Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3635
HOMEBREW Digest #3635 Thu 17 May 2001
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
http://www.northernbrewer.com 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
re: yeast vitality ("Stephen Alexander")
Sight Glass and Rice Hulls (Martin_Brungard)
Found @ Superior Products (Pat Babcock)
Fruit flavor via liqueur ("Andrew Moore")
Robust Porter (Paul Mahoney)
Re: Counterflow woes ("Barsalo, Denis")
re: Fermenter Geometry ("Stephen Alexander")
typo ("Stephen Alexander")
lots of mouth-feel (leavitdg)
Sparging - sprinkling versus ("Fred L. Johnson")
spurment (BrwyFoam)
clip art (kbooth)
Brewpub and Micro Recommendations (msnyder)
Sparge times in a RIMS/HERMS system (James Pensinger)
RE: Czechvar ("John B. Doherty")
re: counter flow ("2brewers4u")
re: sparge ("2brewers4u")
Re: Sparging (Joel Plutchak)
RE: Sparging - sprinkling versus ("Doug Hurst")
Re: glycogen levels ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
RE: Czechvar (Todd Bissell)
Hop pellets and the Bazooka screen ("Neil K")
Re: counterflow woes ("Kurt Schweter")
places to drink in Anaheim??? ("Alan Meeker")
MCAB 3 recipe - 1st place American Ale ("Formanek, Joe")
MCAB 3 recipe - 2nd place IPA ("Formanek, Joe")
MCAB recipe - 3rd place Scottish 80/- ("Formanek, Joe")
Re: Fermenter Geometry (David Harsh)
More Carbo talk (Phil Wilcox)
fermentor geometry ("Steven M. Claussen")
*
* AHA Membeers: Exercise your RIGHT to VOTE! BOA Ballot
* available at http://hbd.org/ratimg/ballot.pdf (Adobe
* pdf v4.0) or http://hbd.org/ratimg/ballot.gif
* --- MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! VOTE NOW!!! ---
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*
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 FROM THE E-MAIL
ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
the digest as we canoot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright
HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK
before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content
cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.
More information is available by sending the word "info" to
req@hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:13:27 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: yeast vitality
George Fix writes ...
>[...] For a yeast cell to
>simply be "alive" (as determined by utilization of carbohydrates or
ability to
>metabolize dyes) is not sufficient.
Yes, but to 'simply be "alive"' is the definition of viability which was the
topic of the original discussion, not vitality in the current one.
>Contrary
>to what has been put forward in this forum, one can not ignore
intercellular
>food reserves. It has been my experience that to do so is to invite
>inconsistent results, particularly with home brew.
I've *never* put forward the notion that intracellular carbo reserves could
be ignored - but it's only half the story. In some conditions low glycogen
levels cannot be correlated to vitality or viability (like early log growth
phase or after autoclaving). If we are comparing yeasts at the same phase,
for example in anaerobic storage, it may be very important - even critical
to vitality and viability.
One reference claims that aerobically grown brewing yeast with high lipid
levels and low internal carbohydrate stores, yet have good storage
viability and pitching characteristics. This isn't typical of yeast
conditions in conventional brewing, but suggests lipids may substitute for
carbohydrates as storage energy reserves and also supplant the glycogen
requirement for pitching yeast.
Glycogen *appears* to be one measure (along with squalene, FAs, O2) of
sterol+UFA synthesis potential for a yeast about to be pitched. Glycogen is
important, but perhaps the lipid content + potential at pitching should be
the real focus of attention, with glycogen as an indirect measure the
potential..
-Steve
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:41:05 -0400
From: Martin_Brungard@urscorp.com
Subject: Sight Glass and Rice Hulls
Louis Bonham made good points about the problems created by excessive
pumping in RIMS/HERMS systems. I second the recommendation for using a
sight glass on the tun outlet pipe or on the mash tun.
Its astounding the amount of force we can place on the grainbed when using
a pump. I'll do a quick illustration of why flowrate and pump draw need to
be controlled during recirculation. Under normal temperature conditions, a
centrifugal pump can draw a maximum vacuum of 20 to 25 feet of water
column. Under the elevated temperature conditions during mashing, the
maximum amount of vacuum a centrifugal pump can put out may drop into the
range of 13 to 16 feet of water due to the increase in vapor pressure. If
you assume 15 feet of water, that equates to about 6.5 pounds per square
inch vacuum. Tuns used for 5 to 10 gallon batches could have surface areas
in the range of 50 to 100 square inches. That means the bottom of the
grainbed can be placed under 325 to 650 POUNDS of force.
I'm pretty sure that all of us recognize that if we took a plate and placed
it over our grainbeds and stood on it, we would compress the bed pretty
well. That would be one fat rascal standing in the middle of your mash
tun! Its no wonder that you can easily get a stuck mash or collapse a
false bottom or bunch its legs through the bottom of a drink cooler.
Now you are aware of a reason why pulling too much flow through the
grainbed (and subsequently drawing too much vacuum) can cause a stuck mash.
The other reason is clogging the false bottom or screen, but that's another
story. Installing a sight glass as Louis suggested is a simple and very
effective solution to avoiding excessive suction. It can be as simple as
placing a Tee fitting in the outlet line from the tun or actually plumbing
a fitting through the tun wall at the bottom of the tun. You do not need
to use a fancy glass for the sight glass. In my tun, I have plumbed a
threaded elbow fitting through the tun wall with a barbed fitting on the
outside. The threaded portion is just gasketed through the tun wall. I
use vinyl tubing for the sight glass and I attached the top of the tubing
to the tun using a stainless bolt through the tubing and tun. There is no
need for a screen at the opening to the sight glass fitting since there is
virtually no flow into or out of the sight glass. Very effective and
durable system. You could do a similar system by using a simple barbed Tee
fitting in the tun outlet tubing with a vinyl tube standpipe.
The big problem Louis pointed out with this system is you can draw air into
the system if you don't watch and regulate the drawdown in the standpipe.
But the beauty of this system is that it restricts the drawdown to no more
than about a foot or so of drawdown...very effective for limiting those
forces on the grainbed! Gotta have that valve on the outlet side of the
pump and you have to use it. The standpipe shows you how much to throttle
the valve.
I'm not really a fan of using a grant on the outlet since you will
certainly have more wort surface area exposed to air this way. Using the
grant also doesn't get away from drawing air into the system since you
still have to regulate the pump flow to equal the flow into the grant.
I have observed that at the limited flow rates through my RIMS, I measure
the temperature change at the tun outlet about 2 minutes after turning on
the heat in my heater chamber. That means it takes about 2 minutes for the
heated wort to travel through the bed. I don't think that is too slow a
change. The real factor guiding the minimum flow rate through the system
is wort scorching. The rate needs to be fast enough to avoid that result
obviously. I have found that the flowrate is really very slow before you
get scorching or local boiling on a 4500 watt low-density element run at
110 volts. Its on the order of a trickle, to give you an indication. I
have some braided vinyl tubing in my system, so I can observe the flow
velocity in the tubing. If I have wort velocity of about a half-inch per
second in a 1/2-inch ID tubing, its good enough. That would need to be
about 2 inches per second in 1/4-inch tubing. I usually run the flowrate
much higher than that, but you get the idea. The point is that there is no
reason to pump wort through the bed at breakneck speed, a leisurely rate
does just as well and causes less problems with bed compaction.
One of the other comments I noticed in the past week was the amount of rice
hulls used in problematic mashes. Adding rice hulls on the order of 10 to
15 percent was recommended. I just did a 50/50 mash with 2 row and wheat
malt. Since this was before the 10 to 15 percent recommendation was known
to me, I used about 6 percent. The flowrate with my RIMS was very good.
This compares with very problematic flowrates using 40 percent wheat malt/
60 percent 2 row with no hulls.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 16:50:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pat Babcock <pbabcock@hbd.org>
Subject: Found @ Superior Products
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager...
Was just perusing my Superior Products Summer Sale flier and spotted a 22
qt graduated plastic pail. The graduations look to be liters and gallons.
Has a removable handle. $12.90 ea (item 806509 in catalog 189A) Lid is
$2.25 (item 802099). Don't know it it's a good deal or not, but it looks
like a pretty good fermenter. A hole saw and a plastic spigot from your
friendly neighborhood homebrew supply shop and you've got a spiffy
bottling bucket with an indication of volume.
Superior Products is at www.superprod.com or 1-800-328-9800
I thinks I'll check to see what the local shops have to offer to compete
with it, then maybe get a couple myself...
- --
-
See ya!
Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock@hbd.org
Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org
HBD Web Site http://hbd.org
The Home Brew Page http://hbd.org/pbabcock
"The monster's back, isn't it?" - Kim Babcock after I emerged
from my yeast lab Saturday
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:23:33 -0400
From: "Andrew Moore" <abmjunk@hotmail.com>
Subject: Fruit flavor via liqueur
I read recently that one method of generating a fruit flavor in beer is to
use a 750 mL bottle of fruit liqueur as a bottling primer. Apparently there
is enough sugar in a typical bottle to prime a 5 gallon batch, it's
automatically sanitized and the fruit syrups are of high quality. It seems
like an elegant (easy) way of making a cherry ale or the like.
Has anyone tried this? Any pointers? Any suggestions on specific liqueurs?
Andrew Moore
Richmond, Virginia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 19:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Paul Mahoney <pmmaho@yahoo.com>
Subject: Robust Porter
Brewers:
I seek the collective wisdom of the HBD for
assistance in brewing a robust porter. Our homebrew
club (StarCity Brewers Club)will be having a
competition in several months, and the style is
porter. I request assistance with the recipe.
I have several pounds of brown malt. Brown malt is
reported to have been the "staple" of beer brewing
"where it formed the basis of the famous London
porter." (see Snyder, p.60) But it is also reported
to be smoked, and to be used as a specialty malt (i.e.
crystal?). One recipe called for 6 #s of pale ale
malt and 2 #s of brown malt.
I am planning on using brown malt as my base malt.
Here is my suggested recipe:
Brown Malt 7 #
Pale Ale 2#
Black Barley .25#
Roasted Barley .25#
Flaked Barley .25 #
Crystal 60L .5#
Crystal 130L .5#
Bullion 9% 60 minutes
EKG 5.1% 5 minutes
ProMash says that at 75% effic. I should get 1.054, 45
IBU, and SRM @50.
But my primary question is: should I use this much
Brown malt? Can I use it as a base malt, or should I
reverse the Pale Ale malt and Brown malt proportions?
Thanks.
Paul Mahoney
Roanoke, Virginia
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 22:33:28 -0400
From: "Barsalo, Denis" <denis.barsalo@mindready.com>
Subject: Re: Counterflow woes
My chiller is connected to a copper racking cane that I have connected to
the middle part of a "T" and the two other sides of the "T" are connected to
a circle of copper (from the same stuff, 3/8" I believe). This loop of
copper is scored every 1/2" or so, about a quarter of the way through the
piping, with a hacksaw and I have the cuts are facing downward, towards the
bottom of my pot.
This works like a charm! I disconnect the cane from the loop for cleaning
out anything that's in there after brewing, I run water through the loop
(without taking it apart) and I have never.. and I mean never, had any
clogging with hops.
I must admit, I tend to use whole hops more often than pellets, so that
makes a big difference. I always try to use whole hops for at least one of
my additions since it will act as a filter for the hot break and the
pellets.
I whirlpool the wort so all the hops and gunk (break) settles to the middle
of the pot, I drop in the ring of copper with the cane attached to it and
the (heat resistant) hose attached to the other end, start the cold water,
then the pump and I'm in business!
Denis Barsalo
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:57:55 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: re: Fermenter Geometry
Dave Harsh writes ...
>You
>are talking about the effects on individual yeast cells, but I suspect
>the differences [...] circulation
The complete explanation of poor attenuation and high diacetyl must lie at
the level of individual cells, Dave. Circulation may be correlative to the
extent it changes O2, CO2, temp gradients or what-not, but circulation is
not an enlightening explanation. H:W ratio (aspect ratio or 'geometry')
don't even correlate directly with these more reasonable hypotheses. I
think one could easilty make a "better" low aspect ratio fermenter that had
worse circulation, O2 diffusion, CO2 release, compared to a "worse" one.
That is why I think H:S is BS. There is no plausible physical correlate
that matches H:W. Also it is almost impossible that DeClerk or anyone else
has tested such a hypothesis over any representative range of variables with
several H:W ratio fermenters.
Anyway circulation is not directly related to H:W aspect ratio. so if
circulation is 'the' cause H:W ratio geometry certainly isn't.
>If, however, you are claiming that
>if you maintain exact temperatures, shear rates in the fermenting wort,
>local CO2 levels, etc. and the results will be the same, then I'll
>accuse you of being ridiculous because we can't possibly control EVERY
>factor.
Textbooks on experimental design aren't ridiculous and don't require control
of every associated variable, but you *must* control for or eliminate the
impact of known confounding variables. The point of a useful experiment is
to whittle down the uncontrolled variables so we don't have reason to
suspect them as the cause and/or to reproduce the cause/effect relation over
enough variation in these "other" variables that we believe the relation is
true regardless.
Saying the H:W causes yeast performance diffs w/o controlling for CO2 and O2
is a bit like stating that nitrogen ions are lethal to yeast based on an
experiment that adds nitric acid and doesn't control for pH.
>I'm not saying that you wouldn't get identical results under
>these hypothetical situations,
Then we agree. That's all I've said on the matter Dave - that a properly
controlled experiment would show H:W ratio is not the causative factor, tho'
it may correlate under certain restricted conditions.
.
>just that you can't perform the experiment.
Why not ? DelL suggested - top with N2 in a closed fermenter to eliminate
O2 diffusion. Put the fermenter in a water bath to control temps. Add
nucleation sites or head pressure to vary CO2 solubility. Throw in an inert
screen to reduce circulation. Use circulation pumps, shakers, stir plates to
add circulation. We can't 'control' all of these well in a basement lab,
but we can certainly test the hypothesis over a range for each variables.
These are off the top of my head, we could do better given some time.
>> ...The yeast cells just don't
>> know/can't feel the fermenter H:W ratio at this scale.
>
>I agree. However, it isn't a matter of the individual yeast cells
>caring about fermenter shape.
Poor attenuation and high diacetyl levels can ONLY be the result of cell
metabolism. An explanation that begins with fermenter color, shape or phase
of the moon will prove misleading and nearly impossible to establish. We
may not be able to complete the line of causality down to this level, but it
is the place to begin. The simplest, most direct explanation wins - Occam's
razor.
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:02:37 -0400
From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: typo
I said
>Feeding a culture aerated wort a day before pitching is a formula for low
>glycogen yeast - which isn't had if they are sterol rich.
Should be
"which isn't BAD if they are sterol rich."
-S
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:36:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: leavitdg@plattsburgh.edu
Subject: lots of mouth-feel
I brewed a Rye ale recently (4/22/01) and have found that
it has a heap more body/ mouthfeel than I had planned. this
is especially the case if it is chilled to normal beer
temps. I am wondering if it was the higher than usual
(for me) initial rest (150F). It is quite good, to me, enough
rye so that I can taste it, but not so much as to chase
people away.
Here is the recipe..perhaps somone has an idea as to the more
-than-expected body?
6lb Weissheimer Pilsner malt
1.5 lb Rye Malt
2 lb Vienna Malt
2 lb Flaked Barley
1.3 qts per pound of water,..rest at 150 for 60 minutes,
boosted to 158 for 60, mashout at 170 for 10.
first runnings were 1.078
boil gravity (about 7 gallons) was 1.05
original gravity was 1.056
gravity going into secondary was 1.014
final gravity was 1.013
hops: 1 oz '00 Columbus (15.7aa) at 60 of a 90 minute boil
1/4 oz of same at 30
1/4 oz of same at 15
Chilled and put onto a good size yeast cake of Irish Ale
yeast (Whitelabs) <--$#@$ THAT'S IT! right? The yeast leaves
too much residuals? ...I guess I may have it figured out..
not sure...
Thanks for listening.
...Darrell
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:00:24 -0400
From: "Fred L. Johnson" <FLJohnson@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Sparging - sprinkling versus
Doug responds to a question of whether it is better to sparge by sprinkling
on top of the grain bed versus sparging with a layer of water above the top
level of the grain. Doug says the layer of water causes channeling through
the grain and that one must sprinkle to avoid this.
I would then ask for Doug or anyone else to please explain how a uniform
layer of water on top of the grain could cause channeling moreso than
sprinkling. Sprinkling would have a much greater tendency to cause the
water to flow through the grain in the regions where the water hits the
grain, which is why systems that use sprinkling must devise some way to
cause the water to hit the grain bed in different places (the rotating arm).
Water hitting the top of a layer of water would have the LEAST effect on the
channeling phenomenon.
Every column chromatography system I have every seen utilizes a system that
ensures that the eluting buffer (sparge water) is evenly distributed over
the top of the column matrix (the grain bed). The simplest systems simply
have a column of buffer over the top of the column matrix. To prevent the
initial eluting buffer from disturbing the top of the matrix and to prevent
the matrix from floating up, one places some type of screen on the top of
the bed (which one could easily do in the home brewery with aluminum foil
punched with holes, plastic mesh of some sort, or invent your own).
I believe the reason the grain bed is sprinkled in commercial breweries is
because it is simply too impractical or wasteful to fill up the lauter tun
with sparge water.
- --
Fred L. Johnson
Apex, North Carolina
USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:34:32 EDT
From: BrwyFoam@aol.com
Subject: spurment
Hi!
I am very interested in the reproducibility of my tests using tall soda kegs
as fermenters. In this regard let me propose the following. I need a
volunteer who is experienced with lager brewing (this is important for there
is a big difference in sensitivity among yeast strains to fermenter
geometry), and who also likes to ferment in soda kegs. Send me e-mail so we
can use the same recipe. In my tests I used a moderately hopped all malt pale
beer with SG=1.048, which was fermented at 46F. I will brew a batch in the
BBMB fermenter, and then age and bottle it. After this we can exchange beers
and do our own analysis. Any takers?
Cheers,
George Fix
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:38:14 -0400
From: kbooth <kbooth@waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: clip art
Home Brew Clip Art
Brewing your own beer has its own rewards beyond not having
to run down to the liquor store. And once you've got your
mix down, don't you want to show it off to friends and
family? If so, you'll want to decorate your beer with its
own special label, rather than just the plain bottle. The
Brewery, a Web site dedicated to the art of home brewing,
has a special clip art section for those who want to go the
extra yard and create their own label. Just click below to
get started.
Click below for The Brewery's site!
<http://hbd.org/brewery/ClipArt.html>
from Emazing, tips on websites....cheers, jim booth
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 07:36:56 -0500
From: msnyder@wm.com
Subject: Brewpub and Micro Recommendations
Greetings all!
Considering the recent number of requests for suggestions for brewpubs, etc.,
in various areas, I'll again mention www.pubcrawler.com as an option for all
to consider. Along with it's listing of various watering holes across the
nation, it also has a number of links that can provide more information, if
desired.
Another option, and one that I prefer since I travel a bit as part of my job
- just check out the yellow pages when you hit your hotel room and call a
couple of homebrewing supply stores. You'll be surprised at how receptive
they are to your request for recommendations, even though you're not a paying
customer. And they'll be much more inclined to direct you to someplace worth
trying instead of just a bar that brews beer on the premises. I also let
them know I'm willing to drive for a good brew and ask for their
recommendations for "stellar" pubs instead of just those close to my hotel.
Hope this helps and saves some time if you find yourself in an unfamiliar
city.
Mark Snyder
Atlanta, Georgia
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:56:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: James Pensinger <beermkr@bellatlantic.net>
Subject: Sparge times in a RIMS/HERMS system
I have a question for you all (especially those using RIMS/HERMS
systems. Since I spend an hour or so recircing the wort and if
I do a mashout is there a reason to extend the sparge out to 45-
60 minutes? Seems to me that all the sugars would be in
suspension and I should be able to do a fast sparge without
any problems arising.
Any ideas?
Mike Pensinger
beermkr@bellatlantic.net
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~beermkr/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 06:05:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "John B. Doherty" <dohertybrewing@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Czechvar
Steve,
Czechvar is indeed Budweiser Budvar. "Czech" out the official website at
www.czechvar.com
There is a brief explanation of the A-B / Budvar naming rights battle.
Czechvar is readily available in Massachusetts in 12oz 6 packs of green bottles
and in 0.5 liter brown bottles. You'll notice that on the label it says brewed
by "B.B.N.P." which is an abbreviation for "Budweiser Budvar N?
Pivovar?(brewery)", or something to that effect. Wonderful beer, whatever they
decide to call it!
Cheers,
-John Doherty
Arlington, MA
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 07:49:43 -0400
From: "Jones, Steve (I/T)" <stjones@eastman.com>
Subject: Czechvar
Greetings fellow brewers,
A fellow club member brought a new beer to our meeting last night. Czechvar.
He said that A-B and Budvar had come to an agreement over their trademark
fight, and Budvar is now marketed in the US as Czechvar. They retain the
right to the Budvar name in Europe, and A-B can use the Budweiser name in
Czechoslovakia. He picked up a 6-pack last week over in Asheville (NC).
Has anyone else seen this beer? Has anyone seen an official story on the
A-B/Budvar agreement?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:17:14 -0500
From: "2brewers4u" <2brewers4u@home.com>
Subject: re: counter flow
Are you using pellets? If so, STOP....get the leaves, I just switched
myself. Next, there are a few choices: 1. Get a stainless steel hose mesh
attachment (mesh hose about 6 inches long) and attach it to your pick up
tube. 2. Extend your pick up tube 1-1.5" above the bottom to the far wall
of the pot/keg. Do the rapid stir thing to get all the crap in the middle.
This will work. I just went to leaves and have absolutly no hops in the
fermenter!
2brewers4u
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:19:07 -0500
From: "2brewers4u" <2brewers4u@home.com>
Subject: re: sparge
I have a RIMS. I have tried both sparge arm and the return system in my
unit. As long as there is water on top of the grain bed either is fine.
BUT, using the sparge arm, I have noticed a loss in heat as the water falls
through the air. Additonally, there is a lot splashing, for what it is
worth.
2brewers4u
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:43:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: Joel Plutchak <plutchak@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Sparging
In HBD #3634, Doug Hurst wrote:
> If the water is simply poured over the top, troughs can form down
> into the grain bed. This defeats the filtering properties of the
> grain and your wort will not clarify.
I concede that this might be a problem if you're using
a high-pressure hose and jetting the sparge water completely
through the grain bed, but I confess to being dubious about
the extent of the problem in practice. If one has a 12"-16"
grain bed and disturbs the top inch or so of the grain, will
it really prevent wort clarity? My experience suggests it's
not a problem.
Glen Pannicke wrote:
>After brewing in a condo for a number of years using the stovetop and two
>5 gallon kettles, I now own a home with a basement and backyard! No more
>condo rules banning the use of LP gas! No more throwing wet towels over
>my fermenters in the summer! No more 6 hour mess in the kitchen! Time
>to go to town on those 1/2 barrel kegs with a sawzall and purchase a
>cajun cooker!
Congrats! After 19 years of paying rent we finally got that
brewery^H^H^H^H^Hhouse we always wanted, with basement, backyard,
garage, etc. Now, five years later, I look back on my brewing
career and notice I've brewed more than twice as much beer in
the past five years as in the previous 10! Gotta love having
the proper work space.
Joel Plutchak <plutchak@uiuc.edu>
Buzzard's Roost Brewery, Champaign IL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:53:54 -0500
From: "Doug Hurst" <DougH@theshowdept.com>
Subject: RE: Sparging - sprinkling versus
Fred responds to my Sparging post thusly:
>>"... Doug says the layer of water causes channeling through the grain
and that one must sprinkle to avoid this. I would then ask for Doug or
anyone else to please explain how a uniform layer of water on top of the
grain could cause channeling moreso than
sprinkling. Sprinkling would have a much greater tendency to cause the
water to flow through the grain in the regions where the water hits the
grain, which is why systems that use sprinkling must devise some way to
cause the water to hit the grain bed in different places (the rotating
arm). Water hitting the top of a layer of water would have the LEAST
effect on the channeling phenomenon."<<
I guess I wasn't very clear. I was assuming that in any case there
would be about a 1" layer of water on top of the grain bed. I was
comparing a rotating sprinkling arm to simply pouring the water or
running the sparge water outlet hose onto the grain from a height above
the surface of the water. Water droplets from a rotating sprinkling arm
will have a lot less force than a continuous stream directed at one
point. The continuous stream will certainly drive through the surface
water and cause a channel in the grain bed, while the droplets will not
have enough force to do so. The rotating arm further minimizes any
possibility that the droplets will form a channel.
Doug Hurst
Chicago, IL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 10:09:13 -0400
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: glycogen levels
Steve states:
>>The hypothesis about geometry impacting surface area so oxygen
>>uptake demonstrates an argument that does not support the H:W
>>geometry argument.
It is not a hypothesis, it was from real world calculations. The wort
contacting atmosphere in a 1 liter container with a 1:1 HW ratio is
85% greater than a 1 liter container with a 2.5 H:W. The oxygen uptake
from greater contact is a reality, it is why an airstone in an aquarium
works. It is the motion of the water being brought into contact with
surface oxygen that increases O2 levels. A fermenter before high
kraeusen is static, but greater contact with atmosphere will mean
more rapid uptake.
>>A test tube fermenter may
>>have a 5:1 H:W ratio yet a much higher surface:volume ratio than
>>either of the above fermenters.
We're looking at surface exposed to atmosphere in the headspace,
not overall surface area of the fermenter.
>>What is wrong with this argument is that geometry does not dictate
(cause)
>>O2 levels nor surface: volume ratios.
Geometry surely would dictate surface:volume ratios. In fact, nothing
but geometry dictates this.
>>... The question is why didn't the yeast reassimilate
>>the near-peak levels of diacetyl and we are left staring poor yeast
health
>>as the likely cause of poor attenuation + high levels of unresolved
>>diacetyl.
This is why I expect that the H:W affecting oxygen utilization, affecting
yeast mass, and affecting yeast health is the probable cause of
the results in the DeClerck and Fix studies.
>>You're assuming an open ferment (which I had not considered). <<
I really wasn't assuming an open fermenter. I assumed
a closed Cornie keg was described in AoBT.
>>Not achieving high glycogen status till
>>40hours later under ideal conditions. I would expect longer if the yeast
>>are hit with more O2, or if carbos form a growth limit (as when a
yeastcake
>>is revived with a small amount of wort.
This raises some interesting points; What's "high" glycogen status?
is that level very different from "sufficient"?, what was the yeast count
of the stored culture? what was the glycogen level of the stored culture?
what was the density of wort fed to the yeast cake? Too many variables
to state a conclusion accurately.
To return to the original topic of the value of an iodine test for
yeast glycogen levels you previously stated in digest 3520:
>> I've two studies but, one from a Czech
>>book on brewing yeast and a more detailed study in JIB that point to a
>>(dare I say it with Dave Burley absent ?) a stochiometric relationship
>>between the yeast use of glycogen and the production of sterols from
>>squalene. No glycogen = no(very little) sterol, even if O2 is present.
So even a rudimentary glycogen assay would be better than none.
Or should we ignore yeast health and pitch whatever is at hand?
NPL
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 14:28:56 GMT
From: Todd Bissell <bis9170@home.com>
Subject: RE: Czechvar
Steve:
That's about what I've heard too, about A-Busch and Budvar burying the
hatchet. Since A-B is only 1000 times larger than Budvar, it seems like a
no-brainer to come to this agreement: Bud increases it's market share in
Central Europe, and Budvar finnally adds it's beer to the U.S Market -- a
drop in the bucket, when you compare volumes.
IRT the beer itself, I personally wasn't really wow'ed when I picked up a
6-pack for $9.00. I've never had a bad czech lager, but then again,
Czechvar wasn't anything I could get really excited about, either (IMHO).
Around here, Staropramen and Pilsner Urquell are both less expensive, and
fresher tasting, both on-tap and in bottles.
Cheers!
Todd Bissell
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:33:04 -0400
From: "Neil K" <neilk27@hotmail.com>
Subject: Hop pellets and the Bazooka screen
I've enjoyed reading the recent thread on hop pellets and clogging CF
chillers, but every posting involves racking canes. Has anyone had any
experience using a Bazooka screen in the boil kettle with a ball valve? I'm
about to have a hole drilled in my big, beautiful, brand-new 9 gallon pot
and would like to try a Bazooka screen, but I tend to use hop pellets. Is
the screen mesh fine enough/coarse enough to filter all my hop pellet sludge
without clogging?
Neil K
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:19:16 -0400
From: "Kurt Schweter" <KSchweter@smgfoodlb.com>
Subject: Re: counterflow woes
I have an alternate method I've developed by using
all the parts I've gotten over the years
I whirlpool after the boil then drain the kettle
into cornie kegs
that have the dip tubes covered with
the mesh screens that came with the kegs -( rootbeer I think )
then simply run the wort through the chiller under pressure
actualy cuts down on the total time to chill vs.
waiting for gravity to do it's job
I also only use whole hops which also may cut
down on the clogging problem
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:15:24 -0400
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: places to drink in Anaheim???
Hi all. Will be out in Anaheim for a meeting the beginning of June and would
like to get suggestions of any good micro/brewpubs in the area.
Thanks in advance,
Alan Meeker
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:41:04 -0500
From: "Formanek, Joe" <Jformanek@griffithlabs.com>
Subject: MCAB 3 recipe - 1st place American Ale
> Hello all!
> Here is my recipe for the 1st place American Ale at MCAB 3. I thought it
> was a little light in flavor hops, but, hey, what do I know??? (^8~ This
> same recipe also took BOS at the St. Louis competition in December.
>
> Veronica's First American Ale - 10 gal batch
> Malt:
> 8# Beeston's Maris Otter 2 row
> 4# Beestons Pale 2 row
> 2# Hugh Baird Pale 2 row
> 2# Schreier Special Pale
> 2# Schreier Wheat
> 1# DWC Aromatic
> 1/2# DWC Biscuit
> 2 oz DWC Caravienne
> 2 oz DWC Special B
>
> Hops:
> 4 oz Centennial (10.7% aa) - 60 min in boil
> 2 oz Centennial (10.7% aa) - 10 min (finish)
> 2 oz Willamette (5.4% aa) - 10 min finish
> 2 oz homegrown hops (mix Cascade/Liberty) - 10 min finish
> 2 oz Centennial - dry hop in secondary
> 2 oz Willamette - dry hop in secondary
>
> 1 tsp Irish Moss (rehydrated) - 15 min from end of boil
> Yeast - Wyeast 1272 American Ale II - 1/2 gal starter
>
> Mash in 154 F - hold 60 min til converted
> Raise temp to 170 F for mash out
> Sparge w 4 gal 175 F water
> Added 4 gallons water to kettle, then boiled 75 min with moss and hop
> additions
> 14 days primary, 14 days secondary, with dry hop in final week
> S.G. - 1.058
> F.G. - 1.012
>
> My other 2 recipes (2nd place IPA, 3rd place Scottish) will follow.
>
> Cheers!!
> Joe Formanek
>
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:41:31 -0500
From: "Formanek, Joe" <Jformanek@griffithlabs.com>
Subject: MCAB 3 recipe - 2nd place IPA
> Here is my recipe for the 2nd place IPA at MCAB 3. I've been brewing this
> one (with slight modifications) for years, and has consistently done well
> at
> MCAB and at the NHC.
>
> Giantkiller IPA - 5 gal batch
> Malt:
> 5# DMC Pale 2 row
> 4# Schreier Pale 2 row
> 2# Chariot Pale 2 row
> 1# Schreier Special Pale
> 1# Schreier Wheat
> 1/2# DWC Aromatic
> 1/2# DWC Biscuit
> 1/2# DWC Carapils
>
> Hops:
> 2 oz Centennial (10.7% aa) - 60 min in boil
> 1 oz Centennial (10.7% aa) - 10 min (finish)
> 1 oz Willamette (5.4% aa) - 10 min finish
> 1 oz Cascade (5.6% aa) - 10 min finish
> 1 oz Prele (7.3% aa) - 10 min finish
> 1 oz homegrown hops (mix Cascade/Liberty) - 10 min finish
> 1 oz Centennial - dry hop in secondary
> 1 oz Willamette - dry hop in secondary
>
> 1 tsp Irish Moss (rehydrated) - 15 min from end of boil
> Yeast - Wyeast 1272 American Ale II - Quart starter
>
> Mash in 155 F - hold 45 min til converted
> Raise temp to 170 F for mash out
> Sparge w 3 gal 175 F water
> Boil 75 min with moss and hop additions
> 14 days primary, 16 days secondary, with dry hop in final week
> S.G. - 1.070
> F.G. - 1.016
>
> My 3rd place Scottish Ale recipe will follow.
>
> Cheers!
> Joe Formanek
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:42:15 -0500
From: "Formanek, Joe" <Jformanek@griffithlabs.com>
Subject: MCAB recipe - 3rd place Scottish 80/-
> Here is my recipe for the 3rd place Scottish (80/-) at MCAB 3. This one
> is very malty, with the malt character increasing over time with aging. I
> attribute this to my use of decoction in making this beer, as well as
> boiling down the 1st gallon of sweet wort. I tend to decoct all of my
> malty beers, and in general they all seem to turn out well.
>
> McFormanek's Scottish Ale - 10 gal batch
> Malt:
> 10# Beeston's Maris Otter 2 row
> 4# Beestons Pale 2 row
> 3# Schreier Special Pale
> 1# DWC Wheat
> 1# DWC Aromatic
> 1/2# DWC Caramunich
> 1/2# DWC Carapils
> 1/2# DWC Roast Barley
> 2 oz English Peat smoked malt
>
> Hops:
> 2 oz Goldings (4.1% aa) - 60 min in boil
> 1/2 oz Goldings (4.1% aa) - 10 min (finish)
>
> 1 tsp Irish Moss (rehydrated) - 15 min from end of boil
> Yeast - Wyeast Scottish Ale - 1/2 gal starter
>
> Mash in 154 F - hold 60 min til converted
> Pulled 1/3 of mash, boiled for 20 minutes, then added back to rest of mash
> This raises the temp to 170 F for mash out
> Sparge w 4 gal 175 F water
> After recirculation, pulled 1st gallon sweet wort and boiled it down to
> syrup. This was then added back to remainder of boil
> Added 4 gal water, then boiled 75 min with moss and hop additions
> 10 days primary, 14 days secondary, 25 days tertiary
> S.G. - 1.060
> F.G. - 1.020
>
> Hope these recipes are useful for you'all!
>
> Cheers!! Hope to see you folks at LA!
> Joe Formanek
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:55:06 -0400
From: David Harsh <dharsh@fuse.net>
Subject: Re: Fermenter Geometry
> The complete explanation of poor attenuation and high diacetyl must lie at
> the level of individual cells, Dave.
Of course. My point is that the macroscopic aspects of what happens in
the fermenter (and how it affects the individual cells) causes the
observed changes.
> Anyway circulation is not directly related to H:W aspect ratio. so if
> circulation is 'the' cause H:W ratio geometry certainly isn't.
Circulation is a strong function of fermenter geometry. Are you really
trying to say that the circulation patterns for 5 gallons of wort in a
corny keg are going to be the same as 5 gallons of keg in a cubitainer
or a coolship? This is basic fluid mechanics and not up to debate by
anyone in the field. Try pouring a can of Guiness into a Belgian beer
glass (I won't tell the beer police on you!) and look at what happens -
you won't see the bubbles only moving down along the outside. Why?
Geometry, plain and simple.
>>we can't possibly control EVERY factor.
>
> Textbooks on experimental design aren't ridiculous and don't require control
> of every associated variable, but you *must* control for or eliminate the
> impact of known confounding variables.
Control was probably the wrong word to use. I'm a strong believer in
experimental design and beat my students with the concepts for years.
Determining the effect of a single variable, however, requires that no
other variable that affects the measured parameter changes and I don't
think you can do that. I'll agree you can control oxygen, CO2, and
temperature without too much difficulty.
> Saying the H:W causes yeast performance diffs w/o controlling for CO2 and O2
> is a bit like stating that nitrogen ions are lethal to yeast based on an
> experiment that adds nitric acid and doesn't control for pH.
Now *that's* ridiculous.
> Poor attenuation and high diacetyl levels can ONLY be the result of cell
> metabolism...
Cell metabolism only? I don't think so. Can't premature flocculation
of the yeast cause poor attenuation? Wouldn't those prematurely
flocculated yeast be less likely to reabsorb the diacetyl produced? And
finally, flocculation rate increases with shear rate, which is a strong
function of cirulation and fermenter geometry.
> The simplest, most direct explanation wins - Occam's razor.
No doubt. I think that changes in circulation patterns due to fermenter
geometry qualify in this case.
To test this theory a more flocculant yeast would show a greater change
than a low-flocculating strain. Some strains might not show any affect
at all. "All things being equal" of course, whatever that means.
Dave Harsh Cincinnati, OH
Bloatarian Brewing League
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:09:28 -0400
From: Phil Wilcox <pjwilcox@cmsenergy.com>
Subject: More Carbo talk
After much cajoling of 4 different brewmasters in five years at my local
pub, I finally got the water ion numbers I have been looking for. Was it
from the Guru from Portland who set up the place, no. Was it from the
cocky brewer with a B.A. who learned to brew at Micro under a
Weinenstephan grad. No, it was from the brewer who looks so green and so
young he gets carded at his own pub! He knows what he does know, and he
knows that there is a hell of a lot more out there to learn. Way to go
Joe!
Chloride 8 ppm
Floride 0.3 ppm
CaCo3 209 ppm
Iron 0.2 ppm
Sodium 9 ppm
Sulphate 9 ppm
Now Promash will let me calculate Ca, Mg and Alkalinity from the CaCo3
if I have a pH (Which Joe says varies between 7.0 and 7.5)
running all three of the micro calculators
I get the following results--Are they correct?
Ca 83.6
Mg 50.6
Na 9.0
SO4 9.0
Cl 8
HCO3 254.6
pH 7.25
My local water is way to high in Cl for me use without boiling the day
before, and I don't have the time, or the willingness to pay for the
propane to boil water twice. So I use the brewpub water, It gets me out
to my local watering hole and makes my mug club membership financially
viable...
What is the best way to play with this water. I use it for all my Ale's
and some of my lagers. My soft lagers I use Culligan water because they
engineer all their water to the same specifications nationwide. It looks
like this.
Ca 2
Mg 1.3
Na 3
SO4 0.0
Cl 4.4
HCO3 0.0
pH 7.0
Now that is soft! And I have a baby's bottom to compare it too!
Phil.
PS. Thanks to all the FL/Ala home brewers who responded to me. Must have
been at least 8 or 9 of ya! -- Cheers!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 15:08:59 -0700
From: "Steven M. Claussen" <sclaussen@mail.kindercare.com>
Subject: fermentor geometry
In HBD #3634, Stephen Alexander said regarding fermentor geometry:
>An BB&MB type CC has the same surface area to
>volume ratio as a cornelius keg with 3.75 gallons of wort so we should
>expect similar O2 diffusion into the wort.
I do not have my CC or a cornelius keg handy, so I am unable to
determine the accuracy of this statement (no matter how many times I
ask, my boss STILL won't let me keep a fermentor in my office!).
However, I am certain that, regardless of its accuracy, the comparison
as posited is irrelevant. A 5 gallon corny being used as a fermentor
would most likely be filled with 4.5 gallons (or more) of wort. A 12.2
gallon BB&MB CC is designed to be filled with approximately 10 gallons
of wort. The surface area to volume ratio of a corny with 4.5 gallons
of wort would be substantially dissimilar to that of a BB&MB CC filled
with 10 gallons of wort.
If we are going to discuss a virtual experiment, we might as well not
"cook" our virtual data. ;^>
-Steve Claussen in PDX
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3635, 05/17/01
*************************************
-------
