Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4339
HOMEBREW Digest #4339 Wed 03 September 2003
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Newbie at Batch Sparging ("Allan J. Horn")
re: Fly (continuous) versus Batch Sparging (John Schnupp)
Haze and Decoction (petr.otahal)
Re: Zymurgy Haze Article ("-S")
Re: Scottish Export Ale Questions ("Gilbert Milone")
Linux - beer comparison. ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Ranco Thermistor? (mohrstrom)
Protein rest ("Dave Burley")
How to get the correct volume and Sp. Gr. batch sparge ("JAMES DAMON")
Re: My First Brew (Kevin Wagner)
Cleaning Products (Jim Kirk)
Converting Coke to Pepsi (Jim Kirk)
FW: RE: Batch sparge ("Leonard, Phil")
Easty Masher Questions (Jim Kirk)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:14:25 -0700
From: "Allan J. Horn" <ipassgas@comcast.net>
Subject: Newbie at Batch Sparging
After reading all the posts about batch sparging, i can't wait to try it.
However, I have some questions.
Some suggest adding additional sparge water to the mash before draining the
first runnings. Is this necessary? if so, how do you calculate how much to
add?
How much sparge water to you add to the drained grain bed for the final
batch sparge?
Answers to these questions, plus any references would be greatly
appreciated.
Allan
Orinda, CA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Schnupp <johnschnupp@yahoo.com>
Subject: re: Fly (continuous) versus Batch Sparging
From: "the Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey@swampgas.com>
>Naturally, batch sparging WILL require two rounds of recirculation, as
>opposed to the single recirc required when sparging is continuous.
>However, I find this step only takes me a few minutes at most, since
>with my current lauter system I get (crystal) clear runnings after a
>couple of pints (I might do a quart if I'm feeling patient, but it
>really isn't necessary.)
Ok, so I might be wrong here but the last time I checked I thought that a
couple (2) pints was equal to a quart. I'm suspecting that you got some units
confused and either meant to say either "after a couple cups ... might do a
quart" or "after a couple pints ... might do a half gallon."
I used to use a false bottom that had a dead space of almost 1.5" deep and held
a little over a gallon. I usually had to recirculate at least a gallon. The I
changed to false bottom from Beer Beer and More Beer, see it at, not
affiliated, blah blah blah.
http://www.morebeer.com/image.php3?gfx=./images/ag405.jpg
With this false bottom there is very little foundation water trapped and I too
have clear wort within a pint or two. I had to tinker around with fittings and
tubing to get it to work without modification to my Rubbermaid cooler. At one
point I was building a RIMS system. I have all the components but have never
assembled and tested it. The morebeer false bottom work fine for manual
sparge. I think it would also work well with a pump but have no evidence to
support or deny that claim.
=====
John Schnupp, N3CNL
??? Hombrewery
[560.2, 68.6] Rennerian
Georgia, VT
95 XLH 1200, Bumblebee
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:36:03 +1000 (EST)
From: petr.otahal@aardvark.net.au
Subject: Haze and Decoction
John Palmer wrote:
> A protein rest during mashing is *generally* not a good idea because
*generally* the grain bill will consist of fully-modified malts (ie. very
few large proteins left) and therefore proteins are not the
principal haze formers, rather it is the polyphenols that are more of the
problem. And thus a protein rest will *generally* cause the
> over-reduction of proteins, resulting in thin body and poor head
retention.
Hi John and HBDrs,
Lately I have been brewing pilsners and doing single decoctions. But not
the standard decoction method (or atleast what I think is the standard
method). I dough in at 39C and after 5min pull a thick 35-40% decoction.
I heat the decoction (10min) to 68-70C and rest for 20-30min then heat to
boiling and boil for 20min. Once recombined the mash hits 57-58C and I
immediately direct heat the mash (5min) to 63-65C and rest. Followed by a
70C rest and mashout.
The reason I came up with this schedule was to avoid the protein rest
stage as much as possible but still be able to do a decoction to get the
malty flavours, and expose more starch to beta-amylase.
I have only done a couple so far so my data set is v. small, but what I
have noticed is that the beers made using this schedule clear extremely
quickly, a matter of a couple of weeks post primary and they are almost
perfectly clear. I dont use any fining agents or irish moss. The other
thing I noticed is that the bitterness doesn't seem as pronounced as I
expect, when compared to single or step infusion mashes bittered to
similar levels. Also the head retention and lacing on the decocted beers
is better when compared to similar infusion brews.
What I would like to know is what happens when you boil the mash with
respect to proteins?
How much protein do you think is left behind in the mash due to break
formation and how much extra is dissolved? How do you think this affects
haze formation and head retention?
Since I go through the protease zone do you think that I am getting a some
protein degredation anyway?
The malts I am using are all fully modified German and Australian malts
(we cant get anything undermodified in this country (unless you malt it
yourself). What do you think are the merits of this process with repect
to these malts?
If the decoction does dissolve more porteins would it beneficial to do a
protein rest? (even though Im not likely to do one since I have no haze
or foam problems)
TIA
Cheers
Petr
Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:17:23 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Zymurgy Haze Article
Wish I had time for a better response to Chad Stevens' (as usual) excellent
post, but ...
<<
But yes, I can make an ESB with 100% commercial highly modified malt in a
single step infusion and have it come out reasonably clear. What I have
found however, is that I can make the same beer, with a five or ten minute
rest at 122, and it comes out crystal clear, without using any finings, and
it seems to have slightly better head retention.
>>
You really need to perform a controlled experiment to make such a statement
based on personal experience. There are a zillion and five factors that
impact haze - and many like minor shifts in pH, the antiioxidant power of
the beer, the hops phenolic characteristics and the yeasts performance are
beyond measuring at home.
I (and many of us I expect) have made perfectly clear beer from a recipe and
also unclear beer from the same recipe. I've even had a split batch w/ two
different finishing hops and two different clarity levels !
Head retention is one of those beer parameters that varies wildly over time.
Generally beers lose a good bit of their heading capacity over time as
proteins settle out. This makes fair comparisons between sequential
batches very difficult.
There is no doubt that more proteolysis means less haze potential for any
given commercial malt, but also these enzymatic solutions impact head and
mouthfeel.
>I guess my nit is that I keep hearing from
>every quarter, that a protein rest isn't necessary anymore. I don't know
>that it is necessary, but I think in many cases judicious use of a protein
>rest can do more good than harm.
If you use raw grain, torrified grain, home-made malt or other unmalted
starchy adjunct - then it can help. Nearly all UK PA malt brews go
downhill with any significant protein rest IMO. The current crop of
German and US malts seem not quite as protein-fragile - but almost.
Having said that I agree that a little haze is a common and annoying thing
*BUT* it can be controlled with a very minor blip into proteolysis. The 30
minute proto-rests in your old HB handbook were meant for malts from a very
different era. The worst part of a regular protein rest is that you somehow
have to get your mash from say 120F to 150F in a friggin' hurry. Sliding
thru the 120-140F range at even 2F per minute is a great way to make the
most limp-wristed body-less pale ale you've ever had. Fix's lager method -
mash-in@proteolysis temp ... boiling water infusions to saccharification
temp .. is probably the only practical means of skipping the head&body
killing zone.
> www.regional.org.au/au/abts/2001/t4/osman.htm
>
>Osman et al. discuss FAN in wort. What the paper does not come out and say
>explicitly is that new readily modifiable varieties of barley pass up to
50%
>of the hordein fraction to wort. Older, less readily modifiable barley
>cultivers traditionally passed in the neighborhood of 25% of hordein to the
>wort
I think you are overreading or maybe misreading that paper's content. This
paper attempts to
determine a cause for the SLOWER modification times of NEW barleys. It
never measures any factor in WORT - it only compares barley per vs post
malting. The NEW ones include an Anheuser Busch cultivar and two others
that I am not familiar with. They compare these to
four Australian commercial barleys which, as far as I know, have no close
relationship to US and European grown malting barley. The Aussie barleys
modify in a snap while the NEW varieties modify less-so (conditions for the
malting are unstated). The NEW varieties when malted have only about
65-70% the protein modification and FAN as the Aussie varieties. They
suggest that the difference may be in the availability and susceptibility of
a certain fraction of the hordein to proteinases. The 25% Hordein release
was their extrema of the NEW varieties - not typical of the older varieties
at all.
As barley protein levels increase this primarily causes an increase in
hordein and glutelin while the more soluble globulin and albumin fractions
are relatively constant. The greater fraction of protein made soluble in
the mash originated in the hordein and other barley storage proteins. But
the reference paper notes that the increased protein level did not cause a
correlated increase in soluble nitrogen. Again -only part of the hordein is
ever solubilized.
The fast modifying barleys in the Northern hemisphere are the Continental
Triumph and it's descendents and unrelated to this NEW vs COMMERCIAL
dichotomy. Not necessarily the same issue.
>It is the proline fraction of hordein which is chiefly responsible
>for the protein side of the chill haze equation. So if in modern malts,
>more of this fraction is passing to the wort, and this is why
Budmillercoors
>are having all of the chill haze problems they have had over the last few
>years (and I understand this is becoming an increasingly major issue),
would
>it not stand to reason that a little protein rest might not be a bad thing
>to experiment with?
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this conclusion exactly backwards ?
The NEW barley cultivars like Budweiser's B1302 had on average just slightly
less protein, and hordein in the raw grain. The NEW varieties had LESS
modification (see the Kolbach index in table 4) than commercial Aussie
varieties like Schooner.
I'm not aware that major US firms are having any chill haze problems, and
since they test and control the heck out of their ingredients and process it
seems unlikely.. They really don't develop a barley like B1302 and then
stake their business on it without years of testing.
Again I'll point out that the varieties in this study bear little
similarity to the malts available to US homebrewers from US, UK &
Continental sources. Budweiser doesn't sell their patented varieties on the
open market.
=========
>As an aside, of the 40 some odd endoproteolytic activities that have been
>isolated, those which act on prolamine (this includes hordein) appear to be
>most active at 104, those that act on glutelin at 122, and those that act
on
>globulin most active at 140.
>
> www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/osman.htm
That's an interesting paper - but it would get slammed in the peer review
process.! Unfortunately complexity will getcha every time. The hundred of
mash proteases will certainly have hundreds of temperature optima that fall
all over the map. The 104F, 122F type figures will remain generalizations
that require a lot of specification to have any meaning. For example the
temp optima varies with the mash thickness and the time period of the mash.
When those are unstated all meaning is lost. The authors appear to have
incubated unsupported barley enzymes on a specific substrate (like Hordein)
at an unspecified concentration and for an unspecified time period to get
the "optima". The temp optima in a real-world mash will certainly be
different.
-Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:48:40 -0400
From: "Gilbert Milone" <gilbertmilone@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scottish Export Ale Questions
Hi Jonathan,
I'll have to check my notes at home as it's been a year since I made a
sottish Export. I have an excellent article at home from Brew Your Own
titled "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Wort." It's written by a local
guy (CT) Paul Zocco and is about his trip to Scotland breweries. I believe
he won New England hombrewer of the year last year. You can email him from
his web-site at www.homemadebrew.net .
-Gil Milone
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:13:51 -0400
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer@umich.edu>
Subject: Linux - beer comparison.
Here's a shorter version of that URL:
http://snurl.com/linuxbeer
>I'm sure other people have seen it. But just in case, here's an article
>comparing Linux distros to beer brands. Shows how little people know
>about beer.
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:45:02 -0400
From: mohrstrom@core.com
Subject: Ranco Thermistor?
Just curious if anyone had identified a suitable (and commonly available)
replacement thermistor for the Ranco ECT-series controllers? I
remembered too late that the probe is NOT waterproof on these!
I tried applying a 10K resistor across the (desoldered) probe connection
on the PCB, but got some dodgy readouts that I don't trust to spec a
replacement on.
Mark in Kalamazoo
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:35:38 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley@charter.net>
Subject: Protein rest
Brewsters:
I agree with Chad Stevens that a short hold in the protein rest region gives a
much clearer beer without affecting the heading properties of the beer. I
have been doing this for decades and have not seen any real change in the
properties of the malt during that time. Now, if by modern malt is meant malt
produced today compared to 50 or more years ago, well that may be a different
story.
It is true that most of the protein modification is carried out at the
maltster (and always has been AFAIK) , but I look at the mash hold in the
protein and gum regions as a cleanup activity.
Try a short protein rest with today's malt, you'll like it
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:50:07 -0600
From: "JAMES DAMON" <jdamonmd@msn.com>
Subject: How to get the correct volume and Sp. Gr. batch sparge
Hi Folks;
I'm close to switching to batch sparging, but how do you end up with the
correct Volume and Sp. Gr.?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:02:38 -0700
From: Kevin Wagner <kevin.wagner@watchmark.com>
Subject: Re: My First Brew
Jeff Renner <jeffrenner@comcast.net> writes:
> Kevin Wagner <kevin.wagner@watchmark.com> writes:
>>
>> Last night I opened the first bottle of by first brew. It is a German
>> Wheat Ale extract kit and was, err... unremarkable.
I took 12 bottles to a party over the weekend for a few opinions. In
general, people commented on how mild it was, then asked for another!
Very positive responses.
Which is funny, because when I drink it, there's something strange about
it that I can't quite put my finger on.
I'm starting to think that there is not so much something wrong, as it
is not what I expected.
>> - The OG was 1.04 and FG is 1.02, an ABV of 2.75%. I expected 4 to 5.
Though, I had three and... well... I wonder if I have not been testing
the gravity correctly because my nose tells me it's higher than 2.75%.
>> It's texture is very thin. Did I rack and/or bottle too soon?
>
>It would help to know what yeast you used, and how you pitched it.
The kit was assembled by my local home brew shop
(http://www.cellar-homebrew.com) - 'Wheat Beer' with an Wyeast German
Ale XL-Smack pack. I let the pack swell to about double it's original
size and poured it directly into the primary.
-K
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:54:22 -0500
From: Jim Kirk <captain@indy.rr.com>
Subject: Cleaning Products
I seem to be getting a lime (or some other mineral) deposit building up on
the insides of my carboys. What's the best cleaning product to dissolve
this build up? I thought about using Lime Away, but is this safe to use and
rinse out?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:55:26 -0500
From: Jim Kirk <captain@indy.rr.com>
Subject: Converting Coke to Pepsi
Does anyone know of a way to convert the fittings on Coke kegs (pin locks)
to the fittings on Pepsi kegs (ball locks)?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:08:15 -0500
From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard@dsionline.com>
Subject: FW: RE: Batch sparge
I started doing batch sparging several months ago out of necessity.
In preparation of moving to a new house my sparge arm device got
packed up and put into storage. Of course then the move didn't
happen as soon as expected and I "needed" to brew. Since I'd
been thinking about trying batch sparging for awhile it was
time to try it. I ran the calculations to scale up the grist
(around 9% for my system) and my extract points came out
perfect. Now I'm in no big hurry to find/unpack the old
sparge stuff.
Philip
[612 251.4 AR] Overland Park, KS
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 17:39:53 -0500
From: Jim Kirk <captain@indy.rr.com>
Subject: Easty Masher Questions
I'm slowly getting back into brewing after about 8 years. I used to mash in
a cooler. I had a big cooler that would hold up to around 40 pounds of
grain. It had three copper tubes that ran the length with slits for
catching runoff. The three tubes were capped at one end and all merged
together at the other and ran out through the drain hole.
I'm thinking of attempting it again. I found an Easymasher that I bought
years ago and never used. My plan now it to drill out the drain hole of the
cooler a bit and run the Easymasher through it. Has anyone done this? Can
I expect approximately the same extraction rate or will it drop off since
the Easymasher has much less area than the three copper tubes?
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4339, 09/03/03
*************************************
-------
