Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2627
HOMEBREW Digest #2627 Tue 03 February 1998
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:
Lifetime supplies of keg lube [tm] (Some Guy)
RE: H2O / Scotch Ale questions ("O'Brien, Douglas")
Liquid Yeast (Vernon R Land)
RIMS vs. Other Methods ("Dustin H. Norlund")
Protein Rest Primer (Kyle Druey)
1998 Hail to Ale Competition (BernardCh)
Kyles' Quest of a Protein Rest ("Steve Alexander")
re SOD & Mashout ("Steve Alexander")
Re: H2O / Scotch Ale questions (Fredrik Staahl)
What kind of filter should you use (Bob.Sutton)
Propane, butane & methane (Steve Scott)
Wit recipe (Kit Anderson)
Celis Beer and other beer changes (Randy Lee)
Runoff Rate; Packaged Dry Yeast (Samuel Mize)
RIMS and Stuff (Bill Giffin)
Brewing South Pole ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
Underlet RIMS (Paul Ward)
sparge rates/cheap cp filler (John Wilkinson)
mash schedules... (Richard Byrnes)
re:H20 and Scotch Ale quest. (Charles Burns)
aj's chlorine article/celis ("Ted Hull")
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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@hbd.org
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
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: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 13:52:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: Lifetime supplies of keg lube [tm]
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
"C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@chattanooga.net> mentions that 1 oz is a lifetime
supply of keg lube...
MY GOD!!! I'm too young to die!
(on tube three. Lost tube one, and used up tube two...)
:-)
C.D. is correct, though. Keg Lube and Lubri-Film are EGGSALAD jelly-type
lubricants designed to be used on the probes of Sanke kegs and on
moving/rubbing parts of draught equipment. An advantage to the jelly over
the spray is that it only goes where YOU put it. No over-spray to be
concerned with.
And, gee! It has so many uses! I use a thin coating of it on the spindel
of my March pumps when cleaning/rebuilding the pump heads. For those of
you who pump your wort, I'm sure you're familiar with the bearing chatter
shreak these pumps can let lose with on occassion. Haven't heard it since
I started operating this way. (Thin film on the spindle, put impellor
back on, reassemble. Run boiling water through pump head to remove any
excess.)
I've also found that it helps keep the exterior of my faucets from
pitting, and works well to prevent sticking of that button that sticks
outta the front of the faucet, too. Those dirty rings! You've tried
scrubbing them out... A thin film on the large cornie o-ring assists
sealing on those troublesome keg covers, too!
Also, lightly applied, it will grow hair, remove liver-spots and readily
replaces crisco at those crisco parties! Don' leave home without it!
Imagine all the fun YOU could have with a tube of Lubri-Film?
We now return you to your normally scheduled program...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brewing Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 15:56:20 -0500
From: "O'Brien, Douglas" <Douglas.O'Brien@geocan.nrcan.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: H2O / Scotch Ale questions
> "Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu> said:
>
I'm not experienced with Scottish Wee Heavy's, but...
> Name: O.G.: 1.078
> > Style: Scottish Export I.B.U.: 32.1
> > Volume: 5.0 Gallons A.B.V.: 98.4%
>
98.4% ABV... hmmm. Invite me over when you first crack open the batch
;-)
> > Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU
> Oz Min
> > Pale, American 2 Row 8.00 East Kent Goldings 4.3
> 2.50 60
> > Barley, Roasted 2.00
>
2 lb Roast Barley? That's as much as I put in my Irish Stout!! I
suspect that this is high.
> > Biscuit, Belgian 3.00
> > Smoked, German 1.00
> > Cara-pils, American 1.00
>
Overall (again I'm not a Wee Heavy expert, but...) I would suggest
losing a lot of the specialty malts, make sure that you do a high temp.
mash, and do a long boil, i.e., 2 hours. Perhaps even caramelise some
wort on the side. Just my HO.
Cheers,
Doug
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 18:01:00 -0500
From: vland1@juno.com (Vernon R Land)
Subject: Liquid Yeast
After listening to everyone describe how liquid yeast was superior to dry
yeast I decided to try it. I only have nine batches under my belt, but
so far all of my brews have been very tasty using Edme dry yeast. No off
tastes, foul odors, etc. For Christmas, my son gave me a liquid yeast
culture (company name witheld to protect the innocent) described as a
London Ale. I used it in place of the Edme dry in one of my favorite IPA
recipes (all grain) and the results are awful. I can't exactly describe
the taste, but it is definately different to what I am used to. It does
not appear to be infected and carbonation is fine. Is a London Ale
"taste" that different?
Vern Land
Va. Beach, VA
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 21:03:21 -0600
From: "Dustin H. Norlund" <dustin@minibrew.com>
Subject: RIMS vs. Other Methods
Everyone is debating the RIMS vs. Other methods. The following are the
reasons why I use a rims system. I would be glad to debate any point
below. We all need to calm down and have a beer.
1. Temperature Control is far superior to any other type system.
2. No Need for Mixer or Stiring.
3. A RIMS system will produce beer that can be reproduced with the same
EXACT temps, times, and ammounts. This is hard to do with a brew pot, or
cooler system.
4. RIMS ,from my experiances, produces a higher yeild from the grain with
less work than any other system I know of.
5. RIMS systems cost is really not that bad if you are a good craftsman.
Major costs are the kegs, pump, and heating element. All of which can be
found for free or cheap if you look hard enough.
Check out my RIMS page.
falcon.cc.ukans.edu/~keifer/brewing.html
Dustin
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 12:53:34 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey@ibm.net>
Subject: Protein Rest Primer
As many of you know, for the past month or so I have been researching
when a protein rest is appropriate. I think I finally have some
practical answers for all of us folks at home. The bottom line is that
the degree of modification of the malt determines if a protein rest is
necessary (nothing new). So, the first question is how does one
determine modification at home?
1) BT Market Guide. If you have access to this it is a good place to
start. However, I now feel that this information is probably of limited
value because the malt numbers provided are ranges and representative of
all lots malted. It probably isn't representative of the lot that your
malt came from.
2) Lot Analysis. Obtaining a lot analysis from the maltster is the
best information, because the data is relevant to the particular malt
that you have. However, how are the folks at home supposed to obtain
this? I don't see the homebrew shops having this info, and even if we
had the lot number I doubt if maltsters would take the time to give the
folks at home the info.
3) Testing at Home. From my research (I did not provide references to
save bandwidth, but I used the common homebrew books available, which
are just abstracts of the real references such as M&BS etc.), I feel
that the following two tests used together can provide a reasonable
estimate for malt modification: the Bite Test, and estimating the
Average Acrospire Length.
The length of the acrospire is somewhat representative of the level of
malt modification. Pull out 50 uncrushed kernels of malt from what you
bought at the homebrew shop and boil them in water for 60 minutes. Now
measure the length of the acrospire relative to the entire length of the
kernel (if you don't know what the acrospire is, it is the germinal form
of the barley plant, you will see it sticking out of the kernel at the
end of the boil). You may have to break open the kernel between your
thumbnails and dig out the starchy endosperm to expose the acrospire.
Estimate (eyeball) the measurements of at least 30 kernels and count the
number that are 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and full length of the kernel. Now take
the average of this number. Here is how to interpret the results:
*No Protein Rest - If the average acrospire length is 0.75 or greater,
and the malt crumbles when you bite it, no protein rest is needed. The
malt is suitable for a single infusion.
*Rest for 20' @ 135 F - If the average acrospire length is from 0.65 and
less than 0.75, and the malt is somewhat crunchy (and may crumble also),
then rest for 20' @ 135 F. The bite for this malt is somewhat like
crunching on a spaghetti noodle that is not fully cooked (maybe not the
best analogy but that is all my feeble brain could come up with).
*Rest for 20' @ 122 F - If the average acrospire length is less than
0.65, and the malt is mostly crunchy (does not crumble at all), then
rest for 20' @ 122 F.
I obtained several base malt samples and performed the two tests (BT
Market Guide data is also provided if available):
Average
Acrospire
Malt Length Bite Kolbach %FG/CG
- ---- --------- ---- ------- ------
Baird Pale Ale 0.76 1 42 no data
Gambrinus Pale 0.83 1 47 no data
GW Pale Ale 0.80 1 no data 1.8
GW 2-Row 0.86 1 no data 1.8
Weyermann Pils 0.79 1 no data no data
De Wolf Pils 0.73 0 no data 2.0
Most malts were highly/well modified with an acrospire length of greater
than 0.75 and a bite that crumbles (bite class 1). The only malt that
was moderately modified was the De Wolf Pils with an average acrospire
length of 0.73 and a crunchy bite (bite class 0; bite class -1 is like
biting into a steel ball bearing) All malts are suitable for single
infusion except for the De Wolf Pils that should include a protein rest
for 20' at 135 F. The Baird Pale Ale was marginally well modified,
perhaps another test should have been performed with this malt to
confirm the first results. The most highly modified malt was the Great
Western 2-row, it crumbled the best of all the malts.
Well, there it is. Flames are encouraged, but please provide references
or personal testing data if you fire back a post. The HBD xpurts are
also encouraged to explain the fine points and limitations.
Kyle Druey
Ph.D. candidate in Trichonology, Center for Redneck Studies, Oildale
University, Bakersfield CA
"He was a wise man who invented beer." -Plato
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 00:08:16 EST
From: BernardCh@aol.com
Subject: 1998 Hail to Ale Competition
The 1998 Hail to Ale, AHA Club Only Competition was held Saturday, 31 January
1998 at Boscos Nashville Brewing Company in Nashville Tennessee. The host
club was The Music City Brewers of Nashville.
58 entries representing 28 states were judged by panels of both BJCP and
professional brewers (29 judges in all). The average score from all entries
was 32.6.
The AHA has asked that they announce the first, second and third place
winners. Brian Rezac from the AHA will be posting the results (to the HBD,
judge-digest and rec.crafts.brewing) after he has contacted the top three
finishers.
To provide a quicker return of scoresheets to the entrants, the AHA has agreed
that the host club mail out the scoresheets to all entrants except the first
second and third place winners.
Scoresheets will be reivewed for quality of judges comments on Wednesday, 4
February 1998 and will be mailed to all but the top three finishers by that
Friday. The scoresheets for the winners will be mailed to the AHA and will be
distributed from there.
Finally, The Music City Brewers would like to thank Chuck Skypeck and Boscos
Nashville Brewing Company for their hospitality, all the entrants and
especially all the judges (who gave up a beautiful Saturday in January) who
participated in the event.
Chuck Bernard
BernardCh@aol.com
Music City Brewers, Nashville, TN - Music City USA
Competition Organizer - 1998 Hail to Ale, AHA Club Only Competition
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 03:29:39 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Kyles' Quest of a Protein Rest
Hopefully it's not too late to submit an entry to Kyle's Protein Rest
Quiz.=20
>Protein Rest Quiz
>=20
>To protein rest or not to protein rest, who knows? All we are told is
>that the type of malt and the degree of modification determines if a
>protein rest is needed. I thought it would be interesting to present
>modification data on 4 different malts and ask the experts to offer
>their recommendations for a protein rest. I pulled the malt data below
>from the 1997 BT Market Guide:
>=20
>No. Malt %FG/CG %SNR
>- --- ---- ------ ----
>1 Baird British Pale Ale no data 41-44
>2 Durst Pils 1.0-2.0 no data
>3 De Wolf Pilsen 2.0 no data
>4 Baird Premium Pilsen no data 38-42=20
=20
>From various sources and dates ... TN%
1 Baird British Pale Ale no data 41-44 9-10%
2 Durst Pils 1.5 42.6 10-11%
3 De Wolf Pilsen 2.0 44.0 10-11%
4 Baird Premium Pilsen no data 38-42 9.5-10.5%=20
Note that %FG/CG represents how much more extract you get from a fine
than a coarse grind and so tells us something about how degraded the
protein matrix of the endosperm. The implication is that if the
protein matrix is less degraded, then the soluble proteins will be
also, and so they'll require a rest to prevent haze. There are also
some good reasons why this may not be true - it's really just a rule
of thumb.
>Noonan's article in the BT Market Guide offers the following
>interpretations for the data above:
[...]=20
There is some grain (sic) of truth in Noonan's statement, but if you
check, only a couple malts (5) are suitable for no-protein rest
according to Noonan, and only Scotmalt2 is suitable for decoction.
This must be untrue (esp the no-p-rest).=20
=20
>I am no mashing enzyme expert, and I wouldn't know a peptidase if it
>walked up and smacked me up side the head, but I will make a guess at
>it:=20
I agree with AlK's comments. DeWolf-Cosyns needs a rest. As a regular
user of Durst malt it is far less needy of a protein rest than is DWC,
but a rest helps. I haven't used Baird malts, but would assume their
PA doesn't require a rest, most good Brit PAs don't and Baird has a
good reputation. I will not jump to any premature conclusions based
on national origin re their lager malt. From the spec sheets it
appears that the UK is producing some fine lager malts. AlK also
offered some good practical advise regarding testing the malt.=20
=20
Back to the quiz - what is a protein rest and why do you want to do
one ? To control the levels of amino acids, peptides and proteins in
your beer. We care about amino acid levels primarily as a yeast
nutrients, but too low, or excess levels can also cause yeast to
produce off flavors. Any all-malt beer made with modern malts
shouldn't have any problem hitting good FAN levels. Peptides
(mini-proteins) can, depending on their structure, add to foam
stability or detract from it. Peptides are implicated in the elusive
'body' property. And some recent studies show that certain specific
peptides can be involved in haze. Why do you want proteins in wort ?
They combine and flocc and take down oxidized(bad) polyphenols and
fatty acids as break material. The break also traps a remarkable
amount of the odd metal ions like zinc, copper, iron and heavier
metals. Too little protein in the boiling wort can lead to poor break
and so oxidized, astringent and eventually oxidized fatty acids (very
bad).=20
=20
What else controls the levels of these in beer ? The length of boil
is critical. Too short and more of the bigger haze formers get thru,
too long and you may compromise head & body. pH is also a very
critical factor in break formation - but characterising it is
difficult or impossible. Proteins just plain like to unravel and flocc
at a pH specific to the protein. Some sources suggest a best result
on the high side of pH (like 5.5-5.6), but there are a lot of good
mash effects down on the low end ~pH=3D5.1 too. Be sure to include a pH
control knob on the mash-tun/boiler of your autoRIMS-yr2k system
design. Lagering and filtering will also reduce proteins. Fining
agents are another topic relevent to protein precipitation, but too
complex to broach here.=20
=20
The entire issue of temps, times and pH for protein rests is much more
complicated than the simple amylase system. The two brewing amylases
basically act on 1-4 links of a-glucose to a-glucose - that's all!
One kind of bond, between one kind of molecule. Proteins consist of
ordered links of 20 different alpha-amino acids, and occassionally
some other amino acids. I was just reading about a yeast proteinase
that detracts from foam and prefers to break the amino acid sequence=20
ABz-Leu-Phe-Ala-Leu-Glu-Val-Ala-Tyr-(NO)-Asp-OH
^
right between the Leu-Glu. Pretty specific huh ? Some of the barley
proteinases are less specific, say breaking a Gly-X sequence where X
is one of 2 or 3 specific amino acids attached to the Glycine, but
this is still pretty specific. The amino acids on the terminal end
can have a big effect on the resulting peptides properties too - such
as will it be foam positive of negative. Now the statement that there
are 40+ known proteinases on malt (and probably more unknown ones)
makes some sense. They have temperature optima from 40C to 63C at
least, and I suspect a wide range of pH optima. They act on somewhat
specific amino acid sequences, and furthermore the specific sequences
available for degradation and the enzyme properties available to do
the degrading are directly dependent on the barley genetics - so when
the variety changes from procter to triumph (or whatever) you can
pretty much throw out the old rule book on enzymes (which are
proteins) and proteinases. Rest assured that some professional
societies, government agencies and commercial brewers and malters have
sweated the details before bringing a new variety to market,
Unfortunately their research reports describing property differences
in malting barley never seem to make it to my desk.=20
=20
If you can use this information to derive a mash schedule you're way
ahead of me. You can take a stab in the dark like Noonan, or
experiment as AlK suggests - those are the real options. This topic is
one of the open challenges described by A.W.MacGregor in 'Malting and
Brewing Science: Challenges and Opportunities', (JIB v102,pp97, 1996).=20
=20
Steve Alexander
=20
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 03:27:54 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re SOD & Mashout
Someone (sorry) asked about using the antioxidant super oxide dimutase =
(SOD) in the mash. Malt already contains considerable SOD, about 4-8 =
times as much as raw barley - however in the two papers that I have seen =
it appears to be totally ineffective in the mash, completely =
dissappearing in minutes (see Banforth, JIB v89, pp420, 1983 and =
Clarkson & Large, JIB v98, pp 111, 1992). In the second paper, other =
antioxidant/oxygen scavengers where investigated. Catalase was quickly =
deactivated in the mash and was ineffective, but glucose oxidase had a =
large effect creating more haze, a redder color a slower runoff, and =
significantly decreased polyphenol content. The red color only =
persisted thru the boil when peroxidase enzyme was present as well.
Antioxidants that conform with Reinheitsgebot(sp?) ? Try some =
munich/vienna or melanoidin malt - any with some kilned Maillard =
products. Actually catechin, one of the dreaded phenols is an effective =
antioxidant.
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=20
Kyle Druey asks about mashout ...
>My understanding is that the mashout will cause the remaining bit of
>starch to gelatinize for the last surviving alpha amylase enzymes to
>convert, which increases extraction. There are some experiments to =
this
>effect in the library of the Brewery, but only 1 pt/lb/gal increase in
>extraction was achieved using a 15' mashout rest at 168F.
>
>MY REAL QUESTION: is the mashout necessary? (to me a mashout means =
the
>last temperature rest for 5'-15' at temps from 165F-170F before
>sparging) I have noticed lately that several brewing 'experts' no =
longer
>believe a mashout is necessary. One HBDer commented last fall that
>Michael Lewis believes it is not necessary. In Fix's new book he does
>not include a mashout for any of his recommended mashing programs, and
>he doesn't even make mention of a mashout. What's up with this?=20
Mashout is/was a part of commercial practice as described in M&BS for =
step mashing, while they describe using hot sparge water to get a 74C =
grainbed for single infusion. I've got references on a mashout step =
for decoction, but the actual historical practice is not entirely clear =
to me.
=20
Mashout isn't necessary, I've experimented with dropping it, and even =
performing a cool water=20
sparge without a tremendous loss in extraction efficiency.
=20
In a paper in the 1969 EBC proceedings, Bent Stig Enevoldsen of Tuborg =
breweries performed a step mash while taking samples to assay every 10 =
minutes. The time temps were as follow
after a 1 minute mashin and set to 52C:=20
52C - 30 min (0-30)=20
52C -> 63C - 20 min (30-50)
63C - 60 min (50-110)
63C->78C - 40 min (110-150)=20
78C - 10 min (150-160)=20
=20
The extract and total carbos between 110' (the end of 63C rest) and 160' =
end of mashout varied as: extract 16.10g/100ml -> 16.81g/100ml, +4.4%; =
carbs 14.56->15.50,+6.4%, however roughly half of the increase occurred =
by 130', when the boost hit 70C.
=20
Each of the fermentable sugars increased by a few percent between 110' =
and 160', and of course the dextrins, which had been in decline during =
the 63C rest started increasing in level. The increase was again only a =
few percent. What is more dramatic is that certain specific dextrins =
levels increased dramatically Specifically dextrins of degree of =
polymerization 4, 5, 6, showed increases of about 60%. Further analysis =
showed that the majority of these DP 4-6 dextrins were beta-amylase =
degradeable (linear), while the amount of branched dextrins changed =
little.
=20
Does the mashout increase extract enough to be of concern ? For =
commercial operations certainly, for HB operations the increase is =
pretty small.
=20
Do the added dextrins created after that beta-amylase system has failed =
during mashout contribute to body, mouthfeel, head, haze etc ? Hmmm - =
hard to say. At 110' there was (130,32,20) mg/100ml of linear =
(M4,M5.M6) dextrin respy, at 130'(the 70C point) the levels were =
(193,47,46), at 160' it was (246,76,78). Big percentage changes but =
only a small amount of the total carbs. My guess is that if you were =
doing a 60C/70C step mash, you'd never notice the mashout effect on =
dextrins - it would already take place at the 70C rest. Whether you =
could really detect this relatively small amount of additional linear =
dextrin in a beer is an interesting question. Perhaps someone could do =
65C infusion mashes w & w/o mashout and report.
>The only reason I do a mashout now is to reduce the viscosity of the
>wort before sparging.=20
Everyone knows that a higher temp causes a better runoff, but viscosity =
is only a secondary issue. From [Buhler et al, Trans.Inst.Chem.Eng.Part =
C food BioProd.Process, 1996 74,pp207] we have it that at higher mashing =
temps the smaller particles tend to aggragate forming large particles =
which are less able to clog the filter bed. In their measurement this =
effect is more important than the viscosity change. If your sparge =
isn't sticking you can safely forget the mashout.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 13:00:42 +0100
From: Fredrik.Stahl@math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl)
Subject: Re: H2O / Scotch Ale questions
Michael Gerholdt is planning to brew a Scotch ale:
>HBRCP 2.0 Recipe:
>
>Name: O.G.: 1.078
>Style: Scottish Export I.B.U.: 32.1
>Volume: 5.0 Gallons A.B.V.: 98.4%
>
>Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Oz
>Min
>Pale, American 2 Row 8.00 East Kent Goldings 4.3 2.50
>60
>Barley, Roasted 2.00
>Biscuit, Belgian 3.00
>Smoked, German 1.00
>Cara-pils, American 1.00
>
>Yeast: Scottish Ale Wyeast 1728
Do you really mean 2 lbs of roasted barley? That's an awful lot - at 13%
that would make a totally black beer. I use around 10% in stouts! I
wouldn't use more than a few ounces. Remember that you only want a hint of
roast barley, and that some of the colour should come from caramelisation
in the boil.
Also an ABV of 98.4% is astounding - I wouldn't call that a 'wee' heavy! :-)
I cannot comment on the amount of Biscuit since I've never been able to
find it here in Sweden, but I think the rest of the recipe should be OK.
Remember that you want a rather high FG, so mashing at 68-69 C might be a
good idea. Consider caramelising a portion of the wort in a small pan on
the stove to boost the caramel flavours a bit further.
/Fredrik Stahl, Umea, Sweden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 7:58:00 -0500
From: Bob.Sutton@fluordaniel.com
Subject: What kind of filter should you use
Bob Hendriksen (Bhendrik@webspan.net) using the mother of
all water filters bemoaned "the beer has virtually NO
taste to it - no hop bitterness, no hop aroma, no beer
taste whatsoever!...I'm not even sure if there's any
ALCOHOL in it"
Bob,
Your dilemma was caused by using a filter containing
activated carbon! What you want is a particulate filter. A
5 micron should give you the results you want - however
hazing can still occur with time and/or cooling due to
protein precipitates. BTW, I believe you've added keen
insight into the secrets of Zima.
Bob
Fruit Fly Brewhaus
Yesterdays' Technology Today
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 08:20:14 -0500
From: sscott@lightlink.com (Steve Scott)
Subject: Propane, butane & methane
>My personal experience has been with a "Cajun Cooker" type propane=20
>burner being used to french fry a whole turkey. I found that where=20
>natural gas is usually used at about 6 - 8 ounces pressure, these big=20
>jet engine type propane burners operate at about 15 PSIG. This, of=20
>course would have an effect on the difference in orifice size.
I haven't tested the regulator output on my Brinkmann cooker but
domestic methane (NG) equipment should have an incoming pressure of 7"
water column. Propane should be 11" WC. 28" WC equals 1 PSI.
>For safety's sake, don't take any propane or butane tank indoors. Where=
=20
>natural gas is lighter than air and will more readilly dissipate,=20
>propane and butane are heavier than air and will settle into the lowest=20
>part of any area.=20
Great advice that unfortunately not enough take seriously.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 21:42:46 -0800
From: Kit Anderson <kitridge@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Wit recipe
Kevin F. Schramer wrote;
> here's what i brewed....i called it "Blanco de Belga"
> 4 lb 2-row pils
> 4 lb wheat malt
> 1/2 lb oat
> 1 oz kent golding (5%) 60 min
> 1/2 oz saaz (4.2%) 10 min.
> 3/4 oz bitter orange peel 20 min
> 1 oz ground coriander seed 5 min
> og 1.046....was about 4.5% alcohol
> what did i do wrong?
Your recipe looks OK but use unmalted wheat instead of wheat malt.
Either flaked wheat or grind your own red winter wheat berries. Adjust
the final pH with lactic acid to taste to get the tartness. If you wnat
more pronounced coriander aroma, add it to secondary instead of the
boil.
Yeast selection is very important to the final flavor. BrewTek, Yeast
Labs and YCKC have excellent, bready, citrusy cultures. I don't care for
Wyeast's strain. It is a little bland.
A French name instead of Spanish might also help.
> thanks....and now that Celis is down let's kick it....
You mean it now tastes like Blue Moon?
- --
Kit Anderson ICQ# 2242257
Bath, Maine <kitridge@bigfoot.com>
got beer?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 07:55:32 -0600
From: Randy Lee <rjlee@imation.com>
Subject: Celis Beer and other beer changes
>Perhaps a change in grain bills?
quite probably...
Funny you should mention a change in Celis...
We are within 40 miles of Leinenkugles here in Western Wisconsin. As you
may or may not know, Leinies is the flagship of the Miller Micro brands
subsidiary. Jake in particular is instrumental in getting that group
together as far as I understand...
Sat. night I had a bottle of Leinies Bock, something that I usually find
to be a reasonable beer. a) it is out way earlier that it should be and
b) it was terrible. It appeared to be colored with caramel (the color
was way to much like coke for grain) and the flavor struck me like their
maple - artificial. Some strange after taste to it. Perhaps this one was
brewed in Milwaukee rather than here in Chippewa Falls.
What I'm getting at here is that this perceived change in Celis is
interesting when I have a drastic change here in Leinies. Maybe this is
one more tighten on the screws by Miller...
Randy Lee
Viking Brewing Company
Dallas, WI.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 09:10:55 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Runoff Rate; Packaged Dry Yeast
Greetings to all, and especially to:
> HOMEBREW Digest #2624 Sat 31 January 1998
> From: Jack Schmidling <arf@mc.net>
> Subject: Runoff Rate
Jack quotes Al Korzonas:
: From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
: Subject: runoff rate
:
: "Darryl Richman send me private email regarding the runoff rate issue.
:
: "He says it's documented in his book, "Bock" on pages 92-94. He told me
: the Germans recommend a flow rate of about 0.2-0.33 gal./min, per square
: foot of surface area in a traditional mash tun.
:
: "So, calculate the square footage of your surface area....
And says:
> I did that for an EASYMASHER(R) and came up with 22 hours for a
> 12 gallon sparge. As my actual sparge time is about 30 minutes,
An EASYMASHER(R) is hardly a "traditional mash tun."
I understood Al's correspondent to be talking about the surface area
of the tun, not the screen. The point would be limiting how fast the
water flows down through the grain.
You only want the water to seep down through at 1 inch per some time
unit. If you can multiply that 1 inch of height times a larger area,
you get a greater volume. So, with a wider tun you can draw off more
liquid in a given time without drawing the water through the grain
too fast. (Within limits. The ideal grain bed is not 1 grain tall.)
Al's later reference to "tuns in which the runnings are taken from a
small area" is a separate point. One could build a tun so wide that
a small drain (like an EASYMASHER(R)) would not suck from the whole
bottom, leaving a pile of unsparged grain across the tun from the
drain. However, I wouldn't expect a kettle to be that wide (you do
still use a kettle to mash in, right Jack?) Use of an EASYMASHER(R)
might affect sparge rate if you're using it in one end of a long
rectangular cooler.
> From: "Dr. Dwight A Erickson" <colvillechiro@plix.com>
> Subject: Packaged dry yeast
>Wouldn't it be better to start
> the [dry] yeast in a wort and let it "get going" for a few hours or even
> days prior to pitching. Liquid yeasts require this, so why wouldn't
> the dry ones be better if "pre-started" too ?
With liquid yeast you build a starter mostly to let the tiny sample of
yeast multiply to a larger colony. A dry packet has a lot more yeast
in it. You don't need to multiply it. You just need to rehydrate it,
so the yeast will all be flexible enough to survive being dumped into
heavy sugar water.
OTOH, it won't hurt anything to build a starter. For high-gravity
brewing (thick beers, not brewing on Jupiter :-) you need a very
large colony of yeast, so you could pitch several packets or build
a starter (or pitch onto the yeast cake from a previous batch).
Best,
Sam Mize
Visit my web page to check out the PIRATEMASHER(R matey) :-)
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 09:46:49 -0500
From: Bill Giffin <billg@ctel.net>
Subject: RIMS and Stuff
Top of the morning to yea all,
Al K said:
>>Incidentally, unless you are using something as
accurate as a RIMS and are making exactly the same recipe many times,
I don't even think that a hydrometer is accurate enough to predict
how much priming sugar to subtract when trying to bottle/keg a
batch before it is truly done fermenting. You simply cannot predict
the FG accurately enough in most systems and most homebrewers rarely
make the same recipe enough times.<<
RIMS is only as accurate as the measuring equipment used in the equipment.
Contrary to Al's statement about hydrometers they can be accurate enough,
you just have to get narrow range hydrometers that are 300mm long.
I brew the same recipes over and over again. Once I have developed the
recipe that produce the beer I enjoy for that particular style why change.
I have been able to predict the FG within 0.002 SG in most case for the
recipes I have developed. What's the big deal?
RIMS provide no guarantee that you will be able to hold the temperature
with in the range that you require for a particular recipe, any better then
care and a good thermometer will. Folks have said that you can do
decoction and mixed mashes with a RIMS system. This is true, but then you
have the same problem as with a mast tun decoction tun or cereal cooker,
how to control temperature.
Frequently we place far too much importance on the brewing process and not
enough on what happens in the fermentation process of brewing. Temperature
control is probably far more important in the fermentation stage of brewing
then it is in mashing. I maintain a constant temperature for both my ales
and lagers during the fermentation and aging stage. This is an area where
RIMS can't help you.
I have carefully gone over RIMS systems as a new addition to my brewing
equipment. After careful consideration I find no place for a RIMS system.
This is not to say that you can not brew great beer with a RIMS , it just
to say I can do better without RIMS.
Bill
Richmond, Maine
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 12:51:34 -0500
From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman@terranova.net>
Subject: Brewing South Pole
John Watts wrote in HBD2597:
>Now that Jeff Renner has been established as the Northern Brewing
>Pole, we need a Southern Pole so we can get started on the
>HomeBrewers Globe.
I live a mere 80 miles from the "Southernmost Point in Continental US"
monument in Key West, how's that?
Cheers,
Marc
- --
Capt. Marc D. Battreall
Islamorada, Florida
batman@terranova.net
The Fabulous Florida Keys
future site of "The BackCountry Brewhouse"
and a "fir piece south of Jeff Renner"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 12:59:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Ward <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Underlet RIMS
Although I've never used (or even seen) a RIMS system, I like
conceptualizing on them and all the variants that are proposed or
reported on here on the digest.
The latest suggestion of returning the circulation flow to the bottom
of the tun thus floating the entire mash struck me as a wonderful
example of literally turning a preconception on its' ear. C.D.
Pritchard and others have speculated on such a system, and one of the
problems yet to be worked out concerns where/how to place the pump
intake. Mr. Pritchard suggested a "false top". Someone else (sorry)
suggested sinking a large strainer into the top of the bed to form a
well.
How about a vertical mesh tube placed in the center of the tun? It
seems to me that this would allow the mash to float, allow the grist
to act as a full filter, would minimize compaction against the "false
wall", avoid channelling along the side of the real tun wall, and still
allow the recirculation pump to work from the bottom of a flooded
collection point. The tube diameter would not have to be very large,
enough for the pump intake tube to be lowered to the bottom - but
then again, there may be some fluid dynamic reason for the diameter
of the false wall to be larger. Or it may be just a stoopid idea.
Paul, in Vermont
paulw@doc.state.vt.us
- --
According to government height/weight charts,
I'm seven and a half feet tall.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 12:55:09 CST
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: sparge rates/cheap cp filler
In HBD #2624, Guy Gregory said:
>Draw less wort from the grain than the grain can yield, using the above
>estimates, say 0.5 liters/min maximum, so as to maximize contact time and
>get the goodies.
I usually run off 10-12 gallons in an hour or less and get good extraction,
85 to 90 percent. Using the .5l/m rate would take me an hour and 15 min.
to an hour and a half. Even if I did get better extraction, it couldn't
be much and not worth the extra time to me.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Rooney asks about the cheap homemade cp fillers. I regularly use one
made from a piece of racking cane through a #2 stopper. I don't attempt to
purge the bottles with CO2 because I usually drink the beer within a day or
so. I have gone as long as two weeks with no noticeable deterioration.
Longer than that I cannot vouch for.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: 02 Feb 1998 09:37:58 -0500
From: Richard Byrnes <rbyrnes2@ford.com>
Subject: mash schedules...
Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman@reefnet.com> writes:
I was wondering if anyone knows where I could find a chart, listing, or
publication of mashing schedules (times & temps) based on styles of
beer. .
******************************************************
Marc, whether or not they are accurate....Randy Moshers big book (Homebrewers
Companion?) has MANY tables for mash schedules, and listed by style. He
even covers single/double/triple decoction schedules. This book has several
shortcomings (it looks thick, but has many repetitive pages of fill in the blan
k charts, go figure)
***************************
Rich Byrnes
Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen
Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr
Pre-Production Systems Analyst \\\|///
phone #(313)390-9369, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o
rbyrnes2@ford.com (_)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 11:55 PST
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re:H20 and Scotch Ale quest.
Michael Gerholdt asks about hard/soft water for a scotch ale and also about
the grainbill in HBD #2625.
Michael, my well water has 170ppm hardness but I don't know the particulars
of what's in it. One of these days I'll get it analyzed. When I brewed my
Strong Scotch Ale, I mixed half distilled water and half well water. Your
neighbor's softened water will most likely contain either a lot of sodium or
potassium (replacing the calcium), depending on the system he's using. I
would stick with distilled.
The grain bill you propose is fairly complex and has way too much dark
grain. The 7% roasted will make this more like a Foreign Style Stout than a
scotch ale. Roasted grains should be between 1 and 2 percent of the grist
(IMO). A full pound of the smoked malt may overwhelm the beer. It depends on
the maltster and how powerful it is. I used 4 oz of HB smoked malt in an
earlier scotch ale attempt and it was extremely smoky, took months for it to
be drinkable. Ask your supplier for recommendations or experiences of others
that have used it.
My last Strong Scotch ale consisted of 22 lbs HB Pale Ale and 4 oz roasted.
One ounce of EK Goldings @ 60 minutes and at 30 minutes. 3 hour boil. OG
1.094 FG 1.028, same yeast. Deep tawny color.
Good luck,
Charley (scraping protein off ceiling from Two Tub RIS extravaganza) in N.Cal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 98 9:06:08 EST
From: "Ted Hull" <THull@brwncald.com>
Subject: aj's chlorine article/celis
I wanted to commend AJ DeLange on his article on drinking water
chlorination. Very informative and accurate for the
non-drinking-water-professional type. And if you think there are
safety issues with ton cylinders of liquified chlorine gas, you
should come visit the largest wastewater treatment plant in
Atlanta and see the *railroad car* chlorine cylinders here. Yow!
And Kevin Schramer says:
>Now that we have been informed that Celis sucks...<
That's a bit rash. Tom Williams and I discussed this privately
after his original post b/c my SO and I disagreed over whether
something had changed in the Celis White. I think it tastes the
same, but agree that it isn't nearly as cloudy as I remember
from a couple of years ago.
I also know that a local bar in Atlanta with a small, but
quality, tap selection relatively recently switched from Celis
to Paulaner after having quality problems with the kegs they
were getting. Given, they were serving it with a lemon before
that, but I think there's some truth to the story.
Since this is the beer that got me homebrewing, I'll fill in
what I've learned in the meantime:
Classically, the style includes a significant proportion of
unmalted wheat. Someone else can fill you in on soft vs. hard
wheat, I generally use pre-gelatinized wheat flakes (whatever's
available). Pick a protein rest, depending on who you agree
with, and use a lower-end conversion temperature. The lauter is
usually *very* slow for me b/c of the oats and wheat; definitely
knife the top of the grain bed.
I was making a 60 and a 30 minute hop addition, but next time
I'm switching back to only bittering hops to let the spices take
the flavor and aroma forefront. I'd also suggest making multiple
spice additions (just like with hops), rehydrating your orange
peel in hot water beforehand, and crushing the coriander
yourself just before adding it. Maybe next time I'll use some of
the *really* exotic spices I've been thinking about (mmmm, fish
sauce beer).
Also, my experience has been that Wyeast's Belgian White strain
likes warm temperatures (70 to 72F). It also has worked very
slow; i.e. starts with a bang and then settles down and chugs
for a month before I'm satisfied that it's finished. A *large*
starter, aerating well, and keeping the yeast temperature-happy
can't hurt.
Ted Hull
Atlanta, Georgia
(Zipping by the Home Depot center of the universe every
afternoon on the way home, which is an adventure in itself in
this traffic-crazy city full of people who don't drive like
Southerners)
Have the Celis beers changed? What do *you* think?
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2627, 02/03/98
*************************************
-------
