Category : Various Text files
Archive   : HBD136X.ZIP
Filename : HBD1366

 
Output of file : HBD1366 contained in archive : HBD136X.ZIP
#5 (402 lines):
Date: Monday, 7 March 1994 03:00 est
From: homebrew-request at HPFCMI.FC.HP.COM (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1366 (March 07, 1994)
Reply-To: homebrew at HPFCMI.FC.HP.COM (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
To: homebrew at HPFCMI.FC.HP.COM
Errors-To: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk

HOMEBREW Digest #1366 Mon 07 March 1994


FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor


Contents:
Any SLO brewers out there? (Julie A Espy)
cold hopping & grassy flavors (Tim Lawson)
More beginner questions (huffmand)
Yeast disaster (Richard Nantel)
sucking contents of blowoff/airlock into brew (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)
OOF: RE: Homebrew Digest #1365 (March 05, 1994) (EPS)"
prehopped malt extract bitterness (Greg Heiler)
carbonating lagers-basic question (Greg Heiler)

Wyeast 3056 (Patrick Weix)
List ("Greg Sotebeer")
fluidless blowoff / woodruff (Brewmeister Smith)
re seat-of-the-pants test (Chip Hitchcock)
batch size musings (Dick Dunn)
subcribe (William Nichols)


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.
FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from
sierra.stanford.edu. (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]


----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 16:03:14 -0800 (PST)
From: Julie A Espy
Subject: Any SLO brewers out there?


Hi All,
I am a new brewer who's been told that there is a homebrew society here in
San Luis Obispo, CA called the SLOBS. Rumor has it that they meet at Spike's
for brew and good times periodically. If there is anyone out there that is
a member and also reads the HBD, could you e-mail me at
[email protected] ? I would really like to hook up with some other
brewers, if they are open to the lowly opinions of a newbie.
Also, if there are other brewers in the central coast region who aren't
in SLOBS, feel free to message me too. I need the name of good local
suppliers, etc.
TIA,
Julie

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 18:05:43 EST
From: Tim Lawson
Subject: cold hopping & grassy flavors

Jack Schmidling's response to Domenick Venezia's question about why
a recent all-grain brew tasted "grassy" suggests that the flavor results
from "not cooking the hops" used to dry hop the brew. He implies that
dry hopping always produces this flavor.
I must admit that I have NEVER heard of dry hopping producing a grassy
flavor. Dry hopping adds the aroma of hop oil (which is not grassy) to
the brew and some degree of bitterness. Tasting a Samuel Adams Boston
Lager or a Liberty Ale will give you a good idea of the effect of dry
hopping. If your brew tastes grassy, I seriously doubt it was a result
of dry hopping.
A much more plausible explanation for the grassy flavor can be found in
Zymurgy (vol. 10, number 4, 1987). George Fix states that "barley is a
member of the grass family, and thus it is not surprising that grassy
flavor tones can arise from grains....musty smells will be detected in
the malt....the best practical measure for avoiding grassy flavors
involves the proper storage of malt....high temperatures and humid
conditions should be avoided....malt that has been ground will do this
very quickly (i.e., absorb moisture)".

Tim Lawson : [email protected]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 04 Mar 94 16:25:56 PST
From: [email protected]
Subject: More beginner questions


Hi all,
I'm new to the HBD and to homebrewing so I hope you don't
mind some beginner questions.

1) What's the story on HBU's as in Papazians book? It seems
that you can get the same HBU value using different amounts
of hops with different AAU's, yet you come up with a
different perceived bitterness according to Papazian's
table. So, if a recipe calls for 20 HBU's you could get a
more or less bitter brew depending on how you achieve the
HBU value. I'm confused.

2) Does the vigor of the boil affect either the color
of the final brew, or the OG of the wort? My Pils is NOT
straw colored (more like red-brown) and I missed the OG by
10 to 15 points.

3) Does anyone out there have a good extract or partial mash
recipe for something like Watney's Red Barrel?

Thanks!

Oh yeah, Joe...Matt....Dave P.....are you out there?

David Huffman
"Just Brew It!"

------------------------------

Date: 04 Mar 94 22:23:07 EST
From: Richard Nantel <[email protected]>
Subject: Yeast disaster

I've been lucky. In the past two years of homebrewing I've had no
disasters. Sure a few spills but nothing major -- until this week. On
Wednesday morning I made a starter of Wyeast Irish Ale yeast to be pitched
into an all-grain Scotch ale being brewed on Thursday. By Thursday, the
starter showed no fermentation at all. I decided to go on with the brewing
and pitch with a second container (no starter) of Irish Ale yeast (expiry
date July 94). 26 hours later, no fermentation. Entertaining thoughts of
major bacterial activity in the wort, I pitched a package of Cooper's dry
yeast -- the fastest-starting yeast I know. Unfortunately, Coopers isn't
all that appropriate for Scotch ales. Fermentation has now started, some 30
hours after the wort's been in the primary.

My local beer supplier feels badly about the dead batches of Wyeast he sold
me (probably froze in shipping) and promised to replace my grain and hops
for the next batch. What are my chances of having a clean brew after such a
long lag time? I'm quite fussy about sanitation but 36 hours? Should I dump
this batch and rebrew? I shall never ever ever again go ahead with a batch
without an ACTIVE starter.

Richard Nantel
Montreal, Quebec, Canada

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Mar 1994 18:55:48 -0800
From: [email protected] (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)
Subject: sucking contents of blowoff/airlock into brew

Recent discussion on that has reminded me:

I don't generally do blowoff, unless something unexpected happens and the
thing blows off. ๐Ÿ™‚ But, I sometimes use a plastic bucket to do primary
ferment in. Because of the flexibility of the plastic, picking it up by the
handle decreases the volume and forces air out of the airlock. When you set
it down again, air is once again pulled back into the headspace. If you do
this too fast, it will slurp the liquid from the airlock into the brew,
regardless if it's one of the cheap plastic airlocks, or the S shaped ones
Norm recommends.

I've found it to be safest to simply fill the airlock with a grain
alcohol/water mixture. Grain alcohol is cheaper than vodka and uses less
storage space. I no longer worry about picking up the bucket, or, as I've
done too many times to count, opening the spigot at the bottom to rack into
secondary, while forgetting to remove the airlock. ๐Ÿ™‚

Mike


- --
Michael Fetzer pgp 2.2 key available on request
Internet: [email protected] uucp: ...!ucsd!mfetzer
Bitnet: FETZERM@SDSC
HEPnet/SPAN: SDSC::FETZERM or 27.1::FETZERM



------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 1994 00:43:47 -0800
From: "Kirkpatrick Dave (EPS)"
Subject: OOF: RE: Homebrew Digest #1365 (March 05, 1994)

I will be out of the office on Monday and Tuesday March 7&8. I'll get back to
you on items requiring response Wednesday.
Thanks - Dave

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 08:46:51 EST
From: [email protected] (Greg Heiler)
Subject: prehopped malt extract bitterness

Earlier I submitted the following question.

> I plan on using hopped malt exctracts in a Vieanna Lager extract
> recipe. I've heard that after boiling 60 min. the "hopping" in the
> extract boils away and can not be tasted. Does this mean the alpha
> boils away as well, and that the associates bitterness should not be
> condidered when determing IBU's ?

The overwhelming response was that the hop aroma and flavor boil away,
and the bitterness remains. A more technical description, as emailed
to me, follows:

The hop AROMA boils away after about 15-20 minutes, not the "alpha
(acids)". The purpose of the 60 minute boil is to isomerize the alpha
acids present in the hops. This isomerization is what makes the
bitterness. This bitterness cannot be boiled away. Pre-hopped malt
extracts do not need to be boiled for 60 minutes, as the alpha acids
have already been isomerized. (Courtesy of Rick Meyers, Thank-You)

Sharing The Answers;

Greg

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 08:56:14 EST
From: [email protected] (Greg Heiler)
Subject: carbonating lagers-basic question

My vienna lager has going through a 10 day primary fermentation at
50-60F and has been in the secondary for 3 weeks at 38-50F (weather
dependent). I'am ready to carbonate and lager. After priming and
bottling I plan on storing the bottles at 35-45F (weather dependent)
for 4 weeks. Is this sufficient for carbonation to develop and for
respectable lagering?

New To the Lager Brewing World;

Greg

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 1994 07:44:09 -0800 (PST)
From: [email protected] (Patrick Weix)
Subject: Wyeast 3056


Jack Skeels writes:

> Subject: Wyeast 3056 Works too! (I think....)
stuff deleted...>

> The clove, vanilla and spice flavors were right on in the sample from my
> racking. And the smell of the primary, even after I had rinsed it
> out...well, HEAVENLY might but too strong of a word, but its close! After
> reading the previous post about 3056, I'm truly convinced that pitching rate
> and temperature is are key elements in bringing out these flavors.
>
> 3056, it works for me. Of course YMMV.

As erstwhile editor of the Yeast Faqtoid, I would like to point out
that the YMMV (your milage may vary) comment here is key. The
principle problem with this strain has been its instability and
variability. Wyeast would not have distributed it if it never worked,
but they replaced it with 3068 for a reason.

I think I am going to go have one right now....

Patrick

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 09:52:18 -0600
From: "Greg Sotebeer"
Subject: List

could you send me a list of your internet mailing?

Thanks

[email protected]




------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 11:52:38 PST
From: [email protected] (Brewmeister Smith)
Subject: fluidless blowoff / woodruff


In high-school biology I remember reading about pasteur in the history part.
He filled some flasks with broth and formed an "S" type of lock with
glass tubing. He then boiled the broth to sterilize it. TO THIS VERY DAY
those flasks are bug free with NO WATER WHATSOEVER in the lock. The
beasties simply can't crawl all the way through the S. There were nice
pictures of the bug free flasks. They're sitting in some museum in
France I think.


Does anybody know anything about woodruff? What it's used for, how it's used,
what it tastes like?


Rick Dante
[email protected]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Mar 94 15:00:35 EST
From: [email protected] (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: re seat-of-the-pants test

Last week I wrote

| Good points, but are you aware of the old German regulation that actually
| did use the seat of the pants? A little of the beer was to be poured out
| and sat in by the inspector (wearing leather pants, according to both
| sources I've read); the quality was measured by whether the pants stuck to
| the surface for a moment when the inspector stood up.

And asked for responses. I got 4 affirmatives: 2 mentioned the (English)
ale conner, whose job it was to sit in the beer to test it, one mentioning
that this was the reason Toronto's first microbrewery was named Conners; 1
specifically remembered reading of it as a German custom; 1 cited the Beer
Styles issue of ZYMURGY.

Also 1 negative: reference to Richard Boston's "Beer and Skittles":
| He said that pants sticking meant that the beer had had sugar added to
| it. He also discounted that this was actually practiced.

Thanks to Ed Hitchcock, Steve Tollefsrud, George Shafer, Tim Ihde, and
an early respondent whose name I misplaced.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 94 00:36:33 MST (Sun)
From: [email protected] (Dick Dunn)
Subject: batch size musings

Every now and then, someone asks about cutting back from what seems to be
the small "standard" batch size, 5 gallons. There are 3-gallon carboys,
and obviously 1-gallon jugs are everywhere for use with no more effort than
finding the right stopper for the airlock.

One of the reasons for smaller batches is that people find it intimidating
to make 5 gallons of a food they know nothing about. Malt isn't cheap, but
it's more than that. 5 gallons is just a lot to think about; it's two
dozen large bottles or four dozen small ones.

I've done a lot of playing with this...recently I had 9 batches of stuff
going: 3 each of 5 gallon, 3 gallon, and 1 gallon.

My conclusion is that a 1 gallon batch of 'most anything is a marginal
effort. Try 1-gallon batches if you're doing an off-the-wall experiment;
otherwise scale up. It's too hard to keep things in proportion, and the
fermentation doesn't act the same as it will in a larger batch. My recent
1-gal batches were experimental meads (basil, kiwi-fruit) where I didn't
even know if the results would be palatable, or comparisons (making several
batches with slight variations). The experiments are OK; they give me
something to work with for developing a real recipe. The comparisons
haven't been all that useful, frankly, because the batch size is too small.
A general problem with 1-gal batches when you're experimenting: it's hard
to monitor gravity readings, since each reading takes enough out of the
batch to add substantial head-space in the fermenter. Take a reading
every few days for two weeks and a substantial part of the "batch" is gone.

3 gallon is a nice scaled-down size. It's large enough that it behaves
like a normal batch, and a few hydrometer readings don't hurt, but if
you're out on a limb with the recipe you're not risking so much. It helps
a lot that 3-gallon carboys are available these days. For mead in partic-
ular, 3 gallon is nice because 1/2 gallon of honey (about 6 lb) is right
for a 3-gallon experiment, where you can finish dry and/or add neutral
honey to moderate some exotic honey you've got.

If you're trying new ideas, but you've got reasonable confidence you're
within the range of believable beer (or mead), why not go ahead and make a
full 5 gallon batch? Use the extra quantity to observe it over time. Get
more opinions.

I find a 3-gallon batch to be the minimum useful trial size, if I think I'm
anywhere near a good idea.
---
Dick Dunn [email protected] -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado USA
...Mr Natural says, "Get the right tool for the job!"

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 Mar 1994 11:04:10
From: [email protected] (William Nichols)
Subject: subcribe

subcribe
[email protected]
thanks


------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1366, 03/07/94
*************************************
-------

---(5)---


  3 Responses to “Category : Various Text files
Archive   : HBD136X.ZIP
Filename : HBD1366

  1. Very nice! Thank you for this wonderful archive. I wonder why I found it only now. Long live the BBS file archives!

  2. This is so awesome! ๐Ÿ˜€ I’d be cool if you could download an entire archive of this at once, though.

  3. But one thing that puzzles me is the “mtswslnkmcjklsdlsbdmMICROSOFT” string. There is an article about it here. It is definitely worth a read: http://www.os2museum.com/wp/mtswslnk/