HOMEBREW Digest #869 Wed 22 April 1992

Digest #868 Digest #870

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Re: Candy sugar (Aaron Birenboim)
  Sierra Nevada Yeast (Keith Winter)
  H2O and Nitr. (doug)
  Sierra Nevada Yeast (Martin A. Lodahl)
  Re: carboy caps & bottle rockets (Email.Harlequin)
  pepper beer  (Carl West)
  Spoiled Brew?? (Jeff Copeland)
  Grolsch bottles. ("DRCV06::GRAHAM")
  Itsa Conspiracy (Jack Schmidling)
  Vienna recipes (George Fix)
  Re:  Homebrew Digest #868 (April 21, 1992) (Marcel Levy)
  Wyeast 1028 kreausen question  (Eric Mintz)
  my experiences ("Brett Lindenbach")

Send articles for publication to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Please send all other requests to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com i.e., address change requests, subscribe, unsubscribe, etc. Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu **Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 12:15:08 +0200 From: rizy at cbts.sunet.se Subject: CATS MEOWWWW Would it be possible for someone out there to send me a copy of the Cats Meow and/or an FTP address where I could access the archives Thanks in advance, Rick Z. (Sweden) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 07:45:10 MDT From: abirenbo at rigel.hac.com (Aaron Birenboim) Subject: Re: Candy sugar Al replited to russ that "candy sugar" was likely to be cane or sucrose. At a talk i attended from the brewmeister of the "New Belgium Brewery", Ft. Collins, CO... he mentioned that "candy sugar" was the secret ingredient of many trappists. He defined candy sugar at Turbinado or Demura... Both of which are available in the grocery store near me. Look for them tucked away in the bottom shelf of the sugar section. They are not big sellers, and do not get a prominent display space. aaron Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 7:05:02 PDT From: winter at cirrus.com (Keith Winter) Subject: Sierra Nevada Yeast Ken Giles writes: > I've seen numerous remarks on culturing the yeast from a bottle of Sierra > Nevada Pale Ale under the assumption that it's the same as Wyeast 1056. When > I toured their brewery, the guide mentioned that they repitch yeast at bottling > time in order to achieve the bottle conditioning. I asked if it was the same as > the brewing yeast. He said that it was a different, more flocculant strain > which stuck well to the bottom of the bottle. Given that their conditioning > temperatures are in the 40s (Farenheit), it would also seem to be a lager > yeast (I didn't ask this). > > Anybody have information to the contrary? > > kg. The only information I have to the contrary is the information I got when I took the toor of SN. The guide, when I asked this very same question, defferred to one of the other workers (who seemed to be intimately involved in the brewing process but I didn't get a chance to iquire further) who said that they used only one yeast type (except for the Bigfoot Barley Wine) for primary, secondary and bottle conditioning. Just my $0.02 worth. Keith Winter Return to table of contents
Date: 21 Apr 92 08:49 EST From: doug at metabolism.bitstream.com Subject: H2O and Nitr. Hello: Just two quick questions... I've certainly enjoyed the Nitrogen heads found on so many Stouts today, I was wondering why this gas give off such a nice head and why it isn't used in other beers? Secondly, I've noticed over the years that most brewers don't usually provide the amount of mash-in water used. Is there a rule of thumb for gallons of water to grains mashed in? I simply eyeball it until I think the grain/water ratio is not too think. Thanks in advance doug at bitstream.com Doug Connolly Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 7:09:31 PST From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah at PacBell.COM> Subject: Sierra Nevada Yeast In HOMEBREW Digest #868, Ken Giles asked: >I've seen numerous remarks on culturing the yeast from a bottle of >Sierra Nevada Pale Ale under the assumption that it's the same as >Wyeast 1056. When I toured their brewery, the guide mentioned that >they repitch yeast at bottling time in order to achieve the bottle >conditioning. I asked if it was the same as the brewing yeast. He >said that it was a different, more flocculant strain which stuck >well to the bottom of the bottle. Given that their conditioning >temperatures are in the 40s (Farenheit), it would also seem to be >a lager yeast (I didn't ask this). > >Anybody have information to the contrary? Yep. It's possible they've changed their procedures in the last 10 months, but at a Sensory Evaluation seminar at UCDavis last June I met a microbiologist from Sierra Nevada who said they condition with yeast from the fermentors, after an acid wash. They don't use the washed yeast for pitching; only for conditioning. As an aside, I believe it speaks volumes for Sierra Nevada's approach to quality that a brewery that size actually HAS such a job description as "microbiologist". You mention conditioning temperatures in the 40s; consider this: many ale yeasts that will stay in suspension in the 60s will drop right out in the 40s, providing as tight a yeast cake as one could want. I assume they start the conditioning process at a warmer temperature and then go down to there, unless they also artificially carbonate (which would make sense to me). At those temperatures, they really don't need to maintain a second yeast strain. = Martin A. Lodahl Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst = = malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM Sacramento, CA 916.972.4821 = = If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, = = Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me! 8-) = Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 10:11:41 -0400 From: adiron!Email.Harlequin at uunet.UU.NET Subject: Re: carboy caps & bottle rockets In HBD #868, mcnally at wsl.dec.com wrote: > Why would you want to use an orange cap instead of a stopper and airlock? > Even if you use a blow-off tube, the diameter of the orange thing is too > small (unless you like plugged tubes and carboy bombs). I've had my share of ballistic carboy caps--okay, maybe more than my share. I did several things. First, I went out and got some tubing with an inner diameter equal to the outer diameter of the carboy cap's central (larger) opening. This will give you about double the cross section of the tubing-inside-the-opening arrangement. Second, and more important, I made sure to filter my wort when putting it into the carboy. Nothing fancy, just passed it through a kitchen strainer and into a funnel that has a plastic screen in the bottom. This is particularly handy when whole hops have been used. Even when in a boiling bag, some of the bracts sneak out with the sole intent of clogging your blowoff tube. It takes a little longer to get it into the carboy, but what gets into the carboy stays there! The best solution is to do something discussed here recently. Let the break material settle out a bit and rack the wort off the trub before fermentation gets going. I did this for a barley wine and left behind a gallon(!) of break material. I can only imagine the carboy cap fireworks that might have ensued with that batch! Since I've taken these steps, I've had no more bottle rockets and no more irate telephone calls from my wife after finding hops on the ceiling. But I probably won't be able to replicate that batch of "Calamity Amber". Such is life. Yours in brewing, Scott Barrett scott at adiron.partech.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:01:59 EDT From: eisen at kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West) Subject: pepper beer I would suggest adding the pepper as late in the process as possible. Long ago I made a hot pepper mead. I put the peppers (crushed red) in the boil at the start. I cooled it and pitched it. Talk about a slow start! There was no krausen for the first 3 or 4 weeks. My theory is that there were only a few yeast cells that could stand up to the anti-biotic properties of the hot peppers and it took them that long to take over the must. Were I you, I'd roast the peppers and try either dry-peppering in the secondary or the bottles themselves (smile when you drink that beer). Carl WISL,BM. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:03:34 -0600 From: copeland at calypso.atmos.colostate.edu (Jeff Copeland) Subject: Spoiled Brew?? In HBD #867 Jason wrote: >Me and a pal brewed a batch of beer 2 weeks ago (today) unfortunately we >have not had a chance to bottle it. Now we are wondering if we spoiled >the batch. Should we bottle it anyway? Should we dump it? Should we >bottle it and then give it as gifts to our enemies? Etc. As Al said in HBD #868 go ahead and bottle it. I just bottled a batch of Stout that had been sitting 11 weeks in the primary (about 2 months longer than I planned). The uncarbonated beer tasted fine, a bit thin but due to the recipe not the bottling lag. On another note I'ld just like to say that I've been reading HBD for a week now and am pleased with what I've seen. ____ ____ Jeff Copeland / / Atmospheric Science /---/ copeland at calypso.atmos.colostate.edu Colorado State University ____/ /____ Return to table of contents
Date: 21 Apr 92 13:43:00 EDT From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet at drcvax.af.mil> Subject: Grolsch bottles. I still have 72 Grolsch swing top 16 ounce bottles and 25 24 ounce swing top ones for pretty cheap if you're within driving distance of Derry, New Hampshire. -Dan, (508) 475-9090 ext. 2352, days; 603 432-1661, evenings. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 11:39 CDT From: arf at ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Itsa Conspiracy To: Homebrew Digest Fm: Jack Schmidling >From: bickham at msc2.msc.cornell.edu (Scott Bickham) >Subject: Jack Schmidling's NA Beer (very long!) >Saturday, Jean Hunter ran a Dr. Beer seminar in which several Ithaca Brewers' Union members were able to taste a standard beer that had been doctored by adding food grade flavors or by fermentation/storage conditions. After we had finished, we had the opportunity to taste Jack Schmidling's NA homebrew, as well as Freeport NA "brew". My analysis of these two NA beers appears below, along with a listing of some of my judging qualifications. >Jack's NA: The beer was in a clear Corona bottle, which enabled us to see a small colony (about 1/4" in diameter) floating on the surface of the liquid. Jean Hunter remarked that the colony was there when she received the bottle in the mail. The color was pale, however it was very cloudy. The bottle had been refrigerated, so it could have been chill haze; however I didn't let the beer warm up to test this hypothesis. The conditioning level was similar to the Freeport. The aroma was faintly herbal, but phenolics were also detectable. The taste was also herbal, with some phenolic astringency in the finish. The flavor profile of this brew lasted longer than the Freeport; however it seemed more like an herbal tea than a beer. As for the alcohol level, Jean has not yet checked this on the chromatograph, so the question of distillation efficiency remains unanswered. I am not sure if I should be just irritated or downright outraged at all this. After being accused of everything biggotry to being a charlatain, I sent Jean some samples to be analyzed for alcoholic content on Mar 16. I also included a complementary copy of "Brew It At Home" as a token of appreciation for her help. I have sent mail to her three times since sending the samples and she has declined to respond and this is the first feedback I have received. There were four different samples, produced in different ways and none of them were intended to represent anything other than samples for chemical analysis. There was only one that I would even consider drinkable. One was boiled to reduce the volume by 50% another was a blend of 4 different beers, one was in a plastic bottle and none were aged or cleared prior to sending. In the future, I will have a hard time taking criticism of my articles seriously. >Jack, I recommend that you be extra careful with sanitation, since more microorganisms can exist at the lower alcohol level (as you are no doubt already aware of). As a matter of fact, I was no uninterested in anything but the alcoholic content that I didn't even sanitize the bottles. I just rinsed and filled them. I might have done a lot of things differently had I not been deceived as to the purpose. >Also, since your brew still contains isomerized-hop and sulphur compounds, you are taking an unnecessary risk of photochemicaldamage by using clear bottles. Hopefully the reason you sent this bottle to Jean is because you are trying to get rid of it :-) What you think of as a joke, is precisely why I used the clear bottles. They are from Miller High Life and I only use them when I don't care what the beer tastes like or when I can control the environment. Now that you have all had your fun, is it asking to much to answer the only question the samples were sent to address. What is the alcohol content? js Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 15:09:02 CDT From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Vienna recipes (George Fix) Laurie and I would like to thank Craig Olzenak for his kind comments about our book. After a initial trimming of potential recipes we decided to go with whatever formulations did the best in sanctioned competitions, independent of our personal preferences. There were no conflicts with the standard Vienna, and it is the formulation that won 1st in the '87 nationals. It also won best of show in the EHA competition in New Orleans of that year. It has also proven to be quite serviceable for the most important use of homebrew, namely as a beer to have on hand for visitors and special social events. We started to "debug" the festival beer (Marzen/Oktoberfest) in '88, and this one caused us considerable grief. The first version, still our favorite, used the recipe on page 57 except 120 degree caramel malt was used instead of the 20 degree. We share Craig's love of the dark malt flavors! However and alas, the version was clobbered in competitions. Typical comments included "way too big for style", "dark malt flavors are overpowering", and in Texas competitions (Dixie Cup) it was criticized for being underhopped. The latter is a predictable regional response, but one with some validity. We tried a lot of different things including different yeast strains and higher hopping rates, but the overall performance was generally poor. In 1990 we started cutting back on the dark malt profile, and in particular started using the 20 degree malt. We also started using English caramel malt exclusively. The effect of these two changes was dramatic. It won 1st place in the 1990 LA Fair, the 1990 Riverside Cal Fair, the 1990 Dixie Cup, and the 1991 Bidal Society Comp. in Wisc. It was also entered in the New England conf., however that one was sharply marked down for being overhopped. The last time it was entered was the 1991 nationals where it won 3rd place. The two beers that came in front of it were in the standard Vienna motif, and it has been our experience that this version (SG=1.050-1.055) will generally do better than the festbier (SG=1.060-1.063). All of the commercial "Oktoberfests" available in the US fall into the lower part of the first gravity range, and apparently most judges not to mention basic beer drinkers have grown accustomed to the lower gravity versions, although a SG in the range 1.050-1.055 is hardly a weak beer. P.S. Those going to the microbrewer's conference next week in Milwaukee should stop by the Brewers Research and Development Co.'s booth and say hello. There will be some exciting new equipment on display. JV Northwest and Pub Systems can be counted on to display some interesting things as well. All of this should give one an indication of the striking technological revolution that has been taking place these last few years vis a vis equipment for small scale brewing. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 14:55:01 PDT From: mlevy at unssun.scs.unr.edu (Marcel Levy) Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest #868 (April 21, 1992) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 92 17:06:01 MDT From: Eric Mintz <ericm at bach.ftcollinsco.NCR.COM> Subject: Wyeast 1028 kreausen question I've just used Wyeast for the second time. The first time, I brewed a stout with 1007. It had a wonderfully high kreausen (>3" !). This time, I'm brewing a Pale Ale with 1028. It's producing CO2 like a banshee but the kreausen is less than 1" high. Is this characteristic of the yeast or my wort (or is it common for the kreausen height to vary)? In other words: what in the wort is going on here? :-) - --Eric Return to table of contents
Date: 21 Apr 1992 18:11:45 -0600 From: "Brett Lindenbach" <Brett_Lindenbach at qms1.life.uiuc.edu> Subject: my experiences well, i've been reading the digest for several weeks now, and have finally decided to contribute. i might add that my background is as a microbiologist and 12-batch brewer. about geoff sherwood's last comment (#868), i agree that clear bottles are much nicer than brown bottles. the reason being that i autoclave my bottles, and i have always lost at least half the brown bottles due to cracking, but have never lost a clear or green one, although import browns (ie. guinness, etc.) work fine. also, i have had success with kegging beer in my *carboy*. the trick is to use a strong one, such as a pyrex one. these also have a nice lip on them to clamp the stopper in. i have brought the CO2 up to 15 psi without any adverse effects. i mention this for anyone who wants more detail on my setup, just let me know. also, i have had some recent success in yeast culturing/plating/storing and would be happy to share with anyone interested. -brett "blessing of your heart, you brew good ale." - w. shakespeare my experiences form by b. lindenbach Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #869, 04/22/92