(formerly Volume 02 : Number 030)



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:
  Tannin Extraction During Decoction Mash (Art McGregor)
  re: Heating Mash
  RE: Sunbeam (and Bianca) hops / Don Van Valkenburg
  LM34 temperature sensor/RIMS
  belgium
  RE: Do you really NEED to boil the wort?
  RE: Do you really NEED to boil the wort?
  HSA/force-carbonating/kraeusening/CO2 pressures and hose lengths
  how not to do a decoction
  dissolved oxygen/aeration and nasties
  Making starter wort
  Brew your own
  Wyeast 1968
  mash thickness and mouthfeel
  5 litre mini keg taps
  Maple Syrup
  re Boiling Wort, a reply and a question (S.Alexander)
  re: London Ale Yeasts
  heineken recipe needed
  re: Porter Recipe
  Re: decoction
  Motorizing a PhillMill
  Vienna Malt - highly modified?
  re: Porter Recipe
  Re: Motorizing a PhillMill (Chuck Bernard)


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

Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:28:57 -0500 (EST)
From: Art McGregor <mcgregap at acq.osd.mil>
Subject: Tannin Extraction During Decoction Mash (Art McGregor)

Greetings Homebrewers,

I started wondering about the extraction of excessive tannins during the 2nd
and 3rd decoctions when you are pulling out some of the grains and boiling
them.  I recall always reading that boiling of grains in not good, and will
cause excessive tannins in the wort and then final beer.  Why is this not a
concern with double and triple decoctions?

Hoppy Brewing,
Art McGregor  (Northern Virginia)
(day: mcgregap at acq.osd.mil	night: apmcgregor at nmaa.org)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 11:26:09 -0700 (MST)
From: Hugh Graham <hugh at lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: re: Heating Mash

Bill Rucker <brewzer at peanut.mv.com> wrote:

> I have a question pertaining to the design of my brewery. I have thought
> about using the opposite of an immersion chiller to heat the mash in my new
> three vessel brewery. What I am thinking is along the lines of an
> electrically heated RIMS only using a copper coil submersed in hot water
> and pumping the wort through the coil and back onto the mash bed.

I've been doing this for a couple of years.  Yields achieved are very high
implying that enzyme degradation is not significant.  

Water bath temperature depends on many things including recirculation rate
and the temperature profile you are trying to achieve.  Usually in our
system we achieve a recirculation temperature 10 C below the water bath
temperature. Two thermometers and a little experience with this setup and
you'll be step mashing with the best of them.  We usually do step-infusion
mashing and only use the water bath for temperature maintainance during
recirculation for wort clarification and to raise the temp. for mash out. 

The water bath adds a lot of thermal stability to the system so small
drifts in temperature are damped out.  Scorching and browning would tend
to be less than in an electrically heated RIMS system. 

Hugh in Ft. Collins CO.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 04:20:49 UT
From: Don Van Valkenburg <DONVANV at msn.com>
Subject: RE: Sunbeam (and Bianca) hops / Don Van Valkenburg

>Glenn & Kristina Matthies ask about Sunbeam hops------------

Sunbeam was developed and registered as an ornamental hop by Al Haunold 
(recently retired) who at Corvallis, Oregon,  developed many hops currently in 
use today.  Sunbeam was registered with the USDA as an ornamental hop, along 
with its sister hop Bianca.  Though not recomended for commercial production, 
the literature does say that it could be used for brewing purposes.  Here are 
some excerpts from the registration that was filed with the USDA:

"Sunbeam and Bianca originated from a cross made by geneticist Alfred Haunold 
in 1990 on the diploid virus-free selection Saazer 38 (USDA #21522) with a 
tetraploid European-type aroma male (USDA #21617M)."  Both Sunbeam and Bianca 
are diploids, which supports the assumption of open pollination.  

"Sunbeam has bright colored red stems throughout the growing season, which 
makes it particularly attractive in contrast to its yellow lemon-colored 
foliage.  It is a female hop which matures early to medium early (about Aug. 
25 in W. Oregon) with medium low yield potential.  The cones are of medium 
size and yellowish green.  Sunbeam's quality characteristics, largely 
inherited from the Saazer mother,  are 4-5% alpha acids, 2.5 % beta acids, a 
cohumulone content of 36 percent, and an oil content similar to that of Saazer 
(about 1-1.2 ml/100g)."

"Sunbeam and Bianca were observed as single plants for three years in an aroma 
breeding nursery near Corvallis, Oregon where they grew vigorously in early 
spring and reached the top of the trellis (5.5 meters) at approximately the 
same time as other seedlings or commercial cultivars growing nearby.  Their 
foliage remained brilliantly yellow throughout the spring and early summer but 
showed some burning in mid- to late summer in direct sunlight, brobably due to 
insufficient protection by reduced chlorophyll pigmentation in the leaves.  in 
semi-shade or in the greenhouse, under simulated semi-shaded conditions, 
leaves remained attractive and undamaged throuhout the growing season."

Hope this is helpfull.
Don Van Valkenburg
DONVANV at MSN.COM

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:00:44 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: LM34 temperature sensor/RIMS

>From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com>

>Does anyone know how to get a LM34 to talk to a computer board ? What is 
>the accuracy ? Can it be calibrated ? Is there a LM34 package that can be 
>made immersible or into a water proof probe for using in hot water/wort ? 
>The only LM34's I've seen have 3 legs and are in a plastic package that 
>would not work in fluids ? Any help would be much appreciated.

The LM34 will output a very small voltage proportional to the temperature.
It can easily be connected to a digital voltmeter that can read into the
millivolt range with good accuracy and resolution. 

A computer may have a plug in board which will respond to analog voltages.
It's called an analog to digital board. The better boards will have a
greater range of input voltages and better resolution.  The resolution is
described as the number of bits. An inexpensive board will have 8 bit
resolution, a better board will have 12 or more bits of resolution.  With an
8 bit board you can only measure 256 levels of resolution meaning that if
you were to feed the board with the LM34 output the most accurate readout
would be 256 different temperature readings. This is if the output varys
from the lowest to the highest level that the board is setup to read.

In the case of the LM34, I do not have the spec. sheets in front of me but I
seem to recall that it would output 2 volts at 200 degrees F. So if you have
a board that will resolve 0 to 5 volts for instance, you would lose over
half of your resolution because boiling water at 212 would output 2.12
volts, therefore the maximum number of resolution steps would be 2.12/5.0 X
256.  

This might get you in the range of 2 or 3 degrees of readable temperature
resolution.  Resolution but not accuracy.  Two entirely different animals.

The cheaper LM34 has an accuracy of a few degrees F. If you use the computer
to convert an output of a specific LM34, then you calibrate against a known
reference (oh oh! - do you smell big bucks here?), then you can have much
better accuracy. You still are limited by resolution however, and drift in
characteristics with time.

If you enjoy the smell of hot solder, you can have fun constructing an
amplifier to boost the output of the LM34 to match the input characteristics
of the analog to digital board.  You may also design in adjusting devices so
that you can set the gain, range and span. This will allow you to have a
better instrument, but now beyond the realm of simplicity.

Once you have all this resolved, you can relax, have a homebrew and consider
yourself an engineer.

Happy Brewing

Ron

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 13:01:17 GMT-6
From: Jay Lubinsky <j-lubins at govst.edu>
Subject: belgium

I'm planning on spending two weeks in Belgium this summer.  Anybody 
got any suggestions on how to optimize my beer experience there?

TIA

Jay Lubinsky
j-lubins at govst.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:33:24 -0500
From: Rory Stenerson <71762.1664 at compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Do you really NEED to boil the wort?

Per HBD V2 #27, Marshall Muller asks:  "Is it really necessary to have a
rolling boil or will 98 C be OK if I stirred it frequently."

You should maintain "an active and rolling boil will help stabilize the
flavor of your beer once it has reached its peak." (1).  However, I would
strongly recommend that you gently stir the wort occasionally.  Stirring
may prevent any carmelizing of your wort around the heating element.  This
may not be necessary unless ofcourse you're trying to replicate a Foster's
lager.

I use a prefabbed unit made in the U.K. called a "BruHeat" which is
esentially the same thing you're using but on a slightly smaller scale, it
easily boils, i.e. a roiling boil of 5 imperial gallons.  

Good luck, good brewing, and g'day

Rory Stenerson,
S.C.U.M.

(1)  Charlie Papazian, _The_Home_Brewer's_Companion_ (Avon Books,1994), pp
15-16, 136-137. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:33:24 -0500
From: Rory Stenerson <71762.1664 at compuserve.com>
Subject: RE: Do you really NEED to boil the wort?

Per HBD V2 #27, Marshall Muller asks:  "Is it really necessary to have a
rolling boil or will 98 C be OK if I stirred it frequently."

You should maintain "an active and rolling boil will help stabilize the
flavor of your beer once it has reached its peak." (1).  However, I would
strongly recommend that you gently stir the wort occasionally.  Stirring
may prevent any carmelizing of your wort around the heating element.  This
may not be necessary unless ofcourse you're trying to replicate a Foster's
lager.

I use a prefabbed unit made in the U.K. called a "BruHeat" which is
esentially the same thing you're using but on a slightly smaller scale, it
easily boils, i.e. a roiling boil of 5 imperial gallons.  

Good luck, good brewing, and g'day

Rory Stenerson,
S.C.U.M.

(1)  Charlie Papazian, _The_Home_Brewer's_Companion_ (Avon Books,1994), pp
15-16, 136-137. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:07:03 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: HSA/force-carbonating/kraeusening/CO2 pressures and hose lengths

Here are some questions I saved and never got around to answering
before HBD V1 croaked.  I still haven't seen them answered and since
searches will be doable when the HBD moves to its new home, I feel
it's important to address these issues.

Nigel writes:
>1. Do you need to worry about HSA caused by splashing etc between mashing 
>and commenceing the boil? 

Yes.  As a matter of fact, according to Charlie Scandrett's post from
a few months ago, HSA during the mash can actually be far worse to the
quality of the finished beer than HSA after the boil.

>2. At what temp can you start to aerate after boiling without worrying 
>about HSA? 

Among the HBD subscribers (over the last 9 years), 80F (27C) has become
sort-of a defacto standard.  However, according to DeClerck, very little
detrimental oxidation occurs below 140F (60C).
 
Personally, I cool to 70F for ales and 55F for lagers.  Say, I'd like
to mention that I chilled 5 gallons of Bock wort two weekends ago down
to 50F with tapwater and an immersion chiller.  Yes... Chicago tapwater
(about 40F), 35feet of 1/2" OD copper tubing... it took about 45 minutes.
I was busy aerating and pitching the Tripel and when I got back to the
Bock, it was at 50F!.

***
Andrew writes:
>First thing to keep in mind is that the C0-2 "absorbsion" rate depends 
>entirely on the temp. 
>of the beer.  If you are storeing the keg and Co-2 bottle inside the fridge 
>(make damm sure the Co-2 bottle is ALWAYS standing UP or else you will get 
>liquid Co-2 in the beer and the tank will empty in no time as well as VERY 
>foamy beer) 

Don't worry about foamy beer, but yes, you shouldn't lay down the tank
or you could freeze your regulator.

>The main thing is that when you hook up the CO-2 to the keg is to boost the 
>pressure to around 20 lbs and shake it hard for 15-20 minutes to spread the 
>CO-2 into the beer, then lower the pressure, assuming you have already 
>cooled it down to the 45 degrees or whatever your fridge is. It will still 
>take a few days for the CO-2 to give you the results you want but 

15 to 20 minutes at 20 psi with 45F beer will give you several dozen glasses
of foam.  Also, you can serve the force-carbonated beer 1 hour after force-
carbonating (just give the swirling eddies in the keg some time to settle).

Here's what I recommend:

1. get one of those charts of CO2 volumes vs. pressure vs. temp (there
are some in the archives as well as many in kegging articles) and Byron
Burch's books,

2. cool your keg/beer to the serving temperature,

3. select the volumes of CO2 you want from the chart and read the
proper pressure for that number of volumes,

4. dial-up that pressure and shake the keg till you don't hear gas going
in anymore (you can speed up this process by adding 5 psi for the first
5 minutes of shaking), and

5. use at least 6 feet of 3/16" ID hose for the liquid line (if you are
using a high level of carbonation, you will have to use an even longer
liquid hose).

***
Dave writes:
>1) Make up a Krausening starter of 1-2 Tlb of Hopped malt extract plus 4 oz of 
>corn sugar ( I suppose sucrose would be OK?), 12 oz water, boil and cool, 
>Remove
>small amount of yeast with some beer from the bottom of the secondary with a 
>siphon. pitch yeast and beer into the starter.  When it is foaming (high 
>Krausen)  usually 12 hrs, 
>Immediately ( before the sugar in the Krausening starter gerts used up): 

This is very imprecise kraeusening... "1-2 Tlb" should probably be "1-2 tbsp"
and still, that's not precise at all.  I don't have my books here or I would
give the proper formula for calculating the amount of malt you want to use,
but I believe this has been posted.  My main point here is *the method
described above is more likely to give you the wrong level of carbonation
than the right level!*

>7)  Always deliver with the spigot *wide open* to minimize foaming and to get 
>correct condition of the beer in the glass.  Try this with your current beers. 
>My delivery hose is 3 feet long, but it is irrelevant how long the hose is, 
>except the longer the hose the more foam you will deliver due to heating of the
>beer if the hose isn't cooled. Even in a cooled hose, beer in the line will get
>foamy and deliver a spurt of foam at first. After the first delivery in a close
>sequence of deliveries, I don't think it makes any difference.  Just don't go 
>crazy. 

Yes, always deliver the beer with the faucet wide open, but the length of the
hose *DOES* indeed make a difference.  The longer the hose, the more pressure
will drop *inside* the hose and the smaller the pressure difference will
be between the beer AT the faucet and the room air pressure.  If the hose
is too short, the pressure drop from the inside of the faucet and the
outside will be too big and a lot of your beer will turn to foam.

This "the hose length doesn't matter" kegging information has been posted
and printed FAR too many times.  It is *wrong* and I wish that people would
stop posting it.

>8) The beer itself may not be as carbonated in the glass as you are used to, 
>using the above quantities, especially if you are making American lager types, 
>but my beers have an excellent, but not excesssive head and a fine bead typical
>or better than commercially tapped beers. The more highly carbonated the beer, 
>the colder it will have to be at delivery to reduce foaming. Never carbonate at
>such a level that the delivery temperature will produce more than 15psig or you
>will always have foam and no condition in your beer until you reduce the keg 
>pressure by delivering a mountain of foam.  Try cooling your current beers to 
>33-35F.  Deliver the beer with no CO2 input until the delivery condition 
>satisfies you, then use 10 - 15 psig as a delivery pressure. 

This is wrong.  Beer can be served at a lot more than 15 psig.  The reason
*you* can't is because you believe that hose length doesn't matter.  Again,
I don't have my books here, but I'll bet that with 10 feet of 3/16" ID hose,
you can serve 50F beer at 20 psig (assuming it is not overcarbonated --
i.e. it is at steady state at 50F and 20 psig).


Al.

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:20:10 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: how not to do a decoction

Peter writes:
>I made my first all-grain batch on Sunday: A basic pale ale using 8 lbs English
>two-row and 1 lb 40L crystal.  I'm using a picnic cooler mash tun with a CPVC 
>manifold, and was shooting for a 60 minute mash  at  152F.  I mashed-in w/9 qts. 
>170F water and added another quart  at  212F to stabilize  at 152F.  However, when I 
>checked back on the temp. after 10 min, it had gone down to 138 and I added at
>least 4 more quarts  at 212F to try and get the temp back up.  Feeling desperate, 
>and no longer concerned with style, I removed 3 qts of the thinnest part of the
>mash and brought it to a boil and returned it to the mash...no good, still 
>138F.  After roundly cursing the thermometer maker, I did the decoction-thing 
>again, and got the temp up to 145F.  In the end, after 60 min an iodine test 
>showed complete conversion, so I gave it 30 more minutes to be safe and went 
>ahead and sparged the damn thing. 

>So...what happened?  I certainly got the conversion (or a conversion) but 
>exactly what was produced at those temps? I didn't estimate the amount of wort 
>I'd have after the boil well, and had to add 1.5 gallons H2O to get 5 in the 
>carboy...and after mixing the hell out of it I had OG: 1.038. I pitched a 1 qt 
>starter Wyeast American Ale (I forget the number) and it was goin' great guns
>twelve hours later. 

I see several problems.  One, when you want to do a decoction, remove the
THICKEST part of the mash (the grain)... NOT the thinnest part.  By boiling
the thinnest part, you are killing the enzymes.  The reason you got a low OG
is probably because you did not take enough runnings (you should take about
6 to 7 gallons of runnings for a 5 gallon batch).

>Basically, I am wondering 1) Is that damn thermometer defective? (Regardless, 
>I'm getting a dial-type this week) and 2) Did I actually get the right sugars 
>and what-not at such a low temp? 

The thermometer is not to blame.  The thermal inertia of 9 pounds of grain and
a 10 quarts of water is so much higher than that of the 3 quarts you decocted
that I'm not surprised you didn't get much rise in temp.  What you should
have done was take 1/3 to 1/2 of the grain with a seive, add a few quarts
of water (so it doesn't scorch) and heat that to 158F for 30 min, then on
to a boil for 5 min.  Add this back slowly watching the temp of the main
mash and stirring as best you can without aerating.  If the temp of the
main mash starts to get too high, let the decoction cool before adding the
rest back.
 
You mashed at a low temperature and got a lot of maltose and very few
dextrins.  The resulting beer was probably a bit thinner and quite a bit
drier than you wanted.

Al.

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 14:29:04 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: dissolved oxygen/aeration and nasties

More ancient posts that (I feel) needed some comment:

Dave writes, quoting AJ:
AJ> This is true for inflow as well as outgo so the 
AJ>experimental numbers for the stockpot are somewhat applicable. It took 
AJ>about three hours for the DO level to drop from 66% above saturation to 58% 
AJ>above saturation in the experiment. Water in the same pot should thus move 
AJ>from 66% below saturation to 58% below saturation in about the same time. 
 
>I agree that transport phenomena should be the same, but you are looking at 66%
>saturation with oxygen trying to come to equilibrium with 20% oxygen in the 
>air.  Not really the same ballpark as 0% saturation in equilibrium with 20%
>oxygen. 

You are missing a lot of oxygen there... rember that it's 66% ABOVE
saturation or 166% of saturation.  You're right that this is not in
the ballpark of 0% relative to 20% -- it's a *great* deal more.

***
Mark writes (quoting Brian):
>>Yeah, but also I don't think that anything could live in nearly pure O2, so 
>>that it's a lot cleaner than aeration, especially in the warmer 
>>months/climes. 
> 
> 
>absolutely true.  but i would say based on my own experience that the amount 
>of bacteria etc. in the headspace of a 7 gallon fermenter with 5 gallons of 
>beer in it is negligible, under normal homebrewing conditions (i.e., you don't 
>brew outside near a sewage treatment plant or other source of heavily bacteria 
>laden air).  all homebrew is infected, it's just a question of degree. 

Whoa... I have to disagree.  There are probably several hundred thousand
wild yeasts and bacteria in 2 gallons of air in even the cleanest house.
The question is: do any of those wild yeasts and bacteria multiply fast
enough and make nasty-enough byproducts (like phenolic aromas) to ruin
your beer?  I know that, in the summertime, in my house, they most certainly
do.  Therefore, I switched to fitered air and then oxygen for aeration
and the problem went away -- I can now brew confidently in the summer
without my English Bitters smelling like Bavarian Weizens!

Al.

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

Return to table of contents


Date: 14 Jan 97 15:28:32 EST
From: John Chang <75411.142 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Making starter wort

Greeting!

I am planning to brew next weekend and need to prepare some starter wort in
order to step up to my normal 1 litre starter.  I have always used "canned" wort
that I made from LME (from Dave Miller's Book).  

This time I will be making starter wort from a bag (3 lbs) of amber DME.  I have
read on the HBD of brewers that make up a cup of starter at a time.  Does anyone
have a routine (recipe) that works for them?  I will be using hop pellets (cause
thats what I got in the fridge).

TIA,

John

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:40:57 PST
From: "Edward J. Steinkamp" <ejs0742 at dop.fse.ca.boeing.com>
Subject: Brew your own

I do not subscribe to Brew Your Own and I got the same mailer. I
do however subscribe to Brew Techniques and am very satisfied. In
fact, I've never gotten one that I haven't read cover to cover.  I 
am constantly referencing back issues for the CO2/temp charts
for kegging, the "brewing in style" articles pertaining to specific
types of beer, etc.  My original recipe spread sheet was
basically copied from one of earlier issues.  I don't know how 
good Brew Your Own is, but it would have to be very good indeed
to be better than BT.  JMHO

Ed Steinkamp

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 12:39:45 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: Wyeast 1968

Well just to offer a counter-point, I can't stand Wyeast 1968.  I
think most people have outlined the reasons why: flocs like hell, very
narrow temp. range, low attenuation, heretical aeration needs.  Why
bother?  I much prefer Wy1028.  To each his own.

SM

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:52:56 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: mash thickness and mouthfeel

Al K writes in response to Jean-Sebastien ...

>>I'm wondering what effect mash thickness (1qt/lbs vs 1.1qt/lbs) has on
>>body.

>The difference in thickness to cause a noticeable amount of difference is
>much greater (I don't have my copy of MBS or Fix here, but I'm sure that
>"thin" would be at least 50% more water than "thick").

Al is on target.  Selected data below is from Table 9.11 from M&B Sci, 2nd
edition data by Hall, quoted by Harris.  I have converted the
thickness measure to quarts per pound of grist.

]wort analyses (maltose expressed as % of wort solids, soluable Nitrogen as
]% of wort solids)
]
]Mashing Temp          60C(140F) ==================
]Mash Thickness qt/#   .72qt/#       1.23qt/#     1.65qt/#
]maltose %             43.9          48.3         49.5
]soluable N            6.2-6.6       5.34         5.50
]
]Mashing Temp          65.6C(150F) ================
]Mash Thickness qt/#   .72qt/#       1.23qt/#     1.65qt/#
]maltose               38.8          43.9         42.8
]soluable N            5.58          5.22         5.03
]
]Mashing Temp          68.3(155F) =================
]Mash Thickness qt/#   .72qt/#       1.23qt/#     1.65qt/#
]maltose               36.9          37.0         39.0
]soluable N            4.90          4.77         4.85

Note that for extremely thick mashes of column 1 there is a drop-off
in the amount of maltose produced compared with column 2 - normal mash
thickness.  I find M&B Sciences statement that beta-amylase is more
effective in thick mashes a bit hard to justify by comparing column 1
and 2.  Comparing columns 2 & 3 (normal and somewhat thin mash) there
is a drop-off in maltose at the intermediate mash temperature of 150F
for thin mashes.  It is possible that this trend continues for very
thin mashes of say 2 to 3 quarts per pound - in which case the
statement has justification.  I understand that some traditional
decoction mashes used thin mashes around 2.5 qts / pound.

As far as proteases are concerned, check the soluable nitrogen figures
above.  Nitrogen (mostly from  protein) is greater for the thicker
mash at every temperature, and very much greater for the thick mash at 
140F.  Having said that, M&B science notes that despite previous
assumptions, quite a bit of nitrogen is soluabilized in the mash for
even pale ale malt due to the action of carboxypeptidases which can
survive higher temperates that the endo- and exo-peptidases of the
traditional protein rests.

If you want extra soluable protein for body, a thick mash rest at
55C-62C/131F-143F should help considerably.

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:47:09 -0500
From: Tom Neary <thomas.neary at peri.com>
Subject: 5 litre mini keg taps

While on the subject of 5 litre mini kegs.  I've had a party king tap by
Fass Frisch (the plastic CO2 type) for about a year now.  I've used it to tap
12-16 mini kegs.  Just recently the CO2 cartridges have begun to drain 
overnight when not in use.  Everything seemed to be screwed in tight.  This
happened on the last three kegs tapped.  Every night the CO2 cartridge would
drain empty.

Does anybody know what can be causing this phenomona?


TIA

TN

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 17:44:21 -0600 (CST)
From: "W. Scott Snyder" <w-snyder at students.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Maple Syrup

Anyone have any pointers on adding Maple Syrup to your brew?  I'm 
thinking specifically of a Maple Porter (ala Pete's Wicked).  How much 
syrup to use?  Should I add it late to the boil or does it matter?  Is 
there a specific type of syrup to use and/or avoid?

Any and all comments and suggestions greatly appreciated...

- -Scott


            ______________________________________________________
  _________|                     |                                |_________
  \        |   W. Scott Snyder   | Ask not whether you believe in |        /
   \       |       "Cosmo"       | Dragons, but rather, whether   |       /
    \      |                     | Dragons believe in you...      |      /
     \     |------------------------------------------------------|     /
     /     | E-MAIL -  w-snyder at uiuc.edu                          |     \
    /      | URL    -  http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~w-snyder/    |      \
   /       |______________________________________________________|       \
  /____________)                                               (___________\

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:45:24 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: re Boiling Wort, a reply and a question (S.Alexander)

George De Piro writes ..
>     In the last digest somebody from down under asked if boiling is 
>     necessary, or if it is enough to just heat the wort to near boiling.

M&BS and several other sources indicate that a rolling boil is
necessary for good flocculation.  pH is also critical for good
flocculations. YMMV.

George also writes ...
>     Can anybody think of some reasons that it would harm the wort to heat 
>     it to ~200F, then let it sit overnight before continuing the brewing 
>     process (T ~140F the next morning)?

I take it hops haven't been added and that a 60+ minute boil takes
place the following day ?  The DMS issue isn't so much the temp at
which it boils off as its rate of formation at these higher temps.
[BTW - there's an obvious error/typo in Fix's PoBS book in his kinetic
formula for DMS formation - a first order kinetic reaction doubles
roughly every 10C not every 100C at 'reasonable' temperatures].

I think the biggest risk is the chance that additional aeration and
oxidation will take place, a form of HSA.  If you leave the lid off,
DMS will be lost, but aeration is potentially much higher.  With a lid
on a vast amount of DMS is trapped and may be difficult to eliminate.
Even with a lid, because the wort is constantly cooling overnight, it
will be difficult to exclude air from the kettle.  You could bubble
CO2 thru the wort overnight, but now the cure is worse than the
disease.

George frequently appears in the 'winners circle' and is a first rate
brewer so I'm certain he has a good handle on DMS flavors as well as
subjective evaluation of these beers.  I'd be interested in knowing
how the 'shelf life' and staling or other HSA related properties of
these beers stands up to other more typical homebrews.  George ?

My instinct would be to cool the wort to <90F and seal it.  Then boil
the next day.  This method has the potential for infections and other
problems too, but DMS and HSA aren't among them.

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 16:11 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re: London Ale Yeasts

Charles asks in HBD 27,

        I'm interested in a discussion.... Wyeast 1968 and 1318...

I used 1968 when it was called ESB and loved it. I used 1318 and hated it. 
It would not flocculate and took fffffooooorrrreeeeeevvvvveeeerrrr to 
finish. I then tried the 1968 AFTER the name change and low and behold, 
acted just like the old 1318. Bummer. I may try it again, because I've heard 
other people like the 1968, but I will NOT try 1318 again.

My $.02 worth, YMMV.

Charley

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:05:06 -0800
From: kenny <mic at inu.net>
Subject: heineken recipe needed

I am looking for a recipe that will make heineken like beer.  If anyone 
even knows what kind of yeast or hops to use it would be appreciated.
thanks.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 16:31 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: re: Porter Recipe

Jean-S says in HBD #27,

        Heres a porter recipe i'm working on, appreicate any comments...

My first response was, hmmmm, Belgian Aromatic, what a great idea.

My second response is, 61 IBU's is well above the [proper] range for a 
robust porter. Third, where do you get fuggles at only 3.2 %aa? Lowest I've 
seen is 4.5. Becareful that these numbers are what you can actually buy, and 
not what got left in the SUDS database from wherever.

My preference for a Porter is Scottish Ale Yeast (can't remember wyeast #, 
17something). It leaves it a bit sweet which will balance the high alcohol 
content in the thing. You might not achieve a FG of 1.016 unless the mash 
temp is a little higher, more like 156F.

I'm saving this recipe because it looks really good, ingredient wise, just a 
little too bitter for my personal taste. Please report back on how it turns out.

Charley

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:28:22 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: Re: decoction

Jeff Renner and Bob McCowan disagree with Brian Bliss 

>... I would,
>however, recommend not using one in a mash consisting of a
>large percentage of colored malts, like what would happen
>in a munich beer.  When I have tried this, I have gotten
>tannins so hot they burn your mouth.

stating that they (as do I) regularly decoct munich and vienna malts.
Perhaps the problem is the source of the malt.  One widely distributed
US maltster uses 6-row barley for every malt except one labeled as
2-row pale.  I can imagine that a decoction from it's 6-row munich or
6-row crystal might turn out badly.

Brian - whose colored malts did you decoct ?

Steve Alexander

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 19:53:51 +0000
From: Rick Gontarek <gontarek at voicenet.com>
Subject: Motorizing a PhillMill

Greetings all,

I'd like to ask some advice regarding motorizing a PhilMill. A few 
weeks ago I thought I'd try to motorize my PhilMill by attaching my 
drill to the crankshaft of the mill via a bolt with the head cut off 
(exactly as per the directions that came with my PhilMill). Without 
any grain, the mill ran nicely. The minute I added any grain, whammo, 
it stoppped dead. The mill ceased turning via the drill whether I 
added a few grains at a time or whether I had the hopper full. 

Now, I am a bit embarassed to say that I am not very mechanically 
inclined (Tim "The Tool Man" Taylor I am not), but I have heard that 
these mills can be automated using an electric drill. I have  Sears 
Craftsman 3/8' variable drill (3.0 amp/ 0-2500 rpm). Is this drill not 
powerful enough? What am I doing wrong? Not only did the mill not turn 
using the drill, I had one hellofa time getting the bolt back out! I 
felt like such a putz. If there are any of you out there with 
motorized PhilMills, I'd love to hear from you.

TIA for the advice,

Rick Gontarek
Owner/Brewmaster
The Major Groove Picobrewery
Trappe, PA 
gontarek at voicenet.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 97 17:03 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Vienna Malt - highly modified?

I thought Vienna Malt was highly modified and would not require a protein 
rest. However, I picked up a recipe for a marzen that calls for 9+ lbs of 
vienna, plus some other stuff, and the recipe calls for a *double decoction* 
mash. Am I in for trouble on this? Could I do a single decoction and get 
away with it tasting the same? Is the recipe bogus (came from CMIII)?

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, 14 Jan 1997 20:56:09 -0500
From: Jean-Sebastien Morisset <jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Subject: re: Porter Recipe

At 16:31 14/01/97 PST, Charles Burns wrote:
>Jean-S says in HBD #27,
>
>        Heres a porter recipe i'm working on, appreicate any comments...
>
>My first response was, hmmmm, Belgian Aromatic, what a great idea.

Special-B was also very tempting and I might try it in another batch.

>My second response is, 61 IBU's is well above the [proper] range for a 
>robust porter.

This will be my second run with this recipe. The first had 90 IBU's, which
I admit was a little over the top. I expect it to be very drinkable in 2-3
years! <grin> I'm afraid the Biscuit and Aromatics will tend to give me a
very strong malt profile, so I'm trying to balance it with Brown Malt,
Chocolate, and Hop bitterness. If you notice, I haven't used Black Patent
or Roast; I want to stay well away from a Stout-ish taste.

>Third, where do you get fuggles at only 3.2 %aa? Lowest I've 
>seen is 4.5. Becareful that these numbers are what you can actually buy, and 
>not what got left in the SUDS database from wherever.

Nope, that's what I got in the freezer -- for some reason I just can't seem
to get European hops in the higher range in Montreal.

>My preference for a Porter is Scottish Ale Yeast (can't remember wyeast #, 
>17something). It leaves it a bit sweet which will balance the high alcohol 
>content in the thing. You might not achieve a FG of 1.016 unless the mash 
>temp is a little higher, more like 156F.

I'll probably replace the 40L Crystal with 1kg+ Carapils to get more
mouthfeel and less colour. I'd like a dark ruby red, but the Aromatic,
Biscuit, and Brown Malt are making this difficult. :-)

>I'm saving this recipe because it looks really good, ingredient wise, just a 
>little too bitter for my personal taste. Please report back on how it
turns >out.

The first one at 90 IBU was a little too bitter. :-) I also used Munich
Malt which gave just a hint of maltiness, but not enough, which is why I
went for the Aromatic and Biscuit in this one. I've heard Special-B is also
quite good in Porters too.

My first batch was mashed at 150F and gave an FG of 1.020. I'm still
puzzled by that one.... :-)

Thanks for the interest!

js.
- --
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sc. Unix Administrator <mailto:jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Bell Canada, Routing and Trunking Assignments <http://www.bell.ca/>

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 21:13:09 -0500 (EST)
From: BernardCh at aol.com
Subject: Re: Motorizing a PhillMill (Chuck Bernard)

Rick Gonterak asks about motorizing a PhilMill

I use a 3/16 hex bit from a cordless screwdriver chucked up into my Craftsman
3/8 0-1200RPM drill which I insert into the shoulder screw socket.  I have a
large 12" funnel that I drop into the 2-liter soda pop bottle.  Then I get
the drill running while my wife fills the funnel.  This seems to meter the
grains into the "crusher" a little better and my drill has more than enough
oomph do do the job.  Can usually mill enough grains for a 5 gallon batch in
under 5-minutes.  Be warned though, motorizing this mill creates a tom of
dust!

Chuck
BernardCh at aol.com
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN - Music City USA

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2310