Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1088
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/03/02 00:21:35
HOMEBREW Digest #1088 Tue 02 March 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Please sign me up (Ted WHittemore)
Phoenix sites/sights (Darryl Davidson)
Re: Refractometers and Hydrometers (Marc de Jonge)
Yeast Technology (Glenn Raudins)
Pitching Idea ("I'm a jelly doughnut. I'm a jelly doughnut.")
Ranching (Jack Schmidling)
Sanitizer (Jack Schmidling)
Ginger beer problem (Dave Whitman)
Mashout (Ed Hitchcock)
AHA Sanctioned Competition (korz)
RIMS system ("Bob Jones")
Brewing in the Southwest- articles (Joe H. Barfield)
(DWORKINJ)
computing alcohol content (Peter Maxwell)
Electronic Brewing Publications (Joe H. Barfield)
filter questions (Jim Busch)
hop flavor/hop nose ("John L. Isenhour")
honey ("Jena D.")
My experience with Dutch dried malt extract (Keith A. MacNeal HLO1/T09 225-6171 01-Mar-1993 1523)
Finishing hops vs. dryhops (korz)
Addition of coriander (Deborah Poirier)
Re: Korean Malt extract (digest #1087) ("Robert Haddad" )
Re: gelatin fining (Richard Stueven)
Test Driving Mills (Mike Deliman)
Lallemand yeasts ("C. Lyons / Raytheon-ADC / Andover, MA")
pH (DAMON_NOEL/HP0800_01)
re: powdered sugur (Eric M. Mrozek)
more on labels... (Kip Damrow)
RE: Decoction Mash Questions (Pat Lasswell)
Open Fermentors (Pat Lasswell)
Send articles for __publication_only__ 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, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from 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 don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:29:08 EDT
From: Ted WHittemore <YX804C@gwuvm.gwu.edu>
Subject: Please sign me up
if this is a digest mailing list of homrebrew information, please sign me up, m
y email address is : yx804C@gwuvm.gwu.edu (internet) and yx804c@gwuvm (bitnet)
thanks, Ted
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 21:20 EST
From: Darryl Davidson <D_DAVIDSON@uvmvax.uvm.edu>
Subject: Phoenix sites/sights
I'm headed for Phoenix the weekend of March 5-6-7 and would appreciate the
'usual' advice, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to track down Celis White
and try it while I'm there. As a sort of 'just in case' scenario, I'd
even be willing to race somewhere during my layover in Dallas-Ft Worth if
it meant it. Reply directly here, and thanks in advance. As for the
grumbling anti-advice lobby: go ahead and flame me... 'sworth it!
- --Darryl d_davidson@uvmvax.uvm.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:51:51 +0100
From: dejonge@geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge)
Subject: Re: Refractometers and Hydrometers
In HBD 1087 Peter Maxwell asks:
> So if I measure the FG with a hydrometer to be 1.018, how do I know if it's
> really 1.030 with 8% or 1.020 with 2%?
You don't know (from F.G. alone)
> Or does this matter?
The two mentioned cases will taste very differently, so in that sense
it matters.
> How, then, do I calculate what the % alcohol of my beer really is?
>From the difference between O.G and F.G., for example with one of
the formulas cited by Al Korz in HBD 1087.
Just to make things clear: The table is a definite 'don't worry' item
if you use normal methods for measuring the density. It is intended
for refractometers, which determine the extract concentration
not the gravity.
I only use the real extract value, corrected for alcohol, to get
some insight in the yeast and mash characteristics across
very different batches
Marc de Jonge
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 7:57:38 CST
From: raudins@galt.b17d.ingr.com (Glenn Raudins)
Subject: Yeast Technology
A little while back, I read review in the HBD about the book: Yeast
Technology. I would like some more opinions on whether this book is worth
the money from a brewing point of view or if there are better books that
cover the brewing aspects of yeast. I am looking for an in depth book
that covers areas like autolysis (& the compounds formed.) Any help
would be appreciated.
Glenn Raudins
raudins@galt.b17d.ingr.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:16:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "I'm a jelly doughnut. I'm a jelly doughnut." <cygnus@unh.edu>
Subject: Pitching Idea
I was thinking...
pitch your ale yeast around 60 F... let it ferment at this temp for a
day or two to discourage bacteria growth and to let the yeast make
alcohol, the stuff that kills some bacteria... then jack the temp up
to 65 F to finish...
how valid is this statement? I mean, it almost sounds like making a
steam beer etc. but I was just wondering...
-chris
- --.
David (Chris) Mackensen -- dcm2@kepler.unh.edu cygnus@unh.edu
"Hi, you don't know me, but I play one on T.V."
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:31 CST
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Ranching
>From: atl@kpc.com
> I home can wort for use as starters and for priming my beer. I
purchased a case of Ball 1 pint canning jars ($7.50), filled them with
highly hopped 1.040 extract based wort.....
I'm with you up to this point but why not just eliminate this whole step by
saving a pint of wort from the previous batch. A further bonus (for
all-grain brewers) is that the starter is more like your actual brews than
one made with extract.
> This may sound like a lot of work, but it sure beats boiling up
small starters when you need them, and is easier than reserving gyle
from each batch.
Not sure what you mean by "gyle", I would call it bitter wort but anyway, how
can your process possibly be simpler than setting aside a pint of wort before
pitching?
You did not mention what kind of air lock you are using on the flask but if
you use a glass one, simply putting it on at the end of boiling will
sterilize it and fill it with sterile water as the steam condenses. Nothing
could be simpler.
> The agar was quite expensive, $24.50 for 100g.
A suitable agar can be had from oriental food shops for far less. It is sold
in stick form and you need about 6 inches to a cup of wort.
Nice article. I don't want to start another snob thread but I put yeast
culture right up there with all-grain as one of the more rewarding aspects of
homebrewing.
js
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:32 CST
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Sanitizer
>From: Jay Hersh <hersh@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
>is this right, 1 oz to 1 gal.?? That is 10 times the amount recommended
for usage. If this is indeed correct does this test really tell us anything
since the concentrations are an order of magnitude above what people
normally use??
>hoping that was a typo....
No typo. I also used bleach neat or at least 2:1 when I used it. It is all
relative and I find the long contact times discomforting. For example,
unless one uses 5 gallons of sanitizer in a 5 gallon keg, how can one ever be
sure of a one minute contact time? If used at higher concentrations, one can
simply slosh a small amount around for a minute and get a more effective
sanitization than doing the same with a small amount at the recommended
concentration.
As rinse water is not a problem around here, I don't mind more thorough
rinsing and it is still far less than I had to do with bleach.
js
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:20:14 EST
From: Dave Whitman <rsndww@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: Ginger beer problem
To homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.co
X-Mailer: LeeMail 1.2.4
This is my first post to hbd, although I've been reading for a while now. I've
been extract brewing for about 2 years.
I'm in the middle of a batch of ginger beer, using a recipe which is a
hodge-podge of Cat's Meow recipes and my own warped ideas. What I'm shooting
for is something with a pronounced ginger flavor and aroma, good body, but a
very light color. I think I'm going to hit all the goals except the ginger
flavor, which is a problem given that this is supposed to be a ginger beer.
Here's the fine print for a 5 gallon batch:
2 cans Munton & Fison extra light extract (for light color)
0.5 lb. maltodextrin powder (for body w/o color)
2 oz Hallertauer leaf hop (4.6% alpha)
3 oz sliced ginger root (peeled for lighter color)
4 each juice from fresh lemons
1 pkt Whitbread ale yeast
The ginger and hops were boiled in the wort for 45 minutes, then lemon juice
was added along with my immersion chiller. After an additional 10 minute boil,
the batch was chilled to 65F. ph: 5.3 before lemon juice, 4.0 afterwards.
To my chagin, the resulting wort had very little ginger flavor.
1. Did I steam distill off all the good stuff by boiling the ginger too long?
2. Can I "dry ginger" the batch by adding shredded ginger to my secondary
fermenter? Any suggestions on how much to try?
Dave Whitman/rsndww@rohmhaas.com "I had a homebrew, but I'm *still* worried."
------------------------------
Date: 01 Mar 1993 11:29:51 -0400
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH@ac.dal.ca>
Subject: Mashout
If we are going to go off on a discussion of mashout and whether
one should or should not, and the temperatures in the grain bed during the
sparge and so on, perhaps we should state the reason for a mashout at all.
I may be completely off track here, but the only reason I can see for a
mashout at enzyme-deactivating temperatures is _consistency_. When brewing
a sweet ale, for example, you don't want to convert all your
polysaccharides down to glucose, so you kill off the enzymes before they
can completely chop them up. You like the beer, you want to reproduce it
as closely as possible (especialy if you're a commercial brewer) so you
control the mash precisely, and then you deactivate the enzymes. If, on
the other hand, you are a homebrewer trying to squeeze out an extra
extraction point or so in a "Swilling Beer" (please note this term refers
to an individual's standard recipe that keeps the fridge full, allowing
slightly longer interludes between experimental batches), you might just
let the enzymes play a little longer.
Jack suggested that the mashout also increases the grain
bed temperature to allow for an easier sparge. This may well be true, but
I suspect that this would be more important for commercial breweries. A
friend and I compared the extraction rates for two brews, one sparged with
cold water, the other with hot. The hot sparge was done very slowly (3 hrs
or so) while the cold sparge was fairly quick (1 hr). The end result: the
long sparge produced a much clearer wort, but the extraction rates were
virtually identical. Unfortunately these rates were on the low side,
around 25-26, but at least the sparge can be ruled out as the cause of poor
extraction. Prime suspects for low extraction rate are the malt itself
(canadian 2-row pale) and the crush (gotta get a MaltMill one of these
days).
In summary: If you have a brew you like and would like to brew
consistently, mashout (of course, you have to be consistent with the malt
and the mash protocol too). If you want to squeeze out an extra 1/2 point of
extraction, and don't care about consistency, don't bother with mashout. If
you want to avoid HSA during the sparge, chill the mash and use cold water.
(Jack, you seem to get good results, would you mind trying a cold
sparge through the EM and let us know how it turns out?)
ed
+----------------------------------------------+
| D is for Doppelbock, a strong german beer |
| Three bottle of this, you'll be on your ear. |
+----------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 09:57 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: AHA Sanctioned Competition
[I'd like to apologize for the lateness of this post. I received the
information last thursday, but due to an important day-job deadline, I
could not post it till now. Since there is limited time to request
additional information, I will email additional information directly.
Sorry.]
BREWER'S OF SOUTH SUBURBIA
(south-suburban Chicagoland)
AHA Sanctioned
Regional Homebrew Competition
Judging: Saturday, March 20, 1993
at Public Landing in Lockport, IL
Sponsored by:
DOPPLEBOCKERS BREWERY AND RESTAURANT
(opening soon in Lockport, Illinois)
and
SHEAF & VINE BREWING SUPPLY
POINTS EARNED IN THIS COMPETITION GO TOWARDS DETERMINING
"MIDWEST HOMEBREWER OF THE YEAR"
BEST OF SHOW AWARD SPONSORED BY SHEAF & VINE BREWING SUPPLY
[(gift certificate (plus shipping if winner is out-of-state)]
ELIGIBILITY:
1. You must be relaxed.
2. You must not be worried.
3. You must have a homebrew to enter.
WHERE AND WHEN TO SEND:
1. The entry deadline is Friday, March 12th, 1993. This allows us time to
cash the checks and buy train fare to Portland in June.
2. Entries accompanied by fees, forms, etc., should be delivered or
shipped to:
B.O.S.S.
c/o Sheaf & Vine Brewing Supply
INSIDE Mainstreet Deli and Liquors
5425 South LaGrange Road
Countryside, IL 60525
(708) 430-HOPS (4677)
FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEND EMAIL TO ME AT korz@iepubj.att.com or
CALL THE COMPETITION CO-CHAIRMEN:
Mike Pezan (708) 349-8462 and Marty Nachel (815) 469-4789
If you will be in the Chicagoland area on March 20th, and would like to
judge, please send me email (korz@iepubj.att.com) and I'll send you a
Judge Registration Form.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:14:57 PST
From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@novax.llnl.gov>
Subject: RIMS system
George,
I'm posting this RIMS discusion to the digest, because I think this
is of general interest to a lot of brewers.
I too have tried the RIMS setup, and spent a lot of time
trying to make it work. I finally came to the conclusion that it only works
with a specific geometry and only with small batch sizes. My attempts at a
10 gallon size RIMS was a bust. I refocused all my attention to convincing
others that wanted to try the system not to waste their time. Your post
wasn't very specific on details that describes the recirculating mechanics.
This IS the problem area. You got mother nature to deal with here, and she
is tuff to change. I found the grain compression at any speed was too much
in a 10 gallon sanke keg mash tun. Again I came to the conclusion that it
MIGHT work IF the mash/grain area was large compared to the depth. How does
this new system overcome these obvious problems? I must have discussed this
problem with 10 scientists and engineers around here with no good fool proof
ideas. I would sure like to know what makes this new system work. My present
system has a gas fired mash tun that I must stir continously while heating.
This is the only WORK in my system, and I dislike it. Micah's system of
underleting has its problems too. The management of water volumes can be
tricky. I have tried it and it too did not work as Micah would have us all
believe. I think he just makes it work because, that is the only way he had
to add additional heat to his mash tun. I'm sure if Micah was around to
defend his approach he would.
Bob Jones
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:27:46 -1000
From: ifby546@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Joe H. Barfield)
Subject: Brewing in the Southwest- articles
Please submit to me articles relating to brewing in the Southwest . The
deadline for submission to the April issue of the Southwest Brewing News is
March 15. I am looking for articles about or reviews of beers, bars,
breweries, brewpubs, books, burps, brewers, laws, homebrew clubs, ideal
and/or ridiculous homebrew set-ups, brewing in general, and anything else
you might expect to see in a bi-monthly newspaper covering the brewing
scene in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. >>
Also, please let me know if there is a more appropriate place to post this
request.
>>More info next week on Brewpub legalization in Texas. Currently, HB335 is a
>>boon to micros & brewpubs when legalized. In effect, HB335 simplifies and
>>lowers licensing cost for small brewers.
>> I took samples of IPA wort last night before & after chilling. Post cold
>>break was certainly clearer than the sample before cold break. I had used
>>*Break Bright* 30 min. before end of boil. Anybody know if this is better
>>than plain old unreinheit Irish moss?
Thanks- Joe Barfield, Publisher, SW Brewing News, 406 w.35th, Austin, TX
78705- (512)467-2225.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 17:42 GMT
From: DWORKINJ <DWORKINJ%DIALOG@mcimail.com>
Subject:
unsub homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 11:15:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Peter Maxwell <peterm@aoraki.dtc.hp.com>
Subject: computing alcohol content
Further to my note in HBD 1087, I see that Al refers to an earlier equation
by Tom Kuhn .....
> OK, for all of you who _hate_ algebra but _can_ plug numbers into a
>formula (or formulas into a program), here is the relationship between
>initial specific gravity (SG1) and the temperature at which it was
>measured (T1), final specific gravity (SG2) and the temperature at which
>it was measured (T2), and percent alcohol by volume (A), corrected to
>60 F. (All temperatures are F.):
>
>
> {0.0190 x (T1 - T2)} + {131.25 x (SG1 - SG2)} = A
>
What I'd like to know is SG2 the value obtained with a hydrometer, which
therefore includes the effect of the alcohol present? Or does SG2 represent
the "real" SG, in terms of residual sugars?
Peter
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:27:40 -1000
From: ifby546@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Joe H. Barfield)
Subject: Electronic Brewing Publications
Howdy,
I'm interested in other electronic bulleting boards related to the art of
brewing. I've heard reference to bulletin boards called rec.craft &
rec.brewing. How does one subscribe or refer to these?
Also, what other popular bulletins exist. What popular media is out there?
What is available on Compuserve, etc.
Please send your responses to me at: ifby546@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, I'll
compile the responses and post it back to the HBDigest.
Thanks- Joe B.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:38:59 EST
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: filter questions
I am considering filtering my beer for the first time and I thought I
would consult the HBD for any tips. My primary reason to filter is
merely to remove any residual yeast. I am aware of a filter sold
by the Filter Store, which is merely a wholehouse cartridge type
filter. The filter cartridge is some kind of polypropelyne substance
that retails for about $33. Now, my local Hechingers has a woven type
sediment filter for use in just such a house filter and it is only
$5. Anyone have experiences using either of these filters? Any tips
on cleaning or sanitizing? I have heard that chlorine will break
down this filter, but the people at the Filter Store specifically said
to backflush at low pressure and use 1TBls chlorox per 1 gallon! Seems
like if anything will breakdown this polypro, this would. Any
thoughts about iodophor and or caustics (weak)??
Thanks,
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 14:14:47 CST
From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov>
Subject: hop flavor/hop nose
roy.rudebusch@travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) writes:
>Hop nose is achieved by boiling pellet hops for two min. and
>loose hops for 5 min.
>
>Dry-hopping seems to contribute mostly to palate flavor.
I believe that to get that "MORE HOPS"(tm) flavor and aroma, you can certainly
do end-o-the-boil additions, but to really get those 'knock their socks off'
hop aromatics, dryhopping is the way to go.
-The HopDevil
john@hopduvel.UUCP
isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov
ps to BLAST@sn01.sncc.lsu.edu
>I have to make a trip to Austin, TX next week...
>Anyone got the latest on brewpubs there?
Brewpubs are currently illegal in TX:(
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 13:15:20 MST
From: "Jena D." <G0463114@NMSUVM1.NMSU.EDU>
Subject: honey
I am an intermediate brewer and am interested in using honey either in a pilsen
er or an ale. Any recipes out there you would like to share? I am also intere
sted in a chocolate beer recipe. I noticed KArl Bloss had one but i had trouble
sending him a direct message. Any recipes would be greatly appreciated. Also
in response to an article that was on a fruit beer. We brewed a batch of black
berry beer that was good after 6 weeks but after three months, what a differenc
e in taste and color. Patience is a virtue, I suppose.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 15:34:12 EST
From: Keith A. MacNeal HLO1/T09 225-6171 01-Mar-1993 1523 <macneal@pate.enet.dec.com>
Subject: My experience with Dutch dried malt extract
Timothy Sweet writes:
>1. I'm new to the list and to home brewing and have seen a couple of mentions
>of the fact that Laaglander DME does not ferment as completely as some others.
>So I have a question about this: In my current batch I was using the specs.
>from Papazian's chart for "special red bitter"--6 lb. amber DME (I used Laag-ed
>lander) and 1/8 lb. roasted unmalted barley (which I brought to a boil and
>then strained out). The OG was 1050; fermentation seems to have stopped and
>the FG is 1030. This seems too high. has something gone wrong--incomplete
>fermentation--or would this be a reasonable FG? (Sorry--forgot to note that
>I am brewing 5 gal.) The beer seems a bit too sweet for my taste.
I brewed a version of Papazian's Palalia Ale to make an IPA using a dried malt
extract from Holland with similar results to yours. OG was around 1053. FG
was around 1029 even after being in secondary for 2 weeks. It's been in
bottles for a few weeks now and I haven't had any gushers or beer bombs so it
looks like it did ferment out. It doesn't seem as sweet as a previous batch
of ale I made from 2 cans of dark extract syrup. That may be due to my use of
oak chips in the IPA. The tannins in the oak may be hiding some of the
residual sweetness.
Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:59 CST
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: Finishing hops vs. dryhops
Roy writes:
>Hop nose is achieved by boiling pellet hops for two min. and
>loose hops for 5 min.
>
>Dry-hopping seems to contribute mostly to palate flavor.
I must disagree. I have about 40 datapoints to the contrary. I agree
that *some* hop bouquet can be gained from finishing hops (last 1 to 5
minutes of the boil), but not *nearly* as much as from dryhopping.
Please note that I've found that in my setup (5 gallon glass carboy
with blowoff; switch to airlock after krausen falls; dryhop with whole
hops or plugs for exactly 7 days after the airlock rate falls to 1
bubble/minute) any more or less than 7 days of dryhopping gives me less
hop bouquet and an order of magnitude more than finishing hops. Perhaps
in your previous dryhopping attempts, you waited too long or not long
enough. You also *must* wait for the fermentation to subside or the
CO2 will scrub the hop aromatics out of the beer.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:32:28 -0500
From: Deborah Poirier <Deborah_Poirier@INRS-ENER.UQuebec.CA>
Subject: Addition of coriander
Hello all,
I brewed a batch of Wit last weekend, which is bubbling nicely in the primary.
The recipe (Miller) calls for the addition of 1 ounce of coriander seed to the
secondary. Do I have to boil the coriander before adding it or will there
be enough alcohol present to ward off any nasties? Any help would be very
much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Deb
<poirier@inrs-ener.uquebec.ca>
------------------------------
Date: 1 Mar 93 16:29:23 EDT
From: "Robert Haddad" <M-RHADDAD@bss1.umd.edu>
Subject: Re: Korean Malt extract (digest #1087)
A few months ago, while shopping in anoriental supermarket in
Rockville, MD, I came across the same assortment of flours (bean,
rice etc.), including the mysterious Malt Powder Joseph Hall
seems to have come across. Since it seemed significantly cheaper
than the stuff I get at the brew supply store, I thought I'd give
it a try.
I bought 2 1-lb bags, and tried a small batch of ale, with no other
malts or sugars, as if it were out of a can of malt extract. Much to
my disappointment, nothing happened. The stuff never fermented. No
bubbles, not beer aroma. The only transformation which did eventually
occur was the film of greenish-brown slime which grew on the surface
after about 2 months, and the pungent and noxious odor
which emanated when I opened the fermenter to look in.
I then decided to taste the malt powder. Oddly, it didn't taste
anything like the powdered malt extracts I usually buy. It tasted
more like flour--no sweetness to it. It seemed starchy.
Now, the closest I have come to brewing all-grain beers is partial
fermentation. Could it be, perhaps, that this malt powder has to be
heated slowly to a given temperature, and then be allowed to rest
for a starch conversion? Should, perhaps other sources of malt/sugar
be added to help/activate the conversion?
I had given up on this idea, but would be happy to continue
experimenting with the stuff if you or others could share your
thoughts about what might have gone wrong.
Cheers,
Robert Haddad <m-rhaddad@bss1.umd.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:06:16 -0800
From: Richard Stueven <gak@wrs.com>
Subject: Re: gelatin fining
Kelly Jones <k-jones@ee.utah.edu> sez:
>I don't generally fine my beer...
I don't fine my beer...my beer's pretty fine as it is!
(Ha! Ha! It's a joke, son...)
have fun
gak
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:39:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Deliman <miked@wrs.com>
Subject: Test Driving Mills
Hello all in Home Brew Land,
Recently one of our fellow homebrewers and I decided that when I received
my maltmill, we'd try to do an honest side-by-side comparison of the crush
produced by a Corona and a MaltMill. I had intended to pick-nits with the
analyses; even to the point of weighing the flour produced from one pound of
milled malt, etc.
Unfortunately, the testing may need to be delayed. Although I've received the
maltmill, and assembly was trivial, there is one large problem with the
maltmill as it stands.
As delivered, I'm sure that the maltmill wouldn't pass the simplest of FDA
inspections for food preparation machinery. Probably not even in <insert
third world nation here>.
The construction of the mill itself is acceptable.
The problem lies in the accumulated detritus lodged into the rollers. While
assembling the mill, I brushed my hand on the surface of the rollers. I was
aghast to see zebra stripes on my hand. Stripes of lubricant mixed with metal
particles, dirt, grunge.
The rollers have a nice design - they are grooved, which could facilitate the
uptake of grain. It is also a poor design, as it's nearly impossible to
remove the accumulated detritus from the grooves.
I spent about an hour trying to clean the rollers last night, and at this
point, I'd still pronounce it unusable. It would seem that in order to
properly clean the things, I'll need to disassemble the mill completely, and
break out innumerable amounts of soaps, degreasers, solvents, etc.
Something I'd rather not do. Certainly not in the Rheinheitsgebot.
To be honest, I'm appalled that someone would ship food processing machinery
in such a state; especially priced at $130.
In the interest of being fair, I've written to the producer and asked for a
clean set of rollers to replace these. I'll post the results of this inquiry.
- ---------------
I have a question for the chem types out there. Does anyone know which would
contain more energy per given volume: LNG (natural gas) or LPG (propane) ?
I ask as I recently purchased a nice burner, which I thought was designed for
LPG. When I run int off of a propane tank, however, it burns far too rich.
(it coats the boiler with soot, and the flames never do adjust down to that
nice, blue, clean burn!)
- ---------------
Brew question: does anybody out there have a recipe (pref all grain) for
Samuel Smith's Pale? Please!! Send to me!!
Thanks all! (grain mill results will be posted)
-mike
P.S. The worst part about the grunge: Listen to a Shark's game, and you`ll
probably hear my call... (harassing the ref)
"KILL THE ZEBRA!!!"
Mike Deliman, 800-USA-4WRS, FAX 510-814-2010, WRS 2400bd BBS: 510-814-2165
email: miked@wrs.com (inet) or [sun,uunet]!wrs!miked (uunet)
Snail Mail: Wind River Systems, 1010 Atlantic Ave, Alameda CA 94501 USA
(near Checkov's nuclear wessels.)
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:51 EST
From: "C. Lyons / Raytheon-ADC / Andover, MA" <LYONS@adc3.adc.ray.com>
Subject: Lallemand yeasts
Back in HBD #1026 Al wrote:
> What I'm trying to say is that some dry yeasts make bad beer and some
> make good beer. Less than a year ago, I posted that I would never use
> a dry yeast again, but have since reconsidered after tasting some beer
> made with Coopers yeast. I've also made some with Nottingham and
> Windsor, but have yet to taste it. I still use Wyeast for most of my
> brews and I simply could not get the woody character of my Pale Ale
> without Wyeast #1028 London Ale, but I look at it as having three more
> yeasts (Coopers, Nottingham and Windsor) to choose from in addition to
> the yeasts from Wyeast.
I'm very curious what Al's comments were on the different yeasts.
Al, if you've had a chance to taste the above beers you've
referred to, please comment. I'd also be very interested in
hearing from others who have experimented with various dry
yeasts.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 23:02:00 +0000
From: DAMON_NOEL/HP0800_01%mailhub.cs.itc.hp.com@mailhub.cs.itc.hp.com
Subject: pH
With respect to the recent thread on pH vs. temperature...I assume that
when adjusting the pH of sparge water that the calibration of the meter
using the calibration solution should be done at sparge temperature and
that the desired pH be set at that temperature, not room or 60 deg. I
found that the boiling (conditioning) of my sparge water went from an
initial room temp reading of 7.0 to 8.3 at 170. I used citric acid to
make adjustment to 5.8 at the sparge temperature. The first time I tried
this, I too used gypsum initially but after 2 Tbs. changed only a couple
of tenths, I went to the acid and overshot to 5.0. I salvaged the sparge
with bicarb and all seemed to go well.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:28:24 PST
From: mrozek@gandalf.etdesg.TRW.COM (Eric M. Mrozek)
Subject: re: powdered sugur
In HBD #1083 John Freeman asks:
>Isn't powdered sugar just sugar? I don't understand the insistence on
>using the powdered form versus the crystalline form.
Powdered sugur is a mix of finely ground table sugur and cornstarch (about
60%/40%). This is why powdered sugur doesn't cake or clump, and why you
don't substitute powdered sugur for regular sugur when baking (the doughs
become impossibly stiff).
Eric
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 19:56:55 PST
From: damrowk@Thomas.COM (Kip Damrow)
Subject: more on labels...
Hello HBers,
Regarding beer labels; Will the color, from a color copy bleed when dipped into the famous HBD milk adhesive ( i.e. skim milk in shallow bowl ) ?
Just wondering...
Kip Damrow
Thomas Bros. Maps
Irvine, CA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:51:59 PST
From: Pat Lasswell <patl@microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: Decoction Mash Questions
In HBD 1086, Chris Cook asks about decoction mashing.
I have brewed 10+ decoction mashed beers of varying quality: some were
horrible (got dumped), some were outstanding.
When I first started out, I attempted to get the decoctions as thick as
possible. The result was caramelization in the decoction no matter
how much I stirred, and the more I stirred, the more HSA became a factor.
My solution to this dilemma was to ensure that the decoction was dilute
enough not to require stirring, either by adding boiling water after
dextrinization, or by including some of the mash liquid in the decoction.
I also tried several different (and messy!) means of removing the
decoction. In the end, I found the quickest, cleanest, and easiest to
be siphoning: I use a 1"ID soft-pvc tube about 5 feet long. Another
advantage to siphoning is that it eliminates a source of HSA.
It is not important to pull only the 'thickest' or the 'thinnest' portion
for a particular decoction. If a fairly representative sample of the
entire mash is taken, all works well. I have found that the most
important thing to be aware of is the quantity: beware of taking too
little. Perhaps if one is using a malt of low diastatic strength, such
as Munich, one may need to be careful not to boil too much of the mash
liquid, but with domestic 2-row, I have not had a problem. Noonan
recommends that the lauter decoction be thinnest portion, so as to
deactivate the enzymes and as not to gelatinize unconvered starch.
Neither of these is really an issue. When the decoction is remixed, the
temperature should be at mash-out which will denature the enzymes anyway.
Any starch that is released should be trapped by a proper lauter: only
clear run-off goes to the boiler. Hence, his two points are non-issues.
Noonan makes a big deal of slowly and evenly mixing the decoction back
into the mash to avoid hot spots. For larger brewing operations this may
be important, but I have never found it so, where a dozen strokes with a
spoon will completely mix my mere 5-gallon mashes. To return the
decoction to the cold settlement, I use the siphon hose to return the
entire decoction at once. I mix thoroughly and stabilize the temperature
with boiling or cold water. Siphoning here further reduces sources of
HSA.
I have been experimenting with a modified decoction mash wherein the
enzyme-rich liquor of the dough-in is lautered off and reserved prior to
the first decoction, enabling the _entire_ grain mass to be boiled at
once. The initial trial of this method was promising: extraction was
high; the beer is good. If it yields worthwhile technique, I'll post.
Ars Zymurgia
patl@microsoft.com (Pat Lasswell)
Redmond, Washington USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 18:43:31 PST
From: Pat Lasswell <patl@microsoft.com>
Subject: Open Fermentors
Owing to the encouragement of seeing someone (Jim Busch?) advocate open
fermentation, I gave it a try. It is one of my best beers to date, much better
than many that I have made in carboys.
The fermentor used was a 6-gallon crock that my Dad used to brew his beer in.
I sterilized it with boiling water before siphoning in the cooled wort and
pitching the yeast. I used a culture from the bottom of the secondary
of a beer
fermented with Nottingham ale yeast. The yeast had been acid-washed and fed
with several 1.020 sucrose solutions. At pitching time there was about
5 oz. of
healthy yeast in the starter. Lag time was about 12 hours, and
fermentation was
finished within 60 hours of pitching. Fermentation temperature was 68degF at
the peak, finishing at 65degF when I racked to a secondary and dry-hopped.
I found it much easier to monitor the ferment with an open fermentor: just
sterilize the hydrometer or thermometer and drop it in; want a taste? -- just
dip in a (sterilized) spoon. I have been used to just pitching the yeast and
waiting until the fermentation visibly subsided before racking to secondary;
there was nothing to do during primary except check on it every 12 hours or so.
With open fermentation and no blow-off, I had to keep an eye on it and skim
the foam every 6 hours, lest it push off the kettle lid that I had on it.
(This may be because the crock was just barely big enough to hold 5 gallons of
beer and the foam of high-kraeusen; if the fermentor were larger, then perhaps
I would not have been concerned.)
I had expected to be able to harvest clumps of new yeast from the top of the
primary, but they never appeared. This may be because the yeast is highly
flocculant. (The beer does have a slight diacetyl component.) I had thought
that perhaps the yeast did not reproduce much, due to the high pitching rate,
but I did collect about a pint of yeast slurry from the bottom of the
fermentor, so that obviously wasn't the case. Any ideas? Does the flocculant
nature of Nottingham yeast make it a bottom cropping strain?
Recent discussions have centered on fermentor geometry. The crock has roughly
the same proportions as a carboy, or a little more squat. Judging from recent
posts, this is not the 'ideal' geometry, having too small of a surface-to-
volume ratio. Would this have had an effect on yeast cropping?
Ars Zymurgia
patl@microsoft.com (Pat Lasswell)
Redmond, Washington USA
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1088, 03/02/93
*************************************
-------
