Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1845
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/09/30 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1845 Sat 30 September 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Acidic porter & stout (obgcgb)
Mash Temp Distribution ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
Re: Heat Source (IHomeBrew)
Uneven heat~=decoction?/spit test (Brian Pickerill)
Re: Hop Util/Grain Conversion/Force Carbonating (Jim Dipalma)
Cutting Glass Tubing (BixMeister)
racist email (Eric Palmer)
Hoegaarden Witbier yeast ("Mark C. Smith")
Hop Util/Keg dispensing (Algis R Korzonas)
chiller design (Joseph.Fleming)
Stove conversion (prestons_pub)
Having Safe Gruit (Fred Hardy)
A little hop news (Norman C. Pyle)
Cigars & beer (kit.anderson)
RIMS=decoction? / amylase / Prohibition ("Keith Royster")
Re: Temp distribution in mashing (hollen)
Drinking age, brief note. (Russell Mast)
Drinking age (Bryan L. Gros)
Woodchuck or Woodpecker cider recipes (AGNORCB)
Re: Natural Gas Burners (Gary McCarthy)
Terminology: Infusion Mash (Kirk R Fleming)
age & homebrewing (Alan P. Van Dyke)
Thanks & Fermentation Chiller Plans (KennyEddy)
Glucan and Wheat.. (Mario Robaina)
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.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@hpfcmgw.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.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:29:06 -0600
From: obgcgb@ttuhsc.edu
Subject: Acidic porter & stout
Hey HBer's,
Made a porter from a kit (old English porter), and a Russian Imperial Stout
from a kit, both went well in the boiling, cooling , fermentation, pitching,
and racking process.
The first was made about 2.5 months ago (porter). Boiled it for 45
minutes, added no extra hops. Used Wyeast British ale yeast to pitch at 70
degrees F. One week in primary, one week in glass secondary. Target O.G.
was fine. Tasted great at bottling, using 3/4 cup corn sugar to prime.
When tasted two weeks later to check carbonation (left at 70 degrees in dark
room for two weeks following bottling) had a very strong acidic (not
vinigary) taste. After reading a few notes on how porters and stouts
improve with age, and are sometimes undrinkable at first, I put this batch
in my 20.8 cuft. freezer with temp controller at 45 degrees.
Stout was made a little more than a month ago, boiled 45 minutes, no
extra hops, Wyeast Irish Ale yeast at 70 degrees. One week in primary, one
week in secondary, good target O.G., 3/4 cup corn sugar to prime, also
tasted very good at bottling time. Two weeks later to check carbonation,
tasted good. Put down at 45 degrees, and one week later has same acid taste
of porter.
The porter now is very slightly lower in the acid taste, but still acid.
Suspecting some sort of bacterial or wild yeast infection during bottling, I
took a bottle of both to our lab folks here at the med school for analysis.
Nothing grew but pure strains of the yeast used to ferment.
Used bottled water with pH of 7.0 to make, porter was bottled in 12 oz bar
bottles, well cleaned in clorox solution, and rinsed many times by hand,
then put in dishwasher, sans soap or anything else, and cycled through with
hot drying 3 times.
Stout bottled in 16 oz. new bottles, but were cleaned in dishwasher using
cycle with hot dry 3 times.
Any suggestions on what the cause is, or should I relax, drink another
variety of my homebrew, and let them keep sitting in the cooler a while?
Don't know their exact final pH, didn't think about that until today, will
bring in another sample and have our lab test.
Photius+
It's fear, not beer that makes men old!
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 12:31:00 MST
From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR@afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil>
Subject: Mash Temp Distribution
Ken Schroeder (kens@lan.nsc.com) questioned the importance, yea,
even the attractiveness of even mash temperatures, and solicited
opinions on the matter. Not being one to hold back an opinion on
*any* topic...
First, I want absolute repeatability in the system, to the extent
I can afford it. For mash temperature I want to mash at 152F, not
154F or 150F, and I want to subsequently brew that "same" beer at
150F and know that for any infinitesimal mash volume dV, it saw 150F
for 99.9% of its mash 'lifetime'. This kind of control will answer
the question about how noticeable a 2F difference in mash temp
really is. I really want to know, and I want to use the information.
Before you burst an internal organ with laughter, yes, I agree, this
seems absurd in view of all the other variables in the process. But,
I'm more or less convinced *this* variable is one of only a few
truly critical ones. If it doesn't take too much effort to eliminate
it, it doesn't matter if it's really critical or not--it's been
eliminated from the equation.
Second, it frustrates me when, just as I've learned how to control
the mash temp for Product A, I brew Product B and have to relearn the
system all over again due to different mash temps, grain bills,
volumes, and so on. I simply get tired of it.
On the the issue of temperature distribution, Ken questioned how
important it really is. My view is a little different here--even
distribution is, in one sense, not really the goal as such. What I
want is 1) the repeatability I mentioned earlier, 2) a guarantee
of no temp overshoot, and 3) a reasonable temp ramp-up to setpoint.
A static mash heated in any conventional way simply doesn't conduct
heat very rapidly. Any temp measurements made represent very local
temps (VERY local), and to avoid extremely long heating times the
mash at the heat source will have to be seriously overheated (that's
called a decoction) relative to the mash far from the heat source.
So, one solution is to stir the mash--fair enough. You either can
stir continuously or stir "often enough" and accept the resulting
gradients. This allows you to meet all 3 requirements above, *with
practice*. Impulse heating as opposed to continuous heat input) is
almost always required, am I right? This adds to the excitement
during the session.
Recirulating is just another way to meet [my] 3 requirements. With
the proper level of recirculation, overshoot can easily be eliminated
(with or without microprocessor control), and you get the added
attraction of a nicely set grain bed. The Real Benefit it that when
I read the temperature of the wort, I know I'm reading the temperature
of the the wort, the whole wort, and nothing but the wort. The even
temperature distribution is hopefully a *consequence*, then.
NOTE: Uniform temperatures in the mash is NOT guaranteed simply with
recirculation! The steady state flow through the grain bed can have
myriad character; it's easy to imagine almost no flow near the wall of
the tank, with a consequent temp gradient from high flow regions to
low flow regions. The Channeling Bogeyman. Tun insulation and wort
distribution then are design considerations.
KRF Colorado Springs
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:46:18 -0400
From: IHomeBrew@aol.com
Subject: Re: Heat Source
In response to Herb's questions about brewing with propane in the basement, I
too, brew in my basement and I use a propane stove. I looked around at a lot
of different stoves before purchasing one and what I found were big
differences in stove quality. I ended up purchasing a Supreme (can be found
at the East Coast Brewing Supply,
http://virtumall.com/EastCoastBrewing/ECBMain.html) and I'm confident that I
made the right decision. One reason is efficiency. I've made seven batches
(all-grain) and my propane tank (which was $20 to purchase and only $7 to
fill) is only about half empty. It also has very nice flame control. I
don't have the all-or-none blow torch effect like the King Kooker has (which
is cheap & inefficient). Third, I can use it indoors. I checked with
several sources before making my purchase and basically all sources told me
that propane stoves are NOT to be used indoors. The Supreme, however, IS
usable indoors provided good ventalation. I brew in a medium sized room in
my basement with one window open and a fan in the room to keep air crculating
and I have never had any problems. Brewing all-grain requires you to boil
all of the wort (usually starting with 6-7 gallons for a 5 gallon batch) and
on the electric stove in my kitchen, it would take forever to boil that much
wort. My Supreme boils 7 gallons in about 20 minutes. Because I live in a
wet climate (Tacoma, WA), brewing outdoors is not really an option 9 months
out of the year.
Also, I also use a modified keg for boiling, which is exceptionally nice
because not only does it have a wonderful ball valve and such, it has a
curved bottom (which keeps the flame focused instead of wrapping around the
sides) and I can keep 10 gallons of wort at a full-tilt boil and never worry
about it boiling over.
Hope that helps... CDR
------------------------------
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: Uneven heat~=decoction?/spit test
kens@lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder) comments on the RIMS/uneven heating thread:
>My wife and I both believe that the uneveness (especically when heating)of
>our system and proceedures actually help create beers full of different
>characters. It hard to describe in words, but dry and sweet, full bodied but
>not thick and other apparent contridictions. I question the need for
>"eveness" in the brewing process. This is an opinion, others will have
>different opinions. Let's hear them. This is why brewing is an art AND a
>science!
Which makes me wonder if the extra heating on the bottom of the mash/lauter
wouldn't be rather like a decoction. We know that the enzymes in the
decocted mash are deactivated, yet there are plenty left in the rest of the
mash. Could this be a case of RDWHAHB? I'm no expert but it sounds like
it to me.
- -----------
Carl Etnier <Carl.Etnier@abc.se> comments on his spit testing...
>'Course, the bottle, cap, etc.
>is all per usual procedure, but I'm counting on some difference in
>taste, carbonation, etc. from my filthy spit.
Guinness clone, perhaps? ;-) I can understand why you haven't drank this
yet. ;-)
- --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Muncie, IN
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 11:24:17 EDT
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: Re: Hop Util/Grain Conversion/Force Carbonating
Hi All,
In HBD#1843, KennyEddy@aol.com posts some good, thoughtful questions.
>(1) Hop Utilization: Everybody seems to have different formulae for hop
>utilization.
All of these formulae are designed to just get you in the ballpark. There
are far too many factors (kettle geometry, water chemistry, yeast strain,
the list goes on and on) that vary from brewery to brewery for any single
formula to accurately take into account.
If I may make a suggestion, use Rager's formula and utilization factors
from the Zymurgy special issue on hops, they will get you close. Keep careful
notes on your hop additions, ie, how much of what type of hop at what AA
rating, and when it was added to the boil. When the beer is fully matured,
taste it, and make notes on whether the hop bitterness/flavor is too much/too
little/just right. This is how you can compensate for those factors I mentioned
above that are peculiar to your brewery and brewing procedures. After a
couple of passes and some tweaking, you should have it nailed.
Personally, I use Rager's formula with slighlty lower utilization factors,
ie, 25% for a 60 minute boil. I arrived at this by comparing my brews to
commercial brews with known IBU ratings. Once I was getting comparable levels
of bitterness and thus a known IBU level, I did some algebraic extrapolation
on Rager's formula, and solved for the only remaining unknown term, the
utilization factor. I use this derived figure when designing new recipes, it's
worked well for me, I haven't brewed an underhopped or overhopped beer in
years. YMMV.
>(2) Grain Conversion:
>Fine. But: how much of that OG is actually fermentable?
> A program like SUDS lists a variety of grains and their OG potential, but
>assumes that the resulting OG is fully fermentable (and also assumes that 75%
>is converted to alcohol [75% apparent attenuation]). What is needed is a
>chart that shows not only potential extract but also *percent
>fermentablilty*.
Percent fermentablility is determined to a large extent by your mashing
schedule. Mash at the higher end of the sacc. rest range, say 158F, and you'll
get more dextrins, and a less fermentable wort. Mash at the lower end, say
150F, and you'll get more simple sugars, and a more fermentable wort. Mash
schedule is another factor that is too highly variable for a piece of
software or a malt spec sheet to take into account.
If you're starting to get the idea that there are a lot of variables in
brewing that make it as much an art form as it is a science, then you're
starting to get the idea. :-)
>On sorta the same topic, I would think that roasting grains would destroy
>some to all of the starch's conversion capability, yet I see malts like
>chocolate or even black patent listed with extractions not much different
>that pale malts.
The roasting does destroy the enzymes, but some starch is still there. If
you mash these grains along with a high-enzyme malt such as pils, pale, or
lager malt, you will still get some contribution to OG from these malts.
>The stock answer I get for these questions is "well, we
>don't use a high percentage of these grains so we just ignore those effects".
Unless I'm brewing a porter or stout, I use small percentages of dark malts,
always add them at mashout, and just ignore their OG contribution. :-)
>(3) Force Carbonation: Now that I'm kegging, I'm enjoying the convenience of
>sediment-free beer-on-demand.
I started kegging 3 years ago, I will *NEVER* go back to bottling.
>Now I suspect two things should be happening here.
>One, the free CO2 will reduce in pressure due to the cooling temperatures.
True.
>Two, the cooling beer would allow more CO2 to dissolve in (or would it...?).
Yes. Solubility of CO2 is inversely proportional to temperature. The cooler
the liquid, the more CO2 will dissolve in it.
>But I should end up with a pressure at final temperature euqla to that in
>the chart for the same CO2 volume I was originally after. Right?
Uh, guessing here, but I think that would depend on whether the solubility
to temperature relationship is linear or not, I suspect not. If you have the
temperature/volume tables, it's easy to check. I don't have the tables in
front of me here either.
FWIW, what I do is put about 40 psi on right after racking, then place the
keg in my dispensing fridge. After the first day, I adjust the regulator for
the desired level of carbonation, and add gas to the keg twice a day. After
a couple of days, very little gas tranfers as the pressure inside the keg
reaches equilibrium for the temperature (I keep my dispensing fridge at 45F).
At that point, the beer has the desired level of carbonation.
>Next question: So assume I have my beer wonderfully carbonated at 2.5
>volumes and 38 degrees. Now, I don't have the tables in front of me but I
>think this means about 12 psi. Whatever. But my serving pressure is
>necessarily 8 psi (to prevent beer-face). So-o-o-o, wouldn't the beer try to
>reach equilibrium by "flattening" out to the equivalent 8psi/38 degree volume
>level? If so, how does one maintain these carbonation levels without spewing
>beer all the way to the neighbor's house?
You need to balance your dispensing pressure with the total pressure drop
in your dispensing system. I've found that I need to keep ~12 psi on the keg
in order for the large oring to form a tight seal. I use 3.5 feet of the
3/16" beverage tubing, which drops about 3 psi/ft. There's another 1 psi
drop across the hose connect, yet another 1 across the cobra tap, total of
12 psi drop. When dispensing, open the tap all the way, and pour the beer
down the side of the glass.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 19:17:06 -0400
From: BixMeister@aol.com
Subject: Cutting Glass Tubing
Can someone using the Digest suggest how I might cleanly cut borosilicate or
pyrex glass tubing. I need to cut 4 feet of this tubing into 3 sections of
16 inches for construction of sight glasses for brewing vessels. Will a
tubing cutter work for scoring the tubing?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 21:03:13 PDT
From: palmer@San-Jose.ate.slb.com (Eric Palmer)
Subject: racist email
In #1843, Dave Bradley wondered how the sender of this garbage email
some of us received got our addresses. Since anyone can subscribe
to the HBD, perhaps he/she/they simply did likewise, with no real
interist in home brewing but simply as a means of collecting
email addresses. Given the number of BB's on the internet, it
is a creative way to reach a large audiance with a message that
is unacceptable to the mainstream media.
If and when the internet ever becomes regulated, it's wackos like
this who will have helped bring it about.
Perhaps if it's possible to actually determine the source email
addr., a large enough group of people could jam it with reply
mail to create a real problem for them.
Eric
ps: this is my last HBD posting not directly related to making beer.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 21:39:56 -0700
From: "Mark C. Smith" <mcsmith@mailhost.hooked.net>
Subject: Hoegaarden Witbier yeast
Hello out there,
I just had a friend come back from Belgium with a fresh 6 pack
of Hoegaarden Witbier (oh boy!). This is a good example of a
Belgian Wit beer. Pale, cloudy, light body with a sour note.
Nice yeast flavor with mild
clove and citrus flavor. This is a bottle conditioned beer so
as soon as I got the beer I cultivated the yeast with good
success. I brew alot of Witbier so when I transferred the
yeast to the next step I was eager to smell and taste the
yeast. I am not convinced that this is the primary yeast. It
smells clean and all that, but does not have the character that
I expect out of a Witbier yeast. I know that many breweries
use a dirrerent yeast to condition there beer than what they
use for primary fermentation so people like me ca'nt steal
there prized yeast. Does anyone out there know if this is the
case with Hoegaarden? If you know will you tell me?:) I'm
going to plate it out to have a look and do some test's with my
next batch, but maby someone out there could give me some of
there observations and knowledge. TIA
Yeast is
rowdy
mcsmith@hooked.com Mark C. Smith
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 13:30:55 CDT
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Hop Util/Keg dispensing
KennyEddy wrote:
>(1) Hop Utilization: Everybody seems to have different formulae for hop
>utilization. Considering how we homebrewers concern ourselves with getting
>just the right color numbers and gravities and worrying about extraction
>efficiency, it's odd that hop utilization is such an inexact science. I have
>read Glen Tinseth's paper on utilization and find it convincing but if I
>compare his curves with say Mosher versus Papazian versus Gareth versus
>Rager...you get the picture. Using these various gurus' approaches sometimes
>leads to IBUs off by dozens of percent from one to another! Who's right (or
>at least in current favor)?
For *my* system, based upon tests run at the Seibel Institute, I must say
that Rager's formulas work for me. Here's my current system:
10 gallon Polar SS pot
pelletized hops
hops stored cold, purchased in CO2-purged, oxygen-barrier bags
12,000 btu natural gas stovetop burner
nylon hop bags used (one for each addition)
add 10% to the numbers I get from Rager's formulas to account for the hop bags
add 10% more to the numbers I get from Rager's formulas when I use whole hops
for 5 gal all-grain batches, add the 60 min hops when there's 6.5 gal left
for extract batches, add the 60 min hops after a 10 minute boil w/o hops
This works for me. Since it does, for *MY* system, Mosher's and Tinseth's
formulas would give me beer with slightly higher IBUs than expected (I have
not looked at Papazian's formulas in a long time, but I believe they are
based upon Rager's) and Garetz's formulas would give me beer with 50 to 60%
higher IBUs than expected. I've heard from a few homebrewers via private
email who have tried Garetz's formulas and have found them to make beer that
has *much* more bitterness than expected.
***
>Next question: So assume I have my beer wonderfully carbonated at 2.5
>volumes and 38 degrees. Now, I don't have the tables in front of me but I
>think this means about 12 psi. Whatever. But my serving pressure is
>necessarily 8 psi (to prevent beer-face). So-o-o-o, wouldn't the beer try to
>reach equilibrium by "flattening" out to the equivalent 8psi/38 degree volume
>level? If so, how does one maintain these carbonation levels without spewing
>beer all the way to the neighbor's house?
Don't reduce the pressure for dispensing. The key to dispensing at the
right pressure is selecting the proper length and ID beer hose. I've
found 6 feet of 1/4" ID vinyl hose and a standard, black cobra faucet to work
well for 12psi. If you are still getting too much foam at the faucet, make
sure the faucet is clean and that you open it all the way. If you still have
foam city, then try 7 feet of hose or 8 feet...
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 08:48:36 est
From: Joseph.Fleming@gsa.gov
Subject: chiller design
Kenneth K Goodrow writes about a chiller design. One note: do yourself
a favor and instead of using hose clamps, use a copper tube union for the
plastic hose to copper connection. The size will be 3/8" to whatever the
OD of your 3/8" ID plastic hose is (5/8"? Can't recall...).
Joe - joseph.fleming@gsa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:16:12 EDT
From: prestons_pub@e-mail.com
Subject: Stove conversion
THIS IS A CORRUPT DOCUMENT - FOLLOW RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY
Subject: Stove conversion
Hi all. I have the opportunity to buy a small cottage type natural gas
type stove, with two generous size burners on top and an oven. My
question is: Is it feasible to convert from N.G. to propane? Would I
have to change the burners, or would the small ports on the current
burner work? I plan on putting it in my garage as part of my planned
home brewer, with plenty of ventilation of course. TIA
"FERMENTATION AND SEE YA.................MIKE
CIVILIZATION ARE PHONE (313)24-89512
INSEPARABLE." FAX (313)32-21253
E-MAIL USFMC6TM@IBMMAIL.COM
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:57:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh@access.digex.net>
Subject: Having Safe Gruit
Herbs and spices were a standard additive to English Medieval
ales and meads through the 15th century. Use your imagination if
you would like to try to reproduce some of these drinks. Try
herbs and flowers, both fresh and dried, to make your brew
interesting, different and delicious.
A word of caution. Because a flower or herb smells wonderful
doesn't mean it is harmless if ingested. If you do not know the
make and model of a plant, take it to the county agent for
identification. Like with wild mushroom, do not guess!
Once identified, check the plant for possible toxic effects. An
excellent source is The Herb Book, by John Lust. It is available
at most book stores and is $6.99 (list) in paperback. This
text tells you the history, effects, toxicity, and instructions
on amounts to use to make a tea of the herb. A good investment!
Cheers, Fred
==============================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will | <Fred Hardy>
happen to us and we will not like it. |
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh@access.digex.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 8:35:21 MDT
From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle@hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM>
Subject: A little hop news
I was corresponding with Mark Kellums at Just Hops and received the following,
FYI:
>This year should be very exciting. We are planning on adding many more
>varieties.
>From the U.K. Phoenix, Admiral, and maybe Pioneer, First Gold, and Herald.
>From Germany we are expecting Tettnang, Hallertau Hallertauer, and
>Brewers Gold. All these are in addition to what we are already
>carrying. On these domestic front we will be adding Galena, Columbus, and
>hopefully an experimental VGXPO1. This is a new Cascade variety. Who knows
>what else we might carry!
Looks like the Hops FAQ is going to need another revision! I have no
financial interest in Just Hops, BTW, but I am a very satisfied customer.
Norm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:48:10 -0500
From: kit.anderson@acornbbs.com
Subject: Cigars & beer
>FROM: Rich Byrnes
>Subject: (U)Cigars & Brews
Rich asked about articles on Beer and Cigar pairings. The issue before
last of "Beer..the Magazine" had a article. The summer issue of "Cigar
Aficionado" had an article as well. My impression was that the beer
writer didn't know cigars and the cigar writer didn't know beer.
The traditional beverages to pair with cigars are port and scotch.
That implies that Scaldis and dopplebocks would be the best beers.
LaChouffe would also be good. Coffee is also good with cigars, so try
sweet stouts and robust porters. Look for lingering sweetness and
avoid beers with a lot of hop presence.
Pairings are tough. Are you supposed to light up a one hour smoke, sip
a beer for 5 minutes, then put it out so you can light another? What a
waste! Pick one cigar and alter the beers.
Personally, my cigar of choice is Cuba Aliados in Valentino or Corona
de Luxe sizes. It is a medium bodied Honduran with lots of Cuban
character. It was the highest scoring non-Cuban in the latest CA and
is reasonably priced, especially by mail order. (~$2)
Kit "Travels With Chiles" Anderson
Bath, Maine
<kit.anderson@acornbbs.com>
*
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:25:44 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: RIMS=decoction? / amylase / Prohibition
> Now, regarding the name "RIMS," I must throw some cold water. Neither
> Rodney's design nor Keith's proposed modification are (I)nfusion
> systems. Infusion mashing is the heating of the mash with additions of
> boiling water... period, end paragraph.
Now that I think about it, a RIMS is actually drawing off a little bit of
the mash liquor at a time, heating it, and mixing it back in the mash.
Sounds more like decoction mashing than infusion mashing to me. Maybe a
more correct term would be Incremental Decoction Mashing System (IDMS).
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
And thanks to all of those who responded to my questions about amylase and
RIMS. To quickly summarize:
Amylase is a catalyst that is not consumed, but will degrade with time.
And it is also in solution, not in suspension. So I would be risking
exploding bottles if I were to try to lager it out of suspension and then
bottle the beer. Suggestions were to (1) wait it out , which could take a
month, or (2) heat the beer up to 170F for a few minutes and then quickly
chill. This will denature the enzymes, but also the yeasts. Yeast would
have to be repitched prior to bottling. I am opting to wait it out,
since heat will effect the quality of the beer.
And for RIMS, it seems all but the Rodney-Morris-Purists (if there is
such a person, I heard from none) beleive that a RIMS *requires* a
heating element and computer chip.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, I have found a couple of quotes from some famous and well
respected people regarding prohibition. I am including them so that we
may all be better armed to respond to those who wish to legislate their
moral views against alcohol on the rest of us:
"Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to
control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things
that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very
principles upon which our government was founded." -- Abraham Lincoln,
December, 1840
"The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by
the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the
government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be
enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in
this country is closely connected with this. -- Albert Einstein, My
First Impression of the U.S.A, 1921
[WARNING: These same quotes apply to the Prohibiton laws against other
drugs. Don't use these quotes if you beleive in the War On Drugs, as they
may be turned against you!] =)
Keith Royster, Mooresville, NC, USA (KRoyster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:05:31 -0700
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: Temp distribution in mashing
>>>>> "Ken" == Ken Schroeder <kens@lan.nsc.com> writes:
Ken> Jim Bush and Dion Hollen argue about which systems are better for
Ken> even temp distibution in the mash tun. Dion hypes the push
Ken> button, no worry rims system, while Jim advocates the hands free
Ken> stirring, traditional fired system. Our two respected brewers
Ken> seem to agree that even heat distribution is very important. I
Ken> question this philosphy, or at least ask, how even is even?
Ken> I have extensively measured heat distribution in my traditional,
Ken> direct fired, cut keg system. I use a large wood paddle for
Ken> stirring. With an expensive thermal couple themometer, I measured
Ken> virutally every quadrant if the mash tun and found, after
Ken> stirring, no more than a 2 degree delta.
Ken> My wife (the scientist/bio-chemist) jumps up and down how all the
Ken> emzymes and stuff are all active with this method. Does reflect
Ken> an "even" heating proceedure? Comments Dion, Jim?
Ken> My wife and I both believe that the uneveness (especically when
Ken> heating)of our system and proceedures actually help create beers
Ken> full of different characters.
Well, I cannot disagree with your statements about the fact that your
"unevenness" creates the opportunity for pockets of slightly different
chemical reactions to exist. And yes, these pockets will create
slightly different characteristics in wort produced. These kind of
mixed compositions of the resulting sugars definitely do produce
character and a multitude of subtle flavor differences in the finished
product.
However, after long discussions with many people on mashing
temperatures and the effects on the wort produced, I don't think that
unevenness has anything to do with it. A perfectly even
(theoretically) mash, chosen to mash at certain temperatures for
certain times can produce a varied wort. Enzymes which produce short
sugar chains like low temps and long chain producers favor higher
temps. Chose the time you stay in their range and you will choose the
proportions of the different characteristics you will get in the
resulting wort. Leaving the differences to an uneven mash may be
interesting and produce excellent beer, but can you produce the same
one the next time?
I am not saying that evenness is necessary, but if you want
consistently repeatable results, it sure is helpful. I contend that a
completely controlled mash with even heating could produce the same
kind of character you produce, given that the brewer had sufficient
information and artistry to control the heat in the correct manner. I
also contend that while manually stirred systems may produce lots of
character, they stand a smaller chance of producing the same character
time and time again. Of course, a RIMS system is susceptible to the
same problems, namely the nut behind the wheel, but I believe that it
makes it easier to achieve consistency from batch to batch because
the *possibliity* of introducing differences is greatly reduced.
I have nothing against manual methods and will agree that almost any
method can produce outstanding results. I personally prefer more
automation. If you don't that is your preference. With regards to
the end product, any method is as good as any other.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:10:48 -0500
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Drinking age, brief note.
I know this thread is probably innappropriate, but some folks seem to be
overlooking one of the main issues. The main safety increase in raising
the drinking age to 21 isn't in preventing 19 year-olds from drunk-driving,
but to prevent 16 and 17 year-olds. Lower the drinking age, and high school
kids have more access, because they have more legal friends. They are the
ones who are and were causing the most drunken driving havoc. I do agree
that if the problem is with drunk driving, the regulation should be about
driving, not drinking.
-R
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:24:58 -0700
From: bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros)
Subject: Drinking age
Matthew W. Bryson" <MWBryson@LANMAIL.RMC.COM> wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that one must be 21 years old
>to homebrew( legally) anywhere in the U.S.. As to the other question...
>well, I was one of the last people in my state( by birthday) that could
>legally drink beer at age 18. I don't think that extortion by the federal
>government was necessary or morally correct; it is certainly illegal for
>ME to hold states hostage by threat of monetary loss. I wish that states
>could be allowed to make their own decision in this regard.
I believe that a while back (maybe 9 years ago) the Federal government
forced all states to adopt a minimum 21 year drinking age by threatening
to withold highway money. Some states, I know Louisiana, reluctantly
passed the law raising the age to 21 (and I think adding numerous
grandfather clauses).
Currently, the House is considering repealing the federal law, which
will allow states to set thier own restrictions lower if they feel like it.
As for what a reasonable drinking age should be, I find it hard to say.
I agree with all posts so far and for a variety of other reasons that raising
the drinking age is doing no one any good (except maybe some republicans)
and it should certainly be lower. And drinking and driving laws should
be even stricter, especially if that is the only reason to have a high
drinking age.
- Bryan
bgros@mindseye.berkeley.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:25:19 -0500 (EST)
From: AGNORCB@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu
Subject: Woodchuck or Woodpecker cider recipes
Hi y'all! I just discovered a local orchard which presses their own cider and
am thinking about making some hard cider. I was hoping to make something along
the lines of Woodpecker or Woodchuck draft cider. Does anyone have a good
recipe for clones of either of these? Thanks in advance, and sorry for the
non-beer related request.
Craig Agnor
Physics Graduate Student
Miami University
Oxford, Ohio
agnorcb@muohio.edu
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:45:03 -0700
From: gmccarthy@dayna.com (Gary McCarthy)
Subject: Re: Natural Gas Burners
Paul Sovcik <U18183@UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU> asked in HBD 1844:
>my new house has a nifty heated garage (a nice touch for Chicago winters...)
> that uses natural gas as a heating source.
>what type of burner can I use for this setup?
I have the same setup in my garage here in Salt Lake City.
I've been thinking about getting a plain olde house water heater, and hooking
it up. The burner should be able to heat the water inside within 30 min or so
right? The capacity would be like 30 gal before cutting the top off, right?
So the uncovered capacity could be like 20 gal. Then it has a spigot, also.
And it is insulated!!!
I see that a national hardware store (Ernst) has some hot water heaters on
sale for about $70. I think I would buy new myself. So thats really
inexpensive for a boiler! Put in a thermometer, and a screen for sparging
the grain, and we've got ourselves a party!(Jerry Jeff Walker)
But the thermostat prob only goes up to 150 or so? The same plumber that
comes to install a new junction from the existing gas pipe to the heater would
be able to replace the thermostat with a higher temp one, don'tcha think?
But I haven't been able to convince myself that this would work.
Now even though Paul states that he is a extract/partial mash brewer, and this
might be overkill for him; I say "look to the future Paul, you might want to
do all-grain mashes, and this setup seems pretty inexpensive."
I would be very interested in any other replies you get to your post, Paul.
@@@@@@@ Gary McCarthy Put on your grin mask,
baby,
|,, ,,| gmccarthy@dayna.com we're stepping out tonight
|(o)(o) Bruce
Cockburn
C _) |
| ___ |
\:::/
/=======\
/=/=====\=\
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:35:55 -0600
From: flemingk@usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: Terminology: Infusion Mash
Al Z said:
> Infusion mashing is the heating of the mash with additions of boiling
> water...period, end paragraph
I completely disagree with Al on this and feel the common use and meaning
of the word infusion shouldn't be narrowed artificially or confused with
any particular technique used to conduct one--even if it has been in the
past. This may be common brewing parlance based on how infusion mashes
were temperature controlled, but the definition of infusion is to steep
in hot water. No more, no less. This is the definition I've seen used
in science, chemistry and I believe cooking. It says nothing at all about
how the hot water is obtained or maintained.
Perhaps the easiest way to conduct an infusion mash commercially is to
underlet hot liquor into (rather than to direct fire) the tun, but this
should have no bearing on the definition of "infusion mash".
When instructions call for "steeping of grains", such as in many
extract-based brews, those instructions could as well say "prepare an
infusion". Infusions are distinguished by the fact that they extract
without boiling (a decoction). Mashes are infusions, but all infusions
may not be mashes (mashing being distinguished by enzymatic action).
Infusion is strictly the leeching of solubles from something using hot
(but not boiling) water. In the mashing process you happen to get very
significant side effects due to activation of enzymes.
If mashes are infusions, then what about decoction mashes? Well, any
portion of the mash that hasn't been removed and boiled is an infusion.
Any portion that's been pulled and decocted is not. So you certainly
start out with an infusion, but by the time you've finished 2 or 3
decoctions it's unreasonable to say you've achieved your result without
boiling. To my mind it's truly a hybrid, but the predominant technique
for getting solubles out of the grain is what should define the mash.
You either get the solubles out by steeping (infusion) or by boiling
(decoction).
There, now I believe we have thread you can sink your teeth into. I hope
I've at least stirred up a some controversy here--the HBD has become a
bit calm lately!
KRF Colorado Springs
- ------------------------------------------------------
"We can help the cause of pale ale both by drinking it
and brewing it as much as possible." Terry Foster
- ------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:41:49 -0700
From: alan@mail.utexas.edu (Alan P. Van Dyke)
Subject: age & homebrewing
Howdy, all--
I've been following the age & homebrewing thread, & I noticed something
that no one has considered. Here in Texas, it's illegal to be in pocession
or to drink under the age of 21. So, by extension, homebrewing would be
illegal as well. It has nothing to do with purchasing the beverage, just
having it. But, as an added twist, a parent reserves the right to serve
his/her children an alcoholic beverage. So, if you want to share a sip
with your own kid, have at it!
Then again, Texas was one of the last states to have an open container law,
& the one that does exist is incredibly lame.
Alan Van Dyke Austin, TX A beer a day keeps the cardiologist away.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:26:10 -0400
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Thanks & Fermentation Chiller Plans
First and foremost, thanks to EVRYONE who replied to me so promptly with
answers to my questions. This accomplished in one day what I have spent
months trying to figure out. And please don't get me wrong -- even though it
would appear from my questions that I'm trying to reduce the ART of
homebrewing to an equation, that's not complertely true. Face it, there's a
certain amount of science to this stuff, and being a scientist (or at least
an engineer), I like to dig a bit into the details. That doesn't necessarily
drive me to weigh hops to the nearest microgram, however.
Enough drivel. As was posted in the last HBD AOL now supports file attach
over Internet (the timing of my comment is scary). SO-o-o-o, if any of you
would like the full-blown plans for the Chiller I described last time as a
"thank-you note", lemme know and I'll fire it off.
Thanks again,all.
KennyEddy@aol.com
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: sprmario@netcom.com (Mario Robaina)
Subject: Glucan and Wheat..
Is it the B-Glucan content of wheat that causes it to gum up in the
mash? If so, what temp rests are best for glucanase? For how long?
Planning on doing a 50-50 wheat/barley beer, and am concerned about stuck
sparges. Thanks in advance for any help.
-John Girard, in Los Angeles (and not proud of it)
(through sprmario@netcom.com or jgirard@leland.stanford.edu)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1845, 09/30/95
*************************************
-------
