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


Contents:
  Looking for address ( ROBERT P LEDDEN)
  Hops will not infect beer ("Roger Deschner  ")
  zinc in wort, maybe not in beer (Rob Lauriston)
  CF Crud, Rajotte'sSierra Blanca ("Pat Babcock")
  Making starter using DME (Rolland Everitt)
  bottle labels (PatrickM50)
  Aventinus (A. J. deLange)



******************************************************************
* 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.
******************************************************************
 
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hpfcmgw.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@ hpfcmgw.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 alpha.rollanet.org
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: Mon, 04 Sep 1995 10:35:36 EDT
From: BMJL93A at prodigy.com ( ROBERT P LEDDEN)
Subject: Looking for address


   I have been looking for the address of Sierra Nevada without much 
luck.  I want to write
 them to express my concern about this years Bigfoot Barley Wine.  
IMHO this years batch
 has much more of an edge on the bitterness than last years.  I read 
somewhere that they
 went to a high alpha hop for bittering and that is the cause for the 
sharpness in the
 flavor.  Sooo if anyone could help me out with this it would be much 
appreciated.

Just another concerned beer drinker,
Bob Ledden
BMJL93A at prodigy.com
Caln, Pa



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 10:09:01 CDT
From: "Roger Deschner " <U52983 at UICVM.CC.UIC.EDU>
Subject: Hops will not infect beer

Andy Kligerman homebre973 at aol.com said:
>Someone wondered about having cold wort flow thru a bed of hops to add
>hop aroma/flavor.  The main problem with this is that it would be
>likely to infect the wort unless a very good yeast starter was used.

Nope. Hops are a natural disinfectant, and have been used in beer through
the ages as much to prevent infection as to add flavor. There are beers
which are dry-hopped in the secondary fermenter. Watch out, though, if
you find a grassy flavor unpleasant, because that can happen with
uncooked hops. Hops away! The more the better.

=============== "Civilization was CAUSED by beer." =====================
Roger Deschner      University of Illinois at Chicago     rogerd at uic.edu
Aliases: u52983 at uicvm.uic.edu   U52983 at UICVM.BITNET   R.Deschner at uic.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 95 08:23:20 -0700
From: robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca (Rob Lauriston)
Subject: zinc in wort, maybe not in beer

In # 1821,  Steven Lichtenberg <steve at inet.ttgva.com> wrote:

>In todays (Friday) issue DONBREW recommended using galvanized fittings
instead of brass for attaching drain valved to the kettle.  ... DON"T DO IT.
The zinc that is used to coat the steel when placed in an acid
environment(beer) will leach out.  In surprisingly small quantities, this is
lethal.  There are several deaths each year from community picnics etc.
where people will mix lemonade in a galvanized trash can for large quanities
of people. 

Yes, but yeast nutrition requires a small amount of zinc.  This is usually
provided by the malt, but some strains have a higher zinc requirement.  In
one brewery where I worked, when a brew was going to be fermented by one
particular yeast the brewery used,  a 'bracelet' of pieces of  copper and
zinc was hung in the kettle.  This brewery was supervised by an extremely
educated,  knowledgeable and experienced brewmaster and so I have complete
confidence that this was a sound practice.  I would conclude that galvanized
fittings aren't a problem as far as consuming zinc.  There might be a
problem with the galvanized coating corroding away and exposing the metal
underneath.  I sense John Palmer's post zipping through the ether at this
instant...

With trash can lemonade, the zinc goes into solution and is consumed
directly.  Perhaps you shouldn't sample the unfermented wort if using
galvanized parts. 

The questions remain whether the yeast absorbs all or only most of the zinc,
whether there are other mechanisms of zinc removal during processing, such
as adsorption to trub -- I don't know.  Also, at one point will the zinc
become toxic to the yeast ?

At the other extreme, when  Kirk Harralson <kwh at roadnet.ups.com> asked, " If
galvanized parts are OK, why not use a galvanized tub for a boiler? ", the
answer is probably that the much larger amount of zinc leached out of the
pot will adversely affect the beer and its consumer, the yeast AND the pot.

I'd be interested in hearing comments on the effects of the galvanized pipes
used in older homes.
Rob Lauriston, The Low Overhead Brewery  <robtrish at noif.ncp.bc.ca>  Vernon,
B. C.
 "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak up and remove
all doubt"   
 -- a chance I have to take


Return to table of contents


Date:          Mon, 4 Sep 1995 11:20:14 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject:       CF Crud, Rajotte'sSierra Blanca

Sorry for the late response, but it's been a busy weekend! Now: on to 
business!

 In HOMEBREW Digest #1821, Keith Royster  sez, commenting on CF 
chiller cleanliness:

> This troubled me, as I have been using a CF chiller and have been
> "cleaning" it this same way, as I beleive most brewers do.  If the
> break material clings to the outside of an immersion chiller with
> such tenacity that it requires scrubbing to remove, then why should
> we beleive that a good blast of water through a CF chiller will
> adequately clean it out? This layer of gook that may be building up
> inside is a great hiding place (and grazing field) for all sorts of
> nasties.  It will also protect them to some degree from the effects
> of any sanitizing solutions you may siphon through before you use
> your CF chiller the next time.

Don't give up that CF chiller yet, Keith! Beliefs aside, the
dynamics involved in break formation between immersion and CF
chillers are very different. Consider these tidbits:

o The wort is in constant motion within the CF chiller; it is fairly 
   static around the immersion chiller. The break forming in the 
   moving stream has less of a chance to cling to the tube walls.
o The break formation in a CF chiller seems to be of smaller 
   particles. I believe this is because it isn't being allowed to  
   coalesce in the moving stream as it does in the fairly static wort 
   around an immersion chiller. The smaller particle seem, again, 
   less likely to cling to the tubing walls.

Having had similar concerns in the past, I've 'blown' bits of cloth
through the inner tube using pressurized water to see if anything
would be dislodged. During those experiments, I've never seen
anything come out with the cloth that didn't go in with it.
Admittedly, this was done long ago with only a few batched run
through the chiller, but I really don't expect anything different if
I repeat it today. In fact, I am now saving this message, and am
going out in the yard to retest my hypothesis! Will be back in a
few...

OK. Here's the scoop. One year and God only knows how many 
batches later (log book sez 23, but I didn't log all my batches), the 
strips come out clean.  To be sure, I ended up putting  a too-large 
piece of white denim in the input and had a rather tense few minutes 
where it looked like I'd plugged this puppy for good. Ended up as a 
cloth and water bazooka. Pretty cool! It, too, came out white and 
clean. No Count Crudula lurking inside that chiller, for all 
practical purposes. 

I suppose a 25' fiber-optic lens-and-light combo would be the next
logical step, but not being a giraffe surgeon or horribly wealthy - I
ain't got one...

Last, but not least: Sanitation. If you sanitize by circulating
boiling water or wort without chill water, you're doing an admirable
job of zapping any nasties wherever they may be hiding: the copper
normally heats to the temperature of its contents. Being inside of
the outer tube without the chill water insulates the copper from heat
loss and the copper does what it does best: conduct heat. Pretty
soon, that whole copper tube is at the temperature of the boiling
whatever flowing through it. Nowhere to run; nowhere to hide! The
nasties are, frankly, toast! 

Of course, we could argue that Tyndalisation is required, but I'm not
quite that anal abbout it, and I really don't believe there is
anything left behind inside the tube to support spores.

If my arguments are not convincing, and anyone still feels it 
necessary to scrap their CF chiller, e-mail me. I'll give you my 
address so that I might dispose of it for you ;-)

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Now, for my question:

I just finished up Rajotte's Belgian Ale book of the classic beer 
styles series. (Yes, his writing style is tough to follow! During his 
description of "Brewing with a Belgian Brewmaster", I found it 
difficult to tell who was who and what was what. He kept switching 
from third to first person perspective w/o warning! Yaaagggghhhh!) 
Anyway, in reviewing his Sierra Blanca recipe, I noticed that the 
all-grain and extract recipes are different. I mean different beers 
entirely. The all-grain recipes call for pale malt and crystal malt, 
while the extract recipe calls for pale malt syrup, and wheat malt 
syrup. What's wrong with this picture? Any one know which way to 
turn? Should it be pale mat and _wheat_ malt? His discussion 
following the recipe suggests a wheat beer (note the comment on 
acidity in the aftertaste). Should I "sacrifice" myself and brew it 
both ways? :-)

See ya!

Patrick (Pat) G. Babcock    | "Drink all you want - I'll brew more!"
President, Brew-Master      | 
and Chief Taste-Tester      | "Let a good beer be the exclamation point 
Drinkur Purdee pico Brewery |  at the end of your day as every sentence 
pbabcock at oeonline.com       |  requires proper punctuation." -PGB
SYSOP on The HomeBrew University - Motor City Campus BBS (313)397-9758

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 17:47:57 -0400
From: af509 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Rolland Everitt)
Subject: Making starter using DME



I have been wanting to step up my yeast with a starter, and have
been looking at recipes for preparing them.  All the
instructions I have found use either liquid malt extract or
whole grain to make the starter wort.  I use whole grain for
most of my brews, but wanted the convenience of using dried malt
extract for the starter bottle.  I want to use a starter that
has about the same gravity as my main batch (before pitching) so
it doesn't throw off calculations of alcohol content,
attenuation, etc.  I don't seem to have any convenient source of
information that tells me how much DME to add to a small
quantity of water to get a desired gravity, so I decided to
collect some experimental data.
 
I heated one pint of water and added dried malt extract in
increments of ten grams, measuring the temperature and gravity
after each addition.  I don't know what brand of DME this is. 
My local supplier bags it and sells it as "Dutch Amber".  After
each addition of DME was dissolved, I took a sample and cooled
it in an ice/water bath before measuring gravity and
temperature.  The results appear in the following table
 
     DME    Observed   Temp.  Temp.  Apparent
   (grams)  S.G.(+1)  (Cent.) Corr.  S.G.(+1)
 
      10    0.009       39    0.006    0.015
      20    0.018       33    0.004    0.022
      30    0.028       29    0.003    0.031
      40    0.035       28    0.003    0.038
      50    0.040       31    0.004    0.044
      60    0.048       32    0.004    0.052
      70    0.054       34    0.004    0.058
      80    0.062       34    0.004    0.066
      90    0.068       33    0.004    0.072
     100    0.078       34    0.004    0.082
 
Each sample was returned to the pot before adding the next dose
of DME.
 
A plot of Apparent gravity vs. grams of DME gives a fairly
straight line.  I used linear regression to fit a straight line
to the data and got a good fit.  The results were as follows:  
 
         Regression Output:
  Constant                   0.008133
  Std Err of Y Est           0.000962
  R Squared                  0.998294
  No. of Observations              10
  Degrees of Freedom                8
 
  X Coefficient(s)  0.000724
  Std Err of Coef.  0.000010
 
This model says:
 
  S.G.(at 60F) = .0007 * (grams DME/pints H2O) + 1.008
 
The model is clearly imperfect, since it predicts that plain
water has a S.G. of 1.008, but it is accurate enough for my
needs.  I would not use it for very high or very low gravities,
but it should be reasonably accurate for the "normal" range of
gravity for wort.  I am confident that the following tolerances
apply to my measurements:
 
   weight +/- .1 gram
   temperature +/- 1 degree centigrade
   Specific gravity +/- .004
 
I took my temperature corrections from Papazian (Joy...P.212). 
The greatest error came in taking the gravity readings.  There
is usually a persistent head on top of the sample in the
hydrometer jar.  I generally look through the liquid below the
surface to take the reading for this reason.  At higher
concentrations of DME, this is difficult owing to the murkiness
of the solution.
 
Using the regression model and solving for weight, you get:
 
  Grams DME = pints H20 * ((desired S.G. - 1.008)/.0007)
 
With this formula it is easy to construct a table showing what
weight of DME to add to a given volume of water to get a desired
gravity:
 
  Desired                 Pints of Water
  Gravity     1.00     1.25     1.50     1.75     2.00
 
    1.025     24.3     30.4     36.4     42.5     48.6
    1.030     31.4     39.3     47.1     55.0     62.9
    1.035     38.6     48.2     57.9     67.5     77.1
    1.040     45.7     57.1     68.6     80.0     91.4
    1.045     52.9     66.1     79.3     92.5    105.7
    1.050     60.0     75.0     90.0    105.0    120.0
    1.055     67.1     83.9    100.7    117.5    134.3
    1.060     74.3     92.9    111.4    130.0    148.6
    1.065     81.4    101.8    122.1    142.5    162.9
    1.070     88.6    110.7    132.9    155.0    177.1
    1.075     95.7    119.6    143.6    167.5    191.4
    1.080    102.9    128.6    154.3    180.0    205.7
    1.085    110.0    137.5    165.0    192.5    220.0
    1.090    117.1    146.4    175.7    205.0    234.3
    1.095    124.3    155.4    186.4    217.5    248.6
    1.100    131.4    164.3    197.1    230.0    262.9
 
This table could be used for larger volumes of wort by applying
some conversion factors:
 
   8 pints = 1 gallon (U.S.)
   40 pints = 5 gallons (U.S.)
   28.35 grams = 1 ounce (Avoir.)
   453.6 grams = 1 pound
 
I don't know how useful this information will be to anyone else. 
Please recall that I am adding a known weight of DME to a known
volume of water, not dissolving it and bringing up the volume to
a desired level.  Note also that use of another type of DME may
yield different results.  I would be interested in hearing from
anyone who cares to comment.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 18:00:10 -0400
From: PatrickM50 at aol.com
Subject: bottle labels

Vic Hugo says:
 >What is the best way to lable bottles?  This may seem shallow but I really
hate to soak...soak...scrub....etc for hours trying to get the commercial
labels off of my growing collection.  Are there any "easy-off" labels out
there?  Should I just go with some of the larger mailing type labels.<

Try just using a permanent fine tip marker to write on the bottle caps
instead.  Then the "labels" are automatically removed when you open a beer.
 If you really must use your computer, get some sheets of Avery (or
compatible) .75" round labels and, using any label program that includes the
Avery template, use a small font to print out sheets of labels at a time.
 Let me know if you need more details and I'll look up the appropriate Avery
info when I get back to work.

Pat Maloney (patrickm50 at aol.com)


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 20:13:12 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Aventinus

Just picked up a bottle of Aventinus "Wheat Dopplebock Ale" at the newly
opened Total Beverage (a mile from the house !!!!) and vaguely remember
some discussion of it (can't remember whether it was here or in RCB)
because, as they make quite plain on the label, they condition with the
same yeast with which they ferment. Based on this I put some of the
sediment under the 'scope and thought the group might be interested in what
I saw. First, the vast majority of the yeast was viable! There is no date
stamp on the label so I have no idea how old the sample bottle was. You all
know that Weizenbier "crashes" suddenly with age and this bottle was not as
fresh as what I remember from Munich, nevertheless the yeast were in good
shape (even if vacuoles were prominent).

Second, based on gross morphology, there were at least two strains of yeast
present.

Third, there were a large number of short rods. If I saw that many in one
of my pitching cultures I would probably abort the brew but the beer had no
taste or aroma components that would suggest infection.

A.J. deLange   Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore!
ajdel at interramp.com



Return to table of contents

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1823, 09/05/95