Dec 112017
Home Brew Digest Vol 107.
File HBD107X.ZIP from The Programmer’s Corner in
Category Various Text files
Home Brew Digest Vol 107.
File Name File Size Zip Size Zip Type
HBD1070.TXT 36779 14623 deflated
HBD1071.TXT 38651 15701 deflated
HBD1072.TXT 46274 18246 deflated
HBD1073.TXT 47630 19247 deflated
HBD1074.TXT 47660 19438 deflated
HBD1075.TXT 46157 18945 deflated
HBD1076.TXT 46975 19356 deflated
HBD1077.TXT 47384 19272 deflated
HBD1078.TXT 47771 20178 deflated
HBD1079.TXT 46920 19124 deflated

Download File HBD107X.ZIP Here

Contents of the HBD1070.TXT file

HOMEBREW Digest #1070 Thu 04 February 1993

Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

"Irish Red Ale"... (Diane Duane)
WL media (extracted from the Difco Manual) (Paul Matulonis)
Re: all-grain snobs (McHarry)
Adelscott ("Rad Equipment")
Culturing lager yeast (Greg Jesus Wolodkin)
Re: BUGS! ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Lager... ("Spencer W. Thomas")
BUGS! ("Spencer W. Thomas")
FAQ/RFC on Recirculation. (Chris McDermott)
Hypercard Program (Andrius Tamulis)
IBU table (Brian Bliss)
fresh hops (Brian Bliss)
Lager Questions (Ron Karwoski)
How Long Is Too Long (Joel [email protected])
help the pathetic beginner (Kinzie Brian Mark)
A survey of the readership (Chuck Coronella)
Dry Malt Extract vs. Syrup Malt Extract (Richard Cox)
Beadle, Open Fermenting, arf n snobs (Jack Schmidling)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to [email protected]
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to [email protected], BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver ([email protected]),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
[email protected] Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to [email protected]


There will be nobody reading mail sent to homebrew-request during the
period Feb 8 through approx. Feb 28. This means that any requests for
changes or cancellations will not be handled until the end of the month.
Subscription requests will continue to be handled automatically, and the
digest will continue to be sent automatically, barring any computing
device catastrophes. So if you send a message here and get no immediate
reply, or if the digest stops suddenly, please do not panic. Just be

ps. and please try to behave yourselves while I'm gone ๐Ÿ˜‰


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 1993 9:39.0.53
From: [email protected] (Diane Duane)
Subject: "Irish Red Ale"...

It may amuse (or horrify) some of you to know that at present, there are
almost NO red ales sold in Ireland. Killian's, which I've seen while
visiting in the US, is not sold here. Just about the only ale brewed in
Ireland at the moment, to the best of my knowledge anyway, is Hilden Ale,
brewed by Hilden up in the North. And it doesn't get down into the south
- -- whether because of import problems, or no one here knows it exists,
I'm not sure.

The most popular beers here are, by and large, Irish brewed ones: Guinness
has a stranglehold on the market (and likes it that way, so that foreign
beers, especially the German ones, are coming into the country only very
slowly. My husband danced and sang for about a week when he was able to
get some weissbier in, just before Christmas.). American beers are oozing
in...heaven help us. Miller Draft is sold in bottles: so are Pabst
(some places) and Schlitz. There is better news, though: Budweiser
is brewed here under license by Guinness, and "Uncle Arthur's" version
is two and a half times stronger than the US article. Astonishingly,
it actually tastes like something.... Otherwise, the most common brews
found here would be (for stouts) Guinness, Murphy's, and Beamish: for
lagers, Harp, and some German ones like Kronenbourg, Carlsberg, and

PS: the weird beer called "Guinness Gold" is not sold here. They wouldn't
dare. (grin)

Regards from (presently) sunny Ireland!

Diane Duane / Kestrel Ridge / Avoca, Co. Wicklow, Ireland
Fidonet: 2:263/164 / Ci$: 73200,3112
Internet: [email protected]
"A little science...a little magic...a little chicken soup."


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 08:53:18 -0500
From: Paul Matulonis
Subject: WL media (extracted from the Difco Manual)

There has been some curiousity recently regarding WL media
for plating out yeast. I extracted the following from the
Tenth Edition of the Difco Manual; all disclaimers apply;
this was done without permission; proceed at your own risk.
I checked the copy for accuracy but the final word should be
verified via your local copy of the Difco Manual.

Paul Matulonis
[email protected]


Bacto WL Nutrient Broth and Bacto WL Nutrient Medium are
recommended for the cultivation of yeasts, molds and bacteria
encountered in brewing and industrial fermentation processes.

Bacto WL Differential Medium, also used in the microbiological
control processes in the fermentation industry, permits the
unrestricted growth of bacteria and inhibits development of
yeasts and molds.

Bacto WL Nutrient media are prepared according to the formulae
described by Green and Gray. In their study of various
fermentation processes, Green and Gray pointed out the inadequacy
of the microscopic count in fermentation control procedures. An
exhaustive study of the method of examination of worts, beers,
and liquid yeast and similar fermentation products led to the
development of two media; one containing no
selective agent and the other, a differential medium containing
the antibiotic Actidione (cycloheximide) as a selective agent.

Bacto WL Nutrient media permit the development of yeast. In those
instances in which the number of yeast cells is comparatively
small, certain bacteria can be detected. Green and Gray reported
that counts of viable bakers' yeast may be made on the WL
nutrient medium at pH 5.5. If the reaction is adjusted to pH 6.5,
the count of bakers' and distillers' yeast may be made. In making
microbial counts using these media, the temperature and time of
incubation will vary depending on the various materials under
investigation. Temperatures of 25C are generally employed with
brewing materials and 30C for bakers' yeast and alcohol
fermentation mash analyses. Incubating periods run from 2 to 7
days, depending on the flora encountered. Incubation periods of
10 to 14 days may be used in some cases.

Bacto WL Differential Medium has the same formula as Bacto WL
Nutrient Medium, with the addition of 0.004 g of Actidione per
liter. This inhibits the development of yeasts without
interfering with the development of bacteria generally
encountered in beers.

A reliable count of bacteria can be obtained at pH 5.5. To obtain
estimations of beer cocci and lactic rods, plates should be
incubated under anaerobic conditions. For estimation of acetic
acid rods and termobacteria (very small rods occurring in wort as
described by Linder in about 1900 as _Termobacterium lutescens_,
iridescens and erythrimum) incubate under aerobic conditions. To
analyze bakers' yeast and alcohol fermentation mashes, the
reaction is adjusted to pH 6.5. Plates containing dilutions of
bakers' yeast are incubated aerobically, while those from
alcoholic fermentation mashes are incubated anaerobically.


Ingredients per liter

Bacto Yeast Extract .......... 4 g
Calcium Chloride ......... 0.125 g
Bacto Casitone ............... 5 g
Magnesium Sulfate ........ 0.125 g
Bacto Dextrose .............. 50 g
Ferric Chloride .......... 0.0025 g
Monopotassium Phosphate ... 0.55 g
Manganese Sulfate ........ 0.0025 g
Potassium Chloride ....... 0.425 g
Bacto Brom Cresol Green .. 0.022 g

Final pH 5.5 + 0.2 at 25C.

One pound will make 7.5 liters of final medium.
Rehydrate with 60 grams/liter.


Ingredients per liter

Bacto Yeast Extract .......... 4 g
Magnesium Sulfate 0.125 g
Bacto Casitone ............... 5 g
Ferric Chloride 0.0025 g
Bacto Dextrose .............. 50 g
Manganese Sulfate ........ 0.0025 g
Monopotassium Phosphate ... 0.55 g
Bacto Agar ................... 20 g
Potassium Chloride ....... 0.425 g
Bacto Brom Cresol Green 0.022 g
Calcium Chloride ......... 0.125 g

Final pH 5.5 + 0.2 at 25C.

One pound will make 5.6 liters of final medium.
Rehydrate with 80 grams/liter.


Ingredients per liter

Bacto Yeast Extract .......... 4 g
Magnesium sulfate ............ 0.125 g
Bacto Casitone ............... 5 g
Ferric Chloride ............. 0.0025 g
Bacto Dextrose .............. 50 g
Manganese Sulfate ........... 0.0025 g
Monopotassium Phosphate ... 0.55 g
Bacto Agar ...................... 20 g
Potassium Chloride ....... 0.425 g
Bacto Brom Cresol Green ..... 0.022 g
Calcium Chloride ......... 0.125 g
Actidione (cycloheximide) .. 0.004 g

One pound will make 5.6 liters of final medium.
Rehydrate with 80 grams/liter.

1. To rehydrate suspend appropriate amount in 1 liter cold
distilled water and heat to boiling to dissolve completely.
2. Sterilize in the autoclave for 15 minutes at 15 Lbs pressure
3. To obtain a final reaction of pH 6.5 add the amount specified
on the product label of a 1% solution of sodium carbonate per
liter distilled water used for rehydration;
dissolve and sterilize as indicated above.

Bacto WL Nutrient and Differential media Below 30C
Prepared media 2 - 8C

Identity Specificatlons

WL Nutrient WL nutrient WL Differential
Broth Medium Medium

Dehydrated powder: light beige light tan beige w/blue tint
w/blue tint, w/blue tint, homogeneous,
homogeneous, homogeneous, free-flowing
free-flowing free-flowing
Solution: 6% solution 8% solution 8% solution
Reaction: pH 5.5 + 0.2 pH 5.5 + 0.2 pH 5.5 + 0.2
at 25C at 25C at 25C
Prepared medium: blue, clear blue-green, very greenish-blue
slightly opalescent slightly

Typical Cultural Response In/on Bacto WL Media
After 40 - 48 Hours at 30C (Bacteria at 35C)

Organism Growth
WL Nutrient WL Differential
Media Medium

Escherichia coli ATCC2 25922 fair to good good
Lactobacillus fermentum ATCC~ 9338 fair to good good
Proteus mirabilis ATCC~ 25933 fair to good good
Saccharomyces cerevisiae ATCC~ 9763 good inhibited
Saccharomyces uvarum ATCC~ 9080 good inhibited

1. Paper read at Am. Soc. of Brewing Chemists Meeting Detroit,
May, 1950.
2. Wallerstein Lab. Comm. 13:357 1950.
3. Ibid., 14:169 1951.



Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 8:59:40 EST
From: [email protected] (McHarry)
Subject: Re: all-grain snobs

Sorry if I offended extract brewers with my reference to my friend, the
World's Worst Brewer, as, of course, an extract brewer. He is mainly
trying to produce beer by the simplest possible means.

We are all extract brewers. Some of use make our own extract. Whether
that is worth the bother (it more than doubles brewing time) is a matter of
what you are trying to brew and how much effort you want to put into it.
Some of my better beers have been extract brews. It seems to me that one
can make a lighter colored beer from all-grain, and a lighter bodied one as
well, if the mash temperature is right. One can also play with adjuncts
such as rice or rye with interesting results. Whether that is worth
shooting a whole Saturday, I am not sure.

The World's Worst Brewer is satisfied with what he produces and the time he
puts in on it. As I said, the stuff is actually quite drinkable, in fact I
may drown my sorrows in a liter plastic pop bottle of the stuff this
evening--I need the protein!


Date: 3 Feb 93 07:49:37 U
From: "Rad Equipment"
Subject: Adelscott

Subject: Adelscott Time:7:40 AM Date:2/3/93
Don Scheidt says:

>"Introduce" it? During the imported-beer boom of the early eighies,
>when one could buy, among others, Rodenbach, Saisons de Silly,
>and St-Louis beers in Seattle, bottles of Adelscott appeared on
>the shelves of several specialty beer-and-wine-retailers here.

Interesting. It was perhaps 2 years ago when I contacted the importer in Mass.
Could be that they were reluctant to bend to our ever increasing label
requirements and withdrew it, but no mention of this was made during my
conversation with their representative.


Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: [email protected] - CI$: 72300,61)
UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / 474-8126


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 08:00:50 PST
From: [email protected] (Greg Jesus Wolodkin)
Subject: Culturing lager yeast


In getting ready to brew my first lager, last week I attempted to
culture the yeast from a commercial brew. I've cultured SNPA (Wyeast
1056) several times without any problems, so I figured it'd be easy..

I re-read the "Yeast" chapter in Miller, and then headed down to
Liquor Barn and picked up 3 pints of Paulaner Hefe-weizen. My
technique was as follows:

1) 1.020 SG starter wort, just off the boil, cover and cool
in a sink full of ice water to 80F.
2) Sanitize a one gallon glass jug and funnel (20 minutes with
chlorine solution, then rinse).
3) Take a butane lighter to the exposed rim of the pot, then
transfer 1/2 gallon of starter wort into the jug and fit
with (sanitized) airlock.
4) Open a bottle of hefe-weizen, flame the mouth, decant beer
into pitcher, sending the last 1/2" of dregs into starter.
Repeat until beers are gone and pitcher is full ๐Ÿ˜‰
5) Place the starter jug at room temperature (70F) covered with
a t-shirt to keep out the light.
6) Drink the hefe-weizen and don't worry!

Well a typical culture (at least in my experience) would be bubbling
merrily within 48 hours, with visible signs of activity within 24.
This one has been *much* slower. At four days there was *nothing*.
At five days a very small ring of bubbles on the surface. Now at six
days, it has reached kraeusen stage.

I can think of a few possible mistakes -- first the beer was chilled
(it was unavailable warm at the store), and I guess that would slow
things down. Second I discovered that Miller actually recommends
Spaten, not Paulaner, as a stable, reculturable lager yeast. (Oops..)

Whatever I have in my starter is a bottom-fermenter. It even smells
good, so after it finishes I plan to taste the result and give it
another feeding. If it seems OK at that point, I will most likely
brew with it. I wanted to ask those of you who culture yeast on a
regular basis:

1) Is six days such a long lag that I should expect a wild
yeast, rather than the yeast I was attempting to culture?

2) What behaviour can I expect from the Paulaner hefe-weizen
yeast, assuming that's what I've got? Anybody ever use it?

3) Should I eventually move the starter to fermentation temps
(~50F) or should I leave it at 75F until pitching (since I
will most likely pitch at 75F)?

As always, thanks in advance for any suggestions/comments.

Greg Wolodkin


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 11:20:52 EST
From: "Spencer W. Thomas"
Subject: Re: BUGS!

I would think that canning jar lids, screwed down tightly, would keep
the bugs out. After all, they can hold a vacuum seal for years, even
without the screw band holding the lid down. Of course, there is one
major difference: the vacuum seal is formed at high enough
temperatures to deform the "rubber" on the lid to exactly conform to
the rim of the jar.

I get bugs every summer, and consider it a good excuse to throw out
the old stuff in the cupboard. If it's more than a year old, I'm not
sure I want to eat it anyway. I've got too many uncontrolled insect
sources entering the house to keep them all away. (Birdseed is the
worst, even after freezing it at 0F for a few weeks before using it.)



Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 11:39:53 EST
From: "Spencer W. Thomas"
Subject: Lager...

Disadvantage is that you almost are required to add new yeast to get
reliable carbonation when you bottle. Also, you tie up a carboy for a
long time.

Advantages: you can put off bottling. A carboy takes less space than
two cases of beer(?). Purportedly, you get better flavor
characteristics. I've only done one (sort of) test on this -- a
friend and I split 10 gallons of wort (Vienna lager), pitched the same
yeast (2308, from the same starter), fermented at the same temperature
(in our respective fridges) for the same length of time. He clarified
with Polyclar, bottled, and lagered in the bottles. I lagered in
carboy, didn't clarify, then bottled. Both were good (an
understatement!), mine had a more malty flavor, but that may have been
because he used polyclar and I didn't.



Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 11:45:54 EST
From: "Spencer W. Thomas"
Subject: BUGS!

Rereading your post, it appears to me that the bugs (or, rather, their
eggs) came in the grain (a not unlikely occurrence). The tightest
container in the world won't prevent these suckers from growing. The
CO2 idea sounds good, as I don't think they can grow without oxygen.

I've had this problem with birdseed, and sometimes with flour(!) back
in the days when I bought 25lbs at a time. Freezing them for a month
in my chest freezer (or even storing them there) seems to kill most of
the eggs.



Date: 03 Feb 1993 11:07:19 -0500
From: Chris McDermott
Subject: FAQ/RFC on Recirculation.

FAQ/RFC on Recirculation.

Since many topics come up in cyclical manner it would be nice if they could be
answered in a FAQ format. And since some topics have more than one accepted
answer the FAQs should try to show all sides of an issue.

So to get the ball rolling here is an example:

FAQ #0000-000:

[Note that 0000 indicates the number of the FAQ and -000 indicates its version.
The version mechanism allows mistakes and inaccuracies to be corrected and
newer information to be included in newer versions of the FAQ.]

FAQ #0001-01: Recirculation: What is it, and should I do it?

Recirculation is a practice employed in the lautering of mashed grains where
the turbid sweet wort is collected, as it is runoff, and recirculated through
the grain bed until the runoff becomes clear.

Most sources of homebrewing information will tell you that you should employ
the practice of recirculation to avoid significant amounts of chaff in the
boil. Chaff in the boil is considered by these sources to lead undesirable
effects in the finished beer including astringancy and cloudiness. (Ref.
Miller, Papazian)

However, others beleive that some amount of chaff in the boil is desireable in
that it helps to coagulate large protien molecules producing a better hot-break
and thus a clearer finished product. Futhermore, some think that the hot side
areation (HSA), or oxidation, of the sweet wort during recircluation outwieghs
any benifit that may be gained by clearing the wort. (Ref. Fix)


Please consider this FAQ as a kind of HbD Request For Comment (RFC). Please
feel free to make any additions or corrections.

Christopher K. McDermott Internet: [email protected]
C.S. Draper Laboratory, Inc. Voice: (617) 258-2362
555 Technology Square FAX: (617) 258-1131
Cambridge, MA 02149 (USA)


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 12:18:39 EST
From: Andrius Tamulis
Subject: Hypercard Program

I may be the person to whom you refer - I wrote a Hypercard Homebrew
Digester about 2-3 years ago, and offered it to anyone who wanted it.
I even send out a few copies. Soon after, however, I discovered a
serious bug/problem - Hypercard fields can be only 32767 lines long,
and at one line per article (as I recall) this quickly filled my index
field. I've tinkered with it once or twice in the interim, but have never
really got it working to my satisfaction.

I am willing to send a copy of it to anyone who cares to ask for it,
send email to [email protected], with a request that if anyone
makes it work well, they send me a copy.

andrius tamulis


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 11:19:51 CST
From: [email protected] (Brian Bliss)
Subject: IBU table

bszymcz%[email protected] (Bill Szymczak) writes:
>In HBD1066 I submitted an HBU-IBU conversion table
>but forgot to mention any volume relationships.
>That table assumes a 5 gallon batch.
>To adjust for a volume of X gallons simply multiply the
>numbers in the table by 5/X.

Well thanks, now that I just wasted 35 oz of hops in my latest barleywine ๐Ÿ™‚

AA units = oz hops * %AA and HBU = AA units / gal. wort (right?)

so that was really a AAU to IBU table, or do I have them backwards?
I also noticed that the rows for 55 and 60 minute boiling times
were identical. Was this a typo?

Nonetheless, the table is among the things that I saved from the HBD
for future reference and is greatly appreciated.



Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 11:36:29 CST
From: [email protected] (Brian Bliss)
Subject: fresh hops

The freshest hops I have found are hops plugs from GW Kent.
They come vacuum packed in gold foil, in packs of 10 - 1/2 oz plugs.
At around 8$ per pack ($1.60/oz) they are about twice as expensive
as normal leaves or pellets, but they are so fresh that you
will probably have to reduce your hopping rate by about 30%
over "regular" leaf hops. They can survive a 60 minute boil
without scrubbing out all their aromatics (which isn't always
what you want).

Available from
Alternative Garden Supply, Streamwood, IL: 1 (800) 444-2837
The Malt Shop, Cascade, WI: 1 (800) 235-0026



Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:18:38 CST
From: [email protected] (Ron Karwoski)
Subject: Lager Questions

I am planning on starting a Bock soon and have a few Lager

At what temperature should the wort be when the yeast is pitched
and how soon should the whole thing be brought down to lagering
temperatures? Do you wait for active signs of fermentation before

Should the starter be cooled?

What is a good liquid yeast for a Dopplebock?


Ron Karwoski Internet: [email protected]


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 16:19:09 -0500
From: [email protected] (Joel [email protected])
Subject: How Long Is Too Long

Greetings fellow brewers. Being a fairly new convert to HB, I
have a question that I realize most of you WON'T be able to relate to.
Although I enjoy my HB, I'm not a big drinker, so subsequently I
have a stockpile building up of my brewing efforts. The beer cellar
presently contains the following extract brewed product: Porter,
(3 months), Pilsner (2 months) and English Bitter (1 month old).
The cellar is approximately 55 degrees F at this time of year and
will increase to about 65 by the beginning of summer. How long
can one expect to keep each of these before the flavor falls off?
I know, I know - "drink it or loose it", but seriously if I had to
focus on which would decline first I would guess Pilsner, Porter and
Bitter in that order.

As long as I've tempted your wrath already - I'm heading to San
Diego 2/13 - 21 for a sailing course and ***** brew pubs, etc.*****.
(Please send replies on this portion via email.) Thanks.


Date: 3 Feb 93 16:31:59
From: [email protected] (Kinzie Brian Mark)
Subject: help the pathetic beginner

I am new to homebrewing (Papazian would put me at the intermediate
level) and I would like some advice on brewing a Belgian Ale, using a
couple bottles of Chimay I have for their yeast (someone told me this
could be done, but didn't bother to tell me how). Please e-mail me
directly, and use small words so I will understand what you are
talking about. Thanks in advance,
[email protected]


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 16:15 MTS
From: Chuck Coronella
Subject: A survey of the readership

Are you an all grain brewer or an extract brewer?

Lately, there have been quite a few highly technical discussions about mash
techniques, kegging setups, and hopping rates, to name a few. This has been a
real boon for most of us, whether advanced or beginners. Advanced brewers get
an opportunity to discuss, with others at their level, the challenges that
they're facing in their home breweries. Beginners can read these discussions
and learn. Everyone wins.

With one exception. Beginner brewers, or even intermediate brewers, are
likely being intimidated by the high level of this discussion. How many posts
in the last few weeks have started with "I'm only a lowly extract brewer..."
or "Sorry for taking up bandwidth with such a simple question..."? And, I
wonder how many questions have not even been asked because the author is
afraid of being labelled "not a REAL brewer" by more advanced brewers.
(Remember that discussion a while back about _real_ brewers?) I believe that
Rob Bradley was referring to this in HBD #1069, when he wrote about all-grain
snobs. I'll bet that the progress of many beginners is being slowed by this
thought. I hate to think that people are being intimidated from asking
questions, because the HBD has helped me so much in the three or so years that
I've been reading it. (There used to be lots more "lower level" discussions.)

I think it would be interesting to take a poll to see how many readers are
extract brewers, or all-grain brewers. I suspect that the readership
consists of more beginners than are represented by the questions posed in the
HBD. And I think that, if beginners realized that they make up a substantial
part of the HBD community, they would be more likely to pose "lower level"
questions, and therefore, improve their comprehension and brewing.

Therefore, I invite everyone reading this post to send me a brief note
indicating your level of expertise. Please use the keywords:

All Grain if you rarely use extract for your brewing, other than
for yeast culturing,

Intermediate if you do some mashing, partial mashing, some yeast
culturing, etc., but you don't consider yourself very
experienced, or

Extract if you are relatively new to the brewing process, haven't
tried mashing, or in general, consider yourself to be on
the steepest part of the learning curve.

I know that this classification is too simple, but it should prove to be
informative, nonetheless. (It should also give some kind of a count of the
number of readers, as well as swamping my mail utility.) In about a week, I'll
post the results.

Chuck [email protected]

P.S. Sorry if this gets posted twice, we're experieingnce nicaltech
ultiesdiffic iwth our ermail.


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 17:09:59 PST
From: Richard Cox
Subject: Dry Malt Extract vs. Syrup Malt Extract

One of my homebrew suppliers strongly maintains that dry malt
extract provides better flavor and less extract "tang" than the
syrup variety. He has encouraged me to use all DME in my recipes
whenever possible.

I'm too new to homebrewing to have an objective opinion on this,
although my last batch -- using all DME -- does taste *much*
better than my first, which was made with syrup extract. There
may have been other factors at work in that case, though. I have
wondered whether or not the syrup cans impart any detectable
metal taste to the extract.

Does anyone have any advice?

) [email protected] (
) (
) [email protected] (


Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 13:00 CST
From: [email protected] (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Beadle, Open Fermenting, arf n snobs

>From: [email protected]
Chris writes:
>>Mr. Beadle ("Brew it Yourself*"), and at least two other British
>>1960s-type books abhor boiling:

>> "Do not bring the water to a boil.... This single bit of
misinformation from those who should know better has caused many beginners to
become unnecessarily discouraged in their attempts at brewing."

>Don't confuse the MASH with the BOIL. In all-grain brewing, you MASH,
LAUTER, BOIL, CHILL, FERMENT and PACKAGE. In extract brewing, you simply

I also have this book in my library and HIS statement far better fits my
definition of the "single bit of misinformation" that caused me no end of
confusion. That page was dog eared in my book and the paragraph underlined.
I assure you the he was referring to extract beer as there is not a single
reference to whole grains in the entire book.

Several times he describes the process of mixing extract with water between
151 and 155 F and maintaining it there for the duration.

Another example of his misinformation is on page 53, also underscored and
burnt into my early data base on brewing.

"If you look into the fermenter, you will see a rich foamy head bubbling on
top. This head is composed mainly of resins from the hops, which are forced
up ty the carbon dioxide bubbles. Some books advocate skimming off the head
but this should never be done because it contains all the oils and resins
that will give the beer its body, aroma and characteristic beer taste."

Certainly, there is a legitimate debate on the importance of skimming the
foam but no one but Beagle argues the merits of leaving it there.

I also note on reviewing the book again for this posting that there is no
mention anywhere of hops. His recipes simply call for light or dark extract
as though hops did not exist.

The book also has no index so it is difficult to find anything but I think it
is safe to say that it is one of the worst of the generaly lousy books on
homebrewing available in the 60's and 70's.

It is not hard to understand why homebrewing is now rapidly expanding as a
hobby and why it stagnated before. I have no problem admitting that I never
really made a good batch of beer till I spent several months digesting the
Digest and much of the other information currently available. It's truly is
a New World Order for home brewing.

>From: Jim Busch
>Subject: re: reusing yeast & open fermenters

>I am most likely in the minority of homebrewers in that I am currently
utilizing open fermentation techniques.

You're in good company. The only thing you need to do to complete your joy
is to add a spigot on the bottom so you can take QC samples on a regular
basis to determine how it is progressing before sending it to the secondary.

I find that for some strange reason, the primary fermentation seems to take
much longer this way and I always seem to come up about a half a gallon

I am sure you have also figured out how simple it is to sterilize with a bit
of water boiling in the bottom.

I also suspect that you, like the rest of the enlightened ones, simply yawn
at all the discussions about "blow-off" tubes and related mess.

>From: [email protected]
>Subject: Spraying the grist

>Both Jim and Donald mentioned the spraying of water on the grist
as it enters the mash tun. I suspect that this has the addional
benefit of reducing grain dust which is explosive.

I suspect that it might have a negative effect if Fix's hypothesis on HSA is
correct. What say George?

>From: Tom Dimock
>Subject: Mixing beers

>Mixing beers has a long history in England, where the Black and Tan,
Light and Dark, or 'arf 'n 'arf are all quite common in pubs. One of
my fond memories involves drinking with friends from MIT at the
Muddy Charles, a graduate student hangout on campus. At that time,
they only had Bud on tap ๐Ÿ™ , but they did have Guiness in bottles.
Being cheap, but not quite cheap enough to drink Bud straight, I'd
buy a bottle of Guiness, and use half a Guiness per pitcher of Bud
to give the stuff some flavor. It worked pretty well - it made the
Bud into something you could fool yourself into believing was beer....

This is amazing. I was going to point this out in response to the original
question but I could not resist noting that ARF was drinking arf 'n arf long
before he gained world wide acclaim as the World's Greatest Brewer. I did
this when I was stationed in Bermuda in the 60's. Guinness and Bud was the
poor man's real beer.

>From: "Donald G. Scheidt"

>From: [email protected] (Jack Schmidling)
>Subject: Nitrosamines, Dough-in
> >From: [email protected] (George J Fix)
> >For the record, the highest NDMA level reported was in Bamberg Rauchbier.
> It contained 5-15 parts per billon, and not 5 ppm as reported in HBD.
> Just testing to see if you read my articles as carefully as
> I read yours ๐Ÿ™‚

this is important.

Just cute. George and I discussed the orders of magnitude issue in email and
it was a private joke in public. When researching the subject, I got that
sort of ambiguity from the maltsters themselves. Not one of them could tell
me for sure whether it was ppm or ppb so I asked George.

>The best reason to use the Belgian malts is 'cause you like 'em - sorry if
that seems a bit simple-minded, but I'm not planning on being part of this
world forever...

It is not only simple minded but puts everything else you say in the same
perspective. Part of being cultured and civilized is controlling our likes
to conform with not only our own well being but the needs and interests of
others. I may very well like the taste of smoked Scheidt on a bagle with
cream cheese, but I am not simple minded enough to assume that justifies
eating it.



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1070, 02/04/93

 December 11, 2017  Add comments

Leave a Reply