---

	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:
  Throwing down the gauntlet (Spencer W Thomas)
  Lauter Tun Design (korz)
  Re: Middle-weight Dextrins (brian_dixon)
  Clarity (korz)
  Re: Holiday Ale Recipe (DanRabin)
  Lauter Tun Manifold (Mike Hughes)
  Re: pumpkin (Mike Uchima)
  freezing yeast (Edward J. Basgall)
  Humor (Mike Hughes)
  IMBR (John_E_Schnupp)
  SALUTATIONS (i.brew2)
  Source of large, drilled rubber stoppers for Mason jars (brian_dixon)
  Kegging carbonation (Steve Haines)
  Bottle Conditioning with honey (Steve Haines)
  more barleywine yeast questions (scotty)
  Vienna water ("Dave Draper")
  legal stuff/HBD/MCAB (Louis Bonham)
  Disappearing Pumpkin ("C&S Peterson")
  Simple questions to the "scientists" ("Kevin J. O'Donnell")
  Re: EBC to SRM conversion (Fredrik Staahl)
  Belgian Yeast (Greg Young)
  Millenium Ales (David S Draper)
  Scientific content/A question of style (Doug Moyer)
  last shot then back to passive mode... (Joe Rolfe)
  Bohemian Pils Yeast for Cal. Common? ("LARSONC%DOM13.DOPO7")
  Roasting barley (Kevin Kane)


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: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 11:20:47 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Throwing down the gauntlet

In a message in HBD 2520, Jeff Sturman claimed that "95% of the
digest's content is totally useless to 95% of home brewers."  The question
then is whether the digest's readership is typical of home brewers.  I
think not, but it's up to all of us to prove me right or wrong.

I've taken the "statistics" Jeff quoted in his message and built a simple 
survey form from them.  Please answer each of the questions by clicking on
the Yes or No button, then click on the Submit button.

The survey is at 

	http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/hbdsurvey.html

Let's see who reads the HBD!

=Spencer

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 12:34:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Lauter Tun Design

Mike writes:
>Brewing Techniques has an excellent article on lauter tun design in
>their latest issue. However, the author recommends turning the slots in
>the copper pipe manifold design to face UPWARDS. He says that this will
>prevent channeling along the floor of the lauter tun. My question is
>this - how many of you use this method? I've always faced my slots down,
>thinking that this would provide the best filtering. It would be nice to
>see how many of you have the slots facing up, and how well this has
>worked for you. (do you get better efficency with them facing up? Have
>you noticed more stuck sparges with them facing up vs. down? Any
>problems getting the wort to run clear?) The more I think about it, the
>more sense it seems to make to face them up. (If you get channeling
>along the floor of the tun, the wort will tend to enter into the
>manifold in greater quantities at one or more points, instead of equally
>across the entire manifold.) I'm a little concerned that the clarity of
>my run-off will suffer with the slots facing up. (I usually get clear
>run-off after recirculating around a quart of wort, with the slots
>facing down) So, what do you all think about this?

The clarity should not suffer because it is not the manifold (nor the
screen, nor the false bottom) that actually does the filtering of the
wort.  It is the grain bed itself that filters the wort during
recirculation and during subsequent sparging.  The purpose for the 
manifold (screen, false bottom, etc.) is simply to hold the large husk
particles from going out the drain.  These husk particles form a lattice
that holds back smaller and smaller particles till it forms a filter.

Now as for efficiency, whether you actually get channeling or not is
questionable and frankly, what's to keep the wort from channeling along
the bottom till it gets to an *upward*-facing slotted manifold and
then traveling up the 1/4" it takes to enter the manifold?  I personally
believe that the difference in efficiency regarding upward- or downward-
facing slots is so incredibly small, that you couldn't measure it
with even a precision hydrometer.

The argument, in the past, for downward-facing slots was that it
presumably reduced the chance of clogging the slots from the weight
of the grist.  Sounds good, in theory, but I doubt it makes any difference.
Remember, when the mash or dry grist goes into the tun, a particle will
either fit through the slit or it won't.  If it fits, it's part of
the cloudy first runnings (unless it was a starch particle and was
converted later during the mash).  If it doesn't fit, then it becomes
part of the filter bed (unless, again, it was starch and was later
converted).  I suppose some small pieces could get lodged into the slits,
but that's a statistical issue and I'm not even sure if the statistical
probability of this would be lower or the same for downward-facing slits.

As for whether you will leave a lot of wort in the bottom of your
tun with upward-facing slits, yes, it's true that *if* your manifold
is *lower* than the hole through which the wort flow exits the tun
(i.e. you rely on a siphon to get the last bit out of the tun) you
will break the siphon earlier and subsequently leave more wort in
the bottom of the tun, but let's consider how much this might be.
Assuming you have 1/2" tubing and your slits go 1/2-way through, you
have a 1/4" difference in height... it would be slightly more if you
used 3/4" tubing and/or the slits went more than 1/2-way through
(although this is not recommended because it compromises the strength
of the manifold and makes it possible for you to accidentally widen the
slits when stirring a bit too aggressively).  But let's say it's 1/2"
for argument's sake.  I'm not about to do the math formally, but
suppose it's a 30cm diameter tun and you had no grain it it.  My
back-of-the envelope scribbling leads me to believe that there would
be just shy of 1 liter *more* wort left when the siphon broke if you
had a 3/4" manifold, cut 3/4-way through, facing *upwards*, than if
you had it facing *downwards*.  *BUT*, in a read lauter tun, you
don't have *only* wort, but you also have grain.  Therefore the grain
would displace a goodly portion of that space and you probably would
have a difference of only 250 or 300ml.

I had wondered about the differences between various lauter tun designs,
which is why I volunteered to do the "Lauter Tun Experiment" and wrote
it up in the Great Grains Issue of Zymurgy.  The experiment showed that
extraction efficiency differences are smaller than your typical measurement
error.

The bottom line: what works (and looks really bad) in theory isn't 
always what works in practice.  My opinion is that with a sufficiently
slow runoff (45min to 1 hr for 5 gallons) the difference is *immeasurable*.

If channeling is your concern, think about making the bottom and *sides*
of the tun rough rather than smooth.  Again... in theory this would make
a difference... in reality, your time would be better spent brewing another
batch of beer.

Al.

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

My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
     http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 10:42:10 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: Middle-weight Dextrins


>Brian Dixon, in hbd 2515, talks about short vs long saccarification
rests

><snip>... you want because the middle-weight dextrins and simple
starches 
>mentioned above are soluble ... <snip>

>This is beginning to sound like the thread regarding longer mash times
at 
>higher temps we had going about a year ago. But this thing called 
>"middle-weight" dextrins is new. Never heard of this before. Are there
high, 
>middle, low-weight dextrin molecules as well as proteins? If so, what 
>happens to each of these at what temperatures over what time frames?

>Charley

My apologies for not being more specific in the original post.  I did
not have my copy of George Fix's "Principles of Brewing Science" with me
at the time (but do NOW!).

On pp. 28-29 of the aforementioned text, George has diagrams of Group I
through Group IV dextrins (7, 13, 19, and 25 glucose units each,
respectively).  He goes on to say, in the first paragraph on p. 29,
"Dextrins in groups I, II, and III generally will not color with iodine.
Those in group IV will produce a redish hue when combined with iodine.
More complicated starch molecules will color a dark blue with iodine."
Neither are these group I-III dextrins fermentable.  Therefore, a mash
rest that only goes long enough to convert starches to these types of
dextrins will _pass_ the iodine conversion test, but will still not be
fully converted.

Part of this depends on whether or not you are trying to maximize the
fermentability of your wort.  If you are, the iodine test is probably
not adequate for you.  If you're not, e.g. you desire unfermentable
dextrins to be in your wort, then maybe the iodine test is good enough
for you.  Your sacc-rest temperature is probably a good indicator of
which group you are in: 149F?  Don't depend on the iodine test, 156F?
The iodine test is probably good enough.  Somewhere between?  You call
it!  My advice is to pick your temperature according to the sugar
profile you want, then give it an hour and call it good.  Use the iodine
test as a verfication tool, if you desire to, to ensure you that your
mash is progressing as expected (but not necessarily as an "it's done
converting" tool).

ADDITIONALLY, and this was not mentioned in my first post, George
mentions on p. 31 that "some of the undegraded beta-glucans can react
with iodine.  This means that an iodine test might show a color reaction
even when a satisfactory degradation of malt sugars has been achieved.
This effect can be minimized by straining out grain kernels before
adding iodine drops to the sample."

Well, that's it I guess.  Comments?  As far as I know, these are the
only reasons that some brewers choose to only use the iodine test with a
grain of salt (yuck yuck, he he he).

Later,
Brian


 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:04:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: korz at xnet.com
Subject: Clarity

Dave has problems with clarity whether he uses Canada Malting 2-row
or Hugh Baird Pale Ale.  He suspects his lack of protein rest.

You must remember that proteins are not the only source of haze.

Firstly, is it permanent or is it chill haze.  If it's permanent,
it could be iron or tin in your water, wild yeast, or oxidized
polyphenols.  The solutions to these problems would be filter
the metals out of your water, better sanitation, and reduce the
amount of polyphenols and/or reduce oxidation, respectively.

If it's chill haze, you have several options.  Recall that chill
haze is caused by a protein-polyphenol complex that is soluble
in warm beer, but becomes noticeable when in colder beer.  You
have five ways to combat chill haze:

1. reduce the amount of HMW proteins that make it out of the kettle,

2. reduce the amount of polyphenols (aka tannins) that make it
out of the kettle,

3. reduce the amount of polyphenols after fermentation,

4. reduce the amount of proteins after fermentation, or

5. force your chill haze to form and settle in the secondary.

You could write 100 pages about all this stuff, so I'll be terse
and leave it to you to look the details up in books.  Addressing
each way (breifly):

1. Make sure you have a good rolling boil, don't boil too long (no
more than 2 hours), chill quickly to get a good cold break, watch
your boil pH (keep it above 4.8 at the beginning), try Irish Moss
or Bentonite in the boil, and yes, try a protein rest.

2. Watch mash pH, sparch pH, sparge temperature, don't overcrush
your grains, try Bentonite in the boil.

3. Try PVPP or Sparkolloid after fermentation.

4. Try Silica Gel, Colloidal Silicon Dioxide, Kieselsol, or Silica Sol
after fermentation.

5. Try lagering.

That should give you some things to work on.  I've posted before
what I do regarding protein rests: if the malt creates a *lot* of
hot and cold break, I add a protein rest.  As for these other things,
other than the Bentonite, I do all of 1 and 2 always, 3 or 5 sometimes,
and have yet to try 4, but after 1 and 2, I've yet to need to do 3, 4,
or 5.


Al.

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

My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
     http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:18:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: DanRabin at aol.com
Subject: Re: Holiday Ale Recipe

Greetings and Happy GABF Week to all Digest-ables!

I'm writing in response to Art M's questions regarding brewing a holiday ale.
I've been brewing a very spicy holiday beer for a number of years. In 1994,
it took a gold medal in the AHA nationals. If you're interested, the recipe
is in the 1994 Zymurgy Special Issue. Art, in answer to your questions,

1) I don't think your recipe has too many spices. As with hops, the goal is
to achieve a good spice/malt balance. Rather than boiling the spices, which
drives off some of the nice aromatics, I recommend making a spice tea and
adding it to your boiled wort before chilling. Bring a few quarts of water to
a boil, turn off the heat, add the spices and honey, cover and steep while
you boil the wort. By the way, your kitchen will smell great!

2) During my first attempt at making a spice beer, I added the spices to the
fermenter. Overnight, my airlock got clogged and blew off, staining my
ceiling. Moral: strain out the spices.

3) For orange zest, use a coarse grater. I've found that the aroma from
oranges is nice when the beer is young, but it dissipates quickly. It will
likely be undetectable in a well-aged beer.

4) I like to age beers in a refrigerator, but there's no reason why you
shouldn't do it at room temperature.

I hope this helps.

In good taste,
Dan Rabin

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:19:51 -0700
From: Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com>
Subject: Lauter Tun Manifold

Greetings -
Here's an update on the question of pointing the slots on a copper
lauter tun manifold up or down: I've heard from three people that use a
copper manifold in a cooler for a lauter tun, and none of them sparge
with the slots facing upward. I'm going to venture into the great
unknown and do my next batch with the slots facing up. If I make it
back, I'll post my observations on this technique...
Mike H.
Double Barrel Brew-Pub
Portland, Or

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 13:25:15 -0500
From: Mike Uchima <uchima at mcs.net>
Subject: Re: pumpkin

Eric Fouch asks:
>  Where did my nice pumpkin aroma/flavor go?  It survived the 
>  boil (It was an all grain brew with 16 ozs of pumpkin pie
>  stuff), so why would the rigors of primary fermentation scrub 
>  the aromas out?
>
>  What if I mashed the pumpkin stuff with some amylase enzyme 
>  separately and added the resulting wort to the secondary (after 
>  boiling, of course)?
>
>  Anybody else had problems losing the pumpkin aroma/flavor?

Yes.  I used 1 large (33 oz) can of pumpkin in a *3* gallon batch of ale
about a year ago (so assuming you did a 5 gallon batch, the ratio of
pumpkin to beer in my case was more than 3x what you had).  Very little
of the pumpkin flavor remained in the beer by the end of fermentation. 
IMO, it was still a pretty nice spiced ale, but unless you knew ahead of
time that the pumpkin was there, it was pretty easy to miss.

Next time I brew something like this, I'm going to double the amount of
pumpkin.  I'm also going to add some rice hulls to prevent lautering
problems.  (The previously mentioned batch had the "sparge from hell" --
got stuck 3 times.)

The idea of mashing the pumpkin separately and adding it to the
secondary is interesting; I may have to give it a try myself.  This
would also have the advantage of sidestepping the sparging problems;
presumably you could just rack the beer off of the pumpkin "sediment"
after a week or so.

Oh yeah, and a question for anyone else who's done pumpkin beer: Did
your fermentation really reek?  I got some really awful smells during
fermentation of my pumpkin ale... sort of like a mixture of rotten eggs
and dirty diapers.   And this was with a yeast (1056) that normally
doesn't seem to produce a lot of bad smells while it's working.  I was
sure it was infected; but by the time fermentation was done, there was
no trace of the bad odor, and aside from the lack of pumpkin flavor, the
beer tasted pretty good.  Maybe yeast convert whatever gives pumpkin its
flavor into other substances -- like maybe H2S?

- -- 
== Mike Uchima == uchima at mcs.net ==


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:42:08 -0500
From: ejb11 at psu.edu (Edward J. Basgall)
Subject: freezing yeast

************************************
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 08:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
>From: "Randy A. Shreve" <rashreve at interpath.com>
>Subject: Freezing Yeast
>Dear BrewGurus:
>I noticed recently in one of Papazian's books, that he talks about freezing
>yeast for long term storage by adding Glycerol.
>Does this really work?  I don't brew often enough to keep yeast in the
>'frig, and freezing would be a great option for me if it really does work
>well.  It tears the heart to dump all that perfectly good yeast from the
>secondary down the drain!
>Anybody out there doing this?  I would appreciate any detailed info you
>would care to pass on.
>Randy Shreve   Salisbury, NC
******************************************
Hi Randy,
I have been freezing yeast for several years now and use either a 10% sugar
solution or 15% DME to store yeast in the freezer.  The glycerol and/or
sugars provide some measure of protection against ice crystal damage.  You
don't get 100% viability after thawing, it's more like 40-50% but there are
certainly enough cells to get a good starter going.  It's best if you have
a deep freeze that does not cycle through a "frost-free" mode.

More recently I've read an article in one of the trade mags (Zymurgy?)
about a guy at a commercial cell culturing lab who stores his used yeast
under sterile distilled water at room temperature.  He claims the yeast is
good stored this way for years.  I also am using this technique. If you are
interested I can look up the reference and get back to you.

cheers
ed basgall
SCUM
State College Underground Maltsters.
State College, PA



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Oct 1997 11:42:09 -0700
From: Mike Hughes <mikehu at synopsys.com>
Subject: Humor

In the name of science, I would like to post the following guide to beer
troubleshooting. Note that this is only a guide - your observations may
vary. (Brewing is not an exact science, after-all) 

SYMPTOM: Beer unusually pale and tasteless.
FAULT:   Glass empty.
ACTION:  Get someone to buy you another beer.

SYMPTOM: Beer tasteless, front of your shirt is wet.
FAULT:   Mouth not open, or glass applied to wrong part of face.
ACTION:  Retire to ladies room, practice in mirror.
 
SYMPTOM: Feet cold and wet.
FAULT:   Glass being held at incorrect angle.
ACTION:  Rotate glass so that open end points toward ceiling.

SYMPTOM: Feet warm and wet.
FAULT:   Improper bladder control.
ACTION:  Stand next to nearest dog, complain about its house training.

SYMPTOM: Floor blurred.
FAULT:   You are looking through bottom of empty glass.
ACTION:  Get someone to buy you another beer.

SYMPTOM: Floor moving.
FAULT:   You are being carried out.
ACTION:  Find out if you are being taken to another bar.

SYMPTOM: Opposite wall covered with fluorescent lights.
FAULT:   You have fallen over backward.
ACTION:  Have yourself lashed to bar.
 
SYMPTOM: Mouth contains cigarette butts.
FAULT:   You have fallen forward.
ACTION:  See above.

SYMPTOM: Room seems unusually dark.
FAULT:   Bar has closed.
ACTION:  Confirm home address with bartender.

SYMPTOM: Taxi suddenly takes on colorful aspect and textures.
FAULT:   Beer consumption has exceeded personal limitations.
ACTION:  Cover mouth.

- -- Cheers!
Mike H.
Owner/Proprietor Double-Barrel Brewing Labs.
Portland, Or

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 13:23:03 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: IMBR

I remember reading a spoof IMBR post sometime ago.  I got a good laugh
from it and I never thought that something like that would happen to me,
little
did I know that it would happen today.

This morning/afternoon I brewed a spiced beer for the holidays.  This was
the 3rd batch that I made using a copper loop around the perimeter of my
brew kettle, AND this is the 3rd batch that I have had difficulty in
getting into
the fermenter.  I'm about ready to give up on this idea and head back to
the
Chore Boy pad/filter method, but the engineer in me says that I can beat
this
thing.

My brew pot is a 15 gallon aluminium, flat bottom pot that my wife got me
for my birthday last year.  I've brew several batches with it but the last
3
I couldn't get racked into the primary.  My copper loop fits along the
outside perimeter of the pot.  I drilled enough holes (3/32") so that the
sum
of the area of the holes is equal to the area of a 3/8" copper tube.  Do I
simply need additional holes?  Why did the Chore Boy on the end of  a
piece of copper tube seem to work better?

Today I got NO drainage of the brewpot.  I had to dunk my hand in the pot,
disconnect the copper loop from the inside, and swish all the hops and
break material away from the drain several times.  I really don't care if I
ruined the beer, I just want to know how I can get better drainage.  This
is
important to me.  I'm making a RIMS and I don't want to stick the grain bed
because I didn't know better.

TIA,
John Schnupp, N3CNL
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 16:38:30 -0400
From: i.brew2 at juno.com
Subject: SALUTATIONS

Greetings,
I am a new homebrewer of the non-technical persuasion.  I have only 20
years experience; 18 as a failure producing cidery flat swill, and 2
years learning and growing and producing quality beer.  The difference? 
In the early 70's I had books from the early 60's printed in England
giving such profound advice as "all sugars are the same in brewing, just
use table sugar and your beer will turn out fine."  As of late I have
people like Papazian and Miller, and publications such as Brew Your Own
and Brewing Techniques to thanks, and people like you who have posted
help all over the internet.  I am either stupid or dedicated to stick in
there that long trying this and that, but I get high praise for my latest
efforts.  I am always trying to learn from others as mistakes and
experience can be costly to come by, and malt is a terrible thing to
waste!  

I have been making recipes that either use extract and specialty grains,
or partial mashes.  I usualy pour the wort into a fermentor with 3
gallons of ice water (pre-chilled in the freezer).  This gets a
tremendous amount of cold break in only a few minutes, and I rack results
off into another fermentor right away.  The fellow who has chunks
floating might try this to reduce the trub in his primary.  I would like
to know if anyone has ever had any problems doing this, or if there is an
even better way to go.  This is of course before pitching the yeast.  I
have been thinking of using a botteling bucket as the first fermentor so
that as I drew off the clear wort (no siphon needed) I could run it
through one of those aerating tips sold by Siphon Tap.  Any ideas,
suggestions, citiques are welcome.  I will come calling again.

Dave Blaine

I.Brew2 at Juno.Com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 97 14:22:12 -0700
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Source of large, drilled rubber stoppers for Mason jars


An easy way to make a 2-cup starter is to can 2 cups of starter in a
1-quart Mason jar, then to pitch the smack-pack yeast into the Mason
jar.  The hard thing is that large rubber stoppers (sanitizable) are
hard to find.  So you end up transferring starter wort to another
container (bottle or flask) prior to pitching the yeast.  This is an
extra step that introduces more opportunity for infection at a critical
point in  your brewing process.  It's easier to just leave the starter
in the Mason jar and to attach an airlock via a large rubber stopper
right on the Mason jar itself.  Trouble is, LOTS of areas in this
country just don't seem to have large rubber stoppers available.  Thanks
to an earlier HBD (or r.c.b?) post, I found a source of stoppers that
are suitable (white rubber, drilled for airlocks):

  Country Food & Liquours
  19454 W. Rt. 45
  Mokena, IL 60448
  (708)479-2900

They ship UPS to anywhere.  Cost for a drilled #13 stopper is $2.00.  A
#13 stopper fits a standard (70mm, 2 3/4") Mason jar opening just right.
They do not have, and cannot get, #14 or #15 stoppers.  Either the #14
or #15 would work with a wide-mouth Mason jar, but neither one is really
the right size.  It's easier to use a standard-mouth Mason jar and the
#13 stopper.

Brian


 .......................................................................

Item Subject: WINMAIL.DAT
Couldn't convert Microsoft Mail Message Data item to text at a gateway.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:21:26 -0400
From: Steve Haines <shaines at VERSATILITY.com>
Subject: Kegging carbonation

Is there any reference for how much pressure and for how long should I
leave a key to properly carbonate a 5 gal batch?


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 17:22:01 -0400
From: Steve Haines <shaines at VERSATILITY.com>
Subject: Bottle Conditioning with honey

I would like to bottle condition using honey instead of corn sugar.  How
much should I use for 5 gal.?


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 14:45:02 +0000
From: scotty at enaila.nidlink.com
Subject: more barleywine yeast questions

First off, thanks for stopping me from attempting a yeast culture 
from the dregs of a bottle of barleywine.  I recieved a couple of 
responses stating that the Rogue 'pacman' yeast may be commercially 
available.  Somebody said it could possibly be Wyeast 1272 (American 
Ale II).  Can anyone validate this?  I am looking into which yeast or 
combination of yeasts I should use for my barleywine project.  I want 
an OG of 1.10 or so.  I have done a little research and have come up 
with the following alternatives:

1) Wyeast 1056 (primary), Champagne yeast (secondary)
2) Wyeast 1272 (primary), Champagne yeast (secondary)
3) Wyeast 1056 (primary), repitch 1056 (secondary)
4) same as #3 using 1272
5) Wyeast 1728 (primary and secondary) they say the Scottish is good 
     for high gravity ales

I haven't ever made this big of a beer before.  I am looking for a 
little yeastly help here.  If I use champagne yeast on this thing, 
how will that effect the flavor of the finished product?  Is the 
Wyeast Scottish really suitable for a gravity this high?  What is the 
alcohol tolerence of the above yeasts?  When I go to bottle this 
thing, should I repitch again to have enough viable yeast to 
carbonate?  Should I cut back on the amount of priming sugar as this 
thing will be aging for a long time?  Your help is appreciated.

Thank you,

Scott Rohlf
scotty at nidlink.com

as always, private email is ok.

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Oct 1997 22:30:13 +4
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Vienna water

Dear Friends,

I'm looking for a more achievable water composition for Vienna water
than the one from Papazian that is listed on my web page.  In
formulating a recipe for an upcoming batch of Vienna lager, I was
trying to come up with a suitable water profile, using the one given
by Papazian for Vienna and Ken Schwartz's Brewater program.  I am
using filtered, RO water purchased from the local grocery store
where they have a big ol' machine for the process, so I am assuming
essentially ion-free starting water.  The Papazian Vienna profile
says (all in ppm) 200 Ca, 125 SO4, 60 Mg, 8 Na, and 12 Cl, and the
"(carb)" value in Brewater says 120, presumably as CaCO3 as recently
explained (again) by fellow egghead beergeek A. J. deLange.  The
salts I have to work with are gypsum (CaSO4), epsom salts (MgSO4),
calcium chloride (CaCl), chalk (CaCO3), baking soda (NaHCO3), and 
uniodized salt (NaCl).  I am finding it very difficult to achieve the 
Papazian profile by any additions of these things to ion-free water.  
I always end up with a big mismatch (like 100 ppm) in something 
important, such as Ca, SO4, or carb as CaCO3.

I would really like to hit the target more closely than that, so I
am wondering if anyone has some ideas about other water compositions
that would be good to use for a Vienna.  This profile seems very
"salty" for the purpose, to my untrained eye.  For example, could I
get away with less Ca than 200 ppm?  Is the 60 Mg high enough to
produce potential off flavors down the line, so that I could get by
with less of that?  Given that hop character is not supposed to be
extreme in a Vienna, do I really need 125 ppm sulfate?  If one of our
European contributors could provide an actual analysis of water from
the region that would be outstanding, of course. 

Many thanks for any input,

Dave in Dallas
ddraper at utdallas.edu          http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
"...when you think about it, everything makes sense." 
- --Ginger Wotring

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 05:49:33 -0500
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: legal stuff/HBD/MCAB

Chris Schmidt notes:

> Along this line.  I have a friend who owns an apple orchard.  He claims
> that he can produce "Hard" cider and sell it without a license etc..  Claims
> some kind of "Grandfather" law that allows for this as this goes back to
> the beginning of the United States etc.
>
> I question whether the ATF feels the same way.

Cider, although included in the legal definition of "wine," is indeed exempt
from federal tax, although its sale is subject to federal labeling restrictions.

>From the U.S. Code, Title 26:

Section 5042. Exemption from tax
     (a) Tax-free production
          (1) Cider
  Subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary, the noneffervescent
  product of the normal alcoholic fermentation of apple juice only, which
  is produced at a place other than a bonded wine cellar and without the
  use of preservative methods or materials, and which is sold or offered
  for sale as cider and not as wine or as a substitute for wine, shall not
  be subject to tax as wine nor to the provisions of subchapter F.

Of course, state law may tax, regulate, or even ban cider production.

Lest there be any misunderstandings -- this exemption is extremely
narrow and applies only to cider.  It *cannot* be used in any fashion
to justify the sale of homebrewed beer.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On the current discussions on whether technical discussions in the
HBD are worthwhile, I'll just quote from the HBD's Steering
Committee's guidelines:

        HBD readers *are* the HBD.  They and the marketplace of
        ideas -- not any person or committee -- are the ultimate
        arbitrators of what beer and brewing related posts are
        worthwhile and appropriate for the HBD.

Thus, as Pat has noted, if people are interested in a beer-related
topic, it's proper fodder for the HBD. If not, the thread will die
off eventually because people will simply tire of it and use the ever-
ready page-down key.

My personal $0.02 -- keep the technical discussions coming!
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I'm off to Colorado for the GABF and a few days off.
When I get back, I'll have updates on the MCAB, assuming
I'm not shot on sight when I hit Denver. (Just kidding -- I
look forward to meeting Jim, Brian, and their staff at the
GABF and various post-parties.)  So for those of you
who don't get prompt replies to your MCAB-related e-mail,
I apologize in advance and promise that I will get back to you
around October 11.

Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham at phoenix.net




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 97 10:39:15 UT
From: "C&S Peterson" <CNS_PETERSON at classic.msn.com>
Subject: Disappearing Pumpkin

HBDers -

Eric Fouch recently posted an experience of his pumkin flavor and aroma 
disappearing.  I too have had a similar disappointing experience.  For my 
pumpkin beer, the wort tasted great coming out of the fermenter, then spiraled 
to a bland, slightly spicy non-descript ale by racking time.   In an effort to 
save the beer, I dumped 1# of pie filling straight into the secondary -- just 
like you would do with fruit.  This added a little pumpkin flavor back into 
the beer, which seemed to make it into the bottling bucket.  I added a bit 
more spice at bottling time to boost the aroma, and a sample of the beer 
leftover from bottling tasted pretty good a few days later (I stored it in the 
frig).  Now, several months later, I opened a bottle in preparation for 
Halloween and other fall celebrations, and again, the pumkin and most of the 
spice was gone.  My only guess is that breweries halt fermentation before all 
the pumpkin is gone, or use some sort of extract.  I'd like to try to save 
this batch, even if it means empting the bottles into a corney and forcing.  
Perhaps there is an extract out there that I can add to the bottles via a 
dropper?

Chas Peterson
Laytonsville, Md


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 08:39:36 -0700
From: "Kevin J. O'Donnell" <kjo at penn.com>
Subject: Simple questions to the "scientists"

Can any of you "scientists" help a new extract homebrewer for a moment. 
I have two simple (I think)questions.

1.  Can you prepare a bulk priming solution - say 1 gallon - that can be
used at bottlng rather than boil 3/4 cups of sugar in water at each
bottling session?  I understand that the proportions would have to be
accurate for 1 gallon and that 1 pint or so would be used for each 5
gallon batch that is being bottled. It could be kept in a sanitized
gallon jug.

2.  On the subject of finings (bentonite, gelatin, polycar,etc...)  Does
anyone have suggestions on when to use or if it ever hurts to use them. 
I recently brewed a batch of IPA and it was as cloudy as muddy water in
the secondary after 2 weeks.  I added gelatin per directions -- no
help.  I was then advised to add some grape tannin to assist the gelatin
 - no help.  Finally I tried some bentonite (wonderful stuff....ugh) and
it seemed to help somewhat.  However, I just don't feel right about
having all this junk in my brew and it still does have a pretty good
haze.  Any thoughts ????????

Thanks for your advice.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 15:04:29 +0100
From: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se (Fredrik Staahl)
Subject: Re: EBC to SRM conversion

>Hi Brewers,
>
>I am trying out this Brewers Workshop software.
>To work out the colour of my beer, the program use the malt colour in
>SRM. The malt I use is specified only in EBC and Lovibond.
>
>How can I convert EBC to SRM ?
>Are there a formula for this ?
>
>I would prefer to convert EBC to SRM because I understand  that
>Lovibond is not described by a simple mathematical formula.
>Can EBC be described by a simple formula ?

I have the same problem. Ray Daniels has the following conversion formula
in an article series in BT ("Beer Color Demystified", Brewing Techniques 3
no. 4-6, 1995):

EBC = 1.97 SRM

This formula should be OK provided that your data is reasonably new (the
EBC method for measuring colour was changed sometime before 1987).

It should be alright to use the Lovibond figure however, since the malt
colour values are probably measured in SRM and just written as Lovibond.
All references I have say that SRM and Lovibond are pretty close, but
recently this has been disputed here on HBD and I have no hard data.

Also, there is no idea in high accuracy here since colour prediction of the
finished beer is rather uncertain (I don't know how Brewers Workshop does
it but I cannot imagine that it has a way of accounting for all the
variables affecting colour).

/Fredrik

- --------------------------------------------------------------
Fredrik St{\aa}hl          Tel: int + 46 90 786 6027
Math. Dept.                Fax: int + 46 90 786 5222
University of Ume{\aa}     E-mail: Fredrik.Stahl at math.umu.se
S-90187 Ume{\aa}, SWEDEN   WWW: http://www.math.umu.se/~fredriks

                   On tap: Hedgehog Bitter
         *** Nemo saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit ***
- --------------------------------------------------------------



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 09:18:57 -0400
From: Greg_Young at saunderscollege.com (Greg Young)
Subject: Belgian Yeast

Howdy, all. I just returned from Oktoberfest over in Munich, and let me just say
that if you ever get the chance to get over there, do it--you won't regret it.

Anyway, on to the question. In my quest to experiment with as many different
yeast strains as possible, I'm thinking of using WYeast 3942, Belgian Wheat, for
this year's holiday brew. Does anyone have any experience with this strain? The
WYeast description says it imparts apple/plum overtones, but I'm wondering if it
also gives the spicy/clove-like notes as in the Belgian Wit. Also, are there
specific style guidelines for a Belgian Wheat? Is there a difference between a
Belgian Wit and a Belgian Wheat? Any recipe guidelines for a Belgain Wheat would
be great, since I can't seem to find anything on the style. Thanks in
advance....

Prost!

Greg Young
Greg_Young at saunderscollege.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:32:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: David S Draper <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Millenium Ales

Dear Friends,

People need to beware of these marketing gimmicks about Millenium Ales. 
The truth, known to only a few so far, is that the gravity of any beer
that is in the bottle or keg when the year changes from 1999 to 2000 will
immediately go to 1.000.  Yes, that's right, Zero Gravity Millenium Ale.
The only way to prevent this calamity is simply to make sure there *is* no
beer in bottles or kegs on that fateful day.  If this is a problem for
anyone, I hereby volunteer to relieve you of that burden-- just send the
beer to me and I will see to it that it is treated properly.

You have been warned!

Cheers, Dave in Dallas

- -- 
David S. Draper		ddraper at utdallas.edu	Fax: 214-883-2829
Dept. Geosciences	WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper	Electron Probe Lab:
Univ. Texas at Dallas				972-883-2407
 ...That's right, you're not from Texas... but Texas wants you anyway...

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 02 Oct 1997 09:52:04 -0400
From: Doug Moyer <moyer-de at salem.ge.com>
Subject: Scientific content/A question of style

Dearest collective,
	I'd hate to defend a position that seems so negatively vehement, but...
I believe that our Mr. Sepanski had a point. I _think_ that he meant
that scientific topics are okay IF they are discussed in a scientific
manner. In previous centuries, "scientific" method meant delving into
historical writings and extrapolating those opinions into your current
situations by applying "wisdom" and "sensibility". Some of the posts
have taken this methodology into brewing. In this century, we understand
that a single experiment is _always_ insufficient to support a
hypothesis. On the other hand, this is a _discussion_ forum, not a
scientific journal. The greatest difficulty (especially for the newbie)
in utilizing the information and opinions expressed in this digest is
understanding which posts represent valid, tested information and which
are merely postulates. On the third hand ;-) it is simple enough for the
home brewer to do his/her own experiments, and if a particluar idea
seems worthwhile, or even amusing, what the hell? Try it. Everyone
chooses his/her own depth of participation in this hobby.
- ----------------------------
	The sub heading of Alan Moen's column in the 9/97 Brewing Techniques
states, "Style guidelines define the playing field of creativity.
Brewers, like all artists, must recognize that innovation is meaningless
outside the bounds of tradition." He starts off bitching about a
particular beer that is far outside of the labelled style, and then
begins a rant along the lines of the above quote. Whoa! I believe that
following the style guidelines is fairly important in labelling and
competition, but saying that innovation and creativity must be
restrained by tradition? Hell, we never would've seen
lagers/IPAs/stouts/... in the first place if brewers followed this for
the past century or so! We never would've had hops in our beer! He
briefly touches on this by saying that, "...many of the classic styles
 ... were actually born into classes of their own making." Can this
happen no more? He ends saying, "Variations on a theme will always be
welcome as long as the tune is recognizable in the first place." Are we
not allowed to write new tunes? Is every new beer to be considered
either a valid or invalid variation on an existing style? I think that
half the fun of brewing is saying, "Let's see what happens if...."
	What do the rest of you think? Is it a cardinal sin to brew beers that
don't fit into a particular style? (I'm already consigned to hell for
other reasons, why not a new one?) As I read the column, I initially
thought I was missing his point, but he kept hammering at it...

Cheers!
Doug Moyer
Big Lick Brewing Collective
"Big Lick--where science meets tradition, and says, 'Screw em both!' "

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
Subject: last shot then back to passive mode...

just to clearify...i am not against "science" in brewing, dont get
me wrong on that.  i am just saying that with all the variables in
the average homebrewers environment (even in the microbrewers), it
is very diffcult to control even a few of these...sure you can buy
temp controllers, agitators, water meters, the nice and expensive
sachrometers, digital ph meters,DO meters, nice water conditioning systems,
state of the art fermentation gear (any one want to go halves and
buy and immobilized yeast reactor - that is what i want). 


one thing that constant bug the crap out of me was all the talk about
what the yeast is doing after adding to wort...resipring - not respiring
using this path way or that path way.  for most people, this does not matter
you learn to treat the yeast properly (and they are as tempermental as it gets)
they do the job, you taste the beer and go from there.  learning how to deal 
with a particular yeast takes time, it has a personality, it likes to be treated
a certain way.  keeping good records is the key - use science here if you think
you have to "explain" what is going on.


the main point is: what is meaningfull to one brewer is probably not
applicable to another.  science is good to know info, but usually (especially
at homebrew and smaller commercial levels) not very practical for day to day 
use.

anyway soapbox off - back to passive mode....

good luck and great brewing to all...however you do it...


Joe Rolfe
onbc at shore.net
jrolfe at mc.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 10:23:16 -0400
From: "LARSONC%DOM13.DOPO7" <Erik.Larson at MS01.DO.treas.sprint.com>
Subject: Bohemian Pils Yeast for Cal. Common?

Date:  10/02/1997  10:16 am  (Thursday)  
From:  C. Erik LARSON
To:  EX.MAIL."homebrew at hbd.org"
Subject:  Bohemian Pils Yeast for Cal. Common?

Cheers.

I have 3 packets of aging Wyeast Bohemian Pils Yeast that I've started
and  plan on using in a California common (I have all the ingredients for
the latter already).  I plan on fermenting at about 67 degrees in my
basement.

This yeast tends to prodce quite a  few esters even at normal lager
temps, so I'm wondering what people think will be the result at ale
temps?

Thanks,
Erik

Dr. Erik Larson, Taxman/Brewer
US Treasury, Washington DC.
erik.larson at treas.sprint.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Oct 1997 08:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Kane <kkane at uidaho.edu>
Subject: Roasting barley

Has anyone had success roasting their own raw barley for making stouts?

Any references out there?

Thanks...

Kevin M. Kane, Ph.D.
Department of Chemistry
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID 83844

Lab:208-885-7277
Fax:208-885-6173


Return to table of contents

---