Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1282
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/11/26 00:30:37
HOMEBREW Digest #1282 Fri 26 November 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Partial Mash (npyle)
Whining/Kegging FAQ/Starch test/Sanitizers (npyle)
Alternative FAQ Formats (bobreg)
200 IBUs/Grains of Paradise (Mark Garetz)
almost there (James Clark)
brew belt problem (EKELLY)
Re: Counterpressure Bottler Questions ("Mark B. Alston")
Error in Zymergy (Jim Cave)
Jim Koch (chris campanelli)
Tarpit stout && repitching w/diff yeast (Trever Miller)
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: Wed, 24 Nov 93 14:01:22 MST
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: Partial Mash
Partial Mash for Extract Brewers
To do a partial mash, the extract brewer has to do a small amount of tinkering,
and invest in a small amount of additional equipment. By doing this, the
brewer can learn the methods of mashing, get an idea of the time involved, and
see a difference in the beer, without having to make large investments in lots
of equipment. This procedure can be used to modify all-grain recipes which
include uniquely flavored grains, but that require mashing, including but not
limited to Belgian 2-row pale malt, vienna malt, munich malt, biscuit malt,
and victory malt. It also treats specialty grains such as crystal, chocolate,
etc. in a manner similar to the all-grain setup. The extract brewer can
substitute pale malt extract for most or all of the relatively large amount of
base pale malt (usually 2-row) and mash the rest of the grains, without
building or buying a large kettle, etc.
An easy setup involves a small (3-6 gallon) cooler of any shape. These are
found in almost any home and serve nicely as a small mash tun which will hold
liquid and grains at temperatures up to about 170F. An occasional use in this
manner will not harm it for later use as a cooler. In order to reclaim the
liquid in it, a simple manifold can be made from two feet of 3/8" soft copper
tubing. You can crimp the end of the tubing and drill some small holes in it
or cut a few notches in it with a hacksaw. The openings in the manifold
should face downward so that grain will not plug them up. Another choice would
be to clamp a small piece of stainless steel screening onto the end of the
uncrimped pipe. The type of manifold isn't critical, as it is the grain that
actually does the filtering. This lautering mechanism will pull the liquid out
of the grain using a siphon.
Remember that during mashing/sparging sanitation is unnecessary (although
general cleanliness is always a good idea) because the hot liquor goes
immediately into the kettle for boiling. The following equipment is
necessary; much of it is probably already used by the extract brewer:
Usually these are the only two items needed to purchase:
2' of soft copper tubing
tincture of iodine (optional)
Most extract brewers have these items around the house:
Small cooler
siphon hose
white plate (optional)
hydrometer
thermometer
kettle
fermenter
etc.
Diagrams:
SIMPLE MASHING SETUP
_____ siphon hose
____________/ \
| Mash & | \
| Lauter Tun | \
| (aka cooler | \
| & tubing) | \
|_____________| \
\
| \ |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Boiling |
| Kettle |
| |
|________________|
SIMPLE COPPER TUBING MANIFOLD
___
/ _ \ () (end of tubing, attach siphon hose here)
/ / \ \ / /
/ / \ \_/ /
/_/ \___/
TOP VIEW
__ ___
\-\ /-_-\ (note small slots or holes cut in the bottom surface)
\-\ /-/ \-\
\-\_/-/ --
\___/
BOTTOM VIEW
(end of tubing, attach siphon hose here)
_
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
,------------' /
|_|_|_|_|_|_|__/
(note small slots or holes cut in the bottom surface)
SIDE VIEW
Up-front work:
Bend the copper tubing (be careful not to kink it) into a shape similar to the
one shown above, keep the up-pipe below the cooler lid level so the lid will
close. The only reason for the funny bends are to allow the tubing to stand
up by itself while dumping in the grains, etc. You can do your own versions
of it and probably come up with something better (a partial loop comes to mind).
Put the copper tubing in the cooler to check the fit.
The mash:
Dump the crushed grains (have the homebrew shop crush them for you) on top of
the manifold. Add hot water per the recipe and "dough-in" the grain. This
involves making sure that all the big chunks of grain are all moistened. Check
the temperature and adjust with hot or cold water to get to the proper mash
temperature (usually 150-156F). The enzymes in the barley will handle short
durations of temperature extremes with no problems, so don't worry. Just make
sure you have a couple quarts of near boiling water and tap water ready to
adjust the temperature. When you hit your mash temperature, close the lid and
wait 30 minutes. Recheck the temperature (it is best to just leave the
thermometer in the mash) and adjust back up with hot water if it has dropped
more than 4 degrees. Wait another 30-60 minutes and do the iodine test if
desired. During the mash, you can be heating the sparge water so it will be
ready at the end of the mash.
The iodine test (optional):
With a clean spoon, stir the mash a bit and let settle for 5-10 minutes. Dip
some liquid (a spoonful is plenty) off the top of the mash and pour it onto a
clean white plate. Drop a drop of the iodine onto the mash liquor. If the
iodine changes black in any part, there is starch remaining and you should
continue the mash. If it remains the same red/brown color, starch conversion
is complete and you can continue. It is probably good to do this test at the
very beginning of the mash, just to see a positive starch test as a reference.
Then do it again after mashing; the starch test should be negative.
The mash-out / sparge:
Dump the ground specialty grains into the cooler. Then dump all the sparge
water at once into the cooler and stir the mash. Close the lid for a few
minutes to allow settling. Note that this is not a true mash-out because the
overall temperature of the mash doesn't rise very much due to the thermal mass
of the goods already in the cooler. Mash-out for the homebrewer is debatable
at best and it is not important for the beginning masher. Next open the
cooler, attach the siphon hose, and start a siphon by sucking on the hose or
any other convenient method. Remember, sanitation is not an issue at this
point because this liquid is heading for the boiling kettle. Drain off all
the liquid into your kettle. Note that it is best to have the kettle 2-3 feet
below the mash/lauter tun (cooler) so you can maintain a good strong siphon to
drain the liquor from the grains.
The rest is just like an extract brew. Add your extract and boil away. All
of these extra steps will take a couple of extra hours but it will give you
an idea of what all-grain brewing takes, and should increase the variety of
recipes available to brew. Best of all, it is easy and cheap!
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 9:40:23 MST
From: npyle@n33.stortek.com
Subject: Whining/Kegging FAQ/Starch test/Sanitizers
Pam Day writes:
>....... Why don't you all stop whining out inane opinions and get
>back on track and talk about brewing! Most of us out here seem to
>be seeking advice and are not out to stroke our own egos by flaming
>those we don't agree with. If you don't agree with someone, offer a
>polite, constructive and well-thought alternative. Enough mothering,
>let's get back to brewing.
Pam, seeking advice is fine, but you have to put up with the egos of the
advice givers. That's life. Deal with it. This forum is give and take
and it really frosts me when the only reason for a post is to flame/
counter-flame etc. Give something or take something, but don't whine
about it.
**
Tom Leith writes:
> I have begun work on a kegging FAQ and I will need a few knowledegable
contributors and reviewers to help me.
Whoa pardner! You might talk to Dion Hollenbeck and coordinate. He has been
doing the same thing for the past several weeks. Also, not to gripe (more
information is always welcome), but your FAQ looks more like a book. Sounds
great, though.
**
I would add one thing to Mark A's "iodine test on dark mash liquor" problem. I
always advise people to do an iodine test at the very beginning of the mash
(dark/light doesn't matter), as a reference. Then do it again at the end of
the mash. If you know what a positive starch test looks like, it is much
easier to determine a negative starch test. I still do this sometimes when
I'm bored.
**
Fisher writes:
>A good friend of mine works in the food processing industry, and he
>says that I should use hydrogen peroxide to sanitize, like the food
>pros do. Is this a good idea? I am not motivated to change, but he
>won't leave me alone without a rebuttal.
Tell him that there are any number of sanitizers that are perfectly acceptable
for homebrewing. Off the top of my head: bleach, iodophor, B-brite, boiling
water/steam, alcohol, many others. I think the Zymurgy Gadgets & Equipment
issue has a long article about them, but it has some wholes in it as well.
Bleach is probably the cheapest of them all, but they all have different
pros/cons.
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 22:36:00 EST
From: bobreg@aol.com
Subject: Alternative FAQ Formats
I recently downloaded the Yeast FAQ and found that it was chock full of great
info. However, I found it difficult to use as is, so I decided to create a
booklet out of it with PageMaker. In addition, I also created a Yeast FAQ
Windows Help File. The point of this post is to ask if anyone would find
either of these formats useful?
The booklet file is a HP Laserjet print file of about 93K compressed.
All that is needed to print a booklet on 8.5 X 14 paper (8 sheets) is DOS and
a HP Laserjet. It's a great way to distribute FAQ's to your friends and club
members.
The Windows Help file is about 60K and runs with Windows 3.1, although it
probably would run with 3.0 also. It's loaded with all of the nifty Windows
Help stuff.
The idea here is to create a Help File and Booklet for all of the other
homebrew FAQ's and then upload them to the archives, if there is enough
interest. IS THERE?
If anyone can assist me in getting in touch with the right people to arrange
for uploading at sierra.standford, I would appreciate it.
If you have any comments, email me at b_regent@holonet.net, or to
rec.crafts.brewing. (bob regent)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 21:28:47 PST
From: Mark Garetz <mgaretz@hoptech.com>
Subject: 200 IBUs/Grains of Paradise
Al Korzonas writes in response to my posting of a
historical reference that IPAs of the time had IBU
ratings of around 200!
My first reaction was that this can't be right! So
I went back and checked the reference that gave me the
2.47 ozs number (per five gallons) for dry hopping.
I recalled calculating the IBUs for the "ordinary home
ales" and came out with 52 IBUs based on 5% alpha hops
and 20% utilization and Rager's gravity adjustment. OG
of the ale was 1.080 and hopping rate was 8 lbs/quarter
of malt. It took 12 quarters to produce this strength
of beer, so 96 lbs of hops was used in 1900 gallons (US)
of wort.
But the same reference also states that "20 lbs per quarter
of the best hops shall be used" for ales and porters brewed
for the India government.
Assuming the same 5% alpha and OG of 1.080, this translates to
203 IBUs at 30% utilization (Rager's formula unmodified).
Using my more conservative utilization of 20%, we still get a
whopping (hopping?) 143 IBUs!
So Al is right (or close anyway). These musta been some beers!
Buffalo Bill Owens (who started the first US brewpub and coined
the term) brewed an ale called Alimony Ale, "the most bitter
brew in the world" but I never tried any (I've had the real
alimony, thank you). Has anyone ever brewed or tasted beer this
bitter? I think I'm going to add some iso alpha extract to
some Anchor Liberty and get it up to 150 IBUs to see what it
tastes like. I'll let you know if was actually palatable or
not.
BTW, in case anyone's interested, the reference I'm using is
The Manual of Brewing: Scientific and Technical by Egbert Grant
Hooper, 1891.
************************
Now I'll ask a question. In the recent Zymurgy, an article talks
about hop substitutes, as does Hooper in the aforementioned book.
Here's a quote (talking about hop substitutes): "Narcotic principles
are little used now except in very low neighborhoods. We have,
however, reason to fear that grains of paradise are still sometimes
employed with the object of increasing the intoxicating character
of the beer, and imparting a ficticious sense of strength."
What is (are) grains of paradise? I would have assumed opium of
some sort, but a previous sentence reads: "the substances which
at various times have been used to wholly or partialy replace
hops or intensify the bitter or narcotic character of the beer are
very numerous, and include gentian, quassia, aloes, marsh trefoil,
broom, wormwood, cocculus indicas, grains of paradise, opium,
tobacco, picric acid and strychnine."
Note that grains of paradise is listed separately from opium.
Clues anybody?
(Yes. Strychnine and picric acid. Don't try this at home kids.)
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 21:22:43 -0500
From: jeclark@ucdavis.edu (James Clark)
Subject: almost there
well, we bought our equipment today and will start brewing on friday (if i
can wait that long). we got a carboy for free from a friend and got a great
deal on the rest of our equipment. altogether, for everything but the
extract, it only cost us about $35!!
we are going to brew the "righteous real ale" in papazian's book.
i just had a few questions:
1) will 5 grams of dry english ale yeast be enough?
2) instead of the dried malt extract we are going to use bulk syrup. the
owner of the store where we bought everything brews a batch a week and said
that she has never had any problems with the bulk stuff. anyone out there
think it is a bad idea?
thanks a lot
- --james
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 11:17:31 -0400 (AST)
From: EKELLY@admin.stmarys.ca
Subject: brew belt problem
I am a very careful brewer and have been brewing successfully for
the last two years without incident. However, my last six batches
have been flops due to contamination. I have exhausted all avenues
and am getting very disgusted. I even sought advice on the net to
ensure my bottle washer is germ free.
I consulted a friend who is a microbiology lab technician and she
has the following theory about the use of brew belts. I have
purchased a brew belt 6 batches ago and coincidentally never had a
good batch since. I consulted a few brewers on the use of brew
belts and they said no problem and to look elsewhere for the
contamination source. I only use the brew belt for 12 to 24 hours
to start the fermentation since by basement is 60 degrees. She
claims that 75 degree wort is a good environment to permit yeast to
grow and overpower the small amount of nasties present in initial
wort. She claims all initial wort has a certain amount of nasties
due to the fact that it is next to impossible to be 100% sterile in
a home environment. She believes that the surface temperature of
the brew belt (100 degrees +/- 5) kills the yeast which is in the
general vicinity of the belt (1 to 2 inches). She claims that this
area which is void (or almost) of yeast is a natural incubator for
nasties which can grow rapidly at 100 degrees with little or no
yeast to worry about.
Any thoughts?
Ed
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 10:48:30 MST
From: "Mark B. Alston" <c-amb@math.utah.edu>
Subject: Re: Counterpressure Bottler Questions
>The way I used it is as follows: put contraption in bottle. Open
>gas valve (noise of gas filling bottle and equilibrating). Open valve for
>a while to purge bottle (noise of gas escaping from bottle). Close valve,
>close gas line, open beer line. Wait for beer to fill bottle under
>pressure. Remove contraption and cap immediately.
O.K. as I understand what you are doing, you are missing a step. Here
is the procedure as I am told. (Keep in mind that I have never done
this, only read about it--story of my life :)
1) open valve to CO2 to presurize bottle.
2) open bleed valve to purge bottle of air.
3) close bleed valve and repressurize bottle.
4) close valve to CO2 5) open liquid valve -- beer will not flow at
this point since the presures are equal
5) slowly open bleed valve. This will reduce the presure in the bottle
and allow the beer to fill it up.
6) When bottle is full: close liquid valve and remove counterflow
7) cap.
That should do it.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 11:23:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Cave <CAVE@PSC.ORG>
Subject: Error in Zymergy
When reading Ed Westemeier's article in zymergy about the old (as in
historical) English recipes, I noted that the extraction/efficiency rates
for these recipes are out of line. These are for 6 U.S. gal recipes.
For example, the Usher Stout:
18 oz pale malt.
6.5 oz carapils
4 oz black xstal
2 oz xstal
2 oz Amber
2 oz Brown
...This to produce 6 gals at 1.056 O.G. In this instance, I figure the recipe
is out by about a factor of 6 (i.e. the recipe is for 1 U.S. gallon). The
extraction rate would be about 32 points per pound per gal, which in itself
might be optimistic for yields of only 6 gal. I'm not sure about the hopping
but that might also be out by a factor of 6.
This logic does not seem to follow for the Whitbread porter:
2.5 lbs pale malt
7 oz brown
2.5 oz Black --- 1.060 O.G. 6 gallons
When I follow the logic for the Usher stout in this situation, I get 1.100+,
So....what gives?
I think Ed is on the digest so perhaps he could comment?
Jim Cave, Vancouver B.C. Canada. "In Heaven, there is no Beer
That's why we drink it here!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 16:58 CST
From: akcs.chrisc@vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli)
Subject: Jim Koch
I find it strange that there are people in this forum that judge a
man by the beer that he makes. Unfortunately, that's not how it's
supposed to work. You judge a man by his actions, deeds and the
way he treats others. Jim Koch is no exception. He should be
judged by his actions and not the beer that his company makes.
I think there are currently enough people out there who have been
sued or threatened with lawsuit by Koch to start a new forum. Call
it the lit.koch.sued.digest or something like that. This man is a
monster but unfortunately since I'm an atheist there is no hell for
him to burn in.
I remember years ago when the gay community waged their campaign
against Anita Bryant and her homophobic preachings. Remember?
Every time she went to speak in a public forum she would get a
cream pie in the face. Pictures of her with pie on her face got
more media attention than her message. Eventually she gave up. A
fiendishly effective tactic if you ask me.
chris campanelli
ps. I too choose to boycott Samuel Adams products.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 18:15:27 MDT
From: Trever Miller <amby@wooga.cuc.ab.ca>
Subject: Tarpit stout && repitching w/diff yeast
>Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 13:34:35 EST
>From: Keith MacNeal 24-Nov-1993 1323 <macneal@pate.enet.dec.com>
>Subject: [...] cleaning/changing yeast midstream
[...]
>In Homebrew Digest #1280 Trever Miller asks about repitching his Tarpit Stout
>with champagne yeast. My response is why? I brewed an Imperial Stout using
>only Irish Ale yeast from Wyeast. I didn't have any problems with it
>fermenting out.
My line of thinking was that there's a large amount of fermentables in
this batch, and I used the dry yeast packet that came with the kit.
I'm not sure if they'll be able to make full use of all the goodies...
I have had batches where the provided dry yeast didn't ferment anywhere
past approx 4%/vol, even though there was ample fermentables, and was
hoping to get somewhere between 8% and 10% with this batch.
Perhaps my paranoia is unwarranted, as for the past day or day and
a half the sounds coming from the primary are akin to a LARGE bowl of
rice crispies... I guess the yeast really likes it :-)
>
>Keith MacNeal
>Digital Equipment Corp.
>Hudson, MA
- --
millertr@cuug.ab.ca (Preferred) Snail Mail: #557, 918 - 16 Ave NW
or Calgary, Alberta T2M 0K3
ambush_bug@wooga.cuc.ab.ca
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1282, 11/26/93
*************************************
-------
