---

	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:
  RE: Counter pressure filling (Robert Arguello)
  re: Fermenting in Cornies & counterpressure filling ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Cornish Ale Recipe ("Rob Compton")
  Re: grain bill percentages (Jeff Renner)
  % % % % % % % % % % % % ("LordPeter")
  Lemon Zest (Robert Johnson)
  Does Oxygen reduce lag time? ("LordPeter")
  First Timer! ("NFGS")
  Lemon Zest ("Mike & Lynn Key")
  Grist% (Tuula Pietila & Timo Jukka)
  Re: Arcadia Brewing's Whitsun (Jeff Renner)
  Recipe Formulation (Scott/Colleen Sutherland)
  extract % vs grist weight % (Rick Wood)
  First Wort Hopping (Brad Johnson)
  a second maple data point (Jon Macleod)
  Malt enzyme temp/pH optima (Fred Johnson)
  Who is Jethro? ("Dave Draper")
  Colorado visit (Charles Hudak)
  Condensate (fridge)
  Yeast aeration (George_De_Piro)
  High fermentation temperatures ("David M. Campbell")
  Dehumidifier water; kit comments; sorghum; aerobic respiration and lag time (Samuel Mize)
  15 Gallon Batch's (randy.pressley)
  Schmidling on Schmidling (Jack Schmidling)
  Lemon Zest ("Buchanan, Robert")
  Ideal Yeast Storage temp? ("Mark W. Wilson")


Have you entered a MCAB qualifier yet?


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: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 10:22:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com>
Subject: RE: Counter pressure filling

Alan in Fremont wrote about his frustration using a counter pressure filler:


I have been using a "Fox" style filler for a number of years now. I have
modified the design so that the bottle is held in the filler by a spring and
frees up my hands, but that is the only design difference. My filler uses 3,
1/4 turn ball valves. I have experimented with many, many protocols and
procedures and will attempt to describe the procedure that I have found to
be most successful.

I am able to fill 50 bottles of beer with a loss of less than 4 oz. The beer
is also carbonated to the same degree that it was in the keg. It takes me
approx 1.5 hours to bottle a 5 gallon batch.

For the sake of clarity, let's "label" the valves... 

"A" will designate the BEER IN valve
"B" will designate the GAS IN valve
"C" will designate the PURGE valve.

It DOES help if the beer, (keg) is chilled but there is no need to chill the
filler or the bottles.

Set the pressure at 20 psi. Have the keg at a lower level than the filler.

1. Install the bottle in the filler. Make sure ALL VALVES ARE CLOSED. Open
"B" to pressurize the bottle, then open "C" a little bit to allow gas to
flow thru bottle and purge oxygen for about 15 seconds. Close C and allow
bottle to pressurize. This equalizes the pressure in the bottle and the keg.

2. Close B (bottle and keg are now at equal pressure)

3. Open A

4. Open C a crack. Open the valve slowly and just enough to allow the beer
to start flowing into the bottle. If you see more than 1/8 inch of foam on
the beer rising in the bottle you are filling to fast, if you see no foam at
all, you are filling to slow. When the beer reaches the bottle neck, you
should have 3/8 to 1/2 inch of foam on the beer. The eight inch of foam will
become 3/8ths of an inch as the beer enters the smaller diameter of the
bottle neck.

5. When the foam is just about to touch the bottom of the fillers' stopper,
close C, followed immediately by closing A (SEE NOTE BELOW). Wait 15
seconds, and SLOWLY crack open C just enough to allow pressure to slowly
vent. I use a clear hose to direct any foam or liquid in the purge valve to
a bucket. Watch the little bit of foam that is traveling down that tube. You
will see it slow a bit.....then...

6. Open valve C fully and immediately remove bottle and cap


Note for step 5:
Conventional wisdom and "FOX" instructions run counter to this. Fox says to
close valve A first, then C.  I have found this to be unsatisfactory.
Closing valve C first, followed immediately by A works better for me. I
believe that closing valve C first allows pressures to stabilize INTERNALLY
and results in less foaming when re-opening valve C prior to removing bottle.

Some random notes:

When filling subsequent bottles, you will see the beer drop back towards the
keg in the beer-in line when you open valve B in step 1. This is in part due
to the weight of the beer in the line. This is why I have the keg LOWER than
the filler. This allows you to judge the speed of the beer during filling.
In time you will be able to gauge the correct filling speed by watching the
beer climb the line into the valve.

Filling too slowly often results in a bottle that doesn't stop foaming when
the flow is stopped. I don't know why, but it is often worse than filling
too fast.

Cap your bottles immediately after filling. Unlike bottling primed beer, we
do not need to allow the beer to sit uncapped for some period of time. We
removed most of the oxygen during the purging process.

Do NOT slam valves open or shut. Valves should be opened or closed gently.
For some reason, sudden changes in valve position results in excess foaming
and lack of control.

In every batch of beer, there seems to be at least one bottle that won't go
as planned. If you have a bottle that just seems to keep on foaming when you
open the purge valve just close the valve, allow things to stabilize, open
(slowly) the "A" valve. Then wait a minute or two until the beer in the
bottle clears and GENTLY open the C valve until the beer level is near the
bottom of the stopper. Close both valves again, WAIT a moment then slowly
crack open the C valve again.

At no point in the filling process should valves A and B be open simultaneously.

Removing the bottle from the filler before all pressure is vented through
valve C will result in a wet ceiling and a cold shower.

Alan, you don't live that far away from me. If you are ever in the
Sacramento/Davis area get in touch. I would be happy to demo my filling
system for you.
********************************************************************     	
Robert Arguello <robertac at calweb.com>
CORNY KEGS FOR SALE!  $12.00 each
http://www.calweb.com/~robertac/keg.htm
ProMash Brewers' Software - http://www/calweb.com/~robertac/promash
********************************************************************



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:48:04
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Fermenting in Cornies & counterpressure filling

Stephen posted:

>For an airlock, you can use a small piece of tubing that you force over 
 the hole where the gas poppet and tube would go.   If you even think you may 
 have some blow off, you may not want to use a corny, as the small hole may 
 easily plug and create significant pressure . . .

To increase the min. ID of the blow-off path a bit and hence reduce the
chance of plugging:  Remove the gas disconnect keg fitting and it's short
dip tube and screw on a 3/8" NPT female x 1/2" female tubing copper
adapter.  It's not a tight fit (tapered adapter vs. straight keg threads)
but a gasket cut from 1/16" red rubber between the adapter and keg makes it
gas-tight enough for the (hopefully <g>) low pressure involved.
- ------------------------------

Alan in Fremont posted re a problem with counterpressure bottling half-flat
brew:

>I tried to slightly overcarbonate the beer in the keg for a few days before 
 bottling so that small CO2 losses wouldn't be a problem.... If you use a
higher 
 pressure (like 14 pounds) to fill the bottles, then there is less foam 
 during the filling, but it is very tedious to depressurize the bottle for 
 capping,  without triggering a massive degassing (gushing).

I over-force-carbonate (ales, 20-25 psig at 45 degF) then reduce the
pressure to around 10 psig for filling.  I fill a 12 oz. bottle in ~15
seconds and spend maybe 5 seconds bleeding the pressure from the bottle
after it's been filled and the gas-out and beer-in valves have been shut
(in that order).  I do get a bit of foaming (maybe a Tbs or so) while
bleeding the pressure, but, not enough for me to worry about.

One thing that reduces the foaming problem is to place the keg at a lower
elevation than the bottle you're filling.  This reduces the static pressure
at the bottle or, done another way, allows you to boost the keg pressure.


c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net 
http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:39:42 +0100
From: "Rob Compton" <Compton at btinternet.com>
Subject: Cornish Ale Recipe

Some time back, someone wanted a recipe for a Cornish ale.

Here's one I found.
It's not 100% accurate, but the result is a virtual copy of the real thing.

Cornish Brewery - Churchill Amber Beer

English bottled pale ale. Peppery hop aroma, and pear-drop fruitiness. Malt
in the mouth, rich blackcurrant fruit finish with good hop note, so the
description goes!

OG 1050, 12.3 Plato

For 25Litres :
Pale malt - 3770gm
Amber malt - 510gm
Crystal malt - 470gm
White sucrose - 540gm

Start of boil :
Challenger hops - 25gm
Golding hops - 40gm

Last 15 mins of boil :
Irish Moss - 10gm

Single infusion mash; top working yeast

Mash for 90mins at 66deg C / 151F
Boil for 90 mins
Racking gravity 1008 / 1.9 Plato
Alcohol content - 5.7% by volume / 4.5% by weight
Bitterness - 32EBU
Colour - 35 EBC

Ferment at 18-22C, mature in cask for four weeks  before bottling.
No priming sugar necessary when bottling. Bottle condition for two weeks if
sugar used, six weeks if not used.

Regards.
Rob Compton




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 15:27:40 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: grain bill percentages

"LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net> wrote in part, arguing for stating
recipes as percent by extract:

>Simple recipe for preprohibition pilsner:   80% 6 row, 20% corn.

<big snip of lots of arithmetic to figure out how much grain would give
this as 80/20 by extract>

>This looks to me like 9 lbs 6 row and 2 lbs flaked corn.

It is all a matter of decided upon convention, of course.  Wahl and Henius'
_American Handy Book_ (1902 Ed.) http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/Wahl/
gives recipes by grain bill percent, not extract.  When I and other authors
(Fix, Jankowski and others) who have flogged pre-pro lager (or Classic
American Pilsner, as I prefer) have given recipes for this style, we have
uniformly used this method.

Your recipe would be 18% corn on this basis, which is a bit low for my
taste.  I myself have settled in on ~23% corn (10 lbs. 6-row, 3 lbs. corn
grits for 7.75 gal.)  I find that this gives good corn expression while
leaving plenty of malt.  This percentage is also more historically correct
(see Wahl & Henius).  Actually, 30% was not uncommon a century ago, and
higher percentages became the rule later.

For simplicity's sake, I will stick to percentages by grain bill weight,
not extract.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 14:48:39 -0700
From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net>
Subject: % % % % % % % % % % % %

Since there is still a large disagreement on the percentage thing, I want to
expound one more time on my argument:

First, I don't know what J Busch means by:
>Percentages of grist per malt variety in recipes are always specified
in terms of percent of total weight, not extract.  Go with the pros
on this one and ignore the homebrewer oriented text(s).

My post in 2771 outlines the way I was taught to formulate recipes by
Christopher Bird, who is a faculty member of Siebel Institute. This was
information given to me during my two week Intensive Brewing Course there.
Now, I paid a buttload for this information, and so I will have to defend
Chris' methods as proper, and I will also assert that he is a "pro."
Even those of you who insist that "by weight" instead of "by extract" is the
right way to interpret percentage specifications in a recipe must concede
that at some point you have to look at a grain's contribution to extract. If
you have a recipe that calls for 80% 2 row, 10% crystal, 5% carapils, and 5%
wheat malt, you have to have a starting point. Say you want this to be a 5
gallon recipe, with a SG of 1.048. Ok, how many total pounds of grain do you
need? If you use 30 pt/lb/gal ((and you will be expecting this extract value
to be the same for all 4 grains (which will NOT be the case)), a SG of 1.048
(48) requires (48 / 30 = 1.6) 1.6 pounds per gallon, (1.6 x 5 = 8) or 8
pounds total.
    2 Row:    (.8 x 8 = 6.4) 6.4 pounds
    Crystal:   (.1 x 8 = 0.8) 0.8 pounds, 12.8 ounces
    Carapils:  (.05 x 8 = 0.4) 0.4 pounds, 6.4 ounces
    Wheat:    (.05 x 8 = 0.4) 0.4 pounds, 6.4 ounces

This method does not allow for a "Q" for BME (efficiency), which is very
important in determining extract. (My systems "Q" is 83%, with a single
infusion mash, using domestic malts.) Now I will examine some possible
problems with the above calculations:
Directly from the Briess website (www.briess.com)
>Two Row Malt
>Extract, f.g., d.b. 80.5% minimum
>Extract, coarse/fine diff. 1.8% maximum
But we want coarse grind, which more accurately reflects a typical brewer's
grind:
(80.5-((80.5 X .018)) = 79.051,
>Crystal (80)
>Extract, f.g., d.b. 72.0% minimum
And gives no c/f diff, so I will assume it is also 1.8, so
(72-((72 X .018)) = 70.704
>CaraPils
>Extract, f.g., d.b. 72.0% minimum
And gives no c/f diff, so I will assume it is also 1.8, so
(72-((72 X .018)) = 70.704
>Wheat
>Extract, f.g., d.b. 81% minimum
>Extract, coarse/fine diff. 1.8% maximum
But we want coarse grind, which more accurately reflects a typical brewer's
grind:
(81-(81 X .018)) = 79.542

Malt                                    extract
2 row                                    79.051
Crystal 80                             70.704
CaraPils                                70.704
Wheat                                   79.542

With these greatly varying theoretical yields (100% efficiency) one should
easily see how we cannot be accurate by assigning each grain an identical
contribution.

Here is what you would actually get with the former weights and the latter
extractions:
2 R    (6.4 lb X .79051) = 5.059264 lbs extract
C 80  (0.8 X .70704) =     0.565632 lbs extract
CP    (0.4 X .70704) =     0.282816 lbs extract
W     (0.4 X .79542) =     0.318168 lbs extract

Total extract = 6.22588 lbs extract. Figure 83% efficiency:
                6.22588 X .83 = 5.1674804 lbs

The Siebel Brew Computer (my handy little slide rule tool; $13 from Siebel,
no profitable affiliation) says that for a SG of 1.048 we need 32.1 lbs per
bbl (31 gallon).
(32.1)(5/31) = 5.1774194 lbs.
Wow, look how close that came!!!!!

But now substitute De Wolf Cosyns Pale malt with 76.2 CG:

Pale   (6.4 lb X .762)=   4.8768 lbs extract
C 80  (0.8 X .70704) =     0.565632 lbs extract
CP    (0.4 X .70704) =     0.282816 lbs extract
W     (0.4 X .79542) =     0.318168 lbs extract
Total extract = 6.043416 lbs extract. Figure 83% efficiency:
                6.043416 X .83 = 5.01603528 lbs

or Pils with 75.4 CG

Pale   (6.4 lb X .754)=   4.8256 lbs extract
C 80  (0.8 X .70704) =     0.565632 lbs extract
CP    (0.4 X .70704) =     0.282816 lbs extract
W     (0.4 X .79542) =     0.318168 lbs extract
Total extract = 5.992216 lbs extract. Figure 83% efficiency:
                5.992216 X .83 = 4.97353928 lbs

So what have I shown you? I have demonstrated three DIFFERENT results that
you will get using the same PERCENTAGES BY WEIGHT with three different base
grains. Now I could do the same thing with the specialty malts, but I've got
a life.
Summary rounded to three digits:


Target :    5.177
Test Brew with:

Briess 2 Row                        DW/C Pale                    DW/C Pils

    5.167 lbs extract                5.016 lbs extract            4.974 lbs
extract

Difference:
        1 %                                   3%
4%
Not huge differences, but we still have the problem of different BME for
everyone's systems. If you use the percentage of extract, you will hit your
target EVERY TIME!



Cheers.
Peter Gilbreth
barleywine at prodigy.net
www.barleywine.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 15:10:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: Robert Johnson <robertcj at lamar.ColoState.EDU>
Subject: Lemon Zest

Sorry Tom.  By reading your July 18th post, it seems you have wagered that
the lemon zest is the pulpy part of the lemon, excluding the skin.
Actually, the zest is the skin.  In order to obtain the zest, you could
use a lemon zester, which is a hand-held tool that has an edge with about
4-5 small holes parallel, and right next to, the edge.  You rub this
against the edge of the lemon, and the holes, which have sharp inner
edges, cut into the skin, creating lemon zest shavings.  The flavor is
intense, much more intense than the juice.  I used to work in a steakhouse
here in Fort Collins Colorado that used to use a small amount (from two
limes) of lime zest in 8 gallons of BBQ sauce.  You could really ntoice
the lime!  So, sorry to be the bearer of bad news, unless I misunderstood,
and you actually bet on the skin being the zest.  Cheers.

Bob Johnson
Homebrewer/Graduate Student/Husband/Waiter/1st time poster  



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 17:15:35 -0700
From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net>
Subject: Does Oxygen reduce lag time?

    Scott wrote in 2771:

From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Short Lag Times
>Where did this notion that oxygenating the wort will reduce lag times
>get started?  I've never read anything that would support this idea,
>and in fact if I'm understanding things correctly, adding O2 will
>increase* your lag times, if anything.  Am I missing something here?
>Where the heck is this notion of shorter lag times coming from?

Oxygen is essential for the formation of sterols and unsaturated fatty acids
(lipids.) We can relate to the importance of lipids thusly: consider that a
lipid is a basic building block for a yeast's cell membrane. "Every time the
yeast cell divides, the lipid material is shared between the mother and the
daughter cells. If sufficient (in fact an excess) of lipid materials is not
present (sic) in the mother cell, then cell division cannot occur, and
growth will cease." (Siebel Notebook)

 The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast
growth. If there is not enough oxygen, the yeast will not have enough lipid
material to form new cell membranes. The cell membrane is like the yeasts
skin. Limiting the oxygen, therefore, limits the rate and extent of cell
division. This is what may be responsible for long lag phases in
underoxygenated wort.
 The fermentation stage will only begin when the yeast reach an approximate
concentration of 50,000,000 cells per ml. The longer it takes to reach that
point, then the longer it will be before fermentation begins.
 Give the yeast o2, they use it to convert squalene (a hydrocarbon), into
progesterol, and ergosterol, which are the important lipids. Now that the
yeast have an excess of lipid material, they can happily go about their
business of Reproducing (atta' boy!) until they've got three generations of
themselves. Now that the posse is in town, they can start the party!

Cheers.
Peter Gilbreth
barleywine at prodigy.net
www.barleywine.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 19:52:32 -0700
From: "NFGS" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com>
Subject: First Timer!

I am contemplating my first batch of home made beer.  I have been making
wine for the past past 2 years so I have a little experience at home
brewing.

Now I need for someone to point me in the right direction.  How about where
to find some simple first time instructions.  I have been to a brewing
supply store and just been overwhelmed.  I also got a book from the library
'The new brew it yourself' by L.P. Beadle, but it lacks details.

By the way I prefer dark beers over light.  Anyone care to help?  
Also where is a good source on line for recipes?

Frank




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 12:51:48 -0400
From: "Mike & Lynn Key" <flakeys at ibm.net>
Subject: Lemon Zest

Tom P. wants to know what part of the lemon constitutes the zest. Only the
yellow part is considered the zest. The white pulpy stuff underneath the
zest is bitter and, as far as I know, is never used by cooks (at least I've
never seen Emeril use it on his TV show).
- ----
Cordially, R. Michael Key

"Extremism in the pursuit of prudence is no vice"--Greasy Fingers, Chicago
Gangsters

"I stink, therefore I offend"--Da Card, Greasy Fingers' little brother

Kool Keys' Family Website
http://www.homestead.com/chicagogangsters/Key.html




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:57:38 -0700
From: Tuula Pietila & Timo Jukka <tupietil at cc.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Grist%

Hello everybody!

Firstly, let me say that my view on this subject was already expressed
very well by Al Korzonas and Jim Busch. Still, there are a few comments
I thought I'd make.

The problem seems to be that some people confuse the commonly used terms
"grain bill" and "malt bill" with something that might be termed
"extract bill".

Michael Rose wrote: "Do you calculate the grist by the weight of the
malt or by the points of sugar that each malt contributes?" and in
another post: "I orginally posted this question and shortly after
posting found the answer in Ray Danials book DGB---It's by the extract,
not the weight. Don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote it."

I have the book in front of me so I'll quote. Page 125, under
"Terminology": "Proportion tells you how much of the ingredient is used
in those recipes that include it." and: "Proportion refers to the amount
of a particular grain added to a recipe relative to the total quantity
of grain used. If a recipe has 1 pound of crystal malt and 7 pounds of
pale ale malt, the proportion of crystal malt is 1 pound divided by 8
pounds, or 12.5 percent." Daniels uses the term proportion in charts and
tables, with titles as "Table 14.5 Kolsch Grain Bill in NHC Second Round
Recipes". This is quite clear. By weight, not by extract.

What is not clear in Daniels' book is the way he handles the subject in
Chapter 5: "Calculating the Malt Bill". Firstly, on page 28 he
writes:"...in an authentic Bavarian weizen, wheat makes up about
two-thirds, or 67 percent, of the total malt bill; a pale or Pilsener
malt makes up the remaining one-third." Then he goes on calculating the
malt bill *by extract* and concludes on page 30: 7.39 pounds of wheat
malt and 3.88 pounds of pale malt. The problem is the contradiction to
the earlier 67% and 33% figures: 7.39 lbs and 3.88 lbs are 65.6 % and
34.4 % of the malt bill respectively. Also, this method contradicts with
the way recipes are presented on pages 123-350, which is the majority of
the book. 

Peter Gilbreth described his method of calculating the grain bill by
extract:

"...(unfortunately, Briess will not give the Coarse grind, so we must
extrapolate from FG and FG:CG Diff)((78-(78*0.018)) = 76.6"

You should calculate 78-1.8 = 76.2. If a malt's FG yield is 80.0% and CG
yield is 79.0%, its FG:CG diff is 80%-79% = 1.0 %.

"This means with 100% Brewing Materials Efficiency (BME), we can expect
76.6% of 6 row and 88% of flaked corn by weight to convert into wort
solids."

No it doesn't. What you forgot was the moisture. I don't know the
moisture content of the malt, so I'll assume 4%. If you take 100 grams
of malt, 4 grams of it is water. The dry basis/fine grind percentage of
78% you quoted is a percentage of the remaining 96 grams. So, to get the
coarse grind/as is extract yield from the coarse grind/dry basis yield:

0.762 * 96 = 73.2

This means with 100% Brewing Materials efficiency (BME), we can expect
73.2% of 6 row by weight to convert into wort solids. 

"I feel this is the more accurate way of writing recipes, although it is
slightly more involved."

I don't think this is very accurate. With the above corrections I get
9.4 lbs 6 row compared with your 9 lbs.

"For me, working these formulae is part of the intellectual process."

This is why I posted -- though the method is redundent, your
intellectual process is not.

Here's food for your intellectual process: When calculating your hop
bill I assume you, just to be consistent, calculate the various
bittering hops by alpha-acids. But how do you calculate the finishing
hops? By sesquiterpine or linalool content...? I hope nobody answers...

Timo Jukka in Helsinki, Finland


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 16:44:29 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Arcadia Brewing's Whitsun

"David Blaine" <i.brew2 at usa.net>asks about Arcadia Brewing's (Battle Creek,
Michigan) Whitsun and asks for an extract recipe.

Whitsun is a strong (>6%), spiced summer wheat beer.  I had this two years
ago on draft and found it quite nice with the coriander dominated the spice
profile and blended nicely with the honey.  The noticeable alcohol added to
the overall impression.  Refreshing, but not a summer swiller.  More of a
beer for a midsummer Bacchanalia, I would think.  It is very popular at the
local bar scenes, such as I've seen.  I'm tasting a glass of the bottled
version right now and find it less distinctively spiced and hoppier and
maltier (Munich malt).  Don't know the reason - freshness or different year?

You could, of course, just phone the brewery and ask for guidelines as I
did with Michigan's other great summer wheat ale, Kalamazoo's Solsun.  But
here is some info that should help and that other HBD readers may find
interesting as well.

In John Bice's Michigan Microbrewery and Brewpub Guide
http://www.phd.msu.edu/bice/Beer/brew.html , John scores this a 10 out of
10 and writes  "An excellent and unique wheat beer. It's a beautifully
cloudy golden, with a noticeable smooth honey character and a strong orange
presence. A complex yet refreshing wheat, excellent and very unique! Watch
out though, at over 6% alcohol it packs a heavier punch than most wheat
beers.  Reviewed 7/5/97"

The brewery's description:  "Arcadia Whitsun is a modern interpretation of
a mid-19th century English spring and summer festival ale. It is light
golden copper in color with a rich creamy head, is full bodied and has a
lightly toasted caramel flavor. The addition of orange blossom honey
contributes a uniquely smooth drinkability to this unfiltered wheat ale."

In an interview with John Bice at
http://www.phd.msu.edu/bice/Beer/talkontap3.html, Arcadia head brewer Tim
Suprise says it is "a modern interpretation of an English spring & summer
festival ale. We tried to take what we think are some of the wonderful
qualities of Belgian style white ales, which have that coriander and orange
characteristic to it. We just took that basic parameter and applied it to
English malted barley, English malted wheat, a small percentage (10%) of
Belgian Munich malt as a way to compliment our interpretation of style by
combining the coriander and orange peel and, of course, combined with the
legendary Ringwood yeast and see what you come up with. The added bonus
being the honey. We did a pilot system, we put a half barrel on in our
tavern at 5 o'clock one night, and it was a fairly decent Friday evening
bar business, that half barrel was gone before 7PM."

There is the basic from the horse's mouth.  I'd use maybe 6-7 lbs of a
barley/wheat liquid extract with a mini-mash of perhaps 1-1/2 lbs Munich.
Mahogany Coast's wheat is 60/40 wheat/barley, which is too much wheat, so
if you used one 3.3 lb. can each of wheat and light, that would be about
right.  For simplicity you might just skip the Munich for more extract and
rely on the caramelization of the concentration process for color and
flavor (althought it won't be the same flavor).  An extract version will
probably end up dark anyway.  Aim for 1.050 - 1.055 from the malt.  Hop to
about 30 IBU and use some noble finishing hops.  Add 1/2 oz. Curacao orange
peel 20 minutes before knockout and 1/4 oz. freshly ground coriander at
knockout.  When the wort has cooled to 170F, add enough orange blossom
honey to get you to 1.060.  This will pasteurize the honey but not drive
off too much aroma.  I'll leave the actual arithmetic to you.  You could
culture the yeast in the bottle since it's unfiltered, or use YeastLab A09,
which is Ringwood.  Be sure to aerate the cooled wort well as this yeast
needs lots of O2.

Have fun with this.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 17:56:39 -0500
From: Scott/Colleen Sutherland <cssuther at swbell.net>
Subject: Recipe Formulation

If you have created a knock recipe for Blue Moon of Blue Moon breweing
Company and would e-mail it to me please do.  I would like to try and
make a quality copy, but can not determine the taste components.  Is
that fruit or honney?

Thanks
Scott Sutherland
cssuther at swbell.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:50:16 +1000
From: Rick Wood <thewoods at netpci.com>
Subject: extract % vs grist weight %

Hello All,
I have been very interested in the recent thread regarding measuring
based upon
extract percent vs grist (weight) percent.  I found "LordPeter's" post
to be 
particularly interesting and germane and convincing.  Also, I have been
particularly
surprised by some of the pros responses, for example:

Jim Busch posts:
> Percentages of grist per malt variety in recipes are always specified 
> in terms of percent of total weight, not extract.  Go with the pros 
> on this one and ignore the homebrewer oriented text(s).

It seems that the pros are often trying to recreate their own recipe,
usually with
well known and characterized ingredients.  They are often seeking to be
different
form all other beers.  Also, when a homebrewer is trying to rebrew his
own recipe, using 
similar ingredients as the last brew, then grist weight percentage is
all the information he 
needs.  Indeed, even percentages are not needed if the same volume is to
be brewed.  
Often homebrewers are trying to get a result similar to someone else's
beer and is 
therefore trying to remove as many variables as possible.

It seems clear (to me) that if one is trying to document a recipe for
the masses, who
are likely to have access to somewhat (or very) different ingredients
and different
extraction efficiencies, that weight % of grist is not adequate
documentation and that
recipes based upon extraction might be useful.

Al K, in your post you commented that:
> I *always* have meant percentage by weight and I'm willing to bet that
> no poster to the HBD or author of a brewing book (except for perhaps Ray
> and Lewis) has meant percentage by extract when talking about grists.

I think we can all agree with that statement.  Could you (or anyone
else) comment on the 
additional value of recipe documentation based upon extract % rather
than 
grist weight %.  Do you think that the additional info is useful or is
there so much
variability for other reasons in reproducing beers that the additional
precision
is really not beneficial.  And even if that is so, isn't removing, as
much as possible,
wort variability not useful?

On a personal note, I have really enjoyed the HBD for the past couple of
weeks.  There
seems to be much less B&M - bitching and moaning - than in the past. 
Refreshihng!

Rick Wood
Brewing on Guam


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 19:50:09 -0400
From: Brad Johnson <bjohnson at berkshire.net>
Subject: First Wort Hopping

A query to the collective (as opposed to the queer collective) - in May 
I made my first California Common. Particulars:
	12 gal batch
	11 lbs. US 2 row pale
	7 lbs. Munich
	1.5 lbs. Light German crystal
	2 lbs. Belgian Cara-pils.
	Single infusion mash 152 dF 2.5 hr (Waiting for water to boil)
OG 1.055
	FG 1.020	
	Wyeat 2112 California lager, fermented at 66 dF
	N Brewer 3.85 oz  at  6.9 AAU 60 min, FWH
	N Brewer 2 oz 10 min.

Other than a higher than expected terminal gravity, the beer tasted OK 
on kegging - a little rough but that's what lagering is for, I thought. 
The conditioned, kegged beer sat at cellar temp for 5 weeks waiting for 
the lager fridge to open up. It's been lagering at 37 dF for 3 weeks now 
and the hop flavor is overwhelming, even cloying. It also has a 
pronounced bitterness, perhaps consistent with increased utilization 
with FWH. I taste tested it against the archetype. Anchor Steam tasted 
maltier and had the same flavor quality but much more restrained and 
balanced.

I am interested in other's experiences with FWH - I have read of its use 
primarily with noble type hops, but have seen others refer to using all 
sorts of hop varieties. IMBR? Will extensive lagering tame the wild and 
wooly flavors I find? 

Brad Johnson 
Berkshire BroadArrow Brewery
Bjohnson at berkshire.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 21:34:20 -0400
From: marli at bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod)
Subject: a second maple data point

I too have been intrigued, but unsatisfied, by the idea of a good maple
beer.  Any commercial varieties were much too sweet.  Now, I'm happy.  
I made one this spring that (IMHO too) is great!

4 lbs pale
4 lbs wheat
2 lbs Munich
1/2 lb caravienna
1/2 lb crystal
1/8 lb chocolate

It was a step mash (per Papazian) using maple sap from our trees (just
Silvers, that's fine) instead of water.  In the boil I added a quart of
maple syrup and about 1/4 cup of maple sugar (from the same trees). 
Hops were;

1/2 oz Perle  60 mins
1/4 oz Cascade  30 mins
1/4 oz Cascade  15 mins
1/4 oz Hallertauer dry

The yeast was Wyeast American Ale, finishing dry and clean.  The maple
was very much a "hmm, what's that?" effect, good not distinct, so I
added a cap full of maple extract to the keg.  That's it.  Nice aroma,
no overpowering sweatness.  Yes, I'll repeat it next spring.

Mike



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 22:41:53 -0400
From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Malt enzyme temp/pH optima

How is it that the enzymes in barley malt that are important to the brewer
have their optimal temperatures at levels far above what the plant
normally encounters?  Are these enzymes active at normal ambient
temperatures in the plants?  And what about these enzymes' pH optima?  Are pH
levels of 5.5 found in appropriate subcellular environments within
germinating barley?  If not, are these enzymes active at the ambient pH levels
within the grain?

And/or did God give these plants these enzymes so that man could enjoy
beer (and brewing)?
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:01:48 +4
From: "Dave Draper" <ddraper at utdallas.edu>
Subject: Who is Jethro?

Dear Friends,

All I know is, Jethro Gump is a guy who knows who his mates are.

Cheers, Dave in Dallas
- ---
***************************************************************************
        David S. Draper, Dept. Geosciences, U. Texas at Dallas
            ddraper at utdallas.edu  http://hbd.org/~ddraper
   ...That's right, you're not from Texas, but Texas wants you anyway...


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 19 Jul 1998 23:28:37 -0700
From: Charles Hudak <cwhudak at home.com>
Subject: Colorado visit

Hey gang,

Going out to Colorado next weekend. I'll be there 9 days. I'll be spending
the weekend in Denver, the following week in Colorado Springs and then
another weekend back in Denver. Looking for any "don't miss" spots in
either place. Email me your A-lists.

Thanks

C-


Charles Hudak
cwhudak at home.com
Living large on the left coast.......



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 07:24:45 -0400
From: fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu
Subject: Condensate

Greetings folks,

 In HBD #2772, Steve Johnson asked about using the 
condensate from his dehumidifier to help soften his 
brewing water.

 It is true that the condensate from a dehumidifier is 
relatively pure water. I would caution against using it for 
brewing however. There is likely to be a large amount of 
bacterial contamination. This water has been removed 
from the air in a "dank, musty basement" where mold and 
other nasties are growing. 

 It is common to find mold or algae growing in the 
condensate tank and on various other dehumidifier 
surfaces the water may contact. We used to call this stuff 
"frog snot" when I worked for a mega-supermarket chain. 
It would commonly clog up the refrigerated case drains. 
This is nasty stuff! 
Hope this helps!

Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 08:26:30 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Yeast aeration

     Hi all,
     
     Mike responds to somebody's post about aerating starters after the 
     sugars are depleted.
     
     It is a bad idea to aerate yeast after their food source is depleted.  
     It will cause them to use up their glycogen reserves, leaving you with 
     starved yeast that will perform poorly.  I know that one of our 
     friends down under has reported about a technique that violates this 
     rule, but I believe he will agree that it is not something that the 
     average homebrewer should attempt.
     
     Also, Mike implies that yeast will respire in wort.  Some already 
     readers know that this is not true.  Check the archives for more 
     detail, but suffice it to say that yeast use the oxygen for sterol 
     synthesis, not respiration, in wort.  That doesn't make aeration at 
     pitching any less important, though.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:00:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: "David M. Campbell" <campbell at dickinson.edu>
Subject: High fermentation temperatures


I just brewed a wheat ale on Saturday using Wyeast 3333 (German Wheat).
When I woke up this morning to look at it, bubbles were rising through the
airlock vigorously and the temperature of the liquid topped out at 80
degrees.  Incidentally, when I first added the yeast, it was 74 degrees
and has been slowly rising since.

Is this temperature dangerously high?  I have the fermenter in an air
conditioned room, but this doesn't seem to be helping.  Any advice would
be welcomed!

Dave



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:08:12 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net>
Subject: Dehumidifier water; kit comments; sorghum; aerobic respiration and lag time

Steve Johnson asks:
> Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else has used the
> water from the dehumidifier to soften their mash water?
>... I'm assuming that this water is the result of a condensation
> process, with the final product being pretty similar to steam distilled
> water?

It's condensed from vapor that's drifted around Nashville, picking up who
knows what (sounds like a country hit).  Even if you keep your dehumidifier
REALLY clean, I personally wouldn't trust it to be cleaner than tap water.

 - - - - - - - - - -
Dave Costanza asks for comments on his kit's recipe and directions.  It
looks like a fairly good kit to me.  The time for concern is with the
one-can, nameless-yeast type kits -- and you can still brew good beer with
them, you just need to read HBD for a while first :-)  I found it
interesting that they're saying to boil for only 25 minutes, as you will
get less hops utilization -- but this is a very lightly hopped style.

Dave asks about steeping Crystal malt:
> is this done for flavor? Are you supposed
> to squeeze the liquid out of the boiling bag when you remove it?

You steep grains to get flavor and texture.  Crystal adds sweetness,
maltiness, and mouthfeel.  You want to steep at about 150-170 for 30
minutes (like they said) to get the sugars out of the grain.  You don't
want to cook your grains hotter than 170, this can extract bad flavors.
It's good to squeeze the bag, but do so carefully and close to the water,
as you don't want to splash and get air mixed into your hot wort.  This can
combine with malt chemicals and create problems (search for HSA and
Hot-Side Aeration in the archives).

 - - - - - - - - - -
Vincent Voelz asks about sorghum beer.  I believe you'll have to brew your
own to try it.  Directions, and more information about it, are in the HBD
archives.  Nothing in 1997 or 1998, check earlier.

 - - - - - - - - - -
Michael O. Hanson notes that many books claim that yeast will use oxygen
for "aerobic respiration, which is more efficient than anaerobic
respiration."  The trouble is that they are generally repeating the same
claim from the same person, who wasn't a microbiologist.  There have been
long, interesting discussions on HBD in the past about this, and here's
what they have convinced me of:

 - "Respiration" in this context refers to using oxygen to get energy.

 - With both oxygen and sugar available, beer yeast will ferment for energy,
  rather than respire.  (Other yeasts behave differently.)

 - Beer yeast DO take up the oxygen, but they use it to make sterols, with
  which they build up membranes.

 - The improved cell membranes make for healthier yeast, and also let each
  cell divide more generations in the absence of more oxygen or sterols.

 - So, if you were underpitching, oxygen can reduce lag times by encouraging
  rapid colony growth.

These are stated so loosely that I'm sure some of our better micro-bio
posters will require treatment for migraine.  However, it's a good enough
working understanding to brew with.

Historically, underpitching was causing long lags, and oxygenating helped
reduce the problem.  Pitching enough yeast eliminates the problem entirely.

I certainly agree that anaerobic respiration would be inefficient.

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1998 8:25:50 -0500
From: randy.pressley at SLKP.COM
Subject: 15 Gallon Batch's

When I went to all grain it didn't take long to move from making 5 gallon 
batches to 10 gallon batches because of the increased time investment.  
I'm now 
considering going to a 15 gallon batch, but I'm unsure if my mash vessel 
can 
handle 30lbs of grain.  I use a 15.5 gallon keg has my mash unit.  
Assuming 
this could handle the mash then I would sparge into another 15.5 gallon 
keg as 
well as a 10 gallon pot.  I have two burners so I'm all set as far as the
 boil 
goes.  I'm concerned about the mash because of the weight of the grain 
causing 
a stuck mash, or maybe having a low extraction percentage.  Any thoughts?


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:00:30 -0700
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Schmidling on Schmidling

Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net>

The Holders ask:

""Who or what is Jack Schmidling and why does someone name 
Jack Schmidling post it?

Something seems to have gotten lost in the translation from
English here...

"The guy's batty.  There's even a movie about it.  (He made it.)  
That WAS you, wasn't it Jack?  Is it still available, maybe on 
video by now?

Actually, I made two films on bats "BATS ARE BEAUTIFUL" and the
most recent is available on video  http://ays.net/jsp/videos.html
and in many libraries.  During my other life as a film producer
I made a number of documentaries, the most popular being
"BACKYARD SAFARI" which ended up front page in the National Inquirer
as the "Wacky Weed Man".  Moral of the story, don't ever talk to
a reporter who will not name the actual publicaton that they work for.
I got sucked in by the euphemism "free lance".

js

- -- 
Visit our WEB pages: 
                        Beer Stuff.........  http://ays.net/jsp
                        Astronomy.......  http://user.mc.net/arf
             ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 12:05:28 -0400
From: "Buchanan, Robert" <RBuchanan at ChristianaCare.org>
Subject: Lemon Zest

Tom,
I hope you don't have to put out a couple of sixers but the "zest" is the
yellow part and not the white pulpy stuff underneath.  Try NOT to use the
pulpy stuff, it is VERY bitter and will not add the lemon "zest" you are
trying to achieve.
Bob Buchanan
"Women and cats will do as they please and men
>     and dogs should relax and get used to the idea"
> 


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1998 09:08:56 -0700
From: "Mark W. Wilson" <mwilson at ichips.intel.com>
Subject: Ideal Yeast Storage temp?



I was wondering, what's the ideal temp for storing yeast on slants?  I have
a beer fridge and a food fridge, and ample space in both.....

 -Mark



Return to table of contents

---