Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1061
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/01/22 00:38:16
HOMEBREW Digest #1061 Fri 22 January 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Out of the Office ("Chatt-Mike")
Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993) (UNIX.HOMEBRW1 on Thu, Jan 21, 1993 3:45 AM)
solder (Michael Gildner)
Munich Malts (George J Fix)
Re: Brews Paper (Daniel Roman)
Brews Paper / Grain mill rollers (Jeff J. Miller)
nitrosamines (Russ Gelinas)
Re: Kegging (David Resch)
Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993) (Michael_Merriman)
Keg pressures ("Bob Jones")
Stuck Pilsner Urquell (Don McDaniel)
Re: Barleywine Yeast & questions ( Neil Mager )
steel cut versus rolled oats (Tony Babinec)
RE: Hop Question and others, too (Darryl Richman)
Wyeast (thutt)
RE: No lag in old Wyeast (James Dipalma)
Re: new publist (Carlo Fusco)
Re: No lag in old Wyeast (John DeCarlo)
Bitter Recipe (caitrin lynch)
Artificial Sweeteners (korz)
Wyeast Lager (korz)
Decoction, Congratualtions (Jack Schmidling)
Tennents Milk Stout (korz)
The Brews Paper (Scott Bickham)
re: trivia (Drew Lawson)
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: 21 Jan 1993 03:46:03 GMT
From: "Chatt-Mike" <MSMAIL.CHATTM@TSOD.lmig.com>
Subject: Out of the Office
I am out today.
I will be back in the office Friday 1/22
(This is a pre-recorded message.)
_______________________________________________________________________________
From: UNIX.HOMEBRW1 on Thu, Jan 21, 1993 3:45 AM
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993)
To: HOMEBREW(UNIX.HOMEBRW1); Chatt-Mike
File(s): MEMO 01.21.93 03.37
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:19:44 EST
From: mmlai!lucy!gildner@uunet.UU.NET (Michael Gildner)
Subject: solder
Recently, I've seen some mention of lead-free solder being a bad
thing for homebrewing. Evidently the tin in lead-free solder
can react with beer. I didn't realize this several months ago
when I made my wort chiller. I constructed the chiller with soft
copper tubing. The coils didn't stay together very well so I
put I spot of solder between each coil of the chiller to help keep
it rigid. Now with all this recent talk of the incompatibility
of solder in brewing I've starting worrying.
How does the solder react negatively with beer/wort?
Is there some attribute I might recognize in my beers that point to
solder contamination?
Does anyone have any suggestions on how to cleanly remove
the solder from the copper coils?
What would be an efficient way to keep a soft copper coils
together so they form a nice cylinder?
Thanks for any responses.
Mike Gildner
gildner@mml.mmc.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:48:17 -0600
From: gjfix@utamat (George J Fix)
Subject: Munich Malts
Darryl Richman writes:
>Lets clear up a misconception here. Real Munich malt, whether
>domestic or imported, has enzymes. It has sufficient enzymes to
>convert itself, and perhaps just a bit more. If you want to make a
>real dark Munich lager, then use Munich malt. I've made several bocks
>with high percentages of Munich (60-80%) and it works just fine.
Anyone who has had the good fortune of tasting Darryl's bocks know
they are more than "just fine". They are sensational! His version
which took 1st place in the AHA nationals a few years ago was one
of the finest bocks I have ever tasted, amateur or commercial. The
following is data which support his observations. D-C stands for
DeWolf-Cosyns, while G-W stands for Great Western. Their 2-row
malt is a Klages-Harrington blend. DP stands for diastatic power,
it is a measure of the strength of the malt's enzyme system. The
symbol "_" means too low to measure.
DP Yield(%) Protein(%)
----- --------- -----------
BASE MALTS D-C Pale Ale 60 76 10.0
D-C Pils 105 75 10.0
G-W 2-row 135 76 12.5
COLOR MALTS D-C Munich 50 77 9.9
ROASTED MALTS D-C Caravienne _ 72 8.9
D-C Caramunich _ 72 10.6
D-C Special B _ 66 10.0
NOTES:
1. The strength of the enzyme system of the Munich is not dissimilar to
that of the pale ale. Practical experience has shown that if DP > 40,
then the grains will have sufficient enzymes to convert their own starch.
The roasted malts do not have much in the way of an enzyme system, but
Darryl noted this in his post.
2. For those who missed the yield discussions on HBD, the following are
points on the yield-gravity point line:
yield(%) pts./lbs./gals.
---------- -----------------
60 28
65 30
70 32
75 34.5
80 37
3. The yields quoted were obtained under laboratory conditions. It is
generally not possible, nor desirable in most circumstances, to achieve
these in a practical brewing situation.
4. I have found that both the color and roasted malts have starch with a
large number of 1-6 links. These will not be broken in a normal mash. Thus
these malts will always make nontrivial contributions to the dextrin pool,
even if they are included at the start of the mash.
5. Many highly respected maltsters in the US claim it is impossible to make
color and roasted malts from two row barley. The low protein levels of the
D-C malts indicate that they indeed come from 2-row barley, and very high
quality to boot. Sonja, noted as Europe's best 6-row barley, never has
protein levels below 13%. Hector, a mid-western feed barley (which I sometimes
fear finds other applications as well!), never falls below 14%.
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 9:48:50 EST
From: roman@tix.timeplex.com (Daniel Roman)
Subject: Re: Brews Paper
Guess I'm not the only one who got this. When I first saw it I thought
it might be interesting, but that was only before got past the cover to
find that most of the items listed on there were what turned out to be
joke articles. The biggest teaser was "Exclusive Clintion on Homebrew
Interview". I thought at first, this paper must be good if they got an
interview, once you get to the "article" they state that they wrote the
Clinton staff and did not get an interview so they made one up.
After that I did not know if ANY of the articles was supposed to be
serious (or the ads either).
For $15 a year they can keep it.
BTW, they even spelled George Bush --> Geroge Bush !!! :-]
- --
_________
Dan Roman GEnie: D.ROMAN1 Internet: roman@tix.timeplex.com //
American Homebrewers Association member Only AMIGA! \X/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 8:51:51 CST
From: jmiller@anubis.network.com (Jeff J. Miller)
Subject: Brews Paper / Grain mill rollers
In HBD #1060 Norm Pyle writes about the Brews Paper being poorly edited
and needing a bit more polish. Well, I'm glad somebody other then myself
felt this way toward it! With all the material that is available I just
can't see sending money to these people for a poorly published paper.
Mr. Charlie P. if your listening: If these people did get there mailing
list from the Zymurgy subscription list I would like to indicate that I
don't appreciate Zymurgy selling/giving my name to them.
OK... I'm done bitching now... On to grain mill rollers.
I've settled on using some 6" pipe that I got from some local pipe
fitters. I figured the bigger teh diameter the better the grind.
I'll be welding sides to the pipe and then welding a bar through the
centers. The bar will get mounted in pillow blocks and the pipes
spun by a motor with a belt. This is pretty much a nock off from
the one in Zymurgy. On additional feature that I plan to add is
to put a scroll on the pipe to pull the grains toward the center.
Cost.... grrr... I got the stuff from a guy that loves to swill my
brew but he charged me full price for that stuff rather then simply
pulling some scrap for me. Ended up being just under $20 for 2 18"
sections.
- --
Jeff Miller Network Systems Corporation
Advanced Development 7625 Boone Avenue North
jmiller@network.com Minneapolis MN 55428 (612)424-1724
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 9:54:01 -0500 (EST)
From: R_GELINAS@UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: nitrosamines
Jack, I've asked this before, and since you brought it up, I'll ask
again: What is the level of nitrosamines in fire-kilned malts,
especially as compared to what one might get in a grilled entry at
the local pub? It doesn't make sense to me to avoid ordering a stout
when your hamburger on a toasted roll has orders of magnitude more n.amines
in it anyway.
Russ
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:23:14 MST
From: resch@craycos.com (David Resch)
Subject: Re: Kegging
>5) Pressurise the keg to 25 psi and place in a cold fridge for a day or so.
>
>6) Remove keg from fridge and roll it vigorously to disolve the CO2 into the
> beer. Replace keg in the fridge.
>
>7) When ready to serve beer, bleed excess pressure from keg and connect gas
> line set a about 7 psi to push beer from the keg.
>
>
>Any comments?
In my opinion, skip step 6 and just leave the beer in the fridge at 25 psi for
1 or 2 more days, depending on the carbonation level desired.
Shaking the keg simply increases the rate at which CO2 dissolves into the beer.
By not shaking, carbonation takes a bit longer, but you don't disturb the yeast
and protein sediment that precipitates when the beer is put into the fridge.
Dave
------------------------------
Date: 21 Jan 93 10:24
From: Michael_Merriman@camb.intersolv.com
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1060 (January 21, 1993)
Re: Motorizing the Corona.
I simply removed the handle, inserted a bolt into the
threads, cut off the head with a hacksaw, and attach a
power-drill to the bolt. I typically crush about 10-15 # at
a pop, and with the drill, this takes about 10 min. I'm
sure I could get that down to two minutes if I had a 10#
hopper, but I haven't gotten around to that yet....maybe
that old bottling bucket would be just the right size.
But...I'm not really impressed with the results of the
corona overall. Anyone with a source for a reasonably
priced roller mill?
mfm 617 252-4561
Michael_Merriman@INTERSOLV.com
Kendall Sq, Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 07:46:46 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: Keg pressures
Jim Ellingson's notes on kegging in the last digest were right on, I would
like to point out one additional thing that most keggers overlook. Your
regulator gauge may not read your real keg pressure.
This is due to the pressure drop across check valves that may (should) be
in your CO2 lines. I have experienced about a 2 psi drop across each check
valve. I have one at the regulator output and one at each output from my
gas manifold. This means I must set my regulator to 16 psi to get 12 psi at
my kegs (16psi - 4psi=12psi). Your systems may vary.
Bob Jones
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:47:26 -0700
From: dinsdale@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Don McDaniel)
Subject: Stuck Pilsner Urquell
Robert Haddard asked about a highish final gravity of 20 on his attempt
at my Czech Pilsner recipe:
I don't recall what my final gravity was, but I know it didn't
ferment out really dry. I wouldn't call 20 stuck. Depending on the yeast,
that's in the normal range. However if you're kegging, there's no reason
you can't forgo priming and see what develops. If it is too flat after
lagering, you can always force-carbonate it then.
Don McDaniel
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 11:04:51 EST
From: neilm@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Neil Mager )
Subject: Re: Barleywine Yeast & questions
korz@iepubj.att.com writes:
>
> If you can get a hold of some relatively fresh Sierra Nevada Pale Ale
> or SN Porter or Stout (I'm assuming you can't get Wyeast 1056 in France),
> you could culture it and use that exclusively. Chico Brewing Co. uses
> this yeast for their Bigfoot Barleywine, so you can too.
>
>
> Al.
What about a yeast culture from Thomas Hardy? Will that work or
has the high alcohol content mutated the yeast. In December, Micah had
mentioned making Barleywines when their kids were born. Anyone
have a copy of Micah's Barleywine recipe?
On a similiar note, Miller mentions that it is difficult making
an all-grain Barleywine and his recipes call for adding extract.
He never fully explains what the problem is. Is the problem the
quantity of grain needed to get the og high enough without
adding extract? Or is there some other problem?
Neil
- --
===============================================================================
Neil M. Mager
MIT Lincoln Laboratory Lexington, MA
Weather Radar - Group 43
Internet <neilm@juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Voice (617) 981-4803
===============================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:32:35 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: steel cut versus rolled oats
It's been said before on the net, but can't be said enough.
Steel cut oats are not gelatinized. You might first soak them
overnight. You must boil them (say, 45 min) to gelatinize them. In
my experience, echoed by someone on a recent HBD, they soak up a lot
of water and can be quite gummy and starchy. Once gelatinized, they
must be mashed.
An easier alternative exists in rolled oats, such as are commercially
available from Quaker Oats. You'll find these in 3 forms: original,
quick, and instant. The original and quick differ in that they take
5 and 1 minutes, respectively, to cook into oatmeal. For homebrewers,
the Original are the hulled whole oats run through rollers, and are
therefore gelatinized. The quick and instant are thinner cuts. You
can add rolled oats straight into the mash.
Another easier alternative is flaked oats, sold through homebrew supply
shops.
Does anyone have a source for malted oats?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 10:22:19 PST
From: Darryl Richman <darrylri@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Hop Question and others, too
"C. Lyons / Raytheon-ADC / Andover, MA" <LYONS@adc3.adc.ray.com> writes:
> When adding boiling hops, does the selection of the type of
> hop (Kent Goldings, Northern Brewer, Cascade, etc.) make any
> difference on the final taste profile? I am wondering if I only
> need to be concerned about getting the number of IBUs correct, or if it
> is significant to get the correct number of IBUs from a particular hop when
> attempting to duplicate recipes/styles. I understand that hops
> added for flavor and aroma do give the beer destinct characteristics,
> but I am curious if anyone believes that the boiling hops do?
This is a topic that doesn't get much attention. I believe that the
reason is that once we engineering types (well, most of us do seem to
fit that description, don't we?) have a way to hang a number on
something, we feel it must be solved and move on to the next problem.
If only there were a way to describe hop aroma with a number...
Anyway, it is my personal opinion that more than just bitterness is
extracted from hops, even during a long boil. I feel that the low
alpha hops tend to provide a cleaner, crisper flavor with a more
pleasant, less cloying aftertaste in the finished beer than many of the
high alpha varieties. (These were developed, after all, in order to
satisfy bean counters and not brewers.) I also find that using a
minority contribution from some of the high alpha hops -- sometimes
exactly those varieties I don't like the most as the only bittering
contributors -- can add "complexity" and interest to a beer. If this
doesn't make sense, well, then I guess I'll have to renounce my
membership in the ACM.
cook@uars.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook, NMOS Quality Engineer -
(301)386-7807) writes:
> 1) In Greg Noonan's book "Brewing Lager Beer," he describes decoction
> mashes using phrases like "...draw off the thickest third of the
> mash..." Look, after all the stirring he describes, isn't the mash
> pretty uniform? Could someone who does this describe what the
> "thickest" or thinnest part is, and how you draw it off?
If you let the mash rest for 10 or 20 minutes, the "thickest" or
heaviest part will settle to the bottom of the tun. I've seen folks
use the restaurant 1 quart steel ladles to pick it up, but I use a half
gallon Tupperware measuring cup. Since I use an 80 quart (yes, that's
right) picnic cooler for 15 gallon batches, the grain bed is not too
deep, and I can get a bottom sample pretty easily.
> 4) Oh, and finally, is everyone being honest with their grain extraction
> rates? I realize the pressure to talk up your extraction points and
> all, but are we talking reality here?
I would claim that I am getting about 30-31 pts/lb/gal, but it's also
the case that my measurement may not be very accurate. Since I make 15
gallons batches -> 25-35 lbs. of malt, and since I have to weigh it out
about 2 lbs. at a time, there is a great possibility for error to creep
in. However, I don't believe it to be systemic in one direction, so it
might be self cancelling. Or this might be the purest rationaization.
--Darryl Richman
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:12:55 EST
From: thutt <thutt@MAIL.CASI.NASA.GOV>
Subject: Wyeast
Question: Where can I get information on the strains of Witbread
The only one I can find has no number, and is simply called
Witbread Ale Yeast.
Has anyone ever seen a German Ale yeast that comes in green 5 gram
packets? I opened it up, and it looked and smelled like sawdust.
I rehydrated it, but it still smelled and looked like sawdust. I
threw it out and used something else.
I'd rather eat $1 on yeast than $30 on a whole batch. Was I wrong?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:22:50 EST
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: No lag in old Wyeast
Hi All,
In HBD #1060, Rob Bradley writes:
>WYeast says on their package the it will take n days for an n-month-old
>package to puff out. I cracked a 4-month-old package of 1008 (German)
>yesterday. At 24 hours it was already getting fat. The ambient was
>60 or even lower, so I'm sure it would have been fully puffed in 24
>hours at 68-70. This is slightly inconvenient as I'd been planning
>to brew Sunday. Has anybody had the same experience with 1008? With
>other strains?
At the end of the summer, my local homebrew supplier was tossing out
Wyeast packages that were more than 5 months old, and replacing them
with fresh stock. I obtained some of the old packages gratis, including
a 1098 culture that was 9 months old. I intended to burst the inner
package, and if it swelled, to try culturing it.
I popped the package on a Wednesday night, by Friday morning, ~36 hours
later, it was ready to burst. I pitched it into a starter, when I returned
from work Friday night, the starter was vigorously fermenting. I ended
up using it to brew that weekend, got a lag time of about 4 hours, and
primary fermentation completed in 2 days. This particular culture turned
out to be one of the most vigorous I'd ever used. Both of the other
"outdated" packages(1084, 1338)swelled within 2 days of popping the package,
I got viable yeast out of both of them.
IMHO, there is no correlation between the date code and the time
required for the package to swell, as I've also had 1 month old packages
take 6 days to swell. As Rob mentioned, this is inconvenient, as timing
if fairly important. This inconsistency is one factor that lead me to
start culturing yeast in the first place. I can reliably grow a pitchable
starter from a slant in 3 days.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:23 EST
From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA>
Subject: Re: new publist
Hello again,
In my efforts to update the publist in the archives I have hit a snag.
I spoke to John R. Mellby, who created the publist and he told me there
will be an update shortly. So in order not to duplicate his work I will
send him all the replies I have recieved to date. Thanks to all those
who responded to my message.
Carlo Fusco g1400023@nickel.laurentian.ca
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 21 Jan 1993 13:21:51 EST
From: m14051@mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: No lag in old Wyeast
>From: bradley@adelphi.edu (Rob Bradley)
>WYeast says on their package the it will take n days for an n-month-old
>package to puff out. I cracked a 4-month-old package of 1008 (German)
>yesterday. At 24 hours it was already getting fat. The ambient was
>60 or even lower, so I'm sure it would have been fully puffed in 24
>hours at 68-70. This is slightly inconvenient as I'd been planning
>to brew Sunday. Has anybody had the same experience with 1008? With
>other strains?
Well, I have often wondered about this, as all my packages are
ready in about 24 hours, no matter how old they were.
So let's take a step back and wonder about these instructions.
If yeast double their population in about 3 hours, then in 24
hours they could increase their population by a factor of 2^8, or
256. So in 4 days, they could increase their population by a
factor of 256^4 (4,294,967,296), roughly 4 billion (US).
OK, so some of this time is spent producing CO2 and not
reproducing, say 6 hours, so divide everything by 4 and get 1
billion. Does this mean that Wyeast expects only 1 yeast cell in
1 billion to be alive after 4 months? Sounds pretty unlikely to
me.
Anyway, if more than 999 in 1000, say, of the yeast cells have
died, you probably are going to have some problems, maybe? In
which case you shouldn't ever need more than a factor of 2^10 or
so, requiring 30 hours or so, plus some time for CO2, say a day
and a half.
Now there are lots of unspoken assumptions, such as doubling
rates being applicable at 70F or somesuch. Still, as someone who
knows nothing of yeast growth, I would appreciate some feedback
on this to see if I am seriously off anywhere (which I expect I
am).
Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo@f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org)
Fidonet: 1:109/131
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:35:55 CST
From: caitrin lynch <lyn6@midway.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Bitter Recipe
Recently I have had several bitters at various microbreweries in Chicago and
Boston, and want to try to duplicate them (extract). To my mind what makes
them distinctive is the malty beginning and the bitter finish. Previous
attempts to make anything like this ends up as my generic pale ale. Any
suggestions. Thanks.
Caity
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 12:54 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Artificial Sweeteners
Christopher writes:
>I have also experimented with the addition of sweet-n'-low during
>bottling. I use dry yeasts, and decided to try David Line's
>suggestion (p. 21, Brewing Beers Like Those You Buy, "However if
>you can only get home brew beer yeasts instead of the recommended
>commercial 'Brewer's Yeast' the flavour balance can be acceptably
>restored by adding five saccharin tablets"). I have found that 10
>packages of sweet-n'definitely adds too much sweetness (more is
>not better, in this case). I have also experimented with five
>packages of sweet-n'-low and believe this to be my best batch
>yet. Many people have enjoyed this ale, and I found that this
>batch disappeared quickly (leaving me with three earlier
>batches). Even with 5 packages of sweet-n'-low the sweetness
>could be lowered slightly. Next I will try 4 packages. Has
>anyone else using dry yeasts expermented with artificial
>sweetners? If so, I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
Christopher -- I doubt you will get much support from this digest's
subscribers for your use of Artificial Sweetener. People have commented
on Dave Line's use of saccharin on the HBD a few years ago, and most posters
said something like, "well, you do what you want, but *I'M* not putting
saccharin in *MY* beer." The note about Brewer's Yeast that you quoted
from Line is key to this whole issue. If you like beers with considerable
residual sweetness, I suggest you try Wyeast #1338, European Ale. It
leaves the most residual sweetness of any of the Wyeasts or dry yeasts.
To me it seems a shame to use the finest ingredients (better than most
industrial brewers) and put in a lot of your time and then use an
artificial sweetener. Try the #1338 -- I wouldn't be surprised if you
stuck with the liquid yeasts and quit with the saccharin.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 13:07 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Wyeast Lager
Erik writes:
>Also, in the same episode, Steve Tollesfrud had some trouble with
>Wyeast lager yeast. I brewed a batch using the same yeast and had
>the same problem. After pitching I put the fermentor in a
>refridgerator at about 45 degrees F. I had no action for 4 days
>and nothing happened until I warmed the wort to 65 degrees. I
>kept it at that temperature until primary fermentation stopped,
>and then slowly eased the temperature back down to 45. Racked
>to secondary and kept at 45 deg for 1 month. Racked to bottling
>bucket, and I am now aging in the bottles at same temperature.
>
> I tasted the beer before bottling and it is quite good.
>After bottle conditioning it should be delicious.
>
> Has anyone else had this problem with Wyeast lager?
I made a batch of bock that has done quite well in several competitions
using Wyeast #2308. The way that I did it was, incubated the popped
package at 68F, chilled the completed wort down to exactly (as close as
I could) 68F, aerated very well, pitched the yeast, and put the carboy in
the crawlspace which was at 57F for 12 hours. After the 12 hours, a small
bead of kraeusen was forming, so I put it in the beer fridge at 50F.
After two days, I lowered the temp in the beer fridge to 45F and that's where
it stayed for the six weeks of primary and secondary fermentation. After
bottling, I lagered the beer in the bottles at 40F for 4 months (till the
perm nose went away ;^).
The recipe has been posted here before, it's called Bo^bs B. Birthday Bock.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 10:00 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Decoction, Congratualtions
>From: cook@uars.DNET.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook, NMOS Quality Engineer -
> 1) In Greg Noonan's book "Brewing Lager Beer," he describes decoction
mashes using phrases like "...draw off the thickest third of the
mash..." Look, after all the stirring he describes, isn't the mash
pretty uniform? Could someone who does this describe what the
"thickest" or thinnest part is, and how you draw it off?
Nice to know there are other critical readers out there. I simply ignore
this bit of advice. Even if you let it settle, you could hardly "draw" off
the thickest part.
I routinely do a partial dicoction, if for no other reason than just to have
something to do while waiting.
After STIRRING, I remove 3 quarts to a separate kettle and bring to a boil.
I add this back to the mash and stir till the temp is again uniform and then
do it again. I can get three or four of these in during the one hour mash
and it is about what is required to maintain the sacc temp and the last one
starts it on the way toward mashout temp.
I make no claims about the usefulness of this but as I said, it keeps my
humble brain active.
...............
CONGRATUALTIONS to Dave Wiley for taking First Place in the First Annual Net
Brew-Off. Dave scored 44 out of a possible 50 points. Yours truly was
honored with 38.
We all thought the organizer, Mark Nightingale absconded with the goods as he
has never responded to email since soliciting the entries. He now says they
decided to wait six months to "age" the beer properly and announced the
results by mail.
Don't know if excuses are necessary but considering that my entry was my 5th
all grain batch, I could have done much worse. The negative comments were,
over carbonated and needs more malt. Considering that I only used 8 lbs of
malt in the 7 gal batch, it is not surprising and I am now using 12 lbs. I
now force carbonate and CP bottle so I am ready for the next Net Brew-Off.
js
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:40 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Tennents Milk Stout
Gary writes:
>Has anyone out there had a brew called "Tennents Milk Stout"?
>I had one when I was in St. Maartin in november but I
>have never seen it here in the states.
>It was stronger than a Guinness Stout in taste and in
>alcohol.
I had one somewhere between Martinique and Barbados (it helps to make
friends with bartenders on cruise ships -- it was from his private stock)
and saw some in a grocery store near the dock in Bridgetown, Barbados.
I too, have never seen it outside of the Caribbean, but this does not mean
it is not available -- just a data point.
I don't recall it being strong in alcohol, but indeed it was stronger in
flavor than Guinness. It's not really fair to compare it with Guinness,
however, as Guinness is a dry stout and as you can tell from the name,
Tennents *Milk* Stout is a sweet stout. A bit drier than Dragon Stout
(made by D&G in Kingston, Jamaica and *available* in the US), but the
sweetness is up there.
An interesting note about Guinness in the Caribbean. The Guinness I had
in Jamaica, was also made, under contract, by D&G. The Guinness I had in
Barbados was made by Banks (again, under contract) in Barbados. I don't
recall 100% percent if this was on the label, but on the cap these two
beers said "GUINNESS -- FOREIGN-STYLE STOUT," I believe. The Guinness
that we get in the Chicago area, is made in *DUBLIN* and the label and
caps say "GUINNESS EXTRA STOUT." According to the AHA style descriptions,
"Foreign-style Stout" is a dry stout with a higher OG and associated alcohol
level. The bottled Guinness that we get in the US is definately stronger
in alcohol than the Guinness in Ireland -- that's a documented fact. I
seem to recall that the Guinness I had in the Caribbean was a bit sweeter
than the stuff we get from Dublin, but I could not say for sure without
a side-by-side comparison. I think I may have brought back one full --
we'll see.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 18:27:26 EST
From: bickham@msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham)
Subject: The Brews Paper
I received my copy of this already infamous newspaper yesterday,
and in spite of the bad language and grammer, I managed to get
through most of it. I was not impressed. In addition to the
lack of content or humor in most of the articles, I found many
of the comments to be blatantly sexist. But before someone quickly
points out that several members of the Brews Paper staff are indeed
women, just let me say that the same goes for many of the mens'
magazines that are found at your local news stand.
The most depressing thing about it is that our names were almost
certainly given to the newspaper by the AHA. I had thought the
AHA was making an effort to treat homebrewers of either sex equally,
and not delegate the women to the chore of bottle washing, but the support
of the Brews Paper definitely convinces me that they are still mired
in the 80's. I think that in the future, the AHA should do more
research before handing out their mailing list to such a low-budget,
low-quality publication such as this. I'm sorry to waste your time.
Scott
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 16:38:50 PST
From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
Subject: re: trivia
>>Trivia question:
>>
>>Which Beatles song refers to homebrewing?
>
>I searched and searched, but never found the answer!
>
>have fun
>gak
"Rock 'n' Roll Music" meantions homebrew (in one recording, at least),
but not homebrewing.
+---
Drew Lawson If you're not part of the solution,
lawson@acuson.com you're part of the precipitate
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1061, 01/22/93
*************************************
-------
