Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3010
HOMEBREW Digest #3010 Wed 21 April 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:
Hop reference books (Gail Elber)
Re: Cleaning beer lines/etc ("Curt Abert")
17th Annual Cal. State Fair Comp. (Robert Arguello)
Iodophor Contact Time ("Fred L. Johnson")
Hop Oil as a preservative? (Badger Roullett)
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
Over carbonation = acidity? ("Colin Marshall")
Re: wyeast for fruit beer (Scott Murman)
Taste and length of fermentation ("Anthony & Julie Brown")
re: WARNING : extremely rude ("Alan McKay")
btu's on a 55 gallon drum ("Ratkiewich, Peter")
re: Brewing good, science bad? ("Alan McKay")
Ebulliometry (AJ)
Kegging system (Nathan Kanous)
more on cooking with beer ("Jim Kingsberg")
Too-thick mashes (and rudeness) (Joel Plutchak)
Trick to 'Stop" carbonation? (ROATTW)" <ROATTW@UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Cold conditioning and chill haze (Domenick Venezia)
Hop Rhizomes available? (Mark Warrington)
Re: rates of enzyme activity (Matthew Arnold)
Big Bew 99 Chat (Brad McMahon)
RE: WARNING! extremely rude. (Scott Abene)
Peat Smoked Scottish Ales (Rod Prather)
May/June 1999 Zymurgy Article on Pale Ale (Dave Humes)
How Many BTU's are needed... ("William W. Macher")
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at
http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier!
Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99. Details on the HBD Competition
Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier!
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: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 11:57:16 -0800
From: Gail Elber <gail@brewtech.com>
Subject: Hop reference books
Jeffrey asks:
>2) Is there a definitive book on hops out there which someone can
> recommend?
The Hop Atlas (Barth, Klinke, and Schmidt; available from Hans Carl Verlag
[www.brauwelt.de]) costs $110 -- maybe you could get it on interlibrary
loan from an ag school library. It contains more than you would ever want
to know about the history and current practices of hop cultivation
worldwide and a good deal about the history of brewing, but not so much
about the characteristics of the varieties, though it does have photos of
cones and leaves of the German varieties.
Much cheaper and more useful for brewers is Brewing Techniques' 1998
Brewers' Market Guide, which contains a directory of pretty much every hop
in the world with its specifications, plus information from Mark Garetz on
how to understand the specifications. Price is $7.50 +s&h; call the number
below to order.
Gail Elber
Associate Editor
BrewingTechniques
P.O. Box 3222
Eugene, OR 97403
541/687-2993
fax 541/687-8534
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 13:56:19 -0500
From: "Curt Abert" <abert@flanders.isgs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Cleaning beer lines/etc
Hi All,
In HBD #3007, Doug Moyer askes about cleaning beer lines:
> How do those of you with complex multi-tap systems keep everything
> clean? I currently have three or four cobra taps, but when I am done
> building my dispense system, I will have two three-tap towers.
I have one of those 'keggerator' refridgerators, but replaced the single-tap
tower with a 3-tap tower. I usually clean/flush the lines *at least* once
a month, and every time a keg runs dry. I fill an empty keg with 2 gallons
of hot water, add 2 Tbs. of One Step, slosh the keg around well to dissolve
the sanitizer, and flush each beer line (disconnecting and reconnecting the
lines to the keg with sanitizer). I initially flush a quart or so into a line,
disconnect and move on to the next. This leaves some sanitizing solution
in the line. After flushing each line twice, I empty the sanitizing solution
from
the keg, refill with hot water, and flush each line again. One Step is a no-
rinse sanitizer, but I rinse anyway.
I highly recommend getting a multi-tap tower if you have the means.
When I used to dispense from cobra-taps, I always had some level of carbonation
problems that I could never quite resolve. Since the installation of the
tower,
all problems seem to have been solved (except that now my kegs seem to
get empty alot faster...). I got mine from A.D.M Amalgamation (no
affiliation,
just a happy customer). Their URL is:
http://www.admainc.com/index.dbm
Also, in HBD #3008, Mark Bayer wrote:
> there is a billboard on interstate 70 in st. charles county, missouri, that
> shows a bird dog in the middle of a tall grassy field "pointing" to a cooler
> emblazoned with the budweiser logo. the caption to the ad is "because it's
> budweiser". i have this creative urge to edit the billboard and repaint the
> dog in another position next to the cooler, but being back in the stl area,
> i'd probably get a visit from a couple of hired goons.....
But that would be awesomely funny! I'd probably drive off of the road doubled
over in laughter if I ever saw anything like it.
Cheers,
Curt Abert
Champaign, IL
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 12:38:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Arguello <robertac@calweb.com>
Subject: 17th Annual Cal. State Fair Comp.
PRESS RELEASE:
The Gold Country Brewers Association, (GCBA), and the
California State Fair are sponsoring the Seventeenth Annual
California State Fair Home Brew Competition.
The competition is open to all home brewers of at least 21 years
of age and who are residents of the state of California.
Beers must be made in the home for private, (non-commercial), use.
Entries must be received between April 1, 1999 and May 15, 1999.
All entries will be kept in cold storage until final judging on June 27,
1999. Judging will follow the official BJCP style guidelines. All BJCP
beer and mead categories will be judged.
Competition information and entry forms are available on-line at:
http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/comp.htm
Rosettes will be awarded for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place in each category.
Rosette and Golden Bear Trophy will be awarded for the "Best of Show".
Interested judges are invited to register. E-mail Dave Sapsis at
GCBA@ns.net if you would like to serve as a judge at the competition.
Best of luck!
Robert Arguello
California State Fair Home Brew Competition Coordinator
Gold Country Brewers Association
robertac@calweb.com
(530) 759-1006
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 07:05:37 -0400
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Iodophor Contact Time
Joy Hansen writes regarding the contact time required with Iodophor:
> G.Fix published some statistics on the effectiveness of various popular
> sanitizers used for both home and commercial breweries. IMHO, 12.5 ppm
> would take about an hour of contact time to effect marginal sanitation
> for beer spoilage organisms. I don't have the knowledge or the
> equipment to test the sanitizers. Possibly most home brewers don't? I
> suggest that home brewers accept the test results and recommendations of
> recognized individuals such as G. Fix.
>
> The contact time for beer organisms using idophor is at least 5 minutes
> at 25 ppm. The concentration for Star San is about 100 ppm with the
> same contact time. It's important to recognize that the declarations
> for sanitizing on most packages are for E. Coli and NOT FOR THE COMMON
> BEER SPOILAGE ORGANISMS.
It is not clear where Joy is quoting George Fix's results and where he is
inserting his own opinion. Since the contact times recommended by Joy are
much longer than indicated by the manufacturer which Joy indicates are for
E. coli, have Joy (or George) performed the control experiment to
demonstrate that they get contact times to kill E. coli similar to those
posted by the manufacturer. Without the control, I'm not convinced the two
experiments (manufacturer vs. Fix) are comparable.
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 18:47:45 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Hop Oil as a preservative?
Greetings and Salutations..
You know, getting behind on HBD has a sort of snowball effect.. you can
never seem to catch up.. :)
My question is this.. I work a lot on recreating Pre-1600 beers and ales.
How can I get the benefit of Hops without the Flavor? (why??!?! you shout?
calm down, let me explain) In many cases prior to 1500 the English did not
use hops in ALE (beer was the term for when you added hops, and came from
the Dutch), and I wan to make a couple to see how they taste. I want to
avoid hops, BUT I don't want my beer to spoil. Is there a way to get the
preservative qualities of hops, without the flavor? Like hop oil? in minor
amounts? other ideas?
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger
In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven
"It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to
use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may
be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We
aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 22:26:38 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
>From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen@scronline.com>
>Subject: Sanitizers, corny "O" rings, MHCs
>The contact time for beer organisms using idophor is at least 5 minutes
>at 25 ppm. The concentration for Star San is about 100 ppm with the
>same contact time. It's important to recognize that the declarations
>for sanitizing on most packages are for E. Coli and NOT FOR THE COMMON
>BEER SPOILAGE ORGANISMS.
It is perhaps also important to note that sanitizers ARE sold and rated to
negate the impact of PEOPLE spoiling organisms. Primary among them is
E.Coli......
I am certainly no scientist, but for me the ability of a sanitizer to
effect and neutralize a pathogen indicates an ability to neutralize the beer
spoilers....which aren't always pathenogenic.......(Of course, if they were,
we wouldn't have vinegar, no?)
With all respect to Joy and her reference, Mr. Fix, who rates among my
brew-gods.....
I learned years ago, and have successfully employed for years, a technique
I learned from the past Head Brewer of Boulevard Brewing, Bill Cherry...
As Joy states, 25ppm of Iodophor needs a contact time of 5 minutes.....but
12.5 ppm employed for 10/60 works as well...
By employing a fresh mix of 12.5ppm in a 'Clean In Place' setup on my
fermenters, hoses and Heat Exchanger....running it for 20/60 before I went
home, the night before a brew....and running it again the next morning...I
was able to enjoy just a wee bit of a more economical use of my chems.......
Of course, YMMV....
BTW, in regards to Star-San, I know many who love it, including my former
Head Brewer, Steve Zimmerman, for many of the reasons that Joy relates...
And while I am a 'Dyed in the Wool' 5 Star fan...I just never got to love
Star-San........
For one, it goes cloudy, obscuring visuals....2, it's soapy to the
feel........
Call me peculiar, but I guess I am allowed that....
As for flavours from sanitizers, despite my past surgical background, where
it was not uncommon to observe Iodophor and saline mixes introduced
abdominally...I am no longer a believer in any "No-Rinse" regime...
I will sanitize till the cows come home....but I always give a city h2o
rinse before my beer hits the fermenter....
Cheers!
Jethro Gump
Rob Moline
brewer@isunet.net
Lallemand Web Site
jethro@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
es
Rob Moline
brewer@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:09:16 +1000
From: "Colin Marshall" <byoah@argay.com.au>
Subject: Over carbonation = acidity?
A kit brew that I did in August '97, with Wyeast #2278, ended very much
over gassed, probably as a result of being bottled too early. Although the
beer was drinkable, it tasted quite acidic - not vinegary. I drank it but
didn't really enjoy it. Recently, 6 stubbies (375 ml bottles) surfaced from
the back of a cupboard. The first one I drank (not surprisingly) had the
same faults. So I degassed them for an hour, recapped them and stuck 'em in
the fridge. Several days later I shared them with some mates, and the
unanimous appraisal was that they were the finest home brewed beers any of
the lads had ever tasted. The beer seemed to be soooooo smooooth, compared
to its previous character. My question (thank you for your patience) is
this: did the overabundance of CO2 in the beer cause the excessive acidity
we first tasted? Does this acid have a name?
Colin Marshall.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 1999 23:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman@best.com>
Subject: Re: wyeast for fruit beer
Anthony Brown wrote:
> Hey, anyone have any ideas as to the best wyeast to use when brewing a
> fruit beer?
I've made too many fruit beers in my days, and I would recommend a
very neutral ale strain such as Wyeast 1056. The idea is to highlight
the fruit contribution, which isn't much really, and a flavorful
strain will simply overwhelm. I'd use a low hop schedule, and go
light on the specialty malts as well. Very little of that fruit
flavor actually ends up in the glass.
-SM-
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 04:28:58 CSTCDT
From: "Anthony & Julie Brown" <brown32@web1.ecol.net>
Subject: Taste and length of fermentation
Just a query from a more inexperienced homebrewer. I am
relatively new to brewing (6 or 7 batches) and was wondering
about the optimal time for fermentation. Since I keg my beer
and refrigerate it afterwards, will this inhibit the yeast from
optimally "aging" my beer or will it continue to age and mature
under refrigeration. If so, would it be feasable to keg after
as little as 7-10 days when fermentation stops or does the yeast
still need time to "work" at adequate 60-75 degree temperatures
for ales?? Any thoughts?
PS. thanks to all who have answered many of my kegging questions
as of late....all responses were very helpful.
Tony B.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:42:02 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: re: WARNING : extremely rude
FWIW I didn't find it all that rude, really. Naming names
was arguably poor judgement, but given the content of what
was being said, I'd have to say that it probably had to be
done.
Aside from that, I didn't find the message in the least
bit rude. It expresses an opinion, and does so very
strongly. But that really helps make a point, which
probably should be made.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
http://zftzb00d/alanmckay/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:41:39 -0400
From: "Ratkiewich, Peter" <PRATKIEWICH@ci.westport.ct.us>
Subject: btu's on a 55 gallon drum
In HBD #3009 Scott Church writes:
<Does anyone know a "formula" for how much heat (BTU's) is needed to
bring "X" amount of water to a boil in "X" amount of time. I would like
to find out what it would take to use a 55 gal steel drum as a Boil
Kettle/Mash Tun.>
Sorry Scott I don't have a formula but I do have a data point, and sort
of a stupid brewer's trick too!. Being rather empirical, I tried an
experiment the other day to try out a planned 52 gallon system that me
and my partner are building. - Filled up a 52 gallon vessel with water
and placed it on my Camp Chef high pressure burner, (60k BTU?). (I took
the legs off so it would be close to the ground). The water temp
started at about 40 degrees F, as was the outside temp. it was somewhat
windy so I put up a wind screen. I adjusted the flame so that it was
as high as possible without rounding the bottom of the 2 foot diameter
pot.
In approximately an hour and a half the burner brought the temperature
up from 40 degrees to about 160 degrees. At this point however, the
flame had heated the asphalt drive up enough to make it soft. One leg
of the burner started sinking in and the pot started listing to the
east...end of experiment... emptied the pot quick with a long siphon
hose, successfully not burning my lips!.
I do however consider the experiment a limited success. Consider the
following:
On a 52 gallon system generally we would strike in with approximately 25
gallons if our ratio is 1 qt per pound and you assume a 100 pound grain
bill. If we start heating our strike in water early in the session,
we'll be up to 168 degrees in about three quarters of an hour. (Most of
the time we won't be brewing in direct wind and 40 degrees but rather in
a well ventilated garage, so the temp outside the vessels will be
greater than 40 degrees, and we won't lose BTU's to wind chill). The
sparge water is the biggest problem, but even if it takes 1-1/2 hours to
bring it up to 168-170 degrees, we're still well within a 90 minute to
two hour mash time. Once we mash out and begin to run off, as long as
we heat as I runoff, we are theoretically still only raising the
temperature of the 52 gallons of wort from around the 160's to 212. I
estimate about another 45 minutes to bring it to a boil. ( just enough
time to have lunch, a chilled homebrew and a cigar).
Now the biggest problem that I see in this whole scenario is maintaining
the mash temp. That we intend to solve by heating the sparge water a
little earlier, and running the mash through a heat exchanger in the
sparge tank.
As you might expect, me and my partner are preparing the above system
for a trial run as soon as we get the fittings welded in place. Sounds
like you may be considering the same. Any ideas, suggestions, other
stupid brewer's tricks?
P.S. always run your burners over a concrete floor if possible to avoid
a leaning pot! Happy brewing!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:01:16 -0400
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: re: Brewing good, science bad?
Thomas Murray says :
"I am not one of the very scientifically enabled, but I don't have
a problem with deep brewing science being discussed here. First of
all, there is room for it, second, we can sometimes (albeit on
the third or fourth read) learn something from these guys."
Point well taken, and indeed, everyone can stand to learn a bit
now and then. And your "quality control button" comment is right-
on, too.
The one thing to watch out for, however, is not to automatically
believe someone just because they know how to throw around a
bunch of big, fancy words. I'm not saying that there aren't
a lot of people in here who know this stuff really well - because
there most certainly are.
At this point I think a quote from my homepage is appropriate :
"Our reluctance to buy into electonic advice stems simply from
our 15+ years experience on the internet, which has earned us
the knowledge of how easy it is to make yourself look like an
expert in such a forum. Take that statement self-referencially
to your current hosts if you please. You should be cautious of
all information you obtain from the Internet (whether it be
about brewing, or some other topic altogether), unless you can
be absolutely certain that the person or people you are
getting it from can be trusted."
Personally, I do know an awful lot of brewers whom I've never
met in person, but whose opinions and experiences I trust
implicitly.
But I also know an awful lot more whom I don't.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
Alan McKay
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 12:52:18 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Ebulliometry
Phil Wilcox & Phil DeVore ask, with respect to ebulliometry correction
for residual extract:
1. Can this method be applied to beer analysis?
2. And if so, how accurately?
The first question is, of course, the easier to answer and the answer is
"yes". Weissler writing in Hardwick, "Handbook of Brewing", Marcell
Dekker, NY 1995 has a table of corrections taken from the Juerst
Ebulliometer manual. Rather than plagiarize this table here's a fit:
Correction = 0.00063088+ 0.014268*(True Extract)% ABW.
True extract is in P. This fit's peak error is 0.0006%. Note that it is
for ABW. The table starts at 3 P for which the correction is 0.043%. I
have found it expedient to dilute the beer 1:1 with DI water. This has a
couple of advantages:
1. You get more stable boiling point readings
2. You reduce the TE (in the vast majority of cases) to the point where
the correction is so small you need not consider it so that...
3. You don't have to determine TE which is, IMO, a PITA.
The disadvantages are that you
1. Double the sensitivity of the test to error in reading the
thermometer
2. Add a second source of error from the dilution measurements.
I believe the improved stability of the readings more than offsets No. 1
I can't really answer the accuracy question because I don't have enough
data at this point. Some of us are looking at various methods for
alcohol determination and we hope to provide the community with data on
exactly this sort of question eventually. If an anecdotal data point is
of any value the IPA I reported on recently measured:
Method ABV
S.G. Calculation 5.84%
Ebul. w/ dil 5.40%
Ebul. w/o dil 5.55%
Enzyme 5.64%
Distillation 5.46%
Dichromate 5.50%
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:59:55 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Kegging system
I'm a little behind, but this has been a "hot" topic.
"Anthony & Julie Brown" <brown32@web1.ecol.net> writes:
>
>I am going to start kegging my beer soon and can't
>decide what size co2 canister to purchase. I can
>get a 5# for $35 or a 15# for $50. The 5# would fit
>in the frige better but the 15# is more economical.
>Any suggestions as to which one would serve me better.
>Plan to have 2 kegs tapped at a time. HELP!!
Many posters have mentioned the economy of buying 15lbs versus 5lbs, but
the difficulty of "lugging" the 15lb cylinder to "parties". Don't forget,
you can use an "extra" cornie as your CO2 tank for using on the road. Just
put in lots of pressure and connect the "empty" CO2 filled corny to the
inlet on the beer keg. If it's not attached for significant amounts of
time, it can't overcarbonate the beer and weighs much less than the 15lb
cylinder.
Just a thought....
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:06:57 -0500
From: "Jim Kingsberg"<jdkingsb@hewitt.com>
Subject: more on cooking with beer
Since my days as the grill man and chief chili maker at the college pub ,
Ive always added beer or wine to the chili. As we had Old Style on tap,
the cheap stuff went in. For some reason, adding the beer during the boil
had a different taste than adding it at the beginning of the boil/simmer
(but hey, making chili is an art, not science). So, lately Ive added a
stout to chili. Wow. you gotta try that. The roasty flavors can shine
through even heavy spicing. Absolutely wonderful.
Here's a question for the general collective: I know there is, I beleive
attributed to Italian cuisine, vodka soup. Has anyone recipes for soup
with beer as an ingredient? Im actually considering something like a miso
soup with some belgian ale or weiss (weiss would be a little cheaper),
though Im not sure if sour notes would be retained.
Thanks in advance,
Jim Kingsberg
Fugowee Brewery, Evanston, IL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:27:32 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Too-thick mashes (and rudeness)
In HBD #3009, Steve Alexander wrote:
>Al's comments to Matt who read a post of mine regarding the Fix mash
>schedule were on the mark too. Not only is a mash thickness of 2qt/lb
>not too thin, but there is pretty good evidence that mashes as thick as
>1.5qt/lb are actually too thick. The unavailability of water (trapped by
>the starch) slows amylolysis.
Could you elaborate on that? In approximately 5 hours, I'll
be mashing in a Strong Bitter at 1 qt/lb, based on the research
of Ray Daniels for his book _Designing Great Beer_ (see my "rude"
comments below). He says (QDA: paraphrased from memory) that
British-style bitters and pale ales have historically used a
thick, single-infusion mash.
Have the British been missing something all these years? Is
the research misleading? Could I be brewing better biiter beers
by using a thinner mash? (I generally use a 1.25 to 1.5 qt/lb
ratio, and rarely above that.)
====
A word about "Dr. Pivo's" self-described rude comments. I
tend to skip a lot of the in-depth, scientific discussion, too.
However, I would rather trust those like Dave B., George D.,
Al K., George F., and Ray D., who have a lot of brewing experience
backed by solid science and research, over a few people whose
only evidence seems to consist of "because I said so, and never
trust authority." But that's just me.
- --
Joel Plutchak <plutchak@uiuc.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 09:49:59 -0400
From: "Roat, Todd (ROATTW)" <ROATTW@UCMAIL.UC.EDU>
Subject: Trick to 'Stop" carbonation?
this is an odd request. Put 3/4 lb boiled corn sugar into a
secondary of
beer because I found it had stopped fermenting at 1.026 (down from
1.056).
I did this to increase the ETOH content by 1% or so. I wouldn't mind
the
fullness of a 1.026 beer, but I didn't want 3.2% beer. Anyway, it
worked
great, essentially bottling the beer in the secondary - I had some foam
develop and a storm of CO2 bubbles racing up sides of carboy and out
airlock. Problem now is that it has been going strong this way for
2+ weeks
and I need it to stop to bottle and, more importantly, free up that
secondary to get a primary batch transferred (been in primary a bit
long
now).
I cant just bottle it for concern of exploding bottles since the CO2 is
still constantly being produced. Any ideas, tricks, experiences?
Thanks
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 07:49:26 -0700
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick@zgi.com>
Subject: Cold conditioning and chill haze
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine@ix.netcom.com>
> I recently made a British bitter and put the secondary carboy in the
> refrigerator around 30 degrees for three or four days. There were some
> ice crystals that were left behind when I racked it to the keg. When I
> dispense it at cellar temperature (around 55-60 degrees) the beer has a
> beautiful clarity. If I dispense it colder, it has chill haze.
>
> How long does one have to cold-condition to eliminate chill haze? What
> am I doing wrong?
First, since it's a British Bitter and should be served at 55F I'd
say you're not doing anything wrong and you have absolutely hit the
nail on the head!
Chill haze is caused by polyphenols which are protein/tannin complexes.
At room temp these are soluble, at refrigerator temps they precipitate
out of solution. They will eventually settle out, but at best it takes
weeks and at worst it takes months.
Since chill haze has no flavor contribution, and since some of my
favorite commercial beers always or sometimes suffer from it, I no
longer consider it a major defect. In fact, I now consider it a
reminder that real beer is a living beverage - cold, it's a bit cloudy,
warmer, it's crystal clear. Kind of magic.
I know nothing of your brewing process, but generally, anything that
reduces the amount of medium sized protein or reduces the tannin
extraction from the grain will reduce chill haze, as will various fining
agents. Most malts today are highly modified, and protein rests are a
pain and of dubious utility (flame suit on :-), so it's probably easier to
try to limit the tannin extraction. Over sparging or sparging too hot are
probably the most common culprits. Next time use another pound of malt
and stop your sparge sooner (SG 1.020-1.015) and see what happens.
Cheers.
Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152 phone
(206) 782-6766 fax orders
demonick at zgi dot com
Pursuant to US Code, Title 47, Chapter 5, Subchapter II, '227, any and all
nonsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download
and archival fee of US$ 500. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 10:57:21 +0100
From: Mark Warrington <mark.s.warrington@usa.dupont.com>
Subject: Hop Rhizomes available?
Hi all,
I moved in Nov. 98 and transplanted my three year old hop roots to
my new abode and replanted them at that time. They don't seem to have
survived the winter. Does anyone know who still has rhizomes available
at this time of the year?
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:03:27 GMT
From: marnold@ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Re: rates of enzyme activity
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 00:16:48 -0400, you wrote:
>Al's comments to Matt who read a post of mine regarding the Fix mash
>schedule were on the mark too. Not only is a mash thickness of 2qt/lb
>not too thin, but there is pretty good evidence that mashes as thick as
>1.5qt/lb are actually too thick. The unavailability of water (trapped by
>the starch) slows amylolysis.
OK, I reviewed my brew log and my mash thickness ended up being somewhere in
the vicinity of 2.3-2.4 qt/lb. Am I pushing my luck here, or isn't it a
problem? I had to add enough boiling water to raise the mash temperature from
104F all the way to 158F. I'm planning on brewing again within the week and
would be interested in trying this method again.
One of the reasons this interests me is not so much for the science of it all,
but for the ease of it all. I can use hot tap water (with a pinch of campden
tablet to remove the chloramine) to get to the rest at 104F and then simply add
boiling water to get to my desired saccrification temperature. Much less
juggling with water temperature, grain temperature, thermal mass and all that
rot. To each their own, but I find it helpful.
Thanks again!
Matt
P.S. Not that you asked, but the Green Bay Rackers competition, Titletown Open
V, is coming up on May 15! Get your entry forms at
http://www.rackers.org/open.shtml
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:48:35 +0930
From: Brad McMahon <brad@sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Big Bew 99 Chat
> Jethro said:
> >Big Brew 99 WebSite.....
> > Al Korzonas sez...
> >>Say... while I'm at it, can someone volunteer to set up a way for us
> >>in the field to upload .gif's to the AHA website during the Big Brew?
> >>Last year we had some interesting conversations while we all brewed
> >>together. It would be even better if the sites could send in photos.
> >>It would be more convenient than if we put them on our websites and
> >>posted links to them, right?
> >I am aware of certain attempts to put together a Chat Line for the Big Brew
> >'99. To my knowledge, no firm outcome has been concluded.
> >Scott Braker-Abene has graciously responded in the affirmative, when I
> >asked if his site might be utilized for Big Brew. For those of you unaware
> >of this site, I would invite you to peruse
> >http://skotrat.dynip.com/skotrat/Brew-Rat-Chat/ .....on the 1st of
> >May....to follow the action...
> >It's the only tried, tested and proven such site, and would be best able to
> >cope with the demands of over 100 sites communicating with each other.
Sounds good. Just to let people know that my site will have a live
internet connection
(we are getting sponsorship from a local ISP) on the day. We did this
on
the strength
of the AHA saying they would have a chat room open. I hope they do get
it running in time.
If not, Skotrat's site will be it. As we are in Australia, we will be
celebrating on
May 2nd, so that we can be celebrating at the same time as you guys.
We are starting at 10 AM local time (Zulu + 9.30, US East coast: May
1st
8.30pm)
and we are having a synchronised toast with the Japanese Homebrew Club
site at 12.30PM local (US East 11PM). If anyone can be online at that
time it would be great to get you
involved too.
Prost!
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 08:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Abene <skotrat@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: WARNING! extremely rude.
Dr. Pivo writes a diatribe discussing how amused and wonderful and
how passive he is and how he lets things go...
Then turns around and talks down to people like George and Dave.
You sir are a contradicting hypocrite of your very own methods and
words.
Get over yer bad self cuz baby you ain't all that. Stand up for the
poop you have peddled and fight for the argument that you have
started.
I believe someone called Al K. a "putz" here once.
They were wrong... You Dr. Pivo... You sir are being a putz.
C'ya!
Scott "Talk to the Hand Baby!" Abene
===
ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT
Scott Abene <skotrat@mediaone.net>
http://skotrat.dynip.com/skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page)
"This Space Currently for Rent... Inquire within"
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:54:51 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: Peat Smoked Scottish Ales
Most of you may remember several months back a discussion about the use of
peat smoked barley in Scotch Ale. Some felt that it was not used at all.
I thought it to be a common ingredient and a few agreed with me. I became
curious and searched the internet for Scottish breweries that had email
addresses. One person finally responded and directed me to a brewing
historian and author in Edinburgh named Charles McMaster. I wrote him a
letter via snail mail and today I recieved a reply. A letter written by
hand in a quite floral printed caligraphers script.
This is an excerpt which I found especially interresting. Some of the
letter is quite difficult to read so please excuse inaccuracies in a few of
the specifics.
- -----------
By the turn of the 19th century, the Scottish Brewing industry was heavily
concentrated in the Central Lowlands, in places such as Edinburgh, Alloa
and [another city that I couldn't decipher from the letter]. These were
not peat cutting counties and malt would be pretty universally coal or coke
malted as most scottish brewers were also maltsters and produced their own
malt. Peated malt was produced in the Highlands of Scotland (where there
was no coall) for the whiskey distilling industry but there was little
commercial brewing [of beer] north of the highland line and as a result
there is little or no tradition of peated or smoked beers in Scotland and
such as have appeared can be considered an abberation. I believe this
misconception regarding scotch ales in general arises from Craig Noonan's
book..............
Charles Mc Master
Author of "The Beer Drinkers' Companion"
John Dallas, Co-author
So I guess I can eat crow on this one. Although there have been occasional
experiments on scottish ales using peated barley these have been primaily
short lived products and have never been considered a scottish style. My
thanks to Mr. McMaster for taking the time to draft this explanation.
He also mentions several hop substitutes indiginous to Scotland. These he
says were typically used in Wee Heavy and other Scottish beers and ales.
One I have heard of, others I have no knowledge of. Those he mentioned are
spruce, broom, rowan (?) and myrica. Spruce, if course, is well known as a
hop substitute and if abused produces a flavor resembling PineSol. Does
anyone know anything about the other three. Does broom refer to broom cane
of the type grown in the US (Illinois) for manufacture of straw brooms or
is this another plant?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 99 11:21:01 -0400
From: Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net>
Subject: May/June 1999 Zymurgy Article on Pale Ale
Greetings,
The May/June 1999 issue of Zymurgy includes an article by Terry Foster,
author of "Pale Ale" in the Classic Beer Style Series published by
Brewer's Publications. The cover of the issue describes the article by
Mr. Foster as "Secrets of the Perfect Pale Ale." Now, while I have the
greatest respect for Mr. Foster and his knowledge of Pale Ale, this
article has the appearance of heavy handed editing to leave out the
"secrets" and encourage the reader to buy the new edition of the Pale Ale
book. Lets look at each of principal ingredients of a pale ale; malt,
water, hops, and yeast; and see how each is addressed in the article.
Malt
It starts with quite a long discussion of the differences between 2-row
and 6-row base malts. I'm not sure I see the relevance of this in the
context of the limited space of a magazine article. Are homebrewers
really asking themselves whether they should use 2-row or 6-row? Next he
discusses the appropriateness of the single infusion mash for pale ale at
150F +/- a few degrees. There's some good information here, but nothing
really new. He explicitly makes no recommendation on specific base malts
stating that both British and American maltsters all produce high quality
malt. But, there's just got to be differences, and here's where some
discussion of the properties of some different base malts would have been
helpful.
Then, he goes on to discuss carmel and crystal malts. Here's where I
hoped to learn something. This segment is divided into two sections
titled "Carmel Malt" and "Crystal Malt." This would imply to me that he
thinks they are different. He gives a nice description of the production
technique and properties of carmel malt, but then makes no recommendation
on how to use them in your beer. The following "Crystal Malt" section
starts right off with recommended usage levels, but states nothing about
how or why crystal malts are different from carmel malts or why you would
choose one versus the other. I continue to wonder if there is a
difference. The truth is out there...
Water
Hmmm.... Water is not discussed in the article. This is definitely an
area where a little information could help elevate your pale ale to the
next higher level of quality. I realize that an in-depth treatment is not
possible in the context of such an article, but it should at least be
mentioned.
Hops
This section has some good information including effects of the bittering
hop on hop aroma, qualitative differences in hop bittering, and issues
relating to loss of aromatic oils in the homebrewing setting. My only
criticism of this section is that some more specific recommendations of
hops for bittering and late hop character would have been helpful.
Yeast
Mr. Foster makes some specific recommendations on dry yeasts but states
that he's reluctant to make recommendations on liquid yeast or yeast
cultures because "so many of the strains available are
propietary and so many exist that I have been unable to try them all." I
don't understand this at all. The selection of an appropriate yeast to
complement your selected malt and hop profile can mean the difference
between your beer presenting itself as a wonderfully complex medely of
flavors and aroma versus a dissonant chord. OK, he hasn't been able to
try them all. But at least he could have discussed the properties of some
different liquid yeasts appropriate for the style and under what
circumstances you would choose one yeast versus another. The propietary
issue eludes me. If a yeast is truly propietary, then I would assume it
is not available for homebrewers and there's little point mentioning it.
If it is available, then let's here what he has to say about it.
I have not seen the second edition of Mr. Foster's book. I can only hope
that these issues are more fully addressed in the book. But, it is
disappointing that the Zymurgy article left out so many of the important
details. Sorry for the length of this post.
- --Dave
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Humes <humesdg1@earthlink.net> Dave Humes
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 1999 11:37:40
From: "William W. Macher" <macher@telerama.lm.com>
Subject: How Many BTU's are needed...
HI All...
Scott Church <schurch@gte.net> asks how many BTU's are needed
to heat water to a boil...
A BTU is the amount of heat it takes to raise one pound of water
one degree F.
A US gallon of water weighs about 8.33 pounds.
Say you had 50 gallons of water in your 55-gallon steel drum.
Starting temperature is 60F. Boiling is 212 F. at sea level.
(Gallons) x (LB/gallon) x (Deg. F. Increase) = BTU's needed
50 x 8.33 x (212-60) = 63,308 BTU
Total BTU's needed to raise the liquid temperature is about 63,300
for water, and probably nearly the same for wort. The exact
number depends on the specific heat capacity of the liquid being heated.
We probably do not need to worry about being exact in our calculation,
due to various heat losses that differ with each person's system.
63,308 BTU is the amount of energy that is needed to be put (and kept)
in the liquid, over whatever period of time you want take to raise to
liquid to boiling. For one hour, that is 63,308 BTU/hour.
You will need more than this amount of energy of course, as heat
will be lost from the drum by radiation, etc., etc.
This is heat input to the liquid. There are many inefficiencies that
must be considered. You naturally need a much bigger burner than
63,300 BTU/hour rating if you want to heat 50 gallons of water(wort)
to boiling in one hour.
The above calculation should give you a starting point.
And since there are 150,000 BTU burners available (Is this rating
BTU/HR?) it sounds like your goal is easily attainable.
Bill
Bill Macher Pittsburgh, PA USA
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3010, 04/21/99
*************************************
-------
