---

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


Contents:
  RIMS / BOPs (Eamonn McKernan)
  Kahlua Beer Recipe ("Michael E. Dingas")
  RE: hop balance ("MASSIMO FARAGGI")
  Scottish vs. English Ales ("Mike Peschka")
  Open fermentation (Red Wheeler)
  Struggling hop plant (Bradley Sevetson)
  barley wine begins (updated recipe) (Rae Christopher J)
  Re: Decoction mashing (Steve Alexander)
  Yeast sources ("Braam Greyling")
  poppet valve removal (dd)
  Iodophor, Mills & dust explosions, Clumps ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Sparge Water Level and Distributor ("C.D. Pritchard")
  unfiltered beer (Tom Lombardo)
  Re: Yeast for a plambic (Stephane Tanguy-1)
  Jap. Beetles and Hop Plants ("Lee Carpenter")
  Re:Belgian Wheat (Wyeast 3278) ("atonalcm")
  re:Bottle time blues - dual guage? / Boston & Charleston (Charles Burns)
  lack of nucleation sites for this thread? - NOT! ("Andy Walsh")
  hop poles (BAYEROSPACE)
  Wit beer Full-on decoction (Matt Gadow)
  Soil pH meter? (Brian Pickerill)
  DE in the brew.... (Some Guy)
  Re: Shipping beer (Richard Stueven)
  Not more botulism... (George De Piro)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org

Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org

Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:

  Anonymous ftp from...
	hbd.org	/pub/hbd	
	ftp.stanford.edu	/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
  E-mail...
        ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com (send a one-line e-mail message with 
                                   the word help for instructions.)
  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: 	Sat, 28 Jun 1997 19:46:50 -0400
From: Eamonn McKernan <eamonn at atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca>
Subject: RIMS / BOPs

Greetings all,
	I have a RIMS question for the collective. 
	It seems that my RIMS continually sticks on me. I have a 
legally acquired keg with the top cut off and a SS fitting welded in the 
*bottom* which feeds 1/2" copper pipe. The pipe splits in a tee to a 
drain valve for sparging, and to a magnetically coupled pump (inlet a 
few of inches below the grain bed). This pumps up about a foot or two to 
a horizontal 1 1/2" pipe with a heating element. Wort enters and exits 
the pipe through the top. I tried through the bottom initially, but an air 
pocket developed, so I spun it upside down. After the big pipe, it goes 
through a braided hose (SS I believe?) to below the liquid level of the 
mash. I plan on eventually drilling some copper tubing for a return 
manifold, but I have bigger problems with the recirculation. The false 
bottom is a 14" aluminum pizza pan (please no aluminum comments, that's 
been beaten to death...) with SS mesh over top it (20 gauge I think). I 
have not calculated the open area, but it's gotta be more than the 
easymasher. When mashing 10 - 20 lbs of grain, I underlet with hot water, 
mix in grains and water, let settle 10 - 15 min (usually at 50 C), then 
*slowly* start pumping. Stuck recirculations all the time. My pizza pan 
recently imploded under the weight of the grain and the negative 
pressure. Okay centrifugal pumps can't really develop *negative* 
pressure, but they can truly empty out the underlet area.  
	My pump is a big boy, around 1/15 hp and runs off 1 A of 220 V 
AC. I throttle it back after the pump on the vertical section of the 1/2" 
pipe leading to the heating element with a SS ball valve. I guess more 
open area couldn't hurt, but I am surprised that it's not enough. I also 
have a small fitting on the bottom of the keg which is connected to some 
1/4" copper tubing pointing upwards. I will eventually hook up a sight 
glass when I find the appropriate glass tube. Is open area really my 
problem? I have lots of SS mesh. Any suggestions on how to make a better 
false bottom? I suppose a ring of copper tubing with the mesh stretched 
across would work. I have a friend who can weld, but he only has 
oxy-acetylene at present. Maybe a more elaborate bottom is possible? My 
keg is one of those rounded golden gate styles, so I needn't disassemble 
the false bottom to put it in the keg.
	Comments?

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

The next thing that I would like to discuss is BOP's. This topic has more 
to do with certain commercial brewing practices than with homebrewing, 
but BOP users are homebrewers, and I feel that there is developing a 
growing relevance of this issue to those of us who brew at home. I am 
used to seeing a lot of wasted BW from people who don't think that 
certain issues should be discussed on the HBD. If anyone feels that way 
about the following issue, please e-mail me *privately*.

	I have been noticing a number of changes in Ontario regarding how 
the government wants to regulate BOP's and homebrewing stores. There have 
been a number of arrests of BOP operators (including teenage kids working 
at minimum wage apparently) for pitching the yeast for customers and even 
selling prepackaged cases of beer to people off the street. The big 
breweries have been lobbying government to make homebrewing less 
financially advantageous, and BOP brewing more labour intensive for the 
customer. Taxes are a favourite weapon. Recently I have heard that 
Ontario is not alone, and that similar things are afoot in BC.
	I do not have all the facts in this matter, and I have not heard 
many people's opinions either. As a part of the Canadian Amateur Brewers 
Association, I expect that we will eventually have to act. I would like 
to hear from people on the HBD what is happening in your state/province. 
Do you approve or disapprove? What things should be done to deal with the 
issues? One suggestion that I have heard is that homebrewers police BOPs 
in order to keep them in line. I don't much agree with that idea 
personally, but I wonder what else can be done. Nothing?
	Even if you don't BOP brew, your homebrew store may be facing new 
taxes as the larger breweries continue their lobbying efforts (That such 
lobbying is actually taking place is just a rumour at present. Can anyone 
confirm it?). I am asking for people with information or ideas to please 
contact me privately, and I will summarise and post the feedback. 
 
	Cheers!
	Eamonn McKernan
	CABA Secretary
	eamonn at atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 10:08:15 -0400
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <DINGASM at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Kahlua Beer Recipe

I've only brewed my second batch yesterday but was wondering if anyone
had a recipe (or idea for one) to make Kahlua Beer.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 12:24:16 PDT
From: "MASSIMO FARAGGI" <maxfarag at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: hop balance

Hi HBDers!

John asked about hop balance, and I have some remarks about it:

1. It is true that bitterness perception is non linear, and in fact I 
think that it should follow the general FECHNER LAW that applies to all 
sensorial stimulations:
sensation=constant*log(stimulus).
But I think that the same log relationship should hold about the 
perceived sweetness, body etc., so a linear relationship between IBU and 
gravity can make sense.
2. I too think that really OG is not the quantity to balance, and 
neither is FG, but the real extract (RE) is the right one. It measures 
the quantity of residual sugar which has not been converted to alcohol. 
It can be calculated approximately by dividing the apparent attenuation 
(AA) by 1.23 to get the real attenuation (RA); then you have 
RE=(1-RA)*OG
(OG in points). Look in the BREWERY web site for more precise 
calculations.
3. If you consider beers at about the "standard" 75% apparent 
attenuation, you can still think in term of balancing IBU-OG. In this 
case I think that the relationship 8 IBUs x 10 OG is too much on the 
bitter side. If you consider a balanced beer like for example an english 
pale ale, you will notice that IBUs are about 50-60% of OG. Above 60% 
you find the true pilseners, the dry stouts, the american IPA's and Kent 
bitter ales that are clearly on the hoppy side; at about 50% - or just 
under - many belgian ales, and at lower ratios for example some 
doppelbock which are very much on the malty side (EKU 28 is 1125 OG and 
only 25 IBU). 
So in conclusion if I try to balance the hops and I expect a 75% app. 
attenuation, I would try to get my IBU at about - or just above - a half 
of the OG, and adjust the result if I expect a low or high attenuation. 
Or I can calculate the real extract as above and go for an IBU level of 
about
1.25 to 1.5 of RE (corresponding to 0.5 - 0.6 of OG for a normal 
attenuated beer). 
Of course all this is a great semplification, and could not work well 
for beers with a lactic, sour or even roasted character, but in other 
cases it can help you "to be in the ballpark" (well, so I could learn 
another american idiom!)

Cheers
Max

Massimo Faraggi       GENOVA - ITALY
maxfarag at hotmail.com



- ---------------------------------------------------------
Get Your *Web-Based* Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
- ---------------------------------------------------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 14:26:24 -0500
From: "Mike Peschka" <cpeschka at earthlink.net>
Subject: Scottish vs. English Ales

I found Al K's comments on Scottish vs English ales most interesting,
though they probably go further toward demonstrating the variations in the
human palate than anything else.

I lived in Scotland for three years, attended a number of real ale
festivals put on by CAMRA, visited several of the Scottish breweries, hit
every real ale pub in Glasgow and quite a few in Edinburgh, and in short,
quaffed quite a few pints. My general perceptions are that Scottish ales
are fuller-bodied and less hoppy, although there are of course exceptions.
Scotland has far more independent breweries that England, so there tends to
be quite a bit more experimentation with recipes than down South.

At least to my palate, this was confirmed by a recent week spent in
Yorkshire on business, during which I was able to visit several brew pubs
in the Leeds area. All of the ales  I tried seemed pretty typical of what I
regard as the English style: hoppy, less dextrin than Scottish ales. 

This is by no means a complaint .... simply a comment.

There are exceptions, of course. Jennings in Cumbria (England) makes a
winter beer called Snecklifter which requires a spoon to drink, it's so
thick. But, man, is it good!!!

But if anyone finds the two styles similar, more power to them.

Craig Peschka





Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:37:25 -0400
From: Red Wheeler <fwheeler at mciunix.mciu.k12.pa.us>
Subject: Open fermentation

I read somewhere how homebrewers in England use open fermentation. Does open
fermentation add to the authenticity of an E.S.B.? Can anyone give me some
tips or experiences in using open fermentation? I have recently brewed my
first all grain batch using converted 1/2 barrel kegs and I've been thinking
of using a fourth keg as a primary for open fermentation. Private email is
welcomed. TIA.

Red Wheeler
Blue Bell, PA




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 22:32:35 -0400
From: sevetson at milbrandt.wustl.edu (Bradley Sevetson)
Subject: Struggling hop plant


Hello everyone.
        As a long-time reader and occasional responder(via private e-mail) 
to questions such as "Where can I get the best beer in St. Louis?", let me 
take this opportunity to thank everyone here for the knowledge and (not 
least importantly) entertainment they have provided over the last several years.
        The question which has forced me out of the shadows of cyberspace is 
as follows.  I have a Centennial vine which I planted last year in a strip 
of garden alongside my house which is mainly occupied by roses.  Last year 
it grew maybe 5 feet high after a late planting and didn't produce any 
cones; this year it shot out of the ground like a rocket and is currently 
twining its way up towards a tree which conveniently extends over my roof.  
The problem is that many of the lower leaves have begun to turn yellow and 
generally look unhappy.  In fact, some of them along the thickest part of 
the stem, very near the bottom, have completely fallen off.  There are some 
brown patches, too, and all of my hops (I have four this year)  show some 
indications of insect damage (i.e., tiny holes taken out of the leaves), 
particularly near the ground.  The upper part of the plant looks fine so 
far, but I'm worried that this problem will spread and ultimately kill the 
plant.
        I should mention that I had a Cascade planted nearby last year which 
did wonderfully well for its first year, producing two ounces of hops, but 
which in the prime of its life suddenly and completely bit the dust.  I 
never did figure out what went wrong, but it wasn't any kind of gradual 
problem as I'm experiencing with the Centennial.  My other new plantings---a 
new Cascade (the old one didn't come back), Willamette, and Northern 
Brewer---all look OK at worst, though none are as far along as the Centennial.
        What should I do?  I've heard hops like epsom salts---should I give 
it some?  Could this be some sort of nutrient deficiency?  Should I 
fertilize?  Water more (though an apparently health nearby Cascade receives 
exactly as much water as this plant gets)?
        Private e-mails are fine; I'll summarize if there's interest. 

                                        TIA,

                                                Brad Sevetson
'                                               St. Louis, MO   


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 00:55:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rae Christopher J <3cjr7 at qlink.queensu.ca>
Subject: barley wine begins (updated recipe)

ok, thanks to 	s. schultz
		j. henning
		r. erickson
		a. korzanos, i now have a gnu recipe, which i will be
starting this wed.

recipe:
2# crystal malt, 40L
	steep in bag at 150F for 45mins in 3 quarts filtered h2o.  wash
	with 3 quarts h2o at 150F
12# unhopped light malt extract syrup
4oz chinook plugs (10.5) (in grain bag)
total h2o volume to 16 quarts (all I can do)
	boil 30 min
3oz fuggles (3.5) (in grain bag)
	boil 15 min
1 tsp rehydrated irish moss
2# honey
	boil 15 min
1 oz fuggles (3.5) (in grain bag)
	remove from heat, steep 2 min, immersion chill after removing
	grain bag.

add to wyeast 1728 (scottish ale) from last batch when cooled to 60F.
watch out for volcano.  ferment 1-2 weeks at 60-70F (i.e. my basement),
transfer to glass carbouy.  ferment ~1 month at 60-70F.  _if_ it gets
stuck, add bottle of champagne yeast.  ferment until complete.  add
gelatin finings, let sit one week.  add 1 cup light dry malt extract. let
age at least one month.  drink!

thanks again to all the helpful e-mails from the above named.  i'll report
on this as it gets interesting.  by the way (no employment, stocks owned,
or personal interest) if anyone is ever in kingston, the supply shop
"homecraft" is run by a really great bunch of people, who special ordered
a bunch of stuff for me, and then replaced (for free!) my malt when it
fell 
on 
the
floor 
 .ouch.

anywho, here's to beer!

___________________________________________________________
This is Chris' signature:

C____ R__
    &%

 His home page is at http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3cjr7/


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 28 Jun 1997 06:10:30 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Decoction mashing

George De Piro asks 
>    If saccharification is omitted, will there be enough sugars in the 
>    decoct to fuel the Maillard and caramelization processes?  Perhaps 
>    enough sugar is produced while heating the decoct through the 
>    saccharification range, I don't know.

The amount of sugar used in these reactions is actually fairly small, a
few percent of so of the total wort sugars, but the higher sugar
conentrations will enhance the rate of formation.
   
>    A while back I asked the collective how much and what type of sugar 
>    (simple sugars or polysaccs.) was necessary to maximize the 
>    melanoidins produced during the decoction boil.  Nobody really knew.  
>    Anybody out there now that knows?

There are a lot of factors involved in browning reactions and a good
point to start reading is back in HBD 2390-2392 whererin Charlie
Scandrett and I posted a few notes on the topic.  Apologies all around -
but I never finished the 4th part of my note  - will soon.  A great
little reference book on food reactions is 'Mechanism and Theory in Food
Chemistry' by Dominic W.S. Wong, an AVI Book, Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY.
I don't have a pub date, but believe it was since 1990.  This is a terse
litle book, but a great source.  Actually AVI publishes a lot of very
good books on food/flavor chemistry.

Caramelisation is a sugar-sugar reaction and I can't really speak to the
efficiency of various sugars and dextrins in this process, but from
Charlie's description I can't imagine that higher sugar polymers, even
dextrins will form anhydro-sugars easily.  Actually in one paper in the
text above a table indicates that stearic interaction makes the
equilibrium concentration in dilute acid solutions of D-Glucose and
D-Mannose anhydro sugars quite low (0.2% and 0.8%) while D-Altrose,
D-Gulose, D-Idose anhydro- are much higher (65.5%,65%,86%).  So even
tho' glucose and it's polymers form the majority of wort sugars, some of
the minor sugars *may* play a large role in caramelization and maillard
reactions.

For Maillard reaction there has been a lot of reasearch in this area
using simple monosaccharides and a few disaccharides. Among the various
notes I've found that in the first step of forming amadori compounds,
xylose, a pentose sugar, reacts most rapidly followed by glucose then
maltose.  It's a fair guess that malto-triose and malto-pentose react
slower yet.[Rooney, Cereal Chem, vol44,1967].

The Strecker degradation step, one study found that the valine (amino
acid) carbonyl compounds formed from diacetyl were most reactive while
sugars peformed in the following order
sorbose>arabinose>xylose>fructose>glucose>sucrose>rhamnose [according to
R.Self et al. in 'Chemistry and Physiology of Flavors', AVI Pub Co,
1967]. It's not clear how large an effect this might have in real wort -
except that again it's a fair bet that simple sugar products will be
more reactive than their polymers..

Minor note in Charlie's post.  It turns out that the first step in the
Maillard reactions, the formation of Amadori compounds is often
simplified by assuming aldose sugars as in Charlie's presentation. 
Ketose sugars (like fructose) can also participate by first forming
N-substituted ketosylamines, then 2-amino,2-deoxyaldose or aldosamines. 
This probably isn't terribly important in beer production since the vast
majority of the sugars are aldose sugars, but these same aldosamines can
result from the (more probable) ketosylamines via Heyn's rearrangement.

>    I typically rest the decoction for 20-30 min. at 154-160F (68-71C) and 
>    then move on to boiling (it is difficult to obtain precise temperature 
 ...
A lower temp rest (60C-65C) *might* result in higher simple sugar
concentrations in the decoction and higher maillard reaction rates. 
It's speculative tho'.  A thicker decoction should positively effect
sugar concentrstions and rates too.

Steve Alexander


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:51:08 +200
From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.co.za>
Subject: Yeast sources

Hi,

I have got a friend who owns a micro brewery. He needs to buy some 
yeast in bulk. Particularly he is looking for whitbread ale yeast.
Can somebody please advise where I can buy yeast in bulk . 
Also, can somebody please give me Wyeast`s address so that I can 
contact them as well. I dont find them on the web.
He needs a lot of yeast of one type and would prefer to work directly 
with the supplier/wholesaler.

Thanks a lot.


Braam Greyling    I.C. Design Engineer
Azona(Pty)Ltd     
tel +27 12 6641910  fax +27 12 6641393

You can taste a good beer with one sip, 
but it is better to make thoroughly sure.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 05:58:34 -0500
From: dd <dunn at tilc.com>
Subject: poppet valve removal

- --MimeMultipartBoundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

agree with recent post that the Summer '95 Zymurgy, vol. 18 is an
excellent source of info for kegging...also try Braukunst as great
source of info, spare parts & everything else for kegging, dispensing,
etc. (800.972.brau)...no affiliation

just bought new 5 gal. ball-lock kegs made in Italy from Brewers
Resource...but can't get the poppet valves from either fitting...don't
want to attempt to remove with force without some info...any wisdom?  dd
p.s.:  they look like new cars parked next to my old ones with 1/4
million miles on their odometers!
- --MimeMultipartBoundary--

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:05:08 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: Iodophor, Mills & dust explosions, Clumps

>>> re: Iodophor imparting taste to brews.

My experience with iodophor disagrees with that reported by other posters
and I'd hate to see new brewers get the impression this great sanitizer will
taint their brew.  Other than boiling yeast ranching equipment, I sanitize
using a ~30 min. soak in 25 ppm Iodophor exclusively, never, ever rinse,
rarely completely air dry equipment and yet I've never made an "iodiniated"
brew.  

To try to put this matter to rest, here's a data point: a fair amount of
sanitizer is within my counter pressure bottling rig after sanitizing and
draining so I consider the first bottle filled a rinse and drink it during
the bottling session.  I do detect a bit of iodine maybe 1/2 the time BUT,
it's sure  a lot less than the amount in iodinated backpacking water.  It
sure isn't a bottle one would want to enter in a contest but it's not nearly
enough to render the bottle undrinkable.  YMMV.  None of the subsequent
bottles have ever had a iodine twang.

OTHO, Rick Olivo reported two ruined brown ales from iodophored plastic.
I'm thinking leaving the solution in contact with plastic for a long period
of time will likely cause a problem.  I've a 5 gal. low density polyethylene
jug I sometimes use for temporary storage of iodophor solution.  Once milkly
white, it's now a definite orange color and smells *very* strongly of
iodine.  I'd definitely not put brew in it!  (BTW, I can store iodophor for
weeks in a glass carboy but only days in the plastic jug).  I've not
iodphored high density polyethlene (the stuff used in 5 gal. fermenting and
bottling pails), but I suspect it would also be iodinated, although probably
not as quickly as the low density variety.  Also, not arranging what ever
plastic equipment you've Iodophored so it can drip dry might also create a
problem.

Std. disclamer- I'm just (obviously) a real satisfied user.

>>> re: The mill explosion thread:

I hope no one with homebrewer sized mills and volumes runs amok and gets
alarmed by the recent mill explosion thread.  The good news: an ignitable
quanitity of grain dust is a cloud you with a visibility of inches.  We're
talking THICK- 55 gr/m3 for malt dust!  I can't imagine a rational
homebrewer's mill generating such a concentration (maybe something truly
bizarre like a motorized corona at, say, 1000 rpm could be a problem).  The
bad news: the energy of a spark required to ingite such a cloud (.035 J) is
pretty low.  Gravel and metal in a mill can generate this much energy as can
a discharge of static electricity (e.g. from a belt and pulley or the flow
of grain itself.  The worse news: the max. pressure from a malt dust
explosion is ~95 psig with a max. rate of pressure rise of 4,400 psig/sec.
Even a reinforced concrete building is turned to rubble with this sort of
pressure and rate of pressure rise unless it has lots of vent area.

The other primary problem with grain dust occurs when it's allowed to
accumulate in a layer.  When deposited on electrical equipment thats
unapproved for such locations, the insultation it provides interfers with
heat dissipation which can lead to overheating of the equipment and perhaps
burnout and/or ignition the dust layer.  Dust layers can also be thrown into
suspension by small explosions or other violent means and make for a BIG
explosion.  Hopefully, we all maintain our milling areas a clean enough to
avoid both of these scenerios.  FWIW, most large-loss dust explosions start
within equipment.  This "small" explosion throwns dust layers in the general
area into suspension, igniting them and causing a even large explosion.  

Thus ends Dust Explosion 101...

>>> re: Clumps churing in fermenters:

Judging by the color of the clumps and the color of 1) the break/trub in the
bottom of the fermenter and 2) the color of a layer of yeast,  I think the
clumps are, volume-wise, mostly break material.   I'm guessing they float
because there is yeast in or adhering to the clumps that's generating CO2
making the clumps bouyant.  Of what practical importance the clumps are, I
haven't a clue, but, IMHO, watching the clumps churn in the primary is much
more entertaining than 95% of what's on network TV.  YMMV!

c.d. pritchard   cdp at mail.chattanooga.net 
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 29 Jun 1997 11:05:23 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: Sparge Water Level and Distributor

I'm trying to catch up on my HBD reading so...

>>> Assessing level of sparge water in the mash tun:

Some have posted that monitoring sparge water levels in the mash tun is a
drag.  Put a sight gauge on your tun to monitor the sparage water level.
You don't have to pop the lid off the tun (thereby loosing a lot of heat and
having to peer through steam) when you want to determine the level of sparge
water.

I use some of the recently introduced (in these parts anyhow) 1/4" ID, 3/8"
OD milky white polyethylene pipe for the gauge.  The milkiness makes taking
a reading a bit difficult (can't just glance at it) but it's cheap, rigid
enough and is rated for the temp.  Mine's attached about 1" above the tun's
bottom.  If you don't wish to drill another hole in your tun, put a tee
between the tun and the wort-out plumbing and connect the gauge to the
outlet on the tee.  This arrangement will give low readings during high
flows (e.g. a batch sparged, RIMSed mash) due to the friction loss in the
grain bed.  If you want accuracy, stop the flow briefly and take a reading.  

The simpliest sight gauge is to use long, clear run-off tubing and, when you
want to take a sparge level reading, shut the valve, raise it so it's beside
the tun and open the valve. 

For those wishing to pursue automation of sparging- the design for a
electronic liquid level sensor is posted on my web page (URL in sig. line).  

>>> Sparge water distributor:

Posts have mentioned channeling and other problems associated with
introducing the sparge water onto the top of the grain bed.  My RIMS tun is
a 6.5 gal. plastic pail but the approach will work any tun you can stick the
bottom of a plastic pail into.  I cut the bottom 6" or so off of a 5 gal.
pail, put a bunch of 3/32" and 1/16" holes it's bottom and suspend it
(floating it instead might also work) just above the top of the grain bed.
Works great- due to all of the holes, the flow is very uniform flow across
the grain bed surface and there's no distrubance of the grain bed when
adding sparge water or recirculating the wort.

c.d. pritchard   cdp at mail.chattanooga.net 
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 06:46:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Tom Lombardo <favt3tl at rvcux1.RVC.CC.IL.US>
Subject: unfiltered beer

I recently tried a sixer of "Devil Mountain Honey Wheat Ale" (pretty
good BTW, but not as good as their 5-malt ale) and the label
says that this beer is "unfiltered".  If that's true, shouldn't there be 
a layer of yeast sediment on the bottom of the bottle (just like in my
unfiltered homebrew)?  There isn't any sediment, so what's up?

Tom (in Rockford IL)


Homebrew - It's good for what ALES you!

Tom Lombardo (favt3tl at rvcux1.rvc.cc.il.us)



Return to table of contents


Date: 30 Jun 97 13:48:53 EDT
From: Stephane Tanguy-1
Subject: Re: Yeast for a plambic

Hi American Homebrewer !

I am french homebrewer, Graduate in Enzymatic Chemistry and i work for the 
summer in UK

Lambic yeast are complex because during long fermentation period differents 
yeast and bacteria play role one after the others

I came back to France 3 weeks ago for brewing 6 gallons (30L) of pseudo lambic 

I used sort of funny turbid mash and i used differents culture of yeasts:
What you have to know is that in lambic there are 2 mains diferents sort of 
yeast : Saccharomices and Brettanomices and two mains bacterias: Pediococus and 
lactobacillus

For my lambic i used principaly a culture of Wyeast lambic Blend, but they said 
this culture contain Brettanomices lambicus but i don't know if there's pedio 
in, so i added a culture of Dentergem wit wich should contain Pediococus (easy 
to culture from a bottle) and an other culture of Titje wit wich should contain 
lactobacillus like that i was sure to have enough yeast and bacteria in my 
lambic.

I racked the beer in Oak barrel after 5 days (because return in UK) and now I 
just have to wait a long time, may be a year.

I hope the story of my lambic could inspire you and let me know if you've got 
other interesting information about yeast in lambic and Wyeast lambic blend.

Cheers

Stephane





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:02:52 -0400
From: "Lee Carpenter" <leec at redrose.net>
Subject: Jap. Beetles and Hop Plants

Stir Doctors,

   Well, everyone's favorite pain in the ass has arrived a week early this
year. The biggest pain of the insect world in my neck of the woods, as far
as fruit trees and hops go, is the Japanese beetle. I've been spraying the
fruit trees with  Orthene for some time with little success. They eat the
leaves, but it doesn't seem to stunt the tree. 
    Now, much more importantly, they are eating my hop leaves! "Using Hops"
nor "Growing Your Own Hops" mentions anything about the JB being a hop
problem. Last year was the initial one for my plants and they were only 8
feet high. The beetles must have overlooked them. This year, at this point,
I have six lines all over 20 feet high. The burrs are now visibly becoming
hops. My questions are this: 1) What should I spray with if anything? and
2) Are the hop plants far enough along that the JB's can't affect cone
growth?  I must admit, I couldn't resist blasting the little bastards with
"Sevin" yesterday. It says it's safe for nearly all fruit and vegetable
crops if you wait a certain amount of days before harvesting once you
spray.  I WANT THEM ALL DEAD!!!

Lee C. Carpenter

"You can't be a real country unless you have a beer and an airline--it
helps if you have some kind of football team, or some nuclear weapons,
but at the very least you need a beer."
                                       -- Frank Zappa


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 10:42:40 -0400
From: "atonalcm" <atonalcm at bestweb.net>
Subject: Re:Belgian Wheat (Wyeast 3278)

>Stir Doctors,

>I downloaded a Belgian Wheat recipe from somewhere, and now I can't
>relocate it. My problem is that the recipe calls for putting Wyeast 3278
in
>the secondary for 2-3 weeks(Brettanomyces bruxellensis). I've never used a
>secondary yeast before and am not in possession of the recipe's
>instructions. Should I just rack it and pitch like it was the primary?
>Thanks in advance.

>Lee

Lee,
When you pitch the yeast in the secondary, do as you normally would,
however, 
make sure you don't aerate the wort.  Also it seems to be a good idea to
add a very 
small amount of oak chips (boiled) to the secondary so that the
Brettanomyces can
populate in the pores of the wood.




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 97 08:50 PDT
From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
Subject: re:Bottle time blues - dual guage? / Boston & Charleston

Raymond Estrella says in HBD #2451:

<snip>
 You can some times find rebuilt regulators also, but I would recommend
getting a new one. They can be found pretty cheap mail order. Get a dual 
gauge model.
<snip>

I don't understand the need for the 2nd guage. The second guage measure's 
pressure in the c02 bottle which is pretty much a constant (800 psi?) until 
the tank goes empty and then drops like a rock. Pretty useless. I paid an 
extra $9 for the second guage and all it does is get in the way.

I did figure out a simple way to figure out when the tank is getting low. 
When mine is empty it weighs 25 pounds and its a 10Lb bottle. Guess what it 
weighs when its full? I have a bathroom scale nearby the refrigerator (its 
the excercise/party room in the basement) and weigh the bottle periodically.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Leaving Wednesday for a week in Boston (Cambridge actually) and then a week 
in Charleston SC. Any places I don't want to miss for good brew/food?

Charley in Northern California
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems
Elk Grove Unified School District
cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us
916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax)


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 1 Jul 1997 01:52:52 +1000
From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh at crl.com.au>
Subject: lack of nucleation sites for this thread? - NOT!

Steve Alexander joins the fray-

>From some graphs in M&BS pH may drop from 5.7 to 4.4 for lagers and 5.2
>to 4.0 for ales in the course of fermentation.  Might be enough.  Who
>knows - the isoelectric point of yeast may well vary with growth and
>wort conditions too.

Except for the fact that an increased CO2 pressure during fermentation
(near 2ATM and above) causes an *increase* in the final beer pH (as I
mentioned before); the mechanism due to a retarded fermentation (thus
higher pH). Beer also ferments faster at *lower* pHs (starting near 5.0),
throwing the whole "high CO2 pressures cause lower pH thus flocculating
yeast early" debate out the window on CO2 pseudo toxicity. 

>I personally doubt that any wort which hasn't
>passed thru a ~micron filter has so few nucleation sites as to build up
>such a hugely excessive supersaturation of CO2. 

This all sounds pretty subjective, Steve. Why do such doubts exist?

There is little doubt from the published data (must I cite them again?)
that increasing the rate of CO2 nucleation speeds fermentation (eg. trub
content, particulate content, fermenter size, fermenter geometry). The
general view appears to be that the mechanism for this is due primarily to
bubbles causing yeast mixing. Small fermenters are *particularly* prone to
slow fermentation, due to both a lack of circulation currents and a small
settling depth, in comparison with larger fermenters.
Where CO2 pressures approach 2ATM and beyond, the high resultant CO2 concs
*do* retard yeast growth, and ultimately fermentation (around 4 ATM).

Might I remind everyone that this is not my ignorant guess or opinion, just
a result of careful research in a good library. Anyone interested in
knowing more about this is referred to the articles cited earlier. (I know
you have access to JIB, Steve). I  would welcome any further *information*
on this topic (contradictory is fine too).

>Surely the yeast must act as nucleation sites eventually.  
By that stage the fermentation has already been affected.

>As someone recently pointed out, we
>do use yeast to bottle carbonate and even overcarbonate beer.  How many
>atmospheres of CO2 in a bottle fermented champagne, 6  or more ?  
Can't comment on champagne, but the highest beer bottle CO2 pressure would
be around 2ATM at 60F and 3 volumes CO2 (from standard carbonation charts -
don't have any 70F figures). This is in the growth inhibition region, not
the fermentation cessation point (4ATM). 
In addition, yeast ferments wort sugars in a predefined order, 
 - sucrose, glucose, fructose, then
 - maltose, then
 - maltotriose.

Stuck fermentations are most often due to an inability to ferment
maltotriose (for whatever reason), which requires activation of the
appropriate enzyme systems for sugar transport and intracellular breakdown.
Comparison of a stuck fermentation (inability to ferment maltotriose) with
bottle refermentation (glucose or sucrose fermentation), doesn't seem very
relevant. Under most (not all) conditions, it's residual maltotriose that
gives beer sweetness. Even a stuck beer will still ferment monosacharides
(just try adding table sugar to your next stuck beer and see what
happens...)

Andy "I feel like an endless tape loop" Walsh.

PS. (from the guy in a garage with a bucket, rather than beer science geek)
I made a batch of andy ale last w/e. Threw in lots of yeast, aerated it
heaps. Used Wyeast 1007. The avg temp here now is maybe 13C. It started
within 12 hours, but was going very slowly still after 3 days. Threw in a
few handfuls of DE. Within 12 hours, the yeast was pouring out of the top
of the fermenter (a cylindrical, 60l, with 40l batch size), all over the
floor.
Moral - due not add DE to your beer. It just gives you more stuff to clean
up.


Return to table of contents


Date:     Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:34 -0600
From: M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com (BAYEROSPACE)
Subject:  hop poles

collective homebrew conscience:

how do you stick a twelve (or fifteen) -foot hop pole in the ground without it
falling over?  do you stand on a 10 foot ladder with a 16 pound sledgehammer
and flail away (and break your neck)?  

does the twine strung between poles in the big hop gardens act as some sort of
support to keep them from falling over?  it seems to me that a solitary pole
would have to be driven pretty deep in the ground to keep from falling over
under the weight of the vine, particularly on windy days.

should concrete be poured?  does this require a backhoe?

also, where can you get a twelve or fifteen foot hop pole?

brew hard,

mark bayer

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 09:45:00 -0700
From: Matt Gadow <mgadow at nospix.netcom.com>
Subject: Wit beer Full-on decoction

<lurk off>
After the recent threads on decoction techiniques, and a resurgence of
Belgian Wheat / Wit beer questions / comments, I would like to relay my
latest wit experience, and ask the collective what I should expect from
what seemed a disastrous mistake.

Saturday co-brewing session started like this.
For 10 Gal Belg. Witbeer:
5lbs 2row
3 lbs Belg. Pils
4 lbs m. wheat
3 lbs Flaked Wheat
1 lb Flaked Oats
Mashed in w/ Kenny's "recipe" for Belgian water (thanks ken!)
Brought 15 gals adjusted water  to boil in 15 mins!
(LOVE that new Cajun Cooker!!!)
Protein rest 128deg. for 30 mins, in a converted keg w/ a *high*
stainless mesh sparge screen ~3inches.
Began to RIMS heat mash (NOT with Cajun cooker, regular low burner)
to raise to 154 mash temp.  At ~152 I (thought) I turned off burner, 
cut the pump, and left for an X-games inspired trip to purchase a new
Wakeboarding pylon extension for the summer trip to Lake Powell,
thinking of the great Witbeer and Wakeboarding sessions to come!!!
Upon return (40 mins later), we arrived to a *rolling boiling mash!*
The cooker had been left on, and the entire mash was now at 212.  OH
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
We struck the heat, added some 120 water, and checked the runnings from
the bottom of the mash tun.  Amazing, no apparent scorching, and a very
light (white!!) first running.  We began a reverse step mash out,
bringing the mash down to 165 degrees by the end of the sparge.
A triple Batch sparge technique was used, with OG at 1.040, 10.30, and
1.020 at the end of each sparge.  The cooked grains & protein fluff was
very apparent at the _top_ of the mash tun, but the runoff was
brilliantly clear, and matched the color of the Hoegaarden wit we were
tasting!

So far so good, right? - Excellent extraction - Final Starting gravity
at 11 gallons was 1.046, or 90% extract efficiency - My best ever!, no
visible scorching on the bottom of the mash tun.  What could the
possible effects of this TOTAL decoction be?  I think that the slow (20
min) raise to 154 w/ RIMS pump in place may have finished off conversion
before the additional heating above 168 -boiling, saving the batch from
a cooked starch mess.

I'd love to hear the comments from the technical types about what
effects this might have, and will be planning on consuming this one
fairly quickly (finished w/ a _little_ coriander and both bitter and
sweet orange peels)and pitched w. a mixed culture of Hoegaarden dregs
and Steelhead brewery ale yeasts, so I will post some tasting notes upon
return from the Lake Powell taste test!

Spam free (I wish) address:
Mgadow at (nosp)ix.netcom.com
"If you're not livin' on the edge...
You're takin' up too much space!"

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 11:56:37 -0500
From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: Soil pH meter?

This weekend whilst browsing at the local home-improvement mega store I saw
a soil ph meter for only $13.50!  It had a metal tip on the end of the
probe, nothing like a pH meter used for brewing, but it made me wonder if
there was any way to use a device like this for mashing.  It had a meter
gauge that looked precise enough to differentiate by .1 or .2 pH through
the brewing range. I didn't buy it, but can someone tell me how it won't
work right and why I shouldn't waste my money?  :)

- --Brian Pickerill, Muncie IN



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 13:57:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: DE in the brew....

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

Andy Walsh sez...

" PS. <judicious snippage>...going very slowly still after 3 days.  Threw
in a few handfuls of DE. Within 12 hours, the yeast was pouring out of the
top of the fermenter (a cylindrical, 60l, with 40l batch size), all over
the floor. 

Moral - due not add DE to your beer. It just gives you more stuff to clean."

Diatomaceous Earth? Eeeeeewwwwww!

See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan                pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor                  janitor@hbd.org
AOL Home Brewing "Maven"                  brewbeerd at aol.com
Ford Manufacturing Engineer               pbabcock.ford at e-mail.com 


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 08:24:29 -1000
From: Richard Stueven <gak at aloha.net>
Subject: Re: Shipping beer

Aloha!

I'll second Dan Morley's comments about shipping beer via DHL.
A couple of weeks ago, I received a six-pack from Aldaris Brewery
in Riga, Latvia(!)...the airbill clearly said "Beer...gift, for
personal use only".  I did get a call from the Customs people
asking for my SSAN, but that was the only "formality".  The beer
arrived just five days after it was shipped.

have fun
gak

P.S.  A *big* "mahalo" to Herman Epstein for that beer!

- -- 
Richard Stueven    gak at beerismylife.com    http://www.aloha.net/~gak
The Moloka`i Brewing Company               http://molokaibrewing.com
Beer Is My Life!                             http://beerismylife.com
Breweries On The Web      http://www.aloha.net/~gak/beer/brewwww.htm

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 30 Jun 1997 14:57:28 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Not more botulism...

     Hi all,
     
     Scott Murman writes:
     --------------
     "Every account I've read states that botulism is colorless, odorless,
     and tasteless.  It is also doubtful that botulism sporolation could
     produce enough CO2 to raise a steel canning lid."
     --------------
     
     Imagine, an organism with no metabolic wastes!  Fascinating!  
     Actually, as I wrote here a few months ago, according to Bergey's 
     Manual (a microbiology reference book) Clostridium (the bacteria 
     responsible for the production of Botulism toxin) CAN produce all 
     sorts of fermentation by-products.  Some of them are hydrogen sulfide 
     and ammonia.  These are pretty damn smelly.
     
     My guess is that the danger lies within a can in which the Clostridium 
     have just begun to grow.  There may be some toxin present, but there 
     *may* not be enough other fermentation products around for your nose 
     to detect.  Just a guess.
     
     Botulism, *the toxin*, may be colorless/odorless/tasteless, but the 
     toxin is NOT the only metabolic product of Clostridium!
     
     Scott continues:
     
     "The effects Dave [Miller] is describing are associated with bacteria 
     spoilage; a much different beast from botulism."
     
     Actually, Botulism IS caused by bacterial spoilage; the beast is the 
     same!   Now back to brewing...
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents

---