Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #4858
HOMEBREW Digest #4858 Fri 30 September 2005
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org
***************************************************************
THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:
Northern Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com to show your appreciation!
Or call them at 1-800-681-2739
Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********
Contents:
Rowan Williams - pilsener and fusel oils. ("Murray Aldridge")
re: Hydrometers, Batch Sparging efficiency (Ricardo Cabeza)
re: Hydrometers, Batch Sparging efficiency (Ricardo Cabeza)
one last comment on batch vs. continuous sparging (Ricardo Cabeza)
RE: Efficiency (Bill Adams)
Pils for your base malt (leavitdg)
Re: Hydrometers and Batch Sparging (Denny Conn)
1st Annual MALT Turkey Shoot Homebrew Competition (Jack Mowbray)
Re: Upward infusion mashing technique (Steven Parfitt)
RE: Measuring specific gravity - hydrometers ("David Houseman")
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* 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.
LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.
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 (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:13:58 +1000
From: "Murray Aldridge" <aldridge at fjc.net.au>
Subject: Rowan Williams - pilsener and fusel oils.
Rowan,
A fermentation temperature of 17C for lagers is too high. Most lager yeasts
seem to be designed to ferment at 10 - 12C. Some seem to have recommended
temperatures of down to 8C.
Ester and fusil oils production can be increased by too high a temperature
during fermentation. In my early days of lager brewing a solvent/band aid
aroma was frequently present.
The answer is simple - ferment in the fridge. Buy another cheapie if you
have too. A good gadget to have (you can make or buy (ESB in Sydney sell
them) is an thermostat that plugs into the wall socket(with a sensor that
goes in the fridge (no hole, thin enough for the door to shut around) so you
can dial up the exact temperature.
This means you can brew any time you want and also control the lager
temperature. It also means that you could use any ale yeast to brew ales
during Canberra's summer. (Most have a reccommended tempt of around 20C.
Murray Aldridge - Sydney
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:14:40 -0400
From: Ricardo Cabeza <expunged at gmail.com>
Subject: re: Hydrometers, Batch Sparging efficiency
I have read several responses to my comments regarding hydrometers and
batch sparging vs. continuos sparging. I'll start with batch sparging
vs. continuous sparging. (see next post for hydrometer stuff).
Most brewers and breweries try to maintain a constant liquid level
above the grain while sparging continuosly. When the brewer does
this, the water / extract solution is being continuously diluted due
to the obvious addition of more water and the continuous removal of
extract in the outgoing 'sweet' wort. If one were to use the same
volume of sparge water in two identical sparge cycles, one being
continuous and the other being batch, the average extract
concentration in the lauter tun of the continuous sparge would be
lower than that of the batch sparge. This is due to the continuous
extract removal in a continuous sparge cycle.
So why is this important?
Two reasons:
1) The leeching of extract from crushed grain occurs being there is a
concentration gradient between the bulk water / extract solution
outside of the grain and the tiny amount of solution present in the
pores of the grain. The larger the concentration difference, the
faster extract is leeched from the grain. Since the average
concentration of extract in the lauter tun in a continuous sparge
cycle is lower, and the concentration of extract in the grain is
always higher than the bulk solution, extract will be leeched faster
from the grain.
2) However, sparging may be sufficiently slow so that effects of
reason number one are negligible. If this is the case, then the bulk
solution and the tiny amount of solution present in the pores of the
grain will reach equilibrium. Again, the continuous sparge still will
yield higher efficiency. The reason again is due to the lower average
extract concentration in the lauter tun. The final concentration of
extract in a continuous sparge process will be lower than that of a
batch sparge process. Therefore, the final concentration of extract
in the grain will be lower for the continuous sparge process - which
means less extract left in the lauter tun and more extract delivered
to the kettle, yielding a higher efficiency.
All of that being said, if batch sparging is easier and makes the
brewing process faster and more enjoyable, by all means do it! This
is a hobby for most of us. An extra pound of grain costs $1.50 - big
deal!
For those of you who are interested, I will go through a sample
calculation. Whether the difference in efficiency between the two
sparge cycles is significant depends on the volume of sparge water
being used and the amount of wort per pound of grain that is absorbed.
Going through an average sparge cycle:
Consider ten pounds of grain to make a five gallon batch of beer.
Assume the average as-is course grind extract potential of the grain
is ~0.65.
Then, assuming 100% starch conversion, there will be 6.5 pounds of
extract available to be delivered to the boil kettle.
Assume ~3.1 gallons of mash water (some of you may use less, I use
1BBL / 100 pounds of grain or 0.31 gallons / pound).
Per Papazian, assume that 1 pound of grain absorbs 0.1 gallon of wort.
Then, assuming 10% boil-off, and no other kettle losses, ~3.4 gallons
of sparge water are required to deliver five gallons of wort to the
fermenter.
Comparing the two sparging techniques.
Assume that the bulk wort and the wort trapped in the grain reach
equilibrium in the lauter tun.
0.1 gal / lb * 10 lbs. grain = 1 gallon of wort trapped in the grain.
For the batch technique,
Adding all of the sparge water at once would yield a tun with 6.5
gallons of water and 6.5 pounds of extract. 1 gallon of water weighs
approximately 8.35 pounds.
So there are 6.5 gallons * 8.35 pounds / gallon = 54.25 pounds of
water in the tun.
Degrees Plato is roughly equivalent to percent by weight of extract.
DP = 100 * 6.5 / (54.25 + 6.5) = 10.7 DP = ~10.7% extract by weight.
So for the batch sparging technique, there will be 8.35 lbs. * 10.7% =
~0.9 lbs. of extract left in the tun.
The efficiency is then (6.5 - 0.9) / 6.5 * 100 = 86%.
The calculations for the continuous sparging technique are a bit more
hairy. The tricky part is the assumption of a constant volume of wort
in the lauter tun. Since the density of the solution is constantly
changing, the weight of sparge water added doesn't scale linearly with
the weight of wort collected. I'm going to cheat a little bit here.
I have an Excel program that I made to do the calculations for me,
using the above assumptions and a lot of equations and other malarky.
The output I get from my program is 0.48 lbs. of extract left in the lauter tun.
The efficiency is then (6.5 - 0.48) / 6.5 = ~92.5%
So, in theory, the difference for this example would be 6.5%. Whether
or not you consider this 'significant' is up to you. I do consider it
significant for someone who is wondering why their efficiency is lower
than expected.
Ricardo Cabeza
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 01:31:39 -0400
From: Ricardo Cabeza <expunged at gmail.com>
Subject: re: Hydrometers, Batch Sparging efficiency
Oh yeah, from the last post, I almost forgot. I did make a mistake
and fogot to remove that part about the sparging speed in my initial
response to Michael. Thanks to Denny for point that out.
Regarding hydrometers, I would defer to AJ deLange in his post titled
"Measuring specific gravity - hydrometers" from HBD #4857, 9/29/05.
His post is very informative and way beyond what I ever knew about
hydrometers or alternate methods to measure specific gravity.
I agree that hydrometers can be accurate. But I would argue that the
hydrometers that are priced so that a homebrewer would consider buying
them are generally inaccurate.
I feel a scale is a practical tool for a brewer to have regardless of
how he/she chooses to measure specific gravity. That scale can also
be used to weigh grain and to weigh hops if it is precise enough.
Using a volumetric flask of sufficient size is a relatively cheap
alternative to accurately measure specific gravity. Realistically, a
volumetric flask 100 mL or larger would be required for a scale that
reads +/- 0.1 g. I have had luck buying volumetric flasks from
Mcalaster Bicknell of NJ, although there are numerous other reliable
sources. The trick to save money on a volumetric flask is to buy one
that doesn't have a ground glass stopper. Either go with no stopper
or a snap cap to save money. You should be able to pick up a
volumetric flask w/o a ground glass stopper for $10 - $25 depending on
size and source.
If anyone wants instructions on how to measure specific gravity using
a scale and a volumetric flask, feel free to email me.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 02:31:43 -0400
From: Ricardo Cabeza <expunged at gmail.com>
Subject: one last comment on batch vs. continuous sparging
Some of you mentioned that you actually saw an efficiency increase
when you switched from continuous sparging to batch.
I don't mean to offend anyone here, but theoretically this shouldn't
happen per my other post. Many of use different types of equipment to
sparge - some more effective than others. The two biggest keys to
effiicient continuous sparging in my opinion are
1) Sufficiently slow sparging - 45 minutes to an hour.
2) A lauter design that facilitates even rinsing of the grains.
Given that most of us use the Phil's sparge arm, it seems to me that a
round lauter tun that is 2 - 3" larger than the diameter of the arm
would be the best geometry for efficiency. The reason I say this is
that in my observation, the arm tends to 'throw' water towards the
walls of the tun. A design that is as narrow as possible will also
reduce the effects of the 'cone' of greater rinsing that occurs when
using a single draw point. I also think a false bottom of some sort
is desirable because it further diffuses the cone created by a single
draw point.
My first mash/lauter tun was made from two 20 gallon garbage cans
(bought new from Home Depot of course!) that was essentially the
'Zapap' lauter tun design described in Papzian's New Complete Joy. I
then proceeded to punch a billion holes in it with a pen. It took a
long time! And I got a lot of stuck mashes! But I was a college
student. I have since upgraded my equipment.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 06:57:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Bill Adams <badams1010 at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Efficiency
I fully understand the rationale behind fly sparging
being the more efficient method to extract sugars from
the grain bed. With that being said, in my limited
experience batch sparging, I have consistantly been in
the mid 80's for efficiency. This is up from mid 70's
fly sparging. In fact I had to start formulating
recipes with a new efficiency setting in Promash
because of this.
As Mr. Jones points out:
"If you batch sparge and get better efficiency than
you did when fly sparging, then I would contend that
your fly sparging process was flawed."
I completely agree. But, I am lazy and don't really
have the time to find the flaws in my old process.
Besides, if I did, I would then have to go back to a
process that takes more time to complete.
So, for now I'll batch it and take the mid 80's.
And as Mr Burley states:
"So, Denny, I have to say you should stop trying to
convince people that batch sparging is more efficient
at recovering sugars from the sparge."
He convinced me that, with my equipment and only my
equpment, it is the better way and I thank him for it.
BA
PS. I love this debate.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:40:14 -0400
From: leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: Pils for your base malt
Can you see any reason for not using, almost exclusively, pilsner malt for your
base malt? I mean, if you tend to make both light and dark ales and lagers,
then doesn't it make sense to use the pils so as to get the lightest (if you
want it), and use dark malts to add color and flavor, if you don't?
I purchase in 55 lb bags, and would rather have the mash too light, and darken
it, than have it too dark and not be able to adjust. And, aren't the enzymens
ok in both to handle all styles?
Brewing a "Gingered Pale Ale" this morning.
Happy Brewing!
Darrell
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:29:23 -0800
From: Denny Conn <denny at projectoneaudio.com>
Subject: Re: Hydrometers and Batch Sparging
Dave, either I didn't state my point clearly, or you misunderstood it. I
didn't say that batch sparging was more efficient than fly sparging. What
I said (or intended to say) was that it's not inherently LESS efficient. I
know of many people whose efficiency went up when they switched to batch
sparging from fly. My own efficiencies are on par with people who fly
sparge. All the theory in the world won't negate real world experience.
------------------->Denny
At 12:08 AM 9/30/05 -0400, you wrote:
>Batch Sparging is typically less efficient than continuous (or "fly")
>sparging simply because it is typically faster and does not take advantage
>of extracting the sugar from the wort trapped in the grain with an ever
>purer extractant. Slow continuous sparging also provides time for the wort
>to diffuse out of the grain (aided by the low concentration extractant),
>whereas batch sparging does not. This is well supported by chemical
>engineering data and theories.
>
>With continuous sparging you should take about an hour and you will do as
>well as you can with your configuration.
>
>So, Denny, I have to say you should stop trying to convince people that
>batch sparging is more efficient at recovering sugars from the sparge.
>
>
>Keep on Brewin'
>
>Dave Burley
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 11:12:41 -0500 (CDT)
From: Jack Mowbray <jmowbray at verizon.net>
Subject: 1st Annual MALT Turkey Shoot Homebrew Competition
Maryland Ale and Lager Technicians (MALT) are pleased to announce
their 1st Annual Turkey Shoot* Homebrew Competition. This is an
AHA/BJCP sanctioned event.
Cash prizes will be awarded for the BOS entry as well as for the 2nd and
3rd place entries. There will be sponsored prizes awarded to individual
category winners.
The competition will be held Saturday, November 12th at Clipper City
Brewing Company in Baltimore, MD. All BJCP beer categories will be
accepted and the deadline for entries is November 1st.
Additional information, rules, entry forms, and bottle labels can be found
on the MALT website: http://www.maltclub.org
We need BJCP accredited judges for this event. Those wishing to judge
should contact:
Mike McMahon
fishandbrew at comcast.net
*no live poultry will be harmed during this event
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:30:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: Steven Parfitt <thegimp98 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Upward infusion mashing technique
I believe the term for feeding liquid into the mash
tun from the bottom gate is Underletting.
Steven, -75 XLCH- Ironhead Nano-Brewery http://thegimp.8k.com
Johnson City, TN [422.7, 169.2] Rennerian
"There is no such thing as gravity, the earth sucks." Wings Whiplash - 1968
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:01:06 -0400
From: "David Houseman" <david.houseman at verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Measuring specific gravity - hydrometers
This is an interesting thread. For the researcher, or anal retentive
brewer, precision beyond .1P may be necessary. But for the basic
homebrewer, the typical hydrometer, when used correctly is more than
sufficient for all purposes. Although I'll admit that a refractometer is
much better when taking readings of wort from the lauter tun to the kettle
and from the kettle to the fermenter. Excellent beer is made repeatedly
with a $5 hydrometer. And splurging on a $60 refractometer is a luxury, not
a necessity. Beyond that it's simply toys for big boys :-))
David Houseman
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #4858, 09/30/05
*************************************
-------
