Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1021
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 92/12/01 08:48:46
HOMEBREW Digest #1021 Thu 26 November 1992
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re: Hops/Cannabis (G.A.Cooper)
Telluride Beer (Guy D. McConnell)
Strike Water Hint (pmiller)
DMS and boiling ("Spencer W. Thomas")
DMS, Whirlpools (Joe Rolfe)
hunter airstat, klages vs. harrington, hops (James Dipalma)
Three gallon kegs (connell)
Greetings... (WALKERG)
Beer Nests (Hal Laurent)
Re: Mash transition (Jeff Benjamin)
Kevin's and Bill's questions (parsons1)
Hops and Cannabis (Mark J. Easter)
Re: Hops/Cannabis (David Van Iderstine)
chico pale ales/lion's head ale house in blue island (Tony Babinec)
Re: Candy sugar continued (Aaron Birenboim)
Aging, Head, etc (Jack Schmidling)
orval yeast (Tony Babinec)
Re: Oregon Pub Crawling (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)
Sierra Nevada and fruitiness (Rob Bradley)
Humulus & Cannabis (Ed Westemeier)
Bud ads/starter timing/Orval/pot size/going all-grain (korz)
Re: Re: candi / Easymash infusion (korz)
Re: clearing cider (Richard Childers)
Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 10:09:28 +0000
From: G.A.Cooper@qmw.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Hops/Cannabis
From: Brian Michael Cors
>Supposedly he has heard that hops are the third/fourth cousin to the cannabis
>plant. Is there any truth to this??
Yes. From J.S.Hough 'The Biotechnology of Malting and Brewing":-
Hops belong to the Cannabinaceae but, despite the relationship with Cannabis,
the commercial hop Humulus lupulus contains no hallucinogenic substances.
Geoff
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 8:27:30 CST
From: guy@mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy D. McConnell)
Subject: Telluride Beer
What's the scoop on this stuff? I picked up a six-pack of it one night in
Bruno's on a lark, all the while assuming that it was brewed in Telluride
Colorado. I was surprised to read on one of the bottles that it is brewed
somewhere in the midwest (the place escapes me now). It did not list *any*
ingredients, not even the standard "barley, hops, yeast, and select grains"
that the big boys use. What is in this stuff? While it was not a big step
above the mass produced adulteration of barley I did find it to have a bit
more character. I seem to recall tasting a bit of sweetness similar to crystal
malt and that the hopping rate was more than simply holding up a bag and
"showing it" to the wort. Unfortunatley, I don't even recall if it was an ale
or not (if it was indicated anywhere - there was precious little info on any of
the packaging). Anyway, I meant to ask this when my memory of the brew was
still fresh but I forgot. Just wondering if anyone is familiar with it.
- --
Guy McConnell guy@mspe5.b11.ingr.com or ...uunet!ingr!b11!mspe5!guy
"All I need is a pint a day"
k
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 08:32:52 CST
From: pmiller@mmm.com
Subject: Strike Water Hint
Greetings.
Last weekend I brewed my first all grain batch and I have a hint
for those who are about to try this themselves:
Most books tell you to add 1 - 1.3 quarts of strike water per
pound of grain. If you mash in a picnic cooler set up, make sure
that you also add in the volume of water that your false bottom
will hold.
For instance, I've got a 10 gallon Gott cooler and my false bottom
is a little over an inch above the bottom. I have nearly 1
gallon's worth of space under my false bottom. If I mash 10 pounds
of grain I'd need between 3.5 and 4.25 gallons of water.
1 quart X 10 + 1 gallon = 3.5 gallons
1.3 quart X 10 + 1 gallon = 4.25 gallons
I've never seen this written out explicitly in my books (maybe
because both Charlie and Dave advocate the mash-on-the-stovetop
method) and learned it this weekend -- the hard way...
I hope this helps other new all grain brewers.
Phil
pmiller@mmm.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 10:01:39 EST
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu>
Subject: DMS and boiling
Martin Wilde writes:
> The brewer said they had never noticed a problem and he thought the
> DMS thing
> was a bit over hiped...
Well, I was at a local micro-brewery last month (Detroit & Mackinac,
the only active brewery in Detroit) and the brewer there is extremely
careful to try to get DMS out/keep it from forming in his beer. He
whirlpools the wort out of the boiler and sends it through a heat
exchanger immediately. He's also got a "steam trap" in the exhaust
steam pipe leading the steam from the boiler outside. The theory is
that any condensation in the flue will drip back into the trap, rather
than into the boiling wort, so the DMS going "up the chimney" will
stay gone.
=S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 10:08:19 EST
From: Joe Rolfe <jdr@wang.com>
Subject: DMS, Whirlpools
hi all,
another data point for the whirlpool->dms:
i do basically the same thing strike the kettle (heat off), add any finish
hops, oar the kettle for about 5 min to get a good whirlpool going, add finings
(in my case i rehydrate irish moss for a couple of hours and add it -
contrary to popular belief - i do not add it 5,10,15 min left to the boil).
in most cases the only negative result of doing this is a loss in aroma as
the finish hops are usually in contact for about 90 minutes. the dms issue
does appear to only come about when the temp of the wort gets to a certain
temp - from what i have read and heard - temp gets below 190F. in my case the
temp only gets to about 195F on average (again depending on the brew length).
most every large scale brewery that i have ever visited performs this whirlpool
, wait for the "junk" to settle then begin chilling. the other way to remove
the "junk" quickly would be to filter the hot wort and some breweries do this
also - filtered thru hops (hopback), centrifuged(??), or a plate/frame filter.
well this is just another coupls of cents worth....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 10:48:04 EST
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: hunter airstat, klages vs. harrington, hops
Hi All,
In HBD 1019, Mike Kenny writes:
<good post for the electronically inclined deleted>
For those who may be leery of taking apart and modifying an
electronic device, there is another method of getting a
refridgerator equipped with a Hunter Air-Stat to operate at
temperatures below 40F.
Within every refridgerator, there are some areas that are
colder than others, specifically the bottom-center is roughly 5
degrees colder than the upper-sides. What I do is tape the
temperature sensor to the sidewall of the fridge, about 3/4
of the way to the top. Don't place the sensor too close to the
freezer compartment, or this does'nt work. I set the airstat to
40F, the temperature at the bottom-center (where the beer is
sitting) gets down to about 35F, as verified by readings taken by
several different thermometers. I have two fridges set up this
way, it works the same for both of them. Your mileage may vary,
but the bottom of every fridge should be the coldest area.
In HBD 1014, Glenn Anderson wrote and asked about the difference
between Klages and Harrington malt. I want to brew an Anchor steam
clone, and was planning to use domestic 2 row. I've been looking
for responses to Glenn's post, as I have pretty much the same
questions, and I'm a little disappointed at the lack of response.
I know some of the readers of this forum have a fair amount of
expertise regarding malts, would one of you folks be so kind as to
enlighten us?
Aaron Birenboim writes:
> I just got a street lamp installed in front of my house.
>I was wondering... could i grow hops up this pole? or do they
>need something thinner like a string to twine up?
This past spring, a friend of mine obtained some hop vines, planted
some of them in his yard, and put the rest in some large pots behind
his shed. A few weeks later, I went to his house to get the ones
in the pots. He had sort of forgotten about them, so when we went
around to the back of his shed, we found that they had grown up on
*everything* in the immediate vicinity. Scrap lumber pile, sawhorses,
the vines were everywhere, including around the trunk of a very large
oak tree. The diameter of this tree was about twice that of your
average lightpole, and the vines had entwined themselves around it and
had grown about 12 feet up the tree. We had to hack at them for 15
minutes to liberate the pots. Aaron, I'd go ahead and plant them
(well, wait 'til next spring), as they seem to be able to climb on
anything.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 09:56:05 EST
From: connell@vax.cord.edu
Subject: Three gallon kegs
Could anyone send me the address of a good source for three gallon
stainless steel kegs. I was recently told that they are no longer made
so that used ones are the only ones available.
------------------------------
Date: Wed 25 Nov 92 10:55:42-EDT
From: WALKERG@ASHLEY.COFC.EDU
Subject: Greetings...
Hi. I'm a rather new to the brewing discipline, having helped my brother
on a couple of batches, but never made any that was entirely my own. I'd
appreciate any advice about getting started, and particularly, the names of
any brewpubs or homebrewing clubs in the Charleston, SC area.
- --Thanks in advance,
-Gary E. Walker
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 11:19:32 EST
From: Hal Laurent <laurent@tamdno.ENET.dec.com>
Subject: Beer Nests
It occurred to me that some of you may also find this amusing...
I just bottled my first batch of homebrew this past Sunday.
It seems that two of my cats have decided to play mother hen to
the beer! They take turns curling up on top of one of the boxes
of beer bottles as if they're trying to incubate them!
I wonder how soon they'll hatch...
-Hal Laurent
hal.laurent@tamdno.enet.dec.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 10:08:40 MST
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Mash transition
> And certainly my biggest question is related to the cost of
> transitioning to the all mash brewing. I read a lot of articles about
> special equipment and other items that I do not have. How many new
> items do I need and where can I find mor e info. on these setups ?? I
> am reading Papazian, but he seems to lack equipment details and
> innovations that help the homebrewer.
Moving to all-grain brewing is often perceived as being more difficult
than it really is. Assuming you already have all the equipment for
extract brewing, the only new equipment you'll need to go all-grain is:
1. A larger pot (probably). You'll be boiling 6 or so gallons at once,
so I'd recommend at least a 7-gallon pot. You can spend ~$130 on a
nice 10-gal stainless pot, but I've also seen 7-gal enameled pots
for ~$30 (US). In a pinch, you can use two smaller pots, but
ideally you want to be able to boil the entire amount of wort at
once.
2. A lautering system. There are numerous possibilities for this: the
Zapap system of nested buckets with holes (~$20 to make), the
slotted-copper-tubing manifold (~$5), and a screened spigot in the
mash tun (aka Easymash, probably ~$10). None of these are expensive
or difficult to put together. My personal preference is the copper
manifold; it's the cheapest, easier to use than th Zapap system
(which I've used), doesn't require you to modify your kettle, and
the only tool you need to make it is a hacksaw.
After the lautering stage, the process is identical to extract
brewing. There are a couple more items that may make your all-grain
brewing a little easier:
1. A grain mill. If you can't get pre-crushed grain, or don't want
to pay someone to crush it, it may be worth your while. Prices
range from $40-$120 or so. Corona, Marcato, and the MaltMill
are the most commonly used mills.
2. A wort chiller, if you don't already have one. You can make a
simple immersion chiller for ~$30 in about 15 minutes, or spend $50
or so to make a more efficient counterflow chiller (this one might
even take you a couple of hours to make, and require use of a
propane torch. Great fun!).
So, you can spend anywhere from $35 to $320 to go all-grain.
> And the bottom line, if I ignore the fact that I am making a better
> brew, does all mash beer cost less than partial extract ??
You will save some money (all other ingredients being equal, you can
usually buy the grain for a given recipe cheaper than buying extract),
but you will spend more time making each batch.
But don't ignore the fact that you're making better brew! It's worth
the extra time.
- --
Jeff Benjamin benji@hpfcla.fc.hp.com
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 12:19:01 -0500
From: parsons1@husc.harvard.edu
Subject: Kevin's and Bill's questions
Kevin, in #1020, asked if he should go on to all-grain brewing. Do it,
Kevin. I won't say much about it, since you'll probably get a dozen
responses from avid brewers eager to encourage and advise you. I'll
just recommend a few things. After Papazian's book, go to Dave Miller's
first book. Read the whole thing, but try to ignore him at his more
pedantic moments (otherwise you will always have the idea that, with-
out state-of-the-art microbrewery equipment, all your beer will turn
out crappy). Get the latest issue of Zymurgy, which is all about
equipment for all levels of brewing. You will find this useful.
I would make one recommendation about buying things, though, and that
is Get experience and basic technique down before concerning yourself
with little details. I am referring to your concern about chlorine
content perhaps causing off-flavors in your beer, and your interest
in carbon filters to reduce it. First, call your city's water chemist
and ask for an analysis. You may not have much THM (trihalomethane is
a gaseous form of chlorine) in your water at all. Even if you do, a
good boil will get rid of most of it. Off flavors are most often caused
by a fermentation temp that is too high, or not racking the beer off
the trub soon enough, or poor sanitation, &c. If your boil is good,
and you do things right, you will see that the filter is not necessary.
Go for greatness. All-grain is cheaper; tastes better; gives you
more control; is messier; and is generally more fun.
Bill asks about a no-frills, simple, household starter. Liquid yeast,
as most people who have experience with liquid and dry yeasts will
agree, is definitely the way to go. But by not introducing a big
enough population into the fermenter, you will increase your lag-
time, and thereby perhaps undo all the benefits of a finer yeast culture
by letting other little beasties have a chance at your beer. For a
starter, I just use two tablespoons of dried malt extract boiled in
one cup of water. Put this in an extremely sanitary bottle with an
airlock fitted to it. When it's cool enough, pitch in the yeast from
the bag. It should take another day in this bottle to reach full
kraeusen, at which point you should shake it around a little (to stir
up the slurry at the bottom) and pitch it right into your just-brewed
and cooled wort. This is all very easy, and reduces your lag-time
to a few hours. Ideally, you want to make the starter out of the same
wort you will pitch it into. This is often (for me at least) imprac-
ticeable. It can be done if you have a good refidgerating system,
or if you brew the same beer a lot (save a little of the wort in a capped
bottle in your frig, and when you brew next, use that as the starter).
Sorry this reply was so long. Good luck. Have a good holiday, all.
Jed Parsons parsons1@husc.harvard.edu
Harpsichordist, Classicist, Homebrewer.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 09:14:16 PST
From: Mark J. Easter <easterm@ccmail.orst.edu>
Subject: Hops and Cannabis
Michael cors writes:
>A friend of mine has been asking and asking lots of people if this was true,
>and he asked me to pose the question "to the experts"...
>Supposedly he has heard that hops are the third/fourth cousin to the cannabis
>plant. Is there any truth to this??
The concept of third or fourth cousin is not really appropriate in
describing plant relationships. However, according to "Flora of the
Pacific Northwest" (Hitchcock and Cronquist 1973), Hops (Humulus lupulus
L.) and Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) are both members of the Moraceae, the
Mulberry family. I do not know anything about their evolutionary
relationship beyond their familial association , but I would like to hear
about it from somebody who does know.
Mark Easter
easter@fsl.orst.edu
Forest Science Dept.
Oregon State University
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 12:24:00 EST
From: localhost!davevi@uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine)
Subject: Re: Hops/Cannabis
>From all I've read, hops are supposed to be the closest genetic relative
to cannabis. But, that old myth about grafting hops plants to cannabis
roots is just that - a myth. The hops plants will NOT be pyschoactive,
and you'll have spent considerable effort for nothing.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 16:18:19 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: chico pale ales/lion's head ale house in blue island
So far as I know, Chico pale beers are as follows:
Sierra Nevada Draught Ale SG 1.048 Perle and Cascade hops
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale SG 1.052 Perle and Cascade hops
Celebration Ale SG 1.064 Centennial, Perle, Cascade
If you are in the Chicago area, you really ought to visit the
Lion's Head Ale House on Olde Western in Blue Island, a near-south
suburb. They've had Celebration Ale on draft for awhile (yum!).
They also have Sierra Nevada Draught Ale, Old Foghorn, and 10 other
beers including several from Kalamazoo and Goose Island.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 11:10:30 MST
From: abirenbo@rigel.cel.scg.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim)
Subject: Re: Candy sugar continued
Phillip Seitz <0004531571@mcimail.com> spoke about candi sugar.
New Belgium Brewery, in Ft. Collins, CO uses turbinado sugar.
I believe it comes in both white and brown.
I will experiment with this, brown, "raw" cane-sugar cones,
and some other "raw" hawian cane sugar. I'll post as i taste my
brews.
aaron
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 10:30 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Aging, Head, etc
To: Homebrew Digest
Fm: Jack Schmidling
>From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@novax.llnl.gov>
>I feel that this assertion by JS is unfounded and is likely to only confuse
others to whom, this does not apply.
Precisely why I brought it up. Any homebrewer that read the article would
have been confused. I posed the two obvious conclusions that the casual
reader would come to but allowed ample room for others which followed in
abundance.
The objective was to stimulate a discussion not to generate flames.
>So be patient, let your beer age properly and you will more greatly
appreciate efforts, as the taste will reward.
Standing by itself, this is just as confusing. It implies that one can go
out and get a six pack of Bud and let it age properly.....
>From: korz@iepubj.att.com
>Jack writes:
<>Although my bottled beer had adaquate carbonation, it never had much head
and.....
>I don't understand where the problem was. Generally speaking, if your beer
has adequate carbonation and adequate amounts of proteins and dextrins,
it should have an adequate head..... but I still don't understand where the
change was made that would increase head retention.
The problem here is that I never said anything about head RETENTION. I said
head, period.... When I pour[ed] the beer from the bottle, no head formed.
Now, when I pour the counter-pressure filled bottle, I have to pour down the
side of the glass to control the head.
It's the same beer but they behave very differently. When I tap a glass, I
can build up a three inch whipped cream topping and there is at least 1/4
inch left in the bottom after nursing the beer down. I got hung up on this
silly procedure at a demonstration at Baderbrau and it really makes an
inviting glass of beer. BTW, I have never been able to do it with bottled
Baderbrau, just from his private tap.
I am not sure what happens when bottled directly out of the tap but perhaps I
was just content with less carbonation than most people are used to. As an
aside, if I shook the bottle a bit before pouring, it would form a head but
that is a bit much.
>From: tpm%wdl58@wdl1.wdl.loral.com (Tim P McNerney)
>Subject: What size stock pot?
>I plan on starting up all-grain brewing sometime early next year
..... So my question to you is, what size will I need
for all-grain brewing (5 gallon) and what size would be nice
to have?
The short answer is, the bigger the better. It's like so many other things,
you didn't know you needed till you got it. If money is tight, my advice is
to go for size rather than material. The 32 qt enameled canner is the best
value but just barely big enough for 5 gallon batches. I started with one of
these then graduated to a 10 gal SS and now also have a 16 gal ss.
>Is there any point for getting something larger (I don't forsee brewing in
larger quantities anytime in the near future)? What advantages
would there be with a 7, 8 or even 10 gallon pot.
The mess of a boil over for one. But more importantly, you can boil down
larger quantities of wort to concentrate it and improve the yield or make
larger batches.
> I am not sure exactly how I plan on mashing (don't know if it will make
a difference or not).
I just so happen to have a suggestion but I will email it to you.
>From: Brian Michael Cors <corsbria@student.msu.edu>
>Supposedly he has heard that hops are the third/fourth cousin to the
cannabis plant. Is there any truth to this??
The term "cousin" has little scientific meaning but hops and pot are in the
same family (Cannabaceae). But before you try smoking hops, bear in mind
that pear trees and rose bushes are not only in the same family (Roseaceae)
but in the same genus.
They are however, closely enough related so that one can be grafted on to the
other. This had exciting prospects in the 60's but I am not sure what
advantage could be gained from the graft. Don't know how many potheads
really wanted 20 ft pot plants in their closets.
>From: rush@xanadu.llnl.gov (Alan Edwards)
>I do admit, though, that I was quite fed up with other (arf) problems
(arf) with the HBD at the (arf) time, and it (excuse me, I seem to have
something in my throat) came out in my post.
I suspect that far more people object to this sort of ad hominem crap than
objective criticism.
> I realized that I was a being a jerk when Jack congratulated me on the
post.
Although your stock just took a tumble, the cudos were well deserved. The
article was well thought out and to the point. To deny everything you said
just because I agree with you is pretty petty.
> I just want everyone to use a little care in sifting
through the (arf) BS. (excuse me...someone get me a cough drop)
Sure, we can excuse you but not perhaps, for the same reasons.
>From: SynCAccT@slims.attmail.com
> I've taken an interim step and made a home version of JS's easymash, which
works fine for coarse crushes, but tends to stick with finer crushes.
Not sure what "finer crushes" means but I am now using a 30 mesh SS screen
which is considerably finer that the original window screen and may help
those who don't use roller mills. I never had any problems with window
screen but it just seemed a bit crude.
> The flaw to this system is that you cannot do step infusions.... I'll say
simply that I would like to do two step mashes, protein rest and
conversion. It would be nice to be able to fiddle with conversion
temps too without leaning out the mash by adding water.
Do not understand this at all. The easymasher is installed in a brew kettle
which sits on the stove. There is no limit to the number of steps you can
do, simply by diddling with the heat. Total control of this end of the
process is one of its major advantages.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 13:26:17 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: orval yeast
Jackson's Pocket Guide claims that a single yeast is used in primary
and secondary, while a blend of four or five bottom cultures is used
for bottle conditioning. So, if one were to pitch the dregs from the
bottle, which yeast would take off? If filtering is done before
bottling, and if that first yeast contributes essential flavor notes,
then there would be something missing from your built-up yeast. Once,
I did attempt to culture the dregs from Orval, and what I got was a
very slow fermenting yeast in my starter wort. I tasted it, and threw
it out. It didn't taste bad, but I didn't want to pitch a slow yeast
into my wort.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1992 11:29:41 -0800
From: mfetzer@ucsd.edu (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: Re: Oregon Pub Crawling
>Date: Tue, 24 Nov 92 15:18:41 PST
>From: Richard Childers <rchilder@us.oracle.com>
>Subject: Oregon Pub Crawling
>Lighthouse is a member of the Mcmenamin (sp?) family of brewpubs, what might
>be called a 'chain' except that each pub has little in common with the others,
>excepting only the format of the menu, and a few of the available brews. Each
>brewery provides its own unique creations to its customers, as well as a few
>of the established favorites.
There are, to be fair, a few McMenamins that have more of a chain
atmosphere in the fact that they share a name and general interior decore.
Something like 10 or so. But as you say, most of the pubs owned by the
McMenamin family have quite a unique character.
McMenamins has also purchased (recently) a winery, the Edgefield Winery in
Troutdale, and added a brewery and movie theater to it. And, McMenamins
owns three other theaters in Portland now. For those of you who might be
wondering why theaters and microbreweries coexist in a post... the deal is
you pay $1 to get into the movie, and they are generally movies that have
been out for a while, but not necessarily obscure or second rate movies.
The seating is less densely packed than a standard theater, and there are
tables between the rows of chairs. You buy a pint or three of your favorite
micro brew, order one of the marvelous items off the menu, and sit and
enyoy your movie. I must admit, beers are 30 or 40 c more than at their
regular locations ;)
Why do I sound like an ad for McMenamins? *Ack* I just love what they have
done for Portland, I'm not in other ways associated with them... wish I
was.
>Some of the beers that come to mind, in connection with Lighthouse, are the
>excellent Terminator Stout (tm), although I liked Hammerhead Ale much better,
>and they also served a Crystal Ale that was deep reddish in color and very
>sweet, as ales go. Allegedly, it was brewed entirely from crystal malt !! It
>appears to be popular enough that it is available elsewhere, also.
Ahem... soap box. There is this wonderful Deshutes Black Butte Porter, some
of the creamiest I've had, that is normally available at McMenamins
outlets. However, McMenamins is now producing their own porter, called
Black Rabbit. Well, it just does not come *close* to the Deshutes!!! And I
hear they're trying to replace the Deshutes at all their outlets with their
own! Let the masses revolt!
>At another Mcmenamin pub, in Eugene, I tasted what I think was called 'Blue
>Heron Ale' ... which name was also in use at Steelhead, confusingly enough.
Blue Heron is also the standard pale ale produced by the Brideport Brewing
company in Portland (thy run a pub in the NW industrial part of town, out
of their brewery, for those interested, and their XX Cask Conditioned Stout
is *fine*). McMenamins does at several of their outlets sell beer not
produced by them, and it's quite possible that both places you were in
Eugene carry Bridgeports Blue Heron.
Blue Heron is served at many small bars throughout Portland. It's quite
good, so you have this concept that must be strange to many Americans.
Namely, walk off the street into any pub, and god forbid, you get something
other than Budmilob! I call this evolution ;*)
>Perhaps Jeff Frane might see fit to contribute his opinion of Mcmenamin's ?
>I would be interested in knowing how they are seen by resident experts ...
Perhaps the Portland HBD community should get together for a weekend of
*serious* research into just how many pubs there are and compile statistics
of exactly what is served ;)
______________
Michael Fetzer
Internet: mfetzer@ucsd.edu uucp: ...!ucsd!mfetzer
Bitnet: FETZERM@SDSC
HEPnet/SPAN: SDSC::FETZERM or 27.1::FETZERM
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 14:44:57 -0500
From: bradley@adx.adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)
Subject: Sierra Nevada and fruitiness
In October I brewed two batches with WYeast 1056 (American); they
were pale ale and porter. They were my first batches with this
yeast. It is no coincidence that Sierra Nevada brews pale ale and
porter with the same yeast; I was trying to clone these SN beers,
or at least get close. When the pale was a 1.5 months old and the
darker beer a month, I decided the moment of truth had come. I
tasted my beers side by side with the SN beers in the company of
a knowledgable beer taster.
If I said there was no difference or that my beers were just as good,
you could rightly suspect me of lying. I was pleased at how close I
did come, though. My pale ale was overhopped by comparison and used
only Cascade -- no Perle -- but was still in the right ball-park.
The porter was much closer; in fact, the porter was tasted three ways
with Anchor porter. With the Anchor as foil, my porter showed as
_very_ similar to Sierra Nevada's.
The only striking difference between my porter and SN was a
fruity/malty spectrum of tastes in the SN that was absent in mine.
It was also present in the SNPA and absent in my pale ale. Fruitiness
has been an active topic on the HBD. My impression was that yeast
was the main factor, and I had that covered by using 1056. I suppose
temperature is another? I fermented in the 60s. Does anybody know
at which temperatures SN brews pale and porter?
Ultimately, fruitiness derives from the malt. I used Munton & Fison
2-row malt from the UK in my beers as well as UK crystal (in both)
and US chocolate (in the porter). I believe I read that SN uses
American pale malt and dextrine malt as the pale components of the
grist. Can anyone confirm? Could this account for the difference
in the yeast's production of esters? I guess the dextrine malt is
the more likely candidate?
And what about the difference between European and American malt?
The late Dave Line made a big deal about it in his books. I gather
that they are actually different sub-species (or even species?), with
North Amercian malts related to the Manchurian strains and the stuff
west of the Urals being entirely different. In direct comparisons,
I've found UK 2-row to have more flavor than Canadian 2-row and
more yield than US 6-row. That's as far as my research goes. Viv
Jones, formerly brewmaster at Upper Canada in Toronto, has said that
North American malts are too enzymatic and it is easier to get a
high final gravity using European malt. Roughly speaking, this is
why I pay extra for British malt in ales.
So, is it possible that my malt won't produce the same fruity esters
as the mix of US pale and dextrine malt (or whatever the mixture is)
that Sierra Nevada uses?
Another factor that occured to me is age. For all that my beers were
mature, I'm sure the SN bottles were older. As we all now know, live
beer _does_ change with age, improving throughout a period of time;
the length of time depends on many variables. Perhaps in another
month or two my beers will be just as fruity as the SN beers?
Happy Thanksgiving all,
Rob (bradley@adx.adelphi.edu)
------------------------------
Date: 25 Nov 1992 16:35:28 -0500 (EST)
From: homebrew@tso.uc.EDU (Ed Westemeier)
Subject: Humulus & Cannabis
In response to yesterday's question about the relation of hops to
Cannabis: This subject always seems to provoke giggles and averted eyes,
but it's really pretty straightforward stuff. I found it interesting
enough to look it up in "Hops" by R. A. Neve (ISBN 0-442-31187-7)
Quoting from Neve's definitive tome on the subject:
"Humulus [hops] and Cannabis are the only two genera in the family
Cannabinaceae and there are many similarities between hemp (Cannabis
sativa) and the cultivated hop. The nettle family is also rather less
closely related being in the same order, the Urticales. It is possible
to produce viable grafts between hops and hemp and it is reported that
pollination of hops by hemp, annual nettle (Urtica urens) or perennial
nettle (Urtica dioica) stimulates cone development but only abortive
embryos are produced."
Later, he mentions:
"It was reported by Warmke and Davidson (1944) that hop scions grafted
onto Cannabis stocks produced cannabinoid resins and this led to interest
in the technique as a means of producing such material while avoiding
legal restrictions."
He goes on to talk about how other studies showed that the rootstock in
these grafts has essentially no effect on the type of resins produced
by the plant grafted on the root (in either direction).
Bottom line: Yes, they are related, and you can graft one to another.
I surmise that the intent behind interest in the subject is to graft
hop plants onto hemp roots and harvest cannabis resins from a legal
plant. Unfortunately, it doesn't work. Good question, though!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 15:51 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Bud ads/starter timing/Orval/pot size/going all-grain
Jonathan writes:
>With regard to Phil Miller's question about Wyeast packages that swell too
>quickly, I have had the same experience, and I HAVE tossed them in the fridge
>to slow them down, then removed them and let them come up to room temp again
>while making the starter. I've also let the starter sit too long before
>pitching. In each case, my fermentation started off quickly and the results
>(some of them still pending) seemed o.k. However, I don't consider my palate
>yet finely-tuned enough to recognize any problems in the finished beer that may
>be traceable to clumsy handling of the yeast. (Maybe that's a blessing? --
>hey, it still beats the hell out of Bud.)
Just an aside, there are two ways to interpret the AB slogan: "Nothing beats
a Bud." The first one is, that "No other beer has the capability to surpass
Budweiser in any respect." The second is, that "Drinking nothing is superior
to drinking Budweiser."
You choose.
>I posted a similar question
>awhile back and one respondent said that one ought to be careful about
>letting the starter sit too long so that the yeast don't pass out of their
>reproductive cycle into their fermentation phase, or something like that,
>if I'm remembering correctly. I'm no biologist, I just cook beer.
The key is not pitching the starter before it goes from reproduction to
fermentation (although I would suspect that pitching just short of this
transition may be the ideal), rather that it is most important to pitch
before the yeast have consumed all of the starter food and gone dormant
again. Common wisdom says to pitch at high kraeusen, which is smack dab
in the middle of the fermentation phase. Primarily because it is the easiest
to identify, I propose that, while it may be the second best theoretical
choice, pitching at the *beginning* of the fermentation phase would be the
best practical choice, slightly better than at high-kraeusen and *far*
superior to waiting too long. Note that if we were to agree that this
would be the best practical timing, it would imply that Wyeast should be
pitched when the packet *begins* to swell. Comments?
********************
DanM writes:
>I'm interested in the results of your (and others) Orval culturing.
According to Jackson, Abbey d'Orval uses a single yeast strain for
fermentation and four or five strains at bottling. I feel, quite
confidently, that one of the bottling strains is the fermentation
strain. I added 1020 starter wort to 6 bottles of Orval dregs (individually)
and tasted the results. Three did not start, three did. Of the three
that did, two smelled and tasted ok, but not Orval-like. One smelled
and tasted just like Orval. Note that you should be able to control
ester intensity in any yeast using temperature -- lower temps, less
esters -- higher temps, more esters.
********************
Tim writes:
>I figure minimum size needed to be 6 gallons. Is there any
>point for getting something larger (I don't forsee brewing in
>larger quantities anytime in the near future)? What advantages
>would there be with a 7, 8 or even 10 gallon pot. I am not
>sure exactly how I plan on mashing (don't know if it will make
>a difference or not).
For mashing, you only need perhaps room for 1.5 quarts per pound of grain
that you intend to use. For the subsequent boil, you need quite a bit
more room. Note that after the sparge, you may have 7 or even 8 gallons
for a 5 gallon batch. You need additional room for the "head" that
forms during the boil. Recently, I tried to boil 1/2 gallon of wort
in a 1 gallon pot. Forget it! What a disaster! I managed to avoid
boilover (just barely), but to do so, I needed to have the boil so
mellow that I don't think I got much out of my hops at all. I was
doing a test recipe with 2 Lallemand dry yeasts and did not want to brew
two 5 gallon batches. I'm not sure that my results will be useful
at all.
To answer your question, ideally, you would like a 16-quart, copper-clad
(for better heat conduction) SS pot for mashing and a 10 gallon (forget
copper-cladding here -- you couldn't afford it if you could find it) SS
pot for the boil. This would allow you to do (with a bit of difficulty)
10 lbs of grain. If you can only get one pot for both, you should
probably go with a 10 gallon SS pot.
***************
Kevin writes:
>First of all, I brew in a 5-gallon tub with an airlock. Should I be using
>one of those water bottles so the krausen can be blown off ?? Is that
>important ??
First of all, please limit your line length to <80 characters. Not only
can some people not read anything beyond 80, but it makes quoting you
pretty tough.
Back to your question: Blowoff. I say yes -- it makes a difference if you
use blowoff. Does it make enough of a difference for you? Try it and see.
I feel, that my beer made with blowoff is much less astringent than without.
>Second, all my beer has a distinctive flavor. I am sure that everyones does,
>but I am not sure my flavor is positive. I am wondering if chlorine in the
>water is leaving its mark. Should I be filtering my chlorinated city water
>thru charcoal filters ??
That's house flavor, but it can be minimized by good sanitation and, as
you suggest, by removing the chlorine from your water. If your
plastic fermenter has any scratches in it (and after a few batches, it
certainly does) the scratches can harbor bacteria even with intense
sanitation solutions. Boiling water is what Darryl Richman uses on his
plastic fermenters and brews prize-winning beers. You don't need a carbon
filter... you can remove chlorine by boiling -- that's what I do -- I boil
all my water.
>And certainly my biggest question is related to the cost of transitioning
>to the all mash brewing. I read a lot of articles about special equipment
>and other items that I do not have. How many new items do I need and where
>can I find more info. on these setups ?? I am reading Papazian, but he
>seems to lack equipment details and innovations that help the homebrewer.
His latest book "The New Complete Joy of Homebrewing" (why "new" Charlie...
why not just second edition?), I feel is much better. You said "I am
reading" which may mean that you have not reached the advanced sections
which, I thought described the equipment well. However, I was reading it
with most of the necessary knowledge in hand -- perhaps it is not as
clear as I thought? Miller has a slightly different setup described in
his book as does Noonan.
>And the bottom line, if I ignore the fact that I am making a better brew, does
>all mash beer cost less than partial extract ??
A lot less if you don't count you time -- perhaps a little less if you do.
For me, however, cost is not the bottom line.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 16:04 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: Re: candi / Easymash infusion
Alan writes about candi sugar while taking a stab at Jack.
While I'm not about to say Jack's a nice guy, I must admit that
he has been behaving himself lately and we should not bait him.
Among his posts, in some he's a jerk in others he's informative.
"Can't we all try to get along?" to quote Rodney King.
***************
Glenn writes:
>and made a home version of JS's easymash, which works
>fine for coarse crushes, but tends to stick with finer crushes. The
>flaw to this system is that you cannot do step infusions. Without
>generating a conversation on decoction versus infusion, I'll say
>simply that I would like to do two step mashes, protein rest and
>conversion. It would be nice to be able to fiddle with conversion
>temps too without leaning out the mash by adding water.
Since I'm the resident expert on the flaws of Jack's system (;^),
I'd have to say that this is not one of them. There's no reason
that you could not choose a strike temperature to get you into the
protein rest range, followed by heating to get you into the
saccharafication temps, in fact, you could do as many steps as you
want.
Hmmm? Two cases of Al defending Jack in one post? Well, before you
two or three people try electing me president of the JS fan club (I
think Jack president for life ;^), I want to say that I enjoy it when
the HBD is clean and hate it when people are mean to each other.
A sense of humor helps, but let's not pick on anyone just the same,
okay?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 92 12:45:18 PST
From: Richard Childers <rchilder@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Re: clearing cider
>Date: 24 Nov 1992 09:53:41 -0400 (EDT)
>From: KLIGERMAN@herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov
>Subject: clearing cider
"I have made some apple cider about a month ago and have not seen
any clarification taking place. It is in the secondary and I've
lowered the temperature to about 40 F., without noticeable clearing.
Can anyone suggest methods for clearing the cider aside from
filtering?"
I've had success - I don't know exactly why, yet - by transferring the
cider to a secondary fermenter ( after doing a few one-gallon batches,
this is less of a problem as one becomes inundated with one-gallon jugs )
and adding a boiling-hot solution of honey diluted into water - which I
was using to fill up the airspace left from the transfer, which left a
lot of yeast and other precipitates behind.
Within a few minutes of adding the hot honey-and-water combination, the
clarity improved dramatically, almost as if the hot liquid had provoked
a 'break'. Since the volume added was no more than one cup, there's no
way this could have possibly killed all the yeast, the heat was absorbed
instantly and contributed very little to the thermal mass that the full
jug represented.
Fermentation picked up thereafter, as the yeast responded to the honey,
and I bottled at that time, since I wanted carbonated cider. The results
were magnificent.
- -- richard
=====
- -- richard childers rchilder@us.oracle.com 1 415 506 2411
oracle data center -- unix systems & network administration
Klein flask for rent. Inquire within.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1021, 11/26/92
*************************************
-------
