HOMEBREW Digest #1989 Wed 20 March 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Thanks to all who responded (Rolland Everitt)
  yeast mutations (BOBKATPOND)
  slow carbonation (Bob Wilcox)
  Alcohol/Starters/CO2/Stills (A. J. deLange)
  Electric Stove Hook-Up/Long Signature Files (Jeff Hewit)
  First Wort Hopping Summary ("Dave Draper")
  Bottle washing (Dave Corio)
  Admonishing and The Evil Advance Title List... ("Pat Babcock")
  frustrated homebrewer (by way of "Jeremy E. Mirsky" <mirsjer at charlie.acc.iit.edu>)
  oak in lager (Robert Rogers)
  Racist newsgroup proposal alert! (Jay.Betrug)
  recent trip to tennessee (Robert Rogers)
  Science in beer (Mitch Dushay)
  Distilled Beverage Summary.... (Aesoph, Michael)
  Apple Beer Recipe? (COLLICR1)
  Re: Calories Revisited (PWhite)
  Cherry Fever Stout w/ canned cherries ("Lee A. Kirkpatrick"                       )
  How you say, "De groovy?" ("Barry Blakeley")
  more genetic drift, distilling ("Tracy Aquilla")
  Victoria, BC visit (HOMEBRE973)
  Starters, moonshine, misc. (Russell Mast)
  brewpubs in Fla. ("FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS")
  carbonation process ("FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS")
  Grain Bag (Edwin Thompson)
  Re: CO2 in what form? (Spencer W Thomas)
  Bristletail Ale (Bugs in my beer) (Keith Frank)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw! Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 06:24:34 -0500 From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt) Subject: Thanks to all who responded Thanks to the MANY people who responded to my double inquiry on first wort hopping and ftpmail. I received much useful informa- tion, and numerous offers of help obtaining back issues of HBD. I have been "surfing the net" for about four years now. During most of that time I have had full Internet access and did not have to rely on secondary means of access such as ftpmail. Some of our members are obviously quite knowledgable about these things, and happy to help. I have belonged to many 'net discussion lists on many topics, ranging from sailing to computer center administration, but I have never belonged to a group where the membership was more committed to mutual help. HBD and its members are a great resource! Rolland Everitt Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 08:21:02 -0500 From: BOBKATPOND at aol.com Subject: yeast mutations From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: yeast mutations >>Many micros and brewpubs reuse their yeast for many generations and some use >>the yeast forever. There are several reasons for this, to replace the yeast >>is expensive, it usually performs better after a few generations, and there >>is no reason to replace it very often. I talked to one brewer who said that >>he wanted his yeast to mutate. That way he had a yeast that no one else had. It >>was his own strain of yeast. >This may be true, but that brewer doesn't know that the odds are against >him. Most mutations are undesirable. Natural selection was covered very >nicely in Domenic's post (that's a keeper). >>All brewers have their own methods of monitering their yeast. Some go by the >>number of generations, others watch the performance of the yeast carefully >>(such as how it flocculates and how the attenuation is ) and can tell >>when things are different and then dump the yeast. >Good point, but I feel you could elaborate on it. It is my understanding >(I'm no microbiologist) that the most common mutations are (in no particular >order): >* losing the ability to reabsorb diacetyl, >* losing the ability to ferment some sugars, >* losing the ability to flocculate, and >* respiratory deficient (RD) mutants -- aka "Petit Mutants" (this mutation > exhibits itself as some combination of the first three... I don't recall > which). >As you can see, none of these are particularly appealing mutations. This is >why Bob points out that you need to watch the yeast's performance and if >something starts to increase or decrease suddenly, you should toss the yeast >and start from stratch (or a master, if you've got it). Fix in"Principles Of Brewing Sciences pg156 states petite mutants are the most common form of mutation." At levels as low as 1% of the pitching yeast, these mutants can produce diacetyl at levels well above theshold. .....Although diacetyl levels seem to be the best indicator of their presence, there are also reports that the petite mutants produce high levels of fusel alcohols and are very strongly flocculent." Bob Morris Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 06:42:14 -0800 From: Bob Wilcox <bobw at sirius.com> Subject: slow carbonation Hi All This is my first time post. I brewed a ale partial mash O.G. 1.052 S.G.1.012 used wyeast irish ale #1084, Primary 7 days, secondary 14 days, gelatin 3 days before bottling. Bottled and primed with 1 1/4 cup DME ( never used DME before). I pitched a 750ml starter in primary and got a good start. It's been 3 wks since I bottled and almost no carbonation. Now the questions. 1. Is using DME a lot slower than corn sugar? 2. Is the #1084 a slow acting yeast? 3. Did the gelatin settle out to much yeast?(I Have used it before,worked OK) 4. What about temp for aging? I have them at constant 68-70 degs. Any help with this would be great. I hate flat beer. Email or Post is fine TIA Bob Bob Wilcox Long Barn Brewing bobw at sirius.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 13:49:08 -0500 From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange) Subject: Alcohol/Starters/CO2/Stills A few comments on the caloric content of alcohol. Alcohol is metabolized by oxidation back to the acetaldehyde from which it came using the same enzyme: alcohol dehydrogenase, but its done in the cytosol of your liver cells instead of in yeast cells (and the ADH is different). Actually the gastric mucosa contain some ADH (more in men than in women which is why the bioavailability of ethanol in women is higher than in men, a fact which has been exploited by men, but not gentlemen such as your writer, since time immemorial). The acetaldehyde is further oxidzed to acetyl (this is a noun, remember) by another enzyme, aldehyde dehydrogenase, in the mitochondria. Acetaldehyde in a nasty thing (even if it does have that pleasant apple odor) in your body and is responsible for much of the distress of hangover. The stuff that your grandmother snuck into your gramdfather's coffee to control his drinking (disulfiram) blocks the action of aldhehyde dehydrogenase thus allowing acetaldehyde to pool. Some orientals are genetically deficient with respect to this enzyme which is why many of them can't drink. The acetyl quickly joins up with coenzyme A to form acetyl-CoA which can either go into fatty acid or cholesterol synthesis pathways or enter the Krebs cycle to udergo oxidation to CO2 and water. In this latter case, all the caloric energy of the alcohol is converted to ATP just as if the acetate came from pyruvic acid which is the usual source (from normal glycolysis). The other pathways are associated with the "fatty liver" and modified levels of triacylglycerols in the blood of users of alcohol (the increases HDL/LDL ratio in moderate drinkers is thought to be a cause of increased longevity by some). The carbon of consumed alcohol is NOT available for glcuoneogenesis or conversion to glycogen thus the calories of alcohol are often referred to as "empty calories" but they are available as a source of energy via respiration. There are, of course, lots of problems associated with the metabolism of alcohol, may of them due to the presence of excess quantities of NADH (the product of the oxidation steps) in the system. There are also other means by which alcohol is eliminated from the body (sweat, urine, breath, MEOS). I have described the major one. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Regan Pallandi asked about the necessity of the stepup protocol used in building up yeast starters. This is an opinion but the two major reasons for stepping up are convenience and safety. Any time I'm trying to make a "culture", be it a few ml or a half barrel, I want enough cells going into it to overwhelm any competition. Transferring a loopful of cells to a small tube assures this this. Going from a loop to a litre does not. On the practical side, the small tube is easier to manipulate at the same time as the slant and gives me an opportunity to see if I've met the safety criterion before I go to the trouble to boil and cool a gallon of wort. Once underway, the small tubefull gets pitched into a flask and by the time that is underway it is practical to decant a portion for smell, taste and microscopic examination checks. If infection is spotted I can start over from another slant or, if desparate, acid wash the culture I have at this point. From,the flask level on it's into a one gallon carboy which goes through repeated cycles of decant broth; supply fresh wort and oxygen. The problem with this is that as the paste buids up the yeast will go through a pound of sugar in no time and the feedings must be frequent. A larger starter volume would decrease the necessity for some of these feedings but I stay with a 2.5 gallon carboy. After bad experiences last summer all starters stay under a laminar flow hood until they are used and the smaller size carboys will fit in there and can be manipulated. * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Howard Smith asked why PV doesn't equal nRT in a CO2 bottle. In case it was not perfectly clear from other posts, it is because there is liquid in the bottle most of the time. When all the liquid boils off or the temperature gets above 89F the bottle is full of gas and the gas law does apply. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mitch Hogg opines that the BATF, which is part of the Treasury Department, is serious about cracking down on illegal stills because of concern for the health of the population. Anyone who believes this should immediately report to Clinton Campaign Headquarters. We can forgive Mitch his naivite' based on his Canadian address. With lead solder virtually impossible to find anymore we're pretty much left with fire/explosions as the main hazzards. Many people thumb their noses at the law and distill at home (or in the woods or wherever). I think these people are crazy. They should be in fear for their lives, not from lead (solvated) or explosions from alcohol vapor but from lead (flying) and explosion set off by the folks who brought us Ruby Ridge, Waco and other "minor" incidents (like beseiging the guy who missed child support payments). A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore! ajdel at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 14:20:55 -0500 From: jhewit at freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit) Subject: Electric Stove Hook-Up/Long Signature Files My previous entry on using a burner outlet to power a counter-top boiler elicited private scoldings from two of our more priggish members, so I was somewhat reluctant to post again. But the feeling soon passed, so here I am again. I know know that others may disagree with me, but I want to point out again that anyone who fools around with electricity in an unapproved fashion is asking for trouble. Household current can kill in a fraction of a second. Call me an electrophobe. I prefer to think that I'm just giving electricity the respect it deserves. Anyway, I believe that anyone who shoves wires into the burner outlet of an electric stove IS crazy. (If they are just ignorant, they're lucky to have lived this long.) And, I am concerned that the guy who asked about this is apparently being encouraged to try it by another member of the collective. We all have a pashion for good beer, but it's not worth dying for. ***************** There have also been some comments on the use of long signature files. I agree that long files - I have seen at least one that is 14 lines long - are a waste of space. It's fine to identify yourself, and include appropriate location information and phone numbers. (I assume all those using work-location access have their employer's permission to receive recreational email.) It's also OK to include a short quote or other witty line. However, please spare us all the goofy artwork. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Hewit Midlothian, Virginia Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 09:11:21 +10 From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper at mq.edu.au> Subject: First Wort Hopping Summary Dear Friends, with the recent interest in First Wort Hopping, I thought I would provide this summary of the article in Brauwelt that was mentioned in George Fix's original post. To answer a recent question regarding the wording in Jim DiPalma's posts: First Wort Hopping refers to adding the hops to the kettle as the wort is sparged into it--the hops sit there soaking in the runnings for the entire time the runnings are collected. They continue to sit in the wort as the boil is commenced. This summary is just from my reading of the article (The rediscovery of first wort hopping, by Freis, Nuremberg, and Mitter, Brauwelt IV:308, 1995; copy supplied to me by Andy Walsh) and is not meant to be comprehensive; but I hope that is useful to some of us. Any errors in understanding the content of the article are mine. I am sure we will all have lots to talk about on this subject; I'm only trying to provide what the original article had to say (in Readers Digest form). I'll do it in sorta outline form. 1. Introductory material. First wort hopping (FWH) was used extensively at the start of the century but mainly in order to enhance bitterness rather than aroma. It was recognized that the higher pH of the *wort* (as opposed to later in the boil) had a positive effect on utilization, combatting the effects of losses from coagulation on break material. The higher pH of the first runnings enhances isomerization of alpha acids. Other attempts were made to actually hop the mash (!!); other early efforts involved running the sparged wort through a hop filter--a "hop front" instead of a hop back, I guess...DeClerk steeped the hops in 50C water before adding to the wort (to remove "unpleasant" stuff); a later worker used 70C water. Both reported enhanced aroma qualities. 2. The experiments. Two different breweries produced the test brews that make up the subject of this article, Pils types. The two breweries make a slightly different version of Pils. At each brewery, the FWH beer was brewed with a reference beer alongside. The FWH and Reference beers at each brewery were done under controlled conditions, identical ingredients, pitching rates, etc., and differed only in the way they were hopped. In both test breweries, hops were dumped into the boiler once its bottom was covered with wort; no stirring--they just sat there while wort was sparged on top of them. Brew A (total hopping: 13.0 g alpha acid per hectolitre of cast wort) was first-hopped with 34% of the total amount added--Tettnang and Saaz that were typically used in aroma additions at the end of the boil under normal conditions. Brew B (total hopping: 12.2 g alpha acid per hl wort) used only Tettnang, but 52% of the total hop amount was used as First Wort Hops. No aroma hopping was done in either brew. 3. Tasting panel results: the FWH beers were overwhelmingly preferred over the reference beers in triangular taste tests (i.e., each taster was given three beers, two of either the reference beer or the FWH beer, and one of the other, and had to correctly identify which two were alike before their preference results were incorporated in the database). 11 of 12 tasters of each beer preferred the FWH beer. The main reasons given for the preference: "a fine, unobtrusive hop aroma; a more harmonic beer; a more uniform bitterness." 4. Analytical results--bitterness: The FWH beers had more IBUs than did the reference beers. Brew A: Ref beer was 37.9 IBU, FWH beer was 39.6 IBU. Brew B: Ref beer was 27.2 IBU, FWH beer was 32.8 IBU. This should come as no surprise, since more hops were in the kettle for the boil in the FWH beers than in the Reference beers. Prior to fermentation, the worts from both breweries showed the following features: the FWH wort had substantially more isomerized alpha acids, but less non-isomerized alphas. This was particularly true of Brew B, which had a higher proportion of first-wort hops. Nevertheless, the bitterness of the FWH beers was described as more pleasing than the (slightly weaker) bitterness of the reference beers. 5. Analytical results--aroma: For the aroma compounds, very distinct differences were measured (gas chromatography) in both the identities and concentrations of the various aromatic compounds between the FWH beers and the reference beers. Because the precise nature of the effects of aromatic compounds on beer flavor are very complicated, it cannot be said with certainty just why the various measurements resulted in the overwhelming tasting preference, but clearly something is going on here. Even though the reference beers had higher *absolute amounts* of most of the aroma compounds, again the FWH beers got higher ratings for overall pleasure. 6. Final comments: each brewery needs to experiment with its own setup for determining what sort of first-wort hopping is best for it. But the alpha-acid quantity should *not* be reduced, even if one gets more bitterness than one would get in the usual way. The tasting panel results seem to indicate that the bitterness in the FWH beers was fine, and mild--i.e. there is little harshness that can appear in a highly bittered beer. If the hops are reduced to compensate for the extra IBUs one gets from the first-wort hops, then the whole benefit of doing it might be lost. The recommendation is to use at least 30% of the total hops as first- wort hops--basically, this means adding the aroma hops as first-wort hops rather than late kettle additions (at least for my setup, and I suspect for many others' too). That's my quick 'n' dirty summary. I found the article quite readable, aside from the parts where the technical info is too far afield for me to make much sense of it (e.g. the gas chromatography results). Hopefully this will give a baseline that interested readers can refer to for what will undoubtedly be a fairly extensive discussion of this topic. One quick comment: Bob McCowan mentioned, quite correctly, that the above commentary applies to infused beers--in decocted beers, comparatively little break is formed in early part of the boil, so one needs to consider this. If I read the Brauwelt article properly, infusion beers were the only ones being discussed. Cheers, Dave in Sydney "...we are usually at the mercy of gravity." ---A.J. deLange - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au WWW: http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html ...I'm not from here, I just live here... Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 16:34:06 -0600 From: Dave Corio <dcorio at inav.net> Subject: Bottle washing As I novice I would sure appreciate a critique of my bottle washing techniques. As I empty one I simply rinse the dregs and store in the case. When I'm ready to bottle a batch I run the empties through the dishwasher (only at 140 degrees). I then use a vertical pump to blast a shot of weak bleach/water into the bottle, and rinse using a faucet bottle washer. The bottles air-dry upside down on a bottle tree while I prepare the brew for bottling. The only variation I've used is to substitute iodine for the bleach (per another local brewer). I'm currently brewing my 7th batch, so still very new at this, so any suggestions/ideas/criticisms will be graciously accepted! Thanks in advance. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:03:06 +0500 From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com> Subject: Admonishing and The Evil Advance Title List... Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... *School-master rant mode activated. Please duck when necessary* In the last several issues, everyone takes a kick at Ken Schwartz's head, among other repetitive tripe... Hey, folks! Didn't Rob add that rather nifty feature where you get an advance listing of posting titles FOR A REASON?!?!?!?!?!? Who's the next genius gonna be to step up to the plate and take a swing at the difference between 20 and 15 amp wiring? Kind of like "If I told you once, I've told ya a hundred times" - ONLY LITERALLY!!! YES I'M TALKIN' TO YOU - HEY! LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU!!! Please, folks: we asked for that feature to avoid such male bovine excrement as what has just passed for information here. The ones appearing in that first issue following Ken's (or any other offending) post - you're excused. You had no idea that you were just duplicating each others' efforts - though it would have been cool if a few of ya considered the possibility and cancelled. THE REST OF YOU BOZOS ARE STAYING AFTER SCHOOL TODAY! Go the keyboard and write a million-billion times: "I will read the response from the Digest and see if I'm a replicant." You may use a macro. And don't feel bad about stayin' after - we're ALL Bozos on this bus... *School-master rant mode deactivated. You can get back up now.* Please dial in flames to 1-800-SWIG-BUD (Kinda the brewers' equivalent to 1-800-EAT-... well, you get the drift. =) See ya! Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit) pbabcock at oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/ Sysop: HomeBrew University - Motor City Campus (313)397-7915 8,n,1, 24 hours daily. Immediate and full access at initial logon! Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:22:02 -0600 From: (by way of "Jeremy E. Mirsky" <mirsjer at charlie.acc.iit.edu>) Subject: frustrated homebrewer Hi, folks... As a relatively new homebrewer (still with extract and a grain bag), I have come to realize that I haven't had much variability between the 4 or so batches that I've brewed over the past year or so. Several times, I have used Northwestern extract. Could this be a problem? My beers (pale ales) have been too sweet. Actually, my last batch was based (very closely) on Papazian's Vallalia IPA recipe, although I used more hops than he suggested.... Still, not hoppy enough, didn't really seem like an IPA to me. There have been no infections. That last one was dry hopped as well. I'm not quite ready yet to throw in the towel on homebrewing yet, but I want to figure out why I seem to be getting similar results with significantly different recipes. Would amylase enzyme eliminate the sweetness? Or is this just inherent in extract beers? Also, if I were to construct a somewhat crude wort chiller, what is the recommended diameter of the copper tubing (for an immersion chiller)? Is there a formula for calculating the proper amount of priming sugar required after taking into consideration beer lost due to blowoff, etc.? My lPA was extremely overcarbonated (1 part ale to 3 parts foam). Finally, when using grains in a strainer bag before adding extracts, is it necessary or desirable to 'sparge' and/or wring out the sack of grain into the boiling kettle? Ok, no more questions from me... Thanks for any help JM Jeremy Mirsky mirsjer at charlie.acc.iit.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 00:15:52 -0500 From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers) Subject: oak in lager i have had a lager in the fridge (high 30s) for a while. i have been watching the co2 bubbles on the surface to decide when it's done. they were just about gone so i decided that the beer was about done fermenting, so i dropped in a 6 inch length of chared oak dowel. (thanks to those who responded to my post about that). now after a few days, there is renewed activity. does anyone have any ideas? maybe the oak has o2 that the yeast are now using? if that's the case could this be a "cure" for stuck fermentation? bob rogers bob rogers, bob at carol.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 1996 22:21:05 -0500 (EST) From: Jay.Betrug at mail-e2a-service.gnn.com Subject: Racist newsgroup proposal alert! There is currently a proposal for the newsgroup rec.music.white-power, an attempt by neo-nazi racists to legitimize their activities. It is now in the CFV stage, where anyone with a valid e-mail address may vote. "White power" racist music is not a legitimate form of music deserving of a separate rec.music newsgroup, but rather a political group masquerading as a musical one. And, the rec.* hierarchy is inappropriate because rec.* is for recreational activities, and racism is anything but recreational. But, most importantly, we must show the racists that they will not be granted a mainstream forum in order to promote hate. If you don't want a Usenet where minorities feel unwelcome and uncomfortable, vote NO on rec.music.white-power. Let's make this a crushing defeat for racists. To vote, send e-mail to music-vote at sub-rosa.com and put I vote NO on rec.music.white-power in the body of the message. The actual CFV can be found on news.announce.newsgroups, or by sending a blank e-mail to music-cfv at sub-rosa.com. Voting ends 23:59:59 UTC, 18 Mar 1996, so act quickly! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 01:04:04 -0500 From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers) Subject: recent trip to tennessee thanks so much to those who posted about my query for brewpubs in west/central tennessee (there were about 14 of you). if you want to know what i thought about my trip, see: http://www.carol.net/~bob/beer.htm i don't have a scanner yet, so it is all text. bob bob rogers, bob at carol.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:04:38 +0100 From: mitch at molbio.su.se (Mitch Dushay) Subject: Science in beer On 14.3 Pat Babcock wrote: ....recent government studies have shown detrimental effects on yeast from exposure to plaid.... Thanks for sharing the authoritative voice of Science Pat;) So many homebrew enthusiasts rely on hearsay and legend - it's nice to see the real thing now and then. It's also gratifying to know that someone's Science has real application to real life:) Mitch Dushay (PhD) email: mitch at molbio.su.se Developmental Biology Wenner-Gren Institute Stockholm University S-106 91 Stockholm Sweden Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Mar 96 08:17:01 EST From: aesoph at ncemt1.ctc.com (Aesoph, Michael) Subject: Distilled Beverage Summary.... Dear Collective: The responses to my inquiry about homemade distilled beverages fell in two broad categories: 1. It's illegal, you can go to jail 2. It's dangerous unless you know exactly what you are doing Therefore, I will not be distilling any beverages!!! Mike Aesoph Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 07:38:56 -0600 From: COLLICR1 at MAIL.STATE.WI.US Subject: Apple Beer Recipe? The New Glarus Brewery here in Wisconsin makes an Apple Beer that I would like to attempt copying. It is hopped and I believe it is both malt and cider based. Being very new at home brewing (3 ciders, 2 beers) I am not sure where to even begin with this one. Any recipe suggestions would be very much appreciated. Craig Return to table of contents
Date: 18 MAR 96 09:04:15 EST From: PWhite at os.dhhs.gov Subject: Re: Calories Revisited shelby & gary <gjgibson at ioa.com> added some interesting comments to the discussion on how the body handles the alcohol once it's ingested. In it he states that a few of the calories in the beer may be negated because the body has to perform work to detoxify the alcohol. This may be true, however I seem to recall having read an article about a study that was conducted in sweden(?) on the effects of alocohol metabolism. As I recall (It was a while ago that I read this) the finding was that individuals who included alcohol in their daily diet gained more weight than individuals who did not and had the same total daily caloric intake. The proposed theory was that the alcohol slowed down the metabolism. Food for thought anyway(no pun intended;-) He also gives the stats that college students with "A" avearges drink 3.5 drinks a week and those with D's and F's drink 11. Having had a minimal amount of statistical training and having worked with statisticians in the pentagon I find myself a little skeptical of such numbers. I always wonder how the study was conducted, for example was it a survey of a psych professors classes where the students with A averages had a vested interest in maintaining a certain image with the prof and those with D's and F's didn't care? Or was it conducted by A-B?(judging by the conclusions probably not) Also remember that the drinking age in most states is 21 meaning that it is more difficult for freshmen and sophores to get alcohol. The introductory courses taught to freshmen are usually easier to maintain good grades in. No flames intended here I'm just trying to show the world what a cynic I can be. Phil White Haven't you ever heard of a pwhite at os.dhhs.gov Rhetorical question before? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 09:13 EST From: "Lee A. Kirkpatrick" <WPSSLAK%WMMVS.BITNET at VTBIT.CC.VT.EDU> Subject: Cherry Fever Stout w/ canned cherries I thought I'd report the results of a recent experiment, as I received lots of good advice from this forum back when I was planning it. I followed the recipe from Papazian for "Cherry Fever Stout" to the letter, using a liquid ale yeast (Wyeast 1056) and substituting 5 lb of canned, pitted tart cherries in water (no sugar or syrup). I just tasted it after two and a half weeks in the bottle (following a month-long secondary fermentation). The result so far is a big, rich, bitter stout (much to my liking), but with only a hint of cherry. I plan to keep most of it until about next fall to let it age a little, hoping that with time the bitterness will smooth out a bit and let the cherry tartness come through. Unless it changes fairly substantially, though, I'd recommend more cherries or a little less bittering hops for better balance. By the way, I added the cherries (including packing water) in the primary: just dumped them into the bottom of my fermenter and poured the partially-cooled wort from my cookpot on top of them. I left the cherries behind when racking to secondary after about 10 days. I'm sure we would all agree that fresh or frozen cherries would be superior, but these unfortunately weren't available at the time. I figured that the canned cherries should be safe, given that they were packed only in water with no sugar or other additives. However, I suppose one might need to use a greater amount of the canned to get the same degree of cherry tartness and flavor as one would get from fresh. Any more thoughts on this? - --Lee Kirkpatrick wpsslak at wmmvs.cc.wm.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 08:27:40 mst From: "Barry Blakeley" <BlakeleB at den.disa.mil> Subject: How you say, "De groovy?" Simple question for those of you who have actual interpersonal communication regarding brewing: How is "Wyeast" pronounced? I realize some disagreement may exist, especially since I ran into a brewshop employee who says, "Moonish" instead of "Munich" (or better yet "Munchen"). Or maybe I should skip it and stick with Yeast Labs or Red Star. Please clue me in so I can communicate like the hip brewer I consider myself to be. Thanks, eh! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% "Those aliens from the 8th dimension? I'm looking at them right now!" Barry Blakeley blakeleb at den.disa.mil Denver, Colorado If I had 3 stars, my opinion would be that of the Defense Information Systems Agency. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 96 11:28:44 CST From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu> Subject: more genetic drift, distilling In Digest #1986: folsom at ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom) wrote: "I'm curious. Since most yeast strains claim to be cultured from a single cell (and we are taught to do that when propogating yeast), and since yeast reproduction is via budding rather than sexual reproduction, how do we get yeast which are not genetically identical without mutation? [snip] Thanks, Al F." Good question. The answer is, through selection of variants which arise via mutation and genetic drift. (BTW, there's a difference between cultureing from a single cell and a single colony. Noonan covers this in his book on Lager.) and Mitch Hogg <bu182 at freenet.toronto.on.ca> wrote: "Distillation is quite illegal (at least in the US and Canada), the primary reason for which is that it is potentially harmful." Actually, I think the real reason is TAXES! Uncle Sam wants his cut. Distillation is not really that dangerous. Home canning is potentially just as lethal as running a still, in terms of both explosions and the possibility for poisoning. Mitch then goes on to say: "Dennis Davison's eisbock article in Zymurgy (winter 1995), freezing beer or wine and removing the non-alcoholic ice crystals that form is not legally distillation but "fractional crystallisation", and is perfectly above-board." I read the article but I think he's wrong. The BATF considers this to be essentially the same as distillation. This excuse won't work: "I wasn't concentrating the ethanol in my beer, I was just concentrating the water". Whether one 'removes' the concentrated brew OR the ice (i.e. water), the effect is the same and it's a felony! I think if you contact the BATF, they'll tell you in no uncertain terms that making eisbock or applejack (or whatever: concentrating alcohol by freezing) is illegal unless you have a US distillers license. Tracy in Vermont aquilla at salus.med.uvm.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:46:37 -0500 From: HOMEBRE973 at aol.com Subject: Victoria, BC visit Hi All, I will be going to Victoria, BC and Vancouver in a few weeks and would like recommendations on beer/pub/brewery related places to visit. Private e-mail will be fine. TIA, Andy Kligerman Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 11:14:03 -0600 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Starters, moonshine, misc. > From: Regan Pallandi <reganp at iris.bio.uts.EDU.AU> > Subject: Why build up starters? > > Hello all - I am wondering about the practice of building up yeast > starters into ever increasing volumes of wort (ie 500ml->1000ml->2000ml). > Why not just pitch the few cells into the large volume to begin with, and > do away with the steps in the middle? I would have thought, aside from > maybe a longer lag time, the yeast will multiply up to the limit of the > available nutrient, and it would be easier to just make up the desired > volume of starter and leave it at that. None of the books I've read make > any mention of the reason for "steps". Any ideas? I'm not sure why this isn't addressed in these books. Essentially, there are two reasons. One is a general "it tastes better" that with a larger pitch per volume, the yeast ferment in better health, because they spend more energy making alcohol and other delicious chemicals and less energy making more yeast. I don't know if I fully buy this explanation, but it does taste better. The other reason, which I do understand, is that pitching more yeast per volume reduces the risk of infection. In evolutionary terms, beer yeast are competing with other organisms (other yeasts, lactic bacteria, mold, etc.) for a limited resource (wort sugars and nutrients). The beer yeast, understandably, want all that sugar to themselves. So they excrete chemicals which make it harder for these other organisms to survive. (eg ethanol.) The change in pH of the wort and alcohol level makes it harder for these infections to take hold. The more yeast you pitch per unit volume, the faster they can get the alcohol level and pH to a point where other organisms have a hard time taking a foothold. Think of the extreme case - pitch only one cell of ale yeast into a 5 gallon carboy of wort. Yeah, if your wort and equipment is 100% sterile, that one cell's progeny will -eventually- ferment the whole batch. But, if you drop a single cell of something else in there, they are on much more even footing. On a more relevant note, I wear plaid when I brew. Why? I once brewed while wearing a tie and nice slacks. The whole batch had to be dumped, it tasted just like Budweiser. > From: Mitch Hogg <bu182 at freenet.toronto.on.ca> > Subject: Distillation: Don't do the crime if you can't do the time > Don't even think about it. Or if you do, for your own sake don't tell anyone > you're doing it. Distillation is quite illegal (at least in the US and > Canada), the primary reason for which is that it is potentially harmful. Actually, the main reason that it's illegal is that it's much easier to hide a non-regulated commercial distillery than a non-regulated commercial brewery. If you're illegally selling your homebrew, you've got to move a lot of it before you start making a profit. It's much harder to hide 100-1000 gallons of illegal beer sales a week than 20-30 gallons of illegal moonshine. > The stakes are much higher for distillation than fermentation. To wit, if > you screw up your beer, it tastes bad; if you screw up a distilled beverage, > it could kill you (or at least make you good and sick). And there is a great risk of fire and explosion (cool, huh huh) when distilling. > In fact, a friend of > mine who runs a wine supply shop was once visited by the police, who > told her that if anyone ever came in even asking about distillation she > was to notify the authorities immediately. She hasn't, of course I don't know Canadian law, but if a cop did that in the US, that would be very stupid. Essentially, that's not legal for the cop to do, and even if your friend was totally uninvolved in a case, someone might be able to wriggle out of the charge and get off scott-free if it became known that he was trying to gather information in this way. (If the crook's lawyers were good, that is.) > (I don't think merely thinking about distilling is illegal yet), No, but talking about it on e-mail might be, pretty soon. (Especially if you post special abortion techniques involving moonshine...) > However, if you really want > distilled/fortified beverages, do not despair; there are other, safer > ways to do it. The first option is freeze distillation. According to > Dennis Davison's eisbock article in Zymurgy (winter 1995), freezing beer or > wine and removing the non-alcoholic ice crystals that form is not legally > distillation but "fractional crystallisation", and is perfectly > above-board. I've been told that it's illegal. Maybe it's a state to state variation, but I'm under the impression that you can't do that in a lot of places. > The other option is fortification. I have made brandy, > port, and sherry by adding a bottle of grain alcohol or vodka to the > appropriate type of wine. And you could make Zima with the appropriate amount of grain alcohol to tonic water, too! (Sorry, couldn't resist.) > From: saunderm at vt.edu (J. Matthew Saunders) > Subject: Brewing in Fishtanks > 4) Make sure that the caulking inside *IS* rated safe for food. Make sure > that the acidic wort won't break down the caulking. That would be my primary concern with that. I'd guess it's not a very good idea. Aren't fishtanks really expensive, too. > From: dharsh at alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh) > Subject: CO2 in what form? At regular or reduced pressure, CO2 doesn't -have- a liquid form. I'd guess 'vapor pressure' is the pressure at which it can form a liquid. Maybe the frost line is from a little liquidization, or maybe it's from some of it solidifying in the bottom. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:19:27 EST From: "FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS" <BFINLEY at MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> Subject: brewpubs in Fla. I'm planing a trip to Florida in the comming months, and I want to try out some brewpubs there. More than likely I will be in the Destin, Ft. Walton Bch, Panama City area of the panhandle. Anyone have any suggestions as to any brewpubs in this area. Nothing finishes of a day of deep sea fishing better than a good chilled mug of brew. B. Finley Biological Sciences University of Georgia Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:23:11 EST From: "FINLEY, BARRY CURTIS" <BFINLEY at MUSIC.CC.UGA.EDU> Subject: carbonation process I have just bottled my first batch of homebrew last week. How long does it take for the brew to carbonate? Are there any signs that ensure that proper carbonation is occuring? When I bottled, the pale ale smelled wonderful and I can't wait to find out how everything is going to turn out. B.F. Biological Sciences University of Georgia Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 10:43:42 -0800 (PST) From: ad339 at freenet.unbc.edu (Edwin Thompson) Subject: Grain Bag Could anyone help me out on the difference between a grain bag and a sparging bag? I've obtained one cheap but need to know basic things, like how is it meant to be used and is it washable. The man who's selling it had never used either so he's no help. Any info would be appreciated Yours Ed. - -- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:42:48 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: CO2 in what form? All CO2 tanks should have their "tare weight" stamped on them somewhere. This is what the tank weighs empty. For example, my 5lb tank is stamped "11.8". When it's full, it weighs almost 17 lbs (11.8 + 5 = 16.8). =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:12:38 -0600 From: keithfrank at dow.com (Keith Frank) Subject: Bristletail Ale (Bugs in my beer) ****** From Mark DeWeese ****** Brewers: While bottling my latest batch of ale this past weekend, I experienced something I'd like to share with all of you. When I bottle my beer, I usually run the bottles through the hot rinse cycle in my dishwasher to clean them prior to filling. This time however, in addition to these bottles, I used some that had been cleaned, dried, and stored in a closed cardboard box several months earlier. I didn't concern myself with the bottles from the box. I knew that they'd been cleaned well, dried, and safely stored away in a closed container ~ no problem, right? Well, after I fill and cap bottles, I always wipe any spillage from the outside and put them in a dry case container. As I was doing this, I noticed something floating in the neck of one of the bottles of beer. On closer inspection, I found this to be a bug - an insect, you know, a critter with six legs. Anyway, I found a total of nine bottles containing bugs. The bugs were the little weevels you find in grain and cereal. A couple of the bottles contained silverfish (I'm considering calling this beer "Bristletail Ale"). I uncapped the "bugged bottles", poured the bugs out and recapped. Insects such as bristletails (i.e.; silverfish and firebrats) like to dine on starchy things like wallpaper glue, and cardboard box glue. The bugs fell into the bottles because they were stored upright in the box. I probably could have avoided this had the bottles been stored mouths- down. By the way, I assume the bugs to have been dead prior to filling the bottles with beer, and they probably had been so for quite some time. Has anyone ever experienced a similar situation? Do you think the bugs have spoiled the beer? Bugged in Brazosport... Mark DeWeese c/o keithfrank at dow.com Return to table of contents