HOMEBREW Digest #1282 Fri 26 November 1993

Digest #1281 Digest #1283

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Partial Mash (npyle)
  Whining/Kegging FAQ/Starch test/Sanitizers (npyle)
  Alternative FAQ Formats (bobreg)
  200 IBUs/Grains of Paradise (Mark Garetz)
  almost there (James Clark)
  brew belt problem (EKELLY)
  Re: Counterpressure Bottler Questions ("Mark B. Alston")
  Error in Zymergy (Jim Cave)
  Jim Koch (chris campanelli)
  Tarpit stout && repitching w/diff yeast (Trever Miller)

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: Wed, 24 Nov 93 14:01:22 MST From: npyle at n33.stortek.com Subject: Partial Mash Partial Mash for Extract Brewers To do a partial mash, the extract brewer has to do a small amount of tinkering, and invest in a small amount of additional equipment. By doing this, the brewer can learn the methods of mashing, get an idea of the time involved, and see a difference in the beer, without having to make large investments in lots of equipment. This procedure can be used to modify all-grain recipes which include uniquely flavored grains, but that require mashing, including but not limited to Belgian 2-row pale malt, vienna malt, munich malt, biscuit malt, and victory malt. It also treats specialty grains such as crystal, chocolate, etc. in a manner similar to the all-grain setup. The extract brewer can substitute pale malt extract for most or all of the relatively large amount of base pale malt (usually 2-row) and mash the rest of the grains, without building or buying a large kettle, etc. An easy setup involves a small (3-6 gallon) cooler of any shape. These are found in almost any home and serve nicely as a small mash tun which will hold liquid and grains at temperatures up to about 170F. An occasional use in this manner will not harm it for later use as a cooler. In order to reclaim the liquid in it, a simple manifold can be made from two feet of 3/8" soft copper tubing. You can crimp the end of the tubing and drill some small holes in it or cut a few notches in it with a hacksaw. The openings in the manifold should face downward so that grain will not plug them up. Another choice would be to clamp a small piece of stainless steel screening onto the end of the uncrimped pipe. The type of manifold isn't critical, as it is the grain that actually does the filtering. This lautering mechanism will pull the liquid out of the grain using a siphon. Remember that during mashing/sparging sanitation is unnecessary (although general cleanliness is always a good idea) because the hot liquor goes immediately into the kettle for boiling. The following equipment is necessary; much of it is probably already used by the extract brewer: Usually these are the only two items needed to purchase: 2' of soft copper tubing tincture of iodine (optional) Most extract brewers have these items around the house: Small cooler siphon hose white plate (optional) hydrometer thermometer kettle fermenter etc. Diagrams: SIMPLE MASHING SETUP _____ siphon hose ____________/ \ | Mash & | \ | Lauter Tun | \ | (aka cooler | \ | & tubing) | \ |_____________| \ \ | \ | |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Boiling | | Kettle | | | |________________| SIMPLE COPPER TUBING MANIFOLD ___ / _ \ () (end of tubing, attach siphon hose here) / / \ \ / / / / \ \_/ / /_/ \___/ TOP VIEW __ ___ \-\ /-_-\ (note small slots or holes cut in the bottom surface) \-\ /-/ \-\ \-\_/-/ -- \___/ BOTTOM VIEW (end of tubing, attach siphon hose here) _ | | | | | | | | | | | | ,------------' / |_|_|_|_|_|_|__/ (note small slots or holes cut in the bottom surface) SIDE VIEW Up-front work: Bend the copper tubing (be careful not to kink it) into a shape similar to the one shown above, keep the up-pipe below the cooler lid level so the lid will close. The only reason for the funny bends are to allow the tubing to stand up by itself while dumping in the grains, etc. You can do your own versions of it and probably come up with something better (a partial loop comes to mind). Put the copper tubing in the cooler to check the fit. The mash: Dump the crushed grains (have the homebrew shop crush them for you) on top of the manifold. Add hot water per the recipe and "dough-in" the grain. This involves making sure that all the big chunks of grain are all moistened. Check the temperature and adjust with hot or cold water to get to the proper mash temperature (usually 150-156F). The enzymes in the barley will handle short durations of temperature extremes with no problems, so don't worry. Just make sure you have a couple quarts of near boiling water and tap water ready to adjust the temperature. When you hit your mash temperature, close the lid and wait 30 minutes. Recheck the temperature (it is best to just leave the thermometer in the mash) and adjust back up with hot water if it has dropped more than 4 degrees. Wait another 30-60 minutes and do the iodine test if desired. During the mash, you can be heating the sparge water so it will be ready at the end of the mash. The iodine test (optional): With a clean spoon, stir the mash a bit and let settle for 5-10 minutes. Dip some liquid (a spoonful is plenty) off the top of the mash and pour it onto a clean white plate. Drop a drop of the iodine onto the mash liquor. If the iodine changes black in any part, there is starch remaining and you should continue the mash. If it remains the same red/brown color, starch conversion is complete and you can continue. It is probably good to do this test at the very beginning of the mash, just to see a positive starch test as a reference. Then do it again after mashing; the starch test should be negative. The mash-out / sparge: Dump the ground specialty grains into the cooler. Then dump all the sparge water at once into the cooler and stir the mash. Close the lid for a few minutes to allow settling. Note that this is not a true mash-out because the overall temperature of the mash doesn't rise very much due to the thermal mass of the goods already in the cooler. Mash-out for the homebrewer is debatable at best and it is not important for the beginning masher. Next open the cooler, attach the siphon hose, and start a siphon by sucking on the hose or any other convenient method. Remember, sanitation is not an issue at this point because this liquid is heading for the boiling kettle. Drain off all the liquid into your kettle. Note that it is best to have the kettle 2-3 feet below the mash/lauter tun (cooler) so you can maintain a good strong siphon to drain the liquor from the grains. The rest is just like an extract brew. Add your extract and boil away. All of these extra steps will take a couple of extra hours but it will give you an idea of what all-grain brewing takes, and should increase the variety of recipes available to brew. Best of all, it is easy and cheap! Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 9:40:23 MST From: npyle at n33.stortek.com Subject: Whining/Kegging FAQ/Starch test/Sanitizers Pam Day writes: >....... Why don't you all stop whining out inane opinions and get >back on track and talk about brewing! Most of us out here seem to >be seeking advice and are not out to stroke our own egos by flaming >those we don't agree with. If you don't agree with someone, offer a >polite, constructive and well-thought alternative. Enough mothering, >let's get back to brewing. Pam, seeking advice is fine, but you have to put up with the egos of the advice givers. That's life. Deal with it. This forum is give and take and it really frosts me when the only reason for a post is to flame/ counter-flame etc. Give something or take something, but don't whine about it. ** Tom Leith writes: > I have begun work on a kegging FAQ and I will need a few knowledegable contributors and reviewers to help me. Whoa pardner! You might talk to Dion Hollenbeck and coordinate. He has been doing the same thing for the past several weeks. Also, not to gripe (more information is always welcome), but your FAQ looks more like a book. Sounds great, though. ** I would add one thing to Mark A's "iodine test on dark mash liquor" problem. I always advise people to do an iodine test at the very beginning of the mash (dark/light doesn't matter), as a reference. Then do it again at the end of the mash. If you know what a positive starch test looks like, it is much easier to determine a negative starch test. I still do this sometimes when I'm bored. ** Fisher writes: >A good friend of mine works in the food processing industry, and he >says that I should use hydrogen peroxide to sanitize, like the food >pros do. Is this a good idea? I am not motivated to change, but he >won't leave me alone without a rebuttal. Tell him that there are any number of sanitizers that are perfectly acceptable for homebrewing. Off the top of my head: bleach, iodophor, B-brite, boiling water/steam, alcohol, many others. I think the Zymurgy Gadgets & Equipment issue has a long article about them, but it has some wholes in it as well. Bleach is probably the cheapest of them all, but they all have different pros/cons. Norm Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 22:36:00 EST From: bobreg at aol.com Subject: Alternative FAQ Formats I recently downloaded the Yeast FAQ and found that it was chock full of great info. However, I found it difficult to use as is, so I decided to create a booklet out of it with PageMaker. In addition, I also created a Yeast FAQ Windows Help File. The point of this post is to ask if anyone would find either of these formats useful? The booklet file is a HP Laserjet print file of about 93K compressed. All that is needed to print a booklet on 8.5 X 14 paper (8 sheets) is DOS and a HP Laserjet. It's a great way to distribute FAQ's to your friends and club members. The Windows Help file is about 60K and runs with Windows 3.1, although it probably would run with 3.0 also. It's loaded with all of the nifty Windows Help stuff. The idea here is to create a Help File and Booklet for all of the other homebrew FAQ's and then upload them to the archives, if there is enough interest. IS THERE? If anyone can assist me in getting in touch with the right people to arrange for uploading at sierra.standford, I would appreciate it. If you have any comments, email me at b_regent at holonet.net, or to rec.crafts.brewing. (bob regent) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 21:28:47 PST From: Mark Garetz <mgaretz at hoptech.com> Subject: 200 IBUs/Grains of Paradise Al Korzonas writes in response to my posting of a historical reference that IPAs of the time had IBU ratings of around 200! My first reaction was that this can't be right! So I went back and checked the reference that gave me the 2.47 ozs number (per five gallons) for dry hopping. I recalled calculating the IBUs for the "ordinary home ales" and came out with 52 IBUs based on 5% alpha hops and 20% utilization and Rager's gravity adjustment. OG of the ale was 1.080 and hopping rate was 8 lbs/quarter of malt. It took 12 quarters to produce this strength of beer, so 96 lbs of hops was used in 1900 gallons (US) of wort. But the same reference also states that "20 lbs per quarter of the best hops shall be used" for ales and porters brewed for the India government. Assuming the same 5% alpha and OG of 1.080, this translates to 203 IBUs at 30% utilization (Rager's formula unmodified). Using my more conservative utilization of 20%, we still get a whopping (hopping?) 143 IBUs! So Al is right (or close anyway). These musta been some beers! Buffalo Bill Owens (who started the first US brewpub and coined the term) brewed an ale called Alimony Ale, "the most bitter brew in the world" but I never tried any (I've had the real alimony, thank you). Has anyone ever brewed or tasted beer this bitter? I think I'm going to add some iso alpha extract to some Anchor Liberty and get it up to 150 IBUs to see what it tastes like. I'll let you know if was actually palatable or not. BTW, in case anyone's interested, the reference I'm using is The Manual of Brewing: Scientific and Technical by Egbert Grant Hooper, 1891. ************************ Now I'll ask a question. In the recent Zymurgy, an article talks about hop substitutes, as does Hooper in the aforementioned book. Here's a quote (talking about hop substitutes): "Narcotic principles are little used now except in very low neighborhoods. We have, however, reason to fear that grains of paradise are still sometimes employed with the object of increasing the intoxicating character of the beer, and imparting a ficticious sense of strength." What is (are) grains of paradise? I would have assumed opium of some sort, but a previous sentence reads: "the substances which at various times have been used to wholly or partialy replace hops or intensify the bitter or narcotic character of the beer are very numerous, and include gentian, quassia, aloes, marsh trefoil, broom, wormwood, cocculus indicas, grains of paradise, opium, tobacco, picric acid and strychnine." Note that grains of paradise is listed separately from opium. Clues anybody? (Yes. Strychnine and picric acid. Don't try this at home kids.) Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1993 21:22:43 -0500 From: jeclark at ucdavis.edu (James Clark) Subject: almost there well, we bought our equipment today and will start brewing on friday (if i can wait that long). we got a carboy for free from a friend and got a great deal on the rest of our equipment. altogether, for everything but the extract, it only cost us about $35!! we are going to brew the "righteous real ale" in papazian's book. i just had a few questions: 1) will 5 grams of dry english ale yeast be enough? 2) instead of the dried malt extract we are going to use bulk syrup. the owner of the store where we bought everything brews a batch a week and said that she has never had any problems with the bulk stuff. anyone out there think it is a bad idea? thanks a lot - --james Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 11:17:31 -0400 (AST) From: EKELLY at admin.stmarys.ca Subject: brew belt problem I am a very careful brewer and have been brewing successfully for the last two years without incident. However, my last six batches have been flops due to contamination. I have exhausted all avenues and am getting very disgusted. I even sought advice on the net to ensure my bottle washer is germ free. I consulted a friend who is a microbiology lab technician and she has the following theory about the use of brew belts. I have purchased a brew belt 6 batches ago and coincidentally never had a good batch since. I consulted a few brewers on the use of brew belts and they said no problem and to look elsewhere for the contamination source. I only use the brew belt for 12 to 24 hours to start the fermentation since by basement is 60 degrees. She claims that 75 degree wort is a good environment to permit yeast to grow and overpower the small amount of nasties present in initial wort. She claims all initial wort has a certain amount of nasties due to the fact that it is next to impossible to be 100% sterile in a home environment. She believes that the surface temperature of the brew belt (100 degrees +/- 5) kills the yeast which is in the general vicinity of the belt (1 to 2 inches). She claims that this area which is void (or almost) of yeast is a natural incubator for nasties which can grow rapidly at 100 degrees with little or no yeast to worry about. Any thoughts? Ed Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 10:48:30 MST From: "Mark B. Alston" <c-amb at math.utah.edu> Subject: Re: Counterpressure Bottler Questions >The way I used it is as follows: put contraption in bottle. Open >gas valve (noise of gas filling bottle and equilibrating). Open valve for >a while to purge bottle (noise of gas escaping from bottle). Close valve, >close gas line, open beer line. Wait for beer to fill bottle under >pressure. Remove contraption and cap immediately. O.K. as I understand what you are doing, you are missing a step. Here is the procedure as I am told. (Keep in mind that I have never done this, only read about it--story of my life :) 1) open valve to CO2 to presurize bottle. 2) open bleed valve to purge bottle of air. 3) close bleed valve and repressurize bottle. 4) close valve to CO2 5) open liquid valve -- beer will not flow at this point since the presures are equal 5) slowly open bleed valve. This will reduce the presure in the bottle and allow the beer to fill it up. 6) When bottle is full: close liquid valve and remove counterflow 7) cap. That should do it. Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 1993 11:23:01 -0800 (PST) From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG> Subject: Error in Zymergy When reading Ed Westemeier's article in zymergy about the old (as in historical) English recipes, I noted that the extraction/efficiency rates for these recipes are out of line. These are for 6 U.S. gal recipes. For example, the Usher Stout: 18 oz pale malt. 6.5 oz carapils 4 oz black xstal 2 oz xstal 2 oz Amber 2 oz Brown ...This to produce 6 gals at 1.056 O.G. In this instance, I figure the recipe is out by about a factor of 6 (i.e. the recipe is for 1 U.S. gallon). The extraction rate would be about 32 points per pound per gal, which in itself might be optimistic for yields of only 6 gal. I'm not sure about the hopping but that might also be out by a factor of 6. This logic does not seem to follow for the Whitbread porter: 2.5 lbs pale malt 7 oz brown 2.5 oz Black --- 1.060 O.G. 6 gallons When I follow the logic for the Usher stout in this situation, I get 1.100+, So....what gives? I think Ed is on the digest so perhaps he could comment? Jim Cave, Vancouver B.C. Canada. "In Heaven, there is no Beer That's why we drink it here!" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 16:58 CST From: akcs.chrisc at vpnet.chi.il.us (chris campanelli) Subject: Jim Koch I find it strange that there are people in this forum that judge a man by the beer that he makes. Unfortunately, that's not how it's supposed to work. You judge a man by his actions, deeds and the way he treats others. Jim Koch is no exception. He should be judged by his actions and not the beer that his company makes. I think there are currently enough people out there who have been sued or threatened with lawsuit by Koch to start a new forum. Call it the lit.koch.sued.digest or something like that. This man is a monster but unfortunately since I'm an atheist there is no hell for him to burn in. I remember years ago when the gay community waged their campaign against Anita Bryant and her homophobic preachings. Remember? Every time she went to speak in a public forum she would get a cream pie in the face. Pictures of her with pie on her face got more media attention than her message. Eventually she gave up. A fiendishly effective tactic if you ask me. chris campanelli ps. I too choose to boycott Samuel Adams products. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 93 18:15:27 MDT From: Trever Miller <amby at wooga.cuc.ab.ca> Subject: Tarpit stout && repitching w/diff yeast >Date: Wed, 24 Nov 93 13:34:35 EST >From: Keith MacNeal 24-Nov-1993 1323 <macneal at pate.enet.dec.com> >Subject: [...] cleaning/changing yeast midstream [...] >In Homebrew Digest #1280 Trever Miller asks about repitching his Tarpit Stout >with champagne yeast. My response is why? I brewed an Imperial Stout using >only Irish Ale yeast from Wyeast. I didn't have any problems with it >fermenting out. My line of thinking was that there's a large amount of fermentables in this batch, and I used the dry yeast packet that came with the kit. I'm not sure if they'll be able to make full use of all the goodies... I have had batches where the provided dry yeast didn't ferment anywhere past approx 4%/vol, even though there was ample fermentables, and was hoping to get somewhere between 8% and 10% with this batch. Perhaps my paranoia is unwarranted, as for the past day or day and a half the sounds coming from the primary are akin to a LARGE bowl of rice crispies... I guess the yeast really likes it :-) > >Keith MacNeal >Digital Equipment Corp. >Hudson, MA - -- millertr at cuug.ab.ca (Preferred) Snail Mail: #557, 918 - 16 Ave NW or Calgary, Alberta T2M 0K3 ambush_bug at wooga.cuc.ab.ca Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1282, 11/26/93