Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1978
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1996/03/07 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1978 Thu 07 March 1996
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
more on art vs. science (GREGORY KING)
Re: diacetyl what? (Spencer W Thomas)
flaked barley sticks sparge? (Mike Dowd)
channeling (Jerry Lee)
Plastic Brewery KickOff (KennyEddy)
Special B Lovi (Jim Busch)
Priming: Fermentability coeff. of malt extract? (Ken Willing)
Bigger Brita? (Russell Mast)
A few responses (Steve Waddell)
RE: Lactobacilli from Malt Grain (Steve Alexander)
depth of grainbed (Jerry Lee)
A note from Darryl Richman on Mac Software ("Kieran O'Connor")
Sierra Nevada pale ale clone question (Chris Stenland)
which grains need protein rest ? ("Frederick L. Pauly")
i've gott it! (Wallinger)
Recycled Blow-Off (Mcgregap)
numbers of homebrewers/Mac software (Algis R Korzonas)
American Science Surplus (Richard Sharp)
OAK (Robert Rogers)
Where to buy Grolsch-type bottles? (Jerold Paulson)
EBC (Wolfgang L. Wedel)
SAABCO Mash Tun's (russ tjepkema)
Solvent/Copper/Ions/pH (A. J. deLange)
Brewers Planner ("Kieran O'Connor")
Hop Bags / Wheat Ale ("R. Smith")
Spent Grain Bread (Alan Folsom)
Hoegardden White Beer-The Yeast (David Clark)
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 13:13:07 -0500 (EST)
From: GREGORY KING <GKING@ARSERRC.Gov>
Subject: more on art vs. science
In HBD #1975 A. J. deLange (ajdel@interramp.com) wrote:
>In #1937
^^ [that should be 73]
>Greg King wrote aboout art and science in brewing. I always find
>Jean DeClerk's words on this illuminating: "A distinction is frequently
>drawn in the industry between the theoretical man who tries to explain
>everything from a scientific point of view, and the practical man who
>relies on empirical knowledge and experience. A good brewer should be able
>to steer a middle course between these two extremes."
I agree with this. Hopefully I don't come across as a complete science
nerd, even though I am a computational chemist by trade.
>In the same number Bob McCowan asks is "diacetyl" is really a noun. Yes it
>is. "Acetyl" is a noun meaning the radical CH3CO-. Put two of these
>together and you get CH3COCOCH3 i.e. diacetyl. Tack on an OH- (yeah, I know
>this looks funny as they both have negative charges but it works) and you
>have CH3COOH; acetic acid.
This is mostly correct, except that the term "radical" refers to a
molecular fragment with an unpaired electron, which is not the same
thing as having a net negative charge.
Greg King
gking@arserrc.gov
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 13:47:42 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: diacetyl what?
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the noun usage of
"diacetyl" has been around for over a century. They offer this 1872
quotation:
Watts Dict. Chem. VI. 30 [He] has obtained a colourless pungent
liquid, which is probably free acetyl or diacetyl (C2H3O)2.
We also find "acetyl", with its derivation:
acetyl Chem. f. acet(ic) + Gr. ulh substance, stuff: see
-yl(e. Hence `radical of the acetic series'.
=Spencer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 14:34:48 -0500
From: mdost3+@pitt.edu (Mike Dowd)
Subject: flaked barley sticks sparge?
A few weeks ago I wrote in about some sparging problems I had with a
Russian Imperial Stout that I brewed. I got some good advice for improving
my sparging technique, but I think I may have figured out the true culprit
for my stuck sparge.
I made another stout recently in which I used flaked barley, as I did with
the RIS. I also used the George Fix mashing schedule (as I did with the
RIS), mashing in at 104 F, then skipping the protein rest. Once again, my
sparge stuck like molasses. I realized that the previous times I've used
flaked barley in stout, I either mashed in at protein rest temps. or at
saccrification temp. -- and had no problem sparging. My theory, then,
(admittedly, based on a pretty small N) is that the 104 F rest is not good
for grain bills containing flaked barley. Perhaps resting at this temp
gelatinizes the flaked barley, turning it into a gooey, gummy mess that
increases wort viscosity, making sparging difficult.
Any thoughts/opinions on this?
- -----------------------------------------------------
On a somewhat related note, has anyone heard about the next book in the
Classic Beer Styles series? I heard that it might be about Stout. Does
anyone know if this is true, and if so, who wrote it, and when it might be
out?
Thanks,
Mike
Michael Dowd "I could be mistaken. Maybe it was another
Slippery Slope Research bald-headed jigsaw-puzzle tattooed naked
University of Pittsburgh guy I saw."
mdost3+@pitt.edu -Fox Mulder
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:03:07 -0800
From: jlee@esd.ray.com (Jerry Lee)
Subject: channeling
Al says:
> I contend that stirring the grain bed increases channeling.
Also
> I theorize that the cutting through the grain bed actually creates a path
> of least resistance" which subsequent sparge water runs through. Anyone
> willing to agree with me on this?
The way you present it, I would have to agree...but in application I find
it to be a different story. No I am not that type engineer, but I have
watched my grain beds closely while "cutting" (not stirred).
First, imperically I hold that my efficiency has improved with cutting or
"raking". Regardless of what is filling the space.
Second, the water would have to have somewhere to go. The grain is
already in suspention so grain/water fills the cuts. My water table does
not decrease due to the cuts so the wort coming out is the only thing being
displaced. This may not be true of a stir or vigorous aggitation. There is
a reason for using a knife or long "thin" blade instead of a spoon.
Third, I do not go further than 1/2 to 3/4 down the bed when making my
"cuts". So, I think, I am not disturbing the final filter of the grain bed.
I do not get any added particulates coming out with the wort when making my
cuts so this again is imperical evidence that I have not increased any
channeling.
OTOH, I do increase my flow if it has slowed down due to packing, etc...
so there may be a basis of truth in your statement. Regardless, I go back
to my opening statement...it works for me!
(#######)
(########)
(########)
_____ (#########)
/ \ (#########) |\/\/\/| /\ /\ /\ /\
\/\/ | (#########) | | | V \/ \---. .----/ \----.
| (o)(o) (o)(o)(##) | | \_ / \ /
C .---_) ,_C (##) | (o)(o) (o)(o) <__. .--\ (o)(o) /__.
| |.___| /____, (##) C _) _C / \ () /
| \__/ \ (#) | ,___| /____, ) \ > (C_) <
/_____\ | | | / \ /----' /___\____/___\
/_____/ \ OOOOOO /____\ ooooo /| |\
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \
Dooh! Did it again! The nuclear brew broke loose and I opened my mouth!
Feedback and coolant can be administered to jlee@eng.esd.ray.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:51:20 -0500
From: KennyEddy@aol.com
Subject: Plastic Brewery KickOff
Last Saturday was the Bluff Canyon Five-Gallon Plastic Electric Brewery
Inauguration Brawl. I was going to keep quiet until I actually tasted the
beer, but I've already received a couple of "Well???" e-mails, so I figured
I'd spew some info about the brewery and the session itself, in anticipation
of good beer (please please please). I'm compiling details on the
construction which will be made available pending successful sampling and
approval of the beer (hopefully in a couple of weeks). If I end up with
"plastic beer" you can all chide me and hurl epithets and bottles.
A couple weeks ago I did a dry run by "brewing water" (a "wet run"?), with no
ill effects on taste or smell. This was Confidence Builder Step 1. Of
course, wort's lower pH makes this somewhat moot, but at least I didn't get
shut down before I started.
I brewed a pale ale, based on David Line's Bass clone, with a couple tweaks.
I used 9 lb British 2-row, 1/2 lb 20L crystal, 1/4 lb Belgian Aromatic, 1/4
lb wheat, and 2 oz brown sugar, 1 ounce Fuggles pellets and two English
Kent-Goldings plugs for boiling, one plug for flavor (15 min before end of
boil). I intend to add 1/2 to 1 plug for dry hopping but I may forego that
in deference to better allowing any off-aromas through. I pitched Wyeast
London ESB directly from the pack. I ended up with wort at 1.055 gravity.
I used RO water and added 1 gram baking soda, 1 gram canning salt
(non-iodized pure NaCl), 3.5 grams Epsom salt, and 9 grams gypsum per five
gallons, a' la Mosher's and Foster's "Ideal Pale Ale" water profile. The
baking soda allowed me to add a bit of carbonate for buffering without using
chalk (which isn't very soluble); I had the tolerance in the target profile
for the sodium it added.
The HLT is a five-gal bucket with one 4500W element (State Industries
#9000095, about $7). The system runs off 240V. I heated 5 gal treated water
from room to 168F in about 15 minutes. I struck through a tube attached to a
1/2" CPVC toilet stop valve, onto the top of the grain bed in my Coleman
Drinking Water 5. While I get a fairly slow flow rate of about 1 gal per
minute, I only experience a degree or two more drop than with "dumping"; I
hit my single-infusion temperature of 151 degrees with 1.33 qt/lb right on
the money. Mash pH (per my papers) was 5.2.
I incrementally added 10% phosphoric acid solution to the sparge water,
measuring pH with the same papers each time (which apparently worked well for
the mash), but the papers wouldn't budge. After I added what I was sure was
too much acid, I tasted the water. Lemon juice. So I dumped it and rebuilt
five more gallons, and blew off the acid. I also ordered a pH meter.
The boiler uses two 4500W elements wired in series for a total power of 2250W
(1125 each). This keeps my power density down to about half of my 20-qt
stockpot on my stove (about 27 W/sq-in). Judging from the light color of the
final wort, I don't think scorching was a problem. I added a diode in series
with the boiler (with a bypass switch, forming a HI/LO control), which was a
good thing since full power resulted in boilover every time (I shut it back
down to LO before it actually boiled over!). At LO power, the boil was
"perfect", and I lost 1/2 gal per hour to evaporation.
I used CPVC toilet "angle stop valves" on all three of my vessels. These are
1/2" FPT on the inlet and 3/8" compression on the outlet. This allows me to
use chrome-plated copper feed tubes on the outlet for transfer, which I cut
to various lengths for the different functions. I used plastic tubing for
the fermenter fill; I drilled three 3/32" holes at a sharp downhill angle
near the top, resulting in 5 gal wort and 1-1/2 gal foam in my 6-1/2 gal
carboy!
I built an immersion chiller right into the boiler lid, so I can fully cover
my wort and "swing" the coil for more efficient cooling (thanks to Wim
Hielkema (HBD1798) for the idea!). I add ice to a prechiller coil in a small
bucket when the wort is down to about 120F. An aquarium thermometer affixed
to the boiler accurately tracked the wort temperature as it fell below 85F.
Everything went fine, nothing leaked or melted or burned or warped. The
buckets were "flexible" due to the heat but held up just fine. I would
caution you to use at least a 0.090" wall thickness (it's often "printed" on
the bottom of the bucket). I originally used a 0.070" bucket for the HLT but
the elements sagged under their own weight during testing, so I found a
beefier bucket. Problem solved.
Two colorful results: (1) The element wire turned black. I thought this
might've been scorched wort but it didn't rub off, and the wort was quite
light in the hydrometer vial. Besides, I had the same effect in the HLT. I
concluded it was oxide from the acid (wort in the boiler, phosphoric in the
HLT). (2) The boiler turned green. This is the same effect that you get
when you use a bucket for fermentation -- the hops discolor the plastic. I
had already planned to do a post-brewing boil to clean the boiler; this
removed the majority of the discoloration and odor. How much of batch #1 is
in batch #2 remains to be seen...
I'm very happy with the operation and ease of use of the brewery; of course,
the quality of the resulting brew will be the telling factor. The brewery
was easy, fun, and relatively inexpensive to build (although I spent $bunch
on lots of dead-end ideas before ending up with the current configuration!).
It's a five-gallon system -- ten gallons would probably push the
practicality of using regular house-current. I used 240V; you could use 120V
but you'd need at least a 25A circuit and the HLT would take longer to heat,
but given that, it's possible. A RIMS could be used for mashing instead of
the simple infusion cooler, of course. The stand I built (2x4's and plywood)
stores everything very nicely, with room for more stuff, and being on casters
it goes wherever. Now I must wait for the yeast gods to complete their work.
Sleepless in El Paso,
Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:36:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch@eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Special B Lovi
Im forwarding this for Dave.
From: DAVE_SAPSIS@fire.ca.gov (DAVE SAPSIS)
RE: Special B
On another thread -- recent postings about the lov rating for Special
B changing. Yep. From my most recent spec sheets:
lot 214205 @134.7 lovibond
lot 087205 @118.1
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:52:16 +1000 (EST)
From: Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Subject: Priming: Fermentability coeff. of malt extract?
What's the ballpark rule-of-thumb fermentability of malt extract, in
comparison with a dextrose solution, for purposes of priming? In moving
over to priming with wort, I was assuming that (given six weeks in the
bottle) a priming solution of malt extract would yield about 85% of the
carbonation that would have been yielded by the same volume of a dextrose
solution of the same SG. But using this figure for calculating my priming
quantities has proved to be way off, clearly overestimating the carbonating
potential of wort: i.e. at six weeks the beer is pretty flat. Papazian's
figure for the relative fermentability of malt -- given as *volumes* of the
dry powders -- is 60% (i.e., use 1.25 cups DME to get the same carbonation
result as .75 cup dextrose). Dry volumes are not what I'm working with, but
in any case this seemed to me to greatly underestimate the fermentability of
malt extract... But maybe it was right?
Thanks
Ken Willing <kwilling@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Sydney, Australia
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:08:43 -0600
From: Russell Mast <rmast@fnbc.com>
Subject: Bigger Brita?
> From: David.Muzidal@dssc.slg.eds.com (David M. Muzidal)
> Subject: Brita water filter info
> ....
> d. The Brita filter is designed to filter 1/2 US gallon of water at a
> time, which takes about 3-4 minutes. The manufacturer recommends
> that no more than 2 US gallons of water be processed each day in
> order to maintain filter efficiency. One Brita filter can process
> up to 35 US gallons of tap water. The Brita filter pitcher costs
> around $20.00 US and replacement filters cost around $7.00 US.
> .....
2 gallons a day, eh? Is there a larger version of this, either from Brita
or another company, that could filter an ecologically relevant quantity of
water for homebrewing purposes? (Sorry about the Gibsonian jargon there.
I mean "useful" not ecologically relevant.)
> David Muzidal David.Muzidal@dssc.slg.eds.com
> Ian Smiley ar999@freenet.carleton.ca
Also, was I the only one reading this that thought this thing read like an
infomercial? Anyone ever see these guys posting before? I mean, I'm sure
it'll work for brewing, but with such a small size, it seems far from ideal
to me, and, well, the phrasing really sounds more like something someone in
marketing would say than something a homebrewer would say. I don't mean to
come across as the cynical anti-capitalist that I honestly am, but I haven't
gotten so used to the "no financial involvement, just a satisfied customer"
disclaimers that I didn't notice the absence of it here.
I love product reviews, and I have nothing against getting paid to give one,
but I do want to know when you're getting paid and when you're not. So, how
about it? Did Brita compensate you for the review, either in cash or
merchandise or anything else? Was the level of compensation at all contingent
on the outcome of the review?
-R
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 17:31 EST
From: waddell@iglou.com (Steve Waddell)
Subject: A few responses
in #1974
>From: Darcy Munger <darcym@workgrp.com>
>Subject: Saving trub for another batch
>
>Hello there fellow brewers!!!! I was wondering if anyone knows anything
>about saving trub from a primary (in sanitized bottles kept in the fridge of
>course) for use in another batch of beer. I have just brewed a batch of
>Irish Honey Red, and there is a considerable accumulation of trub in the
>primary (3 inches + in a 5 gal carboy). I'd really like to hear if anyone
>has any experiences recycling trub. Any tips on procedure would be greatly
>appreciated!
>
I have saved the yeast from my last several SECONDARIES, by washing with
boiled water twice, and storing in fridge up to 3 weeks so far. A few days
before
brewing, I feed it some wort, and it explodes in activity. Don't have
enough experience to know how often to repitch, or when to give up. Plan to
try splitting the next batch into 4 different containers. There is a good
paper on this process on the Brewery webpage.
BTW, I keep the boiled water and starter wort handy by making up a large
batch, and canning it standard mason jars. Quarts of wort at 1.040. Quarts
of previously filtered and boiled water. Pour off about a pint of water,
and pour the rest into the carboy. Slosh well. Pour back into the mason
jar, cover and refrigerate overnight. Pour off the liquid, and add water
from a second quart, slosh well and store in fridge till needed. Two days
before brewing, pour off most of the liquid, add wort (yet another mason
jar), slosh well, and pour to 1/2 gal jug to ferment out. Caution, this may
ferment explosively, since your pitch ratio is close to 1:1.
FG's are down, and lag times are 4-6 hours with ales.
++++++++++++++
Some days ago (I lost which digest, and who) someone asked about the pipe
hammering that accompanies the use of jet spray bottle washers.
The standard plumbing cure for this is to create an air-trap. Plumbers
probably have a technical name for it. Basically, it is a dead end pipe
that _rises_ from near the faucet that "hammers". The air pocket absorbs
the shock of shut-off I guess. I know it worked for me. Funky ascii art
follows.
The trick seems to be to trap an air "bubble" (air is compressable, water is
not) in the line near the faucet. Same sort of thing might be rigged with
hose and "Y" hose hook-ups.
| |
| | <- Water supply line
| |
_ | |
Pipe capped off -> | | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Air Trapped Here -> | | | |
| | | |
| | | | X
|~| | |__|_ <- Offending faucet.
| | | ___ \
| |_| | \ \
|_____|
- ---------------------------------------------------
Steve Waddell - waddell@iglou.com
It is a good thing that we don't get all the government that we pay for!
- Will Rogers
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:49:34 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea@clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: RE: Lactobacilli from Malt Grain
In Homebrew Digest #1975 (March 04, 1996) Aubrey Scott Howe, III writes,
> Steve Alexander writes:
>
><Snip out the best part telling about scoping his bacteria out...> :)
>
>>...My conclusion is beware of those overnight acid rests - you can't tell
>>*what* is growing in there.
>
> Just curious, Did you boil some of the bad smelling "Jungle" water to see
> if boiling REALLY kills the bacteria? I have yet to do an all night mash,
> but am considering doing it. In talking to most of my friends who I
> know are doing all night mashes, they boil the wort in the morning to
> kill the bacteria. I don't have easy access to a microscope for this sort
> of tests, so I can't check it myself. Anyone else done this?
Boiling will almost certainly kill the bacteria, but unfortunately
their smelly residues may remain. The initially higher temperature of
mashing should limit the amount of bacteria, and select for
thermophilic ones - like some of the lactobaccili and ...?!?...
others. Given the initial boost to say 150F and the limited amount of
time from infusion to boil (< 8 hours?) I wouldn't be overly concerned
(but don't tempt the fates by sticking a dirty mop, or even your arm
in the mash).
My test was carried out at lower than mash temps, to investigate how
'dirty' a bacterially effected acid rests would be. The answer is
'rather dirty'. Unless your the sort of person who emulates Belgian
brewing practice by exposing your wort to the night air in order to
encourage wild yeast, then I wouldn't recommend counting on husk
bacteria to generate a reasonably clean lacto ferment.
Stevea
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:42:04 -0800
From: jlee@esd.ray.com (Jerry Lee)
Subject: depth of grainbed
Well, I've been off for several days and I'm trying to catch up....
I thought that we had concluded with a common sense application
for the grain bed depth but since this science and/or formula
condition has appeared...I'll kick the dead dog...:-)
Rob Lauiston writes:
> The minimum grain depth is the one in which you can establish a filter bed
> and get even flow of spargewater through the grainbed.
<snip>
> I think this filterbed is only an inch or so thick, based upon my experience
> of being able to run the rakes in a commercial lauter tun an inch above the
> bottom without causing the wort to become cloudy.
<snip>
> Channeling would have a greater effect in a thin bed too. In short, it's
> easier to get an even flow with a thicker bed (to a point).
<snip>
> I think that the only factor affecting the maximum depth is the length of
> time it takes to lauter. Does anyone out there have a grain bed deeper than
> a foot?
Yes...every time...between 12 and 16 inches...occassionally 18+...
OK so sue me...I like the bigger beers and I'm just now converting to SS LT.
Then again, maybe not depending on how this turns out.
> It seems right to me that the grain depth should be less than the diameter
> or width of the lauter tun.
This was what I had orginally heard/stated or more precisely, the closer the
width is equal to the depth the better....(am I misinterpreting here)
> The actual height of the lauter tun is irrelevant -- as long as it's higher
> than the grain ;-) Since the extra height of the LT above the grain serves
> no purpose, it's silly (tm) to talk about grain depth as a fraction of the
> lautertun height.
Hmmmm....think you misinterpreted...see above statement.
> Conclusion? When designing a LT, you decide what range of batchsizes you
> want it to be able to accomodate, what amounts of grain that it will take to
> make those batches, and then you try to get the weight of grain per area of
> false bottom in the range of 12 to 25 lb/ft2.
Ok...help me here...I'm doing 12-13 gal. batches (two corneys and enough for
next batch yeast starters, kreausening (-sp) and normal losses. I use between
25 to 40 lbs of malt & adjuncts (depending :-} )
Now how do you suggest I calculate the above if I'm currently intending to
use the Keg LT. I do have alternatives of a much wider shallower LT...what
are you suggesting and how do I measure it.
With the current Phils LT and batches half that size I'm getting the above
depths and my sparge is taking between 1 - 1 1/2 hr. That brings up another
question...if I'm supposed to start my boil as soon as I get an inch or so
in the kettle...I will be boiling for hours....somethings not clicking here.
I'm getting great beers but I don't start the boil until I'm almost done
sparging...contrary to what I've been reading. What's the deal?
=====================================================
~~~~~ / \
//\\\\\ / Jerry D. Lee, Jr. | SEPG Methods & Tools Chairman /
{| ~ ~ |} / E-Systems /Raytheon | E-Mail : jlee@eng.esd.ray.com \
| ^ | / One So. Los Carneros | Tel : 805-967-5511 ext2306 \
\ = / \ Goleta, CA 93117-5597 | Fax : 805-964-9185 _/
--/\-/\-- \ \
\/^\/ \+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=|
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 13:44:12 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor@syr.edu>
Subject: A note from Darryl Richman on Mac Software
>
I'm forwarding this for Darryl Richman, darrylri@microsoft.com
>I don't want to butt into a brewing list with a commercial
>announcement,
>so if you're interested in learning more about it, you can email me and
>I'll send you a spiel with a lot of irrelevant detail. Thanks!
>
> --Darryl Richman
> (206) 641-5535
>PS: That's my home number, so you won't catch me during the day, but
>leave a message and I'll get back to you.
Kieran O'Connor
koconnor@syr.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:56:20 -0800 (PST)
From: Chris Stenland <stenland@chemistry.ucsc.edu>
Subject: Sierra Nevada pale ale clone question
Mark Redman wrote in HBD #1975 about his recipe for making a Sierra Nevada
Pale Ale clone. I too have been working on a SNPA clone since I've
started brewing a little over a year ago. And I have settled on grain
bill quite similar to Mark's. But Mark uses Great Western domestic 2-row
malt while I've been using Breiss 2 row malt. I can say that my beers
have been good, but they are not SNPA clones. Is Great Western malt an
important component in producing a SNPA clone?
A tip of my cap to Mark Redman and the rest of the HBD
contributers. Thank you.
Chris Stenland
Santa Cruz, CA
Stenland@hydrogen.ucsc.edu
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:48:55 -0500
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m@galen.med.virginia.edu>
Subject: which grains need protein rest ?
Hello fellow brewers
I have bought 50 lbs of Klages 2 row pale malt and intend to brew
pale ales with it. Does this malt need a protein rest?
And while we are on the subject is there a FAQ somewhere on what
grains could use a protein rest and which runs don't ?
Thanks
Rick Pauly
Nuclear Med Tech
Charlottesville, VA
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 20:19:28 -0600
From: Wallinger <wawa@datasync.com>
Subject: i've gott it!
i thought i'd report back to the digest on the progress of
my gott design and mash/lauter procedures to improve my
extraction efficiency. my attempts to date have gotten me
to 23-27 pt.gal/lb. my latest attempt reached over 30, which
was my goal.
for those who paged down at the time i last described my
gott setup... i use a perforated pizza pan as a false bottom,
which stood above the outlet (leaving about a gallon of dead
space below the pan). i use another perforated pizza pan as
a distribution header above the bed. my previous mash
attempts included ever increasing volumes of boiling water
for the various temperature infusions. i use a second gott to
keep the hot liquor at the desired temperature.
i received several suggestions for improving the design and
my procedures, thanks to russell, greg, domenick and dave:
1. sparge water might be channeling down the side of the bed,
and the top pan may need to be rotated as a result
2. additional water for infusions may not be as effective for
mashing as direct firing using a separate mash tun
3. fill the bottom with marbles (for example) to eliminate the
volume of the dead space below the pan
4. increase the mashout temperature (i have been hitting the
low 160s)
5. add 1 gm per gallon gypsum to the sparge water so that it
can better buffer the grain bed
6. increase the sparge water temperature (maybe to boiling!)
7. redesign the pan so it sits lower and pipe the flow from
below the pan to the spigot
well, i tried 2, 4, and 7. i dropped the pan to about a half inch
from the bottom by lowering the pan as much as possible on
the stainless steel carriage bolts that i use for legs. i still use
the rubber bung that fits snuggly in the spigot hole, and have
5/8 thick-wall tubing through the bung. i then use a 1/2" copper
elbow to route the flow from a hole i drilled in the side of the
pizza pan to the tubing. the flared end of the elbow fits snuggly
over the tubing, and the non-flared end of the elbow fits inside
the hole drilled in the pan. the sparge cleared quickly, and
continued effortlessly. i sparged with 5 gallons of hot liquor for
about an hour.
i used a pot for mashing, and used an outdoor propane cooker
with a deflected flame to heat the mash tun through the various
steps. i made the steam recipe in the feb brew your own, which
called for steps at 115, 126, 145, 156 and 170. i used about
2-1/2 gallons fo water in the mash for 9 pounds of grain. when
i reached the 156f step i placed the contents of the mash tun
into the lauter tun for the one hour rest, then mashed out by
adding a gallon of boiling water which took the mash to 168f.
since i changed several variables i cannot be certain which had
the biggest impact on the efficiency (how unscientific of me,
which is probably why i'm an engineer). as an added experiment,
i am fermenting at room temperature with a wetted towel around
the glass carboy to reduce the fermentation temperature.
any other comments or questions are welcome. for those still
contemplating the move to all grain - have at it, it's lots of fun!
wade wallinger
pascagoula, mississippi
where winemaking is legal, but homebrewing is not.
so what about meads!?!?
(btw, each of my 'wines' is remarkably similar to beer - hmmm.)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 21:49:33 -0500
From: Mcgregap@aol.com
Subject: Recycled Blow-Off
Hi All,
A few months ago I mentioned that I had been experiencing large
blow-off, around 1/2 to 3/4 gallons. Not wanting to loose so
much potential beer, I experimented with the blow-off. I bottled
some of the blow off after letting it sit in a secondary to
clear. The bottled blow-off was drinkable, but was slightly more
bitter than the rest of the batch, and had a more watered down
body (less mouth feel). I also saved the blow-off from other
batches and combined it with the rest of the batch when
transferring to the secondary.
Well based on the past few batches, I have not tasted any off
flavors. But since I don't like the trouble of catching and
saving the blow-off, I am considering going back to my plastic
bucket for the primary, and may even try open primary
fermentation :^)
Hoppy Brewing
Art McGregor
mcgregap@aol.com or mcgregap@acq.osd.mil
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 14:03:04 CST
From: korz@pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Subject: numbers of homebrewers/Mac software
Brian writes:
>I, being a survey researcher, quasi-scientific kind of guy, :) would
>estimate that there are at least 1000 Mac-using homebrewers out there, but
>you are right that that estimate wouldn't be worth much. I arrive at this
>crude estimate by noting that there are some 20,000 homebrewers. <snip>
The last time I heard a figure from the AHA was about three or four
years ago and the estimate was that the number of homebrewers in the US
is fast approaching 1,000,000 (yes, one million). My guess is that the
way that the AHA makes these estimates is based partly on the percentage
of AHA members in registered clubs, the total number of club members and
maybe the percentage of non-club members entering competitions.
In Canada, where the taxes on beer are outrageous, I would guess that an
even larger percentage of the population homebrew or brew in BOPs. My
guess is that by now there are well over 1 million homebrewers in North
America.
There are over 20,000 AHA members, yes, but look at the number of new
members and compare that with the growth of the total number of members.
There may be more former AHA members as there are current ones!
***
Regarding what percentage of HBD readers use Mac and which use PC's,
count me into those that read it on a Sun SPARCstation 4 running Solaris
(although I do own a Pentium laptop). BRF for Solaris anyone?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 22:10:11 -0600
From: dsharp@ionet.net (Richard Sharp)
Subject: American Science Surplus
Hello to J hewit any all .
American Science Surplus is a fantastic place to shop . Just ordered some
lab. glassware for yeast culturing from them . Somewhat like a cross between
Johen Smith and Company , and Edmund Scientific . Wild and crazy people .
Order phone 847-934-0722 .
Fax 1-800-934-0722 . Or better yet visit them on the web .
http://www.sciplus.com
Best ,
Dick Sharp
dsharp@ionet.net
PGP2.6 KeyId 39EB1C6D
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 00:27:35 -0500
From: bob@carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: OAK
Ken Schwartz quotes me:
>> are there any suggestions about quantity of wood
>>(seems surface area will be the key), and precautions to take?
>I've never used oak; I don't ever plan to; but I do know that red oak has FAR
>more tannins than white oak, so be careful about tossing in "dowels" without
>knowing the wood species. Many brew stores sell oak chips; although probably
>costly, I would recommend this route just to err on the side of caution.
> Also, I presume the oak barrels are charred (whisky barrels usually are) --
>does this change things? If it's really a light beer, perhaps it's not
>charred. Couldja ask Jack, perhaps?
actually, it says "oak barrel wood", not "in oak barrels". yes, it is very
light colored, about like coors. i think i might try charring my oak, since
i tasted the beer in my secondary and it has an off flavor which the char
may cover up (and char tastes good in whisky :) i will try to make the
brewery trip this weekend and report what i learn (if relevant).
bob rogers, bob@carol.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 00:37:37 PST
From: Jerold Paulson <mail08863@pop.net>
Subject: Where to buy Grolsch-type bottles?
If anybody can supply leads on where to purchase
Grolsch-type bottles (16 U.S. oz., and with a gasket
flip-seal instead of a bottle cap seal), I'd be most
appreciative. Obviously, if you happen to know of
multiple sources, I'd be interested in the cheaper
options.
Thanks in advance!
- -------------------------------------
Name: Jerold Paulson
E-mail: Jerold Paulson (mail08863@pop.net)
Date: 03/05/96
------------------------------
Date: 05 Mar 96 12:32:11 +0100
From: faros@ping.at (Wolfgang L. Wedel)
Subject: EBC
I'm looking for EBC (The European Brewery Convention), which organizes regular
congresses, conducts collaborative research and develops analytical methods
(published in Analytica EBC). So it reads in "Malting and Brewing Science". It
should be similar to the American Society of Brewing Chemists.
Where are they situated? How can one reach them?
Thanks
Wolfgang
________________________________________________________________
Wolfgang L. Wedel faros@ping.at
Vienna/Austria Fido: 2:310/78.8
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 06:59:12 -0500
From: russ tjepkema <russtj@mail.awi.net>
Subject: SAABCO Mash Tun's
Lookin for opinions/experiences with the SABCO mashtun (the one with
converted keg, screen, thermometer, valve,etc).
Thanks
russ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:22:15 -0500
From: ajdel@interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Solvent/Copper/Ions/pH
In #1976 Dave Zucchini suggests 1 molar sodium hydroxide in 95% ethanol as
a killer solvent. Note that sodium hydroxide is simply lye which is
available at any hardware store. 95% ethanol was available here in the Old
Dominion at state liquor stores until there was one too many episodes
involving this stuff and undergraduates at The University. Now we have to
go out of state to get it (or pinch it from the lab where they use it to
clean the heads on instrumentation recorders). A 1 molar solution would be
made up by dissolving 40 grams of lye in 1 liter of alcohol. Sounds like
really nasty stuff!
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In my previous post on copper I should have noted that the EPA secondary
standard for copper in drinking water is 1 mg/L above which level one can
taste it rather plainly. Thus if your beer doesn't taste metalic it is
probably safe to assume that the copper is below 1 mg/l. If it does taste
metallic, that does not, of course, indicate that it is necessarily copper
which is responsible.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Don Walsh asks about ideal ion concentrations for various styles of beer.
I'm sure opinions on this will vary but mine is that one might as well ask
for the ideal amount of hops or the ideal amount of crystal malt. The
world's various beer styles were driven by the available water. These
styles evolved at a time when water treatment was not understood. As
technology evolved brewers were able to fiddle with ion concentration and
it became just another tweakable variable. Certainly there are general
guidelines i.e. one makes Pilsner with soft water and Burton ale with hard
but within those guidelines the optimum profile is the one that gives the
brewer the result which is most pleasing to him. Don's observation is an
intersting one. Very seldom does one see guidance on a suitable range of
ion concentrations. An exception which comes to mind is Terry Fosters "Pale
Ale" in which he recommends a range of concentrations for each of his
recipes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ken Schwarz feels that a pH of 7 does not necessarily imply pure water.
This is quite so although pure water does have a pH of 7. But so also does
a mixture of 1 N hydrochloric acid and 1 N sodium hydroxide which contains
12.5 grams sodium and 17.5 grams chloride per liter. I guess I'll just have
to go spring the 30 bucks for a Brita and see what the before/after ion
concentrations are. Watch this space.
A.J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel@interramp.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:29:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor@syr.edu>
Subject: Brewers Planner
>
> RE: The recent thread in the HBD aobut Mac software. Check out the
> Brewers Planner, by Darryl Richman. (206) 641-5535. it is written for the
> mac and involves all areas of the brewing process ,and even prints recipe
> forms for competitions.
>
>
> Kieran
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Kieran O'Connor
>
> koconnor@syr.edu
> Syracuse, N.Y. USA
>
> In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 08:46:01 EST
From: "R. Smith" <QR1661@trotter.USMA.EDU>
Subject: Hop Bags / Wheat Ale
In response to Paul's posting:
>...Does the use of hop bags effect hop utilization significantly?
I use a correction factor of 10% more hops when using hop bags. This
works for me.
- ------------------
I recently brewed my first wheat beer trying to replicate the types of
wheat ales and hefeweizens I used to drink in the Northwest; these types
include Widmer Hefeweizen, Pyramid Hefeweizen and Wheat Ale, and many
others I can't remember; but they all had a common, distinctive
character that I think specifically typified the Oregon/Washington-area
wheat beer. I prefer these types over the German weizens/hefeweizens
like Paulaner Hefeweizen.
I am pleased with my wheat ale and would like to know if anyone has any
insight as to the particulars of those northwest wheat beers or any
recipes for clones. I would like to experiment (read drink) in this
area for awhile.
BTW- here's my simple wheat ale recipe for 5 gal:
4 lbs Harrington
3 lbs Belgian Wheat
.25 lbs Crystal (60L)
.5 oz Chinook (12aa) boiling
1 oz Mt Hood (5 mins before end of boil)
.5 cup of WY1056 slury from another primary
40-60-70 Mash Schedule / 90 min boil
OG 1.042
FG 1.008
Color- 6 SRM
-Jack in West Point
*******************************************************************
Richard J. Smith
qr1661@trotter.usma.edu
72154.516@compuserve.com
*******************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 05:50:25 -0800
From: folsom@ix.netcom.com (Alan Folsom)
Subject: Spent Grain Bread
This is to summarize responses to my request for information about
Spent Grains in breads, I posted a while back.
Jeff Renner referred me to an article of his available through
http://www.priimenet.com/~johnj/index.html. Follow the link to "more
brewing files". A nice page, and some good info.
KJBREW@aol.com sent a nice sounding recipe with cracked crystal and
malt extract, which wasn't exactly what I was looking for, but is filed
for future reference!
A whole bunch of folks asked for summaries of any info I got.
Well, bread making is easy, I decided to just do it and find out. A
week ago I brewed an all-grain bitter, and saved 4-5 cups of the spent
grains, which I dried gently in the oven at 200-250 degrees for a few
hours. By the time we needed the oven for dinner, they weren't quite
dry, but I froze them and they didn't freeze into a rock, so you get an
idea how it was.
On friday last week I mixed 1 1/2 cups sourdough starter, 1 1/2 cups
water, 1 cup of the dried spent grains, and about 2 cups or so of flour
(through all this my flour was an equal mixture of bread white, whole
wheat, and pumpernickle rye) to make a mash, which sat for about 12
hours. The next day, I mixed in 2T of yeast (Red Star bread, not
beer), 2T of salt, 1/4 cup of molasses, 1/4 cup of oil, and enough
flour to make a good stiff dough. I really wasn't keeping track, but
it was 6 or more cups. Do it until it feels right! The bread was
risen twice, and them baked in freeform loaves at 375degrees until
done, about 35-40 minutes, or so.
The bread had a good sourdough taste and aroma, slightly enhanced I
think by the flavor of the grains, but not at all prominant. The
texture was moist and rich, the bread sliced well, and had a great
taste. The spent grains were not at all noticible in the body of the
bread, although the crust was a bit crunchier than usual. I'd call the
experiment a success, an easy and non-objectional way to add bran and
other nutrients to the the bread.
I summary, dry the spent grain as best you can, and add it to any bread
recipe in quantities of a cup or maybe less. While I made a sourdough,
other bread styles ought to work. See if you like it!
Al Folsom
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 08:21:22 CST
From: david.clark@analog.com (David Clark)
Subject: Hoegardden White Beer-The Yeast
Howdy Y'all!!
The "original" (that's what the bottle said) Hoegardden White has shown
up in my local grocery store, and the bottle is LOADED with yeast cells.
I was thinking of culturing this yeast for a batch of wheat brew, but
I would like to know if anyone knows anything about the yeast. Is it
the same yeast used for fermentation, or is it a conditioning yeast?
The dude at the local brewshop said he didn't know anything about it,
then he said he thinks it's the same as Wyeast Belgian White, so I think
he really doesn't know...
The beer is imported by Paulaner-Northern in Denver, CO. I think. I
thought the beer itself was pretty good, but I still like Celis White
better, plus Celis isn't $6.77 for four bottles!!
Anyone have opinions on the beer or yeast, lemme know.
Thanks
- --
Dave Clark <david.clark@analog.com>
Austin, Texas, y'all!
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1978, 03/07/96
*************************************
-------
