Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2840
HOMEBREW Digest #2840 Sat 03 October 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:
RE: The C Word ("Grant W. Knechtel")
Final Gravity (Harlan Bauer)
Re: Poor man's RIMS (Paul Shick)
copper stains (Matt Comstock)
Re; Simple Rims (RobertJ)
Color Question - Barley Wine Recipe review (Christophe Frey)
Re: Malt analysis and cloudy beer from munich malt (Steve Jackson)
re: Simple RIMS Setup (Jeff)
basement brewery update (Brian K Dulisse)
Re: Is my beer going to kill me? (Jeff Renner)
lead water pipes (kathy)
has anyone read the clone beer book? ("Frederick L. Pauly")
lead pipe (Scott)
RE: HERMS Thoughts (Brad Plummer)
RE: real cheap almost glove box (LaBorde, Ronald)
methane/sanitation/mashout ("Steve Alexander")
Re: Easy Keg/lead in wort (John Wilkinson)
Lucknow Brewery at Castle Springs (Guy Mason)
Re: Thermometer Weights in Beer ("John A. MacLaughlin")
Burner enlightenment please ("C and K")
Re: Reverse HERMS ("Larry Maxwell")
Is my beer going to kill me? / toxicology class (Nathan Kanous)
lack of carbonation (LowpineUno)
Specialty malts, especially the Munich types ("George De Piro")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send your entries in for the Hoppiest Show On Earth yet?
Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html
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: Thu, 01 Oct 1998 21:59:29 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK@hartcrowser.com>
Subject: RE: The C Word
kathy asks in HBD 2839:
-snip-
As an occasional mead maker, who has some difficulty knowing when the
fermentation is complete, would the sugars in honey be read accurately
by the Clinitest?
-snip-
If my understanding is correct, no, since the sugars in honey are
primarily sucrose, which is not read by Clinitest. Wassail!
-Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington, USA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 03:07:53 -0500
From: blacksab@midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Final Gravity
Ahh, maybe I'm missing something here, but I was led to understand that the
only acurate method for determining the terminal gravity of a specific wort
is to run a forced fermentation on it--to wit: take approx. 250-500mL wort
and pitch a large amount of yeast into it, and, ideally, place on a stir
plate at elevated fermentation temperatures. Let it ferment to completion.
Then measure the gravity with either a hydrometer, refractometer, Clinitest,
or whatever. Compare this number with the actual brew. When the brew hits
this number, it has reached the terminal gravity for that particular wort.
Otherwise, you are just guessing, regardless of the measuring instrument
being used.
TTYL,
Harlan.
Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can
Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man.
<blacksab@midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 07:43:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Re: Poor man's RIMS
Hello all,
Randy Pressley asks about a "poor man's RIMS," avoiding all
of the electronics. I've been using a Teel pump to do exactly what
Randy suggests, and judging by the email I've gotten from people
over the last two years, I'd guess that there are lots of others.
If you have a burner, pump, and thermometer on your SS mash
tun, you can get many of the benefits of a RIMS without much effort.
Keeping the burner on low, with a low pump output to avoid problems
with the false bottom (don't ask,) you can get very smooth and slow
temperature changes, as well as crystal clear runoff. I just run my
flexible pump output tubing up to the top of the converted keg, onto
a perforated pie plate (my high-tech return manifold) under an inch
or so of liquid. When it's time to run off, just switch the tubing
over to the boil kettle and relax.
My typical mashing regime now involves pumping in 7-8 gallons
of 165F or so water to hit 153F or so (20-24 lbs of grain,) then
letting it rest for about 30 minutes without any recirculation. The
temperature generally drops about 2 degrees during that time. Then I
start the pump to recirculate, and turn the burner on very low to raise
the mash gradually to about 158F (over 10-15 minutes.) After the wort
clears (clear flexible tubing has its advantages,) I raise it to 164F or
so as my half-hearted attempt at mashing out, then begin the runoff.
I periodically pump a few inches of 170F sparge water on top of the pie
plate in the mash tun, while running off. I almost always run off too
quickly (20-25 minutes for 12 gals,) so my extraction isn't what it could
be. However, I think the beer is generally less astringent with a quick
sparge and runoff, and this is enough to convince me to save some time
and add a bit more malt to the grist. Making 10 gallons of beer really
takes less time and effort with this semi-automated approach than making
5 gallons on the stovetop.
So, Randy, it's a very simple way to get most of the benefits of
RIMS. You do have to watch your temperatures and occasionally adjust a
burner or a pump, unlike some of the RIMS crowd, but I think that's part
of the fun. Give it a try.
Paul Shick
Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 07:50:13 -0400
From: Matt Comstock <MComstock@shepherdcolor.com>
Subject: copper stains
Gail Elber Wrote:
>I have acquired a five-gallon carboy that used to hold a collection of
pennies (regrettably, I didn't get the pennies). >The pennies have left a
green stain inside the carboy that hasn't yielded to TSP. I'm thinking I
should try cleaning >it with something acid. Should I just use vinegar, or
is there something at the hardware store that I should try?
The 'Chemist's Companion' says TSP (Na3PO4) is useful for removing carbon
residues.
To dissolve inorganics, and avoid any screwing around, aqua regia will
remove the stain. Named because it dissolves gold, the king of metals, aqua
regia is a 3:1 mixture of conc HCl and conc HNO3. It is nasty, develops Cl2
gas, and is dangerous to play with. But like I said - no screwing around.
After cleaning flush with water.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 08:21:50 -0400
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re; Simple Rims
I read an article in Brewing Techniques about the benefits of RIMS. I
was
thinking about setting one up, but I don't want one (now) which is as
elaborate
as the one in the article. I was thinking about just connecting some
standard
tubing to my outflow ball valve on my sparge/mash tun(keg), then connecting
the
tube via an adapter of some sort to a pump which would pump the wort back
into
the sparge/mash tun.
- -----
We have been offering this type system for our 3 vessel brew systems, MRS
(Mash Recirculation System), since 1992.
It will help in eveneing out the temp differences in the grain bed,
stabilize temperature increases, by removing the hotter wort from under a
false bottom, set the grain bed and clarify the wort.
You would use direct heating with a burner to do mash temp increases
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com
------------------------------
Date: 02 Oct 1998 08:39:29 -0400
From: Christophe Frey <cfrey@ford.com>
Subject: Color Question - Barley Wine Recipe review
to: post@hbd.org
I will be brewing a 10 gallon batch of Barley Wine this coming Saturday,
October 10th at the 2nd "little brew II". The recipe looks like this: 40 lbs.
Marris Otter 2-row, 2 lbs. Crystal 60o, 1 lb. wheat, 4 oz. Chocolate (?), 1
oz. Perle pellet 8.0% - 60 minutes, 1 oz. Chinook 12% - 60 minutes,1 oz.
Centennial8.8% - 60 minutes, 4 oz. Fresh, dry Babcock Cascades - Alpha unknown
- 1 minute. I will shot for 149o-151o for mash in, at around .9-1.0 qts/lb. I
am utilizing a 3-barrel PICO system.Any comments on the recipe welcome.
I plan to sparge approx. 13 gallons and boil 2 -2.5 hours to reduce to 10
gallons. A local brewery, Motor City, has offered 2-3 liters of fresh, 1st
generation Wyeast 1056. Now the question(s). I want to have this brew come out
with a nice, red/mahogany color. That is why I have the question mark next to
the chocolate addition. I am thinking that this will help develop the color I
am looking for. What do other people do to develop a "red" beer?
As an aside to the collective, at "little brew I" earlier this year we had 4
3-barrel systems and brewed five batches (including my now all gone "strange
brew, the brew that combined the running from several of the others brews) for
a total of 69 gallons. I have invited brewers from three local clubs (AABG-
Ann Arbor Brewers Guild, FORD-Fermental Order of Renaissance Draughtsmen, and
the Pontiac Brew Tribe) to bring their personal systems and enjoy a day of
brewing together. If you are in the SE Michigan area that Saturday and would
like to stop by to chat and taste, contact me and I will give you directions.
Sincerely,
Chris P. Frey
Strategic Planning & New Product Development 337-1642
chris.frey-ford@e-mail.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 06:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Malt analysis and cloudy beer from munich malt
In HBD #2839 (October 2, 1998) "Silent Bob" wrote:
>>>>
Hello HBD'ers,
In response to the question about cloudy beer and Munich malt, I have
had the same experience. A protien rest is advised because specialty
malts are often made from lower quality barley. For exaple, most
american specialty grains are made from six row.
<snip>
<<<<
Be careful with making such blanket statements. American specialty
malts may be made from lower-quality barley, but European malts
generally are not. In fact, I'm not so sure the Germans or Belgians
would even consider Munich to be a "specialty" malt.
I have only one brand of Munich to use as a datapoint -- Durst -- but
my experience is that a protein rest is unnecessary with this malt. I
have done a single infusion using this malt for an alt (along with a
bit of DWC aromatic malt added in to "duplicate" the effects from a
decoction) and had no problems at all with haze, chill or any other
kind. I can't speak for other European Munich malts, but I would
assume that they would be similar to Durst in that there is no need at
all for a protein rest.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:02:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: mcnallyg@in83d.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: re: Simple RIMS Setup
Hi All,
Randy Pressley (randy.pressley@SLKP.COM) wrote:
>I read an article in Brewing Techniques about the benefits of RIMS. I
>was
>thinking about setting one up, but I don't want one (now) which is as
>elaborate as the one in the article.
<snip>
>I would take manual temperature readings
>and
>manually control the heat. Any of you RIMS folks think this would work?
This is essentially the type of RIMS setup that I have built. Mine
is a direct fired, manually controlled, RIMS. Pictures of my setup are
on the Palexperiment web page at:
http://brew.oeonline.com/~brewola/palexperiment_breweries.html
This system works great, but is fairly tricky to learn how to operate.
The thing that makes it tricky is the long lag time in heating the mash.
If I wait for the mash temp to hit my target before shutting off the
heat, the temp will overshoot the target.
What I have learned to do is apply the heat for a short time, wait
for the temp to rise and reach a steady state, and then decide if more
heat is needed, then repeat. After using the system for a couple of
brews and figuring out this procedure, hitting and maintaining temps
is pretty easy.
With the system configured as it is now it would be easy to add an
automated temp control setup with an inline heater or HERMS. However,
I will probably keep it manual since I like to keep things simple and
I like to tinker with it during the mash, YMMV.
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==========================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250
Launcher Technology and email:
Analysis Branch mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Naval Undersea Warfare Center WWW:
Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/
Newport, RI 02841-1708
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 08:55:52 -0500
From: Brian K Dulisse <DULISSE_BRIAN_K@lilly.com>
Subject: basement brewery update
a couple of dozen folks responded to my request for burner and venting info;
thanks. a number of folks asked me to forward the info i received on to them,
enough so that there seems to be enough interest to take up a little bandwidth
. . .
a number of folks have rigged up makeshift hoods using off the shelf parts;
lowe's and home depot were mentioned often as sources for both the blowers
(there appears to be a marked preference for squirrel cage blowers) and hood
material (either wood or galvanized sheet metal). among the folks that
mentioned the cfm rating of their blower, the lowest was 450 (which is about
the rating of many kitchen range hoods). anyone interested in this should
take a gander at grainger.com; there's a huge list of different kinds of
blowers at a very wide range of cfm. the only problem is that there aren't
any pictures, so you can't really tell how big or heavy a unit is, what the
intake/outlet is like, etc.
as far as burners go, everyone seems to have a favorite brand/source: cajun
cadillac, superb, solarflo, superiorproducts. a number of people also
mentioned wok burners. several people noted that a large homebrew store might
carry burners . . .
thanks to all
bd
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 10:33:10 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Is my beer going to kill me?
"John A. MacLaughlin" <jam@clark.net> wrote
>The use of lead pipe was discontinued not because of its toxicity but
>because first galvanized steel pipe, and then the war, and then
>plastic pipe made lead uneconomical.
Whoa! What about 50 years of copper pipes in between?
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 09:42:58 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: lead water pipes
John McLaughlin writes about lead pipe
..I think the news media have greatly exaggerated the toxicity of lead.
I recall that lead pipe was commonly used for supply lines in both
domestic and commercial plumbing in the United States from the intro-
duction of indoor plumbing about 100 years ago until the 1940's...
Lead pipe in use is usually coated by impurities in the water providing
a layer of something other than lead so the human exposure to old lead
pipe is not what it seems. Also the acidity of the supplied water is a
major factor in whether lead is picked up by the piping. Most older
lead system without high acidity of the water supplied are fairly safe.
Lead shot being introduced into a acid boiling wort is quite a different
matter. Definitely do not let infants or little children drink your
homebrew. A little lead on the brains of adults.....some other expert
better weigh in.
I'm a Realtor not a physiologist, but I've had to explore the issue with
plumbers and the water company to answer buyers questions.
cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:17:44 -0400
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m@avery.med.virginia.edu>
Subject: has anyone read the clone beer book?
I found an ad for a book, Clone Beers, that claims to have the
info to clone many american micros.
Has any one seen the book? Any good?
Rick Pauly
Charlottesville,Va
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 11:23:16 -0400
From: Heimdall@spamless.nassau.cv.net (Scott)
Subject: lead pipe
>I think the news media have greatly exaggerated the toxicity of lead.
>I recall that lead pipe was commonly used for supply lines in both
>domestic and commercial plumbing in the United States from the intro-
>duction of indoor plumbing about 100 years ago until the 1940's.
>The use of lead pipe was discontinued not because of its toxicity but
>because first galvanized steel pipe, and then the war, and then
>plastic pipe made lead uneconomical.
Actually, lead pipes continued to be used, in lesser quantity, until 1986,
when they were banned nationwide in the US due to the health risk (the
Safe Drinking Water Act). The greatest current risk arises from lead
solder used with copper pipes.
Regardless of that may be said in the media, lead _is_ quite toxic.
Chronic exposure to low levels of lead (less than 1 mg) over an extended
period of time can cause serious damage to the brain, kidneys, nervous
system and red blood cells.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency, lead dosage that would
have borderline effects on an adult can have a far greater effect on a
small child, due to greater absorption rates because of their lesser body
weight and metabolic differences. Overexposure to lead can irreparably
stunt a child's mental and physical development.
The toxicity of lead has long been known, yet little was done about the
problem due to lead's usefulness. Benjamin Franklin wrote, "The
mischievous Effect from lead is at least above Sixty Years old; and you
will observe with Concern how long a useful truth may be known, and exist,
before it is generally received and practis'd on."
Despam address to reply.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:21:11 -0500
From: Brad Plummer <big-wing@jump.net>
Subject: RE: HERMS Thoughts
Bob writes:
In HBD 2838
Brad Plumber described a heat exchange system, mounting the HE in the boil
pot and using 2 Gott Coolers and a pump.
My first thought on this arrangement is that it's too complicated and time
consuming. You're using only one vessel to do your heating and spending a
lot of time moving liquids.
Bob, I have looked at the PBS HERMS setup and like it a lot. A very
elegant system. But I don't know why you would think that my prospective
1-kettle HERMS setup would be too confusing. I am trying to KISS (Keep it
simple) using only one boiler. The only additional liquid transfer is the
movement of sparge water to the HLT. I do appreciate the input, believe
me! I have also discussed this offline with Ron Babcock and he has gotten
me thinking of using a counter-flow WC instead of the HE coil as the
immersion chiller. This would definitely save clean up time. I have
plenty of copper; just need to put it to good use.
Brad Plummer
Georgetown, Texas
Big-wing@jump.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 11:33:43 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: real cheap almost glove box
From: mwmccaw@ix.netcom.com
>Back when I was in grad school in mycology, I did a lot of culturing, and
>certainly couldn't afford a real glove box or laminar flow hood.
I was thinking of building something cheap, when the idea of using an old
sanitized fish aquarium came to mind. It would certainly be water proof,
could hold up to sanitizing. etc.
You can pick some up at garrage sales, or even in your basement. You could
lay it on it's side with the bottom away from you and just tape a plastic
flap over the front. Hmm, I will have to give this a try.
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 12:27:46 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: methane/sanitation/mashout
On behalf of Michel Brown and myself - would youse guys please take a second to
critically read what was said and not make a noisy reply to what you think you
read between the lines. I wouldn't bother to bring it up, except that it
happens a lot (btw - I didn't say the mysterious grist sprout was from roast
barley either).
While I'm up on the soapbox - it's reducING sugar not reducIBLE sugars. In the
infamous test copper is reduced, the sugar is oxidized.
- --
Dave Humes writes about Kirin/methane/brewing ...
I just saw a journal article on this. I believe that point was to reduce the
waste matter BOD by using an anaerobic bacterial fermentation on it - mostly
grist and wastewater. Harnessing the methane output is just a 'hack'.
- --
I'd rebut Alan Meeker's methodology but it looks like Robert Arguello already
has. I agree with much of what Alan reports, but a glove bag (see Cole Parmer)
and a spray bottle of ethanol goes a long way.
he also writes ...
>Osmotic Shock: Another important issue with osmotic shock (or other
>stresses such as temp change) is that, in addition to the homeostasis
>problems the yeast face from osmotic pressure differences, the yeast will
>respond to the new osmotic environment by changing the expression patterns
>of numerous genes which will almost certainly alter the yeasts' behavior
>and, therefore, may have unexpected effects on the resulting beer.
Homeostasis is lost whenever you pitch. Even wimpy wort has enough glucose to
trigger the Crabtree effect. Pitching will alter the lifestyle of your yeast -
that we must live with.
Presumably the yeast chosen has known good characteristics at high gravity so
the behavior changes due to high osmotic pressure shouldn't be unexpected at
all. The original question was whether slowly stepping a culture up to high OG
resulted in yeast that would perform better in a high OG wort. The Os-pressure
has a big impact on the yeast energy requirements and I could also imagine that
budding and reproducing would be more difficult. Can the yeast substantially
'gear up' for Os-pressure changes and if so do these behavior changes require
so much time that it is better done in a starter culture than in wort ? I
think that this is the question. My guess is no. Perhaps the best antecedent
conditioning is to get the yeast permeases operating so that the osmotic
pressure difference is reduced - IOW pitch at high krausen.
I believe that low temps and high alcohol levels for example both cause yeast
to accumulate additional fats and sterols - that could take conditioning time.
The value of Os-pressure conditioning, to my mind, is very much in doubt.
- --
George De Piro writes re mashout that it isn't primarily to denature enzymes
and Domenick Venezia asks ...
>How long does amolytic activity last at 168F?
I agree with George, but it should be noted that the mashout does (nearly) stop
the beta-amylase while allowing alpha-amylase enough time to convert the
starches at least. The AA half-life, according to one JIB paper is about 16
minutes at 75C. AA without BA results in small dextrins. The same EBC paper
that I used in the reducing sugar analysis is also performs a detailed analysis
of dextrins throughout and particularly after the mash. The rise in the levels
of DP4-8 dextrins during mashout is substantial.
After reading what Jim Busch and George DePiro have to say about dextrins - I
must ask ?WHY? do we want dextrins in the wort anyway ? From comments posted
recently it would appear that the only logical reason to produce a less
fermentable wort is to reduce the alcohol content of a high OG beer. I mean
dextrins aren't sweet, they aren't foam positive and they don't correlate with
body. So is mashing above 63C pointless and mashing below 58C detrimental ?
When I say dextrins above I'm including non-branched unfermentable
oligosaccharides.
Steve Alexander
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 98 13:24:07 CDT
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Re: Easy Keg/lead in wort
In the recent discussions of an easy way to get into kegging, the use of
plastic soft drink bottles with Carbonator type caps has been suggested.
This is fine as far as being a handy way to carry beer but is little cheaper
and probably not as easy as using Cornelius type kegs. The cheapest part of
a kegging setup is the kegs. The real expense is in the CO2 tank and
regulator. If one is going to have CO2 they might as well spend another
$15US or so for a five gallon Cornelius type keg. The soft drink bottles
or Grolsch type bottles can be counter pressure filled for carrying beer
around.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As to the danger of lead pellets from a thermometer in the beer, if those
lead pellets were as dangerous as some have suggested then there are a lot
of bird hunters who would be in trouble. Granted soaking the lead in an
acidic solution such as wort would probably remove more lead than the lead
being in flesh but I doubt the difference is great enough to matter. At least
considering the number of doves I have eaten. Now no snide remarks about
my apparent signs of lead poisoning.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 15:06:49 -0400
From: Guy Mason <guy.mason@matrix-one.com>
Subject: Lucknow Brewery at Castle Springs
Greetings Fellow Beerlings,
Just returned from a quick vacation in New Hampshire and would like to hear
from some fellow brewers about the Lucknow Brewery. I tried three of their
beers, Lucknow Lager, Lucknow Porter, and Lucknow IPA. I'd like to hear
some other opinions about their beer. Also if anyone has tried the Stone
Coast Brewing Company in Laconia any opinions would also be appreciated.
Just trying to train my tastebuds and I'm late for class...
Thanks
Guy Mason
Cheshire CT
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:28:15 -0400
From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam@clark.net>
Subject: Re: Thermometer Weights in Beer
I just tried a magnet on my sole surviving "BREWER'S BEST" floating
thermometer. Surprise! The shot is steel. Thank you, Dan.
Now, considering how conscious I am of the cost of lead, why didn't I
expect this?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 15:06:57 -0700
From: "C and K" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: Burner enlightenment please
Pardon my ignorance. I am building a half BBL brewery. Is it possible to
have 3 burners run off the same propane source? Is it safe? Would it have
to be low pressure instead of high pressure? I just got off the phone with
Brinkman Co., and am more confused than ever. They want you to buy their
hoses and regulators, and say each burner has to run individually. From
what I read, either hi or low pressure seems to be ok, but you have to be
compatible, and that low pressure is easier to find parts. Also, my dad
works for an industrial gas co, and says everything I need they have.
Should I just go there? Help!?
Chris
Cuckold@cornerpub.com
Take it easy, or any way you can get it!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 15:51:58 -0700
From: "Larry Maxwell" <Larry@bmhm.com>
Subject: Re: Reverse HERMS
> >So I'd been thinking about reversing the process
> >and just putting the immersion chiller into the Gott mash/lauter tun
and
> >pumping the hot/boiling water through it to heat the mash. This would
> >seem to perhaps be gentler on the wort and more controllable. What do
> >the HERMS-knowledgeable
>
> That may be one of the best designs, provided you also include some
method
> to stir the mash.
One might try using the tubing itself to stir the mash. It could be
coiled
flat, like a loose spiral, and then moved up and down in a reciprocating
manner, either manually or with a motorized mechanism. It would be
interesting to know if this works. I once considered doing something
like this with a flexible electric heating element, but a hot water tube
would be equivalent in principle. I settled on a more conventional
RIMS design.
Larry Maxwell
up and RIMsing in San Diego
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 1998 21:24:16 -0400
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Is my beer going to kill me? / toxicology class
John said:
I think the news media have greatly exaggerated the toxicity of lead.
I recall that lead pipe was commonly used for supply lines in both
domestic and commercial plumbing in the United States from the intro-
duction of indoor plumbing about 100 years ago until the 1940's.
The use of lead pipe was discontinued not because of its toxicity but
because first galvanized steel pipe, and then the war, and then
plastic pipe made lead uneconomical.
Herbert Bresler said:
Maybe you got the wort promptly away from the lead pellets, but some lead
would have already been disslved in the solution (probably water or
glycerine) that has been inside the thermometer since it was manufactured.
For my tastes, any lead is too much lead. Be safe. Throw it out.
As for your equipment, I'd replace cheap parts (like hoses) and vinegar
soak everything else.
My $0.02
In toxicology class, we discussed lead poisoning (imagine that). After
discussing the manifestations of lead poisoning, the instructor read us a
case report from the literature. I'm going to guess it was mid '50's but
that's not what's relevant. The case involved a publican (pub owner in UK)
that suffered from lead poisoning. He had classic symptoms of lead
poisoning (don't remember them all, but I know where to look it up). The
question was...how did he get lead poisoning?
Well, as fate would have it, this publican felt it was good business to
have a pint of ale with his first patron every day. In fact, he would draw
his own pint first, and serve the second to the patron. His pub was
outfitted with lead pipes running from the casks to the tap. It was
thought by the toxicologists called in that the ale that sat in the pipes
overnight, absorbed more lead from the pipes than at any other time
throughout the day...and the publican drank the first pint EVERY DAY! What
a fate. Is your beer going to kill you? Don't know...it's your choice.
If you leave the lead in there long enough, it'll probably hurt.
Anyhow, I thought it was an interesting story. If you didn't think so...I
apologize. Now for my $0.02 on the Clin******
I'm not overly interested in it. I can page down. I'd rather page down
and skip it than manage to offend AlK or DaveB. Just my $0.02
nathan
Nathan L. Kanous II, Pharm.D., BCPS
Clinical Assistant Professor
School of Pharmacy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
425 North Charter Street
Madison, WI 53706-1515
Phone (608) 263-1779
Pager (608) 265-7000 #2246 (digital)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 22:49:30 EDT
From: LowpineUno@aol.com
Subject: lack of carbonation
Hello,
My latest batch of brew is suffering from lack of carbonation, not completely
flat, but may as well be. First off it is a porter made with the most notable
adjuncts: 1lb flaked barley and 1/2lb oatmeal. It has been in the bottle for
22 days. The 4 gal batch was batch/bucket primed with a combo of 1/4 c corn
sugar and 2/3 c DME, both of which were reminents (dry malt no more than 6mo
old). I believe that there was sufficient priming materials to bring a 4gal
batch to a decent level of carbonation. Am i being impatient? I know that DME
as a primer takes longer to carbonate beer, however after 3weeks and then
some, the beer is no more carbonated than it was after 5 days in the bottle (i
couldn't wait to try it! ). Or is the culprit the 'old' malt, or might the
barley/oatmeal adjuncts have something to do with it? Or maybe a dreaded
bacterial infection reeking havok on the yeasties? I am no professional
taster, but i don't detect any sour off flavors or anything of the like, in
fact the beer 'pretty much' turned out like I thought it would. Not to say it
couldn't happen, but i am pretty anal about cleaning my equipment, and i had
just replaced the siphoning hose.
Any suggestions? I will give the beer a week to shape up (what an ultimatum),
then add 2 primetabs to each bottle and recap. However i would rather not go
to the trouble. Anyway, I am more interested in knowing 'why' my beer is
treating me this way(sob sob). I am determined to drink it, it tastes good,
flat or not.
Something else i noticed while sampling the brew. Upon chilling and pouring
into a glass, white particulate matter settles out of the beer. Protien no
doubt, I think anyway? This was a partial mash, and i got a good hot break and
after whirlpooling the cold wort, a large amount of trub. Does this white
stuff have something to do with the barley/oatmeal adjuncts(I bet it does)?
details on the brew:
pitched with 2 packets Edme dry 11gram (call me crazy!! NO LAG BABY!)
primary 4 days @ 70 deg
secondary 5 days @ 70 deg
in bottle 22 days
OG 1.062
FG 1.021
any suggestions or comments welcome.
TIA steve J
Richmond VA
member of Weekend Brewers Homebrew Club - Chester VA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 98 21:40:28 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: Specialty malts, especially the Munich types
Hi all,
"Silent Bob" (Adam?) writes:
"In response to the question about cloudy beer and Munich malt, I have
had the same experience. A protien rest is advised because specialty
malts are often made from lower quality barley. For exaple, most
american specialty grains are made from six row."
Back to me:
How many of you guessed I would respond to this? You win!
While it is true that most American specialty grains *were* made from
6-row barley (which is often higher in protein than 2-row), that is
rapidly
changing. Briess offers a full line of 2-row specialty malts, and I
believe
Schreier is also doing so (or soon will be).
As far as 6-row requiring a protein rest to make clear beer: no, not
necessarily. The total nitrogen is not as important to the beer's
clarity as
the type of nitrogen that is in the malt. If the malt is very
highly-modified
there will be little in the way of high- and medium-molecular weight
proteins in the malt. While this may help beer clarity it will
definitely
hurt the body and head retention of the beer.
A poorly modified malt will contain plenty of large proteins. So much,
in fact, that
a decoction mash could be necessary to ensure maximum starch extraction
from
the grain. Heading and body should not be a problem with such a malt,
but a protein
rest may be useful for maximizing extraction.
Specialty malts like Munich and Crystal are malted in such a way as to
maximize
their melanoidin content. This process includes modifying the malt to
a high degree
to produce a large amount of amino acids. The high temperature/high
moisture
kilning of Munich malt toasts most of the proteolytic enzymes, so a
protein rest
won't do much (and if it did it would only do harm to the already
highly-modified malt).
The malting process is the main determinant of the degree of
modification, not the
barley itself (some strains modify more quickly than others, but the
malting procedure
is ultimately more important). Also, some maltsters (even ones in
Germany) claim
they prefer higher-protein barleys (although still 2-row) for the
production of malts
that will contain a lot of melanoidins (like Munich and aromatic malts).
This is because amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) are needed
for the
formation of Melanoidins. They claim that the extra protein and very
high
modification produce a lot of free amino acids which then react with
sugars
during kilning to form melanoidins.
I am somewhat skeptical about the necessity of using high-protein barley
to
maximize the formation of melanoidins. There are plenty of amino acids
for the Maillard reactons in a barley with 11% total nitrogen. I suspect
that they
may use higher protein barley for specialty malts to save money because
they
can get adequate results with it. I am quite cynical, though, so take
that
opinion for what it is worth.
Today's malts are well modified, even the European ones. Briess
recommends
that *none* of their malts be used in a protein rest (not even their
wheat malt) because
they are so well-modified. Spec sheets I have seen for Weyermanns and
the Czech
malt from St. Pats show them to be well-modified, too.
Wolfgang Kunze writes that too much protein degradation will actually
cause more
haze potential in the final beer. This is because it is the
high-molecular weight
protein degradation products that are the most potent haze causing
proteins. You
therefore don't want to degrade the largest proteins too much.
Some HBDers disagree with Kunze about this last bit, but he has a better
resume than
any of us. Seek out more info if you wish to refute him; I'm just
repeating what he has
written!
Have fun!
George de Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2840, 10/03/98
*************************************
-------
