cents over the california redemption rate for each
6 pack, but he wouldn't sell them or even negotiate, figures!
P.
------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 91 10:18:00 EST
From: Henry (H.W.) Troup <HWT@BNR.CA>
Subject: Bottles, more Ethics, and On Premises Brewing
Even in stuff ol' Ontario I've been able to buy bottles from the
Brewer's Retail outlets. Sometimes. Although I have a fair stock of
bottles, I have a question and a comment. What brands (in Canada)
come in non-screw top bottles? Are there any caps that home brewers
trust for those bottles?
The comment: one local microbrewery died. Rumour says it was because
the Ontario regulations forced them into glass bottles (above 200,000
litres per year?), and they 'lost' too many bottles. Bottles
certainly cost more than the 10 cent deposit!
Final question: how do people feel about the 'on premises' brewing
places? Do you even have them? 'On premises' means they sell you the
materials and rent you the space and use of their equipment. They
seem to have microbrewery extract style stuff - with filtering and
bottling lines. Cost is between homebrew and commercial beer.
Getting very popular, because you don't need to know anything.
Henry Troup - HWT@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 08:19 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: EASYMASH
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
EASY MASH
(The Sequel)
This was originally posted leaving out a lot of details, some of which, I
herewith fill in.
As I intend to produce a new - - - - - on all grain brewing, I would
appreciate any and all CONSTRUCTIVE comments.
I want to develop an all grain process that reduces the cost and effort to
the minimum while producing an acceptable beer.
As I have the same aversion to plastic as I do to aluminum and to keep within
the budget of most hobbiests, I decided to base the system abound the old
enameled 8 gal kettle that grandma used for canning.
The same kettle is used for mashing, sparging and again after dumping the
spent grains, for the boil. It is never lifted full so the problem of
handles falling off is not an issue.
A few simple mods are required to make it fit the process. A small brass
spiggot is fitted to the bottom with a short piece of pipe extending several
inches toward the center on the inside.
A small piece of window screen is rolled several times around the pipe and
secured with a hose clamp or twisted copper wire. The screen roll extends
several inches past the end of the pipe and the last inch is bent over itself
to prevent anything from entering the spiggot that has not passed through
several layers of screen.
Mashing is begun by "doughing in" enough warm (100 degs) tap water to 8 lbs
of milled (2 row/6 row) malt to obtain a consistancy of oat meal. Let this
rest for 30 minutes.
Add enough hot tap water to bring the temp up to 120 degrees using a candy
thermometer to monitor the temp. Hold this temp for 60 minutes by adding
heat as necessary. Stir frequently to avoid carmelizing and to distribute
the heat.
On a separate burner, bring a couple of quarts of water to a boil.
Increase the heat and add enough boiling water to raise the temperature to
158 degrees. Maintain this temperature for 60 minutes. This can be done by
simply adjusting the flame while monitoring the temperature and dilligent
stirring.
The preferred method is by decoction. Remove a quart of the mash and bring
it to a boil on a separate burner then return it to the mash. Repeat this as
often as necessary to maintain the 158 degrees. In spite of the fact that
boiling destroys the enzymes, there are other important chemical reactions
that take place only by boiling. As only a small portion of the mash is
boiled at one time, there will always be enough enzyme activity in the
unboiled portion to maintain the process, even on the boiled portions.
Even partial decoction should produce a beer superior to the more common
method of dumping hot water into a cooler full of malt and trusting to luck.
After 60 mins at 158, crank up the heat and continue the decoction until 178
degrees is reached. Hold this temp for 30 mins with flame and a few
decoctions, then turn off the heat and let it rest while heating water on
another burner. If you have control over the hot water heater, you can get
it almost hot enough out of the tap. I keep two pans of water going so that
one is heating while the other is sparging. You are on you own here.
The level of wort in the kettle should be no more than about an inch above
the grain when it settles. Lay a dinner plate on top of the grain to
distribute the sparging water and minimize the disturbance of the grain.
Open the spiggot just a trickle and run the wort into a sauce pan or jug till
it runs clear. Pour the turbid runoff back into the kettle.
The object of sparging is to extract as much sugar from the grain as
possible. The longer it takes, the more efficient the extraction. Adjust
the outflow so that it takes at least an hour to obtain 5 gallons. Add the
boiling water as necessary to just keep the grain covered.
The first runoff should be about 1.080 and you quit when it gets below 1.010.
The total blend will produce 6 to 7 gallons at about 1.030 which, after
boiling will yield 5 to 6 gals at 1.040.
The seven gallons of wort will fit easily into the kettle for the boil. A
minimal one hour boil will evaporate about a gallon so you can play with the
volumes in various ways. You can increase the gravity by more boiling or
boil less and have more beer.
Add half of your hops as soon as boiling begins. Save one forth for the end
and the remainder at regular intervals during the boil.
After the boil, it is tapped into the primary after cooling, either overnight
or with a wort chiller if you have one. I actually draw it of a gallon at a
time so that I can shake it vigorously and "glug " it into the primary to
oxygenate it prior to pitching yeast.
The kettle seems to be universally available for about $35 and the rest of
the stuff can be had for less than $5, making it a pretty inexpensive system.
I happen to have a small foundry furnace that I use to boil on and have not
actually tried boiling on the kitchen stove but I gather from others that two
burners will eventually bring 5 gals to a boil. My furnace will bring 7 gals
to a wild boil in about 20 minutes and provides a true "fire-brew". It is
made out of a few fire bricks, a small blower and some pipe fittings.
For those afraid to try all grain, I can simply say that (for me), the
quality of my beer has made a quantum leap forward and it was like falling
off a log.
I do not doubt that some people can make good beer with extracts but I can
now honestly say, I don't think I ever did. All grain brewing takes a bit
more time and effort but the satisfaction is immence and dollar-a-gallon beer
is also no small part of the compensation.
js
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 91 10:00:37 PST
From: roborr@polari (Robert Orr)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #769 (November 27, 1991)
Please remove me from this mailing list!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: 28 Nov 91 (23:03)
From: hpfcla.fc.hp.com!canrem!mark.nickel (Mark Nickel)
Subject: new masher in town
Hi All,
After successfully brewing nine batches of extract or partial mash
beer, both my partner and I have finally decided that we are ready
to proceed with an all grain brew. In anticipation of this
mementos event I have thoroughly read both Miller and Papazian's
instructions on how to prepare an all grain batch. Although I
think I have a good grasp of all the steps involved, I was hoping
to tap this group's "Keg o' Knowledge" and hopefully gain some
insight into problems that are likely to occur but that I as a new
masher might not have anticipated.
Thanks in advance,
Mark
mark.nickel%canrem@lsuc.on.ca
- --
Canada Remote Systems. Toronto, Ontario
NorthAmeriNet Host
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Nov 91 01:00 EST
From: <S94WELKE%USUHSB.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject: A quotable beer quote
"This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the lord has
intended a more divine form of consumption. Let us give praise
to our maker and glory to His bounty by learning about BEER."
--Friar Tuck, portrayed by Micheal McShea
in the 1991 version of "Robin Hood"
Hope this makes your day.
- --Scott
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #771, 11/29/91
*************************************
-------
