---

	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:
  Momily and Beer bullets (ThomasM923)
  Re: Paddles/Pizza Scrims/Corny Relief Valves/Misc. ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Grainger & foreign orders (fridge)
  Re:  The 11th Commandment ("J. Matthew Saunders")
  In Philly (Spencer W Thomas)
  Defusing Those Bottle Bombs ("Penn, John")
  Blue Beer  and Old Malt Syrup (Dan Listermann)
  dextrins/proteins/head/sweetness ("Stephen Alexander")
  Natural Carbonation in Kegs (Bill Jankowski)
  RE:  The 11th Commandment ("Darren W. Gaylor")
  Moldy 2-Row (Kevin Brown)
  eating crow, qualified (Vachom)
  Corn Meal in CAP ("Eric Schoville")
  HBD Communion (Rod Prather)
  Ipswich Ale (Andrew Stavrolakis)
  Re: The 11th Commandment (Jeff Renner)
  Re:more basic yeast questions (Matthew Comstock)
  Building a bulkhead & using brass (Matthew Birchfield)
  CAP update (Jeff Renner)
  False Info (Paul Niebergall)
  Filtering beer (Alan Dowdy)


Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

Enter The Mazer Cup! _THE_ mead competition.
Details available at http://hbd.org/mazercup
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. Digests
  CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
  unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
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. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
  commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
  newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
  attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)

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


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


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 00:51:52 EST
From: ThomasM923 at aol.com
Subject: Momily and Beer bullets

I'll be brief...I searched the past issues, but could not find definitions for
these two phrases (see subject) that I see used on the HBD from time to time.
Thanks in advance...

Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 06:46:06 -0500 (EST)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com>
Subject: Re: Paddles/Pizza Scrims/Corny Relief Valves/Misc.

On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Philip J Wilcox wrote:

> My local brewpub regularly ferments under about 12-15 psi mostly with
>     Nottingham and Windsor dry yeast's though they have experimented with a
>     commercial strain of "Pressure Yeast". I tried to rig a similar system
>     up on a homebrew scale but wasn't very successful. I don't know if I
>     would want to trust a leaking PR valve to regulate the pressure. It

Couldn't you rig up something like what a pressure cooker uses, that is a
weight on a post?  Then to vary the pressure, all you would have to do is
change the weight. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:29:11 -0500
From: fridge at kalamazoo.net
Subject: Grainger & foreign orders

Greetings folks,

 In HBD#2938, Gregg Soh asks how he might order from 
W.W.Grainger while outside the US.
 I found an international order page and branch locator on 
Grainger's web site. Check out   
http://www.grainger.com/cgi-bin/wwgc_locator

 Commercial and industrial refrigeration systems are built 
and installed world-wide using Ranco, Johnson Controls, 
and many other brands of components familiar to us in the 
US. Check with refrigeration and/or appliance parts sellers 
in your area. You might be surprised to find an ETC-
111000 on the shelf! 

Hope this helps!

Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at kalamazoo.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:10:19 -0500
From: "J. Matthew Saunders" <saunderm at vt.edu>
Subject: Re:  The 11th Commandment

Erik writes on Bibles and Beer:

>While I realize most subscribers have careers other than brewing,
>wouldn't it be better to leave this forum as it is?

The title of this list is (at least as it has appeared on the last thousand
or so HBD's that I've received)

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES

I'd say that a post on Beer in times past--in and outside the Bible or any
other text--is on topic.  If you don't like it, ignore it.  Sheesh, show a
little restraint.  I, for one, found both the original post and the
rebuttal interesting.

Cheers!
Matthew in VA brewin' "1999 Barleywine".




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:27:01 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: In Philly

I will be in Philadelphia this weekend.  Looks like I'll have free
time late on Friday (my flight arrives at 8:30PM) and on Sunday
afternoon (flight leaves 8PM).  Would like to meet & greet fellow
homebrewers (and drink beer).  I'll be staying downtown (Crowne Plaza
City Ctr.) and will not have a car.  

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:30:13 -0500
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Defusing Those Bottle Bombs

	Well I was trying to bottle a couple of batches last night, a 6
gallon batch of Rocky Raccoon (Papazian) using Nottingham dry yeast, and
a 4.5 gallon batch of Dubbel (Rajotte) using yeast salvaged from a Duvel
bottle for a second time.  Both had been in the fermenters for two
weeks.  The Rocky Raccoon dropped from an estimated 1.052 OG to 1.008
(measured 1.010 with priming sugar (5/8 cup honey) minus 2 pts for the
sugar yields 1.008--same as previous batches of this recipe).   The
bottling of the Rocky went fine but when I went to measure my Dubbel
which had an estimated OG of 1.070 and an expected FG in the low teens,
the FG was a whopping 1.030 (1.032 - 2 pts for the 1/2 cup honey).  Uh,
Oh I said.  I checked the hydrometer for air bubbles and took a second
measurement, still 1.032.  I couldn't believe the FG and I certainly
couldn't bottle it.  They would be overcarbonated about tenfold if I
bottled now!  So I quickly rinsed out my carboy from the Rocky Raccoon
batch and siphoned the Dubble back into the fermenter for a couple more
weeks.  For extra insurance I pitched a pack of Munton's dry yeast on
top of the fermenter.  I couldn't aerate the beer and I didn't have a
handy active yeast starter so I wasn't sure how healthy these dry yeast
would be tossing them cold into a 5% abv beer (should have been 7% abv
when done).  At any rate I'm happy to say that there was about 1/2" of
krausen this morning and about 1 bubble/4 secs in the airlock.  Not sure
what the flavor of dropping 40 pts with the Duvel yeast plus hopefully
dropping another 15-20 pts with the Duvel/Muntons combination will taste
like but I think it will be OK and mostly match the Duvel profile.  The
beer at the bottom of the bottling bucket tasted very sweet and thick
confirming the high SG measurement.  I checked my notes from the last
batch I did using the yeast from the Duvel bottle and I had left it in
the fermenter for three weeks.  That was a rather tasty Belgian White
(Sierra Blanca/Rajotte).  The Duvel yeast seems to be a little slow in
fermenting compared to say Nottingham but it stays fairly active for
about a week both times and then slows down.  The ferment temperature is
in the low 60s so I guess I'll be OK if I just wait a couple of weeks.
Never had this happen before, but then every yeast is different.

2 Responses to HBD Questions:
     Regarding the overattenuation question with Wyeast 1084, I seem to
recall that it is not that great of an attenuator (maybe 65-70%).  Maybe
your batch is infected, I'd recheck your measurement and taste it for
off tastes.  Check the bottles at the top for a sign of infection too
and let us know if you find out anything.

   Regarding the 48 hour lag time with not allowing your Wyeast smack
pack to swell.  Your beer may be OK, taste and time will tell.  But the
chances of allowing something besides the yeast to gain a foothold in
your beer is increased during long lag times.  The idea is to use a
large yeast starter or lots of dry yeast and get into fermentation
quickly.  You want the yeasts to multiply and eat up the available food
before the nasties get a foothold and once the yeasts start to convert
the sugars into alcohol that tends to attenuate those undesirables also.
If you are lucky you beer is fine, if not drink before it gets worse.
Chances are better if you let your smack pack swell and pitch it into at
least a quart or more starter.  Rule of thumb is 5X step increase for
lager yeasts and 10X for ale yeast.

 John Penn
 Eldersburg, MD


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:37:56 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Blue Beer  and Old Malt Syrup

Spencer Thomas writes:

<Blue color in veggies is usually produced by a pH-sensitive compound
(sorry, I don't have the name at hand).  Unfortunately for the
prospect of making blue beer, it is reddish in an acidic environment,
and requires a neutral or alkaline environment to turn blue.  (QDA -
Questionable Data Alert:) I don't know for sure that this is the same
compound that makes blue corn blue.>


<Unfortunately, beer is inherently acidic, so it seems unlikely that
one could make blue beer using blue corn, or potatoes, or whatever.>

Another data point.  I found something called "Black Rice" in the 
oriental
section one day and thought that it would be cool to make a "Swartz
Budweiser."  The bag said that the pigment was soluble.  The mash took on
 a
grape juice purple color, however the boiling of the wort destroyed this
and the color was more amber than anything else.  The only odd thing 
about
the appearance of the beer was that the head had a slight pink cast to 
it.


From: Michael Valencia <ranger at centuryinter.net>
Subject: Old Malt Syrup

<I opened an old jug of bulk malt syrup today only to find that the jug 

had a bit of mold around the cap and neck.  Being in the brewing mood 

and not wanting to waste, I used the malt to brew anyway just for kicks. 

 The question is, did I waste my time in using the syrup with some mold 

in it or will it be ok?  I boiled for 1.5 hrs and added 2.5 oz of hops.  

Understand, did not want to waste this bulk jug because I still had 

about 22 lbs. of syrup from the 33 lb. jug.>

I found an infected 33lb head pack in my store.  It was inflating.  I
thought that I could throw it away or attempt to make something out of it

and then decide whether or not to throw it away.  The whole 33lbs went to

make a 1.120 gravity barley wine - why not?  When it was young it had an
interesting Flemish brown horsyness which I enjoyed. 

However it seemed to disappear over time.  I iced half of the batch it
three times removing about half of the water.  It is really nice.


Dan Listermann                   dan at listermann.com

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:07:19 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: dextrins/proteins/head/sweetness

George DePiro back in #2930 and Scott Murman more recently takes up
causes that I had been pushing last October Namely the contributions
of protein to body and foam and the relative unimportance of residual
dextrins.

>It seems that far too many brewers (both pro and hobby) lose
>sight of the fact that proteins are VERY important to body and
>head retention.  Producing a dextrinous wort is not going to
>give the same effect as producing a wort with adequate levels
>of foam and body-building proteins.

I totally agree, but lets' not stop the iconoclasm there ...

*/ I am not aware of ANY commercial pale malt that deserves a sub 55C
    "protein rest". Generally you're just making thin unpalatable beer by
    resting at 45C-55C.
*/ Proteins and glycoproteins are primarily responsible for
    body/mouth-feel and foam.  Similar HMW class of proteins involved
    are also responsible for haze. Haze vs body is a balance which *may*
    require higher temp (55C-60C) protein rests and/or fining techniques.
*/ Dextrins' major contribution to head+body is in that they add to
    viscosity more than alcohol (the alternative) and that this is a
    secondary effect for normal gravity beers.  Making dextrinous
    beers is a crummy way to get body or head retention and should be
    left to Monks who otherwise fast during Lent.
*/ Dextrins are not directly  responsible for "sweet" flavor profiles in
    beer.  The flavor recognition threshold (point of perceptible
    sweetness) increases for increasingly larger sugar molecules) for
    maltose it's 0.080Mol/L (2.7P, 1.011SG).  The dextrins (17%-27% of
    the extract) require yet higher concentrations in order to be
    recognized.  So 15P of very dextrinous wort might give 4P of dextrins
    with a recognition threshold well above 4P.  If you taste these at all
it's
    as smaller sugar breakdown products that occur in the mouth.  To
    expand on what Scott Murman says, caramels, certain peptides, esters,
   alcohols and even calcium ions are involved in sweet flavors.

As they wrote in M&BS, vol 1, pp 269:
"The caloric food value of beer is principally due to the ethanol and
unfermented carbohydrates, but it is doubtful whether the latter
contribute significantly to any other beer character, although
glycoproteins may act as foam stabilizers".

Mark Bayer adds that he want's malty flavors without sweet ones and
wonders how ...

As George pointed out, fermented wort is naturally sweet, but the
balance of other flavors impacts the perception of sweetness.
Decreasing hopping and decreases roast malt/black patent content
increases perceived sweetness.  Scott Murman correctly points to
Maillard products, and melanoidins as the source of malty flavors but
let me add that there are other heterocyclic compounds (molecules that
appear as rings of carbon AND either oxygen or nitrogen) which are
not the result of the classic strecker degradation and Maillard
processes are also implicated in malty flavors.  Maillard products -
particularly those derived from leucine, isoleucine and valine are
involved.  The other heterocyclics are also probably the result of the
same precursor molecules (sugars and amino acids) changing
structure as they are heated. The heterocyclics include
pyrazines, pyrrolines, pyradines. They are very much involved with
nutty, malty and bread crust flavors.  Some have flavor thresholds in
the 0.1ppb range (!!!) and many are volatile (meaning select fresh
malts).

How do you control/increase these in your beer ?

A lot was written in HBD about 2 years ago regarding Maillard products.
These flavor products are likely to arise at temperatures from 80-150C
and the mix and extent is temperature dependent. These can be formed
during decoction and especially by pressure cooking wort.

The non-maillard heterocyclics are most likely to form at yet higher
temperatures and so are mostly controlled by the kilning of the malt.
Selecting malts that contain these at the outset must certainly be
considered.  Munich and Vienna malts are obvious, but there is a big
difference in the pale malts, which I suspect is due to final kilning
temperatures. Kunze suggests very large proportions of
"bruhmalt" can be used in some of the styles I've come to associate
with maltiness - including dunkel(30%), marzen(20%), alt(50%).  If I
knew where to get my hands on European bruhmalt I'd try it.

Oddly yeast seem to have a big impact on an aspect of flavor that is
sometimes called maltiness.  To my mind this is different than
aromatic maltiness, but I'm not sure that I can characterize the
flavor any better than that.  Yeast choice matters when it comes to
malty character.

Steve






Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:26:44 -0500
From: Bill Jankowski <wjankowski at snet.net>
Subject: Natural Carbonation in Kegs

I haven't stepped up to kegging my beers yet, so I may be 
way out to lunch. If so, please forgive.

But, if the problem with natural carbonation in kegs is 
having the CO2 leak out through the seal around access port 
in the top of the keg, could inverting the keg during 
carbonation use the beer to provide a seal? Gaskets tend to 
seal better when exposed to liquid instead of gas, and the 
weight of 5 gal of beer (~40 lbs) might help it seat as 
well.

Granted, this brings up problems with having the yeast 
settle out on the top of the keg, but a brisk shake a day 
before serving would give it plenty of time to settle out.

Bill Jankowski
Colchester, CT


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 07:34:25 -0800
From: "Darren W. Gaylor" <dwgaylor at pacifier.com>
Subject: RE:  The 11th Commandment

Debunking myths is the HBD's number two topic, right Alan?

I'm praying for Erik.

Wishing He had turned water to beer.

Darren Gaylor
Vancouver, WA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:31:54 -0400
From: Kevin Brown <kbrown at uvi.edu>
Subject: Moldy 2-Row

Greetings collective,

First let me say that I live in the tropics (Virgin Islands) and it has
been very humid the past month or so (80%-90%). A bag of 2-row malt that I
had not yet used started to grow mold on th outside of the bag. I opened it
this past weekend and found out the mold was also on the inside of the bag.
When I transfered the malt to 5 gallon buckets for storage I noticed the
malt on the perimeter of the bag also had mold on it. My first thought was
just to throw it all out. Then I thought maybe it can be washed off before
crushing, however I really don't want to to spend a brew day making bad
beer from bad ingredients. Does anyone have experience with malt that has
had some mold on it? TIA

Kevin Brown Brewing on a Virgin
Way south and east of Jeff Renner




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 09:39:05 -0600
From: Vachom <MVachow at newman.k12.la.us>
Subject: eating crow, qualified

	I'll step up to the plate here and remind the assembled that I was
one who made apocalyptic predictions for Jeremy's steam beer--the one in
which he pitched an un-inflated smack pack of Wyeast 2112 on the advice of
his brew supply shop owner.  I further advised him not only to be suspect of
this person's advice but to consider frequenting another supply shop.  Even
more, I'll confess that I dispensed this advice having never pitched an
un-inflated smack-pack myself.  The problem here is, in principle at least,
the point Dick Dunn is trying to make.  Passion and science are necessary
but dangerous partners.  The former can inspire absolutism, posturing, and
uninformed generalization, pretty much the top three enemies of science.
Without passion, however, science is a hollow and potentially static
enterprise. 
	That said, I'll qualify my advice to Jeremy.  I should have said
that whereas it's entirely possible his beer might begin fermenting, I do
know that I've gotten much shorter lag times and consistently better beer
from waiting for inflation, building a starter and pitching.  With
hindsight, now, I can say to Jeremy that the 48 hours it took his beer to
begin fermenting is a long lag time, time enough for flavor-affecting
bacteria to take over.  We would all do well to remember on occasion that
underpitched batch like Jeremy's or the one the baby puked in that was far
better than any subsequent attempt at the same recipe during which every
procedure came off like clock-work. . . .or to recall Danny Murtaugh's
words:  "Why certainly I'd like to have a fellow who hits a home run every
time at bat, who strikes out every opposing batter when he's pitching, and
who is always thinking about two innings ahead.  The only problem is to get
him to put down his cup of beer, come down out of the stands and do those
things."

Mike
New Orleans, LA


Return to table of contents


Date: 27 Jan 99 07:46:58 -0800
From: "Eric Schoville" <ESCHOVIL at us.oracle.com>
Subject: Corn Meal in CAP

Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com in HBD 2938 wrote regarding 
corn meal in an CAP: 
 
>The sparge was VERY slow, took about 2 hours and  
>a lot of colorful words. 
 
Glyn, 
 
My last CAP used 5 lbs of corn meal using a cereal 
mash (for a 10 gallon batch), and I too had  
some slight scorching and a long and arduous sparge.   
I also achieved a higher gravity than I was  
expecting, too. 
 
Just another data point. 
 
Eric Schoville 
Flower Mound, Texas 
http://home1.gte.net/rschovil/beer/3tier.html 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:57:47 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr at iquest.net>
Subject: HBD Communion

>>When you
>>think about it, it is very possible that the drink at the
>>Last Supper was also Beer.

"Brings a whole new meaning to Sunday morning communion.   "This drink in
rememberance of me"  POP, FIZZ, GLUG, GLUB, BURP.

Sorry, couldn't help myself!  :~]




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:11:21 -0500
From: Andrew Stavrolakis <andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu>
Subject: Ipswich Ale


John Doherty asks in HBD: 

"Does anyone have any information regarding of the yeast strain used in Ipswich
(MA) Ales?"

The yeast is Wyeast 1028 London Ale.  The folks at the brewery feel there
are "house flavors" that may not be duplicated at home if using this yeast,
however I have had excellent results.  The grain bill is mostly pale ale
with a touch of crystal 40 for color (I would guess no more than 5%). The
hops are Willamette.

"Furthermore, has anyone personally cultured said yeast from a growler or
bottle?"

I haven't personally, but have heard of many who have.

"And lastly, has anyone heard rumors of the sale of Ipswich Brewing Company?
After recently noticing a big drop in the amount of Ipswich in stores, I've
heard from one source that Ipswich had temporarily ceased operations in order to
complete their sale to a larger entity.  I'm told that they will soon resume
production of their full line of beers on an even grander scale, but my details
are frighteningly sketchy at best."

I haven't heard these rumors.  I haven't noticed any lessening of it's
availability where I shop.  On the other hand, I currently have so much
homebrew available that I haven't bought any in probably a month. It has
been available in six packs as well as growlers for at least a year.
Ipswich Ale in my opinion is one of the finest pale ales available in this
(Boston) area, and I would be very disappointed if this business decision
manifests itself in poorer quality beer.  However, if it means more great
beer for the masses at a lower price, then more power to them. Alas, it will
probably be something in between.   
Cheers,

Andrew.

andrew_stavrolakis at harvard.edu




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:27:40 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: The 11th Commandment

"Erik Vanthilt" <vanthilt at inetworld.net>  asserts

>The digest is for learning about brewing, not religion.
>And don't give me that page down crap either...

Eric

I hesitate to write because this is obviously a subject you feel strongly
about, but I suggest you are wrong.  HBD is about beer in general and
related subjects [like whisky yeast ;-)], especially when traffic is low,
as it is now.  One of the great things about HBD is the broad range of
expertise available in the members, ranging from microbiology, engineering,
refrigeration, and now, biblical history.  When someone makes a dubious
assertion (or Spencer's new acronym QDA - Questionable Data Alert), someone
is sure to correct it.  This is what happened.  I was glad to have an
expert refute what were obviously (to me) bad assertions.  The fact that
you don't want to hear about it doesn't make the posting of it wrong.

A lot of evil has been done in this world in the name of religion, as you
no doubt are aware.  Today in the US, especially, many use it to promulgate
intolerance and bigotry of the worst sort.  Perhaps it is this that has
made it such a sensitive issue for you.  I obviously don't know.  But it
doesn't make it an off limits subject when it relates to beer, as this did.

>While I realize most subscribers have careers other than brewing,
>wouldn't it be better to leave this forum as it is?

This *is* what it is and has been.  Crap or not, PgDn still works.

Jeff (Hoping to spread oil on troubled waters)

 -=-=-=-=-
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: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 08:56:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Matthew Comstock <mccomstock at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re:more basic yeast questions

Jeremy writes: "But as I lay awake at night I have the following
questions?"

Been there.  Jeez, what a hobby.

He also writes: "I am brewing a steam beer using wyeast California
lager yeast at ale temperatures (currently 70 deg) which I plan to
rack off to a secondary in a few days and cool to 50 deg."

Is a secondary necessary, and is 'lagering' at 50 necessary? Or can
the 'Steam beer' just be worked up like another ale, but using lager
yeast?

For that matter, consider the two scenarios with the same batch of ale:
1.  In the primary two weeks, then bottled
2.  In the primary 4 days, in the secondary 10 days, then bottled.
What differences would you expect - what would I gain from using a
secondary. How long is too long in the primary - when does autolysis
really start to be a problem?  I could argue that
transferring/siphoning and the use of another container (that required
sanitation) would lead to oxidation and infection problems.  I think
I've seen AlK defending the practice of just using primaries, and
should check the archives, but....  Hey, where is AlK.

Laters
Matt in Cincinnati, OH






 

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:12:56 -0500
From: Matthew Birchfield <peridot at usit.net>
Subject: Building a bulkhead & using brass

I'm in the process of building a 3-tier brewery. I have been reading
the HBD since I began planning this project, and have learned quite a
bit from the posts and links provided by some of you in your messages.
Thank you all for the great information.

My research and the many posts I've read have led to a few questions
and I figured this is the best place to find the answers, so ...

2 questions (for now):

1- When using brass fixtures in my brewery does cleaning them with a
2:1 ratio of vinegar & hydrogen peroxide one time before installing
them eliminate the danger of lead leaching into my brew forever, or
does this cleaning process need to be repeated?

2- When building a bulkhead to attach plumbing to a HLT or a mash tun,
will any rubber washers work well (not effect flavor), and are Zinc
washers safe to use?

Thanks for the help!
- -- 
Matt Birchfield
Blacksburg, VA


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 12:24:40 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: CAP update

Brewers

Interest in Classic American Pilsner (CAP) has really taken a jump, based
on the number of  emails I get on it.  I think it is time for an update of
my original article in Brewing Techniques
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue3.5/renner.html
(which was a rewritten HBD post and was inspired by BT articles by
Jankowski and Fix).  Since then I have learned lots and have modified some
techniquwes, although the original recipe will still make a great beer.

This is a first, very rough draft of what I will be working up for a BT
update.  I welcome discussion.

There are a few basics as I see it:

Base malt - US 2-row or 6-row, which is historic but Fix recently reported
(HBD?) prefering 2-row as producing a more refined product.  I've never
used it in a CAP, but I certainly  like my results with 6-row.  I use a
little Munich (~5%) if I'm not doing a cereal mash, and some people like a
similar amount of carapils.

Adjuncts - Corn is my first choice, although I'm going to use rice next
time just for the experience (but I prefer corn based on tasting others).
Some breweries (Rolling Rock is one) use both.  If you use flakes, there is
no need to pre-cook.  If you use corn meal/flaked/polenta or coarsely
ground rice, you need to cook first, and I like to do a short mash with 30%
malt first as you have no doubt been reading about in HBD.  I use 22% corn
meal these days.  I think you need at least 20% to really make it a CAP and
I'd like to keep it under 30%.  If you use flakes, smell them to be sure
they're fresh.  This can be a low turnover item in shops and get stale.

Mash schedule - a step mash was traditional (see Wahl and Henius
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/Wahl/), but it isn't necessary.  You can
do a straight infusion mash with flaked corn or cooled cooked raw
corn/rice.  Lately I have been using a step mash by boosting with a propane
burner and recirculation - 40C mashing, boost to 55C, add cereal mash and
heat if necessary to bring to 65, rest 30 minutes, then boost to 70 and
rest for 20-30 minutes.  The 65/70 rests seems to give me a slightly more
attenuated and drier beer than the 60/70 I used before.

Hops - Cluster is the only hop still available that we think was used in
pre-pro days.  It certainly was used by the 1940's, although it may be
somewhat different now.  Someone with access to hop history needs to look
into this.  The historic recipes I have seen only differentiate between
"domestic" and "imported" hops.  I certainly like to use Cluster for
bittering.  I think it's an important part of the style.  There isn't much
remaining actual flavor after a boil.  I use noble hops, usually
Hallertauer of some sort, for first wort hopping (FWH see
http://hbd.org/~ddraper/beer.html) and finishing hops.  Historic recipes
used both domestic and imported late addition hops.  I'm not aware of
American records of FWH in preprohibition, but Fix reports that it was used
in Germany at that time, and there was a great deal of German influence on
American brewing.  I FWHed once with Cluster and very much disliked the
result.  The "black currant" or "American" flavor of Cluster predominated
in a most unpleasant way, almost like a berry beer.

Bitterness - My original recipe used 25 IBU and no FWH.  My standard beer
now is FWH and ~35 IBU taking into account the FWH contribution.  See
Jankowski
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.1/jankowski.html for
some historic data on 1950's New York beers' bitterness.

Gravity - It seems that pre-pro beers may have been stronger than post, but
perhaps not so much as legend has it.  See Fix
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.3/fix.html.  I will
research this more.  I find that I like 1.048 for a drinking CAP.

Yeast - Any lager yeast should work, but friends have had diacetyl with
Anheuser/Busch Wyeast (Wyeast 2007/ YeastLab L34) and California Common
(Wyeast 2112/ YeastLab L35).  I used New Ulm in my original (Wyeast
American) and despite Wyeast's note that it is not a pilsner yeast, I liked
it fine.  The old Christian Schmidt (Philadelphia) yeast is reputedly
Wyeast 2272.  I really like Weihenstephan 34/70 (Wyeast 2124, YeastLab L31)
as a good general purpose lager.  I used Danish (Wyeast 2042) yeastss ago
for all malt Northen European lagers and very much liked the crisp, hop
empahsized profile it gave, and think it would do well for a CAP.  My
current favorite lager yeast is Ayinger from Yeast Culture Kit Co.
(http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/yckco/yckcotbl.html).  See Scott Murman's
yeast page at http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy/yeast.html for more
information on yeasts.

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: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 11:52:28 -0600
From: Paul Niebergall <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject: False Info

Jeremy wrote:

>In my questions, I explained I had followed the advice of my local home 
>brewing shop owner and not allowed my wyeast California lager >smack-pack 
to properly incubate. He said it would be fine. I smacked >the pack about 
36 hours before I pitched at 66 deg. There was no >visible swelling. Most 
of the responses colorfully explained my local >home brewing agent was 
sadly misinformed and forecast dire results >for my beer. Is the fact that 
I didn't let the pack incubate properly going >to affect my beer?  Is 
the intensive growth of what I have been told is >too small a yeast 
population going to create too high alcohol levels or off >flavors?

Yes, your local agent is wrong.  You should always use a starter.  

 - AND - 

The majority of responses that you will get from readers of the HBD will 
also be wrong.  Especially the ones that indicate that you WILL experience 
dire results or that your beer WILL be ruined.  Your beer MAY be ruined 
but, many people have made excellent beer by just pitching a smak pak 
without a starter.  It is not a good idea and I do not recommend it, but 
people do it all the time and it can make excellent beer.  

>My fermentation has been so vigorous that I have been unable to keep a 
>fermentation lock on. It bubbles over, which I caught before it blew up 
>like Drewmeister related. I've kept a sanitized blow-out hose submerged 
>in a pail of clean water, which I change often. Physicswise I don't see 
>much difference between this setup and an airlock anyway.

Let*s see if we can jump to another all too typical HBD opinion: *Your 
beer is ruined.  Obviously, the activity you are observing is the result 
of an infection that was picked up during an abnormally long lag phase.  I 
would dump it if I were you.*

>Am I out in left field?

No, keep brewing and do not worry.  See what happens to your beer this 
time, take notes, and then decide if you need to adjust your methods nest 
time.

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

Dick writes:

>Of what value is "a good thought or suggestion" if it has no support? 
 >We don't need a reference, specifically.  We need some supporting 
>information that an expression is more than just an idle opinion.  If you 
>can't support it somehow, it's just a guess...and we don't need 
>guesses. 

Despite what a few ego-maniacal, over-aggressive, frequent posters believe 
in there own minds, the HBD is NOT a scientific journal or forum.  At 
best, it approaches it at some times.

What if you are simply relying on experience and do not have any 
*references* to back yourself up?  You are then left to throwing in a
lot phrases like: *Based on my 10 years of brewing experience.......*,
or *when I was at Seible.....*, or *while working on my Ph.D. in yeast 
mutation theory at MIT.....*.  All of which is a big turn-off to the 
majority
of HBD subscribers who are regular, working class (and some professionals) 
people who like to drink and brew there own beer.  I for one do not want 
to keep reminding people that I have been brewing
since 1985, have a college degree in engineering (from a well
respected, accredited university), and have a very sophisticated
sense of taste.  (eeew, see how pompous that sounds?).  Besides,  having 
worked for a long while in the consulting business, if I really wanted to 
use references, I guarantee that I can come up with a reference to support 
my point of few on any subject, no matter how obscure it is.

Alan writes:

>My problem is that I really don't like it when people start throwing
around >imperatives like "make sure you do XXX", or "you MUST do 
YYY".  >Simply put, statements like this, when applied to the topic at 
hand, are >false.

Well put!  There far too many opinions stating that if you do X you will
get Y.  (If you have a fru*tf*y you WILL have bad beer, if you under
 -pitch you WILL have bad beer, ect.).  The real world just does not
work that way.

Brew on

Paul Niebergall

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 10:54:13 -0800
From: Alan Dowdy <Alan at Auroracorp.com>
Subject: Filtering beer

Question(s):
I tried using my cornie as a secondary and found that while the beer turned
out pretty good(IMHO), it had a lot of chunks(trub?) floating in it.  I
figured this was a good excuse to experiment with filtering and purchased a
the stuff needed to connect a filter between two kegs.  I tried it by
connecting it between the two kegs, setting the regulator to about 7 psi,
and opening the pressure relief valve in the second keg as necessary to keep
the beer flowing.  What came out to the filter was nothing but foam.
Fortunately, I had already consumed at least a third of the keg(chunks and
all), otherwise I am afraid that I would have lost a lot of beer to foam
shooting out of the relief valve.  Is my procedure wrong?  Is all the
foaming normal?  Thanks for your help.

Alan Dowdy
Torrance, CA(no idea how far from Jeff)


Return to table of contents

---