HOMEBREW Digest #3186 Sat 04 December 1999

[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

  more RHEMS and RIMS (The Holders)
  I hate it when that happens (The Holders)
  Re: More RIMS ideas (RobertJ)
  High Gravity Brewing ("Dan Senne")
  Zymurgy (Dan Listermann)
  re: Mills (Alan McKay)
  Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham? (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Sister Star (Joel Plutchak)
  FWH (Nathan Kanous)
  Re: RIMS Tips and Tricks... (Some Guy)
  carcinogens ("Alan Meeker")
  Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham ("Peter J. Calinski")
  Marga mulino mill (Chad Petersen)
  interesting new electrical RIMS heater (Jeff)
  Flaked Oats (phil sides jr)
  RIMSical musings (MaltHound)
  maltings water absorption, WOLF!, Nottingham, RIMS (Dave Burley)
  Mashing undermodified malts ("Jim Busch")
  Re: The Midwest Brewer's Question (Paul Gatza)
  Dried Sweet Corn and Sister Star IPA ("Steve Potter")
  steam (John_E_Schnupp)
  Sister Star ("Spies, Jay")
  re: Sister Star ("David Kerr")
  Dry Ice ("Jeffry D Luck")
  decoction detail/fungi ("Bayer, Mark A")
  starters/budvar malt (jliddil)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org 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 FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 16:59:24 -0800 From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com> Subject: more RHEMS and RIMS Jeremy asks: <It seems that with RIMS and HERMS the real design issue is how can you pump <the volume of your mash tun in 5 minutes? (Note: most of this is a non <issue for 5 gallon systems. I'm talking now about 10+ gallon systems.) <Dion Hollenbeck reported running his RIMS as 3 gpm, but I don't think this <is easily obtainable. Any data or advice that people can offer would be <interesting to me. Well, the answer for me was to incorporate a Lauter Grant into IGOR, my Recirculating AHEM System. Lately I've been using a temp of about 185-190 in the HLT, and running full throttle the ~1.5 gallons of wort collected in the grant. I pump down the grant before refilling it again BTW. I've never timed the flow rate into the grant, but I'd guess its about 20 seconds, depending on the mash. I think I'm close to the 3 GPM mark without (finally!!) the problem of grainbed compaction. Wayne Holder AKA Zymie Long Beach CA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 17:09:35 -0800 From: The Holders <zymie at sprynet.com> Subject: I hate it when that happens Hmmm... somehow the link for the "Perfesser" was left off of my post. It should read: Louis Bonham talks about a RHEMS using a counterflow heat exchanger. You might be interested in taking a look at the "perfesser" built by Bill Freeman, AKA ELder Rat. You can see the "Perfesser" at http://www.brewrats.org/hwb/er Wayne Holder AKA Zymie Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 07:59:08 -0500 From: RobertJ <pbsys at pbsbeer.com> Subject: Re: More RIMS ideas "Houseman, David L" wrote . . . Louis idea of using a CFC as the heat exchanger is a good one. .......... I've done what Louis recommends but used my hot liquor tank as the resevoir and pumped hot water through the CFC and reached within 5 degrees of the HLT temp in the wort coming out back to the mash tun. Water works fine and most of us already have a HLT and capabilty to heat water. Five gallons of water in a HLT has a big thermal mass. Many already have a CFC. The only thing new that is needed is a second pump so one can pump the water and the wort at the same time. A good idea made simpler.... _________ You can make it simpler still by just submerging the CFC in the HLT. This will eliminate the need for a second pump and will reduce heat loss Bob http:/pbsbeer.com Bob Precision Brewing Systems URL http://pbsbeer.com Manufacturer of 3 Vessel Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 06:58:18 -0600 From: "Dan Senne" <dsenne at intertek.net> Subject: High Gravity Brewing Recently I came across a website that detailed a "High Gravity" brewing process in an article called "A Primer to All Grain Brewing" by Hubert Hanghofer. Basically it entailed producing a more highly concentrated wort using both less water in the mash and sparge, then after boil, diluting with water to obtain the desired S.G. With the equipment that I have (or lack thereof), this is an attractive idea, as it would allow me to boil in a single pot rather than splitting the boil and would also reduce chilling time. This is similar to the way I use to brew using malt extract. Has anyone here ever done "high gravity" brewing? Were you pleased with the results vs. full volume brewing? I'll be brewing this weekend and am tempted to give it a try. Thanks for any input. Dan Senne Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:19:48 -0500 From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com> Subject: Zymurgy Ref:RAY DANIELS ASSUMES HELM OF THE NEW BREWER AND ZYMURGY Y E S !!!!!!!!!! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:43:34 -0500 (EST) From: Alan McKay <amckay at magma.ca> Subject: re: Mills I've got experience with Phi Mill (1, not 2nd one), JSP Malt Mill, and the Valley Mill. Used them all quite a bit, and eventually bought a Valley Mill. My main criteria in that decision was that it is made right here in the Ottawa Valley where I live. Also was the adjustability and larger hopper. I've had no regrets. THe JSP has an absolutely unbeatable record of customer satisfaction, and warranty coverage. If you ever have the slightest problem, I guarantee you Jack will set things right, and usually at no cost to you. See my review at : http://www.bodensatz.com/homebrew/faq/equipment.html#best_mill cheers, -Alan - -- "Brewers make wort. Yeast Makes Beer." - Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide http://www.bodensatz.com/ What's a Bodensatz? http://www.bodensatz.com/bodensatz.html Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:37:32 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham? "Paul Shick, John Carroll University" <SHICK at JCVAXA.jcu.edu> wrote: >I decided to rehydrate the yeast in the carboys, so I >sprinkled about 6g into the 5 gallon carboy, about 9g into the 6.3 gallon. >To rehydrate the yeast, I took about 12 ounces of tap water at 95-100F >and added it directly to the carboys, swishing it around to moisten all >the yeast. This sat for about 15 minutes to rehydrate, while I cooled >the wort with an immersion chiller. I think this is your problem. Unless you heated the carboy to 100F (I'm sure you didn't), that hydration water was immediately virtually the same temperature as the glass, or ambient temp. After all, ten pounds (or whatever a carboy weighs) of glass has a hell of a heat capacity compared to 12 ounces of water. So you rehydrated your yeast at ambient temperature, which is pretty hard on it. Its innards (technical term) leak out through the leaky membranes (which close up quickly at 100F). This is why I rehydrate yeast in a plastic container, which doesn't suck heat (sorry for throwing around another technical term) like glass. Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:48:15 -0600 (CST) From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at ncsa.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: Sister Star >[Looking at] Dave Brockington['s] Sister Star IPA recipe. >I look at the use of 3 oz of Chinook Hops and my IBU calculator >goes haywire. Has anybody actually brewed a 5 gallon batch with >that huge quantity of bittering hops? Was it drinkable? I see >recent postings for Hop Devil and Hop Pocket that use a much >smaller quantity of bittering hops and I'm curious. If you've >brewed Sister Star with that quantity of hops, I'd like to hear >about it (good or bad). Nathan- First, get a calculator that "goes to 11." Secondly, trust David, he knows of what he speaks. Thirdly, I have brewed variations of Sister Star, all with 3 ounces high-alpha hops, usually all Chinook, and the only time I got unbalanced hop juice was with my first all-grain batch, where inexperience yielded a very low extraction and subsequently not malty enough beer. One other time I entered a 3-ounces-of-Chinook clone in competition, and judges dinged it for not being bitter enough. They suggested I enter it as an English Pale (which I did the next month, and took 1st place in category). I've got another one on tap now, and it's very nice if I do say so myself. Go for it. - -- Joel Plutchak Living in east-central Illinois, but I left my heart (and five years of tuition) in Madison WI. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 08:48:03 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: FWH Anybody ever FWH'd with a TON of hops? I believe AlK mentioned FWH'ing a pilsner with 3 ounces of saaz, but has anybody else done something like this? Results? Thanks. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 08:12:49 -0500 (EST) From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org> Subject: Re: RIMS Tips and Tricks... Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... On Fri, 3 Dec 1999 Bob wrote of using a heat exchanger for heating the wort: > You can make it simpler still by just submerging the CFC in the HLT. This > will eliminate the need for a second pump and will reduce heat loss Hmmm. Now maybe I misunderstood what it is you're trying to say, but MY CFC (counter-flow chiller) exterior is PVC (polyvinyl chloride) - as I'd imagine most "home-brewed" CFCs are. Submerging it in the HLT (hot liquor tank) would neither appreciably change the heat loss across the PVC boundary. Besides that, simply submerging ANY CFC will not induce any hot liquor to flow through the outer coil. Plus, the efficiency of a CFC is in the FLOW of the fluids of disparate temperature in countering directions - one carries away the heat of the other (in this case, heating the wort). Having it static in the HLT would be a waste. Just use an immersion chiller, then. By the way, folksies, let not forget that there are new subscribers to the HBD every day. Many of these new subscribers are new to the terms we bandy about here. Please don't further confuse them by throwing acronyms around without the courtesy of spelling them out at first use in your post. Sorry: pet peeve of mine. (I've a veritible managerie of peeves, it would seem :-) - See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at hbd.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:24:18 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: carcinogens .Luke Van Santen commented on carcinogenicity testing: >One last thing - Dave Burley's rant about carcinogens and how they become >classified as such was pretty good. It seems that a lot of these tests (to >determine carcinogenic tendencies, etc) have very specific conditions that >might or might not be regularly encountered in the life of the average >person. It's unfortunate that the general public has such a poor understanding of carcinogenicity testing (and science in general for that matter!) I suppose I could rephrase this and say that it is unfortunate that scientists, educators, and organizations like the FDA have done such a poor job of explaining such things to the public. Doubly so since in our country public sentiment can actually have a significant impact on the way things are done. Since our society is increasingly dependent on technology, which itself is advancing at near exponential rates, it becomes even more important that we have a well-informed public able to meaningfully participate in the debates over issues such as the safety of genetically-modified foods, use of embryonic tissues in biomedical research, patenting of human genes, etc. Sorry, I'll step off the soapbox. Anyway, as far as testing substances for carcinogenicity goes I would just say that before criticizing the methods you should thoroughly research how these things are done, not just rely on sound bites, anecdotes and rumor. It is a complex process and the trend is to oversimplify portions of it so that, to a lay audience, it sounds ridiculous. Here's just one example: let's say a high dose of a test substance is administered to a group of lab mice and the mice then develop cancer. You've probably heard comments along the lines of, "They gave the rats so much of that stuff that a human would have to eat 10 pounds of it every day for a month to get the same result!" Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it? But it totally glosses over the strategy of such a test. Let's say this substance actually does cause cancer but that typical doses experienced by humans will be very small. Maybe the substance is a proposed food additive and would result in only one case of cancer per 100,000 people per year. This is a small but not insignificant risk. Our population of approx 250 million would experience 2500 cases a year if everyone were exposed to this substance. Certainly we'd like to know about such a risk. But how to test for this? Assuming the same risk in mice of one case per 10,000 at the low human dose you'd have to screen 10,000 mice for one whole year just to have a decent chance of seeing ONE cancer due to the substance in question. To gain statistically significant results many tens of thousands of mice would have to be screened. Such a drug screen is totally unfeasible. The costs in terms of time and money are prohibitive. So what to do? One way around this problem is to increase the dose. If we give say 100 or 1000-fold more drug the chances of seeing a cancer may increase to something like one in a hundred which is much more manageable. This strategy allows us to do animal studies that otherwise could never be done. When the rationale for high dosing in animal studies is explained (the need to increase your odds of seeing a rare event) it actually makes sense. This is just one example of the many misunderstandings people harbor with respect to chemical testing. -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 05:30:12 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Re: Still long lag time with Nottingham Paul, On 11/23/99 I brewed an IPA with Nottingham from Danstar and had a good 3-4 inches of krausen in 8 hours. I believe Danstar is associated with Lallemand. The package expiration date was 11/01. The yeast was refrigerated at the homebrew shop and at home. I used one 5g package in about one cup of boiled water that was cooled to 108F (package says 104F-109F). I just poured the yeast onto the water and let it sit for 15-20 minutes. I aerated by letting the wort (72F) drop 3 feet from the boil pot into the plastic fermenter. I then stirred up the yeast water and mixed it into the fermenter. IG was 1.074. I fermented at 68F and as I said, in 8 hours, I had good krausen. In 5 days the SG was 1.015. Differences I see between our methods: 1) I fermented at 68F vs. your 60F. 2) I underpitched even worse than you (my 1g/Gal vs. your 1.5g/Gal.) 3) I didn't swish until after the 15 minutes. I would bet on #1 as the difference. Pete Calinski East Amherst NY Near Buffalo NY Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 07:36:32 -0800 From: Chad Petersen <Chad.Petersen at wwu.edu> Subject: Marga mulino mill I found a place that sells the marga mulino mill http://www.ezycatalog.com/grinders.htm Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:55:17 -0500 (EST) From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff) Subject: interesting new electrical RIMS heater Hi All, With all the discussions recently on RIMS heat sources (electrical, steam, etc), I was wondering if anyone uses or has looked at external in-line heaters. For a picture and description of what I am thinking of, take a look at the following web page: http://www.watlow.com/thickfilm/ specificly the "In-line Quartz" and "Flat Quartz" links. This company (Watlow) makes resistive electrical heaters that are bonded to the *outside* of quartz (or 300 and 400 series SS) tubes. Power densities can be up to 50 watts per square inch, with total power up to 12 kilowatts. This type of electrical heater would seem to overcome several of the typical RIMS heater problems (scorching, cleaning, plumbing complexity, etc.), but they may be quite expensive. Anybody ever use something like one of these? Hoppy brewing, Jeff ========================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250 Naval Undersea Warfare Center email: Systems Development Branch mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW: Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:56:48 -0500 From: phil sides jr <psides at carl.net> Subject: Flaked Oats Anyone know how much gravity per pound and color one can expect from rolled oats? I have a reference that sites Flaked Oats at 1.033 and 2.2 respectively. Phil Sides, Jr. Concord, NH - -- Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:03:14 EST From: MaltHound at aol.com Subject: RIMSical musings Wow. Lot's of discussion about how to design the ultimate RIMS. Technically, all of the designs qualify as RIMS regardless of how the heat is applied since they all recirculate and are infusion mashing systems. That said, we commonly associate the RIMS acronym to the original Rodney Morris electric heater type. So maybe we should redefine the system types as ERIMS (electric), HERIMS (Heat Exchanger), SIRIMS (Steam Injection) and the latest incarnation EASIRIMS (Electric And Steam Infusion)? I think from a very basic perspective, the limitations of the ERIMS system are not necessarily being addressed by any of these alternate wort-heating schemes. The goal is to design a system capable of a few things: Holding the mash at a precise temperature for a fixed period. That's a task that the original Morris design ERIMS accomplishes quite nicely, and seems conspicuously absent from the other "manually" controlled designs. The benefits associated with precise control are batch reproducibility and repeatability, and ability to forecast the outcome, not necessarily quality. In my opinion, forgoing an automated control feature in RIMS design defeats one of the major advantages. Raising the mash temperature in a minimum time to accomplish step-mashes. This seems to be the bigger problem and where most of the design effort is focused. There is a feeling that long temperature ramp times will negatively effect beer quality. Although this appears to be a reasonable theory, I'm not sure these claims have been substantiated. It may only be true if attempting certain beer styles or when trying to achieve a particular character in the beer. For some brewers, this entire goal may be moot, but for discussion purposes, let's assume it is a worthy goal. The ramp time limitations in heating recirculating wort are primarily delta T of the heating apparatus and flow rate. Because we want to limit damage to the enzymes in the heating process, there is a hard limit of how high we should heat the wort as it passes through the heater. It should be easy enough to design a heater (heat exchanger, electric heater chamber, steam injection chamber, etc.) that will heat the wort to this maximum, then the key factor would be at what flow rate? In HBD 3185 "Rod Prather" rodpra at netzero.net says "If you pump more wort through the grain bed you end up with bitter beer." I'm not sure that this is true. What might be true is that if you pump more wort *of too high a temperature* through your grain bed then astringency (bitterness?) may result. Rod's idea to bypass the grainbed and draw some of the recirculating wort from over the grain bed may have value in raising the wort temperature as fast as possible by allowing faster flow rates without grain bed compaction, however, I wonder what would happen to temperature control and ramp times within the grainbed itself? Wouldn't the temperature of the wort (and enzymes) within the grainbed be of paramount importance? Afterall, that is where the majority of the starches are that we are trying to convert in the first place. Let's assume that we want all of the flow to pass through the grainbed during recirculation to ensure temperature homogeneity during the temperature ramps. Assuming we can design a system with unlimited heating and pumping capacity, we are still limited by how much flow can be passed through the grainbed per unit of time. I see this as the real limitation to a recirculating heater. The tun aspect ratio and false bottom design will have a direct impact on maximum flow rate that can be achieved without compaction. In essence, the mash tun design is the key to a RIMS ability to step ramp, not the heat source. Happily ERIMSing (with appallingly long ramp times) in Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:13:52 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: maltings water absorption, WOLF!, Nottingham, RIMS Brewsters: Luke Van Santen asks if the cheesecloth bag method of determining water absorption I use for water absorption during malting has an error in it from the water contained in the cheesecloth. It does, but it is insignificant. It can be easily corrected for, however, by weighing the piece of cheesecloth wet and dry and subtracting these weights from the total as part of the calculation. I also suspect that the drying method of determining absorption has an overall higher error than my faster and simpler method, simply because mine always uses the same grain. It is also faster and means many more evaluations will be done, giving a much better control over the process. - -------------------------------------------------------------- Luke's concern that I am, perhaps, fostering dangerous behavior with known substances like radioactivity is not well founded, as most readers know I constantly caution HBDers to keep their hobby safe by practicing safety. I also would never suggest that anyone behave unsafely at work or at home. The point I was trying to make about washing in benzene was not that it was not, perhaps, dangerous, but that it was not a toxin as the original author had suggested. I was also making the point that I believe our evaluation of carcinogenicity is greatly skewed by the legal definition of carcinogenicity, not that we should not behave responsibly. My concern is that, like the little boy who always cried "wolf!", and eventually got eaten by the wolf when no one came to help, our society, after being desensitized by the politicization of "toxic chemicals", will be unprepared to respond to real dangers, versus those unreal dangers imposed by law. I ask readers to be vigilant and constantly ask for original proof but to also not behave foolishly. - ------------------------------------------------------- Paul Shick asks for comments on his yeast technique with Nottingham. I can suggest that you reverse the hydration step and sprinkle the yeast onto the quiet surface of the water in a single layer, allow it to stand until the yeast has all settled to the bottom of the vessel and then swirl it. If I do it as you did by adding the water to the yeast and by swirling the vessel immediately, often I get gloms of yeast that take forever to break up. This may explain your slow startup as you had a much lower population than you expected and the big difference in the kraeusening of the two vessels. Perhaps Nottingham does not disperse as readily as other yeasts and this may explain this scientifically unproven (to my knowledge) "slow" start we have been reading about. Also, the larger vessel may have stayed warmer longer and explain why it started first. I would raise the temperature to around 65 if you can. Also be aware that carboys sitting directly on the floor are often colder than room temperature by several degrees. Measure the fermentation temperature directly. - ---------------------------------------------- Rod Prather says "if you pump more wort through the grainbed you end up with bitter beer" Why? In a normal still mash the wort is always in contact with grain. and I don't see how moving the wort over the grain by pumping it would increase the extraction of tannins from the husk which is where I presume you believe the additional bitterness will come from. I don't understand the origin of your comment. Please explain. - --------------------------------------------------------------- Both Badger Roulette and I use the Marga Mulino mill. I really like its adjustability for malt crushing and versatility, since this three roll mill can be used to make bread flour from unusual grains as well as "flake" ( actually chip) rice and barley grains before the goods mash. Yadda Yadda J.J. Kish asks where to get it. Try contacting Corrado's Winegrapes and Homebrew Beer Supply in Clifton, NJ 973-340-0848. That's where I bought mine several years ago. Say "hi" to Jimmie for me. Corrrado's also has a supermarket called "Family Affair" hmmmm with which the above should not be confused. Yadda Yadda. You could also try checking the web and 800-555-1212 for Marga, as I believe this Italian company used to have a US office. - --------------------------------------------------------------- Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 11:32:04 +0000 From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com> Subject: Mashing undermodified malts Lynne writes (on a very interesting subject!!!): <The Czechs actually use Double Decoction with rests at 38C, 50C, 65C, <and 72C. the key is to the make the first decoction quite large, <use a portion to get to 50C, the other portion to get to 65C. This sounds like some of the mash is never exposed to the 50C rest that is stated as so critical. Maybe the missing statement is to allow the decocted portion to rest at 50C prior to bringing to a boil and adding back to main mash to achieve a 50C rest while reserving enough to then raise to 65C (but I would have to run the volume numbers to believe this, I dont think there would be enough mash left over to achieve a 15C rise in temp from a single large pull at acid rest temp. Much simpler to calculate each rest quantity separate with each subsequent decoction). < Additionally, try boiling the entire <mash for 20 minutes after the 72C rest, then sparge. The German Diploms will tell you this is not advised as you will denature all of your alpha amylase which can lead to starch haze in the finished beer. I would also submit that one of the problems of performing double and triple (which is what Ive read many Czech brewers employ) decoctions is that lautering is more difficult as you boil a greater bulk of the grains, destroying more husks. I wonder if the Czech brewers use different screens than most of us, weizen brewers do. Also decocted beers in general have reduced organeoleptic stability so filtering the beer and/or employing protein haze clarifiers may be useful to some. < But you can of course use more conventional step <or decoction mashing as practiced in other parts of Europe and <detailed nicely in any of those books. I would recommend Warners Wheat beer book (Warner is a Diplom after all) and Kunz's textbook on brewing. The former is cheap with fantastic info while the latter is invaluable for serious brewers who dont mind forking over $150 for a textbook reference. This is not to bash the other books, I have them all too. <The most important rest for undermodified malt is the 50C one. You <could for example, just do a two step, one at 50 the other at 65-70. I believe it was also Dr Fix, among others, who has stressed the importance of the acid rest in the 37-42C range, especially if one of employing soft water which would seem to be a requirement to emulate the great Czech Pils biers. The most important rest in all mashing is the saccharification rest, since all brewers are mashing to create fermentable wort. That said wort composition is indeed important and neglecting the factors of protein composition as related to Kolbach numbers is a sure recipe for disaster or at least asking for less than optimal results. Im not trying to pick on you Lynne, its just those damn absolutes that get strung out in Netland are easy pickings! While I find it a great service that homebrewers now have access to true undermodified malts it is certainly hyperbole at best to claim this is the most important development in the last 10 years, no? But hey, if it helps folks use interesting European malts then we are the better for it. Using high quality malts, be they Marris Otter, Durst, Weyermann or Czech can significantly improve your beer and also give the thinking brewer a whole set of options to employ. Give it a try, Im sure you will like the results in complexity of maltiness/mouthfeel and finish. Fresh ingredients and information are the key to successful brewing. Prost! Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 09:43:38 -0700 From: Paul Gatza <paulg at aob.org> Subject: Re: The Midwest Brewer's Question The Midwest Brewer has posed a couple of questions about AHA responsiveness on this forum. MB asks: "I have an open question for Paul and the rest of the people that work at the AHA. Why in the hell is it that the AHA "directors" only post here to blow your own horns when something "new" is forthcoming, yet when people have a problem with something the AHA has done or is doing, you are nowhere to be found?" I monitor the HBD daily. On many occasions I do not read each post based on the subject line and my work volume. I try to address each post that asks an AHA question or has an AHA beef through private e-mail. I believe that this forum is more appropriate for brewing questions and answers and events. I try not to tie up HBD bandwidth with items that affect only a few brewers or have been addressed here before. There is an AHA members forum on Beertown called TalkBack for members to post association gripes, questions and ideas. I respond to each one. For example, when Jim asked about what was up with the delay in the new George Fix book, I answered him personally. We provided information about the delay to everyone who ordered the book. I also involved the AHA board of advisers to gather ideas on how to better handle pre-publication offers in the future. I also answer some of the more obscure questions such as the rose hips in mead question last week. There is an AHA members forum on Beertown called TalkBack for members to post association gripes, questions and ideas. I respond to each one. MB also hints that my request for Zymurgy input is windowdressing. Here is the way the process works. We do a broad-brush planning meeting of Zymurgy topics for six to twelve months out. Before each meeting, I post to the AHA Board and TalkBack for article suggestions. Our 1999 Special Issue on Lagers was a member suggestion. The AHA Board wants more articles to come from more diverse sources in the membership. I agree that we need to diversify our author base, as there is a lot of talent and expertise in our members and it fits in with my goal of having more of AHA programs be member-generated. To this point I do not believe I have been successful at integrating the diversity of AHA member talent into Zymurgy. I want that to change. For this reason and for the technical expertise and breadth of contacts that Ray brings to the AHA, I see a better Zymurgy in the coming months. The plan (hatched by Ken Schramm) goes further. I am looking to build teams with AHA member representatives to focus on specific aspects of AHA program work. Beyond the AHA board, I envision committees made up of members spread around the country to focus on and discuss and improve each program. I see a Zymurgy committee, a competition committee, a clubs program committee, a membership committee, a research committee, a website committee and a legalization committee staffed by member volunteers. (The conference committee is in its second year.) I see the committee volunteers as having a second role of being the AHA reps in their city/state/region to be liaisons with the local homebrewing communities and a conduit for improving the AHA to be truly representative of homebrewers. I have commitments from Dave Dixon in Texas, Bob Rescinito in Oklahoma and Bob Kauffman in Colorado to serve as committee reps and community liaisons. As always, please e-mail me with suggestions or if you would like to be involved. - -- Paul Gatza Director American Homebrewers Association (303) 447-0816 x 122 736 Pearl Street (303) 447-2825 -- FAX PO Box 1679 paulg at aob.org -- E-MAIL Boulder, CO 80306-1679 info at aob.org -- AOB INFO Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 10:47:29 -0600 From: "Steve Potter" <spotter at meriter.com> Subject: Dried Sweet Corn and Sister Star IPA Hello, With all the talk about dried sweet corn, it occurs to me that last year I ran into some freeze dried sweet corn at the Spice House in Milwaukee. It was individual kernels and was as sweet as candy. I am sure that it is pricy, but perhaps a Milwaukee HBDer would be kind enough to check? Nathan wonders about Brockington's Sister Star IPA recipe. I have brewed this several times. I liked it best with Columbus hops. It was bitter beer, but then again I like it that way. I wonder if utilization goes down as the hop quantities grow to verge on outrageous. Cheers, Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:09:37 -0800 From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com Subject: steam >If its 250F, how does one maintain the pressure needed? >The RIMS chamber and obviously the mush tun are both vented. Dig back into the archives for more info but basically a vessel such as a pressure cooker is used to create the steam. Steam as 212F contains more energy that water at 212F due to the energy required in order for the water to change state (liquid to gas). The steam is piped to the mash tun or heat chamber. When the steam hits the "colder" mash, it returns to the liquid state and release energy in the form of heat (same thing happens when water freezes, which is why you will sometimes see southern farmers irrigating their crops is a light freeze is predicted, the water forming ice actually warms the plants). Thus, the steam must return to liquid and it doesn't matter if the mash system is vented. It's basically an open loop system. The volume of water added to the mash is quite small compared the mash volume and thus dilution is not much of a concern. At least that's the way I understand it. John Schnupp Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 12:57:05 -0500 From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: Sister Star All - Nathan asks about the use of 3 oz of Chinook hops in a 5 gallon batch of Sister Star, and if it would be unpalatable. I think I can add a data point or two to the theory of whether absurdly high IBU's make undrinkable beers... In a word, no. Last summer, I inadvertently made a "pounder" 10 gallon batch where I was not paying too much attention and ended up dumping 17 ounces of hops in a 10 gallon batch of 1.066 IPA. I ended up getting a measured 157 IBU's out of it, and I was planning on either blending it or writing the beer off. Until I tried it. Was it hoppy? Of course it was. Does Jeff Rener live at the center of the brewing universe? Was it unpalatable? Not at all. I've found that there seems to be somewhat of an "IPA threshold" after which we really just can't discern any more bitterness. Actually, in that beer, (aptly named Hop Glutton IPA) the malt foundation was still undeniably recognizable. I thought I'd seen the IBU upper limit until Alan Meeker and Mike Maceyka (in my brewclub) did their hop experiment (which they posted the results of here, search the archives). They put something like 22 oz of hops (FWH, bittering, aroma, dry, teas, oils, stalks, stems, you name it) into a 5 gallon IPA batch. By ProMash calculations, it came out to just over 600 IBU. It was marvelous. Obviously their "wall of hops" was somewhat akin to the little fence in China, but there was a malt presence that I never would have expected. Resinous and sticky? Sure. But also quite balanced considering the mammoth amount of hops. My point is that you can still have a good, albeit *hoppy* IPA with IBU's that are in triple digits. Don't expect it to be anything less than massively hoppy, but it won't by any means be undrinkable Believe me, we've tried. With that many Chinooks, though, you're probably going to get a somewhat hard edged, spicy bitterness. That may or may not be what you're looking for. Try Columbus if you want something a bit softer and more floral/citrusy while still maintaining high alpha. Just my .02... Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 13:12:10 -0500 From: "David Kerr" <dkerr at semc.org> Subject: re: Sister Star I've tried a couple of batches of Sister Star variants, loved 'em. My favorite to date: 10 Gal batch 2 row malt with about 6% Carapils for 1.062 OG, infusion mash at 153F FWH 2 oz Chinook 3.5 oz. Chinook at start of boil 2 oz Columbus 20 min before end of boil 1 oz Cascade and 1 oz Chinook at knockout 2 oz Cascade dry-hopped Nottingham dry yeast Great - no, overwhelming hop profile, as you'd expect, but still some maltiness showing through. Vienna as a base malt might be my next attempt. Wouldn't want to guess at the actual IBU, I'd guess that there's some diminishing returns with that much hops. The only disappointment I had was that the beer was a little hazy, I've read here that FWH may contribute to this. Return to table of contents
Date: 03 Dec 1999 11:17:29 -0700 From: "Jeffry D Luck" <Jeffry.D.Luck at aexp.com> Subject: Dry Ice I just finished catching up on HBD from last week and I have a question about carbonating with dry ice. Let's assume I've donned my face shield, heavy gloves, and protective cup, and I'm ok with the benzine thing. For a pint swing-top bottle (grolsh), exactly how much dry ice do I need to carbonate? Do I need to shake it after I seal the cap to drive the CO2 into the beer so it doesn't explode? Any other practical suggestions? (...like "get my head examined"?) I usually prime & bottle my beer, but it would be nice to have a couple to sample on bottling day. Jeff Luck Salt Lake City, UT "It's not a beer gut; I have a Liquid Grain Storage Facility." Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 10:49:12 -0800 From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com> Subject: decoction detail/fungi collective homebrew conscience_ lynne o'connor wrote: >The Czechs actually use Double Decoction with rests at 38C, 50C, 65C, and >72C. the key is to the make the first decoction quite large, use a portion >to get to 50C, the other portion to get to 65C. Additionally, try boiling >the entire mash for 20 minutes after the 72C rest, then sparge. one of the desirable results that boiling the solid part of the mash produces is the physical degradation of starch into enzyme-manageable fractions. greg noonan mentions this in his _brewing lager beer_ book, and al k (among others) has discussed it here in the past. if you boil the *entire* mash as your last step before sparging, you will physically degrade more starch and kill all your enzymes in one neat step. one of the things most brewers aim for is minimal starch in the wort. it's a haze source and it's food for bacteria. here's bill siebel (of the siebel institute): >A good temperature to maintain while lautering would be that of mash-off >or ~170 F, 77 C. This would aid in run-off (higher temps, lower >viscosity) and act to set the enzyme activity of the mash. Actually some >alpha amalyase would still be present (and desired) to work on any >starch that has come into solution under these conditions. but, you argue, all my starch has already been converted to sugars by the time mash-out happens. most of the time, for homebrewers, this is wrong. charlie scandrett has written here in the past that it is beneficial to have some alpha enzyme survive into the mash-out step, to convert starch that gets gelatinized by the heat boost. this supports bill's last sentence, above. i know lynne has been over to czechoslovakia and maybe some of the brewers over there are boiling their entire mashes before lautering, but i don't see how the positives (melanoidin formation) could outweigh the negatives (starch release/enzyme elimination) for homebrewers. there are other ways to get melanoidins without (unconvertable) starch release into the wort. ************************** our next president wrote: >The "River Rat" rests in peace. It's feeding fungus as all real boats >ultimately do. as do all real brewers. brew hard (and feed your fungus), mark bayer stl mo Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 1999 11:52:00 -0700 (MST) From: jliddil at VMS.ARIZONA.EDU Subject: starters/budvar malt > > Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 09:43:33 -0800 > From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com > Subject: re: Oxidized yeast starters > > I have to agree with Alan about the time factor of waiting for the yeast > to settle. Yes, chilling can hurry the process but it can result in unfiltered > air getting into the starter if you just put your starter in the fridge without > keeping positive pressure in the starter container. I typically don't chill I don't feel that a significant amount of unfiltered air is going to get into the starter by settling it in the frig. I have done this in the home and laboratory settings for years with no problems. Sure it means I start the starter on Monday and then let it stir until thursday morning. I then pu it in the frig and all the yeass has settled by saturday. I thne can decant off all but 200 ml or so of the 4 liters of starter. As homebrewers we quite often don't have the option to actually propogate the yeast as do commercial brewers and then reuse it and blend the first generation beer into another batch. following my procedure I don't think that I am selecting out the most flocculant yeast since It all seems to settle by saturday. But againwe each have our own methodlogies. One might ask is using budvar malt a step backwards? And it is all fine and good to quote decleck but remember that what he said 40+ years ago may not be true today. I would be nice to have complete specs on the budvar and moravian malts including diastatic power. Now about using budvar malt being retro. Currently the philosophy being taught at brewing schools like Siebels (name dropping, Scott) is that all the malt modification should be done in the malt house and NOT in the mash tun. I'll spare you from spewing theories on enzyme reactions, arguements about economics, qc/qa issues with undermodification etc. These are issues we all have to consider but as homebrewers we are free to do what we want. But as a brewpub brewer (George D.) do you want to add time and effort to your day by using "undermodified" malt. runoff probelms, conversion problems, lack of protein from too short a low temp rest. and many breweries simple are not eqipped to do multistep temp. mashes The bottom line is whether or not using budvar malt vs any other malt on the market will produce a product superior in flavor and taste? Using highly controlled conditions brew two beers and have them judged blind. So I propose that malt of both the nomrla moravian malt and the undermodified malt be sent to Seibels and used in the there whamo pilot brewwing system. Then have the beers judged by the Seibel tasting panel. Just a thought. And maybe all the beers brewed with this malt will win in competitions. But then again the brewers that already win are probably going to start using this malt and it will not prove a thing. Just something to ponder. Jim Liddil North Haven,CT Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 12/04/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96