Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2985
HOMEBREW Digest #2985 Tue 23 March 1999
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
RE: Half Arsed Brew Shops ("George, Marshall E.")
RE: Carboy Cleaning ("Swintosky, Michael D.")
Judges Needed ("H. Dowda")
Poor Extraction Cause (Dan Listermann)
FW: Transferring water to Gott - a summery (Eric Reimer)
Server woes... (pbabcock)
Yeast Stuck to the Sides of Bottles (Dan Listermann)
Yeast Storage, Sparge bag size (Gary Pupurs)
Re: Problems with the BJCP (Guy Burgess)
no break/mash questions (BrewInfo)
Milk Stout (Mike Lewandowski)
Open fermenters. Well, sort of... (ThomasM923)
Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild's 13th annual Big and Huge - 28
March 1999: Rules and forms at www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 11:21:20 -0600
From: "George, Marshall E." <MGeorge@bridge.com>
Subject: RE: Half Arsed Brew Shops
Roy from "Down Under":
>RIGHT.
> DICK Seiben owes me a pound & a half of special barbeque sausages.
Started reading the hbd while cooking the evening meal. I don't knowif it
was the hot plate or my temperature rise that did the damage; HALF
ASSED indeed- then I read the " ASSED". The spelling of "ARSE" gave him
away.
I don't care where you come from, who you are, or if you think Foster's is a
great beer or not. This is not a spelling bee or forum on the mangling of
the English language. I know who RICHARD Sieben is; calling him otherwise
is uncalled for.
> I was in Chicago a year or two back, and went to a couple of "Brew
shops". One I think was called "beer in a Box"-it was closed! Next I tried
a place with a name somethig like "The Golden Sheaf" - it was owned by a "Al
K-something-or-other."---he was't there: nor was anything else. Can't think
of the name of the other:- but it had bugger-all anyway. Coming from a
small
"Brew Shop" in W.A. (thats Western A-Bloody-stralia) I found it hard to
believe that my "piddly" little hobby shop was actually bigger than some of
the "Must See" shows in the States.
Big Deal! If your shop is so fantastic, so be it. Maybe land is cheaper,
maybe rent is cheaper. Maybe you have no competition or you have the means
to have such a large establishment. Chicago is NOT a cheap place to live in
America - I doubt it very much that you could even afford to run your shop
here. Why? Most American HB shops can't afford to be huge because there
still is such a LARGE percentage of American beer drinkers that prefer that
stuff that comes in 30 packs of 12 ounce cans over the 'good stuff'.
> (1)In Australia, most brewing is done with a "kit & a kilo". Because
beer is so cheap in the U.S. you don't brew for cost, in Australia we do.
However some people can afford the beer - but brew for the flavour-these are
the people we target-we cannot match the "super Markets" in price (although
we get the questions that the "check-out chicks' can't answer.) but
we can match the bastards on accessories. Look at the market share you can
compete in:- forget the rest.
For the 'swill' drinkers in America, yes. One can get a case of Old
Milwaukee on sale cheap. However, for even the average Homebrewer that
likes GOOD beer, I couldn't disagree more. Average cost of a good micro
here approaches $25 or more per case in many cities. If it was so cheap as
you describe, then I guess I'll go sell all my brewing stuff at a flea
market and just go back to buying all my beer again.
> (2) Smart-arssed grain brewers that can buy their grain from "micros":-
In U.S.A. they may be a worry. In Australia- forget them! they want
everything on the cheap, they only pick your brains, they buy everything
wholesale & they only upset genuine customers. The amount of business
generated by these " holier than thou" scientific brewers is not worth
having. Concentrate on your genuine customers. Sure I've had "smart"
brewers go away thinking that I did't know the particular adjuct (let alone
stock it) that they wanted:- however I also didn't tell them which breakfast
cerial would do the job. As far as I am concerned, I stock grains (fresh
because I use them myself) but I don't take shit. <snip>
What's wrong with wanting inexpensive stuff? You yourself said that most
Aussie brewers are doing it for cost cutting. Picking your brains? Hey
butthead, isn't it your job to help your customers? I guess you don't think
so. However, I do see we have yet another HB supplier that "Doesn't take
any shit." Well, if I lived there I guess I wouldn't take your shit either.
Where I live there are 2 homebrew suppliers. One gives nothing but
attitude, shitty prices, and frankly, I don't care for the way the owner
smells. So...I goto the competition.
> I think it is a case of "you do your thing - we do our thing"
Precisely. And I'll remember that next time I'm 'Down Under'.
Midwest Brewer
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:48:16 -0500
From: "Swintosky, Michael D." <Swintosk@timken.com>
Subject: RE: Carboy Cleaning
Domenick wrote:
>I held off on posting this since it is so simple and easy I assumed
that
>someone else would post it.
>Rinse the carboy well. Pour in 1-2 cups of household bleach. Fill
carboy
>with cold water and cap or seal - plastic wrap and a rubber band
works.
>Let it sit. After a day or so all the gunk will be dissolved.
My method is similar but faster, and uses less bleach. Rinse carboy.
Add
cup bleach plus about 1.5 gallons water. Brush and rinse. Takes me
about 2
minutes.
Mike
Dellroy, Ohio
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 12:51:56 -0500
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda@yahoo.com>
Subject: Judges Needed
BJCP judges are needed for the 1st Annual Palmetto State Brewers' Open,
April 10, 1999, Columbia, SC.
If you are willing to judge contact the judging coordinator, Jim
Griggers
at brew@conterra.com or chatgros@mailexcite.com
http://www.axs2k.net/fatcat/psbflyer.htm
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 13:52:20 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Poor Extraction Cause
DL:<"How much moisture can a grain have to effect extraction enough to
measure?>
JS:<The obvious answer is any amount will effect extraction
"measurement".
Since we determine the amount of malt by weighing it, the extraction rate
is inversely proportional to the amount of moisture. A 1% change in
moisture will produce a 1% change in extraction determination. Between
humid summers and dry winters, the moisture content of grain can change
by
as much as 20%. This puts a severe limit on the ability to even
determine
what extraction is on a casual basis.
I put measurement in quotes because moisture has no effect on the real
extraction rate, just our ability to measure it accurately.>
I trust that Jack means that the moisture can increase vary 20% from what
is is supposed to be such as 5% to 6% instead of adding 20 percentage
points to the content such as going from 5% to 25%??
If the moisture content did vary, I doubt that that the extraction rate
could be measured on a practical level. Say that you had a malt that was
spec'ed at 36 points on a coarse grind dry basis with 4% moisture and
your
system's efficiency was 90%. 36 * (1-.04) * ..90 = 31.10 points. Add
25%
more moisture ( 1% ) and you get 5% moisture. 36 * (1-..05) * .90 =
30.78
points. Not that many common hydrometers could reliably pick up a .0032
change in gravity. While this is a 1% difference in extraction, it is
not
much to measure.
DL:<"Again, it has been my experiance that the larger portion of the poor
extraction problems comes from under milling. Rapid or poor lautering
techniques are a distant second.>
JS:<For some anecdoatl experience, I was never able to achieve extraction
above the mid 20's no matter what I did until I change to DC Belgin malt.
It immediately went to the low 30's and has never changed in 5 years.
What does this say? It's in the malt folks.>
That is a huge change to blame on moisture. Let us see if we can
calculate
how much moisture it would take to go from 25 to 30 points per pound per
gallon. The typical spec sheet for DC Pils is 35.6 points extraction for
coarse grind dry basis. Moisture is listed as 4.2%. Lab extraction on an
"as is" basis would give you 35.6 *(1-.042) = 34.1 points. 88%
efficiency
gives you 30 points per pound per gallon. Assuming the same 88%
efficiency
25 / .88 = 28.4 points. (35.6 - 28.4 ) / 35.6 = .20 or 20% moisture.
In
other words to account for this extract change a malt would have to
absorb
enough water to go from 4.2% to 20 %. I doubt that you will ever see
malts
with that kind of moisture and if you did, you could quickly tell that
something was very wrong by chewing.
I think that Jack may be right that the change in malt caused his
apparent
increase in extraction, but it is not for the reasons he believes -stale
and old malt. More likely the DC malt crushed better at the gap his mill
was set at and the other malts needed a tighter gapped mill.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com or
72723.1703@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:17:59 -0500
From: Eric Reimer <ERIC@etymonic.com>
Subject: FW: Transferring water to Gott - a summery
> Hi all.
>
> First, many thanks to Pat, Kevin, Chad, Andrew, Jim, Domenick, Ian,
> Charles, and Maury for your replies. (I hope I got everyone.) Please see
> hbd #2979 for my question.
>
> Most suggested that I'm barking up the wrong tree. I.e. dumping the
> heated water into the Gott should not be picking up much if any oxygen
> because the water is hot and because the steam is displacing most of the
> air that had been occupying the space before the water was added. Andrew
> has suggested that if dumping hot water was an issue, then devices such as
> the Phil's Sparger which sprinkle hot water on top of the mash would not
> be used successfully. Also, some of the respondants are dumping water as
> I had described with no problems in shelf life. I guess I'll have to keep
> looking...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Eric Reimer
> Barking Dogs Brewery
> London, Ontario
>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:11:18 -0500 (EST)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: Server woes...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Do to an understandable error, the server was temporarily not listening
properly to all of you. Rest assured, the HBD is still alive and well,
and, hopefully with this note, all the hbd and club mail addresses, etc.
will be functional again.
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@oeonline.com
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html
"Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..."
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 14:50:38 -0500
From: Dan Listermann <72723.1707@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast Stuck to the Sides of Bottles
Matt Comstock writes:
< After about a week in the bottle, both of the above batches were less
hazy - settled - but seemed like
there were larger clumps settled on one side of most bottles all the way
up
to the neck. If I swirl slightly these clumps move and then finally fall
to the bottom of the bottle. So I did this to all bottles and now all
look
'normal.' Anyone noticed this type of behavior - yeast sticking to the
side of the bottle? I did not notice this with the 1056 batch. And
these
recent batches taste fine, too - not infected.... Has anyone else seen
this (another entry in the
'Yeast Life History Library')?>
I have seen this phenomenon many times. If you were carefull, you might
see that the yeast is on the same sides of all the bottles which leads me
to believe it has to do with the environment that the bottles are stored
in. It is probably some sort of temperature imbalance. The beers
always
taste fine so it seems harmless except that it they may need more time to
clear after they are given a twist to dislodge the yeast.
Dan Listermann dan@listermann.com or
72723.1703@compuserve.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 16:12:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Gary Pupurs <gpupurs@umich.edu>
Subject: Yeast Storage, Sparge bag size
QUESTION ON YEAST STORAGE:
I'm venturing into the area of yeast culturing, with the dregs of a batch
made with Wyeast 1028. I've washed it a few times, fed it new wort twice
to build up the population and get healthy yeasties, and now it has been
sitting in a few bottles in the fridge for a few weeks. I'm hoping to keep
these viable for several months, as I only brew every 3-4 weeks, and
usually completely different styles from batch to batch, requiring
different strains.
What I'm wondering, is it best to store yeast long-term (more than a few
weeks) under the fermented wort, or would it be better to pour off the
wort, and replace it with sterile water?
Also, I think test-tube slants or petri dishes would be great for storage,
(in an apartment, the issue of how much space my homebrew equipment takes
up, either on the shelf or the fridge _always_ comes up) but the lab
supply catalog I looked through had outrageous prices. Are there cheaper
alternatives for us homebrewers who dont require medical-DNA-research
quality?
QUESTION ON SPARGE BAGS:
I got a nylon sparge bag for my birthday, in hopes of easing into
low-buck all-grain brews. This one, however, is smaller than the one I saw
in my local homebrew shop. In an old BYO article, they mention a 6.5
gallon nylon sparge bag (which sounds about the size of the one locally).
The gift I received would only hold a max of five gallons (according to my
bottling bucket measurements). If I take this one and pull it over the lip
of the bucket so it doesn't fall in, the bottom of the bag hangs at about
the 2.5 gallon level.
Is this okay? Do I have a bag made for another purpose? Will the large
space between the bottom of the bag and the spout matter? (I estimate
that a 6.5 gallon bag's bottom would hang at about the 1 gallon level,
just above the spigot.)
Before I try this bag, I thought I'd ask the collective first; I can still
return it and buy the larger one if its not been inundated with malt. :)
(If it matters, I plan to batch sparge, as opposed to manual sprinkle
sparging, although I'll proably try both.)
Thanks a bunch,
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:38:37 -0500
From: Guy Burgess <orientalwok@fuse.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the BJCP
Ted McIrvine writes:
> the grumbles that follow have nothing to do with judging of my beer or
> the exam that I haven't taken.
>
> First off, it is ridiculous that a BJCP exam can use beer brewed by
the
> exam evaluator. Several friends have been roasted on the exam for
> spotting defects in beer brewed by the evaluator.
It sounds as though your first grumble has everything to do with an exam
you have not taken. Yes, the beer may be brewed by the exam proctor and
the examinee's score is compared to the proctor's score of the same
beer. The proctor, however, does not grade the exam. When I took the
exam last August, the worst of the four beers was brewed by the proctor
and after the exam he enlightened us on why it was so bad. I was
"roasted" on a score I assigned to a commercial beer.
> Secondly, I think many Certified judges haven't tasted stellar
examples
> of particular styles.
This is true, and it is why I opt not to judge certain styles.
> some of the AHA style guidelines are from Mars if not
> Uranus.
This may also be true, but we must use some sort of guidelines. The BJCP
guidelines are imperfect as well but offer a pretty good place to start.
> And nobody has disputed my contention in a previous digest that
> a 60 OG gravity "Belgian" Dubbel or Pale Ale falls into the middle of
> the AHA range while being illegal to brew in Belgium.
I am neither a Trappist monk nor do I live in Belgium; I am a
homebrewer. It would, for example, be impossible to objectively judge a
beer from the Belgian "Category S" because they are vastly different
from one another. I'm not sure legal classifications are relevant to
beer styles. If we chose to go by American laws, everything brewed over
6-7% ABV would likely be Malt Liquor.
In essence, every group has it's embarrassments and I'm not about to let
them spoil my fun.
Guy Burgess
Cincinnati, OH
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 19:13:56 -0600 (CST)
From: BrewInfo <brewinfo@xnet.com>
Subject: no break/mash questions
Well, judging from all the private email I've gotten, I believe that
I may have been missed on the HBD. Thing is that Karen (who, incidentally
dislikes the smell of beermaking, but does enjoy the finished product)
is currently very pregnant and on complete bedrest. We have purchased
a new house and I'm in the process of singlehandedly subcontracting-out
a dozen tasks, making a lot of fixes and moving a million pounds of
"stuff" This has caused me to fall behind in my HBD reading. I decided
that I had better post a few comments each day rather than wait until
I'm completely caught up and then catch the wrath of those who object
when I post a dozen 8k posts per week (frankly, I don't blame them).
So here goes... mind you, some of these are months old...
Keith writes:
>[snip]
>Used this water for the mash and the mash settled
>right at 5.5 (reading at room temp not at 150)
>The sparge water needed to come down quite a bit.
>I added tsp lactic acid and then again with 1/8
>tsp to get the pH to 5.8 (room temp reading).
>
>
> Brought it to a boil and guess what? No hot break!
Depending on your water ions (I speculate), your pH varies with temperature.
I generally subtract 0.3 pH from room temperature readings to approximate
the pH at 150-160F. So, the 5.8 reading at room temp is likely to have been
5.5pH. Now, you added this water to your mash during the sparge. The
calcium in your sparge water reacted with the phosphates in your malt
and the pH dropped *even* *further*. If I lower the pH of my sparge
water, I'll drop it only to 6.5 or 6.8 or so. I'll let the calcium and
phosphate reaction take it the rest of the way.
It's not surprising that you didn't get hot break (and probably got
pretty poor cold break too)... too low a pH will decrease break
formation. It becomes a big problem below 4.8 (according to the books)
but nothing is a step function in nature (well, maybe the impact of
your head on the exhaust hood) so you will begin to get less break
well above that 4.8... I would guess 5.2 or so.
***
Ian writes:
>At this point I have three questions.
>1) What effect should I expect from this extended mash [2 hrs]?
Not a lot.
>2) Can I feel comfortable that the maize [added after 1 hr] was converted?
>(no iodine test performed)
It should have converted. Alpha amylase will last well over an hour and
a half at 158F and your temps were less than that.
>3) While trying to assess the temperature of the mash, I found
>it very difficult to get a consistent reading. I have the
>brewers edge dial thermometer with a 8 inch (I believe) probe.
>At dough-in the temp appeared to be 154, but If I moved it
>around I could bet anything from 152 to 156. At the end of the
>mash I believe that the temp and fallen to about 150 again with
>a 4 degree fluctuation Is there any good procedure of
>obtaining the temp of a mash?
My rule of thumb is "measure the temp as little as possible." The
act of measuring results in a lot of heat loss. Keep the lid on
the mashtun as much as possible and I also recommend insulating it
if it isn't yet insulated. If you got a long temp probe, you would
find that the temperature varies even more top to bottom. Most
of the enzymes are in the liquid and most of the liquid is near
the top, so I tend to take readings in the top centre of the mash.
and:
>1) Does anyone have a good protocol or advice for no-sparging,
>i.e. water/grain ratio, SG calculations, etc.?
Naturally, the more water you use the more beer you'll get, but it
will be at a lower OG. If you use only 1 quart per pound of malt, you
might get an SG at the start of the boil of 1.090. If you boil
off 30% of the water (I've done it) you'll get 1.124 as your OG
(I was going to dilute it until I realised that this is Thomas
Hardy's OG). When you use about 1.5 quarts per pound, your
first runnings will be just above 1.080. Note that this will
vary with different malts and all bets are off if you add things
like rye or flaked grains which absorb more than their share of
liquid. These are just two datapoints from my own logbook.
Spencer Thomas did some more detailed experiments which I know
were posted here and also were in a Technical Communication
published in Brewing Techniques a few years ago. Search the
archives for "no-sparge" and "Spencer."
>2) I tried to add more water to the mash to get some more
>runnings (would this be a semi-sparge?), but I guess the grain
>had set. I used an Easymasher and seem to recall reading that
>you couldn't set a mash. Any advice on how to get the runoff
>running again?
If you are going to add some sparge water, you should do it before
the grain bed begins to compact (i.e. while there is still some
liquid above the grain bed). To un-stuck the mash now, you need
to add enough water to float the grain bed again, stir, let settle,
recirculate until the runnings are clearish and then runoff into
the kettle.
>3) If, on my next batch, I decided to sparge, can someone give
>me step by step instructions on how to do it? I can't seem to
>find the entire procedure anywhere.
What I've described above is called a "batch sparge." The modern
version of sparging is called "fly sparging" and this involves slowly
adding sparge water into the top of the laeuter tun at the same
rate as you are taking runnings into the kettle. I simply have
a bucket with a spigot and hose gently running 170F water into the
top of the laeuter tun via gravity. You can use a ladle or a
pitcher, but that's more labour-intensive.
and:
>1) Was this lag time due to pitching directly from the pack,
>or did I shock the yeast with a dramatic and relatively fast
>drop in temperature [from 66 to 60F]? Or both?
Using a starter and pitching it shortly after it is most active
would have shortened your lag time considerably. A 6F drop is
not that terrible.
>2) What negative consequences can I expect from the large lag
>time?
The most common is a very slight vegetive aroma in the finshed beer
from what are called "wort spoiling bacteria." However, despite
this being the most common problem, it is far more likely that your
beer will be just fine. In other words, 9 times out of 10 your
beer will be great... of those 1 times it's not great, perhaps
9 times out of 10 it will have a slight parsnip or carrot or
tomato aroma.
>3) Now that fermentation is well underway, I notice a very
>unsightly site. The top of the krausen has a thick, slick,
>tarry substance on top. It looks like brown tar. Should I
>rack to secondary before the krausen falls? If yes, how do I
>know when to transfer to secondary?
That's called the "dirty head." Believe it or not, it will not
ruin your beer. It is a combination of malt and hop compounds
and although it may look ugly, experiments I've done (and written
up in Brewing Techniques) indicate that removing it will only
decrease bitterness slightly... split batches judged blind by BJCP
judges found no difference in "harshness" or beer quality.
>4) When I smell the gas coming out of the airlock, it has a
>very strong sulfur smell. Will this smell go away? Has anyone
>else noticed this smell with this yeast [Wyeast 2035]?
That's natural and depends a lot on the yeast strain. Lager yeasts
tend to produce that sulphury aroma more than ale yeasts.
Al.
Al Korzonas, Palos Hills, IL
korz@brewinfo.com
http://www.brewinfo.com/brewinfo/
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 20:40:12 -0500
From: Mike Lewandowski <mlew@ioa.com>
Subject: Milk Stout
In the Classic Beer Styles book "Stout", Lewis talks abotu milk stout. He
claims the breweries used to add whey to some milk stouts. As a home
cheesemaker, I'm intrigued by the idea. Has anyone tried it? What flavor
contribution did it add? When do you add the whey (I'm thinking in the
boil to kill the cheese bacteria)? How much whey should be added?
Thanks!
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:09:33 EST
From: ThomasM923@aol.com
Subject: Open fermenters. Well, sort of...
George De Piro wrote:
"Over the past couple of weeks some people have talked about the
joys of using open fermenters, describing them as a plastic
bucket covered with plastic wrap which is secured to the bucket
with rubber bands.
Forgive my confusion, but how does this qualify as an open
fermenter? It is sealed about as well as a bucket with a lid and
an airlock, or a carboy with an airlock. A truly open fermenter
is OPEN to the atmosphere! There is likely to be some mixing of
air and CO2 at the surface of the fermenting beer, which may
affect fermentation in ways that are desirable for certain
yeasts. Covering a bucket with plastic wrap will create an
atmosphere within the fermenter that is similar to that within a
carboy."
I agree. A bucket with plastic wrap is not really an "open" fermenter in the
literal sense. Not too many home brewers have the right requirements for a
truly open fermenter. This would most likely require a special area with
filtered air creating positive pressure. It could be done, though. I've seen
inexpensive HEPA type filter cartridges for sale in a surplus catalog, and a
blower to run a filter system would be relatively cheap. One problem with this
idea is the relatively high expense of the electricity to run such a set up if
you brew in small batches. Intriguing, though.
Maybe it's time to come up with an acronym for the "bucket with plastic wrap"
system. BWPWF? UAF(User Accessible Fermenter)? EFFRS(Emergency Fruit Fly
Removal System)?
Thomas Murray
Maplewood, NJ
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2985, 03/23/99
*************************************
-------
