---

	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:
  the slow-mead myth (Dick Dunn)
  Iowa HB Legislation (George Forsyth)
  single step infusion vs. decoction experiment & questions on very cloudy beer ("Emily & Drew")
  DI water filter (smurman)
  Poor Man's Water Testing (Kyle Druey)
  RIMS scorching and flow rates (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Beginner's Questions (Brad McMahon)
  brewing tubing ("Mercer, David")
  Starter temp (Charles Peterson)
  Malt and barley / yeast pitching temps (George_De_Piro)
  4VG "induction" / Steeping dark grains (Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii)
  RE: RIMS Achilles heel / PID or T-couple problem? ("Keith Royster")
  Aeration stone santitation / In-line wort aeration (George_De_Piro)
  Frank Kalcic "brewing tubing and in line oxygenation 3/4/98 (Vachom)
  RE: Plastic ("Larry F. Byard")
  Extract Color / Salt Weights (KennyEddy)
  Tubing, malts, yeast storage (Jim Liddil)


Be sure to enter the 7th NYC Spring Regional Competition
3/22/98. Surf to www.wp.com/hosi/companno.html for more
information...

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


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 hbd.org

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)

Return to table of contents



Date: 3 Mar 98 18:34:04 MST (Tue)
From: ddunn at talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: the slow-mead myth

I am frequently disappointed to read articles in the HBD (and elsewhere)
telling people "don't worry, mead takes a very long time to mellow."

On the one hand, it is true that mead does not finish on a beer schedule.
No question there, and no problem.  If nothing else, mead is generally
higher alcohol and the must is less friendly to yeast than a beer wort.
Both of these make it take longer to ferment if all else is equal.

On the other hand, there is nothing magically negative about mead.  There
is nothing that makes it take multiple years.  There is no reason for off-
tastes which take time to age out.

Your mead should taste OK at racking, and it should taste OK at bottling.
It may taste a bit young, harsh or some such, but it should not be un-
drinkable.  If it is, you're doing something wrong and you need to find out
what it is and fix it.  A bit of harsh edge is one thing; a "gag me"
character is another.  (One of the most common problems is using a yeast
not suited to mead.  Next to that is trying to push fermentation by too-
high temperatures and/or excessive nutrient.)

Melomels are quicker than straight (honey-only) meads.  A melomel should
finish its fermentation in perhaps a month, maybe less with an aggressive
yeast, perhaps more with a lazy yeast or cooler temps.  A straight mead
(or a metheglin, since herbs/spices don't much affect the fermentation)
with moderate nutrient and reasonable temps might take two or even three
months if you're taking a traditional approach.  But in either case, the
fermenting product should be palatable all along the way.

You'll see advice that says "if the mead tastes bad at first, give it time
to age"--and that is good advice.  Some odd tastes *will* age out;
sometimes a mead is bletcherous at bottling but wonderful a year later.  
Don't toss an off-tasting mead too soon.  But if your meads are consis-
tently taking a long time to age to drinkability, you've got a problem and
you should find it and fix it instead of resigning yourself to long aging
periods.  I say this for encouragement to make better mead, but I also say
it to keep newbies from being put off mead by the misconception that they
will have to wait a year or two.
- ---
Dick Dunn       ddunn, domain talisman.com       Boulder County, Colorado  USA
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 21:42:03 -0600
From: George Forsyth <gforse at nevia.net>
Subject: Iowa HB Legislation

Rob Moline wrote (and forwarded information) regarding HomeBrew
legislation
in Iowa.	

Senate File 486 was introduced last year by (I believe) the Senate
Government Committee. It was assigned to Sub-committee in January--the
full committee voted Monday March 2nd to send to the floor of the
Senate.  The committee vote was 11-4 with 2 abst. or not present.

The bill permits the non-commercial brewing of 100 to 200 gallons per
year and the legal transporting thereof to competitions, etc. without
being subject to the Iowa Laws on commercial brewing.  With the bill's
committee passage, it will now be necessary to lobby 50 legislators--not
just three.

IMHO, I question the value of the efforts being promoted by some to
lobby everybody with even the slightest connection to homebrewing--I
just don't see the overall value and/or benefit of the legislation. 
However, for those who feel otherwise, I would direct them to the the
State's legislative web site at www2.legis.state.ia.us.  Here you can
find e-mail addresses for all legislators as well as the legislative
history, current language, and pending calendar of this or any other
bill in the General Assembly.  If there is sufficient interest amongst
the digest, I would be willing to provide updates on the progress of the
legislation.

cheers, prosit, and melba


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Mar 98 23:42:19 PST
From: "Emily & Drew" <eneufeld at michianatoday.com>
Subject: single step infusion vs. decoction experiment & questions on very cloudy beer

In an effort to do a little experiment, I recently tried my hand at a 
single decoction using a Pilsner recipe that I had brewed 6 weeks earlier 
using a single step infusion.  I got better extraction with the decoction
 than with the step mash resulting in an original gravity of 1.52 
compared to 1.046 with the single step infusion.  However, after racking to the 
secondary the decocted batch was 1.010/11 as compared to 1.014 from the 
single step infusion.  First, can this be explained by the fact that with
 the single step my final rest was for 45 minutes at between 156-160 
degrees while with the decoction the final 20 minute rest was closer to 
149-152 (It was supposed to be 160 but I was 10 degrees off)?  What impact, 
if any, does boiling a portion of the mash have on the amount of 
unfermentable sugars in the wort?

Second, I have just racked my decocted batch after 11 days at 52-54 
degrees in the primary.  The beer is about as cloudy as I have ever had at 
this point, much cloudier than my notes indicate from the step infusion mash
 which has resulted in a crystal clear beer.  Note the beer tastes fine, 
actually quite similar to the single step infusion batch at the same 
point.  Could the cloudiness simply be a result of the fact that I pitched 
a quart and a half starter made from the yeast slurry of the first batch 
(note the slurry was from the secondary fermenter from the first batch 
just before I bottled)?  Should I be worried at this point?  Note I plan 
on letting the secondary fermenter sit at 60 degrees for 48 hours for a 
diacetyl rest, and then lager in my fridge for 3-5 weeks at 38-40 
degrees. I would be very interested in hearing about other similar experiments.

Private e-mail is fine.

Drew Buscareno


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 22:09:22 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: DI water filter


Last week I posted some questions about brew water chemistry.  Thanks
to all who responded.  I mentioned that I was planning on getting a
faucet filter that would leave me with essentially ion-free,
bacteria-free, chloramine-free water.  A couple of people wrote to me
asking if I wasn't mistaken about this, so I thought I'd better check
into it.

What I've been looking at is a unit that is sold for use with
aquariums.  Aquariums have filters, but the water that is initially
put in the tank, or is used to top up the tank, must be pure.  Some
fish are sensitive to not only organic contaminants, but also to
minerals, including sodium. 

After doing some web research, what I think these filters are is a
granulated carbon filter, possibly augmented with silver, followed by
what's called a mixed-bed deionizing resin.  A decent explanation of the
process can be found at the Culligan web site,
http://www.culligan.ca/diproc.html The end result however is that
you're left with water that is ion-free, as well as free of
chloramines, etc.

The filter unit itself is about 1-1/2 ft. tall, and temporarily
attaches to you faucet.  It has a color change indicator to determine
when the filter needs to be replaced.  The flow rate is 10 gal/hr.
The filter life is rated at between 50 and 500 gal., depending on how
hard your tap water is.  The initial unit costs between $40 and $50,
and replacement filters run about $20.  Using an "average" water
hardness this works out to about $2 per brew session if you're making
5 gal. batches.  Ken Schwartz informed me that buying RO water from
the store costs about $3 per 5 gal. brew session.   The best place to
find these things is probably "high-end" fish stores.  My buddy has
one, and he says he buys the filters over the web now, which seems a
good way to go.  I think the brand name is TapWater or something like
that, but it's pretty hard to miss, because if the carry it at all,
it's likely to be the only such unit.

It looks like this could be a good alternative for those of us who
don't have hard water.  Since my tap water is going to be switching to
chloramine treatment sometime this year, I'm seriously considering it,
but I'll also be weighing it against simply taking two jugs to the
local Casa de Agua.

SM



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 03 Mar 1998 15:16:09 -0800
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: Poor Man's Water Testing

Brewsters,

I am giving the 60/70 mash schedule and protein rest issues a time out
for now, and have decided to take brewing water to task.  I have
submitted a straw horse type post below (burns well) for others to offer
their own corrections, opinions, or whatever you like.  Thanks for
answering my questions goes to George DP, Dave Burley, A.J., and Kenny
Eddy.

Poor Man's Water Testing

The first step in an effective water treatment program is understanding
the ion content of your source water.  Noonan has some excellent rules
of thumb for estimating ions in your source water (NBLB and Beer and
Brewing Vol 11), and A.J. has posted some calcs to determine the ppm of
these ions when limited data is available. The following estimates were
derived using pet store type test kits, the only data needed is the
hardness, pH, and chloride content.

*Calcium as ppm Ca = Hardness * 0.4 / 1.25
Hardness = total Ca + Mg hardness as CaCO3, measured from test strip

*Magnesium as ppm Mg = Hardness * 0.24 / 5

*Bicarbonate as ppm HCO3 = Alkalinity * %HCO3 * 1.22
Alkalinity in ppm CaCO3, measured from test strip 
%B = percent of Alkalinity as HCO3 = r1 / (1 + r1 + r1r2)
r1 = 10^(pH - 6.38)
r2 = 10^(pH - 10.32)
pH = pH of your source water
(Alkalinity can be estimated from the boil method, previously posted ad
nauseam in this forum... see the archives.)

*Sulfate as ppm SO4 = (Hardness - Alkalinity) * 0.5579 * 96 / 50
Hardness and Alkalinity as defined above
(note:  this estimate only works if Hardness is greater than Alkalinity)

*Chloride as ppm Cl, measured from test strip (this method is definite
flame material, so have at it!)

*Sodium as ppm Na = Cl * 23 / (23 + 35)

The only measurements taken above were hardness, alkalinity, chloride,
and pH.  The hardness and alkalinity were from a test strip kit
purchased at the pet store for $9.  The chloride was a test strip kit
that I had purchased a while ago for $4, most of us already have a means
to measure pH.  So how do the estimates measure up?  See the table
below:

Ion         My Water     Estimate
- ---         ---------    ----------
Ca          33           35
Mg          5            3 
HCO3        *117         84                      
SO4         49           43
Cl          22           25 
Na          33           10 

*HCO3 estimated from the Hardness of 99 as CaCO3 and the pH of 8.0

The measured data was:  pH = 8.5, Hardness = 110, Alkalinity = 70, and
Chloride = 25.  My water is the four year average numbers from the
annual water analysis that my water company sent to me.  As you can see,
the estimates are not too bad, right in line with a homebrewing level of
accuracy.  

Can somebody verify the accuracy of the methodology for generating the
estimates?  How about sources for reasonably priced (cheap!) test
strips? While we are at it can somebody define once and for all the
definition of total hardness (is it temporary Carbonate hardness +
permanent Ca/Mg hardness)?

Ditto the comments on the great formum we have here in the HBD.  I have
learned more in the past year reading these pages than in the previous 7
without it, the archives are a terrific resource.

Kyle Druey
Bakersfield, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 01:09:31 -0800
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremybb at stanford.edu>
Subject: RIMS scorching and flow rates

Robert Zukosky <rzuk at IX.netcom.com> writes about scorching with his
RIMS.  Dion has already replied:

> My heater element, the 2E767 is 5000 watts with a length of 76".

[snip]

> This means that you are using a heat density of about 54% higher per
> inch than my element.  Also, my flow rate is usually closer to 3gpm
> when the system is working correctly.

Thanks to all the great RIMS web pages, and especially to Dion and 
Ken Schwartz I am putting the finishing touches on my RIMS.  I plan
to post a few tidbits I learned along the way, but I have some info
related to Robert's post.

My element is only 48" and would be 5KW at 240V.  During my first
batch I noticed a scorched smell in the wort during the first boost.
In looking at the temperature differential across the heating chamber,
it was ~11C.  I decided the flow rate was too low (I had been afraid
of sticking the grain bed by pumping too hard).  I upped the flow
rate about 2X, from ~.4 gal/min to ~.8 gal/min.  The scorched smell
didn't get any worse from then on (the temperature differential at
that flow rate was ~4C).  The beer is drinkable, but barely (but
my standards are fairly high IMO.  I got rid of a keg in my lab 
journal club and no one commented on the scorching).  The element
had a thin layer of completely burnt material on it when removed at the
end of the brew day.

I have brewed twice more since then and made two changes:
1) I make sure the flow rate is at least .6 gal/min
2) I recirculate around the heater rather than through it for the first
half gallon or so since a great deal of particulate matter comes
through then and I believe from inspection of the burnt crud on the
element that it was this stuff that burnt on (my heater chamber
is not well designed to allow this stuff to flow through).

With these procedures in place I have no scorching in either of these
beers (although one is a sweet stout so might disguise a very light
scorch).  I have yet to stick the grain bed with this flow rate.

I am intrigued by Dion's flow rate figure.  I would love to have a
flow rate like this because it takes me >10 minutes to do a complete
recirculation which makes timing the boosts slightly tricky.  I feel
I have a good false bottom--it has never stuck on me.  But I'm hesitant
to pump too fast.  I'd appreciate any comments and maybe I'll try to
go faster on the next batch.  

==============================
Steve Alexander wrote:
     Some challenges for HBD - 1998 -
     1/ What is the mechanism of HSA
     2/ Resolve the issue of temperature rests in the 45C-55C range
     3/ describe the distinguishing  flavor reactions of decoction brewing
     and contrast with the resulting compounds from RIMS, p-cooking and 
     infusion mashing.
     4/ Describe the mechanism and antecedent conditions of yeast
     by-products - good & bad. Suggest general mechanism for control.

You forgot #5: Cure cancer!  Seriously, I have been incredibly impressed
by the stuff being posted here lately and hope you guys with the time,
the inclination, the ability and the access to the journals keep it up.
Thanks.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremybb at leland.stanford.edu
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~jeremybb


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 00:49:48 +1000
From: Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Beginner's Questions

> I'm looking through a mail order catalog (Barkingside), attempting to
> get a list of things together for brewing my 2nd batch ever.  I was
> looking through the liquid malt extracts thinking that was all I 
> needed since some state that they're already hopped and include
> yeast.  Then, I see some kits that come with both liquid and dry
> malt extracts, grains, hops, etc. 

The hopped kits, are most probably the commercial kits from Europe,
the UK or Australia. These come in two sizes. the 1.5/1.8 kg
and the 3kg cans. These cans are easy to use, and I think are a
good introduction to the hobby, and I still use them sometimes
as bases to other recipes. The smaller cans are designed in such
a way, so that all you have to do is add dextrose or malt to
bump up the alcohol content, and add the yeast and away you go.
The 3kg cans just need the water and the yeast. I haven't seen
these advertised in the US, but may be available.

The other kits you talk about are most likely recipes put
together by the brewshop, where you need to boil up the hops
and malts together in a big pot, and do the full extract brew thing.

>Can someone enlighten me as to the need to use dry and
>liquid malt extracts together?

No need at all,they do it for commercial reasons probably.

>Can you use two 4 lb. cans of liquid
>extract for a 5-6 gallon batch?

Yes, but remember each can is hopped for a full 23l batch.
So using two kits together may be too bitter for you.

>Why use grains and hops with hopped
>liquid malt extract?

Grains add a further complexion to the taste, and the hops are
used for their flavour and aroma properties.

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




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 04:29:10 -0800
From: "Mercer, David" <dmercer at path.org>
Subject: brewing tubing 

In HBD #2652, Frank Kalcic asks about tubing:

"In my setup, the hose would transfer the wort to boiler, then from 
the boiler to the chiller and on to the fermentor.  It would also 
double as the piping for my micro version of a CIP.  Hence, the 
following properties are important

1) Heat resistant
2) Pressure resistant at high temps
3) Non Porous (long lasting)
4) Economical (only need 15 to 20 feet total)

Of course the tubing must be food grade as well.  
Good flexibility is also a plus.

When looking through the Cole Parmer and Ryan Herco 
catalogues, I came across the following materials:

Coilable Kynar tubing - <260 Deg F, <180 psi  at 70 Deg F
PTFE tubing - <500 Deg F, <137  at 70 Deg F"
- ----
Last year I bought 25" of platinum cured silicon tubing from
Cole-Parmer. The price varies by diameter, but my order was about $35 -
i.e. a little under $1.50 a foot for tubing that will last years. It can
take temps > 400F, is very flexible (more flexible than normal vinyl
tubing), easy to clean and sterilize, and 1/4" ID tubing can be easily
stretched over 3/8" OD canes for a tight seal. I am very pleased with
it.

The down side is now I am on Cole Parmer's mailing list, and in
additional to their catalog, they send me mailers for really cool lab
stuff which I can't afford and don't need, but just gotta have.

No affiliation, etc etc.

Dave M. in Seattle

>


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 08:30:35 -0500
From: Charles Peterson <chasp at digex.net>
Subject: Starter temp

HBDers -

Alex inquires about the importance of starting at the proper temperature
for kicking off fermentation.  I too this season have been experimenting
with trying to start ferments where they are supposed to start.  Previous
years I would pitch a warm starter, keep the pitched wort at 65-70F till
fermentation was active (about 12-16 hours).

This method if fine for ales IMHO.  However, my lagers were a bit fruity
with this procedure.  Not bad, but not exactly clean either.

I've had better lager results this year by:
1.Increasing the starter volume to at least 10% of the wort volume expected
2.Stepping up the yeast from proper fermentation temperature (to avoid a
chill shock)
3.Chilling the wort down as far as reasonable possible (ususally in the 50s
this *winter* -- the East Coast has simply been too warm!)
4. Placing the pitched wort in a frige until the fermenation kicks off.

All of this low temperature operation has seriously lengthed the time
needed to build a starter (like 2-3 weeks), and I usually pitch only the
slurry, not the full 10% volume of starter (which means I have to wait for
the starter to clear).  But most importantly, I've had to be very patient
during the lag phase, which can take 36-48 hours (Noonans book cites a max
lag of about 36 hours until a foam ring appears at the top of the
fermenter, BTW, so this is not unreasonable).  Following the primary, I
perform a 2-3 day rest at 60-65F with about 1/2 gallon of krausen beer
(sans yeast) saved from the kettle at knock-out, and then finish out in the
low 50s.

Of couse if you're starting with yeast from a previous batch this all goes
much quicker.  Like a lag phase of a few hours, and the primary rips right
on through in a week.  All in all, I've had better lagers with this method.
 If you can plan ahead, I would say that pitching at the right temperature
is key for you BEST lager.  But you can still make an excellent lager by
pitching a bit warm and then slowly chilling at the first sign of
fermenation (however, you risk shocking the yeast here if you're not
careful).  A personal choice IMHO.

Chas
===========================================================
Chas Peterson					chasp at digex.net
Director - Product Development			301-847-4936
Custom Enterprise Networks


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:42:58 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Malt and barley / yeast pitching temps

     Hi all,
     
     Steve wrote in saying that he believed Kunze "missed the boat" when
     talking about spring and winter barleys.  Actually, Kunze boarded the
     ship without difficulty.  My post was slightly sloppy, which is what
     caused the confusion.
     
     I never said that spring barley is not grown in Europe.  I said that
     winter barley is grown there, but not here in North America.  As
     Steve pointed out (and I implied), both spring and winter barleys are
     grown in many different countries.  North America seems to be unique
     in that we grow only the spring varieties.
     -------------------------------
     With that minor correction out of the way, I'd like to address Alex
     Santic's ponderings about pitching temperature and its effect on yeast
     growth and beer flavor.  I'll also add my own ponderings/observations.
     
     Alex is correct about higher pitching temperatures yielding beer with
     increased esters.  The general rule is that anything that increases
     yeast growth will increase ester and higher alcohol production.
     Temperature is one big factor in yeast growth.
     
     Many big breweries will pitch yeast at quite a lower temperature than
     the fermentation will be conducted at.  Even modern lager beers that
     are fermented relatively warm will be pitched cool.  Lag times are
     increased, but not by enough to mar the beer.  This serves two
     purposes:  it limits yeast growth rate (cleaner beer), and it serves
     as a simple quality control check.
     
     If you consistently pitch a particular yeast into a particular wort at
     a certain temperature, you can expect to see consistent lag times.
     Also, the heat of fermentation will bring the wort to a particular
     temperature in a time period that will be consistent from batch
     to batch.  If the lag time or temperature curve look different on one
     batch, it is a good indication that something is going awry.
     
     If you look back a couple of weeks to my post about lager fermentation
     schedules you will see a bit more about this stuff.
     
     Alex also asks about the temperature that yeast should be grown at.
     It is best to grow the yeast at temperatures similar to the pitching
     temperature, or even slightly lower.  In the interest of time, you
     can start the first steps of yeast growth at higher than usual
     temperatures, but you should reduce the temperature over time so that
     by the time you are ready to pitch the yeast it is at or slightly
     below pitching temperature.
     
     If the yeast is much warmer than the wort at pitching, it may increase
     the lag time significantly (yeast don't like going from warm to cold).
     If the yeast are slightly cooler than the wort at pitching, there
     should be no problems.  I have pitched into wort 5F (2.7C) colder than
     the starter without noticeable problems, but this is likely to be
     strain dependent.  I try not to make a habit of it!
     
     Fermentation is definitely tricky when you look at the details of what
     we are trying to do.  On the one hand you want a short lag time, which
     means that you need rapid yeast growth (assuming that you are under-
     pitching like most of us do).  Rapid yeast growth is achieved by
     adding lots of oxygen and keeping the temperature pretty high.  This
     can lead to undesirably high ester levels and higher alcohols.
     
     On top of all that, different yeast strains will behave VERY
     differently!  Geeze, it's a lot to keep track of!  Here is where
     I'll throw in a recent observation of mine:
     
     I built an in-line wort aerator (it's amazing what you can do if you
     stare at the compression fittings in Home Depot long enough).  I had
     a bit of trouble regulating the gas flow, so the first two fermenters
     I filled probably got no more O2 than my old system (dunk the stone, 
     turn on the tank and count to 60).  By the third fermenter I got it
     down, and the wort was really well oxygenated (nicely foamy wort
     flowing into the fermenter, but not too foamy).
     
     The lag time for that wort was amazingly short, despite the
     underpitching.  The yeast was Wyeast 1338, pitched at ~59F (15C) and
     fermented at ~62F (16.7C).  Damn if the beer isn't very fruity out of
     the primary!  Unfortunately, the other two fermenters were pitched
     with lager yeast, so there is no good comparison.  My previous
     experience with 1338 leads me to believe that this batch need not have
     been this fruity, though.
     
     I don't want to start the oxygen thread again (or maybe I do...), but 
     I will say that there is definitely some good arguments to be made
     about not over-oxygenating certain strains of yeast.  Through trial
     and error we'll learn which these are.
     
     I visited the Hoboken Brewery yesterday, and by coincidence the brewer
     mentioned that they use air rather than oxygen to aerate the wort.
     He believes that too much O2 made his beers too fruity.  He is using
     Wyeast 1272 (American ale 2).  Anybody out there have any observations
     about this yeast, or opinions about using compressed air rather than
     O2?
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:11:20 -0500
From: Nathan_L_Kanous_Ii at ferris.edu
Subject: 4VG "induction" / Steeping dark grains


Greetings to the collective.  Two things.  First, WRT 4VG production and
brewing yeasts.  I've heard mention that some of the available brewing
yeasts have the capacity to produce 4VG, even though they are not "wheat"
yeasts.  Is there a temperature dependance to this amongst "non-weizen"
yeast strains?  I have a starter that I initially propogated at a rather
warm temperature to assure growth and attenuation of the starter.  It
seemed to have some "clove" flavor to it when I stepped it up to 1 quart.
After adding an additional quart of starter (plain malt and water, no hops)
and letting it attenuate at "brewing temperature" (about 13 deg F less than
initial propogation) and I don't notice the clove flavor that I had before.
Any thoughts?

**********************************************8

WRT steeping dark grains.  I've heard mention that if you add your "dark"
grains (roast, chocolate, black, etc.) at mashout, you achieve a smoother
profile.  I've never read anything about this in the limited literature
that I have.  I don't imagine that Guiness adds the black malt at mashout,
but I don't know.  Does anybody have any good evidence or experience that
indicates it is better to add dark grains to mashout, rather than including
them in the entire mash?

Thanks.
Nathan in Frankenmuth, MI




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:16:47 +0500
From: "Keith Royster" <keith at ays.net>
Subject: RE: RIMS Achilles heel / PID or T-couple problem?

Robert Zukosky writes about a possible RIMS Achilles heel

> A more important concern has come to light with the disposal of 15
> gals of fine brew with a sugar char taste that was impossible for
> human consumption. Using an electrical heater element - 15 inches
> folded and 54 inches unfolded capable of 5500 watts  at  240v  was
> used at 120 v and not permitted to go above 156 F. Flow rate 1 gpm 
> of  the mash/extract and char occurred. 

In Dion's response he mentions that you might have a heating element
with too hight of a heat-output-density, as well as a slow flow rate.
A false bottom with not enough open area, a stuck mash, or an
undersized pump might create a situation where flow rate is not
adequate. I would also add that you may have a design flaw in your
heating chamber that is creating a dead space where flow is close to
zero causing it to stay in contact with the element and scorch.

=================================================================

And now for my question.  You may remember a recent post of mine
where I asked if anyone else was having problems with their Omega
PIDs.  (Unfortunately, I didn't get enough responses to be
statistically relevant.) I asked this because I was in the process
of returning mine for the 3rd time for repair/replacement.  The
first time I returned it was because the PID gave an error message
right out of the box that the Omega engineers couldn't fix over the
phone, the second time it worked for about 6-8 months and then the
digital LED display started failing, and this most recent
replacement was returned because it consistantly read 15dF too high.
However, I received my fourth PID this week and hooked it up
yesterday only to find that it also is reading 15dF too high,
regardless of the actual temp.  It seems that the chances of two new
and different PIDs having the same error is low, so I'm beginning to
wonder if the error might be somewhere else, such as the
thermocouple (or other human error).  But it also seems odd to me
that a thermocouple that was working fine is now creating errant
temperature readings.  It's not like they have any moving parts that
would fail.

So... is there anyone out there that knows a little bit about these
items that could give me some insight as to whether the problem is
more likely to be with the PID again, or if it's the thermocouple.

I would also like to add that, while having to return the PID so many 
times has been frustrating, Omega has been great about accepting the 
returns and has sent me a new replacement every time. There is also a 
possibility that, at least regarding my last two PIDs, the problems 
was not with the PID so I'm not ready to complain about their quality 
of materials yet until I find out where the source of my error is.  
Until then, I will just dial in a temp of 170dF when I want to mash 
at 155dF =)

Cheers!

Keith Royster - Mooresville, North Carolina
mailto:keith at ays.net

For information about the 1998 U.S.Open homebrew competition coming
this April, visit http://www.ays.net/brewmasters/
Download your entry packet in Acrobat format today!

For info on my RIMS, visit http://www.ays.net/RIMS/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:15:48 -0800
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Aeration stone santitation / In-line wort aeration

     Hi all,
     
     Frank asks about in-line wort aerators, and how to keep the stone 
     clean (or whether or not to use one at all).  I think you should use a 
     stone.  Gas is dissolved in liquid by the action of bubbles breaking 
     at the surface and at the bubble-liquid interface during the travel of 
     the bubbles through the liquid.  The action of bubbles breaking at the 
     surface is quite important (note that the bubbles don't disappear on 
     their trip to the surface).  The more bubbles you have, the greater 
     the surface area of liquid being contacted by the gas, etc.
     
     I am confused by people that say it is difficult to sanitize aeration 
     stones.  I have no problems boiling mine for 10 minutes, along with 
     the tubing it's attached to.  Sure, the tubing turns opaque.  So what?
     
     To keep the stone clean I follow two simple rules:
     
     1.  Always leave the gas on when it is contact with the wort.  This 
     way flow is always out of the stone.  I even rinse the stone under 
     water before I turn the gas off.
     
     2.  *Immediately* after use flush the thing with water, and then boil 
     it to sterilize (just in case something got in).  A 20 mL syringe 
     works great for flushing the stone.
     
     Once in a while I need to soak the stone/tubing assembly in diluted 
     distilled vinegar to get the calcium carbonate off of it (from all 
     that boiling).  This system has kept my stone looking good and 
     performing well for almost a year now.
     ---------------------------------
     I mentioned in my last post that I built an in-line wort aerator.  
     It's so simple I'll share it with youse (y'all, youse all, etc.):
     
     Materials:
     
     1 aeration stone "permanently" attached to 1/4" tubing
     
     1 compression T with 2, 1/2" openings at 90 deg. to each other, the
     third opening being 1/4".
     
     Arrange it like this:  (lame ASCII diagram)
     
     
      GAS IN (1/4" opening)
       | |
      /| |\
      || ||
      || ||_____  WORT IN (1/2" or whatever you require)
      || |     <<<<<<<<<<<<<
      || | _____
      || ||
      || ||
      || ||  WORT OUT  (same diameter as wort in)
       | |
       | |
     STONE
     
     
     
     The 1/4" gas line goes in the 1/4" branch of the compression T.  You 
     will have to drill the inside of the T out because the inside has a 
     lip that is less than 1/4".  I drilled it out to just under 1/4" so 
     that the tubing would be very snug and thus prevent any leakage.
     
     The only problem with this system is that if the O2 tank is fully 
     open, the wort flow is restricted and the wort is pure foam.  The tank 
     will be empty pretty quickly, too.  I should get a larger O2 canister, 
     but the $120 is a big initial investment.  I'll probably spend another 
     $200 on those tiny home welding tanks before waking up to economic 
     reality...
     
     I tried using a small aquarium pump to push air through the stone, but 
     it didn't have enough power.  Does anybody out there know what size 
     air pump might work using a 2 micron stone?
     
     I hope somebody found this useful, have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:35:35 -0600
From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: Frank Kalcic "brewing tubing and in line oxygenation 3/4/98

	I can give you a suggestion for only one of your questions--the
oxygenation element.  Before you invest in O2 tanks, aquarium pumps or
air stones, I encourage you to give a cheap alternative a shot--the
Bernoulli tube.  Drill four 1/16" holes in a 6" piece of copper tubing
that will fit inside (and thus be of smaller diameter) whatever tubing
you decide to use.  This tool oxygenates the wort according to the
Bernoulli principle--when a liquid passes through an area of smaller
dimensions, its velocity increases and with that increase in velocity,
the pressure it exerts decreases, and in this case, the pressure becomes
less than the outside pressure of the air, and thus oxygen gets sucked
in through the holes into the liquid.  I have no scientific analysis of
its effectiveness in comparison to aquarium pumps, pure O2 injection,
etc.  I can tell you that it works well in practice.  The wort exits the
tube in a foamy jet and leaves about a 12" head on the wort--I always
put the tube at the top of the carboy so it splashes too.  Using quart
starters for five gallon batches, I've always gotten short lag times. 
Most importantly, the tool itself costs about 50 cents, takes about 5
minutes to make, adds absolutely no extra time to the brewing process
and takes about 30 seconds to clean up.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:51:40 -0500
From: "Larry F. Byard" <lbyard at gwi.net>
Subject: RE: Plastic

I think the hoopala about plastic fermenters is exactly that.  I don't like
carboys. They waste beer and they are pain to pickup, use and clean.  Of
course, I'm just an inexperienced amature.  On the otherhand I'm on batch 57
and have not had a single bad one which I can attribute to plastic primaries
and secondaries.  I've been using one of my four buckets for over a year.  I
think the True Brew buckets are very good.  Now that I've said all of this
I'll probably start getting bad batches because I'm using plastic.  Larry



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 4 Mar 1998 09:50:30 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy at aol.com>
Subject: Extract Color / Salt Weights

Michael Satterwhite asks:

  There have recently been some very good postings on the digest concerning
 color - especially the comparisons between MCU and SRM. All of this has
  focused on grain, however.
  
  What methods do you suggest for calculating color contribution from
  extracts? What are the pitfalls to this.

The method I suggest for calculating color with extract is...don't!  Use only
pale extract and derive your color (and much better character) from grains.
Because "colored" extracts could be anything from carefuly-crafted wort
containing many high-quality grains down to sucrose-laden caramel-colored
splunge, choose a good-quality pale extract and add your own grains.  You can
simply steep crystal (including carapils, though AlK will tell you to mash
DeWlf-Cosyns' version) and roasted malts (roast barley, chocolate, black
patent, carafa, etc) in 150F - 160F water for half an hour or so, strain'em
out, add more water if necessary and bring to a boil, add pale extract, and
continue brewing as per usual.  You can also obtain wheat and munich malt
extracts which should save you from having to mash or partial mash for a huge
number of styles.  And for those times when you want to make a recipe
involving grains not metioned here, the ideas in an article on my web page,
"Converting All-Grain Recipes to Extract", should help.

*****

Phil Wilcox asks:

  It would be great to know how much a quarter TEAspoon of all the pertinent
  brewing salts weighted. I realize that humidity makes using this conversion
a
  little sloppy, but this is home brewing not home fusion. How about it? 

It *IS* sloppy, not only due to humidity but also "scooping technique" (how
compressed you make th more powdery salts when you scoop it up) and size of
the spoon enter in.  Always use measuring spoons rather than the spoon you eat
your Cap'n Crunch with.

I use a little plastic twin-beam balance from Edmund Scientific.  It costs
about $30 for $2 worth of plastic (and I've seen it on sale from various
places for less than $20) but I've checked it against digital scales and it is
pretty dang accurate.  I have also "calibrated" some teaspoon measures against
it, but again YMMV.  Here's what I use (1 teaspoon, carefully scooped and
leveled by carefully dragging a straightedge across the spoon edge to prevent
compaction, equals this number of grams):

Epsom Salt: 4.6
Baking Soda: 4.4
Chalk: 2.6
Table Salt: 5.8
Calcium Chloride: 3.4
Gypsum: 2.5

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 04 Mar 1998 08:33:53 +0000
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: Tubing, malts, yeast storage


>From: Frank Kalcic <fkalcic at flash.net>
>Subject: brewing tubing and in line oxygenation
>
>Fellow Brewers,
>
>I'm currently in the process of replacing the tubing in my brewery 
>thought I'd tap (love those beer references) the experience/knowledge 
>of the Digest.
>

>1) Heat resistant
>2) Pressure resistant at high temps
>3) Non Porous (long lasting)
>4) Economical (only need 15 to 20 feet total)
>
>Of course the tubing must be food grade as well.  
>Good flexibility is also a plus.
>
>When looking through the Cole Parmer and Ryan Herco 
>catalogues, I came across the following materials:
>
>Coilable Kynar tubing - <260 Deg F, <180 psi  at 70 Deg F
>PTFE tubing - <500 Deg F, <137  at 70 Deg F
>
>Both claim FDA compliance (21 CFR 177.1550) meets 
>USP 23 Class IV requirements.  (this is all Greek to me, so 
>I don't know if this means food grade or not)

Other options to consider are silicone and Pharmed (Norton (tm)).  PTFE is
way to expensive for my tastes.  Nalge ond Norton ahve web sites and they
both make silicone.  Also I know Nalge and maybe Norton make silicine
tubign with braided walls.  Thsi stuff is not cheap.  Contact Nalge and ge
tht local distributors names.  They may sell you less than the noraml 50 Ft
roll. Cole Parmer call the Pharmed, Masterflex.  I recently got some fo
this for my persistaltic pump.  The chart on page 804=805 in the Coel
Parmer catalog covers most of ths tuff you need to know.  As long as it
meets FDA and USP requirements it will do what you need.  But be sure that
whatever you use can handle greater than a few psi with 180 F liquids.  


>Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998 05:17:27 -0500
>From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Re: U.S. vs. European malt plumpness
>
>My now well educated friend George De Piro writes ...

>I'm afraid that being on a friendly basis with suppliers and being demanding
>of the supply quality are two different things.  If US maltsters are so
>damned
>interested in quality why are they making 6-row crystal and *munich*.  This
>may start an HBD firestorm, but IMO 6-row belongs in the gut of a quadruped
>or brewed with equal parts of rice and sold to the ignorant masses.  Use of
>6-row appears to be a price compromise.
>

I totally agree.  Look at Briess. In the BT market guide it indicates they
make their specialty malts and extract from six row.  And also who drives
the US malt market?  Budmiller (coors contracts all the malt which is
moravian II I think).  Farmer will continue to grow what sells.  the micros
and us homebrewers have little market impact.


>From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
>Subject: Kunze on polyphenols ...
>
>Kunze, thru translation, suggests that hops polyphenols are more reactive
>with proteins  than are malt polyphenols.
>This also corresponds with my reading of the subject.  Hops polyphenols,
>monophenolic gallates, like those in tea,
>readily oxidize and combine with proteins.  The mostly biphenolic flavanoid
>phenols or malt are less reactive and
>compete with sugars for protein binding sites.
 
This seems to be the case in practical research as well. We are doing
studies with green tea polyphenols and they seem to oxidize and bind with
great ease.  

Jim Liddil



Return to table of contents

---