Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2350
HOMEBREW Digest #2350 Mon 17 February 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
AOB/AHA (cathy)
Candi Sugar ... ("Pat Babcock")
AOB/AHA part II (cathy)
thermometer in fermentation tank (PVanslyke)
marzen recipe (Al Stevens)
Hop oils, gravity of starters ("Raymond Estrella")
Sierra Nevada Wheat Recipe? (JCMaretti)
Canning wort/rebutting criticism (Harlan Bauer)
Bill's "Errors" Post (Alex Santic)
What's the preferred breed of dog for homebrewing (Rex Clingan)
Aerators, De-skunking ("David R. Burley")
Recipe for Irish Cream (Christopher Tkach)
Wheelers Porter..Part 5. (Rob Moline)
Wheelers Porter...Part 6. (Rob Moline)
Secondary fermentation in bottles? (Tim Plummer)
newbie question - cloudy Altbier! (Tim Plummer)
Cooper's Sparkling Ale - yeast/recipe? (dbrigham)
mash amounts, blonde ale ("Raymond Estrella")
RE: No sparge brew (Alex Santic)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://brew.oeonline.com/
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@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@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:38:40 -0800
From: cathy <cathy@aob.org>
Subject: AOB/AHA
Part 1 of a 2 part message:
Louis Bonham wrote:
> As many of you may recall, late last year there was a lively
discussion
> in this newsgroup regarding perceived problems with the AOB/AHA.
> Among other topics, there were a number of questions regarding:
>
> 1. AOB/AHA finances. Specifically, questions were raised regarding
> much AOB president Charlie Papazian makes from this supposedly
"nonprofit"
> organization, in terms of salary and paid travel, as well as other
> questions regarding spending in the AOB/AHA. These concerns were
> amplified by the AOB's rather bizarre refusal to release copies of
> their IRS Form 990 upon request.
Let me stress again, that the AOB followed the law with respect to our
990's. In response to Louis' follow-up message about the IRS laws, the
new law he is discussing does not go into effect until 60 days after
the IRS issues regulations related to that law. Those regulations are
currently under discussion but have not been issued.
> > 2. AOB/AHA's corporate structure. Questions were raised why the
> > officers and directors of the AOB/AHA appear to be selected by
> > and accountable to only one person -- Charlie Papazian -- and why
> > Charlie is the only AOB officer or director who has any expertise
> > or reputation as a brewer. Questions were also raised why the AOB/AHA
> > steadfastly refuses to even *discuss* why AHA (or IBS) members have
> > no say in the selection of officers or directors. (I opined that
> > there was absolutely no legitimate business, legal, or ethical
> > justification for this anti-democratic position.)
>
Again, I attempted before to explain the organizational structure of he
AOB many months ago. Please understand that we are a business with a
board of directors made up of business and professional people in the
Boulder/Denver area. These people take their board positions very
seriously. They do not answer to Charlie, in fact, it is exactly the
opposite, he answers to the board.
We took a suggestion from many of our members (including e-mails posted
to HBD) and have created two liason positions from the board of
directors to both the AHA board of advisors and the IBS board of
advisors.
>
> > 3. AHA Board of Advisors. Longtime Board of Advisors members have
> > complained that this body is a powerless joke that has always been
> > simply ignored by the AHA bureaucracy. This has prompted questions
> > as to why the Board of Advisors should not be give some real oversight
> > authority over the AHA bureaucracy. This discussion was also fueled
> > by the AHA President's inexplicable refusal to post copies of the
> > bylaws for the Board of Advisors -- bylaws promulgated and decreed
> > by the AHA bureaucracy and that, according to some Board of Advisors
> > members, prove that the Board of Advisors is nothing but window >dressing.
> >
Again, we explained that the AHA by-laws are fairly long (approx. 6
pages) and we didn't want to use the HBD band-width for something only
few people may be interested in. So, how's this: as we offered before
you can call or e-mail to get a copy AND we will put them up on our web
page by Friday February 21st.
It is unfortunate that we did not use the previous board of advisors as
effectively as we should have. Obviously reading Jeff Frane's
comments, he was very frustrated as a board member. We've just expanded
the number of members on the AHA board of advisors (BOA) as well as
expanding their role. Again, the role of the BOA is to advise, keep us
abreast of our members needs and contribute to new programs. In order
to take advantage of their expertise, we will be creating sub-committees
to focus board members on specific areas of concern. This will also
make it easier for AHA members who are not on the board to give input to
the BOA. Again, in order to keep band-width down, you can e-mail or
call for a list of advisors OR look on our web page by next Friday.
On the issue of voting for the board of advisors. Again, as Melinda
Bywaters posted in December, 'the 1995 AHA membership survey asked
"Would you like the opportunity to vote for the AHA board of
advisors?". The overwhelming response was "no" (68% of the respondents
did not want to vote for the board of advisors)'.
Also note that the IBS brewery members want to vote for their BOA
representatives and do so annually.
Sorry these may have come to you out of order. Cheers! Cathy
- --
Cathy Ewing
Vice President
Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 120 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 cathy@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org/aob (web)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:31:28 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Candi Sugar ...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Way back when I dabbled in making hard candy, we used to drop spoons
full of the molten sugar into water to form it into balls (in fact,
this method is used to determine if the heated sugar is yet "crack").
Could this work for the candi sugar formulators, too?!? Drop it in,
fish them out, and let them air-dry. I think I'll try this...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock@oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Visit the HomeBrew Flea Market via my homepage!
URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 17:49:37 -0800
From: cathy <cathy@aob.org>
Subject: AOB/AHA part II
> Here is the next part of Louis Bonham's concerns:
>
> > According to the last available (tax year 1995) Form 990 for the AOB
> > (recently obtained by Jim Liddil through a FOIA request and forwarded
> > to me), Charlie Papazian received in excess of $100,000 in annual
> > compensation from this "nonprofit" organization, plus substantial
> > pension contributions.
>
> > And what does Charlie do for this largess? He doesn't handle the
> > day-to-day operations of the AOB or oversight of its divisions --
> > that's Cathy Ewing (who also collected a very tidy sum in 1995 to
> > do so). He doesn't manage the AHA, IBS, or Brewers Publications:
> > each of those divisions have well-paid managers as well. He doesn't
> > serve as the editor of Zymurgy or New Brewer -- both of those have
> > paid editors. He doesn't even write for Brewers Publications
> > -- his books have been published by for-profit publishers such as Avon.
> >
I will let Charlie respond directly to your attacks.
> >
> > Nor does he, as AOB President, run the GABF -- that's been spun off
> > to another nonprofit corporation (Brewing Matters), that just happens
> > to office in the AOB's headquarters. (Whether Charlie collects any
> > additional salary or compensation from Brewing Matters remains to be
> > seen. I'd like to think that the AOB or Brewing Matters would just
> > answer an inquiry to that effect, but given the AOB's track record of
> > nondisclosure I suspect that another FOIA request will be needed to
> > find out. Stay tuned.)
>
I am President of Brewing Matters and Charlie is on the board of
directors. Neither of us receive any compensation (salary, bonuses or
other) from that organization. The Brewing Matters financials are
published annually in a newletter to the brewing community. Again, if
you want a copy call or e-mail.
[snip]
Finally, it appears that the question of brewing expertise at the AOB is
cause for concern. Let me assure you that everyone at the AOB brews at
least three times a year and that we have a pool of brewing talent.
Below is a list of staff members, their brewing experience and brewing
education:
Charlie Papazian (need I say more)
Mark Duros - 3 years professional brewer: Oxford and Oasis
Siebel Short Course; American Brewers Guild Graduate;
6 years homebrewing
Jim Parker - 1 year professional brewer: Dimmers
Moderates IBS professional brewing forum
10 years homebrewing
Dena Nishek - 5 1/2 years homebrewing
several advanced homebrewing courses; American Brewers
Guild and ASBC, HopTech Course, Homebrew U, Siebel Off
Flavors Course, Beer Camp
Richard Bachus- 7 years professional brewer: Free State
Caroline Duncker- 5 years homebrewing
Judged 10 competitions; Siebel Off Flavors; Hop Barley
& Alers Club Member
Linda Starck - 19 year homebrewing; homebrewing classes, judge,
steward, and competition participant
Brian Rezac - 3 years homebrewing; finalist in Longshot Competition,
Tribe Club Member, developing pilot brewery at Overland
Stagestop Brewing
David Edgar - 9 years homebrewing, Siebel Short Course graduate,
judged 6 competitions, brewery consultant, beer
lecturer
Larry Berreth - 5 years homebrewing, National Homebrew Competition
Specialty Beer Category 3rd place winner, completed
judging class
Kyle Keazer - 6 years homebrewing, professional brewing intern,
homebrewing instructor
Sheri Winter - 5 year homebrewing, American Brewers Guild class
graduate, Yeast Forum attendee, homebrewing class
attendee
Cathy Ewing - 4 years homebrewing, homebrewing class attendee,
Yeast Forum attendee, lecturer
Bob Pease - 3 years homebrewing, homebrewing class attendee
Edward McDowell - 3 1/2 years, American Brewers Guild class graduate
Dave Glickson - 3 years homebrewing
Nancy Volke - 3 1/2 years homebrewing
Wendy Lyons - 4 years homebrewing, homebrewing class attendee
Tom Clark - 4 years homebrewing
Nancy Johnson - 4 years homebrewing
Casey Koehler - 4 years homebrewing
Chris Lowenstein - 3 years homebrewing
Tyra Segars - 2 years homebrewing
Stephanie Johnson - 2 years homebrewing
Melinda Bywaters - 2 years homebrewing
Kim Adams - 2 years homebrewing
Teresa Duggan - 2 years homebrewing
Kendall Costich - 1 1/2 years homebrewing
Mark Snyder - 1 year homebrewing
Carolyn Robertson - 1 year homebrewing
Hope no one had any brewing related questions!:-)
Cheers! Cathy
- --
Cathy Ewing
Vice President
Association of Brewers (303) 447-0816 x 120 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 cathy@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 19:52:40 -0500 (EST)
From: PVanslyke@aol.com
Subject: thermometer in fermentation tank
Hi all,
Having just attained my goal of a stainless primary fermentation tank
complete with 1/2" bottom drain and ball valve (e-mail me if you want a
description of where I came up with this), I would like now to drill a hole
in the side for a thermometer.
What I need to know isx what to use for a thermometer, what size hole, and
how to keep the soon-to-be beer from leaking out.
Paul VanSlyke >>> brewing and relaxing in Deposit, NY
------------------------------
Date: 14 Feb 97 21:59:39 EST
From: Al Stevens <72704.743@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: marzen recipe
Jerry Cunningham <gcunning@census.gov> requested a marzen recipe,
here is one I made recently, and enjoyed.
It wasn't as malty as I was looking for, but within the range of the style.
SUDS Recipe Report Page: 1
02/13/1997 18:45:59 My Favorite Marzen
Category : Marzen/Oktoberfest
Method : Full Mash
Starting Gravity : 1.056
Ending Gravity : 1.014
Alcohol content : 5.4%
Recipe Makes : 5.0 gallons
Total Grain : 11.00 lbs.
Color (srm) : 11.9
Efficiency : 75%
Hop IBUs : 25.9
Malts/Sugars:
1.00 lb. DeWolf Cosyns Aromatic
5.00 lb. Munich Light
5.00 lb. Pilsner 2-row
Hops:
1.50 oz. Hal Hersbrucker 3.2% 60 min
1.50 oz. Hal Hersbrucker 3.2% 30 min
Protein rest @ 122 F 20 minutes
1st decoct to bring main mash to 150 F
2nd decoct to bring main mash to 165 F
Pitched Wyeast 2124 Bohenian Lager (LARGE starter)
fermented in primary 3 weeks @ 45 F
lagered ~4 weeks @ ~40 F
On the subject of beer yeast to make bread
The following excerpts are from
Mrs Beetons book of Houshold Management (1859-61)
(puctuation is hers, spelling mistakes are probably mine)
Bread-Making.
Panification, or bread-making, consists of the following processes, in the case
of Wheaten flour. Fifty or sixty per cent of water is added to the flour, with
the
addition of some leavening matter, and preferably, of yeast from malt and hops.
.......
The yeast must be good and fresh, if the bread is to be digestable and nice.
Stale yeast produces, instead of vinous fermentation, an acetous fermentation,
which flavours the bread and makes it disagreeable. A poor thin yeast produces
an imperfect fermentation, the result being a heavy unwholesome loaf.
...
Yeast from home-brewed beer is generally preferred to any other ; it is very
bitter,
and, on that account, should be well washed, and be put away until the thick
mass settles.
If it still continues bitter, the process should be repeated ; and, before being
used,
all the water floating at the top must be poured off.
German yeast is now very much used, and should be moistened, and thoroughly
mixed
with the milk or water with which the bread is to be made.
...
Yeast must always be good of its kind, and in a fitting state to produce ready
and proper
fermentation. Yeast of strong beer or ale produsec more effect than that of
milder kinds;
and the fresher the yeast, the smaller the quantity will be required to raise
the dough.
...
To Make Yeast for Bread
Ingredients: 1 1/2 oz. of hops, 3 quarts of water, 1 lb. of bruised malt, 1/2
pint of yeast.
Mode: Boil the hops in the water for 20 minutes; let it stand for about 5
minutes, then add it to the 1 lb of bruised malt prepared as for brewing. Let
the mixture stand covered till about likewarm ; then put in not quite 1/2 pint
of yeast; keep it warm, and let it work 3 or 4 hours; then put it into small 1/2
pint bottles (ginger-beer bottles are best for the purpose), cork them well, and
tie them down. The yeast is now ready for use ; it will keep good for a few
weeks, and i bottle will be sufficient for 18 lbs of flour. When required for
use, boil 3 lbs of potatoes without salt, mash them in the same water in which
they were boiled, and rub them through a colander. Stir in about 1/2 lb. of
flour ; then put in the yeast, pour it into the middle of the flour, and let it
stand warm on the hearth all night, and in the morning let it be quite warm when
it is kneaded. The bottles of yeast require very careful opening, as it is
generally exceedingly ripe.
*************************************************************
and you wonder why we call beer "liquid bread"
Al Stevens
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 05:24:23 UT
From: "Raymond Estrella" <ray-estrella@msn.com>
Subject: Hop oils, gravity of starters
George Schamel writes,
>I have used the Hop Tech hop oils and late hop essences.
>These were the Premium British Blend, Pure East Kent Goldings,
>Late Hop Essence Floral, and Late Hop Essence Spicy. I was not
>at all happy with the results in all cases. Just my experience.
>I am interested in hearing other opinions as well.
I contacted Morris Hanbury USA in Yakima, WA about purchasing direct from them
hop extracts for experimentation in my brews. (They supply a very large
percentage of the hops that are sold in most homebrew shops.) My call was
forwarded to Gerard Lemmens, whom I found out was the executive vice-president
of the company. Although he is in the business to sell product, and I could
have set up a business account, (I have pretty cool employers) the man was
extremely honest with me about their company's extracts. He told me that they
do not compare to a "real" hopped beer, and that they are mostly used to
correct a hopping problem. (I forgot to add my finishing hops Marge, dogh!)
I appreciated the candidness.
Julio canseco writes,
>I have noticed that a 1.040 SG is referenced regarding starters. What
>is the importance of this? Will a higher gravity shock the liquid yeast?
>I normally add an overflowing cup of LME (syrup) in a half gallon of
>boiling water and haven't bothered to check the SG. My starters seem
>OK and the final beer is fine. Would someone please expand on this?
>Is the starter SG related to the style of beer it is for?
It looks like you are making a starter of 1.054 to 1.058 depending on how
long you boil it. (Reducing volume) That is kind of high going right from a
Wyeast pack, although I have never checked the O.G. of one, I don't have that
small of a hydrometer. Yes, the starter S.G. is related to the style of beer
you are brewing. (Starter, starter gravity, am I stutter, stutter stuttering?)
You want to condition the yeast to be ready to live, multiply, and work in the
environment that you toss it into. Yeast volume also comes into play. Your
1.055, 1 step starter may be fine for a 1.050 Brown ale, but would benefit
from another boost of the same gravity, but a larger size, for a 1.050 Dunkel.
That same starter would be great for a 1.052 Saison, but would need to be
built up to the gravity to be used in a 1.090 Trippel. I make a 1.045 400 ml.
1st. starter, and a 1.055 800 ml. 2nd starter for all my brews. If I am making
a strong brew, I will build it up to within .015 of my expected O.G. I hope
this makes sense.
Ray Estrella Cottage Grove MN USA
ray-estrella@msn.com
*******Never relax, constantly worry, have a better homebrew.*******
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 03:06:56 -0500 (EST)
From: JCMaretti@aol.com
Subject: Sierra Nevada Wheat Recipe?
Does anybody know where I can find a recipe for mock Sierra Nevada Wheat?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 02:23:52 -0600
From: blacksab@midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Canning wort/rebutting criticism
Jim Layton writes:
>I won't dispute that Harlan gets good results using this method, but I
>doubt that shaking the wort prior to opening the jar really dissolves much
>oxygen...
Jim, I think you're right! Al K makes the same point in the next post and
Chris Goll pointed this out to me in a private e-mail. Without really
thinking about it, I was following something I'd read in Rajotte. Since I
shake the jars before opening them, I suspect they're not getting ANY
oxygen, or at least very little. I'll do a few side by side
comparisons--shake, then open and pitch, vs. open, shake and pitch and see
if I notice any difference. I'll post results.
Al K writes:
>Absolutely trub-free starters (in my opinion) are not the best thing.
>Trub contains many yeast nutrients so that leaving some trub in the
>wort (and certainly in the starter wort) is believed to be beneficial
>to the yeast. It's clear that too much trub in the main wort can lead
>to haze and (possibly) increased higher (fusel) alcohol production,
>but personally, I believe that these would be negligible in a starter
>and the sterols from the trub would only help. Comments?
I've wondered about this. Again, I've been following Rajotte here. Let me do
a side by side and see if I can detect a difference, but now that you
mention it, I think you may be right. Thanks for pointing this out.
While I'm at it, I'd like to rebut most of what Bill Giffin had to say about
Al K's list of errors he's found in Fix, Noonan and Miller. In the
publishing world, it's called errata. I'm not trained as a scientist, and as
such, all I can do is read others who are more knowlegable than I and assume
what is printed is accurate. The purpose of peer reviews is to refine the
knowlege base and to remove errors and inconsistencies when they occur.
These books are essentially reference books. They serve as a kind of
authority, the way a dictionary does. In so far as they contain errors, they
are flawed. I for one look forward to Al's web page and appreciate the
effort he's put into enumerating the errors he's come across. Al and many
others on this forum have been invaluable to the improvement of my own
understanding of the brewing process. As seen above, they keep me honest as
well. Rather than percieving this as a personal affront, I greatly
appreciate when Al, or anyone else for that matter, finds fault in my
procedures or thought processes. We're all trying to make better beer, and
personally, I'll take good advice anytime I can get it.
Just as an aside, my background is in philosophy, and I'd like to point out
that:
>Perhaps Al needs to list all the errors to be "compleat" (my spell
>checker rejected this word as did some of our UK friends). Perhaps
>Al has to feel important.
is a textbook example of an "ad hominem" argument, a logical fallacy; and that:
>Al tell us about how you have set up and run a real brewery. You
>know one that sells its product to the paying public.
is a classic "red herring", another logical fallacy of rhetoric.
TTYL,
Harlan
*********************************************************************
* *
* Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can *
* Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. *
* <blacksab@midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman *
* *
*********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 04:50:00 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Bill's "Errors" Post
>From: "Bill Giffin" <billgiffin@maine.com>
>Subject: Errors
>
>>Al K sent this to me in a private email:
>Fix, Noonan, and Miller are all wrong about MgSO4. I know an awful
<snip>
Bill, you need to absorb a few important points of netiquette. First of
all, it is considered an egregious breach in all electronic forums to
publicly quote someone's private e-mail. You've sent me a few things in
private e-mail which were pretty stupid (which is not to imply that Al's
comments were), hence so much the better that you respect this protocol.
The rest of your message contained nothing substantive except an attack on
Al's motives. I don't understand *your* motives in intentionally taking
that private conversation public in front of thousands of people.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 07:40:52 -0800
From: Rex Clingan <kdash1@idt.net>
Subject: What's the preferred breed of dog for homebrewing
a goldings retreiver
------------------------------
Date: 15 Feb 97 10:13:02 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Aerators, De-skunking
Brewsters:
Hal Davis heard that the reason folks started putting aerators on the ends of
faucets is that the aeration
helps remove the chlorine.
Well, I have an aerator on my well water ( no chlorine) faucet to stop the
splashing of the water. I suspect this is the real reason manufacturers put them
on their faucets, since I doubt they worry about the chlorine levels in your
water. Chlorine purging by air injection may be a side effect and it can't hurt
to use this in filing up your brewing ketle.
- ------------------------------------------------
AlK suggests that one can pick up a skunked beer from the cooler in unpackaged
bottles next to the fluorescent lights. I agree that this is the most likely
place to get it since these will have much higher ultraviolet content than
incandescent lights. As a photochemist I am still very puzzled by this whole
thing since iso-humulone doesn't even absorb in the visible region ( i.e. it is
colorless) and the soda glass of the bottles absorbs light where isohumulone
begins. Not that I don't believe in light skunking, just as a photochemist, I
am not happy with the conventional explanation as I know it.
Also, I was very surprized to see that AlK wrote:
>Buy them, take them home, chill
>both for only a few hours (a few days at 50F actually seems to reverse
>the reaction) and compare their aromas.
Your paranthetical comment surprized me. I have never heard that prenyl
mercaptan disappears at 50F. Do you have documented information on this? Does
this means we can warm our skunked beers to 50F for a few days and the skunking
will go away? Does beer at 50F and above get skunked? If we buy Heineken or PU
and hold it at 50F does it get better?
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 10:40:06 -0400
From: Christopher Tkach <tkach@tiac.net>
Subject: Recipe for Irish Cream
A while back someone had asked for a recipe for irish cream...
well I meant to send it to them, but I've misplaced their
email address...sorry for the wait.
- Chris
Irish Cream
- -----------
3 eggs
1 can sweet condensed milk
1 tsp. coconut extract
1 Tbs. Chocolate syrup
1 pint whipping cream
2 cups irish whiskey
Mix in blender, makes a little over 1 quart.
The better the irish wiskey, the better the cream...but I've made it
with Seagrams and it still comes out ok. Ideally, you should let it
sit in the fridge for a couple of weeks...but it tastes good just
over night. Enjoy.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:46:33 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Subject: Wheelers Porter..Part 5.
Wheelers Porter/Part 5.
The following article was printed in a home brewing magazine
*** START OF ARTICLE 3 ***
Porter is undoubtedly the most enigmatic of all old-time British
beers and to completely unravel the true story of Porter would
require the skill of Sherlock Holmes and the occasional use of a
crystal ball.
The original Porters of the early 1700s were not brewed as
Porter in their own right, but were simply ordinary brown beers
that had been deliberately soured; a concept difficult for
modern commentators to grasp. Brown beers were made from brown
malt, which is a smoked malt, smoked over a hardwood fire. Most
early beers were brown beers, simply because wood was the
easiest and cheapest way of firing the malt kilns. The beers
would have had a predominant wood-smoke flavour as a result.
Smoking was considered important because apart from imparting a
very agreeable flavour it was one of the very few preservative
processes available to our ancestors and helped to protect the
malt during storage.
Porter was simply a mixture of two brown beers; one sour and
one not. An ordinary beer was stored away for a year or more
until it had acquired an acidic sourness after which it was
removed from store and then blended with freshly brewed beer.
The sour beer was referred to as "stale" in the parlance of the
time, and the freshly brewed beer was referred to as "mild".
The blending was usually performed at the pub. The publican
held both grades of beer and the drinker would mix "stale" and
"mild" in his tankard in the proportions necessary to give him
his preferred degree of acidic tang; in much the same way as
modern drinkers mix "mild and bitter". It was this mixture of
two beers that was Porter and not, initially at least, the base
beers from which the mixture was comprised. "Entire Butt" was a
variation of Porter that was blended at the brewery and supplied
in a single cask. However, a blend dispensed from a single cask
could not suit all palates and the practice of blending stale
and mild in the pub remained the preferred method, especially in
London.
The major characteristics of the original porters would have
been a rich smoky flavour supplied by the brown malt, and a
winey acidic aftertang produced by the deliberate souring. The
colour could have been anything from quite pale to a translucent
murky-brown; certainly not jet-black as is generally assumed.
Old-time brown malt referred to the superficial surface colour
of the malt caused by the smoke condensate, and not to the
colour of the interior of the malt. Unlike modern brown malt,
old-time brown malt would not necessarily have coloured the beer
to any great degree.
Long ageing periods were required for the "stale" beer to
turn acidic, or to become "pricked", to use the parlance of the
time. Originally the beer was aged in ordinary casks stored away
in cellars for a year or two, but as the popularity of Porter
grew this became an impossible logistics problem for the brewers
and tied up huge stocks of expensive casks. Whitbread, for
instance, rented cellars in 54 locations around London in 1747.
>From about 1740 onwards the brewers took to building huge
maturation vats of anything up to 20,000 barrel (720,000 gallon)
capacity. These huge wooden vessels, which resembled the old
gasholders, enabled the beer to be aged more easily and in the
greater volumes necessary to cope with rapidly increasing demand.
Porter continued for the first 80 years of its life
virtually unchanged, apart from fraudulent imitations, but by
the turn of the nineteenth century Porter had made the first of
its evolutionary transformations. Prior to this Porter was
simply a soured brown beer made from 100 per cent brown malt,
but by about 1800 the standard grist for London Porter had
become equal parts of brown, amber, and pale malts. Porter now
had its own independent identity, although it was still supplied
in mild and stale versions.
The most likely reason for this change was that pale and
amber malts were becoming cheaper than brown. Pale and amber
malts were kilned over coal or coke whereas brown malt was
kilned over hardwood. The industrialisation of Britain provided
cheap and plentiful supplies of coal and the fledgling canal
network provided an efficient means to transport it. The price
of hardwood, on the other hand, rose steeply because certain
hardwoods, particularly oak, became protected and were reserved
for the Royal Navy's ships, who were busy fighting half the
world at the time.
End Of Part 5
Jethro
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company,
Manhattan, Kansas.
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:54:43 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Subject: Wheelers Porter...Part 6.
Wheelers Porter/Part 6
An intriguing side-effect of this grist change is that the
smoky character of the beer would have dropped considerably with
the massive reduction in brown malt, and it is difficult to see
how the brewers could have got away with such a drastic change
without established customers rejecting the product. However,
amber malt does have its own characteristic flavour and this
might have compensated to a certain degree, and no doubt the
changes were phased in gradually. Nevertheless, the change did
not go unnoticed; Shannon complained in 1805 that the "genuine
flavour of Porter has of late years very much declined".
The early 1800s saw the introduction of black malt into
Porter grists, initially by country brewers trying to cash in on
the Porter phenomenon by brewing look-alikes, if not necessarily
taste-alikes, but black malt gradually found its way into the
grists of genuine London Porters as well.
By the mid 1800s the standard London porter grist had
changed yet again, marking the completion of the second phase of
Porter's evolution. By 1850 Whitbread's Porter grist had become
80 per cent pale malt, 15 per cent brown malt, and 5 per cent
black malt. Noteworthy by the complete absence of amber malt and
a further reduction in brown malt.
The trend continued; the London Porter grist given by James
Herbert in his Art of Brewing of 1871 consists of 90 per cent
pale malt, 5 per cent brown malt and 5 per cent black malt;
showing an even further reduction in brown malt. However, there
were still a number of London Porter brewers who continued to
use amber malt in their grist, albeit in smaller amounts.
According to my trusty computer these recipes will produce a
beer of about 70 EBCs in colour; a mid-brown, somewhat lighter
than a modern brown ale or darkish mild. This matches a
contemporary description of the colour of Porter as being of "an
inviting brunette complexion". It is difficult to determine
exactly why this second recipe change took place; it is very
unlikely that it was done on grounds of economy. It seems most
likely that the London brewers were responding to changes in
consumer taste. By 1850 the pale ale revolution was in full
swing, generating a preference for dry, cleaner-tasting beers.
It seems likely that consumers were demanding beers that were
cleaner and more subtle on the palate and the strong flavours of
amber and brown malt had probably fallen out of favour. Indeed,
the smoky character of the brown malt must have been hardly
perceptible in the revised recipe.
The two cask system of dispensing Porter had all but
disappeared by 1850 in favour of the single cask or "Entire
Butt" method; indicating that the consumer was also less fussy
regarding the degree of souring experienced. Genuine London
Porter continued to be soured until the early part of this
century, but the majority of country-brewed imitation Porters
were not soured at all. In the 1870s a single-cask London Porter
or Entire was soured with about 8 per cent stale beer, but this
was almost certainly a good deal less than in earlier times.
Whitbread demolished the last of its great porter ageing vats in
1918, indicating that they were faithfully producing the genuine
"soured" article right up to the very end. Modern-day bottled
Guinness is still characterised by the addition of 3 per cent of
pasteurised sour beer.
The prominent souring agent was probably acetic acid.
Vinegar seems to complement beer, as the age-old custom of
publicans supplying pickled onions, pickled eggs, and various
wiggly seafood things in vinegar would seem to conform. Porter,
during the brewing process and during ageing, gets a fair amount
of access to air. The oxidation of alcohol into acetic acid is a
slow process, which is why stale porter was aged in huge vats
for a year or more.
A variety of yeast strains were also involved. It is
apparent from the literature that old-time brewers, that when
storing ale away for long periods they often experienced several
"secondary" fermentations in cask. After the ale had been
cellared for several months, the beer would suddenly become
active again and the brewer would be forced to vent the casks
and wait for activity to subside before bunging them down again.
Several months later, off they would go again. Pale ale brewers
cursed when this happened because acidity was the inevitable
result. Porter brewers of course, wanted it. Strains like
bretanomyces were responsible for these "frets" to use old-time
brewerspeak.
[ Sorry, the end of this got corrupted along the way ]
*** END OF ARTICLE 3 ****
End of Part 6
Jethro
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company,
Manhattan, Kansas.
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:11:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Plummer <plummer@brick.purchase.edu>
Subject: Secondary fermentation in bottles?
I believe this question was recently asked, but I missed any responses if
they were posted to HBD. In the small batches involved in homebrewing (in
my case, 5 gallons), can secondary fermentation just take place in the
bottle? What is different about keeping the beer in a secondary fermenter
versus lagering in a bottle, besides the addition of priming sugar?
TIA for helping this newbie understand.
- --Tim Plummer
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 14:24:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Plummer <plummer@brick.purchase.edu>
Subject: newbie question - cloudy Altbier!
My second batch ever, an attempt at an Alt, is not clearing as I would
have hoped. I am wondering what the possible reasons are. Here is the
information that I think might be relevant. I boiled the wort for an
hour, cooled in my bathtub full of icewater, then added it to cool water
in my fermenter. I pitched yeast at 62F, a little cool, I think, and it
took the yeast (Wyeast#1007) a good three days to get rolling. After two
weeks in the primary, I bottled it, where it has been conditioning for 2
weeks at 50-55F. I have had two bottles, one each at one week intervals.
It seems to be making no progress as far as clearing. It is quite tasty,
so I don't think it's contaminated.
I notice that Wyeast #1007 is listed as having "low" flocculation. Does
this pertain to clearing? Did I leave it in the primary too long? Should
I have siphoned out of the brewpot into the primary? Am I just being
impatient?
The important part is that it tastes pleasant, I know, but this is a
learning process, and any help towards my understanding about beer is
greatly appreciated IA.
-Tim
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 14:35:02 EST
From: dbrigham@nsf.gov
Subject: Cooper's Sparkling Ale - yeast/recipe?
I remember a few months back a discussion in the HBD about
Cooper's ales and yeast - never had any until recently.
I just *love* the Sparkling Ale - it is cloudy and has a neat
'bite/tang' to the flavor, almost reminiscent of the uniqueness of
the Weizen style. Can I assume (if this beer is normal and did
not get funky during shipping) that this is mostly due to the
yeast? Does anyone have any extract based recipes for a similar
ale?
Is Cooper's dry yeast available at US homebrew stores the same
yeast? Can the yeast in the bottle be cultured and is it the
fermentation yeast or a different strain just used for bottle
conditioning?
Private email response is best for now and I can summarize and
repost to the HBD - Thanx!!!
Dana Brigham
dbrigham@nsf.gov
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 97 21:38:35 UT
From: "Raymond Estrella" <ray-estrella@msn.com>
Subject: mash amounts, blonde ale
Tim writes,
>The other question is this, I've only got a 4 gallon kettle for which
>to mash in, and I've got a 5 gal zapap style lauter tun. How much grain can
>I reasonable expect to mash?
>My SO would like a
>blonde ale for her next batch, and I'm not sure how to go about it? A
>recipe would be nice, but if no one has one, style guidelines would be the
>next best thing.
Tim, you can get about 9.5 lb. of grain in a thick mash in your 4 gal. pot,
and still be able to carefully stir while raising temp, adding gypsum, etc.
You should be able to get around 12.5 lb. of grain in a thick mash in your 5
gal. lauter- tun.
As far as a Blonde Ale goes, I made one for our Christmas party this year for
those friends and neighbors that are afraid to try anything darker than Bud.
We also had 5 kinds of store-bought beer ranging from Miller lite to Pete's
Wicked. (We had 4 kegs of "good" stuff too) To our surprise not one bottle of
commercial beer was opened. But the wimp-beer drinkers raved about the Blond
Ale. So here you go, (I modified the recipe to work with your 4 gal mash
kettle)
US 2 row 8 lb
Crystal 10 .5 lb
Wheat malt .5 lb
Light LME 3.3 lb
Eroica hops .75 oz (10 AAU) 40 min.
Cascade hops 1 oz (4.1 AAU) 20 min.
Yeast Labs Canadian Ale Yeast
I use a 3 step infusion mash for it. I hope this helps,
Ray Estrella Cottage Grove MN
ray-estrella@msn.com
*******Never relax, constantly worry, have a better homebrew.*******
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 18:54:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: RE: No sparge brew
>From: "Mercer, David" <dmercer@path-seattle-01.path.org>
>
>Now I'm curious. Is there a 'correct' method for no sparge brewing?
>Mike's seems more to me like a 'quick sparge' than a 'no sparge'. But my
>intuitively arrived at method of just draining the wort produced less
>efficiency than a simple 4/3 adjustment of the grain bill would have
>predicted (I bumped a 12# recipe that in my system usually produces a
>1.064 wort, up to 16#, but came out 8 points short (i.e. 1.054). Mike's
>was more efficient than he expected. How are others out there who have
>tried this doing it?
More intricate details of methodology were actually discussed here a few
months ago. There is no "correct" method established that I know of. In
George Fix's system, he apparently gets the expected results by simply
adjusting the grain bill up by one third, and taking the first runnings.
Others will get significantly different results because of certain
variables in their own brewing systems.
The closest I have come to a generally applicable principle is to adapt
the concept of parti-gyle brewing. The idea is to collect about 1/2 of the
usual volume of wort to get 2/3 of the extract. This makes the numbers
come out about right. You can do this with a partial sparge, but my
preferred method is to adjust the mash thickness so that recirculating and
draining the first runnings will give you about the right amount of wort
without sparging. Don't forget to account for absorption by the grain when
calculating the amount of water for the mash.
I know that varying the mash thickness will also affect variables such as
fermentability and enzyme stability, and depending on your usual system it
may result in a water/grist ratio rather different than what you're used
to. I don't find these factors, in practice, to be worth hassling over. It
will work, and you'll have a rather predictable procedure. You might need
to tweak it slightly after a few run-throughs, but you'll probably come
much closer right off the bat than you did last time.
Also make sure that you're using the correct extract potentials for the
various grains in your grist (the extensive table in Papzian's second book
is rather useful for this). If, for example, you were to assume the same
extract potential for pale malt and chocolate malt, this procedure might
magnify the error.
Hope this helps.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2350, 02/17/97
*************************************
-------
