Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2413
HOMEBREW Digest #2413 Wed 07 May 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 1 of 4) (KennyEddy)
No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 2 of 4) (KennyEddy)
No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 3 of 4) (KennyEddy)
No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 4 of 4) (KennyEddy)
Pressure Cooking First Runnings (XKCHRISTIAN)
Re: that homebrew "kick" (Brian Bliss)
botulism/haze maze (smurman)
Tip Bank (smurman)
Botulism ("Nathan L. Kanous II")
CIP cleaner (Evan Kraus)
Question about yeast and high-gravity brewing ("Bruce Gill")
stout desserts (kathy)
The cost of good beer. Really! (Some guy)
FW: NA Beer ("C&S Peterson")
Brew Club Discussion ("Bridges, Scott")
CT local interest/recipe request (Guy Mason)
BRAVO!!! (pbabcock.ford)
Compressor cycling on your refrigerator (LaBorde, Ronald)
Brewpubs in Indianapolis, IN ("C&S Peterson")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received. If you have
"spam-proofed" your reply address, you *WILL NOT* received an
acknowledgement from the autoresponder.)
To SUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com
containing the word "subscribe", without the quotes, in the body of the
message. NOTE that if you have "spam-proofed" your reply address, your
subscribe request *WILL NOT* be successful!
To UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "unsubscribe",
without the quotes to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com.
NOTE that if you have "spam-proofed" your reply address, your
unsubscribe request *WILL NOT* be successful!
BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver
(BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU), you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail
to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to those who have made the Homebrew Digest what it is. Visit the
HBD Hall of Fame at http://hbd.org
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send 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 from:
brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@brew.oeonline.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:49:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 1 of 4)
{Part 1 of 4}
Chas Peterson asks about assaying alcohol content of beers brewed to be
"non-alcoholic". Chas, I have a long-winded dissertation on the general
topic here, so to cut to the chase and address your particular question, see
"NA Method #4" below (in Part 3 of 4), for some comments on the method you
used and a report on the result of the "alcohol reduction". For general
information, read on...
The topic of non- and low-alcohol brewing comes up occasionally on the HBD.
Having been recently scolded by my doctor to reduce my alcohol intake, I've
been exploring this topic myself and can report on what I've found. This
post is split into four parts, the rest of which (hopefully) follow
immediately (I've twice been bit by the "8K Limit Exceeded" robot; sorry for
the multiple parts).
People may wonder, "What's the point of brewing NA beer", but as in my case,
health and other factors often come into play. Diabetics, recovering
alcoholics, dieters, folks on medication, and plain old teetotalers can
benefit from this information. If I may step briefly upon my soapbox, I'll
propose that taking a break from alcohol without having to take a break from
good beer is a worthwhile pursuit. One unexpected benefit from cutting (way)
down on my beer drinking: my palate has drastically sensitized to many
flavor subtleties I've obviously been missing in the past, and I certainly
enjoy the occasional beer moreso as a result. I take my limitation as a
challenge to find new means to beer appreciation. I think most of you would
agree that homebrewing is not the pursuit of the ultimate *buzz* but rather
the pursuit of the ultimate *beer*. But I know too that many of you ARE in
it simply for the buzz; you may hit the Page-Down key at this point.
First, let me point out a great patent search engine at
http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/
It has over two million patents in its database, is fully seachable with
simple or complex search strings, and you can even purchase a copy of the
complete patent online for a nominal fee. You could also take the patent
number to your local library which should have a complete copy and a copy
machine. Anyhow, I used this search engine to search for patents relating to
non- and low-alcohol brewing, in an effort to explore the range of methods
that have been developed/disclosed for non- and low-alcohol brewing. The
list of techniques presented here is in all likelihood neither complete nor
comprehensive, but from what I have researched I'd say it covers a great
percentage of the methods in use. Many "low-alcohol" techniques are easily
adapted by the homebrewer; "no-alcohol" methods are typically much more
difficult at "our" level.
I'll use the term "NA" to mean both non-alcoholic and low- or reduced-alcohol
brewing or processing. Legally, alcohol content below 0.5% by volume is
considered "non-alcoholic". Interestingly, I recently saw a report on the
'net by a university (Pittsburgh? can't remember) claiming that many fruit
juices such as regular orange juice can contain close to 0.5% alcohol as a
result of natural fermentation of the fruit sugars by wild yeast. It
certainly *isn't* just for breakfast anymore...
{Part 2 of 4 follows}
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Texas
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:47:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 2 of 4)
{Part 2 of 4}
***************************
Low- and No-Alcohol Brewing
***************************
NA methods can be split into two groups -- those that remove alcohol from
conventionally-brewed beverages, and those that do not produce alcohol in the
first place (or produce reduced amounts of it).
**********************
Homebrew-Ready Methods
**********************
There are a few methods that the homebrewer can use to create reduced-alcohol
beverages:
1) Simply create a very low-gravity hopped wort and drink it without
fermenting it. This techniques has appeared on the HBD in the past.
Cara-pils seems to be a favorite base malt due to its high dextrin content
and minimal sweetness; it can supposedly be primed and bottled since the
cara-pils reportedly won't ferment (much). Gravities of around 1.010 to
1.020 are used, and roasted or crystal malts can be added to enhance
character. This is truly "non-alcoholic" (but not if primed), but is it
beer?
I tried this method a couple of times, with barely passable results. There
are complex reactions that take place in a fermentation which contribute
significantly to what we think of as beer character, and eliminating
fermentation can result in only an approximation of "beer". However, it's
easy and it's worth a try, and as I said, adding specialty grains can help
greatly in producing a tasty beer-like drink. I found that acidifying the
wort, either during or after the boil and chilling, to about 4.5 pH (close to
a fermented beer's pH) helps drastically improve the flavor (though it adds a
bit of tartness). Also, go easy on the hop levels. Hop bitterness is very
harsh and grassy prior to fermentation (taste your next bitter wort for a
convincing demonstration). I wonder if CO2 scrubbing of this wort might
modify the hop character somewhat, and whether fining would help reduce hop
phenols & tannins. Acidification definitely helps. Also, because of the low
malt content, there probably isn't enough residual protein to give decent
heading, though heading agents could perhaps be used to compensate.
Extract brewers can use this method, though the presence of fermentable
sugars in extract leaves the risk of unwanted bacterial or wild yeast
fermentation and/or spoilage.
Commercial examples of this method are sold in various places around the
world as "malta", and Pappa Charlie has a recipe in his second book.
2) Produce a low-gravity wort and ferment it, resulting in a low-alcohol
"real" beer. This has been covered several times in the various
publications, most recently by Kirk Fleming in the April 1997 Brew Your Own
("BYO") magazine (an earlier BYO article on NA brewing is available on-line
at The Brewery). I just kegged a low-alcohol porter that is remarkably good
(considering!) and comes in at 2% ABV. Here are some thoughts on this
method:
With a regular brew, you start a wort at, say 1.050 gravity and finish at,
say, 1.015. When your beer is done fermenting, what do you have? The change
in gravity is due to the conversion of sugars to alcohol, CO2, water, and
other yeast by-products. If the entire contents of the wort were fermented
into alcohol, the final gravity would be less than 1.000 due to the presence
of alcohol (SG ~ 0.78). So the final gravity being greater than 1.000
indicates that other "stuff" is left over. This stuff is mostly
unfermentable sugars ("dextrins") and proteins. These contribute to "body"
and "mouthfeel", along with head formation and other characteristics.
If you can make a wort with little fermentable sugar but with the "normal"
amount of residual "stuff", you should conceivably get pretty close to "real
beer" without all the alcohol. One snag is that other yeast by-products, for
example esters, are often desirable and would only be present in low amounts
due to the minimized yeast acitivity. Also remember that alcohol itself is a
significant part of the beer's flavor character, so a 100% perfect "fake" is
perhaps not even possible. Is it really "beer" if there isn't any alcohol?
I mashed my porter with a single infusion at 160F (71C). At this
temperature, beta-amylase (which produces simple fermentable sugars) is
quickly denatured, leaving alpha amylase (which produces complex,
unfermentable sugars) to attack the starch. I used "pale ale" malt as a base
(and "normal" amounts of roasted and crystal malts); doing a single high-temp
mash with regular "pale" malt (e.g., pils) might encourage serious protein
haze unless a protein-degradation rest were done (see the last month's worth
of HBD's for discussion of that topic).
Extract brewers can experiment with different brands of extract in order to
find one which results in high final gravity; Laaglander is reputed to be
such a beast. Ray Daniels' excellent book "Designing Great beers" has a
table of various extract brands along with measured attenuation levels (page
15). This might be a good place to start your research.
Back to my porter. I ended up with a 1.030 OG and a 1.014 FG, for an
apparent attenuation of 53% (compare to typical attenuations of 65% to 70%),
and now I have a brew with satisfying fullness and flavor with less than half
the alcohol as regular homebrew (and about 100 calories per 12 ounces).
However, one other "stuff" thing that was noticibly weak was "maltiness".
This should perhaps come as no surprise based on the reduced volume of base
malt used (in order to achieve the low OG). Maltiness arises in large part
from melanoidins, which can in turn arise from mash and kettle reactions
(simple sugars + amino acids + heat) as well as the malting process itself.
I used 2 lb munich malt and 3 lb pale ale malt, hoping that the realtively
high melanoidin content of the munich malt would boost maltiness; it may
have, but just not enough. Next time I'll try 100% munich, or I may even
pressure-cook some of the first-runnings wort to enhance melanoidin
production (a "pseudo-decoction"). The no-sparge brewing method might be of
some help too (see HBD's from around Christmas). The use of 100% munich malt
may require a protein rest in a pale beer; haze wouldn't necessarily be a
problem in the porter although other benefits of a protein rest with this
malt might be desirable. The trick is to avoid beta amylase activity as much
as possible.
One final note on this method. I used Wyeast Irish Ale, noted for its low
attenutation, to further discourage full fermentation. Dave Burley has
recently noted deClerck's assertion that *all* yeast will 100% ferment all
fermentables given the right conditions, so whether yeast selection is really
a factor in controlling attenuation can perhaps be questioned.
{Part 3 of 4 follows}
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Texas
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:49:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 3 of 4)
{Part 3 of 4}
3) Brew a normal-strength beer, monitor the gravity, and stop fermentation
when a target amount of alcohol is produced. Some of the flavor benefits of
fermentation are thus obtained. Fermentation can be halted (or at least
drastically slowed) by filtering out the yeast (1 to 5 micron pore size).
You almost have to keg this beer, since yeast must be present to
bottle-condition, and this obviously would resume the fermentation ("glass
grenade" time!). Chemical pasteurization is another possible alternative,
though finding a suitable "yeasticide" is an issue. Heat pasteuration is
possibly an option, and that provides a nice segue to another popular
alcohol-reduction technique, which is to...
4) ...brew a normal-strength beer, then heat to evaporate the alcohol. Jack
Schmidling wrote an article on this a while back (available on-line at The
Brewery) and the method has been repeated in several other media. The idea
is that since alcohol boils at about 175F (80C), and water boils at 212F
(100C), the alcohol can be selectively removed while leaving the "rest" of
the beer behind. The resulting product can be kegged or primed and bottled
(add fresh yeast since you just killed the original colony!).
In HBD #1609, Maribeth Raines reports on her UV spectrophotometric assay
analysis of alcohol content after applying this method to homebrew. The
results she obtained indicated that in no case (including a half-hour of
vigorous boiling!) did the alcohol reduce below 2% abv, calling into question
the usefulness of this technique (though under controlled "lab" conditions
she did have a brief success in achieving 0.5% abv -- please visit the HBD
archive to see her full report). In addition, my own experience, as well as
that of others having reported in the HBD in the past, is that other
deleterious effects such as off-flavors, oxidation, and reduction of hop
character can and do occur. If I'm only going to reduce to 2% abv, I'll
stick with my low-gravity/160F mash schedule.
Why doesn't this method work well? Remember that water boils at 212F (at sea
level), yet a pot of water at 212F will not just suddenly disappear -- it
takes time. Same with alcohol -- it will take a long time to remove the
majority of the alcohol. At the same time, evaporation of water will
accelerate at 175F, so you lose water along with the alcohol. Over the
period of time it takes to reduce the alcohol to very low levels, a lot of
water will be lost as well. Certainly that can be made up with fresh water,
but the point is that 15 minutes probably won't do it; according to Raines,
it probably can't be done in the kitchen at all.
Another problem with this method is that it technically falls under the
umbrella of "distillation", which is illegal, even though you're not
collecting the evaporating alcohol (right?).
5) Brew a normal-strength beer, then freeze to separate the (frozen-ice)
water & beer from the (still-liquid) alcohol. Again, The Brewery has an
article detailing this approach. This method, like heating, is only
partially successful at separating alcohol from beer, since much of the
alcohol stays tied up with the ice in microbubbles and slush. Also, most of
the "beer flavor" reportedly stays with the alcohol rather than the water.
One solution is to heat the alcohol fraction and recombine the remaining
"beer essence" with the leftover ice/water, but now you're back to the
problems outlined above in #4.
This method is probably also illegal (deliberate concentration of alcohol).
6) Simple dilution of "normal" beer. You can probably imagine the results
without even trying it...
{Part 4 of 4 follows}
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Texas
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 21:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: No- and Low-Alcohol Brewing (Part 4 of 4)
{Part 4 of 4}
******************
Commercial Methods
******************
A quick laundry list of commercial methods of *removing* alcohol from
"normal" beer include *licensed* distillation, dialysis, reverse-osmosis,
ultrafiltration, pervaporation, and replacement of some of the malt with
hydrogenated starch hydrolysate (see patent #4680180). Sorry -- I'm not
personally familiar with the mechanical and chemical details of many of these
processes, so please don't ask me for details. Use the patent search to
bring up the relevent documents if you're interested.
One other interesting commercial method that seems to come up in several
patents is often referred to as "cold-contact fermentation". Essentially, a
wort is pitched with a huge concentration of yeast (40 million to as much as
135 million cells per ml) and holding it at near-freezing temperature.
Apparently the yeast will metabolize some or all of the fermentables without
producing much if any alcohol, or perhaps there's something else about the
contact of this much yeast with the wort at low temperatures that gives the
wort a desirable beer-like flavor or character. In any case, the wort is
"cold-contacted" with the yeast as such for a brief 10 to 30 hours, then
filtered, artificially carbonated, and packaged. Some patents refer to
dilution to achieve 0.5% max abv, so it's hard to tell whether this method
inherently *prevents* alcohol production or or simply reduces it.
Any of you yeast gurus have any information on what the biochemical details
of the "cold contact fermentation" process are? Does this result in full
fermentation without alcohol production? What's going on here?
I suppose the homebrewer could try this by racking wort from the kettle onto
a full yeastcake (or three!) from a freshly-racked batch, fermenting for a
spell (12-24 hours) in a refrigerator, then filtering and packaging (probably
force-carbonating unless the beer is truly fermented out). If anyone has the
equipment and inclination to try this, the information would be of great use
to many of us. If the typical yeast cake is not an adequately high pitching
rate for five gallons (for 100 million+ cells/ml), try it with only a gallon
of wort.
Well, that about wraps up what I've found out about NA Brewing. As usual,
comments are welcome, and any additions to this list would be worth posting
too.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Texas
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 May 1997 19:49:12 -0800 (PST)
From: XKCHRISTIAN@ccvax.fullerton.edu
Subject: Pressure Cooking First Runnings
hello all HBDers,
I am interested in pressure cooking some of my first runnings, to see
what the wonderful effects will be... I'm thinking of filling the pressure
cooker up half way and boiling it for 15-20 mins. The cooker is too shallow
to hold the 1 quart jars I have. I could use a small bowl but I can get more
by filling up the pressure cooker half way.
After boiling the first runnings, should I add the wort:
1. back through the mash
2. into the boiler while sparging
3. to the boiling wort?
I am pretty sure we want to add it it to 2 or 3 above.
TIA
Keith
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 May 97 23:02:41 CDT
From: Brian Bliss <brianb@microware.com>
Subject: Re: that homebrew "kick"
I would hazard a guess that it is a higher concentration of Methanol
and/or Fusel Alcohols in your homebrew that get you drunk faster on
comparatively less volume (alcohol percentage being approximately equal).
Most storebought brew is relatively "clean" on the alcohol scale, by
comparison, with quite a few exceptions. Phenolic compounds can also set
off allergic reactions which can, in moderation, be mistaken for an ethanol
"high".
Have you ever sat down and got drunk on a bottle of Skyy vodka?
It's distilled 4 times, and (presumably) one of the purest sources of
ethanol ("pure", ignoring the ~ 60% water) available. The difference
is amazing - no flushness or immediate lighheadedness, no ringing in
the ears, (no taste, either), but it is a different feeling than being
drunk on whiskey or beer.
Another theory is the amount of hops in homebrew...
bb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 00:08:50 -0700
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: botulism/haze maze
The botulism thread won't go away, and it shouldn't until it's
resolved IMO. A number of questions about safety have been posed,
and they are all excellent questions. Unfortunately, the answers
require that someone goes into a lab and tries to grow botulism on
beer wort. Until that happens we won't have any guidelines for the
safe storage of wort.
Right now the best experience we have comes from the food processing
arena where they've found that foods of a pH typical of beer wort
should be processed with a pressure canner to ensure that everything
is safe. That's the best information we have at the moment.
The other point of view on this issue seems to feel it requires a
fatality before they are willing to change the way they prepare wort
for starters. Certainly that would remove any questions.
We're not talking about ruining 5 gallons of beer here, we're talking
about no longer breathing. I would love for someone to come out and
say that beer wort can be vacuum stored with no risk under conditions
X and Y because it contains Z, but until that day I think it makes
sense to consider taking precautions, or use a safer method to prepare
your $0.25 or $0.75 worth of starter.
//
There are some topics that I read about on the HBD, that I must admit
give me some amusement. One would be HSA, but I'll leave that for
another day. Another is this whole business of haze, finings,
clearing etc. Finings have mainly been used to clear beer quicker for
serving to paying customers. Obviously, this isn't much of a concern
for homebrewers. So I have to ask, "Why are some of you putting so
much shit into your beer?". Irish moss, gelatin, chopped fish guts,
your wifes' panty hose. Have you people no limitations? I know I'm
not doing things much differently from the rest of you, and I've
rarely seen a beer that didn't "clear" on it's own. Granted, if you
put 2 lbs. of dextrin malt into your single temp. mash you're going to
have problems, but otherwise I can't see why so much energy is
expended on this subject. Perhaps those of you with clarification
problems don't use a 2nd'ary after the fermentation is over?
SM (sipping botulism-free, haze-free homebrew)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 00:16:09 -0700
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: Tip Bank
I'm sure you're all familiar with the idea of a favor bank; sometimes
you deposit sometimes you withdraw. I've gotten a lot of tips since
I found the HBD a while back (where was it hiding?), and I thought I'd
try making some deposits into the HBD tip bank.
I live in a 1 bedroom apartment, and I have a full all-grain setup, so
some of the tips are useful mainly for people in similar situations.
The first thing I would recommend is that you do not live with your
S.O. if at all possible. Some members of the species do not find
things like jars of yeast sludge so interesting that they want them on
the kitchen table.
Most of us have a brew closet where the fermenting goes on, and for
storage. The larger hardware stores will sell rubber matting for
about $1 per foot. I got enough to cover the floor of my brew closet,
and so many times it has saved my butt from spills that I could kiss
it.
I deal with my full carboys of water or whatever in the bathtub. The
carboy then has to be just leaned over to empty until it's a managable
weight. I have a shower massage where the supply hose disconnects,
and I can use that for rinsing (the carboy you freak).
I replaced the faucet tap on my kitchen sink with one for a standard
garden hose fitting. Very key.
The night before I weigh out the grain into a double-layered paper
grocery bag. The spent grains then get put in a hefty bag, which goes
back into the grocery bags. This is pretty sturdy, and easy to carry.
I made a "floating mash thermometer" by poking a whole in a pie tin
and sticking my cheap metal dial thermometer through. The pie tin
will sit on top of the viscous mash, while the thermo probe is
submerged. Doubles as my sparge water sprinkler by poking more holes
in the pie tin.
Hopefully these will be enough to get me out of debt.
SM
http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy for misc. stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:21:54 -0400
From: "Nathan L. Kanous II" <nkanous@tir.com>
Subject: Botulism
Mark Ellis posted that Clostridium botulinum and yeast
are anaerobes and aerobes, respectively. He also pointed
out that Clostridium sp. have what may appear to be
a limited temperature range for growth. I'm sorry, but
these things aren't what I see as the risk in homebrewing.
Homebrewers are concerned with Clostridium botulinum spores.
If you were to "hot water can" or pressure can wort starters,
you will effectively drive off all oxygen from the wort
as well as from the headspace as the starter solution boils.
This IS an anaerobic environment which WOULD be useful for
Clostridium botulinum to live and produce the toxin.
The toxin is heat labile. If you pressure can your starters,
no problem. You put in the extra work to more effectively
eliminate any worry. If you "hot water can" or can in a hot
water bath. Boil your yeast starter before you use it.
In fact, if you plan to do that, why make the starter in
advance, make it when you need it.
Nathan in Frankenmuth, MI
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:26:02 -0400
From: Evan Kraus <ekraus@avana.net>
Subject: CIP cleaner
For those of U looking for a cleaner that is safer than caustic I have
been experimenting with a non-caustic cleaner called PBW from Five Star
Products.
It appears to work as well as caustic without the problem of chemical
burns.
The only problem is that it works at aproximately 140 Deg so for the
home brewer care must be taken as with any hot liquids.
It will remove Hop residue in the kettle and also takes care of the
proteins left from fermentation.
I also works well as a cleaner that can be applied with a Scotch Brite
pad.
They recomend a light acid wash with no rinse prior to the PBW cleaning,
but I haven't been using it and still having excelent results.
I have also used it on copper with no problem.
I have no affiliation with Five Star !!!!!!!!
INFO on PBW: www.fivestaraf.com
- --
Evan Kraus
Evan Kraus INC.
Phone & Fax (404) 713-1111
Email: ekraus@avana.net
http://www.avana.net/~ekraus/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 May 97 11:54:35 UT
From: "Bruce Gill" <b2g@msn.com>
Subject: Question about yeast and high-gravity brewing
I've seen several discussions on high-gravity brewing, but I don't recall a
resolution to this point.
I'm planning my annual high-gravity Holiday ale (for 1998!) -- working up a
recipe for a flavored imperial stout, with a OG in the 1000-1200 range. My
ususal yeast-handling method for a brew like this is to make a series of
starters (two or three), each higher in gravity than the one before. The
final starter will be approximately the same high-gravity as the intended
batch and 3/4 gallon -- since I aerate the starter continuously (with an
aquarium pump), I end up with somewhere in the neighborhood of 3-4 cups of
slurry.
An alternative method I'm considering is to first brew a normal-gravity stout,
racking to secondary, and leaving a much larger quantity of yeast which will
then be used immediately for the high-gravity brew.
The my first method gives me a smaller quantity of yeast (still a healthy
amount), but yeast that is acclimated to working in a high-gravity
environment. The second method gives me a whole lot of yeast.
Any thoughts from the collective about this "quality vs. quantity" issue?
Many thanks,
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 07:24:48 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: stout desserts
Having just brewed batches of dry stout and not-so-dry stout, I was
wondering if there are any killer recipes of desserts made of stout,
brownies, vanilla ice cream and topping that you'd recommend for the
dessert lover. Desserts with other ingredients are welcome also.
cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 08:31:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some guy <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: The cost of good beer. Really!
Greetings Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Well, here I go! Getting all torqued off on beer prices again. In this
month's RBPMail there is an article entitled "Craft Beers Resist Price
Pointing" which pretty much says craft brewers cannot compete with
AB/Coors/Miller (understood, of course!) and therefor charge "what they
need" and market to a "non-price sensitive market". Sounds mighty noble,
anyway. I still believe there are a whole lot that base their prices on
greed rather than need. But that's capitalism in a free market. I accept
and respect that - just don't lie to me!
Anyway, that's not the part that torqued me off. What got me was some
yahoo justifying $70 and $100 per-case prices for Belgian Lambics and
Trappist ales because of the cooperage and warm rooms - expenses most
consumers don't consider. He then alludes to the production time for most
brewpub ales in a manner that seems like casting aspersions! Well, bite
me, Mr. Feinberg! The breweries cited have maintained and staffed those
facilities for many a decade - centuries, in some cases! Nothing at all
new. Most who enjoy lambics understand lambics. Most who understand
lambics acknowledge the cooperage. And there's nothing technical nor
expensive about the Trappist "warm rooms", as you imply. So then, why
exactly *does* something that costs roughly $0.45 US (or so I'm told) on
the street in Belgium cost $6.00 here? Cooperage? Nope! Bite me again, Mr.
Feinberg! Warm rooms? Nope! Bite me once more, Mr. Feinberg! Shipping and
import costs? Uh-uh. Bite me again, Mr. Feinberg! Greed? BINGO!!!! What
the market will bear, son. So don't lie to me.
It really comes down to this: those that consume the good and great beers
in America are intelligent and knowledgeable about that which we enjoy.
Few non-beer-snobs would even touch a lambic, for instance, much less
enjoy it. Intelligent people hate having their intelligence insulted. I
recommend that beer importers and brewers just be straight with us. I
won't quit drinking my favorite brews just because someone is making a
fistful of dollars off of it. But I may if some dip-stick expects me to
believe his pleas of poverty and assinine excuses for gouging.
Sanity check: I do recognize that there are many micros and pubs
struggling to stay in operation. Some of these make inspiring brews and
are not getting the exposure they need to develop a following and stable
market. (And some really suck and *need* to go out of business so that
they stop damaging the image of the craft brewing industry.)
Unfortunately, it is the plight of these brewers that the greed-based
brewers lay claim to when justifying their prices. Recognizing this, I
know that a reduction of prices for craft brews could significantly
diminish the number of start-up craft breweries and brewpubs. And this is
not desirable. But I'm entitled to gripe, no?
See ya!
Pat Babcock | "Beer is my obsession, and I'm late for
pbabcock@oeonline.com | therapy..." -PGB
brewbeerd@aol.com | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point
janitor@brew.oeonline.com | at the end of your day as every sentence
Home Brew Digest Janitor | requires proper punctuation." -PGB
Webmaster of the Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
Home of the Home Brew Flea Market
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 May 97 13:19:04 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON@msn.com>
Subject: FW: NA Beer
HBDers -
I got several replies to my post on near-NA beer. This from Spencer Thomas
(Thanks Spence!) looks to be a good way to get a rough estimate. I'll try to
post my findings later.
For those that warned me against giving out the near-NA beer to my friend, I
can assure you that I do not intend to even offer this beer to him without
taking reasonable precautions (such as taking a conservative estimate of
alcohol and other measures). But your warnings are certainly well considered
and I may simply be content to consume this beer myself.
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md.
- ----------
From: Spencer W Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 9:04 AM
To: C&S Peterson
Subject: Re: NA Beer
>From http://realbeer.com/spencer/attenuation.html:
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol content
...
Ralph Snel (ralph@astro.lu.se) wrote: A quite simple way that will
give accuracy up to 0.1% is to boil off all the alcohol and substitute
by water. This means boiling down to less than a third of the original
volume in most cases, it's not that hard to smell if there are
alcohols in the vapour. Fill with water so you have your original
volume and take the difference in gravity, then look up alcohol
content in the table:
SG Alcohol SG Alcohol SG Alcohol
diff. vol % diff. vol % diff. vol %
0 0.00 10 7.18 20 16.00
1 0.64 11 7.98 21 17.00
2 1.30 12 8.80 22 18.00
3 1.98 13 9.65 23 19.00
4 2.68 14 10.51 24 20.00
5 3.39 15 11.40 25 21.00
6 4.11 16 12.30 26 22.00
7 4.85 17 13.20
8 5.61 18 14.10
9 6.39 19 15.10
10 7.18 20 16.00
From: Technisch handboek voor de amateur wijn- en biermaker by Leo van
der Straten ISBN 90-245-0969-6
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
You'll need quite accurate measurement both of volume and of SG to
make this work at the low end of the scale, though.
=S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 97 09:55:00 EDT
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess@mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Subject: Brew Club Discussion
Kenny writes:
>Scott Bridges said that George de Piro's reply to Pat Babcock's article
about
>homebrew club meeting speakers was perhaps not appropriate for this forum.
>While the HBD does seem to gravitate heavily toward the mechanics of
>brewing, the success or failure of a homebrew club can have a significant
>effect on one's source of information and enthusiasm for brewing, and thus
I
>think it's a very relevent topic.
>[snip]
>At the risk of being publicly flamed (oh yeah, like that'll be a first),
I'd
>like to *encourage* the more successful clubs to offer their recipes for
>success on this forum. It weighs directly upon our brewing skill, and
it'll
>make better brewers of us all.
Actually, what I meant to say was that others may view *continued*
discussion (including my post) about clubs as outside the bounds of the HBD.
I didn't mean to imply that George's post was inappropriate (I meant no
flamage towards George). Anyway, I personally agree with you, Kenny. I
like the occasional side discources. I can only take so much
enzyme-pressure decoction-what-does-well-modified-really-mean talk :).
To my point, it must interest others as well, since I've also gotten a
number of emails from folks offering their experiences and also asking for
pointers. Thanks to those of you who responded. I don't have time post
more now, but I'll compile what I've gotten so far and post later. If
anyone is interested in keeping this up, I'll be happy to continue it
(either here or off-line).
Scott B. (so I don't get confused with the other Scott)
President, Palmetto State Brewers
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 10:24:24 -0400
From: Guy Mason <guy@adra.com>
Subject: CT local interest/recipe request
Greetings Fellow Beerlings:
CT local interest :
1. Anyone out there know of store in central CT (Cheshire/Waterbury) that
stocks 10gal round Gott coolers?
2. Any brew clubs in the same area looking for new members?
Recipe Request :
My brewing partner in crime finally got a lagering fridge and we are
looking for a good 10 gal. all-grain Marzen recipe. We hope to split the
10 gal. batch (5 each) and use different yeasts to compare the results. (I
can't really taste any difference, let me try another...)
Thanks
- -- guy
See that fish on the reef, with the big shiny teeth?
That's a moray...
(Sung to the tune of Amore)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 May 1997 10:21:52 EDT
From: pbabcock.ford@e-mail.com
Subject: BRAVO!!!
Pat Babcock Internet: pbabcock.ford@e-mail.com
VO Body Launch Specialist- PN150/1 EAP
****>>>> PLEASE USE PF5 WHEN REPLYING TO THIS NOTE!!!! <<<<****
Subject: BRAVO!!!
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your sparkler-delivered
"nitrogenated" stout...
Bravo - nay! a big BRAVO!!! to Dave Burley for his post regarding the
whipping of gasses into the head BY THE SPARKLER! I whole-heartedly
agree with this post! It is not the gas - it is the action of the
SPARKLER HEADand/or the FORCE at which the brew is delivered! BRAVO!!!
Just to qualify something though: the partial pressure of CO2 desired
in the headspace is dependent on the temperature at which the bulk of
the beer is at during dispense. Also, as we all know (CPR to a dead
horse), the carbonation level is style dependent. The driving
pressure, as Dave indicates, is also system dependent. The point being
that your dispense pressure should never be taken as rote. It must be
determined for the conditions of your particular draught system.
Now: does anyone want to reopen the draught system and style
flesh-wounds? <Snigger!> I'll bring the salt...
Best regards,
Patrick G. Babcock PN150/1 Launch - Edison Assembly Plant
(908)632-5930 x5501 Route 1 South, Edison, NJ 08818-3018
Fax (908)632-4546 Page 800-SKY-PAGE PIN: 544-9187
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 09:27:31 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Compressor cycling on your refrigerator
>From: LINUSNLILA@aol.com
>Subject: One solution for compressor cycling on your refrigerator
>...So what I did with my temp
>controller, which can be set for a narrow "deadband", is immerse the
>thermocouple (probe) in a 12 oz mason jar of water. The temperature of the
>12 oz mason jar of water changes at about the same rate as any bottled beer I
>have in the fridge, so it won't freeze, but not nearly as quickly as the air
>temp in the fridge, so the compressor doesn't have to work as hard. It works,
>too; it keeps the water temp +/-2 degrees F of the setpoint, without cycling
>very much...
Seems like a good idea, I am planning to try this:
A 2 or 3 inch piece of vinyl tubing over the sensor. This should slow the
rate of heat transfer from the air to the sensor thus slowing the response
to quick changes in temperature. Haven't tried it yet but it seems easy to do.
Good luck
Ron
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 May 97 15:07:50 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON@msn.com>
Subject: Brewpubs in Indianapolis, IN
HBDers -
I will be heading out to Indianapolis next week and anticipate a few hours in
the afternoon to partake of the local brewpub scene. I am considering a visit
to the Alcatraz Brewing Co, or one of the Circle V pubs. Has anyone been to
either of these? Any recommendations/descriptions? Private email is fine.
Thanks,
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2413, 05/07/97
*************************************
-------
