---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Ready To Pitch yeasts-info wanted! ("Rich Byrnes")
  legality question (summary) (Gregory King)
  BUZZ Boneyard Brewoff - Second notice (jformane at students.uiuc.edu (Joe Formanek))
  Hose pressure drop solved (jay at ro.com (Jay Reeves))
  RIMS pump power (hollen at vigra.com)
  Etc on wind malt drying ("David R. Burley")
  Dippety Doo OG Jump?? (h.smith at e-mail.com)
  Copy of: Wind dried malt ("David R. Burley")
  Serving wine vs. beer question ("Kirk Harralson")
  ester formation in beer (awalsh at crl.com.au (Andy Walsh))
  Removal of Chlorine (Michael Newman)
  protein (faros at ping.at (Wolfgang Wedel))
  RE:  When does your beer become beer? ("Eric W. & Carolyn W. Metzler")
  Fermentation Kinetics (Barrowman at aol.com)
  Info on Hops and Dogs (Michael A Gasman)
  chiller length/RIMS alternative/extraction+recirc/Wyeast/30K BTUs (korz at pubs.ih.att.com)
  chalky deposits/WD40/Hammermills/first mash/floating stuff and CaCO3 (korz at pubs.ih.att.com)
  yeast phases/hop storage/soft water/hazy beer/is it beer yet? (korz at pubs.ih.att.com)
  Mini-kegs for conditioning (John Chang)
  potpourri of rookie stuff.... (Dckdog at aol.com)

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESSES
  homebrew at aob.org                (SUBMISSIONS only)
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org (for REQUESTS only)

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at aob.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via BEER-L NET, you must unsubscribe by sending a
  one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
This list service is now being provided by majordomo at aob.org, so some
  of the commands may have changed.  For technical problems send
  e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.

ARCHIVES & OTHER INFORMATION

Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org or visit
http://alpha.rollanet.org on the Web.  Othere information is available by
e-mail from info at aob.org and on the AHA's web site at http://www.aob.org/aob.
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at ftp.stanford.edu.
  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full e-mail address as the
  password, look under the directory /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.
  AFS users can find it at /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.
  If you do not have ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail
  using the ftpmail service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about
  this service, send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with
  the word "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.  Some
  archives are available via majordomo at aob.org.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Rich Byrnes" <rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:35:06 EDT
Subject: Ready To Pitch yeasts-info wanted!

I am in the process of updating the databases for Brewers                      

Workshop (Look for downloads on their website soon, I'll                       

re-post) I've included ALL the Wyeast strains, and all                         

the Yeast Culture Kit Co (Yeastlab) strains but am lacking                     

info from Ready to Pitch, could someone post the profiles of                   

all the strains including flocculation, attenuation,                           

recommended fermentation temps, origin of strain, and                          

recommended styles the yeast is suitable for, TIA!!                            

(A thread search turned up nothing on old HBD's, so I've                       

already tried that route, thanks Plaid Babcock!)                               


FYI I've included ALL the grains from the Zymurgy grain                        

issue, all the hops and profiles from Garetz's book, all                       

the yeast strains I could find and I'm also updating the                       

style guidelines for 1996. Tom Nelson has agreed to post                       

these databases as free downloadable files as soon as I                        

finish them and send them in.                                                  


Also, Tom seems very receptive to ideas and suggestions                        

for this program, send e-mail to tan1 at pge.com.                                 

He is hard at work on the next upgrade incorporating                           

many new and very usable features and ideas!                                   


I have no financial interest in TKO software, I'm                              

just a VERY satisfied user.                                                    


Regards,_Rich Byrnes Jr                                                        

B&AO Pre-Production PN-96 Analyst \\\|///                                      

phone #(313)323-2613, fax #390-4520_______o000_(.) (.)_000o                    

rbyrnes2.ford at e-mail.com (_)                                                   



Return to table of contents


From: Gregory King <GKING at ARSERRC.Gov>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 13:43:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: legality question (summary)

Here's a summary of the replies I received to my question about selling
homebrew out of a friend's restaurant/bar.

First of all, it is not legal to sell homebrew as such.

To sell beer legally requires a license to brew beer and a license to
sell beer.  The brewing license requires that the brewing premises
conform to all federal, state, and local safety/zoning/effluent regu-
lations.  There are considerable costs involved, both in terms of money
and time.

In short, brewing beer with the purpose of selling it is no longer a
hobby but is a business, with all the headaches/rewards associated with
starting and running any business.

Personally, I will be sticking to homebrewing for now.

Greg King
gking at arserrc.gov


Return to table of contents


From: jformane at students.uiuc.edu (Joe Formanek)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 12:24:56 +0800
Subject: BUZZ Boneyard Brewoff - Second notice

Greetings!
   This is the second notice for the Second Annual BUZZ Boneyard
Brewoff, to be held July 20th at Joe's Brewery in Champaign, IL. Please
contact me if you have any questions or would like the pertinent forms
for the event.

Thanks!
Joe Formanek


The Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots
                Second Annual Boneyard Brew-Off

This is the official announcement of the second homebrew competition of the
Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots of Champaign, Illinois. The
competition, to be held on July 20 1996, will be a BJCP sanctioned
competition with all the standard AHA categories (except for cider and
sake).  In our standard advertising packet is a list of rules, an entry
form, bottle forms and a judge registration form.  We need entries, judges
and stewards!

The competition will be held at

                        Boneyard Brew-Off
                        c/o Joe's Brewery
                        706 S. Fifth St.
                        Champaign IL, 61820.

The judging will commence at 9:00am.  We will need two unmarked 10 to 16 oz.
brown or green bottles, with bottle identification forms attached to each
bottle with a rubber band, a completed entry form and $5 sent to Joe's
brewery for each entry.  We would appreciate entries as soon as possible
after July 6, but we will accept walk-on entries as long as they are
accompanied by the completed paperwork.  Four or more entries by the same
brewer qualify for our special, low, low rate of $4 per entry.

As in our last competition, the highlight will be our special category: The
No One Gets Out Alive High Gravity Brew-Off.  In this category we will judge
any beer with a gravity over 1.070 purely on the basis of drinkability and
octane.  We will allow any high gravity style, but if you wish the beer to
also be judged in another category, you must separately enter it in that
category.  No fortification of the beer is allowed.  The winners in this
category will not be eligible for best of show.

Those who contribute their judging expertise will reap many rewards. This
includes a beer sodden tour of Joe's Brewery, a bed for the night (make a
note on the judge form if you need a place to stay) and lunch on Saturday.
For those who wish to come on Friday, we plan to have a party on Friday
night featuring the efforts of our local brewers.

For additional information, feel free to get in contact with our illustrious
leader, Joe Formanek, at

512 Dogwood
Champaign IL, 61801

jformane at students.uiuc.edu
(217) 351-7858

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Joseph A. Formanek                      President, Boneyard Union of
580 Bevier Hall                         Zymurgical Zealots (BUZZ)
U of Ill--Urbana/Champaign              2nd annual Boneyard Brewoff!
(217) 244-2879                          July 20, 1996 at Joe's Brewery!
Grad student, Professional and Home Brewer, BUZZ president....
What else can I get myself into?????
Now on tap at Joe's Brewery: "A Nice Ale" and "Academic Ale"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\



Return to table of contents


From: jay at ro.com (Jay Reeves)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:42:15 -0500
Subject: Hose pressure drop solved

I solved my problem I had with the foaming and hose pressure
drop, but it raises a new question.

I was using "food grade" vinyl 3/16" ID - 5/16" OD.  One of the first
things I did, Pat B., was to measure the ID and yes, it's 3/16"
and not 1/4".  I got this hose at a local place in town and the roll
says "food grade".

I talked with Rapids Distributing (beer & rest. supplier) and they sell
"beverage" hose. The person I spoke with said he thinks there may be a
difference in "food grade" as opposed to the "beverage" hose they sell.
One difference we did note was the outside diameter of the hose.  Their
"beverage" hose has an OD of 7/16".

I ordered some, slapped 4 feet on the keg to drop the 12psi, low and
behold, PERFECT BEER!!!  (well, almost: it was an overhopped American
wheat)  But the carb was there, no foaming...great!

Now, I'm not sure what exactly it was that solved the problem.  Was it
the extra hose wall thickness - now 1/8" thick as opposed to 1/16"?
Or is there a difference in the "food grade" hose and the "beverage" hose?
Could the "beverage" hose have a smoother internal finish perhaps, whereas
the "food grade" has irregularities that would knock the CO2 out of
solution?

                        -Jay Reeves
                        Huntsville, Alabama, USA


Return to table of contents


From: hollen at vigra.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 11:03:35 PDT
Subject: RIMS pump power

This is a follow up on a previous discussion about selecting an
adequately sized pump for a RIMS system.

My comment was something like, "Be careful of small pumps
(i.e. 1/20hp) because they may not be able to pump fast enough."  Slow
recirc rates are not good because the temperature delta between heater
input and ouptput goes way up and also oscillates a lot when the flow
rate becomes too slow.

Kirk Fleming pointed out that he gets terrific flow from a small
pump which at first glance, may seem to directly contradict the fact
that I have a 1/8hp pump and yet when I use large grain bills, my flow
rate drops nearly to zero.  I have suspected false bottom geometry
for some time.

However, Kirk's comments led me to wonder.  He was observing very good
flow rates with a small pump and I was observing slow flow rates with
a large pump.  Could it be that a pump too large was *causing* the
problem?  And after a test, that *seems* to be the case, however, it
requires more extensive testing.

To test the theory of too much suction compacting the grain bed, I
used my Belgian Strong Ale recipe which requires 18# of grain for a 6
gal yield mashed in a 10 gal Gott.  This is slightly over 3/4 of the
volume of the Gott, the most I ever do.  Normally, recirc flow starts
out OK, but within 20 minutes or so, it has slowed to almost nothing
and causes very bad oscillations in the output temp and poor control
with the temperature controller (back off the controller a hair and it
will drop a couple of degrees, much more than normal).

I slowed my pump down as much as possible to what by eyeball I would
estimate to be about 2gpm or maybe less.  All other variables were
kept constant to my normal procedures.  The recirc flow never
dropped!!!  I had very normal and smooth temperature controller
behavior. 

While I still need to test this out more thouroughly when making some
"test" batches under very carefully controlled conditions, I am
modifying my opinion of pump selection to be the following:

	A pump must have adequate flow and high enough head to 
	not poop out lifting water to the highest point in
	*your* system necessary and without unnecessarily 
	slowing down.  More suction than necessary to achieve
	these goals may have an adverse effect on grain bed
	compaction and thereby *cause* slow flow rates by being
	too powerful for the application.  Of course, mash tun
	geometry and false bottom open area and hole size are
	factors which can greatly influence the over all
	flow rate. 

I am going to continue to investigate this with more tests, but I
thought it useful to inform you all of preliminary results.  I thank
Kirk Fleming very much for the tactful way he doubted my conclusions.
Also, much thanks to C.D. Pritchard for some very useful suggestions
regarding the use of a sight glass to determine pump suction.  I will
be incorporating this into my tests to get some more "quantatative"
results.

dion

Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California

Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 11 Jun 96 10:39:16 EDT
Subject: Etc on wind malt drying

Fellow Brewsters and Michael Newman:

With all the nostalgic drivel in my previous post, I forgot to make one point 
on
drying.
My notes from J Ross MacKenzie in "Brewing and Malting" (1934) say:

"To avoid the formation of soluble uncoagulable albuminoids, the grain must 
not
be left at a relatively low temperature in a moist state. The danger
temperatures are between 70F and 80F."

Of course, this is just the temperature range at which we will most likely 
make
wind malt.

A protein rest during the brew cycle using this malt is, therefore, imperative
to avoid chill haze and too high a protein content which would cause the yeast
to produce off flavors.

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley


Return to table of contents


From: h.smith at e-mail.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 10:36:35 EDT
Subject: Dippety Doo OG Jump??

All,
I took the recent dippety doo (sp?) suggestion on Sunday for my first partial
grain batch. I normally brew a very similar ale recipe: 1 can extract, 3# DME,
and 1 1/2 to 2# honey -light/amber and hops vary- along with crystal and other
specialties....So this time I 'mashed' 3# British Pale malt at around 155 F 
for
an hour and 'sparged' in another pot with the dippety doo method at around
185 F. Then combined the two pots and boiled...
I used the pale malt to replace 1 pound DME and 1 pound honey. Here's the
question: I normally get og of around 1.050-1.053 and this time got 1.062.
Does this make sense? I figured the extraction would be less than stellar due
to the method, but ended up with the higher gravity. I did do my best to
rinse the grain bags effectively, and used 3# of the grain to replace 2# of
DME/honey......any comments? Thanks
Howard
h.smith at email.com

Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 11 Jun 96 09:58:52 EDT
Subject: Copy of: Wind dried malt

- ---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From:	David R. Burley, 103164,3202
TO:	Michael Newman, 100711,2111
DATE:	6/11/96 9:55 AM

RE:	Copy of: Wind dried malt

Fellow Brewsters:

Michael Newman of Warminster e-mailed me for some more info on my wind malt
production and asked for some ideas.  He is most fortunate, since he lives a
short distance form a floor maltings and has the prospect of drying this
commercially prepared malt to produce wind malt or green malt. Since I have 
had
several indications of interest, via e-mail, in home malting, wind malt, etc., 
I
decided to print this in the HBD, also.  As I originally planned this as an
e-mail only to Michael it is not to the point. Sorry to take up so much of the 

bandwidth with my history.

Michael,

I'm glad to hear of your interest in the wind malt and my excursions into this
area.

A lttle history.  My first set of references was a book called "A treatise on
the Art of Brewing, Exhibiting the London Practice of Brewing Porter, Brown
Stout Ale, Table Beer and Various other kinds of Malt Liquors" Frederick 
Accum,
1820 ( London) and a book " Brewing and Malting" J. Ross MacKenzie 3rd ed 
1934.
This would have been in early 1970 while I was doing my Post-doc in Chemistry 
in
Swansea, Wales. I used these references and H. E. Bravery as my sources for my
first malting and beer production.  

To say my knowledge at the time was primitive is to be kind.  However, I
probably knew more than most homebrewers of the era, and my results were
commercial quality, or at least my thirsty  Welsh boyos thought so!  I made
several hundred gallons ( I think about 300) during my two years there and 
every
drop was drunk and so were my friends!  I even recall them eyeing my secondary
carboys after my inventory of bottled beer was depleted on one occasion.

The summer of 1970, my wife and I took a six week holiday tour of Europe, and
that was where I found out how good Dutch and German beers could be.  When I
came back to Wales I tried to produce said beverages, but all I got was a
"lager" like the Brits made - obviously the malt and yeast were not proper.
Also, being pre EEC or EC ( in fact, it was the year of the changeover from
pounds/shilling/pence), European supplies were not available and Boots the
Chemist was the only supplier in Swansea and surrounds.  

When I came back to the US, homebrewing had just been legalized and supplies 
of
malt extract of several varieties other than Blue Ribbon were available. Since
no one in the US that I knew, except my next door neighbor, had ever tasted a
bitter and British beers were not commonly available, I continued to make 
amber
beer of the British style, using British extracts, between air flights all 
over
the world. I drank beers all over the world during my travels and found that
while there are many good beers, the Germanic Europeans still have the edge on
lagers. I will never forget my first Heineken in Rotterdam and asking the
bartender," are you sure this is Heineken?" It was excellent.  Round, without
being cloying, refreshing, good aroma, etc. Rice as an adjunct gives this
character, in my experience. My experience here in the US was that H is a poor 

imitation of Bud.  Not so in Netherlands. It is really good.  Same experience
with Beck's in Germany. The Lowenbrau in France tastes like French 
beer(?),what
a let down.  Likewise you wouldn't recognize Stella Artois outside of Belgium.
Since I was tasting such good beers on their home turf and I wasn't on mine
much, my production rate slowed, but never stopped for about ten years.

I then decided to begin to understand what it is that makes the European beers
so unique.  Since the hops were available, I began to experiment with the
various European ( continental)  hops like Saaz, Hallertauer, etc. Once I had
explored them, I then began to experiment with the various malts available. As 

you can imagine, the wind malt was not available commercially ( not even in
Europe), so I had to try to make some. This is how I began my second 
experiment
with wind malt.  I consider it a success, even though my beer made from it had
an OG of 1.030 at 60F.  The beer was of good quality and very drinkable with an
interesting roundness of flavor, even though the SG was far below the planned
1.045. I was then further distracted by setting up my intenational consulting
business and didn't really finish my experiments, which were to involve a
determination of the malt extract expectations on a lab scale, studying the
various parameters of malting on wind malt extract and using the wind malt as 
an
adjunct.  Maybe you can follow this up in your work.

Charlie Papazian in his "Brewer's Companion" has an interesting idea for 
drying
homemade malt.  he suggests using a clothes dryer for drying malt ( and also
hops).  If you had a drier that has a "no heat" cycle it should be possible to
use this method to produce wind malt - although you may have some competition
for this piece of equipment if you are married!. My drier even has a humidity
sensor to know when the clothes ( or malt!) are dry. Put your malt in a pillow
case, tie it shut and dry away. Why didn't I think of that? It also should be  

possible to rig up something to make use of a desk  fan or window fan.  Just
hope it doesn't come loose or you will have a vacuum cleaner full of wind 
malt!
On the other hand maybe you could fill a clean vac bag full of wet wind malt 
and
pretend to vacuum and get a gold star from the wife at the same time you are
drying your malt. I can hear her on the telephone now.  "Yes, and he Hoovered
for hours and hours." Who said creativity was dead? {;-) 

You can determine the dryness af the malt by weighing it periodically, when 
the
weight stabilizes (at about 60% of the original weight) you have done the best
you can with the present conditions of humidity, etc.  This drying bag ( or
pillowcase) method is very useful here. If you use other methods, place a 
small
qualtity ,say 8 0z, or so in a cheesecloth bag and weigh it periodically.
Because the malt shrinks as it dries, it is not possible to weigh a constant
volume sample to determine moisture loss.  The other possibility is to weigh a
constant number of grains, but you probably have a better way to spend your 
time
than counting out malt grains.

Best of luck.  I'd like to sample your beer and, if possible, your malt, once
you have it perfected.

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley

INTERNET:103164.3202 at compuserve.com
or 103164,3202  for Compuserve subscribers   


Return to table of contents


From: "Kirk Harralson" <kwh at smtpgwy.roadnet.ups.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 10:55:32 EST
Subject: Serving wine vs. beer question

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth; this has absolutely nothing to do with 
beer and/or brewing.  I'll make it as brief as possible.  When serving 
wine, what is the purpose of opening a bottle to "let it breathe" for a 
period of time before pouring?  From everything I've read on the HBD, 
exposing beer to air degrades the flavor, quality, etc..  So, why is it 
encouraged with wine?  Since this is not a topic for the HBD, please 
email me directly at kirkh at clark.net.  Again, I apologize for the 
bandwidth.

Return to table of contents


From: awalsh at crl.com.au (Andy Walsh)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 21:38:07 +1000 (EST)
Subject: ester formation in beer

GROAN!
It appears as though my 4 line post must become 400!
!!WARNING!! Very boring, long and tedious scientific post follows.

>Also Andy, those references you mentioned would be sincerely appreciated,
>please thank you. 

OK. First I checked the home brewing literature.

George Fix in P of BS:
"poor oxygenation of cold wort will invariably lead to increased ester levels"

Pierre Rajotte in Belgian Ale:
"A commonly used practice of commercial brewers to reduce ester formation is
to oxygenate the wort vigorously at yeast pitching, and sometimes even a few
hours after. This practice works because the production of esters in
fermentation
is the result of a reaction between fatty acid material and alcohol. A closely 

linked component to this reaction is called acetyl coenzyme A. Depending
on the molecular oxygen available, acetyl coenzyme A either participates in
the biosynthesis of yeast fatty acids or in ester formation. The addition 
of molecular oxygen, either at yeast pitching or a while after causes
acetyl coenzyme A to participate in yeast growth rather than ester formation."

even Greg Noonan in New Brewing Lager Beer spouts the conventional wisdom:
"When respiring yeast lack oxygen, fusel alcohols may be excreted or 
dehydrated
by acetyl Co A to esters."

Then the scientific literature -

J. Pollock in Brewing Science Vol 2.
"Wort aeration seems to influence ester production in such a way that low 
levels
of oxygen may give enhanced ester formation. Cowland and Maule (1966) found 
that
ester formation was highest under anaerobic conditions and that even small
additions
of oxygen during fermentation inhibited their formation. Norstedt et al
(1975) found
no effect on the rate of oxygenation in the interval 6-30 mgO2/litre, but
found an
increase in esters if the wort was deoxygenated, and a reduced ester
formation if
aeration was continued after pitching and during fermentation."

Then the brewing journals:

A. Lentini et al.
The influence of trub on fermentation and flavour development
Proc of the 23rd convention of the Asia/Pacific IOB. 1992.
"Both oxygen and linoleic acid have a negative effect on the production of
esters
by the yeast...
The prescence of a low trub and low oxygenated wort would result in a very
estery
flavoured beer and poor fermentation."

H. Peddie
Ester formation in brewery fermentations
J of IOB. 96 327-331 1990.
"Wort-aeration: This results in increased yeast growth since oxygen is 
essential
for key reactions in the biosynthesis of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids, 
which are needed for yeast growth. Increased yeast growth creates additional
demand
for acetyl CoA for that purpose and so the availability of acetyl CoA for 
ester
synthesis is reduced; even a low rate of aeration during fermentations can
strongly inhibit ester formation"
(my note: this is easily the best, single article on the topic I've seen)

D. Quain
Studies on yeast physiology-impact on fermentation performance and product
quality
J of IOB; 96 315-323 1988.
"The suppression of ester synthesis by oxygen is clearly a consequence of
the consumption
of acetyl-CoA by extra lipid synthesis which, in turn, supports further
yeast growth."

C. Norstedt et al
Technological measures to control the formation of esters during beer
fermentation
Proc. European Brewery Convention 15th congress 1975.
"Oxygenation of wort after pitching (at 11 degree C) reduced the formation of
(i) ethyl, (ii) isoamyl and (iii)phenethyl acetates..."

R. Anderson and B. Kirsop
Oxygen as a regulator of ester accumulation during the fermentation of wort of
high speific gravity.
J of IOB; 81 111-115 1975.
"The supply of oxygen to yeast for short periods during the fermentation of 
wort
of high specific gravity can prevent excessive synthesis of ethyl acetate
and isoamyl acetate, although it does not affect the levels of higher 
alcohols.
Oxygenation increases yeast growth and causes faster fermentation. The effect
of oxygen on ester accumulation is independent of pitching rate."

A. Palmer, H Rennie
Ester control in high gravity brewing
J of IOB; 80(5) 447-454. 1974.
"Insufficiency of oxygen in the wort is a factor in limiting yeast growth with 

resultant enhancement of ester levels in the beer."

I could go on (yes there's plenty more), but I've had enough (are you still 
with me?)
In short, I could not find *one single item* that supports the theory
that lack of wort aeration leads to lower esters, except for Greg Noonan's:
(according to Tracy)

"Hence, while a rapid reduction in the
rate of fermentation can increase ester excretion to above threshold levels,
extensive aerobic fermentation can increase esters to phenomenal levels (see
ch. 17 in M&B Sci for most of the details). I recently proved this to myself
with my last IPA."

Just because Greg Noonan made some poxy IPA at his brewpub does not mean
we should disregard what appears to be the weight of worldwide scientific
opinion on this subject, does it?

This is already too long.
If there is enough interest I can summarise (from the above articles) what 
does influence ester production in a future post.

Andy.
*************************************************************
Andy Walsh from Sydney
email: awalsh at world.net (or awalsh at crl.com.au if you prefer)
I still don't know what a Wohlgemuth unit is.
*************************************************************


Return to table of contents


From: Michael Newman <100711.2111 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 11 Jun 96 07:33:27 EDT
Subject: Removal of Chlorine

Nate Apkon asks if boiling alone is sufficient to removal higher than usual
levels of chlorine in the public water supply. My experience is absolutely 
not!
At my home the chlorine level occasionally rises presumably due to problems
elsewhere in the supply chain (collapsed pipes etc -- this is the UK, we don't
bother replacing Victorian systems do we?)

I was caught out last year on one such occasion. As usual I boiled and racked 
my
liquor, primarily to remove hydrogen carbonate but also to eliminate the
chlorine. Whilst the mash was proceeding I had a cup of tea which tasted
revolting. A family argument followed along the lines of "Who but bleach in 
the
tea-pot and didn't rinse it?" "Well it wasn't me!" etc etc. I used some of my
boiled and racked liquor to make some more tea and this also tasted awful. It
then became apparent that the water from the tap (that's a faucet to you) was
very highly chlorinated. The result was 23l of beer down the drain-- it was
unpleasantly astringently bitter with an antiseptic taste.

I now use an activated carbon silver impregnated filter. This eliminates all
chlorine odour. In fact just how much your water supply smells of chlorine 
isn't
apparent until it doesn't, if you see what I mean.

I strongly recommend you get a filter. They are cheap and who wants to throw
away what should have been good beer!

Good luck and keep brewing. Have one for me!

MICHAEL NEWMAN


Return to table of contents


From: faros at ping.at (Wolfgang Wedel)
Date: 11 Jun 96 10:34:14 +0100
Subject: protein

In #2063 A.J. deLange (ajdel at interramp.com) writes:

 > Proteins are made up of chains of amino acids. Just as the
 > chains of sugar molecules which make up starch need to be lysed
 > into smaller units, so must the proteins. This is the function
 > of the protein rest. There are several issues here. Starch is
 > bound up in a matrix of protein. At a minimum this matrix must
 > be broken down so that the starch is released for conversion to
 > sugar. Furthermore the physical properties of the beer i.e. its
 > viscosity and hence mouthfeel, its head formation and retention
 > and its ultimate clarity all depend on proper distribution of
 > protein fragment molecular weight. 

What does this mean in practice? What are the effects of a longer/shorter,
higher/lower temperature protein rest? I read different opinons (IMO) on this
topic.

Thanks
Wolfgang 
________________________________________________________________
Wolfgang L. Wedel                               faros at ping.at
Vienna/Austria                                  Fido: 2:310/78.8

Return to table of contents


From: "Eric W. & Carolyn W. Metzler" <cwmetzler at telplus.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:52:16 -0400
Subject: RE:  When does your beer become beer?

From: Mary  Towle <MTOWLE at mhz.com> ASKED
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1996
Subject:*** When does your beer become beer?****

- - - - - One of us says it is beer as soon as you pitch the yeast.

- - - - - The other of us says it is beer when it has finished
conditioning/carbonating...about a week or so after bottling.
- -------------------------------
I routinely sip a bit of my fermentations a few days to a week after 
bottling.  I call it beer when the enjoyment of drinking it surpasses the 
enjoyment of imagining what it will be like when it's done!

	Eric W. Metzler, Enfield, Maine



Return to table of contents


From: Barrowman at aol.com
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 20:41:49 -0400
Subject: Fermentation Kinetics

Does anyone know where I can find experimental data on batch fermentation of
S. cerevisiae and maltose or glucose? I need rate constants (w/ respect to
temperature), growth rates, initial & final concentrations, and any
thermodynamic data I can get. I am trying to develop a mathematical model of
a typical homebrewer's fermentation and track the temperature profile.

I have done this before but for other types of fermentations. In this case, I
may be stuck contacting yeast manufacturers. If, and when, I manage to put
this this together I will be happy to share it. It will not be for the faint
of heart (or calculus).

Thanks,

Laura

Return to table of contents


From: Michael A Gasman <michael_a.gasman at mamc.chcs.amedd.army.mil>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 1996 17:23:33 -0700
Subject: Info on Hops and Dogs

I would like more info about Hops Toxicity in Dogs.  Malignant Hyperthermia
is a rare genetic disease in humans stimulated by anesthetic agents and
usually fatal if untreated.  Please send any information or point me to
established sources.  Direct E-Mail is best.  After I run the info by a vet
anesthetist and toxicologist I will post a summary.
 
Mike Gasman          Michael_A.Gasman at madiva.chcs.amedd.army.mil
Bremerton WA      or gasman at tscnet.com

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 14:36:58 CDT
Subject: chiller length/RIMS alternative/extraction+recirc/Wyeast/30K BTUs

Again, I'm sorry about these being rather dated questions but I've made
every effort to answer only the ones for which I have something to add.

Dan writes:
>If you lengthen the tubing and maintain the same flow rate all that will
>happen is that the extra length of tubing will become less effective at 
>removing the heat from the wort. One of the critical factors in good 
>heat exchanger design is maintaining a high temperature differential 
>between the hot working fluid and the cold working fluid. As this 
>temperature difference becomes smaller less heat transfer will occur. So
>what will happen is that with 1/4" tubing the water in that extra length
>of tubing will be getting very hot (approaching wort temperatures) and 
>therefore its effectiveness at cooling becomes nil.
 
>Net result....the 1/4" diameter chiller should be SHORTER and not 
>longer, IF you maintain the same flow rate.

This is sort-of right.  The first paragraph is right: for a given temperature
of wort, temperature of cooling water, tubing diameter and flow rate, there
is a length beyond which there is virtually no cooling.  However, the second
paragraph can be misinterpreted that to get better results, you want to use a
shorter chiller.  All you are wasting is copper and money if your chiller is
too long -- you are not getting slower cooling.  For maximum efficiency, you
want to adjust the flow so that the cooling water output is the same
temperature as the liquid you are cooling.  Therefore, at first, you can
run the coolant very fast.  As the temperatures of the coolant and wort
get closer together, you might as well slow the coolant rate because now
you are wasting water.  The longer your tubing is, the faster you can run
your initial water, so the length of your tubing should be dependent on
your maximum coolant flow rate.  The math will be left as an excercise
(because I'm not about to climb into the crawlspace to pull out my
Thermodynamics textbooks!).

***
Kevin writes:
>After reading Morris's articel on RIMS using a hotwater heating 
>element, I thought about the carmalizing question alot. My solution 
>(so far not tried on real wort), was to heat a water bath and run a 
>copper tube with the wort inside through the boiling water.

and:
>Actually, now that I think about it, what I had was an immersion 
>chiller running backwards. Instead of the coils sitting in a pan of 
>ice water, they were in boiling water.

Not quite.  With an immersion chiller, you only need to clean the outside
of the copper.  With what you are talking about, you would need to make
sure that the inside of the copper was very clean (no oils, minimal
oxidation, no crud).  One reason I like my immersion chiller is because
I can clearly see how clean the surface is that touches the wort.

and:
>First, the maximum temperature that touches the wort is 212F, sugar 
>doesn't caramelize at that temp.

Although caramelization may be a secondary concern, your primary concern
should be protecting your enzymes.  At 212F, they will all be dead in
seconds.  While you will never have to run your entire volume of liquid
through the coil (otherwise your mash will be close to 212F), you will
also not be able to do the continuous recirculation which is part of the
RIMS concept.  If you kept the water kettle around 5F or so higher than
your target mash temperature, then your idea would work, but now you
need to constantly monitor BOTH your mash temp and your hot water temp.
I agree that automating the temperature control is part of the attractiveness
of the RIMS concept.

***
Jim writes:
>>Chris' post got me thinking about a question that has been on my mind for a
>>while now: When we make high gravity beers, we usually take the first
>>runnings from the mash for the high gravity beer, and then either use
>>subsequent runnings for a "small" beer or just discard the remaining sugars
>>with the grain. My question is why don't we just keep recirculating the
>>first runnings until all the soluble sugars are "rinsed" from the grain? The
>>first runnings are obviously not saturated with sugars (or else we wouldn't
>>be able to perform concentrated boils with malt extract) so we should still
>>be able to dissolve additional sugars into these runnings.
>
>  Well, I think you certainly *can* improve extraction by increased
>recirculation of the first runnings. From what I've read of Dave Miller's
>writings, I believe this is exactly how he obtains the rather gaudy 
extraction
>numbers he reports. However, I think there's a tradeoff here.

I don't think so.  The first runnings are really the highest gravity wort you
can get out of the grain.  You can get it even higher by using less water, but
to get even more out, recirculation will not help.  Sparging the mash with
water that has *no* sugar in it will rinse sugar out of it.  You collect all
these runnings and then boil them down to raise the OG even more.  Now,
although most people probably do a continuous sparge (called "fly sparging")
as opposed to draining and refilling (called "batch sparging"), for
illustration, let's say we take the first runnings and then refill the tun
and fly sparge.  I don't have the exact numbers here, so I'll use some
approximate ones.  We take 2 gallons of 1.070 first runnings and then fly
sparge another 5 gallons of 1.035 runnings.  Then we mix them together (making
7 gallons of 1.045 sweet wort) and boil all that down to 5.5 gallons of 1.057
of hopped wort.  Only first runnings are used for most Barleywines simply
because nobody wants to boil for four hours to get their 7 gallons of 1.045
wort down to 2.86 gallons of 1.110 wort.  The excessive caramelization during
this long boil would probably hose up the flavour of the beer too.

Perhaps an analogy will help explain why recirculating won't help you get
more sugars out of the grain bed.  Suppose you spilled some maple syrup on
your shirt.  If you rinsed your shirt in a bowl of water, the maple syrup 
would rinse out partly.  If you poured out the maple syrup + water and
rinsed again in fresh water you would get even more maple syrup out of the
shirt.  Now, let's say you tried to rinse your shirt in maple syrup!  No
matter how many times you changed to fresh maple syrup, the shirt would still
have maple syrup in it, right?

***
Dave writes:
>when is it best to pitch liquid yeast, when the pack expands to 1 
>inch, on the day when the incubation period = months old, or what 
>ever comes first.

It's best to make a starter.  Just pitching the package of Wyeast is
severely underpitching.  If you don't have time for a starter, the time
to pitch is when the package has swolen to be rather firm.  The "months
since packaging" formula is only an approximation and works for some strains
of yeast but can be too short or too long for others.

***
Steve writes:
>1.  With a 30,000 BTU NG burner, what is the realistic risk of using it in a
>basement? 

This question does not have a quantifiable answer like "42."  Hmmm...?
No, seriously, the risk is very real.  Consider that I had four burners
going in my kitchen (making starters in Erlenmeyers) and I had them all
on about at a 4,000 BTU level (rough guess).  That's a total of 16,000
BTUs.  I had the exhaust hood fan on low.  The CO monitor in the *next
room* read something like 65.  This is not going to kill you, but over
time, it can make you sick.  I opened a window, turned the hood fan to
high and the monitor dropped to 0.  Now, if you install a hood with a
fan and provide a source of fresh air, you can easily use a 30,000 BTU
burner in the basement.  Without then, I wouldn't do it.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 96 18:09:44 CDT
Subject: chalky deposits/WD40/Hammermills/first mash/floating stuff and CaCO3

Just got back from a week in New Orleans which included the AHA National
Confernence, so I'm sorry that some of these topics are rather old.

Rob writes (quoting someone, sorry):
>>I found a coating of a milky (chalky) white deposit in the glass carboy 
>>           Any suggestions on how to clean the carboy? 
> 
>Try a caustic solution.

I would do just the opposite.  The white deposit is probably carbonates
and therefore some acid should be used to try to dissolve it.  Lemon juice,
vinegar or acid blend come immediately to mind.
 
****
GOODtime Bob writes (regarding quick disconnects):
>it.  BTW, I sometimes spray some WD40 on em, 'cause they often get bathed in
>Iodophor and get a little sticky.  Still no problem.

I would advise against that.  The WD40 is an oil and oils will kill head
retention.
 
***
Jeff writes:
>In a hammer mill, a hammer that is attached to a shaft by a hinge beats
>the grain against the corrugated wall of a cylindrical chamber.  Product
>fineness is adjustable by using different mesh screens that fit in the
>perimeter of the mill.  When the pulverized grain is small enough, it is
>thrown through the screen by the hammer and the air which is blown into
>the mill with the grain.

I talked to Michael Lewis in New Orleans... they do indeed powder the
grain compleatly.  "Forget about lautering that" I said, to which
he responded that this new mill and their new Mash Filter 2001 work
hand-in-hand.  You can't have one without the other and this is a
new system.  They are still using a conventional mill and mash tun
at St. James Gate... the new system is used at another of their breweries
in Ireland (forgot which).

The mill he showed had 6 hammers and what may have been a characterization
of a screen (it had maybe 30 slits).  The mill diagram I have seen had
four hammers and only one slit at the bottom.

***
Chris writes:
>First we put a large grain bag in the keg and clipped it to the
>rim so that the bag was suspended about 6"-8" above the keg bottom
>and added 7 pounds of grain (crystal and American 2-row) and enough
>water to just cover the grains.      Next, with the burner the
>temperature was brougth to 125^F an allowed to stabilize there for
>30 minutes.  The temperature was raised to 160^F for 30 minutes
>(the burner was cycled whenever the temperature dropped to 155^F).
>Finally the temperature was raised to 180^F for 10 minutes.  The grain
>bag was then unclipped from the keg rim, gathered, and raise above
>the wort level and allowed to drain for about 5 minutes.  At the same
>time the burner was turned on and addittional extract and water was
>added to make up the full desired volume plus 1 gallon extra to be
>lost  during the 60 minute full boil.

The temperatures sound okay (although if your beer ends up thin-bodied
and has poor head retention, you may want to lose the protein rest)
but there are three problems I see.

One is that there is a big difference between lautering and pulling a bag
of grain out of a kettle of water.  When you lauter, you recirculate the
runnings until the grain bed forms a filter.  The small particles that come
through the grain bed at first get trapped as they try to travel through the
grain bed again and in the end you have nice clear runnings.  Your wort was
probably hazy and probably affected the clarity of your finished beer too.

Secondly, there is a big difference between 1 (or 1.5) quart per pound of
grain and 3 quarts per pound.  It sounds from your description that the
dead space below the bottom of the bag and the water above could result
in a significant increase in water-to-grain ratio than what is typical.
If your water is high in calcium and low in carbonates then it's probably
not a problem, but if you are low in calcium and high in carbonates, your
pH was probably way high.  You should get some pH papers and test it.
You would like it to be in the range of about 5.1 and 5.5.  If not, first
reduce the dead space by lowering the bag and reduce the water used.  If
that doesn't work, depending on style you should adjust it with either
gypsum, calcium chloride or acids.

Finally, you tossed a good deal of sugars out with the grain by not
sparging.  This is very minor point and I would concentrate on the first
two issues before worrying about sparging.

***
John writes:
>I just pitched a 5 gal batch of pale ale with... <snip> 

and
>Question:  what is this floating stuff and can I just wait for it to settle
>before racking to the secondary?  (The only difference in this and the prior
>three batches was that I used a total of 4 tsps of calcium carbonate to 
adjust
>my water, and the sparge water was closer to 185F than 170F).

The floating stuff is probably cold break -- don't worry about it.  My concern
is the 4 teaspoons of calcium carbonate.  Unless you have exceedingly acidic
water, you have raised your pH up into the range where tannin extraction
is a problem.  Did you really check your pH and add the chalk, or did you
just add it because you thought you should?  Calcium carbonate (chalk)
raises pH.  Perhaps you meant calcium sulfate (gypsum)?  Gypsum lowers
pH in the mash, but by how much depends on various things, including how
much carbonate you have in your water.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 96 10:56:29 CDT
Subject: yeast phases/hop storage/soft water/hazy beer/is it beer yet?

John writes:
>I have been recently reading the CAMRA Homebrewing book and a very nice
>read it is, too.  The author stated that oxygen in the wort caused the
>yeast to respire and multiply.

The yeast do not respire, but they do absorb the oxygen.  They multiply,
but it is not *caused* by the oxygen.  Somewhere, a long time ago, I read
that the yeast multiply till their concentration reach a certain level.
I have been looking for that reference for quite some time.  If you know
where I can find it (or something to the contrary), please email me.  Thanks.

>From my understanding, what has been said
>before in hbd, the yeast will not respire in the presence of fermentable
>sugars in the wort.  Is this not correct?

This is correct... the book is wrong.

>A part I am still not sure of, though,
>is what causes the yeast to go into a reproductive phase.  Is it the
>presence of oxygen and fermentable sugars?  If this is the case, will they
>enter their reproductive stage again if oxygen is introduced later while
>there are still fermentable sugars present?  I think A.J. deLange said that
>in hbd #2059.  It would seem to make sense.  Also, if the reproductive or
>growth stage produces undesirable byproducts then most of us must get them
>in our brews as we usually underpitch and aerate the wort.  If reusing
>yeast from a previous batch where there is probably an adequate amount,
>should we avoid aerating the wort to avoid yeast entering a growth phase and
>producing these undesirable byproducts?

I'm not sure what the answer is to your first question here, however, A.J.
never said that the yeast go into the reproductive phase.  One of the primary
"undesirable byproducts" produced if you aerate during fermentation is
diacetyl.  However, I have read two different descriptions of how it is
created.  Maybe they are related.  One is that the oxygen oxidizes
alpha-acetolactic acid (I believe) into diacetyl.  The other description
says that the yeast start using a different metabolic pathway which causes
the diacetyl production.  Are we talking the same thing here?  Is the
oxidation of the alpha-acetolactic acid *inside* or *outside* the cell?

Frankly, from a brewer's perspective (which is the way I usually look at
it), it doesn't really matter how it happens, but what's important is
understanding simply that oxygen introduced during fermentation increases
diacetyl production.

>enough O2 in solution.  I understand the yeast clear the O2 from the wort
>in short order but how long should it take for them to complete what growth
>they are going to have and settle out?  How long should I wait after each
>step to be safe in decanting the liquid.  Or should I even worry until
>time to pitch?

Don't worry so much about creating diacetyl or other byproducts in your
starters.  I've heard that commercial yeast propagators have continuous
aeration.  If you need to grow up a big starter, make it up in steps,
5 to 10 fold increases, letting the yeast settle and pouring off the
spent wort.  In the final step, pitch shortly after high kraeusen to
maximize the glycogen level in the yeast cells.
 
>In another vein, the author of the CAMRA book also said to store hops in
>a cold dark place but to not freeze them.  I keep my hops in purged Mason
>jars in the freezer.  Am I screwing up?  Could his advice apply only to fresh
>hops?  I use plugs and pellets.

The book is wrong again.  If you can freeze the hops, do it.  Commercial
hop merchants would freeze if they could, but it's not practical for them.
Your method of storage is pretty much ideal.
 
>In still another vein, my brewing water is very soft and low ph.  I don't
>see that I would need added calcium for acidification since the water is
>already acidic but do I need it for break formation and for the yeast? If so, 

>won't the mash be acidified even more?  Will adding calcium carbonate add
>the required (if any) calcium and raise the ph?  For my pilsners, I suppose
>my water should be fine as is but I wonder about the calcium thing and the
>break.  Since the water in Pilzen (sp?) is reputed to be quite soft, I guess
>I should be o.k.  But what about the acidity?

Don't sweat the acidity till after your have mashed-in.  The pH of your
water is related to the pH of your mash, but there are many more factors.
Have some calcium carbonate handy if you need to raise mash pH and some
gypsum (for high-sulphate styles) or acid (for low-sulphate styles) handy
and adjust after mashing-in and measuring.

>Also, when brewing ales, I suppose I would need gypsum for the sulphate but
>wouldn't that lower the ph unacceptably?  It seems most things I read about
>water treatment is for hard, high ph water, just the opposite of mine.

Don't associate high sulphate with all ales.  For example, you would not
want high sulphate for a cream ale.  Also, Dortmunder Exports and Viennas
are not low sulphate styles and they are lagers.

***
Tom writes:
>1.  When I chilled the batch, I adjusted the flow of both cooling water and
>wort so the wort cooled to about 70F.  It ran into the chiller quite clear
>but came out cloudy.  I think maybe I din't precipitate the cold break enough
>and instead of dropping out in the fermenter it just stayed as a sort of
>emulsion.
> 
>2.  The yeast is a really lousy flocculator and is just staying in
>suspension.

Could be either of these two or both.  If the beer clears when it is warm,
then it's chill haze.  If it gets less hazy, then it's both.  I didn't save
the text that said whether this was an extract or grain batch.  It could
also be starch haze if you used grains that need to be mached such as pale
ale, pilsner or munich.  If it's the yeast, then you can try using some
isinglass or gelatin to help settle the yeast.

***
MT writes:
> - - - One of us says it is beer as soon as you pitch the yeast.

The one who said this is right.  Before adding hops, it's called "sweet
wort" and after adding hops "hopped wort."  As soon as you pitch the yeast
you have what is known as "green beer."  It's called "green beer" until
it's ready to drink regardless whether that's 10 days for a Bitter or
3 months for a Bohemian Pilsner.
Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


From: John Chang <75411.142 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 11 Jun 96 17:21:13 EDT
Subject: Mini-kegs for conditioning

Even though I haven't (yet) grown tired of having to wash, fill and cap 
bottles,
the 5l mini-kegs available do present some features that seem really 
appealing,
such as only four vessels to fill 5gal, convenient storing/ lagering and ease 
of
transportation in vehicles such baby stroller and golf cart, etc.  

While recognizing any transportation and dispensing laws that may be in effect
in California, I would like to inquire as to the effectiveness of using these
vessels to condition homebrew in.  The recommended priming rate seems to be
about 1/3 to 1/2 the standard 3/4 cup (if using corn sugar).  

Does anyone know if  these vessels with plastic/rubber bung  can handle the
pressures created by priming? Or, does the carbonation level suffer because of 

the reduced priming rates? Other than impecable sanitation, are there any 
other
tips/tricks in order to prolong the life of these?  How long WILL they
realistically last?  Is the use of the mini-C02 cannisters cost-prohibitive?

Any advice or warnings from anyone that has had experience with these would be
greatly appreciated.

TIA,
John


Return to table of contents


From: Dckdog at aol.com
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:39:12 -0400
Subject: potpourri of rookie stuff....

Hey, first homebrew attempt yielded a very palatable (albeit young) dark beer
with a good hop aroma and pleasing taste, the head was decent and clung to
the sides of the glass. I seem to have a problem with specific gravity. My
first batch-the aforementioned-was bottled after 10 days of fermentation and
an ending SG of 1.022, hmmm, as a rookie I didn't take a starting gravity but
the end result is o.k. The latest batch is extract, all malt and started at
1.048 and appears stuck at 1.018 after like 9 days, I racked to a secondary
and activity is minimal. My understanding is that SG denotes density of
particles in solution, is it possible that all malt brews (meaning all malt
extract-no sugar until priming) would have a higher overall ending SG? Should
I throw away the hydrometer and have a homebrew?
What would be a good transition to malt extract/partial grain brew? Is it too
soon to attempt it? 
Any direction is certainly appreciated, thanks in advance.
Dean
Dckdog at aol.com
(short for duck dog, y'know, labrador.....)

Return to table of contents