Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3345
HOMEBREW Digest #3345 Wed 07 June 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:
Absolute Best Advice (AZ4RAYS)
Genny ("Kevin Kutskill")
re: freezing grains and the nays have it. - no the chicken-little's have it. ("Stephen Alexander")
Re; Dry Lager yeast (Chris Campagna)
Re: Genny ("Patrick Michael Flahie")
re: mash pH ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Elvis Sighting #7,345,827 and thermometer ports (Jim Adwell)
Plato Scale ("A. J.")
lactic acid (Jeff Renner)
Re: Mead in the style guide (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Beechwood Chip Usage at A-B (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: Yeast Propagation and Grain/Water Ratio Questions (Spencer W Thomas)
Re: HSA in mash system? (Paul Shick)
update on attenuation in lagers. (JDPils)
Re: Infrared Thermometers ("Timmons, Frank")
mash pH (jim liddil)
Lactic? (AJ)
water purification (Jim Liddil)
"Neutralize" (AJ)
Crystal vs Carmelized Sugars (Charley Burns)
Re: Brewing Software & Chico Day Trip (Chris & Linda)
* Don't miss the 2000 AHA NHC in Livonia, MI
* 6/22 through 6/24 http://hbd.org/miy2k
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 00:58:08 EDT
From: AZ4RAYS@aol.com
Subject: Absolute Best Advice
In mild response to Johnathon Peakall and his Gardening Expertise.
It is obvious that you have not gardened in my neck of the woods, or maybe
even in any but your own. To risk another 'blanket' or even assenine
'absolute' statement.
All the gardeners around here must rototill or make bricks. Master gardeners,
Ag. extension advisors, and the like all rototill. Reportedly, and in my
experience, the earthworms survive and the mulches (yes we 'do' organic) get
down into our clay and caliche soil all the way into the root zone.
One of the few things I still say with absolute authority and unchallenged
certainty at
this stage of my life is "Never say never and hardly ever say always".
We can't all be right about every thing all the time.
Have a great day, loosen your bowtie, and 'Relax, don't worry, have a
homebrew." Patrick be kickin' back now.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 05:48:51 -0400
From: "Kevin Kutskill" <beer-geek@home.com>
Subject: Genny
Never did a side-by-side tasting, but I was at a beer tasting event, and had
a chance to taste Genny Cream Ale. My first thought was "tastes like my
cream ale". Mine is a little darker, but the taste is close. Maybe could
use this as a starting point.
===============================
Pop's Old Cream Ale
Batch number: 7
Batch size: 10.5
Style: Cream Ale
Date Gravity Plato
Brewing: 1/7/00 1.050 12.4
Racking: 01/10/00 1.022 5.6
Bottling: 01/16/00 1.013 3.3
Alcohol: 4.0% (w/w)
AAlcohol: 5.0% (v/v)
Ingredients:
Belgian Pale Ale 7.0 pounds 1.019 S.G. 2.0 SRM 60 min mash
Pilsner 7.0 pounds 1.019 S.G. 1.5 SRM 60 min mash
Flaked Rice 3.0 pounds 1.008 S.G. 0.3 SRM 60 min mash
Cara Pils 1.0 pounds 1.003 S.G. 0.2 SRM 60 min mash
Tettnanger 1.0 ounces 60 min 6.0 % AA 11.2 ibu leaf
Kent Goldings 0.8 ounces 30 min 6.6 % AA 5.3 ibu leaf
Kent Goldings 0.8 ounces 15 min 6.6 % AA 2.7 ibu leaf
Water Treatment:
Mash water amount: 26.0
Strike temperature: 168 deg Fahrenheit
Sparge water amount: 36.0 quarts
Sparge water temperature: 170 deg Fahrenheit
Extraction efficiency: 81 %
Sparge liquor collected: 11.5 gallons
Topping water amount: 0.0 quarts
Boil size: 11.5 Gallons
Mashing schedule
minutes degrees Fahrenheit
60 146
75 170
90 170
Fermentation
YeastLabs American Ale
Primary fermentation: 6-1/2 Gallon Carbouy
Secondary Fermentation: 5 Gallon Carboy
Fermentation schedule
days deg Fahrenheit
0 72
27 72
======================
Kevin
beer-geek@home.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:21:31 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: freezing grains and the nays have it. - no the chicken-little's have it.
Pivo says ...
>I was
>quite sure as well that at least ONE person would be able to envision
>all manner of theoretical objections, and warn against it. I was also
>quite sure that this person had never investigated this in any organized
>manner, and had in fact "never frozen a single kernel".
It's so nice to know you think so much about me Doc, tho' sad
that you apparently lack a life.
There isn't enough lit available to investigate freezing malt in an
organized manner. I have noticed that in your field physicians
are not required to personally contract every disease they treat,
before expounding on general principles of treatment and prevention.
If I had frozen some malt myself it would only provide one undetailed
data point - right ? Proves nothing.
I've never had malaria or personally observed a malaria case, but
I can certainly cite it's cause and method of transmission. That
I've never frozen malt has nothing to do with the accuracy of
my statements.
[ story omitted ...]
>I never noticed a difference at all.
Difference to what ? You had no control to base a difference on.
>Nobody wants to give "bad
>advice" so everyone with actual experience shuts up, [...]
Sad if true (unlikely). I would like to see ALL the information and
experience that can be had on this topic presented. What is wrong
with that ?
Why does Pivo argue in favor of IGNORING informed speculation.
He would like to say that he didn't experience problems in his
single case uncontrolled test, so there are none, but that is
speculation too. Without comparative experiments it is
impossible to say what differences are. It isn't impossible to
consider what some of the differences might be tho'.
There are very few questions of real complex systems that yield up a
definitive yes/no answer. Pivos position is that since there isn't a clear
cut answer, that no one should express a cautionary concern. The same
mindset that would burn books with differing opinions and ideas.
He is determined to misread my "purified enzymes are denatured upon
freezing" as the same as "your beer is ruined", and needs a course
in critical thinking.
>I am going to pass on a little "cure" for these situations.
...
> Then you reply: "I bet you a hundred dollars
I've been involved in many challenges (not bets) here and the call
for experimental tests has some major pitfalls associated with it.
When making a bet or challenge there MUST be a clear cut
PRE-agreement about the matter being tested, the methods and
the determination of the outcome. Otherwise there isn't a solid
basis to accept a challenge. There is too much room to weasel out.
Also if all parties do not share in the tests effort and expense, then the
non-paying party can snipe till the test is outrageously expensive and
impractical. The costs must be shared and limited in advance.
Who would bet on a poker hand if the rules for hand priority and division
of the 'pot' were under discussion?
==
>[Y2K frenzy ... earthworm/rototiller nonsense]
The problem is NOT the warnings that worms are killed and
some computers will fail. It's the LACK OF JUDGMENT by PIvo
and the other chicken-little alarmists who don't evaluate these risks
rationally but see every concern as a 'sky is falling/beer is ruined' issue.
Does freezing affect malt quality ? I don't know and have never said
one way or the other. I have pointed to two issues (grain quality loss
during freezing dehydration and the loss of beta-amylase during
freezing) ("Shelf life dating of Foods", Labuzza, 1982, 0-917-678-14-1,
and the BRENDA enzyme database).
>Anyhow, if you put some grain in the freezer over night, and then brew
>it next to some nonfrozen stuff, treating it exactly the same, I bet you
>a hundred bucks you wouldn't be able to pick them apart in a blind tasting.
I agree, but the poster asked about long term freezer storage, not
overnight.
I only have expressed concerns, not the chicken-little 'your beer is
ruined' that Pivo falsely reads into my posts. Am I willing to bet $100
that "your beer will be ruined" if the malt is frozen for a year ?
Absolutely not . The malt may or may not produce discernibly different
beer after a year in the freezer, but there are rational reasons to be
concerned that it may. That's all I ever said despite Pivo's wacky
distortions.
>Any takers?
>
>I rather thought not.
Why would I take a bet against my judgment ???
Odder still why would Pivo offer a bet which makes no serious
challenge of the issue - (overnight freeze) ? Next he'll offer me
$100 bet that the sun will rise in the morning.
Since Dr.Pivo is the poster-boy for "HSA doesn't matter", maybe the
following challenge will interest him.
- -- HSA Challenge --
I claim that if an HSA experimental brew with oxygenation in the mash
and prior to chilling is performed that the oxygenated beer will become
defective in flavor before the unoxygenated (no purposeful HSA) control
beer.
Outline:
A pair of bock or marzen beers, (details, specs TBD) will be brewed by a
mutually agreed upon competent lager brewer, not a bet participant or
associate.
One sample will be brewed in an entirely conventional manner, except
for added precautions for the avoidance HSA. The second will be
brewed identically except that oxygen will be injected at points during
the brewing process(TBD).
Post boil handling is to be identical for both. The brewers judgment of a
difference or problem (defective fermentation, contamination) will
invalidate the test and require a retest.
At the point the beer is declared to be ready by the brewer, and at monthly
intervals afterward, the beer will be subjected to triangle taste tests.
A statistically significant finding (level TBD) that the beers can be
reliably differentiated and that the oxygenated beer is inferior in
taste;
OR failure to find such a difference in 12 successive tests determines
the outcome.
All expenses and fees for the brewer and testers to be borne equally. An
additional amount of $500 to be deposited by each to an escrow account
- 'winner take all'.
Perhaps some club with a recognized lager brewing member and enough (~12)
competent beer tasters would be willing and able to perform the test for a
contribution.
I'd need to fill in the details a bit before this can be considered a bona
fide offer, but I wonder if Dr.Chicken-little is interested in pursuing
this ? One cluck for no, two clucks for yes. Why the larger $$amount ?
It would be nice if my winnings exceeded my costs.
==
Pivo jibes that I don't brew, and don't experiment. He
needs to learn that it's rude to lie, and moronic to make declarations
in ignorance. Tho' not as often as I'd like, I've brewed 23 full batches
(5-12gal) and quite a few (~14) <1.5gal tests batches since Jan 99.
Conducted 3 triangle taste tests and 8 outlined & recorded tests of
brewing related issues and equipment in that period.
Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:37:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Chris Campagna <campagna@umd5.umd.edu>
Subject: Re; Dry Lager yeast
In response to the recent post concerning which dry lager yeasts actually
work, I'll have to throw in a positive vote for Superior dry yeast. I
have used this at both high (i.e. 65F) temps and at 50F and had very good
results. The warmer temps certainly don't produce a real lager, perhaps
you would call it a steam beer. At the higher temps it still did not turn
out to estery, IMO.
I have a poorly insulated room in myhouse which I use for lagering int eh
winter. It hold between 45 and 50F during the colder months and I lager
like crazy to take advantage of this. I brewed 2 CAPs this past winter
using identical recipes, but in one I used the Superior yeast and the
other was White Labs Czec Pils. Both are very good, but he dry yeast
version actually seems a little more malty and cleaner to me. This yeast
is also an excellent flocualtor, so it came out very clear after only a
month and a half of lagering.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 07:49:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Patrick Michael Flahie" <flahiepa@pilot.msu.edu>
Subject: Re: Genny
In HBD #3344, BIL2112L asked about Genny Cream Ale...
Sometime last year, there was a brief discussion of Classic American Cream Ales
(CACA) on the HBD. This was an ale "equivalent" of the Classic American
Pilsner and an attempt to recreate American beers the way they used to be. If
you search the archives for 1999 and 2000 using the acronym "CACA", you should
be able to get Paul Shick's recipe that started the thread. It's still in my
queue of things to brew -- along with Jeff Renner's mild recipe posted in May.
Others may be better able to comment on its similarity to Genny Cream, but it
would probably be a good start.
Hope this helps.
Patrick Flahie
Jackson, MI, USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 08:25:39 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: re: mash pH
AJ brings up >>Checking
the actual offset and slope and the response time of the electrode might
lead to some insight but for now, based on limited info and admitedly
speculating, I'd look at the water itself. Silicic acid from the still?
What's the conductivity (or resistivity) of this water?<<
The response time is well within the manufacturers spec of 20 seconds.
I try to take good care of the instrument and refresh the storage solution
every 6 months or so. Isn't a Ph meter just measuring the conductivity of
the solution? I've suspected the water source myself for a couple of years.
I've tried difference sources and always come out with about the same
pH on what is sold as distilled water. I came across on source selling
"distilled water" that says "prepared by ozonation." I didn't bother
testing that
source. I'll try to get a sample of my water to another meter Tues. or
Weds. to
confirm my meter function. This low test water Ph is what is driving the pH
of the initial mash low and once it was buffered with the Ca-sulphate and
grist the pH fell into the normal range for a mash; which was really the
point of
the experiment...{will 150 ppm Ca++ adjust a pale malt mash to normal pH}.
It was really a silly experiment since so many sources say Ca ++ at 50 to
150ppm
will bring about an properly adjusted mash Ph. (unless the water is highly
carbonate)
N.P. Lansing
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 08:30:31 -0400
From: Jim Adwell <jimala@apical.com>
Subject: Elvis Sighting #7,345,827 and thermometer ports
Jonathan Peakall writes, among other things:
>>>>
And think how silly we'll all feel if it turns out that The National
Enquirer is right and Elvis is alive and pumping gas for a living in Boise,
and that Aliens have been walking among us for years.
<<<<
And lest the good Doctor P. think this is all just beer farts or HSA,
Plastic Bottle Man was in Boise the other day, and actually saw Elvis, who
was pumping gas (probably from the homebrew he was drinking) while
roto-tilling a potato field. And it is an indisputable fact that there are
Allens among us, even here at the HBD, although most of them spell it 'Alan'.
So there.
My thermometer port is a brass 1/4 x 1/4 compression coupling, used to
join two 1/4" soft copper pipes, some SS or brass washers, and a short
length of 1/4" copper tubing. These things come in various sizes for
various size copper pipe, and also can adapt different size pipes, such as
1/4 x 3/8, etc. I use larger ones as bulkhead fittings in my mash system.
I have successfully used this "system" on HDPE plastic buckets, SS and
aluminum pots. Some pictures are here:
http://home.ptdprolog.net/~jimala/brewery/bulkheads.html
Cheers, Jim
Jim's Brewery Pages:
http://home.ptd.net/~jimala/brewery/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 13:04:31 +0000
From: "A. J." <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Plato Scale
Bill asked about the advantages (if any) of the Plato scale over the
specific gravity scale. The two are actually two parts of the same
question. That question is "How much sugar (extract) is in a gallon (or
liter or whatever volume unit you like) of wort or beer?" There are
several applications where we want to know that. Certainly if we know
how much extract we have per gallon and multiplyh by the number of
gallons of wort we have prepared we know how much extract we've
extracted and by ratioing that with the amount of grist we used are able
to determine how efficient our mashing was (or wasn't). In addition to
that, most beers are designed for a particular starting sugar level. The
"12 degree" Pilsners of Bohemia are an example. They start from 12P
wort. I still remember a bloke telling me the beers in the Czech
Republic are incredibly strong - 12% alcohol - "It says so right on the
lable!" and indeed it does say 12% on the lable but that means that the
wort was 12 Plato i.e. 12% sugar by weight - 120 grams of sugar (well,
extract really) per killogram of wort. After fermentation we like to
know the "true extract" i.e. the amount of extract which has not been
converted into alcohol or carbon dioxide. The difference between
original extract and true extract can be used to calculate the alcohol
(and CO2) produced using tables originally produced by Balling.
So how do we figure out how much extract is in a liter of wort? By
measuring its density (or really specific gravity) and looking up in a
table to see what the sugar content of a sucrose/water solution with
that density is. These tables were originally prepared by Balling and
then corrected by Plato and the "Normal-Eichungskommission" established
by the German government in 1900 to make sure that the German brewing
industy had data that were very precise (a small chuckle here is
probably still within the bounds of political correctness). The tables
were prepared by making up sucrose solution and measuring their
densities. The strength of the sucrose solution (grams of sugar per 100
grams of solution) goes in one column and the specific gravity (ratio of
the density of the solution at 20 C to that of water at 20C) goes into
the other. This is the way the tables in use by the American Society of
Brewing Chemists (ASBC) look today.
We need both columns of the table for many applications. Because we have
the table (or a mathematical fit to the tabular data) we can convert
back and forth between the columns readily and it does not, therefore,
matter whether the hydrometer or density meter we use is calibrated in
specific gravity units or Plato (or Brix) units. Hydrometers often come
with both printed on the scales and densitometers certainly have both
scales in their firmware. If pycnometers are used then the result will
be in specific gravity units and the tables must be used to convert to
Plato where the Plato value is required.
Using the 12P example again, we would measure 12 on a Plato hydrometer
or 1.040 on a specific gravity(20C/20C) hydrometer. This wort would
contain 120 grams of extract per kilogram of wort. We also need to know
that the specific gravity of such a wort is about 1.037 times that of
water at 20C so that the extract in a liter of beer can be calculated at
(120 grams/kg)*1.048(kg/liter) = 125.8 grams per liter which can then be
multiplied by the number of liters in the wort to obtain the total
number of grams of extract in the full length of the brew.
Thus the scales are equally valid as long as you have the means to go
from one to the other. I think Europeans do (except the UK) tend to use
the Plato scale more frequently and there is some appeal to doing things
that way. 12P meanin 120 grams per killogram which is pretty close to
120 grams per liter (though its really 125.8) says more to me than 1.048
grams per liter i.e. the Plato tells you about approximate sugar content
very quickly. When confronted with "OG 1.060" I divide the 60 by 4 to
get 15 which is a crude approximation and then think "about 150 grams
per liter". So as a personal preference I think in Plato but I have to
be honest and say I got that way because many years back I bought a set
of three precision hydrometers (which I still have - touch wood) which
were calibrated in Plato and have had little experience with the
specific gravity ones.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:48:05 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: lactic acid
Brewers
The Ann Arbor Brewers' Guild was just given five one-gallon jugs of 88%
lactic acid by a local micro that discovered it wasn't necessary to adjust
Ann Arbor ciry water after all. This will be useful to those of us on
wells, though, and for doctoring beers like wit, stout or weisse. At this
Friday's meeting we will be filling the 80 8-oz. plastic bottles I got .
There has been a bit of discussion here on the use of lactic and phosphoric
acid to reduce alkalinity for brewing pale beers. Of course this is useful
for my special love, Classic American Pilsner. My SOP is to pre-boil and
decant my water, often using CaCl2 in the boil, sometimes adding it after.
This is wasteful of propane and a bother, so I'm looking forward to trying
lactic acid.
I'm curious what the reaction is and what happens to the Ca++. I'd love to
not have to add any more because I don't like adding extra anions. (Did
anyone ever investigate calcium lactate or calcium phosphate as Ca++
sources?)
Jeff
-=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner@umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:25:38 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Mead in the style guide
I have seen meads and ciders entered in homebrew competitions, where
the rules explicitly said "no meads or ciders". Brewers want to make
them. Brewers want to enter them in competition. If nobody made
them, nobody entered them in competitions, then we wouldn't have
categories for them.
And really, there is a continuum. Beer, fruit beer, wine. Well, we
draw the line at wine, since there is already a separate wine-making
community (although have you noticed how many homebrew shops also have
wine-making supplies?) Beer, honey beer, braggot, mead. Another
continuum. But apparently wine-making does not usually encompass
mead, so we take 'em.
Personally, I make beer and mead. I find mead-making to be closer to
beer-making in its process than to wine-making (excluding wine-making
from extracts).
I pretty much don't brew from extracts any more. Do I complain about
extract-brewing articles? No. I accept the fact that people are
diverse in their interests, wants and needs.
Personally, I'd be more concerned about the bogus "advice" that "the
professor" hands out sometimes than about articles about the "wrong"
kind of fermented beverage.
What a bunch of whiners! :-) :-) :-)
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:30:18 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Beechwood Chip Usage at A-B
>>>>> "Clint" == Clint Thessen <hausbrauer@freewwweb.com> writes:
Clint> ... Per Steve Michalak, a master brewer from A-B
Clint> who was at MCAB II, the beechwood chips are used as a
Clint> settling surface for their highly flocculant yeast,
Clint> irregardless of what the marketing folks. This allows the
Clint> yeast to come into contact with more aging beer than if it
Clint> settled on the bottom of the tank.
Wait a minute. Are you saying that if they didn't use the chips, the
yeast would settle EVEN FASTER, and there would be EVEN MORE
acetaldehyde?!?!
Wow. All this time I've been blaming the beechwood for helping the
yeast to floc faster, and thus contributing to the acetaldehyde. If
you're right (and I have no reason to doubt Michalak's statement),
then I've had it exactly backwards.
=S
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:42:33 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Yeast Propagation and Grain/Water Ratio Questions
Why step up your yeast in a starter? This one's been covered a BUNCH
of times, seems to come every couple of months in this forum. Here
are my reasons:
1. Yeast like company, and grow better when they're not lonely. :-)
Apparently there is some truth to that statement.
2. Another reason is that bacteria grow a LOT faster than yeast.
Once the yeast reach a significant concentration (yeast per volume of
wort) they tend to suppres bacterial growth. But if the bacteria get
going more quickly, you'll get bad-tasting beer.
3. Yeast will reproduce only a certain number of times before they
quit (without oxygen). 3 times is the oft-quoted number, leading to
an increase in the number of yeast of about 8x. If you start with too
few yeast cells, you may not end up with enough yeast to fully ferment
your wort. And the ones you do get will be "stressed" and will spit
out more "interesting" tasting substances.
One of the most common effects (imho) of underpitching is beer that is
not fully attenuated, and is thus too sweet.
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 10:57:35 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Shick <SHICK@JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Re: HSA in mash system?
Hello all,
Jeff Calton writes to ask about potential Hot Side
Aeration difficulties with his current procedure of mashing
in a kettle and then moving the mash into a lauter tun. Jeff,
as long as you're reasonably gentle in ladelling the mash
into the lauter tun, it's unlikely that you're incurring much
damage from oxygen, especially with a lighter beer like your
Pilener. Dumping the whole mash into the lauter tun from a
height of 8 feet might not be a great idea, though.... Lots
of HBDers have made good beer using separate mash and lauter
tuns for many years (and it's probably the most common commercial
practice, too.)
Having said that, many (although not all) homebrewers are
perpetual tinkerers, and are rarely content to keep using the same
system for long, even if it produces really good beer. There's a lot
of fun to be had from playing around with one's system, especially on
the wort production side of things. So, if you're looking for an
excuse to redesign your mashing system, go for it. If you prefer
to stay with your current set up, you have little to fear from HSA.
Paul Shick
Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 10:59:31 EDT
From: JDPils@aol.com
Subject: update on attenuation in lagers.
Greetings,
Back in January I posted five years of attenuation results with brewing
lagers as a funtion of the % munich malt in the batch. With > 25% munich
malt I always get a little higher final gravity than I would like and what
commercial brews acheive, according to the info I had. My efforts focused on
reducing my mash temp to get more fermentable and getting a slurry of Wyeast
2206 yeast from a local brewpub.
I then made an Octoberfest and did a single infusion at 153 as opposed to a
double decoction. The beer started fermenting in 4 hours at 52F and finsihed
in the primary in 7 days. When I bottled this batch I was suprised to only
get 71.5% apparent attenuation when I was hoping for > 75%. I started to
think about what else I could try.
I then thought about the fact that my three floating glass thermometers never
read the same as each other during mashing, but did at room temp. For four
years I always beleived majority rules between the three. When I brewed my
next batch of ale I decided to check them against boiling water. Since I am
at 350 feet above sea level I expected them to read 212F. Instead, two read
202 and one 212F. So when mashing the Pale Ale I used the correct one and to
my suprise the attenuation numbers for these yeasts was 5% higher than I had
acheived in the past for any style of ale with normal gravities(1.040 -
1.065).
What this means is for five years my mash temps have been high. So my next
lager with large amounts of Munich I will be using this floating thermometer
and a new digital one to make sure I am at the correct temp. (I don't plam
on immersing it). I will also repeat using a brew pub slurry. When I do
this I should know if I can improve from the low 70's to the mid to high 70's
in apparent attenuation.
Since I always boil water for both sparging and sanitizing my chiller ,I plan
on calibrating my thermometers against boiling water during each batch as a
safeguard.
So the moral of the story is don't assume anything is what it appears to be,
even though you have done it that way for years.
Keep on brewing and enjoy the results!
Cheers.
Jim Dunlap
Woodinville, WA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 09:46:52 -0700
From: "Timmons, Frank" <frank.timmons@honeywell.com>
Subject: Re: Infrared Thermometers
dr smith asks about infrared (IR) thermometers. I have used one that I
borrowed from the chemical plant where I work. We use them to read
temperatures of things that are inaccessible or too hot to read with a
contact type probe. They work on the principle that every object above
absolute zero emits some amount of infrared radiation proportional to its
temperature, with a multiplier called the emmissivity thrown in to account
for the type of surface, its geometry, surface roughness, and color. They do
work on liquids, and even on liquid/solid mixtures.
The cheap ones have a fixed emmissivity, usually 0.9, which is fine for
fairly dull metal. In order to get a good accurate measurement, I would
advise getting one you can adjust the emmissivity on. You will need to
experiment to determine the emmissivity of the surface. To do this, take
direct readings with a calibrated thermometer and compare them to the IR
reading, then adjust the emmissivity until they match.
I found that the IR device was not very accurate unless I did this, with
readings off by 4 to 5 degrees F, and also that the repeatability of the
reading was not very good, so I'm not sure it is worth buying one.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:58:08 -0400
From: jim liddil <jliddil@vms.arizona.edu>
Subject: mash pH
This is from a previous post of mine:
Mon, 11 May 1998 11:50:54 +0000
I did my own version of the pH vs Temp malt measurement. Quick and dirty
and I'm sure many will find faults in the methodology but here is the data
for all to review.
University Water:
Alkalinity145
Calcium 52
Chloride 14.5
Hardness 159
Magnesium 6.8
pH 8
Sodium 38.8
Sulfate 66
TDS 319
I also used water from a Barnstead Nanopure water system. The water read
17.7 megaohms resistivity. This is a system that produces pyrogen
ultrapure water Type 1.
The malt was the Czech Pils malt from St. Pat's of Texas. Malt analysis is
on their webpage (www.stpats.com)
pH Meter: Corning model 340
Resolution: 0.01 unit pH, 1 mV
Accuracy : 0.01 pH, 1 mV
Note: I know AJ mentions having 0.1 mV resolution but those units retail at
more than $500 in the VWR catalog.
Electrode: Orion/ROSS Sure-Flow Semi-micro Combination electrode Temp
range up to 100 C. The electrode is 7 months old.
The pH Buffers were pH 4 and 7 and come from VWR scientific. They are
their house brand.
The thermometer was a VWR digital traceable instrument with 0.1 C resolution.
Meter was calibrated and pH and mV measurements taken:
pH=4 189 mV
pH=7 17 mV
I prepared a pound of malt and then weighed out 13 grams samples into
beakers. In the process I tried to keep the mix as uniform as possible
though this is hard to do with ground malt. (an experimental short coming)
I added 100 ml of either tap or ultrapure water to each beaker. The water
was drawn from the tap or filtration system into polypropylene beakers and
allowed to equilibrate for 1 hour prior to start of experiment.
Samples were them mixed and temperature and pH measured.
Temp 76 F (all samples)
Tap water Mash
Sample # pH/mV
1 6.58/43
2 6.62/36
Samples were placed in water bath at 145 F for 30 minutes with occasional
stirring. Sample reach 145 F after approximately 20 minutes. The water
bath was setup at the pH meter so that temp was constant (+/- 1 F).
pH/mV at 145 F pH/mV
1 5.85/84
2 5.84/84
Samples cooled on ice to 76 F
pH/mV
1 6.15/65
2 6.16/65
Type 1 water mashes
76 F pH/mV
1 5.70/91
2 5.75/90
145 F
1 5.47/104
2 5.45/105
76 F
1 5.84/84
2 5.78/87
I left 13 grams of malt at 76 F during the whole test (~60 minutes) and
after this time the pH/mV were 6.26/59
I checked the pH meter after the experiment and the buffer reading were
identical to those at the start
This experiment represents an N=1.
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 15:45:43 +0000
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: pH measurements part 2
Decided to do some more experimenting. I used a more "normal" mash
thickness of 13 grams of malt in 30 ml of water. I preheated everything
including my mash water and mashtun (beaker) to 150 F. I then added the
malt and water to the beaker at 150 F and let it go for 30 minutes at 150
F. I took the pH at 150 F and it was 5.41 and the mV reading was 108. I
then cooled the sample to 70 F in a water/ice bath (undershot 76 F) and
took the pH/mV (5.69/92). The buffer mV for 4 and 7 respectively were 190
and 18. I did this in duplicate and surprisingly the numbers were all the
same.
Jim Liddil
North Haven, CT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:09:29 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Lactic?
Jeff writes:
>...so I'm looking forward to trying lactic acid.
> I'm curious what the reaction is and what happens to the Ca++
I assume he's referring to the reaction when hard, alkaline water is
boiled and in particular when it's been supplemented with CaCl2 (which
he does) during or after the boiling process. At the risk of answering
the wrong question, when carbonate water is boiled CO2 is driven off. To
maintain equilibrium some bicarbonate converts to carbonic consuming
hydrogen ions and raising the pH. This results in conversion of some
bicarbonate to carbonate which releases hydrogen ions thus limiting the
pH increase. If the product of concentrations of carbonate and of
calcium are above the solubility product for calcium carbonate it
precipitates. This causes conversion of more bicarbonate to carbonate so
the system is losing carbo at both ends: as the gas (nic) and as solid
precipitate (nate). The system doesn't know whether a particular calcium
ion came from the supplemental calcium chloride or the calcium in the
water originally so some of each is precipitated. Several reactions are
taking place
1. H2CO3 --> H2O + CO2 represents the CO2 gas driven off
2. HCO3- + H+ --> H2CO3 represents conversion of some bicarbonate to
carbonic to replace part of the lost CO2. The consumption of H+ ions is
responsible for the increase in pH.
3. HCO3- --> H+ + CO3-- represents conversion of bicarbonate to
carbonate with a release of hydrogen ions which partially offsets
(initially) the hydrogen ions being consumed by reaction 2. At
"equilibrium" the pH is constant and the number of hydrogen ions
released in this reaction matches the number consumed by 2.
4. CO3-- + Ca --> CaCO3. This is the precipitation of calcium carbonate.
The sum of the individual reactions can be written as
2HCO3- + Ca++ --> CaCO3 + CO2 + H2O.
The idea behind extra calcium is that extra calcium increases the ion
product for a given level of carbonate so that it takes less carbonate
to reach saturation and, as a result, decarbonation should be more
effective. As a practical matter, good decarbonation will get you down
to about 1 mval i.e. alkalinity of 50 ppm as CaCO3.
Jeff mentions that he doesn't like adding a calcium salt because the
desired extra calcium comes paired with an undesired anion. Use lime!
Ca(OH)2 increases the calcium, doesn't add sulfate or chloride and
raises the pH thus improving precipitation. "But what about the
hydroxide alkalinity?" you ask. Monitor the addition of lime slurry to
hit pH 10 intitially. It will creep back as chalk precipitates (add a
little chalk before adding the lime to serve as seeds). When pH reaches
9 decant (if the solid material is settled). If it is somewhat higher
than 9 you can wait for CO2 to dissolve from the air and lower it a bit.
If not over 10, don't worry. If done right, the water will have
alkalinity of about 50 which should be a lot better than it was when you
started.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 11:20:33 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@VMS.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: water purification
AJ wrote:
>In other words, I suspect the source of the water.
in response to Nathanial Lansings post on mash ph etc. It was indicated
the water came froma glass still. These devices are notorious for
becoming contaminated. This is info I got in conversations from corning
and barnstead, both makers of stills. People don't clean them on a regular
basis. The still itself can become contaminated with various organic
materials, salts etc that do not volatilize. The recieving vessel goes
uncleaned for long periods of time is my general experience. Water, being
such a great solvent is easily contaminated. I'd suggest as AJ did you
get some other water. Also take a sample from the still and send it ot
barnstead for a free analysis. In the mean time disassemble the still,
chromic acid treat it and the collecting resevoir and then collect the
water fresh from the still into beaker cleaned with alcoholic KOH. :-)
Jim Liddil
North Haven, CT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 14:24:58 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: "Neutralize"
A couple of digests back I wrote:
>Each 3.5 milliequivalents of added calcium will "neutralize" one
milliequivalent of alkalinity at any
>level of alkalinity that your water supplier would be allowed to
furnish to you......
I got a private e-mail pointing out that the whole point of "equivalent"
units is that they are just that: equivalent so 1 milliequivalent of A
should react with 1 milliequivalent of B and this is so. What in fact
happens with the calcium is that 3.5 milliequivalents of enter into a
complex reaction with malt phosphates which result in precipitation of
hydroxyapatite and dibasic calcium phosphate and release 1 mEq of
hydrogen ions. These hydrogen ions neutralize the alkalinity. I put
quotes around the word to hint that it is not neutralization in the
usual sense. I can see how this was confusing and it was probably not
the best way to express what I was trying to get across. I apologize for
any confusion caused.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 15:58:07 -0700
From: Charley Burns <cburns99@pacbell.net>
Subject: Crystal vs Carmelized Sugars
I read with interest the repost of crystal malt fermentability and the follow
up discussions.Trying to take that very busy and complex discussion down to
some useable facts that can be implemented in the brewing process generated
the following thoughts.
Seems that the non-fermentable sugars then are complex molecules of long
length, similar to the dextrins we've known about for some time. But dextrin
has no flavor (read that somewhere and tasted some "dextrin powder" one
time). Yet carmelized sugurs in Crystal malt has a lot of flavor. Wonderful
flavors in fact. And I've always wondered how they get through to the final
product if they ARE fermentable. Seems like fermentation would significantly
alter or eliminate those flavors.
I once brewed a strong scotch ale with 20 lbs of pale malt and 4 ounces of
roasted barley. Trying for a Traquir House ale clone (what a wonderful and
expensive beer). It definitely has a sweet malt flavor to it, very similar to
cracker jax. So I pulled off the first gallon of clear runnings and boiled it
on the kitchen stove for an hour until it was much darker than I started and
wayyyyy thick. Like a malt syrup. Very tasty, the wife stole some from me for
her ice cream. I dumped the rest back into the main kettle for a 2 hour boil
with the rest of the wort.
The point here is what? I think I created the crystal malt flavor and color
without the crystal malt. I was trying to replicate the Traquir recipe and
process from the reading I had done in several publications (Michael
Jackson's book was one of them).
Is this creating the same flavor compounds as kilning the stewed malt to make
crystal? These high temperatures required also help to explain the wonderful
malty flavors generated by decoction, no? When I have boiled a decoction for
at least 15 minutes, I get the wonderful aroma of cracker jax (carmel) and
then boil for 5 more minutes. I suspect that boiling a decoction for less
time than it takes to produce that aroma is not long enough.
Is it possible to create our own "crystal malt extract" by this process?
Could it be stored and used in future brews? Would it cost more than its
worth?
By the way, the traquir house clone came out ok. Too strong, too sweet. Had a
head that would stand all day two inches high.
Charley (crystalizing some brewing plans) in N. Cal
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2000 19:56:33 -0500
From: Chris & Linda <celteck@swbell.net>
Subject: Re: Brewing Software & Chico Day Trip
> Brewing Software??? (Dan Martich)
You may want to try "Brewers Notebook" for the Mac, it is freeware. If you
can not find it let me know, and I will send it to you.
> Hello all,
> Are there any good brewing software out there? I think I've come across
> one or two but I'm still unfamiliar with what I should be looking for.
>
> Brewing Calculations? Inputting recipes? etc.
>
> I have both platforms but is there anything for the Mac?
>
Alan,
Chico is about 2.5 hours or so from S.F. but well worth the trip. I have
made it a few times myself as I have family in both S.F. and Chico.
Chris
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2000 10:00:56 -0400
> From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
> Subject: San Francisco trip
>
> Greetings, I'm heading off to San Francisco this month and would like to get
> any suggestions as to what to see out there (beer-related or otherwise) Any
> info will be appreciated. Will I be close enough to Chico for a day trip?
>
> -Alan
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3345, 06/07/00
*************************************
-------
