HOMEBREW Digest #1436 Mon 30 May 1994

Digest #1435 Digest #1437

		Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

  Questions on fermentation (Melissa Schauder)
  Re: #1(6) Homebrew Digest #1435 (May 28, 1994) (RSaletta)
  cancel subscription (RSaletta)
  Microbrewery Themes (Maj Don Staib )
  Quick Connects (Wes Neuenschwander)
  Ayinger Malts (Wes Neuenschwander)
  Stout sweetener/mouth siphoning ("Glenace L. Melton")
  Stirring the mash (Rich Larsen)
  Re: #1(2) Homebrew Digest #14... (Montanoa)
  Re: libel (Conan-the-Librarian)
  The Coyote Lives on!   Random notes...lalalala (COYOTE)
  Kirin: First PRESS? (Phil Brushaber)
  Zymurgy Magazine - Power Sparge (Phil Brushaber)
  Help  needed on ales (dkelsey)
  Stirred Mashes (Geoff Scott)
  MIXMASHER (Jack Schmidling)

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. FAQs, archives and other files 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: Sat, 28 May 94 02:53:12 CDT From: Melissa Schauder <S978660 at UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU> Subject: Questions on fermentation Well, at the risk of being told to invest more money to buy a book on home- brewing, I'm going to go ahead and ask some questions here. (I've been reading the list for about 3 weeks, waiting to see if anyone had any questions as simple as mine are...) So, I've brewed about 5 or 6 times now in the past 3 years - not a lot, I know. I've got a plastic fermenter and that's it. No glass carboy, no hydrometer, no secondary fermenter. Needless to say, I know that my homebrew will turn out better should I have better equipment, but being a student, I just have never made the investment. However, all of the batches have turned out pretty good, except this last one I brewed in March. I was going for an earlier recipe I used for a heavy/hearty Brown ale, yet this last one tastes more like Mich Dark to me. I assume that the temp was too cool during the fermentation process? Possibly I needed to add more yeast? I pitched one packet, but I'm wondering if I should pitch two? Will that help the body of the beer? Being an experimentalist, I used: 3lb Amber Malt extract 1lb Crystal malt 1lb Chocolate Malt 1oz Cascade for boiling 1oz Williamette for finishing, and then 2 cups of corn sugar for priming; Yet the beer is near flat and as light as Meiser Brau (Good God! I'm serious) It fermented like crazy for about 2 1/2 days, then stopped. I let it sit for another week, then primed and bottled. Like I said, short of telling me to invest in more equipment, does anyone have any tips? Actually, if anyone knows where I can buy some equipment cheap in the St. Louis region, or by mail, let me know. I was also wondering if there is anyone in my area that brews, and if so, where they get their supplies from. (Has anyone else tried brewing with just one fermenter before?) Thanks =================================================================== melissa schauder s978660 at umslvma.umsl.edu **** in vino veritas... **** Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 08:48:29 PDT From: RSaletta at eworld.com Subject: Re: #1(6) Homebrew Digest #1435 (May 28, 1994) please cancel subscription RSaletta at eWorld Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 08:49:35 PDT From: RSaletta at eworld.com Subject: cancel subscription please cancel subscription RSaletta at eWorld.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 10:12:01 -0600 From: staib at oodis01.hill.af.mil (Maj Don Staib ) Subject: Microbrewery Themes I'd be interested to hear about the various themes that microbreweries out there have used in the promotion of their business. Here in Ogden, Utah the new Ebenezers is in the largest log cabin structure in the state, and perhaps anywhere. Does anyone know if a ship theme is used anywhere? The themes surly are vastly varied, you think? Private or Digest replys are fine, thanks for your information: The Braumeister in Layton, Utah Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 09:17:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Neuenschwander <wesn at eskimo.com> Subject: Quick Connects I've been using a slick alternative to the standard pneumatic airline quick connects for several years now and am quite pleased with them: Colder Products Company (CPC) 1-800-444-2474 Also, check the Yellow Pages under pneumatics or air compressors They offer lots of options, but basically these are small, compact plastic/stainless steel connectors, with or without automatic shut-offs and available in threaded, hose barb, polytube and panel mount connections. I've pretty much standardized on the PMC series - 1/8" flow (that's the internal diameter of the fitting; tube and pipe sizes up to 1/4" are accomodated), delrin/stainless steel construction. In spite of the small size I've found them to be rugged and reliable. In addition to CO2 use they work very well for beer lines. In spite of the small ID's the flow is good and turbulence/foaming minimal (probably comparable to a ball-lock valve and fitting). They clean up well and look clean and sanitary. Temperature rated to 180F (if you need higher temps, and/or larger flows, they have other models available). Cost is roughly comparable to quality pneumatic fittings, especially if you consider that the hose barb (for tubing connection) is included: About $5.00 for the valve body (with shut-off); about $ 1.50 for the insert (without shut-off). << The usual disclaimers apply: I am in no way connected with CPC or any of their distributors - I just like the stuff >> Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Wes Neuenschwander <wesn at eskimo.com> Subject: Ayinger Malts An inquiry was posted here recently regarding the smooth malty qualities of German lagers, in particular the Ayinger beers (I share this appreciation - in particular the Jarhundert Bier - wow!). Some subsequent discussion focussed on use of various continental malts and decoction mashing, both undoubtably steps in the right direction. Personally, though, I'd say the malt is more important than the method; I have yet to taste a really smooth, malty beer made with american malts. For those interested in the real thing, Liberty Malt, 1418 Western Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101 stocks a selection of the actual Ayinger malts, including some really unique specialty malts. Definitely pricey stuff - but still a lot cheaper than buying the beer (which incidentally is imported by the same group). They also import the Crisp Malting Co's Maris Otter english malts, which is used in their Pike Place Brewing's ales (another subsidiary). Phone number is (206)622-1880. (( Once again, I have no connection with the above firms - I just like their products)) Return to table of contents
Date: 28 May 94 13:21:55 EDT From: "Glenace L. Melton" <71242.2275 at CompuServe.COM> Subject: Stout sweetener/mouth siphoning I have not seen any reference to NutraSweet(R) Spoonful(TM) which could be used to sweeten beer or stout. I have used it for three years to sweeten coffee and I cannot detect any bitter or other aftertaste; I certainly do not like saccharine for that reason. So I looked at the ingredients and found that there are only two: Maltodextrine and aspartame; no saccharine, no sodium, and no sucrose. There is phenylalanine (phenylketonurics beware!) but I presume that comes with the aspartame. I have never tried it in beer as sweet beer simply tastes like half-fermented wort to me and I find it distasteful. However, the maltodextrine is a desirable ingredient which is another reason to use Spoonful(TM) if that is what one wants. After nearly 60 years of involvement with homebrewing (at first, helping my father during the Depression) I have "seen the light" and am no longer going to start siphoning by mouth! Making my last brew, as I was more than halfway through siphoning the cooled wort into the primary fermentation vat, I had to re-start the siphon and received a mouthful of very nasty hops and other gunk ("Trub" is too nice a word for it), and reflexively spit it out into the vat. I immediately realized my mistake but rather than throw the whole batch out I went ahead and pitched the yeast and let it ferment. At bottling time it seemed OK but over after one or two weeks every bottle has developed a distinctly sour taste. Probably lactic acid fermentation. Anyway, now I'm looking for a good strong rubber bulb to start the siphon. Actually, such a thing was readily available back in the 30s as my father had one he used all the time. But I haven't seen anything wuite like it for years. [END] Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 12:36:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Rich Larsen <richl at access1.speedway.net> Subject: Stirring the mash >Allen Ford <allen at darwin.sfbr.org> writes: > >The recent discussions concerning the construction of a motor-driven >paddle for continuously stirring mashes has me wondering how the >small-scale commercial brewers do it. I don't recall seeing any devices >for mash-stirring in the tuns of any of the brewpubs or micros that I >have visited. What is mash-stirring supposed to do for you? Is >mash-stirring better suited to certain beer styles or grain types? Any >comments on the advantages and/or disadvantages of stirred mashes for >the small-scale commercial or home brewery would be appreciated. I suspect that the main advantage of a constantly stirred mash will be an elimination of hot/cold spots in the mash. This may lead to a better extraction rate, or a least a more uniform conversion. Additionally, I feel that by constantly churning the starch particles, it is possible that, in theory, more starch will be exposed to the enzymes, thus also increasing the extract efficiency. The down side to this, also in theory, is that it may actually increase the likelyhood of a starch haze. Unless of course, there is sufficient enzymes to convert that which wouldn't have been converted in a conventional mash. Unless the adjunct level is extreemly high, it may not be a problem. My main concern would be the break up of the husks durring the mash. If this happened, the possibility of a stuck run-off is real. I guess we'll just have to wait for a report back from "The Paddle Masher" for the results. => Rich +-----------------------------------------------------+ | Rich Larsen (708)-388-3514 | | The Blind Dog Brewery "HomeBrewPub", Midlothian, IL | | (Not a commercial establishment) | | E-mail to richl at access1.speedway.net | | Also on HomeBrew University Midwest (708) 705-7263 | | | | "I never drink... Wine." Bela Lugosi as Dracula | +-----------------------------------------------------+ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 94 14:46:31 EDT From: Montanoa at aol.com Subject: Re: #1(2) Homebrew Digest #14... OK, I finally giving in. My girlfriend has been after me to "brew a beer that I like". Does anyone have any sugeestions for a light Ale--say like Molson Golden. Thanks Tony Montano MONTANOA at AOL.COM Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 20:08:34 -0700 From: Don Put <dput at csulb.edu> Subject: Motorized Mash Tun Revisited Part One WARNING: LONG POST ON MOTORIZED MASH TUNS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO READ ABOUT MALTMILLS, SKIP THIS POST :-). Allen Ford <allen at darwin.sfbr.org> writes: >The recent discussions concerning the construction of a motor-driven >paddle for continuously stirring mashes has me wondering how the >small-scale commercial brewers do it. I don't recall seeing any devices >for mash-stirring in the tuns of any of the brewpubs or micros that I >have visited. Hello, Alan, I'll see what I can do to answer your questions. As this is new ground for me, I'll do my best. If someone more knowledgeable can jump in, by all means, do so. If you read my original post carefully, you will find that I said the "big boys" stir mashes; not only the rest mashes, but also the cereal mashes. Now, I don't consider the microbrewers or brewpubs to be the "big boys." If you do, then it's a semantical argument at best. I have seen pictures of microbrewers holding canoe paddles, though ;-) Anyone out there been on the Anchor tour? It would seem a brewery of this size would have some sort of mixing device for the mash tun. Perhaps they do it with a careful mixing using a "Steel's" or "Maitland" type water/grist "premasher" infusion unit. But I would imagine mashes that size would need some help in reaching/maintaining an even temperature throughout the grist. Hey, I could be wrong here, but I'd really like to know. The "big boys" use: "The mashing vessel should be equipped with a mixer which provides quick and uniform mixing with the gentlest possible action. This is often described as a 'folding' action. In some mash mixer installations, two separate and different mixing actions are provided by the placement of baffles which shear the tangential flow of the mash somewhat more severely during the initial mixing and then provide a more gentle 'folding' action for the combined mash." (_The_Practical_Brewer_, pg. 84). There are also a few pictures showing said mixing device (fig 5-10b is a good example). And, under the heading "Decoction and Double-Mash Systems" in _Malting_and Brewing_Science_: "Mixing is completed by the large impellor present in the base of the mash-mixing vessel operating at between 5 and 50 rev/min" (Volume 1, pg. 330). Figure 11.7, on page 331, illustrates this nicely. Now, if you are doing single-step infusion mashes, then it really isn't a necessity at all. In fact, on the homebrewing level, it is just an exercise in technique, removing a somewhat ambiguous part of the mashing procedure. Again, in my original post I said something like "you don't need to do this to brew good beer . . . ." What I'm trying to introduce here is something that may/may not be beneficial to our situation. I know I get REALLY tired of stirring mashes for 20 gallon batches. And the temperature variations are somewhat spectacular. I have recently gotten into doing decoction mashes for my lager/pilsners and I found that trying to stir while adding the decoction back to the rest mash is a real pain in the ass. So, with that in mind, I started to envision a mixing device for the homebrewer. >What is mash-stirring supposed to do for you? Without a doubt, a constant, mechanical mixing action, which doesn't introduce air into the mash, will create a more uniform temperature/mix in the mash than you can possibly hope to obtain with the old "hand jive" method. You cannot, at least I couldn't, get the kind of consistency I wanted to see in the mash. But, hey, I'm REALLY anal, and REALLY compulsive, and I REALLY like to tinker. And I kept thinking about Fritz Maytag's advice about the 10% he could control. I think one benefit of a motorized mixing device, aside from the obvious benefit of more relaxation time, is consistency. It sets up conditions that are repeatable from batch to batch. >Is mash-stirring better suited to certain beer styles or grain types? I think it will work better for my decoction mashes and my multi-rest/ temperature controlled mashes. I have never done a single-step infusion mash, and I don't ever plan to. But one thing I noticed on the maiden voyage (more on that below), is it was a hell of a lot easier to add the grains without the worry of "starch balls" or dry pockets of grain. This is not a problem with two people, but I often brew alone (I hear a bit of George Thoroughgood here ;-) >Any comments on the advantages and/or disadvantages of stirred mashes for >the small-scale commercial or home brewery would be appreciated. Advantages are outlined above. Disadvantages: It's one more thing to fabricate and it probably won't make your beer any better than what you are currently producing. However, it might make repeatability more likely, at least as it pertains to mash uniformity. to be continued . . . don dput at csulb.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 28 May 1994 20:13:37 -0700 From: Don Put <dput at csulb.edu> Subject: Motorized Mash Tun Revisited Part Two Data: I just finished the trial run of the MONSTERMASHER(tm), or, if you prefer, the LAZYMASHER(tm), and I'm convinced that I'll NEVER go back to stirring my mashes by hand. The paddle design provided for a nice, slow movement of the mash. During the protein rest, the mash moved very slowly around the circumference of the tun while coming up the sides and down the center. If you kept your eye on a specific piece of grain, it would make its way from the edge to the middle in less time than it took to travel about 1/3 of the circumference. Now, as the mash thinned, the spinning action became more pronounced, but it still only took about 1/2 - 3/4 of the circumference for a grain to find its way from the edge to the middle. It would seem that this phenomenon is why the mash stirrers referenced above turn at "5-50" revolutions. Perhaps they slow them down when the mash thins out. The mash held very steady at each rest temp (this is no doubt due in part to the pilot lights I've installed on my burners) varying less than one degree F. I also keep the motor running from mash-in to mash-out just to see if I encounter any extra HSA down the road. All in all, I consider the test an unequivocal success. Paddle design: Unfortunately, ascii does not lend itself to reproducing the angles I have on my paddles. The following is my best shot, not nearly to scale: || || The "open" areas are where I Mash level -->|| removed surface area from the || paddle to facilitate less || rotational/spinning motion of /||\ the mash. My motor runs ccw, so / || \ these edges are bent / ________ \ in such a manner as --> / / open \ \ to draw the mash / /______________\ \ down the center / /------------------\ \ tube/shaft. / / open \ \ <---These edges are bent / /____________________________\ opposite to the other |_________________________________\ ones, in such a way as to force the mash up and and towards the rounded The bottom edge is bent bottom of the keg. to conform to the keg bottom with about 1/8" clearance. In practice, you can see the mash "bump" up along the circumference as the paddle passes beneath that certain portion during the mash-in/protein rest stages. This becomes less/not noticeable after the mash thins. Conclusions: Some of the movement of the mash is invariably due to the whirlpool motion that is characteristic of this type of rotational movement. OTOH, there is also a great deal of top to bottom mixing here that goes beyond the normal whirlpool movement, especially at this relatively low rpm. Some of the new clothes washers have abandoned the old "back and forth" motion in favor of a continuous one-way direction of the agitator assembly. I think it would be beneficial to see the angles that are molded in these agitators and attempt to duplicate them. This, it seems, might be a way to improve on the paddle design. But, like I said before, I am quite content with the way this unit performs as is. Also, the Grainger catalog has a few pictures of drum/barrel mixers that have the "ribbon" shape that I attempted to duplicate with my design. BTW, I gained about 1.5 pts. extraction efficiency using the mechanical mixer. A few more tests using my standard recipes will verify if this is just a fluke of the moment, or an actual advantage of the system. Hell, I could always just throw in a bit more grain and forget the stirrer! don dput at csulb.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 06:15:07 -0700 From: pascal at netcom.com (Conan-the-Librarian) Subject: Re: libel "Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 10:58:45 -0700 From: Jim Doyle <jgdoyle at uci.edu> Subject: libel "The MM(tm) dude has crossed into the realm of libel now, and I am no longer amused." -=8=- Hmm. A careful reading of articles on libel and slander will see that there are a wide range of exceptions, such as when a statement is the unqualified truth, or when it is news. I refer you to your state's legal dictionary ( here in California it's called _California Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition_, abbreviated _CalJur3d_ in references ) for the article that is guaranteed to exist, probably _Libel And Slander_ ( check the index under 'libel', 'slander', and 'defamation' to be sure you get all relevant entries ). -=8=- Courts and lawyers can and will quibble and nitpick ad infinitum, but, to cut to the quick, it all depends on three things. (1) Whether the individual's current financial woes are a consequence of JS's words ... or JS's words are a consequence of the individual's financial woes. (2) Whether the individual referred to, files suit. Note that there are some difficulties documenting the actual fact that JS was the author of this particular document. Electronic mail is commonly forged and JS has been the target of this before, here on the Home Brew Digest, by people with what can best be described as political/racial motives. (3) How many corroborating suppliers JS brings to the hearing to substantiate his statement, if, indeed, it reaches court at all. I guess there's a fourth factor, and that's if some lackey went running to this person with a copy of this Digest, trying to stir up trouble. ( Of course, they may have as much trouble getting in touch with this individual as others have reported having. :-) That person may find themselves on the stand, explaining their motives. (-: Generally, although I have found that JS makes some startling statements, he has rarely failed to substantiate it and has almost always provided numbers and stuck to quantifiable events in his descriptions, disdaining the subjective in favor of the specific. -=8=- "A prudent person would realize the affects of positive advertising far outweigh the tactics I have been watching for the last week or two." I agree with this ... Cool it, Jack. Let your detractors make fools of themselves. Let the short-sighted buy Glatt mills. Your mills will still be working well into the 21st century, at the very least - and you'll be imitated, too, if I'm any judge of humanity. Good job, well done - relax. - -- richard Law : The science of assigning responsibility. Politics : The art of _distributing_ responsibility. richard childers san francisco, california pascal at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 10:10:23 -0600 (MDT) From: COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu> Subject: The Coyote Lives on! Random notes...lalalala Greetings ya-all. Just read the most recent hbd- after trashing a couple dozen. Sorry folks- I love all your words, but have not the time. Good News is: We've closed on our house, and are owners, and landlords for another two weeks before we can occupy. Ugh. But as an owner I can work on the garden! Yes ...that means prepping the hop garden! I've tamed part of the back jungle/yard and freed it of weeds, tilled in some peat moss, steer manure, organic compost....and watered it down. Mulched with more peat moss, found a big 'ol nasty piece of burlap, funny...just the size of the rectangular plot I designated for the first two varieties. Someones on my side up there! I love it when a plan falls together! I also have three truck loads of wood chips to spread around. I started planting my perennial herb garden too. Bit by bit...I'll get it together. (PS: Got the chips from the dump..for free. Worth checking on!) Next step is to erect my poles. I'll be getting some cheap pine logs - probably 20-25 feet tall (under $10) and have the bases coated with some kind of gooey- rot resisting goop. Then I'll dig holes at least 2 feet deep, fill with some post mix, and plog 'em in. I will have a pulley (or two) at the top for the ropes so I can lower the vines for harvest. That way I won't be climbing up a BIG ladder I don't have! I've got three new rhizomes in pots anxiously awaiting the move. One of them (N. brewer) is chest high now. I've managed to get successful cuttings of all my other four varieties growing in pots. Depending on how they do, I may or may not bother to come back for rhizomes from the originals. I noticed my first burs (first sign of flowering) the other day. The cascade is tall- bushy and healthy looking. It's about 15 or 20 feet tall now. The other varieties (Mnt. Hood, Chinook, Perle) are not doing as well. They are all less shorter and weeker looking. I'm guessing it must be a soil thing. THe chinook was week last year, and is week this year. A friends is quite the opposite. Tall and healthy. THICK stems. Ah well. So I'm being sure to supplement the soil properly in the new locale before things go in the ground. My tenant/neighbor got some of the cascade cutting rooted, and planted them along a 6 foot high fence next to the high school parking lot. WIth any luck they'll become a thriving privacy barrier (and producer?!) before too long. Oh- other good news from Smithfield...seems I do have three grape vines alive. THe owners didn't like them, tried to kill them off...just ignore them...BUT they live on. Now I just have to move them from what will become a dog run! What with house painting, roofing, yard work....etc...I haven't been able (time wise- physically....) to brew in a few weeks. It's just awful! I even had some scotch ale yeasts all grown up and ready to go! Terrible! Maybe I'll do that monday. I just got 5 kegs filled with the brews which had been lagering for weeks (whether they needed it or not!). So don't worry - I'm not beer-less!!!! Sounds like things have been interesting around here. Gee- should I go back through the past issues and grep for the MM debate/discussion????? Nah. I've got bar-b-q-ing and beer drinking to do today! Priorities ya know. Finally: Elaine and I have selected a place for our wedding. A spiffy Old Rock Church in the area- no longer a church- just a place for weddings. But what with all the wierd liquor laws around here, I don't think I'll be able to serve beer (homebrew) or my mead I've kegged for the occasion. Now I have to decide whether to sneak it in, or leave it in the back of my pickup outside!!! It's in soda kegs, so maybe I'll just tell em we're having soda on tap, and hope the don't notice the big head on the pepsi! But the important thing is: on July 23rd I'll become Mr. John Wyllie. Oh wait, I've always been that. Well, you can figure it out! Good Brews to you all. Keep the fires burning! But stick 'em under your brew pots! That way they do some GOOD! the Hop- along- Coyote John Wyllie SLK6P at cc.usu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 09:23:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Brushaber <pbrush at netcom.com> Subject: Kirin: First PRESS? Havn't seen anything bout this subject on recent HBD's so I thought I would bring it up.... For the last few weeks Kirin "Ichiban" has been buying up a lot of Dallas radio time talking about how their beer is superior. They go on at length about how other beers do a first press and then a second and third press. Blending that horrible old second and third press with the first press. Only Kirin uses the superior frist press in THEIR beers. Er.... What's all this PRESS stuff? Who presses grain? And if that process is so swell, why aren't WE doing it? Sounds to me like a claim that makes wonderful ad copy, but is really stupid in practice. Comments? Phil Brushaber Media Driector DDB/Needham Worldwide pbrush at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 1994 09:33:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Brushaber <pbrush at netcom.com> Subject: Zymurgy Magazine - Power Sparge In the recent issue of Zymurgy magazine there is an aricle in their new "gadgets section" about building a power sparger using Cornelius kegs and Co2. Looks neat, but requires considerable construction. Has anyone tried something like this? Does it work? pbrush at netcom.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 13:01:31 PDT From: dkelsey at kda.pdial.interpath.net Subject: Help needed on ales I am a neophyte about to brew his fifth batch. The first four were all good but not what I'm striving for. I would appreciate some guidance on how to achieve the following objectives: 1) An ale, somewhere between a brown ale and strong Scottish ale 2) Full-bodied as possible/reasonable 3) Sweeter than a mild ale, but not too sweet 4) Don't want a "nutty" character like Newcastle 5) Minimal "bitter" aftertaste or none at all 6) Don't like black patent malt or "toasted" flavor to ale 7) Will use malt extracts 8) Suspect I would really like lagers but don't have the facilities to brew them. I have read Papazian's book, but still need help. Also, if anyone has a recipe that would reasonably duplicate the cream ale brewed and confined to historic Williamsburg Virginia, I would greatly appreciate that as well. Thanks in advance! David Kelsey dkelsey at kda.pdial.interpath.net Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:55 WET DST From: gscott at io.org (Geoff Scott) Subject: Stirred Mashes Allen Ford asks about mash stirring in small scale commercial brewing. Amongst the micros and brewpubs that I have visited here in Ontario there seems to be a division between the single temperature infusion mashers which seem to be more influenced by British practice, and the step mashers which seem to be more continentally influenced. As long as the grist is doughed in without dry pockets there is no need to stir the mash if you are doing single temperature infusion mashing. On the other hand, if you are step mashing you need to stir to evenly distribute the heat. A friend of mine is a brewer at Upper Canada Brewing, a Toronto micro. They step mash with a fairly thin mash that is constantly stirred. The mash is heated by steam jackets around the sides and bottom of the tun. Without stirring, the mash would be scorched around the edges and too cold in the centre. regards, Geoff Scott gscott at io.org Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 17:09 CDT From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling) Subject: MIXMASHER >From: Allen Ford <allen at darwin.sfbr.org> >Subject: Stirred mashes > What is mash-stirring supposed to do for you? For mashing (either infusion with hot water or fired kettle mashing) to work efficiently, the entire mash must be at some/several known temperature/s for some periods of time. The only way this can be achieved is by stiring the mash to distribute the heat. This is less of a problem in the insulated cooler mash system but a real necessity in kettle mashing. >Jack S. writes: >>I have the additional problem of needing to keep clear of the EASYMASHER and this may preclude it from working at all. >With a false bottom, you would not have this problem. The dinosaur raises its ugly head. This is about as well thought out as your comments on the "other" JSP product we had a bit of a discussion on. One might get the idea that it is me rather than the issue that turns your crank. It is a bit like saying because one can not turn lead into gold with an easymasher, it could obviously be done with a false bottom. Fact is, the false bottom can not be used at all in a fired kettle no matter how much one stirs because of the water under it. This quickly becomes steam and causes no end of problems. The possibility that an easymasher might work with a motorized stirrer, is a potential bonus. Turns out, that after several attempts, I was able to sucessfully mash with an EASYMASHER (tm) and the motorized stirrer this weekend. The MIXMASHER(tm) is born and the long wooden spoon can be used to feed baby dinosaurs. I will post an article on the approach I used, but basically it is a 33 RPM gearmotor with a 12" shaft and a 10" fan blade at the end. It straddles the ketttle and looks a lot like the typical ice cream freezer. The motor is reversable so I can either lift from the bottom or push from the top. The latter seems to be the most effective. Although, it requires some attention and monitoring, the tedium of stirring is a thing of the past and the temperature variation throughout the mash is much more consistant than the occassional stirring previously used. What (if any) problems are created by HSA will have to await tasting. >From: haist at cogsci.UCSD.EDU (Frank Haist) >Subject: extraction efficiency (?) >I've been using an EASYMASHER installed in my 33-qt kettle with single temp mash at 152-154 F for typically an hour of so. Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the program or the equipment so it could be how you measure it or the malt. My first suggestion is to use D-K malt and run another test. I never get less than 30 using this malt and have used no other since I found it. If you still get the same numbers, I would suspect your measurement approach. The most straightforward way to measure extract is to measure the volume and gravity of the collected sweet wort and use this in your calculations. It eliminates many other variables that only confuse and fuzz the results. If you still get 25 pts, buy a Glatt and a Listerman false bottom. >From: Jim Doyle <jgdoyle at uci.edu> >Subject: libel >The MM(tm) dude has crossed into the realm of libel now, and I am no longer amused. I (and I doubt I am alone) will not buy any product from NorthEast Brew Supply or Kerry Brown as a direct result of Jack Schmidling's post. Sorry but calling a thief a thief is not libel. He will have to send me a check before he can sue me. Furthermore, the company is now defunct and inspite of my evil thoughts, I was kind enough not to disparage him publicly until all hope that he was really decent was lost. I gave him a year to make good during which time I could have forced it out of him but now that I played the nice guy, I can do nothing but bitch. >Also, I will not buy any JS products (contrary to prior posting) because I am not in the habit of dealing with or promoting companies who blatently trash their competition and admit to withholding one person's pre-payment to pay another person's debts. It was a bluff and aparently, a good one. If he is not the same person or entity, he would not have rolled over and played possim. js Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1436, 05/30/94