HOMEBREW Digest #2961 Tue 23 February 1999

[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

  RE: Jacketed thermometers ("Dana H. Edgell")
  Re: Chill Haze (Jeff Renner)
  Five bottles of N.A. beer on the wall ("S. Wesley")
  Candi, Candi, Candi (Ted McIrvine)
  PH Meter ("Sandy Macmillan")
  efficiency/decoction/haze ("Stephen Alexander")
  Wither Tracey/Haze/Candi from cane ("Stephen Alexander")
  Phils false promise bottom (Rick Georgette)
  Another PC RIMS Idea (Ken Schwartz)
  Re: valves (fridge)
  Phil's Phalse Bottom - another opinion ("Donald D. Lake")
  Ball valves, EASYEAST, Iodine deposits, Draft Line cleaning (Joe Rolfe)
  RE: pH Meter (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Temps and Rests (wakarimasen)
  ideal grind for malt (kathy/jim)
  Open fermentations, publicizing a yeast ranch (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  decoction anyone? ("Scott Moore")
  Oh, so many subjects (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Trip Info Request (Jim Layton)
  RE: Why RIMS with modified malts (John Wilkinson)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition. Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org 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 COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 11:06:58 -0800 (PST) From: "Dana H. Edgell" <edgell at cari.net> Subject: RE: Jacketed thermometers Bill Rehm asked about jacketed thermometers.. What you are describing is called a thermometer well. I made one for my brew kettle for only about a buck and it works great. the design I used is from The Thrifty Brewer column form an old issue of the Great Lakes Brewing paper. The basic steps (using the dimensions for my thermometer) are 1) get a probe thermometer 2) measure thermometer probe diameter (1/8" for mine) 3) determine the smallest copper tubing that this will fit in (1/4" o.d. for mine). You only need a few inches more than the probe length. 4) get a standard brass compression union for this tubing size. (remove surface lead using John Palmer's method, see previous HBDs) 5) check that the probe will pass through the compression fitting. If not drill out the inside to make it fit. 6) attach the tubing to one side of the compression fitting using one of the union's compression sleeves&nuts. seal the other end of the tubing by pound about an inch flat with a hammer (nature's perfect tool) and folding the flat part over about a 1/4" twice. check for leaks. If leaks Pound some more or squeeze with a vice. A tiny bit of silicone sealeant in the end before pounding could improve the seal. 7) Drill the hole in the brewpot where you want the thermometer placed. The hole should just allow the thread open end of the compression union (without the compression nut of course) to pass through. 8) Stick open end of the compression fitting throught the hole from the inside of the brewpot. Use the compression nut that came with the union and washers to make a water tight seal. I used a stainless steel washer and a teflon washer(I cut out of a teflon sheet I have). The washers will probably make a better seal on the inside surface due to the pot curvature so they should be food-grade. Sorry, I don't think I can do a good ascii diagram but the final order of parts is 1) copper tubing with sealed end (attached to union with 1st compression nut) 2) compression union 3) s.s. washer 4) soft washer (telfon in my case) 5) kettle wall 6) 2'nd compression nut Notes: If the compression nut doesn't screw in enough to make a seal against the kettle wall you can either add another s.s. washer or saw the end of the 2nd compression nut off so it will screw on all the way. If you use a larger probe diameter thermometer you will need larger tubing & compression fittings which could be significantly more expensive than a buck. Dana - ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dana Edgell edgell at cari.net 2939 Cowley Way #G http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale San Diego, CA 92117 (619) 276-7644 Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 20:36:18 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Chill Haze "Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com> writes >While enjoying my latest CAP I was thinking, (always a mistake), "If I could >get rid of the chill haze this would be perfect." This one was corn meal, >cereal mash, single infusion. Great Head, last for quite a while. > >So do I need a SHORT protein rest. At 130? 135? 10 minutes? It seems to me that if it is only a chill haze, time and gravity should take care of most of it. My CAPS are hazy only when you shine a flashlight bean through them. Otherwise, they appear perfectly clear, just short of brilliant (which is how they taste, of course, like yours). I mash in at 40C, then boost over 20-30 minutes to 140F, etc. This means I pass through all kinds of proteinase kind of temps for short times. Another treatment, which George Fix spoke of at MCAB, is the "ice beer" treatment (a Labatt's developed and patented process). Rack your beer off all the yeast you can (<10 E5 cells per ml), drop the temp to ~27F for 72 hrs (this from memory), which should freeze ~5% of the beer volume. This icy portion should contain the chill haze tannin/polyphenolic culprits (which may be oxidized as well). Rack the beer off this and it should be more stable. It further increases a "rounded" flavor. Anyone who took notes and remembers this better please correct my recollection of this. I think it will be in the Fixes' new book (Principles of Brewing Science, Rev.) due in October. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 23:34:50 -0500 From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU> Subject: Five bottles of N.A. beer on the wall I guess I'm not a very patient person. I was driving past the local homebrew store and I decided that rather than wait to hear back from folks at HBD about commercial anti foam compounds I'd just go in and buy some. I picked up a six of Dundee's Honey Brown and went to work on it. Recently I have been fiddling around with an aspiratior, a .500 litre filter flask and a hotplate with a magnetic stirrer. I vacuum evaporated about 10% of the volume of five bottles of beer, one bottle at a time. This takes about half an hour per bottle. I began by adding two drops of Crosby and Baker anti-foam compound to the flask. Next I slowly add the beer and start the stirrer. Turn the heat on to low and hook up the aspirator. You have to be a bit careful at this point and turn the water up slowly or antifoaming agent not withstanding you will have a flask full of foam. The beer is basically degassing at this point. Once degassing is done the beer should be coming up to temperature. I have found that 28C or about 80F seems to work pretty well. Holding and stirring at this temperature produces a gentle boil which will reduce the volume by 10% in about 20min. You may be wondering why I decided to do this to five bottles. The answer is that I do not have any reliable way to assess the alcohol content of beer. I do know how my body feels after consuming one bottle of beer and also how it feels after five. A built in alcho-meter if you will. I added water to make up for the lost volume and stuffed it in the fridge. When I arrived home I poured the result into a 3gal soda keg, force carbonated it and drank the whole five bottles over the course of an hour. One hour later I still feel a little bloated and I feel another trip to the john coming on, but otherwise I am stone cold sober. At this point I would like to find somone who can do a bit more quantitative analysis of alcohol content for me. Any takers? A few other comments 1) Aspirators use a lot of water. Richard Lahusen proposed using a recirculating pump in conjucnction with an aspirator in HBD 1514-7. I have to give credit where it is due. The process outlined above was inspired in large part by reading his post. 2) The anti foaming agent reacts with the beer to produce a slight haze. There is a noticible difference between the clarity of one drop vs. two drops per bottle. I suspect that only one drop would be needed if you were working with uncarbonated beer. 3) If you use this method you will have to live without a head on your beer. You might be able to add some more chemicals to recreate the head, but I don't know if that would work. 4) If you are satisfied with the level of alcohol reduction in this beer the I estimate that it would cost about $1.20 in electricity to remove the alcohol from a five gallon batch. If it is necessary to go to 30% volume reduction I guess that would triple. 5) I estimate that a system could be constructed to remove the alcohol from homebrew that would cost less than $200 using this method. This would include an aspirator, a recirculating pump capable of producing 2gpm at appropriate pressure, a used quarter or half barrel sanke or hoff-stevens keg, a tap, some vacuum hose, some regular hose, a bucket, some plumbing fittings, and a heater. 6) The beer basically tasted fine. If somone gave me a bottle of this to drink and told me it was honey brown I never would have known the difference. I can't comment on the impact of this process on the hop profile since this is a very lighly hopped beer. Enough said. I gotta go pee. Simon Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 01:21:33 -0800 From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com> Subject: Candi, Candi, Candi The two most notable differences (>IF< the literature I've read is correct, which is always a dicey proposition with homebrewing) are that Belgian Candi sugar is made from beets and that the crystalization process concentrates it more than sugar made from sugar cane. I think that the dark Belgian candi sugar does make a notable difference in brewing darker Belgian-style beers, which should ideally get >some< of the color from sugar instead of malt. I've had good success in substituting corn sugar or honey in Belgian-style Trippels, but I wouldn't dream of making a Dubbel or dark Belgian-style ale without dark candi sugar. Ted McIrvine at Ix.Netcom.Com > From: ThomasM923 at aol.com > Why do Belgian brewers use an expensive (compared to plain old cane, that is) > ingredient instead of just throwing in a few pounds of Domino? Is it in any > way different from cane? Inverted, perhaps? What difference does inverted > sugar make? > TIA... > > Thomas Murray > Maplewood, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:23:26 +0300 From: "Sandy Macmillan" <scotsman at ncc.moc.kw> Subject: PH Meter Scott wrote Can anyone suggest a good pH meter that is not over say $150.oo My 2 pennies worth I bought a Hanna 8314 PH meter and digital thermometer for US$ 200. Easy to calibrate and built in temperature correction. Well pleased with the unit, I know it is over the budget but I also use the thermometer for mash temps etc. and I justified the cost (to myself) as a dual instrument. They have a home page www.hannainst.com Usual disclaimers Sandy Macmillan Brewing in a dry place. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 04:20:25 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: efficiency/decoction/haze - -- Extraction efficiency Fix reports an astonishing 15% increased extraction when a 40C rest is first performed (AoBT pp 24-33) and several folks noted this as a reason to include a low temp in a decoction schedule. A close reading shows this isn't necessarily a valid conclusion. The 15% was for a 40C/60C/70C infusion/step schedule vs a 66C single infusion schedule using highly modified (Kolbach=44%) low protein ale malt (British?). The multistep mash was 105' vs 60' and the 70C and 66C temp makes a difference too. In HB terms Fix gets 31 pt-g/lb from a euro pils malt in a multistep infusion, 30 from US 2-row multistep infusion, but <28pt-gal/lb from a highly modified ale malt using single infusion at 66C(!!), and 32.2pg/lb for the ale malt on a multistep. My experience is that an low initial rest gives faster conversion and marginally better extraction (<5%) and the looming probability of mediocre head and body. To be fair I didn't use infusions to boost quickly out of the low range like Fix did, but used direct heat at <2C/min which takes longer. This can cause foam problems and always IMO detracted from mouthfeel. M&BS pp 287, table 9.9 compares 4 mashing schedules (from single temp to several Fix-like variants) for an under- and well- modified malt and the extraction differences are in the 0-3% range. The conditions are of course different from Fix's, yet nothing remotely like 15% appears. - -- Low temp rests ... enzymes I got many comments on this. First according to Fix and Kunze some beta-glucanase activity takes place at 35C/95F but Kunze suggests that starting this low poses potential head/foam loss problems. Either way there is certainly some enzymatic activity - but is it important to modern malts ?. The beta-glucanases would be helpful for undermodified malts and if you can find one by all means do a beta-glucanase rest - right after you tell me where to obtain this rare malt. - --Schedules/methods Fix starts with a thick mash (1.1qt/lb at 40C) which may slow enzymatic activity and boosts to 60C by diluting the mash (to 1.58qt/lb) with (32% additional) hot water. So Fix, by infusion can carefully control the time spent and perform a very quick temp boost. The same cannot be said for heated-step/decoction/RIMS mashing. Kunze notes (pp210) that a thick mash-in followed by hot water infusions limits proteolysis. But warns earlier that a 1C/min boost rate over the proteolysis range can cause problems. Incidentally Kunze's mash schedules all allow for 90-120 minutes in the saccharification range (60C-75C) , while Fix suggests keeping saccharification under 60 minutes except for malts with a fine/coarse extraction difference above 2.0%. - -- Thin line between lovable and haze I suggested avoiding the 54C range and was asked about haze. Fix claims that virtually no proteolysis occurs at 59C or above, while M&BS suggest the limit is higher. Kunze spec's that 58C to 62C is a practical rest to allow for limited proteolysis. I currently rest at 58C with a very slow increase to ~62C, and a final bump to 70-72C. The 58C-62C allows haze reduction. I don't experience haze problems with this method typically, tho' clearing is sometimes slow. I guess that makes me a Kunze-ite tho' I've been doing this since the pre-Kunze era at the suggestion of Charlie Scandrett. The 45C-55C range is *very* dangerous territory - you're likely to lose your head and body there (Kunze calls the results "insipid"). Certainly if you rest there long enough to perform a decoction - or even if you just heat through this range you're in trouble. If you seriously want to start life at a lower temp (35C-50C) consider infusion as a means to quick boost out of the range as Fix does. Kunze suggests carefully monitoring proteolysis via FAN measurements if you need to mash so low. How ? - -- Purple haze ? Re enzymes denaturing, haze and the German brewing bulletin board question. Enzymes are about equally likely to participate in haze whether denatured or not. That probability is low anyway since these very HMW proteins are left behind in the break. The real relationship, which Scott Murman pointed out in private email and Kunze confirms, is that the temp boost to mashout releases starch and at temps up to about 78C the alpha-amylase survives well enough to convert the starch to less objectionable dextrins before the boil [please note that momily no.235:"mashout wipes all enzymes" is hereby officially rescinded]. If the mashout temp is higher - then the amylase poops out and you get starch in the wort so haze and a positive iodine tests! For infusion mashing, mashout does add to extract by heat releasing starch and improving runoff/lauter(again credit to ScottM). The question is - is it worth your time and the possibility of getting hit with phenolic extraction and residual starch. For decoction mashing - the extra starch released and improvement in lauter should be quite minor, the time&labor costs are quite large and you are adding HSA risk. I'm just suggesting that you can successfully brew without a conventional mashout at the cost of a couple points of extraction. Pay the maltster the 50 cents and go home early. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:32:03 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Wither Tracey/Haze/Candi from cane Scott Albene wonders what happened to Tracey Aquilla's wonderful posts. After a biology degree Tracey went back to school for in law I believe. So far only LK Bonham juggles the legal profession and homebrewing and I think one of these guys is plenty ! (kiddin' Louis ;^) . Scott also comments about protein rests for his CAP to reduce haze. Unmalted grains can add HMW & MMW proteins but little FAN. So brewing with unmalted grain is a classic case where a protein rest (and maybe a beta-glucanase rest and a peptidase rest) make good sense. Gelatinised corn gives good extraction so a beta-glucanase rest is of doubtful value for CAP - may improve lautering. As for a protein rest vs haze in all-malt brewing - I am not opposed to a protein rest per se - but it needs to be *carefully* controlled to avoid loss of foam and body. If you can't always get perfect clarity+mouthfeel+head, then I'd prefer to err on the side of mouthfeel+minor_haze vs minor_mouthfeel+clarity. I will admit to ignorance regarding the materials used to make Candi sugar traditionally. As to why they don't use cane sugar - I understand that sugar beet is a more common source of sucrose in Europe than is cane, and that in quantity it has a bitter edge. Inverted sucrose should give equal amounts of glucose and fructose to caramelize - and I suspect you would see minor differences in their caramelization products. The Brits use 'chip sugar' from alkaline caramelized cane sugar I believe. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:59:27 -0500 (EST) From: rickge at webtv.net (Rick Georgette) Subject: Phils false promise bottom By itsself Phils false promise bottom is difficult to use. Grain easily slips past it and it floats in water making it difficult to mash in. I have used a simple solution to make this work in a round cooler. Simply slit a piece of tubing and slide it around the circumference of the screen. This not only holds it in place, but it prevents grain from flowing aroung the screen causing a stuck sparge. Rick Georgette Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 05:31:00 -0700 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: Another PC RIMS Idea I posted some info on an inexpensive A/D card & temperature sensor for a PC-Controlled RIMS application in the last HBD. Yesterday I was browsing a recent Marlin P. Jones catalog and found they have a kit for a parallel port A/D with some digital I/O. The kit is $55 (but requires an external 12VDC supply; an inexpensive adapter is probably all it needs). It states "'C', Visual Basic, Quick Basic routines provided along with Windows 95 software. Data can be viewed, stored, or exported to Lotus or Excel." This was in Catalog 99-01 and is item number 8418-KT. Their phone is 800-432-9937 or you can check 'em on the web at http://www.mpja.com . - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 07:48:51 -0500 From: fridge at kalamazoo.net Subject: Re: valves Greetings folks, In HBD#2960 Rod Prather asks for reasons not to use gate valves to control liquid flow and suggests that ball valves aren't well suited for this task. Contrary to common belief, ball valves can work pretty well for flow control. In fact, they are showing up more and more in industrial/commercial temperature control applications. Gate valves, however, are ill suited for flow control. They are typically used for isolating part of a piping system. They use a wedge-shaped gate that retracts from the liquid path when fully open and seals tightly against the valve body when fully closed. The gate is only supported properly when fully closed or fully open. When partially open, the gate will flutter in the liquid flow. It is common for a gate to break off when a gate valve is left partially open for long periods. A far better flow control valve is the globe valve. Externally these often look very similar to a gate valve. A globe valve is designed for partial opening and flow control. The flow is channelled between a ring-shaped valve seat and a valve washer attached to the stem. The space between the seat and washer are varied by turning the valve stem. Almost all domestic water faucets are/were globe valves until the advent of the single handle washerless faucets that are becoming popular. I believe ball valves to be the best overall choice for most home brewing uses. Ball valves are inexpensive, throttle liquid flow reasonably well, are easy to clean and sanitize, and unlike a globe valve, easy to clear obstructions (like hops) from. Hope this helps! Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo fridge at kalamazoo.net Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 08:34:36 -0500 From: "Donald D. Lake" <dake at gdi.net> Subject: Phil's Phalse Bottom - another opinion I purchased my all-grain system last year from a mail order outfit out of North Carolina. It consisted of two 10-gal Rubbermaid coolers, Phil's Phalse Bottom and hoses. Surprisingly, it also came with a round fiber filter (about .75 in thick) to sit on top of the false bottom and under the mash.. I had never heard or read of anyone using that set up so I called the retailer and asked why it was included. He explained, based on their experience, that it greatly improves the problems with stuck mashes and reduces the time needed to recirculate the first runnings. After 8 batchs of using this set up, I have never had a stuck mash while using the filter (including several batches of wheat beer). The only time I had a stuck mash was the one and only time I tried to mash without using the filter(as a test). Furthermore, I have never had a problem with the false bottom floating. I believe that is probably due to the fact that I use a short, thick and stiff vinyl hose to the spigot from the false bottom (I don't know the brand or material, but it is blue, thick and rather rigid). I have been very happy with my setup and have had excellent results with Phil's Phalse Bottom. Don Lake Orlando, FL E-mail: dlake at amuni.com http://www.amuni.com ************************************************************************ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:35:25 -0500 From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com> Subject: Ball valves, EASYEAST, Iodine deposits, Draft Line cleaning Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> asked about ball valves... Dont know about the non-linear aspects, I do know ball valves are horrible on sanitation so I would avoid them like the plague outside of the brewhouse. One thing for sure they are cheap (even all stainless) compared to the price of a butterfly/gate valve. I have not seen to many gate valves but those that I have seen were plastic. But if you can find a compatible metal gate valve, I dont see why you could not use it. Anyone in the area of Hampton, NH using EASYEAST? - just saw this at a newly found homebrew shop in Haverhill (forgot all about this one...). Come in (uggghh) plastic, date labeled container of about 10 oz. Cost about $3.50. I bought one today going to give it a try this Saturday. ***QDA*** Iodine deposits, I too saw iodine deposits in use. One thing that worked for me was to add a small qty of acid to the water before adding the iodine. Hard water appeared to have some effect, I saw more of these deposits when I used my raw - unsoftend water. I never rinsed the iodine from the fermenter - I just let it drain for atleast 5 minutes before filling, worked for me. Matthew Birchfield <peridot at usit.net> asked about cleaning a draft tower... Draftlines and tap heads can be cleaned with a strong alkaline detergent available from Crosby and Baker and restaurant supply houses. The stuff is specifically made for this purpose and is pretty nasty. You should wear some eye and hand protection. Fill a keg with the mixture and force it thru the lines with Co2/Air or a pump. The taphead itself comes apart and there is a small gasket inside that you may want to replace. Again a bar supply house should have these, or you might be able to find a resonable replacement at a hardware store. Replace all beer hoses would not hurt either, you'll probably have to recalc the tap lines parameters to drop the pressures for your set up anyway. Good Luck and Great Brewing Joe Rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:41:12 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: pH Meter >>>> From: BrwrOfBeer at aol.com I have been all grain brewing now for about 2yr. I have never checked my pH reading before. All beers were good. Now I want to start reading mash pH readings <<<< I have become disenchanted with PH meters, and I am beginning to see them as SINK HOLES for your money. I am on my second one now, and it too has gone bad. They seem to last about six months. If you get a cheap one, you have the privilege to buy another one every six months. If you buy an expensive one, you get to buy an expensive element every six months. I must be a penny pincher, but I just do not see the economy of this on a continual basis. What I recommend is to borrow one and use it a couple times and note how much you need to alter your water, then just use that same amount as your standard correction until you find a need to change. In the perfect world, you would own several accurate meters, fresh calibration chemicals, and your beer would be perfect. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:31:11 -0500 From: wakarimasen at mindspring.com Subject: Temps and Rests >> >I got an OG 1.038 instead of the expected 1.059-1.063. I got a really good >crush from my Corona mill and thought I would be in pretty good shape. I >mashed in at 155F for 90 minutes occassionally stirring. Luckily I had about >1# of DME and was able to get the OG to ~1.050... close enough for what I had >to work with. > >I have 2 questions: 1 - how can I improve my extraction rate > 2 - Did he get his OG by doing a decoction (I didn't) One suggestion I have is to double check your themometers. If the thermometer is reading low, you could be mashing at a higher temp than you realized. Also, in mashing I've found that the difference in temp can easily be 10 dgrees at different spots around the tun if it is not well mixed (thus I take temps at various places/depths). ===================== >Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 21:36:52 -0700 >From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net> >Subject: diacetyl pils >Active fermentation 8 hours after racking off trub >Primary fermentation 12 days at 48F >Diacetyl rest for 2 days at 60F >Secondary fermentation 4 weeks at 38F >After 2 months in the keg - DIACETYL dominates aroma and flavor!! Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always thought the Diacetyl rest comes after the secondary fermentation, but possibly before long-term lagering. Also, do you drop the beer from Primary at 48F to Secondary at 38F quickly? And is this secondary fermentation really a secondary fermentation, or means you've transfering into another container (a secondary container). >************************************* Dennis Waltman Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:47:11 -0500 From: kathy/jim <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: ideal grind for malt I've pondered the advantages of the non-parallel rollers of a mill and the fact that it gives a sieve distribution closest the the ideal of the 6 roller mill, yet clearly the malt going thru the close end is milled quite different then the malt going thru the wide setting end of the mill. The roller milling process for wheat (I was a student of such years ago) is first to open the berry into a flake of bran with starch adhering, and then with additional passes thru other rollers, to strip the starch from the bran and remove (sieve off) the bran, and then reduce the starch particles to flour. In both flour and malt milling, it is important to prevent small particles of bran from the final product, but it is essential in flour milling. It would seem there is little advantage to the fine crush of the close setting of the non-parallel rollers. It contains fines of both bran (undesirable) and starch (desirable). The 6 roller application grinds the starch fine which gives an efficiency in a commercial application in extraction rate and mashing time, but neither of these are a priority to the home brewer. An ideal distribution of product over a standard set of seives is an important goal, only if the content of each sieve is the same as in the standard used in a 6 roller mill. If the 6-roller mill produces a certain percent of fines of starch while the single pass produces the same percent fines of bran and starch, the single pass mill has achieved a false goal. This probably was hashed out years ago before I started the HBD, but I've not seen this explanation presented. I apologize (well kinda) if I've reopened old wounds. My own conclusion is that the fine/coarse of grind probably isn't that important to the home brewer as compared to convenience and effort and that one has a successful sparge. I have advocated the tempering (an essential of wheat flour milling) of malt with 2 Tbls water/ pound of malt and letting it rest 30' before milling. This eases the milling effort required, reduces dust, and produces more fines and a larger bran flake; all desirable. cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 11:53:47 -0500 (EST) From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Open fermentations, publicizing a yeast ranch Howdy. Brewed a sticke this weekend (oh, and I never had a problem with chill haze until I started using Weisheimer malt, will report results of n=1, 45 min rest at 55C). As I was cooling to transfer to the primary, my wife informed me that we were late for a Mardi Gras party. My starter was crawling out of its bottle, and I have always been intrigued by the idea of open ferments, so I just pitched in the cooled kettle, breaks and spent hops and all. Racked it off of said sediment and 2 gal volume krausen into a carboy with airlock after 24 h. Airlock was blown off this morning. My question(s): when do open fermenters typically rack to a closed container? Or do you just rack to the bottling bucket/keg? And in what and how many ways IMBR? Also, as I work in a lab that spends a good portion of its time growing yeast, I have taken to ranching them myself. When members of my brewclub heard about this, they were very interested in getting some of the strains. Typically I, um that is I am considering giving out 50 ml shots that I have grown shaking in "YPDS" (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, 2% glucose, 2% sucrose). The club has a web site and I would like to make this a service available to members. All of the strains in my bank have come from commercial yeast suppliers except the Hennepin yeast. I do this out of the goodness of my heart; there is no fee charged. There is another who has helped me in these endeavors, but I do not wish get him into any trouble just yet. He's too busy hitting the snooze button. My second question(s): what are the legalities of advertising these strains by the names and numbers the suppliers gave them? What are the legalities of advertising these strains by the names of the reputed breweries the yeast were taken from in the first place? Any yeast rancher out there ever have problems with certain strains going petite or sporulating/growing as haploids (or half of whatever their ploidy was to begin with) during storage on agar? Mike Maceyka Baltimore, MD Still too ashamed of his brewery name to mention it, but quite happy with the name of his Duvel clone, The Felonius Monk... Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 09:41:48 PST From: "Scott Moore" <brewathome at hotmail.com> Subject: decoction anyone? Steve Alexander writes: >The value of unfermentable carbohydrates in beer, those formed after >the boost from 143F, are of very dubious value with respect to >body,mouthfeel and foam/head properties. (see my previous post for >references). Protein is a much bigger issue for all of these. What is still confusing for me is that I always read that for good body/mouthfeel you need to rest the mash in the range of 155-158F and for thin/highly alcoholic beer you rested at 145-149F. Are dextrins not as important as previously thought? I've had many a batch that finished too high with good body/mouthfeel although they were way too sweet. I would love to get that body in a well attenuated beer... >==My streamlined method is as follows: >R1- Mash-in for a strike at about 60C/140F, and allow enough time for >a nearly complete conversion and a few % extra malt. >R2 - rest at the 160F temp until you get a negative iodine. Only >then start the recirculation. Note that a negative iodine only means >tha amylose segments greater then G9 are missing. Additional >degradation is desirable and occurs during the lauter and beyond... My next questions are: 1. Will this method work for trying to duplicate some of my favorite bocks and dopplebocks where a higher FG is desired? 2. With a highly fermentable wort, is the malty taste and body/mouthfeel more dependent on the yeast than ever? 3. Would I be restricted to using something like 2308 or 2206 or could I still use Nottingham dry like some others have done? I can only lager to about 50F currently. I have been scouring the digest archives for weeks trying to find out more about decoction and of course opinions differ greatly. Any way to increase that malty flavor beyond no-sparge and pressure cooking without adding 3 hours to my brew day is welcome advice. Regards, Scott Moore ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:19:32 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Oh, so many subjects Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> writes: > Subject: Flow Valves in Breweries > > I have noticed during several ongoing discussions that Ball Valves have been > referred to as being used for flow control. Ball valves serve well as shut > offs but they are terribly non linear and don't work well as flow control > valves. Is there any reason why gate valves couldn't be used for flow > controls or am I missing something. I seems that a gate valve would give > much better flow control. Rod is right about ball valves, however, gate valves are also designed for all-or-none action. Unlike ball valves (called seacocks by sailors) gate valves are potentially effective as graded-opening valves, but it is usually recomended that they not be used this way. I believe this is because they are designed to work without washers to allow them to stay in one position for years and then be used. Water flow might eventually wear on the sealing surfaces? Anyway this is probably a non-issue for homebrewing use levels. There are other types of valves designed for graded opening. ************************************************************************ Mitchell Surface <msurface at fortwayne.infi.net> writes: > My other question is about stands. I've looked at some of the systems > on the web and noticed that most of them are using metal frames. I > don't weld and don't know anyone who does. I'd like to use a wooden > stand, with perhaps a sheet metal top, but have the obvious concern > about putting a 170,000 BTU gas burner on a piece of wood. Has anyone > done this? I have. I built a wooden cart that holds everything at the right height, has storage compartments, holds the plumbing and electronics, and has wheels. The burner (was 2, now only 1) is mounted to a metal stand made of 12 3 or 4" pipe nipples, 1 pipe cross, 4 pipe Ts, and 4 pipe flanges (I think that's what they're called. They are a disc that has a pipe thread fitting on one side and holes for screws to mount to a surface.) You can probably see how this goes together: put 4 nipples into the cross, put the center of a T on each of these such that the ends of the T point orthogonal to the plane formed by the cross, put 2 nipples into each of these Ts, and screw a flange onto one set of these Ts. This requires no welding, but is rather expensive. Hint: black pipe is slightly cheaper than galvanized. ************************************************************************ Jethro chastises me: > >From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> > >Subject: Brown malt/historic porter > Newer HBD'rs may also find it useful to review Graham Wheeler's > contributions to this subject. Damn! For all the times I curse people who don't check the archives and here I am caught. Actually I did check the archives as I posted in my first post, but missed the Wheeler stuff. Actually not much useful to me (but quite interesting nevertheless), except the following 2 tidbits: > The original Porters of the early 1700's were brown beers, > brewed from brown malt; as were almost all beers of the day. > Brown malt was just about the only malt that was made in those > days and it is, by definition, a smoked malt; smoked over a > hardwood fire of oak, beech, or hornbeam. Smoking was considered ^^^^^ > to be an important part of malting and enhanced the flavour, for > much the same reason that whisky malts are smoked over peat > today. So beech smoke from the Weyermann is OK. > 1850 Whitbread's Porter grist had become > 80 per cent pale malt, 15 per cent brown malt, and 5 per cent > black malt. While I'm after a 1700 porter, this is informative since I will be forced to brew somewhat more in this vein, i.e. mostly pale malt, some brown, and dark to compensate. BTW I've brewed it (Saturday) according to the recipe I posted, figuring I'd modify it the second go round with the Beestons Brown when I get it. It doesn't taste very smokey, nor too phenolic/sour from the brown malt, so I think at this point I underdid it with those. Time will tell.... BTW sir, I hope you don't mean to suggest that I'm newer HBD'r. I take umbrage at that remark and we may have meet on the field of honor--your choice of weapons. ************************************************************************ From: Scott Abene <skotrat at yahoo.com> asks: >Hey! What ever happened to Tracy Aquilla??? I miss that quality of >comments. One of many to die in the dreaded war with the AHA if I'm not mistaken. Pierre Jelanc (sp?) was another source of quality info to go around that time. Tracy is not really dead however, since I've seen some posts of his to sci.bio.food-science. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at stanford.edu http://www.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:35:39 -0600 From: Jim Layton <a0456830 at rlemail.dseg.ti.com> Subject: Trip Info Request I'll be taking a quick trip to the Santa Anna/Huntington Beach area of California soon. Will someone please direct me to an area store with a good selection of Belgian ales? Private emails, please. Jim Layton j-layton at ti.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 12:57:04 -0600 From: John.Wilkinson at aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: RE: Why RIMS with modified malts Bruce Taber wrote in HBD #2959: >If I believe in single temperature mashing, is there any reason to >consider a RIMS? I have had a RIMS system for almost a year and almost exclusively do single infusion mashes. The system is easier to use than my old system of a cylindrical cooler mash tun with rectangular cooler hot liquor tank on saw horses since I don't have to haul everything out to set up and don't have to either pour hot water into the HLT up on saw horses or pick up an HLT full of hot water to put on saw horses. Of course, these things could be accomplished without going to a RIMS system. A directly heated HLT anda pump to move water from the HLT to the mash tun and for recirculating saves time and labor but could be accomplished with a burner under a metal HLT and a pump. If the mash tun is uninsulated, as is my current Sanke keg derived tun, then having an in line heater to maintain mash temp is good. Maintaining mash temperature with direct heat to the keg/mash tun could be done but stirring or recirculation would be necessary to keep from scorching. Also, the mash would have to be watched to know when to add heat. If all the components are put together on a movable stand with a pump for recirculation and a in line heater for maintaining mash temps, with a controller to regulate the heater, the above mentioned problems are solved. But then you have a RIMS system. On the few times I have done step infusion mashes I have found them quite simple, raising the mash temp by direct heat and in line heater and maintaining mash temp by in line heater with controller. With all mashes the process is a lot less work than with my old cooler system, especially the recirculation. Is it worth the extra expense? That, I would say, is up to the individual. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/23/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96