---

	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:
  MCAB Annoucement ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Step mashing (nathan_l_kanous_ii)
  Zima; oxygen; alcoholism DIE DIE DIE (Samuel Mize)
  Mash Viscosity/Decoction/Oxygen (AJ)
  Oxygen permeability of plastic fermenters ("Carl Shipman")
  What happens if I don't filter before fermentation? ("Bret A. Schuhmacher")
  December 1997 issue of BT ("Alan McKay")
  oxygenating wort (Mike Allred)
  Fruit for beers and meads/wines - a tip (Vicky Rowe)
  Re: Sparge Runoff Speed (Jim Bentson)
  Why isn't DME oxidized? (Brian Pickerill)
  Siebel ("Rob Moline")
  Starter oxygenation ("David R. Burley")
  Sanitizing Plastics: A followup (Jim Liddil)
  Lagering - When to? ("Gregg Soh")
  Stuff for Hot liquor Tank (Dana Edgell)
  ceramic heaters, phosphoric acid ("Ray Estrella")
  Twist offs ("David Blaine")
  Conserving liquid yeast ("Michael E. Dingas")
  Brewing Chemicals (KennyEddy)



Be sure to enter the...
The Best of Brooklyn Homebrew Competition
Brooklyn Brewery, Brooklyn, NY
Entries due by 1/31/98, competition 2/7/98
Contact Bob Weyersberg at triage at wfmu.org for more info.


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@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 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...
	ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
	ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

  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: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:14:46 -0600
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: MCAB Annoucement

More news from MCAB Central . . . . .
 
As I reported late last year, the Bluebonnet Brew Off (Dallas)
indicated it had an administrative problem with an MCAB QE 
requirement (specifically, the MCAB's use of the BJCP Style
Guides).  The Bluebonnet has now indicated that because of
this requirement, they are unable to accept the MCAB's
invitation; accordingly, the Bluebonnet Brew Off will not 
be a QE for the first MCAB.

We have since contacted the Mash Tongues (Ft. Collins,
Colorado), and have extended an invitation to them to have the
MashFest serve as a QE.  I am pleased to report that they have
accepted our invitation, and thus we will now have a QE in the 
Rocky Mountain region.  This year's MashFest will be April 4.

I have also just been informed that CABA has designated their
Toronto competition (May) as the Canadian QE.  The MCAB Steering
Committee would like to thank Richard Oluszak and Eamonn McKernan
of the CABA for their tireless efforts to help us insure that 
there is a Canadian QE in the MCAB!

Thus, the final list of confirmed Qualifying Events and contact 
information for the first MCAB are:
 
February 20-21		Kansas City Bier Meisters competition
			www.sound.net/~jweerts/98comp01.html
			Contact person: Steve Ford
			jweerts at sound.net
 
February 21		Boston Homebrew Competition
			www.wort.org/bhc.html
			Contact person: Ken Jucks
			jucks at cfaft4.harvard.edu

March 28                World Cup of Beer (Berkley, CA)
			www.slip.net/~tcedit/worldcup.htm
			Contact person: Doug Ashcraft
			Ashcraftmd at aol.com

April 4			MashFest (Ft. Collins, Colorado)
			www.fortnet.org/~smills/masht.html
			Contact person: Scott Mills
                        scott_mills at hp.com
 
April 18                Bidal Society Competition (Kenosha, WI)
                        Contact person: Jeffrey C. Sparrow
                        jeffrey.c.sparrow at monsanto.com
 
May 15			Sunshine Challenge (Orlando, FL)
			www.creol.ucf.edu/~cfhb/
			Contact person: Steve Vallancourt
			STEVEBRAU at aol.com
 
May                     CABA Great Canadian Homebrew Competition
			(Toronto)
			Contact person:  Richard Oluszak
			richard.oluszak at sympatico.ca
 
June 7			BURP Spirit of Free Beer (Vienna, VA)
			brewery.org/stevens/sofb/SoFB.html
			Contact person: Mark Stevens
			stevens at burp.org

June 27-28		BUZZ-Off (Philadelphia, PA)
			www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoffindex.html
			Contact person: Chuck Hanning
			Chuck_R_Hanning at sbphrd.com
 
October			Dixie Cup (Houston, Texas)
			www.foamrangers.com		
			Contact person: Steve Moore
			swm at pdq.net
 
November		Novembeerfest (Seattle, WA)
			www.brewsbrothers.org/
			Contact person: Jim Hinken
			jhinken at accessone.com
 
Start brewing -- enter early and often -- and if you're a qualified
BJCP judge, PLEASE help us advance amateur brewing by judging at as 
many QE's as you can.  (If you're not a BJCP-certified judge [yet] 
but want to help us out on the MCAB, drop me a line -- there's lots 
to do all over the country, and every bit of effort counts.)
 
And finally, a plea for cash and prizes for the QE's.  The QE's are 
all taking on big tasks, as in some cases being a QE may cause their
competitions to grow several orders of magnitude -- so they need
our help.  If you're in the beer or brewing business (or have any 
stroke with someone who is), please help get the MCAB off to a good 
start by supporting QE's with your donations of cash or prizes.  
[If anyone wants support *all* the QE's, please contact me -- we'll 
work with you to facilitate this and to make sure that your support 
is appropriately recognized on the MCAB website and in future MCAB 
publicity.  Of course, we'll also be seeking financial sponsorships 
and other support of the MCAB proper, but at this time we'd prefer 
to see your support go to the QE's.]

Steve Moore is currently planning the actual MCAB competition and 
associated technical conference / amateur brewers' congregation, 
and we are tentatively looking at the Presidents' Day weekend
(mid-February 1999).  We hope to have information on the date,
competition location, and official MCAB rules by the end of the 
month.  In the meantime, if anyone has questions or comments
about the MCAB, please contact me.

Louis K. Bonham
lkbonham at phoenix.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:21:25 -0400
From: nathan_l_kanous_ii at ferris.edu
Subject: Step mashing


Olin Schultz asks about step mashing.  He indicates that step mashing
results in higher contact time with beta amylase resulting in greater
fermentability and decreased body of the beer.

I agree that a step mash "could" lead to increased contact time with beta
amylase (temp profile dependant) and increased fermentability.  I don't,
however, agree that step mashes lead to decreased body of the beer.

Body of beer is determined by more than just the attenuation of the wort.
Proteins play a significant role.  If you do nothing to a beer except
change it's rest profile to favor beta amylase activity, then you will
probably detect a lighter body.

However, if during that time period of beta amylase activity, you also
provide for the action of other enzymes (i.e. a protease rest in the mid
130's FP) you may not see the same result as would occur with "just
increasing attenuation".

I have almost exclusively used a step mash program for all of my beers.  I
don't care to go into all of the reasons (some may be less than
scientific).  However, I feel that the beers that I produce with a step
mash which includes a rest in the mid 130's F have improved the body of my
beers, compared with beers produced by others with infusion mashes.  This
is not a good experiment, just anecdotal experience.  Others may comment as
well.

The other comment made was that step mashed beers would suffer from
decreased head retention as well.  I have found, IMHO, that including a
protease rest (not peptidase rest) in the mid 130's F has increased head
retention, due to the increase in MMW proteins present after the step mash
program.  My beers, generally, have a thick, tenacious head.  The kind of
thing that looks like it would float a quarter.  Not all of them, but
generally.

Anyhow, I personally feel that step mashing provides benefit to the beers
that I make.  I'm a creature of habit.  I don't post this in an attempt to
directly refute any claims that Olin made.  He asked, and I am giving my
opinion.  I would certainly like to hear more information supporting or
refuting the claims that I have made, from those with more scientific
support.

Nathan, step mashing in Frankenmuth, MI



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:22:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at prime.imagin.net>
Subject: Zima; oxygen; alcoholism DIE DIE DIE

Greetings to all, and especially to:

> Homebrew Digest #2611               Fri 16 January 1998

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: "Gabi Scharfetter" <wombat at xpoint.at>
> Subject: Zima

> Is there somebody out there who knows anything about the brewing of
> "Zima"? Its a so called "clear malt", brewed by Coors.

I suppose Coors does...

>I enjoyed drinking it when I was on holiday in the USA.

Medical treatment IS available.

> And perhaps there is a possibility to brew it at home?!

That would be hard.  They make a light, unhopped malt beer, then filter the
life out of it -- literally, they hold patents on the filtering process to get
the malt character out of the beer.

Then they add lemon-lime flavor, anti-heading agents, and other chemicals.

I suspect the only reason they start with a malt beverage is because the laws
in some states are different for those.

 - - - - - - - - - -
George De Piro said:

    The amount of oxygen available to the yeast limits how many times
    they can reproduce. ... If you only provide O2 at the beginning, the
    yeast can only go through 3 divisions, giving you eight times more
    yeast than when you started.

Also, Ken Schwartz said:

    Dave Burley wrote: "Also, note that a properly pitched quantity
    of yeast will reduce the oxygen content of the wort to zero in 30
    minutes (AJ DeLAnge-?)."

Together, do these suggest we'd do well to oxygenate a few times after we
pitch?  Are they ready to take up more oxygen after the 30 minutes, or should
we wait for a generation or so?  How fast do yeast reproduce?

We don't oxygenate during fermentation to avoid getting diacetyl, so we don't
want to just keep aerating.  But maybe re-aerate an hour after pitching?

OTOH, if we're getting good results now, do we need to change?

Ken Schwartz also said:

    [if we oxygenate wort] "to build cell walls and stuff", then why not
    oxygenate your starter medium, allow it to sit for 30 minutes, then
    pitch into a non-oxygenated main wort?  What's the difference?

I suspect you can't get enough oxygen into a small starter to
fully-load the yeast with sterols, unless you bubble it with pure
oxygen for a few hours.  Anyone know for sure?

 - - - - - - - - - -
Someone else said:

> The alcoholism thread just won't go away, will it!

Well, it HAD...

75 lines later:
> Naw - I don't think we're qualified to discuss this subject.

OK.

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net -- Team Ada
Fight Spam - see http://www.cauce.org/
Personal net account - die gedanken sind frei

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:01:29 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Mash Viscosity/Decoction/Oxygen

All the discussion of mixing brought to mind some questions: what's the
approximate viscosity of mash? How does viscosity change with
water/grist ratio. How does saccharification change the viscosity and
what is the temperature dependence after saccharificatrion begins. Is
mash a Newtonian fluid (or dilatant or thixotropic etc.)? Perhaps this
is a question the guys at Siebel could ask the profs.

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

SBireley at renex.com asked for comments about decoction mashing. Here's
something I put up about 2 years ago. It's in the Library at the Brewery
site:

Posted to Homebrew Digest #1906, 12/11/95

Pros (in order of importance with today's highly modified malts):

    1.Enhances production of flavor and aroma compounds.
    2.Reduces mash pH for better conversion and easier runoff.
    3.Less trub in main boil and at chilling.
    4.Less chance of raw starch carryover to kettle.
    5.Extracts, coagulates and precipitates tannins, proteins and
silicates.
    6.Allows thicker mash for earlier rests.
    7.Better gelatinization of starch.
    8.Breaks down protein matrix thus releasing more starch and
improving extraction.
    9.It's the traditional way to make some beers.

Note that 7 and 8  become more important where wheat malt or raw wheat
are used.

Cons:

    1.Complicated.
    2.Requires more equipment.
    3.Takes a lot more time.
    4.Darkens beer.
    5.Extracts tannins as grains are boiled.
    6.Danger of scorching.
    7.Uses more energy.
    8.Must be careful about starch released in final decoction.
    9."The classical three-mash system is a long-drawn-out affair and
the chief criticism which has been leveled against it is that
       "mashing is too intensive (i.e., protein is degraded too far)."
Jean deClerk

Note that tannin extraction has been listed as a pro and a con. The good
news is that some of it is complexed and dropped in the
decoction and that as the tannins have been largely extracted in the
decoctions one need not be so careful about sparge temperature
and pH. The bad news is that the tannins have been released and long
lagering is usually required for them to drop out.

Suggestion for obtaining the thinnest part of the mash for lauter
decoction: Use a large kitchen sieve as a stuykmanden, i.e., push it
down into the mash and ladle out the liquid.

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

Dave Bureley wrote

>a properly pitched quantity of yeast will reduce the
>oxygen content of the wort to zero in 30 minutes

and Ken Schwarz commented

>I remember this comment as well (pretty sure it was AJ),

>and it's always
>bugged me in a way.  Why do we go through so much trouble oxygenating
our wort
>if the oxygen is consumed so quickly by the relatively small amount of
yeast
>pitched?

 Yes, I was the one. The key phrase is "properly pitched". My experiment
showed that yeast cells at concentration at and above 10E6 cells/mL
would, at room temperature, eat all the O2 during which time their
numbers would about double (if I remember correctly - don't have the
notebook with me). I guess I should first remind people that this was a
single experiment with a single strain and as such the numbers should
not be taken as hard and fast. But note also that when I make starters I
oxygenate and wait for bubbles to appear at the surface of the starter.
I then oxygenate again and wait for bubbles to appear and so on. The
time period between oxygenation and bubble formation is short - about
half to 3/4 of an hour - once the yeast count gets up to the point where
the broth is plainly turbid so I'm convinced that  yeast consume oxygen
quickly if it (and nutrients) are available.

Ken continued:

>And if the answer is "to build cell walls and stuff", then why not
>oxygenate your starter medium, allow it to sit for 30 minutes, then
pitch into
>a non-oxygenated main wort?  What's the difference?

This was, I believe,  exactly Tracy Aquilla's point. If enough yeast are
pitched one need not oxygenate. Note that some English breweries
oxygenate the _slurry_ just before pitching it. It has also been
reported that where sterols and fats are available in the wort oxygen is
used much more slowly by yeast which might lead to the conclusion that
oxygenation isn't required if cold trub is carried over into the
fermenter.

I go to a fair amount of trouble to get as much yeast as possible in the
starter (i.e. the oxygenation cycle described above). Even so I seldom
obtain counts of more than 12 - 15 E6/mL (and I don't always do counts
by any means). Oxygenation of the wort (three minutes with "the Stone"
gives me confidence that the count will rise rapidly and get
fermentation underway quickly.

As a final comment, I think there is enough strain dependence on the way
oxygen is utilized by yeast that I don't think one can make a blanket
recommendation about the best way to use oxygen. The best way to use
oxygen is in the way that gives the best results with the yeast strain
and wort with which the brewer is working. Given the amount of yeast
that we as home brewers seem to be able to pitch, I think oxygenation of
the wort is probably the best way to go in the majority of cases but
recognize that deviation from this certainly has the potential to change
the finished product's fusel/ester profile, perhaps for the better.


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:19:52 -0700
From: "Carl Shipman" <cshipman at dakotacom.net>
Subject: Oxygen permeability of plastic fermenters

	There have been some comments recently about oxygen passing thru the walls
of plastic fermenters with resulting off-taste.  I am using an S-type air
lock, which is a form of manometer. While fermenting, the pressure in the
vessel supports a 2-inch approx column of water so the pressure inside is
greater than atmospheric.
	It seems to me that this may prevent oxygen (or any other gas) from
entering the container. I have a vague recollection of partial pressures in
a vessel, which suggests that the oxygen partial pressure could be very low
and the CO2 pressure high, but I am too many years removed from freshman
physics.
	Perhaps some who are better qualified will comment and clarify.
Thanks,
Carl


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 09:52:34 -0700
From: "Bret A. Schuhmacher" <bas at healthcare.com>
Subject: What happens if I don't filter before fermentation?

Hey brewers...

It's such a PITA to get the break out of my wort before fermentation I
was wondering what happens if I don't bother?  I mean toss in the
hops, Irish Moss, etc from the boil right into the fermenter...  Am I
asking for off flavors, infections, what?  I figure I can rack it off
the trub after a week or so, so what's the big deal?

Maybe you can offer some advice on getting this crap out before
fermentation...  Right now I do 2.5-3 gallon boils (no spigot in my
pot) using unbagged pellet hops and Irish Moss.  I've bagged the hops
before, but I don't get as much utilization and it's hard to judge how
the beer will turn out.

I've tried the centrifugal method, but I really don't want to mess
with siphons. I prefer to dump the whole pot into the fermenter.

I've got a 2 stage strainer on my funnel and the nylon sack just gets
filled with break.  I wind up emptying it several times before I get
all the wort into my fermenter.  It's just very messy, time consuming,
and I'm tempted to stick my hand into the wort sitting in the funnel
to move the break out of the way so the wort will drain into the
fermenter.

Any tips?

Thanks,

Bret
Bad Dog Brewery
Montrose, CO

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 12:53:16 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <Alan.McKay.amckay at nt.com>
Subject: December 1997 issue of BT


Hi folks,

With regards to my recent post about said issue of BT, the editor
Deb Jolda assured me that as far as they know, the magazines
should be sent out inside of an envelope.  She's already sent me
a fresh copy, and has requested that I send back the damaged
one so that they can determine what went wrong.

cheers,
 -Alan

- --
Alan McKay
Nortel Enterprise Networks
Norstar / Companion / Monterey Operations
PC Support Prime


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 11:45:42 -0700
From: Mike Allred <mballred at xmission.com>
Subject: oxygenating wort

Ken Schwartz said:

>I remember this comment as well (pretty sure it was AJ), and it's always
>bugged me in a way.  Why do we go through so much trouble oxygenating our
wort
>if the oxygen is consumed so quickly by the relatively small amount of yeast
>pitched?  And if the answer is "to build cell walls and stuff", then why not
>oxygenate your starter medium, allow it to sit for 30 minutes, then pitch
into
>a non-oxygenated main wort?  What's the difference?

There was an article in Brewing Techniques about a year ago that stated the
same point.  

The Biochemistry of Yeast - Debunking the Myth of Yeast Respiration and
Putting Oxygen in Its Proper Place    by Tracy Aquilla and Richard Horsley
   in the March/April 97 issue.

This was real interesting if anyone hasn't read it yet.


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 10:56:17 -0500
From: Vicky Rowe <vrowe at us.ibm.com>
Subject: Fruit for beers and meads/wines - a tip

Greetings, fellow brewers!

I chanced across a great deal, and wanted to share it with you, since I've
derived so much good information from this group, and this is one way
I could think of to say 'thanks'.

Carolina Brewing Company, here in Holly Springs, NC, near Raleigh
did a craft brew of Raspberry Ale last year, and ended up with more
raspberries than they needed. Now they have several 42 lb boxed
mylar bags with spouts of pasteurized, de-seeded  pureed raspberries going
wanting. They paid $2.50/lb for them, and will let them go for $1.50/lb
($60.00/42 lb box). They would like to get the cooler space back, so
they'll let it go cheap. Besides, they understand us, having grown out
of a homebrew operation themselves! A great bunch of folx, they are!
Their phone number is 919.557.2337, ask for John or Greg. Tell them Vicky
Rowe sent you. I can't speak to the shipping costs for something like this
but $1.50/lb for deseeded, pasteurized, pureed raspberries, ready to put
in the must/wort, even with shipping seems pretty good to me!

I bought two boxes for myself, and am going to be happily putting together
a raspberry mead (hooray, no seeds!!) and hopefully, if I can find the cider,
a raspberry cyser. Then, when my Porter comes out of the bucket and gets
bottled, I'm going to try a Raspberry Ale.

Woohoo! M-O-O-N that spells homebrew, don't it just?

Wassail and Slainte

Vicky Rowe
meadster at large

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:13:37 -0500
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at htp.net>
Subject: Re: Sparge Runoff Speed


>Subject: runoff speed
>
>John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com wrote:
>
>>I runoff faster than the oft recommended five gallon per hour rate, too.
>>>Probably on the order of five gallons in forty minutes.
>
>Jeez, so do I - 9+ gallons in maybe 50-60 minutes.  I think 5 gallons/hr is
>way too slow.  Recommended by whom?  I aim for 1 gallons/6 minutes, which
>is what I computed based on my mash tun sq. in. (~175) from what I recall
>George Fix recommended.


The total sparge time is not determined by the volume of the batch .It is
the depth of the grain bed in the lauter tun that determines the optimal
runoff rate. (This is actually the batch volume to tun area ratio.) For most
"normal" shapes of tuns, since the size of the tun increases with batch
size, the grain depth in the lauter tun will be in the usual "recommended"
range of  6 to 18 inches.  Sparge times given in most books, and as
discussed in this forum, generally are recommended to be in the 45 to 60
minute category. At my former brewpub we generally sparged in times of 1 to
2 hours for a 310 gal batch.

 Noonan in his "NEW Brewing Lager Beer " states that the MAXIMUM extraction
will occur with a runoff rate set to collect the wort in two to four hours
BUT that the greatest part of the extraction  is achieved in 1 1/2 hours and
the additional time is not worth the slight increase in extract collected.
Noonan states that a 6 in deep bed of 6 row American malt can be sparged in
as little as 1/2 hour

M&BS points out that higher temp. sparge water (175 to 180 deg F) will
dissolve sugars faster, and lower bed viscosity allowing higher
rates.Obviously, the porosity of the bed is important as a fast run-off rate
could set the bed leading to a stuck mash. I get 82% to 87% extraction rates
in my lauter tun using 45 to 60 minute sparges and generally hit the 1012 to
1010 gravity limit just as my water runs out so that I am getting good
extraction. 

The tun is a discarded stainless swimming pool sand filter that I spotted at
curbside just as the garbage truck arrived. I almost ran the collecter over
in my attempt to "cut him off" before he damaged it. It stands 2 feet tall
and is 13 inches in diameter . I built an 'Easymasher' type filter but in an
"H" pattern with each arm of the "H" being  a 1 inch diameter by 3 inch long
cylinder of 1/16 inch mesh stainless screen. I use stainless 3/8 diameter
tubing and tees to connect to the bulkhead compression fitting that gets the
wort to the 3/8 inch ball valve on the outside. An absolutely fantastic tun.
Drop by your local pool guy and see if he ever gets filters like these as
discards. The only drawback was a small amount of sealant was at the bottom
seam and I had to remove this chemically and then passivate the tun but I
never got any off-flavors even on the first batch


Jim Bentson
Centerport NY

- --
Registered ICC User
check out http://www.usefulware.com/~jfoltz



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 15:26:51 -0600
From: 00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu (Brian Pickerill)
Subject: Why isn't DME oxidized?

The oxidation/HSA thread got me wondering this the other day.  Why isn't
DME badly oxidized?
Don't they have to dry it at high temps?  Do they dry it in nitrogen/C02 or
what?  I know it is
spray dried--I guess it would be easy enough to do that in an oxygen free
chamber.

Just curious (the thread has been interesting)...

- --Brian Pickerill



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 98 17:42:37 PST
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net>
Subject: Siebel

Greetings,
>From: michael rose <mrose at ucr.campus.mci.net>
>Subject: Rob & George
>
>Rob & George
>	1 What textbooks are you using?
>	2 Are they avaiable to the public?
>	3 Do you recommend them?

	The standard issue for the Short Course is a pair of 2 inch thick 3 ring
binders, stuffed to capacity with mostly double side printed materials.
	Contents are:  Volume 1-Orientation, Brewing Technology and Process
Overview, Water-The Universal Solvent, Introduction to Malting, Brewing
Calculations, Introduction to Sensory Evaluation, Composition of Grain and
Chemistry of Malting, Brewhouse Tech- MiIling , Enzymes in Brewing,
Brewhouse Tech- Mashing, Cereal Cookers and Adjuncts, Mash/Wort
Separation-Lauter Tuns, Mash/Wort Separation -Mash Filters, Malt Analysis
and Specialty Malts, Beer Styles, Biological Control, Brewhouse Tech- Wort
Boiling, The Nature of Yeast, Wort Clarification, Practical Problems in
Brewing, Cooling and Aeration, Yeast Growth and Fermentation, Types of
Taste Panels, and Panelist Selection, Control of Fermentation and Flavors,
Taste Panel and Roundtable Notes.
	Volume 2- Hops and Hop Products, Yeast Maintenance and Propagation,
Fermentation, Wastewater, Yeast Management Practices, Pumps, Pipes and
Valves, Recipe Formulation, Production of Different Beer Styles, History of
Brewing, Maturation and Aging, Colloidal Stability, Cleaning and
Sanitation, Carbonating and Air Exclusion, Regulatory Concerns,
Clarification and Filtration, Quality Control and Quality Assurance, Flavor
Stability, Brewery CIP, Safety While Cleaning, Interpretation of a Beer
Analysis, State of the Industry, Kegging and Packaging, CO2 Collection,
Practical Problems in Brewing, Tasting, Roundtable Notes, and Student
Survey.

	Notable is the fact that Diploma Course students for a ten week course
receive 14 of these volumes! Even just with the 2 we have, there is just so
much packed in and when you add the extra materials that are distributed,
you really need to split the 2 into 3, with an extra binder that they offer
for free.
	These 2 volumes may be purchased for $ 750 from Siebel, but $ 250 of this
may be applied to the cost of the course, should you take it within a year
of purchase.

	George did pick up a new book, "Technology Brewing and Malting," Kunze,
VLB, Berlin, 1996. This is an English translation of the German 7th
Edition, ISBN 3-921 690-34-X. Siebel sells it for 141$. It looks quite
tasty, and I'm sure George will give a quickie review soon. A review may
also be found in the Oct/Nov 97 Brewing Techniques.
	I picked up the "Pump Engineering Manual," produced by the Duriron
Company, Rotating Equipment Group, Dayton Ohio, for 18 $.

Hops.
	Also, we learned that my prediction of hop shortages and price increases
secondary to the powdery mildew infestation in the US are unfounded.  Klaus
Zastrow said that worldwide there is generally an overproduction, breweries
have large inventories, and that current brewhouse practices that include
lower useage, lighter hop rates, higher utilization, and hops with higher
alpha's are features of the scene. Indeed, he said that last year the
German hop producers burned hops, as they could not sell the whole crop.
The situation is such that everyone talks about reducing plantings each
year, but no one will do it until the others do.

Strange Beer Fact...
	Some 25 years ago or so, the Ballentine Brewery in Philadelphia
'exploded,' and the word was stressed as quite literal, some 200 cows, from
including too high a proportion of live spent yeast in the spent grains
picked up by area farmers! Fermentation, in a closed 'vessel' can produce
some high pressures, indeed!

Siebel Alumni Scholarship.
	It's time to start thinking of applying for the next scholarship for a
Short Course. Deadline is March 31, 1998, and covers the $2350 that the
course costs, and an extra $ 1000 is provided to help with transportation
and accomodations. These are awarded each year by the Alumni Association,
and are based on technical and financial need, among others things. Details
are in the Siebel catalogue, available by calling 773-279-0966, or writing
to Siebel, 4055 W. Peterson Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, 60646-6001.

Your Questions.
	George has already answered some, and I will be, as time allows,
formulating my personal responses to all that submitted them. I have also
left them with some of the faculty, who will mail their responses to me,
and I will post them on the digest.

It's OVER     :-(
	Well the schooling is done, at least for me, George has another week for
the Microbrewery and Pub Brewery Operations course. And yes, the exogenous
depression is setting in........maybe I can go chip a brick off the
building to take home to relieve the pain! It was a blast, the instructors
were wonderful, the syllabus comprehensive, but the beers with the faculty
in the in-house bar were the best part! 
	Overall recommendation....5 stars, with a bullet!

Cheers!
Jethro Gump, S.G. (Siebel Grad!)

Rob Moline
Brewer At Large
brewer at ames.net
Ames, Iowa.

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 19:08:41 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Starter oxygenation

Brewsters:

Ken Schwartz says:

"Dave Burley wrote:

  "Also, note that a properly pitched quantity of yeast will reduce the
oxygen content of the wort to zero in 30 minutes (AJ DeLAnge-?)."

I remember this comment as well (pretty sure it was AJ), and it's
 always
bugged me in a way.  Why do we go through so much trouble =

oxygenating our wort
if the oxygen is consumed so quickly by the relatively small amount
 of yeast
pitched?  And if the answer is "to build cell walls and stuff", then
 why not
oxygenate your starter medium, allow it to sit for 30 minutes,
 then pitch into
a non-oxygenated main wort?  What's the difference?"

Well, I was making the best of a situation as I understood it,
but have become *theoretically* convinced that the right time
to oxygenate is in the starter and not in the beer.  Problem is =

the amount of oxygen available to the yeast is much less, since
the starter volume is less and I think they have to be fermenting
to use the oxygen.  John Schnupp, Hubert Hangofer and others
have suggested stirring the starter wort plus yeast in the =

presence of oxygen this provides continuous oxygenation and is
much more satisfying than that 30 minute lifetime to me. I believe
this is commercial fermentation practice. (?) based on recent
discussions I have had on this subject.

AJ's recent comments that the passing of oxygen into the
starter wort produced immediate odor of aldehydes, made me
think this could happen in beer, so an alternative is perhaps to
ferment the starter until it clears, pour off the starter beer and =

pitch ( which is how I do it with starters). In the case where the
yeast from a previous batch is pitched, we don't have that option
without doing something like fermenting a giant starter ( can you
say a full batch of beer?).  So we add oxygen to the beer as the
British do, to allow us to use the yeast through several generations. =


There is a section in M&BS which I have quoted here before that
demonstrates the (40%?) loss in attenuative powers ( as I recall)
over 5 repitching cycles without oxygenation of the cold wort.
This is obviously for top fermenting ale yeast. One would
suppose lager yeast would be similar, but lager yeast do have
an additional set of more aggressive enzyme systems that allow
them to chew up aldehydes and other goodies in the wort, so
one cannot assume that lager yeast need oxygenation.
 Anyone with information on the similarity or dis-similarity of
lager and ale yeasts in this regard?  Is it likely that oxygenation  =

products will be consumed by the lager yeasts?

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: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 17:55:02 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: Sanitizing Plastics: A followup

In HOMEBREW Digest #2610 Thu 15 January 1998, I posted some observations
about cleaning and sanitizing plastics.  James M.O'Shea III the Marketing
Coordinator for FiveStar expressed some concerns that I had provided
"unfavorable press" for his company.  While I am flattered that he would
think my one post in the HBD would affect the sales figures for his company
I also want to clarify somethings.

I certainly hope the HBD audience is intelloigent enough to realize that my
one test was simply that and in no way is indicative of all situations.
FiveStar feels that my post was so strongly worded that you all would get
the impression that "our product can not kill".  I in no way meant to imply
that this is the situation in all other cases other than the one I presented.

Mr O'Shea asked:
(1)First, did you use Star San or Saniclean?

I used Saniclean, the product that was provided to me as part of the test
marketing you did in the homebrewing market.

(2)What was the ppm you used?

I used the product as directed. "Hoses, False bottoms, racking cane etc.:
To santize, add 2 teaspoons of Saniclean to one (1) gallon of cool water in
a celan bucket"  I actually use a  a pipette to measure out 11 milliliters
( 1 teaspoon = 5 milliliters) and add it to 1 gallon of water in an amaber
glass bottle that I have a cailbration line on.  

(3) How old is the product?

I recieved the product as part of the homebrew marketing program.  That was
at least a few months ago.  FWIW discussions with YOUR chemist indicated
that the prodcut is very stable and the chapter in _Disinfection,
Sterilization and Preservation (ed. Block) _"Surface- Active Agents:
Acid-anionic Compounds" by G.R. Dychdala and J.A. Lopes. indicates "product
stability in concentrated and diluted form"

(4) Why did you cut the tubing after it was sanitized?

So that I could put one half into YM Broth and the other half into MRS.  I
used sterile scissors  (autoclaved) and was working in a laminar flow hood.   

(5) How much iodine stain is there on this tubing?

The tubing is amber.  Using a Davidson Color guide it is about 5 Lovibond.
New stuff is clear.  I guess I could cut a portion out and do a
spectrophotometric scan from 200-800 nm against a new peice of tubing. 

I used the PBW as recommended in the instructions " One (1) tablespoon of
PBW to one gallon of warm water in a clean bucket"  I have a six gallon
stainless steel pot I use to soak stuff in that I use.

FWIW I bought 8 lbs of PBW and a quart of Saniclean after participating in
the marketing program.

Regardless of the prodcut used whether it be bleach or an other sanitizer
people have to be aware of how to use it properly.  People are just as
likely to use a "glug" of Saniclean as they are of bleach.  I've seen
"professional" brewers do it with iodophor more than once.  So the product
is irrelevant.  My point in the  test was to see if plastics can be kept
clean and sanitary.  NO company including FiveStar has presented any
published data on the cleaning and sanitation of plastics.  Mr O'Shea would
also like me to  let them see my data before I make it public.  In my view
this is sort of like what the Tobacco Companies di and continue to do with
research that shows an negative effects of smoking.  It's a free country
and this is the internet.  Opinions welcome.

Jim Liddil 	Tucson, AZ 	It's a dry heat.

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 22:52:31 PST
From: "Gregg Soh" <greggos at hotmail.com>
Subject: Lagering - When to?

Hi all,

I've been real unlucky at brewing lagers and end up brewing steam beers, 
which ain't bad. Determined to succeed for once, I got some liquid lager 
yeast and embarked on my next lager brew. Seeing as how inexperienced I 
am when it comes to lagers, I need advice as to when to employ the lager 
temperatures during the fermentation. My question is: How vigorous 
should the fermentation be (if kept at 75F since pitching) when I 
finally drop the temperature to lagering temps? How do I tell? I've got 
bubbles in the airlock 8 seconds apart after 22hrs at 75F. How fast a 
drop should I employ? I really hope it works this time!

Greg

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

Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 23:36:47 -0600
From: Dana Edgell <edgell at quantum-net.com>
Subject: Stuff for Hot liquor Tank

HBD,

I would like to add a couple of things to a Hot Liquor Tank and have a few
questions.

1) What is the best way to seal a hole used to insert a probe thermometer?

2) What type of clear tubing would be best for a sight tube that can stand
up to boiling temperatures?

Thanks for any help.

Dana Edgell

- ---------------------------------------------------------
Dana Edgell                     edgell at quantum-net.com
Edge Ale Brewery                http://www.quantum-net.com/edge_ale
San Diego                         home of the Water Treatment Workpage


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jan 1998 20:22:33 -0600
From: "Ray Estrella" <ray-estrella at email.msn.com>
Subject: ceramic heaters, phosphoric acid

  Hello to all,
Ralph Link tells of using a ceramic heater in what he calls his incubator.
I also use a ceramic heater in the lagering box that I built in my garage.
It is 8 ft. long, 32 in. high, and 16 in. deep.  A Brewers Resource temp
controller activates a little 10 in. ceramic heater.  It works very well.
  When I first made it, I was scared that I was going to burn down our
house. (And her kitchen, too.....)  But even last winter when we were
setting all kinds of cold weather records, the heater never had to run
for more than a few minutes.  And since there is no light involved, you
can leave your carboys uncovered.

  Lately there has been some discussion about the availability of food
grade Phosphoric acid in small quantities.  I do not know how small a
bottle that folks are looking for, but I get mine from Presque Isle Wine
Cellers at 800) 488-7492   A 16 oz bottle of 35% solution costs 4.40 US.
Anybody interested in wine making should request a catalog, they have a
lot of neat stuff.






Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 07:44:22 -0500
From: "David Blaine" <i.brew2 at usa.net>
Subject: Twist offs

Any comments on capping twist off bottles welcome.  Do I need special =
caps or equipment?  Special capper?
David Blaine in Deckerville Michigan
I.Brew2 at usa.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 09:53:43 -0500
From: "Michael E. Dingas" <dingasm at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Conserving liquid yeast

I'm about to take my first step into 'improving' my extract beer by =
adding grains and hops. Needless to say, I'm a little tense about it. =
But...I've read several books about partial mashing, protein rest, =
starch conversion, etc. and will jump in with both feet. Hopefully, I'll =
be brewing this next batch by the 24th of January.

My question is about liquid yeast. The recipe  (provided by Charley =
Burns of N. Cal - thanks a bunch) calls for a liquid yeast. Although my =
brewshop didn't carry the exact type Charley recommended, I was given a =
substitute for which I paid $6.50! At that cost, I need to find a way to =
extend its use. What procedure could be followed to stretch the package =
out? Assuming that refridgeration of the 'extra' yeast will be required, =
how long will it last and what do I have to do to preserve it?

I had to make a decision: Should I work on my taxes or my beer? =
Priorities won out. I'm working on my beer!

Mike (Warner Robins, GA)

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 11:28:34 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com>
Subject: Brewing Chemicals

Ken Lee writes:

  I have never seen a step by step process for infusion mashing in a
  cooler that explains precisely what chemicals to add and why.  Am I
  doing this right, and what can I do to make this process better and how
  do you use PH strips.  I enjoy the process and the end result, but think
  I can get a 'Better Beer' with a few pointers.

Better "Better Beer" than "Bitter Beer Face".

Starting with the mash water, the two most important ingredients are calcium
and alkalinity.  Phosphorus compounds in the mash react with the calcium to
liberate H+ ions (acid), while other processes buffer this reaction, resulting
in a pH in a fairly narrow range of anywhere from around 5.9 (using distilled
water with no calcium) down into the low 5's (ideally 5.2 to 5.4).  This is
why brewers often use gypsum to lower mash pH; the gypsum itself is not
acidic, it's the calcium/phosphate reaction in the mash that creates acid.

Fighting this is the alkalinity of the water, which wants to push the pH
upward.  Using fairly loose figures, if your water has at least 40 ppm calcium
and less than 100 ppm alkalinity, you shouldn't have any trouble hitting the
"happy" pH zone.

Note that dark grains are acidic and can drop the pH further depending on
their quantity.

Calcium is also important for stabilizing alpha amylase and a calcium-
deficient mash can result in a thin beer (based on my experience).  I've found
that all other things being middle-of-the-road, 40 ppm is about the minimum
concentration of Ca+ that you want.

Some brewers use lactic or phosphoric acid to adjust mash pH.  Lactic fans say
it's more neutral in flavor, but remember that phosphorus is quite compatible
with mash chemistry, so feel free to use either (in moderation).

For sparging, we want to keep the pH of the mash bed below 6.0 to avoid
leaching tannins from the husks, so sparge water is often acidified with acid
to ~5.7 pH.  While initial sparge water additions will be bufferred down in pH
by the wort, as the wort conentration at the top of the mash drops, the pH
will rise.  If you monitor your runoff pH (6.0 max) and/or gravity (1.010
minimum), you can cut off the sparge before any "damage" is drained into the
kettle.

Outside of the mash, calcium aids in extraction of fine bittering principles
from hops, enhances protein coagulation (hot & cold break), is beneficial to
yeast, and aids shelf life.  Alkalinity ("carbonates") harshens hop
bitterness; reddens beer; and hinders protein coagulation.

Other "chemicals" have little effect on mash chemistry but can impact overall
beer character and flavor:

Sulphate (SO4):  Lends a dry, sometimes "sharp" character; accentuates hops.
Normally best below ~50 ppm but can go as high as 700 ppm or more in Burton-
style ales.

Magnesium (Mg):  Beneficial to yeast in small amounts, but is objectionable in
high concentrations.  Best kept to 10 to 30 ppm.

Sodium (Na):  Adds a "fullness" and "sweetness" to beer in reasonable
concentrations.  Keep under 100 ppm (usually under 50), especially in the
presence of sulphate.

Chloride (Cl):  Adds a "fullness" and accentuates bitterness.  Keep under 100
ppm (usually under 50), especially in the presence of sulphate.

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

Return to table of contents

---