---

	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:
  Dixie Cup 2000: The Early Warning (David Cato)
  Pitching Rates (Biergiek)
  re-pitching yeast (Warandle1)
  Re: Underpitching (KMacneal)
  Feeling A Bit Skunky ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  Re: Head space speculation (Jeff Renner)
  Yeast bugs vs good beer ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  RE: Transporting full carboys (LaBorde, Ronald)
  RE: PBW expense ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
  Never, say never, secondary fermentation (Dave Burley)
  Jason Foster asks about lagering in restaurant walk-in ("jim williams")
  Agent of Pivo (MVachow)
  RE: "George de Piro" 's Vance's Long Fermentation (Vance J Stringham)
  O2, Pitch Rates, Higher Alcohols ("Kevin Imel")
  continuous O2 and honey post and high trappist gravity ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Pitching Rates ("Troy Hager")
  bottle fur ("FLEMING, JOE")
  Brewpubs in central Jersey ("Russ Hobaugh")
  Target hops (William Frazier)
  oxidation of wort/translations (Steve Lacey)
  Re: Braggott mixtures. (Kevin Mc Lean)
  Pellets in the mash tun (Michael Kowalczyk)
  Re high S.G. (BIL2112L)
  Secondary fermenter ("Michael Maag")


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

* Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 
* See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information

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 FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org.

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 22:15:00 -0600
From: David Cato <dcato at crunchyfrog.net>
Subject: Dixie Cup 2000: The Early Warning

Although the 17th Annual Dixie Cup doesn't take place until October, we in the
Foam Rangers want to alert the brewing community to this year's special Dixie
Cup beer style so you have a chance to brew it soon in order that it can age
properly before the Dixie Cup rolls around.

Every year, the Dixie Cup has a special "fun" beer style.  Last year it was
Big & Stupid.  This year, we're sticking with the Big theme (which is the
reason for this early announcement), but we don't want anything stupid this
year.  Instead, we want to see your best impression of an Imperial Beer.  If
the Russian Czar had been fond of Pilsner or IPA instead of Stout, what would
the result have been?

For the Imperial Beer guidelines, as well as all the other information on the
17th Annual Dixie Cup (as it becomes available), please visit the Foampage at
http://www.foamrangers.com and follow the links to the Dixie Cup.

- -- 
David Cato              Foam Rangers Grand Wazoo
Houston, Texas          http://www.foamrangers.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 23:40:58 EST
From: Biergiek at aol.com
Subject: Pitching Rates

>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:35:30 +0100
>From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
>Subject: Pitching rates.

Hard to argue with the Doc, but I think he might have just returned from a 
trip to his wine cellar after this post.  I am not disputing his assertion 
that for his beers using less than industrial pitching rates produces beer he 
likes.  But my experience has been the exact opposite.  This is also contrary 
to the experience of the entire commercial brewing industry.  I know several 
brewers, including myself, who have mentioned that increasing their pitching 
rates has been the sole factor for improving the quality of their beers, Fred 
Kingston is still trying.  Thats just my one data point, take it for what its 
worth, just thought you might want to hear the other side of the story.

If you are curious, your starter volumes should be atleast 1.5 gallons for 
lagers and 0.75 gallons for ales to achieve the minimum recommended pitching 
rate of 10 million cells per ml of chilled wort.  Try it this way, then try 
it the Doc's way, and then judge for yourself, then do whatever you think 
makes your beer taste the best.


Kyle
the Burradoo district of Bakersfield, CA - where men are men and kangaroos 
are scared of it (Phil Yates says that pouch aint there for nothin')



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 01:16:05 EST
From: Warandle1 at aol.com
Subject: re-pitching yeast

Hi all,

I have five gallons of an American lager fermenting in primary right now. OG 
1.048, specific gravity right now is 1.021.  I expect the final gravity to be 
around 1.010(?) or so.  I mashed 3 lbs of two row (which had a specific 
gravity of 1.022 when diluted to around 2.5 gal) and added 3 lbs DME and 1 lb 
of malted rice extract.

Following the advice of HBDers I made a starter culture (my first) which I 
added to my cooled wort.  Problem of sorts: I did not give the starter enough 
time (only 2 days) to build up the yeast count so I ended up underpitching 
anyways.

Ive always felt that my beers, though good, were not well attenuated.  I'm 
wondering if there is anything wrong with racking the beer (which I plan to 
do anyways) and making a *new* starter culture of the yeast sediment (Wyeast 
North American Lager) and re-pitching this starter to the slowly fermenting 
(at 50F) beer. Is this a good idea?  I plan to lager this for 2-3 more weeks 
at 45-50 F in the glass carboy upon racking so waiting 3-4 days for an 
additional starter is no problem.  

Thanks in advance for your comments,

Will Randle
Ashland, MO


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 07:20:38 EST
From: KMacneal at aol.com
Subject: Re: Underpitching

In a message dated 2/16/2000 12:12:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
homebrew-request@hbd.org writes:

<< Stepping a Wyeast package up to just shy of 600 mL in two steps does not
 produce enough yeast for a 5 gallon batch.  A standard, 50 mL Wyeast pack
 can be stepped up to 500 mL in the first step, then that can be stepped up
 to 5 L (or less; 2 L is adequate for a 19 L (5 gallon) batch).  Remember the
 10X rule:  step the yeast up by no more than 10X the volume they are in
 (search for my many posts on this subject or read my BT article in the Jan.
 1999 issue, if you have it).
  >>

This paragraph runs contrary to my experience and to what I've read in 
Papazian, Miller, Noonan, et.al.  500 ml for a standard ale, l L for a lager, 
4L for a barley wine or other high gravity beer should be sufficient.

Keith MacNeal
Worcester, MA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 23:32:18 +1100
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au>
Subject: Feeling A Bit Skunky

It is just possible that my post on receiving a bottle of skunk odour may
have painted Mr Kruse in a bad light. It was not my intention to suggest
that Mr Kruse had acted in a vindictive, malicious or vengeful manner, nor
that it was his intention to destabilise my marriage and destroy any
credibility I may have achieved as Baron of Burradoo.

The fact that all these things happened cannot be blamed on poor old Ray. It
was I who begged, pleaded and wrote threatening letters demanding a bottle
of skunk odour. And Ray was kind enough to oblige.

If there is anything to be learnt from the exercise I will say this. Having
extensively sniffed the bottle, I can safely conclude that I have never
produced a light struck beer. I can also safely conclude that it is not my
intention to ever smell a skunk again. Which brings me to a difficult
matter. Having concluded all of this, how do I now return your bottle to you
Ray? I don't want it anymore.

And now I have again offended Eric for the umpteenth time, as he writes:
> Phil claims to know what "felisomoto" means, yet balks at interpreting
>"domo
>arigato"
>He insists in using my name in non-brewing related posts, and >continues to
>ignore the fact that Mike *loved* my pumpkin lager

Well Eric, if you continue to write in combinations of Japanese/Italian I
will continue to deny any knowledge of what you are writing about. And
please drink less of that pumpkin lager before posting to the HBD. Why don't
you send me a bottle for appraisal? It surely can't be any worse than what
Ray sent me (though privately Ray tells me it is).

On a final note, it is good to see the odd burst of gun fire appearing from
Doc Pivo but of course there is always someone waiting in the wings to shoot
him down. Steve Alexander was still looking up reference papers when Mr
Meeker saw the opportunity to be in first with his two bobs worth. Mr Meeker
has assumed the role of resident scientist in here though again privately
Ray tells me he can't make a decent beer (Sorry Ray, I couldn't resist!)

Cheers
Phil Yates
Second In Charge To Wes Smith
Baron of The Southern Highlands



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:17:02 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Head space speculation

Dave Riedel <RiedelD at pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca> is worrying:

>How much CO2 is produced by a 7.5 gallon batch?  That is,
>at what point will the beer not produce enough CO2 to protect
>itself from oxidation?  Is there a hope in hell that this batch
>won't be oxidized?

No problem.  Using ballpark values and big rounding off, let's assume that
you have a 12P (1.048) wort that is 50% fermentable (that's typical,
apparent attenuation is ~75% because of the depressing effect on SG of
ethanol).

Since a degree plato is 1 gram per 100 ml, you have 12 g/ liter of
dissolved material, half of which is fermentable, so you have ~ 6 grams of
fermentable material per 100 ml.

A gram of fermentable material will produce approximately 1/2 gram each of
ethanol and CO2, so this will produce ~3 grams CO2 per 100 m, or 30 g/liter

Since 7.5 gallons (US,  or were you using Imperial up there Dave?) is very
roughly 30 liters, you have ~900 grams of CO2 produced.

CO2 has a molecular weight of 44 g/mole, you have roughly 20 moles of CO2
produced.

A mole of any gas occupies 22.4 liters, so you have ~440 liters, or ~115
gallons.

This ignores the CO2 that remains dissolved in the beer, but who cares?
You've got about 10 times as much as you need to fill your headspace.

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: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:40:08 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast bugs vs good beer

Jeff Spies defends Mike's posting In #4244,
>> nor did he make any direct
accusations about any *intention* on the part of Wyeast to put these
critters in their yeast packets.<<
  
Huh? do I get a different edition?
M.M. >> Planned obsolescence?  Draw your own conclusions.<<

Jeff states his confidence in Mike's ability, OK granted, then I guess he
would have recognized if the slow growing cocci were pediococcus; and
since he didn't say it was I will assume then it wasn't. He doesn't
even state that the _unknown_organism is a wort spoilage organism. 
J.S.>> He also said that N=1 for his "test". <<
 Are you say he found _one_ of these critters in each smack-pak?

A few stray _unknown_organisms in your pitching yeast, a big problem?
Who autoclaves their fermenter?
Who can say with certainty that the pitching yeast is the problem with
stray organisms in their finished beer?

 ............

Jim Liddel say, >>It is time that we all
begin to really question all yeast suppliers about their qc/qa procedures
etc.  This goes for wyeast, White, rtp, lallemand and any others.<<

So they all have some contamination., I've known this for years.
Scott Laboratories will send you a "typical" analysis which states
(working from memory) 2000 lactic bacteria and 20,000 anaerobes per gram
(or is that vice versa) in Danstar yeast. Cooper's also publishes this
information.
  Their yeast still makes fine beer. I would bet the yeast producers QA/QC
far surpass that of the homebrewing environment.

So what's the worry? Do you think large commercial breweies are working
with 100%
pure pitching yeast? They acid wash each pitching. The point is to maximize
the yeast/"other" ratio to have the yeast overwhelm the bacteria so the
flavors
derived from bacteria are sub-threshold. Acid washing also deflocculates
the yeast
and removes trub from the cell walls to help shorten lag times, again to
overwhelm
any effects from the_ever-present_bacteria. That is paraphrased from an
assistant
brewer, Seibel graduate, of Latrobe Brewing. 
  Even if you had a laboratory and picked a single cell and grew it in
autoclaved
flasks under sterile conditions, wouldn't you be pitching it into a rather
unsterile fermenter?
  The yeast companies are faced with the task of providing reasonably pure
yeast at
a reasonably affordable price. They could provide sterile cultures at $125
apiece
but who would benefit from that?  None of us here would be using
them!(price out ATCC sterile cultures and be prepared to prove your
laboratory is set up to handle them to their satisfaction)
 Or you can plate yeast out in your "sterile" home laboratory and have a
"sterile" 
pitching yeast, oops, then there's that darn "sanitized" fermenter again.
Consider
the Burton Union system, how sterile is that? It still makes fine beer. I
like to see a bacterialogic report from _that_ yeast.

Pitching yucky yeast in Pittsburgh,
 Del Lansing









Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:49:52 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Transporting full carboys

>From: "Foster Jason" <jasfoster at hotmail.com>

>My question is this: Is there a method of transporting my carboy that would

>minimize the oxidation risk? If not, I will have to let the opportunity 
>pass.

I do not see any oxidation risk by transporting a just pitched carboy,
actually a bit of oxygenation at this point would be beneficial.  Once the
fermentation has completed, with a good airlock, there should be no oxygen
inside left to cause any problems.  Just keep it sealed and the agitation
should not cause you problems.

My club brews larger batches (45 gal), and us lucky brewers get to take home
5 gal. each, pitch and ferment.  It has never been a problem with
oxygenation because of transportation.

What has been a problem, is when one of us dropped his carboy, just as he
was putting it into his vehicle - what a disaster.  Most of the savvy
participants have gone to the use of Corny kegs used as fermenters.  I have
done this also for the last several brews.  This is much safer than carboys
for transportation.  I removed the in and out fittings and tubing.  Then, I
place a small square of aluminum foil over each open port.  The small o ring
from the quick connect (now removed) works well to hold the foil down over
the port fitting.  When I get home a few hours later, I remove one foil
cover and place a piece of vinyl tubing over the fitting, tie wrap it tight,
and  place the other end into a jar of water.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu
http://members.xoom.com/rlabor/



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:06:33 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders at paddockwood.com>
Subject: RE: PBW expense

"Troy Hager" <thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us> asks about PBW concentration and
expense.

You don't have to fill your 5 gal kegs with PBW solution to clean them. You
can use half a gallon and spin your kegs to soak each part (4 turns if the
keg is on its side).  The PBW solution will work fine this way. It lasts for
some time, but I wouldn't recommend using the same solution more than
overnight.

5Star recommends different PBW solution strengths for different purposes:

(.56% sol by weight) At 3/4 oz per gal for 20-25 minutes for fermentors,
conditioning, aging kegs. 30 minutes

 (0.75% sol by weight) At 1 oz/gal and 100-160F for Brew kettles and lauter
tuns you can soak each surface for 30 minutes, then move the solution to the
next surface. Start with the most soiled and progress to the least.

(1.1% weight) 1.5 oz/gal for multiple brew sessions or heavier soils.

2-4 oz / gal room temp overnight soaking for stubborn stains, or oxidized
protein (read boil-over gunk on your nice shiny kettle).


So the exact concentration isn't crucial as long as you compensate with
water temp and/or soaking time, but I don't think mixed solution remains
effective for more than a day.

We sell it for

Powder Brewery Wash PBW www.paddockwood.com/catalog_chemicals.html#CLEANING
$16.15(CAN) 	1 lb
$35.00 (CAN)	2.2 lbs (1kg)

But the big breweries get it a LOT cheaper.

regards,

Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat."
______________________________________________
Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK
orders at paddockwood.com  www.paddockwood.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:18:53 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Never, say never, secondary fermentation

Brewsters:

George De Piro says that when you
get high growth rate you always get
high fusel alcohols and believes it
is an absolute.  Not so.  As I
understand it, If the supply
of simple nitrogen from things other
than amino acids is sufficient, then no
amino acids will be deaminated
and no fusel oils formed.

How likely is this under normal beer
fermentations? Not very likely,
unless liberal use is made of
ammonium phosphate and 
such, which I don't think anyone
would suggest with beer from
an all grain wort.

George's point to continuously
feed an aerated starter is a good 
one, however, I don't understand
why yeast would consume their
glycogen just because they are
in a solution with low nutrients and
oxygenated. And I have never
read that oxygen enhances
autolysis, if that's what George
is suggesting.

Point is, as George
says, is to manitain good nutrition
and you will have no problems.
A few drops of your starter and
Clinitest will help you know if
your starter needs an addition
of carbohydrates. Adding 
wort or extract will assure FAN
nitrogen is also available for
growth as it goes along with 
the carbohydrates.
- ------------------------------
Eric Murray asks questions
about secondary fermentations.

I generally rack to the secondary
just after the head falls.  This
gives me a managable
fermentation in a carboy and
a good clean yeast cake which
can be recycled. It is important
to rack while the fermentation is
still roiled as this gives you a
good sample of both flocculent
and powdery yeast to carry forward,
should you choose to re-use it.
- ------------------------------
Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 08:43:00 -0800
From: "jim williams" <jim&amy at macol.net>
Subject: Jason Foster asks about lagering in restaurant walk-in

> I have been given the opportunity to use a spare corner of a walk-in cooler
> of a friend who runs a restaurant. However, there is no opportunity to
> actually brew at that site. Which means, consequently, that if I wished to
> use it, I would have to find a way to transport my carboy (I make 23 litre
> batches)full of wort/beer to this site.


do you keg? Since your going to be lagering, you can rack to a keg, blow out
the o2 with co2 and safely transport it to the restaurant. That also makes
it more difficult for "those guys in the kitchen" to get "curious" about all
that beer in the walkin! They'd need the fittings to get it out! If you
don't already keg, It may also be worth investing a little $ in a keg, to do
your lagering/transporting in. Carboys are dangerous, you WILL break one,
and possibly slice your arm in half. It's just a matter of time.
good luck,
jim


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:31:54 -0600
From: MVachow at newman.k12.la.us
Subject: Agent of Pivo

As the agent of Dr. Pivo, I am writing to take exception to Alan Meeker's
revision of Dr. Pivo's written comments from HBD #3259.  Although I do not
deny Mr. Meeker's right to dispute my client's opinions, I do wish that he
had reprinted Dr. Pivo's words verbatim.  When Dr. Pivo writes about his
"serrindopodous" yeast pitching practices, he may or may not be punning.
Dr. Pivo might have meant that the practice was a kind of happy good fortune
or he might have been making an oblique reference to Grendel or some other
jagged (serrin) two (di) footed (podous) creature and, more importantly, to
the "monstrous" ruminations of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Helen
Cixous and other opaque French philosophers, all in effort to draw attention
to the stark, multi-layered irony of his idiom.  After all, although he
mispells "recommendation" (another bald liberty taken by Mr. Meeker), he
correctly uses the homonyms "cite" and "site" and spells correctly the
difficult word "disseminate."  Do I know what Dr. Pivo meant?  Of course
not, and that's just the point.  You cannot know Dr. Pivo; he is far too
clever. He is a portrait of a man painting a self-portrait while looking in
mirror.   He is you.  Or not.

Beer me,

Ed Bougewank
Cybergeek Celebrities



Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:28:12 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Son of Pivo

What's up with this Dr. Pivo concept? First there is one, then there are
many, then they have left the digest, now he/they  is/are back!

Don't know the latest post was merely baiting or not but I do have to take
exception with the idea that the need for high pitching rates are some sort
of myth!

PIVO(S):

If you search the archives, you will find that there is an "exact"
recommendation of pitching rates and number of generation turnovers.

You will also find that "nobody has done anything about finding out if
these numbers are relevant."

**Excuse me??  Have you read  /any/ of the brewing basic science
literature??


If you are looking to make "Budweiser", then I think that this is advice
well worth heading.

** Ahhh so it's the high pitching rate that makes Budweiser so insipid eh??

If you are looking to make your "best beer", it is probably well worth
ignoring.

** Or if you're looking to make the most contaminated beer you can make that
doesn't ferment completely and has a generous yeast autolysis nose...

My own solution was a serendipitous combination of underpitching, and
lower than recommended temperatures.... made the smoothest and richest
beer I've yet tasted.  Since then I've consistently split my ferments,
and proved to myself many times that the "minimum daily requirement" is
the result of industrial brewing who has reinforced its belief in itself.

** So, you've changed at least two variables and are making anecdotal claims
about pitching rates? How are you quantifying these pitch rates? How far are
you "underpitching?"

That this forum continually cites the information disseminated from an
industry where we all know where it is heading (tasteless, and lasts
forever), is a sad comment indeed.

** This forum cites /all kinds/ of information - some good some bad.

If you are considering pitching rates in general, I would say, if you're
a bit behind on your hygiene, a healthy pitching rate is a good way to
protect against infection.... if you are looking for good beer you'll
just have to play with it (one yeast strain.... lots of 'spurments").

** protection against infection is but one (albeit an important one) reason
to pitch high. Given that homebrewing is of necessity an unsterile process
this alone is pretty much enough reason to do so.

I am always scepitcle of the reporter who says: "Last week I brewed a
Belgium wit, and English Bitter, a Czech Pilsner, and a Stout.... and
they were all great!"

** Turn that healthy skepticism against yourself - why should we take your
word that pitching rates don't matter?

A life time is probably enough to learn two styles correctly.... in
North Amerika they become "experts" on about two styles a week.... if
failing to match someone else's evaluation, then there's is "more
authentic".

** What is the purpose of this xenophobic non-sequitor?


 -Alan Meeker, Baltimore MD "Amerika"
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:35:30 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: Pitching rates.

It was asked by Tim Sigafoose:

>  Are
> there reasons other than healthy fermentations why one would be
> concerned with pitching rates?

There are three possible correct answers to this question:

a) Increased esters.

b) Encouragement of the production of higher alcohols.

and...

c) Nobody knows.

And the correct answer is......

"c".

If you search the archives, you will find that there is an "exact"
reccomendation of pitching rates and number of generation turnovers.

You will also find that "nobody has done anything about finding out if
these numbers are relevant."

If you are looking to make "Budweiser", then I think that this is advice
well worth heading.

If you are looking to make your "best beer", it is probably well worth
ignoring.

My own solution was a serrindipodous combination of underpitching, and
lower than reccommended temperatures.... made the smoothest and richest
beer I've yet tasted.  Since then I've consistantly split my ferments,
and proved to myself many times that the "minimum daily requirement" is
the result of industrial brewing who has reinforced its belief in itself.

That this forum continually cites the information disseminated from an
industry where we all know where it is heading (tasteless, and lasts
forever), is a sad comment indeed.


One would think that "Homebrewers" would be more interested in creating
something that "perhaps had a short shelf life, but was brilliant in
it's day(s)", but that seems not the case.

If you are considering pitching rates in general, I would say, if you're
a bit behind on your hygiene, a healthy pitching rate is a good way to
protect against infection.... if you are looking for good beer you'll
just have to play with it (one yeast strain.... lots of 'spurments").

I am always scepitcle of the reporter who says: "Last week I brewed a
Belgium wit, and English Bitter, a Czech Pilsner, and a Stout.... and
they were all great!"

With good reason these particular beers usually stop becoming available
at there nation's borders... it takes an extreme familiarity of style,
and attention to detail.

A life time is probably enough to learn two styles correctly.... in
North Amerika they become "experts" on about two styles a week.... if
failing to match someone else's evaluation, then there's is "more
authentic".

ooh boy.

If you visit a "traditional brewery" (there's not that many left) you
will be surprised at two things:

1) How variant there methods are form that that is reccomended here.

2) How bloody brilliant there beer is.

If I was going to make a reccomendation, I would pick out Nuwarelia in
Sri Lanka, where they haven't changed a brick since the British left....
it sure don't travel, but on site might remind you why you wanted to
become a homebrewer.

A closer to hand example for the Yanks might be "Belize".  They haven't
been able to afford to change anything, and you might see the value in that.

Elsewise you might listen to the industrial dogma that is spouted here,
that is .... how should I put this delicately.... yes, diplomatically....

"crap"

Dr. Pivo


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:33:29 -0500
From: Vance J Stringham <vancenjeannie at juno.com>
Subject: RE: "George de Piro" 's Vance's Long Fermentation

	Rechecking my notes:  Some rookie mistakes become very obvious. George
asked what my pitching temperature was.  82 degrees!  YIKES!  Also,
according to my notes, a 12 hour lag time would be a very liberal
estimate.  I pitched somewhere around 11am.  When I awoke the next day
and checked the brew (around 8am) the foam was already blowing out of the
air lock.  That is when I immediately put a blow hose on the carboy and
prayed against contamination.  

	Now in the secondary it is now bubbling back down around once every 35
seconds, about 15 seconds quicker than before I racked it over.  I
believe this would lend credence to George's comments on stuck
fermentation.  The agitation of the yeast during racking gave them kick
they needed to get going again - what do you think, George?  My SG was
1.049 and the mid gravity is 1.015, satisfactory I dare say.  The aroma
is very nice, as apposed to the telltale sourness of contamination,  and
the taste is sweet so I know there is still work for the yeast.  At this
point in my brewing experience, as long as what comes out does not taste
like a tea made of dirty socks and rotting vegetable matter, I am happy -
but striving for bigger and better successes.

Vance J. Stringham
Old Channel Swill Homebrewing


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:19:28 -0800
From: "Kevin Imel" <kimel at moscow.com>
Subject: O2, Pitch Rates, Higher Alcohols

Hi All,

I read with interest George de Piro's comments (HBD #3250) about 
aeration and yeast growth.  I have also been following the on again, 
off again thread about higher alcohols causing intensivied hang 
overs over the past several years.

So I couldn't help but ask the obvious question:  

Would one make better beer if they achieved a "high enough" 
(whatever that is...that is perhaps a different discussion) pitch rate 
and didn't aerate the wort at all beyond what couldn't be helped 
during transfer to the fermenter?

Most of us (all?) intentionally aerate our wort via whatever means 
we think is most economical or whatever is at hand.  I am a carboy 
shaker myself but only because Santa refuses to give me an O2 
setup for Christmas.

Given "normal" aeration, just how many of these higher alcohols 
and other undesirable products of reproduction (left over massage 
oils, candle stubs, empty chocolate boxes, and so on) are we 
getting because we aerate our wort instead of pitching massive 
amounts of yeast?  Would it be better if we just put the yeasties to 
work in the wort instead of letting them reproduce first?

Are these "bad things" metabolized during fermentation and it 
doesn't matter what happens at the beginning?

Cheers!

Kevin

___________________________
Kevin Imel - KF7CN DN16lv
kimel at moscow.com
kf7cn at qsl.net
Palouse, Washington USA

"The only way to truely fail is to fail to try"



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:21:12 -0500
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com>
Subject: continuous O2 and honey post and high trappist gravity

While I do agree with what George Depiro has commented upon I think if you
look at my post and even the quote George uses - 

"in fact, the yeast
are fed sugar and O2 incrementally to get them to reproduce rather than make
beer.  since they are continuously using the O2 when reproducing, it is best
to feed them continuously in the first few hours of fermentation when they
most need to reproduce to get a high cell count. if I had a pump, I would
certainly use it for the first few hours after pitching."

My last line above is the most important - O2 only during the few few hours
of fermentation. not throughout the fermentation or anything else as the
problems george discusses can and will occur.  I do however maintain that O2
for the first few hours is good especially for those people who do not pitch
the optimal amount of cells (ie. those who scale up once or even twice from
a smack pack or pitch into high gravity or only use 1 packet of dry
nottingham, etc.) where some yeast growth is needed to get to get optimal
levels.  I would hazard the guess that a little more than half the HBD
readers make a twice scaled atleast starter and the other slightly less than
half just pitch pretty much minimal levels since they dont have the time,
dont believe whatever.  I know because I probably went 4 years until I
started making starters and saw the improvement. most of us do this,
eventually try a starter, and probably never go back to just using a smack
pack.

About the use of honey which I originally commented upon a few days ago, I
do think that the use of 2 lbs of honey in a 5 gallon batch could be reason
for a slightly long ferment, although inadequate yeast at pitching may also
be the trouble.  My thinking is along the lines, that using 2lbs (which
should contribute about 85 gravity points or so to a 5 gallon batch), is
about 33% of the total sugars present assuming a starting gravity of about
1.050 or so which requires about 250 total gravity points.  this may be
enough to leave the wort nutrient deficient. also, if the wort was from malt
extract and not all-grain (don't remember if this was the case), it may also
be additional reason for deficiency since I think it is thought that malt
extract is generally deficient is some nitrogen containing compounds,
whereas the allgrain worts are not.

Rich mentions his heavy Trappist ale at about 1.040ish after primary.  I
point towards the use of dutch malt extract (Laaglander) as possibly the
culprit as it is thought to generally finish pretty high.  you do use quite
a bit of it (~50%), so the presence of it may be the cause.  lack of hops
and the high finishing gravity even with high alcohol are giving that sweet
taste.  usually belgians finish pretty low so that the low amount of hops do
not interfere with the lack of residual sugar. however in your brew, the
huge amount of sugar remaining, leaves the hops a bit low.  You have brewed
as you say, more of a belgian scottish ale than a high alcohol belgian beer.
not a problem as long as you dont mind sweet/malt instead of hops or a
balance.  maybe brew a light hoppy beer and blend the two to get a more
balanced brew. are you still seeing belgian ale characteristics like neat
esters and such?

I also would like a contest that I was able to compare multiple brews of the
same variety.  I have often had 2 differing batches at the same time and
wondered which is closer to style (this happens when I brew IPAs a lot). for
example I have a IPA brewed with mostly 2 row and crystal with Wyeast 1028
and all cascades hops.  I then have an IPA brewed with 50% munich and
chinook, centenial, and cascades with 1028.  both hopped and dry hopped to
same times.

FWIW, just my comments.

Pete  
Albany, NY 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:03:09 -0800
From: "Troy Hager" <thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: Pitching Rates

Fellow Brewers,

This discussion about lowering your pitching rates for better beer has
really piqued my interest. This tears down *every* piece of information I
have ever read regarding this topic.

I have always been led to believe the "more is better" approach for pitching
volumes and have read many times that in homebrewing it is hard to over
pitch yeast. I have often repitched much of the previous batch's yeast and
have gotten my lag times down to around 2 hours. I felt I was doing great
until I read this discussion and wondered if I have gone to the other
extreme.

As Dave B says, "yeast growth with the associated by-products are an
important part of beer's flavor. Pitching larger quanities  of yeast in fact
"dumbs down"  the impact of the yeast growth on beer flavor." I take that to
mean, short lag times, ie. little yeast growth, means  a "dumber" beer as
Dave and Dr. Pivo are saying.

Dave also says, " I think the middle ground is an important place to
consider..."

I was wondering if he (or anyone) would be willing to give a middle ground
lag time for homebrewers to shoot for. Assuming excellent sanitization ,
what is a reasonable lag time that would allow for enough yeast growth to
realize the benifits in flavor?


Troy


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:35:00 -0500
From: "FLEMING, JOE" <JOE.FLEMING at spcorp.com>
Subject: bottle fur

          Yuk!  Who'd want to homebrew if you get furry beer?  I'm going 
     to make the ultimate Pivo-esque statement and suggest that we not 
     pitch at all.  End homebrewing as a tribute to nihilism and 
     anti-fur protesters.
     
        Joe


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 16:42:36 -0500
From: "Russ Hobaugh" <Russ_Hobaugh at erm.com>
Subject: Brewpubs in central Jersey



I will be near Princeton NJ on business the next two weeks.  Any good brewpubs
within a decent driving distance?  I have tried Triumph and was most
unimpressed.
TIA

Russ Hobaugh
Goob' Dob Brewery
Birdsboro PA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:05:19 +0000
From: William Frazier <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Target hops

I've been working on a Fuller's ESB type ale for some time now.  Trying to
capture that caramel-like flavor that you get from the keg version.   I use
a Polarware brewing kettle with a false bottom and I like to use leaf hops.
They form a nice filter bed after settling while the aroma hops steep.  I've
not been able to get the hops used by Fullers in leaf form locally and I
looked for them in every homebrew shop website I could locate, in the
brewing magazine ads, to no avail.

At last, today when I paid a visit to one of the local shops, there they
were.  British Target Leaf Hops 10.3%AA.  Just arrived, not opened yet, but
available.  I'm just a satisified customer, not an owner or relative or
anything like that but I told the shop owner, Scott McLeroy, that I would
pass the word around.  If you want some Target Leaf Hops you can get them at;

Homebrew Pro Shoppe
11938 W. 119th Street
Overland Park, KS 66213
www.brewcat.com

ps.  He also just received a case of Centennial Leaf Hops 9.0%AA.

        Bill Frazier
        Olathe, Kansas
 



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:26:04 +1100
From: Steve Lacey <stevel at sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: oxidation of wort/translations

Jason Foster worries about oxidation of his fermented wort due to agitation
when transporting by vehicle to lager in a friends cool room.
My experience on this is as follows: last winter in Australia I was brewing
some lager styles. I transported my carboy to work (where there is a spare
fridge) in the car. Yes it gets a bit of agitation, but as long as you keep
the airlock in, you are really only getting CO2 in the air space. Even if
you've opened the fermenter, the CO2 released by agitation will displace any
air. Just observe how crazy the airlock gets when you hit a pothole! There
is, therefore, no oxygen to dissolve into the wort. Anyway, even if this
explanation sucks, I certainly had no problems doing this and produced some
very drinkable, award-winning pilseners.
- -----------
In the growing tiff between Fouch and Yates I would just like to step in and
translate an obscure term used by Phil for the benefit of mildly interested
onlookers. Chelodina longicolis, mentioned by Phil in HBD3249, is the
eastern [Australian] long-necked tortoise. A cute little beastie with
anunfortunate propensity for pissing a skunky urine on you when being
handled and, if you're not careful, latching onto the handlers private parts
with a vicious jaw locking bite. Be very wary of Phil's long-necked tortoise
should ever you seek to visit him in outback Burradoo! I hear his trouser
python is a bit aggressive as well!
As for "domo arigato" - I'll leave that one alone, thank you very much!

Steve Lacey



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 09:15:04 +1000 (EST)
From: k.g.mclean at cqu.edu.au (Kevin Mc Lean)
Subject: Re: Braggott mixtures.

Eric Fouch asks: In the spirit of good brewing, has anybody attempted a
braggot by blending a
>barleywine and a sack mead?

Yes and no. I was once bottling mead and braggott at the same time, had a
bit left over from each, so I blended them for a joke. I called the
resulting mixture a 'maggott'  and thought "well, I'll take it out for a
joke at the next medieval banquet I go to". The unfortunate thing about
this was that I shared it out a year later at a banquet, the brew tasted
great and I couldn't remember the exact details of how I made the damn
thing... I'm still kicking myself.

So yes, you probably won't be wasting your time if you try that experiment
and  the result will probably be drinkable. But for God's sake write down
the details and let me know if you get a good blend.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Kevin.








Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:25:00 -0800
From: Michael Kowalczyk <mikekowal at megsinet.net>
Subject: Pellets in the mash tun

I've come to the conclusion that I can't use pellets in my system.  No matter
what I try I just keep getting clogged.  No big deal - just keep using whole
hops.  The problem becomes what do I do with 1.5 lb of pellets?

After reading about the people who use their aroma hops in the mash tun, I
got to wondering if I could use them this way!  The question becomes, does
any of the pellet spooge make it to the boiler?  If not I think I can dispose
of them this way!   Otherwise Al K. can come and pick them up.

 - Mike from New Lenox, Il.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 21:23:44 EST
From: BIL2112L at aol.com
Subject: Re high S.G.

Wow! Where to start. 1: With a high gravity beer, patience is a must. I 
regularly brew in the 1070 range and I keep my brews in the secondary for at 
least three weeks sometimes longer.With a gravity that high, I believe that a 
good dose of champagne yeast would be helpful to help this beer finish.2:As 
far as hop bitterness goes, if you have a reasonably low F. G.  (1020 range) 
this shouldn't be too bad. Keep in mind that laaglander extract finishes with 
a slight residual sweetness. If you wish to increase the bitterness, boiling 
your hops in water should be fine just be careful not to over do it. 3:As far 
as adding yeast at bottling, I would say yes. Not only is this a traditional 
Belgian practice but, it will help give you viable yeast for conditioning.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 21:29:16 -0500
From: "Michael Maag" <maagm at rica.net>
Subject: Secondary fermenter

"Murray, Eric" asks about secondary fermenting and ales..
 . What are the advantages if you bottle or keg after 2 to 3 weeks in the
carboy? If there are significant advantages, do they out weigh the risk of
contamination during the transfer? At what point is it best to transfer into
the second carboy and is it critical to get the timing right>>>>

For ales, I have had excellent results by waiting until the fermentation
lock bubbles are more than 90 seconds apart, then racking to a 5 gal carboy.
Fermentation is pretty much complete at this stage, unless the temperature
dropped and caused the slow-down.
Since the sugars are used up, there is not much to worry about regarding
contamination.
Then I add disolved gelatin and chill to drop the yeast.  This takes about 4
days at 40 F.  I then rack to a corny and force carbonate.

This results in ale that is clear, tastes great, and travels well, either in
the keg or counter pressure bottle filled bottles.

This proceedure would not be as benificial if one bottles or keg conditions
their beer.

Getting the ale off the primary yeast at the end of fermentation gives you
plenty of time to drop the yeast without autolysis worries.

Cheers,
Mike Maag, in the Shenandoah Valley




Return to table of contents

---