HOMEBREW Digest #1506 Sat 20 August 1994

Digest #1505 Digest #1507

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Steep vs Mash (Rich Larsen)
  RE: Lautering (Darryl Richman)
  Barrels (MTL) <fcost at ARL.MIL>
  Hop Union Address/Tel. No. (Mark)
  Decoction mashing : thickest portion? (c.e.) wallace" <cwallace at bnr.ca>
  beer in Phoenix area ("Dave Suurballe")
  Triple Bock (David Haas)
  Re: Keg Fermenting (Larry Barello)
  going to London ("Dr. Robert Ford")
  Pike Place Brewery.. kep it up!/ bentonite results/ Corny keg as ("McGaughey, Nial")
  water analysis (JOHN KLECZEWSKI)
  U-Brews and competitions (Stuart Cole)
  Attention UBC Brewers (Stuart Cole)
  Fuller's ESB (Chuck E. Mryglot)
  Re: Dry Hopping/Keg Fermenting (Art Steinmetz)
  What the hell is Wyeast 1056 (Patrick Casey)
  Re: when to add fruit (David_Arnone)
  Copper Boiler OK to use? (Kevin Cawley [IL33])
  Brewing Belgian Beers (#6): Triples ("Phillip Seitz")
  Re: Mill test (Mark A. Stevens)
  Gott Cooler Spigot (Mark)
  Breweries in Antarctica ? (Conan-the-Librarian)
  New Brewpub Review (Knoxvil (Paul Hethmon)
  Des Moines, IA Brewpubs ("THOMAS L. STOLFI")
  BrewHumor (Mark Evans)
  Fermenting Lagers? (Ed Blonski)
  Irish Moss / Straining / Filtering (Turner)
  Yield (George J Fix)
  slotted screen and gigantic sigs (brewing chemist Mitch)

****************************************************************** ** NOTE: There will be no digest administration from August 15 ** through August 26. PLEASE be patient when requesting changes ** or cancellations. ****************************************************************** 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. FAQs, archives and other files 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: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:35:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Rich Larsen <rlarsen at squeaky.free.org> Subject: Steep vs Mash Hello all, Specialty grains... mash or steep? This is about as controversial as counterflow/immersion chillers. I recently had the opportunity to set up a full scale experiment and test the pros and cons of steeping VS mashing specialty grains. I set out to make up a 10 gallon batch of beer for a block party. I wanted something the unenlightened masses would enjoy, so I decided on a simple amber ale. Recipe follows: For 10 US Gals Avers Avenue Amber Ale 12 lbs English Lager 4 lbs Belgium Pale Ale 6 lbs English Mild (poor crush) 2 lbs Caramunich NB = Northern Brewer 9.3% 1/2 oz KG = Kent Golding 5.0% 2 oz F = Fuggle 3.6% 2 oz Hop Table in ounces MIN NB KG F 60 1/2 45 1 30 1 1 15 1/2 F 1/2 SG 1.050 FG 1.010 A problem arose with the amount of grain as I do not have the capacity in my humble homebrewery to mash this much grain at once. I decided to split the batch down the middle and brew two batches at once. After dividing up the grain into both brewpots, I came to the Caramunich. I tossed in one pound in the first pot for the mash as usual, and held back the second pound for the second pot for later steeping. The first pot was brought up to conversion temperature. When this was mashing away, the second pot was brought up to temperature. The second batch was allowed to continue to mash during the sparge of the first. This resulted in a longer mash time than the first had received due to a longer than expected sparge. Once batch 1 was sparged and placed on the stove to boil, batch 2 was sparged. Batch 1 boiled over slightly and additional bittering hops were added to compensate for the loss. Closer monitoring of the pots followed ;-) During hopping of batch 1 batch 2 was brought to a boil. The one pound of caramunich that was reserved for batch 2 was placed in a grain bag and steeped in 170F water. It was then "sparged" repeatedly by dunking in hot clean water until it drained fairly clear. This "tea" was then added to the boil pot with the rest of the runnings and brought to a boil. Batch 2 was visibly more turbid in the pot than batch 1. Batch 2 may not have reached as rigorous of a boil as batch 1 due to the use of a different stove. Both brews were hopped, and chilled with an immersion chiller. Batch 2 had a larger volume by about 1/2 gallon than batch 1. Specific gravity's differed by .005. BRF verified that 1.050 at 5 gals drops to 1.045 with the addition of 1/2 gallon of water. Both batches were fermented side by side at a controlled 60F. (Fridge/Airstat combo) on the trub for 1 week. Transfer to secondary and fermentation continued under the same conditions for an additional week. The beer was fined with 1/2 tsp gelatin to each carboy for a period of 10 days. Both batches were kegged and force carbonated. FG for batch 1 was ~1.010, batch 2 ~1.005. (Surprise!) I estimated the color difference was approximately 1 L difference, and BRF also verified that. The main observable difference is a slight haze in batch 2 (steeped) batch 1 is brilliantly clear. Flavor difference batch 2 tastes a bit thin, almost watery, apart from that the flavor is identical. Conclusions : I feel that the haze may be a starch haze. There may have been a bit of unconverted starch in the caramunich that caused it. The process of mashing converted this starch in the mashed batch (batch 1) which resulted in a clear final product. There is the possibility that the soft boil batch 2 received could have attributed to the haze as well by not precipitating the protien as well as it should. This haze however did not seem to change with chilling or warming. Color/body differences can be attributed to the additional sparge water needed to steep the specialty malt and the initial difference in volume of the total wort fermented. Keeping this in mind, the difference in flavor/color/body was minimal. FWIW be it the difference in the body or maybe a better utilization of the caramunich, I felt that batch 1 was a superior beer. SO.... IMHO mashing does not appear to affect the contribution from the caramunich, but may reduce the risk of starch induced haze. I will continue to mash the specialty grains. This of course does not draw any conclusions for the use of black grains. => Rich Larsen (708) 388-3514 rlarsen at squeaky.free.org (715) 743-1600 HomeBrew University (708) 705-7263 (WHAT?, HOW?, SORRY? <-- A shiny new dime to whoever identifies these first) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 10:31:47 PDT From: Darryl Richman <darrylri at microsoft.com> Subject: RE: Lautering gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) writes: > I do not believe optimal run off times scale well with respect to brew > volumes. A striking case in point is provided by the recent article One of the interesting things I learned while researching "Bock", and which I included in the book, is that the folks at Weihenstephan have a general recommendation for lautering decoction mashes at a pretty slow rate, which is based on the surface area of the lauter tun (assuming a uniform depth and a uniform drainage). By specifying the rate per square area, they are really describing a particular flow rate of fluid through the bed. The rate recommended was approximately 1 gallon / (6 minute * square foot) to start, speeding up to 1/4 as the wort thins out. (I'm quoting from memory, always a dangerous thing.) These figures are quoted from volume 2 of Narziss' "Die Technologie der Bierbereitung". Also, Narziss indicates a shallower bed for decoction mashes than Hough et al in "Malting and Brewing Science" do for infusion mashes. > "Lautering: Back to the Basics" which appeared in MBAA Tech. Qr. > (Vol.30, No.3, 1993). The authors are senior brewers at Millers, and > they describe their lautering procedures in detail. There is much here > of conceptual interest, their intriguing mash up/vorlauf procedure being > a case in point. However, their flow rates, which range from 700-750 bbls./hr. > for the first wort to 900-1000 bbls./hr. during sparging, are of zero relevance > for us. Their batch size is 1100 bbls., and they collect 1200 bbls. of sweet > wort to get this. Counting up the times quoted their total time is near 120-130 > mins. It would be interesting to know how their flow rates compare to those suggested by Narziss. One might expect a mixed mash system such as Miller/AB/Coors employ to behave more like a straight infusion than a decoction, since most (90% or so) of the barley malt husks do not undergo boiling. --Darryl Richman Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 14:34:39 EDT From: Fred Cost (MTL) <fcost at ARL.MIL> Subject: Barrels My dictionary claims that a barrel is 31 1/2 gallons, which is alarming when you consider that a 1/2 barrel keg holds 15.5 gallons. I think we're getting hosed out of a quart of beer each time we buy a keg (a pint per 1/4 barrel keg). Is this correct? Write your congressman. Fred Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 13:44:54 -0600 From: Mark <markc at ssd.fsi.com> Subject: Hop Union Address/Tel. No. Anybody out there have the address or telephone number for Hop Union. Thanks.......mark Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 16:41:00 -0400 From: "chris (c.e.) wallace" <cwallace at bnr.ca> Subject: Decoction mashing : thickest portion? In references to decoction mashing both here on the net and in published literature (namely Warner's "German Wheat Beer" and Papazian's "Home Brewer's Companion"), I've noticed comments to the effect that the decoction should be taken from the "thickest part of the mash." I find this a bit confusing given my (still extremely limited) all-grain experience. All of my mashes have been pretty homogenous, or have had at most an inch of liquid on top of the grain...ie. there's no discernable 'thick' portion. I typically use 2.7 L mash water per kg of grain (as per Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science"). In any case, do you draw off this 'thickest' portion via a spigot at the bottom of the mash tun? (I use a picnic cooler as a mash tun, so that would be no problem.) Otherwise, if you were just scooping out the mash for your decoction, how would you get the thickestportion? What's the reasoning behind using a thick decoction? I'm planning on trying to follow Warner's technique for an all-grain Hefe-Weizen in the next month or so...any suggestions would be appreciated. I'll post a summary of e-mail responses, so feel free to reply privately... BTW, looking up 'decoction' in my Oxford pocket dictionary, it reads: "boiling down to extract essence; the essence produced." This seems to be a bit of a misnomer, doesn't it, since the object of boiling the drawn-off mash is mainly to re-add it to the main mash and increase its temperature. Perhaps in the Old Days, the object of the decoction mash was to boil it down to concentrate the liquor?? Cheers....CW - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Chris Wallace | Opinions expressed | | | cwallace at bnr.ca | do not necessarily | <This space for rent> | | Bell-Northern Research | reflect the views | | | Nepean, Ontario, Canada | of BNR. | | - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: 17 Aug 1994 13:52:43 -0700 From: "Dave Suurballe" <suurb at farallon.com> Subject: beer in Phoenix area I'm going to Phoenix/Scottsdale for a weekend, and I would appreciate some advice about brewpubs and other beer bars. Dave Suurballe suurb at farallon.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 13:53:07 -800 (PDT) From: David Haas <dhaas at poway.csusm.edu> Subject: Triple Bock I have been homebrewing for almost 9 months, and just recently got into the information forum here. My friend just returned from a summer trip to visit his sister in Chicago and while there he enjoyed some brew at a few pubs. He heard from a owner of a Pub that Samuel Adams is releasing a vary limited Triple BOCK, 18% STRONG and 75$ bucks a case. Maybe I just missed the posts about this brew as I have only be aboard for 2 weeks. Any other information regarding this Triple Bock? Big Wave Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 15:19 PDT From: larryba at polstra.com (Larry Barello) Subject: Re: Keg Fermenting In article <32sf1m$67d at seattle.polstra.com> you write: >Just four words of advice to those contemplating fermenting in Cornelius >Kegs: "beware of clogged blowoff." By using a poppetless valvebody as >Dion suggests, you are hoping that the small hole (about 1/4" or so) in >the top of the valve body will not clog with hop bits. This can be a very A solution is to remove the poppet valve body during fermentation and replace them (dip and gas line) when you are ready to transfer or carbonate. - -- Larry Barello larryba at polstra.com 10034 NE 22nd ST (206) 454-6958 Bellevue, WA. 98004 Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 18:42:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Dr. Robert Ford" <rford at pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> Subject: going to London I am going to London in a week and would like to know if their are any brewpubs in the area that I should stop at. Also what are some good beers that I need to find on tap? Loren R Ford Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 94 14:55:00 PDT From: "McGaughey, Nial" <nmcgaugh at hq.walldata.com> Subject: Pike Place Brewery.. kep it up!/ bentonite results/ Corny keg as >I was informed that the management/administration of the brewery had enacted a policy of no >longer supplying people with yeast. This was a sad day for me as Pike Place has always >been friendly to homebrewers, >If Charles Finkel and the other business partners in Merchant Du Vin/Pike Place Brewery were >to know about the fact that their decision was an unpopular one, that homebrewers comprise a >large share of their market, they might possibly change their policy. This really bums me out. >Pike Place/Merchant Du Vin's business office can be reached at (206) 322-5022. call them and >let them know what you think about this. I know I have.. I am hearing from people that the phone campaign against the yeast stinginess policy is working! All of those who have called in, thank you! All of those who haven't, please do! And get your spouses/S.O.'s to call, we might be able to turn this around. Please remember, a little courtesy goes a long way over the phone. ->To all who have tried to E-Mail me, and failed... Our company just relocated to a new corporate office, and the SMTP server has been unreliable, to say the least. So: sorry for the inconvenience, and thanks to all who have tried to get through to me. bentonite findings: (quickie)- I have just finished comparisons with bentonite as a clarifier in racking procedure, I added 1/4 cup of bentonite slurry to the fermented beer during racking, then racked to the corny keg 24 hours later. the beer was an IPA, and It turned out wonderful. It was crystal clear as opposed to the 3 quarts of unclarified beer that was hazy and cloudy that it was compared against. The clarified beer was cleaner tasting, but a little thinner flavorwise, but _very_ delicious nonetheless. YMMV. ->Corn keg fermenters: I split my 15 gal master batch into 3 sub batches, one was fermented in a corny keg, all I did was loosely cover the latched opening with the rubber ringed cover during primary, and then racked to another corny keg that was closed, and the gas input valve was held open by a gas out fitting that was connected to a fermentation lock. All this during one of the worst fruit fly conventions en masse that I have ever seen. All in my basement. All in all I was very happy with the results, and i'm now pondering how to use all this extra equipment (food grade SS fermenters disguised as dispensing units)that I've discovered laying around idle. Nial McGaughey Wall Data Product Development Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 03:10:34 GMT From: john.kleczewski at gco.com (JOHN KLECZEWSKI) Subject: water analysis I just received my water an. from my new city and could use help in treatment of it. Analysis follows Calcium 72 ppm Alkalinity Total (CaCO3) 278 ppm Chloride 007 ppm Copper <.010 ppm Fluoride .89 ppm Iron .179 ppm Lead <.005 ppm Magnesium 26 ppm Manganese <.010 ppm Nickel <.050 ppm Nitrate <.100 ppm Nitrite <.010 ppm Potassium 13 ppm Silica 9.4 ppm Sodium 24 ppm Sulfate 60 ppm Zinc .020 ppm Chloroform <.0005 ppm JOHN.KLECZEWSKI at GCO.COM Private Email for treatments would be appreciated. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:05:49 -0330 From: swcole at mail.unixg.ubc.ca (Stuart Cole) Subject: U-Brews and competitions Though I am personally (and speaking for myself) a staunch HOMEbrewer, I'm curious about the acceptance of "U-Brew" beers at competitions (AHA and otherwise). -- For those unfamiliar with the term "U-Brew" stores are commercial ventures where would-be homebrewers go to brew using on-site equipment, with the help of on-site staff. Some might argue that because of the way these stores operate U-Brewers aren't actually creating their own beer (they are just adding pre-determined ingredients and being told when to stir.) On the other hand, is this not the case with beginners using kits? (The difference perhaps is that U-Brew stores do quite a lot of damage control ... first time brewers rarely end up with a bad beer ... and consequently they are less likely to learn from mistakes.) Can and should U-Brews be entered in competitions? Is there an "official" line on this? What do those on the Net think? Kind of curious, Stuart Cole Vancouver, B.C. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 22:06:01 -0330 From: swcole at mail.unixg.ubc.ca (Stuart Cole) Subject: Attention UBC Brewers Are there any University of British Columbia grad/faculty brewers out there? I believe I have seen posters for homebrew competitions in the past and I'm wondering if there is an actual UBC brewing club. If not, would there be any interest in starting one up? Stuart Cole History Grad Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 07:54:11 EDT From: cem at cadre.com (Chuck E. Mryglot) Subject: Fuller's ESB Anyone have any good experience/results with cloning Fuller's ESB. Care to share your recipe and process? ChuckM Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:55:06 -0400 From: Art Steinmetz <asteinm at pipeline.com> Subject: Re: Dry Hopping/Keg Fermenting hollen at megatek.com (Dion Hollenbeck) gave some good advice on using soda kegs for fermentation. Let me add a couple twists that work well for me. Dion Says: "A non-obvious trick is to use liquid dip tubes (these are the tubes attached to the liquid "out" valves - the ones the beer actually flows through when leaving the keg) which are shorter than standard length so that when you rack, the trub is left behind." I don't cut the dip tube. I let the trub come throught the line first then pour it out once the running becomes clear. This avoids wasting beer if the trub level is well below where you cut the dip tube. You do have to muck about more with what's supposed to be a closed system. Dion Says: "Attach a bleeder valve to the gas valve of the secondary." I'm too cheap. I just bleed the pressure off the keg once a day. Dion Says: "[Bleeder valves] allow one to measure the *real* pressure in a keg (the guage on the CO2 regulator only registers how much CO2 will be applied, not the actual pressure at the destination)." I'm still too cheap. I turn up the pressure at the regulator from zero until I hear gas start to flow. The regulator reading at that point should be just above the keg pressure - say 1lb. Same principle as a blood pressure cuff. - -- Art Steinmetz NYC/NJ Internet: asteinm at pipeline.com Compuserve: 76044,3204 Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:16:48 EDT From: pacasey at lexmark.com (Patrick Casey) Subject: What the hell is Wyeast 1056 I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE! In HOMEBREW Digest #1497 (Wed 10 August 1994), Glenace L. Melton writes: > (2) I used Sierra Nevada(tm) Pale Ale yeast cultivated from a bottle to > make a starter; Wyeast 1056, that I have used and is an excellent yeast, > is not the same at all, although some people continue to propagate the > erroneous statement that it is. which threw me, since I've heard here repeatedly that Wyeast 1056 IS the Sierra Nevada yeast... Then in HOMEBREW Digest #1500 (Sat 13 August 1994), SPEAKER.CURTIS asks: > what's the truth about Wyeast #1056 ? > I'm very confused about Wyeast #1056; many folks on the HBD talk about it as > "Sierra Nevada's yeast". Someone else came back and said that it is not SN's > yeast.In the last issue of Zymurgy's yeast guide, the say it is Sierra's > yeast.A day or two ago, someone came back on the digest and said it isn't... > Does anybody know for sure??? > I've also heard that SNPA has a different yeast used for bottle conditioning > vs. fermentation...again, anybody know for sure??? > Confused in PA And I haven't heard any discussion yet. So what's the deal???????? - Patrick Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:30:48 EDT From: David_Arnone at Warren.MentorG.com Subject: Re: when to add fruit First of all it is important to remember that we are homebrewers and can add fruit whenever we want. But certainly there are points in the brewing process that are better that others primarily for sanitation reasons. A number of my friends are brewers and we have formed a small brewing group. We get together twice a year on a weekend and make a planned number of brews (as many as 12 batches and as little as 6). Our first fuit beer was a variation of the cherry stout recipe in Charlie Papazian's New Complete Joy of Homebrewing. Just before the recipe we following is a recipe called "Cherries in the Snow". In "Cherries in the Snow" there is a brief procedure to follow for adding fruit. This is what we have mostly followed in all of our fruit beers. > What about soaking the fruit in a mixture of alcohol and > corn sugar before adding to the primary? Anybody done this? > It seems that it would create a syrup with more intense > fruit flavors drawn out, and have the side benefit of > sterilizing the fruit to some degree... Most of the time we have added fruit to the end of the boil. What I did recently with an apple ale was to chop up 10 lbs of apples and juice half of that quantity. I added the apple juice directly to the boil close to the end of the boil. I then added the apple chunks 5 minutes before the end of the boil and let it steep for 15 minutes after boil before transferring the wort into the primary fermenter. The results were very good. This will work for both all-grain and extract recipes. Be careful though. The longer you cook fruit the more it will break down and the harder it will be to rack the beer into a secondary fermenter. This is because the little pieces of fruit in you wort will clog the racking tube and/or hose. Take a look through Papazian's book for "Cherries in the Snow". It is an excellent place from which to start. Dave Arnone dja at warren.mentorg.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 8:41:59 CDT From: Kevin Cawley [IL33] <kevinc at wes.mot.com> Subject: Copper Boiler OK to use? This is my first post to this illustrious group (have mercy!). A friend of mine and I are relatively new extract brewers. We've brewed about 15 batches (all successful so far) since January. To the point, we have purchased an old copper double boiler at a antique flea market to hopefully use in our brewing. It needs alot of cleaning but it will easily hold 5 gallons of water to brew with. It looks like it was probably plated on the inside with nickel or tin at one time. This is mosltly worn off. Whats the consensus on using copper in brewing? I would think it would be ok to use for the pre-boiling of water, what about copper coming in contact with the wort? Any reactions when hops are added? Private email is fine. - -- many thanks in advance, Kevin email kevinc at wes.mot.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:28:31 -0400 From: "Phillip Seitz" <p00644 at psilink.com> Subject: Brewing Belgian Beers (#6): Triples Brewing Belgian Beers (#6): Triples Description: 1.080-1.095, 7-10% ABV, 18-25 IBU, 3.5-5.5 SRM Light or pale color. Low ester, malt or hop aroma ok. Low hop bitterness or flavor ok. Malt sweetness in flavor ok. Low esters ok. Medium to full body. High carbonation. No diacetyl. Strength should be evident; alchohol flavor ok. Overall this is a strong, very pale beer with a relatively neutral character. These beers should have low esters (by Belgian standards, anyway), and comparatively light body and flavor for their strength. Frequently they are somewhat sweet. Alchoholic strength should be evident, followed by a subtle mix of yeast products and hop and malt flavors. Some commercial examples are well hopped, but most use hop bitterness sparingly. Some spicy (phenol) character is ok. High carbonation levels are the norm. Brewing method: Standard infusion or step mashing techniques are used, with grain bills usually consisting only of pilsner malt (or light extract) and blond sugar. The comparatively light body is achieved by substantial additions of sugar in the kettle (several pounds per 5 gallons) and high carbonation. Hopping levels should be kept low, with classic varieties preferred. Some Belgian yeasts may be too estery or aromatic for these beers, particularly as high gravity ferments accentuate this. One cup of sugar should be used to prime a five gallon batch. It's a good idea to add some fresh yeast at bottling time to help with carbonation; a 1-pint starter is sufficient. As with all beers of this strength, high pitching rates and good aeration are a must. Low fermentation temperatures (65F or lower) should be used to avoid creation of headache-causing fusels. Extract brewers should have no trouble making good triples Common problems: 1) Solvent flavors. Fermentation temperature too high, poor yeast health (under pitching) or both. 2) Body too full. Decrease malt and increase sugar portions of OG. 3) Insufficient carbonation Increase priming sugar, or add a dose of fresh yeast at bottling. Commerical examples: Brugse Tripel (9.5% ABV), Affligem Tripel (9% ABV), Grimbergen Tripel (8.13% ABV), Steenbrugge Tripel (9% ABV) Sample recipes: Delano Dugarm's Batch #28 Tripple (Extract recipe for 5 gallons) ADUGARM at WORLDBANK.ORG 3 1.5 kg boxes of Northwest Gold liquid extract 1.5 lbs corn sugar 1.3 oz Hallertau (4%) boiled 60 minutes 0.3 oz Saaz (3%) boiled 60 minutes 0.3 oz Saaz (3%) boild 2 minutes Wyeast Belgian yeast OG: About 1.080 FG: Wasn't paying attention Full boil for 60 minutes, cool and pitch slurry from 1.5 quart culture. Ferment very cool (60 degrees F). Rack to secondary and bottle when ready. [Phil's note: this was the first homebrew *I* ever had that tasted like a real Belgian. A wonderful experience.] Charlie Gow's St. Egregious Tripel (all grain for 5 gallons) CGOW at MAILSTORM.DOT.GOV 1.5 lbs Belgian pale ale malt (ran out of pilsner!) 13.25 lbs Belgian pilsner malt 1.1 lbs Belgian blond candy sugar 1.3 oz Kent Goldings (5.1%), boiled for 60 minutes 0.4 oz Saaz (4.2%) boild for 5 minutes Ferment with Wyeast Belgian White yeast (#3944) OG: 1.096 FG: 1.012 SRM: 4.1 IBU: 19 Mash in at 130F and hold at 124F for a 45 minute protein rest. Boost to 154F for 90 minute starch conversion rest. Mash out for 10 minutes at 165F. Sparge to collect 6 gallons and boil for 90 minutes, adding candy sugar at the beginning of the boil. Force cool to 64F and pitch dregs of a 1.5 liter starter of Wyeast #3994 Belgian White Beer yeast. Primary fermentation lasted 8 days at 62F. Secondary lasted 16 days at 60F. Prime with 1 cup dextrose. [Phil's note: at a recent advanced judging class for Belgian beers this brew was tasted alongside Affligem, Brugse Tripel and Grimbergen, and preferred over these by many of those present] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 09:50:18 EDT From: Mark A. Stevens <stevens at stsci.edu> Subject: Re: Mill test In HBD 1504, Ulick Stafford (ulick at ulix.rad.nd.edu), writes: > I notice the Mill test was finally mentioned by, no surprise, you know who. > And he complained that no recommendation was made, tsck, tsck. Now, > I think the test was the ultimate in pointlessness, because there is > no way Zymurgy, who accepts advertising money from the manufacturers > could give a biased response. And when they said that the Corona was > closer than any of the mills in the test to the 6 row mill parameters > they were using as a gauge, it became close to a joke. However, I did > read a number of things between the lines . (stuff deleted) . > If I were you know who, I would be more than happy with the review, useless > and all as it was. I disagree. Jack brought up some good points and I think he's entirely right that the review is totally worthless. Recommendations should have been made, and without them, the article comes off as incompetent fluff. A *GOOD* review would have set up some sort of criteria ahead of time and measured each mill with respect to those criteria. Bar charts could be done showing graphically how each mill stands up against the others. Screen tests are an easily measured result. Force needed to crank handle might be a criterion. Durability and construction perhaps...cost certainly. Let each mill stand up on its own merits. I'm sure that Jack's ***MALTMILL*** would do fine in all of the technical aspects, and the cost factor can be left up to the buyer to decide if the better performance is worth the additional cost. Bottom line: Zymurgy should be serving the READERS not the advertisers, and we should have a right to decent reviews. Right on, Jack!! Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 08:41:41 -0600 From: Mark <markc at ssd.fsi.com> Subject: Gott Cooler Spigot Now that I've gott my gott cooler, what are you guys using to convert that pushbutton spigot to a controllable valve. I tried a plastic one like on my fermenter, but it leaks. Is there one that doesn't require any drilling of the cooler, etc? Thanks for the clues. mark Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 07:04:40 -0700 From: pascal at netcom.com (Conan-the-Librarian) Subject: Breweries in Antarctica ? Hi. I'm travelling to Antarctica this winter ( summer, by their view :-), via Mexico City, Caracas, Rio De Janeiro, Buenos Aires and Cape Horn, via nuclear submarine. Of course, on the way I'll be stopping in every single eff'ing brewery I can find, asking stupid questions, taking pictures, and playing tourist. ( Also getting drunk and selling naval secrets, of course. ) Unfortunately, I can't hack using a phone book. Can everyone give me some pointers to all those great breweries you've found crawling around in the South American and Antarctic continents ? I understand that lagers are common, although many prefer Penguin Coladas. I'll be happy to summarize replies, provided they are repeatable. (-: < sarcasm alert for the humor-impaired > - -- richard Law : The science of assigning responsibility. Politics : The art of _distributing_ responsibility. richard childers san francisco, california pascal at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:27:49 EST From: hethmon at apac12.ag.utk.edu (Paul Hethmon) Subject: New Brewpub Review (Knoxvil New Brewpub Review (Knoxville, Tennessee) Well, last night (Aug 17) I had the pleasure of dining at Knoxville's newest (and only) brewpub, the Smoky Mountain Brewing Company. I'll try and give some descriptions, but please pardon my knowledge (or lack of) styles. The brewery and restaurant is located in downtown Knoxville on Gay Street for those of you that are familiar with the area. You enter the main floor from the stree entrance and have the bar area right in front of you. Seating stretches around the perimeter. The brewing equipment is right past the bar toward the back of the building. They've got two copper vessels about 10 to 12 foot tall. You can actually walk up and touch them. I didn't talk to anyone from the brewing end of the business, so I'll end this part right here. Next, the beer. Last night, they had 3 beers on tap. The first we tried was the Peach Beer. This was a fruit ale with a very nice aroma of peach as you raised the glass. The beer itself almost had a peachy tone to it. I enjoyed the beer, as did my wife, but my lack of style knowledge shows up here. The beer was smooth with a nice head and a very nice peach mellow peach taste. The aroma of peach was actually stronger than the taste. The second beer was a wheat beer. This was the first wheat beer I've had and I enjoyed it. Smooth, full bodied would be how I would describe it. The last beer was a porter. Very dark, low carbonation with a mild bite to it. I don't have a reference to compare it to (Knoxville is a beer wasteland) but it was a winner in my book. I also want to mention a bit about the food before this post gets too long. The menu has an English bent (at least to this American :-) with such items as "Poacher's Pie", "Toad in a Hole", and "Lancashire Shepherd's Pie". I tried a dish entitled "Coat of Arms Chicken" which is marinated and basted with a Raspberry-Orange Glaze, grilled, and served with a herb rice. As a side dish, "Welsh Country-Style Cole Slaw" was served. Very delicious. My wife had a spinach pesto dish which was good, but not to different for Knoxville. The place is already a success. Since they opened on August 8, without any advertising, they've had dinner waits of one to two hours. We had to wait a hour to be seated and another hour before we had all of our food, but worth it. For those that are interested, from newspaper and other places, the proprieters invested something like 1.5 million in the business including buying their building, remodeling, brewing equipment, etc. If you come throught Knoxville, give it a try. Paul Hethmon hethmon at apac.ag.utk.edu Agricultural Policy Analysis Center 615-974-3666 Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Aug 1994 07:30:07 GMT From: "THOMAS L. STOLFI" <OBCTS at CWEMAIL.CECO.COM> Subject: Des Moines, IA Brewpubs I have a friend going to Des Moines, lucky guy, for a wedding and he would like to kill a few hours at a brewpub. If you know of any brewpubs in the area please email me directly at OBCTS at CWEMAIL.CECO.COM. Thanks in advance. Tom Stolfi obcts at cwemail.ceco.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:57:41 -0600 From: evanms at lcac1.loras.edu (Mark Evans) Subject: BrewHumor Jerry Writes in the August 18th HBD about the consequences of "homebrew expansion:" >> * New House - Since I don't have room for additional frig - $175,000 * Divorce - if my wife ever reads this = half? of my net worth = $20 Grand Total = $175,850. So, $275 doesn't seem that bad. My apologies for this frivolousness. - Jerry Within a group that--judging from the digest itself--either takes itself too seriously (too often) or enjoys lighting the illicit "flame," I'm pleased to see a bit of humor. I laughed out loud! Thanks. Brewfully. Mark Evans signature (footnote) removed :-) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:21:13 CDT From: Ed Blonski <S851001 at UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU> Subject: Fermenting Lagers? Greetings fellow brewers. Here's my newbie question: I just got a Marzen Lager going and I'm doing a two stage fermentation. Am I doing this right? If a lager is bottomfermenting, how do I rack it into my secondary? First stage is a plastic bucket, second stage is a glass carboy. It's sitting in my lager fridge right now in a bucket with lock at 44 degrees. Maybe I'm not even asking the question right. E-mail is fine. Thanks! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ better people - better food - better beer + why move around the world when Eden was so near? + Ed Blonski <s851001 at umsla.umsl.edu> + (is this sig line acceptable?) + ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:29:47 EST From: turner at cel.cummins.com (Turner) Subject: Irish Moss / Straining / Filtering Neophyte Stupid Question #42: When using Irish Moss as a clarifying agent, should the wort be strained? Is a kitchen strainer sufficient, or should something more fine like a juice strainer or coffee filter? My last batch (#3) was the first in which I tried Irish Moss. My buddy and I figured that if we strained it out it wouldn't work, so we just dumped it into the primary fermenter (plastic). I just racked it into the secondary (glass) and there was a lot of clumps of hops etc. I tried to avoid sucking it up, but some innevitably got through. Now I am thinking of running it through a coffee filter when racking from the secondary to the bottling bucket. Good idea? Comments can be sent directly to me and I will summarize as best I can. Steve Turner turner at cel.cummins.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 94 10:24:46 -0500 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Yield I have found that the two most important operational variables affecting yield are the mash pH and the time/temperature program used. For infusion mashes I have found that it is highly advantageous to keep the mash pH at 5.4 or lower. Decoction mashes appear to be more forgiving in this regard. The negative effects of a high mash (and wort) pH are numerous, and I plan to treat this subject in great detail in my new book. It appears that yield (which is a measure of the extent we dissolve grain carbs.) is strongly influenced by the lower temperatures used, while the composition of the carbohydrates dissolved (i.e., % fermentability) is influenced by the higher temperatures. The following batch is typical of the results I have been getting with highly modified malt. Data brew size = 15.5 gals total water = 9.5 gals in mash + 9.5 gals for sparging grain bill : 24 lbs. D-C Pale Ale malt 2 lbs. D-C Caravienne 1 lb. D-C Aromatic Temperature Program 40C (104F) - 30 mins.- 24 lbs. base malt + 6.5 gals. water Transition 40 to 60C - add 3 gals. of boiling water - add adjunct malts at the end as a brake - less than 5 mins. is needed Note - I now feel (with Narziss) that the time spent in the range 45-55C should be keep below 15 mins. if highly modified malt is used. 60C (140F) - 30 mins. Transition 60 to 70C - external heat is needed and this can be done in 15 mins. 70C (158F) - 30 mins. Mash Data Vol = 9.5 gals. % extract = 22P (i.e., 22 grms extract per 100 grams mash) SG =1.092 Converting to wt/vol and US units the % extract comes out to 62.24 lbs/bbl. (~2 lbs/gal). This means that the mash has 62.24*9.5/31 = 19.1 lbs. extract. Yield in commercial units is 19.1 * 100/27 = 70.7%. Yield in homebrew units is 92 *9.5 /27 = 32.3 pts/(lbs/gal). The value of the rest at 40C can not be understated. The rise in SG in this mash is almost 3 times faster than what I get when this rest is omitted. The final mash yield is ~20 % higher. Clearly there is a lot of favorable activity going on including preparation of the enzyme systems, beta glucanase activity, and highly favorable enzymatically assisted grain liquefaction. This wort clears up very quickly (for European malts), and after ~2 gals. of recirculation it will change from a milkly turbidity to a moderate see through clarity. The 1st wort is then run into the kettle until 1 inch of liquid covers the grain surface. At this point sparging is started with the inflow and outflow rates adjusted to ~1/3 gals/min. It is of course very important to maintain the liquid cover of the grain bed. After ~30 mins. the sparge water is depleted, and the outflow is increased to ~1 gal/min. The following is typical data at kettle full: Vol = 17 gals. % extract = 12.3 P SG = 1.050. Repeating the above calculations, this means that 18.3 lbs. of extract was carried over to the kettle. The losses in sparging were water = 19 -17 = 2 gals. extract = 19.1 -18.3 =.8 lbs. By using a slower runoff and a higher fraction of sparge water it is likely one could leach most of the residual extract out of the grains. I choose not to do this because this is not the way I brew. The finished wort in the fermenter typically cames out as follows: Vol = 15.5 gals. % extract = 13.3 P SG =1.053 This means that a final yield of 30.4 pts was obtained. With a single temperature mash (or 60-70 combo) this would have dropped into the 26-28 pts/(lbs/gal) range. The % fermentability as determined by a liter sized forced fermentation at 30C usually gives an ADF near 79% (RDF = 65%). This means that FG limit is 1.011. The ale strain that I am using does not completely ferment maltotriose, so I usually wind up a 1.012 to 1.013 in this context. The ADF is greatly influenced by the times spent at 60 and 70C. E.g., 15 mins. at 60 followed by 45 mins at 70 will typically drop the ADF into the low 70s. The reverse will increase it into the mid 80s. For my ale strain spending at least 15 mins. at 60C is crucial for it greatly increases the maltose/maltotriose ratio. I strongly prefer moderately modified malt for lager beer, and I have found that a protein rest at 50C (122F) has numerous advantages. I have done test brews with a 40-50-60-70 schedule, but little is gained in yield over a 50-60-70 program. I personally am going to stick with the latter since among other things half of the 3 gals of transition water can be used to go from 50 to 60, while the other half can be used to go from 60 to 70. Thus very little external heat need be applied to the mash. Another point I have noticed is that most lager yeast are insensitive to maltose/ maltotriose ratios. W-34/70 for example starts taking in maltotriose at the same time it takes in maltose, and metabolizes both sugars at approximately the same rate. Thus the rest at 60C can be used with such strains simply to adjust ADF. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 11:06:56 -0500 (CDT) From: gellym at aviion.persoft.com (brewing chemist Mitch) Subject: slotted screen and gigantic sigs Howdy. Does anyone know of a good supplier of that *beautiful* slotted screen for a lauter tun ? You know, that stainless v-wire type screen. I am looking to upgrade from the old perforated screens. Also, in HBD 1504, pauldore at delphi.com gripes: > If have seen some peoples messages containing HUGE footnotes. Keep them > smaller because it wastes space in the HBD and that inturn makes the HBD > issues smaller and it takes longer for messages to appear. > > Yes you should leave your name an email address at the end of a message, but > why have a 10-20 line farewell message. Example: > > [-----------------------------------][---------------------------------] > [ ] > [ Blah Blah Blah University ] Hey! I went to BBBU ! Is this some sort of crack ??? I suggest moving this to alt.flame.gigantic-sigs. I usually draw the line when a sig takes up more than one screenful. Other than that, a sig is part of a persons net-personality. We can't like everyone we meet. Life is harsh (particularly when you have to pay for your feed, eh?) Moving on, Mitch - -- | - Mitch Gelly - | Zack Norman | | software QA specialist, systems administrator, zymurgist, | is | | AHA/HWBTA beer judge, & president of the Madison Homebrewers | Sammy in | | - gellym at aviion.persoft.com - gelly at persoft.com - | Chief Zabu | Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1506, 08/20/94