HOMEBREW Digest #1978 Thu 07 March 1996

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  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 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: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 13:13:07 -0500 (EST) From: GREGORY KING <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov> Subject: more on art vs. science In HBD #1975 A. J. deLange (ajdel at 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 at arserrc.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 13:47:42 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 14:34:48 -0500 From: mdost3+ at 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+ at pitt.edu -Fox Mulder Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 12:03:07 -0800 From: jlee at 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 at eng.esd.ray.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 15:51:20 -0500 From: KennyEddy at 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 at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:36:01 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Special B Lovi Im forwarding this for Dave. From: DAVE_SAPSIS at 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 at 134.7 lovibond lot 087205 at 118.1 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:52:16 +1000 (EST) From: Ken Willing <kwilling at 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 at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au> Sydney, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:08:43 -0600 From: Russell Mast <rmast at fnbc.com> Subject: Bigger Brita? > From: David.Muzidal at 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 at dssc.slg.eds.com > Ian Smiley ar999 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 17:31 EST From: waddell at iglou.com (Steve Waddell) Subject: A few responses in #1974 >From: Darcy Munger <darcym at 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 at iglou.com It is a good thing that we don't get all the government that we pay for! - Will Rogers Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:49:34 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <stevea at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 16:42:04 -0800 From: jlee at 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 at eng.esd.ray.com \ | ^ | / One So. Los Carneros | Tel : 805-967-5511 ext2306 \ \ = / \ Goleta, CA 93117-5597 | Fax : 805-964-9185 _/ --/\-/\-- \ \ \/^\/ \+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=| Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 13:44:12 -0500 (EST) From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor at syr.edu> Subject: A note from Darryl Richman on Mac Software > I'm forwarding this for Darryl Richman, darrylri at 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 at syr.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 17:56:20 -0800 (PST) From: Chris Stenland <stenland at 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 at hydrogen.ucsc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 18:48:55 -0500 From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 20:19:28 -0600 From: Wallinger <wawa at 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.) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 1996 21:49:33 -0500 From: Mcgregap at 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 at aol.com or mcgregap at acq.osd.mil Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 96 14:03:04 CST From: korz at 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. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 1996 22:10:11 -0600 From: dsharp at 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 at ionet.net PGP2.6 KeyId 39EB1C6D Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 00:27:35 -0500 From: bob at 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 at carol.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 00:37:37 PST From: Jerold Paulson <mail08863 at 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 at pop.net) Date: 03/05/96 Return to table of contents
Date: 05 Mar 96 12:32:11 +0100 From: faros at 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 at ping.at Vienna/Austria Fido: 2:310/78.8 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 1996 06:59:12 -0500 From: russ tjepkema <russtj at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 09:22:15 -0500 From: ajdel at 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 at interramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 08:29:29 -0500 (EST) From: "Kieran O'Connor" <koconnor at 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 at syr.edu > Syracuse, N.Y. USA > > In vino veritas; in cervesio felicitas. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 08:46:01 EST From: "R. Smith" <QR1661 at 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 at trotter.usma.edu 72154.516 at compuserve.com ******************************************************************* Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 05:50:25 -0800 From: folsom at 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 at 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 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 96 08:21:22 CST From: david.clark at 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 at analog.com> Austin, Texas, y'all! Return to table of contents