HOMEBREW Digest #1113 Tue 06 April 1993

Digest #1112 Digest #1114

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Mac Thread, Decoction (THOMASR)
  historical recipes (THOMASR)
  Brewing Methods (Gerald_Wirtz)
  Re: Samiclaus and Sam Triple Bock (Mike Tavis)
  re:yeast storage & mutations (Jim Busch)
  AHA Competition Question (Kevin V Martin)
  Duration of a botled beer ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Yeast Lab yeast ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  rehydrating yeast (Ed Hitchcock)
  Sanitation Using Spent Grains (Chris Cook)
  AHA First Round Regional, Chicago (stevie)
  Dry Hopping (Sherman Gregory)
  silly question on kegging (C05705DA)
  Dry Ice carbonating in keg ("John L. Isenhour")
  Re:immersion cooler length ("John DeCarlo")
  Wine and Oxidation, Grain Bags (Jack Schmidling)
  Using Sanitizers of Various Sorts ("John DeCarlo")
  Dry hopping ("William A Kitch")
  More stupid carboy tricks (Scott Barrett)
  Ale Grists Part I (Jeff Frane)
  Ale Grists Part II (Jeff Frane)
  Ale Grists Part III (Jeff Frane)
  That Damned Maltmill (Jeff Frane)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com (Articles are published in the order they are received.) Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc., to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU), then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first. Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu. (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a message to that address to receive listserver instructions.) Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored. For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:16:35 MET DST From: THOMASR at EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch Subject: Mac Thread, Decoction Hello all, Nir Navot asked if there was a thread for Macs out there somewhere. There is a Hypercard stack at Sierra.stanford.edu (pub/homebrew...) Which will read in mail lists and then allow you to manipulate them in Macintosh piont and click fashion. If my hard disk space weren't limited I'd add all the mail lists to it for the complete brewing reference text. As it is they stay on the vax. Also, Dennis Lewis asked about decoction mashing and why people do it. Well, I now do it for a combination of reasons: 1. I can only get lager malt (here in Switzerland) which is really high in protein --> requires a protein rest at 50 deg.C; 2. I mash in a picnic cooler, and haven't got a pan big enough to do a full stepped infusion; I think (he says, sticking his neck out) that there is little difference in the end result whether you do a stepped infusion or a decoction over the same temperatures. By the way, the "thickest third" does include the grains. If you take out only the liquid and boil, possibly repeating a number of times, you will quickly run out of enzymes, since they are mostly in solution. The object of the decoction is to raise the temperature of the mash in a stepwise manner without havingf to heat the mash tun. I've not had problems with tannin extraction etc because I only just bring the thick third to the boil before replacing it. A longer boil (involving the grains) would have the effect of gelatinising the starch, and hence (apparently) of making it more available.... I don't know, I get about 28-29 pts/lb/gall(US) most of the time. - ------ finally, Chris Lyons asked about when to add sugar. Although I'm only going on my experience here, I find that for normal gravity beers I see no difference, but for high og (>1080) I see alot of caramelisation (although is this bad, since you're adding brown sugar for the caramel anyway?). I brewed Dave Line's ESB using exactly his recipe, and although it didn't taste exactly like draught ESB, it was certainly very pleasant. Anyway that's quite enough of my opinions. Rob Thomas. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:36:17 MET DST From: THOMASR at EZRZ1.vmsmail.ethz.ch Subject: historical recipes Hello all, Some of you may remember that I posted a couple of recipes from the 1820's a while back. Well, since they take time to two finger type in, I'll ask for requests (email to me please). Here are the rest of the recipes: london brown stout porter; london ale; table beer; amber (aka two penny) ale; white porter (aka old hock); Rob Thomas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 8:12 edt From: Gerald_Wirtz at vos.stratus.com Subject: Brewing Methods I have been brewing for just over six months now and where I purchase my supplies the owner is against using the 'blow-off' method of brewing. My question is why use the 'blow-off' method? It seems to me that this would result in the loss of flavor. Thanks - Gerald Wirtz - Stratus Computer Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 08:55:32 edt From: mtavis at gemini.hyperdesk.com (Mike Tavis) Subject: Re: Samiclaus and Sam Triple Bock Richard Akerboom writes: > I had some of this at the Sunset Grill in Boston. It is very strong > and I thought nicely done. The bartender (normally very well informed > at the sunset) claimed 14% alcohol. I found it hard to believe that > Sam had brewed something stronger than Samiclaus and figured that > 14% was by volume. I don't have my Jackson's Pocket Guide here, but > Samiclaus is 13.x% alcohol by weight, so it would be more than 14% > by volume. > > I would be interested in hearing from anyone who had some concrete > knowledge about the Sam Triple Bock, such as original and final gravity and > the alcohol content (and whether is by wt. or vol.). I have in front of me one of those sheets of marketing material that is typically placed in the plastic thingies at restaurant tables. This one is from the Boston Beer Company and was lifted from Doyle's in Jamaica Plains (South Boston). Unfortunately, I wasn't the one who lifted it, so I can't give first hand impressions of Triple Bock. I can however type in what Jim Koch says about his new beer. "We offer this strong, malty bock beer in the best tradition of warming winter brews. Our Triple Bock begins with a recipe calling for over three times as much malt as our Boston Lager. A long, slow fermentation produces the rich, complex flavor notes and an extraordinarily high alcohol level of 12%. This strength is comparable to a fine wine and is almost three times the level of ordianry beer. In addition, this brew is carefully aged for four months at extremely cold tempatures. This traditional German technique develops the remarkable smoothness of our beer. At this strength, our Triple Bock is ideally sipped slowly from a 5 ounce serving, enabling the true beer lover to savor and appreciate its enormous character. We present our unique ice-conditioned beer this winter as a great way to take the chill off the cold weather." - -- Mike o o| Michael Tavis, HyperDesk Corporation o o| Suite 300, 2000 West Park Dr., Westboro, MA 01581 ---+ E-mail: mike_t at hyperdesk.com (508) 366-5050 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 9:36:21 EDT From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com> Subject: re:yeast storage & mutations JS writes about yeast culturing in the last digest: <If you only use the original slant to innoculate others, it should be good <for years or until you contaminate it in the process. ___________ This is why you should make a working stock slant from your origianl slant. Only culture yeast from the working slant. Go back to the original slant to make new working slants. Plating from the working slant is a better way to ensure what you are brewing with. There is an increased risk associated with "dipping" a loop into a slant repeatedly. I would advise restreaking to a single cell at least once a year. In theory it can last for years, but why risk it? If you are already culturing yeasts, then what is the extra plate and slant once a year to ensure clean yeast? A very important issue is for the brewer to constantly question the performance of ones yeast, is it flocculating like it used to? Any slight change in flavors or lag time or aromas of the fermenter? Good brewing, Jim Busch Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 9:41:06 EDT From: Kevin V Martin <kmartin at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> Subject: AHA Competition Question Does anyone know if the AHA will accept hand delivered entries at the Goose Island Brewery in Chicago for the annual competition? I will be visiting my brother this weekend in Chicago, and he said that he would deliver my entries for me. This would save me the hassled of having to deal with UPS. Thanks for any information. Kevin Martin kmartin at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 09:59:46 EDT From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu> Subject: Duration of a botled beer Rafael Busto asks: > As a beginner I'd like to ask a probably FAQ. Once the beer is > bottled, How many weeks can I keep the beer (no preservatives, no > pasteurization) before it gets undrinkable? A long time, if you did a good job making it. I've had beers that have been in bottle for 10 years. At that point, they're kind of "old" tasting, but still drinkable. Only strong, highly hopped beers will last that long, but you should be able to keep your beer for a year, easily. Things that can reduce its keeping power: 1. Insufficient sanitation. An low-level infection can take a long time to take hold. If you drink your beer up in a month or so, you'd never notice it. If you keep it for a year, you might. 2. Oxidation. Again, this is something that takes a while to show up. The damage may be done at any point in the brewing process, from mashing through to bottling. The key is to minimize splashing at all times, EXCEPT just before pitching the yeast, when you need lots of oxygen in the wort so the yeast can grow and reproduce. 3. Light. Can cause skunking and other staling reactions. Keep your beer in the dark. 4. Heat. Keep the beer in a cool place, preferably below 60F (i.e., in a cellar), but not where the temperature goes above 80F, for sure. Temperature swings are bad, too. =S Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:25:15 EDT From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu> Subject: Yeast Lab yeast You should have gotten an instruction sheet. It suggests two ways to use the yeast: 1. Make a starter. 2. Just dump it into your wort. The first way works better -- quicker start, less chance of infection, but the second way does work. Return to table of contents
Date: 05 Apr 1993 12:08:40 -0300 From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca> Subject: rehydrating yeast Jack asks: > I presume that dried yeast includes whatever is left of the > "yeast-assimilable sugars and amino acids" at the time of drying. I also > presume that they would be in a depleated state and adding only water would > create the adverse osmotic preessure above referred to. Whereas, > re-hydrating it with a wort of comparable SG would not. If I may be so bold as to jump in here, dried yeast have much of the water removed from the cytoplasm, and need that water replaced before they can behave normally. A hypotonic solution (ie water) will cause the yeast to swell up and soak up the necessary water nice and quickly. A hypertonic solution (ie wort) will be soaked up much more slowly. In order to re-hydrate the yeast, water is best, but don't keep them there too long, or they may start to suffer osmotic lysing, or at least malnutrition. Boy is that a run-on sentence ********************************* As for brewing to style versus brewing to taste, I would have to say a good brewer should be capable of both. Having a style guideline to shoot for gives the brewer knowledge, experience and skill. If you can brew a Sam Smith's clone, a Pilsner Urquell clone, and a Duvel clone, you know what ingredients and protocols produce what results, and by all means brew a beer you like, because you can know ahead of time what the result will be. If you just brew for fun, it's a great ride and the end product is invariably good, but frequently a bit of a surprise. Having style catagories in competition does two things: it shows a brewer's skill at producing the intended product, and it provides guidelines for the judges, so they don't have to decide if the dry stout is better than the malty helles. Someone long ago on this forum (or maybe it was r.c.b) was lamenting that they had lost a competition because their Pilsner was too dark (or some such breech of catagory), but that if that same beer was produced commercially it would be a "dark pilsner" and a catagory in itself. Sure. And Pete's Wicked Ale won at the GABF, but could it fit into any AHA catagory? The point is these are not the only possible ways to make beer, but target styles for homebrewers to emulate in order to demonstrate their skill. ed ------------ Ed Hitchcock *-----------------------* Dept of Anatomy and Neurobiology | | Dalhousie University | JUST BREW IT | Halifax, Nova Scotia | | ech at ac.dal.ca *-----------------------* Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 15:18:22 GMT From: "UARS::COOK" at CDHF1.GSFC.NASA.GOV (Chris Cook) Subject: Sanitation Using Spent Grains David C Mackensen (HBD 1109) asked > What if I were to put the spent grain bill into the primary? any additional sugars that might have been left over can be used for fermentation/taste (depending upon complexity)... In the HBDs following, Mr. Mackensen got somewhat jumped on. Timothy Dalton asked > How are you going to sterilize the grains before tossing them in ? Boil them ? Seems like you'd be asking to extract a pile of tannins from the husks. Then have the husks in contact with the wort/green beer for a week or two? and Tony Babinec said > I wouldn't put spent grain in the primary! The grain is contaminated. home brewers exploit this by doing sour mashing, but the mashing is done in a vessel, and is followed by a boil. So, throw the spent grains on the compost heap, or make a bread out of them. and so on. While I agree with the concerns about tannins, I have to question the contamination potential. Think of the process so far. Mash at 150 to 160 for an hour or more, then optionally mash out at about 170 degrees. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's hard to believe that the grains aren't pasturized after that. Yes, some people use malt to start sour mashes, but they use raw grains, not spent grains. I admit that I remain dubious about how worthwhile the attempt would be, but hey, we're only talking beer here. I know that most of the sugars and starches are gone, but maybe the grains can add interesting proteins. I don't know, but I'd be interested in learning. Chris Cook cook at cdhf1.gsfc.nasa.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 10:30:10 CDT From: stevie at spss.com Subject: AHA First Round Regional, Chicago 1993 AHA NATIONAL HOMEBREW COMPETITION FIRST ROUND - MIDWEST REGIONAL JUNE 11-13, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS CALL FOR JUDGES, STEWARDS, AND PARTICIPANTS As you already know from other posts to this forum, the first-round regionals of the AHA National Homebrew Competition will take place in early June. The Midwest Regional will be over the weekend of June 11-13, at the Goose Island brewpub in Chicago. Last year's regional was a great success, due in part to an excellent turnout of judges and stewards. While we fully expect the same this year, we're leaving nothing to chance. We've added some special activi- ties to the schedule that you won't want to miss. After the second judging session on Saturday afternoon, there will be a seminar conducted by Chicago's own Siebel Institute. From there, we'll move on to dinner and the First Midwest Invitational Brewoff, an event that might attract you to Chicago even if you couldn't pick up those judging points. Last month, we invited 10 of the region's best homebrewers to brew five gallons using the same set of ingredients. A number of the area's homebrew supply stores donated the raw materials, which were recently packed and delivered to the participants. The brewers can use some or all of the ingredients, plus they can select their own yeast. The beers will be judged in a blind but in- formal judging at Saturday's dinner, and the champion brewer will receive an attractive trophy. Think you can brew as well as the invitees? Well, everyone else is welcome to participate in the Open Brewoff. To enter, you can purchase an ingredients kit (by the way, we're making everyone make an extract beer with specialty grains) from one of our sponsoring suppliers and bring the result to the event. We'll have balloting in the Open category as well, and that winner will be automatically eligible for next year's Invitational. Sponsoring suppliers are: Evanston First, Sheaf and Vine, Chicago Indoor Garden Supply, and Tim's Homebrew Thing. You only pay for the ingredients. There's no competition entry fee. The Midwest Invitational/Dinner will be open to all interested comers, but space will definitely be limited. To help defray the costs of the event (and pay for the food, of course), there will be a $25 fee to attend. Early interest is high, so we expect there will be a lot of great beer to consume. Of course, we need plenty of qualified judges and stewards. A mailing with registration form will be sent soon to all area BJCP judges, but those not in the program or not in the area should feel free to contact me directly (e-mail or phone). Look forward to seeing you in Chicago. - ---- Steve Hamburg Internet: stevie at spss.com Chicago, IL Work Phone: 312/329-3445 Home Phone: 312/878-0177 Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 09:31:28 -0700 From: sherman at qualcomm.com (Sherman Gregory) Subject: Dry Hopping In HBD #1112 "Knight,Jonathan G" <KNIGHTJ at AC.GRIN.EDU> writes: >On the sixth day it was still bubbling at about >three per minute, but as the krausen had subsided I racked to secondary >anyway, and tossed in the dry-hopping pellets. Within a day or two, what did >to my wondering eyes appear but a KRAUSEN in the secondary! Coming up on two >weeks now, it's still bubbling between one and two per minute. I have made >ales this year with American, British, Irish, and London, and I have never >had yeast behave in this manner (including a previous "American" two >batches)!! My basement has been around 60-62 F. all winter, but this is the >first time I have had such a slow fermentation. What should I do (besides of >course RDWHAH)? I have dry hopped about 4 batches, and always have observed this same thing. It is a real pain when using whole hops, because they try to to push themselves out of the air lock. It seems that there was a thread about this on HBD about 6 mo. ago. Then I went out of town and never caught a conclusion about what was really going on. Was there a conclusion? Does anybody have an explanation for this? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 93 11:43:43 CST From: C05705DA at WUVMD.Wustl.Edu Subject: silly question on kegging Could anybody give me any insight on why NOT to carbonate a keg naturally, like in bottling, instead of using carbonated water and all the works needed to do kegging. My reasoning is simple; kegging didn't used to be done the way it is today. So, what are the pros and cons to throwing in priming sugars in a keg and cork it? I would appreciate any HELPFUL suggestions. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 1993 12:13:18 CDT From: "John L. Isenhour" <isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov> Subject: Dry Ice carbonating in keg Jack Schmidling writes: >>From: "Jim Ellingson" <jimme at pi28.arc.umn.edu> >>Subject: WARNING Re: Almost Free Kegging >>Using a quarter cup would give a pressure of around 50 psi but I still >>don't think it's a very good idea. >>Pressure vessels are thick, heavy and expensive for a reason. The >>pressurized gas which they hold contains an enormous amount of >>potential energy. > Thanks for the envelop engineering. In spite of your cautions, it still > seems that it is a workable system if one is careful and does not work in the > blind, i.e. monitor the pressure with a gauge. If a quarter cup produces 50 > psi in an empty keg, it would seem to be enough to carbonate a 5 gallon batch > and dispense it with pressure to spare. Once the beer is carbonated, the > pressue could be relieved down to working pressure and I assume there would > be enough to despense an equal volume of beer. I have to agree with Jim on this. You really should try this yourself and gather some empirical data before suggesting it to people who might not know better. I have a lot of experience with forced carbonation of water, wine, beer and soft drinks, and if you've ever tried gassing beer up to 50psi, you'll find that its difficult to even vent the pressure down to dispensing level without it blowing out your venting tube. If you do get it bled down to tapping pressure, the resulting brew would dispense as incredible gusher of foam as the brew tried to outgas. The idea of it retaining enough pressure to dispense itself means that as it goes from wildy overcarbonated to flat it will be able to push itself out of the keg, but you'll only get a small amout out of the tapper, then the brew will have to outgas enough to built up pressure to tap more, this might work for a few brews in between the gushers and it being so flat it cannot dispense, but it seems like a lot of sacrifice. At a nice cellar temperature, adding a constant 16lbs or so of CO2 and agitating the brew for about 5-10 min. will result in nice carbonation. If you dissolve too much C02 in it, you'll have to 'burp' the keg down to a reasonable carbonation level before it will be usable. I've found that 35 LBS of CO2 is way too much (check Byron Burches CO2 chart and read his article in one of the Beer and Brewing Journals - its the one from Oakland). I've gassed champagne up to the level you are talking about (in an appropriate container) and its a horrible mess to dispense through a tap (even with an adjustable flow tap like a guiness with the turbulence baffles removed from the tip). The only way I can see to dispense beer thats been gassed up to 50psi would be to slowly bleed it down to ambient atmospheric pressure (wipe the beer from the ceiling:), remove the lid from the cornelius and pour it into pitchers. I had to do this about 10 years ago when I was just beginning to do forced carbonation. What might work would be to put a regulator on the keg such that anything over 16psi gets bled off, add your CO2, and agitate while it dissolves, wait a few days, then put CO2 on it at about 10-12 lbs and dispense. -john John Isenhour mad scientist and national beer judge john at hopduvel.UUCP isenhour at lambic.fnal.gov Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 14:13:05 EST From: "John DeCarlo" <jad at pegasus.mitre.org> Subject: Re:immersion cooler length >From: sherman at qualcomm.com (Sherman Gregory) >>Does anyone know about the minimum length of copper tubing that >>can be used as an immersion wort cooler? Successfully. >The longer the better. Many of then are 20', some are 25', mine is a 50' >double helix (homemade). It all depends how fast you want to cool and how >cool your tap water is, and how much water you want to use. Aha! A personal pet peeve, that I know nothing about. Spout-off warning! My own personal theory is that the shorter the better, until you get to a reasonable minimum length. Why? Let me interject personal observation from my 15 ft. copper coil. Probably more than a foot is outside the wort, say one foot on each end, making 13 ft. in the wort. I think that is too long. Why? Because the water comes out boiling hot at the other end. [I placed my quick-reading thermometer in a cup which got the outflow from the wort-chiller, and it quickly jumped to 210 or so.] OK, what good does boiling-hot water do in your wort chiller? I submit it does no good at all. So if I had another ten feet of copper in there, it would be another ten feet carrying boiling hot water, doing no good. So, the question is: How long does water traveling through 3/8" copper tubing (it can only flow so fast) take to reach equilibrium with the wort? I suspect we are talking about 6-8 feet here, just from WAG speculation. Anyone who really knows what they are talking about willing to resolve this issue? Are there completely overlooked issues, such as increased efficiency with longer tubing as wort and source water temperatures get closer? [So I just made this up and don't think it likely. Sue me.] Of course the temperature of the water used, the rate of water flow (dependent at least in part on the tubing ID), and maybe other items are involved. Is there maybe a chart already made up for us to use by experts in the field? OK, I ranted enough. Now I feel better. Thanks and apologies to all. Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 13:13 CDT From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: Wine and Oxidation, Grain Bags We all know what evils to expect of beer that gets oxidized after fermenting and the need for quiet racking and transfer. However, wine drinkers also know that good red wine needs to "breathe", which of course is, a snob word for oxidize. I have also seen several references to the fact that one of the reasons for racking wine at regular intervals is to promote oxidation. Clearly, we have a conflict here and my Fall Wine is now in the aging stage and it would be nice to know if I should intentionally splash it around while racking or use the usual beer cautions. Anyone out there know? >From:(Jim Liddil) >Subject: Failure of first All grain >3lbs belgain pilsner malt >4 pounds belgian pale ale malt >8 ounces caravienne >Mashed in 2 gallons of distilled water at ~154 for 1.25 hours at which time the iodine test was negative. The pH of mash was around 5.2. Used a Zapap type lauter tun with grain bag. Recirculated about 0.5 gallons. Used distilled water for sparging. Placed a pie plate on top of grain bed and added water at about 165. Also mashed out at 170. Sparged till gravity was 1.008 .Ph of run off was still around 5.5. Collected about 7 gallons of wort. Gravity after boiling down to about 6 gallons was only 1.028. Where did I go wrong? First of all there is nothing "wrong", you just made a lighter beer than you expected. The procedure reads like a textbook and aside from possible measurement error, and the need for more water in the mash, the only thing that sticks out is the Zapap with a grain bag. I do not wish to start another snob thread but it is my opinion that of all the lauter systems out there, the grain bag represents the one with the highest probability of failure. Having said that, I realize that many people use them and sware by them but until a beginner at all grain learns their tricks of the trade, I would think low yield would not be unusual. First of all, if your Zapap has a false bottom, it is not clear why you use the bag. The purpose of the false bottom is to prevent the grain from clogging the outflow while establishing a filterbed. Once the bed is established, the grain itself acts as the filter and a grain bag is only overkill and a source of trouble. I know of no commercial brewers that use grain bags so maybe there is a mesage in there for homebrewers. One sure test would have been to just dump the contents of the grain bag into the Zapap and stir it around with some more hot water. My guess is the gravity of the next runoff would have shot way up. My suggestion is to try it without the grain bag next time and if that fails, build an easymasher or manifold lauter tun. The advantage of the easymasher is that you can stir the mash at intervals during the sparge without upsetting the filter bed and scavenge every last bit of sugar out of the mash. js Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 14:18:29 EST From: "John DeCarlo" <jad at pegasus.mitre.org> Subject: Using Sanitizers of Various Sorts >From: mikel at netlink.cts.com (Mike Lemons) >Is there any scientific proof for the claim that sulfites don't >work? The enormous advantage of using sulfites is that no rinsing >is required. It seems to me that re-contaminating something with >rinse water, after you sanitize it, totally defeats the purpose of >sanitation! >Chlorine and iodine must be rinsed out because they will impart bad >flavors to the beer, but sulfites are essentially tasteless. I personally don't use sulfites because of relatives who are allergic, so I don't want to risk anything. This may or may not be relevant to you. But mainly, I can't imagine why someone would rinse after using chlorine or iodine. After all, if you use the recommended amounts of each in your 5 gallons of water (or however much it takes to fill your sink or fermenter), simple air drying after draining out all the water leaves so little of either chlorine or iodine as to be practically immeasurable. The main problem seems to be that many people think that if the recommendation is to use X ounces, then 10*X ounces must be 10 times better, and 100*X ounces 100 times better. Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 12:36:13 CST From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa at bongo.cc.utexas.edu> Subject: Dry hopping I tried dry hopping on my last batch for the first time. Encountered a few difficulties. I used hop pellets. When added to secondary, the pellets hydrated nicely then floated to the top and stayed there for the duration of secondary fermentation (~ 1 week). When I started racking the beer into my bottling bucket this hop head got broken up and started sedimenting--a fair amount got siphoned into the bottling bucket. I let it settle in the bucket for ~1/2 hr before bottling but still got a fair amount of hop particles in the bottles, particularly the last few bottles. Questions: What are pros & cons of pelletized vs whole hops when dry hopping? Any advice on removing hops when preparing to bottle? Alternatives to dry hopping that will give good hop nose? WAK |- William A Kitch (512) 471-4929 -| |- Geotechnical Engineering -| |- ECJ 9.227 -| |- Univ of Texas at Austin, TX 78712-1076 -| Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 09:38:55 -0400 From: adiron!scott at uunet.UU.NET (Scott Barrett) Subject: More stupid carboy tricks In HBD #1112, Andy Rowan (rowan at ocean.rutgers.edu) provided a tip for emptying a carboy more quickly by using a racking tube to break the suction. "Strike while the mash water's hot" I always say, so here's another way to do it. Begin to swirl the contents of your (still upright) carboy until you get a good whirlpool going. Invert the carboy quickly and swirl it strongly 2 or 3 more times. The whirlpool effect should continue as the liquid drains out and air will enter the carboy through the open center of the vortex. When the carboy gets near empty, the remaining liquid will be swirling pretty fast and will hang on the inside of the carboy's shoulders (like the ball on a roulette wheel) rather than draining out. Simply tilt the inverted carboy a bit off vertical and the remaining liquid will quit its tail-chasing and drain through the neck. With this technique you can keep both hands on the wet carboy and don't have to stick anything inside it. It's also kind of fun having a white tornado inside your draining carboy. Yours in brewing, Scott Barrett Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:55:29 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Ale Grists Part I Ale Grists, Part I After I posted some information a while back from HL Hind's textbook on British brewing, from the 1930s, several people requested that I post his data on ale grists. My copy of volume II finally surfaced, so here's the information. In order to follow it, though, there are a few things you need to know. A quarter of malt = 336 lb. A British barrel = 43.2 American gallons The numbers given under Malt. No. refer to a list of malts available at the time Hind was writing. The numbers 1, 4, 6, and 13 refer to British 2-row ale malt; colors are, respectively, 4.5, 6.0, 6.0 and 4.0. Number 14 is Moravian 2-row, color 6.5. Nos. 19 & 20 are "Californian" 6-row, colors 6.0 and 4.0. No. 26 is Syrian six-row, color 5.5. Grists for Pale Ales (100 British barrels) Malt. No. Quarters % of Total OG Extract ========================================================= All-malt pale ale 1 16 85.1 1.055 20 3 14.9 Pale Ale with sugar and maize 6 7 37.7 1.050 14 6 32.3 26 3 14.8 Maize 1 5.5 Malt extract .5 1.9 Sugar 2 7.8 Light pale ale for bottling 4 4 27.7 1.040 13 4 27.4 19 3 19.4 Enzymic .5 3.3 Maize 1 7.0 Sugar 3 15.2 "The use of flaked maize, rice or grits and sugar depends on the character of the beer. Sugars add sweetness and, like flakes, reduce the tendency to early haze formation in filtered beers, particularly if the malt is at all under-modified. The sugars must be pale in colour and carefully selected in accordance with the flavor required in the beer. No. 1 and No. 2 inverts and other sugars of somewhat similar character are suitable. The percentage of adjuncts used varies with the type of beer, and may provide 10-25% of the total extract." (more to come) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:56:01 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Ale Grists Part II Ale Grists, Part II There is a different list of malts for the dark ales. Number 3 is English, color 5.5; No. 5 is Scotch, color 6.5. Nos. 7-9 are English, colors are 7.0, 8.0, and 7.5, respectively. 19 is Californian, color 6.0. 24 is Chilean (or similar 6-row), color 6.0. "The malts are usually of rather lower grade than those selected for pale ales. They are cured to a colour of 6 to 9, to give full flavour, and it is not usually necessary to require such full modification. ... Crystal and amber malt, particularly oak-dried amber, are frequently used on account of their colour and flavour. A larger percentage of sugar is generally added in the copper than for pale ales, and darker sugars, with more luscious flavours, are selected. No. 3 invert, good quality raw cane sugar and proprietary mixed sugars of various descriptions, with a little caramel, are suitable." Grists for Mild and Dark Ales Malt. No. Quarters % of Total OG Extract ========================================================= Strong Ale 3 10 34.3 1.080 8 10 33.9 19 4 12.8 Crystal 1 3.2 Amber 1 3.2 Sugar 5 12.6 Mild Ale 5 4 24.6 1.045 9 6 35.5 19 3 16.8 Crystal .5 2.8 Brown .5 2.8 Sugar 4 17.5 Mild Ale 7 3 20.5 1.040 9 4 26.7 24 3 19.3 Diamber 1 6.5 Wheat malt 1 7.1 Sugar 4 19.9 (more to come) Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:56:25 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: Ale Grists Part III Ale Grists, Part III There is a different list of malts for the dark ales. Number 3 is English, color 5.5; No. 5 is Scotch, color 6.5. Nos. 7-9 are English, colors are 7.0, 8.0, and 7.5, respectively. 19 is Californian, color 6.0. 24 is Chilean (or similar 6-row), color 6.0. "There are a number of distinct types of stout and porter, for which different blends of materials are used. On the one hand, are the stouts brewed from malt only or from malt and roasted barley. On the other, are the sweeter stouts, for which a fairly high percentage of sugar is employed. The basis of the grists is a mixture of pale malt, not too fully modified, but with a moderate diastatic activity, and either roasted malt or roasted barley to give the requisite colour and flavour. Roasted barley gives a drier flavour than roasted malt and is preferred by many. Crystal and amber malts are commonly blended with these in the sweeter stouts. A proportion of six-rowed malt and of maize is also frequently used, as in mild ales. A limited percentage of oat malt or oat flakes is included in the grists for oat malt and oatmeal stouts. Milk stouts generally derive their name from the lactose or milk sugar added, with cane or other fermentable sugar, in the form of primings. The copper sugars are generally full flavoured and dark coloured. Good raw cane sugar, No. 3 invert and various mixed sugars are suitable, a sweet caramel being added if it is desired to increase the colour without the special flavour and aroma of roasted malt or barley. Grist for Sweet Stout Malt. No. Quarters % of Total OG Extract ========================================================= 3 6 27.6 1.060 (or 130 bbl at 1.046) 7 5 23.2 Roasted malt 3 12.1 or barley Crystal 2 8.4 Amber 2 8.5 Sugar 6 20.2 (fini) - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 93 09:59:18 -0500 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Malt Mill I wholeheartedly concur with James Dipalma's analysis of Jack's malt mill. I was also impressed with Jack's own measured and thoughtful response to the negative review of his mill. Here I simply wish to throw in some data that was obtained from the comparison of Jack's mill and a commercial mill. I received Jack's mill in Jan., 1992. Shortly thereafter it was taken to the Dallas Brewing Co. (DBC) for the test. The latter was done with a standard and well established screen sieving procedure. This is described for example in DeClerck, Vol. 2, pages 321-323. It in effect consists weighing out the grain fractions that are retained on screen meshes of diminishing width. The following is what we measured: ASBC screen grains retained, % by wt. screen no. width, mm. MM DBC Mill - ------------ ------------ ------ --------- 10 2.000 14 13 14 1.410 18 20 18 1.000 33 32 30 .590 25 25 60 .250 5 5 100 .149 3 2 Not Retained 2 3 ---- ---- 100 100 For those interested in details, the malt crushed was a Canadian 2-row from Prairie Malting. The mill at DBC was made by Mangel, Scheuermann, Oeters, Inc. of Huntingdon Valley, Pa. It costs around $6500. It is a "BMW" as far as mills go for micros. A more common mill is the one made by California Grain Milling, which costs around $2500. Those who have visited Dave Miller's brewpub in St. Louis will have seen one. It is the monster setting on the second floor in his grain room. Screen tests with these mills have given similar results. It has also been my experience that if roller mill spacing is appropriately adjusted, then this type of crush can be obtained for any type of grain. The commercial mills have been constructed so they can process 100 to 1000 lbs. of grain in minutes. Jack's mill can not touch that sort of throughput. Nevertheless, the data shows that the same type of crush is achieved. I concluded my original review of Jack's mill by congratulating him for producing such a good mill. I also observed it was very much worth the price he was asking. Nothing I have seen or heard since then has altered this opinion. George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 1993 12:59:00 -0700 (PDT) From: gummitch at techbook.com (Jeff Frane) Subject: That Damned Maltmill Through a series of strange coincidences, I came into possession of a MaltMill(TM). As those who have been around awhile will atest, I have had my differences(TM) with the MaltMill's builder so I determined to submit it to the sort of rigorous and fair testing only a true HBDer could provide. My first problem arose with the box the MaltMill was shipped in. There was so much tape on it that it required an Xacto knife to get into the box. Once in, I discovered the MM was crammed in with tightly-crumpled balls of newspaper -- the Chicago Tribune -- which were rendered unreadable by this process. This reduced my co-worker, who hails from Chicago, to tears. Another strike. Once I had dragged the MM home (not easy, given its weight) and assembled it (requiring the use of a crescent wrench!) it was clear that if I had been able to carry the thing to the roof of my house and throw it off, the MM would have been rendered unusable -- unlike my Corona, which for the last several months has been propping up the rear end of a Dodge power van in the back yard. Having assembled the MM according to instructions and placed it on a five-gallon bucket, I discovered that the device required me to use my left hand to operate, even though I am right handed! However, after some examination, it seemed possible to Turn The Bucket Around, so that the crank was on the right. Why this was not explained in the instructions, I do not know, but even more diabolical was the fact that when I started cranking some malt through the MM, the malt refused to grind and in fact mostly sprayed around the kitchen. Once again, I discovered -- only through superior intelligence -- that by cranking _the other direction_ I was able to achieve a crush. Further deceptions: although I had been told that I could expect to crush enough malt for 5 gallons in 10 minutes, in real terms it took seven! Ha! Conclusions: the crush was excellent, the crush took 7 minutes rather than the usual 30-40, and anyone who feels a need to motorize this thing in order to do small batches of beer needs to spend a little more time away from the computer lifting things heavier than their fingers. One real problem: the bolt holding the wooden handle on the crank seems to be threaded in such a way that it inevitably comes unscrewed while cranking. The first time it happened took me by surprise and the handle came off; after that, I kept an eye on the bolt and tightened it as needed. It also looks as though I'll need to put rubber feet on my bucket, so it doesn't slide and hop around while I'm cranking the mill. - --Jeff Frane Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1113, 04/06/93