Triple Bock & Barleywine
Duane Hale
The high prices charged for barlywines is the best reason of all to
brew your own. Much, much, much cheaper and every bit as good as the
examples Tanith mentioned below. IMHO, mine was even better because it
still had that barleywine taste, but was not as heavy and didn't have
that alcohol burn. I guess you could call it a barleywine light. You can
either sip it like wine, or if in the proper mood, belt a couple down
and start feeling reeealll good.
All of this great taste and complexity was even made from extracts (my
last batch before going all-grain). This batch was naturally conditioned
for 8 months in a corny keg (including a trip half way across the
country in the back of a U-haul) and the only way I was able to last
that long was because I just recently got the CO2 setup to be able to
get the barleywine out of the keg. :-) Oh boy, it was definitely worth
the wait, but I would have liked to have tasted it along the way to see
how the flavor progressed. Oh well, next time I can do that when it is
an all-grainer. Without further ado, here is the recipe for:
Promo Barley Wine
Ingredients (for ~5 gal):
6 pounds William's English Dark LME
6 pounds William's American Light LME
1 pound 80L English Crystal Malt
1/2 pound 350L Chocolate Malt
Wyeast 1728 Scottish Ale Yeast (750 ml starter)
1 ounce Chinook pellets (12%) 60 min
1/2 ounce Cascade pellets (4.6%) 20 min
1/2 ounce Ultra pellets (2.6%) 20 min
1/2 ounce Cascade pellets (4.6%) 2 min
1/2 ounce Ultra pellets (2.6%) 2 min
Wet-hopped with pellets in priming sugar water/hop tea:
1/4 ounce Cascade pellets (4.6%) 2 min in priming sugar water
3/4 ounce Ultra pellets (2.6%) 2 min in priming sugar water
Procedure:
Steeped chocolate and crystal in grain bag in kettle until water was
almost boiling. Removed bag, added LMEs, resumed boil and then added 60
min hops. Added other hops at indicated times. Used immersion chiller to
quick chill and pitched wort with yeast into carboy. Kegged 16 days
later. Primed with 1 cup corn sugar and wet-hops. Left hop spooge in
bottling bucket. Brewed at end of February and finally tapped just in
time for Thanksgiving. Umm, umm, umm.
plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>
> Wow. Oh, wow. Slurp. Yum. <delicate belch> Pardon me.
>
> I recently decided to get experimental with a new (actually, a very old)
> style of beer which is fermented in a style closer to wine, of which I've
> found two examples so far: Samuel Adams Triple Bock, and Thomas Hardy's
> Ale (barleywine). These are brewed with yeast in the bottle, and will
> apparently continue to age if you store them in a cool cellar, or so says
> the label. I'm curious to know - do home brewers often make this kind of
> beer/barleywine, leaving yeast in the bottle? If so, are the results
> similar to this product?
>
> To check out the virtues of aging this sort of brew a bit, I tasted a 1994
> and a 1995 Hardy's side by side. Yep, there were definitely subtleties in
> the 1994 that hadn't quite developed in the 1995. I'm now hunting around
> for more vintages of this lovely little beverage, preferably older ones.
> SF Bay locals got any hints for me? :>
>
> I am really much more of a wine enthusiast than a fan of beer, though I do
> find well-crafted microbrews matched to appropriate foods worthy of
> appreciation. Specifically, I am a fan of vintage ports, and what really
> surprised me about these two beers was that their sipping qualities were
> amazingly similar to a fine port, sherry or madiera. This stuff is
> definitely closer to wine than beer in my estimation, although it isn't -
> quite - either. I guess you'll just have to taste it for yourself. ;>
>
> The Hardy's was mellow and sweet, with a thick, satisfying mouthfeel and
> an underlying complexity that was really pleasant at temperatures ranging
> from very cold to lightly chilled. I'd like to taste this one after about
> two to four years more, personally; I think something quite good could
> come of it. Notes of caramel, spice and cream were dominant in the
> flavor of the Hardy's.
>
> The Samuel Adams Triple Bock was shockingly powerful, with a savory-sweet
> nose that had hints of caramel, spice, maple syrup and an odd but not
> unpleasant note reminiscent of teriyaki sauce and balsamic vinegar.
> This is another beer/barleywine I'd like to taste after a few years of
> cellaring; the disparate elements in the bouquet are not unpleasant as
> seperate notes, but I would like to imagine them coming together and
> mellowing a bit. This brew seemed best at room temperature or lightly
> chilled, as the label recommends.
>
> Neither of these two brews are cheap - the Sam Adams runs $4.49 at Bev &
> More for a small bottle, and the Hardy $2.39 for an even tinier
> six-ouncer. S'OK; I like to sip the stuff from a brandy snifter in small
> 2-4 oz portions anyhow.
>
> Anyhow, if you folks know of any other barleywine brews, let the rest of
> us know - I'd definitely like to try some more of these.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tanith
Mike Uchima
plea...@netcom.com wrote:
> I recently decided to get experimental with a new (actually, a very old)
> style of beer which is fermented in a style closer to wine, of which I've
> found two examples so far: Samuel Adams Triple Bock, and Thomas Hardy's
> Ale (barleywine). These are brewed with yeast in the bottle, and will
> apparently continue to age if you store them in a cool cellar, or so says
> the label. I'm curious to know - do home brewers often make this kind of
> beer/barleywine, leaving yeast in the bottle? If so, are the results
> similar to this product?
As a home brewer, I haven't tried to brew either of these styles yet --
I guess I'm just not patient enough to wait for months (or years) for a
batch to age properly. :-) However, my first attempt at a barleywine is
in the planning stages right now; I plan to brew it sometime in the next
couple of weeks, if I can find the time.
Most home brewers bottle condition their beer (yeast in the bottle),
regardless of style. Without kegging equipment, it's pretty much the
only way to get proper carbonation. Also, without pasteurization or
sterile filtration, I think having a small amount of active yeast in the
bottle helps to stabilize the beer during storage.
> Anyhow, if you folks know of any other barleywine brews, let the rest of
> us know - I'd definitely like to try some more of these.
I believe Sierra Nevada (a west coast micro) makes a barleywine, called
"Bigfoot Barleywine-style Ale".
Another style that you might want to try are the Trappist ales. By law,
they are only brewed at certain monasteries (mostly in Belgium), by
Trappist monks. Like the beers you mentioned above, they are
bottle-conditioned, and (IMO) bear almost as much resemblance to wine as
they do to beer. For an excellent example, see if you can find some
Chimay. I've seen it in 11 oz bottles (for $2.50 to $3 each), and also
in large, champagne-style bottles with a cork. There are three
varieties; the best -- and most expensive, of course -- one says "Grande
Reserve" on the label, and/or has a blue colored cap.
I've done a couple of experimental batches of home brew, with yeast
cultured from bottles of Chimay. The results -- while they didn't taste
a whole lot like Chimay, IMO -- were interesting nonetheless. The second
attempt was actually pretty tasty...
--
== Mike Uchima == uch...@mcs.net ==
Michael Formica
plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>Anyhow, if you folks know of any other barleywine brews, let the rest of
>us know - I'd definitely like to try some more of these.
Rogue used to make a barley wine. I think they still do. You should be
able to find that around San Fran
>Regards,
>Tanith
HeHeHeHeheheh
Michael Formica
sk...@sover.net
www.sover.net/~skunk
A bowl for my dog
A bowl for my cat
And a bowl for me
Ken Papai
>I recently decided to get experimental with a new (actually, a very old)
>style of beer which is fermented in a style closer to wine, of which I've
>found two examples so far: Samuel Adams Triple Bock, and Thomas Hardy's
>Ale (barleywine). These are brewed with yeast in the bottle, and will
Wrong. Neither is brewed with yeast in the bottle. The Triple Bock
is a made-up concoction from Sam Adams. It IS NOT a bock. I do not
even call it a beer.
A beer that is bottle conditioned with some live yeast
does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that it's
"brewed with yeast in the bottle."
>apparently continue to age if you store them in a cool cellar, or so says
>the label. I'm curious to know - do home brewers often make this kind of
>beer/barleywine, leaving yeast in the bottle? If so, are the results
>similar to this product?
Nearly all real homebrewer leave live yeast in the bottle.
Yes. It's all in the Beer FAQs.
Thomas Hardy is one beer that will age quite well.
>To check out the virtues of aging this sort of brew a bit, I tasted a 1994
>and a 1995 Hardy's side by side. Yep, there were definitely subtleties in
>the 1994 that hadn't quite developed in the 1995. I'm now hunting around
>for more vintages of this lovely little beverage, preferably older ones.
>SF Bay locals got any hints for me? :>
>I am really much more of a wine enthusiast than a fan of beer, though I do
>find well-crafted microbrews matched to appropriate foods worthy of
>appreciation. Specifically, I am a fan of vintage ports, and what really
>surprised me about these two beers was that their sipping qualities were
>amazingly similar to a fine port, sherry or madiera. This stuff is
>definitely closer to wine than beer in my estimation, although it isn't -
>quite - either. I guess you'll just have to taste it for yourself. ;>
>The Hardy's was mellow and sweet, with a thick, satisfying mouthfeel and
>an underlying complexity that was really pleasant at temperatures ranging
>from very cold to lightly chilled. I'd like to taste this one after about
>two to four years more, personally; I think something quite good could
>come of it. Notes of caramel, spice and cream were dominant in the
>flavor of the Hardy's.
>The Samuel Adams Triple Bock was shockingly powerful, with a savory-sweet
>nose that had hints of caramel, spice, maple syrup and an odd but not
>unpleasant note reminiscent of teriyaki sauce and balsamic vinegar.
>This is another beer/barleywine I'd like to taste after a few years of
It IS NOT a barleywine. Christ, 1/2 of its sugars are not even from
barley malt!
>cellaring; the disparate elements in the bouquet are not unpleasant as
>seperate notes, but I would like to imagine them coming together and
>mellowing a bit. This brew seemed best at room temperature or lightly
>chilled, as the label recommends.
>Anyhow, if you folks know of any other barleywine brews, let the rest of
>us know - I'd definitely like to try some more of these.
I suggest scanning the newsgroup (rfdb) for awhile. Just Last Week
this topic came up. We love to tell about the world's best barleywines.
Two of the best:
Sierra Nevada Bigfoot and Anchor Old Foghorn.
--
Ken Papai -Racer 5- Wannabee
Marin County, California [subliminal ad for Bear Republic here]
kpa...@rahul.net 5+++ Support your LOCAL microbrewer
http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/ Northern California Brewpub FAQkeeper
P. Ullrich
Check out rec.food.drink.beer
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996 plea...@netcom.com wrote:
> To check out the virtues of aging this sort of brew a bit, I tasted a 1994
> and a 1995 Hardy's side by side. Yep, there were definitely subtleties in
> the 1994 that hadn't quite developed in the 1995. I'm now hunting around
> for more vintages of this lovely little beverage, preferably older ones.
> SF Bay locals got any hints for me? :>
As my pocketbook allows, I'm stocking up on some 1993 Thomas Hardys on
the shelf of a local store (not bay area, sorry). Check out
Rogue Old Crustacean, Old Nick Barleywine, Old Foghorn from Anchor in
your area.
> Neither of these two brews are cheap - the Sam Adams runs $4.49 at Bev &
> More for a small bottle, and the Hardy $2.39 for an even tinier
> six-ouncer. S'OK; I like to sip the stuff from a brandy snifter in small
> 2-4 oz portions anyhow.
Funny, I've only seen T.H. in 12 oz bottles.
Phil
bc...@gis.net
fra...@mailhost.primenet.com (david s. broudy) wrote:
I hope you live in area with a good beer selection(i.e Boston,
Portland,OR)
Some barleywines you should try:
Old Foghorn - Anchor Steam
Old Crustcean - Rogue
Bigfoot - Sierra
I live in Boston and just picked up Ipswich"s barleywine. It was tough
to find this though.
Other interesting:
Snow Cap Ale - Pyramid (A strong Ale?)
AdamBier - Hair of the Dog
Foreign
Try the Swiss Hurlimann beers:
Samiclaus - A very Strong dopplebock? Vintage dated; Brewed Every Dec
6(Today!)
Ceasur - A strong Helles bock.
HexenBrau - A very malty bock. I wish my homebrew would have the malt
flavor of this.
Jason Brandt Lewis
plea...@netcom.com wrote in article <pleasureE...@netcom.com>...
> Wow. Oh, wow. Slurp. Yum. <delicate belch> Pardon me.
>
> style of beer which is fermented in a style closer to wine, of which I've
> found two examples so far: Samuel Adams Triple Bock, and Thomas Hardy's
> Ale (barleywine). These are brewed with yeast in the bottle, and will
> the label. I'm curious to know - do home brewers often make this kind
of
> beer/barleywine, leaving yeast in the bottle? If so, are the results
> similar to this product?
Hi, Tanith --
Just a couple of quick observations:
First of all, if you look at the back label on the Samuel Adams Triple
Bock, you will see (at least here on the West Coast -- I, too, am in San
Francisco) that the beer was Produced and Bottled in Ceres, CA. The only
thing in Ceres is the JFJ Bronco Wine Co., a winery owned by John, Fred and
Joseph Franzia. This is the only winery I know that brews beer (although
Budweiser makes a lot of wine under the Master Cellars label; it's big on
the pizzeria and chain restaurant circuit, where the "house wine" is
dispensed from a beer tap!).
Samuel Adams brews very little beer themselves, but rather uses a number of
contract brewers across the country to meet demand. For their Triple Bock,
they use Bronco, a winery, rather than a contract brewer. Just
information.
Secondly, the process of leaving yeast in the bottle -- or more accurately,
adding a bit of yeast and sugar at bottling is, in beer making, called
krausening. This causes a little extra natural effervescence and is done
by a number of both home and commercial brewers alike the world over. The
results will *not* always be a barleywine -- and in fact, this is not
necessary to make a barleywine. It just happens that Sam Adams Triple Bock
is "krausened."
Let me know if you want more info . . .
As for finding older versions of Hardy's or Samuel Adams, this is risky and
doubtful. Yes, these will age someone with time and proper cellaring, but
no retailer ages this stuff on purpose! Someone may have some of last
year's sitting around, but I wouldn't advise buying it. (You could tell
from the dust on the bottles!) The best thing to do is for *you* to buy
enough to age yourself. Put it in your cellar with your Port or Cabernets
-- treat it the same way, in other words -- and taste the results over the
years . . .
Jason z...@sprynet.com
Steve Moore
Ron Dillon wrote:
>
> The AOB officers are
>
> President Charlie Papazian
> Vice President Cathy Ewing
> Marketing Director Sheri Winter
> Operations Director Robert Pease
>
> The AOB Board of Directors are
>
> Marlin Buse, Harris Faberman, Sandi Genova, Stuart Kingsbury, Charles
> Matzen,
> Charlie Papazian, Loran Richardson, Jim Christoph, and Liz Weimer
>
> AHA President is Karen Barela
>
> Ron Dillon
>
> Bryan Gros wrote:
> >
> > Bryan Gros wrote:
> > >
> > > And it seems that stuff like who is on the "Board of Directors" and/or
> > > the "Board of Advisors" should be available. Lots of people bitch about
> > > how this (these) board(s) is ignored and is useless, but we never hear
> > > from those who are on the board(s).
> >
> .........snipped
>
> > Currently, the advisers are:
> > Judy Ashworth - California
> > Scott Birdwell - Texas
> > Michael Jackson - England
> > Ed Busch - New Jersey
> > Bill Murphy - Massachusetts
> > Steve Casselman - California
> > Charlie Olchowski - Massachusetts
> > Fred Eckhardt - Oregon
> > George Fix - Texas
> > John Sterling - Missouri
> > Jeff Frane - Oregon
> >
> > - Bryan
> > gro...@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
I think the AHA has done a terrific job of selecting the board of
advisors. I honestly cannot imagine a more sterling group. Now, does
anybody know what they actually do?
Regarding the board of directors: who are these people? Aside from
Charlie, I have never seen any of them do anything. In 7 years as a
serious homebrewer, contest organizer and club participant...well none
of 'em ring a bell. Never seen an article by them. Never seen them
organize a contest. Are they investors or something? Anybody got a clue?
What is the difference between them and the Board of Advisors?
As far as Karen, that goes without saying.
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <58cdcb$j...@samba.rahul.net>, Ken Papai
<kpa...@NOJUNKMAIL.rahul.net> wrote:
>It IS NOT a barleywine. Christ, 1/2 of its sugars are not even from
>barley malt!
Same can be said of wheat beers (and certain other styles). Does that mean
they aren't beer? SATB resembles barleywine or doppelbock more than any
other common style. Call it what you like. I call it Triple Bock, like it
says on the label. The fanciful name was created for the simple reason that
the beverage is unique and incredibly malty, resembling to some extent an
extremely strong, malty bock (like EKU28 but stronger), but with more
interesting ale-like flavors.
Tracy
Mike Hagley
Oh, are you lucky to be able to purchase Adams Triple Bock. It cannot be
sold in the state of Georgia where I live due a law limiting the amount
of alcohol content of beer. Now if they could just market it as a wine
or a liquor, we would be OK.
I posted a query here 6-7 months ago, asking if anyone knew in what
states this was sold, and all I heard about was the northeast US. Does
anyone know if it is sold in Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky or Ohio?
Thanks for any help.
Mike Hagley
Ken Papai
aqu...@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) writes:
><kpa...@NOJUNKMAIL.rahul.net> wrote:
>>It IS NOT a barleywine. Christ, 1/2 of its sugars are not even from
>>barley malt!
>Same can be said of wheat beers (and certain other styles). Does that mean
>they aren't beer? SATB resembles barleywine or doppelbock more than any
You're putting words into mouth I never said/ You're reading between
lines that don't exist. Resemble does not mean is is that Style.
OF COURSE wheat beer is beer. No one (except the German Reinheitsgebot
of the 16th century) says that beer MUST contain 100% barley malt.
>other common style. Call it what you like. I call it Triple Bock, like it
>says on the label. The fanciful name was created for the simple reason that
>the beverage is unique and incredibly malty, resembling to some extent an
>extremely strong, malty bock (like EKU28 but stronger), but with more
>interesting ale-like flavors.
All Sam Adams is interested in is Marketeering and being the
Anheuser-Busch of the small brewers of the USA. (this is an
OLD OLD argument been raging on rfdb for years now, since
rfdb was formed ~2 years ago)
EKU28 is a valid beer. Sam Adam Triplenot is not.
EKU28 is all barley. Sam Adams triplenot uses a high %age of non barley
derived sugars. Sam Adams doesn't even make their own 'triplebock!'
Mike Uchima
Ken Papai wrote:
> [snip]
> OF COURSE wheat beer is beer. No one (except the German Reinheitsgebot
> of the 16th century) says that beer MUST contain 100% barley malt.
> All Sam Adams is interested in is Marketeering and being the
> Anheuser-Busch of the small brewers of the USA. (this is an
> OLD OLD argument been raging on rfdb for years now, since
> rfdb was formed ~2 years ago)
>
> EKU28 is a valid beer. Sam Adam Triplenot is not.
> EKU28 is all barley. Sam Adams triplenot uses a high %age of non barley
> derived sugars. Sam Adams doesn't even make their own 'triplebock!'
Jim Koch's rather questionable marketing practices aside, I'm still
puzzled as to why you think SATB is "not a valid beer".
If you agree that beer need not contain 100% barley malt, then what's
the issue? Is a Belgian Trippel -- which may contain a significant
percentage of cane sugar -- "not a valid beer" either?
Unlike the SA "Cranberry Lambic" -- where Koch is (mis)using a name
which already has an accepted definition -- I'm not aware of any
pre-existing style definition for "Triple Bock".
(Not intended as a flame, just asking for clarification...)
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <58etse$k...@samba.rahul.net>, Ken Papai <kpa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>aqu...@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) writes:
>><kpa...@NOJUNKMAIL.rahul.net> wrote:
>>>It IS NOT a barleywine. Christ, 1/2 of its sugars are not even from
>>>barley malt!
First, I don't believe the second sentence is actually true (i.e. most of
the sugar IS derived from barley malt). Second, here's Michael Jackson's
definition of barleywine: "An English term for an extra-strong ale (implied
to be as strong as wine). Usually more than 6 percent by volume and
classically closer to 11. Most often bottled. Both pale and dark versions
can be found."
(Every other definition I've seen is nearly identical.)
>>Same can be said of wheat beers (and certain other styles). Does that mean
>>they aren't beer? SATB resembles barleywine or doppelbock more than any
>
>You're putting words into mouth I never said/ You're reading between
Well actually no, I just disagreed with your statement that it is not a
barleywine. I'm not aware of any style guidelines which dictate that
barleywine must be made from any specific percentage of barley malt. In
fact, Triple Bock is made with nearly a pound of barley malt per 8.45 oz.
bottle. The original gravity of the wort is 40 degrees Plato, which is equal
to a solution of 40% sugar, all of which is derived from barley malt. Maple
syrup is added AFTER making the 40P all-malt mash, and I don't think the
syrup contributes anywhere close to half of the total fermentables (probably
even less than 10%).
>OF COURSE wheat beer is beer. No one (except the German Reinheitsgebot
>of the 16th century) says that beer MUST contain 100% barley malt.
Actually, the Reinheitsgebot does not say that beer must be made exclusively
from barley malt either, but rather only that it be made from malted
_grains_ (that's why wheat beers are acceptable in Bavaria).
>All Sam Adams is interested in is Marketeering and being the
>Anheuser-Busch of the small brewers of the USA. (this is an
>OLD OLD argument been raging on rfdb for years now, since
I don't really understand what the argument is all about. Samuel Adams (aka
Boston Brewing Company) is no small brewer! I believe it was the seventh
largest producer in the USA last year. In any case, that is irrelevant to a
discussion of what style Triple Bock falls into.
>EKU28 is a valid beer. Sam Adam Triplenot is not.
Opinions differ, but that's not surprising here. Let's see...malt, hops,
water, yeast...sounds like beer to me! The fact that it has some maple syrup
in the recipe doesn't change that. Otherwise, I guess maple porter would not
be beer (or porter) either!
>EKU28 is all barley. Sam Adams triplenot uses a high %age of non barley
>derived sugars.
I don't believe this is an accurate statement, but I suppose "high" means
different things to different people. I know they claim to use some maple
syrup, but do you know what percentage of the total fermentable
carbohydrates are derived from the maple syrup? Are you aware of any other
non-malt carbohydrate sources, which aren't listed on the label?
>Sam Adams doesn't even make their own 'triplebock!'
So that means it's not beer? All BBC beers are contract brewed (a common
practice in the industry), but this again is irrelevant to any discussion of
whether SATB is a barleywine.
Tracy
Larry Johnson
Ken Papai <kpa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>EKU28 is a valid beer. Sam Adam Triplenot is not.
Gee, I didn't even know that beers had been categorized as "valid" or
"invalid". Is there a list somewhere of the valid beers? How can I
tell if my homebrew is valid? Do I need to send you a couple of
bottles for evaluation? Jeez, how can I sleep tonight knowing my
favorite beer may not be valid?
In other words, get a grip, megalomania boy. You're suffering from
delusions of adequacy. FWIW, I've never had SATB and imagine that I
would not like it (I don't like EKU28). That has nothing to do with
it.
>EKU28 is all barley. Sam Adams triplenot uses a high %age of non barley
>derived sugars. Sam Adams doesn't even make their own 'triplebock!'
>--
>Ken Papai -Racer 5- Wannabee
>Marin County, California [subliminal ad for Bear Republic here]
>kpa...@rahul.net 5+++ Support your LOCAL microbrewer
>http://www.rahul.net/kpapai/ Northern California Brewpub FAQkeeper
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The researches of many commentators have already thrown much
darkness on this subject and it is probable that,if they continue,we
shall soon know nothing at all about it. - Mark Twain
Larry Johnson / Athens, GA / Malt...@ix.netcom.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Ballentine
In a previous article, kpa...@rahul.net (Ken Papai) says:
>
>OF COURSE wheat beer is beer. No one (except the German Reinheitsgebot
>of the 16th century) says that beer MUST contain 100% barley malt.
>
The Reinheitsgebot only said that malted grains had to be used. It did not
say they had to be barley. Wheat and even rye can be used, as long as they
are malted.
--
John Ballentine WB2SNB Divina natura dedit agros,
Chandler, Arizona ars humana aedificavit urbes.
Rick
: Secondly, the process of leaving yeast in the bottle -- or more accurately,
: adding a bit of yeast and sugar at bottling is, in beer making, called
: krausening. This causes a little extra natural effervescence and is done
BZZZT! That is not krausening. It really isn't even priming. I don't
know what it is you describe is called. Priming is the addition of sugars
(usually dextrose) at bottling. Krausening is the addition of unfermented
wort. Adding yeast at bottling is, well, adding yeast :-). It is usually
unnecessary to add any additional yeast, unless the beer is highly filtered
first, which is usually not the case.
M. Edwards
If you add both unfermented wort and new yeast at bottling, trust me the
bottles will explode. We found a recipe for a hefeweizen, never having
tride such a trendy recipe we thought it might be good. We lost about 2
cases of bottles.
But they made nice grenades if you were suddenly attacked.
MIKE
Ken Papai
>>EKU28 is a valid beer. Sam Adam Triplenot is not.
>Gee, I didn't even know that beers had been categorized as "valid" or
>"invalid". Is there a list somewhere of the valid beers? How can I
>tell if my homebrew is valid? Do I need to send you a couple of
>bottles for evaluation? Jeez, how can I sleep tonight knowing my
>favorite beer may not be valid?
Closet psychologists like you I doubt sleep very well.
I don't care what sort of beer you make at home Larry boy. Maybe
your beer's good, maybe it sucks. I don't care.
AHA does not recognize triplebock as a style. What does "H"
stand for in AHA Larry boy??
>In other words, get a grip, megalomania boy. You're suffering from
>delusions of adequacy. FWIW, I've never had SATB and imagine that I
>would not like it (I don't like EKU28). That has nothing to do with
>it.
You suffer from the Usenet Disease called "newbie-itis". (7 line
.sig, an "ix." account, reading between lines that don't exist,
taking an attack on Sam Adams as a personal attack on your undoubtedly
supreme & almighty homebrew, etc.)
Mike Kidulich
On Sat, 7 Dec 1996 07:57:42 GMT, plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>Wow. Oh, wow. Slurp. Yum. <delicate belch> Pardon me.
>
<deletia>
>
>Neither of these two brews are cheap - the Sam Adams runs $4.49 at Bev &
>More for a small bottle, and the Hardy $2.39 for an even tinier
>six-ouncer. S'OK; I like to sip the stuff from a brandy snifter in small
>2-4 oz portions anyhow.
I would *kill* to get either of those beers for those prices! The
store by me is an *incredible* ripoff! He is asking prices ranging
form about $5 to $8 dollars for the Thomas Hardy's, (the 6 oz. size.
You don't want to know the price of the large bottles) depending on
the vintage. In a final gesture of complete idiocy, he is charging,
and I am *not* kidding here, $18.99 per bottle for the SATB! (1995
VINTAGE) A mere $360/case for all you bargain hunters out there.
I really wish this jerk had some competition. He has a huge selection,
but because of his prices, his beers move very slowly. He has bottles
of Belgian beers that have been on the shelves for years, with all
kinds of crud floating in the bottoms (not yeast, either). He makes no
efort to store beers properly, so as often as not you get a stale (or
worse) product, along with getting royally screwed.
>
>Anyhow, if you folks know of any other barleywine brews, let the rest of
>us know - I'd definitely like to try some more of these.
>
>Regards,
>
>Tanith
Mike Kidulich
On 8 Dec 1996 02:32:10 GMT, "Jason Brandt Lewis" <z...@sprynet.com>
wrote:
>plea...@netcom.com wrote in article <pleasureE...@netcom.com>...
>> Wow. Oh, wow. Slurp. Yum. <delicate belch> Pardon me.
>>
>> I recently decided to get experimental with a new (actually, a very old)
>> style of beer which is fermented in a style closer to wine, of which I've
>> found two examples so far: Samuel Adams Triple Bock, and Thomas Hardy's
>> Ale (barleywine). These are brewed with yeast in the bottle, and will
>> apparently continue to age if you store them in a cool cellar, or so says
>> the label. I'm curious to know - do home brewers often make this kind
>of
>> beer/barleywine, leaving yeast in the bottle? If so, are the results
>> similar to this product?
>
>Hi, Tanith --
>
>Just a couple of quick observations:
>
>First of all, if you look at the back label on the Samuel Adams Triple
>Bock, you will see (at least here on the West Coast -- I, too, am in San
>Francisco) that the beer was Produced and Bottled in Ceres, CA. The only
>thing in Ceres is the JFJ Bronco Wine Co., a winery owned by John, Fred and
>Joseph Franzia. This is the only winery I know that brews beer (although
>Budweiser makes a lot of wine under the Master Cellars label; it's big on
>the pizzeria and chain restaurant circuit, where the "house wine" is
>dispensed from a beer tap!).
>
>Samuel Adams brews very little beer themselves, but rather uses a number of
>contract brewers across the country to meet demand. For their Triple Bock,
>they use Bronco, a winery, rather than a contract brewer. Just
>information.
>
>Secondly, the process of leaving yeast in the bottle -- or more accurately,
>adding a bit of yeast and sugar at bottling is, in beer making, called
>krausening. This causes a little extra natural effervescence and is done
>by a number of both home and commercial brewers alike the world over. The
>results will *not* always be a barleywine -- and in fact, this is not
>necessary to make a barleywine. It just happens that Sam Adams Triple Bock
>is "krausened."
This is incorrect. Krausening is adding actively fermenting wort to
the finished beer to cause the beer to carbonate. Adding sugar, and
yeast (yeast is optional, mostly), is merely priming. Also, SATB is
not even carbonated.
Mike Uchima
Ken Papai wrote:
>
> malt...@ix.netcom.com (Larry Johnson) writes:
>
> >Gee, I didn't even know that beers had been categorized as "valid" or
> >"invalid". Is there a list somewhere of the valid beers? How can I
> >tell if my homebrew is valid? Do I need to send you a couple of
> >bottles for evaluation? Jeez, how can I sleep tonight knowing my
> >favorite beer may not be valid?
>
> Closet psychologists like you I doubt sleep very well.
>
> I don't care what sort of beer you make at home Larry boy. Maybe
> your beer's good, maybe it sucks. I don't care.
>
> AHA does not recognize triplebock as a style. What does "H"
> stand for in AHA Larry boy??
OK, so what we seem to be arguing about here is the distinction between
having a "valid beer", and a "valid beer of style X".
SATB is a "valid beer" -- e.g., it is a fermented beverage made from
malted grain and hops. Is it a valid Bock? No. Is it a valid beer of
some other recognized style (e.g., barleywine)? Could be. Does it
matter? Not really. Since "triplebock" isn't a recognized style anyhow,
does it really make any difference if Jim Koch decides to call his
concotion by that name?
Can't we all just get along? Relax, and have a couple of beers (valid or
otherwise), you two! :-)
Daniel Fernandez
Oh Tracy,
Ken might'a been a little rough on the enthusiastic Tanith
<plea...@netcom.com>, but he wasn't being overly critical of the
improperly labeled SATB.
"Fanciful name" is absolutely correct. A better label would have been Sam
Adams Maple Muck. The flavor profile of SATB is nowhere near EKU28. SATB
does have notes of balsamic vinegar, and more noticeably Geritol. SATB has
hardly any resemblance to the rich clean barley malt/hop bittering flavors
of EKU28 and other well made triple bocks.
But it is not my responsibility to tell Tanith (or you, Tracy) what he/she
should or should not like. Maybe pointing to a couple bocks, or triples or
other offerings near the style, for Tanith to try as a comparison would be
more positive.
Maybe Optimator, Kulminator, Samiklaus, and certainly EKU28. Perhaps a
stretch to another richly complex beer like the Belgian Tripels, perhaps
Affligen for starters. Maybe even a good lambic gueze for a real challenge.
In any event, welcome to the world of fine beers Tanith. You'll find there
is a rich history to the classic marriage of barley, hops, yeast, and
water. There are also more classic beer styles then there are noble wines.
Your tasting notes are welcomed, though many will disagree with your
assessment of the SATB.
-- Daniel
http://www.neptune.net/~daniel/
Tracy Aquilla <aqu...@erols.com> wrote in article
<aquilla.1...@news.erols.com>...
> In Article <58cdcb$j...@samba.rahul.net>, Ken Papai
> <kpa...@NOJUNKMAIL.rahul.net> wrote:
> >It IS NOT a barleywine. Christ, 1/2 of its sugars are not even from
> >barley malt!
>
> Same can be said of wheat beers (and certain other styles). Does that
mean
> they aren't beer? SATB resembles barleywine or doppelbock more than any
> other common style. Call it what you like. I call it Triple Bock, like it
> says on the label. The fanciful name was created for the simple reason
that
> the beverage is unique and incredibly malty, resembling to some extent an
> extremely strong, malty bock (like EKU28 but stronger), but with more
> interesting ale-like flavors.
> Tracy
>
Daniel Fernandez
I for got to mention...
Blind Pig Barleywine Style Ale
-- Daniel
plea...@netcom.com wrote in article <pleasureE...@netcom.com>...
> Wow. Oh, wow. Slurp. Yum. <delicate belch> Pardon me.
<snip>
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <58krd4$t...@samba.rahul.net>, Ken Papai <kpa...@rahul.net> wrote:
>AHA does not recognize triplebock as a style.
That's why it should be classified as a barleywine! If one were to make a
beer resembling triplebock, intending to enter it into a competition,
barleywine would be the best category to choose. I'm sure most other
experienced competitors would agree.
Tracy
Ken Papai
aqu...@erols.com (Tracy Aquilla) writes:
>>AHA does not recognize triplebock as a style.
>That's why it should be classified as a barleywine! If one were to make a
>beer resembling triplebock, intending to enter it into a competition,
>barleywine would be the best category to choose. I'm sure most other
>experienced competitors would agree.
Why call SA "triplebock" a barleywine? That's even worse. All the
barleywines I drink use barley, not a high %age of adjuncts like honey
or sugar. Sam Adams' beer naming pracices are a joke and a curse on us all.
Jim Koch himself whined about the Reinheitsgebot and beer. If he's
gonna call something "triplebock" then it damn well better be a lager
and not use non-grain adjuncts.
Ken Papai
Mike Uchima writes:
>Ken Papai wrote:
>> [snip]
>> OF COURSE wheat beer is beer. No one (except the German Reinheitsgebot
>> of the 16th century) says that beer MUST contain 100% barley malt.
[I meant "grain" like barley & wheat]
>> All Sam Adams is interested in is Marketeering and being the
>> Anheuser-Busch of the small brewers of the USA. (this is an
>> OLD OLD argument been raging on rfdb for years now, since
>> rfdb was formed ~2 years ago)
>>
>> EKU28 is a valid beer. Sam Adam Triplenot is not.
>> EKU28 is all barley. Sam Adams triplenot uses a high %age of non barley
>> derived sugars. Sam Adams doesn't even make their own 'triplebock!'
>Jim Koch's rather questionable marketing practices aside, I'm still
>puzzled as to why you think SATB is "not a valid beer".
>If you agree that beer need not contain 100% barley malt, then what's
>the issue? Is a Belgian Trippel -- which may contain a significant
>percentage of cane sugar -- "not a valid beer" either?
Apples and oranges. I know all about the Belgian beers.
Only a fool would conceed beer must be 100% barley.
We're talking about Boston Brewing's name abuse.
Boston Brewing is one of the most hypocritical brewers out there.
>Unlike the SA "Cranberry Lambic" -- where Koch is (mis)using a name
>which already has an accepted definition -- I'm not aware of any
>pre-existing style definition for "Triple Bock".
Use Sam Adams (Boston Brewing Co.) then as an example. Jim Koch spouts
off about the reinheitsgebot and all that stuff. Bocks are lagers
(if you disagree then you don't agree with German brewers AND the AHA);
bocks must conform to the Reinheitsgebot then and the Triplebock
certainly doesn't. A rather simple argument.
Until they remove "bock" from the label it'll never be valid.
John Staradumsky
Ken Papai wrote:
> Why call SA "triplebock" a barleywine? That's even worse. All the
> barleywines I drink use barley, not a high %age of adjuncts like honey
> or sugar. Sam Adams' beer naming pracices are a joke and a curse on us all.
>
> Jim Koch himself whined about the Reinheitsgebot and beer. If he's
> gonna call something "triplebock" then it damn well better be a lager
> and not use non-grain adjuncts.
I agree that the Triple Bock is not a bock at all, but I think Koch had
alcohol strength in mind when he came up with the name. No attempt to
dupe the consumer, IMHO. As to the adjuncts, do some English brewers not
employ sugar in the brewing of their barleywines? SATB is brewed with
maple syrup for it's sugar content, and I don't see much difference
between using that or the candy or corn sugar the English employ. In any
case, I wonder if this may all be a moot point, since I haven't seen any
1996 SATB around. Has anyone stumbled upon any?
Charley
"Daniel Fernandez" <dan...@neptune.net> wrote:
>Oh Tracy,
>Ken might'a been a little rough on the enthusiastic Tanith
><plea...@netcom.com>, but he wasn't being overly critical of the
>improperly labeled SATB.
>"Fanciful name" is absolutely correct. A better label would have been Sam
>Adams Maple Muck. The flavor profile of SATB is nowhere near EKU28. SATB
>does have notes of balsamic vinegar, and more noticeably Geritol. SATB has
>hardly any resemblance to the rich clean barley malt/hop bittering flavors
>of EKU28 and other well made triple bocks.
Gawd, I was so happy to read your post. A friend of mine GAVE me a bottle of the SATB, told me it
was an "acquired taste" and to take it slow.
YYYYYYYUUUUUUUCCCCCCCKKKKKK. But really, I didn't like it, no kidding. I was going to post a
question about what a Tripel was *supposed* to taste like - and ask if SATB is it. Tasted like very
bad cough syrup. I'm going to pick up a "real" Tripel and share it with my buddy. I almost asked him
if he wanted the SATB back but thought that wouldn't be too tactful.
I know this is sort of off-topic, but we should all know what our target brews should taste like
before we brew, if we're serious about hitting a certain style and I know I am. Thanks again.
Charley
Charley Burns, President
Deer Valley Brewing Co. (aka my deck)
cbu...@spider.lloyd.com
http://www.el-dorado.ca.us/~cburns
Michael Gerholdt
mj...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Kidulich) wrote:
<snip>
>>Secondly, the process of leaving yeast in the bottle -- or more accurately,
>>adding a bit of yeast and sugar at bottling is, in beer making, called
>>krausening. This causes a little extra natural effervescence and is done
>>by a number of both home and commercial brewers alike the world over. The
>>results will *not* always be a barleywine -- and in fact, this is not
>>necessary to make a barleywine. It just happens that Sam Adams Triple Bock
>>is "krausened."
>This is incorrect. Krausening is adding actively fermenting wort to
>the finished beer to cause the beer to carbonate.
<snip>
Michael ... care to restate this?
Or shall I ....
Krausening is the practice of adding to the relatively finished beer
some unfermented wort. The yeast in the relatively finished beer then
ferment the sugars of the newly added wort, carbonating the beer when
it is confined in bottle or keg. The wort which is used in this manner
is also called gyle.
Or do you do it differently, Michael?
Mike Uchima
Michael Gerholdt wrote:
>
> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Kidulich) wrote:
>
> >This is incorrect. Krausening is adding actively fermenting wort to
> >the finished beer to cause the beer to carbonate.
>
> <snip>
>
> Michael ... care to restate this?
>
> Or shall I ....
>
> Krausening is the practice of adding to the relatively finished beer
> some unfermented wort. The yeast in the relatively finished beer then
> ferment the sugars of the newly added wort, carbonating the beer when
> it is confined in bottle or keg. The wort which is used in this manner
> is also called gyle.
>
> Or do you do it differently, Michael?
Actually, I think Mike K. had it right. From the glossary section of
"German Wheat Beer", by Eric Warner (Brewer's Publications):
"krausening. A method of conditioning that adds a small
quantity of young fermenting wort (about 15 to 20
percent) to a fully fermented lagering one to create a
secondary fermentation and natural carbonation."
I've seen the process you (Mike G.) are describing (priming with gyle)
called exactly that -- "gyle priming".
Ken Papai
For real tripels, check out something stellar like:
Westmalle Tripel, a Trappist brewery from Belgium that's very
difficult to find bottles of, except for certain areas of
the USA east coast. (none of this is news though to
rfdb regulars)
[alt.food.wine removed]
Charley
John Staradumsky <Stara...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> I wonder if this may all be a moot point, since I haven't seen any
>1996 SATB around. Has anyone stumbled upon any?
Yes. I can't stand it, undrinkable (IMNSHO).
Charley
Michael Gerholdt
Mike Uchima <uch...@mcs.net> wrote:
<snip a bit>
>I've seen the process you (Mike G.) are describing (priming with gyle)
>called exactly that -- "gyle priming".
>--
>== Mike Uchima == uch...@mcs.net ==
Ahh ... I stand corrected. Thanks!
Kevman
In article <32AF17...@prodigy.net>, John Staradumsky <Stara...@prodigy.net> says:
>I wonder if this may all be a moot point, since I haven't seen any
>1996 SATB around. Has anyone stumbled upon any?
Unless it was a '95, I did see a fresh shipment of SATB at the Sac
Beverages & More. I assumed it was the '96, since I had never seen
any SATB there before.
--Kev
Mike Kidulich
>mj...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Kidulich) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>Secondly, the process of leaving yeast in the bottle -- or more accurately,
>>>adding a bit of yeast and sugar at bottling is, in beer making, called
>>>krausening. This causes a little extra natural effervescence and is done
>>>by a number of both home and commercial brewers alike the world over. The
>>>results will *not* always be a barleywine -- and in fact, this is not
>>>necessary to make a barleywine. It just happens that Sam Adams Triple Bock
>>>is "krausened."
>
>>This is incorrect. Krausening is adding actively fermenting wort to
>>the finished beer to cause the beer to carbonate.
>
><snip>
>
>Michael ... care to restate this?
No, the statement is correct.
>
>Or shall I ....
>
>Krausening is the practice of adding to the relatively finished beer
>some unfermented wort. The yeast in the relatively finished beer then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>ferment the sugars of the newly added wort, carbonating the beer when
>it is confined in bottle or keg. The wort which is used in this manner
>is also called gyle.
According to Michael Jackson, the wort added is *partially* fermented,
i.e., with yeast. (See "The Beer Companion", P281)
>
>Or do you do it differently, Michael?
I use corn sugar, because it works and is simple and reliable.
>
Ken
haven't seen any in NJ with the '96 label.
Steve McRuiz
>
>I don't think Sam Adams Triple Bock is dating their beer on the bottle,
>though they do give an address on the mini-booklet to write to for
>information on tastings as the stuff ages, and refer to the last batch I
>bought at Bev & More as "1995 reserve".
>
For what it's worth, I had a bottle of that stuff that was about a
year old, and I thought that over a year's time that the taste would
have mellowed out a bit.
BUT NO-O-O-O-O! It tastes remarkably the same as it did a year ago.
Still sweeter than the dickens. Still as sticky as molasses.
Definitely a beer everybody should have at least one of in their
lifetime.
stevo
Hey what does this button d$$5@t /@+++
NO CARRIER
Ted Goldblatt
In article <pleasureE...@netcom.com>, <plea...@netcom.com> wrote:
>I don't think Sam Adams Triple Bock is dating their beer on the bottle,
>though they do give an address on the mini-booklet to write to for
>information on tastings as the stuff ages, and refer to the last batch I
>bought at Bev & More as "1995 reserve".
Well, both the 94 and 95 so indicate on the bottles I have (the 94 on
the enameled back label, the 95 on the glued-on label). I guess that
is not quite the same thing as a "bottled on" date, but for this sort
of beer, I'd think a "year" would be adequate - Thomas Hardy also
carries only a year.
I haven't seen a 96 yet either (not really surprising, since (because
of the bottle size) it can't be sold in Florida). However, at a fest
a few weeks ago, the BBC rep indicated (I think :-)) that a 96 would
exist, and would be packaged for Florida sale (implying either an 8 oz
or 12 oz bottle - the 8 could be achieved by short filling the
existing bottles. OTOH, they might actually go for a proper 12 oz
bottle - Pope did for the Hardy sold here).
ted
--
Ted Goldblatt Ted.Go...@telematics.com (954) 351-4367
Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Tracy Aquilla
This is a beverage which improves with aging. While the '95 isn't that old
yet, it should have a slightly higher value than the '96, even if the flavor
hasn't changed very much at this point. If I had a choice, I'd buy the
oldest I could find.
Tracy
Tracy Aquilla
In Article <pleasureE...@netcom.com>, plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>BTW, to all you folks who think I'm taste-impaired and practically flamed
>me for liking the stuff - the world is made up of folks who like different
>things, which is a desireable state of things as far as I'm concerned. I
>think SATB is delicious, and apparently enough folks agree with me to
>make it a viable marketing proposition. I've also found a lot of folks
>who can't stomach SATB at all (including my sweetie); it's strong stuff,
>and people either tend to love it or hate it. Not many are indifferent
>to it. It certainly isn't a flavorless commercial brew you can down by
>the six-pack, anyhow.
My first bottle of SATB lasted almost two months. The way I drink it is to
pour some into a small shot glass and sip it slowly. If you try to drink it
like regular beer, you probably won't like it. I can't imagine drinking a
whole bottle in one evening!
Tracy
Lawless
plea...@netcom.com wrote:
: BTW, to all you folks who think I'm taste-impaired and practically flamed
: me for liking the stuff - the world is made up of folks who like different
: things, which is a desireable state of things as far as I'm concerned. I
: think SATB is delicious, and apparently enough folks agree with me to
: make it a viable marketing proposition. I've also found a lot of folks
: who can't stomach SATB at all (including my sweetie); it's strong stuff,
: and people either tend to love it or hate it. Not many are indifferent
: to it. It certainly isn't a flavorless commercial brew you can down by
: the six-pack, anyhow.
Um.... Who says I can't down it by th' six pack? Assuming I could get a
six pack. ;-)
-- \_awless is : Chase Vogelsberg (law...@netcom.com / law...@eskimo.com)
--
-- I've got a couple of years on you baby, that's all.
-- I've found a few more places to fly and many more places to fall....
Thor Lancelot Simon
In article <32b89b7a....@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Mike Kidulich <mj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:02:47 GMT, law...@netcom.com (Lawless) wrote:
>
>>plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>>: BTW, to all you folks who think I'm taste-impaired and practically flamed
>>: me for liking the stuff - the world is made up of folks who like different
>>: things, which is a desireable state of things as far as I'm concerned. I
>>: think SATB is delicious, and apparently enough folks agree with me to
>>: make it a viable marketing proposition. I've also found a lot of folks
>>: who can't stomach SATB at all (including my sweetie); it's strong stuff,
>>: and people either tend to love it or hate it. Not many are indifferent
>>: to it. It certainly isn't a flavorless commercial brew you can down by
>>: the six-pack, anyhow.
>>
>>Um.... Who says I can't down it by th' six pack? Assuming I could get a
>>six pack. ;-)
>
>seller is currently asking $18.99 USD for one bottle of SATB. Lets
>see, thats $113.94, plus tax and deposit. Or, for you bargain hunters,
>a mere $360.00 gets you a case!
Jesus God. I hate the stuff, but it's about $6 a bottle around here.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@panix.COM
Stumbling drunk in the railyard looking for God: http://www.panix.com/~tls/
Mike Kidulich
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:02:47 GMT, law...@netcom.com (Lawless) wrote:
>plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>: BTW, to all you folks who think I'm taste-impaired and practically flamed
>: me for liking the stuff - the world is made up of folks who like different
>: things, which is a desireable state of things as far as I'm concerned. I
>: think SATB is delicious, and apparently enough folks agree with me to
>: make it a viable marketing proposition. I've also found a lot of folks
>: who can't stomach SATB at all (including my sweetie); it's strong stuff,
>: and people either tend to love it or hate it. Not many are indifferent
>: to it. It certainly isn't a flavorless commercial brew you can down by
>: the six-pack, anyhow.
>
>Um.... Who says I can't down it by th' six pack? Assuming I could get a
>six pack. ;-)
Assuming you could *afford* a sixer of SATB. My local mercenary beer
seller is currently asking $18.99 USD for one bottle of SATB. Lets
see, thats $113.94, plus tax and deposit. Or, for you bargain hunters,
a mere $360.00 gets you a case!
>
Lawless
Mike Kidulich (mj...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Assuming you could *afford* a sixer of SATB. My local mercenary beer
: seller is currently asking $18.99 USD for one bottle of SATB. Lets
: see, thats $113.94, plus tax and deposit. Or, for you bargain hunters,
: a mere $360.00 gets you a case!
Ah, but the place I buy my exotics from locally give discounts on the case.
Let's see, two dollars off means I could get it for $358 or so. ;) If
only I could get the SATB, that is.
Mario Lepe
In <32b89b7a....@nntp.ix.netcom.com> mj...@ix.netcom.com (Mike
Kidulich) writes:
>
>On Wed, 18 Dec 1996 19:02:47 GMT, law...@netcom.com (Lawless) wrote:
>
>>plea...@netcom.com wrote:
>>: BTW, to all you folks who think I'm taste-impaired and practically
flamed
>>: me for liking the stuff - the world is made up of folks who like
different
>>: things, which is a desireable state of things as far as I'm
concerned. I
>>: think SATB is delicious, and apparently enough folks agree with me
to
>>: make it a viable marketing proposition. I've also found a lot of
folks
>>: who can't stomach SATB at all (including my sweetie); it's strong
stuff,
>>: and people either tend to love it or hate it. Not many are
indifferent
>>: to it. It certainly isn't a flavorless commercial brew you can
down by
>>: the six-pack, anyhow.
>>
>>Um.... Who says I can't down it by th' six pack? Assuming I could
get a
>>six pack. ;-)
>
>seller is currently asking $18.99 USD for one bottle of SATB. Lets
>see, thats $113.94, plus tax and deposit. Or, for you bargain hunters,
>a mere $360.00 gets you a case!
>>
law...@eskimo.com)
>>--
>>-- I've got a couple of years on you baby, that's all.
>>-- I've found a few more places to fly and many more places to
fall....
>
what is SATB?
Paul N. Johnson
mj...@ix.netcom.com (Mike Kidulich) wrote:
According to Father P...zian the gyle statement up there is
correct...perhaps Jackson and P should hash this out and post a
reply..on a related topic...I just can't seem to avoid that "homebrew
taste" in my beer. Its always just a bit cidery...I've switched to
liquid yeast, my sanitation is good, I've used malt instead of corn
sugar for priming, I use no corn sugar in my recipies. Is there ANY
way to avoid this cidery taste?...its getting anoying.
Mike Uchima
Paul N. Johnson wrote:
> on a related topic...I just can't seem to avoid that "homebrew
> taste" in my beer. Its always just a bit cidery...I've switched to
> liquid yeast, my sanitation is good, I've used malt instead of corn
> sugar for priming, I use no corn sugar in my recipies. Is there ANY
> way to avoid this cidery taste?...its getting anoying.
Perhaps what you're tasting is high levels of esters. Have you tried:
- Fermenting cool (below 70F)?
- Using a "clean" yeast strain, like Wyeast #1056 American Ale? (Some of
the British strains -- e.g. #1098 -- can be very estery.)
- Making a starter?
Other things that might help:
- Switch brands of malt extract. Maybe you're getting stale extract?
- Switch to all-grain. It's not as difficult as it sounds. Really.
Kirk R Fleming
> >>>>Secondly, the process of leaving yeast in the bottle -- or more
accurately,
> >>>>adding a bit of yeast and sugar at bottling is, in beer making,
called
> >>>>krausening
> >>
> >>>the finished beer to cause the beer to carbonate.
> >>
The guys bat around the definition of kraeusening and gyle, and what is and
isn't kraeusening. I sure as hell can't determine who said what, but it
doesn't matter anyway.
The first writer above says it's adding yeast and sugar at bottling, and
the response is that it is really adding fermenting wort. The second
writer also says that this is done for the purpose of carbonating the beer.
If you're thinking in terms of carbonation, then there's very little point
in differentiating between these two views. I'd offer a slightly different
explanation of terms and purposes though (and I'n not saying this is more
correct than the others, either).
Since kraeusen is *defined* by deClerk as the rocky head that surfaces
during fermentation, and since the term "high kraeusen" often (always, as
far as I know) is used to mean maximum yeast activity, then it's reasonable
to say kraeusening is the adding of actively fermenting wort to
near-finished beer.
My understanding of the *purpose* of kraeusening is to add *active yeast*
to a brew (lagers only, in this usage) to draw down diacetyl that would
otherwise be left in the beer due to largely inactive yeast (just prior to
lagering). In the case of lagers, the beer would already be carbonated at
this time, so the purpose of kraeusening would most likely not be to
carbonate--but, since actively fermenting beer in a quantity equal to about
10-15% of the batch volume is added in this process, it would indeed be
useful for adding carbonation if done under pressure.
The definition below, that of "adding...some unfermented wort" is also
partially true, in the sense that the wort added is not *finished*
fermenting. It is NOT unpitched wort, however. The active yeast in that
unfermented wort is the purpose of the procedure. The definition below is
basically what the first definition above, namely, priming. Using wort to
prime (as opposed to some other sugar) is NOT kraeusening, as I understand
it.
Finally, usage determines definition, so although The Ancients may had
defined words in a particular way, that doesn't mean those are the
"correct" definitions anymore. I'd appreciate other thoughts on these
terms--especially the elusive "gyle", which Randy Mosher's book defines as
"a single batch of beer".
> >>
> >>Krausening is the practice of adding to the relatively finished beer
> >>some unfermented wort. The yeast in the relatively finished beer then
> >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>ferment the sugars of the newly added wort, carbonating the beer when
> >>it is confined in bottle or keg. The wort which is used in this manner
> >>is also called gyle.
>
Jim Busch
"Kirk R Fleming" <flem...@usa.net> writes:
>> >>>This is incorrect. Krausening is adding actively fermenting wort to
>> >>>the finished beer to cause the beer to carbonate.
>> >>
>The first writer above says it's adding yeast and sugar at bottling, and
>the response is that it is really adding fermenting wort. The second
>writer also says that this is done for the purpose of carbonating the beer.
> If you're thinking in terms of carbonation, then there's very little point
>in differentiating between these two views. I'd offer a slightly different
>explanation of terms and purposes though (and I'n not saying this is more
>correct than the others, either).
Actually depending on the strenght of the beer krauseneing can have
a large, positive, impact on conditioning, more positive than just adding
yeast and sugar.
>Since kraeusen is *defined* by deClerk as the rocky head that surfaces
>during fermentation, and since the term "high kraeusen" often (always, as
>far as I know) is used to mean maximum yeast activity, then it's reasonable
>to say kraeusening is the adding of actively fermenting wort to
>near-finished beer.
Yes.
>My understanding of the *purpose* of kraeusening is to add *active yeast*
>to a brew (lagers only, in this usage) to draw down diacetyl that would
>otherwise be left in the beer due to largely inactive yeast (just prior to
>lagering). In the case of lagers, the beer would already be carbonated at
>this time, so the purpose of kraeusening would most likely not be to
>carbonate--but, since actively fermenting beer in a quantity equal to about
>10-15% of the batch volume is added in this process, it would indeed be
>useful for adding carbonation if done under pressure.
It can be very useful for strong ales too. Victorys Old Horizontal Barley
Wine is karuesened with Victory HopDevil IPA. Conditioned in a matter of
days. Sugar addition at this stage would have taken weeks to carbonate
if ever.
Prost!
Jim Busch
Kirk R Fleming
Jim Busch <No Spam> wrote in article
<busch.8...@news.gsfc.nasa.gov>...
>
> It can be very useful for strong ales too. Victorys Old Horizontal
Barley
> Wine is karuesened with Victory HopDevil IPA. Conditioned in a matter of
> days. Sugar addition at this stage would have taken weeks to carbonate
> if ever.
>
up at my doorstep, but it just hasn't yet. Is there some action I need to
take other than daydreaming? :-)
Kirk
Joel_Plutchak
- Invest in an activated charcoal water filter. I think most of
the beer I brewed with straight, unboiled tap water featured a
distinct chlorophenolic flavor (which I didn't know enough to
identify at the time). If you use chlorinated city water to brew,
I'd definitely recommend filtering (boiling apparently doesn't drive
off some of the newer chlorine-based stuff water utilities are
starting to use).
--
Joel Plutchak
"An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory." -Friedrich Engels
Andrew Ager
In article <5agl0r$6...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, jo...@uiatma.atmos.uiuc.edu
(Joel_Plutchak) wrote:
<snip other tips>
> - Invest in an activated charcoal water filter. I think most of
> the beer I brewed with straight, unboiled tap water featured a
> distinct chlorophenolic flavor (which I didn't know enough to
> identify at the time). If you use chlorinated city water to brew,
> I'd definitely recommend filtering (boiling apparently doesn't drive
> off some of the newer chlorine-based stuff water utilities are
> starting to use).
> --
> Joel Plutchak
>
> "An ounce of action is worth a ton of theory." -Friedrich Engels
Although here in Chicago, Goose Island uses normal city water for ALL
their beer. They just boil it for a couple of hours the evening before
they brew (I think Greg told me they boiled the water for 10 hours?). The
filters are easier and if you remember to do your water early on, saves
time. I use a 2-gallon BRITA filter meself...
Cheers,
Andy Ager
andre...@nwu.edu