FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  Overnight mashing / Extract efficiency (npyle)
  Re: Decoction mashing (Timothy J. Dalton)
  Re: Counterflow Questions (Mike Zentner)
  Overnight mashing (McHarry)
  Gelatin question (lyons)
  decoction/hopping/misc (Jim Busch)
  misc (""Robert C. Santore"")
  *EXTRA* EARWAX KILLS BEER FOAM (ed fromohio)
  Re: pts-gal/lb NOT pts/lb/gal (Ed Hitchcock)
  Yet Another Grain Mill (wegeng.XKeys)
  Wyeast question (John Adams)
  confused hops (Russ Gelinas)
  Homebrew blindness ("Palmer.John")
  Chilis are Jalapenos (Wolfe)
  To those who attended the conference in Portland...  (davidr)
  when to harvest hops? (tims)
  Ammonia in water supply (Kevin Casey)
  pts/lb/gal /sprinkling spargers/AllAboutBeer/WyeastQuestions (korz)
  Japanese Homebrew? (npyle)
  overnight mashes (ghultin)
  "Washing" yeast (Derrick Pohl)
  Decoction mashing/Overnight mashing (korz)
  Wyeast Suppliers (John_D._Sullivan.wbst311)
  Flora & Fauna (korz)
  The FaceMail Project (Spencer.W.Thomas)
  Algebra and extraction rate (Geoff Reeves)
  Yeast Trick (roberts735)
  Wyeast 1007, (German) (SMUCKER)
  boiling hops longer / blindness / overnight mashes (Brian Bliss)


Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  then you MUST unsubscribe the same way! 
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
  (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
  listserv at sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
  message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at novell.physics.umr.edu



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

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 93 9:40:11 MDT
From: npyle at n33.stortek.com
Subject: Overnight mashing / Extract efficiency

William Kitch responds to Jack's post about starting the brew session the night
before:

>In HBD #1193 Jack Schmidling mentions doing the mash-in the night
>before the rest of the mash.  According to Jack, the overnight mash-in
>"had far more malty flavor and seemed richer and fuller in body" than
>the same recipe using a normal mash-in.
>
>Very interesting experience!  I could certainly go for mashing-in the
>night before.  Have others tried this?  With what sucess?  Jack, what
>temperature do you mash in at and how does it change overnight?

Actually Jack didn't say he did mash-in the night before, he said he did
"dough-in" the night before.  I suspect he did dough-in at room temperature in
order to dissolve the starch well.  I seem to recall a thread about this months
ago.  I have done overnight mashes myself, ala Dave Line.  It works, I have had
no undesirable effects from this, although it seems ripe for having a sour mash
type of event.  A side note:  Dave Line is (was) on of the more "relaxed"
homebrewing authors around; draw your own conclusions.

Martin Manning writes:

>My personal preference is to measure the extract efficiency at the start of the
>boil. It is, as someone said, the efficiency of the mashing and lautering
>processes that are of the most interest. At this point, the character of the
>wort is set, and you have recovered all of the sugars you are going to get.
>
>A point which no one has brought up is that if you are using any kettle
>adjuncts (honey, sugars, etc.), you definitely want to do the calculation
>before you add them.

This is a point worth mentioning.  If you are brewing a certain style and
really want to nail that OG, measuring before the boil is a must.  At that
point, you can do several things:  boil more/less to adjust the OG, add DME to
adjust the OG, etc.  If you don't care as much about the perfect OG, change the
hopping schedule to balance the beer for more/less malt (this is what I
typically do).  After the boil, you have no such options, you are just
measuring the efficiency of your process.

Cheers,
norm

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 07:37:08 -0400
From: Timothy J. Dalton <dalton at mtl.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Decoction mashing

Don_Doyle at Novell.COM (Don Doyle) wrote:

> I was wondering if many people use decoction mashing and what the
> pro's/con's to it are. I have Noonan's book and he swears by decoction
> for lager's however can one do an ale this way. I have a little voice
> in my head saying "No" because you will impart unwanted flavors i.e.
> astringency into the beer, but want feedback on this mashing procedure.

Decoction mashing is used for more than just lagers. Eric Warner details 
the use of decoction mashing to produce Bavarian Weissbier in 
_German Wheat Beer_.  With a large fraction of wheat (> 50%) as part of 
the grain bill, decoction mashing makes lautering easier by breaking
down more of the high molecular weight proteins which removes the
'gumminess' typically associated with high percentage malted wheat mashes.  
Decoction mashing also tends to increase extract yield.

I've used decoction mashing to make two weissbiers with good success
(using double decoction mashes) and most recently, a triple 
decoction to make an Oktoberfest which yielded 32.4 pts-gal/lb (to follow
Geoff's revised unit scheme). 

Boiling the grains does not cause a problem with tannin extraction
as long as the pH of the decoction being boiled is correct i.e., acidic,
around 5.5.

	Tim

- ----
Timothy J. Dalton                                   tjdalton at mit.edu
MIT, Dept. of Chemical Engineering, Materials Etching Technology Lab
***** Searchlight Casting for Faults in the Clouds of Delusion ***** 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 07:16:25 -0500
From: zentner at ecn.purdue.edu (Mike Zentner)
Subject: Re: Counterflow Questions


>From: Jim Grady <grady at hpangrt.an.hp.com>
>Subject: Counterflow Questions
>
>I am thinking about turning my immersion chiller into a counterflow
>chiller and have a couple of operational questions:

>  1. Some have mentioned that they sanitize their counterflow chillers
>     by running boiling water through them.  How do you get the boiling

Use something like a bottling bucket (bucket with a spigot, thought I
never use one of these things for bottling), connect the spigot to the
inlet of your chiller, and let gravity do the work.

>  2. Similar to the above, How do you get it started?  I am assuming

Same thing.

One other note, for those who haven't been around for about a year.
Now you will be running wort through the inside of your chiller.  Make
sure there are no nasties on the inside of your tubing, eg, oils from
machining, mold from letting water sit in it, etc.  To check for oils
take some kind of solvent (rubbing alcohol, paint thinner, etc) and 
put some on the end of a Qtip.  Swab arond the inside of your tube.
If there's gunk on it or some dark discoloration, you should think
about cleaning it.

As in the past, I have my designs on line and will mail them to anyone
who wants them for free.

Mike Zentner

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 09:05:10 EDT
From: mcharry at cwc.com (McHarry)
Subject: Overnight mashing

I have bee mashing overnight in my oven for quite some time now.  I dough
in at room temperature and shove the kettle (my EasyMasher) in the oven set
on warm.  It is a bit too warm at the lowest setting, but that seems not to
be a problem.  The temperature rises overnight to about 160 F.  This seems
to produce a nice, highly fermentable wort with a good extraction rate.  I
have mashed all sorts of stuff this way, including batches with unmalted
wheat flour in them.  No problems.  I just get up in the morning and put
the sparge water on with the coffee.

One other note, I have been draining the lauter tun about half way through
the sparge, refilling with sparge water, and stirring well.  This seems to
prevent any sugars from hiding in gobs of goo, which can be a problem with
some adjuncts.  It seems to raise the yield a bit.

John McHarry

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 09:22:44 EDT
From: lyons%adc2 at swlvx2.msd.ray.com
Subject: Gelatin question

I have had excellent results obtaining clear beers when using
gelatin during the last three days of secondary fermentation.
However, I have been wondering just what the gelatin does to
the beer.  Is there any concensus on how gelatin affects the
quality of beer (i.e. body, head retention)?

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 9:42:05 EDT
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: decoction/hopping/misc

<From: lfk at veritas.com (Lynn Kerby)
Subject: Hopping techniques (was Pale Ale Recipe)


<Are there other brewers out there that are doing something similar
with their hopping techniques?

Sure.  All my pale ales /ipas are multihopped.  I usually go for 
centennial and cascade at 60 minutes boil to the end, about 60% of
the total hop quantity.  then at 30 minutes a aditional 10% or so
goes in, and then tons of cascade from 12 minutes until the end of
boil.   


<From: Don_Doyle at Novell.COM (Don Doyle)
Subject: Decoction mashing

<I was wondering if many people use decoction mashing and what the
pro's/con's to it are. I have Noonan's book and he swears by decoction
for lager's however can one do an ale this way. I have a little voice
in my head saying "No" because you will impart unwanted flavors i.e.
astringency into the beer, but want feedback on this mashing procedure.

Decoction is a must for all grain weizens, and is very beneficial for
many styles of lagers, pils and bocks in particular.  It is not worth
the extra effort for ales, esp if you are using domestic 2 row pale or
any ale malt (M&F, Belgium...;).  Its just not worth the effort.  If
you are looking for more body and chewyness, boost your dextrin pool 
by using lots of caramel malts. I love the CaraVienna and CaraMunich,
as well as english caramel malts.  Additional munich malts will also
result in more malt/and body.  I even gave up the protein rest on my
pale ales, opting for a infusion at 160, resulting in rests of 152-154
for 60 min, then mash off at 170 and lauter.  I really love making these 
"easy" beers.  

Best,
Jim Busch



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 10:14:06 -0400
From: ""Robert C. Santore"" <rsantore at mailbox.syr.edu>
Subject: misc

>From  HOMEBREW Digest #1195, 08/03/93
 > From: reeves at lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves)
 > It occurs to me that a lot of the confusion over extraction rate, or yeild
 > may be due to the fact the people keep referring to pts/lb/gal (points per
 > pound per gallon). These are not the correct units and that may be why some
 > people are confused. The formula used is
 >
 >        (OSG_beer - SG_water) * Volume_of_Beer / Pounds_of_Grain
 >
 > Specific gravity is dimensionless but is referred to by "points" in brewing
 > so the dimensions are gallons/pound or point-gallons/pound (pts-gal/lb for 
 > the abreviation inclined).

Pts/lb/gal and pts-gal/lb are EXACTLY the same thing.  Think about it.

 > From: r.wize at genie.geis.com
 > Subject: Agar availability?
 >
 > I recently have become an all grain brewer and am now using the Brewers
 > Resource Culture kit.  My question is does anyone know of a recipe or a
 > source for just Agar?  Most of the catalogs I have seen sell Agar slants but
 > at a price of about .80 to $1.00 each (then adding shipping it hardly seems
 > worth it)  I'm sure I could get my hands on some test tubes, it is the Agar
 > which mystifies me. 

Rick, I find it is much cheaper to buy food grade agar than the stuff 
sold as culture media.  You can find it in oriental or natural food stores. 
Sometimes the oriental stuff comes in sticks (white or red) which is a less
convienient form.  The best stuff to find is in a flaked form.  Make sure 
you use TWICE the recommended amount of agar for a given volume of wort.  
I find that if I make it up as recommended the agar throws off a lot of 
water that interferes with my using it as a culturing surface (of course
the directions assume that you are going to eat the stuff).  Since you're
from Syracuse I can recommend Discount Natural Foods in DeWitt as a source.
Feel free to contact me if you have any procedural questions.  I've been
culturing yeast for some time.

 > From: Don_Doyle at Novell.COM (Don Doyle)
 > Subject: Decoction mashing
 > 
 > 
 > I was wondering if many people use decoction mashing and what the
 > pro's/con's to it are. I have Noonan's book and he swears by decoction
 > for lager's however can one do an ale this way. I have a little voice
 > in my head saying "No" because you will impart unwanted flavors i.e.
 > astringency into the beer, but want feedback on this mashing procedure.

The pros include better extraction, less trub, more complete degradation 
of proteins to soluble components, more well developed malt flavor in the
finished beer.  The cons include more hassle and more time.  I do not brew
any classic lager styles, but always use decoction for wheat beer and 
occassionally use it when I want a richer maltiness.  Give yourself about
twice the amount of time you normally need to do a mash.

 - Bob Santore, Syracuse University
 - rsantore at mailbox.syr.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 10:19:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: dcm2 at bofur.unh.edu (ed fromohio)
Subject: *EXTRA* EARWAX KILLS BEER FOAM

I was with my friend ethan last night, enjoying some homebrew.  well,
he poured some into his glass with a marvelous head (maybe even too
much head say about 4", and yes, he poured it correctly, of course, it
was an old mayonaise jar, but that's beside the point).  he then
swirled his finger in his ear and said, "watch this."  whilest
swirling yonder finger in the beer foam, he said, "earwax kills beer
foam," and it did, quite remarkably too...

amazing.. now, it might have been mentioned on this forum before but I
can't remember...  anyway, if there are any follow ups to this
article, please also Cc: them to me, dcm2 at kepler.unh.edu... thanks, as
I unsubscribed a day ago, due to my going on vacation for a while...

 -chris

P.S. dumb joke of the day:
	A guy walks into a bar... ouch!
- -- 
- -- Chris Mackensen (dcm2 at kepler.unh.edu or cygnus at unh.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 11:37:25 -0300
From: Ed Hitchcock <ECH at ac.dal.ca>
Subject: Re: pts-gal/lb NOT pts/lb/gal


Geoff Reeves Writes:

>It occurs to me that a lot of the confusion over extraction rate, or yeild
>may be due to the fact the people keep referring to pts/lb/gal (points per
>pound per gallon). These are not the correct units and that may be why some
>people are confused. The formula used is
>
>        (OSG_beer - SG_water) * Volume_of_Beer / Pounds_of_Grain
>
>Specific gravity is dimensionless but is referred to by "points" in brewing
>so the dimensions are gallons/pound or point-gallons/pound (pts-gal/lb for
>the abreviation inclined).

	I hate to nitpick, but the formula pts*gal/lbs is the same as the 
formula pts/(lbs/gal).  I know it's mathematical smoke and mirrors, but 
just thought I'd point it out.  Of course, we could also write pts*gal*lbs^-1
(that's pounds to the minus one).  Or, for that matter, gal/(lbs/pts), 
or...

____________   
Ed Hitchcock/Dept of Anatomy & Neurobiology/Dalhousie University/Halifax NS
ech at ac.dal.ca   +-----------------------------------------+
		|   Never trust a statement that begins:  |
		|     "I'm not racist, but..."		  |
		+-----------------------------------------+
	Diversity in all things.  Especially beer.

Return to table of contents


Date: 	Tue, 3 Aug 1993 07:39:48 PDT
From: wegeng.XKeys at xerox.com
Subject: Yet Another Grain Mill

One of my goals for the Portland Conference was to determine which grain mill I
should buy to replace the Corona that I`ve been borrowing.  At the risk of
starting yet-another flame war, I thought I`d mention that there was a mill on
display at the conference that I don`t remember seeing discussed here before.

This new mill is from Glatt Machining (address: 820 Stanley Drive, College
Place, WA 99324, no phone number given).  This is an adjustable two roller
mill, with a 2.5 pound hopper capacity.  Adjustments are made by loosening one
of two screws (one for coarse adjusments, the other for fine adjustments) and
then moving a scaled plate.  It appeared to be very easy to repeat the settings
on this mill.  The rollers had large groves cut along their lengths, quite
different than the rollers on the PhilMill (I haven`t seen the rollers on the
Malt Mill).  The handle was very easy to turn while crushing.  The crush coming
from this mill looked very good to my eye.  The entire mill is made of heavy
gage metal, with a powder coat finish.  Guarantee is 90 days (defects and
materials).  Cost is $80 plus $5 shipping.

Comparing Glatt Mill to the Phil Mill, I liked the fact that the Glatt Mill has
two rollers, is easy to adjust, and has a integrated hopper.  I didn`t get a
good opportunity to compare it with the Malt Mill, except to note that it is
much less expensive than an adjustable Malt Mill.  Finally, the people from
Glatt semed very honest about their product.  At one point a friend and I took
some grain crushed on a Phill Mill to the Glatt booth, to compare the two
crushes.  The Glatt Mill appeared to give better crush (eyeball determination),
but then the Glatt representitive pointed out that it wasn`t a fair comparision
(even though his mill seemed to win) because we didn`t run the same type of
grain through both mills.  He didn`t have to point this out.

I`m probably going to order a Glatt Malt Mill in a couple days.

/Don
wegeng.xkeys at xerox.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 09:08:03 -0600
From: John Adams <j_adams at hpfcjca.sde.hp.com>
Subject: Wyeast question

There is no need to hydrate the liquid yeast (it is already hydrated).  The
problem you are experiencing is that the number of yeast cells in a liquid
packet is far less than that of dry yeast.  It will take more time for
the yeast from the liquid (when pitched directly from the bag) to "get up to 
speed."

The best method for liquid yeast to to make a starter thus allowing your
yeast more time to grow before pitching into the fermenter.

To make a yeast starter:
   obtain a 1/2 or 1 gallon juice jug (or any similarly size glass container).
   obtain an appropriate sized rubber stopper and fermentation lock.
   santitize your starter, fermentation lock, and liquid yeast packet.

   boil 1 pint water with 2/3 cup light dry extract for 5 mintutes.
   add 1 point cold water to your starter jug.
   add your "mini wort" to your starter.
      The addtional pint of cold water helps to bring the mixture's temp.
      down to 80-90degress.  I usually fill my sink with more cold water and
      sit the starter jug in the water until the temp. drops to ~70.

   figerously shake the starter to help oxygenate the "mini wort."
   carefully open the liquid packet and add the contents to the starter jug.
   cap with the fermentation lock and wait.



The starter should be ready in about 2 days, I usually prepare my starters
3-4 days prior to brewing.  Remember the liquid yeast in the packet usually
take 1 day to "puff up" so plan for 1 day for the packet + 2 days in the
starter before brewing.

You want the starter to be actively growing before you add it to your 
fermenter.  If the yeast activity drops before you are ready to brew then make 
another 1/2 batch (1 pint & 1/3 cup extract) to the starter to keep the yeast 
growing and active.

Starter's have two maoin advantages:
   1) You lower the risk of contamination in your main fermenter by giving your
      yeast the advantage.

   2) If your yeast gets contaminated then you only lose your starter and NOT 
      your 5 gallon (or more) batch of beer.


John Adams

Return to table of contents


Date:    Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:30:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: R_GELINAS at UNHH.UNH.EDU (Russ Gelinas)
Subject: confused hops

  A warning to those of you growing your own hops: check for male parts.
If you find any, cut them off before the plant self-pollinates.   I
just found some male reproductive parts on my flowering Cascade.  I'm
not happy about it.  My question is, will this plant always be a
hermaphrodite, or does it change yearly?

The nice thing about being a hermaphrodite is, if someone tells you
to "go **** yourself", you can.

Russ Gelinas
esp/opal
unh

Return to table of contents


Date: 3 Aug 1993 08:34:01 U
From: "Palmer.John" <palmer#d#john at ssdgwy.mdc.com>
Subject: Homebrew blindness

Dan,
I read your post to the Digest, the answer is no.  There are two (main) types
of alcohol: Ethanol and Methanol.  Hmmm maybe thats spelled ethenol and
methenol... Anyway, Methanol is the one that causes blindness and death.  It is
also called wood alcohol, de-natured alcohol, rubbing alcohol.  It is made by
the fermentation and distallation of cellulose ie wood.  Grain alcohol is made
by the distallation of sugars.  The only way to get serious methanol
contamination of your beer is to not strain the grain husks out of your wort
(at all) in all-grain brewing when its put into the fermenter.  The beer would
be very nasty tasting to say the least.
JP, Metallurgist.  
Space Station Materials and Processes

Return to table of contents


Date: 3 Aug 93 11:29 CST
From: Wolfe at act-12-po.act.org
Subject: Chilis are Jalapenos

     With respect to my last posting on peppers in beer, a number of people
  pointed out that "chili" refers to a genus of plants under which there
  are many species of peppers including jalapenos. (Hey, I'm only a
  statistician.)  The "chili" peppers I grew are actually called "Super
  Chili Pepper, F1 Hybrid." The peppers are about 2.5" long and are
  cone-shaped (similar to a miniature Hungarian Wax pepper, but they turn a
  bright red with age).  They are still green but are already as hot as
  (and better tasting than) my jalapenos.

     The folks that responded to my first posting said that I could
  probably substitute these peppers for jalapenos in any recipe, noting
  that I need to be careful of the variability of heat of different chili
  species.  I'm planning on using a standard amber ale recipe, lightly
  hopped.  Which brings me to my next question.  I've heard of three ways
  to introduce peppers into the brew: 1) boil them with the wort, 2) add
  roasted peppers to the secondary, or 3) add slices of roasted peppers to
  the bottles.  I'm thinking about using method #2 (from Charlie P's book).
  Has anyone used this method successfully?  Does anyone have any
  suggestions for "special ingredients" to sprinkle over the peppers as
  they roast (like garlic)?  Also, How many peppers should I start out
  with?  Should I put the peppers in a steeping bag so I don't get seeds
  and stray pieces of pepper in the bottles?

  Thanks,

  Ed Wolfe
  WOLFE at ACT-12-PO.ACT.ORG
  Iowa City, IA

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 09:47:57 PDT
From: davidr at ursula.ee.pdx.edu
Subject: To those who attended the conference in Portland... 

 
I'm not a beer-expert... in fact, I'm lucky if I have more than 2
beers a month.  However, I do enjoy a nice brew every once in
awhile.  So... my question is this.
 
To those who visited our little city to attend the conference:
 
What did you think of Widmer Bock?  I recently tried this, and
thought it was fantastic... but since I'm used to drinking Henry
Weinhard, or (ACK!) Miller Genuine Draft, I don't have much to
compare to.  I'd like to get the opinion of some of those who are
"in the know" of what a fine beer should taste like.

Thanks,
David Robinson
davidr at ee.pdx.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 10:29:16 -0700
From: tims at ssl.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: when to harvest hops?

I have two hop plants, (out of three planted last March), 
and I am wondering when to collect the flowers.  There 
are already some nice big flowers on the Perle, and lots
of tiny flowers on the Chinook.  should I take each flower off
as it reaches maturity (define that, please), or wait
and harvest the whole mess at one time?  

The Perle flowers look to my mind just like what hops should
look like, while the much smaller Chinook flower seems smaller
than I was expecting.   As one would expect, I haven't seen
all that many flowers this first year, perhaps 2-4 oz total.

Thanks,

Tim Sasseen

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 13:44:52 EDT
From: casey at bbt.com (Kevin Casey)
Subject: Ammonia in water supply

I have been brewing for about a year and always boil only about 2 gallons of
the water I use for each batch. The remaining 3 gallons are simply unfiltered
City water. In about 2 weeks they are going to begin putting Ammonia into our
drinking water (CARY, NC). Will this be bad news for homebrewing? All comments
would be appreciated as I would hate to waste time brewing a bad beer. TIA

Kevin Casey
casey at bbt.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 12:49 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: pts/lb/gal /sprinkling spargers/AllAboutBeer/WyeastQuestions

Geoff writes:
>It occurs to me that a lot of the confusion over extraction rate, or yeild
>may be due to the fact the people keep referring to pts/lb/gal (points per
>pound per gallon). These are not the correct units and that may be why some
>people are confused. The formula used is
>
>        (OSG_beer - SG_water) * Volume_of_Beer / Pounds_of_Grain
>
>Specific gravity is dimensionless but is referred to by "points" in brewing
>so the dimensions are gallons/pound or point-gallons/pound (pts-gal/lb for
>the abreviation inclined).

I feel that it is still correct to say points-per-pound-per-gal if you
remember what it means.  Note that in addition to determining the average
contribution to your OG from y pounds of grain in z gallons of wort, a
more important use of these numbers is to predict an OG when you are
formulating a recipe.  What you want to know is "how many POINTS you will
get if you were to use a POUND of this particular grain to make a GALLON
of wort?"  This can be also read as "POINTS gotten from grain x at a
particular ratio of POUNDS PER GALLON" or finally, "POINTS gained PER POUND
PER GALLON."  Maybe parentheses would help:

	points/(pound/gallon)

********************************
Jack writes quoting Steve:
> >My question concerns the aeration of and oxygen content of sparge water. One 
> >common technique in professional breweries to sprinkle the sparge water from 
> >a rotating arm (similar to the Phil Sparger). I would think that this would 
> >do I good job of aerating the water. 
> 
> I doubt that it would do a "good" job and suspect it is pretty much in the 
> noise.  More importantly, sprinkling the sparge water is totally unnecessary 
> if the level is kept above the grain an inch or so.  There simply is nothing 
> to be gained by spreading it around.  Someone put a shower head in a mash tun 
> and they have been used and misuesed ever since.  A homebrew equipment 
> manufacturer fell into the same trap and confused the hell out of beginners 
> with his rotating gizzmo.

I've been thinking about this for a while, but not too intensely, since
I make sure to keep the level of the sparge water about 1/2" above the
level of the grain bed.  I feel that all the spray-attachments for sparging
are a waste of money.  There is another reason for keeping the sparge water
level above that of the grain bed: if the level drops below the top of
the grain bed, the grain bed begins to compact.  If you insist on sparging
with a spray head, then you must shell out a few more bucks as well as
add some elbow grease and add a raking mechanism to your grain bed.  I have
an experiment in mind that will take some of the mystery out of this topic,
but I have to find the time to do it!

*******************************
Sean writes:
>lethargy enough to type up a short review of 
>the latest issue of _All About Beer_ magazine.
>(I suggested to Chuck that he try this mag
>because Jackson writes a column and does
>a taste-testing panel for them).
>I've been a suscriber to AAB for the
>last couple of years, mostly to get Jackson's
>and Fred Eckhardt's columns.  Often
>there has been info that is of value,
>but many articles were just
>press-release puffery.  I've read rumors
>that the cover of the mag was for sale
>to an advertiser.

It used to be, and maybe still is -- this would be indicated by the
covers that keep repeating periodically -- the one that comes to
mind is the one with the bottle of Harp on the cover over the
background of some cliffs.

>Mr. Daniel Bradford, late of the AHA
>marketing Dept. and the GABF, has
>taken over publishing the mag.  Knowing
>what we do about these endeavors, this
>may or may not speak well for the future
>of the mag, but I'm willing to give people
>a break now and then (Bob knows I 
>need 'em).

Hopefully, he has enlisted the services of some knowledgable technical
editors.  I've read a few past issues and have found numerous errors,
for example "...the two Trappist Ales most available in the US are Chimay
and Duvel..."

>To the point, the latest issue looks
>stupendous, had a decent article by...

	<praise deleted>

>Anyone else read this thing and
>have any thoughts, opinions or
>rants?

If I can find a copy, I'll give it another chance.

****************************
Jim writes:
> My wife purchased some Wyeast liquid yeast for the next coupla
> batches of brew. I had read about possible infection of the nutrient
> packs here, so I figured I play it safe and re-hydrate (what do you
> call it since it's already liquid?) it myself. The date on the 'bag'
> said July 1993 - it that the 'manufacture' date, or the 'use-by'
> date?

It's the date the yeast was packaged, having been grown up during the
prior week.

> I added the 'bag' of yeast to about a cup of slightly dilluted and
> still warm (~80 degrees) wort while the rest was boiling. I've used
> this method inthe past with dry yeast and by the time the wort cools,
> the yeast has a head that's bulging out of the 2 cup container it's
> in. This time, the yeast wasn't doing *anything*, just had a sediment
> on the bottom of the cup. I pitched in into the cooled wort anyway,
> not having much choice. This morning (brewed last nite about 9,
> pitched about 11 PM), theres still no head on the fermenetr.
>
> Should I wait till this evening and if there's still no head
> re-hydrate and pitch some other yeast?

You probably won't see much activity for about three or four days.
If your sanitation techniques are impeccable (very difficult to
accomplish in the summer) you stand a chance that it will turn out
alright.  If you suspect your sanitation at all, I suggest you get
some clean dry yeast, rehydrate that and pitch it.  A four day lag
time in the summer means your odds of infection are VERY high.

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 11:49:26 MDT
From: npyle at n33.stortek.com
Subject: Japanese Homebrew?

Some friends of mine (Japanese) are having a baby in November and I'd like to
brew a Japanese style homebrew to mark the occasion.  This is a bit of a
stretch because I refuse to brew a beer that is too light and tasteless, like
the typical Japanese lager.  I may brew a dark lager, which is not common but
is available in Japan.  I plan to use some rice, but not too much.  How many SG
points can I expect to get from a pound of rice?  Will a 2-row pale malt have
the enzymes to convert the rice?  Any suggestions for hops, or for that matter
a yeast choice?  This could be a real challenge....

Cheers,
Norm

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 11:09:59 PDT
From: ghultin at sfu.ca
Subject: overnight mashes

The question was asked about experiences with long mash times:

I have done two overnight mashes, and although I have only
just tasted the results from one batch, found no problems.

I mash in a plastic tub swathed in a garbage bag and a
sleeping bag.  When I put the lid on the pail, the temp is
154, in the morning when I take the lid off, the temp has
fallen to 142-146.  

I don't know how to tell-other than by taste-if there is
any contamination of this wort, but having tasted the
beer last night, I think it is just fine.

The book Old English Beers and How to Make Them (or something
like that) has recipes calling for 4 hour mashes.  This
is for undermodified grain, granted. But 4 hours, 8 hours,
as far as I can tell, no problem.

geoff.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:14:04 -0800
From: pohl at unixg.ubc.ca (Derrick Pohl)
Subject: "Washing" yeast

A while back (HBD #1181) Jami Chism posted the following method for washing
and storing yeast from the slurry:

>I have been re-using yeast slurry for several years.  My method is to 
>add a cup or so of cool water to the slurry after I've racked off of it
>and swirl it around, mixing the slurry really good with the water, then
>pouring it into a sterilized glass quart jar.  I let this sit at room 
>temp for several hours until there is noticable seperation, then pour
>the top liquid layer off.  I again add about a cup of cool water to the 
>yeast, mix it up good, cover and let sit at room temp for several hours.
>Pour off top layer, pour the resulting yeast cake into a sterile canning
>jar, cap and store in the refridgerator until you're ready to brew again.
>This is better know as washing yeast and the method can be used with 
>either dry or liquid yeasts.  I have been usually re-use a package of
>yeast anywhere from 7 to 10 brewing sessions before it starts to appear
>suspicious.

This is great, but knowing that there are always several ways to do
anything in the realm of brewing, I am interested in other people's methods
and observations on this topic, especially on the matter of storing the
yeast for future use.  The typical situation I have in mind is storing
yeast from the slurry for a few weeks, until one has time to brew again. 
Also, is the primary or the secondary better for this?

- -----
Derrick Pohl (pohl at unixg.ubc.ca)
UBC Faculty of Graduate Studies, Vancouver, B.C.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 12:54 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Decoction mashing/Overnight mashing

Don writes:
>I was wondering if many people use decoction mashing and what the
>pro's/con's to it are. I have Noonan's book and he swears by decoction
>for lager's however can one do an ale this way. I have a little voice
>in my head saying "No" because you will impart unwanted flavors i.e.
>astringency into the beer, but want feedback on this mashing procedure.

Not many, probably due to the increased work, the increased time and the
availablity of well-modified lager malts.  When using undermodified malts,
like those used by Pilsenski Prazdroj (sp?), the brewery that makes Pilsner
Urquell, the decoction mashing method is the only way to get a good
extraction efficiency.  The flavor is also a bit different than with
controlled temperature mashing or infusion mashing, or so I've read
(having not done a side-by-side comparison using the same ingredients).

Darryl Richman has hypothesized that: a reason that the decoctions do
not extract copious amounts of astringent tannins from the grain is due
to the pH of the mash.  As yet, there has not been a confirmation of this
theory, but there has been very little argument with it in the HBD.  I
don't see why you could not use it for an ale -- I've tasted a PU-clone
made by Jack, imitating Pilsenski Prazdroj, which did not have noticable
astringency.  The bottom line is, you could do it, but the reasons would
be mostly academic.

***********************************
Jack writes (quoting WAK):
> >Very interesting experience!  I could certainly go for mashing-in the
> night before.  Have others tried this?  With what sucess?  Jack, what
> temperature do you mash in at and how does it change overnight?
> 
> I boil my mash water and either chill it or let it cool naturally, depending 
> on the time but in either case it is near room temp or cooler when I dough-in 
> and IS room temp by morning.
> 
> There is no doubt a multicultural flora ready to do a number on the mash but 
> if it is kept cool and kept to a reasonable length of time, it will cause no 
> grief.  Mashing and boiling will destroy its viability.  If allowed to get 
> established however, it could impart an off flavor even if the  organisms 
> that started it are long gone.

Very true.  Others in this same issue of HBD suggested overnight
saccharification, which in the microbiologically active air of the
summertime, I feel, will almost guarantee a sour mash.  Indeed, keeping
the mash cool overnight is key to making non-sourmash beer using this
technique. 

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: 	Tue, 3 Aug 1993 11:43:44 PDT
From: John_D._Sullivan.wbst311 at xerox.com
Subject: Wyeast Suppliers

Hi all,
	I'm in search of a good  mail order source for Wyeast Liq. yeast as the
two local distributors refuse to carry it.  Thanks alot,
				John

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 13:37 CDT
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Flora & Fauna

Jack writes:
>There is no doubt a multicultural flora ready to do a number on the mash but 

I've read that yeast are technically a "slime mold" and that they are
animals, which would make them fauna rather than flora.  I would then
assume that non-slime molds would then also be fauna.  However, what
are bacteria, flora or fauna?  My guess would be, again, fauna.  I have
seen "microflora" and I think I've used the word myself, but I'm playing
with this topic just for fun anyway (so don't take it too seriously).
Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 16:49:41 EDT
From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu
Subject: The FaceMail Project

Oh!  This is too radical!  Actually seeing (and hearing) fellow
HBDers!?!  Where's the mystery, the romance?  Reduced to a handful of
bits, we'll be ... :-) 

(Not me, I wasn't there).

=S

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1993 16:31:05 -0700
From: reeves at lanl.gov (Geoff Reeves)
Subject: Algebra and extraction rate

I got quite a bit of mail regarding my assertion that extraction should
properly be expressed as pt-gal/lb. Basically most people said that I had
forgotten my algebra and that pt-gal/lb == pt/lb/gal. Their arguement
depends on where you mentally draw the parentheses. pt-gal/lb =
pt/(lb/gal). However this is not the common way of expressing things. Think
of gravity. g = 32 feet per second per second.  32 ft/s/s is not the same
as 32 ft similarly energy flux is expressed as
particles/second/steradian/keV or similar units. Dimensional analysis
assumes that a/b/c = a/(b*c). Similarly computer codes that evaluate a/b/c
will evaluate a/b and then divide by c.

Now this may seem nit-picky but it pisses me off when people tell me that I
don't know algebra. I didn't get one of those mail-order physics PhDs.

Finally to pick one more nit, some people said that SG was not
dimensionless but has units of kg/liter. Nope. Specific gravity is density
of liquid divided by the density of pure water at 4 degrees Centigrade.
Since the density of water is 1 kg/liter the magnitude doesn't change going
from density to SG but the UNITS do. 

Cheers
Geoff

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                   Give me three more units up here nurse.               |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Geoff Reeves:  Space Science Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory   |
|                reeves at lanl.gov (internet) or  essdp2::reeves (span)     |
|                Phone (505) 665-3877                                     |
|                Fax   (505) 665-4414                                     |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Aug 93 18:47:12 EDT
From: roberts735 at aol.com
Subject: Yeast Trick

Is it possible to culture yeast from the last inch or so of a bottle of
Sierra Nevada Pale Ale by pouring it into the starter I am making for a
batch? I am re-hydrating from dry yeast, and adding the beery slurry from the
SNPA. It was the cleanest ale Ihave made yet, very good. Do you suppose I
picked up some viable yeasties?

Bob Stovall
Robert S735 at aol.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1993 20:03:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: SMUCKER at UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU
Subject: Wyeast 1007, (German)

I brewed up a batch of German Dusseldorf style Alt over the 
weekend with about 20 % German wheat malt and Wyeast 1007, 
(German) and got the strongest fermentation I have ever seen.  This 
is in a 15.5 gallon batch and by strongest I mean the speed and 
amount of blow off that was generated.  I had between 1.5 and 1.75 
gallons of blow off and after it settled I had a least 3/4 of a pint of 
yeast.  (Of course the batch is still going strong.)  Am wondering if 
this is the effect of the 1007 yeast, the wheat malt or both.  The 
fermentation temperature was normal for me in summer at 68 
degrees F.  (Self heating took the temperature to 71 even with my 
water cooled keg as a fermenter set up.)  Just a data point, we will 
see how this beer is in a few weeks/months.

Dave Smucker,    Brewing beer -- not making jelly!

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 3 Aug 93 21:59:09 -0500
From: bliss at pixel.convex.com (Brian Bliss)
Subject: boiling hops longer / blindness / overnight mashes

lfk at veritas.com (Lynn Kerby) writes about boiling all hops << 1 hour:
>Are there other brewers out there that are doing something similar
>with their hopping techniques?  I would be interested in hearing about
>experiences with beers that get a significant percentage of their IBUs
>in later stages of the boil.

Perhaps It's my water (soft, though certainly not softened),
or the pH, or maybe something else, but I never seems to get
as much bitterness out of my hop additions as would seem to
be correct from HBU/IBU/boil time charts.  For instance, a recent
barleywine with 9.5 oz of fresh goldings/fuggle/N Brewer plugs,
the longest of which was boiled for over an hour (should have had
150+ IBU) was criticized as being way too sweet in a contest.

To compensate, I have taken to longer hop boils.  So far, I have not
had any problem with off-tastes in young beers (even barleywines).
Note also that I use a blowoff, which loses some hop bitterness,
and that I do not use high-alpha american hops.

Many (Most?) breweries (PU and Traquiar I know for sure)
boil the bittering hops 4+ hours.  As long as you have an handle
(from expreience) on how much hop bitterness to expect, I see no
reason to boiling the bittering hops for an extended period of time.

Yes, longer boils diminish hop flavor, but that's what the flavoring
hops are for.

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

djb at suned1.Nswses.Navy.Mil (Dan J Barnard) writes:

Dear Fellow Homebrewers,

>I have an unusual request.  Recently my girlfriend went to child mediation
>with her ex because he wants full physical custody of their two children
>(7 and 9).  He claimed to the mediator that we let his children drink home-
>brew (of course this is absolutely untrue) and that drinking homemade beer
>can make you go BLIND!  (Her lawyer said `isn't that true about mastrubation
>too?`)  Anyways, the mediator wanted to know if that was true or not. 

Yes It can...

but no more so that any other beer.  When you're on your 20th pint
of the night...  At least the effect isn't permanent :-)

High temperature fermentation can produce higher amounts of
methyl and fusel alcohols.  When they are concentrated by distilling
at the improper temperature (question: too high or too low?),
the resultant liquor has been known to cause blindness.

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

From: SMUCKER at UTKVX.UTCC.UTK.EDU writes:
>Like "William A Kitch"  in HBD 1194    I an interested in the 
>potential, problems and effects of a mash that extends 
>beyond the conventional 2 hour time frame.
 ...
>What would be the expected effects of a 6 to 8 hour mash vs. 
>the typical 2 hours?  At what temperature do you have the 
>potential for a sour mash effect/problem? -- Something I 
>don't want for most of my beer.  Do you leach tannins at a low 
>level at mash temperature such that the 8 hours mash will 
>have the potential for astringency? -- It is well accepted 
>that you leach tannins above 168 degrees F.

I have had no problems with an overnight mash, but don't stretch
it past, say, 12 hours.  As long as the temp stays >> 120-130,
everything keeps fine, but it doesn't take the mash more than a
few hours to sour, once it drops back into the 80-100F range.

I have NOT tried mashing in overnight and leaving the beer
in this range for an extended period of time BEFORE mashing.
With such such a practice, the majority of the malt sugars have
not formed yet and souring may be less of a problem.

bb


Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1196, 08/04/93