---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		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


Contents:
  scaling/bodyless Porter/burners/proteins and rests/Chimay clone/dextrins (korz)
  122F hold, Estimating Split Batch Og, batch sparging ("David R. Burley")
  Lidless boiling and DMS. ("Michael Kowalczyk")
  re: Keg holes ("C.D. Pritchard")
  122 rest and stuff (Scott Abene)
  122 rest and stuff (Scott Abene)
  RE: Winterhook ("Alex Aaron")
  sparge water in a Gott (Alan McKay)
  airlocks and stoppers (homer) (Alan McKay)
  cleaning aluminum (Alan McKay)
  Where to get Unibroue (Alan McKay)
  Problems with Sabco false bottoms (216) 397-4352" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
  Lid on or off? (David Whitwell)
  Re: 122 degrees (Steve Alexander)
  Re: BJCP Exam Studyguide and 122F Protein Rest (Steve Alexander)
  Re: A.J. DeLange? Parts 3 & 4? (John_E_Schnupp)
  Ferulic Acid rest (Randy Ricchi)
  plumber wanted (Ritter, Sharon/Dan )
  Beer Lingustic Origins "Bridal" (Alan McKay)
  Found Keg... ("Samuel W. Darko")
  Bride Ale Linguistic Origins ("Grant W. Knechtel")


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: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:08:40 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: scaling/bodyless Porter/burners/proteins and rests/Chimay clone/dextrins

Sorry about the fact that these are very old topics, but I was in London
for two weeks and then it has taken me this long to begin to get caught
up on my reading.  I also have checked first to see if anyone has posted
responses to these questions before I posted my thoughts.

Richard writes:
>I'm interested in brewing some 1- or 2-gallon batches of various <snip>

>Are there any general recommendations I should follow in terms of
>recipe scaling or technique modification?

The one thing that I can think of is that with a 3- or 4- or 5-gallon volume,
you may not get as good a rolling boil as you do with a 1-gallon boil.
It's just a matter of how much heat your burners can generate and how
quickly it dissipates from the top and sides of your kettle (remember
that you always want to have your kettle partially *uncovered* to allow
for things like DMS to evaporate).  It's much easier to get a good rolling
boil with a small boil volume and therefore you may get slightly better
hop utilization.  You also may lose a larger percentage of water during
the boil.  If you lose 1/2 gallon out of 5 it's not quite as big a deal
as if it's a 1-gallon batch.

***
Charles writes:
>John E Carsten asks in HBD 2474 about a bodiless porter. Well, I resemble
>this problem. I quote his mash schedule "125F for 20 min; 142F for 30 min;
>158F for 45 min; 168F for 10 min".
 
>Not knowing the modification level of the 2Row Klages, I'm going to assume
>that its a pretty average 2-Row Pale Ale malt. The problem I see with this 
>mash schedule is the 30 minutes spent at 142F. I believe that modification 
>level of the malt will leave a low amount of mmw proteins in the malt in the 
>first place and this much time spent at this temperature will convert the 
>remaining proteins to much smaller ones, lowering the body and mouthfeel. By 
>the time the mash got to 158F, there wasn't anything left for the amylase to 
>do. My personal advice would be to do a single infusion mash at 154F - 156F 
>for this Porter.

The bottom-line advice is sound, but the logic is off a bit.  Medium molecular
weight (MMW) proteins are actually *formed* at 142F from high molecular
weight (HMW) proteins.  At 142F, however, beta-amylase is still quite stable
and therefore many of the dextrins in the wort will be broken down to maltose
during the 30-min rest.  According to George Fix, dextrins play a secondary
role in mouthfeel relative to MMW proteins.  Your 20-min rest at 125F will
break much of your HMW and MMW proteins down to amino acids which are
important to yeast nutrition, but there should be plenty of them formed
during malting (yes, Klages is well-modified) and an excess of them can give
you other flavour problems.
 
***
Arnold writes:
 
>I have found a single propane burner rated at 15000 btu's for $14.99 US.  
>I would use it on my 12"dia 5gal stock pots for mashing and bioling.

For many years I used a 12,000 BTU burner for brewing.  It took a rather
long time to get strike and sparge water up to temperature and I had to
keep the kettle lid on partially to keep a rolling boil.  It would be
*adequate*, but a bigger burner would probably cut an hour off your
brewing time.
 
***
Charley writes:
>I too have experienced beer with big bubbles and beer with lots of little 
>bubbles. It seems (now **that's** scientific) to me that the finer bubbles 
>come from beers that I have mashed at higher temperatures, and therefore 
>contain higher ratios of dextrins. Could this be what causes the small vs 
>big bubbles?

I believe that bubble size is also related to the amount of MMW proteins
too.
 
>I have noticed that my **fresh** beer, that which is consumed within 3 weeks 
>of brewing has noticibly more head retention and body than beer that is a 
>month older.

My suspicion would be a very minor infection.  Saccharomyces diastaticus
can eat even starch and has no problem with any size dextrins.  Many
bacteria will eat proteins, so they will reduce head retention and body.
In any event, better sanitation is the key.  My weak link was that I was
aerating with plain old room air.  My summertime "clove beers" cleaned-up
when I switched to filtered air and then oxygen.
 
***
 
Eric writes:
>A Chimay clone per _Brew Your Own_, July 1997, Vol. 3, No 7:
> 
>9#'s Pale Ale Malt
>1oz Black Patent
>1# Brown Sugar
>10oz Golden Syrup
>2oz Hallertauer
>1oz Kent Goldings
>Yeast starter from a bottle of Chimay Cinq Cents
>5/8 cup brown sugar for priming

I'd like to point out that an important part of the flavour of Chimay
Grande Reserve (capsule bleu) and Premier (capsule rouge) is Special B
malt.  It gives the beer that defining raisiny character.  I believe
that the molasses flavour imparted by the brown sugar would be completely
out of character for this beer.  If it's dark candi sugar you seek, then
US brown sugar is a very poor subsitute.  Get some dark candi sugar or
(carefully) caramelize it yourself (see the archives).
 
***
 
Charley writes:
 
<snip>
>[Jeff] Second, Ken Schwartz
>Also, I have read that 
>crystal malt and cara-pils malt contain a high proportion of
>dextrins.  Some brewers use these malts, especially cara-
>pils, to add body to their beer <snip>
> 
>[C] I think you are confusing body and richness, an easy confusion to make. 
>The dextrins from cara-pils contribute richness, the carmelized malts 
>sweetness. Neither will do much for body since the proteins are all gone. 
>So, we use carapils for richness but keep the mash temp in the mid-low 150's 
>to maintain a higher level of body. This is why temperature control is so 
>critical in mashing. Being off by 2 or 3 degrees F can drastically alter the 
>final product.

In addition to crystal malts (aka caramel malts) lending a little
sweetness, some body (via dextrins), and a varying amount of caramel
flavour (depending on the darkness of the crystal malt), couldn't
they also add MMW proteins?  Why are they all gone?  I'm afraid I don't
agree that keeping the mash tem in the mid-low 150's F will give you
a higher level of body.  While MMW proteins are more important for body
than dextrins, dextrins *do* contribute and mashing near 150F will
make for a very fermentable wort *low* in dextrins.  Finally, I don't
think that 2 to 3 degrees F makes a *big* difference.  Poking a long-
probe thermometer around my 155F mash showed that different parts of
the mash ranged from 145F to 170F!  No amount of stirring evened the
temperatures.  We should *try* to keep our mash temperatures even and
shoot for the low 150's for fermentable worts and high 150's for
dextrinous worts, it's all really statistics that determine whether
fermentability.

>[JEFF]  Or, maybe the question should be, why add
>cara-pils when you can just raise your mash temperature to
>contribute to a more dextrinous wort?

I believe that cara-pils and the other crystal malts add more than
just dextrins... they add flavour too.  Cara-pils indeed adds less
than the others and until we do some experiments to find out what
exactly is in various crystal malts, we won't know.  I wouldn't be
surprised if there were a lot of proteins in there too and perhaps
a higher percentage of limit dextrins (which are unaffected by the
enzymes) than in a base malt.  This is all speculation mind you...
I've never seen the protein and sugar composition of crystal malts
spelled out in any book or article.  If someone has seen them, I
would be very interested in pointers.

Al.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:09:05 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: 122F hold, Estimating Split Batch Og, batch sparging

Brewsters:

Jim Busch kindly responds to my need for professional comments by saying:=


>Dave, the need for a 122F rest is pretty much gone. =


I assume you mean this to be for cases where there are no adjuncts?
 Or for all brews?

> I know several =

>Bavarian brewmasters with Weihenstephan Diploms who routinely dough
>in around 132-135F with German pils malts in the hope of retaining
>some minimum degree of head retention.

What puzzles me is that I use the 122F hold *briefly* but spend perhaps
45 minutes in the protease area of 122-135F and have great
 head retention and body in all of my beers with minimal chill haze
 after a couple of weeks in the fridge. It could be, of course, that I
would
 have even greater head retention, body and chill haze by skipping this. =

 I think this brief hold at 122F provides FANs especially in adjunct wort=
s,
 softens the structural protein in the malt allowing greater access to th=
e
 starch "cells", chops up the longest ( maximum probability) protein
 chains,  hydrates the enzymes and gets everything ready for the
 efficient  assault on the carbohydrates. =


I do this 122F hold on all malts, but for those malts that show a soft bi=
te
( I.e. when I bite the grain it pulverizes) I use a short hold.
For those malts whose bite is as hard as Chinese arithmetic,
I use a longer hold.

 The harder the grain, the lower the modification. =

 Some of the pils malts from Germany are pretty hard.

 What puzzles me is why George Fix suggests the (IMHO) useless
 hold at 40C.  If there is a pH problem we can adjust the pH with
 lactic acid instead.  Of course, for the higher temperature kilned
 malts like British Pale Ales no phosphatase exists anyway and this
 40C hold does nothing except allow lactobacillus to grow. =

 So why the 40C hold?? Is this only for Pils malts?  What am I missing?

>Ill stick with the opinions =

>and practices of Diploms and Prof Narziss on this one.

Well, being a stubborn SOB, as I am, and perhaps stuck in a
decades-old rut of my own making, I'd like to know that this is the
*best* way to do it and not just a commercially practical method that
 the Germans can get away with.  I'm sure Budweiser makes these
 kinds of decisions all the time - why not the Germans? With the
 advent of filters able to extract chill haze proteins commercially,
 protein management in the mash becomes less of a necessity
 and these changes to reduce mash time may reflect that.
  OTOH, I don't want to be doing something stupid in my
 brewing practices. I have plenty of other activities where I can do that=
=2E
 I will have to get my hands on some of the English or
  German literature which contains the kind of
 protein-molecular- weight-in-beer as a function of
 mashing parameters information I'm looking for.  Any references??

>other.  BTW, I have a two part series on this subject running in the
>current and next issue of Brewing Techniques.

I'll look forward to reading it when I get my current issue
 - it should be here.  where is it? I wonder. Thanks.
- ----------------------------------------------
Charley Burns, Ken Schwartz  and Bryan Cronk have been
 discussing how to estimate the OG of a non-sparged batch. =

 Its easy if you assume the efficiency of the enzymes is 100% =

and that the wort and the water in the grain has the same
 sugar content ( not a farfetched assumption).  Malt holds
 about 1 pint of water per pound absorbed into it. In the
 simple case where a quart of water per pound of malt was
 used in the mash, half of the sugar generated in the mash
 will be in the spargeless wort, the other half in the grain..

If you know the total amount of water added to the mash,
 then multiply the amount of sugar generated by the mash
 ( based on the theoretical utilization of the carbohydrates)
 times the ratio of the number of quarts of water added
 minus the number of pounds of malt divided by the total
 number of quarts.  This is the amount of sugar obtained
 in the spargeless wort.  This amount of sugar in the =

amount of water after the boil will allow you to estimate the OG. =


 Alternatively, the theoretical OG of the sparged wort
 (say 1.060, for example) in 5 gallons
 ( using C Papazian's numbers) times the ratio of
 the water in the spargeless wort to the total water added
 divided by the amount of water in the spargeless wort =

after the boil will give you an estimate of the OG.

Thus, in an example where 10 pounds of malt was used
 with 1.5 quarts of water per pound, the spargeless wort
 should have a volume of  10*( 1.5 - 0.5)  =3D 10 quarts.
  As a way of thinking how to solve this, If ten pounds
 of the malt used should give an OG of 1.060 in five gallons
 of sparged wort (per Charlie's tables), then the
 spargeless wort should theoretically give 10/15 or =

an OG of 1.040 if it were diluted to five gallons.
  If this theoretical 5 gallons were boiled to say 2 gallons
 then the OG would be 5/2 of 1.040 or 1.100.
 This is in the right range for a barley wine.

Applying this reasoning to batch sparging, we can see
 that after one batch sparge equal to the volume of wort
 in the grains, we will obtain about 3/4 of the original sugar
 (75% efficiency) a second sparge will release half of that
 sugar in the grain so two sparges plus draining off of the
 original wort will give a recovery of 7/8 (87.5%) of the sugar. =

 A third sparge of this volume will give a total recovery of 15/16
 of the total sugar or an efficiency of  93.75%. =

 In the above example, based on this, a sparge volume =

of 30 quarts plus the original wort (total boil volume of 40 quarts
 or ten gallons)  will be needed to get a high recovery
 with batch sparging.

  Now it is possible to see why continuous (or fly) sparging
 is the better alternative to getting high recoveries with a
 minimal boil volume, since the wort is being washed in
 more and more dilute sparge water continuously =

 - sort of many incremental batch sparges.  =

 =


Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 10:28:58 -0700
From: "Michael Kowalczyk" <mikekowal at megsinet.net>
Subject: Lidless boiling and DMS.

I boil for 30 min with the lid completely off, then 60 min with the lid on
about 40%.  My reason is I use a 33 quart canning kettle and if I boil for 90
minutes with the lid completely off, I get about 4.5 gallons instead of the
5.5 gallons I prefer (more beer is good, less beer is bad).  Don't know what
DMS tastes like, but my beers taste great.

 - Mike from Chicago

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:58:48 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Keg holes

Dave Williams posted in response to a question on drilling and mounting a
heating element in a SS keg:

>Ken uses the "screw in" type element and (if I'm interpreting his
>description correctly) pinches the bucket wall between the gasketed element
>and a female threaded adapter to provide a leak proof seal.  I would be
>concerned that due to the curvature and relative inflexibility of the keg
>wall, this might not work as well with a keg.  I'm just speculating though
>because I haven't tried it.  Anyone else?   

First a disclamer, I have screw-in elements in the plastic pails I use for
RIMS tun, HLT and boiler but have absolutely no experience with SS kegs.  (I
have drooled over them tho' <g>) The gasket which comes with the screw-in
type elements is fairly soft (a bit softer than a typical red rubber garden
hose gasket), fairly thick (~3/16"), and not too wide (i.e. OD minus ID =
~3/16").  Based on these factors and the larger diameter of a keg when
compared to a plastic pail type, I'd being sure try a screw-in element on a
keg (if I only had a keg to try it on!).   One tip tho': use a copper nut
liberated from a fitting with a 1" female NPT outlet and use teflon tape on
the heater element to ensure you can torque up the joint well enough to
compress the gasket (the teflon tape serves as lubricant rather than a
sealant).  Since a keg has a lessor wall thickness than a palstic pail, I'd
also consider using a spacer- the copper "nut" is NPT (tapered) while the
end of the heater element is not tapered.  If the sucker did leak, one could
use a hammer and backer block to flatten the mating area or switch to the
type of element Dave uses.

>Also, with the flange type element, you can drill a similar pattern of holes
>(but larger diameters) in the back of an electrical junction box ( I used a
>4"x4"x1.5" box), mount it over the outside of the element with the same
>bolts passing through the J-box and the element into the keg,  and use it to
>enclose the wiring, ground the element, and mount a switch. 

That's a good reason for going with the flat plate ended type element Dave
uses since grounding is a bit problematical with screwed-in elements.  With
screwed-in type elements, I use a lug affair made from slitted and flatten
copper tubing to afford a place to land the equip. gounding conductor.  The
lug goes between the element and the gasket.  Total "sandwich" (from tun
side out) is copper nut, tun, gasket, lug and element.   A drawing is on the
boiler web page at the URL below.

In addition to the switch Dave mounts on his J box, a neon pilot light would
be handy.

>...At a bare minimum make sure that you have an equipment ground and use 
>fault protected outlets when brewing. 

Excellent advice from Dave!  Conductive fluids, tuns, piping and such and
electricity can make for a lethal combination unless one *understands* and
obeys all the rules.  IMHO, Electricity is less risky to me than using
propane via  cylinders for brewery heat.  Everyone else's perception of the
relative risk will likely vary <g>  

c.d. pritchard   cdp at mail.chattanooga.net 
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:13:29 -0500
From: Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com>
Subject: 122 rest and stuff

With all this talk about the 122 rest being needed or not I thought I would
expose my brewing method for the last year or so. 


I no longer use a 122f mash or for that matter do I use a 110f rest, a 134f
rest, any rest in the 140's or 150's and I never ever burn out my mash... 

Using a little known scientific process developed in the artic hundreds of
years ago by Russian and Native American Q.A.Z.Z.I Engineers using ancient
Aztec and Hindi Brewing methods originally developed by alien time travelers
following Dave Millers 100% extraction methods I now no longer have to use
any mashing process what so ever... 


How is this done you ask...??? Easy... 

I travel around the country with fake ID in hand along with my trusty
listing From "The New AHA" (Can You smell The change?) of all the
subscribers errrrrr. excuse me I meant to say a list of all the AHA
"members"  that brew with canned wort. 


I then claim that they are violating many Health Code rules and wisk away
all their canned wort to my trusty lab where I combine the canned wort with
alll of the "seized yeast slants" that I have gathered from all the othere
AHA suckers.... I mean members. 

The Next step is simple... I boil the canned wort along with my huge supply
of "Ornamental Hops" That many of you suckers... I mean nice folk have been
so kind as to mail me because You can't use them in your Homebrew.... I then
chill the hot wort and add the yeast.... 


Vooooooooooooiiiiiiillllllaaaaaa!

I have made homebrew and never ever did these silly rests that you have been
talking about... 

Keep Those letters coming....


C'ya!

 -Scott







################################################################
#                     ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT                        #
#                Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com>                 #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page) #
#                                                              #
#                                                              #
# "The More I know About Beer, The More I Don't Need The AHA"  #
################################################################
 


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 12:13:29 -0500
From: Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com>
Subject: 122 rest and stuff

With all this talk about the 122 rest being needed or not I thought I would
expose my brewing method for the last year or so. 


I no longer use a 122f mash or for that matter do I use a 110f rest, a 134f
rest, any rest in the 140's or 150's and I never ever burn out my mash... 

Using a little known scientific process developed in the artic hundreds of
years ago by Russian and Native American Q.A.Z.Z.I Engineers using ancient
Aztec and Hindi Brewing methods originally developed by alien time travelers
following Dave Millers 100% extraction methods I now no longer have to use
any mashing process what so ever... 


How is this done you ask...??? Easy... 

I travel around the country with fake ID in hand along with my trusty
listing From "The New AHA" (Can You smell The change?) of all the
subscribers errrrrr. excuse me I meant to say a list of all the AHA
"members"  that brew with canned wort. 


I then claim that they are violating many Health Code rules and wisk away
all their canned wort to my trusty lab where I combine the canned wort with
alll of the "seized yeast slants" that I have gathered from all the othere
AHA suckers.... I mean members. 

The Next step is simple... I boil the canned wort along with my huge supply
of "Ornamental Hops" That many of you suckers... I mean nice folk have been
so kind as to mail me because You can't use them in your Homebrew.... I then
chill the hot wort and add the yeast.... 


Vooooooooooooiiiiiiillllllaaaaaa!

I have made homebrew and never ever did these silly rests that you have been
talking about... 

Keep Those letters coming....


C'ya!

 -Scott







################################################################
#                     ThE-HoMe-BrEw-RaT                        #
#                Scott Abene <skotrat at wwa.com>                 #
# http://miso.wwa.com/~skotrat (the Homebrew "Beer Slut" page) #
#                                                              #
#                                                              #
# "The More I know About Beer, The More I Don't Need The AHA"  #
################################################################
 


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 11:58:19 -0700
From: "Alex Aaron" <aaaron at pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: Winterhook

Hello HBD,

There was a question about Redhooks "Winterhook". My dad visited the
brewery on a trip and brought me back information about the various brews.
this is whats said about Winterhook:

Winterhook, our seasonal brew, is available from early November to January.
The recipe varies slightly from year to year in order to take full
advantage of select handpicked hops and custom kilned barley malt. The
addition of subtle elements like Black Strap Molasses and Twin Peaks Honey
make this ale a particuler favorite with long time regulars.

I know this is skimpy information as far as a recipe goes, but it should
provide a good starting point.

Alex Aaron
aaaron at pacbell.net

P.S. Maybe the HBD could take up a collection for Jethro to start the "HBD
Brewpub"



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:36:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan McKay <amckay at magma.ca>
Subject: sparge water in a Gott


Jonathan, I notice a huge difference in extraction when I do a mashout
in my Gott.  Maybe 80% without, 85% with.  That's 5% -- pretty good.
Why not just run a couple of litres out the bottom and boil it in a
pot, the mix it back into the mash to bring up the temp?

I'm no physicist, buy I'm pretty certain that the sparge water trickling
down through will in and of itself have a negligable effect, no matter
how hot it is.

 -Alan

- -- 
                 "Brewers make wort.  Yeast Makes Beer."
                       - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~amckay/
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:38:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan McKay <amckay at magma.ca>
Subject: airlocks and stoppers (homer)


Quick, go immediately to your brewery and gather up all of your number 6.5
stoppers and take them and throw them into the garbage!  I could never
understand why someone would use one of these instead of a number 7.
Only once in my 3 years did I ever come close to getting a number 7
jammed in there, but I can well imagine how easy it would be to lose
a 6.5 in a carboy.

 -Alan

- -- 
                 "Brewers make wort.  Yeast Makes Beer."
                       - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~amckay/
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 19:44:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan McKay <amckay at magma.ca>
Subject: cleaning aluminum


Sometimes aluminum gets stains on it that just want to stay there --
so I let them :-)  You can get a specail cleaner at hardware stores,
but even it often doesn't help.  I'd be very doubtful that those stains
would affect your beer in any way at all.

 -Alan

- -- 
                 "Brewers make wort.  Yeast Makes Beer."
                       - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~amckay/
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 20:04:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan McKay <amckay at magma.ca>
Subject: Where to get Unibroue


Eric,

Send Email to my friend Geoff at raftman at smypatico.ca.  He's the local
Unibroue rep for the Ottawa area and may be able to help you out.
He's a pretty decent guy.  Just tell him that Alan said he may
be able to help.  I don't think he reads his email to often, so
patience may be required.

Or phone 1-613-233-8072 and just ask him in person :-)
It's Geoff Skeggs.

 -Alan

- -- 
                 "Brewers make wort.  Yeast Makes Beer."
                       - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~amckay/
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 14:58:58 -0500 (EST)
From: "PAUL SHICK (216) 397-4352" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu>
Subject: Problems with Sabco false bottoms



Hello all,

	I have a problem with a Sabco false bottom that I wanted to 
put before the brewing collective.  I've found this to be very
frustrating, and a search of the HBD archives hasn't provided an 
answer (except a suggestion from Jack Schmidling to replace the false
bottom with an EasyMasher, which is beginning to sound better and
better.)

	I've brewed in the kitchen using Phil's equipment, and later
Easymashers in enamel kettles, for a few years.  In a rare fit of brewing 
ambition (partly in celebration of a Vienna that did well in the NHC in 
July,) I put together a three vessel half-barrel system in my basement, 
using Sabco reconditioned kegs.  My initial plan was to use a gravity feed 
setup, because of worries about hot-side aeration from pumps, but my ceiling 
clearance is too low, and the consistent good results claimed by the RIMS 
crowd reassured me.  Eventually, I settled on using two Teel pumps and 
keeping all three vessels on the same level, heated by 3 natural gas King 
Kookers.  I had toyed with going with a cut-rate system, but decided instead 
to "do it right."  I got the full Sabco "mash tun," with 1/2 inch SS 
ball valve, false bottom, thermometer, etc., a "sparge kettle" outfit for
the hot liquor tank, and drilled a third keg for an EasyMasher for the 
boil kettle. I purchased most of the works from the Grape and Granary in Akron 
(a bit of a drive from Cleveland Heights, but worth it to get personal 
attention and advice, rather than dealing directly with Sabco, Grainger, 
etc.)  I heartily recommend the G and G (www.grapeandgranary.com) to anyone.

	Everything worked smoothly in trial runs, after lots of trips to
hardware stores to get various fittings.  The pumps worked very smoothly,
with gate valves controlling the flow, eliminating my fears about HSA.  I 
was very excited about the whole system, envisioning trouble-free brewing 
sessions that didn't monopolize the kitchen all Saturday morning.  Then I 
did the first batch, a Pre-Prohibition Lager, with about 24 lbs of grains and
adjuncts for an 11 gallon batch.  I used George Fix's 40-60-70 mash program,
and hit the 104F rest on the nose.  I used the mash tun pump to recirculate
during the 104F rest, and everything looked good.  As soon as I added the
hot water to hit 140F, however, the mash stuck and wouldn't recirculate.
Some stirring eventually got it going again, but tons of grain started
flowing out, jamming up the pump.  About an hour's scrambling got the system
backflushed and cleared, and I eventually finshed the batch, but I'm sure
it's way too dry because of the extended period at 138-140F.  When I cleaned
up afterward, I was shocked to see that the SS false bottom had collapsed,
explaining where the grain had come through.  These Sabco false bottom are
pretty hefty (very hard to bend by hand,) so I couldn't quite figure out
how 24 lbs of grain and a 1/25 HP pump could cave it in.  I finally got the
bottom straightened out enough to fold up and remove it, and returned it to
the folks at G and G, who arranged for Sabco to replace it.

	Two weeks (and two more trips to Akron) later, I installed the 
new false bottom and fired up the system again, trying to make my
first barleywine, (now 27 lbs of grain,) only to have the same thing happen 
again.  This time the collapse wasn't as bad (not much grain came through,) 
but the stuck mash prevented recirculation for the longest time.  In fact, 
just about everything that could go wrong with a batch did:  boiled over the 
kettle (even though it was only a 5 gallon batch in a half-barrel keg,) had 
Irish Moss clog up the EasyMasher drain on the kettle, ran out of oxygen while
aerating the carboy, probably tons of HSA from fooling with the pumps.  This
barleywine had better be worth it!  Eventually, I was able to straighten out
the false bottom and fix its hinge, avoiding the embarrassment of bringing 
it back again.

	So, at long last, here's my question.  Have others had problems with
Sabco false bottoms?  Or is my stubbornness in sticking with the 40-60-70
program at fault, since that probably gives me a very thin mash?  I recall
that back in my plastic bucket days, the Phil's Phalse bottom was more 
inclined to set up with a thin mash.  Should I just aim for a thicker mash to 
avoid sticking?  Are people managing step infusions with these false bottoms,
or just doing single infusions?   Should I just punt and go with Jack's
EasyMasher instead (and can it handle enough flow for a Teel pump?)  And,
before anyone can ask, the grains were crushed with a non-adjustable 
MaltMill, so I'm pretty sure it's not the crush.  I tried to use the gate 
valves to keep the flow to about 1 gallon a minute during recirculation.  Is
that too fast? Thanks in advance for any help you can give.

	I guess I wouldn't be so frustrated if I hadn't invested a fair
amount of money in "going first class," just to avoid such problems.  Sorry
about the bandwidth, but venting has made life seem a bit better.  Time to
go unwind some more with a nice ale.  
                                    
			Paul Shick



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 07:35:59 -0700
From: dwhitwell at foxcomm.net (David Whitwell)
Subject: Lid on or off?

I was surprised when I read, first in "Brew Chem 101" (sorry, don't have
the author's name), and then in Dave Miller's "The Complete Handbook of
Homebrewing" suggestions that the lid of the brewpot not be left completely
off.  The explanation given in "Brew Chem 101" was that while you do want
to drive off the volitile DMS compound, you don't want to lose the volitile
oils of the hops before they become isomerized.  The suggestion was made to
leave the lid partially on.  I personally have not brewed enough batches
with the lid cracked to be able to tell a difference, but perhaps some
adventerous brewer could do side-by-side batches and let us know.
Brew On!
David Whitwell
Half-Whit Brewing, Tacoma, Washington
"Because Half the Whit's Brew, and Half the Whit's Don't"

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 22:24:47 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: 122 degrees

nathan_l_kanous_ii at ferris.edu asks

>The 122 degree rest?  I don't use it anymore.  Too many headless beers.  I
>am curious about its use in beers utilizing large amounts of unmalted
>grains such as a belgian wit.  Can I skip the rest and still have enough
>FAN's to provide yeast nutrition?  Also, my impression from posts here is
>that Pierre uses malted wheat in Celis White.  Any truth to this?  Thanks

Yeast require something around 125 to 175 mg/L of FAN for proper
nutrition.  If commercial malted barley contributes about 28 SG points
you should hit the 175mg/L figure without any tricks.  Unmalted grains,
without extensive mashing will contribute only small amounts of FAN.

The wits you refer to, with perhaps 50% unmalted wheat, can stand a 
peptidase rests in my experience, but your FAN levels should be (barely)
OK without it.  I've read that Celis uses raw winter wheat.  M.Jackson
adds begian pale malt, hard water, williamette and cascades, coriander
and curacao orange.  Now if you find the yeast, call me.

Steve Alexander


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Aug 1997 21:28:58 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: BJCP Exam Studyguide and 122F Protein Rest

Charley Burns writes in a quote from BJCP studyguide ...

>"American and Continental malts are generally less modified.  Continental 
>malt is modified only to 50-75%, which retains more of the endosperm for 
>fermentability and creates greater nitrogen complexity, but at the price of 
>reduced enzyme activity.  American six-row is also modified to between 
>50-75%, but the higher protein and nitrogen content of six-row gives greater 
>enzyme strength.  Both Continental and American malts require a protein rest 
>(122 degrees approx.) to degrade the albuminous proteins into fractions that 
>can be both used to promote yeast growth and give good head retention."

The figures you are quoting are apparently the mealy% numbers - that is
the percentage of endosperms that are not 'half-glassy' or 'glassy'
(hard). Pretty subjective. Not the best measure of modification IMO, but
relevent.  This is essentially a measure of the number of ungerminated
and undergerminated grains rather than a direct measure of the degree
protein degradation.  The hard glassy or steely nature of some endosperm
does correspond with high nitrogen levels in the original barley, and
lower germination rates.

A protein rest at 122F will allow both peptidases AND proteases to act
effectively. The higher temp rest at approx 135F suggested, I think, by
Charles Rich will be more suited to proteases(aka endopeptidases) only,
and detrimental to peptidases.  Unless free amino nitrogen(FAN) levels
are in question (very unlikely in an all malt wort) the utilization of
the peptidases at 122F is probably unjustified.

Head retention involves the presence on complex nitrogen compound w/
molecular weight from 10,000 to 150,000 - probably glycoproteins, and
the absence of head antagonists like lipids.  Degrading proteins
probably doesn't aid head retention except that mid-weight protein
compounds, say 10k to 20k MW, survive the boil better than larger ones. 
Permanent haze mostly involves some fairly specific nitrogen containing
compounds with high proportion of the amino acids glutamine, proline,
arganine, and aspartic acid with mol weight of 5000 to 12000 and
isoelectric points below 5 binding to phenolics.  Unfortunately haze
formation and head retention are extremely complex subjects.  Certain
proteinases will only cleave specific amino acid sequences, some haze
causing phenolic compounds can only bind to specific amino acids.  Some
of the same protein fractions that are involved in head formation are
also involved in haze formation.  A simplistic conclusion that
proteolysis is good or bad for haze or head can probably only be
relevent to very specific malt, mashing and boil conditions.

>So does this mean that my Great Western, Briess and Hugh Baird Pale Ale malt 
>can benefit from a 122F protein rest?

No.  Breiss PA is listed as 98% mealy in the BT Market Guide.  All of
the base malts that listed mealy%, were at least 95% except Durst. 
Durst gave wide ranges like 78-96%.  In other words the BJCP mealy%
ranges given are out of date.  The old momily that malt geographical
origin determines the degree of modification needs to be re-examined. 
The only truly useful guide is to look at individual malt data sheets.

>Or is the studyguide in need of an update?
Yes.

Steve Alexander



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 04:42:13 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: Re: A.J. DeLange? Parts 3 & 4?

>Did anyone see parts 3 and 4 of AJ's 4-part series on water chemistry
>get posted?  I saved off the first 2 parts, and I assume that AJ got
>busy and hasn't had a chance to post the other 2 parts ... but just in
>case I missed them, I wanted to ask for them from someone who DID catch
>them.

Brian, et al.

I saw both part back to back in the same digest.  I think is was the
same one that had part 2.  In any case I have all 4 parts merged
together.  If anyone wants all 4 together I can send them.  Maybe one
of the folks who has a web site might be interested in posting them,
*with* A.J.'s permission.

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 09:05:24 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Ferulic Acid rest

In yesterdays HBD, smurman mentioned that a ferulic acid rest at 110 deg.F
is necessary for the true weizen cloviness to be produced by weizen yeasts.

I have found this to be true with Wyeast 3068, but it is not necessary with
BrewTech 920.  I have also brewed nice, clovey weizens with Yeastlabs 51(?)
Weizen yeast without a ferulic acid rest.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 08:33:31 -0600
From: ritter at bitterroot.net (Ritter, Sharon/Dan )
Subject: plumber wanted

I've recently moved from a home brewery set-up that was five years in the
making and perfect in every way to a new house. I am in the process of
building a sink and cabinets but have come up against a plumbing challenge
and I need help! The only plumber I could cajole into coming over to look
at my situation wanted $400 to do the work. The trick is plumbing the sink
drain through some existing drain pipes (for the washing machine) - all
PVC. I plan on doing the work but could use some professional advice. If
there is a plumber that can help I'll sketch out the details. Please
contact me via private e-mail.


Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:58:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan McKay <amckay at magma.ca>
Subject: Beer Lingustic Origins "Bridal"


Sounds kind of fishy to me, given that "-al" is a common ending in
English used in a similar manner.  However, you might want to ask this
question on sci.lang and report back here.  I used to read that group a
lot, and there are many very knowledgable people there in just such
matters.

 -Alan

- -- 
                 "Brewers make wort.  Yeast Makes Beer."
                       - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide
http://www.magma.ca/~amckay/
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 10:18:24 -0500 (EST)
From: "Samuel W. Darko" <sdarko at indiana.edu>
Subject: Found Keg...



	Hello fellow Homebrewers...

I am just returning for another wonderful year at Indiana University which
of course means that I've also just moved in to a new residence.  The
house that I'm occupying for this year has a cellar and yesterday I
finally ventured into it.  To my surprise I found 4 or so cases of
bottles, one small metal keg (maybe 4 or 5 gallons) and one  bottle of
beer!  I guess that someone who lived there before me decided to leave me
a great present!  I know that I can easily use extra bottles and I'm going
to (cautiously) try the beer tonight, but I don't know if I can use the
Keg.  I just started brewing about 9 months ago and because I'm just a
poor college student I can only afford to brew when I can weasel some
money out of the parents or scrape some of my own money together (which
is three times thus far). Anyway
because of my lack in experience I'm not exactly sure how to keg and if I
can even use the keg that I found.  Like I said before it's about 5
gallons, it's metal ,it looks like it has a little ball at the top to
keep the beer in and it has a Coors sticker on the side.  

So can I use it (and how would I use it)?  Or should I just return it to
the local liquor store (where I'm sure that it came from) to get the
deposit and use that money to buy more materials to brew with?   

TIA

Sam Darko

PS I would prefer private responses please.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 01 Sep 1997 10:26:28 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Bride Ale Linguistic Origins

In HBD 2496 Rob Kienle asked about claims that the term "Bridal" originates from
the expression "Bride's Ale." 

>According to the sign, at some point in the past (not sure when or >where), the
family of the bride would brew a special batch of ale to >dispense at the
wedding, and perhaps to sell afterwards in order to >help defray the costs of
the celebration. Can anyone out there verify >the accuracy of this claim or shed
any further insights into the details?

The custom was for a parish to raise money on holidays or as needed by brewing
and selling an ale.  Parish celebrations became known as "Ales" and the wedding,
a "Bride Ale".  See introduction to "Brewing Mead: Wassail in Mazers of Mead" by
Lt. Colonel Robert Gayre for a quick treatment and further sources.  He doesn't
go into detail about the bride's family involvement but it seems likely.  He
also makes interesting arguments about the linguistic origins of our words "ale"
and "beer" in ancient mead culture.  Good reading for the language and homebrew
geek.  
 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents

---