HOMEBREW Digest #1088 Tue 02 March 1993

Digest #1087 Digest #1089

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Please sign me up (Ted WHittemore)
  Phoenix sites/sights (Darryl Davidson)
  Re: Refractometers and Hydrometers (Marc de Jonge)
  Yeast Technology (Glenn Raudins)
  Pitching Idea ("I'm a jelly doughnut.  I'm a jelly doughnut.")
  Ranching (Jack Schmidling)
  Sanitizer (Jack Schmidling)
  Ginger beer problem (Dave Whitman)
  Mashout (Ed Hitchcock)
  AHA Sanctioned Competition (korz)
  RIMS system ("Bob Jones")
  Brewing in the Southwest- articles (Joe H. Barfield)
  computing alcohol content (Peter Maxwell)
  Electronic Brewing Publications (Joe H. Barfield)
  filter questions (Jim Busch)
  hop flavor/hop nose ("John L. Isenhour")
  honey ("Jena D.")
  My experience with Dutch dried malt extract (Keith A. MacNeal HLO1/T09 225-6171  01-Mar-1993 1523)
  Finishing hops vs. dryhops (korz)
  Addition of coriander (Deborah Poirier)
  Re: Korean Malt extract (digest #1087) ("Robert Haddad" )
  Re: gelatin fining (Richard Stueven)
  Test Driving Mills (Mike Deliman)
  Lallemand yeasts ("C. Lyons / Raytheon-ADC / Andover, MA")
  pH (DAMON_NOEL/HP0800_01)
  re: powdered sugur (Eric M. Mrozek)
  more on labels... (Kip Damrow)
  RE: Decoction Mash Questions (Pat Lasswell)
  Open Fermentors (Pat Lasswell)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Feb 93 14:29:08 EDT From: Ted WHittemore <YX804C at gwuvm.gwu.edu> Subject: Please sign me up if this is a digest mailing list of homrebrew information, please sign me up, m y email address is : yx804C at gwuvm.gwu.edu (internet) and yx804c at gwuvm (bitnet) thanks, Ted Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1993 21:20 EST From: Darryl Davidson <D_DAVIDSON at uvmvax.uvm.edu> Subject: Phoenix sites/sights I'm headed for Phoenix the weekend of March 5-6-7 and would appreciate the 'usual' advice, but MORE IMPORTANTLY, I want to track down Celis White and try it while I'm there. As a sort of 'just in case' scenario, I'd even be willing to race somewhere during my layover in Dallas-Ft Worth if it meant it. Reply directly here, and thanks in advance. As for the grumbling anti-advice lobby: go ahead and flame me... 'sworth it! - --Darryl d_davidson at uvmvax.uvm.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:51:51 +0100 From: dejonge at geof.ruu.nl (Marc de Jonge) Subject: Re: Refractometers and Hydrometers In HBD 1087 Peter Maxwell asks: > So if I measure the FG with a hydrometer to be 1.018, how do I know if it's > really 1.030 with 8% or 1.020 with 2%? You don't know (from F.G. alone) > Or does this matter? The two mentioned cases will taste very differently, so in that sense it matters. > How, then, do I calculate what the % alcohol of my beer really is? >From the difference between O.G and F.G., for example with one of the formulas cited by Al Korz in HBD 1087. Just to make things clear: The table is a definite 'don't worry' item if you use normal methods for measuring the density. It is intended for refractometers, which determine the extract concentration not the gravity. I only use the real extract value, corrected for alcohol, to get some insight in the yeast and mash characteristics across very different batches Marc de Jonge Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 7:57:38 CST From: raudins at galt.b17d.ingr.com (Glenn Raudins) Subject: Yeast Technology A little while back, I read review in the HBD about the book: Yeast Technology. I would like some more opinions on whether this book is worth the money from a brewing point of view or if there are better books that cover the brewing aspects of yeast. I am looking for an in depth book that covers areas like autolysis (& the compounds formed.) Any help would be appreciated. Glenn Raudins raudins at galt.b17d.ingr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 09:16:31 -0500 (EST) From: "I'm a jelly doughnut. I'm a jelly doughnut." <cygnus at unh.edu> Subject: Pitching Idea I was thinking... pitch your ale yeast around 60 F... let it ferment at this temp for a day or two to discourage bacteria growth and to let the yeast make alcohol, the stuff that kills some bacteria... then jack the temp up to 65 F to finish... how valid is this statement? I mean, it almost sounds like making a steam beer etc. but I was just wondering... -chris - --. David (Chris) Mackensen -- dcm2 at kepler.unh.edu cygnus at unh.edu "Hi, you don't know me, but I play one on T.V." - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:31 CST From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Ranching >From: atl at kpc.com > I home can wort for use as starters and for priming my beer. I purchased a case of Ball 1 pint canning jars ($7.50), filled them with highly hopped 1.040 extract based wort..... I'm with you up to this point but why not just eliminate this whole step by saving a pint of wort from the previous batch. A further bonus (for all-grain brewers) is that the starter is more like your actual brews than one made with extract. > This may sound like a lot of work, but it sure beats boiling up small starters when you need them, and is easier than reserving gyle from each batch. Not sure what you mean by "gyle", I would call it bitter wort but anyway, how can your process possibly be simpler than setting aside a pint of wort before pitching? You did not mention what kind of air lock you are using on the flask but if you use a glass one, simply putting it on at the end of boiling will sterilize it and fill it with sterile water as the steam condenses. Nothing could be simpler. > The agar was quite expensive, $24.50 for 100g. A suitable agar can be had from oriental food shops for far less. It is sold in stick form and you need about 6 inches to a cup of wort. Nice article. I don't want to start another snob thread but I put yeast culture right up there with all-grain as one of the more rewarding aspects of homebrewing. js Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:32 CST From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Sanitizer >From: Jay Hersh <hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu> >is this right, 1 oz to 1 gal.?? That is 10 times the amount recommended for usage. If this is indeed correct does this test really tell us anything since the concentrations are an order of magnitude above what people normally use?? >hoping that was a typo.... No typo. I also used bleach neat or at least 2:1 when I used it. It is all relative and I find the long contact times discomforting. For example, unless one uses 5 gallons of sanitizer in a 5 gallon keg, how can one ever be sure of a one minute contact time? If used at higher concentrations, one can simply slosh a small amount around for a minute and get a more effective sanitization than doing the same with a small amount at the recommended concentration. As rinse water is not a problem around here, I don't mind more thorough rinsing and it is still far less than I had to do with bleach. js Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 10:20:14 EST From: Dave Whitman <rsndww at rohmhaas.com> Subject: Ginger beer problem To homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.co X-Mailer: LeeMail 1.2.4 This is my first post to hbd, although I've been reading for a while now. I've been extract brewing for about 2 years. I'm in the middle of a batch of ginger beer, using a recipe which is a hodge-podge of Cat's Meow recipes and my own warped ideas. What I'm shooting for is something with a pronounced ginger flavor and aroma, good body, but a very light color. I think I'm going to hit all the goals except the ginger flavor, which is a problem given that this is supposed to be a ginger beer. Here's the fine print for a 5 gallon batch: 2 cans Munton & Fison extra light extract (for light color) 0.5 lb. maltodextrin powder (for body w/o color) 2 oz Hallertauer leaf hop (4.6% alpha) 3 oz sliced ginger root (peeled for lighter color) 4 each juice from fresh lemons 1 pkt Whitbread ale yeast The ginger and hops were boiled in the wort for 45 minutes, then lemon juice was added along with my immersion chiller. After an additional 10 minute boil, the batch was chilled to 65F. ph: 5.3 before lemon juice, 4.0 afterwards. To my chagin, the resulting wort had very little ginger flavor. 1. Did I steam distill off all the good stuff by boiling the ginger too long? 2. Can I "dry ginger" the batch by adding shredded ginger to my secondary fermenter? Any suggestions on how much to try? Dave Whitman/rsndww at rohmhaas.com "I had a homebrew, but I'm *still* worried." Return to table of contents
Date: 01 Mar 1993 11:29:51 -0400 From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca> Subject: Mashout If we are going to go off on a discussion of mashout and whether one should or should not, and the temperatures in the grain bed during the sparge and so on, perhaps we should state the reason for a mashout at all. I may be completely off track here, but the only reason I can see for a mashout at enzyme-deactivating temperatures is _consistency_. When brewing a sweet ale, for example, you don't want to convert all your polysaccharides down to glucose, so you kill off the enzymes before they can completely chop them up. You like the beer, you want to reproduce it as closely as possible (especialy if you're a commercial brewer) so you control the mash precisely, and then you deactivate the enzymes. If, on the other hand, you are a homebrewer trying to squeeze out an extra extraction point or so in a "Swilling Beer" (please note this term refers to an individual's standard recipe that keeps the fridge full, allowing slightly longer interludes between experimental batches), you might just let the enzymes play a little longer. Jack suggested that the mashout also increases the grain bed temperature to allow for an easier sparge. This may well be true, but I suspect that this would be more important for commercial breweries. A friend and I compared the extraction rates for two brews, one sparged with cold water, the other with hot. The hot sparge was done very slowly (3 hrs or so) while the cold sparge was fairly quick (1 hr). The end result: the long sparge produced a much clearer wort, but the extraction rates were virtually identical. Unfortunately these rates were on the low side, around 25-26, but at least the sparge can be ruled out as the cause of poor extraction. Prime suspects for low extraction rate are the malt itself (canadian 2-row pale) and the crush (gotta get a MaltMill one of these days). In summary: If you have a brew you like and would like to brew consistently, mashout (of course, you have to be consistent with the malt and the mash protocol too). If you want to squeeze out an extra 1/2 point of extraction, and don't care about consistency, don't bother with mashout. If you want to avoid HSA during the sparge, chill the mash and use cold water. (Jack, you seem to get good results, would you mind trying a cold sparge through the EM and let us know how it turns out?) ed +----------------------------------------------+ | D is for Doppelbock, a strong german beer | | Three bottle of this, you'll be on your ear. | +----------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 09:57 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: AHA Sanctioned Competition [I'd like to apologize for the lateness of this post. I received the information last thursday, but due to an important day-job deadline, I could not post it till now. Since there is limited time to request additional information, I will email additional information directly. Sorry.] BREWER'S OF SOUTH SUBURBIA (south-suburban Chicagoland) AHA Sanctioned Regional Homebrew Competition Judging: Saturday, March 20, 1993 at Public Landing in Lockport, IL Sponsored by: DOPPLEBOCKERS BREWERY AND RESTAURANT (opening soon in Lockport, Illinois) and SHEAF & VINE BREWING SUPPLY POINTS EARNED IN THIS COMPETITION GO TOWARDS DETERMINING "MIDWEST HOMEBREWER OF THE YEAR" BEST OF SHOW AWARD SPONSORED BY SHEAF & VINE BREWING SUPPLY [(gift certificate (plus shipping if winner is out-of-state)] ELIGIBILITY: 1. You must be relaxed. 2. You must not be worried. 3. You must have a homebrew to enter. WHERE AND WHEN TO SEND: 1. The entry deadline is Friday, March 12th, 1993. This allows us time to cash the checks and buy train fare to Portland in June. 2. Entries accompanied by fees, forms, etc., should be delivered or shipped to: B.O.S.S. c/o Sheaf & Vine Brewing Supply INSIDE Mainstreet Deli and Liquors 5425 South LaGrange Road Countryside, IL 60525 (708) 430-HOPS (4677) FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEND EMAIL TO ME AT korz at iepubj.att.com or CALL THE COMPETITION CO-CHAIRMEN: Mike Pezan (708) 349-8462 and Marty Nachel (815) 469-4789 If you will be in the Chicagoland area on March 20th, and would like to judge, please send me email (korz at iepubj.att.com) and I'll send you a Judge Registration Form. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 08:14:57 PST From: "Bob Jones" <bjones at novax.llnl.gov> Subject: RIMS system George, I'm posting this RIMS discusion to the digest, because I think this is of general interest to a lot of brewers. I too have tried the RIMS setup, and spent a lot of time trying to make it work. I finally came to the conclusion that it only works with a specific geometry and only with small batch sizes. My attempts at a 10 gallon size RIMS was a bust. I refocused all my attention to convincing others that wanted to try the system not to waste their time. Your post wasn't very specific on details that describes the recirculating mechanics. This IS the problem area. You got mother nature to deal with here, and she is tuff to change. I found the grain compression at any speed was too much in a 10 gallon sanke keg mash tun. Again I came to the conclusion that it MIGHT work IF the mash/grain area was large compared to the depth. How does this new system overcome these obvious problems? I must have discussed this problem with 10 scientists and engineers around here with no good fool proof ideas. I would sure like to know what makes this new system work. My present system has a gas fired mash tun that I must stir continously while heating. This is the only WORK in my system, and I dislike it. Micah's system of underleting has its problems too. The management of water volumes can be tricky. I have tried it and it too did not work as Micah would have us all believe. I think he just makes it work because, that is the only way he had to add additional heat to his mash tun. I'm sure if Micah was around to defend his approach he would. Bob Jones Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:27:46 -1000 From: ifby546 at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Joe H. Barfield) Subject: Brewing in the Southwest- articles Please submit to me articles relating to brewing in the Southwest . The deadline for submission to the April issue of the Southwest Brewing News is March 15. I am looking for articles about or reviews of beers, bars, breweries, brewpubs, books, burps, brewers, laws, homebrew clubs, ideal and/or ridiculous homebrew set-ups, brewing in general, and anything else you might expect to see in a bi-monthly newspaper covering the brewing scene in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana. >> Also, please let me know if there is a more appropriate place to post this request. >>More info next week on Brewpub legalization in Texas. Currently, HB335 is a >>boon to micros & brewpubs when legalized. In effect, HB335 simplifies and >>lowers licensing cost for small brewers. >> I took samples of IPA wort last night before & after chilling. Post cold >>break was certainly clearer than the sample before cold break. I had used >>*Break Bright* 30 min. before end of boil. Anybody know if this is better >>than plain old unreinheit Irish moss? Thanks- Joe Barfield, Publisher, SW Brewing News, 406 w.35th, Austin, TX 78705- (512)467-2225. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 17:42 GMT From: DWORKINJ <DWORKINJ%DIALOG at mcimail.com> Subject: unsub homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 11:15:28 -0800 (PST) From: Peter Maxwell <peterm at aoraki.dtc.hp.com> Subject: computing alcohol content Further to my note in HBD 1087, I see that Al refers to an earlier equation by Tom Kuhn ..... > OK, for all of you who _hate_ algebra but _can_ plug numbers into a >formula (or formulas into a program), here is the relationship between >initial specific gravity (SG1) and the temperature at which it was >measured (T1), final specific gravity (SG2) and the temperature at which >it was measured (T2), and percent alcohol by volume (A), corrected to >60 F. (All temperatures are F.): > > > {0.0190 x (T1 - T2)} + {131.25 x (SG1 - SG2)} = A > What I'd like to know is SG2 the value obtained with a hydrometer, which therefore includes the effect of the alcohol present? Or does SG2 represent the "real" SG, in terms of residual sugars? Peter Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 12:27:40 -1000 From: ifby546 at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Joe H. Barfield) Subject: Electronic Brewing Publications Howdy, I'm interested in other electronic bulleting boards related to the art of brewing. I've heard reference to bulletin boards called rec.craft & rec.brewing. How does one subscribe or refer to these? Also, what other popular bulletins exist. What popular media is out there? What is available on Compuserve, etc. Please send your responses to me at: ifby546 at ccwf.cc.utexas.edu, I'll compile the responses and post it back to the HBDigest. Thanks- Joe B. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:38:59 EST From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: filter questions I am considering filtering my beer for the first time and I thought I would consult the HBD for any tips. My primary reason to filter is merely to remove any residual yeast. I am aware of a filter sold by the Filter Store, which is merely a wholehouse cartridge type filter. The filter cartridge is some kind of polypropelyne substance that retails for about $33. Now, my local Hechingers has a woven type sediment filter for use in just such a house filter and it is only $5. Anyone have experiences using either of these filters? Any tips on cleaning or sanitizing? I have heard that chlorine will break down this filter, but the people at the Filter Store specifically said to backflush at low pressure and use 1TBls chlorox per 1 gallon! Seems like if anything will breakdown this polypro, this would. Any thoughts about iodophor and or caustics (weak)?? Thanks, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 1993 14:14:47 CST From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov> Subject: hop flavor/hop nose roy.rudebusch at travel.com (Roy Rudebusch) writes: >Hop nose is achieved by boiling pellet hops for two min. and >loose hops for 5 min. > >Dry-hopping seems to contribute mostly to palate flavor. I believe that to get that "MORE HOPS"(tm) flavor and aroma, you can certainly do end-o-the-boil additions, but to really get those 'knock their socks off' hop aromatics, dryhopping is the way to go. -The HopDevil john at hopduvel.UUCP isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov ps to BLAST at sn01.sncc.lsu.edu >I have to make a trip to Austin, TX next week... >Anyone got the latest on brewpubs there? Brewpubs are currently illegal in TX:( Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 01 Mar 93 13:15:20 MST From: "Jena D." <G0463114 at NMSUVM1.NMSU.EDU> Subject: honey I am an intermediate brewer and am interested in using honey either in a pilsen er or an ale. Any recipes out there you would like to share? I am also intere sted in a chocolate beer recipe. I noticed KArl Bloss had one but i had trouble sending him a direct message. Any recipes would be greatly appreciated. Also in response to an article that was on a fruit beer. We brewed a batch of black berry beer that was good after 6 weeks but after three months, what a differenc e in taste and color. Patience is a virtue, I suppose. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 15:34:12 EST From: Keith A. MacNeal HLO1/T09 225-6171 01-Mar-1993 1523 <macneal at pate.enet.dec.com> Subject: My experience with Dutch dried malt extract Timothy Sweet writes: >1. I'm new to the list and to home brewing and have seen a couple of mentions >of the fact that Laaglander DME does not ferment as completely as some others. >So I have a question about this: In my current batch I was using the specs. >from Papazian's chart for "special red bitter"--6 lb. amber DME (I used Laag-ed >lander) and 1/8 lb. roasted unmalted barley (which I brought to a boil and >then strained out). The OG was 1050; fermentation seems to have stopped and >the FG is 1030. This seems too high. has something gone wrong--incomplete >fermentation--or would this be a reasonable FG? (Sorry--forgot to note that >I am brewing 5 gal.) The beer seems a bit too sweet for my taste. I brewed a version of Papazian's Palalia Ale to make an IPA using a dried malt extract from Holland with similar results to yours. OG was around 1053. FG was around 1029 even after being in secondary for 2 weeks. It's been in bottles for a few weeks now and I haven't had any gushers or beer bombs so it looks like it did ferment out. It doesn't seem as sweet as a previous batch of ale I made from 2 cans of dark extract syrup. That may be due to my use of oak chips in the IPA. The tannins in the oak may be hiding some of the residual sweetness. Keith MacNeal Digital Equipment Corp. Hudson, MA USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 14:59 CST From: korz at iepubj.att.com Subject: Finishing hops vs. dryhops Roy writes: >Hop nose is achieved by boiling pellet hops for two min. and >loose hops for 5 min. > >Dry-hopping seems to contribute mostly to palate flavor. I must disagree. I have about 40 datapoints to the contrary. I agree that *some* hop bouquet can be gained from finishing hops (last 1 to 5 minutes of the boil), but not *nearly* as much as from dryhopping. Please note that I've found that in my setup (5 gallon glass carboy with blowoff; switch to airlock after krausen falls; dryhop with whole hops or plugs for exactly 7 days after the airlock rate falls to 1 bubble/minute) any more or less than 7 days of dryhopping gives me less hop bouquet and an order of magnitude more than finishing hops. Perhaps in your previous dryhopping attempts, you waited too long or not long enough. You also *must* wait for the fermentation to subside or the CO2 will scrub the hop aromatics out of the beer. Al. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:32:28 -0500 From: Deborah Poirier <Deborah_Poirier at INRS-ENER.UQuebec.CA> Subject: Addition of coriander Hello all, I brewed a batch of Wit last weekend, which is bubbling nicely in the primary. The recipe (Miller) calls for the addition of 1 ounce of coriander seed to the secondary. Do I have to boil the coriander before adding it or will there be enough alcohol present to ward off any nasties? Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance. Deb <poirier at inrs-ener.uquebec.ca> Return to table of contents
Date: 1 Mar 93 16:29:23 EDT From: "Robert Haddad" <M-RHADDAD at bss1.umd.edu> Subject: Re: Korean Malt extract (digest #1087) A few months ago, while shopping in anoriental supermarket in Rockville, MD, I came across the same assortment of flours (bean, rice etc.), including the mysterious Malt Powder Joseph Hall seems to have come across. Since it seemed significantly cheaper than the stuff I get at the brew supply store, I thought I'd give it a try. I bought 2 1-lb bags, and tried a small batch of ale, with no other malts or sugars, as if it were out of a can of malt extract. Much to my disappointment, nothing happened. The stuff never fermented. No bubbles, not beer aroma. The only transformation which did eventually occur was the film of greenish-brown slime which grew on the surface after about 2 months, and the pungent and noxious odor which emanated when I opened the fermenter to look in. I then decided to taste the malt powder. Oddly, it didn't taste anything like the powdered malt extracts I usually buy. It tasted more like flour--no sweetness to it. It seemed starchy. Now, the closest I have come to brewing all-grain beers is partial fermentation. Could it be, perhaps, that this malt powder has to be heated slowly to a given temperature, and then be allowed to rest for a starch conversion? Should, perhaps other sources of malt/sugar be added to help/activate the conversion? I had given up on this idea, but would be happy to continue experimenting with the stuff if you or others could share your thoughts about what might have gone wrong. Cheers, Robert Haddad <m-rhaddad at bss1.umd.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:06:16 -0800 From: Richard Stueven <gak at wrs.com> Subject: Re: gelatin fining Kelly Jones <k-jones at ee.utah.edu> sez: >I don't generally fine my beer... I don't fine my beer...my beer's pretty fine as it is! (Ha! Ha! It's a joke, son...) have fun gak Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1993 14:39:24 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Deliman <miked at wrs.com> Subject: Test Driving Mills Hello all in Home Brew Land, Recently one of our fellow homebrewers and I decided that when I received my maltmill, we'd try to do an honest side-by-side comparison of the crush produced by a Corona and a MaltMill. I had intended to pick-nits with the analyses; even to the point of weighing the flour produced from one pound of milled malt, etc. Unfortunately, the testing may need to be delayed. Although I've received the maltmill, and assembly was trivial, there is one large problem with the maltmill as it stands. As delivered, I'm sure that the maltmill wouldn't pass the simplest of FDA inspections for food preparation machinery. Probably not even in <insert third world nation here>. The construction of the mill itself is acceptable. The problem lies in the accumulated detritus lodged into the rollers. While assembling the mill, I brushed my hand on the surface of the rollers. I was aghast to see zebra stripes on my hand. Stripes of lubricant mixed with metal particles, dirt, grunge. The rollers have a nice design - they are grooved, which could facilitate the uptake of grain. It is also a poor design, as it's nearly impossible to remove the accumulated detritus from the grooves. I spent about an hour trying to clean the rollers last night, and at this point, I'd still pronounce it unusable. It would seem that in order to properly clean the things, I'll need to disassemble the mill completely, and break out innumerable amounts of soaps, degreasers, solvents, etc. Something I'd rather not do. Certainly not in the Rheinheitsgebot. To be honest, I'm appalled that someone would ship food processing machinery in such a state; especially priced at $130. In the interest of being fair, I've written to the producer and asked for a clean set of rollers to replace these. I'll post the results of this inquiry. - --------------- I have a question for the chem types out there. Does anyone know which would contain more energy per given volume: LNG (natural gas) or LPG (propane) ? I ask as I recently purchased a nice burner, which I thought was designed for LPG. When I run int off of a propane tank, however, it burns far too rich. (it coats the boiler with soot, and the flames never do adjust down to that nice, blue, clean burn!) - --------------- Brew question: does anybody out there have a recipe (pref all grain) for Samuel Smith's Pale? Please!! Send to me!! Thanks all! (grain mill results will be posted) -mike P.S. The worst part about the grunge: Listen to a Shark's game, and you`ll probably hear my call... (harassing the ref) "KILL THE ZEBRA!!!" Mike Deliman, 800-USA-4WRS, FAX 510-814-2010, WRS 2400bd BBS: 510-814-2165 email: miked at wrs.com (inet) or [sun,uunet]!wrs!miked (uunet) Snail Mail: Wind River Systems, 1010 Atlantic Ave, Alameda CA 94501 USA (near Checkov's nuclear wessels.) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 13:51 EST From: "C. Lyons / Raytheon-ADC / Andover, MA" <LYONS at adc3.adc.ray.com> Subject: Lallemand yeasts Back in HBD #1026 Al wrote: > What I'm trying to say is that some dry yeasts make bad beer and some > make good beer. Less than a year ago, I posted that I would never use > a dry yeast again, but have since reconsidered after tasting some beer > made with Coopers yeast. I've also made some with Nottingham and > Windsor, but have yet to taste it. I still use Wyeast for most of my > brews and I simply could not get the woody character of my Pale Ale > without Wyeast #1028 London Ale, but I look at it as having three more > yeasts (Coopers, Nottingham and Windsor) to choose from in addition to > the yeasts from Wyeast. I'm very curious what Al's comments were on the different yeasts. Al, if you've had a chance to taste the above beers you've referred to, please comment. I'd also be very interested in hearing from others who have experimented with various dry yeasts. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 23:02:00 +0000 From: DAMON_NOEL/HP0800_01%mailhub.cs.itc.hp.com at mailhub.cs.itc.hp.com Subject: pH With respect to the recent thread on pH vs. temperature...I assume that when adjusting the pH of sparge water that the calibration of the meter using the calibration solution should be done at sparge temperature and that the desired pH be set at that temperature, not room or 60 deg. I found that the boiling (conditioning) of my sparge water went from an initial room temp reading of 7.0 to 8.3 at 170. I used citric acid to make adjustment to 5.8 at the sparge temperature. The first time I tried this, I too used gypsum initially but after 2 Tbs. changed only a couple of tenths, I went to the acid and overshot to 5.0. I salvaged the sparge with bicarb and all seemed to go well. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:28:24 PST From: mrozek at gandalf.etdesg.TRW.COM (Eric M. Mrozek) Subject: re: powdered sugur In HBD #1083 John Freeman asks: >Isn't powdered sugar just sugar? I don't understand the insistence on >using the powdered form versus the crystalline form. Powdered sugur is a mix of finely ground table sugur and cornstarch (about 60%/40%). This is why powdered sugur doesn't cake or clump, and why you don't substitute powdered sugur for regular sugur when baking (the doughs become impossibly stiff). Eric Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 19:56:55 PST From: damrowk at Thomas.COM (Kip Damrow) Subject: more on labels... Hello HBers, Regarding beer labels; Will the color, from a color copy bleed when dipped into the famous HBD milk adhesive ( i.e. skim milk in shallow bowl ) ? Just wondering... Kip Damrow Thomas Bros. Maps Irvine, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 16:51:59 PST From: Pat Lasswell <patl at microsoft.com> Subject: RE: Decoction Mash Questions In HBD 1086, Chris Cook asks about decoction mashing. I have brewed 10+ decoction mashed beers of varying quality: some were horrible (got dumped), some were outstanding. When I first started out, I attempted to get the decoctions as thick as possible. The result was caramelization in the decoction no matter how much I stirred, and the more I stirred, the more HSA became a factor. My solution to this dilemma was to ensure that the decoction was dilute enough not to require stirring, either by adding boiling water after dextrinization, or by including some of the mash liquid in the decoction. I also tried several different (and messy!) means of removing the decoction. In the end, I found the quickest, cleanest, and easiest to be siphoning: I use a 1"ID soft-pvc tube about 5 feet long. Another advantage to siphoning is that it eliminates a source of HSA. It is not important to pull only the 'thickest' or the 'thinnest' portion for a particular decoction. If a fairly representative sample of the entire mash is taken, all works well. I have found that the most important thing to be aware of is the quantity: beware of taking too little. Perhaps if one is using a malt of low diastatic strength, such as Munich, one may need to be careful not to boil too much of the mash liquid, but with domestic 2-row, I have not had a problem. Noonan recommends that the lauter decoction be thinnest portion, so as to deactivate the enzymes and as not to gelatinize unconvered starch. Neither of these is really an issue. When the decoction is remixed, the temperature should be at mash-out which will denature the enzymes anyway. Any starch that is released should be trapped by a proper lauter: only clear run-off goes to the boiler. Hence, his two points are non-issues. Noonan makes a big deal of slowly and evenly mixing the decoction back into the mash to avoid hot spots. For larger brewing operations this may be important, but I have never found it so, where a dozen strokes with a spoon will completely mix my mere 5-gallon mashes. To return the decoction to the cold settlement, I use the siphon hose to return the entire decoction at once. I mix thoroughly and stabilize the temperature with boiling or cold water. Siphoning here further reduces sources of HSA. I have been experimenting with a modified decoction mash wherein the enzyme-rich liquor of the dough-in is lautered off and reserved prior to the first decoction, enabling the _entire_ grain mass to be boiled at once. The initial trial of this method was promising: extraction was high; the beer is good. If it yields worthwhile technique, I'll post. Ars Zymurgia patl at microsoft.com (Pat Lasswell) Redmond, Washington USA Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 93 18:43:31 PST From: Pat Lasswell <patl at microsoft.com> Subject: Open Fermentors Owing to the encouragement of seeing someone (Jim Busch?) advocate open fermentation, I gave it a try. It is one of my best beers to date, much better than many that I have made in carboys. The fermentor used was a 6-gallon crock that my Dad used to brew his beer in. I sterilized it with boiling water before siphoning in the cooled wort and pitching the yeast. I used a culture from the bottom of the secondary of a beer fermented with Nottingham ale yeast. The yeast had been acid-washed and fed with several 1.020 sucrose solutions. At pitching time there was about 5 oz. of healthy yeast in the starter. Lag time was about 12 hours, and fermentation was finished within 60 hours of pitching. Fermentation temperature was 68degF at the peak, finishing at 65degF when I racked to a secondary and dry-hopped. I found it much easier to monitor the ferment with an open fermentor: just sterilize the hydrometer or thermometer and drop it in; want a taste? -- just dip in a (sterilized) spoon. I have been used to just pitching the yeast and waiting until the fermentation visibly subsided before racking to secondary; there was nothing to do during primary except check on it every 12 hours or so. With open fermentation and no blow-off, I had to keep an eye on it and skim the foam every 6 hours, lest it push off the kettle lid that I had on it. (This may be because the crock was just barely big enough to hold 5 gallons of beer and the foam of high-kraeusen; if the fermentor were larger, then perhaps I would not have been concerned.) I had expected to be able to harvest clumps of new yeast from the top of the primary, but they never appeared. This may be because the yeast is highly flocculant. (The beer does have a slight diacetyl component.) I had thought that perhaps the yeast did not reproduce much, due to the high pitching rate, but I did collect about a pint of yeast slurry from the bottom of the fermentor, so that obviously wasn't the case. Any ideas? Does the flocculant nature of Nottingham yeast make it a bottom cropping strain? Recent discussions have centered on fermentor geometry. The crock has roughly the same proportions as a carboy, or a little more squat. Judging from recent posts, this is not the 'ideal' geometry, having too small of a surface-to- volume ratio. Would this have had an effect on yeast cropping? Ars Zymurgia patl at microsoft.com (Pat Lasswell) Redmond, Washington USA Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1088, 03/02/93