HOMEBREW Digest #2525 Wed 08 October 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

  Cottonwood Brewery (301) 827-1391 FAX (301)" <RIDGELY at cber.fda.gov>
  Freezer control and sanitation problems ("Ben Oconnor")
  Re: Holiday beer (DanRabin)
  RE:  New all-grain brewer questions/"dropping" beer (George De Piro)
  Best of Philly competition (JUKNALIS)
  Steeping Grains and Low Carbonation (Nicholas Bonfilio)
  Science / Creativity / Importance of HBD (Samuel Mize)
  Re:  Headless extract beer and torrified wheat (George De Piro)
  re:steeping vs partial mash (Charles Burns)
  Minimum-science Homebrewing Now! (brian_dixon)
  ANNOUNCE: New recipe calculator ("Joseph S. Sellinger")
  Shakedown brews ("Rosenzweig,Steve")
  Re: Steeping your Grains (brian_dixon)
  Re: homebrew book (brian_dixon)
  122f is for punkinheads (SClaus4688)
  Pumpkin oil extract ("Michel J. Brown")
  Alan Moen's article (Jim Cave)
  Wyeast for wheat ale ("Leslie R. Peterson")
  FridgeGuy (korz)
  Re: Dry Hopping (Bob.Sutton)
  Filtering your Wort ("Mike and Mellissa Pensinger")

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, 06 Oct 1997 09:24:54 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bill Ridgely (301) 827-1391 FAX (301)" <RIDGELY at cber.fda.gov> Subject: Cottonwood Brewery In HBD #2523, Rob Moline writes: >You may also be pleased to know that Kinney Baughman's >Cottonwood Brewery won a Bronze for American Browns. Kinney Baughman is no longer associated with the Cottonwood (formerly Tumbleweed) Brewery in any way. In fact, Kinney has undergone many of the indignities that Rob has recently undergone. I visited Kinney several weeks ago on a trip through Boone, and he promised to provide full details to the HBD community as soon as he could find the time (He's consulting for a new brewery in Richmond, VA - a very long commute for him - as well as trying to keep his homebrewing equipment business viable). Suffice it to say that as more and more craft brewing operations are taken over by "suits" concerned only for a quick buck, the brewers who have dedicated their hard work to getting them there are increasingly suffering this sort of disrespect. It's a lesson (and warning) to all those (like Kinney and Rob) who have dreamed of making the leap to the professional ranks. Bill Ridgely Alexandria, VA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 8:50:42 -0600 From: "Ben Oconnor" <BBOconnor at vines.ColoState.EDU> Subject: Freezer control and sanitation problems Thanks to all for your suggestions regarding temperature control in winter for my fermentation freezer. I took Jim Ellington's suggestion and purchased a Honeywell controller which is designed to switch on an outlet when temperature dips below a set point. Max power is 120W and max set point is 60F. I looked at pipe heat tape as a possible heat source, but it has a thermostat that I would have to bypass, so I will probably use a light bulb. I elected not to simply have a large heat source and maintain the set point with the freezer compressor because I want to minimize compressor cycling and energy use. Now for a really ugly problem. Every batch I've made in my new duplex has had bottle rings. The first couple had large deposits and were overcarbonated. I think that the problem is a bacterial infection and have taken several steps to eliminate it. First, I have stopped reculturing a starter from the dregs of a bottle of a previous batch and have made a culture from a fresh yeast packet. Second, I have introduced a bleach-water soak and hot water rinse prior to my iodophor solution soak for both fermenter preparation and bottling. I soak all components which contact the beer in the bleach and then the iodophor. The exception is the bottles, which I only soak in the iodophor solution. I have increased the contact time for the bottles in the iodophor solution. The last batch had no rings in any of the bottles that I saw for almost two weeks. Now, however, I have noticed a couple with extremely faint rings, which I wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't looking for them. Carbonation seems close, with possibly a slight overcarbonation developing. It's been an insanely wet summer and fall here in Fort Collins (you may remember our flood), which may have contributed to a lot more mold and such in the air. I also have two dogs, which I put outside prior to doing anything which exposes the beer. I've had the dogs for far longer than I have had contamination problems. I can't taste any off flavors in these beers with the slight rings. My questions are: 1. What typically causes these bottle rings? Is it bacterial, fungal, or both? What are likely sources? 2. What further steps can I take to get rid of these problems? Thanks again for everyone's help. Ben Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:16:33 -0400 (EDT) From: DanRabin at aol.com Subject: Re: Holiday beer Greetings and Happy GABF Week to all Digest-ables! I'm writing in response to Art M's questions regarding brewing a holiday ale. I've been brewing a very spicy holiday beer for a number of years. In 1994, it took a gold medal in the AHA nationals. If you're interested, the recipe is in the 1994 Zymurgy Special Issue. Art, in answer to your questions, 1) I don't think your recipe has too many spices. As with hops, the goal is to achieve a good spice/malt balance. Rather than boiling the spices, which drives off some of the nice aromatics, I recommend making a spice tea and adding it to your boiled wort before chilling. Bring a few quarts of water to a boil, turn off the heat, add the spices and honey, cover and steep while you boil the wort. By the way, your kitchen will smell great! 2) During my first attempt at making a spice beer, I added the spices to the fermenter. Overnight, my airlock got clogged and blew off, staining my ceiling. Moral: strain out the spices. 3) For orange zest, use a coarse grater. I've found that the aroma from oranges is nice when the beer is young, but it dissipates quickly. It will likely be undetectable in a well-aged beer. 4) I like to age beers in a refrigerator, but there's no reason why you shouldn't do it at room temperature. I hope this helps. In good taste, Dan Rabin Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 09:49:41 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: RE: New all-grain brewer questions/"dropping" beer Hi all, Matt is thinking of taking the plunge into all-grain brewing, for some of the same reasons I did (the desire to make beer from scratch, the desire to use Munich malt, the ability to make light-colored beer...). He has a few questions about the process. He asks what the difference is between "batch" and "fly" sparging. Batch sparging is the method of draining the liquid from the grain bed, adding sparge water, stirring up the bed, draining the liquid, etc. until the procedure has been repeated a couple of times. Fly sparging is the method of adding sparge water to the top of the grain bed and allowing it to percolate through without disturbing the bed. Proponents of batch sparging claim that it saves time, but I find it hard to believe because you must recirculate the wort to achieve clarity each time you stir the grain bed. Recirculation can take a bit of time. In fly sparging there is no need to carefully match the inflow of sparge water with the outflow form the lauter tun. It is good enough to simply add a few inches of water to the top of the grain bed just before the top of the bed goes dry. In this way you only have to add sparge water a few times, rather than standing there pouring slowly or rigging up plumbing. Matt also asks about dechlorination of water. Many towns are now using chloramines, which are not as volatile as chlorine. They are easiest to eliminate using carbon filtration (they are not eliminated by boiling the water or letting it stand overnight). It is really very convenient to use carbon filtration regardless of the form of chlorine your water company uses. In this way, you can always have brewing water on demand, to make up for spillage or miscalculations. Omni filters are quite reasonably priced and very easy to install (~$30 US for the undersink models). You also get the added benefit of using dechlorinated water for all of your drinking and cooking. I'm just a happy customer. I've been wondering if too few beginning brewers bother to dechlorinate their water. It could explain some common brewing problems, such as phenolic notes in beer and sluggish fermentations (chlorine reducing the yeast population early on). Brewing water should be dechlorinated PRIOR to ever using it in the mash, so that phenolic compounds from the grain never have a chance to form medicinal-tasting chlorophenols. Matt mentions that his current brew kettle is too small to do a 5-gallon boil. He could try partial-boil brewing, just like with extract, or splitting the batch into a couple of pots. The option I chose was to go to the local department store and spend $35 or so on a 7-gallon enamel-coated canning pot. I bought it two years ago, and it's still in fine shape (I use it for boiling my decoctions now). It was money well spent (I wish I could say that about all my brewing stuff...). ---------------------------------- I have a question about "dropping" beer into the secondary to increase diacetyl (this also rouses highly flocculent yeast; for those who don't know, "dropping" is the term used to describe racking the beer into the secondary while encouraging aeration). I've been noticing that many of the English beers in my area taste somewhat papery (oxidized), even on draft. Could it be that breweries that aerate the ferment to rouse the yeast are also severely shortening the shelf life of their products? It makes sense. Anybody out there have any ideas about how this effects the shelf-life of homebrew? Must beer fermented in this way be drunk relatively young (lending itself to cask conditioning and serving, perhaps?). Does anybody out there know of specific breweries that aerate the fermented beer? It would be useful to try their products from different sources to determine if severe age and/or mishandling are more responsible for the oxidation flavors than the fermentation technique. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 12:30:07 -0400 (EDT) From: JUKNALIS <juknalis at ARSERRC.Gov> Subject: Best of Philly competition Preliminary Notice: The Best of Philly Homebrew Competition (formerly HOPS-BOPS) Run by the Homebrewers of Philly & Suburbs (HOPS) will be held on November 16, 1997 at Manayunk Brewing in Philadelphia. Entry packets and web info will be released later this month. Stay tuned! Brew 'em NOW! cheers Joe Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 10:22:27 -0700 From: Nicholas Bonfilio <nicholas at Remedy.COM> Subject: Steeping Grains and Low Carbonation First off, thanks for all of the private responses about the quantity of water to use for steeping grains. My next question regards troubleshooting my home brew process because I have encountered problems with low carbonation in the end product. I primarily use malt extracts as a base. I usually ferment the wort in a primary for 5-7 days, then rack to a secondary for 5-7 more days to achieve more clarity. When bottling my 5 gallon batch, I rack the brew to a bottling bucket where I add the standard 3/4 cup corn sugar solution and mix with a spoon. I then bottle. After two weeks or so, I crack open the first bottle and I encounter low carbonation in the final product--usually I pour the brew into a glass and don't see much of a head. The brew tastes good (there is some carbonation) but there seems to be a lack of quality because the carbonation is low. Is carbonation in home brew "typically" low? I could go into details about the process--but I see it as pretty standard. I am very careful with sanitization--I use the diluted iodine solution. Any suggestions as to how I can achieve better results would be appreciated. Nick Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:19:44 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: Science / Creativity / Importance of HBD Greetings to all, and especially to: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > HOMEBREW Digest #2522 Sat 04 October 1997 > From: Aaron A Sepanski <sepan001 at uwp.edu> > Subject: Re: Science in brewing > > Ok, OK. Enough is enough. I stated one little opinion and now I am > getting crucified. Well, Aaron, people don't like being told to shut the hell up. Whatever was in your heart, that's how your words came across. > Does a stamp collecter talk about the scientific > process and chemical composition of the glue on the back? Well, yes, some of them do. Since we're producing the "stamps," analyzing the process and composition can increase our enjoyment. If it doesn't increase yours, ignore those posts. > It's a hobby [blasphemy deleted]. Have fun. Drink people's beer, > share yours. But [blasphemy], let's come back down to earth. You guys that > are interested in that stamp glue really aren't liking it at all. Well, we shouldn't be liking stamp glue, but licking it :-) But seriously... Some of us enjoy discussing these issues, and get passionate about them. That's good. (When we get angry and personal about it, we generally get calmed down by other members.) Some of us just skip those posts. That's good too. If HBD were so crowded it took 3 days to get a posting through, you'd have a point. But the science posts aren't "crowding out" the "artist" posts. We all coexist and benefit from each other. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > HOMEBREW Digest #2521 Fri 03 October 1997 > From: Doug Moyer <moyer-de at salem.ge.com> > Subject: Scientific content/A question of style > The sub heading of Alan Moen's column in the 9/97 Brewing Techniques > states, "Style guidelines define the playing field of creativity. > Brewers, like all artists, must recognize that innovation is meaningless > outside the bounds of tradition." ... > What do the rest of you think? Is it a cardinal sin to brew beers that > don't fit into a particular style? Certainly not, your points are right on target. (I haven't read the column and assume you have characterized it correctly.) Innovation against style guidelines has been a necessity, and has created new styles and new experiences. Consider that IPA was originally (I would guess) considered pretty lousy beer, but the best they could do for shipping. California common beer was the best they could do without ice; if they'd had refrigeration, we wouldn't have Anchor Steam today. I would, however, suggest that he COULD have been correct if he had said that innovation is meaningless WITHOUT A BACKGROUND of tradition. We can get really interesting, worthwhile beers that work within and against the style guidelines, just as we can get excellent poetry in the Shakespearean sonnet form. The advantage is comparison with and contrast against a rich tradition, the risk is that you will produce just another typical IPA or Pale Ale or whatever. Ho hum. Yet a really outstanding example becomes almost an avatar of the entire style. We can get really interesting, worthwhile beers that strike out into new areas, just as we can get excellent free-form poetry. The advantage is the lack of restrictions; the risk is that the beer will be just another undistinguished weird brew. Artists say that "form is liberating" and that's true. Even free-form poetry depends on the existence of the static forms like the sonnet as a tradition against which to rebel, a backdrop against which to be viewed. But the backdrop becomes static and meaningless itself without the counterpoint activity in the foreground. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Finally, to the yutz (I've deleted the reference) who said that HBD represents very few homebrewers so it is unimportant and doesn't influence the homebrewing movement: Is it important to homebrewing? Yes -- some of the most active leaders meet and communicate here, in a way that other media can't support. It provides a national network that feeds discussion and thought at club meetings and personal labs and breweries; the work done here is reported up to the national network, and feeds further work across the country. The HBD and the archives create a lively environment of discussion and ideas, and act as a repository for future brewers and brewing historians. But the bottom line is: HBD is useful TO ME, so I participate and value it. Best, Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada (personal net account) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 13:43:59 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: Re: Headless extract beer and torrified wheat Hi all, Dave asks why his last few extract + specialty grain batches have been headless. One would expect quality, all-malt extract to provide enough medium weight proteins to support a decent head. This problem could be caused by a few things: 1. Using a lot of sugar to make the wort, thereby using less malt extract and diluting the proteins too much. 2. Using a brand of extract that has poor heading qualities. Some extract producers don't read the HBD and may still utilize a protein rest at or below 130F (54C). 3. Contamination of the wort by microbes that are consuming the medium weight proteins and thus robbing your beer of head potential. If this is the case, you may also notice some off aromas and flavors, like phenols (medicine, smoke, or clove) or vegetable notes. Using torrified wheat is not an option for extract brewers because it must be mashed to convert starch to sugar. Starch in your wort will definitely invite infection (Saccharomyces can't use starch, but other microbes can). If bacterial contamination is not the cause, or you would just like to increase the heads of your beers in general as an extract brewer, you could try using cara-wheat malt. This is crystal malt made from wheat, so it may help heading more than crystal malt made from barley. It is made by Weyermann and is available at many homebrew shops. In the New York City area it can be found at Hop, Skip, and a Brew in Queens (no affiliation, just a happy customer). Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 08:44 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: re:steeping vs partial mash Nick asks about the volume of water when steeping grains in hbd #2522. Nick's calling it the partial mash method but describes the process I would call steeping. Nick, when you are merely extracting colors, flavors and existing sugars from the grains, steeping is fine and I believe can be done in as much volume of water as you wish. My brother is an extract brewer and he steeps his specialty grains in 7 gallons as the water at 160F for 30 minutes. If however, you really are doing a partial mash where you are converting a base malt's starch to sugar, then you need to keep the grist/water ratio down to somewhere around 1 to 1.5 quarts of water per pound of grist. Too thin a mash will result in total dilution of the malt enzymes and no conversion will take place. You'll end up with flour in the wort and have a real mess on your hands. Charley Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 11:14:20 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Minimum-science Homebrewing Now! Ok, I still think the anti-science guy needs to quit making assumptions about how unhappy we all must be for looking into the science side of things, but TRYING to extract something good out of his ramblings, here's a post that describes how to perform "Minimum-Science Homebrewing (trademark, copyright 1997". OOOoooops, I better not forget to mention that these hints came out texts that contained "scientific" information... General keys for all brewers: - (yes, chant the usual sanitation chant here) - Base water should be soft as possible so you can treat as necessary to get closer to the appropriate style for the recipe you are brewing. - Aeration, after the wort is chilled to less than 80 F or so and before the introduction of yeast (pitching) is important. Best methods, in approximate order, are a) fine aeration stone with pure oxygen, b) bucket-to-bucket pouring through air a half dozen times (through a strainer helps too) or carboy shaking for 5 minutes (starting before the carboy is full), c) some other techniques may also be as good, such as using a venturi tube with side oxygen or air injection etc. Adequate aeration not only provides for proper yeast health, but also helps encourage the 'good' chemical pathways rather than the bad, so you get better beer too. - Pitching adequate volumes of yeast prevents infection by giving the yeast a chance to overwhelm anything else in the wort. Use a minimum of 1-quart liquid starter or 2 to 4 packets of dry yeast which has been genty rehydrated. - Use whole-flower hops whenever you can. Extract brewers: - Partial mash if you can or want to. Since this isn't quite the "minimum science" route, I won't dive into it here. But be encouraged that it can be made quite simple and only very slightly more complicated than just steeping grains. Start a new thread in HBD if you want more info, because the many experts here will be very free with their advice. - Always base your recipes on fresh pale malt extract, high-turnover name brand extracts purchased from a high-volume homebrew supplier for example. - Use name-brand extract to help prevent the accidental inclusion of non-malt sugars in your brew. - Always use steeped specialty grains (crushed with a mill, or zip-lock bag and rolling pin etc) rather than colored extracts. - Aerate and use adequate yeast volumes as described above. - Don't use hopped extracts, use whole-flower hops in the boil. Use a hop bag if you must, but increase the hop rate by 20% or so if you do (this is a point of controversy ... but everyone agrees that at least some extraction rate is lost if a bag is used ... but boy is it easy to get those hops out!). - Unless a particular style requires it, don't use non-malt sugars of any kind. - Unless you are brewing a very light lager, use a 60 to 90 minute boil, allowing the boil to proceed for 15-20 minutes prior to adding the first hops. Let the hop schedule determine how long the rest of the boil should go. - Add any water treatment chemicals at the beginning of the boil, using approximate amounts as suggested by Papazian and others (assumes you are starting with soft water) in their recipes. If you don't have soft water, find out if it is sulphate or carbonate water. If carbonate, pre-boil, chill, and decant to another container as a simple water preparation. If any other type of water, buy distilled water and dilute your water (approx. 80% distilled and 20% your water is a save start for nearly anyone). Either way, don't worry about matching a particular water style exactly. Grain brewers: - Follow all advice above about aeration, yeast etc. - Use single-temp infusion mashes only (149 to 156 F, for higher fermentability/less body or lower fermentability/more body respectively). - Use soft water (see extract brewing above) - Treat the mash to make the pH land between 5.0 to 5.5. If the target water is non-sulphate, then use calcium chloride to lower pH, otherwise use calcium sulphate. If you need to raise the pH, use calcium carbonate. Don't use more than 2 to 3 teaspoons of anything (for each 5 gallons of wort made by the recipe). - Sparge with your soft (non-carbonate) water to about 1.5 recipe volumes. That's 7.5 gallons for the boil for a 5 gallon batch etc. Don't worry about boil pH, pH of sparge runnings etc. - Use a slow enough sparge to make the sparge last about 45 minutes or longer. - Assume 80% extract efficiency when estimating grain bills, and just use whatever you actually get for the brew. Plus or minus a few points won't hurt. Well, there's probably more that could be said, but that's the basics! Sorry if I accidentally mentioned any kind of numbers or anything ... that may have been too close to science I guess. Maybe using a hydrometer might be too scientific too. Maybe using a measuring cup when making brownies is too, or postulating why you bake at 400 F rather than 450 F might be too scientific too. Afterall, stone-age people didn't have thermometers, and didn't have to figure out all those numbers and such. (Excuse my attitude ... but I figure if someone doesn't want science, then why read any newsgroup or digest at all. Just buy your extract and boil it. What happens happens. Why clog the newsgroup with complaints that won't change a thing?) bd ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:21:07 -0400 (EDT) From: "Joseph S. Sellinger" <jss at jrock.com> Subject: ANNOUNCE: New recipe calculator I have place a new toy on the internet. I have written a new recipe calculator for the web. This tool uses no java, no java script, no vbscript, no nothing except straight html. My friends in my homebrew club (FORD) have been kind enough to test out the application and have found several bugs. I think they are all fixed now so time for a release. Here it is. The URL is <a href="http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc">http://www.jrock.com/recipe_calc</a> Please if you have the time take a look at this toy. I think you will like what you see. To access the recipe calculator go to the page listed above and hit the ADD A RECIPE button. Don't be scared to push the buttons. You can always start over. This is the first announcement about this system and I am only sending it to the HBD. This may keep the traffic down for the first few days so use it soon. PS I am still working on the help and reference pages. Thanks for your time. Joe Sellinger (jss at jrock) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 12:25:11 PDT From: "Rosenzweig,Steve" <Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com> Subject: Shakedown brews I reported in a month or so ago about the 7 gal Rubbermaid Mashtun under construction - here is a follow up, and thanks to all who generously dolloped out individual chunks of wisdom! I shall regurgitate them here for the masses! On the holes vs slits issue, responses were fairly evenly split. I decided to use a single row of 1/16" holes drilled in each arm of the "theta" and face them downward. I bought extra 1/2" cu pipe to cut slots in to test out later on! ______________________________________ Wisdom nuggets (and who contributed them): I put a brass screw at each corner on the bottom of the elbows, to keep the manifold off the very bottom, and somewhat level with the outlet hole. Theory is that this will minimize sucking up the fine particles that may settle out. (Val Lipscomb) I cut a piece of perforated plastic to lay atop the manifold so when stirring I don't get caught in the piping. (Ken Schwartz) An idea I didn't use, but thought was brilliant came from CD Prichard: "Instead of a Cu piped manifold, I *really* like the outer SS sheath removed from the hose intended for connecting plumbing fixtures to water supply piping. Details are on my RIMS and boiler pages at the URL in the sig. line below. 5' of the stuff ($5-10) is plently for a non-rims mash tun. Kinda like an easy masher, but much cheaper and much longer (i.e. more flow area)." I pulled apart a hose just to check this idea out, and it looks like it would work great! I may do a couple of comparison batches with my easy masher and this SS screen just to see how they come out! ________________________________________ First shakedown brew and questions: Everything went pretty well. I used 10# of MM crushed grain, added 13 qts of 175 DF water for a 90 minute single infusion mash at about 154DF. Lost about 2 degress per hour in the cooler, as expected. I added another 6 qts of boiling water to mashout at 170DF for 15 min. I ended up getting about 27ppg (vs about 30 ppg when I used an easymasher and a three step infusion in my 5 gal brewpot). The only problem came in the sparge. I recirc'd about 1 gallon (vs about 3 pints with the EM) but I kept getting a stream of bubbles in the runoff tube, and the slower I went, the worse they got! I ended up sparging about an hour to collect 7.5 gal of 1.036 wort, but am somewhat concerned about HSA. Recall I used a 90 degree 1/2" to 3/8 " compression fitting reducer valve to control the flow. Could this have contributed the bubbles? There was a very very slight leak at the 1/2" compression - could this have been the source (I'll test this theory out with water tonight)? Should I go to a straight reducing valve and let my hose do the bending into the brew pot? Is there some magic ratio of holes to pipe diameter that can only be solved by hardcore science? Maybe another row of holes in each pipe is called for? Maybe I go to slits right away? I did include an extra tee and a standpipe, which was capped, in the design. Should I have underlet the standpipe first with sparge water? Maybe air was trapped in the standpipe and sucked out along with the wort during the sparge? I'm not too worried about this brew, I plan to keg it and dispose of it properly with my in-laws at Thanksgiving, so it sure won't go to waste, but I certainly want to work the kinks out of my new system ASAFP! Got a lot of brewing to do and too little time to do it! TIA for any and all insight, and thanks again for the previous suggestions! Stephen Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 13:08:19 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Steeping your Grains >Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 17:04:52 -0700 >From: Nicholas Bonfilio <nicholas at Remedy.COM> >Subject: Steeping your Grains > >My brewing experiences have just started. I have brewed 3 batches of ale. >For the last 2 batches, I have been following the partial-mash technique. >One thing puzzles me regarding steeping the grain--is it critical to steep >in just a few quarts of liquor? I have been using a couple of gallons. I >figured that I will be combining the steeped liquor to the plain liquor >anyway... Could there be any penalties steeping in even 5 gallons? I >appreciate any suggestions. > >Nick Nick, First we need to know if you are really partial mashing, or if you are just steeping specialty grains, because the answer differs (I provide both answers below). The way to tell is that if you are including any pale (2-row, 6-row, "pale ale" etc.) malts in the grains that you are using, then you _are_ partial mashing. If you only have high-kilned malts (chocolate, roast, etc) or crystal malts (darker than 10L) in the grains that you are using, then you are "steeping", not partial mashing. Ok, if you are steeping, then the greatest concern is the water temperature, and only the volume if it is too low. A couple of gallons at 150-160F for 30-40 minutes is fine for steeping. If you are partial mashing, then the volume of water becomes important because if it is too high, the active enzymes in the pale malt will be too diluted and won't provide much conversion of starches to sugars. Since you seem to have the impression that you should only use "a few quarts", I assume that you probably are doing a regular partial mash. So yes, please do only use a few quarts (about 1.25 to 1.5 quarts per pound of grain is a good start) for the partial mash. Temperature of the mash is also important. Make sure that after adding the grains to the water that the temperature stabilizes at around 149-156F or so. Grain often cools the water too much and you have to add heat. If you do have to add heat, use 30-second intervals on a HIGH burner, stir for a minute or two and check the temp until it's close enough. Now if you REALLY wanted to take the partial mashing to the limit, you could also check the pH of the mash to see if it's between 5.0 and 5.5. You can do that later or whenever you feel like it. It's good practice if you intend to go with all-grain brewing sometime. The reason is that if the pH is outside this range by too much, the active enzymes become increasingly inactive. Shouldn't be a problem for you if your water is anywhere close to soft or moderately soft, and you don't have too much of the high-kilned malts in your mash. Finally, the best check of how your partial mash is working is to check the starting gravity of your wort. If it's close to what the recipe prescribed, then the partial mash is working well enough. Brian ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 97 13:23:41 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: homebrew book > Recently, and by accident, I found out that a major contributor to the >HBD had published a book about homebrewing. Yet there has been no >mention of it in this forum. (that I have seen) I'm sure this is due to >the professionalism of the author and him not wanting to profit from >this forum.[snip] > Is it proper to ask for recommendations or discuss the book? > mike rose Mike, by all means please do mention the book here. Many authors of articles, (books?), software, web sites that have calculators or information in them, etc. all mention their work here and it is well accepted. I propose that the author you mention was being more polite than what is required by the HBD readership. That's fine and respectable, but we'd like to know about the book! It most definitely would not be out of place for you especially, assuming the author had cold feet about it, to mention the book to us. Please provide whatever info you can: ISBN, book stores that carry it (on-line or off), author, publisher, your personal review, etc. Thanks in advance! Brian ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 17:08:17 -0400 (EDT) From: SClaus4688 at aol.com Subject: 122f is for punkinheads Greetings fellow zymurgophiles- In HBD #2521 (10/3/97), Mike Uchima wrote: "Next time I brew something like this, I'm going to double the amount of pumpkin. I'm also going to add some rice hulls to prevent lautering problems. (The previously mentioned batch had the "sparge from hell" -- got stuck 3 times.)" I had a similar "sparge from hell" problem with a pumpkin porter that I brewed 2 years ago. It was bad enough that I swore I would never brew with pumpkin again. But, in a moment of weakness, I agreed to make a 10 gallon batch of it for an upcoming halloween party. [Off subject note to attorney/HBDer Louis K. Bonham: If supplying beer for a party turns out to be illegal and I'm arrested, will you defend me? Will the police confiscate my brewing equipment and paint D.A.R.E. slogans all over the outside of it like they do with drug dealers' sports cars and speed boats? I don't think I could stand that.] Determined not to have another stuck sparge, I tried a protein rest mini-mash with the pumpkin (2# canned), 2# american 6-row (for high enzyme content) and a small handful of black patent (to aid acidification). I held this at 120f for 30 minutes, then heated it to 160f & added it to the main mash, which consisted of 13# of british style 2-row and various specialty grains at 153f. Then I let the whole thing sit long enough for me to have breakfast, drink a couple cups of coffee and read the Sunday comic section to my kids. After that, I did the non-Burley iodine test, heated to 167f, recirculated and began run-off. The sparge was a thing of beauty; better than my typical all 2-row sparge. I got a nice hot break during the boil and the cooled wort appeared to be haze free (it's hard to tell for sure with a dark brown porter). Also, If the copious amount of long lasting foam I got in my hydrometer sample taken while racking to secondary is any indication, this beer should have a good head. So, there you go: if you're looking for a reason to do a 122f protein rest in a world of highly modified malts, try brewing with pumpkin. -Steve Claussen in PDX Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 14:28:10 -0800 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: Pumpkin oil extract A while back in the HBD, some individual mentioned the use of an oil or extract that smells and tastes just like pumpkin. I searched the HBD archives to no avail. If anybody out there remembers the name of this "essence", please email me or post the info to the HBD. TIA, ILBCNU! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 14:31:27 -0700 From: Jim Cave <cave at psc.org> Subject: Alan Moen's article I know Alan Moen and have enjoyed numerous discussions, debates, and = judging sessions with him in the past. I read his article and I agree = with his sentiment on this issue. I also think he's a pretty good = brewer and judge. Consider this. If you (North Americans) go to the UK for the first = time and decide to enjoy a nice hoppy full strength IPA-buyer beware. = IPA is actually another moniker for an ordinary bitter. You'd be = soundly disappointed. Further, I'm offended when someone tries to foist = off a "Belgian-style" beer off on me when there is nothing Belgian about = it. To me it's just a money grab. It is annoying when micro brewers do = this, since it fosters misinformation to the public. From the = homebrewer's end, if a beer of OG 1.070 wins in a competition in the = ordinary bitter or the British mild category, it does a disservice to = the hobby and misinformation as to what constitutes the "style" is = fostered. The style guidelines offer a lot of latitude for brewers to = carry on their art. If you really want to get creative there is always = the Specialty category. But a brown ale that has soured and gone off is = a far cry from a Flanders brown or a Roddenbach and it is simply = dishonest to attempt to fool judges into thinking or judging otherwise. Would you be happy if someone sold you pot roast under the name of = "tenderloin"? Some butchers might justifiably consider their work to be = art too. How about coloured pink salmon as sockeye? After all an = "artist" might have worked on it. In the fish industry, people put a = nice cedar box with Native artwork on it, around any old piece of fish. = You notice the large print "Smoked Lox" but don't realize you're getting = pink salmon until you open the box! Don't get me wrong. I like pink = salmon but not at sockeye prices! So the real rub to me in all of this is: it fosters misinformation = about beer and it's often done by those who might be the least = knowledgeable about the craft. It seems to me that they are the ones = who speak out the most indignantly in "defense of art". =20 Jim Cave Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 15:09:42 -0700 From: "Leslie R. Peterson" <LeslieP at pacifier.com> Subject: Wyeast for wheat ale I've been lurking for several months now, and will be brewing my first batch of beer this weekend. The recipe that I will be following for a wheat ale calls for Wyeast liquid yeast #3333 (German Wheat). The shop from which I bought my ingredients was out of #3333, and suggested Bavarian Wheat Ale yeast (#3056). The package indicates that the German Wheat yeast is "Advanced" and for "unique beer styles." I would appreciate hearing any reasons why I should (or should not) not make the substitution. I believe it highly likely that I have not supplied enough information in this posting, so private email would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Leslie Peterson Vancouver, WA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 18:51:17 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: FridgeGuy >...Any door wiring will be visible in the form of a cord between the >cabinet and door near the hinges. > > Hope this helps! > >Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo >duddles at Imbecile.kzoo.edu Tuttle? Is that you? Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation... Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 11:33:00 -0400 From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com Subject: Re: Dry Hopping GuyG4 at aol.com asked: "What factors enhance dryhopping..." You didn't say what form your hops were in (leaves, plus, pellets). I find that pellets yield the most potent dry hop character since the oils in the leaves are more available due to the pelletizing process. If I skip my late hop addition and use the same amount in the secondary - then my results are quite good. Notice I said secondary - if you're only using a single fermentor, wait 4-5 days before adding the dry hops (until CO2 activity subsides); otherwise you'll scrub out much of the hoppiness. Good Luck! Bob Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:35:18 -0400 From: "Mike and Mellissa Pensinger" <dolphinz at machine1.hrfn.net> Subject: Filtering your Wort With all this talk of how to filter the wort I figured I would put in my 2 cents worth. I used the standard racking cane and that worked alright. Next I tried the circular copper tube (gooseneck) thing and when I put the siphon in the boil it spit wort on the counter (bad siphon, bad!). Well the newest incarnation is stainless steel hose braid soldered closed at one end and fastened to the end of the racking cane at the other. So far it has woked like a charm. The braid is porous enough to allow all the wor you can put through it to go but filters out everything else. I will be adding a multiple end manifold to my new brewpot (one of Robert A's) with these devices on each end. I will let you know how it goes. Mike - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- Mike and Mellissa Pensinger dolphinz at hrfn.net http://www.hrfn.net/~dolphinz Man can not live on bread alone, There must be a beverage - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------- ***WARNING*** Pursuant to US Code of Federal Regulations Title 47 Section 64.1200, any and all unsolicited commercial E-mail sent to this address is subject to a download and archival fee in the amount of US$500. Criminal penalties may also apply. E-mailing denotes acceptance of these terms. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/08/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96