---

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


Contents:
  Lager yeast/grist%/CO2 scrubbing/low-temp rests (Al Korzonas)
  Water Temps, and Mash Temps (PDWaltman)
  re: Winemaking (Dick Dunn)
  Antifungal agents in Medical O2 (rcs8)
  Oh-two (Paul Edwards)
  Burner sleeve (Mike Spinelli)
  Correction/pH Buffer ??/One Step ?? ("Marc Battreall")
  HOLANET HOMEBREWERS CHALLENGE ("-HOLANET-")
  What kind of capper is best? (Shannon_Miller)
  St. Feuillen; Kubessa; unskunked Corona; mill spacing; small brewers (Samuel Mize)
  Hans' mash; casks; bandwidth; excess corrections (Samuel Mize)
  Sparge Water Aeration ("Houseman, David L")
  RE: Misc questions & comments (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Mash stiffness (Domenick Venezia)
  Regulator (717) 787-4973" <BENDER.RODNEY at a1.pader.gov>
  RIMS and 1/2 bbl mash tun users..  need some advice.. (WayneM38)
  Igloo container and mashing (Billy Cole)
  Dry Tripels/damaged yeast/Dry IPAs/RIMS plumbing (Al Korzonas)
  Stainless Steel vs. Brass ("Jim & Shelly Wagner")
  Bad Idea Re-Oxiginating Partially Ferm. Wort (Steven Gibbs)
  RE: End of my career as a brewer? (LaBorde, Ronald)
  crystal malt: call for discussion (Jeff Renner)
  Will sugar ruin my yeast? ("Mike Kidulich")


Have you entered a MCAB qualifier yet?


NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS:  hbd.org 

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
  (Articles are published in the order they are received.) 

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. 
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! 
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
  the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!

For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org

Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org

Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:

  Anonymous ftp from...
	ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
	ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

  AFS users can find it under...
        /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer

JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)


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


Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 18:19:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Lager yeast/grist%/CO2 scrubbing/low-temp rests


I've held off writing on these subjects in order to give others an
opportunity to answer the questions.  Some have been answered to
some extent, but I have additional comments.

Arnold writes:
>On page 287 of the "Encylopedia of Beer", it says under "Lager" (talking
>about ale yeast), "If the temperature of the ferment drops much lower
>(than 58F), the yeast goes into a state of hibernation, building a cyst
>around itself in a process called sporulation"

AJ replied to this, but his response was far too polite and his point
(that this is incorrect) may have been lost amidst his politeness.  AJ
took the tack of pointing out the difficulty in causing yeast to sporulate
rather than pointing out the fact that many lager yeasts perform best at
50F (well below the 58F noted above) and traditionally lagering is done
at 33 to 40F, which would not work if the Encyclopedia of Beer was right.
You need live yeast for lagering to work!

***
Michael writes:
>In a percentage type recipe, such as;
> 
>        90% 2-row
>        5% wheat
>        5% cystral
> 
>Do you calculate the grist by the weight of the malt or by the points of
>sugar that each malt contributes?

Unless otherwise specified, recipes specify the percentages of the grist
by the weight of the malt.
 
>I've read alot about CO2 scrubing out aromas during
>primary fermentation. I'm thinking about toasting some 2-row, mashing
>with a little 6-row and adding it to the secondary instead of the
>primary. Would there be any benefit in preserving the toasted aroma or
>would I be wasting my time?

You have an interesting point there.  All I can suggest is that you
try it and report back.  If you could split a batch and have a skilled
judge compare the two batches without knowing the differnence in
advance, that would be better.  Ideally, you would like to present
two of one batch and one of the other to a whole series of skilled
and unskilled judges and only count the answers of those who correctly
identified which beer was different.

On the subject of CO2 scrubbing... I do add fruit in the secondary
for this very reason.  Sure, there will be lots of activity, but
there will be a lot less scrubbing of fruit aromatics than if you had
put the fruit in the primary.

***
John writes:
     I got ONE response (thank you Kyle Druey) to my question the other
     day regarding recommended roller spacing for different grains
     (barley vs. wheat vs...) using adjustable mills.
 
     But, c'mon folks. I know there must be hundreds...nay...thousands
     of you out there tweaking away at your mills trying to get that
     "perfect" crush! Is it .055 for barley? .065? ...? What have your
     collective minds found? Does anyone know of a resource on the
     Internet? I've searched Real Beer and The Brewery.

I started with my motorised, Adjustable JSP MaltMill at 0.055 for all
malts, but then decreased the spacing slightly (so perhaps it is between
0.050 or 0.045).  I use German and Belgian wheat malt which is as
plump if not plumper than barley malt, so I don't decrease the gap
for wheat, but when I mill rye (which is very tiny) or if I was to
mill 6-row, I would decrease it further.  I didn't adjust it with a
gauge... rather I brewed, adjusted, brewed, adjusted... 

***
George writes:
     By using a step mash with rests at 104F (40C), 122F (50C), and 152F
     (67C), the brewer would be breaking down glucans in the first rest,
     breaking proteins in the second rest, and achieving saccharification
     with the third rest.  This will definitely have an effect on your
     beer, but does it produce better wort?
 
     When brewing with commercial barley malt, the low temperature rests
     are not only unnecessary, but they can be detrimental.  Proteins are
     needed for head retention and body.  Over-cleaving them will result in
     thin beer with mediocre heading ability.

You all know that I've been very vocal regarding avoiding the 122F rest,
and I do agree with George (DePiro) on this point.  George Fix (the other
George among us) posted several years ago that he got a marked increase
in yield when he added the 104F (40C) rest.  Around this time was born
the now-famous (among HBD readers) George Fix 40-60-70C mash schedule.
Dr. Fix has pointed out that he recommends staying away from a 50C rest
with modern malts, but he still suggests keeping the 40C rest.

I, personally, have been admittedly lazy and have brewed all of the last
80 or 90 batches (since the 40-60-70C post) without the 40C rest and rather
than splitting my mash time between 60 and 70C (more time at 60 for a
more-fermentable wort... more time at 70C for a more dextrinous wort),
I simply choose a temperature between 60 and 70C (depending on how
fermentable or dextrinous I want the wort) and then rest at that single
temperature.

So, although I don't follow George Fix's good advice (he does have at
least a dozen more Best Of Show ribbons than I do (none)), I just wanted
to point out that a rest at 40C may not be as bad or useless as George
(DePiro) suggests in his otherwise excellent post.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 02:51:35 -0400
From: PDWaltman <awapuhoq at mindspring.com>
Subject: Water Temps, and Mash Temps

regarding "Hans E. Hansen" questions about needing higher temp
water to achieve proper mash temp that he thinks he ought:

Here are two things that I "discovered" in my early mashing trials
Hitting low temps has been a problem and the source of more than one
unplanned decotion mashings and accidental rests.

The two most common mistakes regarding mashing I had early on
1)  Are you pre-heating your cooler?  It could be you are losing heat
    to the cooler.  Put some hot water, put on the cover and let it sit
    a while in the cooler prior to mashing.  Either discard the water, or
    I sometimes put some of the mash water in the cooler hotter than it should
    be and allowed the temp to drop near the strike temp.  Since I'm an
    outside brewer/masher, the mash tun gets quite cool in the winter.
    And  that messes up the whole situation.

2)  What is the temp of your grain?  If you are storing the grain someplace
    where is it cooler than room temp, you may want to make sure you take it
    out prior to use.  A few times I left grain in the fridge until a few 
    hours before.  It doesn't do calculations right. 

Dennis Waltman


Return to table of contents


Date: 30 Jun 98 00:44:13 MDT (Tue)
From: rcd at raven.talisman.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: re: Winemaking

Tom Clark <rtclark at eurekanet.com> wrote:
 ...
> Is there significant risk in using my beer making equipment to make 
> wine?   Will it still be OK for making beer?

What equipment do you consider to be common between the two?

You don't boil a wine must; you don't sulphite a beer.  Dry-hopping a wine
is right out, nor would I barrel-ferment a beer in new oak.

You can use carboys (stoppers, fermentation locks) interchangeably, right?
The only parts touched are the glass.  Hydrometers don't care.  It's the
same yeast, give or take strains.

The question makes sense at the outset, but think about it some more and
try to focus in on some particular potential problems.  (I.e., if you're
going to worry, worry about something specific.:-)

Consider the progression(digression) beer->braggot->mead->pyment->wine.
At which point might problems occur?
- ---
Dick Dunn          rcd at talisman.com          Hygiene, Colorado  USA
   ...Mr. Natural says, "Use the right tool for the job."


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:14:39 -0400
From: rcs8 at en.com
Subject: Antifungal agents in Medical O2

There are NO antifungal agents in medical O2.
Just imagine if someone were allergic to that agent and was given O2 for
some condition. Disaster!
Also very high levels of O2 at greater than 1 ATM of pressure is
actually fungicidal.
(Some immunocompromised patients, ie bone marrow transplant patients,
with disseminated
fungal infections can be helped with hyperbaric oxygen therapy).

Long time Lurker, Homebrewer, Homebrew Drinker, Husband, Father.

Robert C. Sprecher, M.D.



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 06:16:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Paul Edwards <pedwards at iquest.net>
Subject: Oh-two

Hans et al (and Al, too...)

On the subject of industrial versus medical oxygen, here's the answer I
got from the rep at the place I get my oxygen (Mittler Supply, Inc.):

"U.S.P. Oxygen (medical) has guranteed specifications of 99.0% minimum
oxygen purity, no odor.

"Industrial (welding) oxygen does not have guaranteed specifications, but
typically is CGA grade C, < 50ppm of moisture, 99.5% oxygen purity.

"Both grades come from the same cryogenic bulk source, with typical
contaminants beign: nitrogen, argon, hydrocarbons, krypton, carbon dioxide
and carbon monoxide.  The difference in grades arises from the care taken
in cylinder preparation and analysis.  U.S.P. gases must be produced and
tested in accordance with "FDA Good Manufacturing Practices" and may be
legally used ONLY as directed by a licensed physician or for emergency use
by trained personnel."

He also told me that each and every batch of medical grade O2 is checked
and documented, while the industrial grade is spot-checked.

I bought a 80 cu ft tank (about 6 lbs of O2) and a new regulator for about
175 bucks.  The tank I can swap when empty for a full one at a cost of
about 15 dollars, compared to 7-10 dollars for one of those little 1.1 cu
ft bernzomatic bottles.  And, if I can scrounge an actylene tank, reg, and
torch, I can do a little muffler work in the garage on the side ;-)

- --Paul Edwards
  Living in Indianapolis, IN, somewhere south of Jeff R.,
  but born in Cincinnati and raised on Hudepohl & Burger 







Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 98 07:58:51 est
From: paa3983 at dscp.dla.mil (Mike Spinelli)
Subject: Burner sleeve 

Tim Haby in 2750 asked about burner sleeves.  What works well for 
me is round smoke pipe purchased at HVAC supply houses.  It 
comes in various diameters ((mine is 24").  It appears to be galvanzed heavy
gauge sheet metal.  Rather than just enclosing the burner, mine slides ovet the
55 gal. boiler and the burner.  This stops the wind while also trapping in the
heat.  I made some cut-outs at the sleeve bottom to allow access to the burner
knobs and to accept the propane house.

If I was usuing a conveerted keg, I'd get 16' or 18" smoke pipe (which, btw,
comes in 36" height) and slide it ovet the keg and the burner, 
then trim off any excess that's higher than the keg height with it on the burner
 .  Then make cut outs for the burner knob and hose

Mike Spinelli, Cherry Hill NJ



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 08:52:04 -0400
From: "Marc Battreall" <batman at terranova.net>
Subject: Correction/pH Buffer ??/One Step ??

Hello All,
A few days back I replied to a guys post reiterating to him to "Ask the
BrewMaster" as Jeff Renner had advised. In that post I mentioned a yeast
that I had acquired from a BrewMaster friend of mine and called the yeast by
the name Ringwood. This said yeast was the topic of a lengthy thread back in
March and it was determined that the yeast that I had was Wyeast 1187.I
don't know what the hell the actual "name " of this strain is, and don't
care for that matter. Fact is, I wasn't really thrilled with the beer it
produced anyway, but I thought it was pretty cool to transport a vial of
yeast slurry across the country in my pocket and make beer with it when I
got home from vacation in an attempt to replicate some fine microbrews in
Colorado. From now on, I will refrain from misidentifying this yeast strain
in future posts, should there be any (gee I hope not says AlK!).

Just got a box of goodies from the homebrew supplier and had a few
questions. I got some pH buffer solution made by Orion and wanted to attempt
to calibrate my meter. I have a Hanna pHep 3, Auto temp control meter. The
docs on the meter include directions for calibrating it using a pH4, pH7,
and pH10 solutions, and seem pretty straightforward. I have the pH4 and pH7
solutions. The directions on the packages of solution simply say to immerse
the meter in the solution and proceed with the calibration sequence. Duh...
Will this be a thorough enough test? Do I need to prepare the solutions
beforehand or are the "ready to use" from the packets?
Also included in my recent purchase was some One Step Cleaner & Sanitizer.
Don't need any help on the directions with this one gang, but was wondering
if anyone knows about how long this stuff is effective and how do you tell
it needs to be replaced?

Thanks in advance for the help

Marc

=======================
Captain Marc Battreall
Backcountry Brewhouse
Islamorada, Florida
batman at terranova.net
captainbrew at hotmail.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 01:23:41 -0400
From: "-HOLANET-" <iepltd at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: HOLANET HOMEBREWERS CHALLENGE

HOLA-Hello
HOLANET is seraching for the BEST HOMEBREWER In Florida and the Caribbean.
Can someone contact us with who in your opinion, is THE BEST "LO MEJOR" Home
BREWMASTER in these areas? And, Colombia if you are there too-Thanks SUERTE-
Best regards-

captain at liat.com (E-mail)
www.liat.com (Web)

++++++++++++++++ www.HOLANET.com +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:38:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: Shannon_Miller at transarc.com
Subject: What kind of capper is best?


Hi Everybody.

While capping my 2nd batch of beer last night I broke 3 bottles.  Its
a real bummer to waste that beer.  I was using one of those cappers
with the two handles that you push down on.  I broke two 16oz and one
12oz bottle.  I don't know if I was just not paying enough attention
to what I was doing.  My first batch I also broke one bottle.  

Has anyone else had bad experiences with these type of cappers?  I am
thinking of getting a bench capper.  Is there less of a chance of
breaking bottles with a bench capper since nothing wraps around the
top of the bottle?  

Thanks for the info, Shannon  

- --------------------------------------
Shannon Miller  (smiller at transarc.com)
File Systems Support
Transarc Corporation
- --------------------------------------


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:08:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at ns1.imagin.net>
Subject: St. Feuillen; Kubessa; unskunked Corona; mill spacing; small brewers

Greetings to all, and especially to:

> From: Jorge Blasig - IQ <gisalb at elmer.fing.edu.uy>
> Subject: Saint Feuillen

> I tried Saint Feuillen Stout and would like to prepare someting similar.
> Could any of you send me a recipe which resembles this nice stout
> belgian beer.

If you can post a brief description of what you like about it, people may
be able to suggest a recipe, even if (like me) they've never even heard of
it, let alone tasted it.

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: George_De_Piro at berlex.com
> Subject: Kubessa process question

> The Kubessa process is a mashing technique where the husks are 
> separated from the rest of the grist and not added to the mash until 
> just before vorlauf (recirculation).  The goal of this is to minimize 
> the amount of grain phenols that get into the wort.
 ...
> Why is it seldom used?  Sounds like a good idea.

I'd guess because, to most of us, it sounds like a lot of work for a
small payoff.  That impression could be wrong, of course; if you try
it, let us know how it comes out.

Here's where my impression comes from:

I don't know how long it takes to extract the phenols.  If it takes less
than, say, five or ten minutes, you may as well leave them in.  If it
happens slowly through the whole mash, you may get some benefit.

As I recall, most people use temperature to control phenol extraction.
You'd be adding the husks back right before mash-out (highest temp in the
mash), assuming you do a mash-out.

I don't know how easy it would be to separate out the husks, and then you'd
have to thoroughly mix them in at the end of the mash.  So there would be
considerable labor involved.  If you come up with an easy way to do these
two steps you'll be well on your way to getting more people to try this.

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: Tom Alaerts <TomA at BUT.BE>
> Subject: re: skunk smell

> I never understood how those crystal-clear
> bottles of Corona ... don't develop [skunk] smell.

Corona is famous for skunking.

If you've had some that was not, it must have been shipped carefully,
and/or kept in a cool dark spot for a few days (skunking diminishes with
proper storage).

It's an OK cheap beer in Mexico, I understand, if you get it fresh.  Some
people in the USA have acquired a taste for it with mild skunking, and even
think it tastes "wrong" if they get a fresh one.

I would guess that Corona's USA "yuppie" popularity comes from people
drinking it on College-age vacations to southern beach areas, getting used
to it, and have good memories associated with it.

Hey collective: isn't it Miller products that use a hop extract for bittering
that doesn't have the skunkable component?  I thought it was just one big
brewer (and maybe a few small ones).

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: montgomery_john at ccmail.ncsc.navy.mil
> Subject: Roller Mill Spacings (again)
     
> But, c'mon folks. I know there must be hundreds...nay...thousands 
> of you out there tweaking away at your mills trying to get that 
> "perfect" crush!

I'd be surprised if there are a lot of people testing and recording this.
The postings I've seen before suggest that people find little difference,
once the crush is "good enough."  They mostly evaluate it by hand: are the
husks pretty much intact, is the kernel broken but not flour?  All righty
then.  (But have fun with it if you want to.)

 - - - - - - - - - -
Joseph M. Labeck, Jr. writes:
> Sam Mize writes---
 ...
> >this does put a small homebrewer at a disadvantage compared to 
> >someone with analytical lab equipment and professional experience.
> 
> I'm curious...Why would I be at such a disadvantage, just because
> I'm only 5'5" and 115 lbs?

Makes it harder to lift heavy bags of grain, and threaten judges.

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:10:02 -0500 (CDT)
From: Samuel Mize <smize at ns1.imagin.net>
Subject: Hans' mash; casks; bandwidth; excess corrections

Greetings to all, and especially to:

> From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh at teleport.com>

> 1.  I have recently went to grain brewing and am having a
> difficult time acheiving the proper mash temp.
 ...
> When I do this and mix, I end up in the low 140's.  Two more
> quarts of boiling water are needed ... What gives?

Are you pre-heating your cooler?  It will absorb some heat -- some may
absorb a LOT of heat before they stabilize.  Many of us must either
pre-heat, or use hotter water than the grain+water computation predicts.

> 2.  Sparging and HSA - Is HSA a concern when using Phill's
> Sparging Sprinkler?  It looks like this aerates the sparge
> water a lot.

This seems to depend -- some people have little trouble with HSA, some must
fight it tooth and nail (I hate having to bleach-sanitize my teeth...)

The boiling kettle and mash tun may be protected from aeration by a layer
of steam or water vapor, depending on your system design.  If your sparge
water is sprinkling through fresh air it may be getting aerated.  If you're
not having HSA flavors or shelf-life problems, it may be wisest to just
assume it's not a problem for your system.

 - - - - - - - - - -
> From: Tom Alaerts <TomA at BUT.BE>
> Subject: alternative for casks?

> It is sometimes suggested to let some kinds of beer mature in wooden
> casks. ... But I don't have a cask. So I thought, maybe I could just put
> a lot of "wood-spirals" (don't know the correct English word) in my
> plastic secondary fermenter. So I have a big surface of wood that's in
> contact with the fluid.

This depends on WHY casks are recommended.  The spirals may give you a
woody flavor, which definitely is or is not appropriate for an IPA.  For
instance, if you use American oak, I hear that you will get a LOT of
flavor; while European oak imparts very little.

For wine at least, casks are used to provide a controlled amount of oxygen,
and allow a controlled amount of evaporation.  I suppose this is why sherry
tends to have sherry-like flavors, a sign of oxidation in beer.  I don't
know of any way to reliably duplicate this except by using wood.  On the
other hand, perhaps you could use a plastic or metal cask with a wooden
lid.  I think you would want the lid to be water-tight, and tip the cask
so the wood is in contact with the beer, to get similar results.  Cork may
also work -- corked bottles of wine have similar controlled access to air.

This is all hand-waving speculation.  If you can track down what benefits
you would supposedly get from using wood casks, we can provide better
guesses and possible substitutes.

 - - - - - - - - - -
HBD-related but non-brewing comments follow to end of post.
 - - - - - - - - - -
I recently posted an explanation of how HBD's limited "bandwidth" (daily
post size) works with the cancel function so people can withdraw posts
that duplicate answers.  This wasn't meant to carp about "wasting
bandwidth."  The HBD is a public conversation.  The bandwidth is there to
be USED, post away!

 - - - - - - - - - -
A. J. deLange comments:
    [a person posted several errors]
> several others chose to flog this poor guy publicly. ... It just never, ever
> hurts to be kind.

Good point.  I see how this could happen, especially during a slow period
when all the replies would get published rapidly.  We often don't realize the
effect of things like this on the other end of the wire.

I WANT my errors corrected when I post an answer, but we should be careful of
publicly correcting mistakes in questions, unless the mistake could mislead
others.  Even then, we should watch out for "piling on" (that's what "cancel"
is for), and for excess "attitude" in the error-correction posts.  Thanks for
pointing out specific problems we can work to change.

Thanks also to the other people recently who have commented on specific
things that incline people away from HBD.  I personally think most of us
WANT new people and new opinions, but we don't always realize that a
posting in reply to person X will have an emotional impact on person Y.

Concrete, positive comments that help keep us on track are useful.

Best,
Sam Mize

- -- 
Samuel Mize -- smize at imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 08:28:09 -0400
From: "Houseman, David L" <David.Houseman at unisys.com>
Subject: Sparge Water Aeration

"Sparging and HSA - Is HSA a concern when using Phill's
Sparging Sprinkler?  It looks like this aerates the sparge
water a lot.  Also, I have to use ~200 deg sparge water to
acheive 170 going into the cooler because the sprinkling action
cools the water A LOT."

While it's conceivable for a spray of water to pick up O2 easily, at
170oF to 200oF, I'd think that the amount absorbed would be quite
minimal, given that gases are more easily absorbed into cold liquids
than hot.  I have used the Phills Sparging arm and I have never
perceived any HSA or other oxidation from this apparatus.  In all the
competitions I've entered, that's never been a comment on any judge
form.  I do agree that HSA is possible and have seen it in some abused
beers, but from personal experience anyway, you really have to go out of
you way and create oxidation problems prior to boiling wort.  Handling
of hot wort after the boil seems to create a better opportunity for HSA.

Dave Houseman




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 09:25:20 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: Misc questions & comments

From: "Hans E. Hansen" <hansh at teleport.com>

>It appears that I need strike water at around 180 or
>so to do it right the first time.  What gives?  (p.s. - I have
>checked the thermometer.)

I use a 10 gallon Igloo cooler and about 1 quart per pound of grain,
less water than you stated.  

I have a rough guideline of about 10 degrees above the desired mash
temperature to get me very close.  My process, however, may account for
this large difference in our results.

First, I put the hot water into the Igloo, cover it up and wait 5
minutes or more for the temperature to stabilize.  If it's too hot, I
stir or put in a little more cool water, then set the amount at 1 quart
per pound of grain.  The Igloo is marked on the inside for water levels
in gallons, so this makes it real easy to get the volume right. After
everything has stabilized, I stir in the grain.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 07:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
From: Domenick Venezia <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: Mash stiffness


Oops!  In my previous post on mash stiffness I mispoke and said:

>Peptidases and beta-amylase cut their respective polymers in the middle,
>and proteases and alpha-amylase cut their polymers at the ends

The truth is the reverse, peptidases and beta-amylase cut their respective
polymers at the ends, and proteases and alpha-amylase cut their polymers
in the middle.  Sorry.

Domenick Venezia   demonick at zgi dot com






Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:17:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Rodney Bender (717) 787-4973" <BENDER.RODNEY at a1.pader.gov>
Subject: Regulator

I have a two gage regulator that was from an O2 tank.  Can I use
this regulator if I swap on a CO2 fitting?  Obviouslly
this is for a tap system.  What problems could I encounter?
Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks

Rod Bender
The Brewmasters
E-town,PA




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 11:39:22 EDT
From: WayneM38 at aol.com
Subject: RIMS and 1/2 bbl mash tun users..  need some advice..


I am on the last phase of building a 2 tier RIMS system.  What a project!!
This quest began a year ago and I am just now fitting the mash tun.  I am
going to use a swamp
cooler/ toilet fill device to automatically keep the level of sparge water
about 1
inch above the mash with my pump.

I will be doing 5 and 10 batches and will make this auto filler adjustable.
My question to 1/2 BBL mash tun users is just how deep is a 8- 10lb mash and a
20-24lb mash in relation to the bottom of the keg?  I need to design a movable
float system and need some minimum and maximum heights as a starting point.

Thanks in advance. E-Mail would be great....

Thanks are also in order for all who contribute to the HBD, I
would have never gotten this far or even attempted a RIMS system without you.
You know who you are!!!!  Also a special thanks to RIMS designers/owners who
took the time to develop WEB sites for others to view and learn from.  The
"lessons learned" sections were very helpful and kept me out of design trouble
on my keg modifications.

Wayne



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 10:18:51 -0700
From: Billy Cole <bcole at wilma.systech.com>
Subject: Igloo container and mashing

I haven't brewed in about a year and am getting ready to start 
again with a raspberry blonde ale. I remember the last time I 
brewed (partial grain recipe) that during the mash it was pretty 
much chaos in the kitchen. The beer came out fine, but my 
mash/sparge didn't go as smoothly as I would like. I used my 8 
gallon brew kettle and a grain bag and don't think it was very
efficient. I'd like to rinse my grains somehow and have heard of 
people using an igloo with a false bottom. I imagined I would 
create a filter in the bottom of the igloo right above the spigot, 
pour the contents of my brew kettle (after the initial mash) into 
it and maybe manually circulate some of the wort and then sparge. 
Get the wort back into the brew kettle and go for the boil. I 
would really appreciate any input on this because I think I'm 
going to try it and would like to hear about it first.

Thanks for any help on this,

- -- 

Billy Cole
Systech Corporation
bcole at systech.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 13:16:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Dry Tripels/damaged yeast/Dry IPAs/RIMS plumbing

Tom writes:
>Al writes: "Firstly, I don't think that Tripels are dry.  I think they
>are medium sweet."  
>
>Yiikes!  It looks like I have to do some more Liquid research starting
>with a Westmalle trippel.  I have had this same discusion with other
>revered brewers and got the "It was the liquid bread ,therefore it is
>supposed to be sweet" answer. My judgement is that the homebrew and
>microbrew tripels tend to be overly sweet but that best Belgian examples
>have a much more balenced dryness.  

I guess I wasn't clear.  To my taste (yes, I'd love another Westmalle Tripel...
perhaps I'll pull a few out of the cellar this weekend) Tripels are medium
sweet although I do agree that they are well-attenuated.  I believe that
the alcohol contributes to this sweetness and I would recommend *against*
making any effort to make your Tripel sweetner than it would naturally
be.  In other words, when I make a Tripel, I use all Pils malt, mashed
at the low end of the saccharification range (like 150F) and I add 10
to 20% sucrose at the end of the boil.  I use oxygen and pitch a *lot*
of yeast.

>Al writes: "Secondly, I don't agree that the yeast will necessarily be
>"ruined" by the additional sugar."
>
>Yeasts that have fermented a wort of gravity much past 1.068 are pretty
>much 'toast' from the standpoint of pitching into a new beer of any
>strength. I would imagine that they would have a problem of finishing a
>1.080 wort. I think that pitching lots of yeast is just moving farther
>out on a log curve of attenuation capabilities. The returns are
>diminishing and it takes a ton of yeast!    

Again, I believe you misunderstood my point.  I was responding to a
poster who said that adding refined sugars causes yeast to forget how
to ferment maltose and more complex sugars.  What I was saying, was
that adding 10 to 20% refined sugar should not cause the yeast to stop
producing the enzymes it needs to ferment maltose, maltotriose, etc.

I agree 100% that one should not re-use yeast that has made a strong
beer (1.068 OG is a good rule of thumb, but I don't reuse yeast from
1.060+ OG batches).  Pitching too much yeast also means that you are
using an aging population.  I've recently reconsidered my recommendation
of pitching the *entire* yeast cake from a previous batch and suggest
using only 1/5th of the yeast cake for normal-gravity beers and probably
never more than 1/2 of the yeast from a previous batch.

***
Kyle writes (quoting me):
>>Three words: "alcohol is sweet."  Yes, I've been trying to make a
>>dry IPA and I'm beginning to realise that the beer I've envisioned
>>may be an impossibility at the original gravity I'm trying to use.
>
>One possibility to dry out the beer is to increase the ion content of
>sulphate to maybe 200-300 ppm by adding some calcium sulphate to the
>boil (maybe 2 tsp per 5 gallons?).

I'm way ahead of you Kyle... on my last (too sweet for what I had in
mind) IPA, I added 350 ppm of sulphate via gypsum in addition to the
existing 25.  I initially had intended to boost the sulphate by 675 ppm,
but this was for a 16 gallon batch and I scared myself when I started
weighing out all that gypsum... it was on the order of *CUPS*!

I haven't given up on it yet... I tasted only one of the four fermenters
and that was before dryhopping.  Dryhopping does add some bitterness
and I used 2 ounces of Oregon Goldings in each 4 gallon batch.

I do believe that I may have to drop the OG from 1.070 to 1.060 to
get the dryness I seek.

***

Kyle writes (again quoting me):
>>you will need to have a *very* thin mash.
>
>Not as thin as you might think.  The dead space in my RIMS tun is 0.75
>gal, then I need another 0.25 gal of water that fills the RIMS piping. 
>For 5 gal of a 50 gravity beer I need about 9 pounds of malt.  I use a
>water to grist ratio of 0.9 qts/lb:
>
>total mash water = [(0.75 + 0.25)*4 + (9*0.9)] / 9 = 1.34 qts/lb
>
>I am no xpurt, but I don't think 1.34 qts/lb qualifies as a thin mash.

You are expert enough, Kyle... however, I believe that I was referring
to a new design of RIMS heater that was going to use many feet of
copper tubing, which, I thought, might require too much additional
water.  I agree 1.34 qt/lb is a moderate mash - roughly in the middle
of the range.

I just wanted to point out that when designing a RIMS, you want to
consider the additional water you will need to add to fill the
RIMS heater and plumbing.  In your case, it seems to not have been
a problem.

Al.

Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz at xnet.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:26:29 -0400
From: "Jim & Shelly Wagner" <wagner at toad.net>
Subject: Stainless Steel vs. Brass

Hi all......my current 3 vessel(converted keg) system utilizes all
stainless steel inside the kettles, but I do have a few valves and fittings
on the outside that are still brass. Besides the obvious reason of cost and
that brass is a softer metal than SS, what are the pros and cons of using
brass vs SS? Some of the exterior fittings that I use are not available in
SS....should I redesign or just leave them. Any imput (that you are sure
of) would be helpful.

		Thanks in advance....Jim Wagner



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 12:17:48 -0700
From: Steven Gibbs <gibbs at lightspeed.net>
Subject: Bad Idea Re-Oxiginating Partially Ferm. Wort

Thank you to the brewers that have already responded to my post on
Monday re attempts to revive a stuck ferment by introducing additional
O2 (ie. Dave in Seattle, Al K, Domenick Venezia and Sully). I knew that
there could be some staling effects and you know what, the poor little
abused yeast never restarted at all (I know Sully I should have listened
to your first suggestions). However, not being someone to give up w/o a
fight I racked the wort to another corny and cooked up a liter of new
wort food for the yeast left in the bottom of the first keg. I was
amazed at the ferocity at which the yeast took over the starter wort and
within a couple of hours it was at high krausen. My plan is to pull my
keg #2 from the frig. and re-pitch the partially fermented wort once it
warms back up and see what happens.

My questions now are:
    1. If I should be pitching 3/4 to 1 gal. of yeast into 4 gal. of
1.097 OG wort, wouldn't the techniques and media used to get the starter
to that point be more important to taste issues in the finished product
than many, if not most, of the issues that are discussed here every day
in the HBD;
    2. Also, it would seem to me that the only way to brew really
consistent high grav. brews is to make the same beer several times an
always repitching the increasing mass of yeast cells you have built;
    3. Finally, I think this exercise in brewing may have taught me more
in it's problems than multiple batches of the beer I normally make.
<Rant mode on>
Thanks again for the support and I, like most of the readers of this
group appreciate the hypertechnical and the newbie posts to the HBD.
While I laugh at some of the whining critiques seen here recently, come
on and get back to the brewing stuff. But then again mabye its easier to
lob bombs at people than to expose potential lapses in their own brewing
knowledge by posting something constructive. If you want to flame
someone just do it privately. <Rant mode off>
Happy Brewing
Steve in Bakersfield



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:49:26 -0500
From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: RE: End of my career as a brewer?

From: "Michael Kowalczyk" <mikekowal at megsinet.net>

>Al, Don't discount a technique simply because you don't believe in
it...

Why not?  I sure would.

>I'm thinkin Paul Niebergall is a pretty "Aware" guy.  I'm tired too of
the
>people pooh poohing techniques.  I risk my career as a brewer by
posting,
>because of this passion we all share and the amount of influence this
>forum
>brings...but come on!

>Bill writes:

>>Transferring the mash to the lauter tun only takes a couple of minutes
>>and
>>allows the filter bed to set up better the in the single tun method.
<snip>

How can you call Al's response 'pooh poohing'? Actually, Bill writes
that transferring to the lauter tun method allows the filter bed to set
up better, whereas Al asked 'How so' and also asked 'wouldn't' with
regards to aeration.  Where's the pooh??

Here is a clear case where a new brewer could have this idea permanently
burned into his brain that a separate lauter tun allows the filter bed
to set up better than a single mash/lauter tun arrangement.  In pointing
out this to be possibly incorrect, Al has removed it's stinger and
rendered this datum harmless.

>I've re-read this post 6 times

Well and good, keep at it and you will get it.  :>)  <---- very
important part of post.

Ron

Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 18:23:37 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: crystal malt: call for discussion

Brewers

The fact that crystal malt can be used to add unfermentables is accepted by
us as a given, I think, but I thought it might be worth looking at and not
accepting blindly.  It could turn out to be a momily.  This may be
especially true for homemade crystal.

Crystal malt is simply ordinary malt that is steeped until thoroughly wet
(or perhaps not dried at the completion of the malting), then "stewed" at
one or more temperatures so the enzymes are activated, precisely as in
mashing, except that each grain is its own mash tun (talk about minimash!).
It is then kilned off, sometimes with thorough drying at low temperatures
first for minimal color (such as carapils), sometimes with the temperature
raised while it is still not completely dry, so as to produce
caramelization of the sugars.

It seems to me that there is nothing inherent about this procedure that
should produce more unfermentables than a standard mash.  If a temperature
regime is used in stewing that would result in higher unfermentables in a
conventional mash, the result should be the same.

Now it may be that the stewing is indeed done at such temperatures
routinely, resulting in high unfermentables.  I think that maltsters have
researched the results of temperature regimes, both regarding sugar
profiles and protein profiles, and control these precisely.  And, of
course, the caramelization of most crystal malts' sugars adds an important
flavor component not easily (or at all?) achieved otherwise.  Perhaps it is
these caramelized sugars that are less fermentable than they would be
uncaramelized?  I don't think so, but I'm trying to think of all of the
angles.

It has been noted here in the past that we use the terms crystal malt and
caramel malt rather interchangeably.  There are also carpils, carafa, DWC's
caravienne, caramunich and special B, honey malt, and no doubt others, all
in the crystal family.  And let us not forget munich malt, which is kind of
a hybrid, where the malt is held wet at proteolytic (but not amalytic)
temperatures and then high dried.

What think ye?  Is this more interesting than attitude bashing?

Jeff




 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943.

 -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. 




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 20:56:31 -5
From: "Mike Kidulich" <mjkid at ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Will sugar ruin my yeast?

> Al writes: "Secondly, I don't agree that the yeast will necessarily be
> "ruined" by the additional sugar."
> 
> Yeasts that have fermented a wort of gravity much past 1.068 are pretty
> much 'toast' from the standpoint of pitching into a new beer of any
> strength. I would imagine that they would have a problem of finishing a
> 1.080 wort. I think that pitching lots of yeast is just moving farther out
> on a log curve of attenuation capabilities. The returns are diminishing
> and it takes a ton of yeast!  

Just to weigh in with an additional data point regarding the above statement, 
about 18 months ago I did a spiced Belgian Strong ale, that included 1 lb of 
Belgian candi sugar (dark). This was an all-grain brew, using Wyeast 
Belgian Abbey II. OG was 1.096, and the beer finished at 1.016. I had no 
problem with the yeast finishing the sugar. I pitched a good sized starter, 
and aerated by vigorously shaking the carboy. The beer fermented at cool 
cellar temps (around 65 or so), and was finished in about three weeks 
(including primary and secondary fermentation). I did pitch a small amount 
of regular ale yeast at bottling time to insure carbonation.

My experience with strong beers is that most yeast strains, if pitched and 
aerated properly, can probably go to 10% ABV.  I have done several 
batches in the 8-10% range, with different yeast strains, and never had any 
problems fermenting to completion.

Cheers!

  


Mike Kidulich
President Emeritus
Upstate New York Homebrewers Association
mjkid at ix.netcom.com


Return to table of contents

---