Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2751
HOMEBREW Digest #2751 Sat 27 June 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:
100 liter RIMS (Al Korzonas)
Re. Fearful lurkers -- good reply, thanks (Samuel Mize)
Dry Tripel (Al Korzonas)
Cordials (Dan McLaughlin & Christine Griffith)
Respiration Correction (Al Korzonas)
carry on beer (JPullum127)
Homebrewing and the Law (Christophe Frey)
PUnissimo/Oxynater(tm) (Al Korzonas)
Bashing (Al Korzonas)
Maltose in Belgians ("Andrew Avis")
BrewCast this Saturday (Alan Gilbert)
Welcome new posters 2748 (Samuel Mize)
mashing dwf beligan pils..step or infusion? (Jonathan Edwards)
Charlie P. Scandal (Rick Theiner)
Re:Mash Transfer (Jim Bentson)
Buffer solutions and CP ("John S. Thomas")
Pre-boil formula & Temp.control ("Mary Ethridge")
Amarillo hops (Lila and Linus Hall)
Where art thou rhodomel? (Charles Hudak)
If you had to formulate a recipe on a desert island, or BJCP exam... (Ken Schwartz)
Teflon tape?/mashing questions/oxygen/sparging doghouse (Paul Shick)
Step mashing / water:grist ratio / respiration defined (George_De_Piro)
Re:Keg to Kettle Conversion ("Paul E. Lyon")
Beer Style Series Book ("J. Matthew Saunders")
BATF REGS/maine based home brewery (Joe Rolfe)
Questions About Amount of Water, Protean Rest, and False ("Michael O. Hanson")
htg elements / tun guage (David A Bradley)
Teflon tape (Todd Etzel)
Mash stiffness (Domenick Venezia)
Have you entered a MCAB qualifier yet?
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: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:07:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: 100 liter RIMS
Simon writes:
> Normally we do step infusion mashes, but I am seriously
>considering building a RIMS setup in order to reduce the labor necessary
>to operate the systems. One idea I was playing around with would be to
>buy a small gas hot water heater and a recirculating pump for hot water
>baseboard heat and build the RIMS using a counterflow heater. Another
>idea would be to take my old immersion chiller and put it into a pot on a
>small gas burner and make the heating equivalent of a canister chiller. A
>third option would be to heat water to a specific temp in one HLT and
>gravity feed into the kettle in a counterflow arrangement. I plan to do
>some tests on these ideas over the summer. One other idea I would like to
>try is getting a really powerful pump and running the RIMS in reverse
>with a collection manifold on the top returning through the manifold at
>the bottom of the cooler. This might allow for high flow rates and
>eliminate the need to worry about grain bed compaction. Next time I
>finish sparging I may try this out to see how it works on a bed of spent
>grain.
Originally, the RIMS concept was thought to be unscalable to larger
sizes. I believe that this was later disproven. Search the archives
for "RIMS and Fix." One concern that I have (although I'm not a RIMSer
so take my advice on this with a grain of salt) is that if you have a
very large heat exchanger "device" for the RIMS (like your various
tubing designs above) you will need to have a *very* thin mash. Remember
that in addition to the liquid that you normally have in the grain bed,
you also have to have enough *additional* liquid to fill your heat
exchanger. Too thin a mash means your enzymes are very dilute, which
in turn, means that conversion will go slower and your enzymes will be
more easily denatured (this is just a fact of thin mashes).
This is a risk that you may want to consider before you invest your
limited resources in all the hardware for RIMS. Personally, I would
put my money into a mash mixer and a single, large mash/lauter tun.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:12:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@ns1.imagin.net>
Subject: Re. Fearful lurkers -- good reply, thanks
Thanks to Charles L. Ehlers for a good, solid, sensible discussion.
A couple of points:
> The majority of brewing-related posts involve relatively technical aspects
...
> Some may be hesitant to post simply out of (the unwarranted) fear of looking
> stupid or inexperienced. ... when dealing with people, perceptions are as
> good as reality.
Good point. Obviously we don't want to eliminate technical posts. Any
suggestions on how to combat this perception?
> -- The ever-popular Coors-Budwiser-Miller-et al bashing. Good beer is beer
> you like to drink.
I agree, we can talk about our preference for more flavorful beer without
bashing people's differing tastes.
> Is this E-mail/post HBD bashing?
Heck no, you put forward intelligent, clear ideas and explained what had
made you feel that way. I think you've given us some good things to be
aware of and careful about. Thanks.
Best,
Sam Mize
- --
Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 13:34:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Dry Tripel
Tom writes:
> Now we can imagine that the 1.060 batch will ferment down to
>around 1.015 and be somewhat dry in character if we have done right by
>the yeast. Now in theory the batch with the sugar should end at a lower
>apparent specific gravity if all that happened was that the added sugar
>was completely converted to alcohol. The beer would be very dry and
>alcoholic.
>
>What actually hapens is that as the alcohol rises in the sugared batch
>the abilities of the yeast are compromised. They can no longer do the
>same enzyme magic on all of the complex sugars so more complex malt
>sugars and different fermntation products end up in the beer.
<snip>
>1.030 would be the outcome. It is a real challange to get a high alcohol
>beer to end up as dry as a Trappist Tripel. The outcome will be sweeter
>foamier and have a lot of taste that the unsugared bach lacks.
Firstly, I don't think that Tripels are dry. I think they are medium-
sweet. Secondly, I don't agree that the yeast will necessarily be
"ruined" by the additional sugar. Yes, if too much of the wort is
glucose, fructose and sucrose, the yeast can "forget" how to make
the proper enzymes for bringing maltose in, but I believe that many
Belgian brewers have proven that you can approach 20% refined sugars
if you have used enough malt for good yeast health. Typical all-grain
wort is about 8.9% glucose and fructose and another 5.5% sucrose.
No, I belive that if the yeast has been given enough oxygen and a
sufficient amount of yeast has been pitched (very unlikely among
homebrewers), the FG would be the same whether you added the sugar
or not. Furthermore, I think you have inadvertently solved my
"I can't make a dry IPA" problem...
Three words: "alcohol is sweet." Yes, I've been trying to make a
dry IPA and I'm beginning to realise that the beer I've envisioned
may be an impossibility at the original gravity I'm trying to use.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:59:24 -0400
From: Dan McLaughlin & Christine Griffith <danchris.mcl@erols.com>
Subject: Cordials
Does anyone know of any web sites or print sources dealing with the
making of cordials? My future wife tasted some last weekend and has
become curious about the making. I think I'll stick to my beer and mead.
Thanks, Dan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:28:55 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Respiration Correction
I wrote:
>under normal brewing conditions, Saccharomyces will not respire.
Actually, I was a little sloppy on that post. The fact is that
via the Crabtree Effect, respiration is *suppressed* rather
than eliminated. Even if the sugar levels are high, if there
is oxygen present, a small amount of the oxygen will be used for
respiration.
Sorry about that.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:30:03 EDT
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: carry on beer
robert dittmar mentions having homebrew confiscated @ security check-in . I
have frequently flown through omaha, st. louis,and denver with bottles of
homebrew. While security usually asks about it, I have never had any problem
after explaining its my beer. i really wouldn't worry about this. perhaps it
was the way mom answered the"are you carrying anything for someone else"
question. thanks to all for the curry beer advice, this is going to be fun!
only 3 months to gabf in denver,can't wait. has anyone heard of the "falling
rock taproom" in denver? I heard rumors they have a large supply of belgian
beers on tap. is it true? later marc
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jun 1998 11:15:22 -0400
From: Christophe Frey <cfrey@ford.com>
Subject: Homebrewing and the Law
to: post@hbd.org
As a lurker, I beg of you, please don't beat me, masters. I just wanted a cup
your wisdom. I know I am not worthy.I am lower than ant spit. People, lighten
up here....
Read the comment from Sam today about posting that you are brewing 100 gallon
batches at a time is not such a good idea, seeing that we are only allowed 100
gallons a year as brewers (200 gallons as a household). That made me think
about my brewing practices and how they might be interpreted by someone from
the ATF or other interested parties.
I am a very active brewer, involved with two excellent homebrew clubs in
Michigan. As I really enjoy bringing people together to brew, a lot of beer
gets brewed at my home. Just two weeks ago, members of the Ann Arbor Brewers
Guild and the Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen (F.O.R.D.) brewed a
collective 70 gallons for my "little brew '98". I imagine that last year I
brewed in excess of the 200 gallon limit by a substantial amount. However, I
rarely take more than 5 gallons for myself. You see, I enjoy the cammraderie
of fellow brewers, so if I am brewing a 20 gallon batch of my Nearly Nevada
Pale Ale, I will have three additional slaves, er, brewers helping me do
everything from grinding the grains, to flinging the spent grains throughout
my lawn. They in turn pay for 1/4 of the cost's of ingredients and take
home 1/4 of the end product.
So my question is this. Does the brewing of a 20 gallon batch at my home
constitute 10% of my annual limit for my household, or does the addition of
three fellow brewers dilute this to just the 5 gallons that I keep. I guess if
anyone knows where I can find the 1979 amendment that legalized homebrewing I
can then review it and make my own determination.
Sincerely,
Chris P. Frey
Strategic Planning & New Product Development 337-1642
chris.frey-ford@e-mail.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:46:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: PUnissimo/Oxynater(tm)
Sam writes:
>> "(bring up violin volume to pianissimo,now)
>> Bring it up to very soft? Bit of a conflict there maestro.
>If he brought it up any louder he'd be wasting bandwidth. :-)
Actually, presuming a fixed number of bits per sample, bandwidth
is only determined by sample rate and therefore related only
to frequency response not amplitude.
Hmmm... I'd better say something beer-related too...
Ed writes:
1. Anyone who has used the Oxynator from Liquid Bread care to comment on
the results of a couple 15 second bursts of pure Oxygen compared sloshing
the bucket around. I'm currently aerating by slowly pouring 3 gallons of
pre-chilled water into my primary (plastic) fermentor from a height of
about 5 feet.
I have and it really does help give quicker starts, faster finishes
and lower FG's. I used to pour the entire 5-gallon batch (after
immersion chilling) through a funnel into a 6-gallon carboy. It
used to foam quite a bit. I typically run oxygen for 1 minute into
the kettle after chilling but before draining via a ball valve into
the carboys below. This is for a 15 gallon batch, but it seems to me
that the time would be the same for 5 gallons.
2. I saw this question previously, but not an answer. Is the oxygen in
those propane style canisters available in Home Depot and the like the
same as the one's sold with the Oxynator. These canisters cost $7 at Home
Depot as opposed to $16.45 from Liquid Bread.
Same oxygen. The only difference between medical grade and industrial
grade oxygen is that you need to drag around a stack of paperwork on
the tank that *holds* the oxygen in the case of medical O2. I've read
(here in HBD) even that some medical oxygen has anti-fungal agents
added, but have not seen it confirmed by anyone. If that is indeed
true, medical grade would be worse.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 15:20:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz@xnet.com>
Subject: Bashing
Sam writes:
>>... people with good opinions are being
>> driven off-line for fear of impending head bashing.
>
>Before you say this again, please provide at least one example where a
>new poster got "head bashed." What are you talking about?
Actually, I've never *ever* seen a newbie get bashed (and I've read
*every* HBD... when I subscribed in 1987, I believe there were 14 of us).
On the contrary, the most abrasive posts in recent memory are posters
who slam the anal-retentive technoweenies (I can write this because I'm
one of them, sometimes...) for making homebrewing more difficult than
it should be. Remember NOKOMAREE?
Also, the fur occasionally starts to fly when one "expert"
locks horns with another "expert." I can see this as being just as
intimidating to newbies as a slam for asking a beginner question.
There have been many times when I've wanted to call some self-proclaimed
expert a name or begin my post with "Bull***t!" Actually, I may
have once or twice started with "Baloney!" So, I'm guilty too, the
damage is done and some beginners may indeed be scared away from posting.
Ironically, the post from Paul that started this whole thread
contained quite a bit of bile and probably scared a few beginners
itself...
We should all try to get enough sleep and not deprive ourselves
too long of tasty homebrew and make a strong effort to avoid any
mean-spirited posts altogether. What's great about the HBD is
that it is so resilient... I'll bet that a week or two without
any angry posts and all is forgotten.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: 24 Jun 1998 10:25:44 -0600
From: "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.0519423@nt.com>
Subject: Maltose in Belgians
I've been following with interest the thread on candi sugar. I brewed my
first Belgian strong ale last Christmas. Instead of using candi sugar
(expensive) or table sugar (some homebrewing habits die hard) I used 1.25
kg of maltose - a clear liquid sold by the local brewshop that looks an
awful lot like liquid invert sugar. It does taste less sweet, and the
shop owner assures me that it is indeed 100% maltose.
Now, if I understand correctly, maltose is more easily fermented than
glucose, at least for beer yeasts. My fermentation certainly went crazy.
The beer (meant to be in the "Golden Strong Ale" subcategory) had a
great head, full body, and very nice citrusy flavour (from the yeast - Wy
3944). It scored well and got positive comments at a local competition.
Its only problem: it was a bit too sweet - probably from low hopping.
Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone else has used this stuff to make strong,
pale beers?
Drew
Calgary, Alberta
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 14:18:42 -0700
From: Alan Gilbert <alan_gilbert@mac.symantec.com>
Subject: BrewCast this Saturday
Good afternoon all Homebrew digest readers. Here is something new...
This coming Saturday (6/27/98) I will be doing a "BrewCast"....that is, I
will be webcasting (video only) myself (and hopefully some members of my
homebrew club) brewing a batch of Pale Ale in my backyard. This is made
possible by the really cool cable modem I just got, a couple of high-end
Macs, a Hi-8 video camera, and a bunch of software.
Anyway, I'd like anyone who has time and interest to tune in and watch.
I'll be answering email during the brew so you can tell me what you
think. I'm also holding a constest to name the brew (it's a new recipe)
during the brew session. The winner gets a beer (whoo hoo).
Anyway, check out http://24.130.11.18/brewcam (I registered brewcam.com
but I don't think it'll be ready by Saturday...but maybe).
Let me know what you think.
-Alan, panheadman@mediaone.net
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:35:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize@ns1.imagin.net>
Subject: Welcome new posters 2748
I'd like to welcome these new posters in HBD 2748 (at least, they haven't
posted before in 1998): Richard Parker, Bayard W. Wenzel, Steve Cloutier,
and Dave O'Connell (Lostboy676).Lots of high tech from new posters today.
Best,
Sam Mize
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 18:12:03 -0400
From: Jonathan Edwards <jdedward@us.ibm.com>
Subject: mashing dwf beligan pils..step or infusion?
hey now,
i'm doing a dubbel this weekend and am using a pils malt for the first time.
i've been told that it's okay to do an infusion mash on it...but i've also
been told that a step mash from any in the 120's to 135 and then boost into the
150's is required....to open an old can of worms...why is the collecitve
thought on this?
jonathan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:09:16 -0400
From: Rick Theiner <logic@skantech.com>
Subject: Charlie P. Scandal
>> On her lap is a male dancer who appears to be none other than our own
Charlie Papazian.<<
Shocking stuff!! There is truly an amazing likeness, and I wouldn't put
it past Charlie P., but there seems to be a subtle difference that I
can't put my finger on.
You've got some frightening pictures, Doug (but fun!).
- --
Rick Theiner
LOGIC, Inc.
LOGIC@skantech.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:18:46 -0400
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson@longisland.com>
Subject: Re:Mash Transfer
Recently Lou Heavner asked
> ..... But I am curious as to how brewers move the mash
> from the mash tun to the lauter tun. Seems like a good opportunity
> for hot side aeration is one is not careful. Hand transfer seems
> mighty tedious. Anybody care to describe their technique?
Lou
I only brew 6 gal. batches so the transfer goes very fast and is not
difficult. I use a 2 qt pot to gently scoop the mash from the 10 gal pot
which I use as both a mash tun and a boiling kettle. My lauter tun is a 13"
dia. stainless pool filter fitted with an "H" shaped easymasher type drain.
Due to the large diameter it is quite easy to lower the pot to the bottem
and gently tip the mash out. No more aeration IMHO than stirriing the mash
in the tun to get the filter bed to mix and set. While the bed sets, I rinse
the 10 gal pot which now collects the wort and becomes my boiling kettle.
As you can see, I still have only 2 containers, a mash tun/kettle + a lauter
tun just like the mash/lauter tun + a kettle crew.
Haven't noticed any specific HSA related tastes in my beer.
Jim Bentson
Centerport NY
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 16:35:41 -0700
From: "John S. Thomas" <jthomas@iinet.com>
Subject: Buffer solutions and CP
I am responding to David Williams request for information on buffer
solutions. It is my understanding that pH meters should be calibrated with
a buffer solution on a regular basis. Hobby Beverage sells the Hanna
Instruments 25 ml sachets of pH 7.01 and 4.01 buffer solutions. My
reckless nature forces me to opine that a store that sells pH meters should
also carry the calibration solutions plus instruction on how to use the
meters, including probe temperature maximums.
Just trying to be informative. I sent David private e-mail but then read
were the collective should be entitled to more information and I heartily
agree.
By the way for anyone who might be interest CP is not the problem it is the
person at home base that needs to go! CP, here I go again opining, stay
home, discover the problem, everyone there knows who it is, you find out,
then fire her F.A. Or stay in south America with your new bride and watch
Rome burn.
Regards,
JST
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 19:52:44 -0500
From: "Mary Ethridge" <r14946@email.sps.mot.com>
Subject: Pre-boil formula & Temp.control
Greetings,
I have two questions for anyone out there who can help me out.
1) What's a good formula to use to figure out what your pre-boil SG
should be?
2) Where can one find a temp.controller for fermenting in a
refridgerator and which
one is recommended?
Many Thanks!
James
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:17:35 -0500
From: Lila and Linus Hall <lnlhall@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Amarillo hops
Does anyone have experience with Amarillo hops? My local homebrew store
just got some in, and the manager says they are a relative of Cascade.
They do have a great citrusy aroma, with some hints of spiciness to it.
I used some as FWH for an American Pale Ale, and really liked the
flavor. I just wondered if anyone knew what the lineage of these hops
was.
Thanks,
Linus Hall
Yazoo Brewing Company
corner of Waters and Porter Rd. (great place for a homebrewery!)
Nashville, TN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 20:01:03 -0700
From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak@home.com>
Subject: Where art thou rhodomel?
Dick Dunn writes:
>> [Exercise for the student: guess what rhodo-
>> mel is.]
Uhhh, that would be flower mead, usually, more specifically rose petals.
C--
Charles Hudak
cwhudak@home.com
Living large on the left coast.......
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 21:51:06 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: If you had to formulate a recipe on a desert island, or BJCP exam...
Yikes! I'm about to take the BJCP exam this Saturday, along with 8 of
my cohorts, and one of the topics we've discussed is recipe
formulation. There is a question on the sample exam that basically
reads "Give a recipe for a 5-gallon ALL-GRAIN batch of (X) and explain
how the recipe fits the style". I had come up with a couple of memory
aids to make the calculation of grain and hops a bit easier to remember,
and I thought it might be of some use to those out there in HBD-land who
haven't yet "got the hang" of all-grain recipe design.
The simple (approximate) formulas are:
*Lb of Grain required = Last two gravity digits / 5.4
*Ounces of hops required for bittering = IBU(bittering) / (4 x
alpha acid)
For late hopping you could go further:
*Ounces of hops required for flavor = IBU(flavor) / (2 x alpha
acid)
*Ounces of hops required for aroma = IBU(aroma) / alpha acid
(Add all additions to get total IBU)
These numbers apply only to 5 gallon batches and *typical* homebrew
parameters. More on that in a second.
Examples:
To figure the grain needed for 5 gallons of a 1.054 wort, you would take
the last two gravity digits, "54", and divide by 5.4. This gives 10
lb. Similarly, a 1.040 wort requires 40/5.4 = 7.4 lb.
To get 30 IBU from boiling 5% Fuggles for 60 minutes, you need 30 / (4 x
5) = 30/20 = 1-1/2 oz. To get an additional 6 IBU from a flavor
addition use another 6 / (2 x 5) = 0.6 ounces.
===
The grain thing comes from assuming an average of 27 gravity points per
pound ("PPG") of grain per gallon of wort. This is a "typical" homebrew
result and represents about 75% efficiency. Normally gravity would be
figured
SG points = PPG x LB / GAL
so
LB = SG * GAL / PPG
Plugging in "5" for the batch size and "27" for the PPG, we get
LB = SG * 5/27
which is the same as
LB = SG / (27/5)
= SG / 5.4
***If you get closer to 30 ppg (83%) use SG / 6. Lower efficiency (25
ppg or 70%) use SG / 5.***
===
Hops are normally figured from
IBU = 0.75 x ounces x alpha acid x utilization / gallons (AA and
utilization in non-decimal figures)
Using a typical utilization of 25% for 60 minutes, and again using 5
gallons, this becomes
IBU = 0.75 x ounces x alpha acid x 25 / 5
= 3.75 x ounces x alpha acid
Round up the 3.75 to an easier-to-remember 4 (means you get 27%
utilization instead of 25%, which is still reasonable as a guess)
IBU = 4 x ounces x alpha acid
Therefore
ounces = IBU / (4 x AA)
Assuming 13% utlization at 25-30 minutes (flavor addition),
IBU(30) = 2 x OZ x AA
ounces = IBU / (2 x AA)
And 6-7% at 5 - 10 minutes (aroma addition)
IBU(15) = OZ x AA
ounces = IBU / AA
***These utilization figures roughly track the Rager curves.***
(If you're a Tinseth devotee you'd want to add a tad bit more hops for
flavor & aroma than these equations figure.)
===
These calculations are definitely rough but their simplicity should help
you find an answer close to reality without as much head-scratching, if
you're under pressure (like in the BJCP exam) or just trying to decide
if you have enough grain left to make that bock.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
kenbob@elp.rr.com
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 07:35:36 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Teflon tape?/mashing questions/oxygen/sparging doghouse
Hello All,
Charley Burns asks about using teflon tape to seal his SS
ball valves to the SS nipples in his converted kegs. I've done this on
a hot liquor tank and mash tun (one SS valve, one brass) and they've
shown no problems at all in 20+ batches. I hope you enjoy your system
as much as I've enjoyed mine (after an initially strained relationship!)
Ed Krach asks about using welding oxygen tanks with an Oxynator.
I've done this several times with no infections or off tastes that I can
notice. I think others have reported the same. I believe that HopTech
offers just a regulator and SS stone setup, encouraging customers to buy
their own welding oxygen tank. You should be in good shape.
Ed Choromanski asks several questions about mashing. He notes the
huge diversity in mash thickness and speculates that it's style related.
You're no doubt right about the style part (the British, in particular, seem
to like thick mashes,) but much of it might be equipment- or regime-driven.
People who do step mashes in a cooler are forced to end up with fairly thin
mashes, as, to some extent, are RIMS users, or anyone who uses a pump to
recirculate, as I do. I've noticed that false bottoms are not as tolerant
of very thin mashes as, say, an EasyMasher, showing a tendency toward a set
mash when the ratio gets up above 1.7 or so quarts per pound. Also, using
malt that's a bit lower in enzyme content, such as a grist with a lot of
Munich, requires a fairly thick mash, to avoid thinning out the enzyme pool
too much. In any case, if you're doing straight infusion mashes, you can
certainly do very well by staying in the 1-1.3 or so quarts per pound range.
Ed also asks about the advantages of step mashing. You might look
at the HBD archives over the last 8 months to see the "Great Protein Rest
Debate." This is probably the most contentious topic here in recent
memory. The upshot of it all is that malt has changed a lot over the last
few years, with European malts getting more and more modified, almost to
American malt levels. A protein rest, or other low temperature rest, is
probably not needed with almost all modern malt. On the other hand, folks
like me have had problems with chill haze with certain malts, unless we use
such a rest. In any case, I think step mashes are fun to play with, and
you can see what works best for your malt and your system. Keep an eye on
the head retention and malt profile, if you try a protein rest, to see if
it has any deleterious effects.
Ed asks about adding a removable false bottom to a 10 gallon kettle,
as well. If you want a really easy and versatile setup, you might consider
Jack Schmidling's EasyMasher. It works very well for kettle mashing, can
be used in the boil as a drain/hop filter, and installs very easily. I
still use one in my boil kettle, although switching to a pump transfer
system forced me to change to a false bottom in my mash tun. I had some
problems with this at first, that the HBD collective helped me work out.
Finally, Paul in Vermont warns us about the possible consequences of
putting sparging ahead of the spouse. Paul, there's a reason I start brewing
at 6AM on Saturdays!
Paul Shick
Basement Brewing in Cleveland Hts, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:28:24 -0700
From: George_De_Piro@berlex.com
Subject: Step mashing / water:grist ratio / respiration defined
Hi all,
Ed asks some questions about all grain brewing. He asks about why and
when to do a step mash, wondering if it is something only "high end"
brewers do.
It is a common misconception (even amongst American craft brewers)
that step mashing produces a higher quality wort than single step
mashing. I believe this thinking is born from the idea that if
something is more complex, it must be better. This, of course, is not
always true.
Step mashing is done to utilize malt enzymes that have temperature
requirements different from those of the amylases (every mash schedule
utilizes the amylases to convert starch to sugar). Some of these
other enzymes are the glucanases, peptidases, and proteases. These
work at lower temperatures than the amylases: glucanase at ~104F
(40C) and the peptidases and proteases working over a range of
~113-140F (45-60C).
By using a step mash with rests at 104F (40C), 122F (50C), and 152F
(67C), the brewer would be breaking down glucans in the first rest,
breaking proteins in the second rest, and achieving saccharification
with the third rest. This will definitely have an effect on your
beer, but does it produce better wort?
When brewing with commercial barley malt, the low temperature rests
are not only unnecessary, but they can be detrimental. Proteins are
needed for head retention and body. Over-cleaving them will result in
thin beer with mediocre heading ability.
Modern malts, even the ones from continental Europe, are quite
well-modified. This means that the maltster has broken the proteins
down for you. What was once the job of the brewer is now the
maltster's task. Reviewing the spec sheets of commercial malts will
show this to be true.
When brewing with substantial quantities of wheat, rye, or other
high-protein, high-glucan materials, the lower temperature rests can
be useful. Otherwise, a single step infusion is fine.
------------------------------------
Ed also asks about the appropriate water:grist ratio when mashing. He
questions the broad range cited in some homebrew texts.
One good reason to start the mash very thick is if you are performing
a multi-step mash and are using boiling water infusions to reach each
temperature step. The mash will thin with each infusion, so you want
to start thick.
Mash thickness also has an effect on the chemistry that is going on.
Thicker mashes protect enzyme viability, but slow down reaction rates
(because of the high concentration of reaction products). The
opposite is true for thinner mashes. Kunze talks about thicker mashes
promoting carmelization (when the tun is directly heated), which makes
them appropriate for darker, malty beers.
What does all this mean to the homebrewer? Not much. There are so
many other variables that have a greater effect on your beer that it
is not usually necessary to worry about such minutia. If you are not
adding water during the mash, use a water:grist ratio that allows you
to stir the mash easily and maintain a somewhat even temperature
throughout. This works out to be close to Dave Miller's recommended
1.25 quarts/pound (2.6L/Kg).
That was pretty long for such a simple answer!
---------------------------------
Nathan questions the HBD definition of respiration, citing two
definitions that he found:
"New Gould Medical Dictionary" -"The interchange of gases of the
living and the gases of the medium in which they live, through any
channel, as in cutaneous respiration"
from "Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary"- "2. biol. a. the
sum total of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by
which oxygen and carbohydrates are assimilated into the system and the
oxidation products, carbon dioxide and water are given off."
He claims that by these definitions, yeast do indeed respire in wort.
I guess they do according to the wording of the first definition, but
the second definition does NOT support the notion that yeast respire.
Fermentation does not produce CO2 and water. It produces CO2 and
ethanol. If water was the by-product of fermentation, I doubt beer
would have enjoyed such immense popularity throughout the ages!
As a biochemistry major, I was taught that there are two distinct
types of respiration, as the above definitions illustrate. One refers
to physical gas exchange. The other refers to a specific set of
chemical reactions that metabolize a carbon source into simpler
products, thus releasing energy. Oxygen is utilized in the pathway.
Yeast don't respire (chemically) in wort.
Have fun!
George De Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:25:04 -0400
From: "Paul E. Lyon" <lyon@osb.wff.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re:Keg to Kettle Conversion
Charley,
I just had a 11 gal rectangular stainless steel kettle made with a drain
located in the bottom corner. I used teflon tape on both the ball valve and
the spigot connection, which are only inches from the gas burner. I have
had no problems with this setup yet. Although I have only made 4 batches in
this setup, I see no sign of degradation in those joints.
Thanks,
P.E.L.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:15:31 -0400
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm@vt.edu>
Subject: Beer Style Series Book
[snip]
I just got off the phone with a HB supply shop owner... no doubt
you know about the fire sale Brewers Publications had on the Beer
Style Series books. I just learned from this shop owner that
these incredible prices were not made available to homebrew shops
and now customers are coming in saying: "$11.95!? I just bought
four of these for $3.95 each at a bookstore!"
I've defended the AOB on other things, but to slap the backbone of
the homebrewing industry like this, (in my opinion) stinks.
[snip]
These books ended up on sales tables correct? That means the have been
"remainedered". This means several things in the book business
1) The books weren't selling well enough, so they are sold with a myriad
of other books by the pound at auction.
2) When the book store buys the remainders, they have NO idea what they
are going to get. Sometimes its all crap, sometimes there are gems. When
I worked in the book business and we purchased these "skids" sometimes we
would get nothing but damaged romance novels and at other times Penguin
Classics.
3) The author has no control whether a book is remainedered. In fact once
a book become a remainder, the auther doesn't even get paid for the book
being sold.
4) Most likely the books were not made available to the homebrew stores,
because the books were being auctioned by the pound. A homebrew store
would probably be able to attend such an auction BUT seeing as you NEVER
know what is going to be in a given skid, it would prove to be a waste of
time.
Now, these are just observations from managing a book store several years
ago. I DON'T know the details of this particular instance but suspect the
AOB isn't as guilty as they are being made out to be in this thread.
Anyone have any firm details on HOW these books were sold off?
Cheers!
M.
===========================================================
The Arts in Technology--Creative Consulting and Contracting
J. Matthew Saunders (540)951-3090
saunderm@vt.edu http://dogstar.bevd.blacksburg.va.us/
"We have to work in the theatre of our own time,
with the tools of our own time" --Robert Edmond Jones
===========================================================
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:31:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc@shore.net>
Subject: BATF REGS/maine based home brewery
{snipped original thread about brewery startup in maine dwelling}
> But, last time I checked, it will violate BATF regulations. You'd be
> better off if you had the BATF, or a consultant familiar with BATF regs,
> approve all your plans before groundbreaking. Could save a lot of
> trouble!
>
> Kelly
> Hillsboro, OR
>
you may want to start well before the atf process with the local regulatory
people. before going to the atf you will need written approval from your
local zoning/building dept. usually the state will go along with the atf
ruling to issue a commercial license, but states vary with the regs.
i agree, get the atf process started early. i think what you are refering to
is the section about having a brewery in a dwelling. this can be gotten around
as there have been many breweries in MASS and ME that have started in
basements. you will have to apply for a variance, but in the past these have
been no problem. things you want to do:
1) sep entrance to the brewery from outside
2) locks/alarms or some other security measure to protect the revenue
3) local/state approval
this is basically all they required to be able to grant a variance for the
brewery in a dwelling. by no means is this the end of the paper trail.
to the folks in maine that started this thread go see tod and suzy foster in
bar harbor, very helpful and they have been doing this for a long time. they
are very inspiring people, tell them i said hi.... good luck on your project.
you need any conical tanks??
Joe Rolfe
ex-basement commercial brewer
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 10:30:42 -0700
From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson@winternet.com>
Subject: Questions About Amount of Water, Protean Rest, and False
Firstly, Charles Papazian recommends one quart of water per pound of grain
for a protein rest and two quarts per pound of grain for starch conversion
in his New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. These ratios have worked well for
me. Some recipes give amounts of water to be used for mashing and
sparging. Feel free to experiment. Most brewers I know do. You'll
probably make a few beers that work better as drain cleaner than beer but
you will learn a lot.
Secondly, A protein rest is generally used with undermodified malts. Books
on brewing often recommend it for pilsner and lager malts. I have seen
recommendations for a protein rest for six-row malts also. A protein rest
reduces the likelihood of chill haze and breaks proteins up into substances
yeast can use as nutrients. In my experience, you can use a protein rest
whenever you want with little harm to your beer. If you can get lot sheets
for your malt, it's a good idea.
Thirdly, homebrewing supply shops often carry false bottoms designed to fit
into kettles that can be removed for cleaning. There is no need to solder
anything in place. You might want to consider one of these.
I hope this helps,
Mike Hanson
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:52:20 -0500
From: David A Bradley <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@lilly.com>
Subject: htg elements / tun guage
A couple quick device tips:::
While shopping for other things, I happened to notice (and buy) an Incoloy
heating element at a local home store....Furrow's. 4500W@240V for $20.
I'd be surprised if this was a regular stock item, but who knows?
At least they could order such an item for you. Incoloy is a nickel
alloyed steel which is resistive to corrosion from acids. Great for RIMS.
How to monitor grain bed in RIMS arrangements? Slow flow? Stuck?
It has been mentioned before that either a sight glass or a modified
pressure guage could be added on the outlet of your lauter tun.
I picked up some useful guages fairly cheaply from McMaster-Carr.
The first is the main guage and the second a back-up.
Note the first is glycerin filled while the second is not.
Ideally, neither guage would be used in contact with acidic solutions
without a diaphram to prevent corrosion of the guage innerds, thus the
back-up.
Stainless steel cased 2.5" diameter compound guage 0-15psi AND 0-30" Hg vacuum
Part # 38545KS $20.60ea
General service 2" diameter compound guage 0-15psi and 0-30" Hg vacuum
Part # 4004K4 $8.84ea
Dave in Indy
Home of the 3-B Brewery, (v.) Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:09:33 -0700
From: Todd.Etzel@eos.lmco.com (Todd Etzel)
Subject: Teflon tape
Reqarding the question about using teflon tape on keg/kettle fittings,
I've used it on all my connections with no problems. It seals well and
has shown no signs of damage.
Todd Etzel
Monrovia, CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 08:15:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Mash stiffness
Ed Choromanski <choroman@voicenet.com> in #2749 asks:
>What is the correct ratio of water to grain for mashing? I have read
>that this can vary from 0.5 qts/lbs to 2.5 qts/lbs. Why the range? Is
>the ratio dependent on the beer style? If so, what styles have what
>ranges? Or is it to do with the mashing temps? Or is there other
>issue(s)?
The party line on mash thickness is that less water (a thicker mash)
protects peptidases and beta-amylase over proteases and alpha-amylase.
Protein and starch are polymers of amino acids and glucose respectively.
Peptidases and beta-amylase cut their respective polymers in the middle,
and proteases and alpha-amylase cut their polymers at the ends by nibbling
off one unit at a time.
So what?
Good question.
Again the party line says that a thiner mash promotes more complete starch
conversion and protein breakdown. Yeah, maybe. But the bottom line is
that any effect is pretty small and will (IMHO) be swamped by the more
gross effects of mash temperature, profile, and length. Adjusting your
mash results with temperature, profile, and length is complex enough
without trying to take mash stiffness into account where (again IMHO) the
effects are not well characterized.
My guess is that most people chose a mash thickness, not for the effects
on wort character, but for the practical effects on process. For example,
if you are doing step mashes in some sort of cooler where the steps are
made by adding boiling water, it is best to start with a fairly thick mash
because you will have less thermal inertia to get to your next step. If
you are doing multiple steps, you may end up with a very thin mash of
large volume by the last step. Another consideration is the mash volume.
If you are mashing in a 5 gallon Gott cooler with 10 lbs of grain, 2 qts
per pound is not possible since just the water comes to 5 gallons.
Mashout is another consideration. In my mash procedure mashout is simply
a step from ~150F to 170F. If I have a 4 gallon mash at 150F it takes
2 gallons of boiling water to make the step, yielding 6 gallons - not
possible in a 5 gallon mash tun.
I personally consider mash thickness to be a second or third order effect
and have chosen to ignore it in my brewing by setting it to a constant
value of 1.33 qts per pound of grain in all my infusion mashes in my 10
gallon Gott.
Good brewing!
Domenick Venezia demonick at zgi dot com
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2751, 06/27/98
*************************************
-------
