Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1203
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/08/13 00:35:27
HOMEBREW Digest #1203 Fri 13 August 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re: murphy's in a can (Geoff Cooper)
Zymurgy Light Beer Request ("Manning, Martin P")
Culturing yeast from bottled beers (Marc de Jonge)
Re: water filters -- a data point (Jeff Mizener)
S. cerevisiae & S. delbrueckii (Geoff Cooper)
Petes (Rich Ryan)
Re: Mini Kegs and Briess DME (Hardy M. Cook)
Murphy's in cans (12-Aug-1993 1015 -0400)
To Secondary or not to Secondary (cush)
re: sanitation 'criticism' (Jim Sims)
chipotle (LLAPV)
Grolsch bottles (Jim McManus)
RE: Weihenstephan #68 source (James Dipalma)
Re: Aeration (Jason Goldman)
Blackberry Mead (Andrew Cluley)
Re: Water, Chiles (Jeff Benjamin)
recipe formulation - relax! (tims)
The Tumbleweed Report (Part 4) (Kinney Baughman)
Re: Red Hook's Malt (Jeff Frane)
Open letter to Zymurgy (Jim Larsen)
Tannic verses (Joel Birkeland)
Rapid chilldowns after boiling (GONTAREK)
Re: Recipe Formulation (TAN1)
Irish Moss revisited (Gordon Baldwin)
Re: Chiller conversion (Drew Lynch)
Kegged Chili-Beer (lanbrew)
fermenting a lager (Patrick Casey)
Hot pepper sauce ("John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y")
Re: extraction rates/Klages (korz)
First Batch (CCAMDEN)
Tabasco pepper question (kj)
Home Brew Competition (brewerbob)
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: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 13:26:31 +0000
From: G.A.Cooper@qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper)
Subject: Re: murphy's in a can
dab@cc.bellcore.com (dave ballard) writes
>hey now- at a place called the hog sty bay cafe on grand cayman i ordered
>murphy's stout and got a can that looked identical to a guinness pub
>draught can! it was tall and skinny and had directions about chilling,
>opening, etc. there was also a little logo thingy that proclaimed the
>can to be murphy's "draughtflow system" with a patent pending.
>
>has anyone else seen these cans? it tasted fine, although i detected a
>little more "canny" taste than guinness. is this the same doohicky that
>guniss uses or did murphy's invent/copy one of there own?
There are 3 different dohicky systems now patented and used in the UK for
draught beer in a can. The Guinness system has been described here before.
The "draughtflow" system is owned by Whitbread and, for example, is used by
them in Boddingtons. I don't know the commercial relationship 'twixt Murphy's
and Whitbreads.
The draughtflow system has a larger capsule containing pressurised N2. The
'lid' of the capsule contains a tiny hole (in the middle) which is closed,
whilst the can remains under pressure, by the end of a 'peg' protruding from
the centre of the 'base' of the capsule (the 'base' being the opposite side
to the 'lid'). As the can is opened, its pressure drops, the N2 in the capsule
expands thus flexing the lid away from the peg and thereby opening the tiny
hole through which most of the N2 now passes. Hey presto!
If this is the system in Murphy's, there is an interesting demonstration you
might attempt. The nature of the system is such that not all the N2 escapes
and the capsule is still under slight pressure. Identify which is the lid by
locating the hole. Using a suitable implement (eg the edge of a coin) gently
prise the lid off the body of the capsule. With a 'pop' the lid will fly
across the room. OF COURSE be careful about 'flying object'
And if you are the type that hasn't any common sense and sue at the drop of
hat, don't do it, or don't bother sueing - the UK civil laws are different
from the US. :-)
Geoff
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Cooper Phone: +44 71 975 5178
Computing Services Fax: +44 71 775 3221
QMW e-mail: G.A.Cooper@uk.ac.qmw
Mile End Road
London, E1 4NS
------------------------------
Date: 12 Aug 1993 20:43:51 -0600
From: "Manning, Martin P" <manning#m#_martin_p@mcst.ae.ge.com>
Subject: Zymurgy Light Beer Request
I was just this morning thinking that no one had responded to the posting by
Elizabeth Gold requesting information on amateur-brewed light beer. Today Dick
Dunn did the unthinkable - he asked WHY?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 15:07:09 +0200
From: dejonge@tekserv.geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge)
Subject: Culturing yeast from bottled beers
Recently I came across some interesting statistics of
the 1990 and 1991 open championships for amateur brewers
,organised by "de Roerstok" in tilburg.
They have published a booklet with a lot of information
on the homebrew entered in this competition.
Since questions pop up every now and again about
culturing yeast from bottles, I will summarize a nice
table from this (without permision, so destroy this before
you read it):
The #1 field indicates the total number of entries, #2 is the
number that scored over 6.4 (assuming that these are succesful
attempts), the score is the average score on a scale of
0[Yech]-10[Yum] for the 'over 6.4' beers
(Not quite sure if Yech and Yum are SI units or Imperial)
Beer/brewer #1 #2 Score
- --------------------------------
Achouffe 3 2 7.5
Arcener tarwe 2 1 6.5
Brugs Tarwe 9 2 7.1
Brugse Tripel 2 2 7.4
Chimay 16 7 7.7
Christoffel 1 1 6.8
Corsendonk 3 2 8.0
Dentergems Wit 2 2 6.9
Dommelsch 3 1 6.6
Drie Ringen 2 1 6.5
Duvel 2 1 6.6
Erdinger Weisse 2 2 6.9
HertogJan Tripel7 3 7.6
Hoegaarden 9 4 7.5
La Trappe 4 3 7.7
Lowenbrau weiss 1 1 7.0
MacChouffe 1 1 8.5
Oerbier 1 1 7.7
Rochefort 1 1 6.6
Schneider 1 1 8.6
Verboden Vrucht 3 3 6.9
Westmalle 9 6 6.9
West Vleteren 5 4 7.6
Wieckse witte 1 1 7.3
Note 1: The fact that a certain yeast gives a good score does
not mean that it is the original brewing yeast of the beer.
For some of the above I'm almost certain that a bottling strain
has been cultured; but then, if it tastes good who cares ?
Note 2: Of the top 12 of 1991 only two beers were brewed with
cultured yeast (Chimay and West Vleteren).
Marc de Jonge (dejonge@geof.ruu.nl)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:36:43 EDT
From: hpfcla.fc.hp.com!scr!sead.siemens.com!jm (Jeff Mizener)
Subject: Re: water filters -- a data point
I have been using a T-10 carbon filter on the cold water line
in my kitchen for 3 years now. I replace the filter every 6 months
or so. I extract/adjunct brew and sanitize with bleach. I rinse
and brew with water out of the tap that has been filtered. I have
yet to have an infection. I boil about 2 gallons and top up to five
with water out of the tap. Searching about madly for a piece of
wood upon which to knock, I say that there has never been a problem
with this method.
The reasoning is that the water coming into the filter and surrounding
the filter on the inlet side is sanitized. I flush the filter out
by letting the water run for a minute before using it for anything
critical, and bacteria never have a chance to take hold.
I got mine from American Brewmaster and paid less for it (and it's
a big under-sink filter) than something cheaper-looking at the hardware
super-store.
Cheers, Jeff Mizener
+------------------------------------+
| Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. |
| Somewhere near Lizard Lick, NC |
| jm@sead.siemens.com |
+------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 14:41:52 +0000
From: G.A.Cooper@qmw.ac.uk (Geoff Cooper)
Subject: S. cerevisiae & S. delbrueckii
There's been a little discussion about the 'correct' name of this yeast. I
know little about the technicallities, but I can add a few more 'facts'. (I
like facts 'cos they can cause such good arguments)
When I first saw reference to S. delbrueckii (yes I first came across it on
HBD), I checked my catalogue from the AFRC National Collection of Yeast
Cultures (NCYC) and found that no such yeast was listed, so I was a bit
confused. My confusion was relieved when I located a couple of yeasts that
had been originally deposited under the name S. delbrueckii, but now were
classified with a different name.
I found S. cerevisiae strain number 92, deposited in 1933 by A.C.Chapman,
original deposit name S. delbrueckii, NCTC 3964. (NCTC = National Collection
of Type Cultures, Collindale). There was no ATCC number. So I concluded that
the S. delbrueckii were really just strains of S.cerevisiae, but that (home)
brewers used the term S. delbrueckii as a convenient 'handle' by which they
could refer to a particular strain (or strains).
I also found Torulaspora delbueckii (perfect form of Candida colliculosa)
with 10 strains listed, all of which had been originaly deposited under a
different name (I was amused by S.inconspicuous. NRRL Y-7435). One of these,
number 408, had been deposited as S delbueckii var mongolicus.
I think I shall stick with my first assumption, which corresponds nearest to
that of Jim Busch. Perhaps because it gives me a warmer feeling :-). That is,
S. delbrueckii might not be the correct name, but when we use it, we refer to
those yeasts, now considered strains of S. cerevisiae that have particular
properties of interest to us; namely they make good wheat beer.
OK. So that contains a few more facts; what's the truth?
Geoff (who cares about the truth if it makes good beer) Cooper
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:57:10 -0400
From: Rich Ryan <ryancr@install4.swin.oasis.gtegsc.com>
Subject: Petes
> I saw this recipe in the cats meow 2. Can anyone suggest how
> I would convert this to an extract recipe.
Pete's Wicked Clone
Source: Richard Stern (rstern@col.hp.com)
10/16/92
Ingredients:
8-9 pounds, pale malt
1 pound, crystal malt
1/4 pound, chocolate malt mash at 155F
1/2 ounce, Cascade (60 min boil)
1/4 ounce, Chinook (60 min boil)
1/2 ounce, Cascade (10 min finish)
Wyeast #1056
Procedure:
Mash malts at 155 F. Add 1/2 ounce Cascade and 1/4 ounce of Chinook for
boil. Use 1/2 ounce Cascade to finish.
Comments:
I've requested a recipe for Pete's Wicked Ale, but nobody sent one, so I
guess I'm going to have to wing it. This recipe is based on the GABF
program, which says " Pete's has: pale, crystal and chocolate malts, and
Chinook and Cascade hops. OG: 14P" (Isn't that 1.056?)
Pete's is pretty malty with a low hop bitterness and aroma. I think the
malt combination should be ok, as long as I get enough body from the
155F mash temperature.
> Rich Ryan
> Chantilly, VA
> ryancr@swin.oasis.gtegsc.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:18:01 EDT
From: hmcook@boe00.minc.umd.edu (Hardy M. Cook)
Subject: Re: Mini Kegs and Briess DME
Subject: Mini Kegs
I bought, use, and like the 5 liter mini kegs. Some stores sell imported.
commercial beer in these kegs. These can be reused if you have a tapper
like the one that comes with the Brew Ha Ha offer and DO NOT use the method
recommended with the purchase.
I too had foaming problems until the found the secret of the tapper. Once
the pressure gets low, add only a little bit more of CO2 and then turn the
CO2 back to the off position; in other words, don't keep the CO2 pressure
on -- after a few seconds, turn it off and proceed.
Subject: Q: Briess DME
After reading Dr. Raines's posting on HBD concerning contaminated Briess DME,
I wonder if there is a way to identify "bad" lots. I recently purchased from
Brewers Resource 25 lbs of Briess, Brewers Gold DME. I first brewed with it
only a few days ago, but I brewed a Trippel with 10 lbs of the Briess.
I would really hate to find out in four months that I brewed with
the contaminated lot.
Hardy M. Cook
HMCook@boe00,minc.umd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 07:18:33 PDT
From: 12-Aug-1993 1015 -0400 <ferguson@zendia.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Murphy's in cans
>Date: 11 Aug 1993 13:00 EDT
>From: dab@cc.bellcore.com (dave ballard)
>Subject: murphy's in a can
[...]
>has anyone else seen these cans? it tasted fine, although i detected a
>little more "canny" taste than guinness. is this the same doohicky that
>guniss uses or did murphy's invent/copy one of there own?
Yup, sure have seen 'em and I have perhaps 1 or 2 left in my closet. When
I went to Ireland last year (Oct '92), I grabbed a couple of 4-packs to
bring home w/ me. When I first sampled it, i thought it was better then
guinness in a can. Pretty much the same design as guinness, as far as i
can tell.
I've had guinness in a can that one can buy in the states. the ones i brought
back from ireland, imo, we better tasting then the cans bought in the states.
unscientific datapoint, fwiw! :-).
jc ferguson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 09:21:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: cush@msc.edu
Subject: To Secondary or not to Secondary
In HBD1202 John in Boise writes that he and many brewers in his area
do not use a secondary fermentation.
I know this has been discussed several times, but I thought I would throw
in my $.02. For quite a while I did not do a secondary fermentation:
I fermented in primary for about a week, then bottled. The result was
beer that primed very quickly, but seemed to have a slight but harsh
flavor undertone. The bottles also had a fair amount of yeast sediment.
I came to wonder if the harse undertone was a result of yeast autolysis.
I then tried shifting to doing a one-week primary fermentation, followed
by a one-week secondary fermentation. The secondary step is actually more
of a rest to allow yeast to settle and thus be separated from the brew.
After bottling, the result is brew that primes more slowly, but throws less
yeast sediment. That harse undertone also appears to be gone, and the
beer is noticeably smoother.
My conclusion: the settling of yeast that occurs in secondary produces a
smoother brew than a single-step fermentation gives. You can make
a drinkable beer faster using just a primary, but I amusing a secondary
settling step from now on....
- --
> Cushing Hamlen | cush@msc.edu
> Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc. | 612/337-3505
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:41:48 EDT
From: sims@pdesds1.scra.org (Jim Sims)
Subject: re: sanitation 'criticism'
>>Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 09:09:40 EDT
>>From: bszymcz%ulysses@relay.nswc.navy.mil (Bill Szymczak)
>>Subject: Re: Sanitation
>>
>>In HBD1200 Al Korzonas writes:
>>
>>>In Marybeth Raines' article on Sanitation, it's a real shame that she
>>>failed to mention iodophor and a recently new sanitizing agent, marketed
>>>under the name "One Step," which is peroxide-based and comes in powder
>>>form. I would have been very interested in her recommended contact times
>>>for iodophor and OneStep. (....stuff deleted)
>>
>>While we're still giving out constructive criticism of Maribeth
>>Raines' article in Brewing Techniques on Sanitation, there was
Well, while we're being 'constructive', I'll add my 2 cents.
I sent her email about not mentioning B-Brite, which I had acquired
from my local homebrew shop and later realized was not labelled with
a 'dosage' recommendation.
She replied that she didnt know the 'dosage', but would call the
manufacturer. She did, and replied to me in about 2 hours via email.
Kudos,
jim
------------------------------
Date: Thursday, 12 August 93 09:31:12 CST
From: LLAPV@utxdp.dp.utexas.edu
Subject: chipotle
Howdy,
In HBD #1202, Tom mentions how chipotles may be too spicy for beer. This was
not the problem with the beer I discussed in #1201. One of the two bottles
was too spicy; the other was quite tolerable in terms of spiciness. My
warning is against putting the chipotle pepper directly into the bottle with
the beer. The results were inconsistent & made an otherwise good beer
undrinkable. Chipotles themselves, in terms of overall chili pepper spiciness,
are about mid-spicy, according to the measuring technique known as the
Scoville units. Bell peppers rank low, like around 10, jalapenos (& by
extention, chipotles) are around 2500-5000, serranos around 5000-7000, and
habaneros around 3 billion (my figures may be a little off). Please don't
get me wrong; chipotles will hurt you if you just pop one into your mouth.
I'm just saying that if the spiciness of serranos can be controlled, then
the spiciness of chipotles can be controled.
Mexicali Rogue sounds like good stuff. Any idea how the make it?
Happy brewing,
Alan, Austin (where there's a Tex-Mex restaraunt on every corner)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:35:26 EDT
From: Jim McManus <jjm@Think.COM>
Subject: Grolsch bottles
Mr Cox and Bill were talking about Grolsch bottles and sanitation of them
along with a few other things.
I have been using a mixture of Grolsch, Fischer Amber and regular bottles
with about every batch. I use the Grolsch and Fischer bottles for myself
and the regular bottles go to friends. :-)
Anyways, all I do is soak all the bottles in the tub with a good amount of
bleach for an hour, rinse them, and bottle. Nothing fancy. I haven't had
a problem yet (10+ batches). Also, keep in mind, the bottles I get are
from a Package Store that my roomate works at so I'd consider these worst
case type of bottles.
As far as carbonation goes, I notice 0% difference from bottle to bottle.
I keep all my bottle together in the dark, so I wouldn't expect a
difference. There might be a difference if you had all the bottles exposed
to light I guess.
The bottles are great to use if you can find them. It beats the heck out
of capping.
jjm
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:53:27 EDT
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: Weihenstephan #68 source
Hi All,
In HBD#1202, chuckm@pbn73.cv.com wrote:
>I've a few questions regarding weissbier yeast.
>2. dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma) in hbd 1201
>writes that there is a difference in the pre and post 1992
>versions of this yeast. How do I know which one I get?
I've received a few similar inquiries via private email, so I thought
I'd post and reassure all concerned.
The information I have is that the yeast that did not perform well is no
longer commercially distributed. After about one year, it simply stopped
producing spicy, phenolic flavor characteristics, so it was replaced with
another strain quite some time ago.
I obtained the older, non-performing strain from the yeast bank of a local
homebrew club, where it had apparently been stocked for a long time. What
added to the confusion was that a member of this club, who is a mutual
acquaintance of Jim Busch and myself, had a weizen yeast that he listed as
"W66". The two different numbers, in addition to the disparate performance,
contributed to the false perception that there were two different strains
in circulation.
I've exchanged email with Jim on this issue, and he's assured me that the
strain currently being distributed as Weihenstephan #68 is displaying
considerably greater staying power than it's predecessor. Having brewed a
few batches with it, I can personally vouch that this is a great weizen
yeast, and recommend it without reservation.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:29:12 -0600
From: Jason Goldman <jason@gibson.sde.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Aeration
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 93 08:54 CDT
>From:
Subject: Aeration
arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) writes:
> Last week I put together an aquarium pump type aerator for the weekend batch
> to see what all the excitement was about myself.
>
> After following Miller's procedure, I found that the commencement of
> fermentation was, if anything, later than it would have been using my
> standard procedure of simply squirting the wort into the fermenter.
...
>
> The idea of getting fermentation started in "3 to 8 hours" was enough to
> tweek my interest but I believe I fell into another trap created by
> non-critical writing; viz., he failed to mention whether he was talking about
> ale or lager and the fermentation temperature.
>
> I can only now presume that he was talking about ale yeast at room temp and
> my entheusiasm has fallen an order of magnitude.
I use the aquarium pump idea in conjunction with my normal methods of
aeration. I've tried this for numerous batches of ale and one batch of
lager. My normal aeration method is to splash the beer while siphoning
it into my carboy and periodically stopping the siphon and shaking the
carboy vigorously. I noticed a slight improvement in lag times for all
of the batches.
Lag time is controlled by a lot of variables. Pitching volume (and what
stage the pitched yeast are in) probably has a greater effect on lag time
than the aquarium pump.
BTW, I would expect that Miller was almost certainly talking about ale
yeast in his 3-8 hours figure.
Jason
jason@gibson.sde.hp.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1993 14:03:09 -0700
From: drew@eskimo.com (Andrew Cluley)
Subject: Blackberry Mead
Doew anyone have a good recipe for Blackberry Mead?
E-mail me direct. Thanks.
Drew Cluley > Seattle Wa. drew@eskimo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 9:38:51 MDT
From: Jeff Benjamin <benji@hpfcbug.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Water, Chiles
> ...city water should be OK. We can all thank COORS for portraying
> the image that pure Rocky Mountain water is the key to making smooth beer.
> This isn't the case at all, but, many people believe it is.
Certainly the water is only a small part of what goes into a fine beer,
but the importance of a good water source (especially for large
commercial breweries) can't be underestimated. I think one of the
reasons that the Pacific Northwest and Colorado have become large
brewing centers *is* for the water -- it simplifies things greatly if
you can just use the city supply. Water here in Fort Collins is great
right out of the tap; I don't have to pre-boil or add minerals or
anything.
Some slight drift here...
> Habaneros are so spicy, that you would have to use so little that,
> again, you would miss out on the chili pepper taste. In fact, one big
> complaint about habaneros in cooking is that no flavor comes through
> because the amount used is so small.
And it's a crying shame, too. Habaneros (also known as Scotch Bonnets)
have a wonderfully fragrant, sweet aroma that complements food, and
probably beer, very well. Does anyone know of "de-capsiacin-ized"
habaneros or habanero essence without the fierce burn? Where's the
chile-pepper mailing list? Why is there a rec.food.sourdough but no
rec.food.chiles? Thank goodness we have HBD and rec.crafts.brewing.
- --
Jeff "you ought to see my hot sauce collection" Benjamin
Hewlett Packard Co. Fort Collins, Colorado
"Midnight shakes the memory as a madman shakes a dead geranium."
- T.S. Eliot
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 09:18:03 -0700
From: tims@ssl.Berkeley.Edu
Subject: recipe formulation - relax!
To the person who was worried about "wasting" 10 - 15 gallons
as they "perfected" a recipe: My plan for formulating
a recipe is to find one of a similar style, either all-grain
or extract based, and copy its proportions of pounds of
grain or pounds of extract to hops (IBU's). Add any other
ingredients in the proportions you think, being on the gentle
side (better to underdo than overdo). I have used this
philosophy for perhaps 15 batches, and have always had very
drinkable results. I don't worry that "it doesn't taste
exactly like Bass," because I don't care that much - if it
is a well-made beer, they taste great.
As always, R,DW, HAHB! Cheers,
Tim Sasseen
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 12:19:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kinney Baughman <BAUGHMANKR@conrad.appstate.edu>
Subject: The Tumbleweed Report (Part 4)
Having covered the equipment we're using at Tumbleweed, now I'm really
going to bare my soul concerning the brewing procedures, ingredients,
and recipe decisions we faced. I find this part particularly interesting
because here is where we found it necessary to scrap ideas that had been
cast in stone for us as homebrewers. All sorts of factors caused us to
rethink basic procedures. Clearly, our main concerns were the change in
scale and the economics of trying to make money. It's funny how money (or
the lack thereof) can influence decisions!
Ingredients and Materials:
The biggest question was whether we were going to continue with the extract
beers Tumbleweed was brewing with and brewing, in all honesty, rather
poorly. Should we go all-grain? Or bear down on producing a decent
extract beer?
Since I've been brewng all-grain beers for 12 years, I thought long and
hard about the feasibility of all-grain brewing in 40 or 60 gallon batches.
To go that route we would have had to design an awfully big insulated mash
tun. We would have had to worry about the ever changing mineral content of
the town water we were using. We had to worry about where to store and
grind the grain in an already overcrowded space. As if this wasn't
daunting enough, we would be looking at 12 hour brewing days. With my
teaching duties at ASU and the demands of operating BrewCo, I frankly
didn't have that kind of time.
So we decided to brew with extracts. Since this was, in some sense a
"cheat", we figured we'd cut no corners on the rest of the process. We
would use pure yeast cultures, fresh hops, specialty grain infusions, and
filter our water.
Extracts were appealing because (1) storage was easy (we already had a
walk-in cooler), (2) it cut our brewing day down to 6-8 hours, and (3) we
could count on a certain stability in the malt product and didn't have to
worry about the variability in the quality of grain and the headache of
wrestling with our water. We had enough to worry about already so far as
redesigning the equipment and getting used to brewing on a larger scale was
concerned. Later, after we got all these factors under control, we figured we
could consider the move to all-grain.
The decision to brew with extracts still bothers me. I could see myself
making excuses (like I'm doing now) to my brewing buddies and my newly
acquired peers in the commercial brewing world. But this was no time
to be dogmatic. Instead we had to be realistic about the physical brewing
environment and the market we were trying to crack. I've had enough bad
all-grain beers to know that the decision to go all-grain was not going to
ensure a high quality product. And I've had enough outstanding extract
beers to know that it *is* possible to brew a decent beer using extracts.
Technique is everything. We inherited some pretty sorry ingredients when
Burton and I signed on. The extracts were old and stale. The hops were
pelletized and God knows how well they were stored before we got them.
Still we brewed with what we had and the difference between what we brewed
and what was brewed before was noticed by all. The quality improved even
more once we started getting fresh malt, fresher hops, and instituted the
hop back.
Regarding our market, we had to be realistic about what the common drinking
public was going to expect from us. We figured they wanted a beer that was
a huge cut above Budmiller. No problem. But I didn't really expect them
to come in and be disappointed if they weren't drinking beers comparable to
a Pilsner Urquell, a Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout, or a Liberty Ale.
Neither did we expect, nor have we found, very many beer drinkers that are
going to get down to the level of criticism that we have come to expect
from ourselves and our fellow homebrewers. So, what the hell, we resigned
ourselves to the conclusion that the extracts, though unlikely to produce
that godalmighty awesome beer we all dream about, would allow us to turn
out a fairly reliable, quality beer that would be as good or better than
anything the average guy ever drank out of a bottle and would impress 99%
of the people who walked through our door.
And they have. Most of the homebrewers who come into Tumbleweed are
surprised to learn they're drinking an extract beer.
We started out using Premier's 100% malt extract. It comes to us in 5
gallon pails and is as clean as a whistle. So far we've found that it
doesn't attenuate below 1.012. The color is not as light as Alexander's,
which we've just began experimenting with. The Alexander's is very light
in color and attenuates to below 1.010.
Our present feeling is to use the Alexander's on our lighter beers and
stay with the Premier for our heavier ales when we want the higher terminal
gravities. We like the idea of using two extracts because this gives us
some diversity in the different beers we brew. We're also playing with
Briess at the moment but the results aren't in as yet. If we find that
they all produce clean beers then we'll play around with mixing them
together for single batches to add even more complexity to the malt side of
the flavor profiles.
Of course, these aren't just straight extract beers. We only buy light
malt extract and depend on specialty grain infusions/steepings as the water
comes to a boil to add grain character to the beer. Nothing new here.
1000's of homebrewers have been doing this for years.
(To be continued)
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Kinney Baughman | Beer is my business and
baughmankr@conrad.appstate.edu | I'm late for work.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 10:05:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: Red Hook's Malt
Domenick Venezia writes:
>
> I called the Redhook Brewery and spoke to Thomas Price, a very nice and
> helpfull guy. Sorry, Al, but there is no wheat malt in their Summer
> Rye. Here's the scoop:
>
> 10% flaked organic rye
> 5% Munich
> 85% 2-row barley (probably Briess)
^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Given that the Red Hook Brewery is within 175 miles of Great Western's
Vancouver, WA plant (and in the same state), this seems bizarre if not
completely unlikely. As far as I've been able to determine over the
years, virtually every west coast brewery gets their base malt fm GW.
Even if the quality of their malt wasn't the question, surely shipping
rates would be.
- --Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 09:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: jal@plaza.ds.adp.com (Jim Larsen)
Subject: Open letter to Zymurgy
The following item, in response to Elizabeth Gold's request for light
beer recipes, bounced on its way to her Compuserve address.
> Elizabeth,
>
> Do you propose publishing in Zymurgy beer recipes which you have neither
> tried nor even tasted?
>
> This is not the sort of responsible journalism that would keep Zymurgy
> at the fore of the homebrewing industry.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 11:28:12 MST
From: birkelan@adtaz.sps.mot.com (Joel Birkeland)
Subject: Tannic verses
I was wondering if anyone out there can give me some advice
about treating my water for brewing. Our water here in Phoenix is very
hard and very alkaline, (pH ~ 8). As I recall, the hardness number is
about 250 (ppm?) and the alkalinity is about 170.
I tried my first partial mash a few weeks ago, tasted the results last night,
and it is OK, but had noticeable tannic astringency. I recall hearing that
the pH of the sparge water has a strong effect on tannin extraction during
sparging.
For the record, I kept the sparge water at or below 168 deg F, and I had
to cut the sparging short because another user needed the kitchen resources.
The initial runnings were > 1.080, final > 1.020.
TIA for your help.
Joel Birkeland
Motorola SPS
birkelan@adtaz.sps.mot.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 07:58:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: GONTAREK@JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU
Subject: Rapid chilldowns after boiling
Hi all! I've been a homebrewer for about a year now, and since I live in a
small apartment, I can only brew from extracts and partial grain recipes.
A few days ago, I saw a brief post on the HBD where someone said NOT to
dump a boiling hot wort into a carboy filled with cold water. Why not?
I know Papazian says to do this, and while I would not jump off a bridge
if he told me to, I had never heard otherwise (I am a new subscriber to HBD).
My brews have all been quite good (if I don't say so myself), so I don't
know what the problem is with doing this. Please, someone, set me straight.
I'd like to get the facts.
Thanks in advance,
Gontarek@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu
Rick Gontarek
Dept. of Biology
Johns Hopkins Univ.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 12:19:38 PDT
From: TAN1%SysEng%DCPP@cts27.comp.pge.com
Subject: Re: Recipe Formulation
John Montgomery writes in HBD 1202
>Should I just "waste" 10 - 15 gallons of brew for each style until I get
it just the way I want it or is there some publication that offers
particulars of and suggestions for recipe formulation?
If beer the is drinkable it is never a waste (obvious but worth
mentioning!). The 1991 Special Styles issue of Zymurgy has a wealth of
information concerning styles. The Cat's Meow here on the net also has
literally hundreds of recipes classified by style, although not as tightly
classified as the Zymurgy issue. Most issues of Zymurgy also have the style
guidelines describing the characteristics of a style for competition entry.
There are also many books which have specific recipes included, the
Winners Circle comes to mind offhand, but there are several.
As a final tidbit there are also computer programs which can help you
formulate recipes to duplicate styles. My program, the Brewer's Workshop,
has the style definitions from Zymurgy built in and calculates gravity,
bitterness and color so you can match those characteristics of a particular
style. Please note that there are other programs that do the same thing, I
am not trying to make this a commercial. People tend to get very touchy on
the net when they smell advertising.
I would recommend starting with the styles issue and working from there.
There were also two good articles in the first issue of Brewing Techniques,
one by Darryl Richman on recipe formulation and another article on recipe
formulation using a spreadsheet. Hope this gets you started in the right
direction. Prosit!
Tom Nelson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 8:21:33 PDT
From: gbaldw@zaphod.usin.com (Gordon Baldwin)
Subject: Irish Moss revisited
Going back to an earlier discussion about using higher ammounts of Irish
Moss, I have a data point. I brewed last weekend and I upped my IM rate
from 1 teaspoon to 1 Tablespoon per 5 gallon batch. After racking to the
secondary the beer is already a lot clearer. The interesting thing was
the sediment in the bottom of the primary. I use a plastic bucket for
the primary and ususlly the sludge in the bottom is a slurry of hop
particles and other small particle precipitate. Kind of a loose mud
consistancy. With the higher rate of IM it had more the consistancy of
large flake oatmeal. It had large chunks of what I think is protien. I
will be interested in the difference in body. I won't be able to do a
direct comparison as my kegs should be arriving today and the bottles
are going to the recycler. Unless there is someone in the Olympia WA
area that wants 4 cases of well used bottles (I am keeping a couple
cases)
Gordon Baldwin
gbaldw@usin.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 12:49:07 -0700
From: Drew Lynch <drew@chronologic.com>
Subject: Re: Chiller conversion
> Actually, one of my ideas was to convert to a chiller (I can't come up
> with a descriptive name) in which there is one coil sitting in a
> bucket of sorts. The bucket contains cold water, maybe ice water, and
> the coil contains the wort. The cooling liquid could, probably should
> be flowing in/out. The wort would be siphoned through the coil,
> cooling it. Stoelting makes something like this for several hundred
> dollars, which I refuse to pay. Anyone done this? Anything I should
> be aware of?
Norm,
I did this, and you can have it if you want it. I am building a
true counterflow chiller tonight. I had to run _huge_ amounts of water
through the damn thing to get sufficient cooling, and that's not PC
out here in drought land. I put 50' of 3/8" od? copper tubing in a 5
gallon bucket, and attached garden hose fittings to the bucket as
well. When I tried to attach a hose to the outflow to use the water
in the garden, the top of the bucket kept popping off, if I used
enough cold water flow to chill the wort enough.
Drew Lynch
Chronologic Simulation, Los Altos, Ca.
(415)965-3312 x18
drew@chronologic.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 16:15:18 EDT
From: lanbrew@aol.com
Subject: Kegged Chili-Beer
I have done quite a few chili-beers in the past, including one on draft.
Here's how:
I used 5 ounces of serrano and jalapeno peppers in the last 15 minutes of the
boil. The peppers were halved and seeded. Since the batch size was 10
gallons, the heat and flavor from the chilis was very subtle. My partner
bottled his half and I kegged mine.
Desiring more chili character, I decided to "dry-chili" the brew. Using a
muslin hop bag and a generic zip-tie, I contained approx. 1 ounce of dry
whole peppers and 1 ounce of serrano peppers (fresh) halved and seeded. I
boiled the whole works for about 5 minutes to sanitize and threw it into the
keg. The beer had already been carbonated and was chilled.
Within three days the brew went from mild to hot, with incredible complexity
and depth. I opened the keg and removed the bag 'o' chili, re-sealed the keg
and purged the O2.
Afterward, I noticed two things:
1) The beer did not become tainted one bit in the four months I had it on
tap, so the process, although unorthodox, resulted in no obvious flaws.
2) Within a week of "dry-chiling" the beer fell brilliantly clear. Hmm. . .
Overall, a very good experience and I'll try it again.
Lanny
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 10:29:43 EDT
From: pacasey@lexmark.com (Patrick Casey)
Subject: fermenting a lager
Is there any way to ferment a lager without using a refridgerator and
one of the fancy thermostats? For example, what's wrong with shoving
the carboy into the normal fridge? Does the temperature fluctuate too
much? Or does the thermal mass of 5 gallons of beer buffer this
temperature change sufficiently?
Thanks!
- Patrick
Patrick A. Casey pacasey@lexmark.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 17:21:07 EDT
From: "John R. Calen - Contacting Systems - E.F., N.Y" <calen@vnet.IBM.COM>
Subject: Hot pepper sauce
I've been following the recent thread about hot pepper sauce in brews.
Please forgive me if this has been posted before. The hot pepper sauce itself
is fermented. This is what I remember from a documentary about Tabasco Sauce.
The red peppers, presumably red chiles, are macerated and comprise the
mash. They ferment in wood barrels under a layer of salt which is about
an inch thick.
Particulars are a trade secret, as such I don't know them. The yeast,
any additives, i.e. sugar, and type of wood I'd have to guess.
This all happens on an island in Louisiana, so I'd assume that it's a
rather warm ferment.
The stuff sits for about three years, after which the salt is removed,
the barrel emptied and the mash is infused with vinegar. The whole
magilla is then pressed and bottled.
If you've got some gallon bottles around, a bunch of peppers, and lots of
patience, why not give it a shot? (How's mine? What, are you kidding?)
Regards,
John R. Calen -- calen@vnet.ibm.com (All disclaimers apply)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 16:43 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Re: extraction rates/Klages
RBSWEENEY writes:
>I put together the following list of maximum extraction rates for grains based
>on some information obtained from a few extremely charitable HBD subscribers
>and from Dave Miller's book Brewing the World's Great Beers. There are two
>numbers listed for a few of the grain due to source discrepancies (Miller's
>figures are in lower caps) and I was wondering if someone with more knowledge
>than myself about such matters would lend a hand and tell me the *right* number
>to use. Thanks.
<snip>
>MALT EXTRACT (DRY) 45 ?
>MALT EXTRACT (SYRUP) 35 ?
<snip>
The snag is that each manufacturer's extracts have very different numbers.
I've found less variability in dry extracts, but syrups I've used go all
the way from 35 up to 40.
LAGER 2-ROW 35 1.7
LAGER 6-ROW 31 1.7
PALE ALE 36 3
PILS 2-ROW 35 1.2
Again, potential varies by maltster and the condition of the malt when
you get it. Are there a lot of different malts available to us homebrewers?
You bet: DeWolf-Cosyns, Crisp Maris Otter, Ayinger, Briess, Great Western,
Minnesota Malting, Gambrinus, Munton & Fison, Golden Promise (not just yet,
but I'm working on it -- it's the malt used by Caledonian Brewing Co. to
make what's marketed in the US as McAndrew's Scotch Ale), Canada Malting...
just to name a few.
Since we're on the subject of malt, I'd like to mention that Klages is no
longer grown commercially. It's replacement is Harrington. After a few
years, barley tends to lose it's disease resistance and the growers switch
to a new strain. Currently, like I said, it's Harrington. If your retailer
is really selling you Klages, then it's very, very old. Alas, even the
wholesalers don't really understand this too well and some still contend
that they are wholesaling Klages, so it may not be your retailer's fault,
then again, shouldn't he/she know these kinds of things? On the bright side,
there's no doubt on the pronounciation of Harrington ;^).
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 19:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: CCAMDEN@delphi.com
Subject: First Batch
Hello to everyone. I am new here and have read a couple of issues of
the HBD and I plan on checking out back issues.
This is very timely for me, as I plan on starting my first batch of
homebrew this weekend. Are there any suggestions that anyone would like to
make to me regarding this first attempt?
I have read the Papazian book, have assembled my supplies and equipment,
and read the book. I feel like I am ready.
I will be making a Nut Brown Ale with a Muntons kit.
I've noticed some discussion here and at rec.craft.homebrew about chilling
the wort. Should I be concerned about this? (Although I have made mental
plans to accomplish it if I have to.)
Any advice that anyone has will be welcomed.
I am excited, and I'm trying hard to relax, not worry and look forward to
having a homebrew.
Cary Camden ***Imagine a witty phrase here***
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 1993 20:42:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: kj <kj@world.std.com>
Subject: Tabasco pepper question
Hi!
As a fan of *hot* food, I've been enjoying the discussion about
using chili peppers in beer. I love Tabasco(R) sauce, and I was
wondering if anyone knew what kind of pepper is used to make it?
The ingredient list is as follows: Vinegar, Red Pepper and Salt.
I'd like to use those peppers to make a chili beer. I have access
to the official Tabasco(R) cookbook, but it doesn't identify the
pepper type either. :-( Any ideas? kj.
kj -Somewhere in the Terran system
Internet: kj@world.std.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 93 20:52:05 EDT
From: brewerbob@aol.com
Subject: Home Brew Competition
To: All Home Brewers
>From BrewerBob@aol.com
Subj: Homebrew competition
Press Release:
The Northeast Florida Society of Brewers, in conjuction with The Hogtown
Brewer of Gainesville, FL and The Home Brewery of Brooksville, FL, announces
it's 1st Annual First Coast Brewer's Challenge, an AHA sanctioned homebrew
competition open to all home brewers. Entry deadline is October 29, 1993,
with final judging to be held on November 7, 1993. Beer styles for this
competition are Pale Ale and Stout. Fee is $6.00 per entry. First prize will
include $50.00 in beer related merchandize, second prize will include $20.00
in merchandize. Three bottles of beer will be required for each entry.
For information, contest rules and entry forms, contact Bob Gammie (904)
241-8879 (RobertG211@aol.com), Chuck Cummins (904) 292-2166, or Joe Bryant
(904) 399-3367 (Prodigy BPNS42A) or write to: Brewer's Challenge, 354
Magnolia Street, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1203, 08/13/93
*************************************
-------
