Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #0557
This file received at Mthvax.CS.Miami.EDU 90/12/19 03:15:36
HOMEBREW Digest #557 Wed 19 December 1990
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
Re: Hydrometer Use (John DeCarlo)
stupid question (617)253-0885" <CASEY@ORYANA.PFC.MIT.EDU>
Irish Moss, clear beer (Ted Manahan)
Kjeldahl N, plate counts ("KBS::TONS::HOLTSFORD")
Brewpubs - bay area, CA (sandven)
Re: enzyme powders and extract efficiency (Glenn Colon-Bonet)
Wyeast 1028 min. temp (krweiss)
Packaging (Rad Equipment)
recipes (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Kirin not Made in Japan ("MISVX1::HABERMAND")
Carbonation (Mahan_Stephen)
large amounts of malted barley(where can I get it?) (T2R)
Many Thanks (Bill Thacker)
A HBD FYI? (bob)
Re: 102 on tap? (Marc San Soucie)
Brewpubs (breweries?) in Daytona, Fla area (Tom Buskey)
Lambic Book/NYC Breweries (Brian Capouch)
Re: live yeasts in commercial beers (John S. Watson - FSC)
Lambic calculation (Dave Suurballe)
Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr@hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr@hplabs.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues]
Archives are available from netlib@mthvax.cs.miami.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tuesday, 18 Dec 1990 07:26:38 EST
From: m14051@mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo)
Subject: Re: Hydrometer Use
>From: "Andy Wilcox" <andy@eng.ufl.edu>
>
>I wouldn't usually recommend a Hydrometer to a beginning brewer.
>If your readings are off, this could be a cause of worry.
>Leaving it out is also a good way to trim a little more off the
>cost of startup for money-minded students and the like. Our
>local store sells the hydrometer for $6.
Yow! This sounds like a recipe for trouble, to me. Of the
brewers I know, it is more like the reverse. Once you have made
lots of observations with your hydrometer, you can start getting
a *feel* for the beer and stop using it. However, I would say it
is *very* important for a beginner, to learn what is happening
during fermentation.
As for readings, Miller has some nice tips on taking hydrometer
readings. First, calibrate the hydrometer in 60 degree water.
Spin the hydrometer to dislodge bubbles. He even has a picture
of a hydrometer with the meniscus and shows where to read the
value.
Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
Usenet: @...@!uunet!hadron!blkcat!109!131!John_Decarlo
Fidonet: 1:109/131
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:52 EST
From: "JEFF CASEY / (617)253-0885" <CASEY@ORYANA.PFC.MIT.EDU>
Subject: stupid question
Alright, I give up, and I'm too embarrassed to ask anybody face to face now
that I've let it go on this long.
How do you pronounce "Wyeast", and where did the name come from?
I've heard "double-u yeast", "why-yeast", and numerous other names that aren't
derivative of "Wyeast", but reflect the various other names on the package.
And I've never seen the name "Wyeast" on the package directly, but perhaps
I've never looked hard enough.
Let's not overdo this one - no speculations please (unless it is too good and
your fingers itch uncontrollably). Anybody out there with authority on this?
chagrined, Jeff Casey casey@alcvax.pfc.mit.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 08:23:45 pst
From: Ted Manahan <tedm@hpcvcbp.cv.hp.com>
Subject: Irish Moss, clear beer
Full-Name: Ted Manahan
A while back I posted a note that two batches in a row had _no_ head
retention. I believe that the culprit was Irish Moss, as I used it only
for those two batches.
I used no Irish moss for my last batch, and it has much better head
retention. I also used a blow-off, single stage fermentation. The beer
is crystal clear; one of my better batches (Williams pale ale, using
Wyeast Burton ale liquid yeast). I don't plan to ever use Irish moss
again for an extract recipe.
My next batch will be a small mash batch. I haven't decided if Irish
moss will be used. Probably not for my first mash, but I may start to
use it if mash clarity is not up to snuff.
Ted Manahan
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 90 11:22:00 EST
From: "KBS::TONS::HOLTSFORD" <holtsford%kbs.tons.decnet@clvax1.cl.msu.edu>
Subject: Kjeldahl N, plate counts
Greetings Homebrewers --
Rob McDonald was wondering about the Kjeldahl test. I looked this up in a
book of soil/water science methods (don't have it here but I can supply the
reference if needed). This test assays TOTAL Nitrogen (not just protein
as someone said in HBD 556). The sample is treated with concentrated
H2SO4 so that most/all the N ends up as NH4. The NH4 can then quantified by
various means. This aprroximation of total N will include, but is not
limited to, complex organic N (proteins, amino acids, etc.). The complex N is
inferred from the difference between Kjeldahl N and the sum of the separate
assays of NO3, NO2, and ammonmia. In the Burlington, Ontario water sample the
inorganic N + ammonia totalled 0.64 mg/l while the Kjeldahl N was 0.57 mg/l.
This means that there is essentially no complex organic N in the sample. The
negative difference of .07 (Kjeldahl N minus other N sources) is likely due
to error in measurement and variation among samples. No stats are given on
either of these sources of error.
If your water sample showed that there was a lot of amino acids or protein
then maybe you'd get more trub in your hot/cold breaks but I don't guess
this would add up to much trub in any drinkable water.
The plate count measures how many colony-forming bacteria, fungi etc. can be
cultured from 100 ml of tap water. To the brewer this serves as a reminder
that whenever you rinse your equipment with tap water (e.g. to get the bleach
solution out) you will be introducing some microbes. Not that this should
cause any undo worry -- just pitch with a large active starter culture and
these stray microbes won't stand a chance.
Happy Brewing,
Tim Holtsford
***** Appendix -- data from Rob's posting *********************************
BURLINGTON ONTARIO DRINKING WATER QUALITY
ANALYTICAL AVERAGES FOR 1989
All results are in mG/L (parts per million) unless otherwise noted
Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.65 Calcium 42.8
Nitrate 0.60 Sodium 12.69
Nitrite 0.02 Aluminum (uG/L) 148
Ammonia-Nitrogen 0.02 Iron (uG/L) 70.4
Total Inorganic Carbon 13.84 Total Plate Count (CFU/100ml) 4
Total Organic Carbon 1.65 Trihalomethane (uG/L) 31
Turbidity 0.23 pH 7.83
Conductivity (uMhos/cm) 343.7 Colour 2.4
Sulphate 30.0 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.57
Fluoride 1.18 Magnesium 8.0
Chloride 35.1 Lead (uG/L) 4.2
Alkalinity 94.72 Total Dissolved Solids (Residue) 174.67
Hardness 137.1 Phenol (uG/L) 0.64
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:31:08 MST
From: sandven@hooey.unm.edu
Subject: Brewpubs - bay area, CA
Hola - I am going to be in the Bay area on the 28th of December to see
the Grateful Dead up in Oakland ;^) - Can anyone suggest any breweries that
I could go visit during this time. I'll be going up the coast from L.A. ,
So anywhere from Santa Barbara to Marin Co. would be fair game for a visit.
I've been brewing for about 6 mo's and would like to tour some interesting
places and toss back a few ...
Thanks,
Steve ( sandven@wayback.unm.edu )
Please respond directly to meeeeeeee ....
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:50:09 mst
From: Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb@hpfigcb>
Subject: Re: enzyme powders and extract efficiency
Full-Name: Glenn Colon-Bonet
In Homebrew Digest #556, Mike McNally asked about using enzyme additives
to help achieve a higher extraction efficiency from mashing. I've
used the enzyme powder before, but usually only if starch conversion
was taking too long (4 hours). From what I have read about these
enzyme powders, they are not quite as stable as the enzymes found
in the grain, hence they don't work well at mashing temperatures.
I haven't noticed any differences between batches in which I used
enzymes and batches in which I didn't, suggesting that they probably
didn't really do anything. The other problem with using these
enzymes (even if they did work) is that they would eliminate much
of the dextrins, which is probably not what you want. I do not
use these enzymes at all anymore. The starch conversion time problem
turned out to be that my thermometer was reading incorrectly,
causing my mash temperature to be 10 degrees low!
As far as boosting efficiency, I'd look elsewhere in your process.
First, let me say that you have a pretty respectable extract
right now (I assume the amounts you stated were for 5 gallons).
My average yield is 5 gravity points per pound, so the 10 pounds
of grain you mentioned would give me a starting gravity of 1.050
in 5 gallons, you got 1.053. You are correct that higher yields
*should* be possible, but I'm not exactly sure how to get there.
The things that influence yield are:
- how fine you grind the grain
- the types of grain used
- the mash pH and mineral content
- mashing technique (single infusion, step, decoction)
- sparging temperature and pH
- depth of grain bed in lauter-tun
- sparging - amount recirculated, amount of runoff collected
So take a look at this list and see what you can easily change
in your process. In my process, the biggest gains were from using
a finer grind and a deeper grain bed. The "Zapap" lauter tun design
from CJoHB is not very good because of how wide most buckets are.
I changed designs from a bucket lauter tun to a combined mash/lauter
tun in a tall, thin "Coleman Water Cooler 5" with a slotted pipe bottom,
and was able to boost my extract by 15%. The Coleman is nearly ideal,
it has a square bottom (allowing straight pipes with elbows and tees),
has a 1" screw in spigot, so you can easily change it to whatever
you want, has a *recessed* drain, so you don't waste the liquid in
the bottom, holds 5 gallons, and has gallon and liter markings on
the inside. I've been able to mash up to 12 pounds, although it gets
a little tight with that much in it. Anyhow, if anyone else has
ideas on how to boost efficiency (without doubling the time and effort)
I'd be very interested! It's so annoying to read recipes where they
use 6 lbs of grain for 5 gallons and get gravities of 1.050.
-Glenn
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:04:10 -0800
From: krweiss@ucdavis.edu
Subject: Wyeast 1028 min. temp
Yo, Brewfolks --
I made beer last weekend. Due to a slower than expected inflation of the
Wyeast pouch I was forced to forego the preparation of a starter, and just
pitched the contents of the packet directly into the cooled wort.
The yeast used is Wyeast London Ale, #1028. The beer is in my basement, at a
temperature of about 55 degrees. It's been two days, and there is no visible
activity. Every other time I used Wyeast, I prepared a starter and had strong
fermentation within 36 hours.
Now, I'm not concerned, as the beer is safe inside a glass primary, and I can
always dump in my emergency packet of dry yeast. My question is, is the long
lag due to the lower than normal pitching rate, or is it just too cold for
that particular yeast strain down there in the basement?
Went to my wife's office holiday party last Saturday. Beer and wine only, the
beer being Miller Genuine Draft :-P I did, however, score a case of empty
long neck bottles :-) Why, oh why won't Sierra Nevada stop using those damn
useless twist off bottles?
Ken Weiss
krweiss@ucdavis.edu
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 89 09:23:40
From: Rad Equipment <Rad_Equipment@rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU>
Subject: Packaging
REGARDING Packaging
Regarding John Bates' <bates@bjerknes.Colorado.EDU> problems with UPS in HBD
#556 --
Sorry to hear your tale of woe Re: UPS. I have had great success with sending
beer & wine via UPS to all parts of the USA. The best packege I have found is
a StyroFoam shipping container, usally used to send perishables like whole
blood and lab samples. There is one size which is perfect for a sixpack of
Anchor size bottles. If you have a major hospital near you check with their
pharmacy or blood bank. Here at UCSF we always have a few of these in the
trash bin. I'll try to find a manufacturer's name and post it, the one sitting
here in my office has no information on it. Another way is to pack the beer in
a relatively small box, and then pack that box in a larger one (at least 2"
larger in all directions). The outside box acts as a buffer for the inside one
and requires that both boxes are trashed before the bottles are in danger. Of
course the sturdier the outside box the better. Using sheets of foam rubber as
a cushioning material is also handy, these too are often found in hospital
trash (the pads are matress size, egg-crate texture, used to prevent bed sores
on prolonged patients. They are not considered "biologically hazardous" and go
out with the regular trash).
BTW, the article Dan Fink told you about is mine and it is really geared for
what not to do when sending to competitions. Many methods employed by brewers
serve to cause unnecessary agitation of their entries as they are unpacked,
often only a week or less prior to the judging. When you are sending to
friends you can make the package as difficult to open as you want, they are not
unpacking 50 or so boxes under a deadline.
Russ Wigglesworth <Rad Equipment@RadMac1.ucsf.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 10:33:04 mst
From: hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!ihlpl!korz (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
Subject: recipes
First of all, I want to make it cleatr that I don't mean to bash
Chuck's recipes, rather I'd like to start a debate about the
benefits of partial mashes. Here's what I mean: if you've got
15-18 lbs of pale unhopped extract in a batch (10 gal), I question
whether 1 lb of lager malt will make much difference at all.
Does it? I feel that the manufacturer of the extract, i.e. the
"brand," would make a much bigger difference in the flavor of
the beer than the addition of a small percentage of plain malt.
(I wish you had included the "brand" of extract that you used, Chuck.)
Am I missing something? I don't do partial mashes for exactly
this reason. I feel that the added work provides little, if any,
benefit. What are other brewer's feelings on this?
Al.
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 90 09:57:00 PDT
From: "MISVX1::HABERMAND" <habermand%misvx1.decnet@afal-edwards.af.mil>
Subject: Kirin not Made in Japan
All the talk about Guiness made in Canada, reminded me of an incident at a
Japanese restaurant with my father. He ordered Kirin and the waitress said
that they didn't serve it there because it was made in Canada. We went home
and looked carefully at the bottle. Of course it says "Imported" which is a
little deceiving. After close inspection, it is revealed that it is brewed in
Canada by Molson under license from Kirin. So the next time you by "Imported"
beer, look and see if it was made in its original country of origin.
David "Stubbie" Haberman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 11:08:00 CST
From: Mahan_Stephen@lanmail.ncsc.navy.mil
Subject: Carbonation
Gases, in general, are soluble in liquids. The partial pressure of
the gas in the liquid will eventually be equal to the partial pressure
of the gas in the mixture in contact with the liquid in the absence of
other factors driving the process. Nitrogen, in particular, will
dissolve quite well in water. However, in water the nitrogen pressure
must be fairly high (2 atm or above) and rapidly released to form
bubbles. The bubbles form and burst rapidly, as is the case with most
other gases. If the water happens to be inside a human body when this
process occurs a condition known as the bends results (ask any scuba
diver about this).
Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts differently because it undergoes a
reversible chemical reaction with water to form carbonic acid. This
reaction has the effect of removing carbon dioxide from the water and
allowing more carbon dioxide to diffuse into the water from the
surrounding media.
( CO2 + 2(H2O) <-> H2CO3 + H20 <-> H30+ + HCO3-)
When the partial pressure of CO2 in the gases surrounding the
liquid decreases the carbonic acid disassociates and releases the CO2
back into the liquid. If the partial pressure of CO2 in the gas
surrounding the liquid was greater than the total ambient pressure
after the release then bubbles will form in the liquid, giving the nice
foamy head we all know and love.
More disconnected ramblings from:
Stephen Mahan
mahan_stephen@lanmail.ncsc.navy.mil
Naval Coastal Systems Center
Panama City, FL 32407
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:09 EST
From: T2R@ecla.psu.edu
Subject: large amounts of malted barley(where can I get it?)
Anyone out there in brew land know where one can send for, say,
a 50lb. sack of malted barley (2R or 6R). I have been doing a lot of all
grain mashing and would like to find a inexpensive source of malted barley.
The local h.b. shop charges ($1.50 - $1.60) / lb. for malted barley and the
cheapest I have been able to find mailorder is ($1.00 - $1.10) / lb.
(20lbs. or more) + shipping. Are there any malthouses that ship direct?
Tom (bud'what?) Ricker
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 16:00:46 EST
From: Bill Thacker <hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!cbema!wbt>
Subject: Many Thanks
I just wanted to thank everyone who answered my "Beer and Cosmic Awareness"
questions. I appreciate all the fine responses I received, both on
the list and in mail, and regret that I was unable to respond to
one of the authors due to a failed mailpath (trouble on this end).
Suffice to say that even if you didn't hear from me, I'm very grateful.
I'll be getting my gear early in January, and reading Papazian's book
between now and then. I feel pretty confident about what I need to
get now, and what to look for in terms of quality.
I whould add that it makes it a lot easier to start a hobby when
it's represented by such friendly and cheerful folk. Everybody,
give yourself a pat on the back and have another beer, you deserve it!
8-)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt@cbnews.att.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue Dec 18 18:34:51 1990
From: semantic!bob@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: A HBD FYI?
Hello Everybody,
I've been reading this digest for a while now and I get to watch
many of the basic questions and discussions resurface every few
weeks. I don't particularly mind this but I feel sorry for the
new reads asking the questions. They sometimes don't get answered
or only get answered in some half-hearted way because the person
posting the answer has done it five times before. I therefore
propose an extension to the Digest. One which will enable the
neophytes to ask their questions and get a complete meaningful
response, Yet one which will lesson the repetitive burden on those
who take the time to answer the questions.
I therefore propose the HBD FYI.
Yes, that's right, Just like the Internet ones! They could be on
various basic subjects which are well defined and understood. Such
topics might include:
What does a new brewer need to get started? (Already written)
What are the different types of hops available
and what are their usual alpha-acid ratings?
What types of hops are best used in Pale Ales?
What are all the Wyeast strains and what are they good for?
Where are the homebrew supply shops in the northeast?
Where are all the good brew pubs in the Bay area?
What are the laws and issues surrounding the transport of homebrew?
What's the proper preparation and use of isinglass?
What beer related periodicals are there?
How do I carbonate my beer with a CO2 tank?
What temperature controllers are available for my beer fridge?
Why not make the HBD into a newsgroup?
Etc ...
Of course many of these questions can be answered by just saying:
"Oh, go read Papazian's book pages xx through yy." or "Call the
AHA". But wouldn't it be nice to have something on line, which
isn't copyrighted, and could be easily e-mailed to people.
Further, the index if FYIs could periodically be posted to
rec.food.drink with instructions on subscribing to the homebrew
digest.
They could be constructed by an individual, or group of, and then
posted to the digest for comments. These could be worked in and
when a final draft is completed, stick it on-line with the HBD
archives. As more accurate or relevant information becomes
available they could be updated.
I would be willing to take a stab at a couple of FYIs to get things
going. And I'm sure there are others out there how would be
willing to do the same.
Of course, some may ask why not RFCs. RFCs tend to be more
controversial in nature and need an organization to review and
accept them. Sort of like the Papers given at the Annual
Homebrewers Conference. This I think is a great idea but may be
asking to much of the HBD coordinator. Whereas the FYI process
will be on well defined non-controversial topics and will be self
administering. Of course, someone will ultimately have manage the
bunch of them at netlib if they are to be stored with the archive.
But individual FYIs can be admistered by the authors.
Comments, Suggestions and Discussion are welcome. Let's see if
we can create something good here!
- -- Robert A. Gorman (Bob) bob@rsi.com Watertown MA US --
- -- Relational Semantics, Inc. uunet!semantic!bob +1 617 926 0979 --
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:46:37 PST
From: marcs@SLC.COM (Marc San Soucie)
Subject: Re: 102 on tap?
Norm Hardy writes:
> Just got back from a 4 day stint in Portland, OR.
> There is a chain of brewpubs running now, with somebody called Dr. Neon
> doing the brewing (or supervising). They supply different names for the
> pubs so you have to know where to look. The one I went to was called
> McMenamins Brewpub and Restuarant. Good stuff with their Terminator Stout
> being my fave.
> But, on a tip from a fellow imbiber, I headed for Raleigh Hills to a tavern
> called The Dublin Pub. 102 beers on tap and although I didn't count the
> taps, there was indeed many of them.
> My question - how the HECK can a place possibly have that many beers and
> serve them in reasonably good shape? The joint was busy not not hoppin'.
> I imagine the NW ales were in okay shape, but I can get them anytime in
> Seattle.
102 sounds extreme. Our local, just recently opened and owned by the selfsame
McMenamin beer magnates, known as the Oak Hills Brewpub, sports about 15-20
draughts at a time. The nice thing about the McMenamin pubs is that they always
have a fair selection of beer from other local brewers, which is especially
nice since their own beers are not usually as good as the competition.
Another item of note is that at many of the McMenamin pubs, the fermentation
takes place in open vats. Lots of fun to watch whilst unstabilising oneself.
> They even had the award winning Deschutes beers there. I thought
> of Florian's fondness for them and let them be.
Well, Florian's opinions on this matter are not universally shared. I think
DesChutes produces a whomping good porter (Black Butte), and their other beers,
while not magnificent, are quite good, and usually better than the McMenamin
beers. Even so, the best of the Portland brewers, in my opinion, is Bridgeport.
Very tasty, hearty, rich beers. Great for all these rainy days...
Marc San Soucie
Portland, Oregon
marcs@slc.com
------------------------------
Date: 18 Dec 90 2137
From: 12100z@D1.dartmouth.edu (Tom Buskey)
Subject: Brewpubs (breweries?) in Daytona, Fla area
I'm traveling to Florida in the Daytona area in a week & I'd like to sample
some of the brewpubs down there if there are any. Please send replies to me
& I'll summarize when I get back ( in Jan.) Thanks in advance :-)
12100z@D1.dartmouth.edu <Tom Buskey>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:57:22 -0600 (CST)
From: Brian Capouch <brianc@zeta.saintjoe.EDU>
Subject: Lambic Book/NYC Breweries
In response to Martin Lohdahl's question about the Class Beer Styles
book on Lambic--mine came today.
I tend to agree with those who found the Miller book on Continental
Pilsners to be mostly rehash. I don't think anyone will be making those
accusations about this book.
I haven't had a chance to delve into it yet, but from a half-hour
leafing it looked like a detailed coverage of the subject. All those
little subterms were discussed, as well as mashing techniques (I seem to
remember decoction mashing and *very* loose mashes being something I
read). Anyway, it looks like interesting reading, and I think it may
provoke a lot of attempts at lambics out there in brewland.
An aside: is there anyone else out there doing much decoction mashing?
I've done most of my last 6-8 brews that way, and there seems to be a
distinct (and wonderful) improvement in flavor in the resultant beers.
Last: is there anything new brewing in NYC? I've been to the Manhattan
Brewing Co., someone there told me that they were the only ones in
Manhattan doing any brewing, because the costs of floorspace were so
high there. I'm heading out that way just after Christmas, and will
have wheels, so if there's anyone who knows of something out there, I'd
appreciate the pointer.
Brian Capouch
Saint Joseph's College
brianc@saintjoe.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 20:58:52 -0800
From: John S. Watson - FSC <watson@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: live yeasts in commercial beers
A month or two ago the local Safeway supermarket started stocking
22 oz bottles of "Hubsch Brau", a German style lager from a
the Sudwerk, microbrewery in Davis, CA. (I consider the beer
at the Sudwerk second only to that of the Gordon-Biersch).
The beer is bottle conditioned, and the yeasties seem very healthy.
When I cultured it in it's own the bottle, the fermention was active enough
that I had to replace the fermentaion lock with a tube and spill jar,
to catch the blow-off. The winter 1990 edition of Zymurgy says Sudwerks
get the yeast comes from Weihenstephan [Germany].
A week later I pitched into the primary. Almost exactly 24 hours,
the fermentation took, and was continued vigorously for about a week.
I just bottled it last weekend. It, a Oktoberfest (based on
Charlie Papazian's in CJoHB, "Guidelines ... Traditional Beers",
initial S.P 1.050, final S.P. 1.012), tasted excellent, even without the
carbonation. I can't wait for New Year's Eve when I try the first fully
conditioned bottle (so maybe I'll try some Xmas Eve!).
John S. Watson, Civil Servant from Hell ARPA: watson@ames.arc.nasa.gov
UUCP: ...!ames!watson
Homebrew Naked!
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:20:33 PST
From: hsfmsh.UUCP!suurb@cgl.ucsf.EDU (Dave Suurballe)
Subject: Lambic calculation
Martin Lodahl wants to translate his old French-language recipe into
a modern, amateur-scale one. My method follows.
First the faro. The recipe says you need 22 kilos of grain for 100 liters
of beer. We want the same proportion of grain to beer, but for 5 gallons,
not 100 liters. So our equation will be an equality of two proportions:
22 kg x lb
------- = ------
100 l 5 gal
To solve it, we need to make the units the same on both sides of the equation
in the top of the proportions, and also in the bottom. Since we weigh in
pounds, we'll turn the kilos into pounds. One kilo is 2.2 pounds, so 22
kilos is 48.4 pounds. Next we have to turn 100 liters into gallons or 5
gallons into liters (either one; it doesn't matter which). My dictionary
says that 10 liters is 2.64 gallons, so we'll change the 100 liters into
26.4 gallons. Now we have:
48.4 lb x lb
--------- = ------
26.4 gal 5 gal
or:
48.4 * 5
x = ---------- lb = 9.2 pounds of grain for five gallons
26.4
Now we can project the starting specific gravity, but we have to know
how efficient your mash and sparge are. I don't know what that is for
your brewery, but you probably get a specific gravity of 1.025 to 1.030
for each pound of grain in one gallon of water. That is, one pound of
grain raises the specific gravity of one gallon of water about .025.
Therefore, 9.2 pounds will raise the specific gravity of a gallon of
water 9.2 times that, or .230 (9.2 * .025 = .230). But you're not brewing
one gallon; you're brewing five, so we divide by five and get .046 as
the starting gravity of the faro. If your efficiency is higher, you'll
get a higher gravity. And if you're using extract, it'll be higher, too.
(I think a pound of dry extract raises the SG of a gallon of water .045)
Doing the same thing for the lambic, I get about .085 starting gravity.
Then, Mike McNally is worried, or just "disturbed" about his extraction
rates. An OG of 53 for 10 pounds of grain in 5 gallons is an extract
rate of .0265 per pound per gallon, which is almost exactly what I get.
His target of 60 for 10 pounds in 5 gallons is a rate of .030 which I
have never achieved. Either he doesn't have a problem, or I have the
same problem. My view is the former, but if you manage to get 30, Mike,
let me know how; I wouldn't mind spending a little less money on grain.
Suurb
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #557, 12/19/90
*************************************
-------
