Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2199
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/09/22 PDT
Homebrew Digest Sunday, 22 September 1996 Number 2199
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
RIMS discussion ("Bridges, Scott")
Re: RIMS - Disadvantages.. (Steve Alexander)
Errors-To: bacchus@aob.org (Keith Busby)
Renfaire results (Bob Wilcox)
Overnight mashing w/ adjuncts? (Charles Capwell)
Lager temp/SpG (BREW4YOU@aol.com)
Crushed Roasted Barley (orion@mdc.net)
RIMS mash thickness (hollen@vigra.com)
No Sparg ("Don Van Valkenburg")
Scorching (Scott Murman)
Tiny Bubbles -> Foaming problems (Daryl K Kalenchuk)
USA vs. British 2-row for partial mash (Alex Santic)
Hop removal/No sparging/Table Sugar/Conversions (Charles Capwell)
Copper, the BATF, and the FDA (Charles Ewen)
Softened Water (David Sprague)
Honey Fermentability ("Kirk R Fleming")
PPBT?/IBU calculations/Sorry ((Algis R Korzonas))
MALTMILL Gears (Jack Schmidling)
Letting it settle (Derek Lyons)
See you at The Store/Stainless Soldering?/Sankey 1/2 BBL's/Blow-Off/Cleaning Stainless (Rob Moline)
Perceptions/N2 Draft/Check Valves/Homebrewing Pro's/Kit's Contest/Carboys/GABF! (Rob Moline)
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.
COPYRIGHT:
As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bridges, Scott" <bridgess@mmsmtp.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 16:57:00 PDT
Subject: RIMS discussion
I just want to say that I *really* like the current RIMS discussion for 2
reasons. First, I am currently in the planning stages for my RIMS.
Actually, I already have everything except the heating element and
controller (2 key pieces, one might add). So, my ears are perking up at any
RIMS-type threads. I'd like to encourage continued RIMS
debate/discussion/etc. Strangely enough, I'm actually understanding the
technical stuff.
Secondly, this discussion has a distinctly civil tone about it. This is
encouraging. After some of the recent threads, it does serve to demonstrate
that a discourse can occur, even to the point of disagreement, without
losing the people who are interested in the actual content of the
discussion.
Thanks, Dion, Steve, Kurt, Keith, etc. Keep it up!
Scott Bridges
------------------------------
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:12:13 -0400
Subject: Re: RIMS - Disadvantages..
Luke Dion says ...
>...Most of us RIMSers are doing it much from
>the practical standpoint and may not have access to "related"
>information that is not accessed through any "homebrew" keyword.
>Multi-disciplinary viewpoints are very valuable.
Hey - I'm just a a homebrew geek with a library card and some subset
of my original brain cells.
>SA> Another point is that alpha-glucosidase places a significant role in
...
>If the RIMS is doing damage to it, how could I tell? What would be
If you perform a low temp mash (below gelatinization temp) of pale
malt and get poor extraction, loss of AG may be the culprit.
Shear forces & enzyme loss ...
>While I don't doubt that it may be happening, what you are talking
>about is industrial enzymology. It may be very important to an
>industrial concern that they are losing 5% of their product to shear
>forces destroying the enzymes. But to a homebrewer all that matters
>is that a *sufficient* amount make it into the relevant parts of the
>process TO PRODUCE GOOD BEER.
The amount of shear force applied to the wort over time is probably
pretty extreme in a RIMS. See Kirk Fleming's excellent post. But
you're right, I have no way to quantify this. The symptoms might show
up as a problem RIMS brewing with high adjunct loads, or long mashes
that just don't seem to complete conversion in a reasonable time.
GREAT BEER is the goal, and to get there we need to understand the
differences that this mashing harddware introduces.
>How's this for a high adjunct load:
Higher still - I mean 60% to 75% unmalted grain.
>Well, your calculations are sort of skewed. The 2 qts should not be
>figured in because it is always in the hose
The extra 2 quarts dilutes the enzymes and enzyme inhibitors and
soluable carbs - so they are precisely relevent to mashing. Dion is
right about excluding the 2 qts from dough-in and balling
considerations tho'. This makes water calculations for a RIMS
different from other mashing techniques.
>If there is *any* other reason for using a thick mash, please pass it
>on.
M&B Sci chapter 9 discusses the effects on proteolytic enzymes. If
your looking for proteolysis (which is much less of a concern w/ most
modern malts, but consider numalted adjuncts) then go thick. You
could also use mash thickness to modulate alpha and beta amylase
activity, but that is streching the point. Thicker mashs generally
afford lower inactivation rates of enzymes, which might be a factor in
high adjunct, high temp mashes as used by the mega-breweries.
>Again, I agree. If the brewers technique is marginal with regarding
>to pitching sufficient healthy yeast ...
Again - yeast growth may be a problem only at the extreme margins -
but even in a 'normal' beer this might afford a slight difference in
flavor. It's something to look for tho'.
>And I would postulate that the proof is in the
>tasting. If I can produce beer that can win ribbons in competitions
...
Taste is the criteria - I agree. And some great beers can be made
with a RIMS - there is no doubt. The question is what are the
differences due to mashing method ? What are the limitations ? How
can RIMS methodology best be used to make the various different
styles? Even if every difference is an advantage for RIMS, we still
need a better understanding of how this affects flavor.
I'm proposing *plausible* differences and problems area. And
suggesting some areas that could seemingly be improved. Just as it's
possible to make a 'good' pilsner with an infusion mash, or a 'good'
IPA with a decoction mash there will be differences atributable to the
mashing method. It is also possible to copy infusion and decoction
styles with a RIMS mash. What do we gain? what do we lose? Are the
results identical - I don't think so. Can anyone characterize the
differences due to RIMS mashing for me ?
Again I have to thank Dion (and Louis Binham and Kirk Fleming) for his
insightful post. It has certainly helped my understanding of RIMS
brewing issue. The possible 'shortcomings' that I have suggested
aren't likely be be the source of lousy beer, unless brewing at the
extremes. They will undoubtedly cause subtle differences in flavor
tho' - differences that we should try to understand.
Steve Alexander
(sorry about my post bandwidth today)
------------------------------
From: Keith Busby <kbusby@uoknor.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 19:38:51 -0500
Subject: Errors-To: bacchus@aob.org
Bryan Gros asks about the best fermentation temperature for the Wyeast
Belgian White. I just brewed a batch of wit and fermented it at our ambient
temp which was about 73/74. The beer, if I say it myself, beats the Hades
out of Celis (spijt mij, Pierre).
Keith Busby
Keith Busby
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
University of Oklahoma
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel.: (405) 325-5088
Fax: (405) 325-0103
------------------------------
From: Bob Wilcox <bobw@sirius.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:59:47 -0700
Subject: Renfaire results
Has anyone gotten results from the Renaissance Faire competion held
9/15/96 in Navato Ca. It rained that day and the Boss ,who was going with
me, is not to fond of stomping in the mud and getting wet, so we didn't
make it. email would be fine
TIA
- --
Bob Wilcox
Long Barn Brewing
bobw@sirius.com
------------------------------
From: Charles Capwell <chas@A119021.sat1.as.crl.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 21:11:27 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Overnight mashing w/ adjuncts?
Since I am now busy w/ school I don't have all that much time to brew.
However, I was looking at the article on pp. 66-67 of the 1995 Zymurgy
Special Issue, "Mashing and Saving Time." It looks like a good idea to
me(but then again the next all-grain batch I do will only be my second),
but it left me wondering about letting adjuncts sitting all night in
the mash. Does anyone know if this could cause a problem? I don't want
to wake up the next morning to a mush insted of a mash. If it will
turn the mash all mushy, I am right in assuming I could just add the
adjunct(flaked barley) when I get up and let it sit for about an hour
while I heat up the sparge water(providing the mash is still at ~155F)?
To provide more information than is probably necessary, here's the
grain bill for this recipe, which is a 2.5 gal batch:
4 lbs English Pale Ale
2 lbs English CaraPils
1.25 lbs Black Patent
1.25 lbs Roasted Barley
1 lb Flaked Barley
- -Chas (chas@crl.com)
------------------------------
From: BREW4YOU@aol.com
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 08:54:15 -0400
Subject: Lager temp/SpG
I am fermenting a batch of Munich Helles and need some input.
The starting gravity was 1.049 and after 5 days at a temp of 46 dF
the SpG was 1.026. It was racked to my scondary and the new
temp, day 6-21, was 36-38 dF. The SpG on day 21 was 1.024.
How am I doing? Is the temp OK? Will the gravity drop to the
correct value for this style (1.008-1.012) ?
I used a starter with Wyeast 2124 (Bohemian) and aerated well.
Thanks,
Scott
------------------------------
From: orion@mdc.net
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:53:42 -0400
Subject: Crushed Roasted Barley
Michael David Bateman said:
> I read that when using roasted barley it should be brought to a
>boil, then removed from the water. I also read that the barley should not
>be crushed. I was wondering if anyone had ever crushed barley or black
>patent malt and used it.
>
> My last batch turned out terrible (it tasted like sour milk.) I've
>tried to find out why it soured but haven't had any luck so far. I can
>only think of two things that may have caused this. 1) My roasted barley
>seemed to be slightly crushed as did my black patent malt.
I have developed (with my trusty brewing buddy, Andy Q) an excellant Oatmeal
Stout recipe Hopeless Conditon Oatmeal Stout), and it calls for some Roasted
Barley. Not knowing any better, or different, we crushed it, along with the
chocolate malt, dextrine, and two row. The only ill effect was adding *too
much* roasted barley. The smoky flavor was too overpowering, even for a 13
gallon batch (1/2 pound of roasted barley). So, on the last batch, I cut the
roasted to 1/4 pound, and it came through just fine! I plan on continuing to
crush the roasted, to extract the flavor. Just be sure to limit the amount,
since it is such a strong flavoring agent. Also, I have witnessed the
loading of ingredients in a commercial brewery. They put the roasted barley
and chocolate malt through the same mill as all the other ingredients. In
fact, their mill was set to grind the grain into very small powder grains.
OD
Orville Deutchman
Brewer of Down Under Ale!
Hobby Brewing at its Finest!
I'm relaxing, and having a homebrew!
orion@mdc.net
------------------------------
From: hollen@vigra.com
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 08:05:24 PDT
Subject: RIMS mash thickness
UNCLE!!! I concede that I had not taken into account enyzme dilution
when not adding the "fixed" 2 quarts of system volume, but merely mash
thickness. I now concede that the 2 quarts matters when considering
enzyme dilution.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
From: "Don Van Valkenburg" <DONVANV@msn.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 96 16:25:13 UT
Subject: No Sparg
As a brewer with many years experience and an owner of a homebrew shop, I
will have to cast my vote on the side of no sparge for certain reasons and
situations:
First for a home brewer trying to make the transition to all grain or at
least partial grain from all extract. I recommend going to more than 50%
fermentables from grain and no, or minimal sparge. Poor extraction rates are
certainly less expensive and produce a better brew than brewing with extract.
Also, one can get by with much less equipment; hot liquor tank, large boil pot
etc. by not sparging, and the difference between a 5 gal and 10 gal pot will
buy a lot of grain. By not sparging and just using the concentrated first
runnings one can get by with only a 5 gal pot.
I recently tried out the EASYMASHER (no affiliation, usual disclaimers) as a
method for brewing almost all grain in the kitchen with only a 5 gal boil pot.
I installed the Easymasher in a 4 gal pot, added 8 lbs of domestic 2 row,
with 165 F water, then stabilized the temp to 155 F. After about an hour
drained the liquid and minimally sparged to achieve 4 gal in the brew pot. I
then added a couple LBS of extract to kick up the gravity a little and boiled.
Of course when I finished boiling I only had about 3 gallons, but a very
concentrated wort. I then poured this into my fermenter with 2 gal of cold
water (this also helps cool down). After complete cool down, pitched yeast.
The result was a great brew.
Don Van Valkenburg
donvanv@msn.com
..
------------------------------
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 09:25:56 -0700
Subject: Scorching
One of the more important factors that contributes to scorching or
carmalizing is the material you are heating. Stainless steel is
desirable from a non-reactive point of view, but its thermal
properties for cooking leave much to be desired. One of the reasons
that heavy gauge aluminum cookware is popular is that it will evenly
distribute the heat through the entire cooking pot, rather than
letting it pass through easily and concentrate above the heating
element. Unfortunately, heavy gauge aluminum would be far too
expensive for a 10 or 15 gallon pot. Many of the dutch-oven type
cookers will have an aluminum disc sandwiched between two SS discs in
the base of the pot to overcome the problems of steel. If you are
having problems with scorching, try widening your flame to heat a
greater surface area, or setting your pot on/in another material.
Then let us know how it works :)
SM
------------------------------
From: Daryl K Kalenchuk <dkk886@mail.usask.ca>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 11:42 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Tiny Bubbles -> Foaming problems
In HBD 2196 Al Korzonas writes:
"If you don't believe that this is a factor, take two 50F bottles of beer.
Shake them. Open one immediately and the other after another hour at 50F.
If you can explain the difference in the results without the "eddy current"
solution, then I'd be interested in reading it."
Boy did I get wet when I opened the first one, I just never learn. Well
here's your explination. This explination does nothing to discredit your
solid advice to wait an hour to serve a shaken keg and your suggestion that
the cause is the same in the keg and bottle.
Shaking the keg, can, bottle or what ever causes micro bubbles to become
temporarily suspended in the liquid. These bubbles provide the nucleation
site once the CO2 concentration is no longer in equilibrium. The eddies may
help in suspending these bubbles but they themselves wouldn't have
sufficient pressure gradients to create significantly many such sites
especially at CO2 equilibruim.
I thought of an experiment to show this but it the following illustrates the
point well. (the hose to the bottom minimizes the amount of air being
introduced into the beer which would act as nucleation sites)
In HBD 2198 Dave Hinkle with many other good points states:
", putting a 4" length of 3/8" hose over the
end of the spout helps less experienced pourers get a good fill. Pouring below
the surface dramatically reduces foaming, even more so than pouring down the
side of the mug. "
Incidentally applying this concept can help explain why tapping an shaken
beverage can can prevent gushing and why knocking an open bottle creates a
gusher.
HBD's been quite crowed lately so I decided to keep this explanation as
short as possible, if you require a more complete explanation please
contact me privately.
Daryl,
Saskatoon, (too soon to be great white north)Canada
------------------------------
From: Alex Santic <alex@brainlink.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:40:20 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: USA vs. British 2-row for partial mash
I'm planning on brewing a British-style IPA tomorrow and the timing of my
starter is right on. At the last moment I've decided to do a partial mash
recipe instead of just extract and specialty grains, so I went out in
search of British 2-row pale malt. There was none to be found today at the
NYC homebrew supply places and it's too late to mail-order.
What I bought instead is American 2-row (I think the maltster was
Briess). Assuming this is less well-modified malt than the British and I
do a protein rest rather than just a single-step infusion mash, is there
anything objectionable to using 2 or 3 pounds of this in a partial mash
recipe for an IPA?
I note that Terry Foster is somewhat discouraging about this in his Pale
Ale book, although he seems less concerned in the Porter book because the
relative flavor contribution of the pale malt is less.
Any pertinent comments within the next 36 hours would be well
appreciated. Thanks!
Alex Santic
alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
New York City
------------------------------
From: Charles Capwell <chas@A119011.sat1.as.crl.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 16:27:16 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Hop removal/No sparging/Table Sugar/Conversions
> >From: stevek@propwash.co.symbios.com (Steve kemp)
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:14:14 -0600
> Subject: survey - how do YOU remove hops after the boil???
>
> So to the question:
>
> How do YOU remove whole leaf hops from YOUR kettle?
>
Personally, I use bags.
Well, you could try using your lauter tun as a "hop back" as I
think Papazian suggests in TNCJOHB. Never tried it myself.
Also the EasyMasher folks have introduced a "cylinder" of SS screen
that is made to fit racking canes(the metal ones, of course) for this
purpose. I imagine that if you do put it on a racking cane that keeping
those troubling leaves from plugging it *might* be aleveated(sp?). Since
you can move the cane about and dislodge the offending materials.
> >From: KennyEddy@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:45:22 -0400
> Subject: RIMS: Flames versus Electrons / No-Sparge Sparging
>
> Louis Bonham talks about "No Sparge" sparging:
>
> If you have room in your mash tun to add the extra grain, it's a worthwhile
> experiment.
>
Well, I know I do, and I was going to do a simple pale ale the next time
I brew(after the current batch that is), so I could splurge for the extra
grains and post the results. The question that jumps to mind is the effects
on more complex recipes. Maybe I'll do a couple of batches for comparision
tests.
Also, this would make my life soooooo much easier when brewing. One of
the reasons I don't do it that much is because of the time it takes to
do an all-grain brew. With this I could mash overnight, get up, draw off
the wort, etc, etc, in a hell of a lot less time. I'd *love* to have the
time to spend all day brewing(actually I'd *love* to have the time
to spend all week brewing, but that's another story :) and pay attention
to every little detail of the process, but circumstances prevent it.
> >From: Jeff Frane <jfrane@teleport.com>
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
> Subject: Re:Table Sugar
>
> Rich Hampo wrote:
>
> I can't quite sort out the attributions, and get find the original posting,
> but the notion that most or all American sugar comes from cane is
> WRONG. A simple check on the supermarket shelf will tell you that
> a signiicant portion of the table sugar, particularly the less expensive
> packages, is beet sugar. Cane sugar gets whooped up a lot,
I actually was checking this before I even read this response. At the
local supermarket I couldn't find anything but cane sugar. I think that
it all depends on the part of the country you live in. Of course you're
more likely to find beet sugar in places where cane sugar has to shipped
in, due to it probably costing less. Now whether or not the consumer
actually sees this saving is another matter altogether. :>
> >From: Mil <milp@cuug.ab.ca>
> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:50:46 -0600 (MDT)
> Subject: conversion guidelines
>
> I'm looking for some guidelines on the following:
>
> converting all-grain recipes to all-extract recipes
> converting all-grain recipes to mash-extract recipes
> converting DME requirements to LME requirements.
>
The 1995 Special Issue of Zymurgy has the first, and that you can turn
their equation around for the poundage to figure out(roughly) how many
pounds of grain you'd need.
As for the third, I think the trick would be to bear in mind that the
DME is about 3% water, while LME is about 20% water. A rule of thumb I
use is 1.25 lbs LME for ever pound of DME called for in a recipe.
- -Chas (chas@crl.com)
------------------------------
From: Charles Ewen <C.D.Ewen@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 18:43:53 -0400
Subject: Copper, the BATF, and the FDA
I received a call at the brewery last week from the Regional (New York) BATF
office. The Inspector said she was conducting a survey of local breweries
at the behest of the FDA. She asked if I used a copper mashtun or copper
kettle, or has any copper or brass pipes, fittings or valves "anywhere between
the backflow preventer and the aeration stone".
The Inspector explained that the FDA did not wish food below a pH of 6.0 to
come into contact with copper or similar soft metals. She said that any
brewery using copper equipment would be visited by the BATF, and a sample of
beer would be taken for analysis.
I found it an amusing coincidence that F. X. Matt has just started an ad
campaign for their Saranac line of beers, and one of the points that the ads
make is that Saranac is still brewed "in traditional copper kettles". I guess
their analysis was acceptable.
Charley Ewen, President C.D.Ewen@worldnet.att.net
The Saw Mill River Brewery, Inc.
------------------------------
From: David Sprague <dsprague@bga.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:34:00 -0500
Subject: Softened Water
Hello all. I am brand new to brewing and have seen a couple of
conflicting reports on the use of softened water for use in brewing.
The area in which my wife and I live has an extremely high level of
chlorine as well as water hardness. To counteract this we installed a
system to give our whole house softened water. The ion exchange resin
bed, simply put, trades calcium for sodium. The two viewpoints that I
have seen is 1) Don't use softened water (from postings on net) and 2)
pg. 79 of Papazian which states that, "The sodium ion (Na) will
contribute to the perceived flavor of beer by enhancing other flavors.
In excess, it will contribute to a harsh, sour or metallic flavor.
Chlorides (Cl) will tend to lend a soft, round, full, sweet flavor to
beer." To me the key word here is "excess" sodium ions. The hardness
of the water in this area is about 13 degrees of harness. I am not sure
of what scale they use and I will find out, but does anyone out there
use softened water? Thank you for your time.
------------------------------
From: "Kirk R Fleming" <flemingk@usa.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 19:25:11 -0600
Subject: Honey Fermentability
In #2198 and earlier, folks are talking about honey fermentability and I
only wanted to provide a data point: og = 1.128, fg = 0.998. This was my
first mead ever, and I was absolutely astounded at the attenuation. This
was using Wyeast's Dry Mead.
------------------------------
From: korzonas@lucent.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 14:19:46 CDT
Subject: PPBT?/IBU calculations/Sorry
Shawn writes:
>Several professional brewers as well as Charlie Papazian (You Know
>Who), Jim Dorsch (Beer Writer) and James Spence (PPBT Judge) will also
What's a PPBT Judge?
***
Paul writes:
>Can someone please give me a lesson calculating IBU's? I tried using someone's
>calculator on the Net but don't know the boil gravity of 6.5 lbs of liquid
malt
>extract in a 3 gal boil. Do a pound of grains add to the gravity? Also, I
>added 1.5 pounds of honey with the flavor hops, how do you compensate for
that?
>Here's the exact recipe:
> Honey Ale
> 6 lb Light LME
> .5 lb Light DME
> .5 lb Belgium Biscuit Malt
> .5 lb Crystal Malt
> 1 oz Columbus Hops (12.4%) 60 min
> 1 oz Cascade Hops (5.5%) 20 min
> 1.5 lb Orange Blossum Honey 20 min
> 1 oz cascade Hops (5.5%) steep
> O.G. 1.045
> F.G. 1.013
> IBU's ?
Well, first I'd like to note that the Belgian Biscuit malt has starch in
it and neither the Biscuit nor the Crystal have any enzymes to convert it.
The Biscuit is therefore adding very little other than a starch haze to
your beer.
To calculate your boil gravity, you figure that you have 6 pounds of
malt syrup (6 * 35 points) and 1/2 pound of DME (1/2 * 45 points),
1/2# of crystal (1/2 * 22 points) and 1.5# of honey (1.5 * ~35).
Total these up and you get 210+22.5+11+52.5 which is 296 points.
Divide that by 3 gallons and you get about 99 points, or 1.099 for the
boil gravity. Punch that into the online calculator or get a copy of
the Hops & Beer Special Issue of Zymurgy and check out Jackie Rager's
article on IBU estimation. I'm not 100% sure regarding the honey. I
don't use honey in my beer and so I don't have its pts/lb/gal value
memorized. It's somewhere between 30 and 35.
***
Sorry about my gateway... well it's not my gateway, it's AT&Ts. AT&T
is splitting up into AT&T, NCR and Lucent Technologies -- Bell Labs.
In the transition there are a lot of funky things going on with our
mailers. Complaints fall on deaf ears, so it's compleatly out of
my control.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas@lucent.com
------------------------------
From: Jack Schmidling <arf@mc.net>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 1996 21:38:37 -0700
Subject: MALTMILL Gears
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
>Does anyone have a geared Maltmill (tm) ? I believe the gears are not the same
diameter/number of teeth. Can anyone tell me the number of teeth
and/or diameters ?
The two gears are 32 teeth and 30 teeth. This causes a slight
differntial in speed but it is trivial and incidental to the
reason they differ. Using 1.5" diameter rollers and a nominal
spacing of .045", custom made gears would have to be used to reach
across the space and in the minuscual quantities we use, they would
be priced out of reach. So, we use two standard gears of appropriate
pitch diameter to make the reach. The above combination happens to
work.
This, BTW, is another advantage of only adjusting one end of the rollers.
If both ends were adjustable, gearing would be next to impossible on
small diameter rollers. This was one of the downfalls of the Glatt
and using plastic only aggrivated the problem.
js
- --
Visit our WEB pages:
Beer Stuff: http://dezines.com/@your.service/jsp/
Astronomy: http://user.mc.net/arf/
------------------------------
From: Derek Lyons <elde@hurricane.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 00:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Letting it settle
At 06:51 PM 9/20/96 +10, you wrote:
>Dear Friends,
>
>In #2195, Mark "Brew Hard" Bayer writes:
>
>"here's an idea: use a 7 gallon carboy to put the chilled wort+trub
>in. you can aerate/pitch your yeast at this point, depending on
>temperature, then wait for the trub to settle."
>
> But unless one has done a very good job with having a
>large starter at the peak of pitchability (I do NOT mean to reopen
>that old bashfest about when that is) and has aerated the bejeeezus
>out of the wort, I think it is fair to say that many of us do not see
>dramatic activity in the first 2-3 hours (and please, no posts saying
>"I get ten feet of foam in the first 5 seconds" -- I know some of us
>here have outstanding lag performance. I am talking about the rest of
>us poor bastards.). In such a case most of the yeast are sitting
>there in the junk at the bottom of the settling tank and are left
>behind when the liquid is transferred to the primary.
>
Not really (YMMV). It seems that if the starter we well mixed up (thus
suspending the yeast) that most of the yeast is in suspension in the wort.
Any yeast that has settled in the short (2-3 hour for me though I've only
observed, not tried this method) time it takes for the trub to settle would
seem to be from the high-floc end of the scale.
Unless you are using a know high-floc yeast, most of the viable cells should
be in suspension at this point.
Derek L.
------------------------------
From: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:45:36 -0500
Subject: See you at The Store/Stainless Soldering?/Sankey 1/2 BBL's/Blow-Off/Cleaning Stainless
The Jethro Gump Report
Been busy! Just catching up! Assistant brewers require training!
Have'nt posted in a while, forgive the length.
>Does anyone wanna try to meet up at the members only tasting? Ya know- we
>could get together "face to face" and....have a beer or something!
>(hahaha)
> 3pm at the "store" might be a place/time to try. Any takers?
>//John- The Cosmic Coyote -Wyllie\\\ ccoyote@sunrem.com
>
See you there! Any who wish to prod the specimen, may!
>From: Scott Abene <sabene@fcg.net>
>Has anyone been brave enough to do their own stainless soldering when
>converting 1/2 barrels?
I don't know about stainless soldering, but, for sure, mate, the
best friend of a brewer is his welder...welding stainless is an art, and
only the best need apply...must be done in an argon environment, with an
argon jet around the rod....BTW, did you know that argon being heavier than
air, when you get a lung full, the cure is to hang yourself upside down to
let the argon flow down and out of your lungs? Burt Lovegren, my amazing
welder, can even weld sintered steel! (Try pouring petrol into a styrofoam
cup for an equivalent trick!) But the best trick is that Burt thinks that a
welder's best friend is his brewer! SYMBIOSIS!
>From: Tim.Watkins@analog.com
> Does anyone have any experience using the readily available 15.5
>gallon kegs (or for that matter, the 7.75 gallon ones). I have a cousin
>who works a Miller distributor (no Miller jokes, please...), and I can get
>a CO2 system really cheap. Has anyone ever used these, and/or is it
>do-able? Specifically, I guess the important question is how to remove the
>valve so they can be filled.
Depressurize and then tinker to your hearts content. The trick is
how to clean and fill, and for that you don't need to remove the valve.
Sabco or Tosca (can't recall which) offers a valve for the sankey which has
a larger bore than usual, which allows one to turn the keg upside down and
blast caustic and rinses up the beer down tube and thence to the bottom of
the keg, which serves as a CIP (Clean in Place) to flow the solution back
down the interior sidewalls...it also cleans the CO2 valve at the same time,
as it is the vent for the solutions. Then fill, via counter pressure thru
the down tube, venting via the CO2 side. You could also gravity fill the
beast for keg cleaning, rinsing, and filling. But you don't need to remove
the valve.
>Subject: Blow-Off and Crap advice (
>
Boy, lots of banch on this one! Here's a thought....try "Ferm-Cap"
and forget the whole bloody thing! Manufactured by Siebel, distributed by
Crosby and Baker, this stuff is an emulsion of various stuff, that 'caps'
the fermentation, and prevents blow-off from ever being an issue. You think
its a PITA to find a half pint of blow off on your floor, try thinking about
gallons from a high gravity batch! I use about an ounce per 7 BBL batch and
love it, I use it on even low grav brews. They say it enhances head
retention, but I just use it to save a bunch of cleaning. Makes the inside
of the ferms easier to clean too.
Subject-Stainless Cleaning
Lots of chat here too. Jethro doesn't use ANY FERROUS ANYTHING near
his stainless, but he uses plenty of green scotch pads. They work great, and
haven't led to global warming yet. I look forward to trying the yeast slurry
polishing trick, though. BUT, the BEST clean and shine EVER seen in the LAB
was with the recently developed "Brewer-Ez" product. Fan-bloody-tastic! But,
I won't be deserting caustic for it though, just plan to switch back and
forth. The stuff is only active for just over an hour and I re-use my
caustic, something that can't be done with Brewer-Ez. But, it is great
stuff! You've never seen such a shine !!!!!
Jethro
Cheers!
Rob 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: Rob Moline <brewer@kansas.net>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 12:45:42 -0500
Subject: Perceptions/N2 Draft/Check Valves/Homebrewing Pro's/Kit's Contest/Carboys/GABF!
The Jethro Gump Report
>From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
>Subject: Moods and perceptions of intoxication
Sidebar, your honor...lets talk about moods and perceptions of
intoxicants....Wall Street Journal reported some years ago about a
sommellier (sp?) judging where the fella who won said the best way to win
the wine tasting portion of the contest was to get well and truly hammered
the night before. He said that the increased irritability and nervous
agitation of a hangover was just the thing to increase his perceptions of
the individual subtleties of the wines.
>From: wchase@alpha.utampa.edu (DON CHASE)
>This information is second-hand, so feel free to flame me if it's wrong
>and I'll be glad to pass it along. To the best of my knowledge, if you've ever
>had Guiness on draft, it has been nitrogen-injected.
Flame free, the Guinness round here is pushed with a 27/73 percent
blend of CO2/N2. The set up for Guinness cannot accidentally be switched
with a CO2 only blend, cos the regulator for any N2 or N2 blend uses a
reverse thread for hooking the regulator to the tank. Not having served
Guinness at the LAB, but serving my own stout in a similar fashion, I
believe the Guinness pressure is 55-60 psi. I, having received good info
from the HBD, have switched from my previous blend (as Guinness) to a 37/63
blend with better CO2 characteristics, but less spectacular cascade effect.
I run 30 psi.
>From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
This is to keep beer out of your gas line and regulator. Once the
> beer is carbonated there will be no pressure difference between the
> keg and the line, and beer can flow freely into it. Quite messy.
Get some check valves. They let the gas flow one way only and
prevent messy regulators. Avoid ones with steel balls and springs, IMHO, but
seek out the ones with a rubber or silicone valve. The ferrous stuff rusts,
after contact with liquids, and become unreliable. And I've gone
through quite a few and had to rebuild many a regulator as a result.
>From: Andy Walsh <awalsh@crl.com.au>
>Subject: professionals in amateur homebrew competitions
My 2 cents.....Most brew comps I see notice for state "any home
brewed beer,"...and as such I would feel free to enter, should I desire, any
beer I brewed at home...but since I have been working at the LAB, I have
only brewed 2 batches, in over 2 1/2 years, both extract for the purpose of
teaching....(matter of fact, just sold my entire rig, fridges, cornys,
carboys, regs, tanks.....sob...sob......and the miles of hoses!!..sob..sob)
The point of having too much too lose seems insignificant to me,
'cos where I sit, the contest is won every day by keeping your customers
happy with a consistent rendition of their favorites...
Sort of like M.Jackson said, (paraphrased) "Never hire (?) a brewer
with a sun tan...they have too much time on their hands...and aren't
spending it in the brewery."
I just don't have the time (nor the tan), but I would stand by the
stated regulations of a comp....if you want only home-brewers, and not
pro's, then state "Open only to home brewed beers brewed by non-pro brewers"
and then define pro brewers.
Now, here you also get into trouble.....'cos many industry folk
wouldn't define me as a pro brewer, not having any formal training and only
brewing 500 BBL per year. So, what it comes down to are the intentions of
the hosting organization of the comp and their clearly stated definitions
and qualifications for that comp.
FWIW, I refuse to participate in my home clubs comps. It ain't fair,
IMHO.
>>kit anderson wrote:
>>
>>> I submitted a wit that Greg Noonan gave a 40
>>>to. The two non-ranked judges gave it a 22. Chill haze, estery, acidic were
>>>the only comments.
I have seen the whole deal on this one and Kit is correct. But a
comp is like a crap shoot. It all depends on soooo much, even with the best
beers. But one always assumes that comps have qualified judges and in this
case they clearly were not.
>>From: "Bernard D Hummel" <hummelbe@pilot.msu.edu>
>My thoughts on carboys: I currently don't use a carboy much because I
> think that they are APITA.
Personally, I loved my carboys, all four of them. They never were a
PITA to me. Once emptied and rinsed, filled with H2O to the shoulder and
carried to the fermenting room, (the unused second bathroom) and then filled
to the top with clorox, they were self cleaning and sanitizing until the
next rinse and fill with wort. Oh, well, different strokes for different folks!
GABF!
For those wishing us luck, thanks! We will need it...when you're in
competition with the best around, you can always wish to be lucky. I do.
I just can't wait till next year when I can split the Jethro Gump
Brewery off from the Little Apple and compete for "Most Entries From a
Single Company" category with Sam Adams, which in contrast to the rest of us
with the maximum 5 entries, has 10. (Or with Longshots, how many?) Now, do
you think that anybody who knows their malt from their hops is fooled by
entries from Sam Adams, and entries from Boston Beer Company?
Now, lets see, there's the J. Gump Brewery, and the LABCO brewery,
how bout the "Son of Jethro" Brewery, and the "Jethro Scratches His Ear"
brewery....lets see...there's 20 entries!! Now, how 'bout the "4 Motorcycles
in the Shed Brewery" and the "Reserve Parachute Unpacked Since 1992
Brewery".....WOW, now I have 30 entries!!! The mind boggles!..or
biggles....hey, the "BIGGLES BREWERY!" WOW, there's 35 entries!! Just let
me at 'em!
Cheers!
Jethro (Hophead) (Humorless Bastard) (Hope to See You at GABF) Gump
C
Cheers!
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company
Manhattan, Kansas
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about
beer!"
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2199
****************************
