Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1228
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/09/17 00:56:56
HOMEBREW Digest #1228 Fri 17 September 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
local homebrew supplies (George Tempel)
o-rings again (16-Sep-1993 0933 -0400)
RE: decoction mashing (James Dipalma)
Adding fruit to the secondary (bickham)
Fining with gelatin (jake)
Enzymes and Munich malt (cush)
Decoction, Coolers (Jack Schmidling)
RE: soda kegs as fermenters (James Dipalma)
Goofy Texas laws ("Dennis Lewis" )
Cascades dying?/Building a basement brewery (emeeks)
O-ring Challenge/Keg Pressure ("Cisco" )
Yet another request for pubs (Tim Anderson)
Decoctions (Ulick Stafford)
Catfish Bait ("/R=FDACB/R=A1/U=RIDGELY/O=HFM-400/TN=FTS 402-1521/FFN=Bill Ridgely/")
Viennaless Viennas? (drose)
Recirculation, debunking the myths (florianb)
Re: racking tube 'trubles' (florianb)
Miller Reserve Amber Ale (ADM_WWIBLE)
List of competitions available? (DEROSEGA)
hydrometer in the primary (Philip J Difalco)
oring blues (man)
Novice mashing questions (Joel Birkeland)
Trubles no more, thanks (David Atkins)
Decoction procedure (npyle)
Hops FAQ Call for Papers (npyle)
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: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 08:46:30 +0000 (U)
From: George Tempel <tempel@MONMOUTH-ETDL1.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: local homebrew supplies
local homebrew supplies
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 1993 10:14:04 -0400 (EDT)
Hi Gary...
i'm very new to all this (still shopping for equipment), but
there is what seems to be a neat place in Red Bank, called
Red Bank Brewing Supply.
Red Bank Brewing Supply
67 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
908/842-7507
They seemed like really helpful people...explained a lot to
me. They claim to actually brew stuff there as well, but
I can't validate that.
I live in Freehold, work at Ft Monmouth, so they are
really quite close.
Hope this helps....
george tempel
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 06:35:40 PDT
From: 16-Sep-1993 0933 -0400 <ferguson@zendia.enet.dec.com>
Subject: o-rings again
Another way to break-in a "new" soda keg that you don't feel like replacing
the gaskets on, is to fill the keg with a nice heavy stout or doppelbock.
I've also found that soaking o-rings in soapy water noticebly reduces the
soda smell.
Of course, your mileage may vary;
Also, I fully agree w/ Al: everyone has different tastes. If you happen
to have very sensitive tastes, overhaul your keg; if not, relax, fill it,
and bottoms up!
JC FERGUSON
Littleton MA USA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 10:25:11 EDT
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: decoction mashing
Hi All,
Picking up the recent thread on decoction:
Lee and I discussed this a few days before his post, and I didn't have
the information at hand. This prompted me to look through my brewing books,
it turns out both Miller and Noonan are quite explicit on the issue of
grain in the final thin decoction causing haze problems.
From Miller's "Continental Pilsner", p. 52, the context is a discussion
of various decoction techniques:
"Other variations are even quicker. For example, some brewers use
a single-decoction mash in which the boost to saccharification is
accomplished by decoction but the final boost to mash-out at 168 degrees
F (75 degrees C) is done by directly heating the mash-tun. This program
is arguably more sensible than the double-decoction method because
starch released during the second boil may not be converted during the
mash-out rest (the amylase enzymes are rapidly destroyed at such
temperatures) and might cause hazes in the wort and finished beer."
From Noonan's"Brewing Lager Beer", p. 118:
"When the starch end-point has been verified, the *very thinnest*
("very thinnest" is italicized in the text) part of the mash is removed
to be boiled."
.
.
"Because there are fewer starch and albuminous particles in the thinner
portion, there is less risk of these being decomposed during the boiling
and spoiling the runoff."
Rob Thomas writes in HBD#1227:
>In retrospect your conclusion about the last boil containing small
>amounts of grain and therefore liberating starch seems reasonable,
>but only if your yields are usually lowish (otherwise there wouldn't
>be any starch left to gelatinise).
I don't think this is the case. There is always some insoluble starch
in the chunks of grain that amylase enzyme won't touch. Boiling gelatinizes
this starch, releasing starch that is now soluble but not converted into
the wort. Thus, the presence of unconverted starch in the wort is not
necessarily a consequence of low yields.
Rob writes:
>Has anyone else got any experience with this problem (I'm getting worried),
>or does everyone else who decocts carefully strain the last decoct?
Can't speak for everyone else, I use a 10 gallon cylindrical Igloo cooler
with a copper sparge manifold as a mash/lauter tun. When it's time for the
final thin decoction I simply open the spigot on the cooler, and drain the
liquid from the tun. With the exception of the initial cloudy runoff, the
final decoction consists of clear wort and *NO* grain. I've never had
clarity problems with beers brewed using decoction mashing, in fact, I
believe decoction mashing improves clarity, what with multiple boils
breaking down all that protein.
My take on all of this is that including *ANY* grain in the final decoction
is risky. Perhaps the amylase enzyme will convert the starch before it
denatures, perhaps not. Given the time and effort involved in grain brewing
and decoction mashing, I choose not to take the chance.
Comments?
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 10:38:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: bickham@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Adding fruit to the secondary
I'll be brewing a fruit beer soon and want to add cherries to the
secondary. Since they are out of season, I'll have to buy them
frozen, but that's fine since a lot of people recommend freezing to
set the pectins. My questions are:
1. Should crush the cherries or at least macerate the skins before I add
them to the fermenter.
2. In one of the recent issues of Zymurgy, someone recommended putting
the fruit in a pantyhose legging to keep the fruit from forming a
surface barrier which traps the carbon dioxide. Has anyone tried
this?
Thanks, Scott
- --
========================================================================
Scott Bickham
bickham@msc.cornell.edu
=========================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 10:50:14 -0400
From: jake@apollo.hp.com
Subject: Fining with gelatin
Hi -
Having passed through my "I need gallons of beer to drink...Now!"
phase, and upon entering my "This beer had better be exceptional!"
phase, I have need of some information...
I am planning on splitting my latest concoction between bottles
and keg, and would like to ensure clarity. As well, it had, upon
moving to secondary, a decidedly overly-yeasty taste, which seemed
to me to be more than simple immaturity.
As a result, I am going to do some gelatin fining to yank some
yeasties. The bible by Sir Charles recommends fining at bottling
time. I was wondering if it was acceptable to fine for a week or
so in secondary, so that I can bottle with less sedimentary concerns.
Thanks for any help,
Jack
=====================================================================
Jack Danahy | Cottleston, | Systems Software
Senior Software Widget| Cottleston, | Hewlett-Packard
(508) 436-4120 | Cottleston Pie. |Chelmsford, MA 01824
jake@ch.hp.com | Things are as they are. | M/S CHR-03-BC
=====================================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 09:53:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: cush@msc.edu
Subject: Enzymes and Munich malt
>In HBD 1227, Bill Flowers askes whether Munich malt contains sufficient
>enzymes to convert themselves:
Last winter I tried making a Munich Dunkle using 100% munich malt. The
source of the malt claimed that the malt had sufficient enzymes to convert
itself.
Well, to make a long story short, I ended up with a large pot of starchy
porridge..... (that I fed to the compost pile)
When I went back to the supply shop to complain/ask whether the malt
did indeed have sufficient enzyme activity they (jokingly??) asked me
if I was SURE I had not killed my enzymes. (and, as it turns out, spread the
story to a few select members of the local brew-club when they came into the
store after I left...) **
When I got over my apoplexy, we had a productive dialog about mashing
schedules, after which we decided I would try again with a 50/50 munich/pale
malt mixture, and they would call their supplier (Breis??) to inquire again
about the enzyme content of Munich.
I was vindicated! The second attempt converted nicely, and their supplier
said the malt did NOT have sufficient enzyme activity to convert itself.
(though members of the local brew club still occasionally give me grief
about killing my enzymes...sniff...)
Although I am not SURE about this, I think a reasonable generalization is that
domestic Munich malts to not contain sufficient enzymes to convert themselves,
but munich malts of European source will contain sufficient enzymes.
** Just for fairness, the claims of killing enzymes were made in fun...though
I DO still get grief for it from club members....
- --
> Cushing Hamlen | cush@msc.edu
> Minnesota Supercomputer Center, Inc. | 612/337-3505
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 10:00 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Decoction, Coolers
>From: Lee=A.=Menegoni@nectech.com
>Subject: Decoction procedure
>Regardless of the number of prior "thick" decoctions one still needs to
raise the temp from mash range 150sF to mash out 170F.
It is my considered opinion that there is no advantage in raising a decoction
mash to mash out via the decoction mode. The benefits of decoction arise
from the mashing at 155F of the previously boiled decoctions. Once
saccrification is complete, this last decoction(s) is superfluous. It is far
simpler just to heat the whole kettle to mash out.
>From: "Bob Jones" <bjones@novax.llnl.gov>
>Subject: Recirculating mash runoff
>The lipid content is greatest at first runoff from the mash. Therefore it is
best to take the first runnings.
Someone has confused two issues here. Micah was talking about sparging and
the advantages of first runoff. This has little to do with re-circulating
the runoff.
In the former, we are talking about running additional water (sparging)
through the mash to increase the overall volume of wort which will be further
processed. Micha's comments discussed the advantages of only using the wort
that runs from the original mash, without sparging additional water through
it.
The re-circulation discussion revolves about the oft proclaimed advantages of
recirculating the original mash liquid through the filter bed BEFORE
collecting it for further processing.
In a proper mash tun, the only objective is to utilize the initial runoff
which is usually very turbid and full of husk material. Instead of throwing
it away, it can be poured back into the mash so that then next time it passes
through the filter bed it will run clear. The amount that must be
recirculated depends on the design of the mash tun and the dead space under
the false bottom and the flow rate. It varies from a cup or two to gallons.
Now, the problem comes from the claims that prolonged re-circulation of the
runoff before commencing the sparge, has a profound effect on extraction
rate. I know of no reason for this to be true unless there is something
wrong with the design of the mash tun.
>From: mike.sadul@canrem.com (Mike Sadul)
>Subject: Cooler size
>I am currently in the process of buying/making equipment.
>The equipment list (so far):
60 quart kettle and lid from Rapids (friendly staff, great prices,
quick delivery).
60,000 BTU propane burner, with 144 little holes on the ring burner,
from a local hardware store.
50' of 3/8" OD copper tubing for an immersion chiller (easy to clean
and sanitize, hot & cold break remain in kettle after siphoning).
MaltMill (cheque's in the mail Jack :) )
>The copper manifold that I built (before I realized I was going to
do 10 gallon batches) for a "regular" cooler (34 quarts?) will be
dismantled and the parts used to build a manifold for a larger cooler.
>Question:
>What size cooler should I buy?
Don't buy one. In the interest of International good will, I will include an
EASYMASHER with your MM shipment. Install it in your kettle and you don't
need any other equipment. Mash in your brew kettle, collect the wort and
clean out the "mash tun" and now call it a "brew kettle". If you fall in
love with the system, your next money would be best spent on another smaller
kettle for mashing and another EM for it.
You can easily mash 10 gallon batches in the ($40) enamel on steel canner but
you can only boil 5 gallon batches. If you are loaded, buy the 10 or 16
gallon Rapids kettle for your mash tun.
Any of these kettles also make great fermenters. The 10 gal is a little
tight for 10 gallon batches but if you lager, there is not much foam buildup.
If I had to do it over again, I would have bought two 16 gal kettles but I am
stuck now with one of each. I mash and sparge in the 10, boil in the 16 and
ferment in the ten. It would be nicer to ferment in the 16 but then I have
to hold the wort while cleaning and sterilizing it.
js
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 11:02:04 EDT
From: dipalma@banshee.sw.stratus.com (James Dipalma)
Subject: RE: soda kegs as fermenters
Hi All,
In HBD#1227, Tim McNerney asks about using soda kegs for secondary:
>Does anyone see any other problems with this scheme? Would there
>be any problem sealing the valve when I first transfer and then release
>the pressure once a day or so
I exclusively use kegs for secondary fermentation, they work great! My
procedure is to purge the keg with CO2, then rack from primary a day or so
after the krausen has fallen. Filling the keg with CO2 helps prevent
oxidation of the beer during the transfer. CO2 is considerably heavier
than oxygen, if you don't tip the keg during racking, it'll pretty much
stay in there for the duration of the transfer.
Once the beer is transferred, seal the keg, and purge the headspace. Put
a small amount of pressure on the keg, enough to ensure you have a tight
seal around the large o-ring. For the first day or two, open the relief
valve slightly, and bleed off some of the pressure, once or twice daily.
After the first day or two, you'll find very little gas is released when
you open the valve, as fermentation is very nearly complete. Drop back
to bleeding the pressure every 2 to 3 days.
BTW, the relief valves on my kegs are rated to open at 50-60 psi, the
kegs are stamped "130 psi maximum". Provided the relief valve does not
fail, there is little danger. Since the pressure is bled periodically,
I don't believe there is any danger at all. I've done over 30 batches in
this manner over the last 18 months, with no problems.
There is an added benefit to using kegs as secondaries. When the time
comes to transfer to a serving keg, the entire batch can be transferred
without siphoning. Get a length of pressure tubing, and attach a liquid
hose barb to each end. Purge the receiving keg of oxygen, and make sure
it is tightly sealed. Bleed all of the pressure off the full keg, then
connect the two kegs via the liquid OUT fitting on each. Put 15-20 psi
on the full keg, and the beer will start to flow into the receiving keg.
Keep an eye on the flow, it will slow down periodically as pressure
builds in the receiving keg. Use the relief valve to bleed some pressure
off the receiver, and the flow will resume. The advantage to this method
is that the entire batch can be transferred in about five minutes to a
serving keg without worrying about starting a siphon, without oxidixing
the beer by splashing during siphoning, and without exposure to airborne
micro-nasties.
Cheers,
Jim
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 93 10:15:13 CST
From: "Dennis Lewis" <DLEWIS%jscdh6@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Goofy Texas laws
To add to the discussion of Texas beer laws, the word "stout"
implies a strong beer to the TABC (Tx Alc Bev Comm) and so we can't
get Sam Smith's Oatmeal Stout because the alcohol content is not
high enough to be called stout! Also, we also have a packaging
restriction relating to the alcohol content. If the brew is < 4%
alcohol, then it has to be packaged in 7, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32 oz
containers or in fractions of a barrel (like 3.375 gal, 7.75 gal,
15.5 gal). I think the factory breweries got a special addition of
the 5 gal beerball size to the list. It cost them a fortune to
schmooze and lobby our legislature.
However, if the brew is > 4%, then it can have any size
package it wants, like 16.9oz (0.5L) for the German imports. This
means that we can't get Anchor Steam on draught because the alc
content is not high enough to be packaged in their 50L kegs.
Unfortunately, Texas is such a huge market that many breweries will
make special versions to get around our stupid laws.
Here's an interesting point (brought up in another forum): since
beer sold here in the USA cannot have an alcholic content labelling
(to protect us from ourselves), is there a restriction on OG
labelling? This is the case with the German beers that I
brought back, and it helps a bit to try to duplicate the style. (I
think it's part of their packaging law to have it on there....)
Dennis Lewis <dlewis%jscdh6@jesnic.jsc.nasa.gov>
Homebrew, The Final Frontier.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 11:34:55 EDT
From: emeeks@tx.ncsu.edu
Subject: Cascades dying?/Building a basement brewery
Hi folks--
I have a couple of questions, one regarding the apparent death of one of my
hops plants, and another regarding the construction of a basement brewery.
My Cascades plant, after growing to @ 15 ft. and putting out a small number
of cones in its first year, has suddenly started to turn black and shrivel
from the top down (I only had one shoot come up this year). Up to now, I
have been impressed with the ruggedness of this variety, compared to my
dearly-departed Mt. Hood (slugs) and Saaz (spider mites) cuttings. Now,
I think something is consuming my Cascades.
If it matters, after the death of the Saaz plant, I began weekly
applications of "Safer soap" to control the spider mites on the cascades.
In the two months since the demise of the Saaz, the spider mites seemed
to disappear. Is the plant reaching the end of its season or do I have
an interloper?
Also, I will be moving at the end of the month to a house with a basement.
My roomate (and owner of the house) has agreed to help me convert a corner
into a "brew room". The basement has a concrete floor with brick walls and
an unfinished ceiling. Putting in the framing should be inexpensive, since
we have a free source for 2x4's. Can anyone recommend a cheap material to
use for the walls? I'm thinking of something like the plastic used to make
shower walls. The basement is fairly dusty and will also be used for a
workshop and storage area, so I'd like to create a closed area that could be
kept sanitary with periodic "swabbings".
For the record, I don't plan on using an open burner in the basement. My hot
water source will be the house's gas-fired heater, and the boiling of the
wort will take place outside. The brew room will be used for mashing,
fermentation, and beer/equipment storage.
To save bandwidth, email replies are welcome.
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`''`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
Ed Meeks (emeeks@tx.ncsu.edu) "Won't you please tell the man I didn't hurt
anyone, no I'm just tryin' to have me some fun." --John Prine
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`~~
------------------------------
Date: 16 Sep 93 08:42:18 MST
From: "Cisco" <FRANCISCO@osmo.CCIT.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: O-ring Challenge/Keg Pressure
Al Korzonas says
>
> Well, it seems to me that Don is not aware of what most Cornelius
> Canisters are really used for: post-mix. Few are used for what's
> called pre-mix. What's the difference. Pre-mix is pre-mixed at
> the bottling plant -- it's the same stuff as the soda in bottles and
> cans. Post-mix is an altogether different animal -- it's syrup!
> It is mixed with carbonated water by the dispenser. It is altogether
> conceivable that you could absorb more aromatics than are found
> in a case of diet coke into the 8 gaskets that are found in a standard
> Cornelius canister.
Al is right on with this one! I use all used Pepsi Cornelius kegs and
I know that they contained some of the residual syrup and the guy at
the Pepsi plant told me that's what they contained before I bought
them. He highly recommended that I change all my gaskets, which I did
because they reaked of sweet syrup. Alot of the used kegs on the
market have just been heavily rinsed and contain all the original
gaskets and poppit valves - change all of them! I've had my kegs for
ten years now and finally changed out all the gaskets and poppet
valves again last year just as a preventative measure for possible
leaks that might start forming. You can tell when the main lid gasket
needs to be changed by bending it and looking for cracks starting to
form in the rubber.
John (Cisco)
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Moore says:
> Subject: kegging pressure problem
>
> I am new to kegging and have a problem which I can not figure out.
> I have a CO2 cylinder, regulator (purchased new from local Pepsi
> supplier) and a pair of used cornelius kegs (with beer). Somehow,
> I have overpressurized my beer.
>
> I have the regulator set for about 15 psi. When I connect the system
> for an extended period of time, the low pressure side RISES to 40 psi.
> More confusing yet, the high pressure gauge rises from about 850 psi.
> to 950 psi.!
>
> As an experiment, I have left the system connected and turned off the
> CO2 cylinder. Pressure has dropped to about 10 psi as of today. I
> think I have a leak, however, one of the kegs is new and may still be
> absorbing CO2.
>
> What problem in my setup can cause the low pressure side to go from
> 15 psi to 40 psi? I don't have a clue.
>
> Ed Moore
>
This sounds really strange. Even when my beer absorbs CO2 after
extended periods (Al & I still have this under investigation) my
pressure on my gauges remain the same as when I first hooked them up.
I'm willing to guess that maybe you have a defective regulator,
especially since both the high side and low side guages are
increasing. I've rebuilt my regulators and have never had the pressure
change on its own.
John (Cisco)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 10:17:26 PDT
From: tima@wv.MENTORG.COM (Tim Anderson)
Subject: Yet another request for pubs
I'm going to Europe next month, and I'm feeling pretty cocky about it.
Sampling local beer is high on the agenda. I'll have short stints in
The Netherlands, Belgium and the Alsace region in eastern France. I
can't be more specific, because I'll pretty much know where the next stop
is about the time I step off the train. I'm especially interested in
trying beer I've never heard of, very small brewery beer, and anything
made by monks. I have no plans to bring any back, or even take pictures.
Any pointers appreciated.
tim
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 12:20:35 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick@gauguin.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: Decoctions
Quite a discussion going on about decoctions. As a committed decocter
of most beers I have found that decocted beers tend to be perfectly
clear with no other fining. However, the one or two times I have gotten
lazy and mashed out in a normal manner (let's call it Warner nethod),
I have produced beers that presented more clearing problems - usually
wheat beers and usually chill haze, than if I had used a thin decoction.
It is nearly impossible to aviod grain when pulling a 40-50% thin mash.
The expectataion is that the starch was well gelatinized by the earlier
decoction. One is necessary except for very unconverted malt that you
won't find here. I have never experienced a starch haze, but the great
effect that a thin decoction has on protein coagulation reduces the
boil time to what is needed to extract hop acids and clarity is less of
a problem. Typically, for the thick decoctions I remove grains with
a sieve, and thin decoctions with a ladle (a small pot), and then return
some of the grains to the rest mash with the sieve. Once or twice I
set up my cooler with the false bottom in at the start of the mash, and got
the most beautiful runoff for the thin decoction. However the long time
that the mash was on the bottom caused it to clog and loitering was a
bitch. In gereral I have found the following procedure to work well
for most barley beers, especially stouts with the high unmalted component.
Dough in at 70-90 with .75 quarts per pound.
Add another .75 qt/lb of hot to boiling water to raise temp into protein
rest range (122-131). The amount and temperature of water will
depend on the heat capacity of your mash tun - in my case quite
a lot with a 7 gallon Gott
Rest 15-20 min. Pull 33-40% thick decoction (using sieve and capacity marks
on the inside of cooler)
Heat decoction to 145. Rest 10 minutes.
Heat decoction to 153. Rest 10 minutes.
Heat decoction to 158. Rest 10 minutes.
Heat to boiling. Boil 15 minutes.
( all heating should be done slowly to prevent hot spots and burning.
constant stirring is needed while raising the temp, except for boiling,
when the odd stir will do. Make sure the decoction isn't too thick)
Return to rest mash. In my experience the heat capacity of the cooler means
the temp will always be ~146, but your equipment will vary. I usully
rest there for 10 minutes and then raise with either a small thick
decoction or small infusion of boiling water or on the burner till the
top of my saccarification range is reached, ~153-155. Rest here for 10
minutes.
Pull loiter decoction. 40-50% of the thin mash. Boil 15-20 minutes.
Return to rest mash- mix in well. Again temp may be low of strike, thanks
to heat capacity of cooler. Dump out into boiler (yes I have heard of
HSA). Heat to 170. Put sparge manifold in cooler and dump mash back in.
Start heating sparge water etc.
__________________________________________________________________________
'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s@&* ... | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng.
Pabst Blue Ribbon!' | Notre Dame IN 46556
| ulick@darwin.cc.nd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 13:05:00 EST
From: "/R=FDACB/R=A1/U=RIDGELY/O=HFM-400/TN=FTS 402-1521/FFN=Bill Ridgely/"@mr.cber.fda.gov
Subject: Catfish Bait
I realize this is "bottom feeding", but I've offered to pass this along
for private e-mail response.
"Beer - The Magazine" is doing a piece on the wide variation in commercial
beer pricing around the country.
As part of this effort, they are trying to find "The Cheapest 6-Pack in
America". We're not talking gourmet-quality microbrew here folks. As I
said, this is strictly bottom feeding.
If you have any leads on the cheapest factory suds available anywhere,
please respond privately to the address below.
Thank you for the use of bandwidth. I'll go wash my hands now...
Bill Ridgely (Brewer, Patriot, Bicyclist) __o
ridgely@a1.cber.fda.gov -\<,
ridgely@cber.cber.fda.gov ...O/ O...
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 15:04:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: drose@husc.harvard.edu
Subject: Viennaless Viennas?
Hello:
I am interested in brewing an Oktoberfest-type all grain beer (OK,
by the time it is ready it will probably be a Decemberfest at the
earliest). I was reading the article in the last Brewing Techniques about
this style. For those of you who have not read it, it discusses the style
and particularly emphasizes ways in which brewers can "cheat" and still
end up with a reasonable beer. For example, by not lagering (if you
haven't got the facilities) or by doing a single step infusion mash (which
is the only type of mash some places are equipped to do). The article
also mentions that Vienna-type malts are not necessary, and that recipes
contained in G. and L. Fix's book on the style use NO Vienna/Munich malts.
This appeals to me, since I like to buy my grain (American 2-row and
Crystal Malt) in bulk to save money, and would like to use what I have
instead of buying small quantities of something else at higher prices. My
question is, though, if you don't use these special malts, what do you use
to get the appropriate color and flavor? Crystal malt? Home-kilned
mock-Munich a al Dave Miller? What? (I realize that I could solve this
puzzle by buying and reading the Fix book but I don't have easy access to
it and figured I would try to get the answer for free first (sorry
George)). Thanks....
Dave.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 12:48:54 PDT
From: florianb@ying.cna.tek.com
Subject: Recirculation, debunking the myths
In yesterday's hbd, cush@msc.edu says,
=>
included a joint in the copper sparging manifold coming apart, which then
proceeded to leak large amounts of grain husk material into the boiling
kettle. We worried (gasp!) about it a little...but decided to place our
fate into the considered opinion of Micah Millspaw.
Bottom line is that the brew was cloudy in the primary. After we fined
with geletin in secondary and bottled, we have the brightest brew either
of us have produced!!
=>
and a second post by bjones@novax.llnl.gov,
=>
contention was focused at better beer stability. The stability is improved
if there is a higher fraction of lipids in your final packaged product. The
lipids are low to start with in american grown grain. The lipid content is
greatest at first runoff from the mash. Therefore it is best to take the
first runnings. The particulates in the runoff don't seem to cause any
problems with final beer clarity. They may even improve it! This being due
to the particulates acting as nucleation sites for proteins.
=>
Both these comments are in keeping with my original post about three years
ago, when I claimed rights to a new method of lautering. This new method,
which I stole from my brother-in-law, involves putting all the sparge
water into the lautering tub at once. Only a minimal amount of recirculation
is used. When I changed to this method, my beer clarity improved, particularly
in the case of ales (which don't lager and thereby settle out for 4 months).
At that time, I couldn't find reference to this method in any of the some
20 books I have on home brewing, nor in the hobby rags. I won over support
from several brewers here on the hbd after they tried it. I highly recommend
the process as it improves the beer and saves time, too.
I still plan to post a description of the method, as soon as I change my
spark plugs. Too bad I have to work for a living.
Florian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 12:59:04 PDT
From: florianb@ying.cna.tek.com
Subject: Re: racking tube 'trubles'
In hbd #1227, David Atkins asks:
=>
Before the line fills, air gets sucked into the line where the hose and tube
meet. This steals away the siphon and aerates fermenting(ed) beer. And I have
tried two diameters of hose, to very little avail.
=>
I'm not sure what you're seeing is air. It could be CO2 coming out of
solution at the interface of the plastic racking tube and the siphon
hoze. In any case, this happens often. You can eliminate it by getting
the siphon going and then "thumping" it with your finger really hard at
the place where the two meet and the gas is present.
If this doesn't work, then it might be air due to a poor fit of the
hoze and the racking tube. Put a little glycerin on the racking tube
before fitting the hoze over it.
Luck,
florian
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 1993 16:10:54 -0500 (EST)
From: ADM_WWIBLE@VAX1.ACS.JMU.EDU
Subject: Miller Reserve Amber Ale
Just thought I'd share this tidbit for those not brave enough to dare
the Budmillours swill. Personally, I'm of the crowd that believes there
is no bad beer...some are just more drinkable than others. This Amber
Ale they're putting out now is definitely top of the line swill. Give
it a shot. Generally I only resort to store bought stuff when I haven't
been able to keep the homebrewing up with my appetite.
Anyway, this stuff isn't bad. I was shocked when I looked at who
made it and took a sip.
Will Wible
adm_wwible@vax1.acs.jmu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 SEP 93 17:21:6 EST
From: DEROSEGA%ML%WPAFB@MLGATE.ML.WPAFB.AF.MIL
Subject: List of competitions available?
Is there a list of AHA-sanctioned homebrew competitions available anywhere?
I would like to get my latest brew judged so I know what needs improvement
next time, but I need information on what will happen in the next few
months. I am particularly interested in the midwest USA.
TIA,
Guy DeRose
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 17:40:06 -0400
From: Philip J Difalco <sxupjd@anubis.fnma.COM>
Subject: hydrometer in the primary
Is there any problem with leaving, an initially sanitized, hydrometer
in the primary during that period of fermentation?
- ---
email: sxupjd@fnma.com (NeXT Mail Okay)
Philip DiFalco, Senior SomethingOrOther, Advanced Technology
FannieMae, 3900 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Washington, DC 22016 (202)752-2812
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 16:12:27 EDT
From: man@lcwdw1.att.com
Subject: oring blues
I make beer in 15 gallon batches. I make a session bitter to keep my wife
happy. I make this beer a lot. It is very reproducable. The last time I made
it, I kegged it in 3, 5 gallon soda kegs. One, I dry-hopped and brought to
a family picnic. The second I brought out at a party. I was terribly
disappointed in it. I couldn't pinpoint the taste, but blamed it on a
heat-wave induced high temperature at end of fermentation. One other source I
feared was a contaminated keg. I took a sample out of the third keg. Hmm,
tastes better. I brought a sample from each keg to the judge (my wife).
Two different beers, I was told. I sat on the basement floor hugging keg
number three and staring at number two trying to figure out what went wrong.
Then I saw it, a red oring on the liquid fitting. I had recently acquired a
number of soda kegs, but hadn't replaced all the orings (I ran out). I was a
minor doubter in the "you must replace all orings. They are evil" debate. Up
until this time, I hadn't noticed any problems with beers in these kegs (3 of
10). The orings were original. I replaced it with a new one and guess what?
The two samples tasted the same. I was happy. Better yet, the judge was happy.
This oring had enough leaching capability for my wife, a few beer friends, and
myself to notice. Just a datapoint.
Mark Nevar
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 15:16:04 MST
From: birkelan@adtaz.sps.mot.com (Joel Birkeland)
Subject: Novice mashing questions
I have just completed brewing my second all-grain beer. I now have a few
questions about the procedure.
First, here are the details of the recipe:
8 lbs pale lager malt, pre-crushed
.5 lbs 40L crystal malt
1 tablespoon Irish Moss, 90 min
1 oz 5.5 alpha Cascade pellets, 30 min
.5 oz 7.7 alpha Northern Brewer pellets, 10 min
.5 oz 7.7 alpha Northern Brewer pellets, 1 min
Mash-in lager malt with 3 gallons water from the coin-op drinking water
machine (to which I added .25 oz gypsum), at 60 C, in 5 gal Easymasher.
Temp stabilized at 55 deg C. Protein rest for 30 minutes. Raised temp
to 68 C, held for 1.5 hour conversion. Raised to 75 C, held for 10 min
mash-out. Added crystal malt. Sparge with 4 gal coin-op drinking water
with .25 oz. gypsum added. SG at end of sparge was 1.009, and a barely
perceptible tea-like taste was present in final runnings.
Boiled 1.5 hours with above hop additions in 10 gal pot in which I installed
a home-made Easymasher clone. Immersion chiller used to reduce temp to
about 15 deg C. Drained into carboy using copper tube with holes in it
to aerate.
Measured OG 1.054 for 5 gal. Pitched yeast, placed carboy into temp
chamber mistakenly set to 5 C. Visible yeast activity after 18 hours,
which increased dramatically after temp re-set to 10 C.
I got the idea for using purified water plus gypsum from G. Fix's
article on Belgian Malts in Brewing Techniques.
My questions:
1) Rather than use the iodine test, I just tasted the mash. It was sweet
and sticky after about 30 minutes, but I went for 1.5 hours to make sure.
Any problem with this?
2) If I just add gypsum to purified water, do I really need to make pH
measurements?
3) The sparge rate out of the easymasher was pretty fast, so I shut the valve
down just to slow things down. Was this necessary, or could I just run it
wide open and finish quicker? Runoff was clear after about 1 quart.
4) After draining the boiling pot, there was a lot of break material and
hop pellet sludge remaining inside, thanks to the screen on the homemade
easymasher clone. The bitter wort in the carboy was cloudy. After about
1/2 hour in the temp chamber, the cloudy wort in the carboy had cleared and
precipitated a bunch more break material. My guess is that the stuff in the
carboy was "cold break" or something similar, and the stuff remaining in the
boiling pot was "hot break". Sound reasonable?
5) In both of my grain brews, there has been a lot of sludge on top of the
foam in the fermenter. This appears similar to the stuff that remained on
top of the spent grain after sparging. Is this related to the protein rest
duration and temperature? Seems like this came up recently in conversation
here.
6) When I brewed from extracts in the past, I used three types of specialty
grains: crystal malt for sweetness and color, roasted barley for that
coffee-like bite, and black patent for blackness. Now I have become aware
of a veritable plethora of specialty grains like Cara-Pils, Dextrine, Munich,
Cara Vienne, Aromatic, etc.... Can someone tell me how to use all of these
different types of grains?
I hope this long post is not considered a waste of bandwidth.
Thanks for your help,
Joel Birkeland
Motorola SPS
birkelan@adtaz.sps.mot.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 17:39 CDT
From: David Atkins <ATKINS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Trubles no more, thanks
Hello again readers.
Thanks to all those good folks who contributed advice and know-how in solving my
racking cane siphon problems. I received many a suggestion and am indeed
appreciative.
To return the favor, the next time any of you find yourselves in hippy-dippy
Madison, let me know and we'll buy each other a beer (results of homebrewing
still pending)
Happy Brewing,
David Atkins
UW-Madison
P.S. Go Vols! Apologies to Scott Wisler. I'm in the Big Ten as a matter of
geography, not team loyalty.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 93 12:43:05 MDT
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: Decoction procedure
Lee describes his decoction procedure in no less than 22 steps, the first being
"Put 5 dead CDs in player, start". I would have to add step 23 if was to try
this procedure: "Sign divorce papers, say goodbye to kids". Yow! If this is
what it takes to do a decoction, I won't be trying a PU clone anytime soon. My
infusion procedure is something like this:
Put 1 Dire Straits CD in player, start.
Heat 1 qt water per lb grain to 168F.
Add grain and water to mash tun.
Check mash temp, adjust as needed to around 154F.
Go to store or for a bike ride with the family, return.
Iodine test (wasted step?).
Add a few gallons of near boiling water to the mash, stir constantly.
Adjust mashout temp to near 170F.
Mash out for 15 minutes.
Kiss my wife.
I count 10 steps and 3 (4?) of them are unnecessary in terms of the actual
brewing. Now, I'm not trying to start a flame war, nor am I trying to compare
the merits of simple infusion mashing with decoction mashing. I just want to
inform some of the extract brewers out there that all-graining doesn't have to
be that tough. I suppose if you're really out to make a world class pils or
something, that all of Lee's steps are valid, but you've used an entire day to
do it. My method takes me about 6 hours now start to finish, and that includes
the part about spending some time with the family. I still get "you're not
going to _brew beer_ this weekend again, are you?".
How about Lee's steps, all you decocters out there? Is all that pH adjustment
necessary? Anyone like to compare procedures with his? Or mine for that
matter? This is the type of thing I'd like to see discussed here, so that we
can get more ideas on how to make better beer (maybe easier, too).
What about Rob's starch test idea on the finished beer? Would there be enough
starch in the final beer for the iodine to pick it out? Too bad I just
finished my Starch Brown Ale (boiled some brats with the last four bottles), or
I would've tried this.
***
Mike, I think the 68 quart cooler will work fine for you for normal brews (as
you say, up to 25 lbs) but for a high gravity brew it might fall short. The
solution to this is to do a normal sparge for the rare high gravity brew, and
your 68 quart will be fine.
Cheers,
norm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 93 14:04:41 MDT
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: Hops FAQ Call for Papers
I have received only positive feedback on the idea of a hops FAQ, so I'm going
ahead with it, partnering with Mark Garetz (mgaretz@hoptech.com). He's going
to provide the technical expertise and I'm going to help out with some legwork,
etc., as in this post. Never fear, naysayers, we'll try to work out all the
details via email and post only relevant information to this forum.
The general form of the FAQ will be something like this:
*******************************************************************************
General description of hops (Mark Garetz)
IBU formulae (anyone have Rager's formulae in a nice form? Other formulae?)
A treatise on growing hops (volunteers?)
A treatise on dry hopping (volunteers?)
A table of sorts with the following information (this will be the bulk of it):
Hop name
Area grown
Taste profile
Common useage (length of boil, type of brew)
Commercial beer examples
Alpha acid range
Good substitutes
Other?
*******************************************************************************
Consider this an official request for information. I am looking for people to
help fill in these areas, especially actual brewer's information on the last
section. If you'd like to contribute please email the information to me:
npyle@n33.stortek.com -OR- to Mark at mgaretz@hoptech.com. I should be the
primary contact, but if you have trouble reaching my email address (this system
is about as reliable as dry yeast), then send it on to Mark. I suggest that
you don't send the same thing to both of us (except for comm problems), so we
don't have to sort through it all and pick out the dupes. To make it easier on
us, try to put things in this general order, but if you already have a bunch of
info in a file, send it on and don't worry about it.
One more thing: we are open to suggestions about the format but we'd like to
keep it simple; this is a FAQ, not a detailed research paper or book (Mark's
writing that offline!). This is your chance to contribute to the digest,
whether you are a relative newbie or a wise old owl! (Almost) everyone uses
hops, so let's get your feedback. Hop-heads Unite!
Cheers,
norm "unreformed hop-head"
- --
Norm Pyle, Staff Engineer Head Brewer,
Storage Technology Corporation Pyledriver Brewery, A Non-Profit Organization
2270 South 88th Street 1500 Elmhurst Drive
Louisville, CO 80028-0211 Longmont, CO 80503-2323
(303) 673-8884 npyle@n33.stortek.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1228, 09/17/93
*************************************
-------
