Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2958
HOMEBREW Digest #2958 Fri 19 February 1999
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:
Skewed mills / Yeast Autolysis ("George De Piro")
Re: pulling the decoction ("Otto, Doug")
Cincinatti Visit-Great Lakes Brewing Beer available (David)" <drussel3@ford.com>
Re: No Protien Rest = Chill Haze / typical Ratboy comments (ThE GrEaT BrEwHoLiO)
Mash question (larson.jt)
Re: Natural Gas vs. Propane (YYZCLAYTON)
CFC - the range of "k" ("S. Wesley")
Checking some "facts" (Alan McKay)
PC RIMS (Lance Levsen)
chickory (Scott Murman)
Re: PC RIMS (Marc Hering)
Very small scale (Rhino)
Low-Alcohol Brewing (Ken Schwartz)
Biere de Table ("Tim Burkhart")
Ground coriander instead of whole (Nathan Kanous)
Tribal Wisdom as a reference (Rod Prather)
Y2K Barley Wine ("Chris Schmidt")
No Subject (Lou.Heavner)
MCAB + Cold Room ("Eric Schoville")
Lindemans ("J. Matthew Saunders")
book on history of hops? (Badger Roullett)
Where would error-free Rodney Morris design ("Tom & Dee McConnell")
non-distilled liqueurs (Ross Reid)
recipes (JPullum127)
King and Barnes (Rod Prather)
AHA figures (AlannnnT)
decoction anyone ? ("Stephen Alexander")
Re: Hot Water freezes faster, yes, it really does. ("Brian Dixon")
King and Barnes (Rod Prather)
Culturing Lambic Yeast (Ted McIrvine)
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
Ames, Iowa Brewers To Meet ("Rob Moline")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition.
Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 13:45 -0800
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: Skewed mills / Yeast Autolysis
Hi all,
Jack Schmidling writes, in response to my post about 6-roller mills vs.
skewed roller mills:
"There is also no way they [the pieces of malt] can be obliterated
if the close spacing is not less than the closest spacing on a
multiroller mill."
Yes, there is. The concept is really quite simple: The closest
rollers on a 6-roller mill are not meant to crush intact kernels. They
are meant to crush the small bits of endosperm that were formed when
the grain passed through the first two sets of rollers. The spacing
between the last rollers on a 6 roller mill is typically set at
0.3-0.35 mm. The diameter of your average piece of barley malt is
2.2-2.3 mm. Please explain how you hope to squeeze a 2.2 mm piece of
malt through a 0.35 mm gap without obliterating it.
-----------------------------------
Several people have asked:
"How is storage on the cake of yeast in the primary any different than
storage on the cake in the secondary or in the bottle? And if yeast
autolysis is such a problem, how can one produce a decent
bottle-conditioned beer, such as a barleywine or any other big beer,
that is supposed to REQUIRE some aging to produce its characteristic
flavors?"
Storage of beer on the primary yeast is vastly different to storing the
beer on secondary or bottled yeast. The major difference, and the one
that most concerns us, is that there are orders of magnitude less yeast
in the secondary or bottle than in the primary.
I have never had a beer develop autolyzed flavors from contact with
secondary or bottled yeast. Some of the other, more subtle
characteristics of yeast autolysis can become noticeable in time (like
reduction of head retention, thinning of body, rise in pH), but the
autolyzed flavor found in beer that has spent too long in the primary
is unique to that situation (in my experience).
Have fun!
George de Piro (Nyack, NY)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 12:26:07 -0800
From: "Otto, Doug" <otto@alldata.com>
Subject: Re: pulling the decoction
Stop it, you'll go blind!
(Sorry, could help myself. Carry on, talk amongst yourselves.)
- --
Doug Otto
Carmichael, CA
dotto@calweb.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 15:29:05 -0500
From: "Russell, D. A. (David)" <drussel3@ford.com>
Subject: Cincinatti Visit-Great Lakes Brewing Beer available
I will be in the the cincinnati area this coming weekend (near kings
island to be specific). Can anyone tell me if there are any beer &/or
grocery stores in the area which sell great lakes brewing co beers (from
cleveland)? if so which ones?
email responses please to:
stephenklump@compuserve.com
TIA
Stephen
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:31:06 -0600
From: ThE GrEaT BrEwHoLiO <skotrat@mediaone.net>
Subject: Re: No Protien Rest = Chill Haze / typical Ratboy comments
Mark Riley Writes:
I've made several ales and lagers
without using a protien rest and have found that these very
same beers have a stubborn chill haze that won't go away
with "lagering".
I say:
Hmmm funny you should mention this topic. I have been eliminating
my protein rest lately to see if it made a difference. Well, I am
experiencing the same said chill haze problems for the first time
ever in my brewing. Lagering seems to get rid of it most of the time
but not completely.
Mark Riley Writes:
Now, supposedly the pros say that a
protien rest is "unnecessary with todays malts" but do
these same pros not care about chill haze because they're
all filtering their beers and this is a non-issue for them?
I say:
I have talked to several pros about it and they filter... Therefore
they have no problem.
I am also experiencing better head (lord knows we all need that ;) )
on my beers but it isn't as lasting as when I do a 134 rest.
I am using many of the same malts that Mark has mentioned as well
as Briess Pale Ale 2 row.
Anybody else getting some of the same results?
PH Problems??
Hmmmm...
DAMN CHARLIE P MADE $140k THIS YEAR!!! EWING MADE $60K
What did we get???
- one good issue (bad)
- a bunch more broken promises (bad)
- another year of cathy (bad)
- Gump maybe (good)
- Gatza (good)
- and just plain rooked again by an organization that just don't care (bad)
I guess two goods aren'e bad!
C'ya!
Scott "Starsky" Abene
ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT
Scott Abene <skotrat@mediaone.net>
http://skotrat.dynip.com/skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page)
"The More I know About Cathy Ewing, The More The AHA SUCKS"
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 14:04:32 -0500
From: larson.jt@pg.com
Subject: Mash question
I am trying really hard to make that jump to all-grain brewing. In
preparation, I have been doing partial mashes of about 5 lbs. My lautering
/ sparging seems to take forever (1.5-2 hours). I try not to grind too
finely. I put some water in the bottom of my bucket. I am using a small
bucket with a plastic Listermann false bottom. I try to lauter very slowly
and keep a little fresh sparge water on top at all times. I end up
stirring it and blowing through the drain tube to get stuff moving. I mean
it moves at less than a trickle. I have done about 4 of these batches, and
every one is the same. If lautering is this hard, I am not sure I want to
try to lauter 7-10 lbs. Can anyone describe for me how thick the mash
should be? I have heard "like runny oatmeal". Any other terms out there
that leave less open for interpretation? I prefer to go by feel rather
than having to pre-measure my mash water. Any help is appreciated.
Todd Larson
larson.jt@pg.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 17:29:57 EST
From: YYZCLAYTON@aol.com
Subject: Re: Natural Gas vs. Propane
Howdy,
"Mark Prior" <mprior@spectrumtech.com> wrote:
>I'm considering converting my propane cooker (Superb 35K btu) for use with
>natural gas. Has anyone converted their propane burners to natural gas?
>How difficult is it? Does it impact the overall heating potential? Is
>it easy to swap between the two gas types on demand? For instance, when I
>brew at home, I could use natural gas, but when I brew elsewhere I would
>take propane.
Nobody responded to this post so I guess I'll take it as my responsibility to
answer on this subject ;-). I researched and wrote on this subject a couple
of years ago when I purchased my Superb burner and converted it to natural
gas. I should remember the digest number of the original and subsequent posts
or at least save a copy of the text but alas...
To convert the propane gas orifice to use natural gas you need to first,
unscrew the gas valve out of the burner. Next, remove the orifice from the
end of the valve (screws out as well). Then, drill out the orifice opening
from its existing size #52 wire drill = .0635" (approximately 1/16" depending
on how exact you want to be) to a #35 wire drill = .110" (approximately
7/64"). Then reassemble the burner and enjoy.
I purchased a second gas valve and orifice so I could easily use both gas
sources as well but the second gas valve wouldn't fit in the burner (It wasn't
tapered as much as the original). So if you plan on this route, take the
burner with you and try it before you buy the valve. The extra valve is not
really necessary because it is really no extra work to just change the
orifice. BTW, I've never used propane so I don't have any info on which works
better.
I got the opening sizes from a local bottle gas supplier where I purchased the
burner, valve and orifice, gas line, etc. and they work GREAT for me. As
always, YMMV.
Good luck and Cheers!
Joe C.
Farmington Hills, MI USA
(Not too far from Jeff Renner or the Janitor)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:02:14 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: CFC - the range of "k"
In a recent post made the assertion that the equations I presented
for counterflow chiller design were valid ....... as long as k does
not vary too much as the other quantities (most notably flow rate)
are varied.
AJ Delange commented in response.
>In fact the flow rates have a marked effect on the rate of transfer.
I guess one man's "not too much" may be another man's "marked
effect", so let me be a bit more explicit.
I have tested my chiller over a fairly wide range of values for the
flow rates of wort and cooling water and determined the values of the
effective value of the heat transfer coefficient "k ". Here are the
extreme cases:
When running the chiller with wort flowing at .25 gpm and coolant
running at 1.0 gpm. I get a value for k of 1.8 W/mK. I have to tell
you it was not easy to throttle the chiller to this extent and I can't
imagine why I would ever want to run like this.
When running the chiller with wort running at 2.0 gpm and coolant
running at 5.0 gpm I get a value for k of 4.5 W/mK.
In summary increasing the wort flow rate by a factor of 8 and the
coolant flow rate by a factor of 5 the value of k changed by a factor
of 2.5. I believe that the impact of changing both flow rates should
be multiplicative so we are really looking at k changing by 2.5x
when the overall effect of the flow rate changes is a factor of 40x.
That is what I mean when I say that k does not change a lot as
the flow rates are changed.
For the range within which I might actually want to run the chiller,
k varies from a low of about 3.5 up to a high of about 4.5.
I would suggest that a person wishing to design a chiller similar to
mine operated under similar conditions use a k value in the range of
4.0 W/mK to 3.0 W/mK to be on the safe side. If you expect to run
wort through at 1.0 to .5 gpm a k value in the range of 3.0 W/mK
to 2.0 W/mK might be appropriate. If you go much below this you
should consider using k values in the range of 2.0 W/mK to
1.0 W/mK. I hope that this clears up any confusion caused by my
earlier comment:
>I suggest using my empirical value of k = 4.5 W/mK as a starting
>point. If you expect to run your system a lot slower you should
>probably reduce this value.
In closing I would like to make two further comments in defense of
the method of chiller design I have outlined. I belive it is a valid
approach because:
1) I have a chiller designed using this method which performs pretty
close to design specifications
2) The equations have the mathematical format predicted by
Chalkie my bookie.!:^)
Good Night and have
A Pleasant Tomorrow!
Simon
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 23:01:35 -0500
From: Alan McKay <amckay@ottawa.com>
Subject: Checking some "facts"
Greetings,
I'm currently having an argument with a fellow in the on-line
German forum at http://www.bier-selbstgebraut.de/wwwforum/index.html
We both agree that going over 78C/168F in your sparge is a bad
thing. But he says it's because over this temperature, you denature
your enzymes, and since they are made out of protein (which they
are), you therefore get hazey beer. He says that by no means do
you want to have denatured enzymes for your sparge. And it gets
even crazier, because he says that this also gives you lower
extraction (Ausbeute - pretty sure I understand that term right)
I've never heard of this before. At first I was cautious because
they do things so differently over there that I'm always careful
not to step on toes out of my own ignorance of their procedures.
But this just sounds silly to me.
First of all, enzymes are denatures just over 160F, as I
understand. Secondly, my understanding was that mashout was
specifically to denature enzymes. And then the bit with the lower
extraction seems to me to be just way out in left field. I mean,
I've seen in my own experiments how mashout gives me significantly
better extraction.
Can anyone shed any light here? Is this guy crazy, or is there
some crucial piece of the puzzle which escapes me?
thanks,
-Alan
- --
"Brewers make wort, yeast makes beer"
- Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:33:15 -0600
From: Lance Levsen <lance.l@home.com>
Subject: PC RIMS
From: Gordon n Stephanie VIZECKY <vizecky@yahoo.com>
Subject: PC RIMS??
>I have searched the archives and the web but have been unable to
>locate any information about the modification or use of a PC as a
>PID-like temperature controler.
>The use of a PC could also expand system capabilities (individual
>batch logging, graphing, efficency ofer time ect.).
Slashdot had an Ask Slashdot thread about similar issues a touch back. Not
nearly as specific, but you might find a needle there.
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/99/01/29/1332256.shtml
There is at least one thread about using a computer to monitor carboys.
-lance
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 1999 22:53:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: chickory
Does anyone have some experience using chickory? Any and all welcome.
-SM-
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 01:49:57 -0500
From: Marc Hering <mhering@acd-pc.com>
Subject: Re: PC RIMS
>
>Gordon wrote asking about coupeling a RIMS unit to a PC, While I am still
>an extract brewer and I am unfamiliar with the RIMS system specifics, I DO
>know that Radio Shack sells a basic RS-232 Kit (For those who are not
>familiar with computers, rs232 refers to serial communications AKA the
>serial ports on your computers :) ) that comes with a cable and pinout
>diagrams, as well as some very primitave interface software. I think it
>was originally used to teach rs232 intefaces or something, but I have used
>it in the past to control some basic functions of some school projects that
>I did. The only hard part is going to be the fact that the software is
>not very good, it offers basic control but to monitor the temps for mashing
>then you will need to write the software yourself, (or find someone who
>already has,,I know that there are plenty of extremely skilled computer
>programmers that also share a love of Homebrewing who may want to work with
>you on this one, How's about it? anyone here a Programmer?, if not then you
>can surf the news groups, and mabye find some college student who needs to
>write code for his senior project who would be willing to design the system
>in return for using it for a grade:) )
>Hope this helps :)
>
>Marc
>[SNIP]
> On some day in some universe someone wrote:
>
>I have searched the archives and the web but have been unable to
>locate any information about the modification or use of a PC as a
>PID-like temperature controler.
>
>Has anyone tried this?
>
>I was just thinking that it is relativly easy to find cheap or free
>old 386's and 486's if one could hook in a thermocouple, a relay and
>find the proper software it may be a reasonable substitute for a
>PID-box.
>
>[END CUT]
**************************************************************
Legal Warning: Anyone sending me unsolicited/commercial email
WILL be charged a $100 proof-reading fee. See US Code Title 47,
Sec.227(a)(2)(B), Sec.227(b)(1)(C) and Sec.227(b)(3)(C).
**************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 03:05:01 -0600
From: Rhino <rhino@qni.com>
Subject: Very small scale
Im researching all grain setups that result in yields of less than 2
gallons of wort and wonder
if any of y'all have had any experience with this.
Thanks,
Clint Weathers,
NKC MO
rhino@qni.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 05:46:58 -0700
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Low-Alcohol Brewing
Bill Frazier is looking for low- and no-alcohol brewing info and laments
my disappearance:
> Unfortunately, Ken's email and homepage (http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy)
> are no longer active. If Ken still reads the HBD please get in touch.
Hullo, still here! Just been real busy lately and haven't been as
active on the HBD (hope to change that). I moved my service last summer
to
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
If you haven't visited since then, you'll find a couple of new items.
The information on low-alcohol brewing is there too. And yes, I'm still
trying to get my no-sparge and batch-sparge calculations verified
experimentally , but just haven't go tto it (but thanks to all who have
supplied data).
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 08:58:26 -0500
From: "Tim Burkhart" <tburkhart@dridesign.com>
Subject: Biere de Table
Bill Frazier writes about his unfortunate need to explore low/no alcohol
brew.
I have been reading Pierre Rajouett's (sp) Belgian Ale Style book and came
across the recipe for Biere de Table. This is a brew that starts with and OG
of 1.016-20.
Has anyone brewed anything this low? It seems to be the mildest of the mild.
How do you get any flavor at that low OG? Decoction? Yeast strain?
If it can be brewed successfully I'd guess it would be a great breakfast,
noon, and night beer.
Tim Burkhart
Kansas City
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:01:26 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Ground coriander instead of whole
Hi everybody.
Couldn't get any whole coriander at the brewshop or "natural" foods store.
Found some ground coriander. Very aromatic. Not quite as fresh as
crushing my own. Has anyone used commercially ground coriander in a wit
beer? How much should I use? I think I would actually use a little less
than when I used whole...fresh crushed...because of the greater surface
area and such. Comments? Suggestions? TIA
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:59:27 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: Tribal Wisdom as a reference
> "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" wrote:
>
> >tribal wisdom ... says
>
> I love it! A great new term, sure to join the ranks of QDA, mommilies,
> etc.
>
Certainly beats the heck out of providing supporting volume and verse from
one's extensive brewing library.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:25:29 -0600
From: "Chris Schmidt" <CSCHMIDT@lhsnet.com>
Subject: Y2K Barley Wine
Someone mentioned making a barly wine for 2000. It has my interest. To
make a BW with starting gravity of 2.000 would require 25 # DME for 1
gallon, wonder what yeast you would use? But you could make one with
starting gravity of 1.200 which would be about 25# DME or 20# pale malt
and 11-12 # of DME. Estimated alcohol (from SUDS) would also be about
20%. Again what yeast? Would you need to pitch different yeasts,
something at first to take the high sugar and then repitch later with
someing that can take the high alcohol. I understand that Sam Adams uses
a process something along this line for their tripple.
- -------------------------------
Alas, if I were of the genus Saccharomyces I could say "Go Yeast Young
Man!"
- -------------------------------
cschmidt@lhsnet.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 09:31:56 -0600
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: No Subject
Philip J Wilcox@CMS on 02/17/99 11:05 AM responds to Steve,
>I have a 2-tier bottom fired rims (see hbd.org/prisoner for small
>photo) I think the key to fixing the problem is in the 2nd paragraph.
>Most all pump manufacturers claim you shouldn't restrict the
>up-stream plumbing to your pump. If you pump is 1/2" (Most are) and
>your using the 3/8' dip tube that came with your ABT false bottom
>(mine did) you are restricting the flow. I drilled mine out and used
>1/2" copper all through the system.
{snip}
Hi Steve & Phil
If you can throttle the outlet of the pump, you may achieve the same
affect. Smaller inlet plumbing means you will have to settle for
reduced recirculation flowrate, but if that is acceptable, you could
avoid the trouble of replumbing everything upstream of the pump. It
might be worth experimenting with, anyway. Your flow control valve
ought to be downstream from the pump, regardless.
Cheers!
Lou Heavner - Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: 18 Feb 99 08:04:07 -0800
From: "Eric Schoville" <ESCHOVIL@us.oracle.com>
Subject: MCAB + Cold Room
Well, I think I may finally have recovered from the MCAB!
What a party! It was great to meet everyone and put a
face to the many names from the HBD. I can't wait until
St. Louis next year! BTW, we did have to drag George
de Piro into the cab on Saturday night! He kept ranting
about stupid Texas laws!
On another note, I am thinking about putting a cold room
in my garage. I am thinking about a 8'x5' room with a 7'
ceiling. Ideally I would like to keep it in the low 30's.
One problem is that my garage routinely stays at 115 in
the summer. Has anyone tried anything like this who can
comment on my different options. Right now I have two
chest freezers, but they are space limiting. Do I need to
go with a commercial unit for this? Can anyone relate
some experience with commercial cooling units? I have no
idea what they are like.
TIA,
Eric Schoville in Flower Mound, TX
http://home1.gte.net/rschovil/beer/3tier.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 11:41:19 -0500
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm@vt.edu>
Subject: Lindemans
Randy asks about culturing Lindemans yeast.
Forget about trying to culture the fruit beers. They are all pasteurised.
You might get some useful yeast from Cuvee Rene.
Cheers!
Matthew in Virginia
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 10:06:14 -0800
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: book on history of hops?
I am seeking a book on the history of Hops, and I know you all have HUGE
libraries full of great books. I am specifically seeking books with dates!
and hard information on early hop growing in all areas of Europe prior to
1650 AD. I know its a tough one, but any recommendations will be helpful in
tracing this history of this noble plant.
I am trying to decide what sort of hop grown today would be the *closest*
match to early hops. I know I'll never get an exact match, but in my
recreations I usually just use Noble hops, but I want documentation to back
myself up in Dissertations and Articles.
Thanks in Advance.
*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger (Seattle, WA)
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 18:45:19 -0000
From: "Tom & Dee McConnell" <tdmc@bigfoot.com>
Subject: Where would error-free Rodney Morris design
to Joe Kish:
If one were to want the unoriginal but error free RIMS design
orignally posted in Zymurgy Special Edition vol 15, No4, 1992 pp49-
54 where would one look?
Reality is that which still exists even after you stop believing in it.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:02:20 GMT
From: mrreid@golden.net (Ross Reid)
Subject: non-distilled liqueurs
In HBD # 2956, "Matthew Hahn" <mchahn@earthlink.net> asked for
information on non-distilled liqueurs.
When I was still in the BOP business, the brewing/wine supply
wholesalers that I dealt with carried two different brands, "Moonshine"
and "Contessa". Both brands claimed to have developed (several grains of
salt required here), some secret, super, high alcohol tolerant, yeast.
However, both kits worked the same and were basically the fermentation
of a sugar and yeast nutrient solution. To achieve the claimed 20% ABV,
additional feedings of sugar were required over a period of days so as
not to subject the yeast to an initially high gravity. Once fermentation
was complete, the resulting alcoholic liquid was further adulterated by
the addition of a flavoured syrup, which supposedly made a liqueur in
the desired style.
We tried several flavours at the BOP and ended up dumping them all down
the drain as unfit for human consumption.
Some people may enjoy them but, certainly not me nor any of my staff.
As always, YMMV.
Cheers,
Ross.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 14:34:09 EST
From: JPullum127@aol.com
Subject: recipes
"
"p.s. Apologies for requesting a recipe on the Board, but I've
searched and found very little of help out there. "
why should you have to aplogise for requesting or sharing information? i would
much rather read" i brewed a ipa/stout/t ect that won 1st place recipe than
"does hot or cold water freeze faster"or some guy trying to sound like a
rocket scientist instead of expressing an idea clearly and concisely,
later marc
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 15:10:34 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: King and Barnes
My favorite Wednesday night hangout started carrying a few new beers.
Breckenridge Stout, and Raspberry Porter, and an obscure very fruity Belgian
Kreik ( I forgot my glasses and couldn't read the label). The one that
caught my taste buds was King and Barnes IPA. I had heard of it but I had
never had it before. This one of the most flavorful beers I have had in a
long time. I couldn't really put my finger on the flavor but it seems
like a very estery, complex and flavorful ale yeast combined with just a bit
of carmel. Not a crystal clear glass by a long shot but the flavor more
than makes up for the cloudiness. Great mouth feel, good nose, perfect
hopping, complex and wonderful. Comments anyone. How would one go about
duplicating that flavor. Any yeast suggestions. I know Micheal Jackson
has written extensively on King and Barnes.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 19:33:12 EST
From: AlannnnT@aol.com
Subject: AHA figures
About Jim Liddil's post of the 1997 AHA.
If the posted figures that follow are correct;
Publication of Zymurgy ~170,000 copies $374,102
Publication of New Brewer ~28,000 copies $ 411,538
Then it costs over $14.69 to publish each copy of the New Brewer.
This compares to $2.20 per copy of Zymurgy.
Either the start up costs for the New Brewer are still being amortized, or I
want to be a paid writer at the New Brewer. I figure that the AHA could pay
twenty or twenty five cents per word at that publishing cost per copy.
I'm not sure what an advertising manger is usually worth, but at 100k plus
(with bennies), I'm going to get my kids to study advertising!
Alan Talman
Overworked and Underpaid
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 12:18:01 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: decoction anyone ?
Ted McIrvine describes his decoction procedure ...
>For a triple decoction, I mash in around 130, decoct to 145 and 155, and
>then mash out at 165 on the third decoction. I use a very thick
>decoction (in fact I use a strainer to pull off the grain) so that there
>isn't a lot of liquid in the decoction. Recently I've been doing double
>or single decoctions instead (skipping the protein rest). The next time
>I do a DoppelBock I'm going to do a triple decoction with protein rest.
>(Mark Bayer's comments about this match my experience closely.)
You may want to consider a mash-in at 90-104F/35-40C instead of 130F/54C.
Unless you have particularly poorly malted grain (like homemade hard as
stone) you don't get any advantage from a 54C rest and *may* be killing your
foam head. Nothing important happens at 100F except that the malt gets wet
and the enzymes&starch go off into solution. This allows the enzymes to act
faster at 145F/63C. Kunze and others suggest avoiding or at least carefully
controlling the 50C temp range as a head/body killer.
Aside from this one change I've got nothing at all against your specific
procedures Ted, in fact they parallel the way I initially decocted quite
closely. Over time I've made some incremental improvements to the process
that save a lot of time yet still yield a comparable product. Unless you
really enjoy cleaning up after a 9 hour brewing schedule you may want to
consider ....
The triple decoction 104F-D1-143F-D2-155F-D3-165F works well enough - but
undertanding what happens at each stage allows for simplification.
R1 - The first rest at 104 just allows enzymes and starch to get into
solution - little enzyme activity.
D1 - The first decoct step (to 143F) will gelatinize the grain fairly
completely and will release about 3%-5% extra starch over what you would
extract in an infusion mash using commercial malt. The extra extract is
financially worth about 30 cents/5gal.
R2 - The second rest at 143F is primarily to allow both beta-and
alpha-amylase to act together. The rest at 143F largely determines the
fermentability of the wort.
D2 - The second decoction does release some small amount of additional
starch, but primarily the second decoction is for flavor and temp boost.
Why flavor ? After the 143F rest there are a lot of simple sugars present.
The simple sugars and amino acids (freed during the malting process) when
heated to around boiling create the flavorful maillard products and
melanoidins we seek.
R3 - The 155F rest is at a high enough temperature so that the beta-amylase
is denatured over a short period of time. The alpha-amylase isn't entirely
stable at this temperature either, but it is much more stable that the
beta-A, and normal malt has about 25 times more alpha-amylase activity that
beta-amylase activity to begin with !!
D3 - this thin decoction boosts the temp to mashout temps, and denatures
nearly all of the amylase by boiling the thin mash. More maillard flavor
products are formed.
R4 - a brief rest at mashout 165F. In an infusion mash - the boost to
mashout reportedly coagulates enough protein to permit better runoff and so
higher extraction efficiency. The explanation that the higher temp
decreases the viscosity of the wort and so permits better extraction doesn't
appear to be correct ! The change in viscosity from 155F to 165F is not a
big factor. Why do we need this for decoction ? More interesting I have
performed a lot of lauters around 70C(158F) and the loss in efficiency
(which may be lauter design dependent) is again worth about 30 cents/5gal.
Surprisingly a mashout temp of 168F/75C is not sufficient to quickly
denature the alpha-amylase. It is however flirting with the problems of
phenol extraction.
- --
The above explanation of the process is certainly controversial in some
respects, and of course open to debate and disagreement, but there is
support in the lit for most if not all of it. Add to the above some
practical facts and personal biases ...
The 30 cents/5gal saved in malt cost by additional extraction of starch in
decoction is not a worthwhile saving at the HB scale.
The time saved by solubilizing or hydrating the malt at a 104F mash-in saves
time at the 143 rest, but the saving is illusory since this is mostly
unattended mash time at a necessary rest temp.
The value of unfermentable carbohydrates in beer, those formed after the
boost from 143F, are of very dubious value with respect to body,mouthfeel
and foam/head properties. (see my previous post for references). Protein
is a much bigger issue for all of these.
==
My streamlined method is as follows:
R1- Mash-in for a strike at about 60C/140F, and allow enough time for a
nearlycomplete conversion and a few % extra malt.
D1 - Decoct for a boost to something around 160F. This can be a thick or
thin decoction but at least half the liquid should be left out of the boil
in order to leave enough alpha-amylase behind. The boil should take almost
as long as the combined boil times for a triple decoction - say 30+' for a
dark beer, and 15+' for a light one since this single decoction is the only
opportunity to create the maillard products.
R2 - rest at the 160F temp until you get a negative iodine. Only then start
the recirculation. Note that a negative iodine only means tha amylose
segments greater then G9 are missing. Additional degradation is desirable
and occurs during the lauter and beyond.
The Pros:
You get the maillard products you seek.
Save 3+ hours during the mash.
Prevent HSA damage by decreasing the amount of handling/decoction.
The Cons:
Minor amount of extra malt is require ~$1.
Your wort is highly fermentable and so won't make a good
lenten nutritional beer nor refute Dave Burley's Clinitest
assertions [kiddin' Dave, hope you can still laugh about
it - but not on this forum, right ?]
Dissonance theory says you will not appreciate this beer as
much as a triple decoction for purely psychological reasons.
It's not traditional, but then again you don't look so great in
lederhosen anyway.
- --
Of course a canner/pressure cooking of the wort first runnings removes the
decoction entirely and yet preserves the maillard/melanoidin formation for
an even greater streamlining.
==
OK - now for my decoction question. M&BS pp330, states that decoction
mashing rate is 3.3-5.0hl/100kg (1.58-2.4 qt/lb). Kunze states pp 207, that
4-5 hl/100kg (1.92-2.4qt/lb)for pale beers and 3-3.5 hl/100kg
(1.47-1.67qt/lb) for dark beers and does not reference whether infusion or
decoction is meant. A few pages later the pale figure is used in reference
to infusion.
These higher figures would imply something like 8lb of malt and 4.8gal(!!)
of mash water for a 12P pale lager batch. Has anyone actually tried such
thin mashes ?
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 17:28:11 PST
From: "Brian Dixon" <briandixon@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Hot Water freezes faster, yes, it really does.
>>And for a extra low tech answer a few weeks back I saw video from
Finland
where people threw boiling water into the air where it would freeze
>>before it hits the ground (Temp was -60C). Now why would anyone stand
outside in -60 (which is damn cold for those of you which have not
>>experienced it) boil water when you could use cold water.>
Having lived in such a location (Alaska) and knowing all about this
trick (also fun when you need to wee, say out of the back of an Air
Force jet parked on a hardstand ... hehe), I know the answer. You throw
hot water in the air because it evaporates much easier than cold water,
and consequently has a much greater chance of never hitting the ground
... poof! Instant cloud. We tried this trick with cold water, and
you'd still get some of it landing on the ground ... not as fun! And of
course, there's that thing we did out the back door of C-141s and
C-130s. Make sure you stand upwind for this. If the pee makes it to
the ground, then it also tends to freeze in layers ... like a very flat
cowpie. Ok, we thought it was funny at the time! Just pretend we're
talking about Coors here and you'll see the humor!
[snip]
>identical amount of room temperature water. The cups have a
>significant
>amount of surface area exposed to the cold. The cup with hot water
>will
>freeze faster. It will do so because hot water evaporates quicker >than
>cooler water. What really happens is that enough hot water >evaporates
to
>reduce the mass of the water in the cup, and a smaller mass freezes
>faster.
>Put a lid over the cups, and you're right. The hot water takes much
>longer
>to freeze than the room temperature water.
I would conjecture that it is not just the loss in mass that helps here.
In fact, I'd bet you a very flat yellow cowpie that the primary effect
here is coming from the fact that much energy is being used up in the
state change from the liquid state to the gaseous state. Hot water
evaporates really fast at cold temperatures and probably accounts for a
substantial cooling of the liquid left behind, which in turn helps the
stuff freeze quicker.
Brian
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:23:00 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: King and Barnes
My favorite Wednesday night hangout started carrying a few new beers.
Breckenridge Stout, and Raspberry Porter, and an obscure very fruity Belgian
Kreik ( I forgot my glasses and couldn't read the label). The one that
caught my taste buds was King and Barnes IPA. I had heard of it but I had
never had it before. This one of the most flavorful beers I have had in a
long time. I couldn't really put my finger on the flavor but it seems
like a very estery, complex and flavorful ale yeast combined with just a bit
of carmel. Not a crystal clear glass by a long shot but the flavor more
than makes up for the cloudiness. Great mouth feel, good nose, perfect
hopping, complex and wonderful. Comments anyone. How would one go about
duplicating that flavor. Any yeast suggestions. I know Micheal Jackson
has written extensively on King and Barnes.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:38:49 -0800
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Culturing Lambic Yeast
Randy Shreve MRashreve@interpath.com> asks whether anyone has
successfully cultured yeast from Lindeman's lambics.
I've cultured the Frank Boon yeast (from a comparitively young bottle)
and the Liefmann's yeast from Gluhkriek and Goudenband. I've actually
had better lambic results with either my house strain (invariably
sitting in a carboy underneath last year's geuze without autolysis) or
with fresh packs of WYeast strains. Because these are usually
multi-strains and bottled with a fresh yeast addition, the clean yeast
too often (but not always) crowds out the lambic yeast.
Ted
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:38:17 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
Mr. Liddil Asks....
"What's Your Point?" in posting a 3 part post... on High Grav Brewing.....
The point was 1) It was the same paper that I had hoped to encourage more
discussion on, in regards to high grav brewing.....some weeks before....I
always like to learn more.....
2) It seemed to have @ least tangential references to current questions
being voiced on the digest.....such as sake....ETOH tolerance, etc....
3) I found it interesting and thought that others might as well.....
With that in mind, I hoped to bring better answers to questions posed, than
I can provide to the HBD.....by stimulating discussion....certainly by
invoking responses from folks like you, that have always taught me in the
past.....
It won't be the first time I have failed.......nor, I am sure, the
last.....
Jethro Gump
Rob Moline
brewer@isunet.net
Lallemand Web Site Consultant
jethro@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 22:38:15 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: Ames, Iowa Brewers To Meet
Ames, Iowa Brewers To Meet
Ames/Story County area homebrewers are invited to meet in an initial effort
to judge the feasibility of the creation of a local homebrewer's club.
While it is known that the local Ames/Story County area has many
homebrewers, it has been some years since there has been an association of
those brewers.
This meeting is proposed in order to allow local brewers to meet and
interact with other area brewers, to expand the knowledge of local brewers,
to educate those interested in the craft of brewing, and to benefit both
brewers and the general public with an increased understanding of fermented
malt beverages..
During the initial meeting, should interest prove to be sufficient to
support the on-going assembly of a structured organization, discussion will
focus on a draft constitution, selection of a regular meeting time and
place, and any other such business that the attendees deem appropriate.
The initial meeting will be at Lucullan's Italian Grill and Sport's Bar,
400 Main Street, Ames, on Tuesday, February 23rd at 7 p.m., in the Sport's
Bar.
For further information, contact Rob Moline at 268-1836, or 450-0243.
Rob Moline
brewer@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2958, 02/19/99
*************************************
-------
