Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3228
HOMEBREW Digest #3228 Fri 21 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:
A few things... (David A Bradley)
Wyeast 1338 doppelbock (Randy Ricchi)
Re:Keeping a Phalse Bottom down (Danny Johnson)
Advice for new brewer ("Chris McGee")
First Experience ("Randy Hall")
Re: Zapap Bum Rap? (MaltHound)
Ball and Pin Lock Interchange ("Eric R. Theiner")
hopping schedules?? (J Daoust)
sparging (Bryan Gros)
Old Beer Cans ("Steven J. Owens")
MCAB II ("Dan Senne")
Sparging: Burst vs. Batch ("Steven J. Owens")
Mouthfeel, mashing, etc. ("Steven J. Owens")
Corona mill (erniebaker)
Munich malt ("George de Piro")
Will the real Phil Yates... (" Karl D. Loeffler")
Iodophor and Guiness ("Sean Richens")
Brewing Texts Online (WayneM38)
Re: Keg Fittings ("Scott A. Vliek")
hot break...? ("Darrell Leavitt")
Question: Recirculating (how long,..how clear)? ("Darrell Leavitt")
Pilsner in Secondary (temperature question) ("Darrell Leavitt")
herms web site ("Micah Millspaw")
CO2 bottles in fridge?? (Andrew Nix)
Proper use of Phalse Bottom (Dan Listermann)
royalties (Marc Sedam)
Mouthfeel and dextrins - not (Dave Burley)
help on my quest for Santa (Marc Sedam)
Souring Stout (Dan Listermann)
Re: Hot Pepper Beer ("Charles T. Major")
Guinness souring (johnk)
Re: Mash and Lauter in same vessel (John DeCarlo)
Conical Fermenter ("John Todd Larson")
Color ("G. M. Remec")
Zapap Efficiency (RCAYOT)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:11:35 -0500
From: David A Bradley <BRADLEY_DAVID_A@Lilly.com>
Subject: A few things...
Some collected thoughts...
Unibroue's La Fin du Monde is now being sold in Indianapolis at some Kroger
grocery
stores! On the NW side of town anyway, its in a center main aisle wooden
stand.
Oh for the days when you could publish simple observations with conjecture as
fact in
chemistry journals!! Oh wait a minute, I guess that still happens.
Yeast anuses?
Bottling a few from the keg...probably its been mentioned already, but
PrimeTabs are
great for this too unless the beer has been filtered or lagered very long
(you do
still need some yeast for this to work).
The Phloating phalse bottom trick....use a rigid tubing from the phalse bottom
to your
spigot. Or, cut a length of plastic tubing to fit the circumfrence of
the false bottom,
slit the tubing lengthwise, and use it around the edge of the false
bottom as
a gasket, sealing the bottom to your mash tun ** if ** the tun ID can
create a good
seal to the false bottom (close diameter to the false bottom).
Dave in Indy
Home of the Naptown Brewing Company, Ltd.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:26:30 -0500
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Wyeast 1338 doppelbock
Scott Zimmerle asked about brewing a doppelbock with Wyeast 1338.
When you think of it, a doppelbock and a strong scotch ale are very much
alike. While technically your beer brewed with Y1338 would be an ale, I
think you could a very nice doppelbock-like beer.
A word of caution. I once tried to brew an Octoberfest with a Wyeast 1338
yeast cake from a previous batch. Fermented at 60 degrees ambient temp.
Problem was, with that much yeast, the fermentation was so explosive, it
fermented a 1.064 gravity beer down to 1.010 in around 24 hours. It must
have created a lot of it's own heat, because even though the ambient temp
was a nice cool 60, the beer was extremely fruity.
I suggest you don't use the entire yeast cake.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:33:18 -0400
From: Danny Johnson <shag@ipass.net>
Subject: Re:Keeping a Phalse Bottom down
I use two methods on keeping the PPB down
#1 When adding mash water to the Gott(in my case), I back feed the water
through the bulkhead tap and as it under lets the water, it forces all
the air from under the PPB . This works even better when tapping the PPB
as the water rises above the PPB. No more floating. I sometimes then
switch to filling from above the PPB after the water level is above the
PPB to increase speed of filling. An additional note about the setup. I
connect the 90 degree hose barb on the PPB with a 6" piece of plastic
1/4 plastic tubing(broken racking cane) with a 4" long 3/8 vinyl tubing
coupler. the other end of the 6" piece of old racking cane enters the
inside of the bulkhead fitting THROUGH a small drilled stopper. This
allows easy removal and setup of PPB. I never remove the 6" piece of old
racking cane, 3/8" coupler,drilled stopper from the PPB. I can install
and remove in 5 seconds.
#2 I have and sometimes still use a BB filled 3/8' tubing that lays
precisely around the perimeter of the PPB. I learned this trick on HBD.
This method allows less grain to get under the edges.
DJ
Raleigh, NC
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:47:34 +0200
> From: Ant Hayes <Ant.Hayes@FifthQuadrant.co.za>
> Subject: Keeping a Phalse Bottom down
>
> I have been using Phil's Phalse Bottom since 97, very happily, except for
> its desire to float. This was not a problem until I started using the
> floating mash approach in a combined mash/lauter tun. Doughing in is tricky
> when the bottom floats, and I struggle to get a clear run off.
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:50:13 -0500
From: "Chris McGee" <chris@sturgeonlaw.com>
Subject: Advice for new brewer
Greetings,
I have been lurking for a while trying to figure out just exactly what you
people are talking about. Sometimes it is like watching the Spanish Channel
when I read the daily email from this list.<G> As my preacher said when my
mom told him all I did was draw in church service. He said, "It's like hot
water in a wicker basket, none is held, but it cleans as it goes through."
To the real subject. I brewed (2nd batch ever) a Bass clone (extract) night
before last and now that I'm done I have some questions for your combined
knowledge. The recipe called for barley, I steeped that for the recommended
time but when that was done I forgot to sparge. I guess I got too excited.
The hop schedule called for four different length boils for the hops. I did
all of these correctly, but did not sparge these either. Should I have
sparged them? I only have around 4.75 gal in the fermenter, probably
because I didn't sparge. The last hopping was/is a dry hop. I put the hop
bag in after I removed the wort from heat then shoved the hop bag into the
carboy because the instructions said to leave it in for the fermentation.
Was that correct? I made a starter culture from Wyeast Whitbread after the
Wyeast bag was puffed up. My OG was 1050 which is mid range of where it
should be and I had bubbles once a second within 12 hours of pitching but
bubbles are already slacking off less than 48 hours after pitching.
In a nut shell, here are my questions:
Is the fact that I didn't sparge going to hurt the beer?
Should I have added more water to raise to 5gal?
Should I have sparged the hops?
Was I right to put the hops bag in the carboy?
Is my yeast o.k.?
Thanks in advance.
CHRIS
Atlanta
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 07:51:31 -0800
From: "Randy Hall" <randy_hall@earthling.net>
Subject: First Experience
Hello!
Considering the resounding response to my first question (re: "The Practical
Brewer" PDF), I'm really happy to be here! As I understand the info has been
re-posted to the list, I'll not repeat it here.
Thanks for the several private responses to this!
Cheers,
Randy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:22:21 EST
From: MaltHound@aol.com
Subject: Re: Zapap Bum Rap?
In a message dated 1/18/2000 10:37:21 PM Central Standard Time,
briandixon@home.com writes:
<< So why do I still bet on the Phil's Phalse Bottom (now Listermann's ... but
I'm an old fan of the original name ... and owner)? ...>>
Chiming in here for Dan Listermann, he (Linstermann Manufacturing) *is* the
original owner / manufacturer of the "Phil" series of stuff. It is his son,
Phil, that all of the gadgets are named after. Always has been.
<< ...I weighed these pros and cons when I bought mine, and went with the
Phalse Bottom and have had nothing but pleasure and good brewing since. Just
my 2-bits worth I guess! YMMV.>>
No arguments here! It is a very good false bottom. Worth every penny. I
just don't think it is necessarily superior to all the others.
Regards,
Fred Wills
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 11:36:25 -0800
From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic@skantech.com>
Subject: Ball and Pin Lock Interchange
All of our club members use ball locks, but one member worked for Coke
(and kindly provided us with some kegs). The dilemma-- how to use both
pin and ball lock kegs in our standard systems.
The solution-- a barbed fitting with a threaded collar. I don't know
what these are called (maybe someone who sells these could jump in), but
you insert the barb into your hoses and clamp them in. The collar
rotates freely outside of the hose, and the thread matches up to both
pin and ball lock fittings. So when I have pressurized my ball lock keg
and need to add some gas to the pin lock next to it, I simply unscrew
the ball lock fitting and screw on the pin lock fitting.
BTW, I'd like to add my voice to the guy who said that the Listermann
CounterPhil is the best counterpressure filler out there. I still hate
doing it, but it's a hell of a lot less messy and easier to use than the
other options and fillers I've tried.
Rick
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 09:46:02 -0800
From: J Daoust <thedaousts@ixpres.com>
Subject: hopping schedules??
I am trying to decipher the differences between the 30 min, 20 min., and
15 min. hop additions. What is the effect on hop bitterness / flavor /
aroma that the different schedules give. Currently, I am assuming that
the 30 min. gives some bitterness, but more flavor; 20 min. mostly
flavor, and 15 flavor and aroma. I would love some clarification, and as
always, private e-mail is fine. Thanks, Jerry Daoust
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 10:38:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Bryan Gros <blgros@yahoo.com>
Subject: sparging
Sparging question:
I switched from fly sparging (now called continuous sparging) to
batch sparging. Due to the fact that it is easier.
I've noticed I undershoot my target gravity. Maybe due to the
batch sparging.
I realize that in fly sparging, reducing the rate of sparging will
increase efficiency, up to a point. Does the runoff rate matter in
batch sparging? Presumably, you've dissolved all the sugar you're
going to dissolve when you add the water and mix. So you should be
able to runoff pretty fast.
Right?
- Bryan
Bryan Gros gros@bigfoot.com
Oakland CA
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:50:00 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Old Beer Cans
> Jeff McNally writes
>> A good friend of mine gave me a very old, full, can of Budweiser....
>> [...]
>> Any ideas/guesses as to what this may be worth (and no, it's not for sale)?
>
> Largely depends on the condition of the can. Rust? Humidity spots?
> Scratches? Dents? A full can often eliminates much of the market
> that would be worried it will leak. e-Bay is the natural place to
> start on a price.
Hm... what's the ballpark on these things? I'm sure prices can
vary wildly depending on age, condition and brand, but what do most of
them seem to go for?
When I moved into my new 90-year-old house last year, there was a
crate of old, unopened beer cans in the basement that I shoved in a
corner with a vague idea of looking into their value sometime. I have
to say, I didn't even look closely enough to notice what brand they
were (not that I'm too familiar with mainstream brands; the first beer
I ever enjoyed drinking was a homebrew somebody anded to me in 1991
:-). I recall they were mostly white with blue and red markings, and
they didn't have the modern beer/soda can crimping at the top/bottom
of the can.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:53:28 -0600
From: "Dan Senne" <dsenne@intertek.net>
Subject: MCAB II
I saw here about the MCAB II which is to be held in St. Louis March 24-26.
Can anyone attend? What is the cost?
Thanks,
Dan Senne
Collinsville, IL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 15:22:06 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Sparging: Burst vs. Batch
Lots of interesting tidbits in this HBD, tantalizing references
to things that make me wonder...
> From: "Paul Smith" <pksmith_morin@msn.com>
> Subject: Burst Sparging - Clarification
>
> I would like to clarify what I mean by "burst sparging," in case
> there is any confusion. Some have written of a technique which
> entails essentially recirculating as normal, then adding a great
> volume of the batch water, and running off completely. This is what
> I have heard of as "batch sparging" and differs from the technique I
> employ, burst sparging.
I've been reading various descriptions of full-mash brewing and
they all talk about sparging but they describe a pretty simple
process. Then I keep seeing references like this that imply much more
complex processes. What's "recirculating as normal"?
Here's the process as I get it from Papazian's _Joy of
Homebrewing_ (summarized from memory here):
Stage 1: Mash
a) Fill the first pot with water,
b) heat it to boiling,
c) stir the grains in,
d) heat it back to boiling
e) Play with temperatures (protein rests, etc)
Stage 2: Sparge
Assuming the grains have settled to the bottom...
a) drain off the wort, all but the last inch covering the grains,
b) pour more hot water in,
c) boil a bit,
d) go to a (repeat several times)
Stage 3: Brew
(just the way you would with an extract brew).
> Whereas batch sparging entails a complete runoff (to a dry grain
> bed) between "dumping" sparge water onto the bed (often, the sparge
> is thoroughly mixed into the grain bed again, a recirculation is
> completed, and the runoff is again run to a dry bed), burst sparging
> entails a recirculation and runoff as per normal.
Wait, so above you said batch sparging involves recirculating as
normal and now you're saying burst sparging involves recirculating as
normal. Which is it?
> Continuous sparge obviously differs here in that a
> constant 1.5-2" water column is maintained above the grain bed.
What's continuous sparging?
> Hope this clarifies.
'fraid not, at least for me :-(.
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:53:29 -0800 (PST)
From: "Steven J. Owens" <puff@netcom.com>
Subject: Mouthfeel, mashing, etc.
Dave Burley wrote:
> Steve Worth's suggestion to go back and re-read Papazian's book
> after brewing a few is a good one. But if Charlie is the origin of
> Steve's concept that dextrins contribute to mouthfeel, he's wrong.
That's Steve Owens, and yeah, it was my screwup, not Charlie's.
Serves me right for posting when I'm not thinking clearly (tail end of
a this flu that's going around).
> Soluble proteins contribute to mouthfeel and dextrins do not,
> acccording to many scientific investigations.
So let's see if I can summarize this correctly:
The malted grain starts out containing proteins, starches and enzymes.
In a nutshell, mashing is the process of boiling the malted grain in
water to both disolve out the proteins and starches and to create
conditions (mostly temperature) that allow the enzymes to transform
some proportion of both into either fermentable or unfermentable
sugar. The fermentable sugar then gets turned into alcohol, while the
rest of it - the protein and the unfermentable sugar - affect the
flavor, feel and appearance of the beer.
So in concept it's simple, but in brewing, as in many other things,
the devil is in the details. In the process of mashing, you
essentially want to tweak various factors to promote the activities of
the different enzymes (proteases for proteins, the Alpha and Beta
amylases for starches). Some of these factors include:
- temperatures and durations, (some enzymes work better at 140
degrees, others at 150)
- even distribution of temperatures (stirring the liquid to prevent
hot and cold spots)
- alkalinity of the water (also called pH; usually you have a high
pH and you want to lower it, which is easy enough to do by adding
some substances (gypsum is one) ot the mash).
- amount of air (and hence oxygen) you allow to get into the liquid
(called aeration; note that while aeration during the mash is
bad, aeration just before you pitch the yeast is god - one of the
contradictions that keeps brewing interesting :-).
- how you introduce more heat into the picture - do you heat the
container, or add more hot water (infusion mashing) or suck out
some of the liquid, heat it up and add it back in (decoction
mashing)?
- thickness/thinness of the wort
An additional detail is that you don't want to waste any of this
b yummy stuff, so when you're done you drain the liquid out, then pour
more hot water through the grains to get whatever's left. This gets a
bit more complicated because the bed of grain in the pot also becomes
a natural filtration system to keep the solid bits out. So you have
to pay attention to how the wort gets filtered through the grain bed,
making sure the bed isn't too thick or too thin, that you don't
disturb the grain bed when you pour the water in, etc.
Any others I've missed?
Steven J. Owens
puff@netcom.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 16:57:26 -0800 (PST)
From: erniebaker@webtv.net
Subject: Corona mill
I need help..I am a extract/partial mash brewer and will never do all
grain. I will be 68 this year, had two back operations last Nov. Sad,
but still brewing.
I received a corona mill for xmas without instructions.I have it
together but need to know the starting point where i make adjustments. I
know what the grain is to look like, just don't know the best way to do
it... thanks email or post....
Ernie Baker (USMC Ret)
29 Palms, CA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:14:25 -0500
From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro@mindspring.com>
Subject: Munich malt
Howdy all,
Pete Czerpak writes his summary of Munich malt advice gleaned from this
tome:
"It sounds like dark Weyermanns munich malt has
the potential for lowered OG and higher FG. It also sounds like decoction
mashing can help with low extractions. Increasing temperature of
fermentation may help also if the gravity is stuck high. When infusion
mashing, I'll just have to buy a pound or 2 extra I guess."
I take issue with this information. The laboratory course grind yield for
Weyermann dark Munich malt is only marginally lower (0-3%) than the yield
from their pilsner malt. Here at the brewpub I get the extraction I expect
from it. If you are getting grossly low yields, check your crush and the
accuracy of your mash thermometer, and the accuracy of your volume
measurments.
As a homebrewer I did experiments on a few occasions to determine if
decoction mashing would increase efficiency. I measured the SG of the mash
liquid with a hydrometer, decocted a third of the mash, cooled it down to
the mash temperature, added it back, made up the volume difference and
measured the SG again. My homebrew hydrometer could never register a
difference.
The reason that decocting didn't make a big difference is likely to be the
fact that most modern malts are well modified (almost all, in fact; the
Budvar stuff being the only undermodified malt that I know of). This means
that the protein matrix that entraps the starch granules is already broken
down for the brewer. A single temperature infusion mash will achieve almost
as much saccharification as a multi-temp infusion or decoction.
The third point is with regard to the high final gravities being seen by
brewers using Munich malt. If you can alter the fermentation conditions and
bring the FG lower, then the problem isn't the malt, it's the yeast and the
way you are treating it. No amount of futzing with the fermentation
temperature is going to induce your brewing yeast to consume dextrins that
it previously could not ferment.
Beers made with a large amount of Munich malt and other high-kilned malts do
tend to finish with higher gravities, but it is important to not confuse a
poor fermentation with malt issues. You will not solve your brewing
problems that way.
Have fun!
George de Piro
C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
(518)447-9000
http://evansale.com (under construction)
Malted Barley Appreciation Society
Homebrew Club
http://hbd.org/mbas
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 21:35:14 -0500
From: " Karl D. Loeffler" <kdloeffler@home.com>
Subject: Will the real Phil Yates...
Will the real Phil Yates please stand up.
I was able to find a photo of the ever elusive Phil (or is it Jill)
Yates the other day. He even posed for the camera.
If your interested in seeing Phil at lounging around (he must
have just finished brewing a batch of "the worlds greatest
beer"), go to:
http://members.home.com/kdloeffler/AussieBrew.jpg
p.s. Yes, Phil gave me permission to use this photo.
Karl Loeffler
Sterling Heights, MI.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 20:29:04 -0600
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens@sprint.ca>
Subject: Iodophor and Guiness
Re. sources of Iodophor: I would imagine the trick is finding formulations
for food-contact use. For lab and hospital use there's "Wescodyne" and
multiple variations thereof. I suggest trying to think of who else has
food-contact surfaces to sanitize.
If you end up phoning your local abattoir or whatever, ask for engineering,
rather than biology or other departments. We love to get asked for our
opinions!
My understanding on the soured Guiness question is from Michael Jackson's
New World Guide to Beer - the 3% soured addition is only for the Export
going to tropical countries and is added to compensate for the reduced
attenuation of the higher-gravity beer. In other words, it's to get 1.060
beer to taste like 1.036 beer. The Guiness you drink in N.A., in bottles
in Europe, or on tap in Eire and the UK has no soured addition.
Sean
srichens@sprint.ca
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:30:46 EST
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Brewing Texts Online
In a message dated 1/17/00 11:06:33 PM Central Standard Time,
homebrew-request@hbd.org writes:
<< The Practical Brewer is available via pdf download at the
Master Brewer Association of the Americas website. It takes forever, but
it's
free. A good text.
>>
Not for long.
Better download ASAP if you want a free copy.
Wayne
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 05:28:08 -0600
From: "Scott A. Vliek" <svliek@jorsm.com>
Subject: Re: Keg Fittings
>Bill Freeman wrote:
>
> I think all I said was that IMHO fittings on stainless kegs and stock
> pots are better welded than threaded through the side. Brass works, but
> must be treated to recuce the lead leaching into the brew. BTW 1/2 ball
> valves have only a 3/8 interior hole. 3/4 ball valves have a 1/2 hole
> through the ball. "the perfesser" uses a long version of the EasyMasher
> to strain hops out of the outflow of the boiler. The whole hop bed also
> filters a lot of the hot break out at the same time. The science of
> brewing is not finite. Nor is the way each of us chooses to deal with
> ourt equipment. Cheers, Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat
>
I would agree that welded fittings are better than threaded due to the
thin walls on kegs. But easier still are bulkhead fittings with teflon
and stainless washers. Ball valves are available with "full bore,"
meaning that the ball port is the same size as the tubing size, i.e.
1/2" tubing with 1/2" ball port.
Scott
- --
Scott A. Vliek
mailto:svliek@jorsm.com
mailto:greywarrior@geocities.com
USS McMorris Homepage:
http://www.geocities.com/ussmcmorris/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:54:58 -0400
From: "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt@sln.esc.edu>
Subject: hot break...?
I have a question about the "hot break": After recirculation and sparging
,...just as the wort starts to boil I get scum on the top. I have
interpreted this scum as "hot break" so I typically stir to sort of
centrifuge it, and skim it from the top. My question is: is this the hot
break/ large proteins? and if so, can one 'over skim'...ie can one take
too much thereby harming head retention?
..Darrell
<Terminally INtermediate Home-brewer>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:16:20 -0400
From: "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt@sln.esc.edu>
Subject: Question: Recirculating (how long,..how clear)?
When I started all grain brewing (about 2 years ago), having read Papazian,
Miller, and some others, I think that I may have been a bit compulsive
about recirulating; that is, I had read (in Miller, I think) that one
should recirculate about the same amount of liquid that one had infused the
grain with, which in my case is usually 3 gallons...so I found myself
recirculating both for quantity, and for quality ..... I made sure that the
wort was REAL clear......
Well, now I have relaxed a bit and recirulate in the following manner,
and I'd appreciate comments and suggestions : For the first 3-4 pints I
generally let the spigot flow real fast to sort of set the grain bed. Then
I let the flow go much more slowly (perhaps 1 minute for a pint, or
slightly more
time) for several pints (6-8 ?) until it is approaching running "clear". I
say, "approaching" in that usually there are still some small 'floaties' in
the wort...but I let some of those go into the kettle thinking that they'll
get degraded in the boil. Am I recirculating too little now?
..Darrell
<Terminally INtermediate Home-Brewer>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:25:01 -0400
From: "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt@sln.esc.edu>
Subject: Pilsner in Secondary (temperature question)
I have a pilsner that was 4 weeks in primary, now 10 days in secondary,
using WLP800 WhiteLabs Pilsner Lager yeast. I have dropped the temp to
around 38 F. I plan on leaving it there for at least another week or
more...but should I do an "diacetyl rest" at the end....ie, let the temp go
up to 60 F
for a day or so just before bottling?
..Darrell
(last question for today)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 07:39:49 -0600
From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa@SILGANMFG.COM>
Subject: herms web site
After many, many suggestions to
do this, I have finally constructed
a web site with my HERMS building
info on it.
http://www.ameritech.net/users/mmillspaw/index.htm
Micah Millspaw - brewer at large
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:58:13 -0600
From: Andrew Nix <anix@vt.edu>
Subject: CO2 bottles in fridge??
Just a quick one...
For anyone who MAY remember me, I just resubscribed to HBD after moving to
Christiansburg, Virginia in August (been REALLY busy). Anyway, I am
converting an old fridge and moving my hardware from my 3 gallon kegging
setup to my larger fridge to allow for dual 5 gal kegs. Do you folks who
have a large brew fridge with kegs in it put your CO2 bottle inside, or do
you tap a hole and bring the gas line in from the outside??? With my 3 gal
system, the fridge had barely enough room to fit a 3 gallon keg, let alone
a bottle of CO2, so this was never an issue. I'd prefer if I could put the
bottle in the fridge, and I think I remember seeing some kind of chain
system to assure the bottle stays upright inside.
Thanks for any info!!! I look forward to getting back into some good
homebrew conversation. Anyone from this area (that I don't know) drop me a
line at beerbrewer@vt.edu. I will be at the New River Valley Homebrewers
meeting tonight (provided the snow doesn't keep us indoors) and will
hopefully make next month's Star City Brewers (Roanoke, VA) meeting (Bob
Bratcher, you still around??) in order to meet some new folks.
Drewmeister
Andrew Nix
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Virginia Tech
anix@vt.edu
http://www.vt.edu:10021/A/anix
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 08:54:11 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Proper use of Phalse Bottom
Ant Hayes ( Ant.Hayes@FifthQuadrant.co.za) asks about using a Phil's Phalse
Bottom as a mash/lauter tun. If all the strike water is added tothe lauter
tun before the grain, the Phalse Bottom will float. A better method from
both the botttom's and the grain's perspective is to add the water and
grain pan for pan adjusting the consistancy as you go along. This way the
bottom will not float and the first portion of the grain will not be
exposed to elevated temperatures. I have been doing this for years.
Lately I have been using another method because it is easier and uses
slightly cooler water. I underlet the strike water from the hot liquor
tank into the mash tun while I slowly stir in the grains. There is no
messing with the water pan and the strike water can be 5 degrees cooler.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:05:43 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: royalties
Ahhh. That's why you call it "burst sparging"...
Of course to collect royalties you should change it to
"Burst Sparging, (c) 2000 by Paul Smith, all rights
reserved". That will give you (and your heirs) 100 years to
collect royalties provided someone makes any dough through
use of the term. ;-)
- --
Marc Sedam
Technology Development Associate
Office of Technology Development
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
308 Bynum Hall; CB# 4105
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-4105
919.966.3929 (phone)
919.962.0646 (fax)
http://www.research.unc.edu/otd
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:21:24 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Mouthfeel and dextrins - not
Brewsters:
Paul Smith asks for references that
demonstrate that dextrins do not
contribute to mouthfeel and cites
158F mashed beers as having
more mouthfeel or body as his proof
that dextrins are involved.
I also mash at 158F because I like the
quality of the beer produced.
Is it because of the dextrins?
No.
M&BS (1982) 2nd ed V2 p 840 says:
"Texture refers more to solid foodstuffs
than liquids, but is probably related to
what is referred to as "palate fullness"
or "body" This ill-defined beer property
is thought to be related to the
concentration of macromolecules,
principally beta glucans, proteins and
melanodins, in the beer"
I know a lot of time is spent quoting
the results of the effect of mashing
temperature in the saccharification
range on the carbohydrate content
of the beer, perhaps because
it is related to the alcohol content per
ton of malt. And alcohol is the active
ingredient in which governments and
their taxmen are interested. But that
is not necessarily all that is
happening in this temperature range.
My point is, your logic is bad, just
because you know what happens
to the carbohydrate at higher mash
temperatures and that higher mash
temperatures produce better beer
in many people's opinion, ( including
my own) does not mean that dextrins
are the reason.
I have yet to see a really
full discussion of what is happening to
the other components as a function of
mashing regimes, other than in the
temperature ranges where pertinent
enzymes relate to that substance.
For example, maybe beta glucans
and proteins interact and do some
funny chemistry at 158F. Or maybe
it is the melandoins catalysing
something. I don't know.
I suggest you make use of the HBD
archives where this subject of body
has been discussed many times.
I also suggest you refer to both M&BS
old and new edition, as well as DeClerk.
In the newest version of M&BS P.866
there are extensive studies quoted in an
attempt to clarify what is meant by
"mouthfeel" and "body" and such.
Trying to clarify what is meant by these
words is a complicated activity. Even
the French were involved. But like
Professor Higgins said "The
French don't care what you say
only how you pronounce it!" so
I don't know of their impact on these
studies...
"Mouthfeel" has the following
potential organoleptic responses:
Alkaline,Mouthcoating,Metallic,
Astringent,Powdery, Carbonation,
Warming
"Body" is broken down into
Watery, Characterless,Satiating,
Thick
I concur that mashing at 158F
makes a better beer, but exactly
why, I don't know. I do know it is
not dextrins as supported by
the references. The above
texture discussion would also
argue that we should be looking
elsewhere in the mashing regime
to improve the whatever it is
that makes beer so appealing.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:45:41 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam@unc.edu>
Subject: help on my quest for Santa
I've been grabbed by a quest to create a beer with similar
qualities to Samichlaus, the wonderfully alcoholic (~14%abv)
Swiss lager that is no longer produced. I'm convinced I
could come close by finding the Samichlaus yeast. Since
Hurlimann no longer makes the beer (after being bought out
by Feldschlosschen) the likelihood of getting the brewery to
fess up a culture is nil. I've contacted a Swiss friend of
mine to see if she can't extricate something from the
brewery. I'm currently trying to culture something out of a
1996 vintage, but my hopes aren't high. There has been
little, if any, activity in the culture.
I've searched the ATCC and the NCYC for yeast of similar
quality, but was unable to find anything. I did uncover a
"superattenuating" yeast that I thought would be a good
choice, but Fix's AOBT says that they produce nasty beers
with medicinal flavors. Damn. The ATCC had few commercial
yeast strains, but the NCYC (in the UK) had over 460 brewing
yeast cultures!! Of course each culture will run you ~75
pounds, so don't get too excited. If I had to guess, the
Samichlaus strain *might* be in there somewhere.
Unfortunately, a majority of the yeasts don't have any
descriptions that would suggest how they ferment. The
website also states that they won't give the info about who
gave them the yeast. Sooo...your mission, should you choose
to accept it is as follows--
I'm looking for members of the HBD who:
(1) knows someone at the NCYC who could provide some hints
on which yeast is the correct choice. I know that the
Samichlaus yeast is a lager strain that evolved at the
brewery to be very alcohol tolerant. I would guess that the
attenuation is greater than 80%. It's a S. carlsbergensis
strain.
(2) anyone looking at this from Switzerland who might be
willing to do some creative begging at Feldschlosschen
Brewery. It's near Basel (and Bern, I think).
(3) anyone who knows of another culture bank in central
Europe (Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany) which might be
a more likely location for the strain
Lastly, if someone does find this yeast in a culture bank it
will likely cost ~$150. I know there are others on the list
who would be interested in this yeast for making Samichlaus
clones or just messing around with a yeast that can tolerate
enormous starting gravities. A cost sharing mechanism would
be wonderful. I think I could find someone on campus who
would culture up the yeast on slants for me to distribute on
a one-time basis to contributors. Or, I would be willing to
give the yeast to Wyeast, WhiteLabs, or the Yeast Culture
Kit Co. for storage as long as it were made available for a
reasonable charge.
This message will self-destruct if the HBD server ever
crashes again.
Cheers!
Marc
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 10:06:10 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Souring Stout
I have been able to simulate the Guinness "twang" very closely using
Weyermann's Acidulated malt ( very different from Weissheimer's). Taste
just one corn and you know why it works and why I told you to just taste
one. It is very controlable and easy to use. I simply add .25 lbs for a
five gallon batch.
Using Wheeler's recipe, Paul's Stout malt and acid malt produced a stout
that is probably the closest I have ever come to reproducing a commercial
beer and a difficult one as well!
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com 72723.1707@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:34:37 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor@samford.edu>
Subject: Re: Hot Pepper Beer
Brett Spivey is looking for a chile pepper beer. His
description sounds like Cave Creek Chile Beer, though as I
recall it had a serrano rather than jalapeno chile in the
bottle (which might account for not having a jalapeno
taste). Cave Creek is packaged in a clear bottle with a
yellow label, and it is a pale lager, with little hop
bitterness; a little bit of sweetness helps balance the
chile heat. As I recall, the brewery was just outside of
Phoenix AZ, I think in a town called Cave Creek. The label
mentioned an associated brewpub/restaurant.
Regards,
Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:52:49 -0600
From: johnk@inil.com (johnk)
Subject: Guinness souring
Randy Mosher says to add a couple bottles of Berliner Weiss to a 5 gallon
batch to get the
Guiness sourness! If the 3% addition is true, that would be 19.2 oz. of
"Soured Beer" in a
5 gallon batch. So maybe less than two full bottles would do the trick.
John Kleczewski, West Chicago IL
johnk@inil.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:47:40 -0500 (EST)
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@comic.com>
Subject: Re: Mash and Lauter in same vessel
George de Piro writes:
>Bruce Carpenter asks for some first-batch all-grain advice:
>
>He asks if he can mash and lauter in the same vessel. The
>answer is a resounding "Yes!" In fact, most small breweries are
>set up this way. The combination mash-lauter tun is called,
>accurately enough, a "Combi-tun." It does limit some of your
>mashing options, but not terribly so. It is a great way to keep
>your first few batches simple.
I believe Bruce's original question was oriented towards a Zapap type
arrangement. This may lead to George's response about limitations.
I am no expert brewer, and have fallen into "burn-out brewer" status since
the birth of my third child three years ago, but I always kept my all-grains
simple.
I use a slotted copper tube in my 8 gallon pot for mashing and lautering.
It goes around the inside rim, then the non-slotted portion bends up and
over the pot so I can connect a hose when sparging. The pot goes on the
stove, so I can try and achieve any temp I need during the mash by turning
the heat higher or lower. I can stir during the mash if needed, as the
copper tube doesn't impede much at all (otherwise I get temp differences
mashing on the stove).
I can take the tube out and use the pot as my brew pot as well, assuming I
have intermediate storage long enough to get all the grain out and the pot
cleaned.
It was some work cutting the slots big enough to be useful, but not so big
that the tubing cracked (I did ruin one earlier on, but just cut that part
off and still had enough).
I have mashed weird step mashes with this arrangement, including one Belgian
Wit that came out really well.
Anyway, comments welcome, but I felt at the time that it simplified life for
me greatly.
John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own
jdecarlo@comic.com
______________________________________________
FREE Personalized Email at Mail.com
Sign up at http://www.mail.com?sr=mc.mk.mcm.tag001
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:49:31 -0800
From: "John Todd Larson" <larson@amazon.com>
Subject: Conical Fermenter
I am considering the purchase of a 7.1 gallon SS conical fermenter from
morebeer.com. I know much has been written in the past re/ conical
fermenters, but I could find no specific references to this product. It
seems to be of high quality and very reasonable cost. I would appreciate
any thoughts re/ this product, including thoughts on the usefulness of a
racking arm & port. I question the need for this if I am planning to dump
spent yeast from the bottom.
Thanks,
Todd Larson
J. Todd Larson
Treasury Manager
Amazon.com
larson@amazon.com
(206) 266-4367
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 13:49:07 -0600
From: "G. M. Remec" <gremec@gsbalum.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Color
Hello all,
Over the last couple of years I've been developing an Excel brewing
spreadsheet with which I'm generally happy. The latest thing I'd like it
to do is display the color for a recipe based on the predicted SRM. Excel
allows you to specify six parameters to describe just about any color.
What I'm hoping to do is figure out a way to display a desired color if I
can relate the SRM rating to those six parameters. These parameters are
hue, saturation (intensity), luminance (brightness), red, green, and blue.
Each parameter has a setting between zero and 255. Does anyone know of a
way to correlate SRM ratings with these six parameters? Better yet, has
anyone else already accomplished this objective, or know how I can wire it
into my spreadsheet?
Cheers!
Greg
------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 2000 13:51:40 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Zapap Efficiency
Fred Wills asks about a theory why a Zapap would have lower
extraction. I work as a chromatographer, and this is essentially what
we are doing when sparging. We are separating the sweet wort from the
grain with the sparge water. However designing our lauter systems to
minimize the amount of mixing of the sparge water with the sweet wort
helps with efficiency. Let me try to explain: The maximum "rinsing"
capability exists in the sparge water, the sweet wort will diffuse out
of the grains and into the low concentration "mobile phase", and be
acrried down and out of the lauter tun (column). If sweet wort mixes
with sparge water entering from the top, then when that sparge water
reaches some grains with entrained sweet wort, then the concentration
gradient and the force (chemical potential to those P-chemists) to
difuse out is reduced. The same thing occurs on in the space below
the false bottom, sparge/sweet wort enters from the top and mixes with
the sweeter stuff that came out just before it and the sweeter wort is
diluted etc. The problem with the Zapap as I saw mine anyway was the
relatively large underlet volume (volume below the false bottom). In
addition I also had the problem someone else mentioned and that was
the leaking of air and wort between the buckets, which someone solved
by cutitng the inner bucket down. Anyway the best lauter tun from an
extraction point of view would have an enormous length (grain bed
depth) compared to the diameter, and very little dead volume at the
top and bottom. In addition, the grain "column" would have to be
packed evenly so as not to channel. The design considerations for
efficiency, however, go against the expense of time etc, the efficient
design form extraction point of view would achieve the highest
specific gravity with the least amount of water. This design (tall
and skinny) limits the rate at which you can lauter (due to flow
restriction) so we generally like to have a larger diameter, and these
vary I have heard that a grain depth equal to the bed diameter is a
good choice. the key to the other more efficient systems is the
reduced underletting, even sparge water distribution, slow run-off,
temperature control, bed cutting to reduce channeling, the ability to
rouse up the grain bed and allow to settle so that husks settle first
and act like filters to the real gummy stuff. For non-commercial
applications like homebrewing, however, many of the trade-offs are
different, I would trade efficiency for time any-day, but haven't yet
tried no-sparge brewing, the ultimate time saver in grain brewing!
Regards,
Roger
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3228, 01/21/00
*************************************
-------
