---

	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:
  slow cooling (Al Korzonas)
  Dextrins and head retention (Al Korzonas)
  Fuller's Summer Ale (Al Korzonas)
  (no subject) (peter ryan)
  Summary - Natural Gas Outdoor Cookers ("Timothy A. Stelljes")
  Correction - The Brewery Web Site ("Timothy A. Stelljes")
  Re: Brewferm and kits (Mat Farrington)
  ale vs. lager yeast (Ilkka Sysila)
  small fridge fermentation chiller (Mark Tumarkin)
  Vegas->Napa: Brew or restaurant suggestions (Kevin TenBrink)
  Three Tiered Brew Systems ("Brian McHenry")
  Re: decoction confusion (Scott Murman)
  Homebrew club in Bangor, ME area (Ganister Fields Architects)
  RE: preservative questions / motor RPMs ("Keith Royster") (the Real Dan)
  RE: Splitting The Brew Day ("Marc Battreall")
  RE:Open Fermentation ("Marc Battreall")
  Rezac ...Jethro Reports ("Rob Moline")
  Raspberry Wheat ("Eric Bonney")
  de-bunk (Paul Niebergall)
  Catching up - Weisensee-gebot fraud/Limits of (yeast) Growth ("Steve Alexander")
  Chicago Brew Supplies (Jason McKee)


BUZZ's Buzz-Off competition is June 27-28. Information is available at
www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff or via R. Mattie at
rpmattie at voicenet.com. 


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)


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


Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 14:57:26 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: slow cooling

Ira writes:
>Jack Schmidling writes about letting his wort sit until it cools, not
>cooling it with a wort chiller.  This was in response to Randy Ricchi
>writing about yet another unorthodox method in brewing.
>
>As I thanked Randy, I now would like to thank Jack.  I don't even own
>a wort chiller and have never artifically cooled my wort.  And like
>Jack, no problemo.  It gets me to thinking that what this list could
>use is a thread for debunking long held beliefs about brewing that
>have no basis in practice.  I'm not suggesting we stop paying  attention to
>sanitation, but I sure think a good area for debunking would be in
>the field of all that attention to sterilization.

Careful... you are making some pretty rash generalisations... you are
presuming that your experience would carry over to all other brewers.

Sanitation has never been my concern with slow cooling of wort...
my concern is with DMS production.  When the wort is boiling, any
SMM that gets converted to DMS will be boiled off.  When you stop
the boil, but while the wort is still hot (Fix says 158F), SMM is
still being converted to DMS, but it is *not* boiling off.  Slow
cooling *CAN* result in excessive DMS.

In your (and Jack's) case, the reason you did not notice excessive
DMS *may* have been because:

1. you may have used very low SMM malt,

2. you may have already converted most of the SMM to DMS and boiled it
off during the boil, or

3. you may simply have a very high threshold of sensitivity for DMS.

In my case (for the malts I use and based upon my senses), I feel
slow cooling does indeed result in excessive DMS for most styles.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 15:15:03 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Dextrins and head retention

Scott writes that dextrins can contribute to head retention.  I'm
a tad skeptical.  Where did you read this Scott?  I know they can
contribute somewhat to the body and mouthfeel of the beer, but
head retention?  It's true that crystal/caramel malts add dextrins
and they improve head retention a little... but I'm not willing
to jump to use that as a proof... couldn't the cara/crystal malts
add proteins?  I'll bet they do and I'd bet that's the reason they
help improve head retention.

If you do have some references, I would be very grateful...

***
Question... when did lagering (cold-conditioning, actually) begin?
On the radio here in Chicago, they have been running this series
of silly ads for Grolsch in which they claim that 1615 was a "great
time for a well-aged lager."

I know that the benefits of cold-conditioning were discovered long
before refrigeration and long before Bohemian Pilsner, but was it
"popular" in the 17th century?

Thanks.



Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 15:33:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Fuller's Summer Ale

I had Fuller's Summer on handpump at the Blackbird (Earl's Court...
a great Fuller's Pie House) last summer.  I checked my tasting notes just
to be sure.  It was indeed *slightly* buttery although a light fruitiness
was not far behind.  Restrained bitterness, malt dominates throughout,
although the flavour is light and refreshing.  Medium-light body.

Recall George Di Piro's explanation of how diacetyl is produced... the
yeast make alpha acetolactic acid which later gets oxidised to diacetyl.
Apparently this beer is rather high in alpha acetolactic acid and as
it ages, it will increase in diactyl... this explains why we have three
tasters with varying experiences with this beer.  No doubt the bottled
product is filtered and therefore any diacetyl that would get produced
would not have the yeast to absorb the diactyl as would a cask-conditioned
beer.

Al.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:07:01 +1000
From: peter ryan <tilook at amaze.net.au>
Subject: (no subject)

G,day fellow HBD's,
Picked up a Wyeast smackpack of 2042 from my local brewshop only to
discover after I had activated the pack that the date of manufacture was
stamped at 6APR97.It is now June  98!!!!!.Yeast is 14 months old.Surely
there must be some legal or moral obligation of the manufacturer to have
a useby date stamped on the package.Can't locate an email address for
Wyeast so that I can tell what I think of selling stock to a consumer 14
months after manufacture particularly when  one of the four keys to
successful fermentation is listed on their pack as "use the freshest 
yeast possible".does anybody have an emaail address  for Wyeast.???
Thanks..


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998 22:31:04 -0400
From: "Timothy A. Stelljes" <73061.2066 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Summary - Natural Gas Outdoor Cookers

In HBD #2728, I requested information about the best way to set up an
outdoor cooker for natural gas fuel.  In that post, I stated that I had
checked the HBD archives and found nothing on this topic.  Well, after
posting, I searched the archives again and figured out the problem was
using "natural gas" as the search text instead of "natural AND gas" (the
search engine didn't know how to search for a phrase, only individual
words).  So I got about 260 references (not all about burners, some on
kegging, anything that might contain those two words). Amazingly, no one
flamed me for missing so much material in my first search (but boy did I
feel stupid)!   I spent the remainder of this week researching the
archives, reading responses from my HBD post, and reading up at The Brewery
(now at www.TheBrewery.org).

Summary of info I found significant:
1. Natural gas is provided at low pressure (call your gas company for
actual distribution pressure & BTU per cubic foot (CF); propane can be
either high or low pressure.
2. Propane supplies about twice the BTU/Hour for the same size orifice
(rule of thumb, actually there are other factors).
3. It is a simple procedure to buy a propane burner and convert the orifice
for natural gas (the local gas company, among others, should have
conversion charts and replacement orifices, or you can drill out the hole
to the larger diameter), but the fuel/air mixture may not be right (causing
inefficient production of heat, lots of carbon monoxide (dangerous in
sufficient quantities), and possibly soot) and the BTU/Hour will be much
less than the original rated BTU/Hour of the burner.
4. It is a simple matter to put a quick disconnect and shutoff valve (if
desired, I'm planning on it) to the gas stub.  Visit any place that sells
BBQ grills & accessories, including Home Depot, Lowe's etc.
5. "Ring" burners are better for efficiency and control than "jet" burners.
 "Jet" burners are simpler to design and build, and so cost less to
purchase.
6. One source for burners originally designed for natural gas would be a
restauraunt supply shop (may be expensive).  Another source may be old
water heaters (need to be dissasembled, but cost much less (maybe free)).
7. Burners typically range from 10K BTU/Hour (like a stove burner) to about
200K BTU/Hour.  For my purposes I am guessing I could use a burner rated
somewhere between 50K and 100K BTU/Hour, and one with good control.
8.Calculate the required flow in CF by dividing the burner's rated BTU/Hour
by the BTU/CF (from gas company, 1000 typical value).  Where I live (Tulsa,
OK) I can run a 100K BTU/Hour burner for one hour at full blast and use
about 35 cents of gas.  :-)

So, after all of this, I'm going to seriously look into designing my own
cooker, possibly my own burner, with a little help from a combustion
professional who I should be able to hire for a few homebrews.  Buying a
standard propane setup would be a lot simpler, and maybe cheaper, but this
will be more fun.  It may take some time to get it right, but when I do I
promise to post my results.  Possible follow-up project will be automatic
control of the mash temperature.  After some preliminary research, I can
see the hard part will be finding the right fuel control valve (modulating)
or equivalent kluge device.

To those who sent replies, thanks for the input.

Tim Stelljes (73061.2066 at compuserve.com)


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 00:19:41 -0400
From: "Timothy A. Stelljes" <73061.2066 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Correction - The Brewery Web Site

In my last posting I misquoted the web address of The Brewery, vast
collection of brewing knowledge.  The correct address is www.brewery.org. 
My apologies to the HBD collective and the wonderful folks maintaining The
Brewery.

Tim Stelljes (73061.2066 at compuserve.com)


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 14:43:34 +0930
From: Mat Farrington <mat at holon.net>
Subject: Re: Brewferm and kits

Brad McMahon <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
>
> > Did you ask him about getting hot and cold break?  I know that some
> > kits are just malt extract.
>
> Which ones?
> You should be using known high quality kits from Europe or
> Australia. These kits are made properly.
>
> I haven't heard of a manufacturer that DOESN'T boil their kit
> during manufacturer. It still is the best way of bittering.

I can confirm that Coopers kits go through a boil, hop additions, breaks
and all.  This is followed by vacuum evaporation to 80% solids and
canning.  Two softened Coopers kits (plus maybe some hop tea), filtered
water and decent yeast make for a very fine beer launched in 10-15
minutes.

Can't be beaten on quality-per-unit-fuss (if that's your thing).  :-)

Mat Farrington,
Adelaide.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 08:21:07 +0000 (EEST)
From: Ilkka Sysila <isysila at clinet.fi>
Subject: ale vs. lager yeast

How about Saccharomyces Pastorianus then as the classification
for bottom-fermenting yeast? In the old continent,at least, 
lager yeast has been renamed, not long ago, in the honour 
of Pasteur. By the way, yeast taxonometry is, and has always been, 
quite a dynamic field.

Amply malty,

is


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 08:57:03 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <tumarkin at mindspring.com>
Subject: small fridge fermentation chiller

I was recently given an old apt. or office size fridge. It is a Norcold
Mod. E-200 WA. It is quite small. Too small to hold a carboy (or even very
many bottles!), so I have been considering using it as the cooling source
for a fermentation chiller based on Ken Schwartz's plans. 

Couple of questions -
  Will this work at all?
  If it's feasible, would it be too expensive - in terms of energy
consumption?
  Is it likely to kill the fridge?
  I assume that I should use a temp controller?
 
Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ken, Forrest, what do you think?

TIA,

Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 11:09:43 -0600
From: Kevin TenBrink <tenbrink at jps.net>
Subject: Vegas->Napa: Brew or restaurant suggestions

Hello-
I am going to be getting married in Las Vegas on the 20th of June.  From
there we will be driving to Napa Valley and Sonoma to tour a bunch of
wineries for the following week.  I am looking for suggestions on
restaurants, breweries, or Bed and Breakfasts that may be worth stopping
at.  The honeymoon will focus mostly on wine, however if there is a
brewery that is especially interesting or a beer that we should not miss
while in the area I would like to hear about it.

Thanks for your time
Kevin TenBrink
Salt Lake City




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 12:19:36 -0500
From: "Brian McHenry" <tbncentralus at email.msn.com>
Subject: Three Tiered Brew Systems

I've decided to upgrade my all-grain system to the basic tiered brewhouse
that we all know and love.  I've seen several 5gal. systems on the web (e.g.
B3, PBS, St. Pats, Pico's Femto, etc.).  Heretofore, I've just sort of
pieced together my own system, so I'm a bit wary of buying an off-the-shelf
system new from a supplier.  Has anyone tried any of these systems, or
others not listed, and if so, then how did you think it performed compared
to a brewpot/cooler homemade system?  Would it be better to upgrade to a
10gal. system even though I've mostly done 5 gal. batches for the diversity?
How does a 10 gal. system perform when only making a 5 gal. batch?  I'm
especially curious about the ability to alter the temperature of the mash
tun as opposed to just maintaining it in a cooler (i.e. step mashing).  Is a
recirculation loop worth the extra expense?  Would you recommend your system
to someonelse??

TIA
- --
Brian
Bushido Brewing Co.




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 13:05:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: decoction confusion


Paul Mohoney wrote:
> Scott was discussing decoctions in HBD #2730, and I am still confused!
> Here is an excerpt from the post, and my questions (I am planning on my
> first single decoction, using a 5 gallon Gott, and a 5 gallon stainless
> boiling pot):

An Irishman doing decoctions?

Well, let me see if I can untangle some of the confusion I may have
contributed.  I think I was a little fancy-free with my terminology,
so let's just make sure we're on the same page with the method first. 

A typical decoction mash will involve multiple steps through the range
of enzyme temperatures.  There could be a low-temperature step for
what's typically called an acid rest (95-115F), a protein rest
(115-135F), one or more saccarification (sp? sacc.) rests (135-165F),
and then a mash-out step (>= 165F).  Except for the last step, in
order to raise the mash to another temperature a thick (90% grain)
portion of the mash is removed, then heated to a sacc. temperature
(say 150F) and held for a short time, then boiled for some time (15-30
min. typically).  This boiling grain is then added back to the main
mash to raise it to the next temperature step, i.e. to go from the
protein rest to the sacc. rest.  When I (and others) refer to
"parking" the mash at a temperature, what I mean is one of the mash
steps.  In other words "park" your mash at 135F means keep your main
mash at 135F while you "pull" your thick decoction, boil it, and then
add it back to the main mash.  When I refer to an enzyme pool, I'm
referring to what you call the main mash.

Until you get a number of decoctions mashes under your belt, you won't
be able to exactly hit your target temperatures.  Sometimes you might
not be within 10F of your target.  It's not uncommon to try to go from
135F to 150F using a decoction, and find out you landed at 160F
instead.  Don't panic.  You can either ride with the new mash
schedule, or you can slowly add some cool water until your mash is at
the desired temperature (or boiling water to raise temp.).  It's a
good idea to have a quart or two of hot amd cold water on hand for this
reason.  Keep some notes on the volumes in your decoctions and main
mash, and after a few batches you'll get a feel for how much to pull
to go up X degrees in temperature.
 
>    Decoction recipes I have seen suggest starting at 105F, then
> raising to 122F, then pulling 40% thick mash out to decoct.  Should
> I be "parking" at 135F instead?  So I pull 40% of the thick mash out
> to decoct.  The remainder is "parking" while I sacc. rest the decoct
> amount (15 minutes), then boil for 15 minutes, then I add the boiled
> decoct back to the main mash.  So the main mash has parked at 135F
> (No, it has lost some temperature I would guess: while I pull out
> the 40%, then while I do all the decoction activities.  Would the
> temp. loss be 10-15 degrees?) for a long time, at least 45 minutes
> as suggested above.  So what other game can I play?  
>
> If I start at 
> 105F, the remainder (the main mash) will probably drop to 90F; if I
> start at 122F, it will probably drop to 105F; if I start at 135F, it
> will probably drop to 120F; all of this over a 45 minute period.

First, since you're using a Gott cooler to hold your main mash you
won't lose anywhere near 15F in 45 minutes.  In my experience, you
won't lose even a noticable amount of temperature.  Don't sweat it.
Just keep the lid on your cooler when you can.  Going down in
temperature is not such a problem since enzymes denature at higher
temperatures.  In other words, the enzymes that are active at 120F
were killed at 135F, so if you mash falls back to 120F there are no
longer enzymes from that range alive to do any damage.

There are any number of "recipes" for performing decoctions out there.
Many use the "classical" 105-120-150-165 schedule, or some slight
variation.  These classical schedules were developed for malts that
were undermodified as compared to modern malts.  One of the
characteristics of modern malts is that the protein rest has already
been performed for you to some extent by the maltster. I'm not going
to get into it, but some of the many endless debates on the HBD are
whether a protein rest is useful or harmful, whether 120F or 130F is
to be preferred, whether one decoction is beneficial or a waste of
time, ...  Really, you're going to have to experiment for yourself and
decide.  The recipe you provided did not have a significant amount of
wheat (signficant being close to 50%), so I would recommend not
leaving your main mash within the protein enzyme range for a
significant period, and I would advise using the higher end of the
protein enzyme range (towards 135F).  Wheat malt naturally has more
protein than malted barley, so you can allow a longer protein rest
without "ruining your beer".  This is my advice to a novice, but
realize that I routinely ignore my own advice and manage to sometimes
make wonderful beer.  How you choose to avoid the protein rest for 45
min. is up to you.  As I said in my previous post, there are a number
of games you can play, including...

>    When you suggest adding boiling water to the first sacc. rest, do
> you mean adding boiling water to the decoct 40% or the mash left
> after removing the decoct (the main mash)?

Add the boiling water to your main mash, as you would if your were
performing a step infusion mash.  Decoction mashing is just step
mashing with an added kink, so feel free to mix the two techniques if
you wish.  105F -> decoct to 135F -> rest 20 min. -> add boiling water ->
rest at 15?F -> add boiling water to reach mashout temp. would be just
one of the many approaches.  Another is 105F -> decoct to 150F -> add
boiling water to reach mashout.  And just for giggles, how about 
105F -> decoct to 130F -> pull decoction, raise main mash to 145F using
boiling water -> add previously pulled decoction to raise main mash to
158F -> mashout with boiling water.

Just remember that no matter what you do, you're going to end up with
beer when your done.  It might not turn out exactly how you planned,
but there's only one way to learn.

Clear as mud?

SM


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 06 Jun 1998 17:19:24 -0500
From: Ganister Fields Architects <gfarch at tiac.net>
Subject: Homebrew club in Bangor, ME area

Does anyone out there know of any homebrew club in the Bangor, ME area?  A
friend who is interested in improving his brewing thought that he should
join a brew club to help achieve that end.  Sounds logical to me.  Private
response okay.  Thanks.  

Cheers, Will Fields



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 16:28:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: the Real Dan <dan at netcom.com>
Subject: RE: preservative questions / motor RPMs ("Keith Royster")

In HBD #2731, Keith Royster says and asks:

>And now for something completely different.... I recently found a 
>working submersable pump at the local recycle center (what a great 
>place to find cool stuff!) that appears to be for dropping down into 
>a well and pumping the water out. 
>...
>Also (while I'm here) the motor can get quite warm, too hot to 
>handle, after a few minutes of running, and then takes a very long 
>time to cool back down.  Since it was obviously designed to be 
>submersed in water, I'm wondering if it needs to be to remain cool, 
>or if the heating is harmless (to the motor, not to me =). 

The motor is designed to be cooled by the water it is immersed in and
pumping. Instructions from the manufacturer of the deep well pump that
I installed last year caution that it should be run for only SECONDS
at a time without being submersed in water. If I were in your place,
I wouldn't use that motor.


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 22:57:50 -0400
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: RE: Splitting The Brew Day

I would like to comment (actually reinforce) something George DePiro said
in HBD2730 in reference to overnight cooling of wort (a.k.a. splitting up
the brew day)

 George said:

> I've tried this courageous technique a bunch of times, and have posted
> to the HBD about it (search the archives; sometime last year).
> In short:  bring the wort to 170F (77C) or higher to ensure that it won't
> sour overnight (unless you want it to sour).  I don't recommend
> putting hops in it.  When you wake up the next morning, there will be
> an amazing amount of hot break at the bottom of the kettle, and the
> wort will reek of DMS.  This is OK, though, because now you are going
> to boil it (which will drive off the DMS.)

I brewed a Classic American Pilsner a few months back and due to some kind
of distraction, had to leave the wort in the brewpot after sparging
overnight till I could do the boil. I left it in the pot, covered tightly,
for about 14 hours. Man o' man, the next day it stunk so bad of DMS that I
could smell it across the room with the lid still on! Granted there was a
pound of flaked maize in the recipe, but this was really strong! I went
ahead with the boil (90 mins) thinking that the DMS compounds would be
boiled off for certain. Well, into the fermentor it went after following all
the normal procedures that I always use for a lager. Two weeks in the
primary, with four weeks in the secondary followed. Then on to the Corny keg
for 45 days of conditioning at 36 degrees. Well, I gotta tell you, after all
that time the DMS DID NOT go away, and unfortunately, this brew found it's
way into the canal out back!! (Hate when that happens!)

This experience goes along the lines of a few recent posts regarding what
methods work for you and what works for others. With my experience and
subsequent lesson learned, from now on I will do as I have always done
before and run my brewing session through with one swoop from start to
finish, barring any diversions of course!

Just food for thought.

Captain Marc Battreall
Backcountry Brewhouse
Islamorada, FL



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 6 Jun 1998 22:57:48 -0400
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: RE:Open Fermentation

Hello all....
Just catching up on some HBD's from a week or so ago.
Jim asked for input regarding open fermentation experiences in HBD 2728;

I tried my first open fermentation a few weeks back and am now enjoying the
brew very much. Since it was my first attempt, I didn't know what to expect
as far as differences from closed fermentation's. I used the techniques I
read about in an article written by Jim Busch that I found on the Web
somewhere. The beer was a British Pale Ale (or at least started out to be)
but ended up with a higher OG than the style guidelines call for. I could
have diluted it but what the heck. The recipe was very close to my regular
BPA house beer with minor exceptions, mostly the hopping schedule. The
reason was to see what difference the open ferment would make so I wanted to
parallel previous brews made with closed ferments. The major difference
would be the yeast. I wanted to try a strain that was known for it's top
cropping properties so I chose Wyeast London Ale III.

Mashing and lautering went routinely using a three-step mash of 122/140/158
degrees. I pitched the yeast (1400 ml, 150 ml of which was clean slurry)
into the 68F wort after 45 minutes of aeration with 100% pure medical
oxygen. The fermentation vessel was my 10-gallon Polarware SS
mashtun/brewpot that had been thoroughly cleaned and sanitized with
iodophor. I placed a nylon mesh strainer over the top of the fermentor to
keep out foreign debris. I also placed the lid on for the first few hours
until the fermentation had built a krausen head on top, then cocked the lid
off to the side to allow the CO2 to escape. I had submerged the whole
fermentor in a galvanized tub filled with about 8 inches of water and placed
a gallon jug of ice in once a day to maintain the temperature at 66-68F. My
brewpot has a thermometer on it so I could monitor the temperature. Three
days into the vigorous fermentation I did my first skimming and discarded
it. Then, I would skim every other day making sure to leave enough head on
top to maintain a protective layer. I would put the skimmings into a
sanitized gallon glass jar. The yeast that I collected was probably the
cleanest, whitest yeast I had ever collected from any ferment. No trub,
break, or hop particles! I only did about 3 skimmings to avoid exposure to
contamination. After one week, I added an ounce of Kent Golding dry hops in
a nylon mesh hop bag and let them sit for 7 more days. Then I racked it into
a five gallon Corny keg and bottled a few, and primed the keg with CO2 at
about 2.4 volumes.

Two weeks later came the taste test. It had a pleasant flowery hop aroma
from the Goldings. However there was an overriding candy like, raisin like
aroma that plowed through the hop nose. The flavor was also along those
lines too. The hop bitterness was present, but didn't seem to show up until
about 5 seconds after each swallow. I am not an expert judge by any means,
but I feel that perhaps this could be a touch of diacetyl. I don't know if
this was from the type of ferment, or a characteristic of this particular
yeast strain. I haven't used Wyeast #1318 before so I don't have any
comparisons.

All in all, it's a pretty good beer. Personally, the open fermentation was a
lot easier than I thought it would be. I will try it again for sure. I am
not sure yet if the pro's out weigh the cons, but it was certainly a lot of
fun experimenting.

Hope this helps someone contemplating trying open fermentation.

Cheers,

Captain Marc Battreall
Backcountry Brewhouse
Islamorada, FL



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 00:29:49 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at ames.net>
Subject: Rezac ...Jethro Reports

Rezac....
	Yup, Rezac is a bad man....(dumb SOB doesn't even have the intelligence to
spend his time feathering his own nest!)
	I'm sure to wake up tomorrow and find he is responsible for Mother Teresa's
death....

	Having heard all the angles, to blame Brian for every shortcoming of the
AHA is myopic  at  best, vicious  at  worst.
	He is part of the solution for the AHA, not the problem....

	Oh yeah, he is on vacation, unaware of this thread, and unlikely to respond
for another week or two....

Jethro (Found A Scapegoat?) Gump



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 11:06:49 -0400
From: "Eric Bonney" <ebonney at fuse.net>
Subject: Raspberry Wheat

Well the results are in!  I posted a message here back in April about a
raspberry Wheat that I had made and had some questions.  Thanks again to all
that replied and here is how it has turned out.  GREAT!  There are a couple of
areas that I am not to keen on though.  The beer seems to be a little flat
tasting.  It does have a decent head to it when first poured, but it goes away
rather quickly.  I suspect that that problem is with the glass and the water
used to clean them rather than the beer, but I am not sure.  I used the typical
3/4 cup of corn sugar for priming.  Should I have used more for a fruit beer?
Other than the flat taste, which is tolerable, it turned out great.  I think I
added just a bit too much malt in the recipe and think I will cut it back a
little in the next batch.

    I have some other questions now.  I was reading an article in BYO this month
and saw an add for a Counter Pressure Filler.  Is this something that can be
used to fill bottles or is it just for kegs?  Does anyone have any experience
using them?  Is it easier or harder than the bottle filler method I use now.  If
I use this system, do I need to use corn sugar for priming or is this all I
need?  How expensive do they usually run?

    Well thanks again for your help on my last batch of beer.

Cheers!

 -Eric Bonney
ebonney at fuse.net
Check out my home page at:
http://home.fuse.net/ebonney/
Prejudice is a learned trait, SO WHAT are YOU teaching YOUR children?!



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 13:03:40 -0500
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject:  de-bunk

Dave Ludwig writes:

>>Well, now we know what your opinion is but you need to be more specific.
>>What are you doing or not doing and what are the results? I'm sure 
>>there are many steps in your brewing process that you would never
>>consider not doing because of potential bad effects. 

I really am not trying to advocate shoddy brewing techniques.  I understand
 the science and numbers all to well, and I almost always practice the 
usual dogmatic rituals during my brew day.  Believe me, I've been 
through it all - protein rest, no protein rest, beta gluc rest, no beta 
gluc rest,  triple distilled water and custom ion profiles, single decoct, 
double decoct, triple decoct (haven't tried a quadruple decoct yet), 
etc.  I have canned my own wort starters, ranched yeasts, and have tried 
every product available for cleaning and sanitation. Been there, done 
that.

Anyway, I guess the only problem I have (besides a massive brain hemorrhage
 from reading every issue single HBD issued for over 2 years) is having to 
put up with all the "I am a better brewer than thou" attitude.  I 
really enjoy the HBD and have actually learned a few things.  So, I will 
keep reading it, but every once in a while I am going to interject a 
little criticism just to keep it honest.

For the sake of argument, I would like to draw an analogy to a parallel 
subject that is as near and dear to my heart as homebrewing - BBQ.  I make 
excellent, award winning BBQ.  I have been doing this for years and have 
never once calculated the surface area of my smoker, air flow rate at 
different damper settings, melanoid reactions of tomato sauce when it 
mixes with pig fat, or analyzed the wave lengths of light emitted by 
burning different types of hardwood.  (O.K., so I do use a meat thermometer
 when BBQ-ing large animals).

Being from Kansas City (arguably, the BBQ center of the universe) every 
schmuck in this town thinks they know how to make award winning BBQ.  It 
is extremely hard to make good BBQ (it is actually much harder to BBQ than 
to make award winning homebrew).  The problem is that even if I calculated 
all of the variables down to six decimal places and gave personal 
instruction, most of these people would still make crappy BBQ.  Either you 
know how to do it or you don*t.  No amount of calculation is going to 
improve your BBQ.  Why should home brewing be any different?  We are all 
just lucky that, when you strip away all the B.S. that you hear, home 
brewing is extremely simple and it is almost impossible to screw it up.

Now don*t get me wrong.  I love science and this is not a *please leave 
the pointy-headed numbers out of the HBD* rant.  However, I do object when 
somebody does some half-baked experiment or reads some obscure reference 
from a questionable source and then reports to the group that every time 
you do X, the result will be Y.  Probably 100 percent of the information 
posted here should be presented as *some studies suggest that if you do X 
under certain conditions, varying degrees of Y may result* -NOT- *Bottom 
line - if you do X, your beer will suck*.

Cheers, 

Paul Niebergall

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 7 Jun 1998 16:50:48 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Catching up - Weisensee-gebot fraud/Limits of (yeast) Growth

Jethro reports ...
> Reinheitsgebot....Revised!
>    "Archival find may push Reinheitsgebot origins back 100 Years....
 ...
>    The 1434 Weissensee document, like Wilhelm's, specifies that only water,
>barley malt, hops and yeast be used to brew beer."
>         "Modern Brewery Age" May 11, 1998.
Not only did the precede the Reinheitsgebot by 82 years, but
they discovered yeast about 400 years before Pasteur !!  The original
Reinheitsgebot ingredients are of course water, malt and hops.  Yeast
was added much later.
- --
Yeast -
Andy Walsh recently answered many of the outstanding yeast questions
which have been floating around HBD since January.  Let me point out a
few other issues/notes.

Under normal brewing conditions in all grain wort the limiting growth
factor is sterol & unsaturated fatty acid(UFA) creation/consumption.
Normal yeast sterols&UFAs require oxygen for their construction.
Yeast can also use wort sterols and UFAs as substitutes for normal
yeast sterols & UFAs *BUT* these lipids, mostly from barley, are not
transformed into the specific yeast lipids - instead they are used
as-is.  These lipids are used to construct critical internal membranes
within the yeast cell, The nature of the UFAs&Sterols in the membrane
affect its properties - for example ethanol tolerance, resistance to
autolysis and efficiency of nutrient transport. Yeast grown on wort
lipids without oxygen undoubtedly have poorer viability and metabolic
efficiency.

In one study that I have on the effect of malt lipids on yeast growth,
the lipids from spent malt are extracted and concentrated and added to
wort in various degrees of oxygenation.  It appears that the total
extractable lipids from 30 pounds of malt were sufficient to supply
the sterol required for nearly normal yeast growth in about 15 gallons
of wort - or about 80% of the wort produced.  In other words, the
amount of malt used in 'normal' brewing contains insufficient sterol
and UFA needed for 'normal' yeast growth *IF* you extract the lipids
carefully from the spent grain.

In a comparison of air saturated worts fermented with and without a
lipid addition, the following results apply.

Yeast grown on the malt lipid extract had much lower levels of
ergosterol, and much higher levels of (fecosterol+zymosterol),
lanosterol and beta-sitosterol than 'normal' yeast.  The unsaturated
fatty acids levels in the barley lipid fed yeast were also greatly
distorted from normal.  These yeast generally contain less short chain
fatty acids (<C16) and more longer chain fatty acids (>C16).  The
yeast also contained polyunsaturated fatty acids, which cannot be
produced by yeast at all.

The lipid fed yeast produced beer with substantially less fatty acids
(!!) and ester levels, but substantially higher levels of several
fusel alcohols including iso-butanol and iso-amyl alcohols.
- --
In a nice paper on high gravity brewing by Ludwig Narziss (sent to me
by Andy Walsh from half a planet away), where high gravity means
14-16P (~1.060 SG) he states that increasing fermentation temps (11.7C
to 17.2C) cause an increase of 20% in fusels, but 50% in esters.
Oxygenation from 8ppm to 20 ppm causes only a 5% increase. Also a 20%
increase in pitching rate causes a ~10% fusel increase.  Conclusion -
use more oxygen.  One interesting method of achieving clean lager
results at higher gravities was to reduce the wort pH by about 0.5
from 5.45 to 4.95 before pitching.

Steve Alexander




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998 18:41:00 -0500
From: Jason McKee <jmckee at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Chicago Brew Supplies

Hi!

I'm new to the Chicago area and was wondering if anyone could recommend
a good brew supply shop in the city.

TIA!

jason mckee
chicago, il



Return to table of contents

---