Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0869
This file received at Mthvax.CS.Miami.EDU 92/04/22 03:10:51
HOMEBREW Digest #869 Wed 22 April 1992
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
CATS MEOWWWW (rizy)
Re: Candy sugar (Aaron Birenboim)
Sierra Nevada Yeast (Keith Winter)
H2O and Nitr. (doug)
Sierra Nevada Yeast (Martin A. Lodahl)
Re: carboy caps & bottle rockets (Email.Harlequin)
pepper beer (Carl West)
Spoiled Brew?? (Jeff Copeland)
Grolsch bottles. ("DRCV06::GRAHAM")
Itsa Conspiracy (Jack Schmidling)
Vienna recipes (George Fix)
Re: Homebrew Digest #868 (April 21, 1992) (Marcel Levy)
Wyeast 1028 kreausen question (Eric Mintz)
my experiences ("Brett Lindenbach")
Send articles for publication to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Please send all other requests to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
i.e., address change requests, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc.
Archives are available from netlib@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 12:15:08 +0200
From: rizy@cbts.sunet.se
Subject: CATS MEOWWWW
Would it be possible for someone out there to send me a copy of the
Cats Meow and/or an FTP address where I could access the archives
Thanks in advance,
Rick Z. (Sweden)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 07:45:10 MDT
From: abirenbo@rigel.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim)
Subject: Re: Candy sugar
Al replited to russ that "candy sugar" was likely to be cane
or sucrose. At a talk i attended from the brewmeister of the
"New Belgium Brewery", Ft. Collins, CO... he mentioned that
"candy sugar" was the secret ingredient of many trappists.
He defined candy sugar at Turbinado or Demura... Both of which
are available in the grocery store near me. Look for them tucked
away in the bottom shelf of the sugar section. They are not big
sellers, and do not get a prominent display space.
aaron
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 7:05:02 PDT
From: winter@cirrus.com (Keith Winter)
Subject: Sierra Nevada Yeast
Ken Giles writes:
> I've seen numerous remarks on culturing the yeast from a bottle of Sierra
> Nevada Pale Ale under the assumption that it's the same as Wyeast 1056. When
> I toured their brewery, the guide mentioned that they repitch yeast at bottling
> time in order to achieve the bottle conditioning. I asked if it was the same as
> the brewing yeast. He said that it was a different, more flocculant strain
> which stuck well to the bottom of the bottle. Given that their conditioning
> temperatures are in the 40s (Farenheit), it would also seem to be a lager
> yeast (I didn't ask this).
>
> Anybody have information to the contrary?
>
> kg.
The only information I have to the contrary is the information I got when I
took the toor of SN. The guide, when I asked this very same question, defferred
to one of the other workers (who seemed to be intimately involved in the brewing
process but I didn't get a chance to iquire further) who said that they used only
one yeast type (except for the Bigfoot Barley Wine) for primary, secondary
and bottle conditioning.
Just my $0.02 worth.
Keith Winter
------------------------------
Date: 21 Apr 92 08:49 EST
From: doug@metabolism.bitstream.com
Subject: H2O and Nitr.
Hello:
Just two quick questions... I've certainly enjoyed the
Nitrogen heads found on so many Stouts today, I was
wondering why this gas give off such a nice head and why it
isn't used in other beers?
Secondly, I've noticed over the years that most brewers
don't usually provide the amount of mash-in water used. Is
there a rule of thumb for gallons of water to
grains mashed in? I simply eyeball it until I think the
grain/water ratio is not too think.
Thanks in advance
doug@bitstream.com
Doug Connolly
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 7:09:31 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah@PacBell.COM>
Subject: Sierra Nevada Yeast
In HOMEBREW Digest #868, Ken Giles asked:
>I've seen numerous remarks on culturing the yeast from a bottle of
>Sierra Nevada Pale Ale under the assumption that it's the same as
>Wyeast 1056. When I toured their brewery, the guide mentioned that
>they repitch yeast at bottling time in order to achieve the bottle
>conditioning. I asked if it was the same as the brewing yeast. He
>said that it was a different, more flocculant strain which stuck
>well to the bottom of the bottle. Given that their conditioning
>temperatures are in the 40s (Farenheit), it would also seem to be
>a lager yeast (I didn't ask this).
>
>Anybody have information to the contrary?
Yep. It's possible they've changed their procedures in the last 10
months, but at a Sensory Evaluation seminar at UCDavis last June I
met a microbiologist from Sierra Nevada who said they condition with
yeast from the fermentors, after an acid wash. They don't use the
washed yeast for pitching; only for conditioning.
As an aside, I believe it speaks volumes for Sierra Nevada's
approach to quality that a brewery that size actually HAS such a job
description as "microbiologist".
You mention conditioning temperatures in the 40s; consider this:
many ale yeasts that will stay in suspension in the 60s will drop
right out in the 40s, providing as tight a yeast cake as one
could want. I assume they start the conditioning process at a
warmer temperature and then go down to there, unless they also
artificially carbonate (which would make sense to me). At those
temperatures, they really don't need to maintain a second yeast
strain.
= 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, 21 Apr 92 10:11:41 -0400
From: adiron!Email.Harlequin@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: carboy caps & bottle rockets
In HBD #868, mcnally@wsl.dec.com wrote:
> Why would you want to use an orange cap instead of a stopper and airlock?
> Even if you use a blow-off tube, the diameter of the orange thing is too
> small (unless you like plugged tubes and carboy bombs).
I've had my share of ballistic carboy caps--okay, maybe more than my share. I
did several things.
First, I went out and got some tubing with an inner diameter equal to the outer
diameter of the carboy cap's central (larger) opening. This will give you
about double the cross section of the tubing-inside-the-opening arrangement.
Second, and more important, I made sure to filter my wort when putting it into
the carboy. Nothing fancy, just passed it through a kitchen strainer and into
a funnel that has a plastic screen in the bottom. This is particularly handy
when whole hops have been used. Even when in a boiling bag, some of the bracts
sneak out with the sole intent of clogging your blowoff tube. It takes a
little longer to get it into the carboy, but what gets into the carboy stays
there!
The best solution is to do something discussed here recently. Let the break
material settle out a bit and rack the wort off the trub before fermentation
gets going. I did this for a barley wine and left behind a gallon(!) of break
material. I can only imagine the carboy cap fireworks that might have ensued
with that batch!
Since I've taken these steps, I've had no more bottle rockets and no more irate
telephone calls from my wife after finding hops on the ceiling. But I probably
won't be able to replicate that batch of "Calamity Amber". Such is life.
Yours in brewing,
Scott Barrett
scott@adiron.partech.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:01:59 EDT
From: eisen@kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West)
Subject: pepper beer
I would suggest adding the pepper as late in the process as possible.
Long ago I made a hot pepper mead. I put the peppers (crushed red) in
the boil at the start. I cooled it and pitched it. Talk about a slow
start! There was no krausen for the first 3 or 4 weeks. My theory is
that there were only a few yeast cells that could stand up to the
anti-biotic properties of the hot peppers and it took them that long
to take over the must.
Were I you, I'd roast the peppers and try either dry-peppering in the
secondary or the bottles themselves (smile when you drink that beer).
Carl
WISL,BM.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:03:34 -0600
From: copeland@calypso.atmos.colostate.edu (Jeff Copeland)
Subject: Spoiled Brew??
In HBD #867 Jason wrote:
>Me and a pal brewed a batch of beer 2 weeks ago (today) unfortunately we
>have not had a chance to bottle it. Now we are wondering if we spoiled
>the batch. Should we bottle it anyway? Should we dump it? Should we
>bottle it and then give it as gifts to our enemies? Etc.
As Al said in HBD #868 go ahead and bottle it. I just bottled a batch of
Stout that had been sitting 11 weeks in the primary (about 2 months longer
than I planned). The uncarbonated beer tasted fine, a bit thin but due to
the recipe not the bottling lag.
On another note I'ld just like to say that I've been reading HBD for a week
now and am pleased with what I've seen.
____ ____
Jeff Copeland / /
Atmospheric Science /---/ copeland@calypso.atmos.colostate.edu
Colorado State University ____/ /____
------------------------------
Date: 21 Apr 92 13:43:00 EDT
From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet@drcvax.af.mil>
Subject: Grolsch bottles.
I still have 72 Grolsch swing top 16 ounce bottles and 25 24 ounce swing
top ones for pretty cheap if you're within driving distance of Derry, New
Hampshire.
-Dan, (508) 475-9090 ext. 2352, days; 603 432-1661, evenings.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:39 CDT
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Itsa Conspiracy
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
>From: bickham@msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham)
>Subject: Jack Schmidling's NA Beer (very long!)
>Saturday, Jean Hunter ran a Dr. Beer seminar in which several Ithaca
Brewers' Union members were able to taste a standard beer that had
been doctored by adding food grade flavors or by fermentation/storage
conditions. After we had finished, we had the opportunity to taste
Jack Schmidling's NA homebrew, as well as Freeport NA "brew". My
analysis of these two NA beers appears below, along with a listing of
some of my judging qualifications.
>Jack's NA: The beer was in a clear Corona bottle, which enabled us to
see a small colony (about 1/4" in diameter) floating on the
surface of the liquid. Jean Hunter remarked that the colony
was there when she received the bottle in the mail. The color
was pale, however it was very cloudy. The bottle had been
refrigerated, so it could have been chill haze; however I didn't
let the beer warm up to test this hypothesis. The conditioning
level was similar to the Freeport. The aroma was faintly herbal,
but phenolics were also detectable. The taste was also herbal,
with some phenolic astringency in the finish. The flavor profile
of this brew lasted longer than the Freeport; however it seemed more
like an herbal tea than a beer. As for the alcohol level, Jean
has not yet checked this on the chromatograph, so the question
of distillation efficiency remains unanswered.
I am not sure if I should be just irritated or downright outraged at all
this.
After being accused of everything biggotry to being a charlatain, I sent Jean
some samples to be analyzed for alcoholic content on Mar 16. I also included
a complementary copy of "Brew It At Home" as a token of appreciation for her
help. I have sent mail to her three times since sending the samples and she
has declined to respond and this is the first feedback I have received.
There were four different samples, produced in different ways and none of
them were intended to represent anything other than samples for chemical
analysis. There was only one that I would even consider drinkable. One was
boiled to reduce the volume by 50% another was a blend of 4 different beers,
one was in a plastic bottle and none were aged or cleared prior to sending.
In the future, I will have a hard time taking criticism of my articles
seriously.
>Jack, I recommend that you be extra careful with sanitation, since more
microorganisms can exist at the lower alcohol level (as you are no doubt
already aware of).
As a matter of fact, I was no uninterested in anything but the alcoholic
content that I didn't even sanitize the bottles. I just rinsed and filled
them. I might have done a lot of things differently had I not been deceived
as to the purpose.
>Also, since your brew still contains isomerized-hop and sulphur compounds,
you are taking an unnecessary risk of photochemicaldamage by using clear
bottles. Hopefully the reason you sent this bottle to Jean is because you
are trying to get rid of it :-)
What you think of as a joke, is precisely why I used the clear bottles. They
are from Miller High Life and I only use them when I don't care what the beer
tastes like or when I can control the environment.
Now that you have all had your fun, is it asking to much to answer the only
question the samples were sent to address.
What is the alcohol content?
js
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 15:09:02 CDT
From: gjfix@utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Vienna recipes (George Fix)
Laurie and I would like to thank Craig Olzenak for his kind comments
about our book. After a initial trimming of potential recipes we
decided to go with whatever formulations did the best in sanctioned
competitions, independent of our personal preferences. There were no
conflicts with the standard Vienna, and it is the formulation that
won 1st in the '87 nationals. It also won best of show in the EHA
competition in New Orleans of that year. It has also proven to be
quite serviceable for the most important use of homebrew, namely as
a beer to have on hand for visitors and special social events.
We started to "debug" the festival beer (Marzen/Oktoberfest) in '88, and
this one caused us considerable grief. The first version, still our favorite,
used the recipe on page 57 except 120 degree caramel malt was used instead
of the 20 degree. We share Craig's love of the dark malt flavors! However
and alas, the version was clobbered in competitions. Typical comments
included "way too big for style", "dark malt flavors are overpowering",
and in Texas competitions (Dixie Cup) it was criticized for being
underhopped. The latter is a predictable regional response, but one
with some validity. We tried a lot of different things including different
yeast strains and higher hopping rates, but the overall performance was
generally poor. In 1990 we started cutting back on the dark malt
profile, and in particular started using the 20 degree malt. We also
started using English caramel malt exclusively. The effect of these two
changes was dramatic. It won 1st place in the 1990 LA Fair, the 1990
Riverside Cal Fair, the 1990 Dixie Cup, and the 1991 Bidal Society
Comp. in Wisc. It was also entered in the New England conf., however
that one was sharply marked down for being overhopped. The last time it
was entered was the 1991 nationals where it won 3rd place. The two beers
that came in front of it were in the standard Vienna motif, and it
has been our experience that this version (SG=1.050-1.055) will generally
do better than the festbier (SG=1.060-1.063). All of the commercial
"Oktoberfests" available in the US fall into the lower part of the first
gravity range, and apparently most judges not to mention basic beer drinkers
have grown accustomed to the lower gravity versions, although a SG in the
range 1.050-1.055 is hardly a weak beer.
P.S. Those going to the microbrewer's conference next week in Milwaukee
should stop by the Brewers Research and Development Co.'s booth and say hello.
There will be some exciting new equipment on display. JV Northwest and Pub
Systems can be counted on to display some interesting things as well. All of
this should give one an indication of the striking technological revolution
that has been taking place these last few years vis a vis equipment for small
scale brewing.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 14:55:01 PDT
From: mlevy@unssun.scs.unr.edu (Marcel Levy)
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #868 (April 21, 1992)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 17:06:01 MDT
From: Eric Mintz <ericm@bach.ftcollinsco.NCR.COM>
Subject: Wyeast 1028 kreausen question
I've just used Wyeast for the second time. The first time, I brewed a
stout with 1007. It had a wonderfully high kreausen (>3" !). This
time, I'm brewing a Pale Ale with 1028. It's producing CO2 like a
banshee but the kreausen is less than 1" high. Is this characteristic
of the yeast or my wort (or is it common for the kreausen height to
vary)? In other words: what in the wort is going on here? :-)
- --Eric
------------------------------
Date: 21 Apr 1992 18:11:45 -0600
From: "Brett Lindenbach" <Brett_Lindenbach@qms1.life.uiuc.edu>
Subject: my experiences
well, i've
been reading the
digest for
several weeks now, and
have finally
decided to
contribute. i
might add that my
background is
as a microbiologist
and 12-batch
brewer. about geoff
sherwood's
last comment (#868), i
agree that
clear bottles are much
nicer than
brown bottles. the
reason being
that i autoclave my
bottles, and
i have always lost
at least half
the brown bottles
due to
cracking, but have never
lost a clear
or green one,
although
import browns (ie.
guinness,
etc.) work fine. also,
i have had
success with kegging
beer in my
*carboy*. the trick is
to use a
strong one, such as a
pyrex one.
these also have a nice
lip on them
to clamp the stopper
in. i have
brought the CO2 up to
15 psi
without any adverse
effects. i
mention this for
anyone who
wants more detail on
my setup,
just let me know. also,
i have had
some recent success in
yeast
culturing/plating/storing
and would be
happy to share with
anyone
interested. -brett
"blessing of
your heart, you brew
good ale." -
w. shakespeare
my experiences form by b.
lindenbach
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #869, 04/22/92
*************************************
-------
