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


Contents:
  Two-Stage Fermentation ("Robert H. Reed")
  Utilization vs Boil Grav. (b_regent)
  Mail Order Hop Rhizomes ("LYMAN, Michael D.")
   (Rich Larsen)
  Netherlands ("Mark Jansen")
  IBUs in hopped extract? (Allan Rubinoff)
  Washington DC Beer Expo (Derek Montgomery)
  Copper Manifolds ("Thomas Kavanagh, Curator")
  re:Animal products??? (AYLSWRTH)
  Re:  Food grade sealant ("Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616")
  rooting hormones and hops... (SIMJONES)
  Re:  Treatment of Specialty Grains ("Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616")
  Re: Hops/cheap Bpubs/EM/Doppesl (Jim Busch)
  Real kegs (Eugene Sonn)
  Montreal pub/restaurant (Lee=A.=Menegoni)
  RE:DE-LIDDING (greg.demkowicz)
  Specialty Grains (Milstead Robert)
  re:Broken bottle when capping, part 1 of 2 (AYLSWRTH)
   (Allen Ford)
  re: Broken bottles when capping, part 2 of 2 (AYLSWRTH)
  A few questions ("Michael J. Poaletta")
  Mega brewing/Specialty Grains/Eis (npyle)
  Hop Utilization, Scotch Ale (Mark Worwetz)
  Frozen Yeast Storage (COYOTE)


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.
FAQs, archives and other files 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: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 22:19:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "Robert H. Reed" <rhreed at icdc.delcoelect.com>
Subject: Two-Stage Fermentation

Shawn writes regarding he benefits of two-stage fermentaion:
> 
> Can anyone convince me why I should use a double stage fermentation 
> process?
>
I can share with you a few reasons why I use two-stage fermentation:

1) Secondary fermentation provides additional time for the beer
to clear - results in less sediment in the bottle
2) Secondary fermentation done properly allows the fermentation to
go to completion - thus improving uniformity in carbonation - depending
on the yeast used, and the carbohydrate makeup of the wort, there can be
a fairly large range of fermentation times required to 'ferment out'.
3) Secondary fermentation is somewhat of a convienance factor: I have
anywhere from two to five fermentors running all the time.  The two-stage
process allows me to package the finished beers at my leisure without
concerns of autolysis (can occur is beer is left on a large yeast mass
for too long)
4) Many big beers and all meads require very long aging times to
ferment out / age / clear.  I feel this is best performed in a secondary.
5)  Five-gallon carboys result in a higher packing density in my
fermenting closet.
6) I prefer to fine beers in the secondary upon the completion of
secondary fermentation.

These are some of the reasons why I use two-stage fermentation. In 
the final analysis, you will have to decide which road to travel.

Rob Reed

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 23:34:20 -0800
From: b_regent at holonet.net
Subject: Utilization vs Boil Grav.

In response to the recent arguments regarding hop utilization vs
boil gravity, let me start of by saying that I myself have not seen
any studies that prove that boil gravity does or does not affect
hop utilization. But in Marks (Garetz) defense, I think most people out
there are simply not understanding his arguments correctly. In speaking
with Mark and reviewing his book, it is obvious that he agrees 100% that
a partial boil DOES affect kettle utilization. His claim is that the
reduced utilization is due to reduced wort volume, not a higher boil gravity.
So it would hold true that brewers would see an increase in utilization 
when they switch from a partial to a full boil.

He also goes on to say that higher gravity does affect hop utilization
during fermentation (the amount of IBU's that remain post fermentation). 

Mark says that he has a paper from a study done of this very subject that
corroborates this. 
It would be great if someone out there in HBD land would also due a study of
utilization vs boil gravity, and measure IBU's prior to fermentation.

You may or may not agree with Marks comments, but at least try to read his
messages correctly before slamming him.

- --bob
b_regent at holonet.net
- ---
 ~ KingQWK 1.05 ~

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 08:30:00 EST
From: "LYMAN, Michael D." <MDL3 at NIORDS1.EM.CDC.GOV>
Subject: Mail Order Hop Rhizomes

Anyone aware of mail order sources for hop rhizomes?  Thank You.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 08:38:35 -0600 (CST)
From: Rich Larsen <richl at access1.speedway.net>
Subject: 

Well, I never did get a real good answer to a qustion I posted a while
back.  I can't believe this has never been done in the North East in Maple
country.  I made up a "wort" of maple syrup and water and fermented it.

A very interesting concoction with mead like qualities, with a
maple/caramel overtone.  High level of alcohol (around 10%) so I would
have to surmise that maple syrup is very fermentable. (for those that asked)

But I still have no traditional name for the stuff.  Its too good to not
have a actual name.  Maybe some of you in Vermont can ask around at some
of the maplers (is that a word?)

Thanks.

BTW  there seems to have been some confusion with my sig.  I have received
a couple of inquiries as to the whereabouts of the new brewpub in
Midlothian.  I apologize for the confusion, and have changed my sig to
rectify the problem.

=> Rich

Rich Larsen (708) 388-3514
The Blind Dog Brewery "HomeBrewPub", Midlothian, IL
(Not a commercial establishment)

    "I never drink... Wine."   Bela Lugosi as Dracula



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 16:47:41 CST  
From: "Mark Jansen" <lets2608 at stud.let.ruu.nl>
Subject: Netherlands

Hello!

I am an editor of a Dutch magazine about beer, called "PINT-nieuws". This is
the magazine of the Dutch beerconsumers union, in which we give information
about beer and breweries in Holland, brewing techniques, the latest
developments on the beermarket etc.
At the moment we're also working on an article about the newest trend in
beer: icebeer. In Holland it's so new that we don't even know it. So, my
question is: have you any information about icebeer: it's produktionproces,
marketing and succes?

If people are interested they can get information on Holland via my e-mail
address or write to: PINT, P.O. Box 3757, 1001 AN Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.


- -----------
m.s.jansen at stud.let.ruu.nl

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 09:59:16 EST
From: Allan Rubinoff <rubinoff at BBN.COM>
Subject: IBUs in hopped extract?

Does anybody know how to obtain reliable information about the number of
IBUs in hopped malt extract?

The Zymurgy special issue on hops has a table listing the number of HBUs
in several hopped extracts, but I suspect these values aren't accurate. 
Even if they are, I'm unsure of how to convert these values to IBUs,
because I can't figure out what to use as a reasonable value for
%utilization.  Presumably, the utilization obtained by the extract
producer would be pretty high (> 30% ??), and since the alpha acids are
already isomerized, utilization in the finished beer should not be
affected by wort gravity and volume, boil time, etc., etc.  Utilization
is reduced during fermentation, but not enough to account for the
discrepancies I've found.

For example, I've brewed several beers using Munton & Fison hopped amber
extract (plus additional extracts and specialty grains).  According to
the Zymurgy table, a can of this extract has 12.5 HBUs.  Now, if I try
to convert this to IBUs, based on my standard 3-gallon batch size:

             HBUs * %utilization     12.5 * %utilization 
    IBUs =  --------------------- =  ------------------- 
             1.34 * #gallons           1.34 * 3


or approximately 3 * %utilization.  This means that even if I figure on
a modest utilization figure like 15%, the finished beer should have
about 45 IBUs.  This is definitely *not* the case.  Based on comparisons
with commercial brands, I would guess I get more like 25 IBUs, which
would put utilization at about 8%.

So, what's the deal here?  Is my logic wrong, or are the Zymurgy numbers
screwy?  If it's the latter, where can I get more accurate information?

 - Allan Rubinoff  <rubinoff at bbn.com>

Return to table of contents


Date:         Fri, 18 Mar 94 10:06:30 EST
From: Derek Montgomery <DM1461A at american.edu>
Subject:      Washington DC Beer Expo

Here's a public service announcement......if anyone has additional info
to add please post it.  Usual disclaimer, etc.


Washington DC Waterfront Beer Expo - March 26, 1994 - 12 noon - 4 pm


Philip's Flagship Restaurant
900 Water Street, SW
Washington DC

"...sample great beer from local and national breweries such as Blue Hen
Oxford Class, Oldenberg, Rogue, Wild Goose, Frederick Brewing, Miller <gasp>,
Olde Heurich, Potomac River Brewing, Weeping Radish and many others."

"Free beer glass - samples - gifts - food - homebrew supplies - brew clubs.."

Admission $12  -- for more info call DNA Productions  at  703-222-5394

Cheers,

Derek  (dm1461a at american.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 10:22:35 EST
From: "Thomas Kavanagh, Curator" <TKAVANAG at ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Copper Manifolds

In this morning's HBD, Jack S. made some comments about false 
bottoms, EasyMashers(tm) and copper manifolds, to the effect 
of   
 
> The em is utterly simple, works like a charm and is cheap and 
easy to build or buy.  
 
> The copper pipe manifold is an alternative but is grossly 
complicated and  difficult to build compared to the em and I 
don't know of any commercially  available nor why one would want
one.  
 
I do not wish to disparage Jack's products--I lust after a Malt 
Mill(tm)--but I would like to say a few words in favor of my 
version of the copper manifold. 
 
A disclaimer first: I have tried to draw this thing in ASCII,  
but it doesn't work so well:  
 
                        
      
                   // || \\ 
                 //   ||   \\ 
                ||====||   ||======= 
                  \\  ||  //        
                    \\||//   
                               __ 
                             //-- \\ 
                            ||    || 
                            ||    || 
                            ||    ||--| 
                            ||    || 
                            || 
                ============== 
 
 
My manifold is constructed from pieces of 1/2" copper tubing bent
over my knee into a circumference to fit the ID of my mash tun (a
five gallon SS pot); with a diameter and a radius. [Imagine a
circle superimposed over a cross, with one arm of the cross
removed]. A standpipe comes up and over the rim of the pot and
through a stopcock, to a short piece of 3/8" tube. All of the
fittings are t-compression joints. The circumference, diameter
and radius have lots o' slots cut on the under side with a
hacksaw.  
 
The whole thing is placed into the mash tun at the beginning of 
the mash. [I do both decoctions and infusions, using my oven as a
warming chamber]. At sparge time, I attach a hose at the
stopcock, suck on it to start a siphon, and stand back, merely
keeping the water level up. The flow can be adjusted with the
stopcock, or a clip valve in the hose, or both. Since starting to
use this, my extraction rates have averaged 30+ points, and I
have been able to cut back on some of my grain bills while
keeping the OG in line with style.  
 
It can be easily taken apart for cleaning. 
 
I have also discovered that I can put it into my boil kettle to 
use for racking after cooling. This way I can also dispense with
hop bags: the whole hops act as a filter to keep out the break. 
 
Now as for 'utterly simple'/'grossly complicated' to build, the
only tools I needed to build this one and one for my brother were
a pipe/tube cutter, a hacksaw, and my knee. I did not need to
dedicate my $50+ 5 gallon SS mash tun pot only to brewing, nor
did I need to find a jobber who could cut a hole in a SS pot.  
tk

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 10:34:29 EST
From: AYLSWRTH at MANVM2.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: re:Animal products???

 I sent this note as e-mail to Pete directly, but after reading it,
 decided there may be some interest in posting it to hbd as well.  I
 hope you all will forgive me for what some will no doubt think is
 a waste of bandwidth.  But, this is of some interest to beer drinkers,
 I think, so I hope you agree.  It is also something to think about
 if you give your homebrew to vegetarian friends, or those on a
 strictly kosher diet.  Some may not appreciate it if you use certain
 clarifiers.  Please feel free to send flames or comments to me as
 private e-mail - I absolutely will not respond to future posts on
 this thread in the hbd to prevent what has happened on alt.beer.


 Pete -

 This is a thread that has received a lot of posts on alt.beer.  You
 may want to check there to follow the complete thread.  I fear it has
 probably gotten out of hand, especially if veggie lists are now
 saying that "beers like Guinness contain animal products."

 The answer is that some brewers use isinglass or gelatin as a fining
 agent to clarify their beers.  Isinglass is made up of fish stomachs
 and gelatin, of course, is a similar animal product.  These clarifiers
 are added after primary fermentation and allowed to settle to the
 bottom of the fermentation vessel - carrying yeast and haze-causing
 proteins with them.  The beer is then racked off the trub, including
 clarifiers.  There should be extremely little, although undoubtedly
 some, of the animal products remaining in the beer.  However, some
 vegetarians do not want to consume any product in which animal products
 have been used.  Also, I have heard that using such products during any
 portion of the production is not kosher.  Thus, the concern.

 This needs to be balanced, however, by the fact that these are only
 some of the products used for clarifying, and it is not clear how many,
 or which, commercial breweries use such products.  Other clarifiers
 include Irish Moss, which is seaweed; Polyclar, which is a plastic
 of some sort; and just letting the beer sit for a longer period of
 time - all beers will naturally clear eventually.  Filtering over
 beachwood or charcoal can also help clarify a beer.

 As I have pointed out in alt.beer, the real problem here is that it
 is difficult for people to find out whether their favorite beer(s)
 use animal products.  Breweries do not have to list any ingredients,
 and even if they did, it is unclear whether the FDA would count a
 clarifying agent as an "ingredient" anyway.  Some people have suggested
 some German breweries do use animal products to clear their beers.
 A suggestion of mine is to find out about some of the new "organic"
 beers being put out.  They are attempting to meet the needs of the
 vegetarian/health-oriented market by using completely organic grains
 and processes.  I have never tried any of these beers, but can try
 and find you the names of some of the microbreweries doing this, if
 you are interested.

 Good luck trying to spread reasonably intelligent information on this
 topic.  As I have discovered on alt.beer, people love grabbing onto
 something like "beer contains animal products" and terribly inflating
 the issue.  The recent posts on this thread are coming very close to
 turning into a flame-war on vegetarianism itself, instead of continuing
 to discuss the real issue here.

 Thomas Aylesworth
 Dept. PX8/Space Processor Software Engineering
 Loral Federal Systems, Manassas, VA
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
 Internet: aylswrth at manvm2.vnet.ibm.com  |  PROFS: AYLSWRTH at MANVM2
 Phone:    (703) 367-6171                |  T/L:   725-6171


Return to table of contents


Date:     Fri, 18 Mar 94 10:34:46 EST
From: "Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616" <wagnecz at PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Re:  Food grade sealant

You can get food grade sealant at most hardware stores, e.g. Home Depot.
The type I use is made by GE, and if my memory serves me, is a silicone
rubber.  Look at the label and specifically look for the statement
"Can be used for food contact surfaces".  There's usually also the
FDA standard that the stuff complies to listed alongside.  Don't use
anything that doesn't satisfy the above, as other types contain
mildew inhibitors and fungicides that you don't want in your beer!
Just take a good look in the caulking shelf ofthe bathroom related
sector of your store, at the Home Depot, there were about 3 choices 
out of about 30 total that satisfied the above.

		Hope this helps-
			Glen


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 11:50:50 -0400 (AST)
From: SIMJONES at upei.ca
Subject: rooting hormones and hops...

In October a couple of years ago (in Cambridge Ontario) I found hops 
growing all over the ruins of an old farm building. I took a few 
pieces (12") of rhizome, sprinkled them liberally with rooting hormone 
and lay them about a foot deep in the ground. The following spring 2 
or 3 shoots appeared and over the course of the summer the plants 
grew all along my chain link fence at the back of the yard. Lots of 
cones were produced. Unfortunately this wasn't done "scientifically" 
so no untreated rhizomes were planted. My suggestion is that if 
you've got the hormone, use it.
    Good Luck
    
    Simon Jones (SIMJONES at UPEI.CA)





Return to table of contents


Date:     Fri, 18 Mar 94 10:51:21 EST
From: "Glen A. Wagnecz, X6616" <wagnecz at PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject:  Re:  Treatment of Specialty Grains

I totally agree.  I feel that the mash step is for the purpose of 
converting starches to fermentables and that's it.  Say your adding
some dextrine (carapils) to get a little better "mouthfeel" or body
to your brew.  Would not converting the unfermentable contents to
fermentables, which the yeast would now be able to eat, negate the
intended effects? 

	In other cases, the effect is less benign than above.  With 
more potent specialty grains, such as black patent or roast, mashing
can actually produce undesired astringency or result in longer
than usual conversions (large volume of discussion regarding these 
two side effects can be found in previous issues and is not listed
for the sake of bandwidth!).

			Glen


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 11:12:30 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at daacdev1.stx.com>
Subject: Re: Hops/cheap Bpubs/EM/Doppesl

I wrote:
> > I think it is intuitively obvious that the higher OG of a ferment will tend
> > "scrub" more hop character out of a beer.
 
 And Jeff replied:
 > I don't know how "intuitive" it is, Jim.  What is there about a
 > high-gravity ferment that would "scrub" hop character?
  
  OK, I was *really* on the fence here.  I think it is obvious that the
  hop character/aroma will be reduced, but isoacids may not. Do isoacids
  have the ability to adhere to yeast biomass?  If so, then higher OGs
  should reduce the overall IBUs in the finished beer.  ???????????????
  Have I been drinking too much of my Barleywine lately????
   
  RE: brewpubs
 
 > Sprecher Brewery, Milwaukee, WI - This is a microbrewery, not a brewpub.  It
 > was started with approx. $10,000 using mostly converted dairy equipment.
     
 You get what you pay for.  Ever check the shelf life of a Sprecher product??
 Next time your in DC, get one at the Brickseller.
      
> From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
> Subject: False Bottom Museum
> 
 I hate to sound pompous but, the easy masher has relegated the false bottom 
 to a location next to the dinasaurs in the museum.  I can't think of a single 
 advantage other than potentially faster lautering with a false bottom and 
 that has questionable value in homebrewing.
>  
 The false bottom, unless carefully made and fitted will cause no end of grief 
 with scorching and junk getting stuck in the line.  Even then, you have to 
 live with the dead space under it and recycle wort till it clears out.
>  
>  Actually, I do not know of any way to deal with the scorching problem with a 
>  false bottom.  It almost precludes mashing in the same kettle.

Broken record time??  Your last statement is the real issue here.  Sizable
breweries who want a flexable mash schedule do not mash in the same 
vessel as they lauter in.  Usually the mash tun is also the brew kettle.
RIMS systems avoid this, and make use of a false bottom just fine.  
In my system I use a flase bottom in my combi open fermenter/lauter tun.
I use my kettle for mashing and boiling wort.  Two vessels, extremely 
flexible mashing programs, no scorching.  I can also lauter weizens and
Wit beers with ease.

> > >Doppelbock
> > >
> > >1 cup Roasted Barley

> I agree that this will not make a Dopplebock.  They have no roasted character.
> German breweries were not allowed to use unmalted barley, under their purity
> law, but they do have "chit malt" which is basically barley that has just
> barely been malted.  This gives them the characteristics of unmalted barley
> but lets them get around the law.  

They also often use "colored malt syrup", which is essentially a condensed
malt coloring product.  Interesting stuff.

> From: glent at falstaff.cache.tek.com (Glen Tinseth)
> Subject: Wort Gravity and Utilization of Alpha Acids: Data!!

At last!!
> 
> who don't want the details here is the jist. Two worts, 1.086
> and 1.043 (all grain) each boiled with the same amount of hops,
> in the same size pot over the same burner. The initial volumes
> were identical. 
> 
> The HPLC showed that the utilization in the kettle for the high 
> gravity wort was 20%, for the low gravity wort it was 42%. This 

That is fascinating data, especially for people brewing bitters, as
I believe there is no printed "homebrewer" info that implies numbers
above 30%, yet this seems to be the results in brewing a bitter with
out diluting.  No wonder Phils bitters are so different from mine,
I do high gravity preferment dilution, he doesnt. 

Good brewing,
Jim Busch


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 11:13:22 -0500 (EST)
From: Eugene Sonn <eugene at sccs.swarthmore.edu>
Subject: Real kegs


Hi to the HBD braintrust,
	I have searched and yet been unable to find information of how to 
put homebrew in a real keg, you know the type you could buy Bud or other 
such beer in.  A friend of mine is throwing a birthday party and wanted 
to know if I could brew up a keg full of homebrew for the occaision.  I 
would think the only trouble is how to get the valve out while you fill 
it and how the get it back in afterwards.  Dispensing with an air 
pump isn't a problems since it will all be consumed in one night.  

Thanks in advance,

Eugene

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 11:13:18 EST
From: Lee=A.=Menegoni at nectech.com
Subject: Montreal pub/restaurant

I will be traveling to Montreal next weekend, In a recent Ale Stree News
Michael Jackson mentioned a restaurant that use Belgian beer in the 
preparation of foods.  If anyone has any details on it like name, address 
and phone number please send them to me at  Lmenegoni at nectech.com

TIA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 10:25:20 -0500 [EST]
From: greg.demkowicz at circellar.com
Subject: RE:DE-LIDDING



>>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 94 09:22:08 EST
>>From: Bob_McIlvaine at keyfile.com
>>Subject: De-lidding SS Kegs
>>
>>While I won't argue that a air powered grinder is a good
>>way to cut the top out of SS kegs, I can assure you
>>that a sabre saw with a bi-metal blade wil NOT take
        ^^^^^^^^^ 
>>4 hours. It takes about 10 minutes and does a very
>>nice job.

"...13-14" hole in the top of the keg. (You can also use a hacksaw blade, but
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
it will take you 4 hours, or bring the keg to a local auto muffler shop,..."

Bob, Let me quess, your a proof reader right?? 

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 11:28:00 PST
From: Milstead Robert <rmilsted at Zellar.Vantage.GTE.COM>
Subject: Specialty Grains


Michael Inglis writes:

>  If the grains used will only impart color, then adding them at the
>  beginning of the mash is acceptable.

Question:  Would a given quantity of a high lovabond specialty grain such as 
black patent or roasted barley impart more color if added at the beginning 
of the mash as opposed to adding the same quantity at mashout.  I have not 
tried a controlled experiment but my impression from the one time I did this 
was "Wow, that's dark!".  Anybody have anything a little more scientific?

 -----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Milstead
RMilsted at Zellar.Vantage.GTE.Com
 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 11:30:56 EST
From: AYLSWRTH at MANVM2.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: re:Broken bottle when capping, part 1 of 2

I am breaking this into two posts due to its length.  The first
concentrates on people's comments on bottles.  The second on cappers.

I've never received so much e-mail from a post as I did from the one
last Monday talking about the bottle that broke while I was capping.
Since it seems to be of interest, I shall post a summary of the mail
I received.  To refresh your memory, I was bottling a pale ale this
past weekend and one of the bottles broke at the neck in my capper.
This was the 6th batch of beer I have bottled.  For the previous 5
batches, I used 100% refillable bar bottles (Bud, etc.).  For this
batch, I had 28 refillables and 20 non-refillables, mostly Sam Adams,
Celis, and Dominion.  The bottle that broke was a non-refillable.  I
asked if people thought the problem was likely the bottle, the capper,
or a combination of the two.  Unfortunately, as with almost all advice
on the net, different people get different results, so there was no
consensus (not even a clear majority).  However, I will share this
in the interest of giving everyone some more data points and opinions
to chew over and let everyone decide for themselves what they want to
do with it!

First, I fear there is a little confusion out there about exactly
what a refillable bar bottle is.  Several states have laws that say
that all bottles can be returned to the distributor for a deposit.
Thus, bottles will frequently say "returnable for x cents deposit"
on the label.  These are not necessarily refillable bottles.
Refillables are bottles that are used primarily in bars, which have
thicker glass, and which the bars return to their distributor for
a deposit - whether or not the state in which the bar resides has
a bottle law.  Many, but not all, non-refillable bottles have the
words "Do Not Refill" in raised letters in the glass near the bottom
of the bottle.  The best way to tell whether a bottle is refillable is
to compare it with one you know is refillable - the refillable bottles
are clearly thicker.  Most U.S. microbreweries use the non-refillable
bottles.

However, the jury is definitely out as to whether the bottle was
really the problem.  People seem to break both kinds, but from the
mail I received (certainly not a statistically accurate sample),
those who use non-refillables seem to break more bottles that those
who use refillables.  But people use different methods and types of
cappers, so it is hard to say definitely that the problem was the
bottles.  For example, several people who say the break bottles
also said that they bake the bottles to sterilize them.  I don't do
that myself, so it wasn't my problem, but it may (or may not)
exasperate other problems.  Any more data points from people who
bake bottles?

Here are some sample comments about bottles:

"I've bottled a whole 2 batches so far . . . and have broken 1 or
2 bottles in both batches. . . . I too have a dual lever, metal
capper . . . I bake my bottles to sterilize them prior to bottling
 . . . "

"I have not noticed a difference in the bar bottles vs the returnable
micro bottles after they have been used upwards of 5 times.  I oven
sanitize and let the oven cool overnight with the bottles in it . . .
so far so good."

". . . most of the bottles I break are returnables . . . Bottles
like Guinness or Anchor Steam are a superior design to returnables,
and if I were to avoid a particular design it would be
non-returnables shaped like returnables . . . I would blame the
bottles rather than the capper."

(I should point out that the above comment is particularly
controversial - which is why I included it - since I think most
homebrewers use long neck bottles, both refillables and non-
refillables.  Perhaps the Guinness/Anchor steam shape is preferable
for non-refillables, as he implies?  Any more data points?)

"The last two times bottling beer I had a whole bunch of bottles
break.  This included Sam Adams bottles and super strong champagne
bottles.  I had baked the Sam Adams . . . and thought I weakened
them.  But when I lost a bunch of champagne bottles I realized a
little investigation was in order.  My theory is as follows:  It
turns out that the new caps I had bought are a lot stiffer than my
old caps.  The extra force required would break the bottles."

(I should point out that I am using the same plain gold crown caps
I have always used, so this is not my problem - but could be a
problem for some?)



Thomas Aylesworth
Dept. PX8/Space Processor Software Engineering
Loral Federal Systems, Manassas, VA
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: aylswrth at manvm2.vnet.ibm.com  |  PROFS: AYLSWRTH at MANVM2
Phone:    (703) 367-6171                |  T/L:   725-6171

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:38:40 -0600 (CST)
From: Allen Ford <allen at darwin.sfbr.org>
Subject: 


Jack S. writes:
 
 >I hate to sound pompous but, the easy masher has relegated the false bottom 
 >to a location next to the dinasaurs in the museum.  I can't think of a single 
 >advantage other than potentially faster lautering with a false bottom and 
 >that has questionable value in homebrewing.
 
 >The false bottom, unless carefully made and fitted will cause no end of grief 
 >with scorching and junk getting stuck in the line.  Even then, you have to 
 >live with the dead space under it and recycle wort till it clears out.
 
 >Actually, I do not know of any way to deal with the scorching problem with a 
 >false bottom.  It almost precludes mashing in the same kettle.
 
Having never used the easymasher, I can comment neither on its virtues 
nor its faults.  I can, however, state with emphasis that the false 
bottom is a long way from becoming an endangered or extinct species.   
And with good reason. 
   1)The *dead space* under the false bottom (known to brewers as 
foundation) allows for easy addition of heat to the mash for temperature 
correction or for step mashing.  The scorching problems can be avoided 
by recirculating while applying heat.  It is especially effective if a 
curved copper tube is connected to the inside of the outlet fitting such 
that the liquid pick-up is at the bottom center of the mash tun under 
the false bottom.  Some recirculation provides an extremely clear runoff.
   2)Stuck mashes are not a problem (provided the grain is milled well) 
because of the large drainage surface area.  If a mash sticks, it is 
simple to re-float the grain bed by reversing the flow and pumping into 
the bottom of the mash tun. 
   3)Cleanup is quick and easy.  Simply remove the false bottom and hose 
it off.  

If brewers are having problems using mash tuns with false bottoms, I 
suspect that problems can be traced to one or both of the following 
problems:
   1)The false bottom was poorly designed and/or implemented
   2)The user is not familiar with the proper use of his/her equipment.

There is no doubt that the easymasher is cheaper than a well-made false 
bottom.  How does one perform a step mash using the easymasher?  Can heat 
be applied to the bottom of the mash tun without scorching the grains 
that are in contact with the bottom?  How does one unstick a stuck mash?    
How large a mash tun will an easymasher drain effectively?  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Allen Ford <allen at darwin.sfbr.org> =-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-= Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research  San Antonio, Texas =-=-=


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 11:37:42 EST
From: AYLSWRTH at MANVM2.VNET.IBM.COM
Subject: re: Broken bottles when capping, part 2 of 2

This is the second part of my summary of responses I received to
my post about breaking a bottle when capping.  This deals with
comments about cappers.  See part 1 for comments about bottles.

As for comments about the types of cappers, this too was controversial.
I heard people swearing that each type of capper (Double lever, like
mine; and bench model) was best.  Also, apparently some double lever
cappers are adjustable to fit different size bottle necks.  Mine is
not.  Those with adjustable cappers claimed that they fixed similar
problems by adjusting the screws on the capper.  Here are some
comments:

"I use the same type of double lever capper that you are using.
Also, during a recent bottling session we broke the neck clean off
of a regular longneck bar bottle.  My suggestion is to check the
screws that hold the capper plates in place and the cap holder at
the top which on my capper screws out.  Turns out our screws were
loose :-) and the capper plate was slipping down over the bottle
lip resulting in the broken neck."

"I've broken about 3 bottles in 15 or so batches with the double
lever capper.  I've switched to the single lever capper and have
had one break in about 5 batches.  Most of these bottles were the
refillable type."

"100% of my bottles are non-refillables . . . and only one like
yours that broke while filling.  My capper is a floor model.  I
think it's even less gentle to the bottles than your double-lever
design.  Consider: yours develops the vertical force needed to
crimp the cap by grabbing the strong reinforced ridge of the
bottle neck.  My floor model generates the force by compressing
the entire bottle.  The weakest parts of the bottle are probably
the straight, thin sides and the joints where the sides meet the
bottom and the neck.  Mine failed at the side/neck joint--squashed
like a bug."

"Is your capper adjustable?  Mine is and maybe that's the problem.
Also I've thought that the problem might be that the levers need
to be lubricated each time you bottle."

"I've had this problem -but mostly with odd shaped bottles using
an Italien wing capper . . . My cheap- bench capper won't bust a
bottle unless it's set at the wrong height and REALLY forced!  The
wing capper is much more likely to find a fault in the bottle."

(That was from the 3-16-94 hbd).


So, what am I going to do?  Well, I think I will continue to use a
mixture of both refillables and non-refillables.  I will also start
lubricating my capper, as a couple people suggested, and attempt to
make sure I am applying equal force on both levers when capping.  If
I continue to have more problems with non-refillables than I do with
refillables, I will write a follow-up post and stop using non-refillables.
I was a little surprised by a couple of notes I got from people suggesting
that they break far more bottles than I do when capping and don't worry
about it.  I'm all for not worrying, but it is a hassle when a bottle
breaks, and if I can do anything to decrease the chance of it, I will.

As for my comment about "if a bottle can't stand the force of my capper,
how will it stand the force of carbonation", I have been convinced
not to worry.  As a couple people pointed out, they are really very
different forces.  Carbonation applies equal force to all points of
the bottle.  Both types of cappers place force at particular points
on the bottle, points that may be weak to begin with.

Well, I hope you all find this post worth the bandwidth.  I'd love
to hear more from others who either have or have not experienced this
problem.




Thomas Aylesworth
Dept. PX8/Space Processor Software Engineering
Loral Federal Systems, Manassas, VA
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet: aylswrth at manvm2.vnet.ibm.com  |  PROFS: AYLSWRTH at MANVM2
Phone:    (703) 367-6171                |  T/L:   725-6171

Return to table of contents


Date:         Fri, 18 Mar 94 11:23:47 EST
From: "Michael J. Poaletta" <MP0824A at american.edu>
Subject:      A few questions

    I am a beginner homebrewer and have a couple a questions for some more
knowledgable soul than myself.  My second brew is an IPA based on Papazian's
recipe in The Complete Joy of Homebrewing.  I roasted the malted barley as the
recipe called for.  However after ten minutes the barley was not the reddish
hue it was supposed to be.  I let it roast 5 more minutes but it was still not
slightly red.  It was a little darker though so I took it out, cracked it, and
used it anyway.    My second problem was with the O.G. after my brewing was
completed.   Rather than being in the 1.048-1.052 range it was supposed to be,
the O.G. was 1.065.  I also noticed what appeared to be  sediment of some kind
in the sample ( which was 62 degrees at test time).   I made sure all the
grains were removed so I don't think that is the problem.  If anyone out there
could shed a little light on my questions I would be eternally grateful. Did I
screw up royally or am I worrying needlessly.
   Secondly.  I plan on adding oak chips to the IPA  during the secondary
fermentation.  When would be a good time start secondary fermentation.  How
long should I leave the chips in for?  How many chips should I use?  What is
the best way to sanitize oak chips?  I would appreciate any help in these
matters.  Thanks

                                                      Mike Poaletta

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 94 9:53:08 MST
From: npyle at n33.stortek.com
Subject: Mega brewing/Specialty Grains/Eis

Jeff Franes writes about industrial brewers:

>As I said, they *are* concerned with hop utilization in concentrated
>fermentation because they more concentrated they can make their
>ferments, the more beer they can pump out with the same volume of
>equipment.

Jeff was discussing hop utilization, but I'd like to diverge a bit.  Assuming
the large brewers brew high gravity worts, and dilute *after* fermentation,
try to follow this.  They must use a relatively large amount of grain to
create these high gravity worts, which means they have relatively large
mash/lauter tuns.  Then they must boil down this relatively large volume of
water, which means they have relatively large boilers.  They then ferment
this concentrated wort in relatively small fermenters.  Finally, it is
diluted back to a normal concentration before carbonation bottling.  This may
or may not require a relatively large holding tank.  My point/question is
that everything is (relatively) large except the fermenters, why?  Is it
because they mostly brew lagers, and they require a long time sitting in the
fermenters?  Maybe this is why they have a bottleneck on fermenters, but it
seems a little strange to me, to go to all that trouble.

**

Michael Inglis writes:

>   My Take on When to Add Specialty Grains:
>   In almost every case, the specialty grains should be added at the
>mashout stage.  The only case specialty grains should be added to the
>primary mash and mashed is when a certain specialty grain is added only for
>the color factor and the specialty grain in question has both a dextrine and
>color character associated with it.

There are actually many cases where the specialty grains should be added to
the main mash, rather than at mash out.  Your example is one, but what about
the case where you want to use dark grains in foundation water that is a
little high in carbonates?  I can imagine someone wanting to brew a
dopplebock, thus they don't want the water any harder than necessary.  The pH
of a pale mash in this type of water could be too high, but they don't want
to add a bunch of gypsum to lower the pH.  In this case, dark grains in the
main mash is the ticket, as they would bring the mash pH down without
hardening the water.  Also, I'm quite sure that adding the dark grains to
the main mash would extract more of the goodness of the grain, so that you
could get away with less of the dark grain.  For this reason, I think it is
important to mention when the specialty grains were added for a particular
recipe.  I believe that most commercial brewers add all grains at mash-in for
maximum utilization of the grain, for what that's worth.

**

Regarding "ice-brews", I have tasted a new Coors product called "Eisbock" 0
pronounced "Ice-Bock".  At least they got the name right; the beer is better
than the regular swill, but not too exciting to me.  It is not very strong,
like I would expect an Eisbock to be.  It even has a beautiful package,
complete with goat.  This is marketing brilliance; they are responding to the
Ice-brew phenomenon (I can't think of anything else to call it), AND the
micro-brew popularity with a single product!  The label even says to look for
their new "Weizen Beer" - pronounced "Vite-zen Beer", coming this summer.
I'm not making this up!

Norm
npyle at n33.stortek.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 09:53:03 -0700 (MST)
From: Mark_Worwetz at Novell.COM (Mark Worwetz)
Subject: Hop Utilization, Scotch Ale

Howdy from Zion!

In the recent thread about hop utilization and wort gravity, I have
not noticed anyone refering to the chart provided in Papazians
NCJOHB (page 268).  This chart provides hop utilization based on
density of boiled wort and boiling time.  I have been using it to
cross check IBUs of recipes I have received from "Winner's Circle",
"Cat's Meow", etc.  It seems to work pretty well for me and most of
the recipes fit the style specs. that Charlie provides.  Am I being
totally naiive?  Should I graduate to a more sophisticated method of
IBU calculation?  Should I (gulp) worry?

On another subject, Papazian states that Scotch/Scottish Ales are fairly
lightly hopped. ie. (14-16 IBUs for a Scotch).  When I have tasted 
McEwans and MacAndrews Scotch Ales, I have had to agree that the hop
bitterness is very low, and hop aroma is non-existent.  The problem I
have is with recipes I have seen for prize winning Scotch Ales that
specify hopping in the 30-50 IBU range.  According to Charlie, this is
more the Old Ale hopping rate.  Once again, should I graduate to a more
specific style guide, perhaps Noonan?

I look forward to your replies!

TIA
Mark Worwetz (Mark_Worwetz at Novell.COM)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 18 Mar 1994 10:16:34 -0600 (MDT)
From: COYOTE <SLK6P at cc.usu.edu>
Subject: Frozen Yeast Storage

Kelvin told me he was concerned about the defrost cycle on his
freezer causing problems for his frozen yeast cultures.

Got an idea for frozen storage which might help with this problem:

You know that jelly-like blue ice stuff?

Depending on the vessels you choose to freeze into (epi tubes are my preference,
or the tubes with screw caps designed for freezing!)...

You can use a small (homemade?) styrofoam container, or tool box- trinket
boxes,  you know with all the drawers for random bits of stuff. (depends on 
how many, how much freezer space  etc etc.)  Just be sure to get deep drawers
so the tubes will fit!

Pack the container with the jelly (cut open the freezer bag, and goosh it out,
or if it's solid type, cut pieces)  and place a thin piece of styrofoam on
the surface.  Cut holes for the tubes to fit in, and dig out some of the jelly.
Place tubes in position, and put the whole thing in the freezer.

Sealing it up while warm with silicone might not be a bad idea 
(glue the foam in place on top and let it sit overnight, then freeze...)

Once unit is frozen, tubes can be removed.  Now even if the freezer goes into
defrost mode- the blue ice stuff should remain frozen long enough to endure
the warming period and keep the cultures frozen.

This approach is used in molecular biology labs to keep restriction enzymes
(read   VERY expensive and delicate!) stable while in use. Lots of supplies
are shipped on gel-ice in biology and chemistry labs.  See if a friend has a
few laying around.  Sheets of styrofoam can be taped together (clear packing
tape is a good way to go) to form a box. Or just hit a sports store, and buy
a few bags. They are pretty cheap.  The idea is handy for organization.
You can categorize that way, but the foam box might insulate better.

Anyway. Just a random thought I thought others might find useful.
 
    |\
  |\| \/|   \-\-\-  John (The Coyote) Wyllie   SLK6P at cc.usu.edu  -/-/-/
   \    |      
    ----



Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1376, 03/19/94