Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3233
HOMEBREW Digest #3233 Thu 27 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:
Yeast Pitching ("Stephen and Carolyn Ross")
color ("Dave Sapsis")
Stuck Sparge with EM ("Jack Schmidling")
Re: Stuck fermentation... Not! ("Randy Hall")
Extraction Efficiency Formula (Andrew Nix)
Re: Back Issues (Matthew Arnold)
alt (Jeremy Bergsman)
Re: MCAB II ("Mike Fitzpatrick")
Mash Hopping (Stephen cavan)
beer calories/dextrins and mouthfeel (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
Randy's Danger Brew Update ("Randy Hall")
re: Efficiency vs.Yield (John_E_Schnupp)
re: stir plates (John_E_Schnupp)
Dextrins and Mouthfeel and Proteolysis (Dave Burley)
Re: STONE (Stein) Beer (The Brews Traveler)
(Keith Busby)
Chocolate Malt (RCAYOT)
20 gallon system ("Chris Hofmann")
Motorizing Philmills (Dan Listermann)
Darrel's yeast questions (Jeff Renner)
Yeast Culture Kit Co. -- Tadcaster Strain (Michael Josephson)
First all-grain, Solved clogging problem, Phil's Phloater (Kurt Kiewel)
Stupid brewer ticks (Tom Logan)
RE: Overnight mashing ("Tamulis, Andrius")
Yet ANOTHER Sparging Question (Andrew Nix)
Yeast washing & reuse ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
How to raise mash pH? ("Troy Hager")
STONE BEER (TKBFRED)
Ice in Beer ("Peter J. Calinski")
* 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, 25 Jan 2000 14:06:17 -0600
From: "Stephen and Carolyn Ross" <rosses@sprint.ca>
Subject: Yeast Pitching
"Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt@sln.esc.edu> writes:
>pitched Whitelabs WLP009 Australian Ale yeast (ferments at 65-70
>F)...didn't make a starter but pitched directly from the vile.
I prefer Wyeast, but I don't think it's quite fair to call Whitelabs nifty
little tubes "vile".....
Stephen Ross, Saskatoon, SK
______________________________________________
"Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat."
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 12:57:01 -0800
From: "Dave Sapsis" <dsapsis@earthlink.net>
Subject: color
AJ writes:
The Davison Color Guide with which you may be familiar assumes
5 cm based on the fact that that's the diameter of the cups we use in
competitions.
When AJ says this, I am unsure who all exactly the "we " is. In any event,
not all competitions use those cups, and that while he may be mostly right,
there is no reason to believe this *should* be the case. There is no agreed
upon standard for glassware in competitions that I am aware of, and if there
were, these cups would be low on my list.
Just one of the issues regarding evaluation of beer concerns the sampling
vessel, and I for one really have never thought much of the flare-sided PC
cups -- they are notoriously poor for evaluating foam stand and dont work
too well for aroma either. Their one claim to fame is practicality. While
I have organized my share of competitions, one of the first things I did was
to secure actual tasting glassware. And nope, they didn't conform to the
5cm path.
The Davison color guide, underscored by natural variation in light flux
through the vessel as well as fundamental issues with SRM that AJ
thoughtfully addressed, causes me to think that their use is a poor way to
evaluate beer color in competitions. When I get a score sheet back telling
me my beer was 12 SRM I gotta wonder. I feel that a basic lexicon of colors
that beers typically come in already exists (light straw to dark
brown-opaque) and that these terms serve as adequate means of describing the
color of beer given the vagaries of methods and environments used to
discerne it.
Note: these are just my opinions, and dont reflect any official stance of
the BJCP.
peace. dave, sacramento
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 10:54:37 -0600
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf@mc.net>
Subject: Stuck Sparge with EM
From: DawgDoctor@aol.com
"I collected my first 2 gallons at full flow, poured it
back in to filter, collected a second 2 gallons of very clear wort at full
flow, then suddenly, STUCK SPARGE. Almost an hour later I managed to collect
my 7 gallons......
First of all, one hour for a 7 gallon sparge is not excessive in fact many folks
would call this about ideal.
If you experienced a sudden slow down after pouring the 2 gallons back, I would
suspect the way you poured it might have disturbed the filter bed. It is rarely
necessary to draw more than a pint off to clarify the wort. By taking two
gallons you not only waste a lot of time but significantly drop the temperature
of the mash by putting it back in.
> I ended up getting quite aggressive, racking the screen with
a spoon, moving it around with the spoon ect. I'm very dissapointed, never
had collected wort that clear before, just ended up getting cloudy again from
all the stirring around.
Not surprising. Contrary to what seems obvious, the EM screen is not a filter,
it simply keeps the spigot clear of hunks that could clog it. The grain bed is
the filter and every time you disturb it, you have to allow it to settle down
again. Stirring and scraping only causes stuck sparges and is never a cure.
There is absolutely no point in trying to get crystal clear wort as subsequent
process steps will clarify the beer. This is particularly important when doing
an infusion mash with no ability to add heat. By the time you get clear wort,
it is too cold for a proper mash.
js
PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 14:08:04 -0800
From: "Randy Hall" <randy_hall@earthling.net>
Subject: Re: Stuck fermentation... Not!
Wow! I received a flood of responses regarding my current beer batch, and
I'll try now to address the myriad of good questions posed by the list.
1. What type of yeast did you use?
Whitbread <?> Ale yeast (dry, single 14g packet).
I hydrated the yeast as instructed on the packet with ~105 deg F water
(allowing it to soak for 15 minutes, then stirring [with unsanitized
spoon]). I did not sanitize the water by boiling it first.
NOTE: Looking back on that process alone, it seems I was hurried in getting
the yeast together. Probably could have done more to keep conditions
sanitary.
2. What is the temperature in the area of your fermenter?
The fermenter was placed in, of all places, our spare bathroom (in the
shower stall). I know what you're thinking, but I don't think there is a
heat, humidity, or bacteria problem (as it never ever gets used). It also
happens to be the coolest corner of the house at ~65 deg F in winter when
the heater's on.
3. After you boiled, did you try to leave some hot break and/or cold break
in the kettle when you poured into the fermenter?
My concentrated wort was ~2.5 gallons post-boil volume.
Actually, I used a sanitized saucepan to ladle the wort into the carboy. The
wort went through a (sanitized) plastic funnel w/ (sanitized) screen. After
three or four pans full of wort had been funnelled, the screen was full of
blockage (hot break?), so I tapped it out and kept going. Toward the end, I
took the screen out and poured the remaining wort from the boil into the
carboy (guess I got impatient! This was 3 hours into the experiment and I
was getting tired :) So it seems that I filtered *some* of the break
(whichever it is). Oh well, lots of trub...
4. Do you think the inch of stuff is yeast, or was your wort pretty cloudy
when you pitched your yeast?
Let's see. I'll answer it this way: Since this fermentation started, the
inch of sediment was dramatically reduced (to more like a quarter inch). So
I figured the majority of the bed of sediment was yeast cells, just that I
didn't have the courage (or foolhardiness) to rouse them.
5. Another way to check is measuring specific gravity using a hydrometer.
Got one?
As a matter of fact, I do. I checked it at the outset with a SG of 1.055
(corrected for temp difference). I haven't checked it since, but I will when
I rack it to secondary...
6. Does it smell?
Well, it smells kinda sweet, perhaps fruity (or did when the kraeusening was
going full-bore). I've done mead before, so I didn't smell anything out of
the ordinary...
NOTE: Speaking of kraeusening, the foam had a dark brown, patchy film/crust
over it in places; this brown nasty stuff is now resting on the brew itself
(now that the foam has receded). I'm thinking that the time to get it out of
that fermenter is near...
Additional info:
* I stoppered the carboy with a solid rubber plug and shook/rocked the wort
before pitching, perhaps for a couple of minutes (I wasn't counting). After
pitching, I let it sit for a moment, then rocked the carboy a couple more
times. Perhaps part of that technique is lacking...
* I used bottled water (Black Mountain spring water, from CA). 2.5 gals cold
into the carboy, 2.5 gals in the kettle for boiling the concentrated wort. I
added about 1/2 tsp. gypsum to the boil.
* I used (and you are all welcome to laugh) a mixture of these Mr. Beer
hopped LME cans (1.21 lbs each): 2 x Oktoberfest Vienna Lager, 2 x
Englishman's Nut Brown Ale, and 1 x Amber Malt Extract. I also used a pound
of Crystal Malt 60L in a grain bag just for grins. The reason I used the Mr.
Beer stuff was 1) I got the stuff as a gift (sound familiar?) and 2) I
wanted to clear off shelf space for *real* extract materials that I want to
do future brews with.
Thus, I am naming this brew "Randy's Danger Ale". If it turns out terrible,
that's the risk, baby. You rolls yer dice, you takes yer chance. :)
I need to get me into a homebrew club... <sigh>
I fully intend on taking this brew to completion (even if it tastes a little
funky when bottling, I'll give it a couple weeks after that to come around).
Anyhow, thanks to everyone that has responded with opinions and questions.
I'll take everything into consideration the *next* time I brew! :)
Cheers,
Randy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 17:20:50 -0600
From: Andrew Nix <anix@vt.edu>
Subject: Extraction Efficiency Formula
I checked the archives first (for the last 3-4 years at least) and was
wondering if someone might be able to send me the simplified formula for
calculating potential OG based on certain types of malts. Last year,
someone sent me this and I cannot find it. It was really simply, with
values for pale malt, specialty malts, etc.
Thansk in advance!!!
Drewmeister
Andrew Nix
beerbrewer@vt.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 20:29:16 -0600
From: Matthew Arnold <revmra@iname.com>
Subject: Re: Back Issues
>Any recent knowledge of back issues of Brewing Techniques? I ordered a
>back issue a hell of a long time ago and still haven't heard
>anything. Phone numbers don't work. Maybe someone that is responsible
>reads this...maybe not. (yes, I know BT is out of publication...that's what
>prompted me to order...before they ran out).
I have about a two years' subscription worth of back issues that I am still
waiting for. It was bad enough that my letter regarding BT's demise came better
than a full month after it was dated. At this point I do not anticipate ever
seeing my back issues or a refund. I was going to rant about this a little
more, but it's all been said before.
Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org info@rackers.org
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 19:43:25 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: alt
Just picked up some Widmer Winternacht. The info on the 6pack leads me to
believe that this may be the fabled ur-alt normally served only at the
brewery and reputed to be an (the only?) authentic Du:sseldorf-style altbier
brewed in the US. Can anyone confirm or deny that Winternacht is the same
as the ur-alt?
Private email would be great assuming this reaches the Tuesday PM digest as
I bought it for a Wednesday PM tasting. I will summarize email and also
report back tasting notes.
- --
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb@leland.stanford.edu
http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:42:54 -0600
From: "Mike Fitzpatrick" <fitzbrew@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: MCAB II
For anyone interested in attending MCAB II in St. Louis, our web site has
been updated with all the information and registration forms. Cost will be
$50.00, which includes transportation on the pub crawl, an MCAB pint glass
to enjoy your beers in, the technical conference (a schedule is on the
site), dinner and awards banquet, AB pilot plant tour, and LOTS of
homebrewed beers. Here's a link to the page if you don't have it yet:
http://www.stlbrews.org/events/mcab.asp
Hope to see you there!
Mike Fitzpatrick
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:07:56 -0600
From: Stephen cavan <orders@paddockwood.com>
Subject: Mash Hopping
Marc Sedam asked "Has anyone considered adding the FWH hops to the
mashtun?"
Well yes indeed, and this is my preferred method of handling
flavour/aroma hop additions. I started doing this after reading De
Clerke and later Fix (Analysis of BT). The point they raise is that the
oils, which are responsible for flavour and aroma, react better at a
lower temperature and high pH than one finds during the boil. I think
150F was mentioned as a good temp, in fact. So I place all aroma hops
(as pellets) in the mash, bittering hops at the start of the boil, and
no hops for less than 30 minutes.
I have been doing this for over a year, and many people I have contact
with have tried this method as well. The results are superb. People
often think I have dry hopped, although to me there is still a sharp
difference between mash hopped beer and dry hopped beer. I prefer the
mash hopped effect actually over dry hopping, which to my nose is often
over done.
Steve Cavan
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 01:40:27 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker@mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: beer calories/dextrins and mouthfeel
Dave: you quoted this in the last digest -
"The calorific food value of beer
is principally due to the ethanol
and unfermented carbohydrates,
but it is doubtful whether the latter
contribute to any other beer character,
although glycoproteins may act as
foam stabilizers."
Does this mean that you are ready to believe what I said about most of the
calories in beer coming from ethanol?!
- ---------------------------------------
Dextrins and mouthfeel:
I think somebody has to clearly define what we mean by "mouthfeel" before we
can figure out whether or not a given beer constituent contributes to it.
The ASBC flavor wheel has a sector for mouthfeel which contains the following
descriptors: "alkaline, mouthcoating, metallic, astringent, powdery,
carbonation, and warming."
There is another sector called "fullness" which has one descriptor - "body."
In Lewis' book he shows a proposed expansion of the mouthfeel
chareacteristics, breaking them up into three subgroups, each with their own
associated descriptors namely:
Carbonation (sting, bubble size, foam volume, total CO2)
Fullness (density, viscosity)
Afterfeel (oily mouthcoat, astringency, stickiness)
Clearly, if this expanded version is used and dextrins increase viscosity then
they would contribute to mouthfeel.
What is the current state of this area of the ASBC wheel?
-Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:22:19 -0800
From: "Randy Hall" <randy_hall@earthling.net>
Subject: Randy's Danger Brew Update
Hi folks!
I wanted to give an update to the list regarding my newly dubbed "Randy's
Danger Ale". I finished racking it to the secondary about half an hour ago.
Some data:
OG: 1.055 (corrected for temp on 1/15/00)
SG: 1.022 (checked just this evening 1/25/00 @ 64 deg F)
Looks: Like beer. I have taken some photos that I will post links to
tomorrow (given that I can find a quick place to stick them :) The photos
show more or less the "film" that had developed on the beer after the
kraeusening collapsed. I also snapped a couple of photos down the neck of
the primary carboy to show the texture of the trub and yeast (pretty
sickening looking stuff really). As I said, I'll post links tomorrow with
the location and description of each photo.
Smells: Like beer. No foul smells. Slightly sweet, fruity odor emanates from
the secondary, same from the yeast sediment and remnants in the primary.
Tastes: Like beer. I sampled the sample that I took for measuring the SG and
it tasted like beer. A bit harsh, probably considering it has a bit more to
go (I'm shooting for a 1.014-1.017 finish). It's also a bit sweet (probably
due to still high SG). It's also what I would call "malty", but considering
I haven't brewed much beer, my qualitative analysis is pretty naive, really.
Overall, it tastes like the bastardized brown ale that it is.
Final thoughts: Despite the 5-6 day delay in fermenting, this looks like a
viable batch! I'm looking forward to the comments regarding my updated brew
specs (posted earlier) and I'll make sure to give an update when I
keg/bottle this sucker...
Cheers,
Randy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 01:44:33 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: Efficiency vs.Yield
Fred sed,
>I hereby propose that for homebrewing purposes (and HBD communication) we
>institute a standard of quoting yield in a points per pound format instead.
That being said, what is "typical" to be considered "good"?
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery (temporarily closed)
Georgia, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 02:03:12 -0800
From: John_E_Schnupp@amat.com
Subject: re: stir plates
>A stir bar obviously would be better at stirring than bubbles but I think
>it would be poor for aeration. While the stir bar agitation would dissolve
>oxygen from the air inside the jar, it seems to me that that would get
>depleted rather quickly.
Ok, so why not pump in some more air? Use a two hole stopper, pump the
HEPA filtered air in one hole and use the other for the airlock. I do this
and have had great success with my yeast.
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery (temporarily closed)
Georgia, VT
95 XLH 1200
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:09:11 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Dextrins and Mouthfeel and Proteolysis
Brewsters:
Paul Smith seem to agree, yet he denies
( I think) that there is apparently no scrap of
evidence in M&BS, DeClerk or anywhere
else that I can find to support the long held
opinion by many peope (and not just Paul)
that somehow dextrins affect mouthfeel.
Not only can I not provide it, M&BS makes
it pretty clear that dextrins do not affect
mouthfeel based on the several quotes
I provided.
I'd even like to believe it. But I can't. People
who know a lot more about these subjects,
write highly documented books and have
studied these subjects and submitted their
results to their peers for review DO have
much more weight than some experiment
or opinon held by any of us, IMHO.
That's why I use the books for reference.
You can check up on me and others.
These are not obscure and difficult to
get as references sometimes provided.
Del was puzzled by my comments that
there was proteolysis in the mash. As I
read it, Paul was earlier making the
point that for some reason proteolysis
in the mash was not an important process
and that this basically only took place
at the maltsters. While it is true that of
the basic enzymic processes going on,
proteolysis ( and synthesis) of protein
takes place at the maltsters and
saccharification predominantly takes
place at the brewers. Both processes
take place to some extent at both places.
It is surprising to some at just how much
proteolysis takes place, even with
normally highly modified ( and more
importantly, relatively highly kilned)
British malt, at the brewers. That was
the point.
I was encouraging Paul and others to
stop worrying about things like head
loss ( which does take place with a
low T hold of several hours) and try
some short low T holds to encourage beta
glucanolysis and proteolysis to improve
the mouthfeel, based on the references.
I provided a quote that there are some
relatively thermally stable ( unlike many)
protein enzymes and I suspect
<without any proof> that it is these which
are active at the higher temperatures and
why both Paul and I agree that a 158F
mash produces a full mouthed beer.
Try a lowT hold experiment at home, Paul
and include a mash at 158F see if you don't
change your mind. I did.
- ------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 07:17:09 -0700
From: The Brews Traveler <BrewsTraveler@adamsco-inc.com>
Subject: Re: STONE (Stein) Beer
Fred I have brewed a few Steinbiers and can provide any
information you may want. Rauchenfels uses graywacke in their
beer. The chief advantage of this rock is it "blooming" ability
allowing more sugars to collect on the rock.
Chuck Skypeck (of Bosco's fame) and myself use pink granite.
While this doesn't bloom like graywacke it will take the thermal
shock and not chemically react with the beer.
Steinbier is not really a style and is a unique and ancient
process of making beer. There is no special fermentation
requirements and pretty much any recipe will suffice.
The process is simple, using rocks as a heat source, and there
are many directions you can take it. Basically you (attempt to)
boil your wort by adding super-heated rocks to your wort. You
may also use the rocks to heat a decoction mash.
The preferable method to heat the rocks is over an open fire
(with a good source of oxygen) but I have used my propane
burner. The advantage of the flame is that you will also
contribute a smokiness to the flavor of the beer.
If you are *very, very* careful you can add the rocks back into
the secondary, washing caramelized sugars back into your beer.
The reason for care is that the rocks can easy contribute off
flavors is anything is allowed to grow on them.
In any event have fun and be safe, handling super-heated rocks
can be dangerous). I done it different ways with differing
results and recently collaborated with Chuck Skypeck on a
Steinbier served at the KROC World Brewers Forum.
Hot Rockin' in my backyard
http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler/Main/reports/1999/KrocHotRockin
Steinbier recipes
http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler/Main/recipes/ales/steinbier/hotRockin
KROC World Brewers Forum presentation
http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler/Main/reports/1999/wbf.html
Other links of interest can be found at my web address listed
below. Feel free to ask any questions you may have.
- --
John Adams
The Brews Traveler
http://www.adamsco-inc.com/BrewsTraveler
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:24:35 -0600
From: Keith Busby <kbusby@ou.edu>
Subject:
I have just sent the following mesage to Palm, the gist of which is that
their decision to stop producing Rodenbach Alexander (and meddle with the
recipe for regular Rodenbach) is a disaster and surely that can't be their
intention. In Belgium we can expect beer traditions to survive.
<<Uw beslissing te stoppen met de produktie van Rodenbach Alexander (en
naar wat ik hoor het veranderen van het recept van gewone Rodenbach) wordt
rampzalig voor bierdrinkers. Dit kan niet uw bedoeling zijn. In Belgie, of
all places, kan verwacht worden dat de tradities van bijzondere bieren
zullen blijven bestaan. Shame on you.>>
KB
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
University of Oklahoma
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel: (405) 325-5088. Fax: (405) 325-0103
Starting Fall 2000, Professor of French
University of Wisconsin-Madison
------------------------------
Date: 26 Jan 2000 08:28:30 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Chocolate Malt
I would like to know how people use Chocolate malt. I have heard that
some people use this malt as part of the grist, and mash as usual.
Others have mentioned that they add the Choc. at the end of the mash,
stir it in and then sparge. This is supposed to extract only a
portion of the soluble material in the Choc. malt, presumably the most
desireable fraction. Has anyone got an idea, experience, experimental
data, practices at commercial brewing establishments? Also, along
this line, I have heard that the "freshness" of the chocolate malt is
paramount for that crisp, espresso, chocolate flavor. This could also
be why commercial Porter tastes better (to me) than many a homebrewed
porter. Thoughts anyone?
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:32:13 -0600
From: "Chris Hofmann" <chrishoff@sprynet.com>
Subject: 20 gallon system
Anyone out there using the 20 gallon system from B3? I'm looking to buy a
large volume system (at least 20 gallons) and the system from B3 looks like
the best value. I'm pretty much content to do single infusion mashing so
I'm not looking at a RIMS. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Chris Hofmann
Chrishoff@sprynet.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:44:46 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Motorizing Philmills
Matt Comstock ( mccomstock@yahoo.com) asks about motorizing Philmills. The
earlier Philmills ( the roller passed through the walls of the mills body
and were held in place with snap rings ) required only a decapitated 3/8 -
18 bolt with a couple of nuts run up to make removal easier and a 1/2"
drill. The Craftsman ( good speed, high torque and cheap ) in my store has
crushed tons and tons over years and can still drill a clean hole when
necessary.
The newer Philmills have bronze bushings and shoulder bolts ( stripper
bolts ) as axels. A decapitated 3/8 x 2" stripper bolt ( warning: they are
hardened ) These are not usually available at your local hardware store.
They can be found at industrial supply houses. We sell decapitated
stripper bolts, called drill adapters, as an accessory. You should be able
to get one through your local homebrew shop for less than $5.00.
The new double roller Philmill II uses the same drill adapter as the
Philmill.
If for some reason you don't want to use a drill to power your mill, the
drill adapter can be pulley driven with a properly sized bushing.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:15:38 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Darrel's yeast questions
"Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt@sln.esc.edu>
>chilled and pitched a vile of WhiteLabs WLP500 Trappist Ale Yeast
>kept the temp below 65F
>Anybody know why this tastes like a "half-a-hefe"?
I'm not familiar with that particular yeast, but many Belgian yeasts share
a similarity to Weizen yeasts in that they throw phenolics. In this regard
they are somewhat like half-tamed wild yeasts. Did you make a starter? A
rule of thumb is to use 1/ fl. oz. (15 mls, or 1 Tbs) of yeast solids
(thick as putty) for every gallon of wort for average OG ale wort, double
that for lagers, and more for strong beers. I suspect you underpitched,
which I think may increase these flavors.
Regarding repitching from a stout to a pale beer, your yeast should't make
that big a contribution of color. Let it settle out and just use the putty
(or peanut-butter) consistency paste at the bottom. See above for amount.
That way you won't be adding much stout at all.
Regarding repitching more than once - do it! I've serially repitched top
cropping ale yeast (easier to harvest clean yeast) many times. Some
breweries in England have done it for decades. A Pensacola, FL brewpub
whose name I forget has done it since they opened, more than ten years, I
think.
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: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 06:48:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Josephson <blackcatbrewing@yahoo.com>
Subject: Yeast Culture Kit Co. -- Tadcaster Strain
Has anyone used this particular yeast? I assume it is
a Samuel Smith strain. I've been working on a Best
Bitter that is inspired by Timothy Taylor's Landlord.
I really like the results, but I haven't found the
perfect yeast yet.
Cheers,
Michael Josephson
Minneapolis, MN
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:58:00 -0600
From: Kurt Kiewel <kiewel@mail.chem.tamu.edu>
Subject: First all-grain, Solved clogging problem, Phil's Phloater
HBDers,
I brewed my first all-grain last weekend. It was a lot of fun but man did
it take a long time. I still don't know where all the water went? Had to
go to the store to get more. I wish I had made the switch to all-grain a
long time ago. In fact, I've had the proper equipment for lagering and
all-grain brewing for quite some time but after reading Noonan's book, "New
Brewing Lager Beer" I thought that all-grain brewing would be more
complicated than Quantum Mechanics. As I recall,Noonan outlines the
procedure for and expounds on the virtues of triple decoction mashing. A
process entirely too complicated for a first time all-grainer. That put me
off for more than a year. Not a wasted year however, because I worked on
things like yeast culturing and propagation, aeration and temperature
control.
I previously posted on difficulties with the drain in my kettle getting
clogged with hops and break material. From all the advice I received it
was clear that I needed to switch from pellet hops to plugs or whole hops
and that my straining device needed to be of a larger surface area than the
scrubbie I was using. I purchased a 9" screw in false bottom from
Precision Brewing and in combination with whole hops I got perfectly clear
wort to drain from my kettle. Yes! Thanks for all the responses to my
post.
One problem I did encounter with my Gott cooler mash tun was that my Phil's
false bottom Pfloated. I solved the problem by tossing in a rock; not very
elegant. Anyone have a better solution?
Kurt Kiewel, brewing in Texas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:05:10 -0600
From: Tom Logan <tlogan@SCHWICKERTS.COM>
Subject: Stupid brewer ticks
Long time lurker, seldom poster.
Last night I bottled my third all grain, an American Amber. It was one of
those evenings that you wish never started.
First, did a light cleaning of the bottles, and got sanitizer ready, first
shot at Star San that many on the list have recommended. Filled basin with
water and added sanitizer. Filled bottles and let set the required time.
Emptied the bottles and noticed lots of foam. Hmm, go get bottle washer
already put away after bottle cleaning. When nearly finished noticed hands
looking red, water was cold, but take a look at Star San label--"protect
skin and eyes from contact". Note to self--read labels first! Happily, it
was diluted and no apparent damage this morning.
Rinsed bottling bucket in Star San, assembled valve, and started transfer
from primary to bottle bucket. Pulled plug on basin and the floor drain
that the basin drains in promptly overflows. Get mop and clean it up. Minor
under breath swearing commences. Started boil of primer, went back down to
check on the process. Bottling bucket nearly full, and the gasket on the
valve had squeezed out the side and a large puddle of beer was the floor.
Rush to get bottle filler and hose. Hose is cold and won't stretch over
valve. Puddle getting bigger, air getting bluer. Put hose in hot water,
attempt to place on valve, still too cold. Repeat process. Swearing
continues at higher volume. Finally ready to start bottling. Notice
bottles in other room, short loud burst of swearing.
Bottling goes without too many hitches, place pan under drip to eliminate
beer lake expansion. Our three dogs then decide its time to investigate
what's going on. Yell at dogs, wife yells at me for yelling at dogs. More
under breath swearing. Start capping, notice garage sale bench capper isn't
crimping all bottles tightly, go get hand capper to put a final crimp on
caps. Get bucket of hot water to wipe off bottles as I'm putting them in
the case. Use the only other bucket I have with a valve, which starts to
leak at gasket also. Another floor puddle. More swearing. Tighten valve
and continue, thankfully without further incident. Put bottles away, clean
up mess. Two hour project ends up taking four. Go to bed. Dream about
more bottling disasters.
I believe I'll start looking at a keg system!
- -----
I used Wyeast 1056 on this batch for the first time, but only stepped up
once before pitching. In my cool basement, it took 30 hours to start active
fermentation. It was a new package, but a lesson learned. It took
approximately 3 weeks to ferment out, OG of 1.054, FG of 1.008. Is it a
slow fermentor or was the 60 degree basement the factor? The beer is quite
tasty and I'm looking forward to the final product.
Tom Logan
Mankato, MN
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 09:27:44 -0600
From: "Tamulis, Andrius" <ATAMULIS@monm.edu>
Subject: RE: Overnight mashing
I've never tried overnight mashing, so this is just a guess - but won't
sparging be harder with the mash liquor cold? You can add sparge water at
75C, but the overall temperature will still be low.
Just a guess.
Andrius Tamulis
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:34:27 -0600
From: Andrew Nix <anix@vt.edu>
Subject: Yet ANOTHER Sparging Question
It seems I have started digging out the memory banks and pulling up
questions I've had for a long while. Here's the latest:
My mash system consists of 2 Gott coolers, one for the mash/lauter tun, the
other for hot sparge water storage. I usually prop the mash tun on a stool
to elevate it a bit to allow gravity feed to the recirc vessel (fancy name
for a 2 qt. Pyrex measuring cup) or kettle. The Sparge water tank is put
up on the couter top and has a PVC tub coming out with a PVC ball valve and
pinch clamp in series for flow control. This is connected to a tube which
gravity feeds a Phil's Sparge arm. Two questions I've thought about for a
long time...I wanted to see if anyone else with "low cost" mashing systems
has some input. After the mashout, if my sparge water is to be at 168F, I
usually store some water in the upper Gott cooler (hot water tank) and
leave some on the stove heating to maintain the desired sparge water temp
over the hour plus I take to sparge to boiling volume. I use two
thermometers, one in the pot on the stove, the other in the hot water tank.
Do other folks do this, keep some of the sparge water heating to mantain
temp, rather than putting all of the water in the hot water tank and
risking losing some temp??? The other question is, has anyone ever
measured the temp of the 2-3" water column above the grain bed to see what
type of temp drops are associated with heat transfer from the water in
going from the hot sparge water tank, through the sparge arm and convection
while falling through the air to the water above the grain bed??? If so,
please share your results. I may do a test this weekend to see what temp
drops there are and I may heat my sparge water to a little higher temp to
account for losses in going from the hot water tank to the grain bed.
OK, one more....those floating thermometers (Brewer's Best I think), anyone
else have a problem with the rubber handle coming off if you put them in
water that is getting close to boiling (the glue fails). I had BOTH of
mine come off this past brew session, one was brand new, the other I've had
for years!!!
Drewmeister
Andrew Nix
beerbrewer@vt.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:07:19 -0500
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke@merck.com>
Subject: Yeast washing & reuse
On Tue, 25 Jan 2000 in HBD 3232 Dan Senne asks about Yeast harvesting:
>Could anyone explain the procedure for washing and storing yeast using
>distilled water?
Harvesting yeast from the primary has proven very effective for me. If the
primary ferment is good then your yeast should be good as well. If you plan
to use the same yeast for your next batch, then plan your racking for the
same day as plan to brew the next batch. You could do one of two things:
After racking you could just leave the slurry behind and pitch your next
batch right onto the cake without washing or you can wash the cake first
with distilled water.
Washing will reduce the amount of trub, dead cells and all the other crap
you don't want being carried into the next batch, but will expose your yeast
to a higher potential for contamination. Not washing will reduce the
potential for contamination, but dead cells and trub will still exist
possibly affecting the favor of your beer. I've done both and they still
turn out better than just using a smack pack or a pitchable vial ;-) But I
prefer to wash in most cases.
Here's a copy of my procedures: http://alehouse.homepage.com/Procedures/
Hope they help.
I've graduated from pasteurizing to sterilizing my equipment now. Basic
procedure's still the same. I use flasks but you might find 1 qt canning
jars to work just as well for you.
Only keep the cells around under water for a maximum of 3 days under
refrigeration. You can extend their storage be decanting the water cover
and feeding 'em with fresh wort. Then they'll be good for about a week if
refrigerated.
Darrell Leavitt also asks about re-using yeast:
>am I pushing it ot try to reuse the yesties a third time? I think that I
am
>paying good attention to sanitation and such,...but even so, am I risking
>not just infection, but also having a "mutant brew".....
I've re-used yeast up to 3 cycles of wash and feed without problems. I
rarely go beyond 2 cycles because I like variety and fear contamination ;-)
Most important is keeping your FAN, maltose and maltotriose levels at their
optimum in your wort. Also provide enough oxygen (or less desirably, trub)
for sterol production during fermentation. O2 - it does a cell wall good!
If you do extract brewing make sure that it is truly ALL malt. The risk of
mutants increases with lower FAN and dextrose levels caused by diluting with
common adjunct syrups.
+++ DISCLAIMER +++
The preceding commentary is based upon personal experience and opinion of
the
author and in no way reflects the views of all readers. The author assumes
no liability
for the mental anguish caused by stubborn individuals who can not accept the
views,
opinions or methods of others. All comments should be made in writing to
the nearest
wall as the author doesn't about the feelings of the belligerent. <grin>
+++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 08:11:23 -0800
From: "Troy Hager" <thager@hcsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: How to raise mash pH?
Fellow Brewers,
In the past I have thought my water produces a fairly acidic mash but I
haven't been too concerned about it. I have always read that being on the
acidic side of optimum (5.3-5.5) is much better than being on the basic
side. Recently I have been reading about pH and the optimum levels in the
brewing process and decided to do some testing and experimenting to find out
where my water falls.
Before I start with my testing and experiments, this is what my water co.
report says:
Ca: 9, SO4: 7.5, Cl: 9.5, Na: 9, Mg: 4
Hardness (CaCo3): 40
Tot. dissolved solids: 69
pH: 9.1 (8.8-9.6)
AJ helped me estimate my bicarbonate at about 52 mg/L and my alkalinity at
about 42. So you can see I have very soft water much like the classic Pilsen
water.
BTW, I live in the San Francisco Bay Area (specifically in San Mateo on the
Peninsula).
All of my readings were taken with pH papers and a cooled sample. I used the
colorpHast Merck papers made in Germany(scale: 4.0-7.0), and the pHydrion
papers by Micro Essential Lab (scales: 1-11 and 4.8-6.7). From what I have
read here on the HBD, both of these papers are used frequently by brewers
and are highly respected. In fact, Jeremy Bergsman from Stanford has tested
the Micro
papers with a high quality lab meter and has found them to be most accurate.
You can find his posts in the archives.
My testing: This was done on one day (Jan. 25) and I assume that pH out of
the tap fluctuates during the year but according to the report not much
below 9.0.
Before I started, I tested the water
straight from the tap. The Micro papers read between 6 and 7, and the Merck
papers about 5.5. This seems awful low and hard to believe because of the
difference of my readings and the water co. report. Also, I know that cities
must keep their water on the basic side to ease the corrosion of
pipes.
For my test I took about 2 lbs of pale malt and then added a little munich
and carmel to get it up to 3 lbs. I heated one gallon of water- Qt:lb = 1.33
-
around what I usually mash at. I ground the grain as I do to brew and mashed
in at about 174F. It dropped to a nice 156F. I measured the pH: Merck-4.4
and Micro around 5. Subtracting 0.3 to compensate for the temp. difference
and I have a very acidic mash!
Now I started adding chalk (CaCO3) to the mash in increments of 4g. I know
this is way overboard but I just wanted to see the effects. I added
the chalk because that is the only thing that I know that brewers use to
raised the pH of
the mash. After stirring, taking a sample, and cooling, I tested it with
both papers. My readings barely moved. By about 12-16g of chalk, I was
reading in the 5.3 level. The Merck papers always read slightly lower than
the Micro. I kept on adding the chalk. My goal was to get to about 5.5-5.8
(subtract 0.3 and I am in the corrected range). When I reached about 20-24g
I was at about 5.5 and at 30g I was reading 5.8.
At this point the mash was milky and tasted like chalk (big suprise!) -
bitter and slightly astringent. It would be absolutely ludicrous to add 30g
per gallon of chalk into my mash to get it up to the correct range.
So my question is... What do I use to raise the pH of my mash other than a
ton of chalk?
I have heard of acidifying your sparge water and making slight adjustments
with gypsum and chalk but never having to raise pH to this degree. I have
read posts here that
say if you mash in with distilled water you will get a pH that falls right
in the correct range. My water is very soft and doesn't have much of
anything in it (so the report says) so why is it so acidic in the mash? I
need some
help here!!! Could it be that these papers are just totally off? Do I need
to find a scientist and borrow an accurate pH meter?
Private emails are fine. Thanks for your thoughts!
Troy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:48:42 EST
From: TKBFRED@aol.com
Subject: STONE BEER
I would like to thank all my fellow Brewers who responded
to my request about info on Stone Beer. Very helpful.
Matthew, could you please tell me what you saying with
your posting, as a Brewer I can't get any help out of that
in my research about Stone Beer.
Also, I'm interested in your 'Stone soup', as I like to
cook, and like to try any new recipes.
Fred M. Scheer
>Matthew Comstock wrote:
>This reminds me of the old story about 'Stone
>Soup.' Isn't that the sotry where one character
>brings a stone and all the other characters are
>asked to add real soup ingredients? So by
>analogy, you bring the stone and your fellow
>brewers go out and buy the malt, hops....
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:02:33 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski@iname.com>
Subject: Ice in Beer
Where I was raised (North Eastern Pa.), when you put ice in your beer, it
was called a Philadelphia Cocktail.
Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3233, 01/27/00
*************************************
-------
