---

	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:
  Yeast Cell Counts / Starter Method (AKGOURMET)
  Harping on Harper's--Update ("Philip J Wilcox")
  Microwave for sanitation? ("Nate Wahl")
  Topping water and OG (Bruce Daniels)
  Latin 101 (haafbrau1)
  Weizen yeast ("George De Piro")
  Re: cooling/ HSA (Steve Jackson)
  First Wort Hopping (Lou.Heavner)
  Re: your last post on HBD wrt freezing yeast ("Brad McMahon")
  Re: Calculating increases in batch size ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Some more thoughts on bottle baking ("Mike Allred")
  Where's that infection??? ("William W. Macher")
  Salt and Ethanol ("A. J. deLange")
  Looking for a Pump (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Some more thoughts on bottle baking (Rod Wellman)
  More Yeast (Jim Liddil)
  Exponentials and Logarithmns (Jim Bentson)


Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as
every sentence deserves proper punctuation...

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: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:20:33 EDT
From: AKGOURMET at aol.com
Subject: Yeast Cell Counts / Starter Method

That was an excellent post that Mort O'Sullivan wrote to the homebrew digest
concerning yeast cell concentrations by weight and volume.  I know it takes a
lot of time to write those, but I, for one, sure do appreciate it.

I have a question, though.  In the first table (gravity sedimentation), under
"approx. volume for commercial pitching rate" the values range from .77 to
3.26 fluid ounces.  Is this the amount for 5 gallons?  

It seems that everyone has a different method and theory about how to make the
optimum starter.  I own a homebrew supply here and I'm trying to put together
an information handout that has a simple, but adequate procedure.  I'm
convinced that starters are important for liquid yeasts, but in order to get
my customers to do it, it has to be simple and not use any equipment that is
too specialized or expensive.  Here is what I have come up with so far.
Comments please?

1.  boil a half gallon of water and 1/2 pound of dry malt extract for 15
minutes (yields 1.046 wort).
2.  while still hot, pour into 2 sanitized quart canning jars, leaving any
break material behind.  Screw on the lids and store in the refridgerator.
(question:  how long can these be stored in the refridgerator?  The jars are
sanitized with bleach, the wort is ~200 degrees, and the lids seal air tight.
A week?  2 weeks?)
3.  when ready to make the starter, warm one jar to room temperature and pour
into a sanitized 2-4 quart container, such as an erlinmeyer flask or glass
apple juice jug.  Leave any break material in the jar.  Shake to aerate and
pitch the swollen yeast packet.  Cover with an airlock.
4.  swirl the starter every day to promote yeast cell growth. (question:  with
starters, we don't need to worry about light, oxidation, or high temperatures
too much, right?  Especially since I pour off the beer in the end.)
5.  After a couple of days when this fermentation starts to slow, warm the
other jar of wort and add to the starter.  Shake to aerate.  Swirl daily.
6.  When the starter begins to clear, allow the yeast to settle out.  Pour off
the clear liquid and pitch the yeast slurry into your main batch of beer. 

That's it.  Simple enough for the casual hobbiest, but good enough to produce
award winning beer?  I'll add that the reason I store the wort in the canning
jars for a few days in the refridgerater is to let the break settle out.  My
theory is that the cleaner the wort, the cleaner the yeast cake.
Thanks for all input.

Bill Wright
akgourmet at aol.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:52:43 -0400
From: "Philip J Wilcox"<pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com>
Subject: Harping on Harper's--Update





From: Philip J Wilcox at CMS on 08/19/98 11:52 PM

HBD,

Since Mr. Fouch brought up the Harpers again, I'd thought I drop in there
and see how things were doing under the new Head Brewer--Jim Owens. Jim's
brewing experience comes from Baja California so I was hoping for a fresh
new West Coast specialty selection.

The standard Harpers Light and American Wheat were both there, neither of
which was all that great, but combined they make up almost half the volume
of beer sold on a given night. Amazing what the market can do to a
perfectly good brewery. The Light was crisp, very clear, and had a
distinctly bad aftertaste. What Eric might call Oxidized, I'll call
astringency due to high adjunct use. And, well, maybe oxidized too. But
that was the only one!

The American Wheat, was well an American wheat. It tasted better with the
provided lemon in the beer. Plenty of wheat character, the expected good
head and little to no hop flavor.

The standard Nut Brown and Java Porter were gone--replaced by an Amber and
a Pale Ale.

A West Coast Pale Ale was what I was hoping for, but not exactly what I
got. What we did find was an excellent English Pale Ale. A very nice fruity
nose with a touch of hops at the end. A crisp sharp bitterness that was not
overdone or too assertive. A solid hop flavor that lasted through the
finish. An Excellent Pale Ale. High thirties in my book.

Next we tried the Amber. It had a nice stiff head still hanging on when we
got to it. It looked a little hazy compared to the rest, but the sun was
going down and we were outside testing clarity with the streetlights that
had just come on. The nose was much hoppier than the Pale and so was the
flavor. No sweetness till the very finish.  An interesting beer. It was
amber in color, light amber at that, and not amberish in any other way.
Where was the caramel, or even chocolate? Nada. I did a blind taste test
with my occasional brewing partner the amber vs the pale ale. As I expected
he couldn't tell them apart. There is something amiss here, but wasn't a
bad beer.

The two specialties on tap were a Double-Berry Wheat and a Sweet Stout.
After judging fruit beers at a recent competition I was looking forward to
the Double-Berry. And Boy did it come through! Berries everywhere! From the
aroma I was guessing Raspberries and Strawberries, which I thought was
really impressive! The waitress helped us out and told us it was
Blackberries and Raspberries and bittered with Orange peel. It still
smelled like strawberries to me. Both of the Wheats were 60/40 barley/wheat
blends. And this one was Very Very Nice. Even better than the Pale Ale and
it puts Sam Adams Cherry Wheat to shame.

Picking up the Stout and just admiring it, it still had plenty of head
left. It gave me the feeling we saved the best for last. Rich and roasted,
sweet with a tartness in the finish. This beer just plays with your tongue,
playfully bouncing back and forth from sweet to sour. What a pleasure to
drink. The Brussels lace went down the glass in concentric circles making
me think of someone like Gandolf blowing smoke rings in an old English pub.
An Outstanding Stout. A stout so nice even Larry Bell might pay to drink
it. And all of us Michiganders know how Larry feels about stout. (Never
made one he wouldn't sell. And he sells a lot of different stouts)

Which brings me around to Eric's comparison of Kalamazoo Brewing Company's
(Bell's) efforts to that of a brew pubs mash schedule and beer profiles.

Even less fair!! Bells is not a brewpub! Its a Micro--and not a small one
at that. Comparing Larry Bell, with an average brewpub doing single
infusion single yeast brewing is only as similar as comparing the national
homebrew competition with the GABF.  There is an unfair technical and
experience level difference. Bell's newest beer is Batch 3,000 Duly named
from surpassing the 3,000 point earlier this year. I've never met a brewpub
brewer that had more than 1,500 batches under his belt.

I have to agree with both Eric and Scott. Too many brewpubs I've visited
have "house flavors' largely from using the same yeast the same way. I've
drank enough beer at my local pub to tell pick out Nottingham just about
where ever else I go. Ringwood is also easy find and over used, though the
Peter Austin/Puglsy brew system is a hint and a half. But it comes back to
Eric's first point, it depends on the skill level of the Brewer.  Really
good brewers can use the same yeast at different temp and pressure profiles
to achieve very different characteristics. Nottingham is Very versatile
this way. Market factors may help set the standard fare, but the "Brewers
Choice" is still the Brewers choice. I have yet to see a brewer "choose" to
make bland beer. Ok, Adolfus Busch III, who does it on TV all the time...

Scott writes:
> Would it be fair to say that if
>all of your beers are made with a single temperature infusion mash,
>and 80% 2-row, and you use the same yeast strain for each, and the
>same fermentation strategy, that you're going to end up with beers
>that all pretty much taste the same?

I say yes if I can replace "taste the same" with "have similar house
flavor?"

Phil Wilcox
President-Prison City Brewers
aka the Poison Frog Home Brewer




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:40:17 -0400
From: "Nate Wahl" <cruiser at dcache.net>
Subject: Microwave for sanitation?

I've seen threads on using Microwaved starters in the archives, but nothing
on using Microwave ovens for sanitation.  It seems that zapping equipment
that would fit in there sure would be convenient; things like tubing,
funnels, grain/hop bags, airlocks and maybe even hops that are not boiled
(dry hops) for a short time .

As a test, I put a short piece of tubing in there, with some water in the
middle and the ends held up.  The water got hot to the point of boiling
over the entire length, so the microwaves do penetrate plastics.

I found some info on the net with regard to cooking utinsels, and it stated
that nuking them ended up with no live bacteria left on their surfaces, but
not many were materials that we would use.  Sponges and rags were
mentioned, and came "clean" at one minute dry or three minutes wet. 
Curiously, it said that there was no effect on plastic cutting boards. 

I guess the question is how effective would this be?    What "flux level"
(time) would be needed?  Is it the radiation, or just the heat generated
that does the killing?  It'd sure be easier than running idophor thru the
hoses, with no residuals and such, and be safer than using boiling water (I
hate starting those siphons!).  Is there any more info out there? 
Experiences?  Opinions?

Thanks, Nate




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:01:04 -0400
From: Bruce Daniels <bdaniels at Hamptons.Com>
Subject: Topping water and OG

Is there a rough formula for topping off wort in the primary with water
to get the new OG?  Say I boil a little to vigorously, and only end up
with 4-1/2 gallons in my primary.  I check the OG and find it is a
little high.  I would like a way to calculate the amount of water to add
to get my desired OG.  

Thank you
Bruce


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:10:25 -0400
From: haafbrau1 at juno.com
Subject: Latin 101

What is Latin for "life with beer for ever more".
Paul Haaf
haafbrau1 at juno.com

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 08:55:14 PDT
From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net>
Subject: Weizen yeast

Hi all,

Steve asks about Weizen yeasts and their tendency to autolyze (under the 
subject line
"Weizen to live").

It's pronounced more like "Vytsahn," not "Weezen."
It made it difficult for me to get your pun.  Sort of a "Fuddian" play 
on pronunciation.

The info I posted is not new to the HBD.  Back in Feb. Hubert Hangofer 
and
I were having a discussion about this stuff and he was kind enough to 
translate
and post some relevant points from a Feb. 1998 Weihenstephan technical 
lecture
that his son attended.  I don't have it here or I'd end it on to you.  
Search Hubert's
name in the archives.

Basically it showed that a number of German Weizen brewers pasteurize 
their beer
to avoid autolysis problems.  I assumed (I know, a bad thing) that not 
every German brewer
is using the same yeast strain for their Weizen (actually, not an 
assumption; I know that
is a fact, but I don't know that about the ones in the paper that Hubert 
posted), so I lumped
all Weizen strains together as having a tendency to autolyze.  That could
 be wrong.

Have fun!

George De Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: cooling/ HSA

In HBD #2803 (August 20, 1998), "Dr. Pivo" wrote:

>>>>
I've got some good news, some bad news, and some very bad news.

(I am presenting this in the perspective of the HBD tradition of
vociferously chanting the cause, of industrial brewing literature).

I have been experimenting with "chilled vs. nonchilled" and "non chilled
normal treated vs. non chilled intentionally created HSA" batches.

I have triangle tested these (thanks for that tip Mr. Louis K. Bonham).

[snip]

The very bad news, was that the intentionally created "HSA" (does that
stand for Heirarchically Submitted Answers?) was so far from being
"significant" that it does not bear repeating in that test format.

When I get my backside removed from it's comfortable position placed on
my left thumb, I'll try and write up some sort of "material and methods"
thing, plus a critique of possible introduced variables, confounders,
and the like that have occurred in this 'spearment-- That really is the
meat of doing any of this stuff (look for your errors, and you'll likely
find what is valid).
<<<<

One thing I'd be interested in knowing is how old the beer was when it
was sampled for any negative effects due to HSA. I believe it was
George DePiro who posted that Seibel indicates that it typically takes
a couple of months for the effects of HSA to appear, as opposed to
just a couple of weeks for off flavors to appear resulting from
post-fermentation oxidation (please correct me if I'm wrong, George).

If you used young beer, and the information I recall is correct, it
could be that your tasting attempted to detect something that wouldn't
be present in the beer. But it might be present a few months from now.
It would be interesting to do another tasting say three months from
now to determine if any off flavors have appeared by then.

 -Steve in Indianapolis
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free  at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:36:24 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com
Subject: First Wort Hopping

     Greetings:

     FWH has been an area of discussion on and off for a long time now.
     Has anybody established or agrred upon anything like a formula for
     calculating the affect?  I know there is already some question about
     the validity of conventional hop bittering formulas.  Maybe this is a
     good area for somebody like Louis Bonham to explore in his BT column.
     Maybe it would be a good idea for the next HBD experiment.  I don't
     get to brew enough to develop enough data by myself in a reasonable
     time frame.  But I do use conventional IBU calcs and find them helpful
     in designing recipes.  I would like to do more continental style
     lagers in the future where FWH appears to be more appropriate.

     Cheers!

     Lou Heavner - Austin, TX


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:14:02 +0930
From: "Brad McMahon" <brad at sa.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: your last post on HBD wrt freezing yeast

>
> Brad:
> 
> Thanks for your post on your success on freezing
> yeast. Could you elaborate on the details ?
> How do you re-use this frozen solution ? What are
> your preparation steps for actually making the
> glycerine solution ? Private e-mail ok, but I'm
> sure the HBD would benefit from your methods.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Art Beall

Oh OK then Art, I will reveal all!

I'm not sure what you call glycerine, Americans do everything
differently :-)
You might be able to find it as glycerine,glycerol or maybe even 
glycol from your pharmacy or probably cheaper from the supermarket.
It is used externally to soften rough skin, or used internally
as a laxative.
Don't worry, the amounts you are using (less than a teaspoon
in my case) in a 5 gallon batch isn't going to cause your next party
to move into the bathroom.
To store the yeast I use 10mL plastic  blood sample vials, you'll
have to know a doctor or a nurse if you don't want to pay.
Other than that, any small pill bottle or whatever will do.

To prepare the solution mix water with the glycerine in equal
proportions, boil quickly, cool and store in freezer, you will notice
that it won't freeze.. aha!
Just quarter fill up the vial with the yeast you are saving,
and then top up with the solution, and store in the freezer,
takes up no room at all! I usually bottle a few vials of each strain.
The solution won't freeze so the yeast walls don't rupture.
The big yeast banks, from what I've heard, store their yeast this 
way. I haven't tested how long they survive, but I've heard
a year or so, and probably longer.

To prepare, just make a small starter (200-500 mL) and then transfer
that to your large (2L) starter as usual.

Brad



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:04:14 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Re: Calculating increases in batch size

Dave Grommons asks in HBD2803:
 -snip-
Can anyone give me some >>detailed<< guidance on calculating the increase 
in grains, hop scheduling, yeast prep and  sparge time:

1.  Is a one pint starter of yeast enough for a larger batch, or should I
start a quart or more?

One pint is under pitching for 5 gallons, and even more so for larger 
batches.  If longer lag times and increased risk of infection are 
acceptable, then stick with your existing starter size.  Otherwise step 
your starter up larger proportional to your batch increase to keep lag 
roughly the same.

 -snip-
2. How do I figure the proportional increase in grains? 

For a first order approximation, increase proportionally, ie if you go 
from 5 to 10 gallons, use double the amount of grains.  You may find that 
a change in equipment for larger batches will also change your efficiency, 
so your recipes may need fine tuning later.  Unfortunately, there's no way 
to know what these changes will be beforehand.

 -snip-
3.  Hop bitterness doesn't seem that tough to figure out, but I could use 
some advice as well as for hop aroma.

Again, changes in equipment such as a larger boiling pot or hotter burner 
causing more vigorous boil may change your utilization, but in general a 
proportional increase will be called for with fine tuning later.  Aroma 
hops should also be changed in proportion, but bear in mind if you steeped 
while chilling before, the time spent chilling may also change. Try to 
keep steeping time and temperature roughly the same.  Fine tuning will 
likely be needed.

The Beer Recipator online at the Brewery website is a good place to play 
with recipe formulation, changing batch sizes and factors such as 
utilization and efficiency.  Prost!

 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:31:00 -0700
From: "Mike Allred" <mike.allred at malnove.com>
Subject: Some more thoughts on bottle baking


Rod Wellman saids:
>I've never covered mine while in the oven.  I figure that there aren't a
>whole lot of alive bacteria in an oven, anyway.

The point of putting the foil on is so that when they cool, they aren't   
exposed to the outside air.  You just put them away and not worry about   
it.  They are not sanitized, they are sterilized (unless you use the 200   
deg temp).  Now, I know that as they cool, some air will be sucked passed   
the foil and into the bottle, but I am not that anal yet.

Rod Wellman saids:
>I preheat the oven to 200 degrees before placing them inside.  Then I   
leave
>them in NO longer than 15 minutes at 200 degrees.  I believe 180 degrees   
is
>the point at which bacteria dies.  200 is plenty safe.

One of the reason that I bake bottles, is to kill the mold that grows in   
them.  I have 20 cases of anchor bottles (in the shed away from my beer   
stuff) that I snagged from the mountain brewers beer fest last year, I   
have not cleaned them all which has led to the 'mold cake' on the bottom.   
 I clean them and then bake then at 350 to make sure that they are good.   
 Again, the point of baking is twofold, convenience and to sterilize.   
 Adjust your method as needed.

Rod Wellman saids:
>I have heard that higher temperatures and longer times in the oven my   
weaken the structure of
the glass.  Once done, I let them cool in the oven for awhile

I don't have any evidence except that I have never had a problem yet with   
bottles breaking or exploding (I have some that have been through this   
process 10-15 times).  But you may be right.

Rod Wellman saids:
>, then remove
>and put into my long-neck case boxes and cover the tops of the bottles   
with
>cellophane wrap to keep air out until bottling. (Don't touch the   
openings of
>the bottles when you remove them.  I use a clean dishtowel...it also   
acts
>as a hotpad).

You can skip this step if you use foil.  And how do you keep the celo   
from coming off the bottle?

Rod Wellman saids:
> I've stored them this way for up to a week, but it's
>probably best to bottle sooner rather than later.

I have stored my bottles for about 6 months and used them without a   
single bottle infection.  Again, this is one of the reasons I bake,   
convenience.  I always have bottles ready, I bake them when I'm bored and   
keep them until needed.  I can bottle 5 gallons in about one hour.  I'm   
not trashing your method (believe me.. allot of people disagree with   
mine), but we both have different reasons for doing what we do.  I hope   
this doesn't sound like fighting words or nitpicking... just a   
discussion.

Rod Wellman saids:
>I've ever done it, but I don't think pouring 70 degree beer into a 150   
degree
>bottle would be good for it.

I could care less about the bottle, what about your beer.. yuck.

Peace to all and never stop brewing.  



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:32:55
From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Where's that infection???

Greetings to the collective!

About five or six weeks ago,  after transferring 
my somewhat oxygenated wort into a primary,  I 
had about 600ml extra,  which I put into a 1 liter 
flask, and into the refrigerator,  covered with a 
piece of plastic wrap held tight with a rubber 
band.  I was thinking that I could use this wort 
for a starter,  or whatever...

You pick the excuse,  but since then I have not 
brewed...and so,  I figured I would just dump 
this stuff,  and forget it.  I took it out of the 
fridge,  and set the flask on a shelf...and noticed 
the next day that there was some activity going 
on.  I removed the rubber band, and let the 
plastic wrap lay on the flask opening. Humm... 
wonder what this thing might taste like...

The next day or two,  there was a nice thick inch 
of foam on top and the smell was not unpleasant 
at all.  Now I am getting interested!  What is this 
thing going to taste like?  I added nothing to it... 
whatever is working on it had to come out of the 
air in the kitchen...this thing does not smell too 
bad!

Last night was the night.  My last keg ran out a 
couple days ago,  so I knew I would be 
compelled to open nothing less than a can of 
keg-wash to "enjoy" with dinner...things were 
looking pretty bad at that point....

To make matters worse, my last carboy of 
previously brewed beer,  which has been sitting 
in a "clearing carboy" in the beer fridge for the 
last month (purely due to my lack of ambition...) 
has yet to call loudly enough to shame me into 
moving it into a keg.  A good beer was there... 
but beyond my reach if I wanted to drink it 
carbonated!

The activity in the flask,  which had been setting 
in a relatively dark location for those several 
days,  had died down,  and what better time to 
taste it than when the only alternative was...you 
know, that stuff... 

Anyway,  off to the kitchen we go to grab a 
small glass,  into which goes a taste. All the 
while I am mentally preparing for the 
worst...dredging up memories from the distant 
past...remember that rotten mango???  How 
about that raw egg you ate when showing off as 
a kid...those deep fried bugs you had years ago 
in Northern Thailand...and then there 
was...YUCK!  Let's suppress THAT memory!

Prepared for the worst,  I lifted that little four 
ounce glass and took a sip.  Surprise. Not bad at 
all.  I called my assistant taster...away from the 
stove for a moment... "Umm,  good!"  she says...

So now I am puzzled.  I have read mention of 
wort stability tests on the HBD.  Has anyone 
made it a habit of tasting the wort after it has 
done its thing during a WST?

I am now thinking of taking a sample of future 
batches and letting them ferment on their own,  
like this one did,  as a learning experience... 
would this be worthwhile,  or a waste of time?  
My intent would be to learn more about the 
"bugs" that may share my living space with 
me...and also maybe learn what infections taste 
like.  Is there any risk if I would do this?  I mean 
like botch....opps!  I didn't say that word, 
Honest!

And what did I do with the rest of the stuff in 
that flask?  The only thing a respectable HBDer 
would:  I mixed with that bland stuff that came 
out of that aluminum can...Worked for me!

I know we all try to make the best,  uninfected 
brews we can.  But has anyone actually made an 
effort to learn the tastes of infections by letting a 
sequence of samples do their own thing and 
tasting the results?

Wasn't my sample ruined?  Is my taste so poor 
that I can enjoy anything?

After typing this,  and reflecting upon my 
movements on brew day,  my guess is that I 
probably "contaminated" the wort sample with 
some brewers yeast.  I had dropped the wort 
onto the yeast cake of a previous batch,  and 
there may have been some yeast picked up by 
the sanitized plastic tube if it touched the neck 
of the carboy...

Bottom line question:  Is it a bad idea to let 
samples of wort ferment on their own,  and then 
taste them?  Would this be a useful learning 
experience?

Have a great day!  

(And many thanks to Karl and Pat....)

Bill








Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:58:26 -0500
From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Salt and Ethanol

Aaron Banerjee asks about measuring alcohol content with salt. This
sounds like an idea with lots of potential and I'd love to hear more of
the details (private e-mail will be fine). The simple explanation  as to
why this works is that salt and alcohol have marked effects upon the
solubility of each other in water. Chemists frequently use "salting out"
to concentrate organic substances dissolved in water. Ethanol, for
example,  is only "slightly soluble" in a concentrated salt solution
though it is infinitely soluble in water. Conversely, salt isn't very
soluble in ethanol. Thus an ethanol water solution can dissolve less
salt than pure water. Food for thought.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:00:08 -0700
From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Looking for a Pump

I am looking for a pump to transfer wort from kettle to fermenter and 
near finished beer from fermenter to keg.

For years I got buy with an RV sink pump that worked well and I could
easily vary the speed because it was DC.

It conked out and I replaced it with a $90 AC job that is OK for the
wort transfer but creates too much foam for the beer transfer and I
have no way to slow it down.  I guess I should have bought the DC
version but didn't have the sense at the time.

The major requirement that eliminates 99% of the pumps I see is that
it has to be self priming as I must pump uphill in both cases.

Can anyone recommend a pump and source?

js
- -- 

Visit our WEB pages:     http://user.mc.net/arf

ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:34:01 -0500
From: Rod Wellman <rmw at williams.com>
Subject: Re: Some more thoughts on bottle baking

I've heard from a couple people on the subject of bottle baking. Most
informative was an email from Spencer Thomas, who had this passage in his
email to me:

>Quoting from a post last year by George DePiro:
>
>    Zymurgy Vol. 18 # 3 has a very nice article written by Jim Liddil
>    and John Palmer about sanitizers and their proper usage. ...
>
>    4.  Heat.  Heat comes in two forms: dry and wet.  Wet heat is a
>    more effective sterilant than dry, but both are *sterilants*, as
>    opposed to sanitizers.  Your oven or pressure cooker are perfect
>    for sterilizing heat resistant items such as glass and metal (be
>    careful with glass, of course: sudden changes in temperature will
>    crack even Pyrex, possibly causing injury).
>
>    Dry heat can be applied as follows: 250F (121C) for 12 hours; 284F
>    (140C) for 3 hours; 320F (160C) for 2 hours; 338F (170C) for 1
>    hour.
>
>    Wet heat (pressure cooker) is faster: 257F (125C) at 20 psi for 20
>    min.
>
>    Jim and John point out that all of the above numbers are
>    conservative, so you probably won't have any problems achieving
>    good sanitation by following the instructions in their article.
>

Looks like I'll be re-thinking my procedure!  It'd be just as easy to leave
them in longer at higher temps...I'm still wondering about the glass issue
though.  Anybody know if it "weakens" it?

Also, a couple of responses to Mike Allred's post are below.

>One of the reason that I bake bottles, is to kill the mold that grows in   
>them.  I have 20 cases of anchor bottles (in the shed away from my beer   
>stuff) that I snagged from the mountain brewers beer fest last year, I   
>have not cleaned them all which has led to the 'mold cake' on the bottom.   
> I clean them and then bake then at 350 to make sure that they are good.   
> Again, the point of baking is twofold, convenience and to sterilize.   
> Adjust your method as needed.
>

I got some really old Quart size Old Style bottles from a fellow
homebrewer.  Some had old beer inside which was more like vaporized powder
caked on the bottom.  I've also had a bottle or two with mold.  I soak them
in the kitchen sink (make sure they are submerged...that's the toughest
part) in hot tap water with some dishwashing detergent for a couple of
hours to loosen up the gunk.  Then I use the faucent bottle washer
apparatus which does a good job of "blowing out" the junk.  THEN I wash
with a bottle brush vigorously and rinse again with the faucet devise.  I
inspect carefully.  Usually I can see no remnants of the gunk.  I really
don't want any of that stuff sitting in the bottom of my beer.  I have
plenty of bottles, so if one is particularly stubborn, I just toss it cause
it takes too much time to clean.  (The big ones I don't toss.  They're way
too cool!)  As I said in my earlier post, it saves a lot of hassle to rinse
each bottle and put upside down on a bottle tree immediately after (or at
least the next morning) drinking it.  

>Rod Wellman saids:
>>I have heard that higher temperatures and longer times in the oven my   
>>weaken the structure of the glass.  
>I don't have any evidence except that I have never had a problem yet with   
>bottles breaking or exploding (I have some that have been through this   
>process 10-15 times).  But you may be right.
>

That's encouraging.  If you've done this 10-15 times to the same bottles,
then the heat must not be affecting them.  Do you ever have bottles blow
up?  I can only remember a couple in my beer-brewing history, and I've done
about 30 batches now.  I guess some of that depends upon priming
procedures, how much live yeast is left, how much and what kind of priming
sugar is used, etc.  Overall, I tend to like beers with good carbonation,
even in styles where carbonation is supposed to be on the low side.  

Rod Wellman saids:
>>, then remove and put into my long-neck case boxes and cover the tops of
>>the bottles with cellophane wrap to keep air out until bottling. (Don't
>>touch the openings of the bottles when you remove them.  I use a clean
>>dishtowel...it also acts as a hotpad).
>
>You can skip this step if you use foil.  And how do you keep the celo   
>from coming off the bottle?

I use two sheets of the celophane, overlapped in the middle a bit.  Make it
so that the sides are overlapping a bit as well.  I store my bottles in the
long-neck case paper boxes.  When you close the lids on these boxes, it
pushes down the celophane and, as long as you have some overlap, it kinda
forces it to "seal up" the top of the bottles with celophane.  I put the
celophane on while the bottles are still a little bit warm (though not too
warm as to melt it to the bottle!), and when it cools, it contracts
creating a nice "stretched" seal on the top of the bottles.  I'm sure foil
works just as well, but it is much more expensive.  

>Rod Wellman saids:
>> I've stored them this way for up to a week, but it's
>>probably best to bottle sooner rather than later.
>
>I have stored my bottles for about 6 months and used them without a   
>single bottle infection.  Again, this is one of the reasons I bake,   
>convenience.  I always have bottles ready, I bake them when I'm bored and   
>keep them until needed.  I can bottle 5 gallons in about one hour.  I'm   
>not trashing your method (believe me.. allot of people disagree with   
>mine), but we both have different reasons for doing what we do.  I hope   
>this doesn't sound like fighting words or nitpicking... just a   
>discussion.
>

I didn't get that impression at all.  Just some good sharing of
information.  Maybe you'll adopt some of my ideas.  Maybe I'll adopt some
of yours.  Sounds like we could both continue to do our own thing and
probably be just fine!

>Rod Wellman saids:
>>I've ever done it, but I don't think pouring 70 degree beer into a 150   
>degree
>>bottle would be good for it.
>
>I could care less about the bottle, what about your beer.. yuck.
>

When I wrote that, I meant it wouldn't be good for the beeer...for the same
reasons as pouring hot priming solution in the bottling bucket probably
isn't good either.  The concentrated heat may kill some of the active
yeast.  I don't care about the bottles either, but come to think of it, the
sudden change of temperature may cause the glass to crack (see George's
quote above). YIKES!  That's bad for the bottle and the beer and my
sanity.....

>Peace to all and never stop brewing.  
>

Been doing it for almost 2 years now, and I feel like I'm just getting
warmed up!

Rod Wellman




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:26:14 +0000
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: More Yeast

>From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net
>Subject: Re: Repitching 3 wk. old slurry

>In HBD 2794 Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net asked about repitching 
>three wk. old slurry.

>I have used ale slurry as much as eight months old, and lager slurry 
>as much as six months old, with good results.  I take normal care 
>with sanitation in harvesting the slurry and store it in glass jars under 
>fully fermented beer at 34 to 38 degrees F.  My method is not fool-
>proof; I have lost an occasional jar to obvious infection.  

If you are talking about repitching a large amount of slurry then I
personally feel this is a bad idea.  Yeast that is this old will be largely
dead.  There fore you are dumping a large amount of autolyzed yeast and
their contents into the beer.  This will likely lead to various off
flavors.  If on the other hand you are talking about making a starter from
this then this is OK, but not ideal.  I would make a starter and allow it
to begin fermetnation and then decant it to a new container to leave the
dead yeast behind.  But this is inly what I would do as governed by what I
know and how I want my beer to taste.  You may do waht ever works for you
and you feel comfortable with.

>Dead but uninfected slurry can be a very effective yeast nutrient in 
>a cider or a mead.

All malt wort on the other hand should have plenty of nutrients.

>From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net
>Subject: Why multi-step starters?

>I have read much about the need to step up starters gradually, i.e., one
>should not increase the volume of the starter more than about 5-fold at
>each step.  I contrast this with the fact that the liquid yeast suppliers
>sell their products of about 50 mL yeast cultures to be pitched into 5
>gallons of wort.  Now, I'm not asking, "What's the need for a starter?".

One reason to do multiple samll steps is this.  By pitching a relatively
large amount of yeast into a small volume of wort one ensures that the
yeast utilize the sugar quickly that bacteria might otherwise use.  Also
the oxygen is utilized rapidly and the pH drops rapidly thus minimizing the
chances that anything but yeat will gorw in the media.  By scaling up no
more than 1:10 the chances of bacteria growing to any appreciable extent
are reduced.  Also the yeast that you start with regardless of the
manufacturer mya not be completley free of bacteria.  Wyeast on their web
site says "Bacteria ; < 1 cfu / ml"  This is not zero.  Thus if you put 50
ml into 3 liters of wort you run the risk of a few stray bugs growing
quickly.  

Now if you have a laminar flow hood and start with a pure bacteria free
yeast and sterile media then there is no reason not to innoculate 3 liters
of wrt and put it on a stir plate and let it rip.  The yeast will be
supplied wiht plenty of oxygen so they are nice and happy.  But again do
what you feel is best.  This is only what I do and what works for me.

>From: "Mike Fitzpatrick" <fitzbrew at earthlink.net
>Subject: Magnetic stir plates and starters

>1) Will I need to use as much volume, I.e.;can I eliminate the third day of
>adding wort and start a day later with it and still be ok with the yeast
>count?

I would stick to this volume.  I'll show calculations antoher time.  Let it
ferment out and allow the yeast to settle and only add the flocullated
yeast not the supernatant.  But do what works for you.

>2) Should the stir plate be left on for the duration of the starter? Also,
>should it be on so that it just swirls the yeast, or high enough to really
>mix it into a frenzy? (oops! two questions in one)

I leave it on the whole time and yes I get a vortex going so I know the
yeast is well mixed. This also keeps the wort aerated and releases CO2 from
solution.  They do this at you know where also.  But again do what makes
you feel good.  I set the speed on 4,  for my stir plate that goes to 11. :-)

>3) What is the best way to sanitize the stir bars? Can they be boiled, or
>use Iodophor or bleach solution?

I prepare 3 liters in a 4 liter pyrex acid bottle via boiling.  I leave the
stir bar in the wort while it boils.  Thus it is sterile.  I use an
antifoam agent so I can boil hard and also as the starter ferments it won't
foam over.  Stir bars are teflon coated these days, unless you have some of
the homemade ones like those described in Psychedelic Guide to the
Preparation of the Eucharist

Dr Pivo wrote:

>The good news is that there is "almost" a statistical significant

Sorry but there is no almost about stat. sig.  Either it is or it is not.
You perform a t-test (provided you have enough data points) and at a p-value 
< 0.05 either it is or it is not.  It's like sterile.  Oh and I like to
send my bottles out for gamma irradiation so they are sterile and I don't
have to worry about heating up the house with the pressure cooker or oven.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:40:49 -0400
From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at longisland.com>
Subject: Exponentials and Logarithmns

Hi All: 
Like the chef that backed into the meat slicer, I have been getting behind
in my work, so I am just reading last weeks thread on exponential growth. I
think that while most comments had some facts in them, the most interesting
feature of an exponential growth was missed. It is also the easiest to
understand for a lay-person.

A exponential growth curve has the property that the time it takes to grow
by any fixed multiplier( e.g. double) is constant. For example, if you have
exponential growth and have 100 little beasties initially and you find it
takes 5 seconds to reach 200 beasties, then the time to double is 5
secs.You then will have 400 after another 5 sec, 800 after the next 5 sec.
etc. See the trend? If you doubled in the first 5 sec., then every five sec
after that you double from the previous value.
The number 5 sec is just for illustration. In actual practice you normally
take two measurements over a time period and then take the ratio of the
larger to the smaller measurement to get the growth multiplier for the
measured time interval.


On last feature to mention is that there can also be exponential "decay"
where something diminishes exponentially. Those who understood the above
should be able to figure out that here the curve will be diminished by a
constant multiplier every time a fixed  interval passes ( ie you will get
1/2 or 1/3 or any fraction less than one over a fixed time interval).

As far as logarithms are concerned. AJ was correct that the logarithmic
phase and exponential phase are semantics. Exponential is actually the only
correct one. The logarithm is actually the "inverse" function for the
exponential. That is the function used on an exponential to get back the
"input" to the exponential. Thus, if y=exp(x) then ln(y) = ln(exp(x)) = x.
Notice that "y" was gotten by taking the "exponential" of the input x. If
we take the logarithm of y we get x back again. Thus we have " inverted"
the exponential operation. Here "ln" is the "natural" logarithm used in
mathematics. 


Hope this sheds a little light on one of mathematics more interesting
functions. For brewers it simply gives you a way to predict when you will
reach a certain level in the future based on two measurements made in the
present.

Jim Bentson 
Centerport NY



Return to table of contents

---