---

   FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
        Shawn Steele, Digest Janitor
        Thanks to Rob Gardner for making the digest happen!

Contents:
  Message Status ("MCI Mail X.400 Service")
  More Pointy Headed Books (Rob Moline)
  summer beer cooling (bob rogers)
  Forced carbonation ("CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865")
  The German Reinheitsgebot. (Geoff Bagley)
  Brewpub Development Services (ROCHW at aol.com)
  lowering fermentation temps (Annetmark at aol.com)
  <GGRE461 at ecy.wa.gov> ((Ken ))
  Re: Discarding Trub ((Geoff Scott))
  Mash Temp, bleach ("David R. Burley")
  copper fermenter, plus others Part 1  ("David R. Burley")
  Copper fermenter, fruit beers, smoke, etc Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
  Re: I Wish Irish Moss Worked ("Keith Royster")
  Re: wild yeast troubles (Joe Rolfe)
  Shipping Wyeast UPS Ground ("Clifford A. Hicks")
  ring around the collar (Dan)
  bleach heresy ((William S Jones))
  Priming Sugar ("Edward B. Kent")
  Ian's Band-Aid Brew (KennyEddy at aol.com)

For SUBMISSIONS to be published, send mail to:
  homebrew at aob.org
For (UN)SUBSCRIBE requests, send mail to:
  homebrew-digest-request@ aob.org
  and include ONLY subscribe or unsubscribe in the BODY of the message.

Please note that if subscribed via BEER-L, you must unsubscribe by sending
  a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu that says: UNSUB BEER-L
If your address is changing, please unsubscribe from the old address and
  then subscribe from the new address.
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
For technical problems send e-mail to the Digest Janitor, shawn at aob.org.

OTHER HOMEBREW INFORMATION
  http://www.aob.org/aob - The AHA's web site.
  http://alpha.rollanet.org - "The Brewery" and the Cat's Meow Archives.
  info at aob.org - automated e-mail homebrewing information.

ARCHIVES:
  At ftp.stanford.edu in /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer via anonymous ftp.  Also
  http://alpha.rollanet.org on the web and at majordomo at aob.org by e-mail.


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

From: "MCI Mail X.400 Service" <POSTMASTER at mcimail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 96 19:27 EST
Subject: Message Status

DELIVERY NOTICE 
 
Referencing:  Message id:  41960824002314/0003765414DC3EM 
              Subject:  Homebrew Digest 
 
 
Your Message To:  C=US 
                  A=MCI 
                  P=Steelcase-Inc 
                  S=dda=id=stc021.efouch 
                  DDA=id=stc021.efouch 
 
 
could not be delivered to this recipient. 
 
Reason:  Unable to transfer. 
Diagnostic:  Content syntax error. 
This non-delivery notice generated:  SAT AUG 24, 1996  0:27 am  GMT 
 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 20:03:50 -0500
Subject: More Pointy Headed Books

        More Pointy-Headed Books- These are undoubtedly well known to the 
more experienced brewers, but I didn't see them mentioned in Andy W's post, 
so I'll just post the info you need to get them. They are OLD books, 
re-printed over successive years, but remain worthy, and being old books are 
not as expensive as others. 
        - "The Practical Brewer," Harold Broderick, editor, Master Brewers 
Association of America, Madison, Wisconsin. The volume I have is the 10th 
printing from 1993. The original copyright date is 1977. 475 pages inclusive 
of references and index. Quite comprehensive for a single volume tome, 
focusing mainly on lager brewing as it (seems to me) is intended for 
pre-Craft Revolution brewers in training for the majors. Don't know the 
price, as this one was given to me, but when the LAB was set up, the 
consultant charged 25 or 30 bucks for the copies that the original brewers got.
        - "A Textbook of Brewing," DeClerck, Siebel Institute of Technology, 
1st English translation 1957, some 10 years past it's original publication 
date. Volume 1-587 pages, Volume 2-? pages. Most recent re-print 1994. The 
cost was 65 bucks to a recent grad of Siebel, for both volumes, I believe, 
but I don't know if that was a special price only for Siebel folk. Volume 1 
concentrates on brewing, while Volume 2 details analysis and the such. 
 
Cheers! 
Rob Moline 
Little Apple Brewing Company 
Manhattan, Kansas 
 
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about 
beer!"
 

Return to table of contents


From: bob rogers <bob at carol.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 22:30:00 -0400
Subject: summer beer cooling

ken says 
>> in the summer I have difficulty getting 
>> the wort much below 85F, even with a prechiller. 
 
for my last batch after i got the beer to 85F using the 82F tap water 
through my chiller, i put a gallon of water in the sink and a couple trays 
of ice cubes. then i stuck a funnel into the tube going into the chiller and 
recycled the ice water with a plastic cup. after about 10 minutes the beer 
was down to 65F. don't delay at this point, because the wort will start to 
warm to room temperature. 
 
bob -- brewing in the heart of the bible belt 
bob rogers   bob at carol.net 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "CHUCK HUDSON, ER LAB 3-2865" <CHUDSON at mozart.unm.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 21:42:32 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Forced carbonation

Greetings to the collective! 
 
I am dire need of a counter pressure bottle filler and I am hoping that the 
collective can point me in the right direction to find one. Private e-mail is 
fine and I then can post all the reply's. 
TIA 
Chuck Hudson 
chudson at mozart.unm.edu 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Geoff Bagley <geoff at gcbagley.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:39:01 +0100
Subject: The German Reinheitsgebot.

 
Though I have been home brewing for over thirty years, I am a newcomer 
to this group. 
 
Can anyone tell me whether there has ever been a thread concering the 
purity of brewing ingredients such as required by William IV of Bavaria 
in the year AD 1516 that "no ingredients other than barley, hops and 
water shall be used" (My loose translation.) 
 
He didn't mention the use of yeast, wheat, or finings, but neither did 
he mention spices, fruit, sugar, maple syrup, or industrial enzymes. 
 
Apart from commercial brewing, where they are run by accountants, why 
put so much junk in your beer? 
 
 
Good brewing ! 
Geoff Bagley, 
G3FHL. 

Return to table of contents


From: ROCHW at aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:06:06 -0400
Subject: Brewpub Development Services

Brew pubs are one of the hottest restaurant concepts going today.  But, to 
develop a successful brew pub takes money, skill and good up-front planning. 
If you are thinking about going into the brew pub business, we may be able to 
help. 
 
Whitman Lane Associates is a full service consulting and design firm 
specifically for the restaurant industry.  Our team consists of associated 
management consultants, operations professionals, Architects and designers 
specializing in all aspects of the hospitality industry. 
 
Brew pubs have become a sub-specialty for us.  We have developed several 
successful brew pubs throughout the United States. 
 
The scope of services offered by our firm cover all stages of planning for 
both existing facilities as well as projects in the planning stages.  Our 
experience includes all levels of operations, beginning with feasibility and 
concept development, continuing through construction and pre-opening planning 
and training. For existing operations, our team members can troubleshoot and 
analyze problems, developing creative solutions that will restore 
profitability. 
 
Here are a few things to keep in mind as you consider your plan: 
 
A typical brew pub costs in the range of $500,000 to $1,000,000, including 
brewing equipment. If you already have that kind of capital to invest, you've 
got a substantial head-start.  If you need to raise capital from a bank or 
other investors, you'll need a solid business plan that includes a 
feasibility/financial study with estimated costs and operating revenue 
forecasts, etc.  We are experienced at helping individuals develop business 
plans for this reason. 
 
Existing restaurants/pubs that can be renovated can often, but don't always, 
save you money. We have designers on-staff that can estimate renovations or 
new build-ups. 
 
You've probably heard this good ol' rule of  success before, but it's true: 
the three most important success factors are location, location and location. 
 A good location with active traffic, parking, and other destinations is 
always a key success determinant. 
 
Seek out the competition...are there other pubs in the area?  What are their 
strengths, weaknesses? What would you do differently?  This is all part of a 
feasibility study. 
 
If you would like to know more about our services, the successful pubs we 
have developed, and how we might be able to help you, E-mail us at 
ROCHW at aol.com or call us at 716-473-9196. 
 
Visit our Web site: 
           http://members.aol.com/rochw/webpage/whitlane.htm 
 
Roch G. Whitman 
Whitman Lane Associates 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Annetmark at aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 09:46:53 -0400
Subject: lowering fermentation temps

Eric White wrote - 
>I ferment in my basement which depending on location, I can achieve temps 
>between 58 and 80 F. I figure this range can get me going, but how much 
>lower do I need to go to get a decent product? I have heard of some "tricks" 
 
>like a pan of water with a towel for evaporation. Are there others? 
 
and Ian Smith also mentions the need for lower temps (in connection with 
phenolic flavors in his beer - 
 
Well, this is definately a repeat - cause I learned about this here in the 
HBD, but apparently it can take a little discussion. Here in Miami,  August 
gets hot & humid! The temp inside the house is generally right below 80 with 
air conditioning ( my wife get's cold easily and so the house is kept at a 
higher temp than I would generally choose). The temp of my fermenter has 
consistantly gone higher than I would like - up into the high mid 70s and 
once or twice up into the low mid 80s. This has occasionally contributed some 
off flavors that I would really like to eliminate. (by the way - a question - 
are these most likely from esters?). 
 
I currently have a batch of Alt in the fermenter and the temps are staying 
steady at 68. What I have done is to purchase a Rubbermaid storage box (it 
has a snap-on lid that I am not using) from Home Depot (standard disclaimers 
with regards to both companies). The dimensions are 19"w x 29"l x 9" h. This 
is large enough to easily hold two carboys. I have filled this with 6" of 
water, and draped the carboy with a towel (which also keeps light away from 
the beer - I later store the bottled beer in closed carboard boxes so 
skunking is never a problem). 
 
The next part of the solution is to use 4 plastic gal milk jugs which I fill 
with water and put into the freezer. I put two frozen jugs into the water in 
the plastic box along with the fermenter. I rotate them with the 2 in the 
freezer, changing them in the morning before I go to work and again in the 
evening when I get home. Since I would normally go into the brewery at these 
times to look in on the beer anyway, it doesn't even entail much extra 
effort. 
 
I was concerned with possible temp swings as the ice melted, I know that 
wouldn't make the little yeasties happy. But I have one of those stick-on 
thermometer strips and so far the temp has held very steady at 68. As this is 
the first time I am using this setup, it is still too early to see what 
happens to the flavors, but the temp should be low enough to do the trick, at 
least for ales. I'm not set up to lager yet, a second refrigerator will have 
to be obtained first. 
 
I've seen Ken Schwartz's plans for a insulated foam cooling chamber on Marty 
Tippen's Web site - sorry but I don't have the URL handy. This looks like a 
great idea, and I plan on building one in the future. But for now, this easy 
low-tech & low investment solution seems to be working well. Try it, you may 
like it (but then again YMMV). 
 
Mark Tumarkin 
The Brewery in the Jungle 
annetmark at aol.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: kbjohns at escape.com (Ken )
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:02:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: <GGRE461 at ecy.wa.gov>

1. I suggest you check the literature. Brewing Techniques did an article on 
different drainage systems (tubes, manifolds and false bottoms), last year. 
The full false bottom is the most efficient by far in getting good 
extraction rates. The size should be the full diameter of the kettle. From 
my own brewing experience, The difference beinng about 27 OG pts/lb vs 33 
pts per lb. 
 
2. Regarding foundation water. If you recirculate, within reason, it doesn't 
make a difference 
 
3. I agree scorching is a matter of heat control 
 
Your hydraulic theories sound impressive but reality is very different 
 
GuyG4 at aol.com wrote 
 
>Hydraulically, you've got a choice.  The Easymasher (TM) basically is a 
>rolled up false bottom, which has the hydraulic benefit of the drain itself 
>being in intimate contact with the grain, thus requiring no "foundation 
>water" or "pre-saturation".  It draws from a point source at the place the 
>tube is attached to the screen, so it is essentially a point source drain. 
>The false bottom is probably hydraulically the least efficient, as it 
>doesn't take advantage of pressure relationships in overlying and 
>surrounding saturated grain to move wort, but rather is another point source 
>sink, which may draw preferentially from the grain-vessel boundary. 
> A manifold tube stuck into the middle as a drain is probably hydraulically 
>most efficient, because it draws from each slot, rather than just the point 
>of attachment.  A circular manifold is much worse, because it induces flow 
>along the grain-vessel boundary, and not through the middle of the grain. 
 
>Of course, false bottoms are easier to stir over than manifolds.  By far. 
 
>All the above value judgements regarding "best" and "least" efficient are 
>personal value judgements, and the actual efficiency difference between them 
>is small. 
 
>>2. I am thinking that a false bottom is goint to be the best route to go. 
>>What is the optimal size of the false bottom (9, 10, 12 inch).  the false 
>>bottom will be made of SS.< 
 
>Optimal diameter is a matter of opinion.  I personally would minimize 
>foundation water and maximize flow through grain (rather than flow along 
>grain vessel boundary) by minimizing the area of the false bottom.  To see 
>what the difference is, try a sensitivity analysis using the equation Q=KIA 
>where Q is the discharge you will get, K=Hydraulic conductivity of grain 
>(assuming barley, try 3 x 10E-2 cm/sec), I=Height of water column above 
>false bottom, and A=Area of false bottom.  I haven't done it, but I think 
>that can help you choose what diameter makes a difference. 
 
>Optimal spacing of the holes is about 50% mean grain diameter, which is 
>about 3/32 I think.  Someone else I believe knows better what grain size 
>curves are like for optimally crushed barley. 
 
>>3. If I choose to go with a false bottom for both the boiler and the mash 
>>tun, is scorching a problem when doughing in and boiling? < 
 
>My experience is that scorching is an issue of over application of heat and 
>not stirring enough.  Stir more.  Turn down your burner a bit, and I think 
>the problem will go away. 
 
 
Ken 
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.wp.com/HOSI/pbscat.html 
East Coast Brewing supply URL 
http://virtumall.com/EastCoastBrewing/ECBMain.html
 

Return to table of contents


From: gscott at io.org (Geoff Scott)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 10:31:48 -0400
Subject: Re: Discarding Trub

In #2158 Tom Castle, (tmcastle at ix.netcom.com) writes: 
 
>  I routinely discard my spent grain after sparging into my compost 
>  pile 
 
I would recommend sparging straight into the kettle instead the extra step 
of putting it through the compost pile. 
 
>  ...I added the trub from the primary fermentation into the 
>  compost pile as well...I think it killed my compost pile 
>  IS MY COMPOST PILE RUINED? 
 
Given what you told us above, I'd be more concerned about your beer than 
the health of your compost.  Seriously though folks, my experience as a 
draff and trub composter has been positive.  My compost pile has never been 
exactly sweet smelling so maybe I don't know any better but my pile handles 
both. 
 
regards, 
 
Geoff Scott 
gscott at io.org 
Brewing page    http://www.io.org/~gscott 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 11:07:46 EDT
Subject: Mash Temp, bleach

Brewsters: 
 
Mark Bayer is puzzled about a comment regarding temperature effect on the 
fermentability ratio of a wort. 
 Mark you are correct. Within the saccharification temperature range ( 
140F-158F)  increasing temperature decreases the fermentability ratio and more 
dextrins remain after fermentation than brews mashed at lower temperatures 
exclusively. This is of course for single temperature infusion brews held long 
enough to solubilize the starch completely, say an hour or two, depending on 
the
temperature. For complex temperature schemes  which have several long holds 
lower than the saccharification temperature or stiff mash 
 decoctions, this rule is blurred by the fact that some saccharification can 
occur below 140F.  It is still true that higher temperatures lead to less 
fermentable worts, just that the time/temperature history is important in 
determining the actual ratio. Thus a hold at say 140F for a short time followed
by a hold at 158F would 
 produce a higher fermentability wort than a single hold at 158F.  If one were 
to hold for a very long time at say 130F up to 90% of the starch would be 
converted (M&BS ed 1, p.215) and would be expected to produce a very 
fermentable
wort. 
 
So, the temperature/fermentability rule of thumb for single saccharification 
temperature mashes is - the higher the temperature during mashing in the 
saccharification range, the lower the fermentability and the higher the ratio 
of
dextrins.  For more complex holds, the ratio of fermentability will increase 
over a single hold at any temperature with a lower temperature hold in the 
saccharification range added to the scheme. 
 
One can think of temperature rise as a series of short holds at lower 
temperatures.  Thus, a slower rate of rise to a given saccharification 
temperature will produce a more fermentable wort than a faster rate of rise to 
that same temperature, given all else is the same. 
 
Rules of thumb are OK for starters, but the kinetics of the various enzymes of 
interest to us  are complex and can give results which may not exactly be in 
line with a simple rule at first glance. It is important to be sure to say "all
else being the same", since many factors can affect fermentability ratios. 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
Ray asks about the effects of bleach on taste and bacteria populations, etc. 
Ray, bleach does not promote bacteria growth, but it can be a source of off 
flavors. I suggest you rinse with the HOTTEST water you can, preferably 180F 
that has been boiled. An interesting thing you might want to try is to make use
of the fact that bleach is basically lye ( caustic soda, sodium hydroxide) 
solution with chlorine dissolved in it.  Your rinse water should have the same 
pH coming out as going in if your rinse is effective..  Rinse three times with 
the same total amount of water, rather than one big rinse. Remember it does no 
good to sterilize with bleach and then rinse with contaminated water. As far as
iodophor goes,- I may get some disagreement here - iodophor is no saint and can
cause off tastes if not properly used and allowed to dissipate. I have had some
really rotten beer from taps which were rinsed in iodine rinses and then not 
flushed properly. Use bleach and rinse well with uncontaminated water.  If you 
have been ok in the past and have not changed your technique, look somewhere 
else.  How about that overflow tube and fittings?  This is an extremely good 
place for contaminants and often doesn't get the same care in sterilization 
that
the carboy does. If you use a closed fermentation, you must clean everything,  
no matter how difficult it may be.  All that yeasty, proteinaceous, sugary 
deposit from your last brew is perfect for bacteria colonies to grow in and in 
the perfect place to contaminate your next fermentation. 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Keep on brewin' 
 
Dave Burley 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 11:07:55 EDT
Subject: copper fermenter, plus others Part 1 

DI a!? ayyyyyRyyyyyyyyyyNDI do it gets chewed up. 
- ------------------------------------------------------------ 
Jorge Blasig of Uruguay ( Hi Jorge!) asks about using a copper tank from a 
water
heater as an appropriate fermenter because carboys are not readily available. 
 
I suggest that you be careful of this tank if it is soldered, since it could be
very old and have lead containing solder. This may be unlikely since it is used
in water holding, but I've been to India and used an iodide water treatment on 
tap water and gotten a beautiful yellowish precipitate of what I presumed was 
lead iodide from the water running through lead pipes. 
 
May I suggest that you do your primary fermentation in an approximately 6 
gallon
( 30 liter) white or black polyethylene plastic wastebasket purchased at your  
local store and covered with a plastic sheet held down by rubber bands looped 
together.  This will preclude the need to aereate, will provide room for the 
foam at the beginning of the fermentation and can be easily cleaned. I suggest 
black or white, since these will be likely food safe pigments made from carbon 
black or titanium dioxide.  Grey is probably OK also.   Other colors are 
probably OK as I have a yellow one I used for years since it was easy to see if
it was dirty.  The pigments are likely coated with the polyethylene and it is 
unlikely they are exposed.. Another source of food grade plastic containers is 
restaurants and food prep plants. 
 
Personally, this method is the one I use and I believe it is greatly superior 
to
the carboy method for the primary fermentation, since carboys are very 
difficult
to clean of hop oils, proteinaceous deposits and yeast as are the overlfow hose
and associated bubbler pan/jar, etc.. Using the carboy or any container with a 
small mouth as a primary fermenter sets you up for a good dose of infection 
next
fermentation and requires you to aereate as discussed at length here.  The 
shallow 2-3 ft depth of this waste basket fermenter provides ample opportunity 
for natural aereation before the yeast go aerobic.  If your copper tank has a 
small mouth, you would never know if it was clean, since you couldn't see the 
deposits of gunk unless you are superman with x-ray vision. 
 
Once you have completed the primary fermentation about three days to a week, 
transfer the beer to any containers you have available, such as gallon jugs, 
fill to the bottom of the neck, fit an air lock or cover tightly with plastic 
sheeting held in place by a rubber band. Bottle after a week or two when the sg
is steady and the beer is somewhat cleared. I wonder if you can get smooth 
sided
( that is without molded indents) carboys at drinking water preparation plants.
You can probably pay a deposit and get the jugs or with the switch over to 
plastic as in the US, glass may be readily available for a short time. 
 
I suggest you keep your tank and have it cut off and fitted with handles to 
provide an excellent mash tun and/or boiler for your all grain batches, if you 
judge that lead is not a problem. 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Keep on brewin', 
 
Dave Burley 
: 
 
nts, 
filtered, bottled and put on plyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy  

Return to table of contents


From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 11:07:52 EDT
Subject: Copper fermenter, fruit beers, smoke, etc Part 2

DI a!? ayyyyyRyyyyyyyyyyNDctic enzyme, I always use it.  Doug, why 
not try putting some of your fruit wine into the beer - it is the same thing 
almost. Also tell your friend to do all of his fruit fermentations, using beer 
yeast, separate from the beer and combine them in the secondary after pressing 
the fruit through a filter cloth and he won't have such a problem. Also try an 
unsoaped copper or SS chore boy at the bottom of the racking cane, put thew 
cane
inlet inside the chore boy. It works pretty well if you keep the cane inlet 
away
from the edge of the chore boy. If he ferments in an open primary, a nylon 
screen wire ( boiled in water first) cut to fit the bottom of the fermenter can
be lowered onto the trub and fruit remains and it is easier to filter off the 
good stuff. 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
I suppose if Allen Underdown went to Australia he would be Allen Underdown down
under!  '73 KC2LZ 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
I lost the inquirer's name but he asks if there is a difference between various
hardwoods for their taste as smoke producers.  The answer is definitely yes. I 
use a mixture when smoking various foods and the mixture will depend on the 
food. Oak is little rough. White oak is best since red oak is reputed to have a
cat pee taste on occasion, hickory gives a sharper more pungent clean aroma and
beech is somewhat rough to neutral.  For red meats I usually use a mixture of 
oak and hickory and a small amount of beech. Turkey and chicken, I use mostly 
hickory and sometimes a little mesquite for added spice and mystery. Salmon and
darker fish I use fruit woods, like apple, with some hickory. White fish, I 
almost never smoke them. Peat is used to smoke malts for whiskey and I suppose 
for some  Scottish beers, a small amount is added, although I don't have a 
direct reference for this. Rauch beers of course use larger amounts of smoked 
malt and taste like it.  My comment - for most beers and ales be subtle with 
smoked malts, use it as a background to add complexity, decrease the hops a 
little and increase the FG a little to round out the taste.. 
- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
Zurek suggest using a fruit liqueur for producing a fruit beer and wonders how 
to determine how much sugar is in the liqueur to make an adjustment.  You can 
crudely determine this by diluting some of the liqueur quantitatively with 
water
( say 4 or 5 to one) and measure the SG. This will give you a rough number. If 
you want to be more accurate, adjust for the SG depression due to the alcohol 
content.  You can get the alcohol content from the bottle label.  Not perfect 
since the depression correction assumes a pure solution of alcohol, but close 
enough. Alternatively, make up a solution with vodka in water to the same 
strength in alcohol as the diluted liqueur and take its SG.  The difference in 
this and the  diluted liqueur can be used to calculate very closely the sugar 
content from sugar/SG tables. 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Vincent Voelz asks about carbonic maceration. Since this is a beer digest I'll 
be brief, but e-mail me for more info.  Carbonic maceration is used with Gamay 
grapes ( a clone of Pinot Noir, I believe) in Beaujolais to produce that 
fruity,
short lived wine  from France available in Nov of the year of growth of the 
grapes.  CM is a closed fermentation of the whole grapes under carbon dioxide 
originally developed with the expectation of preserving grapes, followed by 
pressing and fermentation of the juice. The wine is clarified with flocculants,
filtered, bottled and put on planes to be enjoyed very young by ( some) wine 
afictionados before year end. 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Congratulations Papa Rob! 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Jim Ulten asks about brass fittings. Brass is a copper/zinc alloy and bronze is
copper/tin alloy, neither of them have any significant amount of lead beyond 
that added for machining properties, about 5%. My hard well water with iron and
carbonate in it will reduce a brass or bronze fitting to sponge in a few short 
years and my bath water is bluish from its action on the copper pipe.  So, I 
think your bigggest worry may be the water, if you have any  worry at all. 
Brass fittings are normal in a brewery of old. I prefer SS, but wouldn't worry 
too much about brass fittings for the limited contact time I assume you will 
have. Avoid electrolysis by using plastic or rubber gasketing to insulate the 
fittings from dissimilar metals. 
- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
Keith Royster asks again about using amylase powder during brewing.  I don't 
think you need it if you have less than 40% adjuncts.  Amylase powder is 
sometimes used to thin down adjunct goods during the cooking step to prevent 
burning.  Maybe you could use it on rice to make sake without the koji ferment 
and use the sake yeast from Wyeast. 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
Despite what Papazian says a ring in the neck of a bottle is not always a sign 
of contamination.  Others here have suggested organic crud from brewing, among 
other things.  I am reminded that yeast used in the production of sherry grow 
only on the surface and protect the wine from further deterioration. Taste it. 
- --------------------------------------------------------------- 
Stephen Harrington asks about how to convert his SG to 60F.  Multiply the 
difference in temperature by 0.00023.   Thus the correction to an SG taken at 
70F will be (70-60)*0.00023 = +0.0023.  Also, it is likely you are suffering 
from low line voltage during the summer due to heavy AC use which is why your 
compressor in your fridge won't kick over. Ask the electric company to check to
see if your line voltage is in the specified range. 
- -------------------------------------------------------------- 
 
Keep on brewin' 
 
 
Dave Burley 
 
 
 
cb 3 

Return to table of contents


From: "Keith Royster" <keith.royster at ponyexpress.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:33:51 +0500
Subject: Re: I Wish Irish Moss Worked

Kenny Schwartz (KennyEddy at aol.com) asks about Irish Moss and "plugs" 
of cotten candy lookin' things in his wort: 
 
> All I know is that in seven all-grain batches, I've FTIM (forgotten 
> the Irish Moss) twice and not FTIM five times.  Two of seven batches 
> failed to clear beyond "hazy" prior to packaging, while five were 
> crystal-clear within hours of going into the primary (I use a glass 
> carboy so I can see what's goin' on).  Can you guess in which two of 
> the seven I FTIM? 
 
Hmmm.  I've FTIM myself and have not really noticed much difference. 
Therefore I usually don't loose much sleep when I realize that I have 
FTIM. 
 
> I switched from flakes to powdered IM some time ago, and have seen 
> a significant difference in effect. 
 
I didn't realize there was a powdered version.  Wonder if I could 
just crush my flakes? 
 
>  Some hours after the wort is in the carboy, soft 
> cotton-candy-lookin' clouds of fluffy material form, leaving 
> great-looking see-through wort behind.  Once fermentation starts in 
> earnest, this all gets churned up, but settles out again after the 
> yeast have excused themselves from the table. 
 
And I thought I was the only one seeing this thing!  Looks like a 
huge loogie coagulating in the middle of your wort.  Or maybe a 
deformed brain.  Ugh! 
 
Actually, I haven't seen this in quite some time in my beers.  My 
assumption is that this thing is cold-break and that it use to happen 
in in my carboy, but now it is getting left behind in the kettle.  I 
use to see it more when I was brewing extracts along with using 
pelletized hops.  Now that I use mostly hop plugs & whole hops I 
think that they are acting as a filter bed when I siphon my wort 
into my carboy and are holding much of the break material behind in 
the kettle. 
 
> Should I stir my yeast starter into the wort rather than just 
> dumping it (apparently so)? 
 
I'm not sure if this "plug" of break-material floating in your 
carboy really is interfering with your fermentation, but stirring in 
your yeast better couldn't hurt anything.  I usually dump my yeast in 
while I'm siphoning from the kettle into my carboy.  I also use the 
aquarium air pump method at the same time to aerate my wort (no 
attempt to sterilize/sanitize the air is made - it's the same air 
you'd be using if you just shook your carboy. duh).  This tends to 
mix the yeast up in the wort very well. 
 
> Is the IM simply clearing out stuff that shouldn't be in there in 
> the first place? 
 
It's my understanding the IM either helps the break material to form 
or to settle out by attaching itself to the break material, although 
I'm not sure if it's hot or cold break.  I think it is hot break, 
which is why you usually add it in the middle of the boil. Notice 
that your wort tries to boil over at the beginning of your boil but 
tends to settle down after the first 15 minutes or so. This is 
because (as I understand it) the first main part of the hot break has 
occured, which removes a lot of large proteins(?) from your wort and 
changes the surface tension of the wort (ie bubbles are not as stable 
and don't boil over).  Adding the IM at this point either helps the 
break process to continue, helps to settle the break material that 
has already occured, or maybe both. Either way, that is why IM helps 
reduce haze - because it helps settle the break material (proteins) 
out of your wort. If this break material is getting siphoned over 
into your carboy, this may explain the large "plug" of material you 
see floating in your carboy. 
 
Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina 
"Where if the kudzu don't gitcha, the Baptists will!" 
 
mailto:keith.royster at ponyexpress.com 
 at your.service: http://dezines.com/ at your.service 
Carolina BrewMasters: http://dezines.com/ at your.service/cbm 
My RIMS page: http://dezines.com/ at your.service/RIMS (rated COOL! by the 
Brewery)

Return to table of contents


From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 11:59:39 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: wild yeast troubles

a recent request on info for determination of wild ones 
in a brew from Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com>: 
 
several ways to determine, 
 
the easiest way is microscope - wild ones tend to look very different 
in most cases than normal top or bottom yeasts although this method is 
not 100%, if you look at yours long enough you may be able to see them. 
ususally if it is giving off aroma/flavor/overcarb they are easily seen, 
most notably is the whitish ring and film at the beer surface. 
 
the problem with this method is that if you can easily see them, you are 
in a lot of trouble.  sanitization or other process issues need to be solved. 
most of the wild ones i have seen are pelicle (sp??) or surface forming. these 
are easy to spot look from below the beer to a lite above the beer thru the 
glass.  under a scope most of the ones i have seen are long sausage like 
with odd budding patterns, super atten, very different looking than the 
bottom yeast in very poor health. most have tendency to spore, atleast the 
ones i have been finding in the plates left around the brewery. 
 
when you check a pitching qty of yeast, medias are the only reasonable (cost 
wise) to determine, several media are needed to catch sachr and non-sacrh 
wild ones. the medias are not generally available (Siebels has some).  The 
one i have been trying to get made is SDM because it has a tendency to catch 
both types of wild ones with one media (or atleast that is what some texts 
have said).  To find them with one media, i would do testing before i trust 
them just to make sure the media is doing what it is suppose to do.  but for 
the normal home brewer it is not worth the time. 
 
several companies are producing rapid detection methods - but i am not 
familaiar with these for the wild ones. at seibels we had a presenation on 
RDM from a company - dont have the name handy - but looked expensive like hell.
 
wild ones tend to be one of the worst infections in brewers life, next to 
pedio and lacto.  one cell in a package can cause instability, in a short 
time.  of course i am refering to non pastuerized beers done the A/B way in 
the package(tunnel). 
 
there are alot of sources for these unwanted visitors, atmosphere, grain 
dust, un-removed wort deposits, primings, hops, you name it they are there. 
some do 
not have dramatic effects on beer other do. 
 
good luck 
joe 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Clifford A. Hicks" <74631.2471 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 12:28:00 EDT
Subject: Shipping Wyeast UPS Ground

On AUG 23, DUFF wrote: 
 
Earlier this week I mail-ordered some Wyeast packets for brewing this 
weekend.  Because of a terrible misunderstanding between me and the supplier 
, they sent them by ground transit (UPS).  This means that the yeast will be 
spending the weekend in some (non-airconditioned) UPS transit holding 
warehouse in northern Texas.  I know what the temp range for fermenting ale 
yeasts are, and that you SHOULD keep them refrigerated during storage, but 
what happens if you don't?  Do they go dormant (good thing) or do they 
mutate and or die (bad thing)?  Are they at all salvageable?  Is it one of 
those "learning experiences" your mother always told you of?  Should I use 
open fermenters and windows and hope for a Lambic reaction?  I insulted my 
own intelligence with this blunder and I need a way out. 
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- - 
 
I have been brewing for about 2 years now. I always mailorder my Wyeast packets
and have NEVER had a problem. I of course put them right in the fridge when I 
get them (if I don't plan on brewing for awhile) but a few days out of the cold
seems to have no effect. Tough little beasties I suppose. 
 
Just my two cents........... 
 
Cliff Hicks 
74631.2471 at compuserve.com 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Dan <DJTIM at delphi.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 13:41:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: ring around the collar

 
 
Mike <uchima at fncrd8.fnal.gov> asked: 
 
h> Could it also be related to the strain of yeast used? 
 
I don't know. I've been using Yeast Labs American Ale. Prior to that I 
was using Whitbread dry yeast. Come to think of it none of the dry yeast 
batches had the collar. But there have been so many changes in the 
recipes I have done from my first batches to now (including the use of 
speciality grains) that I was attributing the ring's constituents to the 
way I processed the grains and the subsequent wort. 
 
But hey, I am only guessing. 
 
Dan 
djtim at delphi.com 
 
"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like most of us have. It's 
pretty hard to explain why you are mad even if you are not mad."  The 
Pink Floyd 
 
'[1;32m== IntJet: QWK, UK & US, Windows, GUI, OLR !! 
'[1;35;40m-=> Delphi Internet Jet SST v3.012 - (C) PBE 

Return to table of contents


From: scottjones at juno.com (William S Jones)
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 14:25:54 EDT
Subject: bleach heresy

Ray Robert said: 
 
>     promote off flavors and kill yeast.  (I found it interesting that I 
have 
>    always sanitized with bleach but only recently had infections, but 
he seemed 
>     nonplussed.)  His recommendation was to stay away from bleach 
altogether and 
>     use an iodine based cleaner.  (makes sense) 
 
With all due respect to your hb supply guy, it sounds like he was just 
trying to make a sale.  After all, a thorough rinsing (I usually 
triple-rinse with hot water) should do away with any harmful residue. 

Return to table of contents


From: "Edward B. Kent" <75254.3110 at CompuServe.COM>
Date: 24 Aug 96 14:31:51 EDT
Subject: Priming Sugar

I have not yet evolved to whole grain brewing and am still experimenting with 
extract brewing.  I've made 3 batches so far.  The first, an australian lager, 
was very clear and well carbonated after bottle conditioning 2 weeks (og 1.045,
fg 1.008, and used 3/4 cup corn sugar for priming).  The second, a mixture of 
80/20 barley/rice extract and pale ale extract, had some chill haze and was 
very
low in carbonation after bottle conditioning (og 1.046, fg 1.010, and used 3/4 
cup corn sugar for priming). The third batch is in the secondary right now and 
I'd like to get the carbonation right before moving on to try whole grain 
brewing.  This current batch is an amber ale with a low og (1.032) because the 
copper cane I was using on my siphon to my wort chiller clogged in spite of the
chore boy on the end of it and I lost about 1/2 gallon of my 3 gallon extract 
boil. 
 
What criteria do you use to increase/decrease the amount of corn sugar used for
priming your homebrew for bottling?  Is it original gravity? Type of beer? 
Color? 
 
I've been lurking out here a while and have gotten a lot of good info to get me
started - go ahead slam me for extract brewing but I'm taking it slow.  Please 
reply to my e-mail at 75254.3110 at compuserve.com or post it if you think it 
would
be helpful to the novices just reading HBD out there. 
 

Return to table of contents


From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 1996 20:25:22 -0400
Subject: Ian's Band-Aid Brew

Ian Smith asks about the Wild Yeast Infection (WYI) thing: 
 
> Also 
> how can I confirm whether it is a WYI or just too high a fermentation temp 
? 
 
After I responded to your question with the hi-temp theory, AlK came up with 
the WYI suggestion.  That jogged my memory... 
 
(insert cheesy harp music and soft-filtered flashback footage) 
 
A bit over a year ago, my wife tried brewing her first batch of beer, a 
Scotch Ale (extract + grains) using Wyeast Scottish Ale yeast.  We did 
everything "right" -- sanitation, process, fermenting in the Fermentation 
Chiller at ~68F.  Wow -- it tasted like we fermented at 90F!!  Feeling that 
nothing we did/didn't do in the process realistically would have done this, I 
researched the infection end of things.  I came across Mosher's Brewer's 
Companion, page 195 of the original edition, where there is a chart of 
various yeast types and "discussions" thereof.  I zoomed in on the discussion 
box at the top associated with S. cerevesiae and its variants..."Harmful 
strains can cause ***haze*** and off-flavors, especially strong phenolic 
flavors." (my emphasis -- KES). 
 
(more harp music & sudden sharp-focus jump to present-day El Paso) 
 
Suddenly your comment about haze registered -- Alas, Delia's Scotch Ale was 
hazy for MONTHS in the bottle!  And the taste -- whew!  Nasty!  She was so 
disappointed, but then she's recently brewed a wonderful draught-Guiness 
clone called Murple Stout which rebuilt her confidence & enthusiasm. 
 Besides, a 20-minute boil in the Scotch Ale gives bratwurst a nice tang 
before tossing them on the grill (NEVER dump a bad batch...). 
 
What caused this?  Perhaps, as AlK suggests, summertime air is more likely to 
contain such critters, but I've brewed bunches of beer in the summer without 
this problem.  Personally, I like the Bad Wyeast Pack theory (gets **me** off 
the hook), though there's no proving it.  Some have said that this particular 
Wyeast can be funky, but this was obviously not what Wyeast had in mind, I'm 
sure!  I've never used it since. 
 
What can you do about it?  Perhaps nothing, unless you can do a truly 
closed-system process from chilling to pitching.  You'd have to guard your 
culturing and starter operation too.  I guess things like turning off fans & 
the A/C, maybe wearing a surgical mask (hoo-boy, Nokomaree will have a field 
day with *that* one) during any slant innoculation procedure, and generally 
strict adherence to sanitation.  There's only so much we mere mortals can do, 
I guess. 
 
If it's any consolation, I've not had such a problem before nor since. 
 
Ken Schwartz 
KennyEddy at aol.com 
http://users.aol.com/kennyeddy 

Return to table of contents