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


Contents:
  Decoction mashing (Jim Busch)
  KEG beer line length answers (John Glaser)
  PET Bottles ("peter williams")
  ESB comparisons/Licorice/Oatmeal Stout/Foam/Mulch! ("David B. Sapsis")
  Eisbocks (Dennis Davison)
  Re: using licorice (Sean MacLennan)
  mini-kegs ("Brent A. Spoth")
  Keg Crimes -- poll results (Louis K. Bonham)
  Re: Fellow aol.com members (PatrickM50)
  Wild yeast (kit.anderson)
  NDN: Homebrew Digest #1631 (January 14, 1995) (Gateway)
  What hops for Bud? (Newton White)
  Cold Conditioning Ale Yeast Strains (Diane S. Put)
  Chipotle peppers ("nancy e. renner")
  PET bottles (again) ("Lee Bussy")
  HSA with Vienna and Munich malts - correction and summary ("nancy e. renner")
  Oxygen permeability of plastics ("NAME SEAN O'KEEFE, IFAS FOOD SCIENCE")
  EM Prob, JSP MOVES (Jack Schmidling)
  PET bottles (Dan Pack)
  O2 diffusion thru PET bottles ("nancy e. renner")
  How Pilsner Urquell acidifies its mash ("nancy e. renner")
  O2 in PETs/Color conversion/Max efficiency (David Draper)
  Honey treatment in Boddington's Pub Ale (Scott McLagan)
  Mexicali Rogue - Chipolte's... Just what are they are...? (dsanderson)
  new magazine (Kathy Kincade)
  Sam Adams joke ("Lee Bussy")



******************************************************************
* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
* 
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
 
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.
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
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.stanford.edu.  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
  e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
  /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.  AFS users can find it under
  /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.  If you do not have
  ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
  service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about this service,
  send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
  "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.


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


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:03:53 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Busch <busch at eosdev2.gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Decoction mashing

Jim asks about decoction mashing and its relevance to soft
Pilzen water.  One of the often overlooked properties of
malt carbohydrates (starch) is that it is composed of trace
elements of Calcium, magnesium and silica.  Decoction mashing
helps to explode any leftover starches, liberating these
trace elements.  Decoction mashing also tends to increase the
phosphate levels.  Pilzen brewers additionally employ long
low temperature rests that favor natural acidulation of the
mash, through the reactions of calcium and phosphates from
the malt and enzymatic activity of phytase.  Calcium reactions
with proteins also help to force the pH down.  Decoction
mashing also coagulates proteins during the boil of the mash.
 
Lee writes:

<In another post someone posted about why decoction mash and what effects it 
<has on a brew.
<As a regular user of this technique, even in ales,  let me comment:

Im sure Lee understands the tradeoffs involved in mashing and
malt choices, but I wanted to point out that if ales are being
made using English (or DeWolf) pale ale malt ,a decoction mash is 
the last thing one wants to do.  Pale ale malts have already been
proteolytically reduced and the equivelent of a maltose rest
has already been performed by the malting process, the
last thing one wants to do is further the protein reduction
via decoction mashing.  That said, I like to make some ales
using Pils and Munich malt, but for this I opt for a 60C dough
in/protein rest/brief maltose rest followed by saccharification
at 66C and a mash off at 77C.  The resulting beer has a greater
apparent degree of attenuation (ADA) than Pale ale malt mashed
at 66C, and tastes fuller to me.  This is with recent versions
of the DeWolf Cosyns malts.

I was chattin with some of my pro brewer friends the other day
about partial decoction mashes.  In this method, the main mash
of pale/pils malts is performed separate from the specialties until
conversion is complete.  Concurrently, a small decoction mash is
done with say 50-100 Lbs of base malt and 50-100 Lbs of specialties,
usually Munich and caramel malts.  The mashes are combined and lautered
as usual.  Im curious about applying this technique in our smaller
breweries and am wondering if anyone has any results to share. For me,
it doesnt make much sense since I make ales, and I only decoct weizens,
and this obviously would not apply to that.  I would think this is
something for lager homebrewers to try, it would combine the advantages
of a decoction mash, but make the volumes much easier to handle and
the time required would be shortened from standard decoctions.  It would
also increase the melanoiden concentrations competely separate from the
main base malt choices.

- -- 
Jim Busch
busch at mews.gsfc.nasa.gov

"DE HOPPEDUIVEL DRINKT MET ZWIER 'T GEZONDE BLOND HOPPEBIER!"

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 13:26:15 -0700
From: John Glaser <glaser at widlar.ece.arizona.edu>
Subject: KEG beer line length answers

     OK, I got my replies, so here's how to do it (but only if you  
like convenience and minimal work). Several people sent me replies  
about my kegging beer line questions.

     You can indeed dispense and carbonate at the same pressure. This  
is the way to go, since you don't have to bleed pressure and mess  
with the regulator every time you want some beer out of your keg. To  
do so, read on.

For kegger's who don't like theory:

     In short, in order to get minimal foaming at the tap, you want  
to have a pressure drop across the beer line and tap that equals the  
pressure at the keg. I have gleaned the following approximate  
pressure drop figures for immediate use:

3/8" I.D. hose           0.25 psi/ft.
1/4" I.D. hose           0.85 psi/ft.
3/16" I.D. hose          2.2 to 3 psi/ft.
standard spigot          1-2 psi
check valve              2 psi (CO2 side only)
vertical rise            1 psi/ft. (avg. measured from keg center)

     So, let's say we have our beer carbonated at 15 psi, and now  
wish to serve it at the same pressure. If you have a CO2 check valve,  
you will have to set theregulator about 2 psi higher to account for  
the drop across the check valve (so I've been told). Then the  
pressure at the keg will be 15 psi. 

     Let the tap height be at about the center of the keg, so we  
don't have to worry about the vertical rise. Subtract 2 psi for the  
spigot, leaving 13 psi to drop across the beer line. If we use 3/16"  
beer line, and assume 2.2 psi/ft. pressure drop, then 13psi /  
2.2psi/ft. = 5.9 ft., so use 6ft. of 3/16" line. If you do this, you  
can keep the beer at 15 psi while tapping with minimal foaming.
     If your spigot is mounted above the keg beer, you get an  
additional 1lb./ft. drop due to gravity for each foot above the beer  
level, so you can shorten your hose accordingly (I wouldn't worry  
about this unless your tap is a couple of feet above the keg height,  
since the beer level in the keg will change anyway.).

	If you really want simple, figure about 1 ft. of 3/16" beer  
line per 3 lbs. pressure (as stated in the kegging FAQ).

	If you *foolishly insist* on using 1/4" line, it would take  
about 13/0.85 = 15.3 ft. for the same result.

HINT: to fit 3/16" line on 1/4" hose barbs, stick the end of the tube  
in boiling water to soften it up first.

For those who like a little theory:

     The actual pressure drops in the beer line, spigot, etc. depend  
on the fluid (beer) velocity, with the pressure drops increasing as  
velocity increases. I suspect this is probably nearly-linear for slow  
flow rates with minimal fluid turbulence, and you don't want a lot of  
turbulence unless you like foam more than beer (feel free to call me  
on this if I'm wrong). Hence, the above pressures are valid at a  
specific flow rate. I was given a rate of about 0.5 to 1 oz./sec. for  
the pressure drop quoted for 3/16" line, and assume the other figures  
are probably for a similar flow rate.
     In fact, no matter what kind of line you use, nearly all the keg  
pressure must appear across the beer line and spigot, since the tap  
opens to the atmosphere. With too-short and/or too-wide lines, the  
total resistance to fluid flow becomes too small and the beer  
velocity increases, causing additional turbulence in the line and at  
the tap, which in turn causes the sudden release of CO2 in the form  
of foam (the latter is conjecture on my part).
     The flow rate of 0.5 to 1 oz./sec is probably a good compromise  
between too much foam and waiting forever to get a glass of beer.

     Sorry about the long post, I'm just practicing for my  
dissertation (which sadly has nothing to do with beer :( ). Thanks to  
all those who sent me info. Also, thanks to the people at the  
Beverage Company. When I placed my order, they told me to get the  
3/16" line, although they didn't have any explanation other than they  
thought it would work better. Well, I got it, and you know the rest.  
(no affiliation, blah, blah, blah).

John Glaser (glaser at widlar.ece.arizona.edu)

Return to table of contents


Date:          Fri, 13 Jan 1995 17:17:52 AST
From: "peter williams" <peter.williams at acadiau.ca>
Subject:       PET Bottles

Someone asked for hard evidence of the permeability of PET bottles.

I attended a conference and one of the invited speakers was from a 
company which had developed a process to apply a thin(nano-meter)
glass coating to a plastic surface.  The surfaces of interest were:

1) plastic food wrap
2) PET bottles

The purpose of the coating was to reduce gas transfer.  He mentioned 
that the shelf life of pop in a PET is limited(sorry, I can't recall 
the time), but that by coating the bottles it was significantly extended.
Coating the food wrap was also done to extend the shelf life of 
products.

I have used PET's myself and was pleased with them.  I did find that 
I had to add a bit more priming sugar than I do in glass to 
compensate for the volume increase of the container.

I now use glass - primarily for aesthetic reasons.  I do find that 
filling one PET allows me to monitor the bottle conditioning quite 
nicely however.

Peter Williams
pwilliam at acadiau.ca
Wolfville, Nova Scotia
Canada

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 15:07:51 -0800 (PST)
From: "David B. Sapsis" <dbsapsis at nature.Berkeley.EDU>
Subject: ESB comparisons/Licorice/Oatmeal Stout/Foam/Mulch!

>From HBD 1630:
"Evil Scientist" Michael Lloyd purports that after refining his
Trolleyman ESB, it "cannot be told from Redhook ESB ib a blind taste
test".  Although I do not question the quality of the beer, I would
argue on scientific grounds that statement is non-attainable. 
Presumably, Michael has experimentally failed to reject the null 
hypothesis of no difference (in taste between his Trolleyman and RH) in
controlled blind tastings; hence his statement should read: "...has not
been told from ...".  A minor semantic and or epistomoligical issue, but
any (even an evil one) scientist recognizes that experiments never prove
anything, they only can only give inference.
******
Tim Lawson inquires about using Licorice in Stouts.  I have used brewers
licorice (comes in a stick) in a Russian Stout once.  I used 1/2 half
stick, and the flavor was subtle, but nicely perceptable.  Be warned, I
believe that this stuff is manufactured from licorice root and not
anise, and consequently has a distinctive (not totally licorice-y)
flavor.  I would suspect that a similar dose used in a lower gravity
beer (mine was around 1090) would yield significantly greater
perceptability -- hence proceed with caution.
*********
Glen Wagnecz gives a detailed recipe for his Sand Pit Speacial Oatmeal
Stout.  One thing struck me though: Hop bittering is stated to come from
solely  one addition of 14 grams of Nugget at 13% alpha, for a 15 gallon
batch.  Even assuming excellent utilization rates, that would only yield
about 10-12 IBU -- i.e., barely at the threshold of perception.  Is this
correct, and if so, is the beer very low in bitterness on purpose?  I
know that Oatmeal stouts can tend to be sweet, but this seems way out of
range.
Comments, Glen? Anyone?
*********
Following up on the now lost FOOP thread, I was surprised that no one
made mention of the effect that dispensing practice has on foam
*production*.  Having been an admirerer and consumer of good foam for
many years, and having attempted many efforts at duplicating a draft
Guinness type of beer, I was struck by how the Guinness tap mechanism
worked.  Upon investigation, I discovered that in addition to pushing the
beer with a high Nitrogen composition gas (usually 70%N2 and 30%CO2),
the beer exits out a small disk called a sparkler.  Now, this disk
simply has 5 very small holes in it, thus causing the beer to be forced
or "spritzed" through these holes, initiating considerable foaming. 
Forgetting momentarily that the high N content is much closer to the
partial pressure of the gasses in the atmosphere, I though, why not
simply "spritz" from the soda keg.  Turns out, in lieu of a
Guinness/Nitrogen setup, it works great.  All you have to do is put
sufficient top pressure on the keg to allow the beer to froth out when
*barely* squeezing the tap. I have found that 14-18 psi works real well,
and when done right should make a dramatic ssssssssssssss-sound.  If you
do not want to add additional carbonation to the beer, be sure to bleed
off the pressure after dispensing.  You may have to tweak with the
pressure and dispensing routine to match your desires, but if you are
having trouble getting acceptable foam from your keg beer, give it a
try.  I employed this method for years to good avail, but have since
aquired a Nitrogen can and Guinness tap for the real thing.  Now I'm
working on refining the (draft dry stout) recipe.   
 *********
Finally, one reminder to all you home hopgrowers out there: Mulch!  They
simply love it, both for thermal protection and nutrient flux.  If you
use a high carbon source of mulch, like straw, remember to give a good
dose of fertilizer -- you want to keep the C:N ratio relatively low,
particulrly during the first three months after emergence.  I go with
reccommended dosing of organic chickewn manure in late Feb., early
April, and Late May, then dose with bone meal (phosphorus) at the
intitiation of flowering.
The mulch does many thing for the soil environment, including regulate
nutrient availability, hold moisture, promote good infiltration, and
provide a medium for new rhizome development and vegetal cloning (i.e.,
rhizome thinning).  Heres to the '95 harvest!
Cheers,
dave                         
dbsapsis at nature.berkeley.edu	UC Berkeley Wildland Fire Research Lab  

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 17:34:10 -0600
From: ddavison at earth.execpc.com (Dennis Davison)
Subject: Eisbocks

| 1. Brew an all-grain Helles based on a recipe in Richman's Bock book 
| - -- available only in paperbock ;)
| 2. When fermentation is complete after ? amount of time in glass secondary,
| rack to a primary plastic bucket and place outside for ? amount of time.
| 3. Remove large chuncks of ice thereby substantially increasing strength.

Richard, your on the right track. I have a modified program. Place the beer
in a 5 gallon cornelius place that outside. After a few hours shake the keg.
If it sounds like ice crystals forming just rack under CO2 to another
cornelius. Do it until you get about 1/5 the volume removed in the form of
ice.

If you take a SG reading you will probably see very little change. Your
increasing the dextrine per volume while increasing the alcohol. Thus the
gravity will read close to the same. For the % alcohol you'll  have to
calculate what the original gravity would have been if it had whatever
volume of water you removed.

I've had fun with eisbocks, hope you will also.

- --
Dennis Davison       ddavison at earth.execpc.com        Milwaukee, WI

Judge Director of the 1st Round of The AHA Nationals - Chicago,IL 1995
Organizer - Real Ale Fest - Chicago - October 13,14 1995

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 19:23:28 -0500 (EST)
From: sam at deuce.toolsmiths.on.ca (Sean MacLennan)
Subject: Re: using licorice

Tim Lawsen asked about using licorice in a stout. I just used a stick of
brewers licorice in a extract porter. Following instructions from one of
the beer books I own (can't remember which) it said "Just throw the
licorice into the boiling wort." Well, this didn't work. The brewers
licorice did not dissolve at all. No licorice taste at all!

I brew on an electric stove, so maybe one of the jet burners will
actually dissolve the stuff.

Sorry I can't help on how to do it right, but at least don't try what I
did! Next time I think I'll try grinding up the licorice first.

	Sean MacLennan
	sam at toolsmiths.on.ca

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 21:12:14 -0500
From: "Brent A. Spoth" <bas8v at dayhoff.med.virginia.edu>
Subject: mini-kegs

I am sort of new at homebrewing and I am already tired of bottles
but don't want to commit to tapping a keg when I sample a batch.
I recently saw a mini-keg system at the local brew store that
uses BB gun style CO2 cartriges  and the 4 litre? grolsh cans.
Has anyone heard of or use such a thing?  It seems like a pretty
ideal system at face value.  I would greatly appreciate any input
anyone has.

Thanks
Brent
bas8v at virginia.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 21:13:24
From: lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net (Louis K. Bonham)
Subject: Keg Crimes -- poll results

After two days, the votes are in:

35 people are interested and want to see the discussion continued.

2 people (including Mr. Korzonas) do not.

1 person (Mr. Demers) thinks the topic is of only marginal relevance
to the HBD, but withdraws his opposition to it being discussed
here. 

My personal favorite (not included in any of the above tallies) was
the HBD reader who opined as follows: 

>Personally, the keg crimes topic bores me, but I do not object to
>you posting about it. It is simple for me to skip over it. The
>nature of the digest (or of any printed material) is that different
>issues will interest different groups of people.  It is impossible
>to please everybody. So I suggest you continue to post on the topic
>if you feel you have something to say about it (don't ask me - I
>just hit 'Page Dn'!). Anyone who writes "so and so is wasting
>bandwidth" does so themselves - so ignore them. 

Even making generous allowance for sampling error, I think there is
a sufficient amount of interest to justify continuing the thread a
bit longer. I will be posting a summary of the various comments and
anecdotes I have recently received (as well as my further thoughts
on the subject) soon.  Please feel free to hit me with your
thoughts on the subject at lkbonham at beerlaw.win.net.   



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 01:32:20 -0500
From: PatrickM50 at aol.com
Subject: Re: Fellow aol.com members

In HBD #1630, DONBREW at aol.com  writes:
<<<Wait a Dammed minute!!!! nobody sent me #1628!!!! Is this foxmail thing
what
is screwing things up?>>>>>
Dear Don, I have noticed that flames here in the HBD are generally preferred
under the brewpots and not online.  I find it to be one of its most appealing
and civilized aspects, don't you?  I doubt anybody reading your message
actually has anything to do with "this foxmail thing" either gramatically or
otherwise.  Digests, #1628 included, are automatically sent out unhampered by
human intervention.  But sometimes even computers make miskakes.  ( I just
got #1628 (dated 1/11/95)  today on 1/13/95.)  So RDWHAHB!  :-)

Jim Somers  at aol.com  writes:
<<<<<In HBD #1628 the table of contents listed Mac brewing software, but I
did not
see anything in the text about it.  Is there Mac brewing software
available?>>>>>
Dear Jim,  We AOLers are getting a bad reputation for quickly looking at an
Internet feature, making a comment and then getting out before finding out
what the heck is going on ;-) !  Perhaps this is because our monthly time is
measured and always ticking . . .  Anyway, the HBD table of contents lists
the subjects of the included *messages*, not programs.  Perhaps that is the
source of your confusion. Either that or you didn't get the second half of
#1628.  HBD usually comes to me (and I assume, to all other AOLers) in two
installments. The mac messages were in the second posting, tho the table of
contents is in the first.   Anyway, mac brewing programs can possibly be
found elsewhere, but not in this newsgroup.  I think I saw something called a
*Brewstack* program (mac hyperstack?) at ee.stanford.edu in the brewing
directory.  Let me know via aol email if you need ftp help in reaching it.

Please, fellow AOLers, a little suggestion: If you are really interested in
getting info from and contributing to the extremely well informed,
experienced and always interesting dialogue taking place here, subscribe to
this newsgroup by sending email to: homebrew-request@ hpfcmi.fc.hp.com.  Just
be sure to say you want to *subscribe* in the text area of your email. (Just
like it says to do in the header of each HBD!)  Then get the latest version
of the AOL software (free download, keyword = UPGRADE) and use the new
FlashSession feature of Mail to get the day's HBD for only seconds of
download time.  Read and reply at your leisure and upload later for only a
few seconds online time.  You won't be wasting your time or that of the rest
of the world-wide HBD community.
End of speech and suggestions.  Remember, when in doubt, RDWAHAHB!

Pat Maloney (PatrickM50 at aol.com)
p.s. Anybody have a suggestion for a hombrew smiley?

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 15:08:45 -0500
From: kit.anderson at acornbbs.com
Subject: Wild yeast


                             

In HB1630, <CGPCS07.WING at WING.SAFB.AF.MIL> James Linscheid asked about 
culturing wild yeast.

Last year I cultured yeast off of locally made spontaneously 
fermenting cider. I just plated it out and took one of the small 
circular colonies that looked like yeast. I grew it in 10cc 
1030 wort and plated it again to make sure it was yeast. I grew 10cc 
again and stepped up to 500cc. This went into a 1050 wheat beer to 
make a lambic. It tasted "lambicy" even before adding brettanomyces 
and pediococcus.

It was fruity, slightly cidery, and very attenuative. As a gueuze it 
scored 38-42 in local competitions. Most judges thought it was too 
dry, though.

It was interesting, but I would use a Belgian wit yeast next time. 
They have similar flavor characteristics, but don't attenutate so 
much.

If you are going to culture wild yeast, use what you find on fruit, 
not old socks.

Kit "Travels With Chiles" Anderson
Bath, Maine
<kit.anderson at acornbbs.com>
*
- ---
 * CMPQwk #1.4 * UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY

Return to table of contents


Date: 14 Jan 1995 01:28:39 -0000
From: Gateway at foxmail.gfc.edu (Gateway)
Subject: NDN: Homebrew Digest #1631 (January 14, 1995)

Sorry. Your message could not be delivered to:

Robert Hoover,George Fox College (The name was not found at the remote site.
Check that the name has been entered correctly.)


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 04:48:44 -0800 (PST)
From: nrwhite at netcom.com (Newton White)
Subject: What hops for Bud?


   I'm seeking advice on which hops to use for a Bud type lager. Any
sources for the hops as well as brewing details would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks in advance!


- -- 
  nrwhite at netcom.com
  Sysop - ACS BBS -(404) 636-2991
  Home of the Atlanta CoCoFEST! V - October 1,2 1994


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 09:16:51 PST
From: diput at eis.calstate.edu (Diane S. Put)
Subject: Cold Conditioning Ale Yeast Strains

>From: Spencer.W.Thomas at med.umich.edu
>Subject: Ale ferm temp / Thomas Hardy's Ale

>In the most recent issue of The Malt Advocate (containing, by the way,
>articles relating a recent tasting of 25 years of Thomas Hardy's Ale: 8
>vintages from 1993 to 1968), the Homebrew column recommends fermenting
>ales at 60-65F, in order to reduce undesirable aromatic components
>(specifically, diacetyl, fusels, and excess esters).  My feeling is
>that this is asking for slow, stuck fermentations, particularly at the
>low end of the range.

Hello all (from "Don" Put):

Thanks for bringing this up, Spencer.  It just so happens that I stumbled 
across something pertaining to this in the De Clerck book and it's been 
on my mind ever since.  In describing the differences between lager (bottom 
dwelling) and ale (top dwelling) yeast strains, he makes the following 
statement:

        "Difference in temperature is not, however, really a distinctive
        characteristic between the two systems because top yeasts can be
        acclimatized to the low temperature of bottom fermenting brewing."

Now, I'm sure there are some low temperature tolerant ale strains out there,
but I'm not sure that they are included in the pure yeast strains 
available to the homebrewer (from Wyeast, Brewtek, etc.).  Has anybody had
any experience with acclimatizing an ale yeast strain to ferment at a lower 
temperature?  It seems that it could be done if the temperature was lowered
gradually over the course of several successive starters.  Perhaps one of
our resident microbiological experts could comment (Maribeth Raines, are 
you out there?).  I realize that we could just use one of the higher 
temperature lager strains available, but I think it would be an interesting 
experiment because ale strains would still give a different flavor profile.

don
(hiding behind his wife's moniker at diput at eis.calstate.edu)

Tom Nelson:  Did you get my email reply to your questions about the mixer?
             Your address seemed incomplete.



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


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 12:49:00 -0500 (EST)
From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Chipotle peppers

(From *Jeff* Renner)

In HBD 1631, John Dodson said 
>(BTW, the chipolte is it's own pepper, no such thing as a 'chipolte
>jalapeno. ;) )

Sorry, John, but I have to disagree.  A chipotle (pronounced she-POAT-lay)
is a smoked, dried jalapeno pepper.  They are traditionally dried in 
this manner because they are too fleshy to air dry - they just rot.  (See
DeWitt, David and Nancy Gerlack, The Whole Chile Pepper Book, Little,
Brown (Boston, 1990), pp. 25, 55).  Thinner walled chiles such as cayennes
or serranos will air dry nicely.  They are a great addition to meatless
dishes such as beans and rice.

Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu

Return to table of contents


Date:          Sat, 14 Jan 1995 12:05:06 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net>
Subject:       PET bottles (again)

Joseph Santos throws his hat into the ring and joins the PET debate.

Joe, even though there is plenty of pressure in the bottle, the 
pressure is CO2.  There is an atmospher of pressure outside the 
bottle and it contains oxygen.  No kidding right?  Well, to the 
oxygen, the bottle is in a vacuum because there is no O2 in there.  
Osmotic pressures force O2 into the bottle untill the pressures are 
equal (about 16-20% O2) regardless of the pressure in the bottle.  I 
can't remember to whom we attribute this law to but someone is bound 
to remind me :).

That's it for today... yesterday was my anniversary and we had a 
Friday the 13th Anniversary party.  Two (stolen keg crimes!) kegs of 
my Pudswiller Doors American Premium Lager and half a keg of a Wee 
Heavy that quieted everyone down almost immediately!  Ouch... my 
head!

- --
 -Lee Bussy          | The 4 Basic Foodgroups....      |
 leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women!        |
 Wichita, Kansas    | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb  |

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 13:12:32 -0500 (EST)
From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: HSA with Vienna and Munich malts - correction and summary

(From *Jeff* Renner)

I recently posted that two dunkels made from 90+% Munich malt and a 
Vienna made with a similar amount of Vienna malt had all "crashed and 
burned," i.e., over a period of 1-2 weeks (at ~3 months age) had become 
extremely "wet cardboardy."  I strongly suspected that this was from hot 
side aeration, even though my techniques were the same as for other beers 
with good stability.

In reviewing my notes, I find that this was the case only with the
dunkels, NOT the Viennas.  In fact, I just had the last of a year old
Vienna that was in perfect condition.  I also opened a 2-1/2 year old
dunkel and 1-1/2 year old bock (BOS) that were made with mostly pilsner
malt and some crystal and home roast "almost chocolate" that were also in 
perfect condition.  It seems that the Munich malt is the one thing the two 
oxidized beers have in common.

Lee Menegoni and I have had an off-line discussion on this.  His 
experience is that all-Vienna beers are extremely stable.  At his 
suggestion, I reread the Fixes' "Vienna" and Darryl Richman's "Bock," 
both of which emphasize the importance of delivering the melanoidins to 
the wort in the reduced state rather than the oxidized state.  Oxidized 
melanoidins lead to several reaction chains that can result in later 
flavor instability, whereas reduced ones will actually protect beer from 
later staling reactions.  Fix didn't use Vienna malts in his recipes, 
apparently because at the time he wrote them, Vienna and Munich malts 
seemed to be of poor quality.  He has stated elsewhere (BT?) and here, I 
believe, that this is no longer the case, and Richman does use Munich 
predominantly in his dark bock recipes.  I still haven't figured out why 
my two dunkels made with nearly all Munich oxidized, whereas all my other 
decotion lagers (and all other beers, period) have not.  I don't think 
I'll make any more all Munichs until I do.

Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 1995 12:48:48 -0500 (EST)
From: "NAME SEAN O'KEEFE, IFAS FOOD SCIENCE" <SFO at gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>
Subject: Oxygen permeability of plastics

Data for oxygen permeability & plastics:
material                                 ml o2/(day*mil*sq. meter*atm)
PE (polyethylene)                        6000-15000
HDPE                                     1500-3000
Saran                                    10-350
Mylar                                    50-100
Foil laminate                            0
Plastic laminate                         10-400

Data for permeability ratios (relative ability to permeate)

material                     H2O/O2                   CO2/O2
Polypropylene                30                       4
Polystyrene                  100                      5
PET (polyethylene terephthalate) 5000                 3

"Normally, carbon dioxide permeates four to six times faster than faster than
oxygen, and oxygen four to six times faster than nitrogen.  Since carbon
dioxide is the largest of the three gas molecules, one expects its
diffusion coefficient to be the lowest, and so it is.  Its solubility
coefficient, however, is highest, because its solubility, S, in polymers
is much greater than that for other gasses."
Karel, M.  1975.  Protective pckaging in foods, Ch 12 In "Physical principles
of food preservation", O.R. Fennema Ed., Marcel Dekker.

I'm not sure how all this relates to the Coke type 2L bottles, but I have
stored beer for 6+ months in these 2L beauties (at 5C) with no ill effects
noticible.  However, I would recommend avoiding root beer bottles, or
clean then very well.  Residual root beer flavor does not go well with
beer.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 13:20 CST
From: arf at genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: EM Prob, JSP MOVES

 
 >From: Philip DiFalco <sxupjd at gds.fnma.COM>
 >Subject: One problem with the spigot on the EasyMasher<tm>:
 
 >     The taper on the nozzle makes it difficult to keep
 >     a hose from slipping off.
 
 >>   I've experienced a similar concern.
    Even a hose clamp does not resolve this problem too well.
    Has anyone come up with a solution for this problem?
  
 
 The hose clamp will actually aggravate the problem by squeezing it off.
 
 The choice of spigot was a tough call and I decided that this issue was less 
 of a problem than others created by other available cocks.  The one with a 
 hose barb, for example, does not have a hex on the outside to get a wrench on 
 to and I wanted to make it as easy to install as possible.
 
 I think the more one worries about the "problem" and tries to solve it, the 
 worse it gets.  If you just wet the end of the hose with a little sweet wort, 
 it will dry to a hard glue within a few minutes.  In three years, the only 
 time I had a hose fall off while sparging was when I used a hose clamp.
 
 I never bothered doing this, but I assume that if you rough up the end of the 
 bibb with a file or sand paper, it would never slide off.
 
 .........
 
 It is with great pleasure that I announce our upcoming relocation to "our 
 place in the country".
 
 Although there are lots of reasons we are getting out of the city, not the 
 least is that the basement MM factory is bursting at the seams.  Our new 
 place will have a 3000 sqft building devoted exclusively to assembling 
 MALTMILLS and EASYMASHERS.  There is also a 500 sq ft barn that will be 
 turned into the "estate brewery" after I learn how to deal with 
 not-so-friendly well water.   On the other hand, the farmer next store raises 
 corn and the one across the road raises wheat.  Looks like the end of 
 Reinheitsgbot for the WGB.
 
 Not sure what kind of net access I will maintain but for anyone who needs me,
 
 Effective Feb 11, 1995, our new address will be:
 
             Jack Schmidling Productions
             18016 Church Road
             Marengo Il 60152
 
             Phone 815 923 0031     Fax   815 923 0032
 
 js
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 12:15:30 -0800
From: danpack at grape-ape.che.caltech.edu (Dan Pack)
Subject: PET bottles


Maybe I can provide some chemical engineering insight into this question.

"Dr. J" says:
>the permeability of 2L plastic bottles can be solved by a little common 
>sense. When a brew is bottled in a closed container it builds up a 
>positive pressure, hopefully :). I would think that the pressure in the 
>container makes the permeability irrelevent because the lower 
>atmospheric pressure could not possibly enter the container unless it is 
>opened or cooled significantly below the saturation pressure of the 

It's not obvious, but actually there are two ways for a gas to enter the
container: convection (bulk flow) and diffusion.  The pressure difference
between the inside of the bottle and the surrounding air will, in fact,
prevent _flow_ (or convection) of oxygen into the beer.  However, diffusion
is driven by the difference in _concentration_ of oxygen in the beer and
air. Since there is, hopefully, very little oxygen in the beer to start with
there is a relatively strong driving force for diffusion of oxygen through
the plastic.  Also, the consumption of oxygen by reaction with the beer
(oxidation) ensures that the concentration of O2 inside the bottle will
remain low.  So, the relevant question is whether PET provides a barrier
for oxygen transport.  Since PET is used to keep CO2 _in_, and since
CO2 is a bigger molecule than O2, I would say it is very likely that O2
is free to diffuse through the plastic.  The conventional wisdom and the
tongues of talented tasters such as Lee Bussy seem to support this
conclusion.

Dan


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 17:29:05 -0500 (EST)
From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: O2 diffusion thru PET bottles

(From *Jeff* Renner)

In HBD 1631, Dr. J said

>I think the discussion of
>the permeability of 2L plastic bottles can be solved by a little common
>sense. When a brew is bottled in a closed container it builds up a
>positive pressure, hopefully :). I would think that the pressure in the
>container makes the permeability irrelevent because the lower
>atmospheric pressure could not possibly enter the container unless it is
>opened or cooled significantly below the saturation pressure of the
>liquid within the container. In conclusion: A brew can be stored in a
>container without concern as long as there remains a positive CO2
>pressure in the container. 

I suspect that CO2 and O2 are not very permeable thru PET since, as has
been pointed out, soda retains its pressure over a long period of time.
One thing that does not enter into the physics of O2 diffusion, however,
is the pressure of the CO2 in the bottle.  While this may seem
counter-intuitive, even if the plastic were permeable to both gases, the
CO2 pressure inside would not affect O2 diffusion against this CO2
pressure gradient.  The atmospheric O2 would diffuse into the bottle and
come into equilibrium with the O2 in solution in the liquid in the bottle.
The presence of one solute does not affect the solubility or diffusion
rate of another. 

Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 17:39:45 -0500 (EST)
From: "nancy e. renner" <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: How Pilsner Urquell acidifies its mash

(From *Jeff* Renner)

In a recent HBD, Jim DiPalma asked how Pilsner Urquell acidifies their 
mash with their very soft water with its very low level of calcium.  I 
believe the answer is biological rather than chemical.  Several years ago 
someone related (either here or in Zymurgy) their trip to PU.  As I 
recall, they mash in cold and leave this mash overnight for lactobacillus 
acidification, then procede as usual.

Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 15 Jan 1995 11:04:25 +1100 (EST)
From: David Draper <David.Draper at mq.edu.au>
Subject: O2 in PETs/Color conversion/Max efficiency

Dear Friends, comments on a few things in today's digest.  Dr. J. makes
the intuitive conclusion (as many before him have) that the positive
pressure of CO2 inside a bottle will keep any O2 out.  The amazing truth
is that the pressure will *not* prevent oxidation.  The process by which
O2 gets inside the bottles is diffusion, and diffusion typically takes
place in response to a gradient in chemical potential.  The chemical
potential for this instance is largely composition-dependent--that is,
because there is so much more oxygen outside the bottle than inside, there
is a "driving force" for oxygen to want to get inside.  This happens with
glass as well as plastic, but the amount of time it takes for oxygen to
diffuse through a glass bottle is many orders of magnitude longer than
that for plastic (because of vessel thickness and composition--plastic vs.
glass).

Dirk asks how to convert from srm color units to EBC.  Yes, for our
purposes, srm = Lovibond.  There is a conversion equation, but it is not
generally well-regarded by the pros, according to George Fix.  The
equation is: degrees Lovibond = 0.377 * EBC rating + 0.45.  Dr. George
says that this is reasonably applicable only for beers whose colors are
in the vicinity of about 4 srm--only the palest beers.  See Dr. George's
excellent article on color that he posted here last year (email me if you
want a copy, I've got it sitting in my email directory) for the Whole
Story.  A very similarly-worded account also appears in George and Laurie
Fix's book, Vienna.

Steve the Outlaw asks how to figure out the maximum extract from a given
grain bill.  You need access to some data for specific grain types for
starters.  Let's take a simple example: an ale made from 9 lb pale malt, 2
lb Munich, 1/4 lb crystal malt, and 1/2 lb gr wheat malt for heading.  The
data I have for these kinds of grain go like this: mashing 1 lb of these
grains in 1 gallon of water would give 36 gravity points for the pale
malt, 33 for the Munich, 29 for the crystal, and 39 for the wheat malt.
These are the basis for obtaining a calculated pts/lb/gallon efficiency.
What you do is just take a weighted average to get the max possible from
this grain bill. First, determine the fraction of the total bill made up
by each grain. The total amount of grain is 11.75 lb, so pale malt is
9/11.75 = 76.6% of the total.  Similarly, the Munich is 17.0%, the crystal
2.1%, and the wheat 4.3%.  Now multiply these fractions by the data values
above.  From the pale malt, you can get a max of 36 * .766 = 27.6 pts per
lb per gallon.  For the Munich, you can get max 5.6 ppg, from the crystal
0.6 ppg, and from the wheat 1.7.  Finally add these up: 27.6 + 5.6 + 0.6 +
1.7 = 35.5 pts/lb/gal is the theoretical 100% extraction.  After you
sparge, you compare your actual ppg with this to get % efficiency: if you
got 30 ppg, this would be about 85% efficiency.  The data on each grain are
contained in several of the brewing software programs, and I expect will
be in the forthcoming Grain FAQ that Jim Busch and Johh Palmer are
amassing.  Presumably some of the brewing books have this too.

Cheers, Dave in Sydney
- --
"Give yeast a chance" ---Peter Graves
******************************************************************************
David S. Draper, School of Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109
Sydney, Australia. email: david.draper at mq.edu.au fax: +61-2-850-8428
             ....I'm not from here, I just live here....

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 1995 16:45:57 PST
From: Scott McLagan <smclagan at schdist43.bc.ca>
Subject: Honey treatment in Boddington's Pub Ale

Hi Folks.

The talk lately about using honey in beer caused me to notice
the bee in the logo of 'Boddington's Pub Draught Ale'. So I tried
it. Comes in cans and is imported into Canada (and probably the US)
from England.

The can includes an internal pressurized vessel that 'explodes' when
the can is opened, similar to the Guinness draught cans we get.
When you pop the top, the gas (nitrogen, I think) is released into
the beer, giving it the beautiful creamy head that the Brits are
famous for.

The ale has a subtle and delicious hint of honey along with the
requisite hop bitterness. Anyone have a suggestion for the honey
and hop treatment? I'd like to give it a try. 

Many thanks.

Scott McLagan (smclagan at schdist43.bc.ca)


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 14 Jan 95 20:48:56 EST
From: dsanderson at msgate.cv.com
Subject: Mexicali Rogue - Chipolte's... Just what are they are...?

     
      Seems to be a bit of controversy about what Chipoltes are...
     
      According to Mark Miller; owner of Coyote Cafe in Santa Fe', New 
     Mexico and author of the cookbook of the same name, a Jalapeno is 
     "...Fresh, ripe Jalapenos, when dried and smoked are know as 
     chipotles."
     
     and 
     
     "Chipotle... A light flat brown in color, wrinkled, tapered, and 
     measuring about 2 1/2 inches long and 3/4 inch wide, the chipotle 
     is the dried form of the fresh, ripe jalapeno chile smoked slowly 
     over the dried foliage of the chile plant. It is extremely hot and 
     has a wonderful toasted, smoky flavor that contains tones of 
     leather, coffee, and mushrooms and a marked aftertaste of pure 
     capsicum.".        
     
      Best regards,
      Dave Sanderson


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 13 Jan 95 17:26 EST
From: Kathy Kincade <0006391766 at mcimail.com>
Subject: new magazine

Just wanted to make an official announcement about a new
magazine some friends of mine are starting -- it's called
"Brew", The How-To Homebrew Beer Magazine, and the first
issue will be out in May. It will be a monthly magazine
available on the newsstand and by subscription, and the
emphasis will be on providing real information in an 
entertaining format. According to the editor, Craig
Bystrynski, "The backbone of the magazine will be hands-on
articles that teach readers how to make better beer. Not
esoteric articles--just practical advice where self-taught
brewers can get their questions answered and old-hand
homebrewers can still learn something new."

Some of the features that are already scheduled to appear
in the magazine include "Foolproof Methods for Recipe
Calculation", "Spicing Up Your Brews", "Building a Killer
Draft System", Beeristroika: Homebrew Buddies in the USSR",
and "The Big Leap: From Kits to All-Grain Brewing."

Anyway -- I just wanted to let everyone know that this
looks to be a good publication, and that input is more
than welcome. If you have any article ideas (as I said in
an earlier message, they will pay for all published
articles), contact Craig Bystrynski at cbbrew at delphi.com.



Return to table of contents


Date:          Sat, 14 Jan 1995 20:40:35 +0000
From: "Lee Bussy" <leeb at southwind.net>
Subject:       Sam Adams joke

Actually It's more a Jim Koch joke:

Q:   What happens if you put 100 lawyers in the basement?

A:   You get a whine cellar!

Okay, not much about beer but there was a reference to wine...  :)

- --
 -Lee Bussy          | The 4 Basic Foodgroups....      |
 leeb at southwind.net | Salt, Fat, Beer & Women!        |
 Wichita, Kansas    | http://www.southwind.net/~leeb  |

Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1632, 01/16/95