Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2833
HOMEBREW Digest #2833 Fri 25 September 1998
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
1998 Ozark Homebrew Competition (Dave Justice)
Re: Enzymes - temps more (Jeff Renner)
Again ? ("Steve Alexander")
CAPital experiment (Tom Herlache)
was re: Enzymes - temps more ("Steve Alexander")
HERMS (Pete Perez)
Sleeman's Honey Brown (Ralph Link)
Guiness clone ("silent bob")
brewing high (Michael Cullen)
Clinitest fuss ("Kris Jacobs")
Partial Mashing ("David M. Campbell")
RE: Clone Brews (Guy Mason)
EZ keg/bottle filler (michael w bardallis)
Beerfridge Question: GFCI outlet okay? (Robert J Haines)
Polite response ("David R. Burley")
Shipping beer ("NFGS")
Re: Stepping up Starters ("Brian Dixon")
Another Test (MaltyDog)
lauter tun size (Boeing)" <BayerMA@navair.navy.mil>
clone brews--the book (Vachom)
an ad?... maybe. (quite long) Czech Transplant. ("Dr. Pivo")
yeast varieties (Biggiebigg)
Hop museums (John Wilkinson)
Mashin' in the Tun ("William Warren")
Guinness Duplication (Dan Listermann)
Cider season is fast approaching ("Victor Farren")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet?
Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@hbd.org
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 14:02:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Dave Justice <davej@nwark.com>
Subject: 1998 Ozark Homebrew Competition
Just thought I'd grab a little bandwidth to announce the
1998 Ozark Homebrew Competition (AHA Sanctioned) to be held in
Fayetteville, AR on Saturday, October 31, 1998. Entries are due
Oct 19-26. Details are at
http://holodeck.uark.edu/ohc98/ohc98.html.
AHA Style guidelines will be used. Best of Show wins a new SABCO
brew kettle (converted keg) and a trophy. Medals will be awarded
in style categories. Prizes will also be awarded for most total
points(1st=3pts,2nd=2pts, 3rd=1pt), best ale, and best lager.
The event is hosted by the Fayetteville Lovers of Pure Suds and
Ozark Brewing Company.
Several fun beer-related events are planned for the weekend, so
feel free to contact me for additional information.
Dave Justice
OHC 98 Competition Organizer
Fayetteville, AR
845 miles S-SW of Jeff Renner
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 15:26:02 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Enzymes - temps more
Steve Alexander wrote:
>From the long awns I think it had to be barley not wheat.
Actually, some wheat is bearded. I've grown it. A better diagnostic would
be if it were naked (wheat) or husked (barley), although naked barley is
not unknown.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:28:44 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Again ?
Everyone should sigh a sigh of relief that I canned my 8K respond on Clinitest.
You may want to page down anyway.
I'd like to see any additional Clinitest results from anyone (else), esp in
regard to beers with SG over 1.060. Without it this is my last Clinitest post
regardless of the attacks.
David writes ...
>I guess I missed how you determined how dextrinous these
>beers were [...]
HBD2801 where you yourself posted on Clinitest has my analysis.
>In the absence of knowing what
>the Clinitest result was at the end of the fermentation, your
This information is not absent - you just refuse to accept it. I reported 1/2%
Clinitest at EOF.
>strong ale information could be easily explained if the higher
>alcohol content caused premature flocculation and your
Or maybe a dingo ate my yeast, or aliens abducted them.
>carbonation did not complete fully -as I noted before.
As for "carbonation did not fully complete" - this sample was kegged not
primed. I also bottled a small portion of this batch 0.63% added glucose, with
no additional yeast and after ~30 days the carbonated bottle beer also read
1/2% Clinitest. This should dispel the notion that the yeast were KO'ed by the
alcohol level or other silliness.
Last time David claimed that I was challenging the Clinitest. Now he claims I
am using it to measure dextrins. Then he rejects data based on false
assertions about priming and premature flocculation.
>Please, when you repeat your various fermentations, check
There is no need to repeat my tests, I've already reported that >1/4% at EOF in
certain beers. Reproducing the result a hundred times can't convince someone
who rejects refuting information with made-up assertion.
And David responds to AlK ...
> You are
>correct that I repeatedly ignore your unsupported comments in number
>3 as should every other HBD reader
I supplied the support for this in HBD #2801 re the Tuborg wort. David
apparently hasn't read it The NONfermentables alone in a 1.043SG 63Cmash wort
hit 1/4% Clinitest.. Obviously increasing the mash temp or the SG will take us
farther from the dogmatic range by increasing the concentration of
non-fermentable reducing carbs.
I'd really just like to see data points from someone other than Me/David/AlK.
Anyone got 'em ?? Otherwise I'm getting a <1/4% reading on this topic - time
to bottle it.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:40:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom Herlache <th22@cornell.edu>
Subject: CAPital experiment
In HBD 2824, 9-15-98, Jeff Renner replied to a CAP recipe question:
>A couple of thoughts. First, corn should also give essentially no
color.
>It will, of course, add more flavor than rice, perhaps not what you
want.
This brings up the results of an experiment a friend and I did this
spring. Christoph, who is an enologist, wanted to know what flavor
contributions corn made to beer. To find out we brewed two beers
side-by-side. One beer was 80% Breiss 6-row malt and 20% New Hope Mills
unfortified corn meal, the other was 80% Breiss 6-row malt and 20%
dextrose (percents expressed as extract).
Both beers were doughed in at 104F while the cereal cooker mash
progressed. I pulled a corresponding portion of the 'dextrose' mash
and did a decoction with it to try to keep both processes as similar as
possible. The cereal cooker mash/decoction was added back, and the
temperatures of the mashes were ramped through 130F to 149F and held
there for 1 hour. The beers were sparged to volume (12 gal), and hop
additions (Hallertauer and Tettananger) were made (I weighed the hop
additions to within 0.05g, so the beers had very close to the same
hopping rate).
Each wort was split into 2 four-gallon lots, and the slurry of 1l of
Wyeast 2035 was pitched into each lot. A small amount of dextrose had
to be added to the sugar beer to bring the gravity up (it was 0.003 SG
points lower). Fermentation was done at 55F. Unfortunately, the temp
in the cool-room rose to 61F during the 3 weeks of primary
fermentation.
Tasting #1--transfer from primary to secondary. At this tasting there
were notable differences between the two beers, but each lot from
within one beer tasted the same. The corn beer had a noticeable
'creamed corn' flavor. Surprisingly, this beer was also noticeably
less bitter. I think this was due mostly to the sweet taste imparted
by the 'creamed corn' flavor.
The beers were then lagered in a 35F cold room for 10 weeks (I was too
busy to do it at 6 weeks). Then the beers were chilled to 28F and
plate-and-frame filtered at 3 microns through DE.
Tasting #2--racking into the carbonator after 3 micron plate-and-frame
filtration. The dextrose beer may have been slightly more bitter at
this point, but I couldn't repeatably pick it out. The 'creamed corn'
flavor had completely disappeared from the corn beer.
Both beers were carbonated to appx. 2.5 V CO2, and allowed to recover
from 'bottle shock' for 1 week at 35F.
Tasting #3--I can't tell the two beers apart at serving temperature
(around 45-50F). There is no discernible corn taste in the corn beer,
and the bitterness levels are identical, at least to my pallet. I've
had several friends try them, and they cannot tell them apart either.
Both beers are ever-so-slightly fruity, which may be due to the
unintended high primary fermentation temp, although it seems more like
a floral/hoppy fruitiness to me. The 20% corn beer does have a
<underline>very</underline> slight corn flavor to it if I let the beer
warm to room temp, but it's much more subtle than I had been expecting.
Both of them are really good, IMHO.
So, where did all that corn flavor go? Was it lost in the long
lagering stage for some reason?
Tom Herlache
th22@cornell.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:56:48 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: was re: Enzymes - temps more
Apologies to Jeff Renner who already responded to this post before I revised
it.
Jeff Renner writes ...
>From context, I suspect that what Steve meant to write was that these
>grains would or would not convert themselves, not that they would "malt."
Actually that they would have much lower diastatic power - but from Morts post
this appears not to be the case for oats and rye. Triticale and sorghum work
too. Corn alone has been used in some native fermented beverages - tho the DP
might still be quite low - don't know. So what grains can't achieve a DP of
say half that of malting barley ? Maybe I've been misled about this.
==
>>Just as a side note - a few years ago I noticed a barley shoot in my compost
>>heap. [,,,]
>C'mon, Steve. That *had* to have been from some other source. (And I think
>that black patent is malted).
Should have said roasted malt, not black patent.
>From the long awns I think it had to be barley not wheat. Still it's extremely
unlikely that any unmashed grist made it to the compost heap and the sprout was
from the middle of a grist dump spot. I can't explain it so I won't try.
In a separate email AlK pointed out that this grain had to have been
accidentally included unmalted from the maltster. This sounds likely - but I
still doubt it entirely missed the mill or the mash tun. It's very seldom that
a single barley sprout gets this much posthumous attention. I'm impressed.
SteveA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 18:50:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: PetenApril@webtv.net (Pete Perez)
Subject: HERMS
I am contemplating converting my gravity setup into a HERMS.
I read about this setup at www.PBSbeer.com. In a nutshell, they used an
immersion chiller in the hot liquor tank and a pump in a recirculating
setup to pump the wort thru the immersion chiller sitting in the hot
liquor tank to heat up the wort to step up the mash temp. Well that is
what I want to do.
I have a BruHeat that I picked up for $15 that I use so that I can heat
up sparge water and such indoors. I plan on hanging an immersion
chiller inside the bruheat (being sure not to let it sit on the heating
element), then using the bruheat to heat the water inside it and pump
the wort thru a regular old immersion chiller hanging in the bruheat to
heat up the wort. Does this sound reasonable? When I return the heated
up wort to the mash tun, should I pass it back in the top thru the
sparge arm or is there a better way? Will this sufficiently raise my
mash temp? What temp should I keep the water in the bruheat at (ie what
temp should i heat the wort up to before returning to the mash tun when
trying to raise the mash temp?)?
Can anyone reccomend a controller that I can add to this setup to
program to turn the pump on and off when the mash temp changes ? Or
even better yet, program to read a thermometer and follow a step mash
schedule?
Thanks,
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:52:52 -0500
From: Ralph Link <rlink@escape.ca>
Subject: Sleeman's Honey Brown
I have recently been introduced to a Beer made in Trenton Ontario, brewed
by Sleeman Brewery. It is called "Sleeman's Honey Brown" it is lager and I
really enjoy the favour. Would anyone out there, probably a Canadian who
might have a clone recipe for this very nice beer. If you can help please
send private e-mail or post for everyone to share.
Thanks group.
"Warm beer and bread
They say it will raise the dead"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 17:45:33 PDT
From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil@hotmail.com>
Subject: Guiness clone
Hey folks,
I got a couple of request for the complete recipe for my guiness clone.
I e-mailed a couple of responses, but I think that the attatchments
failed. So her it is...
15.2 lbs marris otter pale ale
2.2 lbs british roasted barley
2.0 lbs flaked barley
1.6 oz of 14.8 alpha nugget hops (whole leaf)
Yeast: 1056 or Irish ale, 1056 is too clean and Irish ale is too estery,
I prefer 1056, but Irish ale at a low temp might be ok also.
Single infusion mash at 150F for 60 minutes, and of course, hold out 1/2
gallon of first runnings, add too it a few grains of raw malt, and at
kegging or bottling time boil it and add it into the main batch. And
don't be afraid of the horrible smell. Use irish moss if you like, and
lots of chalk if your water is low. It won't readily dissolve, so you
can stir a couple of teaspoons right into the mash.
To avoid the inevitable thread on water treatment, mash pH, solubility
of CaCO3, and the like, DON'T FORGET, the alkalinity of all of this
chalk is only going to buffer the acidity from, the large amount of
roast. DON'T go and acidify your strike water to dissolve it, or you
defeat the purpose.
Good luck to all, and share your improvements on this strategy for
duplicating guiness.
Happy Brewing!
Adam
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:45:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Cullen <mcullen@netcom.com>
Subject: brewing high
'tis true
Operation Hypoxia has been eclipsed.
Stay tuned for details.
Mike Cullen
Long Beach, Calif
mcullen@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:37:18 -0400
From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake@net-link.net>
Subject: Clinitest fuss
Ummm, what ever happened to using the good ole hydrometer to get
an indication of how much reducible sugars are left in your beer?
Kris testing after fermentation: "Well, it's down to 1.010! Excellent!
It's done, time to keg!" and that's that.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:09:40 -0400
From: "David M. Campbell" <David.Campbell@po-box.esu.edu>
Subject: Partial Mashing
I am a novice brewer who up to this point have only made recipes using
extracts exclusively. I am considering a partial mash for my next recipe,
but it seems much more complicated and I am wondering how much of a
difference the addition of specialty grains will make in the final outcome
of my beer. Also, what advice would you have for someone considering a
partial mash for the first time? Thanks in advance,
Dave Campbell
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:05:27 -0400
From: Guy Mason <guy.mason@matrix-one.com>
Subject: RE: Clone Brews
Hi all,
This is in response to Chuck Mryglot's request for info on the book "Clone
Brews" by Tess and Mark Szamatuski. Tess and Mark run a homebrew shop
called Maltose Express in Monroe, CT. While I have not read "Clone Brews"
yet, I will get a copy (autographed of course) ASAP. I have tried several
of their recipes that make it into the book and was very happy with them.
Their clone of Pete's Wicked Ale is nothing short of amazing.
Disclaimer : I have no affiliation (sp?) yada, yada, yada. If you are
planning to open a homebrew shop and want to see how it's done right stop
in to Maltose Express. Also it doesn't hurt that Tess and Mark are just
plain good people who will go out of their way to help.
Guy Mason
Cheshire CT
"The tax you to death state"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:50:26 -0400
From: dbgrowler@juno.com (michael w bardallis)
Subject: EZ keg/bottle filler
John W sez:
"The crude CP filler I made consists of a #2 drilled stopper (#3 if using
the
plastic water bottles) with a length of racking cane through the hole.
... There will be more O2 in the
bottle while filling than with a proper CP filler but for short term
storage
it doesn't seem to matter."
A few years back there was a ZYMURGY 'road test' feature on CP bottle
fillers, and the _lowest_ package air level was attained using the method
John mentions. The trade-off was that it had the lowest CO2 retention
(approx. 80%, as I recall) of all due to more foaming. That foaming
purges the headspace pretty effectively; in fact, most older commercial
bottling lines use percussion or water-jetting to stimulate fobbing just
prior to capping the bottle.
Mike Bardallis
Allen Park, MI
Only three more weeks to RAF....
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:15:20 -0400
From: bjhaines@juno.com (Robert J Haines)
Subject: Beerfridge Question: GFCI outlet okay?
HBD'ers (and especially Forrest if you're tuned in!),
Luck smiled upon me this weekend and I scored a secondhand
apartment-sized fridge for free.
I've already checked to see that it works, so once I get it cleaned
up a bit, I'll be moving it into the brewerey ... er, uh, basement.
I'll need to run a 110 AC line to where it will reside. BTW, I'm
comfortable doing wiring work.
I'll be tapping off an existing circuit, and can easily take my
choice of going downline from a GFCI outlet (therefore getting
GFCI protection for the new outlet) or going in before it (resulting
in a conventional, non-GFCI-protected outlet).
I'd rather have the extra level of protection that the GFCI
affords (damp basement, ya know?), but I don't want to
have the fridge compressor (operating "normally") tripping
it all the time. BTW, the outlet I just used to check out the
fridge was GFCI protected and didn't trip, but that was only
a short (24-hour) test. Since there's homebrew at stake, I
want this fridge not to cut out!
Suggestions and advice are appreciated!
Thanks,
Bob Haines - BJHAINES@JUNO.COM
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:44:10 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Polite response
Brewsters:
AlK says:
"My polite response..."
Maybe you had your caps keys on for your whole message by
mistake then? No one reading the message could have mistaken
this and your condescending attitue for politeness. Unfortunately
it is difficult to re-write history when it is already written down.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:58:01 -0700
From: "NFGS" <fjrusso@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Shipping beer
All of the recommendations given for shipping beer should be used. But in
addition I have one more, of course. No matter how careful you are sooner
or later a bottle will either break or explode (pop its top) and the
contents will come out. Therefore you need to be able to contain the fluid
so it does not leave your package. I have many times packages wine and put
it in my suit case and flown across country. Never have I arrived at my
destination with my clothes saturated due to a broken bottle. Lets face the
luggage handlers at the airports are worst than the Post Office, UPS or
FedEx. I bag the bottles using either 1 gallon baggies or 2-3 small trash
bags. I do not rely on a single plastic bag to confine the liquid because
it can puncture so I use 2. Then I package as the other recommendations
stated.
Frank
fjrusso@coastalnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 07:36:54 -0700
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Re: Stepping up Starters
Bill asks about stepping up starters, and whether or not to keep the
original wort in the stepped up starter each time, or just using the slurry.
The short of it is yes, keep the original starter wort. This is very
typical. For example, make a 2-cup starter (pint), then when high krausen
is just starting to wane, add another 2 cups, etc. up to whatever size you
want (1/2 gal, 1 gal).
The long of it though, as expressed by Darryl Richman in the AOB Classic
Series text "Bock", is that there's nothing wrong with just using the
slurry. As long as you don't wait so long that autolysis (self-feeding)
occurs, longer than around 2 weeks that is, there is no problem in waiting
until high krausen is past, and sedimentation is well underway prior to
doubling the starter. It just adds a day or so to each stage of the
doubling. And, since you'd be (gently) pouring off most of the tired wort
and then adding twice the volume of fresh sweet wort, it'll take just
slightly longer to finish high krausen for each stage ... but not more than
say 12 hours or so. You can also wait with pitching your starter until
sedimentation has occured so that you can just pitch the slurry. This is
absolutely acceptable, and also the typical practice for large starters (1/2
gal and larger). High gravity brews ought to have around 1 cup of _slurry_
pitched in them, and that requires a starter of around a gallon to achieve.
Pitching the whole gallon would adulterate the brew by 20%!
Another advantage to doubling starters a few times is that your yeast gets
to have a gentle introduction to the (always) higher specific gravity of
your primary wort. I'll explain in a moment, but this results in reduced
risk of osmotic shock ... especially with the high gravity brews. And that
in turn reduces the risk of mutations occuring (which may give you 'wild
yeast' characteristics in your beer). I brewed a Dusseldorf style Altbier
one time that appeared to have this problem ... never could decide if it was
a wild yeast infection or a problem with mutated yeast, but I've been
careful ever since. Anyway, the way to ease your yeast up to the specific
gravity of the wort is to start it at the recommended gravity (1.020 to
1.030), then use the _brew's intended original gravity_ for each doubling.
If you are keeping the original starter wort in the starter (what I do),
then this will move the starter halfway towards the brew's OG with each
doubling. For example, if you're brewing a wort with SG 1.080, your starter
starts out at 1.020, and you double 3 times to produce a gallon of starter,
then the starter gravities would be like this: 1-pint = 1.020, 1-quart =
1.050, 1/2-gal = 1.065, 1-gal = 1.072. The first doubling causes the
largest move (30 points), and that is completely acceptable. As the
gravity, and stress on the yeast, increases, the jumps are smaller. With
the final gallon, let it go to sedimentation and pitch the
gravity-acclimated yeast into your wort. Works like a champ! And the
process is very simple!
Have fun,
Brian
"in Corvallis, Oregon, 2231 miles west of Jeff Renner"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:36:35 EDT
From: MaltyDog@aol.com
Subject: Another Test
I have been doing some careful scientific study, and I
have found another, better scientific test to find out
the end of fermentation.
A pregnancy test!
After all, yeast is alive, isn't it? If there's still food for
it to eat, then it's still alive. Pregnancy tests tell if there's
something alive in there. Wallah!! Scientific accuracy!
If everyone on this digest doesn't agree that this is a one-hundred
percent fool-proof test for end of fermentation, I'll tell you what I'm
going to do; I'M GOING TO KEEP SENDIING THIS POST AGAIN
AND AGAIN AND AGAIN UNTIL YOU ALL SHUT UP AND AGREE
WITH ME!!!
Thank you for your time.
Bill Coleman
MaltyDog@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 12:07:24 -0400
From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA@navair.navy.mil>
Subject: lauter tun size
collective homebrew conscience:
corky asked about what size of gott cooler to go with - 5 or 10 gallon. it
sounded like he was going to use it for mashing and lautering, since he
asked about false bottoms. one of the things that will be a factor,
depending on which false bottom is decided upon, is grain bed depth for the
vorlauf.
trying to brew a 5 gallon batch of a low gravity beer (bitter, etc) or a
wheat beer (not much husk in the mash) in a 10 gallon cooler could result in
a grain bed depth that would prevent the wort from clearing during
recirculation. very shallow grain beds in combination with some of the more
typical false bottoms (slotted screen, etc.) won't clear quickly, if at all.
there's too much disturbance of the grain bed too close to the bottom, and
the bed can't act efficiently as a filter.
if you don't care about wort clarity, it's not an issue.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 11:14:43 -0500
From: Vachom <MVachow@newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: clone brews--the book
Chuck asked yesterday about reviews of the book Clone Brews by Tess and
Mark Szamatuski. Just so happens I received a copy of that book
yesterday as a gift. I flipped through it last night. The recipes are
organized by geographic origin. The result is (and this may be the
books biggest weakness) that there are a relatively large number of
recipes for contemporary light lagers (e.g. Tiger, Singha, Foster,
Molson Ice [!], Maccabee, Negro Modelo, etc.). Although more
homebrewers are becoming interested in brewing CAPs, I'm not sure how
many out there want to brew up a batch of Molson Ice. . . .maybe I'm out
of the loop. There are plenty of German, British, Belgian, Dutch and
American clones, however, to keep classic style purists happy. The book
came at just the right time as I'd gotten some yeast ready to brew this
weekend and have been lackadaisical about working on a recipe. In
looking for something within my yeast's profile, I also noticed another
of the book's limitations: quite a few of the beers listed are not
readily available to me. I thought about brewing the Shepherd Neame IPA
recipe, but I have never tasted that beer nor can I get my hands on it
even in the swanky liquor store that stocks lots of cool beers. Now, if
your purpose is solely to brew some good beer, who cares if you can't
pony up a bottle of the namesake to compare. But then, the book seems
to anticipate a bit of competition--you against the defining standard
clone--but a potentially educational kind of competition, more on that
later. If you have access to lots of different kinds of beers and/or
have tasted many of them near their places of origin, this limitation
won't exist.
The graphics on the page are modern and user friendly, a bit like
frames on a web page or like contemporary magazine graphics. Each
recipe is presented with a little blurb describing the flavor profiles
of the beer at the top of the page. A partial mash recipe dominates
most of the rest of the page with easy to read instructions on mash
schedule, hop additions. In two left margin side bars appear
"mini-mash" (base malt substituted for some of the extract) and all
grain mash recipes. Access to a wide range of ingredients is implicit
in all of the recipes. Perhaps the best part of each recipe is a
prioritized list of yeast selections. Each recipe has at least two
yeast suggestions, all liquid or bottle cultures.
The book also contains a short introduction with some crucial technical
data--an explanation of their use of HBU figures instead of IBUs and how
to calculate HBU, extraction rate (70%) at which all grain recipes are
calculated, etc. I think this information makes the book useable to
homebrewers with a wide range of technological savvy. I was happy to
read the authors' comments to the effect that their object is not to
introduce homebrewers to the blind pursuit of reproducing commercial
beers but to introduce them to one way of discovering styles, and
developing a more discerning palate and, more importantly, their own
tastes. The authors encourage users of the book to "tweak" recipes to
accommodate their own preferences.
All in all a cool book, worth the money. I find myself gravitating
more and more to single brewer recipe books. I have several collections
of award winning beer recipes, but I've grown a bit tired of calculating
that brewer's extraction rate then reinterpreting the recipe into my
system's capacities. That's just pure laziness on my part, though.
More legitimately, however, I'm always a bit stumped by bizarre and
missing information in some of these collections. Case in point, an
award winning extract doppelbock recipe I saw in a major brewing
magazine lately: O.G. 1.085 and F.G. 1.043! Now, unless the F.G. is a
typo, it seems to me that this beer should have been smarmy, sickening
sweet mess. Even though the problem with this beer is the obvious
result of some remediable error(s) in fermentation, chances are I and, I
argue, other homebrewers, are going to flip along to the next doppelbock
recipe to find something that fits their ideal in practice and final
product, even if the recipe did win an award. Award winner collections
always seem to contain a number of these oddities or, often, recipes
with all kinds of missing info--recipes with no hydrometer readings, no
mash or hop schedules, etc. For homebrewers with even an intermediate
knowledge of brewing techniques, the absence of this information makes
the recipe unappealing. The Szamatuski's book, on the other hand, gives
homebrewers a solid base from which to brew their clone beers, a
potentially educational premise for any homebrewer.
Mike
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 18:44:29 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: an ad?... maybe. (quite long) Czech Transplant.
I just can't help myself.
I've had another one of my "projects".
This one's been in the works awhile, and has finally come to fruition,
and I'm feeling pretty cocky and proud.... and I think it's unique.
It started in the Autumn of 1990, when I was in Prague. While attending
some scheduled meetings there, I left the hotel at 8:00 A.M., while the
rest of the group was snoozing, and met Dr. Eduardo Roel in the door on
the way out. We looked into each other's eyes, raised our eyebrows, and
burst out laughing simultaneously. Yes, like little kids about to
engage in something naughty, we both knew we were on our way to our
first "Hostinec" of the day.
Sitting over our glasses of Popovice, we shared our common history and
passion. He had lived in Czechoslovakia for eight years in the 70's,
and I had been sniffing around cellars there since 1983.
Since I was passionately interested in the brewing craft that produces
Czech beers, and both of us in drinking them, the idea was born of
"exporting" the technology. Not just the "recipes", and ingredients,
mind you, but the whole thing.
This initial haphazard daydreaming, has incurred my picking up the pace
of my cellar wanderings (something that I do not find too unpleasant,
and is not hard to convince me to do), and while I am more of a
"dreamer", Dr. Roel is more of a "doer", and earnestly began with the
"business" side of things.
At that very moment of our first discussion, East and West Germany were
reuniting, and the implications of what that would eventually do to
Czech beer, were not at all apparent.
Things began changing rapidly in old "Czech Land", with the investment
of foreign capitol, and the usual
"conglomerate-rationalise-liquidate-modernise" strategy taking it's toll
of not only numbers of breweries, but the actual production technique
and quality. This sort of meant, that with each trip, I was never quite
sure what I was going to find when I got there, and sometimes we would
be comparing "yesterda's" to "today's" technology (and taste).
What has been particularly enjoyable, has been the joy with which
different people have met the idea (if not seen it's economic solvency),
the generosity in helping out, not only with contacts, but with
different parts of "the process", and even after mutual trust was
established, the willingness to share "in house" secrets.
It's been great to see "Real Live" Brewmasters, very open to speculation
about what actually is going on in the process, and despite the depth of
their knowledge, a keeness to appreciate traditional methods as the
means to make "beautiful" beer, even if modern market pressures are
pushing them away from its usage.
Moreover, within this single style (svetly lezac), it's been interesting
to see how varied the process can be at different breweries when dealing
with it. It's also rewarding to see them "breaking the rules" of modern
production, and producing such a lovely result. It turns out there has
never been any "absolute" correct numbers, isn't now, and never will
be...... I think there could be a tiny lesson here, somewhere, for many
of the HBD contributors (Gosh, I'm impressed with myself for putting
that so discretely and politely).
Anyway, about 1994-5 there crystallised out, that there was a visionary,
in Mr. Stanislav Bernard of the Humpolec (est. 1592) Brewery (now named
"Bernard" beer, and brewery). The moment I tasted "Bernard Pivo", I was
on the phone to Dr. Roel the same evening. It turns out that at this
family owned brewery, Mr. Bernard had seen that the real style was
starting to disappear, refused to modernise and expand, and realised
that there would always be a demand for the "real" stuff... he just kept
raising his prices to match inflation, and pay for his more labour
intensive, less efficient process.... and still has a demand far larger
than production.
Even better... It turns out, when broached by Dr. Roel, he thought the
idea was a good one, and was willing to take part.
As Eduardo, and I would thumb through catalogues of microbrewery
equipment, I'd howl at him to put away the ones with the
Cylindro-Conical Tanks, and whine about increased convection, more
intense fermentation, early removal of trub and the like.... while Mr.
Bernard's reaction was much more laconic and patient ... "Yes. You can
make beer like THAT if you want. Many people do."
The "ultimate" solution, was to have an Engineer working with Bernard,
design the whole brewery. It has the lovely hand hammered copper
brewhouse that guests think "is neat", but the "guts" inside is an exact
miniature replica of Bernard's double decocter.
So the brewery's in place, the moravian malt is shipped up, the Saaz
hops, Bernard's fresh yeast culture.... only one thing missing.
I bet you thought I was gon'na say.... no. I may be good, but I'm not
that good.
In steps Jaroslav Soukal. He not only has the requisite 5 year
Fermentation Science Engineering degree from Prague, has worked at
Bernard as a brew master, but is a helluva nice guy. It goes with the
"contract".
As the first stuff is about to roll out of the lagering tanks (by my
tastes, about 8-10 days left), it all seems a bit of a miracle.
I really don't know of any other place where a "Classic Beer" has
exported it's entire technology and design to a micro brewery, and seen
to it so thoroughly, that it is faithfully reproduced down to the final
product.
The beer is called "Bernard", the place is called "Oel Kliniken" (in
English: "The Beer Clinic".... where else did you think "Dr. Pivo" would
be associated), and it is located in Linkoeping, Sweden.
Licensing laws are a bit funny in Sweden, and at present, all production
is already contracted to a private group, and in that sense, not open to
the public.
I might mention that, as a romantic, I have no economic interest at all
in this place, just a hell of a lot of emotional investment. As usual,
I'm just chasing dreams, and the hard, everyday "permit applying",
"investor seeking", etc. etc., reality of actually making something like
this work, has been taken care of by Dr. Roel, while I sit on the side
lines, with one index finger firmly inserted in my nose, sipping
different beers, and wondering why such and such a procedure is done,
and what effect it could have on the final product, and continually
fiddling in my own cellar to find out if I'm guessing right..... while
others are actually getting the work done.
Anyway, if any of you "beer hounds", have reason to pass through Sweden,
try and let me know well ahead of time (I can be outside of the country
for many months of the year), and I'll try and arrange to let you get a
peak inside, and more importantly, a taste.
Since we can't legally sell this beer to you at this point, I guess
you'll just have to taste for free (business never really was one of my
strong points).
I sure hope this thing flies economically, 'cuz if it does, I think
there are a lot of folks here who are just gon'na LOVE the next
"project".
Dr. Pivo
(certain spellings have been altered to be ASCII compatable. Speakers
of those languages should recognise the intended term. Other
misspellings can be unintentional, and resultant of my very rewarding
years of study at the "Quayle School".)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 13:20:29 EDT
From: Biggiebigg@aol.com
Subject: yeast varieties
Some time back I seem to remember some discussion about the origins of some of
the commercially available pure yeast strains (ie wyeast, yeast lab, etc). If
memory serves me right, someone got it straight from the horses mouth in a
discussion with Dave Logsdon of Wyeast. Does anyone here on the hbd have any
kind of comprehensive list of the origins of the yeasts commercially
available.
How about it Mr. Logsdon (are you out there on the hbd emailing list???)
I would appreciate any help anyone can give me on this. Feel free to email me
directly to save the "bandwidth" on the hbd forum. THANKS in advance!
"Beer is the enemy of mankind. We must get rid of it, glass by glass."
Jim Huskey biggiebigg@aol.com
Salina, Kansas
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 98 12:39:19 CDT
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Hop museums
Bob Devine asked:
>Does anyone know if the UK hop museum is still going? Al thought
>there was one in Kent but I had heard a rumor it was closed or
>scaled back to be open only sporadically.
A friend of mine visited a hop museum in Kent last spring. He said
many of the hop farms have been converted to B & B's (he and his wife
stayed at one) but that the hop museum was still open. He found it
quite interesting.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: 24 Sep 1998 12:00:53 U
From: "William Warren" <wwarren@geron.com>
Subject: Mashin' in the Tun
9/24/98
Mashin' in the
Tun
M y fellow home brewers;
I am ready to make the move to all-grain brewing. Lately, I have been
making 2.5 gal of all-grain home-brew, but now I would like to brew a
full batch of clean beer. I only have one problem. I need a mash-tun.
I have one of those big coolers and I would to transform it in to a mash
tun. What I need is some really good directions on how to turn an
ordinary cooler into a killer mash-tun. If you know how to make one, I
would appreciate the help on this project. If you could also list the
materials.
Cheers!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:17:33 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Guinness Duplication
Jim Bush writes:
<Regarding Dans use of Saurmalz in his Guinness clone, I have to
wonder what the pH of the mash was with 3% saurmalz and I gather 10%
Roasted Barley.... Also, acidulation of the mash is very different
indeed from the methods Guinness uses of blending sour beer with
regular stout. The concept is very interesting but I wonder about
the implications of water chemistry and overall pH of the resultant
wort. I would also be sure to measure the pH of the final beer from
the spigot. Dan, let us know how this technique works for you as it
would certainly be a very easy way if it works in practice.>
I just kegged the stout today and I gotta say that it came out better
than
I expected. I don't have any Guinness around right now, but it is
unquestionably similar. I am going to do a back to back and see what
should be adjusted the next time.
We didn't take a pH reading when we mashed, so I can't speak to that. I
will say that it converted in about 45 min with no problems. I didn't
take
an OG, but the FG was about 1.008. The pH of the beer now, before the
CO2
has had a chance to calm down, is around 4.0.
Dan Listermann
Check out listermann.com Don't forget - 2 "n"s.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 15:18:50 -0400
From: "Victor Farren" <vfarren@smtp.cdie.org>
Subject: Cider season is fast approaching
I know this isn't a beer question but it is related so here goes.
I live in Washington, DC and want to know if someone in the area knows
where I can rent or borrow a cider press. A friend of mine has a house in
Winchester VA which is surrounded by apple orchards. I was planning on
going there and picking up a bunch one of these weekends and making cider.
While I am down there I could easily pick up extra apples if anyone is
interested.
Victor J. Farren
Research & Reference Services
PPC/CDIE/DIO/RRS
Tel: (202) 661-5842
Fax: (202) 661-5891
E-mail: vfarren@rrs.cdie.org
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2833, 09/25/98
*************************************
-------
