Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2587
HOMEBREW Digest #2587 Fri 19 December 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Brew pot Manifold (PVanslyke)
PVC Manifold? (KennyEddy)
RE: Return of the RollerMill Thread! (John Wilkinson)
Yesterday's Brew Session (Matthew Taylor)
Batch-Sparging Data Part 1 of 2 (KennyEddy)
Blow Off Tube Thread (m.r.p.)
Batch-Sparging Data Part 2 of 2 (KennyEddy)
CO2 needed to force carbonate (Matthew Arnold)
Norgren relief valve ("Bret A. Schuhmacher")
Ready to Bottle? ("Matthew Kerr")
Whippersnappers,wine,instant oatmeal ("David R. Burley")
Slick Siphoning Sample Stealer (KennyEddy)
Clinitest, Bleach ("David R. Burley")
O2 how long?/Valley Mill/all-grain cost/bottled water/SO-lutions (Chris Carolan)
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to homebrew-request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@realbeer.com
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org /pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edui /pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:07:08 EST
From: PVanslyke <PVanslyke@aol.com>
Subject: Brew pot Manifold
>Date: Sun, 07 Dec 1997 10:32:20 -0500=0A>From: Jim English <jimebob@mind=
spring.com>=0A>Subject: Brewpot manifold/No hot break =0A=0Asnip=85=0A>1.=
I made a manifold of half-inch copper slotted (2 to 3 cuts per >inch) in=
=0A>the shape of a square that hugs the bottom (at least at the >corners)=
of my=0A>keg. The threaded SS nipple is about 2 inches above the center-=
>bottom=85=0A=0AJim,=0AInstead of using a manifold in the brew pot, I hav=
e had good luck using a=0Astainless steel scrub pad. A short piece of cop=
per tube is jammed into the SS=0Anipple and the scrub pad is fastened ove=
r the end of the tube. You still need=0Ato be careful of stirring so as t=
o not dislodge the pad. Try to get a pad from=0Aa commercial source. The =
pad I have used in the past came from a dairy supply=0Astore and is large=
r and finer than the pad I bought at the grocery store. If=0Ayou can only=
get the pad at a grocery, stick two together before installing in=0Athe =
brew pot.=0A=0AMake sure the pads are SS. I have used this method with pe=
llet hops as well as=0Awhole hops and had good luck draining nearly all t=
he wort from the brew pot=0Awithout clogging.=0A=0APaul VanSlyke >> brewi=
n=92 and relaxin=92 in Deposit, NY=0A
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:58:25 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: PVC Manifold?
Rock Lucas asks about PVC mash tun manifold:
"Is there any reason not to use PVC for this? I haven't seen any mention =
of this and wonder if I'm missing something."
Two rpoblems, one for sure and the other I remember reading but can't say
where. First, PVC will soften/warp/deform at about 145F, well below your max
temperature. Second, I remember reading that PVC will leach certain chemicals
into hot water which you probably don't want in your brew.
Solution: use *C*PVC pipe. It's also available cheaply at the hardware/home
stores, usually in 1/2" size. It's designed for potable hot water use up to
180F.
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
3950 miles from the center of the earth, as if Jeff Renner (give or take a few
miles)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 97 10:13:57 CST
From: jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: RE: Return of the RollerMill Thread!
Paul Kensler wondered how the Valley Mill turns its second roller.
I have a Valley Mill and it appears to me that the second roller is turned
by the grain passing through. The knurling on the rollers has to grip the
grain and the driven roller forces the grain through the gap, thereby turning
the second roller. If it doesn't grip, the second roller won't turn. That
is not as bad as it sounds, though, as I believe on any roller mill if the
grain is not gripped by the roller it will not pass through. Perhaps if both
rollers were driven they would have a better chance of gripping the grain
but I doubt it.
I like my Valley Mill but think the JS MaltMill is fine too. I was influenced
to buy the Valley because it was adjustable, had a large hopper, and was only
$70 in a clearance by Williams Brewing.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins@wss.dsccc.com
* Jeff Renner is about 9 degrees 31 minutes north and 13 degrees 20 minutes *
* east of me. *
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 97 08:26:59 -0800
From: Matthew Taylor <mtaylor@mail.valverde.edu>
Subject: Yesterday's Brew Session
No real question here, but I just had to let everybody know what =
we have to go through to brew out here in Southern California. I =
missed my chance to brew on Saturday, so I got off work a little =
early yesterday to get a batch going before my yeast starter =
needed refreshing.
I got started by 2:45, mowed the lawn during the mash. Started =
dinner while I lautered (my wife was out Christmas shopping.) Had =
dinner while the kettle boiled merrily away on the patio (a 90 =
minute boil, got a little carried away with the advent calendar). =
Cooled it while we did the dishes, and mixed up a batch of wine =
from grape concentrate. Had everything, beer and wine, in the =
fermenters by 8:00.
The only down point came while scrubbing out the kettle. My =
shorts and t-shirt got so wet that I had to go change before I =
could pitch the yeast (it was getting a little chilly, down into =
the low 60's by then.) Ah the joys of Southern California!
=09
=09
Just had to gloat
=09
Matt Taylor
=09
Grand Terrace California=
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:55:45 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: Batch-Sparging Data Part 1 of 2
AlK asked to see some details on my batch-sparge "experiments". OK, you asked
for it!
I'll start by stating that for those brewers who are thinking of trying all-
grain brewing, and in particular those thinking about batch sparging, PLEASE
don't let the following discussion scare you! What follows here is an
(over)analysis of some of the unexpected results I observed during some brew
sessions. You certainly don't have to go through any of this to brew beer!
Next, a "disclaimer". These "experiments" were hardly controlled or
scientific; more accurately, they're simply reports of some data taken from a
few brew sessions that indicate a different result than what I originally
postulated would occur. In that respect the results are useful, but I
wouldn't try to draw any *quantitative* results from them.
**What I Thought Would Happen
The basic idea is as follows. In batch-sparging, we mash the grain, drain the
runoff, add clear hot water, then drain again. During the mash phase, sugars
develop and distribute themselves throughout the liquid, both that which is
absorbed or "trapped" inside the grain and that which is "free" (and therefore
available for runoff). It was a basic premise of my analysis of batch-
sparging that the gravity of the "free" wort was nominally the same as that in
the absorbed fraction; that is, that the sugars were evenly distributed
throughout both the free and the trapped liquids.
**What Actually Happened
In reality, it appears that the wort in the trapped fraction was consistently
of higher gravity than the free wort. More accurately stated, there was more
sugar retrieved during the sparge step than would be predicted by the same-
gravity model.
**How I Figured All of This
The amount of sugar in the "trapped wort" was calculated by first measuring
the gravity and volume of the initial runoff (the "free wort"), measuring the
volume of the clear sparge water added, and finally measuring the gravity and
volume of the second (sparge) runoff. Let me illustrate the hypothesis by
example:
If my mash (runoff) gravity was of SG 1.084, and I ran off 60% of the initial
mash water volume, then my hypothesis predicts that the remaining 40% (trapped
wort) would also have a gravity of 1.084. Now I replace the 60% that was run
off, with clear hot water. If the trapped wort were truly at 1.084, the "new"
wort should be of gravity 0.60 x 0 [clear water] + 0.40 x 84 [trapped wort] =
1.034. So the second runoff should yield a runoff with a gravity of around
1.034.
However, the actual results consistently yielded *higher* than the gravity
predicted by this method. The conclusion I reached is that there is more
sugar left inside the grain than predicted by the above assumption.
This is illustrated by the two batch-sparge sessions brewed by Michael Crowe,
who supplied me with his data (mil gracias por eso). I use the concept of
"excess gravity" points or "points per gallon", which is ((SG - 1.000) x 1000)
or just the numbers after the 1 in the gravity figure (e.g., 1.056 = 56 points
per gallon). Points per gallon times volume gives me just "points" which is a
measure of the *total amount of sugar* in the liquid (as opposed to the
*concentration*, which the gravity -- points per gallon -- represents). This
allows me to track how much sugar is located where.
Batch #1 (Batch Sparged)
Mash Water: 3.7 gal
First runoff was drained and measured:
Mash Runoff ("free wort") Gravity: 1.084 (84 points/gal)
Mash Runoff Volume: 2.4 gal
Mash Runoff Points: 2.4 x 84 = 202 points (total sugar in runoff)
Remaining trapped wort would look like this under the same-gravity assumption:
Remaining Water ("trapped" wort): 3.7 - 2.4 = 1.3 gal
Remaining Points: 1.3 x 84 = 109 points (total sugar in trapped wort)
Now we add 2.25 gal sparge water. We should have a total of 2.25 + 1.3 = 3.55
gal of water in the tun, with the same 109 total points of sugar redistributed
in it. 109 / 3.55 = 31, so we should expect a second wort runoff (sparge)
gravity of 1.031.
However, in reality, the actual runoff was 1.045! This means we actually had
3.55 gal at 1.045 or 3.55 x 45 = 160 points left over, 47% more than the 109
we expected.
Batch #2 (Batch Sparged):
Mash Water: 2.25 gal
Mash Runoff ("free wort") Gravity: 1.082 (82 points/gallon)
Mash Runoff Volume: 1.25 gal
Mash Runoff Points: 1.25 x 82 = 103
Remaining Water ("trapped" wort): 2.25 - 1.25 = 1.0 gal
Remaining Points: 1.0 x 82 = 82
Add 1.00 gal sparge water for a total of 2.00 gallons in the tun. 82 points
in 2.00 gallons gives a predicted gravity of 82 / 2.00 = 1.041. However, the
runoff was 1.047. Thus, we actually had 2.00 x 47 = 94 points in the tun,
instead of the 82 points predicted, 15% more than expected.
{more in Part 2}
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:04:46 -0600 (CST)
From: m.r.p.@ix.netcom.com
Subject: Blow Off Tube Thread
Subject: Don't go rushing to throw out your carboy and blow off tube
Hi all,
Dave Burley writes about the evils of blow off tubes and closed
fermenters (i.e., carboys). He encourages the use of a plastic pail
covered with plastic wrap.
<SNIP>
While I agree with Dave that a dirty blow off tube can cause infection
of the batch, there are some VERY easy ways to avoid problems:
<SNIP>
2. If you must use a blow off tube, use a new one each time. Short
of that, sterilize an old one by boiling it. Yes, you can boil vinyl
tubing. It will turn white, but after a few days it will clear again,
and it doesn't matter anyway! I always boil all of my tubing to
sanitize it.
<SNIP>
George, there are better ways. First, unless you only brew a batch a month,
buying a new tube is costly. I know I'm not rich. The best way I found to
clean a BO tube is with a bottle brush. Take the Bottle brush and attach a
long piece of stiff wire to the handle (I find a coat hanger (Unraveled of
course) works well. Soak the BO tube in a bucket of bleach water to soften
up the crud. Run the wire through the tube and pull the brush through it.
I do this once, run some water through it, and dot it again (and again until
the tube is clean). Then I soak it in the bleach water for a half hour or
so and rinse. Once I do this I hang it on its hook and leave it to dry.
When I get ready to use it I soak it in a bleach solution, rinse and shove
it in the hole. With all the brewing I do (at least a batch a week), I have
never had a problem.
Hope this works for someone else.
Mike
One must put up barriers To keep oneself intact. - Rush, 1981
"It took me a long time to grow up. Maturity and me are only
recently acquainted." - Gary Numan, 1997
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 11:57:15 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: Batch-Sparging Data Part 2 of 2
{continued from Part 1}
**Seems to Apply to Continuous-Sparged Brewing Too
As for the "continuous-sparged" batches, the predicted gravity was determined
as follows. I recorded the total mash water and grain weight, which gives me
an estimate of the mix of "free" wort versus "trapped" wort (based on an
absorption rate of 0.13 gallon, or one pint, per pound of grain). I then
measured the volume and gravity of the *finished* wort, which tells me how
much *total* sugar was recovered. So I can estimate the gravity of the
trapped wort as follows:
(a) the final volume times the final excess gravity points (= total
recovered sugar points)
minus
(b) the "free" wort volume in the mashtun times its excess gravity points,
measured at the end of recirculation (= total free-wort sugar points)
equals
(c) the total trapped-wort sugar points
Finally I divide (c) by the estimated trapped-wort volume to get the trapped
wort gravity.
If the same-gravity model were valid, I should get the trapped wort to be the
same gravity as the free wort, but instead I still get a higher gravity figure
for the trapped wort. Here's the data for these batches:
Batch #3 (continuous-sparged):
Mash Water: 4.00 gal
Grain: 10.5 lb
Estimated Trapped-Wort Volume: 0.13 gal/lb x 10.5 lb = 1.37 gal
Estimated Free Wort Volume: 4.00 - 1.37 = 2.63 gal
Mash Recirc (free-wort) Gravity: 1.075 (75 points/gal)
2.63 gal x 75 = 197 points of sugar in free wort
Final Volume: 5.35 gal
Final Gravity: 1.060
5.35 x 60 = 321 total points of sugar recovered into kettle
So, using the approach outlined above,
(a) 321 total points recovered
minus
(b) 197 points in free wort
equals
(c) 124 points in trapped wort
Trapped wort volume = 1.37 gal
Trapped wort gravity = 124 / 1.37 = 91 points/gal = 1.091 SG
Under the assumption of same-gravity, the trapped wort should have had 1.37
gal x 75 points/gal = 103 points; instead I got 124 points, or 20% more than
predicted.
Batch #4 (full-sparged):
Mash Water: 3.00 gal
Mash Thickness: 1.23 qt/lb (single-step mash)
Grain: 9.75 lb
Estimated Trapped-Wort Volume: 0.13 gal/lb x 9.75 lb = 1.27 gal
Estimated Free Wort Volume: 3.00 - 1.27 = 1.73 gal
Mash Recirc (free-wort) Gravity: 1.090 (90 points/gal)
1.73 gal x 90 = 156 points of sugar in free wort
Final Volume: 5.35 gal
Final Gravity: 1.061
5.35 x 61 = 326 points collected in kettle
(a) 326 total points recovered
minus
(b) 156 points in free wort
equals
(c) 170 points in trapped wort
Trapped wort volume = 1.27 gal
Trapped wort gravity = 170 / 1.27 = 134 points/gal = 1.134 SG
Under the assumption of same-gravity, the trapped wort should have had 1.37
gal x 90 points/gal = 123 points; instead I got 170 points, or 38% more than
predicted.
Now, granted, one potential problem here is that I'm only taking a single
gravity measurement of the runoff, rather than monitoring it over the entire
runoff/sparge period. In the batch-sparge cases, gravity is measured after
the runoff is complete, so whether the gravity is changing over the course of
the runoff or sparge is not known. Whether this starting gravity remains
constant could be easily determined by taking a reading at both the start and
finish of the batch runoff, but this was not foreseen when Michael brewed and
as a result the data was not taken.
As for the fly-sparged case, I took the free-wort (recirculation) contribution
separately from the sparged-wort contribution, as if the free wort had been
drained before fully-sparging the trapped wort out. This helps me separate
the sugar in the free wort from that in the trapped wort, even though it's all
being flushed out together with the continuous sparge. But since the total
amount of sugar recovered is the same either way, the results of this approach
should be equivalent.
But even still, if it is true that the trapped wort is of higher gravity, then
it essentially boosts batch-sparge efficiency well above that which is
predicted by the same-gravity premise, and thus approaches continuous-sparging
(under certain conditions) in efficiency. Collecting smaller volumes of wort
reduces the efficiency, but the technique is most effective for extract
brewers who are limited in space/equipment. They, I believe, are batch-
sparging's primary audience.
The higher gravity in the trapped wort is not necessarily hard to "believe",
though, considering that the starchy chunks of grain are the very "factories"
producing the sugar. The surrounding water must leach out this sugar, and the
more sugar is dissolved in the water, the slower this process becomes. Left
to sit forever, and/or continuously stirred, this difference would perhaps
diminish as the system eventually reaches equilibrium.
It also lends support to the notion of slow sparges improving efficiency,
since the long time that the clear water is in contact with the grain would
encourage best pickup of the trapped wort (bigger difference in gravity
compared with the original free wort). Mashout gets some support from the
concept, by thinning the initial runoff, again encouraging more diffusion of
the trapped wort into the free wort. Both of these concepts are well-known to
the brewer.
The question then becomes, is it possible to accurately predict the gravity of
the free and the trapped worts (for purposes of accurately planning a batch-
sparge session)?
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 17:05:10 GMT
From: mra@skyfry.com (Matthew Arnold)
Subject: CO2 needed to force carbonate
While I'm rambling on about dispensing pressure and all that rot, I've got
another question. A friend has allowed me to borrow his regulator and CO2 tank
until I can get my own. The tank was full when I started and I was going to
weigh it to see how much CO2 I'd use, but I forgot <slap to forehead>.
I force carbonated the beer at 12 PSI at about 40 F using ye olde
shake-the-dickens-out-of-it method. How much CO2 did I use? It is really only
an issue in that it is a 2.5# tank (very tiny) and I don't want to run out of
CO2 all of the sudden.
I also have a feeling that the pressure is actually higher than the regulator
is reading. I am dispensing at ~11 psi using four feet of 3/16" tubing for the
liquid-out which _should_ reduce outflow to a minimum. It's still comes
charging out pretty fast. It doesn't gush all over and cause all the
carbonation to come out, but it's faster than I would have expected. Thoughts?
Shameless plug: czech out my homebrew club's web page at http://www.rackers.org
created by yours truly! It's still in its infancy, but growing!
Later,
Matt
P.S. For the curious, the people who emailed me privately basically agreed that
topping off the pressure every 2-3 pints should keep the beer carbonated no
problem. I also top it off at the end of the evening, even if I haven't had 2-3
pints. Thanks to all who responded.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:27:56 -0700
From: "Bret A. Schuhmacher" <bas@healthcare.com>
Subject: Norgren relief valve
Well, since I spoke up the other day I've gotten lots of requests for
information about the adjustable relief valve I use on my 10 gallon
fermentation keg.
I poked a hole in the side of my glass carboy during cleaning one day.
Just cleaning it with my brush, and all of a sudden, "Plonk!", out
pops a 2 inch diameter piece of glass. Perfectly round, like a metal
slug.
That experience drove home the point that glass is too brittle and
dangerous in the brewshop for anything besides bottling. A full glass
carboy weighs about 45 pounds, give or take, and the damn thing
doesn't have a handle! Oh, sure, you can buy one of those handles for
the neck... but do you trust it? That's when I started considering
brewing in kegs.
A 5 gallon keg would require a blowoff tube because there's no
headspace. You'd either have to take off one of the gas/beer QD
fittings or drill a hole in the lid. Not an elegant solution in my
book. You'd always be replacing a fitting or stopping up the hole
in the lid to get any pressure so you could transfer the beer to
another keg. I didn't know if a 7 gallon keg would have enough
headspace, either.
How about a 10 gallon keg, though? Plenty of headspace, no fitting
removal or drilling. No need for extra blowoff tubes, buckets of
water or airlocks. Perfect! Except how do you vent the pressure?
You could remember to do it daily (yeah, right) or find some sort of
pressure relief valve.
I got the information from Dion Hollenbeck's *very* informative web
gadget page at http://www.hbd.org/~hollen/textdocs/index.html. Thanks
again Dion!
I reduced the fitting on the relief valve from 3/8" (?) to 1/4 (?) to
fit a standard beer line swivel fitting. The reducer cost about $.79
at the local hardware store. The relief valve was $3.99 from
Norgren. I needed an extra poppet valve spring to complete the
transformation, but that only cost about $2.00.
Pressure is regulated by the amount of compression on the poppet valve
by way of a threaded endcap on the valve body. Dion fit a brass tee
inline and installed a pressure gauge to better regulate the exact
amount of blowoff pressure, but I haven't found it to be necessary. I
just put the endcap on a couple of turns and lock it down with the nut
to keep it from readjusting itself. I check the keg later to see if
it's got "too much pressure" - a highly subjective term for lots of
hiss when I release the pressure. If it does I loosen the relief
valve a little. Don't worry - the poppet valve spring will keep you
from creating a bomb - it'll release pressure at what, 40psi? There's
no rocket science or magic here - just buy the thing if you want an
adjustable pressure relief valve. It's a piece of cake to use.
NOTE: please don't ferment 5 gallon batches in 5 gallon corny kegs!
The blowoff will clog the tubes and you *will* create a bomb (with
lots of nasty shrapnel).
Buy yourself a 10 gallon keg, chop off the out tube about 1.75 inches
(to leave the sediment behind) and you'll be very happy with the
results. Here are the benefits as I see them:
1) proper fermentation geometry. 5 gallon kegs are too narrow, but 10
gallon kegs are the same or slightly larger diameter than glass
carboys.
2) no siphons. I funnel my wort into the fermenter keg on brewday,
then rack it under CO2 pressure to secondary and serving kegs.
3) the handles on the 10 gallon keg make it easy to carry and shake
for aeration.
4) *simple* to clean
5) clean and simple. There's no blowoff hose or extra bucket of water
required.
6) simple to take samples for readings. Just pressurize the keg and
put a cobra/picnic tap on it to take your reading. No cleaning turkey
basters or thiefs.
7) rack the beer under pressure and avoid O2 contact.
The only drawbacks I've found is that you can't see the fermentation
taking place (which *IS* kind cool) and it's more difficult to figure
out how much water to put in when you're topping it off to 5 gallons.
The pressure buildup tells me fermentation is taking place. I've put
a mark at the 5 gallon point on the outside of the keg and roughly
estimate to top off the keg. It's not that tough.
I think I've made my best beer since I started fermenting in this
keg. It's certainly been some of the easiest to make :-).
Let me know if there're any questions or screwups above.
Rgds,
Bret
Bad Dog Brewery
Montrose, CO
- --
Beauty is in the eyes of the beer holder.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 10:45:55 -0700
From: "Matthew Kerr" <mkerr@u.arizona.edu>
Subject: Ready to Bottle?
Hiya,
My buddy and I brewed up a batch last thursday night, (dec. 11) and stuck
in the primary fermenter and all was good. This is a Honey Porter with ale
yeast. Well, for the first 24 hours or so the temp was about 74 or 75, and
fermentation was going strong the next morning (friday). This continued
until maybe Saturday night, when the temp hadn't gotten below about 72, so
we decided to move it to a colder place in the house. The next morning
(Sunday), the temp was right around 66 or so, and all the bubbling had
completely stopped. Well we figured it was because the yeast were too cold
or had been shocked. So we moved to a place where the temp is a stable 70
or so. And since Sunday that's where it's been. Not bubbling, the
hydrometer reads 1.019 and has since Sunday, although it might have gone
down to about 1.0185. Basically it seems fermentation has stopped or at
least slowed so much that it might as well be stopped. Now, what I'm
asking, is whether or not this is okay to bottle. It seems to me that this
is way too fast fermentation. I mean, the FG seems a little high, but not
unheard of. Any ideas? Should I repitch some more yeast just to make sure?
Or just let the beer sit in the fermenter for another week just to make
sure? Any help is much appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Matt
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:11:56 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Whippersnappers,wine,instant oatmeal
Brewsters:
Dave Whitman says:
>Ah, these young whippersnappers with their newfangled editions of CRC. =
In
>my '73 edition, that section stopped at page D-246. We never needed tho=
se
>extra pages back then, and they're just causin' you grief now. <grin>
Well, Dave, I consider my 73rd edition my "new" version, having
copies of the 56th edition and a copy of the 35th edition when it
really was a handbook sized book only 6 inches high and only a little
thicker than the present model.
I don't know about you, but I don't think there's any need for new =
editions of CRC since nothing more can be invented and numbers
just don't get any better than in the good old days when scientists
were really scientists and we pipetted with our mouth, used burettes
and volumetric flasks and actually did real chemistry and none of this
new-fangled electronic stuff.... [8^)
- -----------------------------------------
Jorge Blasig in Uruguay says:
>it is almost impossible for me to brew good beer during the summer.
>Temperatures go as high as 30 C or higher and beers would be to fruity
>according to what I know. I know there are several methods to cool the
>batch but I do not think I can use any of them now.
Don't forget to try some of the warm weather ale yeasts used in
wheat beer making. I'll bet you'll like these. And don't ignore the
California Common Yeasts which do pretty well at the higher
temperatures without a lot of off flavors if you keep it as cool as
you can.
>I consider brewing wine. I have prepared meads with good success. =
>I have a question though: how should I use sulfite (methabisulfite) to
>stop fermentation and stabilize the final product according to my taste?=
=
Jorge, 50 ppm metabisulfite will prevent bacterial growth =
and 100 ppm will prevent yeast growth at a juice pH of less
than 3.3, in most cases. When you begin, put in about =
1/8 tsp (0.6 mls) of meta in enough grapes to make 5 gallons
of wine. This will give about 50 ppm. Whenever you transfer a
non-fermenting wine do this to prevent oxidation. Treat sweet =
wines with 100 ppm of meta to stabilize them at bottling.
I have won two American Wine Society national gold medals and
a national bronze metal for my wines and would like to share this
knowledge with others, but rather than use this forum for wine,
if you and others have questions, direct your comments to me
personally.
- ------------------------------------------
Lou Heavner says:
> . I made my =
> first batch of beer with oatmeal, but never carbonated sufficiently=
to get, let alone =
> sustain, a head.
> Quaker 2 minute oats. I figured that oatmeal affected =
> heading since it is oilier than other grains and that my beer's =
> problem was from using too much. My recipe even had a half pound of =
>wheat for improved heading to no avail.
In addition to the high oil content affecting the head, "instant" oats
and other cereals - like Instant Cream of Wheat, etc use papain -
an enzyme occurring in papayas which chops up proteins
( used as a meat tenderizer) to get a quick cook. Read the box =
before using the instant cereals. Likely this heat stable enzyme =
chopped up the head-forming proteins in the wheat as well.
Did you cook the oatmeal first? Use the old-fashioned types.
- -------------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:51:18 EST
From: KennyEddy <KennyEddy@aol.com>
Subject: Slick Siphoning Sample Stealer
Thought I'd chime in on the sample-stealing thread. Here's how I rob Carboy
to pay Hydrometer:
I used a spice jar, but any jar that will hold the required sample volume will
work. Drill two holes in the lid and push two lengths of vinyl tubing
through. The holes should be sized so that the tubing seals with a tight fit
(assembly needs to be essentially air-tight). The tubes should barely poke
through the lid.
Tube (B) should be maybe a foot long, while tube (A) should be long enough to
reach the beer while the jar is held outside the fermenter, below the beer
level. I attach a straight section of racking tube to (A) so that the tubing
doesn't curl up before reaching the beer. Silicone aquarium tubing might be a
good option if curling is a problem.
To use, first be sure the lid is in place and the tubes seal well. Place just
the end of tube (A) (or the racking tubing attached to it) just under the beer
surface. Hold the jar below the beer surface level outside of the fermenter.
Suck on tube (B), which will start a siphon into the jar. When the required
sample volume is collected, pull tube (A) out of the fermenter. Be sure the
contents of (A) continue to drain into the jar (keep the jar below the beer
surface) so that it doesn't siphon back into the fermenter.
Note that the level of the liquid in the jar should never be allowed to reach
the end of tube (A); this way the sample won't backflow into the fermenter if
the jar is lifted above the fermenter beer level.
Properly used, very little of the tubing (A) is ever exposed to the beer in
the fermenter, minimizing risk of infection. Never return the stolen sample
to the fermenter.
This idea was originally posted here on the HBD some time in the dim past.
Hideously-executed ASCII art follows:
A B
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
|| ||
__||____||__
| || || |
|__||____||__| Jar Lid
| || || |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Jar
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|__________|
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:12:02 -0500
From: "David R. Burley" <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Clinitest, Bleach
Brewsters:
Andy Walsh did a nice piece of work on evaluating Clinitest's
response to other sugars. Thanks and sorry it was so expensive.
He found out that the response was accurate to glucose as
claimed. He says other sugars were not as accurate. I'm not
defending Clinitest accuracy here with other sugars, but did you
forget about molecular weights?? What if you correct the % glucose
reading to correspond to the other polysugars' molecular weights? =
Maltotriose will likely have a response only 1/3 as much per weight
as glucose, etc.
>Conclusion - Clinitest does not give an accurate portrayal of final suga=
r
>concentrations.
I agree, since these have a much higher molecular weight per
reducible site.
> It may be useful as a general fermentation indicator,
Which is, of course, how I recommend it being used.
> However, if you want a glucose monitor, Diastix
>are great!
Diasitix and other enzyme based sticks measure glucose
*exclusively*and don't even measure other complex or not
fermentable sugars as Clinitest does. These enzyme sticks
would be less suitable for measuring the end of the
fermentation, since, as you pointed out,
the more complex sugars ferment last and would be
undetected by these sticks.
>note- I am not defending hydrometers here either
Nor I! Clinitest, at the least, tells you if you have a stuck
fermentation or not.. Hydrometers can't.
- -------------------------------------------------
George De Piro says:
> While you can get acceptable results using his method, plastic pail=
s =
> are actually quite a bit more difficult to keep in sanitary conditi=
on
> than glass carboys. Plastic scratches easily, and once it is =
> scratched, it is no longer useful as a sanitary vessel.
I know that Charlie P has perpetuated this rumor, but I have been
using the same polyethylene plastic garbage pail since the 1970's.
It has fermented hundreds of gallons of beer and it is still in good =
shape and has never caused an infection. If this is a real worry for you=
, =
remember that the hoses are plastic also. One of the prescriptions
suggested by a user of this setup was to run a brush or wire down =
the hose. Sounds like scratches to me. The extremely soft vinyl
hose is more susceptible to scratching IMHO.
=
> While I agree with Dave that a dirty blow off tube can cause
infection =
> of the batch, there are some VERY easy ways to avoid problems:
Yes there are ways, I have always agreed to that. It's just that it is =
difficult and requires careful monitoring. I have never said good beer
couldn't be made this way,it is just more likely that you can get an =
infection IMHO and takes more work to avoid it. The worst thing is,
it can sneak up on you
=
> 1. Leave enough headspace in the carboy to prevent blow off from =
> occurring. Al K.'s experiment showed that allowing the foam to
settle =
> back into the wort had no appreciable impact on beer flavor.
=
If you're going to do this why not just use an open fermenter that you =
can clean more easily of that ring of splooge than you can =
inside a carboy?
> 2. If you must use a blow off tube, use a new one each time.
Seems expensive.
> Short =
> of that, sterilize an old one by boiling it. =
This seems like a good solution which will help remove the oils
and greases as well.
=
> Dave also mentions using hot bleach. This is not recommended; cold=
=
> bleach is much better. =
Actually I recommend hot bleach in high concentrations as a
much more effective agent at removing the oily, proteinaceous
remains of a fermentation as well as an excellent disinfectant..
The high temperature melts the greases and allows the layer
to be lifted. The high temperature speeds up the action of the
oxidation of organics and the highly alkaline nature of the bleach
aids in dispersing the gunk. Cold just won't do this quickly, if at all.=
I consider soaking in cold, dilute bleach a way to evenly contaminate
all glass surfaces with a layer of organic material which can be
a cause of infection. This is especially true for bottles. I always
rinse the inside of each bottle in hot bleach solution,allow to stand
and then rinse each three times with extremely hot water. =
The recommendations on the bleach bottle are for normal organic
loads and are very low. We do not have normal organic loads
in our uses and need higher concentrations.
=
> Sodium hypochorite (bleach) is a form of chlorine added to some =
> municipal waters, including my own.It is volatile enough that it =
> will dissipate upon heating, or even allowing it to stand overnight=
=2E =
> Of course, we use much higher concentrations when sanitizing our =
> equipment, but if you heat it, it will not stay in solution long.
George, you ( and other people) are a little confused on this issue:
1)Municipal water treatment uses chlorine gas not sodium
hypochlorite, except in rare circumstances where pH adjustment
may be needed and this is the cheaper alterative. Sodium =
Hypochlorite can be used in the home in emergencies to purify
water as directed on the bleach bottle. These are very low quantities
of bleach, something like a teaspoon per gallon as I recall.
However, just like you wouldn't use chlorinated tap water as a
sanitizer, you shouldn't use low concentrations of bleach to do this.
I have seen such recommendations in the hobby literature
and it is incorrect. =
> Nonvolatile chemicals like sodium hydroxide (a.k.a. lye, caustic
soda) =
> can be used hot to clean brewing vessels (but impractical at home,
and =
> very dangerous).
2) Sodium hypochlorite ( NaOCl) is a compound of bleach and
sodium hydroxide which can be crystallized out as the dihydrate
and actually has a melting point around 50 or 60C. At a high
concentration, the sodium hypochlorite is relatively stable in hot
alkaline media ( after all, bleach is used hot in washing clothes). =
Since bleach already contains sodium hydroxide it is doubly useful
for cleaning glass and other brewing vessels as you note above. =
Diluted bleach is more unstable. Using a dilute soak may not
have enough oxidizing agents to sanitize or even clean the surface
and you may end up with contaminated glassware if the bleach =
is too dilute and a long soak is used.
=
> I find that an 8 hour soak in cold bleach solution will usually
remove =
> all fermentation gunk (a technical term) from a glass carboy. If i=
t =
> doesn't, wait a little longer! =
I find that a one minute or less wash with hot concentrated bleach
( about 1/2 cup in 1/2 gallon of water) will do a much better job.
> Sometimes you can get a rough-looking =
> deposit on the glass if the bleach is in contact with it for too
long, =
> but it is easily removed with a bit of distilled vinegar (acetic =
> acid).
Actually, in some cases, this is an etching of the glass by the
sodium hydroxide and I don't recommend keeping bleach and
glass in contact for extended periods. In other cases, as you say,
it is just a carbonate and removed by acid. =
=
Using bleach hot or cold is *very dangerous*. Hotter is worse,
higher concentrations are worse. Hot or cold, dilute or not,
bleach is an extremely dangerous substance and should *not*
be used without safety clothing in place. Safety glasses with side
shields and rubber gloves at least. Brewing is not worth blindness =
and it will only take one mistake. =
Please be careful and treat bleach with the the respect it deserves.
- ------------------------------------------
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Dave_Burley@compuserve.com =
Voice e-mail OK =
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 12:20:09 -0600 (CST)
From: spiralc@ix.netcom.com (Chris Carolan)
Subject: O2 how long?/Valley Mill/all-grain cost/bottled water/SO-lutions
I seem to have enough single data points on recent threads to warrant
delurking.
I originally used my small tank O2 setup according to the directions,
two short 30 second-or-so blasts. Early on, the stone flew off into the
wort, forcing the realization that minimal pressure was required. I did
not see
the benefits of the O2 I was expecting. Then, I noticed once that a
bubble of water near the regulator took thirty seconds to travel the
length of the tube. The first 30 second blast was just emptying the air
from the inside the tube. I now use longer aeration times, two
one-minute shots. My ferments are faster, four versus seven days, and
I'm getting a few more points of attentuation as well. For those who
inquire about the rich O2 environment causing longer lag times, as the
yeast must take up all that O2. My thought is that it is only true if
your not pitching enough yeast.
I'm generally happy with my Valley Mill. I have one suspicion, though.
I wonder if the preset gaps on the mill are the same from mill to mill?
The instructions give you no clue as to which settings to use. If one
setting was the preset ideal, you'd think they'd include that info with
the mill. But the "find out for yourself" approach implies that each
mill may be different. For mine, I followed the suggestion posted
earlier in the HBD and use the second coarsest setting for my first
pass, and the third coarsest setting for my second pass. My extraction
has improved about 1.5 points per lb., but the husks seem quite torn
up, and the first few sparges were tricky to get running clear. I've
gotten better at it lately. I think it would be worthwhile for Valley
Mill owners to compare measurements of their gap settings. I haven't
measured mine yet, though.
Those who think about switching to all-grain for perceived cost savings
should ponder the following example. My local HB store sells
high-quality, fresh liquid extract for $2.35 lb. At 37 points of
extract, it costs 6.3 cents per point per lb. per gallon. When I
switched to all-grain, I paid $1.35 per lb. for pale ale malt crushed
in any quantity. (I know, 2 row is cheaper, but I want clear beer, and
I don't want to protein rest.) My single temp infusion setup yielded
about 26 points per lb., so my cost was now 5.1 cents per point
in the fermenter. Not a big savings over extract. But it was after I
got my own mill that I could buy a bag of the same grain for 64 cents
per lb. And my extraction rate went up to 27.5 points, making my cost
drop dramatically to 2.3 cents per point in the fermenter. The new mill
this year, and my using one pack of yeast for 2 or three batches, and
the fact I'm not a hophead; means I'm now brewing cheap beer. But it
wasn't always thus.
I have added some bottled "drinking" water (not spring, not distilled),
averaging .5 gal., to nearly every batch I've brewed. I've only had one
infection, which was the one bartch I left over night for the cold
break to settle before pitching the yeast. It's my understanding these
water companies do kill all the bugs in those jugs. I believe some use
UV sterilizing of their bottled water.
My SO does not drink beer. She does not take the initiative to drink
any type of spirits, but will enjoy a glass of wine if put before her.
Two glasses put her to sleep. She objected to my brewing on the grounds
of smell, money, and time. On the smell front, I moved it outside. On
the money issue, I began buying $10 bottles of wine and pouring her one
glass each and every evening, two on brew nights. Our wine and beer
budgets are now comparable. On the time argument, I now brew while she
sleeps, (see second wine glass strategy above.) She still wants to
complain about my brewing, but there's no argument. Oh yeah, the silver
lining? The mother-in-law likes beer. We're getting along famously.
Chris Carolan,
in Atlanta, the "New South," i.e. that part of the South where us
yankees moved in.
Now Serving: "Stout It Out!", "Carolan's Harp" a celtic red ale, and
"Der Konigen de Nacht", Flemish ale.
Still haven't brewed that "Procrastinator" dopplebock, but thanks for
asking.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2587, 12/19/97
*************************************
-------
