---

	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:
  RE: refrigerator tubing as wort chiller? (Bob Sheck)
  RE: Entering your own Competition ("David Houseman")
  Re: Aerobic Yeast Propagation (Fred L Johnson)
  Re: "dry" Stout ("Chad Gould")
  100% buckwheat beer ? (Martin Rochard)
  Subject: Mini kegs and other thoughts ("Jodie Davis")
  Conical advantages? ("Beer Guy")
  bronze vs stainless (Scott)
  Re: Bottling in Ball Canning Jars ("Pete Calinski")
  RE: "dry" Stout (Michael Hartsock)
  brewing yeast alcohol tolerance/Aerobic yeast propagation ("Steve Alexander")
  Anderson Winter Solstace? (beerbuddy)
  Bottling in Ball Canning Jars (Calvin Perilloux)
  RE: "dry" Stout ("Doug Hurst")
  heating/cooling (Scott)
  Cleaning aeration stone (james ray)
  Acid and Melanoidin malts (Mike.Szwaya)
  Belgian Candi Sugar - invert sugar (Alan Meeker)
  Mark's all grain move (LJ Vitt)
  Siphoning/pressure ("Strom C. Thacker")
  Proper amount of DME for bottling stouts and IPA's ("Lanthier, Chris")
  Substituing 2-row for 6-row in a CAP (Mark Kempisty)
  NG burner for inside question ("Spinelli, Mike")
  RE: Lager yeast types (sulphury vs. estery) (RiedelD)
  Conical Project / SS Stone Sanitizing (jayspies)
  sulfury lager yeasts (Randy Ricchi)
  dry stout (Donald and Melissa Hellen)
  Re: Cleaning/Sanitizing an Aeration Stone (Mike Hoag)
  chest freezer via Dorm fridge ("Michael O'Donnell")
  The Spirit of Homebrewers ("Peter Garofalo")
  Blowoff affect flavor??? (Brendan Oldham)


*
* 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.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

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



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


Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 23:28:52 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bobsheck at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: refrigerator tubing as wort chiller?

Drew- and collective~

This should work just fine. If you are going to use this as 
an immersion chiller, you can always soak the finished 
coil in a vinegar to shine it up. Then run it through the 
dishwasher to clean it up.

If making an immersion chiller, I use a corny keg as a coil
form. Make sure it will fit inside your boiling vessel! 
I use Sanke kegs with a 12" diameter hole in the top,
so a standard frying pan lid fits. And a standard Corny Keg is 
well under this diameter. I use 12 gauge copper wire stripped
of insulation to tie the coils together. 

If making a counter-flow chiller, you only have to worry 
about getting the inside of the tube clean. Either way,
make sure those geeks at the Home Depot get you the
proper fittings.



>i found 50ft of 3/8in "refrigerator tubing" at Home Depot for $20

Bob Sheck // DEA - Down East Alers - Greenville, NC
bsheck at earthlink.net // [583.2,140.6] Apparent Rennerian
Home Brewing since 1993 //  bobsheck at earthlink.net //



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 05:16:07 -0500
From: "David Houseman" <housemanfam at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Entering your own Competition

Dave Perez asks about his club entering it's own hosted Club Only
Competition.  IMHO, so long as the usual controls to maintain anonymity are
upheld this should not be a problem.  But if the same judges are judging in
the competition that helped select the club entry that would be a problem,
particularly if the entry were an easily identifiable fruit, herb, spice, or
vegetable beer.  I mean that might be the only tomato pilsner ever brewed
and highly unforgettable ;-)  But otherwise go for it, keeping the entry
unknown to the jurists.

Dave Houseman



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:40:52 -0500
From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobic Yeast Propagation

Domenick added an interesting caveat to the discussion regarding aerobic
yeast propagation with his assertion that the yeast should consume the
ethanol under aerobic conditions. If this occurs to a significant degree,
how does one explain the data presented in the table excerpted from
YeastLink.com in my last post?  The differences in the alcohol and yeast
mass in the final product between aerobically grown yeast without
incremental feeding (constant infusion) and aerobically grown yeast with
incremental feeding is striking.  If the yeast were significantly using the
ethanol as Domenick suggests, it seems that there should be little
difference in yeast and ethanol mass.

Domenick's question below is a good one:
> What is the wort specific gravity repression limit?  My rough calculation
> based on 10% wort solids being monosaccharides yields about 1.016.

I don't have a good answer, but I think it must be considerably lower than
the value calculated simply from the concentration of monosaccharides in
unpitched wort.  The disaccharides are quickly cleaved in pitched wort to
liberate a lot of glucose, and I suspect that the glucose that is produced
from other sugars after they have entered the cells also contribute to the
respiratory repression effect.  In other words, I suspect that one can get
respiratory repression by feeding a medium with no free glucose if
disachharides containing glucose are in sufficient quantities.
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:08:00 -0500
From: "Chad Gould" <cgould11 at tampabay.rr.com>
Subject: Re: "dry" Stout

> Unless I totally screwed up the hydrometer readings, the OG was
> around 050, and the FG (after a week in secondary, just before
> bottling) was around 021-022. However, I say "around" those readings,
> because it seems if those readings were correct, there would be some
> alcohol in those bottles. ;-)

That's only 55% attenuation, which is highly unusual unless you have a very
unfermentable malt extract (or a hydrometer error). :) This produces an
alcohol percent of around 3.5% - so the alcohol is there. But the malt will
overpower it. Most commercial beers, even stouts, aim for around 75-80%ish
attenuation (or even higher); most homebrew aims for around 70-75%ish
attenuation.

I actually have a recipie I tried to create (a "sweet stout", brewed twice
so far) that *intentionally* dumps a bundle of unfermentable goodies
(lactose, crystal malts) in order to get 55% attenuation. It comes out like
you describe - the alcohol (at 4% or less) is not as noticeable as the thick
malty flavor. You can get drunk on that beer, but your stomach will fill up
first. :)

Depending on the extract and grains used, I would be worried about
overcarbonation (and possibly gushers / exploding bottles) if you try and
store those bottles long term... unless this Irish stout recipie did exactly
what I did for my sweet stout. :)




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:19:31 +0100
From: Martin Rochard <m.rochard at mailclub.net>
Subject: 100% buckwheat beer ?

Hi all,

I wish to brew a beer from 100% buckwheat. I have found
recipes for beers including buckwheat as partial ingredient
 but have not been able to find anything about
a 100% buckwheat beer, although I understand
this is possible, even if admittedly not specially easy.

The questions to which I am in particular looking
for an answer are :

1) Does buckwheat contain enough enzymes to be fermented
on its own without the addition of any other grain ?

2) Is it possible to mash from 100% malted buckwheat,
or would it rather work with a mix of unmalted
and malted buckwheat ?

3) Buckwheat has no husk AFAIK, and even apart from that
I fear it would be quite difficult to filter when being
used at 100% ? Could or should the mash be filtered
with a device letting it go somehow simply through
a piece of cloth, as I understand this is sometime
used for filtering rye ?

Any recipe, experience or advice welcomed.

Thanks,

Martin Rochard
>From France, living in Brittany where buckwheat
belongs to the culture


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:24:29 -0500
From: "Jodie Davis" <jodie at ga.prestige.net>
Subject: Subject: Mini kegs and other thoughts

Teresa,

I haven't gone the keg route yet. We'll do it when we build a bar in our
new house in a few years.
In the meantime for each batch of beer I fill one Tap-a-Draft bottle and
bottle the rest. We always have a beer on Tap-a-Draft in the fridge
(sometimes two) and have bottles to share. We bought the freeze jackets
for the Tap-a-Draft to make them portably cold--we're quite popular at
parties!
You can check it out at
http://www.morebeer.com

BTW, I ferment at the same temps you do and--ask our friends--my beers
give a great buzz! 

Jodie



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:32:30 -0500
From: "Beer Guy" <beerguy at 1gallon.com>
Subject: Conical advantages?

There's been a lot of posts lately about SS conical  fermenters. I'm missing
the advantage to such a device. Is it just that you can 'dump' the
precipitate out at the start and then get clear beer, or is there something
else here?

Henry in Portage, MI
http://1Gallon.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 06:40:24 -0800
From: Scott <sejose at pacbell.net>
Subject: bronze vs stainless

Hello all

I'm assembling pieces and parts for a RIMS/brew structure, and can get full
port bronze ball valves at a very inexpensive rate.  Is there any real
disadvantage to bronze vs stainless ball valves, and is lead a problem when
using bronze?

Thanks

Scott Jose




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:49:38 -0500
From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Bottling in Ball Canning Jars

"do you think a canning jar can withstand the internal pressure of the CO2 "

They did for me.  One time I underestimated the volume of beer in the carboy
(it was a British kit that yielded 5 imperial gallons or around 6 US gallons
if I remember my excuse correctly).

I didn't wash enough bottles and, as I neared the end, I ran out of bottles.
I looked up and spotted the canning jars, 2 mason jars and a salvaged
mayonnaise jar.  Well, any port in a storm.  I assumed they were clean
enough "as is" and bottled the remaining beer in the 3 jars.  They worked
fine and survived the pressure.  I even took one to a local beer tasting.  I
got the same comments I always got. (enough said)


Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY


***********************************************************
*My goal:
*      Go through life and never drink the same beer twice.
*     (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.)
***********************************************************



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 07:28:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: "dry" Stout

By my calculations, your stout is something like 3.2
beer.  If you've ever been to Kansas, you'll know that
you have to make a committed effort to get a buzz out
of 3.2 on a Sunday!  Damn ABC laws.  You probably
racked it to the secondary to early, a dry stout
shouldn't be 1.022, thats not very dry!  Next time the
readings are that high, pitch more yeast or roust the
yeast cake off the bottom, it might be stuck!  But if
I had to put my money on a cause, you probably didn't
aerate the wort well enough prior to pitching.  I have
a simple and cheap design for a wort shower that works
real well.  At the end of your siphon hose close off
the end and drill or punch little holes all over
several inches up from the end so that the siphoning
wort sprays out in a little shower, thereby increasing
surface area and increasing air taken into the wort,
or spend two dollars or so for a siphon spray head at
your home brew shop!

michael.

Michael.

OK... I tried my first batch last night. It was in the
primary 
fermenter for 5 days, the secondary for a week, and
sitting in the 
bottles for 12 days. An irish stout kit, with espresso
added, and 
primed with molasses. :-) I opened a bottle, and it
went "FSST" when 
the seal broke, just like it should. It smelled great
when I poured 
it into a glass, and had a nice, dark, thick head...
strong flavor 
(could probably do with a bit more mellowing time),
but good! Very 
tasty beer. I immediately sat down and designed a
label for it, and 
congratulated myself heartily.

However, as the evening wore on, I began to notice
something... my 
boyfriend was the first to mention it, and after 14
beers between the 
two of us, it was indisputable. It looked like beer,
it tasted like 
beer, it smelled like beer, but you could tote a case
of this stuff 
into a dry county anywhere in the US, and probably
legally sell it to 
children. ;-) I'm thinking of changing the name from
Seismic Stout to 
Sharp's Stout. hehehe. No noticeable alcohol content.

I'm assuming the only possible cause of this is that
the fermentation 
did not complete properly? I know it bubbled like mad
the first day, 
to the point of overflowing and partially clogging the
airlock. I 
rinsed the airlock and re-sanitized it, put it back on
the fermenter, 
and saw that it was still bubbling slowly. It
continued to bubble a 
bit through the second day... and then just sort of
sat there for 
three days before I racked it to secondary. (This was
using Muntons 
dry yeast... 1 packet, rehydrated before pitching. I
looked for info 
online, and found a couple of mentions of this yeast
being a 
notorious fast fermenter, so I didn't think anything
of it.)

Unless I totally screwed up the hydrometer readings,
the OG was 
around 050, and the FG (after a week in secondary,
just before 
bottling) was around 021-022. However, I say "around"
those readings, 
because it seems if those readings were correct, there
would be some 
alcohol in those bottles. ;-)

I'm doing an amber ale this weekend, and I'm hoping if
I'm more 
careful to lower the pitching temperature (it was
around 80degF last 
time), and try to keep the fermenter a little cooler
this time (the 
sticky thermometer on the bucket read 76-78degF during
the first two 
days of fermentation last time, and dropped to a
steady 68degF for 
the rest of the time), my yeast may do a bit more work
on this batch?

Also, what does everyone think about priming with
honey for the 
amber? The molasses/espresso mix on the stout worked
great for 
carbonation & flavor, and I like the idea of using
different priming 
solutions for different flavors...
 - -- 
:: Teresa ::
http://www.mivox.com/

"Men are not prisoners of fate,
but only prisoners of their own minds."
	-- Franklin D. Roosevelt




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:55:04 -0500
From: "Steve Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net>
Subject: brewing yeast alcohol tolerance/Aerobic yeast propagation

I finally found HBD 4095 & 4096 in a SPAM folder along with other African
scams ....

Bob Gordon  notes ...

>Earlier this week I posted a question about a batch that did not completely
>finish and then it didn't carbonate.
 ...
>Now I was wondering what to do the next time I suspect this is happening.
>Could I re-hydrate some dry yeast and pitch that ?
>Or would it better to get another pitchable tube and use it instead ?
>If using a tube is the preferred method do I, or should I, make a starter ?

Alcohol can indeed kill or stop yeast but lets review a few facts.

The primary reason that yeast stop fermenting - that is that "sticking
fermentation" occurs - is that yeast run out of sterols and unsaturated
fatty
acids(UFAs)  and can no longer reproduce. When yeast are not reproducing
they sluggishly ferment since they no longer require a great deal of energy.
Yeast require free oxygen  to make these lipids which is why aerating your
starters and pitching wort is so important.

This also explains why high gravity fermentations are so difficult.  To
rapidly ferment any wort  you must keep yeast in growth (log) phase.   This
will cause an amount of yeast growth (in grams per liter or whatever) that
is
almost proportional to the amount of fermentables per liter.   IOW that
30P barleywine wort if 'power fermented' would produce about 3
times the yeast growth as your 10P mild ale wort.  The problem is
that the barleywine wort holds no more dissolved oxygen than the mild wort
so the yeast in any hi-grav fermentation are  very very likely to poop out
from lack of oxygen derived lipids long before attenuation is complete
This is also the reason that 1.060SG wort makes very bad starters.  Yes
most yeast will ferment out this starter, but are likely to be in a  lipid
depleted state before this occurs and may not be able to form storage
carbohydrates before attenuation is complete.  You'll have a lot of yeast
but not necessarily a lot of healthy vigorous yeast.

It's been demonstrated over and over again that common brewing yeast can
tolerate and grow in alcohol levels of 10%, 12% , very often 18% and in one
paper 23% abv!   To do this tho' yeast require high levels of the oxygen
derived lipids since lipids are essential for the yeast to maintain cell
walls
which are less permeable to ethanol.  Weak, lipid depleted yeast can neither
tolerate alcohol nor the high osmotic pressures of high gravity wort, but
given these lipids the same yeast will ferment to astonishing ethanol
levels.

>Could I re-hydrate some dry yeast and pitch that ?
>Or would it better to get another pitchable tube and use it instead ?

Neither.  You need to create a well aerated starter and then pitch
the yeast while they are still lipid rich and not after the starter has
fermented out.   The same advice applies to barleywine fermentations.

You might use an RTP yeast slug or dry yeast in a small amount of
continuously aerated wort.  5-6 hours in a pint of c-aerated wort
should be fine. You could also use the method Fred Johnson has
detailed to grow yeast with some respiration - since this also
produces lipid rich yeast. Generally speaking dry yeast and starter
packed yeasts are low in lipids but high in storage carbohydrates
needed for lipid production - they need air.   You should never
pitch packaged/stored yeast into unaerated wort-beer since they
will sputter out quickly from lack of lipids.

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

Dom Venezia asks ....

>My question is, what is the difference between the yeast going directly
>from glucose to CO2 + H2O by avoiding respiratory repression, and, going
>from glucose to ethanol to CO2 + H2O using respiratory repression?

The difference is time.   The growth rate during fermentation is lower than
during respiration and it takes considerable time (hours) for yeast to
accomplish the shift in metabolism from fermentation to respiration.
The goal is rapid growth.   There are other differences too - yeast grown
under Crabtree conditions also supress mitochondrial development and
certain cytochrome development and these conditions give advantage to
respiratory deficient mutants.   Growing yeast under catabolite supression
is clearly non-optimal - ignoring for the moment that most of us do this
to an extent when creating starters.

Fred's method allows for some respiration and some fermentation in a wort
media and several reports in the lit show that such yeast are ready to pitch
without further processing.   I've also grown yeast on media which only
permits respiration and tho' efficient for growth it is IMO too much effort
to be practical.

>What is the wort specific gravity repression limit?  My rough calculation
>based on 10% wort solids being monosaccharides yields about 1.016.

That's the right neighborhood.

If you consider 4% of wort extract is sucrose - rapidly inverted to
glucose+fructose and another 8-10% as glucose.   Let's say after inversion
11% glucose and 2% fructose.   The glucose repression occurs around 0.4P
glucose so an (0.4/0.11) 3.6P wort (1.015SG) is around the repression level
for glucose alone.  Fructose is almost as effective in creating Crabtree
effect
and the impact is likely additive bringing that down to 3P, 1.012SG.  2P of
wort extract is a safe limit to avoid repression

There was an old study (around 10 years back) that showed several brands of
dried malt extract contained very high levels of sucrose and/or glucose!   I
can't say that this sort of adulteration still occurs but it's a formula for
catabolite
repression.

 -S



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:23:40 +0000
From: beerbuddy at attbi.com
Subject: Anderson Winter Solstace?

Well, my wife convinced me that a shopping junket to Portland Oregon was in 
order this past weekend, so we and a couple of friends went down to the 
beautiful, sunny city (it was a nice weekend). Fortunately, my wife supports my 
addiction and there are quite a few microbreweries, brew pubs, and pubs that 
serve local craft brews in the Portland area. I've been on a malty brew kick 
lately, and really enjoyed an old ale that was a "special tap" at the rock 
bottom, and the surprisingly malty Irish Ale at Rogue (and of course also had 
to have the dead guy ale, which also nice and malty and slightly darker). 

The most intrigueing beer that I tried this weekend, though, was on tap at a 
pub, it was Anderson Valley (I think) Winter Solstace. This was a very malty 
ale, a touch sweet, and had a very interesting "bubble gum" finish. That's the 
first time I've tasted such a distinct bubble gum flavor. Being fairly new to 
identify what can create such flavors, I am completely stumped. Any ideas as to 
where this bubble gum taste comes from? 

Thoughts? Comments?

Thanks
Timothy
North Bend, WA
beerbuddy at attbi.com

Some view the glass as half empty, others view the glass as half full, I just 
wonder who the heck is drinking my beer!


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 08:26:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com>
Subject: Bottling in Ball Canning Jars

Jon asks about:
>> ...1 pt Ball canning jars. 
>> ... bottle some of my next batch in these jars...
>> ...do you think a canning jar can withstand the internal
>>    pressure of the CO2 that would be generated

I think it would be a poor idea to use these.
These jars are made to contain a vacuum, not
internal pressure!  The weak point is probably
the top seal disc/ring, though I'd not be completely 
sure either about the glass itself on some of the 
non-cylindrical jars I've seen.  Containing an
internal pressure is not what these are designed for.

When your mother put them in a pressure cooker,
they were effectively containing a "negative
pressure" (in relation to the pressure inside
the cooker), and when cooled later, they were
in a similar state in relation to outside air.
At no time did they have "positive pressure"
inside.

If you put homebrew in them, the tops will swell,
might well leak, too, if you don't screw 'em real
tight, and the whole arrangement seems like a 
beer bomb, or at least random-timed beer spray
device.

But I guess it all depends on how well you like
those relatives who are gonna get these!  (grin)

Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:59:00 -0600
From: "Doug Hurst" <DougH at theshowdept.com>
Subject: RE: "dry" Stout

Teresa wrote:

"...and after 14 beers between the two of us.... No noticeable alcohol
content."

"...the OG was around 050, and the FG (after a week in secondary, just
before bottling) was around 021-022."

According to my calculations you were drinking "near beer".  You had a
relatively high FG at 1.022, if your OG was 1.050, your ABV was
approximately 3.6% (2.8% ABW).  So, if you drank 7 beers, it was like
drinking about 5 beers at 5% ABV.  If you drank these over the course of
4-5 hours and have any alcohol tolerance (who among us doesn't?) you
might not notice much in the way of deleterious effects from the
alcohol.

Your FG of 1.022 is a little high.  You mention that this was a dry
stout.  Did it taste dry or sweet?  You could probably get a lower FG
next time by using a yeast starter and aerating thoroughly.


Doug Hurst
Chicago, IL
[215, 264.5] Apparent Rennerian


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:10:53 -0800
From: Scott <sejose at pacbell.net>
Subject: heating/cooling

Hello

I would like to find a refrigerator controller that would also control a
heating pad.  Seems a few years back I ran across a controller which allowed
for this sort of thing, it had two plugs and you could set points for each
independent.  Anyone see one of these and where could I find one?

Thanks

Scott Jose




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 09:10:20 -0800 (PST)
From: james ray <jnjnmiami at yahoo.com>
Subject: Cleaning aeration stone

I suggest cleaning your stainless aeration stone with
PBW by soaking overnight, then rinse well and soak in
iodofor  until your next use.  Re-sanitize before use
and purge with air to remove any excess iodifor. 

James Ray
Montgomery, Alabama
rjraybrewer at aol.com 



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:06:51 -0800
From: Mike.Szwaya at clark.wa.gov
Subject: Acid and Melanoidin malts


Hi, I've got a couple questions:

First, has anyone used the Weyermann Acid Malt for use in making a Bohemian
Pilsner?  If so, do you have any comparisons between percent acid malt and
resulting mash pH?  Assuming I'm using very soft water, I'm curious to see
how much it takes to lower the mash pH within proper limits.  St. Pats
catalog states that up to 10% will work.  I'd like to hear if anyone has
done any trial and error with this.

Second, a similar question on the use of melanoidin malt.  Over the past few
years, especially with the debates on decoction versus RIMS-type systems,
I've seen a number of statements to the effect that a decoction mash can be
replaced using modern malts and a controlled step infusion mash.  However I
haven't found much in the line of concrete modifications that could be used,
especially pertaining to specific modern malts.

While I am not interested in resurrecting the fundamental debate of mash
systems (although it's out of my hands now), I am interested in hearing from
non-decoction brewers who have tried various malts to mimic the wort
darkening and increase in melanoidin content generated by decoction(s).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike Szwaya
Portland, OR
mailto: mike.szwaya at clark.wa.gov



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:03:29 -0500
From: Alan Meeker <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: Belgian Candi Sugar - invert sugar

Hi Jeff, how are things?  Lots of interesting discussions on HBD lately
Unfortunately I have been way too busy to chime in on these (I'm take this
as a good sign for my future career!)

I'll bet you're right about candi sugar being mostly sucrose. On the other
hand, you seemed to imply that "invert sugar" is not 100% fermentable. If
memory serves me, invert sugar is simply the hydrolysis product of sucrose,
resulting in a 50-50 mix of glucose and fructose (the two monosaccharide
components of the sucrose disaccharide). I recall that the solution thus
created has optical rotation properties in the reverse direction of a
sucrose solution (though, interestingly enough, glucose and fructose in pure
solution alone are either D or L). I can't for the life of me remember /why/
anyone goes to all the trouble of making invert sugar, at least not for
brewing, as brewer's yeast has no trouble hydrolyzing sucrose enzymaticaly
via the enzyme invertase.

Cheers!

Alan Meeker
Baltimore, MD



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:13:37 -0800 (PST)
From: LJ Vitt <lvitt4 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Mark's all grain move


I too moved from partial mashes to all grain.  And I didn't completely move
to all grain right away.  That was because my early all grain beers weren't
as good as the partial mashes.

Yes, simple has it's advantage for you here.  If you work with a style 
you have made before with partial mashes, then you are only changing
they way you make your wort.  Boiling, hopping, fermenting should be
the way you have already done it.

Some things I did wrong in my switch to all grain:

I used the Zapap lauter tun that was sufficient for my partial
mashes but had low capacity and no insolation - so the grain bed
cooled fast.  Zapap - that's the name C.Papazian gave to the
bucket inside another bucket lauter tun.

PH - With my water, the PH needs to be adjusted.  This depends on
the water you are using.  I was initially ignoring this.  The
PH of the mash and the sparge water matter.

Poor malt - I had a bag that absorbed humidity sitting in my basement.

Repeated brewing helped me improve my process and get my steps straight.

If possible, visit another brewer and help him/her make a batch.
You learn quite a lot doing this.  I still learn something when I 
help someone out.

There is one thing that is simpler to do all grain compare to partial
mashes.  With partial mashes, I heated my thin wort (extract from mash
with more water added) to a boil, and turned the heat off to add extract.
Then you heated to a boil again.  That is elimiated from all grain.



=====
Leo Vitt
Rochester MN



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 10:26:59 -0800
From: "Strom C. Thacker" <sthacker at bu.edu>
Subject: Siphoning/pressure

Jeff Renner comments on Tidmarsh Major's neat suggestion below.

My question: If both vessels are sealed (as one would want if trying 
to avoid oxidation, a main benefit of counter pressure transfer), 
wouldn't the siphon stop as soon as the pressure in the receiving 
vessel rose to a certain level (and the pressure in the higher vessel 
fell to a certain level)?

Strom Thacker
Palo Alto, CA


"Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh at bellsouth.net> writes

>As a variation on this method, place the full keg on a counter,
>table, or somewhere else higher than the receiving keg. Add just
>enough gas to get the flow started, and then connect a line between
>the two gas in fittings. The beer will siphon under pressure without
>the need to intermittently relieve pressure and without the need to
>add additional gas.

Hey - that's clever.  You are just siphoning.  No matter that the
contents of both kegs may be under 10 psi or whatever.  I like that.
Elegant.  It's easier and it saves gas, too.

There is a practical problem for me.  I let my beer settle clear on
the floor of a cellar closet or in a deep freeze, so if I lifted the
keg to a counter, I suspect I'd roil the sediment and would not have
clear beer.  I might be able to let it settle for an hour or two
without much warming, though.

Thanks for the tip.  Hope the CACA turns out great.

Jeff
 - --
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: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:43:47 -0500
From: "Lanthier, Chris" <CLanthie at arqule.com>
Subject: Proper amount of DME for bottling stouts and IPA's

Greetings,

During my past few years of home brewing, I've always bottled my beer using
a standard 3/4 cups of dextrose per 5 gal batch, regardless of style I am
brewing up.  I would like to improve the quality of my beer by, first,
starting to use dry malt extract in place of sugar, and secondly, adding an
appropriate amount of DME so that the final carbonation would match that of
the desired style.  I've looked around for carbonation information for
bottling, and have only found pressure info if using a kegging system.
Could anyone recommend DME quantities for bottling dry Irish stout, and an
American IPA?

Chris Lanthier
Andover, MA




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 13:54:00 -0500
From: Mark Kempisty <kempisty at pav.research.panasonic.com>
Subject: Substituing 2-row for 6-row in a CAP

I'm thinking of doing a CAP and would like to know how different it
would be if I substitute 2-row
for 6-row.

- --
Take care,
Mark





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:27:14 -0500
From: "Spinelli, Mike" <paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil>
Subject: NG burner for inside question

HBDers,

I'm redoing my kitchen and will be disconnecting my NG stove while the floor
is being tiled.

I'd still like to cook while the stove is disconnected (could be a few
weeks).

Could I hook up something like a Superb gas burner onto my kitchen flex gas
pipe without blowing up the house?

Or would an electric portable burner be a better idea?

This is just for cooking purposes.  My brewing is done outdoors.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Mike Spinelli

Cherry Hill NJ


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:29:12 -0500
From: RiedelD at pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Subject: RE: Lager yeast types (sulphury vs. estery)

A little over a week ago, Randy spoke about sulphury vs. estery lager yeasts
(see end of this post).  I racked a split batch of 'bitter' over the weekend
and I have a data point or two to contribute.  The wort was 1.048, 30 IBU, 6
SRM (according to ProMash) made from about 93% Simpson's Maris Otter,
6%Baird Carastan, and 1% Baird Chocolate.  I fermented 3.75 gallons with
Wyeast Irish Ale (1084) and 5 gallons with Saflager S-23 - both at
approximately 66F.  The idea with the S-23 was to try to get a steam beer
result.  [The room temperature use of the S-23 does skew my comments
slightly.]

First of all, S-23 definitely throws a healthy amount of sulphur.  A hint of
it is still noticeable post-ferment (7 days after pitching).  There is quite
a tartness to the beer that I noticed in a Vienna style made with the same
yeast strain earlier this year.  In the Vienna, the tartness became more
subdued with time, becoming more of a crispness.  I hope that will be the
case with this beer.  The most evident feature of this beer is the maltiness
from mid-palate though to the finish.  Very nice, actually.  The bitterness
seems much less than 30 IBU.  Perhaps this is the result of the prominent
maltiness.

The 1084 beer shows bitterness right up front and maintains it to the
finish.  Without question, the 1084 beer leaves the hops to shine through
with the maltiness in support only.  This is the first time I have seen such
a difference in perceived bitterness with only a change in yeast.  The 1084
wort was run off second and therefore had the hops steeped in it longer than
the S-23 wort, but I don't think this would account for all the difference
in bitterness.  The hops were boiled for 60 mins, 30 mins and 1 min.  I
suppose it's possible that the 30min addition may have increased the
bitterness of the second wort as the total run-off took about 45mins.  I use
a counter-flow chiller.

I can at least stand by my observation that S-23 is sulphury and
malt-accentuated.  Feel free to comment.

Dave Riedel
Victoria, Canada.

Edited original post:

>The article was by Ray Daniels and was in an issue of Zymurgy devoted
>mostly to lagers. I believe he was saying that one class of lager yeasts
>(carsberg-type) was sulfur producing, and the other (tuborg) was estery.

>Interestingly, George Fix in "Analysis of brewing techniques" broke
>lager yeasts out into two categories, which he distinguished as "malty",
>and  (I think) "dry/crisp" .
>Some of the examples George gave for the "malty" yeasts were the same
>ones Ray gave for the "sulfury" yeasts. I believe Wyeast 2007, which Ray
>classified as estery, was one of the examples George gave for
>"dry/crisp".




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:35:14 +0000
From: jayspies at att.net
Subject: Conical Project / SS Stone Sanitizing

All -

I'm currently in the final stages of my conical fermenter project, and wanted 
to give a quick update on final costs.....  The fermenter I modeled my system 
after was B3's 12.2 gal conical, FWIW.

Here's how it breaks down:

B3 Conical:
Base fermenter / stand = $390
SS lid = $68
Full port bottom dump valve = $18
Side racking port = $130
TOTAL COST = $606

My Conical
TMS 12.2 hopper = $87
TMS SS lid = $44
Zymie's SS racking port, SS dump valve and stand with seal = $235
7/8" Unibit to make the holes = $30
TOTAL COST= $396

Savings for doing it this way: $210, with really no difference in the overall 
quality of the fermenter, save that the B3 unions are welded shut versus 
screwed on.  Not a big deal, just sanitize well.  You could make your own 
stand and lid to save some $, but for a fermenter that will last a lifetime, I 
say suck it up and spend the dough.  You'll thank yourself later.  NAYY with 
Zymie and all, but I have to say that the stuff I got from him is really high 
quality, and fits the cone perfectly.  

Speaking of sanitizing, my method for sanitizing an aeration stone is to 
prepare a mason jar with a Star-San solution, and soak my airstone in it with 
the 3/16" tubing attached to it.  Then, after a few minutes, I take a big 
syringe (I think they're called "feeding syinges" - you can find them in baby 
food sections or pet stores all the time) and stick the plastic end of it into 
the other end of the tube.  When it's lodged in there, I push air through the 
stone with the plunger to force any debris out and then pull the Star-San 
solution through the stone with the plunger the other way.  A few cycles later 
I leave the stone with solution in it.  This ensures Star-San reaches all the 
pores and I'm not using my mouth to force the air.  Works for me.......

Jay Spies
Charm City Altobrewery


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:03:51 -0500
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us>
Subject: sulfury lager yeasts

With regard to Dave Riedel's post above, I once brewed a vienna with
Brewtek  E. European lager yeast, a sulfur producer. My notes showed
that the beer tasted horrible right after primary, much better but not
really spectacular at about 5 or 6 weeks, and absolutely the best malt
character I have ever achieved in a beer at about 10 weeks on. The grain
bill was 100% vienna malt.

In my experience all of the sulfur-producing lager yeasts have made
malt-accentuated beers, and this corresponds to the yeast company's
claims for those yeasts.

My only gripe is they all need to be aged quite a bit before they are
any good, which is why I'm now interested in exploring estery lager
yeasts. No one has actually posted which of the Wyeast or White labs are
of the estery type.



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:38:26 -0500
From: Donald and Melissa Hellen <donhellen at horizonview.net>
Subject: dry stout

Teresa Knezek wrote:

>However, as the evening wore on, I began to notice something... my 
>boyfriend was the first to mention it, and after 14 beers between the 
>two of us, it was indisputable. It looked like beer, it tasted like 
>beer, it smelled like beer, but you could tote a case of this stuff 
>into a dry county anywhere in the US, and probably legally sell it to 
>children. ;-) I'm thinking of changing the name from Seismic Stout to 
>Sharp's Stout. hehehe. No noticeable alcohol content.

My brother in law and sister found the same problem when they made
beer from the one-can kits. Very low alcohol. With more malt, you get
more alcohol and better flavor at the same time. They switched to kits
from www.alternativebeverage.com, which have some very good all-malt
kits. There are other good suppliers out there, too, hopefully one in
Alaska. That may or may not be part of your problem, though, form what
you mention later in your post:

>I'm assuming the only possible cause of this is that the fermentation 
>did not complete properly? . . 

>Unless I totally screwed up the hydrometer readings, the OG was 
>around 050, and the FG (after a week in secondary, just before 
>bottling) was around 021-022. However, I say "around" those readings, 
>because it seems if those readings were correct, there would be some 
>alcohol in those bottles. ;-)

I might be wrong here, but you may not have let it ferment completely.
That sounds like a rather high FG to me. It is possible that you will
get more fermentation in the bottles and eventually have "bottle
bombs."

Here's what to do about that. Sample at least one bottle every day. If
the beer starts gushing out of the bottle (foam over the top of the
bottle neck), it is close to being unsafe. At that point, drink it all
up quickly or open the bottles and dispose of it. You don't want to
have glass grenades exploding in your face. 

Your high FG may also indicate that you would have more alcohol
content if it finished out at a lower FG. Did you let it ferment at
about 65 to 70 degrees F?

Don Hellen



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 14:32:25 -0800 (PST)
From: Mike Hoag <hohe2112 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning/Sanitizing an Aeration Stone

Hi All-

It's been a very long time since I've posted here, but I'm finally getting
back into the brewing swing after almost five years of absense (phew).

On the subject of cleaning and sanitizing an Aeration Stone, there is a simple
and amazingly effective method that I used way-back-when and haven't seen
mentioned here: Alcohol.  Specifically, generic rubbing alcohol, although I
did use vodka once in a pinch.

Here's how to do it:  Take an old inline sterile filter and plug it in to the
and gently suck on the filter end just until the alcohol has fully saturated
the stone.  Remove the old filter and leave to rest for a few minutes.  Then
connect the air pump with a new sterile filter to the hose and run the pump
for a minute or so to clear the stone.  You will notice an immediate
difference in the amount of air flowing through the stone.  Shake off any
excess alcohol and use normally.  If you're careful about the process you can
accomplish this without contaminating the hose (i.e., don't blow when you
should be sucking <g>).

Note that this procedure only cleans and sanitizes the stone.  I generally use
Iodophor to sanitize the hose before performing the procedure above.

Mike Hoag
North Coast, CA



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:52:08 -0800
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo at stanford.edu>
Subject: chest freezer via Dorm fridge

OK, so I am looking for some suggestions for reviving a chest freezer.

I built an insulted box out of foil-sided foam insulation panels and 
wrapped it around a dorm fridge.  This has worked really well, keeping 4 
kegs cold with no trouble (barely even notice it on my electric bill).  The 
downside is that the foam-and-duct-tape box is hard to clean and if I set a 
keg in it too hard I dent the panels... I'm sure that the mildew is going 
to explode one day.

So, I saw a chest freezer getting tossed from work.  Apparently, it had 
been broken and fixed before, but was broken again and they didn't think it 
worth sinking any more money into.  Obviously, I grabbed it.  My thought is 
that, even if I just cut a hole in the side and replace my homemade box, I 
come out ahead because I now have a waterproof floor that I can bleach, etc.

Then I started thinking of ways to get the heat out of the box, and 
wondered if there might be a better way to do it than cut a whopping big 
hole and jamming a dorm fridge in.  One thought is to run insulated heating 
ducts back and forth with a small fan.  Not sure how much heat the fan 
would add... something I need to think about.  Another thought is a heat 
exchanger -- fill the dorm fridge with a tank of salt-water or some other 
liquid, and circulate cold liquid with a pump into the larger box.  Might 
even put the temperature control on the pump, and let the fridge just work 
until it gets the reservoir as cold as it can.  Again, don't know if this 
idea is cracked -- obviously the water won't be all that cold -- maybe 
30-35 if the fridge is really working, and the pump will add a bit of heat.

Anyway, just some thoughts that I'd love to hear comments on.   Also, how 
much might it cost to get a chest freezer fixed?

THanks,
mike
Monterey, CA



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 21:16:47 -0500
From: "Peter Garofalo" <pgarofa1 at twcny.rr.com>
Subject: The Spirit of Homebrewers

I'd like to applaud the basic character of those who ply our hobby.

I am feeling rather charitable, as a fellow homebrewer just carried a bag of
Maris Otter several hundred miles (through some notable snow) to deliver it
to me. All right, he had other business in town, but there was still some
inconvenience involved.

Of course, we shared some beers and some war stories, but isn't that what
this hobby is all about? It was really gratifying to be able to offer some
yeast in return. The point is, we will both likely make better beer as a
result of our shared interest.

Wouldn't it be nice if more things in life were like this?

Peter Garofalo
Syracuse, NY



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 19:07:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Brendan Oldham <brendan_oldham at yahoo.com>
Subject: Blowoff affect flavor???

I want to brew 2.5g batches in a 5g carboy. Because of
the airspace, I don't need a blowoff tube. However,
the JOHB states that the blowoff tube, "gets rid of
excessively bitter hop resins,excess yeast and other
things that may contribute to hangovers".
Has anyone ever proved/disproved this? Should I still
use a blowoff tube? Thanks for any info.




Return to table of contents

---