Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3120
HOMEBREW Digest #3120 Thu 26 August 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:
Saving Yeast (JYANDERS)
The secret lives of yeast (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Biowarfare brewing (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
wort shelf life/newbie intro ("Scott Catlin")
Drying hops (Ian Smith)
Yeast Count ("Jeffry D Luck")
Fix on ice brewing (Louis Bonham)
Mashmixer ("Jack Schmidling")
Cleaning Counterflow Chiller (Peter Owings)
Re: Mash Mixer ("BeerLvr")
Supposed demise of Brewing Techinques magazine... ("Timothy Green")
Ice beer revisited (James Jerome)
Sauerkraut ("Jack Schmidling")
Re: yeast (Mike Uchima)
Judging Inconsistencies (Dave Humes)
Cleaning a CF wort chiller (derek.shepard)
Cleaning a CF chiller (Harlan Bauer)
Other lists available on the HBD server... (Homebrew Digest)
SPAM from the AHA!!! ("Alan McKay")
Re: NEW Topic YEAST! (DAVID H BERG)
re: Eisbock ("Curt Speaker")
Re: Acid titration & Laxatives (David Lamotte)
Kudos to Windriver Brewing - (and beware the beetles...) (Robert S Wallace)
RE.. White Labs. (Robert Johnson)
Vaccumm Bags (Robert Johnson)
Except for water... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
Visit to Belorussia - Any Beer There? ("SCHNEIDER,BRETT")
Re: White Labs & homebrew shops ("Christopher Farley")
EisBock process (Eric R Lande)
Ringwood, Wyeast1187, NCYC1187 confusion (Jeff Renner)
RE; Eisbock ("Menegoni, Lee")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* The latest are the Gadgeteers Digest (gadget@hbd.org) and the Home
* Brew Shop Owners' Discussion Forum (brewshop@hbd.org).
* Send an email note to majordomo@hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
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, 24 Aug 1999 16:25:27 EDT
From: JYANDERS@aol.com
Subject: Saving Yeast
Not long ago, Brew Your Own had an article on yeast starters and the use of
Malta, an unhopped, non-carbonated malt drink from Latin America. I gave it a
try and was pleased with the results so I continued to use Malta for all my
starters. I kept all of the empty 7 ounce bottles because I was going to use
them for a barleywine I was planning to make. However, I began to worry about
the pressure. Malta is not carbonated and I didn't know if the bottles could
withstand the pressure. So I began to think about alternative uses for these
bottles. I came up with the idea of using them for yeast storage and this is
what I do:
When pitching the starter into the fermenter, I always keep a small amount of
slurry in the jug. I then take about a quart of wort from the batch I just
brewed (I account for this in the formulation of the recipe) and add it back
to the starter jug. Once fermentation is completed in this "starter" I pour
off some of the liquid and rouse the yeast in what remains. I then pour this
mixture into those handy seven ounce bottles that the Malta came in. I cap
the bottles and refrigerate then until I need them. Then I just pour the
contents of the bottle into a starter wort a couple days before brewing.
Works like a charm and I get several batches out of one yeast purchase.
So far, I haven't kept any of the bottles refrigerated longer than 3-4 months
so I don't know how long they will keep, but I imagine a year is not
unreasonable. I also didn't mention anything about sanitation, but I am
meticulous about sanitation every step of the way. I also taste the fermented
starter before I use it; any sign of contamination and I won't use it.
If anyone has any suggestions or comments on this practice, I'd like to hear
them.
JMA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:56:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: The secret lives of yeast
Concerning yeast lifetimes, Roger asked...
Oh one more thing, a comment on the yeast lifetime discussion. I
think I recalled something more like 6-8 buds as being more typical
for a limit. In the information given that suggested 40 buds, was
that in lab conditions with unlimited nutrients? I suspect that
because critical cell wall components (sterol synthesis) are made with
oxygen present, that there just won't be enough cell wall to go around
for 40 generations.
You are right Roger, the 40 generation "lifespans" are for yeast grown
aerobically with no limiting nutrients. In brewery fermentations the yeast
will not be able to divide to their ultimate potential because something,
typically oxygen (as you mentioned), will become limiting for growth.
-alan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Biowarfare brewing
>>...The General made a comparison between home brewing and the production of
>>biological weapons. The General made the statement that anyone that
>>homebrews is able to produce biological weapons. This shines a new light on
Dic, was the general referring to the production of "bottle bombs?" ;)
-alan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 14:44:46 -0800
From: "Scott Catlin" <scott@adhesivemedia.com>
Subject: wort shelf life/newbie intro
Hi,
My name is Scott Catlin, and I am a fairly new beer drinker, and an even
newer home-brewer. I might be the youngest on the list at 22 years old, and
look forward to gaining knowledge from more experienced brewers. I gained
interest in homebrew from my good friends at the Rose Hill Ale House, and
when in Kirkland Washington I would suggest dropping in for a pint or two. I
have successfully brewed my first three batches (two 5 gallon IPAs and a 10
gallon cider) all from extracts and loved every minute of it. I can't wait
to start using real grains!
My first question: How long can wort stay in the carboy (with fermentation
lock of course) before it goes bad and must be thrown out? I have heard that
it will stay indefinitely but can hardly believe that. Is it true? What is
the true shelflife? Thanks for the info.
- Scott Catlin
- Graphic Designer
- Adhesive Media
- www.adhesivemedia.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 16:10:47 -0600
From: Ian Smith <isrs@cmed.com>
Subject: Drying hops
Hops are supposed to be dried to 8% moisture content. I am confused, when I
start out with wet green hops they contain approx. 75% moisture by weight.
So 100 grams ends up as 25 grams dry. Does the 8% refer to the dry weight
1.08 x 25 g = 27 grams or to the original wet weight? Should I remove 75%-8%
= 67% of the moisture so that I end up with 33 grams dry (25 grams dry plus
8 grams water). Confusing isn't it?
Ian Smith
isrs@cmed.com <mailto:isrs@cmed.com>
------------------------------
Date: 24 Aug 1999 15:29:16 -0700
From: "Jeffry D Luck" <Jeffry.D.Luck@aexp.com>
Subject: Yeast Count
After reflecting on some previous posts about how
often a yeast cell can bud, is there a limit to how much
yeast I can end up with? I'm thinking, lets see, I started
from a smack-pack, ran a starter, saved it off, ran
another starter, and now want to use the current
yeast-cake to start another batch, ...and I figure the
original smack-pack was stepped up from something....
I had assumed that with the right environment the
yeasties would fill it to some saturation point, and
not be limited by their own budding ability. Wrong?
Any enlightenment would be appreciated. (BTW,
this fourth generation will be the last.)
Jeff Luck
Salt Lake City, UT - USA
(Behind the Zion Curtain, where the feeding of yeast has
been deemed illegal.)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 18:51:45 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@hypercon.com>
Subject: Fix on ice brewing
Hi folks:
Ask and ye shall receive . . . I just received the following note from George
Fix on ice brewing:
Enjoy . . . LKB
- ----------------
Hi!
As always it is good to hear from you! I have had trouble re-subscribing to HBD
and do not have the time at this point to correct the problem. Below, is a
summary of my view of ice brewing. The complete details will be in my
forthcoming book (the second edition to Principles of Brewing Science) which
takes my MCAB lecture and adds more data, as well as results from test brews.
The term ice-brewing is hype. The process that is used to make these beers is
serious. It is important to stress that the motivation for the research was not
to invent a new beer style, resurrect an old beer style, and in effect had
nothing to do with beer styles whatsoever. The goal was to come up with a
natural non-additive procedure for beer stabilization.
The leading lights in this research was the very distinguished group at LaBatt.
Midway in their research project they realized they were onto
something new and interesting. They promptly filed for and ultimately received
a patent. Only one brewery contested the patent on the grounds that the patent
was anticipated by a prior art. Because of the material in my books on this
subject, I was chosen to become an expert witness for LaBatt. To make a long
story short, LaBatt won the legal battle and the patent
remains intact.
The following are three general points:
1. The LaBatt group showed that lowering the beer's temperature below the
freezing point strongly favors the precipitation of haze active polyphenols and
to a lesser degree, high molecular weight proteins.
2. The most important contribution from the LaBatt group was to demonstrate
that there is a narrow temperature range below the freezing point of beer (which
I personally call the LaBatt boundary layer) where all of the benefits take
place. Any further icing will not substantially change things. Thus, this
process can be done without altering the alcohol content of the
beer.
3. My own modest contribution was to show using Hashimoto ITT methodology that
the redox state was substantially lowered in the LaBatt boundary layer. This
suggests that the process favors the precipitation of polyphenols in the
higher redox states. This perhaps explains in part the rounded malty profiles
of beers produced by this method. Theoretical mechanisms that explain this
effect are a subject of current research.
4. Test brews produced with this method have shown remarkable flavor and
physical stability. The same has been found for commercial brews.
On a personal note, I feel this process is worth consideration by home brewers.
All five of the beers that I have brewed that have qualified for
the MCAB have used this process. One of these was an ale, ESB.
Two quick points on the down side...
1. This process does remove hop bitter. Adjustments to the recipe need to be
made to take this into account.
2. One should be careful to avoid significant icing with beers that have a high
yeast concentration. This will impart a yeast bite which will age out,
but is basically a nuisance. The ideal is a very thin ice slurry with minimal
volume reduction.
I have attempted to elaborate on all of these issues in my forthcoming book.
Cheers,
George
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:19:19 -0500
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Mashmixer
There are two ways to solve the wrong way motor problem.
You can put the motor under the kettle with the blade on top.
If that seems to present some problems, try a left handed blade.
All fan blades are not equal. They come in right and left hand and will push or
pull with the same rotation depending on which hand you have.
Check out McMaster Carr. The only problem is trying to figure out which hand
you need. No matter which you select, it will probably be the wrong one. It
just aint intuitive.
js
.
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:43:10 -0400
From: Peter Owings <peteo1@mindspring.com>
Subject: Cleaning Counterflow Chiller
Thomas O'Conner asked how to clean his counterflow chiller.
I've used the following method the last year and have had good results.
I boil 3 gallons of water in my boiling vessel and run this through my CFWC
and eventually through the tubing that leads to the fermenter in the
basement (I brew in the garage, ferment in the basement). Next I make up a
five gallon solution of Star-San in the boiling vessel and run this through
the CFWC, tubing and into the fermenter.
After boiling the wort, I clean the pot, drain and mix a solution of hot
water and cleaner (One-Step, PBW). This drains through the CFWC and is
followed by warm tap water to ensure all is clean.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:38:50 -0400
From: "BeerLvr" <Beerlvr@hrfn.net>
Subject: Re: Mash Mixer
From: "Dana H. Edgell" <edgell@far-tech.com>
Subject: Mash Mixer
wrote:
>I could attempt to bend the fan blades to work the other way but I suspect
>I would most likely screw them up completely.
I used an ice cream motor for my HTL stirrer and made a mixer blade with 1/2
CU pipe and a T. The motor has a large nut epoxied into the drive gear. I
then epoxied an cut off bolt into the end of a 10 inch piece of 1/2 pipe.
This is silver soldered into the T and the blades are made from flattened
1/2 inch pipe silver soldered into the othe ends of the T. The motor turns
in counter clockwise and that causes the bolt/mixer paddle to screww in all
the time so it wont come out.
Mike Pensinger
Beerlvr@hrfn.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 23:10:12 -0400
From: "Timothy Green" <timgreen@eriecoast.com>
Subject: Supposed demise of Brewing Techinques magazine...
Hey Folks,
Word was passed on another brewing list that Brewing Techniques magazine
was about to announce that it was closing it's doors and it was unlikely
that the currently overdue issue would be produced.
Any of the learned and well informed people here have any information on
this??
Tim Green
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 22:42:09 +0000
From: James Jerome <jkjerome@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Ice beer revisited
To all who know more about ice beers than I do,
My last posting with agreeing comments to Eric will probably generate
some well-deserved corrections and comments with attached flames. In
HBD#3118, I have been well informed. I still don't trust marketing
types, but I didn't know that the BATF guys would consider alcohol
enhancement through this trick as a form of distillation. Nor was I
aware that the mega brewers return the water content after skimming. It
does seem to be a quicker way to remove impurities and speed up the
lagering process*.
*I have got to quit trying to read a weeks worth of HBD, then
comment...somehow the homebrew(s) in hand affect my thinking.
A.J. deLange mentioned that he has the patent floating around. If he or
anyone else can just post or private e-mail me the patent number, I'll
go and do the legwork (have a local US patent repository nearby) to
acquire my own copy. Now, my curiosity is piqued, particularly with
what the patent (assigned to Labatt's?) lists as 'prior art.' In other
words, do they mention Eisbock and the German brewers of the past.
Louis Bonham mentioned (HB#3118) more about ice beer, but provided a
real tidbit for me in that George Fix is now located in Clemson. Wow, I
finally leave Clemson (my alma mater) only to find that someone I would
have really liked to talk with and meet is there. Damn the luck. By
the way George, if you're listening, Go Tigers!
Alan McKay also gave a valuable resource..Molson's website's Ask the
Brewmaster. Thanks for the lead. As to sauerkraut, do you use the
container with a cheesecloth secured over the top at ambient temp?
Contact me with private email (or post it) for a recipe/procedure when
you get the chance...nothing like real sauerkraut and bratwurst to
compliment a homebrew.
Hoppily,
Jett Jerome
Ooltewah, TN
jkjerome@bellsouth.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 21:23:42 -0500
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Sauerkraut
"Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
"Hey, anyone out there making Sauerkraut?.....
Bingo, again! Just made a 15 lb batch.
Made it last year and it went fast so we planted two rows of cabage this year.
We will be making another batch in a few weeks.
Found a great fool-proof system.
Mix up cabbage with salt in a bucket, let stand over night. Fill up mason jars
in the morning and let it sit for about 6 weeks with the lids on to ferment.
Top them off again with brine and process.
Goes with bratwurst which goes with beer which is really the subject of the
forum.
Hey.... maby Pat should start a sauerkraut Digest?
BTW, time for a commercial for the Cheese Digest.... Pat just started it and I
have seen no further publicity on it. So if you missed it and are interested in
cheesemaking....
ask Pat about the Cheese Digest. Better yet, how bout a repost of the details,
Pat?
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 23:40:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: yeast
In HBD #3118, Roger Ayotte asks about ale yeasts...
Your description (huge rocky head, top-cropping, fruity) of Brewers
Resources American Micro Ale II sounds similar to Wyeast American Ale II
(1272). Perhaps they are similar (or the same) strains. This is
currently one of my favorite ale yeasts; I rarely use the 1056 any more,
since I discovered the 1272. I've special-ordered 1272 so many times thru
the local shop over the past couple of years, that they've finally given
in and started stocking it.
One thing I've noticed about 1272 is that it tends to floc a bit early,
before the beer is anywhere close to completely attenuated. If you simply
rack when things have slowed almost to a stop, you will typically get
enough renewed activity in the secondary to foul the airlock. IMO, when
fermentation starts to slow down, you need to slosh the fermenter around a
bit, once or twice daily, for a couple of days. This will get some of the
yeast back into suspension, and help get the beer decently attenuated in a
reasonable timeframe.
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@pobox.com ==
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 99 23:35:45 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net>
Subject: Judging Inconsistencies
Greetings,
I have started entering competitions recently and have received some
rather inconsistent judging results. I'm sure you guys that have been
doing this for years are saying, yeah, so what, that's how it's always
been; grow up and stop griping. But, since I'm still rather new at this,
I get to ask the naive questions. A recent competition I entered was
sanctioned by the AHA and judged by BJCP certified judges. One beer I
entered was a Kolsch and it was evaluated by 3 judges. One said it had no
hop aroma while another said the aroma was hoppy. One judge said that
more aroma hops are needed. But, my AHA style guideline says that hop
aroma should be low. Two judges noted some chill haze while another said
it had good clarity. One judge said it had a "medium mouthfeel [which] is
a little too much for style." Another said the mouthfeel was "OK for
style, but still rather thin."
These remarks are almost 180 degrees opposed to one another. I was hoping
that the formalization of the judging process through the BJCP would
provide mechanisms for smoothing out such inconsistencies. How are you
supposed to know how to improve a beer when the opinions are so far apart?
Is their any review of the individual judge reports by a senior judge who
could help point out inconsistencies to the individual judges and help
them arrive at opinions that are more useful to the brewer? Can the
judges discuss their results? Also, I was wondering about the purpose of
providing the details of the recipe and process. Do the judges read this
prior to or after tasting your beer? I think the answer is important
because the information could skew the evaluation. For instance, a judge
could think he is tasting some staling or oxidation based on the reported
age of a beer when what he is really tasting is an unfamiliar but
intentional malt characteristic.
Some of you reading this will no doubt have judged my beers. I fully
appreciate how individual each of our senses are, and I do not intend to
question the sincerity of the comments or abilities of the judges. I am
just trying to understand the process a little better and maybe help to
improve it.
- --Dave
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net> Dave Humes
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 05:06:57 -0400
From: derek.shepard@att.net
Subject: Cleaning a CF wort chiller
When I used to use an immersion chiller submerged in an ice bath
and wort flowing inside instead of outside, I would fill the chiller with
water and boil it out to sanitize. When I was through, I just rinsed it
with hot tap water. Now I have a copper CF chiller and sanitize it
by connecting the output of a pressure cooker ($1.50 at yard sale)
to the chiller to steam sanitize it for about 10 minutes just before I
use it. When I am through, I just rinse it with hot tap water and
store it dry. Have never had a problem with either method. Both
conserve water, energy, and time, and from what I understand "wet
heat" is the best thing to sanitize with. YMMV
Derek Shepard
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:25:57 -0500
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab@midwest.net>
Subject: Cleaning a CF chiller
I disagree with the notion that running hot water alone thru a copper
heat exchange (HE) is an adequate cleaning regime. Hot water is a rinse
and a sanitizer, but is not a cleaner. Beer-stone, hop resins and trub
residue are untouched by water. Both Birko and 5-Star (PBW) make
cleaning products designd to remove these soils AND are safe to use on
soft metals, such as copper. Unlike a plate HE which can be torn down to
be cleaned and VISUALLY inspected, the inside of a copper HE is always
an unknown. We KNOW that beer-stone has an accumulating effect, and at
some point requires hand scrubbing to remove. My experience with Birko's
products is that I have not had to get inside any of the 4 fermenters
for 2 years. To me, this suggests that using this stuff every time in a
copper HE would prevent the buildup of beer-stone. As a result,
sanitization would be more effective. HE's are perennial sources of
infection, and I view using only hot water to clean them as: out of
sight; out of mind.
Just a thought,
Harlan.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 06:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: Homebrew Digest <hbd@brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: Other lists available on the HBD server...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
In answer to Jack's request, here are the details of lists currently
available on the Digest server. All lists are subscribe to by
sending the word subscribe to the subscription address. Each of the
current lists are contained in the "table" below. The table is formatted
as follows:
List Name
Subscription Address
Posting Address
Archives Available
Purpose/Description Of List
===========================================================================
Distilled Beverage Digest
dbd-request@hbd.org
dbd@hbd.org
Yes
Enjoyment of distilled beverages; non-US making of distilled beverages.
Great discussions for the afficianado and curious alike.
Home Vintners' Digest
hvd-request@hbd.org
hvd@hbd.org
Yes
Enjoyment and making of fine wines.
Cheese Makers' Digest
cheese-request@hbd.org
cheese@hbd.org
Yes
Enjoyment and making of cheeses. Fascinating!
Home & Country Crafts Digest
crafters-request@hbd.org
crafters@hbd.org
Yes
Discussion of wood working, tole painting, folk art, sewing, needle work -
anything that fits the bill!
Gadgeteers' Digest
gadgeteers-request@hbd.org
gadgeteers@hbd.org
Yes
Discussion of beer/brewing related gadgetry from the purely practical, to
the Rube Goldergesque.
Home Brew Shop Owners' Digest
brewshop-request@hbd.org
brewshop@hbd.org
Yes - closed. Must be subscribed to access.
Discussion of subjects pertinet to brew shop owners and allied businesses.
This list is intended as an aid to those who supply our hobby to help them
help each other through the sharing of ideas and information. Call it the
HBD Home Brewing Trade Association...
MIY2K - 2000 AHA National Home Brewers' Convention in Michigan Discussion
Forum
michigan-request@hbd.org
michigan@hbd.org
Yes - closed. Must be subscribed to access.
Discussions pertinent to the planning of the 2000 AHA NHC in Michigan.
Please request subscription only if interested/able to assist in the
planning.
These lists are run under the MajorDomo listserv software (yes: the same
software that once almost killed the Digest. Actually, not that difficult
to manage if you pay proper attention to it). The same rigid standards to
which we hold the HBD are held here, with the exception that the
submissions to the lists are not monitored nor moderated. Subscriptions to
the lists, however, are and posting to any list is closed to those who
aren't subscribed. Your privacy (ie, your e-mail address) cannot be
obtained by querying the server - just as with the HBD itself. (It is
displayed with any post you make, though.)
If you have an idea for a hobbyist list that you think might be fodder for
the HBD server, pass it along. Many of the new lists came about due to HBD
subscriber suggestions.
Cheers!
The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:11:03 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: SPAM from the AHA!!!
So did everyone else in here get their GABF SPAM from the AOB?
Man, these guys just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.
I'm absolutely disgusted.
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks All opinions expressed are my own
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 07:12:59 -0500
From: DAVID H BERG <bergbrew@juno.com>
Subject: Re: NEW Topic YEAST!
OK, it's time to dispell the myths about Ringwood yeast. Yes, I know
most people use submersible pumps which are thrown into the fermenter 2-3
days after fermentation. They are not, however, trying to add more
oxygen to the yeast (although they are accomplishing just that).
Ringwood tends to floc at about 5 Plato (1.020). The pumps are added to
get the yeast back into suspension so attenuation can be reached.
I did not care for the amount of diacetyl produced by this method, so
instead of throwing the pumps into the fermenter, I threw them into the
garbage can. Attenuation is reached by rousing the yeast, and the
diacetyl levels have dropped dramatically.
Wyeast 1968 is not Ringwood, but Fuller's yeast. It was brought to the
US by Grant Johnston, the former brewer at Marin.
David Berg
Water Tower Brewing Company
Eden Prairie, MN
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:32:09 +0500
From: "Curt Speaker" <SPEAKER@SAFETY-1.SAFETY.PSU.EDU>
Subject: re: Eisbock
With all the interest in Eisbock and "ice beers", I would like to
point out that there was an issue of Zymurgy several years ago that
talked about homebrewing eisbocks.
The easiest way to carry out the process (did it once, so I am no
expert) is to make a doppelbock, lager as usual, and then siphon
to a corny keg. Place the keg into a chest freezer (lucky enough
to have one of these, too) --- mine took 8-9 hours to get slushy.
Then use CO2 to push the remaining liquid from one keg to another
clean and sanitized keg (requires only a minor modification of a
picnic tap). The ice remains in the first keg, and the eisbock is
now in the second. Force carbonate (the yeast is pretty well shot
by this point unless you repitch, and the alcohol level is high), give
it a couple weeks to mellow, and enjoy. The one that I made had a
huge malty nose and excellent malt flavor. The freezing process
raised the alcohol from 7.1% v/v to 8.3%. If anyone wants the
exact issue # , etc. of the Zymurgy article I would be happy to post
it.
Hoppy Brewing!
Curt
State College Underground Maltsters (S.C.U.M.)
many, many miles from Jeff Renner
Curt Speaker
Biosafety Officer
Penn State University
Environmental Health and Safety
speaker@ehs.psu.edu
http://www.ehs.psu.edu
^...^
(O_O)
=(Y)=
"""
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 23:31:32 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Acid titration & Laxatives
Christopher Farley quite properly wrote :-
> Subject: Acid titration
>
> Jack Schmidling asks about acid testing kits:
>
> With a winemaking acid test kit you are performing a simple titration. The
> phenolphthalein is an indicator solution. It changes color at about pH 7, and
> it makes a great indicator solution. (It is also an extremely powerful
> laxative -- an old Chem prof described heinous practical jokes involving
> surreptitious additions to coffee.) The concentration of phenolphthalein
> should not make a huge difference; 3 drops should provide a high enough
> concentration for you to see a color change.
Am I the only one who thought that he was still talking about the additions
to coffee in the last sentence ?
When I stopped laughing and cleared the tears from my eyes, I realised that
I might have misunderstood.
Sorry, but I just had to share my stupidity.
David Lamotte
Brewing DOwn Under in Newcastle N.S.W. Australia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 10:27:59 -0500
From: Robert S Wallace <rwallace@iastate.edu>
Subject: Kudos to Windriver Brewing - (and beware the beetles...)
Fellow HBDers:
The homebrew community often hears of horror stories at certain times of
customers dealing with suppliers and receiving poor (or wose) service. In
my recent case the opposite was true. Late in the afternoon on monday, 16
August I vistited Windriver Brewing Co. in Eden Prairie, Minnesota to stock
up on grain for the coming 'brewing season' and drove back to Iowa with 100
pounds of two row (one bag of Breiss and another bag of Hugh Baird Maris
Otter) plus some other supplies. When returning home with the grain later
in the week (wednesday evening) I prepared to empty the grain from the
mastster's bags into my sealable storage containers. Upon opening the bag
of Briess 2-row, I was met by a very healthy population of beetles, which
are likely either confused flour beetles (*Tribolium confusum*) or red
flour beetles (T. castaneum) - I didn't key them out. A call to Briess
confirmed that this particular lot of malted barley had been packed in
mid-March 1999, and that in the short span of five months, this bag had
been populated by these common beetles. Closer inspection of the seals on
the ends of the bag disclosed several small tears which likely served as
entry sites for the insects. [THE LESSON HERE is to be sure your grain is
well sealed against any unwelcome visitors!]
When I called Windriver Brewing to report the situation, without
hesitation Scott Law (one of the owners) said he would ship-out another bag
immediately via UPS. When I arrived home from work on monday (23 August),
there was a box containing a bag of Breiss 2-row (that had been checked for
beetles!) waiting for me!!! This, just one week after I'd visited the
shop, and only days after I reported a problem.
I have been a customer of Windriver for several years now, and with this
kind of service and very positive response, it is clear to me that they
deserve my continued patronage. They represent another example of a good
company, with integrity and understanding. I'm happy to report a
'positive' experience when there are so many examples of negative
experiences posted to the homebrewing community.
Good Brewing,
Rob Wallace
Robert S. Wallace "In cerevesia veritas est."
Associate Professor of Botany
e-mail: rwallace@iastate.edu
353 Bessey Hall Phone: +001-515-294-0367
Iowa State University FAX: +001-515-294-1337
Ames, Iowa 50011-1020 USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:39:08 -0700
From: robert@bobbrews.com (Robert Johnson)
Subject: RE.. White Labs.
>From: Scott Birdwell <defalcos@insync.net>
>Subject: White Labs & homebrew shops
>Regarding Chris Farley's post in #3116 concerning Wyeast & White Labs:
Scott, I too have had nothing but great success with White Labs.
Quality, Consistency should be the mark. Where did Wyeast source theirs?
It did not just appear in their banks. I have had the pleasure of
talking several times in person with Dr. White, once in my store. He is
very open and honest and while I exclusively ( my choice long ago- 1996,
No pressure from him or his staff) sell White Labs it would not be so
without the brewers who use it.
Robert (bobbrews) Johnson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 08:45:56 -0700
From: robert@bobbrews.com (Robert Johnson)
Subject: Vaccumm Bags
>From: Chester Waters <cwaters@home.com>
>Subject: vacuum sealer bags
>May I ask the collective to pursue the vacuum sealing bags some of us
>use in storing whole hops. I like to buy in 1 LB. quantities so I'm
>never ' just a few grams shy' of the amount I need for a given brew. I
>vacuum-seal with a Foodsaver using their bags (by Tilia), and store in
a
>-20F freezer. The bags do hold a vacuum well, but of course that
doesn't
Chester and anyone else. I have used a Tilla machine for over 14 years.
The last 5 years I have used it for hops, grain and the occassional
steak. I use Foil mylar bags in the Tilla just fine. They are a very
hardy bag and cheaper than Tilla Bags if you are doing a loy of hops.
They are a little tricky to get the seal right, but I have had no
problems since learning how.
Robert (bobbrews) Johnson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:02:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Except for water...
Howdy,
Every ingredient in beer is genetically modified. The only difference
is how that modification is done. For example, barley growers used seeds from
crops that had the characterics that appealed to their needs, such as pest
resistance, kernel size, uniformity of malting, etc. By doing this over and
over, they selected for a crop that meets their particular needs. In so
doing, these farmers genetically modified their barley the old fashioned way,
by selecting the genetic variants they wanted. They had no idea what these
genetic changes were, nor what the impact of these changes would be on those
who used their crops. All who drank beer made from their barley were their
guinea pigs, and still are. So for example, corn that has been engineered to
produce Bt is actually safer, because it has been tested.
And it's worse. Suppose you only use "older," tested varieties of
barley, under the assumption that they don't do anything harmful or they would
have been discontinued (leaving aside for the moment the environmental damage
done in the industrial farming of the barley). Do you think that the Marris
Otter you used in that ESB is geneticallly identical to the Marris Otter used
even a few years ago? Think again. It is close, but to paraphrase, mutation
happens. You can't stop it, even with all the phytochemical antioxidant
isoflavones on the planet. And right now, the only feasible way to know what
the outcomes of these mutations will be is to test the product on hu, er,
animals.
And it's worse than worse, because the mutations don't just happen to
barley, but to all food crops. And it's even worse still, because even as we
speak, cells in your body are being genetically modified by cosmic rays (in a
nefarious scheme hatched by evil drug companies to sell more cancer drugs, no
doubt...).
Everything you are eating is a mutant, not the way God intended it
when He made it 6000 years ago. Follow my advice and practice: stop eating
and drinking everything, except water. Filtered water that is, so you don't
get any genetically modified microbes. Soon, you may not see the creator, but
as Jesus and Buddha can attest, you'll eventually see something...
Mike Maceyka
Cheif Beer Guinea Pig
Four Square Brewing
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:34:03 -0500
From: "SCHNEIDER,BRETT" <SCHNEIDERB@morganco.com>
Subject: Visit to Belorussia - Any Beer There?
Not to be a pest, but in this region near Minsk are there any beers in
bottles that would be interesting conversation novelty pieces worth bringing
back for passing around at my hb club meeting sometime? I have seen some
lambasting of general beers from ex-ussr regions but if there is name to
seek - or better yet names to avoid - I would appreciate it.
-brett
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 12:12:22 -0500
From: "Christopher Farley" <chris@northernbrewer.com>
Subject: Re: White Labs & homebrew shops
Scott Birdwell wrote:
> Personally I don't like manufacturers and distributors trying to tell
> me what products I should handle and which ones I shouldn't. Let's face
> it, they have a vested interest in making sure we only buy products from
> them and them alone.
This is exactly what Wyeast is trying to do by offering retailers such as
myself discounts, not for volume, but for dropping the competition. I sell
approximately 10,000 packs of Wyeast each year, I aggressively promote their
product, and yet what is most important to them is that I stop selling White
Labs yeast. I won't go so far as to call Wyeast a monopolist, but they
certainly offer a product -- the "smack pack" -- which is unique in the
industry. I have no supporting figures, but I would guess Wyeast has greater
than a 75% market share in providing pure yeast cultures to homebrewers. I
hate to see Wyeast use their market dominance to squeeze a much smaller
competitor out of homebrew stores.
I chose to carry White Labs vials *instead of* Wyeast XL packs. I know
it's not quite the same product, but my rationale for doing so was that I
didn't really wish to duplicate my entire yeast inventory by carrying two
versions of each Wyeast culture. David Logsdon's claim that White Labs sourced
"most if not all" of their yeast from Wyeast was an attempt to convince me
that I am *already* duplicating Wyeast's inventory by carrying White Labs
yeast. My personal experience with White Labs cultures (i.e.: the Pilsner
Lager culture) tells me this is not true. I also recently spoke with Chris
White, who acknowledged that several cultures have common sources (i.e.:
"Chico" strains 1056 and WL California Ale, 1084 and WL Irish, 2112 and San
Fran Lager, etc.). However, he also pointed out several unique strains with no
Wyeast equivalent, including their Koelsch and Edinburgh Ale yeast.
I certainly do not intend to drop White Labs, because it has proved to be
a popular and reliable product. However, I fear a situation developing in
which "exclusive" Wyeast dealers get better prices on their yeast, and are
able to retail yeast at a lower cost than retailers that choose to carry
competitors' products. This kind of policy is more likely to alienate
retailers. IMO, Wyeast would be far wiser to offer incentives based on volume
rather than exclusivity.
Christopher Farley
Northern Brewer, Ltd.
Saint Paul, Minnesota
www.northernbrewer.com
(800) 681-2739
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 14:15:23 -0400
From: Eric R Lande <landeservices@juno.com>
Subject: EisBock process
In HBD #3119 "Jeff Beinhaur asks about the process of home brewing ice
beer.
So now that we all know about the term "ice beer" how would one go about
producing a home brewed version. I never brewed a barley wine or a
Oktoberfest in time for the holidays so I'm thinking that an EisBock
might
be a good alternative. I would assume a high gravity lager with a normal
primary and secondary fermentation process and then the "icing" process.
If
my assumption is correct so far then it seems that one would have to do
the
lagering/icing in some sort of container that would allow you to skim
the
ice like a plastic fermentor. So again if my assumptions are correct so
far
wouldn't I be taking a huge risk of introducing nasties during this
"skimming" phase? Does anyone have any practical advice on this process?
I think that I would still use a carboy, Jeff. Once the ice crystals
form you can rack the unfrozen beer to a second carboy. By doing this
you will leave behind both the sludge at the bottom and the ice crystals
which, apparently, contain other stuff, such as protiens, that may have
eventually settled out with extended lagering. Good luck, Jeff. Post
the results and your processes as I'm sure that others may want to give
it a try.
Eric Lande
Brewery to be named when I finish it
Doylestown, PA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:24:34 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Ringwood, Wyeast1187, NCYC1187 confusion
<fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger>Thanks to Scott Murman
<<smurman@best.com> who pointed out that Wyeast 1968, one of his
favorite yeasts, is Fullers. He directed me to his website of
commercial yeast strains
http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy/yeast.html which I had bookmarked
but was too lazy to use, and so I misremembered. (Thanks also to Scott
Abene <<skotrat@mediaone.net> for pointing out his web site
http://www.brewrats.org/yeast.cfm).
I think it is strange that we have two yeast strains with the number
1187, Wyeast 1187, identified as Ringwood, and NCYC 1187 (Nationial
Collection of Yeast Cultures in UK), which definitely does not have the
head forming characteristics of Ringwood. This may just be a
coincidence of names (numbers?), but it has led to confusion on HBD in
the past. Let me repeat, NCYC 1187 is not a head former, and Ringwood
from YCKC and as used in our local Ringwood (Pugsley) brewpub is. I
don't have personal experience with Wyeast 1187 (can anyone report on
it from experience?), but if it really is Ringwood, it would be a head
former, and would not be NCYC 1187.
From Scot Murman's site:
Wyeast 1187 -- Ringwood Ale Yeast
Extremely malty profile, finishes estery and fruity. Difficult yeast to
manage due to high flocculating characteristics. High oxygen
requirements and poor stability in storage. According to reports, this
is now availabe to homebrewers in the XL smack packs. Inquire with your
local retailer.
* Temperature range:
* Apparent attenuation: 69-73%.
* Source: Ringwood.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
From NCYC http://www.ifrn.bbsrc.ac.uk/ncyc/ (this is an interesting
site, but *very* slow sometimes)
1187. British brewery (1960).
Flocculent.
The accumulation of yeast at the surface of the fermentation: no head
The amount of yeast deposited at the end of fermentation: >15mm
An indirect measurment of the conversion of wort sugars to alcohol.
The coding relates to the attenuation achieved after 6 days:
1.010-1.012
Rate of fermentation
The drop in S.G. between 3 days and 6 days: 6-8
Clarity of the final beer
The nephelometer reading of a 1:20 diluted sample :
0-10 (clear)
Max. Temp. 37.0C, Min. Temp. 13.4C, Optimum Temp. 32.0C.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Just to set the record clear.
Jeff
</bigger></fontfamily>
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 1999 15:54:28 -0400
From: "Menegoni, Lee" <Lee.Menegoni@compaq.com>
Subject: RE; Eisbock
Eisbock production was discussed this winter amongst some members of an HB
club when the temps here in New England were near zero F. It isn't just
freezing beer. What you don't want to do is freeze the beer at cold temps
then filter off the liquid. What you want to do is slowly produce ice
crystals at near freezing temps, this takes more time and temperature
control.
I froze and filtered some bock and wasn't pleased with the results. The
rapid freezing and low temp caused a greater degree of freezing than
desired.
Attilio "Lee" Menegoni
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3120, 08/26/99
*************************************
-------
