HOMEBREW Digest #4589 Wed 25 August 2004

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

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


                  Beer, Beer, and More Beer
      Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

  beer color related to yeast strain (tmeier)
  Beer in Syracuse? (elal)
  Re: Groggy's Rain Water ("Greg 'groggy' Lehey")
  20 minute mash (Nathaniel Lansing)
  Upper Mississippi Mash-Out Clarification ("Steve Fletty")
  of RIMS, thermocouples, accurate readings, etc..... ("Mark Nesdoly")
  Re: Beer Fun in Milwaukee? (Steven M Gigl)
  Bill's first batch of pLambic (RiedelD)
  Vancouver, BC brewpubs (Marc Sedam)
  RE: Grind & Efficiency ("Mike Racette")
  Alt Clarification (Robert Sandefer)
  Efficiency--measuring and adjusting mash pH really helps ("Janie Curry")
  licorice ("3rbecks")
  sec: unclass Storing K-97 Slurry ("Williams, Rowan")
  re: New Mashing Ideas (from internet post) ("-S")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there. 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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org. JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning, and Spencer Thomas
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 03:15:12 +0100 From: tmeier at real-ale.net Subject: beer color related to yeast strain 10 gallons of wit, split in two fermentors. One pitched with WL Witbier yeast, other pitched with WL Wit II. The Wit II is much lighter in color. Both were shaken to aerate, and both have flocculated out. Any explanation for this? Should I adjust the final SRM based on yeast strain? ;) Not the first time I seen it, but never this extreme. Any theories as to why this happens? Tom Meier Nashville, TN Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 23:12:05 -0300 From: elal at isn.net Subject: Beer in Syracuse? I am heading down I-81 for a day at the fair Saturday and wonder if there are any good spots to pick up some micros in the area? Thanks! - -- Alan www.genx40.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:07:10 +0930 From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com> Subject: Re: Groggy's Rain Water On Tuesday, 24 August 2004 at 17:08:22 +1000, Phil Yates wrote: > Then Groggy further says in relation to using heavy wort aeration and adding > magnesium to his wort: > >> So which made the difference? To find out, I'd have to retrace my >> steps and make another ruined batch of beer. Guess how much interest >> I have in doing that. > > So whose data is going to tell you Groggy? Everybody's. Comparing notes is good. If those notes are both so categorical and so convincing that I don't need to do anything myself, I won't. > You've just proved to yourself that you could resolve your problem. Nope, I've proved it to you. I'm still unconvinced :-) > For all I know Groggy, you could well have wombats crapping in your > rain water tanks, You've got to be joking! Have you ever seen a wombat climbing up a rainwater pipe? The Wantadilla wombats stay in the paddocks. > or even the next door neighbour who maybe doesn't like you? Next door neighbour? > You have your rain water under suspicion but who in here knows what > you are really brewing with? I've tried drying it, and there are no perceptible dissolved solids. Sure, there are a few magpie droppings in there, but I'd guess they'd contain magnesium, and they must be well below 1 ppm. Aside: in a 70,000 litre (70 tonne) rainwater tank, 1 ppm of magpie droppings (or anything else0 is 70 grams. That's a lot of magpie droppings. Greg - -- Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen. Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key. See complete headers for address and phone numbers. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:37:52 -0400 From: Nathaniel Lansing <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: 20 minute mash OK, maybe with "todays highly modified malt" you have finished starch conversion in 20 minutes. Is starch conversion the only goal in mashing? Is the flavor developement the same with a 20 min vs 120 min mash? Maybe someone already asked, "maybe you can, but should you?" I can see with single pass roller mills a 20 minute mash may not be truly complete, though the free-run is showing "iodine negative". We don't get "ideal" crush, and I would not expect "ideal" conversion times. There are some issues with phenolic extraction and protein coagulation that might spark some debate also. If your system isn't broken, don't fix it. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:50:00 -0500 From: "Steve Fletty" <fletty at umn.edu> Subject: Upper Mississippi Mash-Out Clarification > ------------------------------ > > Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:26:19 -0500 > From: Bill Velek <billvelek at alltel.net> > Subject: Upper Mississippi Mashout > > In HBD No. 4587, Steve Fletty made mention of a brewing competition in > Mississippi. I had heard that homebrewing is still illegal in > Mississippi. Now I realize that drinking and judging homebrew does not > constitute brewing, so it is presumably not illegal to hold the > competition, but if homebrewing is illegal there, I'm surprised that > they have a contest. Just curious. > > Thanks. > > Bill Velek Bill- A clarification. The Upper Mississippi Mash-Out is in Minneapolis/St. Paul in Minnesota, source of the Mighty Mississipp'. Sorry of I didn't make that clear. I think I said we're one of the Midwest's larger home brew contests and referred to winter... ;-) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:25:14 -0700 From: "Mark Nesdoly" <mnesdoly at ouc.bc.ca> Subject: of RIMS, thermocouples, accurate readings, etc..... A question for those of you that have a RIMS system or something similar, as I'm preparing to build one myself. Most every system I've seen/read about/researched measures temperature via a single thermocouple. The thermocouple is usually inserted into the wort downstream of the heater, through some type of watertight port in the plumbing. Since this seems to be the only way people have done a RIMS system, I kind of ended up following the herd, but now I have serious doubts. Unless you spend big bucks on a food grade stainless steel encapsulated thermocouple probe, the thermocouple itself will corrode and eventually fail. Every thermocouple's datasheet that I've come across (the exposed ones, anyway) states that they aren't intended for sustained immersion, and if they are, their lifespan is something on the order of 1 month (if continuously immersed). The thought of a mixture of alumel-constantan particles swimming around in my beer doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling either. Another point to consider is that thermocouples aren't cheap, their output is extremely small, and you need to amplify their output with an instrumentation amplifier (at a minimum), and preferably an amp intended for thermocouples with built in cold-junction compensation, etc (expensive). Of course, this point is only valid if your controller is not an off-the-shelf Omega type unit that you can plug a thermcouple directly into. If you have a RIMS system, have you noticed any corrosion of your thermocouple? I guess I've already made up my mind regarding what I'm going to do. I'm going to use a standard temperature measurement IC and simply tape it to the outside of the copper piping of my system, downstream of the heater. I'll then wrap the works in insulation. These types of ICs are really quite cheap, very accurate, and the nice part - digital output to the controller - no small analog signals requiring expensive amplifiers. I know that the sensor isn't in contact with the wort. However, copper has about the highest thermal conductivity of any metal, meaning that if the pipe and sensor are wrapped in insulation, then the sensor's temperature will be within a hair of the wort's temperature. I can live with that (small) error. And if you're wondering, yes, I'm building my own controller. I did a similar one for my beer freezer already, so it shouldn't be hard to do the RIMS controller. Can anyone see anything really wrong with my plan? - -- Mark Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:10:51 CDT From: Steven M Gigl <gigl0002 at umn.edu> Subject: Re: Beer Fun in Milwaukee? Rick is looking for beer-related activities in Milwaukee. I have two suggestions, based on places that I'd like to go but haven't had the chance yet (your mileage may vary, in other words). I have it on good authority that the tour at Lakefront Brewery is decent, and I know firsthand that their beer is excellent. The same goes for Sprecher, although to be honest I drink more of their root beer than their beer (the beer is good, the root beer is outstanding). Have a good time in Milwaukee, Steve Gigl (HBD lurker at [512.5, 294.7] Apparent Rennerian a.k.a. Crystal, MN) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:31:54 -0700 From: RiedelD at pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Subject: Bill's first batch of pLambic Bill writes: The grist was kept simple: 9# belgian pils 4# flaked Wheat .5 Caramunich <clip> I step mashed (Much like the recipe on the "BioHazard Lambic Site") 15 minute at 95 degrees 15 minute at 115 degrees 15 minute at 125 degrees 15 minute at 150 degrees Brought mash to a boil...ROLLING BOIL for 5 minutes and then sparged w/ 200 degree water. <clip> - -------------------- Any reason why you chose flaked wheat over the more-traditional raw wheat? Also, did you do a starch test on the final wort to see if you managed to retain some starch? - I assume that's the idea behind bringing the entire mash to the boil after the short sacc. rest. When I made my batch last fall, I had a hard time keeping up with the enzymes - they could convert everything before I could denature them. I'm not sure I managed to get any starch to make it to the fermenter. Dave Riedel Victoria, Canada. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:16:10 -0400 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: Vancouver, BC brewpubs Hey all, I'll be in Vancouver this coming week and would like a recommendation on brewpubs in the area. I know there are about 5 pubs, with a few more breweries. Anyone have a preference? Thanks. Marc Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 13:12:38 -0600 From: "Mike Racette" <mike.racette at hydro-gardens.com> Subject: RE: Grind & Efficiency Richard Sloan said: "I do single infusion mashes and batch sparge myself. I use a Corona Mill at home so my crush isn't very consistent. I get some powder and some whole kernels but I usually just plan for the 65% and adjust the recipe accordingly. Sometimes I crush it small and add rice hulls to help the sparge, but I always get an average of 65% efficiency. However, for my last batch, a rye beer, I had picked up some Amalyze Enzyme at my LHBS. I added approx 1 tsp to my mash and I realized a 14% jump in efficiency to 79%. This is a recipe I have made a few times so it must have been the extra enzymes that kicked it up. It is still in primary so I do not know what effect this has had on attenuation or taste. Time will tell." Richard, I also get 65% efficiency whether I grind at my LHBS or at home with my Corona, so your post caught my attention. I've tried all sorts of things to increase my efficiency including most or all of the suggestion on the HBD. My efficiency is consistent so maybe I should be happy with it, but I would like to jack it up 10-15% just to save a few bucks on grain. Its my understanding that with most highly modified pale malts there are plenty of enzymes to do the job of breaking down the starch to sugar provided temps and ph are in a favorable range. But, since you noticed such a dramatic increase in efficiency with the amylase (amalyze?) enzyme, I wouldn't mind giving it a try. What is the brand and type (alpha amylase, or a blend of alpha and beta)? Please post any further results you get from the use of this product. Miker Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 12:34:26 -0700 (PDT) From: Robert Sandefer <robertsandefer at yahoo.com> Subject: Alt Clarification Roger Deschner writes: >...sounds like you are way off in your hop calculations somehow (Perhaps >that batch of Spalt wasn't really 4.5%AA.) because this beer should >have been over 50 IBUs and very noticably bitter, according to your recipe. Yes, the beers were both pleasantly and obviously bitter; I forgot to put that in my last post. >How much of that 3 oz did you boil for the full time? All 3oz went in at T-60min. According to the equations in Designing Great Beer, this should result in about 57 IBU. >Target bitterness is 50 IBU. 50 and 57 IBU are close enought to me in a beer that is supposed to be bitter anyway. >The sulfur nose is authentic, and is quite noticable in the beers as >served in Dusseldorf. That is very interesting and is the first time I can remember anyone saying that. Isn't it amazing how useful details just drop into discussions? :) >It comes from the yeast strains. I wouldn't be so sure of that. Given that technically my two beers have more differences than pils/Munich as base, still, one had sulfury taste (ich!) and the other didn't. The yeast was the same. This argues that the base malt type has at least some effect on the presence of sulfury taste in beer. >Process is critical! This beer depends on a warm primary fermentation, >like an ale, and then cold conditioning, like a lager, which dulls down >the ale esters without removing them completely. Technically, some of Al K's posts suggest that with his recipe and the Wyeast European yeast, the lagering period isn't as critical. I hypothesize that the need of a lagering stage would be highly affected by yeast strain. They were both brown, bitter beers that were fairly well balanced between malt and bitter tastes. What else makes an Alt an Alt? Robert Sandefer Novato, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:34:18 +0000 From: "Janie Curry" <houndandcalico at hotmail.com> Subject: Efficiency--measuring and adjusting mash pH really helps Andrew, I recorded my biggest gain in efficiency by adjusting the pH of the mash. I bought an inexpensive pH meter (approximately $40) and calibration solution and I adjust the pH using food grade lactic acid. I had no luck with pH paper. I dough in with room temp water, take a pH reading, adjust the pH to 5.3 - 5.5, and then boost to my first temperature rest over a propane burner. If you dough in with hot water, take a sample and cool it before inserting the pH meter probe unless you have a temperature adjusted probe. I don't have my records with me, but I believe that I ususally average around 80% efficiency....I'll check tonight. Todd in Idaho Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:00:03 -0500 From: "3rbecks" <3rbecks at sbcglobal.net> Subject: licorice I'm wanting to put a slight licorice character into a fairly big wort ie. 1.090. I've never used licorice before and I was wondering roughly how much to use in a wort that will begin boiling at about 9 gallons and finish at about 6 gallons over 2 hours? Also, when is the best time, during the boil, to add the licorice? Thanks Rob Beck Kansas City MO Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:14:09 +1000 From: "Williams, Rowan" <Rowan.Williams at defence.gov.au> Subject: sec: unclass Storing K-97 Slurry Hi Folks, I have a _sort of_ dunkelweizen in primary right now, and I used DCL K-97 to ferment (SG was 1.055). I'm considering taking some of the slurry and storing it in clean stubbies for future use. I'm after some sage advice on how best to store this slurry - I would use the slurry probably within the next 6 months, and I was thinking that a small quantity of slurry, say, a quarter cupfull in a 375ml stubby of cooled pre-boiled water would be ok for storage purposes. Once I take the stubby out of the fridge, I'd plan on rejuvinating the yeast in a weak wort before pitching... Any advice on storing K-97 slurry would be appreciated. Cheers, Rowan Williams Canberra Brewers Club [9588.6, 261.5] AR (statute miles) Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:54:46 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: re: New Mashing Ideas (from internet post) Chas Boyer reposts some "new mashing ideas" that hold some interest. Sadly I still am missing every n-th HBD so I missed this one. I think Fred and John have a correct view of these odd factoids lacking in context. >1) First Wort Hopping: > >Don't ! [...] The reason is that >they found out that this method of hopping is detrimental to head Unlikely that this is a loss of head is significant except for commercial QC types. I lot of HBers have FWH variations without any clear evidence of head loss. The most recent paper I've read on FWH from Germany was research on a hop processor's website circa 2003 which said absolutely nothing about loss of head due to FWH, nor it's demise. >2) Step mashing as a method of increasing dextrines to increase the >viscosity (mouthfeel) of beer: > >Even though it is true that this mash technique does increase dextrins as Step mashing gives better *control* of the mashing process but absolutely does NOT decrease the dextrin level vis a vis infusion mashing. One can step mash a highly dextrinous bock or infuse-mash a dry ale. >it has been discovered that the perception of rich body in >beer by humans is not related to dextrin content, Silly comment & conclusion. Dextrins have been PROVEN to impact something called mouthfeel or body in beverages .. repeatedly. One example is in M&BS pp 869-871 where ales were correctly distinguished based for "body" or "viscous" character correlated to dextrins. Many more specific studies in places like J.Food Sci and Flavor Sci & Tech. I can tell you from personal experience that beers which are artifically depleted of dextrins by enzyme addions have clear "body" problems. Of course many other factors impact "body". > They >determined this through extensive blind trials Who ? what journal ? where ? >The current recommendations for >all fully modified malts is a mash at 68~70C/154~158 with a pH of >5.3 for only 20 minutes prior to recirculation until the runnings are clear. Completely believable, especially as the recirc will take another 10-20 minutes. Most brewers don't realize how fast you can get a negative iodine test at ~70C. The A-Amylase continues to act into the boiler this way too. For many beer styles conversion just to neg.iodine will not give satisfactory wort but is fully converted. >this technique is outlined in both Charlie Bamforth's and >Michael Lewis's new books that are available from the Association of Really ? Bamforths book is basically on QC lab measures for small breweries ... unrelated I suspect. >3) Wort Aeration: > >If possible, don't! The reason is that it is not the wort that needs the >oxygen, it is the yeast. Exactly right. O2 hurts wort, but helps yeast. It's probably better to aerate the b'jeebers out of your slurry/starter but the fact is that conventional aeration of wort is NOT a serious cause for concern, just a minor "fine point". Saturation levels of O2 in the fermenter *may* leave as much as ~11ppm excess which could oxidize, but that's a tiny fraction of the O2 uptake in the mash & boil. OTOH underoxygenating the yeast will certainly lead to off flavors and crummy fermentations - that's an ironclad law with notable implications.. It's *far* better to err on the side of overoxygenation. >By oxgenating the wort instead of the yeast >starter, it will cause an over production of cells due to the excessive >oxygen presence. Baloney - saturation levels of O2 from air in wort is around 8ppm and w/ pure O2 the saturation point is around 16ppm. Yeast reqs for 12P wort vary w/ some requiring as little as 5ppm while others require over 15ppm in continuous reuse. Even saturation levels of pure O2 is in the right ballpark. There is no overproduction of cells due to excess O2 unless you induce respiration and that would require continuous aeration to cause even a small fraction of respiration(yes I've tried & measured this). A few extra shots of pure O2 early on aren't a big worry. >When oxygenating starters, you cannot use pure O2... the reason is that >the uptake occurs too fast and without a dissolved O2 meter ($$$), you >cannot tell when to stop. Too fast ? That's silly. The O2 dissolution stops at saturation levels (or returns to saturation from supersaturation quickly) ... no serious harm beyond minor wort oxidation is possible from a 1-time O2 application. >I know these topics are contrary to what most people have learned >and read More like gobbeldygook. Some are obvious facts with general implications, many use unspecified references to authority, and unexplicated deductions based on these dubious references. Some are plain wrong and based on a misunderstanding of the underlying issue. *IF* there were qualified references and clearly derived methods of deduction then such arguments could make me change my mind. The current post is something like ... "You should always add a boiled chicken to your ale fermenter, and stir the mash clockwise .. I read it in a reference while attending Weihenstephan"... pointless to even seriously consider. -S Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/26/04, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96