(formerly Volume 02 : Number 015)



Procedures:

To send a message to the digest, send it to <homebrew at aob.org>
To unsubscribe from the digest, send a message to <majordomo at aob.org>
   with the text "unsubscribe <your email address>" in the body.
If you are having difficulty unsubscribing, send a message to
   <majordomo at aob.org> with the text "who homebrew-digest" in the
   body.  This will return a list of all subscribers.  Search this
   list for your email address, and include it, exactly as it appears
   (including any other text) in your unsubscribe message.
If you are still having difficulty, send a message to <admin at softsolut.com>
   with a description of your message, and we shall attempt to resolve
   the problem.

Contents:
  Corona vs. Roller/SG and suspensions
  Dry hopping
  Small beer
  HBD still broken/Questions...
  Thermal pot expansion
  ASBC for air in bottle
  trub removal
  Beginner Mead, Lambic comment
  Re: Perforated Stainless Steel Plate Sources
  Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #8
  Re: weight/volume %
  Mills revisited
  Re:HB Newbie Seeks Help
  Re: Expansive Pots again, a Cornie mystery
  Latest Update from Formerly Depressed Brewer
  Partial mash eff.
  Mead / Malt Mills


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

Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:22:11 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com>
Subject: Corona vs. Roller/SG and suspensions

Bill writes:
>Al complains about the cranking of the Phil's Mill.  When you use an 1/2"
>electric drill cranking is a breeze.

Hope that breeze is at your back because otherwise you'll be covered
head-to-toe in grain dust.
 
>Many of the faults that have been attributed to the Corona mill are not
>the mills fault but rather the lack of skill to process the crushed malt.
> 
>Al how did you evaluate the mills by here say and lack of good procedure?

I evaluated the mills by visually inspecting the crushed malt and by
brewing with said malt.  The word is "heresay" and means "rumour."
I would say that my evaluation, which was based upon my own personal
experience would he the exact opposite of heresay.

Screen tests are great if and *only* if you are sure that what's going
through the screens is milled endosperm and not pulverised husk.  Since
you can't, I would say your evaluation lacks good procedure.

I contend that the method by which the Corona crushes the malt (a radially
striated plate, rubbing up against another plate at a small angle) is
fundamentally flawed.  In a rollermill the distance between the two rollers
(or roller and plate) is, for the most part, within a few hundreth's of an
inch.  In the Corona, two factors are fighting with each other.  To prevent
overcrushing, the mill must be set so that the narrowest gap is not too
small.  Simultaneously, you need the widest gap to be narrow enough to
not allow uncrushed malt to pass.  In my experience, one or the other
factor must be sacrificed.  Furthermore, the crushing is an angle and
causes a twist in each kernel as opposed to a linear crushing path in the
roller mills.  This only contributes to the splintering of the husks.

So what... so some of the husks are splintered?  It's a pretty big factor
in tannin and silicate extraction, that's what.  The more the husks are
splintered (even if they are retained by a screen, incidentally) the more
exposed surface area from which to extract undesirable compounds from
the malt.

Go back and read what Charlie Scandrett wrote on this subject (search for
silicates).  Apparently you missed it when it was in HBD.  Meanwhile, use
the Corona for what it was made: making tortillas.

***
Brian writes:
>The effect you notice is probably due to temperature differences from
>the initital measurement and the settled measurement as the hydrometer,
>hydrometer jar and beer/wort all reach temperature equilibrium with the
>room.

Brian... I assure you I am perfectly capable of taking SG measurements
and compensating for temperature.  The SG of the trub-laden wort was
taken at 70F and then again a few hours later at 68F.  There WAS a
significant SG difference *after* compensating for the negligible temp
difference.  Put away your books and try a real-life test: not with
table sugar, but real wort and real trub.

To the person (sorry, lost the name) who contends that the OG offset
from suspended trub is unimportant: yes, if you don't care what your
real OG was.  If you want to duplacate this recipe, calculate your
extract efficiency, determine approximate alcohol in the finished beer,
look for an expected apparent attenuation, or calculate your actual
apparent attenuation, you need an accurate OG *not* including the
suspended trub.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 13:32:13 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com>
Subject: Dry hopping

George writes:
     Al K. writes that he dry hops in the primary.  I want to ask two 
     things about this:  
     
     1.  Do you worry about infection?  As has been recently pointed out, 
     there are various wort loving microflora on the hops.  They don't 
     survive well in beer, but in unfermented wort, they could be quite 
     happy.

You are assuming I am adding them to the primary at the beginning of
the fermentation.  I am not.  I wait for the fermentation to be almost
over and then I dryhop.  The Davis experiments (which I don't believe
are recent, incidentally) indicate that even dryhops added early in
the ferment are not as big a problem with infection as some might lead
us to believe.
     
     2.  Do you find that the aroma survives the fermentation?  The massive 
     CO2 formation during the primary would scrub out most other volatiles. 
     I guess that you are happy with the results you're getting, but I 
     wonder if you could get the same effect with less dry hops if you put 
     them in the secondary.

Again, the hops are not there duing the main part of the fermentation.
I will repeat what I have been saying about secondaries for quite some
time: I don't feel they are necessary for ales.  I only use them for
lagers and fruit beers.  I will ferment a normal-gravity (say, <1.060)
ale for two weeks in the primary and then either add dryhops for a week
or bottle/keg.  Sometimes, I let them go six or eight or 16 weeks (oops),
but with healthy yeast and good aeration/oxygenation, I don't experience
any problems with autolysis.


Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:31:58 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com>
Subject: Small beer

Mark writes:
>recently the no sparge discussion has raised a question in my mind.  the idea
>that there exists something in the spargings that "counteracts" the maltiness
>in the recirculated first wort makes me wonder about small beers made from
>second runnings.  since they don't have the benefit of having the superior
>"maltiness" of the first recirculated wort, and all the bad things that 
>"counteract" malty flavors, these beers must be very devoid of malt flavor.

Well, I made three beers from one mash once.  The first two were from
first and third runnings and the third was from second runnings.  Got
that?  I made an American Brown Ale and English Brown Ale from the first
and third runnings of a mash (two boils, different hops, different IBUs,
different yeast, ABA was dryhopped).  The second runnings made a Dark Mild.

I entered them all in the 1995 AHA Nationals.  None of these three
beers made it to the second round.  However, when the 1996 AHA Nationals
came around, I found that I still had six bottles of the Dark Mild
left.  Just for laughs, I entered it and it made it to the second round!

Now, mind you, it was a third place in the 1st round, but after *18 months
in the bottle*, this *1.035* Mild (which won 1st in the 1995 Small and Tiny
competition too, incidentally) it was still good enough to make it to the
second round of the Nationals.  I would say that it was not an inferior beer,
"devoid of malt flavour," despite the low OG.  Just a datapoint.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 16:01:05 -0600
From: Algis R Korzonas <korzonas at lucent.com>
Subject: HBD still broken/Questions...

Guess what... the HBD is still broken... it is still losing posts.
I posted the following last Wednesday and never saw it.  I checked
the archives and it wasn't in any of them.  I'm posting it again,
but I'm also Cc'ing root at aob.org so they would be aware of this
since I don't think they read the HBD.

I've been reading Wheeler's "Home Brewing - A CAMRA Guide" and I've
run across a few questionable statements.  I'd like to bounce these
statements off the chemists and biologists among the membership and
get your comments.

Here they are:

	"Most brewers' yeasts also require some hop products to be
	present in the wort for normal behaviour to occur."

This is new to me.  I have made literally hundreds of starters, have
never hopped them and they appear to behave just as the yeast does
in the hopped wort.  Has anyone read this elsewhere?  Could you post 
references?

	"When transferring beer into barrels or bottles it is important
	that precautions are taken to ensure that a minimum of air gets
	into solution [oxygen actually, nitrogen is all but insoluble]...
	... if the yeast finds a plentiful supply of air [sic] it will
	revert to aerobic respiration [sic] and begin to multiply
	significantly.  Not only will this produce an excessive quantity
	of yeast in the beer, but when the air is used up the yeast will
	try to adapt to anaerobic respiration [sic] again, but it may find
	a lack of nutrients on which to work and become stuck in a
	transitionary phase.  Under these conditions the yeast will remain
	in suspension and could take a long time to clear down properly."

I agree that introduction of oxygen after fermentation can be problematic,
but this is the first I've read of this alleged phenomenon.  Firstly,
"aerobic respiration" is a bit redundant and "anaerobic respiration"
is an oxymoron, no?  Initially, I had thought that the Crabtree
effect would prevent respiration, but then recall that this is at the *end*
of fermentation and indeed, the level of sugar in the beer will be low
enough to where the Crabtree effect would not be active.  But what
about this lack of nutrients causing the yeast to be "stuck in a
transitionary phase."  What's this?  Ever heard of it?  Tracy?  Dan?

	"The presence of calcium sulphate reduces the solubility of
	undesirable carbonates."

Is this right?  I thought the solubility of carbonates was a function of
pH and that was it.  It is true that you can only precipitate calcium
carbonate if you have enough calcium available, but you need to still
boil-off the CO2 to lower the pH and it's this pH drop, not the gypsum,
that causes the calcium carbonate to come out of solution.  Comments?  

	"The addition of acids to the water, such as citric acid or lactic
	acid, will also cause the precipitation of carbonates."

Whoa!  I was under the impression that it was the acidity of CO2-saturated
rainwater that actually caused the dissolution of chalk and the introduction
of carbonates/bicarbonates into ground water.  Isn't it exactly the opposite
of what Wheeler writes?  Doesn't the addition of acid *increase* CO3
solubility?

	"Calcium sulphate is difficult to get into solution in the boiler,
	whereas the problem doesn't exist if it is mixed into the mash."

I thought it really didn't matter... I thought that as long as you are
not close to the solubility limit of the calcium sulphate, it will
readily go into solution, no?

	"Calcium sulphate is alkaline and actually incrases the pH of the
	water to which it is added, but... reduces the pH of the resulting
	mash..."

Yes, I agree that it is the reaction of the calcium with the phosphates in
the mash that lowers the pH, but is calcium sulphate actually alkaline
itself?  I thought it was virtually neutral, no?

	"Dextrins are mostly non-fermentable, but also contain some very
	slowly fermentable sugars." and "Yeast continues to attack dextrins
	for many months, even years, and are therefore regarded as slowly
	fermenting sugars."

Is this right?  I was under the impression that "dextrins" were unfermentable
by our cultured brewers' yeasts.  S. diastaticus, perhaps, but this is not
a desirable yeast in the average brewery.  Could this just be a question of
nomenclature?  Could Wheeler have meant "oligosaccarides" when he wrote
"dextrins?"

	"High mash temperatures favour the extraction of high molecular
	weight nitrogenous compounds..."

Are polyphenols nitrogenous?  It sounds like proteins to me... I don't think
that's right.  I believe that either the proteins will be soluble or it won't
and that increasing the mash temperature will only increase polyphenol and
silicate (and, of course, unconverted starch) extraction, no?

Well, that's about as far as I've gotten in my reading, but there are
quite a few statements that either don't sound quite right or are
opposite of what I've read elsewhere.  If the chemists and biologists
and perhaps hydrocarbon taxnomists could clarify, I would be most
grateful.


Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korzonas at lucent.com
korz at pubs.ih.lucent.com
korz at xnet.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 15:22:29 -0800
From: Kelly Jones <kejones at ptdcs2.intel.com>
Subject: Thermal pot expansion

Jim Bentson wrote:
> With regard to the pot expansion question both responses have errors in
> them. John Palmer approximated the cylindrical pot as a cube and assumed
> expansion in all directions.
>  In addition he used the actual pot temperature of 150 deg F rather than the
> change in temperature (150 - room temp). Kelly also calculated the expansion
> incorrectly. 
> 
>  When a pot is heated it is free to expand only in the vertical direction.
> The material
> in the circumferential direction is not free and does not expand any
> appreciable amount.

Surely we are discussing angels and pinheads here, as we have all agreed
that the effect of the expansion is negligible.  However, I'm not sure
what you mean when you say the material is 'not free'.  We have not
clamped the pot in a vise, as you did in your example.  The material
will most certainly expand in every direction.  (Have you ever seen the
classic experiment where a steel ball in a steel ring is heated, and the
ball drips through the ring?  The ring, being of lesser mass, heats and
expands faster, opening up enough to allow the ball to drop.)  A
container (or solid) of any shape or size will expand in all directions
as the material is heated and expands.

Happy Holidays to you all,

Kelly
Hillsboro, OR

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 17:15:19 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle R Roberson <roberson at beta.tricity.wsu.edu>
Subject: ASBC for air in bottle

Can someone send me information on how "air" is measured
in bottled beer? Also, I'm interested in the "official"
conversion from "ml per bottle" or ml/l to mg/l or ppm.
Is it ppm of "air" or O2? I can't tell until I know what
the standard is. Private email is probably best.

Kyle
Cirque Brewery
Prosser, WA

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 18:05:38 -0800
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>
Subject: trub removal

In an effort to unnecessarily complicate my brewing process (I've heard
people call this "fine tuning"!), I decided to rack my wort off the cold
break that settled out in the primary fermenter.  I referenced Dave
Miller's Continental Pilsener (Classic Beer Style Series #2) where he
recommends "Rack the wort off the cold trub, either before or 8-12 hours
after pitching."

I racked 9 hours after pitching slurry from a 1 gallon starter.  A nice 2"
layer of trub formed at the bottom of the primary.  Fermentation was just
beginning to start.  Perfect, I thought...the yeast is in full suspension
and the trub is still settled on the bottom!.  After I racked the wort it
just sat there for an additional 16 hours before anything resembling
fermentation began again.  That's 24 hours from pitching to the first signs
of fermentation - that's a long time even for a lager!

I have surmised, from my limited observation of how yeast behaves in
starters, that I racked the beer off the trub as well as most of the yeast!
I could have waited to pitch the yeast until after I racked off the cold
break, but I thought the yeast could do its infection fighting business
while the break was settling out - the best of both worlds!

Flawed logic?



Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>

Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery
Grangeville, Idaho

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 21:34:31 +0000
From: Mike Kidulich <mjkid at ix13.ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Beginner Mead, Lambic comment

>I began with ten pounds of honey from a local Apiary and added the
>obligatory yeast energizer, acids, salts, and champagne yeast, along
>with some cloves, allspice, and ground mace.  The mixture was allowed to
>rest for 13 days, then transferred to a second carbuoy and allowed to
>rest for ten more.  (If anyone has a comment at this point, please do
>not hesitate to add).

10 pounds of honey for 5 gallons of mead is a bit on the light side. 
You may find it excessively dry, due to the champagne yeasts appetite 
for sugar and high alcohol tolerance. Take a hydrometer reading, you 
should have somwhere in the 0.998 to 0.995 range, if its really 
finished. If it seems too dry, add some honey to it (about 1 lb 
dissolved in a bit of water and cooled). Allow it to ferment out, and 
keep this up until it it tastes likr you want it to. If you want a 
sweet mead, you need a very high OG (in the 1.130 range). Also, wine 
yeast would be a better choice for a sweeter mead. 

If it has stopped bubbling, and has fallen clear, its ready to 
bottle. When the mead falls clear, you will know. It will look like 
wine, crystal clear. Only then should you bottle, lest you have 
grenades.


>>From: "Alexander S. MacGillivray RN" <alex at wooddimensions.com>
>>Subject: Lambic yeash blend

>>I'm going to be brewing by first batch of lambic and I picked
>>up some Wyeast 3278 Belgian lambic blend. My question is, should I use
>>the Wyeast in the primary fermentation or should I be using it in the
>>secondary using some dry yeast in the primary.
*****
>From: Jim Liddil <jliddilk at azcc.arizona.edu>
>I wouldn't use it at all.

Jim,

While I admire your efficient use of bandwidth, your reply seems 
somehow lacking in relevant information. If you have useful 
information, (which I know you do), please feel free to contribute. 
Replies like the above are a waste of our time.



Mike Kidulich
mjkid at ix.netcom.com  mjk at rfc.comm.harris.com
DNRC Minister of Home Brewing, Relaxation, and Really Cool Toys
Holder of Previous Knowledge O-

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:12:13 -0500
From: BernardCh at aol.com
Subject: Re: Perforated Stainless Steel Plate Sources

Steve McKeeby asks about a soure of perforated SS plate for his 3 tier
brewing system.

>Can anyone offer  any
>suggestions as to sources for stainless perf. plate? Are
>there any  suggestions pertaining to options that I have
>for false bottoms?


Steve, find a local sheetmetal contractor in your area. You know the guys
that do HVAC and stuff for industry.  Most of those shops also do restaurant
work (sinks, hoods etc.).  Some even specialize in SS.  You might be able to
find a shop that has a remnant around that you can get for cheap.  Otherwise
the shop might charge you for a whole sheet which I think is 4'x6".  That
could get pretty pricey.

This is what I did when trying to find a false bottom for my boil kettle to
strain leaf hops.  Got a piece of 18" diameter 8 gauge with 1/4" holes on
5/16" centers.  Since my company does $200M a year with this firm, It only
cost me a sixer of my pilsner.

Good luck & Seasons Greetings

Chuck
BernardCh at aol.com
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN - Music City USA

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 00:24:11 -0500
From: Gotzleg at aol.com
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #8

Remove

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 23:46:50 -0700
From: "Michael J. Westcott" <mikew at sedona.net>
Subject: Re: weight/volume %

Weight/volume percentage is a fairly common way of expressing the
percentage concentration of a 
solution.  The usefulness lies in the fact that it is simply easier to
measure the volume of large amounts
of liquids than it is to determine their masses.  To determine the
weight/volume %, 
use the equation:

		wt-vol% = wt. solute(g)/vol solution  x  100

Hence, 1.0 g NaCl in enough water to make 50.0 ml of solution would be a
2.0% NaCl by wt-vol
solution.  

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 09:00:51 -0500
From: Steven Lichtenberg <slichten at mnsinc.com>
Subject: Mills revisited

 Date: Sat, 21 Dec 1996 16:08:51 -0800
From: "Olin J. Schultz" <beerx3 at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: mills
> >>Al K says:
>  I personally, have used the Corona, PhilMill
> and both the adjustable and non-adjustable MaltMills and feel that the
> rollermills are far, far superior to the Corona.  I prefer the =
adjustable
> MaltMill over the PhilMill primarily because of throughput, less
> cranking,
> and much less airborne dust.
> >>
>=20
> I am not sure how the available roller mills are far, far superior to =
the
> Corona.  I have conducted screen tests on all of the mills; PhilMil,
> MaltMills,Corona; and the Corona when properly adjusted provided the =
best
> crush.  I have heard complains of the husk being broken up with the
> Corona and this is true if the mill is not set up properly.  When the
> mill is set up properly the  husks for the most part are whole and
> provide a good filter bed in the lauter tun.

As with anything if you have the spare time to sit there and mess with
it, yes you can get a good mill.  It is a pain in the ass though and
you  have to readjust alot.  I got rid of mine and moved to a
phillmill.  If this comparison takes price into comparison, then you
have to make do with what you can afford.
=09

My main complaint with the Corona(which I still use but am thinking of =
buying a Valley Mill) is that it is too slow.  I will not give myself =
the pleasure again of hand cranking 25 # of malt through a Corona.  Took =
half forever and when I was done I really didn't want to brew any more.  =
Even with a drill attached to the mill, which is the only practical way =
to use it, it takes 1+ hours to crush enough grain for a 10 gallon =
batch.  With a motorized roller mill (I would consider a Maltmill but I =
disagree so strongly with Mr. Schmidlings politics that there is no way =
I would give him any of my money) you can crush all your grain in a =
matter of minutes. I have used both the Mailtmill and the Valley mill =
borrowed from friends and have been greatly impresed with the speed in =
which you can get your grains ready for mashing.  All things being =
equal, Ithis is the route I would go as like most, money is easier to =
find than time (and I haven't got a lot of either).

I am now at a point where I can juggle a little and come up with the =
money for a roller mill and a motor.  It is now just a matter of =
convincing the other half that this would be a good thing to buy.  Be =
patient grasshopper, these things will come.

- --S
  ^
Steven Lichtenberg
Programmer at Large
Lichtenberg Consulting
Gaithersburg, MD
slichten at mnsinc.com
POWERED BY PROGRESS

Enjoy life, this is not a rehearsal!!

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 08:25 -0700 (MST)
From: Steve Seagraves <Steve.Seagraves at MCI.Com>
Subject: Re:HB Newbie Seeks Help

>Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 22:56:03 -0500
>From: Aeoleus <osiris at net-link.net>
>Subject: HB Newbie Seeks Help

>It's getting down the wire here and it's almost time for bottling.  My
>question is about specific gravity.  I don't envision the final reading
>to be equivilent to exactly 1.08 or whatever the recommendation is.  I
>heard that you can take a reading three days in a row, and if you come
>up with the same reading, it's okay to sugar and bottle.  Is this
>entirely accurate?  I don't want any of those damned grenades. :)

I would be careful about bottling a mead with only 23 days in a
fermenter. My mead recipe took about 6 months to be ready for
bottling. Even that was probably to early since my bottles are now
carbonated (unintentionally). The fermentation would stop for a few
weeks and then would start back up again.  If you have s.g. readings
in the 1.08 range, you may be ok, my final readings were higher.

Steve

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

Return to table of contents


Date: 24 Dec 96 10:56:21 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Expansive Pots again, a Cornie mystery

Brewsters:

Jim Bentsen says:
 
>  When a pot is heated it is free to expand only in the vertical direction.
> The material
> in the circumferential direction is not free and does not expand any
> appreciable amount.
> To see this, consider a bar wedged between two immovable ends. What happens


Sorry, Jim,  but you better go back to engineering school or at least do some
basic physics.  The pot expands like a photograph being blown up.  There are no
constaints. The pot is make from an isotropic material.  It gets wider and
higher along all dimensions according to the expansion coefficients' value.
- -------------------------------------------------------
I have come across a real puzzling thing and need some help from you kegging
gurus.

Concerned that my method of handling my Cornies and CO2 could inject oxygen into
my brews at the worst time possible, I pondered a way to solve it and was
successful, but in the course of this I discovered a real mystery.

Since I routinely have several kegs at the ready in my fridges because I don't
like drinking one type of beer on a day to day basis and certainly don't want to
have to fininsh one keg before I move onto something else  ( Oh, yes, that was
during the Classic American Pilsner or the Imperial Stout era......)  , I
connect the CO2 line to the keg as I am delivering from it.  As a result, the
hose lays disconnected from the cornie most of the time. Even though the one end
of the hose is connected to the regulator and the other is closed off by a
spring valve in the disconnect,  I became concerned that air would leak into
this hose and, upon injecting the CO2, I would also inject oxygen and spoil the
beer.  SO, I devised a method for flushing this hose.  I put the "carbonator"
from Liquid Bread into the disconnect to push open the spring valve and allow
some CO2 to pass down the hose, flushing it out.  Well, to my surprise when I
pressed the carbonator onto the fitting before the CO2 was turned on in the
hose, I got a substantial vacuum!  I have repeated it a number times and each
time as I press this fitting on, my palm gets sucked in tight and has to be
forcefully pulled off.

Well, am I mystified.  What happened to the CO2 which was in the hose at 15psig
when I last used it?  Is the hose behaving like a semi-permeable membrane for
CO2? CO2 is diffusing out into the air through the tubing wall but air is not
coming back in?  I look forward to your suggestions on what is going on here.
- ------------------------------------------------------------------

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK

Return to table of contents


Date: 24 Dec 96 10:51:13 EDT
From: Bob Bessette/PicTel <Bob_Bessette at smtpnotes.pictel.com>
Subject: Latest Update from Formerly Depressed Brewer

Fellow HBDers,
 I just wanted to update you on what I have done to try to eliminate a nasty 
infection which has been affecting my beers of late. I recently posted my saga 
to the HBD and received many responses as to how to correct my infection 
problem. Well, I did brew this past weekend as a result of your many responses. 
I actually got pumped with all of the responses and had to make a stab at 
producing an un-infected brew. Some steps that I did take are the following:

1) I purchased new siphoning tubes and a new racking cane.

2) I also purchased a new spigot for my bottling bucket that I will use when I 
bottle within a couple of weeks.

3) I bought some BTF (iodophor) and bought a plastic container from Walmart. I 
added about 5 gallons of water to the plastic container with a tablespoon of 
iodophor for rinsing, etc.

4) When I made my starter this time I let my inflated Wyeast pack sit on top of 
the iodophor solution and after B-Brighting my 22 ounce bottle that I use for 
the starter I gave it an iodophor solution rinse and let it dry as much as I 
could. I also iodophored my scissors I used for cutting the Wyeast packet. I 
also put Vodka  (I usually use tap well water) in my airlock on the starter 
bottle. So I feel pretty confident that I did not introduce any bacteria (from 
the well water) into my starter. This is a process change that I will continue 
to use in future brews.

5) The night before I brewed I made sure that I boiled up enough well water so 
that I would have plenty for starting my siphon from the kettle to the primary 
glass carboy. 

6) The night before I also examined all of my equipment I would be using the 
following day. I decided to B-Bright my wort chiller and I removed a spigot 
that is on my Gordon's Bru Bucket (Bru-Heat clone) and let that sit overnight 
in B-Bright solution. I noticed that this spigot (I boil in the Bru Bucket) had 
a lot of crud in there and even though there is a boil for an hour I also place 
my wort chiller in the Bru Bucket and was concerned that this crud could 
introduce an infection after the wort has been cooled.  

 7) On brew day (I usually get up at 3:30 AM since I have children who get into 
everything) I got up and the first thing I did was place the plastic container 
with iodophor solution on my kitchen table so that it would be ready for 
rinsing various hoses, tubes, hands prior to coming in contact with the cooled 
wort. While the mash was taking place I made sure that I gave my glass primary 
carboy an iodophor rinse so that it would be sanitized by the time I was ready 
to siphon from the boiling bucket. I had actually gone into my HomeBrew store a 
couple of days earlier and ran into a brewer who works at Nutfield's Brewing 
Company in Derry NH (makers of Old Man Ale and Auburn Ale, etc) and he 
suggested filling a spray bottle with sanitizing solution so that you could 
spray various equipment prior to coming in contact with the cooled wort. I did 
this and used it on occasion when it was not possible to submerse something in 
the iodophor solution. 

8) Just for the heck of it I sanitized my wort chiller with iodophor prior to 
putting it into the last 5 minutes of the boil. I realize that just putting it 
into the boil would sanitize it but hey I was paranoid here of any possible 
infection. 

9) What I typically do to decrease wort chilling time is use a plastic spoon 
and gently stir the cooling wort with the chiller in it. I also typically rinse 
with untreated (unboiled) tap well water in between each stirring. (I tend to 
think this could be an area where I was introducing bacteria into the cooled 
wort). This time I just dropped the plastic spoon into the iodophor solution 
between each stirring and just waved it a little to remove the iodophor prior 
to submersing it into the chilling wort.

10) Prior to siphoning I had previously submerged my brand new hoses and 
racking cane into the iodophor solution and at this point they were drying. At 
siphon time (spihoning from Bru-Heat to the primary glass fermenter) I took the 
end without the racking cane and submerged it into the previously boiled well 
water which was sitting in a small pitcher which had also been sanitized. I 
allowed the tube to fill up with water and I then started my siphon. I also 
have a clamp that I use to stop the flow to make sure that the boiled well 
water is moved off to a container other than the primary until the beer is 
flowing and then I move the tube into the glass carboy. I realize that I could 
just let the boiled well water go into the primary but why bother. I just want 
beer in there and beer that I know was boiled for at least an hour.

11) Come pitching time I also filled the airlock with Vodka and not unboiled 
well water. I had also purchased a stopper without a hole so that I could place 
this in the carboy and aerate the hell out of it after I pitched. This stopper 
had been sanitized as well. This is the first time I was able to aerate 
vigorously because I never had a stopper without a hole in it. I think it's 
worth it to buy one of these. I am interested as to whether this will help my 
beer. I aerated for approximately 5 minutes after pitching, then placed the 
sanitized airlock with the Vodka and moved my carboy to it's fermenting corner. 

The beer showed visible signs of fermentation within about 8-9 hours and is 
vigorously churning as I write this. I plan on maybe stepping up my starter at 
least one extra time for my next batch to see if I can get a quicker ferment. I 
think it was George de Pyro (sorry if I botched your name) who suggested that 
pitching large volumes of yeast is a way to greatly improve all-grain beers. I 
will try this with the same grain bill on my next batch to see if I notice any 
if I notice any significant improvement (assuming that I don't have an infected 
batch).

 I feel fairly confident that I have not introduced any possible bacteria into 
my beer at this point. I will rack to secondary this weekend and plan on dry 
hopping with an ounce of Cascade hop pellets by simply throwing them into the 
secondary. I am a little concerned about this since I had been told previously 
that this could introduce infection into the beer. It was suggested to make a 
hop tea. Well I have tried this and the hop aroma is nowhere near as evident 
with the hop tea method. I may just dry hop. I have done this in the past and 
thought that this step could've been introducing bacteria but I even had 
infections when I made the hop tea. So I do not think that the dry hop stage 
was causing my problems.

 Sorry if I was a little verbose here but I thought it was appropriate to 
describe step-by-step what I had done in an effort to eliminate any chance of 
infection. If there are any other brewers out there who are becoming a little 
too relaxed about your sanitation steps it will only take a batch or two that 
is infected to make you realize that taking these steps is well worth it.

 BTW, since I think that unboiled well water being introduced to my cooled wort 
may have been the cause of the infections I am going to perform a little 
experiment at bottling time. I plan on adding a drop or two of tap well water 
to one bottle and see if the infection does occur in that bottle. Hopefully the 
other bottles will not be infected this time and I will be able to determine 
that it was my tap well water that was introducing the infections. I will keep 
you posted on this experiment. Thanks again for all of the responses people 
have made to my infection problem. I'm hoping that my revised brewing process 
will eliminate this very frustrating occurrence from happening again in the 
future. I would appreciate any comments/suggestions on the sanitation steps 
taken above by private email and will post anything that may be of interest to 
the group.

Cheers,
Bob Bessette
(bbessett at pictel.com)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:03:01 -0500
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: Partial mash eff.

Hi all!  SEASONS GREETING! 8^)>

I have been following the no-sparge thread for a while and would like to
calculate the mash efficiency of my last brew (a partial mash).
I started out with 5 lbs. of american 2-row and a pound of 60L Crystal 
and mashed in with 2 gallons of water. The mash was done on the stove
in a 5 gallon pot using a very fine mesh grain bag. I used the burner to
occasionally boost the temperature and maintain it in the range of 155^F
to 160^F for 65 minutes. I raised to 180^F for mash out by adding 1 gallon
of 200^F water and drained completely to the boiling tun.  I had just over
2 gallons of wort in the pot to which I added 3 lbs of DME.  The final 
numbers were an OG. of 1.044 and a volume of 5.5 gallons.  Here are my
calculations:

Original Gravity:                           1.044
wort volume (in primary):                   5.5 gallons
potential points per lbs. of pale male:     32 ???
DME contribution (points/pound/gallon):     40                      
total points in brew:           44 X 5.5  = 242	
DME Contribution:               3# X 40   = 120
total from mash:                242 - 120 = 122
points per pound of grain:          122/6 = 20.33
effective yield of no-sparge partial mash = 63.5%

I would like your feedback on any of the values that I have used.  
                 
May your holidays be filled with cheer, and a Happy Brew-Year to one and all!


Chris Cooper , Commerce Michigan    --> Pine Haven Brewery <--
Chris_Cooper at hp.com                 --> aka. Deb's Kitchen <--
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 24 Dec 1996 11:39:28 -0500
From: "Reed" <rreed at netusa1.net>
Subject: Mead / Malt Mills

From: Aeoleus <osiris at net-link.net> writes:

> My
> first attempt at a homebrew is currently sitting in a glass carbuoy, 23
> days out of conception.  It appears to be, at this point, free from
> infection, and the bubbling has slowed to a snail's pace.
<SNIP> 
> I began with ten pounds of honey from a local Apiary and added the
> obligatory yeast energizer, acids, salts, and champagne yeast, along
> with some cloves, allspice, and ground mace.  
<SNIP>
> I
> heard that you can take a reading three days in a row, and if you come
> up with the same reading, it's okay to sugar and bottle.

What you have got on your hands is actually mead.  While I believe, one can

infer readiness to bottle *homebrew* from three successive daily
measurements,
mead is a different animal.  Mead, in my experience, is far less
predictable.  If the
mead has fermented dry (as ascertained by taste or residual sugar test),
then it is
probably safe to bottle.  I'd suggest taking gravity measurements over the
next
three or six weeks to determine if fermentation is complete.

Fermentation rate for *mead* depends on the amount and type of yeast
pitched, 
temperature, nutrients, i.e., did you use any fruit or did you add yeast
nutrients, and the pH of the must (mead).

I'll close with Patience is a Virtue...

_____


From: "Olin J. Schultz" <beerx3 at ix.netcom.com> writes:

> As with anything if you have the spare time to sit there and mess with
> it, yes you can get a good mill.  It is a pain in the ass though and
> you  have to readjust alot.  I got rid of mine and moved to a
> phillmill.  If this comparison takes price into comparison, then you
> have to make do with what you can afford.

I totally agree.  I have played with most of the mills out there, and
the Maltmill is a joy.  I only regret that I only get to use it for
2-4 minutes (roller rate=173 RPM) each brewing session.

>I would like to mention however that the customer
> service and general friendliness provided by Jack Schmidling Inc. is
> deplorable.

I have to disagree here:  I purchased one of the earlier Maltmills
from the Malt Shop (we miss you Don) and contacted Jack
Schmidling when I needed some bushings.  I received them in the mail
several days later.  Next I wanted to upgrade my rollers from the older
longitudinal groove pattern to the new diamond-knurled roller pattern.  I 
sent the old rollers to JSP with a check for the modest price of upgrading 
and within a week I was in Diamond-Knurled Land (tm).  He also sent me
upgrades for the side trim pieces.  My son will inherit my mill and
his son will probably also use it (although by then, he will probably
replace
the electric motor with a small home-use nuclear reactor - won't have to
worry about Lactobacillus on the grain anymore 8 )

Have a great Christmas,

Rob Reed

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2295