HOMEBREW Digest #3208 Thu 30 December 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

  Re: Kitchen Aid Grain Mill (JOSEPH KISH)
  Valley Mill Motors (Kevin TenBrink)
  Oxygen Threads (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
  tannins ("Paul Niebergall")
  Re: Thermodynamics (Bob.Sutton)
  Hopped Malts and Lag Times ("Penn, John")
  german munich ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Re: GMOs ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  yeast answers and holiday brewing sessions ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Modified to fit your screen... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  kitchen aid mill ("Alan McKay")
  Belgian Doppel Maturity (Bob.Sutton)
  genetics (Jim Liddil)
  First mash (Clark)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * *** HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND YOURS! *** * >> Note: The HBD server will be shut down 12/31 >> through 1/1/00. Yes, we're Y2K compliant - >> that's not what we're concerned over... >> 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 21:52:41 -0800 From: JOSEPH KISH <jjkish at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Kitchen Aid Grain Mill Rudi asked what we thought about Kitchen Aid's Grain Mill Attachment (GMA). My wife owns the Kitchen Aid, The GMA was a gift. It is very slow, and it "grinds" the malt like an old flour mill, instead of crushing it, like a roller mill. It only holds a cupful of malt; I had to come up with a larger grain malt hopper. I cut a section out of the bottom of a large coffee can and fashioned a hopper from that. It is adjustable, it generates some flour, and is quite slow. I counteract the flour by using some rice hulls in the grist to increase flow rate in my RIMS. I have had the GMA for years, and it works. For the price, you can get a roller mill that is a lot faster, and gives a better crush; but if you receive the GMA as a gift, use it. Joe Kish Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 04:52:16 -0800 (PST) From: Kevin TenBrink <zzymurgist at yahoo.com> Subject: Valley Mill Motors Hello- I was recently on the receiving end of a new Valley Mill. I am interested in motorizing it and am looking for sources of motors that would be up to the task. My HB shop owner used an old clothes dryer motor. Any Ideas? Kevin Elkhart IN __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:51:00 -0500 From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products at humphreypc.com Subject: Oxygen Threads Bill attempts to oxygenate: > but apparently O2 regulators have some special threading > or something. If I recall correctly, O2 threads are Left-handed, while (most of) the others are right-handed. This is to prevent the inadvertent mixing of flammables with a powerful oxidizer, since the "righty-tighty, lefty-loosey won't work! My guess would be to try your friendly neighborhood welding gas supply counter. The guys there would most likely be able to hook you up with what you need -- perhaps primed with some of your dee-licious homebrew! Mark in Kalamazoo Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 08:13:51 -0600 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: tannins Last week, Stephen Alexander wrote about tannins: >Anyone who has ever sparged down below SG=1.010 and tasted >the result knows that the stuff tastes like sweet watery tea. >The tea-like flavors are the tannoids - not a momily. Dilute wort always tastes like sweet watery tea. If you dont believe it, try mixing a couple of teaspoons of dried malt extract with a cup of warm water and taste it. This flavor in no way proves or disproves the presence of tannins (tannoids, tannerites, or what ever you want tocall them). Still a momily, in my book. While the rest of the post was fairly interesting (reference to 'Hop and Malt Phenolics in Lager Brewing', JIB v85,pp23-25. etc.], the "sweet watery tea" observation is an extremely weak link that is used to connect a scientific study with the reality of what is happening in our home breweries. Not exactly the most scientific way to interpret and apply scientific data. Paul Niebergall Burns & McDonnell pnieb at burnsmcd.com "Illegitimis non carborundum" Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:14:18 -0500 From: Bob.Sutton at fluor.com Subject: Re: Thermodynamics JackS asked about humidity calculations... >I am trying to set up a humidity/temp controlled room >for cheese aging but can't even get beyond the >fundamental problem of measuring humidity, >much less controlling it. Jack, I eyeballed my psychometric chart after rounding your living room readings into degreesC... If your living room's dewpoint is 5C, and your dry bulb temperature is 20C, your relative humidity is approximately 35% (by eyeball). Assuming you're viewing a standard psychometric chart. simply extend a horizontal line from the 5C dewpoint (5C on the 100% RH line), until it intersects a vertical line up from your dry bulb (20C). Then read (interpolate) the RH curve values. These charts are commonly set for sea-level, so there's some error introduced unless you compensate for barometric pressure. Here's a RH calculator site which responds to dry bulb, dew point, and barometric pressure http://nwselp.epcc.edu/elp/wxcalc.html If you're not sure of your pressure just use 760 millibar - sea-level on Earth... you are an astronomer - so I thought I needed to frame my response appropriately... ;-) I plugged in your living room readings and got 35.9% RH (the minimum dewpoint entry is 10F, so I couldn't duplicate your outdoor readings). Here's another link that has a psychometric chart that you can download/print.. http://www.techtrol.com/psyc.htm Hope this helps... Bob Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today -------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. -------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 09:39:45 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: Hopped Malts and Lag Times As for the long lag times for Nottingham and the "stuck?" fermentation at 60F. In my opinion/experience, it seems that Nottingham likes the warmer temperatures to start. I try not to overcool my wort and let it be a bit warm during the initial growth phase of the yeast. Then the wort cools overnight in the carboy to be near a good fermentation temperature once the yeast actually start fermenting. By this, I mean that I try to pitch the yeast into a wort that's around 75F... 70F is a bit low, and 80F is a bit high. Then the wort cools at least 5F overnight in a 5 gallon batch in my basement. So its closer to fermentation temperature by the time the yeast start fermenting and producing byproducts that are sensitive to temperature. I think it is good to rehydrate the dry yeast in warm water and try not to shock them by pitching very warm rehydration water into a very cool wort. As for the post about not having as much activity and foam at 60F. 60F is pretty cool compared to 65F or 70F. 5F makes a big difference to the yeast. For those basement fermentations, summer ferments are much faster than winter fermentations. However, at the cooler winter fermentations you don't have to worry about infections as much. Those infectious growths are slowed at cooler temps just like the yeast. Don't worry too much about the krausen seeming slower or smaller from batch to batch. Some of that "foam" depends on how much hops are in your carboy, what your ingredients are, mash temperature, etc. Hopped Malts, Here's my opinion or thoughts on that hopped malt BUs. From older books, it seems that they took the BUs or HBUs and multiplied them by 4 to get the bitterness of the beer for a 5 gallon batch. This works great if your boil gravity isn't too high, but doesn't compensate for high gravity beers or concentrated (extract) brewing. My point is that for hopped malts the hops are already isomerized so I think you want to multiply by 4 for a 5 gallon batch to get bitterness and DO NOT COMPENSATE FOR BOIL GRAVITY! My opinion or thought is that the hops are already isomerized in the hopped malts so boil gravity doesn't affect utilization like it would if you were adding an equivalent amount of hops (HBUs). I would love to see others opinions or this. Please post your thoughts to the HBD and don't privately blast my opinions as being "stupid". I really am stating my opinions and would like to see what others think. There are few absolutes in brewing (but you wouldn't know that from some of these posts). Anyway I wish the hopped malts would use a bitterness rating like Morgans rather than using BUs. Some extract producers use EBUs or IBUs and some don't. Also, I think you can find a rating of some hopped malts at the brewery library. They are posted in BUs or HBUs, I think. Nice thing about having IBUs for Morgans is that they say 15 IBUs for a 6 gallon batch so its easy to calculate your IBUs contribution from one can. If your batch size is X gallons (US gallons that is), your bitterness is 15 x (6/X). My lawnmower beer is one 3.3# can of Morgans and 1/4# maltodextrin. The bitterness comes out to 24 IBUs (15 x 6 / 3.75 = 24) for a 1.037 OG beer and usually 1.010-12 FG. Morgans comes out a bit underhopped for my tastes but its a nice lawnmower beer nonetheless. Hope that helps, curious to see what others think John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:31:42 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: german munich I used a high % of German Weyerman's Munich malt in a pseudo-alt-kolsch german ale a few days ago. I got significantly less extraction than I'm used to (about 20% less). Grain bill was 62% Weyermanns Munich 3% German crystal 21% wheat 15% 2 row pale OG was 1.044, yeast is Wyeast 1007 and hopped with 3 oz. of german hallertauer throughout the boil. By the way, I'm a batch sparger has anybody else seen this when using a lot of German Munich. Anybody got a theo. gravity pts per lb for this stuff as the US Munich may apparently have more non-extractables in it. Color was a nice orange amber though. Hoppy early New Year. Pete Czerpak Albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:41:48 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Re: GMOs I like Peter C.'s question regarding Genetically Modified Organisms. It made me think. In the past I have personally modified bacteria and yeast strains through various methods of genetic manipulation to meet some need. I fully understand the technology of manipulation and know the different processes involved in checking for a successful manipulation. I also know that with proper research, experimentation, planning, execution and testing you can make a successful manipulation without negatively impacting other properties of the genome. For instance, most yeast strains cannot metabolize an adequate replacement of an amino acid (AA) such as valine from other amino acids and nitrogen sources present in the wort. Therefore the wort needs to have a moderate free amino nitrogen (FAN) level to make up for this inadequacy, otherwise my beer may consequently have a higher level of diacetyl (Fix,1993 - for those of you who are counting...). Say that I were to genetically manipulate a strain of yeast to contain a plasmid which facilitates this AA production, then I might not have as much to worry about regarding my FAN levels. My beer might be better due to the reduced diacetyl even though my wort has a low FAN content. This new strain might make for better tasting beer. It might enhance the fermentation rate and improve my yeast's quality of life ;-) I'm not worried about the science fiction of genetic manipulation - becoming infected with a rogue plasmid vector, growing a third arm because of some funky transposon which went out of control and now is slowly replicating inside of me or even super yeast cells that just won't die when they're supposed to. A lot of this worry is resistance to something new, fear of new technology because of mistakes made in past technologies which had adverse side-effects and plain old ignorance of the entire process. Carefully planned, studied and tested GMOs can make for some wonderful new products. But for some reason I just don't want that crap in my beer... Dick D. brings up a good point about chicken eggs. My dad has been raising his own bantam chickens as a hobby since before I was born. The eggs, while smaller than the store-bought ones, were always a nice little "bonus" to the hobby. Compared to store-bought ones, these eggs tasted better, had a larger yolk:white ratio (maybe not so good 4 cholesterol) and cooked better. The birds were allowed to run free in the back yard eating all manner of plants, bugs and other things chickens may find in addition to their processed grains (without hormones). They were also not kept in a 1 foot square cage and forced to lay eggs all day. Sure, they would make the worst eggs for mass production, but they tasted damn fine 'cause they were all natural. As Jim L. said "its more of a spiritual thing". I know that I'd have a ball building my own RIMS, HERMS, or whatever setup sometime in the future. And I'm sure I would wind up making more consistent beer with a higher degree of efficiency using it. But I think I would miss standing over the vat with a big old paddle, stirring it up when I think it's right, checking/adjusting the temperature every few minutes while I sip some of my last batch and listen to the stereo. It relaxes me and I like a 6 - 8 hour brew day. This is also one of the reasons why I moved from extract. It's the Zen of Brewing that does it for me, so to use a genetically altered yeast in my beer would be similar to automating my mashing or going back to extract. [Now don't anyone get their panties in a twist here! I didn't say automation or extract is bad. It's just not for me - right now] I might try a strain or two for sh*ts and grins, but I probably wouldn't stick with 'em. I like doing things the "old school" way as much as is conveniently possible. While GMOs might make for a better end product, my opinion is that they are best suited for the commercial breweries where efficiency and consistency are the focus. I don't have a place for them in my homebrewing because I want to retain the esthetic quality attributed to a hand-crafted product made more through the use of all natural ingredients and the brewer's love of the art than with high throughput, super-efficient technology. 'Nuff said. Glen Pannicke Merck & CO. Computer Validation Quality Assurance phone: 732.726.2832 fax: 732.726.2860 mail: WBD-205 email: glen_pannicke at merck.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 11:57:24 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: yeast answers and holiday brewing sessions Todd in NC asks about Wyeast 1084 and a supposed stuck frement at 1.018 before secondary. I have always found the Irish ale yeast to finish high (I never got it to go lower than 1.018 FG). Of course I haven't used it since the days I was underpitching yeast so take the comment for what its worth. It may drop another pt or 2 in secondary but I cant see it going much more. Paul Shick mentions using Windsor dry yeast for a big bitter beer. Watch out for it also is known to finish high (mine was 3.5 gallons of 1.050 ESB pitched with 2 or 3 rehydrated packets and it finished at about 1.020-22. I think others experience with Windsor reflect this as well. Oxygenation may help and I don't do anything more than the shake like hell method. gotta love the holiday season, been doing 1 batch a day since sunday (american pale ale, german kolsch/alt and IPA with only cascade hops thoroughout)and I also racked my dry stout to secondary last night from last week and a batch of imperial stout to keg after two weeks of secondary. I did dry hop the imperial with Tettnanger pellets and they only dropped clear when I chilled the beer to <40F. Its numbers are OG 1084, FG 1016-18, Wyeast 1098 yeast cake. Very estery and alcoholic when racked to keg. Goona let it chill and meld and taste again at the end of January. Hopefully it'll be ready by late Feb/March. Regards, Pete Czerpak Albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:19:06 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at mail.jhmi.edu> Subject: Modified to fit your screen... Howdy, Just had to jump on the GMO grenade. Some of the Seattle rhetoric has gotten me riled. I reiterate (check the archives): every organism you put into your beer has been genetically modified by humans. The issue in question seems to me to be how the modification was done, by traditional breeding and selection methods or by direct modification of the genome with exogenous nucleic acid. The later is far more efficient for some purposes. In the most recent digest, George DePiro told us about two new hop varieties. These are mutant plants that were bred (or stumbled upon) for certain characteristics. These plants are genetically different than their parents (yes, the egg came first), and different in unknown ways. Were they fully tested for toxicity before being released to the market? Might the pollen from these varieties kill a cute insect? What is the environmental impact of planting these hops? Do they require more pesticides, or retain more pesticides, or perhaps even make pesticides more toxic? Were their parents even tested? Yes, on all of us, and without our consent! It is ironic, then, that the only new crops that are tested at all for health effects are those which are modified by exogenous nucleic acids. And yes, they have been tested, and not just by the companies themselves. Are they safe beyond a reasonable doubt? That is for the consumer to decide, which is unfortunate given the amount of misinformation and mistrust out there. Really, how different is Bt corn from its parent grown by organic farmers who dusted it with the bacterium itself? Perhaps the organicaly farmed corn has more fumonisins (the "all natural" way to get throat cancer). Furthermore, while it is obvious that agribiz doesn't make these organisms out of the goodness of their corporate hearts, these GMO's can actually benefit others by reducing pesticide use, increasing yields and nutritional content, etc. These organisms are no panacea for the worlds problems, and due caution should be taken in developing and using any organism. And no, I do not work for nor do I own stock in any agribiz (ADM is the devil). But I think the large number of important issues surrounding GMO's have less to do with the technology of gene transfer itself and more to do with the sustainable and equitable use of the worlds resources. These are separate, but valid and important, questions. Guess that is the point of this ramble. Mike Maceyka Baltimore, MD Home of Four Square Brewing and the official Millennial Bunker of Love Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 14:36:11 -0500 From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at ottawa.com> Subject: kitchen aid mill Go to my page below, then "homebrew", then "FAQ", then "Equipment FAQ". In short, yes it will work. But unless you make a lot of bread, it's cheaper (and much better from the brewing standpoint) to buy a real mill that is made for brewing. cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay amckay at ottawa.com http://www.bodensatz.com/ What's a bodensatz? http://www.bodensatz.com/bodensatz.html Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 16:12:42 -0500 From: Bob.Sutton at fluor.com Subject: Belgian Doppel Maturity I was inspired by the recent issue of Zymurgy to tackle a Belgian Doppel (sp?). One item that was not made clear in the article was the length of time for the brew to mature. Also, I've seen varied opinions over the use of "light" vs. "dark" Belgian candy. Appreciate all feedback. Y2K Cheers! Bob Fruit Fly Brewhaus Yesterdays' Technology Today -------------------------------------------------------------- The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. If you are not the intended recipient of this message you are hereby notified that any use, review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, reproduction or any action taken in reliance upon this message is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of the company. -------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 19:02:07 -0500 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at vms.arizona.edu> Subject: genetics And lets see farmers (or whatever they are called) quit using antibiotics for no reason. How did the flesh eating e.coli develop? Farmers using anitbiotics all the time. The spew about GM is silly. Man has been genetically selecting stuff for 100 of years. I think waht is far more dangerous is the huge amount of chemical agents that regular farmers use. this icludes the growing of barley hust to keep it beer related. :-) Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:22:04 -0500 From: Clark <clark at capital.net> Subject: First mash Hi List, Santa was good this year. I have my Listerman Lauter Tun ready to go. I will hit the brew shop this weekend, providing the world doesn't end, and fill my grain bill to brew my very first ever full mash beer. I have done a bunch of extract brews and really like the results, so now it is time to move on. The kids even gave me a corny keg, but that will be for later. Question. I will be doing a simple ale with a single infusion mash. Will I be better off doughing in in the lauter tun, mashing and sparging or should I mash in a large pot on my stove and transfer to the lauter tun for sparging? What about "mashing out", should I be concerned with my first batch? I've never seen any info about the potential temperature drop that would occur if I transferred the mash to the lauter tun. Would it be a problem? Everyone has their own ideas about the proper techniques to follow. I just want this to be as simple as possible while still making the best beer that I can with what I have. Remember, this is my first time, be gentle. TIA. Dave Clark Eagle Bridge, New York Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/30/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96