HOMEBREW Digest #3229 Sat 22 January 2000

[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

  Newby's Porter kit has stuck fermentation (RRodda5250)
  RE: Zapap Bum Rap? ("Paul Campbell")
  Can I use Chrome Plated or Plastic Pipe in the boiling wort? ("Peter J. Calinski")
  Practical Brewer URL ("Some Guy")
  AKA Burst Sparging (WayneM38)
  Pepper Beer (Rod Prather)
  Re:  Corona Mill (William Frazier)
  conical fermenter (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  pumps (Ray Kruse)
  souring brews ("FLEMING, JOE")
  I Just Asked . . . . Pepper Beer. ("Brett A. Spivy")
  steve postek high finishing APA, my Zapap cooler, minimizing dead ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Dexrins and mouthfeel - one mo' time ("Paul Smith")
  Re:  SS conical fermentors (Paul Shick)
  thermowells (Brian K Dulisse)
  fuller's vintage ale (Brian K Dulisse)
  Re: Sparging: Burst vs. Batch (Spencer W Thomas)
  Re: MCAB II (Jeff Renner)
  re: hot break (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  Burst Sparging - Clarification of a muddied clarification ("Paul Smith")
  arrogant bastard ale and bryan gros ? via batch sparge ("Czerpak, Pete")
   ("Dave Hinrichs")
  Re: hot break... (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Recirculating, Pilsner in Secondary (temperature question) (Jeff Renner)
  Guinness ("Houseman, David L")
  Re: CO2 bottles in fridge?? (patrick finerty)
  Color ("Houseman, David L")
  Re: Munich malt (Matthew Arnold)
  Re: Advice for new brewer (patrick finerty)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 * See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information 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: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 17:00:56 EST From: RRodda5250 at aol.com Subject: Newby's Porter kit has stuck fermentation Hey everyone, First, thanks to those who took the time to encourage my brewing interests after I wrote in to ask about 1 gallon batches. I've decided to stick with 5 gal. batches until I get some more experience, but I appreciate the time people took to write to me. New question: One week ago I brewed five gallons of porter using a partial mash kit. The OG was 1.056 at 60F. I rehydrated 2 packs of dried yeast in 3/4 cup of warm water and saw the bloom before stirring it into the wort (at room temp). This fermented in a 6 gallon closed food bucket; the airlock started to bubble after 24 hours and stopped after 4 days. But when I check the SG today (3 days after activity stopped), it's at 1.033! I took the advice of the local beer nuts, pried open the fermenter and gave the whole mess a big sloshing/stirring with a giant whisk to get air in and re-invigorate the yeast, but now I'm nervous about what I've done. Isn't air a bad thing after this late after pitching yeast? Can I add more yeast to achieve the same Private answers welcome. Thanks much, Rich Rodda River Edge, NJ "Good judgement is the result of experience; experience is the result of poor judgement." Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:58:41 +0800 From: "Paul Campbell" <p.r.campbell at tesco.net> Subject: RE: Zapap Bum Rap? Not diminishing Al in any way but, when the ""experiment" was carrried out; what was Al's own preferred method? I've found improvements over time when I've worked with different setups, albeit basic differences (so I thought). Al? Anyone? My personal experience with regard to variation would agree with Fred's conclusion. Perhaps a danger in brewing is to set oneself back (in terms of supposed efficiency) by tampering too much in the name of 'progress'? Paul, Edzell, Scotland. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 20:56:08 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Can I use Chrome Plated or Plastic Pipe in the boiling wort? I would like to use a length of sink drain pipe in my brew pot. I believe it is chrome plated. Can anyone advise me whether chrome could be detrimental or worse yet, toxic in the mash or boil pot? If the chrome should wear off, would the underlying metal, iron I believe, be detrimental or toxic? Would it be better to use the plastic version? I know it is not CPVC so it could soften at higher temperatures. Could it be detrimental or toxic? Thanks in advance. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:24:35 -0500 From: "Some Guy" <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Practical Brewer URL Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager.... The direct URL to the Practical Brewer at the MBAA site is http://www.mbaa.com/membonly/publication/pdf.html They kind of hid it in the "members only" area, but I guess everybody's a member because you can click right on through... - See ya! Pat Babcock Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 23:21:22 EST From: WayneM38 at aol.com Subject: AKA Burst Sparging On Tue, 18 Jan 2000 08:20:18 -0600 John_L._Sullivan at NOTES.UP.COM writes Subject: Burst Sparging? <<Are we all starting to make up terms to suit us? Snip <<If someone can clearly tell me how "burst sparging" is different from "continuous sparging", perhaps I can be swayed. I don't think we need new terms such as this to confuse the issue for newbies however. John Sullivan St. Louis, MO>> I have an auto sparge system on my RIMS. It is a set and forget system. Thanks for the idea Joe Stone BTW. If I take the extra time to 'work the grain bed' (AKA burst sparging?) I can bump up my system efficiency, as measured by Promash up to 92% (using DWC pale ale malt and JSP MaltMill). 'Working the grain bed' like an accordion, four or five times during my 90 min sparge is accomplished by: 1.Turning off the pump during the run off. 2.Open ball valve on the mashtun and run off full flow until the top of the grain is showing. 3. Reset normal mash run off rate. 4. Power back on to pump to flood the grain bed again. You can see the grain bed expand and contract with this technique. This 're-sets' the grain bed a bit and you 'squeeze' out an extra few percentage points. I usually do not bother because I don't need the few extra points and it defeats the purpose of designing an auto sparge system. I have found other things to do with those 90 mins during the brew day. Wayne Botanist Brewer <A HREF="http://member.aol.com/bfbrewing/BigFunBrewing.htm">Big Fun Brewing RIMS Homepage</A> http://member.aol.com/bfbrewing/BigFunBrewing.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:20:44 -0500 From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net> Subject: Pepper Beer >I am looking for a beer that I can't find anymore, haven't seen in four >years, and can't remember the name of the brew. Don't believe it is brewed anymore. If it is, it isn't widely marketed. It was Cave Creek Chili Beer. Jim Cave was the brewer. It was brewed in Arizona somewhere. It didn't have a Jalapeno but it did have a chili pepper. The specific type I don't remember. It was OK but the spicyness varied so wildly that you never knew what you would get next. Some were pleasantly spicy, others were not pleasant at all. The beer itself was nothing unusual, the addition of naturally derived capsicum was. Always thought it odd to drink a beer that required you to drink another immediately after to cool your palate I drank quite a few but for the most part I used it to season up my spicy Tex-Mex Chili. A dish which was always followed by a select cold beer that contained not even the smallest measure of capsicum. - -- Rod Prather Indianapolis, Indiana Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 06:16:34 +0000 From: William Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Corona Mill Ernie - I use a Corona all the time for my all-grain batches. Works great, especially when you have grains of different sizes. Once you have the thing assembled pour some grain in the hopper, give it a few cranks to start grain flowing through the grinding plates and then adjust the two wing nuts, that hold the grinding plate in place, until you get the crush to look right. I tighten the adjustment on mine until I get all of the husks broken, most of the kernals in grit form and am also making some flour. With this setting the grinding plates will appear loose when the mill is empty. However, with grain flowing through the mill the grinding plates are held apart per your adjustment. Bill Frazier Olathe, Kansas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 00:24:05 -0600 From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net> Subject: conical fermenter I purchased the 12.2 gallon SS conical from B3 about 8 months ago. I will not go back to galss - ever! There are numerous reasons for this. 1)First and foremost is that I do not worry about an expensive trip to the Emergency Room 'cause I was klutz. 2) All 10 gallons or so of the brew is in one place and I am pitching one starter rather than dividing it between 2 fermenters - often unequally. 3) My finishing gravities are consistently lower. See reason 2. 4) There is an ease of cleaning here I have never experienced with glass. I take the lid off and I can scrub and sanitize to my hearts content. 5)The side port is essential on the 12 gallon as far as I am concerned. I simply add a short piece of tubing and let the beer directly into a cornie. No more siphoning. The 7 gallon may be small enough to pick up in order to get it high enough for this transfer, but the 12 sure ain't. 6)The side port lets me check the progress of the fermentation wihtout getting yeast in my hydrometer tube. 7) The side port allows the extraction of finished beer with out getting yeast in the cornie. Simply rotate it around until it begins to pick up yeast and stop. Usually I leave about 1 1/2 cups of yeast slurry in the bottom of the fermenter no matter how often I let yeast out the bottom. It slides down as the beer level lowers. Now for the drawbacks. Yes, there are a couple - at least with the 12 gallon unit. 1)The thing is heavy when filled. I built a cart with small casters on it to move it from where I fill it. It's either that or fill it and not move it at all. 2)There is no reasonable way to cool the unit without putting it inside a cooler. I must put the whole thing in a recycled Beverage-Air unit to do lagers or even to brew in the summer in Alabama. The folks at Beer Beer and More Beer (read usual disclaimer as to my allegiances and employment) are great to deal with, and the workmanship on the fermenter is excellent. If you do get the side port, I recommend getting a spare gasket for it as it is a rather peculiar one and probably not readily available. It can be part of your "deal" with B3. I hope all this helps. Cheers, Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat Birmingham, AL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 05:36:04 -0500 From: Ray Kruse <rkruse at krusecontrols.com> Subject: pumps I'm searching for a 120 V self-priming pump capable of handling boiling wort temperatures. It will probably pump finished beer as well. Anyone have one that they're particularly please with? If so, where did it come from? Private email is ok. Ray Kruse Glen Burnie, PRMd rkruse at krusecontrols.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:17:00 -0500 From: "FLEMING, JOE" <JOE.FLEMING at spcorp.com> Subject: souring brews Isn't there a shortcut to souring a mash (perhaps cheating) by adding x amount of 88% lactic acid solution? Is this true and does anyone remember what x is for 5 gallons? Boy, all this stout talk -- you can tell its a fermentation away from St. Patty's day! Joe Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:09:05 -0600 From: "Brett A. Spivy" <baspivy at softdisk.com> Subject: I Just Asked . . . . Pepper Beer. Man you guys are a wealth of information. I don't know if it is an HBD record, but it is certainly a personal response record. Sixty-seven (67) HBD'ers responded to my private email concerning the Pepper Beer I was looking for -- astounding! By comparison, apparently NO ONE has an extract recipe for Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale. Since my post I have called and spoken with Crazy Ed (the brewer of the much maligned concoction). He is still in business and still brewing: Crazy Ed's Cave Creek Chili (sic) Beer and Light Chili (sic) Beer The name of the brewing company is Black Mountain Brewing d.b.a. Crazy Ed's. His wife runs a "food joint" on the same premises in which he brews, but VERY little of the actual brewing is done in Cave Creek, AZ (about twenty minutes North of Phoenix -- according to Ed). Virtually all of the production is contract brewed in IN and WS (apparently Stroh's breweries though he did not say). He brands five brews (one is seasonal) and the Chile beer is by far the best seller. Based on the horrible reviews included in most of the responses, the same people who drink this beer are the phantom masses that bought New Kids On The Block records and voted for Clinton for a second term -- few owned up to it and all that did had qualifiers (it makes a great marinade, I use it in my chili, you have to find it fresh, you don't know him like I do -- we're in love, etc.). Apparently it is a light lager (BudMillerCoors) with less than 15 IBU's and all of the pepper flavor comes from the addition of a pasteurized Serrano added to each bottle at bottling. Thus, if you get it two weeks out of the brewery (four weeks from bottling) it is a less than spectacular light bodied beer with a full chile aroma and very light heat, but if like most people, you live further than 200 miles from Cave Creek, you'll get a beer six plus weeks old, abused, mishandled, heated and cooled several cycles while being jostled on a lorry for a week, and it may have sot on a store shelf in direct sun for a month or more -- then you get pure, unadulterated liquid hell!! No one though reported infected, cloudy, or in any way beer that was bad from poor brewing techniques and I found Ed to be a likable and engaging fellow. When I am in AZ in March on business, I'll likely stop by and see him, but not to try this beer. Thanx . . . Brett A. Spivy Stolen Cactus Brewery Shreveport, LA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:15:22 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: steve postek high finishing APA, my Zapap cooler, minimizing dead Steve Postek asks about his APA going from 1.050 to 1.022. My first question is how much yeast did you pitch, what variety, and how did you oxygenate the wort? You are correct in your adding oxygen after secondary is a bad idea. What you need to do is possibly build another yeast starter and pitch an actively fermenting yeast into the beer. Your option at the end of primary fermentation was probably to rouse the yeast and hope for the best though. NOw that you are in secondary you could try the same thing if there is any yeast lying on the bottom of your fermentor. Try gently swirling the carboy to suspend the dropped out yeast. Although I suppose the use of lots of crystal malt or a high mash temp could leave a beer with a high FG rather than a yeast problem. Also, I would tend to call your beer "sweet" as opposed to "malty" in its 1.022 FG state. Your 6 days in primary at 68F and 4 days in secondary should have been enough time though if using something like Nottingham or Wyeast 1056 in my experience. About the Zapap bucket arrangement that I use... I have been using one for about a year now for maybe 25 batches. I have been mashing in the oven in a pot and then using the Zapap only for sparging. I do my sparge with the batch sparge method usually using 60% of my water in the mash and sparging with the remainder. With this method and my mash water to grain ratio of about 1 to 1.5 qts/lb I tend to get about 20 to 22 pts/lb grain on the average. I do like the Zapap since it was cheap and it has worked fine for me. I do use a grain bag in it as well however. And I will be upgrading to a Gott cooler this winter to aid in making larger batches and trying no-sparge as well as eliminating the dead space in the bottom issue. One way to minimize this Zapap dead space is to fill it up with something. Perhap use some sanitized marbles like the ones you might use in your dry hop bags in your kegs. Pete Czerpak Albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 08:45:41 -0600 From: "Paul Smith" <pksmith_morin at msn.com> Subject: Dexrins and mouthfeel - one mo' time Sorry for a long post: Dave Burley questions my logic. Its alright, I'm French, and I always thought it was pronounced logique. I have never actually cared what it stood for. I'm also English, so here goes: On Page 871, Table 23.8 of Malting and Brewing Science (the text Dave quotes) posts the results of a cluster analysis of physicochemical (and sensory) correlation between finished beer components and flavor effects; the lower the order of correlation, the stronger the causative relationship between the physicochemical parameter and the corresponding flavor term. Dextrins are in Cluster 1, indicating the strongest causal relationship among the 17 clusters of the study. Their corresponding sensory term is "viscous." M & Bs defines "viscous" as "thick." Now, Dave, I know you are right in that "other things are going on" to lend viscosity to beer and I especially find the role of b-glucans very interesting. I never said that mashing at 158 is "THE WAY" to make for a thicker beer, as MMW proteins are far more effective, as I said, and dextrin-intensive beers often taste, as I also said, "worty." I only dispute your contention that dextrins have no role in contributing to mouthfeel. Because the protein content and composition in today's well-modified malt world are largely out of our hands (having been engineered upstream in the malthouse), the dextrin-composition is one thing we can control in the brewhouse. And a mash of 158 v. 145 is one way to control for the % of dextrins. Since what I know of b-glucans breakdown, proteolysis and melanoidin formation all occur elsewhere (the first two at other mash temps, the latter by protein-carbo complexing in the boil or malthouse), I do not know how these can relate to a mash temp of 158, so it seems to me this is a reasonable control for the contribution of dextrins. I would love to be proven wrong, however, as I find the subject very interesting. The discussions on b-glucans degradation by Kunze on pp. 196-198 of his book are very interesting. Anyone with anything more? Thank you, Dave, for piquing my interest in a deeper look at M & BS, however. For those who are interested, M & BS has a very interesting discussion, the results of a study of beer components in Tuborg lager. The three groups of multi-branched dextrins (those with more than one alpha-(1,6) linkage) composed the largest fraction of the dextrins which survived the brewing process into the beer, although those from Group I, which are either linear or singly-branched, composed 27% of the total dextrin fraction. I would love to see further scholarship on the relationship of these multi-branched dextrins to sensory effects. The study goes on to establish the portion of b-glucans which survive into beer, with stouts [obviously] having the highest, many stouts having some form of cereal in their mash. 50% of the b-glucans which survive have a mol. wt. < 3000, which M & BSs establishes as too low to contribute to the viscosity of beer: "The b-glucan that is mainly responsible for the viscosity in beer has a mol. wt. > 300 000, " referring to an article by Hargitt and Buckee, J. Inst. Brewing, 83:275 (1977) (does anyone have it?). Now, I read this sentence to read that "the b-glucan with a mol. wt. > 300 000" primarily contributes to viscosity," and this contribution may be indeed be highly significant, as (Dave cites) M & BS' statement that "[the] concentration of macromolecules, principally beta glucans, proteins and melanodins are thought to relate to body," although the book goes on to say that viscosity measurements to measure this property are not very available. The conclusion I draw is that the subject is apparently not yet well exhaustively known. b-glucans and MMW proteins have long been known to be very important (perhaps the most important) factors in contributing to mouthfeel. We can control b-glucan degradation in the brewhouse to some extent, by using raw cereals (as in oatmeal or flaked barley) and mashing in at endo-b-glucanase range, 113-122; most modern malts, however, have had both their b-glucans and proteins appreciably degraded in the malthouse, and the only other area I know of that we can control in the brewhouse is in the ratio of dextrins to maltose. Salut, Paul Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:55:50 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Shick <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> Subject: Re: SS conical fermentors Hello all, Todd Larson asks for reviews of the SS conical fermentor from Beer, Beer and More Beer (www.morebeer.com/conicalferm.html.) In particular, Todd asks about their smallest model, the 7.1 gallon size. Todd, I was lucky enough to get a 12.2 gallon version for Christmas (from my wonderful wife. And she doesn't even drink beer!) This size is to heavy to lift when full, so the BBB people build a taller stand for it. This is a truly great product. The workmanship is absolutely first rate, with thoughtful design and nice clean welds throughout. The racking port option is well worth the cost. Using it, you can very easily take hydrometer samples regularly, to monitor the progress of fermentation (especially nice when fermenting ales in a 55F basement.) This should also make it painless to get very clear beer into the kegs, which can be more difficult with the bottom outlet, even with a 60 degree cone. I recommend the fermentor very highly. With the 12.2 gallon version, it's tall enough that most people will need to pump wort from the kettle to the fermentor. I was initially very leery of this, despite years of experience with pumps on the mash tun and hot liquor tank. I just didn't trust the inside of a pump to stay clean enough for cooled, unpitched wort. My solution was to use my HLT pump, which generally pumps only 170F water, so it's less likely to have any proteinaceous crud built up. I heat 3-4 gallons of water to 170-80F in the HLT while the boil is going on, then recirculate this through the pump for 20 minutes, to assure nothings alive in there. I drain the pump, hook it up the kettle drain when the temperature is down to 70F, then pump into the fermentor. I was shocked at how easily it all went. The 3-4 gallons in the HLT are then recirc'd through the pumnp to clean it out. Once the wort's in the fermentor, the SS conical is the easiest thing going. To keg, just drain by gravity--no siphoning at all. Yeast dumps are a breeze. This is certainly the way to go for convenience. I added wheels to my fermentor, which the BBB people won't do, for safety reasons. I see why, after the fact, because having 100+ ponds of wort at the very top of a narrow, wheeled is a bit scary. If you do add wheels, watch out for bumps in the basement floor! Paul Shick Basement brewing in Cleveland Hts OH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:04:02 -0500 From: Brian K Dulisse <DULISSE_BRIAN_K at Lilly.com> Subject: thermowells what effect do thermowells have on the ability of thermometers to register a change in temerature? i am thinking specifically about a thermometer in the mash tun, and wonder if the thermowell would "protect" the probe from the recirculating wort enough to cause a lag in the temperature reading . . . alternatively, does brass (the material of the thermowell) conduct heat well enough that this is not an issue??? tia bd indianapolis, a few hours sw of renner central Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:09:40 -0500 From: Brian K Dulisse <DULISSE_BRIAN_K at Lilly.com> Subject: fuller's vintage ale my sister-in-law brought me a bottle of this when she was visiting recently. it's from 1998. does anyone know if this is meant to be laid down for a while, or if it should be drunk asap? thanks bd Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:17:40 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Sparging: Burst vs. Batch You missed the distinction: In "batch" sparging, you run off all the liquid in the tun, then you add more liquid and essentially start over with a second lauter. Sometimes you use these "second runnings" to make a separate, lighter beer. Sometimes you blend them with the "first runnings". In "burst" sparging, you run off until the liquid is almost to the top of the grain, then add a bit more, etc. until the sparge is finished. In both cases, at the beginning of a lauter "run" you need to recirculate to clear the runnings and set the grain bed. With "batch" sparging you do it after the addition of each "batch" of sparge water. With "burst" sparging you do it once at the beginning of the lauter, and don't have to do it again. =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:20:40 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: MCAB II "Dan Senne" <dsenne at intertek.net> asks >I saw here about the MCAB II which is to be held in St. Louis March 24-26. >Can anyone attend? What is the cost? I hope someone from the St. Louis Brews will chime in here with more details, but there wasn't anything in the queue, so here's my contribution. It's open to anyone. Last year there was no charge, but some of us suggested that a small registration fee would help defray costs so they wouldn't have to hustle tee-shirts so hard. You could include a tee-shirt with the registration. I would think the organizers might like us to pre-register so they have an idea of how many are coming, but I haven't heard of anything yet. At least seven of us are coming from AABG. Monday I'm brewing a 1/4 bbl. of CAP to bring along as excess baggage. We had a great time meeting many HBDers, there were great technical talks, the beer was great. Hope we have an even better get together this year. For some more info, go to http://hbd.org/mcab/ 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: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:28:42 -0600 From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net> Subject: re: hot break Darryl writes... I have a question about the "hot break": After recirculation and sparging ,...just as the wort starts to boil I get scum on the top. I have interpreted this scum as "hot break" so I typically stir to sort of centrifuge it, and skim it from the top. My question is: is this the hot break/ large proteins? and if so, can one 'over skim'...ie can one take too much thereby harming head retention? What you see on the top of the boiler just before it goes to boil is NOT hot break. While the jury is still out (I don't) it seems to be unimportant for this material to be skimmed off. True hot break is what floats in the wort after it has been boiled for some time. It looks like little light colored globs circulating around in the boil. It can be fruther induced and removed by adding Irish moss (1 -2 tsp - to the boil for the last 15-20 minutes.) This hot break is an accumilation of porteins that clump together. It is one of the reasons we boil in the first place. By allowing the boil to completely subside after the heat is turned off, this break material will gather in the bottom of the kettle. From there it can be eliminated further by whirlpooling and allowing it to gather in the center of the kettle and siphoning off the clear wort from the edges, or it will be trapped in the filter bed supplied by the hops (if you use whole cones). It is also possible to put a copper scrubbie on the end of your racking cane and covering it with part of an old hop bag and let that be the filter. I - for one - do not believe it necessary to try to completely remove all this break material before the wort goes to the fermenter. It will precipitate out during the fermentation process anyway. Hope this helps. Cheers, Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat Birmingham, AL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:37:54 -0600 From: "Paul Smith" <pksmith_morin at msn.com> Subject: Burst Sparging - Clarification of a muddied clarification Steven J. Owens correctly brings me to task for my sloppy English usage. He and Marc Sedam should get together and buy me a Manual of Style. Could be my French blood. Je m'excuse! I will take it upon myself to suggest the following definitions (and Marc, do not think in your wildest imagination you get an agent's fee should these terms come to popular usage!) 1. Normal Recirculation: Once starch conversion is complete, recirculating wort gently over the tun grain bed and through the mash until an acceptable level of wort clarity is achieved, "acceptable level" of clarity varying by brewer. In my own practice, I am religious about clarity, and go beyond a "clear runoff" to achieve an arguably bright runoff, to 20 minutes, with a very slow pace during the recirc. 2. Continuous, or Fly Sparging: A process whereby sparge and runoff rates, and therefore the water column above the grain bed, are all maintained at equilibrium throughout the sparge, although the rates (of both, in equilibrium) should tend to increase as wort viscosity decreases over the course of the sparge. 3. Batch Sparging: A process where sparge proceeds in "quanta," with "batches" of water "dumped" into the lauter tun and mixed into the mash, with the sparge outlet shut off during the procedure. A cycle of lauter set, recirculation and runoff is again initiated, until the grain bed is visible or nearly so, and another "quantum" is dumped, whereby the whole cycle begins anew, until pre-boil kettle volume is achieved. 4. Burst Sparging: As with Batch Sparging, a process where sparge proceeds in "quanta," with "batches" of water dumped onto the grain bed until a given water column above the grain bed (for me, app. 4") is achieved and the sparge thereupon shut off. Differs from Batch Sparging in that this "quantum" of sparge water is not mixed into the mash, but rather allowed to stay on top of the grain bed (as with continuous sparging) until the grain bed is nearly exposed. A new "quantum" is then dumped, and the cycle goes on until the kettle pre-boil volume is achieved. NOW, I hope this helps and does not obfuscate the issue further! Paul Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 10:45:10 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: arrogant bastard ale and bryan gros ? via batch sparge A few days ago I posted a request for info on brewing Arrogant Bastard ale which is made by Stone Brewing out near San Diego. It is an deep amber/ruby red colored ale brewed to the hoppy standards of an IPA. Here is what info I have gathered from various sources: OG = ~1.070, IBU = 65-70, 90% by weight american 2 row, 10% by weight high L crystal like 120-165L, hops are entirely chinnock, bittering addition is at 90 minutes, however flavor and aroma are used throughout. clean american yeast used something like Wyeast 1056 or the White Labs version of the Sam Adams yeast, also supposedly they do not bottle condition so you can't culture there yeast either. if anybody has any more info please post or email privately. thanks to those who responded by the way. I am hoping to get this brewed up sometime next month like when my fermentors are free of my double barley wine batches happening next week. also, bryan gros asked about decreased efficiency with batch sparging as compared to continuous/fly sparging. I tend to get about 20 - 22 pts/lb grain with batch sparging. I have not tried to optimize this much as I would rather have potentially better flavor profiles for a buck or 2 extra. About running off fast or slow, it all depends on how long you let each charge of sparge water sit with your grains. I usually let the water sit with the grains for 10 minutes, recicrculate about 2 qts. and then run off over about 10 minutes. If you don't let the grains soak long enough with the sparge water, a longer runoff time would be advantageous since more sugars are likely to be solubilized and extracted out. however, if the grains have sat long enough with the water to extract out enough sugars, then a fast runoff or slow should not make a difference. I do not time my sparge so I don't know the real results though since I just run it off according to how much of a rush I'm in. I brew after work so I like to keep the sessions under 5 or 6 hours so I can get to sleep at a fair time. Brew Hoppy always, Pete Czerpak Albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 09:56:25 -0600 From: "Dave Hinrichs" <dhinrichs at quannon.com> Subject: >Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:34:37 -0600 (Central Standard Time) >From: "Charles T. Major" <ctmajor at samford.edu> >Subject: Re: Hot Pepper Beer >Cave Creek Chile Beer, >Tidmarsh Major >Birmingham, Alabama This beer was also contract brewed at Minnesota Brewing. Dave Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:05:32 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: hot break... "Darrell Leavitt"<Darrell_Leavitt at sln.esc.edu>asks: >I have a question about the "hot break": After recirculation and sparging >,...just as the wort starts to boil I get scum on the top. I have >interpreted this scum as "hot break" so I typically stir to sort of >centrifuge it, and skim it from the top. My question is: is this the hot >break/ large proteins? and if so, can one 'over skim'...ie can one take >too much thereby harming head retention? No, this is just some other coagulated protein. Hot break is a white, suspended coagulated protein. When I've got everything working just right - pH, water chemistry, mash technique, it looks like egg drop soup. As a matter of fact, the mechanics are similar to the coagulation of egg white protein. Most of the time for me it's particles about the size of match heads (I think that was Dave Line's description). Once, when making a wit beer with 45% raw wheat and a protein rest, it looked like dumplings the size of my thumb! Still had great head retention. I also skim that thin crusty brown crud just because it looks nasty. I can't imagine that it would return to solution in any way that would form later head. Once a protein is denatured, that's it. 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: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:14:47 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Recirculating, Pilsner in Secondary (temperature question) Darrell also asksabout recirculation. Yes, I think you're recirculating too little now, at least less that is optimal. I recirculate with a RIMS, so I don't know how much I do, but I get it crystal clear. When I didn it with a quart measureing cup and a zapap. I did perhaps 1-1/2 gallons. Do be careful not to aerate, but you might as well get it clear. >I have a pilsner that was 4 weeks in primary, now 10 days in secondary, >using WLP800 WhiteLabs Pilsner Lager yeast. I have dropped the temp to >around 38 F. I plan on leaving it there for at least another week or >more...but should I do an "diacetyl rest" at the end....ie, let the temp go >up to 60 F for a day or so just before bottling? That was a long primary. My guess is that you underpitched. Be sure to save that huge crop of yeast so you can properly pitch that next batch. A diacetyl rest is not necessary with many lager yeasts. I don't know about the one you used. I'd taste it and see if it has any diacetyl. Normally the rest is done just before the end of the primary (usually 1-2 weeks, but my last one went three weeks because I also underpitched), before you lower the temp. I suspect that at this point, there's not fermentable extract left, though, and I think that you need this to get the yeast to metabolize the diacetyl. I like to send my green beer to lagering with just a bit of fermentable extract left. There are also some diacetyl reducing regimes that use lower temps. Can't remember the details. But taste it and see if it's needed. 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: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:32:31 -0500 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: Guinness Sean posts: My understanding on the soured Guiness question is from Michael Jackson's New World Guide to Beer - the 3% soured addition is only for the Export going to tropical countries and is added to compensate for the reduced attenuation of the higher-gravity beer. In other words, it's to get 1.060 beer to taste like 1.036 beer. The Guiness you drink in N.A., in bottles in Europe, or on tap in Eire and the UK has no soured addition. This would jive with other feedback I've received and experience in tasting/drinking these beers. Topics of souring Guinness would be on target if those who are doing this are not doing so thinking that they are replicating Guinness draught but rather their Export, Foreign Style Stout. Perhaps somewhere in the Tropics that beer is on draught as well and that just confuses the issue? Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:58:26 -0500 (EST) From: patrick finerty <zinc at zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca> Subject: Re: CO2 bottles in fridge?? hi folks, Andrew Nix asks about keeping his CO2 tank in the fridge with the beer. i did this at one point but regretted it. i ended up losing nearly all of the CO2 from a 3/4 full tank because a seal didn't seal well at the fridge temperature. now i just have a hole drilled in the side of the fridge which works quite nicely. -patrick in Toronto - -- "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it." Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer finger pfinerty at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 12:12:58 -0500 From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com> Subject: Color Greg asks about relating SRM to hue, saturation, luminance, red, green and blue. The problem is that SRM is not the sole metric of the color of beer. It's really just the color density. Two beers with the same SRM can have different colors, primarily in hue, as I understand it. For example, one can produce the same SRM beer by using a little roasted barley for color, some dark crystal, or a lot of lighter color crystal. So while they may all have the same measured SRM, they will have very different colors. Darker roasted grains tend to produce a red hue while the lighter crystal will produce more of orangish color. An extream of this red hue is the color of porters, a very deep garnet color. If you diluted the porter to the same SRM as a brown ale which was produced using crystal, you'd see a color difference. So when you are doing recipe formulation, it's not just the SRM that you have to target but the appropriate selection of grains that will hit the target color, hue, etc. This is not to say that one couldn't determine what these are and then feed them into an Excel spreadsheet and recreate the color but the analysis of the target has to include the six factors not derive them from the SRM. Dave Houseman Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 11:27:06 -0600 From: Matthew Arnold <revmra at iname.com> Subject: Re: Munich malt >>"It sounds like dark Weyermanns munich malt has >>the potential for lowered OG and higher FG. It also sounds like decoction >>mashing can help with low extractions. Increasing temperature of >>fermentation may help also if the gravity is stuck high. When infusion >>mashing, I'll just have to buy a pound or 2 extra I guess." > >I take issue with this information. The laboratory course grind yield for >Weyermann dark Munich malt is only marginally lower (0-3%) than the yield >from their pilsner malt. Here at the brewpub I get the extraction I expect >from it. If you are getting grossly low yields, check your crush and the >accuracy of your mash thermometer, and the accuracy of your volume >measurments. I've used Weyermann dark Munich malt in several Alts, a Dunkel, and a Doppelbock. I've always had the same efficiency that I have with pale ale malt even though all three of the recipes have the dark munich as at least 85% of the grain bill, with at least a pound of Melanoidin to boot. Actually, all three recipes are basically the same grain bill, just cranked up for the progressively higher gravity. Matt - ----- Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club http://www.rackers.org info at rackers.org Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000 13:20:49 -0500 (EST) From: patrick finerty <zinc at zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca> Subject: Re: Advice for new brewer On January 19, 2000, Chris McGee wrote: Chris has questions about his procedure and if the yeasties in this batch are happy enough. > In a nut shell, here are my questions: > > Is the fact that I didn't sparge going to hurt the beer? i think it's hard to actually 'hurt' the beer by not rinsing the grain or the hops. however, diluting the wort too much may be harmful. > Should I have added more water to raise to 5gal? this is only necessary if the gravity of the wort was higher than you intended or if you were really set on getting xx number of bottles from this batch. > Should I have sparged the hops? i have done this in the past but it's not necessary. sure you'll rinse some wort out of the hops but you're also diluting it at the same time. it depends on the final gravity you wanted. fwiw, when i did this, i had poured the boiled wort into the primary through a sterilized collander and then rinsed the hops that were collected in the collander with some water. this was back when i still brewed from extract though... > Was I right to put the hops bag in the carboy? i'm not sure i know exactly what you did here. it sounds like you initially added these hops to the hot wort and then moved them to the primary fermentation carboy. if so, the heat likely eliminated the volatile oils in the hops that provide the nice dry-hop aroma that i love. if you want to dry hop, you should add fresh hops to the secondary after the fermentation is completed. otherwise, the CO2 being produced by the yeast will also eliminate (blow off) the volatile aroma from the hops. > Is my yeast o.k.? this is potentially the only problem you might have. have you checked the gravity of the beer? i usually monitor the gravity each day to get an idea about how the fermentation is working. i'm a scientist though and like to monitor the progress of my 'brewing experiments'. possibly the yeast have mostly finished and the beer is ok. however, if the gravity is still high (very rough estimate: more than 1.015) then you might have a stuck fermentation. there have been a lot of posts to the hbd regarding this and i suggest searching the archives. some people disturb the beer by shaking it up, some suggest adding yeast nutrient (a mix of salts that mainly provide nitrogen so the yeast can synthesize proteins), while others oxygenate. in the past i have just racked to a secondary and the fermentation usually picks up again. -patrick in toronto - -- "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it." Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer finger pfinerty at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 01/22/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96