HOMEBREW Digest #2866 Tue 03 November 1998

[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

  re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed ("Peter J. Calinski")
  stale malt (kathy)
  nummy Belgian beers / candi sugar ("Spies, James")
  Time to brew soon.... (Joe Rolfe)
  Pump Questions (Ken Pegram)
  Campfire porter revisited . . . ("Spies, James")
  Homebrewers as a constituency? (beerisgoodfood)
  False bottoms and manifolds / priorities of lautering ("George De Piro")
  Protein Rest Data Point? ("Tomusiak, Mark")
  FW: Re: Belgian Ale Styles ("Tomusiak, Mark")
  Home Brew Recipe Calculating Program - New Release (John Varady)
  more: Foam from Kegs (Badger Roullett)
  Batch Sparge Spreadsheet (Badger Roullett)
  Belgian Ales styles (Chris)
  Re: Lauter Tun Fluid Mechanics (Scott Murman)
  problem micros (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil>
  Mediveal Mashing Question (Badger Roullett)
  Kit beers (Bill Wible)
  yeast update (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Mafe (Jeremy Bergsman)
  apology accepted/phosphate and bacteria ("Dave Whitman")
  crushing malted grain without using oxen (Ian Lyons)

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event On Earth yet? Details: http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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 hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer 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: Sun, 1 Nov 1998 21:02:07 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: re: A Study of Fluid Flow Through A Grainbed Wow, outstanding work. By coincidence, in the same issue of HBD, I had asked a question about using a spiral coil as a manifold. I guess this study falls in the category of "Be careful, you may get what you ask for." I believe my answer is in there somewhere and I will find it. Again, great work!!. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY 0 Degrees 30.21 Min North, 4 Degrees 05.11 Min. East of Jeff Renner Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 09:19:13 -0500 From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us> Subject: stale malt The temptation to buy large quantites of malt has been with me. It flatters my ego to think of myself as a mega-home brewer carting around bags of malt. However, I'm finishing up my 2 cases of DMS overloaded Koelsch from the spring made with some old malt and I'm wondering just what the taste impact is of old stale malt? How do we know when we stayed to long at the dance? Are specialty malts prone to staling also? Which ones are the most vulnerable? And finally, can you taste/smell malt and tell if it is stale? As usual, TIA to thems that knows and tells. cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 09:56:21 -0500 From: "Spies, James" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: nummy Belgian beers / candi sugar Ahh - Finally, a thread that touches a subject near and dear to my heart - those zymurcological works of art that emerge from the land where it never stops raining . . . I've made several iterations of belgian dubbels and tripels (spelled right? ;-) , and the use of candi sugar is one of the wierdest variables I've yet seen. In a tripel, table sugar usually works just fine, and I've used up to 2 pounds of it in a 5 gallon batch. However, for dubbels and darker strongs, table sugar shouldn't be more than perhaps a pound. Use real amber candi (invert?) sugar for the remaining addition. Too much table sugar, I've found, thins out the body a bit too much. I've also tried "home carmelizing" regular table sugar to make amber candi sugar, but the first attempt burnt the sugar to a crisp and took a saucepan with it. If you do this yourself, heat the sugar *slowly*, as it turns from clear to brown in about a nanosecond. I've got several recipies archived if anyone is interested (none that have ever been entered in anything other than a hedonistic brew club competition) that I think are pretty good, but the archives of Cat's Meow and Gambrinus' Mug are a great place to start. This is one of the few classes of beer where it's hard to go wrong. Get a fairly accurate grain bill going, and everything else can be tweaked to your liking. Yeast is especially important, and a ripping starter is really recommended. I'm lucky in that I have a Belgian brewpub close by that freely donates gallons of slurry, but if you don't, Wyeast 1214 is a good start. The only real downside is that it's difficult (and usually expensive) to make a good Belgian from extract. You normally can't get the depth of flavor from the commercial extract that a Belgian needs. If you extract brew, I'd recommend at least a partial mash with some of the specialty grains. Alright, enough already, I could go on and on . . . Malty brewing !! Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 10:45:30 -0500 From: Joe Rolfe <rolfe at sky.sky.com> Subject: Time to brew soon.... Almost ready to fire up the brew house again...Probably going to backoff of the RIMS for a spell. Just something about pumping the mash all around (grain and all) - dont seem right. In a brief discussion with a few people - this is not a good solution. The pump can hack it, but the impact on the mash is not positive with this particular twin blade impeller. Not sure if any pump would do well to the mash. An alternate way will be to run off into the grant - this may contain the elements or not - time will tell. Anyway the HLT, mash/lauter, brewkettle and monster PHE is installed, plumbed and nearly ready to be fired up. The rest of the cellar is a disaster area. The first beer my now out of work brewmaster friend and I (any Eastern Mass/So NH homebrewers??) will do is a kick arse double bock like wort. Money is no object on the grain bill. Any one using a malt (pils and munich) that they swear by?? Jim Busch what are you guys using at Victory....?? Where did you get it?? (BTW Jim still no sign of Victory up here, come quick the micros are dropping like flies lots of tap lines available..sorry for the crass commercialism...) We are going to be doing about 2bbl so this is far more than we need. The amount of wort available to anyone who wants in will be in the 10-20 gal range. Depending on the size (I would suggest anyone interested in grabbing some wort use 5 gal kegs for a fermenter. Anyone partaking can have influence on the process. Date and time of brewing is flexible but must be on the weekend. We are tentatively looking to fire up by the end of November. The only "outlays" are to do some of the work and pay for a proportionate amount of the raw materials. Yeast - bring your own starter. Any NorthShore/Wort Processor/BFD members seeing this bring it up at your meetings. Good Luck and Great Brewing Joe Rolfe Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:10:27 -0500 From: kenp at vtsv88.bookstore.vt.edu (Ken Pegram) Subject: Pump Questions %UNIPLEX %TO post@hbd.org %FROM kenp %SYSTEM polytec %SUBJECT Pump Questions %VERIFY y %REGISTERED y %DATE 02/11/98 11:10 %REFERENCE 20379 Calling Brew-Techies! I'm hoping to get some advice on adding a pump to my brewing set-up and need the wisdom of those more technically enabled than myself. My basic question is, can I use reducing coupling to change the inlet on my pump from 1/2" down to 3/8" or 5/16" in order to accomodate the fittings on my mashtun, boil vessel, and sparge vessel. Will I burn up the pump by doing this? The almost non-existent instructions that came with the pump advise against it but it sure would make my life easier to change the pump rather than all of my vessels. My current set-up uses an EZ masher in a converted keg so if anyone has experience pumping using such a set-up and wants to share some advice, I'd greatly appreciate it. Finally, where can i get some design ideas for a manifold to recirculate the wort? Thanks in advance for any help. Ken Pegram kenp at bookstore.vt.edu Blackburg Va. %UEND Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:54:02 -0500 From: "Spies, James" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: Campfire porter revisited . . . All - First, thanks to all who responded regarding the campfire porter. The deluge of replies was truly amazing . . . The general consensus was "blend it!" Good enough. I plan to make a pale, higher gravity, lightly hopped 4 gallon batch to add to the 10W-40 that I now have sitting in the fermenter. I'll rack half of the existing batch (including as much of the yeast as I can suck up) into a second corny, and split the new batch between them. AlK advised to wait until after fermentation and see how much aroma was scrubbed out. First tasting was this wekend, and I was astounded at how much had actually dissipated. It still was not as sweet as I had wanted, so I'm hoping that the second mash (if done in the *high* 150's) would help with that. If not, I may use some lactose (I know I'll have to watch sanitation if I do). Thoughts ?? Others advised just to age it for a few months. While this may work, I ain't that patient . . . Lastly, Curt Tuhy chimed in thusly >>>The porter that Mr Spies made sounds like it would be possibly very tasty, the one thing that i have learned is that all home brew is drinkable and a brew that is not up to expectation is knowledge towards brewing. So drink it you might like it.<<< - Never tossed a brew, never will . . . ;-) Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:02:54 -0500 (EST) From: beerisgoodfood at iname.com Subject: Homebrewers as a constituency? >From hbd at brew.oeonline.com Mon Nov 2 07:31:15 1998 Received: from web01.iname.net (web01.iname.net []) by brew.oeonline.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id HAA06625; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:31:13 -0500From: beerisgoodfood at iname.com Received: (from root at localhost) by web01.iname.net (8.8.8/8.8.0) idHAA26315; Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:31:04 -0500 (EST)MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <9811020731046P.17355 at web01.iname.net>;; Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 07:31:04 -0500 (EST)Content-Type: Text/Plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bitTo: homebrew at hbd.org Subject: Homebrewers as a constituency? Here's a new twist on identifying a demographic niche for political campaign purposes. Our homebrew club received the following letter from the Ed Garvey for Governor campaign. Dear Homebrewer, Ed Garvey and Barbara Lawton have chosen not to accept corporate campaign donations to support their run for Governor and Lt. Governor of Wisconsin. In fact, because they are so committed to campaign finance reform, they will accept only $100 per person for each of their campaigns. That puts them way behind Tommy Thompson in financing, but it means that when they get elected they won't have to repay and debts to large corporations like Exxon, RJ Reynolds, and others who would like to put Wisconsin to work for _their interests._ If Tommy Thompson gets re-elected, _again_, Miller Brewing will probably be happy to supply malt beverages for his inaugural party. But if Ed Garveyand Barbara Lawton get elected, they would like to continue their populist theme and invite _you_ to brew the beer (and ale and lager and pilsner and stout and porter, and so forth) for _their_ inaugural celebration. Every homebrewer in the great state of Wisconsin is invited to donate a case or two (or whatever amount you would like to contribute) to theGarvey-Lawton inauguration party on January 4, 1999. You can use your own labels, or you can use some of ours (sample shown at right). In either case you can name the beer and add your own name as well. If you want to use our labels, I can send you a master copy or a floppydisk. For more information, contact: Casey Garhart 1005 Sherman Avenue Madison, WI 53703 608-238-8134 ext 219 (day) 608-257-0658 (evening) garhart at orielinc.com We look forward to your support in November and hope that you will contribute to Ed and Barbara's inaugural celebration. Sincerely, Casey Garhart - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Get your free email from AltaVista at http://altavista.iname.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 13:09 -0800 From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> Subject: False bottoms and manifolds / priorities of lautering Hi all, John has done some very cool experiments to illustrate flow characteristics through a grain bed. It seems that the basic conclusion is something that the big brewers have also learned: the more evenly distributed the open area under the grain bed, the more efficient the sparge because of more even fluid flow through the grains. John wonders about the flow characteristics of water (or wort) through a grain bed that is over a false bottom with only one outlet pipe. My original Sankey lauter tun had the outlet on the side. This did not work well (and I didn't need a transparent tun to know this). The grain bed would end up sloped in the direction of the outlet (especially if the initial runoff was allowed to flow too quickly). I then added a copper pipe to extend the outlet to the middle of the tun and that problem was solved (as far as I could see). In a Sankey-tun there is a large amount of space between the false and real bottom (~2 gallons worth). This allows for a lot of mixing beneath the false bottom, so as long as the outlet flow is slow enough I would not expect to see tremendous channeling towards the outlet (although the bed could form channels for other reasons). Large lauter tuns should always have multiple outlets under the false bottom. The rule of thumb is one outlet for every square meter. The outlets are conical to help minimize the suction force felt by the grain bed above each outlet: - - - - - - - - - - - - false bottom ------- --------- actual bottom \ / \ / outlet | | The space between the false and actual bottom is usually 10-20 mm. The space cannot be smaller than that because of the size of the CIP fittings beneath the screen. Larger space requires excessive foundation water, which increases the time needed to vorlauf (time is a luxury that you don't have when brewing 10-12 batches per day). Older tuns have valves on each outlet so that the quality of the runoff can be monitored. If one outlet is yielding less dense wort than the others the brewer knows that there is channeling above that outlet and can take action to correct it (run the rakes, slow the flow from that outlet, etc.). Channeling can cost a large brewery hundreds of thousands of dollars per year, so it is something that they are sensitive to. Quite a few lauter tun alternatives have been tried throughout the years, including a system of manifolds not too unlike our home versions. Most of these new ideas failed to match lauter tuns in terms of either efficiency or wort clarity (or both). The Meura 2001 mash filter is the best lauter tun alternative at present (and quite out of the reach of most home and craft brewers). While this is all quite interesting, what does it mean to the small brewer? Efficiency is certainly important, but it is even more important that your system yield clear wort. Why is this? The following is largely plagiarized from an article by H. Nielson in the MBAA Technical Quarterly, Vol. 10, #1: 1. Cloudy wort has higher lipid content. Lipids have been implicated in the development of stale flavors and hurt head retention. 2. Cloudy wort will have more anthocyanogens from the malt. This can lead to haze and flavor stability problems (like grainy flavors). The author points to data showing that first runnings or wort taken from above the grain bed contains less anthocyanogens than wort that has traveled through the grain bed. The time of contact between the wort and the grainbed also effect the anthocyanogen content (which could be a good reason NOT to mash overnight). 3. Cloudy wort can carry particles that contain unconverted starch which will be liberated during the boil. Starch will cause permanent haze in beer, and can effect the flavor stability, too. 4. Cloudy lauter runoff will effect the ability of hot break to settle rapidly after the boil. This paper has some very interesting data that shows cloudy pre-boil wort will yield a post-boil wort that does not settle its hot break in a reasonable amount of time. Too much hot break in the fermenter can cause fermentation problems and yield problematic beer. While I did get off the point of John's post, I thought that it is important for people to know that CLEAR wort is very important. No matter what kind of lauter tun you decide to use, remember that clarity is the key. On a practical note: I use a Sankey-tun with a stainless false bottom and do not really like it. There is about 2 gallons of room beneath the false bottom, which means that I have to run off at least two gallons of wort before I can hope to see clear runoff. In reality I end up having to vorlauf (recirculate) an much greater volume of wort to achieve acceptable clarity. It ends up costing me quite a bit of time! Maybe I'll change my tun some day soon, or put something under the false bottom to take up some of that space... Have fun! George Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:46:59 -0800 From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com> Subject: Protein Rest Data Point? > Greetings all...having followed recent threads on protein rests with > interest, I thought I would post a recent experience that may be relevant. > I brew most of my beers with Weyermann pilsner malt as a base, and always > include a 15 - 20 minute rest at 135 F. My beers have good head retention > and foam stability, an early indication of which seems to be the foam > generated during aeration of the cooled wort prior to pitching; I always > have to keep swirling the carboy to knock the foam down during aeration > with an aquarium stone.This weekend I decided to switch gears and brew a > bitter with Hugh Baird pale malt (some crystal as well), and per the > prevailing wisdom I omitted the protein rest and went straight to 154 F > for conversion. Everything proceeded smoothly, but when I was aerating > the wort prior to pitching I noticed that there was not much foam and what > was there seemed pretty weak. Sure enough, a couple of days into > fermentation with White Labs English ale (used a starter, got short lag > time, etc.), the krausen on the wort is very weak despite strong bubble > trap and convection activity. I know there are more variables involved > than just the mash schedule, but the rest of my brewing process was the > same as usual and I can't help but wonder about the lack of a protein > rest. Thoughts or comments? Brew on, Mark Tomusiak, Boulder, Colorado > > Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 10:49:31 -0800 From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com> Subject: FW: Re: Belgian Ale Styles > Greetings...I thought I would address at least part of Rob's questions > about Belgian beers. First of all, prepare to be slightly frustrated in > attempting to tightly define many of the Belgian beer styles. Apart from > certain styles like wit, many of the Belgian styles are very broad and you > will encounter a wide range of very different beers loosely grouped under > the same style. For example, Belgian strong ales and "specials" can range > from extremely pale, dry hoppy brews to dark, sweet, malty brews; probably > the only the thing you can say they have in common is that they have a > relatively high alcoholic strength and interesting aroma and flavor > contributions from the yeast (I like to think that most of these beers > employ candi sugar in some amount to keep the body relatively light, but > this is probably not be the case for all beers in this category). > > Belgian "ales" or "pale ales" are Belgium's equivalent of a British bitter > or a German altbier; they are medium-gravity, every-day drinking beers > that have a very fine balance of malt, hop and yeast flavors. These are > amongst my favorites (DeKoninck, Special Palm, Ginder Ale, etc.), but > unfortunately I have not been able to find very much info on how to > formulate recipes for these styles. Michael Jackson's "The Great Beers of > Belgium" has some interesting tidbits of information, and is recommended > reading. In my attempt to brew these beers, I generally employ a mixture > of pilsner and vienna or munich malts, add some amount of biscuit and > perhaps a small amount of caravienne, and hop moderately with noble > varieties. Yeast choice, however, is anybody's guess; I have been > experimenting with Brewtek's Saison yeast with some success, but keep in > mind that in this style the yeast contribution should be somewhat subdued. > Spices can be employed; again, the style definition is loose, use your > imagination! > > Hope this was somewhat useful and not impossibly vague - Brew On, > > Mark Tomusiak > Boulder, Colorado > Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:55:37 -0500 (EST) From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Home Brew Recipe Calculating Program - New Release This is just a quick post to let interested parties know that I have released an upgrade to my shareware brewing package. The Home Brew Recipe Calculating Program Version 2.1 is now available for download at: http://www.netaxs.com/people/vectorsys/varady/index.html Version 2.1 has many improvements over the earlier versions and some new features including: AHA-style Contest Entry Forms and labels. New Units - Barrels and Hectoliters. The Recipe entry form is still on a single screen allowing you to view the entire ingredient list and log at a glance. Thanks for stopping by and checking out the software, and especially thanks to those who have already registered in the past. John *********************************************** * Vector Systems Corp. ** Fax: (215) 639-7018 * * 560 State Road ** Tel: (215) 639-6540 * * Bensalem, PA 19020 ** vectorsy at netaxs.com * *********************************************** Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:13:32 -0800 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: more: Foam from Kegs Date: Sat, 31 Oct 1998 11:12:34 -0900 Subject: Re: Too much foam from corny keg Clifton Moore has been asking about lotsa foam from his keg. I also get this problem, but i probably have a different setup/problem. I use Phil Phaucet Adaptor (no association, just happy happy customer) to connect straight from the keg 'out' fitting to the chrome bar tap. the effect is a bar tap sticking straight out of my keg. (also, 2 kegs fit nicely in a rectangular milk crate with the co2 cylinder snugging it all up, so its easy to transport my 2 tap bar in a box to parties..) I dispense at 5-10 psi, with the open all the way method. Since i have no beer Frig, i cannot chill the beer to carbonate, so i put about 20 psi on the kegs for 4 days or so, at around 65-70 degrees (room temp) Questions: 1. how can i reduce foaming from my Phil tap? 2. Once i start serving the beer, and its been sitting for a while, should i bring it back up to carbonation pressure (20 psi) every couple of days? it seems to go flat after a while. 3. Anyone else used this tap configuration? ever had problems with infections, washers, etc.? Thanks in Advance... *************************************************** Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven "It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 11:22:10 -0800 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: Batch Sparge Spreadsheet Hello Collective Members.... I am searching for the spreadsheet that was posted in 2467 (full address is http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/2467.html#2467-21 ) which helps design a batch sparge session.. I am interested batch as opposed to fly sparge because it is a closer approximation of medieval techniques, and is less complicated to get rolling with all grain (1 normal/1 medieval batchs so far). I would appreciate help in finding this, or a similar spread sheet to aid in my brewing. It was origanally posted by KennyEddy at aol.com but his site is no longer there.. Thanks in Advance!! *************************************************** Brander Roullett aka Badger Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven "It had to be a linguistics professor who said that it's man's ability to use language that makes him the dominant species on the planet. That may be. But I think there's one other thing that separates us from animals. We aren't afraid of vacuum cleaners." --Jeff Stilson Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 13:00:52 -0800 From: chrisfs at pacbell.net (Chris) Subject: Belgian Ales styles As far as I know, candy sugar is rock candy sugar. I have seen it in a brew shop before. But then there is that issue of the candy sugar. What is with this? Can I use table sugar? And then the use of un-malted barley; how important is this? Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:13:47 -0800 (PST) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: Lauter Tun Fluid Mechanics Lauter Dynamics 101. Good stuff. One experiment is worth a thousand theories. Jim Bentson writes: > From a fluid mechanics standpoint, his second model is close to what > is known as a "Two Dimensional Sink" flow that is based on inviscid > potential flow. I think a more accurate model of the flow is Stokes' flow, or what is sometimes called creeping flow. This is the flow for an extremely low Reynolds number. In some ways it does resemble an inviscid flow, but your modeling is different. Dropping a ball bearing into a jar of molasses is an example of Stokes flow (think of dropping a bunch of husk particles through wort, not vice versa). Also, in any model of this process the driving force is gravity, and only gravity. Unless you typically mix your grain bed, there isn't an energy potential except for gravity, hence there is only one possible direction for the potential gradient - down. -SM- Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:12:37 -0500 From: "Bayer, Mark A (Boeing)" <BayerMA at navair.navy.mil> Subject: problem micros collective homebrew conscience: this weekend a friend of mine brought over two bottles of microbrew for me to taste. one was hopjack (widmer), and the other was otter creek pale ale. i asked my friend if either was bottle-conditioned, and he said no. after he left, i pulled out the hopjack, and noticed what looked like sediment in the bottom of the bottle. i got out my flashlight, and sure enough, a significant amount (1 tsp or so) of what looked like trub was present in the bottle. i pulled out the otter creek, and it had the same problem. i know what yeast looks like (as we all do), and it was definitely not yeast. it looked exactly like trub. neither beer had obvious infection symptoms, but then again, with the amount of hop aroma and flavor in these beers, who knows? i've had this problem with my own beers only when i rush and bottle them early with no clarification agents added. any speculation on what might be causing these problems with the microbrews? brew hard, mark bayer Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 12:29:02 -0800 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: Mediveal Mashing Question Greeting Collective Mashheads... I have another wacky question for you.. It is regarding the medieval method i posted a while ago.. Medieval Method (1615) - Mash the grain with ALL the water, drain off the wort, pour more water in, mash for a full hour more, and then drain for a small beer. Here is my question for the scientifically minding grain afficianodo's out there... Is there any point to letting the second mash in #2 sit for teh full hour? isn't the grain already converted? and your really just rinsing it agian to extract any remaining sugars? or is there more mashing going on? Couldn I just pour in the water, stir it up, and draining (like a batch sparge) and get the same amount of extraction? also, when you mash the volume of grain with all the water, do you lose extraction points? In my 1503 English Beer, http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/1503.html for full paper, I used 11.5 lbs of grain, and added about 6 gallons of mash water to it, and rested for 60 min. thats about 1/2 gallon of water to a pound of grain. Badger ********************************************* Brander Roullett aka Badger (2300 miles West of Jeff, Seattle, WA) Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 18:51:00 -0400 From: bwible at wanda.vf.pond.com (Bill Wible) Subject: Kit beers Question for the collective... I got a Brewmaster Stout kit cheap (given to me actually), and would like to use it in a Classic Dry Stout recipe. In recipe formulation, I guess you score kits like this as LME, at 1.038 for measuring gravity. However, these kits are pre-hopped, and little information is available on the label or otherwise to tell you how much hops have been added. To make things worse, any information I can find on these on these kits doesn;t give a standard IBU or HBU measurement. How does one figure out hop usage when using one of these kits? Assuming you can obtain a bittering measurement in a useable format, do you count that just as bittering and still add your own flavor/aroma hops? Do you reduce hop usage all around? Has anyone used a Brewmaster Stout kit? Any advice? I would appreciate reply to the letter and to my own e-mail as well, in case I miss it. Thanks. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:33:15 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: yeast update I have made 3 beers with the Widmer Hefeweizen yeast now, all from a single colony. All three have the same set of problems: somewhat low attenuation, very poor floculation, and a citrus taste that is not from the hops, since one beer used only saaz and hallertauer, and the other two used british ale hops and all three have the same taste. This may well be a result of a bad pick, but thought you all might like the data point. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998 18:42:23 -0800 From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU> Subject: Mafe In an attempt to usurp Scott's title as HBD chef, I am posting a good beer-using recipe. This is a great thing to make if you have some megabrew your brother-in-law left around. It is called mafe or groundnut stew. This is one of the most popular dishes of west Africa. Groundnuts are peanuts, which are a staple there. 1 large onion, diced oil 1.5 lbs chicken 6 c low IBU beer .5 c peanut butter, chunky is good .5 c tomato paste 2 carrots, cut in 1/4" disks 1 large turnip, diced fresh red chilis to taste, or cayenne 1 c okra, cut in 1/2" disks Saute the onion in oil then add chicken and beer. Cook until chicken is done through. If chicken with bones was used, remove pieces, strip meat from bones, cut up and return to pot. Remove a cup of liquid and disolve peanut butter in it. Add remaining ingredients and simmer 30'. Serve over rice. I think it's best with a lot of chili. - -- Jeremy Bergsman jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 21:39:39 -0500 From: "Dave Whitman" <dwhitman at fast.net> Subject: apology accepted/phosphate and bacteria After I took umbrage, Jim Liddil was polite enough to offer a public apology, which I accept. No hard feelings here. Jim brought up an interesting question which several others picked up on - whether phosphate buffer would be more susceptible to bacteria contamination than straight water. While phosphate is a vital nutrient for many organisms, it's not obvious to me why it would make water more hospitable to bacteria. It's not food - you can't extract energy from oxidizing phosphate. In fact, my expectation is that the buffer would be more robust with respect to fending off bacteria, due to the lower pH (about 4). That said, I can't specifically exclude the possibility of problems, and am interested in testing the hypothesis. Off-line, Louis Bonham suggested storing a large number of samples under water and buffer, then growing out samples on LDMA media to check for bacterial contamination. I can buy LDMA plates at $0.80 each, and would be willing to buy 20 plates to test the hypothesis. However, even I worry about whether 10 plates for each of 2 treatments would be big enough to pick up an effect here, since the result would depend on random (and presumably rare) contamination of the vials. I've handled about 80 vials reculturing my library over the last 4 years, and in that time, only one vial has shown gross contamination upon growing it out on wort agar. I'm worried that the contamination rate of the samples might be low enough to make it difficult to pick up effects before my discretionary funds get used up. Anyone have any other (cheap!) suggestions on how to test this hypothesis? Louis also suggested evaluating stored yeast on RDMA agar as a more stringent probe of how well it is standing up, checking for respiratory deficient colonies. This makes good sense to me, and I'll definitely try that. These plates are $0.80 too; I'm thinking 18 of those, 3 plates for buffer and 3 for pure water, testing 3 different yeast strains. (This gives me replicates in a given strain/treatment, while blocking against yeast strain idiosyncracy. I can pick up treatment effects with ANOVA across all strains. Does that make sense?) Any other constructive suggestions on further experimentation? - -- Dave Whitman dwhitman at fast.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998 15:34:17 +1030 (CDT) From: Ian Lyons <ilyons at science.adelaide.edu.au> Subject: crushing malted grain without using oxen Well I don't want to buy a grain mill, and the idea of rolling pinning 5 kg of grain isn't a good one. Any ideas or tested solutions as to methods for reducing malted grain to mashable sized pieces, without spending $100 on a grain mill? If not I will invoke plan B which involves running over it in my car repeatedly. There's the option of having oxen drag a wheel around in a circle; I saw that on a geography documentary. Unfortunately oxen are not common in my neighbourhood. Ian Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 11/03/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96