Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1436
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 94/05/30 00:40:15
HOMEBREW Digest #1436 Mon 30 May 1994
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Questions on fermentation (Melissa Schauder)
Re: #1(6) Homebrew Digest #1435 (May 28, 1994) (RSaletta)
cancel subscription (RSaletta)
Microbrewery Themes (Maj Don Staib )
Quick Connects (Wes Neuenschwander)
Ayinger Malts (Wes Neuenschwander)
Stout sweetener/mouth siphoning ("Glenace L. Melton")
Stirring the mash (Rich Larsen)
Re: #1(2) Homebrew Digest #14... (Montanoa)
Re: libel (Conan-the-Librarian)
The Coyote Lives on! Random notes...lalalala (COYOTE)
Kirin: First PRESS? (Phil Brushaber)
Zymurgy Magazine - Power Sparge (Phil Brushaber)
Help needed on ales (dkelsey)
Stirred Mashes (Geoff Scott)
MIXMASHER (Jack Schmidling)
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.
FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from
sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via
mail from listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 02:53:12 CDT
From: Melissa Schauder <S978660@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU>
Subject: Questions on fermentation
Well, at the risk of being told to invest more money to buy a book on home-
brewing, I'm going to go ahead and ask some questions here. (I've been reading
the list for about 3 weeks, waiting to see if anyone had any questions as
simple as mine are...)
So, I've brewed about 5 or 6 times now in the past 3 years - not a lot, I know.
I've got a plastic fermenter and that's it. No glass carboy, no hydrometer,
no secondary fermenter. Needless to say, I know that my homebrew will turn out
better should I have better equipment, but being a student, I just have never
made the investment. However, all of the batches have turned out pretty good,
except this last one I brewed in March. I was going for an earlier recipe I
used for a heavy/hearty Brown ale, yet this last one tastes more like Mich Dark
to me.
I assume that the temp was too cool during the fermentation process? Possibly
I needed to add more yeast? I pitched one packet, but I'm wondering if I
should pitch two? Will that help the body of the beer? Being an
experimentalist, I used:
3lb Amber Malt extract
1lb Crystal malt
1lb Chocolate Malt
1oz Cascade for boiling
1oz Williamette for finishing, and then 2 cups of corn sugar for priming;
Yet the beer is near flat and as light as Meiser Brau (Good God! I'm serious)
It fermented like crazy for about 2 1/2 days, then stopped. I let it sit for
another week, then primed and bottled. Like I said, short of telling me to
invest in more equipment, does anyone have any tips? Actually, if anyone knows
where I can buy some equipment cheap in the St. Louis region, or by mail, let
me know. I was also wondering if there is anyone in my area that brews, and
if so, where they get their supplies from.
(Has anyone else tried brewing with just one fermenter before?)
Thanks
===================================================================
melissa schauder s978660@umslvma.umsl.edu
**** in vino veritas... ****
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 08:48:29 PDT
From: RSaletta@eworld.com
Subject: Re: #1(6) Homebrew Digest #1435 (May 28, 1994)
please cancel subscription RSaletta@eWorld
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 08:49:35 PDT
From: RSaletta@eworld.com
Subject: cancel subscription
please cancel subscription RSaletta@eWorld.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 10:12:01 -0600
From: staib@oodis01.hill.af.mil (Maj Don Staib )
Subject: Microbrewery Themes
I'd be interested to hear about the various themes that microbreweries
out there have used in the promotion of their business. Here in
Ogden, Utah the new Ebenezers is in the largest log cabin structure in
the state, and perhaps anywhere.
Does anyone know if a ship theme is used anywhere? The themes surly
are vastly varied, you think?
Private or Digest replys are fine, thanks for your information:
The Braumeister in Layton, Utah
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 09:17:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Neuenschwander <wesn@eskimo.com>
Subject: Quick Connects
I've been using a slick alternative to the standard pneumatic airline
quick connects for several years now and am quite pleased with them:
Colder Products Company (CPC)
1-800-444-2474
Also, check the Yellow Pages under pneumatics or air compressors
They offer lots of options, but basically these are small, compact
plastic/stainless steel connectors, with or without automatic shut-offs
and available in threaded, hose barb, polytube and panel mount
connections. I've pretty much standardized on the PMC series - 1/8" flow
(that's the internal diameter of the fitting; tube and pipe sizes up to
1/4" are accomodated), delrin/stainless steel construction. In spite of
the small size I've found them to be rugged and reliable.
In addition to CO2 use they work very well for beer lines. In spite of
the small ID's the flow is good and turbulence/foaming minimal
(probably comparable to a ball-lock valve and fitting). They clean up
well and look clean and sanitary. Temperature rated to 180F (if you need
higher temps, and/or larger flows, they have other models available).
Cost is roughly comparable to quality pneumatic fittings, especially if
you consider that the hose barb (for tubing connection) is included:
About $5.00 for the valve body (with shut-off); about $ 1.50 for the insert
(without shut-off).
<< The usual disclaimers apply: I am in no way connected with CPC or any
of their distributors - I just like the stuff >>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: Wes Neuenschwander <wesn@eskimo.com>
Subject: Ayinger Malts
An inquiry was posted here recently regarding the smooth malty qualities
of German lagers, in particular the Ayinger beers (I share this
appreciation - in particular the Jarhundert Bier - wow!). Some
subsequent discussion focussed on use of various continental malts and
decoction mashing, both undoubtably steps in the right direction.
Personally, though, I'd say the malt is more important than the method;
I have yet to taste a really smooth, malty beer made with american
malts. For those interested in the real thing, Liberty Malt, 1418
Western Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 stocks a selection of the actual
Ayinger malts, including some really unique specialty malts. Definitely
pricey stuff - but still a lot cheaper than buying the beer (which
incidentally is imported by the same group). They also import the Crisp
Malting Co's Maris Otter english malts, which is used in their Pike Place
Brewing's ales (another subsidiary). Phone number is (206)622-1880.
(( Once again, I have no connection with the above firms - I just like
their products))
------------------------------
Date: 28 May 94 13:21:55 EDT
From: "Glenace L. Melton" <71242.2275@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Stout sweetener/mouth siphoning
I have not seen any reference to NutraSweet(R) Spoonful(TM) which could be
used to sweeten beer or stout. I have used it for three years to sweeten
coffee and I cannot detect any bitter or other aftertaste; I certainly do
not like saccharine for that reason. So I looked at the ingredients and
found that there are only two: Maltodextrine and aspartame; no saccharine,
no sodium, and no sucrose. There is phenylalanine (phenylketonurics
beware!) but I presume that comes with the aspartame. I have never tried
it in beer as sweet beer simply tastes like half-fermented wort to me and
I find it distasteful. However, the maltodextrine is a desirable
ingredient which is another reason to use Spoonful(TM) if that is what one
wants.
After nearly 60 years of involvement with homebrewing (at first, helping
my father during the Depression) I have "seen the light" and am no longer
going to start siphoning by mouth! Making my last brew, as I was more
than halfway through siphoning the cooled wort into the primary
fermentation vat, I had to re-start the siphon and received a mouthful of
very nasty hops and other gunk ("Trub" is too nice a word for it), and
reflexively spit it out into the vat. I immediately realized my mistake
but rather than throw the whole batch out I went ahead and pitched the
yeast and let it ferment. At bottling time it seemed OK but over after one
or two weeks every bottle has developed a distinctly sour taste. Probably
lactic acid fermentation. Anyway, now I'm looking for a good strong rubber
bulb to start the siphon. Actually, such a thing was readily available
back in the 30s as my father had one he used all the time. But I haven't
seen anything wuite like it for years.
[END]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 12:36:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Rich Larsen <richl@access1.speedway.net>
Subject: Stirring the mash
>Allen Ford <allen@darwin.sfbr.org> writes:
>
>The recent discussions concerning the construction of a motor-driven
>paddle for continuously stirring mashes has me wondering how the
>small-scale commercial brewers do it. I don't recall seeing any devices
>for mash-stirring in the tuns of any of the brewpubs or micros that I
>have visited. What is mash-stirring supposed to do for you? Is
>mash-stirring better suited to certain beer styles or grain types? Any
>comments on the advantages and/or disadvantages of stirred mashes for
>the small-scale commercial or home brewery would be appreciated.
I suspect that the main advantage of a constantly stirred mash will
be an elimination of hot/cold spots in the mash. This may lead to
a better extraction rate, or a least a more uniform conversion.
Additionally, I feel that by constantly churning the starch particles,
it is possible that, in theory, more starch will be exposed to the
enzymes, thus also increasing the extract efficiency. The down side to
this, also in theory, is that it may actually increase the likelyhood of
a starch haze. Unless of course, there is sufficient enzymes to convert
that which wouldn't have been converted in a conventional mash. Unless
the adjunct level is extreemly high, it may not be a problem.
My main concern would be the break up of the husks durring the mash. If
this happened, the possibility of a stuck run-off is real.
I guess we'll just have to wait for a report back from "The Paddle Masher"
for the results.
=> Rich
+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Rich Larsen (708)-388-3514 |
| The Blind Dog Brewery "HomeBrewPub", Midlothian, IL |
| (Not a commercial establishment) |
| E-mail to richl@access1.speedway.net |
| Also on HomeBrew University Midwest (708) 705-7263 |
| |
| "I never drink... Wine." Bela Lugosi as Dracula |
+-----------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 14:46:31 EDT
From: Montanoa@aol.com
Subject: Re: #1(2) Homebrew Digest #14...
OK, I finally giving in. My girlfriend has been after me to "brew a beer
that I like". Does anyone have any sugeestions for a light Ale--say like
Molson Golden. Thanks
Tony Montano
MONTANOA@AOL.COM
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 20:08:34 -0700
From: Don Put <dput@csulb.edu>
Subject: Motorized Mash Tun Revisited
Part One
WARNING: LONG POST ON MOTORIZED MASH TUNS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ ABOUT
MALTMILLS, SKIP THIS POST :-).
Allen Ford <allen@darwin.sfbr.org> writes:
>The recent discussions concerning the construction of a motor-driven
>paddle for continuously stirring mashes has me wondering how the
>small-scale commercial brewers do it. I don't recall seeing any devices
>for mash-stirring in the tuns of any of the brewpubs or micros that I
>have visited.
Hello, Alan, I'll see what I can do to answer your questions. As this is
new ground for me, I'll do my best. If someone more knowledgeable can
jump in, by all means, do so. If you read my original post carefully, you
will find that I said the "big boys" stir mashes; not only the rest mashes,
but also the cereal mashes. Now, I don't consider the microbrewers or
brewpubs to be the "big boys." If you do, then it's a semantical argument
at best. I have seen pictures of microbrewers holding canoe paddles,
though ;-)
Anyone out there been on the Anchor tour? It would seem a brewery
of this size would have some sort of mixing device for the mash tun. Perhaps
they do it with a careful mixing using a "Steel's" or "Maitland" type
water/grist "premasher" infusion unit. But I would imagine mashes that size
would need some help in reaching/maintaining an even temperature throughout
the grist. Hey, I could be wrong here, but I'd really like to know.
The "big boys" use: "The mashing vessel should be equipped with a mixer
which provides quick and uniform mixing with the gentlest possible action.
This is often described as a 'folding' action. In some mash mixer
installations, two separate and different mixing actions are provided by the
placement of baffles which shear the tangential flow of the mash somewhat
more severely during the initial mixing and then provide a more gentle
'folding' action for the combined mash." (_The_Practical_Brewer_, pg. 84).
There are also a few pictures showing said mixing device (fig 5-10b is a
good example).
And, under the heading "Decoction and Double-Mash Systems" in _Malting_and
Brewing_Science_:
"Mixing is completed by the large impellor present in the base of the
mash-mixing vessel operating at between 5 and 50 rev/min" (Volume 1, pg.
330). Figure 11.7, on page 331, illustrates this nicely.
Now, if you are doing single-step infusion mashes, then it really isn't a
necessity at all. In fact, on the homebrewing level, it is just an
exercise in technique, removing a somewhat ambiguous part of the mashing
procedure. Again, in my original post I said something like "you don't
need to do this to brew good beer . . . ." What I'm trying to introduce
here is something that may/may not be beneficial to our situation. I
know I get REALLY tired of stirring mashes for 20 gallon batches. And the
temperature variations are somewhat spectacular.
I have recently gotten into doing decoction mashes for my lager/pilsners and
I found that trying to stir while adding the decoction back to the rest mash
is a real pain in the ass. So, with that in mind, I started to envision a
mixing device for the homebrewer.
>What is mash-stirring supposed to do for you?
Without a doubt, a constant, mechanical mixing action, which doesn't
introduce air into the mash, will create a more uniform temperature/mix in
the mash than you can possibly hope to obtain with the old "hand jive"
method. You cannot, at least I couldn't, get the kind of consistency I
wanted to see in the mash. But, hey, I'm REALLY anal, and REALLY
compulsive, and I REALLY like to tinker. And I kept thinking about Fritz
Maytag's advice about the 10% he could control. I think one benefit of a
motorized mixing device, aside from the obvious benefit of more relaxation
time, is consistency. It sets up conditions that are repeatable from batch
to batch.
>Is mash-stirring better suited to certain beer styles or grain types?
I think it will work better for my decoction mashes and my multi-rest/
temperature controlled mashes. I have never done a single-step infusion mash,
and I don't ever plan to. But one thing I noticed on the maiden voyage (more
on that below), is it was a hell of a lot easier to add the grains without
the worry of "starch balls" or dry pockets of grain. This is not a problem
with two people, but I often brew alone (I hear a bit of George Thoroughgood
here ;-)
>Any comments on the advantages and/or disadvantages of stirred mashes for
>the small-scale commercial or home brewery would be appreciated.
Advantages are outlined above. Disadvantages: It's one more thing to
fabricate and it probably won't make your beer any better than what
you are currently producing. However, it might make repeatability more
likely, at least as it pertains to mash uniformity.
to be continued . . .
don
dput@csulb.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 20:13:37 -0700
From: Don Put <dput@csulb.edu>
Subject: Motorized Mash Tun Revisited
Part Two
Data: I just finished the trial run of the MONSTERMASHER(tm), or, if you
prefer, the LAZYMASHER(tm), and I'm convinced that I'll NEVER go back to
stirring my mashes by hand. The paddle design provided for a nice, slow
movement of the mash. During the protein rest, the mash moved very slowly
around the circumference of the tun while coming up the sides and down the
center. If you kept your eye on a specific piece of grain, it would make
its way from the edge to the middle in less time than it took to travel about
1/3 of the circumference. Now, as the mash thinned, the spinning action
became more pronounced, but it still only took about 1/2 - 3/4 of the
circumference for a grain to find its way from the edge to the middle. It
would seem that this phenomenon is why the mash stirrers referenced above
turn at "5-50" revolutions. Perhaps they slow them down when the mash thins
out. The mash held very steady at each rest temp (this is no doubt due in
part to the pilot lights I've installed on my burners) varying less than one
degree F. I also keep the motor running from mash-in to mash-out just to see
if I encounter any extra HSA down the road. All in all, I consider the test
an unequivocal success.
Paddle design: Unfortunately, ascii does not lend itself to reproducing the
angles I have on my paddles. The following is my best shot, not nearly to
scale:
||
|| The "open" areas are where I
Mash level -->|| removed surface area from the
|| paddle to facilitate less
|| rotational/spinning motion of
/||\ the mash.
My motor runs ccw, so / || \
these edges are bent / ________ \
in such a manner as --> / / open \ \
to draw the mash / /______________\ \
down the center / /------------------\ \
tube/shaft. / / open \ \ <---These edges are bent
/ /____________________________\ opposite to the other
|_________________________________\ ones, in such a way as
to force the mash up and
and towards the rounded
The bottom edge is bent bottom of the keg.
to conform to the keg bottom
with about 1/8" clearance.
In practice, you can see the mash "bump" up along the circumference as the
paddle passes beneath that certain portion during the mash-in/protein rest
stages. This becomes less/not noticeable after the mash thins.
Conclusions: Some of the movement of the mash is invariably due to the
whirlpool motion that is characteristic of this type of rotational movement.
OTOH, there is also a great deal of top to bottom mixing here that goes
beyond the normal whirlpool movement, especially at this relatively low
rpm. Some of the new clothes washers have abandoned the old "back and forth"
motion in favor of a continuous one-way direction of the agitator assembly.
I think it would be beneficial to see the angles that are molded in these
agitators and attempt to duplicate them. This, it seems, might be a way to
improve on the paddle design. But, like I said before, I am quite content
with the way this unit performs as is. Also, the Grainger catalog has
a few pictures of drum/barrel mixers that have the "ribbon" shape that I
attempted to duplicate with my design.
BTW, I gained about 1.5 pts. extraction efficiency using the mechanical
mixer. A few more tests using my standard recipes will verify if this is
just a fluke of the moment, or an actual advantage of the system. Hell, I
could always just throw in a bit more grain and forget the stirrer!
don
dput@csulb.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 06:15:07 -0700
From: pascal@netcom.com (Conan-the-Librarian)
Subject: Re: libel
"Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 10:58:45 -0700
From: Jim Doyle <jgdoyle@uci.edu>
Subject: libel
"The MM(tm) dude has crossed into the realm of libel now, and I am no
longer amused."
-=8=-
Hmm. A careful reading of articles on libel and slander will see that
there are a wide range of exceptions, such as when a statement is the
unqualified truth, or when it is news.
I refer you to your state's legal dictionary ( here in California it's
called _California Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition_, abbreviated _CalJur3d_
in references ) for the article that is guaranteed to exist, probably
_Libel And Slander_ ( check the index under 'libel', 'slander', and
'defamation' to be sure you get all relevant entries ).
-=8=-
Courts and lawyers can and will quibble and nitpick ad infinitum, but,
to cut to the quick, it all depends on three things.
(1) Whether the individual's current financial woes are
a consequence of JS's words ... or JS's words are a
consequence of the individual's financial woes.
(2) Whether the individual referred to, files suit.
Note that there are some difficulties documenting
the actual fact that JS was the author of this
particular document. Electronic mail is commonly
forged and JS has been the target of this before,
here on the Home Brew Digest, by people with what
can best be described as political/racial motives.
(3) How many corroborating suppliers JS brings to the
hearing to substantiate his statement, if, indeed,
it reaches court at all.
I guess there's a fourth factor, and that's if some lackey went running
to this person with a copy of this Digest, trying to stir up trouble.
( Of course, they may have as much trouble getting in touch with this
individual as others have reported having. :-)
That person may find themselves on the stand, explaining their motives.
(-:
Generally, although I have found that JS makes some startling statements,
he has rarely failed to substantiate it and has almost always provided
numbers and stuck to quantifiable events in his descriptions, disdaining
the subjective in favor of the specific.
-=8=-
"A prudent person would realize the affects of positive advertising far
outweigh the tactics I have been watching for the last week or two."
I agree with this ... Cool it, Jack. Let your detractors make fools of
themselves. Let the short-sighted buy Glatt mills. Your mills will still
be working well into the 21st century, at the very least - and you'll be
imitated, too, if I'm any judge of humanity. Good job, well done - relax.
- -- richard
Law : The science of assigning responsibility.
Politics : The art of _distributing_ responsibility.
richard childers san francisco, california pascal@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 10:10:23 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P@cc.usu.edu>
Subject: The Coyote Lives on! Random notes...lalalala
Greetings ya-all. Just read the most recent hbd- after trashing a couple
dozen. Sorry folks- I love all your words, but have not the time.
Good News is: We've closed on our house, and are owners, and landlords
for another two weeks before we can occupy. Ugh. But as an owner I can
work on the garden! Yes ...that means prepping the hop garden! I've tamed
part of the back jungle/yard and freed it of weeds, tilled in some peat moss,
steer manure, organic compost....and watered it down. Mulched with more peat
moss, found a big 'ol nasty piece of burlap, funny...just the size of the
rectangular plot I designated for the first two varieties. Someones on my
side up there! I love it when a plan falls together!
I also have three truck loads of wood chips to spread around.
I started planting my perennial herb garden too. Bit by bit...I'll get it
together. (PS: Got the chips from the dump..for free. Worth checking on!)
Next step is to erect my poles. I'll be getting some cheap pine logs -
probably 20-25 feet tall (under $10) and have the bases coated with some
kind of gooey- rot resisting goop. Then I'll dig holes at least 2 feet deep,
fill with some post mix, and plog 'em in. I will have a pulley (or two)
at the top for the ropes so I can lower the vines for harvest. That way
I won't be climbing up a BIG ladder I don't have!
I've got three new rhizomes in pots anxiously awaiting the move. One of them
(N. brewer) is chest high now. I've managed to get successful cuttings of
all my other four varieties growing in pots. Depending on how they do,
I may or may not bother to come back for rhizomes from the originals.
I noticed my first burs (first sign of flowering) the other day. The cascade
is tall- bushy and healthy looking. It's about 15 or 20 feet tall now.
The other varieties (Mnt. Hood, Chinook, Perle) are not doing as well.
They are all less shorter and weeker looking. I'm guessing it must be a soil
thing. THe chinook was week last year, and is week this year. A friends is
quite the opposite. Tall and healthy. THICK stems. Ah well. So I'm being
sure to supplement the soil properly in the new locale before things go in
the ground. My tenant/neighbor got some of the cascade cutting rooted, and
planted them along a 6 foot high fence next to the high school parking lot.
WIth any luck they'll become a thriving privacy barrier (and producer?!)
before too long.
Oh- other good news from Smithfield...seems I do have three grape vines alive.
THe owners didn't like them, tried to kill them off...just ignore them...BUT
they live on. Now I just have to move them from what will become a dog run!
What with house painting, roofing, yard work....etc...I haven't been able
(time wise- physically....) to brew in a few weeks. It's just awful! I even
had some scotch ale yeasts all grown up and ready to go! Terrible!
Maybe I'll do that monday. I just got 5 kegs filled with the brews which
had been lagering for weeks (whether they needed it or not!). So don't worry
- I'm not beer-less!!!!
Sounds like things have been interesting around here. Gee- should I go back
through the past issues and grep for the MM debate/discussion????? Nah.
I've got bar-b-q-ing and beer drinking to do today! Priorities ya know.
Finally: Elaine and I have selected a place for our wedding. A spiffy Old
Rock Church in the area- no longer a church- just a place for weddings.
But what with all the wierd liquor laws around here, I don't think I'll be
able to serve beer (homebrew) or my mead I've kegged for the occasion.
Now I have to decide whether to sneak it in, or leave it in the back of
my pickup outside!!! It's in soda kegs, so maybe I'll just tell em we're
having soda on tap, and hope the don't notice the big head on the pepsi!
But the important thing is: on July 23rd I'll become
Mr. John Wyllie. Oh wait, I've always been that. Well, you can figure it out!
Good Brews to you all. Keep the fires burning! But stick 'em under your
brew pots! That way they do some GOOD!
the Hop- along- Coyote John Wyllie SLK6P@cc.usu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 09:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Brushaber <pbrush@netcom.com>
Subject: Kirin: First PRESS?
Havn't seen anything bout this subject on recent HBD's so I thought I
would bring it up.... For the last few weeks Kirin "Ichiban" has been
buying up a lot of Dallas radio time talking about how their beer is
superior.
They go on at length about how other beers do a first press and then a
second and third press. Blending that horrible old second and third press
with the first press. Only Kirin uses the superior frist press in THEIR
beers.
Er.... What's all this PRESS stuff? Who presses grain? And if that
process is so swell, why aren't WE doing it? Sounds to me like a claim
that makes wonderful ad copy, but is really stupid in practice.
Comments?
Phil Brushaber
Media Driector
DDB/Needham Worldwide
pbrush@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: Phil Brushaber <pbrush@netcom.com>
Subject: Zymurgy Magazine - Power Sparge
In the recent issue of Zymurgy magazine there is an aricle in their new
"gadgets section" about building a power sparger using Cornelius kegs and
Co2. Looks neat, but requires considerable construction.
Has anyone tried something like this? Does it work?
pbrush@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 13:01:31 PDT
From: dkelsey@kda.pdial.interpath.net
Subject: Help needed on ales
I am a neophyte about to brew his fifth batch. The first four were
all good but not what I'm striving for. I would appreciate some
guidance on how to achieve the following objectives:
1) An ale, somewhere between a brown ale and strong Scottish ale
2) Full-bodied as possible/reasonable
3) Sweeter than a mild ale, but not too sweet
4) Don't want a "nutty" character like Newcastle
5) Minimal "bitter" aftertaste or none at all
6) Don't like black patent malt or "toasted" flavor to ale
7) Will use malt extracts
8) Suspect I would really like lagers but don't have the facilities
to brew them.
I have read Papazian's book, but still need help.
Also, if anyone has a recipe that would reasonably duplicate the
cream ale brewed and confined to historic Williamsburg Virginia,
I would greatly appreciate that as well.
Thanks in advance!
David Kelsey
dkelsey@kda.pdial.interpath.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:55 WET DST
From: gscott@io.org (Geoff Scott)
Subject: Stirred Mashes
Allen Ford asks about mash stirring in small scale commercial
brewing. Amongst the micros and brewpubs that I have visited here
in Ontario there seems to be a division between the single
temperature infusion mashers which seem to be more influenced by
British practice, and the step mashers which seem to be more
continentally influenced. As long as the grist is doughed in
without dry pockets there is no need to stir the mash if you are
doing single temperature infusion mashing. On the other hand, if
you are step mashing you need to stir to evenly distribute the
heat. A friend of mine is a brewer at Upper Canada Brewing, a
Toronto micro. They step mash with a fairly thin mash that is
constantly stirred. The mash is heated by steam jackets around
the sides and bottom of the tun. Without stirring, the mash would
be scorched around the edges and too cold in the centre.
regards,
Geoff Scott
gscott@io.org
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:09 CDT
From: arf@mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: MIXMASHER
>From: Allen Ford <allen@darwin.sfbr.org>
>Subject: Stirred mashes
> What is mash-stirring supposed to do for you?
For mashing (either infusion with hot water or fired kettle mashing) to work
efficiently, the entire mash must be at some/several known temperature/s for
some periods of time. The only way this can be achieved is by stiring the
mash to distribute the heat. This is less of a problem in the insulated
cooler mash system but a real necessity in kettle mashing.
>Jack S. writes:
>>I have the additional problem of needing to keep clear of the EASYMASHER
and this may preclude it from working at all.
>With a false bottom, you would not have this problem. The dinosaur raises
its ugly head.
This is about as well thought out as your comments on the "other" JSP product
we had a bit of a discussion on. One might get the idea that it is me rather
than the issue that turns your crank. It is a bit like saying because one
can not turn lead into gold with an easymasher, it could obviously be done
with a false bottom.
Fact is, the false bottom can not be used at all in a fired kettle no matter
how much one stirs because of the water under it. This quickly becomes steam
and causes no end of problems. The possibility that an easymasher might work
with a motorized stirrer, is a potential bonus.
Turns out, that after several attempts, I was able to sucessfully mash with
an EASYMASHER (tm) and the motorized stirrer this weekend. The MIXMASHER(tm)
is born and the long wooden spoon can be used to feed baby dinosaurs.
I will post an article on the approach I used, but basically it is a 33 RPM
gearmotor with a 12" shaft and a 10" fan blade at the end. It straddles the
ketttle and looks a lot like the typical ice cream freezer. The motor is
reversable so I can either lift from the bottom or push from the top. The
latter seems to be the most effective.
Although, it requires some attention and monitoring, the tedium of stirring
is a thing of the past and the temperature variation throughout the mash is
much more consistant than the occassional stirring previously used.
What (if any) problems are created by HSA will have to await tasting.
>From: haist@cogsci.UCSD.EDU (Frank Haist)
>Subject: extraction efficiency (?)
>I've been using an EASYMASHER installed in my 33-qt kettle with single temp
mash at 152-154 F for typically an hour of so.
Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the program or the equipment so it
could be how you measure it or the malt.
My first suggestion is to use D-K malt and run another test. I never get
less than 30 using this malt and have used no other since I found it. If you
still get the same numbers, I would suspect your measurement approach.
The most straightforward way to measure extract is to measure the volume and
gravity of the collected sweet wort and use this in your calculations. It
eliminates many other variables that only confuse and fuzz the results.
If you still get 25 pts, buy a Glatt and a Listerman false bottom.
>From: Jim Doyle <jgdoyle@uci.edu>
>Subject: libel
>The MM(tm) dude has crossed into the realm of libel now, and I am no longer
amused. I (and I doubt I am alone) will not buy any product from NorthEast
Brew Supply or Kerry Brown as a direct result of Jack Schmidling's post.
Sorry but calling a thief a thief is not libel. He will have to send me a
check before he can sue me. Furthermore, the company is now defunct and
inspite of my evil thoughts, I was kind enough not to disparage him publicly
until all hope that he was really decent was lost. I gave him a year to make
good during which time I could have forced it out of him but now that I
played the nice guy, I can do nothing but bitch.
>Also, I will not buy any JS products (contrary to prior posting) because I
am not in the habit of dealing with or promoting companies who blatently
trash their competition and admit to withholding one person's pre-payment
to pay another person's debts.
It was a bluff and aparently, a good one. If he is not the same person or
entity, he would not have rolled over and played possim.
js
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1436, 05/30/94
*************************************
-------
