From: homebrew@lupulus.ssc.gov
Subject: HOMEBREW Digest #1050
Organization: The Internet
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 09:24:45 GMT


HOMEBREW Digest #1050                        Thu 07 January 1993


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


Contents:
  Charcoal Water Filters (Jim Grady)
  Gas leaks in keg systems (The Ice-9-man Cometh)
  % alcohol by weight vs. by volume (John DeCarlo)
  cheapest soda kegs (Don McDaniel)
  re PH vs color test kits (Chip Hitchcock)
  Kegged! (davehyde)
  Brewing supplies in Conn. (Corby Bacco)
  hops,extracts,pilsners (Tony Babinec)
  Re: brewing Munich Dunkels (Dave Sheehy)
  Yeast question (KRUSE_NEIL)
  KETTLE MASHING (Jack Schmidling)
  What to see, barley wine help needed. (Ford Prefect)
  need help kegging (Carlo Fusco)
  [Resend]  HSA & Lambix (Martin A. Lodahl)
  lost in the wood (Sandy Cockerham)
  Re: Light Protection (Carl Hensler)
  Lights in the fridge (Bill Crisafulli)


Send articles for __publication__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
    (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
    listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
    message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
**Please do not send me requests for back issues!**
*********(They will be silenty discarded!)*********
**For Cat's Meow information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu**

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 8:32:16 EST
From: Jim Grady <jimg@hpwarga.wal.hp.com>
Subject: Charcoal Water Filters

Back in HBD #1040 (24 Dec. - I just caught up from the holidays!) Darryl
Richman says:

> There is no need to boil all your water before you brew.  If your water
> comes with a lot of chlorine, an activated charcoal filter will remove
> it.  You need only boil and decant your water if you have a lot of

This is true but I misread it at first and thought I would emphasize
that if you use a charcoal filter you should boil all of your brewing
water either before or while you are brewing.  Many of us extract brewers
boil only part of the wort and I must confess that when I lived in a
town with better tap water, I made up the 5 gallons straight from the
tap.  I have since moved to a new town that has a lot of chlorine in the
water (0.7 ppm) so I bought a chlorine water filter for the house
thinking this means I don't need to boil the water from the tap.  Well,
according to Miller (I think it's his new book, "Brewing the World's
Great Beers") and my backyard neighbor (who sells filters & such to
industry) active charcoal filters are _great_ breeding grounds for
bacteria.  In addition to collecting all sorts of organics for them to
munch on, the media itself promotes growth.

- --
Jim Grady                  |"Talent imitates, genius steals."
Internet: jimg@wal.hp.com  |
Phone: (617) 290-3409      |                    T. S. Eliot

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

Date:    Wed, 6 Jan 1993 8:00:18 -0600 (CST)
From: SMITH@EPVAX.MSFC.NASA.GOV (The Ice-9-man Cometh)
Subject: Gas leaks in keg systems

>From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
>>From: arf
>>I should point out that I always turn off the tank when not dispensing and
>>thereby eliminate losses from leaks.
>Ditto, there's no such thing as a 'leakproof' system.

Okay, dumb question.  If you turn off the gas at the tank and let the
system sit for a while, and you have (the inevitable) leaks, won't the
beer go flat?  Or do soda kegs have check valves built in?  I have a
tapper-fridge with a Sankey tap, which is hooked up to a half-barrel
which sits there for up to 2 months before it gets finished; my 5-lb
CO2 cylinder has lasted through 3 1/2 half-barrels but I think it's
getting low....

Not so dumb question:  anyone know of a cheap source for a gas check valve?


|    James W. Smith, NASA MSFC EP-53    |     SMITH@epvax.msfc.nasa.gov      |
|"Don't ever tell anybody anything.  If you do, you start missing everybody."|
|                                                     --J. D. Salinger       |
|     Neither NASA nor (!James) is responsible for what I say. Mea culpa.    |


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

Date: Wednesday, 6 Jan 1993 10:08:36 EST
From: m14051@mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: % alcohol by weight vs. by volume

>From: mfetzer%ucsd.edu@chem.UCSD.EDU (The Rider) (Michael Fetzer)

>How do I compute %alcohol by weigh in terms of %alcohol by volume.

OK, the simplistic answer is that alcohol weighs roughly 80% of
what water does for the same volume, so you can translate 5%
alcohol by volume into 4% by weight (or use the inverse of 1.25
to go from 4% by weight to 5% by volume).

For the particularly picky among you, this simplistic approach
would mena that if the beer were 100% alcohol by weight, it would
be 125% by volume, clearly ridiculous.

So, here is the complete approach, with percentage stated as 70%,
not .7 (you can substitute 1 for the 100s if using 0-1 values):

           (%AbV * .8) * 100
%AbW = --------------------------
       (100 - %AbV) + (%AbV * .8)

Which has 5% AbW converted to 4.04% AbV.

           (%AbW * 1.25) * 100
%AbV = ----------------------------
       (100 - %AbW) + (%AbW * 1.25)

Which translates 4% AbW into 4.95% AbV.

Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org (or John.DeCarlo@f131.n109.z1.fidonet.org)
Fidonet:  1:109/131

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 08:27:59 -0700
From: dinsdale@chtm.eece.unm.edu (Don McDaniel)
Subject: cheapest soda kegs

Time for the periodic "where to get kegging equipment" post.
Rumor has it that as the soda industry is abandoning SS kegs for
plastic-lined cardboard boxes, kegs are available really cheap.
For those on the list that have been at it for a while, is thee
any validity to this assertion?

What is the best source of tanks, kegs, regulators and guages at
the moment for someone who is mechanically inclined enough that
he/she doesn't need a turnkey kit from a homebrew supplier?

Thanks,

Don McDaniel

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 09:49:26 EST
From: cjh@diaspar.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: re PH vs color test kits

   The variation of color (of pH tests) with temperature may be caused by
the fact that acidity/alkalinity is temperature-sensitive. pH is the log10
of the reciprocal of the concentration (moles/liter) of H+ ions; thus pH of
7 is a concentration of 10^-7. ]In sufficiently pure water[ the H+ can come
largely from the (very slight) tendency of H2O itself to dissociate into H+
and OH-; pH 7 is "neutral" (at room temp) simply because the concentration
of OH- is also 10^-7. Not surprisingly, H2O dissociates more readily at
higher temperatures; "neutral" at ~100C is pH ~6. Without knowing just what
is in the test solutions I wouldn't begin to guess the effect of a higher
concentration of both ions, except that I wouldn't expect it to be the same
as at room temperature; the behavior of the active compound(s) in the
solution itself could also change.
   I don't know what the standard is in professional brewing, but based on
the above I would \expect/ that they read pH only in samples cooled to room
temperature, or possibly via probes and equipment that correct for the
effect of high temperature.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 11:08:00 EST
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Subject: Kegged!

Several people wrote and asked for forwards of the stuff I received on
kegging.  Rather than forward everything, I've summarized it here.
Hope its helpful.  BTW, credits follow.  Sorry if I missed anyone,
but I don't keep mail very long and I didn't expect the number of
requests for info that I got.

Where to get equipment:

I can't be of much help here.  I got my taps and CO2 bottle from
our  neighborhood association (?!) since we rarely use them anymore,
and the keg  came from a friend who is on excellent terms with a
distributor.  Several  people have recommended scrap metal yards,
though.

removing that dang ball tap!:

There's a leaf spring at the top of the tap between the tap and the
keg neck.   I worked the end of the spring back to one of the bayonette
slots in the neck  where I pried it out with a screwdriver.  Once
the spring is out lift then  twist the tap up and out of the neck.
This was the hardest part because it  was stuck and there's not much
to get a grip in.  Re-installing is just the  reverse.

carbonation, racking, pressurizing:

Some people recommended priming with 1/4-1/2 c corn sugar before
pressurizing.  Another recommendation was to pressurize and let
the beer set a day or 2 in  the fridge.  I didn't want to wait,
so I force carbonated and agitated the  beer.  I racked the beer
straight from the carboy to the keg with no priming.   I put the
tap back in and pressurized it to ~25 psi.  I didn't get any
guidelines as to pressure vs. style, so this was a guess based
on a  recommendation of 20-40 psi.  I removed the lines and rolled
the keg around  for 10 min or so on the basement floor and tapped it.
Stand Back!  The first  few pints were well carbonated but slightly
cloudy.  This disappeared over the  next day or so.

Comments:

Unfortunately I didn't bottle any of this batch to do a taste
comparison.  It  is, IMHO, my best batch by far.  The raspberries
aside (see below) the beer  has a wonderful color, is crystal clear,
and the head is incredible.  Same  feel and consistency as Guiness
Draft cans with that nitrogen thingy in them.   Lasts forever too.

The only problem:

I can't bottle any to give away.  I tried quiety filling a bottle
for a friend, but when he opened it it was flat.  So...keg party
time, perhaps.

Many thanks to:
bobc@Eng.Sun.COM:                               removing that dang ball tap!
sag5004@yak.ca.boeing.com (Ford Prefect):       carbonation
Jonathan Butt <jbutt@cs.mun.ca>:                carbonation
dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma): carbonation, racking,
                                                pressurizing

and to davet@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Dave Thompson), who asked about my  raspberry
lager:  I didn't want to mess with fruit, so I used a recipe from a
supply place near Baltimore, MD that was basically  an amber lager with
3/4 tbsp of raspberry soda extract added to boil for  15 min.  At
bottling (or kegging, as in my case), another 4 tbsp were  added to the
(now) finished beer.  I wouldn't recommend this unless  you _really_
like rasberry beer.  STRONG!  But _I_ like it.

Dave Hyde davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil



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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 09:39:14 -0700
From: cbacco@ursa5.cs.utah.edu (Corby Bacco)
Subject: Brewing supplies in Conn.

Hello all,
        I have an older brother who is interested in getting into
homebrewing.  He lives in Norwalk, Conn..  Can anyone reccommend any
homebrew suppliers in the general area.

                Thanks,
                       Corby

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 11:18:44 CST
From: tony@spss.com (Tony Babinec)
Subject: hops,extracts,pilsners

(1) Miller is not alone in talking about different utilization of
whole (leaf) hops versus pelletized hops.  However, it seems that
there are a lot of variables involved, such as:  how were whole
and pellet hops handled?  were they kept bagged and chilled as much
as possible?  does the pelletizing break the resin glands, thereby
altering the bittering potential of the hops?  what is the boil length?
what is the vigor of the boil?  what is the gravity of the boiling
wort?  In the end, aim at a style, try a recipe, taste the result,
and modify your process accordingly!

(2) Whether the hops are whole or pellets, the same general rules
apply:  boil 45 to 90 minutes for bittering, 20 minutes or so for
flavoring, and 10 minutes or less for aroma.

(3) In all-grain brewing, a 90-minute boil is probably a reasonable
minimum.  There are various chemical reactions occurring that require
that length of boil, plus you are typically boiling your wort down from
7 or more gallons to 5 gallons at the finish.  With extracts, in part
the concern is that longer boils darken the wort, and other things
equal, it's more difficult to make a very pale beer such as a pilsner
with extract.  You should probably aim for a 45-60 minute boil so that
hop bittering occurs.  Although it is bad practice, you hear stories
about how some recipes recommend stirring malt extract syrup into
water without a boil and then racking to primary.

A pilsner is a pale, bitter lager of conventional strength.  An
extract brewer could make a decent pilsner:

 - use unhopped extra-light or light malt extract,
 - hop with noble hops (Saaz, Hallertauer, etc.) and hop for appropriate
bitterness,
 - Boil for 45 to 60 minutes,
 - Use a lager yeast (Wyeast has good ones) and ferment at an appropriate
temperature (48 to 50 degrees F).

Miller has some other good pointers in his pilsner book in the text
preceding the recipes, which summarizes points made earlier in the
book.

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 9:25:01 PST
From: Dave Sheehy <dbs@hprnd.rose.hp.com>
Subject: Re: brewing Munich Dunkels


R. Cushing Hamlen writes:

> This last weekend I tried my hand at brewing a true Munich Dunkel.  After
> reading Miller, I decided to do so using all Munich malt.  My source for
> Munich malt states that the malt is enzymatic, with sufficient enzymes
> to convert starch without using pale malt.
>
> Well, to make a long story short, I ended up with about three gallons of
> starchy barley malt porridge....it did not even begin to convert!  ...
>
> So, the question is this:  has anyone out there make a Munich Dunkel using
> all Munich malt, and had sucess doing so?

Long ago I made a Maerzen based on Miller's recipe which calls for 9 or 10
pounds of Munich malt. I asked the same sort of question on the HBD (i.e.
will it convert all by itself) and a few people stated they couldn't see how
it could convert. I said "what the h*ll" and went for it. Well, it converted
and fermented just fine. Then the problems began. Most of the batch wouldn't
carbonate (I added the priming sugar, honest!). It was a lager so after
bottling I lagered as much of it as would fit in the fridge (as per Miller's
recomended method of lagering). None of the beer ever had any kind of head
whatsoever either. Now here's the weird part. The few bottles that did
carbonate were from the portion that was lagered in the fridge. None of the
bottles that were stored at room temperature ever carbonated to any
significant degree. That was a real bummer because other than the lack of
carbonation the beer tasted pretty good. I used Wyeast #2308 on this batch.

If I were to do this again I think I would at least add a pound of wheat
malt to improve the head potential. Since Munich malt is kilned at a high
temperature I believe much of the head producing proteins are gone.

>       > Cush Hamlen                           |       cush@msc.edu

Dave Sheehy


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

Date: 6 Jan 93 09:59:00 +1000
From: KRUSE_NEIL@Tandem.COM
Subject: Yeast question

- ------------   REPLY ATTACHMENT   --------
SENT 01-06-93 FROM KRUSE_NEIL

I have a yeast question...

My usuall recipe is 6# Alexanders amber syrup extract, willamette hops,
boil around 45 mins.  Put carboy with the five gals. of wort in bathtub
to cool, pitch ale yeast.  The next morning the carboy is bubbling like
crazy and the beer always turns out great.  BUT... Last night I helped
a friend follow my award winning recipe with one difference, we used
6# of DRY malt extract.  This morning he called me to tell me it was
not bubbling at all...nada, nonthing.  My question is why?
Should he add more yest?  Is the temperature off?  I thought my recpie
was idiot proof, I guess I was wrong ;)
Thanks

KRUSE_NEIL@tandem.com

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 09:00 CST
From: arf@ddsw1.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: KETTLE MASHING


 The following article was rejected by Zymurgy's editorial department for some
 obscure reason, so I will post it here in serial form.




                           KETTLE MASHING

                          By Jack Schmidling

 Mashing and sparging in plastic buckets of one form or
 another has become so universal that the method I am going
 to discuss might seem like something new.  However, it is
 more or less the way beer had been made since time
 immemorial.  Until that is, a certain very popular book on
 home brewing appeared.

 Kettle mashing, as I call it, has some advantages and some
 disadvantages over the now "traditional" plastic bucket
 method and until one understands both approaches, a
 commitment to one or the other can lead to a good deal of
 unnecessary frustration.

 Kettle mashing is simply using a kettle with an appropriate
 secreening device and spigot to "cook" the mash in and once
 the mashing is complete, the same kettle becomes the lauter
 tun.  After sparging in the lauter tun, the kettle is used
 for boiling and if it has a close fitting cover, can be used
 as the primary fermenter.

 The most fundamental advantage of the approach is the ease
 with which the transition from extract to all grain can be
 made.   The only new requirement is a straining device in
 the kettle already used for boiling extract beer.  The
 investment required to "give it a try", is quite minimal and
 if you decide you don't like the program, you end up with a
 great brew kettle that sports a spigot that won't get
 clogged up with hops and specialty grains.

 The other advantages are a bit more technical and I will
 point them out when we get to them.

 The key to the system is the screening device and the spigot
 for the kettle.  The first one I made was to be used in
 conjunction with an overlaying false bottom.  The false
 bottom was a stainless steel plate the size of the kettle
 bottom with a zillion holes laboriously punched into it.  It
 created no end of problems on the very first batch.  Mash
 got under it and scorching was just about impossible to
 control.  So in disgust, I pulled it out, continued the mash
 and assumed a disaster was at hand.

 Much to my incredulous delight, when I opened the spigot,
 the wort ran clear after less than a cup of turbid runnoff.
 I have since made about 30 batches using only the screen
 device and get very consistent and respectable extract
 yields.

 We will begin the discussion, by describing the screening
 device and spigot that is installed in the brew kettle.  The
 first one I made was made from galvanized pipe fittings and
 window screen, installed in a 32 qt enameled canning kettle.

 The current version is all brass, copper and stainless
 installed on two stainless kettles, a ten gallon for mashing
 and fermenting and a sixteen gallon for boiling.  Having two
 kettles allows one to be prepared for the next operation
 while the other is doing its thing.

 Fig. 1 shows an exploded view of the spigot and strainer.
 The strainer is simply a 2 x 6 inch piece of screen, rolled
 into a six inch tube and clamped to the copper tube.  The
 last half inch is bent over itself to seal it off.    The
 copper tube has a slight bend in it to allow it to be
 rotated so that the end is right on the bottom leaving
 almost no wort behind.  It is easily removed for cleaning.

 The spigot passes through a clearance hole drilled in the
 kettle and is retained by the female connector and a washer
 to take up the treads and make a tight fit.

 All the parts are available at a good hardware store.  For
 those not inclined to hunt down the parts, a complete kit is
 available from the author.

 Once the spigot/strainer device is installed in the brew
 kettle, you are ready for the plunge.  If you are shopping
 for a kettle, my only advice is the bigger the better.  I
 consider the 32 qt canner about the minimum for a 5 gal
 batch.

                   Continued...............


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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 11:12:07 -0800
From: sag5004@yak.ca.boeing.com (Ford Prefect)
Subject: What to see, barley wine help needed.


Sorry about posting one of those "I'll be in your neighborhood where
should I go" posts... but

I am getting married in the end of July. For a honeymoon the general
plan is to start in Seattle, head to the coast take a left goto
california take a left head through painted desert and goto colorado,
take another left and head home.  If I sell my 911 in time we may make
the trip in a miata (with no luggage room).  Or use my fiancees ford
explorer (ie room to pick up a six pack here and there :-)

I am interested in interested places and brews to see along the way.
(Note:  places may or may not include some non beer related places like
cannon beach OR).  I am interested in two beer styles in particular:
alt, and barleywine.  A recent trip to Levenworth WA revealed a new
brewpub and I want to see how their alt compares with others.  Also I
have been interesed in finding commercial examples of real barley wine
(not barleywine like style).  I tried to make some myself, but the
results are very sweet and not what I expected.

Any help/flames/etc would be helpful.  As far as places to see "Check
out the Whomper Inn a couple of little towns south of tillamok on 101"
would be sufficient (I know how to use a phone book, If I could just
get the paper ones to grep :-)  Also I would be glad to meet some of
you electronic people, maybe we could quaff one in your favorite spot.

Also, I would like some feed back on "my" barleywine recipe.  I stole
it from somewhere (sorry I don't remember where) so it isn't really
mine, but I would be happy to hear how to improve it.  Also how long is
it supposed to age?  When I made this recipe (twice) I was just
starting to go all grain,  I have been making slow incremental
improvements as I go, but still have along way to go.  BTW, the small
beer made with the second runnings was quite tasty.

May 10, 1991 and May 25 1991

9 gal water
2 tsp gypsum
32 lbs Klages
2 lbs Crystal
1/4 lb Chocoalte malt

throw in grains at 170F stir...temp drops to 152F...wait 90 minutes
sparg until 6.5 gallons collected (8 the second time).

2oz Cascade 60 minutes
2oz Centenial 60 minutes
1 tsp Irish moss 20 minutes
2oz Fuggles 5 minutes

boil 60 minutes,   OG 1.106  (1.095 2nd batch)
used whitbred ale yeast + redstar champagne
after ~3 weeks I transfered to another carboy
and another 3 weeks later I kegged with a FG of 1.038 (1.028 2nd batch)

I have not tasted the second batch (yet), but the first one is very
sweet and almost no hops.  Again any advice would be apreciated.  If
you are local, maybe we can arange a tasting.

thanks

stuart galt                          boeing computer services
sag5004@yak.boeing.com               bellvue washington
(206) 865-3764                       or home (206) 361-0190
#include <standard/disclaim.h>
I don't know what they say, they don't know what I say...


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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 16:21 EST
From: Carlo Fusco <G1400023@NICKEL.LAURENTIAN.CA>
Subject: need help kegging

Hello everyone,

I have now made the jump to kegging my beer and now I have a question or 2.
I bought a generic regulator from a welding shop and it works great, one
problem though, the second gauge is scaled for liters per minute and cubic
feet per hour. It is the same as a pressure guage but the scale is set up
for unrestricted flow, as in MIG welding.

Does anyone have a conversion table for this scale?
[ie when the pressure equalizes at 7 lpm, what would that equal in psi]

Thanks
Carlo Fusco  g1400023@nickel.laurentian.ca

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 13:47:24 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah@PacBell.COM>
Subject: [Resend]  HSA & Lambix

In HOMEBREW Digest #1047, George Fix made my day:

> The temptation to join a conversation which on the one hand
> involves hot-side aeration (HSA), and on the other Martin Lodahl &
> Lambic, is too great to pass up ...

Gosh, George <blush!> ...  I wrote up a reply and submitted it that
evening, but it was too huge for HBD by any conceivable standard,
and was bounced, as it should have been.  I'll make it more brief
this time.

> Negative effects due to HSA are usually reflected in a flavor the
> Germans call "Herbstoffe."  Roughly translated this means "grain
> bitter" or "grain astringency."  Although, I do not have Martin's
> vast tasting experience with Lambics, the ones I have tasted in
> Europe have never shown any indication of Herbstoffe.  Sometimes I
> pick up astringent tones in bottled Lambics which have been
> imported to the U.S.  I believe, however, these flavor tones are
> artifacts, i.e., resulted from the beer's long journey across the
> Atlantic, and are not intrinsic to this beer style.

I've run across astringency in some of the best lambiks I've had, and
most especially in some of the young (vos) lambiks served from casks
in specialty cafes.  I don't have your experience of German beers and
wouldn't recognize true Herbstoffe, but the astringency I'm thinking
of in this instance is of the husky, grainy sort we often associate
with hot sparges, and as lambik brewers frequently sparge hot, I've
been assuming that was the cause.  "Nutty", "sherry-like" and even
"cigar-like" oxidation products are frequently named in my tasting
notes.  These could well be HSA products, couldn't they?  Oddly, these
flavor notes seem altogether appropriate to the beers I've found them
in -- not a defect, but part of their character, even their charm.
Many lambiks, whether insipid (Belle Vue), regrettable (Lindeman's)
or splendid (Frank Boon) don't have identifiable astringency, but
many seem to.

>       ...  Herbstoffe arises from the presence of
> what could be called HSA aldehydes ...
> ... most Saccharomyces will ignore them.  ...  It is
> conceivable, although definite proof is lacking, that some of
> these [microbes] might find the HSA aldehydes inviting targets,
> and reduce them to alcohols.  Given the large fatty acid
> composition of Lambics, the alcohols would probably be converted
> to esters, and form a small part of the very large ester pool in
> Lambics.  If true, this would mean that all of the splashing of hot
> wort that takes place in Lambic brewing does no harm.

This is to say the least, intriguing!  It's true that despite wild
splashing of the hot wort into the cooling trays and subsequent storage
in gas-permeable containers (barrels) for two or more years the
results are nothing like what you'd get if you treated a pale ale
the same way.  The remaining identifiable oxidation products actually
add to the character of the lambik.  And I've never tasted the
paperlike or cardboard notes in a lambik that we often associate
with oxidation.  Most lambiks have a _very_ substantial ester
component.  One gueuze (St. Louis) was so fruity that I first thought
I'd been served a fruit lambik by mistake!

> What bothers me (slightly) are the implications of this for North
> American Lambic brewers.  At the present time they will not be
> dealing with a "full deck" with respect to the relevant microbes,
> and this conceivably could be an important issue.

I believe you're right.  There are definite flavor differences
between the synthetic products some of us have been experimenting
with, and the "real thing" made the traditional way.

[ ... ]
> they consistently have a flavor tone which I will oversimplify and
> call "metallic."  I do not remember ever tasting anything like
> this in Europe, although I have tasted something like it in
> selected bottles which were imported to the U.S.

My experience has been just the same, though right offhand I can't pin
down any Stateside encounters with that flavor in lambiks either,
but if CR Saikley's reading this, perhaps he can jump in?  Exactly
that note is coming through like gangbusters in the pseudo-lambik I
brewed 18 months ago that I'm sipping as I write this.  The biological
spectrum in it was limited (as far as I know) to S. cerevisiae (Wyeast
1007, in fact), Pediococcus damnosus, and a not particularly aggressive
strain of Brettanomyces bruxellensis.  Sparge temperature was allowed to
rise to 190F, and I splashed the wort some, but hadn't yet concluded
that it would be helpful to the development of the Brett. flavor
profile.

> ... But, assuming for the moment that they are artifacts and
> not intrinsic to Lambics, this raises the issue of the possible
> need for brewers in North America to modify the traditional
> process.  If I were given a vote, I would place as No. 1 on the
> list the removal of the cob webs; removal of splashing comes
> further down on the list!  However, in general which of the rules
> we use for normal beer (whatever that might be!), should be
> followed, and which should be rejected in favor of traditional
> Lambic practice?

I'm struggling with exactly that question, and lack both the
background and data to reach a satisfactory answer.  Conference
attendees could hardly forget Mike Matucheski's remarkable paean to
Brettanomyces.  Mike is a strong believer in following the
traditional processes in hopes that the local microflora will
be suitable, and while his creations don't have a lot in common
with most of the Belgian products they're certainly similar to
the hardest available lambiks.  "Hardness" in a lambik is a descriptor
of the acetic acid contribution to the flavor, and while the Belgian
spiders help to keep hardness under control by taking fruit flies to
lunch, their American counterparts may not be so helpful.  Some of
the test batches of J-X Guinard, "father" of the "pure cultures"
method of home lambik brewing, tasted more like the "real thing"
than mine, and the biggest difference between his process and mine
is that he fermented in plastic water carboys, while I stayed with
the glass I usually use.  Mike Sharp's experiments using an oak
cask were even closer to optimal, and what Mike's and J-X's flavor
profiles had that mine didn't was primarily a major improvement in
the flavor contribution of the Brettanomyces.  What does all of that
have to do with HSA?  Well, just that it raises the question of whether
there is a relationship between Brettanomyces, which seems to contribute
more to the final flavor when exposed to (some) air, and the lack of
the degree of staling one would normally expect in beers that don't
harbor Pediococcus and Brettanomyces.

I must be crowding the size limit by now.  Thanks for asking,
George!

= Martin A. Lodahl                      Pacific*Bell Systems Analyst =
= malodah@pbmoss.Pacbell.COM       Sacramento, CA       916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me!  8-)   =


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

Date: 06 Jan 1993 19:31:24 -0500 (EST)
From: Sandy Cockerham <COCKERHAM_SANDRA_L@LILLY.COM>
Subject: lost in the wood

Not long ago I bottled my first attempt at an oat pale ale. I made a blunder
though. I added 2 oz. of toasted oak chips to the secondary. Needless to say,
the oak character is QUITE pronounced. I was really bummed. The carbonation is
great, nice head retention, it is very clear (gee, I remember someone getting
flamed for saying their beer was clear, oh well...), and it is a deep golden
color (golden oak, I'd say.).
The moral of the story? Be aware of those evil oak chips!
I hope this mellows, it has only been in the bottle since Thanksgiving.

                                                        Sandy C.

From: COCKERHAM SANDRA L            (MCVAX0::RX31852)

To:   VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE            (IN::"homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com")

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

Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 16:30:12 -0800
From: Carl.Hensler@West.Sun.COM (Carl Hensler)
Subject: Re: Light Protection

To protect wort in a fermenter in a refrigerator from light from
a small light bulb, I suggest simply wrapping the bulb with
aluminum foil.

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

Date: 06 Jan 93 23:28:16 EST
From: Bill Crisafulli <73750.2427@compuserve.com>
Subject: Lights in the fridge

I have a little different scenario that ultimately leaves me in the same
boat wrt light bulbs.  I have a fridge used during the Chicago summer for
temp control, but since fridge is in a detached, unheated garage, things get
pretty nippy in the winter.  Since I like to store beers in the fridge year
round (both kegs and some bottles to savor), I did the following.

I salvaged a cheap, plastic mechanic's light (you know, the kind in a little
cage that has a long cord coming out the end and a switch on the handle
under the light).  I cut the cord a few feet off the lamp, and attached a
new plug.  I then plugged that into a $12 thermo switch dohickey (technical)
that powers its outlet when temps drop to 35F, and powers off at 45F.  This
seems to be doing the trick and keeping the temp stable when outside
temperatures are hitting 0F.

I'm not sure how long the light is on, or exactly what the relationship is
wrt the outside temp.  Also, I have a 70W bulb in there, facing a wooden
inner fridge door to try to reduce direct light and reflection.  The
plastic lamp says don't exceed 75W, so I don't feel too comfortable
enclosing the thing inside anything else for fear of a blazing fridge (and
cars, etc) if it overheats.  I certainly don't worry about the kegs
(stainless), but the bottles of my Belgians and Hardy's and monthly Beer
Across America specials (light as they have been) are making me wonder what
the danger is?

Bill
I kinda like the idea of using a brown bottle to cover it.  I could take a
750ml beer/wind bottle and do something with that, I think.  But really,
what is the danger?  I protect from direct light via shelving, but what of
indirect?



Distribution:
  >INTERNET:homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com


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


End of HOMEBREW Digest #1050, 01/07/93
*************************************
-------