---

	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:
  bad brew (Brian Dube)
  Re: Sealing a conical lid - Why Bother? (FRASERJ)
  Beer Statistics (Jeremy Bergsman)
  Re: Brew Pot Advice ("Bridges, Scott")
  Statistics and Brewing ("Dan Listermann")
  Triangle error ("A.J. deLange")
  Re: Harsh bitterness in CAP (Jeff Renner)
  Hoegarden Belgian Wit (D.T.)" <dpeters3 at ford.com>
  Sealing a Conical ("Vernon, Mark")
  Ninth Boneyard Brew-Off ("Joel Plutchak")
  re: Un-stump the HBD - you could be the one! ("-S")
  First Brew: Bottles? (Ryan Neily)
  Brew pot advise (Todd Etzel)
  triangle tests, serial order, and the binomial test ("Frank Tutzauer")
  more yeast infections. ("Dr. Pivo")
  triangle test statistics ("Dr. Pivo")
  Scrumpy induced Vaginitis, coals to Newcastle ("Dave Burley")
  Daddy, Where Do Butyric Acid Come From??? (mohrstrom)
  National Homebrew Day ("Gary Glass")
  re: bottom mashing ("-S")
  Vaginitis (Jennifer/Nathan Hall)
  Re: Sealing a conical lid - Why Bother? (Jennifer/Nathan Hall)
  Re: Harsh bitterness (Hubert Hanghofer)
  re: triangle tests, statistics and lies ("-S")
  Re: Brewer's yeast and yeast infections (Randy Ricchi)
  fuel alcohol ("-S")
  Re: Harsh bitterness in CAP (Phil Sides Jr)


*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! 
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* 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: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 01:18:36 -0500
From: Brian Dube <brian.dube at gotgoat.com>
Subject: bad brew

The American cream ale I had trouble with in the primary is garbage. I 
pitched, repitched, and nothing really happened. It's been in the 
bottle for a while now--I don't remember how many weeks--and it's 
disgusting. I lost those 5 gallons, but that doesn't really bother me. 
What bothers me is that I'm tired of making terrible beer.

What are the leading causes of astringency in extract and partial mash 
brews? I'd say I emphasize sanitization, but I'm not obsessive about 
it. Should this be my first clue?

Thanks,
Brian

Frustrated as hell in Columbia, Missouri



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 06:46:05 -0400
From: FRASERJ at Nationwide.com
Subject: Re: Sealing a conical lid - Why Bother?

I had very seriously considered not sealing the lid at all, the lid that
you buy from TMS has at least a 1/2" lip on it and it hangs down the side
of the conical.  And it was always my intention to pull it out of the
conical and into a glass secondary whenever primary was subsiding.

Oh well........paranoia will destroy ya!

John M. Fraser





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 07:50:09 -0400
From: Jeremy Bergsman <jeremy at bergsman.org>
Subject: Beer Statistics

The recent illumination about the triangle test has been useful, but I have
anxiously been awaiting a statistics god to answer Paul's original question:

> Anyway, my
> club will soon be comparing a beer that we all brewed from the same recipe
> ala the great pale ale experiment of a few years back.  Folks tout the
> triangle test as a simple objective means to establish that beers are indeed
> different and seems ideally suited to the task at hand.
> 
> Obviously, even to me, someone is nominated the pourer with the task of
> pouring one sample of one beer and two samples of another, presenting these
> to the taster(s) in a blind fashion (albeit sans blindfold, cane, dog or
> other accoutrements) and the taster is tasked with identifying the
> "different" beer.  Now, how is this efficiently done with a number of beers,
> say 8 and a number of tasters, say 10?  

My old club did a few experiments like this, and it was never clear to me
what to do with the beers, other than let everyone have at them.  I did try
to collect impressions and tabulate them (e.g.
http://bergsman.org/jeremy/beerstuff/yeastexp.html) but if there is a clever
way to deal with larger numbers of beers without a huge number of tasters I
would love to read it.
- -- 
Jeremy Bergsman
jeremy at bergsman.org
http://www.bergsman.org/jeremy


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 08:19:42 -0400
From: "Bridges, Scott" <ScottBridges at sc.slr.com>
Subject: Re: Brew Pot Advice


Tim Hamrick writes:

>After a dozen years of extract brewing, I am preparing to make the jump
>to full grain brewing and have an equipment question. I secured a
>surplus Sankey keg and have placed a hole in the top suitable for a lid
>(so far so good). I also plan on having a SST nipple welded into the
>side of the keg just above the bottom seam. I have read how others
>recommend running a tube arrangement in to the center of the lower dome
>to effectively drain all wort. 
>
>Given that I plan to use this primarily as a brew pot (boiling vessel),
>won't this arrangement simply ensure that I effectively drain  all of
>the accumulated trub and hop residue from the bottom, or am I missing
>something? Would it not be better to leave the drain port a couple of
>inches off the bottom and away from the center to enable drain of the
>clear wort only?

Tim, 
As in most things related to brewing, there is more than one way to skin
this cat.  What you speculate is true, unless you have some way to filter
out the Trub.  I also use a converted keg as a boil kettle, plus I have 2
more for the HL tank and mash tun.  

In all 3 I had a local welder put in a 1/2 X 3" stainless nipple (with
threads on both ends) through the side a couple inches up from the bottom.
The external threads allow me to attach a ball valve.  The internal threads
enable whatever fitting you want to use.  In my mash tun, I connect a home
made Easy Masher (TM), or rolled up screen if you are not familiar with the
concept.  

In my kettle, I use a 3/8 copper tube that circles around at the bottom of
the keg along the inside wall.  I drilled small holes on the bottom of the
tubing and crimped the end not connected to the fitting.  I always whirlpool
so that the trub collects in the middle and doesn't get sucked into the
tubing.  This way, I minimize trub going into the fermenter.  Do I get 100%
of the liquid out of the kettle?  No, there is always a little left but I
take this into account when devising the recipe.  

Hope this helps.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Scott
Brewing in Columbia, SC




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:17:14 -0400
From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com>
Subject: Statistics and Brewing

To anyone who has studied statistics, the "Student t" distribution is well
known.  Interestingly it was discovered by one W. S. Gosset who worked for
Guinness Brewing in the early 20th century.  For more info check out
http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~naras/jsm/TDensity/TDensity.html

Dan Listermann

Check out our E-tail site at www.listermann.com

Free shipping for orders greater than $35
and East of the Mighty Miss.






Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 13:24:53 +0000
From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Triangle error

There was an error in my post of yesterday. If I try to tell you what it 
is the server rejects the message as having more than 80 character lines 
so I'll just say that the glaringly wrong exponent should be N-m not M-n.

I also finished up my spreadsheet to the point where it may be useful. 
One enters the number of panelists and the spreadsheet calculates the 
confidence levels for all outcomes for both the difference and 
preference tests which is an advantage over the tables which only tell 
the number of outcomes required for levels of .05, .01 and .001. There 
was a remark about the accuracy of Excel's statistical functions. 
Apparently they don't apply to the Bindomdist function to any practical 
extent. The spreadsheet result and the Bengssen table in the MOA agree 
in every particular for the difference test. In the preference test the 
spreadsheet finds a confidence of .010034 for 11 out of 29 tasters 
agreeing and thus calls for 12 tasters for p < .01 while the table says 
11 will do. Similarly for 30 tasters the spreadsheet calculates .00108 
for 13 agreeing and requires 14 for p < .001 while the table says 13 
will do. An advantage of seeing the actual numbers is that the 
experimenter can use his judgement in cases like this.

Anyone who would like a copy can drop me a line.

A.J.



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:30:09 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Harsh bitterness in CAP

"Dan Gross" <degross at starpower.net> writes from Olney, Md:

>I brewed my first Classic American Pilsner in early March and it's finally
>in the keg.  There is a harsh bitterness in the finish that is not at all
>pleasant.

Dan, I feel your pain.  After all the hype this great style gets and 
then it isn't nice.

Not sure just what the problem is, but several things come to mind. 
One is water chemistry, which you suggest.  Alkalinity is related to 
bicarbonate, but I'm too lazy right now to check on how the numbers 
work.  But your calcium level is low at 38ppm.  I am not at home with 
residual alkalinity, so I don't know how that relates to your 
alkalinity level of 84ppm, but I'd like to get the Ca++ up to 50-60 
ppm to balance the alkalinity.  Did you take a pH of your mash or 
monitor the pH of your runoff?  You very well could have had a 
problem in either area, especially the later runoff as the alkalinity 
of the sparge water overcame the limited acidity of the mash.

Second, less likely, suspicion is of oxidation, which can cause a 
harsh bitterness.  I think this could come from the extended boil, 
especially if there is little head space in your boiler (I have this 
problem).  You are passing your wort repeatedly past the O2 laden 
atmosphere.

I haven't calculated your bitterness, but eyeballing the hops doesn't 
make it look too high, but the higher your bitterness, the more this 
kind of problem can  who up, I think.

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: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:35:41 -0400
From: "Peters, David (D.T.)" <dpeters3 at ford.com>
Subject: Hoegarden Belgian Wit

Hoegarden is my favorite summertime Wit.  The Blue Moon's and other copies
just don't do it for me.  I
enjoyed far too many fresh while I was over in Europe.

I could not find a recipe in the archives and was wondering if anyone had a
great clone recipe.  I am now 
an all grain brewer enabled or challenged and have done extract and partial
mashes.  So any type of 
recipe would be appreciated.  TIA.

Did my first grain batch over the weekend.  Wasn't as intimidating as I
thought, but, definately learned a 
number of things along the way.  I am looking forward to my Budvar Clone
sometime this summer.

David T. Peters
Northville, Michigan



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:13:47 -0500
From: "Vernon, Mark" <mark at PleasantStreet.com>
Subject: Sealing a Conical

There have been several posts asking about sealing a conical made from a TMS
cone. Why not just buy a replacement o-ring from someone that sells the
premade conicals? I looked at NorthernBrewer (no affiliation yada yada yada)
and a replacement o-ring for their 12 gal conical is $20....not bad
considering if cared for it will probably last forever, and it will
(probably) be a much better seal than you will get with a bead of some caulk
on you lid.....just my $0.02 worth.....

Mark Vernon - Rennarian Unknown (but somewhere in Iowa)


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 14:45:46 +0000
From: "Joel Plutchak" <plutchak at hotmail.com>
Subject: Ninth Boneyard Brew-Off

Brewers, start your kettles!  Judges, mark your calendars!

The 9th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off will be held on May 31,
organized by the Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots,
Champaign Illinois. Entries will be accepted May 21 through
May 28 in all 2001 BJCP beer and mead categories).  We are
also continuing our tradition of a No One Gets Out Alive
High-Gravity category, with a hedonic judging of any beer
or mead with a starting gravity over 1.070.  We will again
include special category 16X: West Coast American-style Stout.

Details are available on the World Wide Web at:

    http://www.uiuc.edu/ro/BUZZ/brewoff.html

Entry forms will be available for download, and will be
snail-mailed out to regional clubs and judges, in the next
week or so.  Online judge and entry registration will be
enabled around May 1.

To receive a hard copy of the materials, send us your
mailing address.

Contacts:
   Competition Organizer: Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu>
   Registrar: Mark Kuechler <kuechler at net66.com>




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:05:59 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: Un-stump the HBD - you could be the one!

Jay Wirsig says,

>I have submitted a couple of questions (submitted twice for good measure)
>yet no one has been able to answer them.

Jay - these questions were clearly and directly answered to the negative.
You're just stumped by the form of the answer.

When you ask a question to a collective it is often (as in your case)
phrased in a form such that you are seeking any one individual positive
answer.  Any one individual can answer affirmatively for the group (logical
OR of affirmatives) , but no individual can answer in the negative for the
group.    A lack of affirmative replies is a negative reply in this case.

"OK class, can anyone answer question #10 ?".  No response means that no one
can.  You shouldn't expect someone to stand up and say, "No".

- --

>Does anyone have a Leffe Clone recipe or the specs
The collective said "No" by silence.

>W51 [...] I'm trying to find a source [...]  can anyone help?
"No" by silence was the answer.

It's worth asking these questions again periodically, but no one is stumped
 .
Best of luck tracking down the W51.    I'd like to hear more about that.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:08:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ryan Neily <ryan at neily.net>
Subject: First Brew: Bottles?


I am about to be Bottling my first batch of Homebrew, and I have a
question about bottles.  Can someone tell me a cheap place to get 48 or so
bottles?

Also, I read somewhere that it was a bad idea to use screw cap bottles.
Has anyone tried using IBC glas root-beer bottles? I figure I can drink a
case of root-beer (giving it to the kids) in the next three weeks and use
those if it's not a problem that they have screw type cap on them...

- -- 
Ryan Neily
ryan at neily.net

Random Quote:
A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on.
		-- Carl Sandburg


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 09:46:02 -0700
From: Todd Etzel <tetzel at ligo.caltech.edu>
Subject: Brew pot advise

Tim Hamrick asks about the use of a tube going to the bottom of his brew 
kettle.  That is the arrangement that I have been using for several years 
with great success.  My pot also has a perforated SS screen of about 10 
inch diameter around the end of the tube.  The screen, combined with the 
whole hop flowers, makes an excellent filter.  The wort flowing out of my 
pot and into the chiller is crystal clear.

Todd Etzel




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 12:42:59 -0400
From: "Frank Tutzauer" <comfrank at acsu.buffalo.edu>
Subject: triangle tests, serial order, and the binomial test

A.J. has a real nice description of the ASBC procedures for the triangle
test.  Among other things, the procedures instruct the panelists to:

"...smell, swirl and smell again. The more odoriferous sample (or samples)
should be tasted after the less."

With all due respect to the ASBC, I stongly disagree with this practice.
The order should either be balanced across judges, or it should be randomly
determined for each judge.  Don't get me wrong:  I understand *why* they're
doing it.  They don't want the highly aromatic beer to knock out our taste
buds when tasting the lesser aromatic beers. The problem is that this
procedure introduces a serial order confound.  This is *terrible*
experimental design.  We pretty much know that serial order influences our
sensory evaluation of a beer, so the confound is not minor.  If the third
beer, say, is the different beer, then we don't know if the judges are
picking it because it's different or because it's third.  On the other
hand, if the orders are randomly determined, and the judges are picking the
different beer, then we know they're picking it because it's different, not
because of where in the flight it is.

My experimental design students would get marked down for making such an
obvious, and serious, mistake.

A.J. also has a good write up of the binomial test.  I don't have time
to go through the details today.  Maybe I'll do it tomorrow and post on
Sataurday.  But I do have two observations:

First, any intro stats book will have binomial tables in the back and it is
a simple matter to add up the appropriate probabilities.  Second, for a
large sample, although it is correct to use the binomial, it is a
royal pain in the butt.  There is a *lot* of arithmetic, and the extra work
doesn't buy you much.  A z-test of proportions is much, much easier.  In
A.J.'s example of 25 tasters, I would not hesitate to use the z-test.  On
the other hand, if you've only got 5 tasters, I'd use the binomial.

For the record, in a triangle test involving three beers, the formula is:

z = (P - 1/3)/(sqrt(2/(N*9)))

where P is the observed proportion of correct picks and N is the number of
judges.  (The 1/3, 2, and 9 all come about because we are using 1/3 as the
test value.)  Compute the z and look it up in the back of a stats book to
find the exact probability.  Or, as in most social science, use a 95%
confidence interval, and compare the computed z to the critical values +/-
1.96 (for a two-tailed test) or to 1.64 (for a one-tailed test).  If the
computed z exceeds the critical value then the error rate is under five
percent.

 --frank in Buffalo



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:30:47 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: more yeast infections.

I was gladdened to read Jon Steinhauer's rather lengthy yet concise
response to what seems to be another "wolf cry" on the internet.... so I
wouldn't have to.

I was confronted with a situation that caused me to do a similar
literature search: A winemaker who tasted some 170 wines daily with a
peculiar skin condition around his nails, that didn't seem to coincide
with anything.  Wondering about the inoordinate ammounts of yeast that
were passing this mans tongue each day, I also consulted literature  to
see if this similar situation could cause a systemic or local condition.
Like Mr. Meeker and Steinhauer I found that the possibility "could
exist",though hardly in an immune competent person, and then took a
reality check by consulting Dermatologists. Not a one had EVER seen or
heard of a colleague who had seen a case.

These people "culture" things and love to find oddities.

I note that Mr. Meeker is associated with a renowned institute of health
with many clinicians that could also give him a reality check.

I would also note that his "imbibing, through the digestive tract, and
then innocluating the vagina" theory, is not supported by the evidence
he sites.... brewery and bakery workers.  These people aren't eating and
drinking the stuff, they're "bathing" in it ..... and may not wash their
hands  before every visit to the toilet...... of course I ALWAYS do....
I've never really understood the rational behind washing "afterwards".
My hands are continually exposed to all kinds of grotty things from old
timber to garden dirt, both before and after urination..... I'm trying
to keep the OTHER thing clean. Let's get our priorities right!

In short, I'd lend my consensus to Jeff Renner's original posting that
consumtion of beer and bread causing yeast infections in women is
complete and utter uninformed nonsense.

Dr. Pivo



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:30:53 +0200
From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se>
Subject: triangle test statistics

I note some very ambitious efforts to establish a standard of
significance when triangle testing.

I would suggest that triangle testing is done within the industry, and
there is a standardised signicance level already in use. It is, I
believe, based on a .05 significance, and if you follow it, you will
have results that are compatable with existing standards.  It is simply
a list of one column with "number of tasters" and a matched column of
"number who have to get it right" in order for there to be a
significant difference.  Easy-Peasy.

It's the one I use.  I got mine originally from Louis K. Bonham (thanks
for that) and have long thought that I should put it somewhere on the
web for homebrewer use...... I just haven't manged to unlodge my thumb
from my yeast infested (*).

Yes the "die" works great as a randomiser.  I started with a coin (three
flips per taster), and noted as the night wore on I spent more time
chasing the darn thing around the barn than writing the results..... but
of course, since the test is "clean", and no one can "search your face"
for the correct answer, I figure I'm allowed to taste  as often as I
like while filling glasses, and that probably accounts for the huge
number of dropped coins rolling around the barn.

Dr. Pivo



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:21:30 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Scrumpy induced Vaginitis, coals to Newcastle

Brewsters:

Who says S. cerevisiae has to make it " all the way to the other end??"  I can
think of a shorter route. Or maybe two.

Also, do I remember correctly that some taxonomic changes were made a few
years ago in which some Sacchromyces were changed to Candida?
- -----------------------------
Stan is doing the brewing equivalent of "carrying coals to Newcastle" by
homebrewing in the Czech republic.

While there, try to get some of the local yeast.


Keep on brewin'

Dave Burley




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:19:49 -0400
From: mohrstrom at core.com
Subject: Daddy, Where Do Butyric Acid Come From???

Someone, at either MCAB-Cleveland or NHC-Dallas (maybe Marc 
Sedam), had told me that sour mashes can generate butyric acid.  I've 
had it happen now with a couple of Berliner Weisse mashes, with both 
Weissheimer Pils and Briess Pilsner malts.  

What causes the generation of butyric acid, what are the precursors, and 
how can I minimize the generation?

Thanks!
Mark in Kalamazoo




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 15:12:29 -0600
From: "Gary Glass" <gary at aob.org>
Subject: National Homebrew Day

The 6th Annual American Homebrewers Association Big Brew celebration of
National Homebrew Day is quickly approaching!  Big Brew is held on the first
Saturday in May.  This year that falls on May 3--just one week from
Saturday.

What is it?  A day of homebrewing fun, joining thousands of brewers around
the world, all brewing the same recipes at the same time.  Things get
started with a simultaneous toast at 12PM Central Time.  Be a part of it and
register your site online at
http://www.beertown.org/events/bigbrew/index.html.  Registering your site
and then coming back and submitting your Big Brew results helps us to
promote and gain publicity for homebrewing.

For this year's recipes, we chose some classics in honor of the American
Homebrewers Association's 25th anniversary: the Vagabond Gingered Ale recipe
that appeared in the very first issue of Zymurgy way back in December 1978
and an Anchor Steam clone recipe in tribute to a classic beer that helped
spawn the current craft brewing revolution in the U.S.

Sites participating in the Big Brew contest have a chance to win a complete
set of Zymurgy magazine.

See http://www.beertown.org/events/bigbrew/index.html for all the details
you need.

Cheers!
Gary

Gary Glass, Project Coordinator
Association of Brewers
888-U-CAN-BREW
(303) 447-0816 x 121
gary at aob.org
www.beertown.org

Join the American Homebrewers Association today at
http://www.beertown.org/homebrewing/membership.html. Check out the AHA Pub
Discount Program, http://www.beertown.org/homebrewing/pubs.html!
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.471 / Virus Database: 269 - Release Date: 4/10/2003



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 17:34:48 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: bottom mashing

Bill Tobler writes about a mash-in technique,

>For dough-in, he puts the measured amount of
>crushed grain in the mash tun with a false bottom
>installed.  No water.  He then pumps the correct
>amount of strike water, at room temperature, up
>through the bottom drain.  He says this wets the grain
>down very nicely and it doesn't make any dough balls.
>He said it also takes a very minimum amount of
>stirring to get the grain bed mixed well. He then
>heats up using the RIMS.

Couple points.  Introducing water from below the plate is not unusual in
commercial operations, tho' in traditional british set-ups the grist and
water are pre-mixed at the end of the grist delivery tube and extra water
for steps or whatever are back-pumped from under the plate(false bottom).
It's normal to backfill hot water to the level of the plate before adding
grist in commercial operations to prevent a sticking mash.  On smaller scale
shallower grist beds it matters less.

There is absolutely no chance of grist 'balling' if the mix water is cool.
'Balling' and the creation of doughy regions and dry-spots is entirely due
to the grist partially gelatinizing and forming water impervious dough
regions.   Temps vaguely close to the gelatinization temp (~63C) are
required.  Maybe you could get dough balls as low as  50C, but it would be
difficult.

One problem with gravity fed mash plate systems is that you can get a lot of
grist under the plate if you aren't careful and that's very bad in direct
heated systems.  In a pumped RIMS system it hardly matters.

Most RIMS systems are underpowered and these underpowered RIMS systems will
have difficulty bumping the temperature at a good rate through the dangerous
head and body killing protoelysis range.    Beers using most modern malts
suffer if allowed to proteolyse much at all.  Modern maltsters usually
perform all the proteolysis needed.    It would be nice to achieve 2C/minute
boost rates up to the low saccharification range (say 60C), but few RIMS can
achieve even 1C/min boost rates.   There are exceptions of course.

>He says he gets between 90-95% efficiency.

So what ?  I once got 107% practical efficiency by decocting a brown ale
grist.    I saved 50 cents in malt but compromised the beer flavor quality
which is a very stupid trade-off.    My belief is that lower extraction
rates generally improve wort & beer flavor.   The 100% practical extraction
is the point at which even mega-brewers cannot tolerate further
overextraction flavors.  The extreme case is no-sparge mashing which
produces demonstrably better beer flavor but drops the efficiency to 50-65%
 .

>I usually get around 80% efficiency, and am
>very happy with that number.

Right - 75-80% is a nice range but try even lower sometime.   If you feel
you need more frugality in your life, then oversparge the last runnings and
boil-down the result for starter wort or small beers.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:31:05 -0400
From: Jennifer/Nathan Hall <hallzoo at comcast.net>
Subject: Vaginitis

Thanks to all for the great info on vaginitis. I can't imagine anything else
that I'd rather read about while drinking a homebrew. As a matter of fact,
maybe we can get a thread going on diverticulitis or anal fissures just for a
change of pace, because I'm just not grossed out enough reading about damn
vaginitis very day except Sunday. I was searching for vaginitis websites but
came up empty handed, so maybe we can rename this forum to Vaginitis Digest
for all our vaginitis info needs. I'm just being a smart ass, but maybe all of
the medically educated people out there could move their vaginal infection
discussions to a more suitable venue with more than one person who has a
question about beer yeast in someone's vagina. Thanks.

Nate Hall
BBV Brewery
I've never had a yeast infection I didn't like!




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 18:38:19 -0400
From: Jennifer/Nathan Hall <hallzoo at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Sealing a conical lid - Why Bother?

I've run seven batches through my CCF without any type of seal around the lid,
and I haven't had any problems. 4 of those 7 were fermented outside anywhere
from 32F to 68F. However, I won't be doing that once it gets warmer because I
have read about fruit fly infestations in fermenters that weren't completely
sealed. Those damn insects are pesky - I've seen them show up on a submarine
that hadn't seen the light of day of fresh air for 4 months - so you gotta
watch out fermenting without a seal during the summertime. Check out the net
if you haven't already, I was able to find tons of info and photos about CCFs
by searching for words like "unitank", "cylindroconical fermenter", and
"conical fermenter".



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:43:42 +0200
From: Hubert Hanghofer <antispam.replace_with_signature at brew.shacknet.nu>
Subject: Re: Harsh bitterness

Hi all,
Dan wrote in HBD#4228:

> I brewed my first Classic American Pilsner in early March and it's finally
> in the keg.  There is a harsh bitterness in the finish that is not at all
> pleasant.

My first CAP is still on the todo-list, but maybe I can help out with a little 
experience regarding unpleasant bitterness.

According to your "extended" hopping schedule you should have hit the 30-35 
IBU range, which (I think) is correct for the style. While this is probably 
beyond the scope of some average "industrial-beer" consumer, it shouldn't be 
perceived as harsh!

In my experience, harsh bitterness has often a rather "unhoppy"  origin:
In most cases, it's the water, but your water seems to be ok:

> Ca  38ppm
> Mg  10ppm
> Na  20ppm
> SO4  33ppm
> Cl  36ppm
> HCO3  unknown (I cannot find a reference to bicarbonate levels in the tap
> water analysis, is this called something else in the anaylsis, perhaps
> alkalinity?)

Yes, alkalinity (caused by HCO3) would be my primary concern, because water 
high in alkalinity could yield in high mash and wort pH and thus extract 
"harsh components" out of our grains and/or hops.

> Total dissolved solids  226ppm
> Hardness  133ppm
> Alkalinity  84ppm

Brewing scientist Kolbach tried to make up a balance between alkaline (HCO3) 
and acidifying ions (Ca, Mg) in the water and came up with the Residual 
Alkalinity (RA) - a parameter, which (IMHO) extracts and concentrates the 
complexity of water chemistry into one single data-point.

RA = alkalinity * 0,05603 - Ca * 0,03998 - Mg * 0,03296
Note: alkalinity (CaCO3), Ca, Mg based on ppm (mg/L).

According to this, your water only (!) has a RA of 2.9 and should be suitable 
for almost any beerstyle. ....Though... if I brew with pale malts and target 
IBU's are beyond 30, I'd be paranoid and add 3-4% acid-malt (per grain bill) 
or an appropriate amount of lactic acid to the mash to bring the RA down to 
negative values (-1-5). It's amazing how (comparatively) "harmonic and 
smooth" even extreme bitterness levels in an IPA (my favorite style) can be 
perceived, if attention is payed to the correct mash and wort acidity (target 
pH 5.4->5.2).

Sulfate (SO4) is another source of bitterness flaws - usually caused by adding 
too much CaSO4! Depending on beerstyle (Burton Ales are exempted) you may get 
an unpleasant/unsuitable bitterness if you exceed 170 ppm SO4.

But if you didn't add any Gypsum and you don't have different water sources- 
your brewing water shouldn't be the problem!!

> ... Another complication is that my area could be
> served by one of two very different water sources (the Patuxent and Potomac
> rivers), or perhaps a combination of the two.

But since it's so important I would double check with your water supplier! In 
my part of the brewiversum we have the right to know everything about our 
water supply! So fight for your right -- IT'S NOT JUST WATER, IT'S YOUR BEER!



Another common source of untypical/unhoppy/harsh bitterness are proteins! 
Soluble peptides are very flavor-active. They act like a key to our 
taste-buds and usually these keys add body and mouthfeel, ....but imagine if 
these keys are malformed.... they may as well cause a negative flavor 
sensation! I'm not sure if this could be caused by extended boils, but most 
likely flavor-negative peptides are released by yeast-autolysis or by 
omitting protein rests with under-modified malts. So double check if you 
really brought your yeast to it's peak of vitality (pitch, areation).

The "under-modified malts" theory is (IMHO) the last resort. I'm absolutely no 
proponent of protein-rests, but I received a message from the Siebels 
Institute were they wrote that the 2002 crop of (US??) barley caused 
problems...

Allzeit gut Sud &
CHEERS,

Hubert Hanghofer
Salzburg, Austria

eMail: <brew at netbeer dot co dot at>
www.netbeer.org
www.BierIG.org


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:12:32 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: re: triangle tests, statistics and lies

After the an excellent posts by Frank Tutzauer, AJ deLange and Larry Bristol
I pulled mine, but Larry of the iso8859 font writes ...,

>A statistical curiousity about the Chi Square test is that it cannot be
used
>to PROVE anything; all it can do is DISPROVE something.  That something is
>called the "null hypothesis"

WHOA THERE, Larry.  Chi square (and also the Z binomial test
which Frank correctly mentions) disproves nothing !!

These tests tell us that it is IMPROBABLE that a triangle test would
produce, say,  12 right answers among 20.   It's so improbable that it would
only happen about 2% of the time by chance according to chi-squared.   The
d*mned thing about reality is that a 2% probability event DOES happen
once every 50 tries.  You'll never *know* if you are observing a quirky
event or if your beers are different.

Real world events can never have any certain foundation accessible to
human knowledge.  Uncertainty is the most ubiquitous feature of reality.
Accept it.

 -Steve




Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:23:00 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at houghton.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Re: Brewer's yeast and yeast infections 

Pete Calinski asks:
 >What would we get if we cultivated it and stepped it up to make a 5 gallon
 >batch?

I don't know, but I bet it would go great with fish and chips  ;^)



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 21:58:32 -0400
From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net>
Subject: fuel alcohol

David Harsh says of fuel alcohol,

>In other words, it takes more energy to distill ethanol than you get by
>burning it.

I thought this was hyperbole, but it's not.

It costs some 35 to 45 kBTUs of heat energy to distill & process 1 gallon of
ethanol in a large scale very efficient operation.  The 1 gal of EtOH has
about 84kBTU of energy.  Simple stills probably cost quite a bit more than
the 84kBTUs to produce a gallon.

Even commercial efficient plants are marginal when you add all the energy
costs including the whopping big energy cost of nitrogen fertilizer to grow
corn.   So ADM is basically converting fossil fuels into ethanol at very
modest energy gain and a significant added cost to the environment.  The
most optimistic estimates are that 24% of the fuel ethanol energy is gained,
the most pessimistic estimates indicate that it's an energy loser.

 -S




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 00:05:07 -0400
From: Phil Sides Jr <altoidman at altoidman.com>
Subject: Re: Harsh bitterness in CAP

"Dan Gross" <degross at starpower.net> writes:
>Another complication is that my area could be
>served by one of two very different water sources (the Patuxent and Potomac
>rivers), or perhaps a combination of the two.

Dan,
If you call WSSC, they will tell you which source you have.  They do not 
ever blend the two according to what they told me ~1-1/2 years ago.  I'm 
about 90% sure you get Patuxent water in Olney, but call them to be sure.

Phil Sides, Jr.
Silver Spring, MD


Need a good laugh today?
Join Altoidman's Humor List - http://www.altoidman.com



Return to table of contents

---