Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2986
HOMEBREW Digest #2986 Wed 24 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:
A hack enhancing... (pbabcock)
Improved Alcohol Formula (Louis Bonham)
Re: no break/mash questions ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
Call for Judges -- Midwest 1st Round of the AHA Nationals ("Jim Hodge")
Lite Amber, Is it possible ("J. Doug Brown")
Re: Problems with the BJCP (RobertJ)
Sam Adam's Summer Brew Recipe (TPuskar)
re: HALF-Arsed brew shops (and pumps "p.s.") ("Alan McKay")
Bottles styles/sizes at competitions (Joel Plutchak)
RE: Carboy Cleaning ("King, Owen A")
Re: Split session brewing responses (Joel Plutchak)
BJCP exams and beer evaluation ("George De Piro")
Closed Open Fermenter (John Varady)
grain bags and batch sparging ("Czerpak, Pete")
all grainers ("Czerpak, Pete")
Hot - Cold - Hot - Cold (Shane)
Joys of counter-flow chilling ("William W. Macher")
open fermentors (jim williams)
Mazer Cup: It's Official ("Ken Schramm")
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: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:10:13 -0500 (EST)
From: pbabcock <pbabcock@mail.oeonline.com>
Subject: A hack enhancing...
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Back in December, I made some notes on plans to further automate the
Automagical Responder. The Eagle has landed (or a Unix-hack version of it
anyway...).
If you are receiving more than one Digest, unsubscribe. The AR can now
find the mutliples, and kill all but one. It will respond that it has done
so, and instruct you to send a second unsubscribe if you really DID want
to unsubscribe altogether.
But wait! There's more! If you attmpt to unsubscribe, but your alias is no
longer the same as that with which you subscribed (or the server cannot
find your address for any other reason), it will respond with information
regarding how to rectify the situation. This is, however, a double-edged
sword: in the past, I would manually hunt up your address, killing any
logically close match. Now, you will explicitly have to send a note to the
Janitor if you simply cannot conceive of what your address might have been
- ie, if you don't follow the instructions in the note it sends, you may
never get off the Digest list.
Finally, since I am but a mere shadow compared to the powers brandished by
REAL Unix hacks, keep an eye out for weirdnesses in your address.
Like, say, you suddenly stop getting the Digest, or, um, something...
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 23:50:33 -0600
From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham@hypercon.com>
Subject: Improved Alcohol Formula
Hi folks:
I previously posted a formula (based on the Rasmussen regression equasion found
in DeClerck, combined with Professor Siebert's Zeiss Scale - Refractive Index
conversion equasion) for calculating alcohol levels given the Specific Gravity
(SG) and Refractive Index (RI) of a sample:
ABV = (1017.5596 - 277.4(SG) + 937.8135 (RI^2) - 805.1228(RI)) x (SG/0.79)
While this formula works pretty well (tested on the data in the examples in
DeClerck and Siebert's article, it consistently gets results within +/- 0.15%ABV
of the given values), it's not real user friendly because most brewers'
refractometers are calibrated only in degrees Brix, and thus you have to convert
your Brix measurements to RI by hand using the tables in the CRC Handbook or
similar reference works.
Fortunately, AJ recently crunched the data from the CRC's Brix-RI table into a
workable, highly accurate formula:
RI = 1.3330 + 0.0014323(Brix) + 0.0000055752(Brix^2)
Plugging this value of RI into my modification of DeClerck's equasion (and
dropping the resulting Brix^4 term [0.0000000292(Brix^4)] as not contributing
anything that's statistically significant) yields:
ABV = (277.8851 - 277.4(SG) + 0.9956(Brix) + 0.00523(Brix^2) + 0.000015(Brix^3))
x (SG/0.79)
(Feel free to check my math and let me know if I goofed. I checked this against
the data in DeClerck and Siebert and the results are comparable to those
generated by the earlier formula, so I think it's OK.)
Some tips on using this formula:
(1) Your SG and refractometer measurements must be *very* precise. If your
gravity reading is off by 1 SG point, it skews the ABV figure by about 0.35. If
your refractometer reading is off by 0.2 Brix, it skews the ABV by about 0.25.
With care, however, I suspect that most of us can get results within +/-
0.3%ABV, which is close enough for our purposes.
(2) For this reason, proper use of a narrow range hydrometer to assay gravity
is a must (unless, of course, you use a pycnometer or digital density meter for
this purpose). Calibrate your hydrometer with distilled water, degas beer
samples completely, clean the hydrometer and jar before use and keep you hands
off the busines part of the hydrometer thereafter, take accurate temperature
readings and use the proper temperature correction charts for your hydrometer,
and if your hydrometer is calibrated in degrees Plato, use the ASBC charts to
convert those readings to SG -- don't just multiply by 4.
(3) Unless you're using a controlled-temperature refractometer (if you are,
take your measurements at 20C), calibrate your refractometer with distilled
water to read 0 Brix at the ambient temperature. If your refractometer doesn't
have a calibration / adjustment screw, you'll need to estimate how far above /
below 0 Brix the distilled water reading is and add/subtract this value from
your measurements.
(4) While the RI of ethanol is significantly more temperature sensitive than
water or sugar solutions over the same temperature ranges, in the %ABV and
ambient temperature ranges typically encountered by brewers the differences are
small enough as to be, I believe, safely ignored if the refractometer is
calibrated as described above. For instance, the RI of a sugar solution of 5
Brix will read about 0.00050 RI (0.35 Brix) lower at 25C than 20 C. Pure water
reads about 0.00051 RI (0.356 Brix) lower, and a 5% EtOH-water solution reads
about 0.00053 (0.37 Brix) lower.
However, at higher EtOH levels (and, of course, at higher ambient temperatures),
the differences might become significant. Ergo, for optimal results, try to
calibrate your refractometer and take your refractometer readings in a place
where the ambient temperature is fairly close to 20C / 68F, especially of you're
analyzing a very high alcohol sample like a barley wine.
Try this out and let me know how it works for you.
LKB
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:58:31 -0500 (EST)
From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea@frc.com>
Subject: Re: no break/mash questions
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, BrewInfo (Al Korzonas) wrote:
<SNIP>
> 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.
<SNIP>
I guess I am confused? You say "too low a pH will decrease break" then
say "you will begin to get less break well above that 4.8... I would
guess 5.2 or so"?????
I brewed a wheat beer this past weekend without doing any addition of
brewing salts to the mash or checking the PH. When I started the boil, my
curiosity got the better of me and I checked the PH in the boiler, it was
~6.0.
Is this bad? What about the PH of the ferment? ( no I haven't
checked, it's that curiosity thing again).
_________________________________________________________
Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea@frc.com
Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company
- ---------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:32:59 -0600
From: "Jim Hodge" <jdhodge@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Call for Judges -- Midwest 1st Round of the AHA Nationals
The Chicago Beer Society is hosting the Midwest 1st Round AHA Regional
Competition once again. Judging will take place on Friday 4/16 and Saturday
4/17 at Goose Island's Fulton Street Brewery (not the brewpub)in Chicago.
This has traditionally been a big competition and will require the services
of many, many judges, stewards, and generic volunteers. Judges, especially,
are encouraged to respond early to relieve the stress levels of the
organizers. All interested parties should e-mail Brad at reegleyj@aol.com to
sign up.
Organizers: Brad Reeg, Jim Hodge & Jeff Sparrow
Recognizing that judges and stewards who don't live in the Chicago area may
require some additional incentive, the 1st Round Competition has been
fortuitously scheduled for the same weekend as the Beer Museum Ale Fest.
This event, sponsored by Goose Island Beer Company and the Beer Museum, will
be held at the Goose Island Brewpub on Sunday, April 18th from 1-5pm (Not
being fools, CBS has decreed that there will be no AHA judging on Sunday).
The Beer Museum Ale Fest will feature Cask Conditioned Ales and Chicagoland
Beer
history. Goose Island, Flossmoor Station, Glen Ellyn and Wild Onion from
Illinois; 3 Floyds from Indiana; New Glarus, Lakefront, Sprecher, and
Milwaukee Ale House from Wisconsin all have expressed interest in presenting
cask examples of their products.
Phil Pospychala, (from the Monarch Club, BCCA and the Chicago Chapter of the
ABA) will be gathering Chicagoland Breweriana collectors and collections to
showcase Chicago's glorious Brewing Past, while you're enjoying the taste of
the Present!
Bill Siebel promises a Siebel Institute historical exihibit as well! Cost
is $20.
A preliminary event is also planned: A 3+ hour Motor Coach touring
Chicagoland's Brewing Past, hosted by Phil Pospychala..Departing from Goose
Island Brewpub at 9 AM, proposed cost is $30. Interested ? Call Phil (847)
362-4016.
Jim Hodge
One member of the Co-organizing Triumvirate of the Midwest 1st Round AHA
Competition
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:11:07 +0000
From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown@labyrinth.net>
Subject: Lite Amber, Is it possible
I have John Bull Lite (hopped) and Amber (unhopped) malt extracts and
was wondering if I should try a batch using these two malts together.
Has anybody done this and care to share the results? I have looked in
various books but have not seen any recipies that use 3.3 pounds of
each, or any recipe that mixes lite and amber at all. I would assume
the beer would turn out OK as a lot of all grain brewers mix dark and
light grains.
On the Backdoor dealings and store front issue, I have a local homebrew
store that is in the owners house. This isn't so bad as he has great
prices, however he also has more than one other job which keeps him away
from home a great deal. I like to support the homebrew shop, but it is
rather inconvenient to set up a time to visit it. I would rather pay a
little more for products and be able to see, pick-up and hold them
rather than just order them online. The advice I get from the owner has
really been helpfull, I just wish he could go to full time shop owner,
or at least regular hours on a somewhat periodic basis. To a new brewer
like myself, what I learn at the shop while purchasing ingredients and
toys for my next batch is almost invaluable.
Doug Brown
jbrown@labyrinth.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:03:30 -0500
From: RobertJ <pbsys@pbsbeer.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with the BJCP
>From: Guy Burgess <orientalwok@fuse.com>
>
>Ted McIrvine writes:
>> 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.
>>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.
Several years ago when taking the exam to move up to National, I evaluated
a beer brewed by the proctor, a bitter. Fortunateley, or unfortunately, I
had just returned form London 3 weeks prior (had a few bitters). I had
found many problems with the exam beer.
After the exam we talked with the proctor and several other local judges
about the bitter. The other judges had also evaluated the exam beers with
the proctor. There was agreement between the proctor and these judges on
all but the proctor's bitter. All the local judges, and most exam takers
agreed with my evaluation. The proctor thought it was a perfect bitter and
because of his "National" status said the lower ranked judges didn't know a
good bitter.
I, did get the needed score despite this difficulty, but 2 others did not
pass and, as a result, will not take the test again and still judge as
novices.
While many judges/proctors may do as you say and be fair with their own
beers (it is difficult in my opinion), others can not be. Perhaps mine was
the rare the experience. I would also believe that it is easier for the
proctor to be accurate if the proctor knows he has a bad beer.
Bob
Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:18:36 EST
From: TPuskar@aol.com
Subject: Sam Adam's Summer Brew Recipe
Its time to start thinking about that summer brew again. Last year I tried to
emulate Sam's Summer Brew with moderate success. I would welcome anyone who
can improve on my recipe and technique.
This was a last minute sort of brew so I did an extract and used a dry yeast.
I'm planning an all grain this year and welcome yeast recommendations. Here's
what I did last time:
It was a THREE GALLON batch
3 lbs M & F liquid malt (55% wheat/45% barley)
1 lb light DME
3 grams Grains of paradise (ground with rolling pin)
3 grams cardamom (ground with rolling pin)
1 oz Hallertau pellets 3.2% alpha at 60 minutes
1 oz Saaz pellets 3.2% alpha at 15 minutes
heated 4 gallon of water on stove to about 150F. Added extracts and raised to
boil. Added Hallertau at start of boil and Saaz and spices after 45 minutes.
Irish Moss for 15 minutes. Added zest of one lemon and juice from the lemon
15 minutes before end of boil. Cooled in water bath and pitched 14 g of
Whitbread ale yeast.
O. G. 1.052
Fermented at cellar temp (68F or so) for a week and racked to secondary (both
glass) Fermented another 10 days (business trip!) and bottled after total of
15 days. F. G. 1.014
For a few weeks after bottling the aroma (translate smell!!!) of the spices
was overpowering. It ultimately mellowed and this turned out to be a pretty
good beer--not quite Sam's, but pretty good all in all.
I'd like to improve on it since my son really likes Sam's and I'm trying to
get him hooked on brewing!
All comments welcome.
Cheers,
Tom Puskar
Howell, NJ
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:15:24 -0600
From: "Alan McKay" <amckay@nortelnetworks.com>
Subject: re: HALF-Arsed brew shops (and pumps "p.s.")
Hi folks,
While we are on the topic (which I haven't really been following), I've got
a web page
dedicated to tips on how to tell if a brew shop is a good one. Mainly for
newbies.
But with the current thread, perhaps some of you can Email me with
suggestions
for additions to the page.
http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/retailer.html
cheers,
-Alan
p.s. Yes, I will be summarizing the pump info. Meant to do it last weekend
but
forgot to forward all the Email from work to home.
- --
Alan McKay
OS Support amckay@nortelnetworks.com
Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395)
Nortel Networks
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:25:14 -0600
From: plutchak@lothlorien.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Subject: Bottles styles/sizes at competitions
In HBD #2982, It Was Written:
[Regarding putting strong beers into small bottles...]
>OTOH, As far as I read, only traditional 12 ounce beer bottles are
>allowed in competitive events. Say you produce an outstanding brew.
>How can you receive recognition from brewing peers? Could you give
>up 3+ bottles of a great strong ale?
I know it's not standard, but in our competition we've been
allowing 11-ounce to 1/2-liter bottles for normal categories.
That basically covers those cute Duvel-style bottles up to
"standard" German 1/2-liters.
We've also been including a special No One Gets Out Alive
High Gravity category, with those entries judged on a completely
style-free basis. Although in the past we've just asked for one
bottle, due to the large number of entries we've been getting in
that category, this year we're going to ask for two bottles but
allow 6- or 7-oz "nip" bottles. So, it's not *completely* out
of the question to use small bottles in competition.
Oh yeah, the competition is the 5th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off,
held June 11-12 here in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. It's an MCAB
qualifying event (and Midwest Homebrewer of the Year, if that's
still on). Watch for the whole media blitz in early April, or
contact me to get put on the mail/email interest list.
- --
Joel Plutchak <plutchak@uiuc.edu>
Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots
Enjoying fine Spring brewing weather in east-central Illinois
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:34:32 -0800
From: "King, Owen A" <Owen.King@PSS.Boeing.com>
Subject: RE: Carboy Cleaning
Rod Prather writes:
>On cleaning carboys....
>One little trick I use for scrubbing the inside of a carboy. Carboy brushes
>are quite deficient on the end and you quickly end up scrubbing with the
>wire tip. Take a cloth or a strip of one of those green scrubber pads and
>attach it to the end with a wire tie. A tie wrap would be ok too but the
>cloth needs to be removed for cleaning of the brush. It works great and you
>don't take the chance of scratching the inside of the bottle.
While I like the idea that Rod presents, while I can't speak for generic green
scrubbies, the green scrubbies by Scotch Brite WILL scratch glass, so be
careful choosing your tools.
Owen King, Everett, Washington
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:35:42 -0600
From: plutchak@lothlorien.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joel Plutchak)
Subject: Re: Split session brewing responses
In HBD #2984, Greg Remec wrote:
>Another brewer pointed out that it took two full days to deliberately
>sour a batch, so he had little concern with storing fresh wort for 8
>to 10 hours before boiling.
That would be me, and I should clarify. After Dennis Davison's
article on Berliner Weiss came out in _Zymurgy_ a couple-few years
ago, I brewed a sour-mash wheat beer. The mash started smelling
bad after 24 hours at ~110 degree F temperatures, and smelled
pleasantly lactic after 48 hours.
Anyhoo, I've done split-batch brewing (for the same reasons
Greg has) and found no apparent off aroma after letting the wort
cool down from about 160 degrees to 85 degrees during the overnight
hours. I also found no problems with the finished beers.
- --
Joel Plutchak <plutchak@uiuc.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:06 -0800
From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro@berlex.com>
Subject: BJCP exams and beer evaluation
Hi all,
Ted writes, regarding BJCP exams:
"Several of my friends at Homebrewers Of Staten Island (whose
beer judging abilities I value highly) have encouraged me to take
the BJCP exam, which always seems to be held when I'm working on
Sunday morning."
I have administered two BJCP exams in NYC (Nov. '97, Spring '98).
Nov. 97 was definitely on a Saturday. The '98 exam may have been
on a Sunday. I can't recall. I will be administering an exam in
NYC at the end of June of this year (the 26th is the requested
date). That, too is a Saturday, so you'll have no excuses...
Ted also wrote:
"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."
To which I respond:
My co-proctor and I were completely blind to the identity of the
beers evaluated at both of the exams I administered. I supplied
homebrew, as did some of my friends. A third party was asked to
be the "beer blender." They had the option to serve straight
homebrew, straight commercial beer, or blends of any of the
above. I believe this to be the most fair way to administer the
tasting test. The exact identities of the test beers were
recorded and sent to the graders to make their jobs easier.
It is a shame that the BJCP is so stingy with experience points;
it would be easier to entice a person to be the "beer blender" if
I could offer them a point.
Also, an examinee will not be "roasted" for spotting defects that
the proctor does not. The tasting portion of the exam is 30% of
the total grade. Only 20% of that 30% is based on how closely an
examinee's score matches the proctors, and it is impossible to
get less than about half of that 20% (I think all of those
figures are close to accurate).
When grading the tasting portion of BJCP exams I look at the
comments of all the examinees and the proctors. If a bunch of
the examinees seem to agree about a beer, but the proctor is in a
different universe, I will tend to believe the examinees. It is
a tough job; everybody has different acuity to different
chemicals, and recognizing this is an important part of exam
grading (and beer evaluation).
It is equally important to realize that *many* beer evaluators
(especially the least experienced ones) approach beer evaluation
in a way that is improper. They dig for flaws in each beer,
rather than just trusting their initial impression of a beer. If
you dig hard enough into any beer, you will find flaws, even
where none exist.
This is a lesson I learned during my study at Siebel. In the
"grand finale taste panel" I correctly identified all of the
flawed beers. I also said that one of the control beers was
flawed (there were two controls; Ilse is a tricky devil). I had
to really dig hard to find that "sourness" in the control beer
that I said was flawed. Had I just trusted my initial impression
(and not been psyched out by the fact that I had already labeled
one beer as the control), I would have scored perfectly.
To me, it is far worse to invent flaws where none exist than to
miss flaws that are real. This is a lesson all beer evaluators
should take to heart. It has really changed the way I approach
beer evaluation, and I believe I am a better judge because of
this knowledge.
That got a bit off topic...oops!
Have fun!
George de Piro (Nyack, NY)
Malted Barley Appreciation Society
http://members.aol.com/MaltyDog/maltind.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:20:47 -0500 (EST)
From: John Varady <rust1d@usa.net>
Subject: Closed Open Fermenter
>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)?
At times, I have fermented in a sanke keg with a trash bag over it. It fills
up like a hot air balloon and looks pretty cool (
http://www.netaxs.com/people/vectorsys/varady/hbopferm.jpg ). What acronym
would be used to describe this?
I hope I didn't sound too harsh on the Brooklyn contest in my previous
post...I appreciate all the time and effort given freely by the judges of
any competition and realize that we are all amature judges. I am the final
judge of my homebrew and regardless of the score it recieves in a
competition, I like it.
Marshall says:
>calling him otherwise is uncalled for.
and then goes on to say:
>Hey butthead,
Come on now Marshall, practice what you preach!
Later,
John
- --
John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady
Glenside, PA rust1d@usa.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:34:41 -0500
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak@siigroup.com>
Subject: grain bags and batch sparging
Gary writes about wanting to use a nylon grain bag and batch sparge to
enter into all-grain brewing. This is a long one so page down if you
already know about batch sparging or do fly-sparging or just don't care
to hear of my experiment and see my numbers. They are practical as my
patience was limited and it was my first time then too.
This is precisely what i spent a few hours on friday night doing using
my 3.5 gall pot and oven. I brewed a 1/2 batch of pale ale with the
grain bill of 6.5 lbs english 2 row and 0.25 lbs crystal in 2 gallons of
mash water. I originally estimated grain using extractions of 20 and 30
points per pound per gallon as best and worst case scenarios to
determine that I would get a gravity of atleast 1.050 using the above
grain amounts. The grain and 150F water was mashed for about 3 hours in
my oven since the water temp was originally 150F before grain addition
and about 135 to 140 after grain addition. Basically I went out to
dinner and left the pot to mash in the oven for a few extra hours to
make up for the lower start temp. Eventually the water temp came up to
about 150 to 155 though. Next time I will try using correct temp water
to start with and putting the pot in the stove to mash.
After the mash was through and I was full of fish-fry, I batch sparged
using a grain bag and bucket arrangement. My bag touched the bottom
when full so try putting a chopped up spaghetti strainer in the bucket
to raise the bag and grains off the bottom. I drained the first runoff
to yield just over a gallon of liquid. I then added about 1.125 gallons
of 170F water and stirred the grains. Let them sit for about 10 or 15
minutes and then redrained the liquid. When I drained the liquid both
times I returned the first qt or 2 to the top of the bed to try and help
with reducing solids carryover. I can't tell if I only returned too
little but the liquid was always pretty cloudy. Total drained was about
2 gallons out of 3.125 gallons added. I didnt drain forever though as
my patience eventually got the best of me and some sugars were probably
left in the grains to get tossed out. Water held up looked to be about
0.18 gallons per lb grain.
The grain bag I used was a 6.5 gallon sized one with a coarse mesh as
per local shop recommendation so that I wouldnt clog the mesh with
fines. Well, the wort was fairly cloudly even though i returned about
0.5 gallons of runoff back to the bucket on both drains to the pot.
Perhaps the fine mesh bag would be the way to go. However, in the end I
got about 2 to 2.25 gall preboil, 1.75 gallons after boil, and dilution
to 2.5 gallons of 1.054 beer in the fermentor. Not too bad and slightly
better than I predicted on a worse case. Boiling was 60 min with 1 oz
fuggles at 60 min, 0.5 fuggles at 15, and 0.5 fuggles at 3 min.
The beer has finished fermenting on a cake of 1056 from a previous batch
and has settled out nicely. I did end up with about 1 inch deep of
sediments and break materials in my fermentor however. The beer looks
clear though which I am happy about after seeing all the sediment
circulating around during ferementation.
My experiment is considered to be a success thus far and the finished
beer will hopefully cause me to again try batch sparging and then
eventually move into full allgrains when warmer weather approaches here
in lovely upstate NY. Total time spent was about 5-6 hours at the most.
I used data and recommendations taken from HBD from 1997, 1998, and 1999
and the searches are still there on the hbd.org site.
A spreadsheet that I eventaully used was :
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/
Thanks to Ken Schwartz for this. It confirmed my numbers as being ok
and gave me some starting points to shoot for in terms of sparge water
additions, gravities of both runoffs, and other numbers. Get this
spreadsheet to help yourself out. It will save some research too and it
seems to work pretty good for my system. The predicted numbers were a
bit off when I used the built in water retained and efficiency of 75%
numbers. I was happy though that mine came out close and will take my
corrections into account next time when calculating water and grain
bill. Lower the efficiency (55-60% instead of 75%) and increase the
water holdup (.18 instead of 0.13) unless I decide to drain really
slowly with high patience and many a homebrew drunken. Perhaps a nap at
this time would be appropriate since a watched batch sparge really
trickles slowly.
Much success into batch sparging and grain bag brewing. Hope you can
beat about 20 to 22 pts per pound per gallon with a first time batch
sparge. I look to improve my technique next time and hopefully be more
patient. I did have fun though and am excited to be brewing beer a
little bit more purely than before with extracts and specialties.
Until then, cheers and keep brewing.
Feel free to email privately if you want more info or details.
Pete Czerpak
Big Ring Brewing - the perfect combination of passions - bikes and beers
Process Engineer by day, Brewer and cyclist by night
pete.czerpak@siigroup.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:54:04 -0500
From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak@siigroup.com>
Subject: all grainers
To all grain brewers:
What type of effect does leaving a mash at low starting temp (say 135 to
140F) to eventually transition up to 150 to 155F when using long mash
times? Does a long mash time hurt anything? Basically I undershot the
starting mash H2O temp once grain was added and then put the pot in the
oven to raise and maintain the mash temp to 150 to 155F. Total time at
135 to 155F was about 3 hrs.
Also, how does allowing O2 to enter the wort during sparge and mash
effect the final product (HSA???). I figure the boiling action will
eliminate any O2 in solution. What are the thoughts here? Is it a
chemical reaction that doesn't reverse upon boiling? I only notice
cardboardy flavors when I have strained hot wort into the fermentor but
not when i vigorously stirred hot wort before boiling.
Thanks. I think my batch sparge from last friday evening was a success.
See above post today for any info.
Pete Czerpak
Waterford, NY
pete.czerpak@siigroup.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:07:08 -0600
From: Shane@UH.EDU
Subject: Hot - Cold - Hot - Cold
I brewed a batch of porter Sunday night, and got to use my newly constructed
50' immersion wort chiller. It worked like a dream. I then aerated and
pitched the yeast (pint starter of 1056). My hydrometer decided to try it's
hand at skydiving part way through the brewing process so I don't have
gravities for this batch. It was only at this point that I realized that I
hadn't boiled the rest of my water (I'm doing a partial mash with about 3.5
gallons post-boil). It was past midnight and I was tired. So I put 1.7 gal
in the microwave to boil and went to bed. The next morning, the water was
still very warm (>130F), so I put it in the fridge and went to work (didn't
even check the fermenter - running late). That night (last night), I
checked the fermenter and saw that fermentation had not begun. The wort was
just under 40 degrees F. Ack! I had poured ice water into the cooler I keep
the fermenter in and the ice in it had barely melted. (I had expected it to
melt quickly - whoops). So, I pulled out the water I had boiled the night
before and heated it up to 80 or so in the microwave, added it to the
fermenter & aerated well, making sure to get the yeast all stired up again.
The temp was then at approx. 60 F. This morning (8 hours later) there was
still no activity.
In summary:
Sun 11:30pm -> Cool 3.5 gal of wort to 72 deg F, aerate and pitch 1 pt. 1056
yeast.
Mon 12pm -> No activity, Wort at ~39 deg F, Added 1.7 gal of H20 @ 80 F,
mixed, wort now at 60 F
Tue 8:30am -> No activity.
What are my potential problems? There's a chance for infection b/c of the
lag time - is this chance lessened because of the low wort temp, or did that
not affect the bacteria, and just inhibit the yeast? Are the yeast still
alive? They went through some fairly drastic changes in temperature. Right
now, It's just wait and see, but how long should I wait before I pitch more
yeast? It's 36 hours lag right now (I'm used to less than 8). Also, would
the yeast be affected by the concentrated wort it endured for 24 hrs, or
would it have just gone into hibernation?
Thanks,
Shane Brauner
Shane@uh.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:32:03
From: "William W. Macher" <macher@telerama.lm.com>
Subject: Joys of counter-flow chilling
And other odds and ends...
Hi everyone!
Since the queue seems short...I thought I would add
something that might complement the discussion of
homebrew shops and beer judging...: -)
I just used my newly-built CF chiller for the first time and
WOW am I pleased. Sure beats the old emersion chiller
hands down. I am so happy with this thing that I though I
might report my experience and perhaps encourage others
to move into the world of CF chilling, if they are so
inclined and just need a little nudge... : -).
This chiller is made from 50 feet of 5/16 OD copper tubing,
inserted inside a garden hose in the standard fashion. How
come nobody told me I should *lubricate* that damn
copper tubing before trying to force it through fifty feet of
hose, on a cold winter day in the snow?
Even with the wife at one end of the hose, pulling it as
straight as possible, it was simply a NO GO (after 25 feet
of tubing was down the throat of this monster) until I got
the brain storm to pour some liquid laundry soap in the
hose to serve as a lubricant. Soon after, I was winding the
hose/tubing combo around a corny keg, into what was to
become a vertical-coil style chiller. I chose this form
because I wanted to be able to completely drain the chiller
after use. This seems to be possible, although I have not
confirmed it by blowing air through it, or anything like
that. I do get a fair amount of liquid out when I drain it.
Last Sunday I made a 10-gallon extract batch, using the
boil kettle of my new, yet-to-be-mashed-in, steam-injected
rims setup. Basically I did not want to make the first all-
grain batch on this setup until I had some liquid yeast
stepped up, and elected to use Danstar Nottingham dry
yeast, light dry extract and some specialty grains for this
first use, which leads to a couple observations and
questions.
At the end of the boil I threw in some aroma hops and
turned off the heat. I covered the kettle with a lid, and
started pumping the hot wort through the CF chiller. My
flow rate is a bit over a quart a minute. I meant to time it
but forgot to look at the clock at the end. It was about 30
minutes for 10 gallons, maybe a bit faster.
First question: Is there any problem with keeping the kettle
covered for 30 minutes while the wort is being pumped
through the CF chiller? Is DMS a concern at this stage in
the process? This was not a concern to me with the
emersion chiller, since I was not able to cover the kettle
fully when using it.
And wow! CF Chillers do drop the temperature. I was able
to drop the temperature of the wort into the 50s (F) without
even turning the cooling water on full. Did not check the
temperature of the cooling water, as I was not trying to
evaluate the performance of the chiller, but I was
impressed. Also, there is considerable lag between when
the cooling water is adjusted and when the effect shows up
on the output of the chiller. I had considerable temperature
excursions while I was learning to make small adjustments
to the ball valve and wait to see the effect.
I am not sure how well this chiller (with 5/16 OD tubing)
would work in a gravity feet/siphon application. If I were
making one to use in that way I would likely increase the
tubing size a bit to be on the safe side. With my pump it
does not seem to be a problem.
The CF chiller sure is a great improvement over the
emersion chiller. No more hovering around the pot, gently
moving the chiller to increase cooling rate...I should have
made one sooner for use with my siphon! Live and learn...
Oh, and since you are interested...hee, hee...my system is a
single tier which uses two pumps, and a pressure canner as
a steam source. It is fired by three natural gas WOK
burners, with one under each the HLT and kettle, and one
under the pressure canner. These burners are impressive.
Actually the three converted kegs are on a single tier, but
the pressure cooker is mounted higher, above the HLT.
Piping is all soldered half-inch copper, employing cast-
copper unions, in strategic locations, for ease of
disassembly when desired.
One of the pumps is dedicated to the mash tun for
recirculation and for pumping of the wort to the boiling
kettle. The other pump can move liquid from either the
HLT or the boil kettle, back into either of them, and also
into the mash tun or through the CF chiller. Both pumps
also are able to dump unwanted liquid into the basement
laundry tubs. This system is not mobile. It is built
permanent next to the laundry tubs in the basement. The
basement is above ground and has two doors that can be
opened for ventilation. I hope to (at some future time) set
up a simple web page with pictures of my system. It came
together quite well.
All connections into the kegs are home-made bulkhead
fittings made from 3/8 brass threaded fittings and nipples. I
ran a tap into the fittings so the short nipples would go in
enough to make a tight squeeze possible. For gasket
material, I took standard Teflon pipe tape and twisted it
into a thread, which I wrapped around the pipe nipple on
both sides of the stainless steel of the keg wall. This
worked well in the past when I put a valve in the side of an
enameled pot, and has worked fine so far in this new
system. Currently I have one drain in the bottom of the
mash tun, and one each in the sides of the HLT and kettle.
I will install more in the HLT. I am planning on inserting a
dial thermometer in the front and a sight tube in the side.
All flexible tubing is high temperature silicone which I got
from U. S. Plastic Corp. (1-800-537-9724). Just a satisfied
customer. I have dealt with them twice and the service was
good and the shipment prompt. This tubing is rated from -
100 to +500 F. and is FDA approved. Not cheap...but I can
trust it to safely carry boiling wort at the pressures in my
system. You might want to get their catalog.
Happy brewing...Bill in Pittsburgh, PA....USA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:39:15 -0800
From: jim williams <jim&amy@macol.net>
Subject: open fermentors
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. I'd like to hear your comments on my system: I use a ss pot as
my fermenter, aerate like hell, lots of yeast. I've rigged a "cover" out
of cheesecloth, and a ss ring. Keeps stuff out, llets stuff out. I used
to go truly open. That room would be filled with amazing aromas. That
hasn't changed a bit since I now use the "cover".
Jim
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:11:04 -0500
From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk@resa.net>
Subject: Mazer Cup: It's Official
Here are the results of the Seventh Annual Mazer Cup Mead Competition:
Overall:
134 Competitive Entries
3 Non-Competitive Entries
Best of Show Winner:
Terry Estrin
Vancouver, BC
"Black Currant - Fireweed Melomel"
Category One: Show Mead (39 Entries)
1st Place: Micah Millspaw
Oconomowoc, WI
"96 Orrange Blossom"
2nd Place: Ron Barnes
Abiline, TX
"West Texas Special"
3d Place: Al Korzonas
Palos Hills, IL
"#9703"
Category 2: Traditional (6 Entries)
1st Place: Ron Lunder/Mountain Meadows Mead
Westwood, CA
"Honeymoon Nectar"
2d Place: Jeff Rose
Chelmsford, MA
"Dr. Moist's Tupelo Mead"
3d Place: Claire Desrosiers/Daniel Dingras
Chepachet, RI
Category 3: Melomel (48 Entries)
1st Place: Terry Estrin
Vancouver, BC
"Black Currant - Fireweed Melomel"
2d Place: David Myers
Boulder, CO
"Black Raspberry Blossom"
3d Place: Ron Barnes
Abilene, TX
"Jamaican Joy"
Category 4: Cyser (11 Entries)
1st Place: Chuck Wettergreen
Geneva, IL
"Custom Press Cyser"
2d Place: Bill Pfeiffer
Brighton, MI
"Pick Me Up and Put Me Down Cyser"
3d Place: Paul Gatza
Sunshine, CO
"Along Came a Spider and Sat Down Be Cyser"
Category 5: Pyment (14 Entries)
1st Place: Brian Myers
Beach Haven, Auckland, New Zealand
"42"
2d Place: Chuck Wettergreen
Geneva, IL
"Fox Grape Pyment"
3d Place: Bill Pfeiffer
Brighton, MI
"Medoc Pyment"
Category 6: Open/Mixed (6 entries)
1st Place: Bill Pfeiffer
Brighton, MI
"Ginger Mint"
2d Place: Ed Measom
Orlando, FL
"Breakfast Mead"
3d Place: Corrine Parker
Reseda, CA
"Apple-Cinnamon Mead"
Category 7: Metheglin (9 Entries)
1st Place: Ron Lunder/Mountain Meadows Mead
Westwood, CA
"Spice Nectar"
2d Place: Keith Reding
St Louis, MO
"Cracklin Rosie Metheglin"
3d Place: Marie Verheyen
Novi, MI
"Bochet"
Category 8: Braggot (4 Entries)
1st Place: Bill Pfeiffer
Brighton, MI
"Wheat Braggot"
2d Place: Stephen Rosenzweig
Ontario, NY
"Braggin' Braggot"
3d Place: Al Korzonas
Palos Hills, IL
"Smoked Braggot"
Congratulations to all, and thanks for entering. We had our first
"Outside of the US" winners this year! Score sheets will be going out
within a week, and Mazers within the month. They are done now, and are
very impressive.
The caliber of entries was stunning again this year. We saw the increased
and very welcome use of oak aging, very good sweetness-to-acid balance
control, and a mind-boggling diversity of ingredients.
We apologize to all for the delay in getting judging completed. Our
number of judges and available dates was somewhat limited by circumstances
beyond our control, and we refuse to do more than one round per judge per
day for safety reasons.
Again, our thanks.
Ken Schramm
Troy, MI
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2986, 03/24/99
*************************************
-------
