---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  DEA Challenge Homebrew Competition ("Eric R. Theiner")
  Re: small mash tuns ("Allen Godin")
  bifenthrin/hop poles (Al Klein)
  How Vinegar and Peroxide (Peracetic Acid) removes Lead from Brass (John Palmer)
  more about lead ("Braam Greyling")
  RE; diacetyl rest after bottling lager ("Boris")
  baby hops and hops sprouts (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
  adjustable pressure relief (David Passaretti)
  Diacetyl Rest (Nathan Kanous)
  RE: Conicals ("Wayne Holder")
  Conical & chilling idea (Lonzo McLaughlin)
  Att Lynne O'Connor - . Re:Conical (Danny Johnson)
  Flash Pasteurization ("Charles R. Stewart")
  Partial Mashes (Mark Anderson)
  RE: Conicals (Art Tyszka)
  Re: The search for 2002 Rhizomes (Jeff Hertz)
  Re: diacetyl rest after bottling lager (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Temperature-controlled conical (BillPierce)
  More on Klein ("Zemo")
  Bottle cleaning and sanitizing (LJ Vitt)
  Judge Call: Upper Mississippi Mash-Out (allan.boyce)
  Re: Lead in Brass and Copper Pipe ("Dennis Collins")
  Re: Conical fermenter (BillPierce)
  Bottle sanitation (Alan Meeker)
  RE: yeast (killing and dumping) (Brian Lundeen)
  RE:  How Do You Sanitize Your Bottles? ("Frank J. Russo")


* Visit the George Fix Memorial Guest Book 
* http://hbd.org/forums/index.html 
*
* Maltose Falcons 2002 Mayfaire Competition 
* Entries accepted 4/1/02 - 4/11/02
* http://www.maltosefalcons.com for details
*
* MCAB-IV - April 12-13, 2002 - Cleveland Ohio
* See http://www.hbd.org/mcab for more info
*
* HOPS BOPS XIX   Entry Deadline 4/17/2002
* Details: http://www.netaxs.com/~shady/hops/   
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! 
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*

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 cannot 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.

JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 15:22:51 -0500
From: "Eric R. Theiner" <logic at skantech.com>
Subject: DEA Challenge Homebrew Competition

The Down East Alers, in conjunction with Ham's Restaurant and Brewhouse are 
hosting the DEA Challenge Homebrew Competition. This is an AHA registered 
competition. We will be accepting all BJCP styles and the rules will be the 
same as those used in the AHA National competition. This competition will 
be a qualifying event for the North Carolina Homebrewer of the year.

For more details (including forms, etc.), please go to 
http://hbd.org/carboy/dea_challenge.htm

The entry deadline is Wednesday, April 17, 2002.

Judging for the competition will take place at Ham's Restaurant and 
Brewhouse in Greenville, North Carolina on Saturday April 20, 2002 from 
10:00 am to 1:00 pm. The awards ceremony will follow.

Potential entrants, judges, and stewards with questions are encouraged to 
contact the organizers via e-mail.

 -Brian Mentzer at: stinkeeee at yahoo.com

 -Rick Theiner at: logic at skantech.com




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 17:38:16 -0500
From: "Allen Godin" <allengodin at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: small mash tuns

Thank you to everyone who replied personally or posted to the group about my 
question for using a 2 1/2 gallon cooler for a mash tun. There was some very 
good information and I only wish there was a website that listed all the 
handy tips like those I received.

It would be great to see everyone's websites as well to see how other people 
make their own equipment. I have a small section for homebrew on my website 
listed under do-it-yourself. I will probably move it to it's own section 
when I have more to build a decent page with.

Thanks again,
Allen

New and Improved!

Check out C-Smoke.
A Topica list for smokers of
quality commercial hand made cigars.

http://www.geocities.com/allen_godin/ClassicBoats/Boating.html

My website is growing.




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 19:44:50 -0500
From: Al Klein <rukbat at optonline.net>
Subject: bifenthrin/hop poles

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:10:09 -0500, in rec.crafts.brewing you wrote:

Steve Alexander says:

>My personal philosophy wrt garden chemicals is to find the one that scares
>me the least, use it sparingly and stick with it (don't change chemicals
>every year).

The insects that survived this year's chemical will produce offspring
next year that are immune to that chemical.  Changing chemicals
insures a better kill, even if it's just changing between 2 or 3
choices.

>BTW - does anyone have any clever (cheap) ideas in tall hops poles for my
>garden ?

Bamboo?  Or a short pole and a long string?
- ---
[Apparent Rennerian 567.7, 95.9] 
Al - rukbat at optonline dot net


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 22:56:12 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at gte.net>
Subject: How Vinegar and Peroxide (Peracetic Acid) removes Lead from Brass

Hi All,
Braam Grayling asked a good question: How can a simple 2:1 solution of
vinegar and hydrogen peroxide remove the lead from the surface of brass
parts. Al Korzonas asked much the same question in '98, and I went to the
archives to find my answer (because I couldn't remember).
Al actually asked something more like, "Why does the solution stop working
when it turns blue? Why do I need a fresh solution?"

>From #2742, 15 June 1998:
>This is a good question, and although I knew the reason on Saturday when
>I read it, I had to wait til Monday morning when I could call my chemist
>friend who had initially worked with me on the procedure.
>The short answer is solubility limits and chemical activity loss of the
>solution (which is redundant). Here is how the solution works:
>1. The Hydrogen Peroxide forms Lead Oxide which is soluble in the weakly
>acidic solution.
>2. Copper Oxide is also soluble in weak acid solutions, while Copper is
>not, thus the brass brightens as it cleans.
>3. The solution does not have a lot of H2O2 in it, and H2O2 is unstable.
>As PbO2 is formed the H2O2 turns to water.
>4. Meanwhile, the Cupric Acetate starts forming, which has the blue
>green color. The formula for this is Cu(C2H3O2)2*CuO*6H2O, it's a
>complex.  I'm sorry, I don't know the conditions for its formation.
>5. However, with the formation of Cupric Acetate, the solution is no
>longer weakly acidic, so that the PbO2 is no longer dissolved and any
>leftover OH causes the formation of CuO and Pb2O which are black and not
>soluble in water.
>To the best of my knowledge, this is how the de-leading solution works.
>Solution chemistry is not my strong suit. Perhaps Dave Burley with his
>P-Chem background could fill in any gaps.

So there you have it - How it works. The Why it works is because lead does
not actually alloy with the copper and zinc in brass. (Brass IS an alloy of
copper and zinc, lead is just an additive, kind of like lead in gasoline.)
(once upon a time)
So, as I explain in Appendix B of my book, lead just exists as minute
globules within the brass, and gets smeared on the surface of the brass
during machining. When you soak the brass in the de-leading solution, the
lead is converted and dissolved according to the above, and the brass
brightens.

Braam, if you have any more questions on this, just give me a shout, I'm
happy to help.
 -John
- -- 
John Palmer
jjpalmer at realbeer.com

Palmer House Brewery and Smithy
http://www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer

How To Brew - the online book
http://www.howtobrew.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:28:56 +0200
From: "Braam Greyling" <braam.greyling at azoteq.com>
Subject: more about lead

Hi all,

Here is some more comments about lead from a Chemical 
engineer.

+++++++++++++++++++
Braam

I will insert my comments:

> First thing I think you should do is look up John Palmer's website
> (something containing the phrase beer I think)  as he is the 
originator
> of this method I believe.  John is a metallurgist.

This is the right type of guy you are looking for....

> Secondly, the principle here is oxidation of the lead not the proton
> acid solution of the metal which will not work for copper and 
poorly for
> lead.

This is true 100%.

> Lead OXIDE is very soluble as the acetate - the reason for the
> vinegar.

Ok - perhaps this is true.

> So lead on the surface is oxidized by the peroxide and the
> weak acetic acid dissolves it without doing any additional etching.

If the peroxide can oxidize the lead it will also do a good job
oxidizing the acetic acid to some extent in my opinion.


> The lead is smeared on the surface during the machining of the
> part and will neither migrate nor oxidize internally further if you
> believe John.

Aha - this is interesting. So they only smear the surface with lead 
and don't actually use lead as part of the alloy. Then this will work 
ok. Just remember that copper will be very readily oxidized by the 
peroxide solution as well. So your timing will need to be good. If 
you leave it too long the peroxide will start oxidizing the copper. 
Although - if there is no lead deeper down in the metal this should 
not be too bad...   


> dipping the wort demonstrates.  If you want to reduce the copper
> in your brew wash all copper and bronze/ brass parts in a little
> vinegar followed by a good water wash before using them. This
> will also remove any lead oxide that may have formed on the part.


It should also be good to remove the copper oxides. So imo I'd first 
whack the thing with a peroxide solution - not too strong, then 
whack it afterwards with a acetic acid solution to remove the 
oxides. Adding the two together one introdues other chemical 
reactions that might get in the way of what you are trying to do.   

++++++++++++++++++++++++++   
 
The last paragraph raise the question: 

Why dont one (ie. John Palmer?) first rinse it with peroxide and 
then with the vinegar ? 
Why mix the two ? Will there not be unwanted chemical reactions ?

Regards

Braam Greyling 



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:52:30 +0100
From: "Boris" <deMesones at terra.es>
Subject: RE; diacetyl rest after bottling lager

Bill Frazier writes:

>....This reminds me of the old joke.  A lady comes to the complaint
>window at a business.  She has a product that has obviously failed.  She
>asks...Has this been tested.  The clerk says...Sure it was tested, it
failed
>miserably, but it was tested.

Hi Bill: your answer to Darrell Leavitt reminds me a good one. A Central
European square head brewer comes to Spain to try to teach Spanish brewers
something new. After a crash course of Spanish brewing technical words he
says very proudly to his Spanish counterparts:
 - I have studied and learned 1,987 brewing technical words in Spanish
language and have memorised all ...... - and pointing with his finger to his
head, he adds - ...... in my a** - (no bad feelings, eh?)

>However, you would be better served by doing a diacetyl rest in a
>carboy so the diacetyl can escape thru the air lock.  After bottling,
>everything will remain in the beer.

As far as I know is yeast the one who reduces diacetyl to acetoin to
butanediol (page 327 Kunze English edition).

Because temperature and cell concentration helps the reduction, some
breweries warm with heat exchangers the almost fermented wort and put it
into a tank with yeast cells stuck to plates (or walls) during two hours.
The yeast stuck does not multiply and dies thorugh heat without exploding.

Hope my English, and Spanish joke, are understandable.

Hasta la vista!

Boris de Mesones
Madrid-Spain
Cerveceria.info








Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:17:33 +0100
From: "Aikema, J.N. (JohanNico)" <JohanNico.Aikema at akzonobel.com>
Subject: baby hops and hops sprouts

Hi,

Steve Alexander askes:"BTW - does anyone have any clever (cheap) ideas in
tall hops poles for my
garden? "

Another question: does anyone know how many hopplants are available as
"baby-hop" ?
And, did anyone ever eat hop sprouts  (expensive? tasty?)

Greetings from Holland (Europe), Hans Aikema
http://www.hopbier.myweb.nl/hopscheuten.htm



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 04:32:39 -0800 (PST)
From: David Passaretti <dpassaretti at yahoo.com>
Subject: adjustable pressure relief

I ferment in a sanke keg and thought it would be
convenient and easy to naturally carbonate by sealing
the keg towards the end of fermentation.  I frequently
change my recipes and/or yeast so any attempt at
accurate predicition of FG would be difficult at best.
Does anyone know how to make an adjustable pressure
relief valve that can be attached to gas QD of a corny
keg. This way I could replace the airlock with the
pressure relief valve somewhere towards the end of
fermentation and not worry about too much pressure
build up.

Thanks
David Passaretti



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:45:03 -0600
From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu>
Subject: Diacetyl Rest

Morning,
Darrell Leavitt has asked about a diacetyl rest with lagers and Bill 
Frazier says "you must do it with an airlock or it will stay in your 
beer."  Unfortunately for Bill, this is simply not true.

Diacetyl is biologically reduced by yeast.  This does not go out the 
airlock.  It can be done in a bottle....I suppose.

The real question is.....do you have a diacetyl problem?  If you don't have 
diacetyl in your beer (or it's precursors) you don't have to conduct a 
diacetyl rest.  That being said, I always allow my lagers to rise into the 
lower 60's (farenheit) for at least a day at the end of fermentation.  This 
is more an attempt to get full attenuation but also facilitates a "diacetyl 
rest".

George Fix published a great article on the orgins and fate of diacetyl
http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.2/fix.html

Give this baby a read.  Hope this helps.
nathan in madison, wi



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 05:59:07 -0800
From: "Wayne Holder" <zymie at charter.net>
Subject: RE: Conicals

Lynne writes:

"I'm a little confused by the use of the racking port for bottling, or
even kegging. In fact, I'm not even sure why its called a "racking"
port."

Gee, you mean that there is something that St. Pats didn't invent?

It goes on to say:

"The reason I'm curious about this is that we're finishing up our new
conicals and the whole issue of offering a simple sample port (no
rotating arm) like those on large wine storage tanks vs. one with a
rotating arm is an issue. Its trivial to offer either or both but I
want to be sure I'm not selling a bill of goods."


Lynne, I guess if you'd ever actually used one you would already know what
it is useful for. Maybe you should contact the manufacture of the Fermenator
(www.fermenator.com), the conical you currently list on your website, and
ask them why they include the racking arm.

Then again,  I would also recommend not offering the option, then you can
say that "Only at St. Pats" is a racking arm NOT available.


Wayne Holder AKA Zymie
Long Beach CA



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:05:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Lonzo McLaughlin <lonkelm at yahoo.com>
Subject: Conical & chilling idea

There have been several posts regarding the 15 gallon
cone bottom tanks from usplastics.  I'd like to take
the idea a step further and get some feedback.

I'm considering buying one of these and have a couple
of questions.  

1.  How do people plan to control the temperature of
this vessel?

An idea I have is to take a sheet of plastic, for
example p/n 43331 (.030" thick Styrene sheet) and form
a larger radius band around the tank.  This plastic
can be heat sealed so with a soldering iron or the
like you probably could seal the sheet into a ring. 
Then you could use Silicone Caulking or similiar to
form the top and bottom wall of the band.  Then a
simple in/out bulkhead fitting through the sheet and
you could form a water jacket around this plastic
vessel.

What do you think?  Any other ideas?

Lonzo
lonkelm at yahoo.com
Newark, DE



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:29:45 -0400
From: Danny Johnson <danj at bestec-inc.com>
Subject: Att Lynne O'Connor - . Re:Conical

Lynne wrote on HBD #3900:
"I guess my point is that the racking port does not appear to be at all
necessary for bottling or kegging."

Lynne, and all,

Before I bought the B3 conical I had the same opinion about the
usefulness of the "racking" port but I ordered it anyway.

After three years of use and many batches using the 12 gallon conical my
conclusion is that a combination of volume, conical design (60 degree),
and hydraulics, the yeast does NOT settle out perfectly to the exact
bottom of the cone. Very high flocculating yeast does settle the best in
a 12 gallon conical but not like larger multi-barrel unitanks.

Therefore if I used only the bottom port for kegging I would get a
continual pickup of yeast that finally slides down the side of the cone
as the beer level is reduced in the cone. My uneducated guess is that
there is not enough volume of beer to drop enough yeast above the cone
of a 12 gallon conical to "slide all the yeast to the cone tip. My
results of collecting all the yeast was different than what I've seen at
breweries like when they open the bottom port of a unitank and yeast
comes out like toothpaste. I have not been able to collect all the yeast
until after I drain the fermenter to below the racking port pickup tube.

The racking port pulls clear beer from the near center of the cone. The
limit of clear beer 100% of the time is "12:00 position" (vertical) to
the 3:00 position (horizontal). So, any beer left below the pickup tube
at 3:00 position is not kegged because of now the beer has lots of
suspended yeast due to the sliding effect while draining. After all beer
is removed at the 3:00 port tube position, I open the bottom cone port
to collect the best and healthiest yeast for repitching.

Also, the longer you allow the beer to stay on the yeast the more yeast
will collect and firm up in the cone but my ales come out of the
fermenter within 6 days and lagers 10 days.

I would encourage some type of kegging port to be used above the bottom
port with this general 12 gallon design.

Your friend,
Danny Johnson
CARBOY - Raleigh, NC





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 09:50:26 -0500
From: "Charles R. Stewart" <Charles at TheStewarts.com>
Subject: Flash Pasteurization

On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Gene Collins <GCollins at cranecarrier.com> of Broken
Arrow, OK commented on how to kill yeast

>> The alternative method is called the High Temperature Short Time (HTST)
method which involves heating to 161 degrees and holding the temperature for
15 seconds. This technique would probably affect the mead's flavor the most.
Most likely, you would want to do either of these in a "double boiler"
set-up where you don't head the mead directly, but six gallons will be hard
to manage.<<

You could use sort of a reverse immersion chiller.  Run the mead through a
25' copper coil immersed in 161 degree water, then run the output through a
counterflow chiller.  That would raise the temp to the required 161 degree
for a short period of time, then immediately cool it.  Of course, I DO tend
to over complicate solutions to problems, and this may be the case here.

Chip Stewart
Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Charles at TheStewarts.com
http://Charles.TheStewarts.com

Pursuant to United States Code, Title 47, chapter 5, Subchapter II, Section
227, any and all unsolicited commercial e-mail (spam) sent to this address
is subject to a download and archival fee of US$500.00.  The sending or
forwarding of such e-mail constitutes acceptance of these terms.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 06:59:22 -0800
From: Mark Anderson <MarkA at NHWA.ORG>
Subject: Partial Mashes

Greetings,

Steve Tighe posted questions about partial mashes.  I'm tempted to respond
privately, as I always feel a little bashful giving advice in front of the
smart kids.  

I'm about a year ahead of Steve.   I started with partial mash recipes about
a year ago.  I discovered that I was consistently below anticipated gravity.
Now, when I follow a recipe I always add about 20% more fermentable grain.
I think the Pro Mash efficiency default setting is pretty generous for guys
just starting out.  I'm keeping my setting below 70% until I settle on a
consistent brewing process.   I'm still figuring out just how much I lose to
evaporation and dead space in the kettle and the whole hop absorption.
Aiming high with the OG gives me a little wiggle room to add water later.

I'm experimenting with different sparge systems.  I've got one of those
"whirly-gig" sparge arms.  It's fun to use.  If my wife isn't busy, she'll
put on her leopard print Sparge Queen costume.  She raises her scepter and
proclaims, "Let the sparge begin."  I turn the valve and make noises of an
hydraulic kind.  Water sprays out and the arm turns around.  It's supposed
to raise efficiency  A handful of extra grain in the grist does the same
thing.  Phil's phalse bottom works great. 

I'm looking for a brewing system that suits me, and like I say,  I'm
experimenting with sparge methods. I've read that one should take at least
30 minutes to sparge, to get every last drop of fermentables.  The other
approach is to batch sparge.  As I understand, you mash as usual then add
about a gallon of 170 degree water to the tun.  You stir, recirculate a
couple of quarts until clear and then drain.  First run at 1.060.  Add
another couple of gallons of water and repeat.  It sounds simple and quick,
but I am just starting out and have not yet determined the how much sparge
water is appropriate.    

When I compose a recipe using Pro Mash, I aim for the upper 75% of the style
IBU range.  My last brew was very similar to Steve's.  I used five pounds of
pale and 3 pounds of DME.  It came out at 1.052.  I used an ounce of Cascade
for flavor and found it a bit much for my tastes.  I was brewing an amber
and got an IPA.  No harm done, but I learned something about using Cascade.

Best wishes to all,

Mark Anderson
Seattle, WA 


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:01:25 -0500
From: Art Tyszka <Atyszka at cbf.com>
Subject: RE: Conicals

Lynne writes:

>But perhaps I'm overlooking something. Do those who bottle from the 
>racking port have some reason for not using the bottom valve? For not 
>drawing off the sediment before bottling?  And if you first draw off 
>all the sediment, then you eliminate the problem of stirring up 
>sediment when you add priming sugar.

The reason I rack from the side port is that there is always some yeast/trub
still in the bottom of the cone.  The butterfly valve would need to be as
large as the bottom of the cone to ensure that all sediment can be dropped.
The cone design does not come to an actual point, rather a flat nose maybe
2" in diameter.  The valve is only 1" (I think) so you're left with a sort
of ledge that prevents all the sediment from dropping.  I suppose you could
drop all sediment but it would mean flushing a couple gallons.  The arm on
the side port allows you to draw off clear wort during racking by adjusting
the angle to just above the bed.  

Art Tyszka
www.loyalshepherd.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 07:39:41 -0800 (PST)
From: Jeff Hertz <duckinchicago at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The search for 2002 Rhizomes

I don't think you'll have much luck finding Simcoe and
Warrior rhizomes since these are varieties developed
by Yakima Chief, so they are proprietary and not
available outside the commerical growing circles-as
far as I know.  I actually bought some of these hops
from a shop in California, but the owner said that how
he bought them was a fluke and they're not usually
available to homebrewers.  Too bad because I made an
IPA using the Simcoe and it was outstanding.  Nice
bittering, great aroma and flavor.

Jeff Hertz
Glen Ellyn, IL



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:53:05 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <JeffRenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: diacetyl rest after bottling lager

"Bill Frazier" <billfrazier at worldnet.att.net> writes from Olathe, Kansas

>The answer to your question is...sure, you can do a diacetyl rest after
>bottling.  However, you would be better served by doing a diacetyl rest in a
>carboy so the diacetyl can escape thru the air lock.  After bottling,
>everything will remain in the beer.

Actually, this isn't how a diacetyl rest works.  The diacetyl doesn't 
escape, it is converted by the yeast to acetoin, then to butanediol, 
which is neutral flavored.  However, the yeast has to be metabolizing 
for this to work, so you must have some remaining fermentables. 
Normally, the temperature is increased to ~60F when there is a degree 
Plato or so of fermentables left.  I'm not sure if the resumed bottle 
fermentation would work or not.

For the whole picture, see George Fix's fine Brewing Techniques 
article on diacetyl at

http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue1.2/fix.html

Jeff
- -- 
***Please note my new address***

Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:08:57 EST
From: BillPierce at aol.com
Subject: Re: Temperature-controlled conical

In HBD #3900, Mark in Kalamazoo asks if it would be practical to nest a
smaller stainless conical fermenter inside of a larger one, using the space
between the two as a cooling jacket.  The simple answer is yes, but you would
want the smaller one to be very nearly the size of the larger.  It is
necessary only to have a very thin cooling jacket; anything less is a waste
of coolant volume.

Incidentally, if you are not chilling the coolant below 32 F there is no
advantage to using glycol.  Water actually has a slightly better heat
transfter coefficient than glycol, and the temperature in a refrigerator is
not below the freezing point of water.  The advantage of glycol as a coolant
is that it can be chilled below 32 F without freezing, thereby providing
increased cooling capability.

Brew on!

- -- Bill Pierce
Cellar Door Homebrewery
Highwood, IL



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:15:10 -0600
From: "Zemo" <zemo at buyvictory.com>
Subject: More on Klein

I collect beer and brewing books, but only the ones I want,
not wholesale collecting. So, along with all the must-haves,
I look for the must-avoids, like when Alan Talman excerpted
brewing faux-pas from Carlo Devito's _The Everything Beer
Book: Everything You Need to Know to Buy and Enjoy the
Best Beers, or Even Brew Your Own_ (see HBD # 3430).
I had to have it! 8^)>
As a frequent peruser at various online bookstores, imagine
my glee when I saw a _book_ by Bob Klein at Powell's:

http://www.powells.com/subsection/CookingBeerandBeermaking.html


(NAYY - An excellent source for new and used books.
Free shipping for orders over $50 [easy to do].)

Since my daughter didn't gift me the beer-a-day calendar this
past xmas and I needed a fix for Kleinisms, I ordered
_Beer Lover's Rating Guide, 2nd Edition_ (2000) by Bob Klein
for $7.95 used ($11.95 new).
Whoa! The b-a-d calendar's reviews are glowing descriptions
of beers (one assumes) he enjoyed. But what about the one's
he didn't? I give you...

Bell's Amber Ale (rated 0.0)
"A faint odor of bile affronts your nose; sour, and bitter in the mouth;
harsh and aggressively hoppy; no complexity, just straightforward
unpleasantness; raw and unripe; I will spare you the rest."

and

Corona Extra Pilsener (rated 0.8)
"Slight fizzy acidity; very light, airy, and essentially tasteless,
unless lemon [I prefer lime, but, anyway...] slice is added; hard
to keep up with even mildly salty snacks; hint of skunkiness-
not surprising from this clear glass bottle; weak and mass pro-
duced; cold, it is refreshing, but then, so is water; we need a
little more textural and taste heft in Corona."

and, finally

Thomas Hardy's Ale - 1989 (rated 0.4)
"Aroma of old yeast; fruity, with alcoholic backdrop; sweetness
turns to a dryness reminiscent of oak-aged sherry; unattractive
overripe quality has a hint of mustiness; some caramel remains
when drunk alone after a meal; it's wine-like rosy-amber color
and lack of head or lace suggest that this is a digestif rather
than a more versatile beer; still, obviously has quality ingredients
and substance; hint of redeeming warmth during the last few
sips - indeed, it can be imbibed only in small doses. Though
many people like this beer, I had trouble finishing it; high alcohol
content makes it inappropriate with most foods, if you insist on
trying this strong drink, do so before a meal; for highly individual-
ized tastes only; I hope it's better after 25 years..."

Oh, well. If you want to get rid of your old TH, send them to me
and I'll recycle the bottles. 8^)>

Zemo
Ordinary Average, Frightened Suburban Brewer

















Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 08:19:21 -0800 (PST)
From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Bottle cleaning and sanitizing


Bob Barret asked about bottle cleaning and sanitizing in HBD#3900.

Bob, you method sounds good.
Since you asked about what others are doing...

I soak to remove labels.  In old cleaner solution - old meaning it has
already been used in carboys or kegs.  I use beer line cleaner.
It takes several days for the labels to come off.

I brush out every bottle - including those I used before.
Spray them out with a carboy sprayer mounted on the faucet in the
laundry sink.  Put into a rack to let them dry.  Store in case boxes.

When it comes time to bottle, start with rinsing if any dust accumulated.
Visual inspection is good - what if a bug crawled in!
I sanitize about 1 hour before filling bottles.  I sanitize a bottle tree
first.  Submerge as many bottles as fit into a 5 gallon bucket of iodophor.
Let them sit 5 minutes.  Remove and empty the bottles. Put them onto the
sanitized bottle tree to drip.  It takes about 3 turns through this cycle
to get all of the bottles ready.  Wait about 1/2 hour to let the bottles
drip out all the iodophor, meanwhile rack beer into bottling bucket, with
priming surgar. - Yes, I still bottle condition.

An alternative I used in the past - overnight the whole batch of bottles
in bleach water, spray them out and put onto bottle tree.  However, I 
occasionally found a chlorophenolic bottle -- rinsing was not sufficient.

You could be getting a lot of varied responses to your question.

 - Leo Vitt
Rochester, MN






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 10:47:50 -0600
From: allan.boyce at usbank.com
Subject: Judge Call: Upper Mississippi Mash-Out


Calling all Beer Judges!

The Upper Mississippi Mash-Out Beer, Mead and Cider Competition needs you!

We will be doing two sessions of judging on Saturday, April 27 at 3pm and
7pm, and another session on Sunday, April 28 at 1:30pm.  The location is
Harwell's Steak House and Brewery in Shakopee, Minnesota.  We have need
of BJCP-certified judges, but you are welcome to help if you would like
to learn how to judge - inexperienced judges will be teamed with
Certified judges.

This is the first year of this contest, cosponsored by the Minnesota Home
Brewers Association and the St.Paul Homebrew Club.  Please help us to make
it a great success!

For more information, go to http://www.mnbrewers.com/mashout.

Contact Al Boyce at mash-out at nbrewer.com if you are interested.





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:57:40 -0500
From: "Dennis Collins" <dcollins at drain-all.com>
Subject: Re: Lead in Brass and Copper Pipe

First off, sorry this is long.  Braam Greyling comments about the lead
content in brass.  I was particularly interested because the website he
quoted at the beginning of his post was mine.  I basically stated that
surface lead from brass was not a big health concern and could be removed by
a 5-10 minute soak in a solution of 2 parts vinegar and 1 part hydrogen
peroxide.  This statement came from my own research when I was in the
process of building my brewery.  I'll state some sources:

This is one from John Palmer off the Realbeer website
(http://realbeer.com/jjpalmer/Welding.txt)

<start>"Brass is an alloy of Copper and Zinc with some lead thrown in for
machinability. The lead percentage varies, but for the common brass alloys
used in plumbing fittings it is 7% or less.  Lead is entirely soluble in
copper, but the presence of zinc changes this. In Brass, the lead exists as
minute globules. These globules act as an intrinsic lubricant during
machining. The result is a micro-thin film of lead being smeared over the
machined surface. It is this lead (a very small amount) that can be
dissolved off by the wort. While this small amount of lead should probably
not be a cause of concern, most people would be happier if it wasn't there
at all.

Well, never let it be said that the Space Program never yields technology
applicable to the home. Some chemists working on the International Space
Station Alpha program were consulted for an etchant that could safely remove
the lead from the surface of brass parts. The chemists determined that a
1-to-1 volume ratio of Glacial Acetic Acid (98% by vol.) to Hydrogen
Peroxide (30% by vol.) would accomplish this without pitting the brass. This
procedure was performed in the lab using the standard laboratory
concentrations of these chemicals. The process consisted of a 30 second
dunk, swirl and rinse at room temperature, and was successful in removing
the lead, as determined by a Lead Home Test Kit (swabs). In addition, the
procedure had the added benefit of turning the brass into Pure Gold. (Okay,
the color of, anyway.)

Because 98% Acetic Acid and 30% Hydrogen Peroxide are not available to the
average brewer, the experiment was repeated using the concentrations
available in the supermarket. These are 5% Acetic Acid (White Distilled
Vinegar) and 3% Hydrogen Peroxide. Due to the difference in concentration,
the relative concentration ratio is changed. For the household variety
concentrations, a 2-to-1 volume ratio of Acetic Acid to H2O2 is needed.

The process was expected to take longer with the more dilute solution, so
the brass part was immersed for 10 minutes. The results showed the same gold
color and the Lead Test swab indicated the lead had been removed. The
buttery yellow gold color can be used as an indicator that the process has
completed.  Home Lead Test kits should be available at most hardware stores.

This procedure for removing surface lead from brass can easily be conducted
at home. A 10-15 minute dunk, swirl, and rinse in a 2/1 volume ratio of 5%
Acetic Acid and 3% Hydrogen Peroxide has been shown to be effective. By the
way, the solution can be irritating to the skin so either wear gloves or use
tongs."<end>
____________________________________________

John Palmer also addresses this in his "How to Brew" on-line book
(www.howtobrew.com) in Appendix B under cleaning copper.
______________________________________________

Thirdly, I pulled this from a website about the California lead content
standard in brass water faucets:

<start> "From a medical standpoint there is no doubt that lead is not a good
thing to ingest. However, the amount of lead leached from brass faucets is
measured in micrograms, or millionths of a gram. California has a
super-stringent state regulation that limits lead exposure to 0.5 micrograms
per day. This is based on the assumption that the average person consumes
about two liters (approximately two full glasses) of water each day.
California's tolerance amounts to a quarter of a microgram per glass, or one
part in every four million. This is like a drop in a swimming pool.
The California lawsuit (that was trying to ban brass faucets) was based on
laboratory experiments that found faucets reaching four to a couple of
hundred times in excess of what's allowed by the state. That sounds scary,
but let's pause to contemplate how tiny the amounts are that we're dealing
with.

Based on California's standard, it would take four million glasses of water
to accumulate a single gram of lead from drinking water. The average person
would require two million days, or almost 5,500 years, to consume that
much - by which time you might be rather grateful to keel over! Yet, it's
questionable whether a gram of lead would do much harm. We're talking about
an amount of lead that wouldn't even cover the tip of your nose.

Some lab experiments have come up with much higher levels than California's
0.5 micrograms standard, but they are still in the sub-microscopic realm.
Besides, lab experiments tend to be based on a worst case scenario by
measuring contaminants in the first draw from a faucet that has been shut
off for many hours and contains stagnant water. Even the environmental
groups trying to ban brass faucets acknowledge that letting the water run
for awhile removes almost all lead that may have built up.

Brass is an alloy of copper and zinc. A small amount of lead, less than 10%,
gets mixed in to aid manufacturing. Faucets have been made in this manner
for more than 100 years with no apparent ill effects. It is hard to find
anyone who has documented a single case of lead poisoning attributed to a
household water supply.

To alleviate concern, let the water run for awhile after opening the tap
before using any for drinking or cooking. Beyond that lies the twilight zone
of sheer paranoia."<end>

_________________________________________________

I apologize in advance to John if I have infringed on any copyrights.
Suffice it to say however, the amount of lead from a brass valve or fitting
in your brewery would not amount to much of a health hazard.  But if it
still bothers you, you can remove it with the procedure outlined by John
Palmer.  Perhaps John could comment about this on another post as well?

Dennis Collins
Knoxville, TN
http://sdcollins.home.mindspring.com






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:20:09 EST
From: BillPierce at aol.com
Subject: Re: Conical fermenter

In HBD #3900 Lynne O'Connor questions the value of the side racking port on a
conical fermenter, citing the fact that this is seldom a feature of
commercial conicals.  Having some experience as a commercial brewer, I may be
able to comment on this.

What Lynne mentions is true; commerical conicals normally have only bottom
valves.  However, the usual configuration is to have dual valves at the
bottom.  One is connected directly to the bottom of the fermenter while the
second is connected to a standpipe that extends about six inches into the
fermenter cone.  The reason for the standpipe is to allow the very bottom
portion of the yeast and trub to remain in the fermenter while the beer is
transferred.  Standard practice is to have harvested and drained the yeast
from the lower valve until the liquid level is between the standipe and the
bottom of the cone.  This allows transfer of the beer with rather little
sediment.

I suppose it would be possible to install dual valves in the bottom of a
homebrew conical but this presents several problems.  One is that the smaller
diameter of the bottom of the cone in a small volume fermenter would make it
difficult to include sufficient room for two valves.  The second is that a
larger fraction of the volume would remain below the standpipe.  Commerical
brewers think nothing of losing 10 gallons of beer per batch during sampling
and racking.  Obviously this would be totally unacceptable to homebrewers.

Commercial fermenters usually also have a sample port at about the point
where the cone begins.  The diameter of the sample port is small (about
one-quarter inch) but it can be used for a variety of other purposes in
addition to taking samples such as for tasting and gravity readings.

The side racking port option for homebrew conicals does have some advantages.
 It allows racking of the beer prior to harvesting of the yeast, something
that commercial conicals do not allow.  The usual configuration for the
racking port is to include a curved section that protrudes into the fermenter
and which can be rotated.  With a little practice the racking port can be
rotated into a position just above the yeast and trub that allows trasnsfer
of beer and very little sediment, the same result as with the standpipe in a
commercial fermenter.

The conclusion of most homebrewers who use conical fermenters is that the
side racking port option is not absolutely essential but remains a very
desirable feature.

Brew on!

- -- Bill Pierce
Cellar Door Homebrewery
Highwood, IL



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:54:13 -0500
From: Alan Meeker <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: Bottle sanitation

My method for bottle sanitization is fairly simple and low tech. First, I
rinse out the residual beer and yeast ASAP after pouring. This prevents
drying of the sediment as well as growth of molds or bacteria inside the
bottle. At some point (usually when SWMBO tells me there are too many
bottles next to the kitchen sink) I move the rinsed empties to a closed 40
gallon Tupperware container I have out on the back porch that I keep filled
with water and chlorine bleach. The bottles simply soak in here for several
days - weeks, until the tank is fairly full with bottles (about 3 cases
worth). At this time I pull them out, drain them, and use a bottle jet
washer to rinse out the residual chlorine water. For this rinse step I
simply use hot tap water which, it turns out, is plenty sanitary for
homebrew purposes. Finally, I put the bottles in cases, take them outside
and fling out the residual tap water. I then /lightly/ cover the bottles in
the case with a sheet of aluminum foil and let the cases sit around for a
couple of days. This lets the bottles dry out completely, likely an
important step since should any contaminants be present they won't be able
to grow in the absence of water.

 -Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 12:25:58 -0600
From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: yeast (killing and dumping)

Gene Collins writes:

> The perferred method in wine circles is to add potassium 
> sorbate that acts as a fermentation inhibitor. 

Back to the original poster's desire to kill off his yeast, potassium
sorbate does not actually do that. It will prevent yeast from multiplying,
but if you still have a reasonably large amount of yeast in suspension, you
can still have refermentation problems. Chilling for a month or two to allow
most of the yeast to settle out and racking before adding sorbate should
make the product reasonably stable. 
> 
> To be completely organic in this approach, pastuerization 
> seem to be your only other choice, but this can damage some 
> of the flavor components.

Sterile filtration is another option. Any filter rated at 0.45 microns
absolute or 0.2 microns nominal will leave the product virtually yeast free.
Some people recommend sorbating anyway for the simple reason most home
winemakers do not function in a sterile environment and there is a slight
risk of reintroducing yeast downstream from the filter if you are not
careful. Filtering does not strip flavours or aromas. IMO, this is a myth
perpetuated by wine snobs like Robert Parker, and has no basis in fact. You
can actually cause more damage by improper use of fining agents such as
bentonite or gelatin. 

Lynne O'Connor writes:

> I'm a little confused by the use of the racking port for bottling, or 
> even kegging. In fact, I'm not even sure why its called a "racking" 
> port.
> 
> I guess my point is that the racking port does not appear to be at 
> all necessary for bottling or kegging.
> 
> But perhaps I'm overlooking something. Do those who bottle from the 
> racking port have some reason for not using the bottom valve? 

The only reason I can think of is that the racking port might provide less
disturbance of any sediment still in the tank. I wonder what sort of
turbulence using the bottom port creates that might actually cause the
sediment to be thrown back up when it is engaged? In the initial dumps, this
is not such a big issue. At the end, if your goal is to maintain clarity,
perhaps you would have to waste too much before you actually got back to
clear beer. Just speculation on my part.

Cheers
Brian Lundeen
Brewing at [314,829] aka Winnipeg


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 14:37:25 -0500
From: "Frank J. Russo" <fjrusso at coastalnet.com>
Subject: RE:  How Do You Sanitize Your Bottles?


In the middle of the winter, as short a winter as we have down here in NC,
your method sounds feasible, and the extra heat from the oven would warm the
house.  But it also sounds like more work than I do.  Question, why 2 hours
at 350F?  (I hate to have the oven on for that length of time if a turkey is
not in it.)

An hour before bottling I fill up a large plastic bin with water and add the
iodoform.  Let the bottles soak 1-2 minutes, stand upside down to drain for
10 minutes and then I bottle.


Frank
ATF Home Brew Club
New Bern NC
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for the good men to do
nothing."



Return to table of contents

---