---

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

Contents:
  DME characteristics/Italian hops ("Gregory, Guy J.")
  Long, Warm Hoses ("Dave Hinkle")
  RIMS - Disadvantages and some thoughts. (Steve Alexander)
  fermentability of honey (Gregory King)
  re: clove in wheat beer (Ken Johnson)
  belgian wit fermentation temp ("Bryan L. Gros")
  How do I remove  myself from the list (Darrel Golden)
  bottle-conditioned Guiness? (Vincent A Voelz (Vincent A Voelz))
  Conversion Stuff (KennyEddy at aol.com)
  Luck to the Little Apple Brewery ((Curt Schroeder))
  PWA Clone (Bret Bartlett)
  To sparge or not to sparge? ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Hop removal ("Peter Hanlon")
  Re: Growing Hops (Brian Cornelius)
  Another happy unsuscribee... (Vincent A Voelz (Vincent A Voelz))
  Re: propane and extiguishers (Joseph Kral)
  Re: Honey fermentability  (Spencer W Thomas)
  Crushing Roasted Barley ((Michael David Bateman))
  RIMS issues (Steve Alexander)
  Neg Pressure from 3/16" hose ((LaBorde, Ronald))
  Lambics?? ("Ed J. Basgall")
  More on "no sparge" (Louis Bonham)

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
  and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.

Please note that if 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
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
  then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.

OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
  http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
  http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
  info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.

ARCHIVES:
  At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp.  Also
  http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.

COPYRIGHT:
  As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
  original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
  Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
  collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
  may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
  posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Gregory, Guy J." <GGRE461 at ecy.wa.gov>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 10:41:00 PDT
Subject: DME characteristics/Italian hops

 
Al Korzonas writes: 
 
"... Laaglander Dried Malt Extract is very unfermentable. 
Typical apparent attenuations can be between 55 and 60%.  It has it's 
place in low-gravity beers or sweet beers, but I wouldn't use it for 
100% any normal-gravity beer: it would come out way too sweet. " 
 
I abandoned extract brewing because I could not find information on 
characteristics of malt extracts, and thus could not brew beer that tasted 
like I thought it ought.  I currently only use DME for preparation of yeast 
starters. 
 
Is there a single place where general characteristics of different brands 
can be found?  I noted some specific variability within malt extract brands, 
and definate variation between brands, but never could really put my finger 
on such things as "typical apparent attenuation" etc.  An FAQ or other such 
document on the topic would be really valuable to all brewers, I would 
think. 
____________________________________________ 
 
The Italian gentlemen who wrote gave new perspective to me, given the 
relative availability of ingredients.  I'll stop whining.  Sir:  perhaps, 
within the EEC, you can find some hop rhizomes and grow your own?  There's 
lots of resources on the net to help you.  Second, taxing homebrew would 
seem to me like taxing homemade pasta...you have grain and other 
ingredients, you create it, and consume it with your friends.  How would the 
pasta be taxed? 
 
I admire your effort, and I'll bet you make great beer! 
 
Guy Gregory 
GuyG4 at aol.com 
Lightning Ck. Homebrewing 
Scottish Ale....for Coug games or Chukar hunts, an Eastern Washington 
tradition! 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Dave Hinkle" <Dave.Hinkle at aexp.com>
Date: 20 Sep 1996 10:49:42 -0700
Subject: Long, Warm Hoses

Mark Bayer wrote: 
 
"one other thing to mention about long hose runs is that you can warm up the 
beer as it flows through an uninsulated hose.  this causes CO2 to break out 
as it gets warmer.  so if you run a long hose to try and balance your 
system and get an acceptable flow rate, you can shoot yourself in the foot 
if the beer warms up too much because you still get foam. ..." 
 
WE HAVE A WINNER!  It doesn't matter if you have 5 or 20 feet of dispensing 
hose if it's warmer than the keg.  While length and diameter make a difference 
in the flow rate, most of the CO2 outgassing (foaming) occurs because of 
warming of the dispensing line.  Commercial setups chill the lines all the way 
up to the spigot as close as possible for this very reason. They tune the hose 
diameter to the length to maintain a rapid flow rate, 'cause customers are as a
rule are generally impatient. Some bars just up the pressure to speed the flow 
(instead of tuning line diameter), but of course they end up with 
over-carbonated beer. 
 
Hope this humble advice helps: 
 
1) Make sure the hose you use is beverage serving hose, not some generic hose. 
Bev hose has very slick/smooth inner walls and less turbulence occurs. 
Turbulence increases outgassing. 
 
2) Keep the product (liquid) line cold!  Not a problem in a fridge, but if you 
have the keg in a tub of ice, run the hose through the ice as well. I run mine 
under the keg then back up, leaving  only about 1-2' total  of hose exposed. 
My dispense line (3/16"D) is only about 5 or 6' long, and I get very little 
foaming by keeping the line COLD.  And with a fairly short line, the flow rate 
is fairly fast (no long queue waiting to fill mugs!). So ya gotta bend over to 
fill yer glass.  Whad, would ya ratha have all foam?  Hey, you pull that hose 
outta thad ice, I'll give ya a fist-full of yer teeth. 
 
3) If you use a "cobra head" spigot, putting a 4" length of 3/8" hose over the 
end of the spout helps less experienced pourers get a good fill. Pouring below 
the surface dramatically reduces foaming, even more so than pouring down the 
side of the mug.  And check that cobra head often.  I had one develop a crack 
in it, and man did it foam a lot for no apparent reason!  It didn't leak when 
closed, and you could only see the crack when you pushed the lever open so it 
went unnoticed for a while.  I replaced it and the problem was solved. 
 
All the talk about pressure drop and even 'negative pressure' after X # feet of
hose gave me a good laugh.  I think some of you are over analyzing it.  Where 
is NOKOMAREE when you need him/her?  After all, who wants to wait around and 
watch beer dribble into a glass out of a 20' hose (and STILL get a lot of 
foam)? I'd rather be able to crack the spigot wide open, fill the glass and be 
done with it.  And if I wind up with an inch of foam on top of a pint, that's 
fine by me. 
 
Cheers, 
Dave Hinkle 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:12:00 -0400
Subject: RIMS - Disadvantages and some thoughts.

Dion Hollenbeck writes ... 
 
>I am not trying to be argumentative or bash you, but from your post, 
>it sounds like you are basing your statements on supposition. 
 
Dion - the previous post was based on what I read and surmise.  I 
don't have practical experience with a RIMS and welcome your comments. 
There is a lot of good info relevent to RIMS in industrial enzymology 
books.  It's well worth a scan at a local university library. 
 
heat damage ... 
>Totally agreed, but if you build a RIMS with a small high density 
>heating element, IMHO, you have completely botched it.  In a well 
>designed RIMS system, you will use a very low density heating element 
>which precludes all these disadvantages. 
 
I doubt that the low density heating element's I've seen suggested 
would have anything like the amount of surface required.  Have you 
actually tried to measure the heaters surface temp when in operation ? 
What kind of surface area is available in the low density heating 
elements you are referring to ? 
 
Another point is that alpha-glucosidase which places a significant 
role in starch granule degradation in low temp mashes (below starch 
gelatinization temps).  It's more heat labile that other amylases and 
in a RIMS ... 
 
Shear forces and enzyme denaturing ... 
>While I cannot discount this, do you have any proof? 
... 
> Just recently throttled it back a tad due to discussions on 
>grain bed compaction. 
 
Throttling back with an outlet valve may increase shear forces! 
The point about shear forces in pumps destroying enzymes is available 
from several books on industrial enzymology.  One book that explicitly 
talks about this is ... 
 AUTHOR       Chaplin, M. F. (Martin F.) 
 TITLE        Enzyme technology / M.F. Chaplin and C. Bucke. 
 IMPRINT      Cambridge [England] ; New York : Cambridge University Press, 
                1990. 
 
The point about whether it has a practical effect is quite relevent. 
Discussions of 'proof' are not.  I think the burden of proof is on 
wort pumpers - to show that they don't adversely effect the wort. 
Typical pale or pale ale malts have several times the amount of 
enzymes required for a complete conversion in a 'reasonable' amount of 
time.  The question is what happens in an enzyme poor mash.  Does 
anyone have any anecdotal evidence ? 
 
>SA> Very thick mashes are probably not possible with a RIMS apparatus, 
... 
>Depends on what you term very thick mashes.  My normal RIMS mash us at 
>1.1 quarts per lb. of grain plus a fixed 2 quarts for system volume. 
>This is quite thick when compared to some figures I have seen quoted 
>for stovetop mashes.  This leaves a couple of inches of liquid on top 
>of the grain bed and the flow rate is as high as 4 GPM. 
 
Lets say 7.5# of grist and you add 8.25+2 qt ==> or 1.366qt/lb or 43.7 
fl.oz/# .  As a point of comparison Greg Noonan in his original 
Brewing Lager Beer book suggested a dough-in w/ (from memory) 24 to 28 
fl.oz per pound, and eventually after the protein rest ends up in the 
35 to 45 floz/pound range.  Obviously trying to dough-in or protein 
rest w/ around 1 qt/# would be very difficult with a RIMS.  A lot of 
test mashes are performed around 39% thickness or 41floz/#, which is 
pretty close to your figure, but note that you ARE letting your 
hardware dictate your brewing method at this point. 
 
>SA> RIMS recirculation is probably not possible with very sticky 
>SA> mashes, for example those that include a high proportion of wheat, 
>SA> rye and perhaps rice. 
> 
>Very good point.  I have no data on this as I have not tried those 
>grains in my beer.  Would really like to hear from a RIMS user who 
>*has*. 
 
Me too. 
 
>SA> It has been suggested on HBD that the extremely clear highly 
>SA> recirculated runnings from a RIMS setup may lack sufficient lipids 
>SA> for optimal yeast growth. 
> 
>If this is true, then how do I get a Belgian strong ale with an OG of 
>1.095 to ferment out to 1.016?  I have seen no problems with yeast 
>growth on my system.  Then again, I force oxygenate with O2 and a 
>sintered SS air stone and produce optimal conditons for vigorous yeast 
>growth and pitch large amounts of healthy freshly cultured yeast.  I 
>coudl see if someone just dumps in the contents of a smack pack, that 
>it may be on the edge, and in that case your disadvantage may come 
>into play. 
 
I didn't propose this point, but I believe that the idea is that once 
the oxygen is used up (which happens quite quickly), yeast growth is 
dependent on the uptake of unsaturated fatty acids.  I've an article 
from the 'Journal of the Inst of Brewing' (JIB vol 100, 1994, pp 
321-329) that states this point (w/ references) unequivocally. And 
notes that this is the limiting factor in yeast growth because the 
unsaturated fatty acids used in yeast membrane structures cannot be 
synthesized in the absence of oxygen. 
 
*IF* RIMS wort is deficient in fatty acids, (and I don't know that it 
is) then the wort will still ferment, tho at a reduced rate.  The 
negative effects might include problem w/ ferementation time - 
especially with the tendency of many HBers to seriously underpitch. 
Autolysis might be a greater problem also.  It should also lead to 
lower ester production - the value of which is dependent on beer 
style. 
 
>SA> Also a RIMS probably can't take mashes as thick a those that I 
>SA> usually use at dough-in and during the protein rest. 
> 
>Yes, but why do you have your mashes that thick?  Because you need to 
>add water later to boost temperatures?  With a RIMS, there is no need 
>for water additions, so the initial thickness is the final thickness. 
>Is there a *reason* one would *need* a thick mash during a protein 
>rest, other than to avoid the final mash being too thin after repeated 
>water additions? 
 
No - I always use a programmed mash or a decoction mash and never add 
additional mash water for temperature control (I don't use infusion 
mashing).  The reason for the thickness during the protein rest is the 
effectiveness of the rest is quite dependent on mash thickness. See 
M&B Sci.  I use thickness as a mashing parameter, while I couldn't do 
this very well with a RIMS. 
 
Dough-in ... 
>SA> Does the RIMS add to control or repeatability at this stage ? 
> 
>Well, I think so.  I dump the grain into the return flow of wort using 
>a special return manifold which is not the one used during mashing. 
>This effectively mixes the grain and water immediately and results in 
>never getting grain balls.  That I think could be considered added 
>control.  If grain balls never form, it is impossible to miss getting 
>rid of them. 
 
It would be pretty hard to get grain balls with a 1.366qt/# mash 
wouldn't it ?  I'll  concede the control repeatability point to you - 
since I don't have RIMS experience, but given the mash thinness 
required, I don't see this as an advantage. 
 
>Steve makes some very good points, and if the ones he has questioned 
>have corroborative evidence, then it behooves us to improve upon what 
>would be a deficiency. 
 
And thanks Dion for the review and user perspective.  I refuse to let 
this thread devolved into the sort of literature search/rebuttal that 
turn off a lot of readers.  The only real "Proof" acceptable will 
require testing RIMS derived wort with laboratory facilities I 
certainly don't have access to.  I've suggested several areas for 
improvements and several concerns (some of which may not prove to be 
well founded) regarding RIMS. 
 
Steve Alexander 

Return to table of contents


From: Gregory King <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:59:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: fermentability of honey

Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au> wrote: 
 
>It is often said that honey will ferment completely when added to beer. I 
>think this is not so. As any meadmaker will tell you, a solution of honey 
>will not ferment 100%. My meads have rarely gone below 998. It is true, 
>though, that honey will contribute nice flavours and a somewhat drier 
>mouthfeel, but it will not ferment completely. 
>Anyone had different experiences? 
 
A couple of months ago I found the following information in the book "Honey 
and Health" by B.F. Beck (Robert M. McBride and Company, New York, 1938). 
 
   "The main chemical components of honey (in percentages) are: 
 
 
        Invert sugars .............. 73.31   (dextrose, 36.20) 
                                             (levulose, 37.11) 
        Sucrose (cane-sugar) .......  2.63 
        Dextrin ....................  2.89 
        Nitrogen substances ........  1.08 
        Water ...................... 18.96 
        Ash ........................  0.24 
 
   These component parts vary in different honeys." 
 
Dextrose and levulose (a.k.a. glucose and fructose) are fermentable, as is 
sucrose.  Dextrin and the other two items are not fermentable.  So, on average 
there is about 4-5% of unfermentable stuff in honey (not counting the water, of
course). 
 
Greg King 
gking at arserrc.gov 
Philadelphia, PA 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Ken Johnson <kenjo at pogo.WV.TEK.COM>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: re: clove in wheat beer

> 
> From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu> 
> 
- --clipped-- 
> > indicates that this is facillitated by a rest at 44C at pH 5.7. 
> 
> 4-vinyl guaicol (or is it guiacol?) is the clove-tasting molecule. 
> 44C=111F. 
> 
 
Just how long should one keep the mash at this temperature? 
 
kj 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Bryan L. Gros" <grosbl at ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:57:04 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: belgian wit fermentation temp

Can anyone give me a good suggestion as to the best fermentation 
temperature for a wit beer using the Wyeast Belgian White yeast 
(sorry, forgot the number)? 
Thanks. 
 
- ----- 
Jeff Frane writes: 
> Cane sugar gets whooped up a lot, 
>especially by disinterested (heh) parties like C&H ("Pure cane sugar 
>from Hawaii!), but the truth is that once it's completely refined, 
>sucrose is sucrose, regardless of the source.  Anything that would 
>identify it as coming from beet or cane has been removed. 
 
I noticed that Abita Springs Root Beer prominantly advertised that 
it contains "pure Louisiana cane sugar" and I've always wondered 
why I should care where the sugar comes from.  BTW, it isn't the 
best root beer I've ever had. 
- ----- 
Allen Underdown writes: 
>  What is the major difference between beer and Malt Liquor?  Is malt 
>  liquor actually distilled? If so, why is it rated in percent and not 
>  in proof (alcohol) and sold in the beer section? 
Malt Liquor is just a legal term for high alcohol beer.  I'm not sure if 
there is a consistent difinition of what "high" is.  While it was originally 
used to separate stuff like Bud from stuff like Schlitz Malt Liquor, you 
might see it now on labels of imports which are "high alcohol". 
 
You'll do okay if you just ignore it.  We can't even get malt liquor 
here in Tennessee :-( 
 
          - Bryan 
            grosbl at ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu 
            Nashville, TN 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Darrel Golden <dgolden at acad.bryant.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: How do I remove  myself from the list

How do i remove myself from the list 
thanks 
DArrel 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Vincent A Voelz <voel0009 at gold.tc.umn.edu> (Vincent A Voelz)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 14:44:59 -0500
Subject: bottle-conditioned Guiness?

I was just looking at some old recipes for Guiness clones which suggest 
making a starter yeast culture from a bottle of actual Guiness stout. 
Anyone know whether or not Guiness still bottle-conditions their stout they 
sell in the US? 
 
Vincent Voelz <voel0009 at gold.tc.umn.edu> 
Minneapolis, MN 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:49:28 -0400
Subject: Conversion Stuff

Pat Van Mil asks: 
 
<<I'm looking for some guidelines on the following: >> 
 
 <<converting all-grain recipes to all-extract recipes 
 converting all-grain recipes to mash-extract recipes>> 
 
Check my web page at http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy.  I recently wrote a 
detailed article on this very topic. 
 
<< converting DME requirements to LME requirements. >> 
 
DME contributes 42 points of OG per pound per gallon.  LME varies but is 
typically in the 35 - 38 point range.  Thus use about 10% - 15% more LME by 
weight than DME. 
 
***** 
 
Ken Schwartz 
El Paso, TX 
KennyEddy at aol.com 
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy 

Return to table of contents


From: cschroed at ball.com (Curt Schroeder)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:51:02 -0600
Subject: Luck to the Little Apple Brewery

 
Best of luck Rob (Jethro Gump)!!  I know you'll do well. 
 
If anyone of you get a chance to taste the "Holy Smokes" Porter or "Big 12" 
Barleywine, do so.  Big beers, big treat.  It was worth the 500 mile drive. 
 
Curt Schroeder 
Little Apple Brewery Fan Club 
Longmont Colorado Division 
(now I use dry yeast too!) 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Bret Bartlett <bbartlet at value.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 12:58:52 -0700
Subject: PWA Clone

I want to thank everybody who gave me input on a Pete's Wicked Ale 
clone.  I will be brewing soon and let you all know how it turns out. 
 
- -Bret 

Return to table of contents


From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at i-link.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 15:11:08 +0000
Subject: To sparge or not to sparge?

A few thoughts in response to Rob Reed's comments on the sparge/no sparge 
issue: 
 
>First I am skeptical that one could achieve sufficient fermentables 
>by simply adding 33% more grain to his mash.  Are you saying that I 
>can make a 15P wort from 13# of grain, in a no-sparge regime, if I 
>can normally make a 15P beer from 9.5# in a sparged wort? 
 
From my experiences, you probably can.  The 33% figure is from an old HBD 
article by Dr. Fix, in which he reported that you could typically get your 
target gravity by mashing 33% more grain and not sparging.  Give it a try! 
 
>I think your quality vs. cost argument could be generalized to using 
>2 gallon yeast starters, using low-alpha noble hops for bittering all 
>beers, oxygenating your wort, etc. 
 
One can take anything to an extreme, of course.  My point here is that, at 
least for me, the additional $2 or so for grain is a small price to pay for 
an improvement in both quality and convenience. 
 
>And what about the maltiness of the small beer; isn't its maltiness 
>going to suffer?  Most brewers struggle to obtain sufficient 
>maltiness in low OE brews. 
 
Maltiness will indeed suffer in the small beer; hence the name (and the 
Shakespearian campaign promise to "make it felony to drink small beer"). 
Remember that "small beer" (as I use the term) and low OG beer are not the 
same -- small beer is "second runnings" beer that just happens to be low OG 
beer.  Indeed, if you want to get good maltiness is a low OG beer, try using 
the no sparge technique. 
 
>BTW, what do you call the process of adding water to the mash and and 
>then collecting that sugar rich liquid when you are making said small 
>beer 8{). 
I call it making yeast starter :^) 
 
Regards ---> LKB 

Return to table of contents


From: "Peter Hanlon" <HANLON at gu.gonzaga.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:17:39 PST
Subject: Hop removal

Steve Kemp wrote: 
How do you remove whole hops from wort? 
 
I like to sanitize a funnel and grain bag, and place the grain bag 
into the funnel.  Simply port the wort through the funnel/grain bag 
into the carbouy.  Some "sifting" is required as more hops fill the 
bag.  This method has worked quite well for me.  You can double up 
the grain bag, but it will clog much faster. 
 
Pete Hanlon 
Spokane, WA 

Return to table of contents


From: Brian Cornelius <bcorneli at wsu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:34:15 -0700
Subject: Re: Growing Hops

Edward J. Steinkamp wrote: 
> I had originally planned and built an 8 foot high trellis with horizontal 
lines similar to a clothes line.  At the last minute (the hops were six feet 
up the line) I read some literature which suggested that for maximum yield, 
hops should be grown on the highest possible vertical pole.  I  tore down 
all the horizontal lines and increased the height of my pole to 16 feet. 
I wouldn't worry too much about the height.  My hops are strung 12' 
vertically and then horizontally to another pole.  I may not get as many 
hops as if I went to 18', but I certainly get about all my freezer can 
handle.  Here at WSU, there is a research plot with what look like Chinooks 
growing.  Some grow up an 8' pole and some are growing over 4' cow fencing. 
The yields look really good.  In your case, now that you've gone to the 
taller poles, I do have a suggestion.  I read here that some people have put 
their lines on a pulley system.  When it's time to pick, they just carefully 
lower the lines and harvest from ground level.  It would save you from being 
on a high ladder or having to wack the hops off at the ground to pick'em. 
 
> After drying the harvest totaled 4 oz Saaz and 3 oz Hallertauer.  Is this 
good for a first year harvest? 
Seems better than normal.  My first year for Cascade and Hallertau was about 
6 very small cones. 
 
>After harvesting I found additional literature out there on the net 
suggesting that the 
clothesline method is better because you can reach the cones and pick only 
the ripe ones. This allows you to get multiple harvests and makes it so you 
don't have to cut the vine when you  harvest.  Perhaps not cutting the vine 
would contribute to a healthier harvest the next season. 
 
Poles are by far the most widely used for supporting hops.  However, on a 
non-commercial basis where you're not as worried about yields, fencing or 
clothes lines should work just fine.  Does it matter if you get too many or 
way too many?  In any case, I saw a research paper out of Wye about a year 
ago that they are experimenting with variety of hops that grow on a 6' (or 
so) trellis.  The main advantage was ease of harvesting.  If I remember 
correctly yields seemed to be close to hops grown on a high trellis.  As far 
as cutting the bines, commercial growers do that for ease of harvest.  They 
shove the bines into a machine that automatically removes the cones. 
Harvesting acres and acres of hops by hand would be a nightmare, although it 
used to be done at one time.  I usually leave the bines up until most of the 
leaves have fallen off.  I understand this helps send food to the root 
system for next year's growth. 
 
Just my observations. 
 
Zum Voll! 
Brian Cornelius, Steptoe, WA 
Copyleft 1996 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Vincent A Voelz <voel0009 at gold.tc.umn.edu> (Vincent A Voelz)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 15:45:23 -0500
Subject: Another happy unsuscribee...

I've decided to visit the HBD web site for my daily dose.  My 
mail-retrieving modem is too slow and digest bandwidth is high.  I DO, 
however, appreciate that I will be able to post without subscribing.  God 
bless HBD. 
 
unsubscribe homebrew-digest Vincent A Voelz <voel0009 at gold.tc.umn.edu> 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Joseph Kral <kral at hpljlk.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:00:38 PDT
Subject: Re: propane and extiguishers

> Hello: 
> I'm trying to brew my stout right now, but the old cracked hose to 
> my propane stove just started to leak and caught fire.  It quickly 
> burned through and started to whoosh around like a "Willy the 
> Water Weasel" but with fire coming out instead of water.  I can't 
> get to the gas to turn it off with this flying around so,  it has not 
> started my curtains and a set of cabinets to flame.   My question 
> is, what kind of a fire extinguisher should I but to put this out?  If I 
> get a CO2 extinguisher could this double as a keg gas supply? 
> Now a water extinguisher is cheaper AND cheaper and easier to 
> refill, but you can't use them on an electric fire.  You would 
> REALLY have to convince me to go HALON gas, too expensive. 
> Anyway the fire is spreading so any ideas? 
> 
 
 
- -- 
Joseph Kral 
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories 
kral at hpljlk.hpl.hp.com 

Return to table of contents


From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:02:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Honey fermentability 

>>>>> "Miguel" == Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au> writes: 
 
 
    Miguel> I think this is not so. As any meadmaker 
    Miguel> will tell you, a solution of honey will not ferment 
    Miguel> 100%. My meads have rarely gone below 998. 
 
 
Honey ferments much more completely than malt extract does, though.  A 
beer almost NEVER goes below an apparent attenuation of 75% (i.e., 
final extract is usually 25% or more of original extract). 
 
=Spencer 

Return to table of contents


From: batemanm at email.uah.edu (Michael David Bateman)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:06:18 -0500
Subject: Crushing Roasted Barley

 
        I read that when using roasted barley it should be brought to a 
boil, then removed from the water.  I also read that the barley should not 
be crushed.  I was wondering if anyone had ever crushed barley or black 
patent malt and used it. 
 
        My last batch turned out terrible (it tasted like sour milk.)  I've 
tried to find out why it soured but haven't had any luck so far.  I can 
only think of two things that may have caused this.  1) My roasted barley 
seemed to be slightly crushed as did my black patent malt.  2) My carboy 
closet was cluttered so I had to leave my glass carboy out in the open 
where flouresent light and sun light could get to it.  Everything else was 
the same as in the past when I have brewed. 
        People who have tried the beer say they have never encountered the 
taste before. 
 
        Any suggestions? 
 
Michael D. Bateman 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:57:06 -0400
Subject: RIMS issues

 
In a really great post on RIMS, Louis K. Bonham quibbles with my note 
on several points. 
 
>Good RIMS design relies on the in-line heater *only* to handle temperature 
>maintenance and the last 2 degrees or so of a boost. 
 
I'd have to say that Louis' burner+RIMS hardware satisfies any 
practical objection to the thermal degradation problem.  It gives away 
much of the RIMS convenience too, while keeping great temperature 
control potential.  I like this.  And it matched Daryl K. Kalenchuk's 
thoughts too.  Other heating sources, such as burners under a sanke, 
aren't immune to this hot-spot problem either. 
 
Problem is that nearly all HBD RIMS posters obviously intend to use 
the heating element for the temp boost. 
 
>Do you have any hard data that 
>documents that enzymes are denatured in a RIMS system to any material degree? 
 
See my post re Dion Hollenbeck for a reference.  I doubt that either 
of us have access to the lab equipment necessary to measure this 
directly.  It might be obviated by doing a RIMS vs infusion test of a 
high adjuct/low enzyme mash tho'. 
 
>> * Very thick mashes are probably not possible with a RIMS apparatus, 
... 
>Again, is this critique based on experience?  I routinely do mashes that use 
>1.2 quarts per pound, and could easily do thicker mashes by just increasing 
>the batch size (the amount of "foundation" water that fills the plumbing is 
>constant). 
 
No it is definitely not based in experience as I've stated in each of 
my posts.  Noonan mashes in with as little as 24 floz/#.  I'm usually 
closer to 30 or 32 floz/#.  Forcing me to increase my batch size is a 
RIMS imposed constraint - and I still doubt you could pull enough 
water at any reasonable rate from a 24floz/# dough-in. 
 
>As documented in Dr. Fix's book, mash thickness has very little 
>practical effect on the mash, as long as you're not doing an extremely thin 
>mash. 
 
Fix just reiterates a single experimental result from Hall and Harris 
that was printed in M&B Sci (and adds some typos) - BTW there was 
about a 20% difference in FAN between a thick to normal protein rest! 
Check out chapter 9 of M&B Sci (9.16 I believe) for the full scoop. 
 
>> * RIMS recirculation is probably not possible with very sticky mashes, 
... 
>A valid point, but one that appears to have a solution. 
> ... by adding a few lbs of rice hulls ... 
 
I have use rice hulls and they are a wonderful mechanical aid to 
sparging sticky mashs.  Rice hulls are also extremely high in 
silicates that lend a harsh and astringent quality to beer according 
to M&B Sci.  I only add rice hulls at mashout and only under duress. 
That RIMS won't play in sticky thick mashes without corrective 
measures is a limitation. 
 
In any case the original question was 'what are the limitions in RIMS 
brewing ?'.  Thickness is certainly one, stickiness probably another. 
You are free to decide how much parametric control you are willing to 
give up for the RIMS advantages but don't pretend that there is no 
difference. 
 
>The electrical danger is, of course, present, but it can be dealt with 
 
GFCI do not provide perfect protection, and proper grounding of the 
RIMS must also be accomplished to afford any protection.  Amateur 
built equipment using up to 240VAC in a wet environment requires 
a sobering amount of caution.  A 'safe enough' RIMS can be built I am 
sure.  Nuff said on this topic. 
 
>> may lack sufficient lipids for optimal yeast growth. 
> 
>Suggested, yes.  Documented, no.  I've never heard of anyone actually 
>encountering this problem. 
 
Me either, but since you are the proponent of using RIMS, and this 
seems at least a plausible effect, let me ask if you have any proof 
that it doesn't.  Have you measured FAN and unsaturated fatty acids in 
wort from the same recipe w/ RIMS vs other mashing technique ?  Have 
you even tried to perform identical brews w/ different mashing 
techniques and compared the results ?  Esters, autolysis, yeast growth ? 
 
>I still question whether the issue of shear forces causing problems isn't 
>more academic than actual, at least in the small scale batches produced by 
>homebrewers (>1 bbl) . 
 
Specialized pumps are used in industrial enzyme application like the 
production of corn sugar.  About a year ago someone posted regarding a 
belgian brewer using a special wort pump in order to treat his wort 
more gently.  A small orifice high rpm pump running perhaps the 
entire wort volume every minute with an exit throttle is a perfect 
recipe for shear forces.  This is exactly what most RIMS use.  Why do 
you think that you are immune to the same rules that apply in these 
environments ? 
 
>See above.  Again, I've never encountered any problems from any "loss of 
>enzymes". 
 
Have you measured accurately enough to detect the difference ?  How ? 
Identical brews and sensory evaluation is a HB amenable method. 
 
Just to reset the pointers - I am not against RIMS at all.  I think 
it's a great idea with a lot of advantages in temp control and 
circulation.  It does have some limitations and room for improvement. 
There are several *possible* quality issues that should be considered. 
 
Dion and Louis seem to be saying that you can change all the hardware 
and mashing methodology and that the result will be identical.  They 
won't - and you can take that to the bank.  Where those differences 
become significant (if anywhere) will be on the periphery - high 
adjunct, high thickness, etc mashes.  Or perhaps w/ some effect that 
hasn't been considered yet.  Rather than expect anyone to investigate 
the differences with literally millions of dollars of lab resources, 
in order to 'prove' the point, why not try to discern test and catalog 
differences in methods and outcomes ? 
 
Along those lines ... 
Kelly Jones post re a 45% wheat RIMS mash gives some confidence that 
a reasonably sticky mash can be managed.  Louis and several others 
note quicker conversion.  Anyone else care to share some real world 
RIMS data ? 
 
Steve Alexander 

Return to table of contents


From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:09:35 -0500
Subject: Neg Pressure from 3/16" hose

>From: DAVE BRADLEY IC742 6-7932 <BRADLEY_DAVID_A at LILLY.COM> 
> 
>I think I've explained one of the great mysteries of the 20th 
>century!  I'm talking about the disappearance of the great 
>labor leader Jimmy Hoffa.  Clearly, while enjoying a dinner in 
>the 'burbs of Detroit, Jimmy was tempted to sample a fine homebrew 
>offered to him (perhaps by Pat Babcock) fresh from the tap 
>of a Cornelius keg, when, horribly, he was sucked into the extra 
>long 3/16" tubing (Pat) used on his keg!  The tubing was probably 
>then recycled, Jimmy and all, as AstroTurf now covering the 
>field used by the NY Jets!  Of course the beer in that keg was 
>unadulterated since the keg always maintained the 30psi level. 
 
Well, Jimmy got just what he deserved - any fool knows you gotta use a check 
valve when you are 'a dealin with 30 psig. 
 
Best regards, 
 
Ron 
 
 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Ed J. Basgall" <edb at chem.psu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 96 18:13:17 EDT
Subject: Lambics??

Hi George, 
 
I have looked for yeast in Lindemans and Boon lambics and 
have found none in the sediment under my microscope. 
 
Ed Basgall 
SCUM 
State College Underground Maltsters 

Return to table of contents


From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at i-link.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 17:14:43 -0500
Subject: More on "no sparge"

Per a few private requests, here's the old HBD posting by Dr. Fix on "no 
sparge" brewing: 
 
[From HBD #977, Sept.24, 1992] 
 
> However, I have found that to get a very high malt flavor the sparge 
> must be omitted as well. This is an expensive way to brew since the amount 
> of grains needed must be increased by a factor ~4/3. Nevertheless, some of 
> the world's great ales and lagers have been brewed this way, and I have 
> found it works in homebrewing as well for special beers. Clearly this is 
> not the way to brew our standard beers. 
> 
> The following is offered as an illustration. You clearly may want to modify 
> things to suit your environment. The control batch is more or less my 
standard
> procedure, and the experimental batch is the no sparge version. A three step 
> infusion (135F, 152F, and 162F) was used for both along with a 1 1/2 hr. 
boil.
> Hopping is according to your preferences, but I have found for these beers 
more
> is better than less. 
> 
> CONTROL BATCH 
>       Brew Size = 50 liters (13.3 gals.) 
>       Grain Bill = 11.5 kg. pale malt (25.3 lbs.), 1 kg. crytal (1 kg.) 
>       Mash Water = 32 liters (8.5 gals.) 
>       Sparge Water = 32 liters (8.5 gals.) 
>       Vol. at the Start of Boil = 56 liters (14.8 gals.) 
>       Starting Gravity = 1.060 (15 deg. Plato) 
> 
> EXPERIMENTAL BATCH 
>       Brew Size = 50 liters (13.3 gals.) 
> Grain Bill = 16.5 kg. pale malt (33.75 lbs.), 1.25 kg. crystal (3 lbs.)      
>       Mash Water = 44 liters (11.5 gals.) 
>       Water Directly Added to Kettle = 20 liters (5 gals.) 
>       Vol. at the Start of Boil = 56 liters (14.8 gals.) 
>       Starting Gravity = 1.060 (15 deg. Plato) 
> 
> Note that the mash thickness is just about the same in both batches. In the 
> experimental batch the extra water not used in the mash is directly added to 
> the kettle. 

Return to table of contents