---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Temp. Control ("Little, Wayne")
  Skunkiness (Jim Cave)
  Re: Stout and W1084 (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
  Beginner bashing/head loss/bitter taste/chill haze (korz)
  Fass Fritch (Ian Smith)
  Large Volume Bottling (Nathan Moore)
  Rye malt/MgSO4 (again?)/skunky beer (korz)
  FWH/SS vs Enamel/Cold Secondary/Vollrath/'Skunks' (Rob Moline)
  Barleywines (Rob Moline)
  re: Aeration with a "Y" (Jean-Sebastien Morisset)
  re: Yeast doing summersaults (Jean-Sebastien Morisset)
  Gambrinus Honey Malt ("Tom Galley")
  SF beer/O2->dead yeast/Maris Otter sparge/immersion chilling (Alex Santic)
  Where to go in San-Fran. (Doug Mewhort)
  Freshman Digest, Recipes and A Question ("Val J. Lipscomb")
  Melanoidin Formation,AcCoA, MgSO4 (A. J. deLange)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  brew.oeonline.com 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu 
  that says: UNSUB BEER-L

Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
  Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
	http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/hallofame.html

If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.stanford.edu.  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
  e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
  /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.  AFS users can find it under
  /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.  If you do not have
  ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
  service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about this service,
  send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
  "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.


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


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 09:49:00 -0500
From: "Little, Wayne" <LittleW at od31.nidr.nih.gov>
Subject: Temp. Control

I want to go all grain, and have read just enough to pose a basic question 
on the type of equipment best suited  for what I have in mind.  Has anyone 
used the Bruheat(r) system to do a step infusion mash?  Does this pulsed 
heat element raise temperatures rapidly enough without scorching?  Or, 
would using a SS kettle/false bottom on an electric stove or over a propane 
burner be a better approach?  Right now, I boil with a propane cooker, but 
am concerned about temperature control for mashing.  Also, I am skeptical 
about adding X gals. of boiling water to achieve Y temp.  I want to keep 
things as simple and non-labor intensive as possible.  Not interested in 
insulated coolers or RIMS gadgetry either.  Any thoughts from those who 
have "been there - done that" would be greatly appreciated. Private e-mail 
is fine.  Thanks!


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 9:56:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Jim Cave <CAVE at PSC.ORG>
Subject: Skunkiness

	Dave Burley indicates he is "Mystified" how skunkiness can develop
in beer.  I'm no chemist, and certainly not a photochemist, but you just
have to walk around the garden on a sunny summer afternoon with your
favourite homebrewed pilsner or pale ale in your favourite (clear) glass and
within minutes you'll think you're drinking Heineken.  This just doesn't
happen on a heavily overcast day.

	As for the controversy over the additive contribution of Magnesium 
Sulphate to bitterness of a beer, it would seem to me to be a relatively simple
experiment to add small small concentrations of the stuff to a beer, preferably
a bitter at traditional carbonation, to see how the flavour changes, relative
to the initial bitterness profile of the beer.  This should be done blind,
with tasters unaware of the working hypothesis of the experiment.

				Jim Cave 

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:20:00 -0400
From: bourdouj at ERE.UMontreal.CA (Jacques Bourdouxhe)
Subject: Re: Stout and W1084

Hi Braumeisters
>From: Paul Ward <paulw at doc.state.vt.us>
>Subject: Stout
> This is the most expensive batch I will have brewed to date so I'm a
> little concerned that it also be the best batch I have brewed.  Any
> special 'quirks' I should be aware of with this yeast?

Paul,
This answer will confirm what Eric Fouch said about Wyeast 1084 Irish ale.
It is really a strong and fast fermenter. The average time to complete the
primary fermentation ( from S.G. 1050 to S.G. 1012 ) using a 1 quart yeast
starter is 4 to 5 days at 15 degrees C ( 60 F ). I ferment in a 7 gallons
carboy  for a 5 gallons batch and use a blow-off tube only with the 1084
strain.
It is a good strain for stout and can be used for brewing a neutral Pale
Ale too.
Welcome to the " Elite Club " ( I say that wearing my asbestos suit ) of
the liquid yeast users.


>As far as the lack of black patent- that may be the reason you did not like
>Guinness- they use black patent.  My personal preferance is to use twice the
>amount of roasted or chocolate barley instead of black patent.  That will give
>you comparable bitterness and color without the charcoal bite.
>
>Eric Fouch
Eric, I thought Guiness uses exclusively roasted barley because it was less
taxed than dark malts ( black patent and chocolate ). Could you please tell
me where you saw the Guiness recipe that uses black patent malt?

Long life to the new HBD and its administrator.

Jacques "Momily Buster" Bourdouxhe
in Montreal

*************************************************
* Oh beer! O Hodgson, Guiness, Allsop, Bass!    *
* Names that should be on every infant's tongue *
* ( Charles Stuart Calverley )                  *
*************************************************





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:38:14 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Beginner bashing/head loss/bitter taste/chill haze

Scott writes:
>     I say this whole Big Headed Ego brewer sh*t is really starting to get 
>     on my nerves. None of us, and I mean NONE OF US! (are you listening 
>     Al, Dave, John) are above learning from any member of this forum. 
>     
>     I have been brewing for a long time. Probably longer than many of you 
>     out there but I  am still learning about homebrewing methods and 
>     equipment everyday. you know what? Sometimes I even learn from extract 
>     brewers, or god forbid  first timers. 
>     
>     Get off your damn high horses and stop turning into big headed asses!

For the record, it was Wayne that put me on that horse... I don't like
heights.  He interpreted my post as if I was putting down beginners.
I was not.  Read it again.

>     What are a bunch of Newbies doing here Al? They are trying to ask 
>     questions and learn how to brew as well as you do (and you do brew 
>     very well). Without all of the long time brewers helping the newbies 
>     the hobby will become a bunch of secretive bad tempered "Good Old 
>     Boys". The whole point of this digest is for people to learn more 
>     about every aspect of the hobby and despite the fact that I think I 

Excuse me, but my point was (if you hadn't noticed) that the HBD should
NOT be split.  Also, if you search the archives, you will find that I
have probably posted more answers to beginners' questions than all other
subscribers combined.  I am not stingy with what I've learned.  In addition
to the questions I've answered in HBD, I also answer a lot of beginner
questions via direct email (usually when something has been covered in
HBD recently or when I have already posted a lot that day).

>     Have you ever stopped to think of that..? Have any one of you ever 
>     taken the time to look at any one of your rambling nasty ass put down 
>     posts to some poor brewer that just asked a simple brewing question or 
>     made a brewing mistake that was to you all so obvious? Have you ever 

I'll pay Scott $10 for every post of mine that he can find in which I put
down a beginner.  I only put down the self-proclaimed experts who think
*they* know everything.  Oh... there was that one series of posts in which
I put down a beginner named Leigh P. Beadle (around HBD #1170-1180), but
he has written two books on homebrewing ;^).  I guess the only beginners
I bash are the ones who have written books...

>     Without new brewers, without seasoned brewers, without extract, 
>     partial, all-grain and innovative brewers there can be no turnover of 
>     knowledge and the learning process stops. Look at the AHA, that is 
>     what they have become. Do you want to become that too? I hear they are 
>     hiring.

Been there, done that, worked for the AHA as a Technical Editor for Zymurgy.
Burned-out; underpaid; they still printed errors I had corrected -- I decided
it would be better for my health to resign, so I did.

Those of you who seem to think that I'm some "hater of beginners" should
read some of my posts.  I believe that deserve that title less than anyone
else.  Say... when's the last time you took the time to explain chill haze
to someone?  For me, it was about 30 seconds ago (see below).

***
Gavin writes:
>I have a quite dark weizen (used too dark a 'dark malt'), which is almost
>porter-like. At 2 weeks it had a great head, at 3 the head was ok and at 4
>well there's no head. However there is a lot of corbonation, too much in
>fact. I suspect this was a stuck fermentation tho it finished about 1.013.
>It's almost coke-like in it's large bubbles with a head that quickly
>dissappears. My question is why did the head retention fade with excess
>carbonation?

Sounds like a bacterial infection cutting up proteins (which give head
retention) and dextrins (into fermentable sugars for the yeast to
eat and overcarbonate the beer).  Review your sanitation techniques
and consider if perhaps your yeast culture could even be the source of
the infection.

***
Gus writes:
>My present batch smell very good although I though it had 
>a bitter taste.  Will this change as the beer continues to 
>ferment in the bottles?

I presume you mean that it was bitter at bottling time?  If so, it
will mellow somewhat, with time.  If you really mean that the *unfermented*
wort was unpleasantly bitter, then I think you may be in trouble.  When
the sugars ferment away, it will only taste even more bitter.  Don't
give up on the batch till you have given it a few years (yes, YEARS) to
mature (note, this works better for strong beers).  Many a batch that
was presumed a failure was just hiding a wonderful beer underneath.

***
BStephens writes:
>I've been brewing beer from extracts for about two years with pretty decent 
>success.  But with the last few batches I've noticed that the beer becomes 
>cloudy after chilling.  The beer is very clear in the bottle and is clear 
>if it is chilled for less than 24 hours or so.  However, if I leave it in 
>the fridge for a couple of days or more, it becomes cloudy.  To my 
>recollection this hasn't happened in my previous batches.  Any ideas?  I am 
>using a small amount of Irish Moss in the last 10 minutes of the boil and 
>have done so for quite a while.  There aren't any off odors or tastes that 
>would indicate contamination.  I have recently moved to a new residence so 
>perhaps the water is the reason...  Any suggestions of things I could try?  
>I might go with bottled water next batch to see if that helps.

It may help to switch to bottled water if your new water is high in
carbonates/bicarbonates or if it is very acidic.  What you are describing
is "chill haze" and is caused by a reaction between proteins and polyphenols
(a.k.a. tannins).  The way to reduce chill haze is to either reduce the
protein or the polyphenols or both.  Too high a pH (above 5.8 or so) will
extract polyphenols from your grain husks as will boiling the grain (unless
the pH is in the low 5's).  If you have high-carbonate/bicarbonate water,
you are prone to high-pHs.  You can reduce the bicarbonate by boiling the
water and then decanting off the sediment before you use the water.  You
can reduce protein in your wort by boiling well and at least 1 hour.  The
Irish Moss helps, but too much is as bad as not enough -- I've found that
1/4 teaspoon per 5 gallons of extract wort is just about right.  Too
acidic a water (very rare) can result in too low a boil pH (below 4.6,
I believe) and can result in poor break formation, which will allow excess
protein into the finished beer.  You can reduce polyphenols in the finished
beer by using Polyclar (PVPP) as well as some other finings.  Most finings
will help chill haze by reducing either protein or polyphenols, even though
many (like isinglass and gelatin) are primarily for settling yeast.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
:1


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:14:43 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs at netcom.com>
Subject: Fass Fritch

Does anyone know the address of Fass Fritch (sp ?) in GERMANY. They 
distribute stainless steel 5 litre mini-kegs which I need desperately for 
my kegging system. ?

Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs at rela.uucp.netcom.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:53:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Nathan Moore <moorent at bechtel.Colorado.EDU>
Subject: Large Volume Bottling

	Hello all, I have a question for the HB collective.  I'm going to
have a homebrew wedding and have a big problem with bottling.  I'll be
brewing up 4-5 5 gal. batches.  I'm a poor college brewer so I can't afford
to buy the kegging system to keg all that beer.  The closest thing to a
keg I have is my 2.5 gal party pig, and that won't even put a dent in my
total volume.  So what I need is a way to bottle all this beer cheaply.  I
don't want to haul 200 or so bottles to the wedding, let alone collect and
bottle that many.  I have two ideas so far. 
	1)2 liter PET bottles
	2)4 liter glass wine jugs
	The plastic bottles would work but I would prefer something else
because they are ugly and have a short shelf life. The 4 litter wine jugs
I can get from a local restaraunt.  The problem is that they have screw on
tops. The caps that come on them are cheap metal caps with cardboard to
seal them.  Does anyone know where to get beter caps or a way to improve
the existing ones so they would work? 
	Any other ideas would be very appreciated.  TIA and private Email
is fine.

					Nathan Moore
					Denver, CO





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:28:02 -0600 (CST)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Rye malt/MgSO4 (again?)/skunky beer

Al (a different one) writes 
>I am interested in brewing a batch of IPA this weekend, but 
>experimenting with Rye Malt in the batch.  My plan is to use 3 lbs of 
>Rye in a total grain bill of 11 lbs (some crystal, some carapils, some 
>flaked barley, about 6 1/2 lbs of Marris Otter Pale), a little more 
>than 25%.
>
>Does anyone have any experience with Rye Malt?  Is this too much?  My 
>hope is to closely duplicate an IPA I made last weekend, varying just 
>by the substitution of Rye for some Pale.  I did not do a protein rest 
>with the first batch, but will the Rye necessitate it?

I think that a protein rest would help a lot.  I made an IPA with
43% rye (sorry I've already trademarked the name RyePA(tm) ) and had
a very slow sparge.  I missed my protein rest temp so I forged ahead
and it took me 3 hours to collect 6.5 gallons of runnings!  The flavour
was, ahem... a little "extreme" but I definitely know that rye malt
tastes like!  25% sounds like a good amount.  One additional word of
warning: absorption.  Rye malt absorbs an incredible amount of water!
Have a gallon or two more sparge water than you think you need.

***
Bill writes:
>>Al K said:
>Finally, let's do a reality check on our posts before we jump all over Al,
>eh?

>We did Al and that is why we made the posts.  I didn't want anyone to
>add too much MgSO4 to their beer.

I don't think you did.  If you had, you would have noted that the bitterness
of MgSO4 in water would be insignificant as compared to 20 or 30 or 40
IBUs.  If adding too much MgSO4 was your concern, then why was your post
a one-line sarchastic remark about the bitterness of MgSO4?  You're like
the proverbial kid with a stick in the hornets' nest, Bill...

>Al be so kind to explain what characteristic that MgSO4 brings to a
>beer.  When is this character appropriate and when is it not?

I could write a book on water with a chapter each on magnesium and sulphate.
Here's the short version:  The important ion is really sulphate when it
comes to beer flavour.  This is well-documented in every pro brewing and
homebrewing book.  Many books have some of the other ions' contributions
incorrectly described, but sulphate they usually get right: it increases
the *perception* of the hop bitterness and adds a lingering dryness to
the beer.  Some describe its contribution as harshness, and I would
agree that high-sulphate beers (Dorts, Burton-style Bitters) are not as
"delicate" as low- or medium-sulphate beers (Bohemian Pilsner, Munich
Helles, American Pilsners), but I would not call it "harshness."  I
would call it "assertive bitterness."  Magnesium, I believe, should
be "used" in moderation.  If you are making a high-suphate beer, you
are much better off adding suphate via gypsum (calcium suphate) than
via MgSO4.  Besides the fact that the calcium helps lower the mash
pH and is required for proper yeast flocculation, magnesium carbonate
has a much higher solubility than calcium carbonate and therefore
high magnesium levels make it difficult to reduce bicarbonate by simply
boiling and decanting.  All of this is above and beyond its diuretic
and laxative properties.

>Or perhaps you don't think that it makes any difference?
>
>By the by the correct dosage of Epsom salts is 2 teaspoons in a full
>glass of water once a day.  Might help you out Lad.

Perhaps you are just baiting me...      sorry, not this time.

***
Dave writes:
>>" Finally, let's do a reality check on our posts before we jump all over Al,
>eh?"
>
>I didn't see any jumping going on by anyone, just commenting. As I recall
>though, you said that magnesium didn't contribute to the bitterness, just the
>sulfate.

<snip>

>It may be that, since the sense of bitterness for magnesium sulfate and for
> hops

[Dammit Dave, can you keep your line lengths well below 80 chars so this
   
>>>Your article sent to homebrew is being rejected. The reason:
>>> --Contains  line(s) greater than 80 chars in length --

doesn't happen when we quote you!]

>are both felt in the back of the tongue and mouth  (bitter (2)) , that even
>though the magnesium may be below the threshold, it still contributes to the
>sense of bitterness if this sensation is in any way additive to the hops'  (or
>for that matter sulfate) contribution.  If this were the case, then even though
>both the hops and magnesium sulfate may individually be below the threshold,
>the
>combo may be above it and the taster senses bitterness.  Also, the relative
>contribution of magnesium and sulfate to bitterness is still unknown (at least
>by me) given the little I have read on this subject.  Are there any 
>experiments
>in which sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate are used to evaluate the relative
>contribution of magnesium and sulfate?  How about magnesium sulfate and
>magnesium chloride mixtures?   Any comments?

See my answer to Bill's question, above.  Any homebrewing book will tell
you that it's the sulphate.  If that doesn't convince you, compare MgSO4
(Epsom salts) beer with CaSO4 (gypsum) beer.  If you match the sulphate
levels, the beer ends up with the same *perceived* bitterness (although
the Epsom salt beer will affect your bathroom habits).

>> Oh, and incidentally, that tongue map that has been printed in every
>> encyclopedia in the US and many brewing books including Noonan and
>> referred to in MBS is incorrect and a based upon a mis-translation of
>> some German research done decades ago.
>
>Enlighten us, please.

That's all I know.  I read it in HBD... see the archives.

Regarding skuniness being from light and not a particular hop variety,
Dave writes:
>Well, that may have been the reference. Could this be formed in hops drying?

No.  The source is ISOhumulone... that's not created in any significant
amount till the boil.

>Would pasteurization somehow contribute to the formation of the prenyl
>mercaptan? Hard to believe since the wort is boiled. Being a photochemist, a
>non-photochemical reaction makes more sense to me in this particular instance,
>given what appears to be a lack of light. I know PU has a similar( but not the
>same) problem.  I too had a good Pilsner Urquell just recently.  Same green
>bottle.    A plain chemical source seems to make more sense to me than skunking
>by light inside a package. OTOH, why doesn't it show up in Holland if it is
>formed in the hops drying stage. Is it the decomposition, over time, of
>something that is forming a mercaptan? The only factor that I can see that is
>common beside green bottles is Saaz hops and a long time from brewing to
>drinking.  I'm still mystified.

Read the article in the second from last Zymurgy... the one with the
*skunk* on the cover.  You can also search the archives for "mercaptan."
The "heat causes skunking" I got from HBD -- someone (sorry) posted 
that they had skunky beer from *cans*.  Search the archives for "cans
AND skunk AND trunk" (the beer had gotten hot in the trunk of a car
(that would be "boot of a car" for our British and Australian readers ;^).

Oh, and contrary to what Bud ads imply, skunkiness has nothing to do
with age and Bud is no less susceptable to it than other brown-bottled
beers sitting under fluorescent lights in the store.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:35:29 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer at tfsksu.net>
Subject: FWH/SS vs Enamel/Cold Secondary/Vollrath/'Skunks'

                        The Jethro Gump Report
>From: Ron_Barbercheck at MB01.CCMAIL.CompuServe.COM
>     Can someone please define the term/process FIRST WORT HOPPING.  

        FWH is when you lauter your first runnings onto aroma hops in the
kettle. Best explanation provided by George Fix in a previous
digest..(search the archives.) He states that this is best employed in
lighter beers, but I use it with good effect in my IPA.

>From: On.Defence.Number.33 at emerald.oz.net
>Subject: Stainless Steel or Enamel Pot
>Which is better to the wort in, and why?

        Enamel much cheaper, but can be used to make great beers. The prob
is with chipping of the enamel surface, leaving a non-stainless surface that
can rust. 

>From: Tim.Watkins at analog.com
>Subject: Cold storage of ale?
>Does anybody out there see any problem with using a cold secondary 
>fermentation of an ale (to aid in clearing)?

        No, it's done all the time. I ferment at 66-68 F, and then go to
secondary at 38 F. I don't have the luxury of months at that temp, (wish I
did) but you should have no probs. The cold helps to floc out remaining
yeasts more rapidly. All ales, FWIW, in secondary for a minimum of 7 days
with gelatine and isinglass, then serving with isinglass, commence force
carb'ing, and 48 hrs later, it's ready. The initial run is cloudy, as
Spencer reports with his corny's, but soon clears as the sediment closest to
the 'beer path out' (scientific term!) is removed. The final product is
'brilliant.'

>From: "Clifford A. Hicks" <74631.2471 at compuserve.com>
>Subject: Clad vs. Unclad
>I just bought a 10 gallon Vollrath....  Is the pot I have the best?

        Yes. I used to DREAM of having a Vollrath! Very expensive, though.

>AlK says about the possibility of hops, rather than light being the source of
>Skunky Heineken's

>> No, skunking is most commonly due to the beer being light-struck.

        Al is correct, to my knowledge. 'Skunky' beer is beer that has been
'light struck,' a photo-chemical reaction between isomerized hop components
in the beer and certain wavelengths of light, (blue-green?) Clear bottles
are the worst, green bottles are better than clear, but not much, brown
bottles are better and opaque bottles the best.   OTOH, sunlight is the
worst, fluoro's better (but not much...ever notice the blue-green tones on
photographs taken under fluoroscent lights?....Yes, you can use a filter on
your lens to correct this....wouldn't it be nice to have optically correct
light filtering bottles?), and incandescents better still. No light at all best.
        On a related subject, it just drives me "Nutsboy' to hear the AB ads
with the 'skunky beer guy, impyling that skunky beer is the result of age.
Education is good, if accurate. But now I overhear people explaining to
their friends that my highly hopped beers are 'skunked', cos their 'too old!'

Jethro Gump
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


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:35:36 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer at tfsksu.net>
Subject: Barleywines

>From: "Robert DeNeefe" <rdeneefe at compassnet.com>
>Subject: barleywines

>Now onto a new question.  A couple weeks ago I brewed a barleywine...
>I've read in the archives about people leaving their b-wines in
>secondaries for months.  What's the benefit of this? 
>Is there some significant advantage of leaving a beer such as this in
>secondary even after the target gravity is reached?  All scientific,
>psuedo-scientific, or anecdotal help would be appreciated.

        Here's a psuedo-scintific and anecdotal response...I recommend long
secondaries for B-wines and any other high gravity brews. I wish I had the
space to keep mine in secondary for a minimum of 6 months. It is my P-S
opinion that high grav brews produce more of the higher alcohols, (fusels?),
but that these can be reduced by long storage...I don't put any pressure on
my secondaries, just rely on a foil sheet on top of the tank to keep the
critters, both micro and macro, out. These higher grav brews also have a
high percentage of residual proteins that take a long time to drop and
clear. (Hell, they have more of everything.)
        My Barleywine was fermented for about 10 days in primary, and then
had a dose of gelatine/isinglass in secondary, where it sat for 4 months
prior to being force carbonated and served. The beer was 'rough' during
sampling taken in primary, secondary, yet was smoother in serving...and it
continued to mellow out over time and at judging time was 10 months old. 
        Pseudo-scientifically, I don't know if this 'roughness' would
diminish in a sealed vessel to a greater or lesser degree, than in an 'open'
one...this would depend on whether or not the higher alcohols were
absorbed/adsorbed or merely vented off, being volatile.
Pseudo-Scientifically, I also think that such beers benfit from longer times
'on the yeast,' in secondary. I don't think that they would benefit from
early filtering. (Micah?) I just know what worked for me.

        I also know what doesn't work for me....Just tried another approach
to my B-wines....won't do this again! Original B-W fermented with 'dry' ale
yeast till all activity ceased, then hit with 'dry' Champagne yeast, and a
wee bit of O2 as a propellant. OG 23.9 P (1.095). Paper calcs showed roughly
10.25% ABV with ale yeast, rising to 10.5% ABV, following champagne yeast. 
        I had discussed this with my yeast specialist, and decided this
would be the way to go, and it did produce a nice product. 
        Although I do believe that "perfect is the enemy of good enough," I
tried it with champagne yeast only...bad decision...gravity fell to 14
Plato, (1.056) and stopped....I hit it with another ale yeast, and a wee bit
of O2, and got renewed activity, but very slow activity....some days later,
tried it with a double dose of ale yeast, reconstituted and added to 5
gallons of fresh wort, allowed to work for 6 hours before pitching.....now
am getting decent activity, but it seems that the relatively high level of
ETOH, and low pH are preventing reproduction, but are allowing the 3 doses
of ale yeast to eat those sugars that are left after the 'bayanus' ate it's
fill.
        I will return to the ale/champagne plan, next time around. At this
rate, currently 12 P, it looks like another 2-3 weeks in primary. Might be
good drain cleaner, though! 

Jethro "Nothing Ventured, Nothing Gained" Gump
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


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:43:06 -0500
From: Jean-Sebastien Morisset <jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Subject: re: Aeration with a "Y"

>Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 14:51:33 -0600
>From: Bill Giffin <billgiffin at maine.com>
>Subject: Aeration with a "Y"

>I took a piece of 3/16" brass tubing and soldered it into a piece of 3/8"
>tubing,  I did make a hole, connected an aquarium pump to the 3/16" tubing
>and the 3/8" was connected to the racking cane.  
>
>As the wort was being racked out of the kettle I had the pump running which
>then aerated the stream of wort going into the carboy.  Seemed to work quite
>well.

Cute, but if you use a pump for your wort, here's another really cool way:

Once the boil is over, the wort is pumped from the kettle, through a CF
chiller, passed a "T" fitting, into a magnetic impeller pump (March, Little
Giant, etc), and into waiting fermenting vessels.

The trick is that "T" fitting, which has a 1/4" OD plastic ball-valve to
let in just a *tiny* amount of air (using .2 micron filter) -- about 1
bubble per second. The air is sucked in by the pump and the momentum of the
beer (although impeller pumps don't pull too much). When the cooled wort
and air bubble hit that impeller running at almost 4,000 rpms, it turns
into Guinness!!! The foam is so thick, it take HOURS before I can take a
hydrometer reading! This is probably caused by the Nitrogen content of air,
which gives you a good indication of the oxygen content. It's a good idea
to put your yeast in the carboys first! :-)

After two batches using this technique, I re-tooled the valve assembly and
upgraded to a 3/8" SS ball valve. This turned out NOT to be a good idea
since you need to a very fine control on the valve. I couldn't get the 1
bubble/min I wanted and the pump kept un-priming itself. I'll be installing
a 1/4" brass needle valve next.

I'm also thinking of just injecting pure Oxygen which should elliminate
that Guinness effect. The down side to this is you run the risk of OVER
oxygenating your wort!

I use a CF chiller, but this would probably work better with an immersion
chiller since impeller pumps should be as close as possible to the source
- -- sucking liquid through 25' of 3/8" copper probably isn't a good idea. Of
course, restraining the output to 3/8" sorta balances things.

Later!
js.

- --
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sc. Unix Administrator <mailto:jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Bell Canada, Routing and Trunking Assignments <http://www.bell.ca/>


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 16:53:42 -0500
From: Jean-Sebastien Morisset <jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Subject: re: Yeast doing summersaults

>Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 23:18:55 -0800 (PST)
>From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org>
>Subject: Yeast doing summersaults
>
>Well, during a recent brew session I was looking forward to drinking that
>beer just prior to pitching this yeast.  But here is the strange part:  when
>I uncapped the bottle all the yeast lifted off the bottom and ended up on
>the surface of the beer, some of it erupting out of the bottle. There was
>quite a bit of pressure in the bottle, but not a lot of carbonation in the
>beer that I could see.  How is it possible that the release of pressure
>allowed the yeast to all of a sudden start to float?

At least you didn't shake it to suspend the yeast. I had un-capped the
bottle, and was giving it a bit of a shake when BOOM! it exploded on all
four walls! :-) I cleaned up most of it, but I still find some spots I
missed after 6 months!

Later!
js.
- --
Jean-Sebastien Morisset, Sc. Unix Administrator <mailto:jsmoriss at qc.bell.ca>
Bell Canada, Routing and Trunking Assignments <http://www.bell.ca/>


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:57:52 -0600
From: "Tom Galley" <tgalley at flash.net>
Subject: Gambrinus Honey Malt


Does anyone have any experience with this?

Description:
Gambrinus has re-introduced an old German malt style called "bruhmalt"
under the name Honey Malt because of it's unique honey-like aroma and
flavor. Adds an intense malty sweetness with a hint of red color. Color: 18
degrees L. 

Certainly sounds like an interesting addition to my next APA.

Tom
galley at sperry-sun.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:21:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: SF beer/O2->dead yeast/Maris Otter sparge/immersion chilling

Greetings brewers. I'm back from San Francisco and playing catch-up with
the HBD. First off, I must say I was disappointed with what I saw of the
SF beer scene, though maybe I just wasn't clued in. Also, being used to
NYC can make San Francisco seem like a frontier town, much as I like it. 

There isn't a fine English ale to be had in all of SF, far as I could
tell. There was one small corner bar with over 60 taps crammed into it,
which was kind of impressive, but the selection still wasn't great and the
beer was served poorly. 

Stopped into the SF Brewing Company (brewpub) and enjoyed the experience. 
However, their ales were peculiarly murky. The Anniversary Ale was very
tasty and seemed to incorporate some chocolate malt and a lot of late hops
for a rich flavor. The porter was tasty but a little sweet, and had a
spicy/clovey flavor in the finish that had me puzzled. Wondered if it was
a phenolic from the yeast, or a sign of infection. 

>From: Ed & Laura Hitchcock <ehitchcock at oise.utoronto.ca>
>Subject: Yeast and O2
>
>Was this a wyeast pack that had already puffed up, ie do you know the
>yeast was viable beforehand?  In a non-pressurized vessel there is a
>limit to how much O2 can dissolve in wort, and that limit should not be
>toxic to yeast.  How much liquid did you have, and what constitutes a
>"good blast"?

A lot of people were curious about my experience with the dead starter. 
The yeast was Wyeast London Ale from a fully-puffed pack. 1650 ml of 1.040
malt extract solution was boiled and chilled in a 2000 ml flask, and the
yeast was added. I oxygenated for the better part of 10 seconds using pure
O2 with a Liquid Bread diffusion stone. The flask was then stoppered and
shaken for the better part of 10 seconds. The head space probably had a
high concentration of O2 so I presume the starter wort became temporarily
super-duper-saturated with oxygen, with the yeast already in it. 24 hours
later there was no positive pressure in the flask, no gas release upon
swirling, and nothing at the bottom of the flask except a little trub.
This was my first lifeless starter, and I'm pretty confident that the
yeast died at the oxygenating step. 

Al K. regarding utilization formulas:
>Right you are... I disagree.  For my old system (pretty standard 10 gallon
>Polar, 12,000 BTU NG kitchen stove) the Garetz formulas gave me more than
>200% of the expected IBUs whereas the Rager formulas (the ones in the 1990
>Hops Special Issue that Alex dislikes), plus 10% more hops to compensate
>for the hop bags I was using, gave me IBUs that were within 3% of the target
>value (as measured by The Siebel Institute of Technology)!

My main purpose was to summarize the popular methods in response to a
novice question, but it's understood that we all get good results with
different systems so there's no point in debating it. You are clearly
getting hop utilization on a par with commercial breweries, but some
people aren't. I don't know what accounts for the difference since your
old system was a big pot on a stovetop (presumably not an optimal
situation). For whatever reason the Tinseth formulas seem to be the most
accurate for me. I sometimes wonder if elevation above sea level isn't a
bigger factor than we think. I suspect the violence of the boil is more
important than temperature, hence people at higher elevations might get
better utilization on the average (Papazian hop additions seem skimpy to
me, for instance). 

>From: Mike Dowd <mikedowd at geocities.com>
>Subject: Crisp Malt/stuck sparge
>
>_Why_ is my technique not well suited to my equipment?
>_Why_ would resting at 104F have a negative impact on sparging?
>_Why_ would a thick mash during saccrification but not during
>mashout/lautering make for difficulties during lautering?

There's admittedly no theoretical basis to my comments -- in fact, the 40
C rest should theoretically be helping rather than hurting. On the other
hand, rather than analyzing the theoretical factors, I think another
empirical experiment might be more helpful, using the simplest and most
proven methods for this type of mashing setup and type of malt. If you are
game for this, I'd suggest one of two procedures to see if you get the
same strange results: 

1) The basic guidelines for kettle mashing from Jack Schmidling seem to be
pretty well founded. Using his approach, you would mash in with warm water
at 1.5 qts/lb to make the mash stirrable, and slowly add heat to bring it
up to saccharification temps. The slow heating through all the temp ranges
obviates the need for any low temp rests, so this method accommodates just
about any type of malt. 

2) With UK pale ale malts, the low temp rests are really quite
unneccesary. I get 85% efficiency and clear beer just by running hot water
slowly and evenly over the grain (to avoid balling) and stabilizing at 15X
F for saccharification. This would simplify the procedure down to its
time-tested basics. If the grain behaved strangely when treated this way,
then it would all but prove something's wrong with the grain, don't you
think? 

Apologies again if the the language of my original reply was objectionable
or unclear. 

>From: Tim Martin <TimM at southwest.cc.nc.us>
>Subject:  No agitation, immersion chiller question
>
>With my old method of stirring as I cool I could always stop when I
>reached my pitching temperature but with this I had to make an educated
>guess as to what the temp. would be when I drained all this wort into my
>fermentor.  I never did know what my final temp. was after I racked to
>the carboy but the fermentation seemed to go well but I was wanting to
>pitch my yeast at the same or near the temp. of my starter.

I never considered this as I like to pitch on the cool side anyway, and
don't mind living with the slightly longer lag time. In any case, it might
be best to chill to the max (say about 1 hour with the immersion chiller
suspended at the top) to get the best cold break. It'll warm up to a
noticeable extent as it's transferred to the fermenter, and you can always
let it sit at room temperature a while longer if you like. One of those
stick-on thermometers would be useful in this situation. 

>From: Steve Armbrust <stevea at thepalace.com>
>Subject: Filtering Cold Break
>
>...Jeff Irvine mentions that using an immersion
>cooler will make reasonable removal of cold break if you filter it
>through a hop bed.  Which is exactly what I do when I dump wort
>into my strainer.  After the first scoop, the whole hops line the
>strainer and the remaining wort filters through the hops as I
>dump it in.
>
>So, am I actually doing any beneficial cold break removal, or
>should I move on to whirlpooling experiments? (btw, my beer
>isn't bad, but I am interested in legitimate process improvements.)

This technique doesn't filter out much if any of the cold break, as it
gets broken up with all the pouring and goes right through. A slow siphon
or drain through through the hops, however, works well. Obviously you need
to screen back the hops somehow, and they should remain as undisturbed as
possible while chilling and draining the wort. 

- --
Alex Santic - alex at salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:48:02 -0700
From: Doug Mewhort <dmewhort at connect.ab.ca>
Subject: Where to go in San-Fran.

Hi all, special thanks to those of you who have liberated the HBD.

I find myself at loose ends from March 15-17th somewhere in San =
Francisco. Presumably a trip to Anchor is in order, but since I no =
longer have to look for work I have somewhat more time on my hands that =
I intend to expend on beer.

Any suggestions for where to stay, where to go or potential drinking =
companions would be appreciated. Private email is better as to not =
clutter the HBD any more than I am already.

TIA

Doug Mewhort
The greatest tragedy
is an allergy
to barley.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:45:19 -0600 (CST)
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <valjay at NetXpress.com>
Subject: Freshman Digest, Recipes and A Question

The Old Lurker Returns!!!!!

About the proposed "Freshman Digest"- IMO, Scott Abene and George
De Piro nailed it. This should be an *all welcome* learning tool.
Like Scott, I've been brewing awhile,started 25 years-gave up after
a few batches cause my beer was *bad*. Restarted about 10 years ago and 
with a lot of help,advice and brutal criticism from a great group of
brew club friends (Bock'n'Aleians),learned to brew good to occasion-
ally great beer. I learn something new all the time from the Digest
and hope that I occasionally add something. Give it a chance, newbie
brewers, ignore the high tech, over esoteric and "Big Head Ego brewer
shit"(thanks Scott, great words) and follow what is on your level and 
soon you will see your brewing abilities increase and drag your under-
standing with it.

About recipes: Shane Saylor thinks more should be posted. Why not? Mine
are no secret and I *will* post one soon. A lot of the recipes I use 
have originated somewhere other than my great mind-got a Red Ale recipe
off Dion Hollenbecks web page today. I probably wont follow it exactly
but, its a starting point. Good recipes will also help the newbie brewer
to make better beer, keep brewing and in turn, help us old coots keep
our enthusiasm.

For my question of the day-I always purge my 5 gallon carboy with CO2
when I rack to secondary. I've always used 15 PSI for about a minute.
Is that enough?? Am I wasting my time and CO2? All input will be taken
with appreciation and maybe other "inquiring minds want to know"!!  

Keep brewing and keep learning,
Val Lipscomb-brewing in San Antonio


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 01:08:40 -0500
From: ajdel at mindspring.com (A. J. deLange)
Subject: Melanoidin Formation,AcCoA, MgSO4

Steve Garrett wonders whether his altitude will effect mealanoidin
formation in the boil. Doubtless it will slow it down but probably not stop
it. Processes like this one seldom are turned on or off by 10-15 degree
temperature changes though they may be slowed substantially. Note that
turning up the heat in the oven will only increase the rate at which water
is boiled off, not the temperature of the boil. To do this you will have to
raise the pressure: a bit beyond the average homw brewer!

On Steve Alexanders question of question about M&BS remarks concerning
acetyl-CoA availablility when growth is restricted: I have always taken
this at face value i.e. during growth a larger proportion of the total
available AcCoA is being taken for mevalonic acid and lipid synthesis and
so less is available for ester formation. My simple model is  that, for
example, AcCoA + B <--> MA + D where MA is mevalonic acid and B and D are
other stuff (water, NADPH, NADP, hydrogen ions) goes faster towards the
right than AcCoA + ROH <--> RAc + G does because MA (mevalonic acid) is
removed (converted to squalene) wheras the ester (RAc) sticks around. At
the end of growth MA is not consumed, its concentration rises and the first
reaction no longer procedes so rapidly to the right allowing AcCoA to
accumulate pushing the second reaction to the right. If my little
hypothesis is correct, a dearth of anything needed in the squalene or lipid
pathways would work to make the esterification reaction procede with more
vigor. I'm sure it actually much more complicated than this when the
enzymes, the kinematics, the redox potentials, the pH...are all considered.

Nathan L. Kanous posted that 40 mEq of magnesium is enough to send you
running. That's actually 20 mMol or 2.40 grams (120 mg/mMol) of the
anhydrous salt or 4.9 grams of epsom salts (246.5 mg/mMol). I'll stick to
prunes.

A. J. deLange
 - Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
Please Note New e-mail Address



Return to table of contents