Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2633
HOMEBREW Digest #2633 Tue 10 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:
Partial Mashing/Scottish Stouts ("Gregg Soh")
Re: Keg Lube (From Scuba Shops) ("Charles L. Ehlers")
info Canada (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema@asd.akzonobel.com>
Fermenting BIG Ales ("John Robinson")
Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher (Danny Breidenbach)
Overwhelming Response ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Wort aroma ("phil sides")
re:Fermenting BIG ales (Charles Burns)
Line Spacing,Moldy Cobras, kitchen malting,Lauter Tun Musing ("David R. Burley")
Pale Ale Experiment (John Varady)
First all-grain attempt, Wits (Matthew Arnold)
Best of Brooklyn Contest: Results and Thank you (short) (George_De_Piro)
Protein rests / chlorophenols and other phenolic compounds (George_De_Piro)
Water addition (ricjohnson)
Compuserve Posting Solution, etc. (James Tomlinson)
Edmonton's Strathcona Brewery (Jeff Renner)
Re: mashout & extraction efficiency (Jeff Renner)
Sparging (John Varady)
mashout and efficiency (smurman)
[unprintable] quoted-printable; chloramines; etc (Samuel Mize)
Heart of Dixie Brew-Off (hamilton)
Grain capacity/volume ("Michael J. Beaudette")
Irish Moss additions (Brad McMahon)
Re: Fermenting BIG ales ("Andrew D. Kailhofer")
Sabco Kettles and Trub Removal ("Shawn Andrews")
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, 08 Feb 1998 22:25:18 PST
From: "Gregg Soh" <greggos@hotmail.com>
Subject: Partial Mashing/Scottish Stouts
Hi all, I had posted a question on the digest on partial mashing a few
issues ago. Well, I got one response, but I fear that maybe my choice of
words were a little vague, so I'll post another.
If I have a partial mash, I would use much less grain than a full mash
and make up for this in extract. In most cases, just a little over
enough diastatic grain is included in the bill to convert whatever
adjuncts there may be(cara-pils, flaked barley, oats, etc.). Given this
scenario, if the recipe calls for a large percentage of specialty grains
that have no enzymes and don't need enzymes, does one still include this
in the mash with the mash water ratio of 1-1.5qts/lb? It really wouldn't
be a problem with a full all-grain mash, but given the now-low
percentage of diastatic constituents, wouldn't this be detrimental to
the mash?
On another note, I would like to ask anyone about Scottish Stouts. This
style seems to be extremely rare and has very few recipe/profile
guideline references. The only commercially available example I know of
is Gillespie's Scottish Malt Stout brewed in Edinburgh. Having visited
the place and sampled the stout on tap, I was amazed at is flavour. I'd
definitely put it up there among the best(my humble opinion). I think
the canned version is quite common, anyone? Anyhow, does anyone know any
stout recipes of Scottish origin?
Thanks again,
Gregg
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 04:17:43 -0600
From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers@flinthills.com>
Subject: Re: Keg Lube (From Scuba Shops)
<<Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1998 00:45:48 EST>>
<<From: GordonRick@aol.com>>
<<Subject: Keg Lube>>
<<For what it's worth, I've heard that they sell an O-ring lubricant (food
grade) in scuba shops that works great.>>
That "O-ring lubricant" you get in scuba shops is simply silicon. Same
stuff you get at a hardware store.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:17:06 +0100
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema@asd.akzonobel.com>
Subject: info Canada
Hello readers,
I'm going to visit during end of April and 3 weeks of May British
Columbia and Alberta (Canada). I wonder if I'm passing some (small)
breweries which I, if possible, can visit.
I'm traveling from Vancouver to Princeton, Penticton, Kelowna, Vernon,
Revelstoke, Golden, Wilmer, Banff, Galgary, Drumheller, Galgary, Jasper,
Kamloops, Vancouver and will probably visit Vancouver Island.
I'm happy with any information about breweries, brewpubs, homebrewers
stores, etc.
I only can use E-mail (no Internet).
Another question: I read the ad in Zymurgy about the HomeBrewer's
Assistant 3.0 from HomeBrewer's Software. Can I get any suggestions
about using this software?
And a last question (for the time being) also referring to an ad in
Zymurgy: is anyone of the readers using the cylindro-conical fermenter
from BrewBuddys and happy with it, or are there disadvantages? I'm
thinking of buying one.
Meanwhile thanking for answers, greetings from Holland,
Hans Aikema, Venenlaan 100, 1623 RK Hoorn, The Netherlands
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:27:29 +0000
From: "John Robinson" <robinson@novalistech.com>
Subject: Fermenting BIG Ales
Hi Jon,
I recently brewed a barley wine, SG was about 1.090 (I didn't re
measure after a slight dilution from 1.100).
I used the yeast from a 1.050 beer (I just siphoned the beer into a
keg and siphoned the wort on to the yeast cake). It fermented out in
roughly 3 days and ended at 1.020. The addition of champagne yeast
did nothing to reduce this further.
- ---
John Robinson "When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty.
Software Developer I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I
NovaLIS Technologies have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know
robinson@novalis.ca it is wrong." - Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 09:08:09 -0500
From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach@nctm.org>
Subject: Musings and questions on my first use of EasyMasher
After a LONG hiatus (only two years, but that's nearly 7% of my life and
roughly 25% of my brewing career!), I finally got off my butt and brewed
a batch of beer. A brown ale. Sorry for the length of what follows, but
in order to get help from the masses, the masses need to know what I
did and how .... and maybe my experiences can help other intermediate
brewers.
This was my first ever use of an EasyMasher and my fourth or fifth all
grain brew. I had a few difficulties worth mentioning -- perhaps I can get
some suggestions. I hasten to mention that I don't blame the EM for all of
my problems -- but I do for others. Read on:
1. I did an infusion mash, which was bothersome in terms of maintaining
temperature. My thin enamel-on-steel kettle was to blame for this. And
my Brinkmann burner didn't give fineness of temperature control. With
practice, I might get better, but an easier solution would be a 1 kW
electric hot-plate type burner as someone (sorry) suggested to me
privately. I also should go back and pay more attention to the thickness
of mash discussions. (Unless someone can quickly summarize
suggestions for water to grain ratio for infusion mashes.) Overall, I think
temperatures stayed on the low end (142 - 154 deg) with a couple of
short-lived spikes up to 168 deg. From my read of Papazian (the original
CJOHB), short spikes of high heat don't denature enzymes right away --
it takes time, no?
2. The sparge/lauter process was interminable!!! All the recent
discussion of how fast one should sparge was flat out MOOT. I opened
the itty-bitty spigot on my EM all the way, and watched it trickle away.
Took 3 hours to get 4.5 gallons out! Was this a stuck/slow sparge? I
thought those were virtually impossible with the EM. The wort coming
out cleared very nicely, just as advertised. But the rate makes me very
anxious to re-engineer the thing to have a better flow rate coming out. I
note that clear water flow through the manufacturer supplied brass
valve was barely more than a trickle unimpeded by grain, sugary wort,
etc. Suggestions?? Refutations?? Observations?? (Jack, I'm
particularly interested in your thoughts --- you know your product! What
gives?)
3. I discovered that my Brinkmann burner can kick it out even more than I
thought. My boil was tremendous!
4. I hopped lightly: two ounces of pellets in the boil, one ounce leaf as
finish (in two steps). The next hassle was with chilling. I boiled in the
EM equipped kettle. Fed this into a copper-coil in ice-water bath chiller --
out to my fermenter. Again I had the trickle through the EM screen.
When siphoning through my chiller, I need to restrict the out-flow in order
to chill the wort sufficiently. The EM was slow enough that I didn't need
to do this. It was actually too slow, although a wee bit faster than my
sparge rate. (Emphasize WEE.) Problem: the EM outlet is high enough
on the kettle wall that LOTS of wort and hop goo gets left in the kettle. I
gently dumped this goo in a cheesecloth--sieve--funnel contraption and
put that in the fermenter without chilling. Then I thought, how about some
boiling water back in the kettle to "rinse" the remaining goo and then out
the EM through the chiller into the fermenter. Ack! The EM clogged
completely at this point!
The net result of my troubles with sparging and getting wort out of the
kettle: only about 4 gallons of wort. OG was around 1048 -- don't have
the grain bill handy, but I can live with 1048 for a mild brown. I think.
Two main questions: 1. should I re-engineer the outflow on my EM (and
how--I'm not a tinkerer!) 2. How to get every last drop (practically) of
wort out of the kettle -- go back to siphoning? (Yuck!)
Thanks to all.
- --Danny
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 09:15:34 -0600
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton@iastate.edu>
Subject: Overwhelming Response
Hey, I have tried to respond to each person who gave me direction regarding
brewpubs in N.O. or Washington, DC. It was quite overwhelming. If anyone
else wants info on either of these two great American cities' brew
situation, I am willing to share.
Private email please!
Jeff
- -------------------
Jeff Kenton brewer@iastate.edu
Ames, Iowa jkenton@iastate.edu (515) 294 9997
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 07:46:22 PST
From: "phil sides" <hopsock@hotmail.com>
Subject: Wort aroma
Heiner Lieth <lieth@telis.org> wrote:
>brewing soon. The get used to the idea and complain a lot less about
>the odor and mess.
I've heard/read other brewers comment on relatives not liking the aroma
of a wort boil. I have a hard time swallowing this. Do people REALLY
dislike the smell of boiling wort? I can think of nothing finer to
smell... In fact, my pseudo-wife (it's a long story) and brew partner
wants to make a wort air freshener ;-) We love for our house to smell
like a fresh wort boil.
Phil
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 98 08:05 PST
From: cburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re:Fermenting BIG ales
Jon Bovard asks about Fermenting BIG ales in HBD #2632.
Last summer I did a Barleywine with Wyeast 1056. OG: 1.117 FG: 1.024
(actually overattenuated, but never carbonated with same yeast).
Last fall I did a Strong Scotch with Wyeast 1728. OG:1.094, FG: 1.028. Force
Carbonated this one. Came out nearly perfect.
Last week I did a Russian Imperial with the same yeast (1728) OG: ~1.102 FG:
1.027 - perfect.
I like 1728 better. It seems to leave a maltier flavor and can handle the
lower temps in my basement nicely (62F).
Charley (salivating over 2 Tub RIS) in N. Cal
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:03:36 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Line Spacing,Moldy Cobras, kitchen malting,Lauter Tun Musing
Brewsters:
Ahhhh. No unwanted line spacing in my submission
this last time. For the record, what was the cause?
A space at the end of the line followed by an "enter"
causes the HBD server to put in a blank line.
Now if I can just remember....
- -----------------------------------------------------
C.D. Pritchard gets mold growing in his cobra beer hoses
by leaving them upside down, so the beer stays in the
delivery end and the mold grows on it - I guess.
This comment brought to mind how I clean the Cobra.
Although I do not do this after every use, I do it periodically.
I use the Carbonator ( from Liquid Bread - no affil., etc)
attached to a plastic soda bottle. I put dilute bleach
or other sanitizer in one and water in another bottle.
I snap the Cobra onto the Carbonator open the Cobra valve,
squeeze the bottle and rinse with sanitizer solution
and then with a liter of water. The line can be cleared of
water by squeezing air instead of water through the line.
As far as discouraging the mold in your drip pan goes,
allow the beer to drip into a pan of salt which will
discourage the growth. Even better, just collect the
drips immediately and pour them out after you use the
hose. Wipe down the entire inside of the fridge with
bleach to wipe out the majority of mold spores and
discourage a large mold growth in the future.
- --------------------------------
Cliff Moore asks how to get a more uniform germination
in his kitchen malting experiments.
Try Gibberellic Acid from your plant/garden supplier and
don't get the barley too warm. Keep it in the 50s.
- --------------------------------
Dominick Venezia says:
"I suggest that recirculation during the sparge will
increase extraction efficiency."
I don't have any evidence to the contrary, but I doubt it,
since recirculation would make this a case like pouring
all the sparge water into the lauter and waiting for
equilibration. This is not as efficient as allowing the
water to run down through the bed as in continuous
sparging.
He also says:
"I also suggest that using another pound or two of grain
will make this whole discussion moot."
Only if you don't really care about controlling the variables
in beer making so you can get batch to batch consistency.
- --------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
=
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:17:35 -0800
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Pale Ale Experiment
JV>> We would all use our standard brewing techniques, water and equipment.
MB> Well, then, please define what you mean by "standard brewing
techniques, water and equipment". From what I've read here in the HBD,
EVERYBODY has standards, and they're all *different*. Even water varies
from locale to locale. While I think the basic premise has merit, the
footing is anything BUT equal imho.
As stated, we would all use *our* standard brewing techniques, water and
equipment.
JV>> We could then see how each of the systems we use fair. It would also
be fun to flood a contest with almost identical brews. Maybe we could even
get the contest picked to make a category just for the experiment.
MB> Now there's an idea -- make a contest of all the same recipe, and all
the same style, but leave the creative expression to the brewer.
That is the idea.
JV>> The recipe given in BT was 74.5% pale ale, 15% crystal, 10% Munich,
and .5% chocolate to an OG of 1056-1060 mashed @ 154F, with 40 ibus coming
from 2 additions of Columbus at 60 & 30 mins with 2 additions of Cascade at
15 & 0 mins at a rate of 5 oz per barrel (.8 oz in 5 gallons).
MB> While this sounds more like an American Amber Ale to me, the hopping
rate is way too high for the stated IBU's imho. <snip>
I didn't do calculations for the bittering hops, I simply stated that it
should be 40 ibus coming from 2 additions of Columbus. The finishing hop
rates was stated as 5 oz per barrel which equates to .8 oz in 5 gallons. I
agree that the grain bill is wacky for an APA. I wouldn't use 15% crystal
in an APA. Let's see if we can come up with a recipe we like better.
MB> I'll toss my hat in the ring *provided* we use realistic grain and hop
bills. The grain bill looks a little heavy for an American Pale Ale imho,
but pretty close to an American Amber Ale. But the hop bill is quite
another story -- it's just plain wrong, or at least poorly stated at best.
<snip>
Poorly stated, I'd agree with.
MB> What is needed is a standard recipe, including yeast, that we can all
agree on -- then, and only then will water, and mash methodology
become the transient variables.
May I suggest the following slightly modified recipe:
*********************************************************************
Name: Pale Alexperiment O.G.: 1.054
Style: Oregon Pale Ale I.B.U.: 41.0
Volume: 5.0 Gallons A.B.V.: 5.2%
Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Oz Min
Pale, American 8.20 Columbus 15.0 0.55 75
Crystal 40, American 1.00 Columbus 15.0 0.55 30
Munich, American 0.80 Cascade 6.6 0.80 15
Cascade 6.6 0.80 0
Yeast: American Ale Wyeast 1056 Irish Moss 1.00 Tsp @ 30 mins.
Mash @ 154F for 60 mins.
*********************************************************************
This comes to 82% 2 row, 10% Crystal, and 8% Munich w/an OG of 1054 for 75%
efficiency. I dropped the chocolate out because the small amount previously
listed would be hard to weight accurately. The hop bill I am happy with.
So far I have had 5 people express interest in the experiment. To make this
even across the boards, I would be willing to buy all the malt and hops and
ship to each contestant. I would crush all the grain on my mill, weight it
on my postal scale and ship. This would guarantee that we are all starting
from an equal basis. I will ship through my company so that would not add
to the cost, but I would expect some payment (not profit) for the malt/hops
(which would be purchased bulk to cut the costs, but I will try to get the
malt/hops donated by a local brewery). This would cost about $15 if
everything has to be bought. If this route is taken I would limit the
experiment to 12 people (100 lbs of base malt).
We could decide to each get our ingredients local but then we would have to
use product we could all get access to.
If you wish to participate, please send me an email. I will create a
distribution list and we can discuss this further outside of this forum.
Feedback!
John Varady
Glenside, PA rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 16:19:49 GMT
From: mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: First all-grain attempt, Wits
I finally made the plunge. Last month, I tried my first-ever all-grain batch.
It turned out quite well, IMHO. It is an Ordinary Bitter. A bit hoppy, but
other than that a high-quality brew. I could learn to like this! I brought some
to my homebrew club's meeting (Green Bay Rackers, http://www.rackers.org) to
get several opinions and they all seemed positive.
I still have one minor concern. According to my city's water analysis, my
water's pH is slightly alkaline (7.9). Although I don't seem to have extracted
lots of tannins from the husks, it is a concern for me. Here are my questions
about this:
1) When I boil the sparge water, will chalk settle out and thus lower my pH?
2) Will just a pinch of gypsum in the sparge water lower the pH enough?
3) I bought some "beer range" (4.6-6.2 pH) pH papers made by Precision Labs
from my homebrew shop. What temperature should the sample be at when I try to
test it? The little vial I have says "follow closely directions on carton."
Unfortunately, the carton was nowhere to be found.
Regarding my former question about Celis White, I managed to corner the local
(Oconto, Marinette, Brown counties, WI) Miller distributor who said they (the
local distributor) decided to drop it because it wouldn't sell up here. Someone
did manage to find some and bring it to our hb club meeting. I must say, I
loved it. Now looking back at my Hoegaarden tasting, I would have to say that
my negative impression was because it was old. Methinks I'll have to try my
hand at brewing a Wit this summer!
BTW, all-grain batch #2 will be an attempt at a Duesseldorf-style Alt. 9#
Munich, .5# wheat, and a bunch of Spalt.
Later,
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:43:02 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Best of Brooklyn Contest: Results and Thank you (short)
Hi all,
The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition occurred on Saturday, Feb.
7. The results can be found at
http://members.aol.com/MaltyDog/bestbrook.html
We ended up with over 260 entries, making it the largest homebrew
competition ever in New York City!
The members of the Malted Barley Appreciation Society would like to
thank all of the judges, stewards and entrants who helped to make the
contest a success! We couldn't have done it without all of you!
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:23:12 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Protein rests / chlorophenols and other phenolic compounds
Hi all,
Kyle sent me a private E-mail requesting more opinions about protein
rests. If you review my posts from last month, I think you'll see my
thoughts on the matter.
Something I think that people are missing is that simply doing a
protein rest will not chill-proof a beer. Sure, it can help reduce
chill haze, but it will not eliminate it. There are many problems
that can arise from doing a protein rest when it is unnecessary,
though.
Degrading too many of the medium molecular weight proteins will
definitely hurt your head retention and body. These are problems that
you cannot fix in the finished brew (short of adding heading
compounds, which absolutely repulses me). On the other hand, chill
haze is relatively easy to fix. Kettle coagulants, fining agents,
long, cold lagering, and filtration are some of the techniques we have
to produce clear beer at home.
Yes, it is important to reduce chill haze precursors at all points in
the brewing process, but keep the potential dangers in mind. I have
made headless Bavarian Weizens using 70% malted wheat and a 122F (50C)
rest for 1 hour. I now don't rest between 113F-130F (45-54.4C) for
any of my brews. I'd rather deal with eliminating haze then drink
headless beer!
I like Al K's method of trying a mash without a protein rest. If you
don't like the result, try a high temp protein rest with that malt the
next time you use it. Seems simple and logical, and the worse thing
that can happen is that you have more beer to drink!
By the way, the batch of CAP that I hit with both Polyclar and gelatin
is clearing. I was just being too impatient...
-------------------------
AJ responds to my post about clorophenols, saying that to him they are
more medicinal than chlorine-like.
I don't know if AJ has ever smelled an isolated chlorophenol spiked
into beer. I do know that different people respond differently to the
same chemicals, though.
In the taste panel training at Siebel I learned how *I* perceive some
common beer compounds. Here's a rundown of the phenols that we tried:
4-Ethyl guiaiacol (400 ppb): Aroma: Spicy, like clove cigarettes;
very Weizen-like. Flavor: Strong flavor, borders on being smoky
Eugenol (400 ppb): Aroma: Spicy, but not as strong as 4EG;
clove-like. Flavor: Astringent and mouth-coating, drying
Ortho-Chloro-Phenol (8 ppb): Bleach-like, VERY strong chlorine aroma.
Flavor: Gross, but not astringent. Like pool water.
Phenol (8 ppm): Aroma: Faint smokiness. Flavor: Different from
control, but only a slight smokiness.
I know from experience that phenol, which I perceived as "slight
smokiness" at 8 ppb smells plastic-like to me at higher
concentrations.
The smell of the particular phenol is a good indicator of its source;
untreated, highly chlorinated water will yield different compounds
than a wild yeast infection.
Also note the extremely low concentrations at which these compounds
are detectable, and the fact that one of them (and probably others not
on this list) are astringent.
Oh, yeah, another interesting (and humbling) thing I learned at
Siebel:
The last day of taste panel training was a blind test of our ability
to pick out flaws in beers. 8 beers, spiked (or not). I was so
proud to have picked out all the flaws correctly.
This pride was short-lived, however. I also identified one of the two
unspiked control beers as being sour. Oops.
I think many of us who evaluate beer (esp. at competitions) can become
prone to searching for flaws. Heck, even EXPECTING them, and thus
inserting them where they aren't! Something to keep in mind, for
sure.
Have fun!
George
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 12:54:51 -0500
From: ricjohnson@SURRY.NET
Subject: Water addition
When is it NOT OK to add water to fermenting and/or fermented brew. Is
topping up the secondary an accepted procedure? How about at kegging time,
can I add water to bring the volume to a full 5 gals. Of course all water
should be pre-boiled and cooled. Should I be concerned about oxidation (from
the water not from splashing)?
Thanks for all the valuable info I have received in my previous posts.
Richard Johnson
Mt. Airy, NC
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:01:48 -0500
From: James Tomlinson <red_beards@compuserve.com>
Subject: Compuserve Posting Solution, etc.
IN HBD2632 Dick Dunn Wrote:
"The source of the problem is Compuserve's use of an email format
(actually a "Content-Transfer-Encoding") of "quoted-printable" rather
than "7 bit". Quoted-printable is marginally useful in any case, but
definitely unsuit-able for general interchange, and apparently
Compuserve provides no way for its users to turn off the q-p
translation. Short of harrassing Compuserve, which according to the
folks who have tried it seems to have been unsuccess-ful so far, the
problem is likely to remain."
Yep it is a problem. The solution is to send your e-mail HBD posts via
compuserve's SMTP mail server instead, using, say Netscape, instead of
direct via thier other software. You can only send mail with this thing
anyway, can't receive. I posted a message, successfully, in HBD2631,
with decent formatting, just this way.
The outgoing SMTP mailserver is mail.compuserve.com (aka
149.174.177.147)
In HBD2632 Heiner Lieth wrote:
"I've come across a way to kick start liquid yeast. The cable converter
box on my TV is a constant, relatively warm temperature (80-90F),
whether it is "on" or not."
I do something similar with my VCR, mostly due to the fact that I'm a
cheap B@$t@rd and don't heat my house at night or during working hours
(Those electronic thermostats work great, don't they). I do know my
house temp dips into the 50's before the heat comes back on in the
afternoon and mornings. Anyway, I'll attest to this system working
reasonably well.
- --
James Tomlinson
remove the "no.spam" to reply
Give a man a beer, and he wastes an hour.
But teach a man how to brew, and he wastes a lifetime!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 12:05:21 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Edmonton's Strathcona Brewery
Brewers
Through a friend of a friend, I recently obtained yeast from the Strathcona
Brewery in Edmonton, Alberta. I really like the mechanics of this yeast -
a vigorous top cropper, and it tastes good, too, nice fruitiness. I used
it in a cream ale/Canadian ale, and it's now fermenting my Irish-American
Red (really a dark amber), both with 22% corn and 7.5% flaked barley (see
previous HBD for recipe). BTW, I have ample very clean top-cropped yeast
to share with local brewers.
Can anyone tell me anything about this yeast? Origin? Styles brewed by
Strathcona, and/or house character? I could find only one reference in my
collection of Michael Jackson books, "On an early sampling tour, in 1990, I
enjoyed a fresh tasting raspberry ale at the Strathcona microbrewery" (Beer
Companion). Not much help there.
Results of a web search suggest that Strathcona is an area in or near
Edmonton, but nothing about the brewery.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 11:46:29 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: mashout & extraction efficiency
Dominick and Dave have managed to write paragraphs on what was intuitively
obvious to me all along ;-), but it is worthwhile to investigate intuition,
both as an exercise and to double check its accuracy. I agree with
Dominick's analysis on the mechanics involved, but not with one of his
conclusions:
>I suggest that recirulation during the sparge will increase extraction
>efficiency. Standard operating procedure calls for initial recirculation
>to establish the grain bed but I suggest that periodic recirulation during
>the sparge will increase your extraction efficiency.
I am always adding water with no dissolved sugar to the top of my grain bed
(I try to maintain about an inch), and drawing out sweet wort. Therefore,
it seems to me that there is a gradient of dissolved sugar from the top to
the bottom. If I add sweet wort to the top, I disrupt that gradient, and
lose efficiency,no? Instead of removing (to the boiler) the sugar in that
recirculated portion, I return it to the lauter tun, and sort of have to
start over with it. I could write paragraphs about osmotic pressures,
etc., but will resist.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 13:56:42 -0800
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Sparging
Domenick Venezia says:
> We can easily increase the temperature by employing mashout and using
hotter sparge water
Would it be better to not mash out and use hotter sparge water to raise the
grain bed temp to mash out temps? If the liquid absorbed in the grain was
cooler then the sparge water running across it would the sugar be more
inclined to move into the sparge water based on the temp difference? This
would apply to batch sparging in particular. One could drain the tun
without raising the temp, then add sparge water to raise the bed to mash
out temps to get the aforementioned effect.
> I suggest that recirulation during the sparge will increase extraction
efficiency.
With my RIMS setup, I like to batch sparge. I drain the tun completely
after mashing (to get about 55% of the sugars) and then refill the tun with
either all or one half the sparge water and stir it up well. I will then
recirculate for 10-20 mins (20 if adding all the sparge water at once, 10
if adding half) and drain the tun again (and repeat if using half the
sparge water). This sparging process will yield either 77% (single) or 80%
(dual) of the sugar in my system. The gain of 3% is not really worth the
hassle of repeating the batch sparge process twice. The real added benefit
to me is the time savings. I can drain my tun at full flow (or pump it to
speed it up) and start this boiling. As this is coming to a boil, the
sparge water is recirculating through the grain bed. After 20 mins of
recirc the filter bed is set again and the first runnings are coming to a
boil. I then crank up the burner and drain the tun again to the kettle.
With my jet-style burner I can maintain boiling while the sparge in running
into the kettle. Post-sparge, I have invested only 30 mins of time sparging
and I am already at full boil, a big time savings and a decent efficiency
to boot.
Beer is the reason I get up each afternoon.
John
PS - My Porter done with Bavarian lager yeast has now received two red
ribbons (but placed top in Brown Porters both times).
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 11:33:14 -0800
From: smurman@best.com
Subject: mashout and efficiency
Lots of good stuff about mashout. I don't think anyone would argue
that a hotter temperature isn't better, in terms of viscosity,
solubility, and the like. It's no coincidence that the recommended
mashout temp. is the maximum before tannoid extraction becomes a
problem. It's my physical intuition though, that a 10 degree F change
in mash temp. cannot account for the *gross* changes in efficiency
that many homebrewers have been reporting. In the few years I've been
on this forum, I've seen many people claim that including a mashout
raised their efficiencies 10% or more.
I'm sure Miller or Budweiser, where they try to squeeze every penny
out of their grain, will see a small increase in efficiency by using a
mashout. I would guess on the order of 1 or 2%. Does anyone have
numbers? On a homebrew scale, where we're mashing in steel kettles or
insulated coolers, this type of an increase is immeasurable, and
largely irrelevant. I'm sure many folks can make closely reproducible
brews, but simply being off in weighing your grain by an ounce or so
would account for a similar change. Tell me how much extraction you
lost by sparging in 50 minutes instead of 60?
When I brought up agitating the mash while stepping as the likliest
hero in improving efficiency with mashout, I was looking at the
large-scale changes in efficiency that many homebrewers have reported.
A 1 or 2% increase isn't worth my time, even if I could detect it, but
10 or 20% I will pay attention to.
SM
What's that big yellow thing in the sky today?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 13:42:58 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@prime.imagin.net>
Subject: [unprintable] quoted-printable; chloramines; etc
Greetings to all, and especially to:
> HOMEBREW Digest #2631 Sat 07 February 1998
> From: rcd@raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
> Subject: help stamp out quoted-printable!
> The source of the problem is Compuserve's use of an email format (actually
> a "Content-Transfer-Encoding") of "quoted-printable" rather than "7 bit".
I had the good fortune to help e e burley stop posting free verse, and
have since located a draft of RFC 2045, so here's some help.
Anyone who runs a mailing list that has this problem (Hi Dick!) is
welcome to copy these comments verbatim, crediting me by name (Sam
Mize), or to rephrase them and NOT credit me.
= = = = =
If some people see bizarre equal signs ("=") in your messages, you're using
a tool that emits "quoted-printable" text instead of plain text. HBD is
one of many receivers who don't process the quoted-printable format.
Your first step should be to ask your Internet Service Provider (ISP) how
to send email in 7-bit ASCII format instead of quoted-printable format.
If they can't do that, you might consider whether you want to stay with an
ISP that can't provide the most basic email format. Quoted-printable is
not universal. THEY should be adapting to YOUR needs.
In the meantime, you can eliminate the "="s and extra blank lines.
1. Make sure you have hit return at the end of each line. Don't let your
text editor wrap your lines for you. (Or let it, but go back after you
are done and hit an explicit return to end each line.)
2. Make sure you do NOT have a space or tab at the end of the line. A
quoted-printable line may not end with white space, so your system will
add a "soft" return (a "=" and line break).
3. Use lines less than 76 characters long. Otherwise you'll get a "soft"
line breaks at character 76.
4. You cannot use an equal sign ("=") without it being turned into "=3D".
This is just an absolute fact. No workaround exists.
5. Any other character MAY be encoded as an octet ("=" followed by two
letters). If your system encodes a given character, it's just like "=" --
you can't use it. Build a list of problem characters, and avoid them.
You might do an editor search for each problem character before you send
your message. Common ones:
! " # $ @ [ \ ] ^ ` { | }
(I can type all of them, naah na na-na naaaah)
= = = = =
> HOMEBREW Digest #2632 Mon 09 February 1998
> From: "Martin Brown" <martinbrown@worldnet.att.net>
> Subject: Chloramine
> Does anyone out there in HBD land know if chloramine will kill my yeast,
> preventing fermentation?
No, don't worry about that. It'll just make your beer taste lousy. Look
at the message from AJ in 2631 about chlorphenolics: you'll get that nice
plastic flavor.
You'll need to filter your water or use bottled water.
> HOMEBREW Digest #2631 Sat 07 February 1998
> From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
> Subject: Doggerel....
> a GM that is not only a homebrewer, but also has "Beernut" on his
> personalized license plates!
Is that the nut on the fermenter that you tighten to control alcohol
content? You know: the stronger the beer, the tighter the beernut...
> From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
> Subject: Chlorphenolics
> And so I advise anyone who wants to learn what chlorphenolics smell like
> to get a cheap clear plastic drink cup and crumble or cut or file or somehow
> otherwize abuse it.
When you abuse it, don't forget the ASTRO-glide...
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 14:24:47 -0600 (CST)
From: hamilton@rodin.chem.uab.edu
Subject: Heart of Dixie Brew-Off
The Birmingham Brewmasters will host the Heart of Dixie Brew-off,
an AHA sanctioned homebrew competition, on March 14, 1998. Entries
will be due on March 7, 1998.
The event will be held in the heart of historic Five Points South
at the Pickwick Hotel and Conference Center. The awards dinner
will be held in conjunction with the 18th Annual St. Patrick's Day
Celebration hosted by the Birmingham Irish Cultural Society.
Standard rules will apply, with a $6 entry fee. Prizes will be
awarded for Best of Show, Best Ale, Best Lager, and Best Potato
Beer (at least 20% fermentables from potatoes). Ribbons and prizes
will be awarded for First, Second, and Third in each category.
We will accept all AHA styles with the exception of Cider. Judging
will be based on the 1997 AHA Style Guidelines, and we will combine
categories to provide manageable flights.
Recipes will be required for the Potato Beer category only. Judging
will be consistent with the guidelines normally used for judging
specialty beers. Potato beers are not required to conform to any
standard style, but as with other specialty categories, they may
emulate a classic style. Entries should note the variety of potato
used (e.g. Irish, Russet, Sweet Potato, Mashed, Flaked, etc.) under
Specialty Ingredients (along with any other specialty ingredients
and classic style information). Judges should assess creativity
as well as execution in evaluating their overall impression.
Forms are available on-line at the web page or by e-mailing
John Rhymes at jwrhymes@mindspring.com.
I already have my Portatoe in primary.
Tracy P. Hamilton (2 blocks west of the recent abortion clinic bomb)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 15:32:36 -0600
From: "Michael J. Beaudette" <beaudettem@rl.af.mil>
Subject: Grain capacity/volume
Hello All,
I was able to pick up 4 SS kegs, formerly used for wine, from my homebrew
supply store (for only 5 bucks each!!!!!!). They are 30 Liter, or about 7.8
gallons each. My question:
Does anyone from this knowledgeable group know a calculation method for how
much grain can be mashed in one of these? How much volume, say, would 10
lbs. of grain plus water at 1.3 qts./lb. actual take up? Or how about 20
lbs.? Or how about a different water to grain ratio?
Before I convert one, I would like to guesstimate the maximum amount of
grain I would be able to mash. Private e-mail is dandy.
Mike in upstate NY
beaudettem@rl.af.mil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 07:10:07 +1000
From: Brad McMahon <brad@sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Irish Moss additions
Recently I received a catalog from a HB supplier
who suggested that Irish Moss should be rehydrated
30 minutes before addition to the kettle at the usual
T-15 min mark. I had heard of this, and even tried it,
with good results.
However they even went so far as to suggest the adding
of the Irish Moss at T-60 minutes, i.e. along side the
bittering hops.
What do others think of this procedure?
- --
Brad McMahon Adelaide, South Australia
brad@sa.apana.org.au
PGP
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 1998 15:29:10 -0600
From: "Andrew D. Kailhofer" <andy@aerie.bdy.wi.ameritech.com>
Subject: Re: Fermenting BIG ales
Jon Bovard writes:
: what experience has anyone with the alcohol and attenuation of the
: following. I plan to ferment a 1.095 Barley wine with a high mash
: temp 70C (159f) profile.
:
: Wyeast suggest Scottish ale 1728, but will it handle that level
: alcohol. (it DOES have high floculation) Any data on the following,
: with respect to alcohol tolerance (barley wine suitability much
: appreciated)
I brewed a rocket-fuel Christmas Spice beer that was in the 1.110
range OG, the number 1.114 comes to mind (can't find my notebook right
this instant). I used the 1728 Scottish, and it actually fermented
down "too low" (like 1.012-ish). I wound up resweetening it with
lactose to get the flavor right. I didn't try and bottle it, though
(I let it condition for a couple of years), so I don't have data on
the long-term viability.
So, I'd say the Scottish is good-to-go for big big beers.
Andy Kailhofer
- --
Andy Kailhofer Work: 414/678-7793 FAX: 414/678-6335
740 N Broadway, Room 430, Milwaukee, WI 53202-4303
andy@aerie.bdy.wi.ameritech.com pXoXstmaster@ameritech.com (w/o the Xs)
PGP pub key fingerprint: EC 61 41 4E A2 66 49 45 57 EA 1A 0C 59 81 8C AF
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 1998 18:10:43 -0600
From: "Shawn Andrews" <sabrewer@fgi.net>
Subject: Sabco Kettles and Trub Removal
I got a Sabco kettle w/ false bottom/ball valve/thermo about 15 =
batches ago. I love the thing as a mash/lauter tun,
but have some questions about using it for a boil kettle. I haven't had =
any problem so far, other than dumping the grain
out and cleaning it up between sparge/boil. I had a problem w/hot side =
aeration, but solved it for the most part by using my bottling bucket as =
a collecting vessel. I then run it into the kettle w/a hose, this is a =
lot less air than I was getting.
Anyway, my question is, using it as a kettle, should I use the false =
bottom/ball valve to drain into the fermenter?
Since trub sinks, aren't you pulling a lot of it into the fermenter with =
the first runnings, as well as thereafter? I've done
it this way lots of times, haven't had much of a problem, but I do =
notice a good amt. of cold break in the primary.
Does anybody have experience using this or similar design? I called =
Sabco once on something else, and they weren't
able to answer my questions. They make great set-ups, but I'm not =
convinced they brew. Anybody out there work for
Sabco? Angry e- mail welcomed!
I really like the input I've gotten from the HBD, this is the real =
deal as far as homebrewing info goes. Is George Fix
tuning in? I've got some questions on the first wort hopping.
Private e-mail perfectly fine
Cheers, Shawn Andrews=20
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2633, 02/10/98
*************************************
-------
