Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3189
HOMEBREW Digest #3189 Wed 08 December 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: RIMS and Stuck Mash (Ron and Sharon)
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
High gravity ferments (Bob Devine)
Reverse-RIMS (William Frazier)
Another RIMS heating design... (Terry Stinger)
Low pH/ASBC Bitterness (AJ)
FWH experiment ("Alan Meeker")
Re: RIMS comments; especially reverse RIMS (Lou.Heavner)
Foam Fineness (Dave Burley)
Beer and eggs ("Jack Schmidling")
Re-post (LaBorde, Ronald)
Re:First lager ("scott")
Pushing it too far? ("Tomusiak, Mark")
Aerating (Jacob Bogie)
Budvar malts & philosophical rants ("Jim Busch")
budvar malt again (jliddil)
SS wort chillers (Marc Sedam)
Re: First Lager Season questions (JDPils)
Kinds of Brewers (Dan Listermann)
going to San Fran on Friday - anyone want to get together? ("Alan McKay")
brewing software (Emily E Neufeld)
Scott's temperature conflict ("Sean Richens")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 19:40:11 -0600
From: Ron and Sharon <biohazrd@graceba.net>
Subject: RE: RIMS and Stuck Mash
I've been following the RIMS debate for a few days now and thought I
would finally put in my 2 cents worth.
I've been running a PBS (no relationship just a satisfied blah blah
blah) HERMS for about 2 years now (I think we were one of their early
customers for the HERMS) and have been brewing the best beers ever. I
think I may have some useful input.
1. For a fast flow rate without compressing the grainbed....STIR. I
stir the top 3/4 of my grainbed during temperature ramps and everything
works fine. If the flow slows down, stir deeper. A big paddel helps.
2. I have never detected any extra "bitterness" or tanic nature to my
beers. I make wine so I know what tannins are. The RIMS brews the best
beers and really increases extraction. My last mash measured 92.5%
efficiency, after I remembered to drain the heat exchanger.
3. A means of mixing wort from the heat exchanger and an exchanger
bypass is essential to maintaining a constant temperatue in your mash
tun. I can maintain a less than 1 degree temperature differential in my
mash indefinately by mixing bypass wort with heated wort to an inflow
temperature of 1.5 degrees F. over my desired mash temperature. Yes, I
do double and triple decoctions on occasion so I know what an indefinate
(infinate?) time is.
4. When using a HERMS with the heat exchanger in the hot liquor tank, a
burner under the mash tun is essential for reaching mash-out. Use the
HERMS to ramp up until the hot liquor is at sparge temp then turn on the
burner for the rest of the ramp, just a few minutes, and keep up the
flow rate if you are worried about scorching.
For doing decoctions in a 3 vessel system with large capacity, the RIMS
(HERMS) is the only way to go.
Ron and Sharon Montefusco
biohazrd@graceba.net
www.graceba.net/~biohazrd (stop by and take the Biohazard Brewery
tour, now completed)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 22:33:28 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@isunet.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
Paul Shick asks about his Nottingham probs....
I think your prob is with under-pitching....you refer to marginally low
ferm initiation temps as well...their influence may be part of this as
well...
But, I think you real prob comes from the fact that the 5 gram sachet
size is not the optimum for most fermentations....you state that you used
more...true...but not quite enough....
The truth of the matter is that when Lallemand got into the beer yeast
market for homebrewers, the adoption of the 5 gram sachet size was dictated
by the acceptance of the fact that 5 grams sachets were the industry
norm....
"The More We Know About Beer, The More We Realize That 5 gms Doesn't Cut
It.'
And as we speak, I understand that thoughts are going to alteration of
the nominal sachet size...but does it matter? Not really.....if you
understand that 5 gms is a marginal dry yeast pitching rate....
Your usage...6 gms in 5 gallons of 1.060, is seriously below my personal
preaching.....two 5 gm sachets for 5 gallons of 1.040 (10 P) wort......once
you bump up the gravity by 50 percent to 1.060...the need is greater.....
And this again leads us back to the discussion of 'lag' phase....
To me, lag phase means the amount of time between innoculation and first
budding of daughter cells....As opposed to most opinions that it means first
sign of bubbles....
I am not surprised, nor nervous with your times......the seem to be right
in the ball park...considering your gravity.....and the amount of yeast
pitched....
Your reports of other activity doesn't bother me either...though as Jeff
Renner notes a temp variance based on the thermal 'capacity' of a
carboy....and Pete Calinski supports the ferm temp diff....both good
points...and Dave Burley reports on 'glomerular' facets.... ;-)
All I can say is that the majority of my Lallemand/Danstar....'dry' yeast
practice is with 500 gms in 1.5 gallons of water as the re-hydrant....@
100F...
I would pour the yeast into the water...and stir the hell out of it,
until it was mixed in....I have never heard of this 'let it settle'
deal....and my object was to break up all the 'globs' so that all the yeast
could get to the water.....any O2 stirred in...(a benefit?...who
cares!)....then after 10-15/60 attemperate with chilled wort for 10-15/60
before pitching......into aerated wort....
For the homebrewer....simply take 2 sachets ...for your 'average'
brew...1.040(10p) Stir into a cupful or so of 100 F H2O...wait
10-15/60.......add to an equal amount of chilled wort..stir...wait
10-15-60...then pitch.....
For your 1.060 batches, I would have no hesitation to personally use 3 or
4 sachets per 5 gallons.....
Zymurgy/Ray Daniels
Has to be the best thing to come down the pike since Andy Walsh passed
the IOB!!! Seriously, we could go into all the failings of the AHA/AOB...
..BJCP/HWBTA/HBD/Form 990's/GABF-AHA Volunteers/ETC......(All of the
above were arrogant and stupid muck ups, of what should have been perfect
alliances.....ESPECIALLY the F-990's!....Gee, can you say, "If YOU won't
give me what the LAW REQUIRES, I'll ask the LAW to give it to me??!!)
Look, lets not fool ourselves on this.....Change has been coming for some
time...despite those that would say otherwise....
The fact that the membership got to elect a member of the Board last year
should have been a signpost to changes........More elections are in the
works.....one of the discussions at the last Nationals BoA meeting was
focused on which of the board members would give up their seat on the Board,
in order to make way for newly elected members...
The quiet work of those like Ray and the rest of the BoA....that you
never hear of....are finally paying off.....and those folks have been
working for years, for no pay, to correct the deficiencies that they have
seen...mostly without success...but this is changing....the appointment of
Ray to the Zymurgy editorship should be ample demonstration of that.....
And without being able to discuss other potential improvements to the
AHA/AOB, I will say that if the current crop of new ideas being pursued come
to fruition, even the most aggressive naysayers will hear that 'giant
sucking sound' as scores of jaws drop so fast that tornados will be created
in filling the voids.
Lallemand Scholarship....
Entries are coming in...and a few enterprising members are increasing
their chances of winning by being named as sponsor of newly joining
members....
Remember, this is for a full 2 weeks Short Course @ Siebel, along with
1000 dollars for travel and accomodations, total worth $3500. If you
currently a member of the AHA, it costs nothing to sign up ....
Go to http://www.aob.org/AHA/lallemand.htm for more info....
Cheers!
Jethro Gump
Rob Moline
Lallemand
jethro@isunet.net
AHA/BoA
brewer@isunet.net
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More
About Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 21:04:30 -0700
From: Bob Devine <bob.devine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: High gravity ferments
Many of the large commercial brewers produce beer through
a high-gravity fermentation with a later dilution at
bottling time.
Does anyone of a comparison study that shows the effect of
high gravity fermentation compared to constant gravity?
In my home brewing I find that higher gravity will have
increased ester production but lower hop efficiency.
I ask because I'm considering doing a mild soon and wanted
to increase the flavors in this low gravity beer.
Bob Devine
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 07:30:08 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Reverse-RIMS
I brew with pretty basic set-up but the recent reverse-RIMS
discussion caught my eye. In my former life I worked as a
research pharmacist developing formulas and manufacturing
methods. We used fluid bed technology to coat time release
beads that are found in all types of capsules.
The process uses an upward flow of heated air, drawn through a false
bottom that suspends drug containing beads in the air column, creating
a flow pattern that permitted spraying the beads with polymers
(to control drug release) without having them stick together.
For this to work the geometry of the machine, flow rates of heated
air and solution spraying had to be controlled, much like in your
RIMS systems. I think the reverse-flow RIMS is a feasible way to
increase liquid throughput and that some of the concerns about
husk separation and tunneling can be avoided by proper design
of the false bottom and diameter/height of the mash vessel.
Consider designing the false bottom to have different areas of
porosity so that the flowing wort does create motion of the grain bed.
It should be possible to have the entire grain bed moving in a
circular motion. This would eliminate any dead areas in the mash.
With a tall enough mash vessel the grain bed should remain
below the liquid level and the wort can decant off the top for
recirculation. Of course, the volume of mash liquor might have to
be too great for a proper conversion.
As for me, I will probably stay with my Polarware Brewpot
and Igloo Coolers.
Bill Frazier
Johnson County, Kansas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 08:06:43 -0500
From: Terry Stinger <STINGER_TERRY@Lilly.com>
Subject: Another RIMS heating design...
I have been working on a new design for a RIMS heating chamber. So
far this is only in the design stage. I haven't started to build it.
The recent descussion regarding counter-flow heaters (which I have built,
tested, and replaced - pictures available upon request). I believe
Louis Bohnam mentioned a brewer that is using oil (turned out to be glycol)
as the heating fluid.
>From this, I was thinking about a new type of heating element.
The design is quite similar to the older wort chillers, the one's with a
copper
coil inside of a 8" PVC shell. But here is the catch, what if the shell was
filled with OIL (maybe even motor oil - very affordable) and an electric water
heating element was mounted into the end of the shell. The heating element
could be just a cheap one from your local hardware. I think the element
would have to be the surface mount kind instead of the screw-in type.
Here are some pro's and con's:
THE PRO'S:
1) The heat exchange media (oil) could be controlled and maintained
at a temp not to damage the wort (170'F-200'F).
2) All of the components could be assembled into a "black box" or unit.
I imagine a PID controller and the two ends of the copper coil on the
face and a fuse and power lead on the back. Everything else would
be contained in the box.
3) The unit could be installed into a RIMS system very easily.
4) Utility requirements are only power. Either 120V or 220V.
5) Cleaning would be similar to washing out chiller. (various methods)
6) Very affordable!!! Even cheaper the a typical electric heating chamber.
THE CON'S
1) Would the element supply adequate heat capacity without lag times.
2) PVC chamber probably won't take the heat. A large copper chamber
could be used. May cost more!
I guess the only question and/or flaw so far is if the element could supply
enough BTU's into the exchange media without damaging the media or
the chamber. This seems like a design worth investigating. Who knows
it may turn into a product worth marketing.
This is just a suggestion, so take it easy on the comments.
Terry Stinger.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 14:12:29 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Low pH/ASBC Bitterness
Jim Dunlap asks about low mash pH. With water as soft as Seattle's the
mash pH will be set largely by the organic acids in the malts. Dark
malts contain a lot of acid and a fair amount of carbonate is required
to neutralize them. Munich water contains about 6 mEq/L of calcium and
about the same amount of bicarbonate (its pretty much devoid of anything
else). This corresponds to about 3 mM/L bicarbonate which is 0.3
grams/L. Thus the 0.75 grams of chalk Jim used was enough to treat 2.5 L
assuming the goal was to obtain Munich like water and the answer to his
Question 1 ( Should I be adding more CaCO3 or less?) is clearly "more".
But how much more. To start with as most of us know you can't dissolve
much chalk in water (actually you can but it's an elaborate process) so
the appropriate thing to do is to add it a gram at a time to the mash,
mix it in thoroughly, wait a couple of minutes and repeat until the
desired pH is reached. In decoction mashing the pH will drop about 0.05
- 0.1 per decoction so allow for this in setting the mash-in pH.
Question 2 was "Although the dark munich acidifies the mash, did the
added Ca decrease
the pH further than the CO3 could buffer?".
The answer is "no". Each millimole of chalk adds two milliequivalents to
the total alkalinity and two milliequivalents of calcium which are able
to offset only 2/3.5 of a milliequivalent of alkalinity. Thus the net
gain in alkalinity is 2 - 2/3.5 = 1.45 milliequivalents per millimole.
Question 3: ) Is there another salt or compound to add CO3 without the
calcium?
The anwer is "yes". Sodium carbonate (fly ash) is used in water
treatment to increase alkalinity and is, therefore, available from shops
that sell water treatment equipment (such as Culligan). Sodium hydroxide
(no carbonate from this but a strong base) is also used for this purpose
and can be obtained from the same source. Both are pretty strong
medicine. Stick with the chalk!
Question 4: ) Is there a simple "how to treat water text" or web sight
that could help
me?
Answer "no". I do have a couple of articles which I wrote for BT which I
can send you which go into some of the details of water treatment. I can
pdf them to you if you like - send me e-mail.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
RE George's (nice to see you back here!) comments on the ASBC bitterness
measurement: The method is certainly not perfect and this is recognized:
"Method A below [the method proposed by Louis] expresses the bitter
flavor of beer satisfactorily, regardless of whether the beer was made
with fresh or old hops. The European Brewery Convention has adopted the
'E.B.C. Bitterness units,' determined in a similar way, as a uniform
method that best expresses the true bitter flavor of beer." [ASBC
Methods of analysis: Beer -23, Beer Bitterness"]. Other methods, use
solid phase extraction and HPLC to actually measure iso-alpha acids. In
beers made with old hops or hop extracts, measurements predict
bitterness significantly lower than perceived. Method A does not suffer
from this shortcoming. From this it is clear that Method A does not
attempt to report mg/L iso-humulones but rather perceived bitterness.
Nonetheless it is subject to interferences. In particular, as noted in
the method description "...certain preservatives, such as n-heptyl
p-hydroxybebzoate and sorbates, and possibly some brewing adjuncts or
coloring agents, may contribute to absorbance at the wavelengths
specified in methods A [the one in question] and B [an archived
method]." It then goes on to say that Method A would be more sensitive
than the iso-alpha acid methods and that where such substances are known
to be present, checks for their effects should be done. As the gentlemen
from AB are much more likely to be using the problem causing materials
than we as home and craft brewers are I guess I am not too surprised
that they weren't surprised.
I'm not sure that spiking with standard humulones is going to be
terribly informative as 25A does not really try to measure their levels.
I'd hope that Beer's law would be obeyed over a reasonable range but it
seems to me that a more valuable investigation would be one in which
hopped and unhopped versions of the beer were brewed and their
bitternesses (is that a word?) measured using the unhopped beer as a
"reagent blank". Humulone standards are available from ASBC but they are
very expensive. A good lupuholic will, of course, be working with beers
in which the interfering substances are masked!
Most measurement standards are imperfect. Much of their value derives
from the fact that they are uniformly imperfect across laboratories
equipment and investigators insofar as this is possible. A good
illustration of how this works might be the requrements that all pilots
in a geographic region set their altimeters to the same barometric
pressure setting. A pilot whose altimeter reads 8000 is not really at
8000 feet but he is at the same altitude as everyone else whose
altimeter reads 8000 ft.
As a note to Louis: I don't think it's necessary to cetrifuge turbid
beers before starting 23A. The yeast and sediments stay with the
beer/acid phase. As you well know most samples of protein rich homebrew
need centrifugation at the end of shaking to separate the phases anyway.
On the other hand, lots of the bittering principal which is adsorbed on
the surface of the yeast will be extracted as is demonstrated by
comparing samples from which the yeast has been separated from those in
which it has not (of particular interest in comparing crystal and hefe
weizen from the same batch).
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:11:15 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: FWH experiment
A couple of comments on Louis' proposed FWH experiment:
1) Isn't the whole idea behind FWH to add the hops /before/ the onset of
boiling? You may want to modify the time of introduction of the hops to
sample #1.
2) Why not include a sample that gets NO hop additions as a negative
control.
3) It would be nice if you could correct for evaporative losses /during/ the
boil as decreases in volume may be expected to decrease utilization
(concomitant increase in wort SG due to decreased volume). If you don't
correct for this then the control, while being boiled for exactly the same
amount of time may be less efficiently utilized and the IBUs will come out
lower than the FWH arm of the experiment because in the former the hops are
being added to a higher SG wort. Don't know how much of a problem this would
actually be, will depend in large part on the set up. Correction could be
effected by occasionally topping off the boil with boiling water.
4) Before performing the IBU analysis I'd spin HARD not lightly.
5) Check the IBU levels both /before/ and after fermentation with yeast.
This would give some indication as to whether any IBU differences seen in
the FWH arm were being mediated by the activities of the yeast.
6) It might also be good to see if there are any other differences between
the resulting beers other than just the IBU measurements.
As far as I know the main rationale for FWH is that there is some "magic"
that takes place resulting in a final hop character that is superior to
standard hop schedules. In the little reading I have done and the posts that
crop up on the HBD it seems that this claim is controversial. What's your
take on this aspect of FWH Louis?
P.S. if you eventually want to run such an experiment let me know, I'm happy
to help out...
Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:05:21 -0600
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: Re: RIMS comments; especially reverse RIMS
Martin Brungard" <mabrungard@hotmail.com> discusses a reverse RIMS
design and asks for comments...
{snip}
I'm in the process of creating a RIMS and my system could easily allow me to
reverse the flow through the grainbed during mashing. All I need to do is
change the flow outlet fixture sitting on top of the grainbed into a filter
style inlet/outlet. I'm using stainless steel hose reinforcement as the
filter under the grainbed, so I'll just add another one on the top of the
bed to filter the wort during the reverse flow. Lautering will still go in
the normal downflow direction. Unless someone can see a reason why using a
high rate upflow through the grainbed would be bad, I'm going to try this
idea.
{snip}
Not to discourage you, because you ought to try it, but remember that
the grain bed acts as the filter. The false bottom or "easymasher"
style screen is merely a support for the grain bed. And with normal
(downward) filtering, gravity is working on the bed. I can imagine
you would have a lot of cloudy, hazy type particulates suspended above
the grain bed when doing reverse flow which would pass through SS hose
reinforcement "filter" and end up at the bottom of the grain bed where
it will be trapped. Now I wonder how you will recover all the wort
without switching direction. If you do, it may take some stirring
and/or considerable recirculation to re-establish your filter bed in
the correct direction. And of course, you still need to make sure you
are set up to prime your pump.
Cheers!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:40:00 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Foam Fineness
Brewsters:
Jeff Renner states that artificial carbonation
versus priming carbonation will give the same
result in foam fineness. Others have
periodically stated otherwise, opting for the
"natural" priming or kraeusening method,
even in kegs to produce a fine head.
I have noticed that quite often naturally
carbonated beers in my kegs have a finer
foam and assumed it was the presence of
the small amounts of yeast ,in the clear beer
acting as a "boiling chip" to provide surface
for the CO2 bubble to form. On the other hand,
very yeasty beer often has large bubbles and
often a poor head as a result, in my experience.
One might conclude the opposite situation
given the above "boiling chip" analogy.
It is perhaps the youth of the yeasty beer that
may also affect the bubble size. Or it may be
that so much yeast is there that the CO2 is
more rapidly brought to equilibrium and the
bubbles coalesce as they are formed.
This may say someting about filtered beers,
and head fineness and stability, I don't know.
It is an experiment which could be easily
tried if you have a filter. Just filter half of the
beer and compare the two kegs periodically
over time. It may be that the best head can be
obtained by blending filtered and unfiltered
beer.
I have never done a controlled experiment,
but I have noticed that shortly after carbonation
( a day or so) the artificially carbonated beers
have a rough coarse foam which eventually
( a week or two) will approximate the fineness
of the naturally carbonated beer. It may be
that the CO2 needs to be somehow complexed
or it may be that the week or two will allow more
particles to fall out and improve the head. The
waiting period is demanded for those using
natural carbonation methods, so a direct
comparison cannot be made except at
long term hold time. I believe the
conclusion would be no difference, as
Jeff states.
I think there is a difference in these two
methods of carbonation, as it relates to
head formation and fineness but it is
temporary.
- ------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:06:37 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Beer and eggs
I had to add beer to the subject so I could continue this thread here.
I have finally discovered a trick that works for flawless and consistant peeling
of eggs. Nothing else I have ever tried worked very well, if at all. This works
100%, even with eggs layed the same day.
As a point of interest, if you refrigerate fresh eggs for a month or two, they
do peel much better. That says more about how fresh supermarket eggs are than
it does about peeling eggs.
That is not my secret.
I put the eggs in a veggy dehydrator overnight and then boil them. They peel
like latex gloves and it makes no difference how old or fresh the eggs.
I expect rousing cheers, kudos and a flood of donations to the Schmidling Think
Cup (it's too small to be a tank). This is not a Momily. She was the source of
many of the "tricks" that did not work.
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 10:45:28 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Re-post
Huh, my post from yesterday got chopped up. I know my proof reading is
better than that!
So I will try again:
I did have the opportunity to observe a RIMS system where circulating was
done with a long stiff rod of copper tubing
with a right angle at the bottom, the end was flattened causing a jet stream
of good velocity,
when circulation was started the mechanical action stirred the whole mash up
nicely, by being
close to the bottom it tended to lift and move all the grains and acted like
a great stirrer, and
full open valves were used with plenty of circulation volume.
I just must try this myself soon, not much needed except a piece of copper
tubing. If it does not work, I can just switch to my normal downflow device
and continue. Oh, not enough days, not enough hours in a day....
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:12:57 -0800
From: "scott" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: Re:First lager
The E-mail handle is an old joke with my wife, sorry, can't expand on that
too much.
Thanks for answering my questions. I guess I'm about 4 hrs. West of Jeff
Renner by flight:-).
No matter how many new gadgets you get, you still have to compromise
somewhat. I had visions of 4 carboys full of fermenting beer in my chest
freezer. Only problem is some beers are lagering, some fermenting! Perhaps
the freezer will be best served in winter by brewing two 10 gal. batches
close together, then fermenting and lagering them together, withdrawing and
kegging them as needed.
Thanks,
Scott
>"scott" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com> (who has certainly chosen a strange email
>moniker) asks about lagers:
>>Question 1:
>>While one beer is lagering, will it hurt it any to raise the freezer temp
>>for a week, so your next batch can primary ferment?
>
>My guess is that it will delay maturation, but I don't know for sure. It
>may also shorten its ultimate life.
>
>>Question 2:
>>After lagering for 2-3 months, will there be enough active yeast leftover
to
>>carbonate with corn sugar? Will I need to add a secondary yeast? Am
>>planning on having kegging capacity by next month, which will probably
help
>>me in that dept.
>
>I have successfully carbonated lagers with the residual yeast. As a matter
>of fact, I've never had a failure. However, I don't bottle them anymore
>(haven't for some years), but carbonate them in kegs. If you do have your
>keg setup going by then, I'd suggest artificial carbonation by the methods
>you'll find in the archives rather than priming the keg. It's quicker and
>you don't get sediment. And no, natural carbonation doesn't give you finer
>bubbles or longer lasting head. I'll go out on a limb and state this as a
>fact. At least, no one in the years I've been reading HBD has ever been
>able to suggest why it should be otherwise, and I think most agree.
>
>Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 09:51:03 -0800
From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak@amgen.com>
Subject: Pushing it too far?
Greetings all...I recently made a Belgian strong ale, OG 1.085. Racked wort
on top of a Wyeast 1388 slurry from a previous batch, aerated with oxygen,
fermented at 74 F. Several weeks later, the gravity is only down to 1.030
and activity is falling off rapidly. I used a lot of non-malt sugars in the
grain bill; 2 lbs belgian candi sugar and 1 lb flaked corn. Did I push the
adjuncts too far? Is re-pitching in order? Any thoughts appreciated,
Mark Tomusiak
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 13:55:08 -0500
From: Jacob Bogie <JBogie@outpost.com>
Subject: Aerating
Good Day Brewers!
BREWED MY FIRST BATCH!!!!
I just wanted to ask a quick question to start....
Through reading the archives I have found a lot of people aerate their
wort after pitching the yeast. What is the most common method of doing this?
I have a slotted spoon that I used to stir the wort as I pitched the
yeast...OK? Also the trip down to the basement from my kitchen probably
stirs it up a bit. Is aeration an ideal thing to do or is it all preference?
So, onto the intro...
My name is Jacob Bogie and I am a brewer....
I live in the NW hills of CT and I am hooked on brewing my own!
Cornelius Kegs are on the way in Santa's sleigh....
Local Chefs are starting to discard their empty buckets in my yard...
And darn it...A few neighbors even let me steal their old fridges!!!
More Questions to come....indefinitely!
Just like to say that I am happy to be among a really GREAT group of
people!
-Jake
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 14:26:01 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim@victorybeer.com>
Subject: Budvar malts & philosophical rants
To Lynne of St Pats, what I wrote was not intended to "sting" and
since it seems that it did I want to publicly apologize for so
doing. After some 10 years on the net it is still helpful to recall
how harsh the printed word can seem when read without the emotion of
a human face. And of course we are all busy and email is a vehicle
whereby we can easily jot down a few statements and send them off
before realizing how they will be received on the other end.
Im also glad to see that there are still homebrew/pub/micro
retailers who take the time to remain connected and post valuable
information on the net. One persons piece of info is anothers spam
so its easy to see why some responsible folks just dont bother.
Wholesaling and retailing (especially retailing at the homebrewer
level) of malts must truly be a labor of love and I applaud St Pats
and others for doing so. I can only imagine the overseas ordering
hassels and duties, shipping containers coming in to port needing to
be warehoused and then repackaged into tiny homebrewer quantities
followed by the incessant repetitive questions as to the nature of
the product. Many would just relegate this to others and serve the
largest volume customers who dont ask all the questions that can be
learned from a good textbook. Sometimes its useful to recall that
before the advent of computers and instant personal interaction there
were actually libraries and folks who used them! Shocking thought I
know in this world of interconnected web sites with vast arrays of
information some of it thinner in depth than floor maltings in
England! But as Jackson is want to say, I digress.
<out of a molehill? Narziss has noted the decline in 'liveliness' in
<German beers over the past couple of decades. Narziss attributes
<this defect to brewers failing to compensate for modification in the
<malthouse vs the brewery.
Absolutely and one of the reasons German brewers I talk with wont
dough in below 57-60C if using standard highly modified malt.
FWIW, Im a firm believer in decoction mashing for some beers and some
malts. I also firmly believe that it makes a significant difference
on the end product, no matter what some West coast authorities may
proclaim otherwise. Id love to see another go around with that
mashing (RIMS/step vs decoction) experiment Louis did for BT. That
would be great material for Daniels to cover in both The New Brewer
and Zymurgy, IMO. 15P Maerzen biers, 13P Exports, 10 and 12P
Czech pils, 14P Dunkles.....all are beers that benefit from decoction
mashing of imported malts with lower than typical modification. Yes
it takes longer in the brewhouse, yes it costs more to have a mashing
system to handle it, yes it leads to more protein stability issues in
the final beer, yes it darkens the wort and increases melanoiden
formation. Yes it makes a difference. Its not so difficult for the
experienced brewer to make good beer, its very difficult to
consistently make special beer, beer that rises above the ordinary
where the marriage of these simple ingredients form a much greater
whole, the magic of the symbiotic nature of these blended processed
base materials, the art of the brewmaster.
Prost!
Jim Busch
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 13:08:16 -0700 (MST)
From: jliddil@VMS.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: budvar malt again
First off this has certainly generated a fair amount of what I view as
free advertizing for St Pat. sure hope they made or make a contribution
to the hbd server fund. :-)
Lynn wrote:
>
> Budvar's importance emanates from the intellectual curiosity of brewers,
> even those who can never use this malt, which admittedly is the vast
> majority of brewpubs and micros. Can you make a traditional Czech
> or German style pilsner without undermodified malt? Are all these
> preprohibition american beers simply wishful thinking without undermodified
> malt? Are those that promote the importance of multiple temperature rests
> regardless of modification simply whistling Dixie? Or are those that tout
> the paramount importance of modification to mash regimen making a mountain
> out of a molehill? Narziss has noted the decline in 'liveliness' in
> German beers over the past couple of decades. Narziss attributes this
> defect to brewers failing to compensate for modification in the malthouse
> vs the brewery.
I agree that it is great to have something to experiment with. That is
the beauty of homebrewing. Money really is not a big concern. For once
we can answer the above questions and find out if all the high intensity
mashing schedules of years past etc. really make a difference. I fail to
understand the statment "Are those that promote the importance of
multiple temperature rests regardless of modification..." I thought this
was largley dead. Modified malt does not need a protein rest. Based on
the malt analysis 9if you have it) you may need to do a glucan rest. and
the alpha and beta rests cna be used to determine fermentability.
Maybe Narzizz is experiencing the effects of ageing and simply waxing
eloquently for the past. Does he provide analytical data to support his
feeling? And after all most german brewers are using completely different
modern equipment than what was used years ago. And simply because brewers
are no compensating does not mean they should go back to using
undermodified malt.
> regardles> > These are just a few of the fundamental
questions and issues that
> undermodified malt relates to and this is why I believe it is the most, for
> lack of a beter word, important new product.
>
more like "newly available to the amreican brewer". :-)
> The issues that drive modern brewing research are primarily those of shelf
> life, extract efficiency, and time and labor costs in both the brewery and
> malthouse. Technological advances resulting from that research, which may
> have benefits to consumers (fresher beer for example), may not be
> particularly important to homebrewing or brewpub brewing. More
> importantly, these advances can have unforseen detrimental effects on beer
> quality such as higher beer pH.
Do you have reference to support that pH has risen?
>
> How about this for retro brewing---Budvar gets 27-28 pts/lb with this malt.
> It is an acknowledged fact that Budvar is knowingly inefficient and
> resisting the westernization of Czech pilsner which is so evident at many
> others. Budvar is also the fastest growing, in both percent sales and
> profits, of all Czech breweries.
Well I can see the writing on the wall. South African brewing (or
whatever) just bought PU. With the expansion of the EU this kind of
business practice can not go on. The bean counters will step in. There
is already backlash against the Velvet Revolution. As sales grow they
will need to resist the tmeptation to expand etc. Can they keep this up
with rising energy costs, wages, health care etc? Just reminding folks
that it is a business and the czech republic is undergoing changes.
>
> DeClerck's book is 40 years old---actually 50 I think (English translation
> is 40). However, as Roger Protz has noted, Moravian barley had been
> recognized as the finest in the world for over 100 years prior to
> DeClerck's book. The climatic and soil conditions which contributed to
> this prestige cannot be easily dismissed as antiquated.
>
Great. But again that was in the past. And as one famous beer writer
says "Everyone says that crap". :-) How does malt from moravia compare to
that grown in other regions? Can we see some some analytical data on the
barley, malt and beers made.
> I am keenly aware that the vast majority of brewpubs and micros cannot use
> this malt or will choose not to due to very practical reasons expressed by
> Jim Liddil and George DePiro. Fortunately, I have enough brewery interest
> to continue to offer it to homebrewers for a long time.
>
> I have another container on order and I may take Jim Liddil's counsel and
> send it for additional analysis beyond what I provided for the last.
> Budweiser Budvar requests only protein, extract, moisture, Kolbach, and
> Hartong.
It would be great if all the info one sees on a malt analysis done by
Seibel for example, were available. This would provide brewers with th
info they need up front to deal with a given malt, regardless of
mdoifcation. Sure the real test comes when one brews with the malt using
their system. But as homebrewers we don't have the luxry of buying a
train load of malt and then doing a test batch, analysizng the resulting
wort and making adjustment accordingly. I can just see some one getting
this undermodified malt, mashing with it and not using proper temp rests
and then having the lauter from hell. Then they'll say this malt sucks
and St Pat's is selling crap.
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 07 Dec 1999 15:47:44 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: SS wort chillers
Hey all. St. Pat's offers a 50ft. SS wort chiller for ~$60. I
found this at approximately the time that my copper, home made
chiller got a serious crack in it. I will likely buy this
(correction, my brother, good soul that he is has offered it as a
present) but wanted to know if anyone thought it was a bad idea
based on the ability for SS to conduct heat and therefore
function as a good immersion (or counterflow) chiller.
Cheers!
Marc
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 17:12:47 EST
From: JDPils@aol.com
Subject: Re: First Lager Season questions
Scott,
My experiences agree with Jeff's
>While one beer is lagering, will it hurt it any to raise the freezer temp
>for a week, so your next batch can primary ferment?
No, In fact for about four years I make tow lagers two weeks apart. The
first uses newly purchased yeasts. After about 10-13 days of primary
fermentation, I transfer to the secondary and wash the yeast for the second
batch. Since I have one freezer the first batch is usually at 50 - 55F for
4-5 weeks until the second is transferred and I bring the freezer down to 35F
in three weeks time. Then I lager for 3 - 8 weeks, depending on when I can
bottle.
>After lagering for 2-3 months, will there be enough active yeast leftover to
>carbonate with corn sugar? Will I need to add a secondary yeast? Am
>planning on having kegging capacity by next month, which will probably help
>me in that dept.
I have absolutely never had a problem. Although it takes twice as long to
carbonate than an ale. There are two possible explainations: 1) At 35F CO2
is much more soluable, so I have actually found the beer slightly carbonated
at bottling. 2) I always hit the bottom of the secondary once or twice to
stir up a little yeast when racking to bottle.
Cheers,
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 18:02:17 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Kinds of Brewers
What kind of brewer are you?
In my store I see all different kinds of brewers. There are:
Chain brewers - brew almost weekly
Binge brewers - I go months without seeing them, then they are in twice
a
week for a few weeks
Social brewers - only brew with buddies
Prohibition brewers - I don't like to think about them
Spectator brewers - not really brewers per se, but they like to watch
Technobrewers - believe that beer cannot be made without control to the
n'th degree
Burnout brewers - used to brew and know a lot about brewing, but "can't
seem to find the time now"
Mental brewers - draw up recipes that will never be brewed
I am more than open to other suggestions!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:38:06 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@ottawa.com>
Subject: going to San Fran on Friday - anyone want to get together?
Hey folks,
I'm in glorious SF from the 10th to the 17th.
Give me a call at the following hotel if you'd like
to get together for a beer :
San Francisco Hilton and Towers
333 O'Farrell Street, San Francisco, CA 94102-2189
Local Number: (415) 771-1400
Or if you can suggest any good places nearby,
please let me know.
cheers,
-Alan
- --
- --
Alan McKay
amckay@ottawa.com
http://www.bodensatz.com/
What's a bodensatz? http://www.bodensatz.com/bodensatz.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 20:55:55 -0600
From: Emily E Neufeld <eneufeld@juno.com>
Subject: brewing software
I am putting together my gimme brewing equipment list for the holidays
and would like recommendations on brewing software for PC's. I have
downloaded ProMash and Brewer's Workshop and the Homebrewing recipe
calculating program. I like Brewer's Workshop for the simplicity
especially for the water calculations, except there seems to be something
wrong with the calculator when you convert from grams to teaspoons,
ounces, etc. I would appreciate any private e-mails. Also, I am
thinking about an oxygen pump/system and filtration system.
Recommendations also appreciated. Sorry to say I am sending this from my
wife's e-mail from home. In the past, there has been some disappointment
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:02:12 -0600
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens@sprint.ca>
Subject: Scott's temperature conflict
I can understand Scott wanting to have both really low lagering
temperatures and reasonable fermentation temperatures, but don't forget
traditional (=commercial??) practices vary a whole lot.
I found that 50-55*F is a good compromise for primary, secondary, and
lagering. I had no trouble with bottle priming in this range; rather the
slow priming helped consume all those sulphury compounds some of the lager
yeasts make. There's a sentence somewhere in Noonan to justify this.
Since I use the big walk-out refrigerator with the blue ceiling and the
white carpet to cool my brewing room, I don't have much choice. I put the
lagering beer closest to the window but I'm probably kidding myself.
Sean
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3189, 12/08/99
*************************************
-------
