Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3205
HOMEBREW Digest #3205 Mon 27 December 1999
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Re: Scotch Ale ("Joe-Bob Briggs")
Tannins/got more better yet. ("Stephen Alexander")
Government Beer Diet Study (Dave Burley)
Re: Mixers (Dave Ludwig)
Amount of hops (Kevin McDonough)
Re: Cask ale from a Corny (Michael Josephson)
cyber-shadow (LaBorde, Ronald)
Running errands and "step mashing" ("Jack Schmidling")
re: RIMS woes (RobertJ)
Further to SG/Polyphenols (AJ)
consistency / efficiency / flavor ("Stephen and Carolyn Ross")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
*** HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOURS! ***
*
>> Note: The HBD server will be shut down 12/31
>> through 1/1/00. Yes, we're Y2K compliant -
>> that's not what we're concerned over...
>>
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: Fri, 24 Dec 1999 22:47:31 -0800
From: "Joe-Bob Briggs" <Yo@Home.Net>
Subject: Re: Scotch Ale
><< Willy Warmer Wee Heavy, 140-Shilling Scotch Ale
>> (Brian Dixon)
>>
>> OG: 1.110
>>FG: 1.042 (approx. abv 9%)
>> >>
>>
>Congratulations, Brian! How was your carbonation level? I've brewed
Scotch
>ales at this OG a couple of times and haven't been able to get them to
>carbonate.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Keith MacNeal
>Worcester, MA
Carbonation was fine. If anything, a bit high for the style. You have to
pour gently to prevent forming too much of a head ... and the head you get
is very creamy like a nitrogen poured beer. I used the usual 3/4c corn
sugar, expecting it to carbonate less than lighter beers would with this
amount of priming, but no problem! I attribute my big beer carbonation
success to good yeast health (start with quite large starters, meet minimum
nutrient levels .. especially Ca (min. is 50 ppm), and use pure oxygen in
starters and main batch). Haven't had a big beer fail me yet! Oh, and I
use Wyeast Thames Valley (#1275) most of the time 'cuz it produces a darn
good beer and is better performing than Wyeast Scotch Ale or Irish Ale. I'm
really in love with that Thames Valley stuff ... (Thanks to Joe at Corvallis
Brewing Supply, Corvallis, Oregon for the original recommendation that got
me to try it.)
Brian
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 02:59:16 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@ieee.org>
Subject: Tannins/got more better yet.
AJ says ...
>>Tanin is extracted in a high liquid to grain ratio causing astringency.
>
>While a high liquid to grain ratio may cause more tannins to be
>extracted it is nevertheless true that appreciable tannins are extracted
>during the boils of decoction mashes.
[...]
>the lower pH of the decoction mitigates tannin extraction somewhat. Even
>so, my decocted beers have polyphenols typically 5 times those of
>undecocted beers as they come out of the fermenter.
and later
>[..] I did recheck the two lagers [...]
>In once case the polyphenols actually went up [...]
Extremely interesting - tho' the meaning is highly dependent on what one
calls a tannin. Can you describe the test you've performed to measure
tannins (tannoids, total phenolics, ...?). Apologies if you've already
described it - perhaps offline if you think interest is thin. Another
interesting question that you may be in a position to answer AJ is the
impact of PVPP or Polyclar or Nylon66 on tannin levels and the flavor of the
beers.
That decoction wort contains greater amounts of total phenolics than
infusion is certainly true. The question is what sort of phenolics and what
is their impact on flavor. As M&BS states ... "Decoction worts contain more
OXIDIZABLE polyphenolics and fewer OXIDIZED polyphenolics than infusion
worts." (emphasis is mine) The increase after the fermentor is perhaps
telling of the source.
Perhaps the most common definition of tannin is a phenolic compound with a
MW of 500 to 3000 which is capable of binding to protein (or some proxy
material, a gel of PVPP etc). Not all of these compounds are astringent.
Haslam [see 'The Flavanoids', Chapman&-Hall 1975, and 'The Biochemistry of
Plants', v7, Acad Press, 1981] reported that astringency in phenolics
requires a 1,2 di-hydroxyl or a 1,2,3-tri-hydroxyl arrangement for the
phenolics. Still ... most interesting.
===
Note to JeffR. I once took 1800vdc across my hand while testing an
oscilloscope PS and I got much better than Eric Fouch, so don't knock it if
... My hand does hit down-pg involuntarily whenever I read the word
"brewster" but I think that 's a 'feature' not a bug.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 09:01:08 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Government Beer Diet Study
Brewsters:
Yesterday, scientists for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) suggested that men should
take a careful look at their beer consumption,
considering the results of a recent analysis
that revealed the presence of female
hormones in beer.
The theory is that drinking beer makes men
turn into women.
To test the finding, 100 men were fed
8 pints of beer each.
It was then observed that 100% of the men
gained weight, talked excessively without
making sense, became overly emotional,
couldn't drive, failed to think rationally,
argued over nothing, and refused to
apologize when wrong.
No further research is planned.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:31:17 -0500
From: Dave Ludwig <dludwig@us.hsanet.net>
Subject: Re: Mixers
> Scholz, Richard posted recently: . . .
>
> I thought I would try cobbling together a mash mixer of my own. I'll
start
> with a gear motor, rated at 50 ft/lbs torque at 3rpm connected to a
paddle
> of some type. . . . .
>
> And Joy"T"Brew said:
> ...This geared motor only develops 13 foot pounds of torque if I've
calculated
> properly? H&R Co. sales 1-800-848-8001. The Reversible super hi
torque
> (2500 oz/in at 3.3 rpm) part number TM96MTR2940 @ $69.95 does the
job. ...
>
3 - 3.3 RPM seems way to slow for efficient mash mixing unless you're
just trying to short circuit channeling. I get visible circulation of
the mash but no agitation using about 60 RPM in the SHMS. Jack
Schmidling uses 30 RPM and apparently gets good results. How does your
mixer work at that RPM Joy?
Happy Holidays!
Dave Ludwig
Flat Iron Brewery
SO Md
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:01:27 -0500
From: Kevin McDonough <kmcdonou@nmu.edu>
Subject: Amount of hops
In Papazian's New Complete Joy of Homebrewing, there is a recipe for Toad
Spit Stout. It calls for 3.3 lbs. of John Bull hopped dark malt extract
syrup. If I wanted to use a non-hopped dark liquid malt extract from some
other company (e.g. Hoptech), how much do I increase the hops in the recipe
to equal the amount in the hopped extract? The recipe calls for 1.5 oz. of
Northern Brewer hops in the boil and 0.5 oz. of Fuggles or Willamette hops
as a finishing hops. Would I increase the Northern Brewer hops to 2 oz to
compensate?
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks much.
Kevin McDonough
kmcdonou@nmu.edu
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 10:00:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Josephson <blackcatbrewing@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cask ale from a Corny
Hi all and Happy Holidays,
It was my question a couple of weeks back that has
prompted this fascinating thread about serving real
ale from Corny kegs. I thought I would offer an
update.
First, getting the kegging setup was the best thing
I've done for my brewing (since going all-grain). The
beer tastes better. I'm now serving beer that reminds
me of the ales that I've had during my trips to
England . Wonderful.
I decided to forgo any complicated gravity or beer
engine dispensing systems for now. And I'm quite happy
with my technique, even though it may not be Camra
approved. Here is what I did:
- --Racked the beer into the keg with 1.5oz of priming
sugar and 1/2oz of East Kent Goldings. Waited 2 weeks
for it to come into condition.
- --To dispense, I first bleed the builtup CO2 out of
the keg. Then I attach the gas line with the PSI set
at 5. When I'm done dispensing for the evening, I
repressurize the keg to 5psi and unhook everything.
I'm very happy with the results. Perfect carbonation.
It tastes like cask ale to me.
Cheers,
Michael
Minneapolis, MN
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:31:09 -0600
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: cyber-shadow
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@hbd.org>
>I bought a
>case (6) of 2 liter Erlenmeyers and another case (4) of 2 liter beakers
Merry Christmas to all.
And Pat, great that you are into brewing big time again!
Wow! I can only imagine what old time brewer you were, your shadow is
impressive.
:>))
Ron
Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor@lsumc.edu
http://members.xoom.com/rlabor/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999 11:33:22 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Running errands and "step mashing"
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
>Gee, I guess you go run errands while doing a step mash just like I do.
Guess that depends on what the meaning of "run errands" is. I find it hard to
believe that you get in the car with the wife and kids and do the weekly
shopping while mashing. But if you do, "god bless us everyone".
I get a lot of other things done while mashing but have the sense to check on it
every 15 minutes or so.
It also depends on what the definition of "step mash" is. I can start my mash
at room temp or any other temp and by setting the heat very low, have my mash
slowly pass through every rest temp that has ever been conceived. So in a
sense, I can do an infinite "step mash" that probably does everything that one
could ever taste in a beer without even thinking about the details.
I don't bother of course because, as my wife said after returning from 3 weeks
in Germany, "I couldn't wait to get home and have a really good beer".
The bads news is that the last of the WGB for the season is below the sight
glass in the keg, so any glass may be the last.
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 08:50:43 -0500
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: re: RIMS woes
Jack Schmidling says:
"In a few hours and at a fraction of the cost, one can make a MIXMASHER
http://user.mc.net/arf/mix.htm which takes all the tedium out of kettle
mashing
and have a system that does everything a RIMS is supposed to do
I like the idea of constant stirring, but can a mixmasher set the grain bed?
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: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 19:49:24 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Further to SG/Polyphenols
With reference to the sg to Plato coefficient set attributed to Noonan a
couple of days ago (P = -616.868 +1111.14*SG -630.272*SG^2 +
135.997*SG^3), these turn out to be the ASBC's official coefficients
[American Society of Brewing Chemists "Report of Subcommittee on
Statistical Analysis, JASBC 42:138 (1984)] and I should be recomending
these rather than my own which, though they give a slightly better fit
to the ASBC's tabular data, do not do so to a significant extent and do
not carry the imprimatur of official blessing.
Further to Steve's comments on this subject - it's quite interesting the
way things work out. The formula for pounds of extract in a gallon of
wort is, using Steve's symbols
Msg = Muw*SG*P/100
Msg = pounds of sugar in a gallon
P = plato measure of wort = (percent of wort mass estimated to be
solute).
Muw = mass of a unit volume of water, in this case 1 gallon at 20C
Mg = mass of grist
SG = specific gravity of wort.
p = points of gravity = 20C/20C specfic gravity minus 1 divided by 1000
P is, as we have been discussing, very well approximated by a polynomial
P = b0 + b1*p + b2*p^2 + b3*p^3
b0 = -0.00352427, b1 = 0.2585875, b2 = -0.000222294, b3 = 1.36104E-7
Using the definition of p we get
Msg = Muw*(1 + p/1000)*(bo + b1*p + b2*p^2 + b3*p^3)/100
If you multiply out this whole mess and look at the values you will
find that the terms other than b1*p tend to cancel one another so that,
approximately
Msg = Muw*b1*p/100
What's happening is that the slope of the P vs. p curve, which
decreases with increasing p, is compensated for to a large extent by the
(1 + p/1000) factor by which P is being multiplied. For water at 20C a
gallon weighs 8.32167 pounds (in air) so that
Msg = .0215188*p = p/46.47
which implies that one pound of sugar in one gallon of solution would
give 46.47 points of gravity.
The relationship just given is an approximation. A better one is
Msg = -0.0030086+ 0.021729*p
and a better one still
Msg = -0.00044765 + 0.021542*p + 2.2643e-06*p^2
but the differences are small. One pound per gallon gives, using the
more accurate (seond order) formula, 46.22 points (as compared to the
46.47 value obtained by ignoring all coefficients except b1). As this
is the region in which we expect to work for most of our beers, it makes
sense to want to minimize the error at about this level so we suggest
Msg = p/46.22
as a better approximation than p/46.47.This formula is accurate to +/-
0.0015 pound/gal up to about SG 1.054. The error then increases rapidly
mounting to 0.007 at SG 1.083 which is still only 0.4%. Taking the
concept of best accuracy in the region of usual operation a step further
yields the slightly more complex (Taylor expansion) formula:
Msg = 1 + (p-46.22)/46
which is accurate to within .001 pound per gallon between SG 1.023 and
1.064 (it is dead nuts on at 46.22 and the error increases the farther
you get from 46.22 being 0.003 at SG 1.008 and 1.080.) It still has the
desireable property of being easy to remember - forty-six being the key.
Note that Steve uses 46.15 points/lb/gal as the constant and I am using
46.22. The difference depends on whether the weight of a gallon of water
is that obtained in vacuum (gives 46.15) or air (gives 46.22). The ASBC
tables are based on Plato's (Kaiserliche Normal-Eichungskommission 1900)
tables which tabulate sucrose specific gravity in vacuo at 20C/4C. The
ASBC tables were computed from the Plato tables by converting specific
gravities in air at 20C/20C to vacuum 20C/4 Cvalues and then entering
the Plato tables. Thus, the ASBC tables are for air, 20C/20C and thus I
have convinced myself that the air density of water should be the value
used in my calculations.
Finally, Steve mentioned the fact that the maltsters' published CG and
FG numbers are on a dry weight basis but didn't mention this as an error
source in extract efficiency estimation. Moisture pick-up can be as
significant a source of error as some of the others he cited. A newly
opened bag of malt can pick up a couple of percent of its weight in
water from the air in a matter of days.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In another post Steve asks for a few words on how I measure phenols and
what types of phenols the test detects. I use the "International Method"
which is the ASBC's "Beer -35 Total Polyphenols". It's a very simple
test in which beer is mixed with a carboxymethyl celulose + EDTA
solution to which ferric amonium citrate is then added followed by
ammonia. The blank is another sample of the beer without the ferric ion
addition. The type of phenols detected are, thus, any which develop a
red color with ferric ion in basic solution. The total phenols are
estimated as 820 times the absorbance at 600 nm in a 1 cm cell. Thus the
test is not very specific. To give some examples, my ales usually run
150 - 400 mg/L or so, decocted lagers to over 1000 and weak tea about
125.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 1999 13:48:56 -0600
From: "Stephen and Carolyn Ross" <rosses@sprint.ca>
Subject: consistency / efficiency / flavor
Hoppy New Year to all.
Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com> notes that efficiency measurements
can be used as an indicator of consistency.
I agree that consistency is important ( I think I said "Only predictable
efficiency is required for proper recipe formulation.")
I must pick a nit and disagree partly with Dave's comment:
"If your efficiency is varying OR LOW then also you are likely not
consistent. I think both flavor AND efficiency are important."
(my emphasis)
I think it is possible to have both a consistent and low efficiency.
Efficiency definitely has a bearing on beer flavour. But maximizing
predictability/consistency and maximizing efficiency are not the same. It
doesn't follow that in order to have consistent results you have to have
maximum efficiency. Maximizing efficiency may not be desirable. According
to Fix, an increase in efficiency correlates to an decrease in positive
flavour profile.
Nit successfully picked.
cheers!
Stephen Ross
______________________________________________
The Rosses Stephen, Carolyn and Sam
rosses@sprint.ca 306.665.8336
"Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat."
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3205, 12/27/99
*************************************
-------
