HOMEBREW Digest #4339 Wed 03 September 2003

[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 *********

  Newbie at Batch Sparging ("Allan J. Horn")
  re: Fly (continuous) versus Batch Sparging (John Schnupp)
  Haze and Decoction (petr.otahal)
  Re: Zymurgy Haze Article ("-S")
  Re: Scottish Export Ale Questions ("Gilbert Milone")
  Linux - beer comparison. ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Ranco Thermistor? (mohrstrom)
  Protein rest ("Dave Burley")
  How to get the correct volume and Sp. Gr.  batch sparge ("JAMES DAMON")
  Re: My First Brew (Kevin Wagner)
  Cleaning Products (Jim Kirk)
  Converting Coke to Pepsi (Jim Kirk)
  FW: RE: Batch sparge ("Leonard, Phil")
  Easty Masher Questions (Jim Kirk)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. 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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 22:14:25 -0700 From: "Allan J. Horn" <ipassgas at comcast.net> Subject: Newbie at Batch Sparging After reading all the posts about batch sparging, i can't wait to try it. However, I have some questions. Some suggest adding additional sparge water to the mash before draining the first runnings. Is this necessary? if so, how do you calculate how much to add? How much sparge water to you add to the drained grain bed for the final batch sparge? Answers to these questions, plus any references would be greatly appreciated. Allan Orinda, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 23:02:15 -0700 (PDT) From: John Schnupp <johnschnupp at yahoo.com> Subject: re: Fly (continuous) versus Batch Sparging From: "the Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey at swampgas.com> >Naturally, batch sparging WILL require two rounds of recirculation, as >opposed to the single recirc required when sparging is continuous. >However, I find this step only takes me a few minutes at most, since >with my current lauter system I get (crystal) clear runnings after a >couple of pints (I might do a quart if I'm feeling patient, but it >really isn't necessary.) Ok, so I might be wrong here but the last time I checked I thought that a couple (2) pints was equal to a quart. I'm suspecting that you got some units confused and either meant to say either "after a couple cups ... might do a quart" or "after a couple pints ... might do a half gallon." I used to use a false bottom that had a dead space of almost 1.5" deep and held a little over a gallon. I usually had to recirculate at least a gallon. The I changed to false bottom from Beer Beer and More Beer, see it at, not affiliated, blah blah blah. http://www.morebeer.com/image.php3?gfx=./images/ag405.jpg With this false bottom there is very little foundation water trapped and I too have clear wort within a pint or two. I had to tinker around with fittings and tubing to get it to work without modification to my Rubbermaid cooler. At one point I was building a RIMS system. I have all the components but have never assembled and tested it. The morebeer false bottom work fine for manual sparge. I think it would also work well with a pump but have no evidence to support or deny that claim. ===== John Schnupp, N3CNL ??? Hombrewery [560.2, 68.6] Rennerian Georgia, VT 95 XLH 1200, Bumblebee Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:36:03 +1000 (EST) From: petr.otahal at aardvark.net.au Subject: Haze and Decoction John Palmer wrote: > A protein rest during mashing is *generally* not a good idea because *generally* the grain bill will consist of fully-modified malts (ie. very few large proteins left) and therefore proteins are not the principal haze formers, rather it is the polyphenols that are more of the problem. And thus a protein rest will *generally* cause the > over-reduction of proteins, resulting in thin body and poor head retention. Hi John and HBDrs, Lately I have been brewing pilsners and doing single decoctions. But not the standard decoction method (or atleast what I think is the standard method). I dough in at 39C and after 5min pull a thick 35-40% decoction. I heat the decoction (10min) to 68-70C and rest for 20-30min then heat to boiling and boil for 20min. Once recombined the mash hits 57-58C and I immediately direct heat the mash (5min) to 63-65C and rest. Followed by a 70C rest and mashout. The reason I came up with this schedule was to avoid the protein rest stage as much as possible but still be able to do a decoction to get the malty flavours, and expose more starch to beta-amylase. I have only done a couple so far so my data set is v. small, but what I have noticed is that the beers made using this schedule clear extremely quickly, a matter of a couple of weeks post primary and they are almost perfectly clear. I dont use any fining agents or irish moss. The other thing I noticed is that the bitterness doesn't seem as pronounced as I expect, when compared to single or step infusion mashes bittered to similar levels. Also the head retention and lacing on the decocted beers is better when compared to similar infusion brews. What I would like to know is what happens when you boil the mash with respect to proteins? How much protein do you think is left behind in the mash due to break formation and how much extra is dissolved? How do you think this affects haze formation and head retention? Since I go through the protease zone do you think that I am getting a some protein degredation anyway? The malts I am using are all fully modified German and Australian malts (we cant get anything undermodified in this country (unless you malt it yourself). What do you think are the merits of this process with repect to these malts? If the decoction does dissolve more porteins would it beneficial to do a protein rest? (even though Im not likely to do one since I have no haze or foam problems) TIA Cheers Petr Hobart, Tasmania, Australia Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 03:17:23 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Re: Zymurgy Haze Article Wish I had time for a better response to Chad Stevens' (as usual) excellent post, but ... << But yes, I can make an ESB with 100% commercial highly modified malt in a single step infusion and have it come out reasonably clear. What I have found however, is that I can make the same beer, with a five or ten minute rest at 122, and it comes out crystal clear, without using any finings, and it seems to have slightly better head retention. >> You really need to perform a controlled experiment to make such a statement based on personal experience. There are a zillion and five factors that impact haze - and many like minor shifts in pH, the antiioxidant power of the beer, the hops phenolic characteristics and the yeasts performance are beyond measuring at home. I (and many of us I expect) have made perfectly clear beer from a recipe and also unclear beer from the same recipe. I've even had a split batch w/ two different finishing hops and two different clarity levels ! Head retention is one of those beer parameters that varies wildly over time. Generally beers lose a good bit of their heading capacity over time as proteins settle out. This makes fair comparisons between sequential batches very difficult. There is no doubt that more proteolysis means less haze potential for any given commercial malt, but also these enzymatic solutions impact head and mouthfeel. >I guess my nit is that I keep hearing from >every quarter, that a protein rest isn't necessary anymore. I don't know >that it is necessary, but I think in many cases judicious use of a protein >rest can do more good than harm. If you use raw grain, torrified grain, home-made malt or other unmalted starchy adjunct - then it can help. Nearly all UK PA malt brews go downhill with any significant protein rest IMO. The current crop of German and US malts seem not quite as protein-fragile - but almost. Having said that I agree that a little haze is a common and annoying thing *BUT* it can be controlled with a very minor blip into proteolysis. The 30 minute proto-rests in your old HB handbook were meant for malts from a very different era. The worst part of a regular protein rest is that you somehow have to get your mash from say 120F to 150F in a friggin' hurry. Sliding thru the 120-140F range at even 2F per minute is a great way to make the most limp-wristed body-less pale ale you've ever had. Fix's lager method - mash-in at proteolysis temp ... boiling water infusions to saccharification temp .. is probably the only practical means of skipping the head&body killing zone. > www.regional.org.au/au/abts/2001/t4/osman.htm > >Osman et al. discuss FAN in wort. What the paper does not come out and say >explicitly is that new readily modifiable varieties of barley pass up to 50% >of the hordein fraction to wort. Older, less readily modifiable barley >cultivers traditionally passed in the neighborhood of 25% of hordein to the >wort I think you are overreading or maybe misreading that paper's content. This paper attempts to determine a cause for the SLOWER modification times of NEW barleys. It never measures any factor in WORT - it only compares barley per vs post malting. The NEW ones include an Anheuser Busch cultivar and two others that I am not familiar with. They compare these to four Australian commercial barleys which, as far as I know, have no close relationship to US and European grown malting barley. The Aussie barleys modify in a snap while the NEW varieties modify less-so (conditions for the malting are unstated). The NEW varieties when malted have only about 65-70% the protein modification and FAN as the Aussie varieties. They suggest that the difference may be in the availability and susceptibility of a certain fraction of the hordein to proteinases. The 25% Hordein release was their extrema of the NEW varieties - not typical of the older varieties at all. As barley protein levels increase this primarily causes an increase in hordein and glutelin while the more soluble globulin and albumin fractions are relatively constant. The greater fraction of protein made soluble in the mash originated in the hordein and other barley storage proteins. But the reference paper notes that the increased protein level did not cause a correlated increase in soluble nitrogen. Again -only part of the hordein is ever solubilized. The fast modifying barleys in the Northern hemisphere are the Continental Triumph and it's descendents and unrelated to this NEW vs COMMERCIAL dichotomy. Not necessarily the same issue. >It is the proline fraction of hordein which is chiefly responsible >for the protein side of the chill haze equation. So if in modern malts, >more of this fraction is passing to the wort, and this is why Budmillercoors >are having all of the chill haze problems they have had over the last few >years (and I understand this is becoming an increasingly major issue), would >it not stand to reason that a little protein rest might not be a bad thing >to experiment with? Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this conclusion exactly backwards ? The NEW barley cultivars like Budweiser's B1302 had on average just slightly less protein, and hordein in the raw grain. The NEW varieties had LESS modification (see the Kolbach index in table 4) than commercial Aussie varieties like Schooner. I'm not aware that major US firms are having any chill haze problems, and since they test and control the heck out of their ingredients and process it seems unlikely.. They really don't develop a barley like B1302 and then stake their business on it without years of testing. Again I'll point out that the varieties in this study bear little similarity to the malts available to US homebrewers from US, UK & Continental sources. Budweiser doesn't sell their patented varieties on the open market. ========= >As an aside, of the 40 some odd endoproteolytic activities that have been >isolated, those which act on prolamine (this includes hordein) appear to be >most active at 104, those that act on glutelin at 122, and those that act on >globulin most active at 140. > > www.regional.org.au/au/abts/1999/osman.htm That's an interesting paper - but it would get slammed in the peer review process.! Unfortunately complexity will getcha every time. The hundred of mash proteases will certainly have hundreds of temperature optima that fall all over the map. The 104F, 122F type figures will remain generalizations that require a lot of specification to have any meaning. For example the temp optima varies with the mash thickness and the time period of the mash. When those are unstated all meaning is lost. The authors appear to have incubated unsupported barley enzymes on a specific substrate (like Hordein) at an unspecified concentration and for an unspecified time period to get the "optima". The temp optima in a real-world mash will certainly be different. -Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 08:48:40 -0400 From: "Gilbert Milone" <gilbertmilone at hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Scottish Export Ale Questions Hi Jonathan, I'll have to check my notes at home as it's been a year since I made a sottish Export. I have an excellent article at home from Brew Your Own titled "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Wort." It's written by a local guy (CT) Paul Zocco and is about his trip to Scotland breweries. I believe he won New England hombrewer of the year last year. You can email him from his web-site at www.homemadebrew.net . -Gil Milone Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 09:13:51 -0400 From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu> Subject: Linux - beer comparison. Here's a shorter version of that URL: http://snurl.com/linuxbeer >I'm sure other people have seen it. But just in case, here's an article >comparing Linux distros to beer brands. Shows how little people know >about beer. > Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:45:02 -0400 From: mohrstrom at core.com Subject: Ranco Thermistor? Just curious if anyone had identified a suitable (and commonly available) replacement thermistor for the Ranco ECT-series controllers? I remembered too late that the probe is NOT waterproof on these! I tried applying a 10K resistor across the (desoldered) probe connection on the PCB, but got some dodgy readouts that I don't trust to spec a replacement on. Mark in Kalamazoo Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:35:38 -0400 From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net> Subject: Protein rest Brewsters: I agree with Chad Stevens that a short hold in the protein rest region gives a much clearer beer without affecting the heading properties of the beer. I have been doing this for decades and have not seen any real change in the properties of the malt during that time. Now, if by modern malt is meant malt produced today compared to 50 or more years ago, well that may be a different story. It is true that most of the protein modification is carried out at the maltster (and always has been AFAIK) , but I look at the mash hold in the protein and gum regions as a cleanup activity. Try a short protein rest with today's malt, you'll like it Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:50:07 -0600 From: "JAMES DAMON" <jdamonmd at msn.com> Subject: How to get the correct volume and Sp. Gr. batch sparge Hi Folks; I'm close to switching to batch sparging, but how do you end up with the correct Volume and Sp. Gr.? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 11:02:38 -0700 From: Kevin Wagner <kevin.wagner at watchmark.com> Subject: Re: My First Brew Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net> writes: > Kevin Wagner <kevin.wagner at watchmark.com> writes: >> >> Last night I opened the first bottle of by first brew. It is a German >> Wheat Ale extract kit and was, err... unremarkable. I took 12 bottles to a party over the weekend for a few opinions. In general, people commented on how mild it was, then asked for another! Very positive responses. Which is funny, because when I drink it, there's something strange about it that I can't quite put my finger on. I'm starting to think that there is not so much something wrong, as it is not what I expected. >> - The OG was 1.04 and FG is 1.02, an ABV of 2.75%. I expected 4 to 5. Though, I had three and... well... I wonder if I have not been testing the gravity correctly because my nose tells me it's higher than 2.75%. >> It's texture is very thin. Did I rack and/or bottle too soon? > >It would help to know what yeast you used, and how you pitched it. The kit was assembled by my local home brew shop (http://www.cellar-homebrew.com) - 'Wheat Beer' with an Wyeast German Ale XL-Smack pack. I let the pack swell to about double it's original size and poured it directly into the primary. -K Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:54:22 -0500 From: Jim Kirk <captain at indy.rr.com> Subject: Cleaning Products I seem to be getting a lime (or some other mineral) deposit building up on the insides of my carboys. What's the best cleaning product to dissolve this build up? I thought about using Lime Away, but is this safe to use and rinse out? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:55:26 -0500 From: Jim Kirk <captain at indy.rr.com> Subject: Converting Coke to Pepsi Does anyone know of a way to convert the fittings on Coke kegs (pin locks) to the fittings on Pepsi kegs (ball locks)? Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 16:08:15 -0500 From: "Leonard, Phil" <Phil.Leonard at dsionline.com> Subject: FW: RE: Batch sparge I started doing batch sparging several months ago out of necessity. In preparation of moving to a new house my sparge arm device got packed up and put into storage. Of course then the move didn't happen as soon as expected and I "needed" to brew. Since I'd been thinking about trying batch sparging for awhile it was time to try it. I ran the calculations to scale up the grist (around 9% for my system) and my extract points came out perfect. Now I'm in no big hurry to find/unpack the old sparge stuff. Philip [612 251.4 AR] Overland Park, KS Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 17:39:53 -0500 From: Jim Kirk <captain at indy.rr.com> Subject: Easty Masher Questions I'm slowly getting back into brewing after about 8 years. I used to mash in a cooler. I had a big cooler that would hold up to around 40 pounds of grain. It had three copper tubes that ran the length with slits for catching runoff. The three tubes were capped at one end and all merged together at the other and ran out through the drain hole. I'm thinking of attempting it again. I found an Easymasher that I bought years ago and never used. My plan now it to drill out the drain hole of the cooler a bit and run the Easymasher through it. Has anyone done this? Can I expect approximately the same extraction rate or will it drop off since the Easymasher has much less area than the three copper tubes? Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/03/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96