---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		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


Contents:
  Plane Beer (Aaron Perry)
  Grains in infusion ("Aaron Sepanski")
  calcium sulfate in hard water ("Aaron Sepanski")
  non or low alcohol recipes (JERRY POOLER)
  Bier de Garde, and others ("Graham Sanders")
  Post Cut Short And Aerial Drinking ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  Re: cap labels and bottle caps (Jeff Renner)
  festivals (JPullum127)
  freezing grains and the nays have it. ("Dr. Pivo")
  dry or wet crush. ("Dr. Pivo")
  grain distinction. ("Dr. Pivo")
  Crystal malt fermentability - Part 1 (Jeff Renner)
  Crystal malt fermentability - Part 2 (Jeff Renner)
  therm. input ! (hal)
  RE: Thermocouple braid problem ( at )
  False Bottom Flexing (Epic8383)
  Specialty Grains ("Rob Moline")
  freezing malt ("Stephen Alexander")
  re:Homebrew Tri-Nations? (=?iso-8859-1?q?scott=20morgan?=)
  mash pH retry ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  re: Foster's (Bill Wible)


* Don't miss the 2000 AHA NHC in Livonia, MI 
* 6/22 through 6/24 http://hbd.org/miy2k

* 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: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 00:45:11 -0400
From: Aaron Perry <vspbcb at earthlink.net>
Subject: Plane Beer

Fred L. Johnson writes...
<snip>
 I have always bemoaned the fact that the beers available on airlines are not
of the quality that I care to drink unless I am REALLY thirsty. 
<snip>
 the problem here is that the airline serves everything in cans or in very
small bottles, and I know of only a few high-quality craft-brewed beers that
come in cans.

Lucky us!! I saw today,for the first time , Sam Adams Boston Lager in those
stubby little bottles. They were at the local "packy" and I pondered a use for
them. Well there it is!! Plane Beer!

slowly gaining ground 
A.P.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 0:1:24 -0700
From: "Aaron Sepanski" <madaarjul at earthlink.net>
Subject: Grains in infusion

Malts should go in all at once, it's more hassle than it's worth.  Dark
grain aren't exposed to enzymatic attack because of carmelization, etc... 
Crystal need the mash to be partially converted.


You'll get dextrins from your mash anyway.  It's not like they don't exist
without the rest.  The rests were designed (years ago) to finish what the
maltster couldn't do.  Today, malts are extremely well modified and
stepping is almost futile.  Not to say that stepping doesn't do anything,
but it is a cost/gain issue.  To me, it's not worth it.

As far as the issue at hand, you need to put those grains in with the mash.
Especially anything that isn't black.  You'll get sugar and conversion, and
the maltster today makes malts that are for single step infusion.

Sorry if I'm rambling, I've had quite a bit to drink.



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 0:10:7 -0700
From: "Aaron Sepanski" <madaarjul at earthlink.net>
Subject: calcium sulfate in hard water

In hard water with high alkalinity, gypsum will have little effect.  You
already have a saturated solution.  The water is already containing much
total hardness that prevents the reaction from producing an effect.  Your
only solution may be an acid.  You could switch your brewing water, but
don't need to.  


However, you could make a better choice in acid other than lactic. 
Phosphoric is the stand by.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2000 22:41:50 -0700
From: JERRY POOLER <pooler at pacbell.net>
Subject: non or low alcohol recipes

Does anyone know of a good low or non-alcohol beer recipe?
Is there a way of removing the alcohol from a batch after fermentation
by reboiling or freezing?


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 20:01:45 +1000
From: "Graham Sanders" <craftbrewer at cisnet.COM.AU>
Subject: Bier de Garde, and others

G'day all

I sit here, in the tropics, hugging my 'blankie' tighter than Scot could
with his Band of Bawdy School Girls. (Be honest Scot, you wouldn't share if
it came down to the crunch.)  We are having an unprecented cold spell up
here.  Who said the greenhouse effect is about.  Its the coldest winter
temps on record up here.  We are having minimums down to freezing and
maximums up to 21c.  So what to a lot of you, but when you dont own any
jumpers, you start looking for things to get you warm.  Shit even SWMBO is
looking ok for a hug at the moment.  I'm not that desperate yet, so I'm
using my old blankets I used to use to insulate my boilers.  And I'm
knocking down my 9.5v/v trippels in a vain attempt to keep warm (SWMBO will
be please, I might even become affectionate).

Now before I get  to my Biere de Garde some quick points.

Scott, NSW beating the QLD Reds - in your dreams, and this from a man who
said we'll clean up those cockroaches in the State of Origins (oh the pain).
Oh Australia's a cert in the tri-nation. And Phil, I dont need the soap,
more a XXXX expert, and also, dont spare Lyndon feelings, (whiff indeed) -
give him the whole vial up where the sun dont shine.  Those A-Rules players
are just too scared to play a real mans game.

Darrell.  In regards to Whitlabs 500 yeast.  A couple of us up here did some
brewing with this yeast.  One guy accidently brewed it too warm (dont know
the exact temp) but the end result was it was more like a wheat beer than a
belgian beauty.  Infact some guys thought it was a wheat.  it needs the low
temps. I brew it at 15c.  I understand the majority of the flavour is
produced early on, so you may be stuck with it.

Biere de Garde.  Now some of you may remember earlier in the year, I was
researching (loosely speaking, haven't got the PHD yet) this beer.  Well its
time to put up or shut up.  Yeast was the first problem.  A Wit yeast seemed
to be the best bet, and after the comments by Mike in the last post, the
Blanche de Chambly is the go.  I will forgo the usual claptrap about
ingredients etc, and concentrate on what I will do differently to capture
this sytle's taste.

1.  I will deliberately do some hot side airation.  It seems that this
practice is common (by accidient or design) in a lot of BdG breweries.
2. The first couple of litres I will boil separately and at a very high heat
to get some caramelisation.  I reduce it down to a pancake syrup consistancy
and add back to the main batch.
3. I will add a small amount of oak shavings to some of the batch when I keg
it for storage.  This oak I will wet earlier and allowed to let a bit of
mold grow on it.

Should be an interesting experiment.

Shout

Graham Sanders
Townsvillianite!!!!!!!!!




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:05:43 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au>
Subject: Post Cut Short And Aerial Drinking

My last post must have exceeded 40 lines because some of it was
unceremoniously cut off, but this time from the middle. Is this something
new Pat?
I was trying to say that I would not be mucking about with adding Calcium
Sulphate again to my mash as I was not too pleased with the effect it had on
my rice lager. That being a softer bitterness perception accompanied with a
vague mineral after taste. I'm using lactic acid now but I see in a post by
Doc Pivo, he doesn't take too kindly to this either. I must ask him why. Now
about these mushrooms growing in the grounds of Burradoo Estate. "Gold Tops"
do you suspect Doc? Perhaps this explains my abstract grasp on reality. I
shall cease consumption forthwith!

On quite a different matter. Steve Alexander adds his comments on aircraft
travel :
>I find the ludicrously dry air and the lower pressure
>to have an adverse effect on my ability taste and smell
>anyway - but that's another matter.

Sorry Steve, the "ludicrously dry air" is a result of keeping the cabin warm
and at around 8000 ft when the aircraft is flying at nearly 40000 ft. I
doubt you would prefer to travel with an oxygen mask on at temps around
minus 50C. You wouldn't get a chance to smell and taste much at all.
As for the selection of beers available, this comes down to an Airline's
perception of what it thinks it's customers want. I'm sorry to say we home
brewers don't rank highly. Unless enough people complained, it's likely to
remain a pretty thin selection.

But spare a thought for those two poor buggers driving the thing up front.
Regardless of selection, they can't so much as have a sip. It's a pretty dry
argument up there!

Cheers
Phil






Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 09:05:39 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: cap labels and bottle caps

>JGORMAN at steelcase.com asks
>I remeber someone posting a few years back with a supplier of 8.5" x 11"
>sheets of .75" circular labels.  I couldn't find it in th archives.  Does
>anyone still have the supplier's name, phone#, internet address.......?  I
>want to use them for labeling my caps and my printer won't print on the
>smaller Avery stickers.

I don't remember anyone posting this - I would be interested too.  However,
what I do works for the small number of labels I want.  I print on 8.5x11,
then tape the small sheet of Avery labels on this sheet, positioned exactly
over the printing, and run it through the printer again.

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: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 10:20:26 EDT
From: JPullum127 at aol.com
Subject: festivals


hi all: the brewpub i help out with has decided not to enter the denver gabf
this year but maybe do a trip to something else.we have heard nice things 
about
the chicago real ale festival also portland . does anyone know when these are
roughly or have other suggestions for a major beer geek trip?yes london and 
the
british beer festival would be heavenly but a bit impracticale for our budg 
et.
thanks 


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:29:46 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: freezing grains and the nays have it.

Someone recently asked about freezing grains, and if it was feasable.

I would think there were enough people who are living in cold climates
that there should be a resounding "I've never noticed a problem".  I was
quite sure as well that at least ONE person would be able to envision
all manner of theoretical objections, and warn against it.  I was also
quite sure that this person had never investigated this in any organized
manner, and had in fact "never frozen a single kernel".

Since I haven't irritated anybody seriously for a while, I might share
my experience on this. I once got a supply of malt from a brewery that
was infested with little red mites (Well I don't actually KNOW they were
mites, but I called them that, and they were chewing on my grains and I
was displeased).  I thought: "Right!  The whole lot of you into the
freezer!".  I thought that would show them just who ran this brewhouse,
but every time I thawed the stuff out, they'd start kicking their little
feet again.  I got two shipments in a row with similar infestations,
which meant I kept my malt parked in the freezer for over a year. 
Outside of needing higher strike temperatures, I never noticed a
difference at all.

I've also had the brewhouse where the grain is stored dip below freezing
many a time without any discernable problem.

Now the question is... why would the "not a problem" reponses grow
silent after this one negative admonition.

This is what I call "negative dominance".  Nobody wants to give "bad
advice" so everyone with actual experience shuts up, and the one big
warning is left hanging in the air.

This is by no means limited to the HBD... it just seems to be a place
that collects these harbingers of ill fate.

You can really find this attitude everywhere, and some folks seem to
thrive on it.  It's sort of like: "I gotta' go.  I'm gon'na rototill my garden."

"OH no man!  Don't do that. You'll kill all the earthworms, and your
soil needs those guys."

Now this all may be true, but I know if I turn that soil by hand, I'll
get about two rows planted. and I know the stuff grows, earthworm
deficient or not.  What is most interesting, is that this sort of advice
is invarioubly offered by someone who doesn't have a single stick
growing in their garden!

They just "didn't have time" this year.  And if you really question
their experience, it turns out it's all word of mouth, or gleaned from
literature like "The National Enquirer".  They have spent all their time
learning all the things you can't do and warning others about them, that
they never managed to get any seeds in the ground.

I am going to pass on a little "cure" for these situations.  You may be
involved in a project that just has to get done, and have one of these
theoretical prognosticators of impending doom involved.

They may have some theoretical worry about something planned (I'm quite
sure they collectively invented Y2K).  Ask them calmly to explain their
theory.  repeat it. "you mean that...." and when they say "absolutely"
and then you point out some contradictions and they begin spinning in
some circular logic, or thrusting tangential ideas, then there really
isn't any point in continuing.

Now you simply suggest an experiment that would show if the theory
holds: "So if we took... it would lead to...."

When the reply is: "Yes, without a question."

Then you reply: "I bet you a hundred dollars (or whatever the local
currency) it won't."

And then you'll see the darting eyes, and the lips bobbing like a gold
fish in an oxegen deprived bowl.  They'll usually want to change a few
parameters in the proposed experiment.... let them. Then add: "would you
bet fifty then?" "ten?".  Are you willing to bet ONE dollar on the
result you recently were absolutely certain you would get?"

Now, fellow brewers, PLEASE use this technique sparingly and only on
particularly obnoxious individuals.

Arguing ruffles not a little bit of pride in many folks, and some seem
to believe "last" or "most jabbing" comment wins, and will absolutely
not relinquish this object of pride.  This is NOTHING compared to the
injured ego of "losing a bet".  Particularly when it comes time to fork
over the dough.

The true value of this comes the next time they suggest some pomposity,
and you say "You really think so?".... they actually stop and think if
they DO really think so before directly embarking on the path of argumentation.

Anyhow, if you put some grain in the freezer over night, and then brew
it next to some nonfrozen stuff, treating it exactly the same, I bet you
a hundred bucks you wouldn't be able to pick them apart in a blind tasting.

Any takers?

I rather thought not.

Dr. Pivo


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 17:46:10 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: dry or wet crush.

There is very little "dry crushing" done in large industrial productions
any more, mostly because a "wet crush" saves time.

Wet crushes are for the most part impractical for the home brewer, but
I've just bumped into something sort of cute.

I long ago gave away weighing grains.  They all sit at about a density
of .5 crushed and the only difference is water content which I'm not
terribly interested in.  I brew then, by volumes.  I feed the grain
through the crush in the proportions I want until I have about 55 litres
crushed and then I stop. This means I can have taken more grain to the
crush that actually gets crushed.

Such was the case a few weeks ago, and as I drove the load to the
brewhouse, I pulled the barrell of uncrushed out and headed into the
brewery with the crushed stuff.

That night it rained like all buggery, and when I saw the barrel still
standing outside, I raised my eyebrows in self disgust, poured off the
water and put the barrell in the cellar.

I pulled that out today, and the grains were noticably "plumper" than
usual, and more pliable under my fingers.  I just ran that stuff through
the crush, and with a little fiddling with the feed rate, it came out
looking like "rolled oats" (you know, the porridge making stuff).

One thing that used to bother me when such things did, is no matter how
long one mashed, if you pulled a sample and then crushed a bit of hull
with your thumbnail, you could always find a PAS positive iodine test
somewhere in it.... just wasn't getting everything out.

This stuff LOOKS more accessable to wetting.

Now I wonder where I've placed that iodine bottle?

I think I can feel a spearmint coming on.

Dr. Pivo


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:07:32 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: grain distinction.

appealing to the pragmatically interested:

Does anyone know how one can tell the difference between "chocolate
malt" and "mouse turds"?

For my failing eyesight they look desceptively similar.

If I just "brew with it" and it turns out to be the latter, what
characteristics should I expect in terms of "mouth feel"? "head
retention"? "colour"?

Dr. Pivo


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:54:22 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Crystal malt fermentability - Part 1

This question has come up again, so I will repost Mort O'Sullivan's two
excellent posts from two years ago.

Mort is a graduate of the International Centre for Brewing and Distilling
at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 22:12:04 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com>
Subject: RE: crystal malt: call for discussion

Jeff Renner calls for a discussion on crystal malt, primarily
questioning whether it is really true that the sugars from crystal
malt are less fermentable than those from standard malts.

>It seems to me that there is nothing inherent about this procedure
that
>should produce more unfermentables than a standard mash.  If a
temperature
>regime is used in stewing that would result in higher unfermentables
in a
>conventional mash, the result should be the same.
>
>Now it may be that the stewing is indeed done at such temperatures
>routinely, resulting in high unfermentables.  I think that maltsters
have
>researched the results of temperature regimes, both regarding sugar
>profiles and protein profiles, and control these precisely.  And, of
>course, the caramelization of most crystal malts' sugars adds an
important
>flavor component not easily (or at all?) achieved otherwise.  Perhaps
it is
>these caramelized sugars that are less fermentable than they would be
>uncaramelized?  I don't think so, but I'm trying to think of all of
the
>angles.

These are very good questions. The starting point for creating crystal
malt is usually well modified green malt at >43% moisture and the
initial air on temperature is usually 65-70*C. Holding at this
saccharification temperature is often compared to mashing within the
kernel, but some important differences should be kept in mind. First,
at about 43% moisture, the liquor:grist ratio is much lower than in a
normal mash; and second, the "grist" is never milled but simply
consists of starch-and-protein-containing endosperm cells whose walls
have been degraded during germination by endoproteases and beta
glucanases. These conditions limit the amylase enzymes' access to
substrate compared to normal mashing conditions. There are still
plenty of reducing sugars released to react with the primary amines in
Maillard reactions to form the reductones, furans, pyrroles, pyrazines
and countless intermediates that provide the characteristic flavors
and colors to crystal and caramel malts. Once caramelized, these
sugars are no longer sugars, and so are not fermentable by yeast.
However, only a small percentage of the sugars actually undergo
Maillard reactions and so presumably there are plenty of other sugars,
dextrins, and partially degraded starch molecules remaining that would
eventually contribute to fermentability, especially after they are
mashed in the presence of the "healthy" enzymes from the normal malt
that makes up the majority of your grist. But this is not the case.

Why?

Starch molecules in barley are approximately 25% amylose, and 75%
amylopectin. Due to the limited enzyme mobility described above, the
amylopectin is preferentially broken down because the complexity of
the molecules "entraps" enzymes in microchannels on the surface of the
amylopectin molecules. The much longer, straight-chain amylose
molecules are solubilized, but survive the process relatively
unscathed. During the later, high temperature stages of kilning and
subsequent cooling, these solubilized amylose molecules tend to
recrystallize in a process called retrogradation. For reasons not
entirely understood, these recrystallized amylose molecules are very
resistant to enzymic hydrolysis and so will not yield fermentable
sugars.

It has also been noted by many researchers that regardless of the type
of malt being produced, there is an inverse relationship between the
time spent at high temperature in kilning and the fermentability of a
malt.  As crystal and caramel malts can spend quite a long time at
temperatures as high as 150*C, it makes sense that their
fermentability may be severely reduced.

Hope this helps.

Mort O'Sullivan
Edinburgh, Scotland

 -=-=-=-=-
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: Sat, 3 Jun 2000 12:55:16 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Crystal malt fermentability - Part 2

Here is a clarification Mort posted to a followup question by Steve Alexander.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 22:30:30 +0100
From: "Mort O'Sullivan" <tarwater at brew-master.com>
Subject: Crystal Malt Questions

I was afraid someone might ask for clarification regarding my earlier post.
Thanks, Steve.

Starch retrogradation is a pretty complex physical phenomenon and could be
better explained by a rheologist than a brewer. But I'll try to tell you
what I know and show you where I found the information.

>In capsule form it says:
>malt is 25% amylose and 75% amylopectin (this checks out)
>stewing of crystal malt favors amylopectin-lysis [- hmm why ? all enzymes
>are just as short of water. - Isn't BA smaller to start with ?]]

Even in a normal mash, amylopectin is broken down faster than amylose,
which is explained by the fact that the complex structure of amylopectin
molecules tends to entrap amylase enzymes. In conditions such as stewing
crystal malt, free movement of enzymes would be even more restricted and
the time of stewing at 65*C is generally shorter than the time for a full
mash, so a lot of amylose would be left undigested.


>only a small % of the sugars undergo Maillard reactions and become
>unfermentable by this mechanism during kilning, the relatively
>unchanged amylose molecule recrystallize [or perhaps crystallize is
>better - since it's the first fime - No Mort?]

No, I think 'recrystallize' is better since the starch granules are already
in a crystal structure before gelatinization. The conditions for the
retrogradation of starch require that the starch molecules be gelatinized
and then that they be cooled to below the gelatinization temperature before
they are fully hydrolysed. The slower the cooling and the longer time spent
at the low temperatures, the more retrogradation occurs. Retrogradation is
also promoted by relatively long chain lengths (>100) and association with
lipid molecules, so amylose molcules retrograde faster than amylopectin
molcules.

Retrogradation of starch is one of the primary mechanisms of bread staling
and most research has been focused on that area rather than brewing. One
interesting thing I read about wheat starch is that while in its natural
state it gelatinizes at ~55*C, after retrogradation its gelatinization
temperature is 105*C. Whether this is the case with barley starch I am not
sure, but it could explain why it is resistent to enzymes.

>and by an inexplicable mechanism become unfermentable - that is -
>insucceptable to amylase enzymes.

>regardless of malt type - high temp kilnoing => lower fermentability.
The amount of time spent at the high temperature is as important, if not
more important.

For those interested in reading more about this stuff, I got most of the
information from these sources:
(1) Gretenhart, K.E. "Specialty Malts." _MBAA Technical Qtly_ 1997 v.34 n.2
pp.102-106.
(2) Jackson, S.W. and J.R. Hudson. " Flavour from Crystal Malt." _J. Inst.
Brew._ Jan/Feb 1978 v. 84 pp. 34-40.
(3) Manners, D.J. "Starch Degradation During Malting and Mashing." _Brewers
Digest_ Dec 1974, pp. 56-62.
(4) Palmer, G.H., ed. "Cereal Science and Technology." Aberdeen: Aberdeen
UP, 1989.
(5) McGregor A.W. "Current State of Research into Barley Carbohydrates and
Enzymes." in _Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Conference on Malting,
Brewing & Distilling_ ed. I. Campbell. London: IoB, 1990; pp 10-33.
(6) Blenkinsop, P.G. "A Look at Malt Products." in _Proceedings of the
Third Aviemore Conference on Malting, Brewing & Distilling_. pp. 179-194.
(7) Bourne, D.T., et al. "Some Factors Influencing the Fermentability of
Malt." in _Proceedings of the Third Aviemore Conference on Malting, Brewing
& Distilling_. pp. 309-312.

 -=-=-=-=-
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: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 12:59:56 -0500
From: hal <hwarrick at springnet1.com>
Subject: therm. input !

        Greetings all,
    Boy I throw in a quick bit of info on a
small digital therm. i find and all we talk about
is water getting into the braiding.
    I'm sorry for all the problems with this,I
just assumed anyone using a therm. on there mash
inserts it into the side of the mash vessel instead
of dropping it into the liquid. That way none of the
braiding is in the liquid.
        Hal



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 03 Jun 2000 18:02:50 GMT
From: mikey at swampgas.com ( at )
Subject: RE: Thermocouple braid problem

I have two of these -- using heat shrink tubing will NOT work (this
includes the heat shrink tubing provided by St. Pats). It may work
initially, but eventually water will seep in. I'd advise simply taking
care with the probe. 

I have had some luck adding food grade silicone caulk to the edges, in
addition to heat-shrink tubing but I suspect that even this will
eventually fail.

Do be careful -- if water DOES seep in, the probe will indicate a high
temperature -- but not necessarily so high that you will notice
something amiss.

Cheers -- m
**************************************
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 02:53:38 EDT
From: Epic8383 at aol.com
Subject: False Bottom Flexing

   When I finally set up my 3 keg system, I also wasn't impressed with the 
mash/lauter false bottom, so I went to my nearest big time home store and 
took some 1/4" x 2" stainless round head machine screws and two nuts for 
each. I installed 3 of them upside down, with a nut on either side of the 
false bottom. After adjusting the length and location of the screws, I had a 
very firmly supported false bottom...
   My recent Kolsch filtration running directly from fermenter to keg via my 
carboy cap was a complete success, I saved myself a transfer of unfiltered 
beer into a keg prior to filtering. The Kolsch is clear, golden, and 
delicious!
      Gus


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 02:05:36 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net>
Subject: Specialty Grains

>From: "Steve" <stjones1 at chartertn.net>
>Subject: Mashing specialty grains
><SNIP> but this guy is adamant about it. He says that specialty
>grains, especially crystal and dextrin malt, should not be mashed with
>the base malt because  the enzymes will 'destroy' the dextrins, leaving
>nothing but fermentable sugars. He claims that this will lead to
>overattenuation and thin body. He says if you want to use crystal, then
>steep it in the boil kettle.

     Though I have always added specialties directly with the rest of the
mash...certainly I always made sure to include them in the middle of a
milling run...just to ensure that there was no..say..roasted..in the 'dead
space' of the mill transit to tun...left over for the next batch....I always
start a crush with 2 row...and finish with 2 row.....
     I have heard many a positive comment from brewers that do add
specialties just before the sparge...and have greatly enjoyed the flavor
from those beers employing such a scheme...

     But the above statements reported by Steve can only be made with little
respect for actual practice...
     Yes, the enzymes CAN reduce dextrins...but WILL they?
     Not likely...

     "Thus, B-amylase depends upon A-amylase to by-pass the the branches and
expose additional 1-4 linkages for hydrolysis. A-amylase is known as the
'liquefying enzyme,' <SNIP>. A-amylase has the ability to bypass the 1-6
branch points and attack internal 1-4 linkages to expose additional
substrate for B-amylase.......

 .....A-amylase is also known as the 'dextrinogenic enzyme' since it will
eventually, ALTHOUGH VERY SLOWLY, convert dextrins to maltose and
glucose........
 .....The optimum temperature for A-amylase activity is 65-67C (149-153F.)

     B-amylase is the more powerful maltose producer, but it's action slows
and ceases as 1-4 linkages become unavailable for hydrolysis. It's opimum
temperature is 52-62 C (126-144 F.) Together with A-amylase, B-amylase is
capable of converting 60-80 % of the available starch to fermentable sugars.
The remaining 'limit' dextrins are inaccessible to B-amylase activity.

     Limit dextrinase is a de-branching enzyme which attacks 1-6 linkages
and can break down limit dextrins. However, since it's optimum temperature
is 40C (104F.), it has little effect at mashing temperatures. Thus a large
percentage of the dextrins, which are unfermentable, pass into the finished
beer, contributing to palate-fullness, or body, into the finished beer."
<SNIP>
     "The rate of rise and the selected conversion or saccharification
temperature determines the relative proportions of maltose and dextrins
which the amylases are permitted to form."
The Practical Brewer..3rd Ed, 1999, pg 114.

     So much for the books...I would say this to Steve, ask your adamant
friend to make a pair of mashes, in any temp range...steps...or  at  a single
infusion temp...
     One with nothing but 2 row or 6 row...and the other with 50%
carapils....
     Over any time period he wishes....
     And taste the collected runnings........

     He may change his mind....

Rob Moline

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 03:35:35 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: freezing malt

Oh yeah.  Purified barley beta-amylase is destroyed by freezing.
Some other plant BAs degrade slowly with freezing.  That may be
why Mary Ann Gruber of Breiss suggested avoiding it. I doubt,
based on reports, that the impact is severe but a may still show up
in the 'con' column for this method.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 20:01:39 +1000 (EST)
From: =?iso-8859-1?q?scott=20morgan?= <surferscotty at yahoo.com.au>
Subject: re:Homebrew Tri-Nations?

Lydon,

just let me correct you...

"Rugby?  What's that?  Oh, yes, it's a funny game
played by thugs in
Queensland and New South Wales."....and the ACT, new
zealand, the UK, ireland, scotland, wales, Europe, the
north and south America's, China, Japan, korea, sth
africa, zimbawe, pacific isles...

"Australian Rules is the code down here." for how
long?

"Coopers is the only decent commercial beer in
Australia. "

The only point we can unite on....except for those
nasty add sugar kits. Praise be to Dark Ale.

scotty







_____________________________________________________________________________
http://movies.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Australia & NZ Movies
 - Find out what's on at the local cinema with Yahoo! Movies


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 08:56:14 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: mash pH retry

There were  a few requests for a retry of my mash experiment.
So, new calibration buffers mixed and calibration of the meter
checked, calibration with the new buffer solutions was off only
0.03; an amount typical with this meter after 1 week of storage.
 The water pH was checked before the mash started. Water pH
was 4.89, after boiling to eliminate atmospheric volatile acidity
the water pH was 5.45; adding 0.25 grams calcium sulphate
to 400 ml of the test water
caused no change of pH-remaining 5.45. 100 grams pilsner
malt was added to 400 ml of the prepared water, stirred 1 minute
and allowed to rest 3 minutes; the pH reached 5.69.
 The mash was repeated with water with no added calcium sulphate,
the grist stirred 1 minute, the calcium sulphate added after doughing
in and the mash allowed to rest 3 minutes; the pH was 5.71.
Adjusting the readings for temperature offset gives _normal_
mash pH of 5.5.
 Adding gypsum before or after doughing in seems to make no
significant difference in the resulting mash pH. The 0.02 variation
between the 2 mashes is meaningless since the accuracy of the
meter is =/- 0.01.
 The results of these 2 trials replicate the original findings of my
experiment. Water containing 150 ppm of calcium ions results
in an adjusted mash pH within normally accepted standards.

One good measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions.
   N.P.Lansing


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 11:23:03 -0400
From: Bill Wible <bwible at pond.com>
Subject: re: Foster's

Phil,

Absolutely no need to apologize for anything.   I actually enjoy 
reading all the comments from you guys.
The whole Burabadoo Hilton thing has been very amusing.

I truly did want comments on a Foster's Recipe.  I live in 
Philadelphia, PA.  One of my  friends who I used to work with is from 
another part of the State - Pittsburgh, PA.  I worked with the guy 
for about 8
years.  Now he is leaving this part of the state to go back to his 
home and take a job closer to family.
He has been here for awhile and so he will not leave right away.  He 
wants to close out all his business properly, say goodbye to 
everyone, etc.  So I asked him "What kind of beer do you want
me to make for your going away party?"  He said, "I like Foster's." 
That's the story.  The post was not a troll to get you Australian 
guys out of the woodowork, though it might have seemed that way.

And sure, I can understand that it would be like someone asking for a 
Schlitz, Schaefer, or Iron City Beer recipe here.  These are all 
older beers that some of the old men still drink.  Most people would 
say they're not nearly as good as they used to be.  And alot of 
people would say "Why bother?"  Still, we do occasionally see those 
kinds of requests, "for someone's father".  Like I said, I stopped 
judging people, and now I just make what people ask for.  Builds my 
skills as a brewer.   I look at each request as an opportunity.

By the way, here's what I finally came up with for Foster's:

5 gallons
OG 1.048
IBU ~23
SRM ~6

   5     lbs     2 row lager malt   2L
1.25 lbs     6 row lager malt   2L
   1     lb       Carapils                 2L
   .5    lb       Crystal Malt          20L
1.5 lbs       Table Sugar          1L

1 starter     Wyeast 2272 North American Lager Yeast

 .5 oz   Pride of Ringwood    6.8%    60 min
 .5 oz   Pride of RIngwood    6.8%    30 min

Infusion mash, 155 degrees, my system gets around 68% efficiency.

I originally had 6.25 lbs 2 row, but because I buy  malt in 5 lb 
bags, and I already
have an open bag of 6 row, that's what I decided to use.  No other 
particular reason.
Well, it does help efficiency just a tiny bit, but not enough to get 
excited over.

Thanks for writing, no hard feelings or anything toward anyone here.

Look forward to your posts.

Have a good one,

Bill


Return to table of contents

---