Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3003
HOMEBREW Digest #3003 Tue 13 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:
The Jethro Gump Report...Siebel ("Rob Moline")
Heineken-Murphy-more (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema@akzonobel.com>
Just a corny keg (Joy Hansen)
TSP (Joy Hansen)
Unnecessary rudeness. ("Braam Greyling")
Experience with no-weld spigot set-up (Dan Cole)
Hops ("J. Matthew Saunders")
Extra High Extraction Rate ("P.J. Reilly")
re:Sanitation with One-Step/HBD #3002 (Cukrow)
1-Step ? and Hours/BTU ? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Oxymoronit? (Eric.Fouch)
Palmetto State Brewers Competition Results (chatgros)
that beehive state buzz (Vachom)
Increasing a beer's shelf life ("George De Piro")
Was Stuckest...now flowest well ("William W. Macher")
FREE brewing fridge, Vancouver, WA (Erik Ness)
Long Mash experiment (Steven Gibbs)
For publication(Hallertauer hops) (colorart)
Call for Judges, 1st Round In Philadelphia ("Houseman, David L")
Thanks for the info (Cory Chadwell Page Navigation)
Kolsch recipe (Greg Remec)
Sulfate, (Dave Burley)
Diacetyls,. Clinit***, (Dave Burley)
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: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:58:11 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report...Siebel
The Jethro Gump Report
Siebel Participates on the HBD...
Following my time as a student @ Siebel, where, with George DePiro, many
questions from the HBD were answered, either directly or indirectly, by the
Siebel staff to participants of the HBD....the thought had on many occasions
re-occurred to me.....
"Wouldn't it be great to have Siebel here on the HBD?"
Well, my interest has been rewarded.....for Mr. Siebel has recently, and
graciously agreed to have his Institute's staff participate in answering
questions from the participants of the Digest on your brewing concerns.....
For a 2 week period, from May 17th through the 28th, 1999, Siebel
instructors will be reviewing your questions to the HBD .....and answering
them......
Now, this will be an experimental excursion....for many reasons....the
staff there are very busy, they are quite often out of the country, they
have never done this before, etc...
And, of course, as with any edition of the Digest, there is certainly no
guarantee that every question will be answered....but I believe that we will
undoubtedly benefit from whatever knowledge they care to share....and Mr.
Siebel has scheduled this for a time when he thinks it might be most
feasible....
So, mark your calendars...........
Now, for a blatant commercial plug.......
As a recipient of a Special Scholarship to Siebel, and as a member of the
63rd Short Course in 1998, I am more than aware of the depth of knowledge
assembled at the oldest and most prestigious brewing school in the United
States.
The alumni of Siebel hail from all continents, save perhaps Antarctica
(though I could be wrong!), and range from homebrewers, through brewpub and
micro brewers, right up to regional and mega brewers. But one common
feature, noted in all Siebel folk that I have ever met, is a universal
willingness to share information with those with the passion for brewing
that those of you on the Digest possess.
While the staff of Siebel do participate in other forums, in much the same
way that they will on the HBD, let it be understood that such is on behalf
of, and in aid of organizations that they are members of. For Mr. Siebel to
lend assistance to a structure such as the HBD, is purely evidence of his,
and perhaps most importantly, his staff's willingness to give to the brewing
community, no matter where it lives.
For this, we should be grateful. I know I am.
Personally, I have hopes that this will go so successfully, that it might
be repeated in future years. (Maybe an annual Siebel fortnight/or week?)
I also have hopes that it might encourage some of you to become students at
Siebel. If you can learn 1% of what they have to offer, you will indeed have
learned much. I know I have a long way to go to get to just that much, but
hopefully, you will be a better student than I!
BTW, the Siebel Web Site is www.siebelinstitute.com ...
And if this news meets with your approval, I would invite you to drop a
quick note to Mr. Siebel at info@siebelinstitute.com to thank him. Please.
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!"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:06:40 +0200
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema@akzonobel.com>
Subject: Heineken-Murphy-more
More information about Heineken (Murphy thread); info from annual report
December 31,1998.
Heineken (participation in %):Heineken Brewery in Zoeterwoude (101:-),
Heineken Brewery in 's Hertogenbosch (100), Amstel Brewery in Amsterdam
(just a name, the brewery is transformed into a museum), De Ridder in
Maastricht (100), Brand in Wijlre (100) The Netherlands, Fischer France
(99), El Aguilla Spain (71.3), Athenian Brewery Greece (98.8), Murphy
Brewery Ireland (100), Amstel Sorgyar Hungary (100), Pivovar Corgon Slowakia
(51), Zlaty Bazant Slowakia (66), Calanda Haldengut Switzerland (91.7),
Maltery Albert Belgium (100), Heineken USA White Plains (100), Bralima Kongo
(87.5), Brasseries et Limonaderies du Rwanda (70), Brasseries et
Limonaderies du Burundi (59.3), Brasseries de Bourbon Reunion (85.4), Ghana
Breweries Ghana (73.5), P.T. Multi Bintang Indonesia (80.5), Zywiec Poland
(50).
Proportional consolidation in the following participations: Zagorka Brewery
Bulgaria (43.7), Ariana Brewery Bulgaria (34.2), Brasseries du Congo (50),
Brasseries du Logone Tsjaad (50), Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore (42.5),
South Pacific Brewery Papoea Nieuw-Guinea (31.9), Vietnam Brewery (25.5),
Hatay Brewery Vietnam (25.5), Cambodia Brewery (34), Hainan Asia Pacific
Brewery China (34), DB Group New Zealand (24.8), Guinness Anchor Berhad
Malaysia (10.8), Shanghai Mila Brew China (32.4), Tee Yih Jia (Fujian)
Brewery China (17), Nigerian Breweries Nigeria (30), Quilmes International
Bermuda (15), Cervejarias Kaiser Brazil (14.2).
See also:
http://www.heinekencorp.nl
http://www.murphys.com
It's time for a (homebrewed) beer now, greetings from Holland, Hans Aikema
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:41:56 +0000
From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen@scronline.com>
Subject: Just a corny keg
>
> Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:02:53 -0500
> From: Rick Gontarek <RGontare@bellatlantic.net>
> Subject: Corny kegs & Beermeister/ WhiteLabs Burton Ale yeast
>
Hi Rick,
I thought I'd relate to you that I not only purchased one beer cooler;
but, two! Now that you are in kegging, please try adding a hop tea to
your brew in the keg. I use the conditioning sugar to sort of sanitize
the hops in an aquarium filter (nylon) bag. I weight the bag with the
closure ring from a Sanke keg. Let me tell you that I've never been
able to achieve the wonderful fop essence that this procedure of dry
hopping gives. The brew just seems to get better as it draws down. The
keg conditioning also does something special to the brew that force
carbonation can't. Don't want to know the chemistry, etc. I just know
that it makes the brew eons better.
How you get it out of the keg is just a matter of temperature/pressure
and how you draw a brew. Change the CO2 pressure as needs be. For
additional faucets, I just drilled more holes in the round upright at
varying elevations. Doesn't look all that great; however, I can draw
three different brews.
One day I might learn how to get the same taste in a bottle. Then, why?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:53:18 +0000
From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen@scronline.com>
Subject: TSP
Hi All,
When I started using PBW, it seemed like the best cleaner that I'd ever
used. Then, I heard that it was nothing but carbonate. Tongue in
cheek, I continued to use it and I'm still impressed with it.
I was washing some walls with TSP the other day and I expected the label
to declare the usual phosphates. WRONG. The TSP label declares sodium
carbonate and sodium sesquicarbonate and a surficant.
Could it be an identical product - TSP with any other name is still TSP?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:30:51 +200
From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling@azona.com>
Subject: Unnecessary rudeness.
Dr. Pivo
It seems like you have forgotten that this is a DISCUSSION forum.
Where we SHARE ideas. Nobody tries to force ideas down anybodys
throat. Although your post about diacetyl is informative , there was
no need to try to disgrace Dave Burley in that manner.
It was distasteful and unnecessary. You could have carried over the
same opinion, without attacking Dave personally.
Although you may not agree, both you and Dave and a lot of other
people, regularly sends in very helpful and informative posts.
Please dont chase anybody away by unnecessary personal attacks.
Regards
Braam Greyling
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:00:19 -0400
From: Dan Cole <dcole@roanoke.infi.net>
Subject: Experience with no-weld spigot set-up
Anyone out there have any experience with the no-weld spigot setups
available? I just recently purchased a new brew kettle and rather than
spending an additional $50 for one with the spigot, I decided on one
of the weld-free setups. Just drill a hole and use the included
compression fitting and the spigot.
Any advice?
Dan Cole
www.hbd.org/starcity/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:59:45 -0400
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm@vt.edu>
Subject: Hops
Mike Rose asks:
>I'm trying to find a homebrew mail order or web business that has
>Hallertau Hallertau Hops. About half pound amount. Any suggestions
>would be appreciated.
Check out www.vintagecellar.com and go to the brewing section of the site.
Cheers!
Matthew in VA.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:25:21 -0400
From: "P.J. Reilly" <preilly@exis.net>
Subject: Extra High Extraction Rate
Help!
I hope that one of you brilliant HBD'ers can help me with my problem.
After brewing a number of very successful extract only batches, I
decided to go to all grain.
I brewed up two great all grain batches and got to feeling my oats (no
pun intended) and ordered a Easymasher from Jack Schmedling Productions.
Well, the Easymasher was everything Jack said it was. I now have a five
gallon batch of Porter just about to finish fermentation, that was
intended to have a OG of 1.054 but finished out at 1.073. I'm ready to
bottle but don't know what to do exactly to delute this beer without
ruining it.
I've read that a high gravity beer should not be diluted by more than
30% so I thought I would comply with that by adding my primimg sugar (or
molasess in this case) with that much water and then bottling it.
What do you think? Am I headed in the right direction?
Thanks for your time,
P.J. Reilly
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:18:35 EDT
From: Cukrow@aol.com
Subject: re:Sanitation with One-Step/HBD #3002
I am a relatively new homebrewer (2 years, 10 batches) and have used one-step
each time and have not yet had a problem with sanitation, as far as I know (I
have a batch of cyser that is still bottle conditioning, as well as three
other batches of beer/cider in various stages). The instructions on One-Step
do say that no rinse is necessary, but at the advice of the helpful folks at
my brewshop, I rinse anyway with cold water. Unfortunately I cannot answer
the question of whether or not there will be a problem with your current
batch, but I can say that I have had success with one-step.
Best of luck - I hope it turns out well!
- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -------------------
I realized, after checking the table of contents, that I did not receive
about half of the articles (the second half) in the latest HBD - has anyone
else had this problem? I receive these using the Netscape e-mail client (not
AOL, as my e-mail address would suggest).
Thanks,
Michael Cukrow
Lake Hiawatha, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:35:32 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: 1-Step ? and Hours/BTU ?
Tod Morris had a coupla questions about One-Step:
1)No, do not use less than is recommended.
2)Yes, it possibly wasn't dissolved enough.
3)The starter is no more screwed up than if you used bleach and rinsed.
4)I had the same results if I mixed _large_ quantities of One-Step.
I switched from Iodophor to One-step, some people claim they can
taste and smell Iodophor in the beer, though I couldn't taste it
even when I drank the solution straight. (bet that raised eyebrows)
The white film you noticed is the remainder of the capsules the One-Step
is encased within. It is "micro-encapsulated" to prevent atmospheric
moisture from prematurely activating it a causing a loss of efficacy
while it sits on your shelf. These "capsules" can persist after
dissolving
and leave a bit of haze. It is no big deal to ignore them and proceed
with
your brewing like they weren't there.
Jesse Stricker asked about "how many brews from a tank of propane?"
There are approximately 22,000 BTU in a pound of propane. With 20
pounds in a "normal" tank that equals 440,000 BTU per tank.
Your burner _says_ it is 170,000 BTU/hour, divide it out it is
about 2.5 hours. That is at full blast, something you will not
normally do. If in fact you could keep a 80K BTU flame under your
kettle I would be surprised. So now that we are running at partial
throttle we have to _guess_what the usage would be. I would_guess_
you will get at least 5 brews per tank. Seems like I would get 5 or 6
from my 170K cooker, but I shared the tank with the barbecue.
If you worry about running out of propane mid-boil you can weigh
your tank when it is known to be full. Then before you start a brew
session
take your bathroom scale outside and weigh the tank again, subtracting
will tell you how much of the original 20 pounds will be left.
Please don't bring the tank to the bathroom to weigh it, take the scale
outside to a nice level place and weigh it outdoors. Besides being easier
to carry than a full 20 pounder, it is a lot less dangerous. Yeah yeah
I know, how likely is it to explode. That really is not the question,
how likely is it you would survive if it did? One pound of propane
has the explosive power of about 80 lbs. of TNT (or was that 800 lbs of
TNT?)
(sometimes I lose track of the decimal point)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:51:00 -0400
From: Eric.Fouch@steelcase.com
Subject: Oxymoronit?
> Jeremy B. Pugh
>
> Perhaps someone can explain how large-scale commercial breweries seperate
> Utah beer from teh rest of the country when producing beer in, as the
> commercial says, vats the size of Rhode Island. I can't imagine they create
> a seperate "Utah batch."
>
Maybe they don't use separate vats. Maybe Budmillercoors takes their
regularbeer
and cuts it with water to lower the alc level.
That statement was oxymoronit, wasn't it?
Mike Rose Riverside, CA mike@hopheads.com
Actually Mike, it sounds like it was a "watermoronit" statement.
Eric Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood MI
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:01:34 PDT
From: chatgros@excite.com
Subject: Palmetto State Brewers Competition Results
Results are posted at:
http://www.axs2k.net/fatcat/psbr.htm
_______________________________________________________
Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:39:40 -0500
From: Vachom <MVachow@newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: that beehive state buzz
Another experiential data point to add to Jeremy's posts about the 3.2 beer
in Utah: Jeremy mentions the cumulative effect of alcohol and the point at
which one feels "buzzed." This effect and the effects of altitude served
often, in my experience in the restaurant industry (i.e. ski bum job) in
Park City, to give visitors a crash course in the relative values of alcohol
content and metabolism. Already exhausted after a day of skiing and
maddened by having to pay a "club membership" fee to get in the door of the
bar or humiliated by having to beg a local to "sponsor" them, ski
vacationers with misguided notions of the alcohol content of 3.2 beer and
over-inflated notions of their stamina often found themselves knee-walkin'
drunk quickly and unable to hit the slopes the next day.
Mike
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 12:20:33 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro@fcc.net>
Subject: Increasing a beer's shelf life
Hi all,
An anonymous poster ("Dr. Pivo") has been ranting a bit about the
desirability of diacetyl (no "s") in beer. In the process
they made the statement:
"The open market economy has ensured that they can no
longer be a local producer. They used to have a 10 day shelf life on
their bottles. Now it is 18 months at some places. How is that
achieved? They must reduce flavours that are unstable. It turns out
that diacetyls (sic), and a lot of the other big flavours are not
terribly
stable, and will not survive long transports, storages, and temperature
changes."
Whether you like diacetyl in your beer or not is up to the individual,
but the above statement is deserving of comment:
Reducing the flavor of a beer does not increase its shelf life. It
will, in fact, do just the opposite. A beer that is very light in flavor
(like Coors or Miller, etc.) offers no hiding place for stale flavors.
They will stand tall, proudly proclaiming their presence for all to see
(and smell and taste).
I taught a sensory evaluation class during which I presented
a beer (Coors light) spiked with both diacetyl and trans-2-nonenal
(I don't recall the exact levels; they were both well above my threshold
and that of most people). Not a single person in the room,
*including me,* could taste the trans-2-nonenal, even after they
were told of its presence.
This illustrates quite nicely how a beer with other, bold, flavor
characteristics can hide a bit of staling. For those of you who are
wondering, trans-2-nonenal is a papery-tasting aldehyde that is
very common in stale beer.
Why was India pale ale made so strong and hoppy? "Because the
hops and alcohol preserve the beer," some might venture.
60 IBUs and 7% alcohol may be mildly irritating to some microbes,
but will do nothing to prevent the oxidation of the beer.
More likely, the big hops and alcohol served to bury the stale
flavors that most certainly developed in the beer during the long,
rocky, hot ocean voyage from England to India.
Regarding the claim that diacetyl is not terribly stable:
Diacetyl is quite stable in filtered beer, and can actually increase
with time. There are many commercial beers that have an
excess of alpha acetolactate (AAL), the precursor of diacetyl,
and will become buttery (or whatever descriptor you want to use)
over time. Sam Adams beers do this, as will Pilsner Urquel.
Keeping the beer warm will accelerate the formation of diacetyl.
This is the basis of the forced diacetyl test that I have written about
in past issues of the HBD and Louis Bonham wrote about in
Brewing Techniques magazine.
The way most breweries increase the shelf life of their beer is
simply to change the label. That is why so many imported beers
taste so stale. Few breweries bother to do actual stability testing
of their beers, which is a shame.
Things that they could do, if they were willing to go to the trouble,
would be:
1. Reduce oxygen uptake at all points in the brewing process
(except, of course, at pitching time and during yeast propagation).
This is especially critical on the brewery's cold side (packaging, etc,).
2. Ensure the level of AAL in the beer is low so that the diacetyl
concentration does not increase with time. Even if the brewer desires
diacetyl in the final beer, they will likely not want it to become
overwhelming.
3. Ship and store the beer refrigerated (yeah, don't hold your breath).
4. Ensure that the beer is microbiologically stable.
There must be some other stuff I am forgetting, but that's enough
for now.
Have fun!
George de Piro (Nyack, NY)
Malted Barley Appreciation Society
"Brooklyn's Best Homebrew Club"
http://hbd.org/mbas
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:51:13
From: "William W. Macher" <macher@telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Was Stuckest...now flowest well
Hi everyone!
Moving from the world of undersea adventure...certainly
a fun place from time to time...
Thanks again to all who offered encouragement and advice
after my nightmare inaugural brew on my new rims a
couple weeks ago. I have a positive report and a couple
observations false bottoms/manifolds that might be of use
to future rimsers.
I brewed a second time on this new steam-injected system
on Sunday. I was smiling again. Things went well, with not
a problem to report.
My first mash stuck mainly because of the design of my
return manifold. It was slotted copper (half-inch rigid
tubing) under a kind-of false bottom that had some, but
probably not enough, 1/8 inch holes drilled in it. I am
convinced that the flaw was that the manifold slots were
too narrow and that fines plugged them.
I have concluded that design of a rims return system for
recirculation needs to be approached *differently* from that
for a normal mash tun, from which liquid is drained *after*
conversion has finished. This is a key difference, and may
explain why a manifold, that worked fine when I kettle
mashed, failed miserably in my first rims attempt.
While I do not know much about filter beds, I remember
seeing some in the past, both in industrial settings and in
developing countries. For instance, in Northern Thailand
muddy water went in the top of a pot, and clear water came
out the bottom (Still not safe to drink, but it looked good!).
The principle is the same in both applications. The filter
was built with coarse gravel on the bottom and
decreasingly smaller size stones down to fine sand as the
top layer.
I believe the constant recirculation of the rims offers
opportunity(Or should I say necessity?) for building at least
a pseudo-standard filter bed. Since with a rims recirculation
starts soon after dough in, one likely walks a fine line if one
attempts to size the openings in a false bottom/manifold
small enough to restrict grain/particles from entering the
recirculation path. The best case is added restriction
limiting maximum flow rate; the worse case is territory I
do not want to visit again!
While this should be obvious, I certainly missed this small,
but important, point.
And the beer I was sipping, and occasionally gulping, felt
the result as its flavor was enhanced by sweat (and tears??)
while I suffered, and even twice removed/replaced the
contents of the mash tun, over a period of between four to
five hours. It was a long day, one that was supposed to be
one of fun, but instead left me with an expression similar
to that of sucking on half a lemon :-(
At the end of that experience I concluded that I did not
EVER want another like it, and gave some serious thought
to the redesign of my return manifold, and to what its
purpose *really* should be in the rims application.
I am sure that input from fellow HBDers pointed me in the
right direction, either from direct contact, or as the result of
postings or home pages. Thanks again to all for this help!
The first change in my thinking was to accept the idea that
pumping grain along with the liquid in the recirculation
loop is OK. Maybe even better than OK, desirable. Yes,
DESIRABLE. Especially the finer particles. Let the pump
put them where they belong, on the top of the filter bed.
I decided to go with a false bottom and a manifold under
it. I fabricated the false bottom from some copper sheet,
and drilled 3/16 holes in it on 5/16 centers. Fortunately I
did not calculate the number of holes that would need to be
drilled, or I probably would not have started. I have not
(and will not) counted them, but at 11.5 holes per square inch
my calculations say that I drilled between 1,700 and 1,900
holes! No wonder I got tired of drilling!
Under the false bottom I have an H-shaped manifold made
from half inch copper tubing. It is NOT slotted, and all the
ends open directly into the space under the false bottom. At
the four ends of the "H" I put tees, so there are eight inlets for
minimal velocity of flow at each. I take the outlet from the
center of the cross bar of the H. In my case this flows out
the center of the keg bottom. My mash tun is a converted
15-gallon keg with a bottom drain.
I was conservative on this second mash, and used a 15-
minute rest period before turning on my pump. I got good
flow from the start, and was very hesitant to open the valve
too much for fear of causing a collapse of the grain bed. I
do not know if this fear is warranted in my case or not. I
did easily get what I estimate as 1.0 to 1.5 gallons per
minute flow rate from the beginning.
There was a noticeable amount of grain particles being
pumped back to the top of the mash bed, and this continued
for perhaps the first ten to fifteen minutes, or maybe longer.
At the end of the mash everything was clear, and I was able
to open the valve fully and get full flow without any
problem as I raised temperature for mash out. There were no
grain particles coming with the wort at this time. I do not
know what the flow rate was with the valve full open, but
with water it is about 3 GPM.
While cleaning up, I noticed some grain coming out from
behind the false bottom as the keg lay on its side and I
hosed it, dumped it, and hosed it again. When done hosing
the mash tun out, I removed the false bottom and still found
some larger grain particles still under it. This tells me that
a fair amount of grain got through the holes in the false
bottom. But whatever got in there either was pumped back
to the top of the filter bed or lay out of the way under the
false bottom. It did not significantly block the openings of
the return manifold.
Again, while this may be obvious to those who have been
through it, it was not to me. It seems the goal in rims
mash-tun design should be to design for maximum
recirculation rate (by letting the filter bed do the filtering)
and to limit flow restrictions in the recirculation loop. The
false bottom should support the grain (filter) bed and have
enough openings in it to offer minimum flow restriction.
The manifold should take the liquid from enough points
under the grain bed to prevent localized flow points (or
channeling) from occurring within the grain bed, and it
should accept and pass on to the pump whatever grains may
find there way into it.
It may be possible to walk the fine line and design a
manifold that will work with a rims from the start (dough in
and here we go...) but this seems risky (sure did not work
for me).
Looking back, I just wish I knew then what I think I know
now!
Hope this is of some interest and help to future rimsers...
My next batch will be a wheat beer with 50% malted
wheat. I hope I sing the same song after that one! Perhaps
I will step mash and be able to give a report on the
performance of my one-tier, two-pump, steam-injected system.
Bill
Bill Macher Pittsburgh, PA USA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:01:31 -0700
From: Erik Ness <nesse@vcd.hp.com>
Subject: FREE brewing fridge, Vancouver, WA
Hi all,
Wanna brew some lagers? Wanna free fridge?
I've got a full-sized harvest gold fridge that I used for lagers several
years ago. I haven't used it for a while, and now that I'm moving, the
first person to come take it away can have it for free.
NOTE: My friend started a beer mural on the door and never finished it.
Not the sort of thing for your living room, but good for your garage, if
you know what I mean.
The fridge is in Vancouver, WA, near portland for the directionally
disabled.
Email me for details: erik_ness@hp.com
(I don't subscribe to this digest)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:05:55 -0700
From: Steven Gibbs <steveg@linkline.com>
Subject: Long Mash experiment
Dear Fellow Brewers:
I have tried an experiment which may add a significant amount of brew
days and I would like some imput as to my procedures. One week ago I
started a brew at 9:00 pm by mixing my water, and bringing it to strike
temp. and mashing a continental pils recipe in an insulated tun
(modified 1/2 bar.) with a double rap of alum. coated bubble rap
material. The mash temp. was set at 150', covered and left over night.
There have been other articles about overnight mashing but here is what
I discovered. The next morning at 8:00am, I found the mash had fallen
to 130' and I pulled a 1/3 thick mash decoction and slowly brought it to
a boil. I boiled for 20 min. and reintroduced the decoction to the main
mash. The temp. rose to 148' and I added 3 gallons of 180' water. I
vigorously mixed and let rest for 15 minutes. Recirculated 12 liters and
started sparge with a mash temp. of 153'. Sparged for 60 minutes and
had 14 gallons in the brew pot and I discovered that I pulled a 1.064
from only 25 lbs. of malt. I used 24 lbs. Weyerman German 2-row and 1
lb. Belg. Carapils. While this recipe has previously given me a 60-61 in
12 gallons, a 64 in 14 gallons was a complete surprise! No problems with
fermentation and I plan on transferring to secondary next weekend. Is
there any consensus as to good or bad points in having a long mash (ie.
degradation of proteins etc.) or has the addition of a decoction in my
process potentially helped in the problem areas?
Happy Brewing
Steve Gibbs
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 11:17:38 -0000
From: colorart@spiritone.com
Subject: For publication(Hallertauer hops)
Mike Rose mrose@ucr.campuscw.net
<< I'm trying to find a homebrew mail order or web business that has
Hallertau Hallertau Hops. About half pound amount. Any suggestions
would be appreciated.>>
If you mean Hallertauer Mittelfruh, I believe both Hoptech
(1-800-DryHops) and Just Hops (1-719-528-5920) have them in stock right
now. I've ordered hops from both and both were in great shape, in
Nitrogen flushed bags. Both have webpages, but I don't have their
addresses handy....
I'm not affiliated with these guys, BTW, just a pleased customer...
-Matt Hollingsworth
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:44:19 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: Call for Judges, 1st Round In Philadelphia
East coast judging for the first round of the AHA National competition will
take place at Red Bell Brewing Company in Philadelphia Saturaday and Sunday,
April 24th and 25th. Information packages have been sent. If I missed you
or, like some, your address with the BJCP is incorrect and the information
package never go to you and you are interested in judging that weekend and
would like to enjoy the Philadelphia beer scene, please contact me at
dhousema@cccbi.org or 610.458.0743.
Dave Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 13:46:39 -0500
From: Cory Chadwell Page Navigation <chadwell@ssd.fsi.com>
Subject: Thanks for the info
Hello all,
About two weeks ago I posted asking for info on beer additions for taste
training. The next day I got suprised by some business travel and have been
away from my office and Email for the duration. I'm sorting through my mail
here and can see that I received some great info from several different
posters. I'd like to say thanks to all of you.
On another topic I'm planning on brewing a nut brown as my next batch. I
usually use Cascades as my hop of choice. I like the result which I would
descibe as flowery/citrusy. However, I don't think that is really what I want
to round out and balance a honey brown. Any suggestions for hop types that
may be a better match for this beer.
Thanks, Cory
- --
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory D. Chadwell FlightSafety International
Design Engineer 2700 N. Hemlock Circle
Navigation / Visual Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012 /|
chadwell@ssd.fsi.com /c| -
9186919796@mobile.att.net (text paging 150 characters) / | /|
- ------------------------------------------------------ <-----s---
FSI \ | \|
SSD \c| -
\|
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:32:10 -0600
From: Greg Remec <gremec@gsbalum.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Kolsch recipe
Hello all,
I brewed a Kolsch-style recipe recently and was very pleased with the
results I tasted this weekend. The Kolsch style yeast provided a slight
sourness with just a hint of fruitiness, although it has the crispness of a
lager. The wheat malt contributes a tasty (but slight) wheat character to
the overall flavor profile, and a little bit of haze (which I've noticed in
commercial examples).
I tried Czech Moravian pilsener malt for my first time as the base malt. I
know a German malt is more appropriate for the style, but I wanted to try
the Czech. It provided a clean, slightly nutty flavor that is really
tasty, and I won't hesitate to use it again. I used German wheat and
crystal malts for the balance of the grain bill, but I really don't think
it makes much of a difference. The key is to use a Kolsch yeast, without
which you won't get the appropriate character.
Here's what I used to collect 7 gallons of runnings at 75% efficiency,
boiled down to about 6 gallons for 5.5 gallons in my primary:
8 lbs. Pilsener malt (85%)
1 lb. Wheat malt (10%)
8 oz. 20L crystal malt (5%)
1.25 oz. Tettnanger 60 min.
1.25 oz. Tettnanger 15 min.
Infusion mash 150F for 60 minutes
Wyeast 2565 Kolsch yeast in 2 qt. starter (decanted)
Ferment 14 days primary at 60F;
14 days secondary at 60F;
4 weeks cold conditioning at 35F;
1.046 O.G.; 1.010 F.G.; 25 IBU; ~4 SRM
This beer was really hazy when I bottled, but has cleared nicely. It has a
pure white long lasting head, and a refreshing body and flavor that makes
it extremely drinkable. My supply won't last long; give this brew a try!
Brew more,
Greg
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:38:11 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Sulfate,
Brewsters:
I know we all have been brought up (or steeped) in the
mantra ( or momily) that historical local beers have taken
on the character they have because of the local water.
However, from these simple observations many extreme
behaviors have arisen. Like for instance AlK's admission
that he once used up to 1/2 cup or more calcium sulfate
in brewing ( I assume 5 gallons). Such behaviors fail to
recognize that there are several things like solubility of
calcium sulfate in water that will limit the content. If calcium
sulfate were really that soluble then we couldn't use it as
Plaster of Paris. So I doubt that using such an extreme
amount did any good, since it was limited by the
solubility of the salt.
Secondly, extreme amounts of calcium in the brewing
liquor ( maybe by using the more soluble chloride)
precipitate too much of the phosphate and the pH falls
and, more importantly, the mash and wort is starved of
phosphate. A bad thing for the mash pH and the yeast.
Thirdly, if you will read the books I have read, they all
seem to list the water analysis of the locality. The major
INCORRECT assumption is that this is the water used
as the brewing liquor. A simple treatment such as liming
the water will remove bicarbonates and sulfates and
correct the pH to make an excellent brewing liquor.
SO just because the well head has a certain mineral
analysis does not mean that is the water that makes it
to the brewery (or even into the mains, as municipalities
treat water as well as the brewery) nor, above all, what
makes it into the mashtun.
Now, what we really need to see is the analysis of the
mineral contents of various famous beers and not the
water which is used to wash the floors in the brewery.
While this still does not tell us what is used in the mash,
it better relates to what we taste.
Anyone have such an analysis?
- -------------------------------------------
The difference between a carboy and a demi-john?
Not much, except a carboy often has corrosive liquids
in it and a Lady Jane (dame Jeanne) often has wine
in it, historically. I suppose most of us learned and use
the word carboy because we took college chemistry.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:39:44 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Diacetyls,. Clinit***,
Brewsters:
Dr. Pivo says: "Shame on you Dave Burley".
Well, shame on you Dr. Pivo for mis-representing
what I said. If you need a straw horse, pick on
someone else.
Diacetyl is considered a fault in beer in high enough
concentrations. The table I displayed from one of
those famous brewing tomes -and not just opinion
- which is what we get from you - does show that
a small amount of diacetyl is in every beer
- as I have also stated. Maybe your point about a
"balanced" ( whatever that means)
amount of diacetyl is correct but that description
teaches nothing. Maybe you should attempt to
quantify that so you can communicate it. Need I
remind you that your description of a honey-like
quality from diacetyl was in fact from its next higher
analog diketone.
These errors are common when sensory analysis
alone is used. Better to provide real hard detail
than impressions which can be mis-leading.
Remember the purpose of your olfactory senses
is to integrate many aromas and produce a memory
of when you had smelled that combination before.
Therefore, one's mother produces the best pie or
pasta or whatever than anyone else, since ALL
the impressions of home, loved ones and the like
come flooding back into our conscious or subconscious.
I do believe that sensory impressions can be a valid
source of inspriation, but scientific data is needed
to back them up.
Don't be so quick to condemn someone who
might on some occasion agree with you and
provide *scientific* support for your case.
And, yes, I have drunk from the original source
shortly after the wall came down.
No, I did not detect any unwarranted diacetyl.
- -------------------------------
Dr. Pivo also says "How 'bout Clinitest"
Yeah. how about it. I haven't heard from
Louis Bonham, despite my many requests for
a timetable by direct e-mail. I think he had
a good suggestion to use the ASBC EOF method
as a starting point. ( 80F ferm. with constant stirring)
I suggested that this method was OK, but that
an arbitrary 48 hours to determine the
End Of the Fermentation was inappropriate.
I suggested that this 48 hour test be performed,
but also to extend the reading until both the
hydrometer and Clinitest readings were constant.
Haven't heard from him. maybe he ran these
tests and didn't get the results he planned.
I don't know, but his silence seems awfully
strange to me after the row and attempted
censure of HBD he made.
Maybe we should set up an HBD Clinitest test?
Anybody out there have access to thin layer
or paper chromatography or other methods
to analyse the higher ( tri and tetra ) polysaccharides?
- ------------------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3003, 04/13/99
*************************************
-------
