---

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

Contents:
  BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ??? (Bob Bessette/PicTel)
  re:  3068 Question (Dane Mosher)
  Infection (Bob Bessette/PicTel)
  Belgian Water Profile??? ("Robert Waddell")
  wyeast 3068/hose p drop ((BAYEROSPACE))
  Re: Growing Hops (Edward J. Steinkamp)
  Re: RIMS - Disadvantages.. [pt 1 of 2] (hollen at vigra.com)
  Re: RIMS - Disadvantages... [pt 2 of 2] (hollen at vigra.com)
  Geared MaltMILL (tm) (Ian Smith)
  Leaking cornie fittings (Barrowman at aol.com)
  Yeast culturing (Domenick Venezia)
  Iodine sanitizers (Joseph Kral)
  First Generation RIMS  ("Kirk R Fleming")
  Honey fermentability (Miguel de Salas)
  Judging schedules (John Bell)
  Sparging? Why bother? (Louis Bonham)
  Cheers to the Little Apple Brewery! (Andy Walsh)
  montgomery, alabama (bob rogers)
  Letting it settle ("Dave Draper")
  RE: RIMS Computer Control ("Scott W. Nowicki")
  Re: Cidery Flavour Question/Eddy Currents ((Algis R Korzonas))

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.

COPYRIGHT:
  As with all forums such as this one, copyrights are retained by the
  original authors. In accordance with the wishes of the members of the
  Homebrew Digest, posts to the HBD may NOT be sold or used as part of a
  collection that is sold without the original authors' consent. Copies
  may ONLY be made available at no charge and should include the current
  posting and subscription addresses for the HBD.


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

From: Bob Bessette/PicTel
Date: 19 Sep 96 16:55:52 EDT
Subject: BrewPubs near (in) Iselin, NJ???

Fellow HBDers, 
 I have the esteemed privilege to visit the metropolis known as Iselin, NJ for 
a training class next week. Does anyone know if there are any 
brewpub/restaurants in the general vicinity? Even is you know of any good 
restaurants in the area that serve decent draught beer. I will have a car so I 
don't mind some light travelling. If anyone has any information for me please 
email me at bbessett at pictel.com. I would also like to know how far by car is 
Iselin from Manhattan? 
 
Cheers, 
Bob Bessette 

Return to table of contents


From: Dane Mosher <dmosher at xroadstx.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:07:42 -0700
Subject: re:  3068 Question

George De Piro asked about lowering the fermentation temperature 
of Wyeast 3068 to get more clove and less banana esters in his 
weizens. 
 
I don't know the lower temp limit on that yeast, but I might 
have a different solution to the problem.  I have heard that 
a protein rest at around 113_F is essential to get a good 
clove flavor, and many homebrewers fail because they use the 
standard 122_F rest. 
 
I wish I had a written reference for this information, but I 
heard it from the brewer at my local brewpub.  I know that he 
and I both brewed weizens using Wyeast 3333 (German Wheat), and 
that his beer was nice and clovey, while mine (brewed before I 
learned this tidbit) was very banana-ey.  I kept my fermentation 
temperature around 65_F too. 
 
If anyone can elaborate on why this rule holds true, I'd like to 
hear it. 
 
Dane Mosher 
Big Spring, Texas 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Bob Bessette/PicTel
Date: 19 Sep 96 17:00:24 EDT
Subject: Infection

Fellow HBDers, 
 I posted an article in the past about a felling I had that I was getting an 
infection in my beer due to dry hopping. Well, I just had another infection 
without the dry hopping. All I can think of at this point is that I was using 
some old tubing for siphoning and maybe I transferred the infection in this 
manner. Has anyone else out there had a similiar problem? Please email me at 
bbessett at pictel.com... 
 
Cheers, 
Bob Bessette 

Return to table of contents


From: "Robert Waddell" <V024971 at Tape.StorTek.Com>
Date: 19 Sep 96 15:56:00 MDT
Subject: Belgian Water Profile???

Hi, 
 
I'm about to start a "Belgian Strong Ale", but I don't seem 
to be able to find any water profiles that would apply. 
Can anybody help me out?  I would like this recipe to be 
as authentic as possible. 
 
A.J., Algis, Ken? 
 
TIA 
 
                            I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system.  'Cept for that 
                            gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it 
                            off the bed at night. 
                            Women... 
                                                    --Pat Babcock 
 
 
            *** It's never too late to have a happy childhood!  *** 
 
****************************************************************************** 
V024971 at TAPE.STORTEK.COM  / Opinions expressed are usually my own but 
Robert J. Waddell         / perhaps shared (though not by my employer). 
Owner & Brewmaster Barchenspeider Brew-Haus 
*******************************************************************************
 

Return to table of contents


From: M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com (BAYEROSPACE)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 16:58 -0600
Subject: wyeast 3068/hose p drop

collective homebrew conscience: 
 
george asks: 
 
>     A quick question:  has anybody out there tried to push the lowest 
>     temperature that Wyeast 3068 will perform at?  I would like to have 
>     more clove and less banana in my Weizen, and since varying the degree 
>     of aeration didn't work, I'm thinking that lowering the temp might 
>     reduce the esters. 
 
i brewed a weizen last fall that i fermented with #3068 at about 60 to 63 
deg. F.  what happened was the beer didn't get many phenolics/esters really. 
a little banana and some bubblegum, and only very faint clove as well.  not as 
bold as i like.  maybe you should try the brewtek yeast.  it supposedly has 
more clove than the wyeast.  i think it's W51. 
 
 
well, this foray into fluid dynamics is creating some controversy. 
 
ted wrote: 
 
> if the head loss is too 
>great in the tubing, the beer gets to a certain point and just 
>stops flowing because the liquid pressure (head) becomes equal 
>to atmospheric pressure. 
 
look at this equilibrium end point condition proposed above:  10 psi 
of gage pressure behind a body of fluid, 0 psig in front of it, and the 
fluid isn't moving?  this was the point in my thought experiment 
that made me conjecture the fluid will establish a steady state flow rate based
on the pressure differential and the hose restriction at that flow rate. 
 
 
daryl k from the great white north also wrote: 
 
> Since in this system you begin with a fixed pressure (what is in 
>your keg) as you add more fittings and line you are increasing the pressure 
>drop thus flow decreases until you have virtually no pressure and thus no 
>flow. 
 
 
okay, i'm doubting my answer.  who's got 30 feet of hose? 
 
one other thing to mention about long hose runs is that you can warm up the 
beer as it flows through an uninsulated hose.  this causes CO2 to break out 
as it gets warmer.  so if you run a long hose to try and balance your 
system and get an acceptable flow rate, you can shoot yourself in the foot 
if the beer warms up too much because you still get foam.  i've noticed that 
my first pint out of the keg foams less (since i just took it out of the 
freezer), and later pints foam more when the keg (and hose) is left out on the 
basement floor.  i assume this is because the hose warms up to the 
basement air temperature and subsequent draughts are affected.  i also noticed 
at an outdoor party with my keg that if a couple of people in a row used the 
tap continuously, the hose would then (apparently) cool down a bit and the 
beer was less foamy.  at least that's what i think the reason was. 
 
brew hard, 
 
mark bayer 

Return to table of contents


From: Edward J. Steinkamp <ejs0742 at dop.fse.ca.boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 15:52:39 PDT
Subject: Re: Growing Hops

I recently harvested the first year crop of Hallertauer and Saaz 
hops from my western washington garden.  I had originally planned 
and built an 8 foot high trellis with horizontal lines similar to 
a clothes line.  At the last minute (the hops were six feet up 
the line) I read some literature which suggested that for maximum 
yield, hops should be grown on the highest possible vertical 
pole.  When the hop vine gets to the top of the pole and bends 
over, the rest of the vine leafs out and start producing buds.  I 
tore down all the horizontal lines and increased the height of my 
pole to 16 feet. 
 
After drying the harvest totalled 4 oz Saaz and 3 oz Hallertauer. 
Is this good for a first year harvest?  After harvesting I found 
additional literature out there on the net suggesting that the 
clothesline method is better because you can reach the cones and 
pick only the ripe ones. This allows you to get multiple harvests 
and makes it so you don't have to cut the vine when you  harvest. 
Perhaps not cutting the vine would contribute to a healthier 
harvest the next season. 
 
In summary, which hop growing method is better, a single tall 
pole, or a clothes line type trellis? 
 
Thank you, 
 
Ed Steinkamp 

Return to table of contents


From: hollen at vigra.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 16:11:39 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS - Disadvantages.. [pt 1 of 2]

>> Steve Alexander writes: 
 
SA> Dion Hollenbeck writes ... 
 
SA> Dion - the previous post was based on what I read and surmise.  I 
SA> don't have practical experience with a RIMS and welcome your 
SA> comments. 
 
Good, and I welcome yours.  Most of us RIMSers are doing it much from 
the practical standpoint and may not have access to "related" 
information that is not accessed through any "homebrew" keyword. 
Multi-disciplinary viewpoints are very valuable. 
 
SA> The small high capacity heating elements used in typical RIMS 
SA> ... 
 
>> Totally agreed, but if you build a RIMS with a small high density 
>> heating element, IMHO, you have completely botched it.  In a well 
>> designed RIMS system, you will use a very low density heating element 
>> which precludes all these disadvantages. 
 
SA> I'm not so sure.  I doubt that the low density heating element's 
SA> I've seen suggested would have anything like the amount of surface 
SA> required.  Have you actually tried to measure the heaters surface 
SA> temp when in operation ?  What kind of surface area is available 
SA> in the low density heating elements you are referring to ? 
 
I have not measured the surface temp in operation.  The heater is 72" 
when stretched out and 3/8" in diameter, which is a surface area of 
84.823 square inches.  1250 watts divided by 84.823 is 14.73 watts per 
square inch.  The 1250 watts comes from the fact that the heater is a 
5000 watt 240V model run on 110v which means that it puts out 1/4 the 
wattage (without taking into account any of the cold vs. hot 
resistance discussions which have previously taken place in the HBD). 
It produces a boost in temperature of about 1.5 degrees F per minute 
which is exactly what is recommended by Dave Miller for doing all 
grain in a pot. 
 
SA> Another point is that alpha-glucosidase places a significant role in 
SA> starch granule degradation in low temp mashes (below starch 
SA> gelatinization temps).  It's more heat labile that other amylases and 
SA> in a RIMS ... 
 
If the RIMS is doing damage to it, how could I tell?  What would be 
measurable (with no lab, just home brewer's gear) that would indicate 
that the alpha-glucosidase was being damaged.  Any particular things 
to look for in the finished beer. 
 
SA> Shear forces and enzyme denaturing ... 
 
>> While I cannot discount this, do you have any proof?  I will accede 
>> that it may be so in commercial enzymatic processes, but does it have 
>> any *noticeable* effect in beer production and what would those 
>> effects be?  I certainly produce excellent beers on my RIMS system and 
>> have been using a little too high a flow rate for a couple of years 
>> now.  Just recently throttled it back a tad due to discussions on 
>> grain bed compaction. 
 
SA> Throttling back with an outlet valve may increase shear forces! 
 
Agreed, but *I* do not do that, I slow down my pump with a motor speed 
controller.  This may be a problem for some people and is a good 
point, if it matters at all. 
 
SA> The point about shear forces in pumps destroying enzymes is available 
SA> from several books on industrial enzymology.  One book that explicitly 
SA> talks about this is ... 
 
While I don't doubt that it may be happening, what you are talking 
about is industrial enzymology.  It may be very important to an 
industrial concern that they are losing 5% of their product to shear 
forces destroying the enzymes.  But to a homebrewer all that matters 
is that a *sufficient* amount make it into the relevant parts of the 
process TO PRODUCE GOOD BEER. 
 
SA> The point about whether it has a practical effect is quite 
SA> relevent.  Discussions of 'proof' are not.  I think the burden of 
SA> proof is on wort pumpers - to show that they don't adversely 
SA> effect the wort. 
 
I can agree to that.  And I would postulate that the proof is in the 
tasting.  If I can produce beer that can win ribbons in competitions 
(not because of being the only beer, mind you) and is praised by 
judges known to be nationally recognized and experienced over dozens 
of years, then I contend that any degradation that may occur is not 
relevant to the home brewing application, even though it may be 
*extremely* relevant in industrial enzymology. 
 
I do not contend that we have nothing to learn, nor no way to better 
the process, I just think you may be splitting hairs. 
 
SA> Obviously very good homebrew can be made with a RIMS as I stated 
SA> previously.  Typical pale or pale ale malts have at least 2X or 3X the 
SA> amount of enzymes required for a complete conversion in a 'reasonable' 
SA> amount of time.  The question is what happens in an enzyme poor mash, 
SA> say one with a very high adjunct load when using a RIMS.  Does anyone 
SA> have any anecdotal evidence ? 
 
How's this for a high adjunct load: 
 
 8 lbs. 2row 
 1.5 lbs. 40l crystal 
 1.5 lbs. Carapils 
 3/4 lb. chocolate 
 1/4 lb. black patent 
 
If that is in the range you are talking about, I do a couple of these 
a year, and the result is a wonderful beer that has no trouble 
fermenting down to where it would be expected to with that load of 
unfermentables in it. 
 
[continued in another message] 
- - -- 
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com 
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California 
- ------- End of forwarded message ------- 

Return to table of contents


From: hollen at vigra.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 16:12:42 PDT
Subject: Re: RIMS - Disadvantages... [pt 2 of 2]

SA> Very thick mashes are probably not possible with a RIMS apparatus, 
 
>> Depends on what you term very thick mashes.  My normal RIMS mash us at 
>> 1.1 quarts per lb. of grain plus a fixed 2 quarts for system volume. 
>> This is quite thick when compared to some figures I have seen quoted 
>> for stovetop mashes.  This leaves a couple of inches of liquid on top 
>> of the grain bed and the flow rate is as high as 4 GPM. 
 
SA> Lets say 7.5# of grist and you add 8.25+2 qt ==> or 1.366qt/lb or 43.7 
SA> fl.oz/# .  As a point of comparison Greg Noonan in his original 
SA> Brewing Lager Beer book suggested a dough-in w/ (from memory) 24 to 28 
SA> fl.oz per pound, and eventually after the protein rest ends up in the 
SA> 35 to 45 floz/pound range.  Obviously trying to dough-in or protein 
SA> rest w/ around 1 qt/# would be very difficult with a RIMS.  A lot of 
SA> test mashes are performed around 39% thickness or 41floz/#, which is 
SA> pretty close to your figure, but note that you ARE letting your 
SA> hardware dictate your brewing method at this point. 
 
Well, your calculations are sort of skewed.  The 2 qts should not be 
figured in because it is always in the hose and the heater chamber and 
pump.  It is not part of the liquid that makes up the mash thickness. 
I can make a mash as thick as 1.1 qts per lb. or as thin as I have 
mash tun for. 
 
While I agree that I am letting my hardware dictate my process, you 
still have not stated a reason why I would want to have a mash at 
*any* particular thickness.  The only reason I see so far is that if 
you are adding water to boost the temp, you want to start out very 
thick so you do not get too thin.  If there is *any* other reason for 
using a thick mash, please pass it on. 
 
SA> It has been suggested on HBD that the extremely clear highly 
SA> recirculated runnings from a RIMS setup may lack sufficient lipids 
SA> for optimal yeast growth. 
 
>> If this is true, then how do I get a Belgian strong ale with an OG of 
>> 1.095 to ferment out to 1.016? 
 
SA> I didn't propose this point, but I believe that the idea is that once 
SA> the oxygen is used up (which happens quite quickly), yeast growth is 
SA> dependent on the uptake of unsaturated fatty acids.  I've an article 
SA> from the 'Journal of the Inst of Brewing' (JIB vol 100, 1994, pp 
SA> 321-329) that states this point (w/ references) unequivocally. And 
SA> notes that this is the limiting factor in yeast growth because the 
SA> unsaturated fatty acids used in yeast membrane structures cannot be 
SA> synthesized in the absence of oxygen. 
 
SA> *IF* RIMS wort is deficient in fatty acids, (and I don't know that it 
SA> is) then the wort will still ferment, tho at a reduced rate.  The 
SA> negative effects might include problem w/ ferementation time - 
SA> especially with the tendency of many HBers to seriously underpitch. 
SA> Autolysis might be a greater problem also.  It should also lead to 
SA> lower ester production - the value of which is dependent on beer 
SA> style. 
 
Again, I agree.  If the brewers technique is marginal with regarding 
to pitching sufficient healthy yeast, then *if* a RIMS caused wort 
deficient in fatty acids, then it may give problems that would not be 
present in a manual all grain mash.  All I can speak for is *my* 
results which indicate that this is not the case.  But I cannot say if 
it is because of my yeast practices or that the RIMS does not produce 
problems with fatty acids. 
 
SA> Also a RIMS probably can't take mashes as thick a those that I 
SA> usually use at dough-in and during the protein rest. 
 
>> Yes, but why do you have your mashes that thick?  Because you need to 
>> add water later to boost temperatures?  With a RIMS, there is no need 
>> for water additions, so the initial thickness is the final thickness. 
>> Is there a *reason* one would *need* a thick mash during a protein 
>> rest, other than to avoid the final mash being too thin after repeated 
>> water additions? 
 
SA> No - I always use a programmed mash or a decoction mash and never add 
SA> additional mash water for temperature control (I don't use infusion 
SA> mashing).  The reason for the thickness during the protein rest is the 
SA> effectiveness of the rest is quite dependent on mash thickness. See 
SA> M&B Sci.  I use thickness as a mashing parameter, while I couldn't do 
SA> this very well with a RIMS. 
 
Ah finally, the key to why you have been talking about mash 
thickness.  However, many people have said that with highly modified 
American 2 row, nobody needs a protein rest anyway.  Don't get me 
wrong, I do one.  And if lack of chill haze and clarity are an 
indication that my protein rest is working, then it is. 
 
SA> Dough-in ... 
SA> Does the RIMS add to control or repeatability at this stage ? 
 
SA> It would be pretty hard to get grain balls with a 1.366qt/# mash 
SA> wouldn't it ?  I'll  concede the control repeatability point to you - 
SA> since I don't have RIMS experience, but given the mash thinness 
SA> required, I don't see this as an advantage. 
 
Again, you cannot count the extra 2 quarts.  And you are basing your 
calculations on a 7.4# grain bill.  I have never ever had a grain bill 
that low.  My lowest grain bill is about 12# which makes the two 
quarts even less meaningful if you are counting it (which you should 
not).   And yes, it is *very* hard with my setup to have any trouble 
with non-wetted grain.  I think this is a wonderful advantage. 
 
>> Steve makes some very good points, and if the ones he has questioned 
>> have corroborative evidence, then it behooves us to improve upon what 
>> would be a deficiency. 
 
SA> And thanks Dion for the review and user perspective.  I refuse to let 
SA> this thread devolved into the sort of literature search/rebuttal that 
SA> turn off a lot of readers.  The only real "Proof" acceptable will 
SA> require testing RIMS derived wort with laboratory facilities I 
SA> certainly don't have access to.  I've suggested several areas for 
SA> improvements and concerns (some of which may not be well founded) 
SA> regarding RIMS.  And again I think that a RIMS that handled the wort 
SA> more gently - both mechanically and thermally would be an obvious 
SA> direction for improvement. 
 
I have to agree here and thank Steve for bringing up a *lot* of good 
points and areas to investigate for improvement.  I also do not have 
access to a lab, and frankly without one, I think anyone would be hard 
pressed to find any evidence of the problems Steve points out.  Again, 
there are lots of areas which are *prone* to fault if one designs and 
implements a RIMS in a less than optimal manner and if they slip past 
some threshold could cause faults to appear in the finished product. 
 
In the case of my RIMS system combined with the other brewing 
techniques I practice, I can find none of the faults to which Steve 
refers. 
 
I just hope Steve and I have not bored you all to tears with this 
discussion. 
 
dion 
 
- --- 
Dion Hollenbeck (619)597-7080x164                 Email: hollen at vigra.com 
Sr. Software Engineer - Vigra Div. of Visicom Labs  San Diego, California 
- ------- End of forwarded message ------- 

Return to table of contents


From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 17:31:01 -0600 (MDT)
Subject: Geared MaltMILL (tm)

Does anyone have a geared Maltmill (tm) ? I believe the gears are not the 
same diameter/number of teeth. Can anyone tell me the number of teeth 
and/or diameters ? 
 
Cheers 
Ian Smith 

Return to table of contents


From: Barrowman at aol.com
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:35:47 -0400
Subject: Leaking cornie fittings

 have a Cornie keg system that is fairly new. The gas dispensing fittings 
have developed annoying leaks. I have a single regulator system with a 
splitter that allows me to connect to 2 kegs at once. The distance between 
the poppet poker thing and the pin connector slots seems to be too long. Has 
something come loose? These things don't appear to be technical enough to 
involve threads between the metal coupler and the plastic crappie thing. 
(Disclaimer: It is not my kegs! They have been re-outfitted with gaskets, 
lube, etc., don't leak with the gas off and never leaked before!) 
 
When I got the system one of the gas fittings had a barely perceptible leak. 
(I could hear it hissing). Now both leak noisily and spew my precious 
homebrew all over. Yes, I get liquid leaking from my gas connection! I have 
only dispensed ~5 kegs with this system. Is it junk and should be returned or 
have I somehow done it serious wrong? (The liquid fitting behaves just fine 
evne though it gets more abuse). 
 
I do realize I can disassemble the fitting and change out a gasket but am 
incredulous that the gasket could be worn out after so little use. Has anyone 
experienced similar problems? Please help, I get a rash just thinking about 
washing bottles again.... 
 
Thanks, 
 
Laura 
 
PS Don't worry about my estrogen content. I am an engineer and can operate 
various machines that say 'Milwaukee' and 'Skil' as well the Osterizer type. 

Return to table of contents


From: Domenick Venezia <venezia at zgi.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:11:02 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Yeast culturing

 
I recently ran into an interesting idea concerning the use of tapioca 
rather than agar in producing solid growth media for slants and plates, 
and I thought I would throw it out there for those of you making your own 
yeast growth media.  Tapioca is MUCH cheaper than agar, and available in 
nearly every grocery store in the USA. 
 
Originally I saw it mentioned in a News & Views article in a recent 
SCIENCE.  I then got the reference: Current Science, vol. 70, No. 7 
(10 April 1996), pp 493-494.  This reference describes some tests 
done by the International Crops Research Institute, Patancheru, India 
using tapioca gelled media to grow tobacco explants.  They found no 
significant difference between the agar and the tapioca grown samples. 
 
The tapioca needs to be heated in some way that I have not determined. 
Perhaps it is just the normal cooking that one uses to make tapioca 
pudding?  Quoting, "On a dry weight basis, tapioca pearls contain about 
95% starch.  On heating, the starch gets converted into a complex 
polysaccharide, dextrin." 
 
There is a reference for the heating that I have been unable to get. 
Perhaps someone in HBD-land has access to it.  Hendershott,C.H., in "A 
Literature Review and Research Recommendations on Cassava (Manihot 
esculenta Crantz), National Technical Information Service, US Department 
of Commerce, Virginia, 1972 p 193 
 
Agar is generally used in a 0.7% concentration (7 grams per liter of 
medium).  Tapioca needs to be used at about 10% concentration (100 grams 
per liter of medium). 
 
Domenick Venezia 
Computer Resources 
ZymoGenetics, Inc. 
Seattle, WA 
venezia at zgi.com 
 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Joseph Kral <kral at hpljlk.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 18:23:06 PDT
Subject: Iodine sanitizers

> From: Rscholz at aol.com writes amoung other things, 
> 
> I use a similar commercial product I get from the resturant supply in NY,NY 
> I was suprised how little the store reps knew about what they carry. I asked 
> for a no-rinse sanitizer and they said " we don't carry anything like that" 
> so I walk 
> over to the shelf and read the label on their "Beer glass cleaner" and it's 
> iodine based with instructions for dilutions to air-dry/ no-rinse large food 
> handling equip. For beer glasses: one dips and rinses in clean water. 
> that's all the store guys knew about it, but it's great for sanitizing and at
> 
> $16.50 / gal per case of six gals. ( yes I know I've got enough for the next 
> 5 yrs) 
> it beats Iodofor at ~ $1/oz. So look for it as beer glass cleaner and the 
> resturant 
> suppliers might know what you want. Hope this helps. 
 
FWIW, Rapids Restaurant Supply sells the B*T*F (or whatever the initials 
are) brand Iodofor sanitizer for something like $7.25/qt. 
 
 
 
- -- 
Joseph Kral 
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories 
kral at hpljlk.hpl.hp.com 

Return to table of contents


From: "Kirk R Fleming" <flemingk at usa.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:23:24 -0600
Subject: First Generation RIMS 

In #2193 Steve starts the RIMS thread with some disadvantages, and to 
be fair, says he's addressing the practical disadvantages of current 
implementations. 
Two particular issues interest me.  The first is the temperature gradient 
issue in the 
vicinity of the heating element--Dion and others made subsequent comments 
in 
#2194 and #2195 regarding the 'classic' derated, low-density element and I 
think 
those comments are valid.  There's no evidence I'm aware of that high 
gradients 
exist, nor that extraoridarily high local temperatures exist. 
 
But in any case, I feel like a lone voice here, electric heating is NOT a 
requirement 
for automatic feedback controlled RIMS.  It may be convenient, it may be 
obvious, 
it may have all manner of nice features, but it isn't required nor does it 
represent 
all 'first generation" implementations. 
 
The second is the pump shearing allegation.  I know there is at least one 
professional 
brewer who insists centrifugal pumps "ruin" the wort, and there are others 
who insist 
on using diaphragm pumps to avoid this alleged problem. Although brutal 
pumps are 
indeed standard fare for all RIMS systems I've actually seen, it certainly 
doesn't have 
to be that way for first generation systems.  Manual recirculation (gravity 
and work) 
can be used successfully--continuous recirc isn't a RIMS requirement, 
either.  I also 
believe (but haven't shown) that peristaltic pumps can be built at home 
that may look 
very primitive but work well without pounding the wort. 
 
Finally, is there a practical difference between a thick mash and a 
suitably compacted 
one?  If I maintain a false bottom AND a false cover such a distance apart 
as to render 
the mash bounded in between them at a given consistency, does it matter 
that there is 
10 cm of mash liquor above the false cover and below the false bottom? 
 
Think about that, brewgeeks! 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:41:40 -1000
Subject: Honey fermentability

It is often said that honey will ferment completely when added to beer. I 
think this is not so. As any meadmaker will tell you, a solution of honey 
will not ferment 100%. My meads have rarely gone below 998. It is true, 
though, that honey will contribute nice flavours and a somewhat drier 
mouthfeel, but it will not ferment completely. 
Anyone had different experiences? 
 
- --------------------------- 
 
Miguel de Salas, in Hobart, Tasmania, Australia. 
       
 

Return to table of contents


From: John Bell <paradise at compcom.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 11:57:54 +1000
Subject: Judging schedules

Hi. Can anyone send me a schedule for judging beers (ie points for 
appearance, head, aroma, flavour etc. and associated  guidelines for 
assessing these). 
 
The reason is that I've been asked by a local fair to act as a judge in a 
home brewing competition. I should point out that this is pretty small scale 
and that expectations are not terribly high - there will only be a few 
categories (lager style, ales, dark beers and stouts probably) and for all I 
know we may only get extract or even kit brewed entrants so it may not be 
appropriate to go into overkill with heaps of critical notes etc. (If any 
brewers in Sth Gippsland get this posting my apologies in advance!) 
Nevertheless, some master brewers may crawl out of the woodwork, so it's 
wise to be prepared, as far as possible. Any criticism of the judging will 
be taken in the nastiest way possible, ie those criticising will be invited 
to judge next year! TIA 
Sue Armstrong & John Bell 
Paradise Enough Wines 
KONGWAK, SOUTH GIPPSLAND 
VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA 
 

Return to table of contents


From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at i-link.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 20:57:19 -0500
Subject: Sparging? Why bother?

In perusing the last few weeks of the HBD, it seems that a significant 
fraction of the discussions revolve around sparging techniques.  From 
the perspective of a homebrewer with only one goal in his brewing -- 
quality -- I have a simple question: 
 
WHY BOTHER! 
 
If you're brewing commercially, the question is obvious: sparging is 
essential to running an economically viable operation.  For a 
homebrewer, however, the cost savings of wringing a few more points per 
pound from the grain is almost insignificant, especially if your goal is 
to brew the highest quality beer, and is certainly not worth investing 
lots of time and effort in devising improved methods. 
 
"No sparge" (a/k/a "first runnings") brewing is not a new idea; indeed, 
Dr. Fix discussed it in the HBD a couple of years ago, and I've seen it 
mentioned here occasionally since then.  Yet, despite the fact that 
every expert I've ever discussed it with (including George Fix and Paul 
Farnsworth) categorically state that "no sparge" brewing makes for a 
maltier, higher quality wort, most homebrewers still insist on (and 
obsess over) this aspect of the brewing process. 
 
I submit that for small scale amateur brewers who are interested 
primarily in quality, sparging is a complete waste of time.  By simply 
mashing one third more grain than normal, you can extract more than 
enough points for your desired gravity, and without having to conduct a 
lengthy sparge, monitor pH or SG during the runoff, or risk leaching 
tannins or other undesirables from the grains.  The added expense is 
just not that great, especially if you're buying your grain by the 
sack.  [If you are bothered by the "waste" of the fermentables left in 
the grain, then you can make "small beer" or yeast starter from the 
remnants by steeping them in hot water while you boil the main mash.] 
 
I realize that this position borders on heresy in some traditionalist 
quarters.  Then again, so did the concept of a round world at one time. 
What sayeth the collective wisdom of the HBD on the subject? 
 
Seek truth ----------------------> Louis Bonham 

Return to table of contents


From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 13:18:32 +1100
Subject: Cheers to the Little Apple Brewery!

Good luck to Rob Moline (aka Jethro Gump) in the upcoming GABF. Rob has 
entered several beers and he deserves to do well. A few of us over here 
have tried his beers, and we think they're great! 
 
So good luck Rob, from your fans here in Sydney! 
 
- -- 
Andrew Walsh    
Little Apple Brewery Fan Club, 
Sydney Division. 
(and he uses dried yeast too!) 
 

Return to table of contents


From: bob rogers <bob at carol.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 00:04:55 -0400
Subject: montgomery, alabama

having searched the web for cool places near montgomery, AL, i now ask the 
collective. i will be going there sunday. 
bob: brewing in the heart of the bible belt 
bob rogers   bob at carol.net 
 

Return to table of contents


From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 18:51:28 +10
Subject: Letting it settle

Dear Friends, 
 
In #2195, Mark "Brew Hard" Bayer writes: 
 
"here's an idea:  use a 7 gallon carboy to put the chilled wort+trub 
in. you can aerate/pitch your yeast at this point, depending on 
temperature, then wait for the trub to settle." 
 
This idea, of course, has been discussed by Dave Miller in his books. 
 One thing that always has puzzled me about this is the practice of 
pitching the yeast immediately after the bitter wort is placed in the 
setting vessel, then racking it all off into a new vessel a couple 
hours later.  I understand fully the rationale behind pitching the 
yeast ASAP.  But unless one has done a very good job with having a 
large starter at the peak of pitchability (I do NOT mean to reopen 
that old bashfest about when that is) and has aerated the bejeeezus 
out of the wort, I think it is fair to say that many of us do not see 
dramatic activity in the first 2-3 hours (and please, no posts saying 
"I get ten feet of foam in the first 5 seconds" -- I know some of us 
here have outstanding lag performance. I am talking about the rest of 
us poor bastards.).  In such a case most of the yeast are sitting 
there in the junk at the bottom of the settling tank and are left 
behind when the liquid is transferred to the primary. 
 
My point is, and this is also my practice, if one has a well-sealed, 
sanitized container, then one need not pitch right away.  Let it 
settle, then transfer to the primary, leaving most of the gunk 
behind, and *then* pitch.  I have been doing this for several dozen 
batches now and have not had a single problem (and hey, you know 
what? All my fermeters are plastic too).  I know: "Works for me" is 
not proof.  I mean only to point to a possibility. 
 
Mark also wrote: 
 
"by the way, i measure my extraction by using both the pre-racking 
volume and the post racking volume.  the numbers i come up with are 
usually about 28 or 29 for post racking volume, and 31-33 for 
pre-racking volume.  which volume do most of the rest of you use?" 
 
I use both, to get two pieces of complementary information.  I 
measure my extraction after sparging, using the volume that I got 
from that process, to get an idea how well I mashed and sparged.  I 
use the gravity as it goes into the primary to measure how much loss 
I get from boiling, settling, transer, etc etc.  The first number 
lets me keep some kind of track on the variables to do with mashing 
and sparging (grain lot, crush, pH, etc) and the second on the 
overall efficiency of my system, given the performance that the 
system gave during the mash and sparge. 
 
Cheers, Dave in Sydney 
"If you think about it, everything makes sense." --- Ginger Wotring 
- --- 
*************************************************************************** 
David S. Draper, Earth Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW Australia 
ddraper at laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au 
                ...I'm not from here, I just live here... 

Return to table of contents


From: "Scott W. Nowicki" <nowicki at voicenet.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 1996 06:34:03 -0400
Subject: RE: RIMS Computer Control

Yes, this is all possible (if you have the money!). 
 
There is a company called OMEGA that sells all or most of those sorts of = 
instruments.  I don't have their phone no., but their web page is = 
www.omega.com.  They have a free set of catalogs worth getting. 
 
Scott Nowicki 
Holland, Pennsylvania 

Return to table of contents


From: korzonas at lucent.com (Algis R Korzonas)
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 96 15:25:49 CDT
Subject: Re: Cidery Flavour Question/Eddy Currents

Brad writes: 
>Here's a quick ingredient list. (Trying for a simple, light colored ale, 
>nothing fancy) 
>1. 6lbs Laaglander Extra light DME. 
>2. 1/2 lb Victory Malt 
>3. 1oz of Fuggles for the boil (60 mins) and 1oz of Fuggles for finishing. 
>4. I used the British Ale WYeast # 1098 
 
Could what you describe be "tartness?"  The Wyeast #1098 has a "tart" 
flavour, in my opinion.  On another topic, the Victory malt (like the 
Biscuit mentioned in my other post today) contains starch.  It also 
has virtually no enzymes.  It will give you little more than a starch 
haze.  Finally, Laaglander Dried Malt Extract is very unfermentable. 
Typical apparent attenuations can be between 55 and 60%.  It has it's 
place in low-gravity beers or sweet beers, but I wouldn't use it for 
100% any normal-gravity beer: it would come out way too sweet. 
 
*** 
Daryl writes: 
>Assuming turbulent flow in the beer lines occurs I have to question Al's 
>comment that shaking the keg creates eddies which harbour nucleation sites 
>for CO2.  Turbulent flow would create the same opportunity for nucleation. 
 
The key to setting up a draft system (despite many people having questioned 
this -- I suspect that those have never set one up properly) is to have 
the beer line long enough so that the flow is slow enough so that the 
CO2 does not come out of solution.  Too long a line simply means that the 
flow will be too slow.  As someone else posted, the pressure drop from 
the keg to the end of the faucet will always be equal to the pressure 
that the keg sees from the CO2 regulator.  As the beer line length 
increases, the pressure drop per foot (which is a function of flow rate) 
decreases.  Simultaneously, the flow rate drops. 
 
As for the eddy currents and nucleation, I simply relayed what was posted 
by someone explaining the shaken-bottle gushing puzzle.  If you don't 
believe that this is a factor, take two 50F bottles of beer.  Shake them. 
Open one immediately and the other after another hour at 50F.  If you can 
explain the difference in the results without the "eddy current" solution, 
then I'd be interested in reading it.  Clearly whatever phenomenon caused 
the foaming in the bottles also causes it in kegs -- THAT'S why I recommended 
waiting the hour to serve after force-carbonation shaking. 
 
Al. 
 
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL 
korzonas at lucent.com 

Return to table of contents