HOMEBREW Digest #3003 Tue 13 April 1999

[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

  The Jethro Gump Report...Siebel ("Rob Moline")
  Heineken-Murphy-more (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
  Just a corny keg (Joy Hansen)
  TSP (Joy Hansen)
  Unnecessary rudeness. ("Braam Greyling")
  Experience with no-weld spigot set-up (Dan Cole)
  Hops ("J. Matthew Saunders")
  Extra High Extraction Rate ("P.J. Reilly")
  re:Sanitation with One-Step/HBD #3002 (Cukrow)
  1-Step ? and Hours/BTU ? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Oxymoronit? (Eric.Fouch)
  Palmetto State Brewers Competition Results (chatgros)
  that beehive state buzz (Vachom)
  Increasing a beer's shelf life ("George De Piro")
  Was Stuckest...now flowest well ("William W. Macher")
  FREE brewing fridge, Vancouver, WA (Erik Ness)
  Long Mash experiment (Steven Gibbs)
  For publication(Hallertauer hops) (colorart)
  Call for Judges, 1st Round In Philadelphia ("Houseman, David L")
  Thanks for the info (Cory Chadwell Page Navigation)
  Kolsch recipe (Greg Remake)
  Sulfate, (Dave Burley)
  Diacetyls,. Clinit***, (Dave Burley)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier! Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99. Details on the HBD Competition Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier! Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 23:58:11 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: The Jethro Gump Report...Siebel The Jethro Gump Report Siebel Participates on the HBD... Following my time as a student at Siebel, where, with George DePiro, many questions from the HBD were answered, either directly or indirectly, by the Siebel staff to participants of the HBD....the thought had on many occasions re-occurred to me..... "Wouldn't it be great to have Siebel here on the HBD?" Well, my interest has been rewarded.....for Mr. Siebel has recently, and graciously agreed to have his Institute's staff participate in answering questions from the participants of the Digest on your brewing concerns..... For a 2 week period, from May 17th through the 28th, 1999, Siebel instructors will be reviewing your questions to the HBD .....and answering them...... Now, this will be an experimental excursion....for many reasons....the staff there are very busy, they are quite often out of the country, they have never done this before, etc... And, of course, as with any edition of the Digest, there is certainly no guarantee that every question will be answered....but I believe that we will undoubtedly benefit from whatever knowledge they care to share....and Mr. Siebel has scheduled this for a time when he thinks it might be most feasible.... So, mark your calendars........... Now, for a blatant commercial plug....... As a recipient of a Special Scholarship to Siebel, and as a member of the 63rd Short Course in 1998, I am more than aware of the depth of knowledge assembled at the oldest and most prestigious brewing school in the United States. The alumni of Siebel hail from all continents, save perhaps Antarctica (though I could be wrong!), and range from homebrewers, through brewpub and micro brewers, right up to regional and mega brewers. But one common feature, noted in all Siebel folk that I have ever met, is a universal willingness to share information with those with the passion for brewing that those of you on the Digest possess. While the staff of Siebel do participate in other forums, in much the same way that they will on the HBD, let it be understood that such is on behalf of, and in aid of organizations that they are members of. For Mr. Siebel to lend assistance to a structure such as the HBD, is purely evidence of his, and perhaps most importantly, his staff's willingness to give to the brewing community, no matter where it lives. For this, we should be grateful. I know I am. Personally, I have hopes that this will go so successfully, that it might be repeated in future years. (Maybe an annual Siebel fortnight/or week?) I also have hopes that it might encourage some of you to become students at Siebel. If you can learn 1% of what they have to offer, you will indeed have learned much. I know I have a long way to go to get to just that much, but hopefully, you will be a better student than I! BTW, the Siebel Web Site is www.siebelinstitute.com ... And if this news meets with your approval, I would invite you to drop a quick note to Mr. Siebel at info at siebelinstitute.com to thank him. Please. Cheers! Jethro Gump Rob Moline brewer at isunet.net Lallemand Web Site jethro at isunet.net "The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About Beer!" Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:06:40 +0200 From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com> Subject: Heineken-Murphy-more More information about Heineken (Murphy thread); info from annual report December 31,1998. Heineken (participation in %):Heineken Brewery in Zoeterwoude (101:-), Heineken Brewery in 's Hertogenbosch (100), Amstel Brewery in Amsterdam (just a name, the brewery is transformed into a museum), De Ridder in Maastricht (100), Brand in Wijlre (100) The Netherlands, Fischer France (99), El Aguilla Spain (71.3), Athenian Brewery Greece (98.8), Murphy Brewery Ireland (100), Amstel Sorgyar Hungary (100), Pivovar Corgon Slowakia (51), Zlaty Bazant Slowakia (66), Calanda Haldengut Switzerland (91.7), Maltery Albert Belgium (100), Heineken USA White Plains (100), Bralima Kongo (87.5), Brasseries et Limonaderies du Rwanda (70), Brasseries et Limonaderies du Burundi (59.3), Brasseries de Bourbon Reunion (85.4), Ghana Breweries Ghana (73.5), P.T. Multi Bintang Indonesia (80.5), Zywiec Poland (50). Proportional consolidation in the following participations: Zagorka Brewery Bulgaria (43.7), Ariana Brewery Bulgaria (34.2), Brasseries du Congo (50), Brasseries du Logone Tsjaad (50), Asia Pacific Breweries Singapore (42.5), South Pacific Brewery Papoea Nieuw-Guinea (31.9), Vietnam Brewery (25.5), Hatay Brewery Vietnam (25.5), Cambodia Brewery (34), Hainan Asia Pacific Brewery China (34), DB Group New Zealand (24.8), Guinness Anchor Berhad Malaysia (10.8), Shanghai Mila Brew China (32.4), Tee Yih Jia (Fujian) Brewery China (17), Nigerian Breweries Nigeria (30), Quilmes International Bermuda (15), Cervejarias Kaiser Brazil (14.2). See also: http://www.heinekencorp.nl http://www.murphys.com It's time for a (homebrewed) beer now, greetings from Holland, Hans Aikema Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:41:56 +0000 From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen at scronline.com> Subject: Just a corny keg > > Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 19:02:53 -0500 > From: Rick Gontarek <RGontare at bellatlantic.net> > Subject: Corny kegs & Beermeister/ WhiteLabs Burton Ale yeast > Hi Rick, I thought I'd relate to you that I not only purchased one beer cooler; but, two! Now that you are in kegging, please try adding a hop tea to your brew in the keg. I use the conditioning sugar to sort of sanitize the hops in an aquarium filter (nylon) bag. I weight the bag with the closure ring from a Sanke keg. Let me tell you that I've never been able to achieve the wonderful fop essence that this procedure of dry hopping gives. The brew just seems to get better as it draws down. The keg conditioning also does something special to the brew that force carbonation can't. Don't want to know the chemistry, etc. I just know that it makes the brew eons better. How you get it out of the keg is just a matter of temperature/pressure and how you draw a brew. Change the CO2 pressure as needs be. For additional faucets, I just drilled more holes in the round upright at varying elevations. Doesn't look all that great; however, I can draw three different brews. One day I might learn how to get the same taste in a bottle. Then, why? Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 21:53:18 +0000 From: Joy Hansen <happyhansen at scronline.com> Subject: TSP Hi All, When I started using PBW, it seemed like the best cleaner that I'd ever used. Then, I heard that it was nothing but carbonate. Tongue in cheek, I continued to use it and I'm still impressed with it. I was washing some walls with TSP the other day and I expected the label to declare the usual phosphates. WRONG. The TSP label declares sodium carbonate and sodium sesquicarbonate and a surficant. Could it be an identical product - TSP with any other name is still TSP? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:30:51 +200 From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.com> Subject: Unnecessary rudeness. Dr. Pivo It seems like you have forgotten that this is a DISCUSSION forum. Where we SHARE ideas. Nobody tries to force ideas down anybodys throat. Although your post about diacetyl is informative , there was no need to try to disgrace Dave Burley in that manner. It was distasteful and unnecessary. You could have carried over the same opinion, without attacking Dave personally. Although you may not agree, both you and Dave and a lot of other people, regularly sends in very helpful and informative posts. Please dont chase anybody away by unnecessary personal attacks. Regards Braam Greyling Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 06:00:19 -0400 From: Dan Cole <dcole at roanoke.infi.net> Subject: Experience with no-weld spigot set-up Anyone out there have any experience with the no-weld spigot setups available? I just recently purchased a new brew kettle and rather than spending an additional $50 for one with the spigot, I decided on one of the weld-free setups. Just drill a hole and use the included compression fitting and the spigot. Any advice? Dan Cole www.hbd.org/starcity/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 07:59:45 -0400 From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm at vt.edu> Subject: Hops Mike Rose asks: >I'm trying to find a homebrew mail order or web business that has >Hallertau Hallertau Hops. About half pound amount. Any suggestions >would be appreciated. Check out www.vintagecellar.com and go to the brewing section of the site. Cheers! Matthew in VA. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:25:21 -0400 From: "P.J. Reilly" <preilly at exis.net> Subject: Extra High Extraction Rate Help! I hope that one of you brilliant HBD'ers can help me with my problem. After brewing a number of very successful extract only batches, I decided to go to all grain. I brewed up two great all grain batches and got to feeling my oats (no pun intended) and ordered a Easymasher from Jack Schmedling Productions. Well, the Easymasher was everything Jack said it was. I now have a five gallon batch of Porter just about to finish fermentation, that was intended to have a OG of 1.054 but finished out at 1.073. I'm ready to bottle but don't know what to do exactly to delute this beer without ruining it. I've read that a high gravity beer should not be diluted by more than 30% so I thought I would comply with that by adding my primimg sugar (or molasess in this case) with that much water and then bottling it. What do you think? Am I headed in the right direction? Thanks for your time, P.J. Reilly Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 09:18:35 EDT From: Cukrow at aol.com Subject: re:Sanitation with One-Step/HBD #3002 I am a relatively new homebrewer (2 years, 10 batches) and have used one-step each time and have not yet had a problem with sanitation, as far as I know (I have a batch of cyser that is still bottle conditioning, as well as three other batches of beer/cider in various stages). The instructions on One-Step do say that no rinse is necessary, but at the advice of the helpful folks at my brewshop, I rinse anyway with cold water. Unfortunately I cannot answer the question of whether or not there will be a problem with your current batch, but I can say that I have had success with one-step. Best of luck - I hope it turns out well! - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ------------------- I realized, after checking the table of contents, that I did not receive about half of the articles (the second half) in the latest HBD - has anyone else had this problem? I receive these using the Netscape e-mail client (not AOL, as my e-mail address would suggest). Thanks, Michael Cukrow Lake Hiawatha, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:35:32 -0400 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: 1-Step ? and Hours/BTU ? Tod Morris had a coupla questions about One-Step: 1)No, do not use less than is recommended. 2)Yes, it possibly wasn't dissolved enough. 3)The starter is no more screwed up than if you used bleach and rinsed. 4)I had the same results if I mixed _large_ quantities of One-Step. I switched from Iodophor to One-step, some people claim they can taste and smell Iodophor in the beer, though I couldn't taste it even when I drank the solution straight. (bet that raised eyebrows) The white film you noticed is the remainder of the capsules the One-Step is encased within. It is "micro-encapsulated" to prevent atmospheric moisture from prematurely activating it a causing a loss of efficacy while it sits on your shelf. These "capsules" can persist after dissolving and leave a bit of haze. It is no big deal to ignore them and proceed with your brewing like they weren't there. Jesse Stricker asked about "how many brews from a tank of propane?" There are approximately 22,000 BTU in a pound of propane. With 20 pounds in a "normal" tank that equals 440,000 BTU per tank. Your burner _says_ it is 170,000 BTU/hour, divide it out it is about 2.5 hours. That is at full blast, something you will not normally do. If in fact you could keep a 80K BTU flame under your kettle I would be surprised. So now that we are running at partial throttle we have to _guess_what the usage would be. I would_guess_ you will get at least 5 brews per tank. Seems like I would get 5 or 6 from my 170K cooker, but I shared the tank with the barbecue. If you worry about running out of propane mid-boil you can weigh your tank when it is known to be full. Then before you start a brew session take your bathroom scale outside and weigh the tank again, subtracting will tell you how much of the original 20 pounds will be left. Please don't bring the tank to the bathroom to weigh it, take the scale outside to a nice level place and weigh it outdoors. Besides being easier to carry than a full 20 pounder, it is a lot less dangerous. Yeah yeah I know, how likely is it to explode. That really is not the question, how likely is it you would survive if it did? One pound of propane has the explosive power of about 80 lbs. of TNT (or was that 800 lbs of TNT?) (sometimes I lose track of the decimal point) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 10:51:00 -0400 From: Eric.Fouch at steelcase.com Subject: Oxymoronit? > Jeremy B. Pugh > > Perhaps someone can explain how large-scale commercial breweries seperate > Utah beer from teh rest of the country when producing beer in, as the > commercial says, vats the size of Rhode Island. I can't imagine they create > a seperate "Utah batch." > Maybe they don't use separate vats. Maybe Budmillercoors takes their regularbeer and cuts it with water to lower the alc level. That statement was oxymoronit, wasn't it? Mike Rose Riverside, CA mike at hopheads.com Actually Mike, it sounds like it was a "watermoronit" statement. Eric Fouch Bent Dick YoctoBrewery Kentwood MI Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 08:01:34 PDT From: chatgros at excite.com Subject: Palmetto State Brewers Competition Results Results are posted at: http://www.axs2k.net/fatcat/psbr.htm _______________________________________________________ Get your free, private email at http://mail.excite.com/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:39:40 -0500 From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us> Subject: that beehive state buzz Another experiential data point to add to Jeremy's posts about the 3.2 beer in Utah: Jeremy mentions the cumulative effect of alcohol and the point at which one feels "buzzed." This effect and the effects of altitude served often, in my experience in the restaurant industry (i.e. ski bum job) in Park City, to give visitors a crash course in the relative values of alcohol content and metabolism. Already exhausted after a day of skiing and maddened by having to pay a "club membership" fee to get in the door of the bar or humiliated by having to beg a local to "sponsor" them, ski vacationers with misguided notions of the alcohol content of 3.2 beer and over-inflated notions of their stamina often found themselves knee-walkin' drunk quickly and unable to hit the slopes the next day. Mike New Orleans, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 12:20:33 PDT From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net> Subject: Increasing a beer's shelf life Hi all, An anonymous poster ("Dr. Pivo") has been ranting a bit about the desirability of diacetyl (no "s") in beer. In the process they made the statement: "The open market economy has ensured that they can no longer be a local producer. They used to have a 10 day shelf life on their bottles. Now it is 18 months at some places. How is that achieved? They must reduce flavours that are unstable. It turns out that diacetyls (sic), and a lot of the other big flavours are not terribly stable, and will not survive long transports, storages, and temperature changes." Whether you like diacetyl in your beer or not is up to the individual, but the above statement is deserving of comment: Reducing the flavor of a beer does not increase its shelf life. It will, in fact, do just the opposite. A beer that is very light in flavor (like Coors or Miller, etc.) offers no hiding place for stale flavors. They will stand tall, proudly proclaiming their presence for all to see (and smell and taste). I taught a sensory evaluation class during which I presented a beer (Coors light) spiked with both diacetyl and trans-2-nonenal (I don't recall the exact levels; they were both well above my threshold and that of most people). Not a single person in the room, *including me,* could taste the trans-2-nonenal, even after they were told of its presence. This illustrates quite nicely how a beer with other, bold, flavor characteristics can hide a bit of staling. For those of you who are wondering, trans-2-nonenal is a papery-tasting aldehyde that is very common in stale beer. Why was India pale ale made so strong and hoppy? "Because the hops and alcohol preserve the beer," some might venture. 60 IBUs and 7% alcohol may be mildly irritating to some microbes, but will do nothing to prevent the oxidation of the beer. More likely, the big hops and alcohol served to bury the stale flavors that most certainly developed in the beer during the long, rocky, hot ocean voyage from England to India. Regarding the claim that diacetyl is not terribly stable: Diacetyl is quite stable in filtered beer, and can actually increase with time. There are many commercial beers that have an excess of alpha acetolactate (AAL), the precursor of diacetyl, and will become buttery (or whatever descriptor you want to use) over time. Sam Adams beers do this, as will Pilsner Urquel. Keeping the beer warm will accelerate the formation of diacetyl. This is the basis of the forced diacetyl test that I have written about in past issues of the HBD and Louis Bonham wrote about in Brewing Techniques magazine. The way most breweries increase the shelf life of their beer is simply to change the label. That is why so many imported beers taste so stale. Few breweries bother to do actual stability testing of their beers, which is a shame. Things that they could do, if they were willing to go to the trouble, would be: 1. Reduce oxygen uptake at all points in the brewing process (except, of course, at pitching time and during yeast propagation). This is especially critical on the brewery's cold side (packaging, etc,). 2. Ensure the level of AAL in the beer is low so that the diacetyl concentration does not increase with time. Even if the brewer desires diacetyl in the final beer, they will likely not want it to become overwhelming. 3. Ship and store the beer refrigerated (yeah, don't hold your breath). 4. Ensure that the beer is microbiologically stable. There must be some other stuff I am forgetting, but that's enough for now. Have fun! George de Piro (Nyack, NY) Malted Barley Appreciation Society "Brooklyn's Best Homebrew Club" http://hbd.org/mbas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:51:13 From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Was Stuckest...now flowest well Hi everyone! Moving from the world of undersea adventure...certainly a fun place from time to time... Thanks again to all who offered encouragement and advice after my nightmare inaugural brew on my new rims a couple weeks ago. I have a positive report and a couple observations false bottoms/manifolds that might be of use to future rimsers. I brewed a second time on this new steam-injected system on Sunday. I was smiling again. Things went well, with not a problem to report. My first mash stuck mainly because of the design of my return manifold. It was slotted copper (half-inch rigid tubing) under a kind-of false bottom that had some, but probably not enough, 1/8 inch holes drilled in it. I am convinced that the flaw was that the manifold slots were too narrow and that fines plugged them. I have concluded that design of a rims return system for recirculation needs to be approached *differently* from that for a normal mash tun, from which liquid is drained *after* conversion has finished. This is a key difference, and may explain why a manifold, that worked fine when I kettle mashed, failed miserably in my first rims attempt. While I do not know much about filter beds, I remember seeing some in the past, both in industrial settings and in developing countries. For instance, in Northern Thailand muddy water went in the top of a pot, and clear water came out the bottom (Still not safe to drink, but it looked good!). The principle is the same in both applications. The filter was built with coarse gravel on the bottom and decreasingly smaller size stones down to fine sand as the top layer. I believe the constant recirculation of the rims offers opportunity(Or should I say necessity?) for building at least a pseudo-standard filter bed. Since with a rims recirculation starts soon after dough in, one likely walks a fine line if one attempts to size the openings in a false bottom/manifold small enough to restrict grain/particles from entering the recirculation path. The best case is added restriction limiting maximum flow rate; the worse case is territory I do not want to visit again! While this should be obvious, I certainly missed this small, but important, point. And the beer I was sipping, and occasionally gulping, felt the result as its flavor was enhanced by sweat (and tears??) while I suffered, and even twice removed/replaced the contents of the mash tun, over a period of between four to five hours. It was a long day, one that was supposed to be one of fun, but instead left me with an expression similar to that of sucking on half a lemon :-( At the end of that experience I concluded that I did not EVER want another like it, and gave some serious thought to the redesign of my return manifold, and to what its purpose *really* should be in the rims application. I am sure that input from fellow HBDers pointed me in the right direction, either from direct contact, or as the result of postings or home pages. Thanks again to all for this help! The first change in my thinking was to accept the idea that pumping grain along with the liquid in the recirculation loop is OK. Maybe even better than OK, desirable. Yes, DESIRABLE. Especially the finer particles. Let the pump put them where they belong, on the top of the filter bed. I decided to go with a false bottom and a manifold under it. I fabricated the false bottom from some copper sheet, and drilled 3/16 holes in it on 5/16 centers. Fortunately I did not calculate the number of holes that would need to be drilled, or I probably would not have started. I have not (and will not) counted them, but at 11.5 holes per square inch my calculations say that I drilled between 1,700 and 1,900 holes! No wonder I got tired of drilling! Under the false bottom I have an H-shaped manifold made from half inch copper tubing. It is NOT slotted, and all the ends open directly into the space under the false bottom. At the four ends of the "H" I put tees, so there are eight inlets for minimal velocity of flow at each. I take the outlet from the center of the cross bar of the H. In my case this flows out the center of the keg bottom. My mash tun is a converted 15-gallon keg with a bottom drain. I was conservative on this second mash, and used a 15- minute rest period before turning on my pump. I got good flow from the start, and was very hesitant to open the valve too much for fear of causing a collapse of the grain bed. I do not know if this fear is warranted in my case or not. I did easily get what I estimate as 1.0 to 1.5 gallons per minute flow rate from the beginning. There was a noticeable amount of grain particles being pumped back to the top of the mash bed, and this continued for perhaps the first ten to fifteen minutes, or maybe longer. At the end of the mash everything was clear, and I was able to open the valve fully and get full flow without any problem as I raised temperature for mash out. There were no grain particles coming with the wort at this time. I do not know what the flow rate was with the valve full open, but with water it is about 3 GPM. While cleaning up, I noticed some grain coming out from behind the false bottom as the keg lay on its side and I hosed it, dumped it, and hosed it again. When done hosing the mash tun out, I removed the false bottom and still found some larger grain particles still under it. This tells me that a fair amount of grain got through the holes in the false bottom. But whatever got in there either was pumped back to the top of the filter bed or lay out of the way under the false bottom. It did not significantly block the openings of the return manifold. Again, while this may be obvious to those who have been through it, it was not to me. It seems the goal in rims mash-tun design should be to design for maximum recirculation rate (by letting the filter bed do the filtering) and to limit flow restrictions in the recirculation loop. The false bottom should support the grain (filter) bed and have enough openings in it to offer minimum flow restriction. The manifold should take the liquid from enough points under the grain bed to prevent localized flow points (or channeling) from occurring within the grain bed, and it should accept and pass on to the pump whatever grains may find there way into it. It may be possible to walk the fine line and design a manifold that will work with a rims from the start (dough in and here we go...) but this seems risky (sure did not work for me). Looking back, I just wish I knew then what I think I know now! Hope this is of some interest and help to future rimsers... My next batch will be a wheat beer with 50% malted wheat. I hope I sing the same song after that one! Perhaps I will step mash and be able to give a report on the performance of my one-tier, two-pump, steam-injected system. Bill Bill Macher Pittsburgh, PA USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:01:31 -0700 From: Erik Ness <nesse at vcd.hp.com> Subject: FREE brewing fridge, Vancouver, WA Hi all, Wanna brew some lagers? Wanna free fridge? I've got a full-sized harvest gold fridge that I used for lagers several years ago. I haven't used it for a while, and now that I'm moving, the first person to come take it away can have it for free. NOTE: My friend started a beer mural on the door and never finished it. Not the sort of thing for your living room, but good for your garage, if you know what I mean. The fridge is in Vancouver, WA, near portland for the directionally disabled. Email me for details: erik_ness at hp.com (I don't subscribe to this digest) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 11:05:55 -0700 From: Steven Gibbs <steveg at linkline.com> Subject: Long Mash experiment Dear Fellow Brewers: I have tried an experiment which may add a significant amount of brew days and I would like some imput as to my procedures. One week ago I started a brew at 9:00 pm by mixing my water, and bringing it to strike temp. and mashing a continental pils recipe in an insulated tun (modified 1/2 bar.) with a double rap of alum. coated bubble rap material. The mash temp. was set at 150', covered and left over night. There have been other articles about overnight mashing but here is what I discovered. The next morning at 8:00am, I found the mash had fallen to 130' and I pulled a 1/3 thick mash decoction and slowly brought it to a boil. I boiled for 20 min. and reintroduced the decoction to the main mash. The temp. rose to 148' and I added 3 gallons of 180' water. I vigorously mixed and let rest for 15 minutes. Recirculated 12 liters and started sparge with a mash temp. of 153'. Sparged for 60 minutes and had 14 gallons in the brew pot and I discovered that I pulled a 1.064 from only 25 lbs. of malt. I used 24 lbs. Weyerman German 2-row and 1 lb. Belg. Carapils. While this recipe has previously given me a 60-61 in 12 gallons, a 64 in 14 gallons was a complete surprise! No problems with fermentation and I plan on transferring to secondary next weekend. Is there any consensus as to good or bad points in having a long mash (ie. degradation of proteins etc.) or has the addition of a decoction in my process potentially helped in the problem areas? Happy Brewing Steve Gibbs Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 11:17:38 -0000 From: colorart at spiritone.com Subject: For publication(Hallertauer hops) Mike Rose mrose at ucr.campuscw.net << I'm trying to find a homebrew mail order or web business that has Hallertau Hallertau Hops. About half pound amount. Any suggestions would be appreciated.>> If you mean Hallertauer Mittelfruh, I believe both Hoptech (1-800-DryHops) and Just Hops (1-719-528-5920) have them in stock right now. I've ordered hops from both and both were in great shape, in Nitrogen flushed bags. Both have webpages, but I don't have their addresses handy.... I'm not affiliated with these guys, BTW, just a pleased customer... -Matt Hollingsworth Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:44:19 -0400 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: Call for Judges, 1st Round In Philadelphia East coast judging for the first round of the AHA National competition will take place at Red Bell Brewing Company in Philadelphia Saturaday and Sunday, April 24th and 25th. Information packages have been sent. If I missed you or, like some, your address with the BJCP is incorrect and the information package never go to you and you are interested in judging that weekend and would like to enjoy the Philadelphia beer scene, please contact me at dhousema at cccbi.org or 610.458.0743. Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 99 13:46:39 -0500 From: Cory Chadwell Page Navigation <chadwell at ssd.fsi.com> Subject: Thanks for the info Hello all, About two weeks ago I posted asking for info on beer additions for taste training. The next day I got suprised by some business travel and have been away from my office and Email for the duration. I'm sorting through my mail here and can see that I received some great info from several different posters. I'd like to say thanks to all of you. On another topic I'm planning on brewing a nut brown as my next batch. I usually use Cascades as my hop of choice. I like the result which I would descibe as flowery/citrusy. However, I don't think that is really what I want to round out and balance a honey brown. Any suggestions for hop types that may be a better match for this beer. Thanks, Cory - -- - -------------------------------------------------------------------- Cory D. Chadwell FlightSafety International Design Engineer 2700 N. Hemlock Circle Navigation / Visual Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012 /| chadwell at ssd.fsi.com /c| - 9186919796 at mobile.att.net (text paging 150 characters) / | /| - ------------------------------------------------------ <-----s--- FSI \ | \| SSD \c| - \| Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 13:32:10 -0600 From: Greg Remake <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu> Subject: Kolsch recipe Hello all, I brewed a Kolsch-style recipe recently and was very pleased with the results I tasted this weekend. The Kolsch style yeast provided a slight sourness with just a hint of fruitiness, although it has the crispness of a lager. The wheat malt contributes a tasty (but slight) wheat character to the overall flavor profile, and a little bit of haze (which I've noticed in commercial examples). I tried Czech Moravian pilsener malt for my first time as the base malt. I know a German malt is more appropriate for the style, but I wanted to try the Czech. It provided a clean, slightly nutty flavor that is really tasty, and I won't hesitate to use it again. I used German wheat and crystal malts for the balance of the grain bill, but I really don't think it makes much of a difference. The key is to use a Kolsch yeast, without which you won't get the appropriate character. Here's what I used to collect 7 gallons of runnings at 75% efficiency, boiled down to about 6 gallons for 5.5 gallons in my primary: 8 lbs. Pilsener malt (85%) 1 lb. Wheat malt (10%) 8 oz. 20L crystal malt (5%) 1.25 oz. Tettnanger 60 min. 1.25 oz. Tettnanger 15 min. Infusion mash 150F for 60 minutes Wyeast 2565 Kolsch yeast in 2 qt. starter (decanted) Ferment 14 days primary at 60F; 14 days secondary at 60F; 4 weeks cold conditioning at 35F; 1.046 O.G.; 1.010 F.G.; 25 IBU; ~4 SRM This beer was really hazy when I bottled, but has cleared nicely. It has a pure white long lasting head, and a refreshing body and flavor that makes it extremely drinkable. My supply won't last long; give this brew a try! Brew more, Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:38:11 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Sulfate, Brewsters: I know we all have been brought up (or steeped) in the mantra ( or momily) that historical local beers have taken on the character they have because of the local water. However, from these simple observations many extreme behaviors have arisen. Like for instance AlK's admission that he once used up to 1/2 cup or more calcium sulfate in brewing ( I assume 5 gallons). Such behaviors fail to recognize that there are several things like solubility of calcium sulfate in water that will limit the content. If calcium sulfate were really that soluble then we couldn't use it as Plaster of Paris. So I doubt that using such an extreme amount did any good, since it was limited by the solubility of the salt. Secondly, extreme amounts of calcium in the brewing liquor ( maybe by using the more soluble chloride) precipitate too much of the phosphate and the pH falls and, more importantly, the mash and wort is starved of phosphate. A bad thing for the mash pH and the yeast. Thirdly, if you will read the books I have read, they all seem to list the water analysis of the locality. The major INCORRECT assumption is that this is the water used as the brewing liquor. A simple treatment such as liming the water will remove bicarbonates and sulfates and correct the pH to make an excellent brewing liquor. SO just because the well head has a certain mineral analysis does not mean that is the water that makes it to the brewery (or even into the mains, as municipalities treat water as well as the brewery) nor, above all, what makes it into the mashtun. Now, what we really need to see is the analysis of the mineral contents of various famous beers and not the water which is used to wash the floors in the brewery. While this still does not tell us what is used in the mash, it better relates to what we taste. Anyone have such an analysis? - ------------------------------------------- The difference between a carboy and a demi-john? Not much, except a carboy often has corrosive liquids in it and a Lady Jane (dame Jeanne) often has wine in it, historically. I suppose most of us learned and use the word carboy because we took college chemistry. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:39:44 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Diacetyls,. Clinit***, Brewsters: Dr. Pivo says: "Shame on you Dave Burley". Well, shame on you Dr. Pivo for mis-representing what I said. If you need a straw horse, pick on someone else. Diacetyl is considered a fault in beer in high enough concentrations. The table I displayed from one of those famous brewing tomes -and not just opinion - which is what we get from you - does show that a small amount of diacetyl is in every beer - as I have also stated. Maybe your point about a "balanced" ( whatever that means) amount of diacetyl is correct but that description teaches nothing. Maybe you should attempt to quantify that so you can communicate it. Need I remind you that your description of a honey-like quality from diacetyl was in fact from its next higher analog diketone. These errors are common when sensory analysis alone is used. Better to provide real hard detail than impressions which can be mis-leading. Remember the purpose of your olfactory senses is to integrate many aromas and produce a memory of when you had smelled that combination before. Therefore, one's mother produces the best pie or pasta or whatever than anyone else, since ALL the impressions of home, loved ones and the like come flooding back into our conscious or subconscious. I do believe that sensory impressions can be a valid source of inspriation, but scientific data is needed to back them up. Don't be so quick to condemn someone who might on some occasion agree with you and provide *scientific* support for your case. And, yes, I have drunk from the original source shortly after the wall came down. No, I did not detect any unwarranted diacetyl. - ------------------------------- Dr. Pivo also says "How 'bout Clinitest" Yeah. how about it. I haven't heard from Louis Bonham, despite my many requests for a timetable by direct e-mail. I think he had a good suggestion to use the ASBC EOF method as a starting point. ( 80F ferm. with constant stirring) I suggested that this method was OK, but that an arbitrary 48 hours to determine the End Of the Fermentation was inappropriate. I suggested that this 48 hour test be performed, but also to extend the reading until both the hydrometer and Clinitest readings were constant. Haven't heard from him. maybe he ran these tests and didn't get the results he planned. I don't know, but his silence seems awfully strange to me after the row and attempted censure of HBD he made. Maybe we should set up an HBD Clinitest test? Anybody out there have access to thin layer or paper chromatography or other methods to analyse the higher ( tri and tetra ) polysaccharides? - ------------------------------------------------ Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 04/13/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96