Category : Various Text files
Archive   : HBD154X.ZIP
Filename : HBD1549

Output of file : HBD1549 contained in archive : HBD154X.ZIP

#1 (1081 lines):
Date: Tuesday, 11 October 1994 03:00 edt
From: homebrew-request at HPFCMI.FC.HP.COM (Request Address Only - No Articles)
Subject: Homebrew Digest #1549 (October 11, 1994)
Reply-To: homebrew at HPFCMI.FC.HP.COM (Posting Address Only - No Requests)
To: homebrew at HPFCMI.FC.HP.COM
Errors-To: [email protected]
Precedence: bulk

HOMEBREW Digest #1549 Tue 11 October 1994

Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor

Premise Disinfectant (Greg Demkowicz)
Re: Yeast head contact with air / Irish Ale yeast (Patrick Weix)
open fermenting (RONALD DWELLE)
The immorality of shipping ("Rich Scotty")
UPS shipping of alcohol (Phil Duclos)
Brewpubs in Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, & Appleton, WI (Jan Holloway)
temperature equations (Steve Robinson)
Shipping Beer (npyle)
holiday beer recipe (Russell Fusco)
small bottles (Gary Bell)
Re: Refrigeration Unit (Dion Hollenbeck)
Re: specialty malts (Patrick Casey)
BJCP $$$ ("Rad Equipment")
wholesale grain ("Warren G. Schaibbe")
Mash water calculation additions (George Danz x632)
clean air (George Danz x632)
Yeast culture question (Dan Strahs)
filtration/when to rack (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
yeast slowdown after racking (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
re: semi-open fermentation (10-Oct-1994 1552 -0400)
Going to Belgium - need info about everything (10-Oct-1994 1715 -0400)
what do BCI kegs look like? (Joe Boardman)
HBD 1548 (BrewerLee)
Hop Moisture Content ("David Sapsis")
Wort Chilling Questions ("Morton, Mike")
Shipping Beer ("Rebecca S. Myers")

* NEW POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.

Send articles for __publication_only__ to [email protected]
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to [email protected], BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver ([email protected]),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
FAQs, archives and other files are available via anonymous ftp from (Those without ftp access may retrieve files via
mail from [email protected] Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to [email protected]


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 08:18:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: Greg Demkowicz
Subject: Premise Disinfectant

Not to rehash the Iodophor discussion in HB1522/3, but I just came across
a product by Westagro, called Premise Disinfectant. It's labeled as a
"concentrated broad spectrum iodophor for use as a one-step cleaner-
disinfectant and no-rinse sanitizer". As a disinfectant, (with a
1 minute contact time) it goes on to state a dilution table of 1oz
Premise to 5 gallon water, yielding a titratable iodine of 25 ppm.
Per the "Federal Food Additive Regulation 178.1010", a rinse with
potable water is not required.
However, as a cleaner and disinfectant, 3 oz per 5 gallon, and a
10 minute contact time is recommended, and ALL food surfaces must be
thoroughly rinsed before reuse.
As I have never used BTF or BEST Iodophors, is the above consistent
with these products?
I did not see any reference to "air drying" of the 25 ppm solution,
for it to not require a rinse, as Al K. mentioned in HB1522.

Has anyone used this product? This stuff does foam and is used in the
food industry, just curious if it is/can be used for cleaning brewing


[email protected]


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 05:31:34 -0700
From: [email protected] (Patrick Weix)
Subject: Re: Yeast head contact with air / Irish Ale yeast

[email protected] (Posting Address Only - No Requests) writes:

>Yeast head contact with air
>- ---------------------------
>In the Brewery Planner, put out by the IBS, one of the articles disucusses the
>advantages and disadvantages of open and closed fermentation. One of the
>advantages for open fermentation is (and I paraphrase, 'cause I ain't got the
>book here at work...)

> Yeast head contact with air is important because it makes the
> yeast cells more virile for re-pitching into another batch.
>Makes sense to me, since yeast need oxygen to reproduce. I can get the actual
>quote tomorrow...

Note that CO2 is heavier that air. Thus, unless the brew is being
aerated or stirred (generally not recommended once fermentation has
begun), the CO2 will make a blanket excluding O2. Yeast DO NOT require
oxygen for growth. They do however grow faster and better with O2

Yeast + food + oxygen = more yeast + CO2
Yeast + food = more yeast + CO2 + Ethanol


> -Steve
>| Stephen P. Veillette |
>| Information Systems | Ya know, I can't remember
>| Western CT State University | *not* knowing how to brew.
>| [email protected] |


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 09:24:26 EST
From: [email protected] (RONALD DWELLE)
Subject: open fermenting

I gave up open fermenting after my cat fell in for the second
time (she does like her brew!).
Ron Dwelle ([email protected])


Date: 10 Oct 1994 07:53:16 U
From: "Rich Scotty"
Subject: The immorality of shipping

Subject: Time: 7:55 AM
OFFICE MEMO The immorality of shipping beer Date: 10/10/94

Ken Harralson of UPS lectures on the law:

> They know it is illegal, but somehow they justify doing it. I suppose
> each of us must decide which laws we choose to obey and which laws >we
choose to break.

Yes Ken, and I'm sure that each and every one of your drivers strictly obey
the posted speed limit too (not in *THIS* state). People and glass houses
you know...


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 08:16:23 MDT
From: [email protected] (Phil Duclos)
Subject: UPS shipping of alcohol

>Date: Fri, 07 Oct 94 17:39:52 EST
>From: [email protected] (Harralson, Kirk)
>Subject: Shipping beer
>This subject has come up several times in the HBD in the last few
> years, and I have purposely avoided getting involved. I realize that
> people are going to ship beer by common carrier, with little regard to
> what is legal and what is not. There is a big temptation to just
> mislabel the package, as Craig suggests, and let it go through the
> system. We handle in excess of 22 million packages/day, so
> enforcement is next to impossible. Contributors to the HBD have, for
> the most part, frowned upon other blatant illegal subjects in the
> past, such as home distillation, using marijuana in brewing, stealing
> breweries kegs for tun conversions, etc.. However, from the posts I
> have read over the past few years, the majority of people seem to
> think that shipping beer is some sort of gray area; that it is
> "technically illegal, but...". This attitude is similar to people who
> make illegal copies of software. They know it is illegal, but somehow
> they justify doing it. I suppose each of us must decide which laws we
> choose to obey and which laws we choose to break.
> It is a federal regulation that we (United Parcel Service) cannot
> accept any alcoholic beverages in our system. This can be confirmed
> by calling our main information number at (800) 346-0106.
> Kirk Harralson
> [email protected]

Kirk -

It is NOT a federal regualtion that UPS cannot accept any alcoholic
beverages in your system.

I too inquired about the legalities of shipping alcohol through UPS. Since
a number of places do it already, Wine of the Month Club, Beer Across America,
etc, I wondered why I could not also. After two hours on the phone with UPS
what I got was: "You can if you set it up WAY ahead of time." UPS has a number
of forms for you to fill out to insure that you have complied with all the
Federal tax regulations and the regulations of each state involved as well.
Some states do not allow the interstate shipment of alcohol to individuals.
Since the interstate shipper could be found liable for breaking this law they
want to cover their asses. UPS is also in the BUSINESS of shipping packages.
If you ship a lot of stuff they are more willing to spend the time to fill out
the paperwork than if you ship 5 boxes at Christmas only. Also the standard
answer from the customer service reps is "No way!" To be perfectly clear about
it UPS has a rather large binder with ALL their rules in it. Getting someone
to find the particular section can be difficult, they all have better things
to do.

I had hoped that someone like the AHA would smooth this process out with
UPS so that all homebrewers could ship their homebrew without hassle. Alas,
AHA is in the business of printing magazines not assisting homwbrewers.

Federal regulations allow interstate shippers to refuse any shipment
containing alcohol if they desire. The choice is therefore company policy.
USPS is federally prevented from shipping alcohol.

Perhaps, Kirk, you can post a copy of the page from the UPS "big book" and
the forms necessary to make UPS happy?

phil duclos
[email protected]


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 09:29:33 -0600
From: [email protected] (Jan Holloway)
Subject: Brewpubs in Ypsilanti, Ann Arbor, & Appleton, WI

Greetings, HBD readers. We're heading for a conference in Ypsilanti and a
trip to Ann Arbor, and would love to take with us your recommendations for
brewpubs or interesting pubs in those areas.

Please reply to the Digest or to [email protected]

Many thanks in advance. --Jan


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 10:44:11 EDT
From: Steve Robinson
Subject: temperature equations

The rewrites of the Beverly Hills 90210 episodes have been assigned a 1994
charging/tracking number . . .

Tim asks about Charlie's numbers for step mashing. While
I have not tried his numbers personally, I would not be surprised if this were
the case. I suspect many of Charlie's procedures stem from being rushed when
he's brewing.

There was an article in the Spring '94 Zymurgy on calculating heat capacities
for mashing. To paraphrase (without permission), if you have a mash at temp.
T1 and you want to raise it to temp. T2, you can calculate the heat you need
to add by:

CPG * LBG * (T2 - T1) + CPW * LBW * (T2 - T1) = heat (in BTU)

CPW = heat capacity of water = 1.0
CPG = heat capacity of grain = 0.4
LBG = pounds of grain in the mash
LBW = pounds of water in the mash
(density of water = 2.08 pounds/quart at room temp)

If you are going to raise the temperature of the mash by infusing water at a
higher temperature T3 (ie 212F for boiling water), then the heat added is

CPW * LBW * (T3 - T2) = heat added.

Equate the left sides of these equations and solve for pounds of water at T3.
Remember that some fudge factor will still be needed to account for heating
your mash tun, losses through evaporation, etc. Only experience with your
particular setup will give this factor.

As far as mash tuns, I have previously used a Gott cooler with an EasyMasher(tm)
as my mash-tun for straight infusion and decoction mashing, and a pot-on-the-
stove mash-tun (also with EM(tm) installed) for step mashing. In a recent
Brewing Techniques, Kelly Jones outlined a method for bubbling steam into the
mash for step mashing. Over the next month I am going to build one of these
for my picnic cooler mash-tun. This will eliminate the one serious drawback
to the Gott cooler (not being able to heat it directly). Stay tuned for a

As far as mash schedules go, there has been some recent discussion to the effect
that protein rests should be done closer to 132 than 122. This causes long
protein chains to break down into shorter chains, as opposed to breaking short
chains down into their constituent amino acids. The net effect is to reduce
chill haze and improve head retention. There was also a schedule published by
Dr. Fix back in August sometime for highly modified malts. This consisted of
30 minutes each at 104F/140F/158F. The 104F rest can be achieved by doughing
in with 5/8 quarts water per pound of grain at room temp, then infusing 3/8
quarts per pound of boiling water (a la Noonan). The rise to 140F is achieved
by infusing additional boiling water and the rise to 158 by direct heating.
Superior yields were claimed for this schedule. Again, I have not yet tried
this personally but I intend to as soon as I get the steam bubbler working.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Steve R.


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 9:04:29 MDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: Shipping Beer

Kirk Harralson ([email protected]) writes, regarding shipping beer:

> enforcement is next to impossible. Contributors to the HBD have, for
> the most part, frowned upon other blatant illegal subjects in the
> past, such as home distillation, using marijuana in brewing, stealing
> breweries kegs for tun conversions, etc.. However, from the posts I
> have read over the past few years, the majority of people seem to
> think that shipping beer is some sort of gray area; that it is
> "technically illegal, but...". This attitude is similar to people who
> make illegal copies of software. They know it is illegal, but somehow
> they justify doing it. I suppose each of us must decide which laws we
> choose to obey and which laws we choose to break.

This is exactly true, Kirk. I think most people obey laws for two reasons:
1) they don't want to risk the penalty, or 2) they believe it to be morally
wrong. They break laws in the case where neither of these seem to be an
issue. Speaking for myself only, distillation and using marijuana fall into
the first category. Stealing kegs or pirating software falls into the second
category. Shipping beer falls into the first category, but frankly, the risk
is so low as to be ignored by most homebrewers. OTOH, someone is going to
get caught one day and I don't want to be that person, not with Janet Reno as
our AG. I hate the thought of tanks demolishing my beautiful homebrewery
over a couple "Mailed Pale Ales"! What are we to do? I wish the AHA would
help us out here; has anyone heard from them on this issue?

Norm [email protected]


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 11:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russell Fusco
Subject: holiday beer recipe

Does anyone have a really nice holiday beer recipe? I'm thinking
something with cinammon or pine needles, or something like that.

Russ Fusco


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 09:14:01 -0700
From: [email protected] (Gary Bell)
Subject: small bottles

Jim Blue ([email protected]) asked about a source for small bottles for
his Imperial Stout. I just bought a couple of cases of 6.4 oz bottles
for Barleywine from California Glass Co in Oakland @ (510) 635-7700
[ask for Perry]. They are the same bottles used by Rogue for Ol'
Crustacean and by Anchor for Foghorn. If you're not in (or close to)
California try your nearest glass bottle supply company. By the way,
they weren't particularly cheap - $6.50 or so for a case of 24.

"Quis dolor cui dolium?!"


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 09:18:47 PDT
From: [email protected] (Dion Hollenbeck)
Subject: Re: Refrigeration Unit

Please excuse posting since Diane is no longer on Email.

> Mini Refrigeration Unit
> Item 1-1302 $47.50

If you buy one of these, could you please post results vs. your
understanding of the description in catalog. I have been looking at
this catalog entry for 6 months or more wondering whether to buy it or
not and would appreciate hearing if it really is suitable.


Dion Hollenbeck (619)675-4000x2814 Email: [email protected]
Staff Software Engineer Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 12:44:53 EDT
From: [email protected] (Patrick Casey)
Subject: Re: specialty malts

>>>>> "Domenick" == Domenick Venezia writes

Domenick> misleading. I will lend my voice to the inevitable
Domenick> cacophony as I haven't participated in a good cacophony
Domenick> in weeks! Ah ... it brings back fond memories of fine
Domenick> cacophonies past, but that's another story ...

I feel like cacophing (pardon me) some, too!

Domenick> Crystal has no enzyme level. It is fully modified
Domenick> (converted) in the husk and then kiln dried creating a
Domenick> little crystal of malt sugar. It does NOT need to be
Domenick> mashed. However, some people include it in the mash,
Domenick> others add it just before mashout or sparge, and still
Domenick> others steep it in the sparge water. The issue with
Domenick> mashing crystal is NOT conversion of starch to sugar
Domenick> (there is no starch left) it is ease of process and
Domenick> possible breakdown of dextrins during the mash, and
Domenick> hence loss of some of the crystal character and
Domenick> contribution.

Are all the starches really pre-converted? Or just most? Or only
some? Seems like Miller says to mash it because it contains some
residual starches that need to be converted. Then again, I've never
gotten a decent Crystal "character" in my beers where it undergoes the
full mash with the rest of the malt, so there you go... For my next
batch, I think I'll try adding it just before sparging (no mash-out
due to a previous cacophony!).

Out of curiosity, if ALL (or pretty much all) the starches are indeed
converted during kilning, how does it work? I thought all the enzymes
were in the outer layer (can't think of the name now without my
books), so how do they get to the starches deep inside the grain?
Even with the grain wet, it seems unlikely that all the inner starches
would get converted...

Just picking nits. 😉

- Patrick


Date: 10 Oct 1994 09:53:31 U
From: "Rad Equipment"
Subject: BJCP $$$

Subject: BJCP $$$ Time:7:38 AM Date:10/10/94
-Lee Bussy ([email protected]) says:

>Russ Wigglesworth stated:

>> Fees are $55 for first time takers and $40 for retakers. This fee
>> includes an assessment to help defer the cost of the exam site.

>I posted this already in The Homebrew Digest as this was posted there
as well.

>I feel that raising the price from an already high $50 to $55 is
just milking things.

>We are homebrewers, not bankers and this price puts the BJCP way
out of reach for some otherwise qualified judges.

>It was unclear in the HBD post (or maybe I didn't pay close enough
attention) who was hosting and who was proctoring. I still believe
that the 10% of the fees going to the host and 10% going to the
proctor ought to be plenty without adding an additional 10% for
the exam site.

>The exam could be held in a member's house or garage (as we have
done) or a local business would probably be glad to help (one
of our beer distributors is hosting out upcoming competition).

>I was against the price increase (as were many of you probably)
and we should do all we can to try to keep the test financially
feasible to all prospective judges.

>I won't even go into how the re-exam costs $30 and you are
getting an additional $10 off of those who wish to better their

>Sorry if this sounds inflammatory, but I am a little peeved at the
way people expect these things to pay for themselves or even worse,
generate a profit. Here, the BJCP exists to support the competition,
(which is held exclusive of any club) and the competition to support
the BJCP, with any extra monies going to give a local judge or two
the opportunity to take the test, which he may not have been able to
do otherwise.

>I'm interested to hear what you all feel about this.

And Andrew Patrick writes:

>In an era when the general inflation rate is running around 3%, how does
the AHA justify a 25% increase in the exam fee??

First, there is an error in my original post as far as the fees are concerned.
The re-take fee is $30 (with an additional $5 for this specific exam). So, $55
and $35 respectively.

Second, while the BJCP is jointly sponsored by the AHA and the HWBTA it is
independently run. The AHA serves as co-sponsor and mailing address. Therefore
the AHA can not be held accountable for BJCP changes. Contact the BJCC with
complaints and praise.

Concerning this issue of tacking on fees to cover expenses. I will not presume
to speak for Byron since this is his exam. If you wish to interrogate him as to
the specific costs call him at The Beverage People.

However, since I posted the news of this exam to the InterNet I will respond as
much as I can. Byron cleared the added fees in advance with Alberta Rager when
he scheduled the exam. The additional $5 is unique to this exam date and
location. Apparently there is no suitable facility available on a volunteer
basis. There have been multiple enquiries made concerning the holding of an
exam in northern California recently. I have tried to schedule several over the
past few months without success due to the lack of a site. I was about to rent
space for a February exam in San Francisco when Byron made his arrangements.
Rather than hold two exams back to back it made sense to combine our efforts
into one. Since there is so much interest I expect there will be a fairly large
group of takers. Byron's calculation for the additional fees were based on his
needing a minimum of 10 takers to cover the cost of the hall (with the
additional fee). Since we are now promoting this as the only exam in the area
for the foreseeable future I expect the attendance will be much higher than
Byron anticipated when he announced it. The additional fees are there to insure
that the facility is paid for and if excess money is collected (as I suspect it
will be) refunds will be made. (This was stated in my original post.)

A word about exam fees in general. Speaking as member of the BJCC (the
committee which oversees the BJCP) I can say that we have debated the funding
of the program at great length. The exam fees serve to cover the cost of the
exam itself as well as help to cover the operating costs of the program
overall. There are very few areas where the BJCP can get revenue and the
program is intended to be self sufficient. The committee has decided that the
exam fees are not excessive (confirmed by the ever increasing number of takers)
and that funding via the fees is preferable to either outside sponsorship or
imposing dues on the participating judges. That leaves exams and competitions
as primary income sources. I assure you the issue of finance is constantly
under consideration by the committee.

The combined 20% of the fee which goes to the Exam Administrator and the Exam
Sponsor pays for the material expenses they incur in their effort to put on the
exam. In addition to possibly purchasing beer for the exam there are the costs
of the exam booklets, photocopying, bread, cups, return postage and such to be
covered. The cost of the space is also intended to be paid from this portion of
the fees, however it may not always work that way (especially if there are only
a minimum number of examinees). I also know of occasions when the Sponsor has
declined his 10% either because no expenses were incurred or because he wished
to donate them. In any event I promise, NO ONE IS MAKING A PROFIT FROM BJCP

It is laudable that some competitions exist to support the BJCP. Unfortunately
I know of no competition in California which makes a profit. Most local
competitions are sponsored by the county fairs (and they handle all the money)
and those that are not put all of their income back into the event in the form
of publicity, operating costs, awards, and lunch for the judges and stewards.
And even these are frequently supplemented by donations from outside sponsors.

I hope this has helped to clarify things.


Russ Wigglesworth (INTERNET: [email protected] - CI$: 72300,61)
UCSF Dept. of Radiology, San Francisco, CA (415) 476-3668 / Home (707) 769-0425


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 13:37:54 -500 (EDT)
From: "Warren G. Schaibbe"
Subject: wholesale grain

Hyaa folks! I have been lurking here for a couple of weeks now, and have
really learned A LOT about a subject I thought I knew pretty well. I am
really glad I signed onto the HBD!

I recently moved up to central Pennsylvania (Williamsport Area) from
Florida, and I am having trouble finding quality homebrew supplies at
reasonable prices. In Florida, I could purchase six - row for $ .89 per
pound, and 55# for $35. The best price I could find here so far is
$1.50/lb, and no quantity prices.

Soo, I was wondering if anyone out there knew of any local and/or
mail-order suppliers for grain.

email is fine, and I'll post a summary if the responce warrants it.

Thanks a bunch,

Warren G. Schnibbe
[email protected]

"A new weapon reaches its zenith the moment it is introduced."

General George Patton.


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 13:50:02 EDT
From: [email protected] (George Danz x632)
Subject: Mash water calculation additions

There is a great formula you can use to determine how much water to add and how
hot it should be to raise mash temps.


Q1 = quarts of hot water to be added to raise the temperatrue as desired
Q0 = quarts of water initially in the mash (this is zero for the first
TH = The temperature of the Hot addition (in deg. F)
TF = The temperature of the mash after addition (deg. F)
T0 = The initial temperature of the grain/ mash prior to hot water addition
G = The number of pounds of grain making up the mash (dry pounds of grain)


That it takes 0.41 BTUs per pound of dry grain to raise the temp. of the grain
1.0 deg. F.

That it takes 2.083 BTUs to raise a quart of water 1.0 deg. F.

The info I used to formulate the above came from an article in a back issue of
either Zymergy or Brewing Techniques, but I can't remember when. The good news
is that it works and I've had very little droop in temperature in a 60 quart
ice chest when brewing 10 gallon batches. This size creates a mass that is
difficult to cool off in under several hours.

One caution: don't make the mistake I did. Once I mistook the number of quarts
to use in my equation with gallons. Needless to say I added one hell of a lot
of ice real quick. I'll not do that again.

If you'd rather use gallons for the water measure, change the 2.083 to 4 times
greater, since there are 4 quarts to one gallon.

Happy mashing,
George Danz


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 13:58:37 EDT
From: [email protected] (George Danz x632)
Subject: clean air

Why not just gett a small length of copper tubing to which you've added the pump
and some plastic tubing to connect ot the airstone and heat the livin
beejesus out of a small lenght of the tubing? The heat from the tubing would
super heat the air and kill anything in the air stream, especially if you
jammed some copper brillo pad material down the section which would be heated.

If you thought you'd be heating the wort too much, you could put some more
cu brillow downstream of the heated part and run it through an ice bath.

George Danz
[email protected]


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 15:10:29 -0500 (EST)
From: Dan Strahs
Subject: Yeast culture question

I've recently moved from experimental work to all theoretical work,
so I can't casually propagate yeast cultures in the lab anymore. In
particular, I don't feel like begging Bacto-Agar from other labs, so I was
hoping to find other retail substitutes.

Has anyone used unflavored gelatin? I tried ~7 grams in 400 mls of
media, but that came out as a very weak gel. How high will I have to go?
What about agar-agar from a Chinese grocery? Has anyone tried that and with
what results?


Date: 10 Oct 94 19:14:00 GMT
From: [email protected] (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: filtration/when to rack

Ray writes:
>1: Use a small plastic jar (like a pill bottle), with nipples at either end,
>packed with cotton balls
> slightly damped with grain alcohol.

Good idea, but don't bother with the alcohol -- air doesn't travel well at
all through wet cotton. There was another post suggesting wetting the cotton
-- I really think that this is counterproductive. Dry cotton should trap
most of the airborne nasties and wet cotton is just an invitation for moulds
and fungi to take up residence in your filter -- Ick!

>2: Medical filter for oxygenating blood. (I assume this would be for
>something like dialysis;
> I've been in the medical field 10 years and am unaware if such a filter

Look for "syringe filters." I'm quite sure they are not for oxygenating blood.

>3: The "Bubble Jar" method; a sealable jar with an in & out tube attatched.
> The filter pushes
> the air through the in tube and bubbles through a solution of sterilant
>(dilute bleach, alcohol,
> hydrogen peroxide, etc.)

I've already recently explained why this will not work.

>4: And the winning entry, submitted by Christopher Sack:
>The filter for the aquarium pump is very simply a 1" OD x ~6" long glass
>or copper tube that is filled with aquarium activated charcoal to remove
>any smells/chemicals. Each end is fitted with a plug or sterile cotton to
>keep the charcoal in place and to serve as a filter for particles/nasties.

Indeed, this is a good idea.

Barry writes:
>I brewed my first all-grain two weeks ago. I even made a starter for my
>yeast this time (Wyeast 1338). It fermented in the primary for 5 days.
>When I racked it, there were yeast(?) chunkies floating on top and stuck to

Those were partly yeast, but mostly cold break.

>the bottom. I'm pretty sure this was after the krausen. While in the
>secondary, it took a day or two for the yeasties to get started again.
>I thought I had racked too early. When I racked my previous extract batches,
>they seemed to take off immediately. I worried a little. Then it went into a
>"normal" secondary fermentation. End worrying.
>Does this just reinforce the previous discussion that 1338 is a mixed strain
>and is slow to finish? Or is there such a thing as racking too early?

Well, if you rack during high kraeusen, you could have trouble keeping the
siphon going, but increasing the height difference between the fermentors
helps somewhat. There are two (alleged) reasons for racking to a secondary:
1. remove the beer from any cold break that made it into the primary, and
2. remove the yeast from dead yeast.

Now, while I think that more research needs to be done in this area, I
know that great ale can be made without using a secondary. Flavor benefits
from using secondaries have been debated here and elsewhere. I personally
think that if you don't let the finished beer sit too long (more than I week
or two, I would venture to guess) on the break and dead yeast, there should
be little benefit from using a secondary. Obviously this means that when
doing lagers, I personaly do use a secondary. I rack after about a week or
10 days when making lagers. Think about it: the yeast certainly would much
rather eat glucose, maltose and other sugars than their departed cousins or
trub. I'm no biologist, but my assumption is based on the fact that smaller
sugars like glucose and maltose can be absorbed directly by the yeast. Larger
sugars like sucrose must be first broken into their components (a glucose and
a fructose molecule) OUTSIDE the yeast body and then ingested. Yeast expel
an enzyme called invertase to do this. Since the protein molecules in break
material are considerably larger than even sucrose, I suspect that the yeast
would have to do something to them to get any nourishment from the break.
Same is true for the enzymes the yeast expel for breaking down their dead

So, I theorise that there is no need to even think about worrying about
racking until the yeast have consumed most of the easy-to-eat sugars.

Any biologists care to comment? Any non-biologists care to further speculate?



Date: 10 Oct 94 19:25:00 GMT
From: [email protected] (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: yeast slowdown after racking

Barry writes:
>When I racked it, there were yeast(?) chunkies floating on top and stuck to

Those were partly yeast, but mostly cold break.

>the bottom. I'm pretty sure this was after the krausen. While in the
>secondary, it took a day or two for the yeasties to get started again.
>I thought I had racked too early. When I racked my previous extract batches,
>they seemed to take off immediately. I worried a little. Then it went into a
>"normal" secondary fermentation. End worrying.

Oops. I forgot to answer the second question. When you racked, the lower
pressure on the beer at the top of the rackikng tube caused some of the
CO2 that had been dissolved in your beer to come out of solution. Once
you finished racking, the yeast needed to saturate the beer with CO2 again
before you saw activity in your airlock. I'll bet there was some increased
airlock activity just after racking (CO2 coming out of solution) followed by
a slowdown while the CO2 got resaturated and then restart of "normal" activity.



Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:57:23 EDT
From: 10-Oct-1994 1552 -0400
Subject: re: semi-open fermentation

>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 94 09:13:40 EDT
>From: Allan Rubinoff
>Subject: Semi-open fermentation


>So, I'm thinking of using the following procedure:
> - After pitching the yeast, attach stopper and airlock.
> - When krausen starts to build up, remove stopper and airlock, leaving
> carboy open.
> - After krausen begins to die down, reattach stopper and airlock.

i see no problem in doing this. i do things even 'worse' than this. i
brew, chill, _and_ ferment in my 15.5 gal SS boiler. open fermentation
with a loose SS cover on the top of the bioler-fermenter. i pitch about
3-4 cups of yeast slurry and ferments are going less than 9 hrs later. have
not had an infection yet. when the fermentation dies down, about 36-60 hrs
later, i rack to soda kegs for cask-conditioning.



Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 17:20:38 EDT
From: 10-Oct-1994 1715 -0400
Subject: Going to Belgium - need info about everything

i'm pondering a trip to belgium to savour the taste of belgium beers in
their home turf. has anyone in HB land been there? i'm looking for
info in the following areas. email would be best to
[email protected] time period is thanksgiving week.

- getting money in belgium. can i use my ATM card? i did in england with
no problem.

- where to stay. B&Bs would be the best bet. we'd like to make our own
agenda once there, kinda roam around, stay whereever. do they have these?
are they plentiful? how much do they cost (in USD)? what forms of payment
to they accept? reservations required? do most of the hosts speak english?

- brew tours. yes! i'd love to do 3-4 while i'm there. where to tour? also,
are the tours in english? i only speak english and some pretty broken up

i plan to rent a car; i've driven in ireland/england/germany/austria/etc so
i'm confortable dealing with it.

any pointers would be MOST appreciated.

jc ferguson


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:45:59 MDT
From: Joe Boardman
Subject: what do BCI kegs look like?

Greetings HBD'ers,

I have a few questions for those of you who have purchased the cut-off
half-barrels from BCI.

1) Are they Sankey and Firestone type kegs? i.e. straight-sided

2) How are they cutoff, completely without a top, just a hole in the crown
or some other method that leaves handles?

3) What sort of shape are they in? Smashed bottom rings? Scuffed sides or

Your in beer,

Joe Boardman
[email protected] (sorry no USWest memos or 90201 discussion from me)


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 15:35:31 EDT
From: [email protected]
Subject: HBD 1548

Maybe it's just me but I think one or two things were _way_ off topic!

>Why do I watch 90210?

It's not me is it?

Kirk Harralson stated:

> It is a federal regulation that we (United Parcel Service) cannot
> accept any alcoholic beverages in our system. This can be confirmed
> by calling our main information number at (800) 346-0106.

Actually, according to the BATF (as I stated in a previous post that probably
never made it out), it is only illegal to ship alcoholic beverages via the
USPS. The shipment of alcoholic beverages for analytical purposes via a
private carrier is specifically permitted. Whether or not UPS allows it is
another thing.

This one must also have been posted wrong:

> FROM: Gina Eckert
> Project Administrator
> Program Office
> 541-6634
>RE: Project activation

Oh well, my mailer at the U is scr*wed up too.

Steve Bliss writes:

> I think I may have come up with a better (different at least) way to
> raise the temperature of the mash. My idea is this -- First make an
> immersion heating coil of copper tubing (just like an immersion cooler).
> And then use the controls, pump, and electric heating element/enclosure
> of an existing RIMS setup to recirculate heated *WATER* thru the
> immersion heating coil placed in the mash tun.

Someone on C$erve came up with a similar device and if I remember correctly
it worked well. They used steam but hot water would be safer I think.


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 16:43:00 CST
From: "David Sapsis"
Subject: Hop Moisture Content

I'd like to follow up my earlier posts and some responses concerning
reported differences in hop moisture content. Although I know I prefaced my
posts with "this relates only to my experience..." I believe that my
findings of moistures ranging from 80-160% were so much lower than the
reported 400%, that I instantly thought that these measures were based on wet
weight, not the dry weight standard generally use (In fact, if I would
have thought it over, I would have realized that weight weight standards
always result in lower, not higher, comparisons). In fact, in over ten
years of sampling plant materials for fire behavior analysis, I had never
measured any live fuel moistures greater than 360%. However, it appears
that after consulting with Glenn Tinseth and another grower, hops can in
fact range upward of 400%, and I stand corrected. As Glen pointed out in
his e-mail to me, the point of concern is not so much what is the moisture
level appropriate for harvest; rather, if you are going to use wet hops in
your beer, you must dry some to have some knowledge of the equivelent amount
you are using.

At least part of the the reported difference in moistures can be attributed
to environmental conditions at harvest. If you pick in the early morning or
late evening and then air temperature is below dew-point, then there is
likely some free water condensed on the outside of the hop. Additionally,
hop cones, like all organic materials, are hygroscopic -- they adsorb and
loose water to the atmosphere depending on the partial pressure of water
vapor in the air.

An additional point that might be reponsible for my hops
having significantly lowere MC's relates to horticultural practice. There
is a large body of scientific evidence related to stress-induced
flowering, water stress just being one of the many types of physiological
stresses that can occur. I have always stopped watering my plants 2-3 weeks
prior to expected harvest. As hops are not exceptionally proficient at
extracting water from dry soils, the effect is to reduce water status in the
plants given that they still are actively involved in photosynthesis, and
are thus transpiring internal water. Growers of the other member of this
plants family have employed this practice to stimulate resin production for
years, and I do the same. I was under the assumption that commercial hop
growers did it as well, but apparently many do not. In any event, during
this no-water phase, I notice significant loss in leaf turgor to the point
of partial wilting, and this may in fact result in very substantial losses
of free water from the plant. Next year I plan on harvesting some cones
prior to stopping irrigation to see if my hops are also something near 80%

One more note regarding use and measurements of hops. If you are using mass
to measure the amount of hop additions (and I assume that you are) be
cautious to weigh them without significant exposure to a humid invironment.
I have witnessed homebrewers take their hops out of the freezer, open the
bag up, and go about their buisness looking for their scale or whatever, all
the while in a closed kitchen with gallons of wort boiling away. As stated,
hops readily adsorb or desorb moisture from the environment. I conducted an
experiment to investigate the rate at which dry hops pick up moisture in
such conditions. I found that I could take a sample of hops at 8-10%MC out
of the bag, and get it to 25%MC in twenty minutes. This amounts to an error
of 15%. As boils often last 20-30 minutes prior to the first hop addition,
it seems likely that others may be doing likewise. The same goes for the
use of damp malt. Chances are if malt has become soft, you will be
overestimating your grain bill if measuring the malt by weight. Although
these errors are likely to be relatively small, if you are serching to
really hone in on a particular flavor, or repeat something, this is one (of
many!) sources of variability. I have found that good note-keeping goes a
long way to explain flavor profiles. Although I personally believe that
there are so many sources of variability in determining actual hop
utilization rates that comparisons of *estimated* IBU's to be meaningless,
the relative (percieved) effect as you change hop schedules within your own
brewery are a great source of information on hop effects.

David Sapsis [email protected]
Wildland Fire Research Laboratory
Dept. Environmental Science, Policy, and Management
U C Berkeley voice: (510)642-8053 fax:(510) 643-5438
"From fire everything is created, and in
fire everything ends up."
--Heracleitus (502 B.C.)


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 94 17:10:00 PDT
From: "Morton, Mike"
Subject: Wort Chilling Questions

I am a fairly new home-brewer (or fairly new to home-brewing) and am
going to try a wort chiller of sorts. I have about fifteen feet of copper
tubing (3/8" od 3/16" id) and am proposing to immerse it in a bucket
of ice water (in the racking tube 'chain') on the way to one of my carboys.
The carboy will have some cold water in it (to reduce thermal shock) and
will be immersed in a cold water bath. After racking through the chiller
to the carboy I will add some ice to the carboy bath to bring it down
to a reasonable pitching temp. I will let this sit for a few hours and then
to my fermenter (6-1/2 gal carboy) to separate from the trub. Having said
that, I have a couple of questions.

Is there a more efficient use of the copper tubing without going to the
trouble to make a counterflow system? I worry (oops, didn't mean to use
the 'W' word ) about infection with an immersion chiller.

Does the trub collect in the copper tubing during cold break? If so, how
I clean the tubing efficiently?

Thanks in advance for any help given. Any suggestions or comments are

Mike Morton
[email protected]


Date: Mon, 10 Oct 1994 19:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Rebecca S. Myers"
Subject: Shipping Beer

Kirk Harralson makes some interesting points in his post regarding
the shipping beer, but, speaking from experience, shipping alcohol
(at least in 1988, when my small ad agency sent out its holiday
gifts) was legal within the state of California via UPS. And granted
the members of the HBD seem a fairly legal bunch. However, is it not
a protest against the mass-produced, lowest common denominator *beer*
that we brew our own?

The restrictions of interstate personal shipment of alcoholic substances
should be protested. It is not an indictment of UPS, but of the very
fabric of our country that we are told, yes, but don't share. Forget
the blue laws and dry counties! Beer for all!


And as for comparing shipping alcohol to pirating software:
Kirk, get a life.

Becky Myers

If you want it done right... well, you know the rest.

End of HOMEBREW Digest #1549, 10/11/94