---

	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:
  Re: Vectored Flow ("Ludwig's")
  Yeast for barleywine (Adam Holmes)
  Re:"Fake" lagers (ThomasM923)
  IBU's (Louis Bonham)
  Cleaning keg dip tubes (Ken Houtz)
  Rusty freezer interior (fridge)
  Campfire Porter ("Spies, James")
  US malts ("Jim Busch")
  Re:  Cereal Mash; Dixie Brewery (Jeff Renner)
  No Aroma Hopback ("Timothy M. Dugan")
  Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe? (Christophe Frey)
  even more on First Wort Hopping (Jeremy Price)
  re: Primetabs (Tidmarsh Major)
  Re: Perhaps going all grain? (Andrew Ager)
  Classic American Pilsner (Gordon Strong)
  mounting a thermometer in a SS pot? (Badger Roullett)
  FWH ("Bryan L. Gros")
  Home Grown Hop Alpha Acid Guesstimation (Christophe Frey)
  Re: Cleaning dip tubes (Alan Edwards)
  Munchner Dunkel (Al Korzonas)
  Malt drying (Al Korzonas)
  tsetinilc (Jim Liddil)
  IBU's,   pLambic,   Excel spreadsheet and Altitude ("silent bob")
  All grain - maybe (Blink)
  I like a little head but..... (Chuck Cubbler)


Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!

Send your entries in for Hoppiest Event On Earth yet?
Details:  http://members.tripod.com/~BrewMiester_2/Home.html

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: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 22:26:46 -0500
From: "Ludwig's" <dludwig at us.hsanet.net>
Subject: Re: Vectored Flow


> John writes:
> >Then you need to consider how much area you need to cover.  A manifold
> >pipe can adequately lauter an area of 2-3 inches to either side, which
> >means that you can space your manifold pipes 4-6 inches apart to achieve
> >good coverage of the lauter tun bottom.
> 
>  ...and later:
> 
> >If you use a manifold or Easymasher (tm) type setup, deeper is better
> >because as you approach the drain, the flow becomes vectored toward the
> >drain resulting in more flow thru the grain around the drain, and
> >less(slower
And Al K. writes
> I don't disagree with either, actually, but I've always questioned whether
> these differences (which look big in theory) are actually big enough to
> cause a noticeable difference in yield.  I did a very preliminary test
> using various lauter tun designs (see my article in the Great Grains
> Special Issue of Zymurgy)... just to see if there were *radical* differences
> in yield... and found that the differences appear to be relatively small.
> 
I haven't thought about this subject in quite a while but this thread
sparked something. My thoughts on this are that the flow through the
mash is a function of pressure gradient through the mash and flow rate
out of the mashtun. So for a given flowrate out of the mashtun, the flow
rate throught the mash is a function of pressure gradient. Assume that
the exit of the mashtun is level with the lauter manifold and assume an
single copper tube with slits and you just let the liquid dribble out.
The greatest pressure gradient extends up the middle of the mash to the
top and that is where the greatest flow is. As you fan out from this
center area, the pressure gradient over the distance traveled decreases
and the flow rate decreases. So a higher proportion of the sparge liquid
sitting on top of the mash is going down the middle. That's sounds like
an extreme case though. In reality, the deeper and narrower the grain
bed, the less disproportionate the flow becomes. Now lets go the the
bottom of the mash tun. I would bet that there is little flow along the
bottom because there is no pressure gradient unless you have channeling
somewhere around the perimeter. The higher you go above the level of the
manifold, the more pressure gradient extending out to the perimeters
pulling the liquid throught the grain. That would imply that there is a
volume near the bottom edges of the mashtun that don't get adequately
sparged. You could increase the flow in these areas by suction lautering
by lowering the exit point of the mash tun or pumping out of the mashtun
which most of us do anyway. 
Having said all that, I think that mashtun geometry is a significant
factor and I think that taller and narrower would be better for an easy
masher type setup (single pickup) and that the short and wide mashtuns
would benefit from multiple branches in the lautering manifold. 
 Boy I hope this makes sense when I read it in the morning. Cheers!

Dave Ludwig
Flat Iron Brewery
SO MD


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998 21:17:07 -0800
From: Adam Holmes <aaholmes at lamar.colostate.edu>
Subject: Yeast for barleywine

    I was going to make my first barleywine and had some questions about
yeast.  I have read that you should choose an alcohol tolerant yeast
with med. to high attenuation.  Profiles of yeast cultures often list
the attenuation but I haven't seen much said about how alcohol tolerant
each culture is.  I've only seen a mention that  WyEast #3944 (Belgian
White Beer) is alcohol tolerant but that's about it.  So, anyone know
what is or isn't alcohol tolerant?
    The question is kind of academic to me because I am going to repitch
WyEast #1028 (London Ale) from a pale ale batch in progress.  Would love
to hear other's successes, failures, tips on getting proper attenuation
in their barleywines.  I'm especially curious about the need to repitch
yeast when transferring beer to the secondary fermenter.  Do you make a
fresh culture up for this or wash/repitch yeast from the primary?  I
plan on an OG of 1.100 with a target IBU of around 85.

private email OK

Thanks,
Adam Holmes
Fort Collins, CO

p.s. to the guy who was curious about going all-grain who lived in an
apartment:  DO IT.  I just started making all-grain beers and they taste
amazing.  I'll never touch extract again.  I also live in a small
apartment with a crappy stove but I just straddle my pot over two
burners and set them on high.  Takes some time to get 7 gallons boiling
but I still find time to brew even in the midst of going to graduate
school.  Good Luck.



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 01:09:58 EST
From: ThomasM923 at aol.com
Subject: Re:"Fake" lagers

Randy Ricchi writes:

"I was wondering if anyone has used it to brew lager-style beers such as
pilsner, Octoberfest, Bock, etc., and if so, did you feel the yeast made a
good pseudo-lager?"

Randy,
Why don't you experiment with a real lager yeast? The California common strain
is supposed to ferment well at around 60 degrees. Wyeast and other companies
offer this strain.

Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 04:04:56 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net>
Subject: IBU's

Pete wrote:

> When using the various software packages for recipe formulation, usually
> there is a choice for hops calculation method.  I was wondering the
> inherent differences between the methods (Tinseth and Rager) and why
> they yield vastly different number in terms of IBUs.  For my recipe,
> they yielded values of about 25 and 48 or so.

Remember that all IBU "calculators" are really just rough "estimators" -- there
are simply too many variables to accurately predict IBU's across the board.  The
differences you're seeing stem from Messrs. Tinseth and Rager making different
assumptions about utilization rates.

In doing the labwork for the HBD Palexperiment, the ranges of IBU's for beers
brewed from, literally, the same ingredients varied from about 50 to 75 (there
were also two over 90, but I suspect that those two results were artifacts),
with a distribution on a rough bell curve with the peak at about 64 and most of
the beers being within 5 IBU's of this figure.  Of the commonly used formulas,
Rager was the most accurate in this instance, predicting 61 IBU's for the
recipe.  However, the wide variance of results from this experiment -- which
used identical amounts of hops from the same lot -- points out the inherent
problem with relying on any formula: there are just too many other variables
that are not accounted for in these formulas.

The *only* way to know your IBU's is to physically measure them in the finished
beer.  Once you have this data for several beers, you will probably have a
decent idea of what *your* utilization rates are for *your* system and
procedures, and thereafter you could tweak Tinseth/Garetz/Rager's formula to
give more accurate guesses.  But the bottom line is that the only way to know
your IBU's is to measure them.

> When books are written about styles, is there a given standard method
> that is used??  For example in Daniels book or Papazians??

When reporting the IBU's of commercial beers, measured IBU levels are usually
given.  When Ray's book reports the IBU levels of beers at the NHC, however, I
believe that he was simply reporting what the individual brewers claimed -- and
thus they could have been using a spectrophotometer, Rager, Tinseth, Garetz, or
a dartboard to get these figures.  (As far as Papazian, I have no idea what (if
any) methodology he uses -- but I would wager a considerable sum that the IBU
levels of his recipes are not based on measured IBU's.)

Louis K. Bonham



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 98 06:56:34 -0500
From: Ken Houtz <kenhoutz at nut-n-but.net>
Subject: Cleaning keg dip tubes

- -- [ From: Ken Houtz * EMC.Ver #3.0 ] --

George,

I tried the .22 but my lineup was too good.  That little bullet went
straight through and never touched the sides at all.  So I got my .338 Win
Mag and tried again.  Yep,
clean as a wistle but now a different problem.  The tube is too big to go
back into the keg fitting.

Guess I'll stick with my old method which is a long stemmed brush and some
Comet.

Ken Houtz


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 07:41:11 -0500
From: fridge at kalamazoo.net
Subject: Rusty freezer interior

Greetings folks,
 In HBD#2860, Robert Arguello asked how to repair a 
rusty freezer interior.

 I have a new chest freezer that is showing signs of rust 
where the factory didn't caulk the seams of the cabinet 
liner and the edges didn't get any paint. Since my freezer 
is still new, I'll dry it out well when my dopplebock is 
finished fermenting and apply a good mildew-resistant 
silicone caulk. 

 Where rust breaks through the paint on the cabinet liner, 
some effort will be required to make a good repair. I'd 
recommend wire brushing the affected areas to remove 
any loose rust or paint. Then apply a liquid "rust 
converter" available in many automotive departments. The 
rust convertor prevents further corrosion and reacts with 
remaining rust on the surface to form a hard coating.

 I would then paint the liner with an "epoxy" appliance 
paint. I suspect this is really a polyurethane of some sort, 
but the paint seems to be harder and more durable than 
other paints available in spray cans. When painting or 
otherwise coating the interior of a chest freezer, keep in 
mind that whatever you apply will affect the heat transfer 
from the freezer's contents to the refrigerant coils located 
in the cabinet walls. Keep any applied coatings THIN!

 After the paint cures, I would apply a mildew-resistant 
silicone caulk to any seams in the cabinet liner. Lastly... 
Put a container of Damp-Rid inside the freezer to help 
keep the humidity down. I have had good results with it in 
my own freezers, only getting a slight moisture build-up 
during the most humid summer months while fermenting 
multiple carboys of lager. Give it a try.

Hope this helps!

Forrest Duddles - FridgeGuy in Kalamazoo
fridge at kalamazoo.net


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:18:12 -0500
From: "Spies, James" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us>
Subject: Campfire Porter

All -

I recently made a porter (or what I thought was a porter) from a few
recipies culled from the Cat's Meow/Gambrinus archives.  My aim was to
make a full-bodied, sweetish porter (not a dry, woody/smoky porter).

Here's the problem:  none of the recipies for *all-grain* porter that I
found described the amount of residual sweetness left in them.  So,
drawing what I could, here's the recipie I pieced together (problems
will become evident momentarily).

5 lbs. Marris Otter Pale
5 lbs. Weyermann's Munich
1 lb. 90 lov. crystal
~14 oz. Chocolate malt
~3 oz. Black Patent malt
- ------
1 oz Chinook pellets (11.2 AA -- 60 min)
1 oz whole leaf Cascade (5.2 AA -- K.O.)
- ------
2 packets rehydrated Edme Ale yeast
- ------
single infusion  at  157 for 60 min
- ------
sparged 7 gallons, pitched 5.5 galllons  at  1.054

I think I *way* overdid it on the dark malts.  The wort smelled like a
leftover campfire, which was definitely *not* what I intended.  My
question for the omnipotent masses is what can I do fix what I am sure
will be somewhat of a p-rauch porter?  It's still in primary, but I can
smell the burnt/toasted odor from the airlock.  I intentionally mashed
high to leave some unfermentable dextrins, so I'm hoping that the FG
will be in the low 20's.  Any way to add something that will counteract
the burnt odor/taste, or am I stuck with it ??

TIA,

Jay Spies
Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery
Baltimore, MD


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:36:24 +0000
From: "Jim Busch" <jim at victorybeer.com>
Subject: US malts

While I certainly respect the brewing experience of Fred Scheer I 
would like to submit some anecdotal experience with domestic malts.  
In previous microbreweries that our brewmasters worked, they used 
Briess or Froederts base malts.  While they would convert almost by 
looking at em with hot water, the rich malt depth of character that I 
love in the best Munchner Helles or Export Hell's seemed absent.  
This was true no matter if decoctions or other methods were employed. 
When we started our own micro we went with German malts for all of 
the base and specialties.  Guess what, that elusive depth of malt 
character and snappy crisp finish came back in the exports, helles 
and pilsners.  Of particular note is the Munich malts that have been 
discussed here of late.  Making an authentic Ur-Maerzen bier just 
never worked with domestic malts even using some Vienna 2 row malts.  
Even with decoctions and German Munich malts it is difficult to get 
that lovely toasty, nutty somewhat bready aromas that I love from the 
likes of Hacker Pschorr Oktoberfest.  If Fred can make a Munich (or 
pils for that matter) malt that can rival those from the old world it 
would be a great advance for domestic brewing and I wish him well.

While our brewdays would be slightly shorter with domestic malts, in 
the end the judgement is not made on the length of the brewday but on 
the quality of the end product.  As farmers, maltsters and brewers 
all have directly conflicting interests, the end malt will always be 
a compromise between the high yield desires of the farmer, the 
uniform ease of malting needs of the maltster and the quality/ease of 
brew needs of the brewmaster. 

Prost!

Jim Busch


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:59:06 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Re:  Cereal Mash; Dixie Brewery

"Matthew J. Harper" <matth at progress.com> writes:
>In today's Digest Jeff Renner (A little less than 1/2 a country away)
>discusses
>using a cereal mash on coarse corn meal for hiS CAP.  The procedure he
>describes
>*sounds* like a decoction to me.  Am I missing something, or is it just
>another name since it's not (so much...) malt that gets boiled?

It certainly is like a decoction, but differs in that it is not part of the
main mash that is removed and boiled but the adjunct grains and a small
amount of malt (which helps liquify the cereal mash) that are mashed and
boiled separately, then added to the main mash.  It is the traditional
(100+ years) way of handling cereal adjuncts in American beers, and is not
only useful from a production standpoint, but also for the flavor.  Of
course, in very delicate, modern American beers, this flavor (and color)
change is kept to a minimum.
++++++++

Last week I visited the Dixie Brewery in New Orleans.  Kevin Stewart (UC
Davis product), the brewmaster, was wonderfully generous with his time
(they don't do tours, but I had an intro).  They have an astoundingly
antiquated plant (built in 1907 with some salvaged slightly newer equipment
from Jax and other closed breweries) that the Kevin and staff seem to keep
together with the proverbial chewing gum and baling wire.  They use about
1/3 rice and use malt and some amalase in the cereal mash.  What they
produce in spite of their equipment is nothing short of a true American
treasure, at least the unpasteurized draft.  In the bottle and pasteurized
it is merely a better than most delicate modern American "Pilsners."
Unpasteurized, while still delicate and subtle, it has real complexity of
malt and hops and beautiful balance.  Not a CAP in my mind, but special
nontheless.  I brought home two unpasteurized bottles and will do a
triangular taste test with the pasteurized version with some AABG members
soon.

I may write up a more complete report on Dixie and Acadian, which I also
visited, also in New Orleans, whose Pilsener is the best Czech-style Pils I
have had in this country (double decoction with Briess malt, BTW).

Jeff

 -=-=-=-=-
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: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:16:01 -0600
From: "Timothy M. Dugan" <tdugan at netins.net>
Subject: No Aroma Hopback

Back in HBD #2855 I asked about using a hopback to keep the Break/Hops out
of the fermenter, but not wanting any hop aroma.

My thought was to stick the hopback after the counter-flow chiller.  After
thinking that through all the way, that would be a stupid idea as you are
now passing clean, cool wort over hops.  An invitation to disaster.

I did get numerous ideas from other brewer, my favorite idea being...

Bret Morrow wrote:
I have successfully used the spent whole hops from the boil to filter.
It shouldn't add any new hop aroma.  Hope this helps.

Randy Erickson wrote:
According to Noonan, Scottish breweries often use spent hops (and grains)
from a strong batch to make a economical small beer.

Spencer Thomas wrote:
How about grabbing some spent hops from the kettle and using them?

This is so obvious.  I don't know why I didn't think of it.

Some other ideas which would work...

Ray Kruse wrote:
You might try using nylon hop bags and stainless scouring pads in some
sort of arrangement acceptable to your hop back.

Jeff A. McNally wrote:
(Y)ou could boil some hop in water to drive off the aroma and then use
them in your hopback.

Art Beall (Ninkasi Winner Art? Congratulations) wrote:
(Y)ou probably could use rice hull as a filter medium.

When possible I'm going to pull some spent hops from the kettle.  If I know
a batch isn't going to use any whole hops, then I'm going to boil some hops
in water, and use that.

Thanks for everyone who responded.  It was very helpful.

Tim M. Dugan
tdugan at netins.net

p.s.  I also want to thank everyone on the HBD, I have learned sooooo much
over the last two years.  I hop one of these days I can start adding to the
digest, not just keep taking!





Return to table of contents


Date: 28 Oct 1998 09:59:35 -0500
From: Christophe Frey <cfrey at ford.com>
Subject: Sloshing wort in secondary - is this safe?


to: post@hbd.org

At our brew club meeting last night, a relative newcomer to the hobby was
concerned that his porter, brewed last Saturday and given two packets of dry
yeast, had either completed its fermentation already or was stuck. I gave him
typical advise regarding hydrometer readings, but in the general conversation
that followed, the following question came up that I thought I would present
to the collective.

Assuming you have your wort in a carboy for awhile, and an airlock fixedon top,
would it be safe to rouse the yeast by splashing it around (ie, take the carboy
and shake it up). While several of us indicated that it would be better to
gently swirl the wort, one individual suggested that since the brew had been
fermenting, the headspace within the carboy should be filled with CO2, thus
mitigating any concerns regarding aerating the wort. The argument gave me a
moment to pause and realize that on the face of it, what AL had said made sense
 . Assuming the headspace is indeed filled with CO2, is there any reason to
concern oneself with violently shaking and rocking the carboy, thus rousing
the little yeasties awake? What say yea?

Sincerely,
Chris P. Frey
Strategic Planning & New Product Development  337-1642
chris.frey-ford at e-mail.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:24:41 -0500
From: Jeremy Price <pricejy at email.uc.edu>
Subject: even more on First Wort Hopping


All wrote,

>Jeremy writes:
>>I started first wort hopping many of my beers about a year ago, and I am
>>very pleased with the results. First Wort hopping (FWH) is just as it
>>sounds; you add your bittering hops directly to the first  runnings of the
>>wort. The acidity of the wort facilitates extraction of the alpha acids in
>>the hop.
>
>Have you read this somewhere or are you speculating?  I believe this
>shouldn't be correct.  As the acidity of the wort goes up, the utilisation
>goes down and the acidity of the "first wort" is actually lower than that
>of the wort later in the boil.  If it's true that acidity has something
>to do with the utilisation, then I'd be interested to read about it...
>however, I think we all need to be careful to not make any rash assumptions
>and introduce new incorrect concepts into our collective brewing knowledge
>base.

Excuse me, I typed lower pH when I meant Higher pH. The pre-boil pH
facilitates better hop utilization. Here is a  reference:
http://www.brewery.org/brewery/library/FWHsummaryDD0396.html

I wasn't trying to introduce an incorrect concept into the collective, I
simply mistyped. It happend. this is a discussion group; It should be a
place for brewers to express ideas and opinions; it should not be the
archived bible of brewing science.


>As for increasing or decreasing the hops, in the experiment Dr. Fix sited,
>they did not compensate for the fact that they would get more bitterness
>from moving the aroma addition to FWH.  I do not understand why you would
>even suggest that the hops might be increased.  Nobody, to my knowledge,
>has suggested they should be.

I am just relaying what I read in the article, here is the quote
  "As far as the use of hops is concerned, the alpha-acid quantity should
not be reduced even in the case of an improved bitterness utilization"


>On the contrary, in my experiment (which, admittedly was done with a very
>large amount of FWH) I found a muddled bitterness obscured by excessive hop
>flavour.  I certainly would not have called the bitterness "cleaner" or
>"sharper."  I found that there was virtually no hop aroma contributed and
>that the FWH added primarily bitterness and hop flavour.  I would STRONGLY
>discourage brewers from using FWH or any hopping later than T-60 minutes
>in Altbiers because neither hop flavour nor aroma are typically found in
>the non-Sticke version of this style.  My experiment, was done with Czech
>Saaz, incidentally.
>
>Al.


I have to disagree, I have first wort hoped many of my recent beers and
have been very pleased with the results. I don't add ALL the hops to the
first running, only the bittering and a portion of the aroma hops. I still
add some intentional flavor / aroma hops as needed. But what I have noticed
in all of my FWH beers so far, is a better cleaner bitterness. As for my
alt, after boiling for 1.5 hours with three oz of FW hops, the hop aroma is
minimal; almost completely masked by the Malt, but I enjoy it!  And isn't
that the most important thing?

The link below describes some other home brewer's experience with first
wort hopping.

http://www.hbd.org/~ddraper/beer/1stwort.html

Jeremy Price
Blotarian Brewing League
Cincinnati, OH





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:34:13 -0600
From: Tidmarsh Major <ctmajor at samford.edu>
Subject: re: Primetabs

I got a packet of Primetabs (corn sugar tablets) from William's Brewing,
http://www.williamsbrewing.com.  They were a little bit pricey compared
to regular corn sugar, but they sure made bottling my Barleywine of
indeterminate volume easier, since I just sanitized more bottles than
necessary and dropped sugar tablets into them as I needed them, rather
than trying to determine volume by comparing the weight of the full keg
to the empty.

Tidmarsh Major
Birmingham, Alabama
tidmarsh at mindspring.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:04:30 -0600
From: Andrew Ager <andrew-ager at nwu.edu>
Subject: Re: Perhaps going all grain?

The Greenman <greenman at sdc.org> wrote:

>I haven't been brewing long, but the idea of All-graining is really
>tapping at my brain.  All of the recent posts by very happy All-grainers
>has gotten me thinking about going all grain.

Go for it!  See below for more.

>I have the distinct advantage of having a kitchen entirely devoted to
>brewing.  I eat with my fiance, and we do all the cooking at her place
>so my kitchen is crammed with brewing supplies (i.e. pots, bottles,
>fermenters, bottles, specialty grains, extracts, culturing equipment
>etc)  My fridge is entirely devoted to lagering
>
>However, I do have a problem.  I live in an appartment with an electric
>stove.  I make good beer with it (since I made a buffer to go between
>the pot and the element)  However, it has two main settings-off and burn
>the dial is useless.

This shouldn't be that much of a problem.  If you mash in a cooler, you
don't need a fine temperature control on the stove, and if you're worried
about getting 5-7 gallons of wort toa boil, the easy way around that
is...smaller batch sizes.  I brew 3-gallon all-grain batches, and can do a
full boil on my stovetop with little problem (although I'm finally thinking
about moving up to a larger kettle in order to do some bigger beers).  If
all you're doing on the stovetop is heating sparge water and boiling,
you're set.

Good Luck!

Andy Ager 		Beer Geek, Beer Judge
Chicago, IL		Homebrewer Ordinaire
- --Chicago Beer Society -- Silver Medal Homebrew Club of the Year, 1998 --





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:13:13 -0400
From: Gordon Strong <strongg at earthlink.net>
Subject: Classic American Pilsner

Thanks to Jeff Renner for continuing to step up with references and
experience with this style.  I was fortunate enough to judge both Jeff's
best-of-show CAP last year in Michigan and Dr. Fix's first place CAP at
a recent competition in Cincinnati.  Both were Damn Fine Beers.  I'd
like to try them side-by-side; it would be a tough call.

Are there any credible commercial versions of this style (particularly
in the midwest)?  One of the perks of judging (and brewing for that
matter) is getting to sample these little-known styles.  But I'm looking
for examples that might be more accessible to non-brewers/judges. 
Anyone?

Gordon Strong
Beavercreek, OH


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 10:36:07 -0800
From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com>
Subject: mounting a thermometer in a SS pot?

Greetings, from that wacky medieval guy...

ok, so this is a modern day question, but i do that to...

I have seen posts/webpages from people who have thermoters mounted in the
wall of their pots.  How can i do that, and without welding....  can i have
so i can remove my thermometer too?  for using on other things..

badger

*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
(2300 miles West of Jeff, Seattle, WA)
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html

In the SCA: 
Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 11:41:08 -0800
From: "Bryan L. Gros" <gros at bigfoot.com>
Subject: FWH

Our resident maltster Fred Scheer wrote:
>While I was brewing in Europe, we made some test's with FWH.
>To make a long story short, we observed that with increasing
>IBU's ( above 20 ) the Hop Aroma got lost as IBU's increased.
>Below 20 IBU, we got more Hop aroma as IBU's decreased.
>...We concluded that dry hoping was a better way
>of getting a Hop aroma in a beer with more than 20 IBU's;

I thought the point of first wort hopping (FWH) was to
increase hop flavor, not aroma. 
Did you mean that with higher IBUs (lots of FWHs)
you detected less aroma because it was masked by
bitterness and flavor hops? Not sure if that makes
sense...

But I agree with your conclusion, that dry hopping
is the way to go for hop aroma.

  - Bryan 

Bryan Gros
Oakland, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: 28 Oct 1998 14:58:14 -0500
From: Christophe Frey <cfrey at ford.com>
Subject: Home Grown Hop Alpha Acid Guesstimation


to: post@hbd.org

I have mentioned in earlier posts my harvesting of our esteemed janitor's
(Pat Babcock) Cascade hop crop. I am getting ready to brew up a 20 gallon
batch of SNPA (my 8th iteration-love this stuff!) and I want to try to utilize
his hops for both aroma and flavor. Now, I know that the IBU's for aroma (I
toss them in T-1 minute before the end of the boil) are virtually
non-existent, but the flavor addition at T-15 minutes does impart some IBU's.
I have used the assumption that I get approximately a 5% utilization factor
for the 15 minute addition. While it won't make a huge difference, I want to
be able to estimate my IBU's for this brew. Most Cascades I have brewed with
have had 3.5%aa - 5%aa. Here is my assumption: because I have picked the hops
myself, carefully handled them to loss a minimum of delicate lupin glands, I
am assuming that the hops have a HIGHER than average alpha acid content. I am
taking a swag and guesstimating maybe 6.0aa.
I know that this is a weak assumption, but what about the overall premise that
homegrown hops have higher aa due to the minimal handling? What say yea?

Sincerely,
Chris P. Frey
Strategic Planning & New Product Development  337-1642
chris.frey-ford at e-mail.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:31:02 -0800 (PST)
From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning dip tubes

| "dead-eye" renner wrote:
|  
| >I've found that while the .22 cal. brush works OK, a much more thorough
| >way is to use the .22 bullet itself.  Just line up the dip tube *exactly*
| > . . .

Paul Edwards (nice last name ;-) wrote:
| My method is similar, but here in Indiana we can buy copper-jacketed
|  .22's, so lead build-up is not a problem.  For those of you forced to use
| . . .

YOW!  I'm sure everyone *knows* that this is a joke.
but let's not forget to add those smileys (or <grin>s if you wish).
In this case, you all should add LOTS of smileys, since not getting this
joke could result in death.

Sorry, but I did lose some of the morbid sense of humor I once had...right
around the time I had children.


 -Alan Edwards in Fremont, CA


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:55:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Munchner Dunkel

Rob writes:
>Can anyone point me towards information on a grain bill for this beer. I was
>thinking 50% Pils malt, 48% Munich malt, and 2% chocolate. Am I close?
>That's % extract, of course  :-)

I would in stead recommend 0% Pils, 100% Munich and 0% chocolate.  Recall
why this beer was the colour it was...

There is a significant amount of bicarbonate in the water of Munchen.
The brewers discovered that they could make fine beer from their regular
malt, but had trouble with astringency and conversion when they used paler
malts.  (Actually, all malt was rather dark originally, it's just that
other towns' waters allowed the maltsters to make the malt paler when
the technology allowed it, whereas in Munich, the water kept the "regular"
malt dark.)  Therefore, their specifications called for higher-kilned
malt from their maltsters.  Eventually, they learned about pH and water
chemistry and learned how to make pale beers from pale malts, but
traditionally, Munchner beer was amber and was made from 100% Munchner malt.

Incidentally, in Vienna, they had slightly less bicarbonate and slightly
more calcium (which reacts with the malt to lower pH) and therefore
the Vienna brewers could use slightly paler malt than their Munich
counterparts.  Hence, Vienna malt is between Munich and Pils in colour.

Some brewers of modern Munchner Dunkels do indeed add a touch of darker
malt (like Koenig Ludwig), but I suggest beginning with a batch of the
original and then adapt it to your taste in subsequent incarnations.

By the way (okay, this is the last one), the current AHA guidelines
say a chocolaty flavour is required, which is incorrect.  The soon-to-
be-released new BJCP guidelines have fixed this problem and negotiations
are underway to work towards unified guidelines.

Al.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:34:36 -0600 (CST)
From: Al Korzonas <korz at xnet.com>
Subject: Malt drying

Jon Sandlin writes:
>I am looking forward to doing some home malting.

I believe you will have grater success if you change your last
name to "Saladin."

Sorry, couldn't resist...

If you don't get it, see:

http://www.fuglsang.dk/malting.html
or
http://web195b.bbnplanet.com/malt/plants/herent.htm

On the other hand, you may want to change your last name to "Floor Malting"...
See: http://www.breworld.com/the_grist/9604/floormlt.html

Sorry... didn't get enough sleep last night and I'm getting a little
punchy.


Al.

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


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 15:17:00 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: tsetinilc

The latest issue of Zymurgy is a mess.  The AHA director says that yeast
"respirate" and the yeast road test involves pitching a bunch of yeast at
variable concentrations and unknown viability into the same wort and trying to
draw conclusions.  I think they should have used the Clinitest to see if the
worts were really fermented out.

>From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
>Subject: pLambic (maybe)
>
>
>Last February I brewed my first pLambic and it went thru its phases but
>without fruit.  Oct 20th I managed to get 10# of fresh raspberries and
>mushed them up and stewed them at 160F,  cooled them and added to the
>plastic bucket of Lambic stock. The yeast didn't get recorded but I'm
>sure it was Wyeast for Lambic. 
>
>
>Later I found a copy of the Lambic book by the Ass'n of Brewers series
>and it said to add the fruit after a week of primary fermentation.  
>
>
>What should I do next and how long should I wait to bottle?

You did not need to heat the fruit.  Just carefully add it to the beer.  There
should already be enough acid to inhibit most bugs and minimum aeration will
inhibit mold.  But it's lambic who cares.  WRT the recipes in "Lambic" I
suggest you largely ignore them.  All the times mentioned etc are not correct. 
But who would buy a book that suggests waiting years to make beer?  Some have
suggested the series in BT on lambic was OK. :-)


>From: "Dave Whitman" <dwhitman at fast.net>
>Subject: yeast storage under sterile buffer solution

>
> RESULTS OF MY EXPERIMENT SUGGEST THAT KH2PO4 BUFFER 
> SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVES YEAST SURVIVAL DURING EXTENDED STORAGE.
> Experimental Details:
> Cultures of Wyeast 1968 and 3068 were grown on SG 1040 wort agar slants. 
> Vials containing either reverse osmosis water or r/o water with 2% KH2PO4 
> were pressure cooked for 20 minutes at 15 psi, then allowed to cool to room 
> temperature.
> Small samples of yeast solids were transferred into the vials using a 
> flame-sterilized loop. 



What was the cell number and viabilty based on methylene blue at the time the
cells wer placed into the vials? And what was the exact volume of fluid in each
vial?


>
> The vials were then sealed and stored at room 
> temperature in the dark. A total of 4 vials were prepared: 2 yeast strains 
> each under either r/o water or 2% buffer.
> After 3 months, I estimated viability of each sample using the methylene 
> blue test given at: http://www.cbs.knaw.nl/publications/online/2aquic.htm
> Dead cells get stained blue, whereas live cells bleach the dye and remain 
> unstained.
> For each vial, I counted stained and unstained cells in multiple regions of 
> at least two microscope slides. A minimum of 800 cells were counted for 
> each vial. The percentage of unstained cells was calculated for each region 
> examined, and an estimate of stdev was made by comparing the results for 
> each region.


You n value is small and you have no idea what the cell number in the vials was
to start with.  Did you take repeated samples from each vial and repeat the
procedure?  800 cells may be a statistically small value for the actual number
of cells in the vial.



>
> Results:
> --- % unstained cells ---- 
> Yeast Strain pure water KHP buffer 
> 1968 77 +/- 9 97 +/- 2 
> 3068 88 +/- 4 96 +/- 1
> The effect is rather dramatic. For Wyeast 1968, the number of dead cells 
> was 8 times higher in the pure water sample than in 2% buffer! T-tests 
> indicate that the increase in viability in the buffer relative to r/o water 
> is statistically significant for both yeast strains.



OK all you stats guys that blasted me.  I don't think applying a t-test to such
a small sample size with single measurements means a thing.  Methylene blue
staining is largely unreliable except for fresh samples.  And when viability is
below 80% it is considered useless.  The only real test is to plate a known
number of cells and see how many colonies develop. Staining or lack there of is
not a true indication of the ability to grow.

>
> Limitations of the experiment:
> My statistics are just a bit bogus, because the samples aren't totally 
> independent. 



Then why present them?

Also the water storage method was developed as a field method.  Find some
something new and then you can just put it into water until you return to the
lab.  The CDC has publsihed work showing yeast can survive for 10 years. 
Phosphate buffer may be a good idea in the right hands.  But it has certain
limitations.  It is a very good nutrient media unlike water.  So anytime tou
open a vial your technique has to be very good since anything else that might
get in will grow like crazy.  It is why we always add azide to our hplc
buffers.  Water does not have this tendency.  This experiment needs to be
carried out for a year and then see how the numbers fall.


And since we can't debate clinitest let's debate calcium and it's effect on
gelatinization.  Marc Sedam wrote an article in BT and reported some info from
Noonan. Noonan states in his book that calcium has a postive effect on
gelatinization (not saccharifiaction and enzymes).  Many have written articles
and simply regurgitated this statement.  I've already debated this point with
Marc and BT showed little interest in my obsession about minute details.  Marc
and I have scanned the literature and I've asked various cereal researchers and
gottne e-mail answers.  So can anybody shed further light?

Jim
www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 14:43:50 PST
From: "silent bob" <holdenmcneil at hotmail.com>
Subject: IBU's,   pLambic,   Excel spreadsheet and Altitude

Hello Freinds,


I have been away for a couple of days, and in catching up I saw a couple 
of things that I thought I could respond to in a somewhat intelligent 
manner:

Someone asked about the difference IBU calculation methods.  The special 
issue of Zymurgy on hops has an excellent article on this including 
correction factors for several variables including boil temp, type of 
hops, gravity etc.  The author uses several of the methods to calcualate 
the IBU's, and then compares the actual IBU's measured at Seibel for 
that beer.  I used a combination of the methods  and correction factors 
that made sense and seemed significant to me, and then used that 
composite method to calculate the scenerio in the article, and came very 
close.  If anyone wants it, E-mail me, I don't have on me at the moment.



Someone wants to add rasberries to a pLambic in very late secondary.  Go 
for it!  I have tasted homebrewed pLambics that use this method, and 
they are excellent.  The advantage is that you can taste the beer now, 
and decide if it is good enough to add expensive fruit to, and you lose 
less of the fruit character.  The disadvantage is that the fermentation 
of the fruit could take a while.  Consider re-pitching some of the 
beasties, and choose which ones based on you opinion of the pLambic.  If 
you think it needs more acidity add Pediococcus or Lactobacillus.  If it 
needs more "horsey" add more Bret.  Beware that this still may not give 
you an earthshaking ferment as the new bugs (micro-organisms not fruit 
flies) *sorry-had to*  will be inhibited by acidity and alcohol.  Good 
luck, and send me some!!!



Whoever wanted the Excel spreadsheet, e-mail me.  I have one that I have 
put alot of work into, and that I think works very efficiently, and 
gives alot of info.  You are welcome to it as long as you don't mind 
letting me know when you find one of my screw-up's (not that I think 
that many exist, I have found it to be accurate).


Lastly, since a great deal of discussion  was put into altitude, I will 
close my message as follows:

Happy Brewing,

Adam C. Cesnales in Austintown, Ohio:

about 250 miles south east of, and 800 feet above Jeff Renner.

P.S.  Please children, cleaning your brewing equipment with a firearm 
should not be attempted at home. ;^) 

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 22:35 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: beermonster at brewer.org (Blink)
Subject: All grain - maybe

Greenman was asking about all grain.

Over here in the UK propane burners are few and far between, most people 
using electric elements.
You can make a perfectly viable 3 vessel brewery (HLT, Mashtun, 
Copper) with polyprop plastic buckets and 2.7kw or 3kw kettle elements or 
similar elements. Two elements in each would help speed the process up no 
end. You drop down to one for boiling once boiling in the copper. You 
shouldn't blow up your electrics as you will only use two elements max at 
any one time.
The HLT and copper would be plastic buckets and the mashtun is a coolbox. 
Use copper manifolds in the bottom of the copper and mashtun, immersion 
cooler, phils or home made sparge arm and bobs your uncle. A 3 tier 
brewery when the HLT is on the microwave, mashtun on the worktop, and 
copper on the floor. You may even squeeze in a pump to save any lifting:-)
Don't know what elements you've got available in the US but you seem to 
have a bigger choice than over here, although you're at 120 volts?


Cheers

Graham
Head Brewer and Kegwasher, Blinks Brewery, Derbyshire, England.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 17:53:07 -0500
From: Chuck Cubbler <chuck at maguire.com>
Subject: I like a little head but.....

Greetings to all,

A question for the collective....

I've recently begun kegging my homebrew in 5 gal cornies.  After force 
carbonating (ala Robert A.), I get a nice, creamy head, as I had expected. 
 Even my wife was impressed.

However, after consuming a little more than half of the keg, I begin to 
experience very foamy pours.  In fact, probably half of each 12 oz glass is 
foam.  Typically, I pour two at a time (one for each of us), and then 10 
minutes or so later, two more.

Guy at the homebrew supply said to turn up the pressure, that the CO2 is 
coming out of solution.  (By the way, I'm using a Sears Beermeister, with 
the plumbing converted for the corny kegs.)  He suggested that I turn up 
the pressure, so I did, from about 12psi to about 18 psi.  What I get is a 
faster pour, still mostly foam.

Now, I've not modified the stock plumbing at all.  There is approx 6 ft 
(guessing really) of 3/8 ID tubing between the beer-out fitting and the 
tap.  I've also had this same experience with store-bought kegs of 
(expletive deleted)-Light.

Maybe what I need is another person's explanation of what is happening 
here.  I've had some college chemistry and physics, so I can handle some 
techie stuff (le Chatlier's Principle, etc.).  It just didn't ring true the 
way the supplier explained it.  Should I have the pressure up higher from 
the get-go, thus preventing the CO2 from coming out of solution?  Is it too 
late once this happens?  Or do I maybe have a leak in the plumbing or 
something?

Thanks in advance.
==========================================
Chuck Cubbler
Homebrewin', Harley Ridin' Libertarians of New Jersey
Take the Quiz  http://www.self-gov.org/lp-quiz.shtml
==========================================


Return to table of contents

---