---

	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:
  Lagering and repitching yeast (Cas Koralewski)
  RE:  Fruit flies (william graham)
  Re: First Lager Issues (Spencer W Thomas)
  Calcium Chloride (William Frazier)
  Complete the analogy, FRUIT FLIES : CLINITEST as... (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Re: cheap scales... ("Robert J. Waddell")
  Strike procedure ("Steve")
  Re: Electric Stove Heat Boost - Use Steam! (Gail Elber)
  All Grain Weizen (OCaball299)
  Whole hops/irish moss ("KC Sare")
  re: small fermenters (Jon Macleod)
  Brew Classic European Beers at Home (Ken Pendergrass)
  Re: Christmas Bounty (Automatic malt mill) (Doug Roberts)
  Re:Drosophilae Melanogaster (Rod Prather)
  More open fermenters (Rod Prather)
  Kornberg on Biotechnology (LEAVITDG)
  Re: Samichlaus (Rosalba e Massimo)
  too much head stability (Kevin TenBrink)
  Re: Mills and extract efficiency ("Matthew J. Harper")
  Danger from too much dissolved O2 in wort? ("Dave Humes")
  fruit flies in my science (Dave Sapsis)
  Re: Fruitfly fears (Steve & Dena Reynolds)
  Cock Ale... (Badger Roullett)
  Re: bottling times (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Good & Bad Grains, Good & Bad Advice (Jeff Renner)
  Westvletteren 12 Yeast ("Peter Zien")
  wyeast  3333 german wheat yeast (JPullum127)
  Water chemistry ("Chris Beadle")
  On fruitflies and dogma (John Adsit)
  Steam purity and how delicate are enzymes, really? (william macher)


It's 1999! Happy New Year!
               - From the Home Brew Digest

NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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!

Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"

Back issues are available via:

  HTML from...
        http://hbd.org
  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

COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org 
  (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be 
  reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless 
  EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
  author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
  reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
  author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source
  in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items 
  originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is 
  exempt from the above.)

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 12:25:00 -0500
From: Cas Koralewski <caskor at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Lagering and repitching yeast

I have made my first lager, an Oktoberfest. It is going to lager for 7
weeks at 40 degrees F. It will be bottle conditioned after the lager
period. My question is; Will I have to pitch more yeast when I bottle, or
will there be enough of the little critters in there to do the job? I've
heard both versions. 
Help! I want this to turn out right!

Thanks for the help,
Cas



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:30:48 -0500 (EST)
From: william graham <weg at micro-net.net>
Subject: RE:  Fruit flies

Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> says:
>>
4.  Fact: A beer with a fruit fly in the starter was submitted to a
contest and won third place.   --
<<

I don't know if it's the altitude or the weather, but I don't think I've
ever seen fruit flies up here in Golden, CO. I've called a few homebrew
shops, and browsed the usual suspects on the web, but I can't find anyone
selling fruit flies. So does anyone know where I can get some? Maybe some
scientific supply houses? I really would like to improve my beers. 

Thanks,
	Bill



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:09:31 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: First Lager Issues

>>>>> "Gregory" == Gregory M Remake <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu> writes:

    Gregory> The first issue is the importance of stability of
    Gregory> fermentation temperature.  I do not have a refrigerator
    Gregory> in which to ferment a lager, but I have an unheated
    Gregory> attic.

I rigged up a simple temperature control for an unheated closet.  The
same might work for your attic.

It requires a transformer, a low-voltage fan, and a thermostat.  I had
the thermostat lying around, since I replaced the house thermostat a
while back.  I used a "power adapter" for a defunct battery-operated
device as the transformer.  The fan was a surplus "muffin fan," such
as are used to ventilate PCs, from a friend who had a pile of them.
Assuming that the "natural temperature" of the space is cooler than
you want, you hook up the transformer, thermostat, and fan in series
so that the fan will turn on when the temperature gets too cold.  A
cheesy diagram may make this more clear:


	  wires connected	   thermostat  	     fan
wall      to low-voltage plug         ---           +------+
plug    +-+    +---------------------(   )----------+      |
==)-----| |---<		       	      ---           |      |
	+-+    +------------------------------------+	   |
       xformer					    +------+

You can either remove the low voltage "plug" from the power adapter,
and just splice new wires onto the existing wires from the adapter, or
you can try attaching the wires to the "plug" if you want the adapter
to be still usable for its original purpose.

The fan is mounted in the doorway, and the door is opened a bit.  When
the temperature in the closet gets too low, the fan turns on and blows
warm air from the rest of the house into the closet (or,
alternatively, blows cold air out of the closet.)

This works best with a thermostat with a bimetal coil and mercury
switch, because you can tilt the thermostat to make it work at the
lower temperature range that you will want for lagering.  An auxiliary
thermometer makes calibrating it easier.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:19:14 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Calcium Chloride

Recently I have been trying to rid my Redhawk ESB recipe of an
unpleasant bitter quality.  I believe it can be traced to high
sulfate (152 ppm) in my Johnson County, KS water.  My approach
is simple enough...dilute with distilled water.  For my next
brew I plan to dilute 1:3 to lower sulfate to 38 ppm.  
Unfortunately this will also lower the calcium to 25 ppm. While
this might be OK it is not optimal.  I found some calcium
chloride in a local homebrew shop and this is where the 
confusion begins.

The label reads "calcium chloride, one tsp in 5 gallons
increases Ca 95 ppm and Cl 84 ppm".

Since calcium chloride exists as CaCl2 these labeled amounts			
can't be accurate.  The first problem is with ratio of Ca and			Cl.  The
second problem is that the label doesn't indicate 			
whether the chemical is anhydrous, dihydrate or another of the			
possible forms of calcium chloride (NOTE: The shop owner			
called the supplier and said it was anhydrous).				

The problem may have started with information contained in			
The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing.  This was my first			
brewing book purchased over ten years ago.  Charlie Papazian			
states that one tsp calcium chloride flakes (CaCl2) in 				
5 gallons will increase (approximately) concentration of;				

	Calcium	(Ca++) ion 95 ppm		
	Chloride	[2(Cl)--] ion 84 ppm		
				
If the tsp did provide 95 ppm calcium it would have to 		
provide about 168 ppm chloride.  The way the chloride		
content is stated is very confusing.		

I referred to a couple of newer homebrew texts...		

New Brewing Lager Beer by Gregory Noonan		
One gram per gallon anhydrous calcium chloride gives;		

	Calcium	161.4 ppm
	Chloride (ie. as Cl2)	168.8 ppm
		
Homebrewing Volume 1 by Al Korzonas		
One gram per gallon anhydrous calcium chloride gives;		

	Calcium (Ca+2)	95.41 ppm
	Chloride (Cl-)	168.79 ppm		

To end this long boring discussion, Al Korzonas' figures 			
are correct.  The others are either misleading or wrong.			
It's basic chemistry and arithmetic.  If you are trying to			
get your water chemistry right don't believe everything				
you read on a label.				
				
	Bill Frazier			
	The Briarpatch Homebrewery			
	Johnson County, Kansas			



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 15:49:19 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Complete the analogy, FRUIT FLIES : CLINITEST as...


As a full-fledged science geek I feel compelled to point out that the
proferred "data point" is utterly useless without a proper control (same
batch of beer without fruit fly). For all we know without the fly he may
have garnered First Place!

 -Alan
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
"Graduate school is the snooze button on the alarm clock of life."
	
	-Jim Squire


 -Alan Meeker
Johns Hopkins Hospital
Dept. of Urology

(410) 614-4974
__________________________________________________________________





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:07:19 -0700
From: "Robert J. Waddell" <rjw at dimensional.com>
Subject: Re: cheap scales...

Doug Moyer asks:
>Can anyone recommend a resonably accurate scale that can measure
>+/- 0.25 grams, at a reasonable price?

You might want to check with your local Police Department.  They
often confiscate very nice triple beam balance scales while
conducting drug raids.  Most localities have Police auctions once
or twice a year.  I only learned of this AFTER buying one from the
www.scaleman.com site.  I'm not unhappy with the one I bought,
though.  It was very nice.
rjw
                      I *L*O*V*E* my [Pico] system.  'Cept for that
                      gonging noise it makes when my wife throws it
                      off the bed at night.
                      Women...
                                         --Pat Babcock

          *** It's never too late to have a happy childhood!  ***
********************************************************************
RJW at dimensional.com      / Opinions expressed are usually my own but
Robert J. Waddell       / perhaps shared.     ICQ #7136012
Owner & Brewmaster: Barchenspeider Brew-Haus   Longmont, Colorado
********************************************************************
                    (4,592 feet higher than Jeff Renner)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:27:37 -0500
From: "Steve" <stjones1 at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Strike procedure

Greetings, all!

My question is about the initial mix of hot water & grain in
the mash tun. I mash in a converted sanke keg by adding the
strike water, heating it to strike temp, then pouring in the
grain while stirring. I usually hit my mash temp within a
degree , and don't seem to have any real problem with my
brews.

However, a fellow brewer asked me if I might be denaturing
some of the the beta amylase enzymes when the grain first
hits the 164F+ water and maybe don't get as many
fermentables as a result. I do occasionally have a batch
that finishes with a higher than expected gravity, and maybe
this is a contributing factor.

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments on this?

Hoppy brew year to you all!

Steve
State of Franklin Homebrewers
Johnson City, Tennessee
http://home.att.net/~stjones1



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 13:32:50 -0800
From: Gail Elber <gail at brewtech.com>
Subject: Re: Electric Stove Heat Boost - Use Steam! 

The July/August 1994 issue of BrewingTechniques (online at
http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.4/jones.html)
contains an article by Kelly Jones about using a pressure cooker to inject
steam into the mash tun.

Gail Elber
Associate Editor
BrewingTechniques
P.O. Box 3222
Eugene, OR 97403
541/687-2993
fax 541/687-8534




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 17:14:09 EST
From: OCaball299 at aol.com
Subject: All Grain Weizen

Greetings all,

I'm interested in brewing an all-grain Dunkel Weizen which calls for 50% Wheat
malt.  I haven't done one of these before but am aware that I will get a stuck
sparge.  I purchased a couple of ounces of rice hulls to avoid it.  Can anyone
please tell me if 2 oz. will be enough and when do I add them?

TIA.

Omar - Aurora, IL
"Live long and prosper" - Mr. Spock
 .. and have another Homebrew!


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 14:46:12 -0800
From: "KC Sare" <KC at j4systems.com>
Subject: Whole hops/irish moss

Recently I have switched from hop pellets to whole hops in my boil.  And 
since doing so I have had little success in settling break material out of 
my wort with the use of Irish moss.  Could this have anything to do with 
my switch in hops?
Any info would be appreciated.

                                    Sincerely, 
                                                  Fellow Brewer


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:16:38 -0500
From: marli at bbs2.rmrc.net (Jon Macleod)
Subject: re: small fermenters

The best fermenters I've found in the 1 gallon range are jug wine
bottles.  Three and 4 liter ones are pretty readily available, even
filled with wine that you can stand to drink.   I've used them for beer
and also splitting 5 gallon mead batches down into small trials with
various herbs, spices, and fruits.

Mike



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 20:03:11 -0500
From: Ken Pendergrass <kenp794 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Brew Classic European Beers at Home

After lurking for a week or so it's time to send my first post to the
digest.  I'm just tasteing the first bottles of a batch of stout I made
from the "Brew Classic European Beers at Home" Wheeler and
Protz,Guinness Export Stout p.108 recipes (grain) and I'm dissapointed. 
I don't think I made a mistake I think this is a lack luster recipe. 
There is no complexity or depth drinkable but not exciting.  It dosen't
have rough edges. I doubt it will improve much with ageing. My point is
that American homebrewed and microbrewed beer set the standard world
wide for beer quality. With the exception of certian Belgian sour types
which require 3 or 4 years ageing.  Which to my knoweledge no one is
making here. In fact all of the UK brews I try lately lack complexity,
depth and interest compared to anything made by Bell's. What say you to
that?  Have you tried a recipe from this book? I'm doubly dissapointed
because I have a batch of Hoegaarden Wit p.160 ageing in the secondary.

I would also like to ask if anyone has used Papazian's "Home Brewer's
Gold" recipes? These recipes look interesting but I've not used any of
his recipes.

Regards,
Ken Pendergrass
Ypisilanti

with stout in hand and jack russell terrier in lap




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998 21:53:11 -0700
From: Doug Roberts <gertchie at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Christmas Bounty (Automatic malt mill)


Greetings:

I was also the recipient of an Automatic malt mill for
Christmas. Unfortunately, I packed it up and sent it back to Williams
Brewing the very next day: it was not able to mill Hugh Baird 140L
crystal at any setting. The second roller (the one that is supposed to
operate on the friction from grain caught between it and the powered
roller) continued to get jammed. When the "free wheeling" roller
doesn't turn, the grain doesn't get milled.

I called Williams Brewing and accepted their offer to try a
replacement mill, but I'm afraid that there is a design flaw in the
mill that prevents it from being able to handle the larger, harder
grains (like Hugh Baird 140L crystal). We'll see when I get the
replacement. 

- --Doug
gertchie at earthlink.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:17:17 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: Re:Drosophilae Melanogaster

>Absolutely true!  But, so far we only have one real data point versus a
>lot of speculation.  As I said in my previous post *The posted data does
>not indicate that fruit flies cause bacteria contamination problems with
>beer.*  MANY additional data may indeed change this conclusion.  So far we
>have not seen any.

Paul you are ignoring the basis of all of the thories of central tendency
and basic statictics.  The fact that you HAVE only one point should tell you
something.  There are other points, they just didn't make it on the chart.
Either no one else documents the fact that a fly invaded their starter out
of embarrassment  or  they are out of range, they stink, they taste funny,
they ended up in down the sink, etc. due to  high acetic acid, wild yeasts,
and/or other bacterial infections.   It is just not wise to introduce
unknowns to your beer  in such a way.  Now if a fly gets in your wort.  You
can't do much about that and you may as well take a chance.   In the
starter, I still feel uneasy.

Maybe we should start a study project.  Everyone who finds a fly in the
starter and tosses it anyway can log in and evaluate the beer.  Do you want
to keep the list and log the points in.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:42:13 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: More open fermenters

>Dave Burley commented,

>"I have used this "open" fermentation
>procedure for three decades and never had a spoiled batch.  I think it
>is superior to the primary fermentation in a closed carboy system.
>Others disagree. "

Dave, I wonder how you justify this when fermenting so much over
so many years.  I can understand that it makes the  process easier
but remember yeasts are airborne.  You may even get a superior
product.  Here's why.   You are probably spending
around 5 bucks a pouch for the purity of a
liquid yeast only to have it compromised by the yeast soup you have
floating around in your home brewery.   Do you ever note little clumps
of ale yeast floating on the top of your lagers?   Remember that most
great French bread bakeries NEVER add yeast, they rely totally on
the yeast soup floating in the bakery.  This may
be  a small portion of your total toss but it does count. Each beer
You make has a bit of the Dave Burley yeast flora in it.  You
also take the chance of introducing airborne bacteria.  If you have
never had a putrid yellow puss pack floating on your beer,
you are lucky.   Pasteur
learned this and used it as the basis for his studies on sterile
process.  (Don't ask me for the French name of the study, I don't
speak French).

In your case, you may have excellent results because you have an
excellent soup of airborne yeasts.  I HAVE to use carboys because
I  make wine each fall and montrachet and other wine yeasts
make really  funky beer.  For newbies who are just starting, wild
yeasts  would make up the majority of their airborne yeasts.
This could also have desirable or undesirable results, most likely
undesirable due to bacterial concerns.  Here's
a test for you,  take a small container of cooled wort out of your
next batch, say  a quart with an airspace, don't add yeast,  set it
in your brewery area for several hours uncovered  then cover it,
preferably with a lock as you normally would.

Betcha' it ferments out to a decent tasting beer with a lot less
acids and undesireables than you would think.






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 07:45:26 -0500 (EST)
From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU
Subject: Kornberg on Biotechnology

Admittedly a side issue for this list, but if any of you are interested
in a report on Kornberg's (Nobel laureate) views on biotechnology (in
which brewing and yeast is briefly mentioned), just ask and I will 
send.
 ...Darrell
Leavitdg at splava.cc.plattsburgh.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:05:43 -0800
From: Rosalba e Massimo <rosamax at split.it>
Subject: Re: Samichlaus

Hi!

> The assistant
> manager (who knows and loves good beer) told her that Samichlaus was no
> longer being made.  He did succeed in finding some vintage variety packs
> of Samichlaus.
> 
> Has anyone else heard anything about this? 

This news appeared this summer in a UK site and mailing list, and also
in rec.food.drink.beer. The site is
http://www.breworld.com
the news should be still in the main page.
Samichlaus used to be brewed on 6 Dec every year to be released on the
same day one year later. The brewery did not made the beer on 6 Dec 1997
(and quite surely also in Dec 98) and despite all the complaints and
emails they have no will to start production any more.
The last Sami you can find is the 1997 (still available in some shops)
brewed in 1996.

> And does anyone have a
> better Samichlaus recipe than the one in Zymurgy a few years ago?

We were talking about it in the italian beer newsgroup... besides the
strength, it is a very attenuated beer (14% abv, about 1120 OG) and it
is a lager, you should find an alcohol-tolerant bottom fermenting
yeast...
any suggestions?

Cheers and Happy New Year from Genova, Italy

Max
http://www.split.it/users/rosamax/



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 07:02:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin TenBrink <zzymurgist at yahoo.com>
Subject: too much head stability

After 2 years and 45 batches of extract based brews, I made the
transition to all-grain this past summer.  I am enjoying the fruits of
that labor-intensive experience now and have a question about the
product.

There has been much discussion recently about mash schedules and the
effect on clarity and head retention/foam stability.  

The problem I am having with my first all-grain is that it has TOO
MUCH foam stability.  When I pour a glass (from bottle or party pig),
I get half a glass of this rocky dense head that does not receed.  In
fact when the beer is gone, there is usually still about 1/4 glass of
head left.  My glassware is clean, and I have tried pre-wetting the
glass with cool tap water to no avail.  The beer is not
overcarbonated, if anything slightly under.  Perhaps someone more
knowledgeable than myself could review the following procedure and
tell me what is causing this.

Ingredents:
- --9 lbs Schrier American 2 row
- --1 lb Breiss 60L crystal
- --0.75 lb DWC Munich
- --0.5 lb Cara-pils
- --2 ozs Nugget 12.3 AAU 60 mins
- --1 oz Nugget 12.3 AAU FWH
- --1 oz Homegrown Saaz FWH
- --1 oz Homehrown Saaz 20 mins
- --1 oz Kent Golding Hop tea to secondary
- --Wyeast 2112 from starter

Procedure:
Mash 90 mins at 156 
sparge with 175

O.G.:  1.065
F.G.:  1.010
ferment at 50 degrees for 2 weeks
secondary at 40 degrees for 2 weeks

So what do you think?  The mash schedule was pretty non-involved, I
just combined water heated to 170ish with the malt in my pre-heated
gott, stirred and let it sit, checking the temp periodically.  The
initial temp was about 159 and crept down to 156 during the 90 min
mash.  Does FWHing with a high alpha acid hop lend to foam stability?

Any advice/insight would be appreciated.

Cheers
Kevin TenBrink
Lansing, MI


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



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:47:46 -0500
From: "Matthew J. Harper" <matth at progress.com>
Subject: Re: Mills and extract efficiency


Jack Schmidling writes about Carona mills in todays digest:

>Contrary to popular opinion, the maximum efficiency would occur if
>the malt was ground to fine flour.  Unfortunately, traditional
>lauter tuns can not deal with flour so we have to crush the malt
>in such a manner as to keep much of the husk in tact.
>
>As the Corona is designed to make flour, it is not hard to believe
>that one can achieve excellent extraction.  Adjusting it is a 
>compromise between pulverizing the husks and allowing whole grains
>to pass through.  It the lauter system can handle the fine grist,
>the extraction can exceed a two roller mill.
>
>Extraction is only effected when going the other way and passing
>whole grains.  The advantage of a two roller mill is that it is
>impossible to purverize all the husk and easy to set up so no
>whole grains can pass.  In the long run, better extraction may
>result but it is not an inherent advantage over the Corona.
>
>The Corona has lots of shortcomings but extraction is not one of
>them if adjusted correctly.

I'm a Carona owner (say *that* a few times fast... :-) and 
I am quite satisfied with my extraction rates.  I Found the best 
(subjective term of course...) overall spacing and locked it in 
tight.  I am in full agreement with Jack on this aspect of roller 
or plate spacing; it isn't worth the hassle to tweak it everytime.  
I can screw up a batch in so many others ways! <grin>

However,  what Jack writes  made me wonder about something related 
to this topic:

The biggest reason roller mills are so attractive is because of the
type of crush they give; which then translates into smoother 
lautering and run off procedures.  However, as Jack points out above 
the best  extraction would happen if the malt was pulverized into 
powder. 

Does this mean if I took my grain, turned it into powder and mixed
it with a bunch-o-rice hulls in my tun I'd get the best extraction,
provided the hulls performed as an adequate filter bed as the grain
husks normally do?  Would there be too much tanin extraction?

 -Matth

About 10 Degress F Warmer then Jeff Renner here in Southern New Hampshire...


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:56:50 -0500
From: "Dave Humes" <humesdg1 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Danger from too much dissolved O2 in wort?

Greetings,

I started oxygenating with pure O2 several months ago, mainly to
shorten my brewing hours and also to insure that adequate levels of
dissolved O2 are provided.  I've become somewhat concerned that I
have little control over DO levels since it's not something that I
can measure.  From what I've read for normal gravity worts, there's
little advantage to be gained by introducing any more DO than about
25% of the saturation amount.  BTW, what is the saturation amount? 
Some say 8ppm, others say it can go as high as 30ppm if pure O2 is
used.  I've also seen a recommendation to saturate the wort.  My
question is, can too much DO be detrimental.  Or, is it the case that
all the DO in a saturated wort will be rapidly metabolized before it
can do any harm.  Has anyone looked at what kinds of reactions occur
between DO and wort compounds before the O2 is metabolized?  Are
there sufficient products from these reactions to cause flavor/aroma
defects?  Is it possible to get so much DO in the wort that it
poisons the yeast?

Thanks.




Dave Humes                             >>humesdg1 at earthlink.net<<




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 10:04:16 -0800
From: Dave Sapsis <DAVE_SAPSIS at fire.ca.gov>
Subject: fruit flies in my science

The ongoing debate concerning the net effects of fruit flies in yeast
starters raises once again the weak science that is routinely tossed
around here.

Paul notes:
But, so far we only have one real data point versus a lot of
speculation. 
The problem lies not only with the paucity of data points, but in there
very nature.  In this instance we have a dependent variable apparently
being something as vague and difficult to quantify as "beer quality".  I
have been judging beers in formal settings since 1986 and am quite
active in it still.  The "fact" that the beer scored 3rd in a homebrew
comp means nothing about its "quality" other than two beers were judged
"better".  A more insidious problem with using these types of "data" is
that they are entirely uncontrolled for.  They represent empirical
"studies"' as opposed to structured experiments.  Tons of ancillary
factors contribute to beer quality.

As an example, a manipulative  experiment looking at the  fruit fly
factor in contamination would test it across exposures (no flies
 -control, one fly, two fly, threee flies, more), across worts, across
breweries, and across time. Multiple replications for each of these
factors (or a time series with subsampling to account for time) would be
required to develop inference regarding the relative import of a bug in
your starter.  This is what science does -- decreases uncertainty.  The
experiemental design can increase its potential inference by having very
high levels of significance and high levels of power (ability to detect
change from null).  Secondly, it would always be good to use a
quantitative measure as the dependent variable (cell counts make sense)
in conjunction with structured blind taste evaluations by trained beer
sensory people.  Sounds daunting, eh? This is why even the most esteemed
brewing jounals highlighting the best experimental research on brewing
still come up with speculative results.  At its very core, science can
only get inference.  Despite many (scientists even) talking about
"proof", they are actually talking about statistical tests that they
have deemed "significant".

So what are we to do?   There is already very strong experimetal
evidence that common fruit flies harbor bacteria on their surface.
There is also strong evidence that most beer (and virtually all
homebrew)  has at least background levels of contamination.  Given that
the starter is nutrient rich media, and that cell growth is an
objective, I tend to think that low levels of bacteria contamination at
the starter phase would be more problematic than later.  This of course
depends on the bugs particular life history and living requirements, but
kinda brings to mind Dirty Harry.

I dont discourage the use of individual data points in trying to
develoip understanding, but I do think that an understanding of a
particular factor should carry with it an understanding of how it was
reached.  Nor do I frown upon the use of exotic adjuncts in beer.  How
do you think I came up with the name of my 1994 barleywind "Old Stogie"
or its 1995 sister "Old Loogee".

Peace, and a fine 99 to you all.
- --dave, sacramento




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:03:53 -0800
From: Steve & Dena Reynolds <strdar at pacbell.net>
Subject: Re: Fruitfly fears

Paul Niebergall wrote:

>Until someone supplies additional data, we have to assume that
>fruit flies are not a problem in starters.

That assumption is on par with assuming that lying down on a highway is
safe because, on occasion, there isn't a Mack truck tire where your
melon (cranium) would be. If I hadn't seen other egregious lapses in
logic in his reply, I would conclude that Mr. Niebergall didn't intend
his response to read this way.  His saying that the judges were schmucks
removes all doubt.  Undesirable yeasts or bacteria are not guaranteed to
propagate from the feet of fruitflies, so there is a chance the judges
sensed rightly.
  As a novice judge and willing audience to diverse points of view, I'm
here to say it's better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. 
In general, it's downright unproductive to get all pissy about data you
assume to be unimpeachable.
  No disingenuous welcomes, please.  Just 'cause I've never posted
before doesn't mean I don't revel in the democratic process.
	Steve, brewing quietly in the shadow of Mt. Tam


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:25:52 -0800
From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com>
Subject: Cock Ale...

From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azona.com>
Subject: Re: Unique adjuncts

"I once had a rooster ale.  The brewer threw a cooked chicken into the
primary.  It was a heavy brew (OG around 1070). 
Only the bones were left when it was transferred to secondary. You couldnt
taste the chicken but the beer had a richness that I havent tasted before.
It sounds gross but it was actually not a bad beer."

I have several recipes for "cock ale" in a couple of my historical books..
Cindy Renfrow's book _A Sip Through Time_ has four of them, dating from 1550
 - 1780.  This disgusting concept usually had a recipe of something like 2-10
gallons of fermenting ale, and a dead plucked chicken.  Wheee..  

badger

*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger (Seattle, WA)
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:19:43 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: bottling times

John Herman <johnvic at earthlink.net> asks
>If I store my bottles at room temperature, how long before
>corn suger has fully fermented?  Once it has fermented, how long before
>the CO2 has disolved into the ale?  Once I put the bottle to cool, is
>there a re-adjustment of the CO2?
>
>Generally I find that 2 week in the bottle is not as good as a few weeks
>more.  I just don't get the same degree of carbbonation.

John

You've touched on one of the ongoing and unsettled questions on HBD.  I
don't think anyone has come up with the definitive answer as to why it
takes more than a few days to carbonate, but it does.  Obviously your ale
finished fermenting lots more fermentables much more quickly that that.
Suggested reasons have been low nutrient level in finished beer, low pH,
pooped out yeast, Crabtree efect; I can't remember the rest.  In spite of
Dave Miller asserting that it takes time for the CO2 to go into solution
after it's been produced, this is impossible.  It is produced and
immediately dissolved in situ.  When you cool your ale, you will get less
pressure and less fizzy beer because colder beer can hold more CO2.  This
will happen immediately without any"re-adjustment of the CO2."  You will
also likely get chill haze, but that's a separate issue.

Give it those few extra weeks for full carbonation and the beer will
probably taste better, too.  And don't forget that British style ales are
best with low carbonation and not too cold.

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: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 13:40:55 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Good & Bad Grains, Good & Bad Advice

Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com> asks about, among other things,
George Fix's report of the poor quality of available Vienna malts.  Since
that book was written, excellent Vienna (and Munich) malts have become
available.  I believe George has posted to this effect, and others have had
the same experience.  The major German producers' products are excellent.
Briess has also brought out a 2-row Vienna-style called Ashburne, which I
haven't tried.  Since I've stopped using the darker crystal malts with
Pilsner malt base, I've been happier with the results - no caramel flavor.

>is Hugh Baird or Maris Otter of comparable quality?

You are comparing apples and oranges here - Hugh Baird is a maltster; Maris
Otter is a older barley variety prized for malting.  Several British
producers produce malt from it, and Baird and other maltsters produce malt
from several varieties.  Halcyon is another variety.  The only bad malt
that I remember being reported here specifically is a Maris Otter that
George Piro found to be substandard (greatly overmodified).  I can't
remember the producer.  Most Maris Otter is fine although apparently very
friable.

I have had good luck with Scotmalt, Paul's, Munton & Fison and Hugh Baird.
Cost isn't much of a consideration for me - all grains are close enough in
price to one another for me to use grains from the country of the style I'm
trying to produce.

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: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 11:39:33 -0800
From: "Peter Zien" <PZ.JDZINC at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Westvletteren 12 Yeast

I recently acquired a prized bottle of Westvletteren 12 Abt  beer.  It was
picked up at the Trappist Abbaye 30 days ago and was shipped immediately.
It appears to be in great shape, with a nice dusting of yeast on the bottom.
I would like to culture it and pitch into a 1.080 OG Trippel if it is the
same yeast used for primary fermentation.  However, I am having trouble
locating a source that discusses this particular strain.  Michael Jackson
appears to have first hand knowledge about the neighboring Westmalle Trippel
yeast, claiming that although the primary yeast is filtered out, the same
yeast is reintroduced at bottling.  Does anyone know if this is true with
the Westvletteren yeast?  Has Wyeast already incorporated this yeast into
their line-up, saving me the trouble?   Thanks for your help!

Peter Zien
pz.jdzinc at worldnet.att.net





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:01:04 EST
From: JPullum127 at aol.com
Subject: wyeast  3333 german wheat yeast


i just used this yeast in a monster.(doubledunkelweizenbock)          i had a
rapid and furious ferment at 64degrees,with about a  quart of blowoff from 61/2
gal carboy filled to 5 gallons. blowoff smelled strongly of banana although
this strain is supposed to be low in banana,clove,phenol of most wheat yeasts.
gravity went from1.070 to1.018 when i racked to secondary  at 12    days. hope
this is usefull.p.s. dave logsdon(?spelling) the yeast guy  at wyeast mentioned
this is one of his favorites and suggested the strain for the recipe i had
mentioned to my supplier          marc


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 15:56:40 -0500
From: "Chris Beadle" <crbeadle at email.msn.com>
Subject: Water chemistry

Hi all -

I am a five month lurker, first time poster.  I'm hoping somebody can
explain the results of a little experiment I ran.

My understanding is that boiling water will cause calcium to precipitate
with bicarbonate, thereby softening the water.

I tested water with an aquarium water hardness test kit, which consists of
sodium hydroxide and calmagite solution.   EDTA color indicator  is then
added drop by drop (mixing between each drop) until a color change is noted.
My results:

Tap water                                    150 ppm hardness
Boiled 10 min (and cooled)      140 ppm (no obvious precipitate)
Boiled 40 min (and cooled)      240 ppm (granular and thread like  white
precipitates)

The chemical analysis (Lake Huron water) lists the following:
Mg 6.6 - 8.0 ppm, Ca 20 - 27 ppm, total hardness 96-104 ppm, non-carbonate
hardness 21 - 46, and pH 7.2 - 7.6.  These numbers are ranges for an 8 month
period.

Why did boiling trigger a higher hardness result from this test?

TIA - email responses are fine - I'll post summary of results.


Chris Beadle
CRBEADLE at MSN.COM

Macomb Twp., Michigan - about an hour from Jeff Renner





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 14:50:58 -0700
From: John Adsit <jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us>
Subject: On fruitflies and dogma

I'm going to get a little philosophical here.

A little while ago, not quite satisfied with the dry stouts I had made
in the past, I began to browse the recipes in Cats Meow and other
sources to see if I could find a recipe I liked better.  After a while,
I just started to see how many different recipes claimed to be clones of
Guinness.  I never really tried to count them, and I can't even provide
an estimate, but they are legion.  And they are DIFFERENT.  It's hard to
believe that so many recipes with such different ingredients and
processes can all claim to result in the same thing.

But they do, and I would bet that each one of them produces a dry stout
that would please any reasonable stout lover.

One of the most amazing things about this craft is that so many
different techniques work!  Over thousands of years of brewing, a world
full of brewers has evolved so many ways of improving a vary simple
biological process that we cannot even begin to guess at how many ways
there are to make a good beer.

And it is a simple process.  Let's face it, if we took a can of hopped
extract, mixed it with some water in an open bucket, and left it out for
a while, we would probably end up with beer.  Depending upon the kind of
ambient yeast that chooses to ferment it, we may even want to drink it.

Everything we do beyond that is to increase the probability that we will
like the results.  For example, if we just wash our equipment in a
normal fashion, we will PROBABLY be OK, but since that degree of
probability can be increased significantly by good sanitation technique,
we all sanitize.  But here's a confession: when I was a clumsy beginner,
I frequently did stupid and unsanitary things I'm now embarrassed to
admit.  I had to toss a batch, and I had a couple with off flavors, but
other than that, THE BEERS CAME OUT FINE.

Another example: for a variety of reasons, today I always make a
decent-sized starter for my yeast, but for the first forty batches I
made, I just tossed in Wyeast straight out of the smack pack or used a
dry yeast on occasion.  I never had a problem I could notice.  I had an
occasional lag time approaching 24 hours, but nothing really bad ever
came of it.

As I grow more sophisticated in my technique, I get pickier, and I'm not
sure that's all good.  My friends rave about my last Pilsner, but I
notice the diacetyl and feel disappointed.  My stout-loving friend
thinks the one I just finished is the best he's ever tasted; I know I
mashed it at too high a temperature and taste the slight sweetness and
extra body.  I can't enjoy my own beers the way my friends can.

There's actually a point or two to this rambling:

As we develop our techniques and our palates, we can easily lose sight
of the fact that much of what we do makes improvements only noticeable
to an expert.  More importantly, we lose sight of the fact that what we
have learned to do is not the only way to do it.  Most importantly, it
seems that many of us have developed the attitude that there is
something wrong with others who don't do or feel as we do.

In the past months, many people have made posts which seem to speak with
all the dogmatic authority of the Pope.  All Wyeast yeasts suck!  All
fruit flies harbor diseases that will make beer undrinkable!  (Well, at
least to a REAL beer drinker.)   You can't possibly make beer without at
least a liter of starter!  (There seems to be a competition to see who
uses the most starter; I'm waiting for someone to announce they used a
five gallon starter and noticed too late there was no room left for the
wort.  But it had no lag time, by golly!)

I guess I'm suggesting that we lighten up a tad.  The wonderful thing
about a medium like this is the ability to share the things we do.  When
we try something and it works, sharing it here makes us all richer, but
when we put down others with different ideas, we are all impoverished by
the act.

My son has asked me to introduce him to home brewing in his apartment
this spring.  I will start simple.  I think I'll begin with a simple
English Ale.  I'll use some extract syrup with some crystal that we've
steeped in an old enamel kettle.  We'll pitch a couple of packages of
Nottingham dry yeast.  We'll ferment it in an old plastic fermenter I
have left from a bygone era.  No dry hopping.  If a fruit fly comes by,
we'll take it out and hope for the best.

I bet it will taste just great.

I may suggest he join this list.  Maybe not.  I hope nobody here tells
him he's a piece of scum because he's using all the wrong equipment.

- --
John Adsit
Boulder, Colorado
jadsit at jeffco.k12.co.us




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 17:10:08
From: william macher <macher at telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Steam purity and how delicate are enzymes, really?

Hi all,

Micah Millspaw (MicahM1269 at aol.com) commented in Homebrew Digest #2915 
that he felt that using steam in a heat exchanger would eliminate:  

>the risk of wort damage from the steam, which is not very pure from
>a home pressure cooker, I'm certain.

Since I sometimes fail to see the obvious, I must ask why one would think 
that steam from a home pressure cooker would not be as pure, or more pure, 
than the water used in one's mash. Wouldn't they be from the same source?
 
Wouldn't the steam actually be more pure, since the condensate would 
essentially be distilled water? 

Let me throw out one question that has been bothering me with respect to
steam injection in a rims. Recently someone (Steve Alexander?) questioned
whether beating up the wort could have a bad effect on enzymes...my words 
not the authors who stated things much better :-)

Anyway, steam condenses real fast in cold water, and I am pretty sure fairly 
fast at mashing temperatures as well. Steam bubbles changing to liquid 
water, within a pot of water, make a pretty good popping sound. There must
be a 
significant shock at the point where the popping sound is generated.

How delicate are these enzymes that we depend on anyway? should I put my beer
glass down and start to worry as I continue to put together my steam injected
rims?

Welcome to 1999!

Bill Macher....Pgh, PA...USA



Return to table of contents

---