---

	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:
  IBU correction for Altitude ("David R. Burley")
  Celis White (Tom_Williams)
  Competition Announcement ("Randy Davis")
  Big Bend Brew-Off '98 Results ("Roberts, Ned")
  Aldehydes (Al Korzonas)
  Trub/HefeTrub/Mit Hefe ("Jim Busch")
  diffusion (Al Korzonas)
  Step mashing ("Jim Busch")
  stupid filtering mistake ("Bob Hendriksen")
  Conditioning beer (John T Ross)
  I'll Second That!! ("Rob Moline")
  Coopers Sparkling Ale (Brad McMahon)
  Briess ESB Malt (Alan Baublis)
  Small Bottles (shaun.funk)
  Underletting RIMS,Kettle size,licorice,greener wort, step, TPM,mashing out ("David R. Burley")
  Explosive Fermentation...literally ("Poteat, Brian")
  HSA, book, my mistake (John Penn)
  What happend to the Wahl-Henius Handy Book (Tidmarsh Major)
  Amsterdam (Keith Busby)
  Walk in Cooler (Varady)
  Adding aerated wort to already fermenting wort (George_De_Piro)
  Lessons Learned . . . ("Rosenzweig,Steve")
  Re: Commercial step mashing..... (Joe Rolfe)
  Re: Dry Hopping (Bob.Sutton)




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, 27 Jan 1998 12:39:51 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: IBU correction for Altitude

Brewsters:

Carl Shipman oscillates between 3000 and 8000 ft depending =

on the time of year and want to be able to correct for the boiling
point difference of water and the hop utilization.

I'll give an estimate below.

I filed the following response on the effect of altitude on boiling
point temperature on 9/16/97 and it probably appeared a day or
two later in the HBD ( see that for more details). =


I said:
- -------------
"SO:

Given that the pressure is linear from
 0 to 10,000 ft and that at sea level the boiling
 point is 212F and 194F at 10,000, we can
 construct a simple formula.

BP(0) =3D 212F =

BP(10K) =3D 194F

BP(A) =3D 212F- ((212-194)/10,000 )* A
            =3D 212- 18 X 10^-4 =3D 212 - 0.0018 A

So to check it out at 12000 feet  :

BP =3D 212 - 0.0018(12000) =

       =3D  190.4  which checks exactly with the table.

Now at 6000 ft  this gives  212-0.0018(6000)
 =3D 201.2  likewise checks.

So at 1246ft (my elevation) boiling
 water has a temperature of:

BP =3D  212-0.0018(1246)  =3D  209.6F =


You can determine your brewing altitude
 by getting maps of elevation for your area
 from the US govt. or hiking organizations
 and the like.I got mine from an elevation
 sign just down the road."
- --------------
Now the speculative stuff:

If we assume that the rate of reaction of alpha acids inversion is
a simple doubling of the  rate with each 10 degrees of =

Centigrade temperature ( or 18 def F) then you can correct
for this by determining the boiling point at your elevation and
correcting the hops IBU or you can boil longer at the lower
temperature ( you may have to add boiling water during the boil
if you are way up).

Anyway, if 18 degrees represents a factor of two in the rate, then =

we can write :

R(t2) =3D R(t1) X 2 ^ (( t2-t1)/18)

Sanity Check:

So that when t1 =3D t2 : R(t1) =3D R(t2) X 2^0 =3D R(t2) which checks
and when t2-t1 =3D 18: R(t2) =3D R(t1) X 2  which checks and
of course if t2-t1 =3D -18 then R(t2) =3D R(t1)X 2^-1 =3D  1/2R(t1) =

which checks.

So, if you measure the wort boiling point temperature
( depending on the pressure and wort concentration)
you can correct approximately for the boiling point difference.

This does not take into account the raising of the BP as the
wort boils nor the concentration of the hops as the water
evaporates nor the amount of added hops which also affects
extraction.     =


To answer your question specifically:

at 3000 ft the BP of water is 212-5.4 =3D 206.6 F
at 8000 ft the Bp of water is 212- 14.4 =3D 197.6

t1 - t2 =3D approx 8.8 degrees for the wort, I'd guess.

So: the Rate at 8000 feet will be 2^(8.8/18) =3D 2 ^ -0.49 or
about the inverse of  square root of 2 so
1/1.414 =3D 0.635 times as fast.

So you should boil 1/0.635 =3D  1.4 times as long at 8000 ft as
at 3000 feet.

These are estimates, but I'd start here. Of course, measuring
the actual BP of the wort at each location is the best.

Let us know how this works.

Anyone with real data?

Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =




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: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 12:45:49 -0500
From: Tom_Williams at cabot-corp.com
Subject: Celis White


Has anyone (besides me) detected a change in Celis White?

I live in Atlanta, and this beer seemed to disappear from retail shelves a
year or two ago.  I heard that changes were being made in the brewery and
distribution, and that eventually the distribution area would be enlarged.
Sure enough, I noticed it in the supermarket cooler last week, so I bought
a 6-pack.

The packaging has changed, perhaps it is a little more colorful, and there
is more interesting stuff on the carton to read while you drink.  But when
I poured the first one, it seemed to me to be a much lighter color than I
remember from before.  Also, the taste seems lighter as well.  Less wheat
taste, and more watery than before.

Am I imagining this because it has been so long since I had one, or has
anyone else had a similar experience?

Tom Williams
Dunwoody, Georgia



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 11:06:20 -0700
From: "Randy Davis" <davisrm at cadvision.com>
Subject: Competition Announcement

The Marquis de Suds Homebrewers are proud to present their 14th Annual Open
Homebrew Competition. This is a BJCP registered event with a March 07 entry
deadline. For entry info please contact me via email.

Thanks.

Randy Davis (davisrm at cadvision.com)
Competition Organizer
Marquis de Suds Homebrewers
Calgary, Alberta
Canada

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 15:09:05 -0500
From: "Roberts, Ned" <robertsn at fdhc.state.fl.us>
Subject: Big Bend Brew-Off '98 Results

Big Bend Brew-Off '98 was held on January 17, in Tallahassee, FL.
Hosted by the North Florida Brewers League, 136 entries were received.
The following is the Official Placed Results -
BIG BEND BREW-OFF '98
OFFICIAL RESULTS

BEST OF SHOW
Weston Sampson - Weizenbock

1st RUNNER-UP BEST OF SHOW
Ed Spina - Amber Ale

2nd RUNNER-UP BEST OF SHOW
Claude Hendon - Old Ale

GERMAN WHEAT CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Weston Sampson
	2nd PLACE - John & Pam Aitchison
	3rd PLACE - Weston Sampson
AMERICAN ALE CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Ed Spina
	2nd PLACE - Wayne Wambles
	3rd PLACE - Errin Pichard & Kerri Howells
PORTER CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Joel Tedder
	2nd PLACE - Bob Carbone
	3rd PLACE - Kevin & Julie Flemming
STOUT CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - John Larsen & Sarah Bridegroom
	2nd PLACE - Paul McCullough
	3rd PLACE - John Larsen & Sarah Bridegroom
DARK LAGERS CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - John LeClair
	2nd PLACE - Jason Prieto
	3rd PLACE - Dean Fikar
CONTINENTAL ALE CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Nancy Sampson
	2nd PLACE - Ron & Sharon Montefusco
	3rd PLACE - Dean Fikar
BROWN ALE CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - David Pappas
	2nd PLACE - John LeClair
	3rd PLACE - John Larsen & Sarah Bridegroom
ENGLISH ALES CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Weston Sampson
	2nd PLACE - Conrad Gleber
	3rd PLACE - John Holleman
SPECIALTY CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Bob Henderson
	2nd PLACE - Nancy Sampson
	3rd PLACE - John Rhymes
LIGHT LAGERS CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Ned Roberts
	2nd PLACE - Dean Fikar
	3rd PLACE - Not Awarded
SCOTTISH AND STRONG ALES CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Claude Hendon
	2nd PLACE - Greg Crump
	3rd PLACE - Weston Sampson
SMOKED, HERB & FRUIT CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - David Pappas
	2nd PLACE - Marc Gaspard
	3rd PLACE - Richard Schwartz
MEAD, LAMBIC & CIDER CATEGORY
	1st PLACE - Not Awarded
	2nd PLACE - Brian Dueweke
	3rd PLACE - Ken Woodward

Due to a hacker accessing the club's internet provider system files, the
system has been off-line for over a week.  Hopefully full access will be
restored within a few days.

Individual Judge Sheets will be mailed out within a few weeks along with
any prizes awarded.

North Florida Brewers League would like to thank the following for
sponsoring this event - The Buckhead Brewery & Grill, The Homebrew Den,
Sunset Suds Homebrew Supply, Gulfstream Brewing Products, Brewing
Techniques Magazine, American Homebrewers Association, Liquid Bread,
Briess Malting, Five Star Cleaning Products, Hops Union, Crosby-Baker,
and L.D. Carlson.  In addition, we would like to thank all the judges
and stewards who volunteer and helped make this a successfully
competition.

Keep on brewin',

Ned Roberts
Competition Organizer
nedr at freenet.tlh.fl.us
www.freenet.tlh.fl.us/~northflo

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:10:06 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Aldehydes

Dave writes:
>As I and others have already commented, the main
>reason for oxygenation is to have a yeast colony which
>can be re-used and finish out a fermentation reliably with =
>no unwanted aldehydes. Although the Brits successfully do
>this by oxygenation of the wort in the main fermentation
>( aldehydes are not a major problem for most British style beers,
>but can be a problem for most lagers) and others have reported
>success with growing starters in the constant presence of air by
>stirring, the risk of aldehydes and beer staling is present.

I think its a problem for all beers, ales and lagers.  I recently bought
a sixpack of English beer that is brewed by a commercial brewer know
to aerate during fermentation and I felt the aldehyde levels were
unpleasantly high.  Perhaps the oxygen was bound up in melanoidins
and then later (after months of unrefrigerated storage) the oxygen is
released and oxidises alcohols to aldehydes.  I don't know the mechanics of
this chemistry, but that's how it was explained to me.

This would explain why a respected brewer would send what appears to
be bad beer.

I was initially confused by your statement that "aldehydes are not a
major problem for most British style beers..." but I suppose you are
referring to acetaldehyde.  It's true that you rarely have an acetaldehyde
problem in an ale and that it's common in under-lagered lagers, but
this is not because of oxidation, but rather because acetaldehyde is one
of the intermediate compounds in the cycle by which the yeast produce
alcohol.  Under normal conditions, most yeasts will produce some acetaldehyde
that spills into the beer but then given the chance, they will reabsorb
it down to levels that are not perceptable by most tasters.  Some yeast
strains (Wyeast #2007 -- said to be the Budweiser yeast -- is famous for it)
tend to make more acetaldehyde than they can reabsorb before they flocculate.
While this may not be limited to lager yeasts, of all the ale yeasts I've
used, I haven't found one to create an overabundance of acetaldehyde.

Al.

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

My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
     http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:37:24 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: Trub/HefeTrub/Mit Hefe

Happy New Year All!  (Chinese that is)

Dave Burley mentioned the possibility of German Weissbiers being 
packaged with trub.

Dave is confusing hefe-trub or mit hefe with just trub.  I cant 
imagine a brewer worth a dime who would add some actual trub as 
opposed to repriming with krausen bier.  Mit hefeTrub is what I 
recall being on Maisels HefeWeisse.   Now, when one krausens, there 
can be trub carryover but when done properly it doesnt occur to a 
large extent.  

Dave also writes:  Trub may have a longer shelf life.

Longer than non trub laden beer?  No, you would get terrible staling 
reactions with the trub.

Regarding lauter tun design:  I have always liked a false bottom 
lauter tun for its high degree of open area for even flow.  My pilot 
system is of equal height to width but most of my grain beds are only 
about 1/3-1/2 the height of the tun.  This means I get about a 8-12" 
grain bed depth which I can lauter ~36 gals of 14P wort through in 
about 60-80 mins.   This type of tun can also accomodate double sized 
brews, so I can still fit a 26P barley wine in the same tun and fill 
it to the top.  The lauter rate is slower as the bed depth increases, 
but I find I can still lauter a brew of this immensity and 24" depth 
in a few hours.  You should see how long it takes to lauter a 25 BBL 
batch of Old Horizontal!  (some things are easier on the homebrewer 
scale).

Prost!

Jim Busch




"Far better it is to dare mighty things,
 to win glorious triumphs, even though
 checkered with failure, than to take 
 rank with those poor souls that neither
 enjoy much nor suffer much because they
 live in the gray twilight that knows not
 VICTORY nor defeat" 
 - Theodore Roosevelt

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 16:37:47 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: diffusion

All this discussion about CO2 and O2 and partial pressures... 

More than one person claimed that the CO2 in the fermenter will keep 
O2 from entering.  While this may be intuitive, it's not the way that
gasses work.  If the concentration of O2 on the outside of a permeable
membrane (say, a fermenter or PET bottle) is higher than the concentration
on the inside, then O2 will diffuse in -- *regardless* of the pressure of
any other gasses inside the fermenter or PET bottle.  Even O2-barrier
plastic is permeable to O2, albeit it's ml per square meter per year.  It's
called "diffusion."  Similarly, CO2 will diffuse across a permeable boundary
if the concentration is higher on one side than the other.  60 psi of CO2
inside a PET bottle will do no better at keeping out O2 than 1 psi. 
 
However, although high-density polyethylene is rather permeable to oxygen
(relative to other plastics) 1/8" HDPE is plenty thick enough to prevent
a noticeable amount of oxidation, even over the course of months.  I do
believe that many HDPE fermenters are prone to oxidised beer, but I feel
it's due to ill-fitting lids and not through the plastic itself.

Al.

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

My new website (still under construction, but up-and-running):
     http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:48:57 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: Step mashing

Despite the enormous length of the HBD queue (and I thought the 
percentage of homebrewers was *decreasing*!!) I thought Id chime in 
briefly regarding the step mash/single infusion issue.  I have wrote 
some extensive articles on this subject in BT so I wont delve into 
details but.....

Single infusion: good with UK pale ale malts and US 2 row provided 
the water chemistry is favorable *and* the mashing program meets your 
desired end product specs.

Step mash: good with just about any other type of brewing style and 
malts.  Often superior in numerous ways in finished product, usually 
higher extract, better protein/organoleptic stability, better control 
of apparent degree of attenuation.  Often better depth of malt 
flavors.   Usually results in better lautering depending on malt 
type.  The only way I brew these days with continental malts.

Prost!

Jim Busch



"Let the VICTORY fall where it will, we are on that side"
 - Emerson

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 18:49:05 -0500
From: "Bob Hendriksen" <bhendrik at webspan.net>
Subject: stupid filtering mistake

 ...hello boys & girls...

 ...today's lesson is how NOT to filter your beer...   :)

 ...I recently built a filtration unit to use with my corny kegs...it's an
Omni Whole House filter housing (clear) that couples between the liquid out
quick disconnects between 2 five gallon kegs...however, when I used it this
weekend on a SNPA clone that I had dry hopped (and had lots of pieces of
hops floating around in the secondary), it seems I made a major mistake - I
used the wrong damn filter!...

 ...of all the reading material that I have seen regarding home made homebrew
filters, the general consensus is that for sparkling clarity a filter of .5
micron is the way to go...well, that's what I bought & used, but me thinks
it was a big boo-boo...

 ...I purchased an Omni CB3 Carbon Block Water Filter Cartridge (set me back
$29.95 at Home Depot) and it did a wonderful job in the clarity
department!...however, the beer has virtually NO taste to it - no hop
bitterness, no hop aroma, no beer taste whatsoever!...I'm not even sure if
there's any ALCOHOL in it!...   :(

 ...the filter cartridge that I bought will filter down to .5 micron and it
also removes 99% (or more) of the following: turbidity, chlorine, lead,
cryptosporidium, cyst (Giardia)...flow rate is 1 gpm and supposedly it has a
filter capacity of 600 gallons...

 ...I think what I have here is the mother of all water filters - and a
helluva overkill for filtering beer...what I would like to know is what
filter SHOULD I have used?...are there any other brewers out there that
filter their brew?....c'mon - inquiring minds want to know!...   :)
- --

Bob Hendriksen
Bhendrik at webspan.net
Kingsnake at aol.com
"I'm on the Information Highway To Hell"



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 17:43:54 -0900
From: John T Ross <johnross at alaska.net>
Subject: Conditioning beer

A friend, employed at local brewery, and I were discussing what effects
the size, shape, and orientation of the primary fermenter vessel has on
the attenuation and flavor of a beer. Is there a noticable difference in
taste based upon the size and orientation (vertical versus horizontal)
of the conditioning vessel where they be bottles, kegs, grundys, 15 or
30 gal tanks? Lets limit the discussion to glass or stainless steel as I
know wooden kegs will impart a differnet taste. If so, why? Thanks- John


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 22:06:28 -0600
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net>
Subject: I'll Second That!!

From: David lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au>
 >Subject: Happy Birthday
 >I notice that it has been 12 months exactly since the HBD was
 >resurrected.
 >Congradulations to the Janitors and all the HBD contributors for making
 >such a great forum possible.
 
 	And let me second this! Thank you, Gentlemen and Gentlewomen!
 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: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:28:14 +1000
From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Coopers Sparkling Ale

John Elsworth wrote:
> My nephew recommended Coopers Sparkling Ale (from South Australia).
> I didn't try that one while I was there, but brought a bottle back
> with me and am looking forward to tasting it.
>  However, it has pronounced yeast sediment in the bottle, and
>while I am used to carefully decanting bottled beer from yeast, my nephew
>said that it is usually drunk after mixing the contents of the bottle!  So,
>I am looking for advice from HBDers from Down-under regarding the best way
>to enjoy this beer.

Ahh, my local beer!

As you probably worked out, Australia is a lager drinking nation,
and each state has their own major breweries and thus their own
beers. Note to others: Fosters ISN'T Australian for beer! Fosters
is available in every state but only really drunk in New South Wales.
Queensland has Castlemaine XXXX, Victoria: Victoria Bitter,
Tasmania: Cascade, Western Australia: Swan, South Australia, West End.
There are no real national beers like you have Coors and Budweiser.
Coopers is a bit of an exception in South Australia, it is not
as popular as West End but has a large following. Here you are either
a West End drinker or a Coopers drinker.
Coopers do make a lager: Coopers Draught, but their line of ales
are more popular: Sparkling Ale, Pale Ale, Dark Ale, Thomas Cooper
Export,
Clear Ale, and Stout.

Coopers Ale on tap, comes out "cloudy, but fine" as their advertising
slogan goes. Of course, when it is in bottles, you can elect to
decant or to mix. The ale strain is one which is close to 100 years
old, is multi-strain, and highly flocculant.
The yeast in the bottle is the primary fermentation yeast, but from the
next batch. Coopers use a centrifuge to remove the yeast, but the
bottles
are primed with cane sugar and krausening wort from the next batch.
Sound familiar to our own techniques?
They use conical fermenters now instead of the old oak barrels that are 
still on the label.

Most people tip the bottles before drinking, producing a very yeasty
full bodied ale which is known as "The meal in the bottle" or
"Coop Soup". The term "Sparkling" is a little tongue in cheek, as
it is far from sparkling mixed this way. It looks like Murray River
water!

Some, myself included, decant and drink it. If you do that, you get
a very pleasant fruity/estery ale. Plus, then you can harvest the
yeast, and have your very own multi-strain ale yeast, that
is neither Belgian or German!
The yeast is very hardy, so in all probability, it will have
survived the journey home. It brews best at slightly higher
temperatures-
around 25-27C. For more info - search the HBD - it was covered early
last year from memory.

So, it is up to you - but 95% of Coopers Ale drinkers, mix the yeast
in. Perhaps you can decant half into one glass and shake the rest
into a second and try 'em both.

Incidentaly, Coopers Ale is available in the U.S. if you wish to hunt
for it. When I was living on Long Island this past Autumn, I found it in
a couple of places for around $11.50 a 6-pack. 
So, very expensive for what you get, but maybe OK for a once off
purchase.

- --
Brad McMahon        Adelaide, South Australia         
brad at sa.apana.org.au   
PGP



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:36:24 -0400
From: Alan Baublis <baublis at foodsci.umass.edu>
Subject: Briess ESB Malt

My local retailer for brewing supplies just received Briess ESB malt.  
He has no information on this malt, i.e. malt analysis sheets, and I 
was wondering if anyone else has heard or used this malt.  Any 
information would be greatly appreciated.  You can either send me 
direct email or post to the digest.  Thanks in advance.

Alan Baublis
University of Mass.
baublis at foodsci.umass.edu

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 8:34:38 -0500
From: shaun.funk at SLKP.COM
Subject: Small Bottles

In HBD #2620 Jan 17  Tom Puskar asks:

<I'm looking to make a barley wine and would like to bottle it in small (8=20=
or 9
<oz) bottles=2E  We used to call them Pony bottles or nips=2E  The only one=
s I can
<find are screw off and don't want to risk my batch in these=2E

<Does anyone know of a source for these nips?  Post or email is fine=2E

Tom this issue recently surfaced in the Mead Lover's digest=2E  The origina=
l=20
question was asked in MLD #632 Jan 8=2E  Several suggestions were given
including 7 oz returnable Coca-Cola bottles, Little Kings cream ale, Coroni=
tas=20
(mini Coronas),  and Rolling rock 7oz beer bottles=2E=20

If you would like to see the original posts, go to=20
ftp://ftp=2Estanford=2Eedu/pub/clubs/homebrew/mead/digests/1998/
and start with #632=2E

Good Luck,

Shaun Funk
shaun=2Efunk at slkp=2Ecom
Moon Shadow Brewery
Clemmons, NC (621=2E4 miles sse of Jeff Renner)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:06:32 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Underletting RIMS,Kettle size,licorice,greener wort, step, TPM,mashing out

Brewsters:

Keith Menefy of New Zealand says:

>The question - Is underletting (feeding the liquid into the
 bottom of
>the grain bed.) the grain with the hot liquid a better
 system than
>inletting from the top?

Well, I had the same suggestion in a private conversation with
a RIMSer .  I think this would free the brewer from the heat rate
restrictions of low-surface-area RIMS inline heaters and allow
heat rates based on the amount of heat you can deliver from a
burner. As I see it, a simple siphon-fed recirculation pump moving
wort from a pool at the top of the bed to the bottom would keep the
bed afloat and prevent scorching while giving a much larger surface
area for the heat to be applied. This  should result in a potential for a=

much shorter move between holds than is now possible with the
inline heaters. This would also reduce the potential for HSA relative
to the inverse option.

I imagine a pool of wort developed on the top, perhaps by placing
a screen wire on top of the mash and a spiral feeder with slots in
it to feed wort to the pump. It may be necessary to actually dig a
hole in the top of the bed to form a pool. I can imagine something
like a sieve used to press into the bed to get pool of wort.   A
negative I can think of is that the siphon may be broken during the
cycle and cause some problems if the pump cannot be run =

backwards or some other method of  quickly re-establishing the
siphon established.  Control of the heat rate can be accomplished =

by controlling the flame though a control valve hooked to a
temperature sensor.  A pilot flame will be necessary to guarantee
that the flame will keep burning.

So RIMSers what think you?
- -------------------------------------------------
I read here about HBDers wanting to buy bigger kettles,
having too much wort to boil down , etc.  While it is perhaps
more satisfying aesthetically to boil in a big 6 or 7 or 8 gallon
clad SS  kettle costing a hundred or more dollars, it is rarely
possible to do a good job of boiling on the modern range with
these kettles.  A cheaper and better alternative if you are using
a normal electric cookstove is to use two 4 gallon kettles, each
of which will sit on a burner and boil faster than a single larger
kettle, even if it straddles two burners.  The nice thing is that
4 gallon ( 16 liters) SS kettles are readily available at discount =

stores for a few bucks and do a great job. And they don't break =

down the burner, since they only weigh about 30 pounds each
instead of 60 pounds, like the big kettle.  They are also easier
and safer to handle.
- ----------------------------------------------------------
Rob Moline says in his Jethro Gump report:

> Dave Burley commented:
 >Eric Fouch notices a licorice/anise flavor in his new brew.  =3D
 >I suspect this is due to the amount/type of hops you used. =3D

Rob says: =

        "I suspect this is an ester."
 =

Well, it is likely Anethole (the chief constituent in anise oil)
an aromatic ether ( not an ester). Anethole is a benzene ring
with a methyl ether on one side and para to that an unsaturated
propyl side chain.  Being a derivative potentially of a phenolic
compound,  the hops seem the likely source.  I have also
considered it is a possible by-product of the hydrolysis of
melandoins, but can't imagine the route.  Is it possible that dark
crystal malts have this component? =


What do you think is the source??

In his response to my report on a supposedly recent
development reported at the AICHE meeting in LA, Rob says:

>Dave Burley reported:

 >Subject: New Wort Boiling Method
 >He described a "greener" wort boiling
 >method.  =

 >2) In stage two, the volatile compounds are eliminated in a wort
 >stripping column.  =


Rob says: =

        "Nothing new here, except perhaps the new readers." =

 =

I guess we need some background that is apparently
missing from the report I received.

Please fill us in.

Congrats on your new BP job!
- ---------------------------------------------
smurman says:

>Regarding the step mashing vs. infusion thread.  I've been reading
>that some don't consider adding boiling water to reach the next
>rest temperature step mashing, but rather a form of infusion
>mashing.

I always defined adding boiling water to change the temperature
as "step mashing by infusion" versus "temperature programmed
mashing" (TPM) by heating and then holding - which some call
"step mashing". Temperature programmed mashing doesn't
need holds as it is the most general definition.  Although
 "step mashing" by any means is temperature programmed
mashing as compared to "single temperature infusion mashing"
which many British Ale brewers employ - sort of. Some British
brewers slake the malts at a lower temperature and then jump
to the saccharification by boiling water infusion and steam.
Theoretically a step mash.

How 'bout them apples? =


Regarding your question of how mashing out improves efficiency:

Mashing out does improve the sparging efficiency since at the =

higher temperature of the grains, the wort is of lower viscosity and
the movement of the wort out of the capillaries in the grain kernel
into the sparge liquor is faster. Ken Schwartz also reports that
there is a higher concentration of sugars in the wort in the grain
than in the bulk wort, so this will help this to come to equilibrium
with the bulk wort faster. If the bulk wort starts out at a higher
concentration at the beginning, more total sugars can be removed
by the sparge water which follows the draining of the bulk wort.
- -----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com  =

Voice e-mail OK =


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:11:40 -0500
From: "Poteat, Brian" <poteat at engr.sc.edu>
Subject: Explosive Fermentation...literally

	I thought I would share an experience I had yesterday.  When I
got home from work, I noticed that my blow off tube was lying on the
ground next to the fermentor.  The first thing I thought was that my cat
had pulled it off, no big deal.  Then I saw the dark brown substance
covering the wall beside it.  My eyes followed this substance up to the
ceiling where it was caked on about a half inch thick.  It really
sucked.  There goes my security deposit.  The moral of the story...Use a
bigger blow off tube.  The hose I was using was the same hose I use to
siphon.  It had gotten clogged up and the fermentation built up so much
pressure that finally - KABLAM!  I guess I like to learn things the hard
way.  
	Anyway, on a side note, I was wondering if anyone could tell me
what the concequences would be of adding some yeast nutrients to a
fermenting brew when the fermentation started slowing down.  Would it
help fermentation any if it needed it or would it harm it if it didn't?
		Brian Poteat



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:19:48 -0500
From: John Penn <john_penn at spacemail.jhuapl.edu>
Subject: HSA, book, my mistake

                       Subject:                               Time:9:55 AM
  OFFICE MEMO          HSA, book, my mistake                  Date:1/28/98

Book:   A short plug for Al K's book which I got as a Christmas book.  I'm
only halfway through it but I find it very useful.  I especially like the
chapter on grains and the very easy to read table on calculating priming sugar
vs. CO2 volumes based on temperature at bottling time.   

Newbie Mistake:  From Al K's book I learned that the grains that I have been
getting from the homebrew store pre-crushed do not store for the many months
that I had presumed.  Grain only stores well if its not pre-crushed!  Sure
enough, I even verified this when I tasted some pre-crushed crystal that I had
for at least a couple of months.  It was losing its flavor and aroma.  Hope I
can help some others avoid my mistake by reading this post.

HSA:  I've been doing simple partial mashes in a small cooler and just dumping
the wort, then refilling with hot water and draining that after about 10-15
minutes.  I realized my HSA potential on my last partial when I saw how many
bubbles were in my pot when I drained the cooler into it by pouring.  Hope
that batch turns out OK but I think I'll siphon next time.

John Penn
Eldersburg, MD


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:36:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Tidmarsh Major <tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu>
Subject: What happend to the Wahl-Henius Handy Book

Six months or so ago, I remember coming across the Wahl-Henius _Handy
Book_ (I forget the exact title, and probably misspel the authors' names),
an early 20th C brewing handbook that provided some interesting and useful
information about pre-prohibition American brewing. Recently, I've been
unable to find it again.  Does anyone know where it went?

Thanks,
Tidmarsh Major
tmajor at parallel.park.uga.edu
Athens, Georgia


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 08:49:41 -0600
From: Keith Busby <kbusby at ou.edu>
Subject: Amsterdam

Fred might like to try the following establishments in Amsterdam:

De Beiaard, Spui 30
De Beiaard, Herengracht 90
Belgisch bierproeflokaal 'De Zotte', Raamstraat 29
Gollem, Raamsteeg 4
In De Wildeman, Nieuwe Zijdskolk 5

All are easily accessible by public transport and some within walking
distance if you're staying in the center. The third in the above list
specializes in Belgian beers, which are likely to dominate the other lists,
anyway. If you get to go to Utrecht, try Cafe Jan Primus (corner of Jan van
Scorelstraat and Prins Hendriklaan, near the Wilhelmina Park, and tell 'em
I sent you), or Cafe Belgie (on the Oude Gracht, I forget the number).

In addition to Dave's tips, I'd suggest locating a street market and buying
some old Gouda cheese straight from the farm (ask for "oude boerengouda",
pron. "owduh buruhhowdah"). The difference between that and what you can
buy over here is staggering.

Prettige reis (bon voyage).

Keith Busby


Keith Busby
George Lynn Cross Research Professor
University of Oklahoma
Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies
780 Van Vleet Oval, Room 202
Norman, OK 73019
Tel.: (405) 325-5088
Fax: (405) 325-0103

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:59:50 -0800
From: Varady <rust1d at usa.net>
Subject: Walk in Cooler

I have an old coal room in the basement of my new house that I am
planning on turning into a walk in cooler. The room is about 5' x 8' and
the walls are stone about 1' thick. There is a window in the room that
the coal used to come in through. I am planning on insulating the walls
with 1/2" styrofoam, then covering with some waterproof sheeting. I am
wondering if an air conditioner in the window will be sufficent to keep
the temp down in the low 60's/mid 50's. I have also considered using the
guts of an old freezer to drop the temp. I think that the AC would be
better because it would dehumidify the air. Any comments? Anyone do
something similar?

- -- 
John Varady                     http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Boneyard Brewing                The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Glenside, PA                    rust1d at usa.net

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:55:28 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Adding aerated wort to already fermenting wort

     Hi all,
     
     Alex Santic asks about the consequences of adding partially fermented 
     wort to unfermented, aerated wort.  He wonders if oxidation of the 
     partially fermented wort will cause flavor problems.
     
     As always, the answer is, "It depends."
     
     Many breweries use fermenters that will contain more wort than they 
     will produce in one brew session.  These breweries will add yeast and 
     aerated wort from one brew session to the fermenter, then brew a 
     second batch of wort and top up the fermenter with that.
     
     Theoretically, the following guidelines should be followed:
     
     The time between the original pitching and the topping up should be 
     minimized (8 hours or less).  Both worts can be aerated.
     
     If this time will exceed 8 hours, all of the yeast and O2 are provided 
     with the first filling.  The second batch of wort should be put into 
     the fermenter unaerated.
     
     With that said, there are some breweries that ignore these guidelines 
     and wait 24 hours before they top up the fermenter.  This usually 
     happens at smaller breweries where only 1 batch/day is being brewed.
     
     Some of them will even aerate that second wort addition.
     
     One such brewery is Mickey Finn's Brewpub in Libertyville, IL.  They 
     add 10 bbl of aerated wort to their already active, 1/2 filled 
     fermenters 24 hours after pitching.  Their beers show no signs of 
     oxidation (to my palate; try them yourself if you live nearby).  Their 
     American wheat beer is very light tasting, and would definitely be 
     tough to hide flaws in.
     
     Of course, the yeast strain being used is a big factor in how well 
     this technique will work.  On a homebrew level, I would not worry 
     about .25-0.5 gallon of partially fermented beer being added to 
     aerated wort at pitching time.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (home again in Nyack, NY)

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 06:27:08 PST
From: "Rosenzweig,Steve" <Steve_Rosenzweig at wb.xerox.com>
Subject: Lessons Learned . . .

Bless me lager for I have sinned, 
it has been three days since my last brewsession . . .

I was very fortunate to have received for Xmas several brewing related 
 items including a long stemmed dial thermometer, a 10 gallon brewpot 
 and a double burner King Kooker, and so far have two batches done with 
 the new system with less than stellar results.

First a brief background:  the majority of my all grain brewing in the 
 last year was done on the stovetop with a JS Easymasher, with 
 excellent and consistent results over a dozen or so batches.  I used 
 both single infusion and step mashing (40-60-70C).  Typically I got 
 about 30-32 ppg when step mashing (direct heat) and around 28-30 ppg 
 when doing a single infusion (both with a mash out step). This past 
 fall I began using a system based on a 7.5 gal cooler and copper 
 manifold as a mash tun.  I do single infusion only with a mashout step 
 as it would get a bit sull to do more than one temp step - although I 
 am considering draining off some of the wort to heat ad add back in a 
 pseudo decoction.  My efficiency with this system dropped a bit to 
 about 26-28 ppg.  

The first system change I made with the new equipment was to drill a 
 hole in the top of the cooler to put the long probe thermometer 
 through to monitor the temp in the cooler without pulling off the lid. 
  I also installed the Easymasher spigot on the big pot to drain the 
 cooled wort.  (Of course, now I have a 5 gal pot with a hole in it!  
 Need to order another spigot assembly - sell me one at cost Jack?)

(Tip:  I used the copper pipe part of the EM on the inside of the pot 
 without the SS screen attached and a copper choreboy as a filter to 
 keep out the majority of the pellet hops - I drilled a small hole 
 though the end of the pipe and put through some thick gauge copper 
 wire then bent the ends to create arms to hold the choreboy in place - 
 worked very well.)

On two batches made so far with the all new system, I have had abyssmal 
 efficiencies of about 20-22 ppg.  Granted there has been alot going on 
 here - cooler mashing, new, bigger brewpot instead of splitting the 
 boil, moving outside to the King Kooker from the stovetop, but I think 
 I found the source of my troubles . . .

That long stemmed thermometer!  I checked it yesterday against my 
 trusty glass one and sure enough, it was reading about 4 degrees high 
 - so when I thought I was starting the mash at 154dF and letting it 
 drop to about 150dF over 90 minutes - it really was going from 150dF 
 to 146dF!   So a quick twist with a wrench and now it corresponds with 
 my glass thermometer (which may not be perfect, but it is what I used 
 when I was getting much better results!)  I plan to brew again soon, 
 and hopefully will be back in the 27 ppg range.
 
So the moral of the story is to check your instruments before you fly, 
 er, brew!

Stephen Rosenzweig

Making the world a better place, one beer at a time . . .
Brewing outside lovely Rochester NY!

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:34:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Joe Rolfe <onbc at shore.net>
Subject: Re: Commercial step mashing.....

jack wrote 
>Subject: In Defense of Step Mashing
>
>"Commercial breweries don't do this we are told.  I don't know, but 
>Noonan, in Appendix C (I think) of Brewing Lager Beer, disputes this.
>He claims most micros step mash....
[snip]
>
>One can argue about the merits of step mashing but the micros
>chose the other approach for cost reasons, not because it makes
>better beer.
{snip]
js


being an ex-commercial brewer, and looking at how many breweries
are set up.  step mashing "can" be more expensive but does not have to be.
most set ups i have seen are the expensive rake system. and most breweries
are using domestic malts for cost reasons.  depending on the vendor
some malts perform (brewery dependent) better if a step is done. the products
are more stable (haze anyway). either way even british malts would benefit
a mashout which if you dont have agitation - yur screwed (get the paddels).
manual stirring of a 20 to 50bbl mash is not a lot of fun, but labor is cheap.
alot of the reasoning is motivated by money and not the end product. 
flexibility is the key. one local brewery brews with domestic malt and
mashes in the lower mid 150F range for 60 minutes the mashes out. the beer
that results is extremely hazy and marketed as unfiltered - many see it as
yeast but in fact is chill haze. but it sells...


if you go the route of a good rake system and drives, yes that can add
say several thousand more to the price of a small mash/lauter.  any commercial
brewery "should have steam".  sure it costs upto 40K to install but is more
effective esp. at higher steam pressures (>30psi). a brewery i visit in canada
has 80psi steam - makes a nice boil as does the mash step rate. others
are using (probably illegally in some states) greater than 15psi.  where
the demarkation of high pressure/low pressure steam is and if you have to
have a certified boiler person under employment - is another story.

a cheaper way of doing step mash is to mash in the kettle - loose.  this will 
limit the expensive heavy duty rake systems use in a mash/lauter. you can
get by with a simple propeller (helps agitate the boil also) then drop the
whole mess into a lauter. i have seen some homebrew equipment based on this.
granted the volume is easily stirred by manual methods. 


but then again - why does the homebrewer care........

brew what makes you happy.

joe

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 11:11:00 -0500
From: Bob.Sutton at fluordaniel.com
Subject: Re: Dry Hopping

  From: JGORMAN at steelcase.com
  Subject: Dry Hopping
  
  >>>I am interested in trying to dry hop some beer.  I have 
  heard 2 stories on this. (1)It is OK to dry hop in the 
  secondary and in individual bottles and (2)dry hopping 
  should never be done in bottles, only in the fermenter.  
  If there is someone out there that has done either or 
  both, please shed some light.<<<
  
  
  I'll try to help. Dry-hopping is quite simple. It is 
  typically done in the secondary, and the contact time 
  varies from 3-7 days. The approach I've taken for IPAs is 
  to withhold the traditional final addition hops (the ones 
  you add during the last two or so minutes of the boil) and 
  introduce them to the secondary instead.
  
  If you're using pellets or plugs, I recommend that you put 
  them in a sanitized hopsack, to simplify siphoning the 
  secondary when your ready to bottle/keg. Hops have a 
  tendency to float, buoyed by all the CO2 bubblies, and some 
  folks believe floating hops are less efficient (I haven't 
  discerned the difference); to work around this, just add 
  some sanitized marbles (or other inert stuff) into the 
  hopsack to weight it down.
  
  You'll see a difference in hoppiness depending on whether 
  you're using pellets, plugs, or whole leaf (descending 
  strength on a per ounce basis). However, from a "trub" 
  standpoint (you don't want this mess in your bottles) the 
  pellets are the most agonizing to remove, followed by 
  plugs and whole leaf (effortless).
  
  Don't worry about "sanitizing" the hops - they'll take 
  care of themselves, assisted by the alcohol content in the 
  secondary.
  
  The good news is that you'll need no additional equipment 
  to dryhop if you're already using a secondary.
  
  Bob
  Fruit Fly Brewhaus
  Yesterdays' Technology Today

Return to table of contents

---