Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3052
HOMEBREW Digest #3052 Wed 09 June 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:
dextrines ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Spam and beer? ("Sieben, Richard")
Smacked Pack Longevity; White Sugar in Real Ale (David Lamotte)
White Sugar in English Ales (Dan Listermann)
Compiled Responses to Yeast Question ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Manchester Yeast ("Paul Niebergall")
Ian's yeast (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
Yeast numbers/fast ferments (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Sugar in Beers, Fast Fermentation (Dave Burley)
Rotten eggs and Ayinger yeast (BioCoat)
stout rule of thumb ("Bayer, Mark A")
RE: Artful Brewing ("Daske, Felix")
Problem with bleaching bottles (Matt Birchfield)
white sugar in Real Ale (Stephen Cavan)
Spam slippage (Some Guy)
coffee in the brew ("Dave Blaine")
Missed the BUZZ OFF ... any other competitions coming up? ("Brian Dixon")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99
* (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html); Buzz-Off!
* Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)
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: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:46:09 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: dextrines
Steve Alexander makes some interesting observations:
<< >I think dextrines, are by definition, what remains when the amylases
have
<< >worked to the limits of their liquification.
or
<< >Dextrins are unfermentable polysaccharides because they cannot be
<< >broken down by the amylases in the mash.
<< Those are definitions of "LIMIT dextrin", not dextrin.
The first quote back is from my post, I believe in brewing terminology,
limit dextrins are to
what we are commonly referring. I will _assume_these are "malto-dextrin"
as
compared
to plain ol' dextrins that are used to make paste. Could you tell me if
acid hydrolysis
would produce limit-dextrin or the "other" dextrins?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:50:47 -0500
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1@aerial1.com>
Subject: Spam and beer?
Since when did the HBD start accepting Spam mail for publication? The last
two posts on #3051 were clearly not beer related. I hope everyone sends
them an e-mail in protest. Speaking of Spam, I wonder how that tastes with
a good stout? (there now it is a beer related post!)
Anyone have an idea how long one of the White Labs yeast cultures are good
for? I purchased one about a month ago and it was already a month old then.
I am sure I can step it up, but I am concerned about autolysis. It is a
California Common yeast. Now that we are fully in summer, what is the
maximum temp I can successfully ferment this as a steam beer without giving
it too much of an ale characteristic? Private e-mails ok.
Thanks
Rich Sieben
As a matter of fact, yes I did grow up in the brewery.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 22:55:18 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Smacked Pack Longevity; White Sugar in Real Ale
Mark Tumarkin has a smacked pack and doesn't know what to do with it.
I too have had the same thing happen to me with a pack of 1055 that was
especially imported for me direct from the states (Thanks Tidmarsh). I
popped it in the fridge for a few weeks and found that it was a bit
sluggish to wake up in the starter. It performed very much like yeast
recovered from a bottle conditioned commercial ale.
The other thing that I noticed was that the yeast had settled very tightly
into the bottom of the pack. Just be sure to give it a good shake before
snipping it open.
If however there is no action in the starter after 48hrs, I would not take
the risk.
- ------------------------------
Jon Yusko wonders on the use of White Sugar in the Real Ale book.
Graham Wheeler concedes in his introduction that there is some amount of
guesswork required to match the grist formulation stated by the brewers to
the observed OG etc. The amount of sugar stated was often needed where the
brewer had 'forgotten' to mention the use of sugar in their recipes.
As all the recipes in the book have been formulated with a fairly low mash
efficiency (75%), I tend to either cut the sugar in half ( using
Dextrose instead of white sugar) or leave it out completely.
Graham does post to the UK HBD (uk-homebrew@ale.co.uk), so you could
possibly post there if you require any additional info.
Have fun...
David Lamotte
Brewing down under in Newcastle N.S.W. Australia
ps cansomeonetellmehowtofixmyspacebar ;-)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 09:05:27 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: White Sugar in English Ales
Jon Yusko ( jyusko@rsacom.com) asks about English ales and white sugar as
mentioned in Wheeler and Prostz's books. I have been a great fan of
these
books since I Mr. Wheeler gave me two of them in Brighton at the HWBTA
conferance in '94. We went up to London afterwards where I had a Beamish
stout. Upon our return to the States I brewed a batch of Beamish per his
book. I immediatly determined that this guy knew something. It has come
to the point where I brew completely gonzo ( 100% rye beer ) or I brew
based on Wheeler's books.
You should know that I used to try to make all malt English ales and was
never happy with the results. When I discovered that almost all of them
use sugar at some level or another, my ales made a great improvement.
The
taboo against sugar is an overreaction to the abuse found on kit
instructions.
The only problem with Wheeler's early books was that they were accurate
to
a fault. As I understand it Protz interviews the brewers and picks their
brains as best as he can. Wheeler takes this information and trys to
duplicate the brews on a homebrew scale. The earlier books had
ingredients
that were difficult to find -a lot of invert cane sugar, glucose syrup,
maltose syrup and barley syrup. When I heard that he was working on
another book ( Brew Classic European Beers at Home) I contacted him to
tell
him that we Americans had a hard time finding some of the sugars in his
earlier books and some substitution guidance would be nice. He explained
that the British also had a hard time finding these sugars, but the
reason
they were in the book was that that is what the commercial brewers used.
It seems that he decided to make the substitutions directly in the
recipes.
I have brewed a bunch of them and found that they do not suffer in the
least.
Words of caution about the recipes are that Wheeler does not want you to
be
disappointed in the yield of you mashes so he based the recipes on 25
points per pound per gallon. I usually do much better than this so I
recalculate the grain bill based on my usual extraction rate. His hop
bitterness is based on only 20% utilization so I usually take his IBU
info
and recalulate it based on 30% especially for low bitterness beers such
as
milds.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:21:40 -0500
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton@iastate.edu>
Subject: Compiled Responses to Yeast Question
I'll dispense with the gratuitous insults and get right to the meat:
In general, the respondents to my earlier plea for information referred me
to the Lallemand web page. (http://www.lallemand.com/brew/beer_yst.html)
One intrepid soul also sent some very nice first hand data regarding his
use of Nottingham. His experience closely paralleled my own, so I can
derive some sort of smug satisfaction in the fact that I'm not alone in
thinking that Nottingham is extremely neutral.
Unfortunately, not one single respondent sent me any methodology tips. That
is, how to test these yeasts under varying conditions with different worts.
I will probably devise my own methodology, share it here at a later time
and then provide my results.
Muchas gracias to all the people who took time to respond to my question,
both through email and here in this forum.
Now I return you to your regularly scheduled program...
Jeff Kenton
"If you can't be nice, at least have the decency to be vague."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 08:49:53 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Manchester Yeast
Last week, somebody (forgot who) posted a question about the use of
Lallemand Yeasts. I just brewed 5 gallons of Wheat Beer (50 percent
Belgian DC malted wheat and 50 percent Belgian DC pils malt) and used the
Lallemand's Manchester strain of dried yeast. Why the Manchester strain
in a wheat beer, you ask? Well, I was picking through a box of yeast
packets looking for a really fresh packet of the Nottingham strain
(supposedly the most neutral flavored strain). Most of the expiration
dates stamped on the packets were for August 99. I inadvertently moved
one row over, found a packet with an expiration date marked December 99
and thought I had a really fresh packet of Nottingham. Anyhow, when I got
home I ended up with two really fresh packets of the Manchester strain.
So much for style on this one.
I havnt brewed with dried yeast in quite awhile. This was the first brew
in my new location so I really appreciated NOT having to wake up one of my
dormant liquid samples that I have in the fridge. After I mixed the yeast
packets with warm water to hydrate, I pitched the mix into my boiled and
cooled wort. After 12 hours nothing was happening. 18 hours, still
nothing. At this point I had to go out of town, so I put the carboy in
the sink (I was not going to come home to a mess this time), affixed a
blow-off tube, and left. When I got back late the next day, the beer was
bubbling away fine.
Anyway, a little long on the lag time I thought. I aerated as usual
(vigorous carboy rocking), re-hydrated, and pitched two packets of
seemingly fresh yeast. Even my somewhat under pitched liquid yeasts
batches take off quicker than this batch. It seems to me when I used to
use dried yeast exclusively, they always got going within a few hours.
Has anyone else experienced long lag times with Lallemand yeast
(Manchester, Nottingham, or otherwise)?
Paul Niebergall
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:11:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Ian's yeast
Howdy,
Ian works in a molecular biology lab (which molecules?) and grows his
yeast in his lab. One beer done this way finished fermenting much more
quickly than previous batches, down from two weeks to 4 days. This is not
only normal but desired, as others are surely posting. As to the questions
you ask:
1. Is there such a thing as adding too much yeast and having too fast a
fermentation, if so what are the possible consequences?
Yes, it is possible to over pitch, but you have not done so. In fact,
if I recall the numbers correctly, commercial brewers pitch on the order of
10^7 cells/ml/degree Plato (one degree Plato is about 1.004 for beers under
1.048). You pitched on the order of 2x10^5 cells/ml/degree plato. The
consequences of over pitching are "yeast bite," but I have never knowingly
tasted this effect. One of the consequences of pitching lots of yeast that I
have encountered is that the yeast more quickly die, called autolysis
(apoptosis?), and the off flavors I have tasted associated with this process
are best described as "rubbery" or "sulfury" or "meaty" depending on the beer,
the yeast, temperature, time... To prevent this from occuring you want to get
the beer off of the yeast cake once fermentation is done, which leads us to:
2. Once fermentation has finished is it recommended to bottle right away
or is the beer OK to sit in the carboy for a week or so
You should bottle your beer as soon as possible, but a week in the
carboy will probaly not be a problem, and I have gone as long as a month with
certain yeasts. The yeast will really determine timing in its probability to
autolyze and its flocculation characteristics. Temperature and perhaps higher
ethanol content increase autolysis, and the more the yeast drop out of
suspension the fewer get transfered to the bottle, so carbonation can be
slowed.
Not having used your yeast, you'll just have to do the experiment
yourself. My suggestion would be to bottle soon, within a week or two.
If it is going to take much longer, perhaps you should transfer to a
secondary container to get the beer off the yeast which have already
dropped out of suspension. I think you will be pleased with the results.
Good luck.
Mike Maceyka
Baltimore, MD
Yeast ranching instead of thesis writing...
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Yeast numbers/fast ferments
Ian Smith had some questions concerning yeast starters...
>The first few brews that I made were from kits and they turned out OK,
>fermentation time was 7 days in primary 7-10 days in secondary. The yeast
>from the kit was one of those little packets of dry no-name ale yeast.
The relatively slow ferments here were likely due to pitching too few yeast
(underpitching), depending on the viability of the dry yeast packet and
whether or not you amplified the numbers (step-up) before pitching.
>I work in a molecular biology lab so I took advantage of a ready supply
>of plates and media to streak out the yeast and since I've switched to
>extract and specialty grain, I've been using this plate and others I've
>made since as my yeast source. I would pick a colony , innoculate a 500
>ml starter, and grow it up in the lab at room temp either in a shaker at
>220 rpm or with a stir plate. Both methods have produced plenty of
>yeast,(roughly 10 g wet cell weight, or 4x10^10 cells) which I would then
>pellet and bring home in a 10 ml slurry.
Ahhhhh good, another molecular biologist! Welcome. Did you by any chance know
Cal Harley while he was there? Is Silvia Bachetti still up there?
Mike Maceyka and I are also Mol. Biologists (he's just stepped his foot into
the "Is brewing an art or a science?" quagmire on the HBD) and, in this past
year, we have focused much of our attention on getting adequate yeast
straters.
If you can search the HBD archives on the web, check out posts related to
"stir plates" we had some discussions on their use in making starters and
recommended yeast innoculum size. Basically, if you can get to 2 x 10^11 cells
that is a good number for pitching in a 5 gallon batch (though this is
supposedly still an order of magnitude lower than commercial pitch rates!!).
Both Mike and I have taken pains to use sufficiently large pitches this past
year and (empirically) we both have seen improvements in the resulting beer
quality.
We find that if we grow up a 1 liter YPD culture using 2X the amount of
glucose called for we can hit the 200 billion mark at saturation. A key point,
both for good growth of the starter and having that starter ultimately be in
good shape for pitching, is to make sure the culture is WELL AERATED. I use a
stir plate and flask with the largest surface area I can get my hands on. Mike
is more fortunate, being in a lab that routinely uses yeast - he has a 30 degC
shaking water bath which is ideal.
If coming off of streak plates you might want to pick several well formed,
well isolated colonies to avoid accidentally selecting that one colony that
decided to mutate...
>My last batch of beer was pitched Monday night (SG 1.040 23L volume) and
>Saturday morning I racked it to the carboy (SG 1.009) and there has been no
>visible yeast activity since. So fermentation was complete in about 4
>days instead of the 2 weeks previously experienced.
Did you use a larger starter than in the past? Did you perhaps oxygenate the
wort better this time before pitching (potentially decreasing the lag time)?
I'd say 3-4 days is a pretty good amount of time for primary fermentation.
>So my questions are:
>1. Is there such a thing as adding too much yeast and having too fast a
>fermentation, if so what are the possible consequences?
There is at least one scientific paper that I know of showing that
overpitching can lead to reduced yeast viability but I have doubts about their
conclusions. I have also seen brief mentions of adverse conditions supposedly
resulting from overpitching. There have been discussions here on the HBD
concerning pitch size, yeast growth potential, and growth cessation
due to nutrient depletion. The basic idea here is that there is a
tradeoff between the utilization of the wort nutrients to "grow yeast biomass"
vs "making beer." You can search the old archives for info on these topics or
just post another question, I'm sure people will jump all over it.
As far as your average homebrewer goes, is it likely we'll ever be
overpitching? Not bloody likely. I'd have to grow up the equivalent of 10 L
saturated YPD culture just to get up to the commercial pitch rate (which, one
reasonably assumes is not going to lead to problems from overpitching. On the
other hand, I suppose you could argue that for commercial brewers high
throughput is obviously going to be a big factor in how much they are pitching
- are they perhaps compromising a bit on quality in the finished product in
order to maximize yields?? Also, the commercial rate may be more for LAGER
yeast than for ALE - you need higher pitch rates for the lager, I'll have to
check on this.
>2. Once fermentation has finished is it recommended to bottle right away
>or is the beer OK to sit in the carboy for a week or so
Sitting for a week or so /probably/ won't hurt but, like many things in
brewing, the answer is often "it depends." For instance, over time the yeast
will autolyze which can definitely cause off flavors in the final beer. At
what rate this will happen depends on a number of factors such as overall
health of the yeast (itself dependent on many variables eg - sufficient oxygen
during starter growth and primary ferment, availaility of nutrients in the
wort, etc), the strain of the yeast, the temperature, the type of beer (if
high alcohol and you have a low alcohol tollerant yeast it might croak).
Many people rack over to a secondary container, usually for further clearing
and conditioning before bottling.
Hope this helps,
Alan Meeker
Johns Hopkins Univ. Sch of Medicine
Baltimore, MD.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:05:29 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sugar in Beers, Fast Fermentation
Brewsters:
Jon Yusko asks with disbelief, after reading
the Wheeler book on how to make real ales,
if the Brits use sugar in their ales.
Yep, just like the Belgians. ( some use rock
candi sugar and some are more modern)
And they have for at least a century, if not
longer. I believe the First World War was the
excuse for a widespread use when
homegrown grain was limited, but the
sugar trade with the West Indies was
still open and a British franchise., The
Second World War was their excuse for
reducing the OG, since the German U-boots
closed the Atlantic trade routes.
Oh, how economics and war have
interacted to reduce competition for the
best taste and produce inferior tasting
beers now thought to be "normal" even
"Real" and form the basis for judging.
Sugar reduces the nitrogen content of
the grist for a given OG, an important
clarity factor in single infusion beers.
It also increases the amount of beer
which can be produced from a given plant.
I, too, have read that sugar produces a
"cidery" beer, but expect it has to do with
perhaps inexperienced brewers using too
much, not boiling the sugar to sterilize it and
pitching too low a yeast population such
that there was an infection in the beer. I
did all these things ( and did a warm
fermentation!) and I got a cidery taste
according to my notes of 1969. Using
around 10% sugar and boiling the
syrup will produce a good result with
proper pitching as my later beers ( a
knock off of a Newcastle Brown Ale)
demonstrated.
To copy modern British Ales, use table
sugar (sucrose) or as some of the brewers
do (Old Peculier comes to mind)
use molasses for a taste from the adjunct.
Based on my own taste, I believe that
Corona (at least what I used to drink in
Mexico) has a large portion of the cane in it.
This makes it lighter in color and cheaper
to make ( after all it IS the blue collar drink
of Mexico). Interesting, huh?
The use of unmalted grain adjuncts is sort
of like adding sugar, except there are subtle
flavors and characters imparted by corn
and rice which have become part of the
expected character of certain beers..
- --------------------------------------
Ian Smith asks about his speedy
fermentation.
Ian, one of the mistakes beginners make
is to confuse the apparent lack of CO2 being
evolved with thinking the fermentation is
finished. Sometimes, when you rack you
may wonder "Huh, why did this fermenting
batch stop fermenting when I racked it?"
Answer: It didn't, you just kicked out the
excess CO2 when you racked it and
it may "restart" in a few days. The
fermentation goes exponentially
slower and even more as the yeast
flocculate and fall from the wort, especially
when the CO2 bubbles which suspend
yeast are gone.
It may also be that you
removed a big chunk of the yeast
from being in contact with the wort when
you racked it.
Also this batch may have finished faster
since you may have fermented it at a
higher temperature.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:15:48 EDT
From: BioCoat@aol.com
Subject: Rotten eggs and Ayinger yeast
I have been fermenting a Dortmunder for 2 days now and am getting a very
strong sulfur/rotten egg smell. I am using the Ayinger yeast from YCKC . Has
anyone else seen this behavior with this yeast?
Thanks in advice
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:18:40 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: stout rule of thumb
collective homebrew conscience_
mark s. wrote:
>Hi. I'm looking for a little "rule of thumb" guidance for my next partial
>mash dry stout effort.<snip>
>I'd like to add about 1 lb. of roasted barley and 1 lb. of
>flaked barley to my mash, but I'm concerned that 3 lbs. of pale malt will
>not have the diastatic power to convert the flaked barley.
if you are concerned about enzyme capability due to adjunct percentage, i
believe you will want to optimize your mashing conditions to get max.
performance from the enzymes.
if your water does not contain sufficient alkalinity, and you try to mash 1
pound of roasted barley in a 5 pound mash, you will not be in the optimum ph
range for alpha amylase. one thing you may want to consider is not adding
in all the roasted barley until you've given the pale malt and flaked barley
some time together to get the majority of the starch converted. you can
always add some or all of the roasted barley later to get some color and
flavor.
there was an article in bt a while back that gave some data on how roasted
malts affected the mash ph. you may want to seek that out if you know what
the alkalinity of your water is.
i know this does not address your adjunct percentage question, but it might
help your mashing.
hey, i thought i saw a couple of spam-beer recipes in the last digest.
doesn't that violate the hbd purity law or something?
brew hard,
mark bayer
stlmo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 10:22:08 -0700
From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF@bcrail.com>
Subject: RE: Artful Brewing
MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA clearly presents his thoughts when he,
in HBD#3049, discussed the notion of brewing as science. I was
hard press to fault Michael's explanation of why he thought
brewing was science, and would like to add that I enjoyed his
rhetoric.
Although I am flattered that Michael considers me a scientist,
due to my regularly close proximity to brewing equipment and my
ability to use said equipment to "create" beer, I will exercise
my right to "... have healthy skepticism about what other brewers
say,..." and disagree <G> I, too, could not begin to describe
to you the meaning of art. However, I can describe how I feel
when I perform activities which "people who should know say"
constitute art. Elated, light, creative, fulfilled (spiritual
or otherwise), magical, etc. I used to gain mental and physical
energy from singing, playing a musical instrument, painted, etc.
Things which I no longer do - various reasons, all psychological.
I now get this artful energy from baking, cooking, and brewing.
I have just 'come down' from an artful experience of parti-gyle
brewing. Using the many resources available to me, not the
least of which is this very digest, I created 3 gallons of Strong
Belgian and 6 gallons of "Honey Scotch" ale from about 15 lbs
of grain, 1 lb of adjunct, 2 lbs of clover honey, and Belgian
Abbey and London Ale yeast strains. The 'experience' lasted
about 4 days cumulating on Sunday with a 10 hour brewing session
(need to by a 5 gallon pot for the first 1/3 BIG beer). Are these
beers brewed to style (...) NOT strictly speaking - a little
adjunct is in the Scotch Ale, London ale yeast and the honey may
not be appropriate (?) that, in part, is the creative bit.
I need science to 'explain' brewing to me, I need science
to make quick adjustments, I need science to help taste the
results of my efforts however, the art of brewing, cooking
and baking help define who I am. Call it what you will.
kind regards, Felix
Fallen Rock Home Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 14:46:52 -0400
From: Matt Birchfield <peridot@usit.net>
Subject: Problem with bleaching bottles
Hi All,
I have had this happen only once before, and I'm not sure what's going
on ...
2 days ago I made a fresh bleach solution in preparation for bottling
an IPA today. I immersed ~3 cases of bottles in the trash can full of
bleach solution. Getting ready to bottle I rinsed all of the bottles
with VERY hot tap water and put them on the drainer, racked and primed
the beer in the bottling bucket, and started to fill. It was then I
noticed what looked like grit on the inside of almost every bottle.
What is the grit? It looks a lot like the deposits in the kettle
after boiling and cooling my hard water. My only guesses are that (1)
maybe since my water is pretty hard there's some kind of reaction
going on, and (2) I put just enough bleach in 15 gallons of water to
be able to smell it, and maybe this is too much.
I bottled it anyway because I had to get to work and was already
midway in the process ... I figure after it carbonates I'll just keep
in in the fridge and drink it relatively quickly (I did fill a
champagne bottle that didn't seem to have the deposits for
comparison).
Has anyone else had this experience? Thanks in advance for any info
you may be able to provide.
Matt Birchfield
Blacksburg
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 13:38:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Stephen Cavan <cavanst@duke.usask.ca>
Subject: white sugar in Real Ale
Jon Yusko asked about the use of white sugar in the Brew Your Own Real Ale
book by Wheeler and Protz. They do mention somewhere in the book not to
use white sugar, and what they suggest is caramelized invert sugar. Look
for this in the stores as Golden syrop. Tate and Lyle make some, but
Roger's Golden syrop is great (and costs about $1 per litre in Canada).
Do read the labels here however, as not all Golden syrop is pure cane
sugar. The cheaper stuff has a of of other things in as well.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 14:29:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Spam slippage
> Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 07:50:47 -0500
> From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1@aerial1.com>
> Subject: Spam and beer?
>
> Since when did the HBD start accepting Spam mail for publication? The last
> two posts on #3051 were clearly not beer related. I hope everyone sends
> them an e-mail in protest. Speaking of Spam, I wonder how that tastes with
> a good stout? (there now it is a beer related post!)
Thanks for the sentiments, Richard, but then they'll just have all your
e-mail addresses to add to their collection. Just ignore them.
Time for the summer SPAM warning note....
During the summer months, when the queue is small (less than a day), it is
possible for spam to slip into the Digest between the last time a janitor
checks his e-mail and the time at which the Digest publishes. Our
moderation is such that messages publish UNLESS they are removed. This
gives the benefit of an uninterrupted Digest should both Janitors perish
in some transcontinental cataclysm.
This is what happened in the 6/8/99 Digest.
Thanks to those who took it in stride and refrained from complaining (that
never puts us in a good mood) or cajoling the janitors. And no, Phil. I
would not like a spam sandwich any time soon...
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:15:57 -0400
From: "Dave Blaine" <i.brew2@telebot.net>
Subject: coffee in the brew
I want to try coffee in my next stout but want to avoid the oils that may
kill off the head. One suggestion was to brew the coffee and freeze it,
which should make the oil rise to the top where it could be scraped off.
Anyone have any other ideas? Has anyone had good luck with freeze dried
coffee? Does this still contain the oils? Does it taste as good in the
stout? Any help appreciated. Please e mail me at i.brew2@telebot.net.
_____________________________________________________________________________
World's First Provider of FREE 800# U.S. Toll Free Voicemail to Email Service
Get your own FREE voicemail, fax and Paging account at http://www.telebot.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 18:58:54 -0700
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Missed the BUZZ OFF ... any other competitions coming up?
I have a 140-Schilling Scotch Ale (OG 1.110, 9.2% ABV) that everyone insists
I *must* enter in a contest ... anyone know of one coming up? I know it's a
bit late in the year for that, but hey! The beer's here now not then!
Brian Dixon in Oregon
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3052, 06/09/99
*************************************
-------
