Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3105
HOMEBREW Digest #3105 Mon 09 August 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:
CORRECTION TO MCAB II POST (root)
RE: septic tanks (John Wilkinson)
Honking BoBos??? (Dave Burley)
Mail Order Beer (JYANDERS)
Re: Strange film in carboys (Teutonic Brewer)
re: Hops, when to harvest and why do we dry them? (Mark Tumarkin)
Hop Agriculture ("Mr. Joy Hansen")
hops (Randy Ricchi)
Hops/Alarm Clocks/IBU/Comercial Tip (AJ)
re:Homebrew Publicity Campaign (Kevin TenBrink)
Monitoring Fermentation by Weight (WayneM38)
Innovations (Ken Schwartz)
No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 1/4) (Ken Schwartz)
No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 2/4) (Ken Schwartz)
No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 3/4) (Ken Schwartz)
No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 4/4) (Ken Schwartz)
Wort Chilling ("Stan Prevost")
To pump or not to pump ("Scott Church")
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo@hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
*
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: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:18:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: root <root@brew.oeonline.com>
Subject: CORRECTION TO MCAB II POST
Bob Boland's address is rboland@aol.com; not rboland@hbd.org as listed in
his post.
Thanks!
HBD
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:31:41 -0500
From: John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson)
Subject: RE: septic tanks
John (nice name) Robinson asked about running water from a sink to the ground
rather than to the septic system.
I brew on the weekends at a place I have in East Texas and I have septic system
there. However, I brew in my barn a quarter mile away where I don't have a
septic system. I run my water from the sink through a pipe to the ground
without pit, gravel, or anything else. The only concern is keeping from
making a muddy mess. I am fortunate in having very sandy soil so that has not
been a problem for me. When I build my permanent (retirement) home on the
place I plan to run what is referred to here as "grey water", that is,
everything but the crappers and garbage disposal, to the ground rather than to
the septic system. My understanding is that it helps water the grass and takes
load off of the septic system. Besides, it diverts antibacterial chemicals like
bleach from the septic tank. That is supposed to be good. Again, the only
problem I can see is dispersing the water without making a mess. It shouldn't
be too hard with no more than will be going down a sink, though.
John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:36:44 -0400
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Honking BoBos???
Brewsters:
Charles Rich says:
>"Maybe I'm just cranky"
Maybe you are. I don't make personal attacks
on you and apologized when you thought I
somehow slighted you for calling you "Charlie",
even though Charlie Scandrett goes by that
respectful moniker as do all of the others with
"Charles" as their given name, that I know, do.
I will gladly call you whatever you wish.
>" and then in a typical dodge make up a
non-issue to jump on??"
Are you trying to say that you did not
recommend p-cooking hops when you
declared that you got 10X the bitterness by
p-cooking them?
Hardly a "non-issue" I made up.
But it is also possible I do not understand
how or when you are p-cooking the hops.
Is it possible that this exceptional bitterness
you are experiencing is from the tannin in the
malt husk as well as perhaps an increased
tannin extraction from the hops due to the
higher temperature of the p-cooker?
SteveA has calculatted that this 10X (which
you originally stated and then retracted to
maybe 4X or whatever) is not possible
if the only bitterness is due to
alpha acids as the source of bitterness.
Based on the fact that a normal boil of
90 minutes at a normal SG yields only
about 38% extraction typically, even a
100% extraction would only yield 21/2 X
the bitterness. I also noticed another
p-cooking HBD poster who apparently
"overhopped" and could not notice the
increased maltiness. Maybe it is not
overhopping but an increased source
of tannic bitterness.
Agitation in the brew kettle also seems
to be an issue for increasing alpha acid
extraction efficiency. Any idea if there is
an increased agitation in whatever you
are p-cooking the hops?
>" The manufacturer of my
>pressure cooker, "All American",
>recommends using an inner vessel
>for these goods."
That does ease my concern a little,
but I will look for a detailed reference.
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:35:58 EDT
From: JYANDERS@aol.com
Subject: Mail Order Beer
I seem to find myself in a bit of a predicament. I was recently involved in
an accident and am restricted to the house. Worse yet, I am out of beer and
my wife refuses to purchase any for me. I was hoping that someone out there
could provide me with web addresses for ordering beer through the mail from
micro breweries. I have found several "Beer of the Month Clubs", but would
prefer to order as I need it rather than subscribe to a program. Any help
would be appreciated.
JMA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 21:16:04 -0600
From: Teutonic Brewer <claassen@swcp.com>
Subject: Re: Strange film in carboys
Hi Alan & Co.,
I have the same problem here in Albuquerque. That strange white film on
the inside of your carboys is probably calcium carbonate. Bleach (sodium
hypochlorite) is alkaline and raises the pH to where some of the calcium
bicarbonate in your water precipitates out and sticks to the glass. Some
LimeAway(tm) or warm vinegar will dissolve it. If you filled them with hot
water from your water softener, I reckon the film is sodium bicarbonate
instead. Vinegar will dissolve that, too (remember those kiddie science
experiments where you mix vinegar and baking soda?). Reduce the amount of
bleach and don't let it sit for extended periods of time to discourage the
problem.
Prost!
Paul Claassen (Teutonic Brewer)
Albuquerque, Chile Republic of New Mexico
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 08:39:52 -0400
From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: re: Hops, when to harvest and why do we dry them?
Ian Smith wrote:
Also, why do we go to all the trouble of drying the hops. I realize that
the
"big boys" do it to improve shipping since hops are 70%+ water. What
happens
if I just freeze them wet? Will they stale? I know I will have to
recalculate my hop additions due to increased moisture content. Instead
of a
recipe calling for 1 oz dry I would have to add 4 oz or whatever. Is
drying
necessary to get the hop flavor we are all so accustomed to? Seems to me
that wet hops would be "fresher" or "better" or did I miss something?
I remember reading in the HBD last year about a "grassy" taste
associated
with fresh hops. Is this true? Do we dry them to eliminate the grassy
aroma?
***
I have been told that the flavor develops or changes with the drying. I
have never grown hops so I don't know how true this is.
As to the 'grassy' character of fresh hops, this is not necessarily
true. I think this may vary with different varieties, as some are
described as being more grassy. Also, I have noticed a grassy flavor
with some hops that are too old and somewhat oxidized - though as they
get really old they can develop a sort of musty, cheesy aroma.
At the GABF I had the opportunity of trying two beers made with fresh
hops. The first was Bert Grant's Fresh Hop Ale, the second was Sierra
Nevada's Harvest Ale. Neither of these had a grassy flavor or aroma. As
you might expect, the Sierra Nevada was a much better beer, I enjoyed it
immensely. One thing I found interesting was that although it used
Cascades exclusively (not much of a surprise from SN), it did not have
the citrusy character I associate with Cascades. Perhaps this flavor
component develops with aging and isn't present (or at least isn't as
pronounced) when fresh hops are used.
Mark Tumarkin
Gainesville, FL
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:42:13 -0400
From: "Mr. Joy Hansen" <joytbrew@patriot.net>
Subject: Hop Agriculture
Hi all,
Just a tongue in cheek comment; however, maybe not. Have the plant genetic
specialists participating in the HBD had occasion to consider gene
implanting or crossing hops with kudzu?
Think of it! Hop production everywhere. Covering the yard, house, trees,
buildings, etc. AND a vine impervious to everything nature can throw at it!
Japanese Beetles, eat your heart out.
Maybe an added cross with hemp for a little THC? Or, is that "rope-a-dope".
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:23:57 -0400
From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi@ccisd.k12.mi.us>
Subject: hops
Eric Schoville was asking where to get a good buy on imported hops. Check
with your local supplier to see if they deal with the wholesaler GW Kent
(Michigan).
GW Kent used to have five varieties (EK Goldings, Slovenian STyrian
Goldings, Hersbrucker Hallertau, Czech Saaz, I forget the fifth one) of
European hops that they sold as plugs. They came in two vacuum sealed foil
bags, each containing 100 plugs. You had to buy 2 bags, which is 100 oz. of
hops. I bought Styian Goldings, which cost me somewhere around $50 or $52
dollars for 100 oz.
I also bought Hersbrucker, which they had a deal on at the time, and that
was in the low $40's for 100 oz (200 plugs).
This was a couple years ago, but at that time they had been offering these
for a couple years already, so there's some history there, which may mean
there is an ongoing availability.
The hops were in mint condition, and because of the heat shrink wrap, and
the way the plugs are all mashed tightly together in the bag, you have to
break off a plug when you need it. The nice thing about this is there is no
air space between the plugs and the wrap stays stuck to the whole big
chunk, excluding air. I just open the top end of the package to get at a
part of the big chunk, break off what I need, twist the top of the package
tight and fold it over and stick it back in the freezer. I believe they'll
last forever in perfect condition the way they're packaged.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 14:15:43 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Hops/Alarm Clocks/IBU/Comercial Tip
Pete Calinski asks:
>d) Are there some easy ways to evaluate these hops?
Hops alpha and beta acids are estimated by extracting the acids with
toluene, diluting the extract with methanol and reading the absorbance
at 3 ultraviolet wavelengths. A 5 gram sample is required. I can do this
analysis but charge a modest (in terms of the cost of the chemicals and
equipment and the time it takes me to do it) fee which, in the interest
of keeping crass commercialism off the digest, I will not mention here.
e-mail me if interested.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rod Prather wrote:
>Then we
>have the scientific brewer who looks at brewing history and processes
then
>attempts to disassemble the processes and define it in blocks of data
and
>books of scientific theory to produce a controlled chemical process.
We can't help it. We were born this way. We took alarm clocks apart when
we were kids.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Alan & Mike wrote:
>Would be interesting to get an IBU reading on this beer.
I can do that too (same deal as hops) but as you guys have access to
labs you should be able to do it yourselves. Here's the procedure. Dip a
pipette tip into octanol. Insert it into the pipeter and transfer 10 mL
of chilled, carbonated beer to a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Add 1 mL 3N HCl
and 20 mL iso-octane (2,2,4 -trimethyl pentane). Shake vigorously (it's
pretty clear that what ASBC has in mind is a Burrell shaker with
extension arm fully extended vertically such that the tube is horizontal
but you can do it by hand) for 15 minutes. If a sludge forms centrifuge
for 3 minutes. If the iso-octane layer isn't separate, break up the
sludge with a pipette tip and centrifuge again. When clear iso-octane
layer is available transfer to a 1 cm cuvet. Measure absorbance at 275
nm against a blank of iso-octane with 5 -10 uL octanol. Multiply
absorbance by 50 to get bittering units.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Today's tip from commercial brewing: To insure uniform access of sparge
water to all parts of the mash, prevent channelization etc. commercial
brewers often "run the rakes" during sparging. The rakes are blades
affixed to a rotary arm within the lauter vessel and can usually be
raised or lowered. The analogue in home brewing is "cutting down" in
which a knife, such as a bread knife is used to make cuts in the grain
bed similar to those made by the rakes. The trick is to cut as deep as
possible without disturbing the bed to the point that the runoff becomes
turbid again. If the bed is well established one can cut down almost to
the false bottom (i.e. within and inch or less) without a problem.
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin TenBrink <zzymurgist@yahoo.com>
Subject: re:Homebrew Publicity Campaign
>>The Homebrew Publicity Campaign (HPC) is closing in
on completion of its primary goal -- the production
and distribution of a prime-time quality 30-second TV
ad spot that promotes the idea of home brewing to the
general public. <<<
Now this is a very cool idea!
My nomadic lifestyle has relocated me again, this time
to Elkhart Indiana. I have had little luck in finding
homebrew supply shops (the only one is a small room
attached to a brewpub with limited yeast selection and
only pellet hops) so hopefully there are a few that I
have overlooked that will participate in this
campaign.
In a related vein...what is a good source for whole
hops via the internet/mail order?
Kevin TenBrink
formerly from Salt Lake City and Lansing MI..now
living in Elkhart Indiana (for now)
_____________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:39:48 EDT
From: WayneM38@aol.com
Subject: Monitoring Fermentation by Weight
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:19:08 -0400
From: "Russell, D. A. (David)" <drussel3@ford.com> writes:
Subject: Brewing on a scale?
> During the fermentation, the
> specific gravity is dropping, mass is floating out of the carboy as
> CO2, could we monitor the fermentation by placing the carboy on a
> scale?
I would think the accuracy of a scale to accomplish this would be quite
cost prohibitive for the homebrewer, if it would work at all. A better
idea would probably to capture the volume of CO2 that is created.
Simple method, inverted in water graduated container...
- --
David Russell
Ford Motor Company, Dearborn MI>>
Not so.
I toured Siebel Institute of Technology in Chicago many months ago and this
exact experiment is part of the brewing program there. It was done with a 5
gal. corny keg as a fermenter and the keg was weighed during the fermentation
process. Don't recall what the loss was during the process because I was
awed by the wall mounted stainless steel 19L pilot brewery with the glycol
cooing system in the same room and my questions to the other instructor
seemed more important at the time. I recall they were using a scale that
could accommodate a corny keg and the loss was measurable.
The instructor with that info was Christopher. If you can contact him, he
would have the info you are looking for. Hope Siebels staff will answer
questions here on the HBD again next year ...
Wayne
Big Fun Brewing
Milwaukee
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:52:24 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: Innovations
Howdy everyone!
For those of you who still remember me ;-) I haven't quit the HBD, I
have just picked up way too many "things to do". I'm trying to at least
scan each HBD and there have been several articles to which I would have
liked to reply, but just never got to.
A few HBDs ago Matt Comstock suggested compiling a list of HBD
innovations. Also, there has been some renewed interest in no-sparge
and batch-sparge brewing. Since he invoked my name, I figured that was
a good wake-up call to get this stuff published like I've been "meaning
to" for months now.
Below is a summary of the "innovations" I've posted on my web page. The
no-sparge and batch-sparge info will follow in a separate post.
As for brewing innovations:
1) Brewing bookstore (via Amazon.com) -- something like 51 brewing books
all in one spot.
2) Home-made counterpressure bottler -- The only one I've used since I
designed it. Featured in the Spring '97 issue of Zymurgy (the infamous
bottle-opener issue!).
3) Fermentation Chiller -- a home-made "refrigerator" that runs on ice.
Controls your fermentation temperature.
4) Hand-pump for corny kegs -- leave the CO2 home when you bring a keg
to a party.
5) Electronic thermometers -- if you're electronically-inclined, I
present some background and projects for electronic thermometers.
Building your own isn't always the cheapest or easiest route but it
can't be beat for custom installations.
6) HBD Reader software -- I wrote this reader back when there weren't
too many readers available. It indexes and "article-izes" HBDs (and
other digests) for easier reading, archiving & printing, etc.
7) BreWater 3.0 -- Water treatment software. Calculates salt additions
for "building" classic brewing waters. Comes with tons of water
profiles gleaned from the literature over the years (though AJ would
argue that most are chemically wrong to some extent). I've also
published part of the help file as HTML, covering some basics of water
treatment and a couple sample water "recipes" (see #9 below).
8) SUDS malt & hops database -- originally compiled for version 4.0 from
the Zymurgy 1995 Special Issue and other sources. Won't work in SUDS '97
as-is but they are in .dbf format and perhaps all they need is a file
conversion via Excel or something. Besides, I'm using ProMash these
days ( http://www.promash.com , I am connected to ProMash via
contribution to the water profiling portion).
9) Water-Chemistry primer article (see #7 above).
10) Stupid Beer-Fridge Tricks article -- some thoughts on coverting
fridges and freezers for keg-service use.
11) Calculations for All-Grain Brewers -- some math pertinent to
all-grain brewing. Matt Arnold of the Green Bay Rackers wrote a nice
Javascript version at http://www.rackers.org/calcs.shtml .
12) All-Grain Brewing FAQ and Overview -- a 10-minute primer on
All-Grain.
13) Converting All-Grain Recipes to Extract/Partial-Mash -- PDF file
containing my presentation to the 1998 National Homebrew Conference on
converting all-grain recipes to extract or partial-mash. This was also
summarized in the Jan/Feb '99 issue of Zymurgy. I suggest checking out
the PDF since it has much more detail than we could fit into the Zymurgy
article. This also discusses the "tip" Matt referred to about using DME
to acidify sparge water.
14) No-Sparging and Batch-Sparging -- Article which attempts to quantify
these processes. A spreadsheet is also offered to save you the math
headaches. This article is summarized in HBD posts to follow this one.
15) Converting Gott Coolers for All-Grain Brewing -- plans for a
manifold system, same as what I use.
16) Low- and No-Alcohol Brewing -- Commercial and homebrew methods of
reducing or eliminating alcohol from beer.
17) Really cheesy photo of me with El Paso TX in the background (wow).
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:55:14 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 1/4)
(Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights
reserved.
With all the discussion lately of no-sparge and batch-sparge brewing, I
thought it might be time to compile my data and complete my analysis of
the techniques. Last year I wrote a rather lengthy article on what I
thought should be the math behind the processes. I never published it
(though I sent it to a few brewers who emailed me about the technique),
but now that I've completed it I've put it on my webpage in place of the
old article and spreadsheet that was once there (see
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html and download
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.xls ).
The no-sparge part seems to be supported by experimental data, but the
batch-sparge part had some interesting surprises in practice. Here is
the introductory text of the article to get started with explaining what
the techniques are and what we need to quantify to make it a repeatable
and predictible process:
=====
The object of mashing grain is to obtain sugar and other substances
which ultimately become beer. This is done by combining the grain with
hot water to encourage various chemical reactions, so that the desired
extract becomes dissolved in the water and can then be run off into a
collection vessel. It is common practice to try to maximize the
extraction of goods from grain by not only draining the wort produced by
the mash, but also by rinsing the grains with clear water to recover
extract which otherwise would be absorbed by the grain and remain in the
mash tun. Generally the clear water is added slowly and continuously
while the wort is simultaneously drained from the mash tun. This often
results in a runoff which is of a higher volume and lower
specific gravity than the target recipe calls for. The target recipe is
acheived by boiling off the excess volume which results in a higher
specific gravity.
A simpler method of obtaining the extract is to simply drain the liquid
from the mash tun without rinsing. This technique has become known as
"no-sparge" brewing. Its chief disadvantage is that a significant
amount of extract remains absorbed in the grain, which represents loss
of extract efficiency. In a commercial setting this has obvious
financial ramifications. Further, in order to compensate for the lost
extract, extra grain is required, and so the issue of extra mash tun
capacity must also be considered.
Economics aside, no-sparge brewing has been championed not only for its
simplicity but also because the constant high gravity of the runoff
inhibits the extraction of undesirable compounds from the grain, which
can otherwise occur when the specific gravity of the wort in the mash
tun falls below 1.019 (1). Anecdotal assertions of improved malt
flavors may be tied to the lower concentration of these undesirable
compounds in a no-sparge wort as compared with traditionally-sparged
wort, or higher concentrations of favorable compounds (2).
A sort of "hybrid" method involves performing a no-sparge runoff,
followed by adding a charge of hot clear water to the drained mash. The
"sparge" water is added batch-wise rather than being trickled onto the
mash, and thus the method is often called "batch-sparge" brewing. The
"sparge" water picks up much of the extract that was left behind from
the first runoff, and is collected by performing a second runoff. The
second runoff is typically of a specific gravity at or above the 1.019
"limit" and therefore any flavor benefits of no-sparge brewing would
presumably apply to batch-sparge brewing as well (although a second
factor, wort pH, must be considered as well). Because the "sparge" step
recovers additional extract, the loss of efficiency compared to
no-sparge brewing is generally less.
For both no-sparge and batch-sparge brewing, it is possible to obtain a
smaller volume of higher-gravity wort compared to the target recipe, and
therefore the brewer can use smaller vessels and heat sources, much like
extract brewing. This is a distinct advantage for brewers who want to
make all-grain recipes but who don't have the space or heating capacity
generally required for fully-sparged worts. On the other hand, it is
equally possible to run off a larger volume of lower-gravity wort, just
as when continuous-sparge brewing. Thus, these methods offer increased
kettle flexibility as an additional bonus.
In the literature on no-sparge brewing that has been published up till
now, it has been made clear that extra grain is required in order to
obtain the same volume and gravity as one would obtain if
continuous-sparging. However, in most cases, figures like "25%" or
"one-third" more grain are offered, without particular regard to whether
these scale-ups will meet the final recipe requirements. In analyzing
the recipe formulation math behind no-sparge and batch-saprge brewing,
it is apparent that the extra grain required depends heavily on several
factors, and can actually range from under 10% to 50% or more! Clearly
more thought must go into recipe formulation if one is to expect a
predictable outcome from a no-sparge or batch-sparge session.
References
1. Bonham, Louis K., No-Sparge Brewing -- An Old Technique Revisited,
The Experimental Brewer, Brewing Techniques Vol 6 Number 4, July/Aug
1998 (New Wine Press). See especially reference (4).
2. It seems that a post to the Homebrew Digest ("HBD") by George Fix
(#977, 24SEP92) is considered the "definitive" introduction of the
no-sparge technique to the general homebrewing public. In searching the
HBD archives it appears to me that this post did not generate much
discussion at the time. Not until #2196 (19SEP96) does a significant
thread develop (started by Louis K. Bonham) , which lasts on and off
till at least #2350 (15FEB97) with frequent references to the original
Fix posting. There is much discussion of "enhanced maltiness" and
reports of individual results in these Digests.
(Part 2 follows)
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:57:01 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 2/4)
(Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights
reserved.
I think the important thing to gather from the foregoing excerpt (and
this has been illustrated well in recent HBDs) is that a definitive
quantification of the techniques is lacking, and this is what I set out
to accomplish.
In a nutshell, the idea is this. When we mash, we predict the gravity
of the resulting wort (typically continuously-sparged) using a
relatively simple formula. By knowing how much grain we're using, how
much extract that grain will actually produce, and the amount of water
into which that extract is dissolved, we figure the resulting gravity of
the wort. My hypotheseis is that the wort in the mashtun (including
that absorbed by the grain) has the same number of "sugar points"
(gravity times volume) as the desired final recipe. In other words,
obviously all the sugar in the final wort must exist in the mashtun at
the time sparging is initiated. If we assume we pretty much completely
rinse the mash, then we can assume that the opposite is true too, that
all the sugar in the mashtun ends up in the final wort (not completely
true but actually works out pretty closely in practice). So the
following holds true (more or less):
gravity of mashtun wort * volume of mash water = gravity of final wort *
volume of final wort
The two terms on the right are recipe givens, and we would normally
figure the volume of mash water based on a mash thickness (say 1.33
qt/gal) and the amount of grain we're using. Thus it's simple to figure
the gravity of the wort in the mashtun:
gravity of mashtun wort = gravity of final wort * volume of final wort /
volume of mash water
The only remaining step is to determine how much "free wort" (that not
absorbed by the grain) is available for runoff without sparging. It's
basically a scale-up by the same factor as the ratio between the free
wort and the absorbed wort. One must know the rate of absorption of
wort by the grain in order to go further. This absorption rate actually
consists of two parts: the actual wort absorbed "inside" the grain PLUS
any free wort left behind due to ullage space and other losses. The
actual rate of absorption of a really well-drained mash is somewhere
around 0.08 gal/lb but when you add the free wort losses this rises to
anywhere from 0.10 to 0.20.
Another factor is that draining that last bit of free wort takes time,
and one might trade off losing some wort for draining in a reasonable
amount of time. You can specify a rather large absorption rate (maybe
0.20 gal/lb), to allow for more free-wort loss, and simply stop running
off *when the desired volume is collected* without regard to "wasted
wort". The wort remaining (absorbed + losses) will then be exactly the
value you specified, and your collected wort should meet your
specifications. This is therefore done at the expense of "efficiency".
(You can collect the trickles later and use them for p-cooking or yeast
starters...)
Perhaps now you can see that the amount of grain requied depends heavily
on exactly how much wort will not be collected (absorption and losses).
It also depends on the mash thickness at the time of runoff. This is
because you will obviously recover a greater percentage of wort with a
thinner mash (more free wort compared with absorbed + losses) than with
a thicker mash. However, as has been presented in recent HBDs in some
detail, mash thickness has an impact on enzymatic conversion and has to
be limited. More on this in a bit.
(Part 3 follows)
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:59:08 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 3/4)
(Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights
reserved.
Here is the bottom line (the derivation of these formulae can be found
at
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html ). Start
with any continuous-sparged recipe, what I call a "standard recipe". In
order to plan a no-sparge version, you must know a couple things first:
Ra, the rate of absorption plus losses, typically 0.15 to 0.20 gal/lb,
Wn, the amount of grain in the "standard recipe" you are converting to
no-sparge,
Vr, the final volume of wort in the "standard recipe" (typically 5
gallons),
Vb, the desired initial kettle volume (can be more or less than Vr),
Gr, the gravity of the "standard recipe", in points (such that 1.048 is
48 "points"),
Q, the amount of space a quantity of grain occupies in a mash. This
will be used to determine required mashtun capacity. This value is
right around 0.08 gal/lb.
Note that I say that Vb can be more or less than Vr. If it's more, you
will get better "efficiency" (less grain used), but your mash must be
thinner and you will have to boil off some volume to acheive Vr. So if
you go this route, determine your boiling losses and add that to Vr
(like you normally would) to get your Vb. For Vr = 5 gallons, Vb is
typically 6.5 to 7 gallons in a continuous-sparge session.
However, you can also have Vb *less than* Vr. This requires a top-off
with water at the start or end of the boil (or even several times
during, I suppose). This means you can use no-sparge to run off
concentrated wort into a stovetop-sized kettle, which might make
all-grain brewing suddenly accessible to kitchen-bound brewers who have
only used extract to make concentrated wort that will "fit" their space
limitations. For a 5-gallon Vr, I would try to make Vb at least 3
gallons and preferably 4 or more (the reason for this is illustrated
below).
>From the known factors, you will now determine:
"S", the grain scale-up factor -- the extra grain required (the weight
of each grain in the *standard recipe* is multiplied by "S" to obtain
the no-sparge recipe),
"Wg", the total weight of grain needed for the no-sparge version,
"R", the required mash thickness at runoff (see below),
"Vm", the total volume of mash water that has been added to achieve "R"
at the first runoff,
"G1", the gravity of the first runoff,
"Vt", the total mash-tun capacity required to hold all the grain and
water.
S = Vb / (Vb - (Ra x Wn))
G1 = Vr x Gr / Vb
R = Ra x S / (S - 1)
Wg = S x Wn
Vm = (Ra + R) x Wg
Vt = Vm + (Q x Wg)
These equations have proven pretty accurate based on the experiments
I've done.
As I mentioned, the "efficiency" of a no-sparge mash is increased by
increasing mash thickness "R". For the equations to predict the
no-sparge session accurately, you MUST have the required mash thickness
"R" at the time of runoff. However, there are certain restrictions on
how thin a mash should be for best conversion. A solution then is to
mash at "conventional" thicknesses, then add more water just before
runoff to achieve the required "R". This is sort of like batch-sparging
except the "sparge charge" is added before the *initial* runoff, and
only one runoff is performed. Be sure to allow the mash to stand a few
minutes after adding the extra water, and stir gently, to allow
everything to mix up to equilibrium.
A quick example:
"Standard recipe" calls for producing 5 gal of 1.054 wort with 10 lb of
grain. Thus Vr = 5 gal, Gr = 54, and Wn = 10 lb.
Assume Ra = 0.15 gal/lb (what my system yields with a reasonable runoff
period), Vb = 6.5 gal, and Q = 0.08 gal/lb.
S = 6.5 / (6.5 - (0.15 x 10)) = 1.30 (30% more grain required than
"standard recipe")
G1 = 5 x 54 / 6.5 = 41.5 or about 42 ( so SG = 1.042)
R = 0.15 x 1.30 / (1.30 - 1) = 0.49 gal/lb = 1.96 qt/lb -- fairly thin
(probably as thin as I'd go butI might mash thicker and add the rest of
the water later, see below)
Wg = 1.30 x 10 = 13.0 lb grain needed (multiply each grain in recipe by
1.30 to get no-sparge recipe)
Vm = (0.15 + 0.49) x 13.0 = 8.32 gal total mash water required at runoff
Vt = 8.32 + (0.08 x 13.0) = 9.36 gal mash tun space required.
Since this mash is so thin, I would perhaps mash at 1.33 qt/lb (0.33
gal/lb) and add the other 0.63 qt/lb after the conversion, just before
runoff.
For an illustration of just how sensitive these equations ar to varying
mash conditions, rerun the above example using 0.20 instead of 0.15 for
Ra. The difference is amazing!
Let's rerun the example using Vb = 4 gal instead. The results are:
S = 1.60 (60% more grain!!)
G1 = 67.5 (SG = 1.068)
R = 0.4 gal/lb (1.6 qt/lb, pretty good thickness)
Wg = 1.60 x 10 = 16 lb grain required
Vm = 8.8 gal total mash water required at runoff
Vt = 10 gal total mash tun capacity required
So you can see that the "add a quarter to a third extra grain" is pretty
much a SWAG without specifying the mash conditions.
(Part 4 follows)
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 11:01:05 -0600
From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob@elp.rr.com>
Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 4/4)
(Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights
reserved.
The next case involves what is often called "batch-sparge" brewing. In
this case, the first step is essentially a no-sparge session as
described previously. Then, the drained mash is infused with a charge
of hot water, which recovers much of the otherwise-lost extract trapped
inthe grain in the no-sparge case. Another runoff is made, and brewing
continues.
The advantage of batch-sparge over no-sparge brewing is the increased
efficiency. The time required is not much longer than no-sparge since
(as we will see) you run off half the wort, twice. There is some
additional time for resting the sparge charge and the second clarifying
recirculation, but this might be ten or fifteen minutes, so it's not
that much in the context of a five-hour brewday.
Last spring I finally did two batch-sparge experiments, one collecting
Vb > Vr and one Vb < Vr. I also treated the first runoff as a no-sparge
session which helped verify those equations. What I found in the
resulting wort still puzzles me, though I have a couple of ideas on the
topic...
The first runoff went pretty much as predicted by the equations.
However, the second runoff CONSISTENTLY resulted in MORE gravity points
than predicted, in some cases, a LOT more! Analysis of data from other
brewers (by the way, THANKS to all who contributed) suggests this is not
a fluke. I once speculated that this was due to some difference in
diffusion of the wort out of the grain due to different gravities of
surrounding free wort, but now I'm inclined to think it's simply a
matter of better recovery of what are normally losses in
continuous-sparge sessions (with my equipment at least). If I dig to
the bottom of my mashtun after a continuous-sparge session, I often find
relatively high-gravity wort trapped in the edges of the mashtun floor.
Technique or equipment? Probably both. In any case, the second charge
of water evenly distributes all remaining wort throughout the mashtun so
that this "extra" wort I'm normally losing is recovered and ADDED to the
second runoff, resulting in higher than predicted gravity. Thus the
batch-sparge equations are somewhat conservative in their gravity
predictions (usually a better condition than the alternative, I
suppose).
Another thing I discovered was that although I would have expected the
second runoff to be low-pH due to the relatively high gravity, I found
this wasn't true, at least using highly alkaline El Paso water (um, I
didn't bother with any special water treatment for my experiments...).
The second runoff pH was around 5.5 - 6.0 in the first experiment and
6.0 - 6.5 in the second, thus the risk of tannin extraction form the
husks was present. I would postulate however that using soft water such
as distilled or RO for the batch-sparge portion would alleviate this
concern although the resulting chemistry would have to be taken into
account (if one is concerned about this sort of thing).
Again, the math behind all this is in the web page article, and is quite
a bit more involved than for no-sparge. However, grain scale-ups are
more typically 10% - 20% for batch-sparge compared with 30% - 60% or
more with no-sparge. Further, mashtun volume requirements are eased due
to less grain being needed. So, it just might be worth the extra math
(and that's why we have spreadsheets and computers, right?).
Here are the pertinent equations and quantities:
R = (Vb + SQRT{Vb^2 + (8 x Wn x Vb x Ra)}) / (4 x Wn)
"SQRT" means take the square root of the
quantity inside the curly brackets {}.
"^2" means "squared"
S = 1 / (1 - (Ra^2/R^2))
Wg = S x Wn
Vm = R x Wg
V1 = Vb /2
G1 = S x Vr x Gr / (V1 + (Ra x S x Wn))
Vs = V1
V2 = V1
G2 = Vr x Gr x (Ra/R) x (1 - Ra/R) / (Wn x (R - Ra))
Vt = Vm + (Q x Wg)
It turns out (see article) that the "most efficient" scenario is when
both runoffs are of equal volume (and thus are half of your desired
Vb). Thus, mash thickness R at runoff is the same for both runoffs, and
the amount of "sparge water" Vs added is equal to the runoff volume. V1
refers to the volume of the first runoff, V2 to the second. Similarly,
G1 and G2 refer to the gravities of the two runoffs. All the other
quantities are the same as in the no-sparge equations in Part 2.
I suppose a couple of examples are in order, if only to illustrate the
typical results. I'll use the condidions for my experiments and then
I'll share the results to illustrate the second-runoff situation.
First I considered the case Vb > Vr. I picked Vb = 6.5 for this
experiment. Note that I chose my standard recipe factors to make the
expected results come out "even" just to simplify the measurement a bit.
Wn = 8.371 lb
Vr = 5 gal
Gr = 1.0477 (47.7 points)
Ra = 0.18 gal/lb
Vb = 6.5 gal
Q = 0.08 gal/lb
The equations would give these results (hey, do the math yourself):
R = 0.522 gal/lb
S = 1.135 (13.5% more grain required)
Wg = 9.5 lb (nice, round figure...see why I chose the standard recipe?)
Vm = 4.96 gal (I used 5 gal...)
V1 = 3.25 gal (first runoff = half of Vb)
G1 = 54.6 (SG = 1.055)
Vs = V1 (replace the first runoff with an equal amount of sparge water)
V2 = V1 (the second half of Vb)
G2 = 18.8 (SG = 1.019 -- but see actual results below)
Vt = 6.67 gal (was verified in this experiment)
I mashed at 0.33 gal/lb, then added the balance just before runoff #1.
G1 = 1.053 (agrees well with prediction) -- I measured at start (1.055),
middle (1.055), and end (1.053) of runoff to verify consistency during
the runoff. Pretty consistent throughout. Differences could easily be
due to equipment (standard cheap-ass hydrometer, temperature could have
been off a few degrees, etc)
G2 = 29 (SG = 1.029) -- wow! Quite a bit higher than expected (1.019).
Two measurements during runoff were start (1.035) and finish (1.025), so
there was some change during runoff. Did I not stir or rest well
enough?
Final wort was 6.5 gal @ 1.041 which would have resulted in 5 gallons @
1.053 instead of the standard recipe's 1.048.
Now for Vb < Vr. This time Vb = 4 gallons.
R = 0.34 (just about "normal")
S = 1.241 (24.1% more grain...efficiency drops as Vb drops...)
Wg = 10.5 lb (nice round figure...)
Vm = 3.575 gal
V1 = 2 gal
G1 = 83.6 (SG = 1.084)
Vs = 2 gal
V2 = 2 gal
G2 = 36.9 (SG = 1.037)
Vt = 5.15 (verified)
Results:
G1 = 1.089 -- bit higher than predicted
G2 = 1.070 -- double wow! Must be a LOT of wated wort in my mashtun
getting picked up second time around
=====Final Thoughts=====
So is the math wrong or are there just too many variables to account
for? I think the latter is probably more true. Unfortunately we can't
easily quantify that. We could come up with empirical correction
factors I suppose, but I think the value of these equations is more
about getting a relatively accurate starting point rahter than nailing
things down perfectly.
I hope this at least provides a starting point for further evaluation of
these techniques. I think the techniques have value in homebrewing, as
has been illustrated by many posts to the HBD recently and over the
years. Perhaps quantifying the process to some extent as has been done
here will make it easier for more people to give it a whirl.
- --
*****
Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer
E-mail: kenbob@elp.rr.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:54:38 -0500
From: "Stan Prevost" <sprevost@ro.com>
Subject: Wort Chilling
Hi, y'all =
In HBD #3104, Lou Heavner proposes using a stir plate during wort chilling
to get some movement around the coils of his immersion chiller to speed up
the cooling process.
I think it would be easier and more effective to recirculate the wort using
a pump (assuming you already have one for some reason). Connect the pump to
the kettle drain, return the pump outlet to the top of the kettle (below the
surface of the wort while hot, can be above the surface for aeration after
it gets cooler). The pump and tubing should sanitize OK if you start with
near-boiling wort. If your pump won't take boiling temperature, then wait
until the wort has cooled a bit before starting recirculation. The first
part of cooling proceeds rapidly anyway, when the temperature differential
is greatest.
A screen on the drain to filter out hops etc. is required.
Some people recirculate wort anyway before draining to the fermenter,
claiming it greatly improves clarity. Whole hops are probably required for
this to work, in order to make a filter bed.
Stan Prevost
Huntsville, Alabama
Where homebrewing is illegal.
(So I obviously cannot post from experience, just theory and speculation)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:58:23 -0700
From: "Scott Church" <schurch@gte.net>
Subject: To pump or not to pump
Hi all,
I was wondering about the use of a pump for drawing off the wort from the
mash Tun. I know that many people use pumps (i.e. RIMS), but I have "read"
that they may cause a stuck mash do to the suction that they create. Any
comments or opinions on the matter would be welcome!
Thanks,
Scott
.................Beer.....it's not just for breakfast anymore!
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3105, 08/09/99
*************************************
-------
