Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2527
HOMEBREW Digest #2527 Fri 10 October 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:
water, sparging, kettles (korz)
Second Sedimentation in the Bottle (Nathan Moore)
call for entries, judges, stewards ... (Tom Fitzpatrick)
Homebrew book ("Alan McKay")
How to win a contest // Styles / Alan Moen (Don H Van Valkenburg)
Easy-masher vs Phil's ("Alan McKay")
First Runnings (Danny Breidenbach)
Re: Californian Seeking Sunbeams (Sheena McGrath)
a better way to control foam from keg ("Jens B. Jorgensen")
Re: precision hydrometer calibration (LaBorde, Ronald)
Malt Modification (CC)
Lager malts, references on feurlic acid (George J Fix)
Yeast starter (korz)
Re: New Subscriber (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
FW: New Subscriber/Yeast Starter ("Darren W. Gaylor")
RE: pressure cooking wort ("Rich, Charles")
First All-Grain: Dark Mild (Andrew Ager)
Re: Even more all grain ramblings (brian_dixon)
GABF Winners and Thanks ("Brian M. Rezac")
Re: Water analysis (brian_dixon)
Science or Art (2 more cents) (Headduck)
Pilsner Urquell ("Charles L. Ehlers")
Re: Pitted Carboys ("Mark S. Johnston")
Bread Recipe ("Michael E. Dingas")
Bottling with Honey and the Science of brewing ("Michael E. Dingas")
Re:Pressure cooking wort problems ("Layne and Katrise")
Readers and conributors outside USA (Luke.L.Morris)
simple cider questions ("Bruce Baker")
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: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:17:56 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: water, sparging, kettles
Matt--
>1) My local water supply is quite heavily chlorinated. More so than other towns
>I've lived in. Will simply heating it to mash temps drive off most of the
>chlorine or will I need to briefly boil it? I do have a Brita pitcher, but it
>would take a small amount of forever to get enough water through it. I don't
>want Clorox Pale Ale.
If it's chlorine, then boiling will drive it off quickly. Our Chicago
water is very highly chlorinated and I have not noticed any chlorophenolics
in all but one batch (I think it was an infection). If your water
supplier uses chloramines, then you need to filter it through charcoal.
You have to call and ask.
>2) Could someone PLEASE very simply tell me what the difference between fly and
>batch sparging is? What I thought about doing is just adding all the sparge
>water to the mash (carefully) to maintain a couple inches of water over the
>grain. Advantages/disadvantages?
Fly sparging is continious... trickle water in, trickle wort out. Batch
sparging is: drain, fill, stir, wait, drain, fill, stir, wait, drain.
Theoretically, fly sparging is more efficient, but if you have channeling
(who doesn't) batch sparging could be as, or even more, efficient. It
all depends on how much channeling you have in your system.
>3) I have a five gallon brewpot so I was either going to do a four gallon batch
>or do a partial boil. I know there was some discussion and tips recently about
>partial boils with all-grain brewing. I tried to search for it but was
>unsuccessful. Can someone point me in the right direction?
Can you borrow a 10-gal pot for the day? How about another 5 gallon kettle
and split your hops between the two kettles? You need to take at least
6.5 gallons of runnings and then boil that down to 5.5 gallons (you'll
lose 1/2 gallon to hops and cold break) to get 5 gallons in the fermenter.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:18:17 -0600 (MDT)
From: Nathan Moore <moorent@bechtel.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: Second Sedimentation in the Bottle
I just produced an extremely tasty American Amber. It has been in
conditioning for about 3 weeks now and I have dropped the temp down to
about 58 C. When I went to grab a beer yesterday (from a clear bottle)
there was a second layer of dark sediment on top of the usual white
sediment. This stuff is particularly anoying because as soon as you pick
a bottle up it stirs into the beer and ruins my otherwise clear beer. I
could pick up no off tastes and this beer has a head you can set a dime
on. Does anyone have any suggestions to the problem or cure. I've
already reduced the temp to lagering levels to see if that will help
settle.
Below is my recipe, it is a great beer and even people that dont
like intense beers realy like the full hop character. The hop aroma is
heavenly with a complex maltiness in the finish and a intense hop
spiciness at the start. When the beer gets a little warmer you can detect
an almost all-spice flavor in the middle. I'm including the recipe here
to see if it can help solve my problems and also to encorage hop heads to
go for it.
3rd Carboy Ale
(sorry no gravity readings, I lost my hydrometer)
5 gal
.5 lb wheat malt
.5 lb Munich
1 lb vienne
1 lb home toasted 6-row
7.5 lb Crisp Maris Otter
.15 lb roasted barley
1 lb caravienne
1.5 ounce Perle (60min)
.5 Perle (25min)
1.7 Mt. Hood (10min)
.5 Cascade (10min)
.6 Mt. Hood (1min)
1.5 Cascade (dry 1 week)
!!!!!!!!!note-over 4 ounces of finishing hops!!!!!
pinch of irish moss at 8min
Wyeast 1056
Single infusion at 155 C
Bottled with 3/4 cup corn sugar
Thanks all, and may the GABF live forever
Nathan Moore
Denver, CO
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:22:07 -0500
From: Tom Fitzpatrick <fitz@FNAL.GOV>
Subject: call for entries, judges, stewards ...
The Chicago Beer Society presents:
Spooky Brew Review 1997
A BJCP registered homebrew competition
October 25th, 1997 at Prairie Rock
Brewing Co., Elgin, IL
Entries accepted October 11th to 18th.
Enter to win one (or more!) of our
festive Halloween ribbons.
Simple entry forms, no full recipes
required!
Judges, sign up early for category
preferences;
See http://www.mcs.com/~shamburg/cbs/spooky97.html
for complete details and forms, or contact
Tom Fitzpatrick at fitz@fnal.gov or (630) 840-3230.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:32:50 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: Homebrew book
Michael Rose asks about the new homebrew book, presumedly the one
written by Al Korzonas.
I haven't been around HBD all that long myself, so don't take my own
words
as law by any stretch of the imagination. But my own feeling is that
this forum
is a great place to discuss such things. I've been a regular on
rec.crafts.brewing
for a couple of years now, and do know that books are often discussed
over there.
I'm currently obtaining a copy of Al's book and will be reviewing it for
my
homepage at :
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
Keep your eyes peeled for it in the next month or so. I'll make another
announcement here when my review is complete.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:55:03 -0700
From: steinfiller@juno.com (Don H Van Valkenburg)
Subject: How to win a contest // Styles / Alan Moen
Brew it BIG and brew it hoppy.
It wasn't a big surprised to me that a triple won the Pacific Cup
recently. Nor was it a big surprise that the Orange County fair best of
show was won by a barley wine two years in a row. BTW, these two
examples of winners I have mentioned are excellent beers and I would not
turn down a glass of either one. However, when was the last time you
saw a mild win best of show??
I have seen beers that were on the higher gravity side for their category
win in that category or beers that had a little more hops than the style
required also win in their category. I must confess that a recent winner
of mine that took first place in a local contest was pushing the envelope
for gravity in that style. These facts only point to the subjective
nature of contests and the relevance of styles in contests. Judges are
after all only human and respond to alcohol and hops. Thus if you want
to win a contest, brew it BIG and brew it HAPPY. Brew it OUTSIDE the
styles guidelines.
Emulating a specific style is an exercise in ones technical brewing skill
and only tests ones ability to use a brew calculator. It is not a
necessarily test of creativity by any measure. I believe that using
styles guidelines are only helpful for contest organizers who simply want
to judge similar beers together, but when it comes to creativity, look
to the open category.
What would happen if we had a contest where beers were categorized
according to their starting gravity within two major sub-groups; ales
and lagers? And---beers were given points for creativity. Just one
idea.
In regards to Alan Moan's column, after getting past that outrageous
opening statement about style guidelines defining the playing field --I
must say I agreed with his first few paragraphs about labeling of
commercial brews. Using historical styles guidelines to label commercial
brews gets in to truth in labeling and has some validity. But when it
comes to art being analogous with brewing we depart company. The visual
arts are always trying to break the mold to push the envelope. It is the
job of the artist to create and the job of the art critic to categorize
and describe what the artist has just created.
Don Van Valkenburg
steinfiller@juno.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:52:24 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay@nt.com>
Subject: Easy-masher vs Phil's
When I started doing all-grain, I was using a home-made version of the
EZ-Masher
in a 5 gallon Gott. It was essentially identical to the commercial one.
After a while
I cobbled together my own circular manifold for the bottom of the Gott.
In switching
over to the new manifold, my extraction immediately jumped from about
70% to about
75%. All other variables were the same. Recently I've had the
opportunity to use a
Phil's, and find I get about the same as my manifold.
Of course, this is but one data point. As Al Korzonas' article in the
Zymurgy 1995
all-grain special issue points out, all of the sparging devices he
tested were roughtly
the same. My mileage obviously differs from his, but then again, I
haven't really
run any experiments since then.
The one thing I'll point out about the Phil's is that it tends to float
up off the bottom,
and also that the connecting hose can be easily knocked free of the
bottom. Both
of these problems can cause huge headaches. Both can be solved by
rigging up
a piece of copper tubing as a drain tube, instead of a piece of vinyl
tubing.
For what it's worth, there's my 2 cents.
To have it to do over, I'd personally go with the Phil's, and use the
copper tube.
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:56:28 -0500
From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach@nctm.org>
Subject: First Runnings
I missed something somewhere. What does pressure cooking one's first
runnings accomplish (in more-or-less simple terms). And the question of
boiling those first runnings .... related?
- --Danny
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:02:33 -0700
From: Sheena McGrath <sheena@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Californian Seeking Sunbeams
Dear Homebrewers:
My vote is for keeping the science going. Also, when do we see the
homebrewer survey?
Does anyone have Sunbeam hops to swap or sell? I know they're
ornamental, but I want to play with them. (Must be the name...)
Thanks again to all who helped me with the gushing problem.
Sheena
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:33:51 -0500
From: "Jens B. Jorgensen" <jjorgens@bdsinc.com>
Subject: a better way to control foam from keg
Fellow brewers,
My problem is simple. When I fill up a pint from my keg fridge I
get a pint full of foam. I have an upright fridge dedicated to my
beer at ~40degF. I force-carbonated my 5gal corny at 25lbs. for a
few days. I then turned off the CO2, opened the relief valve on
the keg, dialed the regulator down to 10lbs and turned on the CO2.
I still get foam. I have a 3' beer line which terminates on a faucet
I've installed in the door of the fridge.
Trying to be a good netizen I went to the hdb archives and searched
on foam. Sure enough, AlK was there with the skinny. Just as I thought
I'd remembered, the foaming is a result of the delivery pressure at
the faucet. <rant> This is the second time that one of the homebrew
stores I patronize has let me down. When I bought the beer line the
person said, "how much beer line do you need?" and I said "gee, I don't
know, it'll only take three feet to go from the keg to the faucet
even with the door open" and I was promptly given three feet. </rant>
Anyway, I'd rather not disassemble my beer line from the disconnects
and faucet and really I'd rather not have 6-10 feet of line in my
fridge. Couldn't I just put some kind of clamp on the line (near the
faucet?) and adjust until I get decent flow but no foaming? Anyone
tried this?
- --
Jens B. Jorgensen
jjorgens at bdsinc dot com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:17:18 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Re: precision hydrometer calibration
> From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
> The hydrometer cost $23. Ordering information available upon request;
I
> have no connection with Cole Parmer. I had to rig up a longer
hydrometer
> flask than the ones normally available at home brew shops using a
length of
> rigid plastic tube, although Cole Parmer had a suitable cylinder for
about
> $10. The unit didn't come with a temperature correction table or
> information about how it was calibrated.
Call Cole Palmer and ask for clarification of the calibration
temperature, but it may be part of the specific gravity definition
that it is specified at 60F.
> the r/o water sample
> read about 1.0025. I was a little dismayed at how far off this zero
point
> was for a precision instrument, although having accurate readings at
more
> typical beer SG values is more important to me.
What is your elevation above sea level? Does it matter? Anyone???
Happy Brewing
Ron
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:52:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: spiralc@ix.netcom.com (CC)
Subject: Malt Modification
Malt Modification,
Greg Noonan addresses this topic in "New Brewing Lager Beer,"
pages 299-300.
"English pale and mild malts are not the only malts that are suitable
for infusion mashing. Most modern malts, including those of continental
origin can be infusion mashed. The criteria for whether or not a malt
can be infusion mashed are: a fine/coarse extract difference of less
than 1.8%, a soluble nitrogen ratio (S/T) of at least 38% and a malt
that is at least 95% mealy. Where no lot analysis is available.
acrospire growth examination should give at least 90% grown to
two-thirds the length of the kernel and the majority grown to
three-quarters-to-full-kernel length. Beers that will be served very
cold may show a protein haze if malt of more than 1.6% nitrogen (10%
protein) with a soluble nitrogen ratio less than 40% is mashed without
a protein rest."
Whether his analysis is correct or not, I do not know. I do know that
as a single-temp infusion masher, all of my attempts using 2 row or
other non-pale ale malts have resulted in hazy beer.
Chris Carolan
(One of these days I'll brew that "Procrastinator" dopplebock, maybe
tomorrow!)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 13:36:39 -0500
From: gjfix@utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: Lager malts, references on feurlic acid
Terms like "over-modification" and "under-modification" can be
misleading in the sense they are subject to different interpretations.
Nevertheless, what is discernibly true is that the lager malts
available in the late 1990s are dramatically different from
those available five or so years ago. This subject has been
widely discussed in Brauwelt as well as other European journals.
Laurie and I tried to treat this subject in some depth in our book
(references are given), so I will not waste band width here on it except
to note that the primary reasons for the changes is that the new
European 2-row varieties like Alexis malt quite differently
from the older ones like Triumph.
The major practical problem I had with the new malts and the classic
50-60-70C mashing schedule centered primarily around malt flavors.
The perception of "maltiness" comes from melanoidins present, and
the presence of medium molecular weight proteins, among other things.
In my system, rests in the range 45-55C yields a deficient medium
molecular weight protein pool, and with this a malt character that I
perceive as "blank" or "nondescript". I am not asserting that
these should be seen as defects, but they are not to my own personal
taste. This is primarily the reason I have been using the 40-60-70
schedule for the last three years.
I have been asked about the effect of residual feurlic acid on
finished beer flavor. This compound has a relatively high flavor
threshold and is essentially tasteless. The following article
asserts that it and selected polyphenols (in their reduced
state!) also serve as effective antioxidants. This article
appeared in the latest issue of the ASBC Journal:
Walters, et al, "Comparison of (+)-catechin and feurlic acid
as natural antioxidants and their impact on Beer Flavor Stability"
It is to be emphasized that this study (which was done at Nutfield in
the UK) used pure yeast cultures. Weizen strains, wild and/or mutated
yeast will create 4-vinylguaiacol in perceptible amounts from even
subliminal feurlic acid levels. Witness the clovy weizens found
in many brewpubs using domestic malts and a single high temperature
rest. In any of these cases the findings of the above reference
are no longer valid.
Cheers,
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:40:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz@xnet.com
Subject: Yeast starter
Vern writes:
>I am attempting to
>make my first yeast starter and things are not going well. I started with 3
>ounces of light DME in one quart of water (boiled and cooled). I added a
>packet of dry Coopers yeast and sealed with an air lock. It has been 48
>hours without any action and I am getting tired of waiting. The lady at the
>beer store says sometimes it takes three days.
Firstly, you should not rehydrate dry yeast in wort. They prefer to
be rehydrated in plain water. Secondly, yeast should be rehydrated in
90 - 110F water (boiled and cooled). Any cooler will shock the yeast.
It should be rehydrated for 15 to 30 minutes (no more, no less) and then
stepped-up or pitched. Finally, you don't really need a starter for
fresh, rehydrated dry yeast -- there are hundreds of times more yeast
in 5 grams of dry yeast than there are in 50ml of Wyeast. For Wyeast
I do recommend a starter.
As for taking three days, I don't know what she meant... three days for
the starter to start? three days for the starter to be ready to pitch?
If you rehydrated the yeast in 90-110F water for 15 min, then pitched
it into 5 gallons of wort and you did not see activity within 12 hours,
then the yeast had been mistreated (stored unrefrigerated, old, etc.).
Contrary to popular belief, foaming during rehydration is not a measure
of yeast health (don't believe me... see the Lallemand website at
http://www.lallemand.com/).
Ideally, you would like to temper your yeast before pitching into the
wort. If you rehydrate your yeast in 90F water for 30 min, it's likely
to be around 80F. Pitching this into 65F wort will shock the yeast.
The way to avoid this is to take your 8 ounces of yeast and water
(after rehydrating 15 to 30 minutes) and slowly add 8 ounces of your
cooled wort to it. If you are making a lager, you may want to double
the volume again after waiting a minute or two.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:11:44 -0400
From: bourdouj@EOA.UMontreal.CA (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
Subject: Re: New Subscriber
>Subject: New Subcriber
>Hello all, I am new to this hobby and need a little help. I am attempting to
>make my first yeast starter and things are not going well. I started with 3
>ounces of light DME in one quart of water (boiled and cooled). I added a
>packet of dry Coopers yeast and sealed with an air lock. It has been 48
>hours without any action and I am getting tired of waiting. The lady at the
>beer store says sometimes it takes three days.
>Thoughts?
>Vern
Hi Vern, welcome to the Homebrew Digest ( HBD ). You are in good hands with
people from every background willing to answer every question from dry
yeast to spectrophotometer.
About your starter? First,a yeast starter is generally used with LIQUID
yeast to increase the original small amount of yeast cells found in a
liquid yeast package ( pouch or plastic tube ). Dry yeast doesn't need a
yeast starter because the quantity of yeast cell in a dry yeast packet is
enough to pitch into a 5 gallons batch. Dry yeast should first be
rehydrated for 10 to 15 minutes in water boiled for 15 minutes and cooled
to 35C ( 102F).Rehydrated yeast can then be pitched in the fermenter.
The way you prepared the starter looks OK, 3ounces of DME for 1 quart of
water ( 100 grams per litre ) is a good ratio for a normal gravity starter.
Possible causes for the starter not working:
1) dead Coopers yeast packet: a viable dry yeast packet should activate a
starter within a couple of hours maximum. Coopers is reliable
2) starter too warm killed yeast: but you said you cooled the starter.
3) starter too cold : was the starter colder than 60F?
4) starter not completely sealed by the airlock and you didn't see the
airlock bubbling.
What I suspect is that your starter was so fast that it fermented
completely in a few hours ( 1 packet of dry yeast is a lot for a 1 quart
starter ) OR that you didn't observe the signs of a fermenting starter
because they are not the same as a roaring fermenting 5 gallons batch:
almost no foam and the airlock bubbling less than 1 a minute .My fellow
countrymen Hercule Poirot would have told you: " Mon ami, you saw but you
didn't observe ".
So, the best advise I can give you ( like with most of homebrew problems )
is to taste your starter. If it is still sweet you know that it didn't
start.
If the yeast was active, you starter should taste like unhopped fermented
beer ( dry ) and you should see a whitish layer of yeast in the bottom of
the starter.
I hope this helps
Jacques in Montreal
*************************************************
* Oh beer! O Hodgson, Guinness, Allsop, Bass! *
* Names that should be on every infant's tongue *
* ( Charles Stuart Calverley ) *
*************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:50:21 -0700
From: "Darren W. Gaylor" <dwgaylor@pacifier.com>
Subject: FW: New Subscriber/Yeast Starter
I'll try this again.
I don't usually make a starter with Cooper's dry yeast. Rehydrate the
yeast in a pint of warm water for 10-15 minutes and pitch it into the wort
rather than make a starter. That is one of the advantages of dry yeast.
With liquid yeasts, I always make a starter.
The fact that nothing happened is unusual. I think that your starter was
too hot and killed the yeast or the packet was old/defective/improperly
stored/ruined. The lady at the beer store doesn't know what she is talking
about. You should have active fermentation in less than 12 hours using
that yeast..
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:57:52 -0700
From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich@saros.com>
Subject: RE: pressure cooking wort
In HBD #2524, Jim Booth wondered if pressure cooking his first runnings
could account for the higher than expected final gravity of his Bohemian
Pilsner. I've p-cooked the first runnings of several beers now and have
not seen that behaviour. I had once wondered if melanoidin development
taxed the pool of fermentable sugars to any appreciable degree, since
they're formed from amino acids and simple sugars, but now I'm pretty
sure the impact is miniscule and possibly not detectable (by kitchen
science). Any number of things could contribute to a high final
gravity but I doubt the p-cooking did it. By the way, I find it's a
nice thing to do to a Classic American Pilsner. Like conventional
decoction, it does not make more malt flavor, rather it bends the malt
flavor in a nice way.
Charles Rich (Seattle, USA)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:42:29 -0500
From: Andrew Ager <andrew-ager@nwu.edu>
Subject: First All-Grain: Dark Mild
Hey folks,
After trying to begin my brewing season with an extract porter, and
discovering that my extract (which I had quite stupidly left sitting around
all summer in non-air-conditioned/cooled locations) had sprouted a wide
variety of small civilizations, some of whom actually tried to negotiate
treaties with me before I disposed of the container, I am switching to
all-grain (I've been building up to this for months now).
I've picked up most of the theory over the past year (HBD plus a lot of
reading). Now I'd just like a few comments on the recipe and procedure.
the recipe:
7 lbs. pale malt
1 lb. crystal (60L)
.125 lb. chocolate
1 oz. Fuggles (4.5%aa, whole), 60 min.
.5 oz. Fuggles, while chilling (~5-10 min.)
Wyeast 1968
Questions: 1) Mash water should be about 17-20 degrees hotter than desired
mash temp., right? I'm shooting for a 156F mash, so water at 173-176
should do the trick, right?
2) At 1.25 qts/lb., mash would be a touch over 10 qts of water. Sparge
volume would be about 4 gallons?
3) If I let the mash go for about 75 minutes, it should be OK, no? I
don't really want to worry about pH on the first one -- that can wait until
the 2nd or 3rd try.
Well, that's it. May Ninkasi be with me!
Andy Ager Brewer, beer geek, free-lance historian.
Chicago, IL
http://www.devnull.net/~andy (will appear when I have free time again)
"The Puritanical nonsense of excluding children and -- therefore --
to some extent women from pubs has turned these places into mere
boozing shops instead of the family gathering places that they ought to be."
--George Orwell
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 13:44:18 -0700
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Even more all grain ramblings
>I thought of another question. I'm going to be getting a seven gallon
Gott
>cooler as a mash/lauter tun. I would like people's opinions on which
would be
>better: a Phil's phalse bottom or an EZ-Masher setup and why?
Matt,
I highly recommend Phil's phalse bottom over the EZ-masher. Both are
just fine. Zymurgy's tests consistently showed the Phil's phalse bottom
returning 2 to 3 pts/lb/gal more extract, e.g. this amounts to an
increase in efficiency of about 7%. I personally use the Phil's phalse
bottom (in 2 different lauter tuns, one is a bucket, one is a Gott) and
can verify that its performance is great. It's also very easy to clean
using just a sprayer in a kitchen sink. Other than the article in
Zymurgy (sorry, can't remember which issue), I can't vouch for the
EZ-masher, but I know people like it. The lower efficiency is only one,
and not highly important, aspect that is different. I'd consider
cleaning it too...stuff stuck in screen material can be a blankety-blank
to clean out, but I haven't specifically tried the EZ-masher screen.
Finally, you may even consider making your own EZ-masher type of
lautering device. Check out Alan McKay's web site for a description of
how to make your own (and note that he claims that the EZ-masher tested
out "almost identically" in the Zymurgy test ... "almost identical" is a
judgement to be passed by the reader. Build your own opinion!).
Anyway, here's the URL to Alan's page where the "EC-Masher (easier and
cheaper masher)" is described:
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/gadgets/ec-masher.html
As Alan points out, the 3rd thing you often see in the bottom of a
lauter tun is a slotted copper manifold. Easy to clean, easy to make,
slightly lower efficiencies than either of the two above, but CAN be
custom fit to virtually any lautering vessel.
Regards,
Brian
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:58:00 -0600
From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian@aob.org>
Subject: GABF Winners and Thanks
Fellow HBDers,
The list of medal winners of the 1997 Great American Beer Festival can be
found at:
http://beertown.org/GABF/PPBT/gabf1997.htm
So far I have received private emails complimenting my liver and my
"recovering abilities" and other emails ridiculing my singing. I firmly
deny both! (That is, I don't think anyone has any proof that would hold up
in a court of law.)
Actually, it was an amazing week. I would like to thank many of you for
your assistance and camaraderie; Rob Moline, a man I am proud to call, "My
mate" (Rob, I won't steal your thunder, but you need to let the rest of HBD
know your "Rules to Live By". I hope you know you can always count on me
to fall into Rule #1); Louis Bonham, even though he associates with people
who rate high in AHA Bitterness Units (AHABU's), I know that we both share
the interest and joy of promoting homebrewing, (Louis, I am glad that you
didn't need the kevlar vest afterall!); Ken Schwartz, aka KennyEddy, you
don't often meet someone this knowledgeable and modest at the same time (I
don't know how many times I said (yelled), "Beer so good, you can drink
it!"); Mark Tumarkin, originator of the excellent idea for meeting (Mark, I
love you hoppy robust porter, but to improve your looks, try a lot more
grey hair and a pair of round glasses.); Dr. George & Laurie Fix (What can
I say? They're the best!)
There were a few more HBDers that hunted me down at the GABF, like Richard
Gardner, Norm Pyle, Curt Schroeder and Dan Rabin. I apologize for not
remembering all the names at this time. Please feel free to send me a
reminder as I am still recovering from the entire week.
Thank you all! Good Luck & Good Beer in the future!
- Brian
Brian Rezac
Administrator
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice)
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax)
PO Box 1679 brian@aob.org (e-mail)
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org (aob info)
U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 14:41:11 -0700
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Water analysis
[snip]
>I have received a fax with the water analysis from our City counsel.
[snip]
>This software ask for CO3 but I cant find it on the fax.
>Is it under a different name ? Can I work it out somehow ?
>The local city counsel is clueless and cant help me.
I bet 2 things that ARE on your water fax are a) the alkalinity "as mg/L
CaCO3" and b) the pH of your water. The tricky thing is whether or not
the target water profiles in Brewer's Workshop (or any program)
considers the carbonates to be CO3, HCO3, or the sum of the two. At
normal mash and wort pH's though, the carbonates will be 100% converted
to HCO3 (bicarbonate).
What you want to do is to use the pH and the "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3"
to find "HCO3 as mg/L HCO3". Note that SOME water analysis will not
mention alkalinity either, but will mention "Total Hardness (TH) as mg/L
CaCO3" and the "hardness" will be CO3/HCO3. If your water analysis
states a number for hardness AND no number for alkalinity, be very
careful to make sure the so-called hardness is not "Mg and Ca as mg/L
CaCO3". If the report does not tell you what is what, then call the
water authorities back and ask them more questions! Oh yeah, a 3rd
possible way of getting this information would be as "Carbonates as mg/L
CaCO3". This is very nearly the same as the alkalinity, except the
alkalinity includes a very small affect from the H+ and OH- ions in the
water.
The easy method? Multiply your "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3" by 0.60 and
enter that number into Brewer's Workshop as "CO3". The step-by-step way
of doing it the accurate way is described next. If your carbonates or
alkalinity or hardness is express in some other way, post back here to
the HBD (or email me) and we can get the number for "CO3" figured out
for you.
Brian
- ------------------- Caution! Science begins here! --------------------
Assuming you have the pH and "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3", here's an
example showing the calculations, and what you should enter into
Brewer's Workshop:
Given) pH is 7.8, Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3 is 128
Problem) Find HCO3 as mg/L HCO3
Solution)
1) Calculate the following three magic numbers:
r1 = 10^(pH-6.37) = 10^(7.8 - 6.37) = 26.9153
r2 = 10^(pH-10.25) = 10^(7.8-10.25) = 0.003548
d = 1 + r1 + r1r2 = 1 + 26.9153 + (26.9153)(0.003548) = 28.0108
2) Calculate the mole-fractions (more magic numbers):
%H2CO3 = 1/d = 0.0357, or 3.57% of the carbonates is H2CO3 in
solution
%HCO3 = r1/d = 26.9153/28.0108 = 0.9609, or 96.09% " " HCO3 in
solution
%CO3 = r1r2/d = (26.9153)(0.003548)/28.0108 = 0.003409, or
0.3401% " " CO3 in sol'n
Note that only 0.3% of the availabe carbonates exists as CO3 at pH
7.8, and that as the pH is dropped, even less will be in solution ... it
all turns into HCO3!
3) Find the concentrations of HCO3 and CO3 in mg/L of CaCO3. For this
you need the alkalinity equation (world standard nowadays):
Alkn = <<HCO3>> + 2<<CO3>> + <<OH->> - <<H+>>, where <<species>>
means "Species as mg/L CaCO3".
3a) Find the concentration of OH-, e.g. <<OH->>:
[H+] = 10^-pH = 10^-7.8 = 1.5849 x 10^-8, We'll ignore this later
because it is so small
Then because [H+][OH-] = 10^-14,
[OH-] = 10^-14/[H+] = 10^14 / 1.5849x10^-8 = 6.3095 x 10^-7 M or
6.3095 x 10^-4 mM
To express the [OH-] in "mg/L CaCO3", multiply by the gram molecular
weight of CaCO3:
<<OH->> = 6.3095 x 10^-4 mM x 100.0892 mg/mM = 0.06315 mg/L as CaCO3
4) Find the total carbonates as mg/L CaCO3, ignoring the contribution of
H+ as previously mentioned:
Total carbonates = Alkn - <<OH->> = <<HCO3>> + 2<<CO3>>, or
Total carbonates = 128 - 0.06315 = 127.9368 mg/L as CaCO3
5) Find the total carbonates "as mg/L CO3" instead of "mg/L CaCO3". To
do this, divide by the gram molecular weight of CaCO3 and multiply by
the gram molecular weight of CO3:
Total carbonates = (127.9368/100.0892) * 60.0092 = 76.7054 mg/L as
CO3
Voila!! Enter 76.7054 into Brewer's Workshop in the "CO3" box. Note
how close, in THIS example, the "easy method" came to (76.8) the
"accurate" method. This will only be the case when the pH is below 8.4
or so. If your pH is higher, you can choose to take the more accurate
route, or you can assume that your wort pH will be 5.0-5.5 and do the
easy method. I recommend the easy method!
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Headduck@aol.com
Subject: Science or Art (2 more cents)
Just think if we would add up all of these 2 cents that people are sending we
could really have something. On the subject of brewing, is it art or
science, allow me to further muddy the waters. It is neither. Brewing,
especially homebrewing, is engineering. I am surprised that you other
engineers out there have not thought of this (I know you are out there).
Perhaps we are trying to seperate our jobs from our hobbies?
Engineering is the application of science to design or create something
practical. What could be more practical than beer? An engineer knows what
parts of science to use and what parts can be ignored. I would never try to
use quantum physics when simple Newtonion methods (while incorrect) work just
fine. Likewise, I can make great beer without worrying about 122 degree
rests or ultra precise specific gravity and temperature measurements. I am
glad, however, that there are those of you out there who fret over these
things. It adds richness to the dialogue. (Also there is always the chance
that we might learn something).
I have only been reading hbd for about 2 months and I enjoy it very much. It
is the diversity that makes it great. That will only exist if we have the
freedom to post what we each feel is appropriate. So keep posting you
scientific types. I'll keep reading and lurking in the background.
Joe Yoder
Lawrence, Kansas (just down the road from LABC, where I promise to never go)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:16:14 -0500
From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers@flinthills.com>
Subject: Pilsner Urquell
Can anyone provide a recipe, preferably extract but all-grain will also
work, for a good Pilsner Urquell replica? I realize it isn't possible to
get an exact duplication, but I'd like to achieve something close.
I've looked in Charlie P's TNCJOHB and The Cat's Meow. I've experimented
w/ a few recipes and variations thereof and think I am in the ballpark w/
exception of yeast and hopping--as if that really puts me in the ballpark!
I've seen several different hop schedules, all using mostly Saaz. It
seems that most recipes that supposedly replicate Pilsner Urquell call for
WYeast Bohemian Pilsner, yet WYeast's Czech Pils is "supposed" to be THE
yeast to use to make a Pilsner Urquell clone.
Is anyone out there who has brewed a respectable Pilsner Urquell replica
willing to share his/her recipe? I'd be eternally grateful.
Thanks!
Charles Ehlers
clehers@flinthills.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:39:06 -0400
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst@talon.net>
Subject: Re: Pitted Carboys
Just offering a group "Thank you" to all that responded to my post on
ammonia/chlorine deposits inside carboys.
Dominant response: Try a vinegar soak.
I hate it when I don't think of an obvious answer. Guess I'm 40 after all.
Thanks to all.
- --
"If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a
conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston
Churchill
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:53:23 -0400
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Bread Recipe
Anyone have a recipe for using slurry to make bread?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:52:38 -0400
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Bottling with Honey and the Science of brewing
Earlier this month I posted a response to someone asking how much honey =
should be used when substituted for corn sugar. There has also been much =
said of late about the love/hate of science threads in this digest. Like =
Gilda used to say..." it's always sumpthin'" Anyway, here is how both =
threads weave together...
My post recommended 2/3 cup of honey for a 5-gal batch (actually, my =
batches bottle out at near 42 12-oz bottles or 4 1/2 gal). One personal =
reply chided my brewmaster for giving me such advice. He surely thought =
the bottles would become April's Fools gags or that my Brewmaster had =
never primed with honey. He predicted gushers and said try 1/3 to 1/2 =
cup. Another reply,(quite ably) pointed out several statistical facts =
(here's the science stuff) about weight & PPG in a comparison of honey =
and corn sugar. He suggested 1/2 cup or less depending upon the desired =
level of carbonation.
Now, don't get me wrong! I've seen how out of hand an innocent comment =
can become in this digest. I thank both individuals for their personal =
replies. They may both be correct. And, I'm still a novice and might =
have misunderstood my Brewmaster. But...(here it comes!)
I've brewed my fourth batch (yeah!), three of which were honey wheats =
and all primed with 2/3 cup of honey. No gushers, no exploding bottles, =
no overcarbination. Just good tasting beer! Am I doing something =
unintentional to compensate for 'excessive' honey? Or is it the brand of =
honey that makes the difference? Is there something more scientific =
which explains my errant success? Don't know and don't care.
So long as the beer is tasty, the rug is still clean (meaning Momma is =
still happy) and there is a sun to rise tomorrow, I'm enjoying my =
limited success and hope I don't steer anyone down a sudsless path. Keep =
the comments flowing and the beer brewin'.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:46:25 -0700
From: "Layne and Katrise" <wetpetz@oberon.ark.com>
Subject: Re:Pressure cooking wort problems
Hello all,
Hi Jim,
You wrote in HBD #2524;
>"Tried to make a Pilsner Urquel clone with a single decoction and
pressure cooking the first 15 qts or so of first wort spargings. The
temp and pressure data for the pressure cooking is non-existant but it
was about 30' or so under pressure. Got a huge hot break that I
strained off as the flakes were troublesome to the eye.
>The problem is the OG was 1.044 and the FG 1.021 with much more residual
sweetness to taste then I want in a Bohemian. The saccrification mash
rest was at 155F. I expected 1.016 or so but not 1.021."
I think the problem is two-fold here.
1. Pressure cooking would have caramelized some simple fermentable sugars.
They are only contributing to sweetness this way.
2. The Hot break you strained off was mostly yeast nutrients and FAN. I
think that if you would have left some of this for your ferment there would
have been a higher attenuation.
This is speculation however. I only know from what I've been reading here
for the past year. I don't think the volume of wort that was pressure
cooked has as much to do with this as the above problems, but I think that
had there only been 10 quarts you would have saved some of the needed
nutrients.
This does sound yummy though. I hope you give it a second shot to see if
I'm right. Let me know.
Layne & Katrise Rossi
wetpetz@oberon.ark.com
Campbell River, BC
Visit my Home Page at http://oberon.ark.com/~wetpetz
For Links, recipes, beer yeast culturing and other stuff!
***********************************************************
To try and fail is better than
failing because we didn't try!
***********************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 15:24:51 +0800
From: Luke.L.Morris@woodside.com.au
Subject: Readers and conributors outside USA
Somebody wrote....
>Finally, to the yutz (I've deleted the reference) who said that HBD
>represents very few homebrewers so it is unimportant and doesn't
>influence the homebrewing movement:
>Is it important to homebrewing? Yes -- some of the most active
>leaders meet and communicate here, in a way that other media can't
>support. It provides a national network that feeds discussion and
<snip>
Whoah ! Shouldn't that be *inter*national ? Don't forget the rest of
the world that exists outside the US of A. I have read postings from
England, Scotland, France, Germany, Austria, Australia, Venezuela, and
a multitude of other countries which are no less important on the HBD.
HBD provides an ideal international forum for the discussion of
brewing-related matters, be they social, technical, scientific, mundane
or whatever. The content is determined purely by those who are
interested enough to post. If there was no interest in a topic, there
would be nobody posting on it.
Personally I enjoy simplicity a bit of trial and error in my brewing,
but I've learned heaps from lurking in the background and reading the
postings: scientific and otherwise. The few times I have posted, I
have received helpful advice and constructive criticism.
Leave the HBD alone.
Luke Morris
Brewing in Perth, Western Australia.
- ------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:30:21 +1000
From: "Bruce Baker" <taysoft@ibm.net>
Subject: simple cider questions
Hello,
My partner has some cider fermenting away. We have some simple questions
about cider-making. She is using an old book, which says to stir the cider
twice a day whilst fermenting. Is this required? I'm kind of hesitant to
keep opening the fermenter & risking infection.
The book also says to rack after 5 days. We are using a wine yeast which
takes ages to ferment out. When should it be first racked ?
Thanks,
Bruce Baker.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2527, 10/10/97
*************************************
-------
