Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2287
Homebrew Digest Saturday, December 14 1996 Volume 02 : Number 007
1 Wort aeration and final gravity
2 SS brew kettles
3 Wort Aeration question... (fwd)
4 Re: SS brew kettles
5 Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #5
6 RE: Low Specific Gravity
7 Belgian Abbey brews
8 RE: Simple No Sparge
9 No Sparge Stuff
10 Re: Thanks for resurecting the HBD!
11 No sparge brewing
12 No sparge mashing
13 purging headspace air in secondaries
14 Re: No sparge brewing
15 Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #3
16 Fishy taste?
17 Re: Wife Ale / Mashing Rice
18 mutiple batches
19 [Fwd: Re: Enough...]
20 Re: Apology
21 AFCHBC Competition Announcement
22 FWH, No sparge, Autolysis
23 Kettle Volume
24 Poor Carbonation w/ Local Brewery's Yeast
25 Rice in beer
26 Rice in Beer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:15:05 -0800 (PST)
From: palmer@San-Jose.ate.slb.com (Eric Palmer)
Subject: Wort aeration and final gravity
I'd like to pass a low-tech. tip on to the less experienced
brewers (among whom I include myself).
Tomorrow I bottle batch #4. All batches used at least 6# of
dry or liquid extract and had starting gravities in the 48-50
range, yet for batches 1-3, I could not get a final gravity
below 20. These early batches were aerated variously with
vigorous stirring, shaking and #3 was poured back and forth
from the boiling pot to the 7 gal fermenting bucket a couple
times plus being shaken after the lid was secured to the bucket.
In spite of the high FG, they were, however, quite good, if
a little sweet (for calibration, my favorite commercial
beer is Full Sail or Portland Brewing's IPA).
The latest batch used 7# of syrup plus 1.5# of specialty grains
resulting in an OG of 52, and I finally achieved a final gravity of
14!
This was achieved simply by an extended period of pouring the
cooled wort back and forth between the fermenting bucket and
the boiling pot over a period of about an hour. This is done
by holding one container as high as possible (I'm 6'5" which
helps) and pouring with great vigor into the other container,
then repeating the process until the froth on the fermenting
bucket extends to the top. For me, this took about 3-4 cycles.
I then laid the bucket lid on the bucket (without snapping it
down) just to keep out debris or dust, and went about the
normal weekend chores. After about 15 min. when the froth had
settled a few inches, I repeated the process, perhaps
4-5 times. This was all done after adding the yeast, by the
way.
The key is that when pouring, it must be very violent! Like,
perhaps, Niagara Falls.
Unfortunately, this won't work for those using a carboy as the
primary fermenter (which I don't recommend because there is
little room for the head to form). I use the carboy for the
secondary.
I am trying to keep my brewing process as simple, basic and low
tech as possible, thus no air pumps, cooling coils, or other
gadgets.
Eric
"Beer improves with age.
"The older I get, the more I like it."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:30:43 -0600
From: AJUNDE@ccmail.monsanto.com
Subject: SS brew kettles
Can somebody give me a good vendor for a SS brew kettle? I'd like one
with either a copper or extra heavy stainless bottem like the smaller
ones available from FaberWare for cooking non-beer related foods. I
like doing full 5 gal mash, so a 7.5 or 8 gal unit would be fine, and
I'm afraid a 10 would be too big to fit on the stove.
The enamel on my current unit is showing scorch marks on the inside of
the pot, as well as taking a very long time to get to boil, I fear
it's not long before mandatory retirement.
Private email is fine!
Thanks!
| 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 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:59:02 -0800 (PST)
From: palmer@San-Jose.ate.slb.com (Eric Palmer)
Subject: Wort Aeration question... (fwd)
macher@telerama.lm.com writes...
>1) should I do more to aerate the wort before dropping it into
>the carboy? Currently I am doing little or nothing.
>
>2) Does shaking a full carboy really have any effect in aeration?
As you have read in my 2nd post, I didn't have much success
with the shaking or rocking method, not getting an FG below
20. Thus, my experimentation with the vigorous pour method
described earlier.
Curiously, however, my local brew show owner here in San Jose,
who has well over a dozen red and blue ribbons tacked to the wall
behind the counter, aerates solely by rolling the fermenting
bucket around his back yard! He swears by it, and judging by
his ribbons (no pun intended), he must be doing something right.
Eric
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:03:13 +0500 (EST)
From: macher@telerama.lm.com
Subject: Re: SS brew kettles
On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 AJUNDE@ccmail.monsanto.com wrote:
> Can somebody give me a good vendor for a SS brew kettle? I'd like one
> with either a copper or extra heavy stainless bottem like the smaller
> ones available from FaberWare for cooking non-beer related foods. I
> like doing full 5 gal mash, so a 7.5 or 8 gal unit would be fine, and
> I'm afraid a 10 would be too big to fit on the stove.
>
The quality is probably as good as you want, but I got a 30 qt. SS pot
with lid from Reading China (store in local mall) for $60. Works fine for
me, doing 5 gal. extract boils...
This at least will give you a bottom line price reference...
Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:04:03 -0800
From: Carrie Landry <clandry@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #5
HOW DO I GET OFF THIS LIST!!!!!!!!!
I'VE TRIED 4X.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:09:37 -0800
From: Richard Levenberg <richardl@Adobe.COM>
Subject: RE: Low Specific Gravity
>Help!
>
>I brewed an ale this weekend and I used 6lbs. of liquid malt extract
>(Premier) and 1lb. of dry malt extact. The problem I am having is when
>I took a hydrometer reading on the wort before I pitched my Glenbrew
>secret brewers yeast, btw, it showed 1.030. This seems very low to me
>considering the amount of fermentables +7lbs! I was expecting 1.050+.
I had the same problem last weekend. I used 6 lbs of ME and 1 lb of grain.
I got 1.030 and was surprised. My theory is that the paper tube inside
the hydrometer moved when I was trying to get it out of the case the first
time. It was stuck so far down with the instructions that I had to flick
it hard many times to get it out. I am thinking that the paper moved and
now the hydrometer is ruined. Anyway, I didnt worry, my brew is in the
secondary, looks beautiful, smells great and I am happily awaiting my first
homebrew.
Just a theory.
richard levenberg
richardl@adobe.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:23:53 -0800
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: Belgian Abbey brews
Back in HBD V1.2 we were having a discussion of different aspects of
Belgian style brews. I wanted to post some follow-up.
I brewed a Chimay clone, which I fermented with the Chimay yeast
between 64-66F. This created plenty of banana phenols, and had no
problems finishing within 4-5 days. Dave Burley had posted that he
was fermenting with this yeast at 75F for nearly two weeks, and I
personally can't see how this could be very tasty unless the phenol
production of this yeast doesn't vary much with temperature, or there
was some type of under-oxygenation or under-pitching effect. Dave,
have you brewed with this yeast since? I know with some of the wheat
beer yeasts, such as Wyeast 3056, temperature changes can make a big
difference in the banana and clove tastes, with the higher temps
producing more. BTW, the Chimay yeast is very good, and it's
especially nice to see Wyeast now offering it with their Belgian ale
series. I don't know that I would use it for just any high-gravity
brew though, because it does produce quite a bit of banana. I'm still
going to stick with Wy1056 for my porters.
I had posted looking for tips on how to carmelize sugar. I got a lot
of feedback (thanks), and the majority of people said "do it in the
microwave." This is what I did, but when I do it the next time I
won't use the microwave. Carmelising sugar is a bitch, but it does
give you opportunity to create one of those brewing industrial
accidents that we all love. I dissolved 1 lb. of sugar in some water,
and nuked it. It takes about 10-15 minutes of boiling to get any
noticable color change. The problem is that it happens quickly, and
that the boiling sugar will not cool down very quickly, so that it
continues to carmelize even after the heat is removed. In my case
this lead to a very dark, almost scorched, liquid. Dealing with a
pyrex glass bowl of boiling hot sugar is a challenge at best. Do not
attempt this after having many homebrews. Adding the liquid sugar to
a pot of boiling wort is even more fun. Basically, the wort doesn't
want anything to do with the sugar, and spits it back at you. Like I
said, this whole practice is ripe for an industrial accident. If I do
it again (and I will:), I will do it on the stove-top with a teflon
coated (cheap!) pot. I want something that has a handle, and that can
be cleaned easily. The sugar basically ruined by pyrex dish. A
Wal-mart pot and a pyrex dish both cost about $3, so it's maybe a
wash, but the pot has a handle which is key. I also have a
splatter-guard which I will use when adding the sugar to the wort
(another reason to have a handled pot; to keep one hand free for
protection). Does it make a difference to the overall brew? I can't
really say, since I haven't tried simply dumping plain sugar into my
wort to compare. I don't think it caused much of a color change;
you're basically adding a pint or two of sugar to 6 gallons of wort,
so let your choice of adjunct malts create your color. It's
definately fun (read: scary), and you can tell people it's the secret
ingredient to making a true Belgian ale passed down through
generations of Abbey monks;)
SM
P.S. I still have the acronym list, and will post it occasionaly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 11:42 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: RE: Simple No Sparge
At 09:49 PM 12/12/96 -0500, Alex Santic wrote:
>Hi Charles,
>
>I answered your question on the HBD and then some, but forgot to CC the
>reply to you. You can read it tomorrow, but the short answer is this:
I just finished reading HBD#5 and it wasn't there.
>
>You want to calculate your final mash thickness so that you collect half the
>wort, in your case 3.5 gallons or so. You then dilute that in the kettle with
>another 3.5 gallons and boil away. I reckon that should be giving you at least
>5.5 gallons of wort at the desired OG. You can assume that the grains will
>retain at least 1/2 quart per lb of grain...I calculate on the basis of .55
qt/lb
>absorption and that seems to come out about right.
ok. I use about 13 lbs total in this pale ale I'm doing tomorrow. These
calcs (if I understand them correctly) would require 17.3 lbs total grain.
>
>One thing I forgot to consider in the original post is that it might be a
hassle
>to calculate infusion mashes this way. I normally do a stovetop mash so the
>thickness stays constant from beginning to end.
>
The grain would absorb about 16 fl oz times 17.3 = 276.8 oz or 2.16 gallons.
In order to get 3.5 gallons of wort this means I need to mash with 5.66
gallons, total. Starting with .75 qts per pound for the protein rest, I mash
in with 3.24 gallons. That leaves me with having to add 2.42 gallons of
boiling water to raise the temp into saccarification range. Sounds plausible
and sounds kinda thin (1.28 quarts of water total per pound of grain).
Does this sound right? Then dilute with 3.5 gallons for a 7 gallon start of
the boil?
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems
Elk Grove Unified School District
cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us
916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax)
http://www.el-dorado.ca.us/~cburns/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:27:21 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: No Sparge Stuff
Very interesting thread on the no-sparge brewing technique. Alex Santic did
a fine job with his original and subsequent posts on the topic, but hesitated
on the nitty-griity quantification of the process. I thought I might be able
to help (you had to figure this was coming).
First, before I lose all but the most A-R number phreaks, a point that has
been made but seems to be missed is that no-sparge allows one to do true
all-grain brewing with no more equipment that you already own (as an extract
brewer), except for a mash-tun. I think that's the key point for extract
brewers to take home. Since you're collecting concentrated wort, go ahead
and use your 20-qt pot on the stovetop -- it's essentially the same thing as
doing an extract batch except for the extra couple hours of conversion and
spar--- oops, I mean draining -- time. Even for partial-mashers, the use of
a mashtun will make the process so much easier than colanders and grainbags.
OK, down to business. I read Mosher's article on parti-gyle brewing (BT,
March/April 1994). Alex has correctly quoted his figures, though I'm pretty
sure that Mosher was sparging his wort. I say this because if you no-sparge
mash, the ALL of the wort in the mashtun should be of nominally the same
gravity, for the entire runoff period, so the runnings don't change with
time. If you're adding sparge water, then the runoff *will* thin with time.
Look at it this way. The mashtun has a certain amount of grain in it, and
therefore a certain amount of *potential* sugar. How much starch is
converted to sugar depends on a lot, including crush and mash conditions, but
the total we actually extract is what we refer to as *efficiency*. Example:
we have 10 lb of pale ale malt, with a potential extract of 1.038 (38
points) per pound per gallon. For a five gallon batch, we would figure 38 *
10 / 5 = 76 points. This is the *potential* yield. In reality, our
efficiency is, say, 80%, so we actually get 76 * 80% = 61 points (1.061
wort). Within a reasonable range of mash thicknesses, this figure won't
change much. So if we mash thick, we get less wort but of higher gravity
than if we mash thin, where we get more of a lighter gravity. Dilute it out
to 5 gallons and it's all the same.
If we use Alex' figure of 0.55 qt of water absorbed per pound of grain, we
can figure with some precision how much of what gravity wort we'll extract
from the tun. If we mash in at 1.33 qt/lb, a fairly common thickness, we get
(1.33 * 10 lb) = 13.3 quarts of added water, of which (0.55 * 10 lb) = 5.5
quarts is absorbed by the grain. Over the mash period, the sugar is
converted & extracted into the water. The wort should be of uniform gravity
everywhere in the mashtun (right?). So 5.5 quarts is tied up in the grain,
and the remainder, 7.8 quarts, is the wort we have available from draining.
7.8 out of the original 13.3 is 59%, not far off from Alex's 2/3 figure.
This means that 59% of the *sugar* is extracted. But this changes with the
thickness/thinness of the mash! If we mash in at 1 qt/lb (10 quarts total),
the available wort is only (10 - 5.5) / 10 = 45%, whereas at 2 qt/lb it's (20
- - 5.5) / 20 = 73%. Big difference.
It's all in the ratio of the sugar left behind versus the sugar drained off,
since the sugar is evenly distributed in the volume of water in the mashtun.
For a given amount of grain, there's a fixed amount of wort tied up in the
grain; all the excess is available as runoff. So the correct approach, as
Alex mentioned, is to multiply your "usual full-sparge efficiency" by "a
figure" as derived in the example above, to get the no-sparge "recipe
formualtion efficency". If I usually get 80% full-sparge, and I use 1.33
qt/lb, my effective efficiency for no-sparge is 80% * 59% = 47%. A quick
chart plots a few points and illustrates the effect:
Mash Thickness: 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
(qt/lb at runoff)
Multiplier 45% 54% 61% 66% 69% 73%
(at 0.55 qt/lb
absorbed)
Overall Efficiency 36% 43% 49% 53% 55% 58%
(assuming 80% "normal")
Now, I have a question (anyone still with me?). Most of us measure our
"normal" efficiency based on the gravity of the brew length of wort we end up
with. Typically I sparge with the goal of keeping the water level above the
grains, to prevent compaction, although I usually run out of water maybe a
gallon short, so the bed does drain & dry some at the very end. However,
there's always some liquid left in the tun. I know I'm sparging "correctly"
since the gravity of these leftover runnings is above 1.010. But this means
that there's still some sugar left in the mash tun!! So my efficiency is an
overall process efficiency, *not* that of the mash tun (actual *extraction*
efficiency) alone. This means that I should expect somewhat higher yields
than I might predict using the 80% figure (in this example). Question is,
how much difference is it, and does it matter?
If I have 10 lb grain and 3.33 gal water inthe mashtun, and maintain a
constant level throughout most of the sparge, then run down to 2.33 gal @
1.010 remaining at the end, that 2.33 gallons has 8% of the original sugar
still in it (see below if you're interested)! That means my 80% process
efficiency might be more like an 86% *extraction* efficiency. The point of
this discussion is that when no-sparging, the grain bed is run dry, so that
the entire fraction given in the "multiplier" line in the table is available,
and should be multiplied by 86% rather than 80%!
Anyhow, I'll shut up now. Comments/challenges welcome.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
* -- Where did I get 8%? Remember the 10 lb of grain in my 80% efficient
process gives me 5 gal @ 1.061. This means I have a liquid consisting of
water + sugar which weighs 1.061 times more than just the water. Put another
way, it weighs 6.1% more than plain water. If 5 gal water weighs 41.77 lb,
then 5 gal 1.061 wort weighs 44.32 lb, the difference of 2.55 lb being the
sugar.
So my mash has 2.55 lb of sugar in it. The 2.33 gal of leftover wort, at
1.010 gravity, by the same calculation has 0.195 lb of sugar. As a
percentage of the original 2.55 lb this is almost 8% "wasted".
This extra 8% would be available in the no-sparge technique since we run the
grain dry. Of course, we only get 45% to 75% of this "extra" sugar out,
depending on mash thickness, but that still means 3.6% to 6% "extra" sugar,
which translates to a couple of OG points in the final batch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13 Dec 96 15:27:53 EST
From: "Michael R. Beck" <101465.1255@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Thanks for resurecting the HBD!
Great to see the HBD back on-line! Couldn't imagine the homebrewers at
AOB letting this fourm die. Thanks for the hard work and contribution of cold
cash to keep the fourm alive! What a time for everything to go haywire, right
in the middle of brewing season. Now if we can get some of the urinary olympics
suscribers back on line to add a little comic relief when we get too bogged down
into brewing details.
I'm making a Budvar (for those stuck with American beer, that's what
Budweiser was suppose to be). I'm using a recipie in Mr. Wheeler's book "Brew
Classic European Beers at Home." Anyone have any experience with this recipie?
I plan to do a double-decoction mash with Durst Lager, Saaz, and Wyeast Czech
Pils yeast (starter already at 750 ml). The problem is I'm a British beer fan
trying to make beer to knock the socks off my German neighbors (already there
with weizens; made with ingredients imported from the US!). Needless to say,
I'm set up to do single step infusion mashes and concerned about properly
knocking out a decent decoction mash. I use a 50 liter SS pot on a cajun cooker
for the boil and mash in a square 10 gallon Coleman cooler. According to
Noonan's Brewing Lager Beer book, I'm in a little trouble. He doesn't seem to
care for mashing in coolers, and when it comes to decoctions I can understand
why. Any help available from the collective on how to do this with my existing
equipment?
Michael R. Beck
Rothselberg, Germany
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:17:59 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: No sparge brewing
John Wilkinson asks ...
>Louis thinks I missed the point and am confusing gravity with maltiness but I
>don't think so. My point is that if no sparge brewing really works then it
>must matter how much water is in the tun at run off. With a tun full after
...
>If anyone knows why no sparge brewing results in more maltiness I have
>not seen the explanation. Of course, this would not be the only thing about
>brewing that is not completely understood. I suppose the best thing to do is
>try it and see. [...]
No sparge brewing purportedly produces beers with extraordinary
maltiness. The perception of 'maltiness' is probably mostly due to
various products of Malliard and Strecker reactions - primarily
reactions between reducing sugars and amino acids that produce an
array of flavorful compounds. Very simple reactions between amino
acids, like valine, leucine, isoleucine, etc. and glucose can produce
a wide range of flavors and smells including 'bready', 'malty',
'violets', 'chocolate' and so on. As I recall, valine and glucose
produce flavors and aroma reminiscent of 'fine malt'.
Where do these reactions take place - mostly in the malting, perhaps
some in the boil. Malliard reaction products are very dependent on pH
and temperature and moisture level.
So why does no-sparge produce more malty flavors ? Good question.
Does adding 'later runnings' to the no-sparge wort actually reduce the
'maltiness' as compared to adding water ? If so then either something
in the later runnings is effecting the malliard reactions in the boil
or reducing the amount of these flavor substances in the final beer.
Another possibility is that the maltness may be masked by harsh grainy
flavors from late runnings.
Can anyone report on their no-sparge experience and flavors ?
Steve Alexander
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Parker <parker@rcltel.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: No sparge mashing
I wonder if I can help clear up the discussion between John and Louis on
no-sparge mashing. The issue seems that John's semi-no-sparge mash
(diluting first runnings with additional sparging) will lead to 1) a
higher gravity if equal wort is collected compared to true no-sparge
mashing, or 2) less volume if the same gravity is attained. To achieve the
*same* gravity and wort volume in the 2 methods, one would naturally need
more grain with true no-sparge, more fermentables would come from first
runnings, and one can see why the results might taste different.
Rob Parker
parker.242@osu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:55 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876@sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: purging headspace air in secondaries
collective homebrew conscience:
in the never-ending war to improve the brew, i'm going to start purging the
headspaces of my secondary fermenters with co2.
question : do i need any special type of "co2 dispenser"? or can i just dial
up about 1 or 2 psi on the gage and use a piece of brewing hose? i have a
shut off valve on the keg side of the regulator.
question : do rubber stoppers exist with 2 holes? i checked my hb store last
weekend but they didn't have any 2-hole stoppers. i'd like to put the gas
in one hole and keep an airlock in the other so i could see the bubbling and
have some sort of idea of the volume of gas i'm putting in.
question : are there harmful (to beer flavor/aroma) gases in the blow off
gases of a primary ferment? if i use the blow off gases to purge (or,
*continually* purge) the secondaries, will i injure the beer? i know there
are other gases in fermentation blow off, but would they be significant in
terms of effect on the beer in the secondary?
gas experts, pour forth thy knowledge.
and,
brew hard
mark bayer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:35:38 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: No sparge brewing
>>>>> "John" == John Wilkinson <jwilkins@imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> writes:
John> The
John> only thing I can think of is that sparging washes out a
John> higher proportion of fermentable sugars than are in the
John> first runnings,
Alternatively, a higher proportion of the "malty" flavor compounds
come out in the first runnings than in the spargings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:23:02 -0500
From: JayGT@aol.com
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #3
How do I stop getting this Homebrew Digest? I cancelled a while back and all
of a sudden it started showing up again -- AND I CAN' MAKE IT STOP!!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:23:22 -0500
From: Moncsko@aol.com
Subject: Fishy taste?
Hi, and welcome back. I attempted to post this the very day the old HBD died,
so here it is finally.
Back in September I brewed a 10 gal batch of an Amaerican P/A. All went well
during primary & secondary fermentation and I had 2 corny's of a nice SNPA
clone.(yum!) Killed one keg, (delicious) then half way thru keg #2, moved
600 miles away. (I had planned to take a full keg, but it was just too good
to stop drinking while packing) The 1/2 full keg of great tasting beer shook
in the car, upright, at ambient temp & under pressure, for 1.5 days. Tapped
keg while unpacking the first week and it tasted fine. Week two it started
getting oxidized flavors (cardboard, metallic, uh oh) drank local brews for a
couple weeks, then tried keg 4 weeks after move - now about a gallon left.
YECCH! It tasted fishy like a dried fish on the beach smells! Not that thats
a BAD thing, but not a desired flavor in a beer, at least for me. So.... can
shaking a 1/2 keg of otherwize good homebrew for a day & a half at room temp
oxidize it to the point of getting a fishy taste? ( Dead Bass Ale?) Has
anyone ever had this happen to them? I dumped the once fine ale, but have
since made NEW BEER!!!!!! so there IS a happy ending...
Jim Moncsko, alive & well in Morrisville, NC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:30:18 -0500
From: nerenner@umich.edu (Jeff Renner)
Subject: Re: Wife Ale / Mashing Rice
In HBD V2, #6, I said:
>That
>nonsense about American brewers constantly lightening the flavor of their
>beers over the last 50 years is just that - nonsense.
What I meant to say was, "That nonsense about American brewers constantly
lightening the flavor of their beers over the last 50 years *to appeal to
women* is just that - nonsense."
Sheesh.
- -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:39:49 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: mutiple batches
Like Al K., I brew multiple batches on brew day. As I drink most of my
own production (wife and many friends don't drink...she says she'll only
drink beer in European beer gardens and pubs) and as I like a wide
variety of beers, I make three 5 gal batches at once to minimize the set
up/ clean up times.
I start with a 5 gal batch of a high gravity beer as bock, old ale,
etc. and a seperate 10g batch (to be divided) of related beers.
I make the 10g batch in my converted keg boiler and draw off the first
five gal for say bitter, and then let the remainder and what had been
the aroma hops boil an extra 30' or so with some extract and make an IPA
(some new additions of aroma hops) Or, 5g of a lighter, milder hopped
lager with a higher gravity, higher hopped fest lager as the remainder
batch. I add the final spargings of the initial 5 gal hi grav batch to
the boil of this residual batch.
I've never had a batch suffer from autolysis even with 3 to 6 months on
the yeast before bottling. Again like Al K., I minimizing
racking...just once (an early from plastic primary to glass secondary
before clearing). However I did find a 3-4 year old bottle of my bottle
conditioned ale in the back of my ale converted freezer (Yes I've a
lager freezer at 43F and an ale freezer at 50F -but they aren't
walk-ins), and the burnt rubber was vicious.
By the way....where's jethro and the gump report? Did the AOB not send
to Manhattan KS or are the joys of fatherhood excluding those of the
HDB?
Also, I fried a hard drive and lost my addresses. Would someone send me
how to subscribe to the Judgenet for beer judging issues. Thanks
I don't want to rent Al K's garage but will there be organized tours?
Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:54:17 -0600
From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan@connecti.com>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Enough...]
In V2 #6 Bob Wolff writes, among other things:
"I have a high art-I wound with cruelty those who wound me"
Well Bob,
[Holiday Mode Off]
It seems you feel guilty enough about you're post in #2280 to reply
again with a little vitriol, so I'll answer you. First of all, I replied
to HBD,(the non-existent #2281) not to your email. Second of all,
LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP, obviously your post didn't kill the old HBD, there
just seemed to be a marked difference of tone to V2 and I was using your
post as an example of what I felt was wrong with V1. Since you asked,
I've included the post for you to peruse at your convenience.
Cuchulain Libby wrote:
>
> In HBD #2280 some dickless idiot wrote:
> FROM: WOLFF.R.C-@postal.essd.northgrum.com (WOLFF.R.C-)
>
> > Dave Burley-
> > Why don't you brew some beer and give us all a break. It doesn't take
> > a genuis to copy from books and post to the HBD. What is does is take
> > up the space that others could use for productive comments, rather
> > than being used by someone who is full of himself. You've had your 15
> > minutes. Give it a break.
> > This is a group response.
> > Wolff
>
> Which raises just a few questions:
> 1. Where are YOUR insightful, helpful posts?
>
> 2. Besides yourself and your ass, just how big is your group?
>
> 3. Were you just bored with an HBD that only deals with [None] posts
> and brewing questions?
>
> 4. Please be of British stock so that I can really start to
> understand where a post like this might be coming from. (not really a
> question)
>
> Thanks
>
> Cuchulain
> Head Flame Thrower
> Frog's Balls Brewery
> (We're a REALLY small microbrewery, in fact production will never exceed
> internal demand. But hey, we can try.)
>
> p.s. Please address all flames to:
> WOLFF.R.C-@postal.essd.northgrum.com (WOLFF.R.C-)
Now go back to back to work suckling at the public teat, making over
priced weapons for wars that will never be fought, and I'll go back to
enjoying the fruits of my brewing labors.
[Holiday Mode ON]
Merry Christmas Bob
Cuchulain
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Dec 96 11:51:05 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Apology
Brewsters:
> Dave Burley,
> I hereby publicly apologize for the crass message I posted to the HBD.
> The hbd is for ALL to use and comment on brewing etc. I posted the
> message and felt badly. Please excuse me.
> Bob Wolff
>
Bob,
Thanks for your note. I'm only sorry you had to write it. If it helps, you
were already forgiven, since I assumed you were under some kind of stress at the
time you wrote the first message.
I agree - lets make beer not war. Most of all, let's be respectful of everyone,
even if we don't agree with them or their style. If you feel compelled to lash
out, do so only in writing, hold it for 24 hours and then send it privately if
you still feel so inclined.
Now back to fun things.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 96 09:40:58 PST
From: hollen@vigra.com
Subject: AFCHBC Competition Announcement
1997 4th Annual
America's Finest City Homebrew Competition
Saturday March 8, 1997
Alesmith Brewing Co.
San Diego, CA
AHA/BJCP Sanctioned
Sponsored by
QUAFF
Quality Ale and Fermentation Fraternity
This is the first call for judges and entries. For more information:
Email: hollen@vigra.com
Web page: http://www.vigra.com/~hollen/AFCHBC.html
USMail: QUAFF AFCHBC
c/o Dion Hollenbeck
516 Forward Street
La Jolla, CA 92037
Dion Hollenbeck
Organizer (619)597-7080*164 wk, 459-8724 hm Email: hollen@vigra.com
Skip Virgilio
Judge Coordinator (619)549-9888 wk, 566-7061 hm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 12:56:59 -0500
From: David Root <droot@concentric.net>
Subject: FWH, No sparge, Autolysis
I havew tried FWH, and found that the hop flavor is much better. It is a
standard
parctice now for some beers that I brew. Last batch I threw 1.5 oz into
the sparge
and removed them just before the boil. This let me have a vigorous boil
and left the
hop flavor in. IMO, the beer is excellent.
I just bought my first 50 lb bag of Klages. I definatly will try no
sparge, and will make
a small beer with the rest and save some for starting yeast.
Autolysis....I have had it in one batch. The beer was supposed to be an
extract
oktoberfest. When I had the first beer, It tasted like an old burnt tire.
The "aroma"
was also like burnt rubber. This flavor did mellow after a while, but
never went away.
Sure glad the Digest is back!!
David Root Droot@concentric.net Lockport NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 14:21:26 -0500
From: David Root <droot@concentric.net>
Subject: Kettle Volume
My $.02 I use a converted 1/4 keg for mashing and the line in the
middle is
exactly 5 gallons water. In my 1/2 kegs if i leave the brew just at or
above the
top < line, it has 10 gallons left after leaving trub in the kettle.
Brewing 12 gallons of an all grain stout sunday AM with my brewing buddy
Glenn.
The grain is ground and
the 1084 irish ale yeast is growing.
EEEHhhhaaaa!
David Root Droot@concentric.net Lockport NY
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 17:26:32 -0500
From: RedlackC@aol.com
Subject: Poor Carbonation w/ Local Brewery's Yeast
Fellow enthusiasts,
I have completed (2) batches of homebrew with some yeast that I was able to
obtain through one of the local breweries. I made one old ale and a brown
ale. As I expected the fermentation took off like a rocket after pitching
about a pint of yeast slurry into the fermenter. The primary fermentation was
completed w/in 2 days and shortly there after I moved the beer to the
secondary for two weeks to help the beer age and clear.
I bottled the beer w/ 3/4 cup of corn sugar as I have w/ dozens of other
batches where I have had no problems in the past. However, for some reason
neither of these beers has carbonated after 3 weeks. When I pop one of the
bottles open I just hear a little pssst and that's it. The beer tastes a
little sweet to me so I'm guessing that the corn sugar has yet to be fully
converted but there is no carbonation.
Does anyone know what in the world may be causing this? I have never run into
this issue before when I have used either liquid or dry yeast.
The yeast from the brewery works great except for this one problem. I'd love
to keep using it, but I also like me beer carbonated. Any insight would be
greatly appreciated.
A thousand thank yous,
Chris Redlack
Rockville MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 19:57:57 -0500
From: orion@mdc.net
Subject: Rice in beer
Paul Fierra wrote:
>Subject: Wife Ale / Mashing Rice
> Here's the recipe I'm
>planning to use:
>
>WIFE ALE
>5 lbs American Pale malt
>2 lbs Uncle Bens Converted Rice
>0.5 oz EKG whole hops (6.6 alpha) (60min)
>0.5 oz EKG whole hops (6.6 alpha) ( 5min)
>Wyeast American Ale yeast
> (recipe for 5 US gallons)
>
.
>
>My first question: What do I do with the rice?
>Some Ideas I've picked up from back issues of HBD,
> (and a few of my own):
> a) Just include it uncooked in the mash
> b) boil it first, until just tender
> c) boil it until it's well overcooked
> d) eat it for dinner and put something
> else in the beer.
>My Second Question: Is Uncle Ben's Converted an
> appropriate rice to use? I chose it only
> because it's the rice we typically have
> around the house.
>My last question: Any comments on this recipe
> which might improve it would be greatly
> appreciated.
I have an Australian Ale recipe (Down Under Ale, "A Manly Ale") that I have
developed. I had read somewhere that rice will enhance the head retention
ability, as well as aid in clearing the beer. Not sure if it helped either,
but it stays in the recipe at this point.
I have tried all of the above techniques, and find that cooking it
for about 1/2 until just done is the best way. You need to cook it so that
it your enzyme action will convert the starches to sugars. I use a diastatic
liquid malt extract (active enzymes) for this purpose. The recipe is also a
partial grain type, and so the other grains also benefit from the active
enzyme action.
I have found that Converted rice is lacking in much of the necessary
components for beer making, and would suggest regular short or long grain
rice. Be sure to wash it carefully. Many brands of rice are sold with
Vitamin additives coating the grains. These can cause it to stick, clump
like, together when cooking. Rinse in warm, not hot, water until the rinsing
water runs fairly clean. When I add the cooked rice, I add the water that
the rice was cooked in as well. Lots of goodies in that stuff.
While your recipe (pale malt, rice, and small amounts of hops) might
not appeal to the rest of us hop heads, you wife might find it refreshing.
If she really likes it, she might even help out with the washing of carboys,
etc. Then again, you might have to brew more often.
Orville Deutchman
Brewer of Down Under Ale!
Hobby Brewing at its Finest!
I'm relaxing, and having a homebrew!
orion@mdc.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 20:02:52 -0500
From: orion@mdc.net
Subject: Rice in Beer
Paul Fierra wrote:
>Subject: Wife Ale / Mashing Rice
> Here's the recipe I'm
>planning to use:
>
>WIFE ALE
>5 lbs American Pale malt
>2 lbs Uncle Bens Converted Rice
>0.5 oz EKG whole hops (6.6 alpha) (60min)
>0.5 oz EKG whole hops (6.6 alpha) ( 5min)
>Wyeast American Ale yeast
> (recipe for 5 US gallons)
>
.
>
>My first question: What do I do with the rice?
>Some Ideas I've picked up from back issues of HBD,
> (and a few of my own):
> a) Just include it uncooked in the mash
> b) boil it first, until just tender
> c) boil it until it's well overcooked
> d) eat it for dinner and put something
> else in the beer.
>My Second Question: Is Uncle Ben's Converted an
> appropriate rice to use? I chose it only
> because it's the rice we typically have
> around the house.
>My last question: Any comments on this recipe
> which might improve it would be greatly
> appreciated.
I have an Australian Ale recipe (Down Under Ale, "A Manly Ale") that I have
developed. I had read somewhere that rice will enhance the head retention
ability, as well as aid in clearing the beer. Not sure if it helped either,
but it stays in the recipe at this point.
I have tried all of the above techniques, and find that cooking it
for about 1/2 until just done is the best way. You need to cook it so that
it your enzyme action will convert the starches to sugars. I use a diastatic
liquid malt extract (active enzymes) for this purpose. The recipe is also a
partial grain type, and so the other grains also benefit from the active
enzyme action.
I have found that Converted rice is lacking in much of the necessary
components for beer making, and would suggest regular short or long grain
rice. Be sure to wash it carefully. Many brands of rice are sold with
Vitamin additives coating the grains. These can cause it to stick, clump
like, together when cooking. Rinse in warm, not hot, water until the rinsing
water runs fairly clean. When I add the cooked rice, I add the water that
the rice was cooked in as well. Lots of goodies in that stuff.
While your recipe (pale malt, rice, and small amounts of hops) might
not appeal to the rest of us hop heads, you wife might find it refreshing.
If she really likes it, she might even help out with the washing of carboys,
etc. Then again, you might have to brew more often.
Orville Deutchman
Brewer of Down Under Ale!
Hobby Brewing at its Finest!
I'm relaxing, and having a homebrew!
orion@mdc.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Homebrew Digest V2 #7
****************************
