Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2197
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/09/20 PDT
Homebrew Digest Friday, 20 September 1996 Number 2197
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!
Contents:
Ferulic Acid/Belgian water ((A. J. deLange))
Great Beer Myths, part 1 (Carl Hattenburg)
RIMS design (Carrick Legrismith)
re: sanitation/scrubbing pads ("Curt Speaker")
Pumps and Shear (Joe Rolfe)
Re: BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ??? (RUSt1d?)
RIMS mash thickness / geared MaltMill ("Keith Royster")
Adjuncts and Enzymes / Sparging (Rob Reed)
survey - how do YOU remove hops after the boil??? ((Steve kemp))
Homebrew Seminar Day, Caked grains, Trub ("David R. Burley")
hop planting ("Thomas K. Simacek")
RIMS: Flames versus Electrons / No-Sparge Sparging (KennyEddy@aol.com)
Re:Table Sugar (Jeff Frane)
Corn Meal as ajunct? / Malt Liquor (AJUNDE@ccmail.monsanto.com)
Hop Trelis (Kathy Booth )
Re: RIMS pros/cons (Kelly Jones)
clove in wheat beer (Jeremy Bergsman)
RE:Sparging, Why Bother? (John Poetzel)
RE: Why sparge ((George De Piro))
propane and extinguishers (Scott Dornseif)
conversion guidelines (Mil)
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: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:42:45 -0500
Subject: Ferulic Acid/Belgian water
Dane Mosher asked about the necessity for a rest at 113F in order to get
clove character in a Weissbier. The cloviness is attributed to 4-vinyl
guaiacol whose precursor is ferulic acid. In malt ferulic acid is bound to
pentosanes via ester bonds and these are broken most readily at 111F and pH
5.7. Reference Warner's "German Wheat Beer" p 72 which in turn references
"4-vinylguajakol bei der Weizenbioerherstellung," Brauwelt 130:27, July
5,1990 p1115
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Robert Waddell asks about water for Belgian strong ale. Sorry to say but a
cursory search turned up very little on a suitable water for this style
except for some anecdotal evidence in Rajotte's "Belgian Ale" that it
should be "soft". Interestingly enough, DeClerk discusses the brewing
waters of the rest of Europe without touching on those of his native land.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
From: Carl Hattenburg <CHattenburg@Perstorp-us.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:53:32 -0400
Subject: Great Beer Myths, part 1
I'm sure most of you have heard this before, but it is important to pass
this type of experience onto the newbies:
An Irishman walks into a bar in Dublin, orders three pints of Guinness &
sits in the back of the room, drinking a sip out of each one in turn.
When
he finishes them, he comes back to the bar & orders three more. The
bartender asks him, "You know, a pint goes flat after I draw it;
wouldn't
you rather I draw fresh pints for you one at a time?" The fellow
replies:
"Well, you see, I have two brothers. One is now in America & the other,
in Australia. When we all left home, we promised we'd drink this way to
remember the days when we drank together." The bartender admits that
this is a nice custom & leaves it there.
The fellow becomes a regular in the bar & always drinks the same way:
he orders three pints & drinks them in turn. One day, he comes in &
orders two pints. All the regulars notice & fall silent, speculating
about
what might have happened to one of the absent brothers. When the
fellow goes back to the bar for a second round, the bartender says, "I
don't want to intrude on your grief, but I wanted to offer my
condolences
on your great loss." The fellow looks confused for a moment & then a
light gleams in his eye & he says: "Oh, no, everyone's fine. You see,
it's
just that I've given up beer for Lent."
p.s. I eat flames for breakfast!
- - Carlos,
(www) http://theweeds.smxcorp.com/carlos/carlos.html
- - Carl H.
(w) 301.680.7276; (fx) 301.236.0134; (h) 301.942.3756
(e) CHattenburg@Perstorp-us.com (e) CHatten@Erols.com
Perstorp Analytical, Inc.
Quality Control at the speed of light.....
------------------------------
From: Carrick Legrismith <hiscope@c4systm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:48:39 -0400
Subject: RIMS design
With my RIMS brewing system,
http://www.dnh.mv.net/ipusers/peanut/carrick.htm
a cross breed, with SABCO and PICO as it's parents, runs at a ratio of
grain/water of
1:1.3--foundation water included. This summer I have brewed 4 ten gallon
batches of a Scheinder Weiss clone, which run 65-70% malted wheat,
without adding rice hulls or having stuck mashes. The extraction rates
have been in the 87% range.
The element has never scorched the wort, [knock on S.S.], and allows me
to control the mash temperatures within .3*c with minimal maintenance.
Repeatablilty? IMO better than my old Gott system was, altough I have
changed some of the other equipment and proccesses too--MaltMill instead
of Corona, built H2O vs well water so this might be subjective.
For a system to work it must be designed correctly just like anything
else. Case in point--bagels and toasters. The wrong heating element or
the RIMS chamber valved at both sides would be not the fault of the
concept but of the designer. Before building a system do your research.
To run the setup without a GFI, [stands for Good F... Idea], is taking
an unneccessary risk, one that costs only $6.00 to correct.
Carrick Legrismith
Poison Ivy Brewing
Clinton, MI
------------------------------
From: "Curt Speaker" <speaker@safety-1.univsfty.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:50:48 EST
Subject: re: sanitation/scrubbing pads
Regarding newbie sanitation - Someone recently posted that sanitation
cannot be overemphasized...true, but also remember that when
sanitizing with bleach, more is not better. I have been using 1 oz.
of bleach in 5 gallons of water for 2.5 years now and never had an
infected batch (well, one...but is was my own stupidity for using an
unsanitized container to add make-up water to chilled wort...DUH!) A
higher concentration of bleach will not work any faster or any
better, and will actually (seems) to leave more bleach residue on
whatever you are trying to sanitize. I typically rinse 3 or 4 times
with tap water (central PA tap water is pretty pure - hard as hell
too!)...if I still smell bleach, I rinse some more. Not really
rocket science, but then nothing in brewing is...
The green scrubbing pads from the grocery store work very well on
stainless; a little tough on the finger tips, but no pain, no gain.
The sponge with a scrubbing pad on it works well too, but beware the
ones that are impregnated with soap unless you like beer with no head
or feel like doing some extra rinsing.
Brewing season is upon us folks - get to work!!! :-)
Curt Speaker
President , S.C.U.M.
"Beer causes you to digress...and lead a happier life" - M. Jackson
------------------------------
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:09:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Pumps and Shear
following the thread on pumps and shear effects.
i agree on a few things related to this topic.
gravity is better, never breaks, has no seals to go bad and suck
o2 and microbes into the product.
if you can design a brewery to use gravity you'll save money
maybe not time, but lots of cash.
on the pump shearing - if you can afford it - try a variable speed
pump controller. from some trade ref (dont have them handy here - but
they are all from the easily gotten books and mags) it is related
to speed of the pump and somewhat the design of the impeller. High speed
pumps (those greater than 1700rpm) which do not have var. speed control
tend to be less desirable in the brewhouse. most commercial breweries
i have seen and most manufacturers tend to go lower rpm on the pump
that will cast the wort from the kettle.
this also seems to be a good practive for use in the more large scale,
for commercial systems that have the valentine type "grant" arrangement
for runoff. i have seen some commercial systems using a higher speed pump
and has problems with this valentine arrangment such that as the wort is
drawn off air is sucked down the vent stack of the "grant" causing the pump
to cavitate (wont mention the vendors). talk about hot side aeration...
i could never figure out why these vendors implemented this method of
the grant. may be some one could help me with that if you know what i
am talking about.
anyway back to shear - in the beginning i was using a very high speed pump
about 9000 rpm to cast wort from the kettle. occasionally i would be caught
short and the seals would need to be replaced (did not have them) and i would
use a very low speed pump (same volume per hour essentially) i detected no
product differences when using either pump. but this was used on wort out
and not wort into the kettle.
some pumps are designed to handle products more carefully others are not
i would select a PD pump for cellar transfers over a centrifugal anyday,
add a speed controller - tis heaven. cip give me the highest
speed, 2 inch inlet 1 in outlet with a reasonable hp rating. bottling
(with commercial equipment) on the fence - have heard PD is ok
but several breweries in the area are switching to air diaphragm...any comment
on these - i'd be intrested.
i gues the bottom line is - pump shear is probably a minor problem in a home
based brewery, there are other areas like proper ph, water composition, yeast
and malt selection and mashing that are of more importance.
my 2 cents
joe
------------------------------
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d@li.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:38:18 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ???
> I have the esteemed privilege to visit the metropolis known as Iselin, NJ for
>a training class next week.
Can't help you there. But it sounds like your taking an Oracle class, no?
John Varady
Boneyard Brewing Co.
"Ale today, Gone tomorrow"
------------------------------
From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster@ponyexpress.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:48:14 -0500
Subject: RIMS mash thickness / geared MaltMill
In the recent thread about RIMS pros&cons, especially regarding mash
thickness, the following comment was made:
> The reason for the thickness during the protein rest is the
> effectiveness of the rest is quite dependent on mash thickness. See
> M&B Sci. I use thickness as a mashing parameter, while I couldn't
> do this very well with a RIMS.
I, too, am under the impression that lower temp mashing (ie protein
rest) is normally done thicker than the rest of the mashing. I can't
remember where I read it, but I think that the enzymes active at
these lower temps works better when more highly concentrated.
However, I do mash in a RIMS at these thicker mash settings without
any problem. "How?" you ask. Simple: I don't run the pump during my
protein rests. Only after thinning the mash to "normal" levels in
preparation for the saccharification rests do I begin recirculating.
Another advantage of this is that I can use hot/boiling water to
thin my mash which helps speed up this relatively large temp step
compared to the other shorter temp steps one might use in a mash
schedule.
Kirk Flemming asks:
> Finally, is there a practical difference between a thick mash and
> a suitably compacted one? If I maintain a false bottom AND a false
> cover such a distance apart as to render the mash bounded in
> between them at a given consistency, does it matter that there is
> 10 cm of mash liquor above the false cover and below the false
> bottom?
My gut reaction is "Yes." Think about taking this to an extreme,
adding more and more water to your recirculating mash while using
some sort of perforated container to artificially maintain a mash
thickness. The grains may be staying at a constant thickness, but
the enzyme concentration is becoming thinner and the number of
enzymes in contact with the grain is dropping. This would adversely
effect your mashing speed and efficiency, IMO.
Consequently, I might tend to disagree with Dion (at the theoretical
level) that the volume of wort in the plumbing of a RIMS should be
ignored. Perhaps in typical RIMS settings this volume can be
ignored, but I wouldn't advise someone to try and mash in their
garage and have the pump located in their basement connected by 50'
of plumbing. ;)
- --------------------------
Ian Smith asks:
> Does anyone have a geared Maltmill (tm) ?
Yes, my local brew shop got one. He's very happy with it.
> I believe the gears are not the same diameter/number of teeth.
True! This makes them rotate at slightly different speeds which
causes a small but effective shearing force on the grain. Supposedly
this provides for an even better cracked grain.
> Can anyone tell me the number of teeth and/or diameters ?
Not sure myself, but Jack Schmidling (manufacturer of the MM) can
help you. His email address is on his web page:
http://dezines.com/@your.service/jsp/
Keith Royster <keith.royster@pex.net>
Mooresville, NC, USA
"In the beginning, there was nothing - but nothing is unstable.
And nothing borrowed nothing from nothing, within the limits of
uncertainty, and became something. The rest is just math..."
- --Paraphrased from Prof. Kim Macalester College Physics Dept.
------------------------------
From: Rob Reed <rhreed@icdc.delcoelect.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:00:45 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: Adjuncts and Enzymes / Sparging
Dion writes in response to SA:
> SA> Obviously very good homebrew can be made with a RIMS as I stated
> SA> previously. Typical pale or pale ale malts have at least 2X or 3X the
> SA> amount of enzymes required for a complete conversion in a 'reasonable'
> SA> amount of time. The question is what happens in an enzyme poor mash,
> SA> say one with a very high adjunct load when using a RIMS. Does anyone
> SA> have any anecdotal evidence ?
>
> How's this for a high adjunct load:
>
> 8 lbs. 2row
> 1.5 lbs. 40l crystal
> 1.5 lbs. Carapils
> 3/4 lb. chocolate
> 1/4 lb. black patent
Actually it looks like a pretty low adjunct load (~0%). In the context of
enzyme rich or enzyme poor mashes, isn't the relevant issue the amount of
starchy material requiring conversion vs. the amount of enzyme-bearing
malt in your mash? The above recipe has 8# enzymatic malt and as I see it
only 1.5# of malt requires enzyme action for full efficiency (carapils).
The xtal, black, and chocolate are soluble in hot water, no?
_____
Louis Bonham writes:
> From
> the perspective of a homebrewer with only one goal in his brewing --
> quality -- I have a simple question:
>
> WHY BOTHER!
>
> If you're brewing commercially, the question is obvious: sparging is
> essential to running an economically viable operation. For a
> homebrewer, however, the cost savings of wringing a few more points per
> pound from the grain is almost insignificant, especially if your goal is
> to brew the highest quality beer, and is certainly not worth investing
> lots of time and effort in devising improved methods.
<snip>
> By simply
> mashing one third more grain than normal, you can extract more than
> enough points for your desired gravity, and without having to conduct a
> lengthy sparge, monitor pH or SG during the runoff, or risk leaching
> tannins or other undesirables from the grains. The added expense is
> just not that great, especially if you're buying your grain by the
> sack. [If you are bothered by the "waste" of the fermentables left in
> the grain, then you can make "small beer" or yeast starter from the
> remnants by steeping them in hot water while you boil the main mash.]
Certainly every homebrewers' foremost goal is not to optimize quality
& minimize brewing time at the expense of material cost. Some of us
actually enjoy the time spent brewing 8{) First I am skeptical that
one could achieve sufficient fermentables by simply adding 33% more
grain to his mash. Are you saying that I can make a 15P wort from 13#
of grain, in a no-sparge regime, if I can normally make a 15P beer
from 9.5# in a sparged wort?
I think your quality vs. cost argument could be generalized to using
2 gallon yeast starters, using low-alpha noble hops for bittering all
beers, oxygenating your wort, etc.
And what about the maltiness of the small beer; isn't its maltiness
going to suffer? Most brewers struggle to obtain sufficient
maltiness in low OE brews. BTW, what do you call the process of
adding water to the mash and and then collecting that sugar rich
liquid when you are making said small beer 8{)
Cheers,
Rob Reed
------------------------------
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???
Greetings fellow brewers,
I'm looking for a better way to remove / filter
the whole leaf hops from my 1/2 barrel keg boiler.
I've tried several different methods. At first I
just reached in with a hand strainer, this worked
particularily bad because of the depth of the kettle.
The next brew session I used hop bags, I personally
did not like these and didn't seem to get the same hop
utilization. As of late I've been using what I'll
call SS teaballs. I have 3 of these that will hold
about 2 oz of hops each which I drop in at various times
during the boil. These work ok, but I would prefer
to just add the hops directly to the kettle, then filter
them after chilling. BTW I brew 12 gallon batches, use an
immersion style chiller, where water is run through a
copper coil and the coil is placed in the kettle, and then
wort is drained directly into carboys through a spigot on
the kettle.
So to the question:
How do YOU remove whole leaf hops from YOUR kettle?
Am especially interested in anything innovative
and would also like to hear from those of you that
use Easymashers, or copper sparge rings similiar
to whats commonly used in the bottom of a mashtun.
Post or private email is fine, I'll be happy to
sum and post results.
TIA,
Steve
*******************************************************************************
* *
* Steve Kemp |^^^^|_ *
* Horshoe Brewery | | | "Beer is my religion and I'm *
* Loveland, CO | | | late for worship!" *
* |____|- *
* *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 20 Sep 96 11:09:54 EDT
Subject: Homebrew Seminar Day, Caked grains, Trub
Brewsters:
Someone posted a special event Homebrew Seminar Day, but forgot to tell us
where
it is! Where is it?
- --------------------------------------------------------
Mike in Cherry Hill, NJ asks how to get off caked on grains without torching
the
empty keg. Try sodium carbonate ( Washing Soda) or Sodium Hydroxide ( lye) in a
fairly concentrated solution. Carefully! Safety Glasses are a must. Allow it
to soak, warm it and it should lift off.
- --------------------------------------------------------
Mark asks for a method to remove the trub from the primary before
fermentation..
Some trub can actually be useful to yeast growth, so I wouldn't remove it all.
What you are seeing is probably cold break and all the whirlpooling,etc. won't
keep it out of your wort. Don't worry about it.
- ---------------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405 USA
103164.3202@COMPUSERVE.COM
------------------------------
From: "Thomas K. Simacek" <c22tks@icdc.delcoelect.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:27:55 -0400 (CDT)
Subject: hop planting
> > From: Edward J. Steinkamp <ejs0742@dop.fse.ca.boeing.com>
> > Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:52:39 PDT
> > Subject: Re: Growing Hops
> >
> > I recently harvested the first year crop of Hallertauer and Saaz
> > hops from my western washington garden. I had originally planned
> > and built an 8 foot high trellis with horizontal lines similar to
> > a clothes line. At the last minute (the hops were six feet up
> > the line) I read some literature which suggested that for maximum
> > yield, hops should be grown on the highest possible vertical
> > pole. When the hop vine gets to the top of the pole and bends
> > over, the rest of the vine leafs out and start producing buds. I
> > tore down all the horizontal lines and increased the height of my
> > pole to 16 feet.
> >
> > After drying the harvest totalled 4 oz Saaz and 3 oz Hallertauer.
> > Is this good for a first year harvest? After harvesting I found
> > additional literature out there on the net suggesting that the
> > clothesline method is better because you can reach the cones and
> > pick only the ripe ones. This allows you to get multiple harvests
> > and makes it so you don't have to cut the vine when you harvest.
> > Perhaps not cutting the vine would contribute to a healthier
> > harvest the next season.
> >
> > In summary, which hop growing method is better, a single tall
> > pole, or a clothes line type trellis?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Ed Steinkamp
> >
> > ------------------------------
>
I have been flamed few times, so I have to say I do not know for sure
what's the best any more, but these hops are originaly grown on vertical lines
hanging from high construction supported by utility poles -
even 16 feet is probably on the low side. All the plant above ground is cut
during harvest and the new green starts next year from the rhinozomes.
Ground is plowed and fertilized, in spring all but three branches are
cut off (the young plants make excelent salad!) and the three remaining
branches
are hanged on the line. Make sure to watch for diseases and spray regularly.
Also make sure there and NO male plants around!
First year harvest is always small, most farmers do not even bother to
harvest it. Just wait for the next year, you are on the right track.
There are probably other ways, but this is the my family used to farm
hops on large scale.
The hops are basically an underground plant, I believe cutting the plant
is actually beneficial for the next year growth, sort of like pruning
trees.
Just my 2c worth.
Tom Simacek
>
>
------------------------------
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:45:22 -0400
Subject: RIMS: Flames versus Electrons / No-Sparge Sparging
I'd like to toss in my own perpsective on the RIMS "overheating controversy".
Louis Bonham claims the superiority of a "fired" system over the
electrically heated "classic" RIMS. Let's get something straight.
Heat is heat, folks.
The issue is not the heat *source* but the heat *density* being input to the
mash. In a fired system, the heat enters largely through the bottom of the
mash kettle. In an electric RIMS, it enters through the surface of the
heating element.
Let's consider two systems, flame-fired and electrical, with the same amount
of grain and water.
In either system, it is the rate at which heat passes through the surface
that determines how fast the mash temperature rises. This rate of heat
transfer is called *power* and can be expressed in *watts*. (Most people
associate watts with electricity, but it's a generic unit measuring how much
*energy* (in the form of heat, light, sound, etc) is transferred per time
interval).
If the temperature rise rate is the same in the two systems (say 1.5 degrees
F per minute), then the rate at which heat is being added *must be the same*.
That is, both systems have the *same number of watts* being applied.
The only difference, then, would be in the amount of *surface area* through
which the heat energy is being passed. This is the "power density" concept.
Applying a certain amount of power through one square inch of area will
generate more local heating (and scorching and caramelization) than passing
it through ten square inches. In the latter case, the heat is "spread out".
But it's the *same amount of heat* and will generate the same rise in
temperature.
Dion Hollenbeck gives us a good datapoint:
"The heater is 72" when stretched out and 3/8" in diameter, which is a
surface area of 84.823 square inches."
Do the math and you'll find this are to be equivalent to the bottom of a pot
with a 10-1/2" diameter. Smaller than a keg, granted, but probably right in
line with larger SS kitchen-type kettles. So the wort in contact with the
heating surfaces are seeing roughly the same thermal conditions, including
local overheating and temperature gradients. The wort at the very bottom of
the kettle is bearing the brunt of the heat transfer, just as the wort next
to the heating element is. To me, this pretty much means that *the wort
can't tell the difference*!!
The bottom line here is that there is no difference whether you heat your
wort with the same number of watts from 85 square inches of kettle bottom or
85 square inches of electric element.
*****
Louis Bonham talks about "No Sparge" sparging:
"I submit that for small scale amateur brewers who are interested
primarily in quality, sparging is a complete waste of time. By simply
mashing one third more grain than normal, you can extract more than
enough points for your desired gravity, and without having to conduct a
lengthy sparge, monitor pH or SG during the runoff, or risk leaching
tannins or other undesirables from the grains."
Before I had a "real" all-grain setup I used to mash enough grain to get 3+
gallons of high-graivty wort, which was compatible with my extract-brewing
setup and technique (4-gal SS pot). I assumed a 65% efficiency in a 5-gal
recipe, which gave me about the right compensation factor. I just drained
off the wort, and added sparge water only if the final volume wasn't adequate
(it was only under by a couple quarts if at all). I probably could've added
the water directly to the kettle for what that bought me. The three or four
beers I did this way came out nicely, and it let me do "all-grain" batches in
the kitchen using only my extract equipment plus a beverage-cooler mash tun.
If you have room in your mash tun to add the extra grain, it's a worthwhile
experiment.
*****
Ken Schwartz
EL Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
From: Jeff Frane <jfrane@teleport.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:50:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:Table Sugar
Rich Hampo wrote:
>
>Howdy all,
>
>Al K. writes
>
>>>I've searched the archives and they do indicate that sucrose
>>>(tablet sugar) is derived from sugar beets.
>
>>In europe. In the US it's virtually (if not all) from cane sugar. Both
>>cane and beet sugar are almost 100% sucrose (table sugar).
>
>Actually, here in Michigan, a lot of sugar is indeed beet sugar.
>The Pioneer brand of sugar is made from sugar beets grown in
>mid-Michigan (somehow sugar cane just won't live through the
>snowy winters ;=)
>
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,
especially by disinterested (heh) parties like C&H ("Pure cane sugar
from Hawaii!), but the truth is that once it's completely refined,
sucrose is sucrose, regardless of the source. Anything that would
identify it as coming from beet or cane has been removed.
Beets not only grow in Michigan, but they are a huge crop in California;
I well remember watching truckload after truckload moving through
the Central Valley. Cane sugar is grown in Hawaii, obviously, and
also in the south -- much to the detriment of the environment, but
that's another issue.
On another note, I apologize for repeating information about
Just Hops; finally got around to reading the last few HBDs and
found a number of posts on the subject. <sigh>
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
From: AJUNDE@ccmail.monsanto.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:18:16 -0500
Subject: Corn Meal as ajunct? / Malt Liquor
I've been itching to ask this question since my visit to Chippewa
Falls last year. Linenkugles uses corn meal as an ajunct. I assume
this it to raise the alcohol content and lighten the body, but, how
would you use it?
Can you add it directly to the mash, or should you boil it first?
Second Question -
What is the major difference between beer and Malt Liquor? Is malt
liquor actually distilled? If so, why is it rated in percent and not
in proof (alcohol) and sold in the beer section?
BTW - John, I changed my signature line just for you!! ;)
| Allen Underdown - ajunde@ccmail.monsanto.com |
| ITSS WAN Group - Monsanto World Headquarters - St. Louis, MO |
| Homebrewing in the Shadow of the Mighty AB, the |
| inventors of the Clidesdale Water Filtration System |
------------------------------
From: Kathy Booth <kbooth@waverly.k12.mi.us>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:13:37 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Hop Trelis
Congratulations to Mrs Gump....any brewer's/homebrewer's wife or
significant other is someone special. The flair for life evident in the
gospel according to Jethro should make childhood of young Gump very
special.
My hop plants grow up nylon cords attached to the facia of my two storey
house. Works great.
I greatly appreciate the contributions of the detail minded persons that
sieze on points that may slide by the quick readings of persons like
myself. A few persons carry a great weight for the HBD.
Those isolated individuals that try to funk up the HBDigest by playing the
game of pushing hot buttens deserve the fate of an overstuffed mailbox
(just another game...no?)
Cheers jim booth address kbooth@scnc.Waverly.k12.mi.us
------------------------------
From: Kelly Jones <kejones@ptdcs2.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 09:20:46 -0700
Subject: Re: RIMS pros/cons
I am enjoying the analysis of RIMS brewing being done by Dion and Steve,
but I would have to contest one of Dion's points:
> Well, your calculations are sort of skewed. The 2 qts should not be
> figured in because it is always in the hose and the heater chamber and
> pump. It is not part of the liquid that makes up the mash thickness.
I don't think mash thickness has as much to do with the appararent
'thickness' of the mash as it does with wort dilution. Thus, if you add an
extra 2 qts of water to your mash, you have still diluted the wort enzymes,
sugars, proteins, etc., even if you sequester this extra liquid in the
plumbing and keep it out of the main portion of the mash. Your mash may
not look any less 'thick', but you still have a thinner mash because of the
dilution. That said, I doubt that 2 qts difference in a 12# grain bill
makes that much difference overall, as Dion pointed out.
- --
Kelly
Hillsboro, OR
------------------------------
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 08:34:33 -0800
Subject: clove in wheat beer
Dane Mosher <dmosher@xroadstx.com>
asks why a 112F protein rest is important for clove in
his wheat beer. A. J. deLange wrote last year:
> 4-vinyl guaicol, conversely, comes from decarboxylation of ferulic acid
> which is bound to the pentosans in malt. Given a yeast that are able to do
> this (pull off the CO2), the most important factor in production of this
> stuff is that the ferulic acid be unbound from the pentosans. Warner
> indicates that this is facillitated by a rest at 44C at pH 5.7.
4-vinyl guaicol (or is it guiacol?) is the clove-tasting molecule.
44C=111F.
**********************************
John Bell <paradise@compcom.com.au wants a judge form. There is
a postscript version of a modified AHA sheet on the web:
http://realbeer.com/spencer/judge/scoresheet.ps
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
mailto:jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
From: John Poetzel <jroman@eskimo.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE:Sparging, Why Bother?
I have to weigh my vote in on the side of buying a little more grain to
reduce the sparging time and effort. I know I am opening myself up to
scorn by admitting that I actually do all-grain partial boils. For this I
have to use more grain than a usual recipe calls for to get a higher
specific gravity.
I think that the only argument for sparging every sugar molecule out of
the malt is for thrift. I am not surprised to hear that here, having read
someone's complaint about the cost of whole hops vs. pellets...
Since my cost per batch has been reduced by a third since switching to
all-grain I don't see any problem with buying another 3 lbs. of malt.
(Which costs a whole $1.50)
It's still cheaper and more fun than going to the store and paying
$7/six-pack :)
John
------------------------------
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:11:39 -0700
Subject: RE: Why sparge
Hi!
Somebody asked why homebrewers should bother sparging. First, if
you're trying to emulate a particular commercial style, it is best to
follow their procedures as closely as possible to end up with a
comparable result (note: sometimes this means NOT sparging).
Secondly, even as a homebrewer, to regularly not sparge would be
wasteful and get quite expensive. Also, dumping all that sugar-laden
grain in my compost heap attracts lots of animal life, including my
dog, who likes to eat sweet grain but leaves well sparged grain alone
(this, by the way, is how I gauged my sparging efficiency)! :)
Thirdly, for me to make a highish gravity beer without sparging would
require more grain than my lauter tun can hold. This may not be a
problem for everybody, but the first two points should be considered
by all.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
From: Scott Dornseif <SDORNSE@wpo.it.luc.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:31:05 -0500
Subject: propane and extinguishers
Hello:
I'm trying to brew my stout right now, but the old cracked hose to
my propane stove just started to leak and caught fire. It quickly
burned through and started to whoosh around like a "Willy the
Water Weasel" but with fire coming out instead of water. I can't
get to the gas to turn it off with this flying around so, it has not
started my curtains and a set of cabinets to flame. My question
is, what kind of a fire extinguisher should I but to put this out? If I
get a CO2 extinguisher could this double as a keg gas supply?
Now a water extinguisher is cheaper AND cheaper and easier to
refill, but you can't use them on an electric fire. You would
REALLY have to convince me to go HALON gas, too expensive.
Anyway the fire is spreading so any ideas?
TIA
Scott Dornseif Copyright 1996 Al Korzonis
(Sorry I spelled your name wrong last time Al)
------------------------------
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.
Thanks in advance.
Pat Van Mil
Calgary, Ab.
------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest #2197
****************************
