---

	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:
  Visions Of Marilyn ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  Chickeshorts .../Pivo ("Stephen Alexander")
  fusels ("Stephen Alexander")
  Commercial pitching rates ("Bob Page")
  one element or two (Susan/Bill Freeman)
  Natural Gas Burner Solutions (Bill_Rehm)
  Those wonderful pitching rates ("Dr. Pivo")
  Re: N2 fixation and one more thing about fusels ("Perilloux, Calvin L")
  Hefe-Need a secondary? ("Russ Hobaugh")
  re, dry yeast, & washing ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Kunze ester and fusel formation (Dave Burley)
  Re: Calcium Chloride (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Pitching Rates and Munich Malt (Jeff Renner)
  check your head (Marc Sedam)
  RE: Not one Element but Two (LaBorde, Ronald)
  oops - NO3-- and, NO2- vs N2 reduction (patrick finerty)
  New Brewer ("Nic Templeton")
  Web site publishing (Chester Waters)
  Mead notes... ("Alan Meeker")
  RE: Commercial pitching rates ("George de Piro")
  Calcium Chloride/ Kolsch yeast/ Heating Elements/ Diluting wort ("Stephen Cavan")
  Re: Pitching Rates and Munich Malt (JDPils)
  Various things, but :^[ ("Paul Campbell")


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

* AOL members: Visit the AOL Homebrewing boards before they're gone!
* Go to aol://5863:126/mBLA:185893

* 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: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 20:17:06 +1100
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au>
Subject: Visions Of Marilyn

Obviously Doc Pivo just can't come to terms with visions of necrophilia
being surreptitiously performed in the grounds of Burradoo Estate late at
night.

Well Doc, since I've been using the contents of Ray's bottle as after shave,
I have to tell you even the corpse of Marilyn Monroe can run faster than me!

My only wish is, when Scotty Morgan sends the local Southern Highlands rugby
team around to sort me out, they aren't going to like it either!

I was thinking maybe I should stop enjoying making homebrew and drinking it.
It must be about time I actually made some knowledgeable contribution to
this deep canyon of worry and concern that goes by the name of HBD.

I'm going to start on yeast pitching. Now that I am making double batches I
can run a few of the Doc's "sperments" and see for myself. And if anyone is
interested I will post the results. Not that I expect anyone will be
interested.

In the meantime, I'll keep chasing Marilyn around the estate. She can't keep
this pace up forever.

Pepe Le Pew
Of Burradoo
(Three Hours South Of The Only Kunze Book In Australia)





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 05:21:10 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Chickeshorts .../Pivo

llib rehcam writes ...

>My, 
>my...what happened to Arnold Chickenshorts? He certainly 
>had more substance to post here than many of us. Did we 
>have to drive him away because he did not stand behind an 
>identifier that made us feel comfortable? I keep thinking his 
>name might be George...No, I mean the other George, the 2 
>+ 2 one...

Very bad  guess llib.   To paraphrase Al Gore, I know Arnold
Wolgemuth Chickenshorts, and Mr.2+2 is no Chickenshorts.
If you want to distinguish two organisms you should see how
they respond on a differential medium.  Post an plate of mild
criticism of their work and I assure you , you will see a major
difference in response.

- --

RE Pivo's preference for underpitching.  I find it entirely likely that
one can make positive changes to a beer by modulating the pitching
rate and temperature.  That's not news.

Unfortunately Pivo, as usual, fails to include any details.  That
wouldn't be mystical enough, and without the mystery what would
Pivo be ?  He'd have to come down off Mount Olympus and
discuss details and take responsibility the results.  He'd have to
suggest testable methods that could demonstrate whether he is right
or wrong. Much safer for his reputation to conclude that less yeast
is always better without mentioning whether ale or lager, nor which
yeast,  nor the  pitching rates, nor the  low temperatures
regime, nor even  in what way the beer tasted better.  That way 
he always has a stack of alibis.


Kyle wrote ...
>Try it this way, then try 
> it the Doc's way, and then judge for yourself

There is no "Doc's way".  All he said was 
>[...] you'll
>just have to play with it (one yeast strain.... lots of 'spurments").

Unless Pivo can say more than "underpitch and you will see an
improvement", I am disinclined to follow that lemming to the sea. 
I have underpitched before and there is no reason to think the
results won't be similar the next time UNLESS someone can
point to a larger set of control conditions that together allow for
an improvement. 

Pivo-ism  has great cult possibilities, but the fact that there is no
testable hypothesis in  Pivo's post belies the fact that he doesn't
stand behind his statement.  Iconoclasm involves actually smashing
the icons Pivo, not just suggesting that is can be done by others under
some unspecified circumstances.  Tell us specifics of how you brew
two beers which demonstrate your improvement  Then we will all
be free to try to replicate your test and accept or reject your case.

Till then it's just another Pivomily.

- --
 ... and I sure am glad I got a chance to say a word about the music
and  the mutha's in Burradoo,

 -S (not my real name)




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 06:13:43 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: fusels

Dave Burley writes ...

>but I thought  my comments based
>on M&BS references ( never once
>mentioning DeClerk) were in agreement
>with and perhaps more succinct than
>SteveA's on the origin of fusel alcohols.

Apologies if I stepped on your toes Dave,
but we are not in agreement.

What I read may not have been the complete set
of your posts on the topic.  But what I did read was:

>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.

and that is in error.  No amino acids will be deaminated,
if there are none - but the synthesized oxo-acids will still
 turn into fusels.  It has been repeatedly proven that
yeast generate fusels for which there is no
corresponding amino acid in their medium !

Your statement would be true if the Ehrlich mechanism
was  the only one - the pre-1966 view (DeClercs era),
but it ignores the synthetic mechanism and several
secondary mechanisms.  As I also noted, M&BS
has rather poor coverage of the issue when you
consider that it was revised in 1981, and that
Hough and Stevens (two of the M&BS
authors) were directly involved in related research.

M&BS gives some unsupported, practical and correct
information as to the sources of fusels, but they
don't answer the "why?" question.  Same as 
Kunze,  but we expect it from him.

Steve




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 04:56:33 PST
From: "Bob Page" <icerigger at hotmail.com>
Subject: Commercial pitching rates

Bob said:

"The debate rages. Several points have been made on the assumption that 
commercial breweries pick their pitching rate for reasons of flavour etc.

Then George said :

While most of us agree that megabrews are boring, insipid products that 
inspired us to begin this great hobby (or profession), you cannot simply 
bash them with sweeping strokes claiming that they do not care about the 
flavor of their beers.  They care tremendously.  The problem is the people 
in charge of deciding what flavors are desirable also think Wonder bread is 
great.

And now it's my turn again :

Sorry if I gave the impression that the commercial breweries don't care 
about flavour. I agree that, while insipid swill it is, they are the best at 
maintaining consistent flavour.

My point is just that pitching rates are not part of their equation as they 
have little impact on their final product.

I did a consulting gig at Labatt in the late 70's and picked up a lot by 
osmosis. That's when I first tried homebrewing and was quite disappointed 
when I ended up with something that, by comparison, suffered from an excess 
of flavour. Just turns out it was pretty close to real beer.

I learned to pitch high the hard way, after having some foreign beasties 
ruin a batch or two due to long lags.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Bob
(Sampling a bit of Porter after bottling)

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:21:07 -0600
From: Susan/Bill Freeman <potsus at bellsouth.net>
Subject: one element or two

Most breakers are rated at 15-20 amps at 110 volts for regular household
use.  Those for lighting at 15 and those for wall receptacles are rated
at 20.  Only when the current draw is for a 220 volt circuit do the
amperages go higher.

The rule of thumb is watts divided by volts equals amps.  If you put a
4000 watt 220 volt element on 110 volts the current draw drops to around
1250 watts.  This is obviously equal to around 11.4 amps (1250/110) or
just about all a lighting circuit can stand.  2 of these will result in
a draw of 22.8 amps or more than a wall receptacle can stand.

Bear in mind also that there are most often more than one receptacles or
lighting circuits attached to the same breaker, thus compounding the
problem.  The reasoning is that all the items connected to a circuit
will probably not be in use at the same time.

In short, its doable if the wall receptacles are on different breakers
and the load on that breaker is not already pushing the limit.

Bill Freeman aka Elder Rat
Birmingham, AL



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 07:45:02 -0600
From: Bill_Rehm at eFunds.Com
Subject: Natural Gas Burner Solutions

I'm thinking about moving my brewing setup into my basement, and converting
to natural gas.  I'd like to take a look at all the available burners
before buying.  For all you indoor brewers, what burners do you use.
Plenty of ventilation is available and the CO detector is in place.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:41:49 +0100
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: Those wonderful pitching rates

Ah yes! Once again George dePiro has missinterpreted his own as well as
others comments, and brought us some valuable information from
never-never land... (and I was just beginning to find his posts tempered
with a bit of reality.... I guessed that the fact of actually "making"
beer had brought him from the realm of "imploding kegs"... but alas old
habits die hard).

He scribbled:

>  The brewers were able
> to speed up fermentation by using techniques common to yeast propagation,
> including constant agitation of the wort

and then he dribbled:

> So much for Jeff Irvine's (aka "Dr.
> Pivo") "full-flavored fusel lager.

If I hadn't been so brazen as to question  an issue that George has
wasted many a line rattleing on about, he might have actually read what
I wrote, which was an admonition to "slow down" primary, rather than
speed it up.... I'm quite familiar with the taste of fuesels
("Caffrey's" comes to mind as a good commercial example), I don't like
them, and you won't find them in my beer (But I suppose if we are going
to make theoretical suppositions, I wouldn't even have to taste his
products in order to assume all kinds of imaginable scary things!  Why,
if someone hadn't written me privately to say that he makes a nice
bavarian weiss (a style I am neither very familiar with, nor fond of), I
was beginning to wonder if the lad ever brewed at all, or just thought
about it).

Might be some interesting tidbits to note:1) Pilsner Urquell "forces" a
several day lag, by cooling "after" pitching..... 2) They use a 12 day primary.

I'm sure they will soon be knocking on your door, so you can educate
them better George.

They hadn't known that the world's brewing epi-centre was located in up
state New York, otherwise I'm sure they would have corrected themselves
long ago.

Next time I'm down there, I'll certainly let them know that they are
doing things wrong, and let them know where the truth can be found.

I'm sure that they will hardly be able to contain their indifference.

Now you'll all just have to go back to you're in-fighting.  I've got to
go out and puke, now.

Dr. Pivo

(I know there will now be a temptation, as in the past when I have
questioned the circular reasoning of george, to overfill my mailbox with
the silently held opinions about "Mr. De Piro"..... It's nice of you,
and it is nice to feel the support, but I just get so MANY!)

As for Phil Yates, now you just leave those poor cats alone, or I'll
have to fax you my Vet bills, to prove that violent tail removal is both
painfull and expensive to correct.


Return to table of contents


Date: 23 Feb 2000 12:14:27 Z
From: "Perilloux, Calvin L" <Calvin.L.Perilloux at BritishAirways.com>
Subject: Re: N2 fixation and one more thing about fusels

Patrick responds to Steve Alexander:

>> Most bacteria and fungi (and in all probability yeast) can reduce
>> nitrate to ammonia, or consume ammonia ions directly for use,

>by far and away, most organisms are incapable of fixing N2 to NH3
>(reduction of atmospheric N2 to ammonia). this is a 'hard' reaction to
>do and requires a special set of enzymes 

I believe Mr. Alexander has spoken of nitrATES, not nitrOGEN.
Converting the latter, quite stable N2 form, is indeed an impossible 
task for most bacteria, but converting the former NO(X) is certainly not 
as difficult.  When discussing nitrogen in the context of the discussion,
it was nitrogen-containing compounds like nitrates, not N2 as in our air.

Calvin Perilloux
Staines, Middlesex, England


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:13:49 -0500
From: "Russ Hobaugh" <Russ_Hobaugh at erm.com>
Subject: Hefe-Need a secondary?



I brewed a Hefe last saturday, and was pleasantly surprised by the mash--I
had no problems whatsoever.  I had heard all the horror stories about stuck
mashes with high wheat amounts(mine was 60%).  And now for the
question--should I use a secondary or just bottle after a week in the primary?
My thought is to skip the secondary because I want the yeast in there anyway.
Or will this give me too MUCH yeast?  Please advise.

Also, on the whole yeast starter topic, I stepped up #3068 to about a half
gallon,
and my fermentation took off like a rocket, and was done in 2 days.  This was
the fastest a beer ever started on me, and also the most active! So I will stick
with stepping up starters.

Russ Hobaugh
Goob' Dog Brewery
Birdsboro PA




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:13:07 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: re, dry yeast, & washing

Will Randle replied,
>> My practical experience (Dr. Pivo should be proud) with  Morgan's Lager
Dry 
Yeast shows that a dried lager yeast will not ferment at lager temps.  <<

Ok, so that I understand, it's the temperature, I thought it would be the
flavor
of the finished beer.
 .................

Steve A. replied, 
>>AB's microbiologic controls are legend.  They are certainly not
tolerating
the levels of contamination you quoted for Danstar.<<

The stats were for_dry_yeast, a gram of which has about 1.6x10e10 cells,
putting
the "wild" count at approximately 1:800,000; actually pretty damn pure.
Good to know that A-B ( biggest purveyor of crap-beer in the world) at
least has
clean yeast. How would one explain the toxic fermentation byproducts that
give
a large number of drinkers a headache before they finish a single can?

>>Acid washing is performed after several brewing cycles
by micros and small breweries and will cause abnormal growth patterns
afterwards.  Acid wash yeast must be regrown to a normal state, or at
least the resulting beer must be mixed with normal beer for QA reasons.<<

The three breweries I've been in used a common yeast and _do_ wash each
batch.
Perhaps this yeast has adapted to work in this fashion. In my own
experience with
that yeast I know it loses approximately 10% attenuation per each batch
_not_ washed
(I assume from not being deflocculated). A handful of ribbons on the wall
will attest to the ability of this yeast to work well after acid washing.

N.P. Lansing,
 A-B is filed under the category of; Eat poop, a billion flies can't be
wrong.







Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:19:27 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Kunze ester and fusel formation

Brewsters:

I couldn't find Paul Kensler's point that
Kunze suggests that ester formation is
decreased by increased temperature.
What page?

p 330 Kunze says:  "Ester production
is increased by .....higher fermentation
temperatures..."
which is correct, as far as I know.

Ester formation is basically influenced
in exactly the same way as fusel alcohol
formation, except for amino acid
concentrations. Don't know about
topping up with fresh wort, but suspect
so. 

Kunze says on p329 Chapter 4:

"The production of higher alcohols is
INCREASED by 

1) increasing fermentation temperature
2) Movement of the green beer,
e.g. by stirring or pumping
3) reducing the amino acid concentration
in wort
4) intensive aeration of the pitching wort
5) repeated topping up with wort batches
6) pitching temperature above 8 deg C
7) increasing the wort concentration
above 13% P"

p330:

"Formation of higher alcohols is
DECREASED by:

8) increasing the yeast pitching rate
9) colder pitching temperatures
10) colder fermetnation
11) use of pressure as early as the
primary fermentation stage
12) avoidance of oxygen entry after
pitching
13 )sufficient amino acid content in
the pitching wort. "

My comments on these points:

Kunze is basically in agreement
with M&BS.

Well, maybe I am not <worrried> by
2) as Jeff suggests,  but I am very
curious as it also appears in Kunze's
comments on ester formation and
wonder if this applies to dropping
a batch or just continuous stirring
during the fermentation as M&BS
says.

This is really curious to me
how a physical effect like stirring 
can influence a reaction, unless it
is the effect of reducing the CO2
content by agitation. This would
be consistent with the pressure
and reactor depth comment by Kunze .
This suggests that stirring effects
can be overcome by reactor depth
and pressurized fermentations ???

4) This is one reason it is necessary to
chill a starter and pour off the starter
beer before pitching.

5) makes you wonder about the potential
for continuous fermentation procedures
and is perhaps why they fail.

6) obviously talking about a lager yeast
as Kunze really only discusses these
types of beers.

11) be sure you have a foolproof
pressure control that will not be plugged
by foam before you try this. I don't know
 of any. Fermenter depth can also
have the same influence, since it is
apparently the CO2 content which
influences this.

12) This should be noted by those
who suggest we should add oxygen
periodically during the early part of
the fermentation. I have read in the HBD
that one should oxygenate a pitched wort
to protect the wort from oxidation and
suspect this is OK before anaerobic
conditions are reached.

13) As always, avoid excessive sugar
addition (no >20% for an ale and zero
for a lager ) and extracts that are not
pure malt.

Keep on Brewin'


Dave Burley



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:07:21 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Calcium Chloride

phil sides jr <psides at carl.net> asked
>Anyone know a source for food-grade Calcium Chloride?

This is my favored salt for adding calcium ions to lagers and mild ales.
Brewers Resource http://www.brewtek.com/ carries it.  They even sent it to
me once in an envelope and didn't charge the normal minimum shipping, as I
recall.

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, 23 Feb 2000 10:37:11 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Pitching Rates and Munich Malt

Jim Dunlap  <JDPils at aol.com> writes of his methods of getting full
attenuation, especially with high levels of Munich malt:

>In the future for high % munich beers I will try
>
>1)  mash temperatures in the 148 - 153 range to optimize fermentable sugars.

I agree with the importance of full attenuation for most beers.  If you can
do step mashes, try mashing at 144-146F for 30 minutes, then step up to
158-160 for another 30 minutes.  I have been doing this with success in
Pilsners and a Vienna, which used 10 lbs, Vienna, 2 lbs Pils and 1 lb.
carapils for 7.75 gallons  at  1.048.  I fermented with 250 ml. repitched
Ayinger yeast solids (putty consistency) at 48F.  Lag time a few hours.  FG
= 1.012 for 75% apparent attenuation.  One would think that with the Vienna
and carapils it would have finished higher.  This was the most elegant
Vienna I've ever made.  George Fix had nice things to say about it at MCAB
in Houston at an informal tasting.  One often thinks of Viennas as being
sweet, but I don't think they should be - just malty.  Sweetness detracts.
A good Munich Dunkel can/should be well attenuated as well, though perhaps
not quite as much.

This year I'm bringing a keg of CAP mashed the same way to MCAB II in St.
Louis.  Come and taste it!
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, 23 Feb 2000 10:46:27 -0500
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: check your head

Hey all:

It's a long one.  You've been warned.

Public kudos to Jim for his great post on lager brewing pilsners
and German dark lagers.  Most direct experience thusfar of the
higher FG's of beer made with high %'s of Munich malts.  The
saccharification rest in the beta-amylase range should help.  I
hope the HBD sees more of this kind of post.

So, Jim inspired me to send on some recent experiences as well.
As a stress relief this weekend I did some Old School Brewing.
The goal was to make five gallons of medium gravity beer in the
absolute shortest time possible.  The beer's primary purpose is
to serve as yeast breeding ground for a future batch of a
Samichlaus clone (currently codenamed "Sedamichlaus").  I took
this opportunity to try and test my extraction efficiency because
(1) I'd never done it before, and (2) I always felt like my OG's
were too low based on the grist weight.

DA BATCH:
Mash:  10 lbs Weyermann 2-row pilsener
Hops:  1.1oz Hallertauer *IN THE MASH*, 1oz Galena (11.3%) at
boiling
Yeast:  possibly the Samichlaus yeast!!!
Mash schedule:  single step infusion at 156F, mash-out at 175F
[1.5 qt/lb liquor to grist ratio-- 1tsp of CaCl2 added to both
the mash liquor and sparge liquor]
Mash time: 1 hour

Mashing was done on my kitchen stove and transferred to a 5gallon
Gott cooler with a Phil's screen in the bottom as soon as it hit
175F.  By the time I transferred all the mash to the lauter tun,
it cooled to 172F, was held for 15 minutes before lautering, then
sparged with 4 gallons of 175F water.  Collected 6.5 gallons of
wort and ended up with 6 gallons of 1.052 OG (boiled down to 5
gallons and topped up with a gallon of boiled and cooled water).

SOME OBSERVATIONS
1)  Mash hopping is cool!  I did it for grins and it turns out to
be much easier than FWH.  Why?  You don't have a pile of hop
sludge at the bottom of the boiling kettle sucking up more wort.
The wort coming out of the lauter-tun was crystal clear and
runoff wasn't even close to being a problem.  I could have run
off the entire thing in 20 minutes, but backed off so it took 45
min.  I only added an ounce of Galena to the boil, which settled
out nicely with the hotbreak upon whirlpooling.

2)  Try a new grain mill setting.  After reading all the stuff
about gap settings and efficiency, etc. I decided to tighten the
gap a noticeable amount.  I normally got a crush that separated
the berry from the husk and nothing more.  This time I got the
berries cracked much more and most of the husks seemed torn in
four pieces (observation only...no particle physics involved).
The result was an efficiency that shot through the roof!  I never
really calculated it before, but previous batches using a similar
amount of grain gave me 5 gallons at the same 1.052 gravity.
This time I got six gallons!  I was shocked.  A quick and dirty
calculation gave me a points/lb/gallon efficiency of 31.2.
That's cool.  I've now marked this setting on my mill to ensure I
always get it right.  Lower production costs will make both
commercial brewers and home brewers happy.  HA, HA.

3)  The overall process took four hours this time.  I started at
6:30 and was done by 10:30.  This was an all-grain batch.  There
is definitely something to be said for keeping it simple...old
school style.  Since I did most everything in the simplest
equipment I have, it is the cleanest, quietest brewing I can do.
I was able to do other work while mashing and during the boil.
Not a bad use of time.  My wife didn't even mind.  The biggest
change I've made to speed the process recently is getting a
counterflow wort chiller.  I got mine from Heart's and it kicks
so much ass I can't get over it.  A must for anyone who wants to
chill 5 gallons of beer to 60F in 20 minutes using a minimal
amount of water.

4)  Finally, for those who care (and if you've read THIS much you
might), the yeast I'm using to ferment out this batch was
cultured from a 1996 vintage bottle of Samichlaus.  It took a
long time to get some activity out of the original starter at
room temperature, but my thoughts thusfar have been that a few
healthy cells managed to live through the four year storage in
the bottle and took some time to grow.  My starters went from
200mL, to 1L, to 2L, to 20L.  All the starter smelled "clean" (a
bit appley-estery, much like some Belgian ale strains), but the 5
gallon batch had a 24 hour lag time, even with pure 02 shots.
[Making Dr. Pivo happy, but the commercial brewers cringe.
LOL!)  I was unsure if the cultured yeast was ale or lager, so I
started fermentation at 62F.  Once it took off (big, thick
kraeusen--clean smell) I transferred it to the chest freezer and
dropped the temp 6F per day for two days.  Now it sits at 50F and
continues to happily ferment.  BTW, the ferm temperatures are
from a "sticky thermometer" on the carboy, not the temp of the
chest freezer.  So far everything looks good.  I don't have the
time or resources to supply the world with this yeast, but am
investigating other ways to get the yeast on the market to the
home and craft-brewing community.  More on this in the next few
months...


Just a long-winded way of suggesting you try some new processes
every once in a while to keep things from getting boring.  I love
the mash hopping concept (wort tasted **wonderful**, much like
FWH) and will incorporate it from now on.  I'm becoming a convert
to old school brewing (OSB) and plan to drop in an OSB batch at
least once a month to improve the variety on tap.

Cheers!
Marc



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 10:48:34 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Not one Element but Two

>From: Brad Miller <millerb at targen.com>

>	Does anyone know about running multiple heating elements at 
>the same time.  Does this trip a breaker if they are on the same one? 
>I wanted to rig up my HLT with an element and run it at the same time 
>as my RIMS element.  Would this work?

To answer your specific question, more information is needed:

	* 120 or 240 volt elements
	* how many watts drawn by each element
	* what amperage power service to you outlet

In general, just check the breaker or fuse to your outlet, then add up the
amperage drawn by your elements and if less than your rated service, it will
work.  If the total amperage or wattage exceeds your service, then you will
have problems.

It is possible to time share the power by using gating, which allows the
heaters to share power from the same service without exceeding the amperage
of one heater.  This is possible because both are not on at the same time.
You can not run either heater at full power with gating, but in most cases
you do not need full power to the HLT.  Check my web page under CONTROLLER
for more information and a schematic.

Ron

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 12:34:37 -0500 (EST)
From: patrick finerty <zinc at zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca>
Subject: oops - NO3-- and, NO2- vs N2 reduction

howdy folks,

Jeff Renner was kind enough to point out an error in my last message. 

i misread nitrate as nitrogen. this is a big mistake since they are
not the same at all. 

"Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> makes a
statement that is not quite right.

> Most bacteria and fungi (and in all probability yeast) can reduce
> nitrate to ammonia, or consume ammonia ions directly for use,

this is completely correct. my reply was correct regarding nitrogen,
just not relevant to what Stephen wrote.

bacteria, fungi, and plants *can* reduce nitrate (NO3-- (2 minus)) and
nitrite NO2- to NH4+ (ammonia).

apologies,

 -patrick in toronto



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 09:47:02 -0800
From: "Nic Templeton" <ntempleton at iname.com>
Subject: New Brewer

Hello-

I've been lurking this mail list for a couple of months now, and I've come
to the realization that the topics spoken about here are WAY over my head.
But, I'm still very interested in them.  While most homebrewer maillists
that I know of speak of recipes and mashing techniques, this one is seems to
be more concerned with the chemistry/theroy behind the brewing.  My question
is, I would love to more fully understand the topics discussed here, but I
feel that I need some background first.  What would the readers recomend to
a new brewer?  Websites, books, magazines?  Currently the only thing I've
found is Brew Chem 101, and if this recomended as a good start, I'll be sure
to purchase it.  Thanks for the time.

Nic Templeton



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 08 Feb 2000 17:25:37 -0600
From: Chester Waters <cwaters at home.com>
Subject: Web site publishing

Sorry to trouble the collective with a non-brewing problem, but it would
seem that everyone here has some computer skills and I suspect many have
a lot more than I. I published the details of my new HERMS system to my
ISP which provides 5MB for each subscriber's web page. I was surprised
to find that although the .htm and linked .jpg files were created in
Netscape Composer (and worked fine when I browse them with Netscape
Navigator v.4.5 from my hard drive), the linked .jpg's don't appear when
accessed by Navigator from the web site. I CAN however see them properly
with Internet Explorer 5.0! I tried it from computers at work and the
Netscape problem persisted, but of two identical computers - using 5.0
Explorer, only one could see the linked .jpg's in a .htm page! Try it
yourself and let me know (private e-mail fine, to avoid non-brewing
issues on the HBD, unless you feel everyone would benefit).
	http:/members.home.net/cwaters - root directory-shows all the files,
and http://www.members.home.net/cwaters/Chet's_HERMS.html for the
opening page.
		Thanks much! Chester Waters - Omaha


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:29:03 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Mead notes...

OK, so here are my notes from the last two semi-sweet meads that I made.One
was a raspberry melomel, the other, a straight (sack) mead

I made up one large (6 gallon total) volume of diluted honey then split this
into two 3 gallon batches.

The honey was : 12# orange blossom honey + 7# raspberry honey (honey's are
supposed to be named based on the predominant floral species they were made
from) = 19# total.

Water was 3 gallons tap water + 3 gallons bottled spring water (just had
this lying around the house). I pre-boiled all of this together with 1/2 tsp
CaSO4 (to drop out some carbonates and provide some calcium for the yeast).
Boiled about 15 min at full boil then added 4 tsp yeast energizer. Cooled to
room temp by letting it stand for about 24 hours.

Yeast was Lavlin KV1116. Starter was 1.5 L of saturated YPD culture, spun
out in centrifuge. On the day I made the mead the pellet was "pre-activated"
in 2 cups of 1.060 honey water that had been boiled and cooled.

Mixed honey and water to get total volume of 6 gallons.

3 gallons went to a 5 gallon glass carboy and got 1/2 the yeast. Swirled
well to aerate.

Took about 1/2 gallon from the remaining 3 gallons and added 6 pkg. of
frozen red raspberries ( I think these were 10oz packages) to the 1/2 gallon
in a separate pot. Heated to 70 degC and held there for 15 minutes to
pasteurize. Removed any berries that had visible mold then crushed the
berries as best I could with a potato masher. Cooled by immersion.

Transferred the pasteurized berries and the remaining 2 1/2 gallon honey
water (must) to another 5 gallon glass carboy, pitched the other half of the
yeast. Swirled to aerate.

The pitch temp was 65 - 70 degF. Room temp was 60-65 degF overnight.

S.G. sack mead = 1.072
S.G. melomel  = 1.082
 - these were lower than I'd been expecting, was hoping for the 1090's or
above.

Both had mild activity at +14 hours, mod - strong activities at +24 hours.

By two weeks raspberry mead seemed to have finished, sack still going.

At 4 weeks out I racked the melomel to a secondary, it was very clear. I
added 1 more package of raspberries ("dry-fruited?") that I first
pasteurized in  a small volume of water and honey. At rack the mel was
1.004.

At 4 1/2 weeks out I racked the sack to a secondary. SG was 1.005 but,
unlike the mel, is still very cloudy and generates TONS of CO2 when it is
swirled.

By 7 weeks the sack has dropped very clear.

I bottled them both at 8 weeks out. The raspberry was at 1.004 and the mel
at 1.002.
Both were crystal clear at this point and had good flavor. No off-flavors
were detected.
I bottled some w/o priming while some I primed with dextrose and added some
Champagne (EC1118) yeast to get some bottles sparkling.

**************************************************

Notables:

1) The melomel finished sooner than the sack. Probably due to the added
nutrients from the fruit and enhanced CO2 removal.

2) The sack always seemed to be saturated for CO2. Whenever it was swirled
it gave off a lot of CO2 bubbles. I think this is probably due to the lack
of nucleation sites compared to the mel (fruit particles) and this
persistent CO2 saturation could easily contribute to slowing down the sack
mead compared to the mel (CO2 inhibits fermentation).

3) Both meads finished very quickly (for meads), clarified great and had NO
OFF FLAVORS even at the rack to secondary which was just 4 weeks out. Three
things I can think of to explain this good behavior - first, I did pitch
high. Second, the OG's on these guys weren't particularly high for meads
which often go >1.100 so the yeast probably didn't end up too terribly
stressed (still, these have potential alcohols of about 9-10%). Third, I
added yeast energizer and some calcium which may have helped, especially for
the sack.



There you have it......

 -Alan




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 14:04:15 -0500
From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Commercial pitching rates

Hi all,

Bob responds to my response to his post about pitching rates, writing:

> My point is just that pitching rates are not part of their
> equation as they
> have little impact on their final product.
>

Pitching rates have a tremendous impact on the flavor of the final product,
regardless of the style or quantity of beer you produce.  Some yeast strains
are more forgiving than others and will allow a greater range of pitching
rates while still producing acceptable results, and some yeasts seem to
produce better tasting beer when pitched low.

I mentioned the effects of pitching rates on my own Hefeweizen the other
day.  I can also cite the case of South African Breweries (SAB) which uses
pitching rates and oxygenation levels to control the ester content of their
beer.  They pitch high, oxygenate low, and don't reuse the yeast because it
is unsuitable for use after such treatment.  This info comes from Lynn
Krueger, a teacher at Siebel who was employed by SAB for some time.

Have fun!

George de Piro




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:16:21 -0600
From: "Stephen Cavan" <cavanst at duke.usask.ca>
Subject: Calcium Chloride/ Kolsch yeast/ Heating Elements/ Diluting wort

Phil <psides at carl.net>asks if anyone knows a source for food-grade Calcium
Chloride:
Yup. We sell it.
Calcium Chloride: Lowers pH without adding harshness of sulphates 28g (1oz)
$1.50 CAN
details and other chemicals at www.paddockwood.com/catalog_chemicals.


Rick <Richard_R_Gontarek at sbphrd.com> asks about the difference between
Wyeasts 1007 and 2565.  While you can use the German Ale 1007 strain for
Kolsch, it lacks the nuances that the more lager-like Kolsch strain 2565
will provide.

Brad <millerb at targen.com> asks about running multiple heating elements.
Brad, as I'm sure folks better informed than me will post, the important
factor is the total amperage of the breaker. For example, you could run a 40
or 50 amp circuit on 220v (like a kitchen range circuit) and that would
handle your system easily. If you can't run your system from your kitchen
range or dryer circuit, you'll probably be using 110v not 220v.

What wattage are your elements?  You could probably run both on a single
110v circuit if it was wired for 20 amp. Check your circuit box and see what
amp the breaker is for that circuit. Our RIMS is supposed to have a 20 amp
circuit all to itself, but I run it on a 15amp circuit with no problems.


Steven Gibbs <gibbs at lightspeed.net> asks watering down:
It's easy: Ray Daniels in _Designing Great Beers_ suggests working with
total gravity units where
Total Gravity Units= Gravity Units x Volume Gals

Suppose your measured OG is 1.050 and you have 5 gals, and you wanted 1.045.
You want to know how much to dilute to get 1.045. (For simplicity, drop the
1.000)

Total Gravity= 50 Gravity Units x 5 Gals = 250 Total Gravity Units

To see how many gals your wort would be at 1.045,
GALS= Total Gravity Units/Target OG
GALS= 250/45=5.56 gals.

So you could add 0.56 gals to dilute your 5 gals of 1.050 wort to 5.56 gals
of 1.045 wort.

cheers,

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, 23 Feb 2000 16:34:45 EST
From: JDPils at aol.com
Subject: Re: Pitching Rates and Munich Malt

Jeff,

I have had the same experience with high %vienna malt beers even with 
decoction mashing.  They attenuate very well.  I beleive the munich malts 
generate a higher percentage of complex sugars which are either unfermentable 
and hard to ferment.  Therefore, I think the larger the yeast population the 
better to acheive optimal fermentation.  I also agree Bavarian Darks should 
have a higher terminal gravity.  I think Ayinger Dunkel starts at 1.053 - 
1.056 and finishes 1.012 - 1.014.  Thanks for the input on the mash schedules.

Cheers,

Jim Dunlap


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 22:05:43 +0800
From: "Paul Campbell" <p.r.campbell at tesco.net>
Subject: Various things, but :^[

On an assortment of topics recently:

If you brew in unsanitary conditions then you should *definitely* pitch huge
quantities of yeast and worry about 12 hr lag times. Sadly, if this is
indeed the case, your starter is probably infected anyway. Alternatively,
pitch as much as you feel appropriate (but don't skip brewing because the
starter volume is 1/2 litre short). I also wouldn't recommend that if you
make a bad batch of beer, you blame underpitching and happily use the
increased population as a mega-starter for your next brew 8^#

I personally do not subscribe to the assumption that "the best" breweries of
yesteryear became great because they were 100% consistent from batch to
batch (I don't believe they could be). It was because they made great beer,
regardless of what life threw at them. Consistency is not the goal; good
beer *is*. I think it may be best to focus on that particular sentiment, no?

An Abbey brewery is *not* a modern home. Lambic and Pilsner (or
English/Scottish ale for that matter) are not even in the same ballpark (at
least, not the ones I've tasted).

I *can*, sadly understand where Henk is coming from.

Paul.


Return to table of contents

---