Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3001
HOMEBREW Digest #3001 Sat 10 April 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:
Questions on priming and bottle cappers (WyteRayven)
flat Bitter/infected beer/sanitation/sulphate/blowoff (BrewInfo)
duration of amylase activity--a long boring post ("bret.morrow")
Murphys/Heineken connection (revealed) ("PARKER,Myles")
Ringwood yeast (Harlan Bauer)
Slow run-off (Harlan Bauer)
SW Lower Michigan Breweries ("Kris Jacobs")
Unmalted Wheat/ Belgian White ("ajphoto")
beer tasting. ("Rob")
re:... I Spell Herrington ("David Kerr")
Re: Rice CAP (Jeff Renner)
Irish stout (Jeff Renner)
? on Jay Hersh web page ("Curt Speaker")
glycerine (nie1kwh)" <KHarralson@ismd.ups.com>
HBD3K ("Greg Lorton")
Year 2000 and Mills (Jeff Berton)
Re: planting time (B.R. Rolya)
My trip to Bean Town ("Alan McKay")
Bulk Malt extract in soda kegs (wkolb)
Myths about Utah beer revealed (Jeremy B. Pugh)
Re: Mash time ("Mark W. Wilson")
Carboy vs. Demijohn (Michael Cukrow)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at
http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier!
Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99. Details on the HBD Competition
Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier!
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, 8 Apr 1999 17:34:10 EDT
From: WyteRayven@aol.com
Subject: Questions on priming and bottle cappers
Hi all,
I have some newbie questions about bottling. I started a batch of cider that
I am planning on bottling in the next couple of weeks (My last try was
unsuccessful).
I plan on using Grolsh bottles. I would like to have a sparkling cider, but
I am not sure on how much sugar to use per bottle. I have also seen it
mentioned that corn sugar or syrup should be used. Is this the corn syrup
that one gets in the grocery store, or is it different? Is corn syrup better
than table sugar? Is there a difference in how much sugar to use when
bottling beer, wine or cider in the same size bottles. Will I need to add
yeast to the bottles? If so, how much, and does it matter if I use a
different yeast than what I used to ferment the cider?
In the future I plan on trying to find smaller bottles. I am a very light
drinker, and even using 12 oz bottles, much will get wasted. (Another reason
I want to use the Grolsh bottles, since the are easy to reseal).
Also, I am considering getting a bottle capper, and have seen one called the
Black Beauty that can come with an attachment for champagne bottles as well.
I think it is roughly $20. Has anyone tried this capper? Is it a good one?
Easy to use? Or should I consider a different capper?
One final question.....is it possible to brew beer in a gallon batch, rather
than a 5 gallon batch. Are there recipes that are listed for a quantity this
small. As I mentioned, I am a very light drinker, but would like to try
brewing it. It sounds like fun, but 5 gallons would be a bit much.
Dawn Watkins
wyterayven@aol.com
dawn.watkins@mci.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 18:43:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: flat Bitter/infected beer/sanitation/sulphate/blowoff
More ancient topics...
Andrew writes:
>Another way of dispensing real ale, occasionally seen in small country pubs
>(the kind which consist of one or two small rooms) is simply by gravity.
>These are called taprooms, and the casks are stored behind the bar. Instead
>of pumping the beer up from the cellar, the glass is simply filled straight
>from a tap attached to the cask. This often results, however, in VERY flat
>beer - too flat for my taste.
It all depends on the skill of the cellarman. What I know about cellaring
I learned from reading the CAMRA guide on it, talking to several people at
the Great British Beer Festival when I worked there one year and talking
to Mark Dorber, cellarman at the White Horse on Parsons Green... oh, and
personal experience with my beer engines... Actually, Mark Dorber has
taught me more than all the rest combined.
Basically, the idea that Bitter is flat is incorrect. Well-kept and
well-conditioned Bitter should have a sparkle. In fact, a good cellarman
should be able to get the beer to have a carbonation level approaching
many commercial bottled beers! We're talking nearly 2.0 volumes of
carbonation, although Mark hasn't been able to give me an actual number
yet... there was talk about Steve Hamburg perhaps trying to put a
pressure gauge on one of Mark's casks to see what kind of pressures are
encountered (Steve, are you out there?).
Certainly we don't want fizzy beer, but we also don't want flat. There
still is a wide margin between 2.0 and fizzy beer, so why is it so
difficult to get 2.0 volumes of CO2 into a Bitter? It's because the
cask has live yeast in it. The cellarman has four primary jobs:
1. make sure no beer stays on tap too long (oxidation, spoilage, etc.),
2. get the beer to the right temperature,
3. get the beer to the right condition (carbonation level), and
4. get the beer to drop bright (get yeast to settle).
#1 is a difficult problem because you are always juggling profit
versus providing variety to your customers... it's why you will
get a larger selection of better beer at a pub like the White Horse
which is *known* for a wide selection of well-kept beer (more people
come and drink more beer!).
#2 should be no problem unless your cellar is poorly built or has
unreliable cooling systems.
#3 and #4 are intimately tied... if you condition the beer to too high
a level of carbonation, the finings (Isinglass, typically) simply
don't want to settle and you get cloudy pints. So, the job of the
cellarman is to juggle #3 and #4 so you get clear beer at the highest
possible (reasonable) carbonation. This is easier for some yeasts
(i.e. for some beers) than for others, and it is the cellarman's job
to know how long each beer needs to condition (and time the conditioning
properly so there is a cask ready when the previous runs out) and on
how much condition the particular beer will handle without being
cloudy. Now, imagine doing this with beer from 30 or 40 different
breweries (or 150 at the GBBF!)...
Beer will typically be too flat when a cask is kept tapped too long.
Ideally, you would like a cask to last but one day, although that's
rarely the case. The casks should be hard-spiled overnight (and
in a taproom, possibly between pours if the cask is a slow mover)
and really should be taken off-line within a few days. Ooop... a
hard spile is not porous (plastic or red oak) where as a soft-spile
is porous (bamboo, often). Stronger beers can keep longer than Ordinary
Bitters (the recommended number of days is published in some book, maybe
the CAMRA Guide to Cellarmanship, but all my books are still packed
in boxes).
***
Vern writes:
>Sanitation Violations:
>1) Hairy arm inserted into cooled wort up to armpit prior to start of
>fermentation looking for rubber thingy - no infection
>2) No chlorine soak for 5 batches of beer bottles, simple rinse with tap
>water - no infection in any bottle
>3) 48 hour lag time - no infection
>4) Wort cooled in driving rainstorm with no lid - no infection
You have been blessed with good fortune. Actually, *all* our beers
are infected -- yours, mine... everyone's. The key is that if we
pitch large amounts of healthy yeast, they will overwhelm the wild
yeasts and bacteria that would spoil the beer and don't allow them
to multiply to numbers that produce *detectable* amounts of off flavours
and aromas. In other words, your infections are below the flavour
threshold, which is all that good brewers ask -- you, me, A-B, Miller,
Weihenstephan... everyone.
***
Jeff writes:
>Water - Low sulfate water is important for a clean bitterness. If you need
>to add Ca++, use CaCl2, not gypsum (CaSO4), which can give a lingering
>harshness to the bitterness.
I don't feel it is correct to say gypsum (sulphate (SO4), actually) adds
harshness. Many Bitters (especially those from Burton-upon-Trent)
have very high levels of sulphate (upwards of 700 ppm!) and aren't
harsh (IMO). Granted, the bitterness from sulphate is slightly rougher
than from soft water. In other words, a 30 IBU/700 ppm of SO4 beer *may*
have a similar impression of bitterness as one with 45 IBU/10 ppm of
SO4, because SO4 increases the perception of bitterness and causes the
bitterness to linger in the finish, but the former will be a touch rougher
and less "refined" than the latter. Personally, I love high-sulphate
Bitters and once made a 15-gallon batch of IPA into which I put more than
1/2 CUP of gypsum (I weighed it out, but turned out to be > 1/2 cup).
It's very true, though, that if you are making a low-sulphate style (like
Bohemian Pilsener) that you want to use calcium chloride rather than
gypsum for increasing the calcium/lowering the pH in the mash (note, that
only after reaction with the mash will calcium lower the pH!).
***
Mark writes:
>ian smith asked about how to prevent losing beer due to blowoff. i use an
>oversized carboy, 7 gallons, for primary fermentations, and there is plenty
>of headspace to prevent any loss at all. there has been an increase in my
>beers' head retention and hop presence, both bitterness and flavor, since
>i've been using this method (about the last 15 batches).
>the possible disadvantage is that the dirty krausen substances (break
>material, hop residue, etc.) remain in the fermentor. some sticks to the
>sides, but most falls back into the beer. this is true also for top
>fermenting yeasts that floc to the top during the hop drive. i'll bet if i
>backed down to a six gallon fermentor, i could have most of the dirty
>krausen stick to the top and sides, or get blown out, along with some of the
>top fermenting yeast, if applicable, plus lose less beer and foam-positive
>material than in a 5 gallon carboy.
I wrote an article that was published in Brewing Techniques (back in June
of 1997, I think) that described my blowoff-versus-nonblowoff tests.
In my experiment, I found very little protein loss (based on tests done
at Siebel) and no noticeable head retention differences. I did note in
the summary that if the amount of head retaining proteins was borderline,
there might be a difference, but my worts (1.050 Americian Pale Ale and
1.060 IPA, if I recall correctly) didn't show a difference. There was
also very little difference in higher alchols and esters. The only
major difference was in bitterness (roughly 15% less in the blowoff
batch). Blind tastings by BJCP and on-BJCP judges had similar findings
(they were not told what the difference was between samples).
Al.
Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999 07:50:35 -0500
From: "bret.morrow" <bret.morrow@cwix.com>
Subject: duration of amylase activity--a long boring post
Greetings,
The following is the results of a small experiment questioning the
functional life of amylase enzymes in our mash tun. Please note that the
primary issue is time, not the effect of temp. The "take home" message is
that alpha amylase, at least, lives beyond the length of the average
homebrewer's mash time (90 min).
Introduction: Over the last couple of years I have asked the collective
if anyone had supportable evidence on the live span of amylase activity in
the mash tun (homebrewer's or otherwise) without receiving a definitive
response. I was told by several including one homebrewer/author that the
enzyme activity is short lived--but no supporting evidence could be
provided. My concern was primarily focused on the necessary time for the
mash. If the enzymes are gone shortly after starch conversion (about 30
minutes), why should I wait an additional hour? Alternatively, if mash
enzymes die off before the end of the mash, I should be able to do an
extended mash, ala David Line's overnight mash, and get a similar beer to
what I get with the 90 minute mash. The experiment that follows was
designed to determine what the functional life span of alpha amylase is in
our mash tun.
Methods: The mash was 10 lb. Briess Pale 2 row malt and 0.75 lb. Crystal
(British, 60 lovibond) at 1.2 quarts water to each lb. grain. The mash
temp was 152o F and the pH was 5.1-5.2. Previously, a barley malt starch
solution was prepared by mixing hull-free pale malt with the mash water at
a more dilute 2.3 quarts/lb. to allow easy of measure. This solution was
held near boiling to eliminate an endogenous amylase activity. Equal
portions of the liquid from the mash and the starch solution were mixed and
held at mash temperature for 30 minutes after which the reaction was tested
for starch content by the addition of iodine. Two controls were run along
with each mash sample: 1) to test if the starch in the mash was converted,
a portion of the mash was mixed immediately with iodine, and 2) the barley
starch solution alone was held at mash temperature for 30 minutes then
combine with iodine. This later control gave us a positive (blue-black)
starch reaction to compare the test sample to. Mash samples were tested at
5, 15, 30, 45, 60 and 90 minutes. 2 people rated each sample.
Results: The first control (mash liquid + iodine) indicated that the
starch in the mash had been converted by 45 min. The reading at 30 min was
described as "borderline" with probably only a little starch left in the
sample. The samples tested after 30 minutes were all negative for starch.
All samples of starch solution alone tested positive for starch, of course.
The test samples (mash liquid + starch solution) all tested negative for
starch. This indicated that alpha amylase activity necessary to convert
starch to a carbohydrate not readily detectable by iodine is active in the
mash from 5 to 90 minutes.
Significance: These data indicate that Briess Pale malt has strong amylase
activity that lasted through out the 90 minute mash. Briess 2 row
generally has been reported to have very high diastatic power. No other
malts were tested. The original goal was to test our usual malt--M&F
Marris
Otter, but it was not available at the time of the experiment. One concern
is that this type of assay only tested for alpha amylase, and not for beta
amylase. This limitation is of some concern--"conventional wisdom" states
that if beta amylase activity continues as long as alpha activity then the
number of complex sugars will be reduced in long mashes. However, this
would require beta amylase to work at a much much slower rate than alpha
amylase so that some more complex sugars remain at the start of the boil.
Does anyone have hard data on the prescence of these proposed time
dependent complex sugars in the wort or the fermented beer? It would,
however, be difficult to measure these sugars and the net contribution to
the final beer might be more difficult to assay.
One of the original issues was this: can we extend the mash time without
having "thin" beer. To more directly assess this point we have brewed a
number of beers using an extended mash started at lunchtime and sparging
about 6 hours later. These beers taste similar to beers made using a 90
minute mash schedule--no loss of body noted. The issue, again, is time not
the temp. of the mash. For these reasons, we have put the amylase
experiments on hold and, barring some contrary facts, feel that both
amylase enzymes have done what they could by 90 min.
Bret Morrow
John Elsworth
Hamden, CT
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:03:36 +1000
From: "PARKER,Myles" <myles.parker@dewrsb.gov.au>
Subject: Murphys/Heineken connection (revealed)
All,
in confirmation to Johns Adsits post and in response to Scott Bridges reply
- go here;
http://www.heineken.com/ or here
http://www.heinekencorp.nl/
Myles Parker,
Canberra Brewers Club,
Canberra, capital city of
the wonderful land of OZ
(Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 01:15:45 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab@midwest.net>
Subject: Ringwood yeast
Dave Humes asks about the Ringwood strain. I've used it in 7-bbl batches
and love it--it ferments very quickly, then drops clear. I got mine on
slant from Dan McConnell at YCKCo. Great yeast--great price.
I haven't noticed it to have excessive O2 requirements, but I also
aerate in-line... Normal aeration should be sufficient, but this
should be true with ALL your beers. Proper aeration should be an
integral part of your process.
Note that my experience with this strain is NOT on a Pugsley system, but
in standard cylindroconicals--I've found no need for rousing,
attenuation was normal, and harvesting yeast from the cone is a snap. As
an aside, I'd love to try this strain in a large open primary and top
crop, say 7-bbl's...;-/
Substitutes would include White Labs ESB yeast, Wyeast 1968, or any
number of British top croppers. I've had good results with all the one's
I've named. My current house yeast is the ESB from White Labs. In fact,
I've currently got a batch of ESB in primary made with it--same recipe
as one I'd made with Ringwood this past winter. The Ringwood seems to
have been more neutral in flavor (signature), but it's really too soon
to tell.
Email me if you'd like to know more,
Harlan.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 01:38:35 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab@midwest.net>
Subject: Slow run-off
There have been a couple of posts on slow run-off. No mention of pH. If
the pH is too high, ease of lautering will suffer. This high pH will
carry on into the boil and retard hot break formation.
After mash-in, how long does it take for the mash to become "slippery",
indicating conversion? I've found that conducting the mash at optimum pH
decreases the time required to reach this "slippery" stage.
Hope this helps,
Harlan.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 06:32:36 -0400
From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake@net-link.net>
Subject: SW Lower Michigan Breweries
Jim Verlinde wrote:
This was suggested by the brewer at Arcadia Brewing in Kalamazoo, MI who
uses Ringwood in his ESB.
Jim Verlinde
Grand Rapids, MI
Jim, Arcadia is in Battle Creek. ;)
In Kalamazoo, we have Kalamazoo Brewing Company, makers of Bell's; Olde
Peninsula Brew Pub; & Kraftbrau, makers of semi-decent German-style lagers.
There might be a small BOP restaurant or two that I have missed, but those
are Kalamazoo's "big three". :)
Kris Jacobs
Kalamazoo, MI
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 09:29:29 -0400
From: "ajphoto" <ajphoto@columbus.rr.com>
Subject: Unmalted Wheat/ Belgian White
A few of our club members are getting together to make a
Belgian Wit/White beer. We have made them in the past with
moderate success. I've read that Decoctions and a 45 minute
protein rest will help loosen up the mash.
What about pre-boiling the wheat and/or oates before
they
enter the mash? Does unmalted wheat have enzymes? If not,
then wouldn't boiling the unmalted wheat gelatinize it and
make
it easier to lauter? If I am not destroying vital enzymes I
think I
may give it a try, unless someone can steer me in better
direction.
A.J. Zanyk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:55:54 -0500
From: "Rob" <brewmasters@texasbrew.com>
Subject: beer tasting.
All this talk on tasting reminded me of when I went through the Siebel
course. I was real hard to drink any of my beers when I returned home. I was
ruined for at least 3 or 4 months on commercial beers. What I'm bringing up
here is do you really want to know what all the off flavors are? Or would
you like someone else be able to tell you what they are? I still can't
enjoy allot of beers now that I know that I enjoyed before the course. I say
enter the competitions let the judges taste the off flavors and enjoy your
beers. Or take it to the poor sap who has torture him/herself on taking a
tasting course. Oh yeah if you do learn any or all of the off flavors in
beers be careful on how you tell fellow brewers. I've seemed to have lost
a couple of friends cause I told them that such and such is wrong with their
beer. :( I just told them what I would want to hear. And they wanted to know
if something was wrong with them. Enjoy your beers, if it tastes good to
you then that is all you really need. (Enter flames here)
Rob
Brew Masters
1-888-284-2039
www.texasbrew.com
savebig@texasbrew.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:09:38 -0400
From: "David Kerr" <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: re:... I Spell Herrington
I thought that the original spelling looked a little fishy...
Dave Kerr - Needham, MA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 09:35:04 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Rice CAP
"Chuck Mryglot" <cmryglot@Progress.com> asked
>A while back there was some discussion about brewing CAP with rice and if I
>remember correctly some folks were going to go off an brew up some. Anyone
>have anything to report back on this.... Jeff Renner...are you out there?
Right here! I haven't brewed it yet as I'm overflowing with other beers
right now. But I'm having second thoughts after tasting another HBDer's
corn and rice CAPs (he sent me a couple of bottles for evaluation). The
rice CAP was really light in all characteristics compared to the corn (and
extremely pale). I don't know the brew specifics, but at this point I
thinks I prefer corn. I guess I'll do one still for research purposes, but
probably a little later so it's ready for summer tapping. I think it will
be a good picnic beer.
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, 9 Apr 1999 10:15:11 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Irish stout
Michael Jackson's Pocket Guide to Beer, 6th edition, 1997 (p. 121) confirms
that Murphy's is owned by Heineken and Beamish is owned by Scottish Courage
group, one of the "Big Six" of Britain.
jim williams <jim&amy@macol.net> wrote
>Towards the end of this trip, I was drinking
>Guinness from the bottle, which is still quite amazing.
Does anyone know if it is still bottle conditioned in Ireland? I have
conflicting evidence. Apparently it is not in England anymore. CAMRA's
1996 Good Beer Guide, p. 22 says that after April, 1993 Guinness "decided
to sterilise, pasteurise, homogenise and do whatever else was needed to
kill off ...". However, Jackosn (ibid) says "The bottle conditioned
Guinness Extra Stout **** sold in Ireland best expresses the character
(9.75; 1039; 3.4; 4.2). " These last numbers are deg. Plato; OG; ABV; ABW,
showing that this is not the same as the stronger bottled Guinness sold in
the US.
I'll be going to Ireland in two months to conduct some research of my own.
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, 9 Apr 1999 10:31:31 +0500
From: "Curt Speaker" <SPEAKER@SAFETY-1.SAFETY.PSU.EDU>
Subject: ? on Jay Hersh web page
Has anyone had difficulty accessing Jay Hersh's Dr. Beer page.
The URL is <http://www.tiac.net/users/drbeer>.
I'm interested in developing a kit to doctor up some fairly lifeless
beer (like Coors Light - gasp!) to help some folks in our club learn
to better identify off-flavors and aromas. I have downloaded the Dr.
Beer info from the Brewery web site, but some of the things listed
there can't be consumed (i,e., add 10ul of phenol to the beer for
phenolic profile - I don't think there is such a thing as food-grade
phenol). I've got access to a lot of food-grade chemicals through
the Food Science Dept. here at Penn State, just need to know
which ones to use and relative amounts.
If anyone can give me a clue about Jay's web page it would be
most appreciated. Everytime I try to get it my web browser times
out and I get an error message.
TIA
Curt
Curt Speaker
Biosafety Officer
Penn State University
Environmental Health and Safety
speaker@ehs.psu.edu
http://www.ehs.psu.edu
^...^
(O_O)
=(Y)=
"""
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:41:56 -0400
From: "Harralson Kirk (nie1kwh)" <KHarralson@ismd.ups.com>
Subject: glycerine
There has been some recent discussion in the winemaking newsgroup about the
use of glycerine to "smooth out" and add mouthfeel to wines. Needless to
say, I am more than a little skeptical. Does anyone out there in HBD land
have any practical experience using glycerine in either wine or beer?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 08:23:44 -0700
From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton@cts.com>
Subject: HBD3K
As I sit here reading HBD #3000, I'm relieved to know that the HBD3K bug
didn't shut down my computer! and the power is still on!
Cheers,
Greg Lorton
Carlsbad, CA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:23:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: jeff344@voodoo.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Berton)
Subject: Year 2000 and Mills
In HBD #2999, Jack Schmidling wrote:
>Not sure what it means but in spite of mills popping up like
>mushrooms and the rise of a few serious competitors, our
>business has been virtually flat for years.
Just curious -- have your mill sales increased at all due to
the year two thousand eccentrics preparing for the post-apocalyptic
world?
Jeff Berton
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 11:37:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: br@interport.net (B.R. Rolya)
Subject: Re: planting time
Jay: I tried to send this directly to you, but the mail got returned.
Since it's planting season, I thought I'd offer a few suggestions for
city-grown hops.
I have a few plants that have been doing quite well in 5 (?) gallon buckets
(the white, food grade buckets that can be used as fermenters/bottling
buckets). I don't think that you need to get 35 gal. cans (that's also
*alot* of weight from soil, but I assume that if you already have a deck
that you are aware of your roof's weight limitations).
I punched holes in the bottom for drainage, and then added potting soil,
mixing the top third with my standard potting mix: 2 parts potting soil (or
3, depending on the grade of soil) to 1 part peat moss. I also added some
compost. I planted the rhizomes and watched them grow. I do fertilize
with fish emulsion once in the spring when new growth appears, and then a
few times over the course of the summer. I don't worry about pH (never
have, unless I'm dealing with a really finicky plant). My hops are quite
prolific with the minimum of maintenance. Hops are quite hardy; I
neglected 2 plants on the roof of my office because they had been infested
with spider mites and I assumed they would die over the winter. But last
spring, after no winter protection and no watering except for rain, they
came back like mad.
(George de Piro and I recently co-authored an article about growing hops in
one of our club newsletters; back issues can be found at
http://hbd.org/mbas/ in case you want more information.)
- B.R. Rolya
Malted Barley Appreciation Society
NYC
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:43:18 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: My trip to Bean Town
First of all, let me thank everyone who replied to my original request.
I got over a dozen responses, and am very much appreciative.
Unfortunately my trip got cut short. I was originally supposed to fly
in Wed evening for a Thursday course, then fly out Friday morning.
Instead we flew out Thursday night.
Also, it turned out that one of my co-workers had already made
arrangements for Wednesday evening dinner. I was pretty upset about
this because I really wanted to go to Redbones in Somerville, since
it was recommended by more than half of the respondants. But I
caved into my coworker, giving him the dire warnings "We'd better not
end up talking business" and "they'd better have good beer".
It was the East Coast Grille on 1271 Cambridge (on the Cambridge
side) that we went to on Wed evening. Our plane got in at about
8:20, and we were checked in and at the East Coast's door at
exactly 9pm. Fortunately they did have some good beers. Only
3 taps, but all microbrews. It was here that I first tasted "Tremont",
which I proceeded to drink just about everywhere we went. Very
nice beer.
My friend JP Boileau from Montreal (currently living in SC working
out of Atlanta stationed in Boston ;-)) met us there shortly after 9.
Unfortunately Patrick Finn didn't show, or if he did, we couldn't find
each other. You missed a good one, Patrick! Sorry you didn't
make it out.
The food at The East Coast Grille is easily 5 star! They specialize
in Seafood and BBQ, so we indulged in both since the company was
paying ;-) I had the Uncle Bud's BBQ platter, which had 3 types of
BBQed meat, along with some BBQ baked beans. I have to say that
nothing I've ever had before in my life came anywhere near close to
this. It was culinary heaven all the way! I'm glad my mom doesn't
read this newsgroup, because those BBQ Beans were almost orgasmic!
Not only do they surpass my mom's beans (which have always been
my hands-down favorite), but they leave them far, far behind in the
dust. Of course, one of the co-owners has written a number of very
popular books on BBQ, so that might explain a few things ;-)
The other 2 beers on tap had freaky names which I don't remember.
I really dislike the trend in our industry which feels the need to give
long and crazy names to beers. No offence to anyone, but I find it
really idiotic and annoying. One of the beer taps was a trout.
Oh, I forgot to mention that my fears about talking business were put
to rest when JP and I found out that both of the other 2 guys from
work that I was travelling with were homebrewers! Go figure, eh?
One guy said he'd been brewing since 1985.
We finished up there at about 11pm, and decided to go over to the
Cambridge Brewing Company on the MIT campus. JP lead us there
on foot - it was about a 10 or 15 minute walk. Most of the chairs were
up as it was late, but the bar was still open so we stayed for a round.
The IPA was very nice. One fellow there asked us "If Canadians
say "eh", and Mexicans say "si", why don't Americans say "B"".
I thought that was pretty funny ;-)
On Thursday was my course, but afterwards the 3 of us from work
headed downtown into the Boston market area. We had dinner at
a The Kansas City Steak House at Faneuil Hall. The food here was
absolutely incredible as well, although it was considerably more
expensive than The East Coast Grill (which was extremely reasonably
priced). They had Tremont on tap, so I enjoyed it while the other 2
guys had some wine.
Then we grabbed a cab to the airport, where we enjoyed some
Sam Adams while waiting for our plane.
Anyway, that's about it. All-in-all a very good time was had, and
even though I didn't get to go to the places I wanted, I still got to
enjoy some great beers, and some incredible food.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 20:03:07 GMT
From: wkolb@home.com
Subject: Bulk Malt extract in soda kegs
Some time back someone asked about storing and "serving" bulk malt
extract from soda kegs and pushing it with co2. This sounds good to me
but I never saw any replies. Has anyone done this? Do you have to use
co2 pressure higher that the kegs recommended pressure rating to get a
good flow? Any pro or cons much welcomed.
Don't make me open a can of extract and push it though a keg just to
find out how it works :-)
Thanks
Wil
wkolb@home.com
Happy Dog Brewing Supplies
401 W. Coleman Blvd
Mt Pleasant SC 29464
www.catalog.com/happydog
"We don't need no stinkin' born on date"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 15:05:17 -0600
From: jpugh@hjnews.com (Jeremy B. Pugh)
Subject: Myths about Utah beer revealed
In response to my recent post on Utah alchahol laws I received the
following e-mail from George Marshall, Midwestern brewer:
"I was reading your HBD post...and are you sure that you didn't mean 3.2% by
volume? 3.2% by weight is around 4% abv."
Thank you but no. I don't mean by VOLUMN. I mean by WEIGHT. And George,
thank you for helping me prove a point.
The statement above confirms my belief that everyone, including native
Utahans, believe Utah beer has HALF the alcohol of "real" beer.
I have made this same calcuation and come to the same conclusion, ergot
that Utah beer only contains only about ONE-THIRD less alcohol than "real"
beer.
During college, my friends and I conducted a study to settle the on-going
debate. However, our collection of primary data at bars and house parties
until all hours of the night skewed our findings, preventing us from
accurately measuring the difference from Utah beer and the supposed "real"
beer.
Once during the study, we wound up walking into this complete other study
where we didn't know anyone. Unfortunately, it turned out to be totally
lame -- most of the people there were in the non-drinking control group. We
had fun for a little while busting on them, but pretty soon we split.
Among the our team's findings: A 10-ounce serving of Jack Daniels can be
consumed 30 percent faster when accompanied by shouts of "Go! Go! Go! Go!";
the bathroom at The White Owl is a popular place to throw up; and when Dr.
Andrew Schmid drinks five Long Island iced teas, he lies down in the street
and starts singing the chorus to The Dream Academy's "Life In A Northern
Town" at the top of his lungs.
Seriously though!
A second study later in life determined very unscientifically that the
perception of out-of-state beer being stronger comes from the way alcahol
affects your body. Because drunkenness is a cumulative effect you begin to
feel the effects earlier when drinking 6% abv beer but after 7-ish 3.2% abw
beers your buzz is comprable to six 6% abv beers.
It's a placebo effect. As in, "DUuude this Wyoming beer is getting me soo
wasted."
Perhaps someone can explain how large-scale commercial breweries seperate
Utah beer from teh rest of the country when producing beer in, as the
commercial says, vats the size of Rhode Island. I can't imagine they create
a seperate "Utah batch."
Jeremy B. Pugh
Logan, Utah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 16:51:25 -0700
From: "Mark W. Wilson" <mwilson@ichips.intel.com>
Subject: Re: Mash time
Dave-
> brewer and it is today. Is it worth the compromise? I doubt
> it, but it does have some appeal to some people who can
> devote shorter time slots to brewing. It is better to brew
> than to not brew.
I just don't see how overnight mashing saves that much overall time. I _can_
understand that if you're doing a 2-3 step mash or decoction, it could be
convenient to break up the brew day. Assuming you sparge, you still have to
wake up and spend 30-45 minutes heating your sparge water before you can
runoff the mash. And I'd assume you also need to heat the mash to even
begin recirculation (higher temp = better runoff). You can almost do a
short 2 step infusion mash in the time it takes to heat your sparge water!
(30 min protein rest, 15-30 min sac. rest)
> Sorry, Mark, but I have met "professional brewers" who
> have told me lots of things that were B.S. learned at the
> knee of Charlie Papazian. This is one of them.
I haven't read any of Charlie P.'s books for years so don't remember much of
his advice. I'm going on personal experience. i.e., when I switched from 1
hour sac. rests to 15-20 min., similar recipies did not show much difference
in extraction efficency when using shorter sac. rests; I average around
75-80% efficiency.
> [Dave asks for details on my brewing process....]
My short-mash beers are typically in the 1045-1065 range, one step sac. mash
or 30min protein rest plus sac rest mash, _usually_ at high sac. temp,
i.e. 152-154F (but not always). Usually no more than 10-15%
non-malt/specialty malt grists. Portland, OR water is extremely soft, I
rarely treat it besides maybe 2 tsp. gypsum in pale ales and 1 tsp. CaCl2 in
malty lagers. My mash pH is always within 5.0-5.5 so I stopped measuring
years ago. Gambrinus Pale is my main base malt, which is highly modified,
but I've had good results with short mashes using 2-row pilsener and munich
malts.
> Is it worth the risk when you consider all the time this
> whole process consumes?
It's like the no-sparge argument; even if extraction is less efficient using
a shorter mash, I'm getting getting better beer in less time. The only bad
effect I can think of from short mashing would be haziness or harshness from
unmodified starches, but I don't get this in my beers. The reason I started
shortening my mash times was not to save time, but to get more body and
mouthfeel from my beers; less time for the enzymes to break the sugars into
smaller sugars means more of both.
At any rate, sounds like an experiment waiting to happen. Brew the exact
same beer, same mash temps, different mash duration. And, I'll try and dig
up some comparisons in efficiency, etc. from my brew log.
Cheers!
-Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 1999 23:17:44 -0400
From: Michael Cukrow <mcukrow@nac.net>
Subject: Carboy vs. Demijohn
In the hopes of expanding my brewing, as well as to take advantage of a
great deal that I got on
5-month old liquid yeast, I went out with the intent of purchasing
another 6.5 gallon carboy. On the
advice of a friend of a friend, I checked out a different homebrew store
which is roughly the same
distance from me as the one I usually frequent. They did not have a 6.5
gallon 'carboy', but did
have a 25L (roughly 6.5 gallon) 'demijohn', which came with a plastic
basket that will make carrying
it upstairs much easire. This vessel seems to be lighter than my glass
carboy, but the guy at the shop
assured me that it would be fine as a primary.
Does anyone know what the difference between a carboy and a demijohn
are? Also, more
importantly, will a demijohn be suitable for use as a primary?
Thanks in advance,
Michael Cukrow
Lake Hiawatha, NJ
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3001, 04/10/99
*************************************
-------
