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


Contents:
  Cider,  Mead  /  Strength and Yeast #'s (COYOTE)
  Not a flame/Enterobacteriaceae (korz)
  Flying homebrew (Bob Knight)
  New book for the Chemist in you (Scott Benton)
  Sanitation FAQ (ELTEE)
  Treacle & Other Brit Sugars (thutt)
  What is "black treacle" (Paul Hethmon)
  fast ferment/chiller/etc. (Russell Gelinas)
  Noche Bueno (John Adams)
  mead recipe - oops (Eric Saidel)
  sanitizing bottle washers (EKELLY)
  Filtering update (Jim Busch)
  Various (Jim Busch)
  chillers, bottle yeast, Miller's method, Papazian picture (Ulick Stafford)
  Re: barleywine (Peter McLachlan)
  A real lager and "kegs" (esonn1)
  Dispensing from Kegs (was keg pressure questions) (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
  Decoction & Astringency (GANDE)
  FAQ (David Moore)
  mash in temps (James Gallagher)


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, 15 Nov 1993 13:45:15 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu>
Subject: Cider,  Mead  /  Strength and Yeast #'s

*****
From: "Christopher J. Lacenere" <cl38+ at andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: HARD CIDER?  How to's

*   Don't boil cider. You'll get jello haze!  You can pasteurize,
but easier is to treat cider with campden tables (Na -bisulfate...).
Crush, dissolve, add. Don't breath the gas! Sulfur hurts!
Give it 24 hrs, then pitch a good yeast starter. Champagne is a good one.

Other good things to add:  Grape tannin, yeast nutrient, pectic enzyme...

HONEY!  I've found my ciders to have a fuller, more balanced flavor
when I add honey to the ferment.  

    Typical Recipe:  4 gallons cider. Treat w/campden.
    Heat 5 # honey in water- to 1 gallon.  Add other goodies.
    Add honey mix to cider, and pitch yeast.

I usually ferment for a month, and rack several times.  Bottle straight-
apple wine/ Cyser, or sparkle it by priming.

*****
Mead Extract?  There actually is a kit sold by Williams (no connectn..blah)
for making mead. (800-759-6025)  $6.90, everything but the honey.

I've made meads for about 4 years now.  I've never made a Mead w/malt,
but I have made beers with honey. :)   On the order of 2-5 pounds into
a brew.  I like it.  Brown sugar is another favorite.

Suggestion for both Mead and Cider:  Treat it like a wine.  Get a wine
book and learn about acid-testing, stabilization, adjusting sweetness...
    "The art of making wine" Anderson & Hill is a good one.

You'll be able to get much better balanced products that way.  Just
count on time.  The best advice:  Be Patient.  Leave it alone!
Rack several times, to get it cleared properly.

Personally I don't like adding hops to mead anymore. I've tried it, and
found the bitterness out of place in an often sweet beverage. In dry
meads there is nothing to balance the bitter, and it bites thru 2 much.
Considering the potential strength of most wines/meads the added bacterial
inhibition from hops should not be needed. 

FYI:  There is a Mead Lovers Digest, and a Cider digest.  They (at least
the MLD) are/is archived at sierra.stanford.   pub/mead
or are distributed by e-mail.  The NEWS group red.crafts.wine commonly
discussed mead/cider from a wine perspective. 

*****
From: Jeremy Ballard Bergsman <in%"jeremybb at leland.Stanford.EDU">
Subject: Re: good for yeast/good for beer

>...in the Bay Area we have three brewpubs called Gordon Biersch (sp?).(Those
in Pasadena, keep your eyes open.) 

*   Drool pant sputter....Really?  I'm headed that way over X-mas.
Am I too early for their arrival?  I've been to the Crown Brewery,
and the John Bull Pub has some NICE imports on tap.

Do you know what the name of the brewpub will be down there? Location?

I'd love to know!  :)

>Then I had a flash of insight: what if you can get the yeast to undergo a
bit of extra growth?  You can use more malt for the same amount of alcohol.
This might give you a bit more maltiness.  I asked him if this was the reason,

*   I don't think it really works that way.  Product production (e.g. etoh
and co2) are related to the substrate concentration.  The rate will be
affected by the amount of enzyme/~= cell numbers.  BUT the amount of
product will depend on the amount of substrate...i.e.fermentable malt sugars.

*    So I don't think that the brewmeister there really has to worry about
you sleeping with his wife!   Besides, you shouldn't do that on the hbd!


/ "I don't just talk beer,  I AM beer! I think beer, therefore I am-beer" \
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ John (Coyote) Wyllie SLK6P at cc.usu.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- -------------------_____________________________________-------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Nov 93 14:25 CST
From: korz at iepubj.att.com
Subject: Not a flame/Enterobacteriaceae

Ulick writes:
>a carboy.  Papazian's book is a good starter for the nervous, but for anyone
>who has brewed before and wants to get a good handle on water treatment and
>all-grain, Miller is a better choice.  Noonan is not for beginners, and while
>riddled with errors, the people to whom it's aimed can usually work it out.

Then we are in agreement.

>In his second posting, Mr. Korzanos, advocated the handling of hops with 
>sanitized surgical gloves, based on the notion that there are more
>bacteria on hands than in the mouth - hardly a scientific determination,
>and considering the antibacterial properties of hops, I doubt if many bacteria
>would survive - and what would they eat?  I imagine stored hops are too acid
>for bacteria.  I wonder why someone like me who dry hops by stuffing hops
>with by bare hands through carboy openings has never had an infected batch
>attributable to dry-hopping?

Luck may have a lot to do with it, but indeed, the chances of an infected
batch from dryhopping are quite low provided that the dryhops are added
once the beer has mostly fermented out.  See my Technical Communication in
the first issue of Brewing Techniques for my reasoning.  I posted what I
do and why I do it.  I *sell* hops -- I feel a responsibility to my customers
to give them the best product I can and that includes reducing any risk
of contamination.  If my methods are overkill, then too bad for me, but
I don't see why you need to get upset about what I do.

In a related topic, Mark writes:
>They took cultures from the hops and found they contained
>wild yeasts of three kinds and many different kinds of 
>bacteria - some gram positive and negative, mostly 
>"Enterobacteriaceae" whatever that means.

It refers to enteric bacteria, which means "bacteria that reside in the
intestines."

Back to Ulick:
>He then admits he is primarily an ale brewer and does not have much recent 
>lager experience, but nevertheless responds to someone enquiring about
>pitching fresh yeast when bottling a lager (a correct procedure),
>DON'T CHANGE YEASTS AT BOTTLING TIME!!!
>because his home perm solution carbonated OK.  I can say categorically that 
>I have made several strong beers, (Ales, actuallY) that have not
>carbonated satisfactorily because I failed to add fresh yeast.
>The reason Mr Korzanos gives is 'glass grenades', especially for lagers -
>those beers with which he is so intimately familiar, without any examples
>at all - just his vague suspicion.

Read my post again, you obviously missed my point.  Perhaps I was unclear.
With any beer, ale or lager, it is risky to pitch a *different strain* of
yeast at bottling time, because if you pitch a more attenuative yeast strain,
you will have gushers (at best -- depending on the yeasts, you could create
exploding bottles).  My contention was that fresh yeast at bottling time was
not an *absolute* requirement for lagers in general (as you contend) and was
based upon personal experience, the experiences of others in the HBD, and
the experiences of members of local homebrew clubs.

>Also, I considered the crabtree effect a good reason to abandon corn
>sugar, but of course there are other good reasons to stick with it.
>One must balance everything.  Some people are quite happy carbonating with
>sterile wort or kraeusen, and for lager there is no topping the latter
>method (IMHO).  Even Anheuser-Busch do it!!

Did I slam Carl for abandoning corn sugar?  No, I just posted what I did
and some of my reasoning.  Frankly, IMHO, your opinions don't sound so
humble.

I stand behind everything I wrote in those posts.  If you disagree, then
please post civilized rebuttals.

For the record, it's Korzonas, but you can call me...

Al.
(last name omitted for brevity, anonymity and unprofessionalism ;^)

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 17:38:18 -0800
From: rknight at qualcomm.com (Bob Knight)
Subject: Flying homebrew

Over the last few weeks I've seen a couple of articles from HBD'ers who
tried taking homebrew on airplanes in their carry-on luggage; one got
stopped by airport security who for some reason objected to his carrying
unlabeled bottles of dangerously murky brown fluid onto an airliner, and
one was simply warned that he should not drink it in flight.

Has anyone else had any good or bad experiences carrying homebrew onto a
plane?  Or, for that matter, checking homebrew in their luggage?

Thanksgiving is rapidly approaching, and I suspect that Enquiring Minds
Want To Know.

Bob
(Desperately searching old Eddie Murphy albums for an obnoxious .sig)



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1993 21:25:39 -0500 (EST)
From: Scott Benton <sbenton at telerama.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: New book for the Chemist in you

The American Chemical Society (ACS) announces the release of

"Beer and Wine Production:  Analysis, Characterization and 
Technological Advances"

ACS Symposium Series No. 536.
280 pages
ISBN 0-8412-2714-4 (clothbound)  $59.95

ISBN 0-8412-2724-1 (Paperbound) $24.95 (Available Jan 1994)

"Describes how modern technology is used to produce and maintain the 
flavor quality of beer and enhance the quality of wine.  Discusses the 
current understanding of the sensory aspects of natural phenolic and 
turpenoid compounds in grapes and the sensory effects of certain 
competitive spoilage organisms present in fermenting grape juice.  
Presents insights into how current analytical, filtration, and enzymes 
technologies are used to analyze and process beers and wines.  Also 
includes chapters on home brewing and winemaking."

Call Toll free 1-800-227-5558
in Wash, DC      202-872-4363
      or FAX     202-872-6067

The poster has not evaluated this book.  Nor is he affiliated with the 
American Chemical Society other than as a member.  Nor does he stand to 
derive any benefit, monetary or otherwise, from this posting.  Nor does 
he believe that it should be necessary to post such a ridiculous disclaimer.


Scott D. Benton        sbenton at telerama.pgh.pa.us



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 07:50:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: ELTEE at delphi.com
Subject: Sanitation FAQ

Does anyone know if there's a sanitation FAQ out there?  It seems like every
time I get one problem cleared up I get another one (like the 50 bottles of
butterscotch I now have in the basement).  I'm pretty sure it's not the
yeast, it tasted great when it when into the bottle.
 
Ken Bair


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 08:31:51 est
From: thutt at mail.casi.sti.nasa.gov
Subject: Treacle & Other Brit Sugars


      I'm getting tired of seeing the Great Treacle Question posed and
      pondered time and time again.  In HBD 1273, Bruce Beck wondered
      what Golden Syrup is (I dunno) and once again mentioned the
      mysterious Treacle.

      No, you cannot buy treacle in the U.S., but that is not the full
      answer.  To get the full answer, we must first find out exactly
      what Treacle is.

      Once and for all, Treacle is simply blackstrap molasses.  You can
      get this in many places in the U.S.

      Demararra, which I also have sitting in my house, is simply a light
      brown sugar with molassess added.  It looks similar to the US brown
      sugar, but is not as moist (I've not opened the package yet, so I
      cannot give taste results).

      The U.K. also has a light brown granular sugar that I have never
      encountered before I went to London in June.  I've not tried it
      either, but I am hoping to use them all in some sweet brown ales
      this season.

      Someone was making a 'Sugars FAQ'.  They may want to update this
      information....

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 09:03:46 -0500
From: Paul Hethmon <hethmon at cs.utk.edu>
Subject: What is "black treacle"

So, I went to my local homebrew shop to pick up the
ingredients for "Old Snead's Stout" (Dave, I'll let you
know how it turns out) and had a bit of a problem. They
didn't know what black treacle was, and neither do I.

So can someone tell me what it is?

|  Paul Hethmon			|     Anonymous ftp for
|  hethmon at cs.utk.edu		|  Woodworking: cs.rochester.edu
|  University of Tennessee	|     HomeBrew: sierra.stanford.edu
|  Knoxville, Tennessee		|    OS/2 Info: ftp-os2.cdrom.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 10:12:47 -0500 (EST)
From: gelinas at ekman.unh.edu (Russell Gelinas)
Subject: fast ferment/chiller/etc.

   Wyeast 1098 (Whitbread ale), dated 11/3/93, fully puffed up 24 hours
after breaking inner seal.  A couple of starters later, it fermented
out 5 gallons of 1.050 wort in 36 hours at 68F, including a 12-24 hr 
lag time.  That's healthy yeast.

   Tell me if this makes sense.   Since most homebrewers underpitch,
we don't want to pitch fermenting yeast (ie. high krausen), we want
to pitch reproducing yeast (ie. pre-krausen).  That way when they hit
the fresh (well oxygenated!) wort, they continue to reproduce, ensuring 
a large colony and a healthy ferment when it's time.  The way to ensure 
this would be to pitch a starter shortly after it has been inoculated,
before the krausen begins.

    In the 1098 case above, the fully-puffed packet was pitched into
a starter that was allowed to ferment out.  1/2 of that starter was
pitched into a new starter.  Before this had a chance to show any
signs of ferment (3-4 hours later), it was pitched into the full 5 gallon
batch.  The relatively long lag time seen may be an indication of the yeasts
intial tendency for reproduction in this scheme.  The very large amount of
yeast that flocculated out after the ferment would also support this theory.

   Btw, none of this was planned; it was purely chance.  Next time it
will be planned.

- ------

   Thanks to the person who recommended hanging an immersion chiller 
over the sides of the brewpot, to allow it to sit in the top of the hot 
wort (the hottest part).  Not only did the wort cool faster, but the cover 
sat tighter, and it did not need to be stirred at all.  Thanks again.

- -----

Russell Gelinas
opal/ssc (EOS)
Univ. of New Hampshire
gelinas at ekman.unh.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 08:33:08 -0700
From: John Adams <j_adams at hpfcjca.sde.hp.com>
Subject: Noche Bueno

> Good news! Joe Barfield of Southwest Brewing News has just informed me
> that Noche Bueno is back. It is being brewed in Monterrey by the 
> Cuauhtemoc group, and will be distributed in selected test markets by
> Guinness Imports. Laurie is currenting forming a flavor panel, and we
> will write an article for SWBN summarizing the results along with
> related information. I will also post it on HBD.

George I am curious, this has been one of my favorite beers and in the past 
4 (5??) years I have been unable to find any nor was I able to find out why 
it wasn't being distributed/produced. 

While I am very happy to know it will be made again (although it sounds
as like it will be in limited distribution) what was the reason it wasn't
being produced in the past few years?


John Adams

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 09:56 CDT
From: Eric Saidel <SAIDEL at macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: mead recipe - oops

I just reread the recipe for apple mead I sent
yesterday - it should say a third of a cup of
honey for every *gallon* of mead (not every
bottle).  Of course doing it by the bottle might
make for some very interesting results :()
 
 - eric
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:45:56 -0400 (AST)
From: EKELLY at admin.stmarys.ca
Subject: sanitizing bottle washers

 [ This message contains the file 'TEMP.WP5', which has been
   uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use
   the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents
   out to a file. If you are not using Pegasus Mail, you will 
   have to extract the message and uudecode it manually.]

begin 660 TEMP.WP5
M1&]E<R!A;GEO;F4 at :VYO=R!H;W< at =&\ at <V%N:71I>F4O<W1E<FEL:7IE(&$ at 
M8F]T=&QE('=A<VAE<BX at 22!A;0T*<F5F97)R:6YG('1O('1H92!B<F%S<R!D
M979I8V4 at =&AA="!A='1A8VAE<R!T;R!A(&9A=6-E="!A;F0-"G)E;&5A<V5S
M(&$ at :&EG:"!P<F5S<W5R92!J970 at ;V8 at =V%T97( at :6YT;R!A(&)O='1L92 H
M;W( at 8V%R8F]Y*2X-"E1H:7, at 9&5V:6-E(&AA<R!A('-M86QL(&)A;&P at :6YS
M:61E('1H92!E;F0 at <&EE8V4 at =VAI8V at  at 86-T<R!A<R!A#0IV86QV92!T;R!S
M:'5T(&]F9B!T:&4 at :F5T(&]F('=A=&5R('=H96X at =&AE(&)O='1L92!I<R!R
M96UO=F5D+B!)= T*87!P96%R<R!T:&ES(&)A;&P at <')E=F5N=', at =&AE(')E
M<VED=6%L('=A=&5R(&9R;VT at 9')A:6YI;F< at 9G)O;0T*=&AE(&1E=FEC92!A
M9G1E<B!I=', at =7-E+B!4:&ES('=A=&5R('-E96US('1O(&)E('1H92!S;W5R
M8V4 at ;V8-"F-O;G1A;6EN871I;VX at :6X at 82!C;W5P;&4 at ;V8 at ;7D at 8F%T8VAE
M<RX at 22!A;2!N;W0 at <W5R92!I9B!M97)E;'D-"G)U;FYI;F< at =V%T97( at =&AR
M;W5G:"!W:6QL(&9L=7-H('1H92!C;VYT86UI;F%T:6]N+B!)(&AA=F4 at =')I
M960-"FEN:F5C=&EN9R!B;&5A8V at  at :6YT;R!T:&4 at 9&5V:6-E(&9O;&QO=V5D
M(&)Y(&%N(&]V97)N:6=H="!S;V%K#0IW:&EC:"!R97-U;'1E9"!I;B!T:&4 at 
M9&5V:6-E('1U<FYI;F< at 82!S:&%D92!O9B!G<F5E;BX-" at T*06YY(&%D=FEC
M92!O<B!A<W-I<W1A;F-E('=I;&P at 8F4 at 87!P<F5C:6%T960N#0H-"D5D($ME
M;&QY#0I386EN="!-87)Y)W, at 56YI=F5R<VET>0T*2&%L:69A>"P at 3F]V82!3
I8V]T:6$L($-A;F%D80T*#0IE:V5L;'E 861M:6XN<W1M87)Y<RYC81IV
 
end

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:34:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Filtering update

Last Feb, I posted about my experience using a 5 micron cartridge filter
to remove excess yest in an Altbier I made.  Since then, I have recently
filtered 6 cornelious kegs, 3 pale ales, and 3 "Dunkles Wicked Ale" (my
lab is named Dunkles).  I was really happy with the results.  My current
brewing practice is to use a SS open fermenter, skimming the American
yeast off the top as the ferment ends, and skimming the initial junk
off the early fermentation.  Since I keg directly from my primary, I 
have been carrying over a significant amount of suspended yeast.  I was
getting a bit tired of the yeasty beer, so I pulled out my 5 micron filter
bought from the Filter Store, and went at it.  Some of the kegs were 
carbonated, and while they filtered fine, the flow rate seemed quite slow.
The two flat kegs filtered much quicker.  The resulting beers are a nice
"polished" look, similar to many breweries that filter, but dont overdo it.

One of my main objections to filtering is the need to clean and sanitize
more equipment, drag.  To simplify things, I cleaned and sanitized 3 kegs,
and as I emptied a yeasty keg, I just rinsed the yeast out with real hot
water, and cooled it.  This keg then became one of the receiving tanks for
the next filtered beer.  

Since I was filtering two quite different beers, I back flushed the filter
between beer types, and tons of yeast came out.  I still think that a 
5 micron filter is perfectly adequate for removing excess yeast.

The best thing is the true beer flavors, malt and hops, come through much
better in the filtered version than in the unfiltered. I think this is 
one the suprising things about filtering.

BTW, I used a "quat" based sanitizer, VigilQuat, and stored the filter in 
a solution of this sanitizer.

Good brewing,
Jim Busch





Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:03:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Various

> From: D S Draper <D.S.Draper at bristol.ac.uk>
> Subject: Yeast culturing--an update
> 
> Brief recap of the earlier problems: pitched three batches of beer with
> cultures from bottles beers; the first was not properly sanitized, so got
> an infection.  The second was properly sanitized, but resulted in a wild
> yeast infection that can only have come from the yeast that was inside the
> bottle.  The third batch had a sour taste that was a mild wild-yeast
> infection.  In each case, less than a pint of starter was pitched, just at

If you dont streak the "yeasts" into single colonies , you were not 
"culturing" , just growing whatever is in the bottle.
> 
> An additional note: The wild yeast taste I got in my first two batches,
> which I described as sort of mediciny, is EXACTLY the main flavor I have
> gotten from several very reputable beers: Chimay blue, Leffe Blond (both
> Belgium), Pschorr-Brau Weisse, and Maisel's Hefe-Weizen (in Bayreuth,
> Franconia).  This taste was identified as definetly being wild by my
> homebrew suppliers (who run a brewpub, so they know what they're talking
> about I reckon), and it is a dead ringer for that in these beers.  Go
> figure...

Phenols are produced by wild yeasts in large quantities.  Phenolic notes
are often evident in Belgium Ales, and German Weizens.  The more brewpubs I 
visit, the less I feel "who run a brewpub, so they know what they're talking
about".  The quality in Micros is far greater than in many Brewpubs, sadly.
> 
> Conclusions:  If using bottle-conditioned yeast, step the starter up to
> about a half gallon, and TASTE IT before committing it to your brew--keep
> a dried packet or whatever on hand in case of failure.  In future, I will
> take the plunge into yeast culturing, isolating good colonies from these
> bottled beers, and growing them into starter colonies that I then make
> actual starter solutions from.  Getting viable yeast from
> bottle-conditioned beers can be done, but one must be careful.

Pouring the dregs of a bottle into the pint starter and then into fresh
wort is certainly risky, as your experience attests.  In the US, people
do this with SNPA, but this is a filtered beer that is force carbonated
prior to the addition of fresh bottling yeast, the ferment yeast is not
left in the bottle.  It is also most likely a cleaner brewery than many
in the UK.

> From: richard_h at SMTPGATE.BCSEW.EDU
> Subject: Yeast starters and aeration
> 
>  - Yeast reproduction begins as an aerobic process ("Gimme O2!"), for
>   about the first 12 hours.  This is why we are told to aerate the
>   wort before pitching - the yeast will have a nice oxygen rich
>   environment to begin reproduction in.
> 
>  - The yeast starter has probably finished the aerobic cycle and is now
>   in an anaerobic state ("We don't need no stinkin' O2!") at the time
>   it is pitched into the wort.
> 
> So, why doesn't the yeast in the starter (anaerobic phase) object to
> finding its environment changed by being dumped into the oxygen rich
> wort?

Actually, it does.  If O2 is present, the cells will revert to the respiration
phase, until the O2 is gone, then the anerobic phase returns.  If the 
starter is allowed to ferment, the yeast is ready to respire again. This is
why some brewers prefer to let the starter ferment past high krausen, and
decant the still beer off the starter, pitching the slurry.

from JS:

<I think what I learned is that the anti-bacterial characteristics of hops are 
<either a myth or greatly exagerated in the brewing folklore.  Clearly, if 
<yeasts and bacteria live on the hops and can innoculate a culture dish, it is 
<not very bacteriocidal.

I was under the impression that the alpha acids from boiling the hops are
what produce the slight bactericidal agents, not the raw hops themselves.

> From: COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu>
> Subject: Bambi Gas/ 7 up Gas/ Decoction
> 
> Mike sez of a keg of 7-up:
> 
> >Well, it's not working... I pressurized the keg at 30psi for 3 or 4 days in
> a 50 degree garage... then dropped down to a dispensing pressure of
> 12-14psi. When I hit the tap, I get 7up gushing from it. Foams like crazy,
> but the finished product in the glass is pretty much flat. I.e., all the
> CO2 comes out at dispensing time.   What's wrong?
> 
> *   Drop 'em baby!  I mean...uh...er...drop the PRESSURE. Yes that's it.
> Beer is commonly dispensed at 2-5 psi once carbonated.  If it foams, turn
> it down.  HINT:  Drop pressure on keg FIRST, then drop pressure in
> regulator.  A very full keg can back beer up the gas line.  Not good. :(

Actually, No.  If one increases the delivery pressure then you are "pushing"
the beer out, as opposed to letting the beer "push itself" out. By letting
the beer "push itself" out, you are decarbonating the beer. You need to 
reach equilibrium of , usually, around 2.5 volumes of CO2 in solution, and
maintain 12 psi on the tank.  IF the beer is gushing out at 12 psi, it 
is most likely overcarbonated, and indeed the answer is to bleed off excess
pressure, then return to 12 psi.
> 
> *   Part of the decoction mash (as I understand it, as if anyone TRULY does!)
> Involves starting the mash at cool temps, allowing the ACID REST which
> should adjust the pH addequately to the acid side that tannins are not
> extracted during the boil.  It was NOT recommended to add gypsum.  

First part true, second part false, no problem adding gypsum. It all depends
on your intial water chemistry, amount of dark malts to be used and lager
versus ale yeasts. 
> 

Good brewing,
Jim Busch


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 11:59:22 EST
From: Ulick Stafford <ulick at michaelangelo.helios.nd.edu>
Subject: chillers, bottle yeast, Miller's method, Papazian picture

In hbd1273 William Swetnam asks about chiller construction.  I would
recommend 1/4" copper tubing - it is cheaper to get more surface area
by buying more length of 1/4" than bigger tubing and it is easier to shape.
The reason one should use tubing of a larger diameter for couterflow
chillers (high pressure drop) does not apply to immersion chillers, and 
the greater pressure drop across the narrower tubing may help conserve
water where that is an issue.  For clamps I just used a scrap of hose
clamped outside with a regular hose clamp, although I am sure compression
fittings are available.  

I have never seen a two stage chiller like you suggest - first through
an ice bath prior to circulating through wort, although I have thought about 
it.  For ales in the winter it is unecessary, but for lagers and summer
brewing a better cold break would be nice.  If using such a setup, to conserve 
ice, I would recommend not adding ice till the wort is chilled close to tap
water temperature, and then add the ice. What I sometime do, is disconnect my
water once tap temperatures are approached and connect a pump recirculating ice
water.  RE length 25" is fine for the wort chiller, although considering the
length of copper tubing in the average box, you may use a longer length.

Dave Draper relates his experience with culturing from bottle conditioned
beers.  I recently retired an ale yeast cultured from a bottle of Guinness
(purchased in Ireland) because of suspected wild yeast contamination -
gushing.  However, I had used the yeast for many batches top cropping or
bottom cropping along the way.  Contamination with bacteria was an early
problem, again probably because the brewery practice was not perfectly
sterile.  What I did after the first batch and then every second batch or so
was acid wash with ammonium peroxydisulfate solution (a procedure outlined
in 'Brewing Lager Beer' by Gregory Noonan).  I made many excellent batches
(and some less than stellar ones) with this yeast and these procedures.

Keith McNeil worries about chipped enamelled canning pots.  My well used 
pot has suffered the odd chip but it doesn't seem to be a problem.  The
chipped areas are well blackened with a thick carbon coat from many burnt
decoctions - much as cast iron cookware is.  So long as one doesn't
clean the pot too well, it is my experience that chips are not a big
problem.

I was in one of those religious Miller vs. Papazian discussions at a 
homebrew tasting this weekend and the procedure mentioned by Mark Bayer -
of Miller recommending pitching yeast on trub and then racking prior
to Kraeusen is lovely on paper, and if one's yeast tends to be consistent
good advice, but I remember one batch, an underpitched lager, for which 
I did this - racked after 6 hours or so, and had a 5 day wait till krausen
(good job I don't worry too much!).  I prefer not to rack
till after krausen because of risks of infection and yeast loss.

In my last posting in 1271 I mentioned the recommendation in Papazian to
pour the hot wort in cold water in a carboy as being bad advice and
received a number of worried responses, to some of whom email responses
bounced.  I'll quote Charlie himself, RDWHAHB.  While this procedure
is not correct - chilling in a bathtub or with a wort chiller prior to
pouring is recommended, the amount of damage that could be expected due
to hot side aeration is so slight that it is unlikely to be noticable.
__________________________________________________________________________
 'Heineken!?! ... F#$% that s at &* ...  | Ulick Stafford, Dept of Chem. Eng.  
    Pabst Blue Ribbon!'               | Notre Dame IN 46556
                                      |    ulick at darwin.cc.nd.edu   



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 10:34:48 MST
From: psm at sst10a.lanl.gov (Peter McLachlan)
Subject: Re: barleywine

>I am interested in brewing a barley wine from
>an O.G. of 1.100 or higher, but don't wan't 
>F.G. above 1.030.

   If you want to lighten the body of your beer without bad side effects I 
recommend adding 15% of your grain and extract weight in honey.  This should
help drive the fermentation to completion.  I get light clover honey in
a local store for a buck a pound.

Cheers,

Peter

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 12:44:51 -0500
From: esonn1 at cc.swarthmore.edu
Subject: A real lager and "kegs"

Hello,
        I plan to brew my first real lager in the coming months and am now
considering what new equipment I may need to acquire to do this.  My big
question, is do you need a fridge to brew a real lager?  I thought it would
be ok if I put the carboy in the basement, sitting in a pan of water, with
a big t shirt over it so the t shirt dangled into the pan of water.  My
idea is that shirt would act as a wick and draw the water up over the
carboy and evaporation would keep the carboy cool.  I realize I would not
have any _real_ control over the temparature of the carboy, but it seems it
would work.  Anyone tried this?  Am I kidding myself?
        Second question.  I have seen some plastic "kegs" in  local
home-brew shop which come from Europe.  Supposedly, they can be used to
carbonate in and draft beer from.  Has anyone tried these?  They seem like
only a glorified beer ball.

Thanks in advance,
Eugene                esonn1 at cc.swarthmore.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1993 11:55:31 -0600
From: trl at photos.wustl.edu (Tom Leith MIR/ERL 362-6965)
Subject: Dispensing from Kegs (was keg pressure questions)

John Wyllie COYOTE gives some advice on using kegging equipment in response 
to Mike Fetzer's question in HBD #1272:

> Beer is commonly dispensed at 2-5 psi once carbonated.

Some veddy British ales served with VERY low carbonation at 50F may be stored 
under as little as 2 PSIG, but these will generally be dispensed with a beer 
engine (essentially a hand-pump) and not with CO2 pressure.  So storage 
pressure in this case has absolutely nothing to do with dispensing.  Some 
pubs will dispense this type of ale with a CO2/N2 mixture, but this is a 
whole `nother topic. Most beers have considerably more carbonation than these 
ales though.  Note that even at 32F, 8 PSIG is required to maintain 2.5 
volumes dissolved CO2.  At a more-typical 45F, this jumps to 15 PSIG. The 
2-1/2 volume carbonation level is typical of beer-in-general, and although 
some might complain that its too fizzy, it seems that most people like it 
just fine, no matter where they live. The COYOTE continues... 

> If it [the beer -trl] foams, turn it [the pressure -trl] down.  Oh- and I 
> don't care HOW long your dispensing line is!  It's not my business :)!   

I guess the COYOTE means that MIKE'S difficulty is not the COYOTE's problem.  
If your beer foams, there is only one thing wrong -- you are releasing the 
CO2 from solution too fast.  This is caused mostly by agitation.  Agitation 
can be caused by restrictions in the serving line, and by the beer hitting 
the bottom of your glass too fast.  Now for a bit of physics.  Since this is 
a recurring topic, I'll post a more complete set of data that I have by the 
end of the week.  But for starters, this'll get us in the ballpark.

When storing beer, you want to keep enough pressure on it to maintain the 
desired carbonation level.  For most British styles, we're looking for 
1-1/2 volumes of dissolved CO2 (or so) and for most lager style beers, were 
looking for 2-1/2 volumes (or so).  This can vary according to your taste.  
There are various pressure vs. temperature charts* floating around, but  as 
an example, my Pilsner was stored and served at 40F, and 2.5 volumes of CO2.  
This means I need to store the beer under 14.0 PSIG to maintain carbonation.

Now, since I want to serve directly from my storage vessel (the keg), I 
somehow need to "drop" or dissipate the 9 PSI in the dispensing system.  My 
beer faucet is about 18" above the center of the keg.  A vertical lift drops 
about 1 PSI per 12", so this automatically gets rid of 1-1/2 PSI, leaving me 
with 12-1/2.  3/16" ID beer line drops 2.1 PSI per foot of length due to 
fluid friction.  So, I need 

	  12-1/2 PSI
	--------------- = 6 feet  of 3/16 ID beer line
	2-1/10 PSI/Foot 

So. I cut a piece of line 5-1/2 feet long to account for drops at various 
fittings in the system, and hooked it all up.  Proper flow rate for beer 
dispensing is about 2 ounces/second.  And indeed, it takes about 10 seconds 
to fill my 22 ounce mug with about 16 ounces of beer, and a nice head.  The 
carbonation remains in the beer because the pressure at the faucet is nearly 
zero PSIG, and the beer is not violently expelled against the bottom of my 
glass.

> I don't think it'll cause any problems you can't compensate for with 
> adjustments to pressure.

Kludgy half-way "solutions" are always possible.  Physics, I think, is 
preferable.  The only way to use a dispensing system that cannot provide 
sufficient resistance is to:

	1) Store under correct pressure
	2) Release all the excess pressure
	3) Dispense n servings
	4) Re pressurize for storage (Go To 1)

If this is what you want to do, it will "work".  But it sure is a hassle, 
don't you agree?

Part of Mike's original question:

> I pressurized the keg at 30psi for 3 or 4 days in a 50 degree garage...
> then dropped down to a dispensing pressure of 12-14psi. When I hit the 
> tap,  I get 7up gushing from it. Foams like crazy, but the finished 
> product in the glass is pretty much flat. I.e., all the CO2 comes out at
> dispensing time.

Three or four days isn't enough time for CO2 to dissolve into the 7UP, even 
at 30 PSI, so it really wasn't very carbonated to start with.  To carbonate, 
you need to agitate.  I do this by rocking my keg back and forth over a 
softball bat until I can't hear the CO2 flowing in anymore.  Thus usually 
takes 15 minutes or so of constant agitation.  

	so agitation under pressure   ====> carbonation
	   agitation without pressure ====> de-carbonation

And you really need your pressure/temperature/dissolved CO2 chart to get it 
right.  Anyhow, what carbonation that *was* in the 7UP came out all at once 
when the stuff hit the bottom of your glass at 90 miles an hour, leaving you 
with pretty flat 7UP.  There have been many articles posted on the topic of 
carbonation.    


Look for more data from me in a few days.  I'll expand a bit on the topic.  
Maybe it'll turn into a keg-dispensing FAQ or something.

	t

 *a nice chart can be ftp-ed from sierra at stanford.edu in
  pub/homebrew/docs/co2.txt
=============================================================================
Tom Leith                           InterNet:   trl at wuerl.WUstl.EDU
4434 Dewey Ave.                   CompuServe:   70441,3536
St. Louis, Missouri  63116
                                                "Tho' I could not caution all
314/362-6965 - Office                            I still might warn a few:
314/362-6971 - Office Fax                        Don't lend your hand
314/481-2512 - Home + Infernal Machine           to raise no flag
                                                 atop no Ship of Fools"
=============================================================================




Return to table of contents


Date: 16 Nov 93 18:02:26 GMT
From: GANDE at slims.attmail.com
Subject: Decoction & Astringency

 >From: phil.brushaber at lunatic.com (Phil Brushaber)
 >Subject: Decoction Question

 >Wouldn't boiling with the grains cause a problem with increased
 astringency and the leaching of excess tannins into the beer?

 JS>>Perhaps it's time to look into another momily.  I get
     trashed every time I suggest using boiling water for
     sparging even though I always use decoction for my
     Pilsners.  Astringency is a knee-jerk response that needs an
     objective look-see.

JS and Phil discuss extracted tannis, astringency and 'momilies'.
Later the Coyote man says nope, it's the ACID REST, and I'd go along
with that.

Decoction mashes are done with pre-sparge mash constituents, usually
at a pH 5.3. From my understanding this level of acidity
'discourages' the extraction of tannins, making boiling a portion of
the mash possible, without puckering results.

Further to this one could assume that it would be OK to sparge with
boiling water, which is accurate as long as your grain bed pH doesn't
raise above 5.3, ideally. In the real world, sparging raises mash pH
towards the end of the run and continuing to rinse with boiling water
would leach out tannins.

I made a mini-grain-tea-bag, boiled it for 10 minutes in tap water
(pH 7.0) and it was what I would call astringent.  That's enough
proof for me.  ;)

 ....Glenn Anderson









Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 10:09:55 -0800
From: rossix!davidmo at openlink.openlink.com (David Moore)
Subject: FAQ

Does a FAQ exist for the homebrew mailing list??

If so, could someone kindly email me a copy??

Thanks,

Dave
=============================================================
David A. Moore		| Phone:   (415) 593-2500
Ross Systems Inc.	| E-mail:  davidmo at rossinc.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 16 Nov 93 13:50:28 EST
From: jimg at dcz.gso.uri.edu (James Gallagher)
Subject: mash in temps

I have noticed that many recipes here and elsewhere describe a procedure
where grain is added to water at one temp and then the mash is raised to
another temp. However, there are also recipes where grain is added to water
at a temperature such that the mash does not need a boost to the proper
temperature. Is there any reason not to always use water at a temp such that
the mash will be at conversion temp. or protein rest temp. without
adjustment? 

James Gallagher
jimg at dcz.gso.uri.edu

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #1274, 11/17/93