---

	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:
  Aeration (Miguel de Salas)
  LA & Thanks (RJ)
  more yeast generations... (Biergiek)
  Re: Exploding Bottles (phil sides jr)
  wheat beer question (jdickins)
  Bonafide Style Pages?! (Pat Babcock)
  re: aeration (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
  My shiny new Anchor Brewing decoder ring... (ThomasM923)
  Re: Lead in Brass (David Lamotte)
  Contemplating Widgets ("Phil and Jill Yates")
  RE: Anchor Code ("Sherfey")
  Re: Anchor codes (Jeff Schroeder)
  Re: Toasting Grain (KMacneal)
  HERMS construction ("Micah Millspaw")
  Oxygen Levels (AJ)
  Re: Dan Elgart system queries ("Sieben, Richard")
  Anchor date code (Mike Bardallis)
  Clogged again (Nathan Kanous)
  malta starters (Marc Sedam)
  home made soda (Jeff Renner)
  musings on Berliner Weiss (Marc Sedam)
  Re: Rusty Anchors ("DeCarlo,John A.")
  more yeast stuff... (pt.1) ("Alan Meeker")


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

* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one 
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.


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, 09 Nov 1999 10:37:58 +1100
From: Miguel de Salas <mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au>
Subject: Aeration

Greetings!

Frank J. Russo asks some questions about aeration that reflect what seems a
common perception: You need to aerate your wort in order to make good beer
fast: WRONG!

In 5 years brewing, 3 of which have been all grain and I also grow my own
hops, I have never once gone to any greater lengths aerating my beer than
to pour the water from a height or give it a good swirl with a long,
plastic spoon.

In this time I have travelled widely and tasted many commercial beers, both
here in Australia, where 99% of them taste the same, and in Belgium, the UK
and the United States. I always try to taste a new beer that I haven't
tried before. I have also attended a few beer tastings. 
All this self-centered ramble is just to say that I think I know what a
beer I make should taste like, according to which style it pretends to
emulate. I tend to be pretty harsh judging my own beers, but of course,
quite often, there is some fault in the beer, which need not necessarily
detract from my enjoyment of it.
In all this time I have not had one single brew which suffered the effects
widely attributed to under-aeration. I severely underpitch my wort (I use a
500 ml starter from the Wyeast packet), but I've never had a beer take more
than 18 hours to start, a time I consider reasonable at 18 deg. C (my
standard ale brewing temp.). My fermentations are usually fully attenuated
in 6 days at most, and they spend 10-15 days clearing in a demijohn before
they go into a keg.

Which all goes to say, unless you're certain that your chances of
contamination are nil, have the time to spare, and think there may be
abstract benefits in aerating, other than those reflected in the final
flavour of the beer, why go to such pains in the first place?

Cheers

Miguel de Salas

 School of Plant Science,
 University of Tasmania,
 PO Box 252-55, Sandy Bay, Hobart
 Tasmania, Australia, 7001.

mailto://mm_de at postoffice.utas.edu.au

My Moths Page:


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 19:49:35 -0500
From: RJ <wortsbrewing at cyberportal.net>
Subject: LA & Thanks

To everyone who wrote or sent info into making Low Alcohol / NA beer.
Thanks.

I kegged my first batch of LA beer, yesterday afternoon, and I must say,
I'm
very pleased with the way it turned out... ~0.8% ABV without having to
do anything funky... And, quite suprizingly tastes pretty darn good,
too.   Reminds me of the Italian brew called Morretti...

Anyone interested in the all-grain recipe can contact me at the reply
address.

Ciao,

RJ






Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:45:41 EST
From: Biergiek at aol.com
Subject: more yeast generations...

Thanks Alan and DaveB for responding to my questions regarding
yeast generations and their importance to the finished product.
I think if I give you my unscientific summary of what is going on with
'yeast', 'fermentation', and 'generations', it might lead to the answers
I am really looking for.

>From what I have read, when yeast are pitched they start to reproduce
and multiply as they metabolize the wort.  Each time they multiply a new
yeast generation is created.  I think I read somewhere that they can
multiply thousands of times if necessary to metabolize all the wort sugars.

One can pitch a 50 ml smack pack and the yeast will eventually ferment
all the wort.  The problem is that the yeast will have to work so hard to
do this (multiply several hundred generations?) that undesirable fermentation
byproducts will be produced, resulting in a fouchian butt rot type of brew.
If too much yeast is pitched (maybe no generations, or 1 or 2?) this can
cause problems too, that of which I am not sure about - autolysis?

The idea is that there is an optimum amount of yeast to pitch for each
style of beer.  The rule of thumb I keep reading about is to limit yeast
growth (generations) to 3X-5X for lagers, and 8X-10X for ales.

>From what I know (forgive the simpleton explations, I was educated in
the state of Michigan) the amount of yeast to pitch is measured by the
number of viable yeast cells.  The rule of thumb is 1.5E6 cells/ml/degree P
for lagers, 0.75 cells/ml/P for ales.

I think my real question is, how does one design a starter that will produce
the desired cell rate???  Is there a rule of thumb formula like 'make an X
liter starter to produce X number of cells/ml'?  The old quart starter momily
just isn't cutting it for me these days.


Kyle
Bakersfield, CA

PS - on a related note, does anyone have a protocol for measuring


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:47:08 -0500
From: phil sides jr <psides at carl.net>
Subject: Re: Exploding Bottles

Ross Reid asks:

>What are the chances of exploding bottles if one follows the recipe as
>posted?
>5 gallons of water
>5 pounds of sugar
>Stir well 'till sugar is dissolved.
>Add 1 packet of yeast, either bread or champagne type.
>Mix well.
>Immediately pour into used 2 liter soda bottles. Cap tightly and store
>in a warm place for 5 days.
>After 5 days move to cool place.

Well it seems dangerous to me with that much sugar in it.  How do they
know it won't take off fermenting like mad?  Although, I think those PET
bottles can take a lot of pressure, I estimate 60 lbs. or so (please do
not try this) it still seems rather brave.  There was an article in Brew
Your Own last month about soda making and they used about half that
amount of sugar in their base soda recipe.

After reading the HBD today I went grocery shopping and was picking up
some spices when I saw Mc Cormick Root Beer Extract.  I picked up the
box and looked at the back and sure enough - the instructions you posted
were there word-for-word.  Go figure...

Phil Sides, Jr.
Concord, NH
- --
Macht nicht o'zapft ist, Prost!



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 02:03:14 GMT
From: jdickins at usit.net
Subject: wheat beer question

Hey all,

I've got a question about mashing a wheat beer. I want to do a decoction 
to get
the benefits from it, but I don't like the side effects that come with 
the long
protein rest  at  50C. I've got two scenarios that I'd like to get an 
opinion on. Am
I worrying for nothing? I saw a recipe posted the other day from someone 
that won
the aha nationals and he used warner's temp schedule, which includes the 
long 50C
rest.

(sorry about the jump from C to F, but I think in F right now and only 
have a few
C points memorized)

1) follow warner and after the first decoction is pulled  at  50C, 
immediately cool
the main mash down to 99F. I have HERMS so this is very easy. Proceed as 
normal
and then warm the main mash back up to 122 and add the finished decoction
 back
into the mash and proceed as normal. Any problems with a long acid rest?

2) use two different mashes. Start one with the amount of grain and water
 that
will make up the 40% first decoction pull and again follow warner, except
 when it
comes time to pull the first decoction, I already have! I'll just decant 
off the
liquid and add a little water to do the decoction. While the decoction is
 going,
start (obviously I'll need to time this beforehand) the main mash per 
warner, only
adding the now finished decoction at the end of the first protein rest 
and proceed
as normal.

I know, I know both are alot of trouble. I've seen many posts that claim
decoctions aren't necessary, but I'm of the belief that they are for a 
wheat beer
and I don't like long protein rests. I would prefer #1 because its a 
little
easier.

thanks for any and all advice,


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:58:59 -0800
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Bonafide Style Pages?!

Greeting, Beerlings! Take me to your indigenous ales and lagers....

Alan speaketh thusly:

>As I mentioned last time, if you've never been in Cologne, then
>I won't consider your opinions on a Bonafied Koelsch.  Similar
>goes for any other style.  No offense, but if you haven't had the
>real thing, then you can't know the real thing.

Among the other detractors to the comments above, add my voice :) You don't 
have to BE from an an area to know about an area. Same is true for the 
indigenous beers of an area. Ve haff thees theengs called "jet planez" that 
kweekly moof one frum one playz to anudder. Funny you should pick Koelsch 
as your example. It was exactly this style that a friend carried six 
distinct examples of from Koeln to Canton for me a few years ago.

Some May argue that Koelsch must be had fresh in order to truly appreciate 
the style. The koelsch I had were purportedly three days old -purchased and 
packed one day before "the journey home". Barring any shelf time at the   
point of purchase, I'd say that's pretty fresh.

My point isn't that I should be your Bonafide Koelsch stylist, but that 
using "been there, done that" as your criteria excludes some equally 
qualified people who merely "got the tee-shirt...


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



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:12:41 -0700
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net>
Subject: re: aeration

Frank Russon asks about the optimal length of time to aerate wort:

>Okay, I am getting close to my question.  I now pitch the yeast culture
>into the primary.  Normally, I now put on the airlock and let it go for 5
>days to a week.  What if for a set time X HOURS after pitching, you
>continued to aerate the wort?  Yes I know about oxidation etc...  But, is
>there a time period after pitching, when continued aeration will be of
>benefit to the yeast culture without causing damage to the wort, 4 hours, 8
>hours, 12 hours, 24 hours????  Anyone have any answers or ideas here.  If
>not I guest I have to create an experiment on my own and report back.

In the FWIW department, a few years back I started using a process that
ensures adequate wort aeration and has dramatically improved my beers and
the quantity and health of my starters: aeration with pure oxygen. I'll
never go back. It costs some extra bucks but the time savings alone is
worth it to me. Instead of aerating with an aquarium pump for hours, I now
shoot 90-120 seconds worth of pure O2 into my cooled wort and it's over. No
worry about contamination or if the O2 levels are high enough. My beers
finish at the planned final gravity every time (high finishing gravities
were sometimes a problem for me in the pre-O2 days) and start quickly
(altho I think this variable has more to do with yeast quantity than O2
levels....?).

I believe a bottle of O2 costs me around $8.00 at the hardware store (lasts
approx. five 5-gal. batches and accompanying starters) and the one-time
cost for a regulator and air stone is another $40 or so.

As I've mentioned in this forum, the two process changes that have improved
my beers more than any other in the 8 years I've been brewing are 1)
aeration with pure O2 and 2) pitching adequate quantities of yeast.

Dan Ritter <ritter at bitterroot.net>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 00:11:22 EST
From: ThomasM923 at aol.com
Subject: My shiny new Anchor Brewing decoder ring...

Thanks to all for the info on how to unravel the code on the back of Anchor 
brewing products...

In case no one posted the info to the digest, here is the formula:

1st character denotes the last digit of the year, i.e. 9 = 1999,

2nd character denotes the month:

J = Jan             L = July
F = Feb            G = Aug
M = March        S = Sept
A = April           O = Oct
Y = May           N = Nov
U = June           D = Dec

3rd character denotes the day of the month:

A - Z = 1 to 26
7 = 27th
8 = 28th
9 = 29th
0 = 30th
1 = 31st

Thanks again,
Thomas Murray


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:36:47 +1000
From: David Lamotte <lamotted at ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Lead in Brass

Jack Straw correctly describes brass as only containing small amounts of
lead.

While this is true, it is the way that the lead is distributed over the
brass surface during machining that can be a problem.  The lead is added
as a lubricant in to aid the machinability of the brass fittings.  It is
present as small globules and when viewed under a microscope, looks very
much like peas frozen in a block of ice.

As the cutting tip travells through the brass, the lead allows the
material to be removed as small smooth chips, and is also smeared
accross the surface to act as a lubricant.

Soaking the part for a few minutes in the vinegar/peroxide mixture
disolves the lead coating.  Soaking for too long starts to disolve the
brass, allowing more globs of lead to be exposed.  Our aim is to get rid
of the mushy peas on the surface, without melting too much ice.

Of course, the lead has to dissolve in the passing wort in sufficient
quantities before it can do you any harm.  Probably not worth worrying
about, but then they do turn such a nice golden colour when treated.

Keep smiling
David Lamotte
Newcastle, NSW, Australia


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:32:51 +1100
From: "Phil and Jill Yates" <yates at infoflex.com.au>
Subject: Contemplating Widgets

Sounds like A.J. has had a nice holiday and whilst sitting on a rock has
contemplated widgets. And found them different as I too have noticed here in
Oz.

But tell me A.J., did you figure how the little beasty does it's thing? I
have a book or two that describes the life of a widget. But I am surprised
at how many different versions of "what happens when you pull that ring"
seem to be in existence. And to be honest I am not sure which one is right.

Phil


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:03:41 -0500
From: "Sherfey" <sherf at warwick.net>
Subject: RE: Anchor Code

First number = year

First letter = month
January = J
February = F
March = M
April - A
May = A, a being the next available letter in the month
June = U
and so on

Last digit = batch code

>From a bottle of now drinkable Christmas ale I have, 6OW = October, 1996
batch W

Cheers!
David Sherfey
Warwick, NY


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 03:50:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Schroeder <jms at rahul.net>
Subject: Re: Anchor codes

Others may chime in here, but what I've seen explained in the past is:

9YD
^^^
||+-- Day of the month (see below)
|+--- Month (see below)
+---- Last digit of the year

Month code:
January:   J
February:  F
March:     M
April:     A
maY:       Y
jUne:      U
juLy:      L
auGust:    G
September: S
October:   O
November:  N
December:  D

(The way to remember the month code is to use the first letter in the name
of the month that hasn't yet been assigned to another month, assigning the
codes in order of month starting with January.  So, May is 'Y', because
March used 'M' and April used 'A'.)

Day of the month:
A-Z: 1st-26th
7:   27th
8:   28th
9:   29th
3:   30th ('0' would look like 'O', so they use '3')
1:   31st


Couldn't be any easier and consumer-friendly, huh?

So, your beer labeled '9YD' was bottled on May 4th, 1999. Not quite 9 years
old, but old enough to not be exactly at its peak, especially if it hasn't
been handled gingerly.  I generally don't buy Anchor that's more than a
month old, which means that I don't often buy Anchor.


I'm seeing date codes now that have a fourth digit at the end, like '9YD1'.
Does anybody know what that means?  Are they differentiating multiple batches
that were bottled on the same day?

 - Jeff
- -- 
Jeff Schroeder      |   jms at rahul.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 06:49:19 EST
From: KMacneal at aol.com
Subject: Re: Toasting Grain

In a message dated 11/9/1999 12:14:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, Maria 
Werrbach writes:

<< Oh, and one more question.  I've never toasted grain before and I 
 wanted to know the oven temperature and time approximations to
 do it.  I'm assuming that I crush my grain prior to toasting. >>

I use a 350F oven for 15 to 20 minutes.  I crush after the toasting.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 06:39:14 -0600
From: "Micah Millspaw" <MMillspa at SILGANMFG.COM>
Subject: HERMS construction

I have a very detailed set of instructions for the construction of a HERMS 
unit. I made them up for my presentation at the '99 AHA conference in 
KC. I can e-mail a copy to anyone who wants it. THe file is in PowerPiont 
and is 4.5 meg in size.

Micah Millspaw - brewer at large

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:25:42 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Oxygen Levels

Just a small clarification on Dominick's quotation of Maribeth Raines
reporting on George Fix. It is certainly quite possible to dissolve more
than 8 mg/L O2 in wort and I have done it many times as has anynoe that
uses oxygen as opposed to air. One cannot dissolve more than about 8
mg/L using air because air is only about 20% oxygen. The 8 mg/L figure
corresponds to saturation with air at sea level at a nominal temperature
(forgive me for being too lazy to look it up). Slightly more can be
dissolved in colder wort and slightly less in warmer.

Another widely accepted idea (is this a "mommily"?) is that less oxygen
dissolves in high gravity wort than in low. I have trouble with this
one. Certainly a DO meter will read lower in such cases because it
really responds to O2 mole fraction which is decreased because of the
sugar content but a correction factor can be calculated to compensate
for this.

- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:47:55 -0600 
From: "Sieben, Richard" <SIER1 at AERIAL1.com>
Subject: Re: Dan Elgart system queries

Dan, I have one of these systems you mention at:
http://www.advancedbrew.com/compubrew.html  and I am a very happy customer!
I will answer your specific questions as I have experienced them.

>1) With the wort constantly re-circulating, why would one assume
>temperature stratification- do commercial units paddle( this
>unit uses considerably less grain than a commercial operation!- **is
>it
>necessary at the 5 to 10 gal level of production?)

If it wasn't stirred, the liquid would tend to create a cavity in the mash
and run nearly straight down to the pump from the return feed line.  The
paddle gives all of the mash an opportunity to have the enire mash keep the
desired temperature.  I have found that keeping the mash temperature
consistent throughout the mash can be the difference between getting an 85%
mash efficiency and a 90% efficiency. (assuming you did your temperature
steps and sparging properly). When I was decoction mashing, I was able to
get up to 93% mash efficiency when I had a second person around to stir the
main mash constantly while I added the decoction back slowly.  This
prevented scorching the enzymes and getting the temperature increase to all
parts of the mash as quickly as possible.

>2)Commonly- the initial rest temp.( for home brewers) is achieved by
>starting with a known water Vol.+ a known grain Vol.(usually at a pound of
>grain per liter of water) producing an expected
>temp. drop when the grain is introduced- that is to say...
>grain is dumped into hot water to achieve a predicted rest temp, then
>holding that Temp. is the only concern (in single step
>mashes).  Are they telling me that this kills most of the available
>enzymes, not leaving enough enzyme content to do what little
>there is to do-  with today's highly modified malts?  Please expand on
>this,  I try for perfection also- but now,  mostly by
>achieving simplicity. i.e.: When using a single step mash- is a slow
>and predictable heat ramp necessary?  

Most folks (and anyone can chime in here as this is what most single step
mashers tell me) only get 75% mash efficiency with a single step infusion
mash for just this reason.  A multi step infusion, like you can get with
this system, or a decoction mash gets a better mash effectiveness because
you first have to get the starch into solution with a protien rest and then
you can let the enzymes go to it on turning the starches into sugars. Just
for the heck of it, I did make a beer this summer that was a single step
infusion and low and behold, 75% mash efficiency resulted, and this was with
the same old picnic cooler system I had always used in doing decoction
mashes.  It also resulted in my first ever stuck mash despite the fact that
it was an all malt ale.  Heck, I never even had a stuck mash with an oatmeal
and rye stout that I did via decoction before.  So the step mashing has the
same benefit of preventing stuck mashes even with highly modified malts.

>3) It seems to me that the paddle would grind the grist like being in a
pepper >mill- only to sift more particles into the re-circulating pump??
>Is this necessary to not starve the re-circulating pump?  Is the
>paddle necessary for reasons other than un-stratifying the mat of
>grist??    

This was a concern of mine as well, but it just doesn't seem to happen.
(grinding the grist like a pepper mill)  Like I said above, the paddle helps
keep the temperature throughout the mash consistent and this improves
efficiency.

>4) Wall mounted -- this unit seems as if it would be a
>nightmare to clean, any comments, please??  

Wall mounted?  You must mean the control unit?  Anyway, I just put a couple
of nails in the wall on which to hang the control unit near the outlet and
where I am brewing.  Cleaning is pretty easy, rinse it out and fill it back
up with a cleanser like PBW and let it run and get the temp up to about 140
degrees and hold it for about 5 minutes. By the time it is done doing that,
my wort is nearly ready to be chilled anyway.  I turn off the brew machine,
chill my wort put it in the fermentors, rinse my brew kettle and then
transfer the already warm cleaning solution into the brew kettle so it gets
cleaned.  Then you rinse out the mash machine will and recirculate some
clear water through it and you are done with it.  About every 3 brews, you
need to take the plumbing apart to make sure the pump is clean (mine was and
I decided it really doesn't need to be taken apart quite that often) and to
clean off the protiens on the heating element.  These come off with a brush,
very easily...I mean the stuff just falls off and you give the heating
element a quick rinse and put the whole deal back together.  I am
experimenting with using Star san after the PBW cleaning to see if it takes
away even the protien buildup on the heating element, which according to
Charlie at 5 Star, it should.  I have to do one more brew before it is 3
brews since the last cleaning as I want to compare similar situations with
different cleaning regimens (using star san vs. not after the PBW).

>5)  Sparging-  hot water source: is this achieved by way of another
external >unit (not incl.)?  If sparging is done in a gravity fed way- does
this
>system require to be mounted up high? Further complicating the
>cleaning.

I Use my brew kettle to heat my sparge water and then let it gravity feed to
my old picnic cooler mashtun, which now serves as my hot liquor tank.  The
brew kettle sits about 4 feet off of the ground when on the burner and it
flows down to the picnic cooler that sits about 2 1/2 feet off of the ground
and it gravity feeds the sparge arm that sits on top of the mash unit that
sits on the ground.  Since it is just water, I don't know what you mean
about complicating cleaning.  When I am done with the picnic cooler, I just
turn it upside down to drain dry.

>ABT seems like the bread machine of beer, requiring
>several more components, immobile, and awkward for a mash only unit.
>Please comment.

It is like a bread machine for beer, and you already should have a boiling
kettle anyway.  And a picnic cooler for  a HLT is not much of an investment
if you don't already have one!  Now as to immobile?  huh?  As opposed to
what?  The Sabco system of 3 kegs on the rolling rack that requires a full
garage to park it in?  I find the ABT system very movable and I can stack it
in the corner with my other brew stuff taking very little room.  My boiling
kettle sits on a cart that has wheels (the cart was in the garage anyway and
was conveniently the right height), the HLT sits on the box the ABT system
came it.  Nope, I think this system is great!  I have gotten 95% mash
efficiency with it and it no longer monopolizes my day to brew.  One day I
was brewing, cutting the lawn and had spagetti sauce cooking on my outdoor
grill, all at the same time.  My wife didn't even realize I was brewing
until after dinner I excused myself to go chill my beer.  (she actually said
'what beer")  So it gives me beer bullets, I can brew anytime now.  you see
before this, brewing was an all day decoction thing that meant I couldn't be
bothered to do anything else around the house, which meant reduced weekend
time together.  Just a justification for getting it, if you need one.

By the way no affiliation with ABT etc etc, well not other than I buy most
of my brew supplies from them since they treat me well and I am just a
satisfied customer.

Rich Sieben
Island Lake, IL.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 10:13:31 -0500
From: Mike Bardallis <dbgrowler at provide.net>
Subject: Anchor date code

How to read the Anchor date code:

The three-digit date code appears on the back label of all Anchor
products. Here's the poop:

First digit: last digit of the year

Second digit: the first previously unused letter of the name of the
month, i.e:

J=Jan
F=Feb
M=March
A=Apr
Y=May (because M and A are already taken)
U=June
L=July
G=August
S=September
O=October
N=November
D=December

Third digit: Day-of-month, A-Z=1-26, 7=27, 8=28, 9=29, 1=30, 2=31.

Example: 8UY = July 25, 1998 (Too old!)

This and many other dates codes are detailed on the web at "Beer Dies!",
http://web.superb.net/islander/beer/regional.html 

Mike Bardallis
dbgrowler_at_provide.net

MIY2K Events Team

Secretary/GROWLER Editor
Downriver Brewers Guild


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 11:47:24 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Clogged again

Kurt,
Don't give up...yet.  A couple of thoughts in my little brain here.  One is 
the pumpkin. Yeah, you could blame that.  But, if you mashed it like is 
required, you've eliminated a lot of the gunk already.  Not to say that you 
couldn't have a clog due to the pumpkin "stuff" that makes it to the 
kettle, just less would make it to cause problems.  One other thing to 
consider is how you run off your wort.

Do you abruptly open the valve?  This may sound elementary, but just as all 
the computer support "programs" start "is your computer plugged in...turned 
on...etc." I think a little information on how you run off is in order.  If 
you throw that valve wide open, I'll bet you suck all of your hops and trub 
right down onto your manifold / drain and you physically clog it this 
way.  Try to be gentle with your runoff.  Start the flow slow and don't 
force it.  While having good head pressure is nice, too much of anything is 
not a good thing. I contend that if you get enough head pressure, you could 
clog any drain that serves to restrict what flows through it.

My advice?  Start slow and go slow...at least slower that what you've 
tried.  If you've already done this, I apologize for interrupting your 
thought process.  If you haven't tried this, give it some thought...for 
what it's worth.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:58:58 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: malta starters

As another possibility, you could simply put a small "pinch" of
yeast nutrient in a bottle of Malta and shake to dissolve, prior
to pitching the yeast.  Simple and should solve the problem.

 -Marc


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:19:52 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: home made soda

Brewers

Contrary to Dave Burley's thoughts on the safety of home made soda based on
his experience with beer, I have found, like Dan Listermann, from personal
experience that this kind of a recipe is indeed safe, although PET bottles
are probably good insurance.  I think two things are at work here - the
very limited nutrients in soda pop extract, and (perhaps) the limited
ability of bread yeast, at least, to ferment under pressure.

I used to brew this with my 7th grade science students 20-30 years ago (I
haven't made it since).  It was mostly an exercise in demonstrating the
importance of sanitation, because most kids' bottles had blobs of
unpleasant looking things growing it them.  They would make up individual
bottles using pipettes to measure their favorite flavor concentrate, and a
scale for sugar, then boil the mixture in a beaker, cool it, bottle it and
weigh the yeast using a triple beam balance, add it and cap.  Then we would
always make up a big batch, where it was easier to control sanitation.
They always tasted fine and worked as a nice control.  Well, actually, they
didn't taste all that fine, they always tasted unpleasantly yeasty to me,
but the kids loved it.  We bottled in heavy, clear glass soda bottles
(Towne Club brand, remember that, SE Michiganders?)  As I recall it, we
kept the big batch for a class picnic later in the year, but I don't
remember how long that would have been.  I think they did get increasingly
fizzy, though, which made the boys happy.  I always opened the bottles
myself.

I don't think I agree with Dan that the limited amount of yeast is the clue
here.  I would think that this would only slow the rate of carbonation, not
limit it (although as I recall the directions caution against using more
yeast).  I also am not sure that I agree on not using bread yeast.  We got
no "boogers" in the bottles of the big control batch that would indicate
contaminants.  I tried making a batch once with a friend using Red Star ale
(or maybe it was champagne) yeast to try to avoid that bready/yeasty taste.
I can't remember how it tasted, but many of the bottles cracked at the
bottom or neck.  I'd guess that yeast is more tolerant of pressure or low
nutrients.

Mike O'Brien of AABG and pico-Brewing Systems makes great kegged root beer
with artificial carbonation.  Two of his secrets - extra extract for full
flavor and some malto-dextrin for creamy body.



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: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:48:42 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: musings on Berliner Weiss

Boy, y'all are pushy.  One innocuous statement about Berliner
Weiss and I get emails aplenty asking me to get with the post
already.  I guess it's better than being flamed (as I step into
my asbestos email-writing suit).  ;-)

Rather than rehash what I've already posted, search the archives
(HBD#3077, 3088) for the recipes I posted a few months back.  I
followed it exactly this time, complete with preboiling
Hallertauer hop plugs and a dual decoction.  My observations:

1)  Do the decoction.  Yes, it's a colossal pain in the rear if
you're not set up for it.  Just borrow someone else's pot and do
it this once.  I got much better extraction (wound up with 6
gallons of 1.033 wort instead of 5 gallons) and a super easy
lauter.  For comparison-- step infusion lauter time, 3 hours;
double decoct., 50 minutes (with me controlling the flow).
Including the hops in the mash certainly helped as well.

2)  Pure lactobacillus culture can be obtained through a special
order from Wyeast (#4335).  If you fall in Camp Liddil, find it
from another source.  I used a German ale yeast for the "regular"
culture, and cultured the yeast and bacteria separately.  I'm no
expert in culturing bacteria, but I pretty well ignored it other
than a good shake every once in a while, out of fear I'd
contaminate my yeast ranching equipment.  More on this later.

3)  As per the recipe, I pitched the lactobacillus culture in the
wort first and let sit for 48 hours at room temp (72F).  It
seemed sour so I took a gravity reading...sure enough those
little buggers knocked the gravity down quite a few points
(1.020).  I pitched a healthy starter of yeast and let ferment at
a greatly reduced temp (60F) for another week.  The reduced temp
serves to slow down the bacteria.  Gravity dropped to 1.007 at
kegging.  Beer was force carbonated at 3.2 volumes/CO2 so I could
drink the damn stuff.  One gallon of remaining weiss was put in a
purged 3 gallon carboy on some sour cherries and ignored.

4)  I let this "mature" for a whole two weeks at 30F to try and
stop further souring.  Poured the beer into my weissbier
glass--immense head, very cloudy, slight tartness.  Not really
overwhelming.  Then I remembered the beer sitting in the 3 gallon
carboy.  I took a wine thief (everyone should have one) and took
up about 4 ounces to taste.  Holy sour Batman!!!  The stuff
nearly burned my throat.  However, it *was* lactic so I tapped
another 16oz of kegged weiss on top of it...magic!  Refreshing
sourness, quenching, even slightly nutty;  all the good things
you hear about Berliner weiss.  I continued messing with the
dosing over time, only to figure out that the original ratio was
a pretty good one.  Solution?  I drank the "plain" weiss until
about a gallon was gone in my keg and racked the sour cherry
lactic liquor on top, covered, shook, and served.  Really
enjoyable stuff.  For those curious, the cherries never added any
flavor but did give the beer a slight tinge of pink.  I kept the
keg at 30F to prevent further souring and proceeded to drain the
keg in record time.  It was really nice to have an imperial pint
of beer knowing that it wasn't going to be very filling.  Goes
very well with grilled tuna, BTW.  It will be my new beer of
summer.  In NC, summers are long and hot, so maybe I'll have to
get that new 10 gallon keg.  You, however, might want to let the
beer ferment at a reasonable temperature until it gets the right
sourness.  Again, that wine thief comes in handy.  Crash cooling
would stop further souring.  For those putting this in
bottles...you better have a lot of room to chill them down.  I
was amazed at how sour the beer got from having that one
fermenter sitting at RT for two weeks.

5)  Other observations:  As with all other non-S.cerevisiae (or
carlsbergensis) buggers in your brewery, cleaning and sanitation
post-Berliner weiss are of the utmost importance.  I found this
out yesterday, so let me share.  I was setting up to brew a
triple batch (bock, Vienna lager, American Mild) from a single
mash.  Earlier in the week I cultured the yeast using normal
procedures then, because my 3 gallon carboys still weren't
diligently cleaned, I poured the 1 gallon starter in a 6 gallon
sanitized bucket to finish fermenting and ignored until I needed
it.  Big mistake.  When all the beers were done (very
successful...I can't thank Lou Bonham and our dearly-departed BT
enough for the article on no-sparge brewing) I went to grab my
yeast.  Except it was yeast and bacteria.  Not wanting to make a
Berliner-bock, although it is an interesting concept, I had to
chuck the culture.  All my equipment got a serious scrub with PBW
and soak in Star-San and iodophor.

6)  One last helpful hint--always have a pack of dry yeast
handy.  I thought all was lost on Sunday afternoon (brewshop
didn't open until Tuesday) until I remembered that I had one
fourteen gram pack of dry lager yeast and a pack of Edme dry ale
yeast in the freezer.  After rehydrating and pitching, all three
beers had a thick kraeusen within 12 hours.  I'm not a huge
proponent of dry yeast and it's no replacement for proper
sanitization and culture techniques, but they sure are convenient
in a pinch.  I'm always going to stock a dry lager and dry ale
yeast from now on.

Whew!  Well, there you have it.  All you needed to know about
Berliner weiss and (for some of you) were afraid to ask.

Proost!
Marc


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 14:01:56 -0500
From: "DeCarlo,John A." <jdecarlo at mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Rusty Anchors

> From: ThomasM923 at aol.com
> Subject: Rusty Anchors
>
> One of my most favorite beers is Anchor porter. Not only is it somewhat hard
> to find in these parts, it is very hard to find it in fresh condition. Has
> anyone been able to decode the alphanumeric code on the back into meaningful
> born-on information? The last one I had was in sorry shape and had 9YD
> stamped on the back, perhaps for 9 Years olD.

Here is the information I gleaned from the listing for Anchor in gak's
www.beerismylife.com web site:
*****************
Here's the key to the three-letter bottling date code on the back label:

First character: last digit of the year. (e.g. 7=1997, 8=1998)

Second letter: month code
 January  February  March  April
 MaY  JUne  JuLy  AuGust
 September  October  November  December

Third character: day of month code:

     Letters A-Z = days 1-26
     Numbers 7-1 = days 27, 28, 29, 30, 31

So that bottle of Old Foghorn, stamped 6JV, was bottled January 22,
1996.
*****************

The reasoning behind the month code, as I recall, is to use the first 
*unused* letter in each month.  That's why May is Y, because the M and A 
were already used.

- --
John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own
email:  jdecarlo at mitre.org
voice:  703-883-7116


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:04:28 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: more yeast stuff... (pt.1)

Arrrrrg this message got bounced for being too big. I'll have to send it in
parts...

> Dave, I rummaged around in my references for a few minutes last night and
> dug out a couple of things that shed some light on the discussions we have
> been having recently...
>
> First, you asked if there were any graphs of sugar utilization vs
> "equilibrium" growth or population size (can't recall which). Several
> brewing resources show fermentation progress composite graphs, including
> curves for yeast number,  percent ethanol, FAN concentration, sugar
> concentration, pH, etc.  in various combinations as they change during the
> fermentation's progress. In general, these tend to show roughly mirror
image
> sigmoidal (s-shaped) curves when yeast number and specific gravity are
> plotted together as a function of fermentation time. I have a nice example
> in front of me from C.A. Boulton's paper "Developments in Brewery
> Fermentation" from Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, Vol. 9,
> Dec. 1991. (An OUTSTANDING reference by the way - highly recommended)  One
> of his figures shows this very nicely - the increases in yeast number
tracks
> almost perfectly with the decrease in S.G.  Here, the most rapid decrease
in
> S.G. corresponds with the most rapid increase in yeast population size
> (expressed here as dry weight). The bulk of the sugar utilization is
> occurring during the period of rapid yeast growth with little change in
S.G
> either before or after this. The wort started at 1.060 and by the time the
> yeast population is plateauing the S.G. is down well below 1.010.
>
> >From this graph it is clear that, in this particular example at least, by
> the time the yeast stop growing there is precious little left for them to
do
> as far as sugar utilization is concerned. Of course, they still have
> important roles to play in the conditioning/maturing phases...
>
> Second, as far as the increased rate of sugar utilization by actively
> growing yeast goes, one reference is B.H. Kirsop's "Developments in Beer
> Fermentation"  from Biotechnology Vol. 6, 1982.  where it was observed
that
> the rate of sugar utilization by growing yeast was up to 33-fold higher
than
> in non-growing cells.
>
> Third, I was wondering how true it was that actively growing yeast
> contributes more to the beer's flavor profile compared to non-growing
yeast
> /just by virtue of the fact/  that they are "in cycle."  Note that what I
am
> questioning here is the idea that on a /per cell/ basis an actively
> growing/dividing cell will be introducing much more esters/higher
> alcohols/aldehydes/etc. into the beer than a non-dividing cell. This could
> certainly be true as one expects the metabolism of growing yeast to be
quite
> different than that of yeast in their plateau phase. On the other hand,
what
> is the relative contribution of such metabolic by-products of growth
versus
> say wort composition, yeast vitality, or the whole host of other process
> variables??
>
> This phenomenon was cited by Dave as the reason for wanting to limit the
> number of growth cycles the yeast undergo, so as to limit the amount of
> these flavor-active compounds getting into the beer. Dave said that this
is
> the reason that one pitches higher numbers for lagers than for ales - that
> this increased pitch size would cause the yeast to get to "equilibrium
> population" faster so not have to go through as many divisions, therefore
> not contributing flavor active compounds in lagers where they would be
> unwelcome.
>
> The previously mentioned Boulton paper does a nice job of reviewing much
of
> the literature on the relationships between many of the various
> flavor-active compounds and the state of growth of the yeast. I'm
> summarizing some of them here. Again COMPLEXITY rears it's ugly head: Here
> are some quotes:

*************** see part 2 of post **************




Return to table of contents

---