Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1956
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/02/08 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1956 Thu 08 February 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Yeast Pitching Rates (StanM13541)
Diacetyl: The Movie ("Pat Babcock")
Garden Brewery Plans (Denis Barsalo)
Ft. Myers Beers ("Kevin A. Kutskill")
keging (Robert Rogers)
re: well aged brew.. (Robert Rogers)
Hawaiian fruit meads and open ferments (Michael Haring)
Skimming (CCGDTWO)
Temperature Controller (Douglas Kerfoot)
re:Step Mash Question (Denis Barsalo)
Home Production of Vinegar (John W. Braue, III)
Wine Country ("Bessette, Bob")
removing break vs. clarity / sucking on hoses ("Taber, Bruce")
contest announcement (Btalk)
Lacto Virus Hoax Exposed!!! (pbabcock.ford)
Price to wholesalers for new brewery (BF3B8RL)
Re: high temp hoses (Spencer W Thomas)
Old book, "Chemistry of Sake Brewing" (Mark Stevens)
Stout (Simonzip)
Modified grains (John Wilkinson)
Extract Scotch Ale Recipes Needed (GSHUTELOCK)
5 L Mini Kegging Systems (GSHUTELOCK)
Separating Hot Trub and cider question (Glenn Heath)
yeast cultures (Tracy Thomason)
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:12:52 -0500
From: StanM13541@aol.com
Subject: Yeast Pitching Rates
In HBD 1953 dhvanvalkenburg@CCGATE.HAC.COM wrote:
Subject: Blow-off tubes, Yeast pitching rates
> Reprinted in Zymurgy, Winter, Vol 18 No. 5.
> From: "Effects of Yeast Pitch Rates on Fermentation
> Performance and Beer Quality" by Cindy Edelen Presented at the
> MBAA Conference, Sept. 1994.
> A 1.064 original gravity wort from one production brew was
> split between four 10-barrel fermenters
Certainly larger, probably different geometery than what most homebrewers
use, what has the most effect on final beer quality?
> and pitched with 12.8,
> 30.3, 53.8 and 74.9 X 10(to the power of 6--couldn't show this
> in txt) viable cells per milliliter, respectively. This is
> equivalent to about one-half to four times the normal amounts
> used in brewing high-gravity lager beers.
Ok for lagers, what about ale yeast?
> fermentation rates
> were about two hours faster per additional million cells
> permilliliter pitched. <here comes the interesting part>
> Increasing the pitching rates resulted in lower IBU levels and
> lower free amino nitrogen (FAN) utilization. Higher ester
> levels resulted from lower pitching rates. Higher alcohol
> yield was found in higher pitch rates, including an increase
> in fusel alcohol. Panels found higher hop aroma and hop
> intensities in low pitch rates.
I have seen lower IBU, esters, higher alcohol (who knows how much
FAN was used) with high pitching rates, BUT lower fusels with ALE
yeast when I pitch big. I thought a higher pitching rate should give
the yeast less chance for alternate pathways which produce the fusels
in the first place.
Stan Marx
(Damn, it was good to see a post dealing with the big 4 again)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 21:43:37 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Diacetyl: The Movie
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
The Drinkur Purdee Pico Brewery Demographics Department (me) called
in the Statistician Department (again: me) and the Computer
Information Services Department (guess who?) and the Gee What Did
This Person Really Mean Psychic Department and slaved late into the
night to enlighten you, totally free of charge, with the following
conclusions. OK. So here they are:
THE CONCLUSIONS:
o Pronunciation of diacetyl is not regional. It is also not
logical.
o There are as many ways to pronounce diacetyl as there were
respondents to the survey.
o Some people get really uppity when answering surveys.
o Some people have a lot of fun while answering surveys.
o Some people will never ask a survey-type question again. OK.
One person. Me. :-)
o The people who write dictionaries must be required to not give
the same pronunciation as a competing dictionary does. Must be a
copyright or monopoly thing> MAybe they don't want to stifle
creativity or something.
o According to the results of this survey, if the sampling is
valid, I have the distinction of being the Only Guy On The
Planet Who Says Die - uh - seht - ul. I'm having a tee-shirt
made as I write this.
o You'd have to get up VERY early in the morning to beat Spencer!
At least the morning of the 30th. Yikes!
o Someone called 'The Lawyers' said that Jim Koch [TM] has
trademarked diacetyl, and that by asking the question I was in
violation. Mail sent to confirm bounced off their lawyer-bot.
THE ANALYSIS...
By far, the most popular pronunciation is die-ASS-it-il; seconded by
Die-UH-seet-il. There were many other pronuciations offered, which I
have "grouped" according to similarity (that was part of the Gee What
Did This Person Really Mean Psychic Department's job). Only the group
total is shown (in percent). The most representative pronunciation
'defines' the group.
47 respondants providing 57 responses
Die-ASS-it-il 32%
die-ASS-uh-til 12%
die uh SEET ul 12%
die-uh-cetyl 23%
die-ass-a-teal 11%
die-ass-see-til 11%
Dictionary responces:
di-a-suh'-tuhl
DIE-uh-seet-il
die-UH-seet-il
die UH set-eel
di'e-set'l
di-as'i-tl
die'-uh-seet'-l
di' <schwa> set" <schwa>l (Is that a LONG e in set, Scott? Mebbe I'm
_NOT_ alone...)
di' as" i t<schwa>l
die-uh-SEET-ul
die-ASS-it-il
Die-ASS-eet-il
Well, there ya have it. My apologies for the bandwidth - I'll never,
never, never ask this type of question again. And, I'll pronounce
diacetyl like: that-but'-<schwa>r-<long e>-fl<long a>'v<schwa>r
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock@oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 1996 22:31:07 -0500
From: denisb@CAM.ORG (Denis Barsalo)
Subject: Garden Brewery Plans
Hi guys and gals,
I'm planning on building a new garden shed this summer and I just
got the O.K. from my SO to build a brewery as well if I want.
I'm trying to determine the minimum space I need for brewing 5
gallon batches and leave myself a little extra room for storage and
eventually larger batches if it ever gets to that point. I would buy a
propane burner (maybe eventually two), I would install a sink with a
weeping tile type of drain and run a garden hose from the house to the shed
for washing and for the CF chiller. I always buy a couple of plastic
carboys full of RO water for each batch I brew. The homebrew store where I
buy my supplies sells them for $1 each when you buy the supplies for a
batch (kit or grain).
I've decide that I shouldn't go any smaller than 6' x 9'. (Check
out first attempt at asci art below.) The door is on the left of the 6'
wall with the garage on the left just behind the opened door. What I'm
thinking of doing is having a counter with a sink run up all along the
right 9' side. On the other end along the 6' wall I would put the burner
with a vent. I'm not sure if I'm going to build a tiered system or use
pumps. At the moment, I use a zapap lauter tun and I mash in my brew
kettle. Eventually, I could see myself buying another kettle for mashing
and attaching a homemade easymasher type of thingy to it. I've also built a
bruheat type of thing for heating 20 liters of sparge water, so all I
really need room for is one burner.
This is mostly a three season set up, with the odd batch on winter
days that are not bloody freezing! What do you think? Do you have
any great ideas? How powerful of a vent do I need to evacuate the CO2?
Denis Barsalo
P.S. Is there any sort of FAQ or paper on building a brewery?
| Garden Shed |
| |
|________________________________|
| | sink | counter |
|--------------------------------|
| b | |
| u | |
| r | \
| n | \
| e | \
|__r_|__________________________ \
| |
| Garage |
| |
------------------------------
Date: 06 Feb 96 22:57:12 EST
From: "Kevin A. Kutskill" <75233.500@compuserve.com>
Subject: Ft. Myers Beers
Ok, I know I'm not the only one to do this, so I will be straightforward about
it. The SO and I are planning a trip to Fort Myers, Florida in the next few
weeks. I hope to take her to a nice restaraunt or two, and _by accident_
discover that they serve great beers there, too! So, how 'bout it--anyone know
of any nice restaraunts down there that also have a nice selection of beers?
Private e-mail preferred
TIA
Kevin A. Kutskill ("Dr. Rottguts")
Clinton Township, MI
"A homebrew a day keeps the doctor happy"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 00:16:00 -0500
From: bob@carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: keging
i use a corny keg and i love it. i have used both the priming and gas
injection systems one time each. for the priming method, i used 5oz of sugar
(just like for bottling). i gave it a little gas to seal the o-ring and let
it sit for a few days, and it got up to 20psi and i started drinking it. for
the injection method, hook the gas to the _out_ side of the keg. that way
the gas will bubble up through the beer. pump it up to 30psi and let it sit
a day or two and it will be carbonated. remember: the colder the liquid, the
more CO2 it will hold in suspension.
i think i have just come up with the ultimate entry level homebrew conry
system. seem like it would cost around $20 or $30 for a 2.5 gal system.
here's my idea:
those of you with friends who use drugs will know what a whippet machine is.
basically, it is a piece of machined brass with an o-ring and a spike that
screws together to discharge small NO2 cartridges. as best i recall, NO2 and
CO2 cartridges have the same form factor (the CO2 cartridges that are used
in air guns). OK take the whippet machine and solder it to a small piece of
copper tube. crim the tube to vinal tube. attach the vinal tube to one of
those ball connectors. when you put the primed beer into the keg, you could
hook up the hose and discharge a CO2 cartridge. you should be able to drink
a considerable ammt. of beer before another CO2 cartridge would be required.
any thoughts on how much beer could be dispensed with one of those cartridges?
bob rogers
bob@carol.net
"Why, Fritz, alcohol is a gift from God..."
--young Fritz Maytag's Mom
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 00:16:43 -0500
From: bob@carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: re: well aged brew..
[snip]
> I have some beer which was brewed at least 10 years ago by my
> ex-wife's grandfather (I don't remember what it is. It is amber in
[snip]
i read a technical report on bottling technology a few years back. they
determined that the shelf life of beer in bottles in the best of
circumstances was about 6 months. that's from a high tech bottling line.
they reported a micro brewery was doing good if it could bottle beer that
would keep for 2 months. given those rates, it seems like us home brewers
can probably count on our beer going bad just before it has aged properly :) :)
that said, i would say open it and try it. if it tastes bad don't drink it.
let us know how it turns out.
bob rogers
bob@carol.net
"Why, Fritz, alcohol is a gift from God..."
--young Fritz Maytag's Mom
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 00:28:22 -1000
From: Michael Haring <haring@hawaii.edu>
Subject: Hawaiian fruit meads and open ferments
I think I now have the courage to go for an open ferment and really want
to make a tasty guava/strawberry guava, ohelo berry, and lilikoi mead.
Is there anyone who has done such a thing?=^)
I'd love to hear from the tropicaal meadsters about open
ferments. Will the high gravity of a mead reduce the chance of
those wild hawaiian yeasts from having a go at my "da kine"?
Are there any tropical meadsters out there?
..any meadsters for that matter (hello!)
aloha and mahalo, Michael haring@hawaii.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 06:08:25 -0600 (CST)
From: d2dtinfo@inlink.com (CCGDTWO)
Subject: Skimming
Friends
During the open ferment discussion I decided I would give it a try. I've
made three beers so far using open ferment. I have a BIG (1074) porter or
old ale fermenting like crazy now. I've skimmed it 5 times in the last two
days it makes such huge krausen. I sorta lost track of how much or many
times or days to skim. Is there a point where you quit and let the krausen
fall back into the beer. I don't want to lose all the bitterness as the
green beer was quite sweet going in. I tasted the skimmed krausen and it was
rather foul tasting, really bitter. Am I losing bitterness by skimming?
Mike - d2dtinfo@inlink.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:17:48 -0500
From: dkerfoot@freenet.macatawa.org (Douglas Kerfoot)
Subject: Temperature Controller
I have finally finished the plans for my temperature controller. You can
get them from my homepage at: http://www.macatawa.org/~dkerfoot/
If you don't have direct internet access, e-mail me and I will send them to
you. You have a choice of plain text or Word 6.0 for Windows. Also let me
know if you want the two JPG images attached. They are about 50k each.
I explain it in the documentation, but I have found a surplus source that
will let you build a similar circuit for less than $30.00. Plans to follow...
Doug Kerfoot
(I like beer)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 07:23:47 -0500
From: denisb@CAM.ORG (Denis Barsalo)
Subject: re:Step Mash Question
In HBD #1955 John Varady wrote:
>In Charlies book, in the step mashing chart, for 8 lbs:
>8 qts 130=B0F water - mash in to reach 122=B0F.
>4 qts 200=B0F water - added to reach 150=B0F.
>The 8 qts 130=B0F water and 8 lbs grains does settle @ 122=B0F, however
>adding 4 qts 200=B0F water does not settle @ 150=B0F, but rather 140=B0F.
>He mentions 18=B0F temp rise for 1/2 qt water per pound of grain.
>Do I need to heat the mash up to 132=B0F and then add the 4 qts 200=B0F=
> water?
I have had similar results with grain bills of various sizes. The
water additions for 10 pounds of grain and the extrapolated ones for 11
pounds of grain gave me the very same results. (140F instead of 150F) The
last two batches I've made I just "rested" the mash at 140F (60C), stepping
up from 122F (50C) and eventually going to 158F (70C). This basically
recreates George Fix's 50-60-70 schedule for well-modified grain doesn't
it?
I think your suggestion to bring the mash up to 132F before adding
the water is a good alternative to using more water and ending up with a
thinner mash. If I did use more water, would I need less sparge water?
Under which conditions would I want to use a 40C-60C-70C mash
schedule? Is this for a specific style of beer, or for less-modified grain
bills? How would you recommend I step the mash up from 40C to 60C? More
water?
Denis Barsalo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 07:00:21
From: braue@ratsnest.win.net (John W. Braue, III)
Subject: Home Production of Vinegar
saunderm@vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders) writes:
>Paul VanSlyke writes:
>
>>I have read previously about using food grade plastic buckets for primary
>>fermentation but just the other day J. Matthew Saunders stated that one
>>should not use a bucket that contained pickles or olives - why?
>
>There are two reasons not to use a food grade pail that contained pickles
>or olives.
[...]
>2) (This may well be my own paranoia.....) You want to keep wort (beer)
>and must (wine) away from vinegar. Vinegar is basically the same thing as
>wine (or beer I suppose, though I've never heard of beer vinegar) but the
>beasties that convert it are different. Those beasties will happily turn a
>lovely batch of Bitter or Stout into vinegar rather than yummy home-brew.
>
>I'm curious to hear from others in the collective as to whether my second
>suspicion is valid. Can a pail that held vinegar be trusted?
>
No hard data on this, just the usual morass of half-remembered
factoids:
Vinegar certainly *used* to be produced by bacterial action on
alcohol. When I was a boy, mumblety-odd years ago, I recall
instructions on how to culture the slime at the bottom of a
vinegar bottle ("mother of vinegar") to produce one's own vinegar
at home. (This was a really dumb idea for a kid's experiment,
BTW: "Hey, Dad, can I have a gallon of beer, I want to try and
make vinegar").
Presumably, some vinegars (as wine vinegar, balsamic vinegar, etc.)
are still produced this way; I do not know how such vinegars might
be pasteurized (deliberately or inadvertantly) so as to kill off
the bacteria involved. "White" vinegar (the common stuff that's
essentially acetic acid diluted in water) is now non-biologically
produced; no bacterial action is (deliberately) involved. Assuming
that the pickles and/or olives are not preserved in some sort of
yup-scale product, there should be no more (and no less) fear of
bacterial contamination from the bucket than if it had held, say,
margarine.
- --
John W. Braue, III braue@ratsnest.win.net
"The water of England is not drinkable"
- -- Elizabeth of York in a letter to the Infanta Catalina of Aragon
I've decided that I must be the Messiah; people expect me to work
miracles, and when I don't, I get crucified.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 05:58:00 PST
From: "Bessette, Bob" <bob.bessette@lamrc.com>
Subject: Wine Country
Fellow Brewers,
I am heading up to Sonoma next week and we will be hitting some wineries
there of course. What I am wondering are there any breweries in the Wine
Country that I could tour as well? If so where? I know about Anchor Steam in
San Francisco but I'm specifically interested in the area in and around
Sonoma. Please send email to me directly at bob.bessette@lamrc.com....TIA
Bob
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 96 09:14:00 EST
From: "Taber, Bruce" <BRUCE.TABER@NRC.CA>
Subject: removing break vs. clarity / sucking on hoses
Hi folks,
On Wednesday the 7th, Marty Tippin stated that he thought his
latest batch was exceptionally clear because he did a better job of
removing the cold break before the wort went to the primary.
I have trouble getting my mind around this concept. When my
beer
is finished its active stage, after 2 - 4 days, I rack to a secondary.
There is
a huge amount of trub (break material) in the bottom that I leave behind.
I feel that if I did a more anal, opps, I mean a more thorough job of
leaving
the cold break in the boil pot, it would simply result in less left behind
in
the primary. What's the difference?
Maybe the fluid dynamics types can provide a scientific
expatiation, but I assume that after the active ferment stage, when things
calm down, the heavy particles settle first and the very fine particles
follow.
Is it not true that very fine particles will take the same amount of time to
settle out regardless of how much heavy stuff settles first? In other
words,
removing the break material prior to the primary ferment does not result
in clearer beer.
I know there are other arguments for removing the break material
but I am only addressing beer clarity.
On another note, I always start my siphon by sucking on it. I
started doing this before I "knew better". I will stop if I find it causes a
problem. I've been brewing for 5 or 6 years now and have never had
an infected batch.
So, relax ........ you know the mantra.
Bruce Taber (in Canada's capital)
taber@irc.lan.nrc.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:32:17 -0500
From: Btalk@aol.com
Subject: contest announcement
CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENT ... CALL FOR JUDGES AND STEWARDS
Here's the short story-
Last year it was the Borderline Brawl. This year it is the Parlor City Brew
Off!
The Parlor CIty Homebrewers Coalition, comprised of the Borderline Yeast
Infectors and Broome County Fermenters Association brew clubs, is sponsoring
the second annual sanctioned homebrew contest in the BInghamton, NY area.
The Parlor City Brew Off will be held on Saturday April 13, 1996 at the
Parlor City Brewery i Binghamton, NY.
Last years event drew over 150 entries, so we anticipate easily over 200 this
year.
All recognized styles of beer, meads and ciders can be entered.
All types of bottles will be accepted! Carbonaters will be returned.
Entries will be received between March 11 and March 31.
Best of Show for beer is a complete kegging system. Meads and Ciders will
compete for a separate Best of Show prize.
Ribbons and prizes will be awarded for First, Second and Third in each
judging category.
Points will also be awarded towards the NY Brewer and Club of the year
awards.
Entry packets with all of the details will ready in a week or so. To get one,
send your snail mail address to Roger Haggett <hagger@aol.com>, the contest
organizer.
Judges and stewards can contact either Roger or myself, Bob Talkiewicz
<btalk@aol.com>.
Enter early and enter often!!
regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk@aol.com>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 09:33:48 EST
From: pbabcock.ford@e-mail.com
Subject: Lacto Virus Hoax Exposed!!!
Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock.ford@e-mail.com
Bronco Plant Vehicle Team - Body Construction Assembly Engineer
Subject: Lacto Virus Hoax Exposed!!!
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Well, there it is again! Some insipid fool spewing forth unsubstantiated virus
scares! Well! Let me tell you! I'm a computer geek with microbiological
exposure, minoring in cartography and alchemy. I am employed as a minor deity
for The Very Big Corporation. No one knows better that *I*.
This virus is not only a hoax, it's a sham! A subterfuge! A deception! Next,
they will follow with instructions on where to SEND SAMPLES of the beer to
test and decontaminate (five gallons required for proper testing, no doubt!)
There is absolutely NO WAY to attach a a virus to an e-mail message, short of
sneezing on the keyboard while hitting the send key! (Or by having Granny
bring some lacto for your budgie...) Even then, you must make a conscious
decision to decode the attached DNA to activate the virus!
Besides, lactobacillus is a *BACTERIA*, not a virus!!! So, wake up, HBD! Don't
fall prey to yet another false virus!
Remember the sage old proverb: "A fool and his homebrew are soon parted!" Er,
something like that, anyway...
;-)
(Note: This article was reject *twice* by the 'bot. It said that the original
subject line - Subject: Warning: Lacto Virus!!! *** HOAX *** - contained the
word "vacation". Go figure...)
See ya!
Best regards,
Patrick G. Babcock Michigan Truck Plant PVT Office
(313)46-70842 (V) -70843 (F) 38303 Michigan Wayne,MI 48184
^^^^^^^^^^^^ Built Ford tough! ISO-9001 Certified!^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 08:44:36 -0500
From: BF3B8RL@TPLANCH.BELL-ATL.COM
Subject: Price to wholesalers for new brewery
HBDers:
BEGIN FLAME PREVENTATIVE DISCLAIMER:
I am writing this to the HBD since there are many avid readers who are also
working in the beer industry. I am helping a friend put together a business
case for a micro (about 15,000 barrels annually). My question skirts the
appropriate/non-appropriate border for the HBD, but since the brewery is still
the figment of our imagination, I'm hoping it won't offend any HBDers. My
appologies to any who find my questions inappropriate.
END FLAME PREVENTATIVE DISCALIMER:
That said, I am looking for a "reality check" on what price a micro can expect
to sell to a distributor. The only data I've been able to gather is from "The
New Brewer", which showed a mean wholesale price of about $4.75/sixpack. I've
spoken to several area distibutors, and they are all over the place. Some have
quoted me as high as $5.00/six, and other have quoted no more than $3.75/six.
Now the distibutors on the low end feel that a new micro needs to compete on
price with the Sams (TM) and Pete's of the world. I disagree. A small micro
need not price compete with contract brewers pumping out hundreds of thousands
of barrels a year. The small micro, provided they can differentiate themselves
via either product or marketing, should be able to charge a premium above what
the dominant craft brewers charge. After all they are delivery only a few
thousand barrels to a select market. I see this effect in the beer stores
around me today -- Sam's (TM) sells for roughly $4.75 to $6 per six, and the
local ane West Coast micros sell for $5.75 to $7.00 per six. (NOTE: this is not
an effort to revive the Sam Adams love'em or hate'em thread!)
My questions are:
1. Can anyone educate me (or point me in the direction of some literature) on
the cost structure of the beer distribution value chain?
2. Does anyone have any experiences they can share on dealing with distributors?
3. Does anyone have any experiences/thoughts on what is a reasonable wholesale
price range for a small micro for the next two years or so.
I'm guessing that private reponses would be best here -- I will send summaries
to anyone who requests. Again, my appologies to anyone offended by my
business-related questions.
Send responses/flames to my partner in this proposed venture at:
TJBergman@eworld.com
TIA,
Chas Peterson
charles.b.peterson@bell-atl.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 1996 09:44:28 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: high temp hoses
I faced this problem a couple of years ago, when I used a new vinyl
hose on the "hot side" of my new CF chiller. The beer tasted like
plastic & I had to dump it. I then initiated a search for food-grade,
high-temperature tubing. What I found was silicone tubing. This
stuff is hideously expensive in small quantities, and only expensive
in larger amounts. I put together an order with the help of other HBD
subscribers, and bought 150 feet for about $1.25/ft. (Before you ask,
it's all gone, except for my personal bit.) This stuff is rated way past
boiling (400F, if I remember correctly), and can be autoclaved or
baked to sterilize it. It's not pressure rated, but is fine for
siphoning.
The tubing I bought was made by Norton Plastics (famous for their
Tygon brand tubing), and I bought it through AIN. I've since lost the
data sheet and phone numbers for AIN, but any well-equipped lab should
have their catalog. I had to buy it in 50-ft increments. Fisher &
other scientific catalogs should also have silicone tubing,
purchasable in smaller lengths, but the price will be higher (like
$2/ft and up).
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 96 09:57:34 EST
From: Mark Stevens <stevens@stsci.edu>
Subject: Old book, "Chemistry of Sake Brewing"
Hi folks
Last fall I came across several old books and other documents
on various brewing-related subjects. I xeroxed these for my
own reference, never expecting to find a real use for them.
As luck would have it, Santa brought me a scanner for christmas.
Since I had a bit of free time last month, I decided to see how
hard it would be to scan some of this info, run it through OCR
software, and turn it into some machine-readable form.
My test case was a book published in 1881 called "The Chemistry
of Sake Brewing" by R.W. Atkinson. It provides a detailed look
at the composition and processes behind sake brewing, as they
existed a century ago, and includes some interesting ideas
about preserving and restoring quality using a pasteurization
process. Of course, processes change over time and there are
probably more sophisticated analyses that could have been done
if the research took place today, but nonetheless, the book
represents, in my view, a fascinating examination of what is,
for most of us, an unfamiliar brewing process.
I have the files as a series of PostScript files, each of which
contain about 20 pages. I then created a tar file of the whole
series and compressed it. I apologize to those who want the
files but aren't conversant in Unix file formats---you will
probably have trouble moving the files to and using them on
PCs or Macs. I'll try to prepare some different file formats
in the coming weeks and post them on the Brewery web server, but
please don't yell too loudly if it takes me a while to get to
it.
For those of you who know what to do with compressed tar files
and who can handle PostScript, here's where you can get the
document:
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer/docs/ch_sake.tar.Z
As always, many thanks to Stephen Hansen for putting this up on
the archive and for maintaining the archive for all of us to use.
If there's interest in these kinds of documents, I'll scan
more as I get the time (otherwise, I'll save my time and disk
space for more productive purposes).
Cheers!
- ---Mark Stevens
stevens@charm.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:14:25 -0500
From: Simonzip@aol.com
Subject: Stout
So last night I enjoyed my first taste of Murphy's Irish Stout from the 16
oz. 'Drought Style" can. Ummmmmmm creamy.........Just as any other maniac
brewer would do with his/her first can; I cut it open to see how the nitrogen
was introduced. I was surprised to see that there was nothing that physically
activated it. Very close to the bottom was a small plastic cylinder of the
same diameter as the can, just hanging there. So I'm guessing it must rupture
(although I saw no evidence of an opening) due to some change in pressure.
Anyone know the physics of this beautiful phenomena. And, why does it say on
the can that if it isn't refrigerated for at least 2 hours it could gush,
over-foam. And, is there any carbonation in that beer from CO2, or is it all
nitrogen. I could not detect any of the carbonation I am used to. I will
enjoy many more of these this evening whilst I contemplate the curiosities.
Now, a brewing question:
I have a stout fermenting that I will be adding lactose to at bottle time to
make it sweet/milky/creamy. What amount is a good starting point. I know it
depends on the amount of sweetness or creaminess you want, but I have not
done this before and have nothing to compare to. I want it to be noticeable
but not overdone. I'll bottle a full 5 gallons and it had an OG of 1.045. I
had a recommendation of 2-4 oz.
Also, what would happen to the finished product if someone added 9 oz. of
lactose to the primary of a 5 gal. stout batch with an OG of 1.064?
Thanks in advance
(nothing witty to say today)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 09:28:48 -0600
From: John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com>
Subject: Modified grains
Perhaps some learned readers of this digest could enlighten me.
I recently bought a bag of DeWolf-Cosyns Pilsner Malt with which I hope to
brew a Classic Continental Pilsner this weekend using either Dave Miller's
recipe from his book on world brews or C. Papazian's Crede Lily from his
Homebrewer's Companion (if that is the title).
Both of these recipes call for a single infusion mash but I wonder if the
DeWolf-Cosyns malt is highly modified enough for this? Is anyone familiar
enough with this malt to know? The home brew supply store owner from whom
I bought the grain said it should be fine with perhaps a protein rest.
Noonan said in an article in an old Zymurgy grain special issue that malts
that were not highly modified must be decoction mashed. Noonan said to look
at the acrospire of the grain to judge the degree of modification. I tried
that but damned if I can pick out the acrospire. Maybe my tired old eyes are
too far gone to see anything that small.
At any rate, I have done a few single infusion mashes but no decoctions.
I mash in a cylindrical 10 gallon Igloo water cooler and am unsure about
trying multiple step infusion. It seems that the amount of boiling water
needed to raise to each step would soon amount to too much.
Any opinions on the DeWolf-Cosyns Pilsner modification level and/or the need
for a decoction or multiple infusion mash?
Thanks,
John Wilkinson Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:35:30 -0500
From: GSHUTELOCK@aol.com
Subject: Extract Scotch Ale Recipes Needed
This is my first time writing to the collective though I've been following
the digest for a couple of months now. I am a relatively new homebrewer with
three kit batches under my belt (brown, pale, porter) - my favorite being the
Pale Ale. I've now freed up enough bottles to try something else. I enjoyed
the Sam Adams Scotch Ale that came out around Christmas time and would like
to try to make something similar - perhaps a bit heavier. I would appreciate
if anyone in the collective has a good tried and tested extract recipe for a
heavy or extract scotch ale.
Background:
My first two batches (brown and pale ales) were from Brewer's Best kits
which I followed to the letter. They came out great - way beyond my
expectations. The finished product was clear, nicely carbonated, good
tasting, etc. The third batch was a Brewer's Best Porter kit which I
modified to include some of the Goat Scrotum Ale adjuncts from Papazian's
TNCJOHB. The results were again nice and drinkable in all respects except
the spruce essence and maybe the brewers licorice I added seem to have
overpowered the flavor. Is this just my personal taste or does 2 tablespoons
of spruce essence seem excessive for a five gallon batch? I noticed other
spruce beer recipes that didn't even call for adding this much essence.
I wrote to I.D. Carlson who packages the Brewer's Best kits (Muntun & Fison
products) and asked for info on their pellet hops and yeast. They were kind
enough to send me the following:
Classic Pale Ale:
bittering hops - 1 oz Northern Brewer 6.9 Alpha Acid
finishing hops - 1 oz Fuggle 3.6 Alpha Acid
.5 oz Northern Brewer 6.9 Alpha Acid
Brown Ale
bittering hops - 1 oz Fuggle 3.6 Alpha Acid
finishing hops - 1 oz Fuggle 3.6 Alpha Acid
English Porter
bittering hops - 1 oz Northern Brewer 6.9 Alpha Acid
finishing hops - .5 oz Fuggle 3.6 Alpha Acid
No good info on the Muntons ale yeast was provided by I.D. Carlson but as
reflected elsewhere by people who have used this dry yeast I found it worked
equally well dry pitched or rehydrated and pitched. Fermentations were
extremely aggressive and over in 2 to 3 days after bubbling started. I'd
tried open fermentation in a plastic bucket and also have used a 6.5 gal
glass carboy with blow off tube for initial ferment and rack to a 5 gal with
airlock for secondary. Both worked fine. I rapidly chill my wort to 80 deg.
F (15 minutes max) with my homemade wort chiller (20' copper refrigerator
tubing with hose fittings) and ice water bath. I aereate my 2 gal chilled
wort as I siphon it into 3 gallons of room temp distilled water. Aereator
wand is length of copper tube with T fitting - one end pointing up with
cotton soaked in vodka in end (to keep out invisible nasties and dog hair)
and siphon hose hooked to side coupling for wort to enter. I've primed with
corn sugar or DME with equally good results - both in terms of carbonation
and taste. Ferment at 68-70 degrees in dark utility room.
Carboys/fermentation bucket soak completely clean with bleach/warm water
solution - no scrubbing needed. I leave the the beer in the secondary carboy
for another 5 days even if there is no further activity (that way I bottle
on the weekend). I've bottled in 12, 16, 22 oz. bottles and 5 liter
mini-kegs, all with good results (mini-kegs are a bit over carbonated as I
cannot adjust amount of priming sugar when I split the batch between kegs and
bottles).
Any comments on my procedures - things I could improve or should change?
My scotch ale will be an extract batch but not from a kit so please only
provide proven recipes, I don't want a repeat on the spruce porter
experiment. Also looking to try a liquid yeast (smack pack) - any
recommendations for a good variety for the scotch ale? Has anyone tried
using the Phil's Psyphon Starter?
E-mail responses are fine at: gshutelock@aol.com
Thanks in advance, George Shutelock, Mechanicsburg PA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 10:35:34 -0500
From: GSHUTELOCK@aol.com
Subject: 5 L Mini Kegging Systems
In Homebrew Digest #1954, Scott Riley writes:
>I really hate the idea of bottling. I think if I bottle I won't be as =
>likely to brew as much. I really need some form of a "mini-kegging" =
>system. The corny system is not an option.
First I'd like to say welcome to a wonderful hobby. I've used the 5 L
mini-kegging system for some of my homebrews with good results, but I have to
admit that the wife and I enjoy the bottling routine and get a lot of
satisfaction in popping the cap off a bottle and hearing that reassuring
sound of escaping CO2. So don't discount bottles so fast. Besides, in a
bottle you can see the clarity of the brew and the yeast residue at the
bottom that lets you know that the aging is progressing okay.
Mini keg pluses:
- Fast and convienient, it only takes about 4 of these to do up a 5
gallon batch. The rubber bung is reusable.
- Takes less priming sugar/DME (about 1/3 cup corn sugar for a keg
instead of 3/4 cup for bottles.
- Fits in standard fridge and normally easy to dispense. If CO2
cartridge is used to pressurize the keg the beer will keep for a few weeks
without oxidizing or going flat.
Mini keg minuses:
- Tendency to generate a lot of foam, you have to be careful with that
CO2 adjustment.
- If you split a batch between bottles and kegs (which I often do) you
pretty much have to prime for the bottles which means the kegs are going to
generate lots of foam, at least initially.
- Cost and short life span of CO2 cartridges. Hand pump pressurized
kegs have to be consummed right away (good for a party maybe) or the beer
goes stale.
- Leaky bungs and CO2 cartridges.
- Kegs may not fit back into fridge once the tapping system is
installed.
I find it comes out better if I let the excess natural CO2 escape as I tap
the system. Then repressurize with just a little CO2 from the cartridge
and shut it off again. If not enough pressure, repeat until it comes out
okay. Don't crank the valve open and leave it open. The lowest setting that
gives you a slight hissing sound seems to work just fine. I still get lots
of foam which I attribute to over priming (1 inch of beer and the rest foam
in a room temp or frozen mug) and have to wait for it to settle. You should
have better luck with less priming sugar. If you're inpatient you can decant
the beer into a pitcher, let the foam settle and then fill the mugs. All
things considered, I prefer bottles and if you establish an organized routine
for cleaning, sanitizing, filling, capping and labeling can add to the
overall enjoyment of packaging your just brewed elixer of life.
Good Luck! George Shutelock
gshutelock@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 1996 7:56:54 -0800 (PST)
From: Glenn Heath <GLENNH@merix.com>
Subject: Separating Hot Trub and cider question
In HBD #1955 Tim Kelsey wrote:
- how do I start such a siphon without contaminating
- the wort? When siphoning from a carboy I usually use a
- carboy cap and sanitized milk jug (like suggested in
- Brewing Techniques several issues ago). I had used
- Charlie Papazian's "water in the siphon hose" technique
- previously, but am leery of using it with unfermented
- wort. Needless to say, sucking on the siphon hose is
- also out.
Try asking around at your local homebrew shops for a product called
"The sucking thing" (standard disclaimers apply). It is IMHO a
great tool for siphoning without risk of contamination. I used
to use the water in the hose trick (what a pain) and have found this
to be both cleaner and easier. The "thing" is basically a ventilated
mini-baster that you use along with a hose clamp to start the flow. The
clamp is used to pause the flow while you remove the sucking thing.
Pricing should be around $12.
Now for my question,
Someone recently ask about a recipe for making a dry hard cider. Does
anyone know how to make a sweet hard cider? When I tried one it automatically
went dry since the fermentation eats the sugar. I am not fond of sweet and
low or equal, so I don't want to add either to my completed product. Adding
sugar to the final product just boosts the carbonation without sweetening it.
Thankfully I don't ever try to make sweet beer.
------------------------------
Date: 07 Feb 96 10:59:06 EST
From: Tracy Thomason <102472.1404@compuserve.com>
Subject: yeast cultures
I'm pretty much a beginner so bear with my "beginner questions" for a while ...
How do I start my own yeast cultures? I read the section in "The New Complete
Joy of Homebrewing" on it but it didn't mention how to take yeast from a primary
and re-culture it for the next batch.
Also, can you just keep on doing this? Take yeast from each batch and hold it
over for the next one?
Thanks,
Tracy Thomason
102472.1404@compuserve.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1956, 02/08/96
*************************************
-------
