HOMEBREW Digest #2498 Wed 03 September 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Re: Peristaltic Pump for RIMS & stuck RIMS ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Logsheets on BREWERY ("Ian Wilson")
  Mini Fridge ("Ian Wilson")
  Our Special Ale (Mark Tumarkin)
  RIMS Problem - Help! (Darrell)
  for that hard, cold thirst, the beer is VIC! (Andy Walsh)
  Pride of Ringwood anyone (Jon Bovard)
  Belgian Petrus Recipe ("Mike Boenisch")
  Possible uses for Wyeast #1084 (Michael Dransfield)
  RE: Fruit beer sweetness (Christopher Tkach)
  Ferulic acid rest / 122 rest and adjuncts data point (George De Piro)
  Re: Mash Efficiency (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re: Where to get Unibroue (Spencer W Thomas)
  Bride Ale (Spencer W Thomas)
  unsubscribe (Abel Rodarte)
  re:body and mid-low 150F for mashing (Charley Burns)
  Re: peristaltic pumps ("Bret Morrow")
  No-Sparge Gravity Prediction Comment Reply / Gott Mash Tun (KennyEddy)
  Wood Alcohol, Beer Linquistics, still need a reply... (Mark Witherspoon)
  Anchor "Our Special Ale" recipe ("Brian M. Rezac")
  Problems w/ SABCO false bottoms, Easy masher, and 122 (Art Beall)
  (Finally!) Pete's Wicked Ale (?) Recipe (TheTHP)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:46:00 +0700 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net> Subject: Re: Peristaltic Pump for RIMS & stuck RIMS Someone posted a question about using a peristaltic pump in a RIMS. In theory, peristaltic pumps sound like a good idea, but the 1 liter/min. max. flow quoted won't be enough if used with a typical Morris style electric heating element in pipe type heater. To get a decent temp. boost rate between rests, you'll likely have to operate the heater full-tilt. Combined with the low flow, I'd be will to bet the wort will scorch on the heating element. Might also noticably denaturing the enzymes. Alternative heating methods like Rick Calley's heat exchanger in the HLT or maybe steam injection into the mash tun might be workable with the low flow. - ----------------------------------------- Hans Geittmann reported a horribly stuck RIMS mash. I've only had one mash stuck so tight that simply stopping the pump and restarting it at a slow speed didn't work and it was unstuck by stirring the grain bed. Hans' stuck so bad this didn't even work. I agree with Keith- recirculating while mashing-in is likely the basic cause of the problem, but for a bit different reason: say you've got the flow really cranking (since there's only water in the tun) and proceed to add the grain. I don't know about others, but I sometimes stay too focused on the task at hand and might not notice that the recirc flow's greatly decreased as the grain plugs the openings in the false bottom. Sounds doable at least for me <g>. Maybe a good reason for me (like Keith) not to recirculate while mashing-in. One thing that I've found to be invaluable in helping to avoid stuck mashes in a RIMS is a sight gauge attached to the tun just above the false bottom. This allows one to see how much the pump is "sucking" on the grain bed. c.d. pritchard cdp at mail.chattanooga.net http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 11:10:11 -0700 From: "Ian Wilson" <ianw at sosinet.net> Subject: Logsheets on BREWERY Has anyone successfully opened the brewer's log sheets on the Brewery Site? I haven't been able to find any way of getting the things opened. The following is a list of the two sheets in question: A brewer's log worksheet, by Chris Shenton Improved brewer's log worksheet, by Dave Shave If anyone has any suggestions or can send me a text, of Word format version, I'd really appreciate it. Private email encouraged. Ian Wilson ianw at sosinet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:10:31 -0700 From: "Ian Wilson" <ianw at sosinet.net> Subject: Mini Fridge I have a mini fridge available to a good home. It's only big enough for a single carboy. It was my first fridge and it served me for a few batches until I got a full sized fridge. If anyone reading this is in the south end of the San Joaquin Valley would like to arrange to pick it up, it is free for the asking. Please send private email to Ian Wilson ianw at sosinet.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 15:21:57 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com> Subject: Our Special Ale Wade Hutchison writes: >On a related note, does anyone have a recipe, or even a good guess >at the spices used, for the Anchor "Our Special Ale" that they >do each year for Christmas. I'm ready this week or next to >put up the christmas beer for this year, and I'd love to >try something approaching the Anchor beer. Sorry Wade, I don't have a recipe for you. Even quessing the spices is further complicated by first having to know which year of the Special Ale you liked, or want to clone. Anchor changes the recipe every year. In fact, one of my all time favorites (Liberty Ale) started out as an Our Special Ale. It's not too hard to guess the secret ingedient there - lot's and lot's and lot's of Cascades! If you want to know what spices to use - in general - check out the recipes in any good cook book for Christmas cookies. Those spices are the same ones people use in Christmas beers - though not the only ones. Let your taste buds (and your creativity) be your guide. Did you have a chance to taste Rogue's Santa's Private Reserve last year? That actually may not be the correct name, but it's close. At any rate, it was terrific, and had a hint of spruce. Living in tropical S. Fla has effects my choices. This year I am going to use tangerine zest and a little ginger. The only advice I would give you, other than to be creative, is to use the spices sparingly. Too many Christmas beers are overspiced. Good luck and have a hoppy holidays. Actually, I have a related question. I'm going to do a barleywine and am thinking about using some fresh vanilla beans. I'd appreciate some advice from anyone who's used them. How much? Just put in the secondary? Make an extract by soaking in vodka - or use a commercial extract (probably not)? Mark Tumarkin The Brewery in the Jungle Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 13:31:41 -0600 From: Darrell <darrell at montrose.net> Subject: RIMS Problem - Help! Well, I finally got my Counter Flow RIMS together. It worked *perfect* during the "dry" run (no grain). But, when I added grain, things went bad in a hurry. Any suggestions from the RIMS'ers out there would be much appreciated. I am using a 10 gal Rubbermaid Cooler as my mash tun. It has a false bottom made out of 1/8" stainless mesh. There is no vent tube. There is a counter flow heat exchanger between the sparge tank and the mash tun to supply heat. I am using a Grainger 1P677 magnetically coupled pump. My grain bill consisted of 18 lbs. 2-row, 1 lb. Crystal, and 1/4 lb. Chocolate malts for a 10 gallon batch. I struck with 6.5 gallons of 130 F water (122 F protien rest), waited a few minutes, and then began recirc'ing slowly. It immediately stuck. I stirred and tried again... and again... and again. I was not able to recirc over 1/2 gal. per minute, or I would compact the grain bed. It took *hours* to get up to 154 F. I thought that then (after saccharification), maybe I could increase my recirc rate, but no such luck. Anything over about 1/2 gal. per minute caused the grain bed to compact. I tried over and over again until 3:00 am, and finally dumped the whole mess. Am I doing something wrong? Is a 10 gallon batch too much for the diameter of my mash tun (12.5") ? Should I try a "2-tiered" grain bed, by adding another false bottom, and splitting the grain between the two levels? Do I need a vent tube from the bottom through the grain bed? Is RIMS a myth?!! Please help! - -- Darrell Garton Montrose, CO Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:24:51 -0700 From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au> Subject: for that hard, cold thirst, the beer is VIC! Brian Travis asks about Victoria Bitter. First, a little history. Fosters Brewing make 3 standard lagers; Fosters Lager, Victoria Bitter and Crown Lager (4 if you include Melbourne Bitter). For many years, Fosters was the most popular of the 3, VB was barely advertised, and Crown the expensive "premium" brand. To confuse matters, Australian "Bitter" is not particularly bitter, and is not an ale either. It is just a low-hopped lager, and the term "Bitter" was seized by marketers to differentiate their product from all the other similar products (you can only have so many bottle/can colours. Fosters is blue, VB green, Melbourne Bitter red and Crown comes in a fancy gold-labelled bottle). Then something happened. VB for some unknown reason steadily grew in sales (despite an incredibly low advertising budget - the ads on TV now are at least 20 years old and use the voice of an actor dead for some 15 years or so!) until now it commands some 40% of the entire Australian beer market. Who says increasing advertising pays dividends? Since I've surprised a few of the North American HBDers recently by stating US Tettnang = Fuggle (thanks for some great detective work, Jim!), I'll go out on a limb and surprise the Aussies by stating that for all intents and purposes the 3 beers mentioned are the same too. Fosters brew one stream from which all 3 derive, without boiling hops (or minimal, solely to aid break formation), and use high gravity techniques. Hops are added to the bright beer (post filtration) in the form of a product called HPL6, an isomerised hop extract formed originally from hops extracted with liquid CO2. No hop aroma exists in any of them, and IBUs vary marginally from the 22 mark. All have the same alcohol concentration of 4.9% (by volume). The aroma is best described as "sewer" (ethyl mercaptan?), from the combination of high temperature lager fermentation and yeast strain used. Recipe for any of them: -OG = 1.042 (or 1.060 if you want to high gravity brew for authenticity) -FG = 1.006 -soft water -30% sucrose -2 row well-modified lager malt -encourage fermentability via 63-65C rests with pH ~ 5.2 at mash temp. (no protein rest!) -Step infusion mash. -Fermentation - pitch at 14C, allow to rise up to 18C -Choice of yeast critical. Fosters use their own strain. Some yeasts won't ferment well with this much sucrose and will either stick and/or produce truckloads of acetaldehyde. Try Wyeast Danish lager. Addition of a yeast nutrient (nitrogen) is wise with so much sucrose -22 IBU with pride of ringwood hops (any high alpha will do) -no hop flavour or aroma -No diacetyl. -Serve so cold you can't taste how vile it really is, and don't forget to hold your nose... One world...one hop...one yeast...one malt...one beer... Andy (Cantillon-is-just-Coopers-made-in-a-dirty-fermenter) Walsh. PS. Beer trivia - the Fosters brothers were American, and returned to New York after just 1 year. (gee, thanks for the legacy!) PPS. I would really try and discourage homebrewers from attempting to make this kind of beer. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:18:45 +1000 From: Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au> Subject: Pride of Ringwood anyone It seem that many of you non-Australians are keen to get your hands on some Pride of Ringwood hops. Id be be prepared to mail fresh pellets in exchamge for other foreign hops in return. Delivery prices are around $13kg (2.2 pounds) sea mail. And $14 kilo cost price. Any takers Jon in Brisbane. Id could also do 1 pound lots Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 07:00:09 -0400 From: "Mike Boenisch" <mikebone at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us> Subject: Belgian Petrus Recipe Brewers, I've fallen in love with the Belgian Petrus Tripple. I'd like to try to make something close. Does anyone know of a recipe that uses extract? And, does anyone know of a mailorder source for Belgian Candy Sugar? Mike Boenisch Scientist, Fly Fisherman, Reformed Delinquent Baltimore, MD, USA mikebone at mail.bcpl.lib.md.us http://www.bcpl.lib.md.us/~mikebone/bone.html Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 08:18:18 -0400 From: Michael_Dransfield at usccmail.lehman.com (Michael Dransfield) Subject: Possible uses for Wyeast #1084 Hi All, I'm about to brew a stout from a "kit" from Brewcrafters (no affiliation, yada, yada, yada...) called Darth Vader's Nightcap Imperial Stout ("Luke, Go fetch me a stout, come over to the daaaahk side"). The yeast included with this is Wyeast #1084, Irish ale. This is only my third batch, and my first attempt using liquid yeast. I hope to save some of the slurry from the primary (per instructions in the Yeast FAQ) for another batch of something shortly after I get through this one. So, I'm looking for a recipe. Can anyone steer me towards a non-stout, extract-plus-specialty-grains recipe that will work nicely with 1084? I've searched Gambrinus' Mug and Cats Meow, but my search argument (irish AND ale AND yeast) turned up about every ale recipe that called for Irish moss. Somehow, it wouldn't take a search for 1084, either; it must not like numerics. Private e-mail is fine. TIA, Mike Dransfield Wall Twp, NJ michael_dransfield at usccmail.lehman.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:05:52 -0400 From: Christopher Tkach <tkach at ctron.com> Subject: RE: Fruit beer sweetness Hi everyone- I would just like to clarify a few things....When I said add dextrose, I meant malto-dextrin, it was a little late the night that I wrote that post, so forgive me for confusing my sugars... So does anyone have any experience w/ adding Malto-Dextrin to their beer at bottling to boost the flavor/perception of fruit? I just want to make sure that the ATF isn't going to come after me for making bombs in my house! Which my roommate has actually done w/ a bottle of mead (but that's a whole other story! Glass pieces as fine as sand...everywhere... blew the fridge door wide open) Also, I've received a few responses about using Lactose instead. I'm not familier w/ lactose. Can anyone provide me w/ the points/gal/lb, and what would be the recommended amount to add. Thanks everyone for your input...I'll post the results. - Chris Newmarket, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 09:08:11 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: Ferulic acid rest / 122 rest and adjuncts data point Hi all, I just wanted to point out a minor mistake in Scott's post about ferulic acid rests. He correctly mentions that it is good to rest a Weizen mash at 111F (43.8C) to maximize ferulic acid concentrations. Ferulic acid is the precursor to the clove-like 4-vinyl guaiacol. Scott errs in saying that this is also responsible for increasing banana ester (iso-amyl acetate). It is not. Yeast strain and fermentation conditions are the main causes of high iso-amyl acetate levels. Higher temperatures tend to increase iso-amyl acetate levels. In my experience, Wyeast 3068 will produce plenty of banana and clove character without much intervention in the mash tun or the fermenter. ----------------------------------- While I'm here I'll throw in my .02 about resting at 122F (50C). I have made headless wheat beers by resting at 122F. I have also made a few beers with nice foaming ability using 122F rests. I don't know how. I now avoid resting at 122F, even when using substantial amounts of adjuncts. I made a Classic American Pilsner with 18% flaked maize that had fantastic heading properties using a rest at 135F (57.2C). The yeast did fine, so I don't think that they were starved of amino acids, despite the high level of maize. Just my experience... By the way, Jeff Renner is absolutely justified in encouraging brewers to make Classic American Pilsner. A truly wonderful style! Just be careful when hopping it; the high level of corn seems to enhance the hop bitterness (perhaps because there is not as much malt flavor to balance it). My first attempt took a few months to mellow out into a well-balanced brew. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:15:25 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Mash Efficiency >>>>> "LBarrowman" == LBarrowman <LBarrowman at aol.com> writes: LBarrowman> I thought I was getting around 70% until I consulted LBarrowman> an article in March/April BT. According to that source LBarrowman> I am closer to 60%. Also, the author claims LBarrowman> homebrewers should expect no more than 65-68%. Other LBarrowman> homebrewers seem to get anywhere from 50% to an LBarrowman> unbelievable 90+. One thing to watch out for is how the "efficiency" is measured. Pro brewers tend to measure "efficiency" in terms of percentage of the grain mass, so that 79-80% is the theoretical maximum, when ALL the sugars in the malt are converted and extracted. Homebrewers tend to measure it in terms of percentage of the theoretical maximum extraction. To put this in concrete terms, suppose you get 30 "points" in 1 gallon from 1 pound of malt. In "pro" terms, this would be 100*30/45 = 66%. In "homebrew" terms, this would be 100*30/36 = 83%. This difference is one reason I prefer to quote "pt-gal/lb" figures. Besides, it's really easy to translate from pt-gal/lb to expected final gravity. In my experience, a "good" to "very good" extract rate is 30 pt-gal/lb. I got better than that once when I used a RIMS-type system and professionally crushed malt. Now that I'm crushing my own malt with a Corona mill, I more typically get about 25 pt-gal/lb. I know this, and so I adjust my grain bill accordingly. =Spencer Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:36:43 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Where to get Unibroue I answered Eric personally, but this may be of interest to other folks in Michigan. The Unibroue products *are* distributed in Michigan. They are certainly available in the Detroit metro area. If your beer shop doesn't carry them, ask. There may be a distributer in your area carrying them. If not, then you've got a harder row to hoe, because you (or the shop owner) have to convince a distributer to carry the product. Or, you can drive down to Ann Arbor and buy some at the Merchant of Vino or Big Ten (and, I'm sure, many other stores, but these are two that I shop at frequently.) =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 11:49:25 -0400 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Bride Ale The Oxford English Dictionary, to which I always turn first when researching the question of word origins, says, in part: bridal sb. (a.) Forms: 1 bri'd-ealo, -ealu, 2-6 bry'dale, bridale, 3, 7- bridal. Also (3 bridel), 3-4 (s.w;) brudale u:, 3-7 bridall, 4 bruydale (bruytale, bridhale), 4-5 (Kent) bredale, 5 bredeale, 6 brydall, brideall, brydeale, brideale, (7 bride hall). [OE. bryd-ealo (infl. -ealoth), lit. `wedding ale', `wedding banquet or conviviality': see bride sb. 5 (in comb.), and ale. The analytical form, with stress (primary or secondary) on -ale, never died out, was very common c 1600, and is still used as a historical or antiquarian term: see bride-ale. On the other hand the individualized 'bri.dal, with the stress and sense of ale quite suppressed, occurs before 1300, and remains as the living word. ] 1. A wedding feast or festival; a wedding. [Many supporting quotations suppressed in the interest of brevity. Go look it up. :-] 2. a. Since 1600, mostly used attributively, by association with adjectives (of Lat. origin) in -al, as nuptial, natal, mortal, etc. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 08:50:20 -0700 From: Abel Rodarte <rodarte_a at isd.scccd.cc.ca.us> Subject: unsubscribe Please unsubscribe me, thank you very much. Abel Rodarte _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Abel Rodarte _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ (209) 244-5952 work _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ rodarte_a at scccd.cc.ca.us _/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ /_/_/_/ (209) 645-1144 home _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ / _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ At large in the San Joaquin Valley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:07:51 -0700 From: Charley Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us> Subject: re:body and mid-low 150F for mashing Al K -> Welcome home and (belated) congratulations on your winning brew. You quoted me in hbd 2497: <snip> >So, we use carapils for richness but keep the mash temp in the mid-low 150's >to maintain a higher level of body. This is why temperature control is so >critical in mashing. Being off by 2 or 3 degrees F can drastically alter the >final product. Its funny to go back and read stuff that "I" wrote. Actually I was comparing what someone suggested as high 140's to the mid-low 150's. We will get more body at 153F than at 148F, that's for sure, but I can see where my statement above looks completely wrong. But I will continue to assert that minor differences in mash temp can make a big difference in finished product. Its tough to maintain all variables except one (temp) and duplicate batches but for the most part I believe that a beer mashed at 153F will have much lighter body and less head retention than a beer mashed at 155-156F, given the same recipe. Enough difference to make it a "good" beer or an "excellent" beer. Made my first barleywine on Sunday. Never handled 21 lbs of grain before - whew, lots of work for a guy that usually only does 11-12 lbs. Ended up with OG 1.119 in 3 gallons of wort. Charley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 10:30:19 PDT From: "Bret Morrow" <johnson_et_ale at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: peristaltic pumps Hey there, Recently, we posted a note regarding a peristaltic pump with a max pump rate of about 1 L (1 qt) per min. Several responses were concerned with the flow rate since most non-peristaltic pumps used for flow rates of 4-5 gall. per min. I believe that these centrifugal (don't know if this is the exact word) pumps are dependent on the input and output (head height) pressures and the actual flow rate during recirculation is a lot less. If not, WOW 5 GALL/MIN!!! The peristaltic pump uses a positive displacement of the wort in the hose so that it is independent of output pressure, under normal conditions. Both centrifugal and peristaltic pumps are somewhat dependent upon input pressures but the rate of flow of the wort through the grain bed should easily be supply 1 L/min. So, my question is what is the actual flow rate during the mash using the standard RIMS pump? Also, regarding cleaning--the hose which the wort 'sees' can be easily cleaned and inexpensively replaced. The standard pump head is not so easily cleaned or cheaply replaced. Additionally, I believe some gadget guru could build one inexpensively and power it by a variable speed drill. I've got some ideas but nothing practical yet. Bret Morrow/John Elsworth Johnson's Brewing ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:51:01 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: No-Sparge Gravity Prediction Comment Reply / Gott Mash Tun Bryan Cronk had the following comment to my post in HBD24932 about predicting no-sparge gravity. My post basically said to take the predicted total "points" of sugar content and divide by the total mash water volume to get the runoff gravity. Bryan replied: "This would be true if you assume that you will capture all of the sugar that's in the mash in the first runnings. However, this isn't the case at all. If it were, there would be no need to sparge - just take the first runnings, add water, and boil." I think you missed my point, and if that's true then perhaps others did too. I'll try to explain better. Suppose we add 3.3 gallons of mash water to 10 lb of grain, for a single-infusion mash. I predict that I'll obtain about 275 points total available sugar, given an average of 37 potential points per pound per gallon and 75% efficiency. ***This sugar is distributed evenly thoughout the wort, whether it's absorbed in the grain or freely running around the mash.*** There may be some flaw to that assumption, granted, in that the sugar concentration may not be totally homogeneous throughout the liquid. However, my guess is that it is, at least "close enough", and assuming so is probably a very accurate approximation, if not 100% true. For RIMS brewers, and for those who stir the mash once or twice, it's even more likely that the wort will be evenly concentrated. In that case, then, I have 275 points dissolved in 3.3 gallons of water, for a gravity of 83 ppg or 1.083 specific gravity. This is true for both the "free" liquid portion as well as the "trapped" or "absorbed" portion. I also predict that there will be about 0.13 gal/lb of liquid absorbed by the grain; about 1.3 gallons total in this case. This number WAS obtained by (my) empirical measurements, and was confirmed by Bruce DeBolt's experiments at about the same time. It also agrees well with the published figure (Papazian, I think) of 0.10 gal/lb. Thats a remarkably-well-drained "drip-dry" mash in my opinion. So the runoff would be the original 3.3 gallons MINUS the 1.3 trapped gallons, or a total of two gallons. But these two gallons are STILL at 1.083 SG, as is the absorbed fraction. That was my point. Sure, there's *sugar* left behind, but we're dealing with *concentration* (specific gravity), not *total sugar*. You can also look at it as obtaining 2 / 3.3 or 60% of the available sugar, leaving the rest behind. Notice that this trapped wort -- WASTED wort -- represents 40% of the total produced in this case. This is why we sparge, as Bryan points out. But the *gravity* insode the tun is the same as that *outside* the tun (temperature effects notwithstanding). Much better overall extraction can be obtained via "batch-sparging". In this scenario, a single all-at-once two-gallon shot of clear sparge water dumped en masse into the drained mash, stirred and breifly rested (to allow even redistribution of sugars into the clear water), and recirc'd and drained as before would pick up much of the trapped sugars and would produce another two gallons of runoff, this time at about 1.033 SG, for a total sparge of 4 gallons at about 1.060 (1.048 in five gallons). ***** Steve Rosenzweig gives a detailed explanation of his Gott conversion. Good job, Steve! I think you'll find it to be a huge improvement over your previous system. I've a couple of comments to these points you made: "The 1/2 inch copper tube did fit through the hole of the rubber bung, but it is an awfully tight fit! (I've got the blisters on my hands to prove it - the key was in using a long piece of copper to leverage it in and then cut it off to size) I am somewhat concerned about the stress that this will cause on the plastic surrounding the hole, especially at mash temps, so we'll just have to wait and see how this will work. Worse comes to worse, I may have to use a close fitting with some rubber washers and nuts and rig up another way to connect to my spigot and manifold." I found it easier to first shove a short length of 1/2" ID by 5/8" OD vinly tubing into the hole, then insert a barbed brass fitting (1/2" barb by 1/2" NPT thread) into the tubing. Inside, the 3/4" of tubing that sticks out slips nicely inside a 1/2" copper fitting which is in turn slipped onto the manifold pipe. "I put a valve on the outside, 1/2 inch compression fit to 3/8 inch compression, with a 90 degree bend so with a short piece of 3/8 copper tube pointing down, I can just attach my drain hose and adjust the flow with the valve. My theory is that the valve is the same type you might use for a hot water supply, so it should be fine at mash temps, but again, experience will tell." I use a plastic CPVC angle stop valve attached to the threaded fitting, and it works just fine at mash temps (in fact, it works with boiling water too). Flow rate is slower than a ball valve might be but for a mash tun, that's what you want. You won't have any trouble. "I will take one of two approaches here, either drill a series of small (1/16 - 1/32 ?) holes in the pipes of the manifold for the bottom, or I will make a series of cuts with the thinnest hacksaw blade I can find about 1/2 inch apart at an angle to the pipe about 1/8 - 1/4 way through the pipe, again along what will be the bottom." If you go with holes, use 3/32". Seems to be the most popular size and it works well for me. Mine are spaced every quarter-inch. I used a drill press, drilling all the way through the pipe (two holes for the price of one), so this was pretty quick and easy. Without a drill press, hacksaw slots might be easier. "Question: Any pros or cons regarding which approach to take here? Does anyone strongly advocate either way, and why?" I think you'll find that manifolds vs false bottoms is simply a matter of choice and convenience. Other factors such as crush quality will have much more effect on your efficiency. One suggestion if using a manifold: lay a cut-to-size sheet of 8-holes-per-inch nylon needlepoint mesh (about 50 cents at craft stores) over the manifold. It will float in plain water so be sure to add your grain first or add grain and water simultaneously to pin it down. The mesh prevents my paddle/spoon from grabbing the manifold and ripping it from the bung assembly when stirring. Another sheet of mesh can be floated on top of the mash to act as a simple but effective recirc / sparge distributor, breaking up the incoming flow to prevent splashing and disturbing the grain bed. See a drawing of all this at http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy/files/mashtun.gif ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 13:57:02 -0400 From: bveq97 at nestle.he.boeing.com (Mark Witherspoon) Subject: Wood Alcohol, Beer Linquistics, still need a reply... - ------Wood Alcohols.... Methanol.................. I have just read another post about the myth of making Methanol from HB.. Having lived with a Chemist for the past 11 years as my spouse 8^), there is a rather large misconception of methanol production among the public. 1. It takes special bacteria/yeast to do it. 2. It takes fermenting on the husk/cellulose. 3. It stinks like a sewer when you open up the tank when it is done. 4. It is a anerobic process otherwise. 5. The old "Kentucky Moonshine" were old world brewers who "fermented" with what ever was cheap. Corn and corn grits have a lot of cellulose (fiber) in it. As the process was passed on father to son, the filtering step was skipped due to mis-information. 6. Methanol's distillation temp is lower than ethanol's. Not by much, but it does have a particular temp. If someone is having methanol poisoning from a batch of vodka, someone is spiking the batch with very cheap methanol or iso-propynal intentionally. Under normal brewing that we do, you would have to be VERY lax on the whole procedures to produce this stuff. ========================================== Beer linquistics... Again from my wife (whos' minor was in ENGLISH and History).. Bridal or Brides' Ale was a strong ale produced for the wedding and along with the ale a strong spiced sweet Mead. The mead was to be drunk by the newly wed for a month to ensure fertility (i.e. honeymoon). ============================================ I am still waiting on a reply about my question about a brew in my carboy: Full to the top rim, but has a mold on it. The yeast has settled to the bottom. When I pulled the carboy cap off, the aroma was still wonderful. Is this worth saving?? ========================= Mark Witherspoon Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 12:25:50 -0600 From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org> Subject: Anchor "Our Special Ale" recipe > On a related note, does anyone have a recipe, or even a good guess > at the spices used, for the Anchor "Our Special Ale" that they > do each year for Christmas. I'm ready this week or next to > put up the christmas beer for this year, and I'd love to > try something approaching the Anchor beer. > > whutchis at bucknell.edu > Wade Hutchison, College Engineer > Bucknell University, College of Engineering > http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~whutchis Wade, I believe that Anchor changes their recipe for their "Our Special Ale" every year. However, my wife treated me to a six-pack of their last batch and I was amazed hou much it tasted like one of my spice beers. Mine has a little more spice flavor coming through, but it's pretty close! (Note: The spices in this recipe are based on an Indian spiced tea called Chai (pronounced "chi"). This recipe scored a 42 and went on to the second round of Boston Beer's 1997 LongShot Contest held last year. It is included in the recently released, A Year of Beer - compiled by Amahl Turczyn - Brewers Publications.) India Chai Beer Ingredients for 5 Gallons Base Malt: 8 pounds Munton and Fison light malt extract Specialty Malt: 1 pound English 55 L crystal malt 8 ounces Belgian Munich malt 4 ounces Belgian Carapils malt 4 ounces Briess Chocolate malt 4 ounces Briess roasted barley Hops: 2 ounces Cascade, 4.9% alpha acid (70 minutes) 3/4 ounce Saaz, 3.0% alpha acid (15 minutes) 1/2 ounce Saaz, 3.0% alpha acid (2 minutes, finish) Spices: 120 Cardamom pods, cracked 11 teaspoons Cinnamon chips 11 teaspoons whole Coriander 5 1/2 teaspoons whole Cloves 5 1/2 teaspoons whole black Peppercorns 11 inches fresh, peeled, sliced Ginger root Finings/Water Salts: 1 teaspoon Irish moss (15 minutes) 1 teaspoon Burton salts (15 minutes) Yeast: Wyeast No. 1007 German Ale Yeast Brewer's Specifics: Do a partial mash with all the specialty grains - 153 degrees F. for 45 minutes. Make a separate tea with all the spices and 1 1/2 quarts of water. Boil spice tea for 20 minutes, then let sit covered for 20 minutes. Add to wort at 20 minutes to end of boil. Optional: Send me a bottle or two at address below. Good Luck & Good Beer! - Brian Brian Rezac Administrator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 brian at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:57:39 +0100 From: art.beall at pmcsystems.com (Art Beall) Subject: Problems w/ SABCO false bottoms, Easy masher, and 122 Hello HBD: Paul Shick wrote regarding several problems with the use of the SABCO = false bottom. I have one of these and have been using it with success = for almost one year and about 20 some batches of beer. About 6 batches = ago I increased my volume from 10 to 15 gallons ( I use two 1/2 barrel = kegs for boiling). It was at that time my false bottom bent enough to = start sending grain through my pump. The screen is now only used in a dedicated lauter tun, and the mash is = performed in another keg with no screen. Circulation is only done to = clear the runoff now. A one piece screen would probably do the job = better. I have since improved my SABCO screen with some SS bolts to give = it extra support towards the middle. Make sure the hinges are facing = down on the SABCO screen. By the way, the EasyMasher is not made to handle a lot of recirculation. = The SS mesh is too fine and will eventually clog with gums and grain. It = is fine for the small amount for recirc b4 sparging. I used to use two = of them in a tee formation in a 1/2 barrel keg. Even with two of them, = they would stick half the time during a long recirculation period. I have made several beers using a 122 deg F rest. Untill this latest = discussion I did not realize that this would make the beer thin taking = away from it's head. Going back to my records and comments on my beers, = they all had poor head stability, but were clearer than others w/o the = 122 rest.=20 I am from the Akron Ohio area also and would like to re-iterate Paul's = recommendation of the Grape and Grainary. Art Beall art.beall at pmcsystems.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 14:56:14 -0400 (EDT) From: TheTHP at aol.com Subject: (Finally!) Pete's Wicked Ale (?) Recipe To: the Pete's Wicked Aleger Fan Club Why Aleger? Because PWA is really PWL, and has been for some time. Some time during its Brewing at the Minnesota Brewing Co. The yeast strain was switched from ale to lager. Currently Stroh's is using its house lager strain to brew our tasty Wicked ale. But which one is that? Since there are two! Yes TWO different beers under the same name. If in doubt shop around, what to look for is the different caps. IMO the REAL PWA is the 1992 93? GABF Gold Medal Winner caped beer. If the Cap has the standard Pete's Brewing Co. Cap then it is the 2ndary beer. If you've ever read through a series of different reviews of this beer you might have suspected something like this was going on. One would say a rich roasted aroma and a nice Chocolaty brew, while the other would say a delightfully dry hopped distinctly bitter but balanced with the chocolaty caramel flavor. Two distinctly different beers. Why? I don't know. My guess is that the bland one is for the "unrefined/undeveloped" beer market. Where as the real PWA is for the "Beer Literate" community. This trend is very visible in the brewpub industry. Where the first brewpub in town starts out making seemingly "Bland" beers to wean the public off Budmilloors and then keeps modifying the recipe over time as the community learns more about beer (or the brewer gets bored ;<). Either way my goal was and is to brew the "Smack you in the face with hops till your lips pucker" PWA that I had on draft at Gordy Howe's while watching the Stanley Cup. The bottled version I had this weekend wasnt quite as dry and lacked the blatent dry hop aroma. It was probubly just old. At this point I need to thank the following people for sending me recipes or posting their versions where I could find them. Jim Ellingson, Rick Gontarek, Tom Leith, George Hummel, Bret Bartlett, and Richard Stern. Thanks also to the guys at Stroh's who confirmed they were using their standard lager yeast for PWA. Ray Daniels, in his new book Designing Great Beers also adds the following discussion points. Pg 221 ~PWA uses Pale Crystal and Chocolate to 1.052 and 40 SRM. It is hopped to 29 IBU with Brewers Gold and Cascade. On Pg 219 there is discussion of variences from 1.040-1.055 and IBU's of 22-60. On Pg. 228 he suggests .75-1 oz for flavor, .5 oz for aroma and .5-.75 for dry hopping. Here is my version, ill be brewing this in the near future, though this weekend I might be making wheat instead. Poison Frog's Wicked Aleger Brewer: Phil Wilcox Style: American Brown Ale? Date Gravity Brewing: 09/06/97 1.052 Ingredients: 2 Row 8.0 pounds 1.041 S.G. 3.2 SRM 60 min mash Chocolate 6.0 ounces 1.000 S.G. 30.0 SRM 60 min mash Crystal 90 1.0 pounds 1.005 S.G. 18.0 SRM 60 min mash Mash water amount: 11.7 Strike temperature: 70 Fahrenheit Mashing schedule minutes Fahrenheit 15 70 25 155 100 155 110 168 120 168 Sparge water amount: 14.1 quarts Sparge water temperature: 175 Fahrenheit Extraction efficiency: 72 % Sparge liquor collected: 6.5 gallons Boil size: 6.5 Gallons (47IBU) Brewer's Gold .75 ounces 60 min 8 % AA 27.6 ibu pellet Brewer's Gold .75 ounces 30 min 8 % AA 15.3 ibu pellet Brewer's Gold 0.5 ounces 10 min 8 % AA 4.0 ibu pellet Brewer's Gold 0.5 ounces Dry Hopped 8 % AA 0.0 ibu pellet Irish Moss 0.3 package $0.25 Fermentation Wyeast #2035 American Lager 1.0 package , starter: 375 ml start stepped up to 750 ml 16 hrs before pitch $4.00 Fermentation schedule days Fahrenheit 14 56 14 48 21 48 under pressure in the Corney Now the never ending questions: 1. Does anybody know what lager yeast Stroh's uses. If you assume that its an old family strain, you could also assume that since its been around so long it must be out on the market somewhere... 2. What if I blended yeast. Chico to start, maybe 48 hrs at 62F then Stroh's to finish at 48F? Do you pitch both to start or do you hold the Lager strain till later? Would you bother Racking at 2 days? 3. Would California common be a choice I should consider? 4. I never got good at creating extract versions of grain recipes. I got several requests for an extract version Anyone care to lend a hand? TIA, Phil Wilcox Poison Frog Home Brewery Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/03/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96