Homebrew Digest Sunday, 16 June 1996 Number 2072

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


   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Basic Variables: Summary of Replies (Dave Greenlee)
  pilsner (Stetson)
  RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews (Martin Wilde)
  cider and ale (Kathy Booth)
  Re: Water bath RIMS heater (jstone at stratacom.com (Joseph Stone))
  Re: RIMS takes a bath (jstone at stratacom.com (Joseph Stone))
  HBD address (shawn at aob.org (Shawn Steele))
  Grain Permeability-Runoff (Charlie Scandrett)
  Alternate Bittering Sources - gauging bitterness (asteinm at nyc.pipeline.com (Art Steinmetz))
  Firkin Beer (ritchie at wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie))
  American Brewer's Guild Courses (ritchie at wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie))
  RIMS bath OK? (Charlie Scandrett)
  Re: Wort chilling ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Re: Water bath RIMS heater ("C.D. Pritchard")
  RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews (Robert Paolino)
  Gelatin/Pectin (Moncsko at aol.com)
  aeration and esters (Domenick Venezia)
  Tired of Cascade Pale Ales ("Frederick L. Pauly")
  SNPA vs Carbination ("Frederick L. Pauly")
  RIMS hose/Canadian supplier ("C.PEKARIK")
  re: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Only Anchor? (RBoland at aol.com)
  Lautering Toys, etc (Kyle R Roberson)
  World Beer Cup! (Rob Moline)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES homebrew at aob.org (SUBMISSIONS only) homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org (for REQUESTS only) Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at aob.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L This list service is now being provided by majordomo at aob.org, so some of the commands may have changed. For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org. If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION 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 or visit http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web. Othere information is available by e-mail from info at aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob. 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 at /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. Some archives are available via majordomo at aob.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Dave Greenlee <daveg at mail.airmail.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 14:00:50 -0500 Subject: Basic Variables: Summary of Replies In HBD 2068, I wrote asking which of the following factors was most important to control: + multi-step vs. single-step fermentation + ferment temperatures + plastic vs. glass/stainless primary fermenter + mostly extract vs. mostly grain primary malt base Following is a summary of the replies I have received to my question regarding basic variables in HBD 2068: Of 9 replies so far: + Temp: 8 most important, 1 second most, 0 not so important, 0 not important + Extract: 0 most important, 3 second most, 4 not so important, 2 least important + Multi-stage: 0 most important, 3 second most, 2 not so important, 4 least important + Plastic: 0 most important, 0 second most, 1 not so important, 8 not important Notes: If a response did not comment on one of the issues, I ranked it not important. Most who ranked multi-stage specified that they ranked it where they did with the caveat that they were only speaking of ales, not lagers. Most who said anything about plastic qualified their opinion by emphasizing that sanitation becomes more of an issue and that plastic will eventually have to be replaced. The following factors were voluntarily mentioned by the number of people shown as being especially important: + Use liquid yeast 5 + Use high volume or full boil 2 + Quick-cool hot wort 1 + Use finings 1 + Eliminate chlorine 1 + Be sure to aerate before fermentation 1 + Use unhopped extract 1 + Use fresh, high quality extract 1 Many thanks to the following folks who replied: Steve.Robinson at analog.com (Steve Robinson) h.smith at e-mail.com (Howard Smith) DLH1 at trpo3.tr.unisys.com (David L Houseman) draitt at scri.fsu.ed (David Raitt) KJBREW at aol.com (Ken Rich) waterr at albany.net (Bob Waterfall) morleyd at cadvision.com (Dan Morley) Keith.A.Chamberlin at gsfc.nasa.gov (Keith Chamberlin) cabell at ix.netcom.com (Dennis Cabell) Return to table of contents
From: Stetson <stetson at global2000.net> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 15:47:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: pilsner Hello, I brewed a pilsner, not a lager, and its been in the bottle for about 6 to 7 weeks now. When you first start drinking one, it has a dusty taste to it, and after a while, it goes away. Its not real overwhelming, but was wondering if anybody had any suggestions on why it tastes like this? My sanitising and brewing process was no different than any other time. Thanks, and happy brewing! stetson at global2000.net Return to table of contents
From: Martin Wilde <Martin_Wilde at ccm.jf.intel.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 13:20:00 PDT Subject: RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews In HBD #2070 Bruce DeBolt writes: > I'm interested in the collective's wisdom on making flavorful low > gravity brews. I'm not looking for recipes of conventional styles > (e.g. bitter), but any techniques/tips for improving the flavor of > lower alcohol beer. In the past I've diluted at bottling with good > results, but this time I want to avoid the potential oxidation. One of the easiest ways is to follow the British practice of producing a high gravity wort (usually ~1054) and then diluting it after the boil down to the desired gravity. I don't know all the reasons for doing this, but it does work and it is very easy to do. Martin Return to table of contents
From: Kathy Booth <kbooth at isd.ingham.k12.mi.us> Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 16:50:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: cider and ale Been wanting to try this combination of cider and ale brewed together, so I set three test bottles aside. Not bad. Took it to the hb club meeting and it was well received by a wide array of tastes. Sort of like the beer and lemonade mixtures or beer and 7-UP. The British army used to serve it to the troops and one mutiney occured because of the dilution of the strength of the brew. Unfortunately I've mislaid the reference to what it is called. I lent my cider book that had the details and it probably won't return. Does anybody remember the historical name for cidre and ale fermented together? Are there recipes out there you'd recommend? Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
From: jstone at stratacom.com (Joseph Stone) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 14:58:36 PDT Subject: Re: Water bath RIMS heater >WARNING: Me be computer geek / engineer. Me no spell good. Writing >bad too. Me explain better. Me two. Now <=> Know, Where <=> Were, There <=> Their, ... >>>Actually, now that I think about it, what I had was an immersion >>>chiller running backwards. Instead of the coils sitting in a pan of >>>ice water, they were in boiling water. >>Not quite. With an immersion chiller, you only need to clean the >>outside of the copper. With what you are talking about, you would >>need to make sure that the inside of the copper was very clean (no >>oils, minimal oxidation, no crud). One reason I like my immersion >>chiller is because I can clearly see how clean the surface is that >>touches the wort. The inside of a counter-flow wort chiller needs to be very clean because it contains cooled wort. The inside of a counter-flow wort heater contains hot wort. Cleanliness is not much of an issue. >The system is not perfect (yet), but I think it is better than a >heating element in direct contact with the wort. And yes, not only do >you have to monitor the wort temperatures, you have to monitor the >water temperatures as well but I think the advantages out-number the >the added disadvanage. If you are comparing two manual RIMS, I can start to see where your manual indirect gas inline approach MAY have advantages over a manual direct electric inline approach. However it doesn't begin to compare to an automated or programmable solution. I'm normally mowing the yard or running to the hardware store during the mash and sparge. An advantage to a manual direct electric inline RIMS is that it can be easily converted to an automated or programmable RIMS. I don't think the same can be said for your approach. Granted, you may have no interest in this. I use a 1500W electric hot water heater element in my SPARGE vessel. This is controlled by the same computer that controls my RIMS element. You could apply a similar technique to maintain the temperature of your water bath only I'm afraid that the response in the feedback loop between the water bath and mash would lead to uncontrollable oscillations in temperature. Again, you may have no interest in automating the process. I think what you have is a very practical approach to a manual RIMS. Functionally, I don't see it having major advantages over simply applying heat to the bottom of your mash vessel while recirculating. If you are having to sit and watch thermometers while adjusting heat, I think you'll notice that the pump has quit or that the temperature is rising/dropping uncontrollably. Now if you are at the hardware store while this is happening, that's another question. Did someone call the fire department? Joe Return to table of contents
From: jstone at stratacom.com (Joseph Stone) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 96 15:41:19 PDT Subject: Re: RIMS takes a bath >Of course, enough heat must be added to the wort to exceed the losses in the >plumbing and mash vessel insulation, in order for the temperature to increase. To increase, or even to MAINTAIN a temperature, the temperature of the water bath MUST be higher than the target step (mash) temperature. If the water bath is at 150 oF and I have 3 oF of line loss, the mash will never be at 150 oF. Any idea what kind of performance I can expect in terms of increasing temperature if the water bath temperature never exceeds the target step temperature? Say for example, I have 20 lbs of grain at 150 oF and I want to mash out at 170 oF. How long is this going to take if my water bath is (eventually) at 170 oF? I get 1 oF per minute if I apply the heat directly to the wort (i.e. 20 minutes to mash out). I think the HLT concept is excellent. I use a 1500 W heater element in my sparge vessel and have had excellent results. My thermowell is mounted directly across from the heater element. Both thread into SS fittings welded to the sides of the pot, just above the bottom "curve". Joe Return to table of contents
From: shawn at aob.org (Shawn Steele) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 19:10:34 -0600 Subject: HBD address BTW: the homebrew digest posting address is: homebrew at aob.org (or homebrew-digest at aob.org) The address for subscribing and unsubscribing is: homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org Please just send it e-mail stating "subscribe" or "unsubscribe". Extra wordage just confuses the program. Some of you are still posting to Rob's machine, you may want to update your aliases. Also, if you plan on vacationing, leaving school, changing jobs or whatever, please unsubscribe FIRST!. 1-2% of you have "full mailboxes", "internal mailer errors" and other nastiness, generating a great deal of error messages. If everyone can't get this under control, I will have to be very harsh with bouncing e-mail. TIA, shawn Digest Janitor Return to table of contents
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at buggs.cynergy.com.au> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:47:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: Grain Permeability-Runoff Guy G posts >It occurred to me one day, as I was again fighting a stuck runoff from my >zapap lauter tun, that the hydraulic problem at hand was one of >over-drainage. I was removing more sweet wort from the valve than the grain >could yield. I came up against the problem fairly fast: What is the ability >of grain to yield wort, or water? That way, I could size my valve or >otherwise redesign my system so the valve could not remove wort from the >below the false bottom faster than the grain could provide the material. And then he went on to calculate the "hydraulic conductivity" of a lauter bed in an impressive bit of fluid dynamics. I think there are too many variables (pH, temp, glucans, oxidized protein linkages, crush, adjuncts, depth etc) to calculate what the permeability is with every brew. These are two important factors to consider in deciding your runoff rate, 1/ Efficiency- (both filtration and extraction) affected by the Velocity of Wort, Bed Depth and Particle Distribution (crush and set). i.e. must be slow enough to allow sugars to transfer from *inside* particles into flowing wort. This is dependant on pressure differential, viscosity, bed depth and permeability and particle size. Usually 1.5 hours is the optimum mean lautering time and =/>300mm is the bed depth for homebrewers, and care taken to recycle to achieve clear wort. Shallower beds will give faster runoffs but greatly increased lipid extraction, with possible head retention, fusel alcohol and staling aldehyde problems. Commercial combination mash/lauters are typically 450 kg/m2 (10 lb/ft2) and seperate lauters 150 kg/m2 (2.7 lb/ft2), achieving similar rates of sugar extraction but different lipid extractions. 2/Too Fast Runoff-leading to bed compaction and stuck sparges. Much as I like to quantify things in formulas, this is best gauged empirically with each different batch. Three clear tubes, one from the overlying sparge water, one from mid grain bed, and one from under the false bottom or in manifold, are your gauge. The difference in the wort heights in these 3 sight tubes gives you your cross bed pressure differential, due to resistance to flow (in inches/cms of water). When the bottom one drops quickly, you are running off faster than the bed can release wort and you are at risk of compaction and a stuck sparge. If they begin to increase together, slow the runoff to maintain a lower pressure differential. If the middle to top difference is much greater, you have "tieg", or top dough, permeability problems. Raking the top few cms/inches usually fixes this. I hope this helps. Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) - ------------------------------ Return to table of contents
From: asteinm at nyc.pipeline.com (Art Steinmetz) Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 03:06:20 GMT Subject: Alternate Bittering Sources - gauging bitterness I'm interested in using some herbs as hop alternatives, specifically horehound. Larry Bell mentioned it at Homebrew Bayou and my Mom used to make horehound candy so Larry tickled my childhood memory. I'd like to make an intelligent guess as to the amount required. The obvious path is to make an boiling water infusion (using unhopped wort instead of water?) and adding a std. amount of hops to one and varying quantities of the herb to others. Let the tastebuds decide. Anybody know a better way? Another issue is the bacteriostatic (?) property of hops. Does horehound posess it? (I'll be amazed if anyone can answer that). Thanks. BTW, in my research I found a fascinating 1906 herbal on the web. It includes a large section on hops including recipes for things you and I wouldn't call beer, but the auther does. The section on horehoud mentions "horehound ale" as bening popular in Dorchester, I believe. Check out: http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/mgmh.html Art, 40* 48'N 74* 30'W http:/ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/asteinmetz Return to table of contents
From: ritchie at wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:13:32 +0100 Subject: Firkin Beer Greger: You beat me to the punch on this one (I was just about to bring this firkin subject up). Around here (Portland, OR), the word "firkin" is plastered all over. Recently, I had a debate about what exactly "firkin" means. One said it was a synonym for cask conditioned, the other said it was a measure of volume. What gives? ...CDR <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie at wnstar.com World Wide Web: http://www.wnstar.com/ritchie/ Return to table of contents
From: ritchie at wnstar.com (Clark D. Ritchie) Date: Fri, 14 Jun 1996 22:26:55 -0700 Subject: American Brewer's Guild Courses Has any taken a course at the American Brewer's Guild? I ask specifically in reference to the Advanced Homebrewer's Weekend course ($149), which sounds kind of interesting. I can't decide, however, if it'd be worthwhile or not (given the associated travel expenses, etc.). Any info by private email is appreciated... CDR <--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--><--> Clark D. Ritchie, ritchie at wnstar.com World Wide Web: http://www.wnstar.com/ritchie/ Return to table of contents
From: Charlie Scandrett <merino at buggs.cynergy.com.au> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 22:24:15 +1000 (EST) Subject: RIMS bath OK? Ken Schwartz posted his RIMS heater design and asked "thermo types" to take a shot. OK, I'll bite! __ __ || || KEN S>|| <-- IS THIS ~ 350mm?-CS-----------> || || || <- plastic bucket || || (HLT?!) || || || || || || || || ||/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/|| <- water level || || _||_ 3/8" or 1/2" tubing _||_ --| || |---------------------------------| || |-- <- bulkhead --|_||_|---------------------------------|_||_|-- fittings || wort flow ----> || (w/gaskets) __|| O=====||== <- temp sensor | || || | ||==============================\ || <- electric | ||==============================/ || element |__|| || ||_____________________________________|| |_______________________________________| <SNIP> KS> Temperature rise across the heat exchanger can be somewhat controlled with KS>pump speed but since nothing hotter than your target temperature is ever in KS>contact with the wort, it shouldn't really matter. KS>Add a spigot to the above and it doubles as your HLT! Even heats the sparge KS>water while you mash (well, some of it anyway). As with all heat exchangers, the issues are boundary layers (which reduce heat flow by 90%), exchange areas, and temperature differences. 1/ You don't have to pump very fast to achieve turbulent flow, in this case a bit less than <.5 m/sec, or <3.5 litres/minute. BUT the outside of the tube would have a boundary layer unless it was stirred. 2/ The area seems a bit small, (.0137 m2) but it is increased by multiple complete passes by the wort. 3/ Let us calculate the temperature difference required? In this example If the heating water was held at X degrees C, and the 17.2 litres (5 gals)of wort was at say 52C and you wanted to go to 67C in 15 minutes (1C/minute). The *overall coeficient of heat TRANSFER* for 3mm Cu under turbulent flow conditions is about 12.5 kW/m2 K. In this case with one boundary layer, I'd estimate about 7.5 kW/m2 K. now Q = U*A*O (where Q= rate of heat transfer, U= overall heat transfer coeficient, A= area, O= log mean temp difference in Kelvin) O= log mean temp difference(trust me, this figure is thermodynamically important). This is the variable we don't know and equals ((X-52)-(X-67))/(loge((X-52)/(X-67))) = 5/loge((X-52)/(X-67)) U= 7.5 kW/m2 K Q= is calculated by how fast you want to go from 52C to 67C, 15 minutes. The ammount of heat is 17.2L * 4.2 kJ/L/C* 15C= 1083.2 kJ. The rate is 1083.2/(15mins * 60 secs)= 1.2 kilowatts A= .0137 m2 * number of total wort passes at the minumum of 3.5 litre/min. In 15 minutes the effective area would be 3.06 complete passes, effectivly tripling the length and thus area= .0411 m2 So 1.2 = 7.5* .0411*0 0= 3.89 = log mean temperature difference. Substitute into the equation above. This gives a heating water temperature of ~ 73C. This is only theoretical but is in the range and at the upper limit of enzyme tolerence. I would say this system will work! With stirring, even better. Charlie (Brisbane, Australia) - ------------------------------ Return to table of contents
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 09:40 EDT Subject: Re: Wort chilling Aaron Sepanski <sepanska at it.uwp.edu> in #2068: >Although it many cool their wort in the boiler, which obviously takes >less time, it would seem to me that you are running the greater risk of >infection doing it this way. Your lid on your boiler is not airtight. It needn't and probably shouldn't be air tight- cooling of the vapor space in the boiler reduces the interior pressure and will suck in air when you open the top. You'll have to forceably pry it open if the boiler was truly airtight- assumming the lid or boiler doesn't deform due to the dP). I use plastic wrap to seal the opening between the lid and the boiler necessary for the immersion cooler and racking manifold I use. It's not airtight but it does keep stuff from falling into the wort. Bottom line is that some air is going to be sucked in one way or another. >I put my boiling wort directly into a sealed (airtight) and sterile >carboy. What do you think? It'll suck the stopper right into the wort as the wort cools even with a small air space above the wort. The other problem is that the thermal shock of the boiling wort on the carboy could easily shatter the carboy. Contact of the wort with air would become a lesser concernn at that point. c.d. pritchard (cdp at chattanooga.net) Return to table of contents
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 09:40 EDT Subject: Re: Water bath RIMS heater Kevin McEnhill <kevinm at kci.wayne.edu> posted: >With a controlled electric heater, you have two possible failures.... >Two: Your temperature controller can fail... >Depending on how the control system is built, the element will either >turn off (Nice and fail-safe but difficult to design)... A "relatively" safe controller isn't difficult to design or implement. Here's one way: Normal Controller---Triac----Relay----Heater | High Limit Thermostat----------+ IMHO, the risk associated with the failure of my controller vs. the cost of the redundant control doesn't justify the added expense and effort. YMMV... The basic idea certianly has merit. With good design, wort carmelization and enzyme denaturing could perhaps be reduced below that of a Morris style RIMS. Assumming the heat exchanger is 1/2-way efficient, you don't want to use boiling water as a heat source! 170 degF (a guess) or so should be adequate. With proper design and perhaps an air to water heat exchanger in the sparge line, the water tank could also serve as a source for sparge water- a big plus. The description so far hasn't included a very important part of a RIMS- the temp. control means. I think a valve in the water line from the heat exchanger back to the hot water tank will be needed since some means of controlling the heat input to the wort recirc (and hence the mash is needed). Since the pump is a dual-head type, one can't easily control the flows (and, in your system, the heat transfer) via pump speed as we do with typical RIMS. Control via changing the temperature of the water in the hot water tank is impractical since there would be way too much lag in control response and the boost times will be too lenghtly. A power operated throttling valve ($$$) instead of a cheaper soleniod valve will probably be needed. The reason again is the lag in control response- you'd have wild fluctuations in the wort recirc temp if the water temp is much greater than the wort temp. My bottom line: the approach is doable and would perhaps reduce damage to the wort compared to a Morris type RIMS but careful design is needed. OTOH, my Morris type system doesn't damge the wort to a noticable extent... c.d. pritchard (cdp at chattanooga.net) Return to table of contents
From: Robert Paolino <rpaolino at execpc.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 10:19:34 -0500 (CDT) Subject: RE: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt at dow.com> wrote: >I'm interested in the collective's wisdom on making flavorful low gravity [snip] >but any techniques/tips for improving the flavor of lower alcohol beer. [snip] START YOUR LAWNMOWERS! If brewing with extract and grains, use _lots_ of crystal malt. Don't, however, use more of the darker crystal malts than you want for colour and flavour. I use a lot of DeWolf-Cosyns carapils (one to two pounds in a 4 or 5 gallon batch, depending on what other grains I'm steeping along with it) to give the additional perception of body and mouthfeel without affecting the colour or flavour profile appreciably. (The DeWC carapils is really a very light crystal, and does not need to be mashed.) For all grain, a higher mash temperature will increase the nonfermentables. I've never made lower alcohol beers by diluting with water at bottling time, as you describe. You expressed a concern about oxidation: I'd preboil the water to reduce that problem. >From a healthy fermentation standpoint what's the lower limit on original >gravity? I can't give a biologically technical answer, but I have done a couple of 1.024(+/-) beers with some success. The usual advice for any beer applies, but is more important here: lots of healthy yeast and aeration. But because these beers are "delicate" and will display off flavours mercilessly, attention to avoiding higher fermentation temperatures is essential. Even esters that would be otherwise pleasant in some ales will overpower in a beer like this, so keep it cool. Also, this is not a beer for procrastination about racking and bottling (so says a brewer who has yet to bottle a beer from April and another from May, but they're both huge beers, so I'm pretending not to worry). But when to rack is a tough call-- rack too soon and you get lots o' diacetyl. I had that happen with one of my low gravity beers. The bottles first consumed were like butter extract and I thought the batch was a lost cause. But after a month (probably sooner, but I didn't drink any then), the yeast in the bottle had done its work on the D-monster, and it was a pleasant, flavourful, delicately hoppy lawnmower beer. Now go have a beer, Bob Paolino Madison rpaolino at earth.execpc.com Have a beer today... for your palate and for good health Return to table of contents
From: Moncsko at aol.com Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 11:52:30 -0400 Subject: Gelatin/Pectin A friend of mine (NOT me!!!) wanted to clearify his beer with gelatin in the secondary. He couldnt find the Knox gelatin, as I instructed him, but did find a pectin called "Sur-gel". He did the normal knox gel routine etc... When he asked me if there was a difference, I said, lets ask the experts on HBD. So? is HIS beer ruined? Should he add rasburys? Note, he wasnt wearing plaid. E mail is fine. TIA. Jim Moncsko - Jim's Amazing Brewing Company Moncsko at aol.com Return to table of contents
From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 08:56:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: aeration and esters My beer IS ruined. However, the experiment may add a data point to the aeration/pitch rate/esters debate. In my quest for a perfect Fuller's ESB clone I decided to try do everything I could to get my bootleg yeast to behave properly. In batches past (3) this yeast has stalled at 1.025 from an OG of 1.057. I assumed that the yeast had a high oxygen requirement as it comes out of an open fermentation with dropping environment. For a 5 gallon batch I created a 5 quart (yes, 1.25 gallons) 1.050 yeast starter which I aerated periodically with pump and airstone during the fermentation. I allowed the yeast to settle out and form a yeast cake. At pitching time I decanted all the liquid from the starter, created a slurry with new wort and pitched. Aeration was extensive and periodic during the active primary fermentation at 63-66F. I aerated at 0, 14, 24, and 54 hours. At 54 hours I was still getting 43 airlock bubbles/min (max was 101) so I knew the yeast was still very active. The fermenter is a 7 gallon glass carboy with 5.75 gallons in it so there was plenty of headspace to aerate with the pump and airstone. The airstone was left in the sealed carboy during the fermentation and the air filtered to remove nasties. The fermentation stopped dead at 1.020. The beer tasted good, even Fulleresque, though it was pretty heavy. I detected no excessive fruitiness or esteriness and it did not differ too much from previous batches with this yeast that were pitched and aerated normally. I guess that my single data point is this: in one batch with a massive starter and extensive aeration (during active fermentation) excessive esters were NOT formed. So, how did I ruin my beer? Like General Montgomery I went too far. I decided to put my own speculations to the test and see if aeration would restart a stuck fermentation. I aerated again at 101 hours when there was NO airlock activity whatsoever. Oops. Can you say "20 minute shelf-life"? Can you say "cloying"? Can you say "sherry"? The fermentation did not restart; the beer began to go off. A number of lessons should be learned from this. Not all "stuck" fermentations can be cured with aeration. DO NOT EXPERIMENT WITH THE WHOLE BATCH. This of course is the most important lesson. Draw a gallon and experiment on that. I think that I can salvage this batch (I am an optimist). By diluting the brew with 2-2.5 gallons of preboiled water the SG will drop from 1.020 to 1.013. Part of this water will be a hop tea made from Kent Goldings. Hopefully, this will dilute the sherriness and mask it enough to make the brew drinkable. And of course, this time I will experiment on a gallon at a time. Finally, what else could I have tried to unstick the fermentation or to get it to continue longer? I think that it is safe to assume that the fermentation was NOT oxygen limited. The accepted dogma is that all-grain worts are oxygen limited and extract worts are nitrogen (FAN) limited. I speculate that the wort became FAN limited and that perhaps the addition of yeast fertilizer (ammonium sulfate) would have restarted the fermentation, or the initial enrichment of the wort with ammonium sulfate would have allowed the fermentation to continue. One thing leads to another and it occurs to me to ask what would be the effect of using calcium chloride as a calcium source and using ammonium sulfate as a sulfate source for water treatment? Domenick Venezia Computer Resources ZymoGenetics, Inc. Seattle, WA venezia at zgi.com Return to table of contents
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m at galen.med.virginia.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 16:04:06 -0400 Subject: Tired of Cascade Pale Ales Well, not that I would not drink another Pale Ale brewed with cascade but I've found lately most of my Pale Ales have been brewed with Pearl or Mt.Hood bittering and Cascade for flavor and aroma. Finding, by the way that I rather prefer 3-4oz of leaf Cascade of the heat in a 10 gal. batch (all grain) to 2 oz dry hopped. Anyway, I'm looking for suggestions on other hop combinations for Ales, pale or other wise. And as an aside I would like to thank the collective for the wonderfull discourse that occouring in this forum gave me the courage to build the 10gal. all grain system that I enjoy today. Rick Pauly Nuc.Med. Tech Charlottesville, Va And I really liked the signiture line I saw... " sparing no expense to make homebrew ecconomical " Return to table of contents
From: "Frederick L. Pauly" <flp2m at galen.med.virginia.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 17:08:30 -0400 Subject: SNPA vs Carbination since I have been kegging my beers I have noticed a big diff. in the level of carbination, which I accepted as just the diff between bottle and keg. But there has been a growing awareness of how much carbination affects the perceived flavor of the beer. Tasting my pale ale against a bottle of SNPA my beer being kegged, with the first tasting the bottled SNPA has a very sharp initial taste followed by some malt and predominate hops where mine is sommoth and rounded on entry with a finishing bitterness. BUT, stirr the CO2 out of the SNPA and the initital taste is very much the same, not sharp, but smooth rounded, almost "buttery" . So, the question, has anyone else noticed this difference between kegged and bottled beers, and is there a way to get the level of carbination in a bottled beer in the keg? Or do we accept the difference? Rick Pauly NucMedTech Charlottesville,Va Return to table of contents
From: "C.PEKARIK" <74163.1163 at CompuServe.COM> Date: 15 Jun 96 17:26:01 EDT Subject: RIMS hose/Canadian supplier Hello folks, Ive enjoyed lurking HBD the last 6 months and I thank all for sharing your knowledge. I'm in the final stages of building my homebrewery; soon to be dubbed "Gotcha Goat! Brewing", and I need hose for the RIMS. All components in the RIMS are connected by 5/8 OD SS tube except for six inches either side of the heater tube where I want the see-through, heat-resistant, food-grade, 5/8 ID hose. I plan to make a sight tube with the same hose. Is oxygen permeating a big problem? Does anybody know of a Canadian source for the hose, so I don't have to dance with Customs? I live one hour NW of Toronto, Ontario. Thankyou, Larry Kress E-mail: 74163.1163 at compuserve.com (the E# is my partners but I live there too!) Return to table of contents
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 96 19:47 EDT Subject: re: Flavorful Low Gravity Brews DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt at dow.com> asked: >I'm interested in the collective's wisdom on making flavorful low gravity >brews. I'm not looking for recipes of conventional styles (e.g. bitter), >but any techniques/tips for improving the flavor of lower alcohol beer. In >the past I've diluted at bottling with good results, but this time I want >to avoid the potential oxidation. In extract days, I had better luck brewing big and diluting down. I think Charlie P has a recipe for a lawnmower brew in one of his books that uses this method. Oxidation shouldn't be a problem if you boil and cool the dilution water to remove disolved O2. This would also help sanitize and remove Cl. Adjusting pH to 5 or so is a very good idea! I'd use a bottling pail or carboy and rack the brew on top of the water or water/priming sugar to help with mixing. I never bothered stiring- just make sure the end of the racking hose long and it's end is arranged so that it creates a gentle whirlpool-like motion. c.d. pritchard (cdp at chattanooga.net) Return to table of contents
From: RBoland at aol.com Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 21:31:50 -0400 Subject: Only Anchor? I'm looking for beers of the "Californis Common" style. Are there any true to style besides Anchor Steam? Return to table of contents
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 19:00:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Lautering Toys, etc As several people have pointed out, I missed the "4" key and typed 32 instead of 42 gal in a bbl of oil. I spent a decade in the oil business and it was a while before I could steel myself to saying 31 gal a bbl (beer). The fact that an "oil bbl" is internationally standardized is irrelvant. My point was that the size of a bbl depends on what it is a bbl of, whereas the size of a liter doesn't. I like funny units though, for example, a miner's inch is a flow rate. Those engaging in the debate on when bitter wort becomes beer can reflect on DeClerk's opinion that it becomes beer when the majority of the extract is consumed during fermentation. I'm writing from memory so I don't remember what the word exactly was (plus it is a translation from the French), but it had a clear implication that primary fermentation was mostly over before he considered it beer. Those of you having stuck mash problems and those interested in nifty gadgets, might consider putting in manometers in your mash bucket. Take two plastic tubes (like racking canes with part of the hook taken off), and mount one in the bucket below the screen and one above the grain bed. Strap the tubes to the bucket and seal the holes where they penetrate the wall. Put screen over the ends so they don't get stuck. Put them side by side so you can easily compare the heights of the water in each one. Fill your bucket with water and the liquid will run up the tubes. Differences in pressure will be hydrostatic head. Now run your lauter. Adjust your flow out rate so that there is only a few centimeters difference. The one below the screen will show a "suction" relative to the one above the bed. If you let it get too high, you will compress the bed and stick the mash. With only a few centimeters difference, you will efficiently wash the grains without compacting areas. There is a picture of this device in De Clerk where a third manometer is put in the collection tube to make sure the gooseneck is not providing suction. Kyle Return to table of contents
From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 20:19:50 -0500 Subject: World Beer Cup! YAHOO!! Rob (Jethro Gump) Moline Little Apple Brewing Company Manhattan, Kansas "The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about beer!" Return to table of contents