---

	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:
  Re: Yeast shock (Dan Schafer)
  Bleach problems (Rick Gontarek)
  Cider (Rick Gontarek)
  Sparge Water Control (Kyle Druey)
  Yeastlab Bavarian Lagering stage (Rotten egg still) (Jon Bovard)
  Yeast mega-culture (Steve Alexander)
  iodine/mash efficiency/Fix mash/sparging/HSA (Steve Alexander)
  Re: mash thickness and enzyme activity (Steve Alexander)
  Re: Modification indicators (Steve Alexander)
  More AHA stuff . . . (Louis Bonham)
  50:50 Crystal:Roast (Lau William WT)
  Clinging Yeast ("Tomusiak, Mark")
  Gods of brewing / Dry lauter / Warm 2ndary ("Dave Draper")
  Rocks in his head, Nada dust explosions ("David R. Burley")
  Ro water, ("David R. Burley")
  Re: Steinbier (John Adams)
  Re: BJCP guidelines (Paul Henning)
  Re: BJCP guidelines (korz)
  Mixed Up Grain (Brian S Kuhl)
  Steinbier (DAN PILLSBURY)
  Steinbier? ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Freezer Problem ("Eric Schoville")
  saccrification and iodine test ("Bret Morrow")
  4.6pH sparge (korz)


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 brewery at realbeer.com

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: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 10:36:25 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dan Schafer <zermac at m-net.arbornet.org>
Subject: Re: Yeast shock

Frist pitch bad yeast,second pitch good yeast... vineger,my results from a
similar brew....yuc! This was batch #5 early in 95' good luck with yours!
					Dan Schafer

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Jeff Renner wrote:

> A cautionary tale:
> 
> I guess I thought it couldn't happen to me.  I live a good life.  I love my
> wife and kids.  I vote in all primary and general elections.  I brush after
> every meal.  But it did happen.  Oh, the shame of it.  Shocked yeast!
> 
> It all began when I saved 600 ml of a German lager yeast from the primary
> of a CAP under 300 ml beer at 38F.  After 6 weeks it still smelled good, so
> I took half of it and added 500 ml wort plus yeast nutrient in a gallon jug
> at 70F.  After 6 hours it was foamy.  After 24 hours, it was still foamy,
> so I put it in the fridge for two days until I brewed (8 gallons of
> Munchner dunkel), then pitched it in 52F wort.  I usually expect low
> kraeusen 24 hrs after pitching this amount of yeast, but even after 60 hrs,
> I got only a bubble or two with vigorous swirling of the carboys.  I must
> have shocked the yeast by dropping it from 70F to 40F over only a few
> hours.  Fortuunately, I still had the remaining 300 ml yeast, so I pitched
> it, and after 24 hours had low kraeusen, and 6 hours later, high kraeusen.
> I'm a little concerned about what might have been growing in my wort while
> I was waiting for the yeast to take off, but hey, whatcha gonna do?
> 
> So, I guess the moral of the story is, don't drop the temperature of your
> yeast too fast (I've heard 10F in 24 hours).  I'd played fast and loose
> with this before and hadn't had trouble, but it caught up with me.  Perhaps
> the yeast was weakened by the lost dormancy.  Hope the dunkel turns out OK.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-
> Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
> 
> "I have found that alcohol taken in sufficient quantity produces all the
> effects of drunkenness."  Oscar Wilde (1854-1900), Irish author, playwright
> and wit.
> 
> 


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 09:24:05 +0000
From: Rick Gontarek <gontarek at voicenet.com>
Subject: Bleach problems

Greetings,

I was hoping to get some insight to a problem I've been having with
using bleach as a sanitizing agent. I have been brewing for years and
have always sanitized pretty much everything with a dilute bleach
solution. However, lately when I sanitize my bottles or carboys with a
dilute bleach solution (like a couple of tablespoons in 5 gallons), I
wind up with a fine precipitate that becomes what seems like covalently
bound to the glass! Upon closer inspection of the glassware, I see tiny
bumps and a whitish precipitate. The crap doesn't come off (yes, I've
tried vinegar and acid solutions to no avail!). The pH of my tap water
is 7 (as tested by pH test strips). I'm not a chemist, so I'm at a loss
to explain this one. Could my tap water be chock full o' salts that are
somehow reacting with the bleach? A couple of years ago when we were
living in a different state, the same thing happened to me, but I was
able to remove the scale with vinegar. If anyone has any insight or
comments, I would welcome them.

Thanks in advance,

Rick Gontarek
Owner/Brewmaster
The Major Groove Picobrewery
Trappe, PA


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 18:11:24 +0000
From: Rick Gontarek <gontarek at voicenet.com>
Subject: Cider

Greetings,

Because the air is crisp with Autumn, I want to take my yearly attempt
at making hard cider. But before I start this year, I have some
questions for the cider collective. 

In 1995, I brought my carboy to a local apple orchard and had it filled
with 5 gallons of fresh unpasteurized cider. At home I added 1 lb. light
brown sugar and rehydrated champagne yeast. The o.g. was 1.052, and less
than two weeks later it was bottled at a f.g of 1.000 (I added 3/4 cup
corn sugar to carbonate). The cider was good for a week or two, but then
it got really dry and then overcarbonated; the rest of the bottled cider
had to be pitched for fear of exploding bottles.

Last year, I wanted a hard cider with a bit more sweetness, with less
winey characteristics. So, I used 2.5 gallond unpasteurized cider, 2 lb.
light brown sugar, and Ale yeast (Wyeast 1056). I used an ale yeast
because I figured that I could get rid of that winey flavor, and also
because I was hoping to get a higher f.g. The o.g. was 1.060, and 10
days later it was bottled at f.g 1.005 (adding about 1/3 cup corn
sugar). Again, it became way overcarbonated and winey.

What I am shooting for is a hard cider that doesn't get overcarbonated
and manages to retain a little residual sweetness. I know that if I use
unpasteurized cider, there will be wild yeaties that will toss their
hats into the ring. I don't have a problem with that. I've never used
campden tablets, and I don't know whether using them then adding my own
yeast will help. What I don't understand is if I bottle at a f.g. of
1.000 and add 3/4 cup corn sugar why it gets overcarbonated. Maybe I'll
prime with less sugar? Or none at all? How about adding some
unfermentable sugar for residual sweetness, like lactose?

If anyone has some suggestions, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks in
advance.

Regards,

Rick Gontarek
Owner/Brewmaster
The Major Groove Picobrewery
Trappe, PA

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 22:18:50 -0700
From: Kyle Druey <kdldmd at lightspeed.net>
Subject: Sparge Water Control

On a recent trip to Home Depot I passed by some replacement parts for 
swamp coolers.  There I noticed a float valve ($5) that I thought could 
be used to control the level of the sparge water above the grain bed. I 
rigged up a bracket to attach it to the inside of the lauter tank and set 
the level about 2" above the top of the grain bed.  It has worked very 
well now for the last two batches without a hitch.  All I have to do is 
open up the valve on the HLT to full open and I don't have to touch it 
again.  This eliminates constantly trying to match the flow rates out of 
the LT and the HLT to maintain the liquid level above the grain bed.  
This frees me up to do other things (clean the RIMS equipment) during the 
sparge.  This might help some other "fly" spargers out there and make 
your brew day easier.

Kyle Druey
brewing in Bakersfield, CA

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1986 15:50:34 +1000
From: Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au>
Subject: Yeastlab Bavarian Lagering stage (Rotten egg still)

Hello all.

After lagering my yeastlab Bavarian lager in a plastic fermenter (CO2 purged
of course). One month later the rotten egg smell is still there with a
slight taste to boot. The yeast was used in the month of its predicted
expiry and NO ITS NOT INFECTED. Does lagering under pressure and venting CO2
dissipate the Hydrogen sulphide at all relative to just a "stationary"
closed fermenter lagering phase?
I gotta get rid of that smell.


Cheers
JB
Brisbane.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 21 Sep 1997 23:58:13 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Yeast mega-culture

All,
   'bout a week ago someone asked how you get a quart of slurry and AlK
answered with the only practical HB advice - which is to save yeast from
a 5gal batch.  

I've just completed a semi-anaerobic yeast culture which involved a
quart of wort from extract (SG=1.045), and added 5X the recommended rate
of yeast nutrient (mostly ammonium salts), 2gm of unsaturated fatty
acids (mostly linoleic & linolenic), and 200mg of chalestoerol (sterol)
and I have netted 8 ounces of slurry from this 1qt starter !!!

Fatty acids or oxygen are this most typical limiting growth factors, tho
there are many growth factors required.  For maximal yeast growth you
can either aerate/oxygenate the devil out of your starter
repeatedly/continuously or add fatty acids and sterols.  With the first
you face nasty oxidation products, with the latter any excess fatty
acids are likely to cause off flavors, foam reduction, etc.

Tho my "starter" smells fine right now - I wouldn't consider pitching
this yeast without washing it or regrowing in a 'normal wort' medium.

Steve Alexander



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 01:25:18 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: iodine/mash efficiency/Fix mash/sparging/HSA

- -- Iodine --
Dave Burley writes ...
>Well for one thing, the majority of the
> malt starch is not gelatinized and is not
> "released to the liquor" since it is very poorly soluble.
and AlK responds ...

] Fully modified malt (which most modern malts are)
]still have small amounts of this starch that is trapped in the tip. 
There
]is no point in boiling your sample to extract this inaccessable starch
]***UNLESS*** you are going to boil your mash too.

Roughly 79-81% of the total malt mass is solubilized - 71-72% of the
malt mass is starch and sugars (not including gums).  The spent grain
includes about 2.5% of the original malt mass as starch.  In other words
a good mash will extract more than 96% of the starches and sugars.
Figures from M&BS. Draw your own conclusions.

- -- Mash extraction efficiency --
Someone asked the perennial question about how to boost extraction
rates.  I just read a paper from Robert Muller at the Brewing Research
Foundation.  In it many graphs of water to grist ratio(WGR) vs
extraction are given.  What becomes clear is that at WGR < 2 (= 1qt/lb)
that enzymic processes are water limited.  The author claims that much
of the water is tied up with glucans and pentosans and demonstrates
this.  The point is that WGR of 3 or greater (1.5qt/lb) is advisable for
maximal extraction.  A 10% loss occurs at about WGR=1.75 (.87qt/lb).

- -- Let's fix the Fix Mash (40C/60C/70C) --
In another JIB paper from the guys at Guinness, (AndyW referenced this
before) ferulic acid, a precusor to 4VG(clovey flavor) and other
potential off flavors (when not making a wheat beer) was released from
malt due to enzymic activity at 45C.  McMurrough et al at Guiness
demonstrate that by avoiding this temperature it is possible to reduce
the ferulic acid level by roughly a factor of 8!  They also demonstrate
that many wild yeast and brewers (non-weizen) yeasts can produce 4VG and
4VP when the precursors are available.  Some non-weizen yeasts can
produce perceptable levels of 4VG given sufficient ferulic acid. The
obvious conclusion is - unless you're making wheat beer you may want to
avoid 45C.

The mash-in at 40C of the Fix regime is awfully close to the ferulic
acid generating optima temp.  In light of this and the protein
discussion, maybe it's time to consider a 30C/58C/70C (86F/136F/158F)
mash regime in preference to the Fix temps.  30C for hydration, 58C for
proteolysis&beta-amylase and 70C for alpha-amylase.

- -- sparging --
Just came across yet another paper abstract which indicates that a high
temperature mash-out works because the higher temp causes small
particles to agglomerate rather than to stay separate and drop into the
filter bed clogging it.  Viscosity isn't the issues in a mashout.
Another HB Momily bites the dust!

Steve Alexander



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 03:20:47 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: mash thickness and enzyme activity

AlK writes on  mash thickness and enzyme activity ...

I have two recent JIB papers on this topic here, and everything AlK said
is on the mark.  Fermentability does drop slowly as mash thickness is
increased above 3:1 (1.5qt/lb) because the beta-amylase is more heat
labile and denatures more rapidly in thinner mashes.

The slowing of amylosis as sugars increase may be due to a lack of
available water molecules as the level of secondary sugars rise (see
other post).

What the casual reader is probably not aware of is that proteases and
peptidases include over 40 identified enzymes and many unidentified
enzymes, each with distinct temperature optima, pH optima and methods of
action (for example some only break proteins at specific amino acid
pairings!).  The 122F/135F stuff models this as just two enzyme classes
w/ two temp optima, but the story is quite complex and imperfectly
understood even today.  Barley and to a lesser extant malt also contain
some soluable protease inhibitors and cetain metal ions (iron, copper,
magnesium) can also act as cofactors.   Anything said about protein
degradation in the mash tun must therefore be taken as a generalisation.

Steve Alexander



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 05:16:43 +0000
From: Steve Alexander <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Modification indicators

David Burley writes ...

>Brewsters:
>SteveA says:
>
>>Several measures are standard and specific to proteins and other malt
 ...
>>
>>Soluble nitrogen ratio(SNR) would seem a reasonable measure of protein
>>degradation to me (and the folks at IoB).


>Well, Steve,  DeClerk would disagree with you
> and IoB, apparently, saying on page 230-231
> of Textbook of Brewing:
 - --------------
>"Kolbach has suggested using the relationship
 ...SNR%...
> 41%  indicated very good modification.,
> 35-41% good modification and
> values lower than 35% insufficient modification.
>
>But the proportions of soluble nitrogen
> in malt is <<by no means>> a suitable
> index for assessing modification, because
> towards the end of flooring, hydrolysis of
                     ^^^^^^^^^
> complex nitrogenous compounds, 
>such as the proteins, is almost entirely
> compensated by resynthesis. In fact so much
> so is this the case, that towards the fifth day
> on the floor, the malt shows no further
> increase in the Kolbach index while the
> difference between coarse-fine grinding
> continues to diminish

What ?  I said SNR is a measure of protein degradation.  DeClerk says
SNR is not suitable for assessing modification (perhaps from the
maltsters POV) because it is non-linear and changes little at the end of
the malting schedule.  Where is the disagreement ??  I never said SNR is
*the* ultimate modification index.  In fact I have repeatedly said
(offline and on) that there are many indices and none are perfect.

You must choose the index to match the factors you are concerned with. 
The original HBD question was about foam/heading and yeast
nutrition/FAN.  In this context protein and nitrogen measures are
appropriate.  In the context of DeClerk in the above - he was concerned
with determining the end of the growing phase of malting and the
beginning of the drying/kilning phase, or perhaps the carbohydrate
extraction rates. For this different purpose, SNR is not appropriate.

DEF: Modification is the sum of all biochemical and biological changes
that take place throughout malting.  There are literally thousands of
changes and so literally thousands of indices can be conceived.  The
question is whether the index has any useful meaning.  As it turns out
many common measures have limitations.  I've already cited the papers in
the current lit.

A maltster might USEFULLY measure CO2/O2 levels, mass changes, specific
enzyme levels, protein fraction variations, carbohydrate loss, acrospire
length, friability, many other things as well, and a lot of indirect
measures like IR absorbtion and staining methods.  Even MRI analysis has
been applied experimentally.

As brewers we have three primary concerns - 
1/ protein extraction (FAN and PSN levels), 2/ various enzyme levels, 3/
carbohydrate extraction, 2.  Another zillion secondary concerns like
glucan levels, wort viscosity, millability arise too.

BTW 'floor' malting went out with buggy whips except for few die-hard
traditionalists in the UK (the same folks that still call a hopelessly
inbred german family 'royalty' as we aproach the 21st century).  Current
pneumatic malting usually uses gibberelin which distorts the growth
process in several ways that DeClerk probably never considers.  I don't
know if bromates are widely used in malting still, but things have
changed in the last half century.

>Assuming, for example, that there is 4% of soluble nitrogen in two 
>samples of malt, and that the nitrogenous matter of the malt has been 
>degraded to the same extent, then if one sample contains 12% and the 
>other 10% of protein, The Kolbach indices will be 33 and 40 
>respectively, which is very different for the same degree of 
>modification

That's a bit like saying that pulling 2 bolts off my 2500lb car degrades
it as much as pulling 2 bolts off my 20lb bicycles.  In one sense it's
true (we have 2 bolts from each), in another it is not (the percentage
of all bolts is quite different).

If soluable nitrogen is the only important aspect to your application
(presumably brewing) then I agree that soluble N% is the  issue.  If the
amount of remaining nitrogen has other effects (implies more enzymes,
harder kernel, more amino-phenols of amino-glucosides, ound carbs) then
the insoluble N is important too.  In practice the protein fractions
(hordein, glutelin, albumin(soluble), glutelin) show some regularity in
their distribution throughout the malting process.  For this reason SNR
makes sense when comparing the degree of modification of different
malts.

>The determination of soluble nitrogen cannot therefore be used as an
>index of modification, but merely indicates the amount of nitrogen 
>which will be present in the wort."

Which is precisely the index of modification (biochem change in barley)
that we are concerned with for yeast nutrition and foam.

David, it's clear that you and DeClerk mean something entirely different
by "modification", like "readiness to dry and kiln".  You need to supply
a definition here.

BTW - of course when comparing british PA malts to continental or US
pale malts, the brit malts have lower nitrogen, and so higher fine grind
extraction(higher % carbs). Because of the extra insoluble protein in
the lager malts the FGCG difference is higher (the extra protein traps
some carbs).  This implies a fractional % difference in carbohydrate
yield.  This doesn't imply anything about how degraded the soluble
proteins are, nor the carbs except possibly for the beta-glucans which
make up the cell divisions.  Would you change your mash schedule to
protein rest or decoct in order to extract an additional 0.8%
improvement in carbo extraction from lager malt ?  Not unless it adds to
head, body flavor etc.

Steve Alexander


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 04:44:54 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: More AHA stuff . . .

Regarding my post on Dr. Fix, Brian Rezac asks:

>Are we talking about the same George J. Fix, Ph.D.?

Yes, we are.  I have spoken to George on several
occasions recently, including the day of my post
to verify that (1) the situation had not changed,
and (2) to make sure that George did not mind my
sharing a statement he made to me in a private
call.  (George and I also discussed plans for me
to put together another Fix-Farnsworth advanced
brewing seminar, similar to the one we offerred
in 1994.  Stay tuned for details.)

Indeed, given all the connections you cited, I was
floored when George first told me recently that he
was "washing his hands" (his words) of the AHA --
so much so that I gave Jim Parker a "heads up" call
so that he could try and remedy a situation that he
inherited.  (I understand that Jim has now found
the rather strange AHA correspondence to George
that precipitated this matter.)

I thus stand by my statements 100%.  When Brian,
George, Jim, and I meet in Denver next month at the
GABF, methinks Brian will find that George shares
many of the concerns that I and others have
articulated about the AHA.  While I reiterate my
belief that Jim (and Brian) are sincerely doing all
they can to get the AHA ox out of the ditch, there
are some *very* large problems in the AHA/AOB that
are simply not going to go away until Charlie answers
the hard questions and deals with the hard issues.
And, sadly, I see no indication that this will happen
anytime soon.

> PS - Louis, thanks for agreeing to lead one of the
> MOT tours.  You and I can arm wrestle over your
> kevlar vest!

Happy to be of assistance.  I also hope that I can
spend Friday morning at the GABF, rather than at the
AOB's place of business in Boulder doing a technical
dance to obtain inspection access to AOB's 1996 990.
But if Cathy insists on the following the letter of
the law, I'll regretfully put her to it.

Finally, I hope to be able to make a major
announcement in the next HBD concerning the North
American amateur brewing scene.  Stay tuned . . . .

Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham at phoenix.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:35:44 -0400
From: Lau William WT <william.lau at phwilm.zeneca.com>
Subject: 50:50 Crystal:Roast

Regarding Tom Logan's dilemma with the crystal/roast mix.  I would use
this material as "diluted" roast anywhere roast is required (double the
amount since it is a 50% dilution).  The amount of crystal added with
the roast would have minimal affect on the overall batch characteristic.

Regards,
Bill Lau
Glassboro, NJ

Bill

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:50:51 -0700
From: "Tomusiak, Mark" <tomusiak at amgen.com>
Subject: Clinging Yeast

Greetings all...I was curious as to whether anyone has observed yeast
sticking to the sides of glass carboys during primary or secondary
fermentation.  I ferment in a pyrex primary and a glass secondary,
usually covering the vessel with a wet t-shirt for cooling, and
frequently notice large patches of yeast sticking to the insides of the
vessel walls.  Is this normal behaviour, or is it a sign of infection?
I have been fighting a problem with what I believe are wild yeasts
(since the affected beers don't have any obvious flavor defects, but
slowly lose their hop and malt character and become overcarbonated), and
I am trying to track the source of the contamination.  Any input would
be appreciated.  

Mark Tomusiak
Boulder, Colorado

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:58:55 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Gods of brewing / Dry lauter / Warm 2ndary

Dear Friends,

In #2511, my pal Jethro writes about the AHA's response to perceived 
stylistic issues, in particular with George Fix about Koelsch:

"Hearing that this response even pleases George Fix, one of the 'Gods
of Brewing,' ( a personal term I use to describe those I am in awe
of, and there are many...)  pleases me..... But being an 'idealist,'
maybe I'm not gifted enough to have 'stolen' this idea.........only
just stupid enough to state it..... I don't know......what do you
say...Dave in Dallas?"

I've also traded private mail with Brian, and I do agree with 
Jethro-- that kind of response, and its promptness, *is* encouraging, 
and since my first post was motivated by what George Fix wrote, it is 
only fitting that Dr. Fix's subsequent satisfaction with it have its 
effect too.  As Jethro said, if George is content, then I have no 
cause not to be.

Re: draining the lauter dry: Thanks for the comments on this; the 
consensus seems to be that provided one prevents the draff of the 
final runnings from getting into the boiler, one is in no real 
danger.  This, as it happens, is the case in my setup: my rectangular 
cooler is tipped up on one end and there is a small dead spot created 
beneath my manifold, and that's where the goop ends up for me-- I 
never see it going into the boiler.

Re: feasibility of warmer temps during secondary:  Most believe that 
there are few risks of allowing the secondary fermentation temps 
become somewhat warmer than primary temps provided that the majority 
of primary activity is over and that it does not get *too* warm.

Thanks again and cheers,

Dave in Dallas
- ---
*****************************************************************************
   Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
   ddraper at utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
                 Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
Yeast are forgiving unless you really insult them.
    ---Dan McConnell


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:12:13 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Rocks in his head, Nada dust explosions

Brewsters:

George De Piro has rocks in his head or at least he has trouble getting t=
he
idea of steinbier out of head.  He asks about the technique of putting ho=
t
rocks into his wort and if it will cause a problem. I have never done it,=

but I would guess it could be dangerous.  I believe the Germans (used to)=

pour wort over the hot rocks and I think this will make a difference in
that the thin film of wort on a hot rock will caramelize, whereas hot roc=
ks
dumped into the beer may not do it. The size of the rocks will probably
play a role in the extent and depth of the caramelization relative to the=

wort/rock ratio. Too small rocks would probably give a darker
caramelization than larger rocks for a small quantity of wort, but larger=

rocks will stay above caramelization temperatures longer, just because th=
e
thermal conductivity of the rock will be limiting. I would be very carefu=
l
even in heating these rocks up on a grill or whatever as they can explode=
 -
as anyone who has sat around a campfire and put the wrong rocks in the fi=
re
ring can tell you.  Pouring wort over hot rocks could give a similar
problem so come fully clothed, head and face protected and be careful!! =


Put the hot rocks in a container like a small kettle with hole(s) in the
bottom and one in the lid through which you pour the wort to minimize the=

potential of flying hot rock pieces. Pour the  wort over this column of h=
ot
rocks in the pot.  Just an idea. Minimize HSA. =

- --------------------------------------------
Nada I have been unsuccessful in replying to your comments on dust
explosions, since your e-Mail address will not receive my epistles. Pleas=
e
let me know and I will respond directly or here if I don't hear from you.=



Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:12:02 -0400
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Ro water,

Brewsters:

Scott asks about the use of an under-the sink Reverse Osmosis unit for
removing salts from water.  Mine works great and I have a well with lots =
of
carbonates and worst of all iron.  This does and excellent job and my Cze=
ch
Pilsners come out very good. IMHO  Since I have a reduced water pressure =
(
I pass my water over a neutralizer and a carbon bed first)  I can only ge=
t
about 4-6 gallons per day on this 10 gallon per day unit, so I collect
water in gallon plastic jugs for a couple of days and these are ready for=

brewday.
- ----------------------------------------  =


Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 08:42:02 -0600
From: John Adams <j_adams at fc.hp.com>
Subject: Re: Steinbier

3 years ago I made a Steinbier which was not quite as sweet as I would
have liked but a very good beer never-the-less.

As far as rocks go use an igneous type such as granite (which is what I
used) that is well formed with few cracks that can shatter under thermal
stress.  Living in Colorado it is hard to find anything else.

I also grappled with how to handle a hot rock (Hot Rockin' is the name
of my Steinbier) and decided to use heavy stainless steel cabling (such
as for hanging pictures) wrapped around each rock making them into a
sort of 'tea bag.'

To double check my rocks (and cabling) for thermal stability I heated
them and repeatedly immersed them into cold water.  I did this the day
before brewing since I wanted to know if they were going to explode or
if the cabling broke when immersing them into my wort.

To heat the rocks I simply used my propane burner.  I put the rock on
top of the stand and heated them to well above 500F.  I did this outside
at night and after 5-10 minutes of extreme heating they glowed red (I
have the pictures to prove it)!

I simply picked the rock up by the cabling and repeatedly dunked it into
the wort.  The rocks will fragment from thermal stress at the corners
and you will find pebbles in your wort.  Be sure to leave these rock
chips behind when you rack off the wort into your primary.

Worked great!


- -- 
John Adams
KROC WBF '97 Director

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 10:55:38 -0500 (CDT)
From: Paul Henning <phenning at cs.uiowa.edu>
Subject: Re: BJCP guidelines


In Homebrew Digest #2511 (September 22, 1997), AlK writes:

> The existing BJCP guidelines have their own problems.  For
> example, the IPA IBU range goes down to 30 (far too low) ...

I'm wondering if this is one of those "historical vs. current
commerical practice" problems.  This summer, I made my first trip back
to England as a homebrewer.  As I am a big fan of all British styles,
I made a point of searching out IPAs amongst a tasty sea of bitter.

I found the style to be rather under-appreciated (almost scorned) and
the examples of the style to be vastly different than what I would
expect from style guidelines.  Hop bitterness was present, but not
high.  Malt character was there, but hop aroma was subdued.  Just
before I left, I had a homebrewed IPA (unduly) clobbered in the BUZZ
competition for not having enough hops ("MORE HOPS" was rudely
rubberstamped on a judging form).  I am confident that my IPA would
have evoked a "bitter beer face" from any of the English I drank with.

Has anyone else has had this experience with IPAs in Britain?  Feel
free to refute this as well; I am hardly an experienced judge or
anything. 

Cheers,
Paul Henning		Iowa City, IA
phenning at cs.uiowa.edu	http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~phenning/thirsty




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:25:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Re: BJCP guidelines

Paul writes:
>I'm wondering if this is one of those "historical vs. current
>commerical practice" problems.  This summer, I made my first trip back
>to England as a homebrewer.  As I am a big fan of all British styles,
>I made a point of searching out IPAs amongst a tasty sea of bitter.

Forget about it.  Taxation has completely changed all the beers in
Britain.  IPA is a very specific style and many beer appreciators
in Britain have complained about the *MISUSE* of the title "IPA"
when it came to many commercial breweries.  There are even commercial
brewers that have put "India Pale Ale" on 1.036 OG beers!  That's
criminal, in my book.

>I found the style to be rather under-appreciated (almost scorned) and
>the examples of the style to be vastly different than what I would
>expect from style guidelines.  Hop bitterness was present, but not
>high.  Malt character was there, but hop aroma was subdued.  Just
>before I left, I had a homebrewed IPA (unduly) clobbered in the BUZZ
>competition for not having enough hops ("MORE HOPS" was rudely
>rubberstamped on a judging form).  I am confident that my IPA would
>have evoked a "bitter beer face" from any of the English I drank with.

Could very well be, but does that mean that the beer is bad or that
the tastes of the drinkers have narrowed?  I would defend the latter
position.  As for "MORE HOPS" being stamped on your scoresheet, I
don't consider that rude.  I suspect that your beer was underhopped
for the style and therefore deserved to be stamped.  There's also
a "MORE MALT" stamp too if you try to enter a 1.060 OG Doppelbock...
go ahead... try it ;^).

>Has anyone else has had this experience with IPAs in Britain?  Feel
>free to refute this as well; I am hardly an experienced judge or
>anything. 

Well, I recently got back from the Great British Beer Festival and would
concur that of the beers I've tasted (perhaps 10 labeled "IPA") there
aren't any that deserve the appelation "India Pale Ale."  I have heard of
a special batch of beer called "White Horse IPA" which was a 1.060
beer and had a LOT of hops in it, but alas, I didn't get the opportunity
to taste it.  I believe that Steve Hamburg has tasted it and could give
us his opinion of it.

Now, back to the "Historical" vs. "Current" discussion, I am of the
opinion that we should not let styles drift, especially ones for which
we have such a solid historical background (see Dr. John Harrison's
book "Old British Beers and How To Make Them," published by the
Durden Park Beer Circle).  Just because Schmaltz Alt (a pretty decent
Munich Dunkel, actually) or Augsburger Alt say "Alt" on the label, does
that mean we need to change the guidelines to include these beers?
I say, "no."  To take this argument to the extreme, lets go back to
your question of IPAs.  If we were to expand the IPA guidelines to
include both historical and modern IPAs, the guideline would be something
like:

1.036-1.070 OG, 25-100 IBUs, 3.4-7.1% alcohol by volume.

Absurd, isn't it?


Al.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 97 09:29:00 PDT
From: Brian S Kuhl <Brian_S_Kuhl at ccm.fm.intel.com>
Subject: Mixed Up Grain

Tom Logan <tlogan at idir.net> Writes in part:

I'm an extract brewer who has had what I consider a few successful batches
consumed.  I stopped by the friendly local brew shop yesterday, to stock up
for the next brews.  Wanting to make a pale ale and a stout, I ordered a
pound of crystal and a pound of roasted barley.  They asked if I wanted it
crushed, which I did.  I looked around while the process was going on,
picking up some other items and not finding several others.  When I paid
the bill, I noticed the grain sack had 1# crystal, 1# roasted.  Not putting
1+1 together, I put it in the car and went on my way.  When I started
putting things away, I opened the grain sack to remove the 2 sacks of
grain--I thought.  To my dismay, the roasted and crystal was combined!

My question is-what to do with the grain...


TAKE IT BACK. Don't make yourself a more unsatisfied customer than you already 
are. I believe the shop owner must not have had his coffee that day or maybe 
just drank too much. It is "understood" that you want your grains separate. I 
never specify that the grain be kept separate, but expect it to be done this 
way.

Good luck,
Brian

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:18:12 -0500
From: lordofbrewing at webtv.net (DAN PILLSBURY)
Subject: Steinbier

To The Brewing Collective

I brewed a batch of all grain Steinbier two years ago and was pleased
with the results. I visited my local landscaper and bought 6 or 7
baseballish sized rocks of pink Rocky Mt. granite. These were heated
over a fire of apple wood in my grill. To increase the temp a fan was
placed below the grill with the air being forced through the air vents
at the bottom of the grill.  The rocks were then dunked individually in
the wort during the boil with much hissing and spewing of wort involved.
I did not experience any splitting of the rocks.  It was pretty damn
cool actually. 
 I dunked the rock for a few seconds and then brought it out of the
liquid to allow the caramelized wort to dry on the surface, this was
repeated until the heat of the rock decreased below the wort "sizzle"
point. This dunking may not have been necessary but it seemed like the
thing to do.  Once the rocks cooled they were wrapped in foil and stored
in the freezer. I used a bucket for the secondary and placed the rocks
in the bottom, the beer was racked onto the stones from the primary.  I
allowed the rocks to warm to room temp. before the racking.  The sugars
caramelized on the stones were thusly consumed by the yeast during a
secondary fermentation. The resulting ale had a nice light
caramelly/smokey character.
Hope this helps.
Dan

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 11:17:03 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject:  Steinbier?

George De Piro asked:
     
  "  For some reason, I can't get the idea of making a Steinbier out of my 
    head.  Does anybody out there have any ideas about what types of rocks 
     to use, how hot to heat them, how to heat them, how to clean them, 
     etc.?
     
     Also, are there special safety concerns?  I would guess that dropping 
     a few 500F rocks into the kettle might cause a bit of an eruption, no?
     
     Also, any ideas on how to move the hot rocks?  I guess if they are 
     small enough, I could just use kitchen tongs, but would using many 
     small rocks present too much surface area for caramelization?
     
     I don't know why I get these things in my head"

Heated rocks have been used for millennia to boil liquids.  I think most any
rocks will do, but some will likely work better than others.  Pick sound, 
round, fine-grained volcanic rocks such as basalt, rhyolite or dacite, or
uniform metamorphic rocks such as quartzite.  Avoid foliated rocks such as
shales or schists,  rocks with visible rustiness or metallic minerals, or coarse
grained rocks of any type, to reduce the chance of breakage or adding
off-flavors.  Heat them as hot as you can get them in your oven or home barbecue
 - probably red hot is about the best you can do without access to forced air
like a blacksmith's forge.  I'd use really sturdy tongs, such as blacksmith's
tongs to pick them up, and drop them into hot water first heating, to clean off
any dirt and winnow out the ones that break or spall.  Reheating will also break
a few.  Start with hot, barely below boiling wort.  Several fist-sized rocks
ought to do the trick, and keep adding them as needed to maintain the boil.  
Michael Jackson's "Beer Companion" has some good stuff on Steinbier, just don't
have my copy here at work.  I'd wear goggles at all times and heavy clothing
(like welder's leather gauntlets and clothing) as protection against hot flying
rock chips.  The Beer Companion describes a violent boil, and I think that would
be the least you could expect.  Use a vessel *way* larger than your boil volume.
 Just my thoughts as a geologist and beer geek.
 -Grant

Return to table of contents


Date: 22 Sep 97 12:30:41 -0700
From: "Eric Schoville" <ESCHOVIL at us.oracle.com>
Subject: Freezer Problem

All,

	On the heels of Dave in Dallas's refrigerator problem, I 
have an interesting freezer problem.  A couple of weeks ago, I 
bought a used chest freezer, made by Montgomery Ward, that has 
about 14 cubic feet of space.  The freezer appeared to work when
I bought it (it had some frozen ice cube trays in it).  When I
brought it home, I let it set for a week before I plugged it 
in because I was waiting for my temperature controller.  When I 
plugged it in to the temperature controller, I turned it down to
20 degrees Fahrenheit to see if it would work.  No luck.  The 
best temp it would get was 40 degrees Fahrenheit.  Next, I decided
to unplug the controller.  The freezer would still only get down 
to 40.  Then I tried putting some jugs of water in there to see if
this would help (thermal mass, etc), but it would still not get
below 40.  
	Interestingly, frost develeloped near the top of the inside 
rear wall of the freezer.  If I felt the walls of the freezer, 
this was the only area that was _really_ cold.  Then I tried 
putting a fan on the inside to see if this would spread the cool 
air around, but this did not work.  In fact the inside temperature
was higher, probably due to heat created by the fan.  
	Luckily, the freezer is holding ale fermentation temps.  Does
this sound like it is low on freon?  The way that the frost is 
forming, it would seem to me like all of the cooling coils are 
not working.  Why would it only get frost in one area?  I really
hate to invest a lot more money on this freezer.  Any ideas will
be greatly appreciated.  

Eric in St. Louis again, wishing he was home in Dallas

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 12:52:11 PDT
From: "Bret Morrow" <johnson_et_ale at hotmail.com>
Subject: saccrification and iodine test

hey there,

In light of the recent posting concerning the use of iodine testing for 
completion of starch conversion I wanted to throw my experiences in the 
forum as well as post a question or three. I have had negative (not 
blue) iodine tests on the clear liquid of simple infusion mashes 
(148-155 oF) in 20 to 35 min over a number of years.  I have, however, 
followed the advice of the late, great Dave Line and mashed for about 
90-120 min.  My yields are respectable, about 30-32 points per pound.  
My questions are 1)	Why the heck can't I stop at 30-40 min after a 
negative iodine test?  2) Is most the usable starch in the liquid?  3) 
Are there any other desirable changes other than saccrification that 
occur during a simple infusion mash?  

If there are no other important reactions in a simple infusion mash, I 
think the best "test" of the iodine test is to do 2 mashes with 
identical parameters changing only the time (e.g. 30 and 90 min) and 
compare the yields.  Anyone tried this?

Bret Morrow/John Elsworth/Johnson's Brewing 



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 15:50:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: 4.6pH sparge

Alan writes:
>In the past I've usually tried to keep it around 5.0 to 5.5 -- in-line
>with 
>the pH of the mash itself.  But for the last couple of batches I've
>brought
>it down even further (with acid blend, as always) to 4.6.
> 
>I know that this lower pH will help me extract less tannins, and will
>also favour proteases (as I recall).  

Nope... at sparge time your proteases will be long gone...

>Are there any other plusses or minusses I should be aware of?
> 
>Just how low can I go?

A low sparge water pH is a "good thing" however you don't want your
boil pH to be too low.  Too low a boil pH will result in poor break
formation and too much of the break material will make it into your
fermenter.  There are various reasons why you would like to avoid
allowing *too much* break to make it into the fermenter, including
impairing yeast activity and haze formation.  If I recall correctly,
MBS said that break formation is reduced significantly below 4.6pH,
but I would try to avoid a boil pH (at the beginning) below 4.8.

As for sparge water pH, recall that your mash will have some buffering
in it and therefore you don't have to sparge with 5.0 pH water to
get 5.0 pH in the kettle.  Unless I'm making an extremely pale
beer, I simply sparge with untreated tapwater (heated to 180F and
then cooled to 170F) which is about 7.8pH out of the faucet (somewhat
lower after heating and cooling... haven't measured... my carbonate
level is about 105ppm).  I used to check the pH of the final runnings
and when I found that they were always around 5.5 or so, I stopped
worrying and measuring (unless I'm making a frightfully pale beer
(dark grains lower pH)).

What I recommend is that you check your final runnings' pH.  If you
have high-carbonate water (say <200ppm) you may want to add acid
to your sparge water till it's around 5.5.  Presumably, your mash
will be around 5.3 or so.  If your final runnings have a pH much
greater than 5.5, you will want to add more acid to your sparge
water next time.  If their pH is much less than 5.0, you probably
want to back-off on the acid additions.

Al.

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


Return to table of contents

---