Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4196
HOMEBREW Digest #4196 Sat 15 March 2003
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:
Example Batch Sparging method (John Palmer)
re. White Labs Pitchable Yeast Claims ("John Misrahi")
Boiling hops in water ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Thoughts on peppers ("Franklin, Victor E")
single-step vs. multi-step mash? (Mark Beck)
RE: Is Dry Ice Filthy? ("Mike Sharp")
RE: Food Barley (Michael Hartsock)
RE: Hops and head (Michael Hartsock)
Iodine based sanitizers (Michael Hartsock)
out of style (ensmingr)
refractometer recommendations for beermaking??? (Donald Hellen)
Water Analyses ("Martin Brungard")
Actual Guinness Ingredients ("Ryan and Shelly Furstenau")
Re. Burton Water Profile ("John Palmer")
re: batch sparging (Rama Roberts)
*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge!
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* 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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
for the automation - that's your job.
HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.
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 or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.
JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:52:10 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@altrionet.com>
Subject: Example Batch Sparging method
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@altrionet.com>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:45:19 PM America/Los_Angeles
To: post@hbd.org
Subject: Example Batch Sparging method
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer@altrionet.com>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:20:54 PM America/Los_Angeles
To: post@hbd.org
Subject: A suggested procedure for batch sparging.
Michael asked for some explanation on batch sparging technique, so I am
copying this excerpt from my book here. Accordingly, I need to note
that this excerpt is from How To Brew, 2nd Edition, Defenestrative
Publishing Co, 2001 and that I am maintaining my copyright. Since I
don't have the rest of the text from Chapter 18 here, I want to note
that the equations shown below for batch (and no-sparge) brewing were
developed by Ken Schwartz and that he has a writeup and a spreadsheet
available at his site:
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html
(from pages 220-222 of How To Brew)
For example, here is a comparison of the standard 5 gallon recipe
(continuous sparging) and the batch sparge and no-sparge recipes for
the Tittabawassee Brown Ale you brewed for your first all-grain batch:
Grainbill Standard Batch No-sparge
pale ale malt 7 lbs. 7.6 lbs. 8.5 lbs.
crystal 60 malt 1 lbs. 1.1 lbs. 1.25 lbs.
chocolate malt .25 lbs. .3 lbs. .5 lbs.
Total weight 8.25 lbs 9.0 lbs. 10.25 lbs.
Total mash volume 3.75 gal 4.9 gal. 8 gal.
Each method produces the same 6 gallons of 1.041 wort. The obvious
difference is the size of the mash: 4.9 for batch sparge and 8 gallons
for no-sparge, versus 3.75 gallons for the continuous sparge. You will
probably need a bigger mash tun for these methods.
Batch Sparge Recipe Calculations:
Batch sparging works best when two sparge volumes of the same size are
combined to create the wort. To keep the process simple, we want the
first sparge volume to be what we get when we simply drain the mash. To
do this, we need to calculate the optimum mash ratio that will give us
that volume, including the water that will be absorbed by the grain.
Then the batch sparge brewing process becomes as easy as conducting the
mash, draining the first runnings to the boiling kettle, adding an
equal volume of sparge water back to the mash, draining again, and
boiling!
First, let's define the terms in the equations:
Inputs:
OG: Standard recipe original gravity (just the points part i.e.
1.049).
Gr: Standard recipe grainbill (total pounds).
Vr: Standard recipe batch size (e.g., 5 gallons).
Vb: Standard recipe boil volume (e.g., 6 gallons).
Calculation Coefficients:
k: Water-retention coefficient (0.5 quart per pound)
Outputs:
W: Batch sparge water volume (quarts).
Rb: Batch sparge mash ratio (quarts/lb.).
S: Scale-up factor for grainbill.
Gb: Batch sparge grainbill (total pounds).
Vm: Volume of water for the mash (quarts).
BG: Boil gravity (points).
BG1: Gravity of the first runnings (points).
BG2: Gravity of the second runnings (points).
Vt: Total volume of the mash (quarts).
1. Decide how many gallons of wort you will boil to achieve your
recipe volume and thus your sparge volume (e.g. Vb = 6 gallons).
W = Vb/2 (3 gallons i.e., 12 quarts)
2. Calculate the optimum batch sparge mash ratio.
Rb = (Vb + (Vb^2 + 2k*Vb*Gr)^.5)/Gr (1.85 qts/lb.)
= (6 + (36 + 1*6*8.25)^.5)/8.25 = 1.848
3. Calculate the scale-up factor.
S = 1/(1 - k^2/Rb^2) (1.08)
4. Calculate the batch sparge grainbill.
Gb = S*Gr (8.9 or ~9.0 lbs.)
5. Calculate the volume of water for the mash.
Vm = Rb*Gb = W + k*Gb (16.6 quarts)
6. Calculate the gravity of the first runnings.
BG1 = 4*S*Vr*OG/Vm (1.064)
7. Calculate the gravity of the second runnings.
BG2 = 4*Vr*OG*(k/Rb)*(1 - (k/Rb))/(Gr*(Rb - k)) (1.017)
8. Verify the combined boil gravity and recipe gravity.
BG = (BG1 + BG2)/2 and OG = BG*Vb/Vr (1.040 and 1.049)
9. Calculate the total batch sparge mash volume (quarts). The volume
of 1 pound of dry grain, when mashed at 1 quart per pound, has a volume
of 42 fluid ounces (1.3125 quarts or .328 gallons). Higher ratios only
add the additional water volume.
Vt = Gb(1.3125 + (Rb - 1)) (19.5 qts. i.e., 4.9 gallons)
John Palmer
john@howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:43:03 -0500
From: "John Misrahi" <lmoukhin@sprint.ca>
Subject: re. White Labs Pitchable Yeast Claims
I have seen all of the bickering over 'pitchable' yeast lately. People have
complained that White Labs supposedly states their yeast is pitchable for
any 5 gallon batch, without a starter, and that they are misleading people.
However,
I have a pamphlet caled "White Labs Beginning Yeast Basics" which states,
"If more than a pint starter is desired for pitching (for beers over 1.070
Original Gravity, COLD FERMENTED LAGERS, or homebrewers wanting a faster
fermentation), a 1-2 liter starter can be made in just one day".
So they don't claim you can cold pitch a tube into 5 gallons of fermentation
temp lager.....
I just thought someone should point this out. I'm a happy White Labs and
Wyeast customer. I use dry yeast too when it strikes my fancy ;-p
John Misrahi
Montreal, Canada
[892, 63] Apparent Rennerian (km)
"Actually John it uses a very complex algorithm to determine your average
time between "Generate" clicks, and from that can it figures out how drunk
you are, and what styles of beer you prefer. Obviously, you prefer obscure
Belgians!" - Drew Avis
Seen on a tee shirt - "The internet is full. Go away!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:27:55 -0500
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer@umich.edu>
Subject: Boiling hops in water
My good friend Jeff says that he's had good success boiling hops in
plain water. I must respectfully report the opposite. I tried it
once. That was enough. My attempt resulted in a green, grassy-tasting
(and somewhat bitter) water. My tap water has a fairly high pH (8 -
9). Without some acidification, all sorts of nasty tannins and other
flavors are extracted from the hops along with the desired bitterness.
A bit of malt extract brings the pH down to a more reasonable number and
prevents this problem.
=Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:17:12 -0600
From: "Franklin, Victor E" <Victor.E.Franklin@bankofamerica.com>
Subject: Thoughts on peppers
Although this is a little tardy I feel compelled to chime in on this.
A couple of years ago I made a pepper beer my friends still talk
about on occasion. They absolutely loved it. The beer was a very
simple amber recipe that I added the jalapenos to.
I have had pepper beers before that had an overpowering pepper
flavor or nose to them. The beers seemed to be more pepper than beer.
I wanted to avoid this. My objective was to avoid damaging the good
beer flavor, like over-hopping a beer would.
So in my thoughts I likened hopping addition times and the effects on the
flavor, the nose impact this has, and jalapeno additions. Why wouldn't
jalapeno additions be the same? I am sure the process is different but
I couldn't find anything in the HBD about it at the time. I think the
process worked. (Although I can't be sure as I didn't put any jalapenos
in another batch in the fermentor) The beer seemed to have a low pepper-nose
to it with a warm back-end. If I drank 3 of them it would start getting warm.
Here is what I did:
I used 6 small jalapenos cut in half and cleaned. I then browned them on a
skilled (I like to eat 'em like this raw sometimes) and dropped them in
the boil... for 50 minutes.
Has anyone had experience with adding jalapenos to the begging of a boil
on one batch and to the fermentor on another?
If so, was there any difference between the two?
If this were true it would be a great way to balance the heat vs. nose effect.
In the end I would always suggest being conservative on jalapeno additions.
I figure it is easier to add more later than to try and take some
of the heat/ smell out.
Victor Franklin
Phoenix, AZ
Already in the 80's :-)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:35:54 -0800
From: Mark Beck <beckmk@whitman.edu>
Subject: single-step vs. multi-step mash?
I'm a relative newbie to all-grain brewing, and so far I've made some IPA's
using single-step infusion mashes (a couple of which have turned out pretty
darn good!) However, soon I hope to brew a Belgian Triple, and I'm
contemplating using a multi-step mash. I plan to use a pilsner malt.
In the Classic Beer Styles on Belgian Ales, it says that the recipes are
calculated for a single-step infusion mash "for simplicity", or something
like that. However, in the chapter where brewing details are given, a
multi-step mash is described.
So: Do I need to do a multi-step mash? What are some possible differences
in flavor, attenuation, etc.?
Any hints on brewing a Triple would be appreciated.
Mark Beck
Walla Walla, WA
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:47:07 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Is Dry Ice Filthy?
"FLJohnson@portbridge.com" wonders if Dry Ice Is Filthy?
The dry ice I've bought was made on the spot, in a wooden box that just they
just set on the floor. No sanitation whatsoever, nor any cleaning that I
could see, aside from shooting a bunch of liquid CO2 into it. If you pay
extra, they put it in an unsanitary press and compress it. So, yes, it's
filthy, IMHO.
But at bottling time in a bucket, I don't think you have to worry--you're
priming with sugar and getting the yeast going again...I force carbonate,
and purge the keg with CO2 prior to transferring into secondary and then
when transferring to the bright beer keg.
Regards,
Mike Sharp
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:46:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Food Barley
I have two questions:
1. Isn't it a huge pain in the ass to malt and kiln
your own barley?
2. How do you sparge without hulls?
mike
=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:52:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Hops and head
I'm sure that this is not a great solution. But I
tend to add 1/4-1/2 pound of unmalted wheat to all my
grain bills to improve head retention.
My $0.02
mike
=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:04:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze@yahoo.com>
Subject: Iodine based sanitizers
I just came across this product that seems like a much
better option for brewers, in terms of cost.
For $13.90 a gallon, with a no-rinse dillution ratio
of 1 oz to four gallons, Hillyard's product is FDA
approved and used in restraunts and dairy tanks.
>From their site (Hillyard.com):
H-101 (HIL0012706)
Concentrated sanitizer/deodorizer formulated
especially for food contact surfaces. Ideal for
sanitizing food utensils, countertops, drinking
glasses, dishes, silverware and refrigerated storage
and display equipment. 1:512 dilution rate. EPA
registered and approved by NSF Category D2 for all
surfaces in federally inspected meat and poultry
establishments.
I don't work for Hillyard, or anything - but this
seems like a cost effective alternative. Hillyard has
distributers in most major cities, and sells directly
to the public "anyone with money", so said the sales
representative I spoke with.
Mike
=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:08:38 -0500
From: ensmingr@twcny.rr.com
Subject: out of style
There have been some recent posts in the HBD about competitions
and 'out of style' beers.
If you're worried that your beer is out of style but you still
want to enter a competition, you can enter it under category #24,
"Specialty / Experimental / Historical". This category includes
just about anything and judges look for "a harmonious marriage
ingredients, processes and beer". See:
<http://www.bjcp.org/styleguide24.html>.
I have the most fun judging this category, because you get some
really interesting efforts, sometimes very good and sometimes
very bad.
Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:21:24 -0500
From: Donald Hellen <donhellen@horizonview.net>
Subject: refractometer recommendations for beermaking???
Some of you use a refractometer, so this is for those of you
who have experience with them.
Are the imported Chinese-made ones worth the $60 they cost?
If not, which would you recommend? I don't want to spend
more money than necessary, but I don't want to waste money,
either.
I would use this for homebrewing beer and sometimes possibly
winemaking also.
I may not be able to check back and read your replies until
Monday (maybe, maybe not), but I assure you that I will read
them.
If you have links to places where I can buy one that you
recommend, I am interested in that (or addresses/phone
numbers).
Thanks in advance.
Don Hellen
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:22:32 -0500
From: "Martin Brungard" <Martin.Brungard@trow.com>
Subject: Water Analyses
A number of interesting problems have been posed regarding water analyses
lately. A bad looking Chandler, AZ water and a question regarding
bicarbonate levels in Burton water.
Mike Walker had questions about the Chandler water. I copied the analysis
below.
Calcium = 73 mg/L
Magnesium = 27 mg/L
Bicarbonate = 200 mg/L
Sulfate = 130 mg/L
Sodium = 200 mg/L
Chloride = 291 mg/L
Hardness (as CaCO3) = 290 mg/L
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) = 200 mg/L
pH = 7.59
He recognizes that the water is largely unsuitable for brewing and treatment.
Diluting the water is the easiest treatment option to reduce the high ion
contents. A 1:1 dilution with distilled or RO water will still leave the
water with an excessive chloride concentration, especially if the sulfates
are going to be increased for a hoppy beer. It appears that a 2:1 dilution
would bring the water into a pretty good range, suitable for amending into
many water styles.
Using the dilution should be preferable for most beer styles excepting
pilsners. Having those ions in the water saves some time and money over
using 100% distilled or RO water. By the way, distilled and RO water is not
a good thing for water supply piping nor is it especially good for human
consumption. My background includes substantial water supply engineering and
design. Distilled and RO water are very corrosive for the piping. Water
companies like the water to be a little hard and alkaline so that the
corrosivity is minimized. For human consumption, we need a supply of these
ions to maintain our body chemistry. Gatorade didn't make millions for
nothing! Besides that, the ions give the water some taste. Most water
system users prefer a little taste to their water.
David Humes found an anomaly on the makeup of Burton water. Some resources
list the bicarb as high as 320 and others list it as 0. I did a quick check
of the anion and cation milliequivalents to see if they balanced using some
Burton water analyses I had. I can say with confidence that the report of 0
ppm for bicarbonate in Burton water is not correct. I see that Ray Daniels
recently pointed out the oversight. The anion/cation check and my review of
other sources says that the bicarbonate concentration is likely in the range
of 140 to 200 ppm.
While I was at it, I reviewed the Burton ion concentrations shown in the
Promash program database. It appears that at least one of the ion
concentrations in the Burton profile is incorrect. I suggest that the
reported calcium concentration of 268 ppm is the culprit. It appears that
the calcium should be on the order of 200 ppm. That would bring the
calculated hardness for the Burton profile into line with the data I have.
It appears that Promash users should amend their Burton water profile.
Hopefully Jeff Donovan will review and incorporate that change into the
program database too.
Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:14:23 -0800
From: "Ryan and Shelly Furstenau" <furstenau1@cox.net>
Subject: Actual Guinness Ingredients
I have seen many formulas/recipes out there for Guinness clones. Some
of these perplex me. To my knowledge, Guinness uses a British Malt,
Roasted Barley, and Flaked Barley. The hops type I am not certain of.
Anyway, many of these recipes have rolled barley or black patent malt,
or even corn sugar. This past year I took at trip to Ireland and my
tour of the Guinness brewery confirmed the 3 main ingredients that I
listed above. Can anyone else confirm that Guinness only uses these 3
main ingredients in their beer? If I am correct, why would any Guinness
"clone" include ingredients that aren't in the actual recipe. If I am
wrong, please correct me.
Ryan
Omaha, Nebraska
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:06:51 -0800
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer@altrionet.com>
Subject: Re. Burton Water Profile
The recent discussion of Burton water chemistry reminded me of an analysis I
had obtained back in 1998.
I was researching my water chapter and, given the electrical mutual
exclusion of the ion concentrations given in Malting and Brewing Science,
Practical Brewer, et al., I thought to myself, "Hey, I will just call them!
I mean, people still live there right?!"
What I finally did was got on the UK Digest, and requested that someone call
the water dept and get an analysis. And they did, and here are the results.
Note that this analysis is for one particular source and one particular
sample. Given Ray's comments on the variability of the water with depth,
this data makes sense in view of the published profiles.
Source: Blithfield Reservoir
Date: 28/05/98 Time: 11:35
pH 8.26
Alkalinity as HCO3 152 ppm (ie. bicarbonate ppm)
Total Hardness as Ca 83 ppm (not sure how to use)
Perm. Hardness as Ca 33 ppm (not sure how to use)
Calcium 57 ppm (but since I have this I don't need those above)
Magnesium 15.8 ppm
Sodium (not reported)
Potassium 5.7 ppm
Iron .061 ppm
Manganese .012 ppm
Chloride 26 ppm
Sulfate (not reported)
And that is why I did not use the info in my book, because the sodium and
sulfate were not reported. However, this information does give you the
residual alkalinity of the water which is 70 ppm as CaCO3. This equates to a
base-malt-only mash pH of 5.8, which suggests that the water is best suited
for an amber colored beer. Which it is, historically.
Good Brewing,
John
john@howtobrew.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:26:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Rama Roberts <rama@eng.sun.com>
Subject: re: batch sparging
Michael Fross asks how to batch sparge.
This page (which coincidentally is the first reference if you google for
'batch sparge') is the page I used to learn when I made the jump to all
grain:
http://www.bayareamashers.org/BatchSparging.htm
Its so simple and ideal, I've never bothered trying fly sparging.
- --rama
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4196, 03/15/03
*************************************
-------
