---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Re: calling Dr.Imhoff/the Fix is 'out' (Jim Liddil)
  If you watch and wait... ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Yeast Evals (Robert Uhl)
  degrading ("Paul Niebergall")
  Nottingham yeast again ("Penn, John")
  Artful Brewing ("Daske, Felix")
  help with carbonation ("Gradh O'Dunadaig")
  ProMash Calculations (Jeffrey Donovan)
  Spirit of Free Beer Results (Anderson Andy W NSSC)
  Cold conditioning (lagering) (Greg Remake)
  Dextrins (Dave Burley)


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

* 2000 MCAB Qualifiers: Boneyard Brew-Off 6/12/99
* (http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/contest5.html);  Buzz-Off! 
* Competition 6/26/99 (http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff)

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: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 07:43:57 -0400
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at vms.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: calling Dr.Imhoff/the Fix is 'out'

- --On Thursday, June 03, 1999, 3:34 AM -0400 Stephen Alexander
<steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> Jim Liddil wrote ...
>> Steve Alexander wrote:
>>> At the HB level we have no objective way to compare runoff clarity.
>> Oh but we do.  It is called an Imhoff cone and has been discussed here
>> before. See the archives.
> 
> I remember the discussion quite well. I checked my local HB shop and
> several catalogs and no Imhoff cones.  The term "HB level" was used
> purposely. Seriously Jim, if you have a source for a cost effective
> Imhoff cone, please tell us about it.  Where did you get yours (or do you
> have one ) ?

cynmar has them for $24.  considering I spent $165 for my RIMS PID this was
a bargain.  (800)223-3517.

Jim




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 08:34:46 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: If you watch and wait...

In 3047 it is said...
>>For reasons not yet known to science, these
>>recrystallized starch molecules are very resistant to enzymatic
>>hydrolysis, and thus do not yield fermentable sugars in the mash tun."

>>Ahhh.  Science DOES know why retrograded starch is resistant.  Not to 
be
>>redundant, but what has been created is known in the literature as
>>"resistant starch" (go figure).  Amylose and debranched amylopectin in
>>solution (or in the presence of excessive moisture) will retrograde. 

>>Retrogradation/crystallization of amylose causes the molecule to form
>>helices, making most of the polymer unavailable for enzymatic attack.

    In Brewing Techniques a few issues back there was the question,
 "Is there any reason a homebrewer_must_use a portion of malt
in a cereal mash" There was some discussion here that this was
used to prevent retrogradation which someone explained to be
turning into a starchy lump, and since homebrewers don't pump
their cereal mash then it didn't matter.
  Well I guess now it seems that it _may_ matter to maintain the
fermentability
after the boiling cereal cools to mash temperatures.
  Maybe this is just conjecture on my part. What do you think?
  


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 07:18:28 -0600
From: Robert Uhl <ruhl at austinc.edu>
Subject: Yeast Evals

Mr. Kenton wrote regarding the Lallemand yeast strains.  While I have no 
hard-and-fast experimental data, my experience is that Nottingham is an 
_excellent_ ale yeast.  I would describe it as a 'clean' ale flavour, not clean 
as in the sense of lager-clean, but rather in the sense of 'contributing only 
that which is appropriate in the style of ale I prefer.'  This is not that 
helpful, but perhaps when I mention that I love bitters, brown ales, porters 
and stouts, with a soft spot for fruit ales, and that I love maltiness and a 
good hop flavour and aroma, it might become a tad clearer.  I have made 
wonderful beers with Nottingham.
  I have also used Windsor.  It works, and works well, but I find that it is 
perhaps slightly more suited towards bitters than other ale styles.  Take that 
as you may.  Sorry I cannot be more specific.  IMHO, though, the only way to 
evaluate yeast (or any other brewing ingredient) is to make beer with it.  The 
tastes desired by others are not nec. those one desires.  E.g., I hate lagers 
with a passion (bocks, pilseners &c.) and love ales.  Someone who loves lagers 
and finds ales just too nasty would prob. not be helped by my yeast, malt, 
water, hop or technique suggestions.

Mr. West wrote with the results of his unit's beer tasting.  Excellent stuff, 
we need more of it on the HBD.  I remain

As ever,
Bob Uhl



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:31:30 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject:  degrading

Scott Wrote: 

>I thought that the idea was to help and to learn, 
>not to degrade, slash and burn.

Jeez, that means a lot from a guy whose sig line reads "the more I know 
about C*thy *wing the more I know the AHA s*cks"

Among some other choice degrading, slashing, and burning stuff he has 
posted
over the years

Maybe Scott needs to practice what he preaches!

Paul Niebergall


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 09:31:49 -0400 
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Nottingham yeast again

	Well I just finished my lawnmower beer.  I've made it twice before
and it ended with a gravity of 1.010 starting around 1.037.  This time it
ended with a relatively high 1.016 FG!  The recipe for 3.75 gallons is
1-3.75# can of Morgan's prehopped malt, 1/4# dextrin malt to increase the FG
by a couple of points, Nottingham dry yeast and maybe 1/2-1oz  finishing
hops.  I've used Morgan's dark and wheat malt the last two times and this
time I used Morgan's rice malt.  Bittering should be about 24 IBUs based on
the prehopped can producing 15 IBUs for 6 gallons and just extrapolating
that to a concentrated 3.75 gallon batch.  Not only did this batch finish a
little high in gravity but it tastes "sweet" compared to previous batches.
Of course this sample was at bottling time so I need to reevaluate the taste
in a couple of weeks or more.  Fermentation temperature was pretty normal
for this yeast too, around 68-70F.  Yeast was rehydrated and active
fermentation started fairly quickly.  Next morning there was a nice krausen.
   My question to revive the Nottingham yeast thread is, has anyone else
been getting higher FG's?  I had posted a question previously and my mistake
that time was in getting lazy and just pouring the dry yeast on the cooled
wort as I had years previously.  Rob Moline pointed out the necessity of
rehydrating the Nottingham dry yeast and in the next several batches I
rehydrated and had active fermentation the following morning.  So the
rehydrating helped and my beers seemed to have reasonable attenuation the
last couple of times until this batch.  I can't think of any other variables
except that my last 2 lawn mower beers were made about a year ago.  Same
recipe, similar fermenation temps, same yeast, same procedures, same carboy
for fermentation.  Any other ideas?  Previously I expected 75-80%
attenuation for this yeast.  I estimate 1.034 gravity from the LME and about
0.003 from the dextring for the OG.  Then I estimate an FG of around 1.007-8
after 75% attenuation of the LME plus 0.002-3 from the 15% attenuatable
dextrin malt for an estimate FG of 1.010 which is what I got twice
previously.  This batch would indicate about 60% attenuation of the base
LME.   Anyone else having similar lower attenuations with Nottingham? TIA.
	
	Off the beer subject, I'm thinking of making a wine.  Any similar
sites like the brewery for getting started in making wine?  TIA.

	Lastly I hate to see many of the dedicated HBD contributors getting
"slammed".  No wonder we don't hear as much from some of our core
contributors.  Please don't be so quick to judge others or take offense
where none may have been intended.

John Penn
Eldersburg, MD


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 10:05:35 -0700
From: "Daske, Felix" <DaskeF at bcrail.com>
Subject: Artful Brewing

I must have misinterpreted Richard Gardner's meaning when he, in HBD#3047,
said:

>>
[snipped some...]
 I think no one has the answer to that, because while this isn't an 
"art" like wine, neither is it pure science; it is somewhere in between 
(must be engineering).
<<

I think (...) that brewing beer is AT LEAST as artful as [over
simplification alert!]fermenting grapes. Brewing finds me at my creative
best, 'ceptin [maybe] for baking, or cooking.

It is probably just that this comment was made in closing, to his review of
the input given by the esteemed members of the Siebel Institute... or, it
could be that Richard believes that wine is art... and beer is not... hmph.

kind regards, Felix
Fallen Rock Home Brewery
(higher ground masherei)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 11:27:13 PDT
From: "Gradh O'Dunadaig" <odunadaig at hotmail.com>
Subject: help with carbonation

hi kids,

i am having a time with carbonation and would like to ask some questions. in 
every beer that i have brewed, save one, i have had less than favorable 
results, either malt geysers or a brew that looks at you as if you were 
expecting something when you pop the cap.

i believe that i am aerating well, temperatures are between 60F and 70F, 
so....?

1. will using 3/4 cup corn sugar for priming of 5 gallons result in head and 
carbonation similiar to commercial brews? when i use corn sugar, i usually 
end up with a flat beer.

2. does the amount of hops used affect carbonation? my ibu's usually range 
at 80+. would the large amounts of hop oils make an effect on the 
carbonation?

3. do you have to revive the yeast or repitch after an extended time in the 
carboy? i usually let it go for 3 weeks or so, due to lack of enthusiasm for 
bottling. as an example, i used wyeast #1214 with wonderful results, then 
the second time i used it, barely any carbonation.

I don't have any problems with my sparkling meads, so it occured to me that 
it might be the alcohol content of the beers. I am using only 6 pounds of 
extract syrup and up to 2 pounds of specialty grains, so i do not think that 
that is the case.

any serious response (or attack) is welcome, either here or by email.
Thank you for your time


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 13:03:28 -0700
From: Jeffrey Donovan <jeffrey at promash.com>
Subject: ProMash Calculations

Hi All! I'd like to address some of the concerns posted here regarding
ProMash calculations vs. SUDS calculations. I've never used SUDS myself, so
I'm flying blind on that, but there are some obvious possibilities that
come to mind....

Anybody who would like to talk directly to me regarding this is free to
email me at jeffrey at promash.com, or post a note on the ProMash BBS,
http://www.promash.com/probaord/index.html

So.....(I'm typing this out fast so excuse any mis-spellings).....

1) As far as predicted gravity, are you sure the grain's extract potential
per LBS in SUDS is the same as the grain's extract potential used in
ProMash? This could definitely be a cause of different gravity readings,
provided all other variables are the same (efficiency, etc.). This would be
my guess and is why each grain in ProMash allows you to modify the extract
potential accordingly. 

2) As far as color goes, ProMash gives you 3 distinct methods to use for
calculating color. The default is Morey, and is what I prefer but it
generates fairly different numbers than the other formulas, which I believe
SUDS uses. I have a detailed write-up
regarding color in the ProMash help system, and I would suggest reading
this for further enlightenment. However, I have used a spectrometer on many
of my own brews at SpeakEasy Ales & Lagers (where I am an Assn't Brewer),
and found Morey's to be the most accurate. I do admit it can read a bit
light on the darker beers, but overall it's the best in my opinion. If you
want to match color closer to values found in SUDS, I'd suggest switching
the color model in ProMash to the Mosher or Daniels formula.

3) Regarding IBU's and Tinseth hop numbers, I've matched at least 20 beers
in ProMash to Tinseth's own calculators and found them to be dead on. I'm
also aware that there was a bug in the SUDS Tinseth calculation, and that
could well explain the difference as well. Now, ProMash does ask for a
'Tinseth' concentration factor when you set it, and you should read the
help in detail to understand what this number means and how to set it
accordingly. It is basically the difference between pre-boil volume and
post-boil volume. This number will not be used in up-coming versions of
ProMash, because ProMash now calculates pre-boil values automatically, but
in current versions it must be set correctly.

Cheers All!



Jeffrey Donovan
Author: ProMash and PilotBrew Software
jeffrey at promash.com
http://www.promash.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 17:11:25 -0400 
From: Anderson Andy W NSSC <AndersonRW at NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Spirit of Free Beer Results

My apologies for not posting this sooner, but I was having too much fun on
vacation to remember to post. (There's nothing like organizing a homebrew
contest to make you enjoy a vacation :-)


7th Annual Spirit of Free Beer Results

The results from the 1999 Spirit of Free Beer (SoFB), hosted by BURP and
held May 22-23 at Virginia Native Brewing in Alexandria, VA are in.  Results
can be found at http://www.burp.org/SoFB99/ <http://www.burp.org/SoFB99/> 

There were 324 entries this year, and once again there were some outstanding
beers judged in the contest. Thanks go to all of the judges and other
volunteers who helped to make the contest a success.  Special thanks also to
the sponsors for their generous donations.

All the score sheets were mailed out on Monday, May 24.  So, if you entered
but have not yet received your score sheets, send me an email.

This year's contest was also part of the Master's Championship of Amateur
Brewing (MCAB).  The top scoring beers in specific categories will be
invited to participate in the MCAB competition in early 2000.  MCAB
qualifiers from the SoFB can also be found  at http://www.burp.org/SoFB99/
<http://www.mtsw.com/hotv/mcab99.html> 

Congratulations again to all of the winners - we hope to see you again next
year.

Cheers,

Andy Anderson
SoFB Organizer


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 15:39:22 -0600
From: Greg Remake <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Cold conditioning (lagering)

Hello all,

Why do lagers need extended cold conditioning (lagering)?  What's really
going on in the brew during lagering, and why is the temperature important?
 Why aren't ales lagered?  

I'm guessing the answers have to do with the lager yeast strain, but I'm
curious.  I haven't seen any good explanations in the archives or my
brewing texts.

TIA,

Greg 



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 3 Jun 1999 20:36:40 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Dextrins

Brewsters;

George De Piro and Mark Sedam explain why
<starches> which have been recrystallized into
non-linear segments may not be fully accessible
to enzymes.  This does explain why the extract
of specialty malts may be lower than regular
malts.

I can't find a comparitive extract yield for
crystal versus pale malt, but my recollection
is that it is only a few percentage points different.
Ergo, sugar and dextrins are largely extracted
with only a few percent being the recalcitrant starch
mentioned above.

Spiralling does not explain why dextrins
cannot be attacked by enzymes.
Dextrins are soluble, by definition, I think,
and are not <crystallized> into spirals.
Methinks dextrins can be attacked by beta
and alpha enzymes and this is why, if you
want to retain these dextrins in the wort, (say
in a simple mash scheme) these specialty malts
need to be added at the end of the mash.


Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley 


Return to table of contents

---