Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3220
HOMEBREW Digest #3220 Thu 13 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:
Russ hobaugh's ESB questions ("Sieben, Richard")
extraction ("Paul Niebergall")
Henry Weinhard Going Tits Up? (Brad Miller)
forward: re: moderate alc use and diabetes... (darrell.leavitt)
Czech Malt/pH meters/Newsletter PDF available ("Philip J Wilcox")
waving (jliddil)
Help needed on All Grain ("Mr. Joy Hansen")
RE: AOB/AHA Representation - For REAL?? ("Houseman, David L")
CO2 Cylinder shipping (John Lifer)
Re: Fw: Nitrogen Dispensing at SoCal Homebrew Fest (Spencer W Thomas)
getting educated ("scott")
Re: skimming (Jeff Renner)
7 Stern Brau - Hanf-Bier (Tombrau)
only bottling a few ("Dan Michael")
Thirsty for knowledge (spostek)
Consistency (John Wilkinson)
Grain Mill Motorization ("BeerLvr")
SG loss to hops.... ("BeerLvr")
Iodospor. (jafjmw)
Comments on B-Brite (Randy Shreve)
Re: how do you measure the last runnings? (John_E_Schnupp)
Brewing in gallons, divide recipe by 5? (RRodda5250)
Snowbank?? what's that?? ("Peter J. Calinski")
CO2 shipping ("St. Patrick's")
drinking and brewing (Jeff Renner)
Hop Teas - Again ("Paul Ward")
Mash Efficiency Questions ("George W. Miller")
Diet Root Beer? (Bob White)
Brewing water pH ("Alan Meeker")
Rodney Morris Article (FF-SDA)" <Anthony.Altieri@us.millwardbrown.com>
Human flocculation (Dave Burley)
Beer food (Nathan Kanous)
Acadian Brewing closes (MVachow)
Recipe (Michael Kwiatkowski)
How do you measure your SG (Jeremy Bergsman)
Skimming (Dave Burley)
* 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, 10 Jan 2000 10:01:55 -0600
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1@Aerial1.com>
Subject: Russ hobaugh's ESB questions
There are a number of things that could have gone wrong with your brew to
get such a low extraction rate. When you mashed in at 153, was that the
temp of the water you infused with, or was that the actual mash temperature
after infusion (correct answer)? Did the mash stay at this temp? Did you
monitor your mash temp and stir every few minutes? If your temperature
dropped below about 145 degrees, you would not get a good conversion either
I don't think. Insulating your mash tun would help maintain constant temps.
You didn't say how much water you mashed in with, I think if you used more
than 2 qts/lb, the mash was maybe too thin to get a good conversion. Since
this is your first all grain, did you mix up the water with the grains well
so that there would be no 'dry' spots in the mash? Sort of rambling here as
ideas come to mind.....I assume you got precrushed malt, and if not is the
crush good? Maybe the malt had been allowed to absorb moisture before you
used it and is 'slack' malt which doesn't give good extraction. I don't
know what kind of conditions your seller of malt subjects the malt to.
(Believe it or not there are actually still stores out there that keep malt
in bins that you just scoop out what you want and this is a really bad
idea!)
I think 75% extraction is pretty average for most brewers doing a simple
infusion mash, and I have gotten up to 93% via decoction mashing and using a
picnic cooler. (No flames about extraction rates please, I am using the
Suds program to give me efficiency, so if you think that is wrong then so am
I). Anyway, yes you can use more grains to compensate or, do your mash, get
the wort in the kettle and take a gravity reading, then add some Dry malt
extract to bring you up to desired gravity. I keep about 3 to 6 lbs. of dry
malt extract on hand for just such 'emergencies'.
I don't know the AA % of your hops, but the lower gravity than planned will
make the beer unbalanced on the bitter side. The bitterness will decrease
with age. Oh, also you didn't mention whether the hops were pellets or
whole hops. If a recipe calls for an ounce of whole hops, you need to
reduce the pellets by 15% to be equivalent.
Hope my ramblings help,
Rich Sieben
Island Lake, IL
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:28:14 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb@burnsmcd.com>
Subject: extraction
Russ Hobaugh writes about his extraction rates:
> 9 lb. Marris Otter
> 8 oz British Crystal (50-60)
> 11 oz flaked maize
> 1 oz British black patent.
>Why is my extraction so low? If I am figuring correctly, this was only
>about 55%, how can I get that up. I was shooting for an ESB with
>a SG of 1.054, and ended up with 1.042. I had a similar experience
>with my first ag--an irish stout.
First, I am not sure how you are figuring that you are only getting 55%
efficiency. For a little over 10 pounds of grain contributing to the
sugar content of your wort, a specific gravity of 1.042 works out to
about 28.35 points per lb per gallon ((42 points*6.75 gallons) / 10
pounds). This is a completely respectable extraction rate, especially if
this one of your first batches and you are using a
zapap-style home made device.
The most you can get from most grains is in the neighborhood of
34 to 36 points per pound per gallon (ppppg) (I am relying on memory
from the Zymurgy Great Grains issue, so I might be off a little).
Anyway, dividing your ppppg of 28.35 by the most you can possibly
get (35 ppppg - average value) gives you an efficiency of over
80 percent, not bad. Remember that the numbers given for 100
percent extraction (34 to 36 ppppg) are ultimate extraction rates
and are only achievable in a laboratory. (In other word
you will never get 100 percent efficiency, so dont even try).
What you probably did is collect too much wort. I am saying
this because the recipe that you cite is probably
based on a 5-gallon batch. If you would have boiled the wort down
to 5 gallons you would have ended up with an S.G. of about 1.056.
Which puts you above you target. Your extraction is fine.
>What is an "average" extraction rate (if there is such a thing)?
28 ppppg is fine, 30 is better. Consistently
over 30 is outstanding (or the person is lying about their extraction
rates - which happens more than you think).
>Without buying a RIMS, how can I improve this, or should I be
>content with 55%, and count on that and increase the amount
>of grain I use to compensate?
Lord help us all - another potential Rube Goldberg in the making!
Please dont buy a RIMS. Be content with what you are doing
and keep going. Maybe add a little extra grain next time or try
boiling the wort a little longer to concentrate the sugars that you
collected. Your numbers show that you extraction is perfectly o.k.
And, it will only get better with additional practice.
My only question is why are you starting with distilled water and
DME? Use tap water.
>Water treatment: distilled water with 1 tsp. of DME/gallon.
Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb@burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 08:48:20 -0800
From: Brad Miller <millerb@targen.com>
Subject: Henry Weinhard Going Tits Up?
It seems as if on the 13th of January there will be an auction of
everything in the Henry brewery in Portland. It looks like they have a
bunch of stuff to get rid off. You can look at the stuff on www.rabin.com
and even bid there too. So if you want to get that huge grain elevator no
is the chance.
Brad
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 11:55:07 -0500 (EST)
From: darrell.leavitt@plattsburgh.edu
Subject: forward: re: moderate alc use and diabetes...
From: IN%"wire@incinc.net" 10-JAN-2000 10:31:01.55
Subj: Daily Brief: Monday, January 10, 2000
[deleted most of the news]
HEALTH AND MEDICINE FROM THE MEDBRIEF
* A recent study suggests that moderate alcohol intake may be
associated with a reduced risk of Type II diabetes in men.
- researchers at the Cooper Institute in Dallas, Texas,
studied Type II diabetes rates in more than 8,500 Texan
men to collect data.
- found that men who consumed 5-10 alcoholic drinks per
week were at significantly lower risk of developing
diabetes, compared to either abstainers/infrequent
drinkers or heavy drinkers; overall, infrequent or
heavy drinkers were at about twice the risk of Type
II diabetes, compared to moderate drinkers.
- authors note that previous studies have suggested that
moderate drinking reduces insulin resistance, in which
the body becomes less responsive to the sugar-hoarding
effect of the hormone insulin.
- the study concludes that up to 24% of incident cases of
diabetes in adult men may be attributable to high alcohol
intake.
- the study is in the journal Diabetes Care (2000;23:18-22).
- from the MedBrief; see http://www.medbrief.com/whatis.html
(January 7, 2000).
[deleted the rest of the news]
source:
____________________________________________________________________
This service is a product of Intelligent Network Concepts, Inc.
db-admin@incinc.net http://www.incinc.net
576 Maxfield Road, Keswick, VA, 22947
(c) 1999 Intelligent Network Concepts, Inc. All rights reserved.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:13:29 -0500
From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox@cmsenergy.com>
Subject: Czech Malt/pH meters/Newsletter PDF available
Hi all,
I'd like to say thanks for the wonderfull info on acidifying I got from brewers,
Thomas, Plunkard, Meeker, thesssen, Kruse, Marrow, Tobler, and Babcock.
I purchased some of the UNDER modified Czech Malt from St. Pats and am now
looking into how to properly use it.
Has anybody brewed with it yet?
What did you do?
Would you recommend doing anything different?
Im Curious, as Im about to spend another complete Saturday Double Decocting in
the garage...
The Prison City Brewers newsletter, The Sentencing Guide, is now available in
PDF format. Eventually We'll learn how to add it to our web site, but for now,
anybody who would like 100-400k pdf every month can email me, and ill stick you
on the distribution list.
Phil Wilcox
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:17:52 -0700 (MST)
From: jliddil@VMS.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: waving
In the article John Palmer and I wrote for zymurgy, we cited a couple of
references where a microwave was used to prepare culture media.
Specifically:
Latimer, J.M., J.M. Matsen, "Microwave Oven Irradiation as a Method for
Bacterial Decontamination in a Clinical Microbiology Laboratory, " J.
Clinical
Microbiology,.
As I recall they got about 6 logs of kill. But this is from memory. You
can read our article at:
http://realbeer.com/jjpalmer/cleaning.html.
If I get time I'll try to see what else I can find via medline/current
contents.
Jim Liddil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:37:12 -0500
From: "Mr. Joy Hansen" <joytbrew@patriot.net>
Subject: Help needed on All Grain
Hi Russ,
First of all, you don't need a RIMS to get decent extractions. Although I
haven't used the Zap-Zap, I'm confident that your process is OK.
Being blunt, your statements regarding water treatment seem way off base?
You might consider doing a little reading in any home brewing text.
. . ."Water treatment: distilled water with 1 tsp. of DME/gallon" . . .
I have no reservations about bumping the sg up with sucrose when the pre
boil doesn't attain the desired sg. Or, boiling longer to a smaller volume
to accomplish the same thing.
Your statement about water treatment suggests that you don't have an
elementary understanding of the chemistry of mashing and sparging, only the
mechanical process. There's been a lot of discussion, when you can find it
among the non-brewing issues, of pH of sparge water and tannin extraction.
Not so much to improve the extraction, but to choose a flavor that's
acceptable in the finished beer. Not too astringent, not too thin, not too
. . . You'll note that extraction efficiency isn't of much importance to
the home brewer. If it happens and the brew turns out great, whoopeeeee!
Consider the posts concerning "No Sparge" techniques.
I recommend that you get any one of the several Fix's books and read up on
the chemistry involved. There are other equally good texts available.
However, the reference must have a section on water treatment. Another on
mashing, and another on sparging. Specifically, study the influence of the
calcium ion in the mash, why distilled water is only a good idea to dilute
water components, and what the pH of the sparge water should be. e.g.
Distilled water may have a pH of near 7 and not have sufficient acidity to
overcome the undesirable effects of other mash components to keep the mash
pH below 5.5.
It's my understanding that the mash must be at the optimum temperature and
pH to obtain a reasonable conversion over a reasonable time. When these
conditions are met, the saccharification can be complete within 15 minutes
and not more than 30 minutes at each rest. The rest temperatures determine
the fermentability of the wort. When the mash is pH and calcium content
are not met, then the efficiency of the saccharification is poor. BTW, you
must know the malt specifications to compensate for variances in the degree
of modificaton of protein and starch.
Finally, consider that each home brewer's system has an inherent extraction
efficiency. It's my gadget frame of mind that resulted in use of a
mechanically stirred RIMS. Most home brewers might admit that meeting the
temperature, pH, and calcium content of the mash are more important than the
type of system employed for all grain brewing.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 12:49:49 -0500
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman@unisys.com>
Subject: RE: AOB/AHA Representation - For REAL??
Rob Wallace asks "A controlling or influencing 'say' or just a "say"...???"
plus other remarks omitted. For those of you who have not sat as a board
member, the answer is that the Board of Directors has the responsibility to
run the organization, For Profit Corporations or Not For Profit ones. The
Chairman of the Board does have a great deal of power, however as the leader
of the BOD. But not absolute, as some corporate Chairmen have discovered
when they have been removed by their boards recently. Could the AOB board
replace Charlie? Yes. But that's not the issue really is it? The real
issues the board has to wrestle with are it's financial stability and
meeting the needs of the members so that the membership can grow. The
changes to the AOB board in most likelihood would not be being made if it
weren't for Charlie's desire to make the AOB/AHA more meaningful to its
members and more viable going forward. No board member in good conscience
would join a board simply to "dethrone" anyone. One participates and works
to make the organization the best that it can be. If in the process it
becomes necessary to make difficult personnel decisions, then there's a
responsibility to do so. But that's not the objective that the members (or
non-members) have unless they are just carrying grudges. So if anyone wants
to become part of the process, join the AHA, run for one of the seats on the
Advisory Board that will be up for election by the members, and work for the
betterment of the organization. The Advisory Boards will then elect from
its ranks members who will then join the AOB Board of Directors where
further contributions to the organization can be made.
David Houseman
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:02:53 -0800 (PST)
From: John Lifer <jliferjr@yahoo.com>
Subject: CO2 Cylinder shipping
UPS will ship hazardous cargo, provided you are not a
one time customer. (no drop offs, or pickups)
See www.ups.com for specifics, but as most of us would
be one time customer, this would eliminate using UPS.
You could relieve all pressure remove the regulator
and designate cargo as empty cylinder. This would be
acceptable for UPS shipment.
John
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 13:07:06 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Fw: Nitrogen Dispensing at SoCal Homebrew Fest
>>>>> "Don" == Don Van Valkenburg <don@steinfillers.com> writes:
>> Your info on mixed gas (CO2/Nitrogen) is correct in that the
>> gasses do not remained mixed in the cylinder.
I've seen this before, but never believed it. Gasses just don't
behave that way. BUT... Is the CO2 a gas? Probably not.
CO2 can be a liquid below 88F, so at normal room temperature, a
significant amount of the CO2 in the tank is probably liquified. The
nitrogen is still a gas, so there would be some separation in the
tank.
For the science geeks: the critical point of CO2 is at 87.9F / 1070.6
PSIA. If the pressure in the tank is 1200PSI, as Pat Babcock
indicated, then up to 87.9F, conditions are right in the tank for CO2
to condense to a liquid.
Web accessible ref: http://www.weldingsupply.net/carbon.htm
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 10:09:52 -0800
From: "scott" <Cuckold@cornerpub.com>
Subject: getting educated
For those of you who may be more interested in GM and it's safety issues
visit http://www.fda.gov/oc/biotech/default.htm. It's a good starting place
for getting educated.
Glen
Glen...what's your idea of "getting educated"? For everyone to adhere to
your point of view? Thanks, but no thanks.
Scott
Richland, Wa.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:05:35 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: skimming
Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com> wrote:
>A few years ago , Al Korzonas did an
>experiment in which he demonstrated
>that it didn't make any difference to
>bitterness, skimming or not.
This wasn't how I remembered it, so I emailed Al and he replied:
At 12:30 PM -0600 1/10/00, Al Korzonas wrote:
>I'm not going to be caught up in quite a while (I'm up to about June 1999)
>but you are right in that my BT article claimed that skimming produced
>similar loss of bitterness (13 to 17% loss) as blowoff. Please post this
>correction.
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 15:18:59 EST
From: Tombrau@aol.com
Subject: 7 Stern Brau - Hanf-Bier
A friend brought back from Europe a 1 liter bottle of 7 Stern Hanf-Bier.
Does anyone have any tasting notes or information on the product? The label
says it was bottled on Dec 23, 1999 and is good till Jan 13, 2000.
Cheers
Tom
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 14:10:32 -0800
From: "Dan Michael" <dmichael@avuhsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: only bottling a few
ok, can I bottle a
few bottles before I keg.
I want to send to
a competition, and I am
going to force carbonate my keg.
I do not have a cp bottle filler.
I do not have time to go find
primetabs. I heard that
I could add a tsp. of cornsugar
solution to each bottle. Will that work?
How much corn sugar should I use?
dan
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 17:13:04 US/Eastern
From: spostek@voicenet.com
Subject: Thirsty for knowledge
I recently brewed my first batch of extract and
specialty grains using unhopped malt extract. I
have two questions:
After reading some on the subject I was hoping
someone could enlighten me on the subject of water
treatments. I use filtered water that removes
99% of all the chlorine, etc from the water. Is
this enough or should I look to water treatments
as a potential way to increase the quality of the
beer?
Second, after brewing my first batch with hops and
specialty grains I was left with about a quart
and a half that just would not settle out. The
specific gravity of the four and a quarter
gallons was right on 1.050, which the recipe
called for, and I did not want to top off to five
gallons and dilute the beer. I just cried my
eyes out while dumping the green slop down the
drain. Is there a good way to recover any wort
that is stuck in there? A filter? A funnel? Does
one work better than the other? Can you actually
recover any wort without letting in a lot of the
hop residue? Or is it just better to cut your
losses and dump it?
Thanks for the help in advance. Feel free to
respond to the list or direct via e-mail. Both
are welcome.
spostek@voicenet.com
- ---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Voicenet WebMail.
http://www.voicenet.com/webmail/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 19:46:27 -0600
From: John Wilkinson <jandjwilkins@earthlink.net>
Subject: Consistency
Fred Kingston took me to task for writing (among other things):
>How about we get back to brewing and leave the environmentalist and
>other political discussions to the proper forum.
and then posting my opinions about the subject. I am afraid he has me
there. I actually wrote the later post earlier but it was bounced
several times for excessively long lines and by the time it was
corrected it came in after my post saying we should get back to
brewing. That is an excuse but it was still inconsistent of me to try
to put my two cents worth in then later suggest everyone else shut up on
the subject. Mea culpa.
NOW, lets get back to brewing. Or am I being inconsistent again?
Whatever,
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:10:04 -0500
From: "BeerLvr" <Beerlvr@hrfn.net>
Subject: Grain Mill Motorization
Well I used my new JSP MALTMILL the other day and made a stout. It worked
great but I want to motorize it as the 19.5 pounds of grain took a little
while to mill. Can anyone tell me what the optimum speed is and what
specific equipment was used to motorize thier MALTMILL?
Mike Pensinger
beerlvr@hrfn.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 21:14:07 -0500
From: "BeerLvr" <Beerlvr@hrfn.net>
Subject: SG loss to hops....
>As an example, I just got through brewing another big Scotch Ale
>(140-Shilling Wee Heavy) tonight and the OG in the kettle was 1.122
(whew!),
>but after racking to the primary through my usual Chore Boy, and topping
off
>to 5 gallons, the OG had dropped to 1.103. There were 6 ounces of hops in
>this batch ...
Seems to me that the hops were in the wort in the kettle so there should be
no difference in the SG from the kettle to the fermenter. Loss to hops
sounds suspect to me IMO.
Mike Pensinger
beerlvr@hrfn.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 07:45:01 +0000
From: jafjmw@wlsfn.force9.co.uk
Subject: Iodospor.
Does anyone know if Iodospor is available in the UK? If so, where and
how could I get some?
Thanks
Adam Funk
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 18:42:45 -0500
From: Randy Shreve <rashreve@interpath.com>
Subject: Comments on B-Brite
Just thought I would jump in and post my personal results with
attempting to use B-brite as a sanitizer.
During my first few batches, I was plagued with almost constant off
flavors while using B-brite as a sanitizer. The problem was so large,
that I was about ready to give up homebrewing - I just couldn't seem to
brew a beer that tasted good. A post to HBD on the subject yielded
comments that B-brite was not an "official" sanitizer.
I switched to Iodophor, and my off flavor problems immediately
disappeared!!
YMMV, of course, but I obviously have something in the house that is
resistant to B-brite. I think it's great as a cleaner though....no
affiliation....yada, yada.
Peace and Long Life!
Randy in Salisbury, NC at Middle Earth Brewing Co.
Presently on tap: Southfarthing Stout, Goblin Cleaver IPA, and Maggot's
Farmhouse Porter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 04:35:02 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: Re: how do you measure the last runnings?
Bryan Gros <blgros@yahoo.com> asks:
>Jeff and others, how do
>you measure the gravity of your final runnings?
>Whether you stop at 1.012 or 1.010 or 1.005?
Jeff Renner said:
>When I am approaching what I know from past experience (volume and from
>tasting the runoff) is 1.012-1.015, I take a sample and stop the flow for
<snip>
>Now I use a refractometer that takes about 20 seconds
What about using a hydrometer that's been calibrated for higher temps?
I've thought about getting one for a range that covers sparge temps and
one with a range that includes boiling temp. I'm I thinking too
simplistic?
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery (temporarily closed)
Colchester, VT (moving to Georgia, VT)
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:38:08 EST
From: RRodda5250@aol.com
Subject: Brewing in gallons, divide recipe by 5?
Hi
I'm new to brewing (and loving it) and work with extracts only so far.
Living in a small apartment I'm interested in brewing up gallon batches of
beer.
The recipes all make 5 gallons (or more) and I'm wondering if I can safely
divide the recipe ingredients by 5 to come up with a recipe for 1 gallon.
Appreciate any help out there.
Thanks,
RRodda5250@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:03:15 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Snowbank?? what's that??
In HBD #3218 Jeff Renner writes:
"I take a sample and stop the flow for the few minutes it takes me to cool
the sample in a cold water bath or a convenient snowbank."
Snowbank?
What is that?
Where can you buy one?
(As I sit here with the skis on my vehicle watching it rain while my ski
pass drifts away.)
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:31:45 -0500
From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats@bga.com>
Subject: CO2 shipping
You cannot ship a cylinder containing CO2. It's quite alright to ship an
empty one via UPS.
Also, there is no problem with transporting a full cylinder when its laying
down, UNLESS it was just filled and is cold. this can cause an ice plug to
form in the neck which can result in blowing out the safety relief valve.
Lynne O'Connor
St. Patrick's of Texas http://www.stpats.com
Brewers Supply 512-989-9727
1828 Fleischer Drive 512-989-8982 facsimile
Austin, Texas 78728
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:36:58 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: drinking and brewing
Peripatetic Calvin Perilloux <peril@compuserve.com> writes these days from
Middlesex, England:
>This will sound blasphemous, but I also found that if I didn't
>drink any homebrew (or any brew) while brewing, it seemed to
>speed things up.
I'll second this blasphemy. It takes all my wits to brew beer as good as I
expect. I reward myself with a homebrew when I'm all done cleaning up and
the beer is safely in the fermenter.
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: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:16:41 -0500
From: "Paul Ward" <paulw@doc.state.vt.us>
Subject: Hop Teas - Again
Before we flamed up over GMO's and how fat a carrot could get in a year (or
something like that) there was a discussion going on concerning hop teas for
flavor/aroma additions. If I could return us all to that golden day of
yesteryear, I had a thought and was wondering if anyone has done the
following yet.
I bottle using a bottling/priming bucket. My routine is to boil the 4 or 5
ounces of corn sugar in two cups of water, add the still boiling mixture to
the bucket and then rack into the bottom of the bucket through the drum tap.
This seems to adequately mix the priming solution into the green beer, and
lets me pretend to myself that I am oxidizing the beer as little as
possible. After the beer is racked, I take the racking cane out of the
fermentor, swap the end to the bottling tip and lift the now primed beer
onto the counter over the dishwasher door that I use as a bottling platform
and go to town. No muss, no fuss.
I was wondering if there was a downside to throwing a hop plug or two into
the sugar/ water solution while boiling to sanitize. Questions:
1) How long do you steepers steep your hop tea before it's done?
2) Do you use a regular kitchen strainer to separate tea from hops?
Is there an
oxidation problem with this?
3) Must you steep below boiling temps or is boiling O.K. (seems safer
from a
sanitation perspective)?
4) Is there a downside to boiling hops in a sugar solution (i.e.
change the molecular
nature of the sugar such as to limit carbonation, off flavors,
etc.)?
As you can tell, I'm a lazy brewer (answer to "what type of brewer are you"
from another previous thread) and want to combine as many steps as possible.
Now to return us to the GMO thread - has anyone considered that yeast have
been genetically modifying us for thousands of years? Think about it!
Paul in Vermont
paulw@doc.state.vt.us
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 10:38:20 -0600
From: "George W. Miller" <gmiller@cybermarket.com>
Subject: Mash Efficiency Questions
After lurking and learning for the past 4 years or so, I've finally finished my
3 vessel RIMS and brewed the first two batches. Now come the questions ;^)
The efficiency of the system varied dramatically between the two batches and I'm
wondering why?
The first batch was 10 gallons. I wanted to make a Scottish Ale, Light 60 and
used the following grain bill:
15# Beeston's Golden Promise Scottish Ale - 1.027 potential gravity
3# Crystal 55L - 1.022 PG
3# Caramel 40L - 1.031 PG
0.5# Chocolate - 1.022 PG
Mash schedule was 20 min @ 104; 20 min @ 122; 30 min @ 140; 30 min @ 158; 10 min
@ 172; sparged with 6 gallons at 170. The pH at the end of the acid rest was
5.3. Topped off to ~ 11 gallons and boiled for 60 minutes.
Anticipated OG was 8.23P, but actually yielded a 14.6 Plato measured after the
boil was chilled, which was about 100% efficiency if I calculated it correctly.
I was estimating 75% efficiency, so this batch turned out quite a bit stronger
than I expected. Not exactly a Light 60!
So, on to batch two. Thinking I was on to something I estimated 100% efficiency
for this batch. Used the following grain bill to make an American Brown Ale:
13# Schreier Pale 2-row 1.035 PG
1.5# Munich 1.035 PG
1.5# Crystal 55L 1.022 PG
1.5# Cara Pils 1.032 PG
0.5# Chocolate 1.022 PG
Mash schedule was 30 min @ 104; 30 min @ 140; 30 min @ 156; 10 min @ 168; sparge
with 6 gallons at 170. The pH at end of acid rest was 5.5. Topped off to ~ 11
gallons and boiled for 75 minutes.
Anticipated OG was 14.65P, but this yielded only an 8.12 Plato after the boil
was chilled, which is a 55% efficiency. Quite a difference from the efficiency
of the first batch!
Is there that much difference in efficiency between grain bills, mash schedules,
etc?
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants to see us happy."
- --Benjamin Franklin
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 09:16:40 -0800 (PST)
From: Bob White <b_white@rocketmail.com>
Subject: Diet Root Beer?
Has anyone here made diet root beer? I'm interested in making a batch,
since I have an extra keg sitting around. I'd like to hear about your
experience with various recipes/extracts and how you sweetened it.
Off-list response is fine!
Thanks,
Bob White
* Be wary of strong drink - it may make you shoot at tax collectors and
miss. RA Heinlein
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:16:56 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Brewing water pH
John Wilkinson asked:
> > I guess I am a bit confused here. I thought optimal MASH pH was
> > 5.2-5.5, not
> > the brewing water. My brewing water is <7 and my mash pH is usually on
> > the low
> > end of the optimum range. I even add chalk to the mash sometimes to get
> > the
> > pH up to the minimum recommended. If the brewing water is 5.2-5.5 won't
> > the
> > reactions in the mash bring it below that?
> A key factor here is the amount and kinds of buffers present, not just
the
> absolute pH of the water per se.
>
> Unless your water is really whacked out the primary buffering compounds
> present are carbonates and these are at equilibrium with carbonic acid in
solution and CO2 in the air.
>
> Each buffer system has a decent buffering capacity somewhere within the
range of
> +/- 0.5 pH units of the buffer's "pKa" and the pKa will be different
for
> different buffers.
>
> If I boil my Baltimore tap water the pH goes up to about 8.5 because I
have
> driven CO2 gas out of solution. This CO2 gas was in
> equilibrium with carbonate compounds as well as with carbonic acid. When I
> boiled off the CO2 the concentration of carbonic acid decreased thus the
pH
> rose. If I let the water cool and it is exposed to air it re-absorbs CO2
gas
> and the original equilibrium re-establishes itself and the pH drops back
> down.
>
> In the mash the pH is mostly determined by acidifying reactions between
> calcium in the brew water and phosphate compounds in the grain. These
> reactions naturally drive the pH down to the low 5's.
>
> The point is that if your brew water is pretty empty of buffers
(carbonates)
> and has sufficient calcium then the mash will have no problem setting
it's own pH. The main reason I add lactic acid to get
> the pH to approx. 6.0 is so that I will have acidic water going
> through in the sparge.
> If you have too much carbonate ("temporary hardness")
> then it could act against the pH lowering effects of the mash phosphates.
> Likewise, if you don't have enough calcium in your water to react with the
> phosphates then you might not hit the proper pH (though the malt itself
> carries calcium with it so there may be enough resident calcium to set the
> pH up - haven't seen any good data on this).
> To remove carbonates you can drop them out of solution by boiling
> with calcium before you use the brew water - this is why people add gypsum
> (CaSO4) or calcium chloride then boil their brew water if they have a lot
of
> carbonates they want to get rid of. This is pretty effective and will
leave
> you with a precipitate on the bottom of your kettle that you can pour off
of. The other tricky thing
> to remember here is that what you are removing is /calcium/ carbonate in
this precipitate
> so you will be losing some of the calcium from your water that is needed
> later for reaction with grain phosphates (to set mash pH) and is also
needed
> by the yeast for fermentation.
>
> -Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:17:37 -0500
From: "Altieri, Anthony (FF-SDA)" <Anthony.Altieri@us.millwardbrown.com>
Subject: Rodney Morris Article
Hello All,
As a HBD lurker, I've heard much discussion on Rodney Morris' RIMS
article. My curiosity has piqued, and I'd like to get my eyes on a copy.
Does anyone know where I can obtain a copy online?
Thanks,
-Anthony.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:43:41 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Human flocculation
Brewsters:
Richard Sholz in response to SteveA's
comment about human population
growing to outstrip their enviromment
resulting in eventual flocculation says he
believes several Millennia of unfettered
growth proves that eventually humans
will flocculate.
Personally, I think too much unprotected
flocculation is part of the problem already!
- -------------------------------------------------
Russ Hobaugh asks why his extraction
efficiency is so low.
My experience and others indicates that
poor milling is most often the reason for
poor extraction, given reasonable grist and
mashing conditions. In my experience, HB
stores routinely grind too coarsely because
it's fast. And if you buy more malt ......
Take a look at the volumes of information
on milling in the HBD archives.
A RIMS won't help but a good adjustable
mill will do wonders if you double crush
at ~0.080 in. and ~ 0.060 in. See detailed
instructions in the archives. If you eventually
want to do RIMS, a proper milling with free
flow in the mash is the critical parameter.
- -------------------------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 12:19:09 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous@pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Beer food
I just heard talk on NPR that Burger King is instituting a "no genetically
engineered food" policy. Our decision has been made for us and we're all
safe now. Could we please get back to brewing?
nathan in madison, wi
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 13:34:35 -0600
From: MVachow@newman.k12.la.us
Subject: Acadian Brewing closes
Residents and beer-savvy visitors to New Orleans will be sad to hear that
Acadian Brewing is closing. The best craft brewer in Louisiana by my
reckoning, Acadian brewed and bottled a pilsner and a marzen. The brewery
also produced a helles bock available only on tap. The brewing community
here is a bit surprised by the news; about a year ago, Acadian increased
production significantly with the purchase of some new fermentation and
lagering tanks. The word on the street, however, is that Acadian had, from
the outset, suffered from the absence of a money guy. Neither brewmaster
Doug Lindley nor president Jim Cronin, a neurobiologist, has extensive
business experience. Rumors about the specific causes of the brewery's
demise pretty much run the gamut. Only a few facts seem clear: regulars at
the brewery's beer garden and other commercial brewers in the city were
stunned to find a sign on the door announcing the closure and a list of
brewing equipment for sale, and the brewery appears to be out of beer,
leading most to assume that the brewmaster and the president planned ahead
for closure. My guess it that Acadian falls into that saddest of category
of attrition, the visionary brewing operation undone by lack of
entrepreneurial experience.
Mike
New Orleans, LA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:46:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Kwiatkowski <homebrewman44@yahoo.com>
Subject: Recipe
Am looking for a recipe for a light ale
with pumpkin and nutmeg in it. Also at what
point in the boil should this be added? Should
I use cooked or uncooked pumpkin.
Thanks all.....
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 11:56:05 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@stanford.edu>
Subject: How do you measure your SG
I have a nifty thing in my "brew house." I took ~3' of 1/2" copper pipe,
put an end cap on one side and something like a 1/2" sweat / 3/4" FPT on the
other end. The volume of this device is enough to float my hydrometer in
its test flask, the sweat adaptor is a bit of a funnel.
You can probably see where this is going. I brew outside. On a hose bib I
have mounted another device. It goes as follows: brass hose bib to some
sort of thread adaptor, PVC thread to 3/4" slip, ~3' of 3/4" PVC pipe. This
is mounted more or less vertically. The 3' copper bit fits into the PVC
bit, but sticks out of end a few inches. I fill the copper bit with wort,
slip it into the PVC and turn on the water. Within 10s I have a cool sample
for reading. Water just overflows onto the ground. When I'm lautering I
don't even bother to stop runoff during each measurement because it's so
fast that it's almost real time (maybe 45s total time for collect, cool,
pour into test jar, read).
(Caution: You must hold the copper device with insulation because the hot
wort heats up the copper and then your hand quite well.)
I saw a device for sale which used a similar idea, but you could have the
hydrometer in the part which was cooled. Unfortunately this was years ago
and I don't recall the name.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:37:44 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Skimming
Brewsters:
Jeff Renner checked with Al Korzonas and
I didn't remember the essence of AlK's
experiment correctly. In fact, I had it
wrong! There is a difference between
blowoff and non-blowoff IBUs
Al's article in BT ( of which I don't have a copy
but thought I was correctly summarizing from
Al's HBD description of a few years ago)
showed that no blowoff versus loss by blowoff
produced the more bitterness.
AlK who has been busy with his new family
and new house took the time to respond to my
questions and gave me permission to include
his reply here:
AlK:
"The experiment that I did was not specifically
to try skimming, but rather compared blowoff
to non-blowoff. In my experiment, I split
a batch into two fermenters that were of similar
shape (at least the beer in them would be of
similar shape... height and diameter were
within a few percent) but one was closed and
a blowoff tube affixed and the other was large
enough to where the head could rise and fall
back into the beer. I repeated it several times
and every time the blowoff batch had between
13 and 17% less bitterness as measured by
the Siebel Institute (IBU measurement... I'm
not sure if it was photometric or HPLC, but I
would guess the latter because I also had
them test for the quantities of various higher
alcohols and esters and this would certainly
be done by GC or HPLC). I also had them
test for protein content. The bottom line was
that while there were small differences in
protein, higher alcohols and esters, the
differences were negligible except for the IBUs.
Since the test was between "force the foam
out of the fermenter" and "let the foam fall
back in" it is quite obvious that "remove the foam
manually" will affect the bitterness also. How
much is dependent on how thoroughly you
do it. No doubt a small part of the foam falls back
in even with blowoff, so it is theoretically
possible that you could even have
fractionally *more* bitterness loss with
skimming, but we humans are far from
perfect and therefore, it is more likely that
skimming will result in a loss of bitterness
somewhere between 0 and 17%
relative to letting the foam fall back in.
My educated guess is that it is likely to be
closer to 17% than to 0%."'
While I agree with Al's interpretation and
extrapolation. I don't ever recall an
experiment in which skimming was
demonstrated to be useful in
affecting the bitterness of beer.
Does anyone else?
In my own experience, I have never noticed
a difference, but I did not do this scientifically.
Didn't compare top and botttom fermenting
yeast. Just couldn't see a difference in taste
with whatever yeast I tried this with long ago
( which was likely a British brewery top
fermenting yeast ) and stopped skimming
to reduce the chance of infection. From
time to time I do skim to collect yeast and
maintain a top fermenting character, thus
my suggestion to use a paint edger.
I assumed the obvious insolubiity of the
"scum" was an indication that it would not
contribute to additonal bitterness or
"yeast bite" by redissolving. No attempt
was made to measure hop bitterness
quantitatively. Based on Al's result it is
likely there was a difference, but within
my ability to notice a significant difference.
I probably was not as effficient at foam
removal as a blowoff would be.I doubt
I did a triangle test or any such thing in
those days. These were likely bitters
anyway and the senses are usually
logartihmic, decreasing in reponse
to higher levels. So no apparent difference
in bitterness by taste is probably
reasonable
In my case, much of the "scum" clings
to the side of the 5 gallon fermenter as
the head falls and is a sort of automatic
skimming, I guess, This same
circumstance prevails with carboys,
as I remember trying to scrub those rings off in
my early fermenting days.
So, in the absence of other information,
I believe my conclusion to not bother
skimming, while not necessarily valid for large
fermenters, is perhaps appropriate for small
fermenters of the size we use in homebrewing,
since I don't know if 13-17% IBU difference,
with skimming even less, is significant.
OTOH, Others have commented on wanting
to remove the scum since it tastes so nasty.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3220, 01/13/00
*************************************
-------
