Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3227
HOMEBREW Digest #3227 Thu 20 January 2000
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:
converted keg fittings (Clifton Moore)
14th Annual Big & Huge Competition (Mark Garthwaite)
Zapap Bum Rap? (MaltHound)
Re: converted keg fittings (Susan/Bill Freeman)
Oxygenating wort and high final gravity ("Steve Postek")
Dextrins and mouthfeel ("Paul Smith")
Re: Zapap Bum Rap? ("Brian D.")
New brewery plans (Paul Dey)
yeast propagation / All grain advice / malta starters / Siebel ("George de Piro")
Wyeast 1338 (Jeremy Bergsman)
Drunk Monk Challenge, March 4 ("Steve McKenna")
RE: souring a stout ("Steve")
Re: Keg Q: Converting Pin lock to Ball lock (RobertJ)
Australian Ale Yeast ("Darrell Leavitt")
conveting Pin Lock to Ball lock ("Vinbrew Supply")
Re: MBAA Practical Brewer Site; burst sparging ("Paul Smith")
Motorizing mills,Guinness souring (Dave Burley)
Hot Stuff ("Luke Van Santen")
Floating false bottom ("Alan Meeker")
Hot Pepper Beer ("Brett A. Spivy")
sparging (Marc Sedam)
Burst sparging (RCAYOT)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information
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: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 12:41:41 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: converted keg fittings
I have two kegs that I use for brewing.
The first is set up with a 1/2" union welded
through the lower rim with a dip tube through
a false bottom.
The second has a brass bulkhead fitting in the base
of my boiling keg. I have never in the years of use
had any trouble with any of the fittings. If I were
to do anything different I would make the boiling kettle
fitting size 1/2" inside diameter so that it might more
easily pass whole hops. As it is I tend to strain most
of the hops out of the kettle near the end of boil.
Clifton Moore
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 15:58:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Mark Garthwaite <mgarth@primate.wisc.edu>
Subject: 14th Annual Big & Huge Competition
The Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild is proud to sponsor the 14th
Annual Big & Huge Homebrew Competition. Homebrewed beers will be
evaluated by the trained palates of experienced beer judges. Evaluation
sheets with helpful comments and advice will be returned to every entrant.
Awards will be granted in five categories of big and huge beers. The Best
of Show beer will receive the coveted WOOLY MAMMOTH plaque. Come to the
competition to participate in the homebrew exchange and meet other brewers
and beer lovers. The competition is sanctioned by the Beer Judge
Certification Program and will follow its competition procedures.
*Please Contact us if you are interested in judging or stewarding*
When: Sunday, February 27, 2000 at 12:00 p.m. (Drop off of preregistered
entries) 1:00 p.m. (Judging begins).
Where: Wonders Pub, 1980 Atwood Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin
Entry Requirements: Three 12 ounce or larger bottles per entry. Bottles
and caps should have no labels or identifying marks. Attatch one
completed entry form to each bottle with a rubber band. Include an entry
fee check payable to the Madison Homebrewers & Tasters Guild.
Registration forms can be found at www.gdinet.com/madbrewers
Entry Fee: Guild Members- $4 per entry, All others- $5.
Categories: Category Original Specific Gravity
Big Ale 1.050 to 1.060
Big Lager 1.050 to 1.060
Huge Ale >1.060
Huge Lager >1.060
CMS (Ciders, Meads, & Sake) >1.050
Entry Deadline: Deliver entries to Big & Huge Competition, c/o Wine &
Hop Shop, 1931 Monroe Street, Madison, WI 53711 until Wednesday, February
23rd. Affix a copy of the registration form to each bottle with a rubber
band. Pre-registered entries may be brought to the competition on
February 27th between 12:00 and 1:00 pm. To preregister, deliver, fax or
email a copy of the registration form for each entry by Wednesday,
February 23rd, to Steve Klafka, Big & Huge Czar, 508 Elmside Blvd,
Madison, WI 53704, fax #(608) 255-5042, email
sklafka@wingraengineering.com
Homebrew Exchange: The day of the competition we will feature a homebrew
exchange. Bring up to three (3) different homebrews to exchange for
samples of homebrew provided by other brewers. At a minimum, put your
name and beer style on each bottle, but personal labels and recipes are
also welcome.
The Madison Homebrewers & Tasters Guild, Ltd. is a nonprofit club
devoted to the brewing and appreciation of well-made beers. Visit us a
Wonders Pub on Wednesdays or on the web at www.gdinet.com/madbrewers
Further Info: Steve Klafka (608)-255-5030(day), 249-0231(evening), email:
sklafka@wingraengineering.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 17:14:55 EST
From: MaltHound@aol.com
Subject: Zapap Bum Rap?
In HBD 3223 Brian Dixon spoke thusly:
<>
Brian,
Actually, yes, I do remember that Zymurgy test article. However, my
recollection of that experiment was that all of the devices tested were very
serviceable and that the differences in extraction were essentially
insignificant. The amount of variation in extraction yield is likely to vary
more batch to batch than the difference between these mashing systems.
Quoting from the article:
"This is not real science. The measurement errors in the distribution of the
grain and the measurement of the volume of runnings are enough to account for
the 3.32 points between the highest and lowest extractions..."
I also don't think that one should make broad conclusions based on a sample
of one test. One particular flaw that comes to mind about this test is that,
unlike Listermann Phalse Bottoms, not all Zapaps (or copper manifolds for
that matter) are created equal. I would hypothesize that if you drilled out
a Zapap with exactly the same hole size / pattern as a Phalse Bottom it
would/should lauter essentially the same. Also, as noted in the quote above,
the way the mash was split between lautering systems tested is suspect.
I would be interested in any theories of reasons why a Zapap is inferior.
Not so much because of the inherent utility of a Zapap (I don't even use one
anymore) but because it would be useful in determining what the important
parameters are that need to be considered in lauter tun design.
In any case, I think we would both agree that the easiest thing for a
homebrewer is to just throw in another 1/2 Lb of grain when presented with a
potential extraction difference as small as this.
Regards,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 16:28:31 -0600
From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus@bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: converted keg fittings
I think all I said was that IMHO fittings on stainless kegs and stock
pots are better welded than threaded through the side. Brass works, but
must be treated to recuce the lead leaching into the brew. BTW 1/2 ball
valves have only a 3/8 interior hole. 3/4 ball valves have a 1/2 hole
through the ball. "the perfesser" uses a long version of the EasyMasher
to strain hops out of the outflow of the boiler. The whole hop bed also
filters a lot of the hot break out at the same time. The science of
brewing is not finite. Nor is the way each of us chooses to deal with
ourt equipment. Cheers, Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat
Clifton Moore wrote:
> I have two kegs that I use for brewing.
>
> The first is set up with a 1/2" union welded
> through the lower rim with a dip tube through
> a false bottom.
>
> The second has a brass bulkhead fitting in the base
> of my boiling keg. I have never in the years of use
> had any trouble with any of the fittings. If I were
> to do anything different I would make the boiling kettle
> fitting size 1/2" inside diameter so that it might more
> easily pass whole hops. As it is I tend to strain most
> of the hops out of the kettle near the end of boil.
>
> Clifton Moore
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:37:38 -0500
From: "Steve Postek" <spostek@voicenet.com>
Subject: Oxygenating wort and high final gravity
I have several related questions:
First can anyone tell me how long an APA should ferment at
about 68 degrees? I am new to brewing and it seems it is
finished after about 10 days (six in the primary and four
in the secondary with the finishing hops). The SG is steady
but higher than expected. Started about 1.050. Now about
1.022. The recipe calls for 1.015. I am guessing if I
bottle now I am going to get a very malty flavor in there
which is quite uncharacteristic of an APA. I know that there
has been a long discussion on early racking but aside from
that is six days too long in the primary? Is there any
standard? I have seen people say anywhere from a day to a
week.
When the final gravity reading is high but steady and I know
it should be lower, is there anything I can do after the
yeast runs out of gas? Can I pitch more yeast? That doesn't
sound like it will work if I can't oxygenate after pitching.
My last question is what is the best way (cheap) to actually
oxygenate? I tried two consecutive times to use a slotted
spoon and a whisk (egg beater). I guess maybe I did not do it
long enough. I see the more expensive fish tank aerators
with the diffuser ends for sale. Is that worth it and if so
how long do you aerate with that? Has anyone out there tried
using an electric mixer? If so please share your method.
I see in books that one selected method is capping a glass
carboy and shaking. I am by no means a physics or chemistry
expert but I don't see how oxygen will get into the vessel and
mix with the wort if the end of the carboy is capped.
Thanks for any help in advance..............
Steve Postek
Limerick, PA
spostek@voicenet.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:17:16 -0600
From: "Paul Smith" <pksmith_morin@msn.com>
Subject: Dextrins and mouthfeel
My experience differs from Daves Burley's regarding dextrins and mouthfeel. I
simply cannot agree with Dave that dextrins do not contribute to
mouthfeel. Dextrins may not be as effective a source of mouthfeel as
(especially, medium-molecular weight) proteins, and may in fact contribute
other, off effects, i.e., a "worty" taste, but all one has to do is mash two
worts:
one at 145 to conversion and one at 158 to conversion, and compare the
mouthfeel to notice a difference. 158 is well outside the optimal range for
proteolysis, so the comparably greater mouthfeel would be due to the longer
chain effects of a-alpha amylosis.
However, I do not have any data points to support this; I'd be interested to
see the "many scientific investigations" Dave refers to show that "dextrins do
not contribute to mouthfeel." Dave?
I know in practice, both in my own endeavours and at breweries where I've
worked, a mash at 158 is used specifically to lend body to, e.g., pale ales.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 20:27:29 -0800
From: "Brian D." <briandixon@home.com>
Subject: Re: Zapap Bum Rap?
Fred Wills <MaltHound@aol.com> wrote:
[snip]
> insignificant. The amount of variation in extraction yield is likely to
vary
> more batch to batch than the difference between these mashing systems.
> Quoting from the article:
>
> "This is not real science. The measurement errors in the distribution of
the
> grain and the measurement of the volume of runnings are enough to account
for
> the 3.32 points between the highest and lowest extractions..."
Yes, I remember this quote, and I know from personal frustrating experience
that these same measurement errors can make a huge difference in perceived
extraction points (my 'yield' dropped from 85%-90% down to 70% after I
calibrated my electronic scales, water measuring containers, and dipsticks
for my pots ... this was due to measurement error!) I concur on this point.
> I also don't think that one should make broad conclusions based on a
sample
> of one test. One particular flaw that comes to mind about this test is
that,
> unlike Listermann Phalse Bottoms, not all Zapaps (or copper manifolds for
> that matter) are created equal. I would hypothesize that if you drilled
out
> a Zapap with exactly the same hole size / pattern as a Phalse Bottom it
> would/should lauter essentially the same. Also, as noted in the quote
above,
> the way the mash was split between lautering systems tested is suspect.
Very true also. Variance among copper manifolds and Zapap's are probably
great (number of holes, size of holes, pattern of holes, size of buckets,
manifold shapes/diameters/lengths/etc).
> I would be interested in any theories of reasons why a Zapap is inferior.
No good theories here. Your explanations seem to make sense to me.
> In any case, I think we would both agree that the easiest thing for a
> homebrewer is to just throw in another 1/2 Lb of grain when presented with
a
> potential extraction difference as small as this.
Yes! Of course!
[grinz] The only statement I was making was that I based my past opinion on
that article. I've read other literature on lautering and am convinced that
different systems do affect the efficiency of the extraction. I believe
that the primary factors are temperature and rate. Keep the temperature hot
enough and the rate slow enough, and you can get good extractions from a
variety of systems.
So why do I still bet on the Phil's Phalse Bottom (now Listermann's ... but
I'm an old fan of the original name ... and owner)? Because a) it has an
extremely good reputation, b) at least one article found it to be the best
(even though repetition of the experiment may yield different results ... at
least the Phalse Bottom didn't place last near the last), and c) more than
one source (forgive my bad memory on which ones) claimed that lautering
systems do vary. Call it a safe bet on my part. Like I said in the
beginning, "go with a Phil's Phalse Bottom for $13 or so" and you won't go
wrong. Yes, other systems may perform as well or even better. But the
Phalse Bottom will get the original poster a known good performer, will
remove doubts about his Zapap, and will also speed up the initial phase of
his sparging ... the re-running of his wort to clarify it and to 'set' the
grain bed. Or, for a lot more work, money, or time spent in the brewing
process, he can match the performance of the Phalse Bottom. I weighed these
pros and cons when I bought mine, and went with the Phalse Bottom and have
had nothing but pleasure and good brewing since. Just my 2-bits worth I
guess! YMMV.
Happy brewin'!
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 22:04:38 -0700
From: Paul Dey <alldey@uswest.net>
Subject: New brewery plans
Brewers,
Forgive me father for it has been many days since I've last brewed
(and many more since last I posted). I've contracted a deadly disease
that distorts priorities, alters time and limits fermented output.
>From recent posts, it seems others may also have this plague. My
version became evident following spawning for the second time, then a
new house, then....ahhh. Get to the post.
I intend to set up my milling operation in the garage where my
none-exploding very nice MM (thanks Mr. S) will be set atop a bin of
sorts to gather the grist and powered with the same electric motor
I've used in my past home. I'd like to route the grist to the
basement "brewery" which is right below and inside from the mill.
I'll need some sort of smooth tube to conduct the grist. I'm thinking
4" round vent pipe or perhaps rain gutter. Comments and suggestions?
I'd like to be able to grind all the grist and then go to the brewery
and release a gate or something to drop the grist into the tun. I'm
concerned that the grist will get hung up, especially in whatever
vessel I use to collect to grist in the garage. I guess I need the
grist to emerge from the bottom of a conical vessel to ensure all the
grist goes to the basement?
I have the water lines plumbed and will be running electric soon to
power the RIMS (yep, GFCI all) and shed more light. Any suggestions
on vent fans? I saw a 70 cfm? (forgot the unit, amount of air it
moves per unit time) fan with a light the other day for $50 that
seemed like it'd work o.k. hung over the kettle.
And I need to run the propane lines. My Gawd, he's got propane in his
basement! Nope, 500 gallons outside, furnace and water heater in the
basement, gas snifter mounted next to furnace close to the floor which
shuts the gas supply line off at the first hint of combustibles. I'm
a bit concerned, however, that it may be so sensitive that everytime I
go to light a burner the gas will shut off. That would make me
thirsty.
Running out of beer in Wyoming,
Paul Dey
Cheyenne, WY
p.s. Jeff, its time to post your periodical reminder to include
geographical coordinates, rennerian or not.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 00:27:05 -0500
From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro@mindspring.com>
Subject: yeast propagation / All grain advice / malta starters / Siebel
Howdy all,
Mike asks me for more details about why the volume of a yeast starter
should never be increased by more than a factor of 10.
The reasons are:
1. You want the yeast to be able to quickly ferment the wort so that
invading organisms will not have any nutrients to consume. By pitching an
adequate number of yeast cells you ensure a quick and complete fermentation.
2. Yeast are limited in the amount they can divide by sterol. Sterol is an
important part of the yeast cell membrane. It is so important that yeast
cannot live and divide with less than 0.1% of their weight as sterol. They
can have a maximum of 1% sterol by weight. Sterol is made using oxygen
(this is why yeast need oxygen; they do not use it for respiration in a
brewery environment).
Because of the above limitations on yeast sterol content, they can only
divide three times before they fall to a level of sterol that prohibits
further budding (when yeast divide each cell gets about half the cell's
sterol). Unless more oxygen is added, the yeast will not be able to divide
further. If you have pitched to few yeast cells, three divisions will not
yield enough yeast to quickly ferment the wort. This is the cause of many
stuck fermentations.
If you underpitch the starter (or your batch) the result is a slower start
of fermentation (which can lead to microbiological trouble) or a stuck
ferment. Underpitching also does stuff like increase the amount of higher
alcohols (the so-called "fusel oils;" alcohols with more carbon atoms than
ethanol, which has two). This is a common homebrew flaw (and a flaw in some
commercial beers, as well).
- ------------------------------------
Bruce Carpenter asks for some first-batch all-grain advice:
He asks if he can mash and lauter in the same vessel. The answer is a
resounding "Yes!" In fact, most small breweries are set up this way. The
combination mash-lauter tun is called, accurately enough, a "Combi-tun." It
does limit some of your mashing options, but not terribly so. It is a great
way to keep your first few batches simple.
He also asks if foundation water (the water under the false bottom) should
count toward the volume of mash water when figuring the amount of hot water
to mix with the grain to hit a specified temperature. In my experience, no,
it should not be counted.
- -----------------------------------
Alan Tallman describes using Malta as a starter:
"After one week the Malta beer
tasted very sour and checked in at 1022. After one more week, (down to 1020)
the sourness was gone."
Some questions and comments:
What was the OG of the malta? 1020 is kind of a high FG, too. I believe
that this could be caused by a lack of amino nitrogen in the malta; it is
made using a large amount of corn sugar and other low-protein adjuncts.
Perhaps adding yeast nutrient to it would remedy the situation and make it
more useful as a starter media?
- ----------------------------------------
Rob Moline posts the closing of the Siebel Institute, where he and I were
classmates two years ago.
This is indeed a very sad day in the brewing industry. It may be arrogant
of me to say this, but there are far too few craft brewers in the USA who
actually know even the basics of brewing science and quality control. I
have met countless brewers who cannot even culture their own yeast or figure
out why their beer develops diacetyl on the shelf. To me this is
inexcusable; when you choose a profession you should do your best to educate
yourself about it. Ask your local brewer if they have read Malting and
Brewing Science or Technology Brewing and Malting (or even the HBD for that
matter!). More often than not, the answer is, "No."
There are plenty of brewers out there in need of education. It is truly sad
that Siebel will not be an option for them any longer.
I do have one criticism about Siebel, though: their courses were very
expensive considering that they were not offering accredited degrees. I
would gladly pay Siebel's tuition (or even more) to earn an MS in brewing
science. The certificates that Siebel offered are essentially useless
outside of the brewing industry. Perhaps that can be something they
consider in their attempt to restructure?
Have fun!
George de Piro
C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
(518)447-9000
http://evansale.com (under construction)
Malted Barley Appreciation Society
Homebrew Club
http://hbd.org/mbas
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 21:58:57 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Wyeast 1338
Scott Zimmerle asks for input on 1338.
I have an alt going with this right now (that's right, I didn't get the Head
Start yeast). I put it at 58F and it blew out the airlock with a gallon of
headspace. I turned it down to 55F and it seems to be going fine. If
anyone wants more info, email me in a couple weeks and I'll let you know how
well it finishes out and how much "ale character" it has.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 01:08:08 -0600
From: "Steve McKenna" <mckennst@earthlink.net>
Subject: Drunk Monk Challenge, March 4
THE DRUNK MONK CHALLENGE
March 4, 2000
Sponsored by the Urban Knaves of Grain
The Urban Knaves of Grain will host the 2nd Annual Drunk Monk Challenge
homebrew competition on March 4 at Two Brothers Brewery in Warrenville, IL.
The competition is AHA/BJCP sanctioned and will accept all styles of beer,
cider, and mead according to the 1999 BJCP style guidelines. It is a
qualifying event for the 2000 Midwest Homebrewer of the Year Award.
Once again, we'll feature the Menace of the Monastery, a special category
for beer styles which recall the monastic brewing traditions of Belgium and
Germany: Belgian dubbel, tripel, pale, strong pale, and strong dark ales,
plus German doppelbock.
Requirements: 2 bottles. $5 fee per entry ($4 each for 5 or more entries)
for the main competition; just $2 each for Menace entries. Entry deadline
is Feb. 26.
Many Options: Ship your entries to The Drunk Monk Challenge, c/o Two
Brothers Brewery, 30W114 Butterfield Rd., Warrenville, IL 60555. Or drop
them off in person at The Brewers Coop, located at Two Brothers Brewery; or
at The Homebrew Shop, 1434 E. Main St. in St. Charles. Or bring them to the
Feb. 24 UKG meeting at John's Buffet in Winfield, IL, or to CBS First
Thursday on March 2 at Goose Island brewpub in Chicago. Judges and stewards
can also bring entries on the morning of the competition. (First Thursday
and competition-day entries must be preregistered by mailing paperwork and
fees to our shipping address before Feb. 26.)
Prizes: Ribbons for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in each category plus BoS and Menace.
1st in the Best of Show and Menace of the Monastery rounds also receive a
commemorative plaque. Complimentary DMC tasting glass for all volunteers.
Speaking of Volunteers: Please help! BJCP judges and apprentices, please
contact judge coordinator Joe Formanek (jformanek@griffithlabs.com,
630-378-4694) or competition chairman Steve McKenna (mckennst@earthlink.net,
630-305-0554) to volunteer.
Fun stuff: Volunteers Party the night before. Potluck dinner at the
brewery after the competition. Plus the ever-popular raffle.
Information, Rules, and Entry Forms: Available at the competition website,
http://www.synsysinc.com/srcoombs/ukgdmc/ukgdmc2k.htm, or contact Steve
McKenna.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 06:49:17 -0500
From: "Steve" <stjones1@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: RE: souring a stout
Rich asked if anyone had tried Charlie P's method to
sour a stout. Although I used a similar method on a
pLambic last year, I would hesitate to try souring a
whole batch of stout. I've heard it can turn quite
quickly (QDA), and before you know it, it could
become undrinkable.
I recently attempted a Guinness draft clone (10
gallon, all grain, 1.041 OG) and when I racked to
the fermenters, I held back about 3% of the wort.
Actually, I saved back 48 oz, with the idea of
adding back about 38 oz. The rest was for absorption
by the malt, boiling loss, etc. I racked this to a
sanitized gallon jug and added 1/2 lb crushed pale
malt, which supposedly harbors lactobacillus
bacteria. No yeast was added. I kept this on my
mantle above the wood stove (probably around 80-90F)
for around 5 days, and it had really become
malodorous (it stank!) by that time. I strained,
boiled, chilled, and added it back to the main batch
when I racked to secondary, which went for about 3
weeks before carbonating. It finished around 1.015.
The result was a slight "twang" which does make it
more like a Guinness than any of my previous
attempts. I wouldn't hesitate to do it again, though
I may slightly modify the amount I soured, or my
souring process. Good luck.
Steve
State of Franklin Homebrewers
http://home.att.net/~franklinbrew
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:42:12 -0500
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re: Keg Q: Converting Pin lock to Ball lock
Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com> wrote:
How can I convert the PIN lock to Ball lock? is it easy? is it a matter of
switching the fittings, or do they not interchange? I have a couple of pin
lock couplings that I can use if I have to, but I would prefer to use all
the same rather than having to switch out my hoses on the regulator every
time.
Not sure about your kegs, but some manufacturers do use the same threads as
ball lock and you can switch plugs. However, new plugs are often more
expensive than a used keg
If this doesn't work, IMO the easiest and cheapest solution is to use hose
barb to 3/8" female flare fittings at the end of your lines and use
connectors with 3/8" male flares rather than hose barbs. Just switch
connectors
You could also use a quick disconnect in the line for a quicker change. I
do this and find it gives me the most flexibiliaty for ball lock, pin lock
and commercial taps
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://pbsbeer.com Manufacturer of 3 Vessel
Brew Systems, HERMS(tm), SS Brew Kettles, SS hopback and the MAXIchiller
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:49:40 -0400
From: "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt@sln.esc.edu>
Subject: Australian Ale Yeast
6lb Halcyon
4lb Franco-Belgian Pilsner malt
1/8 cup Special B (for color)
single stage infusion into 3 gal, beta rest @ 149 F for 90 minutes
first runnings 1.080
og=1.055
fg=1.010
ABW=4.75%
sparged with about 3.5 gal 170 F water
1 oz Saaz (3.6aa) @ start
1/2 oz Saaz @ 30
1/2 ox Saaz @ 15
pitched Whitelabs WLP009 Australian Ale yeast (ferments at 65-70
F)...didn't make a starter but pitched directly from the vile.
bottled this last night and it had a pretty clean flavor. I think that I
like this yeast.
Saved the slurry and brewed a batch of Australian Red Ale:
4 lb Halcyon
4 lc Franco-Belgian Pils
1 lb Crystal
1 lb Flaked Barley
1 lb Aromatic (Belgian 26.6 L)
3 gal water, 2 step infusion (148F for 30 min, 158F for 60 min)
first runnings 1.098
0G=1.0701
Pride of Ringwood @ start (6.9aa)
Polnicher Lublin @ 30 (3.1aa)
same at 15
still in primary. I think that this will be a good one as well.
Has anyone on this digest tried the Australian Ale yeast (wlp009)?
Comments on recipe/ method are welcome.
...Darrell
<Terminally INtermediate Home-brewer>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:06:22 -0500
From: "Vinbrew Supply" <devans@greenapple.com>
Subject: conveting Pin Lock to Ball lock
Yes, It is quite possible. You can buy ball lock fittings to go on the pin
lock.. I have converted two of them for customers.(5 gal corny's however)
You need to know if it is firestone or Cornelius. Ask your homebrew shop to
order the fittings for you from Foxx Equip. sales. They are the only ones I
know of that sell the conversion fittings.
Badger remarks....
"How can I convert the PIN lock to Ball lock? is it easy? is it a matter
of
"switching the fittings, or do they not interchange? I have a couple of pin
"lock couplings that I can use if I have to, but I would prefer to use all
"the same rather than having to switch out my hoses on the regulator every
"time.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 06:54:23 -0600
From: "Paul Smith" <pksmith_morin@msn.com>
Subject: Re: MBAA Practical Brewer Site; burst sparging
Pdf download:
To everyone who was having problems getting the pdf download of "The Practical
Brewer:"
On the main page, go to the "education" link at the bottom of the page. From
that page, scroll to the bottom of the page and click "Technical Quarterly;"
scroll down about midpage to the Practical Brewer area, and go to the "PDF
DOWNLOADS" link there. The files are chapter by chapter, not the book as a
whole. (Thank you to the MBAA for providing this gratis).
_________
Regarding the use of "burst sparging" as a technique (and the "coining of a
phrase"):
This is the term we used at Goose Island microbrewery, where I worked as a
quality control technician. I have heard it used elsewhere. Kunze refers to
it as "periodic sparging" (pp. 235-236).
It is not the same as continuous sparging, and, yes, it did kick my extraction
up from 85-95%. Since you are not maintaining a constant volume of water on
top of the grain bed, but rather you are allowing runoff to proceed to the
grain bed depth and then sparging until 3" or so is on top, you are setting up
a sparge "pump" of sorts, since the density differential between the sparge
water and the mash-entrapped wort is maximized.
My apologies to whomever has a problem with my use of the term "burst
sparging." As graduate students at Berkeley, we were accustomed to defining,
then naming a phenomenon when we observed it in nature, providing we knew of
no other name. When we did use the name, we promulgated it along with our
methodology and findings.
That way we could demand royalties when the term gained currency in the
popular imagination. So everyone who wants to use this technique, please call
it "burst sparging" and send your money my way...
There is no doubt this method has increased my efficiency, as corroborated by
several batches with the method as a control:
New: Old:
1.5# munich 1.5# Munich
17.75# 2-row 20.5# Munich
1# crystal .75# Crystal
20.25# total 22.25# total
OG: 14.1 14.1
12 Gallons 12 Gallons
________________
I would agree with Steve Alexander that Kunze's book has errors in it (due to
obvious translation problems, as in "...it is therefore better to do without
carbonation as much as possible...," when he probably meant to say that
"...sterile forced-carbonation is difficult, as sinter candles are notoriously
difficult to maintain clean..." (see pg. 432)
>From everything I've read by Steve, he knows a universe more about chemistry
than I do, and as I stated in my post there are other, more germane texts if
you want brewing and cellar chemistry, especially in the areas of research.
If you want this, as Steve suggests, look into magazines and other sources. I
enjoy what issues of Technical Quarterly I have read.
However, I still think Kunze's is a great text. By "thoroughly discussed" I
mean enough chemistry is in there to provide the basis for practical brewing
at a commercial level (my interest), and the discussions of malting, brewing,
cellar and packaging technologies fill a gap left by other books.
Paul
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:05:36 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Motorizing mills,Guinness souring
Brewsters:
I successfully motorized my mill some
years ago with a 3/8 drill. Use a clutch
or shear pin arrangement or if you
attach the drill directly to the mill via
that tempting 3/8' in. rod, be sure that
you have some way to shut the motor
off automatically.
Eventually, you will find detritus in your
malt, like rocks, chunks of rubber or bits
of metal. I have found all three and didn't
see them as I was loading the mill. Luckily,
I had the foresight to loose mount my drill
and have it so the power cord was
shortened to the point that a stuck mill
would rotate the drill handle and pull
the plug. Simple and it's worked so far.
Here's a needed gadget - a clutch
or shear pin arrangement for the drill
chuck. It may be as simple
as a Teflon(R) sleeve with a metal
tube around it that fits the chuck or
vice versa. Anyone looked at how
a drag on a fishing reel works?
- ---------------------------------------
David Houseman asks for a non-momily
reference about Guinness' sour tang.
If you have access to it, check
out Malting and Brewing Science.
If you can't find it let me know which
edition you have and I'll try to locate it,
as it is in an obscure place. I read it
in the original edition and may have
it marked. I believe I saw the 3%
reference there. It was a two line comment
sort of " Oh by the way.." Don't recall if
Guinness was specifically mentioned,
but the reference left little doubt, if I
recall correctly.
Adding sour beer would be consistent
with the "stale" beer origins of
Guinness and porters and "three
threads" and "entire" and all that.
It is also rumored that this sour
beer was the secret additive that
Guinness Dublin shipped to its
breweries around the world to
maintain quality. Just a rumor, AFAIK.
Is that where Kentucky Fried Chicken
got the idea?
And I have had the sour beer
taste in Guinness in the UK
many years ago, but not recently.
It did taste a little spoiled by modern
standards, but was consistent from pub
to pub, so I assume it wasn't handling
and sanitation at the pub that was the
problem.
Things do change, whether we like
it or not. Much as we would like to believe
it, I sincerely doubt it if there are any
commercial beers which represent how
beer used to taste and why it became
famous. For starters, we all know that the
OGs today are a far cry from historical
levels. Hopping levels are less, although
some really early beers had low or no
hops. I even doubt the Real Ale efforts
have been successful as the commercial
OG's are so low. Makes me doubt ( but still
appreciate) the efforts of the BJCP to
standardize tastes based on today's
beers. Maybe they also need a
"real beer" branch of categories utilizing
historical OGs and hop levels dating to the
1800s, when I believe beer reached its peak..
Chances are good that Guinness
would not be around if they made beers
of the original strength and quality
Too highly taxed, auto insurance
companies and legislators ( the horse
could find its way home by itself - cars can't)
and two world wars with limited grain supply
and, perhaps, a sour taste (Coke trained
drinkers like it sweet and not bitter or sour)
mitigate against that. Look for a blond
Guinness at your supermarket in the future!
Or have I seen one already?
It may be the sour taste was needed to
make the MUCH bigger beers of
yesteryear less cloying. With the
present shamefully low OG. perhaps
Guinness doesn't need or can't
withstand the addition of stale or
sour beer, at least in this market.
If you do use the sour beer, try an
OG of 1.070 - 1.080 or thereabouts.
I don't want insurance companies and
laws and history dictating what I can
taste. I'd like to try the original Guinness!
Which is why I homebrew.
- -------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:36:01 -0600
From: "Luke Van Santen" <Luke.VanSanten@dot.state.mn.us>
Subject: Hot Stuff
Beer folk -
In 3223, Eric Theiner tells about pepper jelly adventures - on
the Chile Head list, that is known as Hunan Hand, followed by
Chili Willy. The list is a great source for all things pepper (chile)
related (especially growing peppers and making hot foods).
There is also a couple of subscribers to the Chile Head list that
annually conduct a habanero mash, where large amounts of
habaneros and other ingredients are fermented. The resulting
substance is strained, canned or bottled, and aged. Reportedly,
it is very good. I was going to post the procedure, but I couldn't
find it. If anyone is interested, I am requesting it from the makers
and will post it here (or send it privately) when I get it.
A news article about the exploding sauce (Huy Fong Tuong ot
Sriracha) - http://www.safetyalerts.com/recall/f/00/hotchili.htm
And a response from a guy that makes the sauce -
ftp://www.globalgarden.com/pub/chile-heads/digest/
v06.n125. Find William Tran on this page.
And back OT (barely) - Rick Woods (Brewing in Guam) is
sending me boony peppers to use in some chile beer I will
make this fall. Ain't he cool!
Luke Van Santen
St. Louis Park, MN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:39:43 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Floating false bottom
Ant Hayes has a frequently encountered problem:
>I have been using Phil's Phalse Bottom since 97, very happily, except for
>its desire to float. This was not a problem until I started using the
>floating mash approach in a combined mash/lauter tun. Doughing in is tricky
>when the bottom floats, and I struggle to get a clear run off.
Jay Spies gave me this tip which has turned out to work very well. Get a
length of tubing (about 1/2 inch diameter or so) long enough to make it
around the circumference of the false bottom. Cut a slit in the tubin
lengthwise along the entire length of the tubing and thread it over the
false bottom. When you put this cushioned false bottom down into the lauter
it fits nice and snug - keeps the false bottom from floating up as well as
the added benefit of keeping any of the grain bed particles from sneaking
around the edges of the false bottom during sparging. Has worked for me.
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 08:23:27 -0600
From: "Brett A. Spivy" <baspivy@softdisk.com>
Subject: Hot Pepper Beer
Hello all, i trust this finds you well and brewing.
I am looking for a beer that I can't find anymore, haven't seen in four
years, and can't remember the name of the brew. Now that you have all
the clues, "The game is afoot!" Ha Ha!!
Seriously, it was in a clear bottle, had a Jalepeneo pepper in each one,
tasted strongly of chile pepper (as opposed to Jalapeneo), and if memory
serves the label was yellow in color. based on my recently aquired
brewing knowledge (and awarness of lack of same), I surmise it was a
lager of some type as it was largely flavorless but fo the pepper, but
it might have been a blonde ale of some kind.
Any help is appreciated,
Thanx . . .
Brett A. Spivy
Stolen Cactus Brewery
Berry Dairy CyanWinery & Cheese Factory
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:38:30 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: sparging
I, too, am a big fan of the Listermann sparge arm (no
affiliation, yadda, yadda...). I use a Gott cooler to hold
sparge water, mash in a keg with a SS screen on the bottom,
and collect the runoff in my bottling bucket (attach the
runoff hose to the spigot reduces splashing almost
completely).
The last time I brewed I realized that I didn't have enough
propane to finish the boil. I put 5 gal of 175F water in the
Gott, guesstimated the flow rate of the sparge water and
tried to match the runoff from the lauter, and took off to
get propane. When I came back 45 minutes later the sparge
arm was just stopping (i.e. sparge water just finished
flowing) and there was 6 gallons of runoff collected. 10
minutes later I had the last gallon of wort and was in
business.
See? Hands-off brewing for $1500 less than a 3-tier, SS,
RIMS system. ;-)
Cheerios,
Marc
------------------------------
Date: 19 Jan 2000 09:01:18 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Burst sparging
I have been reading a couple of threads here lately about "burst
sparging" and the other one about using a collander when sparging.
Most of the advice has been good, but I think that we are overblowing
the need to "distribute" the sparge water. I personally use a
technique known as "semi-continuous batch burst sparging" sometimes
"with grain-cutting and recircualtion" ;)
When sparging, I can't think of any possible difference it can/would
make for the sparge water to be over the grain bed by 2" at one time
and 1/4" at another and then go back to 2" etc. Especially when
pouring in the sparge water usually disturbes the top of the grain bed
by a few inches at least. Personally I don't worry too much, I use a
pitcher and dump in about 2qts at a time, sometimes 2 or three
pitchers full! GASP! Look, this is not rocket science, if you are
lautering in a vessel where the grain bed is over 6" then I think it
would be difficult to really screw it up by distiurbing the grain bed.
When runn-off slows down on me sometimes I stir up the whole mash in
the middle of a sparge, then allow to settle for 5-10 min, then
recirculate until clear, and usually make uyp some time with smoother
run-off for the remainder, I also often take my spoon and
"redistribute" the top layer of grain to keep channeling to a minimum.
I tried to use a sparge arm for years, what a pain in the ass, to try
to keep the flow rates even between runoff and sparging, especially
when the runoff rate varies over the entire sparge, I never got a
"continuous" sparge with a constant level of sparge water over the
grain, never ever, so I guess I just said to myself, why bother?
Also, I found it easier to control the temeprature of the sparge water
when I dipped it out of a pot on my burner, I could start out very hot
to raise the temperature of my mash to mashout and mix in some cooleer
water (or just let it cool off) to keep the grain bed temp below 75C.
I guess I just want to explain to the newbies out there that they
don't have to worry about the minor details so much, they don't make
THAT much difference. when you have mor experience under your belt,
then start to play around with your technique, this is what I would
call "refining" your technique.
Also, when the different mash tuns are compared, I was very impressed
with the extract achieved with the ZapPap or double bucket system, I
never got that high an extraction, but then again I was using it when
I had little experience. Although the difference in efficiency was
"significant" it was not so much, just add a little more grain.
Roger
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3227, 01/20/00
*************************************
-------
