---

	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:
  Beetles on yer Hops, NAT GAS, and etc. ("John Stegenga")
  Flogging the Dead Horse (Lester Long)
  Cheese Making ("Jack Schmidling")
  Temp controller (fridge)
  sanitize by heating at any temp below 212F (Rick Foote)
  Re: Inimitable English ale (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Science (Emphasis on the *Sigh*) (uhlb)
  Re: Fridge Temp Controller (Jim Layton)
  BYO Magazine (Greg Remake)
  A suggestion for the anti-Charlie P crowd... ("T Spevjo")
  high boiling temps for starters (ALAN KEITH MEEKER)
  Excessive Foam ("bermingham")
  Hi Grav. Brewing (AJ)
  Re: Charlie and the AHA (John Gilman)
  aeration experiment ("Bayer, Mark A")
  Making Starters / Beating Beatles / Yanking Yankees (MaltHound)
  Wild Goose Snow Goose (KTNeall)
  Oxidation effects (Stephen Johnson)
  RIMS ("Mark Vernon")
  On Sour Mashing (Teutonic Brewer)
  Re: Dr. Pivo ("John A. MacLaughlin")


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

* Subscribe to the Distilled Beverage Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to dbd-request@hbd.org
* Subscribe to the Home Vintners' Digest
* Send "subscribe" in body of note to hvd-request@hbd.org

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

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

Back issues are available via:

  HTML from...
        http://hbd.org
  Anonymous ftp from...
	ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
	ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org 
  (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be 
  reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless 
  EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. 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, 15 Jul 1999 22:39:22 -0400
From: "John Stegenga" <bigjohns at mindspring.com>
Subject: Beetles on yer Hops, NAT GAS, and etc.

Greg Mueller writes about his &%^#$ beetle infestation on the hop vines.

First, Greg, let me issue condolances on the beetle infestation.  You can
make an insecticidal soap using a TBSP of Dawn dish soap in a quart of water
in one of those hose end sprayers.  Then add your appropriate measure of
Diazanon liquid.  Make sure you hit the vines from all sides, especially
paying attention to the underside of the leaf where the beetle spends the
day out of the sun...  You can also try SAFER brand insectisidal (damn I
can't spell) soaps for vegetables.  They contain a pyrithrins derived toxin
that should get them good.

Try putting some hops cones into the beetle bag and see if there is a bigger
attraction for the beetles.

I'd also like to thank those few of you who replied about my Propane to NAT
conversion query.  I actually got a technical engineer from CampChef on the
phone and they faxed me the instructions for doing so.  They indicated that
if the orifice is a screw in BRASS piece, (and almost all of their new
stoves are) a #45 or #43 drill bit will enlarge the hole apropriately to
give me 30kBTU (depending on local gas line pressure, of course) on the
stove.  So, it's off to Costco this weekend to pick one up!

Now I guess i'd like to solicit any suggestions / recipes for my first all
grain beer!  I'll be plumging out my coolers (coleman chest type) this
weekend and I'm itching to brew!

John
AKA Bigjohn
Woodstock, Georgia, USA
(brewery name under consideration...)



Return to table of contents


Date: 16 Jul 1999 03:53:34 -0000
From: Lester Long <LesterLong at redneck.efga.org>
Subject: Flogging the Dead Horse

For beer content, page down now to last paragraph.  For supine equine content,
read on.

I had decided to drop out of this Pivo discussion, not because I think it
unimportant or even off-topic.  Honestly, I started to feel foolish defending
somebody who isn't even defending himself.  But what Stephen Alexander wrote
about me in his latest post is so factually deficient, to put it politely, it
demands a response.

Stephen wrote:

>That Dr.Pivo is Jeff Irvine is a fact that was only partially available to
>newer readers.

It was 100% available to *all* readers, new and old, who saw fit to ask about
it, or who possessed even rudimentary Internet research skills.  This quote 
shows your arrogance for all to see.  You yourself were not fooled.  But there 
are *other* schmoes out there, not as *smart* as you I suppose, who might be 
fooled.  You also accused me, in email, of posting a "defective history of 
the outing of Dr.Pivo".  I never represented anything I wrote as "a history 
of the outing of Dr. Pivo".  I said it was a history of who used to call 
Jeff Irvine Dr. Pivo, and when they stopped doing so.  Here is exactly what 
I wrote:

"Now, I've attempted to use the scientific method to dig up who said "Pivo" and
when they stopped saying it ..."

You mentioned Charlie Rich.  Yes, he identified Pivo as Jeff Irvine in HBD 2384
(politely and with no hint of complaint, I might add).  I wasn't trying to hide
that fact, and I certainly wasn't too stupid to find it.  My research pointed
out that *you* did not deem it ridiculous to call Jeff Dr. Pivo until HBD 3077.
I expressed the *opinion* that this refusal following hard on the heels of Bob
Poirier's "outing" of Pivo was not coincidence.  It could have been utter
coincidence.  If so, I stand corrected.  But that Charlie Rich correctly ID'ed
Irvine so long ago, and yet you continued to call Irvine Dr. Pivo, speaks in
favor of my point, not against it.

>What does disturb me is that so many are so willing to make slanderous claims
>about my intent.  Claims that cannot possibly be based on an accurate reading
>of what I wrote.

Your arrogance is showing again.  People who don't agree with you aren't bright
enough to understand what you wrote, eh?  I was careful to say in a previous
post that I attributed *no motive* to your discussion of the Pivo pseudonym.  I
made *no* further comment about your *intent*, much less slanderous.  Indeed, I
would never have dreamed you were including me in the above slander accusation,
if you hadn't specifically accused me (in email) of slander.  For the record
folks, Stephen said in an email to me that I was "less slanderous than most". 
Get out a dictionary and look up slander.   Leaving alone for a moment that the
legal definition of slander goes to spoken and *not* to written communication,
I defy you to quote one word I have written about you that could even remotely
be construed as slander by any intelligent human being, let alone a court of
law.  In fact, I invite you to retract that absurd accusation.

>The post sat dormant for several weeks before Phil Yates, Alan McKay and
>lately Lester Long and others decided to hurl personal insults at me and 
>to make rash and unfounded presumptions about my motive.

Of course I can't speak for Phil and Alan.  With regard to me, I've already
blown your "motive" B.S. out of the water.  Now I defy you to quote one
"personal insult" addressed from me to you.  Go ahead.  Find just one.  The
closest I can find is that I didn't think you had an artistic bone, which is an
opinion, hardly an insult, and I even went on to say you had proved me wrong
about that!

>This reaction just proves the name carried some sort of emotional baggage best
>left outside a technical discussion.  That is certain.

*You* see the HBD as a technical discussion.  Many others don't see it that
way.  That really goes to the heart of the art vs. science issue, as well as to
the fact that as someone put it, the HBD is viewed as a lions' den.  Many don't
*want* it to be technical.  Many others, like me, don't mind the technical
parts, but enjoy some humor, and like to RDWHAHB.  

Published response to you on this issue has been overwhelmingly opposed to your
point of view.  In fact, unanimously opposed, up to this point.  Of course, all
those dissenters are "emotional", whereas you, like Mr. Spock, stick with
logic.  You've lost this argument on any grounds and you don't want to face
that.

>That is my last email/post comment on the name issue - public or private.

And because you've lost, you're going to take your ball and go home.

BEER CONTENT

Charlie Rich was mentioned, and somebody else recently asked about the most
valuable thing gained from HBD.  For me it was a discussion (in the archives,
not really recent) of pressure cooking and pseudo-decoction by Charlie Rich,
Charlie Scandrett, and a few others.  Today I'm quaffing the best homebrew I've
ever made, thanks to what I learned from that. More on this in a separate post.




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 23:33:05 -0500
From: "Jack Schmidling" <arf at mc.net>
Subject: Cheese Making

This may seem like a strange topic for HBD but there is an uncanny
commonality between making cheese and making beer.

You add a "starter" to the milk, brew it, worry about things like pH,
heat it, ripen it, squeeze it, ferment it and finally eat it with beer.  If
that's not enough, it takes all day and lots of sort of sepcial
equipment that's fun to make or gather up.

One unfortunate difference is that it takes at least two months to even
start tasting like cheese and there is no easy way to sneek samples.

Having a grand total of two batches under my belt, I would like to discuss
the process with knowledgeable cheese makers.  A search of the web gets
exactly two places that sell cheese making stuff but no discussion groups or
ng's, ml's etc.  I bought a $20 book from one of the places and it reminds
of brewing books of the 50's,  5 pages of pseudoscience and 200 pages of
recipes.

So, is there anyone out in HB land doing cheese?

js

PHOTO OF THE WEEK  http://user.mc.net/arf/weekly.htm
HOME  http://user.mc.net/arf



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 07:23:02 -0400
From: fridge at kalamazoo.net
Subject: Temp controller

Greetings folks,

 I typo'ed in yesterday's post about temperature controllers. I meant 
to say to consider using either mineral oil OR automotive antifreeze 
as a thermal mass medium.

 Rob Dewhirst's suggestion to slip the probe into a piece of copper 
tubing after soldering one end closed is a good one if your controller 
probe could be damaged by the thermal mass medium you intend to 
use. In fact, I used this trick for my mash temperature sensor probe 
on my RIMS. Works great.

Hope this helps!

Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at kalamazoo.net



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:16:40 -0400
From: Rick Foote <rfoote at mindspring.com>
Subject: sanitize by heating at any temp below 212F

Joe Gibbons wrote:

>Is it possible to sanitize by heating at any temp below 212F?  I'm trying
>to make a starter by boiling the wort in the glass starter bottle.  Not
>much luck.  There just isn't enough heat transfer around 200F to bring
>the liquid in the bottle to boil.  Is there any commonly available
>chemical (other than etheylene glycol) that can be added to water to
>raise its boiling point?  No, I don't have a pressure cooker.

I have been preparing my starter for innoculating with yeast from slants,
as described below, for a couple years now with no apparent ill effects.  I
use a 50ml. plastic vial placed in an autoclavable plastic test tube
holder.  For starter solution, I use 15 ml. water to 1/4 teasp. DME.  I
screw the cap on the vial loosely so as to prevent pressure build up.  The
whole shebang is placed in a sauce pan with about 1/2" to 3/4" water.  I
put the lid on the sauce pan to hold in the steam and boil on my kitchen
stove for 15 to 20 min.  Once out of the hot water/steam bath, I screw the
cap on tightly and cool before innnoculating.  I then step up using
conventionally boiled and cooled starter, either from DME or from wort
canned from a previous batch of beer.  To can wort, I use a sterile quart
Mason jar (iodophor soln. in it overnight) to catch the first boling hot
wort from the kettle (before chilling) and screw a canning lid on.  The lid
seals every time.  I store the hopped wort to protect it from light and use
it to step up the next batch of yeast.

Works for me.

Rick



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:07:10 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Inimitable English ale 

Mike Utes of Big Rock IL wrote

>There's an underlying flavor in English ales that no other beer or American
>imitation seems to have.  It's a sweet, syrupy, honeylike (excellent) flavor.
>Fuller's, Youngs, Samuel Smith, Bass...they all have it.  Seems that
>calculated additions of gypsum to the mash and sparge water brings my ESBs
>etc. close, but not quite there.  What gives?

Perhaps it's diacetyl, which SS certainly has big time, and the others may
have in lesser amounts.  This can be increased by yeast choice and
"dropping," which is racking the fermenting beer after 24 hrs with more or
less vigorous aeration.  I have done this with success, and overdone it as
well.  A little diacetyl adds to the flavor complexity.  Too much
overwhelms everything else, IMO.

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:32:13 -0600 (MDT)
From: uhlb at cobank.com
Subject: Re: Science (Emphasis on the *Sigh*)

> >All the science in the  world wont help my baking.
> >Why would it help my brewing??
>
> It DOES help your brewing.  Do you use  pure yeast cultures or thermometers,
> those old results of commercial brewing research.  Do you use more
> recent results like effecting esters or fusels by temp control, O2 etc ?.
> Perhaps you use commercial dogma about how to handle your ale vs lager
> fermentation temps.  Or hops IBU calculations ?  Or treat your water ?  Or
> choose pitching rates ? Or calculate carbonation rates ?  You might have
> learned from experience what acetaldehyde or DMS or diacetyl means in a
> beer, but more likely you understand these and their cure from theory.
> Lot's more if you should care to think.

Well, I do use liquid yeast cultures, but only until I brew enough to keep
on repitching the lees.  I use a thermometer for mashing, but only until I
have the experience to no longer need it--I may switch to decoction, or
just do what feels right.  I don't aerate post-fermentation, if that's
what you mean by temp control.  Fermentation temperature is whatever the
coolest part of my home happens to be.  IBU calculations?  You must be
kidding.  I do track HBUs, but only because I've not the experience to
know by feel yet.  Pitching rates?  Ha; I pitch a good amount of active
yeast, that's all.  Carbonation rates?  Why bother; if my last batch came
out a little less carbonated, use more DME this time and vice versa.

You may notice a trend here.  Science is a prop used by the inexperienced.
The true artisan does not need science; he has surpassed it.  It's like
the greatest cooks: to a man, they do not use measurements at all, but
rather put spices and ingredients in until it feels right.  Science is all
well and good when you're beginning; it keeps you from making some simple
mistakes (maybe I should stir the beer to a nice foam before bottling?).
But science and theory will never teach, can never teach, the _feel_ one
needs to make a perfect beer, the hunch that a handful of such-and-such
will take one's beer to the next level.
  FWIW, I am a CS student, room with a Biochem major and have a good deal
of respect for the sciences.  I just completely and utterly fail to
worship at the threshold of Almighty Reason.  Leave that to lunatics like
Robespierre.  Science & reason are useful tools, but only one half of
things.  Practice & emotion are the other half.  The true man rises above
both, utilising each as appropriate and needed.  Ours is a culture which
exalts reason and denigrates emotion.  Interestingly enough, this has lead
to an exaltation of emotion over intelligent thought.  We need to return
to a balance.  Fourteen pages of learned discourse concerning retrograded
starch will hardly do that.

> A treatise on the virtues of limiting knowledge - to what end ?

Limiting knowledge is a very important subject.  We are nowadays subject
to information overload; it is possible to know _too much_ on a subject.
It has become vitally important to know when to say when, if you will.

> I am not suggesting that any one else read journals tho' it was a more
> enlightening HBD when more did.  Some people want to obtain enough knowledge
> to reason deductively about cars or computers or baked goods or beer.
> Others just want to drive or surf or load the bread machine or brew from
> kits.  There used to be plenty of space for both sides here.  Where does
> your intolerance come from ?

The umpteen million posts on scientific subjects and the 4 recipes posted
in as many weeks.  That could be part of it.  Just maybe.

> If you don't think critically about your brewing -  then you are relegated
> to operating by rote and rule-of-thumb and you will be the endless victim of
> superstition and momilies, mysticism and mumbo-jumbo (the malady that Alan
> complains about). Your own fault all.

I'm not sure what the problem with rule-of-thumb is.  I don't need to know
the molecular composition of steel, flesh and a knife blade to know that
jabbing my arm with the last is a mistake.  If someday someone does jab
himself, and it does no harm, than I would gladly receive his experimental
results and no longer refrain from the action.

We do need some simple experiments, though.  The oxidation experiment
reported earlier is one.  We now know that it seems that for a certain
style of beer six weeks of oxidation don't hurt.  That's a v. useful
datum; I know that if my beer lasts six weeks then I've been out of town.
An experiment on the effects of various priming substances would be very
nice.  We've all heard that sugar sours, corn sugar does little, DME gives
a creamier head and body, honey takes forever &c.  Let's organise several
experiments across several styles.  I suspect (and I have no reason for
this--it's sheer intuition) that honey _will_ take slightly longer, but
the DME will give little difference.  I do not have a feeling for the
effects of sugar.  I personally use DME because I want an all-malt beer.
I will be moving to wort-priming someday when I brew enough to do it.

Racking day for all-grain batch #1 is tomorrow.  I hope it turns out well;
I think that it will.  I have noticed that the foam is not as high as it
is with my extract and partial mash batches.  Is this usual, or is it an
indicator of poor mashing?  I rather hope the former, but fear the latter.
Well, worst case I'll have a thick low-alcohol beer.

Bob Uhl



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:27:47 -0500
From: Jim Layton <a0456830 at rtxmail1.rsc.raytheon.com>
Subject: Re: Fridge Temp Controller

Just thought I'd offer my experience regarding the Johnson Controls A19
unit that Randy Ricci and Forrest Duddles wrote about. I found that
submersing the probe in liquid to be totally unnecessary. That little
slider inside the case that Forrest mentioned: I placed it at 4 degrees
years ago and haven't moved it since. With the probe hanging in air
inside the cabinet, inside temperature was verified using a thermometer
in a gallon jug of water. The thermometer held steady and the compressor
just loafed along, seldom kicking in unless I opened the door. I could
have twiddled knobs and collected data, statistically analyzed the
numbers, perhaps reaching some ideal compromise between compressor
cycling and temperature variation. It just doesn't seem worth the effort
when everything appears to be working fine. 

I really like this controller for holding a steady temperature. I've
gotten far more life out of it than I did with a Hunter Airstat. The
downside, IMO, is that changing the temp setpoint is not very precise.
You can't really trust those numbers printed on the tiny little
adjustment knob, you should verify with a thermometer. A digital
controller makes adjusting the setpoint a snap.

Jim Layton
Howe, TX


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 09:12:18 -0600
From: Greg Remake <gremake at gsbalum.uchicago.edu>
Subject: BYO Magazine

I was offered an annual Brew Your Own magazine subscription for about $28.
What is the Collective's opinion of this publication?  It seems that BT is
the preferred publication among the HBD forum.  The BYO offer comes with a
full refund guarantee, so I'm not risking anything if I don't like it, but
I thought I'd see what others think of it.

Cheers,

Greg


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 08:22:45 PDT
From: "T Spevjo" <spevjo at hotmail.com>
Subject: A suggestion for the anti-Charlie P crowd...

>When I started brewing Charlie's book was recommended to me and that is 
>what I read and used.  I think I got a lot out of it.  He may have been 
>wrong on some things but I think he got a hell of a lot more right than 
>wrong.  And I am not so sure all the things he is accused of getting wrong 
>are wrong or if they are they may be relatively unimportant.

For all you cats out there who consider Charlie P to be a hack (and I don't 
know whether he is or not, this is just a thought), might I suggest 
composing an FAQ of all the things that are wrong with the NCJOHB -- 
accepting that, like it or not, this is probably going to be the book that 
90% of all first-time home brewers use, a well written collection of...how 
to put this...amendments to Papazian's method might be in order. I know lots 
of folks who would be interested in reading something like that (including 
myself...)

Just thinking again...I should know better by now.

[Spevjo]


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


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:27:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: high boiling temps for starters

- ------------------------------
WARNING.... WARNING....WARNING...
The following message contains material of a scientific and technical nature.
Results of complicated experiments involving boiling salt water are included.
If reading detailed descriptions of such acts offends you PAGE DOWN NOW!!!

Joe Gibbens asked about increasing temps for boiling starters:

>Is it possible to sanitize by heating at any temp below 212F?  I'm trying
>to make a starter by boiling the wort in the glass starter bottle.  Not
>much luck.  There just isn't enough heat transfer around 200F to bring
>the liquid in the bottle to boil.  Is there any commonly available
>chemical (other than etheylene glycol) that can be added to water to
>raise its boiling point?  

Joe, any solute you add will raise the boiling point of your water. A cheap
way would be to add NaCl (common table salt). I just tried a little
"experiment" here in the lab. added a bunch (sorry for the technical term!) of
salt to water and brought it to a boil. I then added more salt and heat to the
point where the water was boiling but there was still some undissolved salt
left (supersaturated). The temperature of this solution was 109 degC which
converts to 229 degF - a very nice increase indeed! 

You could give this a try to get your starter to boil. The starter itself has
dissolved solids in it (malt, etc..) which will act to raise its boiling
point therefore it's no surprise you couldn't get it to boil at boiling water
temps. 

If possible, it'll be safer if you can include some type of inert solid in
both the salt solution and the starter (something like marble chips, etc..)
This will promote smooth boiling and help prevent "bumping" which can result
in violent ejection of materials out of the container. 

An aside, while it is certainly possible to sanitize starters by boiling this
is different than /sterilizing/ the starter. sanitizing is probably good
enough for homebrew purposes if you treat the sanitized materials carefully
(refrigeration is probably a good idea. Alternatively, you may want to invest
in a pressure cooker to get true sterilization. A thought - I suppose you
could concievably use the supersaturated salt boiling trick to sterilize a
solution but you'd have to have a container that could be immersed in the
solution CLOSED for a decent period of time (about 20 minutes after the
contents has reached sterilization temp) and, more importantly could WITHSTAND
THE PRESSURE generated during this process - I don't know if the typical
canning jars can withstand these pressures, anybody know?? If you can using a
pressure cooker I think they are set up in such a way that the lids are free
to open to release pressure then seal tight later when the pressure drops back
down. 

All in all, I'd just go with the boiling, the other way sounds too risky!

Good luck

 -Alan Meeker

All participants involved were over 18 yrs of age.





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:49:33 -0500
From: "bermingham" <bermingham at antennaproducts.com>
Subject: Excessive Foam

Howdy Ya'll

I have a question about why there is so much foam in a Brown Ale I kegged.

I put up 10 gallons in two kegs, each keg was primed with 30 Lbs. CO2 after
being purged of air.  After about 3 weeks the first keg was put in the
refrigerator.  I cranked up the regulator and brought the pressure up to 30
Lbs. once again and let the keg set for two days to reach serving temp.
Released all pressure, and charged with 7 Lbs.  No Problem,  beer poured
just like it was supposed to.

Four weeks later, I did the same process with the second keg.  Nothing but
foam.  Released all the pressure and disconnected the CO2.  Next day lots of
pressure and nothing but foam.  Now two weeks later and the CO2 has not been
reconnected, If I don't relieve the pressure (and I mean lots of pressure)
before I pour a glass I get nothing but foam.

The Germans say that it takes 15 min. to pour a Pills, well it takes me 15
min to pour a Brown Ale.  What happen?

Jim Bermingham
JackAss Brewery
Millsap, TX



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:21:18 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Hi Grav. Brewing

Pondering the recent thread concerning the value of commercial practices
in homebrewing it occured to me that I use one in every brew which gets
me a fair amount of free beer (i.e. free from the labor of brewing it).
This is the  high gravity technique widely used by the big boys. The
idea is, for them, to get 1000 barrels out of an 800 barrel brewhouse
thus saving the capital expense of 200 barrels more capacity. At my
scale the object is to get 20 gal out of a 15 gal fermenter (fermenter
has 20 gal volume but room must be left for kreusen head). The idea is
simplicity itself. Size the grist for 20 gal but collect and transfer
only 15 -16 to the fermenter. After the kreusen collapses, add water to
fill to the top. If using carboys, do the same thing. Add the dilution
water after transfer to a Corny keg.

There are some pitfalls. You might have to look beyond TCJOHB to find
out about them. You'll have to decide for yourself whether that effort
is worth 25 - 33% more beer. Not much question in my mind!

In fact the pitfalls with a 1.25 - 1.33 factor are minimal, and largely
obvious (e.g. your mash tun has to be able to handle the extra grain).
The less obvious concerns are with ester and fusel production. I've
personally not experienced a problem with those... yet.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 13:45:41 -0500
From: John Gilman <gilmanj at mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Charlie and the AHA

Randy Shreve writes
> . . . But, it is my opinion that Charlie's whimsical style puts you
completely at ease . . . .

I certainly do not mind "Charlie's whimsical style".  My frustration is
that the AHA did not lead the quality movement in homebrewing.  In order
to become a better brewer I had to look to Brewing Techniques and Dave
Miller.  This should not have been necessary.  I am still convinced that
had Zymurgy understood its market better, there would have been no room
for BT and BYOB.  As it was they left others to do the work I believe
they could/should have done.

I have no fault with TJOHB.  I learned from it.  I also have no fault
with anyone who wants to brew honey lagers with cumin and allspice.  But
for those of us who wanted to learn how to brew world class beer the AHA
was behind the curve.   The difference between CP and Dave Miller was
like the difference between someone who would teach you how to make
banana nut bread and someone who would teach you how to make a real
sourdough with great crust and crumb.  I could see the consequence of
this when I visited a homebrew club ten years ago.  Most of the beer was
simply not very good, it was just malt, water, hops and yeast thrown
together.  But everyone seemed oblivious to this.  It was homebrew so it
had to be good.

I wish Charlie and the AHA the best of luck, but I look for information
from other sources.

John Gilman
Intermittent homebrewer since 1979.




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 11:46:11 -0700
From: "Bayer, Mark A" <Mark.Bayer at JSF.Boeing.com>
Subject: aeration experiment

collective homebrew conscience_

david wrote, regarding dennis j's aeration experiment:

>1. There is no guaruntee that pouring the beer back and forth between
>bottles actually resulted in significant oxygen dissolution.  Dennis
>reported that the beer foamed excessively, due perhaps to the dissolved CO2
>coming out of solution, and this may have protected the beer from coming
>into contact with much oxygen.

>2. Pouring the beer through the air would not normally allow much mixing of
>the beer with air due to the smooth laminar flow pattern.  A more turbulent
>flow would be required to mix air into the beer.


while i would agree that the beer may not have picked up a lot of air while
it was in the air, once it hits the bottom of the bottle, i think there is
the potential for plenty of air to get in.  the "co2 blanket" hypothesis is
not applicable in the area where the beer is splashing either on the bottom
of the (non-purged) bottle, or on itself.  there will likely be turbulent
mixing at that point and air will be mixing with any co2 that is evolved.
the co2 will definitely not remain in a solid "blanket" over the beer.
gases don't behave that way under these circumstances.

but beyond this argument, (which is essentially unprovable since no
measurements were taken), i think what dennis did does represent a sort of
"worst case" practice in terms of bottling procedure.  most of us don't use
bottling procedures that will introduce more air than pouring each beer back
and forth between bottles.  so for what he was trying to determine, it was
probably more relevant than, say, taking an airstone and aerating like it
was chilled wort.  that's going to give a worst-case scenario that we don't
care about because we're never going to approach that level of aeration in
our beers.
it could have been a valid datapoint for dennis, in retrospect, to
illustrate the gap between "worst case" and the beers he could detect no
differences in.

in terms of storage time and temperature, these are definitely going to play
a big role, and maybe dennis did not wait long enough and/or hold the beer
at a high enough temperature to notice any differences.  but he can resolve
that the next time he tries it (if he does).

there is one last thing to consider, though, and that is that the final
analysis here was made by dennis, who states he may not have a sensitive
enough palate to recognize any differences that may have actually been
there.

my response to that is: maybe that's not so bad for dennis.  he might have
tastebuds that are, to some degree, insensitive to the effects of oxidation.
if true, that makes his job easier at bottling time.  those of us who are
interested in this topic should be carrying out this same sort of
experimentation to determine what our personal sensitivity is for detecting
oxidized degradation.  this is a really easy one to do.

if you care about what other people think about your beer, then it becomes a
question of how sensitive they are, and then things are different.

finally, dennis wrote in his original post:

>A few months ago, I decided to stop useless worrying and to do an
>experiment instead.

bravo, dennis.  we need more of this.

brew hard,

mark bayer
stl mo



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:07:22 EDT
From: MaltHound at aol.com
Subject: Making Starters / Beating Beatles / Yanking Yankees 

In HBD 3084 Joe Gibbons asked:

<<Is it possible to sanitize by heating at any temp below 212F?  I'm trying
to make a starter by boiling the wort in the glass starter bottle.  Not
much luck... >>

Sure! You might try doing it the method that I use at the monastary.  I use 
clean, un-sanitized Mason Jars as starter containers.  Fill a pint size jar 
~1/2 way with water and add an appropriate amount of Dry Malt Extract (DME).  
2 Tbsp. should be about right, but you can easily calculate the exact amount 
by weight for a particular gravity wort if you have an accurate scale and 
want to be precise.  Pop the jar into a microwave and nuke thoroughly.  I 
usually hit it for 20 minutes at less than full power level to keep the wort 
from boiling out of the jar.  The heat and steam will sanitize the jar at the 
same time as the starter wort.

After heating, don't try and rush the cooling by submerging the hot jar in 
cold water, at least not until the temperature of the jar is cool enough to 
touch.  The glass in the jars just can't stand the thermal stress and will 
very likely break.  Don't ask how I know this...  ;-)

I just cover the jar with a piece of sanitized foil and snap on a rubber 
band.  Cool, innoculate and you are good to go.  Larger starters (subsequent 
step ups) can be made using bigger mason jars.  

It's about as elegant and simple of a method as I've ever run across.  I was 
not the originator of this marvelous scheme though.  For that, I must give 
credit to Mary Samuels, a one-time forum section leader on the old Bachus 
beer forum of CiS a few years back.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Eric Fouch suggests using sacrificial Raspberries to protect hop plants from 
the dreaded Japanese Beetles.  Also, in the original question, Greg Mueller 
mentions that his beetle bag is not working.  In both cases, you may be 
exacerbating the situation.  These additional beetle attractants (beetle 
traps are especially good at this) may just be increasing the relatively 
mobile beetle population and thereby increasing the hop plant devastation.  

I know that the chemical spray stuff called liquid "Seven" by Ortho is good 
at keeping away these Oriental menaces, but I don't know that it would do 
much for your eventual brew.  If you can't make the hops less attractive to 
the buggers through chemistry, put those attractors (plants or traps) far, 
far away from the hops you want to protect.  Why not make a neighborly gift 
of them to the folx next door? 

~~~~~~~~~~~~

On another note, I've always wondered, what is it exactly that is supposed to 
be the problem with being a "yankee"?  Is this a bad thing?  In what way?  

As others have mentioned, the most popular definition of yankee (especially 
in these parts) is that of "a native New Englander".  That said, I find it 
curious that one of the metropolitan New York professional baseball teams is 
named "Yankees".  As if!  New England is made up of only 6 states and NY 
isn't one of 'em.  (BTW - neither is Pennsylvania as was suggested in a past 
post)

Father JD Maltbreth   
Yankee, Brewer, Missionary 


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:48:24 EDT
From: KTNeall at aol.com
Subject: Wild Goose Snow Goose

I brewed a Snow Goose clone in early April.  I based the recipe on one that I 
had seen somewhere, I cannot remember where, otherwise I'd give credit where 
it is due.  It is all grain, but it would be easy to replace the pale malt 
with 7-8lbs. or so of liquid extract.  I'm not sure how close it is to the 
real thing.  I haven't had a Snow Goose in several years.  I am positive that 
my version is a little darker, but otherwise don't know how it compares.

Here it is:
9 lbs. Pale Malt (or 7-8 lbs. extract)
1 lb. 40L crystal
1 lb. Carapils (get rid of this if you make extract version)
4 oz. Chocolate malt
4 oz. Roast Barley   (I'd reduce chocolate and roast to 2oz. each)
1 oz. Northern Brewer 8.6%  at  70 minutes
1/2 oz. Cascade 6.0%  at  45 minutes
1/2 oz. Cascade 6.0%  at  30 minutes
1 oz. EKG 5.8%  at  0 minutes
Whitbread Ale Yeast

Tim Neall


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:54:01 -0500
From: Stephen Johnson <Stephen.Johnson at vanderbilt.edu>
Subject: Oxidation effects

"Rocco Stanzione"  at  <rocco3 at flash.net>
sent the following to me in response to some of the posts regarding
oxidation effects:

"I couldnt find the original post (or poster) on the subject, so Im
replying to you. (Also, I havent yet figured out how to configure my
email client to post to the HBD In an acceptable way.) I dont have any
direct experience with this that I know of, but I think I know whats 
going
on. The way I figure it, if youre going to put your brew in contact 
with
oxygen after fermentation, bottling would be the least harmful time to do
it, especially if you prime. To the best of my understanding, the effects
of oxidation are caused primarily by the oxygen reacting with ethanol. If
you prime, and especially if youre dealing with unfiltered beer, it could
be that the yeast go back to doing their aerobic stuff like growth and
reproduction. If this is the case, they may use up the available oxygen
before enough of it has a chance to react with ethanol to reach a flavor
threshold. I still think its best to avoid oxygenating it, but if 
theres
no way around it and its not hurting your beer, dont fix what aint
 broke.

Rocky Stanzione"

c/o Steve Johnson
Nashville, TN



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:56:52 -0500
From: "Mark Vernon" <mark at pleasantstreet.com>
Subject: RIMS

Okay, I think I have made the decision to begin building a RIMS system.....
I have found some excellent sites on the web describing how they built their
own, does anyone know of a book or how-to guide for
puting something like this together? Any help will be greatly appreciated.


Mark Vernon MCSE,MCP+I, MCT
mark at pleasantstreet.com
www.pleasantstreet.com

Beer is proof that god loves mankind...
    Ben Franklin



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 22:20:07 -0600
From: Teutonic Brewer <claassen at swcp.com>
Subject: On Sour Mashing

Due to the number of requests on how to prepare sour mash, I'll post my
answer for all to see.

Twenty-four to seventy-two hours before brewday, take 5 to 15 percent of
your malt bill depending on how much lactic character you want and make a
mini-mash with pale malt at 150F (66C) for an hour.  Cool the mash down to
120F to 125F (49C to 51C). Add 2-5% crushed pale malt to the cooled mash,
e.g. a couple rounded tablespoons per pound of malt.  The pale malt
contains naturally occurring lactic acid producing Lactobacillus
Delbrueckii, and you're innoculating the sweet mash with this bacteria.
Note that the 150F mash temperature effectively pasteurized the mash, so
you must reintroduce the bacteria.  Seal the surface of the mash away from
air with a piece of plastic wrap; lots of aerobic bacteria in the malt can
use oxygen from the air to spoil the sour mash, so the plastic wrap is a
necessity.  Hold the mash at 115F to 125F for the next one to three days.

When ready to brew, take out the sour mash and peel off the plastic wrap.
You should smell massive dimethyl sulfide (creamed corn) together with a
sweaty lactic character, and the mash will be yellow-tan in color.  If
there's pink or orange stuff growing on the surface, or if you smell
something distinctly putrid or sharp/acrid like burnt wiring, some other
than Lactobacillus Delbrueckii dominated, and it needs to be tossed.  A
parsnip-like edge to the DMS probably indicates an Acetobacter infection
(vinegar); toss it as well.

Add the sour mash to your mash or your mash water.  If you can add the sour
mash to the mash water or as you're doughing/mashing in, it'll help
establish a favorable pH up front so that fewer malt enzymes are denatured
during mash-in.

Lactobacillus Delbrueckii is "thermophilic", meaning it likes heat.  Most
other bacteria and fungi are hurting at 120F, so holding the mash at 120F
favors the growth of the Delbrueckii over all the other microfauna in the
malt that also like malt sugar.  The pH of the mash will drop to 4.0 after
24 hours, 3.5 after 48 hours and 3.3 after 72 hours according to Greg
Noonan in his article in Zymurgy.  It won't drop much below 3.3 because the
Delbrueckii start choking on their own acidic waste product at that point.
Holding the sour mash longer than 72 hours allows other, wilder bacteria
and fungi to continue growing and eventually spoil the mash, so use it
promptly.

I mash on my stove top in a sauce pan.  To keep the sour mash warm, I place
the pot of sour mash in the upper half of the kitchen double oven and turn
on the oven lights and the lower oven to 225F; the lights and the warmth
from the lower oven keep the upper oven right at 120F.  Unfortunately, few
ovens will regulate at 120F; they bounce way above and below 120F.  If you
have a single oven, try placing the pan of sour mash in a stew pot full of
water, put the lid on, and stick it in the oven at 120F.  The stew pot of
water will provide thermal mass that, hopefully, will even out the
temperature swings to a narrow band around 120F.  Alternatively, Greg
Noonan recommends packing the warm, innoculated sour-mash-to-be in a cooler
or Thermos(tm) to keep it warm as long as possible to give the Delbrueckii
as much of a head start as possible.  I recommend souring the mash only 24
hours with this method since it'll cool down to room temperature with a day
or so.

I'm currently designing a warming oven so I won't tie up my lovely wife's
oven or heat up the kitchen.  An insulated metal or wooden box could be
heated with a couple light bulbs and a muffin fan for air circulation.  A
LM34 or LM35 temp sensor, a comparator or op amp with a little hysteresis,
a potentiometer for tuning, and a relay can be used to turn the light bulbs
on and off with between 118F and 122F limits.  I'm sure the electronic
geniuses out there could whip this out in short order. Stick the pot of
innoculated mash in the oven, kick on the heating controller, and wait for
the bacteria to do their work!

Prost!
Paul Claassen (aka Teutonic Brewer)
Albuquerque, Chile Republic of New Mexico




Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 17 Jul 1999 07:44:12 -0400
From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net>
Subject: Re: Dr. Pivo

My thanks to ALAN KEITH MEEKER <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu> for his comments on
professional titles in HBD #3085.  Three things about "Dr. Pivo" combined to
mislead me:
1.  The quality of his written English seemed to me to imply that English
was
    not his mother tongue.
2.  He frequently commented on European events and conditions.
3.  Some of his technical assertions seemed to me clearly correct.

>From all this I inferred that he might indeed have a quality European
technical
education.  Maybe I need to be humbled occasionally.



Return to table of contents

---