Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2516
HOMEBREW Digest #2516 Sun 28 September 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:
Um. "Oops" (Homebrew Digest)
Keg lagering (Terry L. Dornbos)
Reimbursement Legality (Greg_T._Smith)
Converting a Water Cooler to a Fermentation Closet (TheTHP)
Converting Extract to All-Grain (KennyEddy)
Re: gushing, part II (Sheena McGrath)
AHA Stuff/Fermentation freezer in winter (RANDY ERICKSON)
Lauter Tun Design (Mike Hughes)
Re-using Yeast (Mallett,Mark)
mashing pale ale malt - general questions (Dave Riedel)
"modern well modified malts" confusion (Tim Martin)
re: A third batch goes down ("Michael E. Dingas")
HBD at GABF at Falling Rock (Mark Tumarkin)
Film on beer (Hamish Gregor)
filtered beer started fermenting ("Jowe .")
O2 (David Root)
defrost timers (Forrest Duddles)
How to help my extract brother ("Alan McKay")
Potential modification test ("David R. Burley")
Hot Rocks (David S Draper)
Principles of Brewing Science "as mg/L CaCO3" calcs wrong? ("Brian Dixon")
Re: rate of recirculation (Mike Uchima)
MPLS information (Craig Rode)
Re: Steinbrew Question (John Adams)
Cider (Kit Anderson)
Steinbeer ("Grant W. Knechtel")
Re: Cider (Aaron A Sepanski)
Getting the Pb Out/ First All-Grain Q's (John Palmer)
Re: California Common Beer (brian_dixon)
Hop Profiles (Robert J Haines)
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: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 22:03:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: Homebrew Digest <hbd@brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: Um. "Oops"
<Blush><Fidget>Um, anyone who tried to subscribe to the
<Gulp>Digest</Gulp> on Friday will <Eyes_Down>have to do so
again</Eyes_Down>. <Sorry>I, um, accidentally deleted the list of new
subscribers.</Sorry></Fidget></Blush>
Cheers!
The Home Brew Digest Janitorial Staff
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:24:59 -0400
From: homebru@juno.com (Terry L. Dornbos)
Subject: Keg lagering
In #2511, Rich Hampo responds about burping lagering kegs:
>When I lager in a soda keg, I just use an airlock. It is very easy:
>Just take off the gas in fitting, take out the poppet, and put the
>fitting back. Get some short (1/2 - 1") pieces of thick tubing of
>various diameters and build up an adapter from the airlock OD to >the
poppet ID.
Why do all of this? Just remove the pressure relief valve from the
lid (mine are held on with a removeable nut), get a drilled rubber
stopper (don't know the number but the size that fits a bottle....you
probably already have one on hand) and insert it into the lid along with
the airlock. It's a whole lot easier.
Homebru@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 97 11:05:32 EDT
From: Greg_T._Smith@notes.pw.com
Subject: Reimbursement Legality
Greetings again.
Several organizations have asked me to brew some beer for them.
I know it's illegal to sell homebrew, but they have offered to
reimburse my ingredient expenses. I will be making no profit,
only receiving reimbursement for my actual expenses (grain, hops,
etc.). No 'labor costs' will be charged. Is this legal?
It will probably be reported on an actual expense report of some
sort, otherwise, I probably would not ask.
As always, thanks for your responses, and private e-mail is fine...
Greg
Greg Smith
BarnBrew Brewing Co.
Claryville, NY
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:51:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: TheTHP@aol.com
Subject: Converting a Water Cooler to a Fermentation Closet
Dear Gageteers,
I have recently adopted a used bottled water fountian/chiller. Has anyone
converted the compressor in one of these to a closet lagering/fermentation
room?
Also to all you PICO owners what kind of mash utilization do you get? I am
borrowing one from the club, and cant seem to find out any utilization
numbers.
and finally I picked up a 2.5 gallon aluminium Falstaff keg for 3 buck at a
flee market, I think its missing a gasket. Anyone out there know anything
about these relic's?
Phil Wilcox
Poison Frog Home Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:57:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Converting Extract to All-Grain
John Ross asks about converting extract recipes to all-grain.
FIrst off, welcome to the HBD, John!
I have an article on my web page about converting all-grain to extract. When
going that direction, the challenge is to convert the grain recipe carefully
so that as much of the all-grain flavor and style is retained as possible.
But to go the other direction, there are different things to think about.
Because of the composition, production technique, and other characteristics
of extract, making an all-grain version that "tastes the same" is only truly
possible with a lot of experimentation, and in reality may be impossible. In
all likelihood, the all-grain version will taste noticibly different than the
extract version. The goal is to keep the converted recipe more or less in
line with regard to style and general character.
You can pretty safely assume that "pale extract" can be replaced by "pale
malt", at a rate of 1 lb grain for roughly every 3/4 lb syrup or 10 oz DME
(assuming 75% mash efficiency, pretty typical). Whether you use "pale ale"
malt, "two-row" malt, "lager" malt, or "pilsner" malt, depends on the style
you're brewing, and sometimes can be inferred from the extract you're
replacing (e.g., Munton & Fison English Pale Ale Extract would be best
replaced with pale ale malt, while Irek's Pilsner extract would be replaced
with a pilsner malt, etc.). Study samle recipes for the "style" you're
trying to brew.
"Amber" and "dark" extracts pose a problem: what is the source of the
coloring? The amber extract may be simply pale extract plus inert coloring,
or it could have a bit of roasted grain, or it could have crystal malt, or
who knows what else. The country of origin and the labelled "style" of
extract may be clues, but you'll never really know for sure. Again, the
style of the target beer can act as a guide as to how you replicate the color
of "amber" or "dark" extract.
The fact that some extracts aren't even 100% malt will throw another wrench
in the works in your attempt to "duplicate" an extract recipe.
Grains used in a true partial-mash can be used one-for-one, if the extraction
efficiency is comparable to a "real" mash. Partial-mash efficiency is
probably governed mostly by your equipment & process -- how much wort you
actually recover. If your experience shows your partial-mash technique
yields less than say 65% to 70% extraction efficiency, you might want to
decrease the partial-mash grain bill a bit to compensate (since all-grain
mashing using "typical" equipment is likely to be more efficient than this).
Similarly, any steeping grains called out in the extract recipe can be used
directly, but with the following in mind. Steeped malts almost always supply
considerably less extract than the same amount of malt when mashed. John
Palmer touched on this in a recent Brewing Techniques article, and there was
a follow-up in the next issue in a letter to the Troubleshooter (going from
memory here -- stand back!). So your 1/2 lb steeped Munich may supply the
same extract as only 4 - 6 oz in a mash would, but it's another "who knows"
situation. At such a low quantity, I'd say you could add the full 1/2 lb.
Your recipe:
3.3 lbs Muton & Fison Extra Light Syrup (unhopped/can)
4.0 lbs Alexander's Pale Malt Extract Syrup (unhopped/bulk)
0.5 lbs 7L Munich Malt (grains)
I don't know anything in particular about these extracts, so the following is
pretty much guesswork, but illustrates the thinking process you might use in
converting the recipe.
The M&F extract, being English, might be best replaced by "pale ale" alt,
though the "extra light" appelation might lean me more toward regular two-row
or pilsner malt. The Alexander's extract could be substituted with
plain-vanilla two-row, though again its reputation as a very pale extract
warrants a look at pilsner malt. Failing identification of the malt type
from the label, let the desired end-product style dicatate the type of malt
you'll use. Given all the foregoing conjecture, perhaps a 100% two-row or
pilsner malt bill is the best place to start.
An All-grain equivalent:
9.5 to 10 lb pale malt
1/2 lb Munich 7L
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:17:37 -0700
From: Sheena McGrath <sheena@gte.net>
Subject: Re: gushing, part II
Hello collective!
Thanks to everyone who sent me e-mail about my gushers. The problem is,
I'm still not really sure what happened. I did boil my priming sugar,
and the FG was 1.007 (from OG 1.060) when I bottled it. Mind you, I used
the yeast from Gale's Prize Old Ale, which is a real monster, and maybe
it still had some plans of its own about finishing. I wonder if anyone
else has used this yeast, and if so what you thought of it.
Thanks again for all the suggestions.
Sheena
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:43:21 -0700
From: RANDY ERICKSON <RANDYE@mid.org>
Subject: AHA Stuff/Fermentation freezer in winter
Like others here, I was pleased to see Brian Rezac's quick response to
the style guidelines concerns expressed recently. Certainly some at
AHA care and are working to make things better. That's good.
Brian however echoes a theme that Jim Parker has expressed over the
last few months, one that drives me nuts, namely, "Take it easy on us,
we're the new guys, the old guys were the evil ones, we're nothing like
they were".
I, for one, am going to reserve judgement a while longer. In the history of
politics, how many times have you heard "It's all the fault of the last
administration, this bunch of guys is entirely different"? How many times
did you believe it? How many times did it turn out to be true?
I believe the AHA's problems still lie at the top. Just yesterday, we heard
that AOB is dragging it's feet again this year in making the Form 990
information available to the public (last year bad folks - this year good
folks). I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation for why the Directors
must be appointed rather than elected. If I'm not mistaken, the AHA's "For
70 bucks you too can sell homebrew supplies out of the trunk of your
car without a license" trade association program is a product of the good
guys too.
Actions really do speak louder than words, and I will be watching for
action to see just how much improvement gets made. I will watch with
particular interest the development of the Masters Championship of
Amateur Brewing. This seems to be a great idea that truly has the
potential to advance the art of homebrewing. It will be interesting to see
if the AHA can keep their hands out of this worthwhile, albeit competing
effort. I have high hopes, but I remain a little skeptical.
*****************************************************
Ben Oconnor says that he doesn't think his Johnson Control thermostat
has a heat control circuit.
Which model do you have, Ben? I have the A19ABC-24, which I believe
is used in the Williams model, and it indeed is SPDT. It has both yellow
and blue terminals on the output (one for heat, one for cool). The spec
sheet for the A19 says that they make SPST and SPDT models, but it's
easy enough to check. If you have a SPDT controller, I would hook it up
to a power resistor or cabinet heater, or just use a lightbulb as long as
your carboys are protected from light.
I have heard that these units can cycle repeatedly as the heat/cool
functions battle each other (my garage hasn't droped below 80 degrees
since I bought my freezer, so I haven't added that feature yet). If it's
really cold where you live this winter, you could alwyas just keep the
freezer unplugged.
Randy Erickson
Modesto, California
randye@mid.org
Stanislaus Hoppy Cappers
c/o Barley & Wine, Ceres, CA
www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Delta/1970/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 10:33:10 -0700
From: Mike Hughes <mikehu@synopsys.com>
Subject: Lauter Tun Design
Fellow mash-maniacs -
Brewing Techniques has an excellent article on lauter tun design in
their latest issue. However, the author recommends turning the slots in
the copper pipe manifold design to face UPWARDS. He says that this will
prevent channeling along the floor of the lauter tun. My question is
this - how many of you use this method? I've always faced my slots down,
thinking that this would provide the best filtering. It would be nice to
see how many of you have the slots facing up, and how well this has
worked for you. (do you get better efficency with them facing up? Have
you noticed more stuck sparges with them facing up vs. down? Any
problems getting the wort to run clear?) The more I think about it, the
more sense it seems to make to face them up. (If you get channeling
along the floor of the tun, the wort will tend to enter into the
manifold in greater quantities at one or more points, instead of equally
across the entire manifold.) I'm a little concerned that the clarity of
my run-off will suffer with the slots facing up. (I usually get clear
run-off after recirculating around a quart of wort, with the slots
facing down) So, what do you all think about this?
Mike H.
Portland, Or
Double-Barrel Brew Pub
------------------------------
Date: 25 Sep 97 19:12:24 GMT
From: mallem60@wales.bbc.co.uk (Mallett,Mark)
Subject: Re-using Yeast
Re-using Yeast.
I have been re-using yeast from previous brews for several years.
For the last year I have been keeping a yeast passed to me from a
friend who visited the Fuller's Brewery in London and obtained a live
sample of their yeast.
The principle is to get the cleanest yeast without infection.This can be
done by racking the beer into a second closed fermenter after the
primary fermentation has subsided,leaving the majority of trubb
behind. Leave the beer to clear and rack into barrel or keg. Stir up
the yeast in the second vessel and pour it into a sterilised bottle for
storage in a fridge.The bottle may need vent from time to time to
avoid excessive build-up of gas. Then simply pour the live yeast
into your next brew.I have kept yeast in storage for a couple of
months with out any problems.I usually get about a pint of yeast from
a 5 gal brew. Cheers, Mark Mallett (UK)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:31:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL@ios.bc.ca>
Subject: mashing pale ale malt - general questions
In the wake of the running debate about 122F rests, I'd like to pose a
couple of *much* simpler questions regarding the mashing process in general.
I'm new to all-grain brewing (7 batches thus far). In the interest of simply
learning the process with minimal complications, I have only done single step
infusion mashes with a mash-out. For the first two batches I used Canadian
Malting 2-row, but the subsequent 5 batches were based on Hugh Baird Pale Ale
malt. In the 2-row beers, there were obvious haze problems - this seems
understandable with a single temp mash: too many HMW proteins. However, it
is my understanding that typical British pale ale malts do not require or
aren't really designed to need a protein rest (of, say, 135F) [Miller - the
Homebrewer's Guide]. For this reason, I expected the PA malt beers to be
clearer than the 2-row efforts- they aren't. Is a lower temperature rest
of 135-138F required for British pale ale malts too?
This leads me to another question regarding the Fix mash schedule of 40/60/70.
I was under the impression that this schedule was designed for 2-row malts.
I am correct on this, or would it also be well suited to pale ale malts?
BTW, I'm not a clarity freak. I'm not after 'brilliant', just 'clear'. So,
please don't suggest filtering. I believe the problem lies in the mash.
cheers,
Dave Riedel
Victoria, BC, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 17:15:44 -0400
From: Tim Martin <TimMartin@southwest.cc.nc.us>
Subject: "modern well modified malts" confusion
Hey Neighbors,
After two years of mashing only Pale Ale malts using single infusion, I
have to admit that I have some fear of using all the other grains that are
available to me. I often see the terms "modern malts" or "well modified"
used here but never a reference to which one are modern or modified
except Pale Ale. In all my reading I have yet to find these malts listed in
this manner. Sometimes I feel like everyone knows except me.
In George Fix's recent post he states "we used some well modified
(what else is there these days!) Pilsner malt in the following mash:" So I
was delighted to learn the Pilsner malt is also well modified. So, if almost
all malts are modern and well modified which ones are not?
The other part of the malt puzzle that confuses me is, can I single infuse
all modern well modified malts or just Pale Ale malts? I'm not opposed to
doing multiple step infusions, in fact, that is one of my goals this coming
brew season that I want to try. It's just that I'm not sure which one I can
get away with by doing a single infusion. And I can't tell you how
confused I am with all the 122 dF stuff. All the different temperatures
alone is enough to keep me with the single infusion, I guess I scare easy.
Could someone please direct me to an archive site, literature, book or just
flat out tell me which malts are which?
Thank you,
Tim Martin
Cullowhee, NC
timmartin@southwest.cc.nc.us
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 16:59:07 -0400
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: A third batch goes down
I've only been brewing a short time but thought I'd contribute my =
opinion to the collective. First, and most importantly, why do you =
consider your beer a loss?
I accidently killed some dry yeast by rehydrating at too high a =
temperature on my last batch. Planning in advance, I keep several extra =
packages of yeast for just such an occasion. I tried again, repitched =
and achieved fermenation as expected. No loss there, just some =
additional wisdom.
I now use the temperature probe in my microwave to bring the temp back =
up to 100-105 degrees after cooling the boiled water. Works fine! Also, =
I've a friend who 'feeds' the rehydrated yeast a morsel of sugar to =
observe activity before pitching. No bubbles? He discards and tries =
another packet and avoids a lenghty wait.
I've no experience yet with liquid yeast so can't offer any advice.=20
mike d.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 20:56:42 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin@mindspring.com>
Subject: HBD at GABF at Falling Rock
Hi everyone,
I'm sure you all saw Brian Rezac's post about the available meeting site
for the HBD at the GABF at the Falling Rock. Hope it sounds as good to all
of you as it does to me. I especially like the fact that it will be
available to us throughout the entire festival. I will be in Denver for the
whole time but I'm sure that some will only be there for a day or two. This
will give us a better chance of meeting each other easily.
I hope you are all planning to bring some of your homebrew with you. The
HBD has always seemed to me to be a sort of CyBeerSpace homebrew club, but
without the face to face contact and without the opportunity to share each
other's brew. This will give at least some of us the chance to change that
for a short time.
I'm going to bring the following with me:
Scorned Lover - a Dark & Bitter Brew a hoppy "American" porter
Cat 5 Pale Ale - a Hurricaine Andrew Anniversery IPA
Summer Queen Hefeweizen
I plan on bringing these as carry on baggage in a carboard wine box, with a
little newspaper padding. Then I'll fill the box for the homeward trip with
22oz bottles of some of the great beers that are unfortunately unavailable
in Florida.
Partially, they are unavailable just because of distance and distribution
problems - but more directly they are unavailable because of the
restrictive bottle laws here in Florida. Hell, we can't buy anything in 22
oz bottles. Why? Because of bottle laws passed by the big brewing lobby
restricting sales to 12 oz, 16 oz, and quart bottles. All other sizes can
not be sold here. This cuts out many import and microbrews. They would have
us believe this is for our own protection, or because they don't want the
retailers to be forced to provide display space for the many odd sized
bottles. Yeah, like I really pity the store owner who would be forced to
find space for 750ml or 22 0z or 7 oz bottles. What an imposition it would
be to make him take my money for a bottle of Chimay or barleywine. Well,
rant mode off, I quess I got carried away there but it really is a PITA.
Hope to see you all in Denver,
Mark Tumarkin
The Brewery in the Jungle
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:55:47 +1000
From: Hamish Gregor <hgregor@hermes.net.au>
Subject: Film on beer
I would be grateful if some learned person in the erudite collective could
shed some light on the following.
My last two beers (all-grain pilsener styles) have developed a very slight
surface film during secondary fermentation as the gravity is dropping below
about 1.008 (that, at any rate, is when I have noticed it). This has had
no perceptible effect upon either the flavour or the aroma of the beer.
Nor has there been any effect on the appearance of the beer once served --
indeed, it has been clear enough to read fine print through. Nevertheless,
it is surely undesirable, if only on aesthetic grounds.
Hamish Gregor
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hgregor@hermes.net.au
Hamish Gregor
Hazelbrook, NSW, Australia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 02:12:15 PDT
From: "Jowe ." <jowe@hotmail.com>
Subject: filtered beer started fermenting
Recently I bought an old bottle of Kolsch. It didnt taste good because
it had oxidated. As I was just brewing a batch of beer, I scooped out
some wort to a soda bottle, chilled it and poured in some of the Kolsch.
I attached an airlock, and forgot all about it. About a week later the
beer started to bubble and after a few more days a big layer of...yeast?
had formed on the bottom of the bottle.
It seems as if some of the yeast has survived the filtering and/or
sterilization. Does this have anything to do with that it was an old
bottle (six months past the best-before date).
Has anyone else had similar experiences.
Can I use the yeast in my next batch, if it tastes good.
Best regards
Jonas W.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:47:50 -0400
From: David Root <droot@concentric.net>
Subject: O2
David Whitwell asks about Using welding 02. I use it with an aquarium
airstone. I just hold the hose onto the regulator where the hose for the
torches is supposed to hook up to. Set the regulator to about 10 Psi.
I use 3 15 second blasts for 10 gallons. I have to hold the stone down
onto the bottom because it floats up as soon as the O2 fills the hose and
stone. I asked at the welding supply store what the diff was from medical
o2 was, and they said sometimes they fill the medical form the welding
bottles. (they ar much bigger). It seems to woek for me. With a gallon
starter and o2, I have had one 12 to 24 hour ferment. The last batch
went from 1.051 on sunday eve to 1.010 on Thursday @ 65dF. I
switched to o2 because i was getting off flavors in the summertime from
aireating with regualr air.
David Root Lockport NY droot@concentric.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:57:58 -0400
From: Forrest Duddles <duddles@Imbecile.kzoo.edu>
Subject: defrost timers
Hi folks,
Mark Tumarkin brought up the subject of a failed defrost timer causing
problems in his upright refrigerator-freezer.
Many of the refrigerators today are "frost-free" meaning that they
periodically stop cooling and go through a defrost cycle to remove any
frost or ice buildup on the evaporator (cooling coil). These systems
generally use a fairly small, fan-assisted evaporator to provide cooling
for both the refrigerator and freezer sections which makes it easier to
contain and dispose of the water formed by the melting ice.
When the defrost timer calls for a defrost cycle the compressor shuts down
and the evaporator fan or fans stop. A heater or group of heaters are then
energized to aid in frost removal. When the defrost cycle is complete, the
heaters shut down, the compressor and fans restart, and things get cold again.
If you suspect a malfunctioning defrost heater (a common problem), see if
the timer has a manual advance feature. Many timers have a ramped
screwdriver slot on them to allow manually advancing through the defrost
cycle. If it does, gently advance the timer until it emits a "click". If
the timer was stuck in defrost, the compressor should start. If the
compressor runs but the refrigerator doesn't get cold, either the defrost
timer left the heaters energized or the problem is not related to the timer
at all.
Defrost timers are usually inexpensive - often under $20.
Although most commercial chest freezers are equipped with defrost timers,
most domestic units are not, so a cooling problem such as Eric describes is
probably not caused by a defrost timer.
Hope this helps!
Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo duddles@Imbecile.kzoo.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:22:35 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: How to help my extract brother
Hi folks,
My brother is an extract brewer who has absolutely no intention of going
grain.
So what I want to do is can up a bunch of 500ml bottles of wort for him
that he can
use to add to his extract beers for better head retention and flavour.
Now, I should
add here that my brother does use specialty grains like crystal and
chocolate.
What I was thinking of doing was simply a mash with a fairly high wheat
content,
probably 50/50 or even a bit more. But I'm not sure what sort of
mashing schedule
is going to be most useful to my brother. The idea is that he can take
one of these
500ml bottles and add it to his beer to improve it.
What would you folks suggest for a grain bill?
What about a mashing schedule?
thanks,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:11:20 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Potential modification test
Brewsters:
A recent attempt ( last few years) on my part
and by the entire industry for a century
to determine what is actually meant by
"modification" and how to measure it,
may have been "back-doored" by
George Fix in one of his recent posts.
You may remember that George noticed
that the refractive index of the wort
increased dramatically when holding
Pilsner Malt in the glucanase region 40C (104F).
He interpreted this as a lowering of the
gelatinization temperature of the barley starch.
I suggested that this was, in fact, just the
glucans being broken down by the
glucanases in this temperature region
as would be expected and the resultant
glucose residues going into solution,
giving rise to the increase in the refractive index.
His work triggered an idea in my bean
that this refractive index technique may
provide a simple method for at least
qualitatively (perhaps quantitatively)
evaluating the degree of modification of the malt,
since glucans contribute to the structure of the
malt grain and the more modified the malt
( and the fewer glucans), the softer and
more floury the grain.
Since the proteins undergo re-synthesis
continuously and reach equilibrium during
malting,it could be the glucan de-polymerization
which explains the observations that the
more highly modified malts are floury and
not as hard as the less modified malts. =
Being able to measure this idea directly
has not been easy, but fine-coarse milling
, malt grain friability, etc, have hinted at the
possible answer for more than a century.
It is possible to test this idea using the
refractometer and a hold in the 40C
region with finely milled malt.
I propose that the larger the increase
in the refractive index experienced for a
hold in this region, the LESS modified the malt.
The idea being that with less modified malts,
the less degraded are the glucans at the maltsters. =
The bigger the change ( when held long enough
to indicate no more can be formed) in the
refractive index upon holding at 40C, the
more glucans that are being broken down
during the brewing cycle. The more glucans
available at the brewers, the lower is the
modification of the malt. Thus, if this is
a valid concept, the *excursion* in the
refractive index on holding in the
glucanase region would decrease with
the increase in modification of the malt.
Some of the more highly roasted malts
may need to have glucanase containing malts =
added to carry out this evaluation. The =
contribution from this added malt by itself
can be corrected out of the change in the index =
Thus, the order would be Lager,
Pilsner ( which George used) and the
various of the more highly modified malts
like the Pale and then Pale Ales. =
This test should require only a minimal
amount of malt, since each refractive
index reading only requires a drop
of liquid and several malts could be
evaluated simultaneously. =
It would be useful to do this experiment
with a variety of malts as a function of hold
time at this temperature with finely milled malts. =
George can you do it??
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 08:48:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: David S Draper <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Hot Rocks
Dear Friends,
We've seen a few posts lately about making Steinbier, and questions
regarding what to use as the hot rocks. At last, my degree in igneous
petrology is useful here! Seriously, the suggestions to use very dense
and highly crystalline igneous or metamorphic rocks are right on. Those
have very little permeability (if relatively unfractured) and will be
least subject to falling apart, and can definitely take the heat. Don't
use sedimentary rocks like sandstone or shale because they will begin to
dehydrate and release volatiles into your beer that you almost certainly
don't want in there. Same goes for limestone-- not only will there be
decarbonation and dehydration taking place, but if pH gets too low the
rock will actually begin to dissolve (not too likely but why take a
chance?).
Regarding whether one could use other things, such as nuts and bolts or
ceramics, again I would urge caution, because these materials are
manufactured, not naturally occurring, and there may have been things
added during the manufacturing process that might be released at the high
temperatures used in this process. Ceramics in particular might contain
low melting-point compounds, depending on what they were intended for, and
if you get something like that you could have one hell of an unholy mess
on your hands.
So, get some high-grade metamorphic or highly crystalline igneous rocks
for this. If anyone who is interested wants some input via private mail
about what type of rocks they have, give me a shout and I'll be glad to
help out.
Cheers, Dave in Dallas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 07:29:51 -0700
From: "Brian Dixon" <mutex@proaxis.com>
Subject: Principles of Brewing Science "as mg/L CaCO3" calcs wrong?
In George Fix's book "Principles of Brewing Science", in the appendix, he
gives the following formula for expressing any particular molarity:
<<species>> = [species] M/L * 100.0892 g/M (CaCO3) * 1000 mg/L
Unit analysis shows that <<species>> will be in mg/L, and it'll be "as
CaCO3" because the molecular weight of CaCO3 was used (in the middle
above).
On page 15, equation (7), he states the following:
mg/L as CaCO3 = molarity * 10^3
According to my analysis, this is wrong and it should be 10^6 in the
equation above. Comments?
I thought this was an innocent typo until I saw on page 17 where he
calculates the mg/L of H+ and OH- as CaCO3 and he actually does use this
equation. In the example, a pH of 8 is given, and he finds:
<<OH->> = 10^-6 * 10^3 = 0.001 mg/L as CaCO3 for OH-
<<H+ >> = 10^-8 * 10^3 = 0.00001 mg/L as CaCO3 for H+
If the molarity were in mM/L, then his equation would work. I propose that
the equation and the example's calculations are wrong ... but could George
made such an obvious mistake? What am I missing here? This is an algebra
problem! (I find <<OH->> to be 0.1 mg/L CaCO3 and <<H+>> to be .001 mg/L
CaCO3.) Comments?
TIA,
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:42:18 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@mcs.net>
Subject: Re: rate of recirculation
Doug Moyer asks:
> (2) When you are recirculating the wort for clarity, does it matter how
> fast you run off the liquid? With my setup, I can probably get a gal/min
> with the valve wide open. Would that be a bad idea?
It's possible that this will compact the grain bed, resulting in a slow
(or stuck) sparge. In practice, it might work OK, unless you've got a
mash containing a lot of wheat malt or sticky adjuncts. I'd suggest
trying it on your next few batches; if you get acceptable clarity, and
it doesn't cause any stuck sparges, I see no reason not to do it.
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@mcs.net ==
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:15:36 -0500
From: Craig Rode <Craig.Rode@sdrc.com>
Subject: MPLS information
I'm moving from Milwaukee to Minneapolis in a couple of months. Any
information regarding clubs and shops would be greatly appreciated.
Private email please.
Craig Rode (Formerly Milwaukee Brewer)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:21:38 -0600
From: John Adams <j_adams@fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Steinbrew Question
C&S Peterson wrote:
> Also, I wonder that if these objects were left in the boil for 60-90
> minutes, wouldn't that be sufficient to dissolve the carmels sticking
> to their surfaces?. I would prefer such a process so that I didn't
> have to store the carmelizing objects to later be tossed into the
> secondary.
The primary flavor contributor for this style has less to do with using
hot rocks than it does re-introducing the carmelized sugars back into
the secondary AFTER the fermentation has taken place (the rocks are
simply a slick/traditional method to acheive this result).
These carmelized sugars are then introduced into the beer to add
sweetness without being affected by the fermentation. The flavor tends
to be 'raw sweetness' and different than you will get by adding candy
sugars (or crystal malts) into the wort when boiling.
- --
John Adams
KROC WBF '97 Director
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 11:13:03 -0700
From: Kit Anderson <kitridge@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Cider
Rick Gontarek asks how to avoid getting dry overcarbonated cider.
Try a clean ale yeast. 1056, maybe.
- --
Kit Anderson ICQ# 2242257
Bath, Maine Greetings From Northeast Texas
<kitridge@bigfoot.com> http://web0.tiac.net/users/garhow/kit/
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:44:55 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Steinbeer
C&S Peterson wrote in part:
"Thanks to George, I too am curious to try a hot rock brew. In reading some of
the suggestions for technique and material, I was wondering if there could be
some sort of substitute product for the rock. Would some sort off stainless
steel objects (nuts/bolts) or ceramic pieces (smash an old coffee cup?) be
used instead? Will such objects be able to take the 500 degree heat? Clearly
the object of hot-rocking your wort is to create some caramelized sugars on the
surface of the object."
The key here is whether the objects can take the heating/cooling cycle (in
acidic liquid) without shattering or leaching undesirable materials into the
wort. I suspect most ceramics or glasses couldn't take the stress. Metal, even
stainless steel, could leach excessively under the circumstances, and you'd need
5 pounds or so. I plan to try nice, sound, unweathered quartzite or
fine-grained volcanic cobbles. The problem for me will be finding a lagering
vessel with large enough opening for the caramelized rocks - maybe Santa will
bring some corny kegs and CO2 bottle for Christmas...
-Grant
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 12:13:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Aaron A Sepanski <sepan001@uwp.edu>
Subject: Re: Cider
I too Wanted to try a cider this year. My plans were a little different
than yours. I think it is necessary to boil the cider. Especially in
light of the recent out breaks of E. coli that have occured in the midwest
at least. You just can't be sure these days. I would bring the cider to
a boil for about ten minutes, and chill like you would wort. Make a
starter. Apples have there own natural bacteria on/in them, which may or
may not harm the finished product. This explains some of your bottling
problems.
I also think it necessary to force carbonate sweeter ciders. Here is my
reasoning. What makes sweet ciders sweet, is sugar, sugar from the apples
specifically. Apple sugar is %100 fermentable by yeast. If you want a
sweet cider, you are going to have to be a winemaker. You have to take
gravity readings frequently. When you get your desired sweetness, you add
to your carboy a compound called potasium sorbate. This kills all the
yeast, leaving some residual sweetness. Then simply age and enjoy. Age
under pressure to protect your delicious cider.
What do you think of my hypothesies?
Aaron
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 10:13:14 -0700
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Getting the Pb Out/ First All-Grain Q's
Hi Group,
Jeff Hewit asked about the process for getting the surface lead off
brass parts, and wanted to know why the solution turned blue. To
review: Brass parts contain a small amount of lead that facilitates
machining, the surface of the brass part tends to have a thin film of
lead on it that could dissolve off into our beer. To remove that lead,
soak the parts in a 2:1 volume solution of White Distilled Vinegar to
Hydrogen Peroxide for a few minutes until the parts turn buttery gold.
Then remove and rinse them. The surface lead has thus been removed and
barring corrosion, are essentially lead free.
But! if the solution turns blue, then the copper has started to
dissolve, and this exposes more lead to the surface. The parts need to
be re-soaked in a fresh solution. There are home lead test kits
available from hardware stores that let you test for lead glaze on
pottery. These swabs can tell you if you have succeeded in removing the
surface lead. And besides, when all is said and done, we are talking
about a tiny amount of lead here. Milligrams, maybe.
**
Doug Moyer asked a couple questions relating to my Column in Brewing
Techniques:
1. He asked whether the manifold slots should face up like I
recommended or down to get that last bit of wort.
Down or Up is a long debated question. As I said in the article, there
is a propensity for the wort and sparge water to be drawn along the
smooth walls of the tun to the manifold instead of thru the grainbed
like we want. How big that propensity is, is hard to say. Lots of
factors. I would say that the risk of poor extraction due to channeling
is greater than the loss of a few ounces of prime wort. Someone should
do an experiment sometime I guess. FWIW, I used to have my slots facing
down for the majority of my mashing and only lately have changed it. Due
to different recipes, I cant say whether one method is more effective
than the other or not. My recommendation was based on theory.
2. Does it matter how fast you drain the wort when recirculating?
I think the only risk with the valve wide open is sucking grain into the
manifold and clogging it. Instead of settling the grainbed, you would
be setting it. If it doesnt clog, then your speed was probably okay.
The other possibility is sucking grain into and out the valve, making
the wort not clear very fast. It will depend on the size of your
plumbing. Mine is 3/8 ID and even with it wide open, I am not taxing the
inflow of my manifold ie, not sucking grain in to meet the flow demand.
John Palmer jjpalmer@realbeer.com
Metallurgist
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 97 10:15:16 -0700
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: California Common Beer
[ snip! Stuff about similar SG's and identical hop profiles and how an
all-grain versus an adjunct (maize) California Common, or Steam, beer
came out with different perceptions of bitterness removed ]
There's a couple of possible answers, but I doubt anyone can be
conclusive in the answer without really taking a careful look at your
crush, mash, and sparging. And even then it'd be hard to say for sure.
I expect that what we are talking about here is a) what _other_
bittering agents may have ended up in the beer, and very importantly, b)
what flavor/chemical interactions in the beer are affecting the
bitterness perception. According to George Fix in "Principles of
Brewing Science" in his section on hops, things like tannins can
interact with the alpha- and beta-acid perceptions in the beer. Also,
since the growth and fermentation chemical pathways for the yeast were
different due to the recipes being different, changes to the hop
constituents in the beer occurred in different ways by the yeast and
yeast products, and this will of course affect how the beer's flavor
perceptions turned out. Finally, it's also likely that since the
all-grain recipe added a different mineral profile to the brew than the
adjunct recipe did, you probably are experiencing some different ion-hop
flavor interactions also. George states that the most non-understood
area of brewing is what gets extracted from the hops and how those
extracted components interact with all the other things in the wort
during fermentation. I guess the bottom line is that your IBU's were
probably similar in both brews, but because of all the things that
change chemically from one recipe to another, the perceptions of
bitterness (and other things as you mention) changed along with the
recipe. Nobody can give you a chemically definative answer, but at
least the general reasons are known.
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 13:28:17 EDT
From: bjhaines@juno.com (Robert J Haines)
Subject: Hop Profiles
In HBD 2515. Adam Fisher (return address completely
confusing to me) writes:
<<A several month's ago someone posted a Hop Table that was spread
out across a few HBDs. I want to add this to a Web Page but can't
remember
the name of the person who sent it. Since I want to give proper credit I
was
looking for the person who sent it out. Can anyone help me?>>
Adam, the original poster was John Goldthwaite; his address was
"IR358 (AT) Cleveland (DOT) Freenet (DOT) EDU".
The info was originally compiled by one of the HB suppliers ... I think
Carlson. Searching the archives for John's name or address will
probably let you zoom in on the post. I also posted a version to
rec.crafts.brewing, so you might be able to find it by searching the
newsgroup and/or DejaNews.
Bob Haines
BJHAINES@JUNO.COM (preferred)
or BJHAINES@AOL.COM
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2516, 09/28/97
*************************************
-------
