Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4337
HOMEBREW Digest #4337 Mon 01 September 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:
Bubble argumentation ("Fredrik")
CF Chiller Storage (mohrstrom)
re: Batch Sparge ("The Artist Formerly Know as Kap'n Salty")
re: Electric Kettle Control ("C.D. Pritchard")
protein and gum rests / batch sparging (George de Piro)
Re: Batch sparge ("Adam Wead") (Denny Conn)
Poor Dr. Kaka ("Val J. Lipscomb")
re. Beer Haze Post ("Chad Stevens")
RE: Bactch Sparging (g flo)
Omega controller help ("Michael O'Donnell")
Re: The reason for the seemingly excessive oxygen requirements? ("-S")
Correction to info in "Compleat Meadmaker" (Ken Schramm)
Beers and Linux Distros (Alexandre Enkerli)
RE: packing dried hops ("Mark Kellums")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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 (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:50:26 +0200
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis@hotmail.com>
Subject: Bubble argumentation
I like the bubble criticts I get on here. It helps me make sure I don't
underestimate things. All of you are probably more knowledgable and
experienced than me, so I will postpone further defence and argumentation of
the bubbles until I've make some more progress and can present some solid
argumentation. Give me some time and I will show what I mean. If future
investigations proves I am underestimating this I will certainly admit it :)
But I won't give up before I've tried.
A comment on end of fermentation bubbles. The proper way is not to look at
the bubble rate as a number and wait for a treshold. The way would be to do
an integration to determine the total CO2 volume produced. The last bubbles
coming out of the airlock is left in solution after the activity has stopped
because there is a phase shift in time since the beer buffers the produced
CO2. But once the production has ceased, the shape of the graph will change
in a probably quite predictable manner. This kind of dynamic are the thing I
hope to decode and learn more about. I also hope to find other dynamic in
the graph that can be related to fermentation activity. I am not just
examining the bubble rate as numbers, the interesting thing is in the CO2
production, as a function of time. This is why I need thousands of
datapoints.
...more bubbles to come in the future :)
/Fredrik
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:27:06 -0400
From: mohrstrom@core.com
Subject: CF Chiller Storage
Rick asks:
> Does anyone have suggestions for storing a CF Chiller
> neatly? My problem is that it's home-made and easily
> flexes out of shape.
I solved this problem by forming my chiller around, and securing it to
(using cable ties through holes drilled into the reinforced section), a five-
gallon plastic bucket. I use the bucket to store my pump and hoses, and
it has a handy carrying handle.
The buckets are available for free, and you may be able to re-form your
existing chiller to fit.
Mark in Kalamazoo
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:29:02 -0500
From: "The Artist Formerly Know as Kap'n Salty" <mikey@swampgas.com>
Subject: re: Batch Sparge
> Has anyone else had good success with batch sparging?
I've used this technique for years, and seen no loss of efficiency (I
get around 80%-85%, depending on the brew). I usually brew in a round
Gott-type 10 gallon cooler with a phils phalse bottom. The phalse
bottom is weighted down with a "snake", a length of vinyl tubing
filled with steel shot and sealed at both ends. This vastly improves
the performance of the phalse bottom (thanks to Jay Spies for the
tip).
Like your friends, I drain the first runnings (after recirculating a
couple of pints), then fill the tun up with sparge water, let things
settle for 10-15 minutes, recirc another couple of pints, and start
the sparge.
One thing I particularly like about the batch sparge is that there is
no need to hang around and monitor the sparge. You merely fill it up
and let it drain (slowly) into your boiler or other container. Works
particularly well if you don't use a pump or gravity feed for the
sparge water.
Hope that helps -- taFkaks
====
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 06:36:22
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Electric Kettle Control
Dave asked:
>What is a good way of controlling your boil in an electric kettle? I was
>thinking about using just a stove rheostat, or else using two switches
>in line of the element. With both switches on 240 V would be supplied
>and with just one switch on only 120 V would be supplied. I have heard
>of some people using PID controllers, but this seems like overkill. Any
>suggestions would be great though.
A PID is overkill for a kettle. I used a stove element controller for
years with 120 VAC. Most are rated for 1500W or less and 120 VAC and may
not be able to handle 240 VAC and the wattage of your heating element.
A single SPDT switch can be used by switching one side of the heating
element to a neutral conductor to realize 120 VAC.
240-------0
\
Switch 0---+
|
Neutral---0 heater
|
240-------------+
Finally, you can build a pretty simple solid state controller that's
infinitely adjustable from 0 to 100% power for $30 or so- details under
"controller" at:
http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/boilnew/boilnew.htm
c.d. pritchard cdp@chattanooga.net
http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:19:30 -0400
From: George de Piro <george@EvansAle.com>
Subject: protein and gum rests / batch sparging
Hi all,
Chad writes in wondering why John Palmer recommends skipping protein rests.
Chad notes some of the potential positive effects of protein degradation.
The quick answer is that the maltster has already done the protein rest for
you. With only one or two exceptions, modern malts are all quite
well-modified with plenty of FAN. Yes, even the German ones. More
enzymatic degradation is likely to harm head retention more than solve any
haze issues.
When I first started mashing, I believed that more complicated mashing
schedules would make better beer. Triple decoctions were the norm in my
kitchen. After reading, brewing and learning more, I came to realize that
many of the reasons for using complex mash schedules no longer exist, and
they might even produce an inferior result.
Chad also mentions the routine use of a gum (I assume betaglucan) rest. I
wonder if this is necessary for most. I routinely (commercially) produce
German-style Weizen with mash rests of 145F and 160F with no problems (using
100% German malts; 65% wheat malt). If you often stick barley malt mashes,
there may be other issues:
1. Milling too finely.
2. Running off (or recirculating) too quickly.
3. Overloading your mash tun (or using a mash tun that is too deep).
4. Using inferior malt.
If you have addressed all of the above and still get stuck sparges when
skipping the b-glucan rest, then I guess you need to do what works for you.
You may be able to save some time on brew day by checking for other causes
of the stuck mash.
- --------------
Adam writes in to ask about people's experiences with batch sparging. This
is a technique that has always made me wonder:
Why do it? It is less difficult and uses no more equipment to "fly sparge."
You just need a pot (for heating water) and a Pyrex cup (for dumping the
aforementioned water onto the mash).
If you recirculate your wort until it is clear (which you should do), than
with batch sparging you need to recirculate twice during the sparge rather
than just once (because draining the mash tun completely and then refilling
it will disturb the draff under the false bottom). Also, if you drain your
mash tun completely, you'll end up with a lot of the draff from the bottom
getting into the kettle.
I'd be interested in hearing the possible advantages of batch sparging.
Have fun!
George de Piro
Head Brewer, C.H. Evans Brewing Company
at the Albany Pump Station
19 Quackenbush Square
Albany, NY, USA 12207
(518)447-9000
www.EvansAle.com
Brewers of Kick-Ass Brown: Twice declared the Best American Brown Ale in
the USA at the Great American Beer Festival (2000 & 2002)!
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:38:31 -0800
From: Denny Conn <denny@projectoneaudio.com>
Subject: Re: Batch sparge ("Adam Wead")
Adam, I've batch sparged about 150 batches now, and taught dozens of people
the technique. The results always pretty much mirror what you've found. I
started out by increasing the grist bill as recommended, but soon found
that I was achieving an efficiency in the area of 75-80%, so the increase
was unnecessary. I've taught batch sparging to people who have been fly
sparging for years, and many of them have seen their efficiency
increase. I belive that it's because makes sparging makes up for
inefficient lauter design and eliminates the problem of low extraction
rates due to channeling. Add to that the fact that I can get by with less
equipment, I don't have to worry about the pH or gravity of my sparge
runnings, and the fact that it's a bit faster than fly sparging. I fly
sparged my first few batches, but after trying batch sparging, I never went
back. The ribbons I've won with batch sparge beers are proof to me that it
works and works well.
----------------->Denny
At 01:48 AM 8/30/03 -0400, you wrote:
>------------------------------
>
>Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:50:42 -0600
>From: "Adam Wead" <a_wead@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Batch sparge
>
>Dear collective wisdom,
>
>Has anyone out there in the homebrew world used batch sparging much?
><snippage>
>Anyway, if somebody has some theories/experiences, I'd like to hear them.
>
>Until then, relax, and have a homebrew.
>
>Adam Wead, Bloomington, IN
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:10:19 -0500
From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <vlipscomb@satx.rr.com>
Subject: Poor Dr. Kaka
Having read of the sad (and repetitive) plight of Dr. Jim Kaka in HBD
#4334, I can only suggest
that we should band together and send the poor SOB some beer.
Would a nice CACA be appropriate??
Val Lipscomb
Brewing in hot,humid San Antonio
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:41:41 -0700
From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi@cox.net>
Subject: re. Beer Haze Post
I goofed:
The native LTP1 not producing a stabile foam paper is:
www.mbaa.com/TechQuarterly/Abstracts/1993/tq93ab29.htm
and I wrote enzymatic defragmentation; that should have been fragmentation.
Get on my archaic machine and all I can think about is defrag....
Chad Stevens
- ---------------------------------------------------
"I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans."
George W. Bush, September 19, 2000.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:42:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: g flo <gflo77@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Bactch Sparging
In response to Adam Wead's question about batch
sparging... I havn't tried batch sparging yet, but I
plan to do so later this weekend. This was a point of
discussion on another forum a couple of weeks ago, and
I bookmarked these two articles on the subject:
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html
http://www.bayareamashers.org/BatchSparging.htm
hope these helps, and after I have some personal
experience on the subject I'll talk about my results.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:56:30 -0700
From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo@stanford.edu>
Subject: Omega controller help
Hi,
Are any of you out there wizards with an Omega CN9000A PID temperature
controller? I am trying to use one as a simple on/off control to control
my fermentation box with both a fridge and a small heater for when it gets
cold at night. I think that I have all the settings correct, and it works
for a while, but then it ends up with both the outputs powered up and way
out of range. If anyone is familiar with them, I'll send the settings that
I am using and perhaps you will have an idea.
Thanks,
mike
Monterey, CA
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:37:06 -0400
From: "-S" <-s@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: The reason for the seemingly excessive oxygen requirements?
Sorry for the long delay but Fredrik asked ....
> I have not seen this formula before. What are the assumptions behind it?
Empirically determined by Karel Josef (aka Carl Joseph) Napoleon Balling in
the 19th century. You'll often see the formula recast to relate original
and final extract to alcohol.
> >From what I have read so far it seems a typical biomass yield in a beer
or
> wine batchfermentation is some 2-5% (depending on conditions). But in a
> optimised starter I have assumed the yield would be higher?
...
There is a bit of truth in it. What is missing is the meaning of
'optimized'. Stirring, shaking, aerating or doing the hula around your
starter flask will NOT induce any additional growth unless these procedures
provide a growth limiting nutrient, remove a growth preventing stressor, or
improve the yeasts' environment. Yeast grow whenever their
nutritional and environment requirements are met. It's really that simple.
Shaking & stirring has three positive effects 1/ it removed CO2 which is a
metabolic inhibitor, 2/ it increases O2 in the wort with positive effects of
sterol&UFA synthesis and also respiration, 3/ it keeps the yeast in uniform
contact with the nutrients. That's all good, but it ignores all the other
nutrient requirements.
Here is a list of ingredients that make up a complete yeast growth media:
Water, fermentable sugars, oxygen, Ammonium sulphate Potassium phosphate
monobasic, Magnesium sulphate, Sodium chloride, Calcium chloride,
Threonine, Lysine, Leucine, Uracil Adenine, Arginine, Histidine,
Methionine, Tryptophan, Boric acid, Manganese sulphate, Zinc sulphate,
Ferric chloride, Sodium molybdate, Potassium iodide, Cupric sulphate,
Calcium pantothenate, Nicotinic acid, Pyridoxine hydrochloride, Thiamine
hydrochloride, p-Amino benzoic acid, Riboflavin 200, Folic acid, Biotin.
Whew !!
> Maybe some 10%? I'm not sure
> what the theoretical max yield is for anaerobic growth is, I've seen
> articles statee anything from 15% to 30%. Wouldn't it probably vary
>between strains too?
10% is at or above an upper bound for FERMENTATIVE growth. Note that growth
on a stirrer of shaker table has some degree of respiration. It's also
about the upper bound for growth on wort unless nutrients are added. You
simply don't have enough energy and carbon to fuel more growth unless you
respire. In unsupplemented wort you have amino acid and biotin as additional
growth limiting factors which will kick in at or below 10%.. To get 15-30%
*requires* respiration of the carbon source and a good deal of other
nutrients.
With respiration and enough nutrients 50% is practical and 70% may be a
theoretical optimum.
Regarding growth vs yeast variety ... there will be variation *BUT* all
brewing yeast have identical fermentative and respiratory energetics, so I'd
expect similar growth per unit sugar. I'd expect that the different
varieties might have very different requirements for other nutrients ... .
>>>Respiration is one obvious
>>> use for O2.
>
> Interesting! :) I have been a bit unclear to what extent respiration is
> relevant even in the later part of fermentation.
It's not negligible. When you read through data from the various studies
you can easily calculate the extent of respiration by comparing the amount
of alcohol produced (fermentation byproduct) with the amount of sugar
consumed. I think Kirsops booklet is a source for some practical numbers
there.
> needed to model the O2 levels! Thanks for this idea. As for the 75% I will
> try to add a "ghost variable" to balance the O2 flow.
See J.Inst.of Brewing (aka JIB), v102,pp19-25 for a paper which discusses
some of the fates of oxygen in yeast.
> > > Oxygen induction is an active process
...
> This was new to me. I thought ...
> This is according to
> http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/mike/spring2003/lect07.htm
> Did I miss something?
The website is good generic information, but does not consider the
mechanisms of specific organisms, and S.c yeast is a very specialized
creature. You'll need to review some of the modern texts mentioned and
also look to J.Applied Microbiology and similar journals. JIB
v108,pp248-255 discusses a kinetic model of yeast propagation similar to
your intention.
> Are
> you suggesting that O2 requires some kind of transport proteins?
Yes, but I could be mistaken. I recalled reading this *somewhere* and now
I can't find the source. Maybe it's just facilitated diffusion..
>Yeast I turn I will try to model like a kind of state machine.
> There is 3 states, dormant, active or dead. The transitions between these
> states I am trying to model by differentials. O2 is not interesting
itself,
> but since yeast depends on it I see no other way that I have to model it
to
> be able to model yeast accurately. If I find in further research that this
> model isn't consistent I'll update it.
I applaud your simple 3-state model as a good starting point, but take
Einstein's advice; make things as simple as possible but no simpler. Let
the yeast tell you how many states and factors are necessary for a decent
model.
>[...] I could not help asking myself if it would be possible to
> predict that data. I've terrorised the guys at Brews and Views
I assume that's the HBD.org forum - no ?
> Primary importance variables:
> Amount of yeast in each state, sugars, ethanol, dissolved Co2, wort
> temp, bubble rate in airlock, ...?
I think that's a good place to start.
> This may be a stupid mission impossible but that doesn't bother me at
> all, in fact it makes it even more interesting. [....]
> I will learn a lot [...]
I think you will learn a lot and have a lot of fun and I hope I haven't
undermined your enthusiasm in any way. I do think you'd benefit
greatly from some of the chemostat yeast studies and the JIB v108
paper I referenced.
The Gee & Ramirez paper, JIB v100, p321-329 has a very nice
model to start with. I'd be happy to communicate the details offline.
-Steve
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:47:52 -0400
From: Ken Schramm <schramk@mail.resa.net>
Subject: Correction to info in "Compleat Meadmaker"
Over on the Mead Lover's Digest, there has been some discussion that the
mead starter recipe in "The Compleat Meadmaker" creates a medium with
too high a gravity. The comments pointing out this error are accurate,
and I would like to post excerpts from a couple of my responses to
clarify my "on-the-record" stance on the issues.
submitted 8/24:
I am inclined to say that the information on making starters in "The
Compleat Meadmaker" is not the best advice to be found. The starter
recipe, prepared according to the directions in the book, yields a
solution with a gravity of about 1.030. Dan McConnell does, in fact,
prepare his starter cultures at about 1.020. That gravity would call
for a third of a cup of honey, _not_ half a cup. That said, I have used
the starter culture recipe in the book, and juice starters over 1.040,
and have obtained the desired yeast population build-up without
substantial adverse flavor effects.
I'm not going to respond to Raj's question on monosaccharides until I
can get a better understanding of whether or not the polysaccharides in
malt extract are utilized by the yeast in malt extract starters.
It is my understanding that the yeast will absorb oxygen and reproduce
at any phase in the fermentation cycle, irrespective of gravity.
In short, the best info I have indicates that 1.020 or lower, good
oxygenation and sufficient nitrogen and micronutrient levels will work
best to grow healthy populations fastest.
Ken Schramm
Most recently, submitted to MLD 8/31:
Raj points out that pollen-comb is making up for the nitrogen deficiency
of honey, and that would be a way to address that issue. I can't say I
have any concrete information on the composition and the quantities of
nutrients it adds, but if it's working for raj, they must be there.
I do need to do some more research on the glucose issue raj brought up.
If the Crabtree effect is based on the availability of glucose early in
the yeast's exposure to a new medium, then some calculations are in
order to determine if a really low gravity starter medium (as raj
suggested) might be the best possible means of achieving maximum
reproduction. I'm going to put the question to a few more
scientifically well versed of my contacts, and see what I can come up
with. Before anyone else nails me down on it, I also have to say that
the starter nutrient additions are based on personal experience - and on
queries to some yeast authorities, and not on the calculation of what
would be optimal given the experimentally confirmed understanding of how
much nitrogen and other micronutrients team up with X amount of oxygen
to build the greatest possible amount of healthy yeast membrane mass.
That's what we're shooting for here, and I need to get on that and
ferret out some definitive info. OTOH, optimal formulations may require
owning a triple beam balance, and that may be perceived as obsessive to
some hobbyists.
I also want to voice one philosophy I have toward the book. My hope is
that, like all "knowledge" that gets put forth, it gets argued about,
beat up, and in the long run, what's right gets confirmed, and what's
wrong gets, hopefully, corrected. If that is the end result of having a
new, slightly more complete (compleat?) book on mead in the mix, then
excellent. In my mind, I was almost certainly _not_ the most qualified
person on the planet to write every chapter the book. I may have an
interesting blend of knowledge and experience regarding the various
components of meadmaking, but I am not a fermentation scientist. But I
was offered the opportunity to write the book, and my take was that my
best shot at collecting the information I had would be an improvement on
the then currently available literature. Only the readership can truly
determine if that was the case. I will be totally willing to
acknowledge errors and try to get them corrected in future editions of
the book (if I am so luck as to get the chance), so that whatever
reference text is available is as accurate as possible. None of the
errors were intentional. Let the debate begin. Only good can come of
it. If someone else decides that they can write an even better, more
accurate and scientifically based book, outstanding. It furthers the
cause I set out to advance, and I'll be happy when it happens.
I thank raj and others for pointing this out. raj also asks whether the
correct levels for a honey based starter might be much lower than 1.020,
and that may be the case. I wish I had posed this starter gravity and
glucose concentration question to Dr. Cone while he was aboard, but
perhaps I can seek his counsel through other channels.
Ken
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:58:08 -0400
From: Alexandre Enkerli <aenkerli@indiana.edu>
Subject: Beers and Linux Distros
I'm sure other people have seen it. But just in case, here's an article
comparing Linux distros to beer brands. Shows how little people know
about beer.
http://articles.linmagau.org/
modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=32
4&page=1
Alex, in Montreal
[555.1km, 62.8] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:25:43 -0500
From: "Mark Kellums" <infidel@springnet1.com>
Subject: RE: packing dried hops
In HBD 4327 David King ask about drying and packaging homegrown hops.
Since last season I've been drying my homegrown hops with a Nesco food
dehydrator. The dehydrator came with four trays and I've since added two
more. I can pack the trays with green hops so much so that the trays won't
sit flat at first. The hops will compress and the trays will settle soon
after I start the drying process. I set the dehydrator at 155 F and dry the
hops for about six hours. I then let the dry hops sit at room temp for a few
days to allow for some moisture to be reabsorbed. This softens them and
makes them less friable. I vacuum pack the dried hops either in bags or jars
and store them in the freezer.
Before I purchased the dehydrator I dried my hops in the garage on screens.
I got my best results on the hottest days vs. room temperature drying. The
hops dried with the higher temps lacked that unpleasant grassy/chlorophyll
flavor and aroma that the room temperature dried hops displayed.
Hope this helps.
Mark Kellums
Decatur Il.
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4337, 09/01/03
*************************************
-------
