Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3171
HOMEBREW Digest #3171 Wed 17 November 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:
Re: Garbage pails, cider (phil sides jr)
Re: aha 98 financials (John_E_Schnupp)
Decoction/pH & Conversion (AJ)
No foam ("Doug Marion")
Re: Secrets of The Horizontal Pour? (Jeff Renner)
Re: Basic Questions (Jeff Renner)
Emeril and Garbage pails (Rob Dewhirst)
inquiring minds ("Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell")
Re: Barley/Corn Extract (Jeff Renner)
Re: Sanitizers in septic systems (Rob Dewhirst)
new Briess malt (Jeff Renner)
Plastic fermenters, 40# Propane tank, gushing Belgians (Dave Burley)
Re: Carboy Cleaning (Bob Sheck)
RE: 3 Tiered Home brewery (Bob Sheck)
RE: Munton's Wheat LME (Bob Sheck)
Re: Basic Questions (Spencer W Thomas)
wheat beer problem ("Bayer, Mark A")
Re: Engineering or Science? ("Robert A. Uhl")
The joy of siphoning! (Ben Newman)
RE: system queries! (Bob Sheck)
FW: Decoction mashing question posed by Kevin Elsken ("Sieben, Richard")
FW: aha financials ("Sieben, Richard")
Oxygenation ("J. Kish")
Flavor Balance Equation ("Martin Brungard")
Re: basic Q's (Mike Uchima)
The First Annual Blue Ridge Brew Off ("Jay and Arlene Adams")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo@hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
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, 15 Nov 1999 02:22:18 -0500
From: phil sides jr <psides@carl.net>
Subject: Re: Garbage pails, cider
>My current primary has cranked through over 160 gallons this year
alone,
What state are you in Jonathan? ;-)
Phil Sides, Jr.
Condord, NH
- --
Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:20:04 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: Re: aha 98 financials
>Revenues 98 final
<snip>
>total $712,556.61
>Expenses
<snip>
>total $653,237.24
This looks like a balance sheet type format, but I just don't
see it balancing.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:57:19 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Decoction/pH & Conversion
Kevin asks:
>When the instructions say 'take the thickest one third of the mash',
how
>do you quickly and accurately measure the one third?
There must be dozzens of answers to this but here's how I do it. Armed
with a large strainer and a 2 qt stainless steel pitcher in the other I
fearlessly approach the mash vessel. I scoop up a strainerfull of mash,
wait a few seconds for most of the liquid to drain (not letting it
splash) and then scoop from the strainer into the pitcher which then
gets dumped into the decoction vessel. Note that the 1/3 is just a
guideline. You may need more or less depending on thickness of mash,
temperature step, loss during boil etc. The first couple of times you do
this be ready with both boiling (in case you undershoot) and cold (in
case you overshoot) water.
The strainer is used in the same way for the second decoction. For the
third it is used as a stuykmanden i.e. it is pushed into the mash and
the liquid ladeled out from the center.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mike wrote:
>Mash pH was 4.5 after mashing-in. The problem was with conversion.
Should that be 5.4? If 4.5 was really meant then something is out of
kilter here. Certainly 4.5 is well below the recommended compromise pH
range of 5.2 - 5.6 and will have a detrimental effect on conversion.
Looking at the grain bill I see a lot of caramel and crystal malt. If
the water is very low on alkalinity I suppose it's possible that these
malts, comprising 8% of the grist, could pull the pH that low. The fix
is to use enough calcium carbonate (chalk), mixed into the mash in
small increments, to get the pH up to the low 5's.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 08:06:12 MST
From: "Doug Marion" <mariondoug@hotmail.com>
Subject: No foam
I just experienced something this weekend that I've never seen before in my
five years of brewing.Wondering if anyone else might have.
I brewed a 10 gal. all grain ESB this weekend. Everything went great. Got
the gravity I was shooting for and everything looks good. When I started
aerating with my oxygen bottle and stone, I didn't get any foaming of the
wort. It always foams when I aerate it. OK, no big deal, I thought. It
started active fermenting withing 10-12hrs. At heavy ferment,though, it
still never foamed up. Even under strong heavy ferment, the bubbles
dissapear on the top. No foaming. I've never seen this before.
The only thing different with this batch was a different water source.
>From a creek in the mountains. Done that before though. Shouldn't be a
problem. And for the first time I used Star San sanitizer in my fermenter. I
always used iodaphor before. Does the film thats left behind from the Star
San act as a foam inhibitor? I wouldn't think so.
Has this happened to anyone before? Any info from anyone who might know
would be helpful. Don't know if this suggests a problem and my finished beer
might not have any foam stability or if I just shouldn't worry about it.
Either private e-mail or post. Thanks in advance.
Doug Marion
Meridian Idaho
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:29:13 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Secrets of The Horizontal Pour?
Bill Coleman of Brooklyn, NY <MaltyDog@aol.com> has trouble pouring his
cork sealed beers without disturbing the sediment.
I suggest that for your party next weekend you stand the bottles up and
quickly twist them back and forth to loosen the sediment from the side of
the bottle without roiling the beer. I've done this with success - the
yeast falls pretty much straight down. It takes several sessions but you
should end up with clear beer and the yeast on the bottom in a few days.
The corks won't dry in that short time.
When I designed my wine cellar, I tipped each bin back about 15 degrees so
the sediment slips to the bottom of each bottle while the cork stays wet.
I always store the bottles with the label up so I know where the sediment
is. Then you can open the bottle vertically and pour (or decant in the
case of wine) nearly all without disturbing the sediment. In my first
cellar, I used stacked 4"x12" red clay drain tiles and just put a wood
strip under the front of the first layer. You will probably first have to
loosen the sediment and stand the bottles up for a week or two to get most
of it to the bottom as the yeast may be stickier than the typical red wine
sediment, which slides down the slope easily. Of course, this technique
may work without the slanted storage if all of the sediment settles in that
week or two.
For old vintage port with a heavily crusted sediment, this can be a real
problem, especially as the corks may be pretty fragile and getting them out
may disturb the sediment. One answer is a specially made tong-like device
that is heated in a fire and then closed around the neck of the bottle just
below the cork. This neatly cracks the neck with (it says here) no glass
fragments. I've seen it done (on a '60 Dow, I think) by Dick Sheer, owner
of the Village Corner here in Ann Arbor, a great wine shop. Dick also has
no problem filtering cloudy port through a coffee filter. Don't think this
would work with Belgian beer. ;-)
Hope this helps.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:00:14 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions
Bob in Texas <RobertS735@aol.com> asks some "Basic Questions." I'll tackle
some of them that I know something about and leave the rest for others:
>Q2. First Wort Hopping: Am I missing something here or is the only difference
>between a FWH schedule and a "normal" schedule that you put the hops into the
>wort before it begins to boil-as opposed to waiting for the boil to begin-
>then adding the hops?
FWHing is steeping the hops at runoff temperature (~170F) for the entire
sparge/runoff or lauter time, ~ one hour. It is this long steep at lower
temperature that makes the difference. See
http://brew.oeonline.com/ddraper/beer/1stwort.html for Dave Drapers summary.
>Q4. Reference above #3 which "splash pattern" is better when racking from
>finished fermenter to bottling bucket to avoid oxidation?
When racking, put the end of the hose *below* the surface of the liquid in
the receiving vessel for no splashing.
>
>Q5. I still use my mouth to start the siphon.... is this a cardinal sin? 39
>batches so far- no apparent contamination.
I did it too without problems for years, but I feel better when I use a
sanitized 3 inch piece of clear plastic racking cane (I always seem to
break these so there are always scraps around) on the end of the hose to
suck on, which I remove when the hose is nearly full. A clamp helps.
>Q6. Can I split the boil of my 6.5 gallon wort (after the sparge) into two
>batches so they boil faster and thus save time? Should I re-join them after
>the cooling and before pouring or racking into fermenter or pour one then the
>other?
Sure. I'd combine them after they're cool so you reduce the chance of hot
side aeration.
>
>Q7. Can you infer, or even deduce, something (anything) from the nature of
>the finished beer by looking or smelling the blow-off? I love the way this
>stuff smells, as does my SO. Too bad it dosen't have a better use.
When it's not the dreaded "wotten egg" smell of lagers (and some others), I
too love this fruity smell. However, even if/when it's bad, I don't think
you can conclude anything. Wait to taste it, and if it seems bad, then
wait to taste it when it's aged.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:32:46 -0600
From: Rob Dewhirst <robd@biocomplexity.nhm.ukans.edu>
Subject: Emeril and Garbage pails
>From: Kurt Kiewel <kiewel@mail.chem.tamu.edu>
>Subject: Fermenting in garbage cans?
>
>Dave Burley ferments in plastic covered garbage cans.
If the garbage can is not food grade, it may have either antibacterial
additives in the plastic, or chemical residues leftover from the things
used to extrude the plastic.
>From: Brad Miller <millerb@targen.com>
>Subject: Emeril Live Homebrew
>
> The other day while watching food TV one of their chef's, Emeril
>Laggasse, had a pub special. He made "pub food" and even went as far as to
>make "beer". Normaly this guy is sweet, at least with food. The beer
>though is another issue. Each step he did was wrong and detremental to the
>beer. Did anyone else see this? It would be a good one to watch out for
>to have a good laugh or get mad at.
I saw this and couldn't diagree more. Yes, I cringed at his mucked up air
lock, and a lot of other things he did, but this was on the whole good
exposure of the hobby to the general public. Personally, I think every
homebrewer I know got started doing exactly the same thing Emeril did on
TV. I know I didn't even start out using whole hop plugs like he did.
The show on the whole also did a good job of covering the subject of craft
ales (calling domestic beers "seltzer water beers"), and talking about the
history of beer making in general.
In a time when homebrewing is in a general decline, we should be thankful
that a well-watched TV personality devotes time on his show to explaining
how easy GOOD beer is to make, and how to enjoy beer by style.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:28:20 -0800
From: "Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell" <defalcos@insync.net>
Subject: inquiring minds
Bob in Texas asks:
"First Wort Hopping: Am I missing something here or is the only
difference
between a FWH schedule and a "normal" schedule that you put the hops
into the
wort before it begins to boil-as opposed to waiting for the boil to
begin-
then adding the hops?"
Procedurally, this is the only difference, however, in terms of the
final product, FWH will produce a more prominent hop character, so
you'll want to add some of those low alpha, high fragrance hops to the
kettle before heating to a boil. If you just change your schedule to
adding your bittering hops prior to the boil rather than several minutes
into it, you will just bring out the character of those bittering hops.
This could be good or not so good, depending upon what you're bittering
with.
"Aeration or Oxidation.... when racking wort into the fermenter should I
let the hose run down the side of the fermenter and smoothly spread out
-
thus maximizing the surface area in order to aerate... or do I aim that
sucker right down the middle making a big splash? Which seems better?. .
.which "splash pattern" is better when racking from finished fermenter
to bottling bucket to avoid oxidation?"
When transferring your wort from the kettle into the fermenter, I'd
recommend that you just splash it down the middle and aerate the wort as
much as possible. Conversely, when transferring from fermenter to
fermenter or bottling bucket, you'll want to avoid splashing as much as
possible. Make sure your syphon hose reaches the bottom of the
fermenter/bottling bucket and, if need be, "let the hose run down the
side" to minimize splashing and aeration.
"I still use my mouth to start the siphon.... is this a cardinal sin? 39
batches so far- no apparent contamination."
I suppose "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!" Perhaps you should gargle
with 151 rum just prior to sucking on that syphon hose. Go ahead,
swallow. These days I generally sanitize the hose and then fill it with
water using the water pressure from the tap. I then clamp the tube off,
trapping the water inside. I then set everything up and simply unclamp
the hose and it'll start itself. You may not want to do this if you
have some reason to suspect your local water supply. It's been known to
happen in Texas. BTW Fermtech makes a relatively new device called the
Auto-Siphon which will start the siphon easily with no sucking at all.
They'll run $10 to $15 at your local homebrew shop (I think we sell'em
for $11.95).
"Can I split the boil of my 6.5 gallon wort (after the sparge) into two
batches so they boil faster and thus save time? Should I re-join them
after
the cooling and before pouring or racking into fermenter or pour one
then the
other?"
I've split my boil dozens of times. It works fine. I don't think it
really matters whether you "marry" them before or after cooling. Hey,
they're going to end up in the same fermenter, anyway, eh?!
"Can you infer, or even deduce, something (anything) from the nature of
the finished beer by looking or smelling the blow-off? I love the way
this
stuff smells, as does my SO. Too bad it doesn't have a better use."
If the beer smells good at this stage, it is probably a good sign that
your beer will be clean, if not necessarily "good" (i.e. well balanced
and formulated). Just consider it to be an early indicator of things to
come. That's my two cents worth, anyway. . .
Scott Birdwell
DeFalco's
Houston (Hey, that's in Texas, too!)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:31:48 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Barley/Corn Extract
"Susie O'Mahoney" <breck@communique.net> asked:
>Anyone out there used the 30% corn extract marketed by St. Pat's? This
>looks like an interesting alternative to all-grain when making a CAP. If
>anyone has used it, what kind of points/lb/gal did you get, what color
>was the resultant beer, yeast/hop combinations, comments in general?
I have my doubts about this. I went to the St. Pat's site and found that
it is a briess product, and went to their page
http://www.briess.com/Products/gl.htm for their "Golden Lager Concentrated
Brewers Wort," which is no doubt the produt St. Pat's is selling. I see
several problems suggesting that this is not going to produce what you
want. First is color - 10-15L for a 10% dilution. Bass Pale Ale is 11L,
6L is the upper limit for CAP. Second, the product is not made by mashing
30% corn with malt but rather by adding 30% corn solids, which means, to my
mind, corn sugar, although not the 100% fermentable stuff we prime our
bottles with, I am sure, but one produced with a similar balance of sugars
as normal wort. However, this will be essentially flavorless, and corn has
flavor. I have convinced myself of this by brewing a rice adjunct brew
that I felt was lacking the flavor I get from corn.
Williams Brewing marketed an extra light liquid extract a few years ago
that was made from a similar percentage of corn *mashed* with malt, but
they discontinued it before CAP became an established style. I never used
it so I don't know how it was, but it would have been very pale, I'm sure.
I used their light years back and found it gave a pale gold color. It
would be nice if they made this again or if Briess would mash with corn.
Of course, they can do it cheaper by mashing 100% malt and adding the corn
solids later.
I think that for true CAP you need to mash.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 09:45:24 -0600
From: Rob Dewhirst <robd@biocomplexity.nhm.ukans.edu>
Subject: Re: Sanitizers in septic systems
At 12:27 AM 11/12/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 23:51:37 -0800
>From: "Alison, Colin, Scott Birdwell" <defalcos@insync.net>
>Subject: Star San
>
>Dan Ritter was asking about Star San and excessive foaming
>
>"I just tried Star San as a sanitizer for the first time. I have been
>using
>Iodophor for as long as I can remember but, because I don't want to dump
>
>any sanitizer into my septic system,
Our county extension office holds a "rural living" seminar once a year, and
they cover several subjects in one hour sessions given by the experts in
the office on each subject.
Septic systems were discussed this year, and the question of sanitizing
chemicals such as bleach was asked specifically. The answer from our
expert was this won't hurt it, even in large quantities. The colony of
organisms in a septic system rebounds very quickly. The procedure of
pumping out a septic tank (which is RECOMMENDED on a regular basis) removes
far more than chemicals can.
So don't worry. If your septic system is healthy it shouldn't be a problem.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 10:46:40 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: new Briess malt
Has anybody tried the new "Extra Special Malt" from Briess? It's described
in an article in the October, 1999 newsletter on their home page
http://www.briess.com/ and on a product spec page
http://www.briess.com/Products/es.htm.
>From the newsletter:
"2-row barley variety is double processed for a raisiny flavor
"A complex-flavored malt that lends itself to all beer styles is one of
several new malts introduced by Briess recently.
"Extra Special Malt has a touch of a biscuity, slight raisiny flavor. It's
very smooth with no astringency of dark roasted malts," explained technical
services representative Jim Basler. It's not as biscuity as Briess' Victory
Malt, he continued, and the special double-process developed by the Briess
research and development team contributes an appealing raisiny flavor.
"Because it's not sweet, the 130 L malt can be used as coloring for any
style of beer where you don't want sweetness, Jim said. It'll make a great
Belgian ale, too, he added.
"In particular, Jim thinks it's a great malt to use when brewing a red or
bock beer. "Extra Special Malt can be used in place of Caramel 120 L to
achieve a deep red hue without sweet toffeeness," he explained. As a
result, there's no need to heavily hop to offset the sweetness of caramel.
"That gives brewers tons of room for experimenting, because sweetness can
then be derived from the base malt using a higher mash temperature. Jim
recommends trying Briess' Bonlander Munich Malt for part of the base malt
bill. Doing so will result in a decidedly different flavor than if caramel
malt had been used as the sweetener."
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:42:27 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Plastic fermenters, 40# Propane tank, gushing Belgians
Brewsters:
Kurt Kiewel asks how I clean plastric fermenters and
aren't I worried about the scratch hiding
microorganisms momily. Very easily. and no.
I don't know who started the idea about scratches
in plastic being a problem, but I would like to see
some hard data. I also ask those carboy owners
who use a wire handle carboy brush to look at the
carboy around the shoulder and see if you don't
also have scratches. Frankly, the only way the
scratch could be a problem is if it has organic
material in it, which is always possible if its not
thoroughly clean.This is true if it is glass or plastic.
So cleanliness is the issue and not scratches.
The biggest difference is the plastic fermenter
is softer and easier to scratch but is much easier
to clean and apply pressure and scrubbing to a
particularly stubborn area of gunk with those
marvelous tools that took millions of years
to develop - your fingers.
How do I do this? With a piece of paper towel
and pure bleach ( rubber gloves). You should
avoid scrubbies and the like as your common
sense would tell you. I would, of course, suggest
that you not use scouring powder containing
silica ( many now use calcium carbonate) on
glass either.
Do I think scratches are a problem? Not in my
case as I have used the same fermenters for
years and years with no problem from
contamination. My method is simple. Clean the
fermenter immediately after use with a stream of
hot water to "melt" the oily gunk off as much as
possible. While hot, a cup or so of pure bleach
is rolled around to cover all surfaces. A paper
towel dipped in this bleach is used to remove
any stubborn gunk and the area of the ring is
scrubbed with the paper towel. Dilute with
hot water and coat all surfaces and rinse with
hot water. Turn upside down to drain and dry.
If it falls off the sink it doesn't break. Which is
probably why I have been able to use the
same fermenters for such a long time.
Carboy users are often forced to soak a
fermenter to remove this ring of gunk.
Unless you are conscientious, a carboy
can sit with a dilute solution of protein and
carbohydrates for a long period. This is
dangerous, as you might imagine, since
I imagine, without any proof, an organic film
with perhaps microorganisms can develop
on the conatiner wall and under any beerstone.
Incidentally, I have never noticed a coating of
beerstone on plastic. Maybe it is my cleaning
method or maybe it doesn't stick to
polyethylene, don't know.
Understand, please, I am not against carboy
use, but just not for the primary fermentation.
I use carboys for my secondaries and often
for my diacetyl rests and the like, where violent
fermentation cannot make a mess and cleaning
the carboy thoroughly is not a problem.
- ----------------------------------------
Brett Schneider's wish list included a 40#
propane tank. Why not just use the rental
tanks and avoid this expenditure. Just don't
count this deposit as an expenditure. If you
are insistent on not changing tanks during a
brew ( and I presume why you want a 40#er),
some sort of "y" connector could be used on the
standard 20# tanks to connect these tanks
in parallel. Your cost would be reduced to the
connections. Gurus here on the HBD could
probably comment on a safe way to do this
or if there are problems.
- ---------------------------------------
Bill Coleman has trouble with gushing beers
from Belgium and has acquired resting baskets.
I can suggest you get the beer as cold
as you can to reduce the gushing. I suggest
you store the beers straight up to chill them and
use these baskets to hold the incompletely
poured bottle. Alternatively, pour all of a bottle
once you open it into several glasses without
tipping it back up. Many Belgians are cloudy
( not always the yeast) and some claim need
the yeast to get the proper taste. Others will
have to comment on which ones those are.
I have seen Belgians, Germans and Brits who
insist the yeast should be stirred back in. I don't
agree in most cases, unless it is "mit hefe"style.
- -----------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:40:48 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: Re: Carboy Cleaning
C'mon guys, this is easy!
put a 1/4 cup of electric dishwashing powder in the carboy,
fill with water and dissolve, leave it alone for a few days
and come back and wash it out. No muss, no fuss.
Better you should do a primary in plastic for 3-4 days then
rack to glass. No blow off probs, either.
Bob Sheck
bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC
email:bsheck@skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
- -------------
"Madness takes its toll -- Please have exact change!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:51:43 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: RE: 3 Tiered Home brewery
Joe (and anyone else who's interested)
Any kine lid would be OK for the HLT. - Or none,
except then you'd lose heat out the top! Plywood would
be OK too! Even if splinters fell into it. After all,
this water is going into the mash, and then it will be boiled,
so don't worry about sanitation at this stage!
As for volume amounts- I would figger on having a mash-tun
that could hold at least 20 pounds of grain- this will be
equiv to a 12 gal container (the stuff swells up when you
wet it down with mash water!) - I have a 1/2 keg that I use
for really big mashes and adjuncts- like if you wanna do a
pumpkin or wheat you have to figger you're gonna hafta add
a couple pounds of rice hulls which really can swell the
volume!)
Then, as a boiling vessel, I would want at least a 1/2 keg
to hold a 10 gal batch of wort.
Anyways, I like the way you think- using a SS pool filter
container. Where can the rest of us find these things?
>Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 17:07:11 -0600 (CST)
From: TO1JRB@webtv.net (Joe Berlin)
>I'm just getting into all grain brewing. I'm going to use a 14in.
>diameter x23in. ss pool filter tank as a HLT. I have a ss tank 16in
>diameter x 56in. that will be cut into 2 pots for the Mash/Lauter Tun
>and the brew Kettle .How tall should I make each of the tank parts to
>get the most volume out of what I have? What will the volume of the
>Brewing Kettle and MLT be ? At a later day I may make this into a HERMS
>or RIMS. Would a plexiglass lid be ok for the HLT and Brewing Kettle?
>Thank you good people for your input to a newbie . From the future home
>of the "Hair of the dog Brewery" Joe Berlin
>
>
Bob Sheck
bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC
email:bsheck@skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
- -------------
"Madness takes its toll -- Please have exact change!"
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:34:44 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: RE: Munton's Wheat LME
It could be that the malt had 'aged' in-situ. Check with
your homebrew shop supplier and see if they changed drums.
It does get pretty hot there in Florida!
And mistakes do happen. Maybe it's not the supplier's fault
after all.
I've always had good luck with Muntons products.
Bob Sheck
>Paul Haaf wrote several days ago:
>
>Lately I've been purchasing Munton's Wheat LME in the 3 gal (33 lb)
>'buckets'. The last batch that I bought was NOT wheat malt.
>
>I have a similar experience involving this product. I recently crafted two
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 12:42:38 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Basic Questions
>>>>> "RobertS735" == RobertS735 <RobertS735@aol.com> writes:
RobertS735> Q1. Why do we say that a sanitizing boil is 20 minutes
RobertS735> in duration? ...
Well, the NJ dept of health recommended 1 minute rolling boil during
the Hurricane Floyd "boil water advisory." So 20 seems like
overkill. (http://www.state.nj.us/health/boilwater.htm)
RobertS735> Same question on chlorine bath... if I make the bath
RobertS735> with relatively more chlorine can it be quicker?
Yes, but you'll have to rinse more thoroughly. There's a nice article
in the Brewing Techniques archive, see
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.2/raines.html
Seems to me there was a more recent one, but I can't find it.
RobertS735> Q2. First Wort Hopping: ... you put the hops into the
RobertS735> wort before it begins to boil-as opposed to waiting
RobertS735> for the boil to begin- then adding the hops?
You add the hops as you start the run-off from the mash tun.
RobertS735> Q3. Aeration or Oxidation.... run down the side
RobertS735> ... smoothly spread out ... or making a
RobertS735> big splash?
You got me on this one.
RobertS735> Q4. Reference above #3 which "splash pattern" is
RobertS735> better when racking from finished fermenter to
RobertS735> bottling bucket to avoid oxidation?
Don't splash at all. Run it all the way to the buttom so that the end
of the hose is submerged almost all the time.
RobertS735> Q5. I still use my mouth to start the siphon.... is
RobertS735> this a cardinal sin? 39 batches so far- no apparent
RobertS735> contamination.
Lucky... :-)
RobertS735> Q6. Can I split the boil of my 6.5 gallon wort (after
RobertS735> the sparge) into two batches so they boil faster and
RobertS735> thus save time?
I don't see why not. I do this sometimes.
RobertS735> call me Bob in Texas
What should I call you in Michigan?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 11:08:48 -0800
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: wheat beer problem
collective homebrew conscience_
mike w wrote:
>The grain bill and mash schedule was as follows:
> 7 lbs. German Wheat Malt
> 3 lbs. Munich Light malt
> .5 lbs. German Caramel
> 1 lbs. Flaked Wheat
> .5 lbs. Crystal, 40L
>Mash pH was 4.5 after mashing-in.<snip>then a decoction was pulled and
>temp held at 158 for over an hour with no conversion indicated by starch
test. >Decoct was added to main mash and temps brought through to 158 and
>conversion was not indicated after over an hour and a half.
<snip>If the problem with slow conversion was with the low diastatic
>power of the malts, why do other recipes having a similar grain bill work
>OK? Should I add some 2 or 6 row to speed things up? Were mash temps >too
high?
i would say try and get your mash ph up in the 5.5 to 5.8 range (@room temp)
next time, if possible. getting a ph of 4.5 with the above malt bill looks
a little unusual (very soft water and/or weird mineral content), unless you
also added gypsum/calcium chloride/acid. if the mineral content of your
water is able to pull the ph down that far without caso4/cacl2/acid, maybe
you should dilute it with a little distilled and use calcium carbonate next
time. otherwise forget the caso4/cacl2/acid totally and replace it with
caco3, if necessary.
as far as enzymes go, alpha amylase activity is going to be lower than you
want it at ph 4.5. alpha works best at ph levels close to 5.8 or so.
consider also that beta amylase, at 158degf, is going to go away (denature)
pretty quickly. so after a short period you've got mostly alpha amylase in
a bad ph range for activity. this is likely a big part of the problem.
you also mention that "other" recipes using this exact malt bill work out
just fine. that tells you there are sufficient enzymes, given the right
conditions. are you also decocting them and using the same temperature
rests? if the ingredients are identical, then it must be a process
difference.
as a last resort, have a half pound of 2-row lager malt ready next time, and
if you run into the same problem, even after getting the ph up in the proper
range, use the lager malt. this doesn't solve the fundamental problem, but
it will help your brew day go faster.
fnally, check your thermometer and ph meter, if applicable.
hope this helps.
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:08:59 -0700 (MST)
From: "Robert A. Uhl" <ruhl@austinc.edu>
Subject: Re: Engineering or Science?
Messrs. Babcock & Prather write on whether brewing is a science or
engineering, pointing out that engineering _is_ a science. I don't recall
the original poster's question, but figured I'd guess at it.
It seems to be a perennial question: is brewing a science? Or is it
something else, an art or some form of engineering?
Probably we will never agree. There are those who utilise every
scientific tool they can get their hands on, measure temperature to tenths
of a degree, apply corrections to hydrometers, use thermostats to achieve
a temperature range similar to a Munich or Flemish cellar, send in samples
of their beer for lab analysis and otherwise make a science of it. They
make good beer and enjoy it.
There are those who throw a little bit of this and a little bit of that in
the mix, who haven't touched a hydrometer in years and use a meat
thermometer for mashing (or use an infusion mash and no thermometer at
all; it _is_ poss., although I'd not recommend it), ferment in a closet,
grow their own hops, don't `waste' a drop of beer and otherwise treat it
as an art. They make good beer and enjoy it.
There are those who do a little of each. _They_ make good beer and enjoy
it.
As long as you're having a good time and like what you make, relax, don't
worry and HAVE A HOMEBREW.
Say what you might about CP, he did have a point with that slogan.
Bob Uhl, who is dreaming of the nut brown ale back at his flat...
------------------------------
Date: 16 Nov 99 09:57:56 PST
From: Ben Newman <benewman@netscape.net>
Subject: The joy of siphoning!
In HBD#3170, Bob in Texas asks -
>>Q5. I still use my mouth to start the siphon.... is this a cardinal
sin?
>>39 batches so far- no apparent contamination.
For me it's an easy way to get a quick taste of the beer to be. But
seriously, I've always siphoned this way with no ill effects, and I do
draw a
little off for testing (gravity, colour etc..) and further sampling.
My first few siphoning attempts did create quite a mess, but once you get
used
to it it's quick and easy.
Keep on brewin'
Ben Newman
____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:27:29 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: RE: system queries!
Remember the difficulty NASA got into mixing
measuring types - can we keep everything English or
Metric _in the same post?_ (ie: pounds/liters, below)
Things are hard enough for my homebrew-sodden head!
>Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 09:47:23 -0600
>From: DAN ELGART <cogneeeto@earthlink.net>
>
>2)Commonly- the initial rest temp.( for home brewers) is achieved by
>starting with a known water Vol.+ a known grain Vol.
>(usually at a pound of grain per liter of water) producing an expected
Bob Sheck
bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC
email:bsheck@skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
- -------------
"Madness takes its toll -- Please have exact change!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:48:29 -0600
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: FW: Decoction mashing question posed by Kevin Elsken
> Kevin asked, "When the instructions say 'take the thickest one third of
> the mash', how
> do you quickly and accurately measure the one third?"
>
> I have calibration marks on my stiring spoon and I just check the depth of
> the full mash and roughly guestimate where on the spoon the mash should be
> after taking the decoction. It's quick and easy. But, my experience is
> that you should take 50% of the volume of the mash for the thick decoction
> because the thickest part of the mash will not hold as much heat content
> as the later thin decoctions. If you only take 1/3 you will not be able
> to raise your temp from 122 to 150 without adding additional heat either
> via infusion or direct fire. ( I am talking from the frame of reference
> of using a picnick cooler mash tun, to which you can't add heat directly.)
>
> Good luck on your brew,
>
> Rich Sieben
> Island Lake, IL
> (not on the island, nor on the lake...just in the town)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 15:46:21 -0600
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: FW: aha financials
> >Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 20:45:03 -0500
> >From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@vms.arizona.edu>
> >Subject: aha 98 financials
> >
> >the AHA is swamped so I thought I'd post this here befor eit appears on
> >their web site.
> shortened for brevity.....
> >Research $53.70
>
> $53.70? for research? What did they buy, two cases of Sam Adams?
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> wow, so extensive....this will REALLY promote homebrewing.
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 14:40:26 -0800
From: "J. Kish" <jjkish@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Oxygenation
When Tom O'Conner ran his cooled wort into his fermenter
that got oxygen squirted into it, he should try putting a
clamp on the end of the tubing so that the wort 'squirts' in
a thin stream through the oxygen, or plain air, too. It gets
aerieated (or oxygenated) to the max.
It works like a charm, and there is no need to shake
the carboy.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 17:37:31 EST
From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard@hotmail.com>
Subject: Flavor Balance Equation
I have done some research recently regarding flavor balance in beer and I
need some learned brewers comments on the information I've gathered.
I like to have an idea of a beer's flavor balance (sweetness vs. bitterness)
before I attempt the brew. I have found a recipe calculator at
http://www.cellar-homebrew.com/cgi-bin/calc/calc
that provides an indication of flavor balance with respect to the IBU and
S.G. of the brew. From what I could tell by comparing with Promash, the
recipe calculator above probably uses the Garetz IBU formula. Through trial
and error, I have deduced the equations used in the calculator to estimate
the flavor balance. The relationship is described below:
Very Bitter 12 IBU per 10 points S.G.
Balanced 7 IBU per 10 points S.G.
Very Sweet 2.75 IBU per 10 points S.G.
Researching the HBD archives provided 2 conflicting IBU/S.G. relationships
for a balanced beer. In an early post, a relationship of 8 IBU per 10 points
S.G. was reported. That was subsequently disputed and a relationship of 4
IBU per 10 points S.G. was provided.
I realize that there may be other factors involved with estimating flavor
balance, but I was hoping that some of you could comment on the
applicability of the relationships above and if there was some other
references to this type of flavor criteria.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
"Meandering to a different drummer"
______________________________________________________
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:13:08 -0600 (CST)
From: Mike Uchima <uchima@enteract.com>
Subject: Re: basic Q's
Bob in Texas asks a bunch of questions...
> Q1. Why do we say that a sanitizing boil is 20 minutes in duration? Is there
> a study somewhere that has experimented on this? What I mean is; do I really
> have to boil my priming water and sugar for 20 minutes? What about 15 or 12?
> Same question on chlorine bath... if I make the bath with relatively more
> chlorine can it be quicker?
I'm sure there's a study that says "X percent of microbes killed in a Y
minute boil", but I haven't seen it.
I generally boil my priming sugar briefly (5 minutes or less), yeast
starters for Wyeast packs somewhat longer (around 10 minutes). When I
brew with honey, I typically add it during the last few minutes of the
boil. I haven't had a problem with any of these procedures.
More chlorine should work faster, but you may need to wear rubber
gloves...
> Q2. First Wort Hopping: Am I missing something here or is the only difference
> between a FWH schedule and a "normal" schedule that you put the hops into the
> wort before it begins to boil-as opposed to waiting for the boil to begin-
> then adding the hops?
Actually, they are added at the start of the *sparge*, and the collected
wort is run off onto them. Supposedly, at sparging temperatures, there is
some sort of reaction which stabilizes some of the hop flavor/aroma
compounds, and allows them to survive the boil intact.
> Q3. Aeration or Oxidation.... when racking wort into the fermenter should I
> let the hose run down the side of the fermenter and smoothly spread out -
> thus maximizing the surface area in order to aerate... or do I aim that
> sucker right down the middle making a big splash? Which seems better?
I don't know that one is significantly better than the other. I aim it
down the center, then after all of the wort has been transferred, I rock
the carboy until I've got a huge head of foam -- I figure this probably
has a much bigger effect on O2 levels, than how I transfer the wort.
> Q4. Reference above #3 which "splash pattern" is better when racking
> from finished fermenter to bottling bucket to avoid oxidation?
Neither. Get a hose that is long enough to reach all the way to the
bottom, or use a second racking cane, to avoid splashing altogether.
> Q5. I still use my mouth to start the siphon.... is this a cardinal sin? 39
> batches so far- no apparent contamination.
There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence both ways on this one --
people who claim to have infected batches by mouth siphoning, and those
who say they've done it many times with no ill effects. My personal take
on this is, "Why take a chance?". I do start my siphons by mouth, but I
use the nozzle of a turkey baster as a sanitary mouthpiece.
> Q6. Can I split the boil of my 6.5 gallon wort (after the sparge) into two
> batches so they boil faster and thus save time? Should I re-join them after
> the cooling and before pouring or racking into fermenter or pour one then the
> other?
I've done a lot of "split boils" (pair of 5 gallon pots on the two front
burners of my stove), because the location of the upper oven on my stove
makes it impossible to physically fit anything taller than a 5 gallon pot.
As long as you allow for twice as much volume loss to evaporation, you
should be fine. Split the hops more or less evenly (just eyeball it)
between the two pots.
I actually collect the runnings for the two pots separately (hey, since I
can't fit a bigger pot on the stove, *all* of my pots are 5 gallons or
less). I even out the gravity between the two pots somewhat, by
collecting 1/4 of my runnings into pot A, then 1/2 of the runnings into
pot B, then the final 1/4 of the runnings back into pot A.
I doubt whether you combine before or after transferring to the fermenter
makes any difference. In my case, I chill one, then rack it to the
fermenter while the other one chills.
> Q7. Can you infer, or even deduce, something (anything) from the nature of
> the finished beer by looking or smelling the blow-off? I love the way this
> stuff smells, as does my SO. Too bad it dosen't have a better use.
Good smell coming from the fermenter usually means good beer. Bad smell
coming from the fermenter *still* usually means good beer. :-)
> Ideas? opinions? all welcomed and if I get any private replies I will
> consolidate into a post.
> thanks.
>
> call me Bob in Texas
Hi, Bob in Texas!
- --
== Mike Uchima == uchima@pobox.com ==
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 20:17:22 -0500
From: "Jay and Arlene Adams" <goosepoint@teleplex.net>
Subject: The First Annual Blue Ridge Brew Off
The results of The First Annual Blue Ridge Brew Off are available on our web
site http://www.caveartmedia.com/malt/brbo.html. Congratulations to Al
Clayson of the Carolina Brewmasters for winning best of show, Brian Cole of
MALT for winning second best ot show, and Bill and Christie Newman of BURP
for winning third best of show.
Jay Adams
Organizer, Blue Ridge Brew Off
Mountain Ale and Lager Tasters (MALT)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3171, 11/17/99
*************************************
-------
