---

	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:
  Bottle conditioning lagers (Leo Vitt)
  Re: The reason for the seemingly excessive oxygen requirements? ("Fredrik")
  Henry ("A.J. deLange")
  Phalse Bottom Hole Size ("Dan Listermann")
  Re: HBD Prodigal Son ... sorta (Dion Hollenbeck)
  Re: Promash settings & RIMS (Dion Hollenbeck)
  Custom Bottle Caps ("Steve Laycock")
  Troika. Thank Dr.'s Cone, Fischborne, & Logsdon. ("Rob Moline")
   ("Tanksalot")
  $.02 for CO2 (John Coppens)
  mash hopping ("Fred Scheer")
  Dr. Cone Q&A ("David Houseman")
  Packing Dried Hops ("David King")
  Beer Bottle Labels ("Kevin Jones")
  Re-use of yeast after mid-high gravity ferment? (Steve Tighe)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           The HBD Logo Store is now open!             *
*            http://www.hbd.org/store.html              *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * *       IN  PROGRESS!       * * * * * * * *
*          Dr. Clayton Cone Fortnight of Yeast          *
*      8/11/03 - 8/22/03 Yeast Questions Answered       *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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 (janitor@hbd.org)



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


Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 22:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Leo Vitt <leo_vitt at yahoo.com>
Subject: Bottle conditioning lagers


in HBD#4329, Andy in Hillsborough asked about priming lagers.
I want to call it bottle conditioning lagers .. Priming is adding some
fermentable to product carbonation.  I think of bottle conditioning as
that plus getting carbonated.

When I bottle condition lagers, I let it warm up.  I used cornie kegs
as the lagering tank.  Carboys work, but more cornie kegs fit into the
frig.  The kegs are not pressurized - I mead I did not add pressute.
A bit of pressuer may build up from continued fermentionation.  But it
is nothing like if I pressurize it.

I take the keg out of the frig a few hours ahead of bottling.  The warm
up is not complete when I bottle.  

Priming surgar is boiled in water.  I use the traditional corn surgar
as the priming agent.  I boil it in the microwave in a pyrex measuring
cup.  I measure the corn surgar (dry) by weight, and add to 1 cup of
water.  Microwave 5 min.  Oh, 5 oz of corn surgar for 5 gal of beer.
I had inconsistant levels of carbonation with the 3/4 cup measurement.

I add priming surgar to a bottling bucket and rack the lager onto it.
It does a fair amout of self stirring the priming surgar.  Still I stir
a bit with the racking cane when all of the beer is in the bucket.

Yeast - I have occasionally had lagers that would not carbonate after
priming.  I believe is the yeast was not viable enough.  I have learned
to add dry yeast into the bottling bucket, after rehydration.  It's an
insurance policy.  Dry yeast is low cost and ale yeast is fine for the
tiny bit of fermentation that occurs in bottle conditioning. 

Fill the bottles.

After capping, the bottles are stored in a warm (65-70F) but dark
location.

They might be caronated in 2 weeks.  They are likely to be carbonated
in a month.


=====
Leo Vitt
Sidney, NE



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 13:07:09 +0200
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: The reason for the seemingly excessive oxygen requirements?

Hello Steve!

Thank you very much for your extensive reply and sharing your knowledge!!

I noticed I also had to cut off some stuff due to the size limit!

> > Biomass growth is 5% according to Balling ...
> > [ 200g maltose + 1 g ammonia -> 10g yeast + 97.5g EtOH + 93.6g CO2 ]

I have not seen this formula before. What are the assumptions behind it?
>From what I have read so far it seems a typical biomass yield in a beer or
wine batchfermentation is some 2-5% (depending on conditions). But in a
optimised starter I have assumed the yield would be higher? Given some
nutrition additions and stirring and aerating? Maybe some 10%? I'm not sure
what the theoretical max yield is for anaerobic growth is, I've seen
articles statee anything from 15% to 30%. Wouldn't it probably vary between
strains too? I have intended to adapt for these variation by strain
parameters.

 So, the model would have to be tuned or calibrated for a particular strain
to make sense.

> > pitched with lipid depleted yeast that 10% of the O2 is used for sterol
> > synthesis and 15% for UFA synthesis.  I can't say exactly where the
other
> > 75% of oxygen is used, but the 'haem' protein is involved in the initial
> > oxygen
> > uptake for most  yeast oxygen pathways.  Respiration is one obvious
> > use for O2.

 Interesting! :) I have been a bit unclear to what extent respiration is
relevant even in the later part of fermentation. I have assumed that at
least as far as carbon flux equation that respiration is neglectable (unless
you continously add lots of oxygen, which you don't). But perhaps it is
needed to model the O2 levels! Thanks for this idea. As for the 75% I will
try to add a "ghost variable" to balance the O2 flow.

> > Oxygen induction is an active process regulated by several genes, not
> > passive diffusion.  Pitching levels of yeast can remove saturation
levels
> > of O2 in a matter of 20 minutes under the right conditions so uptake
> > rate isn't the issue.

 This was new to me. I thought oxygen, water and CO2 where some of the few,
if not the only compounds that the cells regulates with simple diffusion
through the cell membrane as well as the cell wall?

This is according to
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/mike/spring2003/lect07.htm

Did I miss something? I have no biology background so it's possible I am
making akward interpretations!
If the diffusion mechanism is incorrect I certainly need to change it. Are
you suggesting that O2 requires some kind of transport proteins?

One of the variables I will try yo simulate is dissolved oxygen. So it means
I will simulated also the oxygen level inside the cell. So once it's
absorbed by yeast it exists the equation for wort DO. For the O2 utilization
inside the cell I don't have much clue for mechanism so I have just made
something up. In the end my goal is to predict CO2, ethanol, sugar depletion
and some other things. If I can accomplish this with a mechanism that's not
 correct on reaction mechanism layer that's good enough for me.

Or did I misunderstnad you on "oxygen induction"? I understand that the
utilization of oxygen inside the cell is different. But I was referring to
the "uptake" from wort. Of course if it's not used up quick enough in the
cell the diffusion will stop because the O2 level inside is high?

> > I'd start with a good book.  Dr.C.Cone mentioned a few.   One I like a
lot

 Thanks! I will start looking for these books!

 I have also found a couple of articles on modellings made by others. But I
haven't found one I was  happy with so far. But I've tried to learn some
pieces from those I've found so far.

> > >all go into sterol synthesis? Are my estimates flawed?
> >
> > No - your estimate for sterol is a very good first step, but you
neglected
> > the other oxygen ereq - UFA and then again no one seems to know
> > exactly where all the O2 goes besides respiration.

 Thanks! This is great. I will add these variables!

> > I think you didn't express your motive.  It's interesting to note that
> yeast
> > seem to consume some 3 or 4 times their minimum requirement of O2 and
much
> > of the excess beyond requirements goes to unknown destinations - but SO
> WHAT

 The only reason I model O2, is because I've assumed it's relevant for yeast
behaviour. Yeast I turn I will try to model like a kind of state machine.
There is 3 states, dormant, active or dead. The transitions between these
states I am trying to model by differentials. O2 is not interesting itself,
but since yeast depends on it I see no other way that I have to model it to
be able to model yeast accurately. If I find in further research that this
model isn't consistent I'll update it.

> > Why not start your search for understanding by considering which factors
> > cause
> > significant changes in brewing behaviour (flavor, fermentation,
> performance,
> > flocculation and health) rather than try to hunt down the destination of
> > every bit of every nutrient.  The first task is merely very difficult,
the
> > second is almost impossible.  The quant info simply does not exist.

 I think I haven't explained what I am doing. I am a newbie brewer, I been
brewing only for about 6 months. But beeing a bit geeky yeast dynamics
turned me on. My objectives for digging into this stilly thing are many. One
of the reasons has nothing to do with brewing. The other reasons are that I
made a CO2 logger, where my computer counts every bubble that exits the
airlock. This basically me the CO2 evolution data over the fermentation
profile that I could not help asking myself if it would be possible to
predict that data. I've terrorised the guys at Brews and Views with this for
quite some time. Beeing a newbie the experience of everyone at Bews and
Views has helped me alot. I owe them alot for sharing their experience and
bearing with my speculations! It's the most excellent beer forum I've found
so far.

So far I have

Input: Initial values of variables, strain parameters, fermentor parametrs
etc

Constraints: Ambient pressure and temperature are given dynamic constraints

Output: Variables vs time.

Variables are

Primary importance variables:
     Amount of yeast in each state, sugars, ethanol, dissolved Co2, wort
 temp, bubble rate in airlock, ...?

Secondary importance variables:
     esters, fuesels, diacetyl, ...?

 Third order importances variables:
     levels of fan, glycogen/trehalose, sterols,  dissolved O2, sure more to
 come as required!

 The primary importance variables are those I intend to model as accurate as
 possible.

 My main verification is the CO2 graph. The CO2 graphs tells you alot more
 about the fermentation than just FG and OG. So I hope to find some nice
 stuff in the fine structure of the graph, that I can possibly correlate to
 the secondary and third order variables. Modelling the third order variable
 has no value itself. Modelling them serves only the modelling accuracy of
 the upper level variables. All variables are coupled through the DEs.

 This may be a stupid mission impossible but that doesn't bother me at all,
in fact it makes it even more interesting. What's the excitement in
attempting something you *know* you can do? That's wasting time to me. I am
sure going to try. This is where my other objective for doing this comes in.
Also, if this turns into a mess, I will learn alot while trying to justify
the efforts. Also, there are more, even more impossible task around next in
line, so why not pick one and give it a good shot to get some experience? :)

 Thanks again Steve for the excellent answers!

  /Fredrik



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:26:39 +0000
From: "A.J. deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Henry

Henry's law simply states that the vapor pressure of a solure over an 
ideal solution is proportional to the mole fraction of that solute in 
the solution. At equilibrium the implication is that the chemical 
potentials of the solute, calculated from the logarithm of the activity, 
will be the same in both phases.

A.J.



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 09:11:32 -0400
From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com>
Subject: Phalse Bottom Hole Size

 Ken Cada <kcada at cas.org> asks about hole size.  I would like to submit a
clarification regarding the hole size in Phil's Phalse Bottoms.  They are
3/32" dia on 5/32" staggered centers.

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: 23 Aug 2003 08:02:58 -0700
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at woodsprite.com>
Subject: Re: HBD Prodigal Son ... sorta

>> Gary Smith writes:

GS> When I built the RIMS I bought an extra long (22") ultra low watt
GS> density heater element for the chamber. I was able to get a custom
GS> length SS chamber from MovingBrews before he went out of the
GS> market so the chamber is about 8" longer than the MovingBrews
GS> standard size. I've got the element hooked up to 110V but think I
GS> would like to find a leg from the other side of the breaker box,
GS> add another Solid State Relay and connect it as 220V just to
GS> accelerate the ramping times during mashing somewhat.

DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT do this.  

GS> Actually, the current ramp times aren't bad but the heating
GS> element is something like 82" straightened out and it's a 6,000
GS> watt element. The manufacturer said with 110V it provides 1,400
GS> watts. If I were to run the element at it's designed 6,000 watts
GS> with the extra long length, I don't see caramelization as a
GS> factor.

If you don't see caramelization as a factor then have not been looking
hard enough.  B-} Caramelization and localized denaturing of enzymes
are sure to happen if you run the heater element at its full heat
capacity on 240V.

For years I have been telling people on the HBD and in private to buy
elements exactly as you have done and run them on 110V, not 240V for
exactly these reasons.  If you would like to be the one who
experiments for the rest of us to find out where the edge of the
envelope on heat density is, be my guest, but I would bet dollars to
donuts that you are going to be one very unhappy puppy with a ruined
batch of beer and burnt gunk on your heater element.  The watt
density per square inch running your heater element at 110V is right
around the theoretical perfect value of 15 watts per square inch.  If
you go higher than this, you risk scorching and carmelization and dead
enzymes.

I am sure that if you run this experiment the rest of us would be
happy to benefit by your results, but it is your beer you risk
ruining.

IMHO, the only prudent way to decrease the ramp time is to increase
the heater element surface area without increasing the heat density.
One way to do this is as I have done, put two such heater elements in
series, both running on 110V.  That way, you have doubled the caloric
input without increasing the heat density.  The other way to augment
heat input would be to put a burner under your mash tun and run it at
low during ramp up.

regards,
dion
- -- 
Dion Hollenbeck  Email:  hollen at woodsprite.com
Home Page:       http://www.woodsprite.com
Brewing Page:    http://hbd.org/hollen



Return to table of contents


Date: 23 Aug 2003 08:10:55 -0700
From: Dion Hollenbeck <hollen at woodsprite.com>
Subject: Re: Promash settings & RIMS

>> Gary Smith writes:

GS> As I'd mentioned in my earlier post, I'm getting back to
GS> homebrewing. I have purchased Promash and wondered if anyone here
GS> with an efficient RIMS system has made particular System Setting
GS> changes to match their RIMS brewery. If so, I'd appreciate knowing
GS> which changes were made so I could incorporate them into my
GS> defaults.

GS> If they're too extensive for you to want to type them in here, I'd
GS> be happy to phone call you when both of us could have the screens
GS> open to make the changes that way if that works you.

Actually, the only setting that I have done particular to RIMS, is to
alter the brewhouse efficiency to be 75%.  This is not necessarily
RIMS specific, but it is what *my* RIMS system does.  Your system may
vary, as there are many factors which go into efficiency.  For
example, I happen to like a 1.1 qts/lb water to grist ratio.  If I
was to change this on my system, then likely my efficiency would
change.

Efficiency is also dependent on mash schedule.  Mashing at lower temps
for more completely fermentable wort will produce different yields
than mashing at high temps for more body.  Also, I am sure that the
speed of your ramp from step to step will matter.  Mine varies from
batch depending on size of grain bill.  Larger grain bill means slower
ramp.

I don't think I can share any hard and fast rules with you that will
allow you to hit the mark on the first try.  It took me many batches
of trial and error and refinement to arrive at the figures that I use,
and they are specific to my system.


regards,
dion




- -- 
Dion Hollenbeck  Email:  hollen at woodsprite.com
Home Page:       http://www.woodsprite.com
Brewing Page:    http://hbd.org/hollen


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2003 12:15:44 -0700
From: "Steve Laycock" <slaycock at discoverynet.com>
Subject: Custom Bottle Caps

I have searched the web looking for a company that will do short  production
runs of custom bottle caps.
So far I have found nothing.  Anybody know of a company that will print low
volume caps??
Wanting to have our club logo or name printed, thought it might be a nice
touch for our bottles....we gotta buy them anyway & they might as well look
good too!  TIA
Steve Laycock
Highwater Brew Haus




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 00:56:49 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Troika. Thank Dr.'s Cone, Fischborne, & Logsdon.

			Troika. Thank Dr.'s Cone, Fischborne, & Logsdon.

   Thanks go to the Dr's. Cone, Fischborne, and Logsdon.

   Some questions remain.....they will be answered....

Gump
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"

From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu>
<SNIP>At first I had questions.  Then my questions had questions.  Then my
grand-questions told the first set of questions to sit down and shut up.
   Good god...I know NOTHING about fermentation science.
<SNIP>

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 14:21:46 -0400
From: "Tanksalot" <tanksalot at rogers.com>
Subject: 

Drew & Kevin:  I have to stick with my original statement:  "CO2 is not 
poisonous but, because it is heavier than air, it can displace oxygen in
a confined space."
Kevin said, "actually even breathing O2 can kill you".  (I assume, Kev, 
that is a typo, as O2 is oxygen).
I think Drew and Ed Benckert experienced a burning sensation from 
something else in the fermenter, not C02 when he passed-out, and I hope 
he didn't hit his head too hard.  :-
To test my theory I "poured" a glass of CO2 gas and inhaled it, obviously
I'm still here.  The only sensation was the same you get from smelling 
the gas released by soda water.
I'm not a chemist, so maybe someone more familiar with gases (is that a 
word?) can jump in and enlighten all of us. This has turned into an 
interesting discussion and thanx for all who have put in their 2 cents 
worth.
Larry at Tanksalot


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 18:09:41 -0300
From: John Coppens <john at jcoppens.com>
Subject: $.02 for CO2

Hi all...

First thanks to all who responded very very helpfull info a week or so
ago, about my beginner's experiments - particularly Renner's info on
enzymes was enlightening.

Then an observation: Is it really the CO2 that's poisonous, or just the
fact that there's no more O2 (oxygen), because the CO2 fills up the space
and pushes out the O2? So, the effect of sticking in you head would be
(just?) asphixiation for lack of breathable air, not CO2's fault.

John


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 16:24:35 -0500
From: "Fred Scheer" <FHopheads at msn.com>
Subject: mash hopping

HI Marc:
I could not resist to have my 2C on your question to Dr. Cone.

In 1976 we build a new Brewery (into the old existing brewery)in the
Netherlands. We brewed a stronger version of the Dortmunder type,
and did mash hopping. We used Bittering hops only, and the alpha acids 
ranged from
12.5 - 15%. I don't thing that aroma hops are necessary for the process of
mash hopping, as the aroma oils are quick lost.
We did pilot brews ( 15 gallons) mash hopping vs. no mash hopping.
We brewed the Dortmunder type in the test 5 times (10 batches).
Taste panels liked the NO mash hopping more.
I know the Brewery is not using the process of mash hopping anymore today.
But, I could not find anything in the literature about that process.
Also, during my time at DOEMENS in Munich, Germany, there was
no mentioning of that particular process.

Thanks,

Fred M. Scheer
(just returned from a GREAT Beer Festival in Chattanooga, TN
and tasted some very fine Homebrew from the local club) 


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:35:16 -0400
From: "David Houseman" <david.houseman at verizon.net>
Subject: Dr. Cone Q&A

With vacations, viruses and work schedule, I'm not sure if I've read all the
Qs&As to/from Dr. Cone.  It would be very helpful after these are complete
if someone would assemble them all together and provide a file or place on a
web site for download.

Dave Houseman




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:26:48 -0400
From: "David King" <dking3 at stny.rr.com>
Subject: Packing Dried Hops

My Fuggles and Cascades are coming on like gang busters.  I've put up over
12 oz (dried) and the main crop's not even here yet.  I've been drying them
on racks, raised up into the rafters in my garage, where it's nice and hot
and dry.  About 2 days does it.  How do you dry yours?

I'm also wondering how the rest of you preserve them.  I pack 1.5 oz into a
3/4 quart canning jar, purge with CO2 (effective?  Can't see CO2), screw on
a
top, and pop them into the freezer.  That makes them rather full, crushing
the lupulin glands to some degree, but they still take up a lot of room.
This seems to work well, as I get nice dry hop aroma months after freezing
them.  What other methods are there out there?

           Dave King (BIER, Brewers In the Endicott Region)



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 20:08:23 -0500
From: "Kevin Jones" <mrkjones at mindspring.com>
Subject: Beer Bottle Labels

Can anyone provide some good links/leads to companies that make good beer
labels.

I Need some graphic artwork and a short run of labels. They are for a
friend of mine that gives rides and an old antique bi-plane.

He wants to have a special beer made with his plane etc. on the label and
give them to his passengers at the end of the ride. Great idea huh?

Told him I would try to help him out. Here is his web site if you are
curious. http://www.sandraviation.com/ Send replies to me of the HBD.

Thanks

Kevin Jones
Drink Better Beer




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 19:20:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steve Tighe <steve_tighe at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re-use of yeast after mid-high gravity ferment?

Hello all,

Just a question about re-using yeast. I understand
that it's not usually a really good idea to re-use
yeast that have done a lot of work (high-gravity
fermenting). But I'm not clear on just what gravity
range that entails.

I just pitched a White Labs tube into a nice little
1.040 ale. I didn't have time to make a starter, so
I'm just hoping that the gravity is low enough that
it'll work out good. I used to use just the tube
before I started using starters, and it usually worked
ok.

Anyhow, I want to re-use this yeast, twice if
possible. I think my next creation will be an IPA in
the 1065 - 1070 range. I want to make an Imperial
Stout after that (1085? 1090?). D'you think that these
little yeasties will be in any condition to chew on
that big a wort after my IPA? I'm hoping to have lots
of yeast for my big Stout, but don't want to use
pooped-out bugs either. If I get the idea that it
would be a bad idea, I may just skip the IPA and go
right to the Imperial.

Thanks!
Steve Tighe in Berkeley
Bay Area Mashers




Return to table of contents

---