---

	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:
  Yeast Q's-Dave Burley- Dr.Cone ("Rob Moline")
  Pump Problems (Brent Dowell)
  Buzz Off 2000 ("Houseman, David L")
  Dr Cone, Dry Yeast Amounts? (erniebaker)
  more thoughts on Samichlaus (Marc Sedam)
  Yeast Q's- Mike Rose-Dr. Cone ("Rob Moline")
  Bravo/Chloramine (AJ)
  starting out ("Sean Richens")
  Brita and screw-on filters ("Sean Richens")
  RE: Built-in cooler ("Richard Pass")
  But The Party Ends For Rick ("Phil & Jill Yates")
  Re: Keeping the cover on (KMacneal)
  re: Labatts Velvet Cream Porter ("Drew Avis")
  Dr Cone: Yeast Storage ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  yeast question for dr. cone ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Understanding lagering ("Brian Lundeen")
  Big Brew Day - How much water? (grigg)
  splooge (Marc Sedam)
  Phil's Lauter Tun (Dan Listermann)
  Syphon Problems (Dan Listermann)
  Re: Giving Jeff a break (Jeff Renner)
  Re: the immersion chiller shake (Jeff Renner)
  keeping iodophore (Jeff Renner)
  Re:the immersion chiller shake (Jim)
  Cardamom and fishing ("Paul Niebergall")
  Acidifying Sparge Water (Art Tyszka)
  dubbel (JPullum127)


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

* 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: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:46:53 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net>
Subject: Yeast Q's-Dave Burley- Dr.Cone

From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com>
Question for Clayton Cone:

Would you please discuss % attenuation, laboratory conditions of the
fermentation and method of measuring it?  Will all brewing yeasts with
similar bio-chemistries ( i.e. all those who can digest the same sets of
sugars) attentuate to the same percentage  under lab conditions  if stirred
during the fermentation and for a long enough period?

What are other practical factors in a fermentation that can affect
attenuation?

How do you account for the various attentuation limits given for similar
yeasts and how can we homebrewers use these numbers?


Dave ,
Attenuation has to do with the specific ability of each strain of beer
yeast to ferment the fermentable sugars present in wort. These sugars are
monosaccharides- (glucose / fructose), disaccharides - (sucrose / maltose)
and trisaccharides - (maltotriose). The ability to handle and the rate that
it handles each of these sugars is built into its genes, the DNA
instruction code. It is a fixed characteristic of each strain of yeast.
With an exact same wort, inoculation level, ppm O2 and fermentation
temperature, the same strain of healthy yeast should ferment at the same
rate and reach the same attenuation limit.

 A similar yeast, as you mentioned, will have its own DNA set of
instructions and it will march to its own drummer at its own cadence.
Outside influences can alter this: Change in wort composition, fermentation
temperature, too many repitchings, acid wash damage, poor nutrition, O2
deficiency for too long,  toxic material in wort, mutations and infection
(both wild yeast and bacteria).

Attenuation is the measure of the decline in  Gravity / Specific Gravity of
wort during fermentation. The reason there is the use of the terms
"apparent" and "real" attenuation / fermentation / extract is that the
initial and final, after fermentation, extract in the wort is measured by a
hydrometer that is calibrated to measure specific gravity (Gravity, Plato,
Brix, baume or % sugar).  There is a slight error in the specific gravity
reading at the end of the fermentation due to the presence of the negative
S.G. or thinning effect of the. alcohol .  The initial hydrometer reading
minus the final  hydrometer reading divided by the initial hydrometer
reading X 100 will give you the apparent  % attenuation or apparent degree
of fermentation.

To obtain the % real attenuation or real degree of fermentation you would
have to eliminate the alcohol by  boiling it off then add distilled water
to bring the volume back to the original volume, then take a hydrometer
reading. This would measure the real extract at the end of the
fermentation.  The initial hydrometer reading minus the final real extract
hydrometer reading divided by the initial hydrometer reading X100 will give
you the real % attenuation or real degree of fermentation.

The real finished extract is always higher than the apparent finished
extract; therefore the % real attenuation / degree fermentation will always
be lower than the % apparent attenuation / degree fermentation.

 All of the good beer yeast can handle the mono and di - saccharides with
ease, except a few that are a little more sensitive to  glucose inhibition
than others.  Glucose inhibition means that  the yeast has troubles
transporting the maltose into the cell until all of the glucose has been
converted.  This is usually not a problem with the alpha and beta amylase
present in malt.  However, with glucosidase enzyme additions to the mashing
or high DE syrups added as an adjunct, the glucose levels can slow the
fermentation down considerably and possibly stop the maltose fermentation
before it is complete.  Low nitrogen levels in the wort can make the yeast
more sensitive to glucose inhibition.

It is the variation in ability of the different  yeast strains to handle
the tri - saccharide (maltotriose) and variations between batches of wort.
that usually causes the most variation in the % attenuation.   It is also
not recognized as well as it should that a few degrees in mashing
temperature between mashes can make a noticeable difference in the wort
composition and in turn result in a variation in % attenuation.

 Example:

         % wort solids        Temp. of mashing .
                              60C  66C  68C
     Monosaccharides*         10.1 9.5   10.2
     Disaccharides*           51.7 48.1  42
     Trisaccharides*          14.3 13.6  12.7
     Maltodextrins**          23.9 28.8  34.9

     % Extracts               76.2 75.3  74.6
     % Fermentables           76.1 71.2  65.1

     *   Fermentable
     ** Non-fermentable


This variation in wort composition found in the above mashing temperature
range can be a very useful tool for the brew master to assist in designing
his/her own style of flavor and mouth feel of beer and explains the range
of attenuation that can be found with the same strain of yeast.

Variations in wort composition due to the addition of caramels, dextrins
and different adjuncts result in different levels of unfermentable
carbohydrates and will give you higher a gravity at the end and lower
attenuation even though the fermentation is complete.

There are two official methods to determine the attenuation limits and the
amount of fermentable sugars  present in a wort for a given strain..  The
American Society of Brewing Chemist (ASBC) that takes 48 hours and the Mid
European Beer Analysis Comity (MEBAC) that takes 24 hours.

ASBC:
250 ml. aerated wort in 500 or 1000 ml. fermentation flask. (measure
initial extract, plato, S.G.)
1 gram compressed beer yeast (vacuum filtered)
Close with water or mercury seal.
Hold flasks at 15 - 25C.
Shake several times daily
When fermentation is complete, about 48 hours, filter beer free of yeast
and determine apparent  and real  extract. and calculate the apparent and
real % attenuation.


MEBAC
200 ml. aerated wort. in 1000 ml. Saugflasche* (measure initial extract,
plato, S.G.)
15 grams compressed beer yeast (vacuum filtered)
2 - 4 drops
Ferment at 20C for 24 - 26 hours.
Determine gravity.
Determine gravity again after 3 - 4 hours.  If gravity is stable,
fermentation is complete.
Filter wort and measure final extract (real and apparent)..
* The Saugflasche flask is designed to measure the flocculation
characteristics of the yeast at the same time..
During the commercial production of every batch of beer, a small portion of
the batch is added to this flask and the flocculation characteristics are
monitored on every strain daily to determine if there is any change in the
normal degree of flocculation or absence of flocculation.  This is an early
warning sign that a fresh culture of yeast might be needed sooner than
scheduled.

Apparent attenuation limit (%) =( initial extract (S.G.) - final extract
(S.G.) ) divided by initial extract X 100.

Real attenuation limit (%) = (initial extract (S.G.) - final extract (S.G.)
w/o alcohol ) divided  by initial extract X 100.

You should consider adding yeast nutrients such as Fermaid K  at 0.2 grams
per gallon to your wort to assure your self of a healthy yeast fermentation
and that the yeast will reach complete attenuation.


Clayton Cone











1.








"Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> on 04/15/2000 01:47:40 AM

To:   Clayton Cone/Lallemand
cc:
Subject:  HBD Question









Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Brent Dowell <brent_dowell at yahoo.com>
Subject: Pump Problems 

So, I just recently bought a very nice little pump
from Moving Brews (6144MM HIGH TEMP) and brewed a 10
gallon batch up this weekend with it.  It was nice not
to have to hoist a picnic cooler full of water up to
the ceiling!  At any rate, after using it, I do have a
couple of questions I was hoping the more experienced
pump users could help me with.

1) This pump does not seem to be self priming.  I'm
pretty sure it says that in the specs on it.  I was
having some problems priming it even though it was at
the lowest level in the setup.  Ie. the kettle I was
heating the sparge water in was higher than the pump,
but even with all the valves opened and the out going
hose lower than the pump, water would not voluntarily
flow into the system.  This required some old
fashioned siphon suction applied to get it primed.  Is
there some secret here I don't know about an easy way
to prime the pump?

2) Once I was using the pump, I seemed to 'lose' the
'prime' every now and then and would have to re-prime
the pump to continue.  Although I had a pretty tight
plumbing system, ie. fittings screwed in tight with
teflon tape, hose clamps on the hoses, valves set to
wide open, I would still get bubbles in the plumbing
that seemed to cause the pump to cavitate and stop
working until I primed it again.

3) I did try to use the pump to recirculate the liquid
in the mash, but was not successful. (Probably NOT the
pumps fault in this case as the mash was marginally
stuck due to improper mixing on my part) Any tips on
how not to was wort when using it to pump wort?

4) Any tips on cleaning after use?   Basically I just
recirculated some hot water through it, followed with
a light iodophor rinse, then a clear water rinse.

5) Any other little tips and tricks would be nice.

I do plan on eventually doing a rims/herms type system
but rather than add a whole lot of complexity in right
now, thought I would start off slow and get used to
this new toy first.

Thanks for the help,

Brent Dowell
Antioch CA

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send online invitations with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:16:05 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Buzz Off 2000

The Beer Unlimited Zany Zymurgists, BUZZ, homebrew club would like to
announce the 2000 Buzz Off Competition.  This year it will be held on June
3rd at the New Road Brewhouse in Collegeville, PA.  Entries are due by May
27th.  Flyers to regional judges and prior entrants will be mailed this
week.  Further information for those that are not on our mailing list can be
found at http://www.voicenet.com/~rpmattie/buzzoff/ .  Once again the Buzz
Off will be an MCAB Qualifing Event as well as the lynchpin of the regional
Delaware Valley Homebrewer of the Year.  We're soliciting entries as well as
BJCP judges and those who would like to steward at the event.  

David Houseman, Organizer: dhousema at cccbi.org
Chuck Hanning, Judge/Steward Coordinator: hanning at voicenet.com
Beer Unlimited, mailing destination and participating sponsor:
brewipa at aol.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 13:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: erniebaker at webtv.net
Subject: Dr Cone, Dry Yeast Amounts?

Dr Cone 
My question is concerning the proper amount of dry yeast to pitch to a 5
gallon batch. 
Years ago it was always 1 (5 gram packet) to 5 gallons. A couple years
ago it was two 5 gram packets. At present it has been recommended to
pitch 15 or 20 grams of dry yeast. 
I believe its time to issue good firm advice on the real amount of dry
yeast to pitch. 
(Ale & Lager).. 
Thanks for sharing your knowledge.. 

ernie baker
29 Palms, CA






Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 16:59:41 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: more thoughts on Samichlaus

The quest continues...

Armed with a reference (generously mailed to me by Jim
Liddl) discussing how to help yeast grow up healthy enough
to ferment out high-alcohol brews, I came up with an idea.
Jim, I'll skip the Tween 80 for this one.

I'm thinking about starting the fermentation using the dregs
from a prior 5 gallon fermentation (got it already).  What I
want to do is add the wort *over time* to the yeast.  I have
enough quart canning jars to can an entire 5 gallon batch,
so I thought I'd start the ferment in one gallon of
Sami-wort and pressure-can the other four gallons.  I would
add two quarts of wort to the ferment every time the
kraeusen head started to fall.  Eventually I'd have all five
gallons in the fermenter and wouldn't have to worry about
the explosive fermentations I've had with barleywines and
the like.  I seem to recall reading that Hurlimann had done
something similar (add fresh wort over time) when they
brewed Sami.  I'm going to Switzerland this summer and plan
to visit the Feldschloesschen Brewery (last brewer of Sami)
to pick anyone's brain who will talk...and speak English.

The OG of the wort will be around 1.130 through the addition
of some honey.  The grist will be only 2-row pilsner malt so
it will be as light as possible.  I'll likely start with 7.5
gallons of wort and boil off 2 gallons in a converted keg to
permit a rollicking boil.  Phil, I lack the pool table and
women. I'll have to settle for a rollicking boil.

I've considered that canning the wort would darken it some
and might increase the bitterness.  I can live with both.
What do you think?  Can anyone see problems with this?
Suggestions?

Cheers!
Marc



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 17:03:02 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net>
Subject: Yeast Q's- Mike Rose-Dr. Cone

From: "maltandhops" <maltandhops at email.msn.com>
Subject: Questions for Dr. Cone
Dr. Cone
    They have been previous post in the HBD about the role of
yeast and their influence on mouthfeel. I'm not referring to
attenuation but possible interaction with proteins.
(proteins contributing to mouthfeel, not yeast metabolism).
There have been situations where a person
has split the same wort into two fermenters and pitched
different yeast, and the beer with the lower FG ends up having more
mouthfeel. Can you explain what we are observing?

Second question.
    I just rigged up my stir plate to stir my 7 gallon fermenter.
I want to get good attenuation, not yeast growth.
At what gravity (%) should I start the stir plate, and at what
intervals should I run it? ( 1 minute per hour ??)
Thanks, mike rose  


Mike,
(1)
I am not aware of any work that is being done on yeast and beer mouth feel
apart from the factors that you mentioned.  However, this is a very  hot
topic in the wine industry.  We have several strains of yeast that produce
enough polysaccharides and manoproteins that they do add texture and add
mouth feel.  There is no reason to believe that this does not happen to
beer.

The low levels of polysaccharides and manoproteins in wine can be detected
more readily because of the lighter structure of wine.  Beer already has a
sizable amount of carbohydrates (extracts), however, who knows what
contributions these compounds can have on beer.

My company is in the process of building a factory to produce these
compounds for the wine industry, you can bet that we will now explore its
use in the brewing industry.

(2)
Growing yeast in the first stage of fermentation is an important part of
the brewing process.  Yeast produce alcohol at about ten times the rate
while growing than it does when it reaches the stationary phase and no more
yeast growth.  Many of the flavor compounds are produced during the growth
phase.  If you do not have any yeast growth you would have to inoculate the
wort with  many times the amount of yeast or it would take you many weeks
for the fermentation to go to completion.

If you repitch yeast you can increase the pitching rate and minimize the
amount of growth before the yeast reaches the stationary phase., however,
you may run into the problem of bringing over off flavors from unhealthy or
lower viability  repitched yeast.

Stirring continuously until near the end of fermentation will improve the
fermentation rate, especially for cool and cold temperature fermentations.
Allow time near the end for settling. The problem with intermittent
stirring is that there will be a heavy build up of CO2 (supersatuation)
betweens stirring that could result in an explosion of foaming when you
start the stirrer.

Clayton Cone


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 01:04:16 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com>
Subject: Bravo/Chloramine

Thanks to Alan Meeker for posting from Richard Feynman - beautifully put
as this brilliant man often did.

A couple of comments on Sean Richens obervations on water processing for
chorine/chloramine:

1. Activated carbon gets oxidized by chlorine:

C* +  HOCl   -->  CO* + H+   + Cl-

and thus, while an activated carbon filter doesn't "fill up" with
chlorine it does become exhauseted when all the activted sites
(symbolized here by C* in the notation of Faust and Aly "Chemistry of
Water Treatment, 2nd Edition", Ann Arbor Press, Chelsea, MI, 1998 p180)
are oxidized.

Chloramine also oxidizes the carbon

C*  + NH2Cl + H2O --> CO* + Cl- + NH4+

but once some CO* is formed, it oxidizes additional chloramine

CO*  + 2NH2Cl  -->  C*  + 2H+  + 2Cl-  + H2O  + N2

thus restoring the active (but unoxidized) carbon sites. This is
catalysis as the net reaction is

3NH2Cl --> 2H+   +  3Cl-  + NH4+  + N2

(same reference here) and thus, theoretically, the carbon is not
consumed as long as chloramine (and not free chlorine) is the only
chlorine source in the water.


2. The primary reason that chloramine is used in the water treatment
industry today is because of concern about THM formation. THMs are
thought to be carcinogenic by some. Others think this issue is another
example of mindless government interference in matters it doesn't
understand. Whoever is right, cloramine is less bacteriocidal but,
because it is also less volatile, tends to maintain bacteriostasis out
to the limits of a distribution system.

3. Metabite is very relevent to brewing and no further treatment is
required. A single Campden tablet (about 700 mg of potassium
metabisulfite) will rid 20 gallons of water of its chloramine to the
level of 3 mg/L (typical). A little sulfate, a little potassium, a
little chloride and a little ammonium ion (which is a yeast nitrogen
source) are added to the water in quantities insignificant for most
brews. I recommend this treatment to anyone with chloraminated water. A
little excess sulfite (i.e you use more metabite than is required to
react with the chloramine) can only help your beer. It's no coincidence
that lager yeasts are great sulfite producers and that lagers stay
reduced throughout the long lagering period.

4. I think Sean is theorizing that one needn't worry about chloramines
in brewing because they are less likely to form chlorphenolics than
chlorine. This is so - indeed they were first used in water treament for
this property long before the THM rule - but I don't think it's worth
risking bad beer. I've certainly tasted chlorphenolics in beers I've
judged and have no way of knowing whether they were made with
chlorinated or chloraminated water but, as chloramination is now so
prevalent, I'd suspenct that chloramine was the culprit. Chlorine is so
easy to remove - let the water stand over night. Chloramine is too.
Throw in  a Campden tablet. Why take a chance?



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 22:58:34 -0500
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca>
Subject: starting out

Dear kysard at excite.com

Having started from a similar background as yours, I can offer you a few
relevant tips which I think you will grasp right away:

 - first, homebrewers are a fairly laid-back group, so signing your posts
with a given name allows others to address you as "Hi Fred" rather than
"dear kysard at excite.com".
 - the biggest difference between biotech/antibiotic/research fermentation
and brewing is that brewing is ecological.  In other words, you don't have a
sterile medium with a single strain.  It's closer to waste treatment
microbiology - you are trying to create conditions that favour the strain
you want over the wild flora, and kill off enough of the wild stuff to
ensure your culture a good head start.  The drop in pH as fermentation
starts and the hops are the big item, and some yeasts are pretty aggressive
and can kill off interlopers.  When you get TOO deeply involved in
homebrewing you might get interested in mixed yeast cultures.

 - you have already found a good website on this subject.  Try the hbd's
alter ego at www. brewery.org - it has lots of stuff.

 - you can make really clear beer, but many home brewers get hooked on the
almost-clear beers they make and find that filtration takes away a certain
something.

 I'm sure you will get a lot of other good advice here.

Sean Richens
srichens.spamsucks at sprint.ca



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 23:08:32 -0500
From: "Sean Richens" <srichens at sprint.ca>
Subject: Brita and screw-on filters

Brian asked:

>So what volume of carbon do your typical screw onto the faucet types of
>filters have, and what would be a suitable flow rate for them?

I have no idea about the first part of the question, not being an owner of
such a device.  Can Glen or someone else answer?  I'm personally curious
what the manufacturers of the screw-on or countertop filters recommend for a
flow rate.

Sean Richens
srichens.spamsucks at sprint.ca



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 15:24:20 +1000
From: "Richard Pass" <richard.pass at anu.edu.au>
Subject: RE: Built-in cooler

Hi Chris,

the cooling coil as shown would tend to cause stratification because you are
cooling the bottom more than the top layers, due to the fact that the
coolant heats up as it passes up through the coils.

A simple solution would be to reverse the coolant flow introducing it via
the upper coil.  This would set up convection currents which would increase
cooling.

Richard Pass
Canberra
Australia

> Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 19:06:09 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Chris Cooper <ccooper at a2607cc.msr.hp.com>
> Subject:  Built-in cooler
>
<snip of beautiful ASCII diagram of Chris's cooler>
>
>
> 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: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 21:06:49 +1000
From: "Phil & Jill Yates" <yates at acenet.com.au>
Subject: But The Party Ends For Rick

Rick Magnan has problems racking lagers. Well Rick, I'm sure someone will
have a better solution for you but one possibility is to ferment in a
plastic fermenter with a tap at bottom (spigot - I believe is the Yankee
term). This removes the necessity for syphoning completely. It is a simple
matter to gravity feed via plastic tubing for all racking purposes. You may
have read somewhere that fermenting in plastic is a no no (as I did - but I
can't recall which book) as oxidization will occur through the plastic. I
don't wish to dispute that this is possible but in my experience it has
never been the case. I know I am drifting from your first question, but I
use the example to answer your second question which you have directed at me
specifically.

If I could be bothered, I could go through my books and find many examples
of procedural requirements that I would term B.S. Are you asking because you
haven't discovered any yet or are you just genuinely testing me? To be
honest on the matter, I will say that most of the B.S. has been what self
appointed experts have said (and there is no shortage of it in the HBD)
rather than what has been written in books. But I can find examples of both
if you are having difficulties discerning them for yourself.

At the moment, it bothers me that Dave Burley continues with his "jet of
steam drives off the oxygen above the boil due partial lid cover" theory on
oxidization. If it works for Dave that is fine. For me, it is just another
theoretical piece of B.S. But I have already been in trouble with Dave for
my rudeness, so I will leave the matter to anyone else who wants to get
concerned about it. It isn't on my agenda of "things to worry about".

Steve Alexander comes up with some pretty obscure "things to worry about"
items which I also put in my "not to worry about" rubbish bin. But Steve
also comes up with some pretty good stuff as well. As does Dave Burley.

I am certainly not the adjudicator of anyone's posts or theories and if I
have implied that I apologise. I am just another homebrewer (as are we all)
with my own experience to draw on.

Unfortunately for you Rick, I am the adjudicator of any posts that can be
deemed "in argument" with the Baron and it is my pleasure (sorry, I meant
displeasure) to advise you that you will be the first bloke strapped to the
boab tree and force fed Ray's obnoxious skunk oil. We are most interested to
observe the results. So far, it has killed everything else stone dead!

Cheers
Phil
Baron of Burradoo





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 07:10:33 EDT
From: KMacneal at aol.com
Subject: Re: Keeping the cover on

By keeping the cover on, won't you hinder driving off HMDS which would be 
especially noticable in a pale lager?

Keith MacNeal
Worcester, MA

In a message dated 4/18/2000 12:19:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Dave Burley 
writes:

<< I suggest interested brewers try a simple experiment which I have done with
 two identical kettles. Do one boil with the lid off and one with the lid
 partially on and covered with a towel or other insulator  to reduce
 condensation on the lid so as to maintain as best as you can the same
 volume in the two kettles during the boil  and compare the results. Compare
 the wort colors at the same OG.  Ferment separately diluted to the same OG,
 but identically and compare the color and flavor.  You will find the open
 boil to be darker and the flavor of the beer to be less clean. Do this with
 a pale lager to best understand the effect, although I have also noted (
 but not experimentally) a similar effect in pales. One would conclude that
 higher hopped beers will be more affected.
  >>


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 06:31:58 PDT
From: "Drew Avis" <andrew_avis at hotmail.com>
Subject: re: Labatts Velvet Cream Porter

Mark Yehle <myehle at socket.net> asks about Labatts Velvet Cream Porter. This 
is the beer that started me homebrewing back in '88 - if I recall correctly 
they discontinued the beer shortly after.  The local homebrew shop owner 
nodded sagely when I told him I wanted to brew this beer, and he jotted down 
a recipe, sold me the stuff, and sent me on my way. It was the standard 
Coopers Stout kit + DME + some crystal + hops, and it tasted *nothing* like 
LVCP.

I really wasn't paying attention to things like hops back then, Mark, so I 
can't make any suggestions there.  But I have a strong suspicion that LVCP 
was brewed with a lager yeast, something malty (Wyeast 2035 or 2206 might be 
close). It was almost as dark as Guinness, had very little roast flavour, 
and a lot of body.  This would suggest (to me, anyway) a combination of 
chocolate, dark munich, and medium crystal malts for colour, and a higher 
mash temp.

Good luck, if you come close, send me a recipe!
Drew
- --
Drew Avis, Merrickville, Ontario
Visit Strange Brew with Drew:
http://fast.to/strangebrew



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



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:58:41 -0400
From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com>
Subject: Dr Cone: Yeast Storage

Dr. Cone,

>>In your opinion what is the best long-term
>>yeast storage method available to amateur brewers?

>Ann Dumont, the person that is responsible for our yeast culture collection
>recommends that yeast that is kept on slants be grown 72 hours at 25 C on
>YM-Agar then covered with sterile light mineral oil (to prevent drying out)
>an refrigerated at 4C. 

I've been storing my yeasts on slants for about a year now with great
success.  However, they have not been covered in sterile light mineral oil
and therefore have to be recultured on a three month schedule.  I would love
to gain the benefits of longer term storage with the light oil method.  When
it come time to inocculate from this oil-covered slant, is the oil simply
decanted to expose the colonies?  My concern is over the movement of the oil
removing the colony from the agar surface.  Also, do the yeast require any
washing while on the lant prior to inoccultation or will transfer  into
liquid media suffice?  Sorry, I have never had the pleasure of dealing
cultures stored in this manner ;-)


Glen Pannicke
Merck & Co.
Computer Validation Quality Assurance  
email:  glen_pannicke at merck.com 






Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:59:24 -0400
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com>
Subject: yeast question for dr. cone

2 yeast questions for Dr. Cone:

1) In your opinion, in making a starter solution for a beer either from dry
yeast (where it may not be needed totally) or from a liquid yeast product,
is it better to pitch or scale-up in volume at the point of maximum cellular
budding or point of population maximum? In terms of getting the yeast to
continue the reproductive phase. Does this differ when you want to ferment
rather than grow yeast in number?

2) In terms of dry yeast and their use in high gravity brews like imperial
stouts, scottish ales, and barley wines, is it better to pitch maximum
number of cells that are properly rehydrated  (ie. about 4-6 packets) or the
slurry left from a previous batch. All things being equal, is the yeast
health and happiness any better with one method or the other?

Thanks very much for taking the time to help us out here Dr. Cone.  We
truely appreciate your advice and the sharing of your knowledge.

Happy brewing,
Pete Czerpak
Albany, NY


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 09:26:46 -0500
From: "Brian Lundeen" <blundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: Understanding lagering

I will probably regret asking these questions simply because I won't
understand half of what is written, but...

What is happening (chemically, biologically, whateverilly) to the beer as
you slowly decrease to, and maintain at, lagering temperatures (I can go
down to 32F if need be)? (please be as technical as possible)

Also, what, if any, differences are their between beers that go directly to
lagering in the secondary, then bottled, and those that are bottled,
carbonated at room temps, then returned to the fridge and put through the
lagering process?

Thanks

Brian



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:28:22 +0000
From: grigg at att.net
Subject: Big Brew Day - How much water?

Paul Gatza reminded us of the upcoming Big Brew Day. Has 
anyone looked at the amount of water in those recipes 
(6.5 for all grain, 5 for extract)? I'm going to find it 
hard to squeeze out 4 gallons of wort using those 
amounts. What is the expected volume?


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:43:30 -0400
From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
Subject: splooge

Try getting some food-grade anti-foam agent from a HB
supplier.  St. Pats has some.  It's something like $2.50 for
a small bottle and should prevent your massive foaming.  As
for your statement

"...I shake the crap out of the fermenter the first few days
of the ferment..."

I might suggest shaking it within the first 24 hours, but no
more.  Risk oxidation.  On the other hand, in a closed
system violently producing CO2 it may not be such an issue.

Cheers!
Marc



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:51:05 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Phil's Lauter Tun

Jeremy Arntz ( arntz at surfree.com) asks about improvments over the hose
clamps that come with Phil's Lauter Tun.  I freely admit that this system
needs my attention,  however one should remind one's self that it was
designed in a time when money was much tighter.  I am frequently stunned at
what some brewers are now willing to spend for marginal process
improvements.  

The hot liquor tank hose clamp is best used as a shut off valve as the
sparge arm is designed to deliver five gallons in about 45 to 60 minutes. 
I use mine wide open. Finer flow control can be found by raising or
lowering the hot liquor tank.

The outflow clamp is prone to clogging and poor control.  This would be a
problem  with other sorts of constrictive ( ie. ball valves) devices as
well.  I personally use a better system and hope to develope a marketable
version in the future.  I cut the hook portion of a racking cane about six
inches below the hook and attach it to the output hose.  The hook is draped
over the side of a pot ( called a grant in the lingo ). The  flow rate is
regulated by raising and lowering the pot (use boxes, books, boards,
whatever). There is no flow when the output of the hook is at or above the
level of the mash and it increases in a very controled manner as the pot is
lowered.  Note that there are no constrictions to clog with this system and
the control is very fine.  I do leave the hose clamp in place but for shut
off purposes only.  When the pot fills, I pour it into the brew kettle.

BTW Phil's truck, as it turns out, did not throw a rod as was origionally
suspected. A better diagnosis ( not Phil's) showed that the throwout
bearing blew.  Much cheaper!

Dan Listermann    dan at listermann.com   72723.1707 at compuserve.com 





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:51:07 -0400
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707 at compuserve.com>
Subject: Syphon Problems

Rick Magnan ( magnan at jimmy.harvard.edu) asks about why he has problems with
the syphon breaking when he racks lagers.  The cooler temperature that
lagers are fermented at retains more CO2 in solution than beers fermented
at ale temperatures.  When they are passed through the sharp end of a
racking cane the turbulence formed there can bring the CO2 out of solution.
  If the flow rate is not fast enough to pull the bubbles down the hose,
they collect until the syphon slows or even stops.  This is very annoying.

Try beveling the inside edges of the racking cane to smooth the transition
between diameters.  This will reduce turblance.

If a slight commercial plug can be tolerated here, I might also suggest
purchasing a "Phil's Racking Cane."  It is made of thinwall stainless steel
tubing with beveled inside edges to reduce turblence and, since the inner
diameter is larger, it moves the brew faster as well which helps move along
any bubbles that do form.  ( Check out the unique stand off device made
from a stainless steel spring - the height is adjustable!)

BTW, Phil used his truck to help me move almost two tons of malt yesterday.
 He was asleep when I asked him to help and misheard my question.  He
wondered what I wanted with two tons of mulch.

Dan Listermann   dan at listermann.com   72723.1707 at compuserve.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 08:41:03 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: Giving Jeff a break

>MICHAEL WILLIAM MACEYKA <mmaceyka at mail.jhmi.edu> theorizes
>that the break you are seeing is formed
>from proteins which were not denatured in the boil but were denatured at the
>higher temps in the pressure cooker.

I think that's true, but I get additional break even in the wort I can at
atmospheric pressure, although not as much.

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, 19 Apr 2000 09:09:14 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re: the immersion chiller shake

 Aaron Robert Lyon <lyona at umich.edu> wrote

>Does this have any effect on how well your cold break settles to the
>bottom of the kettle?... How
>long does it take for a cold break to settle out while cooling? ...
>I didn't want to shake my chiller because I thought it
>would kick up some cold break.

I's my experience that cold break is very fine and takes longer than a
typical chilling time to settle out.  Hot break is quicker to settle, and
is more important, I think, to remove.  I think it should settle out is
fairly short time after you stop shaking - 15 minutes maybe.

I recirculate my wort with a pump during chilling which accomplishes the
same thing as shaking and filters it through the hop bed on the false
bottom.  This theoretically, at least, removes both hot and cold break,
although the cold wort going into the fermenter is never as clear as the
hot wort is, so this filtration is imperfect.  I also wonder if the pump
chews up the hot and cold break that may get through then hop bed and makes
it too fine to be fitlered out.  This may also be the reason my canned wort
develops a break.  I've never had any problems with the brews that would
lead me to think I wasn't getting good break removal.

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, 19 Apr 2000 10:52:46 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: keeping iodophore

Brwers

Sure it's cheap to make up fresh iodophor solutions, but why isn't it still
good after 24 hours as was suggested here if it still has good color?  I
like to keep a spray bottle around and I sure don't want to have to make up
a new pint every day.

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, 19 Apr 2000 11:08:05 -0400
From: Jim <jimala at apical.com>
Subject: Re:the immersion chiller shake 

Aaron Robert Lyon writes concerning shaking one's immersion chiller:

"Does this have any effect on how well your cold break settles to the
bottom of the kettle? "

And the answer is:  I don't know.
  
I used to worry about removing all the trub.  I tried whirlpooling, but the
immersion chiller interfered with that.  I considered installing a bulkhead
fitting and a screen of some sort to keep the trub and hops out, but
decided it was either too much trouble to do, or too expensive.  After much
anguish (not), I made a tradeoff, cooling the wort very rapidly in exchange
for some trub in my fermenter ( I now siphon the cooled wort through a
Chore Boy scrubby thingy which removes most of the splooge, providing I
have used whole hops, not pellets, in the boil), and I rack into a
secondary after 5 days or so, which gets rid of pretty much all of it.

Is a little trub in the fermenter a bad thing?  I don't know.  I suspect it
doesn't matter much, from no other evidence than the quality of the beer I
make.  By some accounts it is even a Good Thing (tm).  And it seems to me
that most if not all the cold break will end up in the fermenter when using
a counter-flow chiller.

Since you already have the bulkhead fitting and valve on your boiler, I bet
you can make or buy something like an EasyMasher ( EasyBoiler?
EasyStrainer?)  that would work for you.  I bet JS would be happy to tell
you all about it, too. :)

Cheers and beers (no fears), Jim Adwell


Jim's Brewery Pages:
http://home.ptdprolog.net/~jimala/brewery/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 10:17:38 -0500
From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com>
Subject: Cardamom and fishing

 Jim  writes about cardamom in beer:

>Does anyone besides me add cardamom to 
their beer to reduce skunking?  

>While perusing the patent office's database late one evening last year I
>discovered patent #4,389,421, entitled "Method for controlling light
>stability in malt beverages and product thereof ".   This intrigued me, and
>upon reading the text of the patent, found that it claimed that, among
>other things, adding 60 parts per billion of cardamom to beer would
>dramatically reduce or even prevent skunking of said beer while not
>changing the flavor of the beer. 

I have white, green, and black cardamom pods in my spice 
cabinet (Courtesy of Penzey's  http://www.penzeys.com/  ).  
I took some out and weighed them on a gram scale.  The 
black are the heaviest (about 0.5 gram), and the green were 
he lightest weighing in at about 0.20 gram.  Anyway, I figure 
that 60 ppb is equal to about 60 micrograms per liter, or about 
1,200 micrograms for a standard 5-gallon (20 liter) batch.  1,200 
micrograms is way less than a gram (like 12 ten-thousands 
of a gram to be exact).  So are you telling me that a 0.5 gram 
pod is enough cardamom to treat over 400 batches of beer?  
This surely is powerful stuff.  Or are we talking about some 
kind of cardamom extract ?

I am as tired of it as anyone else is, but I will make one last 
comment and then shut up for a while.  To whoever it was 
who compared fishing to homebrewing:

>Sit on the end of the dock with a can of worms and a
>cane pole and you will catch fish. Going after a specific 
>Kind of fish is when fishing gets complicated."

>And I'll add:  going after a world record of a specific 
>kind of "fish" is when you need to turn to the science 
>behind the art (and the HBD), but you don't need to 
>if you are content simply "goin' fishin'".

Do you really think that someone who spent his time 
researching about fishing in a library could outfish 
someone who has spent an equivalent amount of time 
in a boat actually fishing?  

I can see it now Steve Alexander and Alan Meeker in a 
boat, equipped with them is the latest technology 
that money can buy, sonar, gps, temperature probes, 
pH meters, even a $25,000 bass boat.  Furthermore, 
the librarians are fresh from a year-long research period 
were they spent a million dollar grant studying the art 
of fishing.  They has flown over the lake, studied 
aerial photos, topographic maps, attended lectures by 
fishing experts, visited Bass Pro Shops in Springfield, 
MO, and even conducted a gravitometer survey of the area.

Up against them is an old guy in a row boat who has 
never so much as read a fishing magazine (hell, he 
cant even read), but he has been fishing the same 
lake almost every weekend for the better part of ten 
years (at least when the weather is not too bad).  

You name the specific species of fish that you want the 
contestants to catch.  Who is going to catch more fish?  
Who is going to enjoy their time on the water more?  
I know who I have my money on.

Time on the water.  Time in the brewery.  Think about it.

Paul Niebergall



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 11:29:23 -0400
From: Art Tyszka <atyszka at mail.cbf.com>
Subject: Acidifying Sparge Water

Hey all,

Have a question about acidifying sparge water so that a rising pH isn't as
much a concern.  Have seen it mentioned here and in several other places,
but I've come across recommendations from 1/4 tsp of acid bled to 1 Tbsp of
phosphoric acid.  So, is there any sort of agreement on how much to add, and
how much is too much?  And, what detrimental effects can too acidic sparge
water have?

Thanks

Art Tyszka
Chesterfield, MI




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 12:01:24 EDT
From: JPullum127 at aol.com
Subject: dubbel

well since my basement is starting to get into the high 60's i thought it 
might be time to try a dubbel. i haven't made one before ,would anyone care 
to comment on my plan?
1. 10.lb dwc pilsener malt
1.lb aromatic malt
1 lb buscuit malt
1 lb munich malt
1 lb caramunich malt
1/2 lb special b
2 ounces choclate malt
1/2 lb candi sugar(i've had this in the freezer for a couple years) 
1/2 lb table sugar  (sucrose)- i have a bunch of corn sugar at home also 
could use.
2 ounces styrian goldings   60 min
1 ounce saaz  at knockout
wyeast 3787 trappist ale yeast
single infusion  mash  at 154-152

thanks guys


Return to table of contents

---