HOMEBREW Digest #3945 Mon 20 May 2002

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  siebel week (ensmingr)
  Sour Wit ("Partner")
  HSA MBO IBM Ad nausem ("Partner")
  Siebel Reply - Wort Gravity on Carbonation ("Kirk Annand")
  Siebel reply - Keg Cleaner Gaskets ("Kirk Annand")
  Siebel Reply - Bulk Malt Delivery ("Kirk Annand")
  Siebel Reply - Yeast Killing ("Kirk Annand")
  Siebel Reply - Tank Design ("Kirk Annand")
  Siebel Reply - Municipal Water Treatment ("Kirk Annand")
  dry hopping with tettnang, or hallertauer (Emily E Neufeld)
  Re: expressions ("Steve Heffner")
  Golden Monkey Tripel (David Harsh)
  Re: Middle-Of-The-Bottle Sediment (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Fullers Golden Pride (Rick)
  I DID IT!!!!! (Aaron Gallaway)
  How to learn "Flavors" ("Michael O'Donnell")
  Yikes! It's back up! ("James Sploonta")
  New York State Fair Competition ("Peter Garofalo")
  Seibel Week (Charles Hager)
  Siebel Reply - Hop Bag Use ("Kirk Annand")
  re: rims questions ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Siebel Response - Thick vs Thin Mash ("Kirk Annand")

* * Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! * http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping * * Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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 cannot 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. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:33:18 -0400 From: ensmingr at twcny.rr.com Subject: siebel week Kirk Annand (Siebel Inst.) provided some interesting insights on oxidation (see: http://www.hbd.org/hbd/archive/3943.html#3943-5 ), a lively HBD topic of late. But the Siebel people have not addressed the very first question posted during the HBD "Siebel Week" (see: http://www.hbd.org/hbd/archive/3938.html#3938-1 ). That is, are additives such as campden tablets or ascorbic acid useful for preventing oxidation? Ascorbic acid has its proponents and detractors. Some have even claimed a deleterious effect (see: http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/3930.html#3930-3 ). Some have claimed a beneficial effect for using campden tablets in the mash (see: http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/3930.html#3930-3 ), but others have maintained that the pH of wort and beer was significantly higher than wine (where campden is widely used) so that free sulfite (the anti-oxidant) is essentially unavailable (see: http://www.hbd.org/hbd/archive/3934.html#3934-7 ). What say ye? Cheerio! Peter A. Ensminger Syracuse, NY http://hbd.org/ensmingr Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 02:25:45 -0500 From: "Partner" <Partner at Netdirect.net> Subject: Sour Wit Mr. Jeff Renner, (who lives in the Land of CAP and any other lager that's easy to make, cause they never get warm weather way up North there ( or is it their?)...... writes........... >A wit! They are sour. What you did was what some brewers do >deliberately. Graham Sanders of Australia makes his famous Tropical >Flower Wit by souring a portion (15%?) of his mash for two days, then >adding it to the main mash. BIG smile!!! Jeff, thank you.................. Your correct, about 200 miles south, yes... And My Grain bill was for a Wit, But I've not had a sour one yet. I had adjusted my water to 5.4 PH, before I began the mash, I purchased a Piccolo PH meter from B3, and it's very accurate. (Side Note) My Brew Tragic arrived today , and I just did a test run on it, I'm typing with one sorched red hand from the sparge tube that came loose in the mash tun and scalded me, but other than that I am thoroughly pleased, I know it was a humongous (sp.) amount of money to upgrade to this, but I'm satisfied. I never saw burner's like this before, it's not a fine adjustment, but I get a fast rise in temp's from it, and it seems to use less fuel. The heat exchanger seems to give me slightly less than a 1 deg. F. temp. rise per min. I plan on brewing my Full Moon Wit with this system tomorrow and see how it compares to mashing in a 30 QT. Tun and raising the temp.'s with a burner. I believe my brews will definitely benefit... (Here is a chuckle OR IS IT?), ........MY wife is Ukraine, She arrived last November, I showed her pictures of this and kept mentioning how I would like a BEER MACHINE, She ALWAYS said if you want it get it. So........... after 6 months I did. When I finally uncrated it in my garage, she said "You paided $3900. For this???? I thought it would take up the whole garage! " She sat with me thru the test run and cleaning stage and listened to my babble, and saw me scorch my hand and .... I believe she sees the benefit to me moving everything into the garage and being able to quickly brew and shove it out of the way.... Gotta love a woman like that... Sorry for rambling about the machine, But I'm pleased... and my right hand still smarts, 3 hours later....Thanks for letting me Tell people " I got a BREW TRAGIC!!!" I believe I will slowly creep into the sour mash's, I'm scared right now of introducing something I'm not sure of.. - I've had very good luck in all my brews for years now, and (knock on wood) no bad batches..... I think I'll deliberately start out to make a sour Hefe or something, instead of saying, Hey since it's going sour.... let's make a ??? Pseudo Lambic. I would like to make a batch of this Tropical Flower Wit, if I could see a recipe.. I just may do it since I know how to sour a Mash!!! Byron.. 206.9 , 212.1 Apparent......... That's my story and I'm sticking to it! That makes it South of Chicago and North of Memphis, in the heart of the Blues!! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 03:00:22 -0500 From: "Partner" <Partner at Netdirect.net> Subject: HSA MBO IBM Ad nausem Someone (no names mentioned to protect the innocent) writes................ I agree with Pivo that the gold standard is to perform control brews with and without HSA and then taste these over a period of time. Pivo forgot to mention that it requires a lot of work and a bit of luck to make two beers which are not distinguishable by triangle test. Not nearly as simple a his trub test and one could throw stones at that one too. On a less brew-relevant note Larry says he never asked for my applause. Actually he asked that I "congratulate" folks who make unsupported claims. I guess the linguist can't associate 'applause' and 'congratulations'. Jeff Renner's long list of etymological gaffes missed "cunning". Sorry to all for the length - next time I'll just point out what Larry got right. - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----- Here's my answer to Hot Side! Never had it, probably won't, and I'm tired of hearing someone say i WILL.... to be decent............. I'll leave it at that.. or in otherwords,,, their is NO HSA in HB !!!!!!!!!!!!! so Flame me if your into flaming people. Byron... Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 06:21:49 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Reply - Wort Gravity on Carbonation David: You are right when you say that temperature and pressure are the most important determining factors on the final carbonation level in any beer. Another factor is the size of the bubbles that are injected into the beer - the smaller the bubble the faster the carbon dixide will enter into solution. If you are not using a carbonating stones then you can duplicate the effect by agitating or shaking the container that the beer and carbon dixide are in. There is some very minor effect from the viscosity of the liquid but it is so small that it is not mentioned in regard to beer because beer is mostly water. You mentioned that it SEEMED as if the lower alcohol beer was carbonating quicker. Have you ever actually timed it? One of the problems is unless you have a gas testing apparatus is that there may be a perceived difference (when tasting) in beers of different taste and alcohol profiles. The effect of differing carbon dioxide levels on the taste of a beer is profound and complicated. Even though the levels may actually be the same in both the beers that you mentioned it is possible that the higher alcohol one just does not seem as carbonated because of the interaction with all of the taste components of the beer. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:24:56 +1000 From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au> Subject: Siebel Week: Carbonation Rates Thanks to all concerned for the brilliant opportunity. My question concerns the influence of wort gravity on rate of CO2 dissolution during carbonation. I understand how pressure and temperature affect the amount of CO2 dissolved at equilibrium, but have noticed that high gravity beers (~8 w % alcohol) SEEM to take much longer to carbonate. Equally light beers (~3 %) appear to gas up very quickly. Is there any information on how the rate of solution of CO2 is affected by the composition of the beer. Thanks again, David Lamotte, Wondering, down under in Newcastle, NSW, Australia. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:02:33 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel reply - Keg Cleaner Gaskets Brian: Steam is tough on gaskets. Many brewers who sanitize with steam just institute a standard gasket changeout problem and live with it. It is probable that you can get better gasket made in your local area. There are many formulations of rubber, plastics, etc. and you should be able to find out from a local supplier what one is that will handle steam service well. Some type of Teflon-based gasket material should be good. Mention that you heed the material to be suitable for incidental contact with 'food' since you don't want any taste carryover with the steam. You can also ask if the keg cleaner manufacturer sells better grades of gaskets but in most cases buying a suitable sheet of material and getting them cut locally is far less expensive. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. From: Brian Owens Subject: Siebel Week - Gaskets for keg cleaners Hi, I'm writting to find out where I can get gaskets for my keg cleaner that will hold up longer. I am using steam to clean kegs and the rubber gaskets that fit in the hex nut that attatches to the sanky are not strong enough. I'm looking for somthing that will hold up a little better under the steam pressure and temperature. I'm thankful for any tips or reccommendations. Thanks, Brian Owens brian1 at peoplepc.com O'Fallon Brewery O'Fallon MO Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:47:11 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Reply - Bulk Malt Delivery John: The general rule with pneumatic bulk malt delivery is use the lowest pressure and malt speed in the piping that will work. The newer systems use less pressure but pack the lines in large 'slugs' of malt that move slowly and reduce damage. Older systems used higher pressure - especially if they had to move malt long distances or into high silos. There are no hard and fast rules about the correct pressures because each system must meet different requirements. In the end it is the quality of the malt in your silo that makes the difference. A brewer should sample the malt in the truck and do a screen test and then sample it again coming into the silo after it has gone through the delivery system. This applies whether you are using pneumatic, screw, bucket or whatever malt transport systems. Malt is a delicate cereal grain and requires as gentle handling as possible. Malt crushing should take place in the mill under control, not from the truck to your silo. Most of the damage that occurs to malt happens in sharp transitions in piping systems and the wear that occurs at these transitions (elbows worn on the inside, etc.). Check your system on a regular schedule and have a procedure written out for the correct way to unload your malt with minimum damage. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. From: John J. Hall <jjhall at gooseisland.com> Subject: Siebel Week - Bulk malt delivery Does anyone have any information about the optimum PSI/ Pumping speed during a bulk malt delivery? We currently pump up to our silo at 5 psi, but I've heard of other breweries that won't pump over 3 psi and some that pump as high as 10 to 15 psi. We've heard many different reasons for the different speeds. Too fast, you'll get shearing, too slow, the hose isn't packed and again you'll get shearing. Anyone have any practical experience or horror stories to relate? John J. Hall Head Brewer Goose Island Beer Co. jjhall2gooseisland.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 07:59:06 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Reply - Yeast Killing Caleb: I worked for a brewery that had converted a double pipe wort cooler (see pg. 229 of the new 'Practical Brewer') for yeast killing purposes and it worked very well. These old type of coolers have a relatively large pipe diameter and so the yeast flows through them well and they are easy to clean. They are not really efficient at heat transfer but it also means that the yeast is less liable to 'bake on' the tube interiors. With modern temperature sensing and control systems these should give good results. I am sure there is very specialized machinery made for this but this was a cheap solution to the need to kill yeast in this brewery. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. From: Caleb McLaughlin <cmcbrew808 at hotmail.com> Subject: Siebel Week - Yeast Hello Panel, I am looking for any information /experience(s) with autolyzing or "killing" spent yeast on a large scale for use as a safe, high protein food source for cattle. Any info. on a practical design/procedure to achieve best results would be beneficial. Thanks again! Caleb McLaughlin Rogue Ales ph#541-867-3660 cmcbrew808 at hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:40:48 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Reply - Tank Design Caleb: There is nothing inherently wrong about the design of a tall dish-bottom tank for fermentation. A 120 BBL fermenter is not considered large by commercial brewery standards. How deep is the beer level in this tank? You are right that the cone-bottom types of fermenters are much better for yeast harvesting. If there is a mandoor near the bottom of this tank you can harvest the yeast once you have drawn the beer off - like in the good old days before cylindro-conical fermenters! Fermenter design is governed by a lot of factors but one of the main ones is cooling jacket location and control. If the jackets are in the wrong place or the temperature probe mis-located so it does not give a representative temperature then operational performance can be seriously compromised. I do have the name of a refrigeration engineer in Vancouver, B.C. who is good. I will send you his name and address. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. From: Caleb McLaughlin <cmcbrew808 at hotmail.com> Subject: Siebel Week - Tank Design Aloha Panel, What is it about the configuration of a tall, skinny, dish-bottom tank (120 bbl) that makes it a bad design for fermentation? Besides the fact of "cone-bottom" being better for yeast handling. Also, does anyone know the name/contact# of a glycol specialist that has experience with sizing up for a breweries growth? Thanks in advance for everyone's involvement with the Forum this week, Caleb McLaughlin Rogue Ales ph#541-867-3660 cmcbrew808 at hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:09:12 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Reply - Municipal Water Treatment Doug: My feeling is that the ppm of changes in the water that you receive at your brewery would not make a significant enough difference to change your brewing salt addition. Having said this I would never just continue on without asking some questions of your local water authority. Usually breweries are one of the biggest, if not the biggest, water user in any municipal water system so you are an important customer. Not only that but you are an important food manufacturer. I would presume that the poly and ortho phosphate additives that they are planning to use are fully compatible with potable water but I would ask them as many questions as I needed to anticipate the proposed changes. In my experience the personnel in water departments are good at responding to intelligent questions especially when they see that they are dealing with concerned professionals. You should ask for a tour of their facility and find out their proposed dosage rates and what they expect will be the result at the infeed of your water supply pipe. They may be sacrificial additions which are 'used up' in the piping system. I would also ask: 1) What effect do these additions have on brewery water filtration systems? 2) How does heating/boiling this water effect these additions? 3) Will they affect the water flavor profile? 4) Do they have reports from other municipalities who have brewery customers and use these additives? I am sure that you can think of lots of other questions that are of particular concern to your brewery. There was a talk at the Craft Brewer's Conference by A.J. DeLange on water which he was very passionate about. He is an electrical engineer but he has made a study of water chemistry and brewing in his hobby as a home brewer. The A.O.B. probably has his e-mail address because he seemed like he would definitely be up to the minute on all of this. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. From: Doug Macnair <Doug.Macnair at Redhook.com> Subject: Municipal water treatment My question for the Siebel week forum concerns municipal water treatments and their potential impact on the brewing process. Our local municipal water works informed me that they will be implementing a corrosion inhibitor program using a 50/50 blend of Poly and Ortho Phosphates dosed into the final water downstream of the filtration plant. I am aware of the calcium- phosphate reactions in a mash and its importance in acidifying the mash. Do these other forms of phosphate react in the same way? Is a few ppm increase in the water worth worrying about a brewing salt adjustment? Any possible effects post brewhouse from these treatments? I look forward to responses from those with more water chemistry background than I, which will not be very difficult by the way. Doug MacNair Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:32:58 -0500 From: Emily E Neufeld <eneufeld at juno.com> Subject: dry hopping with tettnang, or hallertauer I did a 10 gallon batch of low end (1.060 39 IBU) American IPA/ high end pale ale. I dry hopped the first 5 gallons with 1 oz. of Cascade and have been drinking a very enjoyable beer for the last 2 weeks. I was thinking of dry hopping the other 5 gallons with tettnang or hallertauer because that is what I have on hand. What are your recommendations? Thanks. Drew Buscareno Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:28:21 -0500 From: "Steve Heffner" <potatopotato at earthlink.net> Subject: Re: expressions Mind your P's and Q's: About eight or ten years ago I heard that the bartender supposedly told the waitresses this to remind them to keep track of how many pints and quarts the customers owed for. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:47:12 -0400 From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net> Subject: Golden Monkey Tripel Peter Ensminger asks about Victory's Golden Monkey: At Spirit of Belgium III in D.C., their brewer talked about the beer and explicitly evaded a direct question about the yeast used. (In sharp contrast to Garrett Oliver of Brooklyn Brewing who said he used Wyeast 3944 for his wit, btw) However, he did say that they fermented at 85 F and used the same yeast they used for their wit (but the wit is fermented at a lower temp). They open ferment in "gurden tanks" (spelling?), which are some sort of dairy vessel with a 1:1 aspect ratio of width to height. If you choose the higher fermentation temp, which you probably should, I have to warn against Wyeast 1214 above 72F unless you really like bubble gum. Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League Cincinnati, OH P.S. Beer and Sweat - August 17, 2002 see http://hbd.org/bloat for details or e-mail me Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:51:07 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at comcast.net> Subject: Re: Middle-Of-The-Bottle Sediment Matthew McCracken <matthew.b.mccracken at intel.com> writes from Wayland, Massachusetts: >I've noticed that the cloudy >haze from early in the conditioning has collected into what appears to be >sediment. The problem is, it's in the middle of the bottle! ... >grey/black chunks of this stuff drop into my glass. ... too thin and >highly alcoholic (or so my body tells me). ... Is it rogue yeast? >Maybe I can try to pawn this off as a new beer style... My suspicion is that it isn't rogue yeast but rather a bacterial infection. This could produce over-attenuation and off flavors, as well as slimy material in the beer - the suspended haze. I suspect you need to toss the beer and be extra careful about your sanitation. Jeff - -- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943 Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:43:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Rick <ale_brewer at yahoo.com> Subject: Re: Fullers Golden Pride During a tour of Fuller's brewery back in 1997, my guide, knowing I was a homebrewer, gave me a bunch of information that wasn't a standard part of the tour. This included a press release for 1997 Vintage Ale. It sounds a lot like the Golden Pride so I thought I'd share it with everyone. Here's the recipe that was included: Fullers Vintage Ale 1997 Grist: Malted Barley 90% Crystal Malt 3% Flaked Maize 7% Barley Variety - Alexis Hop Variety and Growing Area Target - Kent Challenger and Northdown - West Midlands Technical Details: pH: 4.30 Yeast Count in Bottle: 1.0m cells/ml Alc/Vol: 8.5% Colour: 40deg EBC Bitterness: 38 EBU Brewing: Mashing Temperature 69deg C 1 hour boil Fermentation: Conical fermenters 7 days max temp 20deg C Maturation: 2 weeks at 6deg C 2 weeks at 0deg C Comments: A balance of malt, hops and alcohol Rich tawny colour Warming and earthy with hints of Seville Oranges from the Goldings (sic) hops This product is made to improve and mature for at least 3 years. Oddly enough, the recipe didn't give a OG. Hope this helps. Rick Seibt Mentor, OH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:28:19 -0700 From: Aaron Gallaway <baseball_junkie at hotmail.com> Subject: I DID IT!!!!! My SS Heat exchanger is a SUCCESS!!! It is me again, Aaron in Japan. My thanks to everyone who gave me ANY kind of help, even down to recipes. But my big thanks go out to DION HOLLENBECK for his help with my electronic retardation! I don't think I could of done it without Dion's wiring help and general PID help. When I get back to the states I will send you a bottle of something nice. I do have a question that plagued me in the design, development, and now operational; phases of this project. How do you handle the liter or 2 or wort that remains in the H.E. during rest periods?? Doesn't cool down and affect the overall Thermality of the thing when you restart? Or is is insignificant?? Thanks again everyone. I am now going to special order the ingredients for an Oktoberfest and lager it over this summer for my wedding on October 13th! Almost a year to the date when I asked my fiancee to marry me in Switzerland just 2 days after leaving the Oktoberfest in Munich last fall. Aaron Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 17:53:21 -0700 From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo at stanford.edu> Subject: How to learn "Flavors" I have been extract brewing for a while now and am building up the equipment to start all-grain. In general, I am quite satisfied with the beers I produce, but often there are flavors that I am not quite satisfied with. Some of these seem to go away with longer time sitting in the keg, but others persist. The problem is that I don't know how to describe these flavors so I don't know how to ask for advice about changing them. How do I go about learning the names of different beer flavors that I taste so that I can discuss them with others? I suspect the answer might be to find a local club and bring my beers to people with more experience; to that end, does anyone know of a local club in Monterey, California? Given that I have to drive 45 minutes to a brew store, I don't have high hopes, but perhaps there are other brewers around. Thanks for any suggestions. Michael O'Donnell Monterey, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 21:25:34 -0400 From: "James Sploonta" <biere_god at hotmail.com> Subject: Yikes! It's back up! I apologize for my silence! For some reason, Hotmail has been not allowing me to log in (from work, where my Kleinerisms are). Just tried from home, and it seems to be OK (Maybe Brian located me in his quest to prove my identity and had my employer block access or something? Probably not. As a service of Microsoft, you expect the "blue screen of death" from Hotmail, too, I guess....). In any case, assuming it isn't a problem with the PC at work, I've stored up a Beeeeg pile of neat little Klein nuances. Including an argument related to his swilling from the bottle (Ever notice how differently he speaks of the process of enjoying a draft-only beer? Hmmm?) In any case, more later - whether you want it or not. Jimmy Sploonta Somewhere between here and there. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:03:42 -0400 From: "Peter Garofalo" <pgarofa1 at twcny.rr.com> Subject: New York State Fair Competition Sorry for the relatively small audience that this message applies to... I have "volunteered" to organize this year's NY State Fair homebrew competition, and would like to solicit interest from NY State homebrewers and any northeastern judges. Last year, the competition was not well planned. There were 80 entries and four judges (yes, I was one...). This year, I have promised 150 entries and will therefore need about 25 judges, so I need some help here. The competition will be held on Friday, August 9 and Saturday, August 10 at the Fairgrounds in Syracuse, NY. The Fair folks take care of all expenses, and give out some nifty medals, as well as cash for first ($100), second ($75), and third ($50) Best-of-Show. Also, every entrant receives a free pass to the Fair, as well as a parking pass (even more valuable). I plan to have a Friday evening judging session, then a pub crawl around the Armory Square area. Saturday should be a relatively easy day. Judging takes place in the Art & Home Center, where they do cooking demonstrations during the Fair. It's a perfect place to judge, and we'd love to have you do so. If you are a homebrewer and/or judge in NY State, drop me a note with your s-mail and I will make sure an entry packet is sent your way. Brew now, so you can enter early and often...just like voting in Chicago elections! Cheers, Peter Garofalo Syracuse, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:26:13 -0700 From: Charles Hager <hagerc at vcss.k12.ca.us> Subject: Seibel Week I hope I can squeeze this one in at the end of this wonderful week! I have a question about differences in wort boiling issues at the commercial level vs. homebrew level. In the Feb. 2002 edition of Brauwelt, there was two interesting articles regarding boiling wort. Both articles state the purpose of boiling wort: -concentration by evaporation -reduction of coagulable protein substances -deactivation of enzymes -boiling off undesirable aroma components -formation of aroma and flavor substances The first article, entitled "Wort boiling - current state-of-the-art" discusses issues that commercial breweries have when boiling wort and the various methods. It summarizes the history of boiling technology from early kettles with inadequate heating and wort movement (homogeneity) into 20th century changes in design and heating capabilities with the introduction of high-performance kettles with 2 hour + boil times and 12-16% evaporation. In the last 30 years breweries have had to rethink their boiling techniques because of energy conservation and environmental issues leading to decreased boil times and evaporation rates. Current averages stated are 60 minutes at 6-8% evaporation rate. Boiling time and temperature are two variables that breweries strive to balance. Issues dealing with this balance are stated as: -High Temp: coagulable nitrogen too low, DMS level ok, excessive coloration of wort -Low Temp: coag. nit. ok, DMS levels too high -Long Time: coag. nit. too low, DMS levels ok -Short Time: coag. nit. ok, DMS too high Interesting statements: "Heating times are frequently too long and lead to a not inconsiderable loss of coag. N, apart from causing high thermal stress which can be expressed by the thiobarbituric acid index (TBI)." "The objective of development work was to implement the following criteria as fully as possible: -gentle boiling (coag. N, foam) -little free DMS in pitched wort -low thermal stress (TBI) -further reduction in total evaporation" The second article, entitled "New wort boiling system using flash evaporation" has this interesting statement: "Thanks to modern automatic control equipment, the term "beer boiler" is slowly but surely becoming a thing of the past. One should ask oneself if it is still appropriate to subject the wort to nucleate boiling or whether it should be possible to boil it without actually bringing it to a nucleate boiling stage? This question can definitely be answered 'yes'. Looking again at the criteria for wort boiling stated at the beginning, it becomes clear that boiling of wort is necessary only for evaporating excess water and for expelling undesirable aroma substances. All other parameters are a function simply of temperature and circulation or wort." Homebrewers do not have to deal with: -trying to lower energy costs/energy usage -wort homogeneity -trying to lower evaporation rates With this in mind, which of these issues can be applied to homebrew wort boiling? >From my experience as a homebrewer having read many basic and advanced homebrewing books as well as participating on the HBD for many years - is seems to me that most all-grain homebrewers boil for 90 minutes with evaporation rates of over 15% - usually 20-30% in some cases with big propane burners. This long and violent boiling seems to be in conflict with some of the information in these articles and indeed may have detrimental effects. "Gentle" boiling was mentioned a few times in the articles and is said to have a positive effects on coagulation of proteins. Long boiling times are stated to have detrimental effects on protein coagulation. Low "thermal stress" and evaporation rates of 6-10% are mentioned as goals of the commercial breweries. How does this information apply to homebrew boiling? Which of these issues produce better beer, not just cuts down on energy costs and time? What is the difference between a 60-minute boil and a 90-minute boil assuming a 10% or greater evaporation rate? Thanks for your time and thoughts on this subject Troy Hager thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 08:08:06 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Reply - Hop Bag Use Paul: You have touched on several points here. It is not surprising that your utilization is low and/or unpredictable using whole hops in a hop bag. During a vigorous boil where whole hops or pellets are in the wort they are in agitated and intimate contact with the fluid and so the dissolving of alpha acids and their isomerization due to heating takes place everywhere in the kettle. When they are in a hop bag they do not have the same kind of contact with the wort and so utilization can be expected to be lower. Another point relates to the use of whole hops. These are a VERY DELICATE INGREDIENT since they are prone to oxidation and flavor changes. Hops were the first brewing ingredient that brewers knew were very prone to degradation. In a homebrew hops (especially whole cones) can be badly degraded before you buy them from your supplier. They are packed in 200 lb burlap bags at the hop farm and kept in special refrigerated storage before being sold or sent to hop pelleting and processing plants. In order to be sold in small quantities these bales must be opened and the hops exposed to the atmosphere. If this is done all in one stage and the hops from a whole bale transferred to small vacuum bags and kept cool then damage is minimized. In many cases they are probably broken down from bale size to final consumer packages in several stages and not kept cool or vacuum-packed at all times. This means that the whole cones that you buy may have been degraded in terms of their bittering value, aroma and flavor before you ever add them to your kettle. Pelletized hops are sold in several sizes of vacuum-packed containers from the hop suppliers but are much easier to handle than a bale of whole hops. They must also be treated with care and kept vacuum-packed and cool to prolong their life but it is easier to do so. As package a general rule if either of these types of hops have yellow or brownish coloration (rather than vibrant green) do not buy them! You also mentioned that you use a hop bag rather than throwing them into your kettle because they will clog your wort cooler. You were afraid to strain them out due to possible problems with HOT SIDE AERATION. I have followed the discussions in the beer enthusiast press about HSA (you mentioned 'holy war') with some amazement. My experience in brewing has taught me to prioritize my problems when producing beer. To worry about HSA and let this degrade the predictability of your beer making is 'putting the cart before the horse'. Before worrying about HSA make sure that your process is under control in terms of ingredient addition, temperature control, yeast health and cleaning and sanitation. Once your basic process has as few flaws as you can handle then worry about things like HSA. I say this realizing that a lot of talk has gone on about this issue. If I look at the potential for HSA and its taste effects I refer back to the gas laws. The dissolving of a gas in a fluid like wort or beer depends on temperature and pressure. The higher the pressure and the lower the temperature on the fluid (and gas) the more the gas will tend to dissolve in the liquid. One of the ways to reduce the amount of oxygen in water is to heat it up. Boiling water has little or no oxygen in it! Above a boiling kettle of wort is a layer of water vapor which tends to protect the wort from oxygen - especially if you have the lid on the pot. Even when the boil is stopped and the wort is still very hot waiting to be cooled there is often a protective layer of steam. As long as this is not disturbed it offers oxygen protection. Even if the wort is poured through a strainer to remove hops the very nature of the hot fluid will help reduce oxygen ingress. But remember right after this cooling stage you are going to deliberately add oxygen so your yeast will grow! Does this mean not to worry about HSA at all! NO! But get your beer-making process under control and then attack things like HSA and COLD SIDE AERATION. If you are concerned about oxidation worry more about the possibility of getting oxygen in your beer when it is cold and has less yeast in it. The colder beer is and the closer to being finished it is the more damage can be done by unwanted oxygen addition. (Remember the Gas Laws.) When looking for possible damage due to aeration work 'backwards' from the finished beer and eliminate the possible causes working toward the brewhouse. Kirk Annand, S.I.T. Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:55:04 -0700 From: "Paul Stutzman" <Paul.Stutzman at airborne.com> Subject: Hop Bag Use I have a couple of questions regarding the use of hop bags during the boil. I've used hop bags for a couple of years now, and it seems that my hop utilization is quite low despite vigorous boiling for 60 to 90 minutes. I am frequently disappointed in the amount bitterness in my final product. I usually up my hopping rate, but it's always been a bit of a crapshoot. Does anyone have a calculation for estimating the inefficiencies associated with using hop bags VS allowing the hops to roam freely during the boil? The only reason I'm using the hop bags relates to my CWC. It has a copper racking tube, and I've had a couple of instances when the tube got clogged by debris in spite of my best efforts at whirlpooling my brewkettle. (I use an unmodified 10-gallon stainless steel pot as my brewkettle.) I'd really prefer to avoid using hop bags altogether. My initial thought was to pour the boiled wort through a strainer, but I'm reluctant to try that, given the ongoing holy war regarding HSA. What do other brewers do to prevent hops from ending up in their chillers? Should I simply switch to pellets and hope that my whirlpooling is effective enough to prevent the hop residue from entering the racking tube? Thank you in advance for your advice in these matters. Paul Stutzman Seattle, WA Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:15:44 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net> Subject: re: rims questions Gary Smith had some RIMS questions: >1. Position of mag pump: as long as the pump is below the kegs, does it matter what position it's in? I'm concerned about the impeller spinning & causing cavitation/bubbling in the liquid. The literture that came with the March I use says to mount it with the shaft horizontally- I think due to the design of the bearings and hence a shorter life if mounted vertically. OTOH, RIMS pumps don't see that much use in a homebrewer's RIMS. RIMS pump orientation is a negligable factor with reguards to cavitation since cavitation occurs when the fluid pressure is less than the vapor pressure. Pressure loss in the tun is THE big factor in cavitation. A vertical orientation may make it easier to get all of the air out of the pump casing since trapped air can bubble out via the pump suction plumbing after you fill the system with foundation water. A tip: tap the plumbing or rock/jar the system to help dislodge air bubbles. >2. I have a custom rims chamber from Movingbrews.... Should the fluid be flowing from the distal end of the element to the threaded end or is the fluid (& temp. probe) at the other Depends on if you want to measure the wort temp. before or after it's heated. I recommend both unless you measure temp. in the tun- mash temp. is inferred from the temp. before heating and monitoring/limiting the temp. after heating helps ensure the enzymes aren't denatured. >3. I am planning on placing my element horizontal... I'm wondering how much loss of sweet liquor I'll loose in the rims & I'm wondering about bubbles being trapped in the chamber if it's horizontal. If you sparge and run off downstream of the chamber, the volume of trapped wort won't matter since it'll be diluted. A horizontal orientation may result in alot of trapped air in the chamber and, worse yet, a large air-to-wort interface area with highish velocity. Consider connecting the chamber with flexible tubing so the chamber can be tilted when filling with foundation water. This will allow the trapped air to be expelled. >Do you RIMS users dis-assemble the rims chamber after use or do you clean whatcha got with chemicals & leave the rims chamber intact? What chemicals do you use to clean if that's your route? I just flush it well by recirculating 2-3 batches of hot water through the RIMS after brewing and once before brewing and give it an rare cleaning by recirculating PBW. No disassembly. Judging by the crud the PBW removes, flushing isn't great at cleaning, but the crud build-up doesn't affect the beers so I don't worry about it. YMMV... c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/ Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:45:17 -0700 From: "Kirk Annand" <kirk.annand at ns.sympatico.ca> Subject: Siebel Response - Thick vs Thin Mash Bill: This is another question with no definitive answer. The reason for using thin or thick mashes is associated with the enhancement of particular types of enzyme activity in the mash. The trouble is there are other factors which also have an effect such as: type of malt, malt modification, how well malt is milled, homogeneity of mash, pH of mash, brewing water composition, temperature, and time. As you can see the thickness of the mash (grain to water ratio) is only one factor and so most modern commercial brewers use a kind of compromise thickness. When considering mashing as a process the most important aspects are controlling temperature and time. With infusion mashing as practiced by most homebrewers and brewpubs that means the final temperature of the mash once all materials are added. You are right that some malts work best with thin versus thick mashes but less so than it used to. Barley (and the malt made from it) has changed dramatically since the traditional thick and thin mashes were first developed by brewers. It is a fact of modern agricultural practice that essentially none of the barley varieties that existed one hundred years ago exist on a commercial scale today. The same can be largely said for hops also. The effect of crop breeding and 'improvement' programs has been all pervasive. In hops it is now almost impossible to buy hops with seeds in them. Fifty years ago this was not the case and so it is like chasing a 'moving target' when trying to brew a 'classic' beer style. We brewers are a pretty traditional lot but we are a food industry that is ruled by our raw material availability and the farmers often determine what we get because they want maximum yield from their land. Opps, sorry for the deviation from the topic. A thick mash has a grain to water ratio of 1 : 2 or 1 : 2.5 while a thin mash has a ratio of 1 : 4 or 1 : 5 (these ratios are all by weight). A thick mash has a positive influence on 'proteolytic enzyme activity' (breakdown of protein to peptide and free amino nitrogen) while a thin mash has a positive influence on 'amyloltic enzyme activity' (breakdown of starch to dextrin to fermentable sugar). In your example of 1 qt. water to 1 lb. of malt that is a thick mash (32 oz. to 16 oz.) with a ratio of 2 : 1. This is mash-in water quantities and does not take sparge water into account. As I said most modern brewers use ratios that are a compromise in the range of 1 : 3 or 1 : 3.5. This a is a good compromise for enzymatic activity especially with most modern malts. As you can see like most things in brewing there is no set answer. That is what is so fascinating about brewing on both a homebrew and commercial scale. I think that "Don't worry, have a homebrew" is a good way to approach it. Kirk Annand. S.I.T. Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 12:42:04 -0400 From: Bill Wible <bill at brewbyyou.net> Subject: Siebel Week Thanks for the opportunity to ask these questions! Please talk about mashing, and the difference between 'thin' mash and 'thick' mash, what affect this has on the final beer, and in what styles one is more appropriate or better used over the other. I know that decoctions when pulled should be thick. But if you're doing infusion mash, when do you use one over the other? Maybe there are some malts that thin or thick mash works better with? What is the proportion that is considered 'thick' mash, (1 quart per pound or less?), an what is considered thin? Bill Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/20/02, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96