HOMEBREW Digest #2490 Fri 22 August 1997

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  CP Bottle Filler Alternative? (Mark T A Nesdoly)
  Electric Brewing / Ice CF Chillers (KennyEddy)
  Batch Sparging / Newbie All-Grain Questions (KennyEddy)
  filtering (michael rose)
  Re: First Faltering Steps / More IPA Worship (from Matt) (Matt Gadow)
  first steps... ("Bryan L. Gros")
  celis white (AlannnnT)
  Chilis from Chile (Loren Crow)
  Re: mutant sparging; lost beer; first-time mashing (Mike Uchima)
  132F Good - 122F Bad ("Charles Rich")
  Malt beverages ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Predicting SG of First Runnings (Charles Burns)
  Chocolate & Money (Gordon & Cindy Camp)
  Stuck lager w/ 2206 (George De Piro)
  HBD #2488 comments - CO2 ("Richard Cuff")
  Re: Airstones in kegs (guym)
  Nitrogen Dispensing:  Does it ruin a beer? (George De Piro)
  Re: pub draught Guinness (Mike Uchima)
  Danstar dry yeast ("Alan McKay")
  Re: wood alcohol (Brian Bliss)
  On MLD (haafbrau1)
  Re: off flavors (Samuel Mize)
  Need a mail-order firm with lots of features ("Bret A. Schuhmacher")
  SS Keg/Drilling (Andrew Stavrolakis)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290 at mail.usask.ca> Subject: CP Bottle Filler Alternative? Hello All, This past April I was fortunate enough to run across a fellow homebrewer who was looking to sell his kegging setup. Six 5 gallon pin-lock kegs, a 20 lb CO2 tank and a heavy duty regulator that was scrounged from a liquid oxygen welding setup, and adapted for CO2. The cost? $140 Am I lucky or what? ;-) Anyway, the setup also includes an air chuck (like the kind used for filling your tires with air at the gas station). I finally got around to making a couple of "carbonator"-type caps on the weekend out of two old plastic pop bottle screw tops, a couple of valve stems, and a little food-grade caulking. Now I'm set to take some of my brew with me without having to haul around a keg. BTW, total cost of the two caps I made: $3.99 + tax (the cost of the two valve stems). This got me thinking about doing the same thing to a metal twist-off beer cap. Before I started kegging, I bottled all of my beer in the twist-off bottles, and I still have them all. Most competitions require that your brew is contained in the standard brown glass bottles, and it is for that reason that I was contemplating a CP bottle filler. A carbonator-type cap for twist-off bottles would certainly be easier and cheaper than a CP bottle filler. To bottle, I would simply fill the bottles from the keg, screw on the adapted bottle cap, carbonate, remove the adapted cap, and cap the bottles. Anyway, on to the questions: Has anyone out there done this before? Does anyone know how much pressure a standard (Canadian) twist-off brown glass beer bottle can withstand? To the CP bottle filler owners: How much more do you have to carbonate a beer when filling it? i.e. the beer will lose some carbonation in the time it takes to extract the CP bottle filler and cap the bottle. How much higher do you have to carbonate the beer to hit your target carbonation level? For instance, if I was bottling an IPA, and was shooting for 1.6 volumes of CO2 in the bottle, would I have to carbonate to, say, 1.8 volumes, then remove the cap with the valve stem, and quickly cap the bottle? Any and all responses appreciated. If there's sufficient feedback I will post a summary of the responses. - -- Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:42:50 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Electric Brewing / Ice CF Chillers Thor asks: "Does anybody know what the relative efficiency of heating your brewery with propane, natural gas or electricity?" Just a datapoint: my 5-gallon electric boiler runs on 2250W; I've calculated the heat loss at about 200W through the uninsulated sides, for roughly 90% efficiency. If I wrapped a layer of fiberglass around it (as well as the lid), I bet I could get real close to 100% efficient. My electric vessels are on for about 3 hours total; at 14 cents per kW-hr (yep) this costs me about $1 per brewday. How this compares with gas setups, I don't know. Note: using electricity for volumes over 5 gallons gets tricky, since the already-high power requirements increase for increasing volume. To get reasonable heating times, you'll need lots of electric elements as well as lots of amps. See the article on my web page, "Five-Gallon Plastic Electric Brewery", for details. ***** The topic of ice-bucket CF chillers has arisen. I don't use one (though I do circulate ice water through my immersion chiller with a pump) but I can offer a couple thoughts. After you fill the bucket with ice, add enough water to cover at least part of the coil. While this robs the ice of some of its cooling power as the warmer water melts it, it puts the entire coil surface in contact with cold WATER (as opposed to the AIR between ice chunks) for greatly improved cooling. Without the water, the ice will eventually melt and form water, but you'll get much faster cooling up front if you add water. Also, try tossing a small submersible fountain pump into the bucket. They can be had at home & garden stores for around $20 - $25. No need to atttach any hoses; just get the water circulating inside the bucket. You'll again get drastically improved chilling. Thought: mount the pump to the bucket such that the discharge goes around the coil opposite of the wort flow. True counter-flow operation. After saying all this, I remember a friend who used one of these (with a circulating pump) and had to cut back on the ice since his wort was exiting at 40F! ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 13:43:42 -0400 (EDT) From: KennyEddy at aol.com Subject: Batch Sparging / Newbie All-Grain Questions Jon Bovard writes about a "New contraversial sparging method": "I know of many German breweries and a local micro which uses a method of sparging similar to that of some English breweries, but with a twist. Once recirculation has completed. The bed is 90% drained and filled with water at around 80C. Once this covers the grain bed the mash is then stirred like mad . This supposedly encourages sugars into solution and increases efficiency.The mash is left to settle for 15 minutes and then re-circulated once again. The process is repeated until enough wort is colected or pH>6 etc ect. My question is ( I plan to try this) will mixing the mash bed so violently cause irreversible damage. ie Leaving it almost undisturbed for 1.5 hours beforehand creates a preety decent bed.??" Nothing "new" or "contraversial" (sic) here. This is what we've been calling "batch sparging" here. That is to say, the sparge water is added in batches rather than trickled in during runoff. There are several positive implications: (1) Channeling is a non-issue, since for each runoff, assuming the batch has been rested and stirred well, the runoff is always of the same gravity since no "clear" water is added durring runoff. (2) Back-of-envelope calculations as well as anecdotal evidence suggest this method, even with only one sprage batch after initial runoff, can be AS or even MORE efficient than traditional trickle or "fly" sparging. Think of the sparge batch as a mash-out, thinning and collecting the wort trapped in the grain. (3) The method lends itself well to brewers who don't have space/money for a three-tier system, since the sparge water is dumped in all at once. No need to place a sparge vessel above the mash tun for sparging. Recirculate and slowly drain your first runoff, then put your mash tun on the kitchen floor, pour in some 175F water and away you go (after a brief rest & recirculation). (4) If properly planned, the technique can be used to efficiently produce a lower volume of higher-gravity wort, which suits stovetop brewers well. Vessels smaller than 5 gallons are much cheaper and the typical kitchen stove will have a much easier time heating & boiling. Brewing with concentrated wort is just like brewing with extract. Top off to volume in the fermenter with sanitized (boiled/cooled) clear water. (5) For a two-runoff process, the gravity of both runoffs is well above 1.010; this coupled with the presence of wort at low pH prevents tannin / phenol extraction associated with low-gravity / high-pH sparging. George Fix reported some time ago that a single-runoff brew had "yummy malt flavor", quite possibly because far less objectionable material was extracted than when using traditional low-gravity / high-pH sparge water. One downside I can think of is that since you're draining off the liquid in the grain bed, it can collapse upon itself and cause a stuck runoff. This is probably only a problem with heavy, gummy mashes like those with lots of wheat or corn. As for the 1.5 hour old bed being disturbed, it's not of course an issue for the first runoff, since only a recirculation is performed and the bed is not disturbed. As for the second runoff, the rest period (you mentioned 15 minutes) plus judicious recirculation will ensure a clear runoff after stirring. I have a batch-sparging spreadsheet & accompanying text on my web page, for anyone interested in the details. ***** Doug Moyer wants to all-grain (all right Doug!) and has a few good questions: "(1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off? Yes, I know that mileage varies, but what range am I shooting for? I want to make sure that my manifold isn't designed completely wrong. Is 6 minutes/gallon reasonable? (I haven't put any grain in it yet--I'm just running water through it.) " 6 min/gal sounds pretty good; puts you in the 30 - 45 minute range for 6 - 7 gallons of sparged wort. Some will say longer is even better, which probably has some truth, but it depends on how much extraction your time is worth. Note that your water-only rate is likely to be higher than your mash-runoff rate, though this depends on the manifold design. Thus, your actual mash runoff may be much slower than 6 min/gal. "(2) What is the normal method to recirculate the first runnings to build up the filter bed? How do you prevent HSA? How do you keep the temperature constant? Do you care at that point? (FWIW, I will NOT be buying a pump yet. Of course, who knows about next week... %-) )" Use a 2-cup measuring cup to collect the recirc, then pour this *gently* back onto the grainbed -- no splashing or excessive churning. I place a cut-to-fit sheet of 8-hole-per-inch nylon needlepoint mesh over the grainbed (it actually floats) and pour the recirc slowly onto that -- it breaks up the force of the pouring liquid to avoid mucking up the grain bed, and distributes the recirc fairly evenly across the top of the bed. Because of the size of the measuring cup, it's difficult to pour in the middle of the tun; pouring with too much force down the side of the grain bed can encourage channeling and reduce efficieny. HSA? Maybe a bit; you can't totally avoid it. But if you're careful, it won't show up in your beer. Your temperature will drop somewhat during this process, as the recirc'd wort is exposed to room temp, so a mash-out at 165+ is helpful (though often not practical in a five-gallon cooler; see #3 below). (3) How much grain can you mash in a 5 gallon Igloo? Here's a rule of thumb: grain occupies 0.08 gallons per pound when combined with water (that is, no air between grits). At a typical mash thickness of 1.33 qt/lb, you can squeeze about 12 lb of grain and water into a five-gallon cooler, but don't expect to do temperature boosts or mashout with boiling water infusions -- there ain't no room. Though you said that you already bought your 5-gallon Gott, for anyone else planning on going all-grain, I suggest the new (?) 7-gallon Gott. At Home Depot here in El Paso it's the same price as the 5-gallon ($20). It appears to be the same diameter as the 10-gallon (the lids are interchangable, and yes I put them back where they were after I checked), so a 10-gallon Phil's Phloating Phalse Bottom would work if you wanted to go that route. This will hold enough grain to make moderately-high gravity brews and still allow multiple boiling water infusions for step mashing & mashouts. I'm a-gonna get me one. "(4) Several people have mentioned mashing in the range of 1.25 qt/gal. If you are doing several step infusions, do you start with a thicker mash to make up for the boiling water added later?" Yeah, that's the idea. You probably won't be able to work with a thickness much below 0.9 to 1 qt per pound, so figure on starting there for your dough-in. Also, try to avoid mash rests above 2 qt/lb; the thin mash reportedly can reduce enzyme efficiency. Dilute mash thickness is OK for the mashout step since enzyme action is not relevent. And if you're still trying to figure out how to set up a three-tier system, consider batch-sparging as described above. ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX KennyEddy at aol.com http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 11:16:16 -0700 From: michael rose <mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net> Subject: filtering I want to filter uncarbonated beer at room temp though a 1 micron household filter. What is the minimum psi that I need? (What I plan on doing is draining from my conical fermenter though the filter and into the cornie. How high in the air is the fermenter going to have to be, roof top?) Any comments welcomed. Thanks, Mike Rose e-mail OK Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 14:25:48 -0700 From: Matt Gadow <mgadow at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Re: First Faltering Steps / More IPA Worship (from Matt) Since doug didn't leave an email address, I will venture some answers to his questions regarding 5-gal picnic cooler mash tuns. 1. - Runoff - generally, adjust the flow down to the slowest you can stand, the theory being the slower the runoff, the more extraction you receive - Check out the batch sparging vs. Fly sparging threads of a few weeks ago for more info... 2. - IMHO, it dosen't matter much how you recirculate the first runnings - Although I try to minimize splashing when I recirculate about 1-2quarts of first runnings with a pyrex bowl from my system (A 5 gal. coleman cooler with a rubber stopper, and a cheesy straight piece of copper tubing with some hacksawed slots in the bottom) It works OK, about 26 points / lb, but I am thinking about upgrading for better extraction, and more capacity (see 3 below) 3. I can get about 13-15 lbs of grain in the tun, assuming <1.25q/lb initial mash thickness. When I do this, I use a batch sparge technique (Flush most of the first runnings, and refill with HOT water to bring mash up to mash-out (168), leave for 15 mins, recirc, and sparge remainder... 4. Step mashing with a picnic cooler is tough - I usually use a 5 gal pot for initial steps (I can add boiling water, and heat), then transfer to cooler for final rest. You should like your setup, although once you get your pump, you will be looking for another pot that can heat your mash while recirculating, for decoctions, just better overall temp control. Just Brew it! Lots of links to RIMS and mashing systems at the brewery - check out http://realbeer.com/brewery/Library.html IPA Worship update My Surf Sister IPA is now online - 6 ozs of hops, and it tastes great! Evident Bitterness (duh!), floral aroma, and lip-smacking hop flavor. My wife even gave me a bitter beer face - must be getting close, eh? Brew with more hops! Hope this helps! Matt (loving that IPA) Gadow remove *nosp* for email mgadow at nospix.netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 16:31:56 -0700 From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com> Subject: first steps... Moyer, Douglas E (MIS, SalemVA) writes: > With a combination of fearful reluctance and quivering >excitement, I purchased a 5 gallon Igloo and fitted it with a CPVC >slotted manifold. ... > >(1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off? You mean for the sparge? You want to collect 6.5 or 7 gallons in about an hour. You should have a valve of some sort to control the run off. Which leads to your second question--recirculation. I have a ball valve coming out of my sankey keg, which I use for mash/lauter tun. I pull the first runnings out of the valve (well, the hose barb attached to the valve) directly with a qt. measuring cup and pour them (gently) into the top. When it turns clear, I attach a hose which then lets the run off get to the bottom of the kettle gently. You didn't inlcude your email address in your post, BTW. Hope this helps. - Bryan gros at bigfoot.com Oakland, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:04:15 -0400 (EDT) From: AlannnnT at aol.com Subject: celis white I have searched the HBD archives and cats meow for a clone recipe for Celis White. Each recipe starts with,"it doesn't taste like Celis but..." Well anyone have any ideas? Celis claims the bill is 50/50 unmalted Texas wheat and malt. Nothing specific on malt. They say they use Williamette and Cascades. They publish gravities; IG 1048 FG 1009 Brooklyn uses alot of unmalted wheat in their BrooklynerWeisse. [sp] Garrett Oliver from Brooklyn Brewing says he gets his Weisse bill to convert with a high enzyme American malt mixed well with the unmalted barley, no alpha amylase added. In fact, I offended Mr Oliver by asking if he uses added enzymes. Anyone who has tasted Mr Olivers beers knows I didn't want to offend him. Ok I am ready for any help on this one. My previous attempts have been less than glorious. According to Dilbert, the best way to get an engineer to work hard on a problem is to tell him [her] it can't be done. So maybe you can't make Celis at home... Alan Talman E. Northport NY Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 20:13:34 -0500 From: crowld at rapidramp.com (Loren Crow) Subject: Chilis from Chile Sorry to be a total droid, but this has been grating on me for several weeks. Chile is a country. A chili is a spice. I suppose one could brew in Chile, for Chile, or near Chile (or, for that matter, *with* Chileans), but it would be completely impossible to get Chile into a carboy! Cheers! Loren Loren Crow crowld at rapidramp.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 1997 22:09:47 -0500 From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net> Subject: Re: mutant sparging; lost beer; first-time mashing Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au> says: > [sparge by draining lauter tun, refilling with water, stirring, > recirculating again, lather, rinse, repeat...] > My question is ( I plan to try this) will mixing the mash bed so > violently cause irreversible damage. ie Leaving it almost undisturbed > for 1.5 hours beforehand creates a preety decent bed.?? Isn't this the whole point of recirculating again after stirring -- i.e. to re-establish the filter bed? I don't see how anything could be "irreversibly damaged" by stirring up the mash. I guess the big question on my mind is, "why bother"? Unless there's some advantage in terms of *flavor*, doing all that extra work just to get a couple extra points of extraction hardly seems worth it. At a commercial scale -- where you're dealing with tons of grain -- the cost savings add up; but at the homebrew level, an extra $1 worth of malt to make up for less-than-perfect efficiency is no big deal. and "BRIAN F. THUMM" <THUMMBF at GWSMTP.NU.COM> says: > > Recently I was cleaning up my brew cellar and came across > > a batch of a IPA that has to be at least 5 or 6 month old. It > > is in a secondary fermentor (glass carboy)... > > How does one forget there is 5 gallons of beer in the basement? Consumption of too many bottles from a previous batch the day it was brewed/racked? I've encountered this syndrome personally on a couple of occasions. I'm pretty sure it's how I managed to turn what was supposed to be a batch of Oktoberfest into something more closely resembling a doppelbock. Lessee... that's 1 pound... 2... umm 2... 3... 4... 4... uhh 4... 5... :-) and then "Moyer, Douglas E (MIS, SalemVA)" asks: > With a combination of fearful reluctance and quivering > excitement, I purchased a 5 gallon Igloo and fitted it with a CPVC > slotted manifold. While I have some leaking issues to resolve, I am > looking forward to taking my first steps towards all-grain brewing. (I > suspect that my parents would not be as proud as of other first steps, > but then they are teetotalers, so I won't tell them...;-) ) Congrats... all-grain is a blast. There's no way I'd go back to extract now. > So, here are my first questions to the group: > > (1) At what rate should I expect the liquid to run off? Yes, I know > that mileage varies, but what range am I shooting for? I want to make > sure that my manifold isn't designed completely wrong. Is 6 > minutes/gallon reasonable? (I haven't put any grain in it yet--I'm > just running water through it.) OK, I'm a dedicated "Phil's Phalse Bottom" guy myself, so I don't have a lot of experience with manifolds... but: This seems slow to me. Once you've got the grain in there, it will likely slow down a lot, resulting in some pretty long sparges. I think you want to cut more (or larger) holes in the manifold, and regulate the flow with some sort of valve on the outflow hose. > (2) What is the normal method to recirculate the first runnings to > build up the filter bed? I lay a perforated pie tin on top of my mash, and pour the first runnings into it using a Pyrex measuring cup. Any method that avoids cutting a "channel" into the grain bed with the wort you're recirculating should work. > How do you prevent HSA? Pour gently. > How do you keep the temperature constant? Heat your sparge water hotter than the temperature you want to maintain in the grain bed. Exactly how *much* hotter you'll probably need to determine by experiment. > Do you care at that point? Not as much as during the mash. During sparging, I generally try to keep my grain bed between approximately 145 and 165F -- a pretty broad range. > (FWIW, I will NOT be buying a pump yet. Of course, who knows about > next week... %-) ) > > (3) How much grain can you mash in a 5 gallon Igloo? 12 pounds should be manageable. For really high gravity brews, you may need to scale back to 4 (or even 3) gallon batches, especially if you want to do multiple rests. > (4) Several people have mentioned mashing in the range of 1.25 > qt/gal. If you are doing several step infusions, do you start with > a thicker mash to make up for the boiling water added later? Yup. Proteolytic enzymes supposedly work better in a thicker mash anyway... and another all-grainer-to-be, "David L. Thomson" <dlt at ici.net> asks: > I would like to start mashing i have a mash tun and sparger setup made. > My poblem is boiling the volume from a full mash. I only have a 5 gal > enamal caning pot. And do not possess the funds as of yet to buy a 7-10 > gal pot and the burner/ vent to boil it. Is it ok to use two smaller > pots?? does anyone have a source of partial mash recipies?? Two smaller pots, with the hop additions split more or less equally between them should work OK. If (like me) you're brewing on the kitchen stove, being able to use two burners is also a plus in that it cuts heating times in half. Another possibility would be to sparge only enough to collect about 4 gallons of runnings, and do a partial boil, just as you would with an extract batch. If you decide to try this, keep in mind that you'll need to increase the grain bill by around 20%, to compensate for the lower extraction efficiency... - -- == Mike Uchima == uchima at mcs.net == Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 00:12:57 -0700 From: "Charles Rich" <riches at halcyon.com> Subject: 132F Good - 122F Bad In HBD #2487 Dave Burley says: > Charlie Rich, criticises me for apparently saying that > 122F produces heading proteins. Actually I criticise the suggestion that it's a worthwhile rest at all. I'd recommend you obliterate it from your library before children or other innocents see it. > There is plenty of protein available ( as the volume of > the hot break will indicate) to be chopped up before the > mouth feel is affected. Nope, not at 122F, it'll hardly dent your hotbreak protein yet decimate your heading and body pool. Why reduce the pool of medium weight proteins for no practical benefit? You will not find amino starved malt unless you make it yourself. Frankly, I'm earnestly looking for good malt that's so undermodified that a rest like this would be indicated. The closest I'm coming is to have a micro-maltings produce it (not likely soon). Please tell me if you find any. > The biggest danger of a long hold at 122F may be the off > flavors produced by excessive yeast growth or > contamination from bacteria growth may result from the > high amino acid concentration. This is a really wild conjecture. Beating the 122F-Rest drum is bad enough but this could upset novice brewers and start a panic. There are other, scarier hazards to brewing with even more substance: like wearing plaid! The biggest danger of a long hold at 122F is sorry beer. > It often used to be common practice in low modified malts > to hold at both 122F and 135F, but for sure the Germans > held in the 122F region. Highly modified malts need > shorter lower temperature holds since the majority of the > proteolysis was done at the maltsters. That sounds like back-pedalling Dave, why the past tense? Are such malts no longer encountered? Highly modified malts need no lower temperature rests unless around 95-100F or 132-135F, if even. You're lucky to conserve the protein you're left with. > If I remember, I believe the point of the discussion I was > commenting on was how to increase the yield of sugars or > how to use flaked barley. My suggestion of a short hold > at 122F (definitely necessary for flaked barley) was to > chew up the protein matrix using the proteases and > phosphatases active at this temperature , freeing the > carbohydrates for later easy amylolysis. "Definitely necessary" - not. Starch in flaked barley (flaked anything) is gelatinized in the flaking process and freely available afterward. One might hope to develop more medium molecular weight proteins by a rest at 132-135F from the protein left, but if I remember, you simply recommend a flat rest at 122F, which is what I take issue with. > As I understand it ( do you agree Charley?) this chopped > up matrix along with all the other high molecular weight > proteins will be used later ( at 135F or thereabouts) to > produce the mid-molecular weight heading proteins as (in > my suggestion)as the mash is heated up from 122F to 155F > and passing through the high 120s and mid-130s. No, that's silly. You're suggesting a worthless rest at 122F so you can breeze through a really useful range, and expect benefit? What if you infuse to your next step? Why not simply spend that rest time at the right temperature? Also, peptidase don't chop, they nibble from the ends, yielding amino acids and tiny peptides. The rest at 122F wouldn't "chew up" the matrix. the rest at 132-135F would have a chance, if it were even needed. > As I read your comments, you would not hold at 122F under > any circumstance - contrary to my understanding of most > of the professional activity with adjuncts today. That's putting it over-positively, I wish I had occasion to use it, I believe I'd know what I was doing. It might have been put forward once as a means to reduce chill haze from the heaviest medium MW proteins, by obliterating the MMWP spectrum altogether, but that's so heavyhanded the current literature is way beyond that. You might want to reacquaint yourself with the literature. I don't know who popularized the rest at 122-125F (I suspect it was another of my namesakes) but it's been repeated so many times without reflection that it's recklessly taken as gospel. I'm saying that it's not. Charles Rich, Beer charmer (Seattle, USA) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:45:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Malt beverages I have been asked by several freinds, what is a malt beverage. This is the alcoholic drink known as brezers by Baccardi. Does any body know why these are caled a malt beverage? _________________________________________________________ Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company - --------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 06:27 PDT From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns) Subject: Predicting SG of First Runnings Here's a grain bill for a barley wine I'm thinking about for this coming weekend: 1.00 lb. Cara-Pils Dextrine 2.00 lb. Cara-Vienne 1.00 lb. Light Dry Malt Extract 2.00 lb. Munich Light 0.50 lb. Oats 8.00 lb. Pale Ale 0.25 lb. Roast Barley 0.75 lb. Wheat My plan is to take only the first runnings and make only 2.5 to 3 gallons of finished beer. Question is, how do I predict the gravity of first runnings? I use a rectangular ice-chest with slotted copper tubing manifold. I get about 70% efficiency according to potential yield of each malt. This is consistent over many batches in the last couple of years. Anyway if I load it with 1.25 quarts of water per pound (just under 5 gallons) and I lose 1 pint per pound of grain (absorbed by grain), how do I figure gravity of first runnings? I'll end up with about 3 gallons of first runnings by just draining the mash tun. Any idea what the SG will be? I'll add 2 gallons of water which'll boil off in 90 minutes to leave me with about 3 gallons. But what will the SG be? SUDS predicts 1.124 but that's with a 3 gallon sparge. Charley (cross eyed from staring at the calculator) in N.Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:27:39 -0400 From: Gordon & Cindy Camp <revcamp at epix.net> Subject: Chocolate & Money In relation to the chocolate question, powder vs. bakers, has anyone tried using coco beans? ************************************ Dana asks: if you add up the prize money you get $1750, divide that by $25 per entry and you only need 70 entries to pay for all the prize cash (and what - 4 more entries to pay for the plaque?) - so what do they need all the rest of the money for? You hit on the reason early on in your post, they are a buisness. Which its sole purpose in life is not to serve us or make our lives better but turn a profit. Not only will they get money from entries but HBs who go to drop off their entries will wander around and see the store's vast array of beer and buy some (maybe this is good for us as we might find a source of good and interesting beers). Remember that everyone is trying to make a buck, well except the US Govt. which clearly is not in business to turn a profit. Speaking of the Govt, with all the top notch spending on needed research do you think if we all wrote our reps in dc that they might send us some grant money to investigate whether the BATF has infultrated our ranks and is secretly infecting us with botulism? Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 07:53:53 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: Stuck lager w/ 2206 Hi all, Louis writes in with the disappointing results (or lack thereof) of his RIMS vs. decoction vs. infusion experiment. He complains that Wyeast 2206 (Bavarian Lager) has conked out. I hate to admit it, but this happens to me fairly often with both this and (more often) with 2308 (Munich Lager). I find that swirling the carboy twice per day (or more) will allow the beer to finish. I don't know if it is because this releases CO2 (the toxicity demon) or simply resuspends the yeast, but it works. Louis noted that the yeast was still viable (I guess you checked with methylene blue?), so this should do the trick. I have tried repitching fresh yeast and found that it does not work as well as swirling the carboy regularly (and is more work). I would definitely NOT pitch an ale yeast! You've worked so hard to create a clean lager. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 09:24:13 -0400 From: "Richard Cuff" <rdcuff at worldnet.att.net> Subject: HBD #2488 comments - CO2 Darrell (<darrell at montrose.net>), in HBD #2488, posts about CO2 grades. >>Bottom line: CO2 is CO2. The only differences in the gas industry that >>I know of are Medical Grade CO2 and Ultra High Purity CO2 for the >>semiconductor industry. >>These two grades of gas are simply tested for >>purity, but typically come from the same source that the >>beverage/welding/industrial grade comes from. This is usually the case >>with Argon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen as well. Industrial grade oxygen and >>Medical grade oxygen cylinders both get filled from the same bulk liquid >>tank. - -- -- -- Having worked for an industrial gas producer for 11 years, and having spent 10 years supplying goods & services to the semiconductor industry, I'll amplify Darrell's comments a bit. CO2 isn't used much in semiconductor manufacturing, but his comments on CO2 are on the mark. CO2 use in food is primarily in the cryogenic - liquid - form, for use in food freezing. For the other gases, there are often additional purification steps done for the semiconductor ultrapure grades of gas, in addition to vapor withdrawal from a storage tank's headspace. There are also special packaging, storage, and transportation procedures to keep impurities to the parts per billion or parts per trillion level. For many industrial applications, there are new membrane separation techniques used in bulk supply settings for instances when purity requirements can be relaxed. However, I don't know of any cylinder filling plants using membrane separated feedstock. For medical grade O2, as well as breathing air, the main impurity to watch out for is CO - carbon monoxide. A few lungsful of CO can mess up one's day. Sorry for the diversion from brewing. Control of your monitor has now been released. Richard Cuff Lutherville, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 09:48:37 MDT From: guym at Exabyte.COM Subject: Re: Airstones in kegs Guy Mason <guy at adra.com> writes: > I'd like to hear from anyone out there that uses an airstone to > carbonate > their kegged beer. How do you set it up? Is it worth the money? > Easy to use? etc. Guy, I have one of "The Stone" stones that I have occasionally used in my kegs to carbonate mainly stouts. It is easy to use (though not as easy as not using it) but, as for being "worth the money", I don't know. The end result is carbonation and, as has been discussed here many times, carbonation is carbonation regardless of the source (forced vs. "natural", corn sugar vs. malt extract vs. kraeusening, etc.) The bubbles formed by the stone are certainly fine and perhaps "creamy" but, since you don't (usually) just tilt the keg up and drink from it like a glass, they wind up dissolving into the beer line any other CO2 bubble. I don't notice a difference once it hits the glass. I'm thinking of getting an O2 setup and using the stone for aeration of the wort prior to pitching where I *know* it will make a difference. Guy McConnell /// Huntersville, NC /// guym at exabyte.com "Now I wish I was somewhere other than here. Sittin' in some honky tonk, sippin' on a beer..." Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 11:17:05 -0700 From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro) Subject: Nitrogen Dispensing: Does it ruin a beer? Hi all, John posted about the lack of aroma and flavor in a widget can of Guinness. This got me thinking about Nitro dispensing in general. I've noticed that some of my area brewpubs are now serving several of their beers in the manner of Guinness: Nitro mix with a restrictor on the faucet. This knocks the CO2 out of the beer and creates fine bubbles, giving the beer a dense head and creamy mouthfeel. To my senses, it also deadens the aroma (and therefore flavor) of the beer. My theory (which is mine) is that with much of the CO2 knocked out of the beer, the volatiles either go with it or are not carried to your nose by the CO2, making it difficult to perceive the beer's character. Kind of a neat way to serve all-malt, dark brews with little character to offend the masses. Has anybody else noticed this problem with beers served in this manner? Is anybody slightly offended by the unnatural character that this serving technique creates? I guess that all CAMRA members would be, but what about the rest of the homebrewing world? Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:17:09 -0500 From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net> Subject: Re: pub draught Guinness John Goldthwaite says: > Recently was catching the Jazz Mandolin Project and a friend > bought me a pub draught. This is the first time I had tried > one of the newfangled cans. To tell the truth, it was awful. > No mouthfeel,no roasted anything, watery and lame. It had > some hop bitterness, but that was it. I assume this is due to > the Americanization factor, but I sure wish the folks at > Guinness would just send us their original Irish formulation > instead of the weak stuff I tried. Well, before you go dissing the pub draught cans, you need to be aware that there's actually more than one kind of Guinness Stout. Draught Guinness is designed to be a "session beer", and is actually fairly light (in body, not in color). Even in Ireland. (I just returned from a trip to Ireland less than 2 weeks ago.) The stuff you get in the bottles -- Guinness Extra Stout -- is a different animal. Ever noticed that when a bartender makes up a "Black and Tan", the draught Guinness goes *on the top*? That's because its final gravity is *lower* than the stuff in the bottom half of the glass (Bass Ale, typically). Though I've never done an actual side-by-side comparison, I'd venture that the stuff in the widget cans is not too far off the mark, relative to draught Guinness... - -- == Mike Uchima == uchima at mcs.net == Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 12:25:18 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: Danstar dry yeast I haven't used Danstar at all, but after 2 years of exclusive Wyeast use, I decided several batches ago to try out some Cooper's dry yeast in the gold foil packs. Just for the heck of it, I though. Well, 5 batches later and I'm still using it. It produces a very clean beer, even at the higher temperatures I get in the summer (24C). In fact, when I pitch 2 packs of the stuff I get signs of fermentation within 2 or 3 hours, and the ferment is almost completed 24 hours after that. This stuff goes like a bat out of hell! Needless to say I've been very impressed. Coming up soon I'm going to do a couple of parallel 10 gallon batches pitching the Cooper's into 5 gallons, and my favorite Wyeast into the other. I'll be certain to report my findings to r.c.b. and to here. cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Technologies Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 97 12:30:44 CDT From: Brian Bliss <brianb at microware.com> Subject: Re: wood alcohol Jacques Gauthier" <Jacquesg at CAM.ORG> writes: >Are there other fruits/vegetables/grains which have >a similar danger of producing wood alcohol ? (I >find the process of wine/beer making interesting >however I don't want to lose my sight over it). Don't worry - Nutrasweet contains enough methanol (wood alcohol) that half of yuppie America will be blind in 10 years, so you won't be alone... bb Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:29:06 -0400 From: haafbrau1 at juno.com Subject: On MLD Once again, thanks to everyone who helped on the MLD quest. Thanks Dick Dunn, for taking my case to heart, and going to the effort of manually letting me in. I'm sure I'll be able to relay any messages for posting to someone who can actually make the post. Right now I've got a cherry/raspberry ale fermenting (sorry no wheat this time). Any suggestion for a name? Private e-mail OK. Paul Haaf haafbrau1 at juno.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 13:15:56 -0500 (CDT) From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net> Subject: Re: off flavors Greetings to all, and especially Richard from HOMEBREW Digest #2488: :From: Richard Levenberg <richardl at Adobe.COM> ... :My question is there a good way to taste the extremes of the tastes :that an off beer will have ( without poisoning yourself ) without :becoming a judge. Charlie Papazian's book Homebrewer's Companion has (I think in an appendix) a list of ways to dose a typical commercial brew to simulate off aromas/flavors, e.g. add citric acid for one type of sourness. WARNING: most of these are POISONOUS. Some can be drunk, some just tasted and spat out, some just smelled. The book says which. Sam Mize - -- Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:21:34 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bret A. Schuhmacher" <bas at healthcare.com> Subject: Need a mail-order firm with lots of features I need a mail order firm with lots of good features. I like Hoptech for some things, but not for others. I like Williams Brewing for some things, but other things they do seem stupid. I'm looking for a mail order firm that does/has the following: 1) reasonable prices - wyeast < $4.00/pack, used 5 gal kegs < $25 2) free shipping over $40-$50 3) Web site/free catalog. Takes orders via the web or email and *checks their email daily*. Ideally I'd like to be able to track my order via the web like Williams lets you do, but this isn't a huge deal if they acknowledge my order and/or send me a UPS waybill number when they ship it. 4) sells malt extract in custom quantities (i.e. if I want to by 7.5#, that's what they charge me for. I don't like William's prepackaged 6# bags). LME should be about $1.80/#. 5) Sells different quantities of hops. I don't like Hoptech's 8oz bags - how the hell do I keep the rest fresh for the next month or so? I've been to the brewery and seen the mail order list and I've searched far and wide, but I've not been able to find a decent mail order place that does all the above. I used to like St. Patricks of Texas, but they don't check their email and they suck over the phone. Got any suggestions? I'd rather not split orders between two places (how else am I gonna get free shipping? :-)), but I may have to. Thanks in advance! Bret Schuhmacher 3 Stupid Dogs Brewery - -- "I drink to make other people interesting." -- George Jean Nathan Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 20 Aug 1997 15:43:08 -0400 From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu> Subject: SS Keg/Drilling What would be the best way to drill a 1.25" hole in the side of a stainless steel 1/4 keg? This in order to convert keg to an electric boiler w/ submerged heating elements a la Ken Schwartz's "plastic electric brewery" (sans plastic). Private email is fine. TIA, ************************************************************ Andrew J. Stavrolakis Controller LASPAU: Academic and Professional Programs for the Americas 25 Mount Auburn Street Cambridge, MA 02138 phone:617-495-0543 fax: 617-495-8990 email:Andrew_Stavrolakis at harvard.edu http://www.laspau.harvard.edu Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/22/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96