---

	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:
  Those pesky identities ("Dr. Pivo 49")
  RE: Question on Belgian beers (Graham Sanders)
  Stated values of attenuation ("Doug Moyer")
  Vacuum sealer bag & hops? ("J. Doug Brown")
  misplaced hefeweizen (Mark Tumarkin)
  misc stuff ("Louis K. Bonham")
  Belgian Wit (Nathan Kanous)
  Oatmeal Stout ("Penn, John")
  RE: No Sparge Barleywine ("Frank J. Russo")
  Grain Mill Rollers for a homebuilt mill ("Scott W. Nowicki")
  A Canadian Hefeweizen! ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
  Re: FWH (Jeff Renner)
  Mash hopping ("G. M. Remake")
  Wyeast Contamination - Part 2 ("H. Dowda")
  2 questions from a new guy. ("J. Morgan")
  Mash-out and efficiency (Chris Cooper)
  genetic yeast engineering for foam retention ("Czerpak, Pete")
  AHA-NHC First Round Judging In Chicago, May 12 & 13 ("Jim Hodge")
  No Sparge Barleywine (Project One)
  Re: No Sparge Barleywine ("Brian Dixon.")
  Boiler as settling vessel? & April Fools page ("C.D. Pritchard")
  Phil's Philler (Dan Listermann)
  Re: canning hops (Mark Kellums)


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

* Entries for the 18th Annual HOPS competition are due 3/24-4/2/00 
* See http://www.netaxs.com/~shady/hops/ for more information

* 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th
* More info at:  http://www.hotv.org/fest2000

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, 29 Mar 2000 13:02:15 -0500
From: "Dr. Pivo 49" <drpivo at pivo.com>
Subject: Those pesky identities

HBDers,
    I am a little concerned about the poster hiding behind this Fred Garvin
character. How can we trust the comments that he makes? Is he truly as
perverted as he claims, or is he attempting to use his professed authority
to mislead us into performing unnatural acts with bottle brushes and
PrimeTabs?
    People who are dishonest about their identities are obviously inferior
brewers, and should refrain from doing anything but cowering in the linen
closet. (So, Fred, please--back into the closet!)

Ing. Makju




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:08:15 +1000
From: Graham Sanders <GrahamS at bsa.qld.gov.au>
Subject: RE: Question on Belgian beers

G'day all

In relation to Julio question of fresh yeast for bottling High gravity
Belgian beers.  My own experence may help.

I've been making dubbels and trippels lately and transferring them into kegs
when after two to three weeks fermentation.  When I want some bottled
"belgian beauties" I just make up a starter of 300ml about 1.040, let it go
for two days, then cool it overnight, run off the liquid and cut this yeast
between 18 grolsch bottles primed with 1/2 teaspoon of sugar.

I have on occassions had the odd exploding bottles, even from kegs that have
sat for two months.  I put it down to two things.  Firstly I have found some
Belgian yeast will attentuate the last of the sugars slowly.  I have bled
off excessive pressure from my keg months after kegging. This leads to the
second cause that maybe I not pitching enough and getting to that final
t-gravity. I doubt this as I do not get this with all my kegs, only certain
strains of yeast I seem to have this problem.

The pitching of fresh yeast will certainly give you the possiblity of
explosions if your yeast is still working, (be it very slowly) or you
haven't reach t-gravity.  If you keg your beer (which I like to do and run
off bottles as I need them with fresh yeast), I speak from experience when I
say use less sugar than you would normally for a bottle or two first to see
if its ok to go the full hog on carbination.

The advantage of kegging is you can get that perfect carbonation with fresh
yeast once you know where your kegged beer is at with a minor bit of
experimentation (thats if you are after those high carbonation levels those
belgians, and myself, love)

Shout

Graham Sanders



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:40:12 -0500
From: "Doug Moyer" <shyzaboy at yahoo.com>
Subject: Stated values of attenuation

Brewers,
    I am quite confused about the often repeated differences in attenuation
attributed to various yeasts. Can someone please explain how one yeast will
attenuate less than another? Intuitively this seems like hogwash. Bold
statement, huh? But here's my thought process...
    Lots of folks in hbd-land bottle condition. If the yeast had stopped
attenuating due to the oft-stated "alcohol tolerance" then the bottle would
    Let's set up a thought experiment. (I don't brew often enough for real
experiments.) If we take a batch of bitter wort and split it in two (say
1.050 OG) and use two different yeasts, by what mechanism could they end up
at different terminal gravities? Let's not assume any unusual yeasts. How
about a couple of popular choices: Wyeast 1056 (73-77%) and Wyeast 1728
(69-73%). The apparent attenuation ranges, as stated by Wyeast, do not
overlap between the two yeasts.
    Now, some of y'all will state that 1728 flocculates more than 1056, and
accordingly, will result in lower attenuation. If that is the case, then why
would it bottle condition? Oh yeah, you say, the yeast gets back into
suspension when racking to the bottling bucket. If so, why doesn't it
overcarbonate, as it chews up the malt sugars left over from fermentation
along with the corn sugar?
    As I see it, both yeasts are going to consume all of the available
(fermentable) sugars. Any differences will come from the ingredients and
method that the brewer uses. I.e., a brewer will use 1728 when making a
bigger, maltier beer, which means more crystal, etc. If there are
differences in the strains (in attenuation) then it will be negligible.

Whaddya think?

Brew on!

Doug Moyer
Salem, VA

Star City Brewers Guild: http://hbd.org/starcity

"Give a man a beer and he wastes an hour.
Teach a man to brew and he wastes a lifetime."
    ~ ?? (Back of a t-shirt)



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:10:02 -0500
From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown at mteer.com>
Subject: Vacuum sealer bag & hops?

Hello,
  Just wanted to say thanks for the many suggestions of using a vacuum
sealer and bags for storing hops.  Just one more question on this
thread.  I had read that when storing hops to not crush them.  Does
vacuum packing hops in vacuum bags crush the hops significantly enough
to cause a problem, ie lupulin glands bursting, and is this really a
concern?

  Thanks for your help
  Doug Brown
- -- 
		     J. Doug Brown - Fairmont, WV
			Sr. Software Engineer
	         jbrown at mteer.com     jbrown at ewa.com
		www.labs.net/kbrown       www.ewa.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:15:42 -0500
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: misplaced hefeweizen

Beth writes:
Ok, I know you'll all laugh and wonder how I could misplace a keg of
beer,
but it was done.  After my superbowl party, my husband moved my
half-full
cornie keg of hefeweisen to a corner and then promptly covered it with a

blanket.  It has been stored under CO2 pressure at about 60-70F.  My
question for the brew-rus-is this keg of hefeweisen shot or should it
still be
ok if I get it chilled?  Thanks!


Well, there's one simple way to find out, and I hope you've already
answered your own question. Chill it and take a taste. Is it still good?

But in general, 60-70 is not a bad storage temp. Obviously, the cooler
the better, but these are certainly lower temps than in my storage area
in Fl. I have a beer fridge (in addition to my fermenting fridge) but it
only stores just so much. So for most beers I'd say you should be ok.

However, hefeweizens aren't most beers. I find that they need a couple
of weeks storage - bubblegum esters are too prominent when real young,
but fade somewhat and allow the clove and banana flavors to come forward
after a few weeks aging. They are then at their prime for a month and a
half or so. After that they really start to loose the freshness and
esters/phenolics - that is, if they last that long.

So taste your hefe and see what you think.

Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, Fl



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 06:45:26 -0600
From: "Louis K. Bonham" <lkbonham at hypercon.com>
Subject: misc stuff

Hi folks:

A couple of random responses to recent HBD questions:

Doug Moyer asks if home distillation of beverages for personal use is legal.
Let me assure you that in the US is is most definately NOT legal, both under
federal law and also the laws of most states.  The BATF regs are quite
clear -- indeed, the exception that allows you to operate a small laboratory
still without a BATF permit (i.e., for distilling essential oils or doing
various biochem experiments) expressly *excludes* using the still for the
distillation of alcoholic beverages.

I have a small lab still that I use for doing ethanol assays per the ASBC
methodology.  This has required me to have a Texas state permit for the
equipment (no big deal to get, but acquisition of the distillation equipment
without one is a state jail felony [read: 1 year imprisonment], and a BATF
permit.  I got my BATF permit by specifically promising that the distillate
of the alcoholic beverages would be discarded immediately after analysis and
not consumed or saved.

As to "the BATF doesn't care" or "you'll never get caught" arguments, I
leave those for others in the HBD collective.  For me, my livelihood depends
on obeying the law -- even laws that might be construed as silly or
overreaching.
========
Tony Barnsley asks about doing a no-sparge barleywine.

Tony, the technique you are describing is what I called a "dilute mash" in
my Brewing Techniques column, and is a modification of the no-sparge
technique that I and others have used for normal gravity beers.  (In this
technique, you bump up the grain bill by 20-25%, add sparge water at mashout
(without draining), recirculate, and drain.)

For barleywines, I suggest using the "pure" no sparge technique -- just bump
up your normal grain bill by a third, mash as normal, and then drain the
first runnings to the kettle -- i.e., no sparge at all.  (You'll probably
want to make a small beer from the second runnings -- add a bit a black
patent to your grain bill **after** draining the first runnings, refill and
recirculate, and you'll probably have the beginnings of a nice mild.)  Using
this technique and a really stiff mash, I often have first runnings that are
well in excess of 24P (1.100) before the boil, which makes the addition of
additional sugar to the kettle unnecessary.

LKB



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 07:40:17 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Belgian Wit

Victor,
Try these sites:
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/realbeer/Belgian/index.html
http://hubris.engin.umich.edu:8080/realbeer/Belgian/white-brewing.html

The first is general, the second is the Belgian Wit site. I've been quite 
happy with the results of brews made according to this guide.  The Wit site 
even discusses the use of lactic acid.

Hope this helps.
nathan




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:55:28 -0500
From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu>
Subject: Oatmeal Stout

 This is probably a question for Jeff Renner, but I was wondering if I can
use regular oatmeal in a partial mash?  Should I use the quick 1 min oats,
or the old fashioned longer-to-cook oats?  I see flaked oats at the homebrew
store but didn't know if I need to go to all that trouble.  I was hoping I
could just throw them in the mash without having to do the extra steps of
the cereal mash that I've seen recommended.  Any good recipes for an oatmeal
stout?  I was kind of thinking of something like...
  1# of oatmeal
  2# english pale malt
  1/2# roasted barley
  LME as needed to bring gravity to about 1.055-7.
  Hops to about 40 IBUs or so
  Any inputs would be appreciated.
    John Penn
    Eldersburg, MD


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:22:54 -0500
From: "Frank J. Russo" <FJRusso at coastalnet.com>
Subject: RE: No Sparge Barleywine

Tony Barnsley calculated the IBU's of his Barleywine to be 80.  My
calculator gives me a whopping 185!!!

Anyone else check this?  I calculate the color to be a Lovibond of 47, and I
get the same OG  1.105 using a 60% efficiency.  However I suspect the actual
efficiency with a no sparge is closer to 50%

	 Hops		Quantity 	Boil	 		Bitterness
 	 		Ozs	AA 	Time 	 		Units
 	Target	1.90 	11.2%	90	pellet	94.1
 	Fuggles	1.75 	5.0%	60	pellet	38.7
 	goldings	1.50 	6.0%	60	pellet	39.8
 	fuggles	0.60 	5.0%	30	pellet	6.6
 	goldings	0.50 	6.0%	30	pellet	6.6

 Total International Bitterness Units    		185.9


Frank
Havelock, NC
ATF Homebrew Club of NewBern



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:40:00 -0500
From: "Scott W. Nowicki" <nowicki at voicenet.com>
Subject: Grain Mill Rollers for a homebuilt mill

Does anyone know where I might be able to purchase (or scrap & re-engineer)
rollers for a homebuilt grain mill?  I'm currently using a Corona mill, but
I'd like to move up to the more effective roller mill design.  Given the
price of these mills, I thought I'd give building one a shot.  The design is
simple enough, and the precision mechanics of it all (for adjustment) will
be a slight challenge - but I have some ideas.

My problem is the rollers.  Unfortunately, I've never really looked closely
at a roller mill (other than the photos on The Valley Mill page), which
would probably help me come up with some ideas.  Actually, from looking at
the Valley Mill Page (http://www.web.net/~valley/valleymill.html), I got the
impression that a steel bar-bell bar might work for the roller stock.  Does
anyone know of a source for roller stock material, or even replacement
rollers for existing mills?

As a last resort, if I can't locate a suitable stock material or pre-built
rollers, my Father used to be a machinist and with a suitable design, could
probably make them out of stainless steel.  In which case, are there any
suggestions on the design (depth of groves, diameter of shaft, etc.)?

Does anyone know of any good designs for a homebuilt mill on the web (or
elsewhere)?  I've never been able to find one.

Thanks in advance for any help!  If I do pull this off, I'll certainly post
a "homebuilt grain mill" web page for others.

Scott Nowicki
Holland, Pennsylvania
nowicki at voicenet.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:51:10 -0600
From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders at paddockwood.com>
Subject: A Canadian Hefeweizen!

Canadian Prairie Dwellers might be interested in this:

Agassiz Brewery out of Winnipeg MB has a Hefeweizen!

Generally in Saskatchewan it's pretty much a beer wasteland. The good folks
at Bushwakkers in Regina brew a nice pint, but other than that it's Molson
or Labatt bland beer, or imported brew which has often skunked or staled.

So I was shocked to see a Hefeweizen at all, let alone one brewed so near by
that may actually be fresh. It was! And it was good! It was nice to have an
example with which to compare homebrew. Their flavour profile was exactly
what one would expect from Wyeast Weihenstephan Wheat #3056. I'm almost
positive that's what they've used. They missed the clove phenols -at least
below my threshold, but it was fairly banana. The yeast was quite settled,
but the date stamp on the box indicated it was fresh. he bottle doesn't say
to swirl up the yeast, so it can be poured almost Crystal, but it's not
nearly as yummy. They call it Harvest Haze Hefeweizen. Very brave of them, I
think, marketing a Hefeweizen in the land of Great Western Light and Labatt
Light...

Kudos to Agassiz...


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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:37:57 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: FWH

"Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> writes:

>I think it would be interesting to taste the product of a FWH beer where
>whole hops were used to line the false bottom in the lauter tun.  I'm sure
>someone has tried this one already and must be dying to spill his/her guts
>about how it tuned out..  <hint-hint>

Too bad you didn't make it to the MCAB2 in St. Louis where a 5 gallon keg
of my CAP FWHed just as you describe disappeared in about 20 minutes.  I
used 1 oz. Saaz and 1/2 oz. Hall. Hersb. for 7.75 gallons.  Everyone seemed
to like it.

At last year's MCAB Pete Garafalo had a triangle blind test with identical
beers - one FWHed and one using the same hops as late additions.  I could
tell the difference clearly.  Nearly everone at our table of perhaps a
dozen correctly picked out the different beer, although not everyone could
describe what made it different.  Interestingly, another table that was
assembled later after some strong recruiting came up with statistically
meanlingless results.  Not sure why, but I suspect they were less
interested or had more beer to drink before.

Pete might be able to give more information.

BTW, be sure to set plan now on attending MCAB3 next February.  The
tentative sites are Boston or central California, and the final selection
should be made soon, I understand.  It's a great weekend.

Jeff

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: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 10:08:09 -0600
From: "G. M. Remake" <gremake at gsbpop.uchicago.edu>
Subject: Mash hopping

The posts I've read recently on mash hopping got me curious, so I decided
to give it a try.  I brewed a single infusion 1.050 Cream Ale and hopped
the mash with 1.5 oz. of Saaz and 1.5 oz. of Hallertau (domestic).  The
only other hops addition I made was enough Hallertau for 60 minutes to get
about 20 IBUs.  Besides being appropriate for the style, I kept the IBUs
low to make obvious any flavor and/or aroma impact the mash hops may
contribute in the finished beer.

Well, the beer is still in the primary so I can't yet comment on the final
product.  The runnings certainly had strong hop flavor, and the boiled wort
did too, although it's hard for me to distinguish between bitterness and
flavor in unfermented wort.  There was definitely no noticeable hops aroma,
though.  I'm wondering if the final brew will be more bitter than expected,
and how the flavor compares to FWH which I do often.

The most noticeable result was the distinct improvement in my extract
efficiency.  I normally get about 72% efficiency (26.5 pts/lb/gal), but
this time I got 80% (29.4 pts/lb/gal).  Unless I decoct, that 72% rarely
varies, and I didn't do anything out of the ordinary besides the mash hops.
 Any guesses as to why I saw this jump in efficiency?  Has anyone else
who's tried mash hopping observed similar results?

I suspect two things going on: 1) all those hops flowers in the mash helped
ease the lauter, sort of like adding rice hulls for a rye beer, and 2) the
hops helped keep the mash pH lower.  I tested the mash pH after doughing
in, and it was where I expected (low-fives), but the last runnings were
only mid-fives (usually about six).

I'll report on the final results once the beer is ready.

Cheers!

Greg


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 08:39:50 -0800 (PST)
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com>
Subject: Wyeast Contamination - Part 2

11:22 AM EST 3/31/00
Technical addenda:  

Single paks of four dry yeast were also included
(Danstar Windsor, Manchester, Nottingham, Cooper
Lager). Inocula was prepared by weighing out,
asceptically, 100 mg and rehydrating in 100 ml of
water (10 ml ??, sorry, don't have these notes in
front of me)

BCG was, of course, incubated only at room temp in the
air, for 48-72 hrs.

Broth media were subcultured after 5 days incubation
to the media described in part one (less broth media),
and incubated under the conditions of the initial
broth media (that is, plates streaked from aerobic
tubes were incubated aerobically, etc) and after
appropriate incubation those plates were examined.

After growth was obtained typical colonies were
subcultured to plates to re-check for purity and this
material used to inoculate standard biochemical test
media, to assure that the organisms were Sacc.
cerevisiae. 

Examination of Growth: (cont.)  

Plates were examined for growth visually and
microscopically using a dissecting scope and
occassionally on a conventional scope.  Evaluation of
colonial morphology (shape, size, color, texture) was
made on general growth media. Differential
characteristics on BCG (color, color distribution,
size, shape, consistency etc) were evaluated.

Results:

Bacteria:  No bacteria were found in any yeast on any
medium, grown under any condition.

Wild Yeasts:  No yeasts other than Sacc. cerevisiae
group were identified.

Colonial variation:  In two strains of lager yeast,
based only on colony size, two colony types were
detected.  When the larger of the two was subcultured,
it threw both colony types.  In both initial and sub
culture the ratio was 40:1 or so (as I recall)
large:small.  Large and small colonies were subjected
to biochemical analysis and the profiles were
identical, as were apparent growth rates and other
aspects of colonial morphology.  

Personal observations:

Colonial mutants deriving from pure yeast have been
observed by others posting on HBD.  I do not make any
representation as to the meaning of this finding. 
However, I have seen this before in pure cultures from
other sources. I believe this phenomenon is well
covered in authoritative brewing publications, usually
in the context of 'lager' yeast.


Limitations of the study:

This study was designed to detect levels of
contamination which would affect other studies
on-going in my laboratory at that time.  There will be
those who fault the study because the presence of,
say, 10 bacteria per pack could not be detected.  The
limits of detection for this study can be - and I am
sure will be - calculated, by those interested for
whatever reason. Enjoy
 
This study was based on 23 individual paks (+ 4 dry). 
Others studying other paks, from other lots,
manufactured in a different time, of other yeasts for
other reasons and their own agenda will have their own
results, valid in the context of their experiments and
to the limits of their expertise.

I am working from personal desk notes that are over a
year old and my memory.  The bound lab ledgers are in
archives and I do not plan to dig them out.  Yeasts in
my desk records were assigned accession numbers. 
Sorry I do not have a Wyeast number list handy.

Let the nitpicking begin!!<grin>





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


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 09:47:28 -0700
From: "J. Morgan" <j_morgan at bigfoot.com>
Subject: 2 questions from a new guy.

(Crossposted to beer at cuy.net & homebrew at hbd.org to get the
benefit of the most possible answers.  I'm just that kinda guy...)

Hello, brewrus. Two quick ones:

1: My local brewshop owner advocates letting the krausen
fall back through the wort during primary, rather than
using the blowoff method, then using a secondary fermentation
for clarification.  Thoughts on the retention of krausen in the
primary would be appreciated.

2: I've sent two email messages to brewposter at aol.com, the
vendors of a poster described at www.consult.org/homebrew 
and have not received any response yet.  I thought the poster
might be a groovy thing to put up in the basement, any word on
whether they're still in business, or any leads toward a similar
product?

Thanks in advance.

- --
Jeff





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:51:43 -0500 (EST)
From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
Subject: Mash-out and efficiency


Greetings all! 
I thought I would throw in the following observation from my brewing
log with respect to the mash-out discussion.  I have never felt that
a mash-out was really neccessary in my brewery as the wort would be
immediately raised to the boil anyway.  I mash in a 7-gal. Rubbermaid
cooler with a dual SureScreen(tm) (the bussiness end of the EasyMasher(tm))
in the bottom.  The following describes my normal procedure (single-step
infusion and "batch sparging").

I mash-in with 1.25 qt of 168^F water per pound of grain.  Once conversion
has occurred I top-off the mash tun with 160^F water, stir the mash,
allow it to settle, recirculate until clear and then drain into my 
converted keg cooker.   I then fill the mash tun a second time with 160^F
water and repeat the above process. While the second batch is draining
I start the burner on the cooker and by the time it has drained I am
usually up to a boil.  I usually get around 28 points per pound of grain
(varies from 26 to 30).

Last weekend I brewed a combination pale ale/pilsner (10 gallons of 
1.060 wort split onto two different yeasts, Wyeast #1056 and Pilsner)
and increased the temp of my second "batch sparge" to 186^F 
(no this wasn't done for any scientific reason. I was just busy
and my hot liquor tank got up to 186^F before I noticed it! 
So I decided to try a "mash-out").  

The final mash bed temperature was around 176^F and to my surprise my
yield was around 32 points per pound of grain (I intended to make a
1.054 wort and ended up with 1.060!).  This isn't exactly science
just an observation.  

I really am not that concerned with efficiency as adjusting the grain
bill by a pound or two really doesn't bother me if it simplifies my
overall procedure (ie. the "batch sparge") but I do take notes and
calculate things like yield so that I might better understand what
is going on in the brewery.  I am still amazed that with relatively
few ingredients and a little bit of time and effort one can be
rewarded with BEER!  (This was my 80th batch by the way).  

PS.  The main reason for this batch was to test the starter preparation
method suggestion I recieved from Wyeast's David Logsdon (posted
in HBD #3269).  My ale got off to a good start in under 8 hours at
room temperature, and my pilsner was underway within 12 hours at 54^F.
I'll report on a flavor comparison once both beers have finished. 


Chris Cooper, Pine Haven Brewing (aka. Debbi's Kitchen) 
Commerce, Michigan    Member, Ann Arbor Brewer's Guild
(Approximately 25 miles from 0.0 Renerian)



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:04:42 -0500
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com>
Subject: genetic yeast engineering for foam retention

The below was taken from the MSN website when I went to go use my hotmail
account. Interesting...

ULF STAHL and a team of scientists at the Technical University in Berlin
have produced a brewer's yeast used in the fermentation process that is
enhanced with an gene called LTP1 to produce a better froth, according to
the magazine.
       "The basis of foaming in beer is the LTP1 gene," the weekly magazine
quoted him as saying.
       The protein made by the gene forms bubbles of carbon dioxide when the
barley is ground up and forced into water. More LTP1 produces more proteins,
which in turn create a more stable froth.
       But amounts of LTP1 protein vary in the barley crops according to the
weather. More LTP1 is produced in barley crops during dry summers than in
wet ones.
       The genetically modified brewer's yeast secretes so much of the
froth-making protein that the beer will produce the same amount of foam
regardless of the quality of the barley.
       Stahl said German brewers had expressed interest in his work, but at
the moment they do not think there is much of a market for the beer because
of the German public's opposition to genetically modified food.
       
       (c) 2000 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:33:29 -0600
From: "Jim Hodge" <jdhodge at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: AHA-NHC First Round Judging In Chicago, May 12 & 13

The judging for the Great Lakes region of the AHA-NHC for 2000 is swiftly
approaching.  This year the judging will be held May 12 & 13 at Goose Island
 - Wrigleyville, 3535 N. Clark St., Chicago, IL.  We need both judges and
stewards for this popular annual event that is one of the largest single
homebrew competitions outside the state of Texas.  We have gained a state or
two this year from which to receive entries so more than ever we need your
support!

 Judges and stewards are requested to be at Goose Island - Wrigleyville at
6:30pm on Friday and 8:30am on Saturday.  A Thursday night session may also
be necessary at the discretion of the organizers.  Please contact the Judge
Coordinator - Jim Hodge - at jdhodge at worldnet.att.net or the Steward
Coordinator - Ron Phillips - at rmphilli at uic.edu.  Alternately, you can call
or send us snail-mail at the Chicago Beer Society address at the end of this
message.  Remember that your commitment to judge/steward is necessary to
insure that all entries are judged in a professional and timely manner so
let us know that we can count on your participation!  For further questions
you can contact the Site Coordinator - Jeff Sparrow - at
jeffrey.c.sparrow at monsanto.com.

Chicago Beer Society
PO Box 1057
La Grange Park, IL 60526
Phone: (847) 692-BEER
FAX: (847) 429-1995
www.chibeer.org



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:36:12 -0800
From: Project One <project1 at pond.net>
Subject: No Sparge Barleywine

Well, this is actually more of a batch sparge.  For true no sparge, you'd 
just do the first runoff & then boil.  I generally do batch sparges w/ 
about a 65-68% efficiency (depends on type of malt, how it's crushed, 
etc.), so 60% may not be too far off.

Hope this helps...

                 ----------->Denny Conn
                                 Eugene  OR

At 12:33 AM 3/31/00 -0500, you wrote:
>So to my question, Do I understand the process of No sparge correctly? That
>is, you Dough in with the normal amount of liquor, mash as normal, and then
>add all the 'sparge' water to hit the mashout temp. Recirculate and drain.
>
>Or have I missed the point completely?
>
>Is 60% efficiency a good guess / ball park figure for this process?
>
>Thanks for any help




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 14:04:32 -0800
From: "Brian Dixon." <briandixon at home.com>
Subject: Re: No Sparge Barleywine


[snip]
> Mash for 2 Hours at 65C then add the sparge water to hit mashout, stir,
and
> leave for 15 minutes. Recirculate until clear and drain into the boiler.
> Then boil to 20 litres with
[snip]
>
>So to my question, Do I understand the process of No sparge correctly? That
>is, you Dough in with the normal amount of liquor, mash as normal, and then
>add all the 'sparge' water to hit the mashout temp. Recirculate and drain.
>
>Or have I missed the point completely?

Yes, you understand the process.  Just mash as always.  When the mash is
complete, then add enough hot water (right volume and temperature) to raise
your mash temp to 74 C (165 F).  The 15 minute rest denatures the enzymes.
Then as it says, recirculate to clarify the wort, then let it slowly drain
into your boil pot.  This process is almost exactly what I do for big beers,
except I heat on the flame to mash out.  I let it take about 30 minutes to
drain.  Since I cannot mash around 30 lbs of grain at a single time, I
actually do 2 mashes.  The first is a "first runnings only", otherwise known
as a no-sparge mash.  The second is sparged just barely enough to get the
correct pre-boil volume in my kettle (about 8 gallons in my case.)

>Is 60% efficiency a good guess / ball park figure for this process?

Let's see ... the last brew I did this way utilized 29 lbs of grain and I
got a starting gravity of 1.125.  This represents, according to my grain
bill, about a 67% efficiency ... but remember that I sparge my second mash a
bit.  Even so, I'd guess that your 60% figure might be a bit low, but low is
better than high.  I'd brew it as instructed then adjust the amount of
sucrose in your recipe a tad to get your 1.105 OG.  Or just take it as it
comes and don't worry about it.

Brian




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 17:44:11
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net>
Subject: Boiler as settling vessel? & April Fools page

Before I commit a batch of ale to an experiment in trub removal, I'd like
to know if anybody has already been down this road or has any
thoughts/warnings on:  
5 minutes before the end of the boil, put in immersion chiller and put on a
tight lid/foam stopper on boiler, sub cool the wort to about 40 degF in the
boiler, allow the break to settle for a couple of hours, rack into the
primary via a manifold in the bottom, add O2, raise to 65 degF (about an
hour) and pitch yeast.  Details: all-grain, Wyeast Amer. Ale, Irish moss
and whole hops will be used and boiler has a manifold on it's bottom.  

Private email is fine.  TIA!

Also, the april fools day beer page is up:
http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/beerhold.htm    Enjoy!


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



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:59:35 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Phil's Philler

I would be remiss if I did not attempt to clear up a misunderstanding
expressed by Stephen Ross ( orders at paddockwood.com) regarding Phil's
Philler.  It is not made of stainless steel.  It is nickel plated lead free
brass assembled with lead free solder.  We have looked into stainless, but
have came to the conclusion that it might satisfy the many homebrewers who
have a strong fetish for stainless steel, but there are few who would be
willing to pay the price we would have to charge for them.

On another note.  Phil himself has started to work here.  He is now 19 and
needs money enough that working for the old man is not quite beneath his
exalted status.  His truck threw a rod.   I am pleased!   Not about the
truck, mind you.

Dan Listermann


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 21:46:16 -0600
From: Mark Kellums <kellums at springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: canning hops

J. Doug Brown asks about canning hops.

Since last fall I've been vacuum canning my hops in mason jars with the
Tilia Foodsaver. I can get 8 oz in a half gallon jar, 4 oz in a quart
jar, and a couple ounces in a pint jar. I then store the jars in my
freezer.

I also vacuum pack my specialty grains with the Foodsaver. A half gallon
jar holds just over two pounds. I don't store these in the freezer. I
don't have the room for that. They just go back into the boxes they came
in.

I got my Foodsaver at K's Merchandise Mart. It came with a couple rolls
of bags, a stack of precut bags, and a jar sealer attachment. The
manufacturer tells me the bags are oxygen barrier. With taxes it cost me
about $170.00.

Mark Kellums
Decatur IL.



Return to table of contents

---