---

	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:
  Bill Pfeiffer ("Ken Schramm")
  traditional breweries / consistency in brewing ("George de Piro")
  Weizen stuff ("George de Piro")
  Fruit Beer Sludge? ("Jeremy J. Arntz")
  Yeast Growth/Continuous agitation/&more ("Stephen Alexander")
  Re: Use of peat smoked malt (KMacneal)
  William's Keg Carbonator Stone ("SCHNEIDER,BRETT")
  Enameled Kettle Handles ("Dick & Cecilia Kuzara")
  Bruheat Burning,Musty taste, SS vs Al (Dave Burley)
  Weizen secondary needed? ("Alan Meeker")
  Re: hp and pulley for motorized mill query ("Peter J. Calinski")
  2nd Annual Palmetto State Brewers Open -Judges Call ("H. Dowda")
  I like 'em young and yeasty... (MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA)
  Where to get Beer in Charlotte, NC ("H. Dowda")
  Re: Trials & errors of a beginner (Jeff Renner)
  lactic acid ("Paul Niebergall")
  Glaring Error (AJ)
  Re-pitching ("John Todd Larson")
  Explosive ferment (geeks)
  re: 6th Annual Boston Homebrew Competition Results! (Jeff McNally)
  RE: hp and pulley for motorized mill query (LaBorde, Ronald)


* 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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:19:27 -0500
From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk at resa.net>
Subject: Bill Pfeiffer

This weekend was at the same time a very trying and very
satisfying weekend for the Ann Arbor Brewers Guild.  In
preparing for the AHA Y2K conference in June, Bill Pfeiffer
offered to craft the Commemorative Mead.  Between his
commitment and the mead making session, Bill was 
diagnosed with cancer, which had spread throughout his 
body before being diagnosed.  He has been enduring 
chemo-therapy and holding out hope to make the conference,
to see his son graduate, and to pursue all of his life's many
passions.
 

We bottled the mead this past Saturday.   Bill is at home now.
He has had enough of the hospitals and chemo-therapy, 
and is making the most of his remaining days with the help of
Hospice.  He is very short on time (he outlived his doctors
short prognosis by making it to Saturday), and getting the mead
bottled was a major concern.  We had frogged around trying to
find bottles until Jason Henning reached Rob Moline (Jethro
Gump), who arranged a donation of the needed bottles from
Abita Brewing Co.  Through Jason's and Rob's work and
determination, the bottles arrived in the nick of time.  Steve
Klump (AABG, formerly of Stroh's and now a long distance
member of the group) came through with caps, Phil Wilcox
prepared a dazzling and appropriately commemorative label,
and the club rallied a large group to complete the bottling.  
We were truly running on borrowed time, and I am very proud 
of and grateful to those who kicked in to make this happen.


Rob, Paul Gatza, and the AHA Board of Advisors made the day
even more satisfying and emotional by awarding Bill its first
ever Lifetime Achievement Award, which I presented to Bill on Saturday.  

Bill has contributed immensely to the AHA, to the BJCP 
(he is a founding member who helped chart the course
for beer judging and competition), and to the world of 
brewing and mead making.  He is like an early 
rock-and-roller: He has been an influence on people 
who don't even know who he is or what he has 
accomplished.  You can pass along regards at
 <meadmaker at livingonline.com>.

Please keep him in your prayers.

Thanks,

Ken Schramm
Troy, MI

[Editor's note: I was one of the number who turned up at Bill Pfeiffer's
for the bottling of the commemorative mead. And to say goodbye to a dear
friend and a great brewer.

In the short time I've known Bill, we have formed a lifetime of
friendship. This is not because I'm anything special. No. It is entirely
Bill's doing. Bill quietly inspires those around him to attain greatness
in our brewing.

I remember when I first met Bill at the first AABG meeting I was ever
invited to. It was at AABG member Spencer Thomas' house the summer of
1995. Scott Henry (faithful sidekick) and I took Spencer's invite and
travelled to Ann Arbor to meet with these people, many of whom we only
knew from their postings to the HBD. I recall standing there, empty glass
in hand and this salt-and-pepper haired gentleman filled it with a beer he
made to "empty his pantry" of all the odds and ends he had laying around.
What I tasted was a perfectly balanced, deliciously malty Belgian Tripel.
"Wow! Who is that guy?!" I asked. "Bill Pfeiffer" was the response.

I made good beer, but nothing so masterfully concocted from "odd and ends"
as that.

As Ken points out, Bill was perfecting aspects of the brewing craft we all
now take for granted while we were all still mucking about with table
sugar and bread yeast or swilling Budweiser. Over time, mead caught Bill's
interest, and there has never been another meader like him. No-one makes
mead the way Bill does, no one attains his level of perfection in the
finished product.

Bill remains my idol in brewing. If there's a miracle to be had, I would
pray that Bill is somehow spared. As a fellow AABG member said recently:
"Where there's life, there's hope. Where there's eternal life, there's
eternal hope."

After the rather emotional presentation of Bill's most deserved award,
Bill tearfully told us that he was going to miss all of us. No, Bill. It
is you who will be deeply missed. In my belief system, where you're going,
you can still participate in our lives. It is we who will be bereft of you
and reminded of our own mortality with your passing. Go with God, my
friend - if that is His will.

Please remember Bill in your prayers and thoughts.

Pat Babcock
Canton, MI
2/28/00 1:42 pm]

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:08:32 -0500
From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com>
Subject: traditional breweries / consistency in brewing

Hi all,

I usually ignore Jeff Irvine's (aka, Dr. Pivo) virulent posts (they all
qualify as such), but he spat out a rather contradictory idea that I feel
like commenting on.  I'm in that sort of mood.

In recent posts he belittles beers that are made using such radical, modern
techniques as high pitching rates.  He specifically states:

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

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

2) How bloody brilliant there (sic) beer is."

He then recommends a country which Americans might like to visit to get a
glimpse of traditional brewing:  "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."

Back to me:

What a ridiculous way to try to make a point:  make a vague, general
statement about how great so-called traditional breweries are, and then cite
a country that relatively few have ever visited as a good place to see
traditional breweries.

I was in Belize in 1991.  At the time there was one (yes, one) operating
brewery.  They made two styles of beer:  a bland, insipid light lager and a
relatively pleasant, though unexciting Caribbean Stout.  The name of the
brewery was Belikin.  I still have the t-shirt.

While Belize is a beautiful country and well worth visiting, it is a far cry
from a Mecca of traditional brewing (or any brewing for that matter).
Belikin stout is slightly more interesting than the stuff you get elsewhere
in Central America, but it is hardly worth the trip.  Go for the Mayan ruins
and the world's second largest coral reef (there is a big difference between
numbers one and two), not the beer.

There was one other brewery in Belize, I think it was named "Crown" (I seem
to recall a label with a red crown on it).  The reason I am having such a
hard time remembering the name is because they were not actually brewing
while I was there.  They couldn't seem to make a consistently palatable
product, and therefore could not stay in business.  One bartender mentioned
that the beer tended to make people sick, in the tradition of Egypt's Stella
lager, I suppose.

On to a slightly different topic:  what is a "traditional brewery?"  Jeff
says that there are hardly any left, but I think it really depends on what
you consider traditional.  Is it size?  Is it equipment?  I believe it is
attitude more than anything else.

If a brewer is determined to produce high-quality, accurate interpretations
of traditional styles (perhaps while exploring some new possibilities), I
would say they have a great, traditional attitude.  When customers drink
their beers, they will be happy to drink a good-tasting product and be
educated as to what a good version of that style tastes like.

If a brewer is determined to use antiquated equipment and out-dated
techniques to produce unique beers for the local population, that again is a
great traditional attitude.  What of brewers that cling dogmatically to old
techniques and equipment, producing unstable beer and then marketing the
damaged product far from home?  Is this still "traditional?"  What service
does that do for the brewing industry or the consumer?

Samuel Smiths is a great example of such brewery.  They use ancient
equipment and out-dated techniques to produce beer that cannot travel, then
export it all over the world.  People drink these beers long after they have
passed their prime and believe that "good" beer tastes rather unpleasant (or
convince themselves that paper is a good flavor).  How does that help
maintain traditional brewing?

This leads to another topic that has been touched upon lately:  consistency
in brewing.  It seems that some people view consistency with a degree of
disdain, reserving the word for use when describing megaswill.  In my
experience, consistency is as important (and harder to achieve) for the home
and small commercial brewer as for the big ones.

Why?  Because if I'm going to spend the better part of my day destroying the
kitchen to make a few cases of beer, it had damn well better be good, and be
what I expect!  Yes, I have had serendipity smile upon my house and bless me
with an accident of the highest caliber, but more often than not mistakes
don't work out so well.

In a small commercial brewery like a brewpub, it is also critically
important to have some consistency.  My customers expect their favorite beer
to taste pretty much the same regardless of which batch they are drinking.
The best I can do, like a homebrewer, is to take good notes and try to
duplicate everything as closely as possible.  It's not easy.

Why is this so hard to do at the level we all brew at?  There are several
reasons:

1.  We don't typically have access to laboratories and large tasting panels.

2.  We don't have much control over our raw materials.  I wouldn't be
surprised to learn that 20% or more of the hops we use are mislabeled.

3.  We don't have tremendous control over our procedures.  The equipment at
a small brewery is about as primitive as it gets.  It may look modern, with
the gleaming steel and LED displays, but  the beer is almost always made
entirely by hand.  The flashing lights at my place are about as useful as
those on the bridge of the original starship Enterprise.

4.  This may be the most important reason the bigger brewers can be
consistent:  blending.  Even with all of the controls the megabrewers have
in place, there will be variability from batch to batch.  By blending
different batches together they obtain consistent results.

Blending is only possible when you are brewing a relatively narrow product
line (like Coors or Cantillon; who would guess you could see those two
breweries in the same sentence!).  At the brewpub, I was able to blend out
one batch of over-hopped blonde ale, but I rarely have that much tank space
free.  At home that was not a possibility because I never brewed the same
style frequently enough.

In conclusion, just because a beer is made at a "traditional" brewery
doesn't mean it's worth the water it's made from.  Some are great, some are
not, and most won't be any good outside of their home town.  Consistency is
not a bad word when it is used in brewing, and is desirable at any level of
brewing.

Have fun!

George de Piro

C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
(518)447-9000
http://evansale.com (under perpetual construction)

Malted Barley Appreciation Society
Homebrew Club
http://hbd.org/mbas



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 02:27:14 -0500
From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com>
Subject: Weizen stuff

Hi all,

Jim Cave disagrees with my view of the lack of importance of secondary
fermentors for Weizenbier.  He writes that it is useful for reducing the
yeast count in the beer.  This is true, but this can be done without moving
the beer to a secondary fermentor.  Just move the carboy to a cold place.
If you are planning on keeping the beer in the carboy for more than a couple
of weeks, then I would move it off the yeast as Jim suggests.

He also writes:

"Finally, if you are bottle conditioning with a lager yeast, it's best to
minimize the amount of ale yeast in the beer, just in case you have a
"funky happening going on" between the two yeast strains."

Back to me:

Please explain what this "funky happening" can be.

Unless you are filtering the beer, there will be a substantial amount of the
original Weizen strain in the beer.  More importantly, why would you bother
to condition the Weizenbier with lager yeast?  The only value I can think of
is that lager yeasts are more resistant to autolysis than Weizen yeast, but
why should that concern a homebrewer?  Homebrewers have complete control
over their beer from inception to serving.  Keeping the beer cold and
drinking it fresh will help much more than adding a lager yeast.

The whole thing about calling Weizen a "mixed style" because some commercial
examples are conditioned with lager yeast is a bit ridiculous, in my mind.
In fact, the entire "mixed styles" heading in the AHA style guidelines is
pretty wacky, and does more to confuse people than clarify beer styles.

Have fun!

George de Piro

C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
(518)447-9000
http://evansale.com (under construction)

Malted Barley Appreciation Society
Homebrew Club
http://hbd.org/mbas



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:03:17 -0500
From: "Jeremy J. Arntz" <arntz at surfree.com>
Subject: Fruit Beer Sludge?

After about 5 days of fermentation activity slowed in the airlock of 
my batch of apple ale. So, I opened the lid to check the S.G. of my 
brew when I was stunned to see this brownish-green sludge had 
grown/collected on top of the apples. At first I was sure my brew 
had molded over. but as looked more carefully the apples hadn't 
rotted. they had barely browned. It appears that after the initial 
foam subsided that it left a sludge on top of the apples.. Anyone
had this experience or have any idea if this truly is the case..?

Thanks,

Jeremy
arntz at surfree.com





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 03:36:36 -0500
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Yeast Growth/Continuous agitation/&more

I'll try to keep it brief but ...
- --
Roger A writes ...

>tehre is a problem I have with his analysis of yeast  growth, to wit:

Oh come now Roger, clearly your problem is not the 'analysis', but
that you hold a grudge against me .

>     "Note that if we pitch REALLY big as in lager brewing, then 75% of the
>     final yeast cake is new growth, if you pitch really small, as from a
>     smack-pack, then maybe 99% of the final yeast is new growth. The
>     difference in flavor is not likely due to the difference of 75% vs 99%
>     new yeast growth.  Adding an extra 32% (100*(99/75 -1)) of off-product
>     doesn't give the sort of night-and-day differences that underpitching
>     causes."
>
>  Well, if we have 75% new growth, then the 25% reproducted only three
>  times its orig9inal biomass, however if we have 99% new growth, the
>  result is about 100X increase in biomass, to me that is significant
>  yeast growth and would probably have a perceptible impact on beer
>  character.

Growth is defined as change in yeast mass and not the factor by which
cell count or mass increases as you suggest. I would direct you to any
standard treatment on the topic.

Your argument that the underpitched yeast must multiply 99 times
versus 3 is correct but irrelevant.  I think you must admit that there is
no conceivable physical mechanism by which creation of flavor
chemicals is related to the amount of multiplication.  Do you really
believe that single cell that multiplies ninety-nine-fold somehow
creates much more of a flavor impact than a trillion cells that 'only'
double in count ?

The point you seem to miss is that *if* the flavor problems
caused by underpitching were due to an increase in yeast mass
growth, as some HB books suggest,  then the differences would be
relatively small. Such a small difference is not the primary factor in
the very substantial flavor differences that appear in underpitched
worts.

What is much more important are the growth conditions.  For
examples sterols and UFAs have three potential sources - wort
(from malt & hops), dissolved O2 which permits synthesis and
the pitched yeast cell lipid reserves. The wort can provide only a
small portion of needs, and also the dissolved O2  is only marginally
capable of supplying the all sterols and UFAs which appear in the final
yeast cake.  So  actual pitched yeast sterol and UFA reserves are an
extremely important factor in the total available sterols and UFAs,
and so underpitching limits these lipids in the final yeast population,
and can have dramatic effects on growth, fermentation rate, attenuation,
and the production of fermentation flavor by-products.

Underpitching doesn't damage beer flavor primarily because the
amount of yeast growth is greater, but because the growth conditions
differ, particularly toward the end of fermentation.  When the yeast run
into nutritional roadblocks it causes metabolic changes that can result
in relatively large amounts of flavor active by-products.

===

Dave Burley asks,

>Anyone care to explain how agitation causes the
>formation of fusel alcohols?

Mechanical or shear stress cause the release of some
haze forming materials, mannan and certain glucans and
extracellular enzymes (like invertase) from yeast.  Why fusels
should be formed at a higher rate is unclear to me, but it's pretty
clear the rough ride yeast get on a stir plate is not very good for
beer.  It is good for yeast growth however.

===
Nat Lansing writes  ...

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

>Good to know that A-B ( biggest purveyor of crap-beer in the world) at
>least has clean yeast.

Non-sequiteur, Nat.  You said ...
>Do you think large commercial breweies are working
>with 100% pure pitching yeast?
and I responded that their controls are much better than
those you site, not that their beer is superior.

>How would one explain the toxic fermentation
>byproducts that give a large number of drinkers a
>headache before they finish a single can?

There isn't any very good evidence about what causes hangover
headaches besides dehydration and poor liver function.  Fusels
have long been suggested , but there isn't much evidence to
support it..  "Toxic fermentation byproducts" is an almost
meaningless term since it includes ethanol and esters.  I am not
aware that very many people complain about hangovers from AB
products, but if they do then it's a good bet that it's not from fusels or
infection by-products. since AB products are notably low in these.

>>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.

Washed - or acid washed ? Two different things.

>Perhaps this yeast has adapted to work in this fashion.

Acid washing causes problems for the cell walls of the yeast
and abnormal budding - among other things.  It's pretty unlikely that
they could adapt to this.

>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).

Acid washing does de-floc yeast, but so does the presence
of fermentable sugars.  I've NEVER seen any source that even
hints that acid washing improves attenuation - tho' it reportedly
often reduces viability.  The idea that 10% of attenuation is lost
per repitching without an acid wash is an effect so huge that if it
were true it would appear in big red letters on the front of every
brewing book printed.

The stated purpose for acid washing yeast is to kill non-yeast
beer infectious organisms that are more sensitive to the acid
wash - not to defloc or improve attenuation.  If your breweries
are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then
infection is the source of the problem.

I can't speak to the flavor impact of acid washing from personal
experience - it is too easy to reculture on the HB scale.

 -S






Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:17:01 EST
From: KMacneal at aol.com
Subject: Re: Use of peat smoked malt

I've brewed 2 beers using peat smoked malt.  The first was a Scotch Ale and 
the other a porter.  In both cases I used 1/2 lb. of peat smoked malt and was 
pleased with the results.  The smokiness was present without being 
overpowering -- nowhere near a rauchbier, but definately not subtle.

Keith MacNeal
Worcester, MA



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:25:18 -0500
From: "SCHNEIDER,BRETT" <SCHNEIDERB at morganco.com>
Subject: William's Keg Carbonator Stone

Well, I just had my first chance to use this new toy, a belated xmas gift
since they were out of them when the order was first placed (in time for the
big day). My inital findings are: you NEED to be sure it is pushed a fair
distance into the inlet dip tube or the poppet gets stuck in the open
position and you get a beer guyser when the gas is removed.

Somehow,either the little rubber gasket piece or a sharp edge on the end of
the ss tube grabbed a hold of the mushroomed-over end of the poppet shaft
and wouldn't let go, or something ele I missed went away by pusing the whole
assembly farther down the inlet dip. First I tried to change the poppet
innard, but that didn't work. So, I pushed it in about another 1/4" and now
it's better.

Only 24 hours on the gas but so far it seems pretty neat. Not too much
foaming up eother whwn I had to relieve pressure to work on the inlet - only
the third try did something come out the lid valve, but I changed lids at
the same time and tonight I'll sample the IPA to see final results.

Just a data point for the collective for a (so far) happy customer....

bas


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 05:46:15 -0700
From: "Dick & Cecilia Kuzara" <rkuzara at wyoming.com>
Subject: Enameled Kettle Handles

I boil in an 33 quart enamel canning kettle (probably the standard kettle of
this type obtainable at hardware stores, etc.).  I lift this kettle by the
handles (carry it from stove to counter) when containing about 6 gallons of
boiling hot wort.  Has anyone experienced trouble with the handles coming
off?  This would be severe (I have taken to wearing rubber boots when
carrying the kettle but that would not protect the house/floor from the hot
sticky wort).

Dick Kuzara - rkuzara at wyoming.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:36:10 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Bruheat Burning,Musty taste, SS vs Al

Brewsters:

Sean O'Sullivan asks how an electric
brew kettle he has used for a decade can
suddenly started burning his brew when
he tried a protein rest and wonders if it
is the protein rest which is causing the
problem.

It is not the protein degradation during
the protein rest which mysteriously
caused your brew kettle to burn your
batches, that is pretty certain.  It possibly
is due to the fact that your heater has
more power going through it than in
the past for one of several possible
reasons 1) Co-incidental
with your protein rest experiment your
heater controller went awry, unlikely
as that might seem.  Ask the
manufacturer for some guidelines to
test this out. 2) your starting brew is
colder and more heat is being applied.
3) The control has a  burned" spot on
it from being on the same spot for
a decade causing malfunction.

Alternatively 4) For some reason,
pehaps mash thickness, the heat
generated by the heater can't depart
from near the heater and it burns the 
sugar  Try using a thinner mash.

Sean, I spend two fun years as a
Post-doc at Swansea and still have
good friends there.  Are you with
the University ?

Cymru am Byth!  Jachyd Da!  
- -------------------------------------
Wayne Love asks about that "musty"
taste he gets when he reuses a
yeast cake from a previous brew and
about an Aluminum vs SS kettle.

Wayne, it is possible that taste you
are experiencing is an infection or
possibly the beginning of yeast
autolysis if you are keeping the 
yeast around at room temperature
in beer, although I would not
descibe either as musty.

If you have an infection, as you are
early in your brewing career, now is the
time to upgrade these necessary
skills in sanitization. Use boiled water
for rinsing, bleach or other sanitizing
agent to keep everything clean,
clean, clean.

If you still have such a problem, I
suggest that before you recycle a 
yeast cake that you give it a wash 
with 1% tartaric acid, three rinses
with boiled cooled water and then
use this in  a starter. Pitch the yeast
slurry after overnight cooling to 
allow you to pour off the starter beer.

Aluminum works just fine as many 
past discussions have indicated,
but I suggest you look into using
two 5 gallon cheap SS kettles.

These boil faster on two burners 
and are much easier to handle and 
store. The thin metal can cause
some potential problems with high
heat, so consider some sort of
heat deflector on the burner between
the kettle and the burner if this is
a problem.

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley
Dave_Burley at compuserve.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 08:37:46 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: Weizen secondary needed?

Guess I'll throw in my two cents worth on this one.

I have to agree with George in that I don't see any need for a secondary
with Bavarian Weizens. I've used mostly Wyeast's 3068 and always gotten
excellent results with this yeast. I bottled my last 3068 Weizen after just
ONE week in primary and had no problems with yeast autolysis. No extra yeast
or lager yeast was used to bottle condition. Also, the beer was stored at
room temp. On the other hand, it tasted so good maybe it didn't last long
enough to develop any off-flavors... ;)

 -Alan Meeker
 Lazy Eight Brewery
 Baltimore, MD




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:02:59 -0500
From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com>
Subject: Re: hp and pulley for motorized mill query

I just motorized my homemade mill this weekend.  Here are the details:

Motor (salvaged from I don't remember what):
     Dayton 5K-045
     115V, 1500 RPM, 3.4 Amps, 1/10 hp, 60 cycle.

Motor pulley: 1.5 inch diameter

Roller pulley: 10 inch diameter

Belt:
     Service King 4L350
     1/2 x 35 FHP

Roller diameter: 1.68"

It worked quite well.  The motor doesn't have a lot of starting torque so
sometimes, with the hopper full, I have to "bump" the big pulley to get it
started.  It doesn't slips however.  The belt tension is just the weight of
the motor.

You might need the roller diameter to get an idea of the tangential
velocity of the grain at the crush point.

Good Luck.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 06:31:39 -0800 (PST)
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com>
Subject: 2nd Annual Palmetto State Brewers Open -Judges Call

BJCP judges are invited (ugh...begged) to sign up to
participate in the 2nd Annual PBS Open April 8,
Columbia, SC.

Contact:  Jim Griggers   brew at conterra.com

or reply to this post

http://www.sagecat.com/psbcomp2.htm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:47:22 -0500 (EST)
From: MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: I like 'em young and yeasty...

Howdy,

	I have to agree with George DePiro on this one.  I don't secondary my
weizens any longer because I find that I prefer the flavor of younger weizens.
So I drink them as soon as I can and a secondary is a waste of my time.  I
also don't care for "klar" or "kristal" weizens, because I think the suspended
material actually adds flavor and mouthfeel that I want in my weizens.
Stability has not been an issue as they don't last long.

	Of course, this is just how I prefer my weizens.  Be all means, do the
experiment for yourself.


Mike Maceyka
Baltimore and Takoma Park, MD
Why yes, this is related to my thesis...




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:26:12 -0800 (PST)
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com>
Subject: Where to get Beer in Charlotte, NC

Where do you get beer in Charlotte, NC.  Near Adam's
Mark?  What happened to Johnson Brewing in Charlotte. 
Web site dead.

Thanks
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:24:13 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Trials & errors of a beginner

Wayne Love <lovews at auracom.com> has some questions:

> would appreciate if some kind soul could take the time to
>prepare a list of the most often used abbrev. and acronyms and what they stood
>for.

Someone has done this and has it on his web page, I think.  Or you could
check the archives at http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/cgi-bin/dothread.
There was talk at one time of puting a FAQ at the HBD web site (
http://hbd.org ), but there doesn't seem to be one yet.
<snip

>1)   The problem is that twice now I've had a batch that has an almost musty
>unpleasant after taste. <snip>

It's very difficult to identify this without tasting it.  You don't say
where you live, so I can't recommend a club, but if there is a club near
you, join it!  It's a great way to get objective (sometimes) or at least
different evaluation of your beer and some ideas for remedying the problem.

>2)  This brings up another question. Is there a standard set of terminology
>used to describe off taste?

Lots.  There is a flavor wheel that was developed by Morton Meilgard of
Stroh's several decades and refined since.  I think it is published by the
American Association of Brewing Chemists.  It may be on their web page.
There have also been some articles in the late Brewing Techniques magazine
http://brewingtechniques.com/ on flavor evaluation.  There might also be
something at

>3)   How long and at what temperature can I keep my ale in the secondary
>fermentor before I could run into problems?

At cellar temperatures of 55F or lower, many, many weeks.  At your 64F,
several weeks.
>
>4)  How long and at what temp and under what pressure can I keep ale in my
>corny kegs?

I have a stout and ESB from this summer in my cellar (50F, they were in a
temperature controlled freezer at 54F until the cellar closet got cold
enough).  They are both still in fine shape.  I keep them at aboput 4 psi
for low carbonation, and use a pocket beer engine in the glass to get a
creamy head and even more mellow carbonation.

A pocket beer engine is a narrow outlet 5 or 10 cc syringe.  I use an oral
irrigator.  You suck up a few cc's of beer, then squirt it back into the
glass.  Be sure if it's very carbonated to leave lots of head space for
foaming.  With my low carbonation, I get about 3/4 inch of tight foam.
Someone pointed out that rather than calling it a pocket beer engine, I
should call it a pocket sparkler.  I guess that's more accurate, but I like
the other name.
>
>5)  I need to purchase a new stock pot. Has anybody had any problems using
>aluminum instead of stainless steel? For about half the cost I can buy a much
>thicker and sturdier aluminum one.

I've been brewing in aluminum for seven or eight years with no problem.
For three or four years I have used a three vessel RIMS using 10 gallon,
5mm thick aluminum stock pots.

This is thrashed out occasionally here, but generally with less vigor than
before.  I think it's pretty well accepted that there are no prolbems with
aluminum now.  The reason it isn't used commercially is that you can't use
caustic on it for cleaning in place and it is soft.  I've had no problem.
A BT article several years ago showed no aluminum pickup in wort boiled in
aluminum.  I get no flavor pickup, including in light, delicate American
lagers.  What's more, aluminum has *much* greater heat conductivity than
stainless steel.

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: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 09:24:55 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject: lactic acid

lee preimesberger writes:

>I ended up using what seemed to be an obscene amount of it considering
>it's strength ( ~ 1 teaspoon of 88% solution for a mash of ~ 11 lbs pale
>malt).  From the bit I snagged from the bottling bucket, it sort of seemed
>to have a weird taste, I think

>1) How much of this stuff can you dump into the mash without it being
>detectable or killing all your friends or family members?

>2) How much do people who know what they're doing normally use of this
>stuff?  :-)

My tap water weighs in at 9 to 10 on the pH scale.  Because of this, 
I regularly add lactic acid to both the mash infusion water and the 
sparge water to lower the pH.   I measure the lactic acid with a 
syringe that is marked in milliliters (you can get a fairly accurate 
one at a pharmacy for measuring cough medicine and the like 
for kids) and I use a pH meter to keep track of the adjustments.  
I guess you could use a tiny graduated cylinder (0 to 10 mL) for the 
measurements, but the lactic acid is quite viscous and sticks to the 
sides.  A syringe works best.  I bulk treat ten gallons at a time since 
this gives me enough water to mash and sparge a typical 5-gallon 
batch of all grain beer.

Anyway, I have kept a fairly good record over the years 
of the initial pH, the final pH, and amount of lactic acid that I added to 
the tap water.  Here is what works for me:  

3 to 5 milliliters of 88 percent lactic acid added to 10 gallons of tap 
water at a pH of 9 to 10 lowers the pH down to the 6 to 7 range.  
I do not try to hit some magic "optimum" pH of 5.whatever.  
All I know is my tap water is unacceptable as is and I try to 
lower it down to what I consider something that is more 
acceptable.  Other than that, I simply do not worry about it. 
(If the water came out of the tap anywhere between 
a pH of 6 and 8, I probably wouldn't do anything at all.)

FWIW - The medicine syringe indicates that 5 mL is approximately 
equal to 1 teaspoon.  I would not however, try to measure 
the lactic acid with a set of kitchen measuring spoons.  Too much room
for error.  

As for taste, I always taste the treated water and compare it to 
the original tap water just to make sure I didn't do anything wrong.  
I definitely can taste a slight difference.  The treated water is 
a little more "sour" tasting.  Not real sour like vinegar, just a little
sour, barely sour at all.  Most of the sourness that I perceive 
is probably all in my mind.  I had my wife taste samples of treated 
and un-treated water and she could tell that there was a difference, 
but could not explain what it was.  Even when I suggested "sour", she 
did not agree.

Anyway, the treatment makes great beer.  Hope this helps.



Paul Niebergall
Burns & McDonnell
pnieb at burnsmcd.com
"Illegitimis non carborundum"



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:36:07 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Glaring Error

I must apologize for a glaring error in yesterday's post. Everywhere I
used gm/L it should be g/dL i.e. grams per deciliter. For grams per
liter multiply by 10.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:58:37 -0800
From: "John Todd Larson" <larson at amazon.com>
Subject: Re-pitching

I have never tried re-pitching yeast, but thought I may give it a try.  I am
looking for the absolutely easiest approach and own no lab or special
equipment.  I kegged my beer from a secondary this past Saturday.  I left
about 1/2" of beer covering the thin layer of yeast, put on an air lock and
put the whole carboy in the fridge.  What should I do to use this yeast next
weekend?  Any and all thoughts are much appreciated.

Todd

J. Todd Larson
Treasury Manager
Amazon.com
larson at amazon.com
(206) 266-4367



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 15:57:33 +0000
From: geeks at worldnet.att.net
Subject: Explosive ferment

Well, it finally happened to me. I've read and snickered 
about it for the last few years, and it finally happened 
to me. Sigh.
   I brewed a barley wine/imperial IPA, or whatever, and 
had the thing pitched with a gallon of well-aerated 
yeast, and did a few shots of O2 into the wort. After 3 
hours a nice, steady 'blort-blort' was heard from the 
guest bathroom /fermenting room, which I temperature 
control with a heater.
   I went to bed with visions ( err, tastes ) of good 
homemade beer in my mind. Until my wife woke me up and 
said, in a half-panicky voice "dear, your beer blew up, 
and its STILL leaking." groan.
   So, there is a big 'target' of splooge on the bathroom 
ceiling, and lots of collateral splooge all over the 
walls, mirror, sink, vacuum cleaner, and heater. And 
there's about 1/2 gallon of partially-fermented beer/wort 
on the floor. groan.
   Anyway, does anyone have any suggestions on how to 
clean up the hoppy splooge on the ceiling and the walls? 
It's a cheap, semi-gloss, looks-like-non-latex white 
paint. My guess is to let it dry, gently scrape off what 
I can, and, perhaps, use a tsp solution to gently wipe 
off what's left. Any of you 'experienced' types care to 
offer suggestions? Snickers and laughs of derision will 
be quietly absorbed, advice greatly appreciated.
   
Thanks,
   Sticky in Golden


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 11:08:35 -0500 (EST)
From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff McNally)
Subject: re: 6th Annual Boston Homebrew Competition Results!

Hi All,

  For all that remember, I posted an IPA recipe in HBD #3183
(01-dec-1999) in response to a request for info on cloning 
HopDevil/Tupper's IPA.

  In HBD #3258 (02-25-2000), Tim Holland posted the results from
the recent Boston Homebrew Competition thusly:

>Best of Show
>1) Geoffrey McNally, IPA, Tiverton, RI (South Shore Brew Club)

  Well, believe it or not, this is the same IPA that I posted    
the recipe for!

  Enjoy!

                                            Hoppy brewing,

                                            Jeff

==========================================================================

Geoffrey A. McNally                  Phone:  (401) 832-1390
Mechanical Engineer                  Fax:    (401) 832-7250
Naval Undersea Warfare Center        email:
Systems Development Branch              mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil
Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2              WWW:
Newport, RI  02841-1708                 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 10:05:55 -0600
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: hp and pulley for motorized mill query

>From: scott at wilderglass.com

>My query to the group is what horsepower motor?  What diameter pulleys on
>the motor and roller shaft respectively?

The motor I use was from a Kenmore washing machine.  I used it because it
was free, (from my old washer), and seemed perfect for the job.  It is
easily removed with only a couple wrenches.  The motor is a 2-speed
1045/1700 rpm motor with a belt pulley already on it that is about 1 inch in
diameter.  I use a long belt from the motor to the 5 inch pulley at the mill
shaft.  The motor is used at the 1045 speed which gives 1045 rpm / (5/1) =
about 209 rpm.  This is just about the perfect speed for my Maltmill.

This motor is a capacitor start with tremendous starting torque, and I can
easily start the mill with the hopper full.  Things just purr along and I
can crush 20 pounds in 3 or 4 minutes.  The mounting is a little tricky
because it uses four threaded studs extending out from the face of the motor
(looking at the pulley), but all I did was to use a couple pieces of angle
iron with the studs secured to the angle iron, then this mounted to the
wooden bulkhead wall into which I cut slots for tension adjustment.  I will
have some photos soon of the mill on my web page, just not yet - first need
to shovel more dirt and plant grass in the yard.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu
http://hbd.org/rlaborde



Return to table of contents

---