HOMEBREW Digest #3188 Tue 07 December 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: RIMS ("Rick Wood")
  Pro Mash Hop Calculator (Roger Whyman)
  Re: carcinogens (Spencer W Thomas)
  Dry Hopping Haze (KMacneal)
  lp gas (Keith A Houck)
  RFRIMS (Reverse Flow RIMS) warning ("J. Doug Brown")
  brewing old school-style (Marc Sedam)
  Grain Mills and mash pH (JDPils)
  fixing an under-attenuated beer (Marc Sedam)
  Re: FWH Experiment (Jeff Renner)
  Re: First Lager Season questions (Jeff Renner)
  FWH:  Haze / IBUs / dry hopping and teas / lagering / what's it called? ("gdepiro")
  Hop tea, Freshman Chemistry, Tourette's (Dave Burley)
  Re: RIMS Comments:Grainbed flow and increased ramp times (LaBorde, Ronald)
  German Pils Efforts ("Gregory Remake")
  budvar malt ("St. Patrick's")
  Article in Sunday Boston Globe (Seth Goodman)
  Pickled Eggs ("Jack Schmidling")
  Question: this one came out REAL good...why? (darrell.leavitt)
  Re: Celebration Ale (phil sides jr)
  Carbonation ("=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ari_J=E4rm=E4l=E4?=")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 06:47:06 +1000 From: "Rick Wood" <thewoods at netpci.com> Subject: Re: RIMS Hello All, I have been following the RIMS/HERMS discussion with interest. It seems that we are limited by two basic things (according to many, most recently MaltHound). We require: Heating, to hold or raise the temperature of the Wort and Recirculating Flow to achieve and hold and distribute mash temperatures and to do temperature boosts. Technically we have no problems with the temperature Delta T. We can always pump more heat into the flow. But practically there is a limit to Delta T, because we don't want to denature enzymes. Many of the heating solutions answer this problem. Technically also, were it not for the mash bed, we could pump almost any flow that we wanted by getting a bigger pump and/or larger diameter plumbing. We might also get a more efficient false bottom, one with more open space. Even so, we are limited by grain bed compaction. Even with the "best" pump, the "best" plumbing and the "best" false bottom grain bed compaction is the bugaboo. This problem has two solutions, as far as I can see. Micah Millspaw has a wonderful design for a RIMS heater using Propylene Glycol and an electrical heater. Thus he has answered the first problem, gentle temperature. He answers the second problem by doing a reverse flow - pumping into the bottom of the mash bed, infusing upward, and collecting at the top to be pumped back through the heating device. Elegant: flow operating against gravity to limit grain bed compaction. He has a very nice PowerPoint presentation to explain the system that he will probably send you: <MMillspa at SILGANMFG.COM> I would like to throw this idea out as another solution for comment and discussion: How about having a tiered mash bed with several false bottoms stacked in the grain bed. Each false bottom would have to be held at its level so that the weight above would not compact the bed. So, for a 9 inch grain bed I could envision three layers in the mash, each three inches in depth. Grain would still be compacted by flow, but the effect of the weight of the grain bed would be minimized. Additionally, since there is only a limited weight of grain on each layer, the false bottom could be relatively light weight - perhaps only a stainless steel wire screen. I would think that with this arrangement flow through the grain bed could be increased a great deal above the usual one tier deep bed arrangement. (Remember that each level of false bottom would have to be physically supported in the tun, rather than just laid upon the grain below it so that the weight of the grain at each level would be minimized.) Any comments? Regards, Rick Wood Brewing on Guam Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 19:00:55 -0700 From: Roger Whyman <rwhyman at milehigh.net> Subject: Pro Mash Hop Calculator I've just recently started using the Pro Mash program and I'm wondering what is the prefered hop calculator when brewing at a mile high, thus a lower boiling temp, Rager, Garetz or Tinseth? Send me a private email and I post the consensus in a week or so. Thanks, Roger Whyman Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 01:17:08 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: carcinogens The problem, as I see it, with high dose testing is that it assumes that response is linear, cumulative, and that there is no threshold effect. I am not convinced that any of these are true in all cases. I know, you'd say "better safe than sorry" but I do a lot of things that have a much higher risk of killing me (such as driving a car!) I do so because the benefit (to me) outweighs the risk (to me). Zero-tolerance (which is basically the US policy on potentially cancer-causing substances) is never a good idea in the real world. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 07:16:52 EST From: KMacneal at aol.com Subject: Dry Hopping Haze In a message dated 12/6/1999 12:23:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, Bret Morrow <bret.morrow at prodigy.net> writes: << With this said, any comments on FWH (or dry hopping) and hazing? >> I've consistently noticed that a fairly bright beer racked to secondary and dryhopped gets cloudy. I don't use clarifiers and the beer is never around long enough for the haze to settle out. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 07:25:40 -0500 From: Keith A Houck <HOUCK_KEITH_A at Lilly.com> Subject: lp gas Has anyone use a direct line from a large lp gas tank (home gas supply) to fuel a Superior or similar stove? Are there any special modifications required? I would like to include such a line in deigning a new house. Thanks very much. Keith Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 14:57:04 +0000 From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown at labyrinth.net> Subject: RFRIMS (Reverse Flow RIMS) warning Hello, I have thought about the reverse flow RIMS (Recirculating Infusion Mashing System) unit for quick ramp times. It sounded like such a good idea, I modified my plumbing diagram to allow for it, now I am not so sure I should have and might go back to my original design. The potential problem I visualize with this type operation is husk relocation and fluid tunneling. I have not tried this experiment yet!!! I imagine that when the flow is reversed and the rate is increased several things might happen which would not allow for a consistent mash temperature and rapid ramp times. 1) A tunnel might form up through the grainbed where fluid would push the malt up and out of a column enabling the wort to reverse flow through the tunnel rather than the grain bed. This would be bad as only the tunnel would be at temperature, the grain bed would only have minimal heated flow through it and would not be at the temperature of the wort. In a RIMS system consistency seems like the objective so even heating in my opinion would be the goal. 2) If there is a nice flow (no tunneling) it seems likely that the husks will likely migrate to the top of the grain bed due to their high surface area and low mass. What happens from here could range from the husks being sucked into the pump and then clogging under the false bottom, or clogging any filter above the mash. The reason this would be more likely on a reverse flow is that during normal flow the grain bed is held in place through gravity and downward wort flow, however in reverse flow the grain bed would not be held together so well. In a reverse flow system the flow would be acting against the gravity pulling the grains down, so the grains would likely form a loose grain bed prior to tunneling and the loose grainbed would likely allow the smaller particles with more surface area to migrate to the top of the mash. My theory is once the husks have migrated out of the grain bed they will need to be removed as they will not be able to migrate down into the grain bed during normal downward wort flow and will tend to form a layer on top of the grain, causing flow blockage and grain bed compaction. A side benefit of the hull relocation, could be their easy filtration from the mash and increase the possiblities of new flavor profiles in the wort without worring about tannin extraction. Are there other enzymes we want to stimulate in the wort that operate in the tannin extraction range, without extracting tannins? Just my 2 cents. Brewing in WV Doug Brown - -- -------------------------------------------------------- / J. Doug Brown Sr. Software Engineer \ < jbrown at labyrinth.net jbrown at ewa.com > \ http://www.labs.net/jbrown http://www.ewa.com / Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 10:06:33 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: brewing old school-style I was asked (OK, I offered) to bring some homebrew to a holiday party in two weeks. Lacking the time, energy, or spousal approval for my normal long brew day, I decided to take my skills to school--old school. The concept? Brew and ferment 5 gallons of all-grain beer with as little time, effort, and energy (literal and figurative) as possible. I decided to drop most pretenses and brew like a newbie with all the info I've picked up over the years. The system--a cajun cooker, two 7-gallon buckets, a 5 gallon Gott cooler with a Listermann plastic screen in the bottom, one 7.5 gallon SS pot, and a wort chiller. Oh, and I refused to give up my pure oxygen system for ensuring a quick start. I could have shaken the carboys, but remember the mention in the second line about lack of energy??? The grist--4lbs DWC 2-row, 6lbs light Munich, 1lb Biscuit, 0.5lb cara-pils. First wort hop with 1 oz Hallertauer (a=2.4%), 0.6oz N. Brewer (a=7.6%) at 60 min, 0.5 oz Tettnang (a=3.8%) at 10 min, and 0.4oz Tettnang (a=3.8%) when the heat was turned off. Ferment with a quart of Wyeast 1028 yeast picked up from the kindly folks at a local brewpub in Chapel Hill. They were so cool about getting me the yeast. I gave them the pressure- sterilized ball jars and they filled it for me the next day. The other brewpub didn't even respond to my request for a yeast donation...guess where my next drinking business goes? Making life as simple as possible, I mashed in at 105F and raised the temperature 2F/minute until reaching the saccharification temperature of 156F. Rest for one hour. Transfer to the Gott cooler. Once the sach. rest started, boil six gallons of water and pour in one plastic bucket (with spigot). Let water cool as the gods may wish it to be. After an hour, I recirculated the mash until clear, and lautered into the now-clean kettle. Guesstimated a matched flow from my sparge bucket and mash tun and left to get more propane and a couple of herbed-cheddar cheese biscuits (LOVE the South for it's biscuits). When I came back, the sparge was done...no water in the bucket, no liquid left in the cooler...nothing but 7 gallons of wort that smelled lovely. Picked up the kettle, fired up the cooker, boiled, then chilled with the wort chiller. While chilling I cleaned everything else up and put it away. Pitched the yeast, blasted with a 20 second shot of oxygen, waited 45 minutes then hit it with another 20 second shot. Within 4 hours after pitching there was some serious krausen going on; 12 hours later it was climbing out of the bucket, and 18 hours later (this morning) the krausen had dropped. I wanted to check the gravity but didn't. The lesson? In under five hours I had made one complete all-grain beer and cleaned everything up. There were almost no gadgets (I won't ever give up my pure oxygen bursts) and the beer was super tasty going in the bucket. I didn't check any temperatures other than the mash-in and to get the right saccharafication temperature. Use of the HUGE volume of yeast made all the difference in the world--it was free because I asked nicely and gave up a few of my prized bottles of imperial stout and barleywine. The brew day was so quick and efficient that my wife didn't really know that I'd started when I was already finished. Just proof to myself after years of voracious reading and an addiction to stainless steel equipment, that all I've learned can be put to use making my brewing easier should I choose to do it. I have to admit I was inspired by all the talk of RIMS, HERMS, EAHERMS, HERMIE the dentist, and all the other techno-brew talk of the past few weeks in deciding to go minimalist. Here's to old-school brewing! Marc Sedam "Hauptbrauerei Altschul" (Old-School Homebrewery) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:13:26 EST From: JDPils at aol.com Subject: Grain Mills and mash pH Dear fellow brewer's, I want to thank everyone for responding to my questions regarding grain mills. This is a great forum and I hope I may also contribute to others' questions in the future. The feedback I received was excellent. It seems that for home use all the mills will work well. I have another question to ask the hbd collective regarding water treatment and mash pH. The Seattle area has some of the best water for brewing in the country. It is very soft with 14 ppm alkalinity as CaCO3 and 10 ppm Ca. For years I never did anything to treat the water. For pilseners and wheat beers my mash pH is usually 5.5 and ESB's 5.3. For dark beers like porters I found the pH to be on the low end at 5.0, so I thought the best thing to so was start adding some CaCO3 to buffer the mash. Recently, I brewed a Munich Dunkel with 50% Gambrinus dark munich, 25% Gam. light munich and 25% Weyerman pils malt. I added 0.75 gms of CaCO3 to my mash water. Also thinking to get closer to the munich water. The pH never got above 5.0 and dropped to 4.9, perhaps lower, over the course of a double decoction mash. The extraction was extemely good, as I calculated 90%, which is higher than normal (80% for infusion and 85% for decoctions) for my method which I have used for about 7 years now. The only other factor in efficiency is the crush, which was on the fine side. I used a large horizontally slotted grain mill at Larry's brewing supply that I was not familiar with. The sparge was also normal. The lag time was very short about 8 hours, reaching high Kreusen in 12 at 55F. The wort was very clear after the trub had settled. So my questions are: 1) Should I be adding more CaCO3 or less? 2) Although the dark munich acidifies the mash, did the added Ca decrease the pH further than the CO3 could buffer? 3) Is there another salt or compound to add CO3 without the calcium? 4) Is there a simple "how to treat water text" or web sight that could help me? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Jim Dunlap Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 10:19:40 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: fixing an under-attenuated beer I recently had a problem with beers failing to attenuate properly. They were all-grain batches using my normal (not old-school) tested procedures, except I ran out of oxygen to help kick-start fermentation. I shook the carboys but none of the beers attenuated anywhere close to where they should have. Most stopped halfway through fermentation. The other difference from my normal processes was that I pitched dry yeast (using ALL proper rehydration techniques). They took off fine, but just didn't finish the job. One I left alone because it was VERY bitter (the subject of another of my posts a few weeks back) and the residual sweetness helped balance an otherwise unpalatable beer. The solution? I went to a local brewpub (the same as mentioned im my earlier post) and asked for a quart of lager yeast. It was a full jar of nothing but yeast slurry. The yeast went from the fermenter at the brewery to my Ball jar to my house in under 30 minutes. I racked both under-attenuated beers (bock, Vienna lager) to new carboys and added a pint of slurry to each. Within 2 hours there was a thin layer of krausen on each beer and the gravity has dropped steadily over the past few days. I expect they will attenuate out fully and make tasty beers. I've seen people post about how to fix under-attenuated brews and this is my $0.02. It involves one customer-friendly brewpub (or brewery) but you don't have to do anything detrimental to the beer like try to shake it again. Perhaps the Vienna will finish up in time for the new year. Cheers! Marc Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:08:20 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: FWH Experiment Louis Bonham <<lkbonham at hbd.org> asks real scientists to comment on his FWH experiment protocol. Well, I fail the qualifier, I guess, but I'll still comment: >Batch 1 -- FWH -- When the temp hits 80C (176F), add 1.000g >of high alpha hop pellets. Record the time it takes from >this addition until boiling begins. FWH procedure involves allowing the hops to steep the entire lautering time, or about an hour, at lauter temperature, or about 170F (76C) (I'm not quibbling with your specified 80C), then ramped up to boiling. Your hops will probably steep a very short time, only the time ti takes to get to boiling. Also, you specify high alpha hops. Why not noble hops, since that is what FWHing was in the German paper, and what would be used in a Pils, at least. I certainly would expect the IBUs to be higher in the FWH, but in my experience, the resulting bitterness and hop character are indeed quite nice. Haven't ever run a controlled experiment, though. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:28:49 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: First Lager Season questions "scott" <Cuckold at cornerpub.com> (who has certainly chosen a strange email moniker) asks about lagers: >Question 1: >While one beer is lagering, will it hurt it any to raise the freezer temp >for a week, so your next batch can primary ferment? My guess is that it will delay maturation, but I don't know for sure. It may also shorten its ultimate life. >Question 2: >After lagering for 2-3 months, will there be enough active yeast leftover to >carbonate with corn sugar? Will I need to add a secondary yeast? Am >planning on having kegging capacity by next month, which will probably help >me in that dept. I have successfully carbonated lagers with the residual yeast. As a matter of fact, I've never had a failure. However, I don't bottle them anymore (haven't for some years), but carbonate them in kegs. If you do have your keg setup going by then, I'd suggest artificial carbonation by the methods you'll find in the archives rather than priming the keg. It's quicker and you don't get sediment. And no, natural carbonation doesn't give you finer bubbles or longer lasting head. I'll go out on a limb and state this as a fact. At least, no one in the years I've been reading HBD has ever been able to suggest why it should be otherwise, and I think most agree. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:38:55 -0500 From: "gdepiro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com> Subject: FWH: Haze / IBUs / dry hopping and teas / lagering / what's it called? Hi all, Bret asks about increased haze in FWH beers. I have noticed that any highly-hopped beer can throw more haze than a lower-hopped but otherwise identical brew. I believe this may have something to do with the increased amount of tannins. As many of you already know, chill haze is formed by tannins and middle-weight proteins. Increase those, and you can increase chill haze. You should determine what type of haze you have before you take action against it. If your beer is hazy, but clears upon warming, it is chill haze (unless there is also a pile of yeast at the bottom of the container after it sits a while). If the beer remains hazy once it is warmed, then you have what is referred to as a permanent haze. This can be due to unconverted starch (common to extract brews to which unmalted gains or pumpkins have been added), yeast, or bacteria. If bacteria are present in large enough quantity to cause a haze, the beer is probably pretty bad tasting, too, so I won't expound on that. If you have starch in your beer, there is not much you can do other than drink the beer with your eyes closed. If yeast is the cause of your haze (which you can positively determine either by process of elimination or by microscopic examination of the beer), then you can add a fining agent (I have had great success with gelatin, 200 bloom from Crosby and Baker) or just give it more time to settle out. Filtering will also eliminate haze, regardless of the cause. I hate filtering my beers, though, so look to finings most of the time. I'm basically lazy; filtering takes 3 hours while fining takes 5 minutes. The beer's flavor is unaffected by fining, unlike filtering, which pleases me, too.) - -------------------------------- Troy asks about dry hopping and using hop teas to increase aroma. He mentions a grassy aroma in a beer he hopped with hop tea, and poor aroma increase in beer that he has dry hopped. Adding hops to young beer (dry hopping) is a tried and true method for increasing hop aroma and flavor in a beer. I find that the perception of bitterness can be increased, also. I guess this happens because if you are smelling and tasting a ton of hops you expect more bitterness, too. Why didn't dry hopping increase the hop aroma of Troy's brew? I think there is a clue in his discussion about his experience with hop tea: he says that he got a grassy note from it. Grassy notes are associated with hops that are past their prime. Old hops don't work very well as dry hops. Avoid hops that are yellow, brown, cheesy or grassy smelling, very brittle (for cones) or very hard (for pellets). Hop pellets should be bright green, not olive drab. They should smell as fresh as good whole hops. Adding hop tea to your beer will give an effect different from dry hopping because the short boil will drive off some of the myrcene and other hop oils that give dry hopped beer its distinctive character. Some brewers don't favor the aroma of dry hopped beers, describing it as green and harsh, while others simply can't get enough of it. When making hop tea, you can lower the pH of the mixture to minimize isomerization of the hop alpha acids. Isomerization occurs much more efficiently at higher pH, so if you are adding hop tea for aroma/flavor effects, you may find pH adjustment useful (I wouldn't bother; I would just not boil the tea for too long). Lower pH may also reduce tannin extraction. - ---------------------------------- Louis proposes an experiment to determine the amount of IBUs added by first wort hopping (FWH). He asks for comments, so here's mine: I have found the ASBC IBU test to be sort of inaccurate. I spoke with some brewing chemists from Anheuser-Busch about this, and they were not surprised at all. As I suspected, the method extracts all sorts of interfering substances that absorb UV light, throwing off the test results. Darker beers have more interfering substances. If I still had access to a spectrophotometer (anyone at Berlex still reading this? Mike?), I would like to do a recovery study to assess the accuracy of the test. Simply spike several different colored, unhopped beers with isomerized hop extract of known quantity and test both the spiked and unspiked samples. The difference in IBUs should be the amount you spiked in, and the unhopped versions should read zero (but I doubt that thy will). Each sample should be prepared in triplicate to assess method precision. - --------------------------------- Scott asks about lagering, specifically wondering what effect (if any) raising the temperature of his lagering fridge will have on his beer. If you raise the temperature to the 60's for an ale fermentation, and your lager had significant oxygen pick-up during a transfer, you could stale the beer prematurely. If you have been careful to avoid air pick-up, you should be fine in that department. There are two other concerns, though: 1. The yeast may not survive the period of high temperature because of the lack of food. This can cause carbonation problems later. The yeast may well not carbonate the beer after a long, cold lagering, anyway (some people have problems, others don't), so if you keg and force carbonate or kraeusen you'll eliminate this concern. 2. A big part of the reason for cold-lagering at home is to settle the chill haze. If the beer is warm, there will be no chill haze to settle. You'll just have to wait longer. You can avoid warming the beer altogether by simply keeping a cooler full of ice water with the lagering vessel in it. I used to do this all the time before I had a separate fridge. - --------------------------------- Finally, a question: I have brewed a beer that is 1/3 apple cider and 2/3 beer. Is there a term for this type of beverage? It is available at the brewpub if you are in Albany and care to taste it (I'll also have it at my homebrew club meeting in Brooklyn on Wed.; see website in sig line). It has a decidedly apple nose, with some wine-like (Chardonnay) character. The flavor is apple cider-like up front, with a soft malt character and tart finish. I'm not sure if I like it or not, but it sure isn't boring! Have fun! George de Piro C.H.Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station (518) 447-9000 Malted Barley Appreciation Society Homebrew Club http://hbd.org/mbas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:46:56 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Hop tea, Freshman Chemistry, Tourette's Brewsters: Troy made a hop tea from Columbus and was disappointed with the powerful hoppiness and grassy flavor. Why not try some noble aroma hops instead of a high bittering hop like Columbus ( which I think gets its grassiness from being a Cascades cross?.) Use hops like Saaz for Pilsners and EK Goldings for bitter ales. This will reduce the intense flavor and bitterness and increase the hop nose, which I believe was your goal. You should put the hops in along with the liquid. But first tie the hops in a cheesecloth bag ( double or triple folded). Make sure the bag will easily go through the neck of the carboy if that is what you use for your secondary. - --------------------------------------- Oooops. The correct MW of CO2 is 44, not the 46 I got when I used Carbon-14 in my calculations! but the basic idea behind the results is the same. Carbonate by using the pressure of CO2 as a guide. It is much safer to handle this way. However, if you want a carbonated beer quickly, I suppose you could put some dry ice in a glass of cold, still beer and be prepared to drink it! - --------------------------------------- Bret comments on Tourette's Syndrome. While touring with a British friend, who loves dogs, we heard barking and my friend began to search for the source. We were embarassed to find it was a woman pumping gas at the next pump. In response to our puzzled looks, she said "I have Tourette's Syndrome". Until that time I thought it was largely associated with swearing and antagonistic behavior. - --------------------------------------- I know the official cover story, but am I the only one who wonders about the fact that the Mars Polar Lander got to within 500 miles of the planet, fired two grapefruit sized objects at the planet and was never heard from again? And then there was the last failed attempt curiously blamed on not converting from English to Metric systems and the Russians also had failed probes when they got near Mars. And there is that face on Mars which NASA denies. This could be bigger than Roswell! - -------------------------------------------------- Keep on Brewin' Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 11:26:49 -0600 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Re: RIMS Comments:Grainbed flow and increased ramp times >From: "Martin Brungard" <mabrungard at hotmail.com> >...The lowest cost dimmer I've found is $60 for 1500 watt >capacity and the lowest cost PID setup I've found is on the order of $230.... There is an inexpensive circuit using a 555 timer IC that can be built for just a few dollars that can control an SSR from full on to full off and incrementally between. It varies the on/off ratio with a cycle time of about 1/2 second. >I'm in the process of creating a RIMS and my system could easily allow me to >reverse the flow through the grainbed during mashing. All I need to do is >change the flow outlet fixture sitting on top of the grainbed into a filter >style inlet/outlet. I'm using stainless steel hose reinforcement as the >filter under the grainbed, so I'll just add another one on the top of the >bed to filter the wort during the reverse flow. Lautering will still go in >the normal downflow direction. Unless someone can see a reason why using a >high rate upflow through the grainbed would be bad, I'm going to try this >idea. Let us know how this works out. I wonder though, if you have a filter at the top, could this now be an upside down grain bed. Could the mash compact at the top just as it does at the bottom? >One idea that Rod had to decrease the energy density through the RIMS >heating chamber was to have a bypass in the system to allow a higher >flowrate through the chamber. I can see a problem with this proposal because >it will end up overheating the wort on top of the grainbed. And since all >the flow is not going through the grainbed, the heated wort will not be >distributed through the bed as quickly. This idea may not provide the >results we are ultimately looking for, no wort scorching. Sure, seems logical. My thermometer is mounted way down, just a few inches above the filter screen, and when I start temperature boosting, it takes quite a while before I see any rise on the thermometer. I know the liquor is at high temperature at the top, but it takes some time for it to reach the bottom and affect the entire mash. I did have the opportunity to observe a RIMS system where circulating was done with a long stiff copper tubing with a right angle at the bottom, the was started the mechanical action stirred the whole mash up nicely, by being close to the bottom, it tended to lift and move all the grains and acted like a great stirrer, and full open valves were used with plenty circulation. I just must try this myself soon, not much needed except a piece of copper tubing. If it does not work, I can just switch to my normal downflow device and continue. Oh, not enough days, not enough hours in a day.... Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 12:00:02 CST From: "Gregory Remake" <gremake at hotmail.com> Subject: German Pils Efforts Hello all, Thanks to all who responded to my questions regarding my quest to replicate the unique taste of classic German Pils. Happily, a fair number of you recognized what I was talking about and were kind enough to offer suggestions. Most responses suggested that the spicy character I seek is the result of the hops selection, and others thought it is due to the malts, water, or decoction mashing. Unfortunately, no one claimed to have successfully reproduced the flavor I'm trying to replicate. I was somewhat surprised that no one agreed with my hypothesis that the yeast held the key to my desired results. All agreed that Czech yeasts would finish too malty and not dry enough. Based on the marketing description, Wyeast 2247 European Lager II was suggested. Could anyone who has tried this variety please provide your opinions of this yeast? Since I now split my mashing and boiling sessions I can tolerate longer mashing procedures, so for my next attempt at this style I'll try decocting. My thought was to achieve a 40C/60C/70C temperature profile, and use a final boiling water infusion for mash out, and 100% German Pilsner malt. Any thoughts? Can anyone suggest a decoction-mashed German Pils recipe with which they are pleased? Thanks again for all the help. Cheers, Greg ______________________________________________________ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 13:11:02 -0500 From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats at bga.com> Subject: budvar malt Jim Busch, Mark Bayer, and Jim Liddil offered reasoned comments about Budvar malt as well as details of Czech decoction. I should be old enough to understand the wisdom of Mark Twain's admonition "It's better to keep your mouth shut and look stupid than to open it and remove any doubt." I was a little stung by Jim Busch's belief that the import I attach to Budvar malt is hyperbole. But the full context of Jim's post as well as comments made by Jim Liddil made me realize that "most important" is at best vague and clearly implied things to the Jims that I did not intend. I did not mean that Budvar malt was the "best" new product nor even the best malt in the past ten years. To make that claim would indeed be hype at best. Budvar's importance emanates from the intellectual curiosity of brewers, even those who can never use this malt, which admittedly is the vast majority of brewpubs and micros. Can you make a traditional Czech or German style pilsner without undermodified malt? Are all these preprohibition american beers simply wishful thinking without undermodified malt? Are those that promote the importance of multiple temperature rests regardless of modification simply whistling Dixie? Or are those that tout the paramount importance of modification to mash regimen making a mountain out of a molehill? Narziss has noted the decline in 'liveliness' in German beers over the past couple of decades. Narziss attributes this defect to brewers failing to compensate for modification in the malthouse vs the brewery. These are just a few of the fundamental questions and issues that undermodified malt relates to and this is why I believe it is the most, for lack of a beter word, important new product. The issues that drive modern brewing research are primarily those of shelf life, extract efficiency, and time and labor costs in both the brewery and malthouse. Technological advances resulting from that research, which may have benefits to consumers (fresher beer for example), may not be particularly important to homebrewing or brewpub brewing. More importantly, these advances can have unforseen detrimental effects on beer quality such as higher beer pH. I appreciate Jim Busch noting my post was certainly not complete regarding decoction. Jim has a well earned reputation for writing clearly about mashing and I hope to provide him and others with meatier details in a few months. I tried to emphasize two areas which vary from what most of us have read about decoction, viz, 4 temps with 2 decoctions and boiling the entire mash prior to lautering. Mark succinctly notes why the latter may not be desirable at least for homebrewers. I'm returning to the Czech Republic in 3 months and I have a laundry list of detailed questions which honestly didn't occur to me before. But I am quite certain of the facts I have stated although the beauty is in the details. I have been deliberately restrained in offering details because I want to be sure I really got it right. Czech mash schedule is not accurately described in any text available in English that I am aware of. Is, as Jim Liddil queries, using undermodified malt retrobrewing? Maybe. Undermodified malt is largely extinct. I spoke with more than 40 maltings worldwide over the past 7 years trying to get undermodified malt. I lived and traveled with maltsters for over a week in the Czech Republic but ironically it was a statement I made on Moravian TV about traditional pilsner which lead to Budvar malt. How about this for retro brewing---Budvar gets 27-28 pts/lb with this malt. It is an acknowledged fact that Budvar is knowingly inefficient and resisting the westernization of Czech pilsner which is so evident at many others. Budvar is also the fastest growing, in both percent sales and profits, of all Czech breweries. DeClerck's book is 40 years old---actually 50 I think (English translation is 40). However, as Roger Protz has noted, Moravian barley had been recognized as the finest in the world for over 100 years prior to DeClerck's book. The climatic and soil conditions which contributed to this prestige cannot be easily dismissed as antiquated. I am keenly aware that the vast majority of brewpubs and micros cannot use this malt or will choose not to due to very practical reasons expressed by Jim Liddil and George DePiro. Fortunately, I have enough brewery interest to continue to offer it to homebrewers for a long time. I have another container on order and I may take Jim Liddil's counsel and send it for additional analysis beyond what I provided for the last. Budweiser Budvar requests only protein, extract, moisture, Kolbach, and Hartong. I appreciate skepticism. As a well known beer writer said to a brewer in Moravia, "Everyone says that crap". Best regards, Lynne O'Connor St. Patrick's of Texas Brewers Supply http://www.stpats.com St. Patrick's of Texas http://www.stpats.com Brewers Supply stpats at bga.com (e-mail) 1828 Fleischer Drive 512-989-9727 Austin, Texas 78728 512-989-8982 facsimile Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 16:24:37 -0500 From: Seth Goodman <sethgoodman at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Article in Sunday Boston Globe Hi Brewers, There was an interesting article in yesterday's Boston Globe, North Weekly Section, page 17, about home brewing. If you don't receive the Globe, you can read the article on-line at: http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/339/north/Something_s_brewing+.shtml Cheers, Seth Goodman Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 15:06:02 -0600 From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net> Subject: Pickled Eggs From: kathy/jim <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> >I'd like some suggested recipes for the pickled eggs often served in bars from jars on the counter..... Would you believe..... I sat down to read the Digest with a glass of the World's Greatest Beer http://user.mc.net/arf/wgb.htm and a pickled egg. It's the bottom of the last keg for the season so I am really taking it in and there is no better way to enjoy it than with pickled eggs. Our chickens are putting out faster that we can use them, especially with my wife in Germany at the moment, so I pickled a bunch last week. They just scream for beer. Recipes are as varied as beer but if you just put boiled and peeled eggs in vinegar, sugar and any herbs that come to mind, you can't go wrong. You can dilute the vinegar 50/50 with water and any combination of sugar like 1 tbs per quart, more less your option. Garlic is great. They start getting tasty within hours and a day or two will do it. I threw in some fresh/boiled beets and ended up not only with pickled beets but beautiful red eggs to boot. The keep for weeks. If you want to preserve them long term, you have to process them but they never last that long. If you are really lazy, you can put the boiled eggs in straight vinegar without peeling them. The vinegar will eventually disolve the shell. The eggs taste great but the mess in the bottle really looks gross. js PHOTO OF THE WEEK http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm HOME: Beer, Cheese, Astronomy, Videos http://user.mc.net/arf Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 18:22:06 -0500 (EST) From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu Subject: Question: this one came out REAL good...why? Date sent: 6-DEC-1999 18:12:09 OK, sorry to bore the more advanced folks with this, but I recently made an ale that came out wonderful. Just the right balance of hops and malt, a real clear brew, tho dark red in color, and nothing short of excellent. But , here is the problem: I am not sure why... Here is what I did: put 3 gal into pot, heated up to about 160 F mashed in: 1/2 lb Weissheimer Dark Carmel Malt 1 lb Paul's Dark Crystal Malt 8 lb Maris Otter 2 row malt Single infusion: 148 F for about 60 minutes first runnings were 1.092 based upon a thread a few months ago here, I boiled down a bit more than a pint on the side, then added it to the main kettle. boiled for 1 hour 1 oz Northern Brewer at start 1/2 oz Saaz at 30 1 oz Tettnang at 15 Berlios' Requium was playing on public radio as I pitched a Wyeast Scottish Ale starter onto the chilled wort. OG was 1.056 FG was 1.005 ABW was 5.3 % (about 3 1/2 gallons of sparge water at about 170 F) Yield was 38 Grolsch bottles (16 oz) no secondary fermentation. This is, perhaps , the best brew that I have ever made (and so say visitors )...was it the music? ..Darrell <Terminally INtermediate Home-brewer> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ _/ _/Darrell Leavitt _/ _/INternet: leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu _/ _/Internet (receives attachments): _/ _/ dleavitt at sln.esc.edu _/ _/AMpr.net: n2ixl at k2cc.ampr.org _/ _/AX25 : n2ixl at kd2aj.#nny.ny.usa _/ Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 1999 18:20:34 -0500 From: phil sides jr <psides at carl.net> Subject: Re: Celebration Ale Paul Shick celebrates: >>Thank goodness that Sierra Nevada is shipping its Celebration Ale as far >>East as Clevelnad this year. As does Paul Ward: >Believe it or not, they even shipped it as far east as Vermont this year! It made it to New Hampshire too guys. Made me wipe my eyes for a few minutes when I spotted it next to the SNPA. Phil Sides, Jr. Concord, NH - -- Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 02:05:31 +0200 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ari_J=E4rm=E4l=E4?=" <jarmala at pcuf.fi> Subject: Carbonation On Sat, 4 Dec 1999 Dave Burley explained a method for calculating the amount of dry ice needed per bottle. I agree with him that dry ice can not be recommended for carbonation because of certain safety risks like exploding bottles or cold bites in your fingers. However, the amount of dry ice needed is very easy to calculate. First, find out what is the desired level of dissolved carbon dioxide in that type of beer. It is usually between 2.5 to 5 ppt (or grams per litre as we like to express it here in Europe). The rest is calculus: multiply the volume of beer in the bottle by the factor 0.0025 to 0.005. This gives you the mass of dry ice per bottle. Assume SI (metric) units. > The MW of carbon dioxide is 14 + 2X16 = 46. Actually, it is 12+2x16 = 44. Carbon 14 based CO2 migth be much too costly ;-) >One volume of CO2 in one bottle will be >0.32 * 46/22.4 = 0.657 grams of dry ice. Wouldn't it be easier for the calculations to express the content of CO2 in weight ratio, like percents or parts per thousand or grams per litre? Ari Jrml Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/07/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96