---

	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:
  pHep3 pH meter (question) (LEAVITDG)
  How open a boil? (Nathan Kanous)
  Dry vs. Liquid Malt Extract (David)" <drussel3 at ford.com>
  Fermenter geometry / characteristics (Nathan Kanous)
  Witty Post (John Varady)
  Chickory, (Dave Burley)
  Faucets and foaming (Nathan Kanous)
  No more Mills ("Jeff Beinhaur")
  re: Bavarian Wheat Beer ("Alan McKay")
  Propane Burners ("Robert C. McDonald")
  Phil's Phloating Phalsie in a 10 gallon Gott ("Alan McKay")
  pH probes (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Beginners guide to mashing... (Jim Cave)
  Chicory Sugar (Spencer Tomb)
  Re: Malt Mill Blues ("Tim Green")
  Re:Re:Plastic Fermenters ("Timmons, Frank")
  FW: UK Beer ("Paavola, Patrick C.")
  Open Fermenters (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
  questions about them yeasties (Cory Chadwell Page Navigation)
  Double mash at different temperatures? ("Shawn Hyam")
  Fermentation Turbulence (Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products)
  Non Alcoholic Beer by Vacuum Evaporation - Equipment. ("S. Wesley")
  Non Alcoholic Beer by Vacuum Evaporation - Conclusions. ("S. Wesley")
  8th Annual B.O.S.S. Challenge ("Raymond C. Steinhart")
  Re: Bavarian Wheat Beer Formulation (David Cato)


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

Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild's 13th annual Big and Huge - 28
March 1999:  Rules and forms at www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers
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: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 08:25:22 -0500 (EST)
From: LEAVITDG at SPLAVA.CC.PLATTSBURGH.EDU
Subject: pHep3 pH meter (question)

I am having a bear of a time determing pH....my strips are ok, I guess, but
perhaps it is my color vision...I am not sure...so, in spite of the recent
postings against using a pH meter...I am interested in the Hanna Inst
pHep3 meter.  If anyone is familiar with this...I need some info on
its life span, accuracy, etc...
Thankyou.
 ..Darrell
<Plattsburgh, NY>


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 07:35:28 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: How open a boil?

Hi all!  I currently boil with my converted keg system wide open on top.  I
know that most (all?) commercial brewers don't have open tops for boiling,
they vent the boil.  I believe that I've read (QDA here) that commercial
operations use a vent pipe that is 1/6 the diameter of the boil tun.  This
could be complete conjecture on my part.  Anyhow, I'd prefer to not boil
off as much wort / use as much gas when boiling and am considering buying a
new lid for my boiling tun that I cut a 1/6 dia. hole in for venting.
Anybody done this?  Does 1/6 diameter sound right?  Yeah, it is probably
pointless for a homebrewer to worry about this, but I've got some other
thoughts about adding some other "pieces" to my brewery which might be
easier to fit if I had a lid such as I describe.  Any thoughts would be
appreciated....
nathan in madison, wi




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 08:51:09 -0500
From: "Russell, D. A. (David)" <drussel3 at ford.com>
Subject: Dry vs. Liquid Malt Extract

What is the general consensus out there?  I have been blindly been
creating my extract recipes always with LME to make up the bulk of my
malt, then supplementing the rest with dry. (i.e. 3.3# LME can + 1# DME,
etc).  I had not given a whole lot of thought toward using only dry
until the latest Zymurgy issue with a reply to a question stating the
author preferred to use dry.  

The more I consider this, the more I lean toward exclusively using dry. 
Today, I exclusively use unhopped Light LME/DME and control color/flavor
with speciality grains.  I also usually purchase at my local brew shop
what I expect to use in the upcoming brew session, so I am relying on my
shop to purchase and properly store my ingredients, and not buying in
bulk.  Please comment on some of my "thoughts/assumptions" to see if I
am thinking this thoroughly.  Anything else I have missed?

Age of the cans are a consideration (increase of color), is there any
color change experienced in dry?  What are the flavor affects? 
Assumptions that canned malt is not dated.

I have not fully researched color of various maltsters, but can I get
lighter or comparable Lovibond numbers with dry?

Not locked into 3.3#, 4# increments, sticky mess of liquid?  But I have
already experienced spilling dry, that gets messy and sticky, and stinks
when spilling on a burner?

Any cost advantage?

What can I consider to be the life of bulk dry?  How do people use and
work with 25/50# of dry bulk purchases?  Any clumping, any problems with
bulk purchases?


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 08:17:57 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Fermenter geometry / characteristics

Hi all!
Recently made a 10 gallon batch of brew.  Five gallons fermented in glass,
five gallons in plastic.  The glass carboy had a stopper and airlock.  The
plastic bucket was fitted with plastic wrap and a "daisy chain" of rubber
bands.  During the first week, the glass obviously was fermenting more
vigorously.  After the first week, I've racked.  The brew had an original
gravity of 1.050 (12.5 plato?).  At racking, the glass brew was 1.016 (4
plato?) and the plastic brew was 1.022 (5.5 plato?).  Hmmm says me!  I
suspected this to be the case, just based on the characteristics of
fermentation.  When I racked, I put half of each into the two secondaries,
thereby "blending" the two.  Fermentation has kicked in, once again to
finish the beer.  What caused this?

My thoughts are that the plastic was much more effective than the glass at
transferring heat from the brew to the atmosphere and the glass held it in.
 Therefore, higher temps, more vigorous fermentation and other attendant
effects.  I suppose that it could be the "open" style of fermentation in
plastic that allowed this to occur.  Essentially the same event, just a
different reason.  

I tasted the two batches.  The "glass" batch was much closer to what I was
hoping for in termas of "final" flavor...the "plastic" was a bit sweeter,
not quite what I wanted.  It made for an interesting comparison of similar
brews with different FG's.

Anyhow, this is getting long.  Other characteristics than geometry may play
a role in fermentation, namely the ability of a fermentor to retain /
dissipate heat can have an influence....assuming that it was heat generated
during fermentation that caused my results.
nathan in madison, wi




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:18:32 -0500 (EST)
From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net>
Subject: Witty Post

There has been some discussion recently about lowering the ph of a wit. I am
planning a wit this coming weekend, and have decided to take the Guiness
approach to souring. I would like to add 3% soured beer to the kettle during
the boil to produce a slight tang. I have put 3 pints of pilsner out in an
open container to sour and tossed in a couple of corns of barley malt to get
it started. This will be added to a 12.5 gallon batch (which incidently, is
100 pints) at the start of the boil. Has any one ever taken this approach to
souring a wit and if so, how did it work?

John



- -- 
John Varady                     The HomeBrew Recipe Calculating Program
Boneyard Brewing                Custom Neon Beer Signs For Home Brewers
Glenside, PA                            Get More Information At:
rust1d at usa.net                  http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady 



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 09:37:32 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Chickory,

Brewsters:

Scott Murman continues to push the envelope of home
brewing in his quest to use chickory sugar for his Belgian beers

First, while it is possible to extract some sugar from roots, beets
are a classic example as Scott noted, I would guess that
sugar made from chicory would be just about as flavorless
as beet sugar and offer little advantage.

I guess that "Chicory Sugar" is not the sugar made from
Chicory root, but ordinary sugar flavored with chickory.
Just like we say "vanilla sugar", meaning sugar in which a
vanilla bean has been submerged to give its delicate aroma.
This usage is especially common in German
cookbooks/pastry books I have read and I presume it would
easily be the same way in Belgium.

Now the question is  - is it the chickory root plain or roasted?
My bet ? The plain root crushed, just as in "Ginger sugar."
You may even consider crushing the root after soaking it in
water to rehydrate it and distributing it in the priming sugar.
Perhaps make a heavy syrup and extract the flavor from the
crushed root and then filter off the crushed root.

Good luck and let us know.
- ---------------------------------------------------------------

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 08:46:20 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Faucets and foaming

Hi all!
Geez, tons of posts from me today...it'll come to an end.  I've had some
questions in the past about foaming of beer during dispensing and have
looked at length of beer lines, turbulent flow, and things like that to
explain it.  This weekend, I pulled out my Superior Products catalog (no
affiliation, yada yada) and saw a plastic faucet for dispensing beer.  It
actually was recommended to "not need cooling" like the stainless or brass
faucets.  This got me to thinking.  It seemed to me that my first glass
tended to foam, more than a second.  I usually only have a beer at a time,
so don't have many opportunities to see what happens if I dispense all
night.  So, is it possible that some of my foaming problems may be due to
the beer warming as it exits a "warm" metal faucet?  If the beer warms, CO2
solubility diminishes, and it would make sense that this could "possibly"
contribute to foaming.  Anybody got any thoughts?  Anybody tried plastic
faucets for dispensing?  I'll shut up now.
nathan in madison, wi




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:07:20 -0500
From: "Jeff Beinhaur" <beinhaur at email.msn.com>
Subject: No more Mills

Is it just me or is anyone else about tired of the on going mill debate. Hey
Dan, Jack and Dave.... Give us a break......

Sorry, just had to say it.... (anyone remember the also annoying St. Pats
gripes thread)

Jeff Beinhaur, Camp Hill, PA
Home of the Yellow Breeches Brewery





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 10:12:33 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: re: Bavarian Wheat Beer

Dave Humes poses some interested questions about Bavarian Wheat.

Unfortunately I don't have any answers to those questions.  I do,
however, have a link to a site which I personally consider to be
a top authority on Bavarian/Austrian Wheats.  The recipes on the 
site have won awards within the Weihenstephen brewing school 
in Bavaria.

http://members.eunet.at/beer/english/recipes.htm
http://members.eunet.at/beer/english/witbeer.htm (don't be confused
  by the link name "witbeer" - it's actually a Weissbier)
http://members.eunet.at/beer/english/homebrew.htm

cheers,
 -Alan

- --
Alan McKay		Nortel Networks
Norstar WinNT		613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
amckay at nortelnetworks.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:13:23 -0500
From: "Robert C. McDonald" <Bob.McDonald at abanet.org>
Subject: Propane Burners

Greetings -
I'm in the market for a propane burner and I'm hoping for some infor from 
the collective.  I've searched the archives for information, and I'm hoping 
that folks can add some clarification to the information that is already 
there.
>From what I've gleaned from the archives, there are basicly two types of 
burners -- low pressure that give about 30-35K BTU and high pressure that 
give 150-200K BTU.  It seems that high pressure burners give much more heat 
(and use much more propane), but that they are much more difficult to 
adjust at low heat levels.  Is this true?  I'd like to find a burner that 
can be adjusted for use in mantaining mash temperature, as well as be used 
to bring 10 gal of wort to a boil quickly, but without excessive 
carmelization.  What burners are people most happy with?  Has anyone tried 
the burner advertised by Brewer's Resource?   The description on their web 
page states that it's 170K, but that "the flame control is precise enough 
to be used to boil small amounts of media for yeast starters."  The Superb 
low pressure burner seems to be pretty popular based on previous posts, but 
I question whether 35K BTU is enough heat for 10 gallon batches.  Any 
thoughts?  Many thanks.
Bob McDonald
Washington, D.C.
 



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:16:22 -0500
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: Phil's Phloating Phalsie in a 10 gallon Gott


Greetings,

I know that in a 5 gallon Gott you can use a piece of syphon hose sliced
open
lengthwise to keep your Phil's from Phloating, but what can I do in a 10
gallon?
I've been having horrible problems with the damned thing.  Finally I just
gave up
and now I mash in my pot and transfer to the Gott for lautering, but I'd
really
prefer to go back to Gott mashing.

I put the syphon hose around the thing, but it's pretty obvious by looking
that
it isn't going to do any good.  My assumption is that in a 5 gallon Gott the

Phil's is a tighter phit (;-))

I already have an all-metal bulkhead, and the arm going from the centre of
the Phil's to the ball valve is ridgid copper, which some pholks suggest
should
help (it didn't).

HELP!  I wanna be lazy again!

thanks,
 -Alan

- --
Alan McKay
OS Support				amckay at nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration		613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 11:19:42 -0500 (EST)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: pH probes


Regarding the limited lifetimes of pH probes:

pH electrodes require a certain amount of general maintenance for their
continued use. As has been stated by others probes should always be stored
wet, ideally in a storage buffer supplied for the particular probe you
have. The semi-permeable glass bulb on the end of the probe should always
be handled with care  - avoid bumping or contact with other surfaces,
don't touch it with bare hands or wipe the bulb. Electrodes can develop a
build up of deposits which will affect performance. In general, if you are
experiencing poor performance try soaking the electrode for 30 min. in
0.1M HCl or HNO3, rinse with water and soak for at least an hour in
storage solution. In the lab we often get problems with protein deposits.
This seems to usually manifest itself in a slow response time though the
meter eventually gets to the correct pH value. To remove proteinaceous
deposits you should soak the electrode in a protease solution, we
typically use a 1% pepsin in 0.1M HCl for 30 min. Supposedly a 10% sodium
hypochlorite solution will also work but after this you are supposed to
drain and refill the reference chamber. If you suspect protein problems
but don't have access to proteases I suppose you could try some sort of
meat tenderizer available from the local grocery store. I believe these
contain proteases such as papain - maybe worth a try if you are
desperate. Inorganic deposits may be removed by soaking in 0.1M trisodium
EDTA solution for 15 minutes but here too you should drain and refill the
reference chamber afterwards.  One more thing - try to use distilled water
whenever you are rinsing off the electrode between measurements.
Maintenance info should also be available it the documentation
accompanying your meter or electrode - good luck!



 -Alan Meeker



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 08:45:26 -0800
From: Jim Cave <cave at psc.org>
Subject: Beginners guide to mashing...


	Dave Burley, Jim Busch and others have posted on this subject and there 
have been a lot of formulae floating about.  Some beginner's may have been 
put off by the debate on mashing in temperatures.  DON'T BE FRIGHTENED TO 
TRY MASHING.  IT ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE!!!  It is just like cooking a meal 
with careful control of temperatures.  I lean towards Jim Busch's water 
temperature levels.  That said, I would suggest the following is a very 
easy way to do your first mash...

	I strongly suggest that your first mash be done on the top of a stove. 
 This allows excellent temperature control. Use the stove to bring your 
mash up to temperature.

	In a 20 quart canner or other similar sized pot, add up to 10 lbs of 
malted barley that has been milled. Try a pale ale first with about 9.5 lbs 
of pale ale malt and 0.5 lbs of crystal.  (I have mashed up to 12 lbs of 
grain in a 20 quart canner, but it gets very full!)

	Add hot tap water (dechlorinated), until the grain can be easily stirred.  
  (I never measure the amount of water that I add to the grain, I work by 
feel).  You will probably have about 1-2 inch or more of "freeboard" in the 
mashtunn.  Add about a tablespoon of Gypsum.  Use a dairy thermometer.  You 
will probably be at 120-130 degrees F. Heat mash on the stove to a 
temperature of 150-152 F, stirring constantly to avoid scorching.  Notice 
that when you reach about 145 F, the mash will "thin" considerably.

	Set oven temperature to 150 F and put mash in the oven. This will maintain 
the mash temperature.

	After 90 minutes, remove from oven and put back on stove and raise mash to 
170 F.

	Gently transfer to lauter tun (preferably one that has been heated with 
hot water) with a saucepan as a laddle.  Minimize splashing.

	Recirculate until clear.

	Drain out sweet "wort" until fluid is level with the top of the grain.

	Sparge with 170 F water over 1 hour to collect 23 litres of fluid and boil 
with hops as per usual.

	You will end up with about 19 litres (5 US gallons) of a beer at 1.052, 
assuming a 75% extract efficiency and 26 points per pound per gallon.  You 
could even acheive an OG of 1.060 with a good system and technique.  There 
are all kinds of  formulae and software out there to help you with amounts 
of grain for various recipes.  The bottom line is you will have to 
calibrate for your particular experience with your system.

Now the Fine points and disclaimers....

	The experts will point out there is a problem with using "hot tap water". 
 They might say it is too variable in temperature and it isn't 
dechlorinated.  My tap water is very hot, about 145-150 F and I generally 
get 120-125 F with the first infusion.  The chlorine is an issue if 
chloramine is used to treat the water you use. You will then have to filter 
cold water with a charcoal filter and heat it up.  If the municpal water is 
treated with chlorine bleach, then the chlorine will evaporate off in the 
hot water tank.  I have made 135 all-grain beers with water straight from 
my hot water tank.  None of these beers when judged in competition were 
considered to have flavours or aromas associated with inadequate chlorine 
treatment.

	The experts will point out there is a protein rest at 120-135 F.  George 
de Piro is right about this issue and eventually you will want to try and 
reduce the amount of time spent at this temperature.

	The experts will point out the "1 tablespoon" of gypsum is a pretty crude 
guess.  Probably, but water chemistry isn't a huge issue for most people 
for their first beer.


					Jim Cave


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 11:08:54 -0600
From: Spencer Tomb <astomb at ksu.edu>
Subject: Chicory Sugar

 Scott Murman asked several questions about Cichorium intybus (Chicory) and
sugar making process.  Parts of his questions are reprinted below.  As a
botanist with a long involvement in the taxonomy of the tribe of the
Compositae where Cichorium resides,  I felt that I should respond.  I have
never tried to add chicory to a beer.
 
I do not think that I would try  substitute dandilion for chicory in a
recipe.  They are in the same tribe of the Compositae family, but they are
very different tasting.  I am not sure why you think that Chicory root is
used to make sugar.
I would work to find a  source of the chicory sugar.  Making it yourself
will be a huge undertaking.  If you can follow a recipe and make a beer,
you can follow a taxonomic key or compare a wildflower book to ID chicory.
It is a very distinctive roadside plant with a large distribution in the
United States.  It has blue heads, flowers in the morning and has milky
sap.  I think that you could find enough of it to use the flowers, stems
and roots to flavor things, but I think that going to  the trouble to make
sugar would be a waste of your energies.  I do not think that the
concentration of sugars in the plants is very high.  The tribe Lactuceae of
the Asteraceae or Compositae are not known for the production of nasty
compounds so you are probably ok within the tribe.

Cane sugar is made by squeezing sugar cane to get the juices out of the
pulpy stems and then boiling this liquid down to concentrate the sugar.
This suryp is refined to various degrees to give cane syrup, brown sugar
and white sugar. 

I hope that this helps.  

Spencer Tomb

Scott Wrote:

>I'm pretty sure now that the root is used, and it is possibly
>processed into a sugar.  Unfortunately, raw chicory root is not as
>easy to obtain as roasted chicory root.  It does grow wild quite
>virulently, but with my botany skills I'd end up picking the wrong
>thing and making lysergic acid or something. 

 Another possibility is to substitute dandelion
>root, as the two plants are similar.
>
>Does anyone know how sugar is processed from cane or beet?  I would assume
I could do similar with
>the chicory root, though I'd probably start with dandelion to
>experiment.  I've no idea how much raw root would be required to
>obtain 1/2 lb. of sugar.




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 13:50:51 -0500
From: "Tim Green" <timgreen at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: Malt Mill Blues

Hey Folks,

Although I learn a lot from this digest and I do know how to use my PgDn
key, I am beginning to become tired of the seemingly constant arguing about
whose malt mill is my efficient or more like a commercial mill

I am a Homebrewer, not a commercial brewer. I am only concerned with milling
15 to 20 pounds of grain at a time, not hundreds of pounds, and if the grain
runs through the center of the rollers or out to the ends or even backwards
through the rollers, I don;t care as long as the grain gets crushed.

I have even crushed grain in heavy plastic bags using a rolling pin (slow
but it works).

Lets please stop this endless bickering please. It seems to have degenerated
into to an argument between two folks who each manufacture a different malt
mill.

I have used each, like both in the HB shop where I buy my grain, and have no
preference.

I am just tired of the endless bickering!

Tim Green

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





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 12:47:00 -0700 
From: "Timmons, Frank" <Frank.Timmons at alliedsignal.com>
Subject: Re:Re:Plastic Fermenters

At the risk of touching off a long debate encompassing many non-brewing
related subjects, I feel I must comment about the concerns about plastic us
in brewing (and other) equipment.

The trash cans the original poster talked about, if they are polyethylene,
are fairly inert. In fact the plastic formulation is in all likelihood, the
same as the plastic buckets your homebrew shop sells. The gray or white ones
are almost pure mid and high density polyethylene. Just wash out well before
first use to get any residual mold release agents off of the plastic.

The point that Jeff Renner raised about PVC IV bags in hospitals is a whole
different animal. PVC is polyvinyl chloride, and in many formulations
contains plasticizers that are suspected (some say proven) to cause cancers,
endocrine problems, and autoimmune disorders. The concerns are similar to
those around many pesticides and other chlorinated organics such as PCB and
dioxins. That's why the massive recall of plastic baby teething toys
happened last fall.

As usual, I am not an expert, but perfectly willing to share my opinion
whether anyone wants to hear it or not.

Frank Timmons
Richmond, Va.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 14:16:54 -0500 
From: "Paavola, Patrick C." <Paavola.Patrick at mayo.edu>
Subject: FW: UK Beer


>  I have a co-worker who is taking a trip to London in a 
couple of
> weeks. While I wish I was the one going, she has graciously 
offered to
> bring home some UK beer just for me! I would like to get some that 
are
> not readily available to US consumers. Any suggestions? Private 
email is
> preferred.  Please respond to the address below. TIA
> 
> 
> Rick Paavola
> paavola at netzero.net
> Jacksonville, FL
>  
> 

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 15:01:59 -0500
From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products at humphreypc.com
Subject: Open Fermenters

With all of the discussion of open fermentation in plastic, and the
warnings of potential embedded bio-hazards in same from the carboy camp, it
occurred to me to ask:  has anyone ever cut the top from a carboy to create
an open glass fermenter?

Seems like if you had one of those nifty Ron Popiel bottle-cutter devices
from the early seventies (or something similar of your own construction) it
would be relatively simple to create an opening large enough for easy
cleaning and still retain adequate freeboard, especially if one started
with a 6.8gal carboy.

Another method, besides a traditional glass cutter, of cutting off the top
would be to use a sand blaster attached to your compressor (what, you
*still* haven't bought a compressor???) to etch a line around the carboy.
This is the method used by car customizers on the windshield when
"chopping" a body.

Anyone?  Anyone?


Mark in Kalamazoo




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 99 14:09:45 -0600
From: Cory Chadwell Page Navigation <chadwell at ssd.fsi.com>
Subject: questions about them yeasties

Howdy,

I have a few questions about ranching a particular yeast for a friend.  My 
buddy and I were drinking a few bottles of Boulevard Pale Ale.  He noticed 
that it was bottle conditioned and wanted to know if I could help him use that 
specific yeast to ferment a batch.  I told him I would look into it, so that's 
what I'm doing.

First question, does anyone know if Boulevard uses the same yeast for bottling 
and fermenting.

Second question, Does anyone know (or heck just willing to guess) the temp. 
range they use to ferment their pale ale.

Lastly, I've never recultivated from a bottle.  My plan is to pour the beer 
from the bottle of Boulevard (drink the glass of beer before continuing).  
Then pour sterile cool wort into the empty bottle of boulevard and shake 
vigorously.  Clean the lip and neck of the bottle with rubbing alcohol and cap 
with a piece of foil and a rubber band. let sit for 1-2 days.  After that I 
would decant the liquid portion from the bottle and transfer the slurry to a 
larger bottle and step up like a normal starter.  Will this method create a 
viable starter from the small amount of yeast at the bottom of the Boulevard 
bottle.

Thanks, Cory
- -- 

- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Cory D. Chadwell          FlightSafety International
Design Engineer           2700 N. Hemlock Circle                     
Navigation / Visual       Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 74012       /|
chadwell at ssd.fsi.com                                        /c|   -
9186919796 at mobile.att.net (text paging 150 characters)     /  |  /|
- ------------------------------------------------------  <-----s---
                                                      FSI  \  |  \|
                                                       SSD  \c|   -
                                                             \|




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 12:07:14 PST
From: "Shawn Hyam" <shawnhyam at hotmail.com>
Subject: Double mash at different temperatures?

I have a question regarding the use of two mashes in order to make a
larger batch.  Right now I make 36 liter batches, mashing my grain in
an insulated food-grade pail with a copper coil that hot water
circulates through.  I use a 40-60-70 mashing system.  Everything
works great and has very even heating, but the size of the bucket
limits my gravity to just under 1060 on a 36 liter batch.  I do have a
second bucket/coil system and was considering doing two mashes at the
same time.  I was wondering if I could simplify things and do one mash
at 40-60 and the other at 40-70, varying the amount of grain in each
according to the type of beer I was making.

Would this allow me more control over the fermentability of the wort?
What would happen to the efficiency?  If anybody has tried this or has
thoughts on it I'd appreciate hearing your opinion.

thanks

Shawn



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 18:02:02 -0500
From: Mark_Ohrstrom/Humphrey_Products at humphreypc.com
Subject: Fermentation Turbulence

Scott Murman asserts:
> Anyone who has fermented in glass has noticed that during
> peak fermentation there are actually 3-dimensional
> currents established.  These are caused by the temperature
> and density gradients in the fermenter.

Sorry, but I couldn't let this one lay unchallenged.

The premised gradients would be quickly lost due to the mixing action in
the fermenter.  Most likely IMHO, the mechanism at work here is that of
buoyancy:  The flocs of yeast *may* be carried up to the surface by CO2,
there releasing it to sink again, pushed by the next floc in line.  This
phenomenon (in principle) is observable in a glass of soda/pop with a straw
 - as the CO2 bubbles form on the straw, it will begin to float until an
equilibrium point is reached between the displacement of the bubbles and
weight of the straw above the surface (less the differential buoyancy of
the rest of the straw).

Please be aware that Mr. Murman has challenged my theory in private
communication, supported mostly by the "Dr. Science method"
("IKMTYD,BIHAMDIS", apologies to the DBMT).  Mr. Murman may produce an
article on the phenomenon, so until then we'll have to wait ...


Mark in Kalamazoo




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:20:33 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Non Alcoholic Beer by Vacuum Evaporation - Equipment.

Non Alcoholic Beer by Vacuum Evaporation - Equipment.
From:  Simon A. Wesley

Apparatus:  

 The vacuum evaporation apparatus consists of three
elements: a vacuum pump, a vacuum vessel, and a heater.  

	The vacuum pump consisted of an aspirator and a water
recirculation system.  An aspirator develops vacuum by taking
advantage of Bernoulli's Principle.  Water is pumped at moderate
pressure (40 psig) at roughly 2 GPM through a wide section of pipe and
then forced through a narrow neck.  In order for water to flow through
the narrow section the velocity of the water must increase
dramatically resulting in a drop in pressure.  A small hole in the
side of the narrow neck goes off to a tube which allows the low
pressure in the neck down to draw gasses into the water stream. The
aspirator is connected to the output of a 1/2 HP sprinkler pump by
means of 1/2" rigid pipe.  A small tube is attached to the output of
the aspirator to direct the outflowing water into a five gallon bucket
and reduce spray and foaming.  A length of 1" rigid pipe allows the
pump to draw water from the bucket.  This method of generating a
vacuum was selected because it appears to be the least expensive way
to generate a good enough vacuum (about 36 mm absolute pressure) to
boil the beer at low temperature.  Boiling is necessary to achieve
reasonable evaporation rates and low temperatures should help avoid
damage to beer flavor.

	I would suggest using a 1/4 barrel Hoff-Stevens keg for a
vacuum vessel.  These are the older barrel style of kegs which
require a bung in the side.  A large drilled stopper can be inserted
in the bung to accommodate a thermometer.  The beer out line on the
tap can be sealed and a line can be attached from the vacuum fitting
on the aspirator to the gas in line after the check valve has been
removed.  If you have access to a vacuum gauge it is probably a good
idea to put a "T" in the vacuum line to accommodate the gauge.  This
will be very helpful in determining if there is a significant vacuum
leak.  Bill Frazier and Louis Bonham have suggested using Pyrex
carboys as vacuum vessels, which sounds like a workable idea to me.  It
might be wise to wrap the carboy in heavy duty food service cellophane
or that wide, clear postal tape to prevent injury in the event that
the carboy fails.  It would also be a wise idea to wear protective
clothing and eye protection when working around a Pyrex carboy
subjected to heat and vacuum.

	I used a hotplate with a magnetic stirrer for a heat source. 
The magnetic stirrer seemed to help to maintain good mixing and a
gentle low temperature boil.  Bill Frazier had the idea of putting a
Pyrex carboy in a heated water bath which should lead to more gentle
application of heat than directly using a hotplate.

Operation:

	I set up the apparatus described above in the shower in my
bathroom, with the pump sitting on the lid of a second five gallon
bucket.  The hotplate was placed in a shallow plastic pan prevent it
from sitting in water in the shower drain.  Both the pump and the
hotplate were plugged into ground fault circuits.  ***EXTREME CAUTION
should be exercised when working with electricity around water.***  I
removed the shower head and replaced it with a hose which ran from the
shower pipe fitting to the five gallon bucket.  Since the pump I used
is partly water cooled it gradually heated the recirculating water. 
This necessitated replacing the water in the bucket with fresh cold
water about every 1.25 hours in order to maintain a boil in the vacuum
vessel.  If the recirculating water reaches the boiling temperature of
water at the pressure generated by the aspirator it will boil when it
encounters the low pressure in the narrow neck of the aspirator and
the beer in the carboy will cease to boil. 
	I began with 2.00 gal of uncarbonated beer that was at
about 10C and added 16 drops of Crosby and Baker anti foam
compound.  This was probably more than was necessary.  I slowly
raised the temperature of the beer up to the boiling point of 36C over
the course of about two hours, while pumping.  This allowed the beer
to degas slowly.  A few minor problems ensued at this point which I
will omit.  Once I got the equipment working properly I simply
replaced the water every 1.25 hours by flipping the discharge hose
over the side of the bucket into the shower drain while refilling the
bucket with cold water using the hose from the shower head.  After
about 12 hours of boiling at 36C the volume was reduced by 25% and I
stopped pumping.  I backfilled the vacuum vessel with 1 psig CO2 and
allowed it to cool before replacing the lost volume with distilled
water which had been boiled and cooled.  The resulting beer was then
transferred to a small soda keg and force carbonated.  

 	The two most expensive items in this setup are the recirculating 
pump and the vacuum vessel.  I paid $134 for my pump at my local 
DIY store and about $50 for one of my 1/2 barrel kegs and a tap at 
my local brewpub.
	If you are willing to hunt around you should be able to do a bit
better on the pump. Bill Frazier thinks he found some for under $100
and Sandy Macmillan suggests that either an oil or power steering pump
from a junked car might do the trick.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:20:33 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Non Alcoholic Beer by Vacuum Evaporation - Conclusions.

Non Alcoholic Beer by Vacuum Evaporation - Conclusions.
From:  Simon A. Wesley

 Over the course of last weekend I removed the alcohol
from a 2 gallon sample of Brown Ale by vacuum evaporating 25%
of the volume of the beer.  The active evaporation was conducted
at about 36C and took about 12 hours.  The beer was allowed to
cool overnight and then force carbonated.  The original beer was
very lightly hopped, but had a very noticeable malty aroma and
flavor.  After vacuum evaporation the malt aroma was still present,
but noticeably reduced.  The beers were clearly different from each
other, but the process did not seem to introduce any noticeable
defects into the beer.  The resulting non alcoholic beer still tasted
like beer, but was not as complex or full flavored as the original.  I
found that the beer had a slightly seltzer-like quality which I have
found in commercial NA beers.  The best way I can think of to describe
it is to say that it tastes a little better that you would expect a
commercial NA Brown Ale to taste.  If you imagine the difference
between regular and NA St. Pauli you will get a good idea of how this
beer differs from the original.  Overall the resulting product was a
pleasant, drinkable beer, nothing outstanding among regular beers, but
certainly very good for a NA beer.  The clarity and head retention of
the beer were good.

 At this time I can't generalize about the effects of this
method on other styles of beer except to say that earlier tests
indicate that evaporation completely removes any finish hop
flavors and appeared to make the bitterness of the beer more
pronounced.  The process has the potential to dramatically change the
balance of a beer so further experimentation will be needed to
determine what makes a good starting beer.  It has the potential to
produce some relatively nice non alcoholic beers, but they probably
will never be as good as the original beer.

 I'd like to thank the many people whose helpful suggestions
and thought provoking comments contribute to the development of
this method.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 21:06:10 -0800
From: "Raymond C. Steinhart" <rnr at mcs.net>
Subject: 8th Annual B.O.S.S. Challenge

**************March 8th, 1999********************

The 8th Annual Brewers of South Suburbia Homebrew Challenge
will be held March 20th, 1999.

 ~SANCTIONING UNDER: THE AMERICAN HOMEBREWERS ASSOCIATION
 ~A LEG IN THE MIDWEST HOMEBREWER OF THE YEAR AWARD PROGRAM
 ~FEATURING: THE CHICAGO BEER CUP TO THE MOST RECOGNIZED CLUB ***
 ~TROPHIES, CERTIFICATES & HOMEBREWING PRIZES TO THE WINNERS
 ~CATEGORY STYLE DESCRIPTIONS UNDER THE BJCP STYLE GUIDELINES

Entries due this week by March 13th.

Visit our Website for more information at:

"http://www.mcs.net/~rnr/compflyer.html"

***     Club with most recognition points wins the Chicago Beer Cup.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Mar 1999 22:28:55 -0600
From: David Cato <dcato at neosoft.com>
Subject: Re: Bavarian Wheat Beer Formulation

Dave Humes asks about haze in wheat beers:

> Does resting briefly at 55C, as opposed to no rest in the temperature
> range of protein degrading enzymes, help encourge haze formation?  I would
> think you would get the most haze from no protein rest at all.

With the amount of wheat used, I don't think you would want to totally
eliminate the protein rest.  According to Warner (p.58), "Sufficient protein
rests are also necessary to maximize the amino acid content of the wort and to
reduce problematic higher-molecular-weight proteins."  Personally, I'm wary of
using a 50C protein rest and shoot for a 55C rest.

>        Is underpitching weisbier worts typical practice to help encourage
> ester formation?  

The discussion in the BreWorld article is interesting, but I wonder how much
impact the fermentation temperature (pitch  at  20C and rise to 25C) had as
opposed to the restricted yeast pitching rate.  Going back to Warner, he
mentions that German breweries pitch at typical rates (10-15 million cells/ml).
Is something missing from the pitching rate quoted in the article?  It says,
"0.5 million cells per ml."  That's incredibly low, even by homebrew
standards.  Should it read 0.5 million cells per ml per degree Plato?

>                   Is cold conditioning typically avoided to help retain
> the haze and body supporting proteins?

Not according to Warner (although he doesn't mention anything specifically
about proteins, he does mention that many breweries filter their weizens prior
to priming and re-yeasting) who suggests a period of cold conditioning between
39F and 46F (4C to 8C) before packaging.

Later (p. 76), he says that the speise is often filtered along with the young
beer and mentions that the increased number of HMW proteins in the young beer
can lead to filtration problems.  No mention is made of how tightly the beer
is filtered.

I have noticed in my own weizens, that in the absence of yeast, the beer is
generally clear with no perceptible chill haze.  It's been a while since I've
had a commercial weizen, but I don't remember seeing much haze before the
yeast is dumped in at the end of the pour.

>        Many people have commented on the instability of weisbeers that is
> usually attributed to the yeast.  Could the wort composition be as much of
> a factor here?

I've wondered about the instability of weizens also.  I've had some that kept
their condition for 3 months or more, while others didn't fare so well, only
managing 6 weeks or so.  All my weizens have been brewed with the same basic
double decoction program, and all have used Wyeast 3068.  I don't have enough
data points to come to any conclusions, but I suspect that the health of the
yeast could have an impact on the stability of the finished beer.


I'll go ahead and toss my second place MCAB weizen recipe into the fray.  The
main complaint the judges had was that the beer was overhopped.

  For 5 gal (US), OG 1.053, FG 1.013

  6 lb. Durst Wheat Malt
  4 lb. Durst Pils Malt

  4 g. Tettnanger            (4.9%)  90 min.
  4 g. Hallertauer Tradition (7.0%)  90 min.
  6 g. Hallertauer Tradition (7.0%)  60 min.
  6 g. Hallertauer Tradition (7.0%)  15 min.

  Dough in  at  110F, rest 30 min before infusing with boiling water to hit 131F.
  Pull first decoction and heat to 158, resting until conversion complete.
  Boil for 5 min. and return to rest mash, hitting 149F.  Pull second
  decoction and heat to 158, resting until conversion complete.  Boil 5 min.
  and return to rest mash, hitting 154F (the target was 158F).  Rest 30 min,
  then infuse with boiling water for mash-out.

  Saved 56 oz. chilled wort for priming.
  Pitched slurry from 2 qt. starter of Wyeast 3068.
  Ferment  at  66F (I actually had some temp control problems, and the temp got
  up to 69F overnight before I was able to pull the temp back down to 66F)
  Rack to secondary and condition  at  46F for 1 week.
  Keg with 48 oz. of the saved wort and carbonate for 1 week  at  68F.
  Condition for 3 weeks  at  50F.

- -- 
David Cato
Houston, Texas


Return to table of contents

---