---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  juniper berries (Joe Uknalis)
  scratched fermenters are lethal (olson)
  Re: snowflakes keep falling through my beer (Keith Thompson)
  Re: Grain/Extract (Glenn Colon-Bonet)
  Salty ales? (Glenn Colon-Bonet)
  Siphon Wars & Ester (bob)
  How Old Is Old? (Marc San Soucie)
  Oxidation, Polycar & CO2 Taps (bob)
  wort chiller and foam (mike_schrempp)
  grain -> extract (Russ Gelinas)
  Honey vs. Yeast (wegeng)
  Re: INDEX (Chuck Cox)
  Re: Artificial Carbonation (Chuck Cox)
  Inexpensive Fermentors and Bottles ("John P. Quintana")
  Jalapeno Peppers (Marc Light)
  Avoiding contamination... ("Gary F. Mason - Image Systems - MKO2-2/K03 - 603884[DTN264]-1503  11-Aug-1990 2107")
  scratches,unmashed malt,dangerous advice (Pete Soper)


Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com
Archives available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 10 Aug 90 09:47:12 EDT
From: Joe Uknalis <UKNALIS at VTVM1.CC.VT.EDU>
Subject:      juniper berries


I thought Juniper berries were toxic to some degree...
Maybe you could find a method for extractment in a liquor cookbook.
I've seen recipies for kaluha & grand mariner, maybe they have recommended
quantities & stuff on juniper berries.  Check out the gin section...

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:40:21 EDT
From: olson at antares.cs.virginia.edu
Subject: scratched fermenters are lethal



In HBD #472, Chuck Coronella writes:
>Second, for those concerned about scratches in plastic fermenting pails:
>When a batch of beer has finished fermenting, I fill my bucket with a medium-
>strength bleach solution, and let the bucket sit.  If any infection manged
>to lodge itself in a scratch, I think that this should kill it.  I empty (and
>rinse) the bucket during the boil of the next batch (after at least a week.) 

Chuck, you've been lucky (and very careful I'm sure) so far, but I
wouldn't count on it lasting.  In the bad old days before I discovered
TCJOHB, I brewed in a poly tub, bought new from a homebrew store, using
directions from "The New Brewer's Handbook" of sainted memory.  The
recipes there are of the "one can extract, 2 pounds of corn sugar"
variety that were common not so long ago.  Result:  first batch
acceptable given the recipe.  Second and third had strong off flavors,
but I drank them anyway, to my wife's disgust.  I thought that's what
homebrew was *supposed* to taste like.  Fourth batch, an all-malt (extract)
pale ale, was utterly undrinkable, with strong skunky and plastic-y odor
and flavor.

All that time I was being obsessive about sanitation-- the tub got a 3-hour
soak in cold water + 1/4 cup bleach (for 7 gal) before each use, followed by
careful rinsing with very hot water until the bleach smell was gone.

Then came the blessed day when the local shop sold me a copy of TCJOHB.
I read the part where Charlie says "no amount of bleach will clean
scratched plastic, scratched fermenters should be trashed".  I went to
the cellar and stuck my head in the tub.  Sure enough, very close
examination showed dozens of faint vertical scratches along the walls.
Not surprising as I'd been shoving the lid sideways into the tub for storage...

I went back to the store and bought a 6-gallon glass carboy ($12) and 
blow-off rig ($3), and all but one of the subsequent twenty-odd batches
have been great.  (The loser I attribute to contaminated hoses.) I now
avoid plastic as far as possible, and recommend trashing all hoses, racking
tubes et cetera ever 18 months or so.

Moral -- plastic fermenters are hazardous to your beer.  For fermentation,
stick to glass.

- --Tom Olson


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 08:43:56 PDT
From: ket at EBay.Sun.COM (Keith Thompson)
Subject: Re: snowflakes keep falling through my beer

I have just started using Wyeast also and found the same floaters in my beer.
I used the American Ale yeast not the Irish Ale yeast.  
My beer was made from extract, hops, and just a small amount of crystal malt.
This has always given me a slightly amber colored, light tasting ale.
I have used this same recipe many times with no snowflakes.  I had been using
Red Star yeast until this one batch.  The only difference I can find is the 
yeast.  
The past batches of beer using the Red Star yeast has always tasted good but I
have been reading in the digest about the superiority of the Wyeast's so I gave
it a try.  The beer has only been in the bottle about 10 days and is not fully
carbenated yet but I did try some and it tastes pretty good.  The flakes seem to
sink to the bottom when the bottles are jiggled a little bit, but they seem to 
float back to the surface after setting awhile.  To be honast once I pour the 
beer into a glass I don't notice the flakes at all.  I have not noticed any off
tastes yet but it is still early.  So until I taste something bad in the beer or
the flakes start to grow to larger proportions or I get grenades I will just
"Relax and Have a Homebrew".


Keith

************


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:18:57 mdt
From: Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb at hpfigcb>
Subject: Re: Grain/Extract
Full-Name: Glenn Colon-Bonet

- --------

In Homebrew Digest #472 RussG asks about a rough equivalent
in grain for a 3.3lb can of amber malt extract.  This is
totally seat-of-the-pants, but 3.3 lbs of malt syrup would
normally (for me) contribute about 20 points to the original gravity
of a 5 gallon batch.  I normally figure 5 points/pound for my
all grain batches, so that means around 4 lbs of fermentables,
at a cost of around $1/pound, so it should cost you < $5.
I would probably use 1/2 pound crystal malt (40 L), 3 lbs vienna malt
and between 1/2-1 pound of six-row malt for a nice amber color
with malty flavor.  If you want a deeper color, try adding 1/4-1/2 oz. 
chocolate malt, use darker crystal (80 Lovibond), add munich malt,
or all of the above.  Munich is a very nice malt to use, but remember 
that it has only 1/3 the enzyme of vienna (or pale malt), so you
should up the 6-row malt to compensate if you use much munich malt.
This recipe should produce an equivalent to 1 can of amber extract, 
but I think you'll like it better!  
			Enjoy!
			-Glenn

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:53:57 mdt
From: Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb at hpfigcb>
Subject: Salty ales?
Full-Name: Glenn Colon-Bonet

- --------

Recently, I brewed an all grain ale, using entirely pale ale malt
for the first time.  When I tasted the first glass of the beer,
it comes across immediately as salty, and that flavor lingers
through the aftertaste.  It totally destroys this beer, and I
don't know where it came from!  I added no salts to this batch -
no gypsum, no epsom salts, nothing!   I used 8 lbs pale ale malt,
1/2 lb wheat, 1/2 lb crystal, 1/2 lb dextrin, 1.5 oz. Northern
Brewer hops for the boil, 1/2 oz NB hops at 15 minutes and 
1/2 oz. Cascade for the finish.  It was fermented using Wyeast
German Ale yeast (#1007).  Any ideas?  I've asked some local
brewers to help identify the off flavors, they couldn't
figure out the cause, but they agreed that the off flavor was salty.
Fermentation temp was 75F, which may be a little warm.  Do most
of you ale-makers out there use all pale ale malt, or do you
blend it with Klages (or 6-row)?   I sure hope it's not the grain,
I've got 50 lbs of it!  Well anyways, I'd appreciate any advice,
help or sympathy!
			Stumped,
			-Glenn


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri Aug 10 12:57:53 1990
From: semantic!bob at uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Siphon Wars & Ester

Hi Everybody!

	I just wanted to say thanks for all the replies I got on my
Siphon Wars, and my Hot Fermented fruity ale.

	I guess I touched on something which every one can relate to.
I feel very happy having been able to create such a well received thread.
I received many ideas from many people, to many to summarize even.  Next
time I'll be the one answering the question.  *Thanks*!

	On my fruity ale It has been determined that yeast fermenting at
a high temperature will produce fruity esters. (I chuckle every time I
think of this: I know a women named Ester, and she's a fruit all right,
Her mother must have been pregnant through a hot summer!)

	Any way the fruity flavor blends in well with the beer, it's
actually quite pleasant. (No Bananas here).  The yeast I used was
Whitbreads Dry Ale Yeast.  So IMHO it was NOT the Alexanders Malt
Extract.  (Let's not start an unnecessary rumor)

	Thanks again!

- -- Cheers :-) :-)

- -- Robert A. Gorman (Bob)        bob at rsi.com           Watertown MA US --
- -- Relational Semantics, Inc.    uunet!semantic!bob    +1 617 926 0979 --


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 10:03:09 PDT
From: marcs at SLC.COM (Marc San Soucie)
Subject: How Old Is Old?

From Gary Benson:

> While on vacation, I got an unexpected treat. On a visit to my mom at
> Christmas, 1988, I took along a case of the first batch of the brown ale
> which I now make as my main brew. She still had four bottles! And they had
> been refrigerated the entire time! It took me less than 30 seconds to pop
> one open when I discovered this treasure, and lordy, lordy, was it good! Not
> a *bit* of "homebrew" flavor! ;-) It stood up to the ravages of time much
> better than I might have expected - it was dry, perfectly balanced, and much
> lighter on the palate than it was when I drank the last of the batch at the
> young age of 3 months. This experience convinced me that while a "fresh"
> flavor has a lot to recommend it, aging beer can improve it considerably. I
> had always thought that 1 month in the bottle was the time to begin
> drinking, and that 3 months was about optimum, but I am rethinking those
> assumptions. In this case at least, the beer went from an 8 to a 10 just by
> sitting in a fridge for a year an half! Can anyone cooroborate or dispute
> any of this?

Will do. I've settled, completely empirically and without numerical evidence to
back me up, on a figure of about 6-8 months as "optimum" for the aging of good
homebrew, assuming a number of factors: A) that the beer was well-made in the
first place, B) that the beer is toward the heavy side (a six-pounder at
least), C) that the beer is stored properly, ie in a reasonably cool or at
least not hot basement or some such. After 8 months to a year, storing such a
beer in a fridge will preserve it even longer. I've had perfectly normal 6 lb.
amber ales (why do they call these things Pale, anyway?) last well over two
years in fine form. Not all beers will stand this kind of aging, but if you've
done your job right, you should expect it.

    Marc San Soucie
    Portland, Oregon
    marcs at slc.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri Aug 10 13:29:48 1990
From: semantic!bob at uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Oxidation, Polycar & CO2 Taps

Hi Everybody!

Here is a new topic:

I always rack my beer after the primary ferment, off of the settled yeast.
I find this improves the clearness and (I think) the flavor of my beer.
This allows more yeast and stuff to settle out and I end up with less in
my bottles, which I think helps the resulting beer flavor.

So my problem is this: When a rack over my beer I end up with about a
gallon of new air inside the carboy with my beer.  I believe this allow
oxygen to difuse into my beer, oxidize it, and create a slightly sour
taste.

In Miller's book he recommends Polycar.  He says this will create some
foaming and Carbon Dioxide will be released, thus purging the air from
above the beer.  Well I tried this in my last batch, and I noticed no
such foaming and my sour type flavor was still their.  However this
batch did come out to be my clearest beer yet!  I think the Polycar
caued this result, after all it's a fining agent.

Now I still want to continue to rack my beer but I don't want this
air in my beer!

So my question is:  Do other people use Polycar for this purpose?
And if so: What is your procudure?

Next, somewhere in my brothers attick is a beer tap of my Dad's. 
He used to always keep a cold keg of Bud on a CO2 tap in a fridge in 
the basement.  (What a guy!  We nick-named him the Bud King)  This 
was a real hit during my high school years! ("Whatta youse guys
wanna do dis aftanoon?", "Hey! I know! Let's go drink my Dad's keg
of beer!")  No wonder I love beer!

Anyway (I got off on a side track again), I can't remember what this
tap looks like (I wonder why ?-).  I do know it fits a standard keg
of beer.  

Is this the same type of tap used on Cornellious (sp?) kegs?

And if I where to re-fill the tank: Would the CO2 be germ free
and not contaminate my beer if I use it to purge the air space
from my carboy?

Sorry about being long winded!

Looking forward to your replies!

- -- Robert A. Gorman (Bob)        bob at rsi.com           Watertown MA US --
- -- Relational Semantics, Inc.    uunet!semantic!bob    +1 617 926 0979 --


Return to table of contents


Date:         9 Aug 90 16:21 -0800
From: mike_schrempp%29 at hp4200.desk.hp.com
Subject:     wort chiller and foam

I'm a new to the brew person and this is my first posting. My first batch
is in the carboy. Actually there are 6 of us (one old hand, 5 novices) working
on 10 gallons of ale. I've been a reader for a few months and finally have
something to contribute. Anyway, here it is...

First on foam. In the last few issues there has been talk about how much foam
people are getting in their glasses when they pour, and ways to pour to keep the
foam down. I was in Germany a few years ago, and in all the bars I went to, they
fill a glass standing on a table from a tap up to a foot (.3m in Europe) above.
The glass would fill with foam, the bar tender would let it sit for a while,
put in more beer, it would foam, it would sit, in goes more beer.... You can
imagine the struggle waiting for that first beer. Well, I was told that that's
the right way to pour a beer, who cares if some goes down the drain,and you have
to wait. In fact, I was told that if it takes less than 7 minute to pour a
Pilsner, you'll be drinking a bad beer. If you can't wait, use a soapy glass...

Now the wort chiller. I have a proposal for a fast and effective wort chiller.
I'll be using one on batch #2. Here's the concept: flow the boiling wort through
a copper tube immersed in an ice bath rather than a counter-flow chiller. Since
the heat of fusion (heat absorbed in melting) of ice is 143 times greater than
the specific heat (heat needed to warm up) of water, one unit (pound, gallon,
etc.) of ice can cool one unit of water (wort) 143 degrees F. If the wort starts
at 212 F, it will end up at 69 F, a nice cool temperature.

Here's the design: Cool 5 gallons of boiled wort by passing it through 5 feet
  of .25" copper tubing immersed in an ice bath made with 5 gallons (approx
  40 lbs) of crushed ice in 15 minutes time. The calculated length of tube is
  only 4 feet, so initially the wort comes out cooler than 69 F, but eventually
  the ice all melts and the wort comes out hotter than 69 F. When the wort all
  mixes after leaving the chiller, the temperature will be 69 F. If the wort
  initially comes out of the chiller hotter than 69 F, reduce the flow until
  the temperature comes down.

This seems to me to be a simple, and accurate way to chill the wort. It saves
water (Calif drought, etc) and the ice can be bought or made (paid for with the
utility bill). Also, the short copper tube is cheap and easy to clean. This
method is also less prone to contamination than making "clean" ice to mix with
hot wort.

Any comments before I go to the hardware store for parts?

Waiting for the first tall cool one, foam or not
Mike Schrempp


Return to table of contents


Date:     Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:26 EST
From: <R_GELINA%UNHH.BITNET at MITVMA.MIT.EDU> (Russ Gelinas)
Subject:  grain -> extract

I asked "How much grain is needed to produce the equivalent of 3.3 lbs. of
extract?" Well from the responses I received (thanks), it looks like the
answer is somewhere around 4 lbs., at anywhere from $0.65 to $1.50 a pound.
That's from $2.60-$6.00 for the equivalent of a can of extract, which go
for $6.00 and up around here. Hmmmmm...And I bet it tastes better too....
Hmmmmmmmm.......

Russ G.

Return to table of contents


Date: 10 Aug 90 11:49:26 PDT (Friday)
From: wegeng at arisia.xerox.COM
Subject: Honey vs. Yeast


>In the two shops where I bought the yeast, I was told that honey has
>something that inhibits yeast growth.

I've heard this as well, but have never seen a definite reference.  I do
know, however, that wine yeast (Montrachet, Champagne, etc.) is happiest
when in an environment similar to that of grape juice.  When making mead I
always add acid blend to adjust the pH accordingly (I forget the exact
value - check a wine making book).  I've also seen many recioe that call
for yeast nutrients, so under the theory that honey <> grapes I usually add
some of that, too.

A lot of people use Champagne yest when making mead, but I've had better
results with Montrachet yeast.  The final product seems to be a bit
smoother and sweeter.  It's good to hear that someone else had had good
luck as well.

/Don
wegeng at arisia.xerox.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 13:49:34 EDT
From: harley!chuck at uunet.UU.NET (Chuck Cox)
Subject: Re: INDEX

Gary Benson sez-
> I keep reading about all the work that the readership has been doing towards
> indexing Papazian's book, and would like to suggest that someone who has
> been doing that ought to contact Mr. Papazian and offer the index for the
> next printing.
etc....

Charlie is well aware of the various indices available, and has mentioned
on at least one occasion that he appreciates and supports the effort.
At this year's national conference, the AHA was freely distributing a nicely
formatted index that was the same size as the book.

Charlie seems to agree that the lack of an index is a glaring omission,
but in a recent conversation about a possible new edition, he said that
the publisher refuses to allow an index since they do not consider his
book to be a reference book and they only index reference books.
I guess that Brewer's Publications doesn't have the distribution to handle
his book.

Maybe someone has talked to Charlie more recently and has more up-to-date
info.

 - Chuck Cox (uunet!bose!chuck) - Hopped/Up Racing Team -


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 14:18:53 EDT
From: harley!chuck at uunet.UU.NET (Chuck Cox)
Subject: Re: Artificial Carbonation

Well, I got a couple of email requests for info on artificially carbonating
kegs, so I guess that justifies a posting to the net.

First, I'll tell you how I do it, then I'll tell you how the experts do it.

I put the keg in my keg fridge which is kept at about 55 deg.
I hook up my CO2 to the normal fitting, and set the pressure at
10 psi, my normal dispensing pressure.  After 3 days or so,
the beer is ready to go.  This produces moderate to low carbonation,
which is what I like.  You can adjust the carbonation level by
changing the pressure.

Byron Burch gave a talk on artificial carbonation at the National
Conference.  His procedure varies in two ways.
Byron connects the CO2 to the down-tube, thus forcing the gas to
bubble up through the beer, increasing the rate of absorption.
I think this is a great idea, I just need to buy some more fittings
and tubing to implement it.

Instead of waiting for the gas to reach equilibrium after a few days,
Byron uses a table which relates CO2 pressure, temperature and time
to the volumes of CO2 absorbed.  This allows him to carbonate more
quickly by using more pressure.  Basically, he determines how much
carbonation he wants in his beer and describes this in units of
volumes of CO2.  He then takes the temperature and determines
how long to leave the beer at a given pressure (approx 60psi as I recall).
Hopefully, this table will be published in the conference transcripts.

When done correctly, artificial carbonation provides faster and more
uniform carbonation than priming, and speeds up and improves clarification.
As far as I can tell, the only advantage of Byron's techniques is
faster carbonation.

On a somewhat related topic, I just got my new stainless steel 
counter-pressure bottle filler.
This means that I can now bottle my sediment-free draft beer.
So I will be entering competitions again (I haven't bottled in years,
and nobody would allow me to enter a keg in a competition).

 - Chuck Cox (uunet!bose!chuck) - Hopped/Up Racing Team -

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 10 Aug 90 22:42:23 CDT
From: "John P. Quintana" <jpq_mail at laue.ms.nwu.edu>
Subject: Inexpensive Fermentors and Bottles


I'm fairly new to homebrewing.  In fact, I'm working (or rather the
yeast) is working on batches 5 and 6 right now.  I've scanned through
many of the back issues of H.D. and I have a few comments/questions:

On Primary Fermentors:
   I use a single fermentation process for both economy and laziness.  Many
years ago,  I made wine, and when I recently decided to make beer for economy
reasons (a quart of Michelob here in Evanston, the birthplace of Prohibition
will set you back almost $2.00), I was shocked when the local brewing store
wanted about $75.00 for a complete brewing kit minus the ingredients.  I
thought I could do better and having a hydrometer from my vintning days, I
bought a capper for $15.00, ingredients and a couple of airlocks.  Next, I
went to the bakery.  The one I went to sells white food grade 4 gallon
buckets for 50 cents apiece.   Some bakeries will even give them away since
they can't be resterilized with heat for the food industry.  By punching
holes in the lids of two of the containers and fitting them with airlocks,
I cut the cost of my fermentation vessels from over $20.00 to $2.00.
This forces me to split a 5 gallon kit into two, but then again, I can easily
experiment with small batches. Also, if I happen to scratch them and start
getting funky brews, I can replace them for a song.  I can also use them for
pails or garbage cans if I decide not to brew and I don't have to worry about
taking them with me when I move somewhere.  A friend of mine tonight
decided that he wanted to start brewing. We figured that we could get him
started for about $6.00 plus ingredients since I already own a capper.


On Bottles :
    I don't want to reopen any wars here about green glass etc ..., but it
seems to me that if you keep your beer in the dark (which I do) then it really
doesn't matter what the color of the glass is.  I can also appreciate wanting
to use attractive bottles for aesthetics, but I haven't seen any discussion
about using the old 16 oz soda coke bottles.  They cost me nothing since I
get my money back when I return them for the deposit.   However, I once heard
that the chemical composition of glass used to store alcohol is different than
that used for coke etc ...  Does anyone know if this is true, and can explain
why?

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 13:11:18 -0400
From: Marc Light <light at cs.rochester.edu>
Subject: Jalapeno Peppers


A friend of mine has a bumber crop of hot jalapeno peppers.  And we
are trying to come up with uses for them.  Has anyone tried making
a pepper beer?  I seem to remember one of the recipes from TCJoHB
having Cayenne pepper in it.  

I use a single stage method and canned wort.  I plan on using a
light colored malt and top fermenting yeast.  The questions that
come to mind are "for how long should I put the peppers in the
boil?" and  "should I leave them in fermenter or should I remove
them after the boil?".  


				Marc

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 11 Aug 90 18:18:29 PDT
From: "Gary F. Mason - Image Systems - MKO2-2/K03 - 603884[DTN264]-1503 11-Aug-1990 2107" <mason at habs11.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Avoiding contamination...

I have just reread the special Yeast issue of Zymurgy (V12, #4 - 1989), and 
the article by Farnesworth made me think of something.  He makes a case for 
the real (and perhaps only serious) problem time being that between cooling 
of the wort to pitching temperature and establishment of an active yeast crop. 
That made me wonder about the possibility of pitching the yeast and starter
directly into the brewpot after cooling, and not racking into the primary 
until sometime later (perhaps a few hours - at least until the activity was 
obvious).  The presumption is that the wort could be maintained in near
aseptic condition much easier in the brewpot than when subjecting it to 
racking activities.  Cleaning might be a bit tougher, though one could remove 
the wort chiller when pitching without much additional risk.  Any comments?

Cheers...Gary

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 12 Aug 90 20:46:07 EDT
From: Pete Soper <soper at maxzilla.encore.com>
Subject: scratches,unmashed malt,dangerous advice

Chuck Coronella <CORONELLRJDS at CHE.UTAH.EDU> writes:
  >Second, for those concerned about scratches in plastic fermenting pails:
  >When a batch of beer has finished fermenting, I fill my bucket with a medium-
  >strength bleach solution, and let the bucket sit.  If any infection manged 

  If bleach solution doesn't have the wetting power to get into a scratch in a 
short period of time, why would a longer period make a difference?

  >Finally, the recent discussion regarding the addition of specialty grains 
  >has started me thinking about toasted malted barley.  CP says to prepare 
  >t.m.b. by "toasting" the malted barley in a 350 deg. F oven for 10 minutes.  

  You are describing the practice of putting unmashed pale malted barley 
(toasted or otherwise) into a malt extract-based batch of homebrew, right? This
is the assumption my comments below are based on.

  >Does this effectively convert the starch?  Several recipes in TCJoHB call 

  No way, no how.

  >for t.m.b., but there is no discussion of mashing.  Apparently, 
  >there must be starch in the grain, right?  How does this affect wort?

  It screws it up with permanent starch haze. In most cases these small
amounts of grain will be sparged in a fairly inefficient manner so the haze 
effect is small or everybody would see what a four star disaster this practice 
is. If your beer is hazy to start with then adding a little unconverted malted 
barley will not pose a big problem and you may see no real difference. If you 
are used to haze free beer then you might be very unhappy with the effect of 
even a little bit of raw starch.

  >Also, regarding toasted malted barley, there is no discussion of what 
  >effect this grain should have on the final beer.  Does it add sweetness? 
  >flavor? color? fermentables?  

  Extra color, a nice malt flavor and aroma but no sweetness or fermentables
with pale malts.

aimla!diamond!ken at suntzu.West.Sun.COM (Ken Ellinwood) writes:

  >My roommate has been all-grain brewing for well over ten batches now
  >and has had a consistent problem with high ending specific gravities.  
  >He follows Miller's methods for step-infusion mashing.  A typical mash of
  >8 lbs of Klages in 11 quarts of water starts at 150F, ends at 143F after 2
  >hours in an insulated box.  A sample of the mash is cooled to room temp 
  >for the purpose of  measuring the Ph of the mash, which is determined to 
  >be about 5.3.  The resulting initial gravity is around 1040 and ferments
  >down to 1020.  (He may also be doing a protien rest, but I forgot to ask).

  I assume your friend's hydrometer reads 0.000 in 60 degree water?
  It sounds like he is only incompletely converting the starch. As you
probably know unconverted starch will show up as part of the original gravity
but will be unfermentable and thus be part of the terminal gravity too. It is
remotely possible that a large proportion of unfermentable dextrins are to blame
but I could only believe this if the malt was grossly deficient in enzymes,
given your description of the mashing parameters. If the beer is hazy but with 
normal body I'd vote for starch. If it is viscous I'd vote for dextrins and 
investigate the malt quality or thermometer.
  Assuming starch, as backwards as this sounds, I recommend raising the initial
temperature a couple degrees and boosting the temperature back up after the 
first hour. Complete starch conversion as shown with iodine should be evident 
after 45 to 90 minutes depending on the malt involved. I see conversion in 
around 30-45 minutes with 6 row lager malt, a bit longer with 2 row lager malt,
maybe an hour for 2 row British pale malt and 90 minutes for 2 row British 
mild ale malt at average temperatures in the 152 range. I've seen conversion 
in 20 minutes at 156 degrees with 6 row lager malt. At the other extreme I've 
had thermometer failure such that a reading of 150 was really 144. At 144 I 
saw no conversion after 90 minutes with 6 row lager malt.
  It would be worthwhile to borrow another thermometer and compare its
readings to make sure the mash is not actually colder than your friend 
thinks it is. Also, watch out for the idea of calibrating with a fever
thermometer with 100 degree water. This is a good idea but should be done
along with checks against a known good thermometer at higher temperatures.
My trusty Taylor dial thermometer that served me well for a year is now in 
my junk box. While it still seems to be accurate at low temperatures and 
agrees with a fever thermometer perfectly at 100 degrees it now reads 3 
degrees high at 125, 6 degrees high at 150 and almost 8 degrees high at 180.
  Iodine for starch tests would be a good investment too. Without iodine
I would have made defective wort when my thermometer failed. American
Brewmaster sells a very convenient little squeeze bottle of iodine that
is enough to last for years.
  It is important to stir the mash in an "up and around" motion while
boosting so when a rest temperature is reached a thermometer stirred around 
to different parts of the mash should only vary a red hair - a degree or
less, IMHO. If the temperature varies widely then the you don't know what
temperature you've really got.
  Stirring periodically during the rest makes the mash cool off faster but
also gets the temperature redistributed as it tends to cool faster on the
bottom.

ames!gatech!mailrus!uunet!tc.fluke.COM!inc at decwrl.dec.com (Gary Benson) writes:

  >glory hound or anything, but it might be interesting to read about how to
  >subscribe to the Usenet Homebrew Digest Mailing List in the recognized Bible
  >of home brewing!

  With all due respect to Mr. Papazian, his book is getting old fast. Could I 
suggest that we look on it as the Old Testament of American homebrewing?

pms at Corp.Sun.COM (Patrick Stirling (Sun HQ Consulting Services)) writes:

   [about "gushing"]
  >walls! I've made the following changes in my procedure, with good
  >results (although the jury's still out, it's only been 3 months
  >or so):

  >	- bottle after a week no matter what;

  So if the jury is still out why are you writing this?

  Don't post advice, either explicit or implied, that is potentially dangerous.
You are suggesting a bottling practice that could take someone's sight from 
them. You have no control over the Digest's 700 reader's "no matter what"
situations and some of those would surely involve fermentations lasting longer
than a week, leading to overcarbonation and bottle failure and possible flying
glass.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Soper (soper at encore.com)                          +1 919 481 3730
Encore Computer Corp, 901 Kildaire Farm Rd, bldg D, Cary, NC 27511  USA

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #473, 08/13/90
*************************************
-------

---