Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2319
1
HOMEBREW Digest #2319 Tue 21 January 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
3787 for trade
Re: Marris Otter & stuck sparge
1968, planispiral chillers, cool
manifold construction
Re: Yeast re-pitching (Alex Santic)
table of contents
Re: Dead & Imperfect Yeast (Was: Fermenting the commercial way)
drilling stainless
RE LM35 stories qnd dattalogging.
Plastic Conical Fermenters (Mike H.
CO2 cylinders
Stainless steel 5 litre mini-kegs
Plastic Conical Fermenters (Mike H.)
Hoppiness, CO2 cost,natural vs (un)natural carbonation
Re: Spargeless Mashing: Something New?
Lagering in the bottle-jim booth
Re: Hop utilization
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/hallofame.html
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 11:42:20 -0500
From: Don Leone <DLeone@gw.stlnet.com>
Subject: 3787 for trade
hi there, i have trappist ale 3787 wyeast that i was going to use to make a
dubbel. changed my mine. anybody want to trade for another strain. i
like 1007 adn 1056 but will consider any trade. thanks in advance.
"love animals, don?t eat them"
don leone
dleone@stlnet.com
http://home.stlnet.com/~dleone/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:19:25 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: Marris Otter & stuck sparge
Mike Dowd remarked on his stuck sprge problems using Crips's Marris Otter
pale ale malt.
I did a batch with Crisp Marris Otter recently and didn't note any unusual
qualities realtive to other UK pale ale malts. Whatever caused your
difficulties, I suspect it wasn't connected with the typical qualities of
this malt. Maybe you did get a bad batch of grain, though I'd think the
probability isn't high.
IMHO, it seems your technique is not very well adapted to the equipment
you're using (kettle with EasyMasher). There's no great trick to getting a
good mash and lauter with this grain. Just dough in as you did, using
about 1.5 qts/lb so the mash is thin enough to mix without breaking your
arm or sucking in huge quantities of air.
There's no need to hold the low-temp rest that you described. Just start
heating slowly to your saccharification temperature while stirring. Rest,
heat to mashout, and rest again. I don't see how you're liable to have a
problem with any pale ale malt that way. The long cool rest and thick mash
may be contributing to your lauter problems when using the EasyMasher.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 13:19 EST
From: eric fouch <S=eric_fouch%S=fouch%G=eric%DDA=ID=STC021+pefouch%Steelcase-Inc@mcimail.com>
Subject: 1968, planispiral chillers, cool
Date: Monday, 20 January 1997 1:16pm ET
To: STC012.HOMEBRE1@STC010.SNADS
From: Eric.Fouch@STC001
Subject: 1968, planispiral chillers, cool chicks
In-Reply-To: The letter of Sunday, 19 January 1997 4:08pm ET
HBD-
Did anybody else recieve HBD #33 before they got HBD #32? Does anybody know
why? Does anybody care?
Anyway, I've never used Wyeast 1968, although it sounds intriguing. What if
you pitched to the primary as usual, then when racking to the secondary, allow
the beer to fall a good foot or so, splashing copiously into the secondary?
Goes against every brewing fiber of my being, but if it needs the extra
aeration...
I tried my hand at a no sparge dual brew session this weekend:
10# pale ale malt
5# wheat malt
Mashed in to 158F with four gallons of water (180F), and mashed for 2 hours.
The temp dropped to 140F, kind of a reverse step infusion mash.
Any comments on this technique (or lack of technique)?
I then added the mash to 2 gallons boiling water and drained the lauter tun.
That took a while, because I ground my wheat malt too fine. I think I made
"maltcrete". I then added three gallons back to the lauter tun and mixed it
up avoiding HSA as much as possible. Eventually, I had to ladel out the
entire contents and clean my screen and add it back to get any flow.
Eventually, I ended up with:
1st brew: 4 gallons of 1.060 wort, bittered with chinook, flavored and
"aromaed" (I think I just made a new word- two if you count "maltcrete") with
hallertaur. SG 1.050, inocculated with Widmer Bros "hefeweizen" yeast.
2nd brew: 2.5 gallons of 1.050 wort, bittered with chinook, flavored and
"aromaed" with cascade. I added 2#s honey and 16oz of frozen concentrated OJ
to get a SG of 1.052, inocculated with Wyeast 1084.
I also canned 4 qts of third runnings for yeast starters.
Both hot worts were cooled using a newly "constructed" planispiral chiller:
I bought two 25 foot coils of 3/8 inch copper tubing, and after trying to bend
one into nice tight concentrically spiraling coils, I pretty much butchered it
up (even using a tubing bender). The other coil, I just worked the existing
coil into smaller concentrically increasing spirals by hand. I ended up with
a 25 foot coil with about a 3 inch wide open spot in the center that aint
pretty, but fits my kettle. It cooled both worts (at different times) to 85F
from 190F in about 15-20 minutes. No stirring. Not bad.
To Becky Myers setting up a collegiate brew club- Chicks who brew are cool.
Any comments on my dual brew "no sparge" technique?
Eric Fouch
Recovering Sesquipedalaphobiac
Bent Dick Yactobrewery
Kentwood, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 09:36:53 -0800
From: Mack Huntress <mack@deltanet.com>
Subject: manifold construction
I recently made a new manifold for my mash/lauter-tun by making a spiral
with 10 feet of copper
tubing and then cutting slots every couple of inches. I spaced the slots
at closer intervals as I moved from the outlet to the closed end to try
and compensate for the obvious flow behavior (less flow into the tubing the
further away from the outlet you get).
I tested the construction by filling my cooler with water and placing drops
of colored liquid in different locations as I drained the water. I noticed
that there was hardly any flow into the manifold past the first few slots.
I was able to get 80% efficiency with the new manifold but still think the
design could be improved. Any ideas?
I was thinking about making a single slotted loop with the copper tubing
around the I.D. of the cooler. Then when running-off I could tilt the
cooler slightly so the flow at the bottom is towards first few slots in the
loop. Seems like
this way I'd be able to get a little more extraction but I'm wondering if
tilting the cooler slightly will effect the flow through the grain bed.
Any thoughts?
- -Mack
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:46:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: Yeast re-pitching (Alex Santic)
Scott Murman comments on my suggestion that being able to store large
pitchable quantities of yeast for prolonged periods would significantly
enhance our brewing endeavors:
>Excellent idea Alex. The first thought I had was storing a large
>amount of yeast in sterile water. I'm currently moving my yeast bank
>to sterile water storage, and it seems to work very well. The basic
>idea is to add a small amount of yeast to a vial of sterile water w/o
>adding any nutrients. The yeast go dormant and remain viable for long
>periods of time (how long depends on who you listen to, at least 6
>months). I wonder how much yeast per volume can be stored this way.
I same thought passed through my mind when I read the article on distilled
water storage in the Brewery Technical Library. However, assuming this
technique works, I don't think it applies at the scale we are considering.
We can rinse the yeast and store it under sterile distilled water, but
this doesn't produce the same results as the technique you referred to,
which is basically uses little water vials as a replacement for slants. I
think the rinsed yeast probably needs reculturing after after a relatively
short period of storage.
I still find myself very curious about the technique Noonan describes. As
mentioned, I can't quite imagine doing this at home with making a mess and
contaminating the culture, but here is an excerpt for those who don't have
the book:
"The liquid above the yeast is decanted, and the yeast sediment is pressed
to remove at least all of the free liquid. The yeast mass is formed into a
ball, tightly covered with plastic wrap, placed in chipped ice, and
frozen...Yeast prepared in this manner may be stored for several months."
- -- Greg Noonan, New Brewing Lager Beer, p.98, Brewer's Publications.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 10:17:32 -0500
From: Ed & Laura Hitchcock <ehitchcock@oise.utoronto.ca>
Subject: table of contents
After many months of absenteeism from this forum I'm glad to be back.
I notice there have been a number of changes, new names, and a new home
for the hbd. One thing I noticed was that the table of contents seems
to be a bit messed up. In the contents for #37, for example, only the
first seven items actually appear in #37, while the rest of the items
listed appeared in the previous issue (#36, which was dated Saturday but
didn't get to me until Monday...), while the three items listed in the
contents for #36 weren't in #36 at all. Anyone else noticed this?
ed hitchcock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:51:32 -0500 (EST)
From: David Hammond <hammer@nexen.com>
Subject: Re: Dead & Imperfect Yeast (Was: Fermenting the commercial way)
Graham Stone <gstone@dtuk.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I told him that I collect the yeast from the bottom of the
> secondary and use this in my next batch (via a starter,
> generally). To my horror he said that most of the stuff I
> find on the bottom will be dead or ruptured cells since the
> reason they are not at the top is because they are not
> producing CO2.
>
> His suggestion: Pitch about 1 litre per 50 litres of wort.
> As soon as the krausten starts and carries that dark brown
> stuff to the top, skim it off and discard it (this is mostly
> trub etc.). After 2-3 days when a good thick creamy head
> appears, skim that off into a bottle and shake the CO2 out
> of it. This will contain LIVE cells. At the same time, rouse
> the wort (he didn't say whether to re-aerate - might be a
> good idea though). Allow fermentation to continue to the
> desired FG. When it's finished, rake into cask and fine it.
> When it's clear, it's ready!
>
Dave Miller's Homebrewing Guide describes this procedure for
harvesting yeast out of a fermenter for reuse. I believe he
writes about a 3 day primary fermentation where you harvest
from the 2nd day's skim of the head of kreuzen. The 1st and 3rd
day's skim you discard, as the yeast are either too young or
too old. (Refer to the book for exact details).
David R. Burley <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> The reason the yeasts in the secondary are not producing CO2
> and are on the bottom has to do with the fact that the sugar
> in the wort is all gone and not the fact that these are
> inferior yeasts. Remember this apparent "real ale" type of
> brewer isn't going to a secondary, really. His kegs are his
> secondary.. It's all these "dead" yeast which carbonate his
> keg!
>
Dave...
I didn't think that the yeasts on the bottom of the fermenter
were the yeasts that carbonated the finished beer. I thought it
was the yeasts still in suspension in the finished beer. Not true?
Aren't the yeasts in the bottom of the fermenter going through
autolysis?
Dave
New Hampshire
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:47:29 -0600
From: Harlan Bauer <blacksab@midwest.net>
Subject: drilling stainless
Hi Dan,
The cobalt drill bit is a waste of money IMHO. Here's what I've done in my
3-tier:
1. Decide where you want to place your EM and mark the spot.
2. With a center punch, tap the center so there is a small dimple. This will
serve to start the bit. If you're good with a drill, this step is unnecessary.
3. Use a 1/8-in bit to drill a starter hole. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP! Ideally,
I'd recomend a double-ended stubby bit, but they're sometimes hard to find.
They're nice because they don't break as easily due to their short length,
and when they do break, you just flip it around and you have a fresh cutting
edge. Try to get your bit from a real harware store (and not someplace like
Home Despot) that sells loose bits--Hansen makes nice bits. I tend to like
the ones that are black in color, but it doesn't really matter as long as
it's sharp.
4. PROCEDURE FOR DRILLING METAL: Using wd-40 or some type of oil is not a
bad idea, but it's not really necessary with only one hole thru such thin
metal. What IS important is to use a variable-speed drill and to run the bit
slowly and with a lot of pressure. Since SS is fairly brittle, the metal
should come off the bit in chips. Just before you're about to pop thru the
metal, increase the speed of the drill to maximum. This will minimize the
tendency of the drill to jam, or to act like a tap and screw itself into the
hole.
5. Finally, when the pilot hole is done, switch bits and drill the final
hole the same way.
6. NOTE: You didn't specify what size hole you needed to drill. Spiral bits
do not cut holes very well beyond about 1/2-in diameter (i.e., in a hand
held drill). Beyond that, I'd use a hole-saw.
7. NOTE: Practice on a piece of srap stainless until you feel comfortable,
just be certain to use a new pilot bit when you drill your pot.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to e-mail me. Just
remember the carpenter's adage: Measure twice, cut once.
TTYL,
Harlan
*********************************************************************
* *
* Harlan Bauer ...malt does more than Milton can *
* Carbondale, IL To justify God's ways to man. *
* <blacksab@midwest.net> --A.E. Houseman *
* *
*********************************************************************
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:23:53 +0100
From: "R. Baert" <ronbaert@door.hookon.be>
Subject: RE LM35 stories qnd dattalogging.
Hello, HBers.
1) LM-packaging stories:
Here how I fix the PLASTIC LM35CZ (or LM34 -thats the Fahrenheit thing):
Take a 400 mm long Stainless tube (inside diam 6.5 to 7 mm) from a beer
cooler (Englisch name = Chiller?)and on one end we solder (brazing with
silver) a piece of 6mm outside diam. copper tube. Thus the copper tube is
fitted in the SS tube. Drill out the copper tube so that the inside diam is
approx 4.8 mm. Put the cable with the sensor IC (who is already soldered on
this cable ans insulated where neccesary..)through the tubes and fix the
sensor with silicone in the copper tube end. Flatten the copper end and
solder it tight using solder with high content of Sn (68 percent or more, as
they use for copper water supply, than there is no danger for lead
migration..)This is possible with a 18 watts solder iron, just make that the
copper is fresh and clean, you can use normal rosin-flux centercore solder
for electronics. Such a temp. probe is living already more than 22 months
and nany brewsels. Al the other plastic encapsulated versions did not
survived longer than 6 months (=6 brewsels). Especially the hopping/cooking
90 minutes did suffer the plastic schrinking tubes and epoxies..
2) Measuring and data-logging:
For data-logging, I use a Korean multimeter from METEX, type M-3850D: it
measures, and is in communication with the PC via the rs232. Cable and
software is supplied with this meter. Here in Ghent it costs approx 90 USD
(3150 BEF). There are also other RS232-provided meters in same price range..
For future I will look for a more gently solution, because the brewing place
is not the ideal place for putting in a PC: There already excists cheap
dataloggers, cost approx the same price (100 USD, one year ago, that is what
I have seen in US magazines..). Those things have standard 2 inputs: one
voltage input for 1 volt and one thermocouple (type K) input. Those modules
can be programmed with the PC via the rs232. Later, after brewing, you can
import the data in the PC.
Here in Europe they are not so easy to find (since I am pre-retired, I have
no much contacts anymore with the electronics world..)But in America!...
Is there somebody who can give info where we find info via www or where we
can buy it?
Ron Baert.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 14:32:21 PST
From: mikehu@lmc.com
Subject: Plastic Conical Fermenters (Mike H.
Greetings -
I wanted to pass along a warning concerning the plastic, conical bottom
tanks that can be ordered through U.S. Plastics. These are the ones that
come with a metal stand, and are available in 18 gal, 30 gal, and one
larger size - I think it's 45 gal. I heard about these tanks right here
on the H.B.D. Anyway, at first glance these appear to be custom made for
doing single stage fermentation of larger batches. Because of this, my
partner and I at the Double-Barrel Brew Pub decided to order two of them.
Well, it turns out they are less than ideal for this application :(
Although they are well made, and appear to be thick enough plastic, we
saw two major flaws with them. The first problem is with the top. It is a
VERY loose fitting cap that is impossible to seal, giving rise to infection
concerns. In order to use these as fermenters, we felt that the existing
cap would have to be discarded, and a new top fabricated. (yup, it's that
loose) Not impossible, but not what we expected. The other problem we saw
was with the way the threaded part is attached to the bottom of the cone.
There is a 3/4" lip that extends horizontally all the way around the bottom
of the cone, right where the threads attach. This would prevent all of the
yeast sediment from falling down into the valve we planed on installing on
the bottom of these tanks. Also not the end of the world, but still kind of
a bummer. It's too bad these weren't designed by a brewer. We're sending
them back...
Mike "what do you mean we're out of carboys" Hughes
Portland, Or
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 17:04:33 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: CO2 cylinders
How many 5 gallon corney kegs can you carbonate with a 5 lb CO2 cylinder
assuming no leaks and average carbonation etc ?
I inquired about refilling costs and I was quoted $11 for 5 lb tank and
$12 for 10 lb tank - apparently most of the cost is labor ! It makes
sense to spend a little extra on a 10 lb tank and save on re-filling not
to mention trips to the CO2 provider !
Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs@rela.uucp.netcom.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:43:53 -0700 (MST)
From: Ian Smith <rela!isrs@netcom.com>
Subject: Stainless steel 5 litre mini-kegs
I have heard that they use recyclable 5 litre stainless mini-kegs in
Germany instead of the disposable steel and aluminum kegs that are
available here in the 'States. Does anyone know how or where I can
purchase or rent these kegs ?
Cheers
Ian Smith
isrs@rela.uucp.netcom.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 97 18:11:39 PST
From: mikehu@lmc.com
Subject: Plastic Conical Fermenters (Mike H.)
Greetings -
I wanted to pass on a warning concerning the plastic, conical bottom fermenters
available from U.S. Plastics. These are the tanks that come with a metal stand,
and are available in three sizes - 18 gal, 30 gal and one other size - I think
it's 45 gal. I heard about these tanks right here on the H.B.D. Anyway, these
looked like the perfect large fermentation vessel, so my partner and I at the
Double-Barrel Brew Pub got two of them. Boy, were we disappointed. They are
well-made, and thick enough, but just not designed for this application. We saw
two major problem areas with these tanks - the top and the bottom. The top cap
fits VERY loose on the tank, and would definitely cause infection problems. It
doesn't even screw on, it's more like you drop it into place. We figured that
this could probably be rectified, but that would require discarding the top,
cutting a new opening, and then fashioning a new lid. The other problem we saw
was with the bottom, where the threads connect to the bottom of the cone. There
is a rather large lip that extends horizontally around the top part of the
threads, a good 3/4 inch into the tank. This would prevent all of the yeast
from falling into the valve we were planning on installing on the bottom of
these tanks. (Kind of like having a shelf in your conical bottom fermenter)
Not very desirable, if you ask me. Too bad these weren't designed by a brewer.
We are sending ours back...
Mike "What do you mean we're out of carboys" Hughes
Portland, Or
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 20 Jan 97 22:01:39 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Hoppiness, CO2 cost,natural vs (un)natural carbonation
Brewsters,
Richard Scholz says:
> I keep making ales that are on the very hoppy end of the scale but
> but continue to get comments about how they are not bitter enough.
Making your brew water a little harder using calcium sulfate and a little
magnesium sulfate will improve the perception of bitterness. Try keeping your
mash at about 50ppm calcium and then add salts later as some of the Brits do.
Split a batch and add various amount of salts to "calabrate" your brews.
- ------------------------------------------------------
A couple of private e-mails and a comment here ask how I estimate the cost of
force carbonation, indicating, but never quite giving me hard numbers, that it
is actually much less expensive than my estimate of $2-3/ 5 gallon batch.
My estmates on the cost of force carbonation are based on numbers from a brew
shop owner who told me that a 5# keg will carbonate three to five 5 gallon
batches. I pay $10/5# cylinder. It has never been an issue with me since I
have always carbonated naturally for other reasons. I am tempted to force
carbonate a Roggen that has been in secondary for a long time due to illness
over the holidays. I'll try to do an experiment to find out how much CO2 is
really needed for this activity. I know it can be easily calculated, but that
assumes no CO2 in the beer already.
If you're interested, I'd like to hear actual results, from those who force
carbonate, of the cost of carbonating young beer still with CO2 and beer that
has had a chance to equilibrate with a long stay in the secondary to get a
spread on cost estimates. Give us pounds of CO2 per gallon and your cost.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Gerouldt addresses me and says:
> If not, then how do you theoretically support the notion that all CO2 isn't
> equal, other things being equal? What info does CO2 have that lets it know
> it is either forced or primer-produced?
Michael,
With a PhD in Physical Chemistry I agree with your basic theoretical premise
that if all is the same, the same output should result.
Question is: How do you know all is the same?
CO2 is one of those creatures that forms structures with hydrogen bonding
liquids that you don't learn about in freshman chemistry. These clathrates can
be pressure dependent and can have unusual physical properies. Surfactants
(such as proteins, etc.) can affect clathrate rate of formation and
disappearance. CO2 can also form association complexes with any number of
compounds, which could theoretically aid in producing a more stable CO2
solution.
How do you explain the stability of CO2 in beer in terms of basic principles?
Pour a glass one day and it may still be fizzy the next day, particularly if it
is a beer which has good head forming properties and especially if it is
naturally conditioned. Filtered, force carbonated beer like BudMilloors will
likely be flat. It is very difficult to provide you with a theoretical answer,
since head formation and bubble size is a kinetic phenomenon which is responsive
to physical agitation ( shake two cans open one now and one later versus an
unshaken can) , nucleation sites ( dirty glasses), surface tension (greasy
glasses) and other not really well understood phenomena in terms of basic
principles. We are not dealing with a thermodynamic equilibrium. Perhaps the
CO2 formation from a yeast has a different solvent cluster formation pathway
than just dissolving the CO2 in the liquid and it remains in a sort of complex
solvent state which has an energy barrier and therefore is slower to break up. I
only speculate since I don't know and don't know anyone who does.
It may also be that yeast decomposition products provide a better surface active
group of compounds that somehow affect the size of the bead. As you know, the
diacetyl rest has several activites - to carbonate the beer, purge undesirable
volatiles, reduce many compounds chemically and take up all the dissolved
oxygen. Extending the yeast activity through natural carbonation could bring
about other chemical changes not found in filtered and force carbonated beer.
Such chemical changes could affect the chemical compostion and the bubble size
formation.
It may also be something as simple as the naturally carbonated beers have more
yeast in them which acts as nucleation sites producing finer bubbles than the
relatively cleaner beer which has been filtered and force carbonated, fewer
nucleation sites and fewer, bigger bubbles.
In short, I don't know. I have never done an actual experiment to prove it one
way or another ( other than drink lots of beer of both kinds). I can only ( as
can most of us) depend on what other, supposedly reputable people impart to us
until we are energized enough to do a proper ( and in this case difficult with
so many parameters) experiment ourselves.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 21:44:54 -0600 (CST)
From: Hal Davis <davis@planolaw.com>
Subject: Re: Spargeless Mashing: Something New?
I, for one, greatly appreciated Dr. Pivo's post, and I'm only piping in
because I'm afraid that a lot of the follow-up discussion will be private
and I will miss it. Please forgive my ignorance, as I've only seen two
all-grain brewing sessions, the second of which was the first one I ever
commanded. I've only seen mashing/lautering/sparging done one way, and I
don't understand the other ways of doing it: indeed, I can only imagine TWO
vessels (I use one) and I don't understand why one could possibly need a
mash tun, a lautering tun, and a sparge vessel.=20
As I understand it, what I did was simply an infusion mash. You take a big
picnic cooler, put in a Phil's Phalse Bottom with a siphon hose attached,
then dump in your grain, and cover with hot water to get the whole thing to
the first desired temperature. Stir and let sit. When it comes time to raise
the temperature, you add more hot water, stir and let sit. When you're done,
you siphon the stuff out through the false bottom into a plastic bucket and
pour the first runnings back through the grain. Then pour hot water through
the grain to get the volume up and specific gravity down to what you had in
mind. Then you add hops, put the liquor on the burner, and dump the grains
for the compost heap or wild animals.=20
So, it looks like I've got one vessel that serves the purposes of mash tun,
lauter tun, and sparge vessel.=20
Apparently there are folks who mash in a kettle. So, how do you sparge? Do
you just shovel the glop from the kettle into some other kettle that has
holes in the bottom? That seems like a lot of extra handling, a chance for
infections, a good way to get burned, and an opportunity for hot side=
aeration.=20
Now, don't talk to me about RIMS. It seems like a great way to go, but way
too expensive for me right now.=20
Hal Davis
davis@planolaw.com
At 01:35 PM 1/4/97 +0100, you wrote:
>I would first like to apologize in advance, in case I have
>misunderstood what is being discussed, or am reiterating the obvious. I
>print this "retraction" in advance as I am quite new to this medium.
>This combined with the fact that Compuserve seems to be getting
>competatively squashed (at least in Europe) has made my in and out
>service quite unsure, and I have only caught snippets of the topic under
>discussion.
> What I have understood, is that someone is proposing "spargeless
>mashing". The idea is meant to have origins with Dr. Fix, and various
>advantages/disadvantages are discussed here. I am afraid that I have=20
>been unable to download the original document, so the following comments=20
>are directed at the reactions that I have read.
> If I have understood correctly what is being described, it is a
>technique I have used for about 12-13 years and have variously called
>"infusion sparging" or "dilution sparging".
> I would like to mention here that the idea did not originate with me
>but rather with Dave Lines. He first suggested it in the 1970's. I
>stress this point because I think the man was a true pioneer. He
>understood the process well, communicated that knowledge, and was
>responsible for a lot of innovations that have become quite standard
>within homebrewing and to which he receives little credit.
> As Mr. Lines mentioned this as more of an aside, or alternate
>technique, I was under the missimpression that it was somehow less
>"professional" or "clean" and avoided its use until about 1983. At that
>time I had (once again) rebuilt my brewing system, and my mash tun sat
>inside my boiler. The idea being that the water bath around the outside
>would help stabilize mash temperatures,and one could continue heating=20
>the =B3bath water=B2 at the end of mash, and use it as sparge water. It=20
>then occurred to me that
>since the point of sparging is really just to come up to the solubility
>of sugars, I could simply at the end of mashing begin heating the bath,
>and then empty the contents of the mash tun into it and Voila!, I was at
>the correct temperature and could simply draw the liquid through the
>grains. I have changed many things since then, but have never returned
>to a traditional sparge.
> My present technique involves a three stage mash. At each change of
>temperature, the heat is turned on and a measured ammount of boiling
>water is added to the top and stirred (heat on bottom + heat on top =3D
>instant temperature change). I am quite happy to discuss which enzymes
>I think I am promoting and even why I think a dilution is more
>beneficial than harmful if someone is interested, but I think that this
>is not the place. Suffice it to say, that the "sparge" is simply a
>larger dilution and a fourth temperature. The first runnings are
>recirculated and after everything has run through the grain bed about
>10- 15% of total volume of warmed water is then added to the top as an=20
>=B3after sparge=B2(as in
>a traditional sparge, but with much less care taken- I can supply more
>details of eventual problems and how to avoid them for those truly
>interested at another time).
>
>THE ADVANTAGES OF THIS TECHNIQUE ARE...
>1) You save a lot of time.
>
>THE POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES ARE...
>1) You might reduce the ammount of hot side aeration (HSA). Personally
>I think this is a fear that is much exaggerated in terms of its effects
>on the home brew. I am first aware of this particular concern being=20
>introduced to the home brewer by the writings of Dave Miller. =20
>Reasonably, if there really was a great risk of phenolic
>production with the combination heat/oxygen/grain husks, I would suggest
>that every other possibility of entering oxygen into the process would
>be quite marginal compared to giving your grains a "hot shower".
>2) You could reduce the ammount of tannin extraction. Another worry
>which I think is given more issue than it warrants. Your mash does have
>the buffering capacity however (at least with my grains and water), to
>maintain low pH after this last dilution, making any sparge water
>acidification superfluous (if it isn't already).
>3) It gives you a maltier taste? This is something I have read here.
>It is nothing I've ever noticed, and not anything I would believe for a
>second. Generally, I think that sweet flavours tend to enhance malt=20
>taste perception, whilst bitter flavours tend to weave themselves into=20
>hop flavour, masking malt taste. Possibly through points 1 and 2 above,=20
>one is reducing bitter flavours and thereby making malt taste more=20
>percievable, but it has not been my experience. If believing that gives=20
>you more confidence in trying an
>infusion sparge, then fine.
>
>THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS TECHNIQUE ARE...
>1) You waste a lot of grain.
>
> Before using this technique, my extraction efficiencies were
>consistantly in the 90's (97% at best), after the adoption of this, it
>fell immediately to about 75% and has stayed there. Then again, even if
>I'm in a terrifically patient mood, I would not =B3after sparge=B2 down=20
>below
>about S:G: 1020. I simply don't enjoy sparging. I'd rather brew more
>often with less yield and remove the boring steps. We are fairly active
>brewers around here and order our malt by the tonne, so grain costs=20
>become
>quite marginal. Rather than continually do a part of the process that I
>find so unenjoyable, I create a lot of deer food. In fact, as I trodded
>out into the snow for my morning "pee" at dawn, I was standing face to
>face with a moose. It is either a new form of ungulate voyeurism, or
>that fella' has developed a taste for my spent grains as well, giving me=20
>just one more pleasurable side effect of my brewing.
> In this region of Sweden, everyone who brews was either taught by me,
>or has in turn learned as a =B3spin off=B2 effect, so it is understandable=
=20
>if my particular bad habits are locally wide spread. Each brewer has
>gone on to develope their own techniques, but I know of no.one who uses=20
>a
>traditional sparge (could this be one of the reasons that some of the
>best beers in the world are found here?) ;-)
> I recently visited someone doing their "stovetop technique" where he
>used every burner on the stove. At the end of mash, the contents were
>mixed with the different pots of water, poured through a sieve into a
>fermenting bucket and then a last pot poured over the top. Then he goes
>away and has a sandwich, comes back and racks off of the trub to the
>boiler. He doesn't expend 5 minutes sparging. Sound appealing?
>Another advantage according to him, is that once you know the volume of
>boiling water and mash that reach sparge temperatures, you don't even
>have to measure the combinant with a thermometer- It always turns out
>right.
>
> As I have mentioned, I am quite new to this medium of communication,
>and find it a quite brilliant way of sharing knowledge. There is a
>risk, however, of the developement of a homogenicity in both thought and
>technique. From what I have read thus far, the ideas and practices
>being presented here and elsewhere on the net, are far afield from what=20
>exists here.=20
> If the quite varied techniques and philosophy is at all appealing,
>and the opinionated way of expressing it not too offensive, I have begun
>to write up a bit of our local experience and it can be found at...
>
>http://alpha.rollanet.org/~mckay/brew/columns/
>
>If there is an interest in infusion sparging, I will try to write up a=20
>more detailed description rather than wasting more of your space here.
>Once again, sorry to use up so much space here, and if inappropriate
>please let me know.
>Dr. Pivo
>
>
>--You have received this message because you are subscribed to the homebrew
>mailing list. For information on how to unsubscribe and other commands
>which are available to you, send a message to <majordomo@aob.org> with the
>text "help" in the body. If you need assistance, send mail to
><owner-homebrew@aob.org>
>--
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 23:21:49 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth@scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: Lagering in the bottle-jim booth
I understand why the big boys lager beer in tanks and then blend,
filter,bottle and ship, but what is the difference for the homebrewer
between bottle conditioning and lagering the bottles, and lagering in a
carboy and they bottling and storing the bottles.
If one lets the beer settle fairly well before bottling, wouldn't
storing the conditioned bottles at the low 30'sF be about the same as
bulk storage (assuming one has room).
Any advices out there? Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 02:46:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: Hop utilization
Richard Scholz writes:
>I'm trying to calabrate my brewing software (HBRCP by J. Varady).
>I keep making ales that are on the very hoppy end of the scale but
>but continue to get comments about how they are not bitter enough.
>Does anyone have an idea about the correct percent usage for hops
>( a function or table of time/ % usage ) I'm using ~30% for 60 min
>down to 5% for 0 min additions. All help welcome.
It's easy to understand why your beers are turning out less bitter than
you planned. For instance, In a 60 minute boil I'll guestimate that you're
not getting more than a few points over 20% utilization. For 0 minutes,
the utilization is basically zero.
3 or more methods of calculating hop utilization are common among
homebrewers. Personally, I like the Glenn Tinseth formula. It's perhaps
the most conservative, but works very well for me. Hit the following URL
for a description: http://realbeer.com/hops/research.html
Mark Garetz, author of the book Using Hops, also has a methodology which
is described in his book. A less detailed description is available at the
website for his retail store, at http://www.hoptech.com/uhops.html.
Finally, there's a classic formula in the special hops back issue of
Zymurgy. It's the most optimistic formula and personally I wouldn't use
it. Others may disagree.
Hope this helps. Send mail if you have questions.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2319, 01/21/97
*************************************
-------
Comments