(formerly Volume 02 : Number 023)



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To subscribe to the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "subscribe homebrew-digest" in the body.
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe homebrew-digest <your email address>"
   in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

Contents:
  Re: water chemistry
  Water Chemistry Testing Available
  RE: Re: Sparging into a bucket (was:DMS...)
  re:Clarity of Wort
  time fermenting
  Big Head Beer
  Dunkel Weizen Recipe
  Racking to Secondary
  Coffee in Beer
  Re: Decoction Procedures
  Canadian ale recipe
  A good place to get bulk grain?!?!
  recipies
  Easymasher clogging (Alex Santic)
  [No Subject Provided By Sender]
  Furious Ferment Follow Up
  Re: Metallurgy Question
  Husks, good or bad?
  Sources of Agar
  Gott cooler and mash temps.
  Decoction Mashing 
  which style?
  Bottling Time (Ed Koucheravy)
  Fruit Question
  Re: Westchester Brewing Co.
  Decoction Tannins/Widmer Starter
  homebrew lit 101
  re:Fruit in beer
  trub/late crystal/Wyeast 3787/twistoff/decoctions/EM+IM/carbonate/Weyermann


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

Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 11:04:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Frane <jfrane at teleport.com>
Subject: Re: water chemistry

>From: Chris McCauley <ccmccaul at fujitsu-fnc.com>

>
>I was wondering where should I look to find a place to test my water chemistry?
>I'm in the Dallas, Texas area....
>
If you're on a municipal water system, contact them; they have to test the
water continuously, and are usually more than happy to send you (FREE!) a
detailed analysis of your water.  Consult any good brewing text for some
explanation of the analysis.

If you're on a private water source (like a well), you will have to
pay someone, but you could still try contacting a local water bureau for
suggestions.

- --Jeff Frane

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 13:59:02 -0600
From: "C. Robert Spangle" <rspangle at wf.net>
Subject: Water Chemistry Testing Available

Fellow Homebrewers:

You are in luck! I'm a chemist and homebrew.  I run an analytical testing
laboratory and
can preform routine water quality parameters. 

For the gentleman from the Dallas area, my lab is in Wichita Falls (2 hours
north of DFW).

If you need testing email me for prices and parameters.


Robert Spangle
NTCC Laboratory

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 13:12 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: RE: Re: Sparging into a bucket (was:DMS...)

in HBD 2-21, someone wrote:

> Enzyme activity should not be a problem as long as you raise the temperature
> above 158F... <snip>

I regularly mash  at  158 and get plenty of sugar, enzymes will not stop at 
that temperature. I've even gone as high as 165F, and still got some 
conversion. When I want enzymes to stop, I go to 170F.

PS - The 158F mash gives some wonderfully malty flavors on less alcohol due 
to the dextrins created.

Charley
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems
Elk Grove Unified School District
cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us
916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax)
http://www.innercite.com/~cburns/

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 97 13:18 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:Clarity of Wort

The old "strainer" vs "syphon" discussion.

Syphon it. It works. After swirling the wort really well, let it sit covered 
for 20-30 minutes while you do cleanup. Then syphon it directly into the 
primary fermenter.

The wort mess you leave behind can be left to sit overnight in a cool place, 
like the patio. The next morning decant the wort into a 1 quart jar and put 
it in the refridgerator. Next time you brew, you've already got 32 oz of 
starter wort in the jar. Just reboil for a few minutes, pitch. No need to 
waste the left over wort.

Charley

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 17:13:22 -0500
From: Tim Ullrich <saamadms at i-2000.com>
Subject: time fermenting

I am new to homebrewing (3rd batch fermenting now) and was wondering if the
amount of time that the wort ferments (bubbles) is an indication of the
alcohol content. I know that I should be using a hydrometer but everytime I
do it comes out 1.02. I'm a sped I know. Also will the alcohol content be
greater if I use liquid yeast instead of dry yeast?
thanks
- -tim

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 14:49:53 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: Big Head Beer

It's so nice to have the HBD running smoothly again.

I'm a fan of Belgian and wheat beers, and one characteristic these
brews share is a big head.  I've been unable to replicate the 
extreme carbonation that these types of bottle-conditioned brews
achieve, even by adding somewhat excessive amount of corn sugar
for priming (within safety limits).  I'm wondering if anyone has
any secrets for getting that "I'm so happy to see you" foamy head.
Possibilities that I could see for experimentation would be 
kreusening, mash temp schedules, mash schedules in combination
with kreusening, aging time and temperature, yeast strain, and 
probably about a dozen more I won't bother with in the interest
of space.  Anyone figured out the secret of big head?

SM

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:51:25 -0600
From: "N.A. Campiglia III" <spitdrvr at camalott.com>
Subject: Dunkel Weizen Recipe

Does anyone have an EXTRACT Dunkel Weizen Recipe they could share with me?


Thanks in advance

Nick
- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

N. Campiglia
spitdrvr at camalott.com
Abilene, Texas
'74 Spitfire
Home Brew GuRu Wanna Be!!
"To Brew or Not To Brew, What was the Question?"
" If you're gonna be dumb......  You better be tough "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 18:45:05 -0600 (CST)
From: "Douglas M. Yost" <dyost at txdirect.net>
Subject: Racking to Secondary

When is it recommended to rack an ESB to the secondary fermenter?

I have heard the following:
 2 to 3 days
 bubbles at 90-second intervals

Presently I am at day 3, and the bubbles are at 5-second intervals.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 16:44:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Thomas Lowry <lowry at me.pdx.edu>
Subject: Coffee in Beer

I realize this is a bit late...getting caught up on all my email takes 
some time, but I thought I would respond to the inquires concerning 
coffee in beer.  I have brewed a number of coffee stouts that have come 
out excellent.  I use between 1-2 cups of course ground coffee, 
preferably and high quality espresso roast, steeped in the wort for 20 
minutes after the boil.  If you decide to use 2 cups, you'll get a fairly 
strong but not overpowering coffee taste (in an imperial-stout kind of 
beer).  It will mellow with time.  At first, the coffee aroma might seem 
to strong, but most of it gets blown off with the fermentation.  
So, thats my late late input.  Hope it helps.

**************************************************************************
Thomas S. Lowry
Department of Civil Engineering
Portland State University
(503) 725-4285 work
(503) 648-4252 home
**************************************************************************

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 07 Jan 1997 21:54:41 -0500
From: Gary Pelton <gap at cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Decoction Procedures

> Steve Garrett's question on a single decoction mash got me to
> wondering...What exactly do they mean when they say "pull off
> 20% of the thickest part of the mash" and boil for however long.

The thickest part of the mash is almost all grain.
You want to take very little liquid. The enzymes are dissolved
in the liquid. The decoction process denatures (destroys the
effectiveness of) the enzymes. When you add the decocted portion
back in, you want the enzymes to continue the conversion process
at the higher temperature.

> I have always been skittish to try decoction mashing. I am also
> interested in the value of double decoction over single decoction.

I have only done double and triple decoctions, without noticing
much difference in taste between the two. However, given that I have
only done about 4 decoctions, my sample size is small.

Gary

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 00:36:27 -0500
From: nerenner at umich.edu (Jeff Renner)
Subject: Canadian ale recipe

In Homebrew Digest V2 #21, Derrick Yacavone <dyacavone at sprintmail.com> asked
>
>My Spousal unit requested(i am still in shock), that I brew a Molsen(no
>ice). Can anyone that may have a recipie(grain or extract) pass it my
>way via e-mail? TIA  dyacavone at sprintmail.com

I just brewed two Canadian ales this past week, both a little more
flavorful than Molsons - a bit more hops and no flavor-minimizing brewing
techniques, so maybe this'll make both of you happy.  They are probably
typical of older brews (pre 1950's).

Fortunately, Molson ale yeast is readily available as YeastLab A07 Canadian
ale yeast.  It gives that typical Canadian grapey fruitiness.  I've found
that if you want to keep this character in rein, it's best to keep
fermentation no higher than the mid 60's.  With my first batch, it went to
71, making the grapiness a little strong, although it'll mellow out.

For a Canadian ale (or lager, for that matter), you need corn - 20-30%.
Don't shudder - it's a Good Thing (tm) for that style.  Six-row barley is
appropriate, but two-row domestic would be acceptable.  (See the new issue
of Brewing Techniques for a complete discussion of 6-row vs. 2-row).
Michael Jackson says (New World Guide to Beer, p. 198), "In general,
Canadian brewers often use six-row barley, and this can impart a slightly
husky taste to the beer.  They also use a lot of corn, which can create a
creamy sweetness.  The balance of these two elements could be taken to
represent a "Canadian character."  I'd stay away from British malt because
there might not be enough enzymes to convert the corn.

In my first batch, I used flaked corn, which requires no cooking, right in
the mash; in my second I used yellow degermed corn meal, which I boiled
with some malt.  Commercial brewers would use brewer's grits, which is just
big grained corn meal.  I also used some Munich malt to give just a little
more color and maltiness, which is typical of Canadian beers as compared to
US ones, and torrefied wheat for head retention.  Some additional color and
maltiness came from the decotion.

Cluster hops for bittering is also typical, although any neutral hop is
appropriate.  I used Bullion (which comes from a cross with a wild Canadian
hop) because I didn't have whole Cluster; I used Cluster pellets for the
first batch, but pellets don't filter out the trub.  European or English
finishing hops would be appropriate.

The typical Canadian beer is 5% alc v/v, or 4% w/v, so OG 1.050 would be
about right.

Here's my recipe for the second batch:
- -=-=-=-=-
Mackenzie River Canadian Ale (*7 gallons* (final volume) OG 1.051, FG 1.013):

8 lbs Schreier 2-row malt
1 lb. DWC Belgian Munich malt
6 oz. torrefied wheat
3-1/2 lbs. yellow, degermed cornmeal (27% of all grain)

Water - Temporary hard well water boiled, decanted, +2 tsp. gypsum/15 gal.

Cereal cooker mash - 2 lbs. 6-row plus 3-1/2 lbs. corn meal, mashed in to
120F (loose mash), raised to 152F, held 15 minutes, then raised to boiling,
boiled 40 minutes, then added to main mash.

Main mash  - balance of ingredients, mash in to 122F, 1 hour protein rest
(a little long, should have started later so only 30 min. protein rest).
Then added cereal mash, which boosted it to between 130F - 136F, heated and
stirred to 140F, rested 10 minutes, then pulled thickest 40% (decotion),
heated to boil over 10 minutes, boiled 30 minutes, returned decotion to
main mash, which raised it to between 150F - 155F, stirred and heated to
158, held 30 minutes, then mashed off to 170F.

Lautered, collected 9 gallons, boiled 75 minutes to 7-1/2 gallons.

Hops:

0.6 oz. Styrian Goldings plugs (7.5%) first wort hopping (then boiled 75
minutes)
1.4 oz. Bullion (whole) (5.2%) 75 minutes
0.6 oz. Styrian Goldings plugs 15 minutes
0.8 oz. EK Goldings pellets 5.2% at knockout, plus 10 min. steep before chilling

This should have given about 31 IBU per Glen Tinseth's online bitterness
calculator, but I'd judge it to be mid-20's IBU.  Perhaps this is the
effect of FWH, which gives a more mellow bitterness.  At any rate, it is
nicely balanced, with enough bitterness to be distinctively unwimpy, but
not at all aggressive.

Immersion chilled with recirculation to 65F, pitched 7 fl. oz. thick yeast
paste (YeastLab A07 Canadian Ale Yeast) into boiler with hops on false
bottom and continued recirculating to filter trub onto hops bed, splashing
to aerate 1 hour, then pumped to fermenter.  Open fermented 66F-68F 3 days,
then racked to secondary.

At racking, the restrained maltiness was evident, with some corn sweetness
and graininess, with plenty of grapefruity hops flavor interplaying with
the fruitiness of the yeast.  Very pale gold, but darker than US beers.
Nice, clean lingering light bitterness.  This will be a good one when it's
bottled.  I can't wait.

- -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 22:47:26 -0800
From: "M. Arneson" <marnes at bigfoot.com>
Subject: A good place to get bulk grain?!?!

I'm going to start all-grain brewing and I'm searching for
a good place to get 50Lb (or larger) bags of grain.
I'm in Macon, but I get to the Atlanta area a bit.

I'm also looking for a good grain mill, and a larger brewpot.
If anybody knows some good places or has some to sell,
Please let me know!

Thanks!
***************************************
Mark Arneson
marnes at bigfoot.com
or
marnes at ix.netcom.com
***************************************

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 03:35:23 -0500
From: "Christopher D. Hutton" <bachstar at erols.com>
Subject: recipies

Hi!  I just brewed my first batch over the weekend, and i'm looking for some
good recipies.  Does anyone have one like JW Dundee's Honey Brown, or
Oxford's Raspberry Wheat?  Please e-mail me at bachstar at erols.com
thanx.
Chris Hutton

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 04:20:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: Easymasher clogging (Alex Santic)

Marty Tippin warns:
>Just an FYI to anyone thinking of using an EasyMasher for filtering the
>wort after the boil:  It doesn't work worth a damn if you use Irish Moss in
>the boil.  The protiens coagulate all over the easy masher screen, plugging
>it up and leaving you unable to drain your kettle.  I don't think Jack uses
>Irish Moss (and I think he'll even argue that it's unnecessary) so this has
>never been an issue to him.  And I suspect that it works fine for this
>purpose if you don't use the moss.

I'm not going to say this is groundless because obviously Marty has
experienced it. In the past I think I've read a few similar complaints. 
However, I use Irish Moss for every batch and I actually throttle the flow
from the spigot to keep it from being too fast. Hence, it's hard for me to
imagine how this is happening. 

Remember that it's important not to stir after the boil if you are doing 
this. If you're using an immersion chiller, just suspend it at the top of 
the wort as I described so you can chill without stirring. I think the 
person who mentioned that the trub settles on top of the hop bed has it 
right, and this makes for very effective filtering without clogging.

- --
Alex Santic - alex at salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 07:15:28 -0600
From: Bryon Adams <cue54 at mpls.k12.mn.us>
Subject: [No Subject Provided By Sender]

subscribe homebrew-digest

Return to table of contents


Date: 08 Jan 97 08:20:44 EST
From: "Aesoph, Michael" <aesoph at ncemt1.ctc.com>
Subject: Furious Ferment Follow Up

Dear All:



	Many thanks for all of the advice concerning my furious, but very short, 
ferment.  I bottled it last night and it seems to be in very good 
shape!!!



==================================================

        Michael D. Aesoph                Associate Engineer

==================================================

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 07:28:24 -0600
From: Jim Nasiatka-Wylde <Jwylde at interaccess.com>
Subject: Re: Metallurgy Question

>
>Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 13:57:01 -0800
>From: George De Piro <George_De_Piro at berlex.com>
>Subject: Metallurgy question  (George De Piro)
>
>     Hi all,
>     
>     Yet another metallurgy question; perhaps we should change this to an 
>     engineering forum...
>     
>     I had some free welding done to put nipples on my stainless steel 
>     kettles (get your mind out of the gutter).  The guy must have 
>     overheated the metal on one of them because the area around the weld 
>     rusted after just a few hours in contact with water!
>     
>     Is there a way to make it stainless again, or am I now the proud owner 
>     of a 15.5 gallon sort-of-stainless conversation piece?

Hey George - 

What you have run into is typical with most SS Welding.  What happened is
that the oxide layer that prohibits stainless from rusting got wiped out
by the welding process, and you need to give it some time to 'recondition'
itself and reform the layer.  

Lightly sand the areas down to clean bare metal again, and let it sit for
several days (maybe a week or so if you have the patience) and then it
should be ok.  This is assuming that it is stainless, and the welder did
use SS welding rod with a decent MIG/TIG torch.

Good luck!

Jim

All the money in the world is no match for hard work and ingenuity...
 ____
 \  /   Nothing is so strong as Gentleness;       JWylde at interaccess.com
  \/       nothing so gentle as real strength           Nasiatka at anl.gov

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:41:42 cst
From: Bill Giffin <bill-giffin at juno.com>
Subject: Husks, good or bad?

Good morning all,

A continuing thread over the past couple of years and something that you
are warned about in all grain brewing is the husk portion of the malt. 
The husks have been blamed as being the major source of tannins in beer,
yet when beer is brewed with the husks being sieved off, the tannin  is
about 91% of the tannin found in  beer that is brewed with husks.  Where
is all this tannin coming from?  At least some of it is coming from the
hops.  

The husk fraction of malt has a major effect on the flavors and stability
of the derived beers.  Malt grist freed from husk material by sieving
makes bland and insipid beers, while grist enriched with "husk" produces
astringent beers that readily become hazy.

Husk material is rich in silica  and you may want to limit the amount of
silica in you beer.

Low extraction rates for all grain brewing is taken as the norm.  The
answer is to add more malt to the mash tun to get the gravity.  When you
add more malt to the grist to achieve the same result you are also adding
more husk material. More husk material equals more off  flavors and beer
that is not in balance.  

Lets take an extreme example.  If you brew a beer with an original
gravity of 1.050 and you use 10 pounds of grain to brew that beer, then
you will have 36% more husk material then another brewer who can brew the
same beer with 7.35 pounds of malt.  I feel that this is a good reason to
get your brewing efficiencies up to make better beer.  

The difference between brewing truly great beer and just drinkable beer
isn't that much.  Balance of all the ingredients is essential.  The
balance of the different malt fractions to each other.  The balance of
the hops both in flavor and bitterness to the malt.  The balance of the
yeast characters to both the malt and hops.   


Bill Giffin
Richmond, Maine

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 08:40:05 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Fross <frosty at cstar.ac.com>
Subject: Sources of Agar

Happy New Years All!

I have just decided to start yeast culturing and having been reading FAQs
and HowTos.

Does anyone know a realitively inexpensive place to get Agar?

I looked at the Yeast Culture Kit Company's web page.  Is this a good
price?  They are the only place I can seem to find that sells this kind of
material.

Cheers (and thanks)

Frosty
frosty at tp.ac.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 09:12:29 -0600
From: Keith Busby <kbusby at ou.edu>
Subject: Gott cooler and mash temps.

I am about to invest in a 10 gal. Gott with false bottom or Easymasher (any
preferences?). It is usually said that you should heat your mash water 10
degrees higher than initial mash temperature as the grain absorbs heat. Will
this still be valid for a cooler? I'm presuming so since it will not be
insulated until the lid is on. My real question concerns how to raise to
mash-out temperature. With a grain bill of, say, 10lbs, and 1 qt mash water
per lb at 155 degrees, how much boiling water would I need to raise the
temperature to 168? As an alternative, Papazian somewhere suggests heating
your sparge water to 180, adding a quarter of it to the mash (this would be
about 1 1/4 gals) which would raise the mash to 168 approx. In the 10
minutes required for mash out, the remaining sparge water would be allowed
to cool to 170. I would prefer not to remove and reheat the mash and return
to the cooler.  My instinct tells me to go for Papazian's suggestion as I
fear pouring boiling water on top of the mash might upset the chemistry.

Keith Busby

Keith Busby
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
University of Oklahoma
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel.: (405) 325-5088
Fax: (405) 325-0103

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 10:10:06 UT
From: C&S Peterson <CNS_PETERSON at msn.com>
Subject: Decoction Mashing 

Todd Wilson wrote:
<begin quote>
Steve Garrett's question on a single decoction mash got me to
wondering...What exactly do they mean when they say "pull off
20% of the thickest part of the mash" and boil for however long.
 I have read CP, Miller, and the Brewing Wheat Beer book and I
am still unsure.  I am assuming that they mean to scoop out 20%
of the mash, boil and add it back but where I get confused is
are you pulling out just liquid or liquid and grains?  I might
be nuts but if you pull off liquid and grains what are the tannin
risks?
<end quote>

Generally, I've had success with just pulling the "thick" part of the mash out 
of the tun with a hand-held kitchen strainer (the wire sceen kind that's been 
around for centuries...).  This saves most of the enzymes in the liquid left 
in the tun and leaves me with a gloppy thick decoction mash.  But I generally 
add boiling water to the decoction mash and maybe some heat to get it to 
mashing temps (158-162F), because this thins the decoction a bit so I don't 
get scorching problems during the decoction boil.  

I get the "thin" decoction by simply running out a few quarts of wort out of 
my lauder/tun and boiling for 15 minutes or so.  This bit of heat (for a 
double or triple decoction, I believe), gets me from main mash temp to mash 
out (about 170F) and adds some good carmelizing to the finished wort.  I tend 
to use this last method even with my infusion mashed beers to get to mash out. 
 It saves me some volume in the mash/tun, and I get a little more color and 
carmel notes in the finished beer.

Recently, I started my decoction beers the night before I brew.  I separate 
the grist into 1/3 and 2/3 protions.  The 1/3 mash portion will be used as the 
first decoction.  I mash the first decoction protion in at about 125F using 
about 1Q/# of grist (which will make a fairly thick mash stand), and leave in 
a cool oven overnight.  During the 5 or 6 hours I'm sleeping, the temp drops 
to just below 100F.  This sets the decoction down through the protein and acid 
rests.  Not traditional, but hey, its worked so far!

On brew morning, I add heat and hot water to the decoction mash to bring it up 
to main mashing temps (158-162F).  While its mashing I heat up main mash 
infusion water to 160F/# of gist and keep it warm on the stove.  Once the 
decoction mash has completed starch conversion (usually 30-40 minutes), I 
bring it to a sustained boil.  With the decoction boiling, I then add the 160F 
degree water to the main mash, bringing it up to 140F.  When the decoction 
boil has completed (usually about 30 minutes), I combine the two mashes and 
adjust with hot/cold water to the desired mash temperature.  The second 
decoction is the "thin" decoction to get to mash out.

While this seems complicated, I find it is actually less hectic than a 
traditional decoction mash, since I'm able to heat up the main mash water 
separately.  Also, it has the benefit of reducing the Ph in my mash naturally 
(although I find I still need some acid blend in the main mash and sparge).  
But most importantly, it avoids a lengthy main mash rest at 122F, which, IMHO 
I always found to be a PIA (I always seemed to run out of infusion water space 
in the lauder/tun) and I think led to reduced head retention and body in the 
final beer.  So far the results with this method have been good, but it's 
still to early to tell.

To avoid any tannin problems, you have to watch your Ph more than your temps.  
I like to see about a 5.0 Ph reading in the docoction kettle before I venture 
across the 170F level.  Make sure you use  GOOD Ph strips or a GOOD meter -- I 
lost 20 Gallons of brew to the "pheonol troll" last year using out dated and 
cheap Ph strips.  The expensive ones (like $15 per 100, available through 
Brewers Resouce and elsewhere) is what I depend on.

Great to be back on the HBD,

Chas Peterson

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 10:53:15 EST
From: Curt Speaker <speaker at safety-1.univsfty.psu.edu>
Subject: which style?

Hoppy New Year:

I have a question for the homebrewing collective out there...
I have a rasberry chocolate stout that I am considering entering into 
an upcoming competition.  The cocoa flavor is very strong, with the 
rasberry flavor somewhat in the background.  After sampling one last 
night and reviewing the style guidelines (1996), a can't decide which 
style to enter it into.  Is cocoa considered a spice (as the 
guidelines say - " derived from plants, roots, leaves, etc.")?  I 
don't think it would do too well in the fruit beer catagory since the 
rasberry flavor is rather subtle.  The specialty beer catagory caught 
my eye, but that seems to be for beers that are made with unique 
ingredients (maple syrup, etc.) or a unique process (steinbeer, for 
example). 
Does anyone have any suggestions on which catagory would be most 
appropriate for a stout with a strong cocoa flavor and a subtle 
rasberry flavor? Herb and spice? Fruit? Specialty? 
Any advice will be considered, and greatly 
appreciated.  BTW, the entry deadline is this Saturday, so if you do 
respond to me, please do it soon!
Thanks

Curt Speaker
President, State College Underground Maltsters (S.C.U.M.)
speaker at ehs.psu.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 08 Jan 97 11:12:00 PST
From: "Koucheravy, Edward R." <KOUCHERA at pentagon-paed.army.mil>
Subject: Bottling Time (Ed Koucheravy)

Dave Winfield writes:

">BTW the instructions indicate fermentation should last "3 to 7 days"   
and
>bottle when FG is 1.005 - 1.010. ...

"My understanding is that the end SG is not the issue but rather that the   

SG is the same for 2-3 days in a row.  (record one then record another in   

3 days, if they're the same then you should be ready to bottle."

I used to do this, ala Papazian, but my experience is that taking   
successive Final Gravity (FG) readings is generally unneccessary.   
 Mucking around in your fermenting beer invites infection.  I have had   
good luck by observing fermentation (which is much easier in a carboy   
than a plastic fermenter).  The krausen usually falls in 3-6 days and the   
CO2 production also falls off.   I usually wait several days beyond, when   
the airlock is "dead", and then bottle.  I take the FG for my records,   
but don't really worry about it as long as I get vigorous fermentation in   
the first few days. If I use a secondary fermenter, I always record an   
SG, but have found negligible fermentation after 7 to 10 days in the ales   
 I brewed.

FG's can be misleading.  I once made an extract stout using 6 lbs. Of   
Laaglander DME.  I had a typical active fermentation, but after a week   
the FG was 1.027, significantly higher than the target FG of 1.015.   I   
was convinced I had a stuck fermentation.  After 10 days of concern,   
warming my carboy, adding fresh yeast, etc. and no change in SG, I   
realized that 1.027 was the FG.  I went ahead and bottled, concerned   
about glass grenades and needlessly worried.  It was a good learning   
experience, I later found out from the HBD that Laaglander DME is   
notorious for a high level of unfermentable sugars (dextrins).  BTW, the   
beer was good (although pretty heavy, even for a stout).

Sorry about your difficulty in walking:  "I will introduce myself as I   
have also been lurching...."

Enjoy,
Ed Koucheravy

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 08 Jan 1997 11:35:35 -0500
From: Aeoleus <osiris at net-link.net>
Subject: Fruit Question

I have a couple of questions regarding fruits in beer:

1.  Upon racking, is it kosher to return the carbouy to its original
fluid level with something like Apple Cider or Cranberry Juice?  I
realize that such introduction of new sugars into the solution would
cause more fermentation to occur, but if you waited for that to stop,
what would be the result?  Would you sit there for years racking, adding
Cider, waiting for fermentation to quit, then deciding you need to rack
again?

2.  Is fruit a viable addition to a kit beer?  Right now, "my second
batch ever" is sitting in a secondary fermenter while I make absolutely
sure that fermentation has quit (Making mead has put the fear of god in
me about Glass Grenades).  The Kit I used is a lager, and smells like it
would overpower fruit additives.  If it's okay to add fruit to kit
beers, when do I add, and how much?  What kind of kit allows the flavour
of the fruit to come through?

And about honey:

Can I use honey instead of priming sugar before bottling?  How much?

Thanks for your input, this digest is amazing.

- -- Brian Ream                                         Kalamazoo Michigan
- -- mailto:osiris at net-link.net            http://www.net-link.net/~osiris
- -- China - Free Your Future!

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 11:28:39 -0500 (EST)
From: BIGGINS at MURRAY.FORDHAM.EDU
Subject: Re: Westchester Brewing Co.

In response to George de Piro who inquired about the the Westchester Brewing
Company, a new brewpub in White Plains, NY:
I've been going to the WBC frequently.  The beer is not bad.  I enjoy the
Hutchison Ale the best.  The other's are fair.  They just unveiled a Plum
Wheat that is God awful!  My advice is to go to the Lazy Boy Saloon directly
across the street near the corner of Mammaroneck Ave & Post Road.  They have    30+ on tap plus well over a hundred in bottles.  What ever you what, they got.
I know the owner, who also owns the cigar/homebrew store next door (White
Plains Tobacconist).  The Lazy Boy is by far the best beer bar outside of
NYC as there is nothing like it except maybe Company B's in Rockland (so
I hear--I've never been there)  Stop by the WBC, but stay at Lazy Boy's! 
The food is good in both places.  WBC charges a lot for their own brews,
which is all they serve aside from mixed drinks.  The ambiance is good too,
but since they just opened a little over 2 months ago, their brews need
improving since they are all quite bland (even the porter, IMHO).  They
best bet is the Lazy Boy directly across the street.

I know people who drive 50+ miles just to get to the Lazy Boy, as there is
no other like it north of NYC.  It's that good!

Enjoy!

John Biggins
Dept. of Chemistry
Fordham University

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 12:36 EST
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc at mcimail.com>
Subject: Decoction Tannins/Widmer Starter

Date: Wednesday, 8 January 1997 12:33pm ET
To: STC012.HOMEBRE1 at STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch at STC001
Subject: Decoction Tannins/Widmer Starter
In-Reply-To: The letter of Tuesday, 7 January 1997 9:22pm ET
 
HBD:
 
The other day I said to myself "Self, what do you suppose happens to all those
nasty tannins that get extracted during a decoction?  Surely there must be
some?"  To which my response was "I don't know, and stop calling me Shirly."
 
Anybody else got any information on what tannins are extracted during a
decoction, and if any, what happens to them?  Do they get reabsorbed by other
grain husks?  If tannins mask the taste of melanoidins which are supposedly
extracted preferentially in the first runnings, it seems you would be
defeating the purpose of no-sparge brewing if you also used decoction.
 
Anyone?....anyone?....
 
- -->
 
I have a nice starter going of yeast obtained from a sixer of Widmer Bros
Hefeweizen.  They claim it's a secret yeast strian given them by a German
brewer.  Supposedly, it stays pretty much in suspension.
Anybody know what it is?  I plan on using it this weekend to make my own
version of fruited hefeweizen.
 
Eric Fouch
Decoction Ponderance Supervisor
Bent Dick Yactobrewery
Kentwood, MI

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:16:29 -0500
From: Courville <d1c at ssd.ray.com>
Subject: homebrew lit 101

hello all,

	I'm new to brewing (working on 3rd extract batch) and in my constant
search to the meaning of life, I was wondering if anyone could suggest some
homebrew reading material.  I have already read TNCJOH and would like to continue
my education.  So, basically what I'm asking is what are some good books?  What
are some good periodicals?  Where can I find them, especially magazines?
I guess private email is the most appropriate, so here is my address:
				d1c at ssd.ray.com

Thanks,

Dan

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 97 10:57 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re:Fruit in beer

I hbdv2 #22, Mark writes:
        My friend (sure) wants to reduce the alcohol in his raspberry beer...

Assuming you know the OG of the first batch its easy. Lets say for instance 
that the first batch OG was 1.080 and FG 1.010 for an ABV of ~9.4%. You want 
to reduce that to no more than 8.0 which is a ~15% reduction. Simply reduce 
the total sugar contribution. This assumes that all sugars are equally 
fermentable, but what the heck we're not rocket scientists here (at least 
not me) and this should get you very close.

Assume 30 points per pound per gallon for LME and 42 Points per pound per 
gallon for DME. 

3 lbs DME = 126 points
6.6 lbs LME = 198 points
For total of 324 points. Since the total points was 400 (80 - 10 plus 
raspberry contribution), you need to reduce overall 60 points.

You get to make the call on which sugar source to reduce. My preference 
would be to reduce the DME to 1.5 lbs (easy to measure and store left 
overs). You could always leave it at 2 lbs (reduction of only 42 points) and 
take the rest out of the fruit to better balance it.

For the second question, I would get a hop ibu calculator (there's one on 
the web at: http://realbeer.com/hops/IBU.html). Start with the original 
recipe and adjust it for the bitterness level desired. I know this isn't 
much help, but hops are so subjective.

Good luck. I'm sure there's a hundred brewers out there reading this ready 
to tell us where I messed up, but it looks right to me. You just need a 
place to start from.

Charley

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 13:57:43 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: trub/late crystal/Wyeast 3787/twistoff/decoctions/EM+IM/carbonate/Weyermann

Dave writes:
>        Is there any non-anecdotal information that says that leaving trub
>in the wort affects flavor adversely?  My beers always settle and are clear
>after fermentation so I curious if we need to care.

I don't know about flavour, but DeClerck says that hot and cold break
remaining in the wort can interfere with the yeasts' uptake of nutrients (?)
or sugars (? I don't recall which).  He claims that healthier ferments
can be achieved when you remove the trub.  Also, either George Fix, Malting
and Brewing Science, or DeClerck says that something like 75% of the haze-
forming material can be removed from the wort by removing the break.

Personlly, I have never made special efforts to remove break (my new kettle
design was for other reasons) and have been happy with the resulting beer.

***
>     I have read about this practice on the HBD and have always wondered, 
>     "Why do people do this?"  All the pro brewers I know mash all the 
>     grain at the same time.  The sugars in crystal malt have been 
>     caramelized, which (I think) makes them safe from degradation by beta 
>     amylase.  I could be wrong about this, are there any other opinions 
>     out there?

Not all the sugars in crystal malts are bound up in caramel.  As for whether
they crystal malts are high in limit dextrins, I don't know and it's on my
list of things to investigate, but I'm pretty sure that there are some
saccarifiable dextrins in crystal malts too.  How much of them are limit
dextrins and how much are subject to beta amylase breakdown is a good
question.  Anybody have this data?

The bottom line, however, is "What do you want... dextrinous wort,
fermentable wort, or something in-between.  If you want dextrinous wort,
then mash at the warm end (around 158F)... if you want fermentable,
mash at the cool end (around 150F)...

I too don't understand why somone would mash at the cool end of the range
and then later add the crystal malt to bring up the dextrin content...
If you regulate fermentability with the mash temperature, then it shouldn't
matter when you add the crystal malt.

***
Cliff writes:
>2.  1214, 1762, 1388 and 3787 all produce fine Belgian Abbey style ales. 
>Dr. Michel Brown has pointed out to that esters are more predominant in
>the lower numbers and reduce in the higher numbers.

Just a datapoint: this last Saturday I used 3787 to make a Tripel (note
spelling).  The starter was fermented at about 65F.  It REEKED of bananas!
I therefore put the fermenters into the cold part of the crawlspace and
they have been fermenting there happily at 50F (well below what Wyeast
Labs recommends).

***
Rob writes:
>I got half way through capping them when I realized that about 20% of
>the bottles were twistoff! (The wife drinks  at $#%$&% at  Coors NA)
>
>The crown caps that I bought actually had twistoff written on the side.
>They seemed to fit OK and were tight. Does this matter? Everything I've
>read mentions using non-twistoff bottles. Obviously Coors gets their
>beer to carbonate OK in twistoffs.

Two points:

1. There are special cappers that put the caps on twistoff bottles... they
are different from our crimp-on cappers.

2. The main difference between twist-off and pry-off (that's what Zapata
calls them) caps are that the metal is thinner on the twist-off caps.

I've tasted both well-carbonated and totally flat homebrewed beer from 
twist-off bottles... I believe that it may be capper-dependent, but you
run the risk of getting a certain percentage of flat beers if you use
twist-off bottles.

I've never used caps labeled "twist-off" nor can I remember running into
them at homebrewing competitions, so I can't help there.

***
Todd writes:
>wondering...What exactly do they mean when they say "pull off
>20% of the thickest part of the mash" and boil for however long.

The "thinnest part" is just the liquid.  The "thickest part" is mostly
grain with just enough water to prevent scorching.

>I might be nuts but if you pull off liquid and grains what are the tannin
>risks?

Darryl Richman first theorized (here on HBD, perhaps 1988 or 1989) that
the pH of the mash may be what's limiting the tannin extraction in the
decoctions.  The topic has been brought up perhaps 10 times and pH has
always been the answer with no opposition.  So, again, I'll suggest that
the pH is the reason and perhaps someone with other sources of information
will confirm or deny.

***
Marty writes:
>Just an FYI to anyone thinking of using an EasyMasher for filtering the
>wort after the boil:  It doesn't work worth a damn if you use Irish Moss in
>the boil.  The protiens coagulate all over the easy masher screen, plugging
>it up and leaving you unable to drain your kettle.  I don't think Jack uses
>Irish Moss (and I think he'll even argue that it's unnecessary) so this has
>never been an issue to him.  And I suspect that it works fine for this
>purpose if you don't use the moss.

I used Irish Moss (1.5 tsp/6 gal boil) on that Tripel and a Bock this
last Saturday and I have EasyMasher(tm)-like screens in my kettles.  There
were no problems when draining the kettles.  Perhaps it's because I used
whole hops loose in the boil?  Do you think that might be what saved me,
Marty (seriously)?

***
Val writes:
>is there any concern or disadvantage to soaking bottle lables off in a
>solution of water and washing soda (sodium carbonate)?  it seems to do the
>trick in about 4 hours.  i also figure the washing soda is helping to clean
>them.  sometimes there is a white film left on the bottles.  is this cause
>for concern?

I would say, probably not, but early-on in my brewing career, I did this
and was worried about the carbonate deposits... I found that a short soak
in lemon juice and water (or lactic acid, or phosphoric acid, or acid blend)
removes the white film.

***
Jim writes:
>I have one good suggestion, allow for a *very* long brewday when
>using Weyermann malz!  I would also be prepared to rake/knife the
>grain bed in the lauter tun.  Also look to use a false bottom with
>the maximum open area, Id be interested to hear of any experiences
>of folks mashing Weyermann malz using a single infusion, a Easymasher
>tube screen filter, or in a system that does not utilize rakes.

The aforementioned Tripel and Bock were made from something like 75%
Weyermann Pils and 25% DWC Pils and with my EasyMasher(tm)-like screens
in the mash/laeuter tun, I got 12.75 gallons of wort in about 1.5 to 1.75
hours.  I used a 30 min rest at 144F, followed by 1.5 hours at 153F and
had to throttle the ball valve on the tun to keep the flow rate *down*.
Just a datapoint.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2303