Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4360
HOMEBREW Digest #4360 Mon 29 September 2003
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Storing propagated Morland's yeast ("Chris Hart")
beer captured? (Jeremy Bergsman)
Head Pressure ("Dave Burley")
re: Recipe book ("Tom M")
Stokes & more Splenda ("-S")
Re: Recipe book (MATTHEW HAHN)
Hop back (Kevin McDonough)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:38:09 -0400
From: "Chris Hart" <rhayader at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Storing propagated Morland's yeast
Recently I managed to create a starter from the yeast in the bottom of a
Morland's Hen's Tooth. It is going well after a slow start, probably due
to the very small amount of yeast in the bottle. My question is: How can
I store this yeast for a month or two before getting my clone recipe
going? I don't have access to acid for washing or anything like that and
wouldn't know where to start with it anyway since I'm still living in
noviceworld. Does anyone have a home storage solution to impart to me?
If so, please give it to me step by step like I was an idiot, just in
case I am! Thanks in advance.
Chris Hart
Hart's Valet Drycleaning
1000 NW 51st Terrace
Gainesville, FL 32605
339-0324
rhayader at bellsouth.net
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:14:33 -0400
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremy at bergsman.org>
Subject: beer captured?
Jens writes to ask why the recipes in "Beer Captured" differ from the known
ingredients in the beers being cloned. Given all the variables in process
between a certain commercial brewery and a certain homebrewer, I think it is
no surprise that the homebrewer might best clone a beer using different
ingredients to compensate for the differences in process and equipment.
Having said that, I received Mark and Tess' first book on cloning commercial
beers as a gift and sold it. Firstly, I think recipe design is half the fun
of brewing and only look at recipes as a starting point for styles I'm less
familiar with. Secondly I recall it was extract brewing based. Thirdly,
like Jens, I didn't feel that the recipes looked likely to clone the brews
being copied. I never actually tried it though.
I don't know if they brew them personally or if they are from their books,
but the beers served at their store (Maltose Express in Monroe, CT) are
typically rather dilute cousins of the styles being attempted. I have found
their store to be a good one for prices, service, and selection, but I think
the beer cloning thing may be a gimmick taken too far.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremy at bergsman.org
http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:00:42 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Head Pressure
Brewsters:
I may not have been keeping up with the thinking on this regarding the
mechanism of bubble size. I recall reading Spencer's and others' comments and
came away with the impression that he was talking about bubble size in
response to pressure and the size of bubble necessary for it's release from a
particle.
Although I still await supporting documentation that pressurizing a bottling
tank will bring about early clarification, the thought occurred to me that
pressurizing the head of the botling tank with carbon dioxide for a period of
time would depress the activity of the yeast on any remaining ( small) amount
of sugar. In a commercial enterprise where tank space is a limiting factor to
profitability and beers are often hurried through ( i.e. no "secondary
fermentation" and still have some remaining sugar), adding pressure to the
tank would depress fermentation and the bubbles which accompany it. The yeast
would not be suspended by these bubbles and would perhaps flocculate faster.
Just a thought.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 16:38:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Tom M" <tomomeier at excite.com>
Subject: re: Recipe book
jens maudal <jens.maudal at start.no> writes:
>I have just recieved my last book on beer recipes
>"Beer Captured" by Tess and Mark Szamatulski
..
>A) Aecht Schlenkerla Rauchbier
>This beer is supposedly made with 100% rauchmalt,
>i have tried using the malt from Weiermann and it makes
>a superb Schlenkerla clone, i add a little chocolate for
>colour.
..
>The recipies in the book are entierly different, the Schlenkerla
>contains only 28% german Rauch malt, the rest is pilsner and
>mynchener and of all things belgian cara-munich malt this is
>not very likely for a schlenkerla clone.
..
>I find it odd that these recipies are so different to the content
>in the original beers they are trying to clone.
I don't have the particular book you mentioned, because after my
first 'clone' book, I realized they don't provide the detail or
accuracy I would like to have in my recipes. I do not believe
that all the recipes have even been brewed once by the authors,
or their contributors, and some of the books say as much in their
introduction. The clones are designed to meet the IBU, OG, FG,
and SRM(EBC) of the cloned recipe, and some basic grains and
hops, but as you pointed out, in many cases are nowhere near
matching the recipe of the beer they are trying to clone.
Taking Schlenkerla as an example, this brewery has their very
own malthouse and beechwood kiln. Having had Schlenkerla, I'm
sure you aware that they have heavily smoked malt. Here in
the US, the Weyerman malt available is not even close to being
smokey enough to create a Schlenkerla type flavor and aroma.
A 100% Weyerman Rauchmalt grainbill does justice to recreating
the beer 'style', but to my taste, is nothing like Schlenkerla
because it falls far far short on smoke flavor and aroma because
of the difference in the malt kilning. As you pointed out, 28%
Weyerman would certainly fall far short.
This book and others like it are something for mainly extract
brewers looking for an easy way to try out new styles of beer.
They help to perpetuate the hobby by creating interest in
brewing a diverser set of beer styles, and in some cases may
come close to recreating the general idea of the beer, but
should not be taken as the actual recipes.
It is unfortunate that there are not more thoroughly researched
all-grain clone recipe books available. Wheeler and Protz's
books are the best out there.
-Tom Meier
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 17:15:09 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: Stokes & more Splenda
Doug Hurst ....
> Stokes law ....
> D^2 (Sa - Sb) G
> V= _____________
>
> 18u
That's it - but it really only applies to smooth spheres and non-turbulent
flow
past the object.. Still it's the same w/in a factor for non-spheres.
As I said - Stokes law DOES NOT APPLY to very small particles like
proteins where colloidal and browniain kinetics make mincemeat of the
gravitational term.
===
I must correct my previous post abt Splenda - the
carbohydrate+sucralose mix.
The small 'coffee' packets contents weigh one gram according to the labeling
and measure. I incorrectly estimated that they should weigh 0.58gm based on
the bulk Splenda properties I measured. The packet Splenda is clearly
more dense, granular and the 1gm packet is almost certainly meant to replace
one 1tsp (4.1gm) of of table sugar. The packets seem to have more carbs and
less sucralose per unit weight. I expect that 1 packet vs one teaspoon of
bulk gives equal sweetness.
This may seem like splitting hairs, but consider the following. 3500
Calories produces 1lb(0.45kg) of fatty body mass. If you use 6 tsp of
sweetner or equivalent per day in your coffee or tea then:
sugar (4.1gm carb/tsp) ==> 35,916 Cal/year => 10.26 lbs/yr
Splenda packets(1gm) ==> 8760 Cal/year => 2.50 lb/yr
tsp bulk Splenda (0.58gm) ==> 5080 Cal/yr => 1.45 lb/yr
non-nutritive sweetner(0gm) ==> 0 Cal/yr => 0 lb/yr
So you could save a pound of annual weight gain by switching to bulk Splenda
from packet Splenda! Such very tiny energetic imbalances in our shockingly
accurate bio-control system seem to be at the heart of most overweight
problems.
To be fair to the Splenda guys (Johnson & Johnson I believe) the inclusion
of some maltodextrin and/or detrose may be necessary to maintain the proper
physical properties for making baked goods and desserts. Starch water
trapping ability and pectin gelling properties depend on these smaller
carbos.
Oh yeah - beer ! Aspartame has been very successfully used to artificially
sweeten wine - tho' commercially it's an illegal 'adulterant' the flavor
effect produced is very very good. I would expect that aspartame would
works as a non-caloric non-fermentable sweetner in beer and probably be much
better than lactose which carries an odd flavor to me. Splenda may or may
not work in beer, but the physical properties - it's (in)stability at beer
pH especially may not allow this to work. (fwiw).
-Steve ( <80kg & falling)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:47:00 -0400
From: MATTHEW HAHN <mchahn at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Recipe book
> Have anybody else noticed this, and it makes me wonder if the
> other recipes have the same odd contents.
>
I saw two more inaccuracies in a quick glance at BEER CAPTURED. The
hopping of Ipswich Oatmeal Stout (which I used to brew at the brewery)
is said to be Cascade and Willamette; it was actually all Cascade. 1056
and 1272 are the yeasts of choice; the actual yeast was 1028. For Great
Lakes' Burning River Pale Ale, 1028 is only the second choice yeast
when it is the actual yeast used at the brewery.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2003 21:01:13 -0400
From: Kevin McDonough <kmcdonou at nmu.edu>
Subject: Hop back
B3 sells a hop back, but the lid does not seal. I've read that you need to
have a sealed lid to prevent O2 from mixing with the hot wort. If that is
true, would running the hot wort through the B3 hop back result in HSA (I'm
not that concerned about HSA in general, but am just curious)? Or would
the hot steam force prevent the outside O2 from entering the hop back, sort
of the same way that CO2 in the fermenter prevents O2 from touching the wort?
The other thing I wonder about having a hop back lid that doesn't seal is
that the aromatic oils from the hops would escape. What are your
thoughts? Is a hop back with an unsealed lid a good choice?
Kevin McDonough
Skandia, MI
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4360, 09/29/03
*************************************
-------
