Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2063
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/06/08 PDT
Homebrew Digest Saturday, 8 June 1996 Number 2063
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
wierd corny keg (Sjackson@x-net.net)
Dippity-Doo Partial Mashing (KennyEddy@aol.com)
BLOODY HELL! HOW DID YOU KNOW? (Rob Moline)
Charity Homebrew/Leaky Corny's/Homebrew Shops & the Law/Nebraska Bound HBD Lurker (Rob Moline)
esters and oxygen (Andy Walsh)
malting (johan.haggstrom@ped.gu.se (Johan H\dggstr\vm))
Homemade Intoxicants and Charity (Fred Hardy)
RO Reversed/Protein/Esters (ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange))
Vacuum Packers (Michael Newman)
MOSHER'S "Brewer's Companion" - Serious Change Ed 1 to 2 (DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932)
Predicting Beer Color (dwhitman@rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman))
Re: Pressure Reduction on Keg Lines ("Patrick G. Babcock")
health code officials / hops and dogs / RIMS repeatability ("Keith Royster")
Re: Pressure Reduction on Keg Lines ("Patrick G. Babcock")
Mill rollers (Matt_K@ceo.sts-systems.ca)
Temperature and Yeild, etc. (Fred Hardy)
"the krausen remains the same" ("Jeremy E. Mirsky")
BBC's Longshot HBC (Fred Hardy)
Yeast, respiration, and ester formation (George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro))
Kosher beer? (ambroser@apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Leader of the American Monster Raving Loonys))
Re: Skunky Beer, 18th century brewing (dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma))
Kosher beer? - mistake (ambroser@apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Leader of the American Monster Raving Loonys))
The origins of beer? (John Chang)
Body: protein or dextrins? (Bill Press)
leaky corny kegs ("Sharon A. Ritter")
Blowoff exposure (Darrell_J._Proksa@em.fcnbd.com)
Beer & Religion ("ADAIR, BENTON E.")
Re: more pure "gobbledygook"? ("Tracy Aquilla")
Indoor burner use / safety (Scott Dornseif)
P.S. to indoor burner safety (Scott Dornseif)
Spent grains (Perillo)
Homemade mills - comment ("David R. Burley")
conversion time correction (bkowalski@instmail.oyo.com (Bill Kowalski))
Re: Dry Hopping & Grassy Flavors (Mark)
Extraction Thread (Keith Chamberlin)
How Quick an ESB? (Erik Larson (Tel 202-622-1322 ))
Rivertown Beer Festival (Detroit) ("Rich Byrnes")
RE: Strange Fermentation (Mark Peacock)
End of the world is nigh (Fred Waltman)
Berry Strawberry Ale (KHButtrum@aol.com)
1st Electronic Conference on Zero Emissions by Beer Breweries (Darren Evans-Young)
disregard (Fost@aol.com)
I'm pro choice (Dave Cummings)
HBD now webified ("Karl F. Lutzen")
What do I do now? (Al Pearson)
RE: Sierra Nevada Porter (ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie))
Eudora & RE: Am I the only one? (ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie))
Partial Mash vs All-Grain Extraction Rates Question (Dean Larson)
Cascade Hops (or grassy flavors) ("CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865")
Sort of Selling Beer ("Robert A. Uhl")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
homebrew@aob.org (SUBMISSIONS only)
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org (for REQUESTS only)
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@aob.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-digest-request@aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via BEER-L NET, you must unsubscribe by sending a
one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo@aob.org, so some
of the commands may have changed. For technical problems send
e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION
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 or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web. Othere information is available by
e-mail from info@aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
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 at /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. Some
archives are available via majordomo@aob.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sjackson@x-net.net
Date: 6 Jun 1996 23:27:28 EST
Subject: wierd corny keg
Well with the recent rebirth of discussion on beer line length/diameter
I thought I might add a small data point (sort of). LAst year as I
attepted to solve my foaming problems I asked and received several very
nice responses. I didn't realize that my problem was NOT line but the
keg itself until I obtained additional kegs. The original keg was a
ball lock style but different in outward appearance. Rubber bottom ring
but no rubber top. Single SS strap handle. No pressure relief valve in
teh lid. But the real weird part was the out tube. Now that I have
rebuilt several other kegs I realize my problem was the out tube. There
was no means to seal it. Standard kegs have the tube with a flair and
it inserts from above. This one was only a straight tube that fit from
below (from inside the keg). The seal (if you could call it that) was
just a rubber o-ring pushed up the tube and, I assume, was intended to
be pushed flush with the fitting. Anyway what happened was the
introduction of CO2 along with the liquid. I have asked several folks
about this and none have ever seen this style before. So one possible
cause of foaming could be the mixing of pressurized gas with liquid as
it exits the keg - and let me tell you NO AMOUNT OF TUBING WILL SOLVE
THIS. Anybody here ever seen this type fitting?
Steve
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brewing beer was far more exciting when it was both a hobby AND a
felony!
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:37:11 -0400
Subject: Dippity-Doo Partial Mashing
George de Piro wrote:
> First, your extraction rate will not be very good. Even if you don't
> care about that, the next reason should cause you concern: you will
> not be clarifying the wort in the least bit by this method. In fact,
> you will probably get a ton of husk material in the wort! This will
> very likely lead to grainy astringency in the finished beer, which
> most people will not find pleasant.
Agreed, but (first) the idea is that it's *easier* to do it this way for
those just starting to dabble with grain brewing, compared to the very coarse
strainers, collanders, and other monstrosities I've seen partial-mashers use.
Besides, the amount of grain is much less than a full-grain batch; no more
husk material will be introduced than the typical specialty-grain steep. The
(many) beers I've had that were made using this technique never had any
off-flavors that I could attribute to excess husk / flour in the wort. As
for extraction, screw it! As long as you get a portion of your fermentables
from the partial mash, you'll pick up that much more of that "more authentic"
character you're striving for. One should add extract to reach a target
gravity anyway, so what's lost in efficiency is made up in extract (syrup or
dry).
Granted, "real" all-grain brewing is not that much harder, but the extra
investment in equipment (however modest it can be) and rigging up a
gravity-feed system in the kitchen is why many people stick to extract /
partial mashing in the first place. The method I suggested is only
incrementally more complicated than a specialty-grain / extract brew and can
lead to much better beer. That was my point.
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:59:32 -0500
Subject: BLOODY HELL! HOW DID YOU KNOW?
>From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
>Date: 05 Jun 96 10:21:49 EDT
>Subject: Jethro Gump and Big Words
>
>Rob Moline of Little Apple Brewing, Manhattan, Kansas, and now of Jethro Gump
>Brewing continues to insist that his methods do not support theory. He adds
>sugar solution to his secondary without stirring and waits long enough for
>diffusion to completely disperse the sugar. I guess you Kansassians are
really
>patient.
>All I have to say about using big words like Brownian is, if you can't walk
>the walk, don't talk the talk {;-)
BLOODY HELL!! DAMN, I've been found out! HOW did you know I'm a mute, double
- -amputee? It's a good thing that I don't know much about beer or I might be
upset!
Rob (Jethro Gump) Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
"I am a Humorless Bastard!"
"I am a Humorless Bastard!"
"I am a Humorless Bastard!"
(there...I feel better now)
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 22:59:37 -0500
Subject: Charity Homebrew/Leaky Corny's/Homebrew Shops & the Law/Nebraska Bound HBD Lurker
Charity Homebrew-
When I was a member of the North Florida Brewer's League in
Tallahassee, (Go Nole's!) they held an annual charity beer event. With the
assistance of a local retail liquor shop, they set up a booth, where one
could buy a bunch of tickets for 5 bucks, and then trade each of the tickets
for a sample of homebrew made by various local brewers. All funds went to a
local charity. I know that some times they ran into a few bureaucratic
obstacles that hadn't been a prob the year before, but now were. They always
seemed to overcome them with official blessings. These were public events
and were great fun. This was back in '89 or '90 or so. Don't know if they
still do it.
Leaky Corny's-
A problem for me too, until I was told to pull up on the handle of the
lid, while gassing up with about 5 lbs Co2. You could hear the Co2 escaping
around the gasket, until it slowly seated itself between the lid and the
weight of the filled keg. Never had to use any lubes, etc.
Homebrew Shops and The Law-
Never had that problem in the HB shop I ran in Savannah, Georgia for
the Mill Bakery, etc., or in the sales I do for a few customers of the
Little Apple. But both places had retail, restaurant, etc., licenses.
Technically, it may be nit picking, but the inspectors are correct, though
overzealous, when they hassle the homebrew shops for re-packaging hops and
milling grain. Though a PITA, I would stop re-packaging hops and sell only
pre-packaged hops, while I worked the city and county authorities to explain
whats involved and seek relief. Yes, you won't make the same margin on your
hops while this happening, but it beats shutting up shop or paying $ 20k.
Nebraska Bound HBD Lurker-
Please send your e-mail address again. The Jethro in me lost it, but I
have a few tid-bits of info for you.
Rob (Jethro Gump) Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about
beer!"
------------------------------
From: Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:05:42 +1100
Subject: esters and oxygen
Tracy writes:
>With most ales, esters
>are desirable, while with some ales and most lagers, they are not. One way
>to minimize ester production is to use a higher pitching rate and minimize
>or even completely avoid wort aeration (and keep the temp down).
I must disagree here.
*More* esters are produced by yeast in a poorly aerated wort than from a well
aerated wort. If you want to keep ester levels down, use a higher pitching
rate
in a well oxygenated, trub-rich wort.
This has been well documented in the literature. I can provide references
for those interested.
- --
Andrew Walsh CHAD Research Laboratories
Phone (61 2) 212 6333 5/57 Foveaux Street
Fax (61 2) 212 1336 Surry Hills. NSW. 2010
email awalsh@crl.com.au Australia.
------------------------------
From: johan.haggstrom@ped.gu.se (Johan H\dggstr\vm)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 13:28:44 +0100
Subject: malting
Hi!
This year I will try to really make my beer (lager) from scratch. That
includes all steps from growing the barley and making the malt to
brewing (and drinking, of course). The barley (2-row) is on its way.
The harvest is estimated to about 2000 kg's. I've done some reading
about the maltingprocess and think I have got the big picture.
Though, I would be very interested to know if there are some vital
experinces made previously.
Anybody tried malting?
Which are the main practical problems?
What could go wrong?
I'll appreciate all pieces of advice.
Johan Haggstrom, Goteborg, Sweden
------------------------------
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 07:55:32 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Homemade Intoxicants and Charity
The Commonwealth of Virginia recently relaxed several laws related to
homebrew. The brewer could always share the brew with friends in the
brewer's own home (presumably where the brew was made). Now it is legal to
carry the brew to another private home and share it with friends. It is
also legal to transport the beer to competitions, club meetings, etc. It
can also be transported to, and consumed at public places for
competitions, club meetings, etc.
Sell one drop, and you have violated the law in every jurisdiction from
the precinct to the feds. The reason for selling is of no interest, nor is
the potential good the proceeds may do (shelter widows and orphans, for
example). Receiving something of value in exchange for homemade alcoholic
beverages is against the law of the land if you do not have a license to
do so. It is the unlicensed sale of a controlled substance and consistent
with laws regarding illegal sale of drugs and moonshine.
Reimbursment for my cost to make an alcoholic beverage (beer, mead,
wine) for you is illegal! Whether or not a profit is involved is of no
interest, it was simply a sale. Exchanging homemade alcoholic beverages
for something of value (goods or services) is barter and legally a sale -
absolutely a no-no.
Claiming the receipt of something of value was only for a container and
the contents were free is cute, but has no legal standing in court.
"Really, officer, the $100.00 was for the plastic bag, not for the
narcotics in the bag" will probably not get you found "not guilty" of
selling a controlled substance.
I am not a lawyer, and the above is only my opinion. I suggest you consult
a lawyer prior to exchanging a homemade alcoholic beverage for something
of value, regardless of how you package it or what you intend to do with
the item of value.
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
==============================================================================
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:20:12 -0500
Subject: RO Reversed/Protein/Esters
A few days ago I posted a description of reverse osmosis which was
incorrect. It is the solvent that passes through the membrane, not the
ions.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Howard Smith asked about the function of the protein rest. Proteins are
made up of chains of amino acids. Just as the chains of sugar molecules
which make up starch need to be lysed into smaller units, so must the
proteins. This is the function of the protein rest. There are several
issues here. Starch is bound up in a matrix of protein. At a minimum this
matrix must be broken down so that the starch is released for conversion to
sugar. Furthermore the physical properties of the beer i.e. its viscosity
and hence mouthfeel, its head formation and retention and its ultimate
clarity all depend on proper distribution of protein fragment molecular
weight. Finally, some protein must be broken way down to supply amino acids
to the yeast. Where the malt is well modified, much of this potein lysis
has already been done. In an undermodified malt it must be done in one or
more protein rests. Again with reference to the starch analogy, there are
several proteolytic enzymes each of which has as optimum temperature and pH
range.
Howard also asked about esters. These are compounds obtained by the joining
of a carboxylic acid radical to an alcohol. Hence esters have names like
ethyl acetate (from ethyl alcohol and acetic acid), amyl acetate, etc.
These compounds gnerally lend fruity flavors and aromas to beer. When
someone peels a bannan, what you smell is amyl acetate. This is the same
smell that you note when a wheat beer is opened or a bee stings someone.
Other esters give the berry-like flavors and aromas of ales which are
brewed to encourage their production. Ethyl acetate, on the other hand, has
a (to me) rather unpleasant solvent like taste/aroma. I (and some
commercial brewers) thus strive to suppress ethyl acetate formation (which
isn't easy to do because there is lots of ethanol and acetyl CoA in
fermenting beer) while maximizing the production of other esters.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
From: Michael Newman <100711.2111@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 07 Jun 96 08:09:58 EDT
Subject: Vacuum Packers
Mark Garetz in his info on hop storage suggests that a suitable vacuum packer
for hops may be bought for $100. I can't find such a machine here in the UK
except at about $3000. Yes three thousand. Can anyone supply details of a
suitable machine preferably at 220V, although 110V could be acceptable, and
where it can be had. I could either mail order it or possibly get a friend to
collect it on a trip to the US.
MICHAEL NEWMAN
------------------------------
From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@LILLY.COM>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 12:13:38 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: MOSHER'S "Brewer's Companion" - Serious Change Ed 1 to 2
MOSHER'S "The Brewer's Companion"
I recently encountered some previously unreported changes
in this book which occurred between the first and "updated"
(2nd Ed?) versions. These concern hop utilization: read on
if this is of interest to you.
The changes are to the graphs of hop utilization rate versus
SG and time of boil, both the "whole hops" and the "pellet hops"
charts. Rates have gone up by ca. 25% in the second edition!
The good news is that the 2nd Ed numbers agree better with
those obtained via the calculations of Tinseth et. al.
For example: a 1hr boil with OG=1.04 gives a utilization of -
1st Ed. = ca. 17% (reading the "A" value from the graph)
2nd Ed. = ca. 23% (same method, from my memory)
The impact is large. For a beer brewed to a target of 25 IBU as
calculated using the 1st Ed values will produce something more
like a 34 IBU brew (Tinseth method or 2nd Ed).
This certainly explained the much higher hoping rates my beers
had when using my 1st Edition for the calculations. I still like
this book as a convenient resource for a variety of brewing data.
But I use the Tinseth formula for hoping now.
Hope this helps an unsuspecting newbie or two!
Dave in Indy
------------------------------
From: dwhitman@rohmhaas.com (Dave Whitman)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:20:38 -0400
Subject: Predicting Beer Color
In HBD #2061, George De Piro asks:
> I've noticed that when trying to predict beer color using the data in
> the Zymurgy Great Grain Special Issue, the beers are usually a tad
> lighter than I calculate. Should the "potential color" number also be
> multiplied by your efficiency, or am I just experiencing variation
> amongst different lots/brands of malt?
I've also noticed that my color is always a little lighter than I predict
based on lovibond ratings. There are many factors that make simple adding
up of the lovibond numbers inaccurate, including degree of carmelization
during boil, use of Polyclar or other adsorbants, amount of break
precipiated, etc. However, I think you've hit on a key factor: efficiency
of lautering. If you do a better or worse job of lautering, you'll extract
more or less color from your grain.
Some time back, I introduced a fudge factor into my color calculations to
address color extraction efficiency. It turns out that using the same
number I use for extract efficiency (87%) also gives me a good fit to my
color data. I don't know if this is just a coincidence, or whether it
tells us something profound about lautering. :-)
- ---
Dave Whitman
Rohm and Haas Company
dwhitman@rohmhaas.com
------------------------------
From: "Patrick G. Babcock" <pbabcock@ford.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:42:12 -0400
Subject: Re: Pressure Reduction on Keg Lines
On Jun 6, 2:38pm, Bob Waterfall wrote:
(Sorry, Bob - on third thought, I decided maybe this should be
addressed in the digest.)
> Since Pat brings up some of the points I was trying to make in my
> post a couple of weeks ago in this thread, I can't help but think
> that I must be one of the "genius types" he's ranting about. If I
> *am* one of the folks he's refering to,
No, not specifically, but you'll do! ;-)
> Having a little knowledge (I know, a dangerous thing :-)) and a
> Chem. Engg. Handbook, I was just trying to provide some ideas as to
> why Jay's hose needed to be so much longer than the 2.2-3 psi/ft
> predicted. Obviously, one or more things about his system are
> different from the "nominal" conditions of the data table, making
> the "benchmark" close to useless.
That's kind of out of hand, wouldn't you say? Being that you're not
LOOKING at Mr. Reeves' system, you can't say this with any certainty.
Besides that, it doesn't make logical sense to say the benchmarks are
wrong because a system doesn't match it. Usually, if I build
something having an expected outcome, and my creation doesn't meet
that outcome, I'd say I screwed it up, rather than the benchmark was
screwed up. At least until I can PROVE otherwise.
As you indicate, material can have a big effect. As can a broken
regulator. Benchmarks and nominals are still valids, Jay just needs
to find and understand what it is that is different in his system. As
I indicated in private e-mail, nature very rarely allows us to put
her in the small box of our total understanding; however, she rarely
lends herself to chaos as well.
>
> I beg to differ. Jay's problem was that it didn't get him very
> close at all. It was off by 10 and a half feet. If beer follows
> the same trend as the 40% alcohol solution I had data for, then a
20
> degF difference in serving temperature could account for a good
> chunk of the difference (about 1/4 to 1/3 of it).
Jay's results would indicate a breakdown in the *SYSTEM*. Something
is not conforming to the nominal values he is using. Is his line
vinyl? What size are his fittings? Is his line truly 3/16"? If his
line is 1/4" rather than 3/16", this could account for 100% of the
difference within the expected tolerance of the system - using the
nominals.
> To use Pat's electric current analogy, resistors can have very
> different resistances if they heat up, true? If your circuit
> response changes due to a change in the ambient temp., don't you
> think that would be something you should take into account when
> moving
Uh, Bob? His lines are in his refrigerator along with his kegs, per
his post. Boom! Your missile missed your target - as I understand his
post, the beer is at the same temperature until it hits the bottom of
his glass. However, yours is a valid statement. Under conditions like
mine (kegs at room temperature, cold plate for cooling), the
temperature of the fluid is dynamic in the system. Now, I could have
pulled my hair out and attempted to account for fluctuations in the
ambient temperature (seasonal) and the temperature gradients that
form in the plate as the beer flows (warm beer, cold plate - plate's
temperature increases as beer flows), but that would have been
bordering on the ridiculous. Yes, the changing temperatures in the
lines affects the carbonation pressure of any sample taken anywhere
in the system; however, by using the guidelines cited previously, it
works acceptably. (Note that the plate input lines are 14" ID, while
the plate output lines are 3/16" ID.) This particular system had the
further perturbation of requiring a CO2/N2 mix as the required
driving force exceeds my desired carbonation pressure. But the
"benchmarks" and "nominals" still applied in this more complicated
system. Why would they suddenly not in a straight-gut, keg-to-door
line? Because something is different. That doesn't justify throwing
the baby out with the bath water by telling everyone "The pressure
drop from start to finish is always zero". (THAT by the way was the
circuit through which the rant capacitor was discharging.)
>
> If Pat is right and I was being pedantic, my apologies to one and
> all.
No, you weren't being pendantic. You provided good and valuable
information to those that wish to literally wrestle it down to the
ground - nothing wrong with that. But I maintain that these nominals
and benchmarks are valuable, and get the job done.
>
> On another note, I see I wasn't the only one to note the odd
> placement of the toilets in the new brewpub in Dublin.
They must place high value on personal hygiene, eh?
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE MI pbabcock@oeonline.com
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
------------------------------
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 08:54:40 -0500
Subject: health code officials / hops and dogs / RIMS repeatability
First I want to say thanks to all who have responded to my recent
post concerning a friend whose home-based, homebrew mailorder
business is getting shut down by the county health officials. All of
the responses have been sympethic and some have related stories of
similar experience. Thanks for all of the ideas and support.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, I would like to address a comment I made in that same
post.
> except for the rare occasion when I feed them (hops) to my golden
> retriever (sorry, bad joke).
Dick Norman emailed me and pointed out that there still may be some
people out there that don't know about hops & dogs and may not get
the joke. He is justifiably concerned that they may get the wrong
impression that this is OK. So to hopefully clear up any possible
misunderstandings...
HOPS ARE POISONOUS TO MANY (ALL?) DOGS!!! DO NOT LET YOUR DOG EAT
YOUR SPENT HOPS!
Dogs have been known to get into compost piles and eat them, only to
later die of a painfully high and uncontrolled fever. Please make
sure that you properly dispose of your hops.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
And lastly, I beleive that it was Tracy who asked for me to clarify
a couple of comments I made about RIMS. I accidentally deleted that
copy of the Digest before I could respond, so I'm going from memory
here. Assuming I remember correctly, she asked for clarification on
how a RIMS allows for more repeatable beers and how it is possible
to to implement a decoction mash in a RIMS. I'm fairly new to all
grain and RIMS (3 batches both) but here goes...
1) because of the temperature control and even heat distribution that
a RIMS provides, a recipie should be more easily repeatable simply
becuase you have removed those two variables.
Depending on your dough-in techniques and mash tun insulation, your
mash may have heat pockets or simply be cooler on the outer edges of
the grain bed. The mixing provided by a RIMS will eliminate these
variations in grain bed temperature thus more accurately controlling
the enzyme activities that you am attempting to favor.
Furthermore, small variations in dough-in temperatures between two
batches can more easily be corrected with a RIMS, especially if you
err on the low side. A simple temp boost will put you right at the
mash temp you were targeting. Also, the inevitable drift towards
lower temps as you loose heat in your single infustion mash are not a
problem with a RIMS.
2) Tracy's second question on how it is possible to use a RIMS to
implement a decoction mash, is prompted by my initial comment that a
RIMS is a time and labor saver compared with more complicated
mashing techniques such as decoction mashing and stove top
temperature boosts. Tracy is right here in questioning whether a
RIMS can be a replacement for a decoction mash, and I didn't mean to
imply that it is. While I've never done a decoction mash before, it
is my understanding that the process involves mashing in at one
temp, then after some time drawing off part of the wort, boiling it,
then mixing it back into the grain to boost the temperature to the
next level. Obviously there are big differences here between
decoction and RIMS because the act of boiling the wort in a
decoction mash causes chemical reactions (caramelizations &
melo-something.. I should pay closer attention) that you don't get
in a RIMS. So there will be certain flavor differences between the
two mashing techniques. However, what I was really attempting to
say was that if you are not after those decoction mash flavors and
are simply looking for a method to do a stepped temperature mash,
then a RIMS provides for a much less complicated process.
Keith Royster - Keith.Royster@ponyexpress.com
@your.service - http://dezines.com/@your.service
Web Services - Starting at just $60 per YEAR!
Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098
------------------------------
From: "Patrick G. Babcock" <pbabcock@ford.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:32:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Pressure Reduction on Keg Lines
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your reduced calorie small beer...
On Jun 7, 8:42am, I wrote:
> works acceptably. (Note that the plate input lines are 14" ID, while
> the plate output lines are 3/16" ID.) This particular system had the
Beware the wrath of the Fat Finger! That should have been 1/4" ID instead of
14"...
My apologies to all of you who immediately ran out and bought bulk tubing of
14" ID. Perhaps your local Water & Sewer department will buy it from you?
See ya!
- -p
Copyright 1996 Russell Mast. All rights reserved 'cuz he SEZ so! Got
something to SAY about that?!? HUH?!?
------------------------------
From: Matt_K@ceo.sts-systems.ca
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:35:22 est
Subject: Mill rollers
In 2062 Greg Olson writes about building his own grain mill:
>I have access to some relatively large diameter (4-5") aluminum pipe.
> This would be easy to work with (and free), but I have some concern
> if the pipe would be hard enough.
You could fill the pipe with concrete. This should make it plenty
hard.
P.S. I tired to reply via e-mail but the massage kept bouncing back.
Matt
in Montreal
------------------------------
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:52:38 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Temperature and Yeild, etc.
Hi, Bill:
A while back we exchanged email regarding what seemed to be a low yeild in
my all-grain process. I think I found one of the culprits. "Old Faithful"
the small-faced (the size of a quarter) thermometer that I have used for
years probably did me in.
I monitor the temperature of my sparge water with an old candy thermometer
that's been around the house for at least fifteen years. Since it always
read 15 or so degrees higher than "Old Faithful" I assumed it was wrong.
After all, "Old Faithful" cost more and was newer.
The other day, in the middle of making lawnmower lager (80% 6-row pale,
20% flaked maize) I decided to use a new large-faced thermometer I bought
so I wouldn't need glasses to read the dial. Guess what! It read 15
degrees or so below "Old Faithful." It said my rest at 150 degrees F was
only in the mid-130s.
I checked both thermometers with the candy thermometer which was hanging
in the sparge water. The large-faced one read sorta the same as the candy
jobber. "Old Faithful" was 15 or so degrees higher. I laid both dial-faced
thermometers on the counter for a few minutes and compared them with the
room temperature thermometer. "Old Faithful" faithfully read 12-15 degrees
higher than the other two. Since I knew it was not 88 degrees F in the
kitchen, "Old Faithful" went into "Old Reliable" (the under-sink trash
container).
The lawnmower beer yeilded a full 5 points higher extraction. My very
predictive model projected an OG of 1.045, and the actual was 1.050. I
attribute it to hotter sparge water (I now believe the candy thermometer)
which was more efficient in removing the sugars.
Other pesky problems are probably also solved. Many of my beers have won
2nd and 3rd place ribbons, but judges' comments often said "too thin for
style." Not true of my decoction beers where I don't rely too much on the
thermometer, but for an infusion mash the erroneously high readings would
have led to longer, cooler mashes (by a lot!) and a thinner beer. I'm now
looking forward to higher yeilds, faster conversion and better body in my
brews.
I occasionally have a low-level, pesky off-flavor in a beer made with a
protein rest. If I thought the rest was at 118 and it really was closer to
100, there is the possibility that I provided a great medium for some
stray beasty to get a foothold. I'll have to see.
Any thoughts?
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
==============================================================================
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "Jeremy E. Mirsky" <mirsjer@charlie.cns.iit.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:06:38 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: "the krausen remains the same"
Hi -
I've got a question about a bitter that I bottled two days ago. This was
an extract brew fermented in plastic with Wyeast.
The fermentation seemed to have completed in one day (the gravity was
very low). When I did bottle (about 6 days after pitching), the krausen
was still intact at the top of the brew. Is this strange?
When siphoning, and I was approaching the bottom of the fermenter, I did
notice yeasties still settling out to the bottom.
Also, when filling bottles with a plastic bottle filler, I notice that
there is a bit of noise (even with the filler at the bottom of the
bottle). To what extent will this hurt my beer?
TIA,
Jeremy Mirsky
mirsjer@charlie.cns.iit.edu
------------------------------
From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh@access.digex.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:08:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: BBC's Longshot HBC
The thread in HBD on the legality of selling homemade intoxicants for
something of value got me thinking of the Boston Beer Company's Longshot
homebrew competition. Last year we sent a few bottles of brew to the BBC
and they sent us a T-shirt and a bag of hops. Hmmmmmmmmm, did we sell them
our beer?
This year they require a $5 fee to be sent along with a few bottles of our
beer. Again, the reward? for shipping the entry is a T-shirt and a bag of
hops. Are we selling the BBC untaxed beer packaged in a glass container
wrapped with a $5.00 bill in exchange for a T-shirt and a bag of hops?
Are we buying a T-shirt and a bag of hops for $5.00 and just donating our
beer? Are the T and the pellets worth $5.00? Does it matter?
Shucks, I'm not a lawyer. It's just a thought.
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
==============================================================================
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:09:18 -0700
Subject: Yeast, respiration, and ester formation
In HBD 2061 Tracy states that S. cerevisiae does not respire (by
respire I mean go through the Kreb's cycle, electron transport chain,
etc.). I could find nothing to substantiate this statement, and
therefore doubt its' accuracy.
Tracy also says that oxygenating the wort will cause the yeast to
produce off flavors and esters. This is essentially wrong. Yeast, in
the presence of oxygen, WILL RESPIRE. Respiring yeast DO NOT produce
alcohol, and they do produce compounds that cause off flavors but
these compound are later metabolized by the yeast (or, in the case of
volatiles, purged from the beer by CO2), so they do not usually make
it to the serving vessel.
Under oxygenation of the wort is the surest way to increase ester
production. Esters are the compounds that give beer fruitiness.
Without oxygen, acetyl Co A esterifies fusel alcohols, causing
excessive fruitiness in the finished beer (this isn't just textbook
knowledge, I did it before I knew any better. The resulting banana
beer was unpalatable to most).
Lack of oxygen will also increase the final concentration of
acetaldehyde (green apple compound) in the beer.
The point of this is that it would be a shame if people start
underaerating their worts based on advice seen in the HBD. Their beer
WILL suffer.
References: Kirk, David "Biology Today" (my first college bio text)
Miller, Dave "The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing"
p. 188
Noonan, Gregory "Brewing Lager Beer" pp.147-151
George De Piro
------------------------------
From: ambroser@apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Leader of the American Monster Raving Loonys)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 10:34:56 -0400
Subject: Kosher beer?
This has nothing to do with beer, but I think it is important to keep everyone
informed. For an excellent web site concerning things "of or pertaining to
Jews or Judaism" (as Webster's dictionary defines "Jewish"), try:
http://user03.blue.aol.com/jewfaq/index.htm#Contents
If you want to go directly to the "Kashrut" section describing kosher foods,
http://user03.blue.aol.com/jewfaw/kashrut.htm is the place to go.
If someone thinks this is useless, I am sorry for wasting bandwidth.
Bob Ambrose
Georgetown University
Washington DC
P.S. I am not Jewish, I am Catholic. However, I found this address while
reading the Electronic Telegraph, the WWW version of Britain's The Daily
Telegraph newspaper.
------------------------------
From: dipalma@sky.com (Jim Dipalma)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 10:42:49 EDT
Subject: Re: Skunky Beer, 18th century brewing
Hi All,
In HBD #2062, Pat Babcock writes:
>It is interesting that how, as we become more and more educated in our craft,
>things that used to be pleasurable to us yield up previously undetected
>demons.
> Kind of like the death of innocence. The more we know, the more complicated
>our lives become because we narrow our choices - the things available to
>satisfy become fewer and more difficult to find.
Brother, ain't that the truth!! I can recall when I first started brewing
and developing a taste for better beer. I used to buy a lot of commercial
beer, Anchor steam, Pilsner Urquell, Bass, etc., and enjoyed them all
immensely. Then I became a BJCP judge, and began to notice how Anchor steam
is often oxidized by the time it gets to the East coat, how Pilsner Urquell
is almost invariably skunked, and how Bass occasionally has very high levels
of diacetyl. These days, I can scarcely drink a commercially brewed beer
without picking up some kind of defect.
>But I wouldn't
>give up the knowledge for the world...
Amen.
*****************************************************************
Also in HBD #2062, George De Piro writes:
>Oh yeah, Jim DiPalma responds to Tom Puskar's question about cloudy
>beer. He asks if 10 minutes is too fast to chill the wort.
No, that is not what I asked. I stated that I have never used a CF
chiller, and asked if 10 minutes cooling time was typical for a CF
chiller.
>About the cloudiness...Jim said he tried fining his beer with several
>different agents with no effect. Is it possible that you had starch
>in the beer?
No, it's a protein problem. I obtained the malt directly from the 7
Barrel brewery in Lebanon, NH, a brewpub owned by Greg Noonan. Greg told
my contact there that they also had problems with this malt in their
brewhouse. According to Noonan, the malt had a low percentage of soluble
protein, indicating undermodification, extremely rare for British 2-row
pale malt. They used lengthy, multi-step protein rests to alleviate the
problem. I suspect they filtered the beer rather tightly as well, an option
I do not have. BTW, they also immediately switched back to M+F malt.
What got me into trouble was that I assumed the malt was highly modified,
as British pale malts usually are, and used a single infusion mash, no
protein rest at all. The malt is produced by a malthouse called "Beeston",
which I've never heard of. If someone offers to sell you some of this malt,
do yourself a favor and run screaming in the other direction.
*****************************************************************
Also in HBD #2062, Bill Giffin writes:
>Don't rush it. I have been very happy brewing in the 18th century.
Cripes Bill, I knew you were getting a little long in the tooth, but I
didn't know you were *that* old. You don't look a day over 100 :-) :-)
Cheers,
Jim dipalma@sky.com
------------------------------
From: ambroser@apollo.dml.georgetown.edu (Leader of the American Monster Raving Loonys)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 10:43:18 -0400
Subject: Kosher beer? - mistake
Just noticed I said the "Kasrut" address is ..../jewfaw/.... it should be
..../jewfaq/.... I stand corrected.
Bob
------------------------------
From: John Chang <75411.142@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 07 Jun 96 10:49:28 EDT
Subject: The origins of beer?
Greetings,
The Los Angeles Times, June 6:
Archeologists digging in the remote mountain village of Hajji Firuz Tepe in
western Iran have found that shortly after humans moved into houses and
started
tilling the soil, they had a sophisticated winemaking technology. This
discovery pushes the date of the oldest known wine back to about 5400BC, 2000
years earlier than previously suggested.
The physical evidence of wine residue found in potsherds (pieces of broken
pottery) supports the discovery of the same kind of residue found in a room of
the trading outpost of Godin Tepe in Iran, about 500 miles south of Hajji
Firuz.
In this same room scientists subsequently found pots containing of all things,
BEER!
This all suggests that humans were making their favorite saturday night brew
even before they moved into houses.
So.....maybe next time when the wife complains about the mess created by
endless
pots, hoses, fermenters, and miscellaneous equipment clogging up the
kitchen....
quietly go about preparing for the next batch knowing that homebrewers have
never had it so good.....
John
------------------------------
From: Bill Press <press@lip.wustl.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:24:09 -0500
Subject: Body: protein or dextrins?
I've heard people say that flaked barley will add "body, mouthfeel,
and head retention", and that crystal malt will do the same, in
addition to adding residual sweetness.
So here are my questions:
1. Which is right? Are both correct (regarding the body/mouthfeel
part)? Can anyone provide a definitive answer?
2. I don't understand how crystal and carapils provide higher
dextrins. Say we are mashing with a significant amount of 2-row, and
we're doing a long enough 60C rest that we're converting a significant
amount of the 2-row starches into simple(sque) sugars. Why wouldn't
the beta-amylase, presumably largely concentrated, now, in the liquor,
convert the sugars in the crystal or carapils as well? Would one do
better to add these malts at the 70C rest, or during mashout? If
dextrins are responsible for body/mouthfeel, should flaked adjuncts be
added later, as well?
------------------------------
From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 07 Jun 96 11:28:53 EDT
Subject: leaky corny kegs
Bob Morris writes:
>I've been having problems with leaking around the lid on some of my kegs, I
>replaced the rubber seal without any improvement. Has anyone else had this
>problem or have a suggestion as to what to try next? TIA
You might try increasing the CO2 pressure to ~20 lbs. when you first seal the
keg. Then gradually lower the pressure to the desired level.
Also, try spreading a small amount of "keg lube" on the rubber seal. This
stuff
is simply food grade silicone. It is becoming widely available at HB shops but
if you can't find a source, send me a private e-mail message and I 'll give
you
my sources.
Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho
102446.3717@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: Darrell_J._Proksa@em.fcnbd.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:15:57 -0500
Subject: Blowoff exposure
I will be brewing Sunday and then be out of town Tuesday thru Friday. I
typically require a blowoff hose to be utilized during the second and third
days after pitching yeast at which point my fermentations have usually
reached their peak and the kraeusen has started to fall.
Given that I will be out of town during this time, can I establish my
blowoff setup (discharge end of blowoff tube submerged in weak chlorine
solution) before I leave and then replace with airlock when I return
without risking infection or chlorophenols in my beer ? Should I
reschedule by brewing session ?
Darrell Proksa
Chicago, IL
------------------------------
From: "ADAIR, BENTON E." <ADAIRBE@austy944a.aust.tdprs.state.tx.us>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 10:33:00 PDT
Subject: Beer & Religion
FWIW I don't think my home-brew is Kosher. However, drinking some of the
ones I have made have been religious experiences.
Most were like heaven, one like hell (lactobacillus).
Amen,
Brother Ben
------------------------------
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 96 11:37:38 CDT
Subject: Re: more pure "gobbledygook"?
In Digest #2062:
Bill Giffin <billg@maine.com> wrote:
>Tracy said:
>>I think the most likely explanation for your observation is simple
>>coincidence. In fact, it's quite likely that the differences you've observed
>>in extraction efficiency are not significant at a commonly accepted level
>>of statistical confidence (eg. 95%), indicating a high probability of
>>random correlation between unrelated variables.
>
>Pure gobbledygook. How can you make an informed statistical
>evaluation of my observations without knowing the sample size etc.
>How can you be sure with statistical confidence that I am wrong?
I can't make any informed conclusions at all if you don't provide the data!
I was hoping you'd provide some data, instead of just getting defensive. I
never said you were "wrong", I merely provided an alternative (and, IMO, a
more likely) explanation for your observation. There's no call to be
defensive (or offensive) here. I have made no "statistical evaluation", I
have simply expressed my doubt, indicating that I think it's unlikely your
observation is highly significant. You have not provided a single datum, yet
you have made a bold claim which you seem to be defending rather
aggressively. It's pointless to bicker over it; let's just see your raw data!
>>Another possibility stems from 'beer judge bias'.
>>Bigger beers tend to win in competitions. Most experienced brewers
>>know this and use it to advantage when brewing beers for
>>competitions. I don't doubt the fact that the beers that you say did
>>better in competitions tasted better, but I do doubt that this can be
>>attributed to increased extraction efficiency with any confidence.
>
>More gobbledegook Making assumptions which are incorrect.
>Most of the beers I brew are within the 1.040-1.050 range hardly
>bigger beers. When I brew for competition I brew to style usually in
>the mid of the style guideline. When I enter a competition I usually win
>with at least with one of my beers.
What assumptions do you think I made here, and which are incorrect? You
previously claimed that when you used the same recipe but got higher
extraction rates (via an 'improved' process), the beers tasted better and
scored higher in competitions (hence your conclusion that higher
extraction=better beer). If two beers are made with the same recipe, the one
with a higher extraction rate MUST have a higher OG (otherwise extraction
could not be higher), unless you dilute it, but then the recipe wouldn't be
exactly the same anymore. So which was it, a different recipe or a bigger
beer that scored more points? Again, the best way to settle this is to
provide the raw data on which your conclusion is based.
>I am talking about getting the same sort of extraction that professional
>brewers get.
Some actual numbers would be useful here. Do 'professional' brewers obtain
phenomenal extraction rates?
>>Aha! It's highly probable that your observation can be attributed to
>>"improving the process" (i.e. extraction rate increased along with
>>improved beer quality). The fact that the two events are correlated does
>>not indicate causation.
>
>GOBBLEDEGOOK again assumptions not in fact.
Again, which assumptions have I made and which are incorrect? Please tell me
what you assume I've assumed? I don't think I made any assumptions at all.
Please provide the facts to which you refer. Your response avoids the issue
entirely! I don't want to bicker; I want to get to the bottom of this.
>Tracy what is your extraction rate?
That's entirely irrelevant to this discussion, but I usually get between
29-31 pg/p. What is the point of this question; trying to redirect the topic
now?
>Many of homebrewer have extract in the 25 PPG range. If you can get
>33 PPG then the homebrewer with 25 PPG has 30% more husk
>material in their grist and the chance of 30% more tannins and silica in
>their wort then the brewer with the 33 PPG.
WHAT??? Please explain this. You lost me.
>>Welcome to the 21st century!
>
>Don't rush it. I have been very happy brewing in the 18th century.
I didn't realize you were over 200 years old. No wonder you're so grouchy!
Lighten up a little. This is intended to be a friendly discussion, not a
childish argument. ("gobbledygook" is hardly an intelligent or useful
response)
Tracy
------------------------------
From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE@wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 10:53:01 -0500
Subject: Indoor burner use / safety
In response to Steve Potter's Q on the risk of using a 30,000 BTU burner
indoors: Consider the amount of gas used in a typical home cooking
Thanksgiving dinner. The oven is on all day and four burners are going
at it for an hour or two. CO poisoning is probably not the reason people
get so tired after dinner though. I don't have the #s right here but I will
post, (Monday?), the "dangerous" levels of CO and the levels produced
by a typical NG burner / BTU.
Scott Dornseif
------------------------------
From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE@wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 11:01:59 -0500
Subject: P.S. to indoor burner safety
I'll also make the comment...
Extra caution and attention to safety only rarely kills or maims. IOW make
sure you have some ventilation
Scott Dornseif
------------------------------
From: Perillo <eperillo@suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:02:16 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Spent grains
Are there any practical and economical uses for spent grain ? I've heard
that major brewers sell it as feed for livestock. What about quantites that a
microbrewery or even a homebrewer might have ?
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 07 Jun 96 12:17:40 EDT
Subject: Homemade mills - comment
Fellow brewsters and millers,
Several people, Greg Olsen among others have been toying with the idea of
building a homemade malt mill. I once tried to convert an Italian noodle maker
to a two roll mill before the commercial mills were available in my neck of
the
woods.. I said to myself, "self, you've been using that coffee mill
successfully for years, but the books tell of a better way. And all these
years
you've been staring at that noodlemaker with two stainless steel rolls and all
you saw was a noodle maker , until today. Today you see its additional
possibilities - a two roll malt mill. Let's power it with a drill and mount it
on a board over a plastic dishpan to catch the grist." I did and was
successful
in the powering of it by cutting down a bolt to fit and puttting it in my
drill
chuck. It worked, but very poorly, since the grains wouldn't feed into the nip
without my forcing them in there. I was puzzled until recently, when I saw an
Italian three roll flour mill , SS construction, well built, in an HB shop.
This mill is versatile and it is possible to use only two rolls and get nearly
perfect crushed malt as well as other grains. The third roll (operating
against
one of the other rolls) takes the crushed grain and turns it into flour, for
all
you whole grain bakers ( I'm one) out there.
I bought one. The difference between my attempt and this product? Not much,
but you can still see my palm imprint on my forehead. The rollers were
KNURLED, so they would pull the grain into the nip. My nice smooth rollers to
make noodles did their job of not allowing the dough to stick, but this smooth
surface did a lousy job of pulling in the grain.
I'm telling you this for two reasons:
1) if you make your own mill, make sure the roller surfaces have been machined
in a criss-cross knurl to pull in the grains. Or or as one fellow commented
here a couple of weeks ago, use rollers made from cement cast in a PVC pipe.
These should be rough enough to grip the grain, although cast cement will tend
to take on the smoothness of the surface onto which it is cast. Maybe some
sand
in the cement will help.
2) Make sure you can adjust the nip, since 2 row and 6 row malts have a
different shape and distribution of sizes. Specialty malts, caramel, crystal,
chocolate have a different texture and need light crushing. I find it
convenient to be able to adjust the mill nip, all past comments in the mill
thread to the contrary. Also, make sure your adjustment is repeatable and
stable
throughout the crush.
Unless you really get your kicks from this kind of mechanical stuff or for
some
reason commercial mills don't fit your needs, I suggest you buy a tried and
true
commercially made mill, built for this purpose. It will probably cost you less
in the long run and if it doesn't work, you can send it back. My advice, spend
your time and money on brewing. But then again there's always RIMS
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: bkowalski@instmail.oyo.com (Bill Kowalski)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 10:22:47 +0000
Subject: conversion time correction
Greetings,
In hbd 2060, while commenting on Chris Coopers partial mash technique, I
made the statement that starch conversion took a longer time to completion
at higher sacch temps than at lower temps. Several people called me to task
on this statement, so last night I flipped through some of my brewing texts,
and sure enough I was wrong. Saccharification is quicker at higher
temperatures (in the appropriate range). Sorry for the bit of
misinformation, I just had a momentary lapse of mental coordination (maybe
it's time to get rid of that aluminum brew kettle :) ).
Bill Kowalski
Houston Tx.
------------------------------
From: Mark <bridges@tnet.net>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:30:52 -0700
Subject: Re: Dry Hopping & Grassy Flavors
FWIW on this recent thread....
Don't be discouraged by grassy flavors--the oils and resins which are =
extracting from the hops do take some time to develop and mature.
I have some experience with cask conditioned beer (English firkins, =
wooden bung & tuts, gravity dispense, etc.) and with every cask there is =
certainly a maturation period involved in terms of hop flavor =
development. =20
We have also found that not all hops are created equal for the purposes =
of dry hopping. Granted, the beer we used is an E.S.B. and quite hoppy =
to start with, some hops fare better in terms of overall effect. What =
works best for us in our English style ale is none other than Kent =
Goldings, even it's Oregon grown relative.
Maybe the best advice is to keep brewing, experiment, and use what works =
best for the beer. :)
Cheers!
Mark Bridges
------------------------------
From: Keith Chamberlin <Keith.A.Chamberlin@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 12:16:35 -0400
Subject: Extraction Thread
Speakin of gobbledyguck:
>Many of homebrewer have extract in the 25 PPG range. If you can get
>33 PPG then the homebrewer with 25 PPG has 30% more husk
>material in their grist and the chance of 30% more tannins and silica in
>their wort then the brewer with the 33 PPG. I think I would rather have a
>bit lower tannin and silica thank you. Got to keep the beer in balance
>at every step of the brewing process.
How can you claim this!? I am not the best brewer in the world but I win
awards. How can you claim that the tannins extracted are a constant
regardless of extraction percentage? I am reading this wrong? Now you can
do things like acidifying your sparge water to help keep the ph down, but if
the guy getting 25ppg does the same as you, I would count on you getting
more tannins in your beer.
Now, as far as the high extraction rate that micros and big equipment get,
they need to get as much sugar out of the grain as they can to turn a
profit. I calculate that for a 7 bbl system that a drop of 1ppg can account
for a loss of $200/batch of beer. So 2.5 ppg loss can be as much as
$500/batch of beer. Not good business. I won't bother putting my
calculation here but if you want to know how I figured it let me know.
Now, for all of us, let's not get too carried away with the extraction thing
here. I know brewers that get around 25ppg typically and win awards with
just about all their beers. I get around 29ppg myself and most of my beers
are good to excellent. There is more to the brewing process then extraction
that can make or break a good beer. Ferment temps is probably one of the
biggest, in my book anyway, and properyeast handling and pitch rates is
another. Let's try not to pick on each other for their beliefs, unless
someone is blatantly wrong they will continue to do what they want,
regardless of what you or I say. Geez, this is starting to sound like a
philosophy class!! 3 1/2 hours to Happy Hour, Wahhoooo!
Also less than 2 months to the GBBF!
See y'all there,
Keith
------------------------------
From: Erik Larson <Erik.C.E.L.Larson@MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com> (Tel 202-622-1322 )
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 09:16:19 -0400
Subject: How Quick an ESB?
HBDers!:
I want to brew an E.S.B. tomorrow (6/8/96) with the hope that it will be
drinkable
within three weeks (on 6/29/96). I'm planning on using the following extract
recipe,
formulated in Suds:
For 5.5 gallons:
Malts:
3.3 lbs. hopped Light Malt Extract Syrup (John Bull, Hopped to approx 9 HBU)
1.4 lbs. Weizen Malt Extract Syrup (an Alexanders Kicker, for head retention
and body)
3.0 lbs. Extra Light Dry Malt Extract Powder
0.5 lbs. 60L Crystal Malt
Hops:
1.0 oz. East Kent Goldings plugs (AA=4.7%) for final twenty minutes of total 1
hour boil.
Yeast:
1 quart stepped-up Wyeast E.S.B. starter.
I do full wort boils, immersion cooler chilling, pump and airstone aeration
and open
primary fermentation. I expect O.G.= 1.054 and F.G.= 1.014 for the above brew.
I'll probably put put this one up in 5l mini-kegs.
NOW FOR THE QUESTIONS:
In order to meet my drinking date, I've thought about foregoing my usual
racking to
a carboy for secondary fermemtation. Instead I plan on letting the brew go
perhaps
10 days in primary, and immediately thereafter kegging. WHAT CAVEATS SHOULD I
HOLD?
Can I make my drinking date? Should I use even less than my usual 1/3 cup
priming
\sugar? Can or should I dry hop in a 5L mini-keg? I hardly ever brew
British-style
ales; for the last two years I've only been brewing Belgian-style Ales and
Lambics
along with and German-style Lagers and Wheat Beers. Thanks.
- -Erik Larson (erik.larson@treas.sprint.com)
------------------------------
From: "Rich Byrnes" <rbyrnes2.ford@e-mail.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:36:11 EDT
Subject: Rivertown Beer Festival (Detroit)
Attention Michiganders, Northern Ohioands and Windsorites...
The 2nd Annual Rivertown Beer Festival is Friday, July 26th
from 5:30 to 9:00 at Strohs Riverplace (office Building) on
Joseph Campau on the Detroit River. (about a mile East of the
building formerly known as the Renaissance Center)
This is Michigans largest beer tasting with over 200 different
craft/micro/imports/mega beers for the sampling. There is also
a TON of food all donated and served by local restaraunts and
retailers.
Tickets are $25 for unlimited beer (2 oz. at a time ;-) ) and
food (NO TICKETS!) and this is a charity for the S.E. Michigan
Red Cross, same as last year. Tickets sold out well in advance
of last years festival so buy early! Tickets are available at
all Merchants of Vinos and Merchants Warehouses (Dearborn/Royal
Oak) and the Wine Shop in Riverplace. Call 810-988-1061 for
more info.
The volunteer staff (servers/pourers) will be mainly homebrewers
from the Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen and the Ann
Arbor Brewers Guild, Michigans two largest homebrew clubs and
the AABG is the states oldest I believe, about 17 years old!
You must be 21 to attend and they check ID's carefully, they also
have special provisions for designated drivers, call the number
for more info.
This was a blast last year and it should be even better this year!
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
B&AO Pre-Production PN-96 Analyst \\\|///
phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2.ford@e-mail.com (_)
------------------------------
From: Mark Peacock <mpeacock@oeonline.com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 14:34:29 -0400
Subject: RE: Strange Fermentation
>I just pitched a 5 gal batch of pale ale with a strain of Wyeast 1084 Irish
>Ale yeast saved from the prior batch and built up into a 1/2 gallon starter.
>--snip--
>My concern is that there was a huge amount of what looked like big gobs of
>trub/cold break that rose to the surface prior to the fermentation beginning
>after 12 hours. This trub-like "precipitate" was very thick, with big "legs"
>dangling down, and completely covered the top four inches of wort.
I recently made a 4 gal batch of stout from a parallel culture of Wyeast
1084 that had been stored in my refrigerator for about 3 months. The
fermentation and the stout turned out fine. However, when dumping the
carboy, I noticed some thick, almost gelatinous clumps of trub. I have
never seen that behaviour from Wyeast 1084 before. I was initially a bit
worried, but, as I said before, the stout turned out fine.
Regards,
Mark Peacock
mpeacock@oeonline.com
Birmingham, MI
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Fred Waltman <waltman@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: End of the world is nigh
Just got back from my often delayed pilgramage to Duesseldorf with a sign
of the times. About 1/2 block from zum Uerige (one of the 4 brewpubs in
the Altstadt) was a pub that sold, Sam Adams, Miller Genuine Draft, Coors,
Michelob, Anhueser-Busch Budweiser, Molsons Ice, Red Dog and Mickeys Big
Mouth. I did not see anybody drinking the Mickeys, but plenty of the
others were being consumed. When I asked the friend who was showing me
around about this, he said something to the effect of "this younger
generation ..."
A side note: The Budweiser was made in the US as far as I could tell from
the label. The packaging was pretty much similar to that in the US (even
down to the twist off cap) except there was big "B" superimposed on the
label and the word "Budweiser" did not appear - I assume to get around
Budvar's rights to the name. ("This is the famous Anhueser-Busch B beer.
We know of no other ..."). Everthing was in English, except for a list of
the ingredients (Water, Malt, Rice, Hops and Yeast).
Fred Waltman
Culver City Home Brewing Supply Co.
waltman@netcom.com
http://www.homebrew.inter.net
------------------------------
From: KHButtrum@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:28:11 -0400
Subject: Berry Strawberry Ale
Strawberries are in season. Heres a great recipe for strawberry beer.
Berry Strawberry Ale
1 lb cyrstel malt 30l
3 lbs amber malt syrup
3 lbs light malt syrup
1 lb extra-light dry malt
1 once Pride of Ringwood (boil 45min)
.5 once saaz (boil 15min)
.5 once saaz (boil 1min)
5 quarts Strawberries cleaned and mashed
1 tablespoon fruit pectin
1 package Whitbread dry yeast
3/4 c cornsuger
Crush grain and bring to 170degs. Remove grain and boil etc.
After boil is completed turn down heat and add strawberries. Try to keep
wort at 160degs for 15min. Pour entire contents of pot into primary after
cooling.
Ferment in primary for 5 days. Then rack to secondary and add the fruit
pectin. Let rest for three weeks . After that if you can, drop the temp.
of the beer to 35degs for 1 week. If this is done then you need to add
about a teaspoon of yeast when racking to bottleing pail. Let the beer
rest in bottles for at least 3 weeks. The longer the better.
Enjoy.
This beer tastes great served at 50degs.
------------------------------
From: Darren Evans-Young <DARREN@UA1VM.UA.EDU>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 96 14:47:11 CDT
Subject: 1st Electronic Conference on Zero Emissions by Beer Breweries
>From: Jacky Foo <foo@ias.unu.edu>
>Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 11:05:47 +-900
Information on 1st Electronic Conference on
Zero Emissions by Beer Breweries. (1st May -30 June, 1996)
The following message provides you with information on the
archives available for the different papers and how to get
them.
Basic information:
1. to get a list of LISTSERV user commands, email
listserv@searn.sunet.se and write the message:
INFO REFCARD
2. Messages from LISTSERV mailing lists are automatically
archived in files. To get a current list of filenames, email
listserv@searn.sunet.se and write the message:
INDEX listname
e.g. INDEX ET-LOKE
3. To get a file, send the message:
GET listname filename
e.g. GET ET-LOKE LOG9606
4) To join any list, email listserv@searn.sunet.se
and write the message:
SUB listname yourfirstname yourlast name (organization)
e.g sub et-W7 Thomas Suzuki (Univ of Tokyo)
The following are the current list of filenames for
the ZEBB briefing room and its respective papers:
1ZEBB Briefing Room
Listname: ET-ODEN
Filename: LOG9604D (503 lines)
LOG9604E ( 78 lines)
LOG9605B (104 lines)
LOG9605C (147 lines)
LOG9605D (124 lines)
LOG9605E (189 lines)
LOG9606A ( 21 lines)
Session 1 (May 1-14)
(1) Eng-Leong Foo (Japan). "UNU/ZERI program on Zero Emissions
by Beer Breweries"
Listname: ET-ZEUS
Filenames: LOG9605A (576 lines)
LOG9605B (82 lines)
LOG9605C (26 lines)
LOG9605D (250 lines)
LOG9606A (191 lines)
(2) Stephen B Clark & Sid Duty (U.K.). "The microbrewery at the
Earth Centre"
Listname: ET-FREJ
Filenames: LOG9605A (584 lines)
(3) Galli Miklos et al (Austria). "Utilization of Brewery Wastes"
Listname: ET-LOKE
Filenames: LOG9605A (482 lines)
LOG9605B (80 lines)
LOG9606A (108 lines)
Session 2 (17-31 May)
(4) George Chan (Mauritius): "Recycling of brewery Spent Grains
and Wastewaters in Fiji"
Listname: ET-W3
Filenames: LOG9605B (82 lines)
LOG9605C (369 lines)
LOG9605D (112 lines)
(5) Rusong Wang et al (P.R.China): "Ecological Engineering in
Zhengfeng Brewery"
Listname: ECOCT-01
Filename: LOG9605C (362 lines)
LOG9605E (118 lines)
LOG9606A (130 lines)
Session 3 (June 1-14)
(6) T. Yamamoto et al (Japan) "Potentials of malt protein
flour processed from brewer's spent grain as a protein
source for fish feeds"
Listname: ET-W5
Filename: LOG9606 (469 lines)
(7) Russell Peel (Australia): Past, present and potentials uses
for surplus brewery yeast.
Listname: ET-LOKE
Filename: LOG9606A (108 lines)
(8) Sohtaroh Kishi (Japan): PRODUCTION OF MALT PROTEIN FLOUR
(MPF) FROM BREWER'S SPENT GRAIN (BSG)
Listname: ET-W6
Filename: LOG9606A (207 lines)
LOG9606 (49 lines)
Session 4 (June 17-30)
(9) E.A.Stafford & A.Tacon (U.K.& Italy): "The use of
earthworms as a food for rainbow trout Salmo Gairdneri"
Listname: ET-W7
Filename: LOG9606
(10) Todd Leopold (U.S.A.) "Recovery and reuse of: energy (heat),
filter media, CO2, wastewater, cleaners, and sanitizers".
(tentative title)
Listname: ET-LOKE
Filename: LOG9606
From: Jacky Foo (Inst of Advanced Studies, UN Univ. Tokyo)
------------------------------
From: Fost@aol.com
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:52:26 -0400
Subject: disregard
disregard last message
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Dave Cummings <woodstok@rupert.oscs.montana.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 15:09:31 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: I'm pro choice
Howdy all,
I'd just like to say that brewing shouldn't be a political platform. We
all should be responsible enough to know when we are ready to brew and
have a beer.... wait... wrong topic...
I personally think that beer is beer when it's done in the primary
fermenter. Beer has alcohol and carbonation and all that good stuff.
When you pitch the yeast there is no carbonation or alcohol yet, it's
still wort. Untill it's gone through fermentation i wouldn't call it
beer. But then... i'm pro choice....
Dave
------------------------------
From: "Karl F. Lutzen" <lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:22:37 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: HBD now webified
New!
We have recently added the HBD to The Brewery website. And not just in the
standard format as you expect to see it in your email reader, either.
The HBD get's filtered and all subjects get tagged to make zipping around
the digest just a little easier. Also, any fully qualified URL get's
tagged, so you are just a click away from the reference point. The
filtering program is fully automated, so whenever a new HBD arrives, it
will automatically be filtered and added to the server.
The URL for this new feature is: http://alpha.rollanet.org/hbd/HBD.html
Come and visit. (any additional input on features to add will be
appreciated.)
Karl.
------------------------------
From: Al Pearson <pearso19@pearso19.rabbit.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 18:06:05 -0400
Subject: What do I do now?
Flame me...Spam me or help me
I have started homebrewing using the Great American Home Brewery
(Plastic Keg, $66.95 at Kohls). I've made a couple good batches using
Muntons extracts and also skunked one...my decision is near..... plasic
bucket, rack, etc., all glass 2 stage, all grain.... what is best and
more prone to good beer!
Remember.....EVERYONE started somewhere and being a brewmaster is not
genetic (I have a cousin at Guiness)
Looking for the magic method from all you brewmasters on the WEB!
Al Pearson
Clinton Township MI
pearso19@pearso19.rabbit.net
(you are only as old as the woman you feel...G. Marx)
------------------------------
From: ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:32:26 -0700
Subject: RE: Sierra Nevada Porter
I found the following recipe somewhere on the Net. This recipe was
(allegedly) scaled down from Sierra Nevada's original 500 gallon recipe. I
don't know how accurate that statement is, nonetheless this mkes a truly
great porter.
For 5 Gallons:
Grains:
9.80 lb English 2-row Pale
0.25 lb American Cara-Pils
0.40 lb American Caramel 60=B0L
0.40 lb American Chocolate
0.25 lb American Black Roast
Hops:
0.75 oz Perle @ 60 minutes
0.75 oz Perle @ 30 minutes
0.75 oz Perle @ 15 minutes
Yeast:
I've had great results with American Ale (1056) but recently tweaked things
around a bit and used Swedish Porter. I'd stick with American Ale.
OG: Low 60s
TG: Mid teens
Go for it! ...CDR
<--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie@wnstar.com
World Wide Web: http://www.wnstar.com/ritchie/
------------------------------
From: ritchie@wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 1996 15:32:24 -0700
Subject: Eudora & RE: Am I the only one?
This following kind of sounds like a 7th grade gossip session.
Marty said that Shawn said that "the delay [in delivery of the HBD] is
because I'm at sky.net, and the mail is sent alphabetically by domain; if
that's true, I sure feel sorry for the folks at yellow.submarine.com and
zulu.net...".
Tell me about it. I had replies to my last post a good 12 hours before I
got the digest.
Anyhow, time differentials aside, I use Eudora 1.5.2 and sometimes the
digest messages arrive split into two separate messages. I.E. there is
probably a configurable mail buffer in here somewhere. Does anyone know how
to alter this so that the HBD arrives as one piece of mail regardless of its
size? It's not that big of a deal, but nonetheless kind of annoying.
This never happened before "the switch"... CDR
<--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><-->
Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie@wnstar.com
World Wide Web: http://www.wnstar.com/ritchie/
------------------------------
From: Dean Larson <larson@chaos.cps.gonzaga.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 16:13:03 -0700
Subject: Partial Mash vs All-Grain Extraction Rates Question
I'd been doing partial mashes with anywhere from 3 to 7 pounds of grain for
about a year before I finally took the plunge and brewed my first all grain
batch a couple of weeks ago. One point of concern that I had was that my
extraction rates where all over the board in my partial mash efforts, and
all seemed kind of low. Points per pound per gallon tended to be in the low
to upper 20's, but one batch turned in a pitiful 15 ppg. My first all grain
batch consisted of a total of 11 pounds of grain. Everything went smoothly,
my wort cleared nicely after recirculating just a couple of quarts, and I
wound up getting 30 ppg extract. This new-found mashing efficiency put my
OG significantly higher than anticipated, but I can live with that.
Thinking I finally had this mash efficiency thing under control, I did a
partial mash a couple of days ago with 4 pounds of grain. Extraction rate
was a disappointing 24 ppg. Also, with this batch the wort would not clear
after extended recirculation. What's going on here? Is there any reason
that mashing more grain would give better yields? Is this a "grain bed
geometry" problem? I lauter in a standard 5 gallon bucket with a Phils
False Bottom. I noted the other day that putting a mash of 4 pounds of
grain into this yielded a grain bed which was only 4-5 inches deep. It
seems to me that this could be the origins of my wort clarification problem,
but can a shallow grain bed also have a negative impact on extraction rates?
Any comments appreciated. Private e-mail welcome.
PS: All my extraction rates are computed on the basis of points per pounds
per gallon of wort collected prior to boiling. So no, I'm not comparing
apples and oranges here.
Dean Larson
larson@cps.gonzaga.edu
------------------------------
From: "CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865" <CHUDSON@mozart.unm.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 17:37:33 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Cascade Hops (or grassy flavors)
I to quit dry hopping after I experienced a "grassy"flavor in my beers, but I
have always assumed that it was due to a low AA rating of The Cascade hops
that
I have bought. I have used MANY oz's of Cascades because the average AA rating
has never been above 4.2 or so I went on the "more is better" routine. I see
in
alot of these post's that you folks have access ,to a lot higher AA rating
than
I find in the local brew shops,so if any of you could e-mail me where you find
such high AA Cascades, it would do an old brewer good. Hell your Cascades
@5.8 AA are higher than the Centennials that I use now.(5.7 AA).Well gotta go
another trauma is on the way in, BTW Great job Shawn, keep up the great work
and many thanks to Rob for a job well done over the years(Been subscribed
since
issue # 972)
Thanks
Chuck Hudson
chudson@mozart.unm.edu
Give a man a beer and he wastes an hour
Teach a man to brew and he wastes a lifetime
My wife circa 1983 I dont know where she heard
it.
------------------------------
From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl@odin.cair.du.edu>
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 19:29:32 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Sort of Selling Beer
Does anyone know what the legality of a homebrewing co-op would be?
Say, my friends split the cost of a batch amongst themselves, give me
the money _and I buy the malt &c_, after which I keep a dozen and they
get the rest? Would this be selling it, legally anyway?
Of course, I consider the fact that alcohol is a controlled
substance to be unconscionable and therefore am quite willing to break
the law as a form of civil disobedience. But I'm also a coward who
doesn't wish to go to jail... I remain
Yours,
Robert Uhl
Chief Programmer,
CR Systems
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2063
****************************
