---

	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:
  Sparklers - UK head preferences (hugh)
  Clinitest part 2 (Al Korzonas)
  AHH, AHH, AHH ("David R. Burley")
  Moldy Beer ("Jim Tiefenthal")
  Re: intellectual property (Sheena McGrath)
  AFCHBC Call for Judges (hollen)
  Warming your yeast, metallic beers (Chasman)
  Re: Bottled Water to Top Off? (Steve Jackson)
  Digi-Dial Thermometer (Tom_Williams)
  Blending (schwab_bryan)
  Re: On Shocking Yeast (Jeff Renner)
  Bottled Water Topoff/Decanting Starters (AJ)
  Pipeline chiller ("Jim Busch")
  Boil them grain experts! ("Pat Babcock")
  Sexist Kitchen Rant (Lorne P. Franklin)
  Can't beleive it happened ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Malt Sugar Profiles (Andrew Stavrolakis)
  Kettle shape, dead white men, bottled water, liquid yeast (Samuel Mize)
  ascorbic acid in beer (Charles Epp)



=====================================================================
Have you hugged your mash tun today? 
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: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 15:55:41 -0700
From: hugh at see.sig.net
Subject: Sparklers - UK head preferences

Al K writes: (#2573)

> I'd like to comment on the "authenticity" issue regarding sparklers.
> A foamy pint is a "northern" (England) concept and one that is generally
> frowned-upon by CAMRA.  The argument against them is that they knock
> virtually all the CO2 out of solution while creating that marvelous head.

A foamy pint is not really a good description of a northern beer. 
A well poured northern beer has a very 'tight' or 'close' head (i.e., 
small bubbles that last through the drinking life of the beer and form
lace-like patterns on the glass as the beer is drunk).  This type
of head is frowned on by the south-England oriented parts of CAMRA
but is highly prized in the North.  It is certainly _not_ frowned on
by CAMRA members in the North.  The lack of such a head, however, 
is despised!  There are no right answers in the world of beer...

A head comparable to the N2/CO2 'smooth-pour' or Guinness head can
be achieved by a skillful pub landlord by the skillful use of a beer 
engine and sparklers.  The sparkler is often adjusted during the pour.
Unfortunately this level of skill is rare and is becoming rarer
and the smooth-pour system is taking over in many pubs as a way
of serving a good head on a non-real ale beer.

Having lived in several areas of both parts of England
(the divisions are of course more subtle than N vs S) and,
having drunk real ales there since I was 17^H8, my preference changed
from the fizzier, low head, southern ales to the creamier headed,
less carbonated Northern ales.  The additional mouth feel and aroma
provided by the head and the carbonation release during the pour adds to 
the percieved quality of the beer, IMNSHO.  The lack of these 
features may make southern beers seem watery in comparison.  
Bear in mind that UK ales are of relatively low OG, 1.035-1.045 
for an ordinary bitter, and are served at low carbonation levels and
at cellar temperatures partly to enable the consumption of sufficient
volume to compensate for the lowish OG.  Damn, now I'm thirsty.

Hugh
- --
hugh at lamar dot colostate then dot then edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:08:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Clinitest part 2

Beginning of part 2.

>All of the sucrose (possibly from the addition by the brewer
>or extract manufacturer or the approx 3-5% from malt)
>has been converted by the yeast's extracellular enzyme
>'invertase' and the sugar concentration is within the range
>of the test. These inverted sucrose sugars, if any are left, will be
>detected by the Clinitest.  The hydrometer is nearly useless
>in this region since its broad reading gives indistinguishable
>results for  nearly the same sugar content in the 0-2% range,
>especially  if it is interfered with by any of the many above variables.

What you are missing (although I posted it in my second or third
post on the Clinitest, over a year ago) is the fact that yeast eat
the sugars in order of complexity.  I'm not sure if they release
the invertase before or after eating the maltotriose, but they
will certainly have eaten all the glucose, fructose, and maltose
long before you should be even considering to determine whether or
not the fermentation is complete.  If, however, yeast eats maltotriose
*before* it releases the invertase, then we could have sucrose
in the wort at a time when the yeast is slowing down (an eager
brewers might be thinking about calling it done and therefore starting
to measure the sugar content with the Clinitest), *BUT* still have
sucrose in the wort which is very fermentable *AND* does *NOT*
react with the Clinitest.

>> This is what I've *thought* all along yet
>>had no proof, so I posted simply that I was "skeptical" of its usefulness.

>You only had to read my past posts both public and
>private to *clearly* understand this.

No... I wasn't sure if there were unfermentable sugars that react
with the Clinitest.  That was my biggest question... we still don't
know if sucrose is eaten before or after maltotriose and the other
bigger fermentables.

>>If you always brew the same recipes and always use the Clinitest, you
>>can get a feel for what level of sugar (as reported by the test) is
>>expected for each recipe.  However, I've only brewed the same recipe
>>perhaps 6 times.  The other 150+ beers were in 30+ styles from 150+
>>recipes.  Given this kind of variation in dextrins from batch to batch,
>>I don't think it's practical to try to use Clinitest for predicting
>>anything, *expecially* how much fermentable sugar remains in a partially
>>fermented batch (i.e. adjusting down priming rates to account for
>>unfermented, but fermentable sugar).

>Whoa!!.  You've got that backwards.  It's the hydrometer that
>is totally useless in the above scenario.  Clinitest always
>lets you know when the batch is fermented out *regardless*
>of the FG.  This is the real strength of this method.  No guesswork.
>I repeat again, in my years of experience with using Clinitest,
>I have never had a Clinitest reading of greater than 1/4% sugar
>at the end of a fermentation. ( Actually I don't remember one this high).

No, I have it right... I'm not using the hydrometer to determine the
end of fermentation (except, as I said before, to see that my 1.100
OG Barleywine should have attenuated better than an FG of 1.040 or
that my 1.070 Tripel isn't ready to bottle at 1.035!).  Read again
the last sentence that I wrote... I still contend that the varibility
in the Clinitest due dextrin content is enough to make using it to
*adjust priming rates* foolish.

>For special cases like lagering under pressure, I routinely test the beer
>and put it in the Cornelius keg when its sugar content is
>below 1%, but it is not completely finished fermenting. Using this
>method of testing to adjust priming sugar is fine, but as I have
>commented elsewhere you get a lot more yeast in the bottle,
>since the beer has not been to the secondary for settling. I have
>done this only a few times under time pressure, but successfully.

In a keg, you can have a little overcarbonation and you can fix it
(over a week of releasing pressure, perhaps).  In bottles, it can
go from flat to a gusher with a very small difference in sugar.

>If the brewer added lactose before fermentation ( why?) then
>this will have to be taken into account.  Were this the case, it
>would represent the same problem for the hydrometer method
>in finishing "high". In either case, successive readings would
>show that there was no change and the Clinitest method is no
>worse that the hydrometer in this highly unusual and concocted
>case. The Clinitest still uses only a small sample and is easier to
>use without all that cleaning up.

When did I say that one should take successive readings?  Never.
I've never advocated that method.  Others have suggested this
in books, so you presume I'm using this (useless, to me) method?
Oh, and regarding adding lactose pre-fermentation... this *is*
what I recommend because if you have some bacteria or wild yeast
in your ferment and you add the lactose (which these nasties *can*
eat) at bottling time, I guarantee gushers and would put money on
exploding bottles.

>For all those struggling all grainers who have been taking
>100 ml or larger samples at the end of your sparge, cooling
>them while continuing the sparge, measuring the specific gravity
>to find a value less than 1.010,and finding you are reading a result
>that does not reflect current results of the sparge stream,  try the
>Clinitest as an *indication* of the sugar content at the end of the
>sparge. It's not as perfect (bearing in mind the above comments)

It may be useful in this capacity, but I don't even use a hydrometer
to determine the end of the sparge.  I stop sparging when I've taken
enough runnings (usually 17 gallons, if I'm not doing parti-gyle).

>Al, I respect nearly all of your opinions and read them carefully,
>and I cannot believe you have never tried Clinitest, yet you have
>all these dark, unfounded suspicions about it.

I read your posts and emails carefully and value your opinions also, 
but I must comment when I feel there is information that can lead
people into trouble.  You'll note that I simply mentioned that I was
skeptical when you initially brought it up.  I didn't make a big
fuss like this post until you started saying that you can reliably
*adjust priming sugar for partially fermented beers* using the Clinitest.
I feel this method can get a brewer in the exact same trouble as your
suggestion to prime with a randomly partially-fermented kraeusen wort.

I think of you as a sort of absent-minded professor.  I'm like that too.
I think you have a lot of good ideas and you certainly know a large
portion of the science behind it all, but sometimes you leave out a few
little pieces (which I'm sure you consider trivial) which I believe
are important.  There are a handful of things you continue to post
that I disagree with (like the infection problems from blowoff tubes or
or your seat-of-the-pants kraeusening technique) and I'll keep posting
rebuttals.

>I suggest the only way you will be satisfied is to actually
>go out, buy one and try it in parallel to your current method
>and draw your own conclusions instead of writing about
>something of which you admit to knowing nothing.

As I've noted above... even if the Clinitest was 100% reliable, I
would not use it because I rely on yeast sedimentation and not
SG drop or sugar content to decide when to bottle/keg.  Even if it
was possible to use it reliably to reduce priming sugar (and it may
be... I don't have the time to do the research), what would this
buy us?  We could bottle/keg three days sooner, but we would have to
condition it three days longer till the green beer flavours were
removed by the yeast.  You can't rush the yeast.

Al.

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:00:45 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: AHH, AHH, AHH

Brewsters:

So we could continue this in sequence, AlK was good enough
to provide me with his comments at time of submission.
- -----------------
Even though he has been admonished on more than one
occasion for trying to personalize an argument in which he
is losing ground, AlK characterizes me as :

>I think of you as a sort of absent-minded professor. =


Exactly why is that relevant?

> I'm like that too.

Never considered it. Certainly not important to me.

>I think you have a lot of good ideas and you certainly know a large
>portion of the science behind it all, but sometimes you leave out a few
>little pieces (which I'm sure you consider trivial) which I believe
>are important.

Like.....

>  There are a handful of things you continue to post
>that I disagree with =


But you never support with facts, just your opinion.

So far, if I understand your objection to Clinitest it's

Because you haven't tried it?

Don't understand it?

Don't need to know when your fermentation is over because
you just wait until your beer clears?

Didn't read it in Miller's or Papazian's book?

There might be some critical problem that will mislead newbies
that I haven't recognized in a few decades of using the test?

None of these hold much water, unfortunately.

Other than getting into the details of the actual chemical
reaction of Fehling's reaction, I don't know what else I
could do to show you that this test is on solid grounds
and is useful to the brewer.

Lots of us like to have a real understanding of what is
going on in our fermentation and control events, rather
than just hang around and wonder if its all going OK..
Clinitest is just one more arrow in our quiver.

Try it, please. You CAN be saved yet!, brother. {8^)


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: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 19:38:33 -0500
From: "Jim Tiefenthal" <jimtiefenthal at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Moldy Beer

Hello,
I am experiencing a problem with recent batch of oatmeal stout, I hope
someone out there can help identify what went wrong or if it is
salvageable:  Brewed all grain oatmeal stout, O.G. 1.052, fermented Primary
for 9 days with Wyeast 1968, transferred to glass secondary - gravity
1.028, after 1 week in the secondary a thin skin and what appears to be a
white mold has developed on the surface of the beer. 

I have been all grain brewing 13 gal batches for over 8 years and have
never experienced this before.  Any ideas that can help me identify  and
eliminate the problem would be welcome.

Thanks...Jim

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 19:07:30 -0800
From: Sheena McGrath <sheena at gte.net>
Subject: Re: intellectual property

On the question of whether or not you own your recipe when you are an
employee, the law seems to say no. Therefore, if you want to own your
recipes, get yourself an ironclad contract. I speak as an author, and
the only reason we get the deal we do is because we insist. Don't give
away your copyrights, or if you do sell them dear. In the case of
brewery employees, it may be more acceptable to have an agreement
stating that you should be compensated for having no copyright, since I
doubt that brewery owners are suddenly going to reverse their usual
practice. Don't let your enthusiasm about being hired get in the way of
protecting yourself. If necessary, get a lawyer to do it for you. They
get paid lots of money to do things that make people despise them,
that's their raison d'etre.
Sorry for the rant, but copyright and protecting your work are important
to me.
Sheena

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Dec 97 07:49:01 PST
From: hollen at vigra.com
Subject: AFCHBC Call for Judges


      Fifth Annual America's Finest City Home Brew Competition

Dear Beer Evaluator:

The 1998 contest season will soon be upon us, and the AFC contest will
be a good opportunity to score some points and warm-up your palette
for the year of judging.  We expect about 300 beers to judge this
year.  Your presence at the contest will be greatly appreciated.

This year's contest is both AHA and BJCP registered and BJCP points
will be awarded for your participation.

Following are this year's vital facts:

	Date:		Saturday March 8th, 1998
	Place:		AleSmith Brewing Co.
			9368 Cabot Dr. (Miramar area)
			San Diego, CA 92126
			(619)549-9888
	Time:		9:30 am

AleSmith is a fully functioning microbrewery, producing an English
style ESB.  AleSmith ESB and lunch will be served, as well as soft
drinks and water.  Also, coffee and bagels will be available as you
arrive. 

We expect this to be a fun and well run event for all who participate,
and we look forward to seeing you at AleSmith.  If you have
participated in the past, we would appreciate your input as to how we
can improve this competition for you.

Registration forms may be requested by Email, USMail, phone or online.
Please fill out the registration form and return it A.S.A.P after
receipt.  The online registration form is available on our webpage at:

	http://www.brewsoft.com/afchbc/judge.html


Cheers.

Dion Hollenbeck, Judge Coordinator
516 Forward Street
La Jolla,  CA  92037
(619)597-7080*164 wk, 459-8724 hm  Email: hollen at vigra.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 00:11:16 -0800
From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Warming your yeast, metallic beers

Michael asks about shocking yeast:


>Someone posted a few weeks back a comment/question about shocking yeast. He
>or she had a memory of reading somewhere that yeast are not shocked by a
>sudden introduction from refrigerator temps to pitching temps - i.e., not
>from cold to warm. It's the sudden shift from warm to cold that will shock,
>this person was suggesting.
>
>I haven't seen any reference to this comment in subsequent HBDs, but have
>been looking for one. I've always been careful and gentle with yeast,
>allowing them to warm slowly to room temp before pitching. I notice that
>George de Piro repeats the commonly held wisdom ("but be sure to warm it
>slowly") in HBD # 2572.

I posted a comment several months back about this issue. I don't *warm* my
yeast before pitching. I pitch yeast right out of the fridge into the
fermentor and then immediately begin my heat exchange. I'd heard about the
idea of "warming" your yeast from refrigerator temp before pitching and had
done that for awhile. I then read, in some article or text, that warming is
not necessary. Yeast don't respond negatively to rapid warming, only rapid
cooling. I've browsed through my mulitude of texts to see if I could find
the reference to this but I have not yet come across it (for all I know it
could be an old issue of Zymurgy, Brewing Techniques or The New Brewer, not
one of my brewing books). In any event, I've never had a problem with my
current technique and didn't see any difference between warming the yeast
or pitching cold yeast.

I look at it this way. If I was freezing my ass off in a snowstorm (feeling
lethargic and unmotivated) and someone rescued me and plopped me down in
front of a fireplace or stuck me in a warm bath, I'd be happy as hell. If,
on the other hand, someone removed me from my nice warm bath and tossed me
out in the snow, I'd be mad as hell. I kinda think that the yeast would
react similarly, thus explaining my observations?

In regards to the diatribe on Noche Buena (the real name, *not* Bueno Noche
or any of the other  variations) I've not noticed a "metallic" taste with
this particular beer but I have with *many* others. Usually, the taste is
pronounced when I drink from the bottle but not when it is poured into a
glass (the opposite of what the original poster described). I believe this
is due to bad caps which leave a "rusty" residue on the rim of the bottle
which comes across as a metallic taste when beer passes over it ( the rusty
rim). Comments?

C--



Charles Hudak in San Diego, California (Living large in Ocean Beach!!)
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: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 05:49:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Bottled Water to Top Off?

In HBD #2574 Steve (Steph10344 at aol.com) wrote:

>>>>>
Our recent cooperative brewin with 10 of our club members created
different
opinions as to using spring water from the jug to top off a batch,
without
boiling. Does anyone have any specifics as to the contents of the spring
water? and its suitability for use in this manner?
Steve
<<<<<

It's basically impossible to provide specifics as to the contents of
bottled spring water, since different companies use different springs
in different parts of the country (or world). Just as tap water's
contents varies in different parts of the country, such is the case
with spring water. The "manufacturer" of whatever water you use can
provide you with a mineral analysis.

Now, more to your question: Is topping off with unboiled bottled
spring water safe? ABSOLUTELY NOT. By definition, spring water is
water that comes from a spring. According to my American Heritage
Dictionary of the English Language Third Edition (1992), a spring is
"a small stream of water flowing naturally from the earth."
Frequently, this water is not treated in any way, meaning it carries
with it all sorts of stuff, including bacteria, wild yeast and other
things you don't want in your beer.

Only water that actually comes from a spring can be labeled "spring
water" for commercial sale. Other bottled waters can come from any
source. Many of them are actually nothing more than municipal tap
water that is bottled for sale (which is why most bottled water is a
big scam, IMO). This, too, can include all sorts of microbiological
crap you don't want in your beer.

To provide one datapoint, one of my first batches received a infection
(likely wild yeast, since fermentation also behaved funny by
continuing much longer than it should have) that eventually made the
beer undrinkable due to an increasingly strong band-aid phenolic aroma
and flavor. This batch was brewed using a concentrated boil, topped
off by unboiled bottled water (I don't remember if it was spring
water, but I believe it was). Since everything else in my brewing
procedure seemed to be up to par in terms of sanitation, I believe the
probability is that this infection came from the 3 gallons or so of
unboiled water in the beer.

In short, don't introduce any water that hasn't been boiled into your
beer, regardless of its source (including distilled water). Water is
simply too ideal an environment for all sorts of microflora and
microfauna that you don't want in your beer for you to go dumping it
in without first killing off the little creatures.


 -Steve in Indy




_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:00:45 -0500
From: Tom_Williams at cabot-corp.com
Subject: Digi-Dial Thermometer


Help!

I have a Digi-Dial thermometer, which has a probe about 6 inches long, with
a small LCD display and tiny "ON" button.  I have long since disposed of
the package and instructions.

I used this device to check the Thanksgiving turkey, and someone among the
hoard managed to get the thing into a deg Celcius display mode!!  My twenty
years of engineering practice using English units makes it impossible for
me to use such a device.

Does anyone know how to switch the darn thing back to deg F?

Tom Williams
Dunwoody, Georgia



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 97 07:03:40 -0600
From: schwab_bryan at ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil
Subject: Blending


     
     We were wondering if anybody out within the Collective has ever tried 
     sucessfully any "Blending Techniques" in order to save their once 
     "Thin and lack of body carbonated brews??
     
     We have read the archives, we have verbally inquired with those we 
     thought might have knowledge here, but to be quite honest, we are abit 
     leary of really screwing up big time.
     
     Any information would be appreciated.
     
     Basically we have several "Ales" which are just to "thin, watery, and 
     lack body or mouthfeel".  We thought of brewing a Blending Brew 
     consisting of your basic 2-Row, with some light crystal. A 5 gallon 
     batch, of maybe a 70-30 mix with a low hop rate.  Fermented out and 
     then added to these Ales after purging roughly 1 gallon or two and 
     replacing with the fuller body  Blend.
     
     Any thoughts????
     
     Bryan E. Schwab
     Panama City FL



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 09:33:16 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: On Shocking Yeast

"Michael Gerholdt" <gerholdt at ait.fredonia.edu> asked for an authorative
source for the idea that cold to warm will not shock yeast, but warm to
cold will.

Dave Miller wrote that this was the case in BT a couple of years ago.  He
said that he always pitched cold yeast at his brewery.  Now Dave has
offered some questionable theory (delayed solubility of bottle conditioned
CO2 comes to mind), but this is based on his experience.  I've definitely
had bad results going warm to cold too quickly, although there could have
been other causes, but cold to warm has given me no trouble.  Nonetheless,
I generally try to warm yeast slowly, just to be safe.

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: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 10:19:03 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Bottled Water Topoff/Decanting Starters

Steve asked about topping off a batch with unboiled bottled spring
water. I'm sure the discussions among the club members covered the pros
and cons. Obviously bottled spring water is subject to testing similar
to that to which  any other potable source is subject. This means that
the majority of 100 mL samples tested must contain zero coliforms. This
does not mean that the water actually contains zero coliforms - just
that it contains few enough that the methods used to test for coliforms 
read 0 more often than not. Now while it is true that we don't want
coliforms in our beer there are lots of other things that can be in the
water that, while they are not pathogenic, we also do not want in our
beer. These are not tested for and may or may not be present in a
coliform-free sample. For example, my well water is coliform free but
contains lots of other gram-negative rods in a fascinating array of
shapes and sizes. My well passes the coliform test but flunks on other
bugs. I don't know which, if any, of these bugs are beer or wort
spoilers because I always boil the stuff before adding it to beer. Now
if I, or a water bottling plant, filtered the water from this well with
a fine enough filter or treated the water with ultraviolet radiation not
only would it pass the coliforms test but the other bugs would be
removed as well and it would be safe to add to fermenting beer to top
up. The point is that you don't know what the supplier did, if anything,
to pass the coliforms test.

You can perform a simple test with the bottled water in question.
Thoroughly sterilize a few small flasks and put about 100 mL of boiled
wort in each. Plug with sterilized cotton balls or cover with sterilized
aluminum foil. After the wort has cooled, add about 10 mL of the bottled
water to half the flasks and leave the other half as controls. Put in a
warm place and check every day for a few days. If the controls are
biologically active your sanitation was inadequate and the test is
invalid. If the controls are free of biological activity and the flasks
with the water are active then it is obvious that something in the water
innoculated the wort. Note that eventually the controls will probably
become active unless you pressure sterilized everything and worked under
a laminar flow hood. What you are looking for is activity in the test
flasks appreciably before activity in the controls. 

The good news is that even if there are a few beer pathenogens in the
bottled water the activity of the yeast in the beer may be enough to
suppress them (competition for nutrients, reduction in pH) and you may
get away with introducing a few organisms without detriment to the beer.
On the other hand it is little trouble to boil top up water for 15
minutes and then cool it down (though you must be aware that
refridgerators are havens for bacteria and take precautions to prevent
infection during cooling). You know you are safe if you do this.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *  *

Tom Clark wants to know if heavy aeration of starters produces acetate
and whether he should decant after each step. The answer to both
questions is easily obtained by decanting the broth from a heavily
aerated starter and tasting it. Measurement of the pH with an
appropriate device is also instructive.
(For the impatient: the answers are "Yes" and "Yes".)

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:49:44 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: Pipeline chiller

<-From: "Myers, John" <JMyers at polkaudio.com>
<Subject: Brewery Design Considerations

<Thanks to those who made suggestions for moving wort from the patio 
<to the utility room.  Copper is preferred over CPVC. 

Indeed, and if this room can get very cold in the winter consider a 
means to remove/drain the water from any exterior/exposed pipes.  Ive
had pipes freeze and break in my outdoor brewery/shed and this has 
happened when it was not well drained.  Plastic is OK for cold water 
feeds but use copper or SS for wort lines.  A hot water heater is 
real nice for the brewery too (propane or NG).


< To those who 
<were confused by my original post, I wanted to move wort from an 
<outside ground level patio to an inside subterranean utility room.  

Excellent idea, one that I put in my brewery years ago.  I move 1 BBL 
of cast out wort from my backyard brewery to my basement fermentation 
cellar.  I use a 1/2" copper soft refrige line inside of 3/4" garden 
hose to fabricate a couterflow chiller/pipeline.  Works great.

< I do not fancy moving 5-10 gallons of wort by hand due to the 
<chance of hurting my beer or myself.  Water is approximately 8 
<pounds to the gallon, and tends to slosh around.  I had considered 
<an in-line chiller, but was correctly reminded of hot side aeration, 
<so only cooled wort will travel the pipe line.  Now I'm trying to 
<come up with a clever name for the pipe line...

I dont follow you on the HSA issue.  Either the wort is chilled using 
an immersion chiller in kettle and transferred cold, or a closed loop 
counterflow chiller is used whereby no HSA can occur.  Be sure to 
consider hop straining and hot trub catch in the design.  I like to 
use a SS perf sheet false bottom in my boiler and only whole hops.  
This makes a nice filter bed to catch hot break before the chiller.  
I then use the every popular SS scrubby as a inline catch to my 
chiller.  A hop back could be used to great success as well.  With 
your brewlength at 5-10 gals, you wont need 1/2" pipe but the concept 
is excellent.  

Regarding metallic beer flavors- Ive detected this mostly in Belgian 
ales and found that when the beer warms this diminishes.  Also 
sometimes I detect this with Tettnang hops.

Regarding unitank design, I agree with Joe Rolfe, spend the money on 
triclovers and SS fittings.  You might as well get a CIP ball valve 
too and a racking arm/port on the cone (one that is turnable is a 
plus so it can be directed up or down).  My sample port is on the 
side of my tank, just above the cone.  I use a loop chiller inside 
the manway that works fairly well for ales but I need to get a good
glycol chiller for lagers and alt-type biers.  Speaking of CIP of 
uni's, I have to chime in on the wonders of PBW.  My tank never 
shined as bright as it did after one CIP with PBW.   I still like 
good ol NaOH but PBW has its places and is fantastic for soaking 
soiled lauter tun screens ( I left mine soaking for 4 weeks while 
beer hunting in Europe and was amazed at the results, clean and no 
buildup).

Prost!

Jim Busch

about 1,000 miles East-SE of Jeff Renner and 120 miles south of 
lovely Downingtown, Pa. (home of the HopDevil)    ;-)

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 22:20:35 -0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Boil them grain experts!

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

To all those (and there were many! Ah! The wealth of the HBD!) who 
responded to my quandary regarding decoctions vs steeping: a hearty 
thanks! The prevailing answer provided is quite correct, and the 
first occurrence of it in my mailbox resulted in a resounding 
forehead slap: Of course! The pH of the water is key!

The first response received get's the award for the best explanation 
as Mr. Murphy and PINE would have it, that response was the one that 
got deleted as I attempted to "make due" from Norfolk. I think it was 
John Varady, but I've been known to have been wrong in the past. 
Paraphrasing from memory:

The grain in a decoction mash adjusts the pH to our typical ~5.0. The 
water in a steep would be much closer to 7.0. Tannin extraction is 
most allied to pH (*BIG* forehead slap there. What have I been 
reading for the last several years right here in the ol 'Gest???). 
Therefor, tannins would be more readily extracted by the steep than 
the decoct.

Bravo! Elegant in its simplicity. As for the final decoct, Al 
Korzonas reminds us that we pull the THINNEST portion of the mash for 
mash out. Ideally, this will have no grain and, therefor, there will 
be no extraction of tannins, nor starches.

Finally, Ken Schwartz and some one else struck by Mr. Murphy and PINE 
(I really should be more careful with the dagnabbit "d" key...) 
suggest that the longish lagering time to which most decocted lagers
are subjected may play a role in reducing the tannins.

Several gave a "Hmmm: never thought of the 'water as a solvent' angle 
before" nod to my "thoughts," but guys: I'm all wet (no pun intended) 
on that one. Too much stress, not enough brewing....

Thanks again! You've set me back on my track, and the engine's 
running fine once again!


See ya!
Pat Babcock     pbabcock at oeonline.com
Decode the location clue: I shot an arrow into the air, where it came 
down, I do not care - but I'll bet my grain bill it hit a car trapped 
in a backup due to the   at #$% road construction on Michigan Avenue...

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:25:40 -0400
From: lachina at mindspring.com (Lorne P. Franklin)
Subject: Sexist Kitchen Rant

Peeve Time.  I find the repeated references to "her kitchen" to be
offensive BS.  I generally cook MORE than my wife and usually better.  I
know that there are tons of other men and women that read the HBD who have
crossover brewing/culinary interests and talents.  If some of you men don't
cook and that job falls on your wife's shoulders, realize that you are not
the rule.  Join the modern world and can the "her kitchen" crap.


Lorne


You can't close the door when the walls cave in!



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:36:17 -0500 (EST)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com>
Subject: Can't beleive it happened

A few weeks ago I brewed up a batch of dark beer, I had a little more 
than my 5 gal carboy would hold, so I used a 1/2 gal apple juice glass jar.

I ended up with about 20 oz in this jar that I added some of the yeast 
that was pitched into the 5 gal carboy.  For an airlock I used a piece of 
plastic food wrap and a rubber band to hold in place.

After a week it was done (the 5gal is still going) I then decanted the 
beer off and drank it flat (pretty good too), I placed the jar with 
yeast at the bottom with the plactic wrap/rubber band in the back of the 
refrigerater unlabled for future use.

My mother-in-law was over yesterday baby sitting my 3 year old daughter. 
My daughter asked Grandma for some apple juice, yup, she grabbed the yeast
and started pouring a glass for her to drink, but said that the apply
juice was rather "lumpy and must of been old", so she threw it out :-O. 

When my mother-in-law was telling me and my wife about the "apple juice", 
we kinda looked at each other and said "there wasn't any apple juice in
the fridge!", then it struck us both "That was the yeast!".

So the morale of the story is to lable all containers in the fridge.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:30:31 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu>
Subject: Malt Sugar Profiles


Mark Mallet asks about sugar profiles of extract: 

>On the web site of a malt extract producer was the sugar profile
>for one of their products as listed below:
>Fructose		2%
>Glucose		11%
>Sucrose		1.5%
>Maltose		48%
>Maltotriose	13%
>higher sugars	25%
>Does anyone know what the profile of other extracts are?
>Also how do mashed grain runnings compare to this?

Concerning the former, I have no info.  But concerning the latter question
of sugar profiles of mashed grain wort, it brings to mind a private email
discussion I had with an individual at Lallemand Ltd. (a Canadian yeast co.)
regarding fermentability of wort. A number of factors influence the
fermentable/nonfermentable sugar composition of wort including mash
temperature and mash thickness, as follows:

                               Temp. in degrees Celcius
% of wort solids                60      66      68

Monosaccharides                 10.1    9.5     10.2
Disaccharides                   51.7    48.1    42.0
Trisaccharides                  14.3    13.6    12.7
Maltodextrins                    0.1     4.1     9.7

%Extract                        76.2    75.3    74.6
%Fermentables                   76.1    71.2    65.1


Effect of mash thickness on Saccharification  at  66 C.

% of wort solids                           Mash thickness
                                67Kg/Hl         39Kg/Hl         29Kg/Hl

Monosaccharides                 11.9            9.5             8.1
Disaccharides                   42.9            48.1            46.6
Trisaccharides                  12.6            13.6            15.0
Maltodextrins                   11.9            9.5             8.1

%Extracts                       73.4            75.3            74.2
%Fermentables                   67.4            71.2            69.7


I have found this info to very helpful in tailoring single temperature
infusion mashes to particular beer styles using highly modified British pale
malt.  I hope this is helpful to others.

Andrew Stavrolakis
Boston, Ma.
Andrew_Stavrolakis at harvard.edu    


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:54:49 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Kettle shape, dead white men, bottled water, liquid yeast

Greetings to all, and especially to:

> HOMEBREW Digest #2574               Thu 04 December 1997

> From: cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charles Burns)
> Subject: New Brew Kettle

> I think that the larger the bottom, the more 
> wort/kettle interface occurs at high heat, giving better carmelization and 
> better melanoidin creating environment (no science, just a calculated 
> guess).  I see tall fermenters but short wide kettles and mash tuns in every 
> brewhouse I visit.

A taller cylinder has less area per volume, so it's easier to keep the
fermenter's temperature stabilized.  Also, it takes up less floor space.
(There's been some mention of tall fermenters having problems as well.)

A wider brewpot has more bottom to apply heat to, which lets you dump in more
heat without overheating the bottom layer of wort -- a better boil with less
risk of scorching.  Also, less risk of caramelization -- we on HBD seem to
AVOID this, except for a very few specific styles (Scotch Ale, I think).

Also, a wider brewpot provides more surface area to boil off water and
volatiles (like DMS).


> From: Paul Niebergall <NOSPAMpnieb at burnsmcd.com>
> Subject: Bubblegum, Cleaning carboys, etc.

> Sorry if I ofended anyone with the use of the term Nazi ...

I appreciate your consideration of my feelings on the matter.

> I guess if this forum is to remain 
> totally PC, I (and many others) should stop using the term anal as well, 
> as it may offend some of our alternative lifestyle brewers.

I suppose if *I* were to be totally PC, I wouldn't consider Nazism evil,
just an equally valid lifestyle for the humanity-challenged.  Oh wait --
they were white males, so I guess it's OK to keep hating them.  :-)


> From: Steph10344 at aol.com
> Subject: Bottled Water to Top Off ?

> Our recent cooperative brewin with 10 of our club members created different
> opinions as to using spring water from the jug to top off a batch, without
> boiling. Does anyone have any specifics as to the contents of the spring
> water? and its suitability for use in this manner?

Nobody has any specifics about the content of bottled water except the
manufacturer of THAT BRAND of bottled water, and some of them will lie to you
about it.  Some of them are from crystal springs high in the mountains, and
some of them are literally tap water.  Depending on the spring involved, you
may be better off with the tap water.

It's unlikely to be a major source of infection, especially if you're just
topping off and then pitching a lot of yeast.  On the other hand, if you're
feeling sphincter-relaxation challenged about sanitation, it wouldn't hurt to
boil it for a few minutes.

Probably no big deal.


> From: Bob and Susie Stovall <urbanart at netropolis.net>
> Subject: yeast question

> ... are they different in some way
> _because_ they are in a liquid carrier? Or is it because the dry yeast
> is not as pure? Or what? Why is yeast in liquid form better?

The usual claim is that liquid yeast gives you better purity, while dry yeast
gives you a whompin' lotta yeast.  There are also only a few strains of yeast
that dry well, so liquid provides a better selection.

You're getting better results with liquid because you're getting JUST the right
yeast, and no others.

> What if one rehydrated the dry yeast and then built up a starter...
> would it still make a beer tasting different from the beer made from
> liquid? 

Yes, the starter would taste different from the beer.  No, wait.

Yes, the result would still be different -- you aren't getting as finely-tuned
a breed of yeastie.

On the other hand, making a starter from the dry may give you a chance to see
if there's an infection in the dry yeast.  To do this, I suppose you'd have to
let the starter work for 12 hours or so, to let the infection take hold, then
ditch it if it smells/tastes bad.  This may also give the main strain of yeast
a chance to overwhelm any variants that got packed along with it.

Does anyone here do that?  I generally let dry yeast work in a starter, but
only for 1-2 hours.

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 12:19:03 -0600
From: Charles Epp <chuckepp at ukans.edu>
Subject: ascorbic acid in beer

I'm curious if anybody can report experiences using ascorbic acid in
beer to reduce oxidation-related problems.  I can offer one data-point. 
I often like to keep some bottles from each batch longer than 7 months
(doing so expands the diversity of beers in my beer cellar), but after
that point they begin showing signs of oxidation.  In a batch I did
about 10 months ago (light, hoppy summer ale), I added a teaspoon of
ascorbic acid.  Now, 10 months later, there still are none of the usual
signs of oxidation (and the beer is pale enough and light enough that
ordinarily oxidation would stand out clearly).  So far I'm very pleased,
and will start adding ascorbic acid regularly.  Any other experiences?

- --Chuck in Lawrence, Kansas

Return to table of contents

---