HOMEBREW Digest #668 Thu 27 June 1991

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Winners Circle (Grain vs Extract) (Mike Fertsch)
  Hop growing question ??????? (Jim White)
  US formulations of imported beers (Bob Devine  26-Jun-1991 0843)
  Please add me to the mailing list. (ACS_JAMES)
  Flavors (Paul Schmidt)
  What's *in* that beer? (Steve Kirkish)
  Cold Filtering Debunked  (hersh)
  Cold Filtering (C.R. Saikley)
  Help with Mabi brew (RJS153)
  coatings on kegs (Marty Albini)
  Aerating worts (Don McDaniel)
  Mashing time (John Freeman)
  beginner's & cat's meow questions (Greg Pryzby)
  cutting & miller (chip upsal)

Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com [Please do not send me requests for back issues] Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:03 EDT From: Mike Fertsch <FERTSCH at adc1.adc.ray.com> Subject: Winners Circle (Grain vs Extract) Let me put in my 2 cents on the "Winner's Circle" recipes and the Grain vs Extract discussion. I agree that there are as many extract recipes in this book as grain recipes. This may indicate that extract beers are as "good" as grain beers. OTOH, most of these recipes are OLD. All-grain brewing has become popular only in the last few years. I estimate that three or four years ago, 80 percent of all competiton ENTRIES were extract beers. I'm surprised that only 50 percent of the WINNERS are extract. The simple fact that 50 percent of the beers in this book are extract beers does not tell us much about quality of grain or extract recipes. Winners from recent competitons (check Zymurgy) are almost exlusively all-grain beers. I guess that more than half of today's entries are all-grain beers. I conclude that looking at competiton winners tells us about the popular fads in brewing. It is difficult to derermine good versus bad sources of fermentable sugar. I've been judging homebrews for a long time (5 years, I think?!). Homebrew has improved significantly since then. IMHO, the beers that won competitions a few years ago would not do well today. I'd think twice about blindly adopting recipes from Winners Circle. I should know, I have a few swill recipes in the Winners Circle book. Mike Fertsch Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:40:59 EDT From: JWHITE at maine.maine.edu (Jim White) Subject: Hop growing question ??????? I planted 4 hop rhizomes (2 Cascade, 1 Willamette, 1 Mt.Hood) about the middle of May. To date just 1 (The Willamette) has broken the surface. I feel certain that I prepared the soil, and planted the rhizomes appropriately. I am aware that the vines won't produce buds this year, but am surprised that it has taken so long to surface. Does it typically take 5-6 weeks for signs of life? Should I be concerned? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 07:50:12 PDT From: Bob Devine 26-Jun-1991 0843 <devine at cookie.enet.dec.com> Subject: US formulations of imported beers Mark W Castleman writes: > Another bit of antecdotal evidence on beers tasting different here than > on their home turf. Two years ago I took the Carlsberg tour in Copenhagen. > I was told that the Carlsberg, Tuborg, Elephant etc. which is shipped here to > the USA is made according to a completely different recipe than the stuff > made in Denmark for domestic consumption. There are several other examples of different formulations of the same named beer. Everyone has probably heard that the Guinness stout exported is different that the native recipe in Ireland (exported has higher alcohol, for example, because Irish tax laws on beer is based on alcohol content). Another, not as well known, example is Beck's. I've heard that the US marketed version has some corn as an adjunct because it, like Carlsburg, was perceived as too malty for the average consumer. Sigh. Bob "living in the land of `malt liquors'" Devine Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 11:41:56 EDT From: ACS_JAMES at VAX2.ACS.JMU.EDU Subject: Please add me to the mailing list. Please add ACS_JAMES at VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU to the mailing list. I've sent several messages to homebrew-request but have not been added. Thanks, James W. Wilson Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:44:46 EDT From: prs at titan.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Paul Schmidt) Subject: Flavors I haven't brewed anything yet (perhaps later this summer or early fall?), and I'm trying to get an idea of what kind of beer to try first. I've been reading lots of descriptions of beer flavors (hoppy, sweet, esters, etc.) but I don't really know what they all _mean_. Can someone post a description of the major flavor 'spectrums', and name a commercially available beer that would represent the presence or absence of that particular flavor? For example, I understand that Molson Golden is a hoppy beer; is there a similarly-flavored beer without as much hops that I could try next to it? And so forth...? Thanks in advance! Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1991 08:56:23 From: kla!kirkish at Sun.COM (Steve Kirkish) Subject: What's *in* that beer? I've been reading with interest the recent entries about Big- Breweries' and their alleged additives, creating a chemical soup that tastes almost, but not completely, unlike beer ;-). I dug out my 1988 copy of CAMRA's "Good Beer Guide" (a definitive guide, IMHO, and indispensable in the UK...) and turned to page 144 for an entry entitled "Foreign Bodies", by Roger Protz. He mentions in particular Miller Lite, "described as 'the nearest thing to an empty glass'", and discusses how American legislation (at one time) forced the makers to list their ingredients: "propylene glycol alginate, water, barley malt, corn syrup, chemically modified hop extracts (there ya go), yeast, amyloglucosidase, carbon dioxide (!), papain enzyme (clarifier, I believe), liquid sugar, potassium metabisulphite, and Emkamalt". Public outcries forced Miller to drop it's use of additives, the report goes on to say. It is brewed under license in Britain by Courage. The author considers this to be a happy example of what the British big- brewers should follow. He goes on to describe the effects of these and other additives (available from your local chemistry set): propylene glycol alginate is added to lager and keg beers to lend a "commercially attractive but fake head"; amyloglucosidase and aspergillus niger are used to balance enzyme deficiencies; hypochlorite, bleach, ozone, giberellic acid and bromate can speed germination and starch extraction; and silicone anti-foam reduces the yeast head in fermentation vessels to "squeeze in more liquid". The upshot is to not only make beer drinkers aware of what might be in that bottle, but to also suggest that ingredients go back on the label. If ya got nothing to hide, why not show it? Fortunately, these additives are not necessary to the taste of a homebrew, and their probably not cost effective. I am no chemist, but I have a feeling that most of the ingredients above might be organic extracts and most may not be unhealthy. As the cartoon at the end of the article states, with the bartender telling a guy at the bar with a "Gents" room beyond, "Not many people hang on to it long enough to worry about the ingredients". So, don't worry, relax, have a homebrew! (And apologies and thanks to CAMRA and Roger Protz for the excerpts.) - -- Steve Kirkish Disclaimer: These opinions, which belong to me, are mine. So Relax. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 13:05:32 EDT From: hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu Subject: Cold Filtering Debunked Gee what is cold filtering you ask?? Well in just about any brewery larger than your kitchen the beer is filtered prior to bottling or serving. Since Miller brews Lager beers the beer is already cold. A typical step before filtering is cold conditioning, where the beer is "aged", basically let sit at temperatures in the low 30s. This can also be known as lagering, though cold conditioning is typically for just long enough to let yeast sediment out of solution, while lagering can go on for many months. Either way the beer is cold at this point, and from what I understand keeping it cold during bottling helps the CO2 stay in solution. So as far as I can determine, cold filtering is something Miller has done for as long as they've used filters, made lager, and bottled it. It's just a new name for something that a lot of breweries do. Miller probably trademarked it first though so no one else can use it. As far as "clean" room procedures, many other brewers use some or all of these techniques (clean rooms with microbial air filters, sterilant bath before entering filter room, etc..) Oh yeah, the reason some brewers don't pasteurize is cause they use a finer (and more $$) filter that gets out not just the yeast, but also bacteria, which are smaller. On a related note, Joe mentioned Miller 100% Barley Draft, well Matt's of Utica has been making Saranac, an all-malt American Pilsener for some time. While other Matt's products (except the contract brews) are pretty much swill the Saranac is respectable American pilsener. JaH Tonto - the Lone Rangers side kick, literally means fool Quemosabe - What Tonto called the Lone Ranger, a contraction of "Quein No Sabe" literally One who knows nothing Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 10:13:31 PDT From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley) Subject: Cold Filtering Just to add to the discussion of cold filtering....... I recently heard that those wily Japanese brewers, the very ones who pioneered the "cold filtering" process, were adding a small number (~1000) of yeast cells back into each bottle of cold filtered brew. The idea being that these yeasts would consume whatever oxygen was introduced during the bottling process, thereby increasing the shelf life. Now imagine that, filtering out all the yeast, then adding some back in! All this for the sake of producing a consistently bland beer and keeping it consistently bland longer. Pass the Sierra Nevada please, CR Return to table of contents
Date: 25 Jun 91 15:15:56 EST From: RJS153%SYSU at ISS1.AF.MIL Subject: Help with Mabi brew Hi All! A friend of mine is from Puerto Rico, and he wants to make a native brew from Puerto Rico called "Mabi". Mabi is a mildly alcoholic brew that uses the bark from some tree, possibly the Mabi tree. The wort (I'm new to this, so forgive me if I use the wrong terms) also has cane sugar, and a sample of someone else' s Mabi already brewed. My guess is that this is where the yeast comes from. M abi is a real quick fermenter, something on the order of five days, or only thr ee days if they put it in the sun. We're in Ohio, so there are not a lot of Ma bi brewers in the neighborhood. He needs to either find some Mabi-style yeast or get a substitute. What type of yeast could he substitute? Any help you can provide is appreciated. If we ever get this off the ground, I 'll be sure to tell everyone how it turns out. - --Randy-- (and Dave) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 11:12:34 PDT From: Marty Albini <martya at sdd.hp.com> Subject: coatings on kegs Sorrty to post this, but mail bounced and I hastily discarded the alternate address. > Am looking for a source for some form of paint or coating to apply > to my SS barrels/kegs that will provide better heat transfer. > I have heard of such coatings, and seen photos of containers with a > gray coating on their bottom surfaces. To the outside or the inside? If you want to put it on the inside, you'd be wasting your effort. Direct contact with the fluid in question is as good as it gets. If you want to put it on the outside, there are some paints you might try, but they wouldn't be much use unless you want to cool the keg in orbit or something. A coating can increase heat transfer by radiation, one of the three normal mechanisms (the other two being conduction, where heat flows within a stationary medium, like a metal; and convection, where heat is carried by a fluid in motion), but at the expense of the other mechanisms. If you turned your keg into a perfect black body (100% emissivity) you would get only a microscopic increase in heat transfer at the kinds of temperatures normally encountered in brewing. Radiative heat transfer varies with the fourth power of temperature, so things like stars and white-hot pieces of metal lose most of their heat by radiation, but things like kegs lose most of their heat by convection. In a vacuum, there isn't anything to convect or conduct to, so all heat transfer is by radiation. This is why it's so hard to cool the space shuttle, and why thermos bottles have a vacuum insulator. If you could increase the surface area of the outside of the keg (by welding on fins, say) you could increase convection somewhat. To get optimum effect, you'd need fins on the inside too. I assume in all this that you're trying to find a way to chill kegs quickly. There's another approach: in-line chillers called cold plates. The idea is you store the beer warm but run it thru a refrigerator or ice chest to cool it on the way to the tap. Foxx Equipment sells these for about $125, but you could make your own for half that. I've seen them used, and they really work. A wort chiller stuck inside might work too, but you'd risk contaminating the keg, and you'd lose some carbonation. If you figure something out, let us know! I'd like to save some time at parties. --martya Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 12:53:29 -0600 From: dinsdale at chtm.unm.edu (Don McDaniel) Subject: Aerating worts Mike McNally offered his experience with oxygenating wort prior to pitching and asked for comments. Here's mine: First, I like to use the term aerating to preclude any confusion with oxidation which we all know is undesirable. Like Mike, my primary reference is Miller. I used to fan the wort over the sides of the primary when racking to aerate the wort. With this method, I experienced a variety of problems with long lags, slow or stuck ferments, and high terminal gravities. So I tried something akin to what Mike described. I rack to a carboy after cooling and allow to sit over night for trub settling. In the morning, I rack to my plastic-bucket primary and pitch. I don't generally bother with the fanning procedure anymore. I take my OG reading right in the bucket and then use the hydrometer (which is of course already sanitized) and whip the hell out of the wort. I do this for a couple of minutes until my arm gets fatigued and there is a good head of foam on the wort. I then seal it, put the fermentation lock on it and let it go. This procedure has solved all the aforementioned fermentation difficulties. The past seven batches in which I've used this method have all resulted in quick, clean ferments without any signs of infection (the additional exposure to bacteria from the whipping is small and I feel is more than offset by the shorter lags). I also apply this to the preparation of starters. The ten minute boil is sufficient to drive off most or all the oxygen. Vigorous swirling in the starter bottle before fitting the fermentation lock results is much faster takeoff times. Don McDaniel Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 17:06:21 CDT From: jlf at poplar.cray.com (John Freeman) Subject: Mashing time I thought I'd add my two cents worth to the discussion of mashing times. I drew up this PERT chart long ago to determine what could be done in parallel. I have mashed in as little as 3 1/2 hours - I had no homebrew to drink while I was doing it... With homebrew, it takes a little longer. I tried to draw this to scale, each column representing about three minutes, each task placed approximately where it belongs in time. The straight line represents the critical path, the things you cannot hurry: heating, mashing, boiling, cooling. One of the best speedups you can make is to sparge into your boiler while applying heat (at J). |-5|-30-|------------90---------------|--15-|--------60--------|----20---|-5-| D /----------H------------\ - /-------------Q /-T-\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ C \ F \ K \ N \ S \ A-B-----E-----------------------------J-----M-P---------------P-R---------VWX \ / \ L O / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / G-----------------------I - \-------------/ \-U-/ A. Clean mash tun, measure mash water. B. Heat mash water. C. Assemble grains, scale, grain mill, etc. D. Crack grains. E. Mash. F. Clean up from cracking. G. Relax. H. Measure and heat sparge water. I. Clean and set up sparge equipment. J. Sparge into boiler. K. Heat wort to boil. L. Weigh hops. M. Boil wort. N. Clean up sparge equipment. O. Proof yeast (dry) or take wort sample for yeast starters. P. Add hops to boil. Q. Clean and set up wort chiller. R. Chill wort. S. Put hydrometer and thermometer in wort. T. Put away materials. U. Clean boiler, strainer, etc. V. Pitch Yeast. W. Clean wort chiller. X. Relax. Relax. Relax. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 91 15:27:40 EDT From: pryzby%neptune%uunet.UU.NET at hplb.hpl.hp.com (Greg Pryzby) Subject: beginner's & cat's meow questions I have been lurking for a few weeks now and just want to thank everyone out there. The info that is being shared is going to be helpful in the future (right now alot of it is over my head 8^). My first question is concerning the Cat's Meow. When I sent the ps files to my printer, I got a U instead of a ' (apostrophe) everywhere, Q instead of ??? (I haven't figured out what the Q is suppose to be), have R and S instead of italics or underlining, and 0 instead of a degree. Anyway, is it a problem with my printer??? My first batch is bottled and will (hopefully) be ready for drinking on the 4th of July. I am already looking forward to my next batch and am pouring through recipes and trying to determine what I should brew next. I am open to suggestions. Also any tips that you have would be great. THe summer issue of zymurgy has an article by Rob Brooke which has some good pointers, IHMO. Thanks in advance for the info and email is fine. If anyone is interested in pointers/hints I will compile the data and mail you a synopsis. peace, greg Return to table of contents
Date: 27 Jun 91 00:01:38 EDT From: chip upsal <70731.3556 at compuserve.com> Subject: cutting & miller > "Damn...I cut it twice, and it's STILL too short!" Or as I say "measure once cut twice" >Now, here's another--what the * at #$ is "cold filtered"? Chilling the beer untill a haze is formed then flitering out the haze, bacteria and some usefull proteens -- these proteens contribuite to head and body. >ANd can someone tell me how beers are made non-alcoholic? I >think boiling and osmosis are two--am I right? Yes those are two of the methods I have heard about. Chip the carpenter Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #668, 06/27/91 ************************************* -------
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/29/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96