HOMEBREW Digest #1796 Tue 01 August 1995

Digest #1795 Digest #1797

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Colonial Recipes Please (rapaport)
  rice preparation (Rich Larsen)
  Stirring w/ Immersion Chiller (Tim Laatsch)
  Spencer's Beer Page ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Temp Controller (Douglas R. Jones)
  Thermometer trick, Brewer's resource grain mill? (John Glaser)
  Putting on airs (Joseph.Fleming)
  gearing up for all grain (Rob Emenecker)
  Wheeler/Protz "Brew Your Own Real Ale at Home" Question ("Fleming, Kirk R., Capt")
  Re: "Clean" sewer systems (Jay Reeves)
  aerating (Christopher R. Vyhnal)
  Brewing in Plastic Containers (Bob Sutton)
  Brewers yeast (Joe Uknalis)
  Re: Sparge Rates ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Weights and measures. (DocsBrew)
  Oxygenating wort... (Kenneth K Goodrow)
  problems with secondary fermentation & high F.G.'s (Eric Palmer)
  source of mailing lists (BTEditor)
  Double Boil/Skunking Cider (Ray Robert)
  beer bottle collection (Mark Bunster)
  YAWP: Yet Another Web Page (Dave Draper)
  More Sugar! (pt. 1 of 2) (Dave Draper)
  More Sugar! (pt. 2 of 2) (Dave Draper)
  brewing to style / Gambrinus malt (Rob Lauriston)

****************************************************************** * POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail, * I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list * that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox * is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced * mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days. * * If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only * sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get * more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list. ****************************************************************** ################################################################# # # YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the # digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service # provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving # many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing # list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such # requests. # ################################################################# 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. Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org ARCHIVES: An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 08:35:59 From: rapaport at srvware.serviceware.com Subject: Colonial Recipes Please I am looking for colonial beer recipes which are not too weird. Every recipe I've seen has some gross additive like tree bark, essence of spruce etc. I'm looking for something authentic, but drinkable. I've also heard there are great historic recipes in "Brewed in America" by Stanley Baron, but that book is available only in hardcover for $33. Any ideas about where to get a copy of it cheaper? Post replies here or respond directly to rapaport at serviceware.com. Thanks!! Mary Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 08:31:54 -0500 From: rlarsen at squeaky.free.org (Rich Larsen) Subject: rice preparation >From: Saylor1/Apple at eworld.com Asks about rice preparation. And the use of Basmati. You want to gelatinize the rice by first cooking it as if you were going to eat it. You can probably use more water however and make a sort of thick soup with it. I suspect your best bet will to be sure that the rice is fully cooked and not al-dente. Then toss it in with your regular mash. Basmati has a wonderful pop-corn aroma when cooking, so I suspect it is full of DMS or its components. I wonder if it won't be lost in the boil, however. I suspect some of it will remain. Me, I'll stick to using it with East Indian dishes. => Rich <rlarsen at squeaky.free.org> ________________________________________________________________________ Rich Larsen, Midlothian, IL. Also on HomeBrew University (708) 705-7263 Spice is the varity of life. ________________________________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 09:48:20 EDT From: uscgc2r3 at ibmmail.com Subject: Malt Drying To add to Dan Listermann's post about malting, I would also say it's not worth it if you're trying to save money. But it is fun to do. Someday, I would like to even grow my own grain and hops just to say that I've made a batch from start to finish. I malted corn and barley several years ago and the best drying method I found was a clothes dryer. The rootlets got into every nook and cranny of the machine, and it was a little work cleaning it out, but I think that a good load (beach-towel full) dried in two 40 minute cycles). If I did it again with my own clothes dryer rather than the dorm unit, I would line it with screen or something. Using a beach towel for sprouting was not such a good idea. The rootlets got into the weave and it was some time before that was "clean" again. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wallie Meisner Greensboro, NC USCGC2R3 at ibmmail.com - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 11:24:43 -0400 (EDT) From: Tim Laatsch <LAATSCH at kbs.msu.edu> Subject: Stirring w/ Immersion Chiller Hey All, Well, I'm a believer. Having been repeatedly frustrated with the poor chilling rates I was getting with my immersion chiller, I decided to bite the bullet and stir while chilling. The risk of contamination had made me hesitant, but I took every effort to minimize the risk. With 10 min remaining in the boil, I popped in my immersion chiller to sanitize it. At the same time I hung a thermometer and a ss spoon inside the stockpot by securing a wire over the edge of the pot. During the chill, I rapidly opened the lid and gave the wort a quick stir every few min with the hanging spoon. The wort went from boiling to 20 C (68 F) in only 25 min----this cut my chilling time in half compared with no stirring at all and decreased the minimum chill temperature that I can achieve. And talk about cold break---I was amazed at the difference! Until I can build a CF, I'm officially a stirrer. The jury is still out on the infection risk, but right now the risk seems worth the benefits in time saved, improved cold break, and improved final wort temperature. BTW, I would appreciate hearing from anybody w/ a working plan for the "Copper tubing in a large PVC tube"-type CF chiller. Thanks. Bones *=============================================================================* | Timothy P. Laatsch | email: laatsch at kbs.msu.edu | Aspiring | | Graduate Student-Microbiology | biz phone: 616-671-2329 | All-Grain | | Michigan State University/KBS | fax: 616-671-2104 | Homebrewer | | Kalamazoo, MI (Home of Bell's) | obsession: American Pale Ale | & Scientist | *=============================================================================* Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 11:26:29 -0400 From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at mendel.hgp.med.umich.edu> Subject: Spencer's Beer Page My beer page is moving, and will be (temporarily) reduced in service. I'm changing jobs, and the machine that is currently running the beer page server is being decommissioned. I have moved the root of the beer page to <http://www.umich.edu/~spencer/beer/>. The other parts will probably move around a bit before settling down, so I recommend that you delete "internal" links from your pages, at least for now. All the "programmed" services will be discontinued until I find a new server machine. The www.umich.edu server does not permit "private" programs to be run from web pages. Thus, the HBD search page will be turned off, as will the "build your own" page, the "counter", and other features I can't recall at the moment. Due to disk space restrictions, until I get my own server, the "local" copies of the archives will also be off-line, except for Judgenet. I apologize for this inconvenience, and will do my best to see that the service interruption is as brief as possible. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 11:21:02 -0500 From: djones at iex.com (Douglas R. Jones) Subject: Temp Controller I have aquired a fridge from a neighbor and want to install a better temp controller. I have heard that the digital Air Conditions controllers will work and was wondering if anyone has any data on this? Which models and how does one wire it in? If this proves to be a no go does anyone have a non-AC type controller they are willing to recommend. My local HB shop has one they like but they want $60 for it. I was hoping I do something a bit less expensive! TIA, Doug - -------------------------------------------------- 'I am a traveler of | Douglas R. Jones both Time and Space' | IEX Corporation Led Zeppelin | (214)301-1307 | djones at iex.com - -------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 09:06:50 -0700 From: John Glaser <glaser at widlar.ece.arizona.edu> Subject: Thermometer trick, Brewer's resource grain mill? This is a simple trick for hands-free temperature measurements while stirring your mash: Take your dial-style thermometer and push the probe thru the center of a 3" by 3" or so styrofoam block (mine was 3/4" thick, thicker makes the thing tilt and fall into your mash). Now float it in your mash. You can have your temp readings always available, and you can stir the mash and the thermometer automatically stays out of the way. Also, has anyone used or bought the roller mill sold by Brewer's Resource? It looks like a pretty nice mill, but I haven't heard any independent reviews or comments on it. Any real info would be appreciated. Finally, I know how some people have such short brew days. They have 3-tier breweries. Having just completed my own, I was able to brew five gallons in six hours, from grinding by hand with a Corona to cleanup. This time included inevitable first-run "discoveries" and their fixes, and a 3 temp mash. Subsequent runs should be even shorter, and will be 8-10 gallons. This could also be much shorter if I used a single-infusion mash, which I will try on my next batch. John Glaser glaser at widlar.ece.arizona.edu P.S. I didn't even need to insulate my mash/lauter tun, which dropped only 3 degrees F in one hour. Of course, the ambient temp was about 105F! Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 11:02:42 est From: Joseph.Fleming at gsa.gov Subject: Putting on airs With all the extensive aeration systems discussed lately (O2 tanks, aeration stones, ect.) I was wondering about the efficacy of the different methods. As I understand it, the carboy shake method is insufficient. How about the "aeration wand" technique? Do O2 tanks approach the point of diminishing returns (unless the lab folks already have easy (read: free) access the equipment)? Can anyone relate experiences where this massive aeration has produced such a healthy ferment that it can be distinguished by taste? Does fermentation begin *that* much more quickly than the 6-12 hour norm? Or is this method done so that yeast recycling will garner a more mutant-free product? Joe - joseph.fleming at gsa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:42:42 PDT From: Rob Emenecker <robe at cadmus.com> Subject: gearing up for all grain Hello to the collective! I am gearing up to start all-grain brewing after 2 years of extracts. I am hoping to do my first all-grain batch this September and have a few questions and information needs... #1: With specialty malts (Chocolate, Roasted, etc.) do I add them to my mash with the base grains or do I continue to steep them separately. The temperatures of the mash seem to match, so unless I here otherwise I am assuming that ALL of the grains go into the mash. #2: I want to convert a 10 gallon Gott cooler to use as a combined mash/lauter tun. How do I keep the grain bed in good shape for sparging? If you stir the mash every 15 minutes (or there about) how do you avoid compacting or channeling the grain bed? Same question applies at dough-in; if I lauter from this vessel how do I avoid compacting the grains (or at least plugging up the holes in the false bottom)? #3: Do any of you know of a good source for digital thermometers and pH meters. I think I recall hearing of TechniTool from Conshohocken, PA once before. Are they a good source? #4: Also need a good source for scales. I figure that I would need at least two scales: one for small measurements for hops and another for pounds of grain. Ideally I would like to purchase 25-50 pounds of grain at once and split it up into 1 or 2 pound backs. TIA ============================================================================ Rob Emenecker (remenecker at cadmus.com) Cadmus Journal Services, Inc., Linthicum, Maryland 21090 410-691-6454 (voice) / 410-684-2793 (fax) Date: 07/31/95 Time: 12:42:42 - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There are only two things in life that are ever certain... taxes and BEER!" ============================================================================ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 11:11:00 MST From: "Fleming, Kirk R., Capt" <FLEMINGKR at afmcfafb.fafb.af.mil> Subject: Wheeler/Protz "Brew Your Own Real Ale at Home" Question I've now seen two (distinct, I think) assertions that this well-known book contains "actual brewery recipes" for a hundred or so British ales. The writers have suggested that the Wheeler/Protz recipes are the genuine ones from the commercial breweries themselves. I don't have the book with me right now, but the authors make several comments in the introduction (Wheeler's many years of experimentation and use of the computer, etc) that imply to me that this is not true. Also, I find it very unlikely many if any of the breweries would have divulged their recipes. My impression is ALL the recipes in Wheeler's book are simply the authors' attempts to clone these beers. Comments? KRF Colorado Springs Return to table of contents
Date: 31 Jul 95 13:31:56 EDT From: Jay Reeves <73362.600 at compuserve.com> Subject: Re: "Clean" sewer systems A few HBDs back, Jim Grady sez: >septic system was in very good condition because of >all the yeast that goes down the drain And Jim Dipalma responds: >almost no solid >waste at all. He asked me what I was dumping in there that was >keeping it so healthy. Just a quart or so of yeast slurry a couple >times a month, and the occasional few gallons of BBrite. Question: What's in the septic tank that interacts with the yeast that would cause you to have a "cleaner" septic tank/sewer system? - I'm confused here. Do yeast react with other things than sugars or is it the B-Brite causing it? Can either of you or anyone explain this? Regardless, I went home Friday, racked a Strong Scotch Ale to a secondary and poured the slurry down the commode. The next morning the toilet was bubbling away! Couldn't take a dump because the bubbling would splash water on your butt. It's still going strong, so should I - A) put a blow-off hose on the toilet or B) fill the toilet with vodka and bottle in 2 weeks? ;^{) Seriously though, I would like to hear an answer to the first paragraph. -Jay Reeves Huntsville, Alabama, USA Return to table of contents
Date: 31 Jul 95 12:53:49 EDT From: Christopher.R.Vyhnal at Dartmouth.EDU (Christopher R. Vyhnal) Subject: aerating in #1795 pierre outlines his aeration technique: >>> The airstone is at the end of a rigid wand connected to a long coiled flexible tubing; the whole assembly is sanitized in iodophor but no attempt is made to sterile-filter the air. <<< most of my ales thusfar seem to lack approprate attenuation, and i'm thinking of purchasing an aquarium pump an airstone to increased dissolved O2 prior to pitching. i've heard of others using this technique with success before. it seems to be an elegant solution to filtering microbes out of the air. how long and what ID is your coiled tube? have you ever had any problem batches? are there any problems with sanitizing the airstone? other suggestions for aerating techniques? (sounds like there is fertile ground for an aerating FAQ--if one already exists could someone please point me too it) thanks, chris Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:19 EST From: Bob Sutton <BSutton_+a_fdgv-03_+lBob_Sutton+r%Fluor_Daniel at mcimail.com> Subject: Brewing in Plastic Containers Text item: Text_1 Dan Richardson <DJR at wapet.com.au> writes: >I used to brew in 1.25 and 1.5 litre plastic containers (cool drink type). >I found that after long periods in storage, (more than 12 months) that the >beer lost its carbonation and was wasted. I no longer brew in these >containers!. Dan... The problem is not the plastic, it's the 12 months. Do you drink this stuff or just admire the inventory. ;-) I've used plastic, but for some reason <burp> the containers are empty before the month is out. Carbonation has never been a problem <hic>. - --- __o "What I hear I forget; What I see I remember; What I do I know." - ------ \<, -- Chinese Proverb - ----- ( )/ ( ) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 14:23:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Joe Uknalis <juknalis at arserrc.gov> Subject: Brewers yeast I've read that wine yeast nutrient leaves a metallic taste in meads & that some folks use "yeast hulls" to supply nutrients to yeasts in mead. Would brewers yeast (debittered, the kind you give to pets) be a suitable yeast nutrient? At what dosage/gallon?? thanks Joe Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:05:01 -0400 From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at mendel.hgp.med.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Sparge Rates If you completely drain your mash water without sparging, you should get about 1/2 - 2/3 of what you would get with careful sparging. I did some experimentation, and *with my system*, and with the grains I was using at the time, I got the following numbers (explanation follows): water (qt/lb) SG Collected (qt/lb) Yield 1 1.105 0.6 16 1.25 1.090 0.8 18 1.5 1.080 1.1 22 2.0 1.060 1.6 24 As an example, look at the second line. This says that if you mash with 1.25 quarts of water per pound of grain, the specific gravity of the run-off *without sparging* should 1.090, and you should collect about 0.8 quarts of water per pound of grain. This corresponds to a homebrew yield of 18 point-gallons/pound (ppg). I was getting about 30 pgg *with sparging*. Thus, without sparging, I was extracting 60% of what I would have gotten, had I sparged (50% of the theoretical yield of 36 ppg, and a sugar extraction rate of 40% of the dry weight of the grain.) Note that the yield goes up as the mash thins. However, you *should* do even better by sparging with an equivalent amount of water. I.e., if you mash with 1.5 qt/lb, and then sparge with 0.5qt/lb, you should get a better yield than if you mash with 2 qt/lb and don't sparge. As an example, suppose you want to make a 1.045 wort, and you want an initial boil volume of 3 gallons. You need 1.075 (5 / 3 * 45 = 75) into the kettle. This corresponds to about 1.6 qt/lb, yielding 1.2qt/lb into the kettle. To get 3 gallons (12 quarts), you'll need to use 12/1.2 = 10 lbs of malt and 1.6*10 = 16 quarts = 4 gallons of mash water. As usual, YMMV, but the basic pattern should be the same (more water = better efficiency). =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 15:18:47 -0400 From: DocsBrew at aol.com Subject: Weights and measures. In July 31 hbd, patrick.humphrey at abbott.com was talking about agar, and concentrations and such, and stated... >> An ounce is approximately 37 grams. There are >>454 grams in a pound. Well that didn't sound quite right to me, and a little quick math confirmed, there are 28 grams in an ounce, not 37 (454/16=28.375). Just didn't want anybody to write it in their reference book wrong.... I don't let my kids use calculators yet, but I think they're just GREAT! Doc. (whether Jim likes it or not!) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 14:56:41 -0500 (CDT) From: Kenneth K Goodrow <goodrow at orion.etsu.edu> Subject: Oxygenating wort... Well, I didn't know Oxy was good for worts, but I know it works on pimples. Ooops, different list. Ok Ok Craig Agnor asked if cotton on an aquarium pump would be safe for oxygenation of wort. I have no experience with such, but do with aquariums. It seems to me that a good shake, or ten, of the fermeter would take less time than using a pump to oxygenate. You wouldn't have to mess with gadgetry either, especially if you have 5 gallons in a 7 gallon container, allowing fo sloshing space. This works very well for me and is simple -- just shook the hell out of a batch last night and awoke to bubbling delight (no rhyme intended). I wonder if there are any figures on how much oxygen a pump can actually bring to wort, and of course, this depends on the exact out-put of the pump. Shaking vigorously, Kenn Goodrow (no, not two-row) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 13:04:27 -0700 From: Eric Palmer <palmer at neelix.San-Jose.ate.slb.com> Subject: problems with secondary fermentation & high F.G.'s I'm new at this and would like some feedback from those with more experience. I'm going to bottle my 2nd batch next weekend after a 3 wk secondary fermentation. The 1st batch turned out quite well, if a little sweet, but was well received by those who tasted it. My problem, if it is a problem, is seemingly high final gravities and secondaries during which nothing seems to happen except significant settling (this is good). A couple questions: 1. My current batch had a starting gravity of 1.053 and after a violent primary, measured 1.020 when racked to the carboy after 3 days. one and a half weeks into the secondary, the gravity was still at 1.020 and remained there at the 2 wk. point. I used Wyeast London Ale with a starter and the primary went like a house-a-fire after about 6-8 hrs. My local beer shop "guru" thinks it must have "fermented out" fully during the primary and he's probably right. I had expected the final gravity to be much lower. A rule-of-thum seems to be 1/4 the starting gravity. My guru thinks the final might be ok given what I put into the brew pot. I used 6 lbs of Australian DME, 1 lb of crystal malt and 2 oz of dextrin power for body. I'm letting the secondary go an extra (3rd) week just to get some added clarity. In my ignorance I let my 1st batch go 6 wks. in the secondary and ended up with beer as clear as commercial with virtually no sediment (and little carbonation as well). So, I'm interested in hearing from others with similar experiences about a) high final gravities, b) secondaries during which nothing seems to happen except settling, c) problems of letting the beer sit on the yeast for longer than two weeks, d) problems with or how to remove small cream colored "astroids" floating at the neck of the carboy during the secondary (they settled to the bottom in my 1st batch). 2. This batch is an attempt to clone Full Sail Amber Ale from a recipe in Cat's Meow. My attempt to reach the recipie's author for a possiple update failed as he has apparently moved on. I am interested in hearing from anyone who feels they have successfully cloned this wonderful brew using extract. Thanks in advance to anyone who might respond. Feel free to respond directly to "palmer at san-jose.ate.slb.com" Eric Palmer - ------- End of Unsent Draft - ------- End of Forwarded Message Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:26:49 -0400 From: BTEditor at aol.com Subject: source of mailing lists Just back from the Northwest Craft Brewers Conference in Portland and getting caught up on past HBDs, and I see that some people who had received mailings about the Riverwalk Brewery's "essay contest" expressed concern over where they might have obtained their names. I also note that BrewingTechniques was suggested as one possible source. To set the record straight, BT did not provide any names or addresses for the Riverwalk Brewery mailing. Stephen Mallery Editor, Publisher Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 14:47:00 PDT From: Ray Robert <rayr at bah.com> Subject: Double Boil/Skunking Cider Hi All! Had two quick questions. 1. Getting ready to take the all-grain plunge but was unsure if I could pull off the boil. I have a 20 quart pot. I was thinking of doing two boils (same length of time) with half the hops additions. Can this be done? Any practical experience would be helpful. 2. I know this is not the cider digest, but does anyone in the collective know if cider will "skunk" if exposed to sunlight. I plan on making some for the holidays and bottling in clear wine bottles. TIA for the info. Robert Ray rayr at bah.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 1995 16:51:00 -0400 From: mbunster at hibbs.vcu.edu (Mark Bunster) Subject: beer bottle collection I have a moderate (60 bottle) collection of empties from around the world, including all 6 generally inhabited continents (only a matter of time before there's a brewpub in Antarctica, I suppose.) Anyway, I'm looking to dispose of this collection. Most are from Germany, many of those from small towns, but if you'd like to know exactly what I have, let me know by PRIVATE email--I auto-store the digests without reading them for weeks at a time. Those of you who remember me posting a couple months ago, I finally have the list ready for viewing. All offers entertained! ||||| Mark Bunster |She may never sing Survey Research Lab | She may never show Virginia Commonwealth University | but you don't know. Richmond, VA 23284-3016 | -ThinkTree Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 07:22:30 +1000 From: david.draper at mq.edu.au (Dave Draper) Subject: YAWP: Yet Another Web Page Dear Friends, just a short note to say that my new web pages are open for business. The URL is http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper In my beer section, along with many of the usual links, you can get the latest version of my file on culturing yeast and using slants; the water ion concentration table that AJ deLange is using as the starting point for many of his water calculations; a downloadable, stand-alone DOS/Windows program for calculating IBUs using Glenn Tinseth's brand-new utilization data; and a full discussion of priming on a weight per volume basis. This last item will appear in a somewhat shorter version either later in this digest or in the next one as a two-part post. Cheers, Dave in Sydney "Life is short; grain is cheap" ---Rich Lenihan - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper ...I'm not from here, I just live here... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 07:29:30 +1000 From: david.draper at mq.edu.au (Dave Draper) Subject: More Sugar! (pt. 1 of 2) Dear Friends, some weeks ago I got up on my soapbox to preach the doctrine of priming on the basis of weight per volume of beer, and advocated that we heave off the yoke of the old "3/4 cup per 5 gallons" dogma. Well, I'm back with the same message, and this time with a little more data. As announced in my previous post, this discussion can be found in its full detail, complete with twenty- seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows, on my web page (URL in .sig). I'm breaking this up into two posts because I suspect it'll be too long to do all in one. ***Introduction*** The overall impression of a beer, both in and out of competition, is strongly influenced by the carbonation level. Many of us know the frustration of an otherwise excellent brew ending up with the wrong level of carbonation. Most brewing textbooks instruct brewers to prime their beers with an amount of priming sugar on a volume per volume basis. The level most commonly cited is 3/4 of a cup per 5 (US) gallons. This can give rise to problems, however: not all sugars are manufactured in the same way, so that 3/4 cup of one type might in fact be a very different amount than 3/4 cup of another type. It is not clear whether it should be a packed cup, a loose cup, or what. It seems extremely obvious to me (and to some others I've talked with) that a better way is to *weigh* the amount of sugar being used, and prime on the basis of weight sugar per volume beer-- for example, grams per litre (g/L). This post is intended to show how this can be done in practice, and why it is a superior method. I acknowledge the helpful input from the following net.brewers: Mark Hibberd, who really should be thought of as a "coauthor" of this post--his document on priming available at The Brewery (latest update soon to be installed) saved me a lot of legwork; John DeCarlo, whose question motivated the water-adsorption tests described below; and Dick Dunn, who provided additional evidence of how different sugars might compact (he reports seeing dextrose/glucose compact up to 30% by volume with just a gentle tap!). Now, it is of course true that if we proceed in the same way every time, we will eventually arrive at a set of amounts that work for us. However, in order to reduce the trial-and-error aspect as much as possible, it would be desirable to start more or less from first principles so that we can have a better idea what we are doing, particularly when entering as-yet-uncharted territory. ***Part 1. Arriving at the desired priming rates.*** Most of us know already that carbonation can be described in terms of volumes of CO2. A beer carbonated to, say, 2 volumes would have 2 litres of CO2 in every litre of beer. See Dave Miller's books for a more complete discussion. Mark Hibberd's priming guide gives the following handy guide to carbonation levels in a range of styles: ------------------------------------------- Beer style Volumes CO2 ------------------------------------------- British-style ales 1.5 - 2.0 Porter, stout 1.7 - 2.3 Belgian ales 1.9 - 2.4 European lagers 2.2 - 2.7 American ales & lagers 2.2 - 2.7 Lambic 2.4 - 2.8 Fruit lambic 3.0 - 4.5 German wheat beer 3.3 - 4.5 ------------------------------------------- Mark's guide also shows that beer that is ready to bottle, having had CO2 bubbling through it more or less continuously, will be CO2 saturated, and that the amount of CO2 dissolved is a function of the fermentation temperature of the beer. At lower temperature, the beer can dissolve more CO2. Accordingly, we must take this into account, and prime enough only to add the appropriate number of volumes to that already present, thereby arriving at our desired value. Here is a list of the saturation values from Mark's paper. These numbers represent how many volumes of CO2 are in the beer at the listed temperatures before we add any priming sugar: Temp Temp (degC) Vol. CO2 (degC) Vol. CO2 - ------ -------- ------ -------- 0 1.7 12 1.12 2 1.6 14 1.05 4 1.5 16 0.99 6 1.4 18 0.93 8 1.3 20 0.88 10 1.2 22 0.83 The reaction that produces CO2 during carbonation is one in which one mole of glucose, C6H12O6, goes to 2 moles of ethanol, CH3CH2OH, and 2 moles of CO2. A little stoichiometric algebra shows that we will add 1 volume of CO2 for every 3.7 g/L glucose added to the beer. So now that we are armed with the temperature dependence data and the amounts from this reaction, we can produce a general predictive relationship to use in our brewery. I have constructed a plot, available on my web page, that shows how many volumes of CO2 will be produced in the finished beer by priming at various levels. The data used to make the plot can be expressed as equations as well. To calculate the priming rate in g/L, first find (from Mark's table above) the saturation level at the temperature of the beer--let's call it V0 ("vee-zero"). Then choose the volumes of CO2 that correspond to the desired carbonation level-- let's call that V. Then V - V0 Rate in g/L = ----------- 0.27027 A couple of Examples: Example 1. We have a lager at 4C and want it carbonated at 2.75 volumes. The above expression gives (with V0 = 1.5 at 4C and V = 2.75) 4.6 g/L. Example 2. We have a pub bitter at 16C that we want carbonated at 2 volumes, and in this case (V0 = 0.99 at 16C, V = 2) we have 3.7 g/L. If one is priming with sucrose, i.e. table sugar or brown sugar, it turns out that about 20% more CO2 is produced per g/L priming. The corresponding equation to use if priming with sucrose is: v - v0 Rate in g/L = ----------- 0.33784 Conversions of all this to screwed-up-British-engineering units is left as an exercise for the reader; but the conversion from g/L to dry ounces per US gallon is: 1 g/L = 0.133 oz/US gallon See why the metric system is better? :-} ****End of Part 1.**** - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper ...I'm not from here, I just live here... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 1995 07:32:18 +1000 From: david.draper at mq.edu.au (Dave Draper) Subject: More Sugar! (pt. 2 of 2) ***Part 2. Testing the reliability of volume vs. weight measurements*** John DeCarlo raised the important question that perhaps, because sugar can adsorb water vapor from the air and thus increase its weight, volume might be more reliable a measure than weight. To test this, I did a simple experiment. First I placed several grams of three types of sugar in open containers for a couple of weeks, so that it could adsorb as much water as possible. I did this with brewing dextrose, plain white table sugar, and brown sugar. The white and brown sugars are both sucrose, of course. Then, I placed the vials of sugar on a hot plate set at 80C for 24 hours to drive off the adsorbed water. I at first tried to use a drying oven set at 110C, but this is above the melting point of dextrose, so I was forced to use the hot plate (my lab colleagues, inexplicably, would not be receptive to my changing the temperature of the drying oven for this experiment. Sheesh.) I took no special steps to ensure that the sugar was totally dry before being exposed to the air, because this most closely mimics the situation for most brewers; and it provides a worst-case result, which is what I am after here. The results, tabulated below, suggest that the amount of water uptake was negligible, assuming that 24 hr at 80C is sufficient to drive it off. The amounts ranged from 0.05% by weight for white sugar to 1.2% by weight for dextrose. I conclude from this that the uncertainty on the weight of sugar from adsorbed water is well within the noise of the types of scales used by most homebrewers. Here are the data from this experiment: Sugar type Brown White Dextrose - ---------- ----- ----- -------- Wt of sugar at start, g 1.930 3.797 2.706 Wt after 24 hours, g 1.922 3.795 2.673 Percent wt loss 0.40 0.05 1.22 Conclusions 1. Because the effect of carbonation is so important to the overall impression of a beer, it does not make sense to take a chance on having the carbonation come out other than desired. 2. The governing relations for determining how carbonated a beer will be, as a function of the weight of priming sugar used per unit volume, are known and easy to use. 3. Accordingly, we can control very accurately the carbonation level of our beers, once we have a feeling for what a given number of volumes of CO2 ''feels like''. 4. There do not appear to be any problems with using weights as a result of adsorption of water by sugar. The amount of adsorption found in a simple experiment was trivial. Thanks for putting up with my longwindedness. Cheers, Dave in Sydney "Life's a bitch, but at least there's homebrew" ---Norm Pyle - --- *************************************************************************** David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au Home page: http://www.ocs.mq.edu.au/~ddraper ...I'm not from here, I just live here... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 95 14:58:45 -0700 From: robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston) Subject: brewing to style / Gambrinus malt Recently Norm Pyle wrote re Gambrinus malt in a Marzen to which Jim Busch added some comments. First some info on Gambrinus and their malt, then some general comments on brewing to style. Norm Pyle wrote > The owner of Gambrinus, can't recall his name just now, is a Weinstephan graduate... I know Gambrinus sells to Tabernash Brewing Company in Denver, and they are a traditional, German style lager brewery. The sole owner is Klaus Jaeger, a recent immigrant from Germany who now lives here in Vernon. He is an investor; he is not a brewer or maltster. The Weihenstephan graduate is Robert Liedl. He was a classmate of Eric Warner of Tabernash, hence the acknowledgement to Liedl in Warner's book on German Wheat beers and the use of Gambrinus malt by Tabernash. I don't think it has anything to do with Tabernash being a "a traditional, German style lager brewery." Matt Munoz of the Portland Brewing Company is also a classmate of theirs. He is also a customer of Gambrinus and his brewery is definitely not "a traditional, German style lager brewery." Portland Porter, Portland Stout, Winter Ale, McTarnahan's Ale, Mt. Hood Pale Ale... The Gambrinus Malting company exists to serve the micro-breweries which use higher priced specialty malts, and by far the majority of these are "ale" breweries, both here in the pacific northwest (or north or it) and throughout North America. > a Weinstephan graduate who markets his grain as a reasonable substitute, or maybe a better choice, for German grains He will say anything that he thinks will sell his malt. He wouldn't have to draw a new breath before he said that it was perfect for brewing ales. And I would agree that almost all pale malts from any maltster could be used with equal success for ales or lagers. I worked at Gambrinus during the first year of operation, and in the very beginning there were two pale malts, a 'well-modified ale' malt and a less modified 'pilsner/lager' malt. In less than a couple of months, the 'pilsner/lager' malt was dropped from lack of demand and because there really wasn't that much difference between the two as far as what Gambrinus produced. Note especially that there are no regulations about what you call your malt. So if we called a malt 'pilsener', that doesn't mean that it had any similarity to the malt that was originally used to brew Marzens in Germany, as the Fix's explain in their book. Because there are no standards, you have to know every single brand product from each maltster to understand the differences between malts (though for pale, the differences beyond 2R and 6R are less important). Gambrinus also distributes Caramunch and Carafa made by Weyermann malting in Bamberg Germany (Rauchbier city). Caramunch is quite the opposite of the Carastan from Hugh Baird. Carastan gives sweetness; Caramunch gives a great deal of acidity to the beer. Each have their uses, confuse them at your peril. The 'fa' in Carafa is short for the German 'farbe' or 'colour' or in some other former colonies, 'color'. That is a big hint as to the use of the malt: it is for colouring, to change a pale yellow lager into a more golden coloured lager. It is used in minute quantities (I would say always less than 1%). If you want a dark malt for flavour, go for the British malts and roast barley, because they have the flavour components in mind when they make the stuff. Carafa is just sort of raunchy and burnt in terms of flavour. Gambrinus also makes a wheat malt that varies according to the wheat available. There was a local farmer grwoing a genetically low-protein wheat called Frankenmuth and it made the best wheat malt I've ever seen, but that was the exception, unfortunately. Visual inspection works very well with wheat as far as protein level; the high protein wheats and wheat malts really are 'glassy' with a dark golden colour which comes from being able to 'see into' the kernel a bit. Low protein wheat looks more as if it had air whipped into it as far as being opaque and being a lighter, more white colour. And you can look for the red stain of fusarium and the black and grey stains of rot and mould. Gambrinus makes a light Munich malt which is somewhere between 8 and 20 'L depending upon the batch, and a darker one closer to 100'L. I don't know about their newer products, Honey and a biscuit copy. Attention flame-throwers: while I _did_ work there for a year, as I said, I do not advocate the use of Gambrinus malt because I have recently found the products to be less consistent than those from other maltsters, particularly in colour. For homebrewers though, I don't think that should be much of a problem unless you are trying to fine-tune a recipe in successive batches to win a competition. I don't recommend avoiding their malt either, for it can provide a unique contribution to a beer. I use it all the time. *** About brewing to style: In trying to brew a particular style of beer, one approach is to try to duplicate all of the ingredients and processes that you believe are used in the original product. (That's the reason for all this discussion about German vs. N. American malts.) There is good reason to do this since almost everything can have some effect on the product. Also, there may be some intrinsic enjoyment to be had from doing this even if there isn't any difference in the product. [ As an example of something that may give people fulfillment in brewing in the absence of any actual physical difference in their beer is the 'protein rest'. I think that in a great deal of the modern malts (i.e., the only sort which is readily available now) all of the proteolysis that is going to happen has already happened during malting. Therefore, the protein rest is often a ritual which does not effect any real proteolysis). All this is leading up to the suggestion that with pale malt, different pale malts *might* call for different handling in the brewhouse, but the effect on the final product is negligible. In George and Laurie Fix's book on Marzen, while they stress the need to use first quality malt, what constitutes quality is defined only by low nitrogen (protein) and barley variety, preferably Moravian. As for brewhouse treatment, they say that they found brewhouse treatment (comparing decoction to single step infusion) to be unimportant to the quality of the Marzen. This has been a discussion of pale malt. On the 'specialty' malts which also play a considerable part in Marzens, the Fix's say that British malts might be best because they are of the highest quality ("quality is quality") and the munich malts formerly available for Marzens no longer exist. So much for the national origin of the malt. The way to brew to style is to understand the flavours you are after and how to get them. Sometimes this means duplicating ingredients and procedures, sometimes you just do what is necessary, whether that is the same as your understanding of the original or not. Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1796, 08/01/95