Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0756
This file received at Mthvax.CS.Miami.EDU 91/11/06 03:07:51
HOMEBREW Digest #756 Wed 06 November 1991
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Richter Scale Ale (Mike Daly)
Wy dyd my Wyeast wyther? (Jacob Galley)
Aaaaugh! The Word!!!! (Ross Parker)
a scary halloween (well, almost) story (Thomas Manteufel 5-4257)
Serious Business (Jeff Frane)
Sour Beer, Carbonation, Wheat Stout and more! (Rich Lenihan)
wort chiller (Matthias Blumrich)
Congrats to our winners (Stephen Russell)
Humiliated by Microorganisms
BLOWOUT (Jack Schmidling)
AHA Video (Mike Sharp)
Re: Canned Guinness Draft!?! (Adam Ashby)
Hop bitterness formulation and cherry red pots (GARY MASON - I/V/V PCU - 603-884[DTN264]1503 05-Nov-1991 0721)
Saccharin (Jim Grady)
Iodine test (card)
First two batches great - thanks! (Jeff McGowan)
Homebrew Digest #755 (November 05, 1991) (David Resch)
Light struck beer (darrylri)
RE: Dave Line's saccharin (Dan Kerl)
New canned "Draught" Guinness (Desmond Mottram)
Yet Another Mailing List (chuck)
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: Mon, 4 Nov 91 14:16:55 CST
From: ssi!mtd@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Daly)
Subject: Richter Scale Ale
This last weekend we had a beer tasting party. We tasted about 20 different
kinds (everyone brings a 6-pack, gets to take some home). I have a question
about one particular bottle:
Among the prized awarded was "worst of show (a beer suitable for slug bait
in the garden)" to this year's Richter Scale Ale (from somewhere in
CA). Now I had a bottle of this stuff about 2 years ago and I remember
it (vagely) as being pretty good. This year's batch tasted like dish
soap. Well, on first sip, first it tasted like hops, then it tasted
like dish soap, then it tasted like very thin beer, then you finished
the swallow and looked around the room to hear everyone else say
"soap?".
We didn't have a second bottle to compare with.
Now if light struck -> skunk (we had several of those in the tasting) and
oxidation -> cardboard. What gives soap?
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 15:08:58 CST
From: Jacob Galley <gal2@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Wy dyd my Wyeast wyther?
(Hats off to whoever used this pun about a month ago.)
This is my first encounter with Wyeast, it hasn't gone well!
My Wyeast has not started to show signs of fermentation yet, after
about 55 hours as of this morning. Here's the specifics:
I popped the inner package on Thursday morning, anticipating a Friday
night pitch. By 1 am on Saturday morning, the fresh wort was about luke
warm, so I pitched. But, by this time, the package was filled with
lots of gas -- like, I was half expecting it to splatter all over the
room when I opened it up. (It didn't.) So I dribbled the yeast into my
carboy.
One thing in the instructions that I didn't do was aerate the wort
after pitching. It didn't seem all that important. When there was no
trace of fermentation by last night, I decided to rack it into my
other carboy, since about three inches of spoogy sediment had already
accumulated. I also thought that racking would aerate it a little.
This morning: no action. Any advice? My wort is still okay, right? I
can go out and get some more yeast and pitch again, right?
Here is the address to complain to:
Jacob Galley, merely an undergraduate in The College
gal2@midway.uchicago.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 13:08:53 PST
From: parker@mprgate.mpr.ca (Ross Parker)
Subject: Aaaaugh! The Word!!!!
Hmmm...
> Re. Jack etc.: It seems there are two camps. One thinks that any new
>brewer is a good thing. The other thinks that a new brewer of "Dubious
>Quality" (TM) beer may not be a good thing. We're not gonna agree (unless
>we can get James Baker to help), so let's just move on. I would agree to
>drop the word "momily" though.
I smell an acronym here - How about 'OWT' (Old Wive's Tale) in place of the
much overused and somewhat idiotic sounding Schmidily... this is in keeping
with age old TLA (Three Letter Acronym) tradition.
(mind you... 'schmidily' has a nice ring to it also... :-)
Ross
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 15:02:53 CST
From: tomm@pet.med.ge.com (Thomas Manteufel 5-4257)
Subject: a scary halloween (well, almost) story
With all the postings recently about what is really important and what is
just assumed, please allow me to relate my own recent experience. I started
a batch of ale three weeks ago. I use dry yeast because with two small
kids, my life is too chaotic to even assume I can use a starter when I
want to. My normal yeast, Whitbred Ale, was out of stock at the
homebrew store. In a fit of desperation (and stupidity), I bought Red
Star Ale yeast. That was my first mistake. I let the wort cool
overnight in a covered pot (possible mistake number two; no wort
chiller), and pitched the rehydrated Red Star. Twenty four hours
later, no sign of life. The Red Star was dead. I got a cupfull of
live yeast from a friend's starter, and pitched that evening. Almost
two whole days had passed before I got active yeast into my wort.
Sounds like a recipe for infection? You bet. Three weeks later, after
fermentation had slowed, stopped, and restarted. I tasted some of the
brew (2 or so Ozs.). It tasted terrible. With a tear in my eye (some
of it from the smell), I dumped it down the laundry tub. This was
Friday evening. All day Saturday I had a sour stomach, and woke up at
midnight Sunday morning with severe stomach cramps. My wife took me to
the emergency room, where I spent a fun-filled four hours getting
tests. Final diagnosis: possible food poisoning. I'm much better
now, thanks.
So, class, what have we learned? Not all yeast is created equal. It
is just remotely possible that Red Star just isn't as good a yeast as
Whitbred. Whether dehydrated Whitbred is as good as liquid is left as
an exercise to the reader. Creating a starter would have let me see
that the Red Star was dead, and given me more time to find live yeast.
I take reasonable sanitary precautions, and I still wound up with five
gallons of poison because the yeast didn't take off right away. The carboy
had been filled with bleach water, and all the surfaces that touched the wort
were clean. A wort chiller would have helped. Sanitation is vital unless
you can with a straight face tell me that you are assured that your yeast will
take off immediatly. Let's not take unnecessary chances with five gallons
of bacteria food.
Thomas Manteufel IOFB
------------------------------
Date: 04 Nov 91 18:26:32 EST
From: Jeff Frane <70670.2067@compuserve.com>
Subject: Serious Business
To Jack Schmidling:
Jack, if you don't want comments don't ask for them.
In reference to your theory that I'm frightening people away from "our hobby":
For the record, I have taught introductory homebrewing to somewhere between 100
and 150 people and all-grain brewing to 50-60. As far as I can tell, most of
these people are still brewing and some of them are participating in this
digest. As Fred Eckhardt is fond of saying, "Rats! Another great theory
destroyed by the facts."
It is true I'm not interested in teaching people how to make "instant coffee."
I've offered people plenty of money-saving suggestions, but my emphasis is on
making high-quality beer. None of my students have ever qualified as "mush
brained."
To Tamar:
I love barleywines and see nothing wrong with Dave Miller's recipe, except that
I would not use sugar at all. On the other hand, I don't see any need to do the
primary fermentation any different than the usual carboy. I filled my
cooler-mash tun with grain (seven kinds of malt) to get a four gallon batch.
After primary fermentation in a carboy, I racked to gallon jugs (yes, with
fermentation locks) where it matured for six months. The beer was great
(although Dave Miller thought it was too dark) and still is, four years later.
I've had excellent barleywines that were partial mash-extract beers but I wanted
an all-grain beer--and besides, it's cheaper. It did take a lot of work, and I
had to wait a long time to drink it, which is why I can't understand making only
two gallons as Miller suggests.
Two things: I didn't sparge at all, but used only the liquid in the mash. I
boiled for 2 hours to reduce it to four gallons. I initially pitched a pure
champagne yeast, as Miller and others have suggested. It pooped out after two
days. Fortunately, I had some ale fermenting alongside and ran a couple of pints
of that into the barleywine wort. It took off like a maniac and fermented the
beer from 1.094 to 1.025 (at racking). The only real flaw in the beer are some
banana esters which I'm convinced came from the champagne yeast. Of the
microbrewers I know who brew barleywines, NONE use anything but their regular
ale yeast.
The British barleywines I've tasted were virtually still and too syrupy for my
taste. A too-young Thomas Hardy (about 1 year old) tasted like cough medicine.
After four years, it's better. My barleywine was ready to drink a few weeks
after bottling, although it's even better now. (I have no idea why it should
have matured so quickly, but BridgePort's Old Knucklehead was likewise (perhaps
the lack of sugar in each recipe?) Unlike Miller, I would suggest aging the beer
in bulk, then bottling. I know that wines age better in higher volumes, and have
also heard that Thomas Hardy in pints ages better than that bottled in nips.
To Darryl: You know, I think you're right. That's why I always love that Mexican
beer in the black-painted bottle. <Aagh! Just kidding!> Seriously, it's clear
that not everyone *has* gotten the message about light-struck beer. Otherwise,
why would it keep cropping up at beer judgings? If you're going to drink your
beer in a closet, it doesn't matter what kind of bottle it's in, but I still
think it's courting trouble to use Sam Smith bottles as some homebrewers use.
Everytime I sit in the courtyard at Produce Row, sipping a pint of Sierra Nevada
I try to set it in someone's shadow. I'm the nervous type.
In Digest #754, Jay Hersh makes some excellent points about new brewers and
expectations. I think--given the disagreements about "momilies" and instant
coffee and ghod knows what--it might be valuable to decide what it is about
homebrewing that makes it valuable. The response I got to my instant coffee
remark, from a couple of people, was that some people *liked* instant coffee and
... Well, I couldn't agree more. Some people do like instant coffee and some
people don't really care what kind of beer they're drinking.
I've been operating under the assumption that people brew beer at home (at least
in the U.S.) because they want to make something better than that available in
the stores, or something as good but less expensive. I know that beer has gotten
pretty expensive in places like the U.K., but in the U.S. if you *want* to drink
Old Heidelberg (pretty much the beer equivalent of instant coffee), by ghod, go
to the store and buy some. It's certainly going to cost less than the equivalent
beer brewed at home, and if things like sanitation and clean yeast are too much
trouble, hey, pick up a sixer.
If someone does want to brew at home and wants to do it quick and easy, fine.
Absolutely. I say encourage this person to pick up some kits, or do a very
simple extract/grain brew and, by ghod, they'll be brewing at home. If they're
willing to take a little care and a little time, they can make very good beer.
In fact, I've tasted some extraordinarily good beers that were made just this
way, with a very small investment in money. But with a very large investment in
care.
I do not believe you can make really good beer, consistently, with slapdash
methods. Simple methods, yes, but not by deciding that everything that takes a
little effort is too much work. And, really, what's the point? My father used to
drive me wild with this aphorism, but I'm not a kid anymore and it makes a lot
of sense: "Anything worth doing is worth doing right." And that includes brewing
beer (and he *loves* my beer).
David Odden asks about Mt. Hoods: Tell your supplier to get it together! These
hops were developed here in Oregon a few years ago as a replacement for the
German Hallertau, which was coming into scarce and unreliable supply. The end
result was a hop that, from both the brewer's and grower's perspective, was
superior to the original. Any reliable mail order place should have them
available, but you could contact FresHops (somehow ran the address here
recently) or call F. H. Steinbart (503-232-8793). I *know* they have them; I
just called. (And, yes, it's a delicious hop.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 17:46:02 EST
From: rich@bedford.progress.COM (Rich Lenihan)
Subject: Sour Beer, Carbonation, Wheat Stout and more!
Just a few items:
1. doug@bitstream.com asked about what to do with a sour batch
of Cranberry Ale. Depending on the amount of sourness involved
(and cranberries are *very* sour) you bottle as is and hope that
age will mellow the brew (don't count on it) or you can sweeten
it with lactose before bottling. I don't know if this will
improve the overall flavor of the ale (it might just make a
sweet'n'sour ale, suitable for serving with polynesian-type take-
out food). My own choice (and one I've used in the past) would
be to keep some "normal" beer around and custom-blend at serving.
2. John DeCarlo mentions pouring beer to relieve some of the
carbonation. When I was in college, I once attended a marketing
presentation given by an A-B sales rep (hey, the beer was free!).
The point of this demo. (besides shilling A-B products) was to
illustrate how pouring a beer affected the taste. In side-by-side
tastings, we compared Bud poured straight down the middle with
Bud poured gently down the side (Ed McMahon used to demonstrate this
same procedure on TV but I always figured he'd say *anything* for
a buck). Anyway, the straight-down-the-middle Bud was much
better than the gently-down-the-side (whether this raised it to
the level of drinkable, is subject for discussion). The sales
rep suggested that this was because the release of carbonation
"activated" the flavor of the hops and malt. I don't know, maybe
it was because without that extra carbonation our taste buds (ahem)
weren't numbed beyond sensation. When I pour, I always try to
release some of the carbonation but not so much as to let it go
flat before I finish drinking it (more of a problem with my homebrew
than with commercial products).
3. While reading the new edition of TCJoHB I noticed in the
foreword (or introduction) that CP mentions drinking a wheat
stout (I don't recall the exact name) while he was writing the
intro. The idea of making a wheat stout intrigued me, so I
immediately flipped to the now-famous index and low and behold -
no recipe for this brew :-( Do you think maybe he's holding it
out for TCJoHB, 3rd ed.? If anyone has the recipe for this
(or any other) Wheat Stout, I would be most interested.
4. I recently tasted Xingu Black Beer from Brazil. For those
of you who haven't tasted it, it's very black, slightly bitter,
and a strong taste of...I don't know what. The only beverage
that I could closely compare it to would be Moxie Cola. I
suspect that the similarity is due to the use of some root or
root extract. Does anyone know what this might be? Not that
I wish to duplicate it; just curious.
5. Thanks to all who answered my question re: Fix's "Principles
of Brewing Science" and whether someone (me) who had no prior
knowledge of chemistry would be wasting his time on it. The
general consensus was that the book is not light reading but
it's not inpenetrable either and definitely worth the effort.
I haven't bought it yet, but I will.
6. Good beer is no accident.
That's all for now
-Rich
Rich Lenihan UUCP: mit-eddie!progress!rich
Progress Software Corp. Internet: rich@progress.com
5 Oak Park Real life: 20-I Brandywine Drive
Bedford, MA 01730 Shrewsbury, MA 01545
USA (508) 754-7502
"Beer is a mellow drink, but it keeps you on the run..."
- The Bartender's Bounce
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 20:33:21 -0500
From: Matthias Blumrich <mb@Princeton.EDU>
Subject: wort chiller
Hi. I got a mailer from "Bradcoop Direct Mail Service" today and they
want to send me homebrew retailer coupons six times a year if I give
them $3.50. Anyway, to get me started they sent me a few coupons, one
of which was for free shipping on the immersion wort chiller from The
Home Brewery (321-BREW). I've been eyeing this chiller since it seems
kind of inexpensive ($29.95) so this opportunity seems good. So, has
anyone purchased this chiller or know anything about it? They don't
give any stats but say it can chill 5 gallons in about 15 minutes and
it's copper with brass fittings on the end. I want to start full mash
brewing in 5 gallon batches soon, so I need a chiller that will work
for that. Thanks for any help!
- Matt -
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 21:40:21 EST
From: srussell@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu (Stephen Russell)
Subject: Congrats to our winners
Peoples,
I just got the Special 1991 Zymurgy today, you know, the one containing the
1st Place Winners from this year's competition. Congrats are in order for
all the winners, but I figured I'd give special mention here to those winners
who also subscribe to the Homebrew Digest (that I know of):
Mike Zulauf.......Specialty Beer
Andy Leith........English and Scottish Bitter
Mike Fertsch......Wheat
Sorry if there's anyone I missed (I'd be surprised if I knew all 1200 or so
subscribers).
Might as well follow up on this with a recipe, just for kicks and so you all
don't think that all I do is schmooze :-)
Desert Storm American Steam Beer
- --------------------------------
(by Tom Strasser and Steve Russell; guess when this was brewed)
4# Pale Ale malt
5# Klages lager malt
1# crystal malt (40 or 60 deg Lovibond)
1/2 tsp Irish moss
1.5 oz Northern Brewer (alpha 8.0), boil 60 min (49 IBU)
1.5 oz Hallertauer (alpha 4.1), boil 1 min (4 IBU)
MeV High Temp Lager liquid yeast
Mash: 25 min at 52C, 90 min @ 66C, 10 min @ 75C
Judges said it was perhaps a tad thin compared to Anchor but otherwise OK
and it took 2nd out of 30 amber beers at the Hudson Valley competition last
March. With MeV 'kaput', I recommend using a sturdy lager yeast or even
an ale yeast for this one.
Brews to ya,
STEVE
- --
===============================================================================
Stephen Russell
Graduate Student, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Internet: srussell@snoopy.msc.cornell.edu work: 607-255-4648
Bitnet: srussell@crnlmsc3.bitnet home: 607-273-7306
===============================================================================
"The world is collapsing around our ears.
I turned up the radio. I can't hear it." -- R.E.M.
===============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 20:53 PST
From: alm@brewery.intel.com (Al Marshall)
To: homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Cc: alm@brewery.intel.com
Subject: Humiliated by Microorganisms
Well folks, I've got one of those humbling infection problems which really
takes a homebrewer down a peg. I throw this out to the HBD community,
not expecting that someone will reply with the genus and species of the
critter (and why not tell me where it's coming from while you're at it?),
but instead looking for a little guidance for hunting the beast. :-).
Some experiences with background infections that kick in only after bottling
would be of help.
In anticipation of some replies: yes, I plan to throw away every piece of
equipment that isn't stainless steel or glass. I might even leave my
current rental home (mostly because I want to get some equity; I'm not quite
that obsessed with brewing).
The problem:
Background microbial infection. Small white colonies, typically
right underneath the beer surface in the bottle. Turns up
between 4 and 5 weeks after bottling. Usually causes
malt and hop flavors to essentially disappear. In one particular
batch, a fungus-like stench was noted in the bottle's yeast sediment.
Before the infection, beer flavor and appearance are outstanding.
This problem has not been noticed in Cornelius-kegged beers. The keg
was sanitized with Iodophor rinsed with boiled water,
rather than bleach. Kegs are purged with CO2, whereas bottles
are not. Note however that the relative size of the
keg could cause a difference in the life cycle of the critters.
Also, I can't see inside the keg to see evidence of infection
or lack of same.
Theories:
Although some plastic equipment is reused, airborne infection
is more suspect; the brewery is in the Pacific Northwest and
black molds are in evidence on the casement windows at the end
of every spring. However, many brewers of my acquaintance in this
area have never seen this kind of infection before.
Terms:
Boil-sterilized: Boiled for 15 minutes @ 212F.
Bleach-sanitized: Exposed to 1 Tbsp/ 1 Ga Clorox solution
for 15 minutes. Air-dried for 5-15 minutes.
Baked: Baked at 350 F for 90 minutes.
Common Equipment:
Plastic Funnel, slightly scratched, several brews.
Plastic Tubing, several brews.
Plastic Siphon Cane, several brews.
Plastic Wine Thief, several brews, somewhat darkened by wort/beer.
Common Conditions:
Fall/Winter/Spring weather in Portland Oregon (60-100% humidity,
mold grows on inside surfaces by windows, etc.).
Process (common to all problem batches):
Prepare Starter
Boil 30 minutes. Baked starter bottle for 90 minutes at 350F.
Pour boiling wort into bottle fresh from the oven (HOT).
Cap with boiled bottle cap
immediately. When packet is pitched into starter, starter
looks good (no evident fermentation or other decomposition).
Sealed starters have been observed for several months without evidence
of the infection.
Start Yeast
Bleach-sanitized Wyeast packet (almost all ale strains)
pitched into starter bottle.
Brew
90 minute boil. 30 minute cool (brewpot in ice). Transfer
via boil-sterilized saucepan into bleach-sanitized fermenter.
Boil-sterilized strainer and bleach-sanitized funnel.
Rack off Break
Rack off break into second bleach-sanitized carboy with sanitized
siphon cane/plastic tubing started by sanitized wine thief with
boiled water. Pitch yeast from starter with funnel.
Primary Fermentation
1 week duration at 68-70 F. Fermentation looks good.
Bleach-sanitized carboy. Bleach-sanitized blowoff tube to
sanitizing solution in gallon jug for 2 days,
then bleach-sanitized fermentation lock.
Secondary Fermentation
2 to 3 week duration at 65 F.
Bleach-Sanitized Carboy. Bleach-Sanitized siphon hose and
cane, started by beer or boiled water with bleach-sanitized
plastic wine thief.
Sometimes dry hop with steamed hop bag; sometimes not.
Fermentation looks good.
Bottle
Bottles are cleaned with dishwasher detergent and hot water.
Rinsed well with hot water and baked at 350F for 90 minutes.
Siphon Cane and plastic tubing are bleach-sanitized.
Bottling Wand is bleach-sanitized.
Priming sugar (dextrose) is boiled 15 minutes.
Bottle Caps are boiled for 15 minutes.
2 to 3 weeks after bottling (bottles at room temperature)
Beer is carbonated and tastes excellent.
4 to 5 weeks after bottling
(bottles either at room temperature or refrigerated for a couple of weeks)
"Mold" ... (small colonies; 1/4 size of a pinhead around neck of
bottle. Once the yeast cake in the bottles smelled like
athlete's foot). At best, the quality of the beer is diminished,
at worst it gets poured down the sink.
================================================================
|
R. Al Marshall | Insert clever aphorism here.
Intel Corporation |
alm@brewery.intel.com |
|
================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 91 22:50 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: BLOWOUT
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
TO BLOW OR NOT TO BLOW (OUT)
I have been entranced with the idea of "blow out" primary fermentation and
had to give it a whirl. The following are my observations on the
procedure.
1. The batch size is critical. The carboy must be "full" in order to blow
out all the foam but not so full that a lot of wort is lost.
This may seem like a simple problem when making up an extract batch wherein
brewing water can be added to top it off or make up the full wort. Even
then, I would guess that, what works in winter would be an explosion in warm
weather.
However, when brewing all-grain, the end amount is far less predictable. I
usually sparge out about 7 gallons to allow for evaporation and end up with a
nominal 5 gallons. Well, this time I ended up with an extra gallon, most of
which I eventually was able to add, as the blow out, blew out but it was a
pain in the butt.
2. It is now under a conventional fermentation lock and I am having
nightmares about cleaning that dried crud out of the top of the carboy after
another week or so of this.
3. It appears that I lost about 2 quarts of wort. In my normal skimming
routine, I doubt that the foam converts into more than a half a cup.
4. There still is a substantial amount of foam that could not be blown out
because of the level and I guess that it is more than what I miss in the
skimming process.
5. On the plus side, it was a mystical experience watching the foam "trains"
traveling through the tube. The color of the wort (a creamy brown) during
primary was also a surprise.
I won't make a recommendation but I will suggest my next experiment. The
best part of the procedure is being able to see the fermentation but the most
interesting part (the foam) is all jammed up in the top and trying to get
out.
So, I got a piece of glass a few inches larger than my primary fermenter and
I am just going to set it on top and see what happens. The fermenter is the
standard 8 gallon plastic job and allows a wide variation in batch size.
The lids that come with these things leak anyway and the ferm lock is nothing
but a passifier.
I used to panic because the fermentation always seemed to stop after a few
days because the lock quit bubbling but when I look inside it is fermenting
furiously but not quite enough to keep up with the leaks.
BTW, I like skimming. It makes me feel like I am contributing something to
the process.
Now for the momily buster......
How come Baderbrau pumps the chilled wort into a fermenter and 30 days later
drains it off to be filtered and bottled? They do not seem to be concerned
about the foam falling back in. This is the beer that Jackson proclaimed the
best American Pilsner.
js
ZZ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 4:19:07 EST
From: Mike Sharp <msharp@cs.ulowell.edu>
Subject: AHA Video
Chris Shenton asks:
> Doesn't the AHA have a video on homebrewing for beginners, staring all your
> favorite (:-) stars, like Papazian, et al?
Interesting question Chris. I just got out my latest Zymurgy and:
Yes, The AHA does have a video. I've seen it in the local supply shop.
I'm sure it goes wonderfully with Charlie's new edition of The Complete
Joy of Homebrewing. Imagine that, an intro video & and intro book!
But wait, there's more -- I believe they also have a (free?) flyer on how to
brew your first batch. Then there are _all_ the other books/materials...
The writeup on the video reads:
"Homebrew Video -- Brew with the masters! There is nothing like hands-on
training for learning an art, and in this three-part 76-minute home study
course acclaimed homebrewer Charlie Papazian, author the TCJOHB and
publisher of Zymurgy magazine, demonstrates the complete process of
brewing for you. Is there a clearer, more comprehensive way of learning
to brew? We don't think so!
Charlie shows the required equipment, ingredients and techniques for brewing,
then several other homebrewers tell you their brewing secrets. Finally,
two brewmasters share their tips with you, one of whom takes you
behind-the-scenes at his brewpub in Toronto."
[hmm, I wonder who checks their copy...]
The AHA can be reached at (303)447-0816
FWIW, Jack pointed out that commericalism is OK on Internet so I thought
I'd just add my $0.02. Perhaps we should post information about this
video on a regular basis. After all, it would be for the enlightenment
of the new brewers -- we should do _everything_ possible to get new
brewers started. Maybe I'll even buy a few copies of the video and
rent it out...
(-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-) (-: :-)
--Mike Sharp [who isn't an employee of the AHA, btw]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 12:22:39 GMT
From: ashbya%zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com@zeus.swindon.rtsg.mot.com (Adam Ashby)
Subject: Re: Canned Guinness Draft!?!
"Russ W. San Fran/CA" <72300.61@compuserve.com> expounded on the delights of
discovering Draught Guinness in a can.
I will second Russ' opinion on this subject. We have been lucky enough to
have had draught Guinness for a couple of years now. I was surprised that it
hadn't made it to the States when I was there from Jan '90 thru Sept `91
(officially of course - more than one 4 pack came back with me every time I
returned from a trip home!). Until recently it was the only commercial brew
that was worth keeping at home, but upon my return to England I have
discovered that they are using the same, or similar technique with Bodingtons
Bitter, from Manchester I think. Anyway, now my fridge is always well
stocked and I don't have to go to the pub for real beer. Hopefully some of
the other real brewers in England will start to produce real beer in cans.
Many others have started to but without the thingy that makes the difference.
Since I have been back I have discovered Brakspears, Pedigree, Bodingtons and
6X in cans and Old Hooky in a bottle, all of which are a vast improvement on
what i have been forced to drink for the last two years, but none of which
measure up to a pint of the real thing from a barrel!
The new 'Good Pub Guide' came out this week, and brought along with it a
contoversy about the price of a pint in various parts of the country. For
example it is possible to buy a pint (20oz) in Manchester for the same price
as a half pint (10oz) in London. The average price of a pint in london is now
about L1.80 ($3.00) and the rest of the country comes out to about L1.20
($2.20).
Adam.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 07:27:20 EST
From: GARY MASON - I/V/V PCU - 603-884[DTN264]1503 05-Nov-1991 0721 <mason@habs11.ENET.DEC.COM>
Subject: Hop bitterness formulation and cherry red pots
re:
> about 15 min. I suspect talk of cherry-red bottoms on a kettle full of water
> is a bit of a rhetorical flourish. But even so, you can't possibly hurt a
> steel kettle on anything even that hot. I originally tested it on a 5 gal
I had asked this question at one time, with no responses. I have a 45KBTU
burner and a Vollrath 10 gallon clad SS pot. It gets *R*E*D* on the bottom,
to the point that I wondered about the safety aspect. Anyone REALLY know what
the answer is?
re:
> the equations. So, I guess my IBU ? 4 U is this: What is the formula for
> expressing %AAU in terms of boil time and s.g. This question is not answered
There is an article entitled "Calculating Hop Bitterness in Beer" by Jackie
Rager in the Zymurgy special issue on hops (V13, #4 - Special, 1990) which has
all of the letters and numbers you could ever want, I suspect.
Darryl - do you use this (type of) info in your Macintosh product-to-be?
Cheers...Gary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 9:49:38 EST
From: Jim Grady <jimg@hpwald.wal.hp.com>
Subject: Saccharin
In HBD #755 Gary Mason asks:
> Line specifies one saccharin tablet (characterized as the one that
> has the "sweetness" of one tsp of sugar) per gallon in many of his recipes.
> What does that mean? The residual sweet taste, with no intentional addition
> of fermentables? If so, what can one substitute for the same result? If
> one uses sugar, it will ferment, and presumeably lose it's "sweetness".
> Again, I assume that what he wants is the sweetness in the finished
> product only.
Some beer/winemaking supply shops sell lactose as an unfermentable sugar
that can be added to get a residual sweetness in wines & I presume beers.
I have never used it so I would ask my supplier or seek out the advise
of someone who has. Has anybody out there used or heard of using lactose?
- --
Jim Grady |
Internet: jimg@hpwala.wal.hp.com | "Better thin beer than an empty jug"
Phone: (617) 290-3409 | - Danish Proverb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:22:42 EST
From: card@apollo.hp.com
Subject: Iodine test
IODINE TEST AND WORT BOIL TIME
Hi: Regarding Iodine test to determine starch conversion.
* Miller says it's unreliable, but mashes for a full 2 hours
* Papazian says do it and mashes only 45-60 minutes
After using the Miller method and waiting a full 2 hours, I'm ready
for a better way.
- Any comments on the reliability of the iodine test.
- Is it possible to Mash for 1 hour and NOT have the grain converted?
***************************
BOIL TIME - Again trying to save some time:
Miller boils the wort for 90 minutes.
papazian 45-60 minutes
/Mal Card
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1991 10:05 EST
From: Jeff McGowan <MCGOWAN@esb.com>
Subject: First two batches great - thanks!
Well, Mike (tanenbla@division.cs.columbia.edu) and I have now brewed two
batches, both of which worked wonderfully, and we wanted to thank everybody on
the digest for all the info we have picked up over the last few months of
reading - it certainly made things easier. We had no real surprises thanks to
HBD - every time something came up, we remembered reading something here about
it, and that helped us relax ...
The first batch we did was a Bitter, which came out much better than either of
us thought was even vaguely possible (several people, who kept telling us that
every homebrew they had ever tasted was terrible, tasted this one and decided
that maybe it *was* possible to brew good beer at home). We used one can of
Coopers Ale (hopped) with a bag of NW amber and some extra bittering hops, and
it came out wonderfully bitter, but clean, and even clear! The second batch is
an IPA - a very nice pale ale taste, just a touch cidery, with a bit of a chill
haze. We are now doing two batches, both the same Anchor recipe from the Cat's
Meow, but one with lager yeast at cool temps, and one with ale yeast (all recipes so far done
with Whitbread). We are curious to see what the taste difference will be.
One problem we did run into, which maybe somebody could comment on, especially
for other beginners, is bottling! For the first batch, we just had a tube, and
we tried to stop the flow by pinching the hose, or raising the end, both of
which seemed to guarantee lots of beer on the floor. We used a makeshift valve
taken from a Dinkel Acker mini-keg for the second batch, and bought a bottler
for $3 for all subsequent batches. What does everybody else do?
Again, thanks alot everybody - looking forward to posting more as we brew
more!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 09:22:45 MST
From: resch@craycos.com (David Resch)
Subject: Homebrew Digest #755 (November 05, 1991)
>Subject: Dave Line's saccharin
>
>I never have seen an answer to this...or even a discussion, that I can
>remember. Line specifies one saccharin tablet (characterized as the one that
>has the "sweetness" of one tsp of sugar) per gallon in many of his recipes.
>What does that mean? The residual sweet taste, with no intentional addition
>of fermentables? If so, what can one substitute for the same result? If one
>uses sugar, it will ferment, and presumeably lose it's "sweetness". Again, I
>assume that what he wants is the sweetness in the finished product only.
I seem to remember a discussion a while back on substitutes for the saccharin
called for in some of Dave Line's recipes. While I have never used it, I
believe that some had suggested using lactose as a substitute. Lactose (milk
sugar) is unfermentable by brewer's yeast and so leaves a residual sweetness in
the finished product. Lactose is often called for in "milk stouts" which have
a characteristic residual sweetness. Sorry, but I don't remember any of the
details regarding the quantity to substitute... maybe someone else knows or
remembers.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Tue Nov 5 07:56:57 1991
From: darrylri@microsoft.com
Subject: Light struck beer
Steve Stroud says:
> The problem is that by putting the bottles in the sun, you are putting them in
> an extreme environment, one which most bottles will never see. The sun is a
> high intensity light source (summertime in LA?) and puts out large amounts of
> UV and blue light. None of the colored bottles are totally opaque and as you
> have discovered, they all skunk quickly.
>
> A better experiment would be to put the bottles under fluorescent light and
> incandescent light at varying distances and for varying times, trying to
> simulate what a bottle of beer might go through on a retailers shelf. Under
> those conditions I'd put my money on the brown bottles being much more
> resistant to skunking.
I cannot disagree with you to the extent that brown bottles are likely
to stave off the reaction longer than green. Perhaps you have better
retailers in the east, but my experience is that I often get skunked
beer, regardless of bottle color, when I can't find one that has been
kept in the dark. Certainly 15 minutes of sunlight (btw, these were in
February or March, but it appears that LA sun in February is stronger
than it ever gets in Seattle ;-) is a big dose relative to flourescent
bulbs, but how big? 1000 times? That's merely 24 days under artificial
light. Anyway, I will stick by my rule of thumb here, and I will refuse
to prejudice myself by the bottle color in a contest (which was the
true point of my posting). Skunky beer is beer that has been handled
poorly, and it seems easy enough to do so regardless of bottle color.
> I think that if we are talking about moderately mistreating beer (as in letting
> it sit under a store's lights for some time), the color of the bottle DOES
> matter. Ever wonder why the skunky beers that you get off store shelves are
> generally in green bottles? When was the last time you had a skunky Heinekin?
> When was the last time you had a skunky SN pale ale?
Well, I don't generally buy SN Pale Ale in a bottle when it was one of the
easiest beers to enjoy fresh from the tap in LA; perhaps that'll change
up here. But the bottles I consistently saw were pretty new. With regard
to imported beers, however, I have had the great disappointment of getting
skunky Warsteiner as well as Heineken. And I've already had the displeasure
of a skunky Bridgeport that I bought late one night from the super I can
easily walk to. Bridgeport comes in brown bottles, and is unfortunately,
undated.
> Tom Strasser's posting in HBD 753 was excellent and
> visibly demonstrated the vast difference in light absorptivity between green
> and brown bottles.
It was interesting to see what the different transmittance properties
of the glass were, but based on my tasting experience, it is clear
that either I was going to the wrong retailers in LA or that it just
doesn't take very much small-wavelength light to produce the effect.
> Here's a part of a post from Darryl Richman in HBD 609:
> >Light struck is defect noticeable by a skunky or catty aroma. This is
> >brought on by a transformation in one of the hop constituents under the
> >influence of green light.
>
> I am challenging the assertion of postings in this forum that green
> light (and the "magical" 520 or 525 nm wavelength) is somehow
> responsible for the skunking of beer.
I've had this pointed out to me since I posted, and I went back and
checked through my materials. You are aboslutely right, I was unable
to locate a reference, and now I wonder where I read or heard about
this specific wavelength. (It might be Beer and Brewing #9, since
one of my dogs had his way with it, or it might not, but that is
the only place I could have read it and not verified it.) Every
reference I have does indicate that there is a broad range of
the spectrum that can cause the transformation.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Tue Nov 5 08:29:45 1991
From: hpfcmr.fc.hp.com!hpfcla!darrylri%microsoft.com
Gary Mason writes:
> I never have seen an answer to this...or even a discussion, that I can
> remember. Line specifies one saccharin tablet (characterized as the one that
> has the "sweetness" of one tsp of sugar) per gallon in many of his recipes.
> What does that mean? The residual sweet taste, with no intentional addition
> of fermentables? If so, what can one substitute for the same result? If one
> uses sugar, it will ferment, and presumeably lose it's "sweetness". Again, I
> assume that what he wants is the sweetness in the finished product only.
I hope you'll allow me to speculate on Dave Line's experiences, without
construing them as being the truth. His mashing technique, while bold for
the early seventies, was a bit crude. I think that he probably
got a very good return on his grain, converting as thoroughly as possible
all of the starches into simple sugars. (As I recall, he advised putting
the mash in a picnic cooler overnight.) He also recommends dried yeast,
which he then goes on to repitch.
Thus, he has selected what some of us have determined to be the
most attenuating circumstances to brew under. His resulting
beers therefore, were pretty dry. Since he knew that many
famous styles were not dry, he looked around for ways
to gain this sweetness, which he could not obtain in the normal way
of high mash temperatures and low attenuating yeast.
Thus he began to experiment with sweetners that could not be
fermented and hit upon saccharine. I suspect that in small
quantities, saccharine would not be very obtrusive, perhaps
lending some "interesting" flavor that might not be identified.
All of this is, of course, the merest speculation.
I must also admit to not owning "Brewing Beers Like Those
You Buy", and am referencing instead "The Big Book of Brewing".
I keep this book at hand because Line is an interesting source of
insight to British beermaking technique, since he clearly spoke
with a number of brewers. He also has much to teach about using sugar
in beer (gasp!).
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 10:22:51 CST
From: kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com (Dan Kerl)
Subject: RE: Dave Line's saccharin
If I remember what I read in Dave's book, "Brewing Beers Like Those You Buy",
the reason that saccharin was used in his recipes was because that the dry
yeasts available to him at the time were overly attenuative. He explained
that to get a similar level of sweetness to a commercial brew (where they
didn't have to put up with the same yeast compromises), he needed a non-
fermentable source of sweetness.
I suspect that with the improved yeast cultures available to us today, such
comprimises as this are unnecessary. It would be interesting to try to modify
Dave's recipes to eliminate the saccharin adjunct by using a more appropriate
yeast culture.
I'm interested in his recipe for Ruddle's County Bitter. Has anyone tried it?
Dan Kerl So much to brew--
Intergraph Corp. So little time.
kerl@cmack.b11.ingr.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 91 17:17:36 GMT
From: des@swindon.swindon.ingr.com (Desmond Mottram)
Subject: New canned "Draught" Guinness
> From: "Russ W. San Fran/CA" <72300.61@compuserve.com>
> Subject: Canned Guinness Draft!?!
... < Now the folks at Guinness have developed a system which dispenses their
stout from a can in such a way as to rival a pub tap. > ...
I can verify this man speaks the truth! The new draught system has
transformed canned Guinness into something virtually indistinguishable from
the best obtainable in pubs anywhere outside Ireland. In the UK the system
is also used in a new (delicious!) Guinness Bitter and in Boddingtons. I
expect it to revolutionise beers where a thick, tight, creamy head is part
of the drinking experience.
I would, however, warn against making it too cold or too warm. If too warm
it froths all over the place; if too cold the system only produces a small,
disappointing head and flattens the flavour of the beer. Frankly I think
two hours in the fridge is too long. (Maybe mine is colder than theirs).
Serve it cool, not cold.
Desmond Mottram
------------------------------
Date: Tue Nov 5 14:26:48 1991
From: synchro!chuck@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Yet Another Mailing List
I would like to announce the creation of a new homebrew related mailing list.
The Beer Judge's Mailing List is a low-volume unmoderated internet mailing
list. The purpose of the list is to provide a forum for beer judges and
competition organizers to discuss issues that may not be of interest to the
general population of the HomeBrew Digest. Anyone with an interest in
stewarding, judging, or organizing homebrew competitions is encouraged to
subscribe. Possible topics for discussion include internal policies and
politics of the BJCP, preparing for the exam, publicizing your competition,
and competition reviews.
In order to subscribe to the list, please send the following information
to judge-request%synchro@uunet.uu.net:
- email address
- name
- rank (apprentice, experienced, recognized, certified, national, master,
steward, or organizer)
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Cox (world's fastest homebrewer) chuck%synchro@uunet.uu.net
Hopped/Up Racing Team uunet!synchro!chuck
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #756, 11/06/91
*************************************
-------
