HOMEBREW Digest #1845 Sat 30 September 1995

Digest #1844 Digest #1846

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Acidic porter & stout (obgcgb)
  Mash Temp Distribution ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  Re: Heat Source (IHomeBrew)
  Uneven heat~=decoction?/spit test (Brian Pickerill)
  Re: Hop Util/Grain Conversion/Force Carbonating (Jim Dipalma)
  Cutting Glass Tubing (BixMeister)
  racist email (Eric Palmer)
  Hoegaarden Witbier yeast ("Mark C. Smith")
  Hop Util/Keg dispensing (Algis R Korzonas)
  chiller design (Joseph.Fleming)
  Stove conversion (prestons_pub)
  Having Safe Gruit (Fred Hardy)
  A little hop news (Norman C. Pyle)
  Cigars & beer (kit.anderson)
  RIMS=decoction? / amylase / Prohibition ("Keith Royster")
  Re: Temp distribution in mashing (hollen)
  Drinking age, brief note. (Russell Mast)
  Drinking age (Bryan L. Gros)
  Woodchuck or Woodpecker cider recipes (AGNORCB)
  Re: Natural Gas Burners (Gary McCarthy)
  Terminology: Infusion Mash (Kirk R Fleming)
  age & homebrewing (Alan P. Van Dyke)
  Thanks & Fermentation Chiller Plans (KennyEddy)
  Glucan and Wheat.. (Mario Robaina)

****************************************************************** * 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:29:06 -0600 From: obgcgb at ttuhsc.edu Subject: Acidic porter & stout Hey HBer's, Made a porter from a kit (old English porter), and a Russian Imperial Stout from a kit, both went well in the boiling, cooling , fermentation, pitching, and racking process. The first was made about 2.5 months ago (porter). Boiled it for 45 minutes, added no extra hops. Used Wyeast British ale yeast to pitch at 70 degrees F. One week in primary, one week in glass secondary. Target O.G. was fine. Tasted great at bottling, using 3/4 cup corn sugar to prime. When tasted two weeks later to check carbonation (left at 70 degrees in dark room for two weeks following bottling) had a very strong acidic (not vinigary) taste. After reading a few notes on how porters and stouts improve with age, and are sometimes undrinkable at first, I put this batch in my 20.8 cuft. freezer with temp controller at 45 degrees. Stout was made a little more than a month ago, boiled 45 minutes, no extra hops, Wyeast Irish Ale yeast at 70 degrees. One week in primary, one week in secondary, good target O.G., 3/4 cup corn sugar to prime, also tasted very good at bottling time. Two weeks later to check carbonation, tasted good. Put down at 45 degrees, and one week later has same acid taste of porter. The porter now is very slightly lower in the acid taste, but still acid. Suspecting some sort of bacterial or wild yeast infection during bottling, I took a bottle of both to our lab folks here at the med school for analysis. Nothing grew but pure strains of the yeast used to ferment. Used bottled water with pH of 7.0 to make, porter was bottled in 12 oz bar bottles, well cleaned in clorox solution, and rinsed many times by hand, then put in dishwasher, sans soap or anything else, and cycled through with hot drying 3 times. Stout bottled in 16 oz. new bottles, but were cleaned in dishwasher using cycle with hot dry 3 times. Any suggestions on what the cause is, or should I relax, drink another variety of my homebrew, and let them keep sitting in the cooler a while? Don't know their exact final pH, didn't think about that until today, will bring in another sample and have our lab test. Photius+ It's fear, not beer that makes men old! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 12:31:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: Mash Temp Distribution Ken Schroeder (kens at lan.nsc.com) questioned the importance, yea, even the attractiveness of even mash temperatures, and solicited opinions on the matter. Not being one to hold back an opinion on *any* topic... First, I want absolute repeatability in the system, to the extent I can afford it. For mash temperature I want to mash at 152F, not 154F or 150F, and I want to subsequently brew that "same" beer at 150F and know that for any infinitesimal mash volume dV, it saw 150F for 99.9% of its mash 'lifetime'. This kind of control will answer the question about how noticeable a 2F difference in mash temp really is. I really want to know, and I want to use the information. Before you burst an internal organ with laughter, yes, I agree, this seems absurd in view of all the other variables in the process. But, I'm more or less convinced *this* variable is one of only a few truly critical ones. If it doesn't take too much effort to eliminate it, it doesn't matter if it's really critical or not--it's been eliminated from the equation. Second, it frustrates me when, just as I've learned how to control the mash temp for Product A, I brew Product B and have to relearn the system all over again due to different mash temps, grain bills, volumes, and so on. I simply get tired of it. On the the issue of temperature distribution, Ken questioned how important it really is. My view is a little different here--even distribution is, in one sense, not really the goal as such. What I want is 1) the repeatability I mentioned earlier, 2) a guarantee of no temp overshoot, and 3) a reasonable temp ramp-up to setpoint. A static mash heated in any conventional way simply doesn't conduct heat very rapidly. Any temp measurements made represent very local temps (VERY local), and to avoid extremely long heating times the mash at the heat source will have to be seriously overheated (that's called a decoction) relative to the mash far from the heat source. So, one solution is to stir the mash--fair enough. You either can stir continuously or stir "often enough" and accept the resulting gradients. This allows you to meet all 3 requirements above, *with practice*. Impulse heating as opposed to continuous heat input) is almost always required, am I right? This adds to the excitement during the session. Recirulating is just another way to meet [my] 3 requirements. With the proper level of recirculation, overshoot can easily be eliminated (with or without microprocessor control), and you get the added attraction of a nicely set grain bed. The Real Benefit it that when I read the temperature of the wort, I know I'm reading the temperature of the the wort, the whole wort, and nothing but the wort. The even temperature distribution is hopefully a *consequence*, then. NOTE: Uniform temperatures in the mash is NOT guaranteed simply with recirculation! The steady state flow through the grain bed can have myriad character; it's easy to imagine almost no flow near the wall of the tank, with a consequent temp gradient from high flow regions to low flow regions. The Channeling Bogeyman. Tun insulation and wort distribution then are design considerations. KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 14:46:18 -0400 From: IHomeBrew at aol.com Subject: Re: Heat Source In response to Herb's questions about brewing with propane in the basement, I too, brew in my basement and I use a propane stove. I looked around at a lot of different stoves before purchasing one and what I found were big differences in stove quality. I ended up purchasing a Supreme (can be found at the East Coast Brewing Supply, http://virtumall.com/EastCoastBrewing/ECBMain.html) and I'm confident that I made the right decision. One reason is efficiency. I've made seven batches (all-grain) and my propane tank (which was $20 to purchase and only $7 to fill) is only about half empty. It also has very nice flame control. I don't have the all-or-none blow torch effect like the King Kooker has (which is cheap & inefficient). Third, I can use it indoors. I checked with several sources before making my purchase and basically all sources told me that propane stoves are NOT to be used indoors. The Supreme, however, IS usable indoors provided good ventalation. I brew in a medium sized room in my basement with one window open and a fan in the room to keep air crculating and I have never had any problems. Brewing all-grain requires you to boil all of the wort (usually starting with 6-7 gallons for a 5 gallon batch) and on the electric stove in my kitchen, it would take forever to boil that much wort. My Supreme boils 7 gallons in about 20 minutes. Because I live in a wet climate (Tacoma, WA), brewing outdoors is not really an option 9 months out of the year. Also, I also use a modified keg for boiling, which is exceptionally nice because not only does it have a wonderful ball valve and such, it has a curved bottom (which keeps the flame focused instead of wrapping around the sides) and I can keep 10 gallons of wort at a full-tilt boil and never worry about it boiling over. Hope that helps... CDR Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: Uneven heat~=decoction?/spit test kens at lan.nsc.com (Ken Schroeder) comments on the RIMS/uneven heating thread: >My wife and I both believe that the uneveness (especically when heating)of >our system and proceedures actually help create beers full of different >characters. It hard to describe in words, but dry and sweet, full bodied but >not thick and other apparent contridictions. I question the need for >"eveness" in the brewing process. This is an opinion, others will have >different opinions. Let's hear them. This is why brewing is an art AND a >science! Which makes me wonder if the extra heating on the bottom of the mash/lauter wouldn't be rather like a decoction. We know that the enzymes in the decocted mash are deactivated, yet there are plenty left in the rest of the mash. Could this be a case of RDWHAHB? I'm no expert but it sounds like it to me. - ----------- Carl Etnier <Carl.Etnier at abc.se> comments on his spit testing... >'Course, the bottle, cap, etc. >is all per usual procedure, but I'm counting on some difference in >taste, carbonation, etc. from my filthy spit. Guinness clone, perhaps? ;-) I can understand why you haven't drank this yet. ;-) - --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu> Muncie, IN Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 11:24:17 EDT From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: Re: Hop Util/Grain Conversion/Force Carbonating Hi All, In HBD#1843, KennyEddy at aol.com posts some good, thoughtful questions. >(1) Hop Utilization: Everybody seems to have different formulae for hop >utilization. All of these formulae are designed to just get you in the ballpark. There are far too many factors (kettle geometry, water chemistry, yeast strain, the list goes on and on) that vary from brewery to brewery for any single formula to accurately take into account. If I may make a suggestion, use Rager's formula and utilization factors from the Zymurgy special issue on hops, they will get you close. Keep careful notes on your hop additions, ie, how much of what type of hop at what AA rating, and when it was added to the boil. When the beer is fully matured, taste it, and make notes on whether the hop bitterness/flavor is too much/too little/just right. This is how you can compensate for those factors I mentioned above that are peculiar to your brewery and brewing procedures. After a couple of passes and some tweaking, you should have it nailed. Personally, I use Rager's formula with slighlty lower utilization factors, ie, 25% for a 60 minute boil. I arrived at this by comparing my brews to commercial brews with known IBU ratings. Once I was getting comparable levels of bitterness and thus a known IBU level, I did some algebraic extrapolation on Rager's formula, and solved for the only remaining unknown term, the utilization factor. I use this derived figure when designing new recipes, it's worked well for me, I haven't brewed an underhopped or overhopped beer in years. YMMV. >(2) Grain Conversion: >Fine. But: how much of that OG is actually fermentable? > A program like SUDS lists a variety of grains and their OG potential, but >assumes that the resulting OG is fully fermentable (and also assumes that 75% >is converted to alcohol [75% apparent attenuation]). What is needed is a >chart that shows not only potential extract but also *percent >fermentablilty*. Percent fermentablility is determined to a large extent by your mashing schedule. Mash at the higher end of the sacc. rest range, say 158F, and you'll get more dextrins, and a less fermentable wort. Mash at the lower end, say 150F, and you'll get more simple sugars, and a more fermentable wort. Mash schedule is another factor that is too highly variable for a piece of software or a malt spec sheet to take into account. If you're starting to get the idea that there are a lot of variables in brewing that make it as much an art form as it is a science, then you're starting to get the idea. :-) >On sorta the same topic, I would think that roasting grains would destroy >some to all of the starch's conversion capability, yet I see malts like >chocolate or even black patent listed with extractions not much different >that pale malts. The roasting does destroy the enzymes, but some starch is still there. If you mash these grains along with a high-enzyme malt such as pils, pale, or lager malt, you will still get some contribution to OG from these malts. >The stock answer I get for these questions is "well, we >don't use a high percentage of these grains so we just ignore those effects". Unless I'm brewing a porter or stout, I use small percentages of dark malts, always add them at mashout, and just ignore their OG contribution. :-) >(3) Force Carbonation: Now that I'm kegging, I'm enjoying the convenience of >sediment-free beer-on-demand. I started kegging 3 years ago, I will *NEVER* go back to bottling. >Now I suspect two things should be happening here. >One, the free CO2 will reduce in pressure due to the cooling temperatures. True. >Two, the cooling beer would allow more CO2 to dissolve in (or would it...?). Yes. Solubility of CO2 is inversely proportional to temperature. The cooler the liquid, the more CO2 will dissolve in it. >But I should end up with a pressure at final temperature euqla to that in >the chart for the same CO2 volume I was originally after. Right? Uh, guessing here, but I think that would depend on whether the solubility to temperature relationship is linear or not, I suspect not. If you have the temperature/volume tables, it's easy to check. I don't have the tables in front of me here either. FWIW, what I do is put about 40 psi on right after racking, then place the keg in my dispensing fridge. After the first day, I adjust the regulator for the desired level of carbonation, and add gas to the keg twice a day. After a couple of days, very little gas tranfers as the pressure inside the keg reaches equilibrium for the temperature (I keep my dispensing fridge at 45F). At that point, the beer has the desired level of carbonation. >Next question: So assume I have my beer wonderfully carbonated at 2.5 >volumes and 38 degrees. Now, I don't have the tables in front of me but I >think this means about 12 psi. Whatever. But my serving pressure is >necessarily 8 psi (to prevent beer-face). So-o-o-o, wouldn't the beer try to >reach equilibrium by "flattening" out to the equivalent 8psi/38 degree volume >level? If so, how does one maintain these carbonation levels without spewing >beer all the way to the neighbor's house? You need to balance your dispensing pressure with the total pressure drop in your dispensing system. I've found that I need to keep ~12 psi on the keg in order for the large oring to form a tight seal. I use 3.5 feet of the 3/16" beverage tubing, which drops about 3 psi/ft. There's another 1 psi drop across the hose connect, yet another 1 across the cobra tap, total of 12 psi drop. When dispensing, open the tap all the way, and pour the beer down the side of the glass. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 19:17:06 -0400 From: BixMeister at aol.com Subject: Cutting Glass Tubing Can someone using the Digest suggest how I might cleanly cut borosilicate or pyrex glass tubing. I need to cut 4 feet of this tubing into 3 sections of 16 inches for construction of sight glasses for brewing vessels. Will a tubing cutter work for scoring the tubing? Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 21:03:13 PDT From: palmer at San-Jose.ate.slb.com (Eric Palmer) Subject: racist email In #1843, Dave Bradley wondered how the sender of this garbage email some of us received got our addresses. Since anyone can subscribe to the HBD, perhaps he/she/they simply did likewise, with no real interist in home brewing but simply as a means of collecting email addresses. Given the number of BB's on the internet, it is a creative way to reach a large audiance with a message that is unacceptable to the mainstream media. If and when the internet ever becomes regulated, it's wackos like this who will have helped bring it about. Perhaps if it's possible to actually determine the source email addr., a large enough group of people could jam it with reply mail to create a real problem for them. Eric ps: this is my last HBD posting not directly related to making beer. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 21:39:56 -0700 From: "Mark C. Smith" <mcsmith at mailhost.hooked.net> Subject: Hoegaarden Witbier yeast Hello out there, I just had a friend come back from Belgium with a fresh 6 pack of Hoegaarden Witbier (oh boy!). This is a good example of a Belgian Wit beer. Pale, cloudy, light body with a sour note. Nice yeast flavor with mild clove and citrus flavor. This is a bottle conditioned beer so as soon as I got the beer I cultivated the yeast with good success. I brew alot of Witbier so when I transferred the yeast to the next step I was eager to smell and taste the yeast. I am not convinced that this is the primary yeast. It smells clean and all that, but does not have the character that I expect out of a Witbier yeast. I know that many breweries use a dirrerent yeast to condition there beer than what they use for primary fermentation so people like me ca'nt steal there prized yeast. Does anyone out there know if this is the case with Hoegaarden? If you know will you tell me?:) I'm going to plate it out to have a look and do some test's with my next batch, but maby someone out there could give me some of there observations and knowledge. TIA Yeast is rowdy mcsmith at hooked.com Mark C. Smith Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 13:30:55 CDT From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: Hop Util/Keg dispensing KennyEddy wrote: >(1) Hop Utilization: Everybody seems to have different formulae for hop >utilization. Considering how we homebrewers concern ourselves with getting >just the right color numbers and gravities and worrying about extraction >efficiency, it's odd that hop utilization is such an inexact science. I have >read Glen Tinseth's paper on utilization and find it convincing but if I >compare his curves with say Mosher versus Papazian versus Gareth versus >Rager...you get the picture. Using these various gurus' approaches sometimes >leads to IBUs off by dozens of percent from one to another! Who's right (or >at least in current favor)? For *my* system, based upon tests run at the Seibel Institute, I must say that Rager's formulas work for me. Here's my current system: 10 gallon Polar SS pot pelletized hops hops stored cold, purchased in CO2-purged, oxygen-barrier bags 12,000 btu natural gas stovetop burner nylon hop bags used (one for each addition) add 10% to the numbers I get from Rager's formulas to account for the hop bags add 10% more to the numbers I get from Rager's formulas when I use whole hops for 5 gal all-grain batches, add the 60 min hops when there's 6.5 gal left for extract batches, add the 60 min hops after a 10 minute boil w/o hops This works for me. Since it does, for *MY* system, Mosher's and Tinseth's formulas would give me beer with slightly higher IBUs than expected (I have not looked at Papazian's formulas in a long time, but I believe they are based upon Rager's) and Garetz's formulas would give me beer with 50 to 60% higher IBUs than expected. I've heard from a few homebrewers via private email who have tried Garetz's formulas and have found them to make beer that has *much* more bitterness than expected. *** >Next question: So assume I have my beer wonderfully carbonated at 2.5 >volumes and 38 degrees. Now, I don't have the tables in front of me but I >think this means about 12 psi. Whatever. But my serving pressure is >necessarily 8 psi (to prevent beer-face). So-o-o-o, wouldn't the beer try to >reach equilibrium by "flattening" out to the equivalent 8psi/38 degree volume >level? If so, how does one maintain these carbonation levels without spewing >beer all the way to the neighbor's house? Don't reduce the pressure for dispensing. The key to dispensing at the right pressure is selecting the proper length and ID beer hose. I've found 6 feet of 1/4" ID vinyl hose and a standard, black cobra faucet to work well for 12psi. If you are still getting too much foam at the faucet, make sure the faucet is clean and that you open it all the way. If you still have foam city, then try 7 feet of hose or 8 feet... Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 08:48:36 est From: Joseph.Fleming at gsa.gov Subject: chiller design Kenneth K Goodrow writes about a chiller design. One note: do yourself a favor and instead of using hose clamps, use a copper tube union for the plastic hose to copper connection. The size will be 3/8" to whatever the OD of your 3/8" ID plastic hose is (5/8"? Can't recall...). Joe - joseph.fleming at gsa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:16:12 EDT From: prestons_pub at e-mail.com Subject: Stove conversion THIS IS A CORRUPT DOCUMENT - FOLLOW RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY Subject: Stove conversion Hi all. I have the opportunity to buy a small cottage type natural gas type stove, with two generous size burners on top and an oven. My question is: Is it feasible to convert from N.G. to propane? Would I have to change the burners, or would the small ports on the current burner work? I plan on putting it in my garage as part of my planned home brewer, with plenty of ventilation of course. TIA "FERMENTATION AND SEE YA.................MIKE CIVILIZATION ARE PHONE (313)24-89512 INSEPARABLE." FAX (313)32-21253 E-MAIL USFMC6TM at IBMMAIL.COM Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:57:47 -0400 (EDT) From: Fred Hardy <fcmbh at access.digex.net> Subject: Having Safe Gruit Herbs and spices were a standard additive to English Medieval ales and meads through the 15th century. Use your imagination if you would like to try to reproduce some of these drinks. Try herbs and flowers, both fresh and dried, to make your brew interesting, different and delicious. A word of caution. Because a flower or herb smells wonderful doesn't mean it is harmless if ingested. If you do not know the make and model of a plant, take it to the county agent for identification. Like with wild mushroom, do not guess! Once identified, check the plant for possible toxic effects. An excellent source is The Herb Book, by John Lust. It is available at most book stores and is $6.99 (list) in paperback. This text tells you the history, effects, toxicity, and instructions on amounts to use to make a tea of the herb. A good investment! Cheers, Fred ============================================================================== We must invent the future, else it will | <Fred Hardy> happen to us and we will not like it. | [Stafford Beer, "Platform for Change"] | email: fcmbh at access.digex.net Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 8:35:21 MDT From: Norman C. Pyle <npyle at hp7013.ecae.StorTek.COM> Subject: A little hop news I was corresponding with Mark Kellums at Just Hops and received the following, FYI: >This year should be very exciting. We are planning on adding many more >varieties. >From the U.K. Phoenix, Admiral, and maybe Pioneer, First Gold, and Herald. >From Germany we are expecting Tettnang, Hallertau Hallertauer, and >Brewers Gold. All these are in addition to what we are already >carrying. On these domestic front we will be adding Galena, Columbus, and >hopefully an experimental VGXPO1. This is a new Cascade variety. Who knows >what else we might carry! Looks like the Hops FAQ is going to need another revision! I have no financial interest in Just Hops, BTW, but I am a very satisfied customer. Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:48:10 -0500 From: kit.anderson at acornbbs.com Subject: Cigars & beer >FROM: Rich Byrnes >Subject: (U)Cigars & Brews Rich asked about articles on Beer and Cigar pairings. The issue before last of "Beer..the Magazine" had a article. The summer issue of "Cigar Aficionado" had an article as well. My impression was that the beer writer didn't know cigars and the cigar writer didn't know beer. The traditional beverages to pair with cigars are port and scotch. That implies that Scaldis and dopplebocks would be the best beers. LaChouffe would also be good. Coffee is also good with cigars, so try sweet stouts and robust porters. Look for lingering sweetness and avoid beers with a lot of hop presence. Pairings are tough. Are you supposed to light up a one hour smoke, sip a beer for 5 minutes, then put it out so you can light another? What a waste! Pick one cigar and alter the beers. Personally, my cigar of choice is Cuba Aliados in Valentino or Corona de Luxe sizes. It is a medium bodied Honduran with lots of Cuban character. It was the highest scoring non-Cuban in the latest CA and is reasonably priced, especially by mail order. (~$2) Kit "Travels With Chiles" Anderson Bath, Maine <kit.anderson at acornbbs.com> * Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:25:44 +0500 ET From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: RIMS=decoction? / amylase / Prohibition > Now, regarding the name "RIMS," I must throw some cold water. Neither > Rodney's design nor Keith's proposed modification are (I)nfusion > systems. Infusion mashing is the heating of the mash with additions of > boiling water... period, end paragraph. Now that I think about it, a RIMS is actually drawing off a little bit of the mash liquor at a time, heating it, and mixing it back in the mash. Sounds more like decoction mashing than infusion mashing to me. Maybe a more correct term would be Incremental Decoction Mashing System (IDMS). - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And thanks to all of those who responded to my questions about amylase and RIMS. To quickly summarize: Amylase is a catalyst that is not consumed, but will degrade with time. And it is also in solution, not in suspension. So I would be risking exploding bottles if I were to try to lager it out of suspension and then bottle the beer. Suggestions were to (1) wait it out , which could take a month, or (2) heat the beer up to 170F for a few minutes and then quickly chill. This will denature the enzymes, but also the yeasts. Yeast would have to be repitched prior to bottling. I am opting to wait it out, since heat will effect the quality of the beer. And for RIMS, it seems all but the Rodney-Morris-Purists (if there is such a person, I heard from none) beleive that a RIMS *requires* a heating element and computer chip. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ And finally, I have found a couple of quotes from some famous and well respected people regarding prohibition. I am including them so that we may all be better armed to respond to those who wish to legislate their moral views against alcohol on the rest of us: "Prohibition...goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." -- Abraham Lincoln, December, 1840 "The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the Prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this. -- Albert Einstein, My First Impression of the U.S.A, 1921 [WARNING: These same quotes apply to the Prohibiton laws against other drugs. Don't use these quotes if you beleive in the War On Drugs, as they may be turned against you!] =) Keith Royster, Mooresville, NC, USA (KRoyster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:05:31 -0700 From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: Temp distribution in mashing >>>>> "Ken" == Ken Schroeder <kens at lan.nsc.com> writes: Ken> Jim Bush and Dion Hollen argue about which systems are better for Ken> even temp distibution in the mash tun. Dion hypes the push Ken> button, no worry rims system, while Jim advocates the hands free Ken> stirring, traditional fired system. Our two respected brewers Ken> seem to agree that even heat distribution is very important. I Ken> question this philosphy, or at least ask, how even is even? Ken> I have extensively measured heat distribution in my traditional, Ken> direct fired, cut keg system. I use a large wood paddle for Ken> stirring. With an expensive thermal couple themometer, I measured Ken> virutally every quadrant if the mash tun and found, after Ken> stirring, no more than a 2 degree delta. Ken> My wife (the scientist/bio-chemist) jumps up and down how all the Ken> emzymes and stuff are all active with this method. Does reflect Ken> an "even" heating proceedure? Comments Dion, Jim? Ken> My wife and I both believe that the uneveness (especically when Ken> heating)of our system and proceedures actually help create beers Ken> full of different characters. Well, I cannot disagree with your statements about the fact that your "unevenness" creates the opportunity for pockets of slightly different chemical reactions to exist. And yes, these pockets will create slightly different characteristics in wort produced. These kind of mixed compositions of the resulting sugars definitely do produce character and a multitude of subtle flavor differences in the finished product. However, after long discussions with many people on mashing temperatures and the effects on the wort produced, I don't think that unevenness has anything to do with it. A perfectly even (theoretically) mash, chosen to mash at certain temperatures for certain times can produce a varied wort. Enzymes which produce short sugar chains like low temps and long chain producers favor higher temps. Chose the time you stay in their range and you will choose the proportions of the different characteristics you will get in the resulting wort. Leaving the differences to an uneven mash may be interesting and produce excellent beer, but can you produce the same one the next time? I am not saying that evenness is necessary, but if you want consistently repeatable results, it sure is helpful. I contend that a completely controlled mash with even heating could produce the same kind of character you produce, given that the brewer had sufficient information and artistry to control the heat in the correct manner. I also contend that while manually stirred systems may produce lots of character, they stand a smaller chance of producing the same character time and time again. Of course, a RIMS system is susceptible to the same problems, namely the nut behind the wheel, but I believe that it makes it easier to achieve consistency from batch to batch because the *possibliity* of introducing differences is greatly reduced. I have nothing against manual methods and will agree that almost any method can produce outstanding results. I personally prefer more automation. If you don't that is your preference. With regards to the end product, any method is as good as any other. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x119 Email: hollen at vigra.com Senior Software Engineer Vigra, Inc. San Diego, California Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:10:48 -0500 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Drinking age, brief note. I know this thread is probably innappropriate, but some folks seem to be overlooking one of the main issues. The main safety increase in raising the drinking age to 21 isn't in preventing 19 year-olds from drunk-driving, but to prevent 16 and 17 year-olds. Lower the drinking age, and high school kids have more access, because they have more legal friends. They are the ones who are and were causing the most drunken driving havoc. I do agree that if the problem is with drunk driving, the regulation should be about driving, not drinking. -R Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:24:58 -0700 From: bgros at mindseye.berkeley.edu (Bryan L. Gros) Subject: Drinking age Matthew W. Bryson" <MWBryson at LANMAIL.RMC.COM> wrote: > Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that one must be 21 years old >to homebrew( legally) anywhere in the U.S.. As to the other question... >well, I was one of the last people in my state( by birthday) that could >legally drink beer at age 18. I don't think that extortion by the federal >government was necessary or morally correct; it is certainly illegal for >ME to hold states hostage by threat of monetary loss. I wish that states >could be allowed to make their own decision in this regard. I believe that a while back (maybe 9 years ago) the Federal government forced all states to adopt a minimum 21 year drinking age by threatening to withold highway money. Some states, I know Louisiana, reluctantly passed the law raising the age to 21 (and I think adding numerous grandfather clauses). Currently, the House is considering repealing the federal law, which will allow states to set thier own restrictions lower if they feel like it. As for what a reasonable drinking age should be, I find it hard to say. I agree with all posts so far and for a variety of other reasons that raising the drinking age is doing no one any good (except maybe some republicans) and it should certainly be lower. And drinking and driving laws should be even stricter, especially if that is the only reason to have a high drinking age. - Bryan bgros at mindseye.berkeley.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:25:19 -0500 (EST) From: AGNORCB at miavx1.acs.muohio.edu Subject: Woodchuck or Woodpecker cider recipes Hi y'all! I just discovered a local orchard which presses their own cider and am thinking about making some hard cider. I was hoping to make something along the lines of Woodpecker or Woodchuck draft cider. Does anyone have a good recipe for clones of either of these? Thanks in advance, and sorry for the non-beer related request. Craig Agnor Physics Graduate Student Miami University Oxford, Ohio agnorcb at muohio.edu - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 95 10:45:03 -0700 From: gmccarthy at dayna.com (Gary McCarthy) Subject: Re: Natural Gas Burners Paul Sovcik <U18183 at UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU> asked in HBD 1844: >my new house has a nifty heated garage (a nice touch for Chicago winters...) > that uses natural gas as a heating source. >what type of burner can I use for this setup? I have the same setup in my garage here in Salt Lake City. I've been thinking about getting a plain olde house water heater, and hooking it up. The burner should be able to heat the water inside within 30 min or so right? The capacity would be like 30 gal before cutting the top off, right? So the uncovered capacity could be like 20 gal. Then it has a spigot, also. And it is insulated!!! I see that a national hardware store (Ernst) has some hot water heaters on sale for about $70. I think I would buy new myself. So thats really inexpensive for a boiler! Put in a thermometer, and a screen for sparging the grain, and we've got ourselves a party!(Jerry Jeff Walker) But the thermostat prob only goes up to 150 or so? The same plumber that comes to install a new junction from the existing gas pipe to the heater would be able to replace the thermostat with a higher temp one, don'tcha think? But I haven't been able to convince myself that this would work. Now even though Paul states that he is a extract/partial mash brewer, and this might be overkill for him; I say "look to the future Paul, you might want to do all-grain mashes, and this setup seems pretty inexpensive." I would be very interested in any other replies you get to your post, Paul. at at at at at at at Gary McCarthy Put on your grin mask, baby, |,, ,,| gmccarthy at dayna.com we're stepping out tonight |(o)(o) Bruce Cockburn C _) | | ___ | \:::/ /=======\ /=/=====\=\ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 09:35:55 -0600 From: flemingk at usa.net (Kirk R Fleming) Subject: Terminology: Infusion Mash Al Z said: > Infusion mashing is the heating of the mash with additions of boiling > water...period, end paragraph I completely disagree with Al on this and feel the common use and meaning of the word infusion shouldn't be narrowed artificially or confused with any particular technique used to conduct one--even if it has been in the past. This may be common brewing parlance based on how infusion mashes were temperature controlled, but the definition of infusion is to steep in hot water. No more, no less. This is the definition I've seen used in science, chemistry and I believe cooking. It says nothing at all about how the hot water is obtained or maintained. Perhaps the easiest way to conduct an infusion mash commercially is to underlet hot liquor into (rather than to direct fire) the tun, but this should have no bearing on the definition of "infusion mash". When instructions call for "steeping of grains", such as in many extract-based brews, those instructions could as well say "prepare an infusion". Infusions are distinguished by the fact that they extract without boiling (a decoction). Mashes are infusions, but all infusions may not be mashes (mashing being distinguished by enzymatic action). Infusion is strictly the leeching of solubles from something using hot (but not boiling) water. In the mashing process you happen to get very significant side effects due to activation of enzymes. If mashes are infusions, then what about decoction mashes? Well, any portion of the mash that hasn't been removed and boiled is an infusion. Any portion that's been pulled and decocted is not. So you certainly start out with an infusion, but by the time you've finished 2 or 3 decoctions it's unreasonable to say you've achieved your result without boiling. To my mind it's truly a hybrid, but the predominant technique for getting solubles out of the grain is what should define the mash. You either get the solubles out by steeping (infusion) or by boiling (decoction). There, now I believe we have thread you can sink your teeth into. I hope I've at least stirred up a some controversy here--the HBD has become a bit calm lately! KRF Colorado Springs - ------------------------------------------------------ "We can help the cause of pale ale both by drinking it and brewing it as much as possible." Terry Foster - ------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 12:41:49 -0700 From: alan at mail.utexas.edu (Alan P. Van Dyke) Subject: age & homebrewing Howdy, all-- I've been following the age & homebrewing thread, & I noticed something that no one has considered. Here in Texas, it's illegal to be in pocession or to drink under the age of 21. So, by extension, homebrewing would be illegal as well. It has nothing to do with purchasing the beverage, just having it. But, as an added twist, a parent reserves the right to serve his/her children an alcoholic beverage. So, if you want to share a sip with your own kid, have at it! Then again, Texas was one of the last states to have an open container law, & the one that does exist is incredibly lame. Alan Van Dyke Austin, TX A beer a day keeps the cardiologist away. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 14:26:10 -0400 From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Thanks & Fermentation Chiller Plans First and foremost, thanks to EVRYONE who replied to me so promptly with answers to my questions. This accomplished in one day what I have spent months trying to figure out. And please don't get me wrong -- even though it would appear from my questions that I'm trying to reduce the ART of homebrewing to an equation, that's not complertely true. Face it, there's a certain amount of science to this stuff, and being a scientist (or at least an engineer), I like to dig a bit into the details. That doesn't necessarily drive me to weigh hops to the nearest microgram, however. Enough drivel. As was posted in the last HBD AOL now supports file attach over Internet (the timing of my comment is scary). SO-o-o-o, if any of you would like the full-blown plans for the Chiller I described last time as a "thank-you note", lemme know and I'll fire it off. Thanks again,all. KennyEddy at aol.com Ken Schwartz El Paso, Texas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 11:26:45 -0700 (PDT) From: sprmario at netcom.com (Mario Robaina) Subject: Glucan and Wheat.. Is it the B-Glucan content of wheat that causes it to gum up in the mash? If so, what temp rests are best for glucanase? For how long? Planning on doing a 50-50 wheat/barley beer, and am concerned about stuck sparges. Thanks in advance for any help. -John Girard, in Los Angeles (and not proud of it) (through sprmario at netcom.com or jgirard at leland.stanford.edu) Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1845, 09/30/95