---

	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:
  coiled hose; carboy handles; pitch rates; boiled yeast (Samuel Mize)
  Starters (Tony McGlinn)
  The long ferment (Wyeast 2206) (Charley Burns)
  Sweet gale beer (Martin Fredfeldt)
  "Best" Starter Method? ("Frederick J. Wills")
  Old Firestone Keg Parts (John Elsworth)
  sparge water acidification (Jeff Pharr)
  counter-pressure bottle filling & CO2 table (Alan Edwards)
  __publication_only__ ("Matt's Mail")
  RE-stainless steel passivation (tonja and kevin eichelberger)
  Clinit*st (Mark Riley)
  FG & Flavor Profile (Kyle Druey)
  peracetic acid (jeff blake)
  Starters ("LordPeter")
  pH and Temperature; Brix ("LordPeter")
  re: Holes in the fridge (fridge)
  Yeast Data ("Brian Wurst")
  Wyeast 1968 OK for porter/stout? (Dean Fikar)
  Recipe Conversions ("Dave Russell")
  Plato v's Specific Gravity (David Lamotte)
  re: Oak in Brewing (randy.pressley)
  Re:Jack Bashing ("Bob Zamites")
  pH, Coils, Reducing Sugars (AJ)
  Infected Primary ("Kris Jacobs")
  Head (de)formation (Spencer W Thomas)
  Carboy Handles (mwmccaw)


There will be a Sunday Digest this week...

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: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 12:00:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at mail.imagin.net>
Subject: coiled hose; carboy handles; pitch rates; boiled yeast

Greetings to all.

Al writes:
> Laurel writes:
> >In answer to Mark Swenson's question about dispensing from a keg at
> >relatively high pressure - you're right to use a longer dispense line,
> >but you might also try coiling it up several times (say, a 5-6" diameter
> >coil or as small as you can make it without kinking the tubing) to give
> >more back pressure.
> 
> Are you sure about this?  I don't see how coiling would increase back
> pressure...

It seems to me that a tight-enough coil would bend the profile of the
tubing out of round, effectively reducing the diameter of the hose.  An
oval of a given circumference has a smaller area than a circle of that
circumference.  So this may work.

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
> Subject: RE: carboy safety

> folks who deliver 5-gal bottles have long used a "handle" that has a hand-
> grip and a fork that grabs the carboy just below the molded-in bulge in
> the neck.  This indicates that our ubiquitous carboy handle is probably
> quite safe ... I can imagine that
> you'd be able to gorilla up a difficulty, but I think you'd have to work at
> it.

Ook ook ook... I mean, you're generally right.  Do make sure your handle
is the right size for the carboy.  I've read that carboys can slip out of
wrong-size handles.

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
> Subject: artistic pitching rates re-visited

> Samuel Mize wrote:
> >"Dry yeast does contain about 50 times the yeast in a Wyeast pack, but
> >I still don't think it's enough for pitching directly.

No, I didn't.  A prior poster made this confused attribution, and it's
taking on a life of its own.  It's not my words or my belief.

My feeling is: one rehydrated envelope is generally "good enough," e.g.
when I'm just making good beer, not brewing for a competition. Those going
for the Very Best should pitch more yeast.  On the other hand, they're
probably building a starter from a liquid culture.

> When talking about yeast we are using an exponential 
> scale to measure things like cells per mL of wort (as in 1EXX cells per 
> mL).  Only after this basic scientific principle is understood, can one 
> appreciate the absurdity of arguing the merits of an additional 25 percent 
> of starter volume.

What's so absurd about it?  There are millions and skillions of cells, but
each one is tiny and does very, very little.  25% more starter gives you
25% more cells.

One purpose of exponential notation is to simplify comparing and thinking
about such large numbers.  If you're really trying to quantify the factors
that go into your beer's flavor profile, it doesn't make sense to just say
that a number larger than 1000 or so is "a lot."

BTW, 1EXX is an exponential notation, not an exponential scale.

The other posters claim that they have observed better results with larger
starters.  Have you used larger starters and observed no difference, or
only a small one?

It isn't a difference I worry about right now, since I'm wrestling with
other parts of the process at the moment.  But I don't just discount their
experience out of hand.

 - - - - - - - - - -

> From: "Lou Heavner" <lheavner at tcmail.aus.frco.com
> Subject: fermentation questions

> I have heard that ... other yeast nutrients are actually
> spent/dead/destroyed yeast cells.  If that is true, would it be 
> possible to feed the live beer yeast with a packet of my wife's bread 
> yeast that had been previously boiled?

We just discussed this briefly on Mead Lover's Digest.  I got at least
one first-hand report of someone boiling bread yeast for 15 minutes and
still getting apparent fermentation from it.  I theorize that some of
the bread yeast got stuck somewhere, e.g. bubbled up onto the side of
the pot, where it safely rode out the boil.

There's non-viable yeast available at health food stores, but it's been
pointed out to me that they don't guarantee it's dead, they just refuse
to guarantee it will work well for making bread.

 - - - - - - - - - -
Finally, Al said:

>  ... and suppose *other* people started using these spellings.  Next
> thing you know there's a Beer Style Series book on Colsh!

Hmmm, Vorlon beer.

If you don't get it, don't worry about it...

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: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 16:26:11 -0400
From: Tony McGlinn <tmcglinn at nz1.ibm.com>
Subject: Starters

I'm interested in the discussion on starters.

If I take say 7 grams of dry yeast and make a 2 liter starter from it, 
which I
then pitch into my wort and use to ferment my wort, why do I get less 
nasty
by-products of yeast growth, than pitching direct into the wort? I 
would have
thought that the amount of yeast growth would be greater by using a 
starter
first, which has been aerated, and then pitching into an aerated wort, 
and I
get the impression that it is the yeast growth that causes the nasties.
 I
assume nothing is done to the starter to remove nasties that are 
generated
there.

I know I am missing something, because the posts seem to be unaniamous 
on the
subject - can someone turn the light on for me please.

On the subject of geographic diversity of brewing locations which was 
running
some months again, I never saw a greater range south to north of 
brewing than
mine. Invercargill, New Zealand at about 47 deg south and Reykavik, 
Iceland at
about 64 deg North. Currently happily brewing in Helsinki, Finland.

Tony McGlinn
Mobile:(358) 40-538-1175
Internet; tmcglinn at nz1.ibm.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 Aug 98 13:52 PDT
From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: The long ferment (Wyeast 2206)

It finally quit.  To review: 1.075 Bockoberfest at 52F with Wyeast 2206. 
After 2.5 weeks or so it was down to 1.028. I raised it up to 60F and after 
about 4 days it dropped to 1.020 and stopped dead. Its racked to secondary 
and comfortably sitting at 38F (added 1 teaspoon of gelatin boiled in a pint 
of water) to fine it.

A number of others commented on how long 2206 took for them also. Several 
people had primary ferments of around 4 weeks so I guess this one was pretty 
typical. I suppose a bigger starter might have helped - next time.

Charley (cant wait for Boctober) in N. Cal



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 22:54:53 +0200
From: Martin Fredfeldt <viper at diku.dk>
Subject: Sweet gale beer

Dear All

I want to try to make a beer with sweet gale. I have read somewhere that
sweet gale used to be a poor mans substitute for hops, but a friend of
mine makes snaps with sweet gale and i tastes very good. I have also
tasted a commercial beer flavored with sweet gale, but the sweet gale
taste was very (to) discrete.
I have a supply of sweet gale and the basic question is how to use it.
My idea is to make a pilsner style beer and use the sweet gale instead
of the flavoring hops, that is adding them in the last 10 minutes of the
boil or so. I have _no_ idea about how much sweet gale to use, but the
leafs smell very potent - much more than the hops I use (we only have
one kind, totally unspecified commercially available here in Denmark) so
I thinking about using about half as much sweet gale as hops. I have
considered to other options namely to make an essence and adding it just

before bottling or dry "hopping" the beer with sweet gale. I'm new to
home brewing (this will be batch #8) so any experience or advice would
be greatly appreciated.

Thanks - Martin





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:17:43 -0400
From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills at compuserve.com>
Subject: "Best" Starter Method?

In order not to be confused with the "Better Starter Method Thread" I 
have
changed the subject of this post accordingly.<g>  I'm going to get a bit
risqu here and propose that the Best Starter method is *No* starter!

Yes, that's right, I've had the best feremntation results in beers in 
which
I used no starter at all.  My results have shown complete fermentations, 
no
off flavor development and lag times as short as 2 hours.  There is also 
no
chance of diluting or altering the end beer with nasty spent starter 
media
since ther is none.

Of course, I'm goofing on you a bit since I'm talking about pitching on 
the
harvested yeast cake from the primary of a previous fermented batch.  
Some
might say that this is essentially a 5 gallon starter after having 
removed
the fluid.

A great way to prove to yourself the merits of repitching yeast is to 
make
back to back identical recipes.  In the first, pitch your "normal" 
starter.
 In the second, pitch right on top of the yeast cake.  Of course it might

be prudent to give a little taste of that first brew during transfer to 
be
sure you want to subject the second one to the fermenter.  


I've done this and the results were remarkable.  I used W1056 and the
repitched beer began actively fermenting in about 3 hours and produced an

excellent *clean* beer in short order.  The first batch had detectably
higher levels of fruitiness and never fermnented out as far.  It was a 
darn
good beer too, just differrent

I have been warned by others about yeast mutation and advised that the
yeast should be washed or acid washed between uses, but I have not had 
any
problems repitching 5 or 6 times succesively with no intervention.  After

that I usually get bored with that strain anyway.

For actual conventional starters, I usually mix the appropriate amount of

DME and water in a mason jar and nuke it in the microwave for about 20-25

minutes.  Wicked easy and everything that touches the wort is well
sanitized (maybe even sterilized for a short while).  Microwave starters
are so easy it makes me woinder why anyone would bother canning wort.

YMMV,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 17:31:35 +0000
From: John Elsworth <jdelsworth at snet.net>
Subject: Old Firestone Keg Parts

I posted a question a week or so ago about parts for old Firestone
Challenger soda kegs (racetrack style lid, not Firestone Challenger V or
VI). Specifically, I was interested in the nylon insert that lies
beneath the poppet in each stem.  
I received several comments and suggestions (thanks to Al Korzonas,
Herbert Bresler, John Wilkinson, Stacy Groene).  The bottom line seems
to be that the white nylon inserts that are generally available do not
fit this type of Firestone keg (they are too tall); however, they can be
sanded or filed down successfully. The whole posts including the insert
are apparently available (eg.South Bay Homebrew Supply, no affliation
etc), although I haven't actually got one and tried it on my keg.
Other parts for this type of keg are getting hard to locate, but the fat
O-ring that goes on the beer dip tube is also available.

John Elsworth

"One day you'll realize there's more to life than culture" - Monty
Python


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 17:42:46 -0400
From: Jeff Pharr <pharr at metsci.com>
Subject: sparge water acidification

A question or two on the process of acidifying the sparge water:

Most sources I have read suggest acidifying the sparge water to match
the mash, or at least bringing it down to the pH 5.5 to 6.5 range.  None
however, give suggestions on how to achieve these pH values.  I have had
no trouble adjusting my mash pH up or down using small additions of
calcium carbonate or gypsum.  It has been my understanding that one
should avoid using large amounts of these additive (large being over two
teaspoons per 5 gal), although I must admit that I am not sure what ill
effects emerge if these limits are exceeded.  

Based on these instructions and in the absence of any better
suggestions, I have been trying to use gypsum additions to adjust the pH
of the sparge water downward. But even the addition of massive amounts
(massive being 12 teaspoons in 12 gallons of sparge water), the pH
remains pegged above the upper limits of my pH test strips (pH 7.0).  I
have had similar experiences now with three different water sources and
have decided that there must be another way to drop the pH.

So here are the questions:

What is everyone else doing to bring down the pH?
Should I just start buying gypsum in 50lb sacks?
What are the problems associated with excessive gypsum usage in the
mash?
What are the problems with using sparge water with a pH up around 7.5?

I have not yet requested an analysis of my local municipal water source
but it seems neither extremely hard or soft.

- --Jeff



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 15:57:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com>
Subject: counter-pressure bottle filling & CO2 table

Al K responds to Robert:
> The rest of Robert's post is excellent and very accurate, however, I must
> disagree with two points here.  One is that chilling the beer (keg) is
> not just "helpful" but *ESSENTIAL*.  You simply cannot do this at 65F
> no matter how careful you are.  Remember my previous post where I mentioned
> that the colder the beer is the more the CO2 tends to stay in solution?
> That's exactly what is in effect here.  In my opinion, 45F (7C) is pretty
> much the highest workable temperature and 35F (2C) is not too cold.

First of all, thanks to everyone who responded to my question a week or
so back on why my first attempt at counter-pressure bottle filling was
a "no-win" as far as choice of pressure.  The consensus: temperature!
I don't know why I didn't think of it, but cooling the beer to 45F was
simply not cold enough, as Al points out above.

> Secondly, 20 psi may work great for Robert, but it could be terrible for
> someone else.  At 35F, 20 psi will make gushers.  Guaranteed!  You need
> to get yourself a table of pressures vs. volumes of CO2 for various
> temperatures and get the beer to contain the proper number of volumes
> for that temperature.  You'll be surprised at how few psi you need to get
> 2.25 volumes at 35F.
A: 7.22 PSI

This reminds me that I derived a formula and generated CO2 tables several
years ago posted them to the HBD.  Maybe after a few years, it's time to
post the tables and formula again:

In HBD #1179(!), I wrote:
| Date: Thu, 8 Jul 93 09:59:50 PDT
| Subject: A Handy Table for Keg Pressure
| 
| Hello fellow brewmeisters,
| 
| While we're on the subject of kegging and pressure, I've come up with a
| formula and a table for determining what pressure to apply to achieve a
| certain carbonation level.  I believe that this table is more useful
| compared to the other table that has appeared on the HBD and elsewhere.
[referring to the table with the diagonal data that goes on and on]
| It's smaller (fits easily in an 80 column window), but contains all the
| needed information in a more obvious arrangement.  (It makes more sense
| to me to ask "what pressure do I need" rather than "what do I get if I
| use this pressure").  Besides, it can do any temperature.
| . . .
| Pressure = F(Temperature, Volume)
|  
| P = -16.6999 - 0.0101059 T + 0.00116512 T^2
|     + 0.173354 T V + 4.24267 V - 0.0684226 V^2

Fellow Unix geeks:  If you want the Perl code to generate tables with
various increments or units (it does KiloPascals!), drop me a line.
Here's some output:

PRESSURE (PSI) REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION
 
      Volumes of CO2 desired
      2.0  2.2  2.4  2.6  2.8  3.0
Temp
32F   3.5  5.4  7.3  9.2 11.0 12.9
34F   4.3  6.3  8.2 10.2 12.1 14.1
36F   5.1  7.2  9.2 11.2 13.3 15.3
38F   6.0  8.1 10.2 12.3 14.4 16.5
40F   6.8  9.0 11.2 13.4 15.5 17.7
42F   7.7 10.0 12.2 14.4 16.7 18.9
44F   8.6 10.9 13.2 15.5 17.8 20.1
46F   9.5 11.8 14.2 16.6 19.0 21.3
48F  10.4 12.8 15.3 17.7 20.1 22.6
50F  11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8
52F  12.2 14.8 17.3 19.9 22.5 25.1
54F  13.1 15.7 18.4 21.1 23.7 26.3
56F  14.0 16.7 19.5 22.2 24.9 27.6
58F  15.0 17.8 20.6 23.3 26.1 28.9
60F  15.9 18.8 21.6 24.5 27.4 30.2
62F  16.9 19.8 22.7 25.7 28.6 31.5
64F  17.8 20.8 23.8 26.8 29.8 32.8
66F  18.8 21.9 25.0 28.0 31.1 34.1
68F  19.8 22.9 26.1 29.2 32.4 35.5
70F  20.8 24.0 27.2 30.4 33.6 36.8
 
      Volumes of CO2 desired
      2.0  2.2  2.4  2.6  2.8  3.0
Temp
00C   3.5  5.4  7.3  9.2 11.0 12.9
01C   4.2  6.2  8.1 10.1 12.0 14.0
02C   5.0  7.0  9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0
03C   5.7  7.8  9.9 12.0 14.0 16.1
04C   6.5  8.6 10.8 12.9 15.1 17.2
05C   7.3  9.5 11.7 13.9 16.1 18.3
06C   8.1 10.3 12.6 14.9 17.1 19.4
07C   8.8 11.2 13.5 15.8 18.2 20.5
08C   9.6 12.0 14.4 16.8 19.2 21.6
09C  10.4 12.9 15.4 17.8 20.3 22.7
10C  11.3 13.8 16.3 18.8 21.3 23.8
11C  12.1 14.7 17.2 19.8 22.4 25.0
12C  12.9 15.6 18.2 20.8 23.5 26.1
13C  13.7 16.4 19.2 21.9 24.5 27.2
14C  14.6 17.4 20.1 22.9 25.6 28.4
15C  15.4 18.3 21.1 23.9 26.7 29.6
16C  16.3 19.2 22.1 25.0 27.8 30.7
17C  17.1 20.1 23.1 26.0 29.0 31.9
18C  18.0 21.0 24.1 27.1 30.1 33.1
19C  18.9 22.0 25.1 28.1 31.2 34.3
20C  19.8 22.9 26.1 29.2 32.4 35.5


If you are crammed for space, use this one (you don't really need that
extra significant digit, do you?) and delete the lines or columns that
you will "never use":

PRESSURE (PSI) REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION
 
     Volumes of CO2 desired
     2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
Temp
32F    3   5   7   9  11  13
34F    4   6   8  10  12  14
36F    5   7   9  11  13  15
38F    6   8  10  12  14  16
40F    7   9  11  13  16  18
42F    8  10  12  14  17  19
44F    9  11  13  16  18  20
46F    9  12  14  17  19  21
48F   10  13  15  18  20  23
50F   11  14  16  19  21  24
52F   12  15  17  20  23  25
54F   13  16  18  21  24  26
56F   14  17  19  22  25  28
58F   15  18  21  23  26  29
60F   16  19  22  24  27  30
62F   17  20  23  26  29  32
64F   18  21  24  27  30  33
66F   19  22  25  28  31  34
68F   20  23  26  29  32  35
70F   21  24  27  30  34  37

And, as a bonus for those of you across the pond:
(You thought I was kidding ;-)

PRESSURE (KPa) REQUIRED FOR DESIRED CARBONATION
 
      Volumes of CO2 desired
      2.0  2.2  2.4  2.6  2.8  3.0
Temp
00C    24   37   50   63   76   89
01C    29   43   56   70   83   96
02C    34   48   62   76   90  104
03C    40   54   68   83   97  111
04C    45   60   74   89  104  119
05C    50   65   81   96  111  126
06C    56   71   87  102  118  134
07C    61   77   93  109  125  141
08C    66   83  100  116  132  149
09C    72   89  106  123  140  157
10C    78   95  112  130  147  164
11C    83  101  119  137  154  172
12C    89  107  125  144  162  180
13C    95  113  132  151  169  188
14C   101  120  139  158  177  196
15C   106  126  145  165  184  204
16C   112  132  152  172  192  212
17C   118  139  159  179  200  220
18C   124  145  166  187  207  228
19C   130  152  173  194  215  236
20C   136  158  180  202  223  245


REGURGITATED REFERENCE:
 
Volumes of CO2:
British style beers    = 2.00 - 2.40
Most other beers       = 2.40 - 2.85
High-carbonation beers = 2.85 - 2.95

Later,
 -Alan


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 21:04:02 -0500
From: "Matt's Mail" <stankboy at mtco.com>
Subject: __publication_only__

__publication_only__

Subject:  Stuck fermentation of grape wine

I'm hoping I can benefit from some of your experience(s).  I know there's
not much talk about wines on this posting, but I'll bet someone can draw
from their knowledge and help me.  About two months ago, I started about
50-gal. of grape wine and added sugar, yeast, and yeast nutrient as I've
done so many times before but this time, it only fermented about two weeks
and then stopped cold.

I've checked the acidity level, and it was a little high, but not much, so
I brought it down to acceptable levels according to a wine-making book I
bought by adding water, but nothing happened.  I know the temperature is
fine because I've got another batch that fermented out perfectly right next
to it, plus I've measured it at about 73F.  At this point, the stuck batch
is WAY too sweet to just give up, so I'm wondering if anyone knows anything
else I might try before scrapping the batch.  It's been sitting now for
about 6 weeks without doing a thing.  Appreciate any ideas you might have.
Thanks...

Matt Garrett
Peoria, IL



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1998 21:18:36 -0500
From: tonja and kevin eichelberger <tkeich at falcon.cc.ukans.edu>
Subject: RE-stainless steel passivation

For more information on SS passivation , check out the article on this
subject in the July/August issue of Brewing Techniques, 1998. Hope this helps!

Respectfully,

Kevin Eichelberger
Lawrence, Ks



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1998 21:56:40 -0700
From: Mark Riley <mriley at netcom.com>
Subject: Clinit*st

The horse is now very, very dead.  ;-0

Mark Riley
The Beer Recipator - http://hbd.org/recipator



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 10:30:10 -0700
From: Kyle Druey <druey at ibm.net>
Subject: FG & Flavor Profile

My friend Dave Burley comments on FGs:

>Actually you don't care what the FG is supposed to be, but as AlK
>points out to know "Is the beer done?"

Ah, but I disagree.  I think we do care what the FG is.  Dr. George in
one of his books discusses the affects of FG and how increasing the FG
will increase the sweetness of the finished beer.  I think it went
something like this:

(this is from GeorgeF)
dry - less than 1.010
semi-smeet   - 1.010 to 1.014

(this is my extrapolation)
sweet - 1.015 to 1.020
very sweet - greater than 1.020

Of course, this all depends on the OG of the beer, etc. etc.  But I
think you get the general idea (even Fouch could get this) to help with
beer flavor profile design.

How 'bout Siebel using Clinitest as a quick and dirty way to determine
if fermentation is finished!  What do ya say about this Al? :)

Kyle
Bakersfield, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 03 Aug 1998 23:11:24 -0700
From: jeff blake <jblake11 at uniserve.com>
Subject: peracetic acid

    The combination of peracetic acid with any normal strength
of chlorine base sanitizer will release a violent-health threatening
off gassing of chlorine. These are products that are ment to be used
with a long water rinse between.I know P3 is not a common home
brew sanitizer but please do NOT mix it with any chlorine base
sanitizers, or washes.A sudden large lungful of chlorine gas can spoil
your whole weekend-or end your life!



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:34:47 -0700
From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net>
Subject: Starters

Alan wrote:

"I suppose one possible compromise would be to step up the starter to 2L
and then only use the percipitated yeast for pitching.  But that has been
debated also:  do I use the yeast (which is already tired and sitting on
the couch) or use the young active yeast that is in solution?"

I asked Lyn Kruger "Should I use the sediment from a primary fermenter or
the sediment from a secondary fermenter as pitch for my next batch." Her
response was that over time, ( and I think she meant several pitchings) I
would effectively be selecting for non flocculent yeast.

And Steve wrote:
"Maybe you 'lazy types' should try a commecial sized starter for a
change."

It seems to me that most commercial batches are started from slurry, not
starters. In the case that a commercial brewery needs to start anew with
their yeast, they are not likely to build up from a smack pack, but rather
they will purchase a large amount of centrifuged cells. And when they do
need to propogate, they will likely have off flavors in the first few
batches that may need to be blended with subsequent brews.
How's that for lazy?


And Mort was right when he suggested that Lyn Krugers quote
>Governing principal in fermentation:
>The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast
>growth."
was intended for a normal pitching rate of 10 to 20 M/ml cells. When I asked
her about whether to use the primary or secondary sediments for subsequent
pitchings I had to explain that I was looking at 5 to 15 gallon batch sizes.
But do you mean that we can simply pitch 7 grams of dried yeast per gallon
and forget aeration? Is yeast growth not important?

This is just my opinion. Actual results may vary.

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






Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 02:23:21 -0700
From: "LordPeter" <BARLEYWINE at prodigy.net>
Subject: pH and Temperature; Brix

Hey Al,

Concerning pH you said:
"5.8 at 170F (which would be between
5.9 and 6.1 after cooling to 68F) or 5.8 at 68F?"

I have one of those  handheld pH meter pens...I am pretty sure (*and I mean
I am pretty sure I remember it right, not that I am pretty sure that I can
read my meter) that when I pull a sample of wort and check it at 150F(or so)
that it reads higher than
when I cool the same sample. I'm writing this out of memory; I would
guesstimate that a sample read at 150 says 5.6 and the same sample at 80F
says 5.4.
Are you sure you have this right?


About Alexander's malt, I am confused. I took the brix rating straight from
correspondence with the California Concentrate Company. I think my math
checks out.
Here's Al's reference:
"
Me: So for an 80 brix syrup, use 36.54 pts/lb/gal and you will be very
close.
>ie: one can of Alex Pale at 4 lbs and 36.54 pts/lb/gal in 5 gallons total
>volume is (4)(36.54)/ 5 = 29.232 SG.
>Two cans becomes (8)(36.54) / 5 = 58.464.

AlK:    All was well until near the end.  Peter assumed 36.54 pts/lb/gal for
the Alexanders Pale Extract.  As it turns out, Alexanders is the one
extract that is *considerably* lower pts/lb/gal than all the others.
Most dry malt extracts are 45 pts/lb/gal and most syrups are between
35 and 37 pts/lb/gal.  Alexanders is only 33 pts/lb/gal!  It is less
dense than other extracts because it is concentrated less.  Subsequently,
it is also one of the palest extracts and has less caramel flavour than
most (which may be good or bad, depending on the style, but it's far
easier to *add* caramel flavour than to subtract it!).
"

I don't think I assumed 36.54 pt/lb/gal for Alexander's Pale. I think I
showed it.
CCC says their extract is 80 brix. What am I missing?
I agree with Al's statement about it being easier to add caramel flavor than
to subtract it. I've found it best to use the palest extract you can find
and add color and flavor with specialty grains.

You also nabbed me on my tannin to sherry phenomenon. Sheepishly I say: I
think I was relating to the role of tannins in the development of a wine
over time. I am not sure why I made the jump from there to oxidation flavors
in beer. Could have been the Arkansas Cabernet (don't laugh, it kicks Butt),
or it may have been the Missouri BarleyWine (I know you're not laughing
now), then again, that MacDonald County stuff is fairly funky too.  MyBad.

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









Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 07:10:17 -0400
From: fridge at Imbecile.kzoo.edu
Subject: re: Holes in the fridge

Greetings folks,

 In HBD#2787, Bob Johnson asked for help in finding a 
safe place to put taps on his freezer-on-top Frigidaire.

 The refrigerant lines in most fridges of this type run from 
the compressor underneath, inside the back, and to an 
evaporator in the back wall of the cabinet, or in the freezer 
compartment. 

 The safest place to drill will be in the door, because 
unless you have a heated butter keeper there, there isn't 
likely to be any electrical wiring in the area. The second 
safest location is through either side wall, midway between 
the front and back of the fridge. The fridge's wiring 
harness may be lurking near the corners, and door 
heaters often run just underneath the door gaskets.

 Having said the above, please understand that any drilling 
carries some risk of damaging either the refrigerant 
tubing, or electrical wiring. Make sure the unit is 
unplugged, and go slowly.
Hope this helps!

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 07:03:48 -0500
From: "Brian Wurst" <brian at mail.netwave.net>
Subject: Yeast Data

HBD #2786 had a number of posts with comments about yeast pitching rates.
For a data point, today I hydrated a 5 gm. package of Danstar Nottingham
dry ale yeast (lot 10828609, exp 11/00).  It was refrigerated at the store
upon receipt from the distributor and remained refrigerated until I opened
it.

Cell Count: 7E10 cells
Viability (via Methylene Blue staining):  >99%

With a nominal pitching rate (for ales) of 1E06 cells per ml. per Degree
Plato OG, 5 gallons (19 liters) of a 12P (1.048) wort would require:
1.2E07 cells/ml. X 1.9E4 ml. =   2.3E11 cells, or about 3 packages.
(Sorry, Paul, I don't have a package of Wyeast to do a cell count of it.)

I would wager that most homebrewers underpitch almost every time they
brew...Could this be the origins of THT (That Homebrew Taste)?

Happy Trails!
Brian Wurst   brian at netwave.net     Lombard, Illinois
"Nature has formed you, desire has trained you, fortune has preserved you
for this insanity." -Cicero






Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 07:12:18 -0500
From: Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net>
Subject: Wyeast 1968 OK for porter/stout?

I've not yet brewed a porter or stout and plan to brew both soon.  I'd
like to brew close to style guidelines, at least for my first attempt at
both styles.  I have slurry from a batch of ESB fermented with Wyeast
1968 that I'd like to be able to use, if appropriate.  The limited
research I've done so far seems to indicate that 1968 probably would be
a good choice for a sweet stout but not a dry stout since you'd probably
more attenuation than the 67-71% that Wyeast lists for this strain.

Does the above analysis sound reasonable?  Can 1968 be reasonably used
for imperial or foreign stouts?  What about porters?  Seems like a more
attenuative strain might be appropriate for a porter but the nice
full-bodied maltiness you get from 1968 might make for a nice brew.  If
it's appropriate for a porter then would it be better for a robust or
brown porter?

Thanks!

Dean Fikar - Ft. Worth, TX



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 08:11:38 -0400
From: "Dave Russell" <drussel3 at ford.com>
Subject: Recipe Conversions

The first conversion is a recipe I am interested in calls for 3oz. Raspberry
Extract.  If I was to substitute it for real raspberries, how much should I
use?

Another recipe I have worked with called for a 3.3# can of John Bull Light,
Hopped LME.  The label listed bitterness as 30 +/- 3.  I would like to have
more control over this recipe the next time I make it, so I would like to go
with an unhopped extract and add my own bittering hops.  What type of hop
variety should I use to match the canned extract, and what quantity of whole
hops for a 60 minute boil?  (It made a wonderful tasting Cream Ale)


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 22:18:24 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Plato v's Specific Gravity

It seems that one of the few remaining differentiators between those
who do it for fun, and those that do for money (Professional versus
Amateur BREWERS that is), is the unit of measure used for wort gravity
measurement.

I believe that the Specific Gravity that we measure with our
hydrometers represents the ratio of the weight of the solution under
test to the weight of the same volume of pure water.  

On the other hand degree Plato is a measure of the amount of extract
present as a percentage of the weight of the solution.

Personally I find SG very easy to work with, and it has the added
advantage that a ale wort with an OG of 1.048 tends to make a beer
with a final ABV of about 5%, 1.060 = 6% etc.  Also, considering that
you cannot measure Plato directly (need to measure SG and convert to
Plato via tables/formula), what is it that makes Plato more
usefull/meaningfull than raw SG to the professional brewers.

Should I start to divide any SG readings by 4 and talk exclusively in
Plato ?

Thanks for killing the curiosity in this cat.

David Lamotte
Brewing down under in Newcastle NSW Australia


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 8:37:11 -0500
From: randy.pressley at SLKP.COM
Subject: re: Oak in Brewing

>From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
>Subject: Use of OAK in brewing

>Hi All, I have lately become enamored of a certain red wine that,
>according to my wine-knowledgeable friends, has a strong oak character.
>This of course immediately led me to ponder what oak could do for my beer.
>I've seen oak chips for sale but haven't the foggiest idea how best to use
>them so am asking the collective for advice and any experiences they'd
>care  to relate concerning the use of oak in beer

>Any commercial examples of oaked beers worth seeking out?

I brewed a batch of India Pale Ale and added a handful of oak chips I 
purchased 
at the Jack Daniels Brewery.  I soaked them in some Gentleman Jack for 
about a 
week before pitching.  I wanted to give the beer a bourbon barrel taste.
  I 
tossed them directly into the secondary for about 10 days wearing only 
their 
birthday suit.  When I bottled I put a cheese cloth on the end of the 
racking 
cane.  Well it worked!  The oak taste and the bourbon taste was very 
apparent.  
I loved it, most others either loved it or hated it.  When I do it again 
I'll 
add a half handful of chips and go easier on the bourbon.  I'll also 
leave it 
in the secondary for only about 5 days.  If you decide not to add the 
bourbon 
you can just boil the chips in water before pitching.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 06:47:55 -0600
From: "Bob Zamites" <bamzam at trail.com>
Subject: Re:Jack Bashing

Okay, okay
    I'm just a little oversensitive about name-calling. In my several years
of reading the HBD, I suppose I got tired of everyone (well, many folks)
giving JS a hard time about his "momilies", stovetop/overnight cooling
techniques, blah, blah, woof, woof.
    Sam, I owe you an apology for being so vicious in my response, and to
the other posters whose bandwidth ( and toes) I stepped on.
    Regarding other matters, I'm looking for a good supplier for sacks of
whole or pre-crushed malt, mail-order, since our local HB shop closed, and
the ones in Albuquerque IMO aren't quite up to snuff. I want to get 2-row
and crystal in large quantities, and the nearby shops will only sell you
specialty grains by the pound, and at a huge (HUGE) markup.
Private E-mail okay. P.S. We love you, Jack !
Bob Zamites (First Fire Brewing Co.) Santa Fe, NM



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:15:14 -0400
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: pH, Coils, Reducing Sugars

The following is not a lecture on Nernst Equation. There has been some
recent discussion again on the subject of where the brewer should
measure pH. The consensus at Siebel has been reported that it is done on
cooled wort. BHS&Y support this. Individual breweries do what they do
and there are definite advantages to measuring cooled wort. You can't
melt the reference in cooled wort. You won't contaminate the wort with
fill solution if a sample is removed for pH determination. Low
temperature is less stressful on electrodes (even those whose references
don't melt). It's easier to bring a sample out of a mash tun than to get
a pH meter and ATC probe in. In the old days removing a sample was a
mater of practicality. The meter was an elaborate affair - not something
that slipped into the pocket of the lab coat. A sample would have had to
be carried to the laboratory for analysis and would have cooled during
transport . That a shift in pH occurs was well known. DeClerk tabulates
the amount of shift as a function of temperature and, though he says
"When the pH is measured in connection with mashing, it always refers to
the cooled wort." (Vol I p 266) on the next page he says "... the pH
should be measured at the temperature of the reaction." The reason for
this is that the shift in pH, which is real and is related to the fact
that the equilibrium constants for the components of the grist/water
buffer system are functions of not only temperature (i.e. Kevin
Eichelberger's explanation is essentially correct) but composition. Thus
the pH shift depends on temperature shift and on what is being brewed
with what raw materials. If a measurement is taken at room temperature
it should be corrected to mash temperature. In a commercial operation
where the same beer or handful of beers is brewed day after day the
correction can be determined once (by measuring hot and cooled mash),
checked periodically and applied on a daily basis.

The DeClerk publishes a shift of about 0.3 pH units. In my own brewing I
see a shift of about half that. I solicited measurement data from other
brewers and got data from only one respondent who actually measured a
mash (and got similar results) and from another who did measurements
with malt samples on the bench (and got about 0.3).

Thus the application of the correction is "iffy" if you are interested
in knowing pH accurately and we could argue for ever about how accurate
a measurement is needed.

The homebrewer has several options. He can easily access the hot mash
with a handheld meter. Equipped with a proper electrode he can make an
accurate reading but a proper electrode is more expensive than many
homebrewers wish to spend for this function. Therefore, many homebrewers
use cooled mash even though using a pH meter and naturally those that
use pH strips must do that as well.

The real question here relates to whether the 5.2 - 5.4 "optimum" range
which is often cited is at room or mash temperature. BHS&Y (Vol I, p279)
make it clear that it is at mash temperature (they are describing an
infusion mash). "Thus the pH in the cooled wort will be 5.5 - 5.8."
indicating a shift of 0.2 - 0.3.

To return to Kevin Eichelberger's question as to whether the actual pH
changes or just the meter reading the answer is "both" and it is
important to understand this. The change in equilbriun constants
mentioned above is responsible for the former and the unmentionable
equation explains the latter.

With respect to Fred Jonson's question: it is my impression that enzyme
optimum operating points are specified at their optimum operating points
i.e. the optimum temperature is specified at the optimum pH and the
optimum pH at the optimum temperature. I hope one of the pro's will
comment on this.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jeff McNally explains how coiling a tube increases friction. I was sure
it was Coriolis! (this is humor - at least to me).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dave Burley should be pleased to note that the ASBC Methods of analysis
has not 1 but 2 methods for determing reducing sugars.




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:11:15 -0400
From: "Kris Jacobs" <jtsnake at net-link.net>
Subject: Infected Primary

Well, the IPA(Dave's Sister Star -- boohoo, *sob*) that I brewed on 
the 25th of July seems to be infected for sure.  I was suspicious of 
it for the last couple days -- looking at the carboy, many particles 
seemed "suspended" in the wort, almost as if it was a big jug of 
some sort of gel.
I used ye ole sanitized turkey baster last nite to take a sample for 
hydrometer reading, and I didn't need more than one baster-full to 
realize.  The beer had taken on a strange viscosity -- slimy, snotty, 
kinda raw egg-whitish thick.  Instead of dripping off the end of the 
baster, it ran in "lines".  Just like a line of mucous from a child's 
nose.  ;)
This is the second time this has happened in two months- but not 
with consecutive batches.  I think I am definitely missing something 
sanitation-wise here once in a while...  Do these symptoms indicate 
any particular sort of infection?

I intend to throw the whole batch out, I just have to bring myself to 
do it sometime.  Probably Saturday morning, when I will whip up a 
quick and dirty low-gravity pale ale.  I am getting thirsty!!!

- --Kris Jacobs
Galesburg, MI


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 04 Aug 1998 09:58:29 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Head (de)formation


This spring I made an oatmeal stout.  When it was young, it had a bit
of residual sweetness, a creamy mouthfeel, and a wonderfully dense,
long-lasting head.

Last night I opened one of the last few bottles.  It almost gushed
(granted it was at room temperature).  It made a very coarse head with
lots of big bubbles, which fell quickly.  The flavor was extremely
dry, and the mouthfeel was thin, with non of the creaminess it used to
have.

Clearly some fermentative activity had continued in the bottle.  There
was no really detectable off flavor or aroma, so I don't think it was
bacterial.  But whatever it was had obviously broken down and consumed
at least some of the compounds that were making the good head and
creamy mouthfeel.  

So what happened?  Did continued fermentation (slowly) break down
dextrins, killing the head?  Did the oatmeal contribute some mystery
compounds (b-glucans?) that was degraded in the bottle?  Or was it
something else.

Speculation is invited.

=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI        (spencer at umich.edu)


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1998 09:05:28 -0500 (CDT)
From: mwmccaw at ix.netcom.com
Subject: Carboy Handles

I have to chime in with my $0.02 worth.
I use carboy handles, but have learned the hard way
to NEVER trust them with a FULL carboy.
I carry empty carboys all the time with the handles,
and used to carry full ones that way on the advice of
my homebrew shop owner.  One fine brewday, a full
carboy of freshly pitched wort was on its way to the
fermenting room when it slipped out of the handle and 
dropped nine inches to the floor, with fully predictable
results.  The handle had been checked for tightness
that very day, I was quite anal (and a bit afraid) of
the very thing that happened.
Now, I use the handle as a stabilizing device in holding
full carboys, but always carry them with one arm wrapped
around the carboy pressing it to my stomach and the other
hand holding the handle.
It was the plastic material coating the handle that
slipped and allowed the carboy to fall; I have never seen
a carboy fail at the neck.
Brew on,
Mike



Return to table of contents

---