Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2183
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/09/11 PDT
Homebrew Digest Wednesday, 11 September 1996 Number 2183
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
How To in French (Fred Hardy)
Channelling, finis ("Gregory, Guy J.")
Lagering Under Pressure (TMartyn@aol.com)
Moods and perceptions of intoxication ("Dave Draper")
Re: RIMS Controller Alternatives (hollen@vigra.com)
Re: 1st Nitrogen Injected Guiness ((DON CHASE))
Zymurgy gadget issue (Lambert@tencor.com)
Re: RIMS Controller Alternatives ("Keith Royster")
Brewed a beer I don't like; Can I improve this (beer(not)) (Randal.Dusing@uswau01msg.med.ge.com)
finely ground husks (M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace@mac))
easymasher woes (VanFunk@aol.com)
Wheat beer yeasts (Miguel de Salas)
cleaning immersion chiller (Robert DeNeefe)
Dreaded Starch Haze (sharrington@CCGATE.HAC.COM)
making carmel (bob rogers)
Polyclar/Chill Haze,secondary ferment, dip and squeeze sparging ("David R. Burley")
Brown Ale Rescue, Gummy brews,CanAm Hangovers, Blasig's Brewing! ("David R. Burley")
spam no control (Spencer W Thomas)
fauna in beer (Spencer W Thomas)
Diffusion and Flow during Lautering (Todd Mansfield)
spamming (DOUGWEISER@aol.com)
Cleaning Stainless (Kyle R Roberson)
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: Fred Hardy <fcmbh@access.digex.net>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 16:06:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: How To in French
Hi, Folks:
Does anyone know of a basic homebrewing guide (a la Papzian or Miller)
which is available in French? A friend in Switzerland wants to know so he
can try his hand at brewing.
Please respond via email.
TIA, Fred
===========================================================================
We must invent the future, else it will | Fred Hardy
happen to us and we will not like it. | Fairfax, Virginia
[Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh@access.digex.net
------------------------------
From: "Gregory, Guy J." <GGRE461@ecy.wa.gov>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 13:21:00 PDT
Subject: Channelling, finis
In HBD 2180, John DeCarlo, jdecarlo@juno.com, Arlington, VA points out
terms of agreement in the recent thread on channelling I and Kelly Jones
<kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com> are in, and then states:
"I think Guy is forgetting that most people's homebrew setups can adjust
the flow rate, such as by closing the spigot more, or changing the
distance between the two end-points of a siphon."
Well, no, I originally tried to add something to AlK's on-again/off again
thread and proposed experiment. Al proposed:
Al K>Half way through the laeuter, divert the runnings to a quart jar.
After
Al K>you've got it half full, divert to a second quart jar and immediately
Al K>stir the top half of the mash. Measure the SG of the runnings. If the
Al K>OG in jar 2 is significantly higher than that in jar 1, you have
Al K>channelling problems. I'm going to try this on my next batch.
I guess I assumed Jar 1 and Jar 2 would be drawn at equal valve settings,
and sparge water head is held constant, so potential discharge would be the
same. Actual discharge (in volume per unit time) would be a function of the
grain to yield wort. My assumptions, my problem. My other assumption is
that there are a gazillion chemical factors affecting extraction which can
generate different specific gravities, while physically in terms of rate
there is just valves, head, and grain. Thus, specific gravity results may
not directly indicate channelized flow.
<fling gauntlet mode on>
Maybe there is a chemical "channelling" phenomenon, where some grains yield
goodies better than others for .....whew! New thread! Get out the angels
and the hatpins!
<gauntlet mode off>
John concludes, quite reasonably:
"In this case, if you simply sparge longer by closing the outlet, it
should help extraction, but it isn't clear that it would be enough or
even significant. "
Agree, though if channelling is real it will still preferentially conduct
flow at low flow rates. Extraction may not suffer, though, given enough
time to extract. Hope that clarifies where I was.
Hey Al, how's the experiment going? and Charlie, have you been able to sort
all this stuff out for the FAQ yet?
Guy Gregory
GuyG4@aol.com
Ex-per-i-men-ta-tion, ho!
------------------------------
From: TMartyn@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:09:52 -0400
Subject: Lagering Under Pressure
Hello, Beer People -
Humbly asking for help here. I've got a Munich helles half way through
primary, and an idea arises .....
Somewhere in the last year I've read something about conditioning lagers
under pressure. The idea appeals to me - one less step, right? The idea
would be to do a traditional primary ferment, then rack directly in the keg
for secondary/lagering. The remaining fermentation would shortly pressurize
the keg "somewhat", then after an appropriate period of lagering, put the gas
to it and enjoy.
Is this a common practice, or did I just dream it up - I can't seem to find
where I read/heard about it. So the question is, what are the pros and cons
of this approach?
What effect does pressure have on the residual yeast, diacetyl reduction,
etc.?
Any practical tips?
Private e-mail is fine, and I'll summarize back to HBD.
Thanks!
Tom Martyn
TMartyn@aol.com
Brattleboro, VT
------------------------------
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 07:28:50 +10
Subject: Moods and perceptions of intoxication
Dear Friends,
In #2181, Peter Ensminger said:
"Perhaps because Chris was on vacation and was in such a good mood
that he simply didn't notice the effects of accumulated acetaldehyde.
Mood can definitely influence the perception of intoxication by
alcohol and other drugs, so why not the perception of hangovers?"
This struck a chord with me. I distinctly recall that, during the
two years that I lived in England, and was a rather *ahem* regular
visitor to local pubs with my department colleagues, I could have a
couple of pints of Best (clocking in at probably less than 4% ABV)
with the lads and actually feel a little loaded when I left the pub
afterwards. Whereas, if I were to drink the equivalent amount
(either homebrew or store-bought), or even more, quietly at home, I
could barely even notice that there was any alcohol in my system at
all.
I'd be interested to hear others' comments on this effect. Does the
camaraderie and more jovial atmosphere of being out with friends make
you feel the alcohol more than quietly sitting and reading the paper
or whatever? Let's have it here in the digest and see if it goes
anywhere rather than private... take our mind off of SPAM. Bloody
Vikings.
Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"...I drink cool ale..." ---Kirk Fleming
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
ddraper@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html
...I'm not from here, I just live here...
------------------------------
From: hollen@vigra.com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 15:03:24 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS Controller Alternatives
>> KennyEddy writes:
Ken> Steve Gray asks about RIMS controllers:
Steve> I hope in the near future to evolve my current 10gal Gott
Steve> mash/lauter = system into a pseudo RIMS system. I've read the
Steve> special issue Zymurgy = on gadgets, but I would rather not
Steve> construct my own controller. What = are good sources for
Steve> controllers that can be used for these systems. = They must
Steve> exist.
Ken> Perhaps the simplest RIMS controller is a regular light switch.
Ken> Major drawback is that it requires constant babysitting. Turn it
Ken> ON for boosts, leave it OFF for rests. If you continue to
Ken> recirculate during rests, you'll probably lose a lot heat; either
Ken> shut off the pump during rests or give the element a quickie
Ken> every so often to maintain a relatively even temperature.
Ken> Recirculate for several minutes after the last reat and before
Ken> sparging to fully clear the wort. Any RIMS pro's care to comment
Ken> on this basic technique?
Another major drawback is that it requires *careful* babysitting.
Before I had my RIMS temp controller finished, the rest of the system
was finished and I was anxious to try it out. Close to the setpoint,
I thought the switch was on and went to turn it off, and it was
already off, so I ended up turning it ON!! B-{ The mass of the mash
means that the effects take a while to be seen on the thermometer and
once seen, it is too late to stop them quickly. If I were close to a
158F mash temp, I would have overshot it and possibly killed the
enzymes. However, I was shooting for a low 150F mash, so I did no
*damage*, but mashed at the wrong temperature.
The temp controller has the advantage of slowing down the heat as the
setpoint is approached so oscillation and overshoot are avoided.
As far as heat loss goes, there is not a great deal of heat loss
during recirculation. At 123F, I turn off the heater element for my
20 minute protein rest and it stays within 1 F of where it was.
dion
- --
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen@vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California
------------------------------
From: wchase@alpha.utampa.edu (DON CHASE)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:03:54 -0400
Subject: Re: 1st Nitrogen Injected Guiness
Steve Gray said:
>Had my first (and second, and third....) authentic draft (nitrogen =
>injected) Guinness at Kell's Irish Pub in Portland this weekend. =
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. It seems that the nozzle
on the tap has several very small pinholes to create the very small bubbles.
A pressure of 30lbs is required to push the beer through these pinholes. I
don't know beans (or barley) about CO2 absorbtion, but I was told that if
CO2 is used at this pressure, (and it happens sometimes by accident), the
Guiness absorbs the CO2 and it's unpourable by the next day. Nitrogen is
used because it dissolves much more slowly, if at all.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Chase | Hombrewing : the only sport open exclusively
Objectivist...Businessman... | to anal-retentive alcoholics.
Homebrewer. | Relax...have a homebrew.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
From: Lambert@tencor.com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 15:11:03 PDT
Subject: Zymurgy gadget issue
Steve Gray emits:
>I've read the special issue Zymurgy
>on gadgets,
What issue was this?
I am looking to construct a really good lauter system, uupgrading myself from
the simple zapap holes in the bucket/false bottom with clamped hose deal. My
question to you, o great collective of zymurgistic wizardry, your suggestions
on either the evolution of my system, or something else wickedly efficient and
simple....
thanx,
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:20:03 +0500
Subject: Re: RIMS Controller Alternatives
Ken Schwartz responds to Steve Gray about RIMS controllers:
> Perhaps the simplest RIMS controller is a regular light switch.
> Major drawback is that it requires constant babysitting. Turn it
> ON for boosts, leave it OFF for rests. If you continue to
> recirculate during rests, you'll probably lose a lot heat; <snip>
> Any RIMS pro's care to comment on this basic technique?
Can RIMS newbies comment too? If so, I'd like to say that this
method sounds like more than just a minor baby-sitting job to me,
and might completely eliminate some of the advantages of a RIMS in
the process. One of the main advantages of a RIMS is the ability to
maintain a set temperature during your mash with little or no drift.
To be constantly turning on your hear full blast and then turning
it off manually could easily cause wild temperature fluctuations for
even the most patient and attentive masher.
> The next step up is one that some RIMSer's have suggested in the
> past, which is to obtain a heavy-duty "light-dimmer" or
> "motor-speed" type controller. <snip> Again, turn full-ON for
> boosts; for rests, you'll have to manually find the setting that
> just maintains temperature while the wort circulates.
This is exactly what I have done, but I do plan on upgrading some day
to a fully automated system. I leave the dial turned on about
half-way to maintain the temp, and then turn it all the way on for
temp boosts. The dimmer switch cost me about $50 and is rated at
1500W.
> Neither of the two foregoing approaches requires any special skills
> beyond good wiring practice to implement.
I would argue that the former would require a lot practice, if not
skill, and would still be very difficult. The latter method only
takes a few practice runs to figure out where your dial needs to be
in your system to maintain temperatures.
> As far as "automatic" electronic controllers go, there is at least
> one commercial concern (BrewTech? can't remember) selling
> controllers and other RIMS components; check recent Brewing
> Techniques and/or Zymurgy for ads.
Actually, it is called BrewCraft, Ltd. Kerry Hauptli, the owner, is
a very friendly guy and enjoys talking about his RIMS equipment, so
email him if you have any questions. His address is
76004.1610@compuserve.com. I also have some photos of his equipment
on my RIMS web page (URL is below). I have no financial interest in
BrewCraft and I'm not even a satisfied customer, although I may be
someday when I upgrade my system. ~ Enjoy!
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
"Where if the kudzu don't gitcha, the Baptists will!"
mailto:keith.royster@ponyexpress.com
http://dezines.com/@your.service -@your.service
http://dezines.com/@your.service/cbm -Carolina BrewMasters
http://dezines.com/@your.service/RIMS -My RIMS page, rated COOL! by the Brewery
------------------------------
From: Randal.Dusing@uswau01msg.med.ge.com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:50:58 -0500
Subject: Brewed a beer I don't like; Can I improve this (beer(not))
>
>
>Dear Brewmisters,
>
>I have not had a single reply so I'll try one more time.
>All the verbage I've read people asking if they should pour there beers
>out.
>
>I do not want to pour my beer out just improve it.
>Again here it is:L
> I brewed my first bad batch of beer, no contamination just an
>all-grain brown ale
>already in the bottle, or in this case bootled.
> I attempted to make my first all grain, have made three since then and
>they turned out great
> But, between my low extraction and the incorrect grains amounts from
>the local home brew store.
>The result is a flat(it is lightly carbonated) highly hopped ale. The
>body is very light.
>
>I like a full bodied beer.
>
>So it's not like I can't drink it, but it's nothing I would share with
>others.
> This is what I want to do; either mix up a batch of non-fermentable
>grain to add body, then
> pour out what's left of about 3 gallons in the bottling bucket give a
>couple of good stirs add
> brown sugar for priming, and rebottle.
> or
>
> Would I be better cooking the original beer in the pot with addition
>fermentable and non frementables
>and primary a second time.
>
>Radical Brewer
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: M257876@sl1001.mdc.com (bayerospace@mac)
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 17:51 -0600
Subject: finely ground husks
collective homebrew conscience:
john w wrote:
>If crushing malt to flour makes for better conversion rates, why not do so
>and add rice hulls for a filter bed? Tannin from crushed husks a problem?
>Would this be a problem even in low ph mash or is it independent of that?
my suspicion is that finely ground husks can contribute things to your wort
that don't make it into the wort when the husks are not finely ground.
greg noonan's lager beer book talks about the composition of grain husks and
why the stuff in them is not desirable in wort, if i recall correctly.
what was the answer to my dark mash pH strip discoloration problem? nobody
ever emailed me, and i didn't see a response out here. am i doomed to the
purchase of a meter? homebrewers, what sayeth ye?
recipe note for those of you looking to duplicate munich dark malt flavors
(oktoberfest, dunkel): i recently took a munich dunkel in to be tasted at
the beer club meeting, and the biggest complaint i heard was that it didn't
have a typical munich toasty malt flavor. it was surmised by one taster that
it was more like a scotch ale than a munich beer, from a malt flavor
standpoint. here's the grist bill for that beer, which was decoction mashed:
1.2 lb dwc pils malt
7 lb munich malt
0.5 lb dwc aromatic
11 oz. dwc caravienne
3 oz. dwc caramunich
4 oz. dwc chocolate
let me make a recommendation if any of you are looking to brew a dunkel
(i'm taking this advice myself this year): use as little
chocolate and crystal malts as you're comfortable with if you want to try
and get the munich dark beer malt profile correct. i have a strong feeling
that the chocolate needs to be eliminated from the recipe, and perhaps even
the crystal cut back a bit.
my main problem is i can't find a munich dunkel in the beer stores i go to so
i can compare. does anybody see dunkels in the beer stores? which beers?
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
From: VanFunk@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 18:56:05 -0400
Subject: easymasher woes
Zymurgists-
got a quick question for the honorable collective. I installed a JSP
easymasher (I know, I know) in my Vollrath 10 gal kettle a couple of months
ago, and thus far I am very happy with its extraction efficiency. However,
that rackin' frackin' spigot gets me swearing at my mother every time I try
to attach a piece of hose to it. The seal is such that I have to clamp it
about 10 times to prevent it from sucking air into the sweet wort during the
lauter. My question is this: does anyone know where I can find a replacement
spigot with the same diameter threaded male NPT fitting, something that
wouldn't be such a GD MFing PITA- names, telephone numbers and prices would
be most appreciated. Thanks in advance for your help. Responses by private
e-mail are fine.
Peter T.
vanfunk@aol.com
------------------------------
From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de@postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 10:06:44 -1000
Subject: Wheat beer yeasts
I would like to brew a wheat beer, and am not sure which yeast to use: there
are more and more available all the time. I've never brewed weizens before,
although I really like the style. What are people's impressions after using
Wyeast 3068 Weihenstephan, 3056 Bavarian wheat, one of the newer ones? Which
one do you reccomend?
Also, trying to be true to style, should I really late hop or just use
kettle hops? When I have tried german wheat beers I have never noriced the
presence of aroma hops. I would probably use Hallertauer or Herrsbrucker for
kettle hopping.
Any thoughts? Private email appreciated.
- ---------------------------
Miguel de Salas, in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
------------------------------
From: Robert DeNeefe <rdeneefe@compassnet.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 21:06:03 -0500
Subject: cleaning immersion chiller
I just bought a copper immersion chiller from an ex-homebrewer, and it has a
few black spots on it that look like corrosion. Should I just scrub them
away with a green scratchy pad thing or would that be a bad idea? Normally
I'm not so anal, but I've never used an immersion chiller (I'm a relative
newbie) and I'd hate to scratch it up and set myself up for infection or
something. Any ideas?
Robert
------------------------------
From: sharrington@CCGATE.HAC.COM
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 96 16:52:28 PST
Subject: Dreaded Starch Haze
I decided to transition to all-grain brewing simply because I strive
for challenges, and I got to the point where extract had lost its
glamour. I did take the no brainer approach -- no worrying about
water chemistry (doesn't it take a long time to count parts per
million) nor pH and frequently did not even take hydrometer readings.
I would simply mash-in to get get a protein rest, heat it up to mash
temp, assume that the beer gods would smile upon my conversion (iodine
is bad for you), heat up to a mash-out then lauter. Things had worked
really well until my last brew. Here's what happened:
The grain bill was 10lbs of Klages, with a lb of crystal. Our water
here in the South Bay is super hard, so I have an RO system. I use RO
water for the mash. The pH of the water is pretty high (7-8 I am
told).
Upon hearing comments on the HBD that a protein rest was only
necessary for lagers, I decided to shorten my brew and just do a mash
then mash-out. I typically mash for an hour, but this day I had to go
to Home Depot to get curtain rods, so the mash went on for about 2.5
hours. I then did a mashout and brewed as normal. When I racked to
the primary, it looked really cloudy, and has stayed that way all the
way to bottling. I assume that this is the dreaded starch haze.
My question is: What happened, and what do I do to make sure it
doesn't happen again?
BTW, the beer tastes fine, you just have to shut you eyes when you
drink it.
Stephen Harrington
Manhattan Beach, CA
------------------------------
From: bob rogers <bob@carol.net>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 1996 22:44:00 -0400
Subject: making carmel
when you put the wort you want to carmelize on the stove, use a heavy cast
aluminum pot. do not use a thin pot. you will need to raise the temperature
of the wort to 230F for syrup, or up to 260F for hard ball carmel. use a
candy thermometer. in order to get to that temperature you will need to boil
away all, so collect at least a cup or two. stir a lot as the water level
goes down. you might want to practice with table sugar first.
bob rogers bob@carol.net
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 10 Sep 96 23:01:02 EDT
Subject: Polyclar/Chill Haze,secondary ferment, dip and squeeze sparging
Brewsters:
David Whitman ( I know a David Weidman and David Widman , what a nice name
David
is) writes that he has done an experimental design in which he compared the
chill haze reducing properites of Irish Moss (IM) and Polyclar and Polyclar is
estimated to require 1/4 cup just like Dave Miller said. Thanks for the info.
Would you please publish more on this here, like dosages for IM, etc, types of
beer, etc. %AA
Did you compare Irish moss and bentonite? Both of these reduce the protein as
contrasted with the polyclar which removes the tannins which react with the
proteins to form chill haze.
Did you compare mouthfeel for IM treated beers vs Polyclar treated beers? Loss
of hop flavor/bitterness with Polyclar?
I encourage more discussion/experimentation on this topic of chill haze and
clarification, since we all face the problem if we like chilled beer and need
to
see the possibilities and how others handle it. Although we have had some
opinions expressed on the use of various filters with various bottom end
numbers, like 0.2 micron. 5 microns, etc. Does anyone have some personal
experience in this area? Who supplies the filters, etc.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
David Cummings ( another nice first name - does this mean there is a higher
percentage of Daves who make and drink beer than average?) asks about secondary
fermentation. I always assumed this apparent misnomer was a result of the
experience in the wine industry ( and I guess in Lambic) in which there are
sequential fermentations by different organisms. In the wine industry
malo-lactic fermentation (the "secondary fermentation") sometimes takes place
in
the spring of the year and the wine is said by the French to be waking up.
This rarely occurs in the modern wine industry with judicious use of sulfite
and
perhaps innoculation with bacteria, the sometimes desirable M-L fermentation
takes place during normal yeast fermentation and would be unnoticed from the
gas
evolution.
Sometimes in beermaking, fermentation is carried out under pressure, sometimes
after krausening, in the secondary in preparation for bottling. It may also be
that the highly attenuative lager yeasties are going after the higher sugars
and
dextrins which are unfermentable in the presence of maltose..
Since we only want the yeast to ferment and nothing else, we don't
intentionally
have a secondary ferment, just a continuation of the depositing of the trub and
inactive yeast as the fermentation finishes. I rack to the secondary after a
week, normally, to get the beer off the majority of the trub and to give me a
relatively pure yeast deposit in the secondary with which to krausen and hold
over for the next ferment as a chilled slurry in a capped bottle.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Dave Greenlee (WHAT is going on? Is this a Daves only day? ?) asks about the
efficiency of extraction from adjuncts without mashing. What is the efficiency
of this "dip and squeeze method" There are lots of well it depends on...but
the short answer is that it really depends on the grind of the milled malt and
whether or not it has been saccharified at the maltster or high roasted. If the
answer to the second one is "no" I say forget it. Don't bother, it won't make
any difference.You won't get any noticeable flavor from the adjunct unless it
is
soluble in the wort. If you are interested in this procedure and in using
non-crystal or non-high roasted malts, choose a diastatic malt, grind the
adjunct small and dip and squeeze away. Then it depends on your hands.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Which reminds me. Dole was being interviewed and asked whether he wore boxer
shorts or jockey shorts for underwear.
Dole replied "Depends".
No flames please, I'm Republican. I just enjoy a clever joke.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 10 Sep 96 23:00:59 EDT
Subject: Brown Ale Rescue, Gummy brews,CanAm Hangovers, Blasig's Brewing!
Brewsters:
Dusing asks how to save his low extract brown ale. Bring the beer and
appropriate amount of malt extract to180F to sterilize it , holding at 180F for
10 min covered, don't boil it, cool and re-ferment and re-bottle. No hops
added.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
John Rusd1 Varady relates his stories of how adjuncts set up on him and set him
up for a set mash and poor sparge. Next time you want to brew lawnmower beer
for your friends or use adjuncts for any reason like an oatmeal stout, cook
them
separately first with a couple of pounds of crushed pale malt, just like a
decoction mash. In a thick mash of ground adjuncts and crushed pale malt, bring
it to 110, 135, 150F, hold at each for 30 min, heat up to a boil, generally the
longer you hold at the boil, the darker and maltier your beer will be. Add
water if needed during this mashing/cooking procedure. This is then used as the
first stage in your mash program to raise the temperature of your main mash. Or
cool it down and add it into the mash and then begin your program.
Alternatively
you can have your main mash underway if you are using low T holds. Add this
"goods" mash to the main mash before you bring it up to the saccharification
temperature so that any starch solubilized during the boil of the goods mash
can
be saccharified. This will substantially reduce stuck mash and stuck sparge
problems caused by gelatinous and gummy adjuncts and add a little yumminess to
your beer.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
On the subject of hangovers/ Canadian vs American. I know that in the past one
bottle of Canadian Carlings Black Label Beer would give me a splitting headache
within a half hour, even if I drank just one. I proved it to myself so many
times, I began to wonder if I was a masochist. I was told it was the cobalt
heading agent legal in Canada, and not the USA. This was many years ago, but I
still don't drink Carlings, since there are so many good Canadian beers -Give
me
a Blue right now!
- ----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Blasig has found some malt extract brix 80-83 ( which means 80 grams of
sugar per 100 grams of solution at 68 degrees F ). It is approximately true
that you can convert from Brix (also called Degrees Plato or Balling) by using
the following formula:
sp gr = 260/(260-Brix) = 260/(260-83) = 1.47
You would like to have your beer at about 1.050 its OG to start with, if you
like a stronger beer increase both the extract ( say to 1.060) and hops
accordingly. Use a lager yeast.
Try this:
In a minimum 15l kettle
Boil 7.5 liters of water with 3 kgs of hop extract. watch out for boilover!!!!
Add a little cold water to calm it down.
add 50 grams of Brewers gold a Bittering hop
boil 40 minutes
add 25 grams of cascades an aroma hop
boil 15 minutes
add 10 grams of cascades a finishing hop
boil five minutes
Cover tightly and cool as quickly as possble by sitting the kettle in a basin
of
cold/ice water until well below body temperature, as judged by feelng the
outside of the kettle. Pour through a sterilized straineror cloth into a
sterilized 25 to 30 l primary fermentation bucket or 25l ( at least) carboy
with 8 liters of cold boiled water already there. Dilute to 20 liters with cool
boiled water. Add your beer yeast if the wort is below 70.F Cover with a
plastic
sheet or use an air lock or a blowoff tube. Keep it as cool as possible,
hopefully below 65F, but don't worry too much about this, just the cooler the
better. Ferment for a week in the primary or until major ferment is finished.
Rack to a carboy and allow to sit another week under airlock. Collect the yeast
slurry into a sterilized bottle, cap and place in the refrigerator for the next
batch. Bottle with a total of about 150 grams of sugar added in a bottling
bucket or added separately in each bottle as a solution.
If you can get a hydrometer, get one and measure the SG at the start and
finish.
Sample the beer with a sterilized baster or spoon. Warm the sample to get rid
of the bubbles of CO2, cool to room temp and measure.
You can save hops by buying a hopped malt extract which already has the
bittering hops added. Do not be tempted to add sugar to this to save malt
extract it is not worth it.
Hold off on the fruit for now. But when you are ready use about 2-3 kgs per 20
liters.
If you like British beer be sure to try the Pale Ale and use a british ale
yeast
in your warm climate
Do your best to use a beer yeast suited to the style it makes a lot of
difference.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:07:29 -0400
Subject: spam no control
Two points:
IT WON'T STOP 'EM and IT WILL HURT SUBSCRIBERS ABILITY TO POST.
1. It's no big deal for a potential spammer to "add" themselves to the
mailing list (it's automagic with majordomo), spam, and then delete
themselves. (Also, it's almost trivial these days to forge a return
address.)
2. Some of us send mail from addresses other than the one to which our
HBD is delivered. I for example, receive mail at spencer@umich.edu,
but my mail "comes from" spencer@engin.umich.edu. I can't change the
latter. I could change the former, but at the loss of some
flexibility. Others may not have this choice. A person with whom I
correspond regularly has a "return address" of herself@123.45.67.89 (or
some such combination of name and numbers). However, I cannot send
mail to this address, but must send to herself@site.com. She would be
SOL when it comes to posting to the HBD, if she was a subscriber.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 23:23:02 -0400
Subject: fauna in beer
What's to worry about a bee or two in your beer? Check out this
story, lifted from a 1994 posting by Kit Anderson, who, in turn, took
it from the Brew Free or Die! newsletter.
Genius comes into play when the you realize an accident is actually a
major discovery. Such as with Maine Ale and Lager Tasters president
Brews Stevens' lambic. Brews brewed up a 15 gallon batch of cloudy
wheat beer and put it into three five gallon buckets in the basement
of his vintage home. The joists are carefully hung with spider webs
duplicating Leifman's brewery in Belgium. He left the covers off and
allowed chance to do the wild thing with his brew. After three weeks,
he discarded one bucket with brown scum on it while the other two held
a healthy looking white fuzz.
A bunch of us were sipping the result (an outstanding cassis lambic)
as Brews related this tale. At bottling time, Brews noticed an area of
gray fuzz in the head of one of the buckets. So, he scooped out what
he thought was a minor area of mold. It turned out to be a field
mouse. Brews said, "He had a smile on his face, though!" We all
laughed and said it was too bad that the batch was ruined. "Ruined!",
exclaimed Brews. "I put ten pounds of black currants to it!"
After a moment of silence...we looked down at our glasses.... looked
at Brews...Naw....Yeah!! Someone, I don't remember who, passed
'Mouseketeer Cassis Lambic' through his nose. I hadn't seen that trick
since Ronnie Farr shot milk out his nose after watching Mundo Gorgis
eat his own ear wax in second grade.
We all watched and took another sip. Hmm. None of that typical rodent
after taste. More silence. "You know what living organisms do when
they die?", asked Dr. Tom, our club physician. "They void their bowels
and bladder." We looked at our glasses....looked at Dr. Tom...looked
at Brews...took another sip. Hmm. None of that typical rodent-after
after taste.
------------------------------
From: Todd Mansfield <102444.1032@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 10 Sep 96 23:59:28 EDT
Subject: Diffusion and Flow during Lautering
lheavner@frmail.frco.com recently wrote:
> At slow
> enough flows, the radial concentration gradient will vanish, even
> though the liquor in the "channels" isn't in contact with sugar rich
> grain.
I agree in principle.
However, the relevant time scale for this event would be days, not
hours. (at least for 'channels' separated by a few cm or more--anyone know
what the distance between 'channels' is?). Sparging times on the order of
1-5 hours allows diffusion over size scales more like 1mm, closer to a
single grain particle than different zones of the lauter tun. Slow
lautering is no substitute for getting the flow right.
My 'Channeling' Experience...
The last time I made a stout I left the dark grains out of the mash
entirely and added them to the top few cm of my lauter tun just before
voorlauf. After several minutes of recirculation, the color of the
runnings gradually started to darken, and the color of the runoff liquid
(as viewed through the vinyl tubing at the lauter tun's exit) was
uniform.
Contrast this with the time I watched a friend make a stout, again
adding his dark grains to the top few cm of the lauter tun just before
voorlauf (the 'experiment' wasn't planned--emphasis was on brewing &
drinking beer that day!). Almost immediately strong color fluctuations
appeared in the runoff. It took several minutes for the runnings to
become roughly uniformly dark-colored, at least by casual inspection.
I didn't notice any gross differences in our procedures, and our
equipment was nearly identical. But it's pretty clear that we saw
qualitatively different flow through our lauter tuns (at least
initially).
It seems that relatively small variations in procedure can cause
significant changes in the way the grain particles pack in the lauter
tun. Has anyone ever tried to codify this? This type of thing might
account for some of the differences in our collective lautering
experience.
Todd Mansfield
Cincinnati
102444.1032@compuserve.com
------------------------------
From: DOUGWEISER@aol.com
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 1996 01:03:55 -0400
Subject: spamming
In keeping with the thread regarding internet acronyms and their meanings,
what does SPAMMING mean?
TIA, Doug in Winnetka, CA
------------------------------
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson@beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 22:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Cleaning Stainless
You shouldn't have to scrub much at all. Use caustic to
remove most of the gunk (like lye or one of the proprietary
blends) and then acid to remove the beer stone (like diluted
naval jelly or shower power). I use paper towels to wipe up the
stuff and throw the towels away. Wear eye protection and
gloves.
Rinse after your final wash very well.
Kyle
Commercial preparations can be gentler on your body, by the way.
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2183
****************************
