Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3186
HOMEBREW Digest #3186 Sat 04 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:
more RHEMS and RIMS (The Holders)
I hate it when that happens (The Holders)
Re: More RIMS ideas (RobertJ)
High Gravity Brewing ("Dan Senne")
Zymurgy (Dan Listermann)
re: Mills (Alan McKay)
Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham? (Jeff Renner)
Re: Sister Star (Joel Plutchak)
FWH (Nathan Kanous)
Re: RIMS Tips and Tricks... (Some Guy)
carcinogens ("Alan Meeker")
Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham ("Peter J. Calinski")
Marga mulino mill (Chad Petersen)
interesting new electrical RIMS heater (Jeff)
Flaked Oats (phil sides jr)
RIMSical musings (MaltHound)
maltings water absorption, WOLF!, Nottingham, RIMS (Dave Burley)
Mashing undermodified malts ("Jim Busch")
Re: The Midwest Brewer's Question (Paul Gatza)
Dried Sweet Corn and Sister Star IPA ("Steve Potter")
steam (John_E_Schnupp)
Sister Star ("Spies, Jay")
re: Sister Star ("David Kerr")
Dry Ice ("Jeffry D Luck")
decoction detail/fungi ("Bayer, Mark A")
starters/budvar malt (jliddil)
* 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: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 16:59:24 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: more RHEMS and RIMS
Jeremy asks:
<It seems that with RIMS and HERMS the real design issue is how can you
pump
<the volume of your mash tun in 5 minutes? (Note: most of this is a non
<issue for 5 gallon systems. I'm talking now about 10+ gallon systems.)
<Dion Hollenbeck reported running his RIMS as 3 gpm, but I don't think
this
<is easily obtainable. Any data or advice that people can offer would
be
<interesting to me.
Well, the answer for me was to incorporate a Lauter Grant into IGOR, my
Recirculating AHEM System. Lately I've been using a temp of about
185-190 in the HLT, and running full throttle the ~1.5 gallons of wort
collected in the grant. I pump down the grant before refilling it again
BTW. I've never timed the flow rate into the grant, but I'd guess its
about 20 seconds, depending on the mash. I think I'm close to the 3 GPM
mark without (finally!!) the problem of grainbed compaction.
Wayne Holder AKA Zymie
Long Beach CA
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 17:09:35 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: I hate it when that happens
Hmmm... somehow the link for the "Perfesser" was left off of my post. It
should read:
Louis Bonham talks about a RHEMS using a counterflow heat exchanger.
You might be interested in taking a look at the "perfesser" built by
Bill Freeman, AKA ELder Rat.
You can see the "Perfesser" at http://www.brewrats.org/hwb/er
Wayne Holder AKA Zymie
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 07:59:08 -0500
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re: More RIMS ideas
"Houseman, David L" wrote
. . .
Louis idea of using a CFC as the heat exchanger is a good one. ..........
I've done what Louis recommends but used my hot liquor tank as the resevoir
and pumped hot water through the CFC and reached within 5 degrees of the HLT
temp in the wort coming out back to the mash tun. Water works fine and most
of us already have a HLT and capabilty to heat water. Five gallons of water
in a HLT has a big thermal mass. Many already have a CFC. The only thing
new that is needed is a second pump so one can pump the water and the wort
at the same time. A good idea made simpler....
_________
You can make it simpler still by just submerging the CFC in the HLT. This
will eliminate the need for a second pump and will reduce heat loss
Bob
http:/pbsbeer.com
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://pbsbeer.com Manufacturer of 3 Vessel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:58:18 -0600
From: "Dan Senne" <dsenne@intertek.net>
Subject: High Gravity Brewing
Recently I came across a website that detailed a "High Gravity" brewing
process in an article called "A Primer to All Grain Brewing" by Hubert
Hanghofer.
Basically it entailed producing a more highly concentrated wort using both
less water in the mash and sparge, then after boil, diluting with water to
obtain the desired S.G.
With the equipment that I have (or lack thereof), this is an attractive
idea, as it would allow me to boil in a single pot rather than splitting the
boil and would also reduce chilling time.
This is similar to the way I use to brew using malt extract.
Has anyone here ever done "high gravity" brewing? Were you pleased with the
results vs. full volume brewing? I'll be brewing this weekend and am
tempted to give it a try.
Thanks for any input.
Dan Senne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:19:48 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Zymurgy
Ref:RAY DANIELS ASSUMES HELM OF THE NEW BREWER AND ZYMURGY
Y E S !!!!!!!!!!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:43:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan McKay <amckay@magma.ca>
Subject: re: Mills
I've got experience with Phi Mill (1, not 2nd one), JSP Malt Mill, and the
Valley Mill. Used them all quite a bit, and eventually bought a Valley Mill.
My main criteria in that decision was that it is made right here in the Ottawa
Valley where I live. Also was the adjustability and larger hopper. I've had
no regrets.
THe JSP has an absolutely unbeatable record of customer satisfaction, and
warranty coverage. If you ever have the slightest problem, I guarantee you
Jack will set things right, and usually at no cost to you.
See my review at :
http://www.bodensatz.com/homebrew/faq/equipment.html#best_mill
cheers,
-Alan
- --
"Brewers make wort. Yeast Makes Beer."
- Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.bodensatz.com/
What's a Bodensatz? http://www.bodensatz.com/bodensatz.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:37:32 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham?
"Paul Shick, John Carroll University" <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu> wrote:
>I decided to rehydrate the yeast in the carboys, so I
>sprinkled about 6g into the 5 gallon carboy, about 9g into the 6.3 gallon.
>To rehydrate the yeast, I took about 12 ounces of tap water at 95-100F
>and added it directly to the carboys, swishing it around to moisten all
>the yeast. This sat for about 15 minutes to rehydrate, while I cooled
>the wort with an immersion chiller.
I think this is your problem. Unless you heated the carboy to 100F (I'm
sure you didn't), that hydration water was immediately virtually the same
temperature as the glass, or ambient temp. After all, ten pounds (or
whatever a carboy weighs) of glass has a hell of a heat capacity compared
to 12 ounces of water. So you rehydrated your yeast at ambient
temperature, which is pretty hard on it. Its innards (technical term) leak
out through the leaky membranes (which close up quickly at 100F).
This is why I rehydrate yeast in a plastic container, which doesn't suck
heat (sorry for throwing around another technical term) like glass.
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: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:48:15 -0600 (CST)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Sister Star
>[Looking at] Dave Brockington['s] Sister Star IPA recipe.
>I look at the use of 3 oz of Chinook Hops and my IBU calculator
>goes haywire. Has anybody actually brewed a 5 gallon batch with
>that huge quantity of bittering hops? Was it drinkable? I see
>recent postings for Hop Devil and Hop Pocket that use a much
>smaller quantity of bittering hops and I'm curious. If you've
>brewed Sister Star with that quantity of hops, I'd like to hear
>about it (good or bad).
Nathan-
First, get a calculator that "goes to 11." Secondly,
trust David, he knows of what he speaks. Thirdly, I
have brewed variations of Sister Star, all with 3 ounces
high-alpha hops, usually all Chinook, and the only time
I got unbalanced hop juice was with my first all-grain
batch, where inexperience yielded a very low extraction
and subsequently not malty enough beer. One other time
I entered a 3-ounces-of-Chinook clone in competition, and
judges dinged it for not being bitter enough. They
suggested I enter it as an English Pale (which I did the
next month, and took 1st place in category).
I've got another one on tap now, and it's very nice if
I do say so myself.
Go for it.
- --
Joel Plutchak
Living in east-central Illinois, but I left my heart (and
five years of tuition) in Madison WI.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 08:48:03 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: FWH
Anybody ever FWH'd with a TON of hops? I believe AlK mentioned FWH'ing a
pilsner with 3 ounces of saaz, but has anybody else done something like
this? Results? Thanks.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:12:49 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Re: RIMS Tips and Tricks...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 Bob wrote of using a heat exchanger for heating the
wort:
> You can make it simpler still by just submerging the CFC in the HLT. This
> will eliminate the need for a second pump and will reduce heat loss
Hmmm. Now maybe I misunderstood what it is you're trying to say, but MY
CFC (counter-flow chiller) exterior is PVC (polyvinyl chloride) - as I'd
imagine most "home-brewed" CFCs are. Submerging it in the HLT (hot liquor
tank) would neither appreciably change the heat loss across the PVC
boundary. Besides that, simply submerging ANY CFC will not induce any hot
liquor to flow through the outer coil. Plus, the efficiency of a CFC is in
the FLOW of the fluids of disparate temperature in countering directions -
one carries away the heat of the other (in this case, heating the wort).
Having it static in the HLT would be a waste. Just use an immersion
chiller, then.
By the way, folksies, let not forget that there are new subscribers to the
HBD every day. Many of these new subscribers are new to the terms we bandy
about here. Please don't further confuse them by throwing acronyms around
without the courtesy of spelling them out at first use in your post.
Sorry: pet peeve of mine. (I've a veritible managerie of peeves, it would
seem :-)
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:24:18 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: carcinogens
.Luke Van Santen commented on carcinogenicity testing:
>One last thing - Dave Burley's rant about carcinogens and how they become
>classified as such was pretty good. It seems that a lot of these tests (to
>determine carcinogenic tendencies, etc) have very specific conditions that
>might or might not be regularly encountered in the life of the average
>person.
It's unfortunate that the general public has such a poor understanding of
carcinogenicity testing (and science in general for that matter!) I suppose
I could rephrase this and say that it is unfortunate that scientists,
educators, and organizations like the FDA have done such a poor job of
explaining such things to the public. Doubly so since in our country public
sentiment can actually have a significant impact on the way things are done.
Since our society is increasingly dependent on technology, which itself is
advancing at near exponential rates, it becomes even more important that we
have a well-informed public able to meaningfully participate in the debates
over issues such as the safety of genetically-modified foods, use of
embryonic tissues in biomedical research, patenting of human genes, etc.
Sorry, I'll step off the soapbox.
Anyway, as far as testing substances for carcinogenicity goes I would just
say that before criticizing the methods you should thoroughly research how
these things are done, not just rely on sound bites, anecdotes and rumor. It
is a complex process and the trend is to oversimplify portions of it so
that, to a lay audience, it sounds ridiculous. Here's just one example:
let's say a high dose of a test substance is administered to a group of lab
mice and the mice then develop cancer. You've probably heard comments along
the lines of, "They gave the rats so much of that stuff that a human would
have to eat 10 pounds of it every day for a month to get the same result!"
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? But it totally glosses over the
strategy of such a test. Let's say this substance actually does cause cancer
but that typical doses experienced by humans will be very small. Maybe the
substance is a proposed food additive and would result in only one case of
cancer per 100,000 people per year. This is a small but not insignificant
risk. Our population of approx 250 million would experience 2500 cases a
year if everyone were exposed to this substance. Certainly we'd like to know
about such a risk. But how to test for this? Assuming the same risk in mice
of one case per 10,000 at the low human dose you'd have to screen 10,000
mice for one whole year just to have a decent chance of seeing ONE cancer
due to the substance in question. To gain statistically significant results
many tens of thousands of mice would have to be screened. Such a drug screen
is totally unfeasible. The costs in terms of time and money are prohibitive.
So what to do? One way around this problem is to increase the dose. If we
give say 100 or 1000-fold more drug the chances of seeing a cancer may
increase to something like one in a hundred which is much more manageable.
This strategy allows us to do animal studies that otherwise could never be
done. When the rationale for high dosing in animal studies is explained (the
need to increase your odds of seeing a rare event) it actually makes sense.
This is just one example of the many misunderstandings people harbor with
respect to chemical testing.
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:30:12 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham
Paul,
On 11/23/99 I brewed an IPA with Nottingham from Danstar and had a good 3-4
inches of krausen in 8 hours. I believe Danstar is associated with
Lallemand. The package expiration date was 11/01. The yeast was
refrigerated at the homebrew shop and at home. I used one 5g package in
about one cup of boiled water that was cooled to 108F (package says
104F-109F). I just poured the yeast onto the water and let it sit for 15-20
minutes. I aerated by letting the wort (72F) drop 3 feet from the boil pot
into the plastic fermenter. I then stirred up the yeast water and mixed it
into the fermenter. IG was 1.074. I fermented at 68F and as I said, in 8
hours, I had good krausen. In 5 days the SG was 1.015.
Differences I see between our methods:
1) I fermented at 68F vs. your 60F.
2) I underpitched even worse than you (my 1g/Gal vs. your 1.5g/Gal.)
3) I didn't swish until after the 15 minutes.
I would bet on #1 as the difference.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:36:32 -0800
From: Chad Petersen <Chad.Petersen@wwu.edu>
Subject: Marga mulino mill
I found a place that sells the marga mulino mill
http://www.ezycatalog.com/grinders.htm
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:55:17 -0500 (EST)
From: mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: interesting new electrical RIMS heater
Hi All,
With all the discussions recently on RIMS heat sources (electrical,
steam, etc), I was wondering if anyone uses or has looked at external
in-line heaters.
For a picture and description of what I am thinking of, take a look
at the following web page:
http://www.watlow.com/thickfilm/
specificly the "In-line Quartz" and "Flat Quartz" links.
This company (Watlow) makes resistive electrical heaters that are
bonded to the *outside* of quartz (or 300 and 400 series SS) tubes.
Power densities can be up to 50 watts per square inch, with total
power up to 12 kilowatts.
This type of electrical heater would seem to overcome several of the
typical RIMS heater problems (scorching, cleaning, plumbing complexity,
etc.), but they may be quite expensive.
Anybody ever use something like one of these?
Hoppy brewing,
Jeff
==========================================================================
Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center email:
Systems Development Branch mcnallyg@gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW:
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:56:48 -0500
From: phil sides jr <psides@carl.net>
Subject: Flaked Oats
Anyone know how much gravity per pound and color one can expect from
rolled oats? I have a reference that sites Flaked Oats at 1.033 and 2.2
respectively.
Phil Sides, Jr.
Concord, NH
- --
Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:03:14 EST
From: MaltHound@aol.com
Subject: RIMSical musings
Wow. Lot's of discussion about how to design the ultimate RIMS.
Technically, all of the designs qualify as RIMS regardless of how the heat is
applied since they all recirculate and are infusion mashing systems. That
said, we commonly associate the RIMS acronym to the original Rodney Morris
electric heater type. So maybe we should redefine the system types as ERIMS
(electric), HERIMS (Heat Exchanger), SIRIMS (Steam Injection) and the latest
incarnation EASIRIMS (Electric And Steam Infusion)?
I think from a very basic perspective, the limitations of the ERIMS system
are not necessarily being addressed by any of these alternate wort-heating
schemes. The goal is to design a system capable of a few things:
Holding the mash at a precise temperature for a fixed period.
That's a task that the original Morris design ERIMS accomplishes quite
nicely, and seems conspicuously absent from the other "manually" controlled
designs. The benefits associated with precise control are batch
reproducibility and repeatability, and ability to forecast the outcome, not
necessarily quality. In my opinion, forgoing an automated control feature in
RIMS design defeats one of the major advantages.
Raising the mash temperature in a minimum time to accomplish step-mashes.
This seems to be the bigger problem and where most of the design effort is
focused. There is a feeling that long temperature ramp times will negatively
effect beer quality. Although this appears to be a reasonable theory, I'm
not sure these claims have been substantiated. It may only be true if
attempting certain beer styles or when trying to achieve a particular
character in the beer. For some brewers, this entire goal may be moot, but
for discussion purposes, let's assume it is a worthy goal.
The ramp time limitations in heating recirculating wort are primarily delta T
of the heating apparatus and flow rate. Because we want to limit damage to
the enzymes in the heating process, there is a hard limit of how high we
should heat the wort as it passes through the heater. It should be easy
enough to design a heater (heat exchanger, electric heater chamber, steam
injection chamber, etc.) that will heat the wort to this maximum, then the
key factor would be at what flow rate?
In HBD 3185 "Rod Prather" rodpra@netzero.net says "If you pump more wort
through the grain bed you end up with bitter beer." I'm not sure that this
is true. What might be true is that if you pump more wort *of too high a
temperature* through your grain bed then astringency (bitterness?) may
result.
Rod's idea to bypass the grainbed and draw some of the recirculating wort
from over the grain bed may have value in raising the wort temperature as
fast as possible by allowing faster flow rates without grain bed compaction,
however, I wonder what would happen to temperature control and ramp times
within the grainbed itself? Wouldn't the temperature of the wort (and
enzymes) within the grainbed be of paramount importance? Afterall, that is
where the majority of the starches are that we are trying to convert in the
first place.
Let's assume that we want all of the flow to pass through the grainbed during
recirculation to ensure temperature homogeneity during the temperature ramps.
Assuming we can design a system with unlimited heating and pumping capacity,
we are still limited by how much flow can be passed through the grainbed per
unit of time. I see this as the real limitation to a recirculating heater.
The tun aspect ratio and false bottom design will have a direct impact on
maximum flow rate that can be achieved without compaction.
In essence, the mash tun design is the key to a RIMS ability to step ramp,
not the heat source.
Happily ERIMSing (with appallingly long ramp times) in
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:13:52 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: maltings water absorption, WOLF!, Nottingham, RIMS
Brewsters:
Luke Van Santen asks if the cheesecloth bag
method of determining water absorption I use
for water absorption during malting has an
error in it from the water contained in
the cheesecloth. It does, but it is insignificant.
It can be easily corrected for, however, by
weighing the piece of cheesecloth wet and dry
and subtracting these weights from the total
as part of the calculation.
I also suspect that the drying method of
determining absorption has an overall higher
error than my faster and simpler method,
simply because mine always uses the same
grain. It is also faster and means many more
evaluations will be done, giving a much
better control over the process.
- --------------------------------------------------------------
Luke's concern that I am, perhaps, fostering
dangerous behavior with known substances
like radioactivity is not well founded, as most
readers know I constantly caution HBDers to
keep their hobby safe by practicing safety. I
also would never suggest that anyone behave
unsafely at work or at home. The point I was
trying to make about washing in benzene was
not that it was not, perhaps, dangerous, but
that it was not a toxin as the original author
had suggested. I was also making the point
that I believe our evaluation of carcinogenicity
is greatly skewed by the legal definition of
carcinogenicity, not that we should not behave
responsibly.
My concern is that, like the little boy who always
cried "wolf!", and eventually got eaten by the
wolf when no one came to help, our society,
after being desensitized by the politicization
of "toxic chemicals", will be unprepared to
respond to real dangers, versus those unreal
dangers imposed by law. I ask readers to be
vigilant and constantly ask for original proof
but to also not behave foolishly.
- -------------------------------------------------------
Paul Shick asks for comments on his yeast
technique with Nottingham. I can suggest
that you reverse the hydration step and
sprinkle the yeast onto the quiet surface
of the water in a single layer, allow it to
stand until the yeast has all settled to the
bottom of the vessel and then swirl it.
If I do it as you did by adding the water
to the yeast and by swirling the vessel
immediately, often I get gloms of yeast that
take forever to break up. This may explain
your slow startup as you had a much lower
population than you expected and the
big difference in the kraeusening of the two
vessels. Perhaps Nottingham does not
disperse as readily as other yeasts and
this may explain this scientifically unproven
(to my knowledge) "slow" start we have
been reading about.
Also, the larger vessel may have stayed
warmer longer and explain why it started
first. I would raise the temperature to around
65 if you can. Also be aware that carboys
sitting directly on the floor are often colder than
room temperature by several degrees.
Measure the fermentation temperature directly.
- ----------------------------------------------
Rod Prather says "if you pump more wort
through the grainbed you end up with bitter
beer"
Why? In a normal still mash the wort is always
in contact with grain. and I don't see how
moving the wort over the grain by pumping it
would increase the extraction of tannins from
the husk which is where I presume you believe
the additional bitterness will come from.
I don't understand the origin of your comment.
Please explain.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Both Badger Roulette and I use the
Marga Mulino mill. I really like its adjustability
for malt crushing and versatility, since this
three roll mill can be used to make bread
flour from unusual grains as well as "flake"
( actually chip) rice and barley grains before
the goods mash. Yadda Yadda
J.J. Kish asks where to get it. Try contacting
Corrado's Winegrapes and Homebrew Beer
Supply in Clifton, NJ 973-340-0848. That's where
I bought mine several years ago. Say "hi" to
Jimmie for me. Corrrado's also has a
supermarket called "Family Affair" hmmmm
with which the above should not be confused.
Yadda Yadda.
You could also try checking
the web and 800-555-1212 for Marga, as I
believe this Italian company used to have
a US office.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:32:04 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim@victorybeer.com>
Subject: Mashing undermodified malts
Lynne writes (on a very interesting subject!!!):
<The Czechs actually use Double Decoction with rests at 38C, 50C, 65C,
<and 72C. the key is to the make the first decoction quite large,
<use a portion to get to 50C, the other portion to get to 65C.
This sounds like some of the mash is never exposed to the 50C rest
that is stated as so critical. Maybe the missing statement is
to allow the decocted portion to rest at 50C prior to bringing to a
boil and adding back to main mash to achieve a 50C rest while
reserving enough to then raise to 65C (but I would have to run the
volume numbers to believe this, I dont think there would be enough
mash left over to achieve a 15C rise in temp from a single large pull
at acid rest temp. Much simpler to calculate each rest quantity
separate with each subsequent decoction).
< Additionally, try boiling the entire
<mash for 20 minutes after the 72C rest, then sparge.
The German Diploms will tell you this is not advised as you will
denature all of your alpha amylase which can lead to starch haze in
the finished beer. I would also submit that one of the problems of
performing double and triple (which is what Ive read many Czech
brewers employ) decoctions is that lautering is more difficult as you
boil a greater bulk of the grains, destroying more husks. I wonder
if the Czech brewers use different screens than most of us, weizen
brewers do. Also decocted beers in general have reduced
organeoleptic stability so filtering the beer and/or employing
protein haze clarifiers may be useful to some.
< But you can of course use more conventional step
<or decoction mashing as practiced in other parts of Europe and
<detailed nicely in any of those books.
I would recommend Warners Wheat beer book (Warner is a Diplom after
all) and Kunz's textbook on brewing. The former is cheap with
fantastic info while the latter is invaluable for serious brewers who
dont mind forking over $150 for a textbook reference. This is not to
bash the other books, I have them all too.
<The most important rest for undermodified malt is the 50C one. You
<could for example, just do a two step, one at 50 the other at 65-70.
I believe it was also Dr Fix, among others, who has stressed the
importance of the acid rest in the 37-42C range, especially if one of
employing soft water which would seem to be a requirement to emulate
the great Czech Pils biers. The most important rest in all mashing
is the saccharification rest, since all brewers are mashing to create
fermentable wort. That said wort composition is indeed important and
neglecting the factors of protein composition as related to Kolbach
numbers is a sure recipe for disaster or at least asking for less
than optimal results. Im not trying to pick on you Lynne, its just
those damn absolutes that get strung out in Netland are easy
pickings!
While I find it a great service that homebrewers now have access to
true undermodified malts it is certainly hyperbole at best to claim
this is the most important development in the last 10 years, no? But
hey, if it helps folks use interesting European malts then we are the
better for it. Using high quality malts, be they Marris Otter,
Durst, Weyermann or Czech can significantly improve your beer and
also give the thinking brewer a whole set of options to employ. Give
it a try, Im sure you will like the results in complexity of
maltiness/mouthfeel and finish. Fresh ingredients and information
are the key to successful brewing.
Prost!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:43:38 -0700
From: Paul Gatza <paulg@aob.org>
Subject: Re: The Midwest Brewer's Question
The Midwest Brewer has posed a couple of questions about AHA
responsiveness on this forum.
MB asks: "I have an open question for Paul and the rest of the people
that work at the AHA. Why in the hell is it that the AHA "directors"
only post here to blow your own horns when something "new" is
forthcoming, yet when people have a problem with something the AHA has
done or is doing, you are nowhere to be found?"
I monitor the HBD daily. On many occasions I do not read each post based
on the subject line and my work volume. I try to address each post that
asks an AHA question or has an AHA beef through private e-mail. I
believe that this forum is more appropriate for brewing questions and
answers and events. I try not to tie up HBD bandwidth with items that
affect only a few brewers or have been addressed here before. There is
an AHA members forum on Beertown called TalkBack for members to post
association gripes, questions and ideas. I respond to each one.
For example, when Jim asked about what was up with the delay in the new
George Fix book, I answered him personally. We provided information
about the delay to everyone who ordered the book. I also involved the
AHA board of advisers to gather ideas on how to better handle
pre-publication offers in the future. I also answer some of the more
obscure questions such as the rose hips in mead question last week.
There is an AHA members forum on Beertown called TalkBack for members to
post association gripes, questions and ideas. I respond to each one.
MB also hints that my request for Zymurgy input is windowdressing. Here
is the way the process works. We do a broad-brush planning meeting of
Zymurgy topics for six to twelve months out. Before each meeting, I post
to the AHA Board and TalkBack for article suggestions. Our 1999 Special
Issue on Lagers was a member suggestion. The AHA Board wants more
articles to come from more diverse sources in the membership. I agree
that we need to diversify our author base, as there is a lot of talent
and expertise in our members and it fits in with my goal of having more
of AHA programs be member-generated. To this point I do not believe I
have been successful at integrating the diversity of AHA member talent
into Zymurgy. I want that to change. For this reason and for the
technical expertise and breadth of contacts that Ray brings to the AHA,
I see a better Zymurgy in the coming months.
The plan (hatched by Ken Schramm) goes further. I am looking to build
teams with AHA member representatives to focus on specific aspects of
AHA program work. Beyond the AHA board, I envision committees made up of
members spread around the country to focus on and discuss and improve
each program. I see a Zymurgy committee, a competition committee, a
clubs program committee, a membership committee, a research committee, a
website committee and a legalization committee staffed by member
volunteers. (The conference committee is in its second year.) I see the
committee volunteers as having a second role of being the AHA reps in
their city/state/region to be liaisons with the local homebrewing
communities and a conduit for improving the AHA to be truly
representative of homebrewers. I have commitments from Dave Dixon in
Texas, Bob Rescinito in Oklahoma and Bob Kauffman in Colorado to serve
as committee reps and community liaisons. As always, please e-mail me
with suggestions or if you would like to be involved.
- --
Paul Gatza
Director
American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122
736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX
PO Box 1679 paulg@aob.org -- E-MAIL
Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info@aob.org -- AOB INFO
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:47:29 -0600
From: "Steve Potter" <spotter@meriter.com>
Subject: Dried Sweet Corn and Sister Star IPA
Hello,
With all the talk about dried sweet corn, it occurs to me that last year I
ran into some freeze dried sweet corn at the Spice House in Milwaukee. It
was individual kernels and was as sweet as candy. I am sure that it is
pricy, but perhaps a Milwaukee HBDer would be kind enough to check?
Nathan wonders about Brockington's Sister Star IPA recipe. I have brewed
this several times. I liked it best with Columbus hops. It was bitter
beer, but then again I like it that way. I wonder if utilization goes
down as the hop quantities grow to verge on outrageous.
Cheers,
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:09:37 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: steam
>If its 250F, how does one maintain the pressure needed?
>The RIMS chamber and obviously the mush tun are both vented.
Dig back into the archives for more info but basically a vessel
such as a pressure cooker is used to create the steam. Steam
as 212F contains more energy that water at 212F due to the
energy required in order for the water to change state (liquid
to gas).
The steam is piped to the mash tun or heat chamber. When the
steam hits the "colder" mash, it returns to the liquid state
and release energy in the form of heat (same thing happens when
water freezes, which is why you will sometimes see southern
farmers irrigating their crops is a light freeze is predicted,
the water forming ice actually warms the plants).
Thus, the steam must return to liquid and it doesn't matter if
the mash system is vented. It's basically an open loop system.
The volume of water added to the mash is quite small compared
the mash volume and thus dilution is not much of a concern.
At least that's the way I understand it.
John Schnupp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:57:05 -0500
From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: Sister Star
All -
Nathan asks about the use of 3 oz of Chinook hops in a 5 gallon batch of
Sister Star, and if it would be unpalatable. I think I can add a data point
or two to the theory of whether absurdly high IBU's make undrinkable
beers... In a word, no. Last summer, I inadvertently made a "pounder" 10
gallon batch where I was not paying too much attention and ended up dumping
17 ounces of hops in a 10 gallon batch of 1.066 IPA. I ended up getting a
measured 157 IBU's out of it, and I was planning on either blending it or
writing the beer off. Until I tried it. Was it hoppy? Of course it was.
Does Jeff Rener live at the center of the brewing universe? Was it
unpalatable? Not at all. I've found that there seems to be somewhat of an
"IPA threshold" after which we really just can't discern any more
bitterness. Actually, in that beer, (aptly named Hop Glutton IPA) the malt
foundation was still undeniably recognizable.
I thought I'd seen the IBU upper limit until Alan Meeker and Mike Maceyka
(in my brewclub) did their hop experiment (which they posted the results of
here, search the archives). They put something like 22 oz of hops (FWH,
bittering, aroma, dry, teas, oils, stalks, stems, you name it) into a 5
gallon IPA batch. By ProMash calculations, it came out to just over 600
IBU. It was marvelous. Obviously their "wall of hops" was somewhat akin to
the little fence in China, but there was a malt presence that I never would
have expected. Resinous and sticky? Sure. But also quite balanced
considering the mammoth amount of hops.
My point is that you can still have a good, albeit *hoppy* IPA with IBU's
that are in triple digits. Don't expect it to be anything less than
massively hoppy, but it won't by any means be undrinkable Believe me, we've
tried. With that many Chinooks, though, you're probably going to get a
somewhat hard edged, spicy bitterness. That may or may not be what you're
looking for. Try Columbus if you want something a bit softer and more
floral/citrusy while still maintaining high alpha.
Just my .02...
Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:12:10 -0500
From: "David Kerr" <dkerr@semc.org>
Subject: re: Sister Star
I've tried a couple of batches of Sister Star variants, loved 'em. My
favorite to date:
10 Gal batch
2 row malt with about 6% Carapils for 1.062 OG, infusion mash at 153F
FWH 2 oz Chinook
3.5 oz. Chinook at start of boil
2 oz Columbus 20 min before end of boil
1 oz Cascade and 1 oz Chinook at knockout
2 oz Cascade dry-hopped
Nottingham dry yeast
Great - no, overwhelming hop profile, as you'd expect, but still some
maltiness showing through. Vienna as a base malt might be my next attempt.
Wouldn't want to guess at the actual IBU, I'd guess that there's some
diminishing returns with that much hops. The only disappointment I had was
that the beer was a little hazy, I've read here that FWH may contribute to
this.
------------------------------
Date: 03 Dec 1999 11:17:29 -0700
From: "Jeffry D Luck" <Jeffry.D.Luck@aexp.com>
Subject: Dry Ice
I just finished catching up on HBD from last week and I
have a question about carbonating with dry ice.
Let's assume I've donned my face shield, heavy gloves,
and protective cup, and I'm ok with the benzine thing. For
a pint swing-top bottle (grolsh), exactly how much dry ice
do I need to carbonate? Do I need to shake it after I seal
the cap to drive the CO2 into the beer so it doesn't
explode? Any other practical suggestions? (...like "get my
head examined"?)
I usually prime & bottle my beer, but it would be nice to
have a couple to sample on bottling day.
Jeff Luck
Salt Lake City, UT
"It's not a beer gut; I have a Liquid Grain Storage Facility."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:49:12 -0800
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer@JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: decoction detail/fungi
collective homebrew conscience_
lynne o'connor wrote:
>The Czechs actually use Double Decoction with rests at 38C, 50C, 65C, and
>72C. the key is to the make the first decoction quite large, use a portion
>to get to 50C, the other portion to get to 65C. Additionally, try boiling
>the entire mash for 20 minutes after the 72C rest, then sparge.
one of the desirable results that boiling the solid part of the mash
produces is the physical degradation of starch into enzyme-manageable
fractions. greg noonan mentions this in his _brewing lager beer_ book, and
al k (among others) has discussed it here in the past.
if you boil the *entire* mash as your last step before sparging, you will
physically degrade more starch and kill all your enzymes in one neat step.
one of the things most brewers aim for is minimal starch in the wort. it's
a haze source and it's food for bacteria.
here's bill siebel (of the siebel institute):
>A good temperature to maintain while lautering would be that of mash-off
>or ~170 F, 77 C. This would aid in run-off (higher temps, lower
>viscosity) and act to set the enzyme activity of the mash. Actually some
>alpha amalyase would still be present (and desired) to work on any
>starch that has come into solution under these conditions.
but, you argue, all my starch has already been converted to sugars by the
time mash-out happens. most of the time, for homebrewers, this is wrong.
charlie scandrett has written here in the past that it is beneficial to have
some alpha enzyme survive into the mash-out step, to convert starch that
gets gelatinized by the heat boost. this supports bill's last sentence,
above.
i know lynne has been over to czechoslovakia and maybe some of the brewers
over there are boiling their entire mashes before lautering, but i don't see
how the positives (melanoidin formation) could outweigh the negatives
(starch release/enzyme elimination) for homebrewers. there are other ways to
get melanoidins without (unconvertable) starch release into the wort.
**************************
our next president wrote:
>The "River Rat" rests in peace. It's feeding fungus as all real boats
>ultimately do.
as do all real brewers.
brew hard (and feed your fungus),
mark bayer
stl mo
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 11:52:00 -0700 (MST)
From: jliddil@VMS.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: starters/budvar malt
>
> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:43:33 -0800
> From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
> Subject: re: Oxidized yeast starters
>
> I have to agree with Alan about the time factor of waiting for the yeast
> to settle. Yes, chilling can hurry the process but it can result in
unfiltered
> air getting into the starter if you just put your starter in the fridge
without
> keeping positive pressure in the starter container. I typically don't chill
I don't feel that a significant amount of unfiltered air is going to get
into the starter by settling it in the frig. I have done this in the
home and laboratory settings for years with no problems. Sure it means I
start the starter on Monday and then let it stir until thursday morning.
I then pu it in the frig and all the yeass has settled by saturday. I
thne can decant off all but 200 ml or so of the 4 liters of starter. As
homebrewers we quite often don't have the option to actually propogate the
yeast as do commercial brewers and then reuse it and blend the first
generation beer into another batch. following my procedure I don't think
that I am selecting out the most flocculant yeast since It all seems to
settle by saturday. But againwe each have our own methodlogies.
One might ask is using budvar malt a step backwards? And it is all fine
and good to quote decleck but remember that what he said 40+ years ago may
not be true today. I would be nice to have complete specs on the budvar
and moravian malts including diastatic power.
Now about using budvar malt being retro. Currently the philosophy being
taught at brewing schools like Siebels (name dropping, Scott) is that all
the malt modification should be done in the malt house and NOT in the mash
tun. I'll spare you from spewing theories on enzyme reactions, arguements
about economics, qc/qa issues with undermodification etc. These are
issues we all have to consider but as homebrewers we are free to do what
we want. But as a brewpub brewer (George D.) do you want to add time and
effort to your day by using "undermodified" malt. runoff probelms,
conversion problems, lack of protein from too short a low temp rest. and
many breweries simple are not eqipped to do multistep temp. mashes
The bottom line is whether or not using budvar malt vs any other
malt on the market will produce a product superior in flavor and taste?
Using highly controlled conditions brew two beers and have them judged
blind. So I propose that malt of both the nomrla moravian malt and the
undermodified malt be sent to Seibels and used in the there whamo pilot
brewwing system. Then have the beers judged by the Seibel tasting panel.
Just a thought. And maybe all the beers brewed with this malt will win in
competitions. But then again the brewers that already win are probably
going to start using this malt and it will not prove a thing. Just
something to ponder.
Jim Liddil
North Haven,CT
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3186, 12/04/99
*************************************
-------
