---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

Contents:
  JUST SAY NO to twist-off bottles (Mike Fertsch)
  bottles and breakage (Mike Meyer)
  re: mashing temps and beer body (Darryl Richman)
  Zymurgy Back Issue Question ("MR. DAVID HABERMAN")
  re: crushing grain (Donald P Perley)
  RE: Brewing Notes from Alex. (Alex Jenkins)

Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com


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

Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:34 EST
From: Mike Fertsch <hplabs!uiucdcs!meccad.RAY.COM!FERTSCH>
Subject: JUST SAY NO to twist-off bottles

The strength of the bottle crown and cap are only part of the exploding
bottle problem.  The strength of the bottle itself is also critical.  I use
only thick walled returnable bar bottles for my brew.  During a heat stroke
last summer, I had a few bottles explode.  Curiously, the caps and crowns
didn't break; instead, the bottoms of the bottles blew out.  I hate to 
think how many I would have lost if I had used thin walled bottles.

I would recommend staying clear of throw-away twist-top bottles.  The 
bottles have much thinner walls than returnable ones, and a brewer is just 
asking for problems.  I have no experience with twist-off caps, but they 
have to be worse than standard crowns.  Given a choice, use only returnable 
bottles with standard crowns.

A friend of mine uses Grolsch bottles.  It seems that the rubber gasket 
acts like a relief valve to protect the bottles.  During the heat stroke
he noticed that his bottles were hissing around the gaskets, releasing 
excess gas.  After the weather improved, the bottles sealed again.  He 
drank his beer, while I mopped mine up!  Maybe I'll switch to Grolsch 
bottles for this summer's brewing!

mike fertsch

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 12:08:01 PST
From: meyer at tcville.hac.com (Mike Meyer)
Subject: bottles and breakage

I've always been afraid to even attempt using screw-top bottles. I use a 
bench capper, BTW.

Here's a list of the types of bottles we've used at Bitchen Breweries over
the last year.  We've only had two explosions in over 1000 bottles.  One
was a Moosehead bottle, which in retrospect seem a little wimpy anyway --
we don't use them anymore, even though the cause of the explosion was
probably inadequate mixing of the (dry, unboiled) priming sugar.  (this
was an early batch)  The other one was a Guinness bottle, one of my Toad
Spit Stout bottles, and I don't know why it blew, but suspect that the 
bottle was simply weak around the capping rim, from the pattern of the breakage.

Heinekin  (a bit wimpy for my tastes)
Moosehead  (wimpy)
Steinlager  (They work, but seem wimpy)
Christian Morelein (when they were plain longnecks, they've switched to 
			twistoff)
Samuel Adams (also good longnecks)
Coors, Bud, Lite (returnables)
Corona (I use these sparingly, to monitor color and clarity)
Becks (old ones are sturdier, new ones slightly shorter)
St. Pauli Girl (same as New Becks)
Anchor Steam (pretty shape)
San Miguel	(a bit light)
Amstel Light
Guinness
Molson
Dos Equis (amber -- these are strong, but the glue is a bitch)
Carlsberg (good giveaway bottles)
Large Kirin and Sapporo (for when you can only drink one...)
Big Becks (21.x ounces, and built like a Buick)
Non-returnable 'longnecks' (A bit short, and not as strong, but okay)

I think we've used various and sundry others, but these are the ones we've
used in any quantity.  If someone offered me 10 cases of empty clean
Mooseheads, I probably would use them without worry, but I don't seek them
out.

I've gotten bottles from friends, from waitresses, from dumpsters, from
the side of the road, and from beer I drink.  We try to keep the majority
of our bottles as either Longnecks or Becks, so as to keep from having to 
constantly readjust the capper, but the odd bottles are good for giveaway
beer where you just know the recipient isn't going to save them for reuse.

We always remove the labels, though I've seen those who don't.  I think it
looks much better, lets you see the inside of your bottle when cleaning,
and doesn't give bad beasties a place to hide.  Anyone think it is 
unnecessary?

|Just to be on the safe side, you might want to do what I do:  after bottling,
|put the bottles in case boxes and put the cases into a plastic lawn 'n' leaf
|bag.  My theory is that if the worst happens, most of the broken glass
|will be contained by the bag, and maybe I'll have a little less mopping
|up to do..

We do this too, and it has served us well.  The worst part of the explosion 
thing isn't the spilled beer as much as the glass shards.

My bottle question is:  has anyone ever used 2-liter plastic twistoff
bottles (or one-liter)  with any luck?  

Mike Meyer
meyer at tcville.HAC.COM

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 09:17:49 PST
From: Darryl Richman <darryl at ism780c.isc.com>
Subject: re: mashing temps and beer body

Jeff Miller <jmiller at unix.eta.com> writes:
"> To get high body, you must mash low;  to get thinner body, mash high.
"
"Are you sure about this?  I don't have a good memory and my books are at
"home but I thought it was exactly opposite this.

This is what happens when you get off into the subject and aren't feeling
well enough to go back and edit properly.  This statement needs to be qualified
in that it is MY EXPERIENCE using MY BREWING SETUP AND TECHNIQUES.  I'll tell
you right now that Dave Line and Greg Noonan will say exactly the opposite,
but I have my reasons for this:

First of all, my mashes are much shorter than any book I've read.  Noonan
goes on for a minimum of 3 hours (and up to 9!) with his decoctions.  Line
recommends letting the thing sit over night!  I can't remember spending
more than an hour in the saccharification range, and usually it's more like
30-45 minutes.  I almost always get a negative iodine reaction at about
the 15 minute point or before.  Counting a protien rest and a mash off,
my mashes generally go for about 2 hours.

Next, I use the step mash technique.  I can make step raises very quickly
as well.  So I'm not adding any water to raise temperatures, and Noonan
will tell you that thick mashes are more efficient.  I mash in with about
1 quart per pound of malt, which is a very stiff mash, and I add about a cup
per pound when I raise to saccharification range.  Perhaps this is why
my mashes go so quickly.

Also, it is a chemistry rule of thumb that reactions proceed at twice the
speed for every 10C the temperature goes up.  So mashing at a higher
temperature (e.g., 158F) runs considerably faster than at a lower one
(e.g., 148F).  And since, as I mentioned, I'm going to step again
after saccharification to about 170F, I'm going to go through the
high end anyway.  So my technique brings me through the complete
temperature range regardless of the emphasis of my mash.

So the difference here is that if my emphasis is at the low end of the range,
I'll get some maltose production, but mostly I'll have long chains of sugar
left over at the negative iodine point because alpha amylaze hasn't been
too busy.  Even at 148F beta amylaze is going to denature after a while,
so as I proceed to raise the tempurature for mash off, the alpha amylaze
will have a brief opportunity to bust more long chains into shorter
chains, but I'm not going to get much more maltose.

If I'm going for a thinner bodied beer, I'll raise directly to the high
end of the range, where alpha and beta will be extremely active.  Beta
will be coming apart as well, but it is protected to some extent by the
thick mash.  While the beta is still available, however, the alpha is
making a tremendous number of sugar chain fragments available for
conversion to maltose.  The result is a wort with very few long chain
dextrins left, a great deal of very short chain sugars, and a good dose
of maltose.

It is very important to understand what a brewer does, how this affects
the techniques employed and the results obtained.  My short mashes
are a positive feature in that it shortens the brewing day a bit;  I'm
not losing efficiency of my mash as a result (from what I read in
Zymurgy, the 1.030-1.032 I usually get from a pound of malt in a gallon
of water is very good);  and I have produced winning beers as a result.
I might have to take a second look at my technique if I wanted to make
a very thin beer, such as an American Premium or Japanese lager, but
I haven't tackled those.

I hope I have explained my surprising results to the satisfaction of
those interested without completely boring those who aren't.  If you
still have questions, try mailing to me.  I promise to respond to
inquiries.

		--Darryl Richman
(The Falcon's Nest homebrewer's BBS sysop 818 349 5891)

Return to table of contents


Date: 25 Jan 89 13:09:00 PST
From: "MR. DAVID HABERMAN" <habermand at afrpl-vax.ARPA>
Subject: Zymurgy Back Issue Question

I recently started brewing again after lapse of a couple years.  When I went 
to the local home brew shop, I picked up the Winter 1988 Zymurgy issue.  I 
decided to join AHA and also sent away for some of the back issues:

   1985 Special - All Grain
   1986 Special - Malt Extract
   1987 Special - Troubleshooting

What was the 1988 special issue about and is it worth ordering?  Also, what 
other issues are of interest to a beginning brewer?  I also ordered the "Best 
of Beer and Brewing" Vol. 1-5 per Rob's suggestion since it appears to have an 
authentic Sake recipe.

David

P. S.  I finally received only one copy of the digest today.
------

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 16:03:57 EST
From: Donald P Perley <steinmetz!perley at uunet.UU.NET>
Subject: re: crushing grain

I used a food processor to crush malt for a few batches
before I bought a mill.  Malt is a lot softer than
wheatberries, so you don't have as much of a concern
with scratching as one poster suggested.  You can only
do a cup or two at a time, so that is a lot of batches
to crush 10 lbs or so for a brewing session.  At least
you aren't chasing the stuff all around the table with
a rolling pin.

-don perley

Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 25 Jan 89 11:15:10 EST
From: hpwala!hp-pcd!cmcl2!harvard!prism.TMC.COM!atj (Alex Jenkins)
Subject: RE: Brewing Notes from Alex.

Sorry, one typo found for this "recipe" in my previous mail:
>(#28)  day one:  Ale
>2.75 gal. H2O  at  170 deg, 5 lb. Pale Malt, 1 lb. Crystal Malt.  1 tsp. Gypsum
>Initial heat:  155 deg., pH 5.0.  Maintained at 120 to 153 deg. 2 hours.
>ending pH 5.2 Sparged, added to the wort with:  4 lb. (minus two cups
						^^^^^^^
>reserved for priming two batches), and 1.3 lb. light brown sugar.
>Extracted 1 qt. for the yeast starter.
>Boiled:	30 min., added 1 oz. Willamette (Fuggles) hops pellets.
>			15 min., 1.5 oz. loose Hallertau hops
>			15 min., 1 T. Irish Moss
>			30 min. more boiling and strained the wort.
>Sparged the hops with boiling water.
>Added 1 oz. Clusters hops pellets for dry-hops to the cooling wort.
>Added wort to the carboy, with yeast starter (Red Star Ale) mixture,
>and 3.5 gal. water.  Set with an airlock; s.g. is 1.048.

That's four pounds of light unhopped Dry Malt Extract (DME) minus
two cups.  Questions, comments on this or my previous looong message?
Thanks.  -- Alex --				atj at mirror.TMC.COM
P.S. the Ale described above, is really smooth, quite bitter.

Return to table of contents

---