Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1085
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/02/25 00:26:38
HOMEBREW Digest #1085 Thu 25 February 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
us vs Brit malt/ Fruit in beer (Lee Menegon)
Fermenters,batch size and heat buildup (Nick Zentena)
lagering (Steve Yavorski)
Fermenting on trub (Carlo Fusco)
Alcohol content of Homebrew (S. Elser)
oxidation in the bottle (Peter Maxwell)
yeast mutation (KLIGERMAN)
Re: labels for laser printer (David Van Iderstine)
Saving Yeast (SRIRACHA)
Re: stuck conditioning (korz)
extract barleywine (Dick Dunn)
help (Alexander Nazarenko)
Annual Contest -- Upstate New York Homebrewers Assoc. (Tom Kaltenbach)
Distribution change (Pat McNamee 5-5009)
More Beer Poetry (Paul dArmond)
Re: Starch conversion (Nick Zentena)
immaterial girl (Mike_Merriman)
Appropriateness of articles (Guy McConnell)
Yeast and Malt (Robert Pulliam)
Re:no more syrup/hops in OH/cidery beer/extract info (korz)
Call a spade a spade (chris campanelli)
Re: request for extract information (Richard Stueven)
Re: 33? (Richard Stueven)
Re: Other 'brewing' digests (Tom Haley)
Wyeast Bohemian wrt attenuation (Pat Lasswell)
SUSCRIBE (CIS309137)
Refractometers and Hydrometers (Marc de Jonge)
Malt roasting - help! (Michel Vandenplas)
Laser Labels Adhesive/tale of "33" (Sandy Cockerham)
CIS (Jack Schmidling)
Sanitizer (Jack Schmidling)
lager (Jack Schmidling)
Beer Crawls (Jack Schmidling)
Galvanized Screen (Jack Schmidling)
Gluten in beer (Jim Grady)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
IMPORTANT NEWS -- PLEASE READ
-----------------------------
There will be nobody reading mail sent to homebrew-request during the
period Feb 8 through approx. Feb 28. This means that any requests for
changes or cancellations will not be handled until the end of the month.
Subscription requests will continue to be handled automatically, and the
digest will continue to be sent automatically, barring any computing
device catastrophes. So if you send a message here and get no immediate
reply, or if the digest stops suddenly, please do not panic. Just be
patient.
ps. and please try to behave yourselves while I'm gone ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:20:35 EST
From: Lee Menegon <necis!lmenegon@transfer.stratus.com>
Subject: us vs Brit malt/ Fruit in beer
Some comments on recent posts:
US vs British Malt
According to the data provided by a grain vendors, NorthEast Brewers Supply,
they list the degree of modification for grains from 1 least modified to 4
most modified. They indicate that the British grain they stock is "4"
while the US ,Klages + Harrington, as 3. I have been led to believe
that the less modified a malt the longer it takes to protein rest and
mash. Taking this further, that the highly modified, British, malts
often do not require a protein rest hence their single step infusion mash.
I have just brewed a cream ale using all US grains, my extraction rate was
essentially the same as the British malt I usally use. The mash time was
essentially the same since I always do a 15-30 minute protein rest. The
color was the palest I have ever brewed avery light yellow/ gold I could
never get a beer this pale using British malt.
-Fruit in Beer
I brewed a strawberry Ale this summer. What I learned is add fruit to the
secondary, like dry hopping, or all the aromatic properties will be lost out
the air lock during active fermentation. Lightly hop the brew or the subtle
fruit flavor will be over powered. If the fruit has pectin in it add pectic
enzyme or the beer will never clear, it breaks down the pectin. Remember that
yeast metabolizes sugar, that sweet fruit juice will become alcohol and fruit
essence.
- Apple Beer? I don't know if this is a good combination, fermented apple
juice is cider, and I find cidery tasting beer unenjoyable. I have had
wonderful rasberry, strawberry and cranberry beers.
Brewing books:
As a beginner I found the Miller "Complete handbook of Home Brewing" more
informative than the original Papazian book. I have not looked at the new
versions. I would recommend some of the Zymurgy special issues to someone
wanting to improve their knowledge. The Hops issue has useful information
on more accurately determining the level of bitterness in a beer. The
Yeast issue has information on yeast reuse which make liquid yeast less
costly per batch. The Trouble shooting issue cover many flaor faults.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 14:23:41 -0500
From: Nick Zentena <zen%hophead@canrem.com>
Subject: Fermenters,batch size and heat buildup
Hi,
with all this talk about the perfect fermenter
design I was wondering if somebody could comment at
what point does the heat buildup become high enough
to affect the ferment? Also are the Wyeast preferred
temps for the ferment or ambient? So does a
40-50litre ferment create enough heat to alter an
ale ferment? How about lagers?
Thanks
Nick
*****************************************************************************
I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles!
zen%hophead@canrem.com
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 14:11:24 -0500 (EST)
From: yavo@gvls1.VFL.Paramax.COM (Steve Yavorski)
Subject: lagering
I'm an extract brewer with a single stage fermentation setup. Is there
any way to make a lager without a secondary fermenter. I will be moving
soon, and don't want to buy a carboy until after I move. I'd like to
take advantage of my cold basement temperatures, though. I thought I
read something in a past HBD about lagering in the bottle. Is this
possible? If so, what is the procedure? Would a viable alternative be
a single stage fermented steam beer?
Thanks in advance,
Steve
Stephen Yavorski internet - yavo@ivy.paramax.com
NEXRAD Integration phone - (215) 443 - 7500
Paramax Systems Corporation
Ivyland, Pennsylvania
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 15:20 EST
From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA>
Subject: Fermenting on trub
Hello Everyone,
A few months ago there was discussion in this digest about fermenting
on the trub. There was some argument weither to rack your cooled wort
off of the trub as soon as it settles or to forget about it and pitch.
Well I did a little experiment with my last 2 batches of Scotch Ale.
Batch 1: After chilling I let the trub settle for 45min and then racked
the beer into a glass carboy and pitched the yeast [wyeast 1098].
Batch 2: After chilling I did not let the trub settle but I pitched
right away with wyeast 1098.
Observations:
Batch 1 had a fast fermentation and cleared quickly. It was ready to
keg in 2 weeks. Single stage fermentation.
Batch 2 started in about the same time as Batch 1 but the fermentation
took longer and it never really cleared up. It was ready to keg in 3
weeks. Single stage fermentation.
Flavour:
Batch 1 had a nice clean taste with the usual flavours associated with
a dark ale, the specialty grains seemed to really come through in the beer.
It was really good and did not last to long.
Batch 2 is not very good at all. It's flavour and smell is musty, yeasty,
and somewhat astringent. I am having a hard time giving this stuff away.
Well you can say I learned my lesson and will from now on always let the
trub settle and rack the beer off the trub before pitching.
Carlo Fusco...........g1400023@nickel.laurentian.ca
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 15:36:42 EST
From: elser@NADC.NADC.NAVY.MIL (S. Elser)
Subject: Alcohol content of Homebrew
Being a relatively novice brewer, I enjoy gathering new information from this
digest. I have seen several references to alcohol content in homebrew recently.
One dealt with siphoning trub into the secondary fermentor (creating more
fuesel alcohols), the other I dug up touched upon the relationship between
the body of the brew and the alcohol content.
My questions: When using partial mask method (following instructions from
a recipe for holding grains at specific temps for specified lengths of time,
then adding the resulting liquid to more water containing extract or DME),
is the temperature/time relationship the determinant factor in alcohol content
of the finished beer? Some people tell me my beer seems to have higher alcohjol
than they're used to (this would be commercial American or Canadian brews). I
have never tried to calculate the alcohol content, but I would imagine that with
mashing variations, an accurate estimate might be way off. What are the rules
of thumb for starch conversion vs. temperature?
I suppose the "trub" reference is a different factor in alcohol? And how
does a blow-off tube affect alcohol?
Thanks!
Sheila Elser
Please substitute "mash" for "mask" in second paragraph.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 13:24:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Maxwell <peterm@aoraki.dtc.hp.com>
Subject: oxidation in the bottle
I've been wondering about beer oxidising when in the bottle, due to
excessive splashing in the syphoning/bottling process. Given that yeast are
present in the bottle also (or else bottle conditioning wouldn't happen),
why don't they simply use any introduced oxygen to multiply before
fermenting the priming sugar?
A reasonable answer would be that oxidation takes place more quickly than
the yeast can remove the oxygen, but does anyone know the real answer?
Peter
------------------------------
Date: 22 Feb 1993 16:30:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: KLIGERMAN@herlvx.rtpnc.epa.gov
Subject: yeast mutation
Jacob Galley posted a question dealing with yeast mutation. Alcohol when
metabolized can produce acetaldehyde which is mutagenic, but my guess is that
since there are always spontaneous mutations occurring, if you use one yeast
batch for too long a time, you wind up selecting strains that will out compete
your original strains as the environment (wort) changes.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 14:22:01 EST
From: orgasm!davevi@uunet.UU.NET (David Van Iderstine)
Subject: Re: labels for laser printer
I used to use adhesive labels, and you're right, they're hell to get off.
I've read on the digest here that plain paper, dipped in milk (that's
right!) will hold labels on well, once dry. When re-wetted, they supposedly
slip right off. I haven't tried it, as I've just plain given up labelling
(too paranoid, lazy, and ill-informed, you know ;-).
Dave Van Iderstine
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1993 17:18:46 EST
From: SRIRACHA <radavfs@ube.ub.umd.edu>
Subject: Saving Yeast
Hallo thar homebrewers!
My brewing partner and I recently started using liquid yeast and
are quite pleased with the results - the cost, however, is making
us wonder about whether or not we should buy a new packet every time
when a strain could be reused...I guess our question is this: How
have the experiences of other digesters been regarding saving the
sludge? Do you seal it up with some malt extract? Do you put it
into a container that would allow stoppering/airlocking? Just curious...
we saw a couple of possible containers the other day, but I thought I'd
beter write first...How about "Grolsch-type" bottles?
Thanks in advance for any input
Volker
radavfs@ube.ub.umd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 93 20:22 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: stuck conditioning
Paul writes:
>Peter Maxwell says his brew isn't conditioning in the bottle. I've had
>similar hassles. Is there any visible sediment in the bottles? This is
>the best gauge (other than opening a bottle) of how the yeast in the
>bottle is doing. My guess is that the yeast count at bottling was to low.
>In my case, I think this was due to fining with Polyclar. Now I swish the
>racking tube around the bottom of the secondary to pick up a little of the
>yeast sediment. I have also added 1/4 tsp of dry yeast to the bottling
>bucket.
I'd like to advise against this last suggestion, especially if you used a
different liquid yeast for the primary fermentation. If the yeast you
add at bottling is more attenuative than the fermentation yeast you could
get exploding bottles. Also, if you are using dry yeast in the primary
ferment and are bottling with the same yeast, I strongly suggest rehydrating
the yeast in both cases. In a sort of newsletter from Lallemand (the
yeast manufacturer), they say that dry yeast rehydrated in wort (as opposed
to rehydrating in 104-115F sterile water) is more likely to produce
off-flavors. I've found that the lag time was quite a bit longer when
I didn't rehydrate in water in recent tests with Coopers and Lallemand
yeasts.
On a related note, I have written in the past warning about the use of
the yeast that comes with Munton & Fison Kits (it use to be called
Muntona, but now I think it just says "yeast"). I said that it gave
very, very high levels of phenolic/clove aromas and flavors and that
I suggested it not be used. I'd like to point out that I had not
rehydrated this yeast in water (since it was not mentioned by M&F in the
instructions). Perhaps if the yeast is rehydrated in water, it may be more
acceptable in terms of the phenolic/clove flavors? Note that this still
does not address the issue of bacterial infection of the dry yeast
which was a problem years ago with the Muntona yeast (eventually the
beers would become gushers... when I switched to Wyeast, I could keep
the beers for years without them becoming gushers, so it was NOT my
sanitation methods).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 93 02:10:56 MST (Tue)
From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: extract barleywine
A while back, amidst all the extract/all-grain ego-excreta, there was a
comment about "tang" of extract brews with a lot of malt. The recent
"found beer" note (I like it!) reminded me of an extract barleywine we've
had for some years, with a fair stash turning up recently (in bottle). It
was strong enough to start (1.095 OG) that we'd have been able to pick up
any off-flavors or especially any tang, but nobody who's tasted it has had
any complaint...either when it was young, or now, several years later.
(In its youth, we did some comparisons against Old Foghorn. It came out in
a dead heat. I loved it, and spent some considerable effort comparing the
two:-)
There was also a suggestion somewhere along the way that dry malt might be
better than canned. This old barleywine was made with M&F spraymalt, so
FWIW there's a possible datapoint in favor of dry. Anyone else made any
comparisons, or even have any good/bad single datapoints? Most of my
brewing isn't beer these days, but barleywine is the one exception I'd
make, so if I brew extract I'd like to aim carefully.
I'm also intrigued by the processes. I think I'd heard that the dried malt
was essentially "sprayed" and evaporated by dry air and low pressure, as
opposed to boiling off water. If so, this would make a good case for why
dry malt would survive processing better than canned (less heat). True?
---
Dick Dunn rcd@eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA
...Simpler is better.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 13:26:50 MSK
From: Alexander Nazarenko <ANAZAREN%????????@vm.gmd.de>
Subject: help
help
END OF MESSAGE
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 6:56 EST
From: tom@kalten.bach1.sai.com (Tom Kaltenbach)
Subject: Annual Contest -- Upstate New York Homebrewers Assoc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPSTATE NEW YORK HOMEBREWERS ASSOCIATION
15th Annual Contest & 4th Empire State Open
Saturday, April 24, 1993
at
McGinnity's Restaurant and Party House
534 West Ridge Road, Rochester, New York
Donation $5
Doors open at 6:00 p.m.
Public judging starts at 7:00 p.m.
COME AND JOIN THE FUN AT NEW YORK STATE'S OLDEST HOMEBREW CONTEST!
*** FREE SAMPLES OF HOMEBREW ***
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THERE WILL BE 11 CATEGORIES:
1) British Ale 5) Light Lager 9) Porter
2) North American Ale 6) Amber Lager 10) Stout
3) Brown Ale 7) Dark Lager 11) Specialty
4) Belgian Ale 8) Looks Like SARANAC
No entries will be accepted after April 14 (see details below).
Beers can be entered at shops in: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Ithaca,
or they can be shipped.
CONTEST SANCTIONED BY THE AMERICAN HOMEBREWERS ASSOCIATION
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CONTEST PRIZES:
BEST OF SHOW: A complete home kegging system
1st Runner Up: $50 gift certificate for homebrew supplies
2nd Runner Up: $25 gift certificate for homebrew supplies
Prizes in each category: malt extract or other homebrewing supplies
Prizes in Looks Like SARANAC: items awarded by F.X. Matt Brewery
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For further information about entering the contest, other prizes, etc., send
an email request to Tom Kaltenbach at "tom@kalten.bach1.sai.com".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 09:04:27 CST
From: patm@mallet.med.ge.com (Pat McNamee 5-5009)
Subject: Distribution change
Please remove me from the distribution of Homebrew Digest.
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 07:08:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul dArmond <paulf@henson.cc.wwu.edu>
Subject: More Beer Poetry
This one is from E. A. Housman's "The Welsh Marches" via the Oxford
Dictionary of Quotations.
Say, for what were hop-yards meant,
Or why was Burton built on Trent?
Oh many a peer of England brews
Livelier liquor than the Muse,
And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man.
Paul.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 09:48:53 -0500
From: Nick Zentena <zen%hophead@canrem.com>
Subject: Re: Starch conversion
>Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 10:17:46 -0800
>From: atl@kpc.com
>Subject: Starch Conversion Weirdness
> Anyway, I put 12.25 lbs of grain into the cooler, and added 12.25
>qts of 172F water, stirred, and the temperature settled at exactly
>155F, the desired temperature for this batch. I closed the lid, and
How well did you stir? How long before you checked
the temp? Personally I add the water first. The
cooler will suck up a fair bit of temp. With my
larger cooler I count on losing close to 10F to the
cooler itself. I also stir quite a bit during mashin
to make sure no hot spots develop. I also tend to
wait 1min at least before mashing in. I'm sure hot
spots mean cold spots.
>let it sit for an hour. At this time, I sampled a bit of liquid from
>the surface and performed the iodine test for starch conversion.
>There was no color change, indicating complete conversion. Then, on a
>whim, I sampled some liquid from the spigot at the bottom of the
>cooler, and performed the iodine test on this as well. The test
>instantly turned jet black, indicating incomplete conversion. I
>thought this might be a result of fluid in the spigot itself, so I ran
>about a quart of liquid through, and tested again with the same
>(incomplete conversion) results.
Did you do any stirring during the mash? I usually
stir a little bit every 15-20mins. Also I think most
people will tell you that iodine results aren't
perfect.
> At this point, the temperature had dropped to about 152F, so I
I don't lose this much temp during 1-2hours usually.
I wonder if the temps weren't evened out during
mashin.
>Now, the questions:
>1) How is it possible to have different conversion rates in different
> portions of the mash?
I think that if you didn't stir at all it could. I
personally don't do an iodine test. I just mash for
a certain time. 1.5hours pale beers 2hours for
stouts/porters. If you are worried I'd guess pulling
off a sample and testing it's gravity would be
better then an iodine test.
Nick
*****************************************************************************
I drink Beer I don't collect cute bottles!
zen%hophead@canrem.com
*****************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 93 10:48
From: Mike_Merriman@camb.intersolv.com
Subject: immaterial girl
>From the Boston Globe:
"The Modern Brewer," the beer supply house in Cambridge, recently posed the
following question to its discerning clientle: Do you think Madonna is a jerk?
Yes, 15%, and No, 14%. A whopping 71% answered that they didn't care, which
proves that people who brew their own beer are wiser that the general
population.
mfm
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 10:24:48 CST
From: gdmcconn@mspe5.b11.ingr.com (Guy McConnell)
Subject: Appropriateness of articles
Jeff Frane writes:
> Subject: A Modest Proposal/Irish Ales/Snobs
^^^^^
> <<A Modest Proposal>>
>
> Recently, the _Homebrew_ Digest has had what seems to be an increasing
> number of contributions (some very long) about people's tours through
> commercial beer land. I hasten to say that I have no problem with
> people writing about the microbrews they've discovered, or how much
> they loved the Pacific Northwest -- in fact I think articles like this
> can be quite interesting, and I've even written a few myself.
>
> I'm not convinced, however, that the Homebrew Digest is the right place
> for such articles.
Since I'm the author of the most recent of these brewery reviews, I have
to disagree. From the heading of this most useful forum:
"FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES"
I think that brewery tour reports certainly belong. Mine was long so I
broke it into three parts. It probably doesn't matter much to those who now
take for granted accessible microbreweries and their products but we, here in
Alabama, have had no such luxury until the opening of the micro in Birmingham.
Some of the most enjoyable and informative articles in this forum have been
about brewery tours. They give clues to those wishing to approximate a
favorite beer on the brewing process and ingredients used in that beer as well
as interesting insight on the microbrewing industry which most of us support
whenever possible.
Far more damaging and digest-clogging are the continued ramblings on such
banal subjects as the "all-grain snobbery" thread that is *still* continuing
and is even treated in some length at the end of this article containing a
"modest proposal" to shorten the digest. We hear about which groups are "snobs"
(are not! are too!) and why and then we are treated to lenghty articles from
people in each group explaining why they, at least, do not fit this description
("I have *friends* who are all-grain/extract brewers - I can't be a snob!").
> In Usenet, there is a distinct difference between alt.beer and rec.
> crafts.brewing. People who post questions (usually beginner's) about
> how to make beer on alt.beer, quickly get shuffled off to rcb. Why
> do we not have a similar division here -- and soon?
How about let's just drop all the namecalling and criticizing articles?
I'll bet that those have taken up far more space than any brewery tour articles
combined. Also, there *is* another brewing list which is always short. I
get both but guess which one I've found most useful thus far, warts and all.
- --
Guy McConnell gdmcconn@mspe5.b11.ingr.com
"All I need is a pint a day"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 08:52:48 PST
From: Robert Pulliam <pulliam@monty.rand.org>
Subject: Yeast and Malt
Greetings Brewmiesters,
Just a couple of quick questions for the collective wisdom of the
HBD crowd.
1. I have just put a small amount of wyeast European Ale #1338
in a sterile Fisher bottle with some lightly hopped weak wort
(around SG 1020) and attached an air lock. I would like
to keep this as a starter base in my refridgerator. When do
I place it in the fridge, and when, with what and how often
do I feed it?
2. Is it possible to make our own specialty malts (i.e. roasted,
chocolate, black patent, etc.) from a regular 2 row? How about
crystals etc.? This would certainly help cut down the costs.
Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
Robert Pulliam
(pulliam@monty.rand.org)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 12:53 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re:no more syrup/hops in OH/cidery beer/extract info
Garland writes:
>i am at the stage of omitting the 4lb can of syrup in my recipes
>and using all dry malt extract and hop pellets for the first time.
>
>the recipe was:
>
>4lb stout syrup (w/hop and roast barley extracts) i have heard that
>this does not ferment efficently
The efficiency of the fermentation is dependent on a lot of things, one
of them being the amount of yeast nutrients in the wort, another being
the amount of glucose/fructose/sucrose in the wort (recall Bob Jones'
et al. reports of high FGs with sucrose starters). A lot depends on
the quality of the extract you use (see later in this post).
>3lb dry malt extract
>1/2lb dark roast barley (steeped)
>and most recently the addition of 1/2lb flaked barley. first i steeped
>at end of boil with dark roast, then on next batch boiled 10 min and strained
>milky soup into wort.
I suggest that you steep all the specialty grains before the boil (as the
water is coming up to 170F -- pull them out at 170F) since you would like
to coagulate any of the large proteins that you may have introduced from
the grains -- which will take the whole 60 min boil.
>what is the proper amount of dme to use. 6lb? dark dme is all i have
>ever used. i was told that i could use 7lb light malt extract and 2 lb
>"black patent." is that unmalted stuff to steep like i do the dark roast?
2 lbs is quite a bit of black patent for a 5 gallon batch. I used 1/2 lb
roasted barley and 1/2 lb black patent in a recently tasted batch with
two cans (6.6#) of John Bull Dark syrup and it fermented out just fine
with Wyeast #1084. I'd say a pound of black patent should be enough if
you are using light malt extract.
>what kind of hop pellets, and what kind of boil times will i want for
>my new, unknown recipe? i don't know what flavor hops are good for
>which brews, but i am sure there is the obvious hop and procedure for
>the stout/porter i am trying to brew.
I used 3 ounces of Clusters for the boil and a half-ounce of Cascades
in the fermenter (after the kraeusen fell), but I would recommend adding
another 1 ounce of Fuggles or Goldings for the last 15 minutes of the
boil (for flavor).
>can i grow decent hops in mid ohio?
Sure. Give them plenty of sun, plenty of string to climb (15-20 feet!)
and lots of water (6-7 gallons per plant, per day).
*****************************
Karl writes:
>My first batch with chocolate malt matured yesterday, so I had some friends
>over and generally it's a yummy beer. However, I still have that slight,
>annoying cidery taste. I did add about 150g of sugar beet molasses besides
>the malt extract and coarsely ground chocolate malt. Is it perhaps too
>refined of a sugar and adds mostly alcohol and not much flavor? Other
>suggestions?
It's not the level of the refinement, it's the type of sugar. Too much
sucrose (cane or beet sugar), dextrose, glucose or fructose will give you
cidery flavors. It may not be all your fault -- it could be the fault
of your extract (see below).
****************************
Dan `Stout' Wiesen writes:
>how about providing extract brewers with information and
>characteristics of malt extract?
Pick up the Zymurgy special issue on Extract Brewing. It has a listing
of virtually every extract brand that was available at the time (1986?).
One popular extract that was not available at the time is Northwestern.
I've spoken to the manufacturer and it is made from 100% barley malt
(except the Bavarian Weizen which is 65% wheat malt 35% barley malt) and
contains no other sugars, flavors or colorings. The hopped extracts
contain the equivalent of 10 IBU of pre-isomerized hop extract (from
unlisted hop varieties, alas) for a 5 gallon batch in one 3.3 lb box.
(Therefore two 3.3# boxes in a 5 gallon batch will give you 20 IBU).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 11:29 CST
From: akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli)
Subject: Call a spade a spade
What with the over-abundance of interesting and informative
braying about extract vs all-grain brewing, I have taken the
liberty of compiling a list which, I feel, best summarizes the
characteristics of the two types of brewers:
Extract: Scum of the earth, lazy, ignorant, obtuse, oppressed,
white bread with no crust, born-out-of-wedlock complainers.
All-grain: Scum of the earth, pompous, swaggering, self-
righteous, ill-tempered, intolerant, vain, incestuous braggarts.
Naturally I've left out the more colorful descriptors so as not
to offend the under-aged (or humor-impaired).
So it seems that no matter which brewing technique you employ,
you fall into one of the two categories. Now I don't know about
the rest of you, but this is one scum-of-the-earth who would like
to put this topic to bed. And if we don't do it toot sweet, I'll
be forced to post about other beer-related topics even more
vulgar than farting. And let me tell you, there are a few.
You have been warned.
chris campanelli
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 12:07:18 -0800
From: Richard Stueven <gak@wrs.com>
Subject: Re: request for extract information
In HBD# 1083, Dan `Stout' Wiesen vaguely remembers a mention of a
comparative study of malts conducted by a Saskatchewan (yea, his home
province) university. He also vaguely remembers some difficulty in
obtaining the results of that study.
I don't think Martin will mind my re-posting of his article from HBD# 698.
If he objects...well, I'll owe him (more) beer.
have fun
gak
107/H/3&4
- ------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 91 11:03:42 PDT
From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah@PacBell.COM>
Subject: Sugared Extracts
A discussion of the adulteration of malt extracts with corn sugars
has been going on over in the newsgroup rec.food.drink, and Paul
Chisholm of Bell Labs asked me to let HBD in on the secret. I
started the whole fracas by making a cryptic reference to recent
research that cast the purity of extracts in doubt, and Doug DeMers
of Amdahl immediately asked for sources, and more information. So
the following day I posted this:
The flap all began in Zymurgy, Vol. 13 #5, Winter 1990. On page 15,
in Dan Fink's "Brew News" column, was an item describing a report
presented by Professor Michael Ingledew of the University of
Saskatchewan to the 1990 meeting of the American Society of Brewing
Chemists, on research he and his colleagues were doing on the
composition of malt extracts. This research, a combination of High
Performance Liquid Chromatography and fermentation studies,
disclosed the substantial unlabeled presence of glucose syrup,
invert syrup/liquid sucrose, and high fructose corn syrup in the
extracts tested. They also discovered poor fermentation from some
extracts, due to a deficiency in the free amino nitrogen content
normally provided by barley malt (had any stuck fermentations
lately?). In the presentation, they did not identify the extracts
tested.
I don't have to tell you what a storm that raised! The AHA followed
up on it, and in Dan Fink's column (page 14) in the Summer 1991
issue of Zymurgy (Vol. 14 #2) they published a letter from Professor
Ingledew in which he said that they indeed were NOT planning to release
the names of the extracts tested. They felt they couldn't be sure
whether the adulteration was done by the manufacturers, or by the
distributors. They also felt their sample might not be representative,
as they had only tested 44 "lager" extracts, and no "ale" extracts
(their terms). They didn't feel they had the time or money to handle
either additional testing or possible legal action. They also felt
that the burden of following up on the problem they'd identified
rested with the brewing industry, through the marketplace. Then
Professor Ingledew closed with this paragraph:
In spite of my comments above, I have complete
confidence in the results obtained in my lab by
my colleagues. There is no doubt that some
manufacturers are profiting from the addition
of lower cost corn sugars to malt extract.
Well! Where does that leave us? Neither of the articles made it
clear what percentage of the extracts tested had been "juiced", or
to what degree. And, of course, we have no idea what they were
testing.
I hope you're not too terribly depressed.
= 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, 23 Feb 1993 12:10:06 -0800
From: Richard Stueven <gak@wrs.com>
Subject: Re: 33?
Once and for all, the reason they put "33" on Rolling Rock bottles is
to keep people guessing about the reason they put "33" on Rolling Rock
bottles.
have fun
gak
107/H/3&4
------------------------------
Date: 23 Feb 93 11:29:00 PST
From: Tom Haley <tah@ccgate.SanDiegoCA.NCR.COM>
Subject: Re: Other 'brewing' digests
There has been quite alot of discussion lately about throwing yeast into
other liquids besides wort. I think that most people who get into brewing
do so for the fun of fermenting. That being said, I thought I would help
encourage this by posting what I know about other digests.
Mead digest
submissions mead-lovers@nsa.hp.com
requests mead-lovers-request@nsa.hp.com
FTP site: sierra.stanford.edu
anon FTP, pub/mead/
cider digest
submissions cider@expo.lcs.mit.edu
requests to cider-request@expo.lcs.mit.edu
Raw digest archives available for ftp only
export.lcs.mit.edu
Anyone know of others? Lets encourage fermentation!
tom
Tom.Haley@ScrippsRanchCA.NCR.COM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 93 19:03:53 PST
From: Pat Lasswell <patl@microsoft.com>
Subject: Wyeast Bohemian wrt attenuation
Data point:
I just bottled a bock (15.5B/SG 62) fermented with the Bohemian yeast.
I chose it because I wanted a high terminal gravity. Instead, I ended
up with a very alcoholic, dry beer. Hmmm. If it weren't so clean,
I'd swear it was Belgian. Fermentation temps were in the low 40s
and 30s; and -- as I recall -- the saccharification rest was held at
158 (2-decoction mash).
Ars Zymurgia
patl@microsoft.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1993 20:17 PST
From: CIS309137@axe.humboldt.edu
Subject: SUSCRIBE
PLEASE ENROLL ME IN THE HOMEBREW MAIL LIST
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 11:29:41 +0100
From: dejonge@geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge)
Subject: Refractometers and Hydrometers
In HBD1084 John Cotterill writes:
>Brew Dudes and Dudettes,
>I have been using a refractometer for a few months now. This past weekend
>I decided to do an experiment to see how the refractometer readings match
>up to hydrometer readings on beer. I filled my test jar with an IPA and
>put my hydrometer in and it read 1.015. I took a drop of the IPA and put
>it on my refractometer and it read 8.2% Brix. Converting this number to
>points S.G., its about 1.032!! What gives here? BTW, both numbers are
>temperature corrected.
Sounds ok:
I did a simple experiment once with a bit of unfermented wort,
adding (96%) alcohol volumes to see the effect on measured
density:
F.G.= density of wort without the alcohol.
Numbers in the table are the measured values (with a hydrometer)
after adding the percentage of alcohol given in the columns
(All values +/- my accuracy; your mileage had better vary.... )
%AbV->
F.G. | 1 2 4 6 8
- ------------------------------------
1020 | 1019 1018 1014 1011 1009
1030 | 1029 1028 1025 1021 1017
1040 | 1038 1036 1032 1029 1026
So, I would guess that your beer, with 32 gravity points of
sugars, contains a little over 8% alcohol by volume,
which produces a 1015 hydrometer reading....
Marc de Jonge (Who fears this hobby may be getting out of hand:)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 13:36 GMT+200
From: Michel Vandenplas <mvdp@maties.sun.ac.za>
Subject: Malt roasting - help!
Maybe a better subject title would be Homebrewing in Darkest Africa. One
of my many problems (as a novice there are of course many others) is that
the only malt I can buy at a reasonable price, is unroasted. The grain
makes a good pale ale (to my unrefine
Naturally, while I like pale ales, I'd like to make some darker brews. To
this end I've roasted some of the grain at between 100-110C. This grain
has then been mixed with about 70% unroasted grain and extracted, giving a
darker colour to the beer. Is this
Lastly, I've been using my wife's rolling pin to crush the grain. Does
anyone have any inexpensive and easy alternatives to this? I'm surely
loosing a lot in extract potential this way.
Many thanks to all the digest contributors from whom I've gleaned advice -
without their knowledge that is :-).
Regards
Michel
------------------------------
Date: 24 Feb 1993 08:02:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Sandy Cockerham <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L@LILLY.COM>
Subject: Laser Labels Adhesive/tale of "33"
Last HBD someone asked how to apply the labels they make on the laser printer.
Stolen directly from an old HBD-- MILK!!!!! I have used this technique. I used
skim milk, dipped the label in and smoothed out the bubbles. It held extremely
well. Non-toxic too!
On another note, the story I heard regarding the 33 on the Rolling Rock label,
which by the way is not stuck on with milk :) When the designs for the RR
labels were submitted, they were numbered. The one chosen was (you guessed it)
#33. As the tale goes, when it went into production someone neglected to take
the 33 off and it has been on the label ever since.
Sandy C.
From: COCKERHAM SANDRA L (MCVAX0::RX31852)
To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com")
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:40 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: CIS
>From: lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
>I would like to point out that there is a great difference between
CompuServe and the Digest. That is that most CIS users do not read all
the message threads.... Also, of course, the Digest has developed ARF
antibodies and will likely react to even borderline messages if they are from
you.
Good points, both. But perhaps the former is a symptom of the latter.
Just a point of reference, I have lost interest in CIS for exactly that
reason. It would cost a fortune to read all the articles and there is no
way to sort out what is worth reading. People have no qualms about posting
messages such as "Good idea, Bob." and the board is loaded with them,
probably even the majority. Even a thread with one's own name in the subject
can lead to endless drivel but you keep reading it so as not to miss anything
that might be appropriate. I think the dicipline forced on people by knowing
that everyone has to at least download what one writes is a tremendous house
cleaner.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:39 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Sanitizer
>From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav@bnr.ca>
>Subject: re: idophor, rinse/reuse
>JS relates his experiences with iodophor sanitizer: I've had no problem with
my brand of iodophor ('iosan') changing colour during normal use.
Here is the sequel to my experiments:
Two test tubes with 1 oz to 1 gal idophor, lids screwed on tight..
One tube remained undisturbed. The other shaken vigorously at regualar
intervals. For several weeks, no change in either.
It has been about a week since I last looked but yeasterday, I was astounded
to note that, the control was totally clear and the one that had been shaken
was still the original color. Any ideas now?
I will do it a again with more controls but this is totally surprising to me.
JS
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:40 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: lager
>From: Joe Boardman <boardman@amber.Colorado.EDU>
>Subject: an HBD-inspired yeast experiment
>Does anybody want to hazard a guess about the taste differences?
Does "clean" really mean anything? Is anybody going to be in Boulder in about
2 months to try some in person? Does anybody "know" they can tell them apart
in a double-blind test? I'll report back if there's interest.
I would hazard a guess but in about a week I will have the results from my
own similar experiment. At the moment, I will bet that a new thread on
"Lager Snobs" is not far off.
Keep us posted.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:40 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Beer Crawls
Re: Jeff Frane on Beer Crawls
I have posted an article in response to many postings several times over the
past two weeks and it has yet to get into the digest. I try to minimize
bandwidth by combing many responses into a single posting. Obviously, the
Digest software is sorting out long messages and "clensing" them. In order
to fool the system, I have broken it down into many short ones and eliminated
the ones that no longer have relevance.
Whether people agree with what I say or not, I suggest that responses to
current discussions are more relevant and in line with the objectives of this
forum than long feature articles on commercial beer and establishments. I
won't go so far as to say they do not belong here but perhaps they could be
saved till the Digest gets the "slows" again.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 07:41 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Galvanized Screen
>From: hopduvel!john@linac.fnal.gov (John Isenhour)
>Subject: galvanized hardware cloth ok for sparging?
>I've been wanting to build a mash/sparge cooler with a mesh filter
as the rigid manifold arrangement sits a little too high off the
bottom of my cooler. I havent been able to locate brass or stainless
mesh locally but I found some 1/8" galvanized hardware cloth. I haven't
heard of anyone using this - is there a problem?
I used galvanized hardware cloth on the original EASYMASHER (tm) for several
dozen batches and soo no problem with it. Zinc is a common mineral suplement
in vitimin pills so I see no reason not to use it. Not sure why you want to
use 1/8" mesh. I use 30 mesh (30 wires/inch) in the EM and it works very
well. The original used widow screen, whatever that is and it also worked
well.
The only source I have found for SS screen is McMaster Carr but I have to buy
about $50 worth. Not too practical if you are only making one.
> Also, what is a reasonable minimum length of mesh if its rolled into a
tube?
Don't quite understand what you are doing but the tube in the EM is 6 inches
long and 3/8" in diameter. It is pinched off at one end and slips over 3/8"
copper tubing on the other. The tubing is bent so the screen rests on the
bottom. This handles the entire task of the false bottom, slotted tube and
other such devices.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 93 9:06:40 EST
From: Jim Grady <jimg@hpwarga.wal.hp.com>
Subject: Gluten in beer
I believe that this was discussed before, or at least something similar,
but I do not know how it was resolved.
We will be having company over for dinner in a couple weeks and one of
the people coming cannot have any gluten in his diet. The question
naturally is, would homebrew be a problem?
The discussion earlier was along the lines of how much wheat is in the
beer but "The Cook's Companion" says that barley has some gluten too
(albeit, not as much as wheat). Furthermore, it says that gluten is a
protein. This makes me ask a couple questions:
1. Is it some of the protein that settles out in the hot or cold
break?
2. Is it one of the proteins responsible for aiding head retention (if
indeed proteins are responsible)? After all, wheat is high in
gluten and wheat malt is often recommended to aid head
retention.
3. Is it a protein that is broken down in the protein rest or in the
malting process?
e-mail or posting is fine. I will summarize any e-mail responses I get.
Thanks for your help.
- --
Jim Grady |"Talent imitates, genius steals."
Internet: jimg@wal.hp.com |
Phone: (617) 290-3409 | T. S. Eliot
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1085, 02/25/93
*************************************
-------
