HOMEBREW Digest #1848 Wed 04 October 1995

Digest #1847 Digest #1849

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  classic american pilsner (Evan_Still)
  Infusion Confusion ("Keith Royster")
  Hydrometer readings... (Kenneth K Goodrow)
  More stuck fermentations (CGEDEN)
  Re: 60-70: Nice mnemonic, but... (Russ Brodeur)
  Crying WOLF! ("Dr. Larry Allen")
  Foster's Lager recipe (offsite)
  Re: Tuning the Freezer / Mail Order Gott ? (hollen)
  Honey: clover or orange blossum? (Earl the Pearl)
  the old stalled fermentation (Douglas O'Brien)
  Partial-Mash question/Wyeast Irish Ale for a red ale? (Dave Riedel)
  Hydrometer (#1847 Sascha Kaplan) (Michael Genito)
  RE: dryhopping (uswlsrap)
  Grainger Business-Only ("Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556")
  Decoction-Infusion/Prohibition (Brian Pickerill)
  List privacy - correction (Rolland Everitt)
  Brewing and Sinks (Dave P Rodger)
  A Profusion of Infusion Confusion? (Kirk R Fleming)
  competition recommendations ("Sharon A. Ritter")
  Re: rest at 60 degrees (Regan Pallandi)
  Brewferm Kits - Experiences? (Elde)
  Decoctions (Algis R Korzonas)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! October 3 thru October 13: The digest !!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if !!! you make any requests during this time !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****************************************************************** * 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: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 07:17:11 EDT From: uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: Bread Thanks to Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> for the wash/pitch rate suggestion for bread. In my own experimenting, I've made one excellent batch and one that only I could eat (too much yeast,& very stongly bittered). I'm going to start again with the "2T washed putty" rate. I'd also like to suggest throwing in a cup or more of spent grain (I've used two w/ four-five cups of flour) . In baking, the husks seem to soften and cook and are a nice addition to a flavorful loaf. I'm not all grain brewing (yet), my spent grains are what's left of the couple of cups of crystal malt that I've strained from the boiler. Others must have tried bread making with brewing "dregs". Those who like a good flavorful beer have got to be the same types who would have trouble going back to "wonder bread" after sampling a full bodied, chewy, flavorful loaf of bread. I would be appreciative of anything anyone could offer in the way of what's worked, what hasn't, RECIPIES, etc. ...I'll even volunteer to compile and post if I get anything in the next month. Thanks. BULK MALT PURCHASE.........We (several other HBDrs and I) are getting real close to a bmp to be delivered to the Greensboro area. Prices look great. 50Lb sacks of most grain types can all be lumped into the one shipment. If anyone else is interested (in at least 50 Lbs) E-mail me soon to for more details. Wallie Meisner Greensboro, NC uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com 1800 334 9481 x-2410 - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 9:23 EDT From: Evan_Still at vos.stratus.com Subject: classic american pilsner hi to all, I recently got M&F's pilsner extract kit and was wondering if i could add some flaked maize or light crystal without ruining the batch.Also if anyone has any other suggestions for this old classic style i'd greatly appreciate it.From my understanding this is usually a lager.Can i use ale yeast with this formula since my basement is 65F and not 30F for lagering? TIA, E.S. Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 9:21 EDT From: Evan_Still at vos.stratus.com To: homebrew at hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com Subject: classic american pilsner hi to all, I recently got M&F's pilsner extract kit and was wondering if i could add some flaked maize or light crystal without ruining the batch.Also if anyone has any other suggestions for this old classic style i'd greatly appreciate it.From my understanding this is usually a lager.Can i use ale yeast with this formula since my basement is 65F and not 30F for lagering? TIA, E.S. Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 9:07 EDT From: Evan_Still at vos.stratus.com To: homebrew at hpfcmgw.fc.hp.cm Subject: classic american pilsner hi to all, I recently got M&F's pilsner extract kit and was wondering if i could add some flaked maize or light crystal without ruining the batch.Also if anyone has any other suggestions for this old classic style i'd greatly appreciate it.From my understanding this is usually a lager.Can i use ale yeast with this formula since my basement is 65F and not 30F for lagering? TIA, E.S. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:32:55 +0500 ET From: "Keith Royster" <N1EA471 at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> Subject: Infusion Confusion I wrote: > 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. And then Al Korzonas responds: > Absolutely not. RIMS is the *OPPOSITE* of a decoction mashing > system. In a decoction mashing system, the THICKEST part of the > mash (mostly grain, very little liquid) is heated, whereas in the > RIMS, the thinnest part of the mash is heated. I think we all know a decoction mash and an infusion mash when we seen one, but we seem to not agree on what the defining points of each method are. Al seems to focus on the thickness of the runnings, where I, in my earlier post, was focusing on whether a portion of the liquid is drawn off (decocted) and reheated or not. Other posts reference dictionary definitions. So which one is it? I beleive that if we consider both the dictionary definition and the traditional brewers definition, we can more clearly define the difference between the two. DECOCTION: The formal definition simply means to draw off, but the brewers definition includes the boiling of the drawn liquid, and its reintroduction into the mash to raise the temperature. INFUSION: The formal definition means to steep without boiling. The brewer uses hot, but not boiling water, for single temp mashes. With a metal mash tun, s/he can also do step mashes by firing the tun and stirring the mash to prevent scorching/boiling. So what are the key differences? There are two. Decoction involves boiling where infusion does not. And in a traditional brewing sense, decoction involves drawing off a portion of the mash liquor, where infusion does not. The confusion comes when you consider a RIMS, which is new to the brewing scene and thus not traditional. It draws mash liquor off and heats it to raise the temp of the mash (decoction-like), but it does not boil the liquor (infusion-like). So we now need to decide which of the two is the most defining point from a brewer's perspective. IMHO, drawing off of mash liquor is not a crucial step. It is just a different method of stirring. But the boiling of the mash liquor has flavor consequences in that it effects some of the enzymes, etc.. Thus I vote for the boil. Based on this, I say a RIMS is a R*I*MS. Keith Royster, Mooreville, NC, USA (KRoyster at mro.ehnr.state.nc.us) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:06:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow at orion.etsu.edu> Subject: Hydrometer readings... Sometimes, actually moreso lately than when I first started brewing, I will make batches and forget about any readings. As long as I get my pitching temperature low enough, no worries for a week, then I bottle, age, and drink. Are there many more of you who really don't give a damn about hydrometer readings? Sometimes it's nice to know the alc. content/specific gravity, but really, for all you newbies, I wouldn't worry about it as much as you might be. The books/articles/posts that talk of checking gravity every day seem somewhat retentive, but if you are into the information derived from such behaviors, more power to ya. On the other hand, if you don't care, then forget about it. Pitch, let it sit for a week, and bottle should no bubbles be rising or bubblers bubbling. I haven't had a bad batch yet. Cheers, Kenn Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 95 09:08:52 EDT From: CGEDEN at NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU Subject: More stuck fermentations Neal Parker, in yesterday's HBD, has the stuck fermentation blues. So do I. Here's my routine: Partial mash plus extract Full wort boil (6 gal boiled down to five) Immersion chiller Liquid yeast (varied strains) CLosed fermentations in glass throughout Styles-mostly pale ales and American wheats Dry-hopped in secondary with Cascade, EKG or Mittelfruh Controlled fermentation temp of 66-69 deg. F Aerated by shaking and pump-airstone Rack at 7 days. Here's where I get "stuck". At racking I never seem to get below 1020. My OG's run a little high but are not extreme, usually 1055-1062. Right now I have an IPA that has been fermenting for four weeks. I racked it three weeks ago when it looked pretty quiet and was at 1020. Now, three weeks later, it has picked up a second wind and is back to bubling through the airlock every minute or so. It is still pretty darn close 1020. From past experience it seems that the only logical thing is to keep waiting for the beer to be still before bottling, but geez a month seems like a long time. Its enough to make one worry whether ones beer is ruined! Chris Geden in Gainesville, FL CGEDEN at NERVM.NERDC.UFL.EDU Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 08:52:12 -0400 From: r-brodeur at ds.mc.ti.com (Russ Brodeur) Subject: Re: 60-70: Nice mnemonic, but... >Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:06:23 +1000 (EST) >From: Ken Willing <kwilling at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> >For those such as myself, who use Celsius and also are in need of all the >mental crutches we can get, the G. Fix 60 C.- 70 C. conversion schedule is a >godsend as a mnemonic. Here's an apparent contradiction from Classic Beer Styles Series #4 (Vienna, Marzen, Oktoberfest) by George and Laurie Fix: "...mash-in at 138 to 140 F. The purpose of this rest is to degrade the various "gums" in the malt"... "Conversion temperatures range from 150 to 156 degrees F. The lower temperature gives an attenuated mash, ... Half of this time (45 min) is generally needed at the higher temperature" This looks like a 60-65-70 mash schedule to me. I tried it last night for my Vienna-style (guess it's a bit late for an O'fest) and got 30-32 pts/#/gal. This schedule is more in line with my own observations. >line with my own recent results, apparently confirming Russ Brodeur's >observations on HBD the other day about beta activity at 60- being notably >less than at a couple of degrees above 60... I now get high apparent attenuation (>75%) using a 45 min rest at 145-50 F and a 15 min rest in the 158-60 F range for maximum yield. It was my observation, when using dWC malts, that the rest at 60 C had little-or-no effect on the attenuation, and my FG's were virtually the same as if I had mashed at 70 C alone. TTFN --<- at Russ Brodeur (r-brodeur at ds.mc.ti.com) Franklin, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 09:33:25 -0700 From: "Dr. Larry Allen" <docsbrew at kcsys.com> Subject: Crying WOLF! >> From: "Glen R. Geisen" <glen at picard.al.wpafb.af.mil> >> Subject: Routing test (PgDn - Sorry) >> Sorry for the test, but I'd really like >> to participate when I have something of interest. Gee, Glen...kinda like calling 911 just to make sure it works. When you have something of interest, test it then. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Well, HBDers, I've missed you much! Switched to a new server (unloaded AOL for a cheaper/more logical one) and had a little address trouble - but it's great to hear your insightful, helpful, funny and sometimes INANE comments, questions, and ideas. Keep up the good brewing, and cheers to our Digest Janitor!! Doc. Doc'sBrew - - "Cures What Ales Ya!" (tm) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 08:14:36 +0000 From: offsite at mindspring.com Subject: Foster's Lager recipe Can someone recommend a source for a Foster's Lager taste alike. Gary Novosel Network and Computer consulting Technical Writing and Training Development Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 1995 07:32:47 -0700 From: hollen at vigra.com Subject: Re: Tuning the Freezer / Mail Order Gott ? >>>>> "Steve" == Apple <Saylor1> writes: Steve> Second question; Anyone know of a mail order house that Steve> supplies the 10Gal Gott? I'm sick of hunting around for one Steve> and want to convert over from my present system ASAP. Please Steve> let me know if anyone has info leading to a mail order Gott. Steve> TIA Got to any sporting goods store that carries Gott products, which should be about any one. Have them order it for you. I was in Sport Mart and asked them and they looked in the catalog and it was there and they were willing to tack it onto their next Gott order, no problem. 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: Tue, 3 Oct 95 10:14:24 -0400 From: joep at informix.com (Earl the Pearl) Subject: Honey: clover or orange blossum? Tim, et al. Tim> Fellow Homebrewers, I read once that using clover honey will Tim> result in "grassy" flavors. That source (forgot who/where) Tim> suggested using orange blossom honey instead. I'm getting ready Tim> to make a barleywine that will have allot of honey in it - any Tim> thoughts pro or con on clover vs orange blossom (or any other Tim> variety)? I made a brew with Palmetto Blossom Honey. I used 3 lbs for a five gallon batch. The honey added a wonderful flavor and aroma. The Palmetto Blossom honey is stronger than orange blossom (darker, richer). I added the honey to the extract batch and boiled it for 15 minutes. Tim> "reeb!" -Tim Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA Tim> 74247.551 at compuserve.com _or_ timfields at aol.com (weekends) Tim> timf at relay.com (non-brewing time) joe. +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Joe Pearl, Sr. Sales Engineer, Informix Software, Inc. | | 8675 Hidden River Parkway, Tampa, FL, 33637 813-615-0616 | | Competition is good for the consumer. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. | | MARK TWAIN | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 07:59:44 -0400 From: Douglas O'Brien <Douglas.OBrien at ccrs.emr.ca> Subject: the old stalled fermentation >From: NParker at Lockheed.on.ca (Neal Parker) > >A number of beers I've brewed in the last while start off quickly (6 hours >from pitching), foam up well and then stop short at 1.025, 1.022, etc. and never >really move from these S.G.s (or take 2 weeks to do it). > >I brew extracts with dry or liquid yeast, boil everything, cool the wort, >let sit, rack off the trub, shake the bejesus out of the carboy (for 5 min) >and then pitch. The thing is - this problem is new to me >and might coincide with me doing full boils. I'm tired of having to >worry about it - how do I prevent these incomplete ferments? Aerate more? >Could there be a problem with leaving too much trub behind? I allready >pitch from a 750ml starter - go to a 1.5l starter? Go back to open ferments >(I use a carboy for the primary now)? I'm sure you'll get a bunch of more detail suggestions, but off the top of my head: 1) aerate more; 2) add yeast nutrients/energizers - extracts are notoriously low in nutrients; 3) leave the trub - there are actually sterols in the trub that are good for the yeast, and unless you are doing a light lager you probably won't taste any off flavours; 4) a larger starter MAY help, but if you already get good fermentation in 6 hours it is likely enough. Good luck, Doug - -- Douglas J. O'Brien Douglas.OBrien at ccrs.NRCan.gc.ca Canada Centre for Remote Sensing tel: (613) 947-1287 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada fax: (613) 947-1408 All views expressed are mine and not those of my employer. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 11:11:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Riedel <RIEDEL at ios.bc.ca> Subject: Partial-Mash question/Wyeast Irish Ale for a red ale? Lacking the funding required to move to all-grain, I've decided to try partial-mashing. Following the advice in Dave Miller's "Brewing the World's Great Beers", I obtained a 16L plastic bucket and drilled around 150 holes of 3/16" in it in order to use it as a sparging vessel. Looking at the finished product, the holes seem awfully large. Certainly, dry, un-cracked grains will pass right through them. Can I expect sufficient swelling of the grains during the mash to prevent this from happening? Will 3/16" holes work, or do I need a grain bag? On an unrelated note: I'm thinking of repitching some Wyeast Irish Ale yeast into a batch of some sort of red ale. Has anyone had any experience with this? How did the beer turn out? I'm not afraid of experimenting, I just want to know in advance if this yeast makes a *poor* bitter/pale ale-type beer. thanks, Dave Riedel Victoria, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 14:21:48 -0400 From: genitom at nyslgti.gen.ny.us (Michael Genito) Subject: Hydrometer (#1847 Sascha Kaplan) In #1847, Sascha Kaplan <kaplan at panther.middlebury.edu> wrote: >So, I think it's time to bottle, I open up my fermenting bucket, drop the >hydrometer in, take a reading and then...what? Close up tt and take another >reading the next day? No, don't drop the hydrometer into the 5 gal batch. Open your fermenting bucket, and with a sanitized cup or ladle, scoop out enough beer from your bucket to fill the hydrometer flask. Place your hydrometer into the flask and take your reading. To get a correct reading, your sample should be at 60 degrees F. Usually your hydrometer will come with an instruction sheet which also has adjustments in specific gravity readings for various temps. The hydrometer flask is usually a plastic tube the hydrometer came in.) with enough batch to almost fill it. If you don't have the flask, try finding something similar - a long thin glass or plastic tube with enough circumference to take the hydrometer and as little circumference as not to require too much beer to fill it. Can you do that, or does it skunk the beer to open the fermenting bucket and then not bottle it? If I decide to risk bottling the beer without taking a reading, how do I know how much more sugar to put in beer? Anyway, I hope that these questions aren't too inane. Thanks, Sascha - --------------------------------- | Alexander 'Sascha' Kaplan | | Middlebury College | | MC Box 2623 | | Middlebury, Vermont 05753 | | Tel: (802) 388-3711 ext. 3558 | | Fax: (802) 388-7505 | - --------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 16:32:42 EDT From: uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Subject: RE: dryhopping Chuck, you wrote: >Query: how does one get dry-hopped pellets to settle in the secondary? >It's been a couple of years since I last dry-hopped, and my brewing notes >from then indicate no problems with settling. I dry-hopped a batch a >week ago, however, and some of the hops are suspended about a half-inch >below the surface of the beer. Do I just wait? Does poly-clar take hops >out of suspension? Thanks for any reply. Chuck CEPP at indiana.edu >From my experience, pellets take a long time to settle completely--longer than I want to leave my ales sitting around before bottling. Now, if they're really all suspended just below the surface, that shouldn't be a problem because you would rack the beer from the bottom and stop when the level got that low...that is, if they don't get disturbed and mixed into the beer. I assume you're using a racking cane with the little orange thingy placed on the bottom of the tube. My solution is to tie a (sanitised) muslin hop bag around the bottom to filter out most of the particles. I don't use plastic, horse hooves, fish bladders, seaweed, or other finings in my beer, so I don't know whether polyclar would help. I imagine it would depend on the charge of the hop particles(?) Cheers from the MHTG! Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino uswlsrap at ibmmail.com Madison Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 1995 08:50:59 -0500 (EST) From: "Dave Bradley::IC742::6-2556" <BRADLEY_DAVID_A at Lilly.com> Subject: Grainger Business-Only OK, so I called to get the Grainger catalog so often referenced here on the Digest. I was told this is a business-sales only outfit, meaning I can't order without a Federal tax ID number. Anyone care to comment? Do you all order this stuff through your employer? Back to the acidification thread...folks tend to use lactic acid most frequently, not tartaric. I'm a bonehead, pardon me pppplease! I've been checking into the question more thoroughly...is there interest in a (mostly regurgitated) summary of acids used, when to use, etc? This ties in rather unavoidably with water make-up... Was a water.FAQ ever compiled? Don't see it on stanford.edu, but how's about all those www sources? Dave in Indy (future home of the 3-D BBB) From: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036) To: VMS MAIL ADDRESSEE (IN::"homebrew at hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com") cc: BRADLEY DAVID A (MCVAX0::RC65036) Return to table of contents
Date-Warning: Date header was inserted by BSUVC.bsu.edu From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill) Subject: Decoction-Infusion/Prohibition Norm says in 1847: >Now it seems to me that the term "infusion mashing" was used to distinguish >from decoction mashing, where the grain is not simply "steeped or soaked", it >is boiled, etc. But not ALL of it is boiled. Al is right on this one. Decoction is _heating_ by boiling a small portion of the grain. Infusion is _heating_ by infusing hot water. Simple as that. If you are doing a kettle mash, adding direct heat to the kettle, IMHO you are not doing an infusion. Not that it matters, as long as you make great beer. As for RIMS, it's like the kettle mashing where heat is added directly, and has nothing to do with decoction or infusion. Not that that matters either. ;-) - ------- Tim Fields <74247.551 at compuserve.com> says in 1846: >Are you saying that Abe and Al were pro on legalizing *all* drugs? I doubt >it... If you are using the quotes to illustrate your own opinion, that's your >prerogative. Free speech is ok by me. Are you saying they weren't? Phrases such as "...passing laws which cannot be enforced" and "...attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation" go way beyond alcohol as a specific drug. Historical context is important--I think they may have been for legalization of all drugs at the time they made their statements. But then, at the time they made the statements, alcohol (I think) was the only illegal drug! THINK about it--did the use of the drugs cause the crime and violence, or is that an artifact of trying to legislate them out of existence? - --Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu> Muncie, IN Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 17:54:44 -0400 From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt) Subject: List privacy - correction I left something out of my earlier message describing how to prevent the list server from including your name when it sends out a copy of the list membership. The proper command is SET BEER-L CONCEAL Put that command on a line by itself in the BODY of an email message and send it to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu. Sorry for any inconvenience. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:09:15 -0400 (EDT) From: drodger at world.std.com (Dave P Rodger) Subject: Brewing and Sinks Hi - I've just moved to a new apartment, with visions of brewing dancing in my head, and I realized that the kitchen sink is completely unsuitable for brewing. It's an old sink, and the faucet isn't threaded, so I can't attach either my bottle washer (not critical, but a pain) or my wort chiller (substantially more of a problem...) Since I don't own the place, I don't really want to hire a plumber and have the sink ripped out and a new one installed. However, I don't really feel great about carting my beer into the bathroom to run the wort chiller (something about all that bathroom air, I guess...) So what I'm wondering is whether anyone has advice (other than, give up and have a new faucet/sink installed, or get used to drinking expensive beer) for how to turn a useless faucet into one that can be used for brewing paraphernalia? Thanks! Dave Rodger drodger at world.std.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 19:15:25 -0600 From: flemingk at usa.net (Kirk R Fleming) Subject: A Profusion of Infusion Confusion? Norm says: > Proclaiming all of this as "simply wrong" seems dogmatic at best. and not very productive, IMO. > Can you support your position, AL? and indeed Al does support his position with: > British brewing books use this terminology more often than American > books as they commonly refer to the temperature-control additions of > hot water to the mash as "infusions." This is the source of my > reasoning that the it is the *other* meaning of the word "infuse", > namely "to pour in" Well there you go. Al cited British usage, and everybody knows those folks don't know anything about proper english. :-) Seriously, since Al has cited a use of the word which is ALSO common, and more importantly, common in at least some brewing circles, I concede it does in fact have the meaning he says it does. Since it ALSO has the very common meaning "to soak up with hot water", I think it's pretty pointless to say such a general usage is wrong. To me, the important question is one of our ability to communicate as accurately as we feel is necessary. We generally distinguish only between infusion and decoction mashes (in the amateur world as I've seen it). I don't know about professional brewers, but I have never seen distinguishing terms used to identify *how* the mash was controlled. My point: in common use as I've heard or read it, infusion means only that the mash was conducted without a decoction process. Al also said: > one of the meanings for "infusion" is the extraction of something by > soaking a substance in a liquid (often water). However, if indeed > this is the case, then aren't all mashes "infusion" mashes? Yes, they are, unless you *boil* the liquid, then you've decocted the liquid and even if only 20% of the mash is decocted and it's only done one time, it appears common to call this a decoction mash. If I say I've conducted a mash and I call it an infusion, I believe the important content of that comment centers around the fact that I've done rests at particular temperatures and for certain durations, and have not boiled anything. In an amateur context you still don't know whether I've done it with hot liquor "infusions", direct fire, via steam jacket, or percolator. In a professional context I'll concede you've narrowed it down quite a bit--but I'll bet not completely. Most of us use the term "infusion mash" even though only some of us conduct the mash with the addition of hot water. Am I wrong? I really don't want to split hairs over this. I see where Al is coming from and he does point to a valid definition. But, to say a system that heats the mash without injecting hot water is NOT infusion mashing, I believe, is uncommon usage and counter-productive. If there's a commonly used term to specify mashing where the heat is applied externally (through any mechanism) and specifically NOT through hot water additions, I'm all for it. It would make our communication more precise when necessary. 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: 03 Oct 95 20:29:03 EDT From: "Sharon A. Ritter" <102446.3717 at compuserve.com> Subject: competition recommendations I brew in a very small town with no other hb'ers. I enter the AHA national competition and the Dixie Cup primarily to get feedback from qualified judges. The judges comments have been thoughtful and helped quite a bit. I've also entered some smaller competitions with some very questionable feedback from the judges. Are there a few other large competitions, with quality judging, that anyone can recommend? Again, I'm interested in feedback and suggestions to improve my beer and not necessarily winning the gold. Dan Ritter in Grangeville, Idaho 102446.3717 at compuserve.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 14:13:49 +1200 (EST) From: Regan Pallandi <reganp at iris.bio.uts.EDU.AU> Subject: Re: rest at 60 degrees Can somebody help sort this prob out? My understanding is, to make a highly fermentable beer, a rest at 60 degrees should be part of the mash schedule. However, my understanding is that the starch in grain does not gelatinize until 65 deg, which suggests that the enzymes can't get at the goods. Any ideas? TIA. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 1995 02:14:35 -0400 From: Elde at aol.com Subject: Brewferm Kits - Experiences? How are the Brewferm series of kits? Good? Bad? Tips on any individual kits? Hoping to brew from a few this winter and expand my range from simply kit wheats. Derek L. Kit/Extract brewer, and proud of it! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 95 13:22:57 CDT From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com (Algis R Korzonas) Subject: Decoctions I wrote: >The purpose of the decoctions is not to get solubles out of the grain, but >rather a way to increase the temperature of the mash. Now before Norm and Kirk (and all the rest of you dictionary readers who skip over definitions one and two and zero-in on definition number three because it fits your argument better) get their skivies in a bunch, I'd like to post a clarification to my above statement: "The purpose of the decoctions is not solely to get solubles out of the grain, but is primarily a way to increase the temperature of the mash." Indeed it is true that for severely undermodified malt (steely tips), the only way to get decent extract yield is to boil parts of the mash. The boiling of the decoctions bursts starch granules which are still bound up in the protein matrix. On the other hand, I'll bet you have to travel to Bohemia to get undermodified malt these days. In a talk on Belgian brewing techniques and ingredients at the Spirit of Belgium last November, the speaker (sorry, forgot his name) who is now working at a brewery in Germany, said that even the most traditional of German maltsters have been modifying their malt much more than they used to. In fact, many German brewers have had to alter their traditional mash schedules because this well-modified malt was resulting in watery beer that would not hold a head. Therefore, for all *practial* purposes, the purpose of decoctions using current malts really has mostly to do with raising the temperature of the mash, a little to do with creating melanoidins and almost nothing to do with extracting solubles from the malt. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at pubs.att.com Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1848, 10/04/95