Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2490
HOMEBREW Digest #2490 Fri 22 August 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
CP Bottle Filler Alternative? (Mark T A Nesdoly)
Electric Brewing / Ice CF Chillers (KennyEddy)
Batch Sparging / Newbie All-Grain Questions (KennyEddy)
filtering (michael rose)
Re: First Faltering Steps / More IPA Worship (from Matt) (Matt Gadow)
first steps... ("Bryan L. Gros")
celis white (AlannnnT)
Chilis from Chile (Loren Crow)
Re: mutant sparging; lost beer; first-time mashing (Mike Uchima)
132F Good - 122F Bad ("Charles Rich")
Malt beverages ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
Predicting SG of First Runnings (Charles Burns)
Chocolate & Money (Gordon & Cindy Camp)
Stuck lager w/ 2206 (George De Piro)
HBD #2488 comments - CO2 ("Richard Cuff")
Re: Airstones in kegs (guym)
Nitrogen Dispensing: Does it ruin a beer? (George De Piro)
Re: pub draught Guinness (Mike Uchima)
Danstar dry yeast ("Alan McKay")
Re: wood alcohol (Brian Bliss)
On MLD (haafbrau1)
Re: off flavors (Samuel Mize)
Need a mail-order firm with lots of features ("Bret A. Schuhmacher")
SS Keg/Drilling (Andrew Stavrolakis)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@realbeer.com
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
hbd.org /pub/hbd
ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
E-mail...
ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with
the word help for instructions.)
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca
From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290@mail.usask.ca>
Subject: CP Bottle Filler Alternative?
Hello All,
This past April I was fortunate enough to run across a fellow homebrewer who
was looking to sell his kegging setup. Six 5 gallon pin-lock kegs, a 20 lb
CO2 tank and a heavy duty regulator that was scrounged from a liquid oxygen
welding setup, and adapted for CO2. The cost? $140 Am I lucky or what? ;-)
Anyway, the setup also includes an air chuck (like the kind used for filling
your tires with air at the gas station). I finally got around to making a
couple of "carbonator"-type caps on the weekend out of two old plastic pop
bottle screw tops, a couple of valve stems, and a little food-grade
caulking. Now I'm set to take some of my brew with me without having to
haul around a keg. BTW, total cost of the two caps I made: $3.99 + tax (the
cost of the two valve stems).
This got me thinking about doing the same thing to a metal twist-off beer
cap. Before I started kegging, I bottled all of my beer in the twist-off
bottles, and I still have them all. Most competitions require that your
brew is contained in the standard brown glass bottles, and it is for that
reason that I was contemplating a CP bottle filler. A carbonator-type cap
for twist-off bottles would certainly be easier and cheaper than a CP bottle
filler. To bottle, I would simply fill the bottles from the keg, screw on
the adapted bottle cap, carbonate, remove the adapted cap, and cap the bottles.
Anyway, on to the questions:
Has anyone out there done this before?
Does anyone know how much pressure a standard (Canadian) twist-off brown
glass beer bottle can withstand?
To the CP bottle filler owners: How much more do you have to carbonate a
beer when filling it? i.e. the beer will lose some carbonation in the time
it takes to extract the CP bottle filler and cap the bottle. How much
higher do you have to carbonate the beer to hit your target carbonation
level? For instance, if I was bottling an IPA, and was shooting for 1.6
volumes of CO2 in the bottle, would I have to carbonate to, say, 1.8
volumes, then remove the cap with the valve stem, and quickly cap the bottle?
Any and all responses appreciated. If there's sufficient feedback I will
post a summary of the responses.
- -- Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:42:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Electric Brewing / Ice CF Chillers
Thor asks:
"Does anybody know what the relative efficiency of heating your brewery
with propane, natural gas or electricity?"
Just a datapoint: my 5-gallon electric boiler runs on 2250W; I've calculated
the heat loss at about 200W through the uninsulated sides, for roughly 90%
efficiency. If I wrapped a layer of fiberglass around it (as well as the
lid), I bet I could get real close to 100% efficient. My electric vessels
are on for about 3 hours total; at 14 cents per kW-hr (yep) this costs me
about $1 per brewday.
How this compares with gas setups, I don't know.
Note: using electricity for volumes over 5 gallons gets tricky, since the
already-high power requirements increase for increasing volume. To get
reasonable heating times, you'll need lots of electric elements as well as
lots of amps. See the article on my web page, "Five-Gallon Plastic Electric
Brewery", for details.
*****
The topic of ice-bucket CF chillers has arisen. I don't use one (though I do
circulate ice water through my immersion chiller with a pump) but I can offer
a couple thoughts.
After you fill the bucket with ice, add enough water to cover at least part
of the coil. While this robs the ice of some of its cooling power as the
warmer water melts it, it puts the entire coil surface in contact with cold
WATER (as opposed to the AIR between ice chunks) for greatly improved
cooling. Without the water, the ice will eventually melt and form water, but
you'll get much faster cooling up front if you add water.
Also, try tossing a small submersible fountain pump into the bucket. They
can be had at home & garden stores for around $20 - $25. No need to atttach
any hoses; just get the water circulating inside the bucket. You'll again
get drastically improved chilling. Thought: mount the pump to the bucket
such that the discharge goes around the coil opposite of the wort flow. True
counter-flow operation.
After saying all this, I remember a friend who used one of these (with a
circulating pump) and had to cut back on the ice since his wort was exiting
at 40F!
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:43:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Batch Sparging / Newbie All-Grain Questions
Jon Bovard writes about a "New contraversial sparging method":
"I know of many German breweries and a local micro which uses a method of
sparging similar to that of some English breweries, but with a twist.
Once recirculation has completed. The bed is 90% drained and filled with
water at around 80C. Once this covers the grain bed the mash is then
stirred like mad . This supposedly encourages sugars into solution and
increases efficiency.The mash is left to settle for 15 minutes and then
re-circulated once again. The process is repeated until enough wort is
colected or pH>6 etc ect.
My question is ( I plan to try this) will mixing the mash bed so
violently cause irreversible damage. ie Leaving it almost undisturbed
for 1.5 hours beforehand creates a preety decent bed.??"
Nothing "new" or "contraversial" (sic) here. This is what we've been calling
"batch sparging" here. That is to say, the sparge water is added in batches
rather than trickled in during runoff. There are several positive
implications:
(1) Channeling is a non-issue, since for each runoff, assuming the batch has
been rested and stirred well, the runoff is always of the same gravity since
no "clear" water is added durring runoff.
(2) Back-of-envelope calculations as well as anecdotal evidence suggest this
method, even with only one sprage batch after initial runoff, can be AS or
even MORE efficient than traditional trickle or "fly" sparging. Think of the
sparge batch as a mash-out, thinning and collecting the wort trapped in the
grain.
(3) The method lends itself well to brewers who don't have space/money for a
three-tier system, since the sparge water is dumped in all at once. No need
to place a sparge vessel above the mash tun for sparging. Recirculate and
slowly drain your first runoff, then put your mash tun on the kitchen floor,
pour in some 175F water and away you go (after a brief rest & recirculation).
(4) If properly planned, the technique can be used to efficiently produce a
lower volume of higher-gravity wort, which suits stovetop brewers well.
Vessels smaller than 5 gallons are much cheaper and the typical kitchen
stove will have a much easier time heating & boiling. Brewing with
concentrated wort is just like brewing with extract. Top off to volume in
the fermenter with sanitized (boiled/cooled) clear water.
(5) For a two-runoff process, the gravity of both runoffs is well above
1.010; this coupled with the presence of wort at low pH prevents tannin /
phenol extraction associated with low-gravity / high-pH sparging. George Fix
reported some time ago that a single-runoff brew had "yummy malt flavor",
quite possibly because far less objectionable material was extracted than
when using traditional low-gravity / high-pH sparge water.
One downside I can think of is that since you're draining off the liquid in
the grain bed, it can collapse upon itself and cause a stuck runoff. This is
probably only a problem with heavy, gummy mashes like those with lots of
wheat or corn.
As for the 1.5 hour old bed being disturbed, it's not of course an issue for
the first runoff, since only a recirculation is performed and the bed is not
disturbed. As for the second runoff, the rest period (you mentioned 15
minutes) plus judicious recirculation will ensure a clear runoff after
stirring.
I have a batch-sparging spreadsheet & accompanying text on my web page, for
anyone interested in the details.
*****
Doug Moyer wants to all-grain (all right Doug!) and has a few good questions:
"(1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off? Yes, I know that
mileage varies, but what range am I shooting for? I want to make sure
that my manifold isn't designed completely wrong. Is 6 minutes/gallon
reasonable? (I haven't put any grain in it yet--I'm just running water
through it.) "
6 min/gal sounds pretty good; puts you in the 30 - 45 minute range for 6 - 7
gallons of sparged wort. Some will say longer is even better, which probably
has some truth, but it depends on how much extraction your time is worth.
Note that your water-only rate is likely to be higher than your mash-runoff
rate, though this depends on the manifold design. Thus, your actual mash
runoff may be much slower than 6 min/gal.
"(2) What is the normal method to recirculate the first runnings to build
up the filter bed? How do you prevent HSA? How do you keep the
temperature constant? Do you care at that point? (FWIW, I will NOT be
buying a pump yet. Of course, who knows about next week... %-) )"
Use a 2-cup measuring cup to collect the recirc, then pour this *gently* back
onto the grainbed -- no splashing or excessive churning. I place a
cut-to-fit sheet of 8-hole-per-inch nylon needlepoint mesh over the grainbed
(it actually floats) and pour the recirc slowly onto that -- it breaks up the
force of the pouring liquid to avoid mucking up the grain bed, and
distributes the recirc fairly evenly across the top of the bed. Because of
the size of the measuring cup, it's difficult to pour in the middle of the
tun; pouring with too much force down the side of the grain bed can encourage
channeling and reduce efficieny. HSA? Maybe a bit; you can't totally avoid
it. But if you're careful, it won't show up in your beer. Your temperature
will drop somewhat during this process, as the recirc'd wort is exposed to
room temp, so a mash-out at 165+ is helpful (though often not practical in a
five-gallon cooler; see #3 below).
(3) How much grain can you mash in a 5 gallon Igloo?
Here's a rule of thumb: grain occupies 0.08 gallons per pound when combined
with water (that is, no air between grits). At a typical mash thickness of
1.33 qt/lb, you can squeeze about 12 lb of grain and water into a five-gallon
cooler, but don't expect to do temperature boosts or mashout with boiling
water infusions -- there ain't no room.
Though you said that you already bought your 5-gallon Gott, for anyone else
planning on going all-grain, I suggest the new (?) 7-gallon Gott. At Home
Depot here in El Paso it's the same price as the 5-gallon ($20). It appears
to be the same diameter as the 10-gallon (the lids are interchangable, and
yes I put them back where they were after I checked), so a 10-gallon Phil's
Phloating Phalse Bottom would work if you wanted to go that route. This will
hold enough grain to make moderately-high gravity brews and still allow
multiple boiling water infusions for step mashing & mashouts. I'm a-gonna
get me one.
"(4) Several people have mentioned mashing in the range of 1.25 qt/gal.
If you are doing several step infusions, do you start with a thicker
mash to make up for the boiling water added later?"
Yeah, that's the idea. You probably won't be able to work with a thickness
much below 0.9 to 1 qt per pound, so figure on starting there for your
dough-in. Also, try to avoid mash rests above 2 qt/lb; the thin mash
reportedly can reduce enzyme efficiency. Dilute mash thickness is OK for the
mashout step since enzyme action is not relevent.
And if you're still trying to figure out how to set up a three-tier system,
consider batch-sparging as described above.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:16:16 -0700
From: michael rose <mrose@ucr.campus.mci.net>
Subject: filtering
I want to filter uncarbonated beer at room temp though a 1 micron
household filter. What is the minimum psi that I need?
(What I plan on doing is draining from my conical fermenter though the
filter and into the cornie. How high in the air is the fermenter going
to have to be, roof top?) Any comments welcomed. Thanks, Mike Rose
e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:25:48 -0700
From: Matt Gadow <mgadow@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: First Faltering Steps / More IPA Worship (from Matt)
Since doug didn't leave an email address, I will venture some answers to
his questions regarding 5-gal picnic cooler mash tuns.
1. - Runoff - generally, adjust the flow down to the slowest you can
stand, the theory being the slower the runoff, the more extraction you
receive - Check out the batch sparging vs. Fly sparging threads of a few
weeks ago for more info...
2. - IMHO, it dosen't matter much how you recirculate the first runnings
- Although I try to minimize splashing when I recirculate about
1-2quarts of first runnings with a pyrex bowl from my system (A 5 gal.
coleman cooler with a rubber stopper, and a cheesy straight piece of
copper tubing with some hacksawed slots in the bottom) It works OK,
about 26 points / lb, but I am thinking about upgrading for better
extraction, and more capacity (see 3 below)
3. I can get about 13-15 lbs of grain in the tun, assuming <1.25q/lb
initial mash thickness. When I do this, I use a batch sparge technique
(Flush most of the first runnings, and refill with HOT water to bring
mash up to mash-out (168), leave for 15 mins, recirc, and sparge
remainder...
4. Step mashing with a picnic cooler is tough - I usually use a 5 gal
pot for initial steps (I can add boiling water, and heat), then transfer
to cooler for final rest.
You should like your setup, although once you get your pump, you will be
looking for another pot that can heat your mash while recirculating, for
decoctions, just better overall temp control. Just Brew it!
Lots of links to RIMS and mashing systems at the brewery - check out
http://realbeer.com/brewery/Library.html
IPA Worship update
My Surf Sister IPA is now online - 6 ozs of hops, and it tastes great!
Evident Bitterness (duh!), floral aroma, and lip-smacking hop flavor.
My wife even gave me a bitter beer face - must be getting close, eh?
Brew with more hops!
Hope this helps!
Matt (loving that IPA) Gadow
remove *nosp* for email
mgadow@nospix.netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:31:56 -0700
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros@bigfoot.com>
Subject: first steps...
Moyer, Douglas E (MIS, SalemVA) writes:
> With a combination of fearful reluctance and quivering
>excitement, I purchased a 5 gallon Igloo and fitted it with a CPVC
>slotted manifold. ...
>
>(1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off?
You mean for the sparge? You want to collect 6.5 or 7 gallons
in about an hour. You should have a valve of some sort to
control the run off.
Which leads to your second question--recirculation.
I have a ball valve coming out of my sankey keg, which I use for
mash/lauter tun. I pull the first runnings out of the valve (well,
the hose barb attached to the valve) directly with a qt. measuring
cup and pour them (gently) into the top. When it turns clear,
I attach a hose which then lets the run off get to the bottom of
the kettle gently.
You didn't inlcude your email address in your post, BTW.
Hope this helps.
- Bryan
gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: AlannnnT@aol.com
Subject: celis white
I have searched the HBD archives and cats meow for a clone recipe for Celis
White.
Each recipe starts with,"it doesn't taste like Celis but..."
Well anyone have any ideas? Celis claims the bill is 50/50 unmalted Texas
wheat and malt.
Nothing specific on malt.
They say they use Williamette and Cascades. They publish gravities;
IG 1048 FG 1009
Brooklyn uses alot of unmalted wheat in their BrooklynerWeisse. [sp]
Garrett Oliver from Brooklyn Brewing says he gets his Weisse bill to convert
with a high enzyme American malt mixed well with the unmalted barley, no
alpha amylase added. In fact, I offended Mr Oliver by asking if he uses added
enzymes. Anyone who has tasted Mr Olivers beers knows I didn't want to offend
him.
Ok I am ready for any help on this one. My previous attempts have been less
than glorious.
According to Dilbert, the best way to get an engineer to work hard on a
problem is to tell him [her] it can't be done. So maybe you can't make Celis
at home...
Alan Talman
E. Northport NY
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:13:34 -0500
From: crowld@rapidramp.com (Loren Crow)
Subject: Chilis from Chile
Sorry to be a total droid, but this has been grating on me for several
weeks. Chile is a country. A chili is a spice. I suppose one could brew in
Chile, for Chile, or near Chile (or, for that matter, *with* Chileans), but
it would be completely impossible to get Chile into a carboy!
Cheers!
Loren
Loren Crow
crowld@rapidramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:09:47 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: mutant sparging; lost beer; first-time mashing
Jon Bovard <j.bovard@student.qut.edu.au> says:
> [sparge by draining lauter tun, refilling with water, stirring,
> recirculating again, lather, rinse, repeat...]
> My question is ( I plan to try this) will mixing the mash bed so
> violently cause irreversible damage. ie Leaving it almost undisturbed
> for 1.5 hours beforehand creates a preety decent bed.??
Isn't this the whole point of recirculating again after stirring -- i.e.
to re-establish the filter bed? I don't see how anything could be
"irreversibly damaged" by stirring up the mash.
I guess the big question on my mind is, "why bother"? Unless there's
some advantage in terms of *flavor*, doing all that extra work just to
get a couple extra points of extraction hardly seems worth it. At a
commercial scale -- where you're dealing with tons of grain -- the cost
savings add up; but at the homebrew level, an extra $1 worth of malt to
make up for less-than-perfect efficiency is no big deal.
and "BRIAN F. THUMM" <THUMMBF@GWSMTP.NU.COM> says:
> > Recently I was cleaning up my brew cellar and came across
> > a batch of a IPA that has to be at least 5 or 6 month old. It
> > is in a secondary fermentor (glass carboy)...
>
> How does one forget there is 5 gallons of beer in the basement?
Consumption of too many bottles from a previous batch the day it was
brewed/racked?
I've encountered this syndrome personally on a couple of occasions. I'm
pretty sure it's how I managed to turn what was supposed to be a batch
of Oktoberfest into something more closely resembling a doppelbock.
Lessee... that's 1 pound... 2... umm 2... 3... 4... 4... uhh 4... 5...
:-)
and then "Moyer, Douglas E (MIS, SalemVA)" asks:
> With a combination of fearful reluctance and quivering
> excitement, I purchased a 5 gallon Igloo and fitted it with a CPVC
> slotted manifold. While I have some leaking issues to resolve, I am
> looking forward to taking my first steps towards all-grain brewing. (I
> suspect that my parents would not be as proud as of other first steps,
> but then they are teetotalers, so I won't tell them...;-) )
Congrats... all-grain is a blast. There's no way I'd go back to extract
now.
> So, here are my first questions to the group:
>
> (1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off? Yes, I know
> that mileage varies, but what range am I shooting for? I want to make
> sure that my manifold isn't designed completely wrong. Is 6
> minutes/gallon reasonable? (I haven't put any grain in it yet--I'm
> just running water through it.)
OK, I'm a dedicated "Phil's Phalse Bottom" guy myself, so I don't have a
lot of experience with manifolds... but:
This seems slow to me. Once you've got the grain in there, it will
likely slow down a lot, resulting in some pretty long sparges. I think
you want to cut more (or larger) holes in the manifold, and regulate the
flow with some sort of valve on the outflow hose.
> (2) What is the normal method to recirculate the first runnings to
> build up the filter bed?
I lay a perforated pie tin on top of my mash, and pour the first
runnings into it using a Pyrex measuring cup. Any method that avoids
cutting a "channel" into the grain bed with the wort you're
recirculating should work.
> How do you prevent HSA?
Pour gently.
> How do you keep the temperature constant?
Heat your sparge water hotter than the temperature you want to maintain
in the grain bed. Exactly how *much* hotter you'll probably need to
determine by experiment.
> Do you care at that point?
Not as much as during the mash. During sparging, I generally try to
keep my grain bed between approximately 145 and 165F -- a pretty broad
range.
> (FWIW, I will NOT be buying a pump yet. Of course, who knows about
> next week... %-) )
>
> (3) How much grain can you mash in a 5 gallon Igloo?
12 pounds should be manageable. For really high gravity brews, you may
need to scale back to 4 (or even 3) gallon batches, especially if you
want to do multiple rests.
> (4) Several people have mentioned mashing in the range of 1.25
> qt/gal. If you are doing several step infusions, do you start with
> a thicker mash to make up for the boiling water added later?
Yup. Proteolytic enzymes supposedly work better in a thicker mash
anyway...
and another all-grainer-to-be, "David L. Thomson" <dlt@ici.net> asks:
> I would like to start mashing i have a mash tun and sparger setup made.
> My poblem is boiling the volume from a full mash. I only have a 5 gal
> enamal caning pot. And do not possess the funds as of yet to buy a 7-10
> gal pot and the burner/ vent to boil it. Is it ok to use two smaller
> pots?? does anyone have a source of partial mash recipies??
Two smaller pots, with the hop additions split more or less equally
between them should work OK. If (like me) you're brewing on the kitchen
stove, being able to use two burners is also a plus in that it cuts
heating times in half.
Another possibility would be to sparge only enough to collect about 4
gallons of runnings, and do a partial boil, just as you would with an
extract batch. If you decide to try this, keep in mind that you'll need
to increase the grain bill by around 20%, to compensate for the lower
extraction efficiency...
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@mcs.net ==
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:12:57 -0700
From: "Charles Rich" <riches@halcyon.com>
Subject: 132F Good - 122F Bad
In HBD #2487 Dave Burley says:
> Charlie Rich, criticises me for apparently saying that
> 122F produces heading proteins.
Actually I criticise the suggestion that it's a worthwhile rest at all. I'd
recommend you obliterate it from your library before children or other
innocents see it.
> There is plenty of protein available ( as the volume of
> the hot break will indicate) to be chopped up before the
> mouth feel is affected.
Nope, not at 122F, it'll hardly dent your hotbreak protein yet decimate
your heading and body pool. Why reduce the pool of medium weight proteins
for no practical benefit? You will not find amino starved malt unless you
make it yourself. Frankly, I'm earnestly looking for good malt that's so
undermodified that a rest like this would be indicated. The closest I'm
coming is to have a micro-maltings produce it (not likely soon). Please
tell me if you find any.
> The biggest danger of a long hold at 122F may be the off
> flavors produced by excessive yeast growth or
> contamination from bacteria growth may result from the
> high amino acid concentration.
This is a really wild conjecture. Beating the 122F-Rest drum is bad enough
but this could upset novice brewers and start a panic. There are other,
scarier hazards to brewing with even more substance: like wearing plaid!
The biggest danger of a long hold at 122F is sorry beer.
> It often used to be common practice in low modified malts
> to hold at both 122F and 135F, but for sure the Germans
> held in the 122F region. Highly modified malts need
> shorter lower temperature holds since the majority of the
> proteolysis was done at the maltsters.
That sounds like back-pedalling Dave, why the past tense? Are such malts
no longer encountered? Highly modified malts need no lower temperature
rests unless around 95-100F or 132-135F, if even. You're lucky to conserve
the protein you're left with.
> If I remember, I believe the point of the discussion I was
> commenting on was how to increase the yield of sugars or
> how to use flaked barley. My suggestion of a short hold
> at 122F (definitely necessary for flaked barley) was to
> chew up the protein matrix using the proteases and
> phosphatases active at this temperature , freeing the
> carbohydrates for later easy amylolysis.
"Definitely necessary" - not. Starch in flaked barley (flaked anything) is
gelatinized in the flaking process and freely available afterward. One
might hope to develop more medium molecular weight proteins by a rest at
132-135F from the protein left, but if I remember, you simply recommend a
flat rest at 122F, which is what I take issue with.
> As I understand it ( do you agree Charley?) this chopped
> up matrix along with all the other high molecular weight
> proteins will be used later ( at 135F or thereabouts) to
> produce the mid-molecular weight heading proteins as (in
> my suggestion)as the mash is heated up from 122F to 155F
> and passing through the high 120s and mid-130s.
No, that's silly. You're suggesting a worthless rest at 122F so you can
breeze through a really useful range, and expect benefit? What if you
infuse to your next step? Why not simply spend that rest time at the right
temperature?
Also, peptidase don't chop, they nibble from the ends, yielding amino acids
and tiny peptides. The rest at 122F wouldn't "chew up" the matrix. the
rest at 132-135F would have a chance, if it were even needed.
> As I read your comments, you would not hold at 122F under
> any circumstance - contrary to my understanding of most
> of the professional activity with adjuncts today.
That's putting it over-positively, I wish I had occasion to use it, I
believe I'd know what I was doing. It might have been put forward once as
a means to reduce chill haze from the heaviest medium MW proteins, by
obliterating the MMWP spectrum altogether, but that's so heavyhanded the
current literature is way beyond that. You might want to reacquaint
yourself with the literature.
I don't know who popularized the rest at 122-125F (I suspect it was another
of my namesakes) but it's been repeated so many times without reflection
that it's recklessly taken as gospel. I'm saying that it's not.
Charles Rich, Beer charmer (Seattle, USA)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:45:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Malt beverages
I have been asked by several freinds, what is a malt beverage. This is
the alcoholic drink known as brezers by Baccardi.
Does any body know why these are caled a malt beverage?
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 06:27 PDT
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: Predicting SG of First Runnings
Here's a grain bill for a barley wine I'm thinking about for this coming
weekend:
1.00 lb. Cara-Pils Dextrine
2.00 lb. Cara-Vienne
1.00 lb. Light Dry Malt Extract
2.00 lb. Munich Light
0.50 lb. Oats
8.00 lb. Pale Ale
0.25 lb. Roast Barley
0.75 lb. Wheat
My plan is to take only the first runnings and make only 2.5 to 3 gallons of
finished beer. Question is, how do I predict the gravity of first runnings?
I use a rectangular ice-chest with slotted copper tubing manifold. I get
about 70% efficiency according to potential yield of each malt. This is
consistent over many batches in the last couple of years. Anyway if I load
it with 1.25 quarts of water per pound (just under 5 gallons) and I lose 1
pint per pound of grain (absorbed by grain), how do I figure gravity of
first runnings? I'll end up with about 3 gallons of first runnings by just
draining the mash tun. Any idea what the SG will be? I'll add 2 gallons of
water which'll boil off in 90 minutes to leave me with about 3 gallons. But
what will the SG be? SUDS predicts 1.124 but that's with a 3 gallon sparge.
Charley (cross eyed from staring at the calculator) in N.Cal
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:27:39 -0400
From: Gordon & Cindy Camp <revcamp@epix.net>
Subject: Chocolate & Money
In relation to the chocolate
question, powder vs. bakers, has
anyone tried using coco beans?
************************************
Dana asks:
if you add up the prize money you
get $1750, divide that by
$25 per entry and you only
need 70 entries to pay for all the
prize cash (and what - 4
more entries to pay for the plaque?)
-
so what do they need all the
rest of the money for?
You hit on the reason early on in
your post, they are a buisness.
Which its sole purpose in life is
not to serve us or make our lives
better but turn a profit. Not only
will they get money from entries but
HBs who go to drop off their entries
will wander around and see the
store's vast array of beer and buy
some (maybe this is good for us as
we might find a source of good and
interesting beers). Remember that
everyone is trying to make a buck,
well except the US Govt. which
clearly is not in business to turn a
profit.
Speaking of the Govt, with all the
top notch spending on needed
research do you think if we all
wrote our reps in dc that they might
send us some grant money to
investigate whether the BATF has
infultrated our ranks and is
secretly infecting us with botulism?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:53:53 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Stuck lager w/ 2206
Hi all,
Louis writes in with the disappointing results (or lack thereof) of
his RIMS vs. decoction vs. infusion experiment. He complains that
Wyeast 2206 (Bavarian Lager) has conked out.
I hate to admit it, but this happens to me fairly often with both this
and (more often) with 2308 (Munich Lager). I find that swirling the
carboy twice per day (or more) will allow the beer to finish. I don't
know if it is because this releases CO2 (the toxicity demon) or simply
resuspends the yeast, but it works.
Louis noted that the yeast was still viable (I guess you checked with
methylene blue?), so this should do the trick. I have tried
repitching fresh yeast and found that it does not work as well as
swirling the carboy regularly (and is more work).
I would definitely NOT pitch an ale yeast! You've worked so hard to
create a clean lager.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:24:13 -0400
From: "Richard Cuff" <rdcuff@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: HBD #2488 comments - CO2
Darrell (<darrell@montrose.net>), in HBD #2488, posts about CO2
grades.
>>Bottom line: CO2 is CO2. The only differences in the gas industry
that
>>I know of are Medical Grade CO2 and Ultra High Purity CO2 for the
>>semiconductor industry.
>>These two grades of gas are simply tested for
>>purity, but typically come from the same source that the
>>beverage/welding/industrial grade comes from. This is usually the
case
>>with Argon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen as well. Industrial grade oxygen
and
>>Medical grade oxygen cylinders both get filled from the same bulk
liquid
>>tank.
- -- -- --
Having worked for an industrial gas producer for 11 years, and having
spent 10 years supplying goods & services to the semiconductor
industry, I'll amplify Darrell's comments a bit.
CO2 isn't used much in semiconductor manufacturing, but his comments
on CO2 are on the mark. CO2 use in food is primarily in the
cryogenic - liquid - form, for use in food freezing.
For the other gases, there are often additional purification steps
done for the semiconductor ultrapure grades of gas, in addition to
vapor withdrawal from a storage tank's headspace. There are also
special packaging, storage, and transportation procedures to keep
impurities to the parts per billion or parts per trillion level.
For many industrial applications, there are new membrane separation
techniques used in bulk supply settings for instances when purity
requirements can be relaxed. However, I don't know of any cylinder
filling plants using membrane separated feedstock.
For medical grade O2, as well as breathing air, the main impurity to
watch out for is CO - carbon monoxide. A few lungsful of CO can mess
up one's day.
Sorry for the diversion from brewing. Control of your monitor has
now been released.
Richard Cuff
Lutherville, MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 09:48:37 MDT
From: guym@Exabyte.COM
Subject: Re: Airstones in kegs
Guy Mason <guy@adra.com> writes:
> I'd like to hear from anyone out there that uses an airstone to
> carbonate
> their kegged beer. How do you set it up? Is it worth the money?
> Easy to use? etc.
Guy,
I have one of "The Stone" stones that I have occasionally used in my
kegs to carbonate mainly stouts. It is easy to use (though not as
easy as not using it) but, as for being "worth the money", I don't
know. The end result is carbonation and, as has been discussed here
many times, carbonation is carbonation regardless of the source
(forced vs. "natural", corn sugar vs. malt extract vs. kraeusening,
etc.) The bubbles formed by the stone are certainly fine and perhaps
"creamy" but, since you don't (usually) just tilt the keg up and drink
from it like a glass, they wind up dissolving into the beer line any
other CO2 bubble. I don't notice a difference once it hits the glass.
I'm thinking of getting an O2 setup and using the stone for aeration
of the wort prior to pitching where I *know* it will make a
difference.
Guy McConnell /// Huntersville, NC /// guym@exabyte.com
"Now I wish I was somewhere other than here.
Sittin' in some honky tonk, sippin' on a beer..."
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:17:05 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Nitrogen Dispensing: Does it ruin a beer?
Hi all,
John posted about the lack of aroma and flavor in a widget can of
Guinness. This got me thinking about Nitro dispensing in general.
I've noticed that some of my area brewpubs are now serving several of
their beers in the manner of Guinness: Nitro mix with a restrictor on
the faucet. This knocks the CO2 out of the beer and creates fine
bubbles, giving the beer a dense head and creamy mouthfeel.
To my senses, it also deadens the aroma (and therefore flavor) of the
beer. My theory (which is mine) is that with much of the CO2 knocked
out of the beer, the volatiles either go with it or are not carried to
your nose by the CO2, making it difficult to perceive the beer's
character. Kind of a neat way to serve all-malt, dark brews with
little character to offend the masses.
Has anybody else noticed this problem with beers served in this
manner? Is anybody slightly offended by the unnatural character that
this serving technique creates? I guess that all CAMRA members would
be, but what about the rest of the homebrewing world?
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:17:09 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: pub draught Guinness
John Goldthwaite says:
> Recently was catching the Jazz Mandolin Project and a friend
> bought me a pub draught. This is the first time I had tried
> one of the newfangled cans. To tell the truth, it was awful.
> No mouthfeel,no roasted anything, watery and lame. It had
> some hop bitterness, but that was it. I assume this is due to
> the Americanization factor, but I sure wish the folks at
> Guinness would just send us their original Irish formulation
> instead of the weak stuff I tried.
Well, before you go dissing the pub draught cans, you need to be aware
that there's actually more than one kind of Guinness Stout. Draught
Guinness is designed to be a "session beer", and is actually fairly
light (in body, not in color). Even in Ireland. (I just returned from
a trip to Ireland less than 2 weeks ago.) The stuff you get in the
bottles -- Guinness Extra Stout -- is a different animal.
Ever noticed that when a bartender makes up a "Black and Tan", the
draught Guinness goes *on the top*? That's because its final gravity is
*lower* than the stuff in the bottom half of the glass (Bass Ale,
typically).
Though I've never done an actual side-by-side comparison, I'd venture
that the stuff in the widget cans is not too far off the mark, relative
to draught Guinness...
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@mcs.net ==
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:25:18 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: Danstar dry yeast
I haven't used Danstar at all, but after 2 years of exclusive Wyeast
use, I decided several batches ago to try out some Cooper's dry yeast
in the gold foil packs. Just for the heck of it, I though. Well, 5
batches
later and I'm still using it. It produces a very clean beer, even at
the
higher temperatures I get in the summer (24C). In fact, when I pitch
2 packs of the stuff I get signs of fermentation within 2 or 3 hours,
and
the ferment is almost completed 24 hours after that.
This stuff goes like a bat out of hell!
Needless to say I've been very impressed. Coming up soon I'm going
to do a couple of parallel 10 gallon batches pitching the Cooper's into
5 gallons, and my favorite Wyeast into the other.
I'll be certain to report my findings to r.c.b. and to here.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Technologies
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 12:30:44 CDT
From: Brian Bliss <brianb@microware.com>
Subject: Re: wood alcohol
Jacques Gauthier" <Jacquesg@CAM.ORG> writes:
>Are there other fruits/vegetables/grains which have
>a similar danger of producing wood alcohol ? (I
>find the process of wine/beer making interesting
>however I don't want to lose my sight over it).
Don't worry - Nutrasweet contains enough methanol
(wood alcohol) that half of yuppie America will
be blind in 10 years, so you won't be alone...
bb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:29:06 -0400
From: haafbrau1@juno.com
Subject: On MLD
Once again, thanks to everyone who helped on the MLD quest. Thanks Dick
Dunn, for taking my case to heart, and going to the effort of manually
letting me in. I'm sure I'll be able to relay any messages for posting
to someone who can actually make the post.
Right now I've got a cherry/raspberry ale fermenting (sorry no wheat
this time). Any suggestion for a name? Private e-mail OK.
Paul Haaf
haafbrau1@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:15:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Re: off flavors
Greetings to all, and especially Richard from HOMEBREW Digest #2488:
:From: Richard Levenberg <richardl@Adobe.COM>
...
:My question is there a good way to taste the extremes of the tastes
:that an off beer will have ( without poisoning yourself ) without
:becoming a judge.
Charlie Papazian's book Homebrewer's Companion has (I think in an
appendix) a list of ways to dose a typical commercial brew to simulate
off aromas/flavors, e.g. add citric acid for one type of sourness.
WARNING: most of these are POISONOUS. Some can be drunk, some just
tasted and spat out, some just smelled. The book says which.
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:21:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bret A. Schuhmacher" <bas@healthcare.com>
Subject: Need a mail-order firm with lots of features
I need a mail order firm with lots of good features. I like Hoptech
for some things, but not for others. I like Williams Brewing for some
things, but other things they do seem stupid.
I'm looking for a mail order firm that does/has the following:
1) reasonable prices - wyeast < $4.00/pack, used 5 gal kegs < $25
2) free shipping over $40-$50
3) Web site/free catalog. Takes orders via the web or email and
*checks their email daily*. Ideally I'd like to be able to track my
order via the web like Williams lets you do, but this isn't a huge
deal if they acknowledge my order and/or send me a UPS waybill number
when they ship it.
4) sells malt extract in custom quantities (i.e. if I want to by 7.5#,
that's what they charge me for. I don't like William's prepackaged 6#
bags). LME should be about $1.80/#.
5) Sells different quantities of hops. I don't like Hoptech's 8oz
bags - how the hell do I keep the rest fresh for the next month or so?
I've been to the brewery and seen the mail order list and I've
searched far and wide, but I've not been able to find a decent mail
order place that does all the above. I used to like St. Patricks of
Texas, but they don't check their email and they suck over the phone.
Got any suggestions? I'd rather not split orders between two places
(how else am I gonna get free shipping? :-)), but I may have to.
Thanks in advance!
Bret Schuhmacher
3 Stupid Dogs Brewery
- --
"I drink to make other people interesting."
-- George Jean Nathan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:43:08 -0400
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis@harvard.edu>
Subject: SS Keg/Drilling
What would be the best way to drill a 1.25" hole in the side of a stainless
steel 1/4 keg? This in order to convert keg to an electric boiler w/
submerged heating elements a la Ken Schwartz's "plastic electric brewery"
(sans plastic).
Private email is fine.
TIA,
************************************************************
Andrew J. Stavrolakis
Controller
LASPAU: Academic and Professional Programs for the Americas
25 Mount Auburn Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
phone:617-495-0543
fax: 617-495-8990
email:Andrew_Stavrolakis@harvard.edu
http://www.laspau.harvard.edu
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2490, 08/22/97
*************************************
-------
