---

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


Contents:
  Librarys and Book Reviews (D & S Painter)
  Temperature resistance properties for Plastic boilers (Geza T Szenes/IPL)
  Re: How to clean those really gross bottles (Zucchini Dave)
  Diacetyl is a noun (Brattstrom)
  Diacetyl - it is really a noun! (Mark Roberson)
  Bleach concentration (korz)
  scotch ale recipe / info (Jeff)
  stuck ferment (korz)
  re:  Alt questions (DEBOLT BRUCE)
  chocolate (Margaret Kelly)
  Brita Filters (Robert Bloodworth)
  Time Spent in Secondary (Scott Nichols)
  brewpubs in west/central tennessee (Robert Rogers)
  Specialty Grains (Simonzip)
  HBD (MR PAUL G KURJANSKI)
  Water Ion Concentrations (ArnoldWa)
  Wheat DME / Head retention (Derek Lyons)
  Re: Just fridging around... (Regan Pallandi)
  Recycling Yeast (JAWeld)
  Questioning my latest brew. (Kelly Heflin)
  Netscape - nonbrewing question (Peter Thomford)
  Copper (A. J. deLange)
  Re: Brewers Companion (Paul Hoppenjans)
  Channeling (Kirk Fleming)
  Brita Filters / Trub Recycling / Mosher's Book (KennyEddy)
  Re: Quassia (Pierre Jelenc)
  REALLY high kraeusen (Darren Jetton)
  Musings on recipe posting ("Dave Draper")
  Channeling Momily (Jack Schmidling)



******************************************************************
* 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: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 13:04:38 -0500
From: D & S Painter <painter at CAM.ORG>
Subject: Librarys and Book Reviews

Hi again,

Thanks again for all those who responded to the Mosher,_The Brewers 
Companion_ thread.

Tracy Aquilla asked in HBD 1972 if we could continue the Mosher 
discussion. I forwarded all of my personal messages to him/her; but I'm 
intrieged by this idea of discussing USEFUL books. I am a beginner 
advanced homebrewer with 7 all grain mashes under my belt but I still 
feel the need to expand my library. 

So I would like to show you all what I have and ask you to inform me, 
and hopefully others, on the value (pros/cons) of the books I have and 
what I "should" get to increase my knowledge and resorces. 

(an example is that I have Papazians The New Complete Joy ... some have 
said that this is filled with errors ... what are they? Is Miller good 
or what ... some say that his Home Brewing book is too optimistic 
interms of efficiency?)

My Library:

Line, Dave _The Big Book of Brewing_
Line, Dave _Brewing Beers Like Those You Buy_
Line, Dave _Kits and Brewing_

Papazian, Charlie _The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing_ **
Papazian, Charlie _The Home Brewer's Companion_ ***

McCall, Peter _Brewer's Dictionary_
Foster, Terry _Pale Ale_ *
Burch, Byron _Brewing Quality Beers_  **
Miller, Dave _The Complete Handbook of Home Brewing_ ***
Owens, Bill _How to Build a Small Brewery_

Jackson, Michael _Beer Companion_ * (but its really ***)
Jackson, Michael _Pocket Guide to Beer_

Leistad, Rog _Yeast Culturing_ *

_Evaluating Beer_ ($33.95 CND) ***
_Victory Beer Recipes_ *

(All 1995 Zymurgys and all past special isses except the "Yeast" 
issue)****

(All net FAQ's and Glenn Tinseth's Brewcalc 1.1 ... I use his 
calculations and have put in either my local stores #'s for their hops 
and lovibond or I fall back on The Great Grain Issue)

* = The rating I give ... all interms of which I turn to first.


Thanks in advance for your imput! I feel that everyone could benefit 
from a "frank" discussion on the usefullness of some of the books I've 
mentioned as well as those I, probably as a Canadian, know nothing 
about; Mosher is one of many I'm sure.

Cheers!

Douglas <painter at cam.org>
Montreal, PQ

Return to table of contents


Date:  1 Mar 96 11:01:12 
From: Geza T Szenes/IPL <Geza_T_Szenes/IPL.IPL at notes.ipl.ca>
Subject: Temperature resistance properties for Plastic boilers

Greetings to the collective;

A little while ago someone posted a summary of the temperature resistance 
properties of the various plastics, so that they can be used for electric 
boilers.  Could someone please repost these or mail them to me, or point me to 
the digest that they appeared in.

I have recently obtained a 30 liter HDPE (high density polyethylene) bucket 
that is specifically made for the homebrewing industry and I would like to use 
this to construct a boiler with an electric element.  I was told that HDPE is 
able to withstand 120 degrees Celsius, which would be OK for boiling.  If I 
recall correctly the suggestion was that polypropylene was the plastic of 
choice for electric boilers, but I'm having a hell of a time finding a food 
grade one that large enough.

TIA


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:20:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Zucchini Dave <woodstok at rupert.oscs.montana.edu>
Subject: Re: How to clean those really gross bottles

Fellow bottle/carboy cleaners

For those who have access to some chemical supplies, try this next time 
you exhaust your cleaner/solvent resources for cleaning bottles.  We use 
a 1 molar solution of sodium hydroxide [NaOH] (potassium hydroxide [KOH] 
works well too) in 95% ethanol to clean those REALLY grimy bottles.  If 
this stuff doesn't get it off, you just don't need to worry about it.  
The best thing about it is that you can just save it and use it over and 
over again.  And a little goes a loooooong way.

Actually, i believe that i read in a past issue of Zymurgy that some oven 
cleaners contain sodium hydroxide in them and work well. 

As Zymurgy put it, "This is the elephant gun of solvents..."  Always use 
protection!!! B)

Happy cleaning!

Dave

      	   Why should I
        Weep, wail, or sigh?
   What if luck has passed me by?
    What if my hopes are dead,-
	 My pleasures fled?
	  Have I not still	
	      My fill
	Of right good cheer,-		From "Beer" by George Arnold
	  Cigars and beer?

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 13:24:59 -0500
From: Brattstrom at aol.com
Subject: Diacetyl is a noun

Yes Bob, Diacetyl is a noun. 
Diacetyle is the name of an organic compound. "diacetyl and the homologous
compound 2,3-pentanedione are called vicinal diketones (VDKs). Both produce
buttery and butterscotch flavors and aromas
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 11:33:31 -0700
From: roberson at alkali.chem.utah.edu (Mark Roberson)
Subject:  Diacetyl - it is really a noun!


OOH!  OOH!  I know this one!

Bob McCowan <bob.mccowan at cfrp.varian.com> wrote:
>We brewers tend to use the term diacetyl as a noun, but from the structure
>of the word it looks like an adjective.  Is it really a noun, or are we just
>trashing ( turning a noun into a verb) the language?  If it's an adjective,
>then diacetyl what?
 
    An acetyl group is the radical          


   H      O
    \    ( )
  H - C - C - R
    /
   H

    where R is the rest of the molecule it is attached to; if that happens
to be another acetyl group, you get diacetyl.  I never thought of it as an
adjective before but that does make a certain amount of sense, as in the
case of acetylbenzene.

    I failed to leap into the pronounciation thread a while back so I'll put
in my two cents here: I say it by analogy to di-acetylene.

					Hoppy brewing,
					Mark


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 14:20:18 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Subject: Bleach concentration

John writes:
>Use household bleach in the 250 - 330 ml range per 20 l of water.

That's WAY TOO MUCH bleach!  In US measures, 1 tablespoon per gallon
is plenty.  From memory, I believe that would be about 15ml per 4 liters.
Using more bleach than you need not only costs you more, but it also
means you dump more bleach into your sewage system.

Incidentally, this is not only the concentration I use for sanitaion
but also for removing labels (it takes about a 48 hour soak and then
a quick scrape with a razor scraper).

Al.
Nothing worth copyrighting here, although it technically is, anyway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 15:28:08 -0500
From: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff)
Subject: scotch ale recipe / info

Hi Everyone,

  I've noticed a recent increase in the amount of recipes being posted
and thought that I'd share this one with the collective.  I've also
included a short description of the technique/equipment that I use to do
partial mashes on my electric stove.

  This recipe was formulated after looking at many scotch ale recipes
(cat's meow, Noonan's book, HBD, etc.) and posting some questions to
the digest (#1833).  I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to
this great forum we call the HBD, and in particular those who have 
helped answer questions that I have had.

  I've sent this recipe to several people via private email in the past
and one of these people (Gabrielle Palmer <gabriellepalmer at e-mail.com>)
recently posted a question about his version of this brew (in #1960) that
has prompted the recent "scottish ale/hoppiness" thread.

  Since I have recently entered this brew in a homebrew competition, I've
also included the judges comments.  BTW, this took first place in the
combined english and scottish ale category at the war-of-the-worts
homebrew competition sponsored by the Keystone Hops (1/20/96).

Recipe:

6.6  lb   Ireks munich light LME
2.0  lb   Ireks munich malt (10L ?)
0.5  lb   M&F crystal malt (60L)
0.5  lb   Ireks crystal malt (20L)
3.0  oz   M&F chocolate malt (350L)
4.0  oz   white wheat malt (2L)
2.0  oz   Hugh Baird peat smoked malt (2L)
1.0  oz   East Kent Goldings (whole, 60 min boil)
1.0  oz   Fuggles (whole, 15 min boil)
1   tsp   Irish moss (rehydrated, 15 min boil)
          Wyeast 1338 (european ale, 1 qt starter)
4.5  oz   corn sugar (primimg)

 - mashed all the grains in 4 qts of 156F water for 1 hr
 - sparged with 4 qts of 170F water
 - SG of runnings: 1.036 in ~7 qts
 - added LME, made volume up to 3 gal, boiled for 1 hr
 - chilled with immersion chiller, aerated, made volume up to 5 gal,
  aerated some more, pitched 1 qt starter
 - fermented at 65 - 68F

OG = 1.055
FG = 1.018

 - 4 days in primary, racked to secondary (SG=1.022) for 8 days, bottled

Partial mash technique/equipment:

  I use a grain bag from Williams Brewing (800-759-6025) that is made
to fit inside a bucket type lauter tun.  It also fits perfectly inside
my 3 gallon SS kettle.

  To do the mash on my stove, I just heat up the mash water to ~165F 
(in my kettle) then drop in the grain bag containing the crushed grains.
Stir real well, let it sit for a minute, then check the temp.  If its
to low (which it will be) either add small amounts of boiling water
(1 cup at a time, stir, let it sit for a minute, then check the temp)
or add heat with the stove burner on medium heat while gently stirring
constantly.  After you hit the mash temp, cover it up and let it sit
for 1 hour.  At the end of the 1 hour, I lift the grain bag just above
the surface of the wort and sparge by pouring the sparge water over the
grains gently with a measuring cup.

  As you can see, my mash setup/technique is pretty simple and does'nt
require a lot of extra equipment.  I'm not trying to get the max possible
extraction from the grains, only the flavor/body that was missing
before I started doing these partial mashes.

  Since this setup/technique produces wort that is rather cloudy with
grain particles, I've often wondered if it will lead to some astringency
in the finished beer.  Some of the judges comments (see below) lead me
to believe that this does happen.  Kirk Fleming asked about this in HBD
#1968.  Does this stovetop mashing sound similar to what you do?

Tasting notes / judges comments:

  When I put together this recipe (my first Scotch ale), I was trying to
clone St. Andrews Scotch Ale (Belhaven Brewery, Edinburg).  It ended up
with a little to much smokey flavor and not quite enough hop bitterness.
In general it came out almost identical to Sam Adams Scotch Ale (Boston
Beer Co., Boston).

  Here are the judges comments.  I've separated the two judge's comments
with a slash (/):

bouquet/aroma:  pleasant malt, low hop / malt, no hop OK

appearance:  good clarity, head retention, overcarbonated / slight reddish
             brown, good clarity, head good

flavor:  nice for scottish, light smoke, pleasant sweetness, just slightly
         overcarbonated for scottish ex, lingering aftertaste slight
         astringent / malt OK, low hops OK, condition OK but would lower
         a little to make smooth, needs more malt sweetness & caramel, to
         dry for style, slight phenolic or solvent

body:  good body / carb level thins a bit

drinkability & overall impression:  lingering aftertaste from other than
         malt or hops / it is drinkable but needs fullness (more malt or
         less atten yeast)

scores:  34 / 30

  Thanks for the bandwidth.  I hope that this helps some newer brewers to try
some more advanced brewing techniques and also sheds some light on the recent
scotch ale/hoppiness thread.  If you end up making this recipe, let me know how
it comes out.

                                    Hoppy brewing,

                                    Jeff


==============================================================================

Geoffrey A. McNally                    Phone:  (401) 841-7210 x152
Mechanical Engineer                    Fax:    (401) 841-7250
Launcher Technology & Analysis Branch  email: mcnallyg at in83b.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Code 8322; Bldg. 1246/2
Newport, RI  02841-1708

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 13:59:05 CST
From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
Subject: stuck ferment

Russell writes:
>>       Any suggestions for getting the fermentation going again? Is this 
>> actually no problem and the process is just EXTREMELY slow? 
> 
>It is a problem.  You already have the answer, grasshopper.  AERATE IT!  It's
>not too late, it's never too late.  Well, sometimes it is - you might oxidize
>the wort.  However, active yeast will 'reduce' those oxidized chemicals back
>to what you want them.  
> 
>Shake shake shake, shake shake shake, shake your carboy.  (I do this with the
>carboy on the ground to minimize risk of breaking.)  

It depends on the yeast.  Some yeasts make greate beer if you aerate them
during fermentation and others don't.  I don't know why.  Wyeast #1968 (London
ESB) and the Samuel Smith's yeast (available from the Yeast Culture Kit
Company) seem to respond well to aeration during fermentation, but many
others don't.

Oxidizing the wort is not the worry here, I feel.  If you have already made
significant alcohol, there is a risk of oxidizing the alcohols into aldehydes
and those are particularly nasty-tasting (remember the flavour of the beer
the morning after a Kegger party in which you pumped air into the keg to
dispense?).

Furthermore, shaking the carboy with the airlock on will not aerate, but
rather it will rouse the yeast (remember that the headspace of the carboy
is all CO2 at this point).  Rousing does help some very flocculent yeasts
(like Wyeast #2007 Pilsen Lager or the Wyeast #1968 or the Samuel Smith's
yeast) finish faster and gives a slightly lower final gravity than if you
did not rouse.

No, I think that if your yeast pooped-out because you did not aerate the
wort well enough, I think that the solution is to add some more yeast.
Dry yeast (as another poster said) is dried after being fed a lot of
oxygen, so some rehydrated dry yeast may be an option.  If you want to
use the same yeast strain you used initially, make up a BIG starter --
like 2 or even 4 liters, let it ferment out, pour off the spent wort,
add 500 ml of fresh wort and then pitch the whole thing shortly after
it reaches high kraeusen.  If that doesn't work, then you just have
a wort that is very, very high in unfermentables (from crystal malts,
malto-dextrin, lactose, etc.).

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at pubs.att.com
Copyright 1996 Al Korzonas

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 96 16:19:04 -0600
From: DEBOLT BRUCE <bdebolt at dow.com>
Subject: re:  Alt questions

On Tues, 27 Feb. Al Korzonas wrote:

>... would agree with Jim (Busch) that you really need continental Munich
malt to make a decent traditional Alt.

Alt continues to be one of the fascinating style to me.  Two years ago I
was in Vermont and drank Otter Creek Copper Ale and loved it.  The label
said something about inspired by the ales/alts of Dusseldorf (can't
remember the quote).   Since then I've been trying to brew it without a
real reference point from actually drinking the Dusseldorf beers.  I 
tasted one at the '94 Dixie Cup brought in by Brad Kraus from Rio Bravo
Brewpub in Albuquerque, that was truly fantastic - malty, bitter, with a
dry finish.

Last year zymurgy had an article on alt, and Al wrote about his German
tasting experiences.   I read what I find but still wonder about the best
way to make it.  I typically use about 6 lb pale domestic 2-row, 1-2 lb
Munich malt (sometimes substituting 1 lb Vienna for 1 lb Munich), 1/2-1 lb
various crystals (usually CaraMunich), and sometimes 1 oz. roasted barley
(I detected a roast flavor in Otter Creek).  All this in a single temp
infusion mash with essentially d.i. water and lots of low alpha hops.  I've
used Wyeast European, German Ale, and Irish Ale.  My favorite (and others
who tasted it) was the Irish Ale version.  It took first in a local
contest, go figure. 

Al and the collective - what are the recommendations on the content of the
grist?
 - - continental Munich?
 - - pale malt - DWC, German, domestic?
 - - other malts, like crystal?

Should you do a decoction for optimum maltiness without sweetness?

Perplexed but enjoying the experiments,
Bruce DeBolt
Lake Jackson, TX
bdebolt at dow.com





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:13:27 -0600
From: Margaret Kelly <mkelly at piper.hamline.edu>
Subject: chocolate

I recently brewed a cherry chocolate stout (Mon Cheri Stout).  This was the
first time I used chocolate in a recipe.  I used the baking chocolate you
buy at the grocery store and threw it in the brew pot to melt.  After I
racked to the secondary a layer of something (cream in color)  formed on the
top--I assumed it was leftover fermentation but this layer never subsided.
I bottled anyways.  A similar layer formed on the top of the beer in the
bottles after 3 weeks.  Never tasted any off flavors.   I'm guessing it was
just the fats/oils in the chocolate separating out. 
Anyone else have this experience with chocolate?    Do you think baking
cocoa would have a similar effect?  And does baking cocoa  yield similar
taste results?

Thanks--Margaret at   mkelly at piper.hamline.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: 01 Mar 96 17:40:56 EST
From: Robert Bloodworth <100334.664 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Brita Filters

Don Walsh asked about Brita filters,

The Brita filter consists basically of the following:

1. A weak cation-exchange resin in the acid form which reduces water hardness
and lowers pH by replacing some of the calcium and and magnesium ions with H+.

2. Active carbon to adsorb trace organics and other oderous chemicals

3. Silver salts which act as a disinfectant to inhibit bacterial growth in the
filter.

The Brita filters do not completely deionize water and are therefore probably a
good choice for brewers who make small batches and are just interested in
reducing water hardness or unpleasant oders. This water is good for mashing,
but be sure to boil any water that you plan to use for diluting your wort after
boiling. Old Brita filters can actually be a source of bacteria!

Boiling also works well with very hard water, but you have to separate the
precipitated calcium salts from the water shortly after cooling to RT.
Otherwise, given enough time, they can redissolve. This may explain the pH Rise
you observed. Boiling the water without removing the salts does not reduce the
hardness of the brewing water because the salts redissolve in the wort.


Hope that helps..,


Interesting watching how the german language changes in the hands of english
speaking brewers.

Malz became malt

maischen became mashing

Wuerze became wort

Lautertonne became lauter tun

Trueb (rhymes with boob) becomes trub


So please allow me to nip a new anglism from Rob L. in the bud:

>This is sometimes called 'top-dough' or by the German word 'tieg'
>(prounounced 'teague' ;-) which means dough or paste.  Handy word just
>'cause it's shorter.

The german word for dough is actually Teig and is pronounced like tide with a
hard g in place of the d. 

German brewers actually use the word Mehlschicht (literally:flour layer) to
describe what Neal Christensen so aptly described as a 'flour' layer :-)

Cheers,


Bob Bloodworth
Koeln




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 16:26:27 -0700
From: Scott Nichols <snichols at harman-dod.com>
Subject:  Time Spent in Secondary

Hello,
I can't resist the first post accolades to this group...
I honestly have found the dialog level in this group to
be refreshing, and informative, two qualities
seemingly in short supply on mail lists.

However, the reason for the post:
I would like to know what this group feels to be the
ideal maturation time in the secondary.
 I know this will vary be style and possible gravity. 
Can generalities be made?  Three months in the
secondary is too long?  It doesn't matter as long as
there is a positive CO2 pressure?  
I am kegging the beer after the secondary and I'm
also curious if the beer matures differently in the
keg under pressure, beside the obvious
carbonation :-), verses in the secondary.  
If there is no difference between the secondary and
the keg could you simply rack to the secondary
decrease the temperature to facilitate the
precipitation of yeast and then keg?
Or, does the glass in the secondary help the beer to
mature differently than the stainless of the keg?

TIA

 -Scott Nichols


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 19:15:25 -0500
From: bob at carol.net (Robert Rogers)
Subject: brewpubs in west/central tennessee

having searched online for brewpubs and being unhappy with the results:
i will be spending a few days in memphis and then driving to nashville, and
then to lynchburg if i have time. then back to nashville and memphis. 5 or 6
days. any suggestions?
tia
bob rogers
bob at carol.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 19:23:32 -0500
From: Simonzip at aol.com
Subject: Specialty Grains

In HBD #1972, Al K. points out that my steeping flaked barley and Quaker oats
probably isn't contributing much to the flavor/body of my stout. With a big
fat beer like that, it's tough for my amature taste buds to decipher whether
it did or didn't. The beer was very good though. I'm content to make extract
based beers and color/flavor with adjuncts and specialty grains. 

Now, what I would like to know is, what grains/adjuncts can just be steeped
by themselves, and how can I use other grains in combination to extract
flavor/body/sugar/color? Will one kind of grain help another extract
goodness? I'm ok with crystal, chocolate, black patent etc., but what about
pale malt (Klages?), flaked barley, and oats? I've been brewing with all
these grains (0.5 to 2 lb. steeped at 150 for 20-50 min. in 2 gal. water) as
per recipes, and making good beer. I just wonder now if I might not be
getting as much out of some of them as I could be. Perhaps it's time to
re-read Papazians books. Other suggested readings?

Thanks in advance,
Darrin

"lookin' back in front of me..."
SRV

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 01 Mar 1996 19:51:41 EST
From: XXBX78A at prodigy.com (MR PAUL G KURJANSKI)
Subject: HBD

I have a quick question for my first post.  Although I think 
I have seen this question raised before, I can't recall the 
posting of any replies.

I usually use hop bags when brewing.  Does the use of hop
bags effect hop utilization significantly?

TIA

Paul




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 20:07:32 -0500
From: ArnoldWa at aol.com
Subject: Water Ion Concentrations

Dear Collective,
I have seen tables in various publications that list the ion concentrations
found in the water of various famous brewing cities (Dublin, Burton, etc.).
Has anyone developed a table of what they consider to be ideal ion
concentrations for various beer styles?
A post or private e mail of such a table would be great!
Thanks, Happy Friday, and Cheers!
Don Walsh


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 20:00:10 -0800
From: Derek Lyons <elde at hurricane.net>
Subject: Wheat DME / Head retention

Would adding 1 Lb Wheat DME add to head retention?  (As oppossed to adding
wheat malt).


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 16:09:06 +1100 (EDT)
From: Regan Pallandi <reganp at iris.bio.uts.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Just fridging around...

Hello all - I have got my hands on a Johnson Controls thermostat, and now 
is the time to have sensible control of fermentation temps. However, as 
most of you have noticed, no doubt, the average fridge doesn't fit more 
than one fermenter at a time. I seem to remember somewhere, that you can 
"explode" the body of the fridge forward with plywood and insulation. 
Fair enough. What I'd like to know is: will the extra volume wreak havoc 
on the compressor? Will this configuration add an extra zero to my 
electricity bill? Has anyone tried this? Any thoughts or comments would 
be appreciated. 

Cheers,
        Regan in Sydney 

 




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 09:04:43 -0500
From: JAWeld at aol.com
Subject: Recycling Yeast

Fellow Brewers,
I know this has been covered before, but that doesn't mean I was paying
attention.  Could someone give some  tips on recycling yeast from one batch
to the next.  My questions are:

 -After racking off, what needs to be done to the sediment?   I would use the
sediment from the secondary,  which I assume         would be "cleaner".
  How do I get it floating again?  What do I use to rinse it out of the
carboy with?  Do I need to convert my washing machine to a centrifuge (with
 more power, I think the spin cycle would work) to try and separate it?

 -Once it is in a sanitized flask, do I need to "feed" it with fresh wort?  If
not, how long will it stay dormant without feeding?  If I don't feed it do I
need to use an airlock or just a stopper??  What should the storage temp be?

_There was a thread awhile back about freezing yeast in a solution of
glycerine (glycerol).  What is the recipe for that.? How does one prepare the
frozen yeast for use?

Sorry for the number of questions, but I am trying to stretch my brewing
dollars.  If this is too much to ask, perhaps you could suggest a good
reference source on this topic.  Private email is good, and will post a
summary if anyone else is interested.
Thanks in advance.
Amos Welder
JA Weld at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 09:22:06 -0500
From: Kelly Heflin <kheflin at monmouth.com>
Subject: Questioning my latest brew.

Thanks to everyone who responded to my question on calculating 
yield. I've been reading all the talk about grain bed depths.
I realize that the main reason is for knowing what your method
will yield for future brews. I'm a little baffled at the number
I got though. There is also this one question. Do you multiply
the garavity by the gallons of sparge (6.5) or after the boil,
(5.0). I got 2 different opinions on this . Of couse it makes
a big difference. I'm expecting the number to be the (6.5 after
sparge). The problem is the number I got is too high, based
on that magic # of 30 or 33 being "good" . I got 35.6? Here's 
the details. 
10 lbs helles 
1.5 lbs crystal
1 lb munich
 .25 chocalate
temp at 125 for 30 min, raise temp to 137 for 15 min
raise temp to 150to 155 for 1 hour. 
I have a 1 inch false bottom so I can recirculate the water at 
bottom to help regulate temp, I do this quite a few times(is
this an approved method.?) Raise temp to about 170. start 
sparge with 190 deg water. I recirculate the first pitcher
just for good luck. This sparge took exactly 30 minutes
to get to 6.5 gallons. I was expecting only 1.06 to 1.065.
I checked it a couple of times at the right temp. about 65.
and got 1.07. 

********
Oh by the way I have a 10 gallon stainless mash/sparge pot.
It is 15.2 inches in diameter. 12 lbs of grain only adds up
to about 6 inches at most. (I add this because of all that has
been written about 16 inch grain beds..) 

This is only my 3rd all grain batch, so please critic my metods.
I gotta say the taste of this stuff was great. The best 
unfermented stuff I've tasted. Very sweet. My next post will
talk about the strange yeast behavior for this batch.

Kelly

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 09:27:36 -0800
From: Peter Thomford <pthomfor at execpc.com>
Subject: Netscape - nonbrewing question

Does anyone have trouble dragging Homebrew Digests into folders in 
Netscape Ver 2.0?  Mine seem to disappear once they are dropped into a 
folder. Seems to be due to their large size.  Private E-mail is fine 
(pthomfor at execpc.com)

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:37:32 -0500
From: ajdel at interramp.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Copper

Kelly Jones, in # 1974, asks for some hard data on the soft metal, copper.
The following are about as hard as anything of this sort gets. Adults
require from 0.5 to 1.3 mg/day. A "safe and adequate" intake is 1.5 to 3
mg/day. A 10 mg dose can cause nausea in some adults but chronic intake of
10 - 35 mg/day without detriment has been observed. Overdoses at the
milligram level can be caused by prolonged exposure of acidic foods and
beverages to copper vessels, pipes, valves etc. These usually cause only
the nausea with vomiting and diarrhoea and do not require treatment. The
lethal dose for humans is 3.5 to 5 grams, usually by injestion of a copper
salt, with death resulting from hemolytic anemia and anuria.

British beers contain 0.3 - 0.8 mg/L; German beers 0.04 - 0.8 (mean 0.19)
and lagers 0.01 - 0.41 (mean 0.11).  My run-of-the-mill Pilsner, made with
RO water, mashed and boiled in stainless but chilled in a copper chiller
has 0.2 mg/L (presumaby mostly from the malt - see below).Thus we could
drink about a gallon of the most coppery beer before exceding the safe and
adequate level (assuming no copper from other dietary sources but then my
experience with people who drink a gallon of beer a day on a regular basis
is that they don't eat much).

Copper is very important in the diet being a component of many enzymes
(such as cytochrome a and cytochrome oxidase which are key players in
respiration), is involved in the formation of colagen, the cross linking of
keratin, catecholamine production, melanin production, free radical
detoxification, etc. Copper deficiency causes a variety of miseries simiar
to those of scurvy.

Most foods contain some copper with liver, legumes, nuts, raisins, WHOLE
GRAINS, shellfish and shrimp being excellent sources. Those who want to
consume more beer and who are concerned about excessive copper intake may
wish to avoid these foods. My neutralized and softened well water picks up
1.25 mg/L in running through the copper pipes in the house.

Based on studies of diet it is estimated that the US population consumes
between 0.7 and 7.5 mg/day. Absorbtion ranges from 56% at low intake levels
(0.8 mg/da) down to 12% when intake levels are around 8 mg/da. Unabsorbed
copper is excreted in the feces as is about 2 mg/da bilary copper.

Thus, unless beer gives you the symptoms described above I'd say
RDWHAHBEIITWBIC.

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 11:31:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Hoppenjans <phoppe at mail.erols.com>
Subject: Re: Brewers Companion

>Mark Thompson <markt at hpdocp3.cup.hp.com> wrote:

>All in all i wouldn't recommend it.

In defense of Mosher:  this book was in my kit, and when I first read it I
wasn't even a novice homebrewer yet.  Its numerous charts, tables, graphs,
and other geekish presentations raced over my head.  Now that I've been at
this for about a year, I find the geekish stuff in the book not so geekish
anymore.  My recommendation is that once a new homebrewer reaches the point
at which he is designing his own recipes, tinkering with technique, and has
learned some of the more key factors in brewing, he is ready for Mosher's
book.  This is a reference book, not a how-to guide.  IMHO, it's a great
reference book.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 02 Mar 1996 10:01:24 +0000
From: flemingkr at market1.com (Kirk Fleming)
Subject: Channeling

Al suggests mash stirring increases channeling, and describes the 
troughs or gorges left in the bed behind the rake blades, which then 
fill with mostly
water.  This description of what can happen really can't be 
questioned--it's easily demonstrated and I think anyone who's ever 
stirred anything such as paint, plaster, batter, etc., has seen it.  But 
here's how I think the description applies...

First, Al's description is more applicable with thicker mashes.  In thin 
to very thin mashes it's less applicable; as the mash thickness 
approaches pure water, it's obvious the description doesn't apply at 
all.  So, my first premise is the thinner the mash, the less effect 
stirring has on creating channels.

Second, we're now talking two completely different kinds of channeling. 
 From an extraction perspective only, static channeling in a static 
grain bed using recirculation is a problem.  But dynamic channeling in a 
stirred grain bed, is NOT a problem. 

Static channeling is a problem because in the steady state there are 
significant areas of the bed receiving no agitation from wort flow and 
no extract carry-off.  Dynamic channeling (thru stirring, for example) 
simply means (to me) that the regions of the bed experiencing wort flow 
and extract carry-off are continuous changing--on average, the entire 
bed will experience about the same kind of flow.

I'd argue than in a properly designed recirculation system, you can 
either re-admit the recirculated wort in a static way, using ample 
distribution points, and hope you don't get any channeling, OR, you can 
use some sparge-arm scheme where the recirculated wort is admitted thru 
far fewer holes that are continuously moved relative to the grain bed.  
In either of these two schemes you may not know if channeling is 
occuring or not, but you depend on the way the wort is re-admitted to 
the tun to avoid setting up channels in the first place, or to make them 
dynamic.

Finally, if you have channeling in a static bed, then *continuous* 
stirring will certainly eliminate the problem.  Al does have a good 
point though--I'd say *occassional* stirring in a thick mash would 
probably just set up different static channels.  But that's an 
improvement, just the same.

KRF Colorado Springs


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 12:28:18 -0500
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: Brita Filters / Trub Recycling / Mosher's Book

Thanks, David Muzidal, for your excellent analysis of the Brita filter.
 However, there is one piece of the puzzle that I would like to see clarified
a bit.  You said:

> h.  The Brita filter produces water that is practically ion free, at
>     least for the water tested, and should be treated like pure
>     (distilled) water.  This is supported by the fact that the pH of
>     the Brita water rose from pH ~5.5 to pH ~7 after boiling (due to
>     dissolved CO2 being driven off).

Now, I'm certainly no chemist, but in the last couple weeks I've been doing
some research and getting MUCH help from others on the topic.  I would
venture to say that a pH of 7.0 does NOT necessarily mean "ion-free", only
that it is H+/OH- balanced.  The presence of certain other ions wouldn't
necessarily tip the balance. I should've put a question mark on that last
sentence since I really don't know...any opinions?  In any event, it does
appear that the Brita does a FAR more efficient job of "cleaning up" tap
water than your everyday charcoal filter.  Perhaps a before-and-after lab
analysis of ion content would be telling (or *is* your statement the result
of an ion analysis?).  And as far as the slow processing action, running
enough water for brewing a day or two in advance shouldn't be a big deal, as
long as you have a spare carboy or bucket to store it.

*****

Darcy Munger wants to recycle trub:

> Hello there fellow brewers!!!!  I was wondering if anyone knows anything
> about saving trub from a primary (in sanitized bottles kept in the fridge
of
> course) for use in another batch of beer.

I woul suggest recycling trub only if it was mixed with yeast!  It's the
yeast you want, not the splunge.  But yes, you can collect the "sludge" from
the primary, and repitch to recycle the *yeast*.

*****

Just my own $0.02 on Mosher's book:  I consider it another piece of the
puzzle...another reference is always of use.  Sure it's got a lot of filler
(one page for the charts, suitable for photoreproduciton, would've sufficed)
but as others have said it does fill in a few areas.  I like it for that at
least.

Ken Schwartz
KennyEddy at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 96 10:55:02 EST
From: Pierre Jelenc <pcj1 at columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: Quassia


In HOMEBREW Digest #1974 ac051 at osfn.rhilinet.gov (Eric W. Miller) says:
> 
> I think the spelling you're looking for is "cassia," a plant whose bark is
> more commonly known as "cinnamon."  Are you sure this brewer isn't pulling
> your leg?

"Cassia" and "quassia" are altogether different beasts. The former is
indeed a cinnamon substitute (_not_ real cinnamon, which is practically
unavailable except at extortionate prices in specialty shops) while the
latter, Picrasma excelsa or Quassia amara (two related trees from the
Caribean and northern South America) yields an intensely bitter wood that
is used in folk medicine as a vermifuge (or anthelmintic). It has been
used a substitute for hops. 

Pierre

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 1996 13:08:20 -0600
From: darrenjet at ipa.net (Darren Jetton)
Subject: REALLY high kraeusen

Howdy ya'll.  Thanks for all the great info out there.  This is my first post:
        Well, last night I brewed my second batch of beer.  For this batch I
decided to make a 5 gal recipe for an India Pale Ale that called for a
whopping 9.3 Lb of malt extract.  I also decided to use Wyeast British Ale
#1098 and make a starter using 1/4 cup of light DME in 1 quart of water.
This was my first experiance with liquid yeasts/starters.  Heated the water,
added the DME, boiled for 15 minutes, cooled, and pitch the swollen packet
of Wyeast.  The next day I brewed.  Cooled the wort, poured it into 3
gallons cold water in a 6.5 gal. carboy, and pitch the starter(only slightly
after the highest point of it's kraeusen).  I then shook the carboy well to
aerate it, and set it in my "closet brewery" to quietly ferment away
undesturbed.  By the time I went to bed, "all was quiet on the yeastern
front."  Come morning, I peeked in on my brew.  There before my eyes was the
kraeusen from hell.  It stood a good 7 inches tall!  It has managed to
bubble up into my three piece fermentation lock.  I'm just gonna let the
thing do whatever it wants to (don't mess with a 7 inch kraeusen! - I'm only
5'4"!), and maybe wrap a towel around the neck of the carboy.  The
fermentation lock is only about half full, but the bubbles are seeping out
of the top.  I'll rack to a secondary in 3-4 days anyway. I don't worry-
I'll just pop open a cold one from my first batch!  All of that to ask this:
Is it common for activity that vigorous to take place when using liquid
yeast w/starters?  I had always heard I wouldn't need a blow-off hose with
the 6.5 gal. carboy. (for 5 gal. of beer)  Or did this happen due to the
combination of good yeast and the large quantity of malt extract (higher
O.G. beers - mine was 1.062)?  Just wanted to know for future reference.

                                -Thanks again,
                                 Darren

"That man has none of the vices I adore and all of the virtues I hate" -
Theodore Roosevelt (I think.)


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 10:24:46 +10
From: "Dave Draper" <david.draper at mq.edu.au>
Subject: Musings on recipe posting

Dear Friends, I find the recent posts interesting regarding an
injection of middle-ground lore into the HBD, and as specifically
suggested by one poster (sorry, didn't record your name), in the
form of recipes.  So far we have seen several since then (not
necessarily because of that call of course) and a couple of opinions
expressed for or against.  My post here is simply some thoughts
about potential reasons why some prefer one way or the other--I
emphasize that I am *not* calling for one policy over the other.

This issue reminds me of the way things are in my field--I'm a
geologist who does lab experiments to try to help solve puzzles
posed by the real rocks.  In my wing of geology, and indeed in most,
people are divided between those who prefer to read and write about
the fundamentals and general principles, with reasonable attempts at
applying these things to specific examples; and those who prefer to 
read and write about detailed case studies and examples, and in the 
end spending a reasonable amount of space trying to generalize from 
those observations.  Obviously, both kinds of work are important and 
useful; it turns out that, at least in my field these days, a bigger 
impact is made by the former camp than by the latter.  That is, 
people in the former camp find it easier to get funded than do the 
latter (let's get down to brass tacks here!).

I would speculate that here in HBDland, there is a large group of
brewers (many of whom have been on HBD for quite a while) who are
analogous to the former camp as outlined above, and these would
prefer to see fewer rather than more recipes.  But a constantly
growing number of (possibly more recently joined) members fall into
the latter camp and might favor seeing more recipes rather than
fewer.  Clearly there is good stuff to be gained by and from both
groups.  Personally, I would place myself in the former group; but
when I first joined HBD some years back I was firmly in the latter. 
I too generally page down past recipes, unless they are for styles I
have been giving particular thought to at the time.  But fortunately,
with the fast computers we have these days, that page-down happens
plenty quickly! :-}

Just my ramblings.  Cheers, Dave in Sydney
"That's all very well in practice; but will it work in *theory*?"
- ---Ken Willing
- ---
***************************************************************************
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia
Email: david.draper at mq.edu.au WWW: http://audio.apana.org.au/ddraper/home.html
                ...I'm not from here, I just live here...

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 2 Mar 96 18:11 CST
From: arf at mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Channeling Momily


>From: korz at pubs.ih.att.com
>Subject: Channelling

>Rob writes (regarding the stirring of the grain bed):

<The stirring also counter-acts channelling.

>Here comes this thread again... I would like some soil scientists or
civil engineers...........

Why not ask a brewer who has had channeling problems?  If you can
find one.  Better yet, ask those who haven't a clue why this even becomes
a contested thread.

Stirring is extremely important during the mash process because it insures
even temperature distribution and keeps enzymes and starch in maximum
contact.  

Once the mash is complete and sparging commences, stirring is a bit like
slapping your wife or girlfriend around before hopping into bed.  It is 
counter productive to say the least.

If an inch or so of water is maintained above the mash during lautering,
channeling is a non issue and stirring will only disturb the filter bed and
cause my phone to ring with folks complaining about "stuck sparges" with
their EASYMASHERS (R).

js

p.s.  To save a lot of spurious responses, please note that the above
applies to homebrew sized batches and what megabrewers do with
megabarrel mash tuns is not relevant.
jjs


Return to table of contents