HOMEBREW Digest #1983 Wed 13 March 1996

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  mash virgin no more / iodophor concentration / subscribe me ("Keith Royster")
  re:reusing yeast (BOBKATPOND)
  RE: channeling, why not? ("Clark D. Ritchie")
  Great Grandfather's Ancient Recipe (Ken Parsons)
  Electric Stove Hook-up - Is He Serious? (Jeff Hewit)
  SUPER YEAST & RE: Cheap Bottles (shelby & gary)
  Yeast concentration in clear beer (Kyle R Roberson)
  5th. ann New York city Spring Regional Competition 3/24/96 (Ken )
  Mutated yeast (Domenick Venezia)
  Hop Storage-Polypropylene (Stan Gregory)
  bicarbonates and water hardness ("Clark D. Ritchie")
  subscibe (Wenge)
  Lager yeasting (Spencer W Thomas)
  Alcohol percentage (Craig Stewart)
  Decoction mash protein rest (Bob McCowan)
  Kegs and Filtering (Guy Mason)
  Acids follow-up (Jay Reeves)
  Recipe Request (Todd Anderson)
  Rakes/Protein rests (Jim Busch)
  Contest Announcement (Btalk)
  Egyptian Beer (David.L.Imming)
  Spirit of Free Beer Announcement (Delano Dugarm)
  Please stop sending me this (Kevin Joseph Lin)
  Instapure (R) waterfilters (Robert Bush)
  deep grainbeds (Rob Lauriston)
  more on first wort hopping (Jim Dipalma)
  Very Stupid Brewer's Trick (mikehu)

****************************************************************** * 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: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 15:47:54 -0500 From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at ponyexpress.com> Subject: mash virgin no more / iodophor concentration / subscribe me Well, I brewed my first all grain batch today in my just-finished RIMS and things went pretty much without a hitch (except that I forgot to add my irish moss). The fact that it went without a hitch is largely due to all of you, so a big THANKS! from me. Especially to Dion and Kirk F. who may not remember, but they helped me design my RIMS by discussing various design aspects of theirs with me. To all of you out there thinking about going all-grain, but are intimidated by all of the complicated steps you've seen discussed on the HBD (adjusting pH, adjusting water chem, mash temps, sparge temps, etc..) forget all of that and just DO IT! Do a simple recipie that only requires a single mash temp (I did a Pale Ale) and forget about adjusting pH and water chemistry. Don't be too anal on your mash temp either. The mashing process is fairly forgiving in these areas, and I even know some experienced all-grainers who have never checked pH. It may not come out as your best beer ever (or it may), but the important part is to become comfortable with the process and build confidence. Once you do one (or two) batch(es) this way, then you can start playing with the chemistry as needed. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- mikeb at flash.net (Michael T. Bell) askes about Iodophor concentrations: > One quick question. What is the proper dilution rate of Iodophor? I > have read that the optimum is 25ppm. That works out roughly to > 1oz per 6 gal. The proper range, as printed on my bottle, is 12.5 to 25 ppm. I use 12.5ppm (1/2oz in 5 gal), as do others who I've seen post to the HBD. So, you are in the right range, but you can use less if you want to. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- SSparks204 at aol.com wants to subscribe: > Please Suscribe me to your list. I've put a simple web page up off of our brewclub's page that is a short but helpful introduction to the HBD and tells how to subscribe. Those of you with web pages are welcome to create a link to it, and Rob, you may want to add the URL to the beginning of the digest. My hope is that if enough links are pointed to it, it *may* decrease the number of posts like the one above. The URL is: http://www.wp.com/ at your.service/cbm/digest.html Keith Royster - Keith.Royster at ponyexpress.com at your.service - 720 Pinewood Circle WebPage Services - Mooresville, NC 28115 Check us out at - http://www.wp.com/ at your.service/ Voice & Fax - (704) 663-1098 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 17:37:59 -0500 From: BOBKATPOND at aol.com Subject: re:reusing yeast Tam Thompson writes, ". . . You can usually re-use that slurry about three times before it starts to mutate too far into the unusable range. . . ." L o r n e F r a n k l i n writes,"I've read this assertion in many places and am wondering if anyone can profile the flavor, bahvior, or appearance of "mutated" brewers yeast. I've never used yeast beyond the third generation, but am curious of the potential problems involved with "inbred" yeast. Many micros and brewpubs reuse their yeast for many generations and some use the yeast forever. There are several reasons for this, to replace the yeast is expensive, it usually performs better after a few generations, and there is no reason to replace it very often. I talked to one brewer who said that he wanted his yeast to mutate. That way he had a yeast that no one else had. It was his own strain of yeast. All brewers have their own methods of monitering their yeast. Some go by the number of generations, others watch the performance of the yeast carefully (such as how it flocculates and how the attenuation is ) and can tell when things are different and then dump the yeast. As a rule 3 generations are probably enough for homebrewers. We can't possibly be as clean as a commercial setup, where they have heavy duty caustics and acid sanitisers and boiling water to run through all of their equipment, so we are risking passing an infected yeast on to another batch. As far as mutations, it depends on the strain of yeast and how much you stress the yeast. High gravity beers stress the yeast and should not be repitched, some say dark beers also. Lager yeasts are more prone than ale yeasts. Some Weissen yeasts change rapidly and lose that clove-like flavor. If you really want to use your yeast as economically as possible, banking it as has been described here in the past, either on an agar slant or frozen in glycerin, is the best way. B-) Bob Morris Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 09 Mar 1996 16:29:32 -0800 From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie at ups.edu> Subject: RE: channeling, why not? Kelly, Two comments about your post. First, in my humble opinion, there is nothing all that wrong with stopping the flow for a second and mixing the grain bed. However, if you stir your mash too vigorously versus "cutting" just the top half (as mentioned a few days ago), you can upset the grains that are on the bottom of your lauter tun near your false bottom (or other drainage device). Have you ever noticed that when you first begin your sparge, the initial runoff of hot liquor is often cloudy with little bits of grain husk and other particulates in suspension? Compare that the runoff halfway through your sparge. Big difference, right? The latter is nice and clear. The reason is that the grains will settle in the lauter tun as the sparge continues, forming a nice, natural filter. Stirring your grains vigorously will upset the filtration of your grains and cause your runoff to again be couldy and murky as the grains must resettle. Second, clear runoff is not devoid of color, rather it is free from particulates. You want your runoff to be free from these particulates as they will settle on the bottom of your boiling kettle (they are heavier than the surrounding hot liquor), which is, of course, close to the heat source, which will cause them to gelatanize which, in turn, can cause several undesireable side effects. It is not a bad idea to begin your sparge and collect the first initial runoffs (I do a minimum of five pitchers worth) and _carefully_ pour the runoff back on top of your mash. Continue to recirculate the hot liquor until the runoff is clear, at which point you can begin collecting in your kettle. It is not a bad idea to continue to _carefully_ stir your hot liquor as it comes to a boil, so that any particulates that did pass through the sparge are not sitting on the bottom of the kettle. Cheers! ...CDR Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie at ups.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 18:48:14 -0800 From: Ken Parsons <klondike at sonnet.com> Subject: Great Grandfather's Ancient Recipe Recently I've been hearing the Sam Adams radio commercial for the Doppelbock. Jim Koch makes the statement that he uses 1/2 pound of malt in every bottle. This sounded a bit excessive so I did some calculations. Most malt has a HWE (hot water extract) of 70-80%, as is. I used 77% which is typical for pale and Munich malt. Assume the Samuel Adams contract breweries have a brewhouse efficiency of 95% and that beer losses along the way are negligible. Calculations are done in metric. 0.5 lb malt * 1 kg/2.2 lb * .77 kg ext./kg malt * .95 eff. ___________________________________________________________ = 0.47 kg ext./liter wort 12 oz wort * 1 gal/128 oz * 3.785 liter/gal This would be an original gravity of 40.0 P (kg ext./kg wort) and an original specific gravity of 1.179 (kg wort/liter wort). If the finishing gravity was 5.0 P (SG 1.020), the resulting alcohol content would be 16.9 wt% or 21.8 vol%. Those must be some pretty hardy yeast!!! Klondike Ken Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 21:26:56 -0500 From: jhewit at freenet.vcu.edu (Jeff Hewit) Subject: Electric Stove Hook-up - Is He Serious? To the guy who plans to somehow make a plug that will fit where his electric stove burner does, I have some suggestions. - Make sure you have plenty of life insurance, and make sure you're current on the premiums. - Make sure your family has another place to live, and that it's paid for - your homeowner's insurance may not pay in full if they think you intentionally burned your own house down. - Look for other ways to save a buck on this hobby. Seriously, one sure way to get into trouble is to screw around with electricity. Some do and get away with it, but many don't, and the results can be heart breaking. I too am planning to set up a counter-top boiler to free myself from the limitations of an electric range. Since I don't have 220v access in the kitchen, I am planning on having an electrician install an outlet. I had thought about making a heavy-duty extension cord, and running it from the dryer outlet, which is just off the kitchen, but thought better of it. My interest is in making good beer - period. There's nothing wrong with being frugal - I know some well-off homebrewers who view it as a challenge to pinch as many pennies as they can and still make outstanding beer. If all we want is cheap beer, we'd be better off buying Natural Light. But trying to save money through some jerry-built set-up with an electric range is crazy. Anyway, that's my 3 cents. - -- - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Hewit Midlothian, Virginia Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:18:15 -0500 From: shelby & gary <gjgibson at ioa.com> Subject: SUPER YEAST & RE: Cheap Bottles I have been culturing a Wyeast #0349 (British Ale) strain. I have used = it three times, and I am amazed at how quickly this stuff gets the job = done. I have pitched two quart starters to two oatmeal stouts,and a = honey porter, all of which started with a gravity of at least 1.052 and = where six gallons with starter. All three fermented to completion in = only three or four days and was very violent. Has anyone experienced = these quick fermentations with this strain, or do I have the Superman of = all yeasts? I have used this strain before, but it was not this quick. = I am glad I open ferment. This stuff would be blowing tops off every = couple of hours. In HBD#1980 there was an article about buying cheap bottles. I must = ask, Why buy them at all? I get my bottles at the local brewpub. Well = they call it a brewpub anyway. They sell a large asortment of other = great beers as well as their own. Anyway, this place has to pay by the = pound for recycling their glass containers, so they are more than happy = to give me all the bottles I need. They sometimes even wash them out = for me. I have requested "grolsch" bottles, so what the employees don't = take home, I get. Pretty good deal, huh. Shelby Asheville, NC Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 9 Mar 1996 23:32:22 -0800 (PST) From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu> Subject: Yeast concentration in clear beer One more try... I asked this over the holidays and got no input whatsoever, so I thought I would try again. What is the concentration in cells per ml of suspended yeast in beer that has dropped "bright"? 20,000-40,000? Anybody actually measure this themselves? Some of Jackson's descriptions of beers mention that a beer is filtered then dosed with fresh yeast. Private email OK. Kyle Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 10:01:45 -0500 From: kbjohns at escape.com (Ken ) Subject: 5th. ann New York city Spring Regional Competition 3/24/96 The Homebrewers of Staten Island will hold their 5th competition On Sun 3/24. Complete information can be found on the club's homepage URL http://www.wp.com/HOSI/ look for the competition announcement. We will be awarding over $900.00 in prizes and judging all beer styles. Entry forms will be sent via e-mail. We also need judges Ken URL http://www.wp.com/HOSI/ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 08:33:43 -0800 (PST) From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com> Subject: Mutated yeast Tam Thompson writes: >>". . . You can usually re-use that slurry about three >>times before it starts to mutate too far into the unusable range. . . ." "Lorne P. Franklin" <lachina at interramp.com> asks: >I've read this assertion in many places and am wondering if anyone can >profile the flavor, bahvior, or appearance of "mutated" brewers yeast. >I've never used yeast beyond the third generation, but am curious of the >potential problems involved with "inbred" yeast.> Perhap's Tam's use of the term "mutate" is unfortunate. A true genetic mutation is probably rare. What Tam is referring to is more appropriately termed "genetic drift". This is a darwinian selection process by which the characteristics of the yeast will slowly change due to selection pressures determined by a particular brewing process. The yeast in the pitching population represent a certain amount of variability; they are not all genetically identical. Some will sediment before others. Some will have a lower alcohol tolerance than others. Some will tolerate lower or higher temperatures than others. What we have is a genetic pool, with the variability of the response to any particular parameter forming a gaussian distribution (a bell-shaped curve). Brewing conditions can cause these curves to shift along their respective axes. In fact any yeast handling and propagation techniques will introduce their own selection pressures. When you use plates or slants to propagate yeast you are selecting for yeasties that grow under those conditions. Do you seal your plates with parafilm? If you do you will select for yeasties that grow well on the plate media with a low oxygen concentration. When you choose that one perfect colony from a plate or slant you have selected for a particular genetic profile and have left a lot of genetic variability behind. A better technique for brewing is to sample multiple colonies or resuspend all the yeast on a plate or slant and use everything. Some selection pressure examples: By collecting your yeast from the secondary you will be selecting for yeasties that for whatever reason make it into the secondary; less flocculent, more alcohol tolerate, lower pH tolerate (wort acidifies during fermentation), different wort nutrient profile (the easily fermented sugars get metabolized in the primary), whatever, and everything. Regardless of the temperature of fermentation you will be selecting for yeasties that perform best at that temperature. You will select for different yeasties whether you aerate well or aerate minimally. One very important thing to watch out for is plaid. Despite calling Seattle home I must warn all brewers about wearing plaid when brewing. This will tend to select for yeast strains with a very poor fashion sense. In fact I have long suspected that brewing in plaid was the cause of many stuck fermentations rather than poor aeration as is commonly assumed. One thing that homebrewers who want to recycle their yeasts can do is to make sure that some of the primary yeast sediment makes its way into the secondary. It is very easy to purposefully suck up some of the primary yeast sediment when racking into the secondary. Commercial breweries have this problem and deal with it in different ways. Some breweries don't do anything and let their yeast drift into a "house yeast" that is the result of their particular brewing processes. Historically this is what every brewery did, and this is how many different yeast strains came into being. The extemely flocculent, open fermentation yeasts of the British Yorkshire Squares brewing systems is a result of this type of selection. Today, more commonly, breweries bank their original yeast strains in public (e.g. ATCC) or private low temperature freezer archives (-80C (- 112F), -135C (-211F), or in liquid nitrogen, -196C (-321F)). Pretty cool, huh? They then recycle their yeasts and/or work from refrigerated yeast stocks, whatever, and periodically they start over from their yeast archive and start the whole process over. Plaidless in Seattle, Domenick Venezia Computer Resources ZymoGenetics, Inc. Seattle, WA venezia at zgi.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 12:50:58 -0500 From: Stan Gregory <cn1428 at coastalnet.com> Subject: Hop Storage-Polypropylene Are polypropylene containers suitable for whole hop storage: oxygen permeability, etc? Thanks Stan Stan Gregory cn1428 at coastalnet.com Jacksonville, NC Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 16:07:30 -0800 From: "Clark D. Ritchie" <ritchie at ups.edu> Subject: bicarbonates and water hardness Chem-buffs, In writing my brewing software, I find myself struggling with water chemistry. Having taken chemistry a great many years ago, I need a little refresher on two subjects: bicarbonate production and determining water hardness. [Figures taken from page 79 of Papazian's "The Homebrewer's Companion"] First, biacarbonate production: Let's say that I have a gallon of water with 0 PPM of Ca and 0 PPM of CO3. If I add 1 gram of CaCO3 to 1 gallon of my water, my water now has 106 PPM of Ca and 159 PPM of CO3, right? My question: what about bicarbonates? On page 77, Papazian says that a carbonate (CO3) ion can react with carbon dioxide and a water to form a bicarbonate (2HCO3) ion. Does this always happen? What I want to know is that if my gallon of water has 159 PPM of CO3, does that mean I have 80 PPM of bicarbonates? In other words, given an amount of CaCO3, can I predict the concentration of bicarbonates? Second, determing water hardness: On page 79, Papazian says that in the US, water hardness is expressed as PPM of CaCO3. Is is correct then, that when predicting water hardness, one's adjusted water hardness will simply be the water's original hardness plus the addition of any CaCO3? For example, if I have another gallon of of water with 0 PPM of Ca and 0 PPM of CO3 and a hardness of 0, and I add 1 gram of CaCO3 to my water, does my water now has a hardness of 265 (106 PPM of Ca plus 159 PPM of CO3)? Thanks for the refresher... CDR Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie at ups.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 13:59:48 -0800 From: Wenge <wenge at gingko.dlut.edu.cn> Subject: subscibe subscibe Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 01:19:19 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Lager yeasting I brewed today (Sunday - yesterday, if you want to get technical). I'm aiming for "Dos Equis" for a Cinco de Mayo party we're planning. I started my yeast from a slant 10 days ago (in about 50ml wort), stepped it up to just under a pint after 2 days, and up to about 3 quarts last Monday or Tuesday. The two small starters were kept in the cupboard over the fridge (the warmest consistently warm place in the house.) I added 1tsp yeast nutrient & 1/4tsp "yeast energizer" to the big starter. The gallon jug went into the "lager fridge" at 50F, and was perking along nicely. There was a thinnish layer of yeast on the bottom. I finished brewing at about 5pm. I poured off most of the extract "beer" in the jug, then swirled like mad to get the yeast off the bottom, and poured it into the carboy. The wort was at about 60F (warmer than I wanted, but you take what you get with a CF chiller). I put the carboy into the fridge, set at 50F. By 10pm, it was already "perking". I waited for a bubble to make sure. It wasn't up to 1 bubble per minute, but it was bubbling. Wort temp was down to about 55F. This is one of the fastest starts I've gotten recently, even faster than most of my ale starts. Clearly, a big healthy starter is the way to go! =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 1996 01:27:57 -0400 (AST) From: Craig Stewart <foghorn1 at darwin.nbnet.nb.ca> Subject: Alcohol percentage Ladies and Gentlebrewers, I've got another question or tewnty for you, but I'll keep it short. My calculations for the % alcohol using teh equation (OG - FG) x 105 are consistantly working out in the low range, i.e. 2 - 3.5% since I started. I FINALY got some instructions that made sense for ysing the vinometer that I bought a LONG time ago, and couldn't figure out the Spanish Only instruction that were included with it. I know I'm liguisticly (is that realy a word?) challenged, but English & French I can deal with. But I digress... Anyway, my vinometer gives readings in the 7 - 9% range, ON THE SAME BEER! Which do I believe? I know that my brew has more kick to it than domestic 5% swill, but I was blaming it on the fuller body of my browns and bitters. I've got to try a stout soon, something similar (not a clone of thought, that wouldn't be fair) of a Beamish or something. But I digress again... Any ideas? Another thing, can anyone sugest any brews to try other than my standard brown's and bitters? My beer experiance is limited, living in the backwater of beer in rural New Brunswick. What improted we get here is so damned expensive and so old when it arives that it tastes similar to skunk urine. And no, I HAVEN'T tasted skunk urine, it's a figure of speach. I am a little affraid if I try any of the lighter ales or lagers that I'll end up with something similar in taste (water and alcohol) to the 'domestics'. I'm sure that I offended many people with that last remark, and no, I won't apologize for it. BTW, I couldn't tell an ester from a hop flavor, but I know when I like something, and beer tastes like beer. To me, an apple tastes like an apple, and an orange tastes like an orange, so beer doesn't taste liek roast beef, unless you cook the beef in it and then drink the beer! (yum, got to try that sometime) And finaly (ok, so I lied, it's not short, but it is by my standards!) I'm thinking of trying an all grain or two. I've got a line on a S.S. 30 quart stock pot that I'm thinking of snatching up. What I am wondering is, could I bring the water up to temp, 'pitch' the grains and place the entier pot in a preheated oven (correct temp of course) to act as a lauter tun (did I get that right?) for a single temp mash? Also, The Law According to Papizan (sp?) recomeds using two five gal pails to sparging the grains. From what little I've understood about the 'grain depth' thread on here, it would seem the thicker the better. I have access to oodles of teh large comercial ice cream buckets. I don't know if that would be large enough to handle all the grains used. I thought I'd set up a similar system that he sugested, just using smaller materials. Hell, I've taken up enough space here! Cheers! - -- ************************************************************************** Non-Disclaimer: Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. Any resemblance between the above and my own views is non-deterministic. The question of the existence of views in the absence of anyone to hold them is left as an exercise for the reader. The question of the existence of the reader is left as an exercise for the second god coefficient. (A discussion of non-orthogonal, non-integral polytheism is beyond the scope of this article.) ************************************************************************** flames to /dev/null Craig Stewart foghorn1 at mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:33:23 -0500 From: Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at cfrp.varian.com> Subject: Decoction mash protein rest Mike asks about the length of the protein rest in a decoction mash. I suspect that the answer lies in the disposition of the mash proteins - whether they live in the thick mash or the thin mash. I'll *speculate* about what is going on: After the mash is doughed in, a lot of the proteins are washed into the liquid. If this were not so, the enzymes would be destroyed during the boiling of the thick mash (decoction, or boiler mash), and you wouldn't get starch conversion. However, enough proteins for foam stability remain in the thick mash and these are removed from the protein rest when the decoction is pulled. To support my conjecture I offer the following observations: Final starch conversion after 2 decoctions seems to take longer than with a infusion mash. I'm assuming that some of the enzymes, and consequently other proteins, are in the decoctions. So far I've had some long decoctions (2 boils of 30-45 min each plus the 155F thick-mash rest)- leaving long protein rests in the rest mash - and have not had problems with thin beers or poor head formation or retention. Does anyone have any good numbers on the percentage of protein in the rest and boiler mashes? Bob - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob McCowan voice: (508)-922-6000 x208 ATG/Receiver-Protector fax: (508)-922-8914 CPI BMD Formerly Varian CF&RPP e-mail: bob.mccowan at cfrp.varian.com Beverly, MA 01915 - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:47:03 -0500 From: Guy Mason <guy at matrixNet.com> Subject: Kegs and Filtering Greetings, I finally took the kegging plunge and it is worth every penny. I have a quick survey type question for all the keggers out there. 1. Do you use a filter when kegging your brew??? I'd like to hear the pros and cons of filtering. I'll publish the results if there is enough interest. - -- o o \ / M A T R I X o--o / \ O Guy Mason o \ / guy at matrixNet.com O--O--O / \ MATRIX, 2 Trap Falls Road, Shelton, CT 06484 O O Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 08:08:04 -0600 From: jay at ro.com (Jay Reeves) Subject: Acids follow-up Last week I posted asking why one couldn't use phosphoric acid to acidify the mash. The reason I asked this is because I had tried it on my most recent batch and observed the pH climbing! I thought this shouldn't be working this way, but since I don't know much about chemistry...ok! I found out this weekend that my pH meter was at fault here. It obviously had went haywire during that batch. I've been in contact with several folks via email and telephone and everyone is positive that phosphoric acid, as well as lactic, _will_ lower the pH of the mash, and a few even use phosphoric acid for the mash. If there are any beginners or folks learning to mash out there, don't draw a conclusion from my first post: phosphoric or lactic acid _will_ lower the mash pH. -Jay Reeves Huntsville, Alabama, USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 09:01:27 EST From: Todd Anderson <TRANDER at UNIVSCVM.CSD.SCAROLINA.EDU> Subject: Recipe Request Greetings Fellow makers and lovers of beer: Friend of mine is looking for a Carlburg-like homebrew recipe. Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks in advance, Todd Anderson, University of South Carolina Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 09:46:26 -0500 (EST) From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov> Subject: Rakes/Protein rests Al writes about one of his favorite subjects: < Constantly running rakes, would do something <similar. None of the rakes that I've seen move slowly down. They are <usually a big set of vertical metal flat bars with small "wings" on them. <On some, I belive that the angle of the "wings" is adjustable. On all <of them, they can be shifted into a different position to shovel out spent <grain. The rake height is usually adjustable, the brewer manually sets the height where they want it and then resets it again if a deeper cut is desired. Im sure that very large and expensive tuns have a gradual height control, its just not very practical on 25-50 BBl systems. The rake height adjustment is very handy to have, as is the ability to monitor lauter tun fluid pressures. A key in larger (25 BBl) tuns is to keep the fluid pressures right so that the pump out of wort does not overly compact the bed. As for running the rakes in decoction mashes versus infusion mashes, this may be all well in theory but it is really more a factor of the type of malt being used. If Im brwewing a upward step mash IPA with relatively low modified German malts Id probably want to run the rakes every so often. Michael asks about lone protein rests: >Dough in at 104F, rest 15-20 mins. Raise to 122F for 20 >mins, pull decoction. Hold decoction at 148F for 30 mins, >then boil for 20 mins. Combine mashes and rest at >148-150F for 30-45 mins, raise to 158 for 10 mins, then >170F and lauter. <It appears the "rest" mash is at protein rest temperatures for <at least 70 minutes in this schedule. What effect will this <lengthy protein degradation have on the beer? Would a <better option be to boost the rest mash temperatures up to <the lower end of the saccharification range after the <decoction is pulled? It depends. If one is concerned with too much protein degradation (the bulk of which is fixed by the maltster), then it is easy to shorten this time. What I listed follows most traditional decoction mashes. This may not work too well with more modified malts. You could also raise the rest mash up to 131-135F where the effects would be different, high molecular weight proteins/low molecular weight proteins. Good brewing, Jim Busch Colesville, Md Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:04:34 -0500 From: Btalk at aol.com Subject: Contest Announcement The Parlor City Brewers Coalition, comprised of the Borderline Yeast Infectors and the Broome County Fermenters present The Parlor City Brew Off homebrew competition April 13 in Binghamton, NY, at the Parlor City Brewery. This BJCP sanctioned event is open to the usual styles of home made beer, mead and cider. Entry fee is $5 for the first and second entries, $4 for each additional. Any type bottles will be accepted, as long as there are 20 oz total. Carbonaters will be returned. Cool ribbons and prizes will be awarded in all categories for first, second and third places. Mead and Cider will have own Best of Show judging and prize. Best of Show for beer is a kegging system. Top BOS will also get plaques. This is your last chance to score points for this years NY Brewer and Club awards!! Entry deadline is March 30. Dropoff points have been set up in the Syracuse, Albany and Binghamton, NY areas. For additional info or entry packet, contact Roger Haggett, contest organizer <Hagger at aol.com>. Judges and stewards contact me. Regards, Bob Talkiewicz, BInghamton, NY <btalk at aol.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:38:36 +0600 From: David.L.Imming at att.com Subject: Egyptian Beer Glenn Rauding asks are there any good beer in Eygpt. Well, beer of course is hard to come by in any middle eastern country. But fortunately, Eygpt is not as strict as others. If you are staying in Cario at one of the American Hotels a beer that I remeber having, though not the greatest is a beer called Stella. It is served in a standard wine botle and goed for about $1.50 depending on the exchange rate. Have fun, Dave Imming david.l.immimg at att.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 16:48:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Delano Dugarm <ADUGARM at worldbank.org> Subject: Spirit of Free Beer Announcement The Washington, DC area is hosting the Fourth Annual Nation's Capital "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition on May 18, 1996. The competition is recognized by the Beer Judge Certification Program. We encourage brewers of all skill levels to enter their homebrews in this competition. The Potomac River Brewing Company has agreed to accommodate cold storage needs and judging will take place on-site in closed session to avoid mistreatment of entries. This competition is an excellent opportunity to have beers judged in comparison to beers from a wide geographic region and get quality feedback. Score sheets will be *promptly* returned following judging. Although the primary objective of the homebrew competition is to provide constructive comments on the entries, we are currently in the process of assembling a full range of prizes to be sponsored by regional microbreweries, homebrew supply shops, bars, brewpubs, restaurants, and others. More than $2000 worth of prizes ($50-$100 gift certificates for mail order homebrew supplies, sacks of British malt, a 3l bottle of Corsendonk Pale Ale, etc.) were awarded at last year's competition. (1st, 2nd, and 3rd place in each class, plus 1st, 2nd and 3rd place Best of Show) The Nation's Capital "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition provides an excellent opportunity for judges participating in the Beer Judge Certification Program to earn some experience points. We have volunteers willing to provide lodging for judges staying overnight. Anyone interested in judging can contact the Judging Coordinator, Rick Garvin, at rgarvin at btg.com. Get those fermentation locks bubbling and send us your entries. If you would like to receive an information packet on the Nation's Capital "Spirit of Free Beer" Homebrew Competition (including full rules and entry forms), please send private e-mail to Lynne Ragazzini at lynne at sed.psrw.com or call the Competition Organizer, Becky Pyle, at (703) 273-2108. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 10:48:09 -0800 From: berserk at uclink4.berkeley.edu (Kevin Joseph Lin) Subject: Please stop sending me this I do not know how my address got on your list, so please stop sending me this home brewing stuff. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 1996 19:54:16 +0100 From: bush at shbf.se (Robert Bush) Subject: Instapure (R) waterfilters Hullo fellow brewers, I have an Instapure (R) waterfilter by Teledyne on my tap. I have noticed that it removes the chlorine taste (the difference is only perceivable when I compare filtered/unfiltered water) and it leaves coarser particles behind. When I brew pilsners it's my only treatment of the water. I add salts to the water when I brew all other styles. However, I have now started thinking about whether it removes too much of the salt and minerals and if so, how much extra I need to add. I have all the data from my water company and treat the water on the basis of that data. Is anyone familiar with this filter and its qualities? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% WASSAIL! %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % Robert Bush Computer: Macintosh % % Eskilstuna,SWEDEN E-mail: bush at shbf.se % %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% 4-line signature (sorry, now it's 5) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 07:41 PST From: robtrish at mindlink.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Subject: deep grainbeds John Varady wrote to me describing his lautering set-up. Apart from being an interesting arrangement, it shows that I was being rather myopic and unimaginative when I asked if anyone had a grainbed deeper than a foot! John wrote: >I use a 6.5 gallon bucket with a spigot in the bottom. For a false bottom, >I use an aluminum pie pan with many nail holes in the bottom. This fits >almost perfectly in the bottom of the bucket and the resulting gap is filled >with a section of vinyl hose as a gasket. The pie pan has a hole in the side >fitted with a tube that goes into the spigot hole in the bucket. > >Last weekend I got 71% efficency with 20 lbs of grain in this contraption. >The top of the grain bed was about 2 inches from the top of the bucket. I >was happy with the results. Flow was steady and clear. > >I'd say it was about 22" deep. > >John Varady >Boneyard HomeBrewing. If his bucket is like the ones that I've seen, then it is a bit wider at the top than the bottom. The slight cone to the grain would automatically stop the grain from falling away from the sides - a plus. There are lots of ways to rinse this cat. Rob Lauriston Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 13:36:19 EST From: dipalma at sky.com (Jim Dipalma) Subject: more on first wort hopping Hi All, After my post on first wort hopping, my mailbox has been flooded with questions. I felt it was time to re-visit the issue, and clear up a few points. I'll start with the disclaimer that I've only performed this procedure twice, and one of those beers is still in the fermenter, so I'm hardly an expert. I was sufficiently impressed with the quality of the hop flavor in the first batch to post and encourage other brewers to try the procedure, and share their results. In the absence of hard data, I'm hoping that collectively we can come up with enough empirical data points to formulate practical, rule-of-thumb procedures for homebrew size batches that we can all use. Several people asked about putting the hops into the lauter tun. I think when I wrote 'add the hops at the beginning of the sparge', it confused some folks. The hops are added to the boiling kettle, not the lauter tun. I would not suggest adding them to the lauter tun, out of concern that tannins would be extracted from the hops, and adversely affect the pH in the tun. Some other people asked about using pellets. Pellets should work OK, but I believe that more hops should be used - the oils that contribute hop flavor and aroma are diminished somewhat by the milling process. I used 1/4 ounce of whole leaf on the two occasions that I've done this, I'd suggest starting with 1/3 to 1/2 ounce of pellet hops, and go from there. I also heard from several extract brewers, who wanted to know how to do first wort hopping when their procedure does not include a one hour sparge. If I understand the underlying chemical reactions correctly, first wort hopping works because the volatile oils in the hops bind with constituents in the wort, and survive the boil. So, it seems to me the key is to allow the hops to soak in the wort for some period of time before starting the boil. For an extract/specialty grain brewer, I'd suggest heating your wort to 120F-140F, add the hops, and let them soak for 1/2 hour or so. You might try adding the hops at the same time as the specialty grains, and steep them together. Finally, I heard from our mate from down under, Dave Draper. Dave pointed out that many brewers boil the wort for 15-30 minutes before the first hop addition to allow the hot break to form, and thus any contribution of iso-alpha acids from the small amount of hops used for first wort hopping can be ignored, i.e., don't subtract out IBU contributions from the first wort hopping as I did. Dave also mentioned that he has a first wort hopped pils at the end of primary, and a brown ale that just started fermentation. He brewed these beers without subtracting out the IBU contributions, and has promised to post his results, so we'll have some useful data points in a few weeks time. Cheers, Jim dipalma at sky.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 96 12:54:40 PST From: mikehu at lmc.com Subject: Very Stupid Brewer's Trick On the subject of dumb brewing tricks, check this one out: My brewing partner and I brew 15 gallon batches in a converted Sankey system. We came up with the idea to do primary ferments in a 15.5 Gal. Sankey with the down-tube removed. On this never to be forgotten brew day, we added our cooled wort directly on top of the dregs remaining in this fermenter from the previous batch. The beer was a wheat, brewed using hop pellets. The only thing we were lacking for our new large fermenter was a stopper that would fit in the bung and accept a blow off tube, so we used a rubber stopper with an air-lock. Both of us were pleasantly surprised to see activity within an hour, due to the large amount of yeast sediment already in the fermenter. Within 2 hours, foam was spewing two feet into the air out of the air-lock. We saw this and thought, cool, a really vigorous ferment, and continued on with our post-brewing tasting session. It was about 1 hour later that we heard it - BAM! then BOOM! followed by -WOOOOSSHHHH!!! This wooshing noise continued on for some time. We knew what had happened, we just didn't want to look. So we decided not to worry and just let the thing in the next room do what ever it wanted. About five minutes later we got up the courage to go look. Beer was still spewing 3 feet into the air out of the bung. There was beer on the ceiling, and on all four walls. It looked like someone took at least two cups of yeast sediment and hurled it at the ceiling.We found pieces of the air-lock tightly packed with hop pellet parts. (The initial BAM! was this air-lock being launched out of the rubber stopper) The CO2 then coming out of solution caused the rubber stopper to attempt a moon shot. (BOOM!) Wooshing noise was the beer hitting the ceiling. Beer lost = 8 gallons. Cat that was sleeping next to this keg-bomb was found behind the dryer, all four claws dug into the exhaust hose, completely soaked with beer. (Along with every- thing else in the room.) Beer remaining in keg was actually pretty good. Mike Hughes in Portland, OR Co-owner of the Double Barrel Brew-Pub "Twas a woman who drove me to drink, and I never had the courtesy to thank her!" - W.C. Fields Return to table of contents