---

	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:
  Super Siphon ("Todd Kirby")
  Exotic critters, and I'll get to beer eventually (Michael Grice)
  uh oh, the dreaded religion vs science thread ("Reddy, Pat")
  Decongestants and BJCP (nlkanous)
  Great Taste of the Midwest -- tickets selling fast (Brew Wisconsin)
  Re: Vinegary Smell in Cornie (Jeff Renner)
  YEA!! I think... (Bill Tobler)
  Re: Faux Decoctions ("The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty")
  Selection pressures on bacteria vs.  Barley and the ecology of beer ("Cave, Jim")
  Water/Photons/Waves ("A.J. deLange")
  Hoff Stevens kegs ("H. Dowda")
  Dunkelweizen and Munich malt (Robert Sandefer)
  wyeast 3763 and oud bruin (jim williams)
  Grant and reverse HERMS ("K. Gold or G. McLane")


*
* 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: Fri, 9 May 2003 00:06:48 -0400
From: "Todd Kirby" <synapticblitz at yahoo.com>
Subject: Super Siphon

OK...first a greeting. I'm not new to HBD, but have recently re-joined the
list after several years of being away from brewing. I just recently made my
first batch in several years, and it is good to see the air locks popping
again!
As I was breaking out all my old brew equipment, I once again found my Super
Siphon...anyone else use these in brewing? The head is copper and has a
glass marble inside, so they're pretty inert for sanitizing (I boil mine).
Sometimes it's the simple things that are a real joy. These
things work great for transferring from carboys, etc., so I thought I'd
share the idea with the list since I've never seen them mentioned. I have no
commercial interest, just a satisfied customer!
It's good to be back! And it's cool to see that people still use the
Rennerian coordinate system...I guess I'll have to figure mine out!
Warmest regards to old acquaintances I have here (and to everyone else too
obviously!)

Todd Kirby, Ph.D.



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 00:27:01 -0500
From: Michael Grice <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Exotic critters, and I'll get to beer eventually

Joris, brewing in Canada, wrote:

>Well, Michael, i don't know why those pests have to come from Malaysia
>or Paraguay or other third-world "evil" countries. I'd fear more a super
>genetically-modified grain from Modsanto screwing up the whole ecological
>equilibrium. And in that field, we "civilized" countries are making our
>own bad luck faster every day.
>
>Soon we will have pesticid-resistant genetically adapted critters coming
>from everywhere. Now, *that* will be the world's scariest story. As a
>matter of fact, do they grow hops or barley in Malaysia and Paraguay?
>Just my two cents.

Joris, I picked Malaysia and Paraguay more or less at random. See,
introducing random critters from other parts of the world occasionally
has a nasty side effect. Look at zebra mussels in the great lakes. The
problem is not that these critters come from "evil" countries; the
problem is that they don't have much competition here.

It works both ways. Rabbits, for instance, are apparently now a
destructive pest in Australia. This is one reason why customs asks you
when you come into a country if you've been to a farm lately or if you're
carrying produce, etc.

I'll stop now, and I promise not to get sucked into the other portion of
the thread...

Chile beer: I have to disagree with the brewer formerly known as Steve
on this one. Chile is just another potential adjunct, better than some
and worse than others. If you object to the use of dried orange and other
spices in beer, fine. Used subtly, chile can enhance the flavor of beer
and, ur, well, almost anything else. (You probably wouldn't like chile
chocolate cake either, but I swear you don't know what you're missing.)

Now pumpkin in beer--that's just sick and wrong. But I don't particularly
care for pumpkin pie, either.

Steve Dale-Johnson asks why decoction doesn't extract tannins and other
nasty compounds from the mash. I've been wondering about this myself. I
suspect this is at least in part because you don't boil the decoction
with very much water, whereas when you steep grains you use a lot of
water. The small amount of water used in decoction may extract the
same amount of those compounds per gallon of water, but you're using
much less water so the total amount extracted is much smaller. I'm sure
this is all grossly oversimplified, and I look forward to hearing about
it from someone else on this forum...

Michael
Middleton, WI
US of A


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:13:59 -0500 
From: "Reddy, Pat" <Pat.Reddy at mavtech.cc>
Subject: uh oh, the dreaded religion vs science thread

Wow, that was intense.  Certainly an interesting read.
Can we stick to beer now?

Besides, any educated man knows we humans are all Raelians.
www.rael.org


Pat Reddy
MAVERICK Technologies
pat.reddy at mavtech.cc
 



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:30:55 -0400
From: nlkanous at netscape.net
Subject: Decongestants and BJCP

Morning,
Decongestants work by causing vasoconstriction.  This decreases blood flow
to the nasal mucosa.  It also decreases mucous production.  They "dry you
up."  I'm going to guess that this may have been included in the BJCP
Guidelines because if you have decreased mucous production, the aromatic
compounds would be less effectively "delivered" to the olfactory nerve.

The real question is "does it really make a difference?"  I'm going to say
that it may be worse to taste beers in brewpubs where there's lots of smoke
and lots of acetic aromas from beer spilled on the floor than after taking
decongestants.

Further, would we be worse off to have our beer judged by an allergic judge
who took some pseudoephedrine before the competition or a nicotine junky
who just stepped out for a "drag" before tasting your flight?

Anyhow, I'd bet the guideline is based on the decreased blood flow / mucous
production that occurs after using an oral (or topical) decongestant.

TTFN.
nathan in madison, wi



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 09:58:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Brew Wisconsin <brewwisconsin at yahoo.ca>
Subject: Great Taste of the Midwest -- tickets selling fast

Just to give people a heads-up: Tickets for the Great
Taste of the Midwest craft beer festival in Madison (9
August, 2003) went on sale May 1.  By Wednesday (May
7), we've been advised by our ticket sales chair,
fully two-thirds of the tickets had been sold.

If you're planning to go, be advised that tickets will
be gone later this month.

Ordering information at http://mhtg.org


=====
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
Columnist, Great Lakes Brewing News
Member, North American Guild of Beer Writers
 Winner: 2001--Culture Feature (Gold),
         2000--Travel Feature (Silver)
***Sometimes alcohol and driving do go together
   --my car consumes more alcohol than I do.*** 
http://www.afdc.doe.gov/afv/ethanol.html ***



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 10:10:46 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Vinegary Smell in Cornie

John McGowan <jjm1 at comcast.net> writes from Hopewell, NJ:

>I gave a friend a cornie full of beer. He drank the beer and held onto the
>keg for about 6 months. I just got it back (the keg that is). I rinsed it
>out and filled it with PBW solution (5 TBSP PBW and 5 gal H2O) and let it
>soak for about 2 hours. The keg is immaculate inside but has a noticeable
>vinegar smell -- stronger than plain white vinegar. I checked the gaskets
>and they seem fine. Any suggestions how to get this smell out before I risk
>using this keg again?

You can successfully disinfect the keg itself this way, but it is 
very difficult to get the fittings.  I have know brewers that had 
house infections that they couldn't clear up until they took care of 
these.  I would remove them and disassemble them in case there is any 
gunk (scientific term) inside, then boil or even pressure cook them 
and the O ring.

Be sure to soak the draw tube entirely.  You can do this in the keg 
or in a long tray such as a dry wall compound tray.  I like to use 
bleach for disinfecting and cleaning my kegs - a weak solution won't 
harm them (1 TBS/gal) if you don't soak too long.  Be sure to fill 
the keg to overflowing to disinfect the openings and also because the 
greatest potential for corrosion is at the liquid/air interface.

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: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:13:53 -0500
From: Bill Tobler <wctobler at sbcglobal.net>
Subject: YEA!! I think...

Yea!! The good news...I took two first places in the National Homebrew
Competition.  Boo... The bad news, All the beer is gone from both styles.
One is a Steam Beer, I might have time to brew and send that one.  The
other, Cat. 1, American Larger, fat chance.  I going to try anyway.  It's
brewing as I write.  3 weeks at 29 degrees, a quick force carbonate, counter
pressure 3 bottles and off it goes.  Kinda the same with the Steam.  Isn't
this sport fun?  Categories 1 & 6.

http://www.beertown.org/events/nhc/1st_round.html#south

On the other side, A friend was over the other day, drinking my beer again,
and we were talking about, you guessed it, how we brew, again.  (We seem to
do that a lot.)  When he circulates his HLT, the return line is above the
water line sometimes.  The return line is too short.  I said something
stupid like, "Wow, you're aerating your hot liquor!"  I saw the worry lines
pop up, and he got worried.  Does he have anything to worry about?  I'm not
sure.  Thanks in advance,

Bill in Texas, doing two emergency Brews in the next few days.

Lake Jackson, TX
(1129.7, 219.9) Apparent Rennerian






Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 09:16:32 -0500
From: "The Artist Formerly Known as Kap'n Salty" <mikey at swampgas.com>
Subject: Re: Faux Decoctions

=== Craig has questions about Faux Decoctions ===
Let's hear some specific details of the styles brewed, the equipment
and methods used as well as impressions of the effectiveness of this
procedure relative to traditional decoction techniques (how much time
and/or effort is saved via faux decoction over say a single decoction
and is the effect on flavor comparable).
==================================================
Back to me:

In truth, we're not really talking about a Faux decoction here; what
we are doing is really a single BIG decoction. For more information on
my procedure, see my reply to Brian from a couple of days ago. In the
meantime, here are some answers/clarifications from my original post:

> And to the rest of the faux decocters out there, what sorts of mashing
> equipment are you using (i.e. what type of mash tun:  Easymashers, false  
> bottoms, slotted manifolds, ...etc.)?  Can faux decoctions be done 
> easily on a  RIMS system?  Has anyone tried to recirculate 
> during the decoction instead of stirring by hand?

I have used both an easy masher and a false bottom. (These days I use
mostly a false bottom.) I have had occasional stuck lauters with the
easy masher, but these were easily cleared by blowing into the outlet
tube. Care in beginning the initial run-off will generally prevent
this problem.

Decocts in general should be thick; I think you would have difficulty
recirculating a decoct, since the boiling mash is relatively
water-poor. In other words, there's really no way to avoid stirring
like hell.

> What mashing conditions make this procedure easier?  How thick/thin should
> the initial mash be in order to draw off enough liquid to retain some
> enzymes and not leave the decoction mash so thick that it is difficult to
> stir and easily scorched (It seems like it'd be hard to stir the entire
> boiling mash in a 1/2 barrel mash tun if it were as thick as my usual
> '~1/3 of mash' decoctions)?

I generally start with 1.4-1.5 qt/lb. As I mentioned earlier, I scoop
the mash solids out with a large sieve, leaving the liquid behind,
rather than draining off the liquid. The end effect is the same,
however. I can scoop out the mash faster than I can drain the liquid,
so this method is also marginally faster. Stirring is no more
difficult than with a smaller decoct, but bear in mind we're talking
six gallon batches here. For larger batches, YMMV.

> What techniques are used to cool the decoction back to mashing
> temps:  cold water?  an immersion chiller?   recirculating through the
> counter flow?  

The mash cools relatively quickly once heat has been removed. A bit of
stirring and SLOWLY adding it back to the tun keeps the whole shebang
under 160 with ease. If you're adding the liquid back into the tun, I
imagine that the process will be the same, depending on the
temperature of the liquid. Take it slowly and you should be OK; just
monitor your temperature carefully. There should be no need for an
external cooling mechanism.

A couple of other points:

As far as styles go, I've used this method for dunkels, helles beers,
ofests, viennas and bohemian pilseners. Personally, I think that the
lighter beers actually get the most benefit from decoction; others may
disagree. In any case, compared with the addition of melanoidin-laden
specialty malts, the differences in flavor are subtle, but
discernable. Decoction does appear to lend a roundness or softness to
beers. 

I have found the effects to be equivalent to a double decoction (I
have done two side-by-side comparisons, but not triangle tests). In
fact, I really don't ever bother with a double decoct anymore.

This should only add around 45-60 minutes to your brew time (a lot of
this depends on how long it takes you to bring the decocot to a boil.
Slower = less scorching, which allows a longer boil period). 

After remixing the mash, I allow another 30 minutes or so for a rest.
For me, this isn't really a net increase in brew time, since if I omit
the decoct I usually just do a longer sach rest.

I wouldn't worry much about "taking the plunge". This is a pretty easy
technique to try out, and you're not likely to trash your beer should
you make a mistake


Hope that helps -- tafKaks
====
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:19:22 -0700
From: "Cave, Jim" <Cave at psc.org>
Subject: Selection pressures on bacteria vs.  Barley and the ecology of beer

	I note that a proponant for scientific creationism posted to the
HBD.  While there remains considerable debate about the relative
contribution of natural selection (A process of Evolution) and
Scientific Creationism (literal interpretation of the events in the
Bible or other religious belief) to speciation, most of the scientific
community tends to follow the former rather than the latter.  While one
may still debate whether species have evolved by natural selection, the
process of natural selection is no longer a theory. It is a fact: it has
been demonstrated in the laboratory and the bacterial resistance is one
very good and irrefutable example of this process.

	WRT the "Worlds Scariest Story", lets first be clear that the
selection pressures on rogue or drug resistant bacteria and malting
barley are very different.  Neither "chooses" or "selects" (an
unfortunate anthropomorphic term) their evolution, the process is simply
those individuals that have an advantage over others will have a higher
probability of surviving to reproduce.  In the case of bacteria, those
that have any amount of tolerance to drugs would have a survival
advantage and thus have a higher probability of reproducing.  After many
generations, (although over a very short time frame from the human
perspective) drug tolerant strains of bacteria develop.  This is really
true natural selection, albeit from human induced pressures.  However,
the process of selection of barley strains is entirely that of selection
by humans or artificial selection--and the process is very, very, very
rapid indeed, relative to natural selection. So intense is this
selection process that the genetic variation in individual straints of
malting barley is very small indeed.

	In the overall ecological and evolutionary sense, barley have a
mutualistic relationship with humans:  both species benefit from the
relationship.  The barley provides us food and drink and we cultivate
it, protect it from competing species and intense grazing pressures and
thus ensure its survival to reproduce, even if not all individuals of
the species are able to reproduce.  If a barley strain developed that
wasn't appropriate for malting, it better have good characteristics for
some other use for humans, or we wouldn't farm it and it would become
extinct.  That would not be in the best "interests" of the barley that
really depends on its commensalism with humans to survive. 

	So the moral to the story is:  Being eaten or malted isn't all
that bad!

Jim Cave, biologist.


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 16:07:16 +0000
From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Water/Photons/Waves

Denny asked about well water with pH 6.9, Na+ 9, K+ 1, Ca++ 62, Mg++ 13, 
Total hardness 209 (as CaCO3), SO4-- 36 Cl 4 CO3 < 1 znc HCO3- 83. This 
is good water: high on the calcium and low on the bicarbonate. It's 
residual alkalinity is only 17 ppm as CaCO3 so it should be fine for the 
brewing of almost any beer, even those made completely with pale malt. 
The only thing that might be problematical is the high sulfate level 
which will be a problem where fine hops are used. Dilution with low ion 
content water is a fine way to handle this.

To tune this up for Dortmund style start by adding about 80 mg/L sodium 
bicarbonate. This will get the sodium up to Dortmunder levels and get 
the alkalinity about right. You'll still need some gyspsum, calcium 
chloride and chalk though. Dortmunder water is pretty salty!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The only God(ess) I wish to see discussed in HBD is Ninkasi. 
Nonetheless, the "is light a wave or particle" comment caught my eye. I 
haven't heard that one since my (anthropologist) uncle tried to bait my 
father (engineer) 40 years ago. It is, neither. It is a form of energy. 
It has wave nature and particle nature. When it's cleaving the side 
chain from an isohumulone molecule (on the way to skunking beer) it is 
the particle nature that explains the phenomenon. When the correct 
wavelength is being picked out of a broad spectrum by a diffraction 
grating in order to allow us to measure bitterness, the process is best 
explained by the wave nature of light. Don't forget that matter has a 
wave nature as well. Even things like bowling balls have wavelengths 
(albeit  rather short ones).





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 10:46:25 -0700 (PDT)
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda at yahoo.com>
Subject: Hoff Stevens kegs

I noticed on the Real Ale Fest. site that some people
were serving real ale from H-S kegs.  Has anyone had
experience with using these instead of firkins.  Will
the bungs, splines etc used on std firkins work?



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 14:35:36 -0400
From: Robert Sandefer <melamor at vzavenue.net>
Subject: Dunkelweizen and Munich malt

First, I would appreciate any dunkelweizen recipe anyone cares to share.

Second, I am interested in the final color of a beer brewed from 100% 
Munich malt.
If anyone in the Group has brewed such a beer, what color was it? Orange? 
Red? Brown?

Thanks in advance.
Robert Sandefer
Arlington, VA



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:47:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: jim williams <jimswms at yahoo.com>
Subject: wyeast 3763 and oud bruin

so, I'm gonna try this new yeast out. I love a good
oud bruin. I'm 
hoping somebody may be able to help me out on
formulating a recipe. I 
plan on fermenting it out, racking to secondary and
leaving it there 
for a year or so, then bottling. maybe, blend a little
at this point 
too. we'll see. anyway, any help in this matter would
be great. I'll be 
doing a 10 gal. batch.

Also, I've heard that when using lambic yeasts, it's
good to not reuse 
the equipment because it's hard to get the bugs out.
true? false? would 
this stuff be used in the same way?

cheers,
jim




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 00:38:33 -0400
From: "K. Gold or G. McLane" <ktgold at umich.edu>
Subject: Grant and reverse HERMS

Been cobbling together a HERMS-style brewery for the past several months,
and I keep running into problems.  The most frustrating was the pump
cavitation.  Seems like no matter what I did to get positive flow to the
pump, my March 809 screamed like a banshee until I fed water straight from
a bucket.  (Yes, I know it's not self-priming.)  So, I think I need a
grant.  But then I got to thinking, and archive searching, and puttering
with pots and tubing...which leads me to my "so has anyone done this"
question:

Why not put the HE coil in the Grant?  Sort of a reverse-HERMS, but not in
the mash itself but in the Grant...GERMS? I have an SS 5-gallon thermos
with a spigot at the bottom (no kidding - its a thing of beauty - great for
low-grav/partial mashes and works as a fermenter too - rummage sale item),
which I would use for the Grant.  I could put a HE coil into the Grant,
then run most of the mash liquid into it, and using quick disconnects,
redirect the pump to send boiling water though the slightly motor-agitated
coil, up to my HLT.  The temperature controller would be at the Grant
outlet, and would power the pump and the agitating motor.  When the temp
got to where I wanted it, I would run a recirc.  Then, to keep the temp in
the right place, I could gravity-feed hot liquor from the HLT back through
the coil and into the boiler (someday, this could be automatic, but for
now, it would be manual).  The boiler could be used to reheat the liquor at
that point, to become sparge water (or maybe it might be spot on 170 deg.
at that point...could I be so lucky?)  
SO:
 -has anyone set this sort of thing up with good/bad result?
 -what are the pitfalls?

Some thoughts on obvious pitfalls and how to handle them:
 -"aeration of the mash".  Grants do this.  I wonder, does a dose of CO2
help?  The heavier-than-air thing might just keep a pillow of CO2 on top of
the mash liquid.
 -"lots of clean-up".  Hey, another pot to hose out doesn't bug me.
Wouldn't be a homebrewer if I didn't have a fetish for doing dishes.
 -"complication".  Yup, but I already have most of the pipes in place from
my various other trials.  No turning back now.
 -"grant's not necessary".  Maybe my pump is defective...all I know is that
I need to feel secure that I'm not going to fry my most expensive piece of
equipment (excepting my Polarware pot).
 -"stuck mash".  Big problem.  Potential deal-killer.  How much mash liquid
can be run off without getting a stuck mash?  The SS perf screen I use is
pretty good, I've drained the pot completely and not had problems in the
past.  I'm hopeful.

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

Thanks to Alan Meeker and Chris Colby for their well-written and
well-reasoned responses to the evolution/creation thread.  This is an issue
that lots of folks feel very passionate about, and it's good to see that
this forum can support calm, thoughtful discourse free of mud-slinging.
(Notice I wrote CAN support...not ALWAYS supports...)

Greg M.
Ann Arbor, MI, homebrewing center of the Universe

  



Return to table of contents

---