Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2663
HOMEBREW Digest #2663 Tue 17 March 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:
First All-Grain (Headduck)
Heart of Dixie Brew-Off Results ("John W. Rhymes")
RE: Iodophor & Stainless Steel (Jeff Grey)
yeast ranching vials (Dave Whitman)
Berliner and Suddeutsch Weizien from the same mash? (michael w bardallis)
Controversial Priming ("David R. Burley")
Dwarf hops,Brett Berliner Weiss,massive point ("David R. Burley")
Berliner Weiss: I said WHAT? / Dave's priming method (George_De_Piro)
Converting kegs info ("Dave Draper")
Re: Allergies/filtering beer (Mark T A Nesdoly)
Sanitizing O2 Barrier Caps (Ted Chilcoat)
Foam Control (Mike Allred)
Staling of unchilled beer/Mash question ("Frank Conway")
Percy Neame Premium Ale ("Clifford A. Hicks")
Beersummit Report ("Jeffrey M. Kenton")
Protein rests and break material/overmodified malts from M&F (George_De_Piro)
boiling pot/keg (Stephen Rockey) and Rolling Rock (Jason) 3/16/98 (Vachom)
Hot break--what's it look like? (Doug Moyer)
Specialty Malts (jamorris)
re: Partial-Mashing Made Easy (Jeff)
Sparge Leveler/pH meters/Weight/Chlorine (AJ)
Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition
3/22/98. Surf to http://www.wp.com/hosi/companno.html for more
information...
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, 15 Mar 1998 22:59:16 EST
From: Headduck <Headduck@aol.com>
Subject: First All-Grain
Collective:
First let me thank you all for being inspirational and extremely helpful in
getting me to this point. I have gotten more good information from the HBD,
than all other sources combined. I am sure that all of the contributing
members played a large role in making today's brew sucessful. Thanks,
especially to Chuck Epp, who I met because of this forum, who came over and
offered support and advice.
I used a rectangular cooler mash tun/lauter tun a la Brewing Technics Magazine
from a couple of months ago. I made what I expected to be a fairly high
gravity, highly hopped Brown Ale.
A couple of questions: I used 13 gallons of water in the entire procedure,
expecting to get 10 gallons of 1.058 o.g. wort. I ended up with more like 8.5
gallons of 1.068 o.g. wort. I don't really mind, I like a large beer. Next
time if I use a similar grain bill (23.75# of grain as per recipe from cat's
meow) I will use 15 gallons of water. What should I do this time? I have
pitched the yeast. Should I add boiled water and get it to a lower specific
gravity now, or should I wait and add water later. (good enough for
Budmilloors) ?? My gut feeling is just leave it alone and see how it comes
out. Other than that, the whole process went amazingly smoothly. I started at
noon and was completely done, yeast in the fermenter at 7:00. I can only
wonder why I didn't switch to all-grain sooner?
BTW, no one has answered my question about using gentle iodine, so I just
sprang for iodophor at the brew shop. There seem to be a lot of questions
about iodine and iodophor lately. Where are the chemists lurking??
Thanks again for all of the help and good advice. Keep it coming!!
Joe Yoder
Lawrence, KS (Home of the KU Jayhawks, boy is my town going to be down
tomorrow)
"Everyone's got to believe in something, I believe I'll have another beer."
- --W.C. Fields.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 22:01:39 +0000
From: "John W. Rhymes" <jwrhymes@mindspring.com>
Subject: Heart of Dixie Brew-Off Results
On March 14, the Birmingham Brewmasters hosted the first major
homebrew competition held in the state of Alabama. An excellent
panel of 37 judges assembled to evaluate 155 entries from 14 states.
All entries were evaluated by three judges, and the judge panel
was led by 18 BJCP judges and 6 professional head brewers.
Best of Show went to Doug McCullough of the Birmingham Brewmasters
for his traditional Bock. Best Ale went to Ed Sieja of the Madison
(AL) Sobriety Club for his Belgian Tripel. Best Lager went to Lee
Theuriet of the Stanislaus Hoppy Cappers (CA) for his Vienna.
Our special category was Potato beers in honor of St. Patrick's Day.
Best Potato Beer went to Brian Dueweke of Weekend Brewers in
Richmond, Virginia, for his Sweet Potato Stout.
See our web site at http:\\www.bham.net\brew\brew-off.html for
details of the competition and a full list of winners and sponsors
(plus pictures!). We had great prizes from from our sponsors and an
excellent weekend. Future competitions will be on the weekend
closest to St. Patrick's Day, so keep us in mind!
John W. Rhymes -- Birmingham, Alabama
jwrhymes@mindspring.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:10:18 -0500
From: Jeff Grey <grey@ameritech.net>
Subject: RE: Iodophor & Stainless Steel
I have heard from a local brewpub brewmaster that it is best not to
leave Iodine based sanitizers in contact with SS for a long period of
time. He told me that he had left the sanitizer in contact with a large
SS vessel for a week and it pitted it ! Luckily the vessel was treated
and it was saved. During that treating process he was sweating bullets
! Watch your exposure time.
Jeff Grey
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:40:50 -0500
From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman@rohmhaas.com>
Subject: yeast ranching vials
In HBD#2662, Kyle Druey asks what vials to use for making slants:
>Which one is the best size/type for slants:
>
>1) 20 mm OD X 150 mm height, test tube type with rounded bottom
>
>2) 17 mm OD X 60 mm height (8 ml), flat bottomed
>
>3) 1 dram (3.7 ml) don't know the dimensions, flat bottomed (this is my
>first choice because I can get 49 of them for $19 and they appear easy
>to clean and handle)
I'm using 2 dram vials, and they work just fine. I suspect the 1 dram ones
would still be plenty big.
I use those 20x150 mm test tubes for stepping up cultures in liquid media.
Dave Whitman dwhitman@rohmhaas.com
"Opinions expressed are those of the author, and not Rohm and Haas Company"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:35:41 -0500
From: dbgrowler@juno.com (michael w bardallis)
Subject: Berliner and Suddeutsch Weizien from the same mash?
Dave Burley suggests making Berliner and Weizen from the same batch,
adding lactic to the 'Berliner' portion, and making the assertion that
the typical Weizen clove&banana components are also present in Berliners
(I assume we're not doing parti-gyle, since the whole point is that the
same yeast/ferment is used). OK, but what about the OG? Berliners tend to
be around 1.030, Weizens 1.045-55. Grain bill? Berliners may have around
25% wheat, Weizens are usually more like 66-75%. Maybe MegaBrewCorp would
use this technique to save bux, but why would a homebrewer?
Low-tech brewing in Allen Park, MI,
Mike Bardallis
_____________________________________________________________________
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: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:59:57 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Controversial Priming
Brewsters:
Hubert Hangofer says:
">IMHO Dave's "controversial" priming method should be
discussed in a >serious
>and constructive way and not being pilloried on web pages.
With no doubt>it
>requires much experience and the right feeling to hit the
exact point of >attenuation. Dave has this experience but
the question is what could be >done do make it reliable
to less experienced brewers?"
Actually AlK's objection is a theoretical one, that putting in the
priming sugar introduces the possibility that some of this
sugar will be consumed by the yeast and potentially give
some un-reproducible character to carbonation. I
agree with his theory and always have even before I tried my
"controversial" method.
It boils down to a practical issue -Go with theory and get
irreproducible carbonation ( sometimes none!) with
unpredictable time of carbonation or add an active yeast
in the manner I prescribe and get reproducible carbonation.
Now why does this happen?
1) If, as prescribed by theory, we just add sugar at the end
of the fermentation after a secondary rest then:
a) the yeast is in a dormant or nearly so state.
b) Additionally, the cell count in the beer is very low
- which is one of the points of a secondary rest.
c) The beer has a much reduced free amino acid content,
having just gone through fermentation, so rebuilding a
yeast colony is difficult and is wort dependent, obviously.
d) If you use sucrose as a priming sugar as I did for decades,
then you are asking the yeast to invert the sugar before they are
able to utilize it - one more step.
e) The beer has alcohol in it which inhibits yeast growth
f) The beer has no oxygen in it to encourage growth
2) If you do as I suggest and prepare a priming starter similar
to the kraeusen practice of using a fermenting beer in
conditioning bottle fermented Germanic beers then all
the above problems go away and you get reproducible
carbonation batch after batch. In the case of using sucrose,
the fermenting starter yeast produces invertase which
externally ( to the cell) inverts the sucrose to simple sugars,
glucose and fructose. In providing FANs I add a tablespoon
of malt extract to the starter consisting of priming sugar syrup,
beer and yeast from the bottom of the secondary. Oxygen
gets to the dormant yeast and encourages the growth of the
colony and when you bottle, the yeast are immediately active
and take up any oxygen instead of it causing harmful oxidation
to the beer while the colony builds up.
What are the potential areas for error?
1) Yeast concentration and type and temperature of the
starter will affect how fast the starter kraeusens
2)Sugar content will be reduced too much by the starter
fermentation and the carbonation will be grossly affected.
What is my experience? If I wait 12 hours, the starter just
reaches kraeusen and it is time to bottle.
What if you want to be really sure, despite the fact that
most people can't detect a plus/minus 20 % difference
in carbonation? Measure the SG of the fermenting starter
and add the correct amount to the beers, just like is
done in using a kraeusen for bottle conditioned
commercial beer.
AlK may not have a problem such as others have, since he
does not use a secondary and may bottle the beer before
it has cleared. His beer on bottling has a higher yeast count,
but his beers may also have an inordinate amount of yeast
deposit in the bottle. Doing it the way I suggest leaves just
a very thin coating of yeast on the bottom of the bottle.
How about using corn sugar instead of sucrose? I
mistakenly thought that using corn sugar for priming would
obviate the use of the priming starter. Not so. I prepared
several batches this way and had the same problem I used
to have before I began to use the priming starter method.
My overall comment? I have been doing this for a long time
and it works for me. Try it before you criticize it.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:00:00 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dwarf hops,Brett Berliner Weiss,massive point
Brewsters:
Some interesting newsbrief from Breworld online British 'zine:
"Plenty of activity is occurring in the middle of the Wandsworth
one way system. Youngs' have joined the growing band of
brewers experimenting with the new dwarf variety, First Gold.
Imaginatively the beer they are producing will also be called
First Gold (4.0% ABV) and will be part of their seasonal ales
range for the year, along with more familiar brews such as
Dirty Dicks and Oregon Amber which contains American
fuggles, to the delight of British hop growers no doubt.
First Gold (only grown in the UK) will be on sale from
May 25th to 9th August."
- ------------------------------------------------
Spencer Thomas tells me he has tasted Brettanomyces in
Shultheiss Berliner Weiss but it was not apparent in the
couple of Kindls he had. I have travelled to Berlin between
1980 and about 1993 and I have had Berliner Weiss periodically,
do not recall the brewer and do not recall any Brett character,
which in certain beers I like. It is unlikely that I have tried a
representative sample of BWs, but Eric Warner does not mention
Brett character that I recall. Does anyone know if Spencer's
observation is a characteristic or a happenstance of a long
transportation time to the US?
- -------------------------------------------------
An HBDer, who shall go nameless, takes me to task for
pomposity about my PhD degree ( actually I have and MBA also)
and "corrects" me about the correct use of the term mass and weight.
*My* comment about having a PhD in Physical Chemistry
had nothing to do with anything except an HBD contributor was
having trouble with his Physical Chemistry and I was offering
the possibility of some help. It was AlK who brought it up again
and attempted to use it as a form of friendly (I believe) derision.
Secondly, you missed the point of my jab at AlK's comment
about Physical Chemistry students using mass when they are
actually referring to force. The point to my comment had nothing
to do with mass versus weight or anything. I was just showing
how often the point of a comment is obscured by bullshit when
the non-essential comments are extracted from a comment and
argued with, as I did with AlK's comment this time and he so often
does to mine.
Sorry if it was too abstruse for you.
In summary, Lets stick to the point of a comment when arguing
with it. Other non-essential comments should not be used in an
attempt to somehow degrade a point.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:14:16 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Berliner Weiss: I said WHAT? / Dave's priming method
Hi all,
Dave Burley writes a complete fabrication:
"Yep, but talk to George De Piro, he says Beliner Weiss HAS a
clovey/banana taste and delbruckii and lots of other stuff which
I sincerely doubt. So he discourages using lactic acid compared
with a lactic mash. And believes my caution to avoid equipment
contamination to be nonsense. I guess he hasn't had much
experience or read much about making Belgian beers where
the same cautions apply."
WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT!? I just checked my Berliner Weiss post and
found no statements resembling the above.
There is NO clove or banana in any commercial Berliner Weiss I have
ever had! There ARE many other aromas and flavors, though, and simply
dosing with lactic acid will NOT duplicate a good Berliner Weiss.
As for sanitation, I never said that Dave's caution is "nonsense."
What I said was that if you are so sloppy as to get contamination from
batch to batch, you are probably already experiencing problems. You
don't need to brew a Berliner Weiss to have these troubles! If you
are careful about sanitation, you should have no problems.
Dave rudely says that I probably have never brewed a Belgian Style
beer and therefore don't know much about keeping yeast strains
separate. This is utterly ridiculous.
Why is there a belief that microorganisms from Belgium are somehow
more resistant to death than bugs from the rest of the Earth? The
last time I checked, Belgium was on this planet. Dealing with bugs
from there is about the same as dealing with bugs from anywhere (on
this world).
You do not need a separate brewery to try your hand at brewing with
those "exotic" Belgian yeasts. I've even used Brettanomyces in my
home without contaminating other batches. The problem is that most of
these yeasts are VERY distictive, and if you do get
cross-contamination, it will be very apparent. If you get
cross-contamination between Wyeast 1056 and 1028 (for example), you
are less likely to notice the flavor difference.
While I'm busy addressing Dave, I'll mention that his priming method,
as described recently, will likely produce unreliable results. The
quick summary of it is:
Make a starter of yeast, sugar, and wort. Allow it to go to high
Kraeusen then add a bit to each bottle. Dave believes that this will
somehow help prevent HSA (hot side aeration).
HSA takes place when the beer is hot. Unless you have some REALLY
bizarre brewing processes, bottling is done to cold beer...
The other problems with Dave's method are that adding primings of ANY
kind to each bottle is difficult, time consuming, and more prone to
error than priming the whole batch in a tank.
The next big problem is that by allowing the yeast to come to high
kraeusen you will have an unknown quantity of fermentable extract left
in the solution. This will lead to a level of carbonation different
from the intended goal. Sure, you can compensate for this by taking
hydrometer readings and calculating how much Kraeusen you should add
to achieve the desired level of carbonation, but Dave doesn't mention
this, nor is it fun or easy to do.
I usually try to ignore Dave, but when he fabricates stuff and
attributes it to me, I can't stay quiet. Sorry if this bored you all.
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:11:50 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper@utdallas.edu>
Subject: Converting kegs info
Dear Friends,
In #2662, Steve Rockey asks for some tips on converting kegs to
boilers. I'll shamelessly plug my friend Eric Schoville's page on
his 3-tier system, which gives very full descriptions of what he did
and has a host of links to other folks' web pages on similar
conversions. Taken together, they ought to cover nearly all the
bases. Eric's URL is:
http://home1.gte.net/rschovil/beer/3tier.html
Hope this helps,
Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
ddraper@utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
Just what we need, another wanker with an attitude!
---Rob Moline (aka Jethro Gump)
------------------------------
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca
From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290@mail.usask.ca>
Subject: Re: Allergies/filtering beer
Hello All,
First, thanks to those who responded to my original post about two weeks ago
with their personal observances and tips.
Second, I'm very happy to announce that it is NOT yeast that I'm allergic
to, so no need for filtering my homebrew. What follows is a summary of what
happened to me, posted in the hope that it may help others out there.
I started making beer almost 2 years ago. The first few batches were the
standard homebrew shop "1 can extract + 2 kg corn sugar" slop. I found that
I was allergic to those first few batches. My throat would swell up as soon
as I swallowed any beer made in that fashion. I figured that it must either
be the yeast, or maybe some byproduct of the fermentation of corn sugar; to
test my theory, I switched to all-malt beers. No reaction whatsoever to
those. Economics pushed me to all-grain soon after that, which is where
I've (happily) been ever since.
About two months ago, three things happened at about the same time (which is
what made it very difficult to narrow down exactly what I was allergic to):
1) I made a seafood pasta dish with scallops in it, 2) I kegged a weizen a
little early (it wasn't quite done fermenting yet), and 3) I bought a
different brand of coffee. Long story short: I had a strong reaction to
the scallops when we had the leftovers of that first meal. That food
allergy sort of put my body's defences on high alert, and I started reacting
to things that hadn't bothered me before, particularly that weizen. I took
the keg of weizen (my 6th batch of weizen, btw, and I hadn't reacted to any
of the previous ones) out of my chest freezer and let it ferment out. After
that, no reaction from it anymore, but I was still bothered by my throat
swelling up, seemingly for no reason. After three weeks of searching, I
finally found out what the culprit was/is: that particular brand of coffee.
The wife & I happened to be in Wal-Mart one day, and they had bags of coffee
on sale beside the checkout. We picked one up. I can't remember the exact
brand name, but it came in a gold foil bag (it wasn't even vacuum sealed).
I'm not allergic to other brands of coffee, but there's something in that
stuff that I react very strongly to. It has since been disposed of.
- -- Mark
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:57:28 -0600
From: Ted Chilcoat <tedc@xcaliber.com>
Subject: Sanitizing O2 Barrier Caps
I read the comments that Al K. made about this.
Wouldn't it be just as easy to give the cap a quick swab
with a cotton ball dipped in grain alcohol and then cap the
beer? This way you wouldn't have to worry about getting
bleach or idophore solution into the product.
Any comments for the digest, or is this just a bad idea?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 08:08:49 -0700
From: Mike Allred <mballred@xmission.com>
Subject: Foam Control
>From: "Frank E. Kalcic" <fkalcic@flash.net>
>A product I've used with very good success is "Foam Control". The
>addition of 2 to 3 drops (not 1tsp as recommended by the vendor)
>per 5 gal added to the fermentor vessel prior to filling with cooled
>wort really cuts down foam production when aerating and
>fermenting.
- ---------------------------
What effects does this product have on head retention?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:11:14 -0600
From: "Frank Conway" <fconway@wpg.sunquest.com>
Subject: Staling of unchilled beer/Mash question
I and a friend have been brewing all grain batches for the winter (we did 3
ales and 2 lagers - the winter makes brewing lagers easy, although it's been
a little too warm this year), and I have a couple of questions:
On mashing, the last time we mashed we added the grain to the cold water in
the tun. We then raised the temperature to the first rest using a propane
burner. The problem arose in that the mash was quite thick, and there was
scorching. Previously we have added the grains to the water which was
already at (slightly above) the first rest temperature, but I have a feeling
that it is somehow "better" to raise the grains through all the temperatures
to the first rest. My partner disagrees, saying the risk of scorching (and
the resulting off-flavours) are simply not worth the risk. I tend to agree
with him, but was looking for other opinions, and thought there might be one
or two out there. So, it is somehow better to raise the temperature of the
grains through the entire temperature range from 5C (our water is cold) to
40C?
On staling - I keg my beer. I store it unchilled in my basement. When
serving, the beer goes through a manifold (cold plate) to get it to an
adequate drinking temperature. The beer is wonderful for the first 2-3
weeks, after which its flavour takes a dramatic turn for the worse. Tastes
oxidized, but my kegs are not leaking. (I think we have in the past had a
problem with HSA during the sparge which we have corrected; could this
flavour be manifesting itself over time?) Can stale beer taste this way?
I'm thinking this might come from the fact that the beer is sitting at room
temperature and is going off. Would refrigeration help?
Thanks in advance for your help.
- ------
Frank Conway fconway@sunquest.com
Senior Software Developer Voice: (204) 956-9771
Sunquest Information Systems FAX: (204) 957-5450
401-175 Hargrave St., Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada R3C 3R8
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:50:33 -0500
From: "Clifford A. Hicks" <simtech@ka.net>
Subject: Percy Neame Premium Ale
A fellow homebrewer gave me a bottle of "Percy Neame" Premium Ale. It was
brewed by Shepherd Neame Brewery in Britain. I would love to be able to get
a homebrew recipe for this beer. It seems like an ordinary bitter and the
back of the bottle says it is brewed with only malted barley and "Kentish"
hops. Has anyone out there had this beer and could you take a stab at a
homebrew recipe? Thanks as always.
Cliff Hicks
simtech@ka.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 09:55:39 -0600
From: "Jeffrey M. Kenton" <jkenton@iastate.edu>
Subject: Beersummit Report
The first Beersummit went off almost without a hitch on Thursday March 12,
1998. I had a little help from AJ Delange in cross-posting my request for
attendees, and seven brewers attended. We had quite a cross-section of
brewers from beginners to experienced beer judges, and that made for some
very interesting discussions.
One note: If EVER you find yourself in Washington DC with any amount of
time to kill, think first of the Brickskellar. (850 beers in bottle, need I
say more) It is located very near the intersection of 22nd and P, across
the street from a statue of a man named Schevchenko. If you come from the
Dupont Circle and pass the classical architecture of the Amoco station on
22nd, you have gone too far. The awning on the building is visible from the
corner of 22 and P. Enter the building and open the door to the Kellar,
going down a medium length flight of stairs.
So, instead of boring all of you with the details, I will make a webpage,
repleat with photos and so forth within a week or so and repost when it is
ready.
My impression is that everybody had a really good time, and I suggest the
idea of a beersummit for anybody visiting a major metropolitan area.
Jeff
- -------------------
Jeff Kenton brewer@iastate.edu
Ames, Iowa jkenton@iastate.edu (515) 294 9997
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:21:01 -0800
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Protein rests and break material/overmodified malts from M&F
Hi all,
Al K. talks about getting copious amounts of break material when
single step mashing DWC malt. When he uses a protein rest, he gets
less break.
This, of course, makes sense. The larger proteins are broken up in
the mash, and therefore do not get coagulated in the kettle. There is
a problem with this, though:
You want the proteins to get removed, not just get broken up and
passed on to the wort.
It seems that the common homebrew book notion that protein rests are
good for reducing chill haze is not correct. Kunze talks about how it
is the degradation products of high molecular weight proteins that
cause haze. Doing a protein rest will actually increase haze
potential!
The only reason to do a protein rest (according to Kunze) is to ensure
adequate Free Amino Nitrogen (FAN) for yeast nutrition. Since modern
malts are chock full of FAN, this should not be a concern in an
all-malt brew.
So, the large amounts of hot break Al gets when single-step mashing
DWC malt are a good thing as far as I can tell, because it is
indicative of good removal of large, undesirable proteins.
---------------------------------
While I'm here I'll also post a recent observation. I brewed with
Munton and Fison's Marris Otter Pale ale malt this past weekend.
While milling the grain I noticed something rather disturbing: a few
kernels of malt with acrospires MUCH longer than the length of the
kernel! I showed them to my girlfriend and she said, "They're not
malt, they're sprouts!"
Later that day I was disturbed to find that my OG was a full 8 points
below target. Hmmm. Same crush I always use, I think the scale was
working...what the heck happened?
Maybe I'm too much of a cynical paranoid lunatic, but while I search
for answers I can't help but think, "They dump the bad batches of malt
overseas and on the homebrew market."
Before you think me too insane, I have NEVER noticed a single
overmodified kernel in the 1000's of pounds of malt that I have milled
(mostly German malt). Maybe I just wasn't paying attention,
though...nah!
Overmodified malt would have a lower yield than normal malt, and would
also explain the lack of hot break I observed.
I just got off the phone with my supplier. He not only confirmed that
over 10% of the kernels he examined were overmodified, but that he has
had problems with the quality of M & F malts in the past (burnt
crystal malts). I seconded his complaint of burnt M & F malts
(chocolate malt that looked more like black patent). While I was on
the phone he checked kernels from a bag of Weissheimer and found no
overmodified kernels in a handful.
Any other brewers out there who think that some maltsters may cut
loses by sending the crap to the really little brewers and overseas
markets?
Just for completeness' sake: I check the mash pH every time I brew, I
used the same mill settings I used 2 weeks ago (with good results) and
the crush looked OK. My supplier assured me (and I believe him) that
his scale is OK (and my scale agreed). My volume and SG measurements
were done using the same instruments as every other brew session, it
was a single-step infusion at 155F, etc.
This really pisses me off. I have a 1/2 bbl. of IPA in the fermenters
that will most likely suffer from thin body and poor heading ability.
It took me 3 hours to boil down to my target gravity. Plenty of FAN
for the yeast, though (there's always a bright side). Those of you
who think that imported malts are automatically superior, beware!
For what it's worth, the lot number of the M&F malt being discussed is
"5737290 BBE Oct. 98 216935 Marris Otter Whole Otter"
Have fun (even though I am not)!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 10:47:11 -0600
From: Vachom <MVachow@newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: boiling pot/keg (Stephen Rockey) and Rolling Rock (Jason) 3/16/98
Stephen:
About converting your keg to a boiling pot--check out this faq:
www.eecs.tulane.edu/www/Winstead/keg_conversion.faq.html
*************************************************************************
***
Jason:
It's nigh on impossible for homebrewers to reproduce commercially made
American pilseners like Rolling Rock (Budweiser, Coors, etc.) brewed as
they are with significant quantities of grains like corn and rice that
are very difficult for homebrewers to control. If you'd like to make a
light, refreshing summer beer, how about an American Wheat or a Weizen,
a Pale Ale on the lower end of O.G. or a Steam Beer? You might also
check out an article available on Brewing Techniques web page about
pre-Prohibition American lagers. There's a recipe included that looks
interesting.
Mike Vachow, New Orleans
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 11:50:44 -0500
From: Doug Moyer <moyer-de@salem.ge.com>
Subject: Hot break--what's it look like?
Folks,
Since the HBD server doesn't seem to be able to strip my email address
from the GE format, I'll try this a different way. (So y'all can
reply--since I'm sure that is the only reason I didn't get a response.
<g> )
My question to the collective: I've read several times that people
recommend bringing the wort to a boil, skimming off the hot break, then
starting the hop additions (and associated timing). As I bring my wort
to a boil, there is a lot of fairly fine foam that forms on the surface,
which passes through my kitchen strainer if I move it too quickly. I can
get a lot of it out with patience, but it takes several minutes. Is this
the hot break? What the heck is hot break, anyway? What does it look
like?
TIA,
Doug Moyer ~ Salem, VA, USA
Big Lick Brewing Collective
"If she gives you a Big Lick in public, just smile"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 20:00:45 -0500
From: jamorris@washington.navy.mil
Subject: Specialty Malts
Thanks to all of you that helped me before. Your responses were awesome
and gave me a wealth of knowledge. Since then my better half sent a
copy of TNCJHB. My order will be waiting when I get home.
My order included 1 lb of cara-pils dextrin malt. I wanted the benefits
of crystal malt without the added color. I thought it should be treated
as the other crystal malts and then I read that dextrin malt required
mashing. Now I'm concerned that I won't be able to use it without going
too in depth. Should I scratch the cara-pils and go with a light
crystal malt or will I in fact be able to use it a a 'regular' crystal
malt?
Sam - I sent you a separate e-mail on this but the server on board went
haywire and I'm not sure if you received it.
Thanks in advance
Ron Morris
USS George Washington
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:06:42 -0500
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: re: Partial-Mashing Made Easy
Hi All,
Ken Schwartz wrote:
>If you've wanted to try partial-mashing but have been hesitant to "complicate"
>your system, the following may offer you another approach that is about as
>simple as it gets, yet produces excellent results.
I just wanted to second Ken's advice that partial mashing can be done
quite easily and really helps to improve your brew. Its also a great way
to learn about mashing and opens up a whole new realm of grains that you
can use (vs steeping).
I have done about 30 partial mash batches using the "tea-bag" method that
Ken described. I am also aware of the possible drawbacks to this method and
have worked out ways to avoid them.
I use a grain bag from William's Brewing that is designed to fit into a
bucket (ie zapap) style mash/lauter tun. These bags fit perfectly inside a
4 gallon SS stock pot that most people already have for extract brewing.
AS Ken mentioned, when mashing you need to use the proper water to grain
ratio, typicly between 1 and 2 quarts of water per pound of grain.
The way I learned to avoid getting grain particles into the boil was just
to simply let the mash liquid settle after mashing and sparging and before
siphoning into the kettle. By carefully siphoning, you can leave a large
portion of the grain particles behind in the mash and "sparge" vessels.
When I first started doing these partial mashes, I siphoned everything over
into the kettle and had problems with harsh, astringent flavors. After
learning how to keep the grain particles out of the boil, my brews greatly
improved.
A third thing I would also suggest is to make sure you are using an
accurate thermometer and keep a close eye on the mash temperatures. You
don't want to overshoot the mash temps by much and end up killing all of
the enzymes (ie denaturing the enzymes is the proper term). It's better
to mash in a little low and boost the temp up using either heat or boiling
water.
I would highly recomend to anyone doing extract brews that you give some
of these simple partial mash techniques a try. They can greatly increase
the quality of your brew with very little investment in time or money. You
can even do small batch all grain brews with a setup like I have. A 4 gallon
stock pot and one of these grain bags can mash up to 8 pounds of grain. By
paying close attention to a couple of simple details you can produce great
beer with one of these setups. I know first hand, I just won second place
with a Dusseldorf Alt in the Boston Homebrew Comp (one step away from being
qualified for the MCAB!) that was made with a partial mash recipe. This brew
scored 39 points, which "ain't too bad" of a score.
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
============================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 841-7210 x21390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 841-7250
Launcher Technology and email: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Analysis Branch
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2
Newport, RI 02841-1708
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:29:28 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Sparge Leveler/pH meters/Weight/Chlorine
Mark Berman has an idea for leveling sparge water:
If I'm picturing the kitty gadget correctly it works the way a water
cooler does i.e. when the water level in the bowl gets low enough that
the mouth of the bottle is above the surface of the water air can enter
the bottle and does so causing water to run out. After the water rises
to the point where the mouth is sealed again water continues to flow
until the pressure at the top of the bottle plus the hydrostatic head
equals atmospheric pressure and flow stops. If you cut the top off the
bottle, the water would all run out as there would be pressure
differential between the top and bottom of the water column to support
it.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Raymond C. Steinhart" asked about refractometers and pH meters.
Refractometers are used for extract determination but I don't have any
details except that the instruments used are often "immersion
refractometers".
Can you get a pH meter for under $300 that will withstand 100C and has
ATC? Possibly but that's pushing it. The meter itself doesn't care about
the temperature range but the electrode does. For brewing you need
something with a free flowing junction that's easily cleared of husk
particles, bits of acrospire, gums and proteins, that will withstand
high temperatures and dribbles only innocuous potassium chloride into
your brew. There are many electrodes (double junction, sleeve
construction) which meet these criteria but they usually cost in the
$130 - $200 range. That doesn't leave much budget for the meter itself.
ATC meters tend to start at $200 and go well on up depending on bells
and whistles. For brewing you want accuracy, or at least precision, of
0.01 or 0.02 pH in order to be able to see things like the effects of
calcium supplementation, pH reduction from returned decoctions, etc..
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Niebergall wrote:
>And even better yet, one should say "supporting a force of 2 Newtons"
For the 2 kg mass under consideration the force would be 2 Newtons only
if the acceleration were 1 m/sec^2. Under normal circumstances on the
face of the earth 2 kilograms weighs (i.e. exerts a force of) 2*9.8
Newtons.
>But, the phrase "supporting a kilogram weight" is wrong.
Kilogram weight is OK. A kilogram weight is 9.8 Newtons.
* * * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jon Macleod wrote:
>There isn't enough chlorine, or enough energy available, in city water
>to be making much of anything (except dead bacteria).
Chlorine in city water is in sufficient quantity to react with organic
material to form Trihalomethanes (THM's) of which chloroform is the most
prevalent. THMs are known to be carcinogenic and while the jury may be
out on the likelihood that the levels found in city water are high
enough to be an appreciable public health risk it is fear of THMs which
has prompted the move in the industry towards chloramination as opposed
to just simple chlorination.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2663, 03/17/98
*************************************
-------
