Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4405
HOMEBREW Digest #4405 Thu 20 November 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:
RE: Care and nurturing of counterflow chillers ("Gary Smith")
Digests, yeast mixtures and hop mixtures (Michael)
Counterflow chiller (Michael)
Re:mash efficiency & cleaning tubes ("Christopher T. Ivey") ("Rob Balsinger")
Re: Correct Units for Potential Yield (Fred Johnson)
Sugar things ("A.J deLange")
Re: Dry Hop -- How Long? (gornicwm)
Sugar-water and EtOH-Water solutions (David Harsh)
Sabco Fermentor (Michael Owings)
Vinyl tubing ("Spencer W. Thomas")
Re: Non-digest version (Demonick)
Re-using smoky yeast cake (Christopher Swingley)
Brewster v Brewer, Stout, flocculation,mixtures, dry hopping ("Dave Burley")
Digest, Classification (Alexandre Enkerli)
Re: Sabco Fermeenter (Mike.Szwaya)
RE: blonde stouts and my will (Brian Lundeen)
Sugar to Alcohol Imponderable ("Todd Carlson")
Saflager 34/70 (RiedelD)
Which Temp Controller & freezer should I get?? (the Morrows)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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. Note that the Digest now
automagically protects your address, so spam-proofing is a waste of
your time, anyway :^)
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.
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Spencer Thomas (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:00:55 -0600
From: "Gary Smith" <mandolinist at ameritech.net>
Subject: RE: Care and nurturing of counterflow chillers
I have a peristaltic pump which puts out a
fair volume/minute. I make liberal use of
quick disconects in my system and the
When I am ready to sanitize the CFC I
make up a solution of PBW and fill my
first carbouy with it & let it set for 20 minutes.
I then transfer that liquid to a second
carboy for 20 minutes. Then it goes into a
tupperware where I have the suction of
the peristaltic suck the PBW, run it
through the CFC and back into the
tupperware.
I then follow the same sequence but use
Star San. When I'm done I leave the
CFC filled with star San till I'm ready
to use it.
Never had a bad batch yet...
Gary
Gary Smith
CQ DX de KA1J
http://musician.dyndns.org/homebrew.html
http://musician.dyndns,org.rims.html
"Give a man a beer and he'll drink for five minutes.
Teach him where the beer is, he'll drink for a lifetime and get it his own
damn self".
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0600
From: Michael <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Digests, yeast mixtures and hop mixtures
Regarding the digest format: I like it.
*********************************************************
Regarding mixtures of yeasts as Dave Burley asked, well, I have played
a bit with this intentionally and otherwise.
Once I pitched a couple of packets of Danstar Windsor or Nottingham into
a porter because my starter wasn't going (Wyeast 1214--I decided to make
a porter only after realizing that I hadn't given the starter enough
time). After 24 hours, the Windsor/Nottingham had done absolutely
nothing. When I've used dry yeast the fermentation has always started
within 24 hours, so I was a bit concerned. The Wyeast 1214 starter was
at full krausen, however, so I pitched it. It was done within another 24
hours. The finished product was decent, albeit not as interesting as I'd
hoped. (I'm not sure if I jumped the gun with the starter or if I
fermented at too low a temp for ester production.)
I've also played around with fermenting the same wort with two different
yeasts, and I've toyed around with the idea of blending the finished
products. The disadvantage of blending yeast is that it may be hard to
predict what the finished product will taste like if the two strains
don't behave identically each time. However, if you ferment a portion of
your wort with each strain you can then blend to control this. If I had
more keg space I'd do this more often.
*********************************************************
I was flipping through a catalog this weekend, and I noticed that it
talked about certain hops blending well together. Well, yes, I guess
some combinations of hops do work well together. But what combinations of
hops have you found that just don't work well together? I've mostly used
fairly traditional combinations, or beers with only one variety of hops.
Michael in Middleton WI
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:32:31 -0600
From: Michael <grice at binc.net>
Subject: Counterflow chiller
Forgot to mention my routine for cleaning and sanitizing my CFC. Before
use I usually push through a couple gallons of Straight A, then hot or
boiling water, then a gallon or so of Star San. After use I run through
some more Straight A, then some water. Afterwards I blow the water out
of both tubes and stick it in the basement. This seems like a lot of work,
but it's really not, as I just let it go while I do other things.
Michael in Middleton WI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:51:47 -0500
From: "Rob Balsinger" <rbalsinger at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re:mash efficiency & cleaning tubes ("Christopher T. Ivey")
Chris Ivey
Champaign, IL
on Nov 19th asks:
>>>>1) what are some of the main sources of
variation in mash efficiency??
My experience has been that changes in water
to grist ratio in mash can significantly increase
or decrease efficiency numbers. Also I have had
to standardize the mash stirring procedure. I can
change the efficiency of the mash by altering the
length of stir or the thoroughness when stirring
by hand.
Finally, I saw an increase in efficiency when I took
more care than in the past to draw off and recirculate
wort at the end of the mash to get clear runnings.
Rob Balsinger
Lewis Center OH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:18:09 -0500
From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at portbridge.com>
Subject: Re: Correct Units for Potential Yield
I fear folks missed Todd's point that the expression of the units as
points/pound/gallon can and almost always does yield incorrect results,
depending upon the order of operations. I submit to you that most
(all?) spreadsheets and mathematics operations will return an incorrect
result if you simply perform the operations from left to right as they
are written. One must either place parentheses into the units to
specify the order of operations or rearrange the formula.
points/pound/gallon = incorrect result in most (all) spreadsheets
(points/pound)/gallon = incorrect result
points/(pound/gallon) = correct result
points*gallon/pound = correct result, regardless of the presence or
placement of parentheses
Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:53:17 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Sugar things
Bill Frazier wrote:
>Specific gravity is used to calculate the weight of 1 gallon of wort.
>Specific gravity is converted to degrees Plato or Brix.
>Plato is used to calculate the weight of extract in 1 gallon of wort.
all of which is true enough but it's not quite clear how Plato is used
to calculate the weight from this wording. Plato degrees is the
strength of the solution (wort) on a w/w basis i.e. it is the amount of
extract in a unit weight of wort. 10 degrees Plato describes a solution
with 100 grams of extract per kilogram of wort. The specific gravity
tells the weight of a liquid per unit volume. A 10 degree Plato
solution weighs 1.040 kg per liter. Thus if we multiply 100 grams/kg by
1.040 kg/liter we get 104 grams/liter as the amount of extract.
Multiplying by the length of the brew gives the total extract (e.g. a
1 hectoliter brew length would imply 10.4 kg total extract) and this
can be compared to the weight of the grain used (adjusted for moisture
content or not as you prefer) to calculate overall conversion
efficiency. Throw the maltster's conversion measurement in there and
you can estimate your brew house efficiency.
John Gubbins wrote
>If you add sugar
>to water, the volume of the water does not change.
Not so! If you add sugar to water to the extent that the solution is of
strength 10 Plato the volume will change by 6.8%. If it didn't
specific gravity would change linearly with the amount of extract, you
wouldn't need the ASBC tables or the Lincoln equations, points would be
accurate and life would be much simpler. It is because of this volume
change that it takes a third degree polynomial to express the
relationship between specific gravity and Plato to accuracy deemed
sufficient for the German brewing industry and the German government
spent plenty getting the data (actually I have no idea what the bill
was but I can imagine the amount of labor that must have gone into
preparing those tables in the days before Anton Paar - an Austrian
yet). Even with a modern density instrument (Anton Paar is a
manufacturer of these) I'm guessing it would take a tech weeks to
reproduce those tables.
John also commented that if alcohol is added to water the volume does
change. That's true but if you add 5 ml of alcohol to a liter of water
you don't get 105 mL but a smidgeon less (~104.7mL). So the volume of
the ferment should go up by about 0.3 gallon in the example he gave (5
gal, 6% ABV). But sugar has been consumed usually to the extent of
about 60% (RDF) so a 10 P wort (volume 6.8% greater that the starting
water) would now be about 4 P (true extract) which has a volume 2.6%
greater than the water. The volume of the wort has changed 4.2% from
loss of extact. That amounts to about .2 gallon in a 5 gallon wort.
That's 2/3 of the 0.3 gallon. At least a tenth of a gallon would be
lost to evaporation. Thus, little volume change is to be expected.
Cheers, A.J.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:13:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
From: gornicwm at earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Dry Hop -- How Long?
Great question! In my personal experience with dry hopping IPAs and
Bitter, I have dry hopped from 3 days to a couple of weeks and the
results have been varied.
When I dry hop up to a week, it seems that my beers are more floral
and perfumy from the leaf hops that I use. I don't use pellet hops
for dry hopping - they can get "gunky". After a couple of weeks,
the beer seems to be less floral and perfumy and more grassy and
deeply herbal.
Again it depends on what you're looking for and the characteristics
of the style you are after...some brewers like herbal...some brewers
like floral.
As long as the hops are thoroughly wet from the beer they are hopping,
they are pretty safe from mold and other issues. The alcohol will
kill most things that would want to infect the leaves, not to mention
that hops are good anti-bacterial agents on their own as well.
As far as hopping Barley Wine and Imperial Stouts, long term hopping,
I have never heard a brewer say, "Ughhh, I dry hopped too long"!!
Go with your gut. If you're going to dry hop a beverage for a good long
time, keep an eye on it. When things start looking funky, you can always
rack and add fresh hops.
Actually, I think hops added about a week prior to the bottling of an
aged beer would benefit the beer that has been hopped for a long period
of time. You could have all of the elements of the hop aroma.
Aged and Fresh!!!
Happy Hopping!!!
Bill
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:25:09 -0500
From: David Harsh <dharsh at fuse.net>
Subject: Sugar-water and EtOH-Water solutions
Greetings-
John Gubbins" <n0vse at idcomm.com> brings up a major imponderable:
> 2 givens.
> If you add sugar to water, the volume of the water does not change.
> If you add alcohol to water the volume does change.
One conclusion
> In a typical 5 gallon batch at 6% you get just under a third of a
> gallon of alcohol. Why doesn't the volume in the fermenter increase
> by a third of a gallon? It stays at 5 gallons!
Well, it isn't that easy. First, the volume does change for a sugar
water solution, although not much.
Second, the additive volumes of water and ethanol aren't conserved -
which is a clumsy way of saying that 10 ml water plus 10 ml ethanol
doesn't give you 20 ml. It gives you closer to 19 (I know I have a
reference with exact data somewhere, and if someone cares I can dig it
out). That's about 5% for what referred to as "excess volume" - the
difference between the real and ideal solutions. (after writing this,
I have this nagging feeling that the difference is probably closer to
3-4%, but I'd have to check to be sure)
So if EtOH water were an ideal solution, you'd get 5.33 total gallons
in your example, a 6.6% increase. Well, towards the dilute ranges of
things, the volume changes are quite severe - you do have a volume
change, but your fermentors "volume scales" (whatever they might be)
are not accurate enough to determine that with any significance.
The real solution - with a 3.5% reduction due to volume changes of
mixing with a 6.6% increase based on an ideal solution, you end up with
a 3% increase for the real solution - that's 0.15 gallons or ~19 ounces
or 1.25 pints. Can you tell that difference in your fermenters? (I'm
not sure I can)
Dave Harsh Bloatarian Brewing League
Cincinnati, OH
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 08:27:42 -0600
From: Michael Owings <mikey at swampgas.com>
Subject: Sabco Fermentor
I have one of these (the 7.5 gal version). It works really well, but
can be a bit of a pain to clean because of the small corny keg
opening, although it's not much worse than a corny keg. Sometimes I'll
soak in in TSP or PBW overnight There's no need to disassemble the
racking arm (a nice feature, btw) -- you can just clean it with a
tubing brush every now and again.
To sanitize it, I generally just fill it with sanitizer - no problem
there. Leave the thermometer in when you do this. You may want to
occasionally clean out the thermometer well if any gunk builds up.
The sight tube is just vinyl tubing -- you can clean it or replace it
when it gets old.
My only other problem with this fermentor is that it tends to take up
more room in the chest freezer compared to my other fermentor, a
10-gallon keg (which I hear go for several million dollars each on
eBay).
Not a bad deal all-in all, but get the conical if you can swing it. I
haven't bought one of these yet because they are all a bit high to fit
in my CF (I do a lot of lagers).
Cheers -- m
====
Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web:
http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:45:59 -0500
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu>
Subject: Vinyl tubing
Christopher Ivey asks "how do you maintain your vinyl tubing".
I don't have an vinyl tubing. I have silicone tubing. It's more
flexible, has no monomer that can leak out and "flavor" my beer, it's
good to about 400F so has no problem with hot wort (important on the
input side of the CFC). I clean it by flushing with hot PBW and
StarSan. I run boiling water through it, and have boiled it a few
times. After many years, it's still flexible and uncracked. Best
purchase I ever made.
The stuff was not easy to find at the time. Your local hardware/home
despot doesn't carry it. I ended up ordering full rolls from the
manufacturer and sold off smaller pieces to other HBDers. It ended up
at about $1.25/ft as I recall.
=Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:38:28 -0800
From: Demonick <demonick at zgi.com>
Subject: Re: Non-digest version
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog at lemis.com>
>Before you say "talk to the list administrator", the reason why I'm
>sending this to the entire list is because I suspect that there are
>plenty of other people out there who'd also prefer individual
>messages.
From: "Rob Moline"
>individual message people who do not understand the importance of trimming
>the message to which they are replying. Sometimes an entire message is
>regurgitated to which a line or two is added.
I want to second Rob's reason for being against the individual message
option. All one needs to do to see the difference between the generally
judicious use of "snip and trim", and the waton profligation of repeated
message quoting, is compare the HBD to any USENET newsgroup.
<300 quoted lines of political opinion>
"Me too!"
<100 quoted lines recounting a successful snipe hunt>
"Way to go!"
<200 lines extolling the virtues of the Harley flathead as opposed to the
knucklehead>
"I second that."
... and all the other brainless, pointless, worthless noise that one sees
in newsgroups.
We have none of that in the HBD. The signal to noise ratio of the HBD is
extrodinarily high, and it is because it is a digest that this high SNR is
maintained. I probably delete half my posts, because in the HBD post
response I can see that others have addressed the same issue. Individual
email posts would not support the "retract" feature of the digest form of
the HBD.
All the participants of the HBD know that there is a size limit to the HBD
and this makes one careful in the number of replies and in the quality of
the replies and in the length of the replies.
Domenick Venezia
Venezia & Company, LLC
Maker of PrimeTab
(206) 782-1152 phone
(206) 782-6766 fax
Seattle, WA
demonick at zgi dot com
http://www.primetab.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:04:37 -0900
From: Christopher Swingley <cswingle at iarc.uaf.edu>
Subject: Re-using smoky yeast cake
Greetings!
A month ago I commented on my experience racking fresh wort onto a yeast
cake that had been used to ferment a smoked beer. At that time I
mentioned that my first sampling of the wort had a hint of smoke flavor,
but that on bottling, I didn't detect any. Well, I opened the first
bottle of this brew (a brown ale) a couple nights ago, and I could taste
a definite hint of smoke. Not a strong flavor (like the smoked porter
the yeast created originally), but detectable. I like it, and it suits
the beer, but you might not want to follow up a smoked beer with a beer
where a touch of smoke would be inappropriate.
- ----
I also prefer non-digested mailing lists, but bowing to the wisdom and
opinon of the list, I use this procmail recipe:
:0:
* ^TO_hbd.org
| formail -i "To: homebrew at hbd.org" +1 -ds >> in-hbd
to un-digestify it.
Beers,
Chris
- --
Christopher S. Swingley email: cswingle at iarc.uaf.edu
IARC -- Frontier Program Please use encryption. GPG key at:
University of Alaska Fairbanks www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:26:11 -0500
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: Brewster v Brewer, Stout, flocculation,mixtures, dry hopping
Brewsters,
Once again the issue of Brewster vs Brewer is brought up, this time by Carlos
Benitez' linguist SWMBO ( pretty clever of Carlos to have her read the HBD ).
I am aware of the geneology of the female suffix
"-ster" ( e.g. "Spinster" the unmarried female who spins thread and
unltmately came to imply a female beyond the marrying age).
I suggest that in modern language the -STER suffix implying female no longer
holds, as we use Jokester, Monster (e.g. Carlos' use of the title "Green
Monster Brewery") and such without any sexual implication. If anything, in
these two examples we tend to think "male". Language usage does change over
time as your SWMBO will undoubtedly attest.
On the other hand when I played football we often said "OK, girls, let's go
get'em" to these great big bruisers fully clad in battle gear, just to be
funny.
Use whichever sense to the words makes you happy, as I assure you of my good
and fun-loving intentions with no negative implication.
- -----------------------
I believe Stout originally implied a strong drink of higher alcohol ( as
Porter was also known as a Brown Stout), but Guinness in his Irish brillance
developed a dark colored drink ( emulating the very popular British Porter
import to Ireland of the day) of low ( even lower today) alcohol and low %
malt and using roasted, un-malted Barley to reduce the impact of the British
taxman. This brew also may have been in competition to the hottest new
beverage of the day - coffee. In his brilliance, Guinness called it a Stout
and successfully sold it up against the British Porter. Since then the word
"stout" when referring to beer is considered to be applied to dark beers with
the hidden implication of, but not confirmed, higher alcohol content
Guinness Foreign Extra Stout was of high alcohol since it was exported and
needed the alcohol to provide stability on the sea voyage . Russian Imperial
Stout at 8% ABV is also dark and high in alcohol for the same reasons
To this day, when we say "Stout" we think of a dark beer stronger in alcohol,
even if it is good for you.
- -------------------
Oregon Alt wonders why his beers stop fermenting partway through, but stirring
speeds them on.
In a word - flocculation.
Rousing the beer either with a spoon or by moving of the beer to a carboy from
the fernmenter will get the yeast, which flocculated, back into play to finish
it off. This procedure was common in Scotland and in some British breweies.
More than one racking may be required.
One solution, especially in London, was to incoroporate a non-flocculating
strain to keep things stirred up as we discussed yesterday. The other was to
just rouse as you did but often with oars ( in the preelectric days) or to
move ( "drop") the entire batch to another fermenter to finish it off..
- ------------------
John Gubbins has a blending conundrum that starts off with a false premise or
two.
Sugar added to water DOES increase the total volume, just not 1 cup of sugar
to one of water produces two. Your suggestion that a teaspoon of sugar in
coffee doesn't cause an increase in volume is incorrect , just below your
eyeball detection limits.
Alcohol in water actually DECREASES and a cup of each blended is less than 2
cups.
5 gallons of wort produces less than 5 gallons of beer.
- -----------------------
Ross Porter asks about dry hopping.
Traditionally dry hopping was done by the cellarmaster Publican at the Pub at
the time he put in the isinglas to clarify the beer and the beer was served
within a few days of that and consumed in a few days. Hardly the same as most
homebrewing experience.
I am always concerned that an excess of time after dry hopping could bring
about infection of the brew from resident anaerobic lactobacillus on the hops,
even though hops may have some anti-bacterial activity. Some who have tried
dry hopping seem to have done it succesfully, but I suspect the possibility of
infection is always there, especially if the beer is not kept chilled after
dry hopping..
I suggest that you dip your dry hops into a small amount of boiling water and
place the entire mixture in the beer as a way of reducing the infection
potential
Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:00:15 -0500
From: Alexandre Enkerli <aenkerli at indiana.edu>
Subject: Digest, Classification
One thing to note about this particular digest. It works well because
people are all on digest mode and it has been going on for so long that
posting procedures are well-established.
I don't know if it's common knowledge but those who reply to posts
often CC: to the original poster. That's (one) reason you see people
replying to posts that are in the same digest. At first, I thought that
some people were privy to a secret non-digest version. It might still
be the case. There's a few HBDers I suspect of bending the rules a
little... ;-)
__________________________
Now, here's a topic I've been discussing with a number of people in
private for a while. I'd be interested in getting more general insight
as to what people actually do.
It can generate heated discussions so I need to be careful. Although I
can be fairly vocal about the topic, I *sincerely* hope it won't start
any kind of flame war.
As a disclaimer, interpret my point of view as that of: a) a social
scientist, interested in brewing as a social phenomenon; b) a
"beer-as-art" brewer more than a "beer as technique and/or science"
brewer; c) someone interested in classification system; d) an idealist
when it comes to computer brewing tools.
Phew! Now, for the actual topic... ;-)
What kind of a beer classification do you actually use? Do you, in
fact, use one? Do you rely on BJCP-described styles? Do you mostly
think of commercial examples you want to clone? Do you use
characteristics (maltiness, bitterness) instead of "styles" and
determine that you want a malty beer with such level of bitterness?
Part of the reason I ask is the BJCP. Now, really, I have an immense
amount of respect for those who made the BJCP possible. They did a
wonderful thing for several brewers and their collective beer knowledge
is mind-boggling. But the BJCP style guidelines may have unfortunate
results with some people, if taken to mean more than what they are.
I don't want to sound confrontational or accusatory. I'm just looking
for different ways to classify beer.
Again: please, no flames!
Alex, in Montreal
[555.1km, 62.8] Apparent Rennerian
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:05:01 -0800
From: Mike.Szwaya at clark.wa.gov
Subject: Re: Sabco Fermeenter
Gary!
I've been using a Sabco Fermenter for about 4 years now. Over that time
I've formulated some opinions on the unit which I'll try to summarize.
-I currently have, or had, 4 options for fermenting larger batches; a 15
gal. glass demijohn (carboy for the non-wine makers out there), a 17 gal.
food grade plastic pail/bucket, the Sabco fermenter, and lastly, using
multiple carboys. I currently switch off and on between the demijohn and
the Sabco.
The demijohn is an accident waiting to happen and also a PITA to clean.
However, the new drill carboy/keg cleaner attachment may change my mind.
The demijohns are also bulky and near impossible to move once filled.
A couple lost (spoiled) batches in the food grade bucket ended that
experiment rather quickly. I probably let it sit there following active
fermentation too long but that's neither here nor there now. Since I can't
attend to my beer as timely as I'd like, I'm not a big fan of open
fermentation.
Using multiple carboys is fine if you don't mind the added work or if you
like splitting batches up with different yeasts. I'm too lazy for that and
don't want to have a dozen or so carboys around.
I finally saw and bought the Sabco. At the time it seemed like the best
option for larger batches. There's obvious pros to it;
sealable/pressurizable, solid construction, corny fittings, thermometer.
-It's inexpensive compared to a conical, which I would like to get next
year, and also solid enough to move around.
-Despite best intentions, occasionally I do need to lift the fermenter.
This usually occurs when I would like to locate it in a
temperature-controlled environment. For me, this is either my chest fridge
for lagers or a small water bath for ales. I use a handtruck to move it
around and also use a pully system to lift up and down.
-For transferring, I'll seal it up and use CO2 to push the beer out and down
the 'out' tube of the corny for a splashless transfer. I made a splitter
where I can fill 2 or 3 cornys at the same time. A couple overflowed cornys
while I wan't paying attention got that idea going.
-I ditched the sight tube fairly quickly. To use it as a transfer tube
required a) lifting the fermenter to use gravity, b) really sanitizing the
tubing, and c) adding a connection to extent the short tube. I suppose I
could have used CO2 to puch it out but the corny fittings seemed much easier
to use. As far as having a sight tube goes, it didn't seem like that big a
deal to have. There will be a mini-ferment in the tubing which will result
in the tubing needing to be broken down and scrubbed each time. I've since
sealed the port with a 1/2" plug.
-I completely disassemble the unit between batches to clean & sanitize.
There are too many fittings where stuff can hide for my comfort level. I'll
use a small brush to clean out the threaded ports and reassemble all the
fittings with teflon tape. Based on all the ports and fittings, StarSan is
probably the best choice. You'll need to force sanitizer up through the Out
tube to get that too.
-To sanitize the thermometer, I fill a small 1/2 pint jar full with
sanitizer and put the thermometer in it. The thermo. diameter is larger and
rests on the jar rim while the back side of it is completely submersed.
-If you thought cleaning a keg through the small opening was a pain, the
Sabco is doubly so. The combination of fermemtation gunk at the top plus
the sharp angle through the opening to the sides makes me really dread
having to clean it. I'd say that this is probably my largest drawback
against the unit. As mentioned, I've just received the drill attachment.
I'm hoping this changes my mind some.
-There's not much headspace for 15 gal. batches. A very active fermentation
will make a huge mess on the top of the inside of the keg which you'll need
to scrub off. You'll also need a blowoff tube. The tiny port drilled in
the corny lid can easily plug up. Since I took the bottom hardware for the
sight tube off, I use the top half of it as the blowoff outlet into a bucket
with light iodine or StarSan solution. The 1/2" tubing works well in this
regard.
-It's not that easy to harvest yeast from batch to batch.
-I've never used the pressure relief valve to automatically carbonate the
beer. Don't know why, I just never bothered to use it.
Conclusion:
Based on what I've seen, there aren't too many good options out there to
ferment a batch larger than 12 gal. in. 4 years ago, this seemed like it.
I love the idea of having a conical but I have concerns about temperature
control and the cost associated with having it. With some added tools like
a handtruck and pulley, I can move it to whatever temperature control
environment I need to reasonably easy. There's some drawbacks to it,
especially related to cleaning, but you learn to live with it.
In short, I'm glad I have it. It just takes a little bit to get used to.
mike.szwaya at clark dot wa dot gov
Portland, OR
"We had a match that seemed perfect, until we discovered that one was a
cattle rancher's son and the other was a vegan."
Leslie Marsicano of Davidson College, on finding roommates for new students.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:04:20 -0600
From: Brian Lundeen <BLundeen at rrc.mb.ca>
Subject: RE: blonde stouts and my will
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 20:09:55 -0800 (PST)
> From: carlos benitez <greenmonsterbrewing at yahoo.com>
> Subject: brewster vs. brewer
> On another topic - can a stout be blonde?
No, but a blonde can be stout. (HAHAHA... Ok, too obvious, not up to my
usual standards).
> Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 23:21:27 -0600
> From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
> Subject: RE: Non-Digest version
>
> Submitting to Brian's will....
> I remain....
> Gump
Very good, my humble servant. Now, you WILL get Brian elected to the AHA
board. You WILL get Brian elected.... (cue the theremin).... You WILL....
;-)
Brian, the Enchanter (no, I do not answer to... Tim)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:40:26 -0500
From: "Todd Carlson" <carlsont at gvsu.edu>
Subject: Sugar to Alcohol Imponderable
Dear John: Thanks for asking a chemistry question. I makes me feel
useful. You asked why does the volume of the wort seem to not change
during fermentation. Your analysis of the process contained a couple of
flaws. First, diluting a solute in water does change the volume of the
solution. In dilute solutions (such as the sugar in your coffee) the
change is negligible. But wort is usually greater than 10% dissolved
solids so the volume displaced is significant. Second, volumes don't
add, meaning that 1 gallon of solution A plus 1 gallon of solution B
doesn't make 2 gallons of mixture. Again, if you are working with
dilute solutions, the discrepancy can be ignored. But in some cases,
especially with ethanol, the discrepancy can be large. When ethanol and
water are mixed, the resulting solution has a much smaller volume than
expected. Thus, the sugar takes up more space than you expect and the
ethanol takes of less, so the net effect is that there is very little
change in volume during fermentation. To estimate the actual change I
crunched some numbers.
Warning - Those adverse to arcane calculations should skip to the last
sentence of the next paragraph.
Suppose your "wort" is a 12% maltose solution. According to the
CRC Handbook (66th ed) this has a density of 1046 g/L at 20 deg C.
Divide by the density of water and you get a specific gravity of 1.048.
>From the density and concentration, we can calculate that 1.000 L of
"wort" has 125.6 g (or 0.3669 moles) of maltose and 920.9 grams
(or 51.11 moles) of water. This amount of water by itself would have a
volume of 922.6 mL so the dissolved maltose accounts for 77.4 mL or
7.74% of the total volume. Now if we assume all of the maltose reacts
to ethanol by the reaction [1 maltose + 1 water ---> 4 carbon dioxide
and 4 ethanol] and we assume all CO2 is lost as gas, we get a final
solution which has 1.468 moles (67.61 g) of ethanol and 50.74 moles
(914.3 g) of water. This converts to an ethanol solution of 6.885 mass
percent, which has a density (according to CRC) of 986.4 g/L. Since we
now have 981.9 grams of solution, the final volume is 0.9955 L. Thus
our reaction caused the volume of the solution to drop from 1000 mL to
995 mL, a decrease of only 0.5% of the original volume.
Todd (spell checker) Carlson
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:20:54 -0800
From: RiedelD at pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca
Subject: Saflager 34/70
Hi all,
I'm just getting into experimenting with DCL's Saflager 34/70 yeast. Does
anyone have some feedback for me on this product?
Specifically, how low of a temperature will it comfortably ferment at? (I
know that DCL claims 9-12C, but I'm looking for practical observations.)
Does it tend to throw diacetyl?
Thanks,
Dave Riedel
Victoria, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:48:14 -0500
From: the Morrows <bret.morrow at prodigy.net>
Subject: Which Temp Controller & freezer should I get??
Hi all!,
I haven't posted here in a long time--been brewing, but haven't had any
questions ;-)
Unfortunately, I have a question now. My brewing refrigerator died &
needs to be replaced. I have been reduced to beer from 2 liter soda
bottles with tire valve pressure caps. Rather than get a refrigerator,
I'm thinking about a buying a small chest freezer & temperature
controller. My questions are: Is it OK to get a freezer & run it at
about 45oC? I don't lager (I don't like lagers). Also, which
controller is the best to get??
I read in the archives about "Ranco" controllers that are available
"everywhere"--but I don't know exactly where. I also have been looking
at William's brewing (williamsbrewing.com--ID# E26)--it has the clear
advantage of being already set up & is about $50--not too bad. Anyone
have 1st hand knowledge about these systems with a chest freezer??
Thanks in advance,
Bret Morrow
Johnson's Brewery--Home of the Yale Ale (Harvard Sucks--The Game is
Saturday)
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4405, 11/20/03
*************************************
-------
