HOMEBREW Digest #1136 Fri 07 May 1993

Digest #1135 Digest #1137

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  RE:Yeast Lab Weizen (Jim Busch)
  Sam Adams being investigated (jimf)
  Legal Probelms for Sam(tm)Adams(tm) (Timothy J. Dalton)
  Re: Sparge water (Ed Hitchcock)
  Miller Clear -- Less Yucky? (stevie)
  Yeast trivia, Zima (Bob Clark)
  Correction (George J Fix)
  Skunk beer? (Paul dArmond)
  Filtering beer (Scott Stihler (USGS analyst))
  Sierra Nevada Brown and The Goat Hill (BELLAGIO_DAVID)
  recipies for weisen (C05705DA)
  tv ad for hb video (jay marshall)
  Effect of light on beer (WESTEMEIER)
  Methanol (aka wood alcohol) (Corby Bacco)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 6 May 93 9:38:47 EDT From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: RE:Yeast Lab Weizen Dave asks about the yeast lab weizen: < <<Date: Wed, 5 May 93 13:31:00 PDT Subject: Yeast Lab Co. and its Weisen yeast < < Fellow HBDer's, Does anyone know an addres or phone # for the Yeast Lab Co. I'm actually I too am extremely interested in any info regarding the origins of the Weizen strain they sell. I have *heard* that it is similar to Wyeast Wheat, but I have not tasted it or know of a brewer using it. If anyone out there uses this strain (or others from them), I would appreciate feedback on the fermentation characteristics. IN particular, does the yeast produce distinctive banana esters and phenolic character? Good brewing, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 09:45:10 EDT From: jimf at centerline.com Subject: Sam Adams being investigated Today's Boston Globe reports that Sam Adams is being investigated by the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs for misrepresentation in advertising. The investigation was incited by the Brooklyn Brewery because of the advertisements stating that Sam Adams Lager has "won the Great American Beer Festival four years running." It seems that they won in '85, '86, '87, '89, and '90 -- never more than three consecutive years. (The article also mentions that they won a gold and silver medal in '92 but they didn't mention that when talking about how many awards they'd won.) They didn't compete at all in '88. Best quote, from Jim Koch, about why it's ok: "I used to say we won four years in a row. If you go to bat three times, get three hits and a walk, and then a fourth hit, didn't you get four hits in a row?" Also disputed is the claim that Sam Adams is the only American beer imported into Germany. So are Brooklyn Lager and others. jim frost jimf at centerline.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 09:51:44 -0400 From: Timothy J. Dalton <dalton at mtl.mit.edu> Subject: Legal Probelms for Sam(tm)Adams(tm) Boston Globe, Thursday May 6, 1993. Pg. 77 (Business Sect.) Quoted without permission. Barroom Brawl, by Frederic M. Biddle, Globe Staff. " Beer isn't all that's brewing at Boston Beer Co. The Maker of Samuel Adams Boston Lager, described on bottlecaps and in company advertising as "The Best Beer in America," is barroom-brawling with a New York rival. New York City's Deparetment of Consumer Affairs is investigating Boston Beer for "possible violations" of the city's consumer protection law. "It's smarmy," Jim Koch, Boston Beer's president, said in an emotional interview yesterday. He said that the Borrklyn Brewery, which in New York distributes Mass. Bay Brewing Co.'s rival Harpool Ale, incited the investigation. "Thats ridiculous!" says The Brooklyn Brewery's president. "Thats irrelevant!" says a spokeswoman for the New York Department of Consumer Affairs. What is relevant,a ll agree, is the New York agency's April 19 letter to Koch. "Your current ads claim that Sam Adams Lager 'won the Great American Beer festival four years running,'" the agency writes. "However, our preliminary investigation indicates that while you received awards in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989 and 1990, awards were never reveived for more than three consecutive years." Exactly what Sam Adams won is also in dispute. In the late 1980s Samuel Adams Boston Lager actually won "consumer preference" polls of attendees of the Association of Brewers' Great American Beer Festival in Denver. Plaques accompanying those awards read: "Best Beer in America." But in 1990 the poll was replaced by a Professional Panel Blind Tasting, following sore losers' objections. "It was becoming a popularity contest, and it didn't really reflect our mission," says association president Charles Papazian. Now New York is telling Koch that "there is clear potential for consumers being misled when you refer in the aggregate to "winning" the Great American Beer Festival without being specific as to the nature of what you won." [the articles continues on and on and on... highlights.... Meanwhile, Koch has fallen flat with competitors. For example: Brooklyn Brewery's president, Steve Hindy, disputes Boston Beer's claim that Samuel Adams is the only American beer imported into Germany. Brooklyn Lager is, among others. "Many people are of the opinion that Jim's advertising is out of bounds," Hindy says. [and it goes on...talking about the use of GABF awards in advertising and how the policy is changing, and how there are 32 gold medals there... SA got a gold and silver last year, but then again Pabst Brewing Co.'s Olde English 800 Malt Liquor got the gold in the Americal Malt Liquor category...] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 06 May 1993 10:47:45 -0300 From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca> Subject: Re: Sparge water Thank you George for responding to my question. I do, however, have a few questions and commentaries. Firstly, I recognize that the mash thickness can be varied to some extent with little change in the final beer. The question then is which has a greater effect on the quality of the final beer, brewing every batch with about the same mash to sparge volume ratios, or brewing beers with about the same mash thicknesses? You wrote: "Had the ratio been increased to 1.5 (26 liters in the mash and 60 liters for sparging), the extract lost will typically drop to 1%. The most extreme case I have brewed had a ratio near 3.5 (20 liters mash to 46 liters sparge), and virtually no extract was left behind in the grains." Perhaps I am missing something, but 26L mash and 60L sparge is a ratio of 2.3, and lo, 20L to 46L is also a ratio of 2.3. You lost me somewhere in there. Lastly, was the 1.5 ratio solely for extraction rates? If so, I am less concerned than if this figure were for preventing tannin extraction or some other factor. ed ____________ Ed Hitchcock/Dept of Anatomy & Neurobiology/Dalhousie University/Halifax NS ech at ac.dal.ca +-------------------------------------------------------+ | Remember, God created the world in six days, | | and that was without the benefit of power tools! | +-------------------------------------------------------+ Eschew Budmillmolcoorbattheadh Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 11:15:05 CDT From: stevie at spss.com Subject: Miller Clear -- Less Yucky? With Miller Clear Beer in test market in Richmond, it was no surprise that last Saturday's Washington Post had a feature on it. Customers at a local tavern were questioned. In general the comments were very much as in Ad Age (mentioned in Tony Babinec's post in the last HBD), with the most positive remarks coming from people who didn't really like beer. One couple, in particu- lar, said that they had been drinking beer since college, but came to realize that they really didn't like it. Miller Clear was "less yucky" than regular beer. The bar owner said Miller Clear was selling briskly, but it looked mostly like a fad. Most of the customers were trying it once, and then switching back to normal-looking stuff. I didn't save the article, but I recall that Clear was only slightly lower in alcohol and calories than regular Miller products -- 122 calories per 12 oz. Tim Norris and I (we were in DC to judge at BURP's Spirit of Free Beer homebrew competition) thought briefly about a road trip to pick up a six to bring back to our pals in Chicago, but we opted for "yucky" Belgian stuff instead. We also only got as far south as Manassas, and lucky for us, Hero's didn't carry it. Perhaps one of our DC colleagues can provide direct quotes from the Post? +------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+ | Steve Hamburg | Internet: stevie at spss.com | "Life is short, and so | | SPSS Inc. | Phone: 312/329-3445 | are some brewers." | | Chicago, IL | Fax: 312/329-3657 | | +------------------+---------------------------+---------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 09:58:23 PDT From: Bob.Clark at Eng.Sun.COM (Bob Clark) Subject: Yeast trivia, Zima I live in east San Jose, CA, just outside the area where there was a problem with the Mediterranean fruit fly (MedFly) last year. There's a fly trap in my front yard, and I talked with the guy who was checking it for fruit flies. It turns out that the bait they use is a mixture of borax and *yeast*. This struck a chord with others who have mentioned that their fermentation attracts fruit flies to their airlocks. A friend brought a six-pack of Zima over last weekend. We split one bottle, and he refused to take the remaining five bottles home. It reminded me of the aftertaste you get with a really bad, cheap champagne. A bartender mentioned, too, that everyone who tried it in the bar had only bad things to say about it. Bob C. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 10:59:54 -0500 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Correction Richard Goldstein asks via private e-mail the following: >Your mash ratio of 33 liters for 20kg of malt is roughly 1.5 qts/lb >(sorry, I'm not entirely comfortable leaving all this stuff in metric >units), and several of texts imply that this is at the high end of the >mash ratios, ie that this is a rather "thin" mash. I am assuming that >you are dispelling this notion by the statement: >>plots of yield vs. mash thickness tend to be quite flat in >>the range 25-40 liters/kg. >Do you really mean 25-40 liters/kg, or are you missing a decimal point? >Or am I missing the point? :) Ops! What we have here is a tenured Full Professor of Mathematics with a Ph.D. from Harvard who can not do arithmetic! Doctor cure thyself! The correct range is 2.5 to 4.0 liters/kg. Thanks Rich! The malt charge reported in my post was 10 kg., giving a concentration of 3.3 liters/kg. which is approximately 1.58 qrs/lb. >I think that many homebrewers believe that a thicker mash is better, so >this is very interesting. Are yields vs mash thickness fairly >insensitive to mashing procedure? That is does your statement apply >equally as well to infusion/step/decoction mashing, or are there some >"better" thicknesses for each of these? These results are for infusion mashing only. The situation for decoction is a good deal more complicated because of the volume reductions during boiling. Theoretically a thick mash provides more thermal protection for enzymes, and this has been put forward as a point for a thick mash. On the other hand, enzyme activity is inhibited by the concentration of the products produced, and this tends to favor a thin mash. There appears to be some disagreement about whether the effects cancel, or that they are simply weak effects. Our mathematical models (based on the nonlinear differential equations of enzyme kinetics) suggest it is a combination of both. In any case, it has been my personal experience with my own system that mash thickness is not a major issue. The issue of over sparging and indeed hot sparging varies with beer style. IMHO one can ruin many lager styles this way, however as Martin Lohahl correctly has pointed out a few months ago, some of these effects can and have been used to advantage in Belgian styles. Thanks again Rich. I enjoy your e-mail! George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 11:27:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Paul dArmond <paulf at henson.cc.wwu.edu> Subject: Skunk beer? I also have wondered about the incidence of mercaptan "skunkiness". So I propose: Hey, Chuck! Could JudgeNet do an informal survey and report back on the incidence rate of skunky beer in contests? It seems to me that contest submissions would be the product of "reasonable" anti-skunk precautions. I have read in literature from John I. Haas (a big hop supplier) that isomerized hop extracts are far more resistant to skunkiness. I've taken this to mean that most of the beer sold in clear bottles (Miller, Newcastle, Sam Smith, Corona, etc.) is hopped with the isomerized extract and doesn't use *real* hops. I'm only guessing..... Paul. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 1993 03:47:30 -0800 From: scott at fm.gi.alaska.edu (Scott Stihler (USGS analyst)) Subject: Filtering beer Greetings, I've got a question regarding filtering beer. I've been interested in filtering my homebrew for awhile but I'm somewhat confused as to what is the optimum filter size for beer. Does anybody out there happen to know? I'm afraid if I get too small a filter size I may lose body. Anyways, I'd appreciate here what you have to say. Cheers, Scott Return to table of contents
Date: 6 May 93 11:28:00 +1300 From: BELLAGIO_DAVID at Tandem.COM Subject: Sierra Nevada Brown and The Goat Hill I would just like to second Bob's acclaim of Sierra Nevada's Brown. I really liked it. They told me it was a special one time brew. I will be going back shortly and can't wait to have a pint. I also like their spring special Pale Bock. As for Andy's mention of the Goat Hill Tavern, I was told of this place by the HBD and was glad I went. Great place to hang out. I could go for one of their Black Fog (Anchor Old Foghorn and Watney's Cream Stout) mixtures right now. Super Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 06 May 93 15:04:43 CST From: C05705DA at WUVMD.Wustl.Edu Subject: recipies for weisen a while back, month or two roughly, several people posted good recipies for weisen beer; they were fairly simple ones. Unfortunalty, the file that i saved it in bit the big one, followed by at #%*!. it seems that one of them had munich malt and one had regular two row malt. also, they included the name of the yeasts they used; they were of the wheat ale type. could you good people please resend them? thanks. "The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God." Thomas Jefferson address: c05705da at wuvmd.wustl.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 16:34:51 CDT From: jay marshall <marshall at sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov> Subject: tv ad for hb video While watching the Discovery channel last night I saw an ad for a homebrewing video. Needless to say I was surprised to see this kind of thing advertised nationally. Has anyone seen the video? If so, would you care to give a brief review? Jay marshall at sweetpea.jsc.nasa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: 06 May 1993 19:52:26 -0400 (EDT) From: WESTEMEIER at delphi.com Subject: Effect of light on beer In response to yesterday's request for info on the effect of light on beer: I've always found this fascinating, so I'll just outline what I understand to be the case, and let the experts fill in the gaps and correct the parts that are shaky. What actually happens is pretty easy to understand (assuming you have a PhD in organic chemistry). The alpha acids in hops are changed chemically during the boil, becoming isomerized (which means the molecules are formed into long chains). These iso-alpha acids (as they are then called) are much more bitter than the naturally occurring alpha acids, and they are also much more unstable in light. When light hits them, they are changed chemically again, and they tend to react with some of the sulfur compounds present in all beers. That reaction produces a new chemical (to be precise, the loss of CO by the acyl radical forms the 3-methyl-2-butyl radical, which then combines with a thiol radical from sulphur-containing proteins to produce 3-methyl-2-butene-1-thiol, for those of you keeping score) which is familiarly known as a mercaptan. Mercaptans are also the active ingredient in a skunk's defense mechanism, and are easily recognized by the human nose at levels of a few parts per billion. OK, how much light does it take? If it's the right (actually, the wrong) kind of light, the answer is "not much." Any light with a wavelength shorter than 520 nanometers will do the job. Think about how sunlight is broken up by a rainbow or a prism. The longer wavelengths are at the red end of the spectrum and the shorter wavelengths are at the blue end. Red, orange, and yellow won't really cause you a problem. Green is getting dangerous (the yellow-greens are OK, the blue-greens are not). Blue, indigo, and violet are a definite no-no. Ultraviolet is right out. Since normal (white) light contains more or less the whole visible spectrum, you want to use a type of glass that filters out the harmful part. Anyone who has ever done serious photography knows that fluorescent lamps put out light that is more heavily skewed toward the blue end of the spectrum, and incandescent lamps toward the red end. Obviously, fluorescent lights are more harmful to beer than incandescent lights. What kind of lights are used in the beer display case at your favorite retailer? Uh-huh, that's right! Actually, it only takes about 24 hours of exposure to this kind of light to have an effect on beer in a clear bottle (have you had any Corona lately?). Green bottles help, but only a very little, since they just block a little of the red light and a little of the blue. Higher levels of sulfur compounds in some beer produced in green bottles can actually wipe out the advantage, so that some beer shipped in green bottles is even more easily skunked than beer in clear bottles. Brown bottles help quite a bit, since they block almost all of the harmful wavelengths, but still let some of the harmful green light through. Some of the big guys actually apply a chemical treatment to their beer, so that light has little or no effect. Miller is the first one that comes to mind, and even though it's shipped in clear bottles, you're very unlikely to find a skunked Miller. But who wants a Miller? We don't always get what we pay for, and it would really be worth your while to ask your retailer for beer that hasn't been exposed to the light. Get a six-pack from a freshly opened case in the back room, rather than a cold one that has been sitting in the display case under fluorescent lights for a week. Ed Westemeie Cincinnati, OH westemeier at delphi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 6 May 93 18:39:29 -0600 From: cbacco at ursa5.cs.utah.edu (Corby Bacco) Subject: Methanol (aka wood alcohol) Hello all, First of all let me say that I know that methanol is not produced in homebrewing, at least everything I've read so far says that, and I am not worried about going blind. But, now that I've been brewing for about a year I've heard enough people say "You homebrew!? Watch out you don't go blind!" that now I really would like more amunition to argue with. Specifically, WHY isn't methanol produced during homebrewing or I guess the question could be asked as how DO you produce methanol? Thanks for the info in advance. Cheers, Corby Bacco Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1136, 05/07/93