---

	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:
  No Sparge & No sparge tactics (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com>
  Another informal survey (Mike Froehlich)
  Re: Yeast starter pH - followup (Scott Murman)
  Stainless steel kettles are inferior (Al Korzonas)
  Maredsous (Al Korzonas)
  cleaning carboys (Al Korzonas)
  Decoction/Extract brewing (Al Korzonas)
  Verdigris (LNUSTRUK.CZLSSB)
  WST and a few others (George J Fix)
  Fixing Enamel Pot ("Michael Kowalczyk")
  Re: Root Beer in a Corny ("GP Kea")
  Intoxication Quotient ("Michael Kowalczyk")
  e-mail address (mthouse)
  Iodophor Alternative? (AllDey)
  Re: summery: cleaning carboys (emccormick)
  Brass (MCer1235)
  WYeast Homepage? (Jon Bovard)
  Real Ale Festival ("John W. Rhymes")
  diacetyl removal ("Andy Walsh")
  Dry Hopping, Iodophors, Vorlauf (Chasman)
  Yeast slants and cell viability. (Clifton Moore)
  Re:Yeast cultures and Stir bars (Alex Paredez)
  Choreboy (tm) (RobertS735)
  Flushing the Brew (EFOUCH)
  RE High sg (haafbrau1)
  Slow fermentation on cyser (Vicky Rowe)
  Re: Black Barley instead of Roasted Barley (Jeff Renner)
  Keg conversion (RICH WOOD)


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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 11:32:47 -0600
From: "Wills, Frederick J (MED)" <Frederick.Wills at amermsx.med.ge.com>
Subject: No Sparge & No sparge tactics

In HBD 2551 Dennis Waltman  writes:

<<One uses an extra third of grain in the mashtun, and uses the regular
schedule of temps.  Then after mashout, drain the tun of liquor.  Later
(for us while the 1st is boiling) additional water is added to the
mashtun aiming for a 165F temp (a little more than a quart per pound of
grain), mixed and allowed to sit.  This liquor is drained in a no sparge
method and a second beer (a small beer) is made.>>

This is similar to the way in which I mash routinely, but with single
batches.  The "normal" method of mashing out is by adding boiling water
(or removing, boiling and returning a portion of the thin mash in a
decoction) to bring the entire mash to the desired 168 degrees F.  

I decided to streamline my process by draining the first runnings to my
brew kettle first and then add boiling water to the remaining grain bed.
This allows me to begin to heat the 1st runnings while still sparging
and reduces the amount of boiling water needed to bring the grist to
mash-out temp.  It is my theory that since the majority of the enzymes
are in the liquid part of the mash, by heating the first runnings in the
kettle they will be denatured rapidly.  The main function of my adding
the boiling water to the mash-tun is to help free any remaining sugars
trapped in the husks.  At that point one could either batch sparge these
runnings as well to retain a malty profile,  or commence a traditional
fly-sparge.  

I realize this wouldn't be considered a "no-sparge" technique,  more
like a "single batch-sparge".  It does allow a pretty good malt
utilization (~75%) with minimal effort.  I do pay attention to the pH of
my sparge water and typically acidify it to ~6.0 with a few mls of
lactic acid before use.

Comments?

Fred Wills

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 12:54:49 -0600
From: Mike Froehlich <MFroehlich at microcraft.com>
Subject: Another informal survey

Hell Fellow Brewers,

Here are a few questions regarding what kind of brewers are we:

1) When you are ready top pitch your yeast into the cooled wort, you
find yourself at either too little volume or too high of a gravity for
the beer you want to make, do you:
            A) Add boiled water to bring the volume up or reduce the 
	    specific gravity
	B) Keep the beer the way it is and go for the extra alcohol content
	C) Start over because your life as a perfectionist has clouded your 
	    ability to think

2) You have been brewing for 12 hours and your volume is too much (i.e.
7.0 gallons of beer for a 5 gallon batch). Do you:
	A) Keep boiling for another 2 hours to reduce the volume to 6 gallons
	B) Add more malt and hops and go for the extra volume
	C) Stop where you are, start cooling, and get another fermenter 
	     ready
	D) Start over because your life as a perfectionist has clouded your 
	    ability to think


Your responses will be polled and I will present them in a future HBD. I
started thinking about these questions on Sunday after brewing all day
(12 hours) with my buddy and getting a Dopplebock of 1.124 starting
gravity even though we were shooting for a 1.100. We decided to keep the
alcohol true and we kept to the motto of "Brewing our beer BIG and
HAPPY".

See ya! 

Michael Froehlich
Scientific Programmer                                                   
  Micro Craft
Trisonic Wind Tunnel                                                    
 400 Duley Road
mfroehlich at microcraft.com                                             El
Segundo, CA 90245
                                                                        
               (310)335-1585

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:54:29 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Yeast starter pH - followup 


> <BT> warns about using high carbonate water (such as I have) for
> yeast starters.  The reason for this is the high pH of this water
> favors bacterial growth.  It states that the pH of the starter wort
> should be no higher than 5.3.  It suggests that if you are in doubt
> about your water, then use distilled water (although I guess pH
> corrections with phosphoric acid, etc. would be OK as well).  
> -
> Dave Muzidal

I have been experimenting with my micro-starter ingredients for some
time now.  I have been yeast ranching for a couple of years, and
maintain a working library of about a dozen strains.  I use sterile
water storage.  I used to take an eyedropper of the sterile
water/yeast and use that to directly innoculate 50 mL of DME prepared
wort.  This worked well, but I had one miscue, so I started streaking
the sterile water yeast onto a petri dish.  This would grow well, and
I could scrape a good amount onto a loop and innoculate 50 mL of DME
wort.  The problem I started having was that the 50 mL micro-starter
would never get started.  It seemed to be somewhat dependent on the
storage age of the yeast, but I really don't have enough data points.
I tried many different experiments to find the source of my problem
(damn, that scientific technique rears it's ugly head again).  After
reading an old post by Dave Whitman, and reading about BrewTek's
"Super Wort" a while back, I tried adding some yeast nutrient to my
DME for making micro-starters.  This has done the trick.

The question I have is "what is actually causing the micro-starters to
start in the new setup?"  I don't really believe that the addition of
yeast nutrient is providing the yeast with vital minerals they
otherwise wouldn't be getting.  My reasons for this are 1) the yeast
grow very well on the agar-DME petri dish without any yeast nutrient
addition, and 2) I find it hard to believe that the DME production
process is somehow robbing the all-malt wort of every last trace of
prime mineral content.  Again, I'm not talking about sluggish
activity, I'm talking about zero growth activity.

I suspect the micro-starter pH may be the culprit.  I've tried
different brands of DME, but always the lightest available.  My water
profile tells me our average water pH is around 9 (!!), although
that's so high I've always taken it with a grain of salt.  I'm pretty
sure the generic yeast nutrient I'm adding is actually diammonium
phospate - aka DAP, which if my high school chemistry memory can be
trusted, will lower the pH of the solution.

I'm sorry I haven't had a chance to run the obvious tests to check if
my pH hypothesis is correct, but since the subject is current on the
digest I'd thought I'd throw this into the discussion.  Does anyone
else have any thoughts on the micro-starter pH, and is my assumption
that DAP is lowering my pH plausible?

SM

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:22:28 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Stainless steel kettles are inferior

Ron writes:
>It seems like so many of us are nearly hypnotized over
>the idea of stainless steel, stainless kettles, stainless everything,
>and of course in an ideal world that would be the first choice.

Funny... Paul Edwards and I were discussing this over a couple of glasses
of Cask-Conditioned Real Ale at the Real Ale Festival this weekend.
Buy him a beer when you see him and maybe he'll tell you the story
about his *titanium* kettle, fermenter and immersion chiller (which
doubles as a bicycle frame) ;^).

Stainless steel?  Naaa... I'm going to replace all mine with titanium!

Al.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 13:46:32 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Maredsous

Saul writes:
>I was given a couple of bottles of Maredsous Abbey Ale (Belgium).  It is
>a bottle conditioned ale and I can see the yeast at the bottom of the
>bottle.  Does anybody know anything about this yeast? Can it be used to
>produce a Trappist ale (as can Chimay)? 

Only if you are a Trappist monk... no kidding... "Trappist Ale" is not
a style, but an indication of who made the beer.

But seriously, not only should that yeast be usable for Trappist-style
ales, but since Maredsous is made by the same brewery that makes Duvel
(notice the similarity in the bottle shape?), it could be one of the two
yeasts used to make Duvel.  Except for Orval (which is bottled with a blend
of five yeasts), I don't know of any other Belgian brewers who use a
*different* yeast for bottling than they did for fermentation.

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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:13:53 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: cleaning carboys

Mike writes:
>        25 or so responses so far. All are about the same, fill with water,
>clorine and/or dishwasher soap/TSP/B-Brite/etc. Soak for 24 hours then
>rinse well.

Perhaps this is not a problem if you have a different tapwater than I do,
but I got a white film that would not come off from soaking as little
as 24 hours in washing soda (sodium carbonate).  Since sodium carbonate
is the main ingredient in most dishwasher *detergents* (NOT SOAPS... NEVER
USE THE FOAMY DISHWASHING LIQUID FOR BEER VESSELS) and sodium percarbonate
is the main ingredient in B-Brite and One-Step, I believe you could have
the same problem.

It may take a few times to become noticeable on clear glass, but I noticed
it immediately on brown bottles I soaked for as little as 24 hours.
Eventually, I got the white film off by soaking in lemon juice and water.

Incidentally, I tried a test with PBW from 5-Star and found that while
24 hours did not show a noticeable film, 3-days did.

If you use an acid-based sanitizer (like iodophor *with* phosphoric acid...
no, not *all* iodophor has phosphoric acid (or any acid) in it), then
the white film is a moot point... it will come of during sanitation.

I soak my carboys in bleach solution (for months sometimes) and limit
the soaking in PBW, B-Brite or One-Step to 15 minutes.

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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 14:21:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Decoction/Extract brewing

Bob writes:
>Beer Friends: This morning I was making a batch using my normal extract
>technique which includes the addition of two pounds or so of grains, steeped,
>and I had a thought.
>If single or even triple decotion is a good thing for you all-grain guys,
>then would there be any noticeable effect of doing a decoction on my grains?
>What I propose is the normal two pounds of cracked grain steeped for the
>regular 20-30 minues at 158, then take the runnings and the grain to a boil.
>Then sparge and add to the LME and other liquid.... does this seem to have
>any potential?

It would work presuming your pH was reasonable (below 5.5) and if you are
using any grains that contain starch, you could not do the decoction on
the *entire* grain bill.  You did say you were steeping...  if you have
grains that contain starch (Pale Ale malt, Pils malt, oats, flaked wheat,
etc.) then you are actually mashing, not steeping.  Steeping is enough
for chocolate malt, crystal malts, etc., but not starchy malts or grains.

The reason you should not boil the entire grain bill is that even after
a rest at 158F there is still some percentage of starch trapped in the
grains.  Boiling releases that trapped starch and if you have boiled the
entire mash, there are no enzymes to convert the released starches.  In
a real decoction mash, this is the reason that you only take the liquid
part of the mash (Noonan calls it "the thinnest part") for the final
decoction (the one that takes the mash to mashout).

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: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:32:40 -0500
From: LNUSTRUK.CZLSSB at gmeds.com
Subject: Verdigris


Verdigris - Our plumber went took that "Funship Single's Cruise" from Pensecola
to the Haitian Coast and came back with a very bad case of Verdigris. Blisters,
Pus, Festering, Discoloration -  it was almost as bad as the Hoboken, NJ canned
wort Botulism outbreak. Musta been over exposed to green IUD.

Other symptoms of Verdigris include: Metallic taste in mouth, frequent
urination, gastric bloating,  - or exactly what would be expected by consuming
a six-pack of any AB product with a label with the words "crafted" or "clean"
on it.

My witty sign off follows:

>BTW I *am* a homebrewer. How the hell do you think I ended up in a
>commercial brewery? I homebrew 20+ batches a year as well as 100+
>commercially. You?

Geeze I'd love to hang around the brewery with you bud.

C. Carman. (The other one.)


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 15:06:09 -0600
From: gjfix at utamat.uta.edu (George J Fix)
Subject: WST and a few others

There is an old brewer's phrase which states that "... detrimental 
wort  infections will occur only if you are brewing in a sewer...".
As one who has been burned over the years in every conceivable way, I tend 
to be somewhat skeptical about such remarks. However, I do agree that
other yeast oriented issues are vastly more important to
finished beer quality. The three I discussed at the '92 National
Meeting in Milwaukee (see Beer and Brewing, Vol.12) were the
following:
    
     1. Direct cell counting

     2. Testing viabilities by staining

     3. Checking for bacteria with elementary methods like HLP.

I can say without reservation that the single most important improvement
in my own personal brewing during the '90s has been folding these three
tests into my usual brewing routine. Viability is particularly
important, and usually overlooked. For example, in a  test we
did with some local homebrewers using both dry and liquid yeast, not a
one was even near the rule of <== 90%, and several were orders of
magnitude below. This was exactly what I was doing before I started
checking viability. Yeast with low viability will not distroy a beer, but
they do have pernicious way of taking what should be a great beer and
rendering it ordinary.

Whenever I mention things like this I usually get flamed by either Chris 
Kagy or sometimes others for "taking the fun out of homebrewing".
Here I plead innocent. All the tests are user friendly, and can be
done with a good inexpensive student microscope (and HLP does not even
require that). Besides looking at our yeast up close is a hoot, and 
one of the (many!) things I think is fun about brewing. What the
detractors consistly overlook is that gold can not be made from lead.
If one is looking for quality improvements in the beer they are brewing,
then extra effort will be required.

BTW I also do a WST with each brew, but not because of any particular
concern about wort spoilage. Rather I see it as something like a report
card on my cleaning and sanitation program. The point here is that we 
generally use the same procedures for the equipment in wort cooling that 
are used for other critical equipment (fermenters, maturation tanks, et al).
The grading system I use was discussed at one of the early AHA national 
meetings (see Beer and Brewing, Vol 6, 1986). If a sample of unpitched 
wort can remain stable for at least 72 hrs. I give my C+S procedures an
A. If the time interval is between 60 and 72 hrs. a B is assigned,
while 48-60 hrs. gets a C. Anything less fails. Low grades tend to
come back and bite us in the a**. About that there can be no doubt, the
only issue is how hard the bite is going to be! 

Cheers.

George Fix





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 15:51:40 -0800
From: "Michael Kowalczyk" <mikekowal at megsinet.net>
Subject: Fixing Enamel Pot

I took the advice of a recent HBD post on fixing an enamel pot and it didn't
come out as expected.  Maybe I used the wrong stuff.  I used DURO White
Plastic for Porcelain Repair.   It didn't say "No Lead", and the max temp was
350 degrees instead of the 400 quoted in the post.  The active ingredient is
Xylene and Petroleum Distillates ( I know, sounds spooky, but I used it
anyway).  I fixed all of the scratches, chips, and Thin spots using 2 coats. 
After 7 days, I boiled some water to see if it would stand up, and a lot
flaked off.  I'm thinkin' it won't stand up to the rough stuff of a metal
ring and an immersion chiller.

Question: Anybody have good experiences with using Porcelain Repair and have
a brand that they can recommend?  Please be specific so I can call around
instead of drive around.
Question: Are Xylene and Petroleum Distillates a bad idea around food
products?

 - Mike from Chicago
NB=0 - IQ=0
 

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 10:22:47 -1000
From: "GP Kea" <lifeline at pixi.com>
Subject: Re: Root Beer in a Corny

A question,

I've been brewing for a while and have been doing all of my brews in 5
gallon cornies.  I've been hankering to make some root beer (for the
neighborhood kids) but I still hate washing bottles and I figure why fiddle
with yeasts, etc. if I don't have to.   What I want to do is mix the root
beer extract, water and sugar in a corny, chill and force carbonate. 
Shouldn't be any problem, right?

Now the question,  I've been told that the root beer will taint my keg and
dispensing equipment and you can't or will have a hard time cleaning it all
out for that next batch of beer.  Anyone have any experience with this?  I
don't want to waste a set of gear dedicated to just soda. (I like the kids,
but not that much)  Can I clean it?  ..with what?  ..and how?

Thanks in advance for your kind assistance.

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 18:09:17 -0800
From: "Michael Kowalczyk" <mikekowal at megsinet.net>
Subject: Intoxication Quotient

I've been thinking about this forum lately.  Lets see... hummm... a bunch of
people get together and talk about beer.  Since we all have normal jobs we
tend to answer the emails after dinner, talk w/wife, play with kids, kids
bedtime, etc...  I was wondering what the likelihood of intoxicated posters
(sounds like a rock group... )?

Mathematics Formulas:
NB=xx - Number of beers.  Simple.  How many beers have you had in the last
sitting.

IQ =xxx% - Percent intoxicated.  Can be figured out by (the number of beers
it takes you to be intoxicated) / NB.

Now why would I propose adding an gauge of intoxication?  I think it would
help when reading a post to know the state of the poster. If that person is
tanked, then maybe I wouldn't be so quick to take offense.  At least I would
re-read the post a few times to see if it was a bit more clearer.  Or, to
really make it clear, I'd try to get my IQ to match the poster's.

By putting the NB and IQ at the end of the post I then have a gauge as to
whether I SHOULD sent it. (My rule of thumb is to not send any posts if my IQ
is > 30%.

 - Mike from Chicago
NB=1 - IQ=10

p.s.  So noone takes offense, this was meant as a really funny post.  If I
hit my target, there should be a large number of brewers rolling on the floor
now. If not, sorry - I'm only human. :-)  


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:10:05 -0500
From: mthouse <mthouse at concentric.net>
Subject: e-mail address

I finally bought a computer, no Malcolm it's not a Mac.  Got sick of
constantly repairing the lap top from work.  My E-mail address at home
is mthouse at concentric.net.  Any personal mail should be sent their. 
Business mail is still ok to sent to mhouse at glgt.com.  Sorry for the
confusion, but the e-mail police are watching!!

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:39:09 -0500 (EST)
From: AllDey at aol.com
Subject: Iodophor Alternative?

Someone recently commented about an inexpensive alternative to the iodophor
we buy at the homebrew store.  I checked at my local farm and ranch store
tonight and sure 'nuff, they sell a dairy product called Udder Clean (or
something like that) for $7.77 a gallon.  This beats the heck out of the
$12.95/qt my pals at the brew store soak me for.  The label said 1 oz per 3
gals results in 25 ppm.  Iodophor was listed as the active ingredient.  So,
oh wise collective, will this work?  Can I invest my savings in a pressure
cooker to ward off botulism spores?


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:31:08 -0500
From: emccormick <emccormick at usa.net>
Subject: Re: summery: cleaning carboys

Michael Rose inquired about cleaning carboys:

    For what its worth, I use a jet spray bottle washer to
rinse them. From there, they get moved into the bathtub, a
little bleach dumped in and then filled with hot water to
soak a couple hours. Anything still stuck on after that can
be taken off with a carboy brush.
    We have very hard water here and if left too long to
soak, the carbonates will settle out and glue themselves to
the bottom of the carboy. The fastest way to remove THAT
problem is empty the carboy completely, pour a little white
vinegar in the bottom and slosh it around until it dissolves
the white precipitate. Dump it, then rinse with hot water
using the jet washer again. If you are concerned with an
infection after that, rinse it one more time with an idophor
sanatizer and let it air-dry.
    When it comes to sanitation and cleanup there don't seem
to be very many shortcuts.
- --
<Ed McCormick - e-mail: emccormick at usa.net>



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:09:34 -0500 (EST)
From: MCer1235 at aol.com
Subject: Brass

Hi all!

I saw the posts to the HBD about copper and had a question,  is this also a
problem when you de-lead brass with vinegar and peroxide?

I did this to my brass valve and left it in for too long and it turned really
ugly and had some green scum/discoloration?

I cleaned it with hot water and scrubed it a bit, but it is still ugly.  Any
suggestions?  Should I worry?

Rene'

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1986 02:43:41 +1100
From: Jon Bovard <j.bovard at student.qut.edu.au>
Subject: WYeast Homepage?

With a company with the poularity, turnover, products and feedback of
A yeast supplier youd think they would have their own homepage.
Same goes for Yeastlab. (true the Yeast culture kit company is on-line but
not ALL of its yeast are listed!- and you dont know what you might want till
you see its profile!)
Anyone clarify this Enigma..its been bugging me for a while now.

Cheers
JB
Brisbane AUS


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:05:50 +0000
From: "John W. Rhymes" <jwrhymes at mindspring.com>
Subject: Real Ale Festival

I want to congratulate Ray Daniels and the Craft Beer Institute on 
the success of the Real Ale Festival in Chicago this past weekend.  I 
flew up from Birmingham and had an excellent weekend.   More cask 
conditioned beers than I could possibly sample, good speakers, and a 
well run event.

I have previously attended the AHA conferences in New Orleans and 
Cleveland.  For those who have not attended one of the big brewing 
events, I recommend the experience -- not only for the speakers, but 
for the opportunity to meet a lot of the folks we recognize from HBD 
and from the publications we rely on.  

John Rhymes
Birmingham Brewmasters
http://www.bham.net/brew/masters.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 17:39:41 +1100
From: "Andy Walsh" <awalsh at crl.com.au>
Subject: diacetyl removal

Has anyone used Maturex L from Novo Nordisk Ltd to eliminate diacetyl? Is
this available to homebrewers anywhere? If so, what were the results like?

Or is this cheating?

Andy.

PS. This is an enzyme treatment (acetolactate decarboxylase) that directly
transforms acetolactate to acetoin, eliminating diacetyl from the process.
It is said to reduce beer maturation time by the manufacturers.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:05:27 -0800
From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Dry Hopping, Iodophors, Vorlauf 

Hello all

Lenny's having some problems with dryhopping with pellet hops:

>Questions:  Do hop pellets always float to the top?  Have others had
>contaminations during dry hopping.  I know that both batches were
>uncontaminated before dry hopping.  I can't see that dry hopping is worth
>the risk at this rate.  AFter about 20 batches, I have NEVER had a
>contamination until I started getting fancy.  I tossed a whole days work
>(full mash) down the toilet.  I don't think I'll dry hop again.
>

I have a couple of comments. First, try to avoid using pellets for
dry-hopping. Like most vegetable matter, the majority of the hop material
will indeed continue to float. But, unlike with whole hops, separating out
this crud when you rack is a nightmare!  I've found that just dumping the
hops unhindered through the hole in the carboy is the easiest way. Racking
can be accomplished quite easily with a racking cane which has a nylon hop
sack over the end, tied up real nice like. I've never had a problem with
racking in this fashion---great yield and very simple. 

As far as the contamination goes, I've never had a problem. There are alot
of variables so it's hard to say what your problem was. Sure, neither beer
was contaminated before you dry hopped but  that may be coincidence. They
may have developed the infection based on some other problem with or
without the addition of hops. One problem that I see is that you mention
stirring several times. Stirring= oxygenation which certainly will provide
a great environment for aerobic bacteria like acetobacter. If you plan on
doing any mixing, it's a good idea to purge your secondary with CO2 before
you rack and then gently swirling the carboy to get the hops wet. Even this
is not really necessary. Left on their own, capillary action will wet the
hops fairly well. It's unfortunate that your first experiment with
dry-hopping was so negative--it is a great way to get that special hop
character to your brews.

Michael asks about Iodophor:

>I have on hand a particular brand and model of an iodophore and wonder if
>someone can help me decide if it is appropriate for no-rinse use in the
>brewery.
>It's called "Wescodyne" and is subtitled 'Tamed Iodine.'
>'Detergent-Germicide for Hospital Use.'
<snip>
>What troubles me is the reference to 'detergents.' The final descriptive
>statement says "Wescodyne is an excellent cleaner. It contains several
>synthetic detergents."

Hmmm..many iodophors use a polyol surfactant as an ingredient; basically a
polymeric hydrocarbon skeleton with multiple hydroxyl groups. It serves as
a wetting agent, reducing the surface tension of your sanitizing solution
so that it wets the surfaces to be sanitized, especially metals like SS
thus providing better sanitation via longer contact time. Theoretically
they could be called "detergent" though it's debatable. Detergents aren't
as bad as soaps as far as causing foam problems. Many breweries use
detergent based cleaners for CIP (caustic mixed with detergents, water
chelaters, etc) and other hand cleaning. Detergents rinse much better than
soaps and so usually don't hang around to cause problems.  For sanitizing,
I use something called Solution I/O which is supplied by a commercial
dishwashing service. It is an industrial strength Iodophor and I use it no
rinse at 20-50ppm. I have noticed no deleterious effects on foam stability
with the use of this product and I use it to sanitize tranfer lines (both
siphon hoses and 1 1/2" triclamp transfer hoses) as well as for fermenters,
gaskets and other small parts which come into intimate contact with beer or
wort.

OTOH, better safe than sorry, I'd find an MSDS for this product (the place
that you got it should have one on file, it's the law) or a product data
sheet which has a complete ingredient list before you risk any of your hard
work (i.e. beer) on an unfamiliar product. Even though it is used in
hospitals, it may not be designed for food-contact applications.

Greg asks about the benefits of recirculation:

>Howdy all. Are there any reasons for/benefits from recirculating the run-off
>from the mash tun (until clear) other than to remove the particulate
matter and
>bits o' grain? 

As far as I know, that's the only reason.

>If that's the only reason we choose to recirculate, then why not
>simply pass the run-off through, say - a coffee filter, until it runs clear?

Well, other than the possibility of imparting that elusive flavor component
in a cup of Yuban, the biggest problem is the sheer quantity of material
you would have to filter. There is quite a bit of small particulate matter
which would quickly overwhelm even a large coffee filter (ever sat and
waited for coffee to drain through a coffee filter when it's *not*
clogged?) This would mean that you would have to change the filter several
times and start mucking around in all that hot wort (HSA anybody?). While
in theory, it would work, in practice, there are some obvious bugs which
would have to be worked out. That shouldn't be too much of a problem; noone
could ever accuse the HBD of not being a creative bunch ;) Simply put, your
grain bed is the most efficient *and* convenient filter to use.

I think that recirculation is used because of its sheer simplicity and
ability to reliably achieve good results. Then there's that romanticism of
continuing to use "traditional" brewing techniques (can anyone say
decoction? hehe).

BTW mikey, I like your version of the Serenity Prayer....ROFL

That's my take, I'm out...

C--


Charles Hudak
cwhudak at adnc.com
ICQ# 4253902
"If God had intended for us to drink beer, he would have given us stomachs."
- --David Daye



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 22:22:25 -0800
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore at gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Yeast slants and cell viability.



<fontfamily><param>Times</param><bigger><bigger><bigger><bigger>I am in
the process of learning how to judge the health of my yeast slants.  I
understand full well that there are a thousand ways to look at the
questions relating to the care and feeding of yeast cultures.  

I intend to offer a sketch of what I do, and ask a few questions.


I have been rather successful for the past year, at gathering and
keeping yeast cultures alive.  For the most part, I use agar slants in
screw top test tubes.  Since buying a high quality high school grade
microscope at a garage sale this summer, I have had some success at
viewing stained cells to determine health.  


The idea as I understand it, is that the stain, methylene blue, is
resisted by living yeast cells, but that dead membrane is readily
permeable.  My scope has a max magnification of 400X which I find very
nice for viewing individual yeast cells with a resolution that makes
identification of the nuclear membrane and a number of organelles
easily viewable.  The process of getting anything better than a rough
estimate of viability percentages is currently a problem, but a rough
state of health is rather easily determined.  


One observation I made today that calls this simple staining response
into question is that I sampled and stained some active late secondary
beer.  The surprise was that 25 to 50% of the yeast cells took up
stain, and would thus be thought dead.  It just seems unlikely that
there would be this many suspended dead yeast cells in a two week old
ferment.  

At the same time, volumes of washed yeast collected from this same
ferment upon transfer to secondary, look to be almost entirely viable.


If this method of sensing viability is accurate, then a quick look at a
slant sample would tell you how urgent a re-slant was.  My observations
of some of my older slants have yielded interesting but less than
illuminating results.


A 9 month old Wyeast 1056 showed 20% viability.  This was about what I
would expect from the reading I have done.  This slant would be old,
but has plenty of life in it to get a new slant going.

Then there was the Culture Kit A13 slants.  One was 9 and the other 3
months old.  Both slants looked to me to be 90% viable.  Go figure.


So I need to know, "does any of this make any sense to you?"


In as much as I have been careful not to mention pitching rates or wort
oxygenation, I hope that this post will not start any fights. 
Information relating to the details of yeast propagation has been hard
to come by, and I would appreciate hearing what others have done.


Clifton Moore

<<cmoore at gi.alaska.edu>

or post to HBD


</bigger></bigger></bigger></bigger></fontfamily>


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 23:54:00 -0800
From: Alex Paredez <aparedez at sdcc14.ucsd.edu>
Subject: Re:Yeast cultures and Stir bars

Hello all,
	There are a few reasons not to use a whole slant for your starter.  
1) If you are making your own slants from some source of yeast you want to
minimize the number of generations from the original culture.  Each time
you propagate the yeast it has a chance to mutate and loose the qualities
that it had when it was originally selected.  It is true that it could take
a turn for the better, but I don't know if testing it on a batch of beer is
worth it.  So I am saying that if you use a whole slant you will have to
propagate more yeast and thus move farther away from your original culture.  
2) A pure culture is always started from an individual colony.  By
selecting an individual colony, you can avoid accidentally putting in some
sort of contaminant in your culture.  You see when you spread a plate the
goal is not to have a lawn of microbes, but rather a bunch of individual
colonies that started from individual cells.  You should use these
individual colonies to make starters, and when your slant gets old, or you
are on the last colony you should start a new culture.  It is just good
technique to start a plate or culture from a single colony.

Just a note on making a magnetic stirrer.  I use the real ones all the time
and I just had one piece of advice for the fellow making the stirrer.  Use
a speed control on your electric motor.  Whenever you start those machines
up you have to go from slow to fast.  If you try to start on fast the
magnet will just sit there vibrating.  Well good luck.

		-Alex




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:41:23 -0500 (EST)
From: RobertS735 at aol.com
Subject: Choreboy (tm)

Beerlings: For years have heard about use of Choreboys (tm) as filters for
the end of the racking cane. I have a very nice Ale fermenting away at the
moment and have dry hopped it with leaf hops. I bought a Choreboy yesterday
and noticed several things about it which I refer to the collective about:
1. Seems to ave an industrial strength oil or other residue on it. How do you
clean it to get it clean enough to go into YOUR beer?
2. Any clever ideas about afixing the little sucker to the end of your cane?
3. Do you use the whole thing or cut it in two pieces?
4. Sanitize with Chlorine as normal?

My answers to the above include- (1)soap... rinse... soap... rinse, (2)Rubber
Band, and (3) yes cut the sucker in half.... (4) yes Chlorine, but not too
long...other ideas?
Bob

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:52:11 -0500
From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com
Subject: Flushing the Brew


Date: Tuesday, 11 November 1997 8:41am ET
To: Sendout
From: Eric.Fouch at STC001
Subject: Flushing the Brew
 
HBD-
I have stayed silent on this topic for too long.  I didn't want to ruffle
feathers, or insult anybody, but people are just getting too carried away
*In My Humble Opinion*.
Let me start by saying I have made a few gawd awful brews.  The experiment
with sweetened condensed milk comes to mind.  Then there was the insipid
orange "beer" made from the second runnings of a "no sparge" batch.
My whole point is, as homebrewers, we have a certain responsibility.  Unlike
the Geneticist, who can "euthanise" his mistakes, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBITLITY]]]
I have never dumped a batch of bad beer, be it in the toilet, sink, on the
ground or over an ex-wife......... (Mental note: New use for bad beer).
Even before I was homebrewing beer, I found a use for those left-over stale
Budweiser keg bottoms.  I fondly remember marinading a whole deer in three
gallons stale beer, two gallons BBQ sauce, various nefarious spices and
what-not, resulting in a sumptious Bambi-cue.
So, a call to all REAL homebrewers:  Sit up straight, stop complaining, and
DRINK YOUR BAD BEER]
At the very least, try to "save" it]  Bottle up that soured infetco-brew in
three liter PET bottles for future use as marinade, pressure can it in pint
jars, and have a lifetime supply of stout innoculant (for that Guinness clone)
or run it back in the kettle, pastuerize at 165 F or so, repitch and see what
you end up with.  What's the worst that could happen?  You enter it in a
contest as a pLambic?
PLEASE] no more (insert whiney voice here) "I think it was infected, so I
poured it down the drain" posts here.
BE A MAN]]] (or a brew chick)]]  Take responsibility]]]]  Invent a new style]]
Drink your mistakes]]]
 
Tounge in cheek mode off
 
No sig file
 
Eric Fouch
efouch at steelcase.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:25:16 -0500
From: haafbrau1 at juno.com
Subject: RE High sg

Sounds to me like the recipe for a 5 gal. batch, not a 3 gal.!  Somebody
goofed.
Paul Haaf
haafbrau1 at juno.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 08:56:26 -0500
From: Vicky Rowe <vrowe at us.ibm.com>
Subject: Slow fermentation on cyser

Hi fellow homebrewers!

Got a problem for the collective. I am making a cyser, and the little sucker
won't get going on a ferment worth a darn. Here's the particulars:

Recipe:
5 gal pastuerized apple cider
1 lb brown sugar
2 lbs clover honey
10 cinnamon sticks
palmful ea of dried lemon and orange peel (abt. 1.5 tsp ea)
palmful ea of crushed cardamom, allspice

I brought 1 gal of the cider to 160d and added honey, brown sugar and spices,
stirring to mix well. I simmered at this temp for 15 minutes. When simmering
was done, I strained the mixture into a 5 gal carboy, onto 3 of the remaining 4
gals of cider, reserving 1 gal for secondary. Rehydrated 1 pkg Pastuer
champagne yeast. When temp reached 77-80 deg, I pitched the yeast with yeast
nutrient, and shook the carboy for a few minutes. The SG at this time was
1.080. I then airlocked it and wrapped it in a blanket to ferment. 4 days
later, no sign of fermentation except that I had positive pressure in the
airlock. One day later, no positive pressure! This was Sunday, and the brewshop
wasn't open til Tuesday, so, panicing that I was making a lot of vinegar, I
rehydrated and pitched 2.5 tsp of bread yeast. On Tuesday, still no sign of
fermentation other than positive pressure. So, I went to the brewshop, picked
up a package of Wyeast dry mead yeast (I've had good luck and great ferments
with this stuff), smacked it and pitched it the next evening (Wed). Well, I had
a bubble here and there in the airlock, and positive pressure, but no obvious
fermentation. At this point, puzzled and out of ideas, I went to the American
Brewmaster and talked with Mike. He felt that I had a *very* slow fermentation
due to the fact that I keep my house at 68-70d F, and on the floor, where the
carboy is, would be much cooler, say 63-65. He recommended setting it near a
heating vent to warm it up til fermentation kicked off vigorously, then move it
back to it's normal place under the bar. This I did on Friday. Well, here it is
Tuesday again, and it only bubbles when the heat is on! I checked the SG and
it's sitting at around 1.070 (kinda hard to see thru the glass/cider haze in
the carboy). So, I have had a *little* fermenting, but not very much.  BTW,
I've done two batches of mead by just pitching the Wyeast pack smacked, and
have had happy yeasties both times, bubbling merrily away at 1-2 bubbles/sec
for days! The mead batches sit just a few feet away, so I don't think ambient
temp is the issue. Both the meads did their primary ferment in a bucket, not a
carboy.

So, I have several suppositions:
1. Cider doesn't like to primary in carboys.
2. Yeasties are cold and won't do their thing.
3. I got bad yeast (not likely, this shop is pretty reliable)
4. I'm not meant to have hard cider.
5. Auuuugggghhhhh!

So, fellow enthusiasts, I would greatly appreciate any ideas you might have as
to how to kick the ferment up a little higher. I don't want it roiling, cause I
know I'll get  a better flavor with a slow ferment, but this is ridiculous!

Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

Vicky Rowe
Tyro Meadster

Vicky Rowe
  Notes Administrator, Merrill Lynch Server Farm
"No good deed ever goes unpunished" --Unknown

Email:
IBM:        vrowe at us.ibm.com
Home:    rcci at mindspring.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:29:48 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Black Barley instead of Roasted Barley

In Homebrew Digest #2554 (November 11, 1997), Dan Cole
<dcole at roanoke.infi.net> wrote about his all grain oatmeal stout:

>Instead of Roasted Barley I actually picked out some black barley. Since my
>typical brewday starts at 5:00AM on Sunday, I'm going ahead with the
>brewing, but wanted some expert opinions on what my brew will be like.

British roast barley is around 550 Lovibond in color, which is what you
want for a stout.  US (at least Briess) roast barley is more the color of
chocolate malt, ~350L.  I once made a Guinness clone with this that turned
out way too pale, then HBDer Dave Sapsis pointed out the difference, and
the important of getting UK roast barley.  I have recently begun seeing US
black barley at 550L, which I suspect is very much like UK roast.  So I
think you have blundered into exactly the right product for your brew.  I
wouldn't change your infusion temperature at you suggested.  Things should
turn out fine.  Serendipity reigns!

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 09:34:24 -0500 (EST)
From: RICH WOOD <RIWOOD at spf.nsc.com>
Subject: Keg conversion


Does the plug in the side of the keg hold up during the boil
or do I need to weld a plate over the hole?
On the verge of full volume boils!
Rich in ME

Return to table of contents

---