---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@ brew.oeonline.com
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com


Contents:
  Skunkability ( STEVE   GARRETT)
  Re: Stuck sparge with EM/Attaching tubing to EM (Harlan Bauer)
  High Point Brewery Part 2 ("David R. Burley")
  Blessed Beer (Dan Aleksandrowicz)
  wonderful but unrepeatable... (Dckdog)
  Re: canning wort in capped bottles (Chris North)
  Wheeler's Porter..Part 7. (Rob Moline)
  Wheeler's Porter..Part 8. (Rob Moline)
  Counterflow chill, cold break, house flavor (nkanous)
  One for the RIMS crowd (The Holders)
  lacto/pedio infection? (Jim Liddil)
  fresh whole hops (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
  Re: More botulism (Energo Ed)
  Hops and other questions (Bruce Baker)
  Re: Ale yeast temps (Alex Santic)
  Draught Guinness & porter connection? (Alex Santic)
  RE: ale yeast temps (erikvan)
  HSA (Graham Stone)
  Dropping (Graham Stone)
  Re: Natural Gas Burners (JohnT6020)
  Re: Aerobic yeast growth (Scott Murman)
  Re: Botulism paranoia (Scott Murman)
  First Brew (John Hessling)


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  brew.oeonline.com 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew at brew.oeonline.com
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
  to homebrew-request@ brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
  you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L at UA1VM.UA.EDU),
  you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv at ua1vm.ua.edu 
  that says: UNSUB BEER-L

Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
  Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
			http://brew.oeonline.com/

If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen at alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
  An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
  related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
  ftp.stanford.edu.  Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
  e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
  /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory.  AFS users can find it under
  /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer.  If you do not have
  ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
  service at gatekeeper.dec.com.  For information about this service,
  send an e-mail message to ftpmail at gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
  "help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.


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


Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1997 19:07:45, -0500
From: sdginc at prodigy.com ( STEVE GARRETT)
Subject: Skunkability


Jim Layton writes:
>>An experiment I performed last summer certainly 
educated me as to one way to skunk beer and just what it 
tastes/smells
like. I simply placed a bottle of homebrewed pale ale (a clear bottle 
in
this case) outside on a normal August evening in direct sunshine 
(temp
around 92F) for a period of 2-3 hours<<

and John writes:
>Frequently I have had a clear glass of beer outside in the sun for 
some time
>with no noticeable (to me) effect on the taste or aroma.  Am I 
peculiarly
>insensitive to skunkiness or just lucky?

I brew outdoors on my back patio. I am usually enjoying the 
obligatory home 
brew while brewing. Several times I have absent-mindedly walked 
outside 
with my brew in a clear glass. After only a minute in the sunlight, I 
can
immediately taste/smell the skunkiness. More noticeable with light 
colored 
pils, but I've had it happen to a brown ale as well. Virtually very 
PU, 
Heineken, Grolsch, Samuel Smith beer I've had tasted from the bottle 
was 
skunky. I've tasted imported beer in brown bottles that was skunked 
(tho
usually oxidation is more the problem.) I had a Heineken out of the 
can 
on my last airline flight that was skunked! (Maybe that was a 
Pavlovian 
reaction to seeing the Heineken label.)

I brew my beer with the high-UV high-altitude Colorado sunlight 
pouring 
into the kettle. I never boil with the lid on. Post-boil, I siphon 
out of the 
kettle through my CF chiller into a clear glass carboy-all in the 
bright 
sunlight. My beer is NOT skunked. Actually I now clothe my carboys in 
a 
dark t-shirt before the siphon as a simple precaution. I never tasted 

skunkiness in my beer even before doing so. The several times I've 
brewed 
in the dark or indoors, there was no difference in the flavor of the 
beer 
versus that brewed at noon on a sunny day. 

I can't explain why. The Zymurgy Light and Beer article last year 
didn't 
help - in fact seemed to indicate that since the hop alpha acids are 

isomerized during the boil, it should be skunkable (did I just invent 
a new word?).

Cheers!
Steve Garrett
sdginc at prodigy.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 01:40:24 -0600
From: blacksab at midwest.net (Harlan Bauer)
Subject: Re: Stuck sparge with EM/Attaching tubing to EM

Darrin Pertschi asks:

>Two of my first three all grain batches resulted in stuck sparges (The
>first one did yield the best dry stout ever made on this planet though).
>I'm using the 5 gal. Gott and EasyMasher. Nothing unusual in the mash,
>8-10 lb grain in 1-1.5 qts./lb water. The only thing I can think of to
>explain this that maybe the Malt Mill I use at the brewshop is set to
>crush too fine and I'm getting clogged up with 'flour'. Could this
>happen?

I've been using an EM for a couple of years and I've only had two stuck
sparges--both of them with stouts! You don't give the entire grain bill, but
if you're using a healthy proportion of flaked barley or oatmeal, it's beta
glucans, and a beta glucan rest won't solve the problem. I posted this
question last year and the consensus was that the gumminess of the beta
glucans is overloading the surface area of the EM. The only solution seems
to be to use a longer EM screen. Jack sells such an animal, I bought one,
but I haven't made a stout with it yet so I don't know whether the increased
surface area will solve the problem. Another possibility would be to "thin"
the mash with rice hulls and see if that works, but I'm only guessing.

It's unlikely that overcrushing the grain is causing the problem. According
to Jack, the EM will mash flour.

On a related note, someone asked about attaching a tube to the outlet of the
EM shut-off valve. The problem was that the seal was admitting air and the
tube kept falling off. Most of the responses suggested filing the ridge off.
Well, I pulled out my old EM today so I could make another fermenter and I
came up with an even better solution, IMHO: cut some threads onto it, screw
on a *1/8-in FPT x 1/4-in MFF*, and use 1/4-in beverage-type flare fittings
to connect the tubing. 

The die you'll need is a 1/8-in pipe-thread die, and make damn sure you
start the die right the first time--it's tricky, but it WILL work. Mine's
ready for tomorrows batch.

Hope this helps, 
Harlan

   *********************************************************************
   *                                                                   *
   *     Harlan Bauer              ...malt does more than Milton can   *
   *     Carbondale, IL            To justify God's ways to man.       *
   *  <blacksab at midwest.net>                         --A.E. Houseman   *
   *                                                                   *
   *********************************************************************


Return to table of contents


Date: 16 Feb 97 10:22:16 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: High Point Brewery Part 2

Brewsters:

For some reason, the invitation I put out to visit the High Point Wheat Beer
Brewery (just down the road from me in Butler, NJ) on Thursday, 13 Feb didn't
make it into the HBD until Sunday, 16 Feb - a day after the "second Saturday of
each month" tour. Which never happened BTW.  I was there, but the brewery was
dark and empty. I recommend any planned tours be preceded by a telephone call (
of which I have a zero batting average on calls returned) to set it up.
201-838-7400 FYI

I did have an opportunity to taste the brew at local establishments. On Thursday
night at a restaurant I paid $4 per 12 oz glass. The beer was flat, no head and
tasted "orangey" without being "citrusey". No maltiness.   Nothing in the way of
spices or anything of interest. No hops.  Not crystal but a little cloudy from
chill haze perhaps, perhaps a slight yeast taste.  Pretty boring.  I did have
three glasses with some fried calamari ( very good BTW), but my impression of
boring never changed. As I left the bar area, one of the new arrivals asked for
"some of that Butler beer" derisively.  

Following the failed tour on Saturday, I visited a sports bar close by (just
across the railroad tracks, literally) which served the beer. A little better
conditioned beer, still no lasting  head and a little cloudy, same basic taste
and mouthfeel.  Locals said that Ramstein (the barmaid corrected my
pronunciation to "Ramsteen") came in light and dark ( which I haven't seen)
varieties. They said the light was 5.5% alcohol and the dark was 9.5% alcohol.
One of the regulars said he had been given a tour and the dark unfermented
"syrup" - the wort I guess - tasted just like ovaltine and he didn't realize the
strength of the dark beer until he stood up. ( In Germany this is the measure of
a good bock) The barmaid on serving me my second mug said "This looks like a
heavy beer, but tastes just like a regular ( meaning Bud) beer. At $2/ mug it
was obviously higher than most of their offerings because as I paid my bill and
left she said to other patrons. " Yeah, and it isn't even an import, ya know."

Based on this limited tasting ( I like Bud better)  and no real visit, I guess
High Point is  not a decoction mash operation and peeking through the window at
the uncomplicated equipment visible, I suspect a largely extract operation.  I
may have just been able to see the kegging operation, I don't know.

Two things came out of this. 1) I doubt this beer  has much wheat  although the
brewery is named  the High Point  WHEAT Beer Co., judging from the fairly clear
nature and poor head. He certainly didn't use a traditional wheat beer yeast -
very neutral yeast. He should be making a distinctive beer not competing with
the mega brewers  2)The public relations is horrendous.  The telephone message
borders on a "leave a message if you must" tone, without saying that. He even
sounds a little mean spirited.  His instructions for his tour say "2:00 SHARP"
Bad tone for an operation only about 2000 sq feet at most.  Never calls back.
Doesn't show up for the tour as advertised.

I include this not to denigrate High Point Wheat Beer Co., but this to give a
patron's eye view to all you microbrewers and prospective microbrewers.  Take
care of the marketing just like you do your brewing. The world will not beat a
path to your door I don't care how good your beer is.   If you can't do it, let
someone who can.  Mr. Zaccardi if you're listening, I'll be glad to help where I
can.

I sincerely hope this operation greatly improves. I would love to have a good
wheat bock on tap down the road. Then again, having one on tap downstairs is
even better. Hmmmm.
- ----------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'


Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202 at compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 09:50:17 -0600 (CST)
From: Dan Aleksandrowicz <bbh at execpc.com>
Subject: Blessed Beer

Celebrate spring at The Milwaukee Beer Festival
featuring The 9th annual Blessing of the Bock

Sunday, March 23, 1997 Noon - 4:pm

Witness the Blessing of the Bock; 
Performed by Frederick Rosing, SDS

Taste Bock & Specialty Beers; Buy Brewery Memorabilia
Meet the Brewery Reps

UW-Milwaukee Union Ballroom; 2200 E Kenwood Blvd; Milwaukee, WI

Minimum donation $20.00;  You must be 21 to attend
All proceeds donated to "The Highground" Veterans Memorial Park

Tickets available at the door only; no advance tickets.

The previous is a reprint of the Blessing of the Bock
handout for this year. It's a great time! 
     (Not afffiliated, had fun previous years, blah, blah, blah)
But get there on time to get your tickets, 'cause there's no 
advance ticket sales.
Last year, there were 19 microbreweries & 4 beer distributors.
That gave us over 50 beers to taste.

John Zutz runs the blessing, and he hasn't contacted all the
breweries, yet, so we don't know who'll be there this year.

If you're a brewery & would like to show off your brew,
contact John at johnzutz at execpc.com.




////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dan Aleksandrowicz
   bbh at execpc.com           http://www.execpc.com/~bbh

Assistant Brewmaster 
   Lakefront Brewery;       Milwaukee, WI 
   lakefrnt at execpc.com      http://www.lakefront-brewery.com
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 10:50:38 -0500 (EST)
From: Dckdog at aol.com
Subject: wonderful but unrepeatable...

Thanks for the replies a few weeks ago on my first lager experiment. The
result was drinkable after only a week and continues to age well. I realized
after clean crud out of 50 or so bottles that eventually the switch to a keg
system seems like a logical one. I bet cornies will be the choice as my batch
size is usually the standard 5 gallon deal. We aren't huge consumers of beer,
is there a problem if we go to the keg and don't use it all in a short period
of time? Would the use of CO2 to force carbonation be the best way to go?
Will a giant asteroid completely alleviate the need to ask these questions?
Just wondered......
Dean

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 14:48:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Chris North <chrisn at infohwy.com>
Subject: Re: canning wort in capped bottles

Heiner Lieth writes:

>OK. I know we're beating this botulism thread to death, but here is another
>idea on canning wort. This is the math and physics angle:
<snip>
>Can anyone fill in the gaps here to lead us to a simple method that does not
>require the use of a pressure canner?

I'm sure I've been beaten to the punch, but...

Go back and check out your physics angle.  Once the wort in the sealed
bottles exceeds 212F (100C), the vapor pressure of the wort is greater than
14.7 psi.  Going above the boiling point would bring a dramatic increase in
pressure (you are no longer dealing with an IDEAL GAS).  Of course, this is
why pressure cookers are used.


>And... this is probably obvious, but:  If anyone is going to be doing any
>experiments, please bear in mind that bottles at 15 to 20 psi filled with
>boiling fluid are very dangerous (bombs).

And when one considers that these are filled with superheated liquid, it
makes opening a hot radiator seem like a safe thing to do.


chris north



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:49:22 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net>
Subject: Wheeler's Porter..Part 7.

                      Wheelers Porter/Part 7.     =20
The following is a letter written by Obadiah Poundage that was
first published in the "London Chronicle" 4th, November 1760,
but it also appeared in the "Gentleman's Magazine", "The
Gazetteer" and various other publications around that time. I
did not research this myself, but found it in a library book (A
History of Brewing, H.S. Corran, 1975 -- I think!). The writer
of the letter was arguing for a rise in price of beer.
Unfortunately, the author of the history book left a couple of
chunks out that did not suit his argument, but would probably
have been interesting to me from the historical point of view.
The author of the book (Corran?) states that Obadiah Poundage is
a pseudonym hiding the identity of a brewer who was 86 years old
at the time, and had had 70 years in the brewing trade. He does
not reveal how he discovered this or the true identity of the
brewer concerned -- that I would very much like to know. =20
    He certainly was no "acting outdoor clerk". He was too
articulate for that, knew too much about the business of his
masters, and was important enough to get his argument published
in several London society magazines.
    The stuff in square brackets I have added to the text.


*** START OF ARTICLE 4 ***

                The History of the London Brewery

"Sir,
I believe I may say I am the oldest acting outdoor Clerk at
present in the brewery. I served in the trade when Tom Tryon (a
student in physick) whom I new very well, occasioned no small
bustle among us by advising the not boiling of our worts for
fear that our ales should taste raw. This, as near as I can
recollect, was about the time of the Revolution as proves in how
much need the trade stood of further improvement.

    (here come arguments for a rise in price in price of beer)

 ...In the beginning of King William's reign [1689-1702], whose
memory be ever blessed, the duty on strong beer and ale was 2/6
per barrel and small beer was made from the same grains and sold
for 6/- per barrel. Both the ale and beer was fetched from the
brew-house by the customers themselves or at their charge, and
paid for with ready money; so we entertained but few servants,
fewer horses; we had no stocks of ales and beers in store, of
casks but a trifling quantity and money in the Compting House
before either duty or malt was become due. The Victuallers then
sold this ale for twopence the quart.
    But soon after our wars with France occasioned Further
duties on this commodity -- I set them down from memory alone --
ninepence per barrel more in 1693 [actually 1692] was laid on
strong ale, an additional threepence per barrel in 1694
[correct]. The whole duty amounted to four shillings per barrel
on ale and one shilling per barrel on small beer at this period.
Ale rose in price to 18/- and 19/- [18 and 19 shillings] per
barrel and the victualler sold it for twopence halfpenny per
quart.
    Now we come to the Queen's time [Anne 1702-1714], when
France disturbing us again, the Malt Tax, the Duty on Hops and
that on coals took place, besides one shilling per barrel more
on strong beer and ale and fourpence per barrel more on small
beer, owing to old Lewis's ambition. Our duties on strong beer
and ale amounted to 5/- per barrel and on small beer 1/4 [1.334
shillings] per barrel. May he receive his reward, say I, for
about the year 1710 his machinations embarrassed us much.
However, at last, it was realised that the duty on malt
surpassed by much the duty on hops, from whence the Brewers
endeavoured at a liquor wherein more of these last should be
used. Thus the drinking of beer came to be encouraged in
preference to ale. This beer, when new, was sold for =9C1/2/- per
barrel, but the people not easily weaned from their wonted sweet
heavy drink, in general used ale mixed with beer, which they
purchased from the Ale draper [lovely phrase] at twopence
halfpenny, and twopence three farthings per quart.
    About this time the Gentry residing in London more than they
had in former times, for them was introduced the pale ales and
pale small beers they were habituated to in the country and many
of the Brewers took (to) making drinks of this sort. Affluence
and cleanliness promoted the delivery of them in the brewer's
own casks and at his charge. Pale malt being dearer than brown
malt, the brewer being loaded with more and greater taxes, the
price of such small beer was fixed at 8/- and 10/- per barrel
and that of the ale at =9C1/10/- [=9C1.5] per barrel; the latter was
retailed by the victuallers at twopence per pint or fourpence
per quart under the name of twopenny.=20
    This incroachment on the consumption of the drinks which
London had always been habituated to, excited the brown beer
brewers to produce if possible a better sort of commodity in
their own way, than heretofore had been made. To their honour I
say it, my old Masters were foremost in this attempt and thus
much let me add, I approved of the undertaking. They began to
hop their mild beer more and the Publican started three, four,
sometimes six butts at once, but so little idea had the brewer
or his customers incurring the charge of great stocks of beer,
that some moneyed people made a trade of purchasing their hopped
beers at the first hand, keeping them sometime and when stale to
dispose of the same to Publicans for =9C1/5/- per barrel and
=9C1/6/- per barrel. Our tastes but slowly alter or reform. Some
drank mild beer and stale mixed, others ale, mild beer and stale
blended together at threepence per quart, but many used all
stale a fourpence per pot.

                        End of Part 7.
Jethro (Only One More Part) Gump
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company,
Manhattan, Kansas.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:52:27 -0600
From: Rob Moline <brewer at kansas.net>
Subject: Wheeler's Porter..Part 8.

                        Wheeler's Porter/Part 8.
    On this footing stood the trade until about the year 1722
when the Brewers conceived there was a method to be found
preferable to any of these extremes; that beer well brewed, kept
its proper time, became racy and mellow, that is, neither new
nor stale, such would recommend itself to the public. This they
ventured to sell at =9C1/5/- per barrel that the victualler might
retail at threepence per quart. At first it was slow in making
its way, but in the end the experiment succeeded beyond all
expectation. The labouring people, porters etc. experienced its
wholesomeness and utility, they assumed to themselves the use
thereof, from whence it was called Porter or Entire Butt. As
yet, however, it was far from being in the perfection which
since we have had it. I well remember for many years it was not
expected, nor was it thought possible to be made fine and
bright, and four or five months was deemed to be sufficient age
for it to be drunk at.
    The improvement of transparency has since been added to it
by means of more and better workmanship, better malt, better
hops and the use of isinglass; but this more perfection has
brought with it numberless charges, greater stocks, long credit,
more casks, more cellarage, more servants etc. and if at this
time Porter is not fine, it has brought also this casualty of
being returned on the Brewers' hands as being unfit for use.

   (Here follow further arguments for a rise in price of beer)

 ...For a last objection, the Gazeteer has said, by a rise of 3/-
per barrel a certain great brewhouse will be benefitted by
=9C11,000 per annum. Perhaps is the Brewhouse I have the honour to
belong to, and perhaps it may be so much advantaged. Sir, I
desire to be allowed to know somewhat of this matter, if such be
the profits they make, it will be the first profits they have
seen these five years. Their capital stock is not less than
=9C120,000 and this sum in the public funds would make =9C6,000 per
annum; remains =9C5,000 out of which at least one half must be
taken for so much as under the circumstances of a rise on beer,
it will be made of better quality; the result then is that =9C2
per cent would be paid by the victualler for carrying on the
most laborious manufacture in England.
   There is then a necessity for a rise on this commodity and if
it did not take place when the late additional duty on malt was
imposed and when liberty was granted to the Distiller to go on
in his profession, the reason was this: The London brewers
willing to try what could be done in support of this charge by
weakening their commodity, acted in consequence thereof and how
did the event prove? Why, their beers were small and bad to such
a degree that it became a fashion with the people to drink one
half twopenny and one half porter at threepence halfpenny the
pot.

Sir, your very humble servant,

Obadiah Poundage"

*** END OF ARTICLE  4 ***

You have to read between the lines of what Obadiah said to get
to the interesting stuff, and bear in mind that he was a
commercial brewer with an axe to grind. Nevertheless, there are
various interesting things that come out of it: The earliest
mention of pale ale. The fact that publicans had to take their
own casks to the brewery to be filled. The fact that publicans
started several butts at once to give their customers a choice
of beers at different ages. The mention of moneyed people
storing the ale until it was stale. The mixtures that were
commonly drunk before 1722. The use of isinglass to give
transparency, showing that porter was not jet black. And much
more. I do not agree that porter was called porter simply
because porters drunk the stuff, but there you are. I am
convinced that these mixtures were called porter long before
1722.=20

Belgian Rodenbach is the only beer still made in the same way as
old-time porter. There is an interesting account of Rodenbach
brewing processes that was originally posted to Lambic Digest
#846, 5/9/96 by Jay Hersh. If you have any difficulty, I have a
copy but not in electronic form. I will have to scan it or use
conventional mail to send it to you.

Hope this is of some interest.

Regards
Graham Wheeler

                        End of Part 8. (Last installment)

        I hope you have found this as interesting as I have. To the many who
have requested this and had to wait to see it here in the HBD, I thank you
for your patience and hope you think it was worth the wait. Graham will be
going online in a few weeks...perhaps he will be a subscriber to the HBD,
and will personally be able to respond to your questions.=20
Cheers!
Jethro Gump
Rob Moline
Little Apple Brewing Company,
Manhattan, Kansas.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:45:12 -0500 (EST)
From: nkanous at tir.com (nkanous)
Subject: Counterflow chill, cold break, house flavor

Just transferring my porter to a secondary and a thought came to mind.  I
have many times felt that my beers had a certain "house flavor".  I never
found it completely objectionable, but I think my beers would benefit if I
could find out what it is and remove it.  One thing that has been consistent
in all of my beers is that I have never worried about the cold break that
manages to get to my fermentor.  I use a converted keg system with a copper
manifold.  After the boil, I open the valve and transfer through the
counterflow wort chiller and into the fermentor.

Two things.  Does anyone out there that uses a counterflow chiller have a
system for removing break material from the fermentor?  Yes, some break is
good, but I have heard too much (of any good thing) can be detrimental.

Second, can anyone describe what sort of "off flavors" end up in the final
product if the break is not adequately removed?

Private e-mail is fine and I can post a summary if I get more than a couple
of responses.  TIA.

Nathan


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 17:44:21 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie at m4.sprynet.com>
Subject: One for the RIMS crowd

Quick question for the RIMS crowd. I'm in the process of
designing/building my Spiffnatious RIMSical(tm) setup, and I was
wondering what the benefits/drawbacks would be of recirculating the
sparge, after the initial mash, rather than doing a standard sparge into
the kettle.

Also, is it possible to have too much space under my Phake(tm) bottom in
my tun?
I'd appreciate email responses, since I have fallen behind in my HBD
reading.

Wayne Holder
Zymico(tm)
Long Beach CA
"Home of the Toob(tm)"
- -- 
"contrary to my own opinions, I'm NOT always correct....
at least that's what I think..."

Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 20:11:29 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: lacto/pedio infection?

Kevin wrote:

> I am attempting a "Braambossen Lambic".  I used mostly canned 
> blackberries to limit the extent of infection, but I used a bag of 
> frozen blackberries to get the Pediococcus and Lactobacillus 
> infection.  

Where did you get the idea that fruit will provide lactic acid
bacteria?  This is the wrong approach.  The thick mat of stuff on top of
your wort is not bacteria.  lactic bacteria do not form a mat.  This is
either wild yeast or mold.  I'll bet you do not have pediococcus at
all.  pseudo lambics take months to years to make.  Brettanomyces yeasts
will form a layer.  Taste the wort.  Is it sour?  Your whole
understanding of the process is incorrect.  I suggest you reread Guinard
carefully and check some of the web sites that deal with amking this
style of beer.  Also there is a lambic digest and the archives.  Jeremy
Bergsman (sp?) has a very good site that links to most everything on the
web on lambic.  I also have a few things on my page.

Jim 
www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil


Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 19:28:10 -0800
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>
Subject: fresh whole hops

My favorite supplier of whole hops went out of business a few months ago.
Can anyone recommend a mail order source for imported and domestic whole
hops of the highest quality?


Dan Ritter <ritter at camasnet.com>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery
Grangeville, Idaho



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:52:21 -0500 (EST)
From: energo at fwai.org (Energo Ed)
Subject: Re: More botulism

Mark Taratoot wonders:

>I am specifically suspect of the outright claim that temperatures above
>240F are REQUIRED to kill clostridium spores.

You should be, because it's 121 deg celsius. (~250 deg F)


> Likewise, pasturization can be
>achieved by holding at 160F for about an hour (this figure is from
>memory; don't assume it is correct).  At different temperatures, a
>different amount of time is required.

Pasteurization is at 145 deg F for 30 min or 161 deg F for 15 seconds.
Pasteurization does not sterilize.

>When you are canning vegetables at home, if you leave, say, jars of
>green beans in a hot water bath (let's say it is boiling at 212F, just
>for fun), you are VERY unlikely to process for the amount of time it
>would take to denature all botulism spores; the beans would turn to
>MUSH!  Not very fun to eat as cocktail hour d'ourves!  This (as far as it
>is logical to me) is why we use pressure cookers to can low-acid foods;
>the processing time must be shorter than would be required at lower
>temperatures.

One uses pressure cookers so that the steam can get to a temperature of 250
degrees F. I have never noticed mush in a can of green beans, that were
sterilized.

Energo Ed



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 18:12:18 +1300
From: Bruce Baker <Bruce.E.Baker at tsy.treasury.govt.nz>
Subject: Hops and other questions

G'day from the periphery of the home-brewing universe.

As I've said before, New Zealand is lacking in resources and information 
regarding home brewing.  The HBD is a vital lifeline to those of us who have 
progressed beyond a can of "goop" and a kilo of sugar.  The guy who runs my 
home-brew shop doesn't know anything about grain brewing, and he reckons that 
there are only about three of us in the Wellington area.

I've got a few questions that I hope you can help me with:

1.  Is there a definitive table of hop characteristics out there somewhere, 
describing  aroma, bitterness, alpha analysis?  My earlier question on 
whether hop varieties were radically different or subtly different received two 
replies, one for radical and one for subtle.

2.  Do US brewers use a US gallon for a "5 gallon batch" or are they talking 
in Imperial gallons.  Similarly, are Dave Millers gallons US or Imperial.  
Something I learned only recently is that an Imperial pint is 20 ounces.

3.  I tasted my most recent batch of Pils against three Czech varieties.  
Mine was hoppier, had a finer head, and was quite pale.  The Czech beers were 
a nice dark gold, but were also a bit skunky -- even the ones in brown bottles.
  They also seemed to have more body.  From what I've read about lack of body,
 it results from sparge water with too high Ph or temperature.  Since I've only 
recently learned about Ph, I can only presume that my Ph was too high.  But 
how can that reduce body?  If I've got extra tannins, shouldn't there be too 
much body?  How can addition lead to subtraction?

4.  As a newcomer to the HBD, I wonder about the protocols.  There are lots 
of questions asked with scarcely any replies.  My earlier questions on yeast 
received lots of private answers with even more private mailings requesting the 
answers.  Why don't answers go on the HBD?  Is this because the questions are 
deemed too elementary to answer?  The other lists I'm familiar with (BBQ, 
chile-heads) have a lot more answers.

Not that I'm complaining. I look forward to my daily HBD, even if it does 
tell me more than I ever wanted to know about botulism.  

Cheers,
Bruce



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:16:48 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: Re: Ale yeast temps

>From: Jerry Cunningham <gcunning at census.gov>:
>Erik wrote:
>>I always ferment ales at around 60 deg., with every strain. Doing 
>>so will not harm the beer at all, in my own opinion. [snip]
>
>No offense to Erik, but I'd be very careful about blanket statements like
>this. [snip] 60F is too low for some strains. 

In addition to Jerry's good point (and in the same non-offensive spirit),
I would add that a 60F fermentation temperature will sometimes not produce
the particular stylistic results that some people might look for, even if
the yeast otherwise performs well. After all, the temperature will affect
the flavor profile and fermentation at 60F is somewhat lower than the
typical temperature in many ale-making traditions. 

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:59:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex at salley.com>
Subject: Draught Guinness & porter connection?

Thanks to Rob for posting the interesting Wheeler thread on the history
of porter. I was struck by the apparent similarity of Irish draught stout,
particularly Guinness, to the description of some porter styles brewed in
the waning days.

I understand that some of today's stout brewers, including Guinness,
were originally porter brewers. While I'm no beer historian, it seems
plausible to suggest that reports of the death of porter may have been
greatly exaggerated (reference to Samuel Clemens there). The style may
have simply continued to evolve and maintain popularity under a different
name. Perhaps we have interesting historical relics of porter which are
not only extant, but ubiquitous.

- --
Alex Santic - alex at salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 01:27:59 -0600 (CST)
From: erikvan at ix.netcom.com
Subject: RE: ale yeast temps

Jerry Cunningham responded to my statement:

>	I always ferment ales at around 60 deg., with every strain. Doing 
>so will not harm the beer at all, in my own opinion. [snip]

No offense to Erik, but I'd be very careful about blanket statements like
this. While I do agree the the Wyeast temperature ranges are a little
conservative, 60F is too low for some strains. 

For instance, in my experience, London III (1318) just plain ol don't like
cold temps. I've fermented with this strain and had problems as high as 64F
(sluggish ferments, high FG - very frustrating!). It's _very_ nice at 69F,
though.

Well Jerry, 

The original question was pertaining to CHICO yeast, or WYeast 1056, or 
White Labs California Ale, which ever you choose. Tony Owens was questioning 
the temperature at which it should be fermented at. I agree, I should have 
been more selective as to which yeast I was talking about. I only now use 
White labs ready-pitchable, and have no temperature problems. I have used 
their CA Common, English Ale, & the "Chico" several times at the stated
temperatures, AND have used SEVERAL WYeast strains, and have never encountered
problems, using my temperature range. Your problems may be an error or 
difference in your particular recipe. But, once again, that's just MY opinion.
You should submit your opinion as an original one, instead of trying to shoot 
down mine. 

Very Respectfully,

Erik Vanthilt

The Virtual Brewery
Http://www.netcom.com/~erikvan/brewery.html
News, hints, recipes, free monthly newsletter and more...




Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:36:01 -0000
From: Graham Stone <gstone at dtuk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: HSA

Neil Kirk wrote re. HSA:
>So the questions are: what about HSA when running off from the mash >tun? 
 Does it cause oxidation? Does it matter?  How do we avoid it?

My understanding is that HSA is not a serious problem at run off 
temperatures.  However, I too had considered it might be and decided to 
avoid the problem by attaching a long tube to the tap/spigot on the mash 
tun.  This tube was long enough to reach the bottom of my boiler and after 
only a few seconds running off was below the level of wort now filling the 
boiler.  No chance of HSA now, right?  But it did cause another problem. 
 After only a few minutes I notice that the rate of run off was slowing, 
and then it stopped altogether.  I had never had problems with stuck 
sparges before.  What had happened was that the syphon effect from the long 
tube had caused the run off rate to be much higher than usual and had 
resulted in the grain bed being well and truly packed (I needed a pick axe 
to loosen it!!!).

I've since abandoned this tactic and now trust that I don't get HSA.  My 
beer generally tastes OK but, and I ask the question seriously, if I were 
getting some HSA, what would it taste like?







Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 10:57:50 -0000
From: Graham Stone <gstone at dtuk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Dropping

Bruce DeBolt writes re. Dropping question, again

>Has anyone dropped half of their fermenting wort, left the rest behind
>and then compared the two after bottling?

Sorry, no I haven't.  But I would like to open this dropping thread a 
little.  My understanding is that the process of dropping involves 
transferring fermenting wort from the primary fermenter to a second vessel 
very shortly after it starts to krausen - a one or two days after start? 
 The reason for doing this is to leave behind trub etc. that gets floated 
up with the krausen and trub that sediments to the bottom of the fermenter. 
 Once in the second fermenter, the wort is very much cleaner and still 
contains very actively working yeast.

Now, there is another practice which sometimes accompanies this process. 
 Sometimes the wort is allowed to be aerated as it's transferred to the 
second fermenter.  The purpose of this is to encourage yeast growth in the 
second fermenter presumably to ensure that the wort develops another 
protective layer of yeast on the surface.

A similar end result to the practise of dropping is attempted by skimming 
the yeast head off the wort as soon as it appears.  However, I have never 
managed to removed all the nasty looking stuff from the yeast head and this 
still doesn't get over the removal of the wort from the sedimented trub. 
 It also doesn't address the option of aerating.  My local brewery skims 
the head as soon as it appears and at the same time "rouses" the yeast 
presumably in an attempt to encourage yeast activity and or growth.

I've deliberately not used the term secondary fermentation here.  My 
understanding is that when one adopts the practise of allowing fermentation 
activity to continue until the yeast head starts to subside before 
transferring to another vessel, this is what is referred to as primary and 
secondary fermentation (the secondary taking place in the second 
container).  The only other alternative (practised by AlK amongst others I 
believe) is to let the fermentation continue to a finish in the same single 
container.

Is it not true therefore, that the only difference between dropping and 
using secondary fermentation is when you do the transferring?  Or is it 
still permissible to use a third container for doing secondary fermentation 
with wort that has been dropped?  Or is this Tertiary fermentation? 
 Answers on a post card to....





Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 06:39:49 -0500 (EST)
From: JohnT6020 at aol.com
Subject: Re: Natural Gas Burners

LPF passed along some interesting information on brewing on an apartment
style gas range.  Here's another $0.02 worth.

Quite commonly available is a two burner gas stove.  Zillions of them were
used in "cold water apartments" in the city and for laundry stoves.  A copper
wash boiler fits perfectlt over both burners.  These are readily available in
antique stores.  The trick is to find one that will not leak and has not been
repaired with lead solder.  A second trick is to find one complete with a
lid.  This later is only important if you plan to use it as a moonshine
still.

A wash boiler on a two burner gas stove works well to full boil a ten gallon
brew.  It makes a fine moonshine still too if you are so inclined.

73,
JET



Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:05:23 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Aerobic yeast growth 

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 14:06:05 +0000  Joe Shope wrote:
> With the recent discussion on yeast starters, growth, pitching, and
> aeration I have begun to question my own procedure.  Currently I keep
> my cultures aerobic until pitching in a peice of equipment similar to
> a cyclotherm and pitch 1 liter.  The yeast seem to faster when
> in the aerobic environment which allows for a higher amount of yeast
> to be pitched.  I know that many brewers allow their starters to reach
> high kreusen before pitching and wonder if these starters are not in
> anaerobic conditions.  Are there consequences to keeping the yeast
> aerobic prior to pitching?  

I have a follow-up question.  Is there a good method for retrieving
all of that yummy, gummy slurry that has settled to the bottom of the
starter bottle.  I also pitch 1 liter starters, and I can have a
significant amount of slurry that shaking and stirring won't
dislodge.  I sure would like to give these guys a good new home if I
could. 

SM

P.S.  The acronym list is still at
http://www.best.com/~smurman/zymurgy/acronyms.html.  I have a number
of brewing perl scripts which people have been asking about, which
I'll add to the site one of these days.


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 09:14:41 -0800
From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com>
Subject: Re: Botulism paranoia 

On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 23:50:08 -0500 (EST)  JACKMOWBRAY at delphi.com wrote:
<snip>

Good post.

> Bottom line: If you want to preserve wort so that it is safe to store at room
> temperatures, you should pressure can it. Otherwise, just keep it in the
> refrigerator and it will be just fine. There is no need to reboil before
> pitching.

A small nit.  Botulism does prefer temps between 70F and 110F, but it
*will* sporulate at temps above the freezing point of water, it's just
much less likely to do so.

SM


Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 12:01:52 -0800
From: John Hessling <hessling at inlink.com>
Subject: First Brew

Hi.  I find most of the discussions very interesting.

I am a first time home brewer.  I have brewed only one batch and had
some problems with it.  I am hoping that some one out there can help me
determine what I did wrong and if I am on the right track.  I hope that
my saga is not too boring for you experienced brewers, But I think that
I need help.

I started with an all-grain recipe of 10 lbs of Klages malt and 1 lb of
Crystal malt, 1 oz of Fuggles and 1338 Wyeast European Ale yeast.  (and
very poor instructions)

The recipe that I was given had me doing a single stage mash with the
cracked malt and crystal malt at 150 degrees for 30 minutes, then
sparging at 160 degrees.  I held temperature pretty close to that.  I
noticed that the wort never really got clear, like the instructions that
came with the kit said would happen.

I got about 6 gallons of wort and boiled in two stock pots.  I added
half of the hops to each pot and boiled for 30 minutes each.  I then
cooled the wort to 70 degrees.  I did not know that I needed to cool the
wort fast, and so it took several hours to cool to 70 degrees in the
covered pots.  (Actually, it was two foot ball games, a movie, the news
and a Star Trek episode.  It was cold outside.)  

I had started the Wyeast several days earlier, and it was ready to pitch
by the time the wort was ready.  I siphoned the wort off to the primary
fermenter, being careful not not get any of the sediment on the bottom
of the pots and poured  in the yeast.  I did not aggitate the yeast and
wort mixture.  (I did not know I needed to.)  It took a long time to see
any activity in the fermenter.  The activity peeked about 1 week into
fermentation and then slowed.  I transferred to a secondary fermenter, a
glass carboy, and the fermentation took off at a wild pace.  I had a
hard time keeping the airlock cleaned out.  It finally slowed down after
about a week.

I transferred the beer to a bottling container which had a mixture of
brewers sugar and boiled water already in it.  I bottled and stored it
in a cool basement for about 4 weeks.

The product that I have has a very mild hop flavor and is very malty.  I
assume that is due to the type of hop used.  The beer is very foggy.  Is
that due to poor starch conversion?  It has of vegtable flavor in the
taste and I am guessing that it is due to hot wort oxidation because of
my protracted cooling time.  The beer is drinkable, but not what I would
call good beer.  The beer has a nice carbonation and a pleasant aroma.
(although my nose is not real good)  

I hope that some one out there can help me diagnose my problem so that
my next all-grain adventure is more succesfull.

You don't have to respond to the entire group on the list serve.  You
can respond directly to me at:

	hessling at inlink.com

I appeciate any help that you can give this slightly discouraged first
time home brewer.

John Hessling
Maryland Heights, Missouri

Return to table of contents