Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1138
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/05/11 00:17:29
HOMEBREW Digest #1138 Tue 11 May 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
mash vs. extract table (ROB THOMAS)
Belgian souvenirs (Mark A Fryling)
Musings on Commercial Beer (Jack Schmidling)
re skunks (Chip Hitchcock)
Isomerized Hop Extracts vs. Skunkiness ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Sam Adams...... a Microbrewery (STROUD)
Re: Beer Machine Infomercial ("John D. McCalpin")
Pierre Rajotte ("William A Kitch")
Re: Where's the Hops? (Diane Palme x2617)
Draft Beer (was effects of light) (Ron Natalie)
Nepalese and Tibeten Chan(g) (Markham R. Elliott)
Hops/2 Liter Bottles (greenbay)
Isomerization ("Anthony Johnston")
Sugars ("William A Kitch")
Re: thin mashes & not mashes (Jeff Frane)
Chill Haze Remover (Robert Schultz)
Mash Stiffness (korz)
Soda Keg relief valve replacements (TAYLOR)
Micro and Brewpubs equipment requirements (Bruce=Kiley)
IBU's for Weissbierxxxzen (Bill Szymczak)
Book recommendation (Matthew Mitchell)
re ethylene and ripening (POLLARD)
FX Matt Brewery (Kirk Anderson)
out on my own (Joe Rolfe)
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:53:55 MET DST
From: ROB THOMAS <THOMASR@EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch>
Subject: mash vs. extract table
Hello All,
Here's table of mash thickness vs. temp vs. extract, taken from
Malting and Brewing Science, vol 1, D.E.Briggs, J.S.Hough, R.Stevens,
T.W.Young, Chaman and Hall, 1981.
Hope it's of some use. Rob Thomas.
Influence of mash temperature and concentration on the composition of sweet wort
{Data of HALL quoted by HARRIS (1962) [221}
Mashing temperature 60!C (140!F) 65 6!C (150!F)
Mash thickness (%) (2) 67 39 29 67 39 29
Wort analyses(1)
Hexose 12.3 10.1 9.5 11.9 9.5 8.1
Sucrose 2.8 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.2 3.8
Maltose 43.9 48.3 49.5 38.8 43.9 42.8
Trisaccharide 14.3 14.3 13.8 12.6 13.6 15.0
Dextrin 17.5 15.5 14.6 24.2 21.2 22.3
Fermentability (%) 73.3 76.1 76.2 67.4 71.2 69.7
Extract ( %) 55-63 76.2 75.6 73 4 75.3 74.2
Soluble N (% of wort 6.2-6.6 5.34 5.50 5.58 5.22 5.03
solids)
pH 5.46 5.40 5.50 5.31 5.33 5.38
(1) carbohydrates expressed as % of wort solids.
(2) Parts of grist/100 parts of water.
Mashing temperature 68 3!C (155!F)
Mash thickness (%) (2) 67 39 29
Wort analyses(1)
Hexose 11.0 10.2 8.0
Sucrose 3.7 5.0 4.0
Maltose 36.9 37.0 39.0
Trisaccharide 12.8 12.7 14.3
Dextrin 27.6 26.2 26.9
Fermentability (%) 64.4 65.0 65.3
Extract ( %) 73.3 74.6 74.0
Soluble N (% of wor 4.90 4.77 4.85
solids)
pH 5.31 5.35 5.30
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 8:04:53 EDT
From: Mark A Fryling <mfryling@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Belgian souvenirs
Hi gang!
I'v got a question for all of you worldly travelin' beer lovers out there. My
girlfriend is going to be in Europe all of next month and will be spending the
last week of her trip in Belgium. So naturally, I have asked her (and she has
agreed) to bring me back some local Belgian beers. My questions to you are:
1) Whats the duty rate on alcohol over the duty-free limit (and for that
matter whats the duty free limit)?
2) Is it best just to pack the beer carefully and carry it on the plane
as extra luggage or to ship it?
3) Does anyone have any particular recomendations about Belgian beers not
available here that she might easily find there? She will be spending
most of her time in Antwerp.
Any and all assistance can be sent either directly to me at
mfryling@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
or posted if you think your comments are of general interest. Thanks in
advance.
Mark
"Never let your sense of morality prevent you from doing what's right"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 08:00 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Musings on Commercial Beer
My C-P bottler is down for re-design so I bought a bunch of commercial stuff
to take to a party. Always wanting to turn a beer drink into a learning
experience, I bought some things I have wanted to try/compare.
Draft Guinness in the can is not only lousy beer but the nitrogen gizzmo is
just plain silly. I thought the beer had a metalic taste and was lacking in
anything worth mentioning.
Bass ale was about as bland as the Guinness but lacked the metalic taste and
just about any other, for that matter.
Take the coloring out of Beck's Dark and you have Beck's regular. It seems a
bit more beerish but hardly in line with the color.
The good news (strike me dead) was Miller Reserve Pale Ale. I tried the "all
barley" larger a few months ago and it seemed a farce but this stuff is real
ale. It's fruity and wonderful. It has a very marvey aroma and the taste
that follows is exactly was you expect from the aroma. By far the best beer
to come out of the biggies in decades. No doubt they found the right
combination of chemicals to do the trick but at least it tastes like beer.
It does not taste like my ales but rather like most of the ales I taste at
club meetings and the experts tell me that is what it is supposed to taste
like.
Needless to say, I wait with baited breath to hear what others think of it.
js
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 09:21:37 EDT
From: cjh@diaspar.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: re skunks
> So, I offer a challenge to some incipient MOMILY BUSTER. Split a batch in
> half and keep half in the dark and expose the other to 8 hrs of fluorescent
> light per day. Bottle some of both when ready, then do the same every 30
> days till you smell a skunk and report back.
>
> My bet is, you will run out of beer first.
I wouldn't suggest that anybody do this with a batch they value.
Stiv Stroud runs periodic Dr. Beer sessions at which participants can
sample beers with various off-flavors. At the session I was at a couple of
years ago, the demonstration of light-struck beer involved some Molson's
which he said had had a total of 6 hours of direct sunlight (well, as
direct as you can get in February). The stuff was LETHAL; I could smell it
a yard away almost the instant the bottle was opened and wouldn't even
consider tasting it (I wanted to be able to taste something else that day).
I expect this will vary quite a bit according to factors like carboy
geometry and how dark the beer is; my assessment in private email was that
it wasn't likely to be a problem because most homebrewers don't have
flurorescents where they ferment. I also don't have any data on typical
spectra for fluorescent lights, only the datum that they're efficient
lights only by comparison with incandescents---something like a mere 85%
(vs ~93%) of energy used comes out as heat, which would suggest that
fluorescents might have less energy in the high-visible and UV range
than sunlight. However, there are probably enough carboy-sized places in
the typical homebrewer's residence without sun or fluorescent lighting that
it would be a silly risk to take.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:13:12 EDT
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu>
Subject: Isomerized Hop Extracts vs. Skunkiness
May 1 (National Homebrew Day), the Kalamazoo Brewery had a free
homebrew "conference". One of the speakers was a "hop chemist" from
Kalsec (I think I got that right), a company in Kalamazoo that does
"spice extraction". He talked about the chemistry of hops flavors &
aromas. The best part was the box of vials of extracted flavor/aroma
components that he passed around (ranging from "cheesy/funky" through
"esters" to pure isomerized alpha&beta acids (he said it was 1,000,000
BUs)). Apparently, Kalsec makes the hops extract that "2 of the 3
largest brewers" in the US use (hint: AB is the one that doesn't).
They do the light-stabilization thing that lets Miller get away with
clear bottles (even though the hops are just about sub-threshold, I
imagine the mercaptans wouldn't be).
(The rest of the day was fun, too.)
=S
------------------------------
Date: 10 May 1993 10:40:45 -0500 (EST)
From: STROUD%GAIA@leia.polaroid.com
Subject: Sam Adams...... a Microbrewery
Far be it from me to take the position of defending Sam Adams, but there
appears to be some confusion in the HBD-world about where SA is and isn't
brewed.
Jeff Frane sez:
> Sam Adams is not and never has been a microbrewed beer. From its
> inception it was contract-brewed, originally in Pennsylvania and for the
> last couple of years here in Portland at the Blitz-Weinhard Brewery.
Well, yes and no. Sam Adams LAGER was first brewed as a contract beer in the
Pittsburgh Brewing Co. It still is, and in the last few years it has also been
contract brewed at Blitz-Weinhard. The other seasonal bottled SA products are
also contracted out of Pittsburgh. I don't know whether these are also brewed
at B-W.
Sam Adams BOSTON ALE (bottled version and some of the draft) is brewed at
Matt's in Utica, NY. Sorry, Lisa St. Hilaire, your tour guide was wrong.
Utica does the brewing, not just the storage.
It gets more confusing, however, because Sam Adams (the Boston Beer Company)
does indeed have a microbrewery here in Boston where they make numerous draft
beers (including Boston Ale) that are available at local taps in the Boston
area. Some of these beers are experimental (like the recent "triplebock" and
last summer's "dunkelweizen"). The draft beers that SA's takes out to the GABF
are also brewed here in Boston. I have been told by the head brewer that they
also make occasional batches of Sam Adams Lager (draft) in the Boston brewery.
The heart of Sam Adam's microbrewery is a 10 bbl mashtun which was acquired
from the now defunct Newman's Brewery in Albany.
So to say that Sam Adams is not and never has been a microbrewed beer is not
true. While it is predominantly a contracted beer, at least here in
Boston, some of the product is microbrewed.
Steve Stroud
Oh, BTW, the Sam Adams that is sold in Germany is supposed to be
contract-brewed IN Germany. I don't know the name of the brewery.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:39:43 -0400
From: "John D. McCalpin" <mccalpin@perelandra.cms.udel.edu>
Subject: Re: Beer Machine Infomercial
I did not see the commercial for this beer machine, but in the May 10
digest, Randall Holt (rxh6@po.CWRU.Edu) asks:
>The question I have, has anyone tried this system, or
>even tried brewing in this fashion, by fermenting and carbonating
>in the same container? I can imagine how tangy this beer would be,
>being poured right off the trub. Of course the happy smiling 'real
>people' are quaffing crystal clear, perfectly carbonated, 1 inch head,
>beer.
I have done this with a "Brew Sack" (tm). Instead of using a glass
or plastic keg, they use a woven plastic bag with a plastic liner.
The "Brew Sack" comes pre-loaded with hopped malt syrup in one of three
varieties (Porter, Stout, Pilsner). Just add hot (~150 degree) water
to dissolve the syrup, then add more water (20 pints total) to cool
down to ~95 degrees and add the yeast. The bag is equipped with a
pressure relief valve in the screw-on cap and with a tap near the
bottom.
I kept mine for about 7-10 days at a reasonable room temperature, then
moved it downstairs to a room at about ~55 degrees for 4 weeks.
It was pretty lively when I opened it, but the carbonation seemed external,
somehow -- the beer never had much head by itself. I guess this is not
surprising, since a plastic bag is not going to stand up to a lot of
pressure.
The beer (a Porter) was very rich and quite tasty. It was *not* clear
(even for a Porter), but I was not bothered by any sediments. I did
choose to pass on the last 2 inches of brew left in the bottom, though
I suppose it would be a good vitamin B-12 supplement?
This weekend I plan to start a Brown Ale that I will split between a
standard single-stage fermentation technique and the "Brew Sack". Then
in 6 weeks or so I will have an official comparison taste test ---
provided that I can get the !@#$%^&* screw cap off of the Brew
Sack....
- --
John D. McCalpin mccalpin@perelandra.cms.udel.edu
Assistant Professor mccalpin@brahms.udel.edu
College of Marine Studies, U. Del. John.McCalpin@mvs.udel.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 09:04:08 CST
From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa@bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Pierre Rajotte
Does anyone have an address for Pierre?
Thanks, WAK
|- William A Kitch (512) 471-4929 -|
|- Geotechnical Engineering -|
|- ECJ 9.227 -|
|- Univ of Texas at Austin, TX 78712-1076 -|
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 09:55:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: dspalme@mke.ab.com (Diane Palme x2617)
Subject: Re: Where's the Hops?
Hi all!
Thanks ever so very much for the words of encouragement and wisdom. My
mailbox overfloweth! :-)
Anyway, I stopped out by the garden yesterday and lo and behold! The kids
are here! The Hallertau and the Cascade have poked their heads up and the
Tattenanger is still being shy. I swear they looked different between 12:00
and 4:30! Yikes! I haven't thrown any fertilizer on them (I am scared to!).
Again, I will keep all of you up to date. There were too many respondants
to thank each and every one individually. Let it suffice that your good
thoughts and kind words have stopped my worrying.
Happy Hopping!
Diane
- --
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:58:36 -0400
From: Ron Natalie <ron@topaz.bds.com>
Subject: Draft Beer (was effects of light)
How about the fact that the beer isn't near-boiled after it's been fermented?
-Ron
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 14:57:21 GMT
From: u4imdmre@cpc41.cpc.usace.army.mil (Markham R. Elliott)
Subject: Nepalese and Tibeten Chan(g)
I have a question for you beer scholars out there. This past weekend my father-
in-law and I were quaffing a couple, and he asked me if anyone on the network
had ever mentioned "Chang". He told me a story of when he went to Nepal and
began a climb of Mt. Everest (real story, fully documented etc, etc. he never
intended to go to the summit or anything, just wanted to 'climb' it, and he went
and climbed to one of the traditional base camps).
At any rate, he said it is a brewed beverage, consumed during social and
sometimes at ceremonial gatherings (sometimes spelled as "Chan" by those in
Tibet). Said it was quite strong, and (given the altitude) would really 'do
a number on you'. He wants to know if anyone out there in HBD Land knows a
full history and recipe.
I've seen a couple of posts lately from some student(s) doing research on
brewing, so come on guys and gals, here is your chance to show us what you've
got.
Noch einmal, bitte!! Mark
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Markham R. Elliott u4imdmre@cpc41.cpc.usace.army.mil
Information Technology Laboratory (601) 634-2921
Waterways Experiment Station
Vicksburg, Mississippi USA
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:14:26 CDT
From: greenbay@vnet.IBM.COM
Subject: Hops/2 Liter Bottles
I have two questions that I hope someone could answer for me.
1) On average, what does a single hops flower weigh? (A range would
also be OK if that is easier.)
2) I heard a customer at a homebrew store saying that homebrew could
safely bottled in 2 liter bottles. Does anybody have any information
on this?
Thanks,
Bob Crowley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:32:41 CDT
From: "Anthony Johnston" <anthony@chemsun.chem.umn.edu>
Subject: Isomerization
Two issues ago my eye was struck by the statement regarding the
processes involved in brewing and skunking "... isomerization is the
process by which longer chain molecules are made." Well, I don't have a
PhD in Organic chemistry, yet. Isomerization is simply a change in
structure or connectivity in a molecule. I believe that in the alpha
acids, the isomerization involves the shifting of double bonds to form a
conjugated system (alternating double and single bonds in a chain) that
would indeed be more photoreactive. I have been looking for a book that
explains the chemistry of brewing in more detail from beginning (pH of
Water, mineral effects) to end (the effects of light on beer, etc.)
Does anyone know of any sources or titles that would have this sort of
info?
Thanks
Anthony Johnston
Homebrewer, Chemist
anthony@chemsun.chem.umn.edu
"Better living through Chemistry"
"Zymurgy is Chemistry"
"Better living through Zymurgy"
A
.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 10:01:37 CST
From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa@bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Sugars
I decided the hot Texas summer months were a good time to brew stong
Belgian ales. I figured I'd better read up on the subject first; I
started with Pierre Rajotte's _Belgian Ale_ (Classic Beer Style Series
#6). A very interesting book w/a lot of info, but less than clear in
a number of places. One of the unclear area is the subject of sugars.
Rajotte devotes 6 pages to description of sugars used in brewing but
left me confused. So I re-read Miller's (_Complete Handbook of Home
Brewing_) section on sugars. Some of what Miller says seem to
contradict Rajotte--more confusion.
Here's what I think I know about various sugars.
Corn sugar--aka glucose or dextrose. A single sugar 100%
fermentable. Adds no flavor to beer.
Cane sugar--aka sucrose. A double sugar made up of glucose and
fructose. Must first be broken into glucose and fructose before
it can be fermented. Fructose is apparently responsible for the
cidery flavor in beers using a large amount of sucrose.
Invert sugar--Sucrose that has already been split into glucose and
fructose by acid reduction. Has pH of 4 to 6.
Brown sugar--Partially refined sucrose. Produces rum like flavor in
beer.
Molasses-- I don't really know what the composition of molasses is.
Demerara-- ?
Treacle-- ?
Candi--Sucrose that has been refined by slow crystalization. May be
light or dark or camelized?
Honey-- I don't know what sugars are in honey.
Malto-dextrin--Long sugars produced it mashing malt. Not fermentable
and tasteless. Common homebrew lore it this adds body to beer but
Miller (pg 61) says this is not so!
The questions are:
Can you fill the question marks above?
Any errors above?
If sucrose must be inverted before being fermented, how does this
happen in the brewing process? Is there an advantage to using
invert sugar?
Do you have sources for demerara, treacle, or candi?
What sugars have you used for strong ales and with what results?
Does malto-dextrin add body or not?
Any suggested reading?
Looking forward to your responses, WAK
|- William A Kitch (512) 471-4929 -|
|- Geotechnical Engineering -|
|- ECJ 9.227 -|
|- Univ of Texas at Austin, TX 78712-1076 -|
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 09:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: thin mashes & not mashes
Into the discussion about thin vs thick mashes, I would interject
another source. Unfortunately, I don't have my copies of the old
Amateur Brewer (under Fred Eckhardt's editorship) in front of me to
check numbers, but there was an issue focusing on the production of
wheat beers. These were specifically Swiss weizens, which aren't
necessarily remarkable (and in fact have an extremely complex mash cycle
as I recall), but it was in that article that I first heard that thin
mashes were proteolytic. I believe the article gave specifics on malt
to water ratios.
I don't know the answer. My own experiences have been all over the map
on thickness and I've yet to discover any real difference in the
resulting beer.
Rdeaver is a bit confused:
>
> A while back, I recall somebody posting a comment about boiling wort.
> The post mentioned that if you brought the wort over a certain
> temperature (I believe it was 153 degrees F), you would convert some of
> the sugars to a non-fermentable form.
>
> I only have a half-dozen batches under my belt, and most have seemed a
> bit sweet. The finishing gravities ave been around 1.002, but the brew
> had a heavy taste to it.
>
> Planning to launch off on another brewing session of Heavy Scottish Ale,
> I dropped into the local brewshop for a strainer bag. The question
> raised was that if I did not boil the wort, would I have sterilization
> problems. I will be using Briess DME, and this time will be using some
> specialty grains. I always boil water ahead of time, to get rid of
> chlorine.
>
> What is the general consensus? I have had this "sweet heaviness" with
> several batches; it is not recipe-specific. The last batch, I went as
> far as using yeast nutrient.
>
Once the stuff is wort, all the conversions have taken place and no
amount of tinkering with the DME itself will change the relative
thickness of your beer. If you are _really_ getting a finishing gravity
of 1.002, it's pretty clear that the beer isn't finishing too high --
it's more likely that you are under-hopping (your bittering hops).
Could it be that you're not adding hops at all but relying on a hopped
extract?
Another possibility is that you're misreading the hydrometer. Could it
possibly be 1.020? If so, then the problem is probably something
involving your yeast: you're not using enough, or you're not aerating
the wort at pitching time so that the yeast have insufficient oxygen and
poop out without ever finishing their fermentation.
BOIL the wort! Make your best effort not to boil the grains you're
adding, however, regardless of what certain books might advise. Better
you should steep the cracked grains at about 150F for 1/2 - 1 hour,
strain and rinse them with hot water and add your extract to the
resulting liquid.
Keep plugging away.
- --Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 10:16:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Robert Schultz <Robert.Schultz@usask.ca>
Subject: Chill Haze Remover
I saw some "Chill Haze Remover" - Cordon Bleu is the name (I think) made
in Burton-On-Trent, U.K. in my lolcal brewstore the other day. The liquid is to
be used 5 ml to 5 gal (U.K.) to remove Chill Haze.
Has anyone tried it? Does it work? I have a Plisner (lagering as I
speak) that appears to have some chill haze. I am likely to use it on half of
the batch unless I hear glowing reports....
Thanks.
Robert.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I'm going off half-cocked? I'm going off half-cocked? ...
Well, Mother was right - You can't argue with a shotgun." - Gary Larson
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 12:04 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Mash Stiffness
In personal email, Rich Goldstein pointed me to the passage I was
thinking of (in fact, he saved me the trouble of typing it in --
Thanks, Rich!):
Miller writes, in "The Complete Handbook of Homebrewing":
Another factor influencing enzyme activity is stiffness
(thickness) of the mash. A thin mash -- say 2.5 quarts of water
per pound of grain -- ultimately favors a more complete
breakdown of carbohydrates in the kettle. However, because the
enzymes are more diluted, breakdown takes longer to achieve. On
the other hand, a stiff mash -- around 1.33 quarts per pound,
as I recommend -- initially favors starch breakdown; however,
as amylolysis proceeds, the increasing concentration of sugars
in the mash inhibits further enzyme activity. A stiff mash
favors breakdown of proteins in the mash kettle, and it
provides one other benefit: it protects the enzymes better. At
any temperature, the thinner the mash, the faster the enzymes
will be deactivated [p. 128]
Also, Brian Smithey wrote to me me mentioning that he begins his stovetop
mashing with a stiff mash and then thins it out later, I assume when going
from the protein rest up to the saccharification rest. In a insulated
cooler step infusion mash, where the temperature is raised simply by adding
boiling water, this is inevitable, but in a stovetop mash, this is optional.
This would be an intersting area for experimentation... no?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 13:34:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: TAYLOR@sbchm1.chem.sunysb.edu
Subject: Soda Keg relief valve replacements
I have a 5 gal keg with a screw-in, springed, relief valve which
does not seal properly. Does anyone have an idea where I can get a replacement?
Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 14:27:15 EDT
From: Bruce=Kiley%SIG%SNI%sig@sni-usa.com
Subject: Micro and Brewpubs equipment requirements
Greetings,
Once upon a time a saw a document somewhere that listed what equipment would
be needed to start up a microbrewery or a brewpub. Does anyone have that
document on know where to find it? If anyone has some info they could send
me that would be great.
Thanks,
Bruce Kiley
Please reply to brucek@sig.sni-usa.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 15:37:46 EDT
From: bszymcz%ulysses@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Bill Szymczak)
Subject: IBU's for Weissbierxxxzen
While reading the recipies in Warner's book on German Wheat Beer
it seemed to me that the suggested amount of hops (2.6 HBU's for a
5 gallon batch) seemed too small to attain 15 IBU's of bitterness.
Especially, since he recommends boiling 1/2 of the hops for 60 minutes,
1/4 for 30 minutes and the remaining 1/4 for the last 10 minutes.
Using the formula from Rager's article in the Zymurgy Hops Special Issue
W(oz) X %A X %U X 7462 HBU X %U X 74.62
IBU = ---------------------- = --------------- = HBU X %U X 14.9
V(gal) 5
we get
IBU = 1.3 X 0.30 X 14.9 (1.3 HBU's 30% utilization for 60 min)
+ 0.65 X 0.153 X 14.9 (0.65 HBU's 15.3% utilization for 30 min)
+ 0.65 X 0.06 X 14.9 (0.65 HBU's 6% utilazation for 10 min)
= 5.81 + 1.48 + 0.58
= 7.87 (7.9 with rounding)
This seems significant since it is only a little more than half the
target of 15 IBU's that Warner claims! Even if you assume the full
30% utilization figure for all the hops added the value is 11.6.
Checking the Glossary in Warner's book he uses the formula (bottom of p 139)
for IBU as
IBU = H X (a% + b%/9) / 0.3
(actually Warner has a typo and his formula for IBU reads HBU =...)
where
H is the weight of hops in grams per liter
a% is the alpha acid per cent
b% is the beta acid per cent
9 is a factor indicating that the flavoring power of alpha acids
is about nine times greater than beta acids.
0.3 represents an approximate 30% efficiency rate in hop extraction
caused by vaporization or precipitation.
It seems to me that since Warner is dividing by 0.3 he is in effect
assuming a utilization rate of 33.3%. With this formula (I'll omit the
details) you get 13 IBU's (neglecting the beta acid per cent).
Can anyone out there explain this discrepancy? I don't think that Eric
Warner has a Ph.D in mathematics from Harvard so he shouldn't be making
arithmetic errors (sorrry George).
The only other exlanation I could think of is that Warner
is assuming a 33.3% utilization rate independent of the time of boil
and that the beta acid content is always about 1.4 times the alpha acid
content.
By the way, I think that Warner did a great job on his research for the
book, and have found it otherwise well written and full of very useful
information.
Bill Szymczak
------------------------------
Date: 10 May 93 15:51:05 EST
From: Matthew Mitchell <IEKP898%tjuvm.bitnet@TJUVM.TJU.EDU>
Subject: Book recommendation
From: Matthew Mitchell
At the ASBMB last year, I picked up a copy of "The Biotechnology of Malting
and Brewing" by J.S. Hough (Cambridge U. Press: 1985 :their address is
40 W 20th, NY NY 10011-4211!) which is now out in paperback.
I cannot recommend this book enough to those of you who have an interest in
all-grain brewing, yeast culture, and any of the more technical aspects of
brewing. It covers the entire process from barley to barrel, with
descriptions of how commercial breweries produce their swill.
All aspects are clearly explained in terms understandable by someone who has
taken freshman chem and bio in college. There are plenty of diagrams which
serious homebrewers might try as a starting point for their experiments
with equipment and technique. There's even some economic analysis and
discussion of commercial aspects.
Howzat!?!
Matthew Mitchell <iekp898@tjuvm.tju.edu> <iekp898@tjuvm.bitnet>
Former Brewmaster, Penthouse Brewing Co., Haverford PA
makers of Barclay Beer, Penthouse Brown Ale, and Big B Malt Liquor
------------------------------
Date: 10 May 1993 16:54:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: POLLARD%FRMNVAX1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Subject: re ethylene and ripening
Did somebody call for a botanist?? Effects of ethylene on barley have
been studied. It stimulates the release of gibberellin-induced
alpha-amylase from the aleurone cells into the endosperm. In English,
that means it triggers another hormone (gibberelin) to induce the
formation of an enzyme that will convert starches into sugars. So I
guess there's some potential here ... (?)
Joe Pollard
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 1993 17:23:30 -1100
From: Kirk_Anderson@wheatonma.edu (Kirk Anderson)
Subject: FX Matt Brewery
I was glad to see Lisa St Hilaire's posting in HBD #1137 regarding
the FX Matt Brewery. There aren't a lot of things I miss
about living in Utica, but that's one of them. I always bought
Saranac when I was a local, but when I went back for a visit, even
the draft Matt's tasted pretty decent.
I always sniggered during that part of the tour where you see
the famous 'Brooklyn' beer, the 'Philadelphia' beer, the 'Boston' beer,
and lord knows what others being created right there, two blocks from
my house.
More important, my letter to the president, FX Matt III (I'd suggested
he not charge for tours, and promote Saranac more vigorously), received
a response that was warm, polite and personal. I was impressed.
In the same HBD, Randall Holt asks if any homebrewers have tried
fermenting and carbonation in the same container. I was puzzled
when I saw this is exactly what they do at Matt's (and the other big
breweries, I assume). Is there a pressure control that guarantees the
desired carbonation? Does their 'air lock' become a 'cork' at some
point in the process? I don't think there was any mention of priming
during the tour at all. How do dey do dat?
prosit! to all and to all a good night
Kirk
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 May 93 17:40:32 EDT
From: Joe Rolfe <jdr@wang.com>
Subject: out on my own
hi all, just to inform some of you waiting for pierre rajottes feedback - it
is comming. but recently i was laid off :) from wang to pursue other more
intresting venture (see sig file). as a result i dont get much of chance to
read the list or mail for that matter. i will asure those who sent
questions to me for pierre and his book will get a response ASAP...
happy brewing to all and support the small breweries nation wide!
- --
joe rolfe - President/Brewer - Ould Newbury Brewing Company
jdr@wang.com - X Wang Employee, but still have an account
508-462-1980 - the brewery
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1138, 05/11/93
*************************************
-------
