Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1983
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/03/13 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1983 Wed 13 March 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
mash virgin no more / iodophor concentration / subscribe me ("Keith Royster")
re:reusing yeast (BOBKATPOND)
RE: channeling, why not? ("Clark D. Ritchie")
Great Grandfather's Ancient Recipe (Ken Parsons)
Electric Stove Hook-up - Is He Serious? (Jeff Hewit)
SUPER YEAST & RE: Cheap Bottles (shelby & gary)
Yeast concentration in clear beer (Kyle R Roberson)
5th. ann New York city Spring Regional Competition 3/24/96 (Ken )
Mutated yeast (Domenick Venezia)
Hop Storage-Polypropylene (Stan Gregory)
bicarbonates and water hardness ("Clark D. Ritchie")
subscibe (Wenge)
Lager yeasting (Spencer W Thomas)
Alcohol percentage (Craig Stewart)
Decoction mash protein rest (Bob McCowan)
Kegs and Filtering (Guy Mason)
Acids follow-up (Jay Reeves)
Recipe Request (Todd Anderson)
Rakes/Protein rests (Jim Busch)
Contest Announcement (Btalk)
Egyptian Beer (David.L.Imming)
Spirit of Free Beer Announcement (Delano Dugarm)
Please stop sending me this (Kevin Joseph Lin)
Instapure (R) waterfilters (Robert Bush)
deep grainbeds (Rob Lauriston)
more on first wort hopping (Jim Dipalma)
Very Stupid Brewer's Trick (mikehu)
******************************************************************
* 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: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:47:54 -0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Subject: mash virgin no more / iodophor concentration / subscribe me
Well, I brewed my first all grain batch today in my just-finished
RIMS and things went pretty much without a hitch (except that I
forgot to add my irish moss). The fact that it went without a hitch
is largely due to all of you, so a big THANKS! from me. Especially
to Dion and Kirk F. who may not remember, but they helped me design
my RIMS by discussing various design aspects of theirs with me.
To all of you out there thinking about going all-grain, but are
intimidated by all of the complicated steps you've seen discussed on
the HBD (adjusting pH, adjusting water chem, mash temps, sparge
temps, etc..) forget all of that and just DO IT! Do a simple
recipie that only requires a single mash temp (I did a Pale Ale) and
forget about adjusting pH and water chemistry. Don't be too anal on
your mash temp either. The mashing process is fairly forgiving in
these areas, and I even know some experienced all-grainers who have
never checked pH. It may not come out as your best beer ever (or it
may), but the important part is to become comfortable with the
process and build confidence. Once you do one (or two) batch(es)
this way, then you can start playing with the chemistry as needed.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
mikeb@flash.net (Michael T. Bell) askes about Iodophor
concentrations:
> One quick question. What is the proper dilution rate of Iodophor? I
> have read that the optimum is 25ppm. That works out roughly to
> 1oz per 6 gal.
The proper range, as printed on my bottle, is 12.5 to 25 ppm. I use
12.5ppm (1/2oz in 5 gal), as do others who I've seen post to the HBD.
So, you are in the right range, but you can use less if you want to.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
SSparks204@aol.com wants to subscribe:
> Please Suscribe me to your list.
I've put a simple web page up off of our brewclub's page that is a
short but helpful introduction to the HBD and tells how to subscribe.
Those of you with web pages are welcome to create a link to it, and
Rob, you may want to add the URL to the beginning of the digest. My
hope is that if enough links are pointed to it, it *may* decrease the
number of posts like the one above. The URL is:
http://www.wp.com/@your.service/cbm/digest.html
Keith Royster - Keith.Royster@ponyexpress.com
@your.service - 720 Pinewood Circle
WebPage Services - Mooresville, NC 28115
Check us out at - http://www.wp.com/@your.service/
Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:37:59 -0500
From: BOBKATPOND@aol.com
Subject: re:reusing yeast
Tam Thompson writes, ". . . You can usually re-use that slurry about three
times before it starts to mutate too far into the unusable range. . . ."
L o r n e F r a n k l i n writes,"I've read this assertion in many places
and
am wondering if anyone can profile the flavor, bahvior, or appearance of
"mutated" brewers yeast. I've never used yeast beyond the third generation,
but am curious of the potential problems involved with "inbred" yeast.
Many micros and brewpubs reuse their yeast for many generations and some use
the yeast forever. There are several reasons for this, to replace the yeast
is expensive, it usually performs better after a few generations, and there
is no reason to replace it very often. I talked to one brewer who said that
he wanted his
yeast to mutate. That way he had a yeast that no one else had. It was his
own
strain of yeast.
All brewers have their own methods of monitering their yeast. Some go by the
number of generations, others watch the performance of the yeast carefully
(such as how it flocculates and how the attenuation is ) and can tell
when things are different and then dump the yeast.
As a rule 3 generations are probably enough for homebrewers. We can't
possibly be as clean as a commercial setup, where they have heavy duty
caustics and acid sanitisers and boiling water to run through all of their
equipment, so we are risking passing an infected yeast on to another batch.
As far as mutations, it depends on the strain of yeast and how much you
stress
the yeast. High gravity beers stress the yeast and should not be repitched,
some say dark beers also. Lager yeasts are more prone than ale yeasts. Some
Weissen yeasts change rapidly and lose that clove-like flavor.
If you really want to use your yeast as economically as possible, banking it
as has been described here in the past, either on an agar slant or frozen in
glycerin, is the best way. B-)
Bob Morris
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 16:29:32 -0800
From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie@ups.edu>
Subject: RE: channeling, why not?
Kelly,
Two comments about your post. First, in my humble opinion, there is nothing
all that wrong with stopping the flow for a second and mixing the grain bed.
However, if you stir your mash too vigorously versus "cutting" just the top
half (as mentioned a few days ago), you can upset the grains that are on the
bottom of your lauter tun near your false bottom (or other drainage device).
Have you ever noticed that when you first begin your sparge, the initial
runoff of hot liquor is often cloudy with little bits of grain husk and
other particulates in suspension? Compare that the runoff halfway through
your sparge. Big difference, right? The latter is nice and clear. The
reason is that the grains will settle in the lauter tun as the sparge
continues, forming a nice, natural filter. Stirring your grains vigorously
will upset the filtration of your grains and cause your runoff to again be
couldy and murky as the grains must resettle.
Second, clear runoff is not devoid of color, rather it is free from
particulates. You want your runoff to be free from these particulates as
they will settle on the bottom of your boiling kettle (they are heavier than
the surrounding hot liquor), which is, of course, close to the heat source,
which will cause them to gelatanize which, in turn, can cause several
undesireable side effects. It is not a bad idea to begin your sparge and
collect the first initial runoffs (I do a minimum of five pitchers worth)
and _carefully_ pour the runoff back on top of your mash. Continue to
recirculate the hot liquor until the runoff is clear, at which point you can
begin collecting in your kettle. It is not a bad idea to continue to
_carefully_ stir your hot liquor as it comes to a boil, so that any
particulates that did pass through the sparge are not sitting on the bottom
of the kettle.
Cheers! ...CDR
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie@ups.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:48:14 -0800
From: Ken Parsons <klondike@sonnet.com>
Subject: Great Grandfather's Ancient Recipe
Recently I've been hearing the Sam Adams radio commercial for the
Doppelbock. Jim Koch makes the statement that he uses 1/2 pound of malt in
every bottle. This sounded a bit excessive so I did some calculations.
Most malt has a HWE (hot water extract) of 70-80%, as is. I used
77% which is typical for pale and Munich malt. Assume the Samuel Adams
contract breweries have a brewhouse efficiency of 95% and that beer losses
along the way are negligible.
Calculations are done in metric.
0.5 lb malt * 1 kg/2.2 lb * .77 kg ext./kg malt * .95 eff.
___________________________________________________________ = 0.47 kg
ext./liter wort
12 oz wort * 1 gal/128 oz * 3.785 liter/gal
This would be an original gravity of 40.0 P (kg ext./kg wort) and an
original specific gravity of 1.179 (kg wort/liter wort). If the finishing
gravity was 5.0 P (SG 1.020), the resulting alcohol content would be 16.9
wt% or 21.8 vol%.
Those must be some pretty hardy yeast!!!
Klondike Ken
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:26:56 -0500
From: jhewit@freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit)
Subject: Electric Stove Hook-up - Is He Serious?
To the guy who plans to somehow make a plug that will fit where
his electric stove burner does, I have some suggestions.
- Make sure you have plenty of life insurance, and make sure
you're current on the premiums.
- Make sure your family has another place to live, and that
it's paid for - your homeowner's insurance may not pay in
full if they think you intentionally burned your own house
down.
- Look for other ways to save a buck on this hobby.
Seriously, one sure way to get into trouble is to screw around
with electricity. Some do and get away with it, but many
don't, and the results can be heart breaking. I too am planning
to set up a counter-top boiler to free myself from the
limitations of an electric range. Since I don't have 220v
access in the kitchen, I am planning on having an electrician
install an outlet. I had thought about making a heavy-duty
extension cord, and running it from the dryer outlet, which is
just off the kitchen, but thought better of it. My interest is
in making good beer - period. There's nothing wrong with being
frugal - I know some well-off homebrewers who view it as a
challenge to pinch as many pennies as they can and still make
outstanding beer. If all we want is cheap beer, we'd be better
off buying Natural Light. But trying to save money through
some jerry-built set-up with an electric range is crazy.
Anyway, that's my 3 cents.
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hewit
Midlothian, Virginia
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:18:15 -0500
From: shelby & gary <gjgibson@ioa.com>
Subject: SUPER YEAST & RE: Cheap Bottles
I have been culturing a Wyeast #0349 (British Ale) strain. I have used =
it three times, and I am amazed at how quickly this stuff gets the job =
done. I have pitched two quart starters to two oatmeal stouts,and a =
honey porter, all of which started with a gravity of at least 1.052 and =
where six gallons with starter. All three fermented to completion in =
only three or four days and was very violent. Has anyone experienced =
these quick fermentations with this strain, or do I have the Superman of =
all yeasts? I have used this strain before, but it was not this quick. =
I am glad I open ferment. This stuff would be blowing tops off every =
couple of hours.
In HBD#1980 there was an article about buying cheap bottles. I must =
ask, Why buy them at all? I get my bottles at the local brewpub. Well =
they call it a brewpub anyway. They sell a large asortment of other =
great beers as well as their own. Anyway, this place has to pay by the =
pound for recycling their glass containers, so they are more than happy =
to give me all the bottles I need. They sometimes even wash them out =
for me. I have requested "grolsch" bottles, so what the employees don't =
take home, I get. Pretty good deal, huh.
Shelby
Asheville, NC
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:32:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: Yeast concentration in clear beer
One more try... I asked this over the holidays and got no input
whatsoever, so I thought I would try again.
What is the concentration in cells per ml of suspended yeast in
beer that has dropped "bright"? 20,000-40,000?
Anybody actually measure this themselves?
Some of Jackson's descriptions of beers mention that a beer
is filtered then dosed with fresh yeast.
Private email OK.
Kyle
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:01:45 -0500
From: kbjohns@escape.com (Ken )
Subject: 5th. ann New York city Spring Regional Competition 3/24/96
The Homebrewers of Staten Island will hold their 5th competition On Sun
3/24. Complete information can be found on the club's homepage URL
http://www.wp.com/HOSI/ look for the competition announcement.
We will be awarding over $900.00 in prizes and judging all beer styles.
Entry forms will be sent via e-mail.
We also need judges
Ken
URL http://www.wp.com/HOSI/
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 08:33:43 -0800 (PST)
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia@zgi.com>
Subject: Mutated yeast
Tam Thompson writes:
>>". . . You can usually re-use that slurry about three
>>times before it starts to mutate too far into the unusable range. . . ."
"Lorne P. Franklin" <lachina@interramp.com> asks:
>I've read this assertion in many places and am wondering if anyone can
>profile the flavor, bahvior, or appearance of "mutated" brewers yeast.
>I've never used yeast beyond the third generation, but am curious of the
>potential problems involved with "inbred" yeast.>
Perhap's Tam's use of the term "mutate" is unfortunate. A true genetic
mutation is probably rare. What Tam is referring to is more appropriately
termed "genetic drift". This is a darwinian selection process by which
the characteristics of the yeast will slowly change due to selection
pressures determined by a particular brewing process. The yeast in the
pitching population represent a certain amount of variability; they are
not all genetically identical. Some will sediment before others. Some
will have a lower alcohol tolerance than others. Some will tolerate lower
or higher temperatures than others. What we have is a genetic pool, with
the variability of the response to any particular parameter forming a
gaussian distribution (a bell-shaped curve). Brewing conditions can cause
these curves to shift along their respective axes. In fact any yeast
handling and propagation techniques will introduce their own selection
pressures. When you use plates or slants to propagate yeast you are
selecting for yeasties that grow under those conditions. Do you seal your
plates with parafilm? If you do you will select for yeasties that grow
well on the plate media with a low oxygen concentration. When you choose
that one perfect colony from a plate or slant you have selected for a
particular genetic profile and have left a lot of genetic variability
behind. A better technique for brewing is to sample multiple colonies or
resuspend all the yeast on a plate or slant and use everything.
Some selection pressure examples:
By collecting your yeast from the secondary you will be selecting for
yeasties that for whatever reason make it into the secondary; less
flocculent, more alcohol tolerate, lower pH tolerate (wort acidifies
during fermentation), different wort nutrient profile (the easily
fermented sugars get metabolized in the primary), whatever, and
everything.
Regardless of the temperature of fermentation you will be selecting for
yeasties that perform best at that temperature.
You will select for different yeasties whether you aerate well or
aerate minimally.
One very important thing to watch out for is plaid. Despite calling
Seattle home I must warn all brewers about wearing plaid when brewing.
This will tend to select for yeast strains with a very poor fashion sense.
In fact I have long suspected that brewing in plaid was the cause of many
stuck fermentations rather than poor aeration as is commonly assumed.
One thing that homebrewers who want to recycle their yeasts can do is to
make sure that some of the primary yeast sediment makes its way into the
secondary. It is very easy to purposefully suck up some of the primary
yeast sediment when racking into the secondary.
Commercial breweries have this problem and deal with it in different ways.
Some breweries don't do anything and let their yeast drift into a "house
yeast" that is the result of their particular brewing processes.
Historically this is what every brewery did, and this is how many
different yeast strains came into being. The extemely flocculent, open
fermentation yeasts of the British Yorkshire Squares brewing systems is a
result of this type of selection. Today, more commonly, breweries bank
their original yeast strains in public (e.g. ATCC) or private low
temperature freezer archives (-80C (- 112F), -135C (-211F), or in liquid
nitrogen, -196C (-321F)). Pretty cool, huh? They then recycle their
yeasts and/or work from refrigerated yeast stocks, whatever, and
periodically they start over from their yeast archive and start the whole
process over.
Plaidless in Seattle,
Domenick Venezia
Computer Resources
ZymoGenetics, Inc.
Seattle, WA
venezia@zgi.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 12:50:58 -0500
From: Stan Gregory <cn1428@coastalnet.com>
Subject: Hop Storage-Polypropylene
Are polypropylene containers suitable for whole hop storage: oxygen
permeability, etc? Thanks
Stan
Stan Gregory
cn1428@coastalnet.com
Jacksonville, NC
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:07:30 -0800
From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie@ups.edu>
Subject: bicarbonates and water hardness
Chem-buffs,
In writing my brewing software, I find myself struggling with water
chemistry. Having taken chemistry a great many years ago, I need a little
refresher on two subjects: bicarbonate production and determining water
hardness.
[Figures taken from page 79 of Papazian's "The Homebrewer's Companion"]
First, biacarbonate production:
Let's say that I have a gallon of water with 0 PPM of Ca and 0 PPM of CO3.
If I add 1 gram of CaCO3 to 1 gallon of my water, my water now has 106 PPM
of Ca and 159 PPM of CO3, right? My question: what about bicarbonates? On
page 77, Papazian says that a carbonate (CO3) ion can react with carbon
dioxide and a water to form a bicarbonate (2HCO3) ion. Does this always
happen? What I want to know is that if my gallon of water has 159 PPM of
CO3, does that mean I have 80 PPM of bicarbonates? In other words, given an
amount of CaCO3, can I predict the concentration of bicarbonates?
Second, determing water hardness:
On page 79, Papazian says that in the US, water hardness is expressed as PPM
of CaCO3. Is is correct then, that when predicting water hardness, one's
adjusted water hardness will simply be the water's original hardness plus
the addition of any CaCO3? For example, if I have another gallon of of
water with 0 PPM of Ca and 0 PPM of CO3 and a hardness of 0, and I add 1
gram of CaCO3 to my water, does my water now has a hardness of 265 (106 PPM
of Ca plus 159 PPM of CO3)?
Thanks for the refresher... CDR
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie@ups.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:59:48 -0800
From: Wenge <wenge@gingko.dlut.edu.cn>
Subject: subscibe
subscibe
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 01:19:19 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Lager yeasting
I brewed today (Sunday - yesterday, if you want to get technical).
I'm aiming for "Dos Equis" for a Cinco de Mayo party we're planning.
I started my yeast from a slant 10 days ago (in about 50ml wort),
stepped it up to just under a pint after 2 days, and up to about 3
quarts last Monday or Tuesday. The two small starters were kept in
the cupboard over the fridge (the warmest consistently warm place in
the house.) I added 1tsp yeast nutrient & 1/4tsp "yeast energizer" to
the big starter.
The gallon jug went into the "lager fridge" at 50F, and was perking
along nicely. There was a thinnish layer of yeast on the bottom.
I finished brewing at about 5pm. I poured off most of the extract
"beer" in the jug, then swirled like mad to get the yeast off the
bottom, and poured it into the carboy. The wort was at about 60F
(warmer than I wanted, but you take what you get with a CF chiller).
I put the carboy into the fridge, set at 50F.
By 10pm, it was already "perking". I waited for a bubble to make sure.
It wasn't up to 1 bubble per minute, but it was bubbling. Wort temp
was down to about 55F. This is one of the fastest starts I've gotten
recently, even faster than most of my ale starts.
Clearly, a big healthy starter is the way to go!
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:27:57 -0400 (AST)
From: Craig Stewart <foghorn1@darwin.nbnet.nb.ca>
Subject: Alcohol percentage
Ladies and Gentlebrewers,
I've got another question or tewnty for you, but I'll keep it short. My
calculations for the % alcohol using teh equation (OG - FG) x 105 are
consistantly working out in the low range, i.e. 2 - 3.5% since I
started. I FINALY got some instructions that made sense for ysing the
vinometer that I bought a LONG time ago, and couldn't figure out the
Spanish Only instruction that were included with it. I know I'm
liguisticly (is that realy a word?) challenged, but English & French I
can deal with. But I digress... Anyway, my vinometer gives readings in
the 7 - 9% range, ON THE SAME BEER! Which do I believe? I know that my
brew has more kick to it than domestic 5% swill, but I was blaming it on
the fuller body of my browns and bitters. I've got to try a stout soon,
something similar (not a clone of thought, that wouldn't be fair) of a
Beamish or something. But I digress again... Any ideas?
Another thing, can anyone sugest any brews to try other than my standard
brown's and bitters? My beer experiance is limited, living in the
backwater of beer in rural New Brunswick. What improted we get here is
so damned expensive and so old when it arives that it tastes similar to
skunk urine. And no, I HAVEN'T tasted skunk urine, it's a figure of
speach. I am a little affraid if I try any of the lighter ales or lagers
that I'll end up with something similar in taste (water and alcohol) to
the 'domestics'. I'm sure that I offended many people with that last
remark, and no, I won't apologize for it. BTW, I couldn't tell an ester
from a hop flavor, but I know when I like something, and beer tastes like
beer. To me, an apple tastes like an apple, and an orange tastes like an
orange, so beer doesn't taste liek roast beef, unless you cook the beef
in it and then drink the beer! (yum, got to try that sometime)
And finaly (ok, so I lied, it's not short, but it is by my standards!)
I'm thinking of trying an all grain or two. I've got a line on a S.S. 30
quart stock pot that I'm thinking of snatching up. What I am wondering
is, could I bring the water up to temp, 'pitch' the grains and place the
entier pot in a preheated oven (correct temp of course) to act as a
lauter tun (did I get that right?) for a single temp mash? Also, The Law
According to Papizan (sp?) recomeds using two five gal pails to sparging
the grains. From what little I've understood about the 'grain depth'
thread on here, it would seem the thicker the better. I have access to
oodles of teh large comercial ice cream buckets. I don't know if that
would be large enough to handle all the grains used. I thought I'd set
up a similar system that he sugested, just using smaller materials.
Hell, I've taken up enough space here! Cheers!
- --
**************************************************************************
Non-Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my
employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental.
Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic.
The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold
them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence
of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A
discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope
of this article.)
**************************************************************************
flames to /dev/null
Craig Stewart
foghorn1@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:33:23 -0500
From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan@cfrp.varian.com>
Subject: Decoction mash protein rest
Mike asks about the length of the protein rest in a decoction mash.
I suspect that the answer lies in the disposition of the mash proteins -
whether they live in the thick mash or the thin mash. I'll *speculate*
about what is going on:
After the mash is doughed in, a lot of the proteins are washed into the
liquid. If this were not so, the enzymes would be destroyed during the
boiling of the thick mash (decoction, or boiler mash), and you wouldn't get
starch conversion. However, enough proteins for foam stability remain in
the thick mash and these are removed from the protein rest when the
decoction is pulled.
To support my conjecture I offer the following observations:
Final starch conversion after 2 decoctions seems to take longer than with a
infusion mash. I'm assuming that some of the enzymes, and consequently
other proteins, are in the decoctions.
So far I've had some long decoctions (2 boils of 30-45 min each plus the
155F thick-mash rest)- leaving long protein rests in the rest mash - and
have not had problems with thin beers or poor head formation or retention.
Does anyone have any good numbers on the percentage of protein in the rest
and boiler mashes?
Bob
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McCowan
voice: (508)-922-6000 x208
ATG/Receiver-Protector fax: (508)-922-8914
CPI BMD
Formerly Varian CF&RPP e-mail: bob.mccowan@cfrp.varian.com
Beverly, MA 01915
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:47:03 -0500
From: Guy Mason <guy@matrixNet.com>
Subject: Kegs and Filtering
Greetings,
I finally took the kegging plunge and it is worth every penny. I have a
quick survey type question for all the keggers out there.
1. Do you use a filter when kegging your brew???
I'd like to hear the pros and cons of filtering. I'll publish the
results if there is enough interest.
- --
o o
\ / M A T R I X
o--o
/ \ O Guy Mason
o \ / guy@matrixNet.com
O--O--O
/ \ MATRIX, 2 Trap Falls Road, Shelton, CT 06484
O O
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:08:04 -0600
From: jay@ro.com (Jay Reeves)
Subject: Acids follow-up
Last week I posted asking why one couldn't use phosphoric acid to acidify
the mash. The reason I asked this is because I had tried it on my most
recent batch and observed the pH climbing! I thought this shouldn't be
working this way, but since I don't know much about chemistry...ok!
I found out this weekend that my pH meter was at fault here. It obviously
had went haywire during that batch.
I've been in contact with several folks via email and telephone and
everyone is positive that phosphoric acid, as well as lactic, _will_
lower the pH of the mash, and a few even use phosphoric acid for the mash.
If there are any beginners or folks learning to mash out there, don't draw
a conclusion from my first post: phosphoric or lactic acid _will_ lower
the mash pH.
-Jay Reeves
Huntsville, Alabama, USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 09:01:27 EST
From: Todd Anderson <TRANDER@UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU>
Subject: Recipe Request
Greetings Fellow makers and lovers of beer:
Friend of mine is looking for a Carlburg-like homebrew recipe. Anyone have
any suggestions?
Thanks in advance, Todd Anderson, University of South Carolina
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:46:26 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Rakes/Protein rests
Al writes about one of his favorite subjects:
< Constantly running rakes, would do something
<similar. None of the rakes that I've seen move slowly down. They are
<usually a big set of vertical metal flat bars with small "wings" on them.
<On some, I belive that the angle of the "wings" is adjustable. On all
<of them, they can be shifted into a different position to shovel out spent
<grain.
The rake height is usually adjustable, the brewer manually sets the
height where they want it and then resets it again if a deeper cut
is desired. Im sure that very large and expensive tuns have a gradual
height control, its just not very practical on 25-50 BBl systems. The
rake height adjustment is very handy to have, as is the ability
to monitor lauter tun fluid pressures. A key in larger (25 BBl) tuns
is to keep the fluid pressures right so that the pump out of wort does
not overly compact the bed.
As for running the rakes in decoction mashes versus infusion mashes,
this may be all well in theory but it is really more a factor of the
type of malt being used. If Im brwewing a upward step mash IPA with
relatively low modified German malts Id probably want to run the rakes
every so often.
Michael asks about lone protein rests:
>Dough in at 104F, rest 15-20 mins. Raise to 122F for 20
>mins, pull decoction. Hold decoction at 148F for 30 mins,
>then boil for 20 mins. Combine mashes and rest at
>148-150F for 30-45 mins, raise to 158 for 10 mins, then
>170F and lauter.
<It appears the "rest" mash is at protein rest temperatures for
<at least 70 minutes in this schedule. What effect will this
<lengthy protein degradation have on the beer? Would a
<better option be to boost the rest mash temperatures up to
<the lower end of the saccharification range after the
<decoction is pulled?
It depends. If one is concerned with too much protein degradation
(the bulk of which is fixed by the maltster), then it is easy to
shorten this time. What I listed follows most traditional decoction
mashes. This may not work too well with more modified malts. You
could also raise the rest mash up to 131-135F where the effects would
be different, high molecular weight proteins/low molecular weight
proteins.
Good brewing,
Jim Busch
Colesville, Md
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:04:34 -0500
From: Btalk@aol.com
Subject: Contest Announcement
The Parlor City Brewers Coalition, comprised of the Borderline Yeast
Infectors and the Broome County Fermenters present The Parlor City Brew Off
homebrew competition April 13 in Binghamton, NY, at the Parlor City Brewery.
This BJCP sanctioned event is open to the usual styles of home made beer,
mead and cider.
Entry fee is $5 for the first and second entries, $4 for each additional.
Any type bottles will be accepted, as long as there are 20 oz total.
Carbonaters will be returned.
Cool ribbons and prizes will be awarded in all categories for first, second
and third places.
Mead and Cider will have own Best of Show judging and prize.
Best of Show for beer is a kegging system.
Top BOS will also get plaques.
This is your last chance to score points for this years NY Brewer and Club
awards!!
Entry deadline is March 30. Dropoff points have been set up in the Syracuse,
Albany and Binghamton, NY areas.
For additional info or entry packet, contact Roger Haggett, contest organizer
<Hagger@aol.com>.
Judges and stewards contact me.
Regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, BInghamton, NY <btalk@aol.com>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:38:36 +0600
From: David.L.Imming@att.com
Subject: Egyptian Beer
Glenn Rauding asks are there any good beer in Eygpt. Well, beer of
course is hard to come by in any middle eastern country. But
fortunately, Eygpt is not as strict as others. If you are staying
in Cario at one of the American Hotels a beer that I remeber
having, though not the greatest is a beer called Stella. It is
served in a standard wine botle and goed for about $1.50 depending
on the exchange rate.
Have fun,
Dave Imming
david.l.immimg@att.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:48:37 +0000 (GMT)
From: Delano Dugarm <ADUGARM@worldbank.org>
Subject: Spirit of Free Beer Announcement
The Washington, DC area is hosting the Fourth Annual Nation's
Capital "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition on May 18,
1996. The competition is recognized by the Beer Judge
Certification Program.
We encourage brewers of all skill levels to enter their homebrews
in this competition. The Potomac River Brewing Company has
agreed to accommodate cold storage needs and judging will
take place on-site in closed session to avoid mistreatment of
entries. This competition is an excellent opportunity to have
beers judged in comparison to beers from a wide geographic region
and get quality feedback. Score sheets will be *promptly*
returned following judging.
Although the primary objective of the homebrew competition is to
provide constructive comments on the entries, we are currently in
the process of assembling a full range of prizes to be sponsored
by regional microbreweries, homebrew supply shops, bars,
brewpubs, restaurants, and others. More than $2000 worth of
prizes ($50-$100 gift certificates for mail order homebrew
supplies, sacks of British malt, a 3l bottle of Corsendonk Pale
Ale, etc.) were awarded at last year's competition. (1st, 2nd,
and 3rd place in each class, plus 1st, 2nd and 3rd place Best of
Show)
The Nation's Capital "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition
provides an excellent opportunity for judges participating in the
Beer Judge Certification Program to earn some experience points.
We have volunteers willing to provide lodging for judges staying
overnight. Anyone interested in judging can contact the Judging
Coordinator, Rick Garvin, at rgarvin@btg.com.
Get those fermentation locks bubbling and send us your entries.
If you would like to receive an information packet on the
Nation's Capital "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition
(including full rules and entry forms), please send private
e-mail to Lynne Ragazzini at lynne@sed.psrw.com or call the
Competition Organizer, Becky Pyle, at (703) 273-2108.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:48:09 -0800
From: berserk@uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kevin Joseph Lin)
Subject: Please stop sending me this
I do not know how my address got on your list, so please stop sending me
this home brewing stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 19:54:16 +0100
From: bush@shbf.se (Robert Bush)
Subject: Instapure (R) waterfilters
Hullo fellow brewers,
I have an Instapure (R) waterfilter by Teledyne on my tap. I have noticed
that it removes the chlorine taste (the difference is only perceivable when
I compare filtered/unfiltered water) and it leaves coarser particles
behind. When I brew pilsners it's my only treatment of the water. I add
salts to the water when I brew all other styles. However, I have now
started thinking about whether it removes too much of the salt and minerals
and if so, how much extra I need to add. I have all the data from my water
company and treat the water on the basis of that data. Is anyone familiar
with this filter and its qualities?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% WASSAIL! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Robert Bush Computer: Macintosh %
% Eskilstuna,SWEDEN E-mail: bush@shbf.se %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
4-line signature (sorry, now it's 5)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 07:41 PST
From: robtrish@mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: deep grainbeds
John Varady wrote to me describing his lautering set-up. Apart from being
an interesting arrangement, it shows that I was being rather myopic and
unimaginative when I asked if anyone had a grainbed deeper than a foot!
John wrote:
>I use a 6.5 gallon bucket with a spigot in the bottom. For a false bottom,
>I use an aluminum pie pan with many nail holes in the bottom. This fits
>almost perfectly in the bottom of the bucket and the resulting gap is filled
>with a section of vinyl hose as a gasket. The pie pan has a hole in the side
>fitted with a tube that goes into the spigot hole in the bucket.
>
>Last weekend I got 71% efficency with 20 lbs of grain in this contraption.
>The top of the grain bed was about 2 inches from the top of the bucket. I
>was happy with the results. Flow was steady and clear.
>
>I'd say it was about 22" deep.
>
>John Varady
>Boneyard HomeBrewing.
If his bucket is like the ones that I've seen, then it is a bit wider at the
top than the bottom. The slight cone to the grain would automatically stop
the grain from falling away from the sides - a plus.
There are lots of ways to rinse this cat.
Rob Lauriston
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:36:19 EST
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Subject: more on first wort hopping
Hi All,
After my post on first wort hopping, my mailbox has been flooded with
questions. I felt it was time to re-visit the issue, and clear up a few points.
I'll start with the disclaimer that I've only performed this procedure
twice, and one of those beers is still in the fermenter, so I'm hardly an
expert. I was sufficiently impressed with the quality of the hop flavor in
the first batch to post and encourage other brewers to try the procedure, and
share their results. In the absence of hard data, I'm hoping that collectively
we can come up with enough empirical data points to formulate practical,
rule-of-thumb procedures for homebrew size batches that we can all use.
Several people asked about putting the hops into the lauter tun. I think
when I wrote 'add the hops at the beginning of the sparge', it confused some
folks. The hops are added to the boiling kettle, not the lauter tun. I would
not suggest adding them to the lauter tun, out of concern that tannins would
be extracted from the hops, and adversely affect the pH in the tun.
Some other people asked about using pellets. Pellets should work OK, but
I believe that more hops should be used - the oils that contribute hop flavor
and aroma are diminished somewhat by the milling process. I used 1/4 ounce of
whole leaf on the two occasions that I've done this, I'd suggest starting with
1/3 to 1/2 ounce of pellet hops, and go from there.
I also heard from several extract brewers, who wanted to know how to do
first wort hopping when their procedure does not include a one hour sparge.
If I understand the underlying chemical reactions correctly, first wort
hopping works because the volatile oils in the hops bind with constituents in
the wort, and survive the boil. So, it seems to me the key is to allow the
hops to soak in the wort for some period of time before starting the boil.
For an extract/specialty grain brewer, I'd suggest heating your wort to
120F-140F, add the hops, and let them soak for 1/2 hour or so. You might try
adding the hops at the same time as the specialty grains, and steep them
together.
Finally, I heard from our mate from down under, Dave Draper. Dave pointed
out that many brewers boil the wort for 15-30 minutes before the first hop
addition to allow the hot break to form, and thus any contribution of iso-alpha
acids from the small amount of hops used for first wort hopping can be ignored,
i.e., don't subtract out IBU contributions from the first wort hopping as I
did. Dave also mentioned that he has a first wort hopped pils at the end of
primary, and a brown ale that just started fermentation. He brewed these
beers without subtracting out the IBU contributions, and has promised to post
his results, so we'll have some useful data points in a few weeks time.
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:54:40 PST
From: mikehu@lmc.com
Subject: Very Stupid Brewer's Trick
On the subject of dumb brewing tricks, check this one out:
My brewing partner and I brew 15 gallon batches in a converted
Sankey system. We came up with the idea to do primary ferments
in a 15.5 Gal. Sankey with the down-tube removed. On this never
to be forgotten brew day, we added our cooled wort directly on
top of the dregs remaining in this fermenter from the previous
batch. The beer was a wheat, brewed using hop pellets. The only
thing we were lacking for our new large fermenter was a stopper
that would fit in the bung and accept a blow off tube, so we
used a rubber stopper with an air-lock. Both of us were pleasantly
surprised to see activity within an hour, due to the large amount of
yeast sediment already in the fermenter. Within 2 hours, foam was
spewing two feet into the air out of the air-lock. We saw this and
thought, cool, a really vigorous ferment, and continued on with our
post-brewing tasting session. It was about 1 hour later that we
heard it - BAM! then BOOM! followed by -WOOOOSSHHHH!!! This wooshing
noise continued on for some time. We knew what had happened, we just
didn't want to look. So we decided not to worry and just let the thing
in the next room do what ever it wanted. About five minutes later we
got up the courage to go look. Beer was still spewing 3 feet into the
air out of the bung. There was beer on the ceiling, and on all four
walls. It looked like someone took at least two cups of yeast sediment
and hurled it at the ceiling.We found pieces of the air-lock tightly
packed with hop pellet parts. (The initial BAM! was this air-lock being
launched out of the rubber stopper) The CO2 then coming out of solution
caused the rubber stopper to attempt a moon shot. (BOOM!) Wooshing noise
was the beer hitting the ceiling. Beer lost = 8 gallons. Cat that was
sleeping next to this keg-bomb was found behind the dryer, all four claws
dug into the exhaust hose, completely soaked with beer. (Along with every-
thing else in the room.) Beer remaining in keg was actually pretty good.
Mike Hughes in Portland, OR
Co-owner of the Double Barrel Brew-Pub
"Twas a woman who drove me to drink,
and I never had the courtesy to thank her!"
- W.C. Fields
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1983, 03/13/96
*************************************
-------
