---

	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: old bench cappers (Brian Pickerill)
  re: pitching rates (Mark Tumarkin)
  Separating live yeast from dead (Martin A. Gulaian)
  re: Pitching Rates ("Brian J. Paszkiet")
  yeast and light ("Mike Butterfield")
  Yeast and CO2 production / Alts/Techno-brew (Matthew Arnold)
  Stirring & aerating starters/oatmeal stout p-rest/Dual yeast (George_De_Piro)
  Whoops! (Mark T A Nesdoly)
  film on my porter (Peter.Perez)
  Re: old bench cappers (Jeff Renner)
  Water chemistry and heading properties (Nathan Kanous)
  A question and an endorsement (John E Carsten)
  Re: cider/mead and Andrew Krein (Spencer W Thomas)
  Altbier Hopping or Alaskan Amber... (Badger Roullett)
  Stuff (Jim Liddil)
  Jealous Monkey Alt - All Grain (Badger Roullett)
  My keg is rusting ("Andrew Avis")
  RIMS on the horizon ("Otto, Doug")
  Not reusing yeast from a big beer (Al Korzonas)
  Changes in yeast behavior by selection. ("Steve Alexander")
  Tannin in mead (John Wilkinson)
  Packaging wild hops (William Graham)
  Re:Cyser mellowing/Pitching rates ("Grant W. Knechtel")


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: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 01:32:29 -0600
From: Brian Pickerill <00bkpickeril at bsuvc.bsu.edu>
Subject: RE: old bench cappers

Cameron LiDestri asks:
>I've run into several old bench cappers (why would anyone want to cap a
>bench, anyway?) at flea markets for $5-$10.  Are these any good or have
>there been changes to cap sizes over the years?  Will these old cappers
>work on today's bottles?

Yeah, they're GREAT.  I was at a flea market, earning my quota of beer
bullets, when the wife said, "Look Brian, a bottle capper."  That woke me
up!  It was sitting under a table, almost out of sight.  I wandered over
and asked the guy about it.  He said, "Are you the one who called me about
it?"  I said, "No, how much is it?"  I must still have looked a little
bored because he said, "Two bucks."  I tried to keep a straight face as I
handed over the change.

What a deal!  It's red and rusty brown and looks like an antique.  It's
spring loaded and adjustable by lifting the handle until the cog
disengauges the upright.  Works great even on multiple sizes of bottles in
a session.  I can work it with one hand, so I can fill one bottle while
putting a cap on another.  Or enjoy a homebrew while bottling a batch...
The crown is the right size for a 'normal' bottle cap.

I keg most of my beer, but the old capper is one of my favorite brew gadgets.
I just walked out to the brewery and looked it over and found a very faint
trademark on the base I had never seen before.  It's a CLIMAX model from
the Eveready Company, Frederick Maryland.  Made in USA.  There's no date of
manufacture that I can see.  Anybody have one like it?  I would like to
know if it's pre-prohibition.

- --Brian Pickerill, Muncie Malt Mashers, Muncie, Indiana

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Brian K. Pickerill                     <bpickeri at bsu.edu>
Assistant Director                         (765) 285-5209
Offices of Academic Assessment and Institutional Research
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306                            fax 285-2374
                               




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 07:37:46 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: pitching rates

Bruce writes:

>"I have a couple of questions for the group concerning pitching rates.
First, a little info. My current procedure is to start with a Wyeast
suited for the style of beer I plan to brew. I create a starter based on

nutrient pack instructions. I then add to this starter the two small
packs of dry yeast included in the beer kit I have purchased. The main
reason I add the dry yeast is due to the extensive discussion about
underpitching and that some believe that 1 package of Wyeast is not
enough yeast. And after all, the dry yeast comes with my beer kit, so it

is no extra expense. Questions: 1. Does this procedure have any striking

advantages or disadvantages? 2. Am I "adulterating" my beer with 2 types

of yeast and violating a purist's code?"

By adding the dry yeast in addition to the Wyeast starter, you are
certainly pitching more yeast cells and this is a "good thing" when
considered on it's own. However, you are mixing two types of yeast -
each of which may contribute a very different flavor to your beer. You
mention that the Wyeast you are using is appropriate to the particular
style you are brewing. This is the more important issue. Yeast strain
choice can be very important, even crucial, in achieving the specific
characteristics or flavor profile of many styles, hefe weizen or cal
common (steam beer) for example. Some other styles such as American Ale
or stouts have a broader range of appropriate yeast choices. Beer kits
come with a wide range of types and ingredients. Is it a partial mash
kit with extract and specialty grains, or a pre-hopped beer-in-a-can
type kit? There is a wide range of quality in dry yeast and some of the
kits come with quality dry yeast, others come with stuff I wouldn't want
in my beer.. Is the yeast an appropriate type for the particular style?
It may or may not be. Even if it is, you are combining it with another,
most likely different, type of yeast. What flavors will you get from
this combination? Maybe great, maybe..... you can only find out by
trying it. I would think that you would be better off with the Wyeast
starter, maybe step it up more. On the other hand, if the dry yeast is a
good brand and an appropriate type for your style that might be a good
choice as well. You will probably get  more control and repeatability by
choosing one or the other.   You certainly can't get everyone here to
agree on "purists code" on most issues, and let's not start a thread on
adultery ....er... adulteration.

Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 08:08:22 -0400 (EDT)
From: mag6 at po.CWRU.Edu (Martin A. Gulaian)
Subject: Separating live yeast from dead

The appended quote from George De Piro got me wondering: is there a 
good way to separate live yeast from dead? Even if only 1% of a yeast
cake is viable after a few months in the fridge, that's still a lot of
yeast.

I'm hoping for something along the lines of "dead yeast won't stay
in suspension in a starter"...

>- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Charley asks about how long yeast can survive in cold storage under wort.
>
>At Siebel we were told to use your yeast within a week.  I checked this 
>at home.
>I had two strains (Wyeast 2206 and an ale starin that I don't recall). 
> I had been
>keeping them both at 36F (2.2C) and feeding them fresh wort every two 
>weeks.
>Staining with methylene blue showed ~50% of the cells picking up the 
>stain after
>about a month.  That's bad.
>
>Pitching a yeast cake in that condition will actually provide more live 
>cells than most
>homebrewers pitch, but you will also be pitching many dead cells (that 
>can give a yeasty
>off-flavor to the beer) and the live cells probably aren't at their best.
>

- --
Marty Gulaian - Cleveland, Ohio


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 09:17:50 -0500
From: "Brian J. Paszkiet" <bpaszkie at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: re: Pitching Rates

I wanted to comment on a post about pitching yeast.

Bruce Carpenter said:

My current procedure is to start with a Wyeast
suited for the style of beer I plan to brew. I create a starter based on
nutrient pack instructions. I then add to this starter the two small
packs of dry yeast included in the beer kit I have purchased. The main
reason I add the dry yeast is due to the extensive discussion about
underpitching and that some believe that 1 package of Wyeast is not
enough yeast. And after all, the dry yeast comes with my beer kit, so it
is no extra expense. Questions: 1. Does this procedure have any striking
advantages or disadvantages? 2. Am I "adulterating" my beer with 2 types
of yeast and violating a purist's code?
Bruce
snip

I would say that adding the beer kit yeast might very well negate or reduce
the effects of using a certain strain of Wyeast.  You choose the wyeast for
its flavor profile given to a beer style.  The beer kit yeast (which might
not produce the same flavor profile) could outnumber your Wyeast, and
therefore your beer might not have the fermentation byproducts that you
want (or a high enough level of these byproducts).  I would suggest
stepping up your Wyeast a couple of times over the course of a few days,
and use this to pitch into your wort.

Brian P.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:24:33 +0200
From: "Mike Butterfield" <XPBRMB at sugar.org.za>
Subject: yeast and light

Hi everyone

I am a beginner brewer, and have been following the yeast thread with 
interest.  One more question - there has been a lot posted about 
oxygenation, yeast growth etc, but what about light ?  Does light affect yeast 
growth, and should brewing be done in the dark, or is it OK to have a 
glass fermentation vessel standing in sunlight?  I havent seen anything on 
this in the texts I have read.

Thanks for all the great information

Mike Butterfield
Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
xpbrmb at sugar.org.za


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:41:50 GMT
From: marnold at ez-net.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: Yeast and CO2 production / Alts/Techno-brew

Thus quoth George DePiro:

>Stirring the yeast not only helps reduce CO2 levels in the liquid, it 
>helps keep the yeast suspended.  This allows them to do their work faster.

This reminded me of a question I've been meaning to ask. Do different strains
yeasts produce more CO2, given the same conditions, than others? The reason I
ask this is whenever I use Wyeast #1338 European Ale (one of my favorites),
there is always a lot more CO2 in suspension in the beer (whilst still in the
fermentors) than any other.

I made a starter (my method is a secret, sorry <g>) for a new smack-pack of
#1338 the other day. Given recent threads, I've been swooshing it around
(technical term) every so often to suspend all the yeast. Every time I do this,
massive amounts of CO2 are released (quite more than I expected for a one-quart
starter), much more so than any other Wyeast I have used (OK, I've only used
three others, but still . . .).

I've had some problems with #1338 overcarbonating when I was bottle
conditioning. Now with kegging, I find that I rarely even have to force
carbonate with #1338! Yes, the fermentation was complete and if anyone suggests
using a certain product that begins with "C," I'm going to throw them under a
camel.

Any thoughts on this, or is it all a product of my non-technical mind?
- -----
I would like to hear more comments on the Alt hopping issue because the
suggestions made in the recent Zymurgy article (re:very late additions) seem to
contradict everything I've heard about Altbier hopping. AlK?
- -----
I've found the recent technical discussions of yeast growth to be fascinating,
but way beyond my feeble ability to comprehend. I'm glad that there are those
among us who quite interested in studying all this in detail. I would have
given up long ago. I will remain content to (try to) digest your findings and
understandings of current studies.

If you'll excuse me, I think I hear my yeasty brethren calling to have their
starter stepped up,

Matt
- -----
Webmaster, Green Bay Rackers Homebrewers' Club
http://www.rackers.org        info at rackers.org


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:52:47 -0700
From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
Subject: Stirring & aerating starters/oatmeal stout p-rest/Dual yeast

     Hi all,
     
     AJ gives the appropriate warning that constantly aerating a starter 
     with an aeration stone will cause excessive foaming of the wort.  He 
     then offers some relatively high-tech ideas to prevent this problem.  
     My method is somewhat more basic.
     
     I aerate constantly, while stirring, but don't use an aeration stone.  
     I just bubble air through the open end of the tubing which rests in 
     the starter media.  The large bubbles don't cause too much foaming.  
     While these large bubbles will not dissolve much air into the media it 
     will help prevent a blanket of CO2 from covering the media.  The 
     stirring allows the air to be dissolved into the wort at the surface. 
     ------------------------------
     Charles asks about whether or not he needs a protein rest for his 
     oatmeal stout.  The short answer is "No."  For the long answer search 
     the archives for the dozens of posts I have written about protein 
     rests this year.
     
     I am assuming you are using a reasonable amount of oats (5-10% by 
     weight).
     ------------------------------
     Bruce describes a starter method in which he adds a lot of dry yeast 
     to a small amount of Wyeast in the starter.  He does this because he 
     is concerned about having a long lag time in the starter.  He then 
     asks if this violates a "purists code."
     
     Using multiple yeast strains does not violate any reasonable brewer's 
     notion of purity, but it can make it more difficult to achieve 
     reproducible and predictable results.  Why?
     
     If pitching roughly equal amounts of two yeasts, it is unlikely that 
     they will grow at the same rate.  At the end of fermentation you are 
     likely to have greater numbers of one yeast.  This makes repitching 
     the yeast an unreliable method of duplicating the character of the 
     first fermentation.  You will always have to start from scratch to 
     achieve any kind of consistency.
     
     The problem in Bruce's case is that he is pitching an overwhelming 
     majority of dry yeast.  It is unlikely that the character of the 
     smaller culture will be expressed in the beer to the desired degree 
     (if at all).  In effect, you are pitching only the dry yeast.
     
     The easiest way to avoid long lags in the starter while using a pure, 
     single strain yeast is to simply not underpitch the starter.  Don't 
     get anxious:  pitch the swollen Wyeast pack into 500 mL (about a pint) 
     of sterile wort in a gallon jug.  Within the 48 hours it will be ready 
     for another feeding, this time up to as much as 5000 mL (but for a 
     five gallon/19L batch you can get away with a 2000 mL starter; a bit 
     more than 2 quarts for the metric-impaired).
     
     This extra step takes only a few minutes (because all the propagation 
     is done in one jug; no need to clean and sanitize other containers).  
     It requires slightly better planning for the brew session; you will 
     need one or two extra days of yeast growing.  That's not a big deal 
     for most people.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca
From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290 at mail.usask.ca>
Subject: Whoops!

AJ wrote:

>Not that it really matters that much to brewers but I think Mark T A
>Nesdoly may be confusing "nodes" and "modes". A node is a place where
>the E-field is 0 (or nearly so). Where the nodes occur depends on the
>configuration of the cavity which determines the mode of propagation
>within it. The purpose of the mode stirrer is to change this
>configuration thus changing the mode and moving the nulls (nodes)
>around.

Thanks for catching that AJ.  Yep, I did switch around "mode" and "node" in
the post.  A node is indeed a point in space where the E field is 0 (a
null).  A mode refers to a mode of propagation and I was using it as
referring to each of the unique standing wave patterns present in a cavity
(such as a microwave oven).

I had one person ask why I didn't address what happens when metal is put in
a microwave oven.  I'm sorry, I did think about including that in the first
place, but I decided that my first post was too long as it was.  Since the
queue is rather short these days, here it is:

Metals (most metals) are excellent conductors of electricity.  In other
words, very little resistance to electrical current.  In order to induce a
current to flow in a conductor, you do not need to make a physical
connection to it with wires;  if the length of the conductor is sufficient
in relation to the wavelength of the incident EM radiation, it will
experience a current that is induced by the electric field of the incident
radiation.  The antenna on a standard radio is an excellent example:  the
incident radio waves induce a current to flow in the antenna, which the
electronics in your radio can then amplify and demodulate to give you the
music or whatever the station is broadcasting.

Metals in a microwave (like metal utensils, twist-ties, gold glaze on rims,
etc.) present a "short circuit" to the tube amplifier inside the microwave
oven. The bow & arrow analogy in my previous post was an "open
circuit"--running the oven empty gives the microwave energy nowhere to go,
so it must be reflected back to the tube amplifier, overheating it.  These
"short circuits" present *too good* of an EM wave absorber inside the oven.
These EM waves being delivered by the tube amplifier cause very large
currents to develop in the metal, which causes heat--lots of it--to be
dissipated by that metal.  The tube "sees" a much lower "resistance" than it
was designed to see, therefore the tube amplifier must deliver much more
energy than it is designed to deliver;  this will also cause overheating of
the tube.  Prolonged operation under these conditions will eventually
destroy the tube.

I remember several years ago watching my mom put a gold-rimmed plate in the
microwave.  The effect was quite spectacular:  millions of tiny sparks
originating from the gold.  Then I shut it off, took the plate out and gave
mom sh*t.  Actually, the effect was very similar to a procedure we do here
in the lab to deposit gold contacts on samples.  It's called sputtering, and
it involves using ionized argon gas to impact a gold target.  When the ions
hit, they dislodge gold atoms which then coat the sample.  The glow & sparks
from the gold target are very similar to the ones I saw coming from that plate.

I remember another incident when mom put a styrofoam tray of squares in the
microwave to thaw.  She forgot to take the twist-tie off of the bag first.
It only took a few seconds, but the paper part of the twist tie caught fire,
and so did the bag and the tray.  That microwave is now about 15 years old,
still works, and mom no longer has any gold-rimmed plates.  She burned all
of the gold off of them.  Just goes to show that in most cases, most
equipment can take some mishandling, although I certainly don't recommend
that anyone put even the smallest amounts of metal in their microwave oven.
You never know what will happen.

Now a question:  When I do infusion mashes, I always assume an efficiency of
70%, and I always hit my target gravity to within a couple of points.  When
I do decoctions, I overshoot my target quite a bit if I use 70%, so I assume
higher efficiencies and work from there.  I did a triple decoction pilsner
yesterday and the grist was 9.7 lbs of DeWolf-Cosyns pilsner malt.  I was
shooting for an OG of 1.048 and I assumed an efficiency of 80% and 34
pts/lb/gal from the malt. If I assume 80% extraction for a triple decoction,
I usually come out pretty close to my predicted gravity.  I collected about
21 litres (5.55 US gal) of 1.064 !!!!! wort.  Is the following correct:?

If I assume 37 pts/lb/gal (34 gives me an efficiency >100%), then 34 * 9.7 /
5.55 = 64.7 ;  efficiency = 64/64.7 = 99% ?!!?

Not that I'm complaining about the high efficiency, but can someone tell me
if the way I calculated it is correct?

- -- Mark



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:32:12 -0400
From: Peter.Perez at smed.com
Subject: film on my porter

I keep my fermenters (carboys) under a dark cover to keep the light from
getting to them.  Well, I uncovered a porter that had been in the primary
for 7 days (I know a bit long), and it had this strange film on top.  Now
it had been fermenting on the high end of the scale (around 72), but I have
fermented at this temp before and had no problems.  The strange film also
had bubbles on it (on the surface of the beer).  A couple of the bubbles
were like half bubbles agains the side of the carboy creating a nice cross
section so I could see the inside of a bubble.  There was nothing inside of
it, clear beer actually.  Well I racked to the secondary anyway.  Smelled
fine by the way, but I didn't taste it.  When i finished racking tot he
secondary, I left the file behind in the primary.  But, the film on the
surface of the beer came back in the secondary after about 24 hours.  Has
anyone ever seen anything similar to this?  Any guesses as to what it is?
Some sort of funny infection?

Thanks,

Pete




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:19:25 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: old bench cappers

"Cameron LiDestri" <cameronl at wshu.org>wrote:
>
>I've run into several old bench cappers (why would anyone want to cap a
>bench, anyway?) at flea markets for $5-$10.  Are these any good or have
>there been changes to cap sizes over the years?  Will these old cappers
>work on today's bottles?

I've used a 1930's capper for >25 years.  It owrks fine, but isn't as
smooth as the fancy new ones.  I have another that sticks on the caps - you
have to pull to get the bottle off.  No good.  I had another from the 50's,
I'd guess, that had a geared action rather than a simple hinge, but it
wasn't adjustable for bottle heights, so you had to lift up on the handle
rather than pull down.  It would work with a piece of wood under the
bottle.  I gave it to my brother-in-law.

My suggestion is to take an empty bottle and a few caps with you when you
go shopping.  And don't spend too much.

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: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:27:30 -0500
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Water chemistry and heading properties

Question: Does anybody know of the influence of water chemistry on heading
properties?  The only recent change in my brewing has been the water I use.
 I realize that the head is formed of the proteins present in the beer.
But what about the contribution of various ions in the water?  Can that
influence heading?  I would guess calcium might have a role, but that's a
SWAG.  Thanks.
nathan


Nathan L. Kanous II, Pharm.D., BCPS
Clinical Assistant Professor
School of Pharmacy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Office Phone (608) 263-1779
Pager (608) 265-7000 #2246 (digital)


Return to table of contents


Date: 31 Aug 1998 11:26:09 -0500
From: John E Carsten <John.E.Carsten at oklaosf.state.ok.us>
Subject: A question and an endorsement

First the endorsement.  I had watched, with some skepticism
 (because I'm a hard head) the discussion about yeast pitching
 rates here.  A few weeks ago, I sent a personal mail to George
 DP on an unrelated matter.  His first suggestion for fixing my 
problem was increasing the volume of my yeast starter.  Quite
 simply, IT WORKS!!!!!!

My lag times haven been reduced SIGNIFICANTLY.  I was
 once one of those "pitch 300 ml and wait for something to 
happen" brewers.  I was also waiting as much as 36 hours
 for my beer to show signs of fermentation.  I am a fanatic 
about sanitation, so I never had a full blown "infection", but
 there was often something "not quite right" about the flavor
 of some of my beers.

I have since brewed three batches.  My smallest starter on
 any of these was 3/4 gallon.  Since increasing starter size,
 I have DECREASED lag times to 3-5 hours.  That's 3 to 5 
hours for a fully-fermenting, shooting foam through the blow
 -off tube wort.

Thank you Mr. De Piro, and all of you other high volume yeast
 pitchers out there, I have finally seen the light.

Not the question.  This question may seem ignorant, but I don't
 care.  I know that there are many things I just don't know.

As for aging.  Many of my beers taste much better with a few
 weeks of aging (maybe this even goes back to my initial
 underpitching problem).  But I was wondering if a beer
 necessarily had to be bottled to age it. I have limited keg
 space, but lots of carboy space.

What's the danger (if there is any) in aging a beer in the 
carboy?  First primary ferment; then secondary; THEN 
transfer to a third carboy for a few weeks storage in a cool
 room.  That should remove a significant amount of yeast,
 so the beer is not sitting on too much.

Are there any downsides to this?

Sorry for the waste of bandwidth.

John.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 12:32:17 -0400
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: cider/mead and Andrew Krein 

>>>>> "Jebbly" == Jebbly  <Jebbly at aol.com> writes:

    Jebbly> I suggest using camden tablets 24 to 36 hours prior to
    Jebbly> pitching the yeast.  This will kill off any wild yeasts in
    Jebbly> the cider.

I suggest just the opposite.  I find that the wild yeasts present in
unpasteurized, fresh-pressed apple juice (the best kind for making
cyser) add to the flavor of the final product.  I try to let the apple
juice start fermenting on its own before mixing the cyser.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:19:29 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com>
Subject: Altbier Hopping or Alaskan Amber...

From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: Altbier Hopping

>8. Altbier
>B. Northern German
>Similar in appearance but lighter in character and less bitter than
>Dusseldorf altbiers, though bitterness is still in the medium range.
>Most alts produced outside of Dusseldorf are of this style.
>
>Commercial Examples: DAB Dark, Hannen Alt (Germany); Alaskan
>Amber, Widmer Alt (USA).

>BTW-I've had the Alaskan Amber and it is one delicious beer. I got it fresh

>on tap in the Seattle Airport last year (mmmmmmm yummy). Definitely not 
>bitter enough to be Dusseldorfer.

I just attempted my first all grain last night, and the style i was trying
for was Alt.  (recipie to follow in another post)  Any of you expeirienced
people out there know much about Alaskan Amber.  I too have tried it, and
its WONDERFUL stuff.  nummy.  anyone have recipie, or hints?  hops?
bitterness approximations?  Yeast Hints?

*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger

Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html

In the SCA: 
Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 10:46:58 +0000
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: Stuff

Dave Reidel wrote:
>So far as I've noticed, no-one responded.  I'd like to know what the
>consensus is on this, as I like the idea of the stir-plate as a cost
>effective and simple alternative to direct oxygenation of starters. Does
>the agitation encourage yeast growth?  By stirring the wort, you
>should create enough disturbance in the vessel to disrupt the C02
>blanket, but I would think this only applies until the point at which
>the C02 has forced all of the air out of the fermenter.

This is in response to the question and the related ones.  When I use a
stir plate the speed is such that a vortex is created that will suck gas
into the solution.  Yes some is CO2, but in theory air should also be drawn
in.  This is why you don't use an airlock. The stirring, as others have
pointed out helps keep nutrient gradients to a minimum etc.  Some research
in the past has shown that simple blowing air over the surface of a the
media was enough to get adequate sterol synthesis etc.  I don't have the
papers here so don't take this as anymore than heresay.  Again the point of
a starter is to grow yeast not make beer.  Certainly it would be great if
we could better adapt the yeast to the actual wort by fermenting with it
and blending the beer with subsequnet batches.  Most of us don't brew on
that scale.  

>From Gee and Ramirez Biotech Bieng. vol 31  pp224, 1988

"Based on this simple model optimal controller to yeild as a maximum final
ethanol concentration in the minimum time is to allow the temperature to
attain its maximum possible value at all times during the fermentation"

"A typical brewery yeast strain (S. carlbergensis) and a typical brewery
wort were used in the fermentations.  The original gravity of the wort was
16 degrees Plato...)

It has been pointed out that some of the things I have relayed really only
apply to light lager brewing.  Well the statements above  seem to indicate
that the process being looked at is this same type of brewing.  The authors
subsequent paper is based on the methods in this paper.  Are the results
they obtained really applicable to more normal gravity worts?  I seem to
recall that the change in flavor components is not linear with gravity change.

Jim Liddil



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:06:07 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com>
Subject: Jealous Monkey Alt - All Grain

Greeting Grainheads..  

I present for your viewing pleasure, and amusement, my First All Grain
Brew..

i would appreciate pointers and feedback on my procedure so that i may
improve my brew..  Comments on style are also welcome...  (but keep in mind,
i am not trying for the Perfect, Exact match, just a good tasting brew)

Jealous Monkey Alt  - All Grain
(5 gallon)

4 lbs Marris Otter Pale Ale Malt
3 lbs Munich Malt
1 lb German Light Crystal
1/4 lb Chocolate Malt
1 lb Brown Sugar
1 lb Honey

1/2 oz. Northern Brewer Leaf Hops AAU 7.0  	 at  60 min
1 oz Hallertau Hersbrucker Plug Hops AAU 2.6  	 at  60 min
1/2 oz Hallertau Hersbrucker Plug Hops AAU 2.6  	 at  30 min
1/2 oz Hallertau Hersbrucker Plug Hops AAU 2.6  	 at  2 min

Yeast: 2 packs Nottingham Dry, rehydrated.

Steps:  
heated 9.5 quarts of water to 170 deg, placed in 5 gallon drink cooler, with
copper ring slotted false bottom.  
poured in crushed grain, and stirred, resulting in a 152 deg mash.
put top on, and let rest for 1 hour.
opened top, and pulled off a small amount, recirculated it.
added 4 gallons 170 degree water to the top of the grain bed (placing a
small plate on grain bed to eliminate channeling) while slowly pulling off
liquid.  (fairly slow, but not sure how slow.)
after i used up four gallons of strike water, i put on the propane burner,
and applied heat.
got a rigorous boil going (maybe to rigourous)
added hops at scheduled times..  
Cooled with wort chiller, and drained into carboy.  yeild? about 3
gallons!?!?!  why so little?
topped off with water, yeilding an OG of 1.45
pitched rehydrated yeast, and got an inch of foam in 4 hours.. 

questions:  
how close to style am i?  i think i used too much choc malt.
why did i get so little wort at end of boil?  maybe i boiled a little too
rigourous? should i have added water to the boil before i started?
how do i know when to stop draining from mash?
how can i get to 158 deg adding water? i only got 152..
how can i tell if i did the right rest procedure of the which type of malt?
any other comments on things?

Any pointers will be welcomed in this my first all grain batch..  i plan to
convert a sankey keg i have to a mash tun so i can do different steps, and
have more control later.. but for now i have a picnic cooler.

*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger

Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html

In the SCA: 
Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:19:30 -0400
From: "Andrew Avis" <Andrew.Avis.aavis at nt.com>
Subject: My keg is rusting

Howdy,

I have been happily using a 3 tier converted keg setup for four batches, and
it has been very good so far.  As I was prepping for my 4th batch yesterday
morning, I looked into my HLT and with horror saw that the weld around my
coupling was rust brown.  Not only that, there are several "specks" of rust
appearing on the keg walls.  I hurriedly checked my kettle, and the weld and
walls were rust-free.  The kegs are nearly identical, as far as I can tell.
I cut both open myself - the were in near-perfect condition (still holding
pressure, although slightly dented).  I have not washed the insides of
either with anything other than soap and a plastic scrubby.  The only
difference is that the HLT holds water and treated water (2 ml 88% lactic
acid in 10 gals) for the duration of the brewing day - about 6 hours.  Both
are stored dry and upside-down.  

Does anyone know what is happening to my keg?  Any suggestions on how to
deal with this?  I'm in a bit of a panic.

Many thanks in advance.

Drew Avis
Calgary
Andrew Avis
Technical Writer, Nortel Terminals Documentation
ESN 775-7393


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 11:21:21 -0700
From: "Otto, Doug" <dotto at alldata.com>
Subject: RIMS on the horizon

I recently moved to a new house that gives me a little more freedom with
how I use space.   With that in mind, I'm starting to put together some
basic designs for a RIMS system.  In my research I see that most use
electric heat to boost the mash tun temp.   What I'm considering is
building a pair of copper coils with pumps and valves controlling flow,
one coil will sit on the bottom of the boiling vessel, the other in the
mash tun.  By heating the boiling kettle and then circulating the hot
water through the coil in the mash tun, I should be able to produce a
very nice, gradual temperature rise.   Has anyone else tried a "water
heated" RIMS and had any success?

Thanks

- --
Doug Otto                    
IT-Systems Manager           otto at alldata.com
Alldata Corporation        800.829.8727 ext.3137



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 13:53:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Not reusing yeast from a big beer

Tim writes:
>About the idea of not reusing the yeast from a BIG beer, I am still
>searching for where this information has been coming from. As a mead maker
>before I began to brew beer, I have often pitched a fresh must onto the
>dregs of a previous batch with no ill effects what so ever. The SG's of my
>meads are invariably 1.090 or greater and normally around 1.110.

I believe that this notion was introduced by someone on HBD around 1988 or
1989... they had just gotten back from a tour of Sierra Nevada Brewing
Company and the brewmaster there told the poster that they reuse the
yeast from all their beers *except* the Bigfoot and Celebration Ale
because of the alcohol levels.

Perhaps it is simply a strain-by-strain difference... some strains
are affected by high alcohol levels and others aren't?

On a different note, I'd like to ask if you haven't found that these
re-pitched batches of mead don't take longer to mellow than those made
from smaller amounts of yeast.  We all know the volcanic ferments that
you can get from pitching that much yeast.  Fermentation is exothermic
and a volcanic ferment of a 1.070 wort has been reported to raise the
temperature of the fermenting beer by 10 degrees F.  I imagine that
an 1.110 OG mead must could raise it by 15F, no?  I would be concerned
that these hotter ferments would be very likely to create excessive
higher alcohols unless you made efforts to force-cool the fermenting
must.

Al.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 14:59:32 -0400
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Changes in yeast behavior by selection.

Someone (??) asked about selecting yeast for (non)flocculance and how
many 'selections' it would take to make this happen.

In a paper presented to the 1969 EBC Congress at Interlaken, Curt
Norstedt and Arne Bengtsson of Pripp-Bryggerierna A.B. Stockholm
reported on the experimental results using sets of 10 consecutive 20L
fermentations of 10.5P wort.  The yeast was Pripp's U15 lager yeast
noted as having "moderate flocculation", and all fermentations were at
10C.  Pitching rate was 4g/l (very high).  The attenuation and yeast
remaining in suspension were measured.

In test set 1, the yeast was selected from the bottom of the fermentor
when the fermentable extract remaining was "more than 1P" which
corresponds with 0.005+ SG of apparent attenuation remaining.  The 1st
fermentation ended at 2.3P, the 4th at 3.2P, and the 10th at 4P.  The
amount yeast in suspension peaked earlier (~1.5 days vs 4 days) and at
much lower levels (10-11gm/L vs 15gm/L) for later fermentations.  Also
it is apparent that the amount of yeast in suspension starts to
decline progressively earlier in the fermentation.  In the final
fermentation the yeast attenuate slowly and floc early.

In the second experiment set, the yeast was gathered from the bottom
after only 1-2 gm/L of yeast remained in suspension and the beer was
nearly fully attenuated.  No surprise that the attenuation and the
yeast in suspension did not vary substantially between fermentation 1
and 10.  There was a slight tendency for later fermentations to
attenuate less (2.3P to 2.6P) and have lower levels in suspension.
Perhaps the yeast for the first pitching was in better condition since
it was derived from their commercial brewery.

In the third series of test fermentations, the yeast for repitching
was derived by centrifuging yeast from suspension at the same point as
in test set 1 (1+P of fermentables remaining, 0.005+ SG remaining
attenuation). Here the final SG (attenuation) is almost the same
generation 1-10, and again as in case two, a modest decline in yeast
in suspension (why ??!!??).

In experiment set 4 a "sluggish yeast", (like that from experiment set
one, fermentation 10), is taken when the yeast remaining in suspension
is maximum and this yeast-laden wort has new wort added - and so on
for 10 iterations.  By fermentation 11 the yeast has regained it's
original properties of quick attenuation and moderate flocculation.

- --
My conclusions - after only 10 'poor selections' (case 1) the yeast
went from 78% to 62% attenuation at day 12 of fermentation.  By
reselecting the yeast for lower flocculence (case 4) the original
properties were restored in 10 'selection'.  The difference per
selection was greater for the earlier fermentations, tho' not markedly
so. This ultimately must be the case (obvious) as the yeast attain
some sort of asymptotic limit to flocculence.

Reselecting the original yeast for lower flocculation (case 3) did not
increase the attenuation nor amount/length of time that the yeast
remained in suspension. [No powdery yeast effect noted].  This was
apparently limited instead by the amount of remaining fermentables in
the wort/beer.

You can "ruin" your yeast and create conditions for slow fermentation
perhaps in as little as 2-4 bad selections for flocculence over
non-flocculence.  Selection of either yeast in suspension at peak
fermentation or alternatively all sediment after fermentation ceases
seem like good selection strategies.  Selection of sedimented yeast
before completion of fermentation appears to be a poor policy.

Steve Alexander




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 98 15:20:33 CDT
From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: Tannin in mead

AJ deLange wrote:

>Jebbly suggests adding raisins to mead musts to obtain a tannin taste. I
>guess I'm confused as to why anyone would want to do this though I've
>seen it suggested that grape tannin be added to meads. I've got a cyser
>with polyphenols at 90 mg per liter and a sack at 16 (these represent
>the totallity of my mead making BTW). These were made at the same time
>(back in Jan) from the same honey. No tannin was added. The cyser is
>just plain phenolic rough! The sack is lovely. Will the cyser mellow
>with time? Is the mellowing the same as in beer, i.e. complexing and
>precipitation of the polyphenols? If so, why put it in in the first
>place?

I am certainly no mead expert, having made only three, but I have read in
the Mead Lover's Journal that tannin may be added to mead with tea bags to,
I believe, facilitate clearing.  Also, doesn't tannin provide some protection
from oxidation?  I thought that was one purpose it serves in red wines, with
the oxidized tannin precipitating out over time.

John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 16:55:21 -0600 (MDT)
From: William Graham <weg at rmi.net>
Subject: Packaging wild hops

Fellow hop-heads -
	I know of an area near where I live that has many wild hops
growing, and it looks like they need to be harvested. I used some last
year and was reasonably happy with the bittering/taste/aroma. Since little
of my brewing is judged by professionals, I have plans to brew many
batches of beer with these hops. 
	The problem is how to store them so they can last up to a year.
The best solution, in a general sense, would be to harvest, and then
compress the hops into "chunks" of maybe 1-3 oz's, and seal them in
freezer bags.
	So, how can I compress these hops? And, what is the best way to
seal them up? Any of you folks who grow your own have any suggestions? I
can't imagine anyone saying yes, but if you contribute some good ideas
and would like an ounce or two of some "stray", let me know.

Bill

"...the only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden
violence."  -  Butros Butros-Ghali



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1998 17:27:00 -0700
From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com>
Subject: Re:Cyser mellowing/Pitching rates

AJ asks in HBD 2812:
 -snip-
I've got a cyser
with polyphenols at 90 mg per liter and a sack at 16 (these represent
the totality of my mead making BTW). These were made at the same time
(back in Jan) from the same honey. No tannin was added. The cyser is
just plain phenolic rough! The sack is lovely. Will the cyser mellow
with time? Is the mellowing the same as in beer, i.e. complexing and
precipitation of the polyphenols?  If so, why put it in, in the first
place?

 -snip-

My experience is that cysers take longer than plain meads to mellow.  I'm 
not sure of the mechanism, but at least a year of age will help, it should 
be lovely by then and may improve for another year.  Perhaps someone who 
adds tannin to their meads can elaborate as to their rationale, as I 
don't.  It is said to add complexity and balance to the flavor, much as 
the right amount of tannin makes for a much better red wine, but this is 
hearsay on my part.

Bruce Carpenter also asks:
 -snip-
I have a couple of questions for the group concerning pitching rates.
First, a little info. My current procedure is to start with a Wyeast
suited for the style of beer I plan to brew. I create a starter based on
nutrient pack instructions. I then add to this starter the two small
packs of dry yeast included in the beer kit I have purchased. The main
reason I add the dry yeast is due to the extensive discussion about
underpitching and that some believe that 1 package of Wyeast is not
enough yeast. And after all, the dry yeast comes with my beer kit, so it
is no extra expense. Questions: 1. Does this procedure have any striking
advantages or disadvantages? 
 -snip-

The main disadvantage is you no longer are pitching a single type of 
yeast.  The dry yeast may be more or less viable, may have a different 
flavor profile, may be contaminated with beer spoiling organisms.  The 
biggest disadvantage I can think of is the high likelihood of a different 
flavor profile.  Just MHO, but I think you'd do better to step up your 
starter closer to an ideal pitching rate.  You can boil the dry yeast with 
your starter for additional nutrient, then aerate well.

 -snip-
2. Am I "adulterating" my beer with 2 types of yeast and violating a 
purist's code?
 -snip-

At least two, maybe more.  The only code which has any validity for you, 
is your own.  If you like the beer you make, no one else's opinion 
matters.  We're glad to help with your questions, though.  Prost!

 -Grant
Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei
Des Moines, Washington

Return to table of contents

---