Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2575
HOMEBREW Digest #2575 Fri 05 December 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:
Keg Insulation (John Palmer)
Mash conversion completion - Iodine vs. Brix (Barry Browne)
length of boil (Hans Geittmann)
What did I make? (Rust1d)
Flaked, Quick, Pre-gelatinized ... mash schedule? (brian_dixon)
keg o-rings (Mel D Irvin)
I need help with identification of Cornelius 'gas in' fitting & poppet. (Clifton Moore)
neat microbiological toys (Daniel S McConnell)
Re-pitching ("Val J. Lipscomb")
Re: Re: Sparging advice please (Kent Townley)
Accidental Corsendonk Clone (Mike Maag)
re:rye beer... (Michael Collins)
calling Dr. Lewis (Steve Alexander)
Intellectual property law (Louis Bonham)
Nominations (schwab_bryan)
Steep/Decoction (RUSt1d?)
South African Breweries ("Braam Greyling")
The value of mashout? (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
RE: Whirlpool (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Histamine Summary (Ninkasi)
Re: Clinitest/Belgian Ales (Spencer W Thomas)
water softeners (JSC-CB)" <monika.k.schultz1@jsc.nasa.gov>
=====================================================================
Visit the MCAB website for details regarding the Masters Championship
of Amateur Brewing: hbd.org/mcab
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, 02 Dec 1997 09:24:45 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@gte.net>
Subject: Keg Insulation
Hey Dave,
I had the same notion several years ago when I built my 3 tier system.
I used metallized bubble wrap around the keg about 6 inches off the
bottom flange. The bottom edge of the wrap has melted to some small
extent from the heat. I really don't think it does a damn bit of good.
For 5 gallon batches it may be a small help, but for ten gallon batches
the thermal mass of the metal plus that of the mash is more than
adequate to hold the temperature. I have brewed on Scott K-ski's
(can't remember how to spell his last name) system and he doesnt use any
insulation and I didnt notice any difference in mash temp. stability.
As a matter of fact, to illustrate the thermal mass of the stainless
steel, I have had to start splashing water on the base of my boiling keg
during immersion chilling because so much heat is contained in the extra
metal on the bottom of the keg and burner. It steams right off.
John Palmer
jjpalmer@gte.net
Monrovia CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:33:25 -0800
From: BBrowne@golder.com (Barry Browne)
Subject: Mash conversion completion - Iodine vs. Brix
I'd like to discuss how we brewers decide when mash conversion is
complete. I have reason to doubt the validity of the oft-quoted iodine
test for starch and am looking to the biochemists out there to explain
more clearly the specific iodine-starch reactions that cause color changes
in the mash samples.
I have doubted the iodine test for several years and I have consequently
been using a sucrose refractometer to monitor mash progress (this move to
a refractometer was made after reading George Fix's comments about RIMS in
about 1992-3). Routinely, and regardless of base malt type, I do not see
a "plateau"ing of mash refraction index, which to me would mean full
conversion, until about 2 hours into the saccharification rest phase. To
provide some data to back up this statement for the HBD, I monitored a
recent mash with both methods; the data follows.
Given:
Grain Bill was 21.5 pounds Weyermann Pilsner Malt (nothing else)
Strike Liquor 28.5 L (or 7.54 gallons which includes 4L foundation water)
6 g CaCl2 (to give [Ca]++ about 90 mg/L in my source water)
Mash schedule:
Dough in to stabilize at 40C, rest for 30 min
Increase T to 60C over 25 min (anyone think this is too fast?)
Rest at 60C for 30 min
Increase T to 70C over 17 min
Rest at 70C until Brix plateaus
Increase T to 77C for mashout
Note: I use a RIMS system, Mash tun is 15 gal Vollrath pot with perf plate
false bottom. Heat provided by direct fire (with recirc) for Temp
increases and set points are maintained by standard RIMS electric heat
exchanger. Best of both worlds IMHO.
Time Elapsed T(min) Mash Temp(C) Brix% Iodine Test(color)
----- ------------- ----------- ----- -----------
10:50 0 (dough in) 40 NT NT
11:20 30 Begin to increase temp to 60C
11:45 55 60 NT NT
12:03 73 60 13.4 neg. (black)
12:13 83 60 14.8 neg. (dk.brn to reddish)
12:15 Begin to increase temp to 70C
12:23 93 66.7 (rising) 15.6 unsure but looks positive
12:33 103 70 17.2 positive (no color change)
12:43 113 70 18.8 positive (no color change)
12:53 123 70 19.5 positive (no color change)
13:03 133 70 19.9 positive (no color change)
13:04 Begin to Increase temp to 77C
13:13 143 77 20.0 positive (no color change)
13:23 153 77 20.4 positive (no color change)
13:33 163 77 20.5 positive (no color change)
Notes 2:
Temperatures are of the grain bed, not of the recirculating wort.
All samples were replicated and were allowed to cool to ambient room temp
which fortunately was 60 F (therefore no correction required for
refractometer).
I am very Temp conscious and have calibrated all my thermometers to
+/- 0.1C using an NIST certified thermometer. Therefore don't doubt the
Temps, I don't allow doubt, it's too important not to be sure. And, as if
there's question, yes I am a scientist.
NT = not tested
These data, which are typical of my mashing experience, reveal several
interesting points.
1. Based on Brix values, 16% more conversion takes place after the iodine
test indicates complete conversion [(20.5-17.2)/20.5*100=16.1%]
2. Most of the starch conversion has occurred at or below 60C.
Questions.
1. If the iodine test is accurate, as appears to be widely accepted, what
compounds are being produced to increase wort refractive index beyond
indicated complete conversion?
2. Are these compounds fermentable by Saccharomyces spp.?
3. Since some conversion is still occurring at mashout T = 77C, what T
really does denature our beloved enzymes?
There are more questions I (and others) could ask but I'm most interested
in the discrepancy between the Brix plateau at 20.5% and iodine conversion
at 17.2%.
By the by, I've done the extraction efficiency calcs on the above data and
would love to see what values others get for comparison purposes (should
you care and have time to figure it out). In that vein, what do most
people do about hydration water in these calcs, as grist will absorb about
0.1 gallon per pound that will not be recovered. I assume the sugar in
that water will be recovered and in this case, use 20.5% for all strike
liquor including foundation water.
Therefore 20.5% is about 1.086
86*28.5L (7.54gal) gives about 648.5 total pts
divide by 21.5 pounds grist gives 30.2 pt/lb*gal, not that damned good!!
Thanks for reading this far. Anxious to hear from the brew wizards.
Barry Browne
Atlanta, GA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:01:25 -0800
From: Hans Geittmann <hans@whiterocks.com>
Subject: length of boil
I had the opportunity to shoot the sh*t with a high school friend of
mine (Jim Schueller) who started the Harbor City Brewing Co. in Port
Washington, WI over the holiday weekend. He insisted that I start
boiling my wort for 90 minutes (I boil for 60). When pressed for
reasons, the only real one was wort concentration, and that "every
brewery boils for 90 minutes..." So, what are the added advantages of
boiling for 90 minutes? Would they outweigh the added inconvenience of
refilling the propane tank every other batch? Thanks
Hans
- --
Hans Geittmann (boiling wort for 60 minutes in Palo Alto, CA)
hans@whiterocks.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:57:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Rust1d <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: What did I make?
Consider the following recipe:
***** HBRCP 2.0 Recipe:
Name: Pine Box O.G.: 1.055
Style: ???????????? I.B.U.: 28.0
Volume: 12.5 Gallons A.B.V.: 5.3%
Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Grams Min
Pale, American 2 Row 18.75 Chinook 10.5 30.00 120
Munich, Belgian 2.00 Saaz 5.4 28.00 120
Biscuit, Belgian 1.00 Tettnanger 4.7 25.00 120
Melanoidin, German 1.00 Tettnanger 4.7 45.00 15
Chocolate, American 1.00 Tettnanger 4.7 45.00 0
Crystal 120, American 0.50
Special "B", Belgian 0.50 Misc. Ingredients Amt Units
Black Roast, English 0.25 Breakbrite - 20 mins 2.00 Grams
Yeast: Nw Esb & Bavarian Lager
Mash @ 150F for 30 mins, boost to 154F for 40 mins and batch sparge.
*****
This is a recipe for porter but I fermented 6.25 gallons with Bavarian
Lager yeast and 6.25 with Northwest ESB yeast. The differences between
the two are amazing! I definately cannot call the Bavarian batch a
porter any longer. But what can I call it? Would anyone like to
pigeonhole this into a sytle? It is too young and yeasty to tell what
the final product will be like, but so far it is malty and smooth.
Well, what say you?
- --
John Varady
Glenside, PA - (Someplace slightly warmer then Jeff Renner)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 11:14:25 -0800
From: brian_dixon@om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Flaked, Quick, Pre-gelatinized ... mash schedule?
Question about flaked oats, Quick Oats (like Quaker), other flaked
grains ... I assume that most of these will be hot rolled, resulting in
pre-gelatinization. What's the suggested mash schedule for these guys?
Need a 15 minute 122 F protein rest? Why? How about a 135 F
beta-glucanase rest for 30 minutes? Why? If I have a recipe that has
20% (by extract or grist weight) Quick Oats for example, can I get away
with just a single infusion mash for sugar conversion?
Another question: If breweries like Guinness use as much flaked barley
as they do roast barley in their process (this is approximately true),
then is it "roasted flaked barley", which will provide similar
color/flavor to roast barley, or is it just that light colored
"pre-gelatinized flaked barley" that you see at most homebrew shops?
Third question: Some homebrew shops don't have a malt called "roast
barley", but instead have 2 grades of the stuff called "light roast
barley" and "dark roast barley". I assume if a recipe asks for "roast
barley" that it means "light roast barley" (400 L? Can't remember).
What are the differences between the various roast barleys and the
various black barleys, e.g. "black barley" and "black patent"?
Best regards,
Brian dixon
.......................................................................
Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:04:46 -0500
From: melathome@juno.com (Mel D Irvin)
Subject: keg o-rings
Anyone have a trick to getting the old rubber seals off of a coke keg?
Want to replace the liquid out side and thought it was worth asking if
anyone had a trick out there.
Private e-mail is fine.
Sincerely,
Mel
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:09:06 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: I need help with identification of Cornelius 'gas in' fitting & poppet.
I need help with identification of Cornelius 'gas in' fitting & poppet.
I have some gas in fittings that seem to deviate from the standard.
They came off Cornelus 3 gal soda kegs and look for all the world
to be identical to the standard but for a four point grove pattern that
looks to have been carved into the top of the fitting surrounding the
poppet seat. The machining has left a small dimple of metal on the
inside where the poppet center is meant to rest. This rugosity seems
to prevent the poppet head from fully allowing the gasket to make a
seal. I got the original poppets mixed up with some standard
fittings in the process of cleaning the batch, but there doesn't seem
to be any difference in the poppets, and I have had no luck getting a
seal by switching other poppets in.
Are these not Cornelius fittings?
Is there a special poppet or gasket required to make the seal?
Thanks for any help.
Clif
cmoore@gi.alaska.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:45:39 -0500
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell)
Subject: neat microbiological toys
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
>whilst attending siebels, Dr Joe Power found these commercially
>available tubes of various sugars, a sample would be drawn thru
>and in several days you would be able to tell what sugars the "beast"
>could deal with...kinda neat toy but probably expensive for homebrewers.
>
>anyone know of these devices?? not sure if they were ever successful
>in commercial applications or not....
I have used these on occasion, but can't recall the manufacturer (Difco?
Well, it WAS in 1976). I do remember that they were useful for
differentiation of bacteria. You plated the sample to isolate single
colonies and then used this device. Based on the sugar fermentation
pattern and a gram strain, you could determine (usually) if the colony was
E.Coli, Proteus, Shigella, Klebsiella etc. No way will this differentiate
yeast strains and I doubt that it (unless a specific device is designed for
yeast) would differentiate between yeasts.
Since then (pre-PC dark ages) there are a number of products available,
most notably the BioLog system which uses 96 well microtiter plates to
perform both fermentation and assimilation tests. Now the problem is not
having the proper sugars as much as having too much data to wade through
without computer assistance. Even this will not differentiate between
strains of Saccharomyces but it will tell a Saccharomyces from a
Brettanomyces.
Expensive? You bet!
DanMcC (970 miles NE of Dave Draper)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:20:37 -0600 (CST)
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay@NetXpress.com>
Subject: Re-pitching
Greetings all,
Had a thought yesterday that seemed worth a post. My Old Ale isn't
carbonating very swiftly or very much. Going back over 10 years
of notes, it seems that beers with more than a 50-60 point drop
in gravity are *much* less likely to carbonate.(Old Ale had an
OG of 1.072 and FG of 1.017-5 weeks in the bottle) Yeah, I know
about force carbonating,etc-guess I'm just a bottle filling dinosaur.
Does any have a feel for an arbitrary cut-off #?? For example:
Drop of 50-60-Repitching recommended
Drop of 60+-Re-pitch for sure
I've had some *big* beers with big drops carbonate just fine-usually
with a massive original pitch of Wyeast 1056 or 1214-but all in all
re-pitching seems in line after a big gravity drop. Dave B.,Al K.,
any of the Charleys,anyone else, got any feelings on this subject??
Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:37:13 -0700
From: Kent Townley <krt@hpeskrt.fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Sparging advice please
Brian writes:
>This brings up an interesting point for me, Kent. My efficiencies
>consistently come in at around 90-94%, which seems ungodly high.
I suspect it is not possible to get 90+ efficiency in a homebrew
setup. The professionals are generally in the mid to high 80's.
Assuming my hypothesis is correct, my guess would be a measurement
error in grain weight and/or specific gravity.
>So why the heck am I getting such high yields? Are
>today's malts so highly modified that they actually have a higher max
>theoretical yield than what was published in the Great Grain issue?
I don't think so.
>I can't figure out why my yields come in so high (most of the time
>... my last batch came in at 82%). Also, what risks are there in
>having such a high yield? The beer is never astringent, always forms
>a nice head, has good clarity and color and is generally pretty great
>stuff ... should I worry?
If it tastes good I wouldn't worry about it.
One data point about efficiency: My favorite "Mega Brewer" holds
mash efficiency to 92%. They do not want to extract the last bit of
"stuff" (I'm not sure it's all sugar) because it will negatively effect
flavor. This may not be such a big issue with more flavorful beers :).
>>C. Sparge slowly with or without recirculating depending on the
>>condition of the first run off. If it's fairly clear recirculating
>>isn't necessary. Temperature is not important!? Dr. Lewis recommends
>>staying on the low side. Run first running trough, followed by one
>>running of warm water, followed by *cold* water. Once the cold water
>>hits the outlet of the lauter tun you are finished.
>... seems low. What are the affects on efficiency, and what were the
>reasons (quality, efficiency etc.) for sparging this way? This is
>new to me!
The reasons were based on quality of the final product. Really only
bad things can happen when you sparge at higher temperature. Higher
temperature will extract more unwanted compounds from the grain than
will lower temperature. Efficiency of a sparge at 150F vs 170F is not
significant.
The cold water addition has two benefits. First it will tell you when
to stop because of a change in runoff temperature. second, and
probably applicable only to professionals who have to empty the lauter
tun by hand is, it lowers the temperature of the grain bed.
>>D. Adjust mash temperature or temperatures to the type of malt
>>used. This can have a great impact on efficiency. Rests of longer
>>than 30 minutes are a waste of time.
>Longer for undermodified (continental) malts, eh? Is that what you
>mean?
No not longer rests, but additions of varing temperatures for
different types of malt. ie add a 104F and/or 135F rest.
>Longer than 30 minutes a waste? Are you saying that the gain
>in efficiency of the longer rest is not worth the trouble, or are you
>saying something about the extract from a longer rest being lower
>quality somehow? The intent being a start-to-sugar conversion, is
>there some risk of something else ending up in the wort when you go
>longer, or is this just an efficiency issue?
I was trying to say that rests longer than 30 minutes are wasting time
because nothing is happening after 30 minutes. All of the enzymes have
been exhausted, so why wait? It is needlessly lengthening the brewing
process.
>>E. Mash out is a waste of time.
>Again, it raises the efficiency a few points. Was Dr. Lewis just
>implying the extra extract isn't worth the extra effort? Or what?
Yes, not worth it and not wanted. Bad things can happen during a
mashout, like extracting starch that won't get converted because the
necessary enzymes aren't present. Sadly, this has happened to me :(.
>>>ii) Does pouring boiling water on top of the grain bed adversely
>>>affect the end result ? And to what extent ? I realize that
>>>boiling the grains extracts undesirable stuff. But if these
>>>dissolve in the water at temperatures >77C (>170F), will they not
>>>precipitate back out as they pass through the cooler grain bed
>>>below ?
>>This isn't necessary so why do it? Some tannins will precipitate in
>>the boil but to what degree is unclear to me. I wouldn't take the
>>chance since there are safer ways to solve the problem.
>One advantage, besides the small gain in efficiency, to a mash out is
>the increased grain bed temperature during the sparge. Not a big
>deal, the temperature that is, but it does help give you some leeway
>on maintaining the sparge water temperature and for preventing stuck
>sparges from getting too cool. As far as the boiling water thing
>goes, I wouldn't worry about it. If the Germans can boil the mash
>(decoction), then I don't imagine that adding boiling water could
>hurt much. This is indeed the standard infusion mash technique
>(infusion of hot water is where the name comes from). Finally, the
>boiling water cools to the equilibrium temperature quickly enough.
>It can't possibly have enough time to extract unwanted tannins from
>the grain that quickly, nor does it have time to deactivate the
>enzymes in the mash.
I don't agree with the above. The germans boil the grain and then
add it back to a liquid containing enzymes. What is described above
is not the same thing. Also, I believe pH would be significantly
different between these two scenarios.
Beta amylase activity is *zero* after 30 minutes at 150F. Unfortunately
I don't have the graphs for alpha with me, but it is safe to assume
that there isn't any enzyme activity left by the time you get to
mashout or sparge.
Sorry for the long post. I hope ya'll don't mind.
- --------------
Kent Townley
Richardson, TX
- --------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:19:10 -0500
From: Mike Maag <maagm@rica.net>
Subject: Accidental Corsendonk Clone
I brewed a extract ale on 7/9 with 7 lbs of LME, 1 lb crystal malt, 2 oz
hallertauer and 2 oz tettnang hops and Nottengham dry ale yeast. I bottled
it on 7/24. I tasted one on 8/3 and it tasted great (like my ales usually
do). I tasted another on 8/5 and noted some banana ester, still tasted
great. I tasted it on 8/22, and it had developed a strange flavor I had
never noticed in an ale. I went to a local beer bar and saw a new brew on
tap, so I tried it. The beertender said "it's pricey, but good", (I'll
say, $7.50 for a 22 oz mug), anyway, it tasted almost exactly like my ale.
The beer is Corsendonk Monk's Pale Ale. My beer lacked only a slight
nutty note in the finish. I have made this same receipe several times
before and it turned out like "regular ale" each time, except this last
one. My brewing process includes shaking the 6.5 gal carboy containing 5
gal. wort to aerate, does this sound like a wild yeast might have gotten
in? Perhaps Nottingham's QC is lacking, but never had a problem before..
Anyway, I'm down to one bottle of the stuff. I wonder if I make a starter
from the yeast in the bottle, the next batch will turn out the same? Any
comments?
Mike 8*)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:13:01 -0800
From: Michael Collins <equinox@halcyon.com>
Subject: re:rye beer...
> Sheens McGrath says:
>
> >I want to make a rye beer with 8 pounds Klages and 4 pounds rye malt?
>
> >What would be the best way to mash it?
>
> I suggest you also use some dark crystal malt - about a pound.
>
Unimportant to the sparge - only flavor- to suit personal taste.
> The biggest problem is that the rye has a lot of gelatinous
> glucans in it and I heartily recommend a a 105 F beta-glucanase
> mash for 30 minutes,
correct
> a 122F protein/glucnase mash for
> 15 minutes,
past the temp for glucanase rest, but good for a protein rest
> 135F MMW protein for 30 minutes
maybe overkill on the protein rest? Not necessary at all with 2-row
malt.
> and then to 158F
> with hot water for 90 minutes.
Too high a mash temp. The body is already very high; you want to cut it
down by mashing at 152-153 F - especially with 1/3 rye in the mash.
> It is a MUST to mash out at 170F = or so.
Good idea for faster run-off, but the rice hulls takes care of the mash
density quite nicely. You _could_ skip the mash out at 168F if you
wanted to prolong the mash conversion while it is in the lauter tun.
You can also heat the runoff to 158F and hold awhile to eke out a bit
more conversion in the brew kettle, but only if you have skipped the
168F step.
> Even so, the viscosity of the wort will be high and it is
> negatively logaritmically dependent on the temperature -
> the reason most mashes stick.
Nonsense. Too fine a grind and heavy use of adjuncts are why mashes
stick.
> The trick is to keep the
> wort temperature and the bed temperature UP . Using my two pass
> crush method I have a very free running lauter, so I just drain
> all the wort off in a couple of minutes at full open without
> re-cycling,
> put it in a kettle and start to heat it back to 170F.
A great way to compact your grain bed prematurely! Keeping it full
provides flotation to the grains.
> If you historically=
> don't have such a quick draining mash, then mix in rice hulls
> ( HB store can supply them) in the mash at the beginning of the =
> mash to make sure you remove all the starch from them. =
Shaking/Rinsing is good enough. Too little starch to worry about.
> In the meantime, sparge the grainbed with a little water
> around 180F on top
Way too hot. And what about the acidity adjustment? He's begging to get
excessive astringency extracted from the husks!
> and then add the hot 170F wort back
> to clarify it and proceed to remove the clarified wort and sparge =
> with extra hot 180F water.
Ditto
> If you held for 90 minutes at 158F
> you will not have a starch problem.
Reserve this temp step for the tail end of the mash (1/2 hr. is enough
at that point), unless you want to terminate the mash conversion with
168F and push for the lowest possible viscosity. If you are quite
satisfied with the extent of your conversion and do not feel pressed for
time the 168F mash out temp is a good idea though.
Michael
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 02:20:30 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: calling Dr. Lewis
Al K writes ...
>Kent writes, paraphrasing Dr. Lewis' talk on mashing:
Regarding mash extraction and efficiency.
I just ran the numbers from the 'winners circle' recipes in a recent
Zymurgy'. The extraction rates were all over the map, from 18 pt-#/gal
to 35+ pt-#/gal. I'm not sure what this says except that you can make
good beer regardless of extraction efficiency.
>>C. Sparge slowly with or without recirculating depending on the
>>condition of the first run off. If it's fairly clear recirculating
>>isn't necessary. Temperature is not important!? Dr. Lewis recommends
>>staying on the low side. Run first running trough, followed by one
>>running of warm water, followed by *cold* water. Once the cold water
>>hits the outlet of the lauter tun you are finished.
>
>I posted on this recently, but feel that it is important enough to
>post again. I'm pretty sloppy when it comes to mashout (I do it
>maybe 10 or 20% of the time), but I do not doubt the benefit. If
>you sparge incredibly slowly, then, yes, the benefit of higher temp
>is minor, but for normal sparges it can be as much as 10% better
>extraction!
I've actually tried some cool sparges. I've gotten variable results,
but certainly not all bad ones in terms of efficiency. From recent
reading it appears that the change in wort viscosity isn't an issue, but
that the mash-out temperature increase actually causes small particles
to agglomerate instead of staying free and clogging the filter bed. I
have a suspicion that the only real value in a mash-out is to wipe the
enzymes and glue-up the small particulates a bit more. There was some
early work in the 1950's or 60s in which acceptable extraction
efficiency was obtained at near freezing sparge temperatures !
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 04:21:14 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@phoenix.net>
Subject: Intellectual property law
Dave Burley and Charles Hudak give us their views in HBD #2573on who "owns" the
rights to a recipe: the brewer or the brewery.
Unfortunately, their views are largely inaccurate from a legal standpoint.
(And yes, I am an intellectual property lawyer, though I play brewer
on [public access] TV.)
Dave and Charles are correct in saying that, absent an agreement to the
contrary, intellectual property created by an employee in the course and
scope of his employment generally belong to the employer, not the
employee. Based on this, they reason that since recipes are
intellectual property, and intellectual property belongs to the employer,
the recipes belong to the employer. Q.E.D.
The flaw in this logic is that recipes are generally *not* protectable
intellectual property. It is abundantly clear that recipes cannot be
protected by copyright (a particular text *description* of a recipe
might be, but that can't stop someone from using the *idea*
represented in the text; e.g., while I can't go out and make copies
of a copyrighted cookbook, there's nothing illegal in cooking --
even commercially -- according to the recipes reproduced in the
book). It is theoretically possible that a recipe could be the basis
for a process patent (the methods for making Zima and ice beer
are patented, although the latter patent is being challenged), but it's
fair to say that this possibly is essentially nonexistent for the kinds
of recipes we're talking about.
So far so good. Recipes aren't protected by copyright, nor are
they likely to be patentable. So how do the big boys protect
themselves from having their recipes copied? They do the same
thing Coca-Cola has done successfully for decades: use trade
secret law -- a state law concept. An employer *can* protect
a recipe that his employees have developed *if* he jumps through
all the necessary hoops to make it qualify for trade secret protection.
The big boys do this in spades: when you go to work for them, you
sign complex nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, in which
you agree not to use or disclose the employer's trade secrets except
in the performance of your duties. These employers also take steps
to make sure that the "secret" recipe is in fact kept a secret, and that
limited number of employees who are privy to the recipe are informed
that it is a trade secret subject to the nondisclosure and confidentiality
agreement.
So where does that get us in the typical situation, where a brewer --
an employee -- of a brewpub or micro creates a recipe, but there is
no employment contract, NDA, or confidentiality agreement, the
boss has never implemented any sort of trade secret policy (indeed,
he probably never even thought about it until too late), and then the
brewer leaves and starts using the recipe at another brewery. Can
the former employer stop him from doing so? Under the laws of
most states (YMMV, so check with competent counsel before
doing this), the answer is no. Unless the employer has taken the
necessary steps to treat the recipe as a trade secret, it's fair game --
not just for his former employee, but even for his competitors.
(Note that this doesn't mean that an angry former employer
couldn't force his former employee to spend thousands of dollars
getting a court to declare this fact. Often times, "you can beat
the rap but not the ride.")
Can the former employee stop his former employer from brewing
"his" beer without paying him royalties? Nope, because the recipe
isn't his -- or anyone's -- protectable intellectual property. It may
be his idea and his creation, but not all ideas and creations enjoy
the protection of intellectual property law. The employer's actions
may be a sorry thing to do from an ethical (and business) standpoint,
but legally they're on solid ground.
I do agree with Dave that the prudent thing for any brewer -- or
brewery -- to do is to have detailed, written agreements up front that
resolve all these (and many other matters) as a matter of contract.
("Good fences make good neighbors.") In the absense of such
agreements, however, neither side enjoys much in the way of
protection.
Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham@phoenix.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 97 07:24:33 -0600
From: schwab_bryan@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil
Subject: Nominations
Greeetings to all of my fellow Homebrewers!
In HBD#2573, Ron Laborde nominates his wife for an Award. Great!! :)
Well for what it is worth, I would like to nominate my two brewing
partners. My 10 yr old daughter Jessica, and her 13 yr old brother
Casey. Eight yrs ago I gainned full custody of them and 4 yrs ago I
began brewing, both of them have been through it all with me, from my
initation into extract brewing, they would both take turns stiring the
boiling wort. Even through the ordeal of the broken Carboy and two
cut up thumbs, they were both there for me. Having progressed into full
grain Brewing and even a few double decoction brews, yep both of them
are there to grind grain, and assist in any way they can. Even with the
tossing of the spent grain to the birds and Mash Tun clean up I can
alsways count on my Brew Buddies! Recipe formulation is an event with
these two in the kitchen! School Essays are written up on the latest
Brew Batch we did together. ( Talk about your Parent Teacher
conferences...remember... this is the south, and if it is not
Religious,it is frowned upon.)
I had to chuckle to myself during the posts of disgruntled Spouses
who gave their Husbands "Hell and Grief" for brewing in the kitchen
and messing up the stove......My Kids actually asks me when we are
going to brew and if I am not, they get upset!
(gotta appreciate that early dedication to a hobby)
We do not worry about stained stove tops, spilled wort on the floor,
or Saturdays or Sundays waisted on brewing instead of shopping trips.
We brew beer and make Soda Pop together, as it should be!!
So I nominate my two Brew Buddies For
"Brewers Assistant" of the Decade!!!
May they both take this interest to the next generation
with a new level of devotion and dedication!!
Bryan E. Schwab
Panama City FL.
Schwab_Bryan@ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 08:39:13 -0800
From: RUSt1d? <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Steep/Decoction
some guy asks about extracting tannins:
My understanding is that the ph of the water has the greatest influence.
In a steep/boil situation there is generally too much water for the
grains to affect the ph very much. In a decoction, the grains drop the
ph into a range where tannins are not extracted. This is why in Noonans
book, Brewing Lager Beer, he stresses the importance of the mash ph and
how you should not proceed with the first decoction until the ph has
dropped into an acceptable range.
- --
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:03:42 +200
From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling@azona.com>
Subject: South African Breweries
Just for interest sake I send this to the Digest. I got it from
rbpmail.
SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERY
South African Breweries Ltd. has a reputation as one of South
Africa'sbest- managed companies and one its toughest competitors. SAB
produces 14brands, from its leading Castle and Lion to Heineken,
Guinness, Amstel andCarling Black Label, the last four all brewed
under license, according to astory in the New York Times. Selling
about 98% of South Africa's beer, the company is virtually a monopoly.
During the volatile early 90s, SAB trucks venturing into black
townships were often hijacked and firebombed. The company loaned its
black drivers the money to buy trucks and trained them to run small
businesses, hiring them as contractors. The attacks ceased, and many
blacks are now in middle management. In fact, 93% of its customers are
black. Currently, SAB is expanding overseas very aggressively,
including elsewhere in Africa, the European continent and China. It is
the fourth largest brewing operation by volume in the world, after
Anheuser-Busch, Heineken and Miller Brewing. (New York Times, from an
article by Donald G. McNeil, Jr.; August 27, 1997)
Braam Greyling
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:52:20 -0600
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: The value of mashout?
In HBD #2573 Al K. and Kent were discussing the value of doing a mashout
(or lack thereof). Agreeing with Al, It has been my (limited)
experience that extraction will increase by several points when done.
Being a frugal Yankee type, and considering that "time is money", I have
come up with a *modified* mash-out technique. What I do is to nearly
drain the mash after the sachrification rest is complete. I have a
mashing excel spreadsheet to calculate my rest temps & infusions that
also calculates how much available liquid there will be in the first
runnings. After draining, I do an infusion with boiling water to bring
the grain bed to 168-170 degF. Since I've removed some quantity of
liquid, this infusion is smaller than it would be otherwise. While
allowing the mash to rest, the first runnings are already on the flame.
My thinking is that this technique allows me to bring both the grainbed
and the thin mash (first runnings) up to temperature to denature
enzymes. It might allow a marginal increase in efficiency since this
mash-out infusion is applied to a grist with some quantity of the sugars
already removed. It also allows me to save time in bringing the wort to
the boil as part of it is part way there already.
So my question is, what's wrong with this scenario? Why don't I hear of
others using this sort of technique?
Regards,
Fred Wills
Fearless Freddies Homebrewery
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:52:13 -0600
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills@amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: RE: Whirlpool
In HBD #2573 Dave Draper asks,
<<Many posts over years have made mention of the whirlpool method to
collect
the stuff in the bottom of the kettle into a pile that can then be
mostly
avoided when siphoning the wort into the fermentor. This has never
worked
for me, and I am wondering why. In yesterday's batch I tried once
again.
After chilling with my immersion chiller, I removed it and then gave the
wort a good firm stir for about 30 seconds to get it rotating nicely,
then
put the lid on and went away for about 10 or 15 minutes. >>
I would say that it is simply a matter of time, Dave. *More* of it, to
be specific.
Try stirring the whirlpool for 3-5 mins and don't be bashful. Realizing
that the wort is chilled at this point, any O2 you introduce is
beneficial. It takes some finite amount of time for the particles to
migrate to the center of the whirl centrifically.
The second key time is to let it settle for much longer. I used to be
in a big rush to get the beer safely in the fermenter and get that darn
yeast pitched, etc. but have come to realize that this is one place
where the Charlie P mantra is applicable. If you let it settle longer
the trub and hop spooge will settle into a firmer pile (layer?) and you
will remove clearer wort.
My standard technique is to kill 2 birds and swirl my immersion chiller
in the kettle for the last 20 degrees. I increase the efficiency of the
chiller by exposing its surface to more liquid and begin the whirlpool
at the same time. When I reach the desired temperature I just remove
the chiller, cover the kettle, and begin my clean-up. Usually I'll wait
an hour or so before siphoning to the fermented, but if I have something
else to do, it has been longer (up to 2 hours). Allowing this much
settling time makes for some very nice looking wort.
If you consider some of the discussion that has gone on here about wort
stability testing, 2 hours is not a big deal unless the wort was
seriously infected. Just make sure you'll be pitching a big yeast
culture and you can make up for those two hours easily.
<<What gives? I know that it probably didn't work for me while I was in
Sydney simply because the Coriolis force makes such things point the
wrong way...*grin*... >>
Actually, you would only need to spin your whirlpool CCW to compensate,
eh? Simply check your toilet bowl for reference.<g>
Trivia question for collective consideration...
...Which direction do you rotate *your* whirlpool? Does it matter?
Is it art?
Regards,
Fred Wills
Fearless Freddies Homebrewery
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:02:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Ninkasi@aol.com
Subject: Histamine Summary
Dave Burley says : <<Ann has a friend who occasionally gets a histamine
reaction from drinking homebrew and wonders why. Examine your recipes. If
they have wheat, this may be the problem.>>
Actually, one of the beers she *didn't* react to was about 50% wheat. All
my other beers have been 100% barley.
Curt Schroeder suggests a hop allergy (in a private e-mail). I don't think
it's hops, because I'm actually still a novice brewer and have only just
begun to get started experimenting with hops, so most of my beers so far
have had and ounce of Cascade in the boil and an ounce of Cascade at the end
of the boil, including the aforementioned wheat beer. The other beer she
didn't react to was a mild that, due to a mistake during mashing, had an
insanely low SG.
Christopher Lyons posted a warning, which I will pass on. Yes, she is
allergic to a number of things--I should have mentioned that in my post but
didn't. Sorry. I have no idea what an epi-kit is, so she probably doesn't
have one. None of her allergies are really serious, but as you point out,
you never know when one might turn deadly. However, oddly enough, none of
her allergies are food allergies, so that didn't give me any clues.
Jeff Kenton (also email) suggested a barley allergy, which so far seems the
most likely suspect. He suggested that a protein rest might break down a
percentage of the proteins that cause the reaction. The wheat beer was the
first time I tried a protein rest, and the mild was so light it tasted like
beer flavored water until about a month after bottling. Then it was sort of
like beer soda. Yuck, I hear some of you saying, but lots of people liked
it! (homebrewing is so gratifying--everyone thinks I'm so talented now, even
when I don't think I did such a great job!) And I could drink one during the
day and still be sharp. (Well, as sharp as I ever am! ;) ). My point is,
there probably weren't too many barley proteins in that beer.
So the upshot is, I think it's a barley allergy. I'll test protein rests
and adjuncts on the subject over the next brewing sessions and see what
happens.
Thanks, All!
Ann
St. Louis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 10:07:59 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Clinitest/Belgian Ales
I was reading Noonan's New Brewing Lager Beers the other day, and
found the statement (paraphrased slightly) that "fermentation is
finished when the reducing sugar content is 2% or less." So a
reducing sugar content of 1%, as indicated by the Clinitest kit,
probably indicates complete fermentation.
=S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:34:09 -0600
From: "SCHULTZ, MONIKA K. (JSC-CB)" <monika.k.schultz1@jsc.nasa.gov>
Subject: water softeners
Jeff Hailey (Now brewing in Austin) asked about the effect of a water
softener on his brew water.
Point: The overwhelming response was that it is high in sodium, low in any
other minerals, and not suitable for brewing.
Counterpoint: I've been brewing with softened water for ~3.5 years and have
produced many tasty beers (extract and all grain) that score very well in
competitions. (You knew that was coming didn't you?) Sometimes I'll add
some gypsum to my mash, sometimes not. IMBR and I don't even know it? :-)
You can brew perfectly fine beer with softened water. Ofcoarse, 'perfectly
fine' depends on your definition as such, so YMMV. If you are in to
adjusting your water to meet a specific style (I'm not), then softened water
is probably not acceptable. Before you go off bypassing your system, etc,
etc... see how your beer turns out and decide if you really want to bother.
Another one of those rare chick brewers doing it in Nassau Bay, Texas...
- Monika
- Monika
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2575, 12/05/97
*************************************
-------
