HOMEBREW Digest #2575 Fri 05 December 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

  Keg Insulation (John Palmer)
  Mash conversion completion - Iodine vs. Brix (Barry Browne)
  length of boil (Hans Geittmann)
  What did I make? (Rust1d)
  Flaked, Quick, Pre-gelatinized ... mash schedule? (brian_dixon)
  keg o-rings (Mel D Irvin)
  I need help with identification of Cornelius 'gas in' fitting & poppet. (Clifton Moore)
  neat microbiological toys (Daniel S McConnell)
  Re-pitching ("Val J. Lipscomb")
  Re: Re: Sparging advice please (Kent Townley)
  Accidental Corsendonk Clone (Mike Maag)
  re:rye beer... (Michael Collins)
  calling Dr. Lewis (Steve Alexander)
  Intellectual property law (Louis Bonham)
  Nominations (schwab_bryan)
  Steep/Decoction (RUSt1d?)
  South African Breweries ("Braam Greyling")
  The value of mashout? (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com>
  RE: Whirlpool (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com>
  Histamine Summary (Ninkasi)
  Re: Clinitest/Belgian Ales (Spencer W Thomas)
  water softeners (JSC-CB)" <monika.k.schultz1 at jsc.nasa.gov>

===================================================================== Visit the MCAB website for details regarding the Masters Championship of Amateur Brewing: hbd.org/mcab 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: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 09:24:45 -0800 From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net> Subject: Keg Insulation Hey Dave, I had the same notion several years ago when I built my 3 tier system. I used metallized bubble wrap around the keg about 6 inches off the bottom flange. The bottom edge of the wrap has melted to some small extent from the heat. I really don't think it does a damn bit of good. For 5 gallon batches it may be a small help, but for ten gallon batches the thermal mass of the metal plus that of the mash is more than adequate to hold the temperature. I have brewed on Scott K-ski's (can't remember how to spell his last name) system and he doesnt use any insulation and I didnt notice any difference in mash temp. stability. As a matter of fact, to illustrate the thermal mass of the stainless steel, I have had to start splashing water on the base of my boiling keg during immersion chilling because so much heat is contained in the extra metal on the bottom of the keg and burner. It steams right off. John Palmer jjpalmer at gte.net Monrovia CA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 12:33:25 -0800 From: BBrowne at golder.com (Barry Browne) Subject: Mash conversion completion - Iodine vs. Brix I'd like to discuss how we brewers decide when mash conversion is complete. I have reason to doubt the validity of the oft-quoted iodine test for starch and am looking to the biochemists out there to explain more clearly the specific iodine-starch reactions that cause color changes in the mash samples. I have doubted the iodine test for several years and I have consequently been using a sucrose refractometer to monitor mash progress (this move to a refractometer was made after reading George Fix's comments about RIMS in about 1992-3). Routinely, and regardless of base malt type, I do not see a "plateau"ing of mash refraction index, which to me would mean full conversion, until about 2 hours into the saccharification rest phase. To provide some data to back up this statement for the HBD, I monitored a recent mash with both methods; the data follows. Given: Grain Bill was 21.5 pounds Weyermann Pilsner Malt (nothing else) Strike Liquor 28.5 L (or 7.54 gallons which includes 4L foundation water) 6 g CaCl2 (to give [Ca]++ about 90 mg/L in my source water) Mash schedule: Dough in to stabilize at 40C, rest for 30 min Increase T to 60C over 25 min (anyone think this is too fast?) Rest at 60C for 30 min Increase T to 70C over 17 min Rest at 70C until Brix plateaus Increase T to 77C for mashout Note: I use a RIMS system, Mash tun is 15 gal Vollrath pot with perf plate false bottom. Heat provided by direct fire (with recirc) for Temp increases and set points are maintained by standard RIMS electric heat exchanger. Best of both worlds IMHO. Time Elapsed T(min) Mash Temp(C) Brix% Iodine Test(color) ----- ------------- ----------- ----- ----------- 10:50 0 (dough in) 40 NT NT 11:20 30 Begin to increase temp to 60C 11:45 55 60 NT NT 12:03 73 60 13.4 neg. (black) 12:13 83 60 14.8 neg. (dk.brn to reddish) 12:15 Begin to increase temp to 70C 12:23 93 66.7 (rising) 15.6 unsure but looks positive 12:33 103 70 17.2 positive (no color change) 12:43 113 70 18.8 positive (no color change) 12:53 123 70 19.5 positive (no color change) 13:03 133 70 19.9 positive (no color change) 13:04 Begin to Increase temp to 77C 13:13 143 77 20.0 positive (no color change) 13:23 153 77 20.4 positive (no color change) 13:33 163 77 20.5 positive (no color change) Notes 2: Temperatures are of the grain bed, not of the recirculating wort. All samples were replicated and were allowed to cool to ambient room temp which fortunately was 60 F (therefore no correction required for refractometer). I am very Temp conscious and have calibrated all my thermometers to +/- 0.1C using an NIST certified thermometer. Therefore don't doubt the Temps, I don't allow doubt, it's too important not to be sure. And, as if there's question, yes I am a scientist. NT = not tested These data, which are typical of my mashing experience, reveal several interesting points. 1. Based on Brix values, 16% more conversion takes place after the iodine test indicates complete conversion [(20.5-17.2)/20.5*100=16.1%] 2. Most of the starch conversion has occurred at or below 60C. Questions. 1. If the iodine test is accurate, as appears to be widely accepted, what compounds are being produced to increase wort refractive index beyond indicated complete conversion? 2. Are these compounds fermentable by Saccharomyces spp.? 3. Since some conversion is still occurring at mashout T = 77C, what T really does denature our beloved enzymes? There are more questions I (and others) could ask but I'm most interested in the discrepancy between the Brix plateau at 20.5% and iodine conversion at 17.2%. By the by, I've done the extraction efficiency calcs on the above data and would love to see what values others get for comparison purposes (should you care and have time to figure it out). In that vein, what do most people do about hydration water in these calcs, as grist will absorb about 0.1 gallon per pound that will not be recovered. I assume the sugar in that water will be recovered and in this case, use 20.5% for all strike liquor including foundation water. Therefore 20.5% is about 1.086 86*28.5L (7.54gal) gives about 648.5 total pts divide by 21.5 pounds grist gives 30.2 pt/lb*gal, not that damned good!! Thanks for reading this far. Anxious to hear from the brew wizards. Barry Browne Atlanta, GA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:01:25 -0800 From: Hans Geittmann <hans at whiterocks.com> Subject: length of boil I had the opportunity to shoot the sh*t with a high school friend of mine (Jim Schueller) who started the Harbor City Brewing Co. in Port Washington, WI over the holiday weekend. He insisted that I start boiling my wort for 90 minutes (I boil for 60). When pressed for reasons, the only real one was wort concentration, and that "every brewery boils for 90 minutes..." So, what are the added advantages of boiling for 90 minutes? Would they outweigh the added inconvenience of refilling the propane tank every other batch? Thanks Hans - -- Hans Geittmann (boiling wort for 60 minutes in Palo Alto, CA) hans at whiterocks.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 13:57:31 -0500 (EST) From: Rust1d <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: What did I make? Consider the following recipe: ***** HBRCP 2.0 Recipe: Name: Pine Box O.G.: 1.055 Style: ???????????? I.B.U.: 28.0 Volume: 12.5 Gallons A.B.V.: 5.3% Grains/Fermentables Lbs Hops AAU Grams Min Pale, American 2 Row 18.75 Chinook 10.5 30.00 120 Munich, Belgian 2.00 Saaz 5.4 28.00 120 Biscuit, Belgian 1.00 Tettnanger 4.7 25.00 120 Melanoidin, German 1.00 Tettnanger 4.7 45.00 15 Chocolate, American 1.00 Tettnanger 4.7 45.00 0 Crystal 120, American 0.50 Special "B", Belgian 0.50 Misc. Ingredients Amt Units Black Roast, English 0.25 Breakbrite - 20 mins 2.00 Grams Yeast: Nw Esb & Bavarian Lager Mash at 150F for 30 mins, boost to 154F for 40 mins and batch sparge. ***** This is a recipe for porter but I fermented 6.25 gallons with Bavarian Lager yeast and 6.25 with Northwest ESB yeast. The differences between the two are amazing! I definately cannot call the Bavarian batch a porter any longer. But what can I call it? Would anyone like to pigeonhole this into a sytle? It is too young and yeasty to tell what the final product will be like, but so far it is malty and smooth. Well, what say you? - -- John Varady Glenside, PA - (Someplace slightly warmer then Jeff Renner) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 97 11:14:25 -0800 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Flaked, Quick, Pre-gelatinized ... mash schedule? Question about flaked oats, Quick Oats (like Quaker), other flaked grains ... I assume that most of these will be hot rolled, resulting in pre-gelatinization. What's the suggested mash schedule for these guys? Need a 15 minute 122 F protein rest? Why? How about a 135 F beta-glucanase rest for 30 minutes? Why? If I have a recipe that has 20% (by extract or grist weight) Quick Oats for example, can I get away with just a single infusion mash for sugar conversion? Another question: If breweries like Guinness use as much flaked barley as they do roast barley in their process (this is approximately true), then is it "roasted flaked barley", which will provide similar color/flavor to roast barley, or is it just that light colored "pre-gelatinized flaked barley" that you see at most homebrew shops? Third question: Some homebrew shops don't have a malt called "roast barley", but instead have 2 grades of the stuff called "light roast barley" and "dark roast barley". I assume if a recipe asks for "roast barley" that it means "light roast barley" (400 L? Can't remember). What are the differences between the various roast barleys and the various black barleys, e.g. "black barley" and "black patent"? Best regards, Brian dixon ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:04:46 -0500 From: melathome at juno.com (Mel D Irvin) Subject: keg o-rings Anyone have a trick to getting the old rubber seals off of a coke keg? Want to replace the liquid out side and thought it was worth asking if anyone had a trick out there. Private e-mail is fine. Sincerely, Mel Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 13:09:06 -0900 From: Clifton Moore <cmoore at gi.alaska.edu> Subject: I need help with identification of Cornelius 'gas in' fitting & poppet. I need help with identification of Cornelius 'gas in' fitting & poppet. I have some gas in fittings that seem to deviate from the standard. They came off Cornelus 3 gal soda kegs and look for all the world to be identical to the standard but for a four point grove pattern that looks to have been carved into the top of the fitting surrounding the poppet seat. The machining has left a small dimple of metal on the inside where the poppet center is meant to rest. This rugosity seems to prevent the poppet head from fully allowing the gasket to make a seal. I got the original poppets mixed up with some standard fittings in the process of cleaning the batch, but there doesn't seem to be any difference in the poppets, and I have had no luck getting a seal by switching other poppets in. Are these not Cornelius fittings? Is there a special poppet or gasket required to make the seal? Thanks for any help. Clif cmoore at gi.alaska.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:45:39 -0500 From: danmcc at umich.edu (Daniel S McConnell) Subject: neat microbiological toys From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net> >whilst attending siebels, Dr Joe Power found these commercially >available tubes of various sugars, a sample would be drawn thru >and in several days you would be able to tell what sugars the "beast" >could deal with...kinda neat toy but probably expensive for homebrewers. > >anyone know of these devices?? not sure if they were ever successful >in commercial applications or not.... I have used these on occasion, but can't recall the manufacturer (Difco? Well, it WAS in 1976). I do remember that they were useful for differentiation of bacteria. You plated the sample to isolate single colonies and then used this device. Based on the sugar fermentation pattern and a gram strain, you could determine (usually) if the colony was E.Coli, Proteus, Shigella, Klebsiella etc. No way will this differentiate yeast strains and I doubt that it (unless a specific device is designed for yeast) would differentiate between yeasts. Since then (pre-PC dark ages) there are a number of products available, most notably the BioLog system which uses 96 well microtiter plates to perform both fermentation and assimilation tests. Now the problem is not having the proper sugars as much as having too much data to wade through without computer assistance. Even this will not differentiate between strains of Saccharomyces but it will tell a Saccharomyces from a Brettanomyces. Expensive? You bet! DanMcC (970 miles NE of Dave Draper) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:20:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay at NetXpress.com> Subject: Re-pitching Greetings all, Had a thought yesterday that seemed worth a post. My Old Ale isn't carbonating very swiftly or very much. Going back over 10 years of notes, it seems that beers with more than a 50-60 point drop in gravity are *much* less likely to carbonate.(Old Ale had an OG of 1.072 and FG of 1.017-5 weeks in the bottle) Yeah, I know about force carbonating,etc-guess I'm just a bottle filling dinosaur. Does any have a feel for an arbitrary cut-off #?? For example: Drop of 50-60-Repitching recommended Drop of 60+-Re-pitch for sure I've had some *big* beers with big drops carbonate just fine-usually with a massive original pitch of Wyeast 1056 or 1214-but all in all re-pitching seems in line after a big gravity drop. Dave B.,Al K., any of the Charleys,anyone else, got any feelings on this subject?? Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 17:37:13 -0700 From: Kent Townley <krt at hpeskrt.fc.hp.com> Subject: Re: Re: Sparging advice please Brian writes: >This brings up an interesting point for me, Kent. My efficiencies >consistently come in at around 90-94%, which seems ungodly high. I suspect it is not possible to get 90+ efficiency in a homebrew setup. The professionals are generally in the mid to high 80's. Assuming my hypothesis is correct, my guess would be a measurement error in grain weight and/or specific gravity. >So why the heck am I getting such high yields? Are >today's malts so highly modified that they actually have a higher max >theoretical yield than what was published in the Great Grain issue? I don't think so. >I can't figure out why my yields come in so high (most of the time >... my last batch came in at 82%). Also, what risks are there in >having such a high yield? The beer is never astringent, always forms >a nice head, has good clarity and color and is generally pretty great >stuff ... should I worry? If it tastes good I wouldn't worry about it. One data point about efficiency: My favorite "Mega Brewer" holds mash efficiency to 92%. They do not want to extract the last bit of "stuff" (I'm not sure it's all sugar) because it will negatively effect flavor. This may not be such a big issue with more flavorful beers :). >>C. Sparge slowly with or without recirculating depending on the >>condition of the first run off. If it's fairly clear recirculating >>isn't necessary. Temperature is not important!? Dr. Lewis recommends >>staying on the low side. Run first running trough, followed by one >>running of warm water, followed by *cold* water. Once the cold water >>hits the outlet of the lauter tun you are finished. >... seems low. What are the affects on efficiency, and what were the >reasons (quality, efficiency etc.) for sparging this way? This is >new to me! The reasons were based on quality of the final product. Really only bad things can happen when you sparge at higher temperature. Higher temperature will extract more unwanted compounds from the grain than will lower temperature. Efficiency of a sparge at 150F vs 170F is not significant. The cold water addition has two benefits. First it will tell you when to stop because of a change in runoff temperature. second, and probably applicable only to professionals who have to empty the lauter tun by hand is, it lowers the temperature of the grain bed. >>D. Adjust mash temperature or temperatures to the type of malt >>used. This can have a great impact on efficiency. Rests of longer >>than 30 minutes are a waste of time. >Longer for undermodified (continental) malts, eh? Is that what you >mean? No not longer rests, but additions of varing temperatures for different types of malt. ie add a 104F and/or 135F rest. >Longer than 30 minutes a waste? Are you saying that the gain >in efficiency of the longer rest is not worth the trouble, or are you >saying something about the extract from a longer rest being lower >quality somehow? The intent being a start-to-sugar conversion, is >there some risk of something else ending up in the wort when you go >longer, or is this just an efficiency issue? I was trying to say that rests longer than 30 minutes are wasting time because nothing is happening after 30 minutes. All of the enzymes have been exhausted, so why wait? It is needlessly lengthening the brewing process. >>E. Mash out is a waste of time. >Again, it raises the efficiency a few points. Was Dr. Lewis just >implying the extra extract isn't worth the extra effort? Or what? Yes, not worth it and not wanted. Bad things can happen during a mashout, like extracting starch that won't get converted because the necessary enzymes aren't present. Sadly, this has happened to me :(. >>>ii) Does pouring boiling water on top of the grain bed adversely >>>affect the end result ? And to what extent ? I realize that >>>boiling the grains extracts undesirable stuff. But if these >>>dissolve in the water at temperatures >77C (>170F), will they not >>>precipitate back out as they pass through the cooler grain bed >>>below ? >>This isn't necessary so why do it? Some tannins will precipitate in >>the boil but to what degree is unclear to me. I wouldn't take the >>chance since there are safer ways to solve the problem. >One advantage, besides the small gain in efficiency, to a mash out is >the increased grain bed temperature during the sparge. Not a big >deal, the temperature that is, but it does help give you some leeway >on maintaining the sparge water temperature and for preventing stuck >sparges from getting too cool. As far as the boiling water thing >goes, I wouldn't worry about it. If the Germans can boil the mash >(decoction), then I don't imagine that adding boiling water could >hurt much. This is indeed the standard infusion mash technique >(infusion of hot water is where the name comes from). Finally, the >boiling water cools to the equilibrium temperature quickly enough. >It can't possibly have enough time to extract unwanted tannins from >the grain that quickly, nor does it have time to deactivate the >enzymes in the mash. I don't agree with the above. The germans boil the grain and then add it back to a liquid containing enzymes. What is described above is not the same thing. Also, I believe pH would be significantly different between these two scenarios. Beta amylase activity is *zero* after 30 minutes at 150F. Unfortunately I don't have the graphs for alpha with me, but it is safe to assume that there isn't any enzyme activity left by the time you get to mashout or sparge. Sorry for the long post. I hope ya'll don't mind. - -------------- Kent Townley Richardson, TX - -------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:19:10 -0500 From: Mike Maag <maagm at rica.net> Subject: Accidental Corsendonk Clone I brewed a extract ale on 7/9 with 7 lbs of LME, 1 lb crystal malt, 2 oz hallertauer and 2 oz tettnang hops and Nottengham dry ale yeast. I bottled it on 7/24. I tasted one on 8/3 and it tasted great (like my ales usually do). I tasted another on 8/5 and noted some banana ester, still tasted great. I tasted it on 8/22, and it had developed a strange flavor I had never noticed in an ale. I went to a local beer bar and saw a new brew on tap, so I tried it. The beertender said "it's pricey, but good", (I'll say, $7.50 for a 22 oz mug), anyway, it tasted almost exactly like my ale. The beer is Corsendonk Monk's Pale Ale. My beer lacked only a slight nutty note in the finish. I have made this same receipe several times before and it turned out like "regular ale" each time, except this last one. My brewing process includes shaking the 6.5 gal carboy containing 5 gal. wort to aerate, does this sound like a wild yeast might have gotten in? Perhaps Nottingham's QC is lacking, but never had a problem before.. Anyway, I'm down to one bottle of the stuff. I wonder if I make a starter from the yeast in the bottle, the next batch will turn out the same? Any comments? Mike 8*) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 20:13:01 -0800 From: Michael Collins <equinox at halcyon.com> Subject: re:rye beer... > Sheens McGrath says: > > >I want to make a rye beer with 8 pounds Klages and 4 pounds rye malt? > > >What would be the best way to mash it? > > I suggest you also use some dark crystal malt - about a pound. > Unimportant to the sparge - only flavor- to suit personal taste. > The biggest problem is that the rye has a lot of gelatinous > glucans in it and I heartily recommend a a 105 F beta-glucanase > mash for 30 minutes, correct > a 122F protein/glucnase mash for > 15 minutes, past the temp for glucanase rest, but good for a protein rest > 135F MMW protein for 30 minutes maybe overkill on the protein rest? Not necessary at all with 2-row malt. > and then to 158F > with hot water for 90 minutes. Too high a mash temp. The body is already very high; you want to cut it down by mashing at 152-153 F - especially with 1/3 rye in the mash. > It is a MUST to mash out at 170F = or so. Good idea for faster run-off, but the rice hulls takes care of the mash density quite nicely. You _could_ skip the mash out at 168F if you wanted to prolong the mash conversion while it is in the lauter tun. You can also heat the runoff to 158F and hold awhile to eke out a bit more conversion in the brew kettle, but only if you have skipped the 168F step. > Even so, the viscosity of the wort will be high and it is > negatively logaritmically dependent on the temperature - > the reason most mashes stick. Nonsense. Too fine a grind and heavy use of adjuncts are why mashes stick. > The trick is to keep the > wort temperature and the bed temperature UP . Using my two pass > crush method I have a very free running lauter, so I just drain > all the wort off in a couple of minutes at full open without > re-cycling, > put it in a kettle and start to heat it back to 170F. A great way to compact your grain bed prematurely! Keeping it full provides flotation to the grains. > If you historically= > don't have such a quick draining mash, then mix in rice hulls > ( HB store can supply them) in the mash at the beginning of the = > mash to make sure you remove all the starch from them. = Shaking/Rinsing is good enough. Too little starch to worry about. > In the meantime, sparge the grainbed with a little water > around 180F on top Way too hot. And what about the acidity adjustment? He's begging to get excessive astringency extracted from the husks! > and then add the hot 170F wort back > to clarify it and proceed to remove the clarified wort and sparge = > with extra hot 180F water. Ditto > If you held for 90 minutes at 158F > you will not have a starch problem. Reserve this temp step for the tail end of the mash (1/2 hr. is enough at that point), unless you want to terminate the mash conversion with 168F and push for the lowest possible viscosity. If you are quite satisfied with the extent of your conversion and do not feel pressed for time the 168F mash out temp is a good idea though. Michael Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 02:20:30 -0500 From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: calling Dr. Lewis Al K writes ... >Kent writes, paraphrasing Dr. Lewis' talk on mashing: Regarding mash extraction and efficiency. I just ran the numbers from the 'winners circle' recipes in a recent Zymurgy'. The extraction rates were all over the map, from 18 pt-#/gal to 35+ pt-#/gal. I'm not sure what this says except that you can make good beer regardless of extraction efficiency. >>C. Sparge slowly with or without recirculating depending on the >>condition of the first run off. If it's fairly clear recirculating >>isn't necessary. Temperature is not important!? Dr. Lewis recommends >>staying on the low side. Run first running trough, followed by one >>running of warm water, followed by *cold* water. Once the cold water >>hits the outlet of the lauter tun you are finished. > >I posted on this recently, but feel that it is important enough to >post again. I'm pretty sloppy when it comes to mashout (I do it >maybe 10 or 20% of the time), but I do not doubt the benefit. If >you sparge incredibly slowly, then, yes, the benefit of higher temp >is minor, but for normal sparges it can be as much as 10% better >extraction! I've actually tried some cool sparges. I've gotten variable results, but certainly not all bad ones in terms of efficiency. From recent reading it appears that the change in wort viscosity isn't an issue, but that the mash-out temperature increase actually causes small particles to agglomerate instead of staying free and clogging the filter bed. I have a suspicion that the only real value in a mash-out is to wipe the enzymes and glue-up the small particulates a bit more. There was some early work in the 1950's or 60s in which acceptable extraction efficiency was obtained at near freezing sparge temperatures ! Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 04:21:14 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: Intellectual property law Dave Burley and Charles Hudak give us their views in HBD #2573on who "owns" the rights to a recipe: the brewer or the brewery. Unfortunately, their views are largely inaccurate from a legal standpoint. (And yes, I am an intellectual property lawyer, though I play brewer on [public access] TV.) Dave and Charles are correct in saying that, absent an agreement to the contrary, intellectual property created by an employee in the course and scope of his employment generally belong to the employer, not the employee. Based on this, they reason that since recipes are intellectual property, and intellectual property belongs to the employer, the recipes belong to the employer. Q.E.D. The flaw in this logic is that recipes are generally *not* protectable intellectual property. It is abundantly clear that recipes cannot be protected by copyright (a particular text *description* of a recipe might be, but that can't stop someone from using the *idea* represented in the text; e.g., while I can't go out and make copies of a copyrighted cookbook, there's nothing illegal in cooking -- even commercially -- according to the recipes reproduced in the book). It is theoretically possible that a recipe could be the basis for a process patent (the methods for making Zima and ice beer are patented, although the latter patent is being challenged), but it's fair to say that this possibly is essentially nonexistent for the kinds of recipes we're talking about. So far so good. Recipes aren't protected by copyright, nor are they likely to be patentable. So how do the big boys protect themselves from having their recipes copied? They do the same thing Coca-Cola has done successfully for decades: use trade secret law -- a state law concept. An employer *can* protect a recipe that his employees have developed *if* he jumps through all the necessary hoops to make it qualify for trade secret protection. The big boys do this in spades: when you go to work for them, you sign complex nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements, in which you agree not to use or disclose the employer's trade secrets except in the performance of your duties. These employers also take steps to make sure that the "secret" recipe is in fact kept a secret, and that limited number of employees who are privy to the recipe are informed that it is a trade secret subject to the nondisclosure and confidentiality agreement. So where does that get us in the typical situation, where a brewer -- an employee -- of a brewpub or micro creates a recipe, but there is no employment contract, NDA, or confidentiality agreement, the boss has never implemented any sort of trade secret policy (indeed, he probably never even thought about it until too late), and then the brewer leaves and starts using the recipe at another brewery. Can the former employer stop him from doing so? Under the laws of most states (YMMV, so check with competent counsel before doing this), the answer is no. Unless the employer has taken the necessary steps to treat the recipe as a trade secret, it's fair game -- not just for his former employee, but even for his competitors. (Note that this doesn't mean that an angry former employer couldn't force his former employee to spend thousands of dollars getting a court to declare this fact. Often times, "you can beat the rap but not the ride.") Can the former employee stop his former employer from brewing "his" beer without paying him royalties? Nope, because the recipe isn't his -- or anyone's -- protectable intellectual property. It may be his idea and his creation, but not all ideas and creations enjoy the protection of intellectual property law. The employer's actions may be a sorry thing to do from an ethical (and business) standpoint, but legally they're on solid ground. I do agree with Dave that the prudent thing for any brewer -- or brewery -- to do is to have detailed, written agreements up front that resolve all these (and many other matters) as a matter of contract. ("Good fences make good neighbors.") In the absense of such agreements, however, neither side enjoys much in the way of protection. Louis K. Bonham lkbonham at phoenix.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 97 07:24:33 -0600 From: schwab_bryan at ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil Subject: Nominations Greeetings to all of my fellow Homebrewers! In HBD#2573, Ron Laborde nominates his wife for an Award. Great!! :) Well for what it is worth, I would like to nominate my two brewing partners. My 10 yr old daughter Jessica, and her 13 yr old brother Casey. Eight yrs ago I gainned full custody of them and 4 yrs ago I began brewing, both of them have been through it all with me, from my initation into extract brewing, they would both take turns stiring the boiling wort. Even through the ordeal of the broken Carboy and two cut up thumbs, they were both there for me. Having progressed into full grain Brewing and even a few double decoction brews, yep both of them are there to grind grain, and assist in any way they can. Even with the tossing of the spent grain to the birds and Mash Tun clean up I can alsways count on my Brew Buddies! Recipe formulation is an event with these two in the kitchen! School Essays are written up on the latest Brew Batch we did together. ( Talk about your Parent Teacher conferences...remember... this is the south, and if it is not Religious,it is frowned upon.) I had to chuckle to myself during the posts of disgruntled Spouses who gave their Husbands "Hell and Grief" for brewing in the kitchen and messing up the stove......My Kids actually asks me when we are going to brew and if I am not, they get upset! (gotta appreciate that early dedication to a hobby) We do not worry about stained stove tops, spilled wort on the floor, or Saturdays or Sundays waisted on brewing instead of shopping trips. We brew beer and make Soda Pop together, as it should be!! So I nominate my two Brew Buddies For "Brewers Assistant" of the Decade!!! May they both take this interest to the next generation with a new level of devotion and dedication!! Bryan E. Schwab Panama City FL. Schwab_Bryan at ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 08:39:13 -0800 From: RUSt1d? <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Steep/Decoction some guy asks about extracting tannins: My understanding is that the ph of the water has the greatest influence. In a steep/boil situation there is generally too much water for the grains to affect the ph very much. In a decoction, the grains drop the ph into a range where tannins are not extracted. This is why in Noonans book, Brewing Lager Beer, he stresses the importance of the mash ph and how you should not proceed with the first decoction until the ph has dropped into an acceptable range. - -- John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Boneyard Brewing The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program Glenside, PA rust1d at usa.net Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:03:42 +200 From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.com> Subject: South African Breweries Just for interest sake I send this to the Digest. I got it from rbpmail. SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERY South African Breweries Ltd. has a reputation as one of South Africa'sbest- managed companies and one its toughest competitors. SAB produces 14brands, from its leading Castle and Lion to Heineken, Guinness, Amstel andCarling Black Label, the last four all brewed under license, according to astory in the New York Times. Selling about 98% of South Africa's beer, the company is virtually a monopoly. During the volatile early 90s, SAB trucks venturing into black townships were often hijacked and firebombed. The company loaned its black drivers the money to buy trucks and trained them to run small businesses, hiring them as contractors. The attacks ceased, and many blacks are now in middle management. In fact, 93% of its customers are black. Currently, SAB is expanding overseas very aggressively, including elsewhere in Africa, the European continent and China. It is the fourth largest brewing operation by volume in the world, after Anheuser-Busch, Heineken and Miller Brewing. (New York Times, from an article by Donald G. McNeil, Jr.; August 27, 1997) Braam Greyling Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:52:20 -0600 From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com> Subject: The value of mashout? In HBD #2573 Al K. and Kent were discussing the value of doing a mashout (or lack thereof). Agreeing with Al, It has been my (limited) experience that extraction will increase by several points when done. Being a frugal Yankee type, and considering that "time is money", I have come up with a *modified* mash-out technique. What I do is to nearly drain the mash after the sachrification rest is complete. I have a mashing excel spreadsheet to calculate my rest temps & infusions that also calculates how much available liquid there will be in the first runnings. After draining, I do an infusion with boiling water to bring the grain bed to 168-170 degF. Since I've removed some quantity of liquid, this infusion is smaller than it would be otherwise. While allowing the mash to rest, the first runnings are already on the flame. My thinking is that this technique allows me to bring both the grainbed and the thin mash (first runnings) up to temperature to denature enzymes. It might allow a marginal increase in efficiency since this mash-out infusion is applied to a grist with some quantity of the sugars already removed. It also allows me to save time in bringing the wort to the boil as part of it is part way there already. So my question is, what's wrong with this scenario? Why don't I hear of others using this sort of technique? Regards, Fred Wills Fearless Freddies Homebrewery Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 08:52:13 -0600 From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com> Subject: RE: Whirlpool In HBD #2573 Dave Draper asks, <<Many posts over years have made mention of the whirlpool method to collect the stuff in the bottom of the kettle into a pile that can then be mostly avoided when siphoning the wort into the fermentor. This has never worked for me, and I am wondering why. In yesterday's batch I tried once again. After chilling with my immersion chiller, I removed it and then gave the wort a good firm stir for about 30 seconds to get it rotating nicely, then put the lid on and went away for about 10 or 15 minutes. >> I would say that it is simply a matter of time, Dave. *More* of it, to be specific. Try stirring the whirlpool for 3-5 mins and don't be bashful. Realizing that the wort is chilled at this point, any O2 you introduce is beneficial. It takes some finite amount of time for the particles to migrate to the center of the whirl centrifically. The second key time is to let it settle for much longer. I used to be in a big rush to get the beer safely in the fermenter and get that darn yeast pitched, etc. but have come to realize that this is one place where the Charlie P mantra is applicable. If you let it settle longer the trub and hop spooge will settle into a firmer pile (layer?) and you will remove clearer wort. My standard technique is to kill 2 birds and swirl my immersion chiller in the kettle for the last 20 degrees. I increase the efficiency of the chiller by exposing its surface to more liquid and begin the whirlpool at the same time. When I reach the desired temperature I just remove the chiller, cover the kettle, and begin my clean-up. Usually I'll wait an hour or so before siphoning to the fermented, but if I have something else to do, it has been longer (up to 2 hours). Allowing this much settling time makes for some very nice looking wort. If you consider some of the discussion that has gone on here about wort stability testing, 2 hours is not a big deal unless the wort was seriously infected. Just make sure you'll be pitching a big yeast culture and you can make up for those two hours easily. <<What gives? I know that it probably didn't work for me while I was in Sydney simply because the Coriolis force makes such things point the wrong way...*grin*... >> Actually, you would only need to spin your whirlpool CCW to compensate, eh? Simply check your toilet bowl for reference.<g> Trivia question for collective consideration... ...Which direction do you rotate *your* whirlpool? Does it matter? Is it art? Regards, Fred Wills Fearless Freddies Homebrewery Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 10:02:52 -0500 (EST) From: Ninkasi at aol.com Subject: Histamine Summary Dave Burley says : <<Ann has a friend who occasionally gets a histamine reaction from drinking homebrew and wonders why. Examine your recipes. If they have wheat, this may be the problem.>> Actually, one of the beers she *didn't* react to was about 50% wheat. All my other beers have been 100% barley. Curt Schroeder suggests a hop allergy (in a private e-mail). I don't think it's hops, because I'm actually still a novice brewer and have only just begun to get started experimenting with hops, so most of my beers so far have had and ounce of Cascade in the boil and an ounce of Cascade at the end of the boil, including the aforementioned wheat beer. The other beer she didn't react to was a mild that, due to a mistake during mashing, had an insanely low SG. Christopher Lyons posted a warning, which I will pass on. Yes, she is allergic to a number of things--I should have mentioned that in my post but didn't. Sorry. I have no idea what an epi-kit is, so she probably doesn't have one. None of her allergies are really serious, but as you point out, you never know when one might turn deadly. However, oddly enough, none of her allergies are food allergies, so that didn't give me any clues. Jeff Kenton (also email) suggested a barley allergy, which so far seems the most likely suspect. He suggested that a protein rest might break down a percentage of the proteins that cause the reaction. The wheat beer was the first time I tried a protein rest, and the mild was so light it tasted like beer flavored water until about a month after bottling. Then it was sort of like beer soda. Yuck, I hear some of you saying, but lots of people liked it! (homebrewing is so gratifying--everyone thinks I'm so talented now, even when I don't think I did such a great job!) And I could drink one during the day and still be sharp. (Well, as sharp as I ever am! ;) ). My point is, there probably weren't too many barley proteins in that beer. So the upshot is, I think it's a barley allergy. I'll test protein rests and adjuncts on the subject over the next brewing sessions and see what happens. Thanks, All! Ann St. Louis Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 10:07:59 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Clinitest/Belgian Ales I was reading Noonan's New Brewing Lager Beers the other day, and found the statement (paraphrased slightly) that "fermentation is finished when the reducing sugar content is 2% or less." So a reducing sugar content of 1%, as indicated by the Clinitest kit, probably indicates complete fermentation. =S Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:34:09 -0600 From: "SCHULTZ, MONIKA K. (JSC-CB)" <monika.k.schultz1 at jsc.nasa.gov> Subject: water softeners Jeff Hailey (Now brewing in Austin) asked about the effect of a water softener on his brew water. Point: The overwhelming response was that it is high in sodium, low in any other minerals, and not suitable for brewing. Counterpoint: I've been brewing with softened water for ~3.5 years and have produced many tasty beers (extract and all grain) that score very well in competitions. (You knew that was coming didn't you?) Sometimes I'll add some gypsum to my mash, sometimes not. IMBR and I don't even know it? :-) You can brew perfectly fine beer with softened water. Ofcoarse, 'perfectly fine' depends on your definition as such, so YMMV. If you are in to adjusting your water to meet a specific style (I'm not), then softened water is probably not acceptable. Before you go off bypassing your system, etc, etc... see how your beer turns out and decide if you really want to bother. Another one of those rare chick brewers doing it in Nassau Bay, Texas... - Monika - Monika Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/05/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96