Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1848
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/10/04 PDT
HOMEBREW Digest #1848 Wed 04 October 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
classic american pilsner (Evan_Still)
Infusion Confusion ("Keith Royster")
Hydrometer readings... (Kenneth K Goodrow)
More stuck fermentations (CGEDEN)
Re: 60-70: Nice mnemonic, but... (Russ Brodeur)
Crying WOLF! ("Dr. Larry Allen")
Foster's Lager recipe (offsite)
Re: Tuning the Freezer / Mail Order Gott ? (hollen)
Honey: clover or orange blossum? (Earl the Pearl)
the old stalled fermentation (Douglas O'Brien)
Partial-Mash question/Wyeast Irish Ale for a red ale? (Dave Riedel)
Hydrometer (#1847 Sascha Kaplan) (Michael Genito)
RE: dryhopping (uswlsrap)
Grainger Business-Only ("Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556")
Decoction-Infusion/Prohibition (Brian Pickerill)
List privacy - correction (Rolland Everitt)
Brewing and Sinks (Dave P Rodger)
A Profusion of Infusion Confusion? (Kirk R Fleming)
competition recommendations ("Sharon A. Ritter")
Re: rest at 60 degrees (Regan Pallandi)
Brewferm Kits - Experiences? (Elde)
Decoctions (Algis R Korzonas)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! October 3 thru October 13: The digest
!!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if
!!! you make any requests during this time
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************************************************
* 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: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 07:17:11 EDT
From: uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Bread
Thanks to Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu> for the wash/pitch rate suggestion
for bread. In my own experimenting, I've made one excellent batch and one that
only I could eat (too much yeast,& very stongly bittered). I'm going to start
again with the "2T washed putty" rate. I'd also like to suggest throwing in a
cup or more of spent grain (I've used two w/ four-five cups of flour) . In
baking, the husks seem to soften and cook and are a nice addition to a flavorful
loaf. I'm not all grain brewing (yet), my spent grains are what's left of the
couple of cups of crystal malt that I've strained from the boiler.
Others must have tried bread making with brewing "dregs". Those who like a good
flavorful beer have got to be the same types who would have trouble going back
to "wonder bread" after sampling a full bodied, chewy, flavorful loaf of bread.
I would be appreciative of anything anyone could offer in the way of what's
worked, what hasn't, RECIPIES, etc. ...I'll even volunteer to compile and post
if I get anything in the next month. Thanks.
BULK MALT PURCHASE.........We (several other HBDrs and I) are getting real close
to a bmp to be delivered to the Greensboro area. Prices look great. 50Lb sacks
of most grain types can all be lumped into the one shipment. If anyone else is
interested (in at least 50 Lbs) E-mail me soon to for more details.
Wallie Meisner
Greensboro, NC
uscgc2r3@ibmmail.com
1800 334 9481 x-2410
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 9:23 EDT
From: Evan_Still@vos.stratus.com
Subject: classic american pilsner
hi to all,
I recently got M&F's pilsner extract kit and was
wondering if i could add some flaked maize or light
crystal without ruining the batch.Also if anyone has
any other suggestions for this old classic style i'd
greatly appreciate it.From my understanding this is
usually a lager.Can i use ale yeast with this formula
since my basement is 65F and not 30F for lagering?
TIA,
E.S.
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 9:21 EDT
From: Evan_Still@vos.stratus.com
To: homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
Subject: classic american pilsner
hi to all,
I recently got M&F's pilsner extract kit and was
wondering if i could add some flaked maize or light
crystal without ruining the batch.Also if anyone has
any other suggestions for this old classic style i'd
greatly appreciate it.From my understanding this is
usually a lager.Can i use ale yeast with this formula
since my basement is 65F and not 30F for lagering?
TIA,
E.S.
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 9:07 EDT
From: Evan_Still@vos.stratus.com
To: homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.cm
Subject: classic american pilsner
hi to all,
I recently got M&F's pilsner extract kit and was
wondering if i could add some flaked maize or light
crystal without ruining the batch.Also if anyone has
any other suggestions for this old classic style i'd
greatly appreciate it.From my understanding this is
usually a lager.Can i use ale yeast with this formula
since my basement is 65F and not 30F for lagering?
TIA,
E.S.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:32:55 +0500 ET
From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us>
Subject: Infusion Confusion
I wrote:
> 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.
And then Al Korzonas responds:
> Absolutely not. RIMS is the *OPPOSITE* of a decoction mashing
> system. In a decoction mashing system, the THICKEST part of the
> mash (mostly grain, very little liquid) is heated, whereas in the
> RIMS, the thinnest part of the mash is heated.
I think we all know a decoction mash and an infusion mash when we
seen one, but we seem to not agree on what the defining points of
each method are. Al seems to focus on the thickness of the
runnings, where I, in my earlier post, was focusing on whether a
portion of the liquid is drawn off (decocted) and reheated or not.
Other posts reference dictionary definitions. So which one is it?
I beleive that if we consider both the dictionary definition and
the traditional brewers definition, we can more clearly define the
difference between the two.
DECOCTION: The formal definition simply means to draw off, but the
brewers definition includes the boiling of the drawn liquid, and
its reintroduction into the mash to raise the temperature.
INFUSION: The formal definition means to steep without boiling.
The brewer uses hot, but not boiling water, for single temp mashes.
With a metal mash tun, s/he can also do step mashes by firing the
tun and stirring the mash to prevent scorching/boiling.
So what are the key differences? There are two. Decoction
involves boiling where infusion does not. And in a traditional
brewing sense, decoction involves drawing off a portion of the mash
liquor, where infusion does not. The confusion comes when you
consider a RIMS, which is new to the brewing scene and thus not
traditional. It draws mash liquor off and heats it to raise the
temp of the mash (decoction-like), but it does not boil the liquor
(infusion-like). So we now need to decide which of the two is the
most defining point from a brewer's perspective. IMHO, drawing off
of mash liquor is not a crucial step. It is just a different
method of stirring. But the boiling of the mash liquor has flavor
consequences in that it effects some of the enzymes, etc.. Thus I
vote for the boil. Based on this, I say a RIMS is a R*I*MS.
Keith Royster, Mooreville, NC, USA (KRoyster@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:06:01 -0500 (CDT)
From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow@orion.etsu.edu>
Subject: Hydrometer readings...
Sometimes, actually moreso lately than when I first started brewing, I
will make batches and forget about any readings. As long as I get my
pitching temperature low enough, no worries for a week, then I bottle,
age, and drink. Are there many more of you who really don't give a damn
about hydrometer readings? Sometimes it's nice to know the alc.
content/specific gravity, but really, for all you newbies, I wouldn't
worry about it as much as you might be. The books/articles/posts that
talk of checking gravity every day seem somewhat retentive, but if you
are into the information derived from such behaviors, more power to ya.
On the other hand, if you don't care, then forget about it. Pitch, let
it sit for a week, and bottle should no bubbles be rising or bubblers
bubbling. I haven't had a bad batch yet.
Cheers,
Kenn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 95 09:08:52 EDT
From: CGEDEN@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU
Subject: More stuck fermentations
Neal Parker, in yesterday's HBD, has the stuck fermentation blues. So
do I. Here's my routine:
Partial mash plus extract
Full wort boil (6 gal boiled down to five)
Immersion chiller
Liquid yeast (varied strains)
CLosed fermentations in glass throughout
Styles-mostly pale ales and American wheats
Dry-hopped in secondary with Cascade, EKG or Mittelfruh
Controlled fermentation temp of 66-69 deg. F
Aerated by shaking and pump-airstone
Rack at 7 days.
Here's where I get "stuck". At racking I never seem to get below 1020. My
OG's run a little high but are not extreme, usually 1055-1062. Right now
I have an IPA that has been fermenting for four weeks. I racked it three
weeks ago when it looked pretty quiet and was at 1020. Now, three weeks
later, it has picked up a second wind and is back to bubling through the
airlock every minute or so. It is still pretty darn close 1020. From
past experience it seems that the only logical thing is to keep waiting
for the beer to be still before bottling, but geez a month seems like a
long time. Its enough to make one worry whether ones beer is ruined!
Chris Geden in Gainesville, FL
CGEDEN@NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 08:52:12 -0400
From: r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com (Russ Brodeur)
Subject: Re: 60-70: Nice mnemonic, but...
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:06:23 +1000 (EST)
>From: Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>For those such as myself, who use Celsius and also are in need of all the
>mental crutches we can get, the G. Fix 60 C.- 70 C. conversion schedule is a
>godsend as a mnemonic.
Here's an apparent contradiction from Classic Beer Styles Series #4 (Vienna,
Marzen, Oktoberfest) by George and Laurie Fix:
"...mash-in at 138 to 140 F. The purpose of this rest is to degrade the
various "gums" in the malt"... "Conversion temperatures range from 150 to
156 degrees F. The lower temperature gives an attenuated mash, ... Half of
this time (45 min) is generally needed at the higher temperature"
This looks like a 60-65-70 mash schedule to me. I tried it last night for
my Vienna-style (guess it's a bit late for an O'fest) and got 30-32
pts/#/gal. This schedule is more in line with my own observations.
>line with my own recent results, apparently confirming Russ Brodeur's
>observations on HBD the other day about beta activity at 60- being notably
>less than at a couple of degrees above 60...
I now get high apparent attenuation (>75%) using a 45 min rest at 145-50 F
and a 15 min rest in the 158-60 F range for maximum yield. It was my
observation, when using dWC malts, that the rest at 60 C had little-or-no
effect on the attenuation, and my FG's were virtually the same as if I had
mashed at 70 C alone.
TTFN --<-@
Russ Brodeur (r-brodeur@ds.mc.ti.com)
Franklin, MA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 09:33:25 -0700
From: "Dr. Larry Allen" <docsbrew@kcsys.com>
Subject: Crying WOLF!
>> From: "Glen R. Geisen" <glen@picard.al.wpafb.af.mil>
>> Subject: Routing test (PgDn - Sorry)
>> Sorry for the test, but I'd really like
>> to participate when I have something of interest.
Gee, Glen...kinda like calling 911 just to make sure it works. When you
have something of interest, test it then.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well, HBDers, I've missed you much! Switched to a new server (unloaded AOL
for a cheaper/more logical one) and had a little address trouble - but it's
great to hear your insightful, helpful, funny and sometimes INANE comments,
questions, and ideas.
Keep up the good brewing, and cheers to our Digest Janitor!!
Doc.
Doc'sBrew - - "Cures What Ales Ya!" (tm)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 08:14:36 +0000
From: offsite@mindspring.com
Subject: Foster's Lager recipe
Can someone recommend a source for a Foster's Lager taste alike.
Gary Novosel
Network and Computer consulting
Technical Writing and Training Development
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 07:32:47 -0700
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: Re: Tuning the Freezer / Mail Order Gott ?
>>>>> "Steve" == Apple <Saylor1> writes:
Steve> Second question; Anyone know of a mail order house that
Steve> supplies the 10Gal Gott? I'm sick of hunting around for one
Steve> and want to convert over from my present system ASAP. Please
Steve> let me know if anyone has info leading to a mail order Gott.
Steve> TIA
Got to any sporting goods store that carries Gott products, which
should be about any one. Have them order it for you. I was in Sport
Mart and asked them and they looked in the catalog and it was there
and they were willing to tack it onto their next Gott order, no
problem.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 10:14:24 -0400
From: joep@informix.com (Earl the Pearl)
Subject: Honey: clover or orange blossum?
Tim, et al.
Tim> Fellow Homebrewers, I read once that using clover honey will
Tim> result in "grassy" flavors. That source (forgot who/where)
Tim> suggested using orange blossom honey instead. I'm getting ready
Tim> to make a barleywine that will have allot of honey in it - any
Tim> thoughts pro or con on clover vs orange blossom (or any other
Tim> variety)?
I made a brew with Palmetto Blossom Honey. I used 3 lbs for a five
gallon batch. The honey added a wonderful flavor and aroma. The
Palmetto Blossom honey is stronger than orange blossom (darker, richer).
I added the honey to the extract batch and boiled it for 15 minutes.
Tim> "reeb!" -Tim Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
Tim> 74247.551@compuserve.com _or_ timfields@aol.com (weekends)
Tim> timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
joe.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Pearl, Sr. Sales Engineer, Informix Software, Inc. |
| 8675 Hidden River Parkway, Tampa, FL, 33637 813-615-0616 |
| Competition is good for the consumer. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. |
| MARK TWAIN |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 07:59:44 -0400
From: Douglas O'Brien <Douglas.OBrien@ccrs.emr.ca>
Subject: the old stalled fermentation
>From: NParker@Lockheed.on.ca (Neal Parker)
>
>A number of beers I've brewed in the last while start off quickly (6 hours
>from pitching), foam up well and then stop short at 1.025, 1.022, etc. and
never
>really move from these S.G.s (or take 2 weeks to do it).
>
>I brew extracts with dry or liquid yeast, boil everything, cool the wort,
>let sit, rack off the trub, shake the bejesus out of the carboy (for 5 min)
>and then pitch. The thing is - this problem is new to me
>and might coincide with me doing full boils. I'm tired of having to
>worry about it - how do I prevent these incomplete ferments? Aerate more?
>Could there be a problem with leaving too much trub behind? I allready
>pitch from a 750ml starter - go to a 1.5l starter? Go back to open ferments
>(I use a carboy for the primary now)?
I'm sure you'll get a bunch of more detail suggestions, but off the top of
my head:
1) aerate more;
2) add yeast nutrients/energizers - extracts are notoriously low in nutrients;
3) leave the trub - there are actually sterols in the trub that are good for
the yeast,
and unless you are doing a light lager you probably won't taste any off
flavours;
4) a larger starter MAY help, but if you already get good fermentation in 6
hours
it is likely enough.
Good luck,
Doug
- --
Douglas J. O'Brien Douglas.OBrien@ccrs.NRCan.gc.ca
Canada Centre for Remote Sensing tel: (613) 947-1287
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada fax: (613) 947-1408
All views expressed are mine and not those of my employer.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 11:11:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
Subject: Partial-Mash question/Wyeast Irish Ale for a red ale?
Lacking the funding required to move to all-grain, I've decided to try
partial-mashing. Following the advice in Dave Miller's "Brewing the World's
Great Beers", I obtained a 16L plastic bucket and drilled around 150 holes of
3/16" in it in order to use it as a sparging vessel. Looking at the finished
product, the holes seem awfully large. Certainly, dry, un-cracked grains will
pass right through them. Can I expect sufficient swelling of the grains during
the mash to prevent this from happening? Will 3/16" holes work, or do I need
a grain bag?
On an unrelated note: I'm thinking of repitching some Wyeast Irish Ale yeast
into a batch of some sort of red ale. Has anyone had any experience with this?
How did the beer turn out? I'm not afraid of experimenting, I just want to
know in advance if this yeast makes a *poor* bitter/pale ale-type beer.
thanks,
Dave Riedel
Victoria, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:21:48 -0400
From: genitom@nyslgti.gen.ny.us (Michael Genito)
Subject: Hydrometer (#1847 Sascha Kaplan)
In #1847, Sascha Kaplan <kaplan@panther.middlebury.edu> wrote:
>So, I think it's time to bottle, I open up my fermenting bucket, drop the
>hydrometer in, take a reading and then...what? Close up tt and take another
>reading the next day?
No, don't drop the hydrometer into the 5 gal batch. Open your fermenting
bucket, and with a sanitized cup or ladle, scoop out enough beer from your
bucket to fill the hydrometer flask. Place your hydrometer into the flask
and take your reading. To get a correct reading, your sample should be at 60
degrees F. Usually your hydrometer will come with an instruction sheet which
also has adjustments in specific gravity readings for various temps.
The hydrometer flask is usually a plastic tube the hydrometer came in.) with
enough batch to almost fill it. If you don't have the flask, try finding
something similar - a long thin glass or plastic tube with enough
circumference to take the hydrometer and as little circumference as not to
require too much beer to fill it.
Can you do that, or does it skunk the beer to open the fermenting bucket
and then not bottle it? If I decide to risk bottling the beer without
taking a reading, how do I know how much more sugar to put in beer?
Anyway, I hope that these questions aren't too inane.
Thanks,
Sascha
- ---------------------------------
| Alexander 'Sascha' Kaplan |
| Middlebury College |
| MC Box 2623 |
| Middlebury, Vermont 05753 |
| Tel: (802) 388-3711 ext. 3558 |
| Fax: (802) 388-7505 |
- ---------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 16:32:42 EDT
From: uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
Subject: RE: dryhopping
Chuck, you wrote:
>Query: how does one get dry-hopped pellets to settle in the secondary?
>It's been a couple of years since I last dry-hopped, and my brewing notes
>from then indicate no problems with settling. I dry-hopped a batch a
>week ago, however, and some of the hops are suspended about a half-inch
>below the surface of the beer. Do I just wait? Does poly-clar take hops
>out of suspension? Thanks for any reply. Chuck CEPP@indiana.edu
>From my experience, pellets take a long time to settle completely--longer
than I want to leave my ales sitting around before bottling.
Now, if they're really all suspended just below the surface, that
shouldn't be a problem because you would rack the beer from the bottom
and stop when the level got that low...that is, if they don't get disturbed
and mixed into the beer.
I assume you're using a racking cane with the little orange thingy
placed on the bottom of the tube. My solution is to tie a (sanitised)
muslin hop bag around the bottom to filter out most of the particles.
I don't use plastic, horse hooves, fish bladders, seaweed, or other finings
in my beer, so I don't know whether polyclar would help. I imagine it
would depend on the charge of the hop particles(?)
Cheers from the MHTG!
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino uswlsrap@ibmmail.com
Madison
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 08:50:59 -0500 (EST)
From: "Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556" <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@Lilly.com>
Subject: Grainger Business-Only
OK, so I called to get the Grainger catalog so often referenced
here on the Digest. I was told this is a business-sales only outfit,
meaning I can't order without a Federal tax ID number. Anyone care
to comment? Do you all order this stuff through your employer?
Back to the acidification thread...folks tend to use lactic acid
most frequently, not tartaric. I'm a bonehead, pardon me pppplease!
I've been checking into the question more thoroughly...is there interest
in a (mostly regurgitated) summary of acids used, when to use, etc?
This ties in rather unavoidably with water make-up...
Was a water.FAQ ever compiled? Don't see it on stanford.edu, but
how's about all those www sources?
Dave in Indy (future home of the 3-D BBB)
From: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036)
To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com")
cc: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036)
------------------------------
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: Decoction-Infusion/Prohibition
Norm says in 1847:
>Now it seems to me that the term "infusion mashing" was used to distinguish
>from decoction mashing, where the grain is not simply "steeped or soaked", it
>is boiled, etc.
But not ALL of it is boiled. Al is right on this one. Decoction is
_heating_ by boiling a small portion of the grain. Infusion is _heating_
by infusing hot water. Simple as that. If you are doing a kettle mash,
adding direct heat to the kettle, IMHO you are not doing an infusion. Not
that it matters, as long as you make great beer.
As for RIMS, it's like the kettle mashing where heat is added directly, and
has nothing to do with decoction or infusion. Not that that matters
either. ;-)
- -------
Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com> says in 1846:
>Are you saying that Abe and Al were pro on legalizing *all* drugs? I doubt
>it... If you are using the quotes to illustrate your own opinion, that's your
>prerogative. Free speech is ok by me.
Are you saying they weren't? Phrases such as "...passing laws which cannot
be enforced" and "...attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation"
go way beyond alcohol as a specific drug. Historical context is
important--I think they may have been for legalization of all drugs at the
time they made their statements. But then, at the time they made the
statements, alcohol (I think) was the only illegal drug! THINK about
it--did the use of the drugs cause the crime and violence, or is that an
artifact of trying to legislate them out of existence?
- --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu> Muncie, IN
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:54:44 -0400
From: af509@osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: List privacy - correction
I left something out of my earlier message describing how to
prevent the list server from including your name when it sends out
a copy of the list membership. The proper command is
SET BEER-L CONCEAL
Put that command on a line by itself in the BODY of an email
message and send it to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu.
Sorry for any inconvenience.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:09:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: drodger@world.std.com (Dave P Rodger)
Subject: Brewing and Sinks
Hi -
I've just moved to a new apartment, with visions of brewing dancing in my
head, and I realized that the kitchen sink is completely unsuitable for
brewing. It's an old sink, and the faucet isn't threaded, so I can't
attach either my bottle washer (not critical, but a pain) or my wort
chiller (substantially more of a problem...)
Since I don't own the place, I don't really want to hire a plumber and
have the sink ripped out and a new one installed. However, I don't
really feel great about carting my beer into the bathroom to run the wort
chiller (something about all that bathroom air, I guess...) So what I'm
wondering is whether anyone has advice (other than, give up and have a
new faucet/sink installed, or get used to drinking expensive beer) for
how to turn a useless faucet into one that can be used for brewing
paraphernalia?
Thanks!
Dave Rodger
drodger@world.std.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:15:25 -0600
From: flemingk@usa.net (Kirk R Fleming)
Subject: A Profusion of Infusion Confusion?
Norm says:
> Proclaiming all of this as "simply wrong" seems dogmatic at best.
and not very productive, IMO.
> Can you support your position, AL?
and indeed Al does support his position with:
> British brewing books use this terminology more often than American
> books as they commonly refer to the temperature-control additions of
> hot water to the mash as "infusions." This is the source of my
> reasoning that the it is the *other* meaning of the word "infuse",
> namely "to pour in"
Well there you go. Al cited British usage, and everybody knows those folks
don't know anything about proper english. :-)
Seriously, since Al has cited a use of the word which is ALSO common, and
more importantly, common in at least some brewing circles, I concede it
does in fact have the meaning he says it does.
Since it ALSO has the very common meaning "to soak up with hot water",
I think it's pretty pointless to say such a general usage is wrong. To
me, the important question is one of our ability to communicate as
accurately as we feel is necessary.
We generally distinguish only between infusion and decoction mashes
(in the amateur world as I've seen it). I don't know about professional
brewers, but I have never seen distinguishing terms used to identify
*how* the mash was controlled. My point: in common use as I've heard or
read it, infusion means only that the mash was conducted without a
decoction process.
Al also said:
> one of the meanings for "infusion" is the extraction of something by
> soaking a substance in a liquid (often water). However, if indeed
> this is the case, then aren't all mashes "infusion" mashes?
Yes, they are, unless you *boil* the liquid, then you've decocted the
liquid and even if only 20% of the mash is decocted and it's only done
one time, it appears common to call this a decoction mash.
If I say I've conducted a mash and I call it an infusion, I believe the
important content of that comment centers around the fact that I've done
rests at particular temperatures and for certain durations, and have not
boiled anything. In an amateur context you still don't know whether I've
done it with hot liquor "infusions", direct fire, via steam jacket, or
percolator. In a professional context I'll concede you've narrowed it
down quite a bit--but I'll bet not completely. Most of us use the term
"infusion mash" even though only some of us conduct the mash with the
addition of hot water. Am I wrong?
I really don't want to split hairs over this. I see where Al is coming
from and he does point to a valid definition. But, to say a system that
heats the mash without injecting hot water is NOT infusion mashing, I
believe, is uncommon usage and counter-productive. If there's a commonly
used term to specify mashing where the heat is applied externally (through
any mechanism) and specifically NOT through hot water additions, I'm all
for it. It would make our communication more precise when necessary.
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: 03 Oct 95 20:29:03 EDT
From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717@compuserve.com>
Subject: competition recommendations
I brew in a very small town with no other hb'ers. I enter the AHA national
competition and the Dixie Cup primarily to get feedback from qualified judges.
The judges comments have been thoughtful and helped quite a bit. I've also
entered some smaller competitions with some very questionable feedback from the
judges. Are there a few other large competitions, with quality judging, that
anyone can recommend? Again, I'm interested in feedback and suggestions to
improve my beer and not necessarily winning the gold.
Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho 102446.3717@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 14:13:49 +1200 (EST)
From: Regan Pallandi <reganp@iris.bio.uts.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: rest at 60 degrees
Can somebody help sort this prob out? My understanding is, to make a
highly fermentable beer, a rest at 60 degrees should be part of the
mash schedule. However, my understanding is that the starch in grain
does not gelatinize until 65 deg, which suggests that the enzymes can't
get at the goods. Any ideas? TIA.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 02:14:35 -0400
From: Elde@aol.com
Subject: Brewferm Kits - Experiences?
How are the Brewferm series of kits? Good? Bad? Tips on any individual
kits?
Hoping to brew from a few this winter and expand my range from simply kit
wheats.
Derek L.
Kit/Extract brewer, and proud of it!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 13:22:57 CDT
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: Decoctions
I wrote:
>The purpose of the decoctions is not to get solubles out of the grain, but
>rather a way to increase the temperature of the mash.
Now before Norm and Kirk (and all the rest of you dictionary readers who
skip over definitions one and two and zero-in on definition number three
because it fits your argument better) get their skivies in a bunch, I'd like
to post a clarification to my above statement:
"The purpose of the decoctions is not solely to get solubles out of the
grain, but is primarily a way to increase the temperature of the mash."
Indeed it is true that for severely undermodified malt (steely tips), the
only way to get decent extract yield is to boil parts of the mash.
The boiling of the decoctions bursts starch granules which are still bound
up in the protein matrix. On the other hand, I'll bet you have to travel to
Bohemia to get undermodified malt these days. In a talk on Belgian brewing
techniques and ingredients at the Spirit of Belgium last November, the
speaker (sorry, forgot his name) who is now working at a brewery in Germany,
said that even the most traditional of German maltsters have been modifying
their malt much more than they used to. In fact, many German brewers have
had to alter their traditional mash schedules because this well-modified
malt was resulting in watery beer that would not hold a head. Therefore,
for all *practial* purposes, the purpose of decoctions using current malts
really has mostly to do with raising the temperature of the mash, a little
to do with creating melanoidins and almost nothing to do with extracting
solubles from the malt.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@pubs.att.com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1848, 10/04/95
*************************************
-------
