Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2155
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/08/21 PDT
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 21 August 1996 Number 2155
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Re: RIMS Heater Element (hollen@vigra.com)
13" kegs on 13" burners ("Mark C. Bellefeuille")
Re: Third try of admission.. reject or cancel? ((Shawn Steele))
last post ("Mark C. Bellefeuille")
Egyptian brewing / COPS ((David C. Harsh))
BrewCraft RIMS Unit (RUSt1d?)
COPS revisited ("Bryan L. Gros")
mashing Guinness at 158 (Charles Epp)
infected grain (Craig A Mayr)
Motorized mills, Finings ("David R. Burley")
Lactose & Fruit Beer (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Re: why powdered amylase / Re: jet burner efficiency ("Keith Royster")
what is dry hopping? ((Tom Lochtefeld (Risk Mgt)))
AllGrain-to-Extract Conversion (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Typo Correction / Thermometers / Phenolic Beers (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Addendum to AllGrain-to-Extract Post (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Neophyte dry hop question (David Leugs)
Winners from Made in the Shade-IV ((Jeff Handley & Gene Almquist))
Airstone Or Not ((LaBorde, Ronald))
For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
homebrew@aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
homebrew-digest-request@aob.org
and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.
Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn@aob.org.
OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
info@aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.
ARCHIVES:
At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp. Also
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo@aob.org by e-mail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: hollen@vigra.com
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 08:03:05 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS Heater Element
>> From: Jim Elden <elden@accumedic.com>
>>
>> ...I was planning to use a standard
>> 4500W water-heater replacement element such as may be found at Home
>> Depot. The only units I saw mount with a ~3"" square flange and >gasket
There have been enough questions about this lately, that I feel that I
should take up digest bandwidth. If you are not interested in RIMS,
sorry. I have kept the discussion in private Email up to this point,
but *many* postings make it clear it is worth posting.
The average heater element you can buy in the "home store" for hot
water heaters are *high density* elements. These are typically about
5000 watts in a loop about 12" long, or a total of 24" of element.
These are too powerful and will scorch the wort. Also, they are
galvanized, which in contact with wort is not a good thing.
The proper heater element to use is a low density Nikalloy one which
is essentially stainless steel. One of these with a rating of 240v
5000 watts is about 72" when uncoiled, it is bent back on itself
twice. When run at 110v, it puts out a total of 1250 watts, which
ends up being a watt density of about 10 watts per square inch. On
top of that, it has a 1" straight pipe thread which threads into a
1 1/2" by 1" reducing bushing just perfectly. This is the heater
element recommened by Rodney Morris in his article on how to build a
RIMS in Zymurgy Special Issue 1992 on Gadgets. It is obtainable
from W.W. Grainger for about $28. The Part # is 2E767. If you are
planning on a 10 gal or larger system, it would be wise to get a
2E768 which is 6000 watts, but because it is longer, maintains the
same heat density. You *must* have adequate wattage for your mash
size and the watt density *must* be low. Add wattage by getting a
bigger, longer heater, or putting a second heater in series. Never
run these heaters on 240v or you run the risk of severe scorching of
the wort.
While there are several commercial heater element companies which
provide heater elements which are suitable, the one from Grainger is
the easiest to obtain.
Again, the two critical factors are stainless steel (also called
Nikalloy or Inconel) sheath and low watt density, around 10 wpsi.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
From: "Mark C. Bellefeuille" <mcb@abrams.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:34:47 -0700 (MST)
Subject: 13" kegs on 13" burners
Kirk Harralson wrote:
snip
>that the diameter of the one I was going to order was only 13 inches.
>Since I am planning to use converted 15.5 gallon kegs, I need a wide,
>stable base, and I don't think 13" is going to be sufficient. I know
>would be a good interim step. Does anyone know a SIMPLE way to make
snip snip
My *simple* solution.
I solved it by using a steel bed rail (nice to be a packrat) due to be
recycled. The rail looked like a 2"x2"(approx) piece of angle iron; but,
not as thick as the angle iron I see at the home stores.
I measured across the burner stand and then added 1/4" (In your case
13.25"). Then I marked the rail at this interval. I used a hacksaw to
cut out a 'V' (from only one side of the angle iron) with the base of the
'V' at the bend of the angle iron.
At this point I used a propane torch to heat the uncut piece at each of
marks and bent the rail into a square. The extra 2 dashes represent an
additional 2" that I bent to overlap the other end when the square was
formed.
Looking down at the rail it looked like this:
|----13.25"---\/----13.25"---\/----13.25"---\/----13.25"---|--
Of coarse with ascii art I can't show the line representing the down (or
up) side of the angle iron...
And after all the pounding (includeing slightly burned and singed hair on
my arm: that rail got *HOT*).
I've got a large square of iron that I set on top of my round burner stand.
The down side of the angle doesn't let it shift. The square corners provide
lots of area for the keg to sit on.
The iron has rusted and gets quite hot while brewing. And I'm sure it will
not last forever; but, the kegs don't wobble.
I've used it on three different stands and it worked on all three...
Good brewing...
Mark
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark C. Bellefeuille mcb@abrams.com
BEER! Because Barley makes lousy bread! (602) 7599273
------------------------------
From: shawn@aob.org (Shawn Steele)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:34:42 -0600
Subject: Re: Third try of admission.. reject or cancel?
> I am using my alternate mail address to see what is going on. If
> this does not appear, I will be canceling out due to CENSORSHIP...
YIKE! Please don't spread nasty rumors! 1. It's against the wishes of
the HBD to be censored 2. I don't have nearly enough time to read all
of the HBD before it created.
Since the mail from your "alternate address" worked and the other
address didn't, I would suspect a mailer or connection problem. Our
computer will send you a message whether or not your message makes it
to the list. If it is rejected it is because "(UN)SUBSCRIBE" appears
in your message, your message has no subject or says "Re: Homebrew
Digest #..." or your message looks like some other administrative,
vacation, or error message. Our computer WILL tell you exactly what
language it objected to.
If people have problems submitting to the HBD, please let me know
(shawn@aob.org). If it's definitly not appearing, Cc: me and the
Digest, that way I can find out what's happening.
- - shawn
Digest Janitor
------------------------------
From: "Mark C. Bellefeuille" <mcb@abrams.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 08:43:59 -0700 (MST)
Subject: last post
I'm glad the posts are sent back.
I reread my post and noticed that I did not say that the 'V' was actually
at 45 degrees. If you use 45 degrees after being bent the will be little or
no gap between the top piece of the square. (Depends on how close you stay
to that 45degree angle while you're sawing.)
Also: A sabre saw would have made it a lot easier: I just don't have one...
Mark
------------------------------
From: dharsh@alpha.che.uc.edu (David C. Harsh)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:00:01 -0400
Subject: Egyptian brewing / COPS
Greetings!
The journal SCIENCE, Vol. 273, pp. 488-490, dated July 26, 1996
contains an article analyzing residues of Egyption baking and brewing by
electron microscopy. Microstructure of the residue is studied to help
determine details of the brewing process. This is the same work that was
presented in a Learning Channel documentary as funded by Scottish and
Newcastle Breweries, just a little more scientific presentation of the
results.
Your interest may vary...
About the (two+ year old) COPS episode: I was most amused by the officer's
comment that "the copper coil proves he was running a still" in reference
to the immersion chiller. But seriously (and cynically), do you *expect*
journalistic integrity on an infotainment pseudo-news show? How popular
would that be?
Dave
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
& Dave Harsh &
& DNRC Minister of Bloatarianism O- &
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
------------------------------
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d@li.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 12:10:23 -0700
Subject: BrewCraft RIMS Unit
At first I was disappointed in my BrewCraft RIMS unit. However after
dwelling on its benefits as opposed to it downfalls I am happy with
my purchase. Rated at 950W, the unit is not suited to bring mash temps
up quickly for larger batches. However, the unit will have no problem
maintaining and tweaking temps on larger batch sizes.
Since my mash tun will be a sanke keg, I plan on using propane to
make large temp jumps and the BC unit to tweak and hold the temp
exactly where I want it. These benefits will become much more
apparent when I'm mashing thru the snow (in a one horse open sleigh).
BrewCraft has some heavier duty units comming out soon.
1056 for president, Cascades for VP...
- --
John Varady
Boneyard Brewing Co.
"Ale today, Gone tomorrow"
------------------------------
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:08:00 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: COPS revisited
Apparently the COPS bust homebrewer episode aired again.
I wanted to comment on a couple things. Apparently, according
to the episode, the police don't always know the laws they
are enforcing (although this guy was doing some illegal things)
and you don't want them after you. Distillation is illegal.
I've heard people comment their non-homebrew friends will
sometimes say "you know bob makes his own beer? Yea,
he's got a still in his garage". Be careful about this kind
of comment and correct these people. You don't want a cop
knocking on your door looking twice at your wort chiller
because someone reported that you're making moonshine.
Those of us in the South need to be especially wary since
there are large, outspoken groups who think that alcohol
is inherently evil, whether homebrewing is or is not.
Just keep your ears open.
Now back to the regularly scheduled fun stuff....
- Bryan Gros
grosbl@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu
Nashville, TN
Music City Brewers: http://www.theporch.com/~homebrew1/
------------------------------
From: Charles Epp <chuckepp@lark.cc.ukans.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:42:16 -0500
Subject: mashing Guinness at 158
Several days ago, Pete Finlay of England posted an interesting note
about a brewery tour at Guinness. He said that the knowledgeable former
Guinness employee leading the tour reported that Guinness mashes at 158.
This surprised me, given the dryness of Guinness stout. What gives? Is
this an error in communication, or does Guinness actually mash that
high? While I'm on the subject, one of Dave Miller's books argues that
dry stout recipes containing large percentages of flaked barley should
be given a protein rest before being brought to saccharification
temperatures. Is Miller incorrect on this? For those of you who hate
to see the thread on mashing at 158 revived again, I apologize in
advance (for what it's worth).
Chuck
------------------------------
From: Craig A Mayr <craigm@U.Arizona.EDU>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 10:43:49 -0700 (MST)
Subject: infected grain
Steve Alexander writes:
>There is also
>one grain fungus which seems to produce a carcinogenic by-product,
>which causes pancreatic cancer - usually quite deadly.(snip)
I think what Steve is talking about is Aflatoxin B. Actually this is a
group of toxins produced by Aspergillus flavus fungus. I wouldn't worry
too much about them on your grain and getting into your beer and giving
you pancreatic cancer. These compounds have been reported to naturally
occur in peanuts, peanut meal, cottonseed meal, corn, dried chili peppers
etc. Ergo, if you've eaten peanut butter sandwiches, you've probably gotten
these in your diet already. Furthermore, the growth of these molds on
your grain does not always indicate the presence of toxins since the yield
of toxins depends on growing conditions (moisture, pH, temp, substrates
and aeration) as well as genetic components. I can't comment on whether
or not these compounds are destroyed by boiling or not. Their melting
temp is typically between 286 and 289 C. I would *guess* that these are
stable through a boil. There is no doubt, though, that these compounds
are carcinogens (cancer causing), but IMHO if you are going to drink beer,
you're getting exposed to a much more dangerous compound at far higher
levels than the aflatoxins. Let's face it, to live is to be at risk of
getting cancer, drink beer.
Craig.
- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Craig A. Mayr
Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology,
and the Arizona Cancer Center
Tucson, AZ 85724
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 21 Aug 96 13:42:00 EDT
Subject: Motorized mills, Finings
Brewsters:
I've been out of town and busy with British guests for a week or so, so I hope
my late responses aren't too untimely, not having seen later HBDs.
Todd Kirby asks about how to motorize a Maltmill. I have never seen a
Maltmill(R), but I have motorized two different roller mills successfully and
easily. I took a 1/4 inch carriage bolt with a hexagonal head and cut it down
with a hacksaw into a "T" shaped head and filed to fit into the keyed port for
the hand crank. I then put this bolt into a 3/8in drill and supported the drill
at the same level as the crank port with pieces of wood nailed to a large flat
compressed board to which I had screwed the mill. A hole in this board provided
a place for the milled malt to fall into an aluminum dispan below. The board
was
fastened to the dishpan with small "c" clamps and the trigger on the electric
drill was held in the "on" position with a larger "c" clamp, until I remembered
that my drill can be locked in the "on" position with the push of a button. The
dishpan will hold at least 10 pounds of crushed malt. Plastic sheeting taped
around the exit port of the mill guides the crushed grain and keeps the dust
under control almost totally. Easy to build and to disassemble for storage.
- -------------------------------------------------
I have noticed miscellaneous comments on finings recently and would like to get
a short thread going to find out others' experience in clarifying beer ( using
finings and filters, etc.), esp chill haze, without seriously affecting
organoleptic properties.
I have often been puzzled by Miller's suggestion to use both bentonite and
polyclar at the same time, since I had the impression that while they work
differently re adsorbing vs complexing, they have opposite charge properties
when dispersed and should cancel each other out, I think. - Is this correct?
Maybe adding Polyclar first, allowing it to react and then the bentonite makes
sense - comments? The comment below on Polyclar doesn't clarify this. Also,
the comment the other day ( or was that in a private e-mail?) that because
Irish
Moss doesn't work at below 5.2 or whatever and does at a higher pH, somehow
disproves that the IM electrostatic model for clarification is incorrect.
Seems to me that at the lower pH, the IM sites could be populated by protons
and
therefore wouldn't have a net negative charge at low pH, but would have at a
higher pH. Seems to fit this electrostatic model OK. Comments?
Further on this subject, I just received the 96 catalog from Fall Bright, The
Winemakers Shoppe, Dundee, NY
( no affil. etc.) and they had a nice short summary on the subject of
clarifying aids (with an emphasis on use
in wines) which I hope is interesting to HBDers for its general content as well
as those making fruit beers
and wines as well as beer: Following is a re-typed (by me) version of their P.
15:
"GELATIN has a *positive charge* and precipitates negative charged tannin. It
is
excellent to reduce tannin. Sprinkle (2 grams or approx. 1 tsp per 5 gallons
onto cold wine. soak 5 minutes, warm until dissolved, but avoid excessive
heating. If using in combination with tannin, add tannin first ( dissolved in
wine) by racking
the wine onto the tannin solution. Let rest for 24 hours and add dissolved
gelatin. Allow 2-3 weeks to settle. There might be a slight color loss. Gelatin
is not usually recommended for white wine.
SPARKOLLOID is a polysaccharide in a diatomaceous (earth)* carrier with a
*positive charge*. It does not strip color. For 5 gallons, dissolve 2.3 grams
(1-3/4 tsp) in 1/2 cup of boiling water. Simmer about 15 minuntes until mixture
is smooth and creamy, may agitate in a blender. Add some wine to thin and add
to wine. Agitate well. Wait 1-2 weeks after use for settling.
BENTONITE has a *negative charge* Wines with a higher pH will require more
bentonite (to)* obtain the
same results of less at a lower pH. Use 2.4 to 4.5 grams per 5 gallons. (2.6
grams of granular Bentonite = 1/2 plus 1/8 tsp). Mix Bentonite with 5 oz. of
water. let stand overnight or for at least 2 hours. Mix some wine back into the
slurry and add to wine. This is fast acting. You can probably rack in 24
hours.
EGG WHITE is used only on red wines. Separate the yolk ( discard), add a pinch
of salt and whip to a froth.
1 egg per 5 gallons. Mix beaten egg in 10 times the volume of wine and add to
the main volume.
PVPP OR POLYVINYL-POLYPYRROLIDONE, alias Polyclar Reacts with tannins and
reduces browning due
to a strong affinity for catechins. Use .28 to .95 grams per gallon ( .28
gms. = 1/2 tsp.) for wine and beer. Filtration recommended after use.
PECTIC ENZYME added at crushing helps release juice form ( sic) pulp increasing
juice yields and improving rates of settling, clarification, fining and
filtration. Normal use at crushing is 4-8 drops per gallon on hybrids and
viniferas; 10-14 drops per gallon on American grape varieties and double that
on fruits like peaches, plums,apples,strawberries. Let set on enzyme for 4-8
hours before pressing. Cover fruit with plastic to prevent oxidation.
References: Winemaking Basics(Ough), Technology of Wine Making (Amerine) and
instruction labels from
Fall Bright."
N.B. ( word)* is my inclusion to clarify the text - DRB
- --------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:45:54 -0400
Subject: Lactose & Fruit Beer
Bill Stoughton asked:
> During the recent discussions on adding fruit it was mentioned that
> residual sweetness was desirable in a fruit beer to accentuate the
> fruit flavor, and that the addition of crystal malt would supply this
> sweetness. Could lactose also be used to increase sweetness, and thus
> improve the fruit character? If so, at what stage should it be added
> to the brewing process?
I've only used lactose once; two ounces in five gallons made a perceptible
difference in mouthfeel with just a subtle hint of sweetness (lactose isn't
all that "sweet"). I suspect it would work fine for the purpose of enhancing
fruit flavor; maybe up to 1/4 lb depending on how much effect you're after.
Since it's not fermentable, it can be added at any stage of production. If
not added directly to the boiling wort, it might be best to make a boiled
syrup (instead of just tossing it in as-is) just to head off any infection
worries.
While I'm on the topic of fruit beers, I read an article at The Brewery
listing the sugar contents of many (MANY) fruits. As I am preparing to brew
a cherry porter, I found this useful. According to the list, cherries have a
sugar content by weight of 14%. Using 6 lb of cherries results in 0.84 lb of
additional sugar; in 5 gallons this adds about seven points of gravity.
Depending on attenuation, this results in between 0.50% and 0.75% additional
alcohol and perhaps four points of final gravity.
Based on this perspective, I'd have to say that any effects of "thinning" of
mouthfeel due to the additional alcohol will be minimal. However, adding
sweetness for fruit flavor perception is perhaps still important; again,
mashing technique, addition of sweet malts, or, as Bill suggests, adding
lactose, are possible approaches. Using a less-attenuative yeast is another
good plan that someone recently added.
*****
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:53:03 -0500
Subject: Re: why powdered amylase / Re: jet burner efficiency
Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com> offers an excellent response
to my questions about adding powdered amylase to my mash (thanks
Steve) and then asks..
> The question is *WHY* do you want to add foreign amylases to your
> mash?
The answer is that I had some on hand left over from fixing a stuck
fermentation and I was just wondering what I would get if I tossed it
in a mash. I was hoping for increased efficiency, but from the
responses I've gotten it seems that I will just get a drier, thinner
beer. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll save it for the next stuck
fermentation.
- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kirk R Fleming <flemingk@usa.net> then responds to Gregory
<GGRE461@ecy.wa.gov> who had responded to Chuck and Grace Burkins
<burkins@oa.net> about jet VS ring burners:
CHUCK> Has anyone doing all grain actually scorched some wort, or is
CHUCK> that a momism? I was sent the jet style in error,
KIRK> Well, if anyone says "Jet burners scorch the wort" that's a
KIRK> generalization. As with many generalizations, it's definitely
KIRK> true in specific cases, but not generally so. With 50 or so
KIRK> batches, I've scorched once, and it was very minor and it was
KIRK> in the mash tun, not the kettle.
Just as another data point: I use to use a jet burner (170KBtu)
before I got my ring burner (35KBtu) and I had scorching on the
bottom of my kettle on almost every batch. I don't with my ring
burner. My jet burner has since been court-marshalled (sp?) and is
only used for heating my strike water.
CHUCK> My guess is that the radial style is more efficient
KIRK> *This* may be a momism. I don't know, but I think jet burners are
KIRK> real gas hogs. Maybe BTU per cu ft of gas is worse, or maybe they
KIRK> simply deliver energy to the the pot less efficiently, can't say.
CHUCK> (ring burner) gives better control.
KIRK> Well, that's pretty much true, except you *can* turn jet
KIRK> burners down pretty low but then it's pretty clear they aren't
KIRK> burning too efficiently.
Uh.. Kirk, aren't you contradicting yourself here. In the first
paragraph you say that "this may be a momism" but then you conclude
in the second paragraph that when you turn them (jets) down "it's
pretty clear they aren't burning too efficiently."
I think that is the whole point. It's not the single jet per se
that is causing the wort to scorch. It's that these jet burners
tend to be 150+KBtu monsters that are designed to run full blast or
not at all. If you try to turn them down, which is necessary to
keep your wort from scorching (in my experiences), then they burn
very inefficiently which is evident by the amount of soot on the
bottom of my kettles. (Perhpas Kirk's homemade jet burner is not
like this.) You can also get ring burners at 170KBtu that need to be
turned down too. The difference is that you have more control of
the oxygen to fuel ratio and you can therefore turn them down to an
appropriate level and still burn efficiently thus not wasting fuel.
Cheers!
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
"An Engineer is someone who measures it with a micrometer,
marks it with a piece of chalk, and cuts it with an ax!"
mailto:Keith.Royster@ponyexpress.com
http://dezines.com/@your.service -@your.service
http://dezines.com/@your.service/cbm -Carolina BrewMasters club page
http://dezines.com/@your.service/RIMS -My RIMS (rated COOL! by the Brewery)
------------------------------
From: toml@fcmc.COM (Tom Lochtefeld (Risk Mgt))
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 13:58:15 EDT
Subject: what is dry hopping?
I see the term "dry-hopping" but don't know what it means. Can some-one
give me a quick synopsis of what it is and how it is done?
Thanks,
Tom
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:59:00 -0400
Subject: AllGrain-to-Extract Conversion
Chris D'Oreo (sorry! just had to!) asked about converting all-grain recipes
to extract.
Chris, part of the "benefit" of all-grain is the ability to brew some truly
complex (in character) beers by blending a variety of grains. Lumping all
the grains into a single "extract" will probably not even approach the
original recipe, and you will likely be disappointed in the result. However,
there are some things you can do to reasonably emulate an all-grain recipe.
How much extract = how much grain is a bit nebulous since there are many
factors affecting the extraction of sugar from the grain. However, it might
be reasonable to make certain assumptions about the ingredients and process;
then the problem is greatly simplified. I've outlined a simple conversion
procedure below.
Second, not all of the grains in an all-grain bill need to be mashed.
Steeping is adequate for many grains such as the roasted or caramelized ones
(chocolate, crystal, etc). So break these grains out of the recipe and
simply steep them as "specialty grains". Add them (use a grain bag for
maximum relaxation) to the cold brewing water; once the water is around 155F
turn the heat down or off and let them steep at this temperature for at least
30 minutes (maximizes extraction and simulates the thermal conditions of a
mash rest). Remove, rinse (or at least bob the bag up and down before
draining), discard, and continue brewing as you normally would brew an
extract recipe.
Third, scope out the variety of specialty extracts available. In addition to
"pale extract", you can get Munich extract, wheat extract, etc. I've even
seen extract for chocolate and other roasted grains. Use these wherever the
all-grain recipe calls for those grains. Also, be selective about your "pale
extract". Use a British pale ale extract when British 2-row pale ale malt is
called for; use a German pilsner extract when pilsner malt is specified, etc.
This'll put you one step closer to the intended result. Although some "bulk
extract" is of high quality, you're better off getting something that you
*know* is of high quality. Ask your homebrew supplier for help in selecting
the "right" extract.
Finally, use only pale extract to substitute for pale grain. Forget the
colored amber and dark stuff. Obtain your color and flavor character from
the specialty grains. Remember that when you are brewing all-grain, this is
precisely what you are doing. I would also lean towards using liquid extract
instead of DME, if only because you "know what you're getting" (DME is
usually bulk-packed).
So how much extract should you use? Figure it this way:
1) For each grain you are converting to extract, obtain an "average"
potential extract figure (points per pound per gallon). The Zymurgy Great
Grain issue (last year) has a very comprehensive table of these numbers. For
example, for British 2-row, let's assume 1.038 (38 points).
2) If you're using syrup extract, figure a pt/lb/gal of say 35 points (1.035
SG). For dry extract, use 42 points (1.042). If you have a reliable figure
fo r your extract, then of course, use it instead.
3) Assume the all-grain recipe is based on an average efficiency of 75%.
Again, if you know the average efficiency is different than 75%, use it
instead.
4) OK, the gravity that the 2-row pale malt will contribute to the total
batch is 38 points x 75% efficiency x #lbs divided by #gallons. Let's assume
the recipe is for 5 gallons and there's 7 lb of 2-row.
Total Batch Points = (grain pt/lb/gal) x (eff%/100) x #lb / #gal
= 38 x 0.75 x 7 / 5 = 40 points
5) Using syrup (35 pt/lb/gal), we now need to solve 40 = 35 x #lb / 5; do
the
math and find #lb = 5.7 lb. So
#lb extract = (total batch grain points) x gallons / (extract
pt/lb/gal)
Since things like the exact points contribution of syrup, the potential
extract for the grain, and the all-grain efficiency vary (and are often
guesses), feel free to round off your results to the nearest convenient
figure. For the above example, 6 lb of pale extract instead of 5.7 would be
fine if it comes in 6 lb cans.
One final suggestion: extract often ferments out "thinner" than an all-grain
recipe might, so adding some extra dextrin malt to the steeping grains might
help emulate a more realistic body / mouthfeel. I understand Laaglander
extract is noted for its low attenutation; using it as part of your pale
extract bill might boost the final product's character as well.
*****
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 13:58:55 -0400
Subject: Typo Correction / Thermometers / Phenolic Beers
In my last post, I erroneously pressed the "mash" key instead of the
"fermentation" key on my BrewType Keyboard (TM). Enzymes are used to unstick
stuck *fermentations*, not stuck *mashes*.
*****
Guy Gregory asked about thermometers:
> The question is, what type of thermometer is favored for mashing,
> and what sort of calibration procedures do experienced homebrewers follow
> to ensure their thermometers read consistently batch to batch?
I like electronic thermometers, but then, I have a gadget fetish (see my web
page, URL below).
The simplest thing to do without having access to a "calibration standard"
thermometer is to expose the thermometer to a *known-accurate temperature*
and adjust it accordingly (duh). Mechanical thermometers are usually
adjusted by turning a locknut, which spins the dial in either direction to
line up the pointer with the correct temperature. The bad thing about this
is that it's a "one-point" calibration. It essentially assumes that if the
thermometer is calibrated at temperature "x", that it will be accurate at all
temperatures. For most of these thermometers, it's a pretty decent
assumption, at least within a couple degrees or so. This is true only
because the "guts" of the thermometer is designed to respond as such. If
some variation or flaw in its manufacture causes a slope deviation (one
degree change in temperature does *not* correcpond to one degree change on
the dial), then the thermometer is inherently inaccurate.
Electronic thermometers often use a "two-point" calibration. The thermometer
is adjusted at two temperatures at extreme ends of the useful range.
Assuming that the sensing cicuitry responds "linearly" to temperature
changes, the straight line drawn between the two calibration points defines
the response.
To calibrate the dial thermometer, it's simplest perhaps to do the two-point
check with "known" temperature references (since you don't have a reference
thermometer). While you can't "calibrate-in" any more accuracy than already
exists, you can at least see whether the thermometer has an acceptable basic
accuracy. FIll a glass with ice and add water. Allow a few minutres for the
icewater to come to equilibrium (stirring is required to even out the
temperature distribution in the water). Place the thermometer in the glass,
and while stirring the water with the thermometer, adjust the dial for 32
degrees.
Now you need to do a "hot" measurement. Get some water boiling, and
carefully perform the same measurement, verifying the thermometer against the
temperature of boiling water *at your elevation* (in El Paso, at 3000 ft, for
example, it's 205 degrees, so it does make a significant difference).
Notice I said "verifying", not "adjusting". Since you can only perform a
one-point adjustment on the dial thermometer, changing the "hot" setting will
change the "cold" setting as well. If, after doing a cold-point calibration,
there is a large discrepancy at the hot point, your thermometer has a basic
accuracy problem. If the error is less than 3-4 degrees, that's probably
about as good as you can do, and perhaps you can just "split the difference"
between the two extreme readings. If it's more, or if the basic accuracy
isn't "good enough', there's one other thing you can do, if you have or can
borrow an accurate reference thermometer. Do a one-point calibration at the
median temperature of the range of interest; that is, if you use it for
mashing between 120F and 170F, calibrate it at 145F. This minimizes the
error in the mashing range, but it's likely to be way off at very cold or
very hot temperatures.
*****
Ian Smith has phenolic beer (bummer dude). Sounds like you took care of your
water, so I'll guess that your fermentation temperature was fairly high?
Above 75F? That will do it.
*****
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:09:55 -0400
Subject: Addendum to AllGrain-to-Extract Post
Another important aspect of all-grain recipes -- unmalted adjuncts requiring
mashing -- needs to be considered when converting recipes. Insert the
following into my previous post on the topic:
*****
Fourth, some other ingredients used in all-grain brewing do not have "extract
equivalents" but still must be mashed in order to "work". Unmalted wheat,
flaked barley, flaked maize are common examples. In these cases, you'll have
to do a partial-mash to account for this. But don't panic -- it doesn't even
have to "look like" a partial-mash. Simply add about a pound or so of pale
malt and/or wheat malt to your steeping grains. This provides enzymes to
convert the adjunct's starches to sugars, as long as the quantity of unmalted
adjuncts is not too high. You should try to follow any instructions
concerning mashing temperature rests as closely as is practical. Note that
if the recipe calls for wheat malt, try to use it instead of wheat extract,
since it is very high in enzyme power which will help with conversion of
these starchy adjuncts. Of course, if several pounds of wheat malt is
involved in the recipe, you might want to use extract for the bulk of it. To
be accurate, you should decrease the remaining amount of pale / wheat malt
that you plan to convert to extract, by the amount you used for the
partial-mash.
*****
Thanks
Ken
------------------------------
From: David Leugs <leud@calvin.edu>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:21:33 +0000
Subject: Neophyte dry hop question
Sheepishly de-lurking, he shared a story and a question:
I've been home-brewing from hopped extracts for about a year now (not
sure I'm equal to the all-grain task, yet.) Last Wed, a week today, I
brewed a batch of "Edme Super Brew" I.P.A. I followed the
instructions, pitched the yeast, etc, no problem. By Sat. the ferment
was basically complete (a little quick, but what the heck.)
In the meantime, I had been reading about dry-hopping, and although I
understand that the procedure doesn't help bitterness/taste as much as
it does nose, I decided to give it a try with the I.P.A. already in
the carboy. I bought a 1 oz. packet of Kent Golding hop pellets and
added them to the mix on Sunday afternoon. Almost immediately after
re-capping, the bubbler began to change levels (again) even though
fermentation had stopped. It has continued to bubble consistently
ever since! It lets off a stream of bubbles about every 15-20
seconds. (The bubbler is the kind with the little cannister inverted
inside a bigger one and a plastic cap.) I see NO bubbles rising from
the brew. There is NO foam on top. The ale has cleared beautifully
except for some hop leaf pieces on the top (most have settled to the
bottom.) There is NO sign of infection that I can see. It tastes
young of course, but very good!
Questions: Is this normal? -OR- Did I start a secondary ferment?
Were the pellets spoiled, and did they introduce bad yeast into the
mix? (Who can tell, huh?) Can I bottle? Or should I continue to be
patient?
leud
David Leugs
Grand Rapids, MI
------------------------------
From: homebrew@infomagic.com (Jeff Handley & Gene Almquist)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 12:19:51 -0700
Subject: Winners from Made in the Shade-IV
The following people won First Place in the following 15 categories:
Steve Soroka-Mead & Cider
Miffie Seideman-Herb & Specialty/Classic Porter
Cubby Lash-American Style Ale/American Pale Ale
Frank Wetherell-Stout/Sweet Stout
Nat Rowell-Pale Ale/Classic Pale Ale
John Adkisson-Bock/Helles Bock
Greg Scharrer-Barley Wine & Old Ale/Barley Wine
Rick Drake/John Forbes-Vienna, Octoberfest, Marzen/Octoberfest Marzen
Rick Drake/John Forbes-Porter/Brown Porter
Rick Drake/John Forbes-Classic Pilsner/German Pilsner
David Hinkle-Wheat Beer/German Weizen
Suzanne Scott-Belgian, French Ale, Lambic/Biere de Garde
Joe Early-Fruit Beer/Apricot Fruit Beer
And Best of Show went to Rick Drake and John Forbes for their German
Pilsner! We would like to extend our congrats to eveyone who participated in
this festival!
********************************************
* Jeff Handley***outpost@homebrewers.com *
* Homebrewers Outpost-Flagstaff, Arizona *
* http://www.homebrewers.com *
* *
* Homer: "Thanks for coming to my party. *
* Wow, you brought a whole beer keg!" *
* Barney: "Yeah. Where can I fill it up?" *
********************************************
------------------------------
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:11:59 -0500
Subject: Airstone Or Not
>From: korz@pubs.ih.lucent.com
>
> ...the problem is that it takes a long time to get the wort even close to
>proper O2 level and I had to turn off the pump every minute or two because
>the foam was crawling out of the carboy. 1 minute of aeration, 10 minutes
>rest, 1 minute of aeration...
I had the same problem, then one day I got tired of the airstone floating in
the wort so I put the airstone on the end of the racking cane. This cured
the floating problem but one day I bumped the airstone and it broke! So
since I did not have another airstone, I just let the racking cane bubble
larger bubbles into the wort. To my surprise and delight the foam was about
a steady inch or two above the wort and I could leave the pump on
continuously for four hours.
So my question is: Does four hours of steady large bubbles and two inch
foam give good areation verses many tiny bubbles started and stopped. Are
we trying too hard and not RDWHAHB?
I have used this twice now and had great even fermentation.
Ron
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2155
****************************
