Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2385
HOMEBREW Digest #2385 Fri 28 March 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Cold Trub:Coolers,racking,dropping, and effects thereof ("Dr. Pivo")
Ali'i Brewing Status (Tim Fields)
Decoctions (Charles Rich)
RIMS procedures (Rick Calley)
screen saver (kathy)
Re: A post-counter flow chiller hop back (Alex Santic)
Re: all-grain newbie (Alex Santic)
Growin those hoppy things (SvenSture)
Decotions/Dogs+hops ("C&S Peterson")
AHA NHC (Bill Giffin)
Weissen Rest Temp ?? (Jim Wallace)
Hemacytometer (Wolfgang Wedel)
RE: Stalled Fermentation ("Richard Scotty")
Re: spam (Cory Wright)
Re: Water additives (recycle)
re:Square Vs. Round Tuns (Peter Eaton)
Wort Chillers, Hot/Cold Break (haszarda)
What ARE these chemicals?(response) (Edward J. Basgall)
Teabag mashing (korz)
A decoction question (Chris Cooper)
malty flavors (Brian Pickerill)
Re: Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley (Dave Riedel)
Decoction mashing / AHA follies ("Louis K. Bonham")
Mike cleaner,enzyme partition coeff.,Stuyk Manden ("David R. Burley")
What are these chemicals? (nkanous)
RE: What are these Chemicals (Ken)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://brew.oeonline.com/
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp from:
brew.oeonline.com /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail
using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about
this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with
the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 00:49:31 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv@wireworks.se>
Subject: Cold Trub:Coolers,racking,dropping, and effects thereof
It's long, it's dry, but it's done.
I had earlier mentioned that I was going to try and do some systematic
evaluation of the effects of different cooling systems and cold trub
removal techniques on taste.
I equally promised to not use up your bandwidth with it here.
I have received some responses regarding that, and amongst them one very
kind letter asking me to comment on the effects of cold trub on
fermentation as a nutrient. I have declined to do so, as I think it
would be highly speculative. If the article interests you, you'll also
soon notice that I have resisted the temptation to describe specific
taste parameters. There are plenty of observations to be made, and I'd
be happy to share them with the specifically curious, but didn't want to
cloud the issue.
Anyway, for what its long windedness is worth, I think the results are
pretty interesting, even to me, who thought I was already pretty sure
what the answer would be---just goes to show ya'---the wonders of beer
never cease to amaze!
For the interested, please spin your dials to.....
http://alpha.rollanet.org/~mckay/brew/columns/jirvine/trub.html
Dr. Pivo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 19:54:04 -0500
From: Tim Fields <fieldst@erols.com>
Subject: Ali'i Brewing Status
I posted awhile back about my visit to Ali'i Brewing Co in Honolulu,
Hawaii. I just heard rumor they were acquired - possibly by by Coors.
Anyone heard about this?
Reeb!
Tim Fields, Fairfax VA
fieldsT@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 12:52:45 -0800
From: Charles Rich <CharlesR@saros.com>
Subject: Decoctions
Hello HBD'ers,
I'm enjoying the discussion on decoctions. I suspect that decocting
developed mainly as a temperature control process in pre-thermometer
brewing and for that, small measured portions were crucial to getting
correct and repeatable mash rests. Since we're not hampered by those
constraints today we can decoct for the other benefits, flavor and/or
higher utilization, and not have to mince about with boiling small grist
fractions.
If one pulls one third of their grist with each decoc, after one
decoction 1/3 of the grain has been cooked and 2/3 uncooked; after two
decocs 4/9 is uncooked, 4/9 has been cooked once and 1/9 cooked twice;
after three decocs (whew) 8/27 are uncooked, 12/27 cooked once, 6/27
cooked twice and 1/27 cooked three times. Thats three decoctions to
cook 70% of your grist, two decocs only cooks 55%. My point is that you
can pull out 70% of your grist in one decoc, which still leaves most of
the mashing enzymes safely behind in the liquid, and cook it once and be
done with it -- if you quit depending on it for temperature steps.
In HBD #2383 George De Piro asks:
> should the decoction mash saccharification rests
> be conducted at the beta-amylase or the alpha-amylase optimum?
> Melanoidins are formed when simple sugars and amino acids are
> combined, so wouldn't it make sense to produce as much simple sugar as
> possible to increase maltiness?
My reason for "mini-"resting at 156F (69C), a dextrinous conversion,
before boiling the decoc is that sInce we're dealing with the bulk of
the starch store when using a large decoc fraction I can always develop
simple sugars from my dextrins later but not vice versa. Granted that
after the boil, some more raw material is available, but much of it is
already gelatinizing during the mini-rest and so available. The
temperature I park my mash (135F, 57C) can still develop significant
glucose over the hour or so it waits while I boil the decoc so I'm just
wary of overdoing simpler sugars unless that's what I intend for the
beer. If I want an alcoholic beer I still mini-rest at 156F (69C)
because beta-amylase will develop more simple sugars from dextrins than
otherwise. There are still plenty of simple sugars in the decoc for
browning reactions. Remember to boil it until it smells cooked, like
porridge, real cooked is even better. I think this is really the main
reason to decoct -- so don't skimp, stir it another ten minutes more,
you only need to do it one time. The other reason, improved yield,
comes mostly from being able to present the results of a dextrinous
conversion back to viable beta-amylase enzymes. This is only
appropriate for alcoholic styles of beer. I have done mini-conversions
in the beta-amylase range, for simple sugars, when I started decoction
brewing and was playing around but I don't recall a difference in the
cooked decoc flavor.
In HBD #2383 Dave Burley writes:
>... it is extremely unwise
> to take a large decoction, since you will be denaturing much of the enzyme
> content during the boil which will be needed in the main mash...
I simply don't find this to be the case. In fact I can't think of a
single reference that suggests it. The enzymes are soluble and remain
in the liquid fraction left behind if given a chance to dissolve in it.
It would be a mistake to skip any kind of rest after dough-in and then
go straight to boiling a large grain fraction because the enzymes
wouldn't have had a chance to go into solution. But after a 30-40
minute rest at 135F (57C) with stirring or recirculation you'll be fine,
besides, mini-resting at sugar conversion temps before the boil does the
bulk of the conversion anyway.
> I selected 145F since this will denature any active protein enzymes and be
> below the highly active region for beta amylase.
Oh Jeez, you are right smack dab in the middle of beta-amylase heaven,
and besides you *want* that good proteolytic activity. I'd strongly
recommend lowering your "parking temp" to 135F (57C) which is below most
beta-amylase activity and in the upper reaches of HMWP degrading
proteolytic enzyme range. The proteolytic enzymes that thin your beer,
peptidases, are wiped out above 125F (52C) so you're still safe from
them.
Cheers to all
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 97 18:59:53
From: rcalley@pressenter.com (Rick Calley)
Subject: RIMS procedures
Greetings collective,
There have been a few posts recently as to the
procedures used when operating a RIMS type brewing
system. I decided it was time to quit lurking and
start participating.
Firstly, let me describe my RIMS system for those
not familiar with it. For a better description
you can visit my webpage (address at the bottom of
this post).
I have a 2-tier, 3-converted keg system. The hot
water tank and the boil ketttle sit at the same,
lower, level. The mash/lauter tun is elevated in
the center of the other 2 kegs. There are
King-Kooker burners under ach of the lower kegs.
The hot water tank has a level sight glass and a
dial type thermometer, the boil kettle has only a
level sight glass. The mash/lauter tun has a dial
type thermometer and a brass screen false bottom.
The hot water tank has a coil of 25' of 1/2"
copper tubing, ala immersion chiller, with
bulkhead penetrations through the side wall of the
keg.
When I'm preparing to brew, I fill the hot water
tank nearly to the top and light the burner under
it. Our local water is quite cool and it takes a
while to warm up. I then mill my grains and add
them to the mash/lauter tun. Lately I've been
using a 40-60-70 mash schedule. No real reason
for it. It just works well. When the water in
the HWT gets to about 115F, I'll pump enough to
the mash tun to submerge the grains and stir to
break up any dough balls. The isolation valve
from the HWT is closed and the valve from the mash
tun is opened and the pump is run to set the grain
bed and ensure that the temp in the tun is fairly
even throughout. If the temp drops a little low,
I recirc through the coil in the HWT and bump the
temp up a little bit. I run my pump most of the
time during the mash. To raise the temp of the
mash, the liquid is run through the coil until the
desired temp is reached then the coil is bypassed
and the temp is allowd to stabilize. After the
final rest at about 155F, I turn off the burner
and raise the temp to whatever it takes to cool
the HWT to about 170F. (The burner has been on at
a low flame throughout the entire mash) The mash
will stabilize in the low 160'sF and the HWT will
be at about 170F. I then close the valve from the
mash/lauter tun to the pump and open the valve
from the HWT. Then I crack open the drain valve
from the mash tun to the kettle to get a trickle
of flow going. By cycling the pump on & off, I
can maintain a liquid level just above the grain
bed as flow goes to the boil kettle.
That's the "quick and dirty" description of how I
mash in my RIMS system. I realize that my system
is quite different from the systems that use
electric heating elements. I do receive quite a
bit of email from other brewers, so I know there
are other systems like mine out there. A visit to
my webpage will likely clear up many of the
questions I'm sure you're asking yourself.
Good Brewing!
- --Rick
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Calley -- rcalley@pressenter.com
http://www.pressenter.com/~rcalley/index.htm
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 20:27:10 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: screen saver
I have a Mac Performa 6360 that I can barely turn on. I'd love to have
some beer related screen saver to utilize. If some one could suggest
sources of such items, I'd greatly appreciate it, and I would try to
find out how to get in installed.
Cheers.....Jim Booth, Lansing, MI kbooth@waverly.k12.mi.us
P<S> Know the difference between beer nuts and deer nuts????
Beer nuts are a dollar thirty five a pack, and deer nuts are
under a buck... Blame Rob Moline....I repeated his joke and someone
told me this one. jhb
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 02:39:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: A post-counter flow chiller hop back
>Since we all agree that when using a CF chiller, the cold break gets
>transferred along with the cooled wort into the fermentors, I'm thinking
>about hooking up up some sort of canister between the chiller outflow and
>the fermenter inflow. This canister would have fittings on top and bottom
>to attach hoses to. The canister unscrews to allow filling with leaf
>hops. The hops would help filter out the break and also add aroma to the
>beer.
The problem I see with this is the possibility of inocculating your sweet
wort with bacteria and wild yeast as it enters the fermentor. When
steeping hops or using a hopback with hot wort, at least there's the
likelihood that most of the more fragile bugs will die.
I know you've probably heard this before and want to perfect things
anyway, but it's really not necessary to go to great lengths to remove
cold break. In truth, the presence of cold break has probably solved more
problems than it has caused. Some say that pilsner styles and suchlike
benefit but I wouldn't be surprised if there's very little difference
there either.
Alex Santic
NYC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 03:22:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: all-grain newbie
>From: Joe Rotella <rotella@apollo.hp.com>
>
>In terms of lautering, if you use a grain bag, do you need to bother to
>create and use a lauter-tun? Can't you just but the crushed grains into
>the bag, then into the mash-tun, and do the necessary temp adjustments for
>protein rest and mashing? Then, when finished, can't you just sparge
>through the grain bag into the mash tun? Do you even need to use a
>lauter-tun if you use a grain bag?
It's a good question, but yes you are missing something.
The main reason you can't use a grain bag in the way you describe is that
you won't get clear runoff from it. Your grain extract would be very
cloudy with material which will add astringency and other undesirable
qualities to your beer. Perhaps even some starch which will make it
considerably less attractive and stable. Conventional mash/lauter
techniques and equipment will allow you to sparge through an undisturbed
filter bed of grain so that you get clear extract.
Yes, you can split your boil between two kettles. You might have to do
some extra calculating and weighing to get your bitterness calculations to
work. Also, if this represents a higher volume of wort than you're used to
boiling, you'll have to think about the problem of cooling it all down. It
can be a hassle with two kettles.
It sounds as though you want to have a simple all-grain system without a
lot of expense. You can get by pretty well by investing $150 in a 7.5
gallon kettle, an Easymasher, a plastic bucket for collecting wort, and an
immersion chiller. The kettle would serve for mashing, lautering, and
boiling. You can even strain out the cold break through the hops. With
some practice, the system would be good enough to make top-quality beer.
Alex Santic
NYC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 06:12:51 -0500 (EST)
From: SvenSture@aol.com
Subject: Growin those hoppy things
How do you grow Hops?
I live in San Diego County, California, and find home brewing a most
interesting challenge. I brew all grain only, with the occasional batch of
mead. In the process of my brewing experience, I have done some unusual
things. Or should I just call them, less than normal. I have tried roasting
malted barley on my barbecue grill. I brewed a batch of Gotsland Dricker as
mentioned in Zymurgy, with juniper branches, bread yeast, and smoked malt. I
also brewed a spiced mead using the spices from a 13th century wassle recipe.
Now I would like to try growing hops; however, I have a few questions.
1. Where do I purchase hop plant starters?
2. When should I plant then?
3. What kind of soil do they require?
4. What types of hops would grow well in San Diego?
It would probably help if there is a book on the subject, but I have not
seen one at the local brew supply store. Any assistance would be greatly
appreciated.
Best Regards, Eyler Larson.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 06:56:57 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON@msn.com>
Subject: Decotions/Dogs+hops
HBDers:
Steve Alexander writes:
[snip]
It's not for dextrinous wort, or mash tun limitations Chas. A thick
rest at 60C may produce on the order of 20% more soluable nitrogen
(largely MW proteins) than a normal 1.25qt/# mash at the same
temperature! Helps reduce protein haze too. I personally like a
thick proteolytic rest, 1qt/# @ 55C-60C, when called for - whether
decocting or not.
[snip]
Steve -- thanks for the tip! I'm sure that this information must have been
posted before on the HBD, but I simply must have missed it. Perhaps my thin
rest at this temperature is a reason why my decoctions tend to have poor head
retention (I've always blamed the 122F rest myself.........) even though they
are crystal clear and malty. Unfortuantely, I will have to wait until next
year to give it a try. My stirring arm hurts already.....
As for the dogs+hops thread, I'd thought I'd offer up a data point. I have
been growing hops in my backyard for about three years. (FWIW, those that
live in the Mid-Atlantic, harvest early, like July or August. The climate
here tends to dry out the hops too much if you wait until September.) I have
lots of deer, groundhogs, and other wild life running through the place but my
dogs are restricted from the garden area. The deer and groundhogs have no
problem sampling other garden treats, but do not appear to have any interest
in the hops. So I would be concerned only with your spent hops as a
dog-threat as others have suggested (I have dumped hops and grain in my
compost pile, but the deer nor groundhogs seem to be interested in either.
Perhaps wild life has a better taste mechanism than my dogs. Dogs as we all
know will, out of priniciple, eat ANYTHING...).
Just worry about the deer when you're driving,
Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:58:44 -0600
From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin@maine.com>
Subject: AHA NHC
Top of the morning to ye all,
Brian Rezac, AHA Administrator said:
>Enter the AHA National Homebrew Competition (NHC) and you can enter Boston
Beer Company's World Homebrew Contest (LongShot) for >only $5.
>
>Even better, if one of your homebrews places first, second or third in
>the first round of the NHC, you have the option of entering one of your
>winning homebrews directly into the final round of LongShot for free!
>
Why would anyone want to enter either of these competitions? Both are only
for the gradification of the competition not the brewer who enters. The
AHA needs your recipes to sell their rag. Boston Beer Co. uses your recipe
to gain market share with the homebrewers, their beer is over priced and
under good.
>Oops! One more thing! Rule F of the NHC Rules and Regulations should read:
>"The AHA has the right to copyright the recipe to help ensure that the
>Entrant and the AHA receive all due credit whenever the recipe is
>published."
>
If the AHA has the copyright to the recipe how does this ensure that the
entrant will receive due credit? If the entrant has the copyright then he
can do as he damn well pleases with the recipe; give it to friends, publish
it in a book, or any thing the entrant wants to do with the recipe. If
the AHA has the copyright to the recipe what happens to the recipe is in
their control not the entrants. What if the entrant brewed a recipe that
was already copyrighted? Seems to me that this could be a conflict.
Better yet don't bother, if you have a good beer drink it. I can assure
you that it will be far more rewarding then the comments most of you will
receive from the judges at the AHA NHC.
I dislike Boston Brewing Co. and I feel that the AHA is still unresponsive
to the true needs of the homebrewing community.
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:18:14 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace@crocker.com>
Subject: Weissen Rest Temp ??
I am about to make a Weissen Type of Beer Using up to 2/3 Wheat. I have been
doing a bit of background reading on the decoction process and one Question
keeps coming back....
There seem to be 2 approaches to the single decoction strategy here
1>raise the mash to 122F Rest and Pull a thick 40% to decoct
2>raise the mash to 147F Rest and Pull a thick 40% to decoct
I am leaning somewhat towards the lower rest because of the need to enhance
the protein enzymes but I do not to wind up with a thin beer either. It
seems this might be a bit of a sensitive balance here.
???Any comment on which would be best for this type of beer and why
???what rest time would might you use at 122F or 147F
___________________________________________________________
JIM WALLACE ___ jwallace@crocker.com
http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace
------------------------------
Date: 27 Mar 97 15:21:44 +0100
From: faros@ping.at (Wolfgang Wedel)
Subject: Hemacytometer
AJ writes:
RAO> If you are shelling out hundreds of dollars for a 'scope it
RAO> would be foolish not to spend a few extra for a hemacytometer.
RAO> This is a special slide ruled with a grid which is used to
RAO> count the number of cells in a mL of wort. This is really the
RAO> only practical way to determine your pitching rate.
Does someone have any source, which describes how to use a hemacytometer in
practice?
Wolfgang
________________________________________________________________
Wolfgang L. Wedel faros@ping.at
Vienna/Austria Fido: 2:310/78.8
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 07:32:33 -0600
From: "Richard Scotty"<rscotty@uswest.com>
Subject: RE: Stalled Fermentation
From: Richard Scotty on 03/27/97 07:32 AM MST
Tim Plummer writes of his stalled fermentation with Wyeast London Ale
yeast. Interestingly enough, I just had the same thing happen with a
Scottish Wee Heavy. My OG was a little higher than Tim's at 1.076, but I
do not believe that the gravity / alcohol content is the issue as my
fermentation stalled at 1.040. One common factor involved is fermentation
temperature. My basement got fairly cool last week dropping the
temperature down to about 61 degrees.
I proceeded to bring my carboys up to the kitchen to achieve warmer temps
(this does not especially please the spousal unit, but she is tolerant of
it). The temperature rose to approximately 68 degrees, and signs of
fermentation showed anew. This activity lasted only two days before it
aparently stalled again. I haven't taken a gravity reading yet, but I did
swirl the carboys to rouse the yeast. BTW, the oxidation risk mentioned by
Tim really isn't a problem here IMHO - the head space is CO2 and the wort
is cool. I again have an active if somewhat sluggish fermentation.
Questions to the digest:
Is London this picky about temps?
I know that it is a highly flocculant yeast - does it flocculate before it
can accomplish its mission?
Is there a good way to "kick start" this yeast when this occurs?
Is there something else that Tim and I are missing (phase of the moon,
arrival of the comet, proximity to plaid, etc)?
Awaiting enlightenment,
Rich Scotty
Carboy Agitation Specialist - The Crapshoot Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 08:53:31 -0600
From: Cory Wright <cwright@midcom.anza.com>
Subject: Re: spam
You wrote:
Al writes:
>
How can we find out who the ISP is for this domain?
<snip>
What can we do if bouldermarketing.com really isn't hosted by an ISP?
>
Do a whois on bouldermarketing.com (i.e. type "whois bouldermarketing.com")
and notice what the primary and secondary domain server entries are. Their
internet provider should be listed as one of the domain servers.
Here's what I did:
>whois bouldermarketing.com
Boulder Marketing Agency, Inc. (BMA) (BOULDERMARKETING-DOM)
1966 13th Street, LL50
Boulder, CO 80302
Domain Name: BOULDERMARKETING.COM
Administrative Contact:
Weinhoeft, Kevin (KW608) info@BOULDERMARKETING.COM
303-786-9234
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Herz, Julia (JH1950) design@BOULDERMARKETING.COM
303-786-9234
Record last updated on 20-Jan-97.
Record created on 20-Apr-96.
Domain servers in listed order:
STOUT.ENTERTAIN.COM 199.45.153.1
HOPS.ENTERTAIN.COM 199.45.153.2
Aha! Now we're getting somewhere. Then I tried entertain.com:
>whois entertain.com
Expert Internet Service (ENTERTAIN-DOM)
40 W. Littleton Blvd. #210-55
Littleton, CO 80120-2400
US
Domain Name: ENTERTAIN.COM
Administrative Contact, Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Watson, Darryl (DW105) dwatson@XPERT.NET
(303) 730-6050 (FAX) (303) 730-6823
Record last updated on 04-Mar-97.
Record created on 28-Apr-94.
Domain servers in listed order:
STOUT.ENTERTAIN.COM 199.45.153.1
HOPS.ENTERTAIN.COM 199.45.153.2
Ah, seems they have an affinity for the finer things in life. Now we
contact Mr. Watson at Expert Internet Service about this problem and see
what happens! I have not personally done this in this case, I merely fired
an email back to bouldermarketing.com and bitched mightily @;-).
Cheers,
Cory Wright
New Product Development Engineer
(erstwhile, meantime, future (?) Webmaster)
Midcom, Inc.
cwright@midcom-inc.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:17:32 -0500
From: recycle@preferred.com
Subject: Re: Water additives
Hi all,
I have been reading the HBD for a while now, but never had anything to
contribute.
While I am no means a chemist, I did happen to have this article on water.....
hope this helps...
Wes Lifford
Homebrewing in Johnson City
Animal House Brewery
recycle@preferred.com
Wed, 26 Mar 1997 00:41:56 -0800
>From: "Layne" <wetpetz@oberon.ark.com>
>Subject: Water additives
>
>Hey brewers,
> I'm just plain confused. I'm about to endeavor into a partial mash. My
>equipment and budget is limited so I am only able to cut my extract use by
>50%. Anyway, the water here is soft. 30ppm Ca+ in the winter and 70ppm
>Ca+ in the summer. I love Pale Ale, Bitter is better. I want to simulate
>a traditional Pale Ale and I am also getting a grain bill together for an
>Irish Stout.
> Here is my problem.
> I want to increase the hardness of my water and I have, (now) two possible
>additives available. Calcium Chloride which I understand will contribute
>Ca+ and Cl- which will enhance the body of the beer. I also have Chalk.
>Is this the same as Calcium Sulfate or is it Calcium Carbonate. Either way
>what effect will it have? What are the advantages of using sulfate ions as
>opposed to Carbonate ions. I know that the Ca+ is there and that is what I
>really need anyway right? I have not seen Gypsum here yet nor have I
>found Burton water salts which I've also read about.
> I guess I also have NaCl (salt) which I think will enhance the body, head,
>and flavor if used in small amounts. Some help here would be appreciated.
> Maybe I should buy a fridge and start lagering a nice pilsener instead. I
>could learn to love that too.
Why is Burton-on-Trent famous for its pale ales, while Munich is known for
its darker beers? It's because of the brewing water's pH. OK, it's really
from the dissolved minerals in the water, but that's what changes the
water's pH. Lighter grains leave a higher pH in a solution of neutral water
than darker, more acidic grains. Water that has a high concentration of
Sulfates is lower in pH than neutral water. Put another way, water that is
high in Sulfates is good for brewing pale grains in because the resulting pH
allows the enzymes to work most efficiently. To sum up, adding Gypsum lowers
pH, while adding Chalk raises pH. Burton-on-Trent water is high in Sulfates
(just like adding lots of Gypsum), and thus lends itself to the making of
pale ales. (This water also accentuates the bitterness of hops, and
therefore is useful for making very hoppy beers.) Darker grains, and thus
darker beers, are made where the water is high in carbonates. So all of the
arguments about matching water to your favorite brewing locale pretty much
boils down to getting the right pH balance for the type of grains that you
want to use. One more word about salts and pH. Chalk does not readily
dissolve in neutral water. It needs a slightly acidic environment to be
suspended in (such as grains in water in your mash tun).
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 10:31:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: Peter Eaton <Peter_Eaton@zd.com>
Subject: re:Square Vs. Round Tuns
<You will have to find a way to provide a good seal for the CPVC pipe that
<extends through the wall of your cooler.
If you use 1/2" CPVC for your manifold, 3/8" tubing will fit tightly INSIDE the
CPVC, and you can simply drill a 5/8" hole in the cooler wall. and put about 3
inches of the tubing (I use a total of four feet from the cooler to the kettle)
through the hole in a drilled rubber stopper (use a tiny drop of mineral oil to
help). Then just feed the tubing through the hole in the cooler from the
inside, shove the stopper tightly in the opening, and shove the short end of
the tubing into the manifold opening.
The advantages: It's cheap and easy....and if you really jam that stopper in
there, it never leaks. I used to have a length of CPVC with tubing over it
cemented in the opening, but about every three batches the torsion of moving
things around would loosen the seal and cause leakage. You can do the same
thing to keep using plastic buckets that have those darn leaky valves, too.
Pete
Salem, MA.
peaton@zd.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 97 11:31:49 EST
From: haszarda@stricom.army.mil
Subject: Wort Chillers, Hot/Cold Break
Need the advice of those of you who have been where wish to
venture: I plan to build a wort chiller and would like to hear
the pros and cons of my two basic design choices - counterflow
and immersion.
While both are easily built, and I understand the differences in
cleaning them before and after use, I would like some opinion on
the counterflow system's introduction of cold break material into
the fermenter.
I plan to whirlpool the hot wort in my brew kettle and remove
same via a manifold positioned about its interior perimeter
leaving behind (in the center of the vessel) the hot break
material and spent hops. If I were to go with an immersion
chiller I could also likely remove much of the cold break
material in the same manner.
Is this plan feasible? Is reduction of cold break material into
the fermenter worth the likely drop in cooling efficiency of an
immersion chiller vice the counterflow? What impact could the
cold break material have in the fermenter?
Comments?
Mac.
(private email is fine too at haszarda@stricom.army.mil)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:09:11 -0500
From: ejb11@psu.edu (Edward J. Basgall)
Subject: What ARE these chemicals?(response)
in HBD 2384 Jim Anderson asks about SANI-COM 3205 towelettes....
(snip)"They contain the following: Benzalkonium Chloride, Octoxynol 9,
Fragrance, SD Alcohol 40, and water, quote unquote.(snip)
Can the chemically-knowledgeable in the group give me a clue as to
whether this stuff would be useful for sanitizing and disinfecting
surfaces and equipment?"(snip)
FWIW According to the Merck Index, 12th ed. (paraphrased)
Benzalkonium chloride is used as a cationic surface active
agent and germicide. Also as a veterinary antiseptic for skin
preoperatively or for wounds, burns, etc. Udder Wash.
It is a topical antiseptic that is incompatible with anionic
detergents, such as soap, and with nitrates. A white
precipitate is formed in a 1:3000 aq soln of BC when nitrates
are present in concentrations >0.5% ammonium nitrate. It is soluble
in water alcohol and acetone.
Octoxynol 9 is a non-ionic detergent, emulsifier, dispersing agent. Spermicide.
So, it seems that you could sanitize your counter tops with the pads. There
is no information listed as to whether or not you will kill spilled yeasts.
cheers
ed basgall
SCUM
State College Underground Maltsters
State College, PA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 13:50:00 -0600 (CST)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Teabag mashing
Joe asks if he can mash in a grain bag. Well, the short answer is yes,
but I personally encourage new partial-mashers to try to find alternatives.
"Teabag mashing," as I like to call it, suffers from a few problems.
One is that you typically end up using quite a bit more water than you would
in a "normal" mash. This has the problem of resulting in a higher than
desirable pH for most waters. You can compensate for this with some acid
and/or calcium additions (in response to another poster: chalk is calcium
carbonate and will RAISE your pH... gypsum is calcium sulphate and, after
mixing with the mash, will have the net effect of lowering your pH, however
you will be adding sulphate to your wort which will accentuate bitterness and
add a drying/lingering-bitter character to the finish).
Another problem with teabag mashing is that you can have difficulty in
recirculating the wort till most of the insoluble material is caught by
the grain bed. You could put the grain bags in a colander and recirc
that way, but this will surely aerate the wort. Charlie Scandrett posted
quite a while ago that aerating the mash runnings can be worse than
aerating the post-boil wort... I don't recall the science, but I do recall
that it's recommended to avoid aeration at all times other than just before
pitching.
What about making yourself a very small mashtun out of two Tupperware(tm)
containers and a length of hose? You don't want to make a full-size
Zapap mashtun for a partial mash because your grain bed will be too shallow.
Two 2-gallon plastic tubs (one inside the other, holes poked into the inner
one, a hose shoved through a hole in the outer one) would work well for a
couple of pounds of grain and would allow you to use a more traditional
water ratio (1 to 1.5 quarts per pound) and would allow you to recirculate
similar to what all-grain brewers do.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 15:03:45 -0500
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper@a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: A decoction question
Hi all!
I have been following the recent decoction posting with interest (I haven't
tried it yet but maybe in the near term) and I have a simple question.
With all grain or adjunct brewing the comment is generally made that the
grain should not be taking to the boiling point so as to avoid excessive
tannins in the wort but with several of the descriptions of the decoction
process that have appeared lately I see reference to taking some of the grist
adding water and heating this to different temperature levels and finally
taking it to a full boil before returning it to the rest of the mash. Am I
missing something here? Why is there no concern here for tannin extraction?
8^)
Chris Cooper , Commerce Michigan --> Pine Haven Brewery <--
Chris_Cooper@hp.com --> aka. Deb's Kitchen <--
------------------------------
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu
From: 00bkpickeril@bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: malty flavors
>I think that the issue of malty flavors, what is a malty flavor, and
>where they come from needs more discussion.
OK, here goes... are there any ways besides the 3 below? If so, what are they?
1) Using lesser modified lager malts and decoction.
2) Using No-Sparge brewing.
3) Using munich malt.
- --Brian Pickerill, Muncie, IN
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 14:01:10 -0800 (PST)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
Subject: Re: Wyeast 1275 Thames Valley
Alex writes that he's made several good batches using the Wyeast Thames Valley
strain. I recently made a brown ale (partial mash) using this yeast. I chose
it because the Wyeast literature suggested low-fruitiness. I also fermented
at 65degF to minimize ester formation (whether that's an effective approach or
not, I'm not sure). The fermentation wasn't super vigorous, but it completed
without problems and the resulting beer was very nice - complex enough but not
overly fruity. I'd use this yeast again.
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 17:39:59 -0600
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: Decoction mashing / AHA follies
I've been following the decoction thread with some interest,
particularly the suggestions by Dr. Piro and others that
decoction isn't as essential as Noonan and others suggest.
Last fall, myself and fellow Foam Ranger (and BJCP Master Judge)
Andy Thomas conducted a little experiment to see whether decoction
mashing really had any qualitative advantages over modern amateur
brewing methods. (The full story will be in an upcoming article in
BT.) In a nutshell, I challenged Andy to come up with a recipe
that would best showcase the claimed advantages of decoction
mashing (he chose a 1.055 OG / 23 IBU Munich Helles, using 100%
Ireks pilsner malt), and brew two batches side by side, using the
same water, milled grain, etc., and thereby generate the same pre-
and post-boil volumes / gravities, etc. The only difference would
be that Andy would use a triple decoction, and I would use a
50-60-70 step mash on a RIMS system. Because I indicated that
I intended to use a "no-sparge" regimen, Andy also adopted this
approach. The beers were fermented in identical containers in the
same fridge, using identical portions of the same yeast starter.
The results? Virtually all of the people who sampled the two (blind
tastings, of course) found that the RIMS beer was slightly darker
(estimated 1-2L more) and was noticeably maltier. Thus I tend to
agree with Dr. Piro's suggestion that Noonan's oft-quoted (but never
quantified) assertion that decoction mashing inherently creates a
maltier or darker product is questionable.
By the same token, our experiment seemed to confirm Steve
Alexander's observation that:
> There are flavor difference between a decocted and
> non-decocted beer, but they are probably more related to phenols and
> early formation of hot break than melanoidins IMO. And more of a
> secondary than a primary factor in flavor.
A clear majority of the tasters (myself included) liked the decocted
beer slightly more than the RIMS beer. However, perhaps due to the
fact that the beers were very close, there was no clear concensus
why. Many felt the RIMS beer was a bit too malty and thus
overwhelmed the delicate hopping of this recipe; others detected
slightly more DMS in the RIMS beer (this latter point disapeared
with time and lagering); others couldn't really specify why. One
observer (a professional brewer) stated that while he preferred the
decocted beer, he felt that the RIMS beer could have been
indistinguishable from the decocted beer if the recipe were
tweaked a bit (increase hops and a little longer rest at 70C).
The bottom line? You can, of course, produce spectacular beer
with decoction mashing. But it's not as essential to making
great lager beers as Noonan and other would have us believe.
===========================================================
In response to the recent flap about the AHA's "fine print" in
the NHC rules, the AHA now says the following:
"The AHA has the right to copyright the recipe to help ensure that the
Entrant and the AHA receive all due credit whenever the recipe is
published."
Try again, guys; this statement is a nonsequitur. If the AHA did
not "create" the recipe, it cannot "copyright" it. Copyright
arises at the moment of creation by the author, not by any
subsequent ministerial act by a third party. [Citations to
the Copyright Act available upon request.] If the AHA *meant* to
say that it had the right to *register* the copyright in the recipe,
then it would necessarily have to obtain at least a partial
assignment of the copyright from the copyright holder.
Thus we're back to square one -- is the AHA requiring entrants
to convey at least part of their copyright in the text of a recipe
in exchange for entering? And if so, why? [All they *really* need
to do is put language in the entry form to the effect that
entering grants the AHA a *license* to reprint the recipe -- the
AHA doesn't need to require a conveyance of each entrant's copyright.]
Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham@phoenix.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 18:44:42 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mike cleaner,enzyme partition coeff.,Stuyk Manden
Brewsters:
Jim Anderson asks for a translation of the composition of his cleaner.
Benzalkonium Chloride is a quarternary ammonium salt and is the
bacteriocide commonly used in cleaners. The Octoxylol 9 is a trade name
and I couldn't find it in my 1985 version of McCutcheon's directory of
surfactants, but likely it is a surfactant ( possibly an octyl side chain
or nonyl-phenol based compound) whose function is to disperse oils and
grease. The SD alcohol 40 could be a surfactant or some alcohol blend used
to loosen oils from the surface.
Personally I don't think it will be useful for what you want. Try buying
some bleach, diluting it and using that rather than stealing from your
employer!
- ---------------------------------------------------------
AlK comments about the concentration of enzyme in the wort versus in the
grain, stating that most ( I read it as virtually all) of the enzymes are
in the wort. I must admit to being puzzled about this ratio, since I have
never read anywhere about the partition coefficient for enzymes between
grain and free wort. Also I know that enzymes complex with their
substrate and this should shift the ratio in favor of some enzymes being in
the grain. Even ultrasoluble sugar doesn't come out of the grains, as we
all know, without some coaxing.
If you make the simple assumption that all enzymes were dissolved in water
either in the grain or in the wort, there is still a high ratio of water in
the grain versus in the wort in the mash tun. I seem to recall that a
pound of malt absorbs a pint of water. (from C Papazian?) So for an 8#
batch that is 8# of water or a gallon. For a typical 1.25 qts of water per
pound of malt this is 2.5 gallons total water in the mash. So my best
guess, in the absence of other factors (like complexing, or being trapped
in chambers), is that more than a third of the enzymes are in the grain.
Taking a large decoction like SteveA among others are recommending (
virtually all of the grain) should have an impact on the mashing process,
particularly if the grist has a high percentage of adjuncts which do not
contribute enzymes.
I'd like to see a professional study on the subject. Any references?
- ----------------------------------------------------
AlK, in describing a basket device on the label of Witbier, I think you are
talking about the "Stuyk Manden" which was a conical wicker basket used in
Belgian breweries in the old days to remove wort from the grain by pressing
it into the mash( covered with a layer of wheat husks) and scooping out the
cloudy wort.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 19:55:41 -0500 (EST)
From: nkanous@tir.com (nkanous)
Subject: What are these chemicals?
Jim,
Just one quick comment on one of the chemical constituents of the towelettes
that you have. You mention octoxynol-9. Ring any bells with anybody?
Nonoxynol-9 is used commercially in condoms and contraceptive gels/foams as
a spermicide. Don't know what it would do to yeast. Benzalkonium chloride
is commonly used as a sanitizing agent in many pharmaceutical preparations.
SD alcohol 40 is just an alcohol used for dissovling the other constituents
and I'm sure it just evaporates quickly.
These are some commercial uses of these, I just wonder if it would be
worthwhile to "borrow" these things from work. You know how anal retentive
corporate types are about this type of "perk". I just use cheap vodka.
Nathan in Frankenmuth MI
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 20:06:32 -0500
From: Ken <kbjohns@oscar.peakaccess.net>
Subject: RE: What are these Chemicals
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 97 20:50:00 -0700
From: jim_anderson@state.ut.us
Subject: What ARE these chemicals?
<italic>"SANI-COM 3205." The package claims that it "Cleans and
freshens communications and oxygen equipment" but, despite the name,
makes no claim to sanitize. I'm wondering if I can use these things
for
sanitizing surfaces while culturing yeast.
Probabably don't claim to sanitize because they would have to be
registered with the EPA, but the ingredients are those typically used in
a bacteriacide
</italic>They contain the following:
Benzalkonium Chloride, Quaterniary ammonium compound (bacteriacide)
Octoxynol 9, Nonionic surface active agent (also a spermacide)
Fragrance, SD Alcohol 40, Denatured alcohol (ethanol)
Give them a try They'll work fine for sanitizing counter tops etc.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2385, 03/28/97
*************************************
-------
