---

	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:
  re: aerating meads (Dick Dunn)
  Temperature Controllers (Joe Kish)
  Soapy beer ("Fred L. Johnson")
  OT - microscope info? ("Darrin Smith")
  Acid Washing (Dave Burley)
  Misquote or misunderstood ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  pitching your dopplebock (Nathan Kanous)
  Budswill ("Dave Hinrichs")
  boosting carbonation in bottled beer (J Daoust)
  10 oz Budwiser? ("Kelly")
  yeast for bottling (cbuckley)
  Lactic ("Paul Niebergall")
  Re: First Wort Hopping (Jeff Renner)
  Bicarb (AJ)
  Malt Mill woes ("Philip J Wilcox")
  Re: Enameled Kettle Handles (Jeff Renner)
  musty notes in beer ("Alan Meeker")
  Re: enameled kettle handles (Gary Williams)
  Yeast Growth (RCAYOT)
  33 Quart Enamel Kettle Handles (John_L._Sullivan)
  Aeration and ceiling splooge (Brian Myers)
  Ceiling Splooge?! Please... (Some Guy)
  pitching rates ("Paul Niebergall")
  re: Not one Element but Two & mash stirrer ("C.D. Pritchard")
  High Gravity Pitching rate. (Mark Staples)
  Re: strange flavor ("Steve Stripling")
  another pitch (Tom Meier)
  chilling in secondary ("Thomas D. Hamann")


* 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: 29 Feb 00 23:02:43 MST (Tue)
From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: aerating meads

Aaron Perry wrote:
> I've made a few meads and never bothered to aerate before pitching.  I heat
> the full volume of water with the honey and chill, rather than heating the
> honey with some water and adding to more cold water.  So,to aerate or not to
> aerate? Any insight would be great.

There is a larger perspective to be gained here.  Overall, when you are
trying to get a beer going, you want fermentation to start as fast as
possible, because the risk of infection due to a lag in fermentation is a
Big Deal.  This is not the case with mead!  I'm sure it is possible to get
an infected mead fermentation, but I've never seen one (in 17 years of mead
making and tasting).

[If you move on to cider, you will discover that the balance tips all the
way to the other side:  Cider-makers take some pains to get a *slow* fermen-
tation.  In short, rapid fermentations produce undesirable results in
cider.]

There is another consideration, namely not cooking off the volatile parts
of the honey character.  The best way to do this (IMNSHO) is to boil the
water only, then add the honey and cool as quickly as you can.  [If you're
making a melomel, make the water/honey must first and add it to the fruit
to cool further.]  

Aerate if you have the equipment and if it makes you feel good.  It might
help; it can't hurt as far as I can see.  But don't worry about it.
- ---
Dick Dunn          rcd at talisman.com          Hygiene, Colorado  USA
   ...Simpler is better.


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 22:11:59 -0800
From: Joe Kish <JJKISH at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Temperature Controllers

That nice temperature controller that Jeremy Bergsman told us
about sure has a nice price range (19.95) but the temperature
range is too small for brewing.   That range--30 to 110 degrees
might be nice for an egg-hatching incubator or starting seeds in
a box.   That Web Page (www.TekSupply.com) will not tell you
anything unless you sign up with them.
  Surely there's got to be better temperature controllers than that
out there!   Does anybody know of controllers good for RIMS
that go from 100 degrees to 212 degrees F, and don't cost an
arm and a leg?    Even Radio Shack has one for $180.00.  How
about something we can build ourselves?   For $20 or $30?

 Terence Tegner was going to supply the HBD with a Beautiful
Controller, but It's hard to say what happened to him?  He has
wiring diagrams and layouts, too.  It looks like he dissapeared!
 Can anybody dig him up??
                                         Joe Kish




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 06:45:47 -0500
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Soapy beer

Marc Sedam asks what could be causing a soapy taste in his CAP:
 
I have often had the impression that Sam Adams Boston Lager tasted a
little soapy, and I assumed that it was related to the hopping.  Has
anyone else ever thought this about Sam Adams?  And can anyone advise
me on the hops in Boston Lager.

(Of course, what you are tasting in your beer, Marc, may be nothing
like what I taste in a Sam Adams.)
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 04:21:04 PST
From: "Darrin Smith" <drsmithhm at hotmail.com>
Subject: OT - microscope info?


After having recently read the extensive discussion about
yeast on the diet/science/flamewar/homebrew digest(not
necessarily in that order) and having my tax return
burning a hole in my pocket, I started looking for a
microscope.  Due to misuse/abuse that is inevitable with
used optical instruments, I decided new was the way to go
and I found the following scope(paste it together to
go to that page):

http://www.worldofscience.com/cgi-local/shop/search.cgi?
user_id=33046&template=detailed.htm&0_option=1&0=213645

I have 2 problems with this scope, and I was hoping some
of the more science inclined could enlighten me.  First,
if you recognize this scope and know the original
manufacturer, please let me know -- this vendor knows
very little about what they sell and can't even tell me
if I can get a stereo head for it!  I won't go into the
details, but I do need to know where I might be able to
find accessories.   Second, I know little about how to
use an oil immersion objective -- Is there a web page
somewhere that details general use of such a feature?

ObBeer:  This all started with beer yeast.  If nothing
	else, this would allow me to draw my own
	conclusions from some of the info I've learned
	on the digest.  I will hopefully be able to
	restrain myself from posting my armchair observations
	to the digest. :)

TIA
- --Darrin

ps - I have no idea what my Renarian location is, and it doesn't
	seem to have a negative impact on the beer. YMMV.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 07:30:30 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Subject: Acid Washing

Brewsters:

Kevin Basso asks for an easy acid
washing technique for yeast.  Check
the HBD archives. You will find it is
just as easy as I indicated. 

Make up a ~ 1% solution of tartaric acid
( from your HB/wine hobby dealer).
1 gram per 100 mls of cold boiled water.
Pour off all the beer above a yeast
slurry, rinse it with cold boiled water
by adding about a cup of water in a
container ( I use an ehrlenmeyer flask)
swirl, allow to settle ( in the fridge
about 1/2 to 1 hour) , pour off the
supernatant liquid. Add the tartaric
acid solution, swirl and allow to
settle, pour off the supernatant liquid.

Try to do this step without an overnight
hold as the acid conditions are not 
enjoyed by the yeast. I typically allow
about a half hour for this. Don't know
how critical this is and it likely varies
from yeast to yeast. I have never had
a problem. Repeat with
three washes of cold boiled water.
Pitch to a starter solution.

Some breweries just pitch this
directly to the fermentation
chamber, without a starter,  but I
suspect they have several batches
to blend it out.

Acid washing is not a necessary thing
unless you recycle your yeast many
times. Likely you can get by with just
washing the yeast free of beer ( a source
of bacterial food) with three cold water 
washes and storing the yeast under 
cold boiled water in a capped beer 
bottle in your fridge for a long time.

Pitch this yeast to a starter before you
use it.

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley 


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:01:26 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: Misquote or misunderstood

Steve responded, >>There isn't any very good evidence about what
causes hangover headaches <<
  I wasn't talking about hangovers, I mentioned headaches that 
happen with only *1 beer.

>>and I responded that their controls are much better than
those you site, not that their beer is superior.<<

The point I was making was that such stringent microbiologic controls
weren't a necessity for good beer. Dr. Fix gives a spec of <50 cells per
ml to be regarded as "clean", with the specs published by Danstar and
Coopers
giving <16 cells per ml at a pitching rate of 12.5e6/ml. Again I must say,
pretty
darn clean.

>>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.<<

Why not? cold temperatures (approaching 32 degrees) produces "no growth"
in S. Cerevisiae, yet repeated storage at these temperatures gave us a new
yeast, S. Uvarum. Twenty years of repitching and acid-washing (and the
occasional
dumping of a "bad" batch) could select an acid tolerant strain.

>>If your breweries
are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then
infection is the source of the problem.<<
  That is purely conjecture.

NPL.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 08:15:59 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: pitching your dopplebock

Jerry,
Wait.  See what happens with your starter.  Start cold and then let it 
slowly rise into the "normal range" for this yeast.  When it's done, if it 
looks like you need more attenuation, then consider adding additional yeast 
IF you need it.  That's my $0.02.
nathan in madison, wi


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:30:23 -0600
From: "Dave Hinrichs" <dhinrichs at quannon.com>
Subject: Budswill

All this talk about Budswill and hangovers. Personally I have had like three
in my whole life. It's gross and disgusting and as my friends and I say
"Sorry, I am not THAT thirsty". I had a homebrew party last year, a guest
brought a 12 of Bud, I asked him to leave. As Nancy Reagan says "Just Say
No".

 Dave Hinrichs



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 06:39:04 -0800
From: J Daoust <thedaousts at ixpres.com>
Subject: boosting carbonation in bottled beer

I currently have a small carbonation problem, with two batches of beer
(both 3 gal.) The beer has failed to carbonate properly. It has a little
carbonation, but not enough. I think I got the sugar amount right (1/3
cup) to prime, but to make sure, I uncapped and added some recently. I
used 1/8 and 1/4 tsp. of corn sugar 3 each in a six pack as a test.
There was no additional carbonation.  I am thinking now, the yeast
(white labs, california ale) ran out of sugar early in the primary, and
crumped.  I am going to try and add some sugar and yeast to another six
pack and see what happens. The original gravity was not abnormally high
(1.058). Any thoughts????????
e-mail is welcome, Thanks, Jerry Daoust



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 09:20:58 -0600
From: "Kelly" <kgrigg at diamonddata.com>
Subject: 10 oz Budwiser?

Where do you get Bud in 10 oz cans?  I've only seen it in 12 oz.....maybe
the occasional pony sized ones, but, never see a 10 oz can or bottle.  Is
this outside the US?

Kelly

Quoted Stuff:\----------------------------
>For Steve: I know one guy who refers to Budweiser as "hangover in a
>can", an asessment with which I essentially agree. If I go to an
>ordinary bar with normal people and have two 10 Oz Bud's I feel worse
>the next morning than after three pints of one of my own creations even
>though the latter is more alcoholic. I've always blamed this on the
>noticeable levels of acetaldehyde in Bud (gives it that apple-like
>aroma) which is, after all, the stuff of hangovers, but I rather doubt
>that the small amount that produces the flavor is significant relative
>to the amount oxidized from alcohol during metabolism.


A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any other invention,
With the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila.




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:27:26 -0500
From: cbuckley at newsoft.com
Subject: yeast for bottling



Darrell Leavitt writes:
"In a back room that I use for lagers, I have several containers full of
chilled water.  Well, the other day I decided to place a Burton Ale into
50F water thinking that this might help to clarify the final product....but
I woke up this morning thinking that I had made a mistake; ie, perhaps
there might not be enough yeast left for bottling!
 The ale had been in secondary for just over 1 week....Should I have kept
it around 60F to keep some of the yeasies around ?"

I also have the same question.  I recently moved my secondary full of ale to a
nice cool spot.  I was trying to get the real hazy beer to clear up some.  Well
it did clear up nicely.  ten days after I bottled the beer there was almost no
carbonation and no sediment on the bottom of the bottles.  Is this because too
much yeast fell out?  Should I just wait longer or can I add a little yeast to
each bottle?  I just want to know if time will fix this or if there is something
I can do now....

Thanks for any advice...




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:32:00 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject:  Lactic

Dave Burley writes about the "correct" way to adjust mash pH:

>adding lactic acid to
>your water before mashing to get to a
>pH of 6-7 will IN NO WAY guarantee that
>your mash pH will be correct. 

Whatever Dave.  If you are looking for GUARANTEES 
in home brewing,  you will never be happy anyway.

I never said that was trying to achieve the correct mash pH.
I simply stated that my water comes out of the tap at high pH 
levels (sometimes as high as 11).  This is un-acceptable to 
me so I knock it down a few points by adding lactic acid.
Call me crazy, but it just makes good common sense to 
start with neutral brewing water rather than water at a pH of 11. 
I rarely ever measure the pH of my mash.  Dave goes on to 
present a rather involved method of adjusting mash pH which
is backed up by A.J. later in the digest.  

While I do not disagree at all with any of the information that was 
posted, this is an all too typical case of making things way more 
complicated than they need be.  It is no secret that the water in 
my part of the country (Kansas City area) has a high pH.  I am 
just looking to adjust it to a more neutral starting position.

It is interesting that someone in our local home brew club did some 
checking a few years back on local water conditions and brewing 
water treatment in the Kansas City area.  It turned out that two water 
treatment techniques were used by most, if not all, of the local 
breweries operating at the time. Carbon filtration to 
remove chlorine and acid treatment (with either lactic or phosphoric 
acid) to lower the pH.  Both techniques are extremely fast, simple, and 
work very well.  Nothing more than that came up.  No boiling, no 
cooling, no decanting off the precipitate, no lime treatment, no 
chanting and walking around in circles, and no actual 
acid additions to the mash. I couldn't imagine spending (wasting) 
the extra time it would take to boil my water first, add chalk, cool 
decant, etc.

Martin Brungard writes:

>Paul's mention of his water supply's very high pH is alarming. The legal 
>limits for pH in a drinking water supply are 6.5 to 8.5 pH units. Paul, I 
>would either question the pH meter you are using or I would raise an alarm 
>with your water provider. Hopefully a smart guy like yourself is using pH 
>buffer solutions to check and calibrate your meter, and if that is the case 
>then I would alert your water supplier that you are measuring excessive pH 
>in their system. They have to correct it ASAP under the requirements of the 
>Clear Water Act.

Yes my pH meter is calibrated.  I use fresh standard solutions and do a three 
point calibration at a pH of 4, 7, and 10.

Actually the Clean Water Act sets only "Secondary"  standards for pH.  
Secondary standards are "unreinforcable federal guideline regarding 
taste, odor, color, and certain other non-aesthetic effects of drinking water.  
The  EPA recommends them to States as reasonable goals, but federal law 
does not require water systems to comply with them."  The secondary 
standard for pH of 6.5 to 8.5 was established in 1996 and is considered "final" 
by the EPA.  (The material appearing in quotes above is quoted directly 
from the EPA publication "Drinking Water and Health Advisories, 
October 1996.  This information is available on the web at 
http://www.epa.gov/OST/Tools/dwstds.html).  I deal with the EPA a lot.  
Believe me, that last thing they worry about is the pH of your tap water.




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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:16:39 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: First Wort Hopping

"Bill Bunning" <bunz at pcola.gulf.net> asks

>I know this has been covered here before many times but I was wondering how
>exactly do you "first wort hop"?

At it's most basic, you add some/most/all of your flavor/aroma hops to the
first collected wort.  It givbes inproved hop flavor and perhaps aroma.

This method was first reported to HBD by george Fix several years ago.  It
was a German method at the turn of the century (100 years ago, guess we'll
have to come up with a new term for that period now) that was rediscovered
and investigated recently in Germany and reported in Brauwelt.  Taste
panels prefered FWHed Pils over those hopped conventionally and found the
bitterness more pleasing and not more bitter, even thought they tested
higher in actual IBUs.

Commerical breweries have a big enough thermal mass in the kettle to keep
the temperature at lauter temperatures (~170F), but we homebrewers have to
keep so low heat on it during runoff.

This is my SOP for CAPs and other pislners, and I have used it in APAs
(that's standard operating procedure, Classic American Pilsner and American
Pale Ale) and even English bitters.  There is no documented evidence that I
know of of American brewers 100 years ago using FWH, but since they were in
close contact with Germany, and often trained there, I infer that it was
know and used here.  Besides, I really like the flavor.

It's conventionally done with noble hops, and I've had luck with EKG (East
Kent GOldings), Centennial, Cascade and Columbus.  I tried it once with
Cluster hops in a CAP, though, and it was not nice.  Almost like someone
had put blackberries or black currants into the beer.

For a more details, see former HBDer Dave Draper's summary at
http://brew.oeonline.com/ddraper/beer/1stwort.html.  (This may have a more
up to date hbd.org URL).

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, 01 Mar 2000 10:36:21 -0500
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Bicarb

Scott Jonhson posted pH:  7.77, Total Solids (mg/L):  166, Alkalinity as
CaCO3 (ppm):  72, Hardness as CaCO3(ppm):  94, Sulfate (ppm):  30,
Calcium (ppm):  26.5, Magnesium (ppm):  6.4, Sodium (ppm):  12.7 and
asked some questions about this water. First was as to the bicarbonate
and carbonate levels. For pH below about 9 (this water qualifies)
bicarbonate ion concentration is 61*alkalinity/50 = 87.8 mg/L. At pH 7.7
about 95% of carbo molecules are bicarbonate and about  0.5%
bicarbonate. There are alkalinity/50 = 1.44 millimoles of bicarbonate
per liter (times the molecular weight, 61, gives the mg/L bicarb). There
are, thus, about (1.44)(0.5)/95 = 0.0076 mM/L carbonate. Multiplying by
the molecular weight of cabonate, 60, gives about half a milligram per
liter for that species.

This water is typical of that found east of the Mississipi and is
suitable for brewing most styles of beer. The exception would be beers
which use large quantities of noble hops as the sulfate is high enough
to render these harsh. Thus for Bohemian Pilsner the water should be
diluted 3:1 or so with deionized water (3 parts deionized to 1 part tap
water). For the beers associated with hard water supplementation with
sulfate and perhaps chloride (which will be low in this water, probably
less than 10 mg/L) will be required. For most brewing, don't worry about
it. If you lean towards ales experiment with gypsum  incrementing the
amount added until the hops are as you like them. Then perhaps add a bit
of calcium chloride to see if you like what it does for mouthfeel.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:37:53 -0500
From: "Philip J Wilcox" <pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com>
Subject: Malt Mill woes

Jack and the HBD

The last 3 brews I have scorched my mash tun because of heating while losing the
recirculation due to a stuck mash. My maltmill is one of your non-adjustable
mills. The Grain has been Durst Pils then Budvar Pils then Durst Munich and Pils
for a Doppel. The last of which was notabley full of flour-the grains were well
mixed before milling. This fall, the schive on the motor i was using broke, and
I was force into using a new Shive on the motor one size smaller than the
previous broken one. I figure no big deal, it will just take a little longer,
faster isnt always better anyway.  Well, that being a bigger change than using
pils malt this summer to pils malt this winter. Why the change in results????

Would "wet milling" be helpfull in my case? if so, how should I go about
"Wetting my grain" Is this and overnight thing or a half hour before milling
kind of thing? How much water per 10 lbs should be my goal to add for "Wetting"?
my plan is to use a spray bottle on the malt while I pour it from one bucket to
another.

WIll this help???? or do i stoop so low at to use rice hulls????

Phil Wilcox




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:45:55 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Enameled Kettle Handles

I wrote:

>I used one of these for probably 15 years before going to aluminum 10
>gallon pots and never had a problem beyond a strained back.  Toward the
>carrying it for the same fear as you express.

Apparently gremlins snatched the middle of that second sentence.  It was
supposed to read, "Toward the end, rust spots around the welds began to
perforate the kettle wall and I stopped carrying it for the same fear as
you express."

Jack Baty <jack at wubios.wustl.edu>wrote:

>It happened to me not long after I started using the pot.

I suspect this was from a defective weld since it happened when it was new.

I am grateful I haven't had the searing experiences Rich Sieben has had,
but I agree on not carrying hot liquids.

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, 1 Mar 2000 11:04:07 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: musty notes in beer

One potential source of "musty" character is the compound
3-hydroxy-2-butanone, more commonly called "acetoin." It is an intermediate
species between 2,3-butanedione (AKA "diacetyl") and 2,3-butanediol.
3-hydroxy-2-butanone is formed during the reductive elimination of diacetyl
by the yeast and is described as having a musty flavor. The flavor threshold
is some 5-10 fold higher than that of diacetyl so you'd have to postulate
some mechanism by which it would accumulate to this level (ie - not undergo
further reduction to give 2,3-butanediol) . Was there a high diacetyl
character prior to the mustiness?? Other sources of musty flavors might
include bacterial metabolites or fungal contamination (of the barley or
malt) but if it comes and goes this may implicate yeast metabolism and the
diacetyl pathways then seem reasonable suspects...

Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 08:36:02 -0800
From: Gary Williams <jgwillfind at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: enameled kettle handles


Please allow me to echo Mr. Sieben warnings against the carrying of boiling 
liquids/hot pots.  It ain't worth it.  In another incarnation I worked 
various restaurant kitchens (over 15 years) and have watched many a 
regretful person try to "hurry it up" trying to keep pace with demands, 
have done so myself and carry the scars.  Again, it ain't worth it and 
besides, wort chillers are the neatest things.

So is the 4 wheel cart I use to rolls big, full pots/carboys around on. 
 The cart used to be used to roll some large, heavy electronic thingy 
around, can't remember what I traded for it (not much) , but works just 
like what I used in professional kitchens to move large stock pots with. 
 Go slow, watch for imperfections in the floor... and I could go on.  Just 
get me started on the correct use of knives in a fast, crowded working 
environment sometime.

While I think about it, yes, handles on large pots are designed to stay on, 
before, during and after cooking heat is applied.  However, I have used one 
handled stock/cooking pots before, didn't matter, was only sliding them 
around.  Have a 15 inch skillet with no handle, too.  They became one 
handled through lots of use, the point being, it can happen.  Don't put 
that much faith in something you don't have to, when potentially, so much 
can be at stake.


Gary Williams
Closet Brewer
Corona, California


Return to table of contents


Date: 01 Mar 2000 11:06:23 -0500
From: RCAYOT at solutia.com
Subject: Yeast Growth

     Steve asks:
     "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 ?"
     
     Unh... yeah, I think thats the point.  Of course you point out that 
     cell division and growth in and of itself is not the problem, buyt the 
     condition of the yeast.  well I agree, but we are talking about yeast 
     growing in a limited environment.  the yeast go into a fermentation 
     (after the lag phase) with everything they are going to have fopr the 
     duration.  under identical, and not ideal conditions, the fermentation 
     that has more yeast, IMO, will more likely lead to fewer problems.  
     Its really a lot simpler than one might think.
     
     Roger 
     



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:02:17 -0600
From: John_L._Sullivan at NOTES.UP.COM
Subject: 33 Quart Enamel Kettle Handles



Jeff Renner stated...

> I used one of these for probably 15 years before going to aluminum 10
> gallon pots and never had a problem beyond a strained back.  Toward the
> carrying it for the same fear as you express.  I think they'd have to be
> designed to hold a kettle of liquid since that's clearly their intended
> purpose.

Jeff:  Actually these are canning pots and ARE NOT designed to be filled
full with any kind of liquid and moved about.  Enough liquid to do the
canning job is all that was ever intended. When loaded with liquid, rack
and jars, it was still not designed really to be moved about.  It's
supposed to sit in one place on the stove until the canning job is done.
After the jars are removed, it can be picked up by the handles safely if
you have not overfilled it with water.  With 5 or more gallons of hot wort
in one of these kettles, only move it by grasping the kettle rim.  With hot
wort this will mean that you will also need something to protect your hands
from being burnt.  Once you have this protection on, the hold on that small
rim is precarious to say the least.

John Sullivan
St. Louis, MO




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:29:15 +1300 
From: Brian Myers <BrianM at AdvantageGroup.co.nz>
Subject: Aeration and ceiling splooge

Aaron Perry asks about aeration:

>I've made a few meads and never bothered to aerate before pitching.  I heat
>the full volume of water with the honey and chill, rather than heating the
>honey with some water and adding to more cold water.  So,to aerate or not
to
>aerate? Any insight would be great.

I recently did an experiment in which I split a 10 gallon batch into two
carboys.  I aerated one by rocking the carboy vigorously for several minutes
(my usual procedure) and the other I did not aerate at all, except for the
small splash during transfer.  Fermentation action was visibly identical,
the final gravities were the same, and the two beers taste the same, so
far, according to everyone who's tried them side-by-side.  I used Edme
dry yeast, one 10 gram pack per carboy, dumped right in (not re-hydrated,
as I have done similar experiments in the past which show me that there
is no noticeable difference between re-hydrating, and not).  I believe
that for normal (not high-gravity) beers, and when using dry yeast,
aeration makes very little noticeable difference. Aeration *does* seem
to make a big difference when pitching liquid yeasts, and it also seems to
help high-gravity beers finish.

Dave Burley says:
>To "Sticky in Colorado" : As long as 
>you use a carboy for your primary
>you will run this risk of splooge on the
>ceiling. 

I don't agree.  I like to use carboys.  If I suspect a batch might climb
out of the carboy, I put a piece of aluminum foil over the top rather
than an airlock for the first day or so.  It may overflow on to the floor,
but it won't clog the airlock and then explode on to the walls or ceiling.

regards,
Brian Myers



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 18:06:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Some Guy <pbabcock at hbd.org>
Subject: Ceiling Splooge?! Please...


Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...

Sir Dave of Burley spaiketh thusly:

>To "Sticky in Colorado" : As long as
>you use a carboy for your primary
>you will run this risk of splooge on the
>ceiling.

In the words of Col. Sherman T. Potter: horse puckey!

I've used a carboy for primary for as long as my ten gallon crock (rest
its soul) has been broken. I've never once had ceiling splooge. If you use
a blow-off hose that fits in a stopper, or if you use an airlock before
kraeusen falls, you're at risk, but come on! It's NOT the carboy - it's
all the other apparatus some slap in the mouth of the thing.

 -
See ya!

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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 17:17:31 -0600
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject: pitching rates

I just thought that I would add a note of reality to the current 
pitching rate debate.  Remember the Palexperiment back in 1998?  
The Palexperiment involved 45 home brewers brewing the exact 
same recipe and a judging to see which of the beers turned out 
the best.  If I recall correctly, the ingredients list specified that a single 
Wyeast Smak-Pack (1056) be used to innoculate the boiled and cooled 
wort.  That's right, NO STARTER!.  This was done to eliminate the 
variables that would occur with different starter sizes.  (The intent 
was for everyone to use Exactly the same ingredients.  Technique 
may vary, but ingredients including the exact amount of yeast had to 
remain constant).

Anyway, the Palexperiment came and went, results were posted, and
I believe even Louis Bonham volunteered (courtesy of BT) to do laboratory 
testing on samples of the beer that were submitted.   It is interesting to note 
that one of the laboratory tests included "Bacteria Contamination Tests - 
(LDMA)".  

The web page detailing all this is found at:

http://gatekeeper.bdsinc.com/~jjorgens/ 

What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that clearly 
(by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the 
HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched.  Yet nowhere 
on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were 
subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome  
of the experiment, is there any reference to "problems" 
occurring from "underpitching".  Not one reference to 
off-flavors, bacteria contamination, undercarbonation, 
excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero.

I wonder why this is?  You would think that if there was 
a problem somebody would have surely pointed it out.  You  
would think that if 45 people did something as terribly wrong 
as underpitching to such a severe degree, an overwhelming 
abundance of problems would have occurred that could not 
possibly be overlooked.

According to the expurts here, 
the 45 batches of beer would have been "severely" 
underpitched thus causing any one of a plethora 
of problems that would render the beer undrinkable.
According to the expurts, it would not have been just a 
minor problem with one or two of the samples, but 
virtually all of the beer should have resulted in ruin.
(What if I was a newby and suggested to the collective 
that I was brewing my first beer and planned on 
pitching a smak-pack without a starter?  Could you 
imagine the responses I would get from the expurts??)

Maybe the expurts are wrong?  
Maybe the expurts should stop spurting forth from 
so-called text books?  Maybe we should all take 
a good hard look at some real data.



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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 18:52:44
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Not one Element but Two & mash stirrer

Got behind in my HND reading...  

Brad Miller posted in Subject: Not one Element but Two

>	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?

It depends on the rated power of the heaters and the voltage and circuit
breaker rating of the branch circuit you connect to.  Use the following to
evaluate the particular situation:   I = P / V  Where: I= current that the
element will draw at the element's rated power (P) and the circuit's
voltage (V) (not the element's rated voltage).  Calcs. for connecting
elements in parallel and in series are (as the textbooks say) left to the
students as an exercise.

If the circuit won't handle both and your RIMS controller cycles the power
on/off (i.e. not a dimmer type control), the following will ensure only one
of the elements can draw power at a time and that the RIMS element will
have perference. 

        +---------NC---> HLT element
        |     
Hot >---+--X--+---NO---> RIMS Element
              |
            Coil    X= on/off control for RIMS element
              |
Neu. >--------+

I used something similar for a couple of years.  With an insulted and
covered HLT, the water in it has plenty of time to heat up to sparging
temp. while the RIMS heater isn't drawing power (i.e. during rests).  

- --------------
Joseph Gibbens posted about his false bottom supports putting holes in the
bottom of his Gott mash tun and asked about mash stirrers.

A manifold will put hardly any pressure on the bottom of the tun.  Also, ne
made of SS mesh liberated from plumbing connectors allows a higher recirc.
flow than the false bottoms I tried.  

For a stirrer, see: http://hbd.org/cdp/rims_inf.htm#retmanifold.  They are
valuable for doughing-in and freeing up a stuck grain bed. 

c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net 
http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 16:16:21 -0900
From: Mark Staples <mark at wildales.com>
Subject: High Gravity Pitching rate.

Jerry, what does ok mean, well attenuated? Some clasic examples of
dopple bock
have relativly high final gravities.  The question might be what is your
preference sweet or dry?

Pitching 1.5 gallons is a good pitch rate for lagers. And 308 is great
on high gravity brews and will have no problem taking a 1.080 beer well
below  1.015.

In predicting a final gravity a more important variable is wort
fermenability.



RE: Other stuff
This is my first time on this forumn.  Is there always this much
cry-baby-stuff going on?
Who is Privo.

RE: Pithcing Rates
My reseach shows a gram of dry yeast is roughly 14,000,000,000 cells.
Based on that  I calculate a rate 4 grams per gallon for 1.050 beer to
be about right.
I don't care what Lalymaid says.  Wyeast says to pitch a 50ml smack pack
too,  which is about 50 times to little yeast.

As far as making good beer when under pitching, without doubt you can.
However, can you do it consistently, not lickly.  Under pitching becomes
a far greater problem if the yeast is going to repitched.


Mark



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:25:14 -0600
From: "Steve Stripling" <steves1 at hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: strange flavor

In #3262, Marc Sedam asked about a strange flavor in a CAP.

Hey Mark,

I've occasionally had the odd taste from a single sample from a batch. I've
attributed it to somehow transferring an offending substance to the glass I
was drinking from, something on my fingers (garlic, gasoline, and perfume
odors are hard to remove), or possibly something that I've eaten previously
(in the way that eating artichokes makes water taste sweet). Don't know if
this is the case for you, but I take comfort in my simple explanations,
especially when the problem goes away.

Steve Stripling
Huntsville, AL



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 19:33:37 -0600
From: Tom Meier <tom.meier at mindspring.com>
Subject: another pitch


Thought this would fit in with the recent Bitchin'
about Pitchin'.....

ok, it seems that nearly every batch I have problems
getting the correct starter (number of cells) pitched.
The results is high gravity beer that is ok but not great.

Last batch I used a 1/2 gallon starter on a 1.057 OG stout.
I pitched the starter while the yeast was still in suspension
and there was a good head of foam. Was this too early? 
It must have been because I aerated well and it still 
finished high at 1.020 FG, even after a secondary ferment.

Preparing for my upcoming batch, I let a Wyeast XL pack
ferment out a 1L starter. By the time the yeast was settled
out (2.5 days) it smelled of autolysis. I am sure of this
because I have created autolysis on purpose before so I'd
know what it smells like. 

I guess I am closing the gap on when/what to pitch, but its
damn frustrating. Can anyone recommend what size starter to 
use and at what time to pitch it?  I have had one good 
result using a 50ml wyeast into a 500 ml starter that 
was partially settled out.  I have read it is best to 
pitch at high krausen while the yeast are still floating,
but my own experience says otherwise.

By the way, can somebody from Wyeast post some suggestions? 
I am about to switch to dry yeast, but if I had some 
good pointers....

Tom Meier
Decatur, AL






Return to table of contents



Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 13:37:34 +1000
From: "Thomas D. Hamann" <tdhamann at senet.com.au>
Subject: chilling in secondary

Don't worry Darrell, be happy, I've had many beers (lagers and ales)
stored in the fridge at temps between 0-10 degC and have never had
probs with carbonation. They had been lagered for 1-5 weeks and have been
high and low gravities too. My guess is that you'll be fine.


>From: "Darrell Leavitt" <Darrell_Leavitt at sln.esc.edu>
>Subject: question: chilling ales in the secondary ?
>
>In a back room that I use for lagers, I have several containers full of
>chilled water.  Well, the other day I decided to place a Burton Ale into
>50F water thinking that this might help to clarify the final product....but
>I woke up this morning thinking that I had made a mistake; ie, perhaps
>there might not be enough yeast left for bottling!
> The ale had been in secondary for just over 1 week....Should I have kept
>it around 60F to keep some of the yeasies around ?
>
> Worried.
> ..Darrell



Return to table of contents

---