---

	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:
  long ferment/O2, yeast & shelf life/Nitrogen head/O2-absorbing caps/beerstone (BrewInfo)
  cask-conditioning/Brettanomyces/Unitap/protein rests/sulphury (BrewInfo)
  Purchasing a RIMS (mike megown)
  "Bubble-gum" in Belgians.... (pbabcock)
  re: Sanitation and septic systems (John_E_Schnupp)
  Re: Known Alcohol Levels ("Matthew  Hahn")
  Hop Oils and Essences ("S. Wesley")
  Who you callin a brewster? ("Jim Kingsberg")
  re:Sanitation and septic systems (MaltHound)
  corn syrup, mashing, and enzymes (Marc Sedam)
  Long mash, dextrins and mouthfeel; Also Bud data (Ted McIrvine)
  Re: Sanitation and septic systems (Jeff Renner)
  RIMS heating control ("Doug Moyer")
  SG to Plato and back (Domenick Venezia)
  kegging questions ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Sweet! (Tim Anderson)
  update on Stainless in Seattle ("Marc Sedam")
  CO2 tanks, kegs, & shelf life of kegged vs. bottled homebrew ("George De Piro")
  Known Alcohol Levels (jsulli - Jeremy Sullivan)
  Split-batch boiling ("Patrick Michael Flahie")


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

Enter the Spirit of Free Beer! Competition 5/22/99. Details at
http://burp.org/SoFB99. 2000 MCAB Qualifier!
Enter the Buzz-Off! Competition 6/26/99.  Details on the HBD Competition
Calendar for June 1999 (http://hbd.org). 2000 MCAB qualifier!

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: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 17:56:16 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: long ferment/O2, yeast & shelf life/Nitrogen head/O2-absorbing caps/beerstone

More ancient topics (but I'm pretty sure most have gone unanswered (or
at least "underanswered" (can you tell I've programmed in Lisp?)))...

Todd writes:
>Suddenly, my fermentations seem to be taking a really long time.  I ferment
>in the basement, where temperatures stay 65-68f, and my secondary has gone
>from a historical 1 week to 4 weeks+.  My last two batches will not stop
>bubbling (not a ton; maybe on bubble through the airlock every 2-3
>minutes).  In the past, all pressure and activity would subside within 7-10
>days.  Is this a sign of infection?  Should I cool them down to halt
>activity?  The only change to my process for the last two batches is a
>switch to a converted keg brew kettle and full 5 gallon boils.  Cooling
>occurs quickly with an immersion chiller.  Does this observation signal a
>problem or does everything sound ok?  (these are partial-mash ales with
>Irish or British Wyeast and I have historically not taken gravity readings)
 
When you have a long fermentation, the two most likely sources are
underpitching and underaerating.  When I read the first sentence, these
two sources immediately came to mind.  Then, further down, I read about
the change to the process and that pretty much sealed it for me...
I suspect that underaeration is the problem.  When going to full boils,
you simply don't have all that aerated makeup water to add... boiling
removes virtually all dissolved oxygen and then unless you aerate (or
oxygenate) well after cooling, you will have sluggish yeast performance.

***
Fred writes:
>I have always been under the impression that commercial brewers have a
>bigger problem with air than do homebrewers since the yeast have been
>filtered out in commercial brews.  I have always been under the impression
>that the yeast in homebrew will gobble up what little oxygen gets introduced
>into the beer during gentle transfers so that the oxygen really isn't a
>problem unless one is VERY careless in the transfers.  In other words, does
>prepurging the receiving vessel REALLY make a significant difference?
 
also Brook writes:
>When priming beer for bottling, why worry about small amounts of oxygen
>(from the bottling bucket, etc) staling the beer?  Wouldn't this oxygen
>actually help the yeast ferment out the priming sugars?  I read the comments
>that oxygenating cold wort is essential, so what's the difference?  I
>understand the wisdom of low oxygen bottling with carbonated and filtered
>(dead) beer.  With that in mind, what affect does filtering beer (to remove
>yeast) have on the shelf life?

While it is true that the yeast in the bottle will consume oxygen in the
headspace (or dissolved in the beer via splashing) experiments done by
George Fix indicated that only a *portion* of the oxygen in the headspace
was consumed by the yeast.  So, while the yeast will indeed decrease the
damage done to the beer by oxygen introduced at bottling time, it will
not eliminate all damage.

Purging the receiving vessel will help somewhat (I usually try to do it,
when I can) but recall that there is always *some* dissolved CO2 in
the beer and this CO2 comes out of solution during siphoning thanks to
agitation and pressure differences, so this evolving CO2 will form a
small protective blanket on the beer (not enough to protect from serious
splashing, though).

Shelf life is a combination of many factors.  Oxygen is a major one.
Protein is another.  Filtering removes some of the protein, which then
won't be around to form hazes and flocs (so there is a minor shelf-life
benefit), but it also removes the yeast which, as discussed above,
does provide *some* protection against oxidation.

***
Dave writes:
>NItrogen in the gas bubble is what causes Guiness to have
>a long lasting head.  Nitrogen is not very soluble in beer
>( about 1/10 as much as CO2 if memory serves)  What
>causes a head to fall is the diffusion of the CO2 through
>the bubble wall, since it is soluble in the beer.  When a
>Guiness head is formed, it is the CO2 which forms the foam first
>and then the mechanical action of the sparkler replaces
>some of the CO2 with nitrogen, which being less soluble
>does not diffuse out so fast. The head thus lasts longer if
>all the other things in the beer foam wall ( like proteins and
>hop/protein complexes)  prevent the draining of the wall
>and weakening it so it bursts.

I've read this several times in HBD from various posters and I'm still
not 100% convinced.  I'm very skeptical that the bubbles actually
contain nitrogen.  Furthermore, if gas diffusion through the bubble
walls indeed is what causes their ultimate collapse, then why is
the protein content of the beer the greatest single factor in whether
a beer has good head retention or not?  Dave sounds very confident,
but let's not forget AJ's signature (incidentally, why is it the
posters that are the most believable, those that include the most
disclaimers and references?)...

***
Eric writes:
>I've gotten some "oxygen absorbing" bottle caps supposedly to prevent
>oxidation.  It is said that Celis and some others are using them now.
>It is said that you do not sanitize, even more so, don't even get them
>wet.  I was told to cap and then tilt the bottle just to get the beer to
>touch the cap and thus "activate" the oxygen absorption.  I haven't
>actually bottled much until recently and I believe I've been producing
>much better beer than in my past of bottling, so I can't tell if my beer
>is being *saved*  I suppose its a pretty darned easy experiment for me
>to try.  Say, use two types of caps and see what different temperatures
>and storing times do to the beer?  Anybody else used these caps...found
>them to be worth the dollar extra per gross, not that a dollar is much
>but it is almost a third more expensive.

I don't suggest using the caps unsanitised.  They are indeed activated
by moisture (70% RH or more, if memory serves) but the action is not
instantaneous.  I have personally spoken with the lead engineer who
developed the Oxygen-absorbing SmartCaps (now called PureSeal "A").
I asked about sanitising with boiling water, iodophor, bleach and
percarbonate-based sanitisers (like B-Brite and OneStep).  He said
to use bleach or iodophor because the boiling and the oxygen released
by the percarbonate-based sanitisers will "use up" the oxygen-absorbing
capabilities of the caps.

As for whether they are worth it, The Chicago Beer Society did a side-by-
side comparison (easy to duplicate, when you think about it) between
regular and oxygen-absorbing caps.  The main difference they found was
that the beer in the O2-absorbing caps retained it's hop aroma significantly
longer than the beer capped with regular caps (split batch).

***
Mike writes:
>I use a caustic to soak away beerstone (Keg Clean),  then use a non-chlorox
>sanitizer.
 
Is that right?  I thought that caustic was inherently alkaline and so is
beerstone (mostly calcium oxalate).  I thought that you needed acid to
remove beerstone, not alkaline... George? George? Rob? Anyone?

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 18:35:13 -0500 (CDT)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo at xnet.com>
Subject: cask-conditioning/Brettanomyces/Unitap/protein rests/sulphury

My list of pending questions is really getting very long.  I apologise for
two long posts one after another, but otherwise I simply won't catch up!

Dan writes:
>My wife bought me a hand pump for Xmas so naturally I HAD to switch from
>bottling to draft. Now I need to know if there are any tricks to cask
>conditioning in a corny. Do I treat it just like a big bottle,..add priming
>sugar and wait?
 
Quite simply: yes.  You want it to be slighly less carbonated than a
typical bottled beer (roughly 2 volumes, I suggest).  Note also, that you
want to vent it to the atmosphere while you are serving (or the handpump
simply won't stop pouring (unless it has a shutoff, but those are for
keeping the beer from falling back into the cellar, not to keep it from
running)).  I haven't used my handpump in quite some time (I've been
bottling more lately and haven't brewed too many beers that lend themselves
to handpump in the recent past), but when I did, I would cheat a little.
Although I'm a card-carrying CAMRA member, I did use CO2 to purge the air
out of the corny keg before storing it for the night.  What I would do is
vent the cask by opening the overpressure vent and then leave it open
during serving.  When I was done serving, I would disconnect the beer engine,
hook up the CO2 at 5 psi or so, and then pressurise and vent the keg
several times.  Otherwise, since the casks would last a week or two, the
beer would be very oxidised by the time I was done with the keg.

***
Andrew writes:
>I've never tried a Lambic beer, but I enjoy the smell of brettanomyces in
>wine. It seems to me that it would go well in dark, earthy beers. Can
>anyone think of non-lambic beers with brettanomyces? Has anyone tried using
>it in any of their brews, lambic-style or otherwise? How controllable is
>it? I spoke to a professional winemaker about this, and while he greatly
>enjoys brettanomyces in 20-year old Bordeaux, he is very scared of it
>getting into his wine. "Barnyard" and even "dung" is his favourite
>description of it.
 
Yes.  Orval has Brettanomyces among the bottling strain mixture.  Brett is
what gives Orval that "bubblegum" aroma.  I have used pure cultures of
Brett (and some simply from commercial Lambic dregs) in several pLambics.
I have not had any problems with Brett infection in any of my non-pLambic
beers.  Note that it takes the beer a good 8 months to develop that "horsey,"
"earthy" aroma.

***
Tom writes:
>I went down to my local gas supply store to get a refill on my c02 tank.
>The guy told me about a new product that they (Merriam-graves a NewEgland
>Chain) sell for pushing beer out called Unitap.  It seems that Unitap in a
>mix of C02 and nitrogen, they say it's better then C02, it pushes beer
>faster longer distances with less foam.  I wonder if anyone has tried this
>product, or is it something that bars would use and not homebrews?

Jack Schmidling has tried it and reported (in his usual SuperSkeptic
fashion) that it didn't make much difference in his beer.  There are
two reasons you might want to use a N2/CO2 mix.  One is that you have
to push beer a long distance (or up several stories of a building).
If you used pure CO2, the high pressure you would have to use to get
a decent pour rate would overcarbonate the beer.  A 75/25 N2/CO2 mix
means that you can set the regulator to 48 psi and the beer would
only "see" 12 psi of CO2 pressure.  The other reason you might want
to use this gas is to get a Guinness-like pour in your beer.  You need
a restrictor faucet (either a real Guinness faucet or a faucet with
a sparkler-like end... well, I guess you could open a regular faucet
only a tiny bit...).  Again, you if you used 75/25 mix, you would
use 4 times the pressure of CO2 that you wanted.  If you used a 60/40
mix, you would use 2.5 times the "normal" CO2 pressure.

***
Mark writes:
>I've been following the protien rest debate for some time
>and over the last year I've made several ales and lagers
>without using a protien rest and have found that these very
>same beers have a stubborn chill haze that won't go away
>with "lagering".  Now, supposedly the pros say that a
>protien rest is "unnecessary with  todays malts" but do
>these same pros not care about chill haze because they're
>all filtering their beers and this is a non-issue for them?

Regarding protein rests, there are two things that I have long been
advocating here in HBD.  One is that you should *try* to brew with
a malt without a protein rest and then only add a protein rest if
you are unhappy with the results (too much break in the fermenter,
haze, etc.).  The other thing that I have been a strong advocate of
is that if you do add a protein rest, do it at around 135F.  This
is contrary to virtually every Charley Papazian recipe (and most
in other books too), but the fact is that it favours protease over
peptidase and thus does not completely break all the proteins down
into amino acids (thereby killing head retention and body).  I'd
like to point out that Ray Daniels' article in Zymurgy "122 Farenheit"
had both the action of the enzymes and the temperatures *backwards*!

By the way, I concur with the person who responded to this query that
you could try reducing your polyphenols (watch sparge pH, sparge temp,
mash pH, don't overcrush... worst case, try polyclar after fermentation).

***
John writes:
>When making lagers I have always lagered in carboys with airlocks until the
>last few batches.  The last three batches I have done are lagering in Cornelius
>kegs with a vent hose from the gas in connection to a jar of water.  Is the
>vent hose or an airlock necessary?  I have always assumed it was to provide
>an escape path for the sulphurs and other things being gotten rid of during
>lagering.  However, in thinking about it, I find I can't explain to myself
>how these things are vented if there is no CO2 being produced.  If there is
>no pressure being generated there is no bubbling of gas into the airlock to
>carry off products of lagering.  The only way I can think of is by diffusion
>but this would seem to imply introduction of oxygen into the headspace.  Is
>venting not necessary when lagering?  If not, where do the sulphorous odors
>go?

I wondered about that too, but the fact is that you can lager in bottles!
I've done it.  I had a Traditional Bock that was extremely sulphury (it
smelled just like home perm solution) for four months in the bottle
(lagering at 40F), but miraculously the smell went away and the beer won
several ribbons.  I've recently read in a professional text (sorry, can't
recall which one) that the yeast will convert the sulphur dioxide in
the beer to sulphate (so, presumably the apparent bitterness would go
up, eh?) if given enough time.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Lockport, IL
korz at brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:17:03 -0400
From: mike megown <magobrew at erols.com>
Subject: Purchasing a RIMS 

   I'm thinking about buying a RIMS in the near future.  The only one
I've seen for sale is the BREWMAGIC system by SABCO.  Does anyone else
know of any places that seel RIMS?  If so please email me the URL's.
  mailto: magobrew at erols.com

thanx!



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 21:21:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: "Bubble-gum" in Belgians....

Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

Al sez: 

> Yes.  Orval has Brettanomyces among the bottling strain mixture.  Brett
> is what gives Orval that "bubblegum" aroma.

Really? I got the bubble-gum aroma from fermenting an Orval clone with
WYEAST 1214 Belgian Ale yeast. I was not aware that this was Brettanomyces
nor contained any. The aroma was so intense at initial racking that I
swore someone was breathing little-league breath right next to me. It
wasn't until several weeks later that Brett. got anywhere near the carboy
 - again, unless Wyeast 1214 is or contains it. 

See ya!

Pat Babcock in SE Michigan         pbabcock at oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor           janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site                       http://hbd.org   
The Home Brew Page                 http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
   "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:20:54 -0700
From: John_E_Schnupp at amat.com
Subject: re: Sanitation and septic systems

Paul,

>What do the brewers with septic systems do with their used
>sanitation fluid of choice?

Here's a question I feel I can answer.  Our small condo
association recently had to install a replacement leach
field due the primary field exhibiting signs of failure.

Overloading the septic system with water is one way to get
a system to fail.  The solids that are in the tank will not
have time to properly settle and can get flushed into the
field there they may clog pipes (if the solids chunks are
large enough) and will clog the much smaller openings in the
gravel and soil.  Once the soil/gravel bed is plugged the
problems continue until one day there's septic water coming
out the lowest drain in your house.

All, ok 90%, of all my brewery water goes outside.  My
cleaning/sanitizing solutions get dumped over the bank
outside my patio.  The chill water (I have an immersion
chiller) gets piped out via a garden hose over the bank
too.  On brew day I probably use about 150 gallons of water,
this includes the chill water.  I also dump the spent grains
and hops in the woods.  The dregs of my fermenter get dumped
in the woods.

The lugging is a PITA, but replacing a leach field is a whole
lot more expensive.  On a typical 1000 gallon single family
system you may be ok since you and you alone are responsible
for what goes down the drain.  In my situation, with a multi-
user system, I can't control what others dump and how much.
If a couple of families decide that laundry day is the same
day as my brew day, the system could get overloaded.  You
might try doing some searches on the net, use something with
septic included as you search parameters.

John Schnupp, N3CNL
Dirty Laundry Brewery
Colchester, VT
95 XLH 1200




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:02:11 -0400
From: "Matthew Hahn" <mchahn at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Known Alcohol Levels

Phil Wilcox writes:
>My collection of beer literature doesn't have much to say about percise
>alcohol levels of Anheuser Busch products. I spent an hour or so this
>weekend trying to track down the Alcohol % of US produced Budwiser. I may
>have passed the master brewer exam on the BUD web site, but I didn't come
>away with the answer I was looking for. Does anybody else out there know?
>Is there a list of known alcohols in commercial examples I did not uncover
>in my HBD Search???
>
Call 1-800-DIAL-BUD and they will give you all the info you need. They also
have a brochure which they can probably mail you which contains that info.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:34:59 -0500
From: "S. Wesley" <WESLEY at MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Subject: Hop Oils and Essences

From: Simon A. Wesley
Subject:  Hop Oils and Essences

In HBD #3004-2 Al Korzonas asks about experiences with Hoptech 
hop oils.  A few weeks back I ordered three different varieties of 
Hoptech's (Std. Disc.)  hop oils (East Kent Goldings,  British Blend, 
Cascades) and both varieties (Spicey, Floral) of their hop essences.  
I have done a few tests using both commercial non-alcoholic beers and 
some of my own NA beers.  I was primarily interested in the effects 
of the hop essences on the beers so most of my more careful tests 
involved adding varying amounts of hop essences to commercial NA 
beers.  The hop essences are supposed to add late hop flavour as 
distinct from the oils which are supposed to add dry hop aroma.  The 
spicy essence is also supposed to improve the mouthfeel of the beer.  
	My results with these products were a bit mixed.  Like Al I found 
that adding a lot more of these products than the accompanying 
literature suggested was required to achieve the desired results.  I 
found that it was necessary to add almost the maximum suggested 
amount of the spicy essence before its effects became perceptible.  I 
didn't notice any substantial impact on the mouthfeel of the beer.  
Once the effect was perceptable (and up to about 2 times the 
recommended dosage) it did, in fact, help out both Miller 
Sharps and O'Doul's Amber and make them much more like regular beer, 
although they were still clearly identifiable as NA beers.  I also 
experimented with the coors product and found it to be unredeemable 
because of the overpowering flavor of cornflakes breakfast cereal.
The floral essence was rather dissapointing.  Its impact on flavor 
was barely perceptable to my taste.   Surprisingly though, it did 
seem to accentuate some of the other flavors of the beer (malts) and 
also helped to improve the flavour of the beers.  I had to go to about 
1.5 times the reccomended dosage before I started to notice any 
effects. 
	I was much more pleased with the East Kent Goldings and Cascade hop 
oils.  They performed much closer to expectations, although again I 
found myself working around or slightly above the maximum recommended 
dosage to achieve reasonable results.  The British blend was a bit 
dissapointing although it did produce some modest effects.  There 
were, I am pleased to report, no sea monkeys in the beer.  
	I should comment that when I ordered these Garetz pointed out that 
they are not intended to be used to supply all of the flavor or aroma 
in a beer, merely to supplement it, so I was not too surprised to find 
that the beers didn't undergo a magical transformation.  I should 
also remind everyone that taste thresholds vary widely from person to 
person and from flavour compound to flavour compound, so  
my inability to detect a flavor may have a lot more to do with me 
that the products.  I did make every effort to conduct these tests 
under optimal conditions for my palate and the oil bottles were 
vigorously shaken prior to  use as recommended by the litterature. It 
is also important to note that it took UPS 13 days to deliver these 
products from the west coast to Maine so they may have suffered 
somewhat in transit.  I have kept the products refrigerated since I 
DROVE to the UPS warehouse to pick up the shipment myself.  (I'll 
spare you any ranting about that whole fiasco.) 
	Generally speaking I felt that the products could be used effecively 
to improve the flavour and aroma of both home made and commercial NA 
beers.  The effects were a bit one dimensional and lacking in 
complexity, but they certainly do help. In principle they could provide 
a simple way to improve commercial NA beers for those who don't 
want to go to the trouble and expense of making NA beers at home.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 07:42:51 -0500
From: "Jim Kingsberg"<jdkingsb at hewitt.com>
Subject: Who you callin a brewster?


On HBD 3004, Dave Burley addressed us as

"Date: Mon, 12 Apr 1999 15:39:27 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Long mash, dextrins and mouthfeel
Brewsters
Bret Morrow did an excellent experiment in which he
determined that alpha amylase continued to be active..."

Sorry Dave!  I dont have the qualifications to be a brewster!  More
properly,
Im a (home)brewer.  Brewsters are women who brew.  Just like baxters are
women
who bake.

There now you've made me pick my first nit on the HBD.

Respectfully,
Jim Kingsberg
chief brewer, taster, bottle boy, kegger, Fugowee Brewery.
Evanston, IL




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:48:45 EDT
From: MaltHound at aol.com
Subject: re:Sanitation and septic systems

Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com> writes:

<<I'm sure not everyone brewing has city sewer, whereas you can dump
anything that doesn't rot out or clog your drain pipes.  What do the
brewers with septic systems do with their used sanitation fluid of
choice?  I go to great extremes to not let my iodophor mix and my
chlorine water go down the drain.  Since they are designed to kill off
microbes, which your septic tank depends on, how do other brewers dispose
of their spent liquids? >>

City sewer?  What's that?  
While you are correct that flushing sanitising fluid down the drain into your 
septic system would be marginally detrimental to the desireable microbes, the 
actual quantity of sanitizer is relatively tiny in comparison to the holding 
tank volume.   Dilution would appear to be the key here.

I justify it to myself this way:  Sanitizing brewing hardware I only use a 
few tablespoons of bleach.  OTOH when washing a load of white clothes I use 
1/2 cup or more of chlorine bleach, which goes down the same drain.  I would 
have to start worrying about the latter chlorine source first.

Regards,
Fred Wills
Londonderry, NH - where 
"We don't need no stinking sewers."
"Flush free or die!"




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:01:30 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: corn syrup, mashing, and enzymes

Dawn Watkins asked a question about priming ciders...

My recent experience with ciders is that you decrease the amount of
priming sugar slightly (like 1/2c in 5 gallons) unless you want a
super-fizzy cider.  Cider doesn't have the mouthfeel that beer does
(lack of proteins) and this effects the perception of carbonation on the
palate. Corn syrup, especially store-bought versions, are not
appropriate as they contain preservatives/anti-microbial agents to
prevent fermentation in the bottle--just the type of thing you're trying
to induce.  You may want to try and prime with fresh, home-pasteurized
apple juice (hold at 180F for 30 minutes) but I can't provide an
estimated amount.  The new Brewing Techniques has an article on the
sugar content of certain fruits, but I don't recall if apples are on
there.  Gail?  Any help?

Noonan's "Brewing Lager Beer" also talks about the 15 minute mash for
well-modified malts.  However he's very clear that this result is under
ideal laboratory conditions.  While the mini-mash may be "finished" in
15 minutes under these ideal conditions the only end-point being
measured is starch conversion, not satisfactory organoleptic
properties.  In other words, just because starch conversion is finished
doesn't mean the other important attributes of the mash (like
appropriate protein degradation) have been taken care of.  I happen to
use the mash schedules listed in Fix' "An Analysis of Brewing
Techniques" which depend on the type of malt being used.  The malt
profile and head retention of my recent beers have come out much more
balanced and consistent.  YMMV.

On the opposite side of the coin we have long (overnight) mashes.  One
aspect of the overnight mash that hasn't been addressed yet is mash
thickness.  A thick mash is much more favorable to enzyme stability than
is a thin mash.  When I'm looking to maximize enzyme life span (no,
they're NOT alive) I use a 0.8qt/lb ratio.  Beta-amylase is much more
heat labile than is alpha-amylase.  Dave Burley correctly states that as
the temperature rises the enzymatic conversion of substrate increases. 
In fact, for barley beta-amylase this conversion hits its peak a few
degrees before the enzyme denatures.  I don't have the numbers in front
of me, but I seem to recall that the maximum activity (Kmax?) is at 62C,
followed by a near complete removal of activity via irreversible
denaturation at 65C. Again, these values are under ideal laboratory
conditions (in fact, they're for purified beta-amylase) and your mash is
not one of them.  In the real world (and a world that has a very thick
mash) it is likely that a small amount of beta-amylase activity remains
during an overnight mash, provided you don't spend a whole lot of time
in the 68C+ range.  When the mash passes back through the beta-amylase
temperature range some conversion will occur, although I'm sure the
activity will have been compromised and conversion will be more sluggish
than the first pass through.  In a thin mash I would argue that none of
the beta-amylase activity would remain.

Enzymes need excess water to denature, so limiting the available water
will help preserve activity.  This is why enzyme activity is faster but
more short-lived in a thin mash.  BTW, another way to limit the
available water is to increase the sugar concentration of the
solution--precisely what's being done during the mash.  Why?  Because
carbohydrates are hygroscopic (i.e. sucks up water) and each
carbohydrate molecule (simple or complex) has water molecule(s)
associated with it.  At high sugar concentrations a great deal of the
water is associated with the sugars in the wort, leaving less
"available" water around and slowing down the denaturation of enzymes. 
Yet another advantage of the thick mash (OG is higher).

If you want to maximize conversion in an overnight mash, create a thick
mash (0.8 qt/lb) and leave it overnight.  In the morning double the
amount of water (new ratio 1.6 qt/lb) and raise the temperature up to
170F gradually.  Doing an infusion you could add measured amounts of
boiling water to do this, but I'm a direct-fire guy so I can't help you
here.  A 20 minute ramp through the saccharification range would be
fine.  Sparge and you're on your way.  I've used this procedure and it
works well (not over converted nor under converted).  YMMV, again.

By the way, what exactly is wrong with using a carboy for your primary
fermenter?


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 09:14:33 -0700
From: Ted McIrvine <McIrvine at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Long mash, dextrins and mouthfeel; Also Bud data

> From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
> Subject: Long mash, dextrins and mouthfeel

> Bret Morrow did an excellent experiment in which he
> determined that alpha amylase continued to be active
> longer than the typical 90 minute mash.  The point is,
> any starch or high MW carbohydrates can still be
> chopped down in a longer ( like an overnight) mash.

I'd like to add two comments to Dave's helpful post.  First, an
overnight mash works very well for styles such as Belgian Ales that are
highly attenuated.  Secondly, recirculating quite a bit (I often
recirculate a gallon or more) is another way of chopping long chains
into shorter chains of fermentable sugars.

A good way of getting mouthfeel is to increase melanoidin production
with a very long boil.
> 
> Most of [Charlie P's advice] it wasn't very good, 
> like pouring hot wort through
> the air ( see picture), using a carboy for a primary,
> short mashes, bad iodine test method ( first ed) and
> the like. 

I had to unlearn almost everything I read in Charlie P.  His recipes are
worse than his brewing advice.  But I don't see what is bad about using
a carboy for a primary.  (I tend to either use 2 carboys or a 6.5 gallon
carboy.  Glass is easy to sanitize.)

Someone asked about Buttwiper, er I mean Budweiser brewing data. 
According to Fred Eckhardt's "The Essentials of Beer Style" (1989) the
1987 Bud had an OG of 1.044 and a FG of 1.0008 with 10.5 IBUs.  That is
almost an inspiration to carbonate some water and enter it as a light
American lager.

Cheers
Ted


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 10:27:57 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Sanitation and septic systems

Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com> is concerned that his disposal of chlorine
and iodphor in his septic system will kill the necessary bacteria in it.
My first septic tank is 1500 gallons; your is probably something like that.
The little bit of sanitizers we put in them are going to be so diluted that
they will have no effect.  After all, people have been using a cup of
bleach or more in washing machines that empty into septic systems for years.

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, 14 Apr 1999 11:17:50 -0400
From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at geocities.com>
Subject: RIMS heating control

RIMSers,
    Most of the web sites I've looked at for RIMS have fairly complex
controllers for the inline heating element. I'll go that route sooner or
later, but for the short term, I would like to use more manual control.
(And, no, I can't search the archives, as my company's server balks at
Spencer's "8080" address.)
    I have a 10 gal. beverage cooler mash tun with a pump to recirculate
during the mash. (See http://hbd.org/starcity/brewers/doug_m.html ) I used
my pump for the first time the weekend before last, and lost a lot of heat
during the mash. I used a boiling water infusion to bring the temp back up,
but I would prefer to add an inline heating element for occasional boosts
during the course of the mash. I don't want to get too fancy until I have
time to design my own controller. In the mean time, I'd like to take the
manual approach.
    Do any of you control your element manually? How? A dimmer switch?
On/off switch? Any advice would be appreciated.

Brew on!
Doug Moyer
Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:19:46 -0700
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: SG to Plato and back


> From: JPullum127 at aol.com
>
> i'm a little confused about the term plato. is there a formula to
> convert specific gravity to plato and vice versa?

SG to Plato at 60 F:

P = -676.67 + 1286.4SG - 800.47SG**2 + 190.74SG**3

SG of 1.050 yields 12.34P

The other direction is less accurate over an SG of about 1.060.  Again at
60 F:
       260
SG = --------
     260 - P

These equations and plotted accuracy curves were published in:

Manning, M.P., Understanding Specific Gravity and Extract, Brewing
Techniques, 1,3:30-35 (1993)

Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152  phone
(206) 782-6766  fax orders
demonick at zgi dot com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:32:14 -0400
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com>
Subject: kegging questions

Anthony and Julie Brown ask a number of kegging questions.

About what size CO2 tank to buy, economics point to the larger one.
Typically, it costs about the same to refill either the 5lb or the 15 lb
so it depends on how often you like going to the refill place.  Plus,
with the 15lb one mounted in the fridge, it might cut into the keg space
more, ie. room for less future expansion on beer variety.

My 5 lb cylinder has lasted for about 12 five gallon batches.  I
typically just leave it connected to the keg being served although I
have been lately switching it from one keg to another since I haven't
bought a gas distributor yet.

Keg do not lose their carbonation when disconnected and beer isn't being
served unless they leak.  Carbonation will drop if you disconnect the
gas and continue to serve beer using just the finite gas in the keg as
the serving pressure. 

If you do leave the same pressure on the keg  the whole time (from full
of beer until unhappy empty), carbonation level actually goes up
slightly as the keg gets closer to empty (past the half full mark for
me).

Additionally, I have found that beer tends to stay better in the keg
than with normal bottles filled via bucket and bottle conditioned since
you can purge most all of the air out of the beer and head space in the
keg preventing oxidation effects.  Of course counter pressure bottling
would make bottles a less oxidation prone process also.

Cheers and keg on!!

Pete

Pete Czerpak
Process Engineer
pete.czerpak at siigroup.com



Pete Czerpak
Process Engineer
Schenectady International Inc. - Chemical Division

ph (518) 347-4554
fax (518) 347-4175
pete.czerpak at siigroup.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 08:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tim Anderson <timator at yahoo.com>
Subject: Sweet!

Is it just me, or do a lot of recipes these days call for huge amounts
of crystal?  Perhaps the collaborator milk stout is supposed to be
sweet, but 1.5 pounds seems like Kool Aid makings to me.  And in a
recipe book my wife gave me for Christmas, recipe after recipe has a
pound or more.  Heavens!  I seldom use more than 4 oz, unless I'm
hopping the crap out of it.  I don't care for beer on my pancakes,
thank you.

tim

===
Please ignore the advertisement below.  Thank you.

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free  at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:49:27 -0400
From: "Marc Sedam" <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: update on Stainless in Seattle

Just so I don't spread unwarranted rumors, Stainless in Seattle is still up
and running.  There may have been a few technical glitches in the website
(i.e. I never received an e-mail response from them that was sent to me)
which have since been ironed out.  Thanks to those who responded...they are
accepting orders.  The website is http://www.beeronline.com (no affiliation,
blah, blah, blah) and they do have some great SS supplies for mashing.

Marc Sedam
Brouwerij Zuytdam



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:32 -0800
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com>
Subject: CO2 tanks, kegs, & shelf life of kegged vs. bottled homebrew

     Hi all,
     
     Either Anthony or Julie Brown asks if they should get a 5 lb. CO2 
     tank or a larger size.  I can speak from miserable experience:  
     the larger size is the way to go.  The gas is cheaper when bought 
     in larger quantities and you will make fewer trips to the store 
     to get the bottle refilled.  It is sometimes nice to have a small 
     bottle for lugging to parties, but otherwise the bigger the 
     better.
     
     The Brewing Brown than asks:
     
     "I am going to begin kegging soon and was wondering
     if anyony knows how long a pressurized and refrigerated
     keg of homebrew will keep.  Will it go bad faster than
     bottles or lose carbonation at some point.
     
     Anyone know how long a keg will retain carbonation
     after disconnecting from the co2 tank??"
     
     To which I respond:
     
     If you keep oxygen out of your finished beer, keep it cold, and 
     don't contaminate the keg by getting back flow from a dirty line 
     or fitting, the beer will keep for quite some time.  This is, of 
     course, dependent on style.  Lighter flavored beers will lose 
     their subtle characters with time, whereas fuller-flavored beers 
     will change, but perhaps less obnoxiously (just like commercial 
     brew).
     
     In fact, it is easier to keep oxygen out of your beer at 
     packaging if you keg rather than bottle.  My procedure is to 
     clean the keg (take it apart every time and use a .22 caliber 
     rifle barrel cleaner to get the gunk out of the dip tube) and 
     then sanitize it by filling it with nearly boiling water (be 
     careful!).  I then reassemble it and let it stand 15 minutes with 
     a small amount of CO2 pressure (so that the cooling and 
     contracting liquid doesn't create a vacuum that could potentially 
     destroy the keg).
     
     I then push the hot water out of the keg with CO2 (you can 
     collect this water and bring it back to a boil and use it to 
     sanitize another keg or two).  This leaves me with a clean keg 
     that is completely free of oxygen.  I then transfer the finished 
     beer directly into the keg through the "liquid out" fitting 
     (using the "gas in" fitting as a vent) and voila!  Kegged 
     homebrew with very little oxygen pickup!
     
     Beer packaged in such a way should be more stable than your 
     average homebrew-bottling procedure could achieve.  You'll learn 
     exactly how long your beers can keep by drinking them and taking 
     tasting notes.  I have found some big beers (like a 1.062 
     Oktoberfest or a 1.066 IPA) can stay palatable for several 
     months.
     
     As for the question about the beer retaining its carbonation with 
     the CO2 tank disconnected:  it will maintain carbonation a *very* 
     long time as long as the keg has no leaks.  Simply store the keg 
     with the amount of CO2 pressure that was required to carbonate 
     the beer.  There is no reason to store it with the gas tank 
     attached.
     
     The world of kegging is quite a wonderful place.  Once you have 
     all the equipment and you get it all figured out, you will wonder 
     how you ever enjoyed the hobby previously.
     
     Have fun!
     
     George de Piro  (Nyack, NY)


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 11:49:37 -0500
From: jsulli - Jeremy Sullivan <jsulli at acxiom.com>
Subject: Known Alcohol Levels

:From: Philip J Wilcox at CMS on 04/12/99 05:12 PM
:
:My collection of beer literature doesn't have much to say about percise
:alcohol levels of Anheuser Busch products. I spent an hour or so this
:weekend trying to track down the Alcohol % of US produced Budwiser. I may

You can call the 800 number on their labels and request nutritonal information
(don't laugh.)  I did the same web search as you before stumbling across the
"easy" way.  My curiosity piqued, I also called Miller, Coors, and Strohs.  Here
is a little info for you.  It's about a year old and doesn't cover the
low-alcohol states.

Beer - %alc/calories
Budweiser - 5/145
Bud Light - 4.2/110
Bud Ice - 5.5/148
Michelob - 5.1/157
Michelob Light - 4.3/134
Michelob Golden Draft - 4.8/151
Michelob Golden Draft Light - 4.1/110
Natural Ice (Mmmmm - not) - 5.9/156

Miller Genuine Draft - 5/143
Miller Genuine Draft Light - 4.5/110
Miller High Life - 5/143
Miller Lite - 4.5/96
Miller Lite Ice - 5.5/125
Milwaukee's Beast - 4.5/128

Coors - 4.87/148
Cooors Light - 4.15/101
Zima - 4.78/184

Old Milwaukee - 4.53/136
Old Milwaukee Light - 4.26/111
Colt 45 - 5.6/?

BTW, Strohs makes a LOT more beer than I thought they did.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 14 Apr 1999 12:51:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Patrick Michael Flahie" <flahiepa at pilot.msu.edu>
Subject: Split-batch boiling

Hello all:

I am gearing up for my first all-grain batch next weekend,
and I have a question for the collective.  I have a mash-tun
with a false bottom that is ready to go, but I don't have
anywhere to boil a five gallon batch (still stuck in the
kitchen).  My plan is to take the first 3 gallons of runoff
into one pot and bring it to a boil while I run the
remaining 3 gallons into another pot.  I can boil both
simultaneously and stagger their finish times to accomodate
cooling.

I am unclear on how to handle hop additions.  I was
planning on just putting half of each hop addition in each
pot (adjusting for time), but I don't know if the differences
in gravities will make a significant difference.  I am inclined
to "relax, don't worry", but if there is an easy adjustment
that can be made I'd like to try it.

I understand that this is probably an isolated situation,
but if someone has some experience to share I'd appreciate
it.  Thanks.

- --Patrick Flahie
  Jackson, MI


Return to table of contents

---