Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1113
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/04/06 00:21:27
HOMEBREW Digest #1113 Tue 06 April 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Mac Thread, Decoction (THOMASR)
historical recipes (THOMASR)
Brewing Methods (Gerald_Wirtz)
Re: Samiclaus and Sam Triple Bock (Mike Tavis)
re:yeast storage & mutations (Jim Busch)
AHA Competition Question (Kevin V Martin)
Duration of a botled beer ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Yeast Lab yeast ("Spencer W. Thomas")
rehydrating yeast (Ed Hitchcock)
Sanitation Using Spent Grains (Chris Cook)
AHA First Round Regional, Chicago (stevie)
Dry Hopping (Sherman Gregory)
silly question on kegging (C05705DA)
Dry Ice carbonating in keg ("John L. Isenhour")
Re:immersion cooler length ("John DeCarlo")
Wine and Oxidation, Grain Bags (Jack Schmidling)
Using Sanitizers of Various Sorts ("John DeCarlo")
Dry hopping ("William A Kitch")
More stupid carboy tricks (Scott Barrett)
Ale Grists Part I (Jeff Frane)
Ale Grists Part II (Jeff Frane)
Ale Grists Part III (Jeff Frane)
That Damned Maltmill (Jeff Frane)
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: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:16:35 MET DST
From: THOMASR@EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch
Subject: Mac Thread, Decoction
Hello all,
Nir Navot asked if there was a thread for Macs out there somewhere.
There is a Hypercard stack at Sierra.stanford.edu (pub/homebrew...)
Which will read in mail lists and then allow you to manipulate them
in Macintosh piont and click fashion. If my hard disk space weren't
limited I'd add all the mail lists to it for the complete brewing
reference text. As it is they stay on the vax.
Also, Dennis Lewis asked about decoction mashing and why people do it.
Well, I now do it for a combination of reasons:
1. I can only get lager malt (here in Switzerland) which is really
high in protein --> requires a protein rest at 50 deg.C;
2. I mash in a picnic cooler, and haven't got a pan big enough to
do a full stepped infusion;
I think (he says, sticking his neck out) that there is little
difference in the end result whether you do a stepped infusion or
a decoction over the same temperatures.
By the way, the "thickest third" does include the grains.
If you take out only the liquid and boil, possibly repeating
a number of times, you will quickly run out of enzymes, since
they are mostly in solution. The object of the decoction is
to raise the temperature of the mash in a stepwise manner without
havingf to heat the mash tun. I've not had problems with
tannin extraction etc because I only just bring the thick third
to the boil before replacing it. A longer boil (involving the
grains) would have the effect of gelatinising the starch, and
hence (apparently) of making it more available.... I don't
know, I get about 28-29 pts/lb/gall(US) most of the time.
- ------
finally, Chris Lyons asked about when to add sugar. Although
I'm only going on my experience here, I find that for normal
gravity beers I see no difference, but for high og (>1080)
I see alot of caramelisation (although is this bad, since you're
adding brown sugar for the caramel anyway?). I brewed Dave
Line's ESB using exactly his recipe, and although it didn't
taste exactly like draught ESB, it was certainly very pleasant.
Anyway that's quite enough of my opinions.
Rob Thomas.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:36:17 MET DST
From: THOMASR@EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch
Subject: historical recipes
Hello all,
Some of you may remember that I posted a couple of recipes from the 1820's
a while back. Well, since they take time to two finger type in, I'll ask
for requests (email to me please). Here are the rest of the recipes:
london brown stout porter;
london ale;
table beer;
amber
(aka two penny) ale;
white porter (aka old hock);
Rob Thomas
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 8:12 edt
From: Gerald_Wirtz@vos.stratus.com
Subject: Brewing Methods
I have been brewing for just over six months now and where I purchase my
supplies the owner is against using the 'blow-off' method of brewing.
My question is why use the 'blow-off' method? It seems to me that this
would result in the loss of flavor.
Thanks - Gerald Wirtz - Stratus Computer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 08:55:32 edt
From: mtavis@gemini.hyperdesk.com (Mike Tavis)
Subject: Re: Samiclaus and Sam Triple Bock
Richard Akerboom writes:
> I had some of this at the Sunset Grill in Boston. It is very strong
> and I thought nicely done. The bartender (normally very well informed
> at the sunset) claimed 14% alcohol. I found it hard to believe that
> Sam had brewed something stronger than Samiclaus and figured that
> 14% was by volume. I don't have my Jackson's Pocket Guide here, but
> Samiclaus is 13.x% alcohol by weight, so it would be more than 14%
> by volume.
>
> I would be interested in hearing from anyone who had some concrete
> knowledge about the Sam Triple Bock, such as original and final gravity and
> the alcohol content (and whether is by wt. or vol.).
I have in front of me one of those sheets of marketing material that
is typically placed in the plastic thingies at restaurant tables.
This one is from the Boston Beer Company and was lifted from Doyle's
in Jamaica Plains (South Boston). Unfortunately, I wasn't the one who
lifted it, so I can't give first hand impressions of Triple Bock. I
can however type in what Jim Koch says about his new beer.
"We offer this strong, malty bock beer in the best tradition of
warming winter brews. Our Triple Bock begins with a recipe calling
for over three times as much malt as our Boston Lager. A long, slow
fermentation produces the rich, complex flavor notes and an
extraordinarily high alcohol level of 12%. This strength is comparable
to a fine wine and is almost three times the level of ordianry beer.
In addition, this brew is carefully aged for four months at extremely
cold tempatures. This traditional German technique develops the
remarkable smoothness of our beer. At this strength, our Triple Bock
is ideally sipped slowly from a 5 ounce serving, enabling the true
beer lover to savor and appreciate its enormous character. We present
our unique ice-conditioned beer this winter as a great way to take the
chill off the cold weather."
- -- Mike
o o| Michael Tavis, HyperDesk Corporation
o o| Suite 300, 2000 West Park Dr., Westboro, MA 01581
---+ E-mail: mike_t@hyperdesk.com (508) 366-5050
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 9:36:21 EDT
From: Jim Busch <busch@daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: re:yeast storage & mutations
JS writes about yeast culturing in the last digest:
<If you only use the original slant to innoculate others, it should be good
<for years or until you contaminate it in the process.
___________
This is why you should make a working stock slant from your origianl
slant. Only culture yeast from the working slant. Go back to the
original slant to make new working slants. Plating from the working
slant is a better way to ensure what you are brewing with. There is
an increased risk associated with "dipping" a loop into a slant
repeatedly. I would advise restreaking to a single cell at least
once a year. In theory it can last for years, but why risk it?
If you are already culturing yeasts, then what is the extra plate and
slant once a year to ensure clean yeast? A very important issue
is for the brewer to constantly question the performance of ones
yeast, is it flocculating like it used to? Any slight change in
flavors or lag time or aromas of the fermenter?
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 9:41:06 EDT
From: Kevin V Martin <kmartin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: AHA Competition Question
Does anyone know if the AHA will accept hand delivered entries at the Goose
Island Brewery in Chicago for the annual competition? I will be visiting my
brother this weekend in Chicago, and he said that he would deliver my entries
for me. This would save me the hassled of having to deal with UPS. Thanks for
any information.
Kevin Martin kmartin@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 09:59:46 EDT
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu>
Subject: Duration of a botled beer
Rafael Busto asks:
> As a beginner I'd like to ask a probably FAQ. Once the beer is
> bottled, How many weeks can I keep the beer (no preservatives, no
> pasteurization) before it gets undrinkable?
A long time, if you did a good job making it. I've had beers that
have been in bottle for 10 years. At that point, they're kind of
"old" tasting, but still drinkable. Only strong, highly hopped beers
will last that long, but you should be able to keep your beer for a
year, easily.
Things that can reduce its keeping power:
1. Insufficient sanitation. An low-level infection can take a long
time to take hold. If you drink your beer up in a month or so, you'd
never notice it. If you keep it for a year, you might.
2. Oxidation. Again, this is something that takes a while to show up.
The damage may be done at any point in the brewing process, from
mashing through to bottling. The key is to minimize splashing at all
times, EXCEPT just before pitching the yeast, when you need lots of
oxygen in the wort so the yeast can grow and reproduce.
3. Light. Can cause skunking and other staling reactions. Keep your
beer in the dark.
4. Heat. Keep the beer in a cool place, preferably below 60F (i.e.,
in a cellar), but not where the temperature goes above 80F, for sure.
Temperature swings are bad, too.
=S
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:25:15 EDT
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas@med.umich.edu>
Subject: Yeast Lab yeast
You should have gotten an instruction sheet. It suggests two ways to
use the yeast:
1. Make a starter.
2. Just dump it into your wort.
The first way works better -- quicker start, less chance of infection,
but the second way does work.
------------------------------
Date: 05 Apr 1993 12:08:40 -0300
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH@ac.dal.ca>
Subject: rehydrating yeast
Jack asks:
> I presume that dried yeast includes whatever is left of the
> "yeast-assimilable sugars and amino acids" at the time of drying. I also
> presume that they would be in a depleated state and adding only water would
> create the adverse osmotic preessure above referred to. Whereas,
> re-hydrating it with a wort of comparable SG would not.
If I may be so bold as to jump in here, dried yeast have much of
the water removed from the cytoplasm, and need that water replaced before
they can behave normally. A hypotonic solution (ie water) will cause the
yeast to swell up and soak up the necessary water nice and quickly. A
hypertonic solution (ie wort) will be soaked up much more slowly. In order
to re-hydrate the yeast, water is best, but don't keep them there too long,
or they may start to suffer osmotic lysing, or at least malnutrition. Boy
is that a run-on sentence
*********************************
As for brewing to style versus brewing to taste, I would have to
say a good brewer should be capable of both. Having a style guideline to
shoot for gives the brewer knowledge, experience and skill. If you can
brew a Sam Smith's clone, a Pilsner Urquell clone, and a Duvel clone, you
know what ingredients and protocols produce what results, and by all means
brew a beer you like, because you can know ahead of time what the result
will be. If you just brew for fun, it's a great ride and the end product
is invariably good, but frequently a bit of a surprise. Having style
catagories in competition does two things: it shows a brewer's skill at
producing the intended product, and it provides guidelines for the judges,
so they don't have to decide if the dry stout is better than the malty
helles. Someone long ago on this forum (or maybe it was r.c.b) was
lamenting that they had lost a competition because their Pilsner was too
dark (or some such breech of catagory), but that if that same beer was
produced commercially it would be a "dark pilsner" and a catagory in
itself. Sure. And Pete's Wicked Ale won at the GABF, but could it fit
into any AHA catagory? The point is these are not the only possible ways
to make beer, but target styles for homebrewers to emulate in order to
demonstrate their skill.
ed
------------
Ed Hitchcock *-----------------------*
Dept of Anatomy and Neurobiology | |
Dalhousie University | JUST BREW IT |
Halifax, Nova Scotia | |
ech@ac.dal.ca *-----------------------*
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:18:22 GMT
From: "UARS::COOK"@CDHF1.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook)
Subject: Sanitation Using Spent Grains
David C Mackensen (HBD 1109) asked
> What if I were to put the spent grain bill into the primary? any
additional sugars that might have been left over can be used for
fermentation/taste (depending upon complexity)...
In the HBDs following, Mr. Mackensen got somewhat jumped on. Timothy
Dalton asked
> How are you going to sterilize the grains before tossing them in ? Boil
them ? Seems like you'd be asking to extract a pile of tannins from the
husks. Then have the husks in contact with the wort/green beer for a week
or two?
and Tony Babinec said
> I wouldn't put spent grain in the primary! The grain is contaminated.
home brewers exploit this by doing sour mashing, but the mashing is done in
a vessel, and is followed by a boil. So, throw the spent grains on the
compost heap, or make a bread out of them.
and so on. While I agree with the concerns about tannins, I have to
question the contamination potential. Think of the process so far. Mash
at 150 to 160 for an hour or more, then optionally mash out at about 170
degrees. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to believe that the grains aren't
pasturized after that. Yes, some people use malt to start sour mashes, but
they use raw grains, not spent grains.
I admit that I remain dubious about how worthwhile the attempt would be,
but hey, we're only talking beer here. I know that most of the sugars and
starches are gone, but maybe the grains can add interesting proteins. I
don't know, but I'd be interested in learning.
Chris Cook
cook@cdhf1.gsfc.nasa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:30:10 CDT
From: stevie@spss.com
Subject: AHA First Round Regional, Chicago
1993 AHA NATIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION
FIRST ROUND - MIDWEST REGIONAL
JUNE 11-13, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
CALL FOR JUDGES, STEWARDS, AND PARTICIPANTS
As you already know from other posts to this forum, the first-round regionals
of the AHA National Homebrew Competition will take place in early June. The
Midwest Regional will be over the weekend of June 11-13, at the Goose Island
brewpub in Chicago. Last year's regional was a great success, due in part to
an excellent turnout of judges and stewards. While we fully expect the same
this year, we're leaving nothing to chance. We've added some special activi-
ties to the schedule that you won't want to miss.
After the second judging session on Saturday afternoon, there will be a seminar
conducted by Chicago's own Siebel Institute. From there, we'll move on to
dinner and the First Midwest Invitational Brewoff, an event that might attract
you to Chicago even if you couldn't pick up those judging points.
Last month, we invited 10 of the region's best homebrewers to brew five gallons
using the same set of ingredients. A number of the area's homebrew supply
stores donated the raw materials, which were recently packed and delivered to
the participants. The brewers can use some or all of the ingredients, plus
they can select their own yeast. The beers will be judged in a blind but in-
formal judging at Saturday's dinner, and the champion brewer will receive an
attractive trophy.
Think you can brew as well as the invitees? Well, everyone else is welcome to
participate in the Open Brewoff. To enter, you can purchase an ingredients
kit (by the way, we're making everyone make an extract beer with specialty
grains) from one of our sponsoring suppliers and bring the result to the event.
We'll have balloting in the Open category as well, and that winner will be
automatically eligible for next year's Invitational. Sponsoring suppliers are:
Evanston First, Sheaf and Vine, Chicago Indoor Garden Supply, and Tim's
Homebrew Thing. You only pay for the ingredients. There's no competition
entry fee.
The Midwest Invitational/Dinner will be open to all interested comers, but
space will definitely be limited. To help defray the costs of the event (and
pay for the food, of course), there will be a $25 fee to attend. Early
interest is high, so we expect there will be a lot of great beer to consume.
Of course, we need plenty of qualified judges and stewards. A mailing with
registration form will be sent soon to all area BJCP judges, but those not in
the program or not in the area should feel free to contact me directly (e-mail
or phone).
Look forward to seeing you in Chicago.
- ----
Steve Hamburg Internet: stevie@spss.com
Chicago, IL Work Phone: 312/329-3445
Home Phone: 312/878-0177
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 09:31:28 -0700
From: sherman@qualcomm.com (Sherman Gregory)
Subject: Dry Hopping
In HBD #1112 "Knight,Jonathan G" <KNIGHTJ@AC.GRIN.EDU> writes:
>On the sixth day it was still bubbling at about
>three per minute, but as the krausen had subsided I racked to secondary
>anyway, and tossed in the dry-hopping pellets. Within a day or two, what did
>to my wondering eyes appear but a KRAUSEN in the secondary! Coming up on two
>weeks now, it's still bubbling between one and two per minute. I have made
>ales this year with American, British, Irish, and London, and I have never
>had yeast behave in this manner (including a previous "American" two
>batches)!! My basement has been around 60-62 F. all winter, but this is the
>first time I have had such a slow fermentation. What should I do (besides of
>course RDWHAH)?
I have dry hopped about 4 batches, and always have observed this same
thing. It is a real pain when using whole hops, because they try to to
push themselves out of the air lock. It seems that there was a thread
about this on HBD about 6 mo. ago. Then I went out of town and never
caught a conclusion about what was really going on. Was there a
conclusion? Does anybody have an explanation for this?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 11:43:43 CST
From: C05705DA@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
Subject: silly question on kegging
Could anybody give me any insight on why NOT to carbonate a keg naturally,
like in bottling, instead of using carbonated water and all the works
needed to do kegging. My reasoning is simple; kegging didn't used to be
done the way it is today. So, what are the pros and cons to throwing in
priming sugars in a keg and cork it? I would appreciate any HELPFUL
suggestions.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1993 12:13:18 CDT
From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov>
Subject: Dry Ice carbonating in keg
Jack Schmidling writes:
>>From: "Jim Ellingson" <jimme@pi28.arc.umn.edu>
>>Subject: WARNING Re: Almost Free Kegging
>>Using a quarter cup would give a pressure of around 50 psi but I still
>>don't think it's a very good idea.
>>Pressure vessels are thick, heavy and expensive for a reason. The
>>pressurized gas which they hold contains an enormous amount of
>>potential energy.
> Thanks for the envelop engineering. In spite of your cautions, it still
> seems that it is a workable system if one is careful and does not work in the
> blind, i.e. monitor the pressure with a gauge. If a quarter cup produces 50
> psi in an empty keg, it would seem to be enough to carbonate a 5 gallon batch
> and dispense it with pressure to spare. Once the beer is carbonated, the
> pressue could be relieved down to working pressure and I assume there would
> be enough to despense an equal volume of beer.
I have to agree with Jim on this. You really should try this yourself and
gather some empirical data before suggesting it to people who might not know
better. I have a lot of experience with forced carbonation of water, wine,
beer and soft drinks, and if you've ever tried gassing beer up to 50psi, you'll
find that its difficult to even vent the pressure down to dispensing level
without it blowing out your venting tube. If you do get it bled down to
tapping pressure, the resulting brew would dispense as incredible gusher of
foam as the brew tried to outgas. The idea of it retaining enough pressure to
dispense itself means that as it goes from wildy overcarbonated to flat it will
be able to push itself out of the keg, but you'll only get a small amout out of
the tapper, then the brew will have to outgas enough to built up pressure to
tap more, this might work for a few brews in between the gushers and it being
so flat it cannot dispense, but it seems like a lot of sacrifice.
At a nice cellar temperature, adding a constant 16lbs or so of CO2 and
agitating the brew for about 5-10 min. will result in nice carbonation. If you
dissolve too much C02 in it, you'll have to 'burp' the keg down to a reasonable
carbonation level before it will be usable. I've found that 35 LBS of CO2 is
way too much (check Byron Burches CO2 chart and read his article in one of the
Beer and Brewing Journals - its the one from Oakland). I've gassed champagne
up to the level you are talking about (in an appropriate container) and its a
horrible mess to dispense through a tap (even with an adjustable flow tap like
a guiness with the turbulence baffles removed from the tip).
The only way I can see to dispense beer thats been gassed up to 50psi would be
to slowly bleed it down to ambient atmospheric pressure (wipe the beer from the
ceiling:), remove the lid from the cornelius and pour it into pitchers. I had
to do this about 10 years ago when I was just beginning to do forced
carbonation.
What might work would be to put a regulator on the keg such that anything over
16psi gets bled off, add your CO2, and agitate while it dissolves, wait a few
days, then put CO2 on it at about 10-12 lbs and dispense.
-john
John Isenhour
mad scientist and national beer judge
john@hopduvel.UUCP
isenhour@lambic.fnal.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 14:13:05 EST
From: "John DeCarlo" <jad@pegasus.mitre.org>
Subject: Re:immersion cooler length
>From: sherman@qualcomm.com (Sherman Gregory)
>>Does anyone know about the minimum length of copper tubing that
>>can be used as an immersion wort cooler? Successfully.
>The longer the better. Many of then are 20', some are 25', mine is a 50'
>double helix (homemade). It all depends how fast you want to cool and how
>cool your tap water is, and how much water you want to use.
Aha! A personal pet peeve, that I know nothing about. Spout-off warning!
My own personal theory is that the shorter the better, until you get to a
reasonable minimum length.
Why?
Let me interject personal observation from my 15 ft. copper coil. Probably
more than a foot is outside the wort, say one foot on each end, making 13
ft. in the wort. I think that is too long. Why? Because the water comes
out boiling hot at the other end. [I placed my quick-reading thermometer
in a cup which got the outflow from the wort-chiller, and it quickly jumped
to 210 or so.]
OK, what good does boiling-hot water do in your wort chiller? I submit it
does no good at all. So if I had another ten feet of copper in there, it
would be another ten feet carrying boiling hot water, doing no good.
So, the question is:
How long does water traveling through 3/8" copper tubing (it can only flow
so fast) take to reach equilibrium with the wort?
I suspect we are talking about 6-8 feet here, just from WAG speculation.
Anyone who really knows what they are talking about willing to resolve this
issue? Are there completely overlooked issues, such as increased
efficiency with longer tubing as wort and source water temperatures get
closer? [So I just made this up and don't think it likely. Sue me.]
Of course the temperature of the water used, the rate of water flow
(dependent at least in part on the tubing ID), and maybe other items are
involved. Is there maybe a chart already made up for us to use by experts
in the field?
OK, I ranted enough. Now I feel better. Thanks and apologies to all.
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 13:13 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Wine and Oxidation, Grain Bags
We all know what evils to expect of beer that gets oxidized after fermenting
and the need for quiet racking and transfer. However, wine drinkers also
know that good red wine needs to "breathe", which of course is, a snob word
for oxidize.
I have also seen several references to the fact that one of the reasons for
racking wine at regular intervals is to promote oxidation. Clearly, we have
a conflict here and my Fall Wine is now in the aging stage and it would be
nice to know if I should intentionally splash it around while racking or use
the usual beer cautions.
Anyone out there know?
>From:(Jim Liddil)
>Subject: Failure of first All grain
>3lbs belgain pilsner malt
>4 pounds belgian pale ale malt
>8 ounces caravienne
>Mashed in 2 gallons of distilled water at ~154 for 1.25 hours at which time
the iodine test was negative. The pH of mash was around 5.2. Used a Zapap
type lauter tun with grain bag. Recirculated about 0.5 gallons. Used
distilled water for sparging. Placed a pie plate on top of grain bed and
added water at about 165. Also mashed out at 170. Sparged till gravity was
1.008 .Ph of run off was still around 5.5. Collected about 7 gallons of
wort. Gravity after boiling down to about 6 gallons was only 1.028. Where
did I go wrong?
First of all there is nothing "wrong", you just made a lighter beer than you
expected.
The procedure reads like a textbook and aside from possible measurement
error, and the need for more water in the mash, the only thing that sticks
out is the Zapap with a grain bag.
I do not wish to start another snob thread but it is my opinion that of all
the lauter systems out there, the grain bag represents the one with the
highest probability of failure. Having said that, I realize that many people
use them and sware by them but until a beginner at all grain learns their
tricks of the trade, I would think low yield would not be unusual.
First of all, if your Zapap has a false bottom, it is not clear why you use
the bag. The purpose of the false bottom is to prevent the grain from
clogging the outflow while establishing a filterbed. Once the bed is
established, the grain itself acts as the filter and a grain bag is only
overkill and a source of trouble. I know of no commercial brewers that use
grain bags so maybe there is a mesage in there for homebrewers.
One sure test would have been to just dump the contents of the grain bag into
the Zapap and stir it around with some more hot water. My guess is the
gravity of the next runoff would have shot way up.
My suggestion is to try it without the grain bag next time and if that fails,
build an easymasher or manifold lauter tun. The advantage of the easymasher
is that you can stir the mash at intervals during the sparge without
upsetting the filter bed and scavenge every last bit of sugar out of the
mash.
js
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 14:18:29 EST
From: "John DeCarlo" <jad@pegasus.mitre.org>
Subject: Using Sanitizers of Various Sorts
>From: mikel@netlink.cts.com (Mike Lemons)
>Is there any scientific proof for the claim that sulfites don't
>work? The enormous advantage of using sulfites is that no rinsing
>is required. It seems to me that re-contaminating something with
>rinse water, after you sanitize it, totally defeats the purpose of
>sanitation!
>Chlorine and iodine must be rinsed out because they will impart bad
>flavors to the beer, but sulfites are essentially tasteless.
I personally don't use sulfites because of relatives who are allergic, so I
don't want to risk anything. This may or may not be relevant to you.
But mainly, I can't imagine why someone would rinse after using chlorine or
iodine. After all, if you use the recommended amounts of each in your 5
gallons of water (or however much it takes to fill your sink or fermenter),
simple air drying after draining out all the water leaves so little of
either chlorine or iodine as to be practically immeasurable.
The main problem seems to be that many people think that if the
recommendation is to use X ounces, then 10*X ounces must be 10 times
better, and 100*X ounces 100 times better.
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 12:36:13 CST
From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa@bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: Dry hopping
I tried dry hopping on my last batch for the first time. Encountered
a few difficulties. I used hop pellets. When added to secondary, the
pellets hydrated nicely then floated to the top and stayed there for
the duration of secondary fermentation (~ 1 week). When I started
racking the beer into my bottling bucket this hop head got broken up
and started sedimenting--a fair amount got siphoned into the bottling
bucket. I let it settle in the bucket for ~1/2 hr before bottling but
still got a fair amount of hop particles in the bottles, particularly
the last few bottles.
Questions:
What are pros & cons of pelletized vs whole hops when dry hopping?
Any advice on removing hops when preparing to bottle?
Alternatives to dry hopping that will give good hop nose?
WAK
|- William A Kitch (512) 471-4929 -|
|- Geotechnical Engineering -|
|- ECJ 9.227 -|
|- Univ of Texas at Austin, TX 78712-1076 -|
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 09:38:55 -0400
From: adiron!scott@uunet.UU.NET (Scott Barrett)
Subject: More stupid carboy tricks
In HBD #1112, Andy Rowan (rowan@ocean.rutgers.edu) provided a tip for
emptying a carboy more quickly by using a racking tube to break the
suction. "Strike while the mash water's hot" I always say, so here's
another way to do it.
Begin to swirl the contents of your (still upright) carboy until you get a
good whirlpool going. Invert the carboy quickly and swirl it strongly 2 or
3 more times. The whirlpool effect should continue as the liquid drains
out and air will enter the carboy through the open center of the vortex.
When the carboy gets near empty, the remaining liquid will be swirling
pretty fast and will hang on the inside of the carboy's shoulders (like the
ball on a roulette wheel) rather than draining out. Simply tilt the
inverted carboy a bit off vertical and the remaining liquid will quit its
tail-chasing and drain through the neck.
With this technique you can keep both hands on the wet carboy and don't
have to stick anything inside it. It's also kind of fun having a white
tornado inside your draining carboy.
Yours in brewing,
Scott Barrett
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:55:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Ale Grists Part I
Ale Grists, Part I
After I posted some information a while back from HL Hind's
textbook on British brewing, from the 1930s, several people
requested that I post his data on ale grists. My copy of
volume II finally surfaced, so here's the information. In order
to follow it, though, there are a few things you need to know.
A quarter of malt = 336 lb.
A British barrel = 43.2 American gallons
The numbers given under Malt. No. refer to a list of malts available
at the time Hind was writing. The numbers 1, 4, 6, and 13 refer to
British 2-row ale malt; colors are, respectively, 4.5, 6.0, 6.0 and
4.0. Number 14 is Moravian 2-row, color 6.5. Nos. 19 & 20 are
"Californian" 6-row, colors 6.0 and 4.0. No. 26 is Syrian six-row,
color 5.5.
Grists for Pale Ales (100 British barrels)
Malt. No. Quarters % of Total OG
Extract
=========================================================
All-malt pale ale
1 16 85.1 1.055
20 3 14.9
Pale Ale with sugar and maize
6 7 37.7 1.050
14 6 32.3
26 3 14.8
Maize 1 5.5
Malt extract .5 1.9
Sugar 2 7.8
Light pale ale for bottling
4 4 27.7 1.040
13 4 27.4
19 3 19.4
Enzymic .5 3.3
Maize 1 7.0
Sugar 3 15.2
"The use of flaked maize, rice or grits and sugar depends on the
character of the beer. Sugars add sweetness and, like flakes, reduce
the tendency to early haze formation in filtered beers, particularly
if the malt is at all under-modified. The sugars must be pale in
colour and carefully selected in accordance with the flavor required
in the beer. No. 1 and No. 2 inverts and other sugars of somewhat
similar character are suitable. The percentage of adjuncts used
varies with the type of beer, and may provide 10-25% of the total extract."
(more to come)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:56:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Ale Grists Part II
Ale Grists, Part II
There is a different list of malts for the dark ales. Number 3 is
English, color 5.5; No. 5 is Scotch, color 6.5. Nos. 7-9 are English,
colors are 7.0, 8.0, and 7.5, respectively. 19 is Californian, color 6.0.
24 is Chilean (or similar 6-row), color 6.0.
"The malts are usually of rather lower grade than those selected for
pale ales. They are cured to a colour of 6 to 9, to give full flavour,
and it is not usually necessary to require such full modification. ...
Crystal and amber malt, particularly oak-dried amber, are frequently
used on account of their colour and flavour. A larger percentage of sugar
is generally added in the copper than for pale ales, and darker sugars,
with more luscious flavours, are selected. No. 3 invert, good quality
raw cane sugar and proprietary mixed sugars of various descriptions,
with a little caramel, are suitable."
Grists for Mild and Dark Ales
Malt. No. Quarters % of Total OG
Extract
=========================================================
Strong Ale
3 10 34.3 1.080
8 10 33.9
19 4 12.8
Crystal 1 3.2
Amber 1 3.2
Sugar 5 12.6
Mild Ale
5 4 24.6 1.045
9 6 35.5
19 3 16.8
Crystal .5 2.8
Brown .5 2.8
Sugar 4 17.5
Mild Ale
7 3 20.5 1.040
9 4 26.7
24 3 19.3
Diamber 1 6.5
Wheat malt 1 7.1
Sugar 4 19.9
(more to come)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:56:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Ale Grists Part III
Ale Grists, Part III
There is a different list of malts for the dark ales. Number 3 is
English, color 5.5; No. 5 is Scotch, color 6.5. Nos. 7-9 are English,
colors are 7.0, 8.0, and 7.5, respectively. 19 is Californian, color 6.0.
24 is Chilean (or similar 6-row), color 6.0.
"There are a number of distinct types of stout and porter, for which
different blends of materials are used. On the one hand, are the stouts
brewed from malt only or from malt and roasted barley. On the other,
are the sweeter stouts, for which a fairly high percentage of sugar is
employed. The basis of the grists is a mixture of pale malt, not too
fully modified, but with a moderate diastatic activity, and either roasted
malt or roasted barley to give the requisite colour and flavour. Roasted
barley gives a drier flavour than roasted malt and is preferred by many.
Crystal and amber malts are commonly blended with these in the sweeter
stouts. A proportion of six-rowed malt and of maize is also frequently
used, as in mild ales. A limited percentage of oat malt or oat flakes
is included in the grists for oat malt and oatmeal stouts. Milk stouts
generally derive their name from the lactose or milk sugar added, with
cane or other fermentable sugar, in the form of primings. The copper
sugars are generally full flavoured and dark coloured. Good raw cane
sugar, No. 3 invert and various mixed sugars are suitable, a sweet
caramel being added if it is desired to increase the colour without
the special flavour and aroma of roasted malt or barley.
Grist for Sweet Stout
Malt. No. Quarters % of Total OG
Extract
=========================================================
3 6 27.6 1.060 (or 130 bbl at 1.046)
7 5 23.2
Roasted malt 3 12.1
or barley
Crystal 2 8.4
Amber 2 8.5
Sugar 6 20.2
(fini)
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 09:59:18 -0500
From: gjfix@utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Malt Mill
I wholeheartedly concur with James Dipalma's analysis of Jack's malt
mill. I was also impressed with Jack's own measured and thoughtful
response to the negative review of his mill. Here I simply wish to
throw in some data that was obtained from the comparison of Jack's
mill and a commercial mill.
I received Jack's mill in Jan., 1992. Shortly thereafter it was taken
to the Dallas Brewing Co. (DBC) for the test. The latter was done with
a standard and well established screen sieving procedure. This is
described for example in DeClerck, Vol. 2, pages 321-323. It in effect
consists weighing out the grain fractions that are retained on screen
meshes of diminishing width. The following is what we measured:
ASBC screen grains retained, % by wt.
screen no. width, mm. MM DBC Mill
- ------------ ------------ ------ ---------
10 2.000 14 13
14 1.410 18 20
18 1.000 33 32
30 .590 25 25
60 .250 5 5
100 .149 3 2
Not Retained 2 3
---- ----
100 100
For those interested in details, the malt crushed was a Canadian 2-row
from Prairie Malting. The mill at DBC was made by Mangel, Scheuermann,
Oeters, Inc. of Huntingdon Valley, Pa. It costs around $6500. It is a
"BMW" as far as mills go for micros. A more common mill is the one made
by California Grain Milling, which costs around $2500. Those who have
visited Dave Miller's brewpub in St. Louis will have seen one. It is the
monster setting on the second floor in his grain room. Screen tests with
these mills have given similar results. It has also been my experience
that if roller mill spacing is appropriately adjusted, then this type of crush
can be obtained for any type of grain.
The commercial mills have been constructed so they can process 100 to
1000 lbs. of grain in minutes. Jack's mill can not touch that sort of
throughput. Nevertheless, the data shows that the same type of crush is
achieved.
I concluded my original review of Jack's mill by congratulating him for
producing such a good mill. I also observed it was very much worth the
price he was asking. Nothing I have seen or heard since then has altered
this opinion.
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:59:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: gummitch@techbook.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: That Damned Maltmill
Through a series of strange coincidences, I came into possession of
a MaltMill(TM). As those who have been around awhile will atest, I
have had my differences(TM) with the MaltMill's builder so I
determined to submit it to the sort of rigorous and fair testing
only a true HBDer could provide.
My first problem arose with the box the MaltMill was shipped in.
There was so much tape on it that it required an Xacto knife to
get into the box. Once in, I discovered the MM was crammed in
with tightly-crumpled balls of newspaper -- the Chicago Tribune --
which were rendered unreadable by this process. This reduced my
co-worker, who hails from Chicago, to tears. Another strike.
Once I had dragged the MM home (not easy, given its weight) and
assembled it (requiring the use of a crescent wrench!) it was clear
that if I had been able to carry the thing to the roof of my house
and throw it off, the MM would have been rendered unusable -- unlike
my Corona, which for the last several months has been propping up
the rear end of a Dodge power van in the back yard.
Having assembled the MM according to instructions and placed it on
a five-gallon bucket, I discovered that the device required me to
use my left hand to operate, even though I am right handed! However,
after some examination, it seemed possible to Turn The Bucket Around,
so that the crank was on the right. Why this was not explained in
the instructions, I do not know, but even more diabolical was the
fact that when I started cranking some malt through the MM, the malt
refused to grind and in fact mostly sprayed around the kitchen.
Once again, I discovered -- only through superior intelligence -- that
by cranking _the other direction_ I was able to achieve a crush.
Further deceptions: although I had been told that I could expect to
crush enough malt for 5 gallons in 10 minutes, in real terms it took
seven! Ha!
Conclusions: the crush was excellent, the crush took 7 minutes rather
than the usual 30-40, and anyone who feels a need to motorize this
thing in order to do small batches of beer needs to spend a little more
time away from the computer lifting things heavier than their fingers.
One real problem: the bolt holding the wooden handle on the crank seems
to be threaded in such a way that it inevitably comes unscrewed while
cranking. The first time it happened took me by surprise and the handle
came off; after that, I kept an eye on the bolt and tightened it as
needed.
It also looks as though I'll need to put rubber feet on my bucket, so
it doesn't slide and hop around while I'm cranking the mill.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1113, 04/06/93
*************************************
-------
