HOMEBREW Digest #2648 Fri 27 February 1998

[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

  Predicting Mash pH (AJ)
  proper sanitation ("John Herman")
  Predicting Attenuation (re: the Druey Equation) and the Modificat ("Riedel, Dave")
  Sages of Siebel Speak / Part 1 ("Rob Moline")
  Siebel Sages Speak / Part 2 ("Rob Moline")
  homebrew cooking - dessert pears (smurman)
  Infusion mashing (Jason Henning)
  5l kegs/cornykegs/carbonation ("Gregg Soh")
  Why buy continental lager malts ? ("Steve Alexander")
  carbon yeast killers ("Ray Estrella")
  Injuneers and spherical horses,water chemistry, ("David R. Burley")
  Re:Chem E's, MEs and EE (Glyn Crossno)
  Hemp Cream Ale (Eugene Sonn)
  weight scales/Mixmasher (Mike Spinelli)
  1/2 barrel mash screens (David Kerr)
  Re: Converting to RIMS (Dion Hollenbeck)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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, 24 Feb 1998 22:00:21 -0400 From: ajdel at mindspring.com (AJ) Subject: Predicting Mash pH I've recently had private communication concerning Kohlbach's formula for predicting mash pH. In particular my correspondant was having trouble with the concept as presented in George and Laurie Fix's "An Analysis of Brewing Science" and Ray Daniels "Designing Great Beers". In the former case, typographical errors (as evidenced by the fact that the formula is given two different ways in two different places - the authors are aware of this) obscure the meaning and in the latter the formula is also printed differently in two places neither of which is correct as increased calcium and magnesium concentrations would increase the pH and the converse is the case. As this formula can be quite useful for prediciting mash pH _approximately_ I thought it might be of interest to have the record set straigt. Kohlbach's observation was that water with 10 degrees of "residual alkalinity" (and we'll get to what that means in a minute) caused the pH of a pale malt mash (12 P) to be 0.3 pH units above the pH realized if distilled water was used. This observation quantifies the relationship between bicarbonate ion in the water (the source of alkalinity) and the hydrogen ion released by the reaction of calcium and magnesium in the water with phytin in the malt. Phytin must be hydrolyzed to phytic acid for this to take place and that hydrolysis requires the enzyme phytase which is largely inactivated in high kilned malts so this calculation is only useful for low kilned malts which, of course, make up the majority of the grist in many beers. Kohlbach determined that 3.5 equivalents (Eq) of calcium reacts with malt phytin to release 1 equivalent of hydrogen ions which can "neutralize" 1 equivalent of water alkalinity. Similarly 7 equivalents of magnesium react to neutralize 1 equivalent of alkalinity. Alkalinity which is not neutralized is termed "residual alkalinity" (abbreviated RA). We are interested not in the total amount of alkalinity neutralized but in the amount per unit volume thus we write: Eq/L RA = Eq/L Alkalinity - [ (Eq/L Ca)/3.5 + (Eq/L Mg)/7 ] Written this way the residual alkalinity is in units of equivalents per liter (Eq/L) as are the alkalinity, the calcium concentration and the magnesium concentration. If all terms in the formula are scaled by the same factor the formula still holds so that, for example, if we multiply both sides by 1000, the units for all quantities would be milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L), sometimes called millivals (mV/L) mEq/L RA = mEq/L Alkalinity - [ (mEq/L Ca)/3.5 + (mEq/L Mg)/7 ] Life would be much simpler if people stuck to milliequivalents but tradition demands otherwise. For example, Kohlbach worked in German degrees of hardness. A German degree is 0.3574 mEq/L. Thus if we scale both sides of the equation by this factor we would get: dH RA = dH Alkalinity - [ (dH Ca)/3.5 + (dH Mg)/7 ] i.e. everything is expressed in "dH" units - German degrees of hardness. In the US we use "ppm as CaCO3" and each ppm as CaCO3 is equal to 0.02 mEq/L: ppm as CaCO3 RA = ppm as CaCO3 Alkalinity - [ (ppm as CaCO3 Ca)/3.5 + (ppm as CaCO3 Mg)/7 ] Thus as long as the metal ion concentrations are expressed as "hardnesses" and in the same units as the alkalinity we can calculate the RA in the same units as the alkalinity. While calcium and magnesium concentrations in a water sample are sometimes expressed as "calcium hardness" and "magnesium hardness", (in ppm as CaCO3 or German degrees or French degrees or English degrees) they are sometimes expressed directly as the concentration of the ion ("as calcium" or "as magnesium" in mg/L (or sometimes ppm which is effectively the same). It is in this latter case that confusion arises because alkalinity is nearly always given in hardness units (ppm as CaCO3 or one of the "degree" units.) In these cases it is, I think, simplest to bring everything into mEq/L. Use the following conversions: To Convert to mEq/L Hardness*(ppm as CaCO3) Divide by 50 Hardness (German Deg.) Multiply by 0.357 Hardness (French Deg.) Divide by 5 Hardness (English Deg.) Multiply by 0.285 Calcium (mg/L) Divide by 20 Magnesium (mg/L) Divide by 12.15 * Calcium and magnesium hardness. Use these same factors for alkalinity when it is expressed in hardness units. The fact that 10 German degrees (3.574 mEq/L) causes a pH change of 0.3 pH means that 1 mEq/L causes a pH change of 0.3/3.574 = 0.084 pH. Example: A water sample shows alkalinity of 80 ppm as CaCO3, calcium hardness of 60 ppm as CaCO3 and magnesium hardness of 30 ppm as CaCO3. What is the residual alkalinity and pH shift? Solution: RA = 80/50 - (60/50/3.5 + 30/50/7) = +1.17 mEq/L or RA = 80 -(60/3.5 + 30/7) = +58.6ppm as CaCO3 -> 58.6/50 = +1.17 mEq/L pH shift = (+1.17)(0.084) = +0.10 Example: The same sample might be reported as having alkalinity of 80 ppm as CaCO3 with a calcium concentration of 24 mg/L and a magnesium concentration of 7.3 mg/L. Solution: RA = 80/50 - (24/20/3.5 + 7.3/12.15/7) = +1.17 Note that RA can be negative in which case the pH will be lower than the distilled water pH and, of course, this is what you would like to see. To estimate mash pH all you now need is the value for the pH for a distilled water mash. It is best that you measure this yourself by mixing deionized water and and a small amount of ground malt at about the same ratio that you will use in the mash tun (this is not critical). Let this stand for about 5 minutes and measure the pH. My personal experience is that most of the pale malts will come to a pH close to or a little less than 5.7 but some authors say 5.8. In the example above I would estimate the mash pH to be 5.7 + 0.10 = 5.8. If I wanted to lower this to 5.6 I would need to decrease the RA by 0.2/0.084 = 2.38 mEq/L and this would require an increase in the calcium level by (2.38)(3.5) = 8.33 mEq/L. Since each mEq/L of calcium corresponds to 20 mg/L of the ion this is 166.7 mg/L additional calcium which would bring the total to 166.7 + 24 = 190.7. Some places (Vienna) have water that hard but it's rare not to mention the fact that 8.3 mEq of anion would also be added with the calcium in the salt or salts used to augment the calcium (294 mg/L chloride if all calcium chloride or 400 mg/L sulfate if all gypsum). Thus we would probably look to acid from higher kilned malt to do part of the job if we wished to lower the pH this far. The Fixs calculate RA separately as we have done above here. Daniels puts everything into one formula. This should read pH = 5.8 + 0.084[0.02 Alk(ppm as CaCO3) - 0.0143 Ca(mg/L) - 0.0117 Mg(mg/L)] or pH = 5.8 + [0.00168 Alk(ppm as CaCO3) - 0.0012 Ca(mg/L) - 0.000982 Mg(mg/L)] Putting in 80 for the alkalinity, 24 for the calcium and 7.3 for the magnesium we get pH = 5.8 + 0.1 which represents a rise of 0.1 pH as we obtained above. Daniels assumes pH 5.8 for a distilled water mash. Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:31:30 +0000 From: "John Herman" <interport.net at interport.net> Subject: proper sanitation every book has a different answer on this, how much bleach do I use per gallon of water? Is TSP better? Thanks /*************************\ /* John Victor Herman *\ /* johnvic at interport.net *\ /*************************\ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 12:42:00 -0500 From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD at dfo-mpo.gc.ca> Subject: Predicting Attenuation (re: the Druey Equation) and the Modificat You may recall that I tried using Kyle Druey's attenuation prediction equation for a pair of lagers. The results were almost perfect for the first batch (Dunkel) and then quite poor for the second (Vienna): > >For the Dunkel, I wanted to go from 1.053 to 1.014-15; Kyle's linear > >model said: 26-28 min at 60C/140F and 62-64 min at 70C/158F. > >SG 1.053 > >OG 1.014 (2 wks later) - now lagering at ~2C/34F > > >For the Vienna, I wanted 1.050 to 1.010; Druey's new and improved > >exponential said use 60 min at 60C/140F and 30 min at 70C/158F. > >SG 1.051 > >FG 1.015 (ferment only lasted about 1 week; racked > after > Well, I'm planning on doing a Czech Pils in a couple of weeks, so I'd like to try and nail down the reason for the above discrepancy. So what changed between the batches? 1. Base malt- Dunkel: 1.5kg Canada Malting 2-row, 3.5kg Baird Munich Vienna: 3.7kg DWC Pils, 0.75kg Ireks Vienna 2. Malt crush- Dunkel was crushed with a Valley Mill on the 3rd coarsest setting; Vienna was crushed on the second coarsest setting. 3. Protein rest- I used a protein rest of 10min at 50C (122F) for the Dunkel and 15min at 50C for the Vienna. It's a safe bet to assume that the 2-row and the Munich are well modified. I gave the Dunkel a brief rest at 122F 'just to be safe'. The Vienna, however, is predominantly DWC pils which, it has been argued, may be the only widely available malt requiring a 50C(122F) rest. What I'm speculating is this: could the coarser crush and the short rest at 50C have resulted in a mash situation where the enzymes active in the first step at 60C(140F), primarily beta amylase, were unable to aggressively begin acting on the malt right away? That is, was the action of the beta amylase at 140F slowed by the malt/mash structure that resulted from a coarse crush and a (possibly) insufficient protein rest? It seems to me that a fine crush and well modified malt would make the enzymes' jobs easier - fast, thorough access to *all* the malt and hence quicker conversion. If my speculation is plausible, the Vienna mash would effectively have 'seen' a shorter rest period at 50C(140F) and hence have been less fermentable. Any thoughts on this? Dave Riedel Victoria, BC, Canada Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:04:18 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: Sages of Siebel Speak / Part 1 Siebel Sages Speak.... When George and I were at Siebel, I asked for questions to pose to the instructors. Most, if not all of those questions have already been answered by my self or George, (mostly George, 'cos he is far brighter than I in this regard, but mostly 'cos he is a much faster typist......er, uh...keyboarder!), to the individuals concerned. But, the point was to get actual response from the Siebel staff to your individual questions, and to that end, I left a small stack of printed questions for them. These have now been returned to me, and I have tried to faithfully reproduce them. Sorry, they are not all signed, so I am not sure of the instructor responding in all questions. > From: Peter M Garofalo > To: Rob > Subject: A Question for the Seibel Sages <SNIP> > Is modern-day malt sufficiently modified as to not require a protein > rest? Is ther esuch a thing in today's world as under, modified malt? If > so, what harm does a protein rest do, besides a too-long too-cool one > potentially ruining head retention? Need I go on...? Most modern malt is well modified. Good modification implies that a relatively large percentage of protein from grain ends up in wort. Low protein malts or specialty malts may still contribute low levels of nitrogen to wort. Modification doesn't tell the whole story, so there is no universal answer. Most North American pale malt will give plenty of nitrogen to wort, so a protein rest is not required when protein is the only consideration. Beta-glucans, phenolics, and extract yield are other factors to be considered. > From: Tim Martin > Subject: undermodified vs. modified malt question <SNIP> > What malts are considered fully modified and which ones are under > modified? > Can we successfully single infuse the fully modified malts and not get > chill haze or starch haze? > Is step infusion necessary (helpful or damaging) to modified malts? > Are all malts today modern Fully modified and can we do a single infusion > with them. > What is the best way to mash Klages/Harrington malts? Are these a > lager, pale, pale ale malt? > What is optimum single infuse temperature. <SNIP> Malts which release their extract easily are well modified. Malt analysis parameters such as low fine-coarse extract difference, high friability, high S/T protein, low viscosity, low beta-glucans are all indicators of high modification. No malt is fully modified because of the way that germination proceeds. For 'some' (underlined) purposes, most modern malts can be mashed using a single infusion. Most North American malts are lager malts. There is no such thing as a simple "optimum temperature" - it can only be defined on a case by case basis. > From: Tom Herlache > Subject: Question > OK Rob, I'll take you up on your offer. My question is a bit complex, so I hope it makes sense. Here goes: > First a supposition: > Chill haze is caused by (poly)phenols in beer forming hydrogen bonded > complexes with beer proteins, and the major protein involved in this > interaction are the proline-rich hordeins. > If this is the case, then why are proteinase rests thought to help with > chilling stability? It seems that increased chilling stability via > proteinase rests would have nothing to do with the reduction of high > molecular-weight proteins to smaller size by proteolysis (that is, on a > general effect on the protein pool), as is so often stated in the HBD, > because a specific protein is involved in the interaction. I've talked > with Karl Siebert, who is a faculty member at our Experiment Station, and > he feels that protein rests are of little value in chill stabilizing beer. > Karl also thinks that even smallish fragments of hordein are haze-active, > thereby ruling out degradation of hordein as the mechansim. I believe > that's because relatively short polyproline peptides are haze active but > I'm not sure what his evidence for this is. > > What sayeth the High Sages? Are proteinase rests effective in chill > proofing, and if so, why? How does this relate to hordein? A protein rest is of little value in affecting chill haze....(chill haze) is, as you say, the product of a very specific protein type. One attempt to characterize haze protein involved examination of proteins removed from silica gel which had been put in beer to remove haze precursors. Proteins recovered were as small as 12,000 molecular weight. Joe Power > From: Jeffrey M. Kenton > Subject: Three questions > > 1. What is the proper way to dry hop? > 2. Is there any advantage to wet milling over dry milling? > 3. When boiling, can a person assume a linear increase in SG due to a > measurable loss of water? (i.e. After boiling 10 gals of 1040 wort to seven > gallons, is the resulting SG 1057? ((10 x 40)/7) 1. Dry hopping- Put whole hops or pellets into the storage or finishing tank before putting the beer in. Sometimes the dry hopping is done in the fermenter. To help with separation later the hops can be put in a mesh bag, panty hose work well. Tie or hold it down somehow so it doesn't just float on the top. Infecting the beer with microorganisms from the hops has not been a problem, especially at temperatures near 0 degrees Centigrade and storage times under two weeks. Dry hopping does not work well with low or zero alcohol beers. Dave Radzanowski 2. What is the advantage of wet milling? Advantages of wet milling are a fully elastic husk essentially preserved intact and good surface area contact for the endosperm. Somre believe they get an additional 1% efficiency as a result and the lauter tun footprint can be smaller due to false bottom loading capability up to 350 kg/m2. Typical dry milling maximum is 190 kg/m2. There are some disadavantages also so both conditioned dry milling and steep conditioning milling technology has been developed as immediate alternatives. Paul Smith (?) 3. Specific gravity change from boiling- If you know the wort volume before and after boiling, you can accurately estimate the new SG as a linear function of the volumes. For example, 10 hl at 1040 (1.040 = 10 P = 10.39 kg extract/hl) boiled down to 8 hl. The new extract content is 10.39 x 10/8 = 12.99 kg/hl. Using SG, 40 x 10/8 = 50 or 1050 which is equivalent to 13.0 kg extract/hl. The Plato calculation is slightly less accurate, ie 10 P x 10/8 = 12.5 P, which is the same as 13.11 kg extract/hl. Jim Larson End...Part 1 Jethro Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:06:27 -0600 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net> Subject: Siebel Sages Speak / Part 2 Siebel Sages Speak...Part 2 > From: kathy >Subject: 3 Questions > In a private email to an HBD'er I opined the ideal grind for efficiency > would be to have a whole husk and a finely ground "inside". The whole > husk and bran is to keep tiny pieces of of bran and husk out of the wort > and the fine starch is to promote conversion from access to enzymes. > > I've always assumed that the "ideal" 6-roller grind was a compromise > between efficiency and lautering performance. > > Anyway, my candidate for "3 Questions that need asking" would be > something like "what makes the ideal brewing grind and how critical/what > consequences are deviations coarse and fine. What makes the ideal milling assortment? Any textbook milling assortment is a good starting point in setting mill roller gap. Then lauter tun characteristics and other equipment factors come into play. Usually additional adjustment will optimize extract production with a reasonably short runoff. I favor starting with mill roll settings of 0.06 " on the pre-crushing rolls, 0.035" on the husk rolls, and 0.014" on the finish rolls. I favor a starting assortment of 14% on sieve 10, 20% on sieve 14. 29% on sieve 18, 18% on sieve 30, 9% on sieve 60, 4% on sieve 100, and 6% maximum on the bottom. Once that is achieved, the first brew can be evaluated and further adjustments made based on performance, until the ideal assortment for that system is identified. Avoid increasing the percentage of flour on the bottom of the sieve. This usually indicates pre-damaged malt or too tight settings and will inhibit runoff. Paul Smith (?) > From: Randy Lee > Subject: Qs > Maybe it's already queued, but houw about the answer to my question on > saturday concerning the indicators of malt that tell you that it can be > single step mashed vs must be multi-step mashed? That's one that I'd > like to know. The single most commonly used indicator on a malt analysis is the fine-coarse difference. Below 2% indicates good modification, and a single step mash can probably be used. No single measure is a perfect indicator, though. If figures are available, look for high soluble to total protein ratio- min 38 - 40%, low wort viscosity - not over 1.5, high friability and low beta-glucan, low percentage of under-germinated grains - max 2 % in 0 - 1/4 range. > From: Jon Bovard > Subject: 3 questions > There is a topic that myself, Charlie Scandrett, a professional brewing > friend, and indeed a bavarian brewmaster have discussed regarding > proteolisys and fully modified malt. > I have a sample of fully modified commercial malt with a kolbach index of > 52.2 and a nitrogen level of 1.2%. clearly this is more modified than > English malt. > > My anecdotal experience stipulates that a protein rest of 30 min at 121-123f > will degrade head retention and lessen body to some extent. > However I know of a brewer who uses fully modified malt similar to this and > insists upon protein rests. > What evidence if any exists to bolster the opinion that even highly modifed > englsih style malt will benefit from a protein rest. (Rob.......2 responses here........one from George de Piro.) 1. The malt seems well modified but low in nitrogen. The benefit of a modification, or protein rest might be to make more nitrogen available as yeast nutrient. This could lead to lower diacetyl in the beer if the level is low, which low nitrogen suggests. Maybe you like diacetyl, maybe you don't. 2. Some older brewers are very set in their ways and refuse to modernize. Protein degradation is very important, but if the maltster has done it for you, you don't have to! A class mate from BC, Canada, was in this exact situation. An older Bavarian brewmaster insisted on doing protien rests, and produced headless beer. When he left, they skipped protein rests and made beer with acceptable foam stability.................George dePiro > From: Kyle Druey > Subject: question > Jethro, 3 questions regarding protein rests: > 1) When is a rest at 122 F appropriate? > > 2) When is a rest at 135 F appropriate? > > 3) When is no protein rest needed at all? 1. When you want to increase modification reactions. 2. A rest at 135 F is not appropriate fro much of anything. Too high for protease and glucanase - too low for starch digestion. 3. When you don't care about higher beta-glucan levels and highest levels of extract recovery and when sufficient protein and protein related nyeast nutrients are already at sufficient levels. Rob Again........ I hope I have given an accurate recount of the responses...again, not all of the respondents are identified to me....indeed, one of the staff was incredulous that I would ask that these questions be answered by them, as he felt that I knew the answers already, as a result of my instruction there. I felt that this was not the point, that the benefit in this exercise was a response from the staff, not a student, and am thankful that the rest of the staff I approached in this matter didn't feel imposed upon. And I wish to express a thank you to Jim Larson of Siebel for organizing, (or being stuck with, and handling it nonetheless!), and returning the answers to me to forward to the Digest. But, I will offer no excuse for my intent, only thanks to the staff of Siebel , in it's entirety, for the overwhelming willingness to answer any question, no matter how stupid I was in posing it. These folks are the best in the biz, and as if anyone needs any reminders, the staff of Siebel more than likely instructed the brewer of your fathers (certainly), and grandfathers, if not great grandfathers beer, if you live on the North American continent. I would ask that those of you who have had your questions directly answered here, and any of you on the hbd who feel you might have learned anything from them, or from anything that george and I reported during our stay at school, send an e-mail of thanks to the staff of the Siebel Institute for their aid. The e-mail address is <siebelinstitute at worldnet.att.net> And here is a final shameless plug....Deadline for the next Scholarship for a Short Course is March 31, 1998. Get your app in soon, folks! Info is available from the same address.....The Scholarship covers about 2400 US$ course cost and adds an extra 1000 US$ for travel and accomodation costs. Having been a scholarship recipient myself, I not only highly recommend the school itself, but apart from the time involved in writing your scholarship application, the costs of postage are negligible. If a burk like me can win one, imagine what you could achieve! Jethro Gump Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 21:51:23 -0800 From: smurman at best.com Subject: homebrew cooking - dessert pears This is a dessert recipe that uses mead instead of homebrew. Those of you who would still like to play along at home, but aren't (yet) meadmakers, can substitute a sweet dessert wine for the mead. If you're like me, you bottle up your mead and set it in a safe place, promising not to touch it for X amount of months. At about X-3 months, you give in to temptation and open a bottle to sample the progress. Usually at this time you renew your vow to age it for another X months, and quickly look for someplace to pawn the rest of the bottle. I came up with this recipe as a way to save those young bottles of mead that were sacrificed to my impatience. Basically, we're going to steep some fruit in the mead, along with any spices and whatnot. This allows both the fruit to absorb the flavor of the mead and spices, but also the mead absorbs some of the flavor of the fruit and whatnot, transforming a bottle of rocket fuel into something more palatable, if you care to drink it afterwards. I use pears or peaches for this recipe, and usually just buy them canned. If you have them fresh then peel them, de-seed, and cut in halves. Uncovered on the stovetop, simmer the fruit along with the mead, and any spices you feel would add to the flavor. Cinnamon, cloves, licorice, whatever. To be honest, I usually just use the mead without adding anything extra. Let this simmer uncovered for a half hour or so. After this I cover it, and then let it sit in the fridge until I'm ready for dessert in a couple of hours, the next night, next week, whatever. You can keep the whole shebang in tupperware probably for months. When you're ready for dessert, butterfly the pears by cutting them in strips 3/4 the length of the fruit, and spreading the strips flat. Sprinkle brown sugar over the top of the pears, place them on some aluminum foil or a baking plate, and then place them under the broiler in the oven. Remember to turn the broiler on at some point. Let them sit under the broiler for a couple of minutes until the brown sugar carmelizes. Don't let them go too long, or the sugar will burn (and send foul smoke from the kitchen that will not impress your date). Remove from the oven and cool, but serve them while they're still warm, within a couple of minutes. Serve with a dollup of whipped cream, creme fraiche, vanilla ice cream, or the like. Basically, use something that is cool to contrast the warmth of the fruit and alcohol. (Hint: melted ice cream adds to the mead juice sitting on the bottom of the plate, which can then be more easily spooned up). This one is simple to make, and VERY tasty. It can also double as an apertif, as the fruit absorbs quite a bit of alcohol. I encourage all of you to give it a try. Enjoy SM Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 07:19:31 GMT From: huskers at olywa.net (Jason Henning) Subject: Infusion mashing Hello- All the multiple infusion mash formulas I seen seem to be forward programmed. That is, first figure the strike water temperature then figure how much boiling water to hit the next rest and then the next. For instance, Jim Palmer has an example (in BT Sept '97, p 24) where he does a 104-140-158F mash example. He first figures the strike water temperature for 104 rest. Then figures how much boiling water is needed raise the mash to 140F and then 158F. It's an extreme example but makes the point. He started with 1 qt/lb and finishes with 2.2 qt/lb. I plan in reverse. I'm more concerned about the mash thickness at saccharification. I shoot for 1.3 qt/lb but I realized that with a 104-140-158F schedule the last rest is go to be thin. I'd like to keep more in line with the 1.8 qt/lb and see what happens. With this mash, I figure out how much hot water needs to subtracted to hit the previous rest. To drop from 158F to 140F, I need to remove .5 qt/lb at 210F. That means my 140F rest thickness is 1.3 qt/lb. Restated, my 1.3 qt/lb 140F mash will raise to 158F with 5 quarts of 210F water added. Then I'd do it again, calculate the infusion volume to be removed hit 104F, figure the mash thickness. It turns out to be another 5 quarts and the original thickness is .8 qt/lb. That's pretty thick but manageable, a thicker mash is almost impossible to stir. I guess the difference is I start with a given final thickness and determine mash-in thickness and Jim figures final thickness with a given mash-in thickness. It's two simple formulas. If anyone one is interested, drop me an e-mail. Cheers, Jason Henning <huskers olywa net> Big Red Alchemy and Brewing Lacey, Washington All other nations are drinking Ray Charles beer and we are drinking Barry Manilow. - Dave Barry Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 23:51:48 PST From: "Gregg Soh" <greggos at hotmail.com> Subject: 5l kegs/cornykegs/carbonation I just contacted my local Cornelius rep and talked about starting to keg beer using them soda canisters. Next thing I know, is that I've gone a brand new 15lb CO2 tank and a brand new Corny with lines and Oeticker clamps, plus triple guage dual regulators(I can dispense two, yippee) for FREE. Cool huh? (They were samples, but they work, who cares?) Anyway, looks like I won't need to look the way of the mini-keg too soon. The only thing I'd miss out on is portability. Which brings me to my question, since I can know force carbonate in the keg OR in a pet bottle, is there a way to counter-pressure fill a 5l minikeg so that I can tap my brew away from home and avoid priming? How much pressure can the minikegs take, so i'll know what pressure to use if I come up with some sort of home-made filler? ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:13:06 -0500 From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Why buy continental lager malts ? Tony Zara asks a Malt flavor question > I would like to have the wisdom of the collective describe >for me the flavor differences between Pilsner malt (German and/or >Belgian) and regular U.S. 2-row. I understand that the continental Pils >malts may be less modified (suggesting the need for a protein rest), but The flavor differences are minor, and you can make a perfectly good lager from US 2-row malt. The biggest difference is that US malts are higher in nitrogen (protein) level than any other. The flavor differences that do exist are probably varietal (depends on the barley species). There are several dozen so called 'maritime' barley species, used/developed primarily for ales in the UK, and there are a number of continental varieties. I believe the common continental varieties are mostly 'Triumph' variety crosses with wild barley (Hordeum Vulgarus). In the US (and Canada) I *think* that the common varieties grown, like Harrington, were developed from UK maritime varieties. Anyone know for sure ? My highly subjective opinion is that continental malt (I prefer Durst, but haven't tried Weyermann and can't get Ireks anymore) do have a bit more flavor. That is the resulting beer has a notch more malt flavor and complexity. The kernels are consistantly bigger and plumper than the US 2-rows malts also. My feeling is that US maltsters, aside from the mega's have relatively little control over the quality of their barley sources and so take what is offered. In the UK I think that the maltster actually drive the barley growers by selecting only highest quality grain. Gemany/Belgium falls somewhere in between. North American maltsters also seem to kiln their 2-row malt at a higher temp than the German/Belgians generally speaking, which has an impact on the flavor, as well as the amount of beta-amylase available. Steve Alexander Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 04:48:57 -0600 From: "Ray Estrella" <ray-estrella at email.msn.com> Subject: carbon yeast killers Hello to all, Andrew Quinzani advises, >Do not use carbon filters, While it may filter out undesired taste it >harbors some things that will kill the yeast. I talked to a water filter >company several months ago as I work in a bakery and asked about carbon >filters. I forgot exactly what it was that was in the carbon but I was >told that it would effectively kill any yeast. Maybe he was talking about running the yeast through the filter. I have made 63 batches of beer with carbon filtered water, and have never had a yeast related problem. It would be interesting if Adrew could find out what the service guy was referring to. Possibly call the company..... Ray Estrella Cottage Grove MN ray-estrella at msn.com ****** Never Relax, Constantly Worry....have a better Homebrew ****** Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:29:04 -0500 From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Injuneers and spherical horses,water chemistry, Brewsters: David Harsh says: >Dave Burley took the opportunity to trash Chemical Engineers >and their abilities with respect to chemists. The truth of his >opinion is no doubt supported by the myriad of job opportunities >for chemists and the lack of same for chemical engineers. ;)" You forgot to say "kind-heartedly or kiddingly" so that other non-chemist/non-engineers understand that this is how we have fun. But a one or two-percent unemployment rate for chemists isn't bad. - ------------------------------------------------------ Dave Harsh continues: >Of course, I'm still wondering what the goal of all this is - particle size >is a big variable (or capillary length if you look at it that way); there >will be a distribution of sizes/lengths that would have to be accounted for >or assumed to be uniform. Well we know that particle size in combination with sparge rate is critical to efficiency. If you sparge at the same rate and have larger particles the efficiency is less. If you sparge very quickly for a given particle size, the efficiency is less. I conclude, as it is practiced in brewing, it is an rate process rather than an equilibrium process. >Seems like what we really have here is an elution chromatography process >(i.e. see Helfferich's Multicomponent Chromatography), but I'll admit that >I haven't really thought that through. Any takers? Looks like we basically agree, since your description seems to fit mine and yes this is a column elution process. Plug flow is a characteristic of such a model. > ?) When we're done, we'll have a complicated model with >parameters that are unmeasurable. Not really, the purpose of such a model would be to point out the major parameters in sparging so we could understand the relative importance of temperature, viscosity, specific gravity, mill size, etc. etc. As you point out it may be a simple extension of an existing model. >(Remember the engineer joke, "well assuming a >spherical horse.." No, but I do remember the one " Six wekes ugo I cudn't evn spel injuneer...." {8^) - ------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Quinzani tells Louis Gordon >Do not use carbon filters, While it may filter out undesired taste it >harbors some things that will kill the yeast. I talked to a water filter >company.... I forgot exactly what it was that was in the carbon but I was >told that it would effectively kill any yeast. Many, many brewers and home brewers use carbon filtered water without any problem. Domestic carbon filters have ppm silver ions adsorbed on them to prevent bacteria from fermenting the organics trapped by the filter inside the filter. Nothing is leached from the filter which would kill organisms outside the filter. - ------------------------------------------------------- Steven Van der Hoven says: >I suspect that the term "ppm" is being substituted for "mg/kg" >(milligrams per kilogram) in the texts that you are looking at. The two >terms are often interchanged, but shouldn't be. and then says: > As Gregg pointed out, ppm >is a measure of the number of molecules while mg/kg is a measure of mass. >By the way, chemistists always use mg/kg or another measure of mass to >avoid the confusion that ppm seems to be causing Well, Steven and Gregg, I think both ppm and mg/kg are both pretty clear concepts based on simple weight ratios and are just what they say they are. Both are valid uses. When chemists talk about molecular concentration they use words like molarity and molality. What is sometimes confusing is the reporting of Ca as ppm CaCO3 in which all the calcium in the water is represented as CaCO3 or some other compound when in fact it is not associated with any ion in the water. Not to worry. Just determine the fraction of the weight of calcium in the CaCO3 using your knowledge of atomic weights and multiply it times the ppm CaCO3 and you can get ppm calcium. - -------------------------------------------------- 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: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 08:20:49 -0600 From: Glyn Crossno <Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com> Subject: Re:Chem E's, MEs and EE James Tomlinson (ME) wrote: > > How is it that so many Electrical Engineers end up brewing ? > We're smarter. Glyn Crossno Estill Springs, TN - -- I love the smell of hops in the morning, a) they smell like victory. ( Three Floyds Brewing) or b) of course they smell pretty darn good any time. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 09:31:23 -0500 (EST) From: Eugene Sonn <eugene at dreamscape.com> Subject: Hemp Cream Ale For those who have brought up the idea of putting a certain illegal substance in their beer, you may be interested in a beer from a Vancouver brewery. Boan Island Brewing is making a Hemp Cream Ale. They use non-viable hemp seeds, so the beer has tiny traces of THC. There's no detectable effect from the seed other than flavor. I heard about this last night (2/24) on the Canadian Broadcasting Company's program "As It Happens." The interview was with a marketing and sales guy from the brewery. He said the hemp seeds impart a nutty flavor to the beer. He admitted this was just a marketing ploy. He wants people to try the beer because of the name and keep drinking it because of the taste. I have no affiliation with the brewery and haven't tasted the beer yet. I just thought this would be an amusing story for beer and brewing folks. Eugene Sonn eugene at nova.dreamscape.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 98 10:07:48 est From: paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli) Subject: weight scales/Mixmasher HBDers, The soon-to-be ex-wife has taken her baking scale which I used for weighing grain. I'm now in the market for a new one. I'd like one that goes up to around 10 lbs. Should I go with electronic digital or the conventional type? Particular brands better than others? - ----------------------------------------------------- Is anyone using the Mixmasher design? I've now got a 30 gallon mash tun and could use all the help I can get at dough-in time. Thanks Mike Spinelli Mikey's Monster Brew Cherry Hill NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 10:20:44 -0500 From: David Kerr <dkerr at semc.org> Subject: 1/2 barrel mash screens Phil Wilcox asked about false bottoms for his converted keg- How about the EasyMasher2? It works as advertised for me - for ~$30.00 plus the price of a 3/8" drill bit you get a nice, easy, no-weld unit that yielded me a respectable 28 pts/lb/gal. I use it as a boil kettle also (with whole flower hops). Only drawbacks are scorching under the unit while stepping up mash temps with direct heat (I'll diffuse the propane jet somehow) and the relatively slow draining of the boiled/cooled wort into my fermenter - took about 45 minutes with 6 oz hops in a 6 gallon batch (Yeah, it's an 90 IBU IPA - still beats siphoning with a scrubbie). Good stuff cheap. Dave Kerr - Needham, MA "Be good and you will be lonely" - Mark Twain Return to table of contents
Date: 25 Feb 1998 08:50:29 -0800 From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at vigra.com> Subject: Re: Converting to RIMS >> Lcllamas writes: L> I have been all grain brewing for 12 years and utilizing a 3 tier L> 15 gal. Capacity gravity feed system for the last 7. I am ready L> for something a little easier now especially when considering grain L> bills of 30 lbs. plus with the associated liquid. I became L> re-enthused on the RIMS method after reading the articles in the L> Jan./Feb. 98 issue of Brewing Techniques. With my current 2 L> stainless steel 17.5 gal. pots and 1 stainless steel 22.5 L> gal. boiler with 3 large capacity gas fired heaters, I have a L> fairly large amount of money tied up and therefore would like to L> utilize this with a RIMS set up. I would like to hear any L> suggestions or trials others have had in using gas fired heating L> with RIMS or a combination of the seemingly standard electric heat L> chamber along with gas. I have corresponded with at least four people who use gas fired RIMS setups but are manually controlled. The BrewMagic commercial system uses computer control of the solenoid gas valves for the main boost. Some of the gas fired systems also use an electric heater to maintain heat during the rests. Bottom line, nothing you have needs to be replaced. All you need to do is to add a few things. First step would be to just add a pump and return manifold and recirculate during your rests and boosts. Later on if you desire, you can add a temperature controller and electric heater to maintain temps during the rests. I have not had direct experience with gas fired mashing, but in RIMS adventures, have discussed it numerous times with people who do. dion - -- Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164 Email: hollen at vigra.com http://www.vigra.com/~hollen Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs San Diego, California Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/27/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96