Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2929
HOMEBREW Digest #2929 Sat 16 January 1999
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:
AOL users: Turn off mail filters when subscribing (Homebrew Digest)
Fruit Fly Traps Again (WayneM38)
The Jethro Gump Report/1 ("Rob Moline")
The Jethro Gump Report/2 ("Rob Moline")
Yeast Pak temperature (barley)
Re Tube in PVC CF Chillers (RobertJ)
Dry yeast-ask the producer (Matt Comstock)
Wyeast 1968 (Mark Swenson)
Stainless & Magnets (Harold Dowda)
Pump and controller sources (Rod Prather)
Diacetyl thanks (John Adsit)
Re: US Grown European hops (Jim DiPalma)
Re: Diacetyl Rest (Jeff Renner)
RE: Eisbock ("C and K")
Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout ("Michael Josephson")
Stretch that yeast $ (Richard Hampo)
Moravian malt (John Wilkinson)
Re: Rum Digest? ("Tim Wauters")
Decoction, Part II ("Membership")
Non-Alcoholic Beer ("Poirier, Bob")
HB Supplies E-mailing List? (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
Re: Pump with Rubbermaid (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
Non Food Grade Buckets (Chuck Cubbler)
Vanilla Beans, Mail Order (SRNagley)
Re: US-grown European hops ("Fred L. Johnson")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition.
Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 21:22:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Homebrew Digest <hbd@brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: AOL users: Turn off mail filters when subscribing
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your ESB...
Everyday, I nuke a handful of AOL new subscribers because they have
subscribed to the Digest, but have left their mail filters on. The mail
error looks just like this:
>>> RCPT To:<Zerbphlatz@aol.com>
<<< 550 Zerbphlatz IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 <Zerbphlatz@aol.com>... User unknown
>>> RCPT To:<Pogo1113@aol.com>
<<< 550 Pogo1113 IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 <Pogo1113@aol.com>... User unknown
>>> RCPT To:<JCodespoti@aol.com>
<<< 550 JCodespoti IS NOT ACCEPTING MAIL FROM THIS SENDER
550 <JCodespoti@aol.com>... User unknown
If you have subscribed to the Digest from AOL, and are not receiving it,
take a look at your PARENTAL MAIL CONTROLS. If you are not allowing mail
from outside AOL, that pretty much kills your chances of actually
RECEIVING the Digest....
Cheers!
The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 1999 23:15:21 EST
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Fruit Fly Traps Again
From: Spencer Tomb <astomb@ksu.edu> writes:
>Traps are made by putting several peels or small pieces of over ripe fruit
>in a quart jar and taping a notebook paper cone (narrow end down) into the
>jar. The end of the cone should have a opening about 3 or 4 times the size
>of the fly you are trying to catch. This trap works on house flies too and
>here in Manhattan, Kansas we have lots of flies in August and September.
>
>The flies are attracted to the fruit and cannot find their way out. Be
>sure to have a tight seal where the cone touches the jar.
>
>When the cone trap gets a lot of flies I put it in the freezer to kill them
>and then feed them to my tropical fish.
>
This idea came from the Mead Digest:
About 1 cup of water, 1 tablespoon apple cider vinegar and one drop dish
detergent into a jar, glass or whatever.
Flies will be attracted to and drown in the above mixture. Toss when you have
enough flies and refill.
Fabricate trap to suit surroundings. Works well.
Wayne
Big Fun Brewing
Milwaukee
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:21:39 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report/1
The Jethro Gump Report/Part 1
Lynne asks about airstones in SS..
I had been using an airstone from Charles McElevey, for aeration of chilled
wort in a 7bbl system....I haven't bought one for some time, but the cost
then was 35 bucks....they would seem to be ideal for your purposes, as they
re just an inch or two in length, and are threaded to fit commonly available
hardware store fittings.
I would suggest that you might give him a call @ 206-932-6877, buy one and
evaluate it....I think they are ideal for carbing in a corny, and am sure
you will agree....
New Dry Yeasts .....
I have seen quite a bit of traffic on the HBD on the Nottingham yeast, and
as a fan of this product, I was pleased......
But, the real news is that Lallemand is soon due to release a new line of
dry yeasts, initially for the pro-brewer market, that will IMHO, shake the
yeast world up. These will be a line of dry yeasts that have originated in
the halls of the world's premier brewing institutions, been sent to
Lallemand for manufacture, processing and packaging, before samples are
culled for examination by the originating institution.
Only when the originating institution examines and approves the final
product, and gives it's approval, will it be available to the market.
The beauty of this arrangement should be obvious, in that brewers will be
able to acquire yeasts in the dry form that perform to the standard's of the
brewing institution, with the endorsement of that institution. Having hoped
for a release of this product early in 1999, the final 't's' are being
crossed, and the 'I's' dotted on agreements with the last few brewer's
training institutions. Look for release in the next few months to the
pro-brewers, and unfortunately, god knows when to the homebrewing market.
Clayton Cone's discussion on New Trend's in Dry Yeast @ the MCAB, will no
doubt focus on this.
Mill Efficiency, Etc....
It has been more than a little interesting to see the discussion of mill
gaps for various grains, and efficiencies derived from such......and as much
as I can never see any reason to disagree with George de Piro, I am afraid I
must in this instance.....and only as a result of practical application. I
cannot disagree with his more scientific approach.
When I first brewed @ LABCO, as an assistant, the head brewer ordered in
pre-crushed wheat malt, so as not to have to modify his gap for this one
grain......this practice I carried forward, initially, upon assuming head
brewer status.
But, as time went by, I wondered....and in a recipe that called for 100 lbs
of pre-crushed, I began substituting whole wheat malt in 25 lb increments,
over subsequent batches, with no mill adjustments....And with each increment
in whole wheat malt substituted for pre-crushed, there was not a whit of
decrease in extract in the final worts.
Mind you there may have been quite a difference in possible extraction in
the domestic pre-crushed versus the Belgian whole malt, but @ the time I was
not developed enough as a brewer to look for it.....my focus was on price,
and the benefit I gained from switching.
Cheers!
Jethro Gump
brewer@isunet.net
(please note new e-mail address)
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 03:22:32 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report/2
The Jethro Gump Report/2
AHA Board of Advisor's Nominations...
I am more than honored to have been nominated for the AHA's Board of
Advisor's vacant position, in the first position to be open to AHA members
for direct election. I am especially humbled to be in the presence of the
other candidates, anyone of which I am sure would serve the membership
grandly.
Being aware of one fact over all others, the ongoing contribution of the
HBD to my development as a brewer, in fact my major training, I can only ask
for one thing from the Collective......... that you make me, and/or any of
the other candidates, aware of your wishes, concerns or suggestions for the
AHA......
I do not wish to make the HBD a platform for campaigns...just ask for
input......
I am sure that the other candidates would also welcome this input......let
your concerns be known......to any or all of us.....
Jethro's Moving On....
Effective 1.8.99, my employment with the Court Avenue Brewing Company of
Des Moines, Iowa, has concluded. The sad /happy fact is that as a result of
the work I have done there with Steve Zimmerman, Head Brewer, improvements
in technique, ingredients, and procedure have resulted in a decrease in
labor requirements, and thus my position.
While exulting in a job well done, sadness over losing an active brewing
position is softened by a few factors......1) I have been retained by CABCO
as a consultant....a few details yet to be negotiated, but, I remain a firm
fan of Steve's brew's, especially his specialty beers...and am pleased to
continue our relationship.......
But, with the 1.5 hour daily commute (good weather) gone, I can now spend
more time learning from the HBD!
I intend now to concentrate on learning what I could not from CABCO,
restaurant operations, in a more local setting........McDonald's, or any
other restaurant, here I come!
Also, effective 2.1.99, I will assume the position of a paid web consultant
to the Lallemand Company.......this is a natural for me, and I was honored
to be asked.....I have long used their product in a professional setting,
and have only benefited from my association with them.......after all, they
produced the yeast's that made my GABF Gold Medal Barleywine......and the
rest of my beers made with their yeasts were great, IMHO.........
I will be assisting Gordon Specht, and Clayton Cone, with their responses
to questions on Lallemand yeasts, sent to the Lallemand web site.
Further, my e-mail address will be changing....to brewer@isunet.net.......
make note, if you wish....
High Points of '98....
"What A Long Strange Trip It's Been..."
1998 has blessed Jethro, firstly with a scholarship to Siebel, and then
with a flurry of other brewing events, not limited to BigBrew '98, MBAA
conventions in Madison, and a national in Minneapolis....GABF in Denver, and
a BrewPub convention in San Francisco ......these have rounded out the
year...
But, I must mention the folks that made it happen, sorry Al Korzonas, for
dropping any names!!! (Trouble always comes in 3's, huh?)
Firstly, Bill Siebel...how can I ever repay you and your brilliant staff?
Without exception, the lessons learned from ALL of them are remembered....I
won't name names, except for Dave Radzanowski...... whose continued
advice reminds me of the fellowship of brewers.....
Mr. Siebel, the fact that you continue to give, in the form of yet another
scholarship for MCAB shows that you deserve not only mine, but all brewers
support.....
Next, The AHA, for their honor in selecting my recipe for the Inaugural
BigBrew........the highest point of that event being the ability to call
homebrewers on the phone to chat while we were all brewing the same
brew.......and interact on the net with them.......from the east coast to
Hawaii, all in one afternoon, what a blast!
Then , to Jerry Hilton and Connie Hanner of the Master Brewers Association
of the America's..........Mr. Hilton made me want to be a part of their
organization, and Connie made me make sure I didn't miss a minute of it!!!!
To be blunt, Jerry is one of those that actively invites small pro-brewers
and homebrewers to affiliate with the MBAA, and Ms. Hanner is affiliated
with those......(ahem.....) that whispered, not too softly, about the 'new'
brewers, with disdain, @ a luncheon I attended @ the MBAA National.......
God Bless you both!!!! Each, in your own way, make me want to be there,
each and EVERY year!
Now, The Diamonds in the mix, the James Lee Ellingson's, the Chris Black's
of Denver's Falling Rock (who run's the best beer bar in the country, IMHO!
His association with and accommodation of brewers is unsurpassed in my
mind!), the Mark Silva's , the Deb Jolda's, the Peter Reid's ....and the
list goes on.......the Walsh's, the Draper's, the Babcock's,, , the Abene's,
the Bonham's, and De Piro's .only surpassed though, by Kelly Kuehl of
Schreier.....whose support of an Australian raised idiot like me can't be
beat!
I know that there are many, many more that deserve my thanks, but with so
many of you, how do I do it?
Finally, I want to thank LABCO, and it's ownership, led by Galen
Fink.....who gave me my 'shot', and to whom I owe all,,,
But MUCH more than that the General Manager, Russ Loub, and it's former,
many times removed Head Brewer, Bret Kimbrough.....without your combined
angst, and brilliantly definitive initiative, "How Not To Do Public
Relations," I guarantee you I would never have gained my scholarship to
Siebel.......Indeed, your efforts have had ramifications that go on and on,
even years later!
If there is any way I can obtain your wrath in the future, please let me
know!!!
Cheers!
Jethro Gump
brewer@isunet.net
(please note new e-mail address)
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:41:58 -0500
From: barley <mkitt@mnsinc.com>
Subject: Yeast Pak temperature
In HBD #2928, Frank Hight, who keeps his house temperature at 58-60,
asked about how to get his yeast pak going quicker. One trick I use is
to put the pak on the top vents of the VCR which always has some heat
rising from them. This raises the temperature by a few degrees without
cooking the yeast.
Michael Kitt
Old Bust Head Brewery
Broad Run, Va
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 07:54:37 -0500
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re Tube in PVC CF Chillers
Todd Kirby wrote about Cannister CF chillers:
it seems it would work slightly
different than the copper-in-hose type that every other vendor seems
to carry. Any satisfied customers out there? Is the efficiency similar
to the more traditional
style counterflow chillers? Do other vendors carry similarly styled
chillers?
____
Tube in PVC chillers were more common in the late 80s early 90s. At that
time there were 3 mfgs. 2 were vertical one was horizontal.
We stopped offering them a few years ago and replaced it with our
MAXchiller (the original horizontal cannister chiller, I believe, is still
available.) Tube in tube is much more efficient. Roughly to cool 5 gals of
wort takes 95 gals of water and 15 to 20 mins with a cannister CF chiller,
where an efficient tube in tube will take less than 30 gal and less than 9
mins. Copper in hose lie somewhere in between (article in BT, I believe
about 1995).
Using the canister type in the horizontal position will also be slower than
running it vertically
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:35:22 -0500
From: Matt Comstock <MComstock@shepherdcolor.com>
Subject: Dry yeast-ask the producer
I have been used both dry and liquid yeast during my first eleven
batches of homebrew. Every text I read cautions against using a "71
Ford Pinto" dry yeast when you can use a "REAL car" liquid yeast
(Homebrewing for Dummies). Various authors say using dry yeast is a
gamble as they *all* contain contaminants. I thought I'd ask a dry
yeast producer his views. I emailed the fine folks at Danstar and was
pleased to receive a reply within hours:
http://www.lallemand.com/brew/beer_yst.html
GeoClayton@worldnet.att.net
Greetings
I'm a homebrewer, and I have a question I thought I'd ask a dry yeast
manufacturer directly. In just about every homebrewing text I've
read, the author comments that dry yeast will harbor a small amount of
wild yeast or bacteria because of factors inherent to its production.
Liquid yeast ends up being recommended every time. I like to use dry
yeast. Its cheap, and you get a lot in one pack.
I could care less at this point about having the right profile for a
given style. But this is one obvious benefit of using liquid yeast.
So, I like using dry yeast, but this bad press makes me nervous. Can
you offer any insight?
For example, I've read that you never want to repitch a dry yeast,
that is reuse the yeast from the yeast cake for another batch of beer,
because *every* dry yeast contains some amount of contaminant. Some
author's comment about the freeze-drying process being a problem....
Thanks for any comments.
Matt Comstock
- ----------------------------------------
Matt,
You have asked a very good question that keeps raising its ugly head.I
will be addressing this topic at a brewing conference in early
February. There has been major improvement in the production of beer
and wine yeast in the past decade. Those that write negatively about
dry beer yeast keep referring to the drying process as 'freeze dried'.
This says something about their knowledge of the subject. Freeze
drying has never been a process for producing any yeast for beer or
wine production. Freeze drying has been a process that research and
culture collections have been using for many many years. The process
is horribly expensive and the survival rates of bacteria and yeast are
very low. No commercial producer of yeast for any industry would ever
consider freeze drying as an option.
The process used by the yeast industry for producing Active Dry Yeast
is 'Fluid Bed Drier". The survival rate through the drier varies with
each specie and strain of yeast. Normally, the viability coming out
of the drier is greater than 85%. This means that you will have 20 -
30,000,000,000 live yeast cell per gram. Each packet of our dry beer
yeast will contain 100 - 150,000,000,000 live, healthy yeast cells.
Liquid yeast samples will contain only a fraction of this number. The
shelf life is a big factor. If the liquid yeast producers, produce
the container of liquid yeast today and you get it tomorrow-great. If
the yeast is several weeks to months in route through trucking and
distributors, the viability can be as low as a few thousand per ml.
The standard for the presents of wild yeast by my company is less than
1 wild yeast per 2,000,000 beer yeast cells or less than 0.000005 %.
That is not perfect but mighty close to it.
It is just as safe to repitch Active Dry Beer Yeast as it is liquid
yeast. We do not recommend that any one repitch any yeast more than 2
or 3 times. All beer processing is subject to infecting the yeast
resulting in spoiled beer. The big, big breweries will repitch less
than 5 times to prevent the chance of spoiling a single batch of their
beer. These big breweries have pHD's in sanitation running out their
ears and they still take the precaution of limiting their pitching
cycles.
The most famous brewing school in the world (Germany), monitors over
400 breweries that use liquid yeast and repitch. They find that 20%
of all the repitching yeast samples are infected.
I am not trying to knock the use of liquid yeast. I only want you to
have a true picture of both forms of beer yeast to make a wise choice.
You are correct about the ADY convenience and I believe that you will
find that the economics is in your favor also.
- ----------------------------------------
George
Thank you very much for your reply.
May I post your response to the homebrew newsgroup I belong to,
hbd.org? Feel free to say no, but this info would be of interest to
many others in my shoes. I can always paraphrase and leave you out of
it if you'd like.
One question prompted by your reply. You mention your own company
standards:
The standard for the presents of wild yeast by my company is less than
1 wild yeast per 2,000,000 beer yeast cells or less than 0.000005 %.
That is not perfect but mighty close to it.
Do you have any idea for those of liquid yeast manufacturers? Is
there a bacteria standard as well, or is that simply: none.
Thanks again for the great info.
Matt
- ----------------------------------------
Matt,
It will be OK for you to post my response. Encourage your members to
ask questions. I do not know what standards the liquid yeast producer
have. I know several of them personally. They maintain very high
standards. There is no reason for any of them to have any bacteria or
wild yeast in their product. The viability depends on the handling
and distribution of their product after it leaves their facilities.
The total viability is not extremely import because most liquid yeast
kits have a step that allows you to build up the total number of yeast
cells before you inoculate your wort.
This added step is not necessary with Active Dry Beer Yeast.
Clayton Cone
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 09:13:01 -0500
From: Mark Swenson <swenson@aoml.noaa.gov>
Subject: Wyeast 1968
Greetings to the collective.
I have searched the archive for 1968 to no avail. (BTW, this surprises me.
I'd welcome some search hints.)
I intend to use Wyeast 1968 for an ordin'ry next weekend. I've heard that
it is very flocculent and requires rousting during primary. Is this true?
If so, what is a rousting plan that provides satisfactory results?
Thanks.
Mark in Key Biscayne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 06:42:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Harold Dowda <hdowda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Stainless & Magnets
Have several (legal) kegs. Assumed they were stainless. Magnets will
not stick to them. Wasn't there a post about some ss not being
magnetic? Thanks.
Also, other than using a torch (I may still be able to use one, not
likely) is there a reasonably efficient way to cut the tops off the
kegs? Which system (gas etc) is Easiest to use and still produce an
acceptable job? Thanks.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:27:38 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: Pump and controller sources
Quite a few weeks ago someone asked about a place to buy temp controllers
and pumps. The link was great and I didn't save it go my book marks.
Sorry to repeat, but does anyone have a link to this company. It was a
sellout/distressed supplier.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:44:05 -0700
From: John Adsit <jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: Diacetyl thanks
I would like to thank all those who responded to my diacetyl question,
both privately and in HBD. I would also like to recommend that anyone
with an interest in diacetyl formation follow John Murphy's advice and
visit George Fix's article at
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.2/fix.html.
That article answered my question and several others that had not yet
occurred to me. I learned, for example, that I was using, unwittingly, a
Narziss fermentation schedule.
- --
John Adsit
Boulder, Colorado
jadsit@jeffco.k12.co.us
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:01:14 -0500
From: Jim DiPalma <dipalma@omtool.com>
Subject: Re: US Grown European hops
Hi All,
In HBD#2928, Andrew Smith writes:
>I now try and use UK grown hops for my British beers, although I have
to
>use pellets or plugs, where I would have preferred to use leaf hops.
Andrew, I'm not sure where you're located, but I don't quite understand
why you say you "have to" use pellets or plugs. I get UK grown Fuggles
and East Kent Goldings in whole leaf form from Hoptech. They use oxygen
barrier bags purged with N2, the hops invariably arrive in excellent
condition despite being shipped some 3000 miles. You can check pricing
and availablility on their Web page. I don't have the URL handy, but a
search on "hoptech" should find it quickly. No affiliation, just a very
satisfied customer, yadda yadda.
BTW, I agree with your opinion regarding US-grown versions of these
hops. I've tried both Fuggles and Goldings grown in the US and found the
flavor, and especially the aroma, to be somewhat harsh. The UK grown
versions are much more refined, much nicer, and produce a far more
authentic finished product, IMHO.
> I
>would like to add another question to this: I use US chocolate malt &
>roasted barley for in my British ales, but I don't really get the taste
I
>want. Could this just be my supplier (I find it hard to believe that
>US-made roasted barley could be very different to to the UK variety) or
do
>other people agree with this?
There is, apparently, some sort of sieve test used by maltsters to
determine if the barley is too small to be malted. I have read that dark
specialty malts made in the US are made from these "culls", though I
don't know which maltsters engage in this practice, or even how much
truth there is in that. However, if you're unhappy with your current
specialty malts, I do recommend that you try Belgian specialty malts
from DWC. Their chocolate and crystal malts are of extremely high
quality. I've done a side-by-side visual comparison between their
cara-munich malt (a crystal malt of ~60-70L) and a domestic crystal
malt, the DWC malt was far more plump. The DWC chocolate has a
wonderfully clean, smooth flavor as well, I've been tremendously pleased
with my porters since I started using it ~4 years ago. I believe DWC
makes a roasted barely as well.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:05:39 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Diacetyl Rest
John Murphy <jbm@ll.mit.edu> wrote:
>I recently tried using a diacetyl rest on my CAP. <snip>
>Unfortunately for me, I definitely smelled diacetyl at bottling.
I hate diacetyl in lagers myself, so I sympathize. You can take solace,
perhaps, in the fact that many historic American lagers had the stuff,
according to Fix. Ugh.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 08:17:58 -0800
From: "C and K" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: RE: Eisbock
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Samichlaus Bier? Eisbock?
I'm not familiar with Samichlaus. However, was stationed in Frankfurt
about 20 years ago. Remember all too well the monks on the hill in Fulda,
or Weilflicken (sp?) who brewed their wonderful Eisbock concoction.
Occasionally, I would venture to The Frankfurt city center square. From
there, enter an old pub, and for 5 marks, taste this wonderful nector, in a
large snifter. After one (two if bold), step out the door, and truely
appreciate the sights of the city center: A magnificient cathedral, and
two doors down from the pub, Goethe's birthplace.
Winters were pretty cool, too, with Kriskindlenacht (Christmas festival).
An outdoor festival, serving piping hot Gluhwein.
Good luck on your search for Eisbock. Mine will probably have to wait a
few months. My wife is German, and we're going back to the old country
this year. Her brother has already has in store for us a tour of their
local brewery, Licher Bier.
Chris and Karin
Seldom correct...but never without doubt
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:07:12 -0600
From: "Michael Josephson" <josep999@concentric.net>
Subject: Brooklyn Black Chocolate Stout
In December I was in NYC, and while there I visited the Brooklyn Brewery.
Fabulous beers, great place. I bought a six-pack of their Black Chocolate
Stout, which is, IMHO, a world class beer. Now I'm down to my last bottle
and beginning to tremble at the thought of not having anymore. Are there any
NY brewers out there who would be willing to ship me a case? In exchange for
a similar favor?...some homebrew? Private e-mails please.
Thanks,
Michael Josephson
St. Paul, MN / Member of the St. Paul Homebrewers Club / Brewmaster of the
Black Cat Brewery
------------------------------
Date: 15 Jan 1999 12:35:04 -0600
From: Richard Hampo <rhampo@dttus.com>
Subject: Stretch that yeast $
Hi all,
Since there has been quite an amount of talk about yeast starters and
such lately, I thought I'd chime in. First, you should all know that
1) I am cheap.
2) I am lazy.
That said, I have a hard time shelling out 4$ for each brew that I
make. I am way too lazy to spend the time and effort yeast ranching -
plus even if it didn't take that much time, I'd rather spend it
brewing or making sawdust in my workshop. A few years ago someone
posted (here on the HBD, sorry I forgot who it was and didn't search
the archives - see # 2 above ;=) that they do the following:
a) Smack the pack & let it grow
b) Make a quart starter from the smack pack.
c) Split the starter (after finished) into 3-4 12oz beer bottles, cap
& store in fridge. Save 1 portion and use it for another starter.
d) Brew & pitch the new starter (after it is ready, of course.)
e) For subsequent brew, use bottled yeast/starter as the new "smack
pack" for another quart starter.
This has several advantages in my mind:
1) It saves $
2) You can get higher cell counts (I think) because of the multiple
step up - i.e. there are more cells in a 12 oz starter than in a smack
pack.
3) Lower chance of infection/contamination than re-using yeast from a
fermented batch.
4) For each subsequent use, there is no more effort required than for
use of a new smack-pack.
The disadvanages:
1) Takes a few more days (1-2 by my experience) between the original
smacking and the first pitching.
2) More storage space required than slants.
3) Limited shelf life. I have successfully used bottled starters (as
starters, of course) for 6+ months after I bottled them.
It works for me!
Best Regards,
Richard Hampo
H&H Brewing Ltd.
Livonia, MI - 3 miles NW of the HBD server
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:56:17 -0600
From: John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Moravian malt
I don't want to start up the St. Pat's debate again but does anyone have any
info on the Moravian malt they sell? How modified is it? Does it require
a protein rest? Overall quality of the malt?
I e-mailed them a question about the modification and requirement of a
protein rest but never got an answer.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - john.wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:47:02 -0600
From: "Tim Wauters" <tim.wauters@msichicago.org>
Subject: Re: Rum Digest?
I've been following the recent distilling/rum related thread with interest
since I've just finished reading a book on Caribbean foodways. Actually,
both of the following posts are correct.
SNIP #1>>>
>4) Rum is made from fermented sugar cane which is then distilled.
<<<END
SNIP #2>>>
It is fermented from fermented molasses, which is a
byproduct of cane sugar refining. The rum industry grew out of the
possibility of making money from this byproduct. Do you remember your 11th
grade American history class and the rum/molasses/slave trade, the
triangular trade route and the Molasses Act?
<<<END
Rum is primarily produced from molasses, but it can and is also produced
from pressed, unrefined sugar cane juices at some distilleries.
Interesting note: Unrefined sugar cane juice is also crystallized and sold
under the name Sucanat. It can be used as a substitute for some of those
difficult to locate (for me at least) British dark brewing sugars.
Happy Brewing or Rum Tasting
Tim Wauters
Chicago
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:54:42 -0600
From: "Membership" <mship@mhtc.net>
Subject: Decoction, Part II
My grateful thanks to all who have thus far responded to my decoction
question. Some further questions:
(1) I use decoction as both a means of temperature control and as
(experimentally) a method of obtaining end-point flavor and perception
benefits vis-a-vis either step infusion or the addition of other or more
specialty malts - e.g., caramunich, melanoidin, etc. I have not yet found a
way to step infuse or direct fire in my kegs without (a) too thin a mash by
mashout; or (b) scorch, despite rigorous recirc during the step. Any
thoughts on mash thickness at mashout of anywhere between 2 - 2.5 qts/pound
would be appreciated (assume 1 qt/pound at lower temps, 1.5-1.7 at sugar
rests, and 2-2.5 at mashout).
(2) My initial problem - how to step from 104 to sugar range - was due to my
desire to avoid a protein rest. No malt I know of, or have been able to
obtain, is less modified than an S/T of 45%. Since then, I have gotten a
couple of different viewpoints about protein rests and, from what I have
seen in the thread, it has been hashed over ad nauseum, but here goes an
empirical example: in talking with a local microbrewer here who, in between
"you @#$%^! homebrewers worry too %^&*($# much about too *&&%^!@#$! little!"
told me that over the years he has noticed zero difference in his "protein
effects," e.g., body and retention, despite the fact that he uses protein
rests and despite varying S/T and total protein ratios over the years. Any
current thoughts or, better, pragmatic experiences brewing with protein
rests using well modified malts (See DWC's current S/T for their Pilsner:
45%)?
(3) I am wont to believe that there are significant flavor benefits to
decoction, even with well modified malts. In reading further on George
Fix's thoughts, his emphasis on malt and, more, yeast as the prime
determinants of what I know of as "German" characteristics, and not
melanoidins or (necessarily) decoction, grabs and bedevils me. Anyone out
there who has controlled for decoction vs., for example, more (or other)
malts/yeast, etc., in their brews? My practice thus far, adding enough of
(or choosing other) melanoidin-laden malts to add a significant increase in
a malt profile has resulted in a bit of a bite, and a nuttiness which while
fine doesn't reach the mellow maltiness of the Dunkels I have enjoyed. I am
not a glutton for punishment, however. If someone has some data or
experience on replicating the "German" characteristic among the darks
without decoction, would you please post or let me know?
(4) Finally, the "twin-sugar" question. Following Darryl Richman's example,
as well as George Fix's, a twin sugar rest made sense for the dextrinous
wort I sought. I pulled the thick mash after 20 minutes at 140, then
brought the decoction to 158, rested for 20, boiled the decoction, with a
net time for the main mash at 140 of well over an hour. Most who responded
felt I would end up with a very dry beer. Of course, time will tell -
although, after 5 days, I have not seen the precipitous gravity drop,
despite the very active Krausen, that I have experienced in
high-maltose/very dry brews (this one: OG=14B; sampling after 5 days was
11B).
Since I am a novice at decoction, my uninformed theory goes something like
this: (a) by pulling the thickest portion (actually, at 36-37%, nearly all
the thick portion) of the mash, you essentially halt, or at least
significantly slow down, the enzymatic activity in the rest mash, at the
level it was at the time the decoction was pulled; (b) since beta-amylase
requires some alpha-amylase to release some chains to "bite" on, at 140,
there is so little alpha activity that beta is itself regulated to some
degree. A higher beta rest of 149 would mean a higher involvement of alpha,
and thus a rest of 149 for an hour would, indeed, allow a more frenetic beta
pace and consequently would yield a very dry beer, whereas a similar rest
time at 140 would not. Is there science here? Or merely the musings of a
dreamer?
Thank you for bearing with a non-biochemist, yet obsessive late night malt
profile and mash table scratcher,
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:07:28 -0600
From: "Poirier, Bob" <Bob_Poirier@adc.com>
Subject: Non-Alcoholic Beer
Greetings!!
A brew-buddy of mine just read something that sounds interesting,
but I'm not sure if it's realistic. He has a recipe for non-alcoholic beer.
Basically, you brew a batch of beer and ferment it normally. Then,
at bottling time, you boil the finished (green??) beer for 20-30 minutes,
add some finishing hops, then cool and prime with yeast & corn sugar.
In theory it sounds like it might work - basically you're distilling the
beer, but instead of keeping the alcohol, you keep the "beer" and toss
the alcohol. However, I personally would not boil the finished beer -
I'm somewhat aware of all the nastiness you can cause by
aerating/oxygenating finished beer. However, since the boiling point
of ethyl alcohol is 172.4 degrees F, couldn't you just bring the finished
beer up to ~175 deg F for a few minutes? How long would it take to
drive off all the alcohol??
Also, how would the green beer be affected by heating it up to
~175 deg F?? Doesn't Bud flash-pasteurize their swill before they
bottle it??
Whaddya say??
Brew On & Prosit!!
Bob P.
East Haven, CT
bob_poirier@adc.com (@work)
bpoirierjr@worldnet.att.net (@home)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:15:13 -0500
From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products@humphreypc.com
Subject: HB Supplies E-mailing List?
Andrew Avis writes:
> Now, I'd like to propose a web site. There is an excellent
> site for gardeners that lists mail order seed catalogues,
> and commentary from customers, both positive and negative.
> ... Wouldn't it be great if someone did the same for mail
> order homebrew supply companies? That way, people could
> vent their spleen on a permanent forum meant for that
> purpose, and the HBD could move onto other things.
Splendid idea, Drew! I've been meaning to post the same thought (great
minds 'n' all...). Not to add to the workload of our most gracious
janitors Karl and Pat, but maybe a parallel list to the HBD could alert
members to great deals on supplies, usable surplus equipment, experiences
of great -- or lousy -- service (from first-person posts only, of course!),
etc.
I do appreciate learning about these things form my HBD brethren (and
sistern?), but understand that not everyone does, so this would free up the
HBD for discussions of brewing (and french fries!)
What sez the collective?
Mark (Hey! Is that the sun?) in Kalamazoo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:50:25 -0500
From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products@humphreypc.com
Subject: Re: Pump with Rubbermaid
Doug Moyer asks
> ... Most of the fittings they sell at Moving Brews are NPT,
> which doesn't seem to be the right answer for a bulkhead-type
> fitting.Anyone out there using a pump with a Rubbermaid/Gott
> cooler? What do you do? I want to keep a 1/2" ID.
Try your local Farm 'n' Fleet-type store. You can find a variety of
bulkhead and barbed nylon fittings in the parts bins for ag chemical
sprayers. I'm pretty sure these aren't FDA approved, but boiling them
would probably drive out most of the nasties.
I use a 1/2inch barb bulkhead "T" in my 10gal ("alluringly-named")
Rubbermaid with a gasket cut from a Grolsch stopper. One side of the "T"
goes to the pump and the other to a 2ft+ length of tubing used as a
standpipe. By watching the level of wort in the standpipe, I can ensure
that I'm not pulling an excessive negative pressure on my grainbed. I use
a ratchet-clamp thingy on the return tube from the pump to control the
flow. Works great.
I hope just that chemicals fittings from screwing mind those my up aren't.
Mark in Kalamazoo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:02:32 -0500
From: Chuck Cubbler <chuck@maguire.com>
Subject: Non Food Grade Buckets
Momilies not withstanding, does anyone have an opinion, fact-based or not,
on non food-grade 5 and 6 gallon buckets? I have a source for these,
unused, and I would like to grab on or a couple to make a quick and dirty
mash/lauter tun.
Everything that contacts the buckets will eventually be boiled (sanitized),
so what could be the problem. Of course, if I were a commercial venture,
than I would be required to use FDA approved everything, but other than the
FDA's blessing, what do these buckets have that others do not? Is there
some component of the bucket itself that may be dangerous?? I'm in the
plastics industry, so maybe I should know. But in this case, I'll cop out.
Soon to be all-grain brewing...
==========================================
Chuck Cubbler
Homebrewin', Harley Ridin' Libertarians of New Jersey
Take the Quiz http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
==========================================
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 20:23:13 EST
From: SRNagley@aol.com
Subject: Vanilla Beans, Mail Order
After reading about a vanilla porter in "All About Beer" mag last month
my interest was peaked and I decided to try one myself. My question is
has anyone in HBDland brewed with or have any suggestions for using a
vanilla bean? I was going to hold it out of the boil and introduce it
in the secondary in a "dry hop" fashon but does it need to be prepared
in any way (I read one recipe in Cat's Meow that suggests that it should
be split lengthwise). Should I maybe make a vanilla tea prior to adding
it to the secondary? Does anyone know if the heading properties of such
a brew would be affected by the oils in the bean?
Incidently, I purchased my vanilla bean (just 1) at my local HB shop's
"Going out of business" sale. In fact this was the second store in my
area (NE PA) that has gone under in the last year and 1/2. I now must
travel 2 hours to the closest one that I know of that has any kind of
selection. I envy the people who have several to chose from. I single-
handedly tried to keep both Chuck & later Karen in business and I've
ordered via mail only twice - 1st for a wort chiller that noone carried
& once since their demise. I spent many a Saturday afternoon hanging
around these shops discussing beer & brewing and learned alot while doing
so, and I will miss the experience. I know that I would be a lot further
along brewing all-grain if they were still around. I come down firmly on
the side of buying locally and keeping the little guy in business.
Otherwise,
they won't be there when you need those last 2 oz of Cascades when
brewing
that reat American Pale Ale. Of course if they are dispensing bad info or
otherwise being surly, I can't blame you for mail ordering. But I guess
one can
get surly responses from mail order firms also:)
Steve Nagley
Old Forge, Pa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 23:56:52 -0500
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: US-grown European hops
With Mark's permission I am posting his response to my request for
information/opinions about the differences or lack thereof between
European-grown hops and the same varieties grown in the US. The following
is Mark's opinion regarding a few important varieties:
I don't subscribe directly to the HBD and so cannot post there, but I
thought
I'd respond to your question regarding domestic vs imported hops. I own a
homebrewing shop in Washington. In fact, my shop is probably the closest
to
the Yakima hop fields. In my 15 yrs of homebrewing and 6 years of owning
a
shop, my experience is, always go with the import. I find that the
aromatic
qualities of UK EKG's are far superior to BC EKG's. Likewise with
Fuggles.
It is interesting to note that genetic tests indicate that domestic
Tettnangers may not be Tetts at all, but are in fact Fuggles. Another
interesting note: Slovakian Styrian Goldings are genetically identical to
Fuggles. So why are they so different? Because of where they are grown!
The
soil, climate, etc all effect the flavors and aromas of hops. So, for my
money, if I want a Cascade flavor, I'll use Cascades grown in Yakima. If
I
want Tett, I use the imports. I hope you find my opinion useful.
Mark Henry
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2929, 01/16/99
*************************************
-------
