---

	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:
  yeast (Al Korzonas)
  shocking yeast. ("Bryan L. Gros")
  re:White Labs Pitchable (Sean Mick)
  Kettle Geometry (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Kettle geometry. (Some Guy)
  Re: Mexican Beer, cost justification, women who brew etc. (Ramona and Malcolm East)
  Philly Thanks / Coffee Stout ("Mark Nelson")
  Question for microbiologist (michael rose)
  a few questions for the collective (Beerd00d)
  Volcanic Yeast Starter ("Capt. Marc Battreall")
  Whirlpooling some more ("Dave Draper")
  CW/CCW (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Re:  What did I make? / Wyeast 1338 Observation (George De Piro)
  The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition (George De Piro)
  Re: length of boil (Cookie Monster)
  Federal Rap/Mash pH (AJ)
  Re: brewing with a microwave (brian_dixon)
  Re:  Iodine vs Brix / Value of Mashout (KennyEddy)
  SO concerns (Exchange)" <bridgess at caemail.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
  Mash efficencies (Chasman)
  Roasted Barley and Flaked (Chasman)
  o ring removal (PVanslyke)
  re: Buena Noche (" Scott Perfect")
  Affixing airlocks to cornys: Solution (Toler, Duffy L.)



=====================================================================
Any day above ground is a good day...

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, 4 Dec 1997 12:42:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: yeast

Bob writes:
>I am a devoted convert to liquid yeast- I can taste the
>difference in my beers when I use the liquid. The question deals with
>the little yeaty buggers themselves... 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?

Years ago (like 15), dry yeasts were all you could get unless you had
a friend at a brewery (and most of those where huge factories) or if
you cultured it yourself from a bottle of unfiltered beer.  At that
time, most (all?) dry yeasts were made in factories which primarily
made dry baker's yeast.  Since sanitation for baker's yeast is not as
important as for brewer's yeast, their systems were not set up with
sanitation standards that were required for proper brewer's yeast
production.

Along came Wyeast and liquid yeasts became available to homebrewers.
Not only were they far less likely to give you infected beer, but
they allowed for many more choices of yeast strain.  You see, not all
yeasts will survive drying, but all can be distributed in liquid form.
Dry yeast is still around and has imporoved a lot, mostly because of
pressure from liquid yeast.  I know that their sanitation standards have
improved incredibly.

You can make great beer from both dry and liquid yeast.  Dry is more
convenient and has longer storagability, whereas liquid still gives you
more choices of yeast strain.

Are you rehydrating your dry yeast?  Was it stored refrigerated?  If not,
that could be why you like your liquid yeast beers better.   Or, since
yeast is one of the most influential ingredients, you simply may like the
flavour of the beer made with liquid yeasts better than that you have made
with dry yeast.  Other tasters may prefer the dry yeast 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/

P.S. Sorry about the long, dragged-out Clinitest debate.  I've
presented my position and I'm sticking with it.

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 11:35:26 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: shocking yeast.

Michael Gerholdt wrote:
>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.
>...
>Any authoritative response to this?

I have an "authoritative response", but no empirical lab evidence.

When I used to get yeast from Dave Miller at his pub, he would tell me 
to keep it in the fridge until I pitched it.  He repeated the "commonly held 
wisdom" that yeast didn't mind being warmed up quickly, but being
chilled quickly put them to sleep.

I never had a problem with that yeast (usually 1056).

  - Bryan
Organizer, National Bay Area Brew Off.
For details, see the Draught Board web site at
http://www.dnai.com/~thor/dboard/index.htm 

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 11:43:31 -0800 (PST)
From: homebrew at dcn.davis.ca.us (Sean Mick)
Subject: re:White Labs Pitchable

Hello:

A while back, there was some discussion to the effect that White Labs yeast
did not provide a product that was truly "pitchable" directly into a 5
gallon batch. While the amount of yeast provided may not be quite the
amount that breweries use per volume of wort, I'd like to provide a
datapoint on their yeast that offers an alternative view.

I've been using the stuff since early last summer, and have brewed with
their East Coast, California, Irish, Wit, and English strains. All have
turned out excellent; that is, I pitched them within a month of
manufacture, with adequate aeration (aquarium pump/stone), within
temperature tolerances, and had results as described in the White Labs
literature. Lag time was usually under 10 hours, and never exceeded 16-18
hours. If, for instance, I was to  pitch a Wyeast of similar strain type
direct from the pouch, I can typically expect 24-30 hours lag time, often
accompanied by high fruitiness or other undesirable flavors (sometimes
including slight bacterial contamination). This is not to say that Wyeast
is a bad product, on the contrary, it is EXCELLENT; but it must be properly
propagated to a pint starter to roughly equal the White Labs yeast count.
Of course, one can additionally bump up either to a quart or gallon starter
for better results. My point is, most of my customers don't bother to do
this, so it is easier for me to recommend White Labs for quality results
without further preparation.

As a final datapoint, I recently made a starter for a White Labs East Coast
strain that was roughly 2 months old. I wouldn't sell this to a customer at
full price because of its age, but I took it home and built it up to an 800
ml starter, aerating at every stage. I'm on my third generation of this
yeast (amber ale, IPA, amber ale) and I'm getting the best results ever!
=46our inch krausen, 3-4 day primary at 68=B0F, clean results.

I have no affiliation with White Labs other than the fact that I'd like to
support fellow businesses that offer a quality product.

Cheers!

Sean Mick
Mick's Homebrew Supplies
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/~homebrew



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:58:31 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Kettle Geometry


 ...I prefer the squat wide kettle as opposed to the converted 
 keg (tall and skinny) style. 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...

My kettle is a bit taller than it is wider and I have not been able to
get much benefit from whirlpooling after cooling to draw hops into the
center.  I suspect the wider geometry would greatly inprove the results.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 15:36:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at oeonline.com>
Subject: Kettle geometry.

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

In perusing the incoming messages (part of my janitorial duties...) I
noted the thread on kettle geometry. As part of my masters - back in the
days when I both had time to brew and still had a functioning brain - I
performed a designed experiment using, as I recall, pitched yeast
quantities and kettle geometry as factors. As I recall, the kettle
geometry had a statistically significant effect on the extent of 
attenuation and the yeast quantity hd none. 

The reason this is being presented as "as I recall" is that the related
files existed only electronically, and on my hard drive - the same one
that expired quietly during that summer storm, July 2, 1997. I did,
however, provide a copy of it to Al Korzonas, and I believe it was
discussed in the Digest (I think the ANOVA table was published in the
Digest). I'll take a peek at the long-abandoned AOL ftp site that I
*think* was used to transmit the file to Al, and maybe repost. Or, if Al
still has the document, maybe he can either summarize and post, or send me
a copy of it... 

See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org   
The Home Brew Page                 http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 15:04:11 -0800
From: Ramona and Malcolm East <reast at ptld.uswest.net>
Subject: Re: Mexican Beer, cost justification, women who brew etc.

Bob Lasser wrote:

<Does anyone have a recipe, advice or experience brewing any Mexican 
<style beers?  I haven't a clue as to what malt or hops are used.  I'd 
<love to try and make something along the lines of Negro Modelo.

It is my understanding that Negro Modelo is a Vienna-style lager with
corn substituted for about 15-20% of the grain bill. Charlie P.'s book
"The Homebrewer's Companion" has a good recipe for a Vienna lager called
"Autumnal Equinox Special Reserve". It is a partial mash recipe. You
would have to substitute flaked maize for a portion of the barley malt
to make it more like a Negro Modelo.

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

Along the lines of the cost justification / SO approval rating / women
who homebrew thread(s):

I am a woman who homebrews and my story is a rather interesting one.  I
got into homebrewing because my husband had expressed interest in
getting into homebrewing.  I went into a hb supply shop and bought a
starter kit and some of the basic necessities to get started as a gift
(surprise) for my husband.  I got to reading Charlie P.'s "The New
Complete Joy of Homebrewing" and thought "Hmmm, this doesn't sound too
complicated. Maybe I can brew a batch and surprise him."  Well, 3 years
later and I'm still brewing and, even though he never learned how to
brew himself, he still really enjoys helping out.  He usually enjoys all
the brews I make (as long as they are all dark and heavy).  The only
brew he didn't care about at all was my special chocolate porter (made
with 12oz. of unsweetened baker's chocolate).  Along the lines of cost
justification, I don't enjoy homebrewing because I can save a lot of
money over buying beer at the grocery store.  I enjoy it because it is
like any other hobby: it is a creative outlet.  It is rewarding to
formulate a recipe, brew it, taste it and say "damn, this is really
good......and I made it."  What other reason do we need to justify it? 
I think that is reason enough.  Thanks for your time, I'll get off of my
soapbox now.


Ramona East        "Happiness is a cold beer and a warm fire."
Portland,OR                                          <ME>

reast at ptld.uswest.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 08:11:15 -0500
From: "Mark Nelson" <menelson at mindspring.com>
Subject: Philly Thanks / Coffee Stout

First, I'd like to thank everyone who responded to my Philadelphia
beer/brewpub question.  While I didn't get to visit everywhere I wanted to,
I did stop by Monk's and Dock Street - and bought a case of handpicked
singles from The Foodery (great selection!).

Next, here's my two cents on the coffee stout mini-thread.  It's an extract
recipe that came out great IMO and uses a slightly different (in volume of
coffee used, anyway) approach.

Grain Bill:
Crystal Malt - 90 deg L (1/2 lb)
Roasted Barley (1/2 lb)
Chocolate Malt (1/4 lb)
Black Patent Malt (1/8 lb)

Extracts:
John Bull unhopped dark LME (6.6 lbs)
Alexander's unhopped dark LME (2.8 lbs)
M&F light wheat DME (1/2 lb)

Hop Schedule:
Cluster (2 oz, 60 minutes)
Willamette (1.5 oz, 15 minutes)
Willamette (.5 oz, 2 minutes)
Willametter (.25? oz, dry-hopped just to get rid of misc. inventory)

Coffee Schedule:
2 cups of coarsely ground Starbuck's Espresso (equates to about *1/2 lb* -
added at knockout then steeped for 15 minutes)

Yeast:
London Ale (Wyeast 1028 - pint starter)

Particulars:
OG - 1.068
FG - 1.025

Tasting Notes:
Very aggressive, and acidic, coffee taste at first.  After 4 months in the
bottle, acidic taste had gone away leaving a very distinct coffee taste.
Dense black-brown head which last the full pint, leaving in the glass a ton
of foam, which can be eaten much like coffee ice cream.  Don't try this one
if you don't really like coffee.

Official Thanks:
To Thomas Lowry for sharing his "Horsey Stout" recipe with me and others.

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

Mark Nelson
Windhund Brauerei
Atlanta, Georgia, USA
* somewhere in the hemispheric vicinity of both Dave and Jeff (and Pat and
Karl)




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 17:48:26 -0800
From: michael rose <mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net>
Subject: Question for microbiologist

I just meet a doctor ( of health foods?) who is selling a new product
called 'Colloidal Silver'. It contains 6 ounces deionized water and 500
ppm pure silver. Nothing else. I quote from his little booklet 'Silver
is a catalyst, disabling a particular enzyme that all one celled
bacteria, fungi and viruses use for their oxygen metabolism and
therefore they suffocate....Its kills these organisms in six minutes or
less.' He goes on to state that silver has been used thoughout history
as an antibiotic; pioneers would toss a silver dollar into their barrels
of water in order to kill off organisms. In 1938, antibiotics were
ivented( and patentable) and therefore all interest was lost in silver.
He list 650 conditions in humans that this product will cure.
        1) Is any of this true, or is this guy just full of bullshit.
        2) If any of this is true, can it be of use to us homebrewers,
either to sanitize or to stop fermenttion(sweet wines, etc)

  thanks, mike rose  riverside, ca   mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 22:55:06 EST
From: Beerd00d <Beerd00d at aol.com>
Subject: a few questions for the collective

I have been reading this newsgroup for about a month and can honestly say that
I have learned more in that time than I have learned in the past 18 months
from brewing and reading my magazine subscription.
I hope that you all may be able to provide some insight on the following
questions:
1) Is there an advantage to fermenting in a smaller vessel so that the krausen
blows all the foam and funk out of a tube, or is it better to ferment in a
larger vessel so that one does not lose that volume of beer.

2)Is there an adjunct that can be used to make a "sweet stout" if one is
lactose maldigestive?

3) Speaking of adjuncts, does malto-dextrin powder actually aid in head
retention?

4) Is it better to boil in a covered pot to maintain a more constant volume,
or to boil in an open pot and have the volume reduce during the course ofthe
boil?

5) Does anyone have a good recipe/technique for making bread with spent grains
without the benefit of a bread machine?

Thank you for any help you can provide in these matters.

beerd00d
aka
Kevin TenBrink     Salt Lake City Utah.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 06:45:40 -0500
From: "Capt. Marc Battreall" <batman at reefnet.com>
Subject: Volcanic Yeast Starter

Hello All,

Just wondering if anyone has experienced this before. It's a first for
me, at least to this degree. This is my 49th starter this year.
I prepared a yeast starter in my normal fashion for an upcoming
multi-grain ale using Brewtek's Australian Ale (CL-270). I innoculated a
10 ml tube of their "Super Starter Wort" with a small loopful of yeast
from a agar slant. Waited 24 hours, noted a small layer of yeast in the
bottom, agitated it around, and transferred it to a 500 ml flask
containing 400 ml of pre-made, hopped, SG 1.033 wort. I use an airlock
on my flasks, but with the inner upside down hat replaced with sterile
cotton and sprayed with ethyl alcohol. This allows the starter to
breathe in O2, without compromising sterility. I found that this gives
me better results as far as multiplication is concerned. Anyway, after
about 6 hours I saw no activity (either rising bubbles or foam on top)
so I gave it a slight swirl. Almost instantly the fluid became a spewing
mountain of foam similar to a shaken up bottle of soda and damn near
blew the top of the airlock off. I was shocked and amazed. I know that
there would be some foaming, but this was phenomenol! After a few swirls
it eventually settles out and I can keep rousing it and get the yeast
cake at the bottom to break up. I then transferred the whole thing to a
sterilized 1000 ml flask and let it settle. A few hours later I tried
rousing it again and it did the same thing! 400 ml of wort and 600 ml of
foam!! The weird thing is that in between rousings, the foam subsides
and there doesn't seem to be the normal starter activity like small
rising bubbles, and a small krausen head. There is a yeast cake at the
bottom, that is obviously growing in size. It also smells normal. This
first 400 ml wort addition is only step one of three. I usually do
400/500/600 ml steps to end up with a 1500 ml starter for my ales.
If anyone has a clue to what might be happening, or has experience this
before, please let me (and the collective) know. Like I stated earlier,
nothing in my procedures with the exception of the yeast strain is any
different than before. ( I forgot to add that this starter is being made
up at room temperature - 70 F )

Signed,
Puzzled In Paradise 
- -- 
Capt. Marc D. Battreall
Islamorada, Florida
batman at reefnet.com
The Fabulous Florida Keys
future site of "The BackCountry Brewhouse"

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:24:37 -6
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Whirlpooling some more

Dear Friends,

I've gotten a few responses on my whirlpooling question, in private 
and on the digest; thanks to all.  By way of clarification, and 
additional questioning: A couple have mentioned doing the stirring 
with their immersion chiller to get the spin started.  I can't do 
that because my chiller is too big-- there is very little free space 
between it and the inner walls of my kettle.  So I must remove it 
before spinning.

Second, a couple have mentioned that perhaps my use of hop pellets
might contribute to the reluctance of my gunk to form a pile or
cone. I have some whole hops on order, so will see what happens next
time; that will be the only thing different from my previous
practices, essentially.

Please copy further commentary to private email; I will be in San 
Francisco all next week and won't be able to get the digest till my 
return-- thanks.

Cheers, 

Dave (at least 10,000 km NE of Andy Walsh)
- ---
*****************************************************************************
   Dave Draper, Dept Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas, Richardson TX 75083
   ddraper at utdallas.edu (commercial email unwelcome) WWW: hbd.org/~ddraper
                 Beer page: http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html
Just what we need, another wanker with an attitude!
    ---Rob Moline (aka Jethro Gump)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:28:44 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: CW/CCW

   ...Trivia question for collective consideration...
   ...Which direction do you rotate *your* whirlpool?  Does it matter?
   ...Is it art?...

When I first heard about the direction, I thought 'Of course, Ron, the
direction will really make a difference'.  After thinking about it a
bit, I now believe that it will not make any difference which way you
whirlpool because you are not draining during this time.  If you were
draining, then maybe you would get an automatic whirlpool, directional
according to your location.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:48:58 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: Re:  What did I make? / Wyeast 1338 Observation

     Hi all,
     
     John asks what kind of beer he made by fermenting a porter wort with a 
     lager yeast.
     
     The answer is very simple:  a porter!
     
     There are many examples of porters that are bottom fermented, 
     especially porters brewed in northern European countries around the 
     Baltic Sea (the so-called Baltic porters).  Okacim, from Poland, may 
     be an example (I'm really pushing my brain here).  I recall that 
     Pennsylvania's Yeungling brewery bottom-ferments their porter.
     
     Some may argue that it won't be true to style because of the 
     cleanliness of the ferment, but there are commercial examples that 
     have pretty neutral yeast profiles.
     -----------------------------------------
     I remember somebody recently writing in with a Wyeast 1338 (European 
     ale?) observation.  I don't remember who or when, but it wasn't too 
     long ago.  They seemed to think that the yeast was not behaving as 
     they expected.
     
     I recently fermented a stout with 1338, and was quite surprised to 
     come home to the smell of rotten eggs (H2S) filling my humble dwelling 
     (I was fermenting in the living room).
     
     I have used this yeast on several occasions in the past, and never 
     noted a sulfur odor.  What's the deal?  Is it the same strain?  Was it 
     mislabeled?  Is it a mutant?
     
     Talking to Wyeast is next to useless (I've been told by them that 
     lager yeast won't grow well at 72F).
     
     A friend of mine recently made a Koelsch using this yeast, and also 
     noted a strong sulfury odor.
     
     Has anybody else out there used this yeast recently with abnormal (or 
     normal) results?  I hate to use anything I'm unsure of in my beers; it 
     makes it hard to replicate a recipe!
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 08:49:40 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com (George De Piro)
Subject: The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition

                The Malted Barley Appreciation Society
     
                                and
     
                        The Brooklyn Brewery
     
                   have joined forces to bring you
     
           ****The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition****
     
                      on Saturday Feb. 7, 1998
     
                       at the Brooklyn Brewery
     
                    79 North 11th St., Brooklyn, NY
     
     The Best of Show prize is a $150 gift certificate to "Hop, Skip, and a 
     Brew," New York City's finest homebrew supplier (they do mail order) 
     and *FREE ADMISSION* to all of the Brooklyn Brewery Special Events in 
     1998 (an alternate prize will be awarded to an out-of-town winner).
     
     There will be great prizes and ribbons for category winners, too!
     
     Entries are due between Jan. 19-31, 1998.  Write or call for shipping 
     and drop off info, and for entry forms.
     
     We also need judges!!!  There are a limited number of beds for out of 
     town judges, so sign up soon.
     
     Contact Bob Weyersberg at 212-989-4545, or E-mail him at 
     <triage at wfmu.org> for more info.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (President, Malted Barley Appreciation Society)

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 09:57:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Cookie Monster <snewton at io.com>
Subject: Re: length of boil

In rec.crafts.brewing you write:

>Date: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 10:01:25 -0800
>From: Hans Geittmann <hans at whiterocks.com>
>Subject: length of boil

>brewery boils for 90 minutes..."  So, what are the added advantages of
>boiling for 90 minutes?  Would they outweigh the added inconvenience of
>refilling the propane tank every other batch?  Thanks
>Hans

Dunno if you are all-grain or extract and if you are doing full
boils, but, here's my thoughts.

Boiling 30 minutes before the first hop addition allows the hot
break to get started.  Assuming your first hop addition is to be
a 60-minute boil, you get 90 minutes.  If you add hops as soon as
the boil starts (ignoring first wort hopping issues for the moment)
then, I'm told, the break material will bind up with hop constituents
and reduce your utilization.

Also, if you are all-grain doing full boils, you start with more
wort than your target to your fermenter, and you need the time to
get the proper volume reduction.  I suppose strictly speaking you
could manipulate your mash size and yield to target a lower volume
to the kettle.

Finally, the length of the boil affects the color and flavor of
your wort through carmalizing (melanoidin formation, to put it
technically) and a certain amount of this effect is desirable.  As
an aside, I made an old ale using only pale and cara-pils and a
three hour (!) boil to get the darkening and flavor effect I wanted.

cm
- -- 
- --
CUTE PURPLE DINOSAUR = CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR
                     = C    V   V  L    D    I    V
                     = 100+ 5+  5+ 50+  500+ 1+   5 = 666

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 11:05:40 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Federal Rap/Mash pH

Louis K. Bonham wrote about trade secret law:

>use trade secret law -- a state law concept.

>...the
>brewer leaves and starts using the recipe at another brewery. Can
>the former employer stop him from doing so?  Under the laws of
>most states (YMMV, so check with competent counsel before
>doing this), the answer is no.

A caution that this can now turn into a federal case. In the past year
several large companies lobbied congress to fix a problem they were
having with people leaving their employ and taking trade secrets with
them. Many of these were young engineers going to small companies,
neither of which had enough capital to make a suit worthwhile. This was
destroying the American enconomy, causing the US to lose its position of
leadership in the world, threatening the stability of world markets
etc., etc. In any event the fix was the Economic Espionage Act which is
now law and which makes it a federal crime to steal, obtain, copy,
duplicate, remove,... across state lines trade secrets with the intent
to harm the owner. "Harm" naturally includes making a buck that the
former employer thinks he should be making. The law imposes some of the
obligations on the employer that Louis mentioned in his post i.e. taking
steps to insure that things have the appearance at least of being trade
secrets. One organization with which I have some familiarity simply
stamps "(company name) Proprietary" on every piece of paper they
produce.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I have much interest in the law so my
interpretations may not be spot on. It's probably already clear that I
am writing from experience rather than legal knowledge. In a nutshell,
my small (60 employess) company hired a kid from huge (company name) and
he made a copy of his PC hard disk which he brought with him when he
came to us. Six months later 60 goons from the FBI and every other
federal agency in the DC metro area with people who had nothing better
to do that day (and you can be sure there are lots of those) were in
here and when they left they had several of our computers in tow. Not a
pleasant experience and it could have been lots worse. 

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

On to a more pleasant (much more pleasant) subject. John Varady wrote

>My understanding is that the ph of the water has the greatest influence.
>In a steep/boil situation there is generally too much water for the
>grains to affect the ph very much.

It isn't the pH of the water that has the major influence but rather its
alkalinity. Alkalinity is, in the vast majority of cases, simply a
measure of the amount of dissolved bicarbonate. Bicarbonate is
reasonably alkaline and it is the balance between acids in, and released
from, the malt and bicarbonate that sets mash pH. High kilned malts
contain a fair amount of acid. In boil/steep situations it is often high
kined malts that are being processed for their flavor/aroma
contributions. In these cases it is the relationship between the total
amount of acid in the malt (the "titratable acidity") and the total
bicarbonate in the water (the alkalinity per unit volume times the total
volume) which determines mash pH. If the water has low alkalinity and
the malt is acidic, a little malt can drop the pH of a large volume of
water quite a bit. From memory, a kg of patent malt contains the
equivalent of several (5?)mL of concentrated (hardware store strength)
hydrochloric acid. 

In the case of pale malts (which also contain some acid but much less
than the high kilned) the principal source of acid is the reaction of
calcium in the water (if there is any) with phytin in the malt which
releses hydrogen ions. In this case the pH is determined largely by the
relationship between the calcium content of the water and the water's
alkalinity. One of the advantages of decoction mashing with low kilned
grains is that more phytin gets hydrolyzed releasing (assuming calcium
is available) more H+ thus dropping the pH further at each decoction.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 97 08:18:55 -0800
From: brian_dixon at om.cv.hp.com
Subject: Re: brewing with a microwave

>     From: "Francois Landry" <flandry at hotmail.com>
>     
>     
>     >2) Would it seem stupid to try boiling my wort in my microwave?
:-) I 
>     >know it sounds freaky for most of you but I would only try small
1-2 
>     >gallons batches, maybe not even fully boiling the wort. It's just
that 
>     >brewing in college dorm room is not like brewing at home... and I
don't 
>     >really want "no-boil" kits.
>     
>     Francois,
>     
>     I do yeast starters and my priming solution in the microwave to
sterilize 
>     them.  The big problem is boilover.  You gotta watch it like a
hawk!  I 
>     only boil it for a short time and when it's about to foam over, I
open 
>     the door to stop the heating and let the foam settle down.  It
takes a 
>     few minutes to reach boiling and then I only boil for a minute or
so.  I 
 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[snip]

Just a minor word of warning guys ... nothing wrong with boiling in a
microwave, as far as I know because I haven't tried it.  Francois is
looking for a way of doing a full boil, e.g. 30 minutes to 2 hours or
so, while Lou is talking about a short boil for starters.  Francois is
probably ok, but watch out Lou!  2 things are necessary for sterilizing
via boiling, a) temperature (you're ok here), and b) time (oops!).  It
takes between 10 and 15 full minutes to sterilize by boiling, hence the
usual requirement to do a 15 minute boil when preparing starters.  For
specific example of how a short boil won't work, I just read an article
in our local paper about reheating Thanksgiving dinners in a microwave. 
Seems people let the stuffing sit in the bird until something
interesting is growing in it, then put it in the fridge.  When they are
ready to eat it, they heat it to (approximately) boiling temperature ...
steaming hot, and serve it.  People then get sick from it because it
wasn't hot long enough.  The corresponding risk to your starters and
worts would be that of an infection not being killed.  Probably
survivable for worts and for the 2nd or 3rd stage starters (doubled
volumes), but the very first starter gets such a weak charge of yeast
that it is probably a lot more susceptible to infection.  I've always
been super careful with starters and have never gotten an infection, so
I can't say that I've experimented to prove anything here.  Just passing
on some info about what's necessary to kill bacteria and the possible
risks as I see them.  Good luck!

Brian


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

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:03:44 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com>
Subject: Re:  Iodine vs Brix / Value of Mashout

Barry Brown provides an interesting set of data regarding increasing SG
(%sucrose at least) in a mash, as measured with a refractometer.  The SG
appears to be increasing well after the iodine says he's done.

I recently completed an analysis of four brew sessions -- two batch-sparge
(thanks to Michael Crowe) and two full-sparge -- and found that the wort
trapped in the grain was significantly higher in gravity than the "free" wort
in the runoff.  The procedure is as follows.  Mash water volume is recorded.
Runoff volume and gravity are measured.  Thus the volume of liquid remaining
in the tun is known.  Now, at this point, my assumption has been that the wort
remaining in the grain would be nominally of the same gravity as the runoff.
Knowing the volume of liquid remaining in the mash tun, it it straightforward
to predict the gravity of a second runoff after adding a known-volume charge
of sparge water (as in batch sparging).  However, in all four cases, the
amount of sugar retrieved from the grain was much higher than predicted, by
15%, 25%, 46%, and 49% in the four sessions.  Barry's data show an increase of
20.5/17.2 = 19% from first positive indication to plateauing of the readings.
I was not able to deduce any particular correlation between brewing parameters
(mash thickness, overall gravity, etc) and the amount of "excess" gravity that
resulted.

So, Barry, I wonder if what you are seeing is not sugar production but rather
diffusion of existing sugar from inside the grain to the lower-gravity "free"
liquid surrounding it.

*****

Fred Wills talks about his method of brewing, draining the mash and then
adding a charge of hot water to flush the remaining sugars.  Fred sez:

"So my question is, what's wrong with this scenario?  Why don't I hear of
others using this sort of technique?"

It's called "batch sparging" (or barge-spatching if you prefer) and was the
topic of much discussion here a while back.  I believe one of the brewing rags
talked about it maybe a year ago or so.  Your method is sound, and based on
the data I've collected, your extraction efficiency is probably not far off
"continuous-sparge" brewing.

*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:22:49 -0500
From: "Bridges, Scott (Exchange)" <bridgess at caemail.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
Subject: SO concerns


From: David A Bradley <BRADLEY_DAVID_A at LILLY.COM>

>Brent asks the age old question of how to keep the wife out of his
homebrew
>stash.  My brewing friend Rich and I have met with success in only
attack.
>Pregnancy.  It works quite well, but there are drawbacks, to be sure!

I'm a little behind in HBD reading, so I hope this isn't too late to be
relevant.....  I avoided staying out of the thread so far, but I now
have to reply.  To counter the above, I have found another method of
keeping the wife out of my home brew -- I fired her.  This cuts waaay
down on the "honey, do you mind if I brew today?" or the "honey, can I
buy that new super-mega titanium kettle?" type issues.  As in the above
method, there are also other consequences to this particular approach.
For example, my new gadget budget has been replaced by my attorney
budget.  I am now embarking on my search for a new brew partner.  Of
course, any future marriage would be proceeded by a prenuptial agreement
that says I get to keep the brewing rig.  :)

Scott

Scott Bridges			803-939-6387
Program Manager			VP 632-6387
Outsourced Mfg Operations		Fax 803-939-7588
NCR Corporation, Columbia, SC






Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 08:34:10 -0800
From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Mash efficencies

Barry comments on his mash efficiency:
>  
>  By the by, I've done the extraction efficiency calcs on the above data and 
>  would love to see what values others get for comparison purposes (should 
>  you care and have time to figure it out).  In that vein, what do most 
>  people do about hydration water in these calcs, as grist will absorb about 
>  0.1 gallon per pound that will not be recovered.  I assume the sugar in 
>  that water will be recovered and in this case, use 20.5% for all strike 
>  liquor including foundation water.
>  Therefore 20.5% is about 1.086
>  86*28.5L (7.54gal) gives about 648.5 total pts
>  divide by 21.5 pounds grist gives 30.2 pt/lb*gal,  not that damned good!!

It is really impractical to calculate yield in the mash tun. Most yield
calculations are based on a final kettle volume. In other words, when all
is said and done, how much sugar made it into the finished wort. The grain
absorption problem is not a problem since during the sparge, the
concentration gradient of sugars in the grain bed causes a net flow of the
sugar rich wort out of the particles which is then replaced, mostly with
sparge water. But, as you pointed out, this adds to volume, which, again,
is why efficiency calcs aren't usually done on the mash. What I'd like to
see is the final info on your wort as it went into the fermentor. Remember,
that you will lose water to the boil (~10% total volume) and that will
cause your yield to come up slightly. Also, what formula did you use to
arrive at your S.G. #. I assume a straight line equivelent of P=
((1-S.G.)*1000)/4. This means that your s.g. would be 1.084, not 1.086. I
know the conversion is not completely linear, but where, exactly, does it
start to diverge?

Inquiring minds want to know. BTW, 30.2pts/lb/Gal is not that bad. That
correlates to a brewhouse efficiency of 30.2/36=84% (using the theoretical
max of 36pts/lb/Gal). My yields fluctuate between 67-72% based on a
theoretical maximum of ~81% which correlates to 29.7-32pts/lb/Gal. This
represents a brewhouse efficiency of 82.7-88.8%. Remember, the literature
value of 36pts/lb/Gal is the theoretical max yield if you get every drop of
sugar out of your malt (not ever likely). This would mean that your final
runnings would be 1.000 (BAAAAAAAD). Different malt lots or the age of the
malt account for most of this variance. I've seen my yield go up by 3-4
points when we got in a new malt shipment. My techniques haven't changed,
only the malt (ignoring minor fluctuations in the water which *could* come
into play). As long as your yields are predictable, why worry? You're not
in the position where you need to pinch pennies like a large brewery. If
your yield is a little low, add some more malt. You really only need
consistent numbers so you can calculate your grain bills accurately.

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: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 08:51:13 -0800
From: Chasman <cwhudak at gemini.adnc.com>
Subject: Roasted Barley and Flaked

Brian asks about flaked barley, etc.

>Question about flaked oats, Quick Oats (like Quaker), other flaked
>grains ... I assume that most of these will be hot rolled, resulting in
>pre-gelatinization.  What's the suggested mash schedule for these guys? 
>Need a 15 minute 122 F protein rest?  Why?  How about a 135 F
>beta-glucanase rest for 30 minutes?  Why?  If I have a recipe that has
>20% (by extract or grist weight) Quick Oats for example, can I get away
>with just a single infusion mash for sugar conversion?
>

Multiple temp rests, hmmm. Yeah, that would work. Consider though, that one
of the reasons that Guiness (and I) use flaked barley in our stouts is to
provide the extra protein for that great head. A protein rest may degrade
some of the foam forming proteins, defeating the purpose. It is tough to
lauter though. Guiness doesn't use a protein rest (or a B-G rest) and
neither do I (I've done step-infusion mashes but it's a PITA in a 7BBL
brewery designed for single step infusion). You should have no problem
converting 20% flaked. I use about 15% and it converts fine; as long as
your base malt has sufficient diastatic power...

>Another question: If breweries like Guinness use as much flaked barley
>as they do roast barley in their process (this is approximately true),
>then is it "roasted flaked barley", which will provide similar
>color/flavor to roast barley, or is it just that light colored
>"pre-gelatinized flaked barley" that you see at most homebrew shops?

It'd be hard to flake roasted barley (not to mention unnecessary) since
it's quite friable. Don't know how malsters feel about the idea of roasting
flaked barley either. In any event, it is that pre-gelatinized stuff.

>
>Third question: Some homebrew shops don't have a malt called "roast
>barley", but instead have 2 grades of the stuff called "light roast
>barley" and "dark roast barley".  I assume if a recipe asks for "roast
>barley" that it means "light roast barley" (400 L?  Can't remember).
>What are the differences between the various roast barleys and the
>various black barleys, e.g. "black barley" and "black patent"?

Boy, it really depends on who you talk to. Different malsters use different
designations. This whole craft brew thing has caused some problems too
(tongue firmly in cheek) since malsters are starting to make all kinds of
new specialty malts (e.g. light and dark roast barley). Normal Roasted is
about 400-450L so substitute whatever has that color. The difference
between the different types is usually just the degree of kilning. Black
Malt (black patent and *sometimes* called black barley, though this is a
mistake) is the same malt (usually) as chocolate malt...it has just been
through a different roasting schedule (longer, maybe hotter) so it ends up
almost burnt.

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: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 11:40:31 EST
From: PVanslyke <PVanslyke at aol.com>
Subject: o ring removal

on  Tue, 2 Dec 1997 15:04:46 -0500=0A=0AMel asked=85=0A=0A>Anyone have a =
trick to getting the old rubber seals off of a coke keg? =0A>Want to repl=
ace the liquid out side and thought it was worth asking if=0A>anyone had =
a trick out there.=0A=0AYou asked about removing o rings=0A=0ATake a piec=
e of coat hanger (6 or 8 inches long) and either grind or file a=0Along t=
aper point on one end. Now put a slight curve (hook) in that long taper.=
=0AYou should be able to catch the curved point under one side of the o r=
ing and=0Apull off. There are also commercial products made for o ring re=
moval. And you=0Acould use a dental pick.=0A=0APaul VaanSlyke >> brewing =
and relaxing in Deposit, NY=0A


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 07:40:03 -0800
From: " Scott Perfect" <perfect at marzen.llnl.gov>
Subject: re: Buena Noche

Pat writes:

>I've noticed this as well - a distinctly tin-can flavor. Since the
>beer is brewed for the Christmas season, and I've never managed to
>acquire a fresh sample of the beer (and since George and Laurie Fix
>speak so highly of it in Marzen, Oktoberfest and Vienna, I've always
>attributed this to be some sort of  aging reaction - paricularly
>since most references (all I've read) attribute metallic off flavors
>to contact with uncoated metallic - ferrous, specifically - surfaces
>or compounds. Like with Oly, maybe it's the water.

I recall a couple of years back a gleeful post from George that
Buena Noche was coming available after a long absence.  A few days
later he posted that, to his disappointment, the product bore little
resemblance to the beer he had written about in his and Laurie's book.

- ---------------
Scott Perfect
Livermore, CA
- ---------------

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 11:06:01 -0600
From: TOLERD at cdnet.cod.edu (Toler, Duffy L.)
Subject: Affixing airlocks to cornys: Solution


Greetings Brewers!
Necessity is the mother of invention!
I was hit with a solution to how stick an airlock on to a corny that I   
thought I would throw out for the collective.

Take off the gas in fitting, stick a #2 rubber stopper over the treaded   
nipple,
then stick your airlock into the stopper.  Seems to seal pretty well.
or
You could always close up the corny & remember to use the relief valve to   
vent occasionally.

Duffy Toler
Sugar Grove, IL



Return to table of contents

---