HOMEBREW Digest #2527 Fri 10 October 1997

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  water, sparging, kettles (korz)
  Second Sedimentation in the Bottle (Nathan Moore)
  call for entries, judges, stewards ... (Tom Fitzpatrick)
  Homebrew book ("Alan McKay")
  How to win a contest // Styles / Alan Moen (Don H Van Valkenburg)
  Easy-masher vs Phil's ("Alan McKay")
  First Runnings (Danny Breidenbach)
  Re: Californian Seeking Sunbeams (Sheena McGrath)
  a better way to control foam from keg ("Jens B. Jorgensen")
  Re: precision hydrometer calibration (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Malt Modification (CC)
  Lager malts, references on feurlic acid (George J Fix)
  Yeast starter (korz)
  Re: New Subscriber (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
  FW: New Subscriber/Yeast Starter ("Darren W. Gaylor")
  RE: pressure cooking wort ("Rich, Charles")
  First All-Grain: Dark Mild (Andrew Ager)
  Re: Even more all grain ramblings (brian_dixon)
  GABF Winners and Thanks ("Brian M. Rezac")
  Re: Water analysis (brian_dixon)
  Science or Art (2 more cents) (Headduck)
  Pilsner Urquell ("Charles L. Ehlers")
  Re: Pitted Carboys ("Mark S. Johnston")
  Bread Recipe ("Michael E. Dingas")
  Bottling with Honey and the Science of brewing ("Michael E. Dingas")
  Re:Pressure cooking wort problems ("Layne and Katrise")
  Readers and conributors outside USA (Luke.L.Morris)
  simple cider questions ("Bruce Baker")

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at realbeer.com Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... hbd.org /pub/hbd ftp.stanford.edu /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer E-mail... ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with the word help for instructions.) AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:17:56 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: water, sparging, kettles Matt-- >1) My local water supply is quite heavily chlorinated. More so than other towns >I've lived in. Will simply heating it to mash temps drive off most of the >chlorine or will I need to briefly boil it? I do have a Brita pitcher, but it >would take a small amount of forever to get enough water through it. I don't >want Clorox Pale Ale. If it's chlorine, then boiling will drive it off quickly. Our Chicago water is very highly chlorinated and I have not noticed any chlorophenolics in all but one batch (I think it was an infection). If your water supplier uses chloramines, then you need to filter it through charcoal. You have to call and ask. >2) Could someone PLEASE very simply tell me what the difference between fly and >batch sparging is? What I thought about doing is just adding all the sparge >water to the mash (carefully) to maintain a couple inches of water over the >grain. Advantages/disadvantages? Fly sparging is continious... trickle water in, trickle wort out. Batch sparging is: drain, fill, stir, wait, drain, fill, stir, wait, drain. Theoretically, fly sparging is more efficient, but if you have channeling (who doesn't) batch sparging could be as, or even more, efficient. It all depends on how much channeling you have in your system. >3) I have a five gallon brewpot so I was either going to do a four gallon batch >or do a partial boil. I know there was some discussion and tips recently about >partial boils with all-grain brewing. I tried to search for it but was >unsuccessful. Can someone point me in the right direction? Can you borrow a 10-gal pot for the day? How about another 5 gallon kettle and split your hops between the two kettles? You need to take at least 6.5 gallons of runnings and then boil that down to 5.5 gallons (you'll lose 1/2 gallon to hops and cold break) to get 5 gallons in the fermenter. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:18:17 -0600 (MDT) From: Nathan Moore <moorent at bechtel.Colorado.EDU> Subject: Second Sedimentation in the Bottle I just produced an extremely tasty American Amber. It has been in conditioning for about 3 weeks now and I have dropped the temp down to about 58 C. When I went to grab a beer yesterday (from a clear bottle) there was a second layer of dark sediment on top of the usual white sediment. This stuff is particularly anoying because as soon as you pick a bottle up it stirs into the beer and ruins my otherwise clear beer. I could pick up no off tastes and this beer has a head you can set a dime on. Does anyone have any suggestions to the problem or cure. I've already reduced the temp to lagering levels to see if that will help settle. Below is my recipe, it is a great beer and even people that dont like intense beers realy like the full hop character. The hop aroma is heavenly with a complex maltiness in the finish and a intense hop spiciness at the start. When the beer gets a little warmer you can detect an almost all-spice flavor in the middle. I'm including the recipe here to see if it can help solve my problems and also to encorage hop heads to go for it. 3rd Carboy Ale (sorry no gravity readings, I lost my hydrometer) 5 gal .5 lb wheat malt .5 lb Munich 1 lb vienne 1 lb home toasted 6-row 7.5 lb Crisp Maris Otter .15 lb roasted barley 1 lb caravienne 1.5 ounce Perle (60min) .5 Perle (25min) 1.7 Mt. Hood (10min) .5 Cascade (10min) .6 Mt. Hood (1min) 1.5 Cascade (dry 1 week) !!!!!!!!!note-over 4 ounces of finishing hops!!!!! pinch of irish moss at 8min Wyeast 1056 Single infusion at 155 C Bottled with 3/4 cup corn sugar Thanks all, and may the GABF live forever Nathan Moore Denver, CO Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:22:07 -0500 From: Tom Fitzpatrick <fitz at FNAL.GOV> Subject: call for entries, judges, stewards ... The Chicago Beer Society presents: Spooky Brew Review 1997 A BJCP registered homebrew competition October 25th, 1997 at Prairie Rock Brewing Co., Elgin, IL Entries accepted October 11th to 18th. Enter to win one (or more!) of our festive Halloween ribbons. Simple entry forms, no full recipes required! Judges, sign up early for category preferences; See http://www.mcs.com/~shamburg/cbs/spooky97.html for complete details and forms, or contact Tom Fitzpatrick at fitz at fnal.gov or (630) 840-3230. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:32:50 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: Homebrew book Michael Rose asks about the new homebrew book, presumedly the one written by Al Korzonas. I haven't been around HBD all that long myself, so don't take my own words as law by any stretch of the imagination. But my own feeling is that this forum is a great place to discuss such things. I've been a regular on rec.crafts.brewing for a couple of years now, and do know that books are often discussed over there. I'm currently obtaining a copy of Al's book and will be reviewing it for my homepage at : http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/ Keep your eyes peeled for it in the next month or so. I'll make another announcement here when my review is complete. cheers, -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Enterprise Networks Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:55:03 -0700 From: steinfiller at juno.com (Don H Van Valkenburg) Subject: How to win a contest // Styles / Alan Moen Brew it BIG and brew it hoppy. It wasn't a big surprised to me that a triple won the Pacific Cup recently. Nor was it a big surprise that the Orange County fair best of show was won by a barley wine two years in a row. BTW, these two examples of winners I have mentioned are excellent beers and I would not turn down a glass of either one. However, when was the last time you saw a mild win best of show?? I have seen beers that were on the higher gravity side for their category win in that category or beers that had a little more hops than the style required also win in their category. I must confess that a recent winner of mine that took first place in a local contest was pushing the envelope for gravity in that style. These facts only point to the subjective nature of contests and the relevance of styles in contests. Judges are after all only human and respond to alcohol and hops. Thus if you want to win a contest, brew it BIG and brew it HAPPY. Brew it OUTSIDE the styles guidelines. Emulating a specific style is an exercise in ones technical brewing skill and only tests ones ability to use a brew calculator. It is not a necessarily test of creativity by any measure. I believe that using styles guidelines are only helpful for contest organizers who simply want to judge similar beers together, but when it comes to creativity, look to the open category. What would happen if we had a contest where beers were categorized according to their starting gravity within two major sub-groups; ales and lagers? And---beers were given points for creativity. Just one idea. In regards to Alan Moan's column, after getting past that outrageous opening statement about style guidelines defining the playing field --I must say I agreed with his first few paragraphs about labeling of commercial brews. Using historical styles guidelines to label commercial brews gets in to truth in labeling and has some validity. But when it comes to art being analogous with brewing we depart company. The visual arts are always trying to break the mold to push the envelope. It is the job of the artist to create and the job of the art critic to categorize and describe what the artist has just created. Don Van Valkenburg steinfiller at juno.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:52:24 -0400 From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com> Subject: Easy-masher vs Phil's When I started doing all-grain, I was using a home-made version of the EZ-Masher in a 5 gallon Gott. It was essentially identical to the commercial one. After a while I cobbled together my own circular manifold for the bottom of the Gott. In switching over to the new manifold, my extraction immediately jumped from about 70% to about 75%. All other variables were the same. Recently I've had the opportunity to use a Phil's, and find I get about the same as my manifold. Of course, this is but one data point. As Al Korzonas' article in the Zymurgy 1995 all-grain special issue points out, all of the sparging devices he tested were roughtly the same. My mileage obviously differs from his, but then again, I haven't really run any experiments since then. The one thing I'll point out about the Phil's is that it tends to float up off the bottom, and also that the connecting hose can be easily knocked free of the bottom. Both of these problems can cause huge headaches. Both can be solved by rigging up a piece of copper tubing as a drain tube, instead of a piece of vinyl tubing. For what it's worth, there's my 2 cents. To have it to do over, I'd personally go with the Phil's, and use the copper tube. -Alan - -- Alan McKay Nortel Enterprise Networks Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations PC Support Prime Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 12:56:28 -0500 From: Danny Breidenbach <DBreidenbach at nctm.org> Subject: First Runnings I missed something somewhere. What does pressure cooking one's first runnings accomplish (in more-or-less simple terms). And the question of boiling those first runnings .... related? - --Danny Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 10:02:33 -0700 From: Sheena McGrath <sheena at gte.net> Subject: Re: Californian Seeking Sunbeams Dear Homebrewers: My vote is for keeping the science going. Also, when do we see the homebrewer survey? Does anyone have Sunbeam hops to swap or sell? I know they're ornamental, but I want to play with them. (Must be the name...) Thanks again to all who helped me with the gushing problem. Sheena Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 1997 11:33:51 -0500 From: "Jens B. Jorgensen" <jjorgens at bdsinc.com> Subject: a better way to control foam from keg Fellow brewers, My problem is simple. When I fill up a pint from my keg fridge I get a pint full of foam. I have an upright fridge dedicated to my beer at ~40degF. I force-carbonated my 5gal corny at 25lbs. for a few days. I then turned off the CO2, opened the relief valve on the keg, dialed the regulator down to 10lbs and turned on the CO2. I still get foam. I have a 3' beer line which terminates on a faucet I've installed in the door of the fridge. Trying to be a good netizen I went to the hdb archives and searched on foam. Sure enough, AlK was there with the skinny. Just as I thought I'd remembered, the foaming is a result of the delivery pressure at the faucet. <rant> This is the second time that one of the homebrew stores I patronize has let me down. When I bought the beer line the person said, "how much beer line do you need?" and I said "gee, I don't know, it'll only take three feet to go from the keg to the faucet even with the door open" and I was promptly given three feet. </rant> Anyway, I'd rather not disassemble my beer line from the disconnects and faucet and really I'd rather not have 6-10 feet of line in my fridge. Couldn't I just put some kind of clamp on the line (near the faucet?) and adjust until I get decent flow but no foaming? Anyone tried this? - -- Jens B. Jorgensen jjorgens at bdsinc dot com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:17:18 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: Re: precision hydrometer calibration > From: Dave Whitman <dwhitman at rohmhaas.com> > The hydrometer cost $23. Ordering information available upon request; I > have no connection with Cole Parmer. I had to rig up a longer hydrometer > flask than the ones normally available at home brew shops using a length of > rigid plastic tube, although Cole Parmer had a suitable cylinder for about > $10. The unit didn't come with a temperature correction table or > information about how it was calibrated. Call Cole Palmer and ask for clarification of the calibration temperature, but it may be part of the specific gravity definition that it is specified at 60F. > the r/o water sample > read about 1.0025. I was a little dismayed at how far off this zero point > was for a precision instrument, although having accurate readings at more > typical beer SG values is more important to me. What is your elevation above sea level? Does it matter? Anyone??? Happy Brewing Ron Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:52:48 -0500 (CDT) From: spiralc at ix.netcom.com (CC) Subject: Malt Modification Malt Modification, Greg Noonan addresses this topic in "New Brewing Lager Beer," pages 299-300. "English pale and mild malts are not the only malts that are suitable for infusion mashing. Most modern malts, including those of continental origin can be infusion mashed. The criteria for whether or not a malt can be infusion mashed are: a fine/coarse extract difference of less than 1.8%, a soluble nitrogen ratio (S/T) of at least 38% and a malt that is at least 95% mealy. Where no lot analysis is available. acrospire growth examination should give at least 90% grown to two-thirds the length of the kernel and the majority grown to three-quarters-to-full-kernel length. Beers that will be served very cold may show a protein haze if malt of more than 1.6% nitrogen (10% protein) with a soluble nitrogen ratio less than 40% is mashed without a protein rest." Whether his analysis is correct or not, I do not know. I do know that as a single-temp infusion masher, all of my attempts using 2 row or other non-pale ale malts have resulted in hazy beer. Chris Carolan (One of these days I'll brew that "Procrastinator" dopplebock, maybe tomorrow!) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 13:36:39 -0500 From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix) Subject: Lager malts, references on feurlic acid Terms like "over-modification" and "under-modification" can be misleading in the sense they are subject to different interpretations. Nevertheless, what is discernibly true is that the lager malts available in the late 1990s are dramatically different from those available five or so years ago. This subject has been widely discussed in Brauwelt as well as other European journals. Laurie and I tried to treat this subject in some depth in our book (references are given), so I will not waste band width here on it except to note that the primary reasons for the changes is that the new European 2-row varieties like Alexis malt quite differently from the older ones like Triumph. The major practical problem I had with the new malts and the classic 50-60-70C mashing schedule centered primarily around malt flavors. The perception of "maltiness" comes from melanoidins present, and the presence of medium molecular weight proteins, among other things. In my system, rests in the range 45-55C yields a deficient medium molecular weight protein pool, and with this a malt character that I perceive as "blank" or "nondescript". I am not asserting that these should be seen as defects, but they are not to my own personal taste. This is primarily the reason I have been using the 40-60-70 schedule for the last three years. I have been asked about the effect of residual feurlic acid on finished beer flavor. This compound has a relatively high flavor threshold and is essentially tasteless. The following article asserts that it and selected polyphenols (in their reduced state!) also serve as effective antioxidants. This article appeared in the latest issue of the ASBC Journal: Walters, et al, "Comparison of (+)-catechin and feurlic acid as natural antioxidants and their impact on Beer Flavor Stability" It is to be emphasized that this study (which was done at Nutfield in the UK) used pure yeast cultures. Weizen strains, wild and/or mutated yeast will create 4-vinylguaiacol in perceptible amounts from even subliminal feurlic acid levels. Witness the clovy weizens found in many brewpubs using domestic malts and a single high temperature rest. In any of these cases the findings of the above reference are no longer valid. Cheers, George Fix Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 13:40:41 -0500 (CDT) From: korz at xnet.com Subject: Yeast starter Vern writes: >I am attempting to >make my first yeast starter and things are not going well. I started with 3 >ounces of light DME in one quart of water (boiled and cooled). I added a >packet of dry Coopers yeast and sealed with an air lock. It has been 48 >hours without any action and I am getting tired of waiting. The lady at the >beer store says sometimes it takes three days. Firstly, you should not rehydrate dry yeast in wort. They prefer to be rehydrated in plain water. Secondly, yeast should be rehydrated in 90 - 110F water (boiled and cooled). Any cooler will shock the yeast. It should be rehydrated for 15 to 30 minutes (no more, no less) and then stepped-up or pitched. Finally, you don't really need a starter for fresh, rehydrated dry yeast -- there are hundreds of times more yeast in 5 grams of dry yeast than there are in 50ml of Wyeast. For Wyeast I do recommend a starter. As for taking three days, I don't know what she meant... three days for the starter to start? three days for the starter to be ready to pitch? If you rehydrated the yeast in 90-110F water for 15 min, then pitched it into 5 gallons of wort and you did not see activity within 12 hours, then the yeast had been mistreated (stored unrefrigerated, old, etc.). Contrary to popular belief, foaming during rehydration is not a measure of yeast health (don't believe me... see the Lallemand website at http://www.lallemand.com/). Ideally, you would like to temper your yeast before pitching into the wort. If you rehydrate your yeast in 90F water for 30 min, it's likely to be around 80F. Pitching this into 65F wort will shock the yeast. The way to avoid this is to take your 8 ounces of yeast and water (after rehydrating 15 to 30 minutes) and slowly add 8 ounces of your cooled wort to it. If you are making a lager, you may want to double the volume again after waiting a minute or two. Al. Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL korz at xnet.com My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running): http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:11:44 -0400 From: bourdouj at EOA.UMontreal.CA (Jacques Bourdouxhe) Subject: Re: New Subscriber >Subject: New Subcriber >Hello all, I am new to this hobby and need a little help. I am attempting to >make my first yeast starter and things are not going well. I started with 3 >ounces of light DME in one quart of water (boiled and cooled). I added a >packet of dry Coopers yeast and sealed with an air lock. It has been 48 >hours without any action and I am getting tired of waiting. The lady at the >beer store says sometimes it takes three days. >Thoughts? >Vern Hi Vern, welcome to the Homebrew Digest ( HBD ). You are in good hands with people from every background willing to answer every question from dry yeast to spectrophotometer. About your starter? First,a yeast starter is generally used with LIQUID yeast to increase the original small amount of yeast cells found in a liquid yeast package ( pouch or plastic tube ). Dry yeast doesn't need a yeast starter because the quantity of yeast cell in a dry yeast packet is enough to pitch into a 5 gallons batch. Dry yeast should first be rehydrated for 10 to 15 minutes in water boiled for 15 minutes and cooled to 35C ( 102F).Rehydrated yeast can then be pitched in the fermenter. The way you prepared the starter looks OK, 3ounces of DME for 1 quart of water ( 100 grams per litre ) is a good ratio for a normal gravity starter. Possible causes for the starter not working: 1) dead Coopers yeast packet: a viable dry yeast packet should activate a starter within a couple of hours maximum. Coopers is reliable 2) starter too warm killed yeast: but you said you cooled the starter. 3) starter too cold : was the starter colder than 60F? 4) starter not completely sealed by the airlock and you didn't see the airlock bubbling. What I suspect is that your starter was so fast that it fermented completely in a few hours ( 1 packet of dry yeast is a lot for a 1 quart starter ) OR that you didn't observe the signs of a fermenting starter because they are not the same as a roaring fermenting 5 gallons batch: almost no foam and the airlock bubbling less than 1 a minute .My fellow countrymen Hercule Poirot would have told you: " Mon ami, you saw but you didn't observe ". So, the best advise I can give you ( like with most of homebrew problems ) is to taste your starter. If it is still sweet you know that it didn't start. If the yeast was active, you starter should taste like unhopped fermented beer ( dry ) and you should see a whitish layer of yeast in the bottom of the starter. I hope this helps Jacques in Montreal ************************************************* * Oh beer! O Hodgson, Guinness, Allsop, Bass! * * Names that should be on every infant's tongue * * ( Charles Stuart Calverley ) * ************************************************* Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:50:21 -0700 From: "Darren W. Gaylor" <dwgaylor at pacifier.com> Subject: FW: New Subscriber/Yeast Starter I'll try this again. I don't usually make a starter with Cooper's dry yeast. Rehydrate the yeast in a pint of warm water for 10-15 minutes and pitch it into the wort rather than make a starter. That is one of the advantages of dry yeast. With liquid yeasts, I always make a starter. The fact that nothing happened is unusual. I think that your starter was too hot and killed the yeast or the packet was old/defective/improperly stored/ruined. The lady at the beer store doesn't know what she is talking about. You should have active fermentation in less than 12 hours using that yeast.. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 12:57:52 -0700 From: "Rich, Charles" <CRich at saros.com> Subject: RE: pressure cooking wort In HBD #2524, Jim Booth wondered if pressure cooking his first runnings could account for the higher than expected final gravity of his Bohemian Pilsner. I've p-cooked the first runnings of several beers now and have not seen that behaviour. I had once wondered if melanoidin development taxed the pool of fermentable sugars to any appreciable degree, since they're formed from amino acids and simple sugars, but now I'm pretty sure the impact is miniscule and possibly not detectable (by kitchen science). Any number of things could contribute to a high final gravity but I doubt the p-cooking did it. By the way, I find it's a nice thing to do to a Classic American Pilsner. Like conventional decoction, it does not make more malt flavor, rather it bends the malt flavor in a nice way. Charles Rich (Seattle, USA) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:42:29 -0500 From: Andrew Ager <andrew-ager at nwu.edu> Subject: First All-Grain: Dark Mild Hey folks, After trying to begin my brewing season with an extract porter, and discovering that my extract (which I had quite stupidly left sitting around all summer in non-air-conditioned/cooled locations) had sprouted a wide variety of small civilizations, some of whom actually tried to negotiate treaties with me before I disposed of the container, I am switching to all-grain (I've been building up to this for months now). I've picked up most of the theory over the past year (HBD plus a lot of reading). Now I'd just like a few comments on the recipe and procedure. the recipe: 7 lbs. pale malt 1 lb. crystal (60L) .125 lb. chocolate 1 oz. Fuggles (4.5%aa, whole), 60 min. .5 oz. Fuggles, while chilling (~5-10 min.) Wyeast 1968 Questions: 1) Mash water should be about 17-20 degrees hotter than desired mash temp., right? I'm shooting for a 156F mash, so water at 173-176 should do the trick, right? 2) At 1.25 qts/lb., mash would be a touch over 10 qts of water. Sparge volume would be about 4 gallons? 3) If I let the mash go for about 75 minutes, it should be OK, no? I don't really want to worry about pH on the first one -- that can wait until the 2nd or 3rd try. Well, that's it. May Ninkasi be with me! Andy Ager Brewer, beer geek, free-lance historian. Chicago, IL http://www.devnull.net/~andy (will appear when I have free time again) "The Puritanical nonsense of excluding children and -- therefore -- to some extent women from pubs has turned these places into mere boozing shops instead of the family gathering places that they ought to be." --George Orwell Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 13:44:18 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Even more all grain ramblings >I thought of another question. I'm going to be getting a seven gallon Gott >cooler as a mash/lauter tun. I would like people's opinions on which would be >better: a Phil's phalse bottom or an EZ-Masher setup and why? Matt, I highly recommend Phil's phalse bottom over the EZ-masher. Both are just fine. Zymurgy's tests consistently showed the Phil's phalse bottom returning 2 to 3 pts/lb/gal more extract, e.g. this amounts to an increase in efficiency of about 7%. I personally use the Phil's phalse bottom (in 2 different lauter tuns, one is a bucket, one is a Gott) and can verify that its performance is great. It's also very easy to clean using just a sprayer in a kitchen sink. Other than the article in Zymurgy (sorry, can't remember which issue), I can't vouch for the EZ-masher, but I know people like it. The lower efficiency is only one, and not highly important, aspect that is different. I'd consider cleaning it too...stuff stuck in screen material can be a blankety-blank to clean out, but I haven't specifically tried the EZ-masher screen. Finally, you may even consider making your own EZ-masher type of lautering device. Check out Alan McKay's web site for a description of how to make your own (and note that he claims that the EZ-masher tested out "almost identically" in the Zymurgy test ... "almost identical" is a judgement to be passed by the reader. Build your own opinion!). Anyway, here's the URL to Alan's page where the "EC-Masher (easier and cheaper masher)" is described: http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/gadgets/ec-masher.html As Alan points out, the 3rd thing you often see in the bottom of a lauter tun is a slotted copper manifold. Easy to clean, easy to make, slightly lower efficiencies than either of the two above, but CAN be custom fit to virtually any lautering vessel. Regards, Brian ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 15:58:00 -0600 From: "Brian M. Rezac" <brian at aob.org> Subject: GABF Winners and Thanks Fellow HBDers, The list of medal winners of the 1997 Great American Beer Festival can be found at: http://beertown.org/GABF/PPBT/gabf1997.htm So far I have received private emails complimenting my liver and my "recovering abilities" and other emails ridiculing my singing. I firmly deny both! (That is, I don't think anyone has any proof that would hold up in a court of law.) Actually, it was an amazing week. I would like to thank many of you for your assistance and camaraderie; Rob Moline, a man I am proud to call, "My mate" (Rob, I won't steal your thunder, but you need to let the rest of HBD know your "Rules to Live By". I hope you know you can always count on me to fall into Rule #1); Louis Bonham, even though he associates with people who rate high in AHA Bitterness Units (AHABU's), I know that we both share the interest and joy of promoting homebrewing, (Louis, I am glad that you didn't need the kevlar vest afterall!); Ken Schwartz, aka KennyEddy, you don't often meet someone this knowledgeable and modest at the same time (I don't know how many times I said (yelled), "Beer so good, you can drink it!"); Mark Tumarkin, originator of the excellent idea for meeting (Mark, I love you hoppy robust porter, but to improve your looks, try a lot more grey hair and a pair of round glasses.); Dr. George & Laurie Fix (What can I say? They're the best!) There were a few more HBDers that hunted me down at the GABF, like Richard Gardner, Norm Pyle, Curt Schroeder and Dan Rabin. I apologize for not remembering all the names at this time. Please feel free to send me a reminder as I am still recovering from the entire week. Thank you all! Good Luck & Good Beer in the future! - Brian Brian Rezac Administrator American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 121 (voice) 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 (fax) PO Box 1679 brian at aob.org (e-mail) Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org (aob info) U.S.A. http://beertown.org (web) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 97 14:41:11 -0700 From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com Subject: Re: Water analysis [snip] >I have received a fax with the water analysis from our City counsel. [snip] >This software ask for CO3 but I cant find it on the fax. >Is it under a different name ? Can I work it out somehow ? >The local city counsel is clueless and cant help me. I bet 2 things that ARE on your water fax are a) the alkalinity "as mg/L CaCO3" and b) the pH of your water. The tricky thing is whether or not the target water profiles in Brewer's Workshop (or any program) considers the carbonates to be CO3, HCO3, or the sum of the two. At normal mash and wort pH's though, the carbonates will be 100% converted to HCO3 (bicarbonate). What you want to do is to use the pH and the "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3" to find "HCO3 as mg/L HCO3". Note that SOME water analysis will not mention alkalinity either, but will mention "Total Hardness (TH) as mg/L CaCO3" and the "hardness" will be CO3/HCO3. If your water analysis states a number for hardness AND no number for alkalinity, be very careful to make sure the so-called hardness is not "Mg and Ca as mg/L CaCO3". If the report does not tell you what is what, then call the water authorities back and ask them more questions! Oh yeah, a 3rd possible way of getting this information would be as "Carbonates as mg/L CaCO3". This is very nearly the same as the alkalinity, except the alkalinity includes a very small affect from the H+ and OH- ions in the water. The easy method? Multiply your "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3" by 0.60 and enter that number into Brewer's Workshop as "CO3". The step-by-step way of doing it the accurate way is described next. If your carbonates or alkalinity or hardness is express in some other way, post back here to the HBD (or email me) and we can get the number for "CO3" figured out for you. Brian - ------------------- Caution! Science begins here! -------------------- Assuming you have the pH and "Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3", here's an example showing the calculations, and what you should enter into Brewer's Workshop: Given) pH is 7.8, Alkalinity as mg/L CaCO3 is 128 Problem) Find HCO3 as mg/L HCO3 Solution) 1) Calculate the following three magic numbers: r1 = 10^(pH-6.37) = 10^(7.8 - 6.37) = 26.9153 r2 = 10^(pH-10.25) = 10^(7.8-10.25) = 0.003548 d = 1 + r1 + r1r2 = 1 + 26.9153 + (26.9153)(0.003548) = 28.0108 2) Calculate the mole-fractions (more magic numbers): %H2CO3 = 1/d = 0.0357, or 3.57% of the carbonates is H2CO3 in solution %HCO3 = r1/d = 26.9153/28.0108 = 0.9609, or 96.09% " " HCO3 in solution %CO3 = r1r2/d = (26.9153)(0.003548)/28.0108 = 0.003409, or 0.3401% " " CO3 in sol'n Note that only 0.3% of the availabe carbonates exists as CO3 at pH 7.8, and that as the pH is dropped, even less will be in solution ... it all turns into HCO3! 3) Find the concentrations of HCO3 and CO3 in mg/L of CaCO3. For this you need the alkalinity equation (world standard nowadays): Alkn = <<HCO3>> + 2<<CO3>> + <<OH->> - <<H+>>, where <<species>> means "Species as mg/L CaCO3". 3a) Find the concentration of OH-, e.g. <<OH->>: [H+] = 10^-pH = 10^-7.8 = 1.5849 x 10^-8, We'll ignore this later because it is so small Then because [H+][OH-] = 10^-14, [OH-] = 10^-14/[H+] = 10^14 / 1.5849x10^-8 = 6.3095 x 10^-7 M or 6.3095 x 10^-4 mM To express the [OH-] in "mg/L CaCO3", multiply by the gram molecular weight of CaCO3: <<OH->> = 6.3095 x 10^-4 mM x 100.0892 mg/mM = 0.06315 mg/L as CaCO3 4) Find the total carbonates as mg/L CaCO3, ignoring the contribution of H+ as previously mentioned: Total carbonates = Alkn - <<OH->> = <<HCO3>> + 2<<CO3>>, or Total carbonates = 128 - 0.06315 = 127.9368 mg/L as CaCO3 5) Find the total carbonates "as mg/L CO3" instead of "mg/L CaCO3". To do this, divide by the gram molecular weight of CaCO3 and multiply by the gram molecular weight of CO3: Total carbonates = (127.9368/100.0892) * 60.0092 = 76.7054 mg/L as CO3 Voila!! Enter 76.7054 into Brewer's Workshop in the "CO3" box. Note how close, in THIS example, the "easy method" came to (76.8) the "accurate" method. This will only be the case when the pH is below 8.4 or so. If your pH is higher, you can choose to take the more accurate route, or you can assume that your wort pH will be 5.0-5.5 and do the easy method. I recommend the easy method! ....................................................................... Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:30:07 -0400 (EDT) From: Headduck at aol.com Subject: Science or Art (2 more cents) Just think if we would add up all of these 2 cents that people are sending we could really have something. On the subject of brewing, is it art or science, allow me to further muddy the waters. It is neither. Brewing, especially homebrewing, is engineering. I am surprised that you other engineers out there have not thought of this (I know you are out there). Perhaps we are trying to seperate our jobs from our hobbies? Engineering is the application of science to design or create something practical. What could be more practical than beer? An engineer knows what parts of science to use and what parts can be ignored. I would never try to use quantum physics when simple Newtonion methods (while incorrect) work just fine. Likewise, I can make great beer without worrying about 122 degree rests or ultra precise specific gravity and temperature measurements. I am glad, however, that there are those of you out there who fret over these things. It adds richness to the dialogue. (Also there is always the chance that we might learn something). I have only been reading hbd for about 2 months and I enjoy it very much. It is the diversity that makes it great. That will only exist if we have the freedom to post what we each feel is appropriate. So keep posting you scientific types. I'll keep reading and lurking in the background. Joe Yoder Lawrence, Kansas (just down the road from LABC, where I promise to never go) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 19:16:14 -0500 From: "Charles L. Ehlers" <clehlers at flinthills.com> Subject: Pilsner Urquell Can anyone provide a recipe, preferably extract but all-grain will also work, for a good Pilsner Urquell replica? I realize it isn't possible to get an exact duplication, but I'd like to achieve something close. I've looked in Charlie P's TNCJOHB and The Cat's Meow. I've experimented w/ a few recipes and variations thereof and think I am in the ballpark w/ exception of yeast and hopping--as if that really puts me in the ballpark! I've seen several different hop schedules, all using mostly Saaz. It seems that most recipes that supposedly replicate Pilsner Urquell call for WYeast Bohemian Pilsner, yet WYeast's Czech Pils is "supposed" to be THE yeast to use to make a Pilsner Urquell clone. Is anyone out there who has brewed a respectable Pilsner Urquell replica willing to share his/her recipe? I'd be eternally grateful. Thanks! Charles Ehlers clehers at flinthills.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 20:39:06 -0400 From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst at talon.net> Subject: Re: Pitted Carboys Just offering a group "Thank you" to all that responded to my post on ammonia/chlorine deposits inside carboys. Dominant response: Try a vinegar soak. I hate it when I don't think of an obvious answer. Guess I'm 40 after all. Thanks to all. - -- "If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston Churchill Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:53:23 -0400 From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Bread Recipe Anyone have a recipe for using slurry to make bread? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 21:52:38 -0400 From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Bottling with Honey and the Science of brewing Earlier this month I posted a response to someone asking how much honey = should be used when substituted for corn sugar. There has also been much = said of late about the love/hate of science threads in this digest. Like = Gilda used to say..." it's always sumpthin'" Anyway, here is how both = threads weave together... My post recommended 2/3 cup of honey for a 5-gal batch (actually, my = batches bottle out at near 42 12-oz bottles or 4 1/2 gal). One personal = reply chided my brewmaster for giving me such advice. He surely thought = the bottles would become April's Fools gags or that my Brewmaster had = never primed with honey. He predicted gushers and said try 1/3 to 1/2 = cup. Another reply,(quite ably) pointed out several statistical facts = (here's the science stuff) about weight & PPG in a comparison of honey = and corn sugar. He suggested 1/2 cup or less depending upon the desired = level of carbonation. Now, don't get me wrong! I've seen how out of hand an innocent comment = can become in this digest. I thank both individuals for their personal = replies. They may both be correct. And, I'm still a novice and might = have misunderstood my Brewmaster. But...(here it comes!) I've brewed my fourth batch (yeah!), three of which were honey wheats = and all primed with 2/3 cup of honey. No gushers, no exploding bottles, = no overcarbination. Just good tasting beer! Am I doing something = unintentional to compensate for 'excessive' honey? Or is it the brand of = honey that makes the difference? Is there something more scientific = which explains my errant success? Don't know and don't care. So long as the beer is tasty, the rug is still clean (meaning Momma is = still happy) and there is a sun to rise tomorrow, I'm enjoying my = limited success and hope I don't steer anyone down a sudsless path. Keep = the comments flowing and the beer brewin'. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 18:46:25 -0700 From: "Layne and Katrise" <wetpetz at oberon.ark.com> Subject: Re:Pressure cooking wort problems Hello all, Hi Jim, You wrote in HBD #2524; >"Tried to make a Pilsner Urquel clone with a single decoction and pressure cooking the first 15 qts or so of first wort spargings. The temp and pressure data for the pressure cooking is non-existant but it was about 30' or so under pressure. Got a huge hot break that I strained off as the flakes were troublesome to the eye. >The problem is the OG was 1.044 and the FG 1.021 with much more residual sweetness to taste then I want in a Bohemian. The saccrification mash rest was at 155F. I expected 1.016 or so but not 1.021." I think the problem is two-fold here. 1. Pressure cooking would have caramelized some simple fermentable sugars. They are only contributing to sweetness this way. 2. The Hot break you strained off was mostly yeast nutrients and FAN. I think that if you would have left some of this for your ferment there would have been a higher attenuation. This is speculation however. I only know from what I've been reading here for the past year. I don't think the volume of wort that was pressure cooked has as much to do with this as the above problems, but I think that had there only been 10 quarts you would have saved some of the needed nutrients. This does sound yummy though. I hope you give it a second shot to see if I'm right. Let me know. Layne & Katrise Rossi wetpetz at oberon.ark.com Campbell River, BC Visit my Home Page at http://oberon.ark.com/~wetpetz For Links, recipes, beer yeast culturing and other stuff! *********************************************************** To try and fail is better than failing because we didn't try! *********************************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 97 15:24:51 +0800 From: Luke.L.Morris at woodside.com.au Subject: Readers and conributors outside USA Somebody wrote.... >Finally, to the yutz (I've deleted the reference) who said that HBD >represents very few homebrewers so it is unimportant and doesn't >influence the homebrewing movement: >Is it important to homebrewing? Yes -- some of the most active >leaders meet and communicate here, in a way that other media can't >support. It provides a national network that feeds discussion and <snip> Whoah ! Shouldn't that be *inter*national ? Don't forget the rest of the world that exists outside the US of A. I have read postings from England, Scotland, France, Germany, Austria, Australia, Venezuela, and a multitude of other countries which are no less important on the HBD. HBD provides an ideal international forum for the discussion of brewing-related matters, be they social, technical, scientific, mundane or whatever. The content is determined purely by those who are interested enough to post. If there was no interest in a topic, there would be nobody posting on it. Personally I enjoy simplicity a bit of trial and error in my brewing, but I've learned heaps from lurking in the background and reading the postings: scientific and otherwise. The few times I have posted, I have received helpful advice and constructive criticism. Leave the HBD alone. Luke Morris Brewing in Perth, Western Australia. - ------------------------------ Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 19:30:21 +1000 From: "Bruce Baker" <taysoft at ibm.net> Subject: simple cider questions Hello, My partner has some cider fermenting away. We have some simple questions about cider-making. She is using an old book, which says to stir the cider twice a day whilst fermenting. Is this required? I'm kind of hesitant to keep opening the fermenter & risking infection. The book also says to rack after 5 days. We are using a wine yeast which takes ages to ferment out. When should it be first racked ? Thanks, Bruce Baker. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/10/97, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96