---

	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:
  modern malt / oxygen during fermentation (Heiner Lieth)
  Re  yeast etc. (Clifton Moore)
  Killians Red Recipe Request (MIchael Cukrow)
  1996 AOB Tax Forms (Jim Liddil)
  Win a Stainless Steel Brew Kettle (kbjohns)
  TPM/SI part 2 ("David R. Burley")
  Temperature Programmed Mashing/ Stepped Infusion Part1 ("David R. Burley")
  Single Temperature Infusion Mash ("David R. Burley")
  Re: Can mash efficiency be over 90%? (Jim Wallace)
  Fermentation temperatures (Ash13brook)
  Homebrew Contest and Homebrewers Dinner (AlannnnT)
  mash rest temperatures / malt modification (George De Piro)
  Pasteurization Question (George De Piro)
  LOTS of equipment for sale (Norm)
  Yeast practices. (Clifton Moore)
  clarifying diacetyl post (Andy Walsh)
  brewing & Submarines (stealth)
  Lager repitching at bottling. (AlannnnT)
  Re: Exploding Bottles/Gushers (Scott Murman)
  yeastie beasties heatied (Luke.L.Morris)
  What to do with a keg full of bland beer? ("Ray Robert")
  Licorice. ("David R. Burley")
  Hefeweisen mash schedule ("David L. Thomson")



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: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 10:07:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Heiner Lieth <lieth at telis.org>
Subject: modern malt / oxygen during fermentation

George De Piro <gdepiro at fcc.net> wrote in HBD #2611:
>Several people have asked us about protein rests and modern malts.  The =
>=93simple=94 answer is to not do them (as many of you already know).  The =
>more accurate answer is to check out a malt analysis.

How does one know which malt is modern and which one isn't?  Are we talking
about heritage of the grain variety (or whatever), or are we talking "made
recently" (in which case: aren't all the grains I get at my homebrew shop
made relatively recently; i.e. modern)

and 
Ken Schwartz wrote
>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? 

I concurr with the doubt.  The picture that I've gotten with regard to
aeration/oxygenation, yeast needing oxygen, and oxidation of wort/beer makes
no sense in relation to the the fast rate at which oxygen reacts with stuff,
and the relatively slow rate with which organism build cell membranes
(walls?) and divide.

Also, since giving yeast oxygen is such an important thing, then it would
make sense to me to open up the primary fermenter as soon as there is a
layer of foam/yeast on top to allow the yeast in that foam to get oxygen.
This provides oxygen to the yeast in this layer but the layer would keep the
O2 from getting to the beer where it might oxidize the beer. As soon as the
layer starts to fall (or perhaps long before that) you would want to close
things back up.

I know that some of you do open fermentation.  Does anyone do "partial" open
(i.e. open part of the time)?  Any experiences to share?

Someone else wrote earlier
>Up to now, I wait until the airlock stops bubbling, usually a week -ten
>days, then rack to secondary for about another week, prime and keg,
>...

I generally transfer to a secondary while there is still some bubbling going
but after "high Krausen" (whatever that means).  I do this for two reasons: 
(1) I want evolving CO2 in the secondary to drive off O2 (I don't have
bottled CO2 available to purge) 
and (2) evolving CO2 will keep air from being sucked into the fermenter
through the airlock as the temperature drops (I generally want lower
temperatures in the secondary).

Heiner Lieth.



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 11:05:46 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore at gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Re  yeast etc.

>     Hi Clifton,   I saw a post of yours that mentioned washing 
>yeast.   I am looking for a reference or two giving advice about yeast 
>harvesting, storage, parallel cultures, storage under sterile water 
>etc.   any pointers as to where to start searching would be 
>appreciated.   Many thanks   David Hill.   davidh at melbpc.org.au      
>
David,

This is my favored source for getting started is:

http://realbeer.com/brewery/Library.htm

I have also enjoyed reading some of the
lab info provided by

Yeast Culture Kit.

http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckco/yckcotbl.htm

I have been using LMDA plates from:

http://www.problemsolved.com/bsi

They offer  a variety of test media and
instructions as to how to interpret
results.  I have found the LMDA test rather informative.  
It is a selective growth media which suppresses yeast 
growth and promotes the growth of
bacterial cultures.  Through a simple process of elimination based on
observation of the contaminant colonies one can identify several types
of common bacteria.


I have never had a contaminated batch of beer, but I well could have
had

I pitched a supply of yeast that I had been playing with for some
time.

I now think that what I have in the past interpreted as autolysis was
in fact
bacterial contamination gone wild on a stored yeast bed under water.
I will admit to having experienced this only on jars of yeast that
I stored in my basement, and have never had such a problem with
yeast kept in the refrigerator under water.

I am currently planning to pitch a batch of second generation yeast

captured from a long past primary.   I am reassured by a good LMDA
test that it is a clean culture.

Current questions:
Might not the storage medium best be beer or pH adjusted water
for storable of bulk yeast? 

Many of the contaminating bacteria will drop the pH so it may be 
that a simple pH test of the covering fluid would be an indicator
of contamination.  

Fact is that smell and taste is probably the best skill to develop
in testing yeast.  For a bad batch I can hardly stand to smell it
much less even think of sticking my tongue out to it.  What a stench!

Clif

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 15:11:15 -0500
From: MIchael Cukrow <mcukrow at nac.net>
Subject: Killians Red Recipe Request

I am mostly a lurker and somewhat of a newbie (6 batches so far,
extract, partial mash (I think), and cider) and have found that the
advice/information posted to this list extremely useful.  For that, I
thank everyone.

I am getting ready to brew my next batch, and wanted to make something
similar to Killians, and was hoping that someone had an extract/partial
mash recipe they could share.

Thanks in advance,
Mike Cukrow

Mt Arlington, NJ

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 13:56:42 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: 1996 AOB Tax Forms

Once again at my own expense I got the Assoc. of Brewers 990 Tax Forms. 

    The AOB still lists "Promotion of Home Brewing" as the organization's
primary exempt purpose.
    Really? 

    Linda Starck, the Advertizing Manager $115,023 

    Charlie Papazian President/Treasurer $123,022 + $31,849 Employee
Benefit Plan Contribution 

    Cathy Ewing Vice President $60,821 + $1000 Employee Benefit Plan
contribution 

    The AOB spent $691,000 to publish zymurgy and to circulate and
distribute 170,000 copies. 

    They spent $420,000 to publish 28,000 copies of the New Brewer. Yet the
primary tax exemption is
    promotion of homebrewing. Why is the money not being spent in a
proportional manner to publish
    zymurgy and pay writers etc? Just wondering. 


    The 990 froms are freely available from the IRS. I am awaiting the tax
forms from Brewing Matters
    (subdivison of the AOB that puts on the GABF). 

    Jim  Tucson, AZ


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 16:59:55 -0500
From: kbjohns at peakaccess.net
Subject: Win a Stainless Steel Brew Kettle

BOS prize in the 7th New York City Spring Regional Homebrew Competition is
a 10 gal PBS Stainless Steel Brew Kettle with bottom drain and thermometer
(can get credit toward a larger kettle)

Other Prizes include Gift certificates for several of NY City's best beer
bars and restaurants, brewing supplies & equipment and beer related items etc.

The BJCP/AHA santioned competition is scheduled for Sunday 3/22/98 at
historic Snug Harbor Cultural Center.

Complete information, entry & judge forms can be found on the Homebrewers
of Staten Island home page or by email

Ken
Homebrewers of Staten Island URL http://www.wp.com/hosi/

Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:20:27 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: TPM/SI part 2

Brewsters:

Part 2

To get the maximum efficiency, not leave starch behind, remove the
glucans which can cloud a beer, reduce the structural proteins,
chop up any low molecular weight proteins, reduce the wort viscosity
( remove gums) so it lauters quickly,  I find it necessary to hold in =

the "protein" region (specifically 122F) for those malts that are hard
to the bite to get really clear beer.  I have always assumed it is the
glucans (gums) which are causing this cloudiness.  I do not find it is
necessary to hold in the "acid" rest area of 105F (40C).  However, =

with my low mineral content RO water, I do get a reduction in pH =

with a hold here, contrary to George Fix's reported results of no
effect on the pH by a hold here.   At 122F( 50 C), glucanases are
also active, so with a brief hold here it is possible to kill two birds
with one stone without killing the head as many have feared but
none have demonstrated conclusively.

Proteolysis, compared to amylosis (saccharification) is a
slow activity.  Protein control is done by the maltster to a large extent=

over several days.  Carbohydrate content is controlled over several
minutes by the brewer, to a large extent. If it were not the case then
adding grains like corn or rice would not dilute the protein, since it
 would be chewed up and become part of the beer.  Also, I believe
to a large extent this belief in protein dilution stems from British
practice in which a protein hold is often not the practice.  As far as I
know, protein content of the malt was not a German problem,
historically. Perhaps now that they have gone to step infusion and =

sell grain to Britain it is more important.

Fix makes the point in his new book that whether you hold at 122F
or 135F(57C) makes no difference mathematically or in practice,
since both enzymes are active at both of these temperatures. =

So he believes, I guess, all the discussion about 122Fvs135F holds
is meaningless. He then brings in a not so carefully documented
apparently one-of -kind experiment in which he claims a batch rested
at 122F didn't taste as good as others not rested there.  I have
never tasted any problem with a 122F rest as far as flavor ( or head)
is concerned and suggest this experiment be done a few more =

times and documented better. If these two holds are equivalent
from a protease standpoint then the 122F hold is superior to 135F, =

since there is glucancase activity at 122F and none at 135F. The
glucanase denatures at 131F, according to Jim Busch's article in BT .

The summary. If you are using a Pale Ale malt ( as Troy likely did for
his IPA) , don't bother to hold in the "protein" rest region since the
proteases are likely to have been destroyed by the higher kilning
of this malt versus the Continental and American Pale/pilsner =

malts.  Also these British malts have a delicate protein balance =

which could be ruined by a low T hold. Mixing these pale ale malts
 with pale ( i.e. pilsner or lager) malts in a grist and using low T hold=
s
can also lead to problems in the head formation.  This mixed
malts grist may be the source of the many  opinions about the
adverse effects of a 122F hold - I don't know.

Also, remember that many of the classic English bitters do not
have a head like German beers, so don't expect one of this nature =

if you  use English malts. Always use flaked grains as adjuncts
with British malts and a hold in the saccharification range ( 149-158F)
region and higher, only.   With Continental and American ( especially)
malts you can take advantage of the lower T rests to use the extra =

protease and amylase content by using various cooked adjuncts,
like corn, rice and wheat which could not be used with British malts
without flaking first. By combining the use of adjuncts and various =

holds you have more control over the protein and carbohydrate content
in the final beer than if you were to be using Pale ale malts and
a single temperature hold. That's the advantage of a
temperature programmed mash/stepped infusion.


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: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:20:20 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Temperature Programmed Mashing/ Stepped Infusion Part1

Brewsters:

Part 1

Troy Hager says:

". I have used the single
>infusion method quite a few times in the past couple years and have
>produced some tasty beers with it, but through reading the HBD and the
>latest Fix book, I decided to use some steps for a couple batches of my
>IPA.

 and then after a description of his methods and failures says:

>So, needless to say, it is back to the old reliable single-infusion meth=
od
>for me; less work, better beer... what more do I need to say?

>Any comments would be appreciated.

Well, there seems to be a lot of confusion about when to
step infuse and when not to and about Fix's step infusion
scheme ( 40,50,60,70 -borrowed from Continental brewers)
which he touts in his new book on one hand and then says =

don't bother ( I imply) because all Pilsner malts are well modified.
Are you confused by his suggestions?  I am.

There are several points of confusion here. The first is what is
meant by "well modified"?  Think it's a well defined state of malt
characterized by a Kolbach unit or something?  Nope.  Modification
is a condition like the weather. It is a comparative phrase in its
origin.  Sort of like "my, its hot today". or "my, this malt is
over-,under-
etc. modified". The time of year will control when you use this
weather phrase, since there is an understood set of conditions.
What you really mean to say is "My it's hot(ter than expected) today",
since 50 degrees in January is a hot day and 50 degrees in July
is a cold day. Likewise, in discussing malts "modification" is best =

used as a comparative word.

To add to the confusion, historically it depends on what country
you are in on what is meant by well- or under- or over- modified.
Kolbach and lots of other early brewing researchers tried to pin =

down just what was meant by modification.  Then science and
technology fooled them by inventing pneumatic malting,
gibberellin A sprouting additive, oxygen control during germination,
bromate addition, roughing the grain to increase water absorption rate,
etc. etc.  The old idea of the meaning of modification based on
floor malting had to fall, since nowadays the progress of protein
alteration and carbohydrate alteration are much more independent
than they were in the old floor malting regime.  Ergo, it is possible
to have a malt which has a much higher protein modification than
carbohydrate ( including the glucans) than one would predict from
the idea of modification formalized when floor malting was the
primary method of malting.

The point is, the maltster can tune his malt to meet his customer's
need.  If his customer ( the brewer) uses single temperature infusion,
then he can make a malt for this use. Pale Ale malt is intended for
single temperature infusion or a least no protein hold.  If you have
ever tasted a commercial British "lager" made from pale ale malt ,
you will understand why the Germans insist on a different malting =

cycle. American and most ( other than German) Continental brewers
expect to be able to use grain adjuncts when brewing.  Continental
Pilsner and American Pale malts are intended for multiple step
infusions, having a much higher enzyme content, despite the fact that
they are more highly modified in the protein area than they used to be
when the German industry brewed by the decoction method. =


Not having access to all the analyses when I buy my grain from the
HB store, I tell the difference by biting the grain.  If it is hardish,
I know ( however imperfectly) it will need multiple steps. If it
explodes in my mouth, then I know I can use a single step infusion, =

since it is a Pale Ale malt intended to be used in a single temperature
infusion  - or at least no protein rest required. I also know that if I
use a Pale Ale malt in a decoction mash, I'm headed for a stuck
mash and lots of problems, most likely.  This bite test for the =

skilled biter is a quick approximation to the fine/coarse grind =

extraction method.  This fine/coarse grind method is  recommended
by the ASBC  in the craft brewers manual as their only analysis method
for degree of modification.  I find it interesting that Continental
maltsters do not freely publish the Kolbach units in the latest BT  =

buyer's guide, according to a recent private communication with
another HBDer. I suppose that means this analysis is not used.
Most brewers actually sneer at Kolbach and other complex methods
for malt analysis, since they want to know if the malt has *changed*
from the last time, not what its supposed protein modification actually i=
s.

The malted grain is hard for a couple of reasons: 1) glucans and =

some carbohydrates which are largely unmodified from their original
state in the barley grain form a protective structure around the starch
 2) Certain HMW Proteins  make up the structural portion of
 the grain. In the highly modified malts one or both of these structure
giving groups have been broken down during malting.  This is why
the highly modified malts encountered in the British Pale Ale turn to =

flour when you bite them.  The lesser modified grains have less of
one or both classes less broken down from their original form in =

the unmalted barley.


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: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 20:20:34 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Single Temperature Infusion Mash

Brewsters:

This is related to my comments on temperature programmed mashing Parts 1
and 2. =


Ken Lee says:

>I would like to get some feedback on how those of you that use
 a single
>temperature infusion mash actually perform the operation.
  I get okay
>results, but am ready to try and improve my process.
>.......
>For the mashing process I generally combine my grains.
  An example would
>be 7 lbs of pale two row (whatever is cheapest at the
 homebrew store),

Whoops. PLease, go back and read my comments on
temperature programmed mashing/stepped infusion  and switch to =

the cheapest pale *ale* malts if you are doing a single temperature
infusions.

>  I
>have PH strips from Precision labs, but never got instructions
 on how to
>use them so I don't.

They are really difficult to use {8^).  Just dip them in a sample
of wort which you spooned out of the mash tun and compare
colors on the side of the strip container. When you match the
color of the strip and the color sample on the container,
that is the pH of the liquid. Some of the strips  want the
sampled liquid to be at room temperature, so cool it in the
spoon. Remember the pH of the *hot* wort is 0.35 units lower,
approximately than the cooled wort.

>  I just add one tablespoon of lactic acid to the
>mash water as it is heating up.

This is a lot and probably <none> is better than this amount,
unless you have very hard, alkaline water.  Don't add it here =

without carefully measuring the pH of the hot wort. The cold wort
you measure in the spoon will be about 5.65 or so when the
pH of the hot wort is correct at 5.3 for British Pale Ale malts =

in a single temperature mash regime. You do not have to be
too R/A about this, but shoot for this number. Unless you have =

weird water or dark adjuncts, it should just about hit this number
automatically.
 =

>  I then open the balllock

The what?! Don't tell the Brits!

>and let the cloudy
>stuff flow into the container

Through a hose with no splashing to prevent HSA .

> I don't add any chemicals
>to this [sparge] water.

This is where you need to add lactic acid, if anywhere, to keep
the sparged wort pH around 6.5 or lower. I usually add about =

1/8 teaspoon  ( note: tsp not TLB)  of 88% lactic acid =

to 3 gallons of sparge water. This will prevent the phenols from =

dissolving. You may need a little more if your water is hard.
Check the pH of the sparged wort and keep it on the acid side.
Try these simple changes and you will get better beer

Good Luck!!
- -----------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 17 Jan 1998 11:49:04 -0500
From: Jim Wallace <jwallace at crocker.com>
Subject: Re: Can mash efficiency be over 90%?

 ..........................From:"J.W. Schnaidt"
<tuba at gwtc.net>.................
10 lbs Belgian pale X 35 pt*lbs/gal      = 350 GU
 .5 lbs English crystal X 24 pt*lbs/gal   =  12 GU
 .25 lbs US Special roast X 24 pt*lbs/gal =   6 GU
 .125 lbs DWC Biscuit X 37 pt*lbs/gal     = 4.6 GU
 .125 lbs chocolate X 25 pt*lbs/gal       = 3.1 GU
As I mentioned above, I measured 1.065, using two different instruments.
Therefore,
1.065/1.068 = >95% efficiency. This would vary somewhat again, depending on
 ............................................................................
 ......................................

It looks like you had a very efficient mash... I ran your grainbill with my
extraction #s(slightly modified from the ZYM Grain Issue) and got a bit
more total GU but still calcs were 89% for efficiency.... mine usually runs
~80% (up from 75% a year ago) ..... 
I am not sure that I would take that as a house efficiency until you get a
few more brews under way... if it continues your doing pretty good.  
It looks like you are using Dave Miller's extract figures which are
somewhat lower.. he claims to get 100% of this but others find that hard to
do.
Mash efficiency is somewhat over rated on the HB level because it simply
means a few cents more or less for grain (cheap). 

___________________________________________
    JIM WALLACE ... jwallace at crocker.com
      http://www.crocker.com/~jwallace  
___________________________________________

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 03:47:59 EST
From: Ash13brook <Ash13brook at aol.com>
Subject: Fermentation temperatures

I apologize if this has been beaten to death, but I have brewed three batches
now and all have turned out very drinkable. But - all of them have a similar
fruity flavor. I have a slab house and do my fermenting on a bare piece of it,
but my indoor ambient temps are around 75 degrees. That ain't changing -  per
my wife. I'm going to build a box with a heater in it to use in the garage(
Chicago winters are below the optimum fermenting temps believe it or not!),
but I'm curious as to what temperature to regulate it to. Should I use a 60 -
68 degree ambient temperature in the box, or set it low enough so that the
temperature of the fermenting beer( which I've read may be as high as 10
degrees higher) is in that range( I'll be using one of those stick-on-the-side
thermometers)? Thanks in advance.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:42:35 EST
From: AlannnnT <AlannnnT at aol.com>
Subject: Homebrew Contest and Homebrewers Dinner

You Are Invited to Karps Homebrew's 

2nd Annual 
Homebrew Contest and Homebrewers Night Out 

What:  Our 2nd  Home Brewing contest, combined with dinner at a great
restaurant in the company of other Home Brewers and Professional Beer Makers.
This year our contest will be sanctioned by the American Homebrewers
Association. Contest winners will be announced at the dinner.

The Contest:  The rules for entering your homebrew in the contest are on the
entry form available from Karps Hardware and Homebrew. Beginners are
encouraged to enter! Contest entries must be submitted to Karps Homebrew by
March 20th, 1998. You can contact Karps to get your entry forms, or use the
web version which will be posted soon. Standard AHA bottle labeling rules will
apply. Two bottles per entry.

The Dinner:   Dinner and prize ceremony will be held at the Crossroads Cafe,
Laurel Rd. East Northport, on Monday, March 30, 1998 at  7:30 pm.

 Why Dinner?   To have fun, to meet other people with the same need to brew,
and to learn something about making beer. 
You may come to the dinner without entering the contest. As with last year's
dinner, we will have professional brewers and vinters in attendance to talk
about the microbrewing buisness.  
	 
The Particulars:  You may enter the contest without coming to the dinner. We
would like to limit contest entries to three per person. You may extend this
invitation to any other brewers or even a spouse! The entry fee is $2.00 per
entry. The entire entry fee will be donated to the Ecumenical Lay Council's
Food Pantry, to help buy food for the hungry.   

   Prix Fixe steak dinner at the Crossroads Cafe this year includes the same
fabulous complete dinner as last year's, PLUS- two pints of Brooklyn Brewing
beers, tax and gratuity. This year's price of  $38 per person is higher than
last year's price but includes the two pints and tip.  The Crossroads Cafe is
one of the finest restaurants on Long Island.
[ A chicken and pasta entree will also be available] .  Space is VERY limited
so please sign up early. Last year's dinner sold out quickly.  See Alan or
Mike at Karps to reserve  your space.  We encourage beginners to attend and/or
submit beers for judging. Prizes will be supplied by Karps Homebrew, malt
manufacturers and suppliers and other local merchants. Last year we awarded
over $800 worth of prizes, this year we expect to double that amount.
[Listermann's has sent us one of their brand new counterpressure bottle
fillers to give away. Not yet available anywhere else.]
 
Dinner Reservation: The dinner is on Monday, March 30 at 7:30 pm.  You can
reserve a single seat or seating for two or more. If your friends are planning
to attend, send in your reservations together, so we can seat you all
together. Dinner is Prix Fixe at $38.00 per person, gratuity is included.
Payable with your reservation. Contact Karps if you want to attend, we will
send a dinner reservation form.

Judges: Of course, every contest needs judges. We are looking for a few more
judges. Contact Alan Talman if you can participate. We will be sanctioned by
the AHA, points will be available per the rules.

 Special categories:In addition to the American Homebrewers Association [AHA]
style categories, the following categories are also valid. 

#101 My first or second brew. Beginners may use this category if they don't
want to be competing against the old pros. The winner of this category will
win a category first prize, but will not advance to the Best of Show round.

#102 Somewhere Over the Hop Rainbow. If your beer is a minimum of 70 HBU's,
and out of any other style, enter your beer here!

#103A.  Just Good Beer. [ales] Any ale that doesn't fit a style guideline,
belongs here.   

#103B. Just Good Beer. [lagers] Any lager that doesn't fit elsewhere, can go
here.

#104 The Other category. For example, you may enter a Stout, other. Add the
word
`other' to any AHA style. Add the number `104' to the AHA category number. AHA
category number 11 plus the number 104. Only use this category if you know
your beer doesn't fit into an exact AHA category.    

Karps Homebrew, 
#2 Larkfield Rd. East Northport NY 11731--- 516-261-1235---  Inside Karps
Hardware
Fax 516-261-1573--- Email alannnnT at aol.com

 Thanks to all the HBDers who sent in suggestions for addition categories. You
guys helped alot. Thanks to Brian Rezac and the AHA. The AHA gets slammed on
this forum for real and perceived transgressions, but the new administration
is always helpful and answers their e-mail! 
 


















Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:02:50 -0800
From: George De Piro <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: mash rest temperatures / malt modification

Hi all,

Troy writes some comments about his dissapointing results
with step infusion mashing.
He tried the old 40/60/70 mash, and then a 60/70 mash and
both times was upset that the FG of the beer was too low
(~1.010).

The low final gravity is not a surprise.  Resting at 50C(140F)
will allow beta amylase to work pretty well.  It works even
faster in the time it takes to heat the mash to 70C (158F).
At 70C you have 10 minutes of beta activity before it will be
effectively denatured, but in that time it will be working
pretty quickly.

Brewers should not blindly adhere to any one mash schedule.
You should tailor the mash to meet the beer profile that
you desire, and the materials available.  If you are making
a very unfermentable wort, for example, mash into hot water
so that your mash-in temp is 71C (160F).  This will denature
most of the beta amylase very quickly and you will end up
with an extremely unfermentable wort.

Also, by far the most commonly asked question that Rob and I
received was "do I need a protein rest?"

The simple answer is "probably not, unless using wheat, rye
or raw grains."  The more correct answer is to obtain a malt
analysis from your supplier.  If the homebrew shop won't do
that for you, ask for the maltsters address and do it yourself.

The most important things to look at on a malt analysis
(for determining the degree of modification) are:

1.  Fine grind/coarse grind difference:  this is the result
of mashing the malt in a lab using both a fine grind (max.
possible yield) and a "normal" brewhouse grind (coarse grind).
The smaller the diference, the more well modified the malt is.
This is because in a well modified malt the protein matrix
that protects the starch will be well degraded, allowing the
starch to be saccharified.  The starch granules in a well
modiied malt will also be peppered with holes from amylase
activity during malting, which aids in saccharification.

2.  The Kolbach index is another important indicator of
modification.  It is the ratio of the soluble:total protein
in the malt.  A Kolbach rating of <35 is representitive of
undermodified malt, 35-41 is well modified, and >41 is very
highly modified.

3.  Acrospire length:  this shows the percentage of kernels
with acrospires of certain lengths.  If most of the malt
shows acrospire growth of 1:1 (acropire length:kernellength),
than the malt is probably well modified.

4.  Hartong-Kretschmer four mash test method ("VZ value"):
In this test fine ground malt is mashed in 4 beakers at four
temperatures (20, 45, 65, and 80C; 68, 113, 149, 176F).
The extract is then measured.  This measured extract is then
compared to the fine grind mash test (Congress mash) to give
the relative extract number (VZ).  The greatest attention is
paid to the VZ 45C number, because it is closely related to the
amino nitrogen content of the malt.  This really tells you more
about the FAN available for yeast nutrition, rather than malt
modification, but heck, now you know something new!

The first 3 of these tests must be looked at together to get a
proper assessment of malt modification.

As a quick example, Kunze says that an acceptable Pilsner malt
(this is from a German perspective) should have a max.
fine-course grind difference of 1.7-2.0%, a soluble N
ratio of 40% (+ or - 1%), and uniform germination.
The VZ 45 for pils malt is usually 33-39%, with a minimum
value 36% being desirable.

Have fun!

George De Piro (still in Chicago, IL)

PS:  IF there are a thousand "=" it's because I finally
figured out how to get Netscape mail to work from here,
but Eudora light still won't let me send.  What the hell
am I doing wrong?  Something about its looking for the wrong
server, I think...I feel so "untechie."

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 14:13:12 -0800
From: George De Piro <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: Pasteurization Question

Hi again folks,

While talking to some of the instructors here,
I mentioned that I've never been able to culture
yeast from most bottles of German Wheat beer (yes
I know they almost all have lager yeasts in them,
but I wouldn't mind having them).

Because of this experience, and the fact that Eric
Warner mentions that Paulaner HefeWeizen is pasteurized,
I have always thought that the beers are pasteurized
after bottle conditioning.  This never really made sense
to me, nor did it make sense to the folks here at Siebel.

Does anybody out there know if these beers are indeed
pasteurized after bottle conditioning?  If so, why don't
the yeast autolyze?  Or do they?

Have fun!

George De Piro (missing my lunk-head of a Labrador in
Chicago, IL)

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 16:31:56 -0500
From: Norm <norm at nrex.com>
Subject: LOTS of equipment for sale

Hello all - been a while since I've posted, so I apologize that I make my
return with a message trying to offload my equipment.

I have the following for sale - all has been used by me for approx. 4
years, but I have to move to CA (where they don't have basements <sigh>):

2 - natural gas stoves (4 burners each)
1 - 80,000+ BTU natural gas burner (commercial - not homemade)
1 - Hood
1 - 15.5 gallon refurbished open-top stainless keg with ball valve &
additional fitting (for thermometer)
1 - 7.75 gallon refurbished open-top stainless keg with ball valve (both
kegs legal)
1 - 5 gallon stainless pot
1 - 5 gallon aluminum pot
10 - 5 gallon glass carboys
3 - 6.5 gallon glass carboys
3 - 6.5 gallon plastic buckets (ooh, ahh <grin>)
1 - Refrigerator (14 sq. ft? - fits two soda kegs with 2 shelves and door
space left over)
1 - 5 pound CO2 tank
7 - 5 gallon stainless soda kegs
Over 300 12oz beer bottles
Over 50 Wine bottles
Counterflow chiller with pump
CounterPressure bottle filler
Bottle Washer / Stand
English Postal Scale (weighs up to 15 pounds)
misc. fittings, tubing, hoses,  lids, airlocks, stoppers, thermometers,
hydrometers, coasters, bottles, jugs, etc.

Please call 330-940-2060 if you're interested.  I'd like to sell the whole
lot at once (my cost probably over $1500 - make an offer), but I'll
consider piecing it out.

In Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio  (Cleveland / Akron area.)

Norm
330-940-2060







Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 15:35:16 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore at gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Yeast practices.

Excerpts from correspondence with David Hill:
 
On the subject of yeast, I will offer a few practices that I use.  I 
grow yeast from agar slants that I have captured from a variety of 
sources including Wyeast.  In growing volumes, I inoculate a small 
sample (5 ml.) and let it grow for a few days.  Subsequent 
enlargements are jumps of an order of magnitude, as is suggested 
by the exponential growth rate of the yeasts.
I use Grolch bottles as sterile water containers.  Whenever I run my 
pressure cooker, I fill any extra space with water filled bottles for 
utility use during yeast handling.  The point of note here is that 
these bottles have a large tapered lip that can contaminate a pour 
with errant drips.  I flame the drip area with a torch prior to 
dispensing.  I have a handy torch with a piezoelectric striker/valve 
arrangement, so that I can call up a flame with the snap of a trigger.
I grow larger volumes in quart canning jars.  I just keep the lids 
loosened figure that the out gassing will result in a one way gas 
flow.

>I suspect form my observations that if the pitching rate is high 
>enough then one does not to be overly concerned about aeration.
I believe this is true.  There is abundant technical suggestion that O2 
is required for sterol, et. al., production.  The most authoritative 
reference I have found is in Volume 5 of "The Yeasts" by Ross and 
Harrison, from Academic Press Ltd., London.  While the 
description they offer is rather complex, it pales in comparison to 
the true complexity of yeast ecology in a frothing wort.  And they 
are clear on the issue that current understanding is vague on many 
aspects of how yeast do what they do.

Clif

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 12:28:12 -0800
From: Andy Walsh <awalsh at crl.com.au>
Subject: clarifying diacetyl post

It seems I was a little imprecise in the wording of the diacetyl/Maturex
post.

I said
> ie. pyruvate + enzyme -> alpha acetolactate
> 
> Only about 4% of alpha acetolactate formed in beer is oxidised to
> diacetyl. 

I meant that most of the rest is used in biosynthesis (ie. amino acid
valine/leucine synthesis in particular), NOT that 96% of acetolactate
formed remains in finished beer.

also,

> Yeast does nothing with alpha acetolactate but readily assimilates
> diacetyl,

should read, 

Yeast does nothing with alpha acetolactate *after biosynthesis ceases*
but readily assimilates diacetyl,

My post was written and sent before I read that of our learned and
highly esteemed colleague Jethro De Piro. The diacetyl forcing test he
(they?) described is an accepted technique, and I would certainly not
suggest otherwise.

Sorry for the confusion,

Andy in Sydney.

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 21:15:59 MST
From: stealth <stealth at swlink.net>
Subject: brewing & Submarines

 
 Spencer W thomas wondered aloud the following:

>From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
>Subject: Re: High Altitude Brewing Record
>
>And maybe some CA homebrewers can go for the "low altitude" brewing
>record in Death Valley, eh?
>
>Hmm.  I wonder if it's possible to brew on a submarine.... :-)

  The simple answer is yes you can brew on a submarine. :)
the largest problem to overcome is that all the air is recirculated and the
"Brewery Aroma" quickly premeates the entire boat.  :(

Bob Stark
 former sub sailor.


Located in Peoria, Az. 
 far far away from the center of the brewing universe.

 




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:23:21 EST
From: AlannnnT <AlannnnT at aol.com>
Subject: Lager repitching at bottling.

I need an opinion from the group. When priming a lager how much yeast
repitching do you do? 
Recently I lagered a 4 1/2 gallon bock at 34 deg F for ten weeks in glass. I
bottled the whole batch.[ Rare for me.] I pitched about three ounces of
foaming yeast slurry and mixed in carefully. 
After two weeeks at 65 deg F, I have almost zero carbonation. A few bottles
were brought up to 70 deg, but nothing there either.
Today, I opened, re-repitched and recaped. Adding about four drops of slurry
from a swelling wyeast package diluted 50-50 with fermented beer per bottle.  

I am sure I'll get fermentation to carbonate now. I would like to avoid this
problem in the future. What do you do? 

Alan Talman


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 18 Jan 1998 23:13:16 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Exploding Bottles/Gushers


Responding to Al K's post on headspace level.  Some of you know I work
as a fluid dynamics scientist at NASA.  I've gotten several of my
colleagues involved in this discussion.  Your tax dollars at work.
Anyway, we've pretty much reached a consensus on a few issues (issues
that probably seem obvious to most, but we're pointy heads and try to
look at all possible angles).

> >If you had excess fermentables and NO headspace, the pressure has
> >nowhere to go. KABLAM! 
> 
> Not quite... the issue is not pressure but rather generated CO2.
> The generated CO2 would go somewhere: into solution.

As others have pointed out, the headspace has nothing to do with
exploding bottles.  Exploding bottles are the result of too much
carbonation (i.e. excess priming). 

Now for the somewhat trickier issue; headspace and gushers.

> I contend that it's a combination of two things, one perception and the
> other physical.  Firstly, if you have a big headspace, you hear a big
> "fffft" when you open the bottle. 

I've pretty much convinced myself that the gusher phenomena has
nothing to do with headspace either.  A beer will overcarbonate and
"gush" when opened, regardless of the headspace, if it's over-primed.
The cause of a gusher is the drop of pressure in the beer to
atmospheric pressure.  When the bottle is capped it is at high
pressure, and can hold more CO2 in solution.  When the cap is pulled,
the beer must come to equilibrium with the (lower) atmospheric
pressure, and the excess CO2 is expelled.

> Secondly, based upon some experiments I did and repeated several
> times (another HBD'er also did them), if you leave very little
> headspace (like 1/4" or less), you get slower carbonation rates and
> possibly even a lower final carbonation level too.

I've seen the same behavior; under-filled bottles carbonate more
quickly and vice versa.  There are probably many factors that
contribute to this, but I'm not sold on any one main cause yet.

The traditional bottle fill level has nothing to do with carbonation,
as the vast majority of mass-produced beer is not bottle conditioned.

SM
(still thinking about bottle carbonation and Ph. D. qualifying exam
questions) 

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 19 Jan 98 16:49:48 +0800
From: Luke.L.Morris at woodside.com.au
Subject: yeastie beasties heatied

A question for those who know stuff about yeast....

I culture my yeast on clinically prepared 5ml PDA (potato-dextrose 
agar) slopes.  Acidified with lactic acid to minimise chance of 
bacterial contamination.  Stored in the refrigerator in my shed.

Recently I re-organised my fridge, so as I could store more kegs of 
beer in there, away from the heat of a harsh Australian summer.  In 
doing so, I took out a couple of boxes of slopes (Wyeast European Ale 
and Wyeast Bohemian Pilsener) for a few minutes.  I forgot to put them 
back in the fridge, and only remembered then a couple of days later.  
Meanwhile we had had 2 consecutive days of 42C (107F) heat, and my 
brewshed (single brick, poorly insulated) had heated up nicely to 37C 
(99F) (according to the max/min thermometer in there).  I put the 
yeasties back in the fridge.

My question is:

If I can culture a pitchable quantity of yeast from one of these 
slopes, will it still make good beer ?  Or will the yeast be 
significantly and permanently altered by my mistreating it this way ?  
(ie. something that I won't know about until I've pitched it and ruined 
a batch of perfectly good wort).

Private e-mail OK.

Thanks and regards,

Luke Morris
Brewing in Perth, Western Australia.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 08:56:11 -0500
From: "Ray Robert" <ray_robert at bah.com>
Subject: What to do with a keg full of bland beer?

Hi all:

Quick question:  I have a keg o' ale that is just bland, to the point of
possibly tossing.  It tastes ok, but there really is no hop bite.  My
question is:  Can I still dry hop this batch, even though it has been
kegged for over two months and has been force carbonated?  I hate to
give up on it.

Thanks
Robert Ray
Centreville, VA

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 09:23:49 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Licorice.

Brewsters:

Eric Fouch notices a licorice/anise flavor in his new brew.  =


I suspect this is due to the amount/type of hops you used. =

In the old days of British homebrewing books you will find
licorice as an additive because some of the beers had this
flavor when they still used real amounts of  hops in mainline
commercial beers, I suspect.  It may also have been used by
commercial brewers as a way to reduce the cost of hops and
maintain the flavor profile  - I don't know. It will decrease in the
flavor profile as the beer ages a little. My newly conditioned =

British Style Ales with lots of British hops often have this flavor,
then it marches into the background and becomes a richness and
complexity in the overall flavor profile. Taste it weekly until
you're happy with the flavor.
- -------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 19 Jan 1998 10:02:41 -0400
From: "David L. Thomson" <dlt at ici.net>
Subject: Hefeweisen mash schedule

Hello all,
I am designing a hefeweisen and had planned to do a 2 step mash, one
rest at 130F and the rest at 158F. then I was reading "designing great
beers" and Ray Daniels suggested a decocotion or infusion. Decocotion is
not a possiblity. So now I am totally confused! Your wisdom would be
appreciated!
thanks 
Dave

Return to table of contents

---