HOMEBREW Digest #3105 Mon 09 August 1999

[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  RE: septic tanks (John Wilkinson)
  Honking BoBos??? (Dave Burley)
  Mail Order Beer (JYANDERS)
  Re: Strange film in carboys (Teutonic Brewer)
  re: Hops, when to harvest and why do we dry them? (Mark Tumarkin)
  Hop Agriculture ("Mr. Joy Hansen")
  hops (Randy Ricchi)
  Hops/Alarm Clocks/IBU/Comercial Tip (AJ)
  re:Homebrew Publicity Campaign (Kevin TenBrink)
  Monitoring Fermentation by Weight (WayneM38)
  Innovations (Ken Schwartz)
  No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 1/4) (Ken Schwartz)
  No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 2/4) (Ken Schwartz)
  No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 3/4) (Ken Schwartz)
  No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 4/4) (Ken Schwartz)
  Wort Chilling ("Stan Prevost")
  To pump or not to pump ("Scott Church")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies. * Send an email note to majordomo at hbd.org with the word "lists" on one * line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and * instructions for use. * 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. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!** IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! Contact brewery at hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow" Back issues are available via: HTML from... http://hbd.org Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org (Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer. COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...) JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 22:18:00 -0400 (EDT) From: root <root at brew.oeonline.com> Subject: CORRECTION TO MCAB II POST Bob Boland's address is rboland at aol.com; not rboland at hbd.org as listed in his post. Thanks! HBD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 16:31:41 -0500 From: John.Wilkinson at aud.alcatel.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: RE: septic tanks John (nice name) Robinson asked about running water from a sink to the ground rather than to the septic system. I brew on the weekends at a place I have in East Texas and I have septic system there. However, I brew in my barn a quarter mile away where I don't have a septic system. I run my water from the sink through a pipe to the ground without pit, gravel, or anything else. The only concern is keeping from making a muddy mess. I am fortunate in having very sandy soil so that has not been a problem for me. When I build my permanent (retirement) home on the place I plan to run what is referred to here as "grey water", that is, everything but the crappers and garbage disposal, to the ground rather than to the septic system. My understanding is that it helps water the grass and takes load off of the septic system. Besides, it diverts antibacterial chemicals like bleach from the septic tank. That is supposed to be good. Again, the only problem I can see is dispersing the water without making a mess. It shouldn't be too hard with no more than will be going down a sink, though. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:36:44 -0400 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Honking BoBos??? Brewsters: Charles Rich says: >"Maybe I'm just cranky" Maybe you are. I don't make personal attacks on you and apologized when you thought I somehow slighted you for calling you "Charlie", even though Charlie Scandrett goes by that respectful moniker as do all of the others with "Charles" as their given name, that I know, do. I will gladly call you whatever you wish. >" and then in a typical dodge make up a non-issue to jump on??" Are you trying to say that you did not recommend p-cooking hops when you declared that you got 10X the bitterness by p-cooking them? Hardly a "non-issue" I made up. But it is also possible I do not understand how or when you are p-cooking the hops. Is it possible that this exceptional bitterness you are experiencing is from the tannin in the malt husk as well as perhaps an increased tannin extraction from the hops due to the higher temperature of the p-cooker? SteveA has calculatted that this 10X (which you originally stated and then retracted to maybe 4X or whatever) is not possible if the only bitterness is due to alpha acids as the source of bitterness. Based on the fact that a normal boil of 90 minutes at a normal SG yields only about 38% extraction typically, even a 100% extraction would only yield 21/2 X the bitterness. I also noticed another p-cooking HBD poster who apparently "overhopped" and could not notice the increased maltiness. Maybe it is not overhopping but an increased source of tannic bitterness. Agitation in the brew kettle also seems to be an issue for increasing alpha acid extraction efficiency. Any idea if there is an increased agitation in whatever you are p-cooking the hops? >" The manufacturer of my >pressure cooker, "All American", >recommends using an inner vessel >for these goods." That does ease my concern a little, but I will look for a detailed reference. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 1999 17:35:58 EDT From: JYANDERS at aol.com Subject: Mail Order Beer I seem to find myself in a bit of a predicament. I was recently involved in an accident and am restricted to the house. Worse yet, I am out of beer and my wife refuses to purchase any for me. I was hoping that someone out there could provide me with web addresses for ordering beer through the mail from micro breweries. I have found several "Beer of the Month Clubs", but would prefer to order as I need it rather than subscribe to a program. Any help would be appreciated. JMA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 21:16:04 -0600 From: Teutonic Brewer <claassen at swcp.com> Subject: Re: Strange film in carboys Hi Alan & Co., I have the same problem here in Albuquerque. That strange white film on the inside of your carboys is probably calcium carbonate. Bleach (sodium hypochlorite) is alkaline and raises the pH to where some of the calcium bicarbonate in your water precipitates out and sticks to the glass. Some LimeAway(tm) or warm vinegar will dissolve it. If you filled them with hot water from your water softener, I reckon the film is sodium bicarbonate instead. Vinegar will dissolve that, too (remember those kiddie science experiments where you mix vinegar and baking soda?). Reduce the amount of bleach and don't let it sit for extended periods of time to discourage the problem. Prost! Paul Claassen (Teutonic Brewer) Albuquerque, Chile Republic of New Mexico Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 08:39:52 -0400 From: Mark Tumarkin <mark_t at ix.netcom.com> Subject: re: Hops, when to harvest and why do we dry them? Ian Smith wrote: Also, why do we go to all the trouble of drying the hops. I realize that the "big boys" do it to improve shipping since hops are 70%+ water. What happens if I just freeze them wet? Will they stale? I know I will have to recalculate my hop additions due to increased moisture content. Instead of a recipe calling for 1 oz dry I would have to add 4 oz or whatever. Is drying necessary to get the hop flavor we are all so accustomed to? Seems to me that wet hops would be "fresher" or "better" or did I miss something? I remember reading in the HBD last year about a "grassy" taste associated with fresh hops. Is this true? Do we dry them to eliminate the grassy aroma? *** I have been told that the flavor develops or changes with the drying. I have never grown hops so I don't know how true this is. As to the 'grassy' character of fresh hops, this is not necessarily true. I think this may vary with different varieties, as some are described as being more grassy. Also, I have noticed a grassy flavor with some hops that are too old and somewhat oxidized - though as they get really old they can develop a sort of musty, cheesy aroma. At the GABF I had the opportunity of trying two beers made with fresh hops. The first was Bert Grant's Fresh Hop Ale, the second was Sierra Nevada's Harvest Ale. Neither of these had a grassy flavor or aroma. As you might expect, the Sierra Nevada was a much better beer, I enjoyed it immensely. One thing I found interesting was that although it used Cascades exclusively (not much of a surprise from SN), it did not have the citrusy character I associate with Cascades. Perhaps this flavor component develops with aging and isn't present (or at least isn't as pronounced) when fresh hops are used. Mark Tumarkin Gainesville, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:42:13 -0400 From: "Mr. Joy Hansen" <joytbrew at patriot.net> Subject: Hop Agriculture Hi all, Just a tongue in cheek comment; however, maybe not. Have the plant genetic specialists participating in the HBD had occasion to consider gene implanting or crossing hops with kudzu? Think of it! Hop production everywhere. Covering the yard, house, trees, buildings, etc. AND a vine impervious to everything nature can throw at it! Japanese Beetles, eat your heart out. Maybe an added cross with hemp for a little THC? Or, is that "rope-a-dope". Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 09:23:57 -0400 From: Randy Ricchi <rricchi at ccisd.k12.mi.us> Subject: hops Eric Schoville was asking where to get a good buy on imported hops. Check with your local supplier to see if they deal with the wholesaler GW Kent (Michigan). GW Kent used to have five varieties (EK Goldings, Slovenian STyrian Goldings, Hersbrucker Hallertau, Czech Saaz, I forget the fifth one) of European hops that they sold as plugs. They came in two vacuum sealed foil bags, each containing 100 plugs. You had to buy 2 bags, which is 100 oz. of hops. I bought Styian Goldings, which cost me somewhere around $50 or $52 dollars for 100 oz. I also bought Hersbrucker, which they had a deal on at the time, and that was in the low $40's for 100 oz (200 plugs). This was a couple years ago, but at that time they had been offering these for a couple years already, so there's some history there, which may mean there is an ongoing availability. The hops were in mint condition, and because of the heat shrink wrap, and the way the plugs are all mashed tightly together in the bag, you have to break off a plug when you need it. The nice thing about this is there is no air space between the plugs and the wrap stays stuck to the whole big chunk, excluding air. I just open the top end of the package to get at a part of the big chunk, break off what I need, twist the top of the package tight and fold it over and stick it back in the freezer. I believe they'll last forever in perfect condition the way they're packaged. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 14:15:43 +0000 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Hops/Alarm Clocks/IBU/Comercial Tip Pete Calinski asks: >d) Are there some easy ways to evaluate these hops? Hops alpha and beta acids are estimated by extracting the acids with toluene, diluting the extract with methanol and reading the absorbance at 3 ultraviolet wavelengths. A 5 gram sample is required. I can do this analysis but charge a modest (in terms of the cost of the chemicals and equipment and the time it takes me to do it) fee which, in the interest of keeping crass commercialism off the digest, I will not mention here. e-mail me if interested. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Rod Prather wrote: >Then we >have the scientific brewer who looks at brewing history and processes then >attempts to disassemble the processes and define it in blocks of data and >books of scientific theory to produce a controlled chemical process. We can't help it. We were born this way. We took alarm clocks apart when we were kids. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Alan & Mike wrote: >Would be interesting to get an IBU reading on this beer. I can do that too (same deal as hops) but as you guys have access to labs you should be able to do it yourselves. Here's the procedure. Dip a pipette tip into octanol. Insert it into the pipeter and transfer 10 mL of chilled, carbonated beer to a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Add 1 mL 3N HCl and 20 mL iso-octane (2,2,4 -trimethyl pentane). Shake vigorously (it's pretty clear that what ASBC has in mind is a Burrell shaker with extension arm fully extended vertically such that the tube is horizontal but you can do it by hand) for 15 minutes. If a sludge forms centrifuge for 3 minutes. If the iso-octane layer isn't separate, break up the sludge with a pipette tip and centrifuge again. When clear iso-octane layer is available transfer to a 1 cm cuvet. Measure absorbance at 275 nm against a blank of iso-octane with 5 -10 uL octanol. Multiply absorbance by 50 to get bittering units. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Today's tip from commercial brewing: To insure uniform access of sparge water to all parts of the mash, prevent channelization etc. commercial brewers often "run the rakes" during sparging. The rakes are blades affixed to a rotary arm within the lauter vessel and can usually be raised or lowered. The analogue in home brewing is "cutting down" in which a knife, such as a bread knife is used to make cuts in the grain bed similar to those made by the rakes. The trick is to cut as deep as possible without disturbing the bed to the point that the runoff becomes turbid again. If the bed is well established one can cut down almost to the false bottom (i.e. within and inch or less) without a problem. - -- A. J. deLange Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 08:08:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Kevin TenBrink <zzymurgist at yahoo.com> Subject: re:Homebrew Publicity Campaign >>The Homebrew Publicity Campaign (HPC) is closing in on completion of its primary goal -- the production and distribution of a prime-time quality 30-second TV ad spot that promotes the idea of home brewing to the general public. <<< Now this is a very cool idea! My nomadic lifestyle has relocated me again, this time to Elkhart Indiana. I have had little luck in finding homebrew supply shops (the only one is a small room attached to a brewpub with limited yeast selection and only pellet hops) so hopefully there are a few that I have overlooked that will participate in this campaign. In a related vein...what is a good source for whole hops via the internet/mail order? Kevin TenBrink formerly from Salt Lake City and Lansing MI..now living in Elkhart Indiana (for now) _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:39:48 EDT From: WayneM38 at aol.com Subject: Monitoring Fermentation by Weight Date: Fri, 06 Aug 1999 08:19:08 -0400 From: "Russell, D. A. (David)" <drussel3 at ford.com> writes: Subject: Brewing on a scale? > During the fermentation, the > specific gravity is dropping, mass is floating out of the carboy as > CO2, could we monitor the fermentation by placing the carboy on a > scale? I would think the accuracy of a scale to accomplish this would be quite cost prohibitive for the homebrewer, if it would work at all. A better idea would probably to capture the volume of CO2 that is created. Simple method, inverted in water graduated container... - -- David Russell Ford Motor Company, Dearborn MI>> Not so. I toured Siebel Institute of Technology in Chicago many months ago and this exact experiment is part of the brewing program there. It was done with a 5 gal. corny keg as a fermenter and the keg was weighed during the fermentation process. Don't recall what the loss was during the process because I was awed by the wall mounted stainless steel 19L pilot brewery with the glycol cooing system in the same room and my questions to the other instructor seemed more important at the time. I recall they were using a scale that could accommodate a corny keg and the loss was measurable. The instructor with that info was Christopher. If you can contact him, he would have the info you are looking for. Hope Siebels staff will answer questions here on the HBD again next year ... Wayne Big Fun Brewing Milwaukee Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:52:24 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: Innovations Howdy everyone! For those of you who still remember me ;-) I haven't quit the HBD, I have just picked up way too many "things to do". I'm trying to at least scan each HBD and there have been several articles to which I would have liked to reply, but just never got to. A few HBDs ago Matt Comstock suggested compiling a list of HBD innovations. Also, there has been some renewed interest in no-sparge and batch-sparge brewing. Since he invoked my name, I figured that was a good wake-up call to get this stuff published like I've been "meaning to" for months now. Below is a summary of the "innovations" I've posted on my web page. The no-sparge and batch-sparge info will follow in a separate post. As for brewing innovations: 1) Brewing bookstore (via Amazon.com) -- something like 51 brewing books all in one spot. 2) Home-made counterpressure bottler -- The only one I've used since I designed it. Featured in the Spring '97 issue of Zymurgy (the infamous bottle-opener issue!). 3) Fermentation Chiller -- a home-made "refrigerator" that runs on ice. Controls your fermentation temperature. 4) Hand-pump for corny kegs -- leave the CO2 home when you bring a keg to a party. 5) Electronic thermometers -- if you're electronically-inclined, I present some background and projects for electronic thermometers. Building your own isn't always the cheapest or easiest route but it can't be beat for custom installations. 6) HBD Reader software -- I wrote this reader back when there weren't too many readers available. It indexes and "article-izes" HBDs (and other digests) for easier reading, archiving & printing, etc. 7) BreWater 3.0 -- Water treatment software. Calculates salt additions for "building" classic brewing waters. Comes with tons of water profiles gleaned from the literature over the years (though AJ would argue that most are chemically wrong to some extent). I've also published part of the help file as HTML, covering some basics of water treatment and a couple sample water "recipes" (see #9 below). 8) SUDS malt & hops database -- originally compiled for version 4.0 from the Zymurgy 1995 Special Issue and other sources. Won't work in SUDS '97 as-is but they are in .dbf format and perhaps all they need is a file conversion via Excel or something. Besides, I'm using ProMash these days ( http://www.promash.com , I am connected to ProMash via contribution to the water profiling portion). 9) Water-Chemistry primer article (see #7 above). 10) Stupid Beer-Fridge Tricks article -- some thoughts on coverting fridges and freezers for keg-service use. 11) Calculations for All-Grain Brewers -- some math pertinent to all-grain brewing. Matt Arnold of the Green Bay Rackers wrote a nice Javascript version at http://www.rackers.org/calcs.shtml . 12) All-Grain Brewing FAQ and Overview -- a 10-minute primer on All-Grain. 13) Converting All-Grain Recipes to Extract/Partial-Mash -- PDF file containing my presentation to the 1998 National Homebrew Conference on converting all-grain recipes to extract or partial-mash. This was also summarized in the Jan/Feb '99 issue of Zymurgy. I suggest checking out the PDF since it has much more detail than we could fit into the Zymurgy article. This also discusses the "tip" Matt referred to about using DME to acidify sparge water. 14) No-Sparging and Batch-Sparging -- Article which attempts to quantify these processes. A spreadsheet is also offered to save you the math headaches. This article is summarized in HBD posts to follow this one. 15) Converting Gott Coolers for All-Grain Brewing -- plans for a manifold system, same as what I use. 16) Low- and No-Alcohol Brewing -- Commercial and homebrew methods of reducing or eliminating alcohol from beer. 17) Really cheesy photo of me with El Paso TX in the background (wow). - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:55:14 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 1/4) (Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights reserved. With all the discussion lately of no-sparge and batch-sparge brewing, I thought it might be time to compile my data and complete my analysis of the techniques. Last year I wrote a rather lengthy article on what I thought should be the math behind the processes. I never published it (though I sent it to a few brewers who emailed me about the technique), but now that I've completed it I've put it on my webpage in place of the old article and spreadsheet that was once there (see http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html and download http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.xls ). The no-sparge part seems to be supported by experimental data, but the batch-sparge part had some interesting surprises in practice. Here is the introductory text of the article to get started with explaining what the techniques are and what we need to quantify to make it a repeatable and predictible process: ===== The object of mashing grain is to obtain sugar and other substances which ultimately become beer. This is done by combining the grain with hot water to encourage various chemical reactions, so that the desired extract becomes dissolved in the water and can then be run off into a collection vessel. It is common practice to try to maximize the extraction of goods from grain by not only draining the wort produced by the mash, but also by rinsing the grains with clear water to recover extract which otherwise would be absorbed by the grain and remain in the mash tun. Generally the clear water is added slowly and continuously while the wort is simultaneously drained from the mash tun. This often results in a runoff which is of a higher volume and lower specific gravity than the target recipe calls for. The target recipe is acheived by boiling off the excess volume which results in a higher specific gravity. A simpler method of obtaining the extract is to simply drain the liquid from the mash tun without rinsing. This technique has become known as "no-sparge" brewing. Its chief disadvantage is that a significant amount of extract remains absorbed in the grain, which represents loss of extract efficiency. In a commercial setting this has obvious financial ramifications. Further, in order to compensate for the lost extract, extra grain is required, and so the issue of extra mash tun capacity must also be considered. Economics aside, no-sparge brewing has been championed not only for its simplicity but also because the constant high gravity of the runoff inhibits the extraction of undesirable compounds from the grain, which can otherwise occur when the specific gravity of the wort in the mash tun falls below 1.019 (1). Anecdotal assertions of improved malt flavors may be tied to the lower concentration of these undesirable compounds in a no-sparge wort as compared with traditionally-sparged wort, or higher concentrations of favorable compounds (2). A sort of "hybrid" method involves performing a no-sparge runoff, followed by adding a charge of hot clear water to the drained mash. The "sparge" water is added batch-wise rather than being trickled onto the mash, and thus the method is often called "batch-sparge" brewing. The "sparge" water picks up much of the extract that was left behind from the first runoff, and is collected by performing a second runoff. The second runoff is typically of a specific gravity at or above the 1.019 "limit" and therefore any flavor benefits of no-sparge brewing would presumably apply to batch-sparge brewing as well (although a second factor, wort pH, must be considered as well). Because the "sparge" step recovers additional extract, the loss of efficiency compared to no-sparge brewing is generally less. For both no-sparge and batch-sparge brewing, it is possible to obtain a smaller volume of higher-gravity wort compared to the target recipe, and therefore the brewer can use smaller vessels and heat sources, much like extract brewing. This is a distinct advantage for brewers who want to make all-grain recipes but who don't have the space or heating capacity generally required for fully-sparged worts. On the other hand, it is equally possible to run off a larger volume of lower-gravity wort, just as when continuous-sparge brewing. Thus, these methods offer increased kettle flexibility as an additional bonus. In the literature on no-sparge brewing that has been published up till now, it has been made clear that extra grain is required in order to obtain the same volume and gravity as one would obtain if continuous-sparging. However, in most cases, figures like "25%" or "one-third" more grain are offered, without particular regard to whether these scale-ups will meet the final recipe requirements. In analyzing the recipe formulation math behind no-sparge and batch-saprge brewing, it is apparent that the extra grain required depends heavily on several factors, and can actually range from under 10% to 50% or more! Clearly more thought must go into recipe formulation if one is to expect a predictable outcome from a no-sparge or batch-sparge session. References 1. Bonham, Louis K., No-Sparge Brewing -- An Old Technique Revisited, The Experimental Brewer, Brewing Techniques Vol 6 Number 4, July/Aug 1998 (New Wine Press). See especially reference (4). 2. It seems that a post to the Homebrew Digest ("HBD") by George Fix (#977, 24SEP92) is considered the "definitive" introduction of the no-sparge technique to the general homebrewing public. In searching the HBD archives it appears to me that this post did not generate much discussion at the time. Not until #2196 (19SEP96) does a significant thread develop (started by Louis K. Bonham) , which lasts on and off till at least #2350 (15FEB97) with frequent references to the original Fix posting. There is much discussion of "enhanced maltiness" and reports of individual results in these Digests. (Part 2 follows) - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:57:01 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 2/4) (Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights reserved. I think the important thing to gather from the foregoing excerpt (and this has been illustrated well in recent HBDs) is that a definitive quantification of the techniques is lacking, and this is what I set out to accomplish. In a nutshell, the idea is this. When we mash, we predict the gravity of the resulting wort (typically continuously-sparged) using a relatively simple formula. By knowing how much grain we're using, how much extract that grain will actually produce, and the amount of water into which that extract is dissolved, we figure the resulting gravity of the wort. My hypotheseis is that the wort in the mashtun (including that absorbed by the grain) has the same number of "sugar points" (gravity times volume) as the desired final recipe. In other words, obviously all the sugar in the final wort must exist in the mashtun at the time sparging is initiated. If we assume we pretty much completely rinse the mash, then we can assume that the opposite is true too, that all the sugar in the mashtun ends up in the final wort (not completely true but actually works out pretty closely in practice). So the following holds true (more or less): gravity of mashtun wort * volume of mash water = gravity of final wort * volume of final wort The two terms on the right are recipe givens, and we would normally figure the volume of mash water based on a mash thickness (say 1.33 qt/gal) and the amount of grain we're using. Thus it's simple to figure the gravity of the wort in the mashtun: gravity of mashtun wort = gravity of final wort * volume of final wort / volume of mash water The only remaining step is to determine how much "free wort" (that not absorbed by the grain) is available for runoff without sparging. It's basically a scale-up by the same factor as the ratio between the free wort and the absorbed wort. One must know the rate of absorption of wort by the grain in order to go further. This absorption rate actually consists of two parts: the actual wort absorbed "inside" the grain PLUS any free wort left behind due to ullage space and other losses. The actual rate of absorption of a really well-drained mash is somewhere around 0.08 gal/lb but when you add the free wort losses this rises to anywhere from 0.10 to 0.20. Another factor is that draining that last bit of free wort takes time, and one might trade off losing some wort for draining in a reasonable amount of time. You can specify a rather large absorption rate (maybe 0.20 gal/lb), to allow for more free-wort loss, and simply stop running off *when the desired volume is collected* without regard to "wasted wort". The wort remaining (absorbed + losses) will then be exactly the value you specified, and your collected wort should meet your specifications. This is therefore done at the expense of "efficiency". (You can collect the trickles later and use them for p-cooking or yeast starters...) Perhaps now you can see that the amount of grain requied depends heavily on exactly how much wort will not be collected (absorption and losses). It also depends on the mash thickness at the time of runoff. This is because you will obviously recover a greater percentage of wort with a thinner mash (more free wort compared with absorbed + losses) than with a thicker mash. However, as has been presented in recent HBDs in some detail, mash thickness has an impact on enzymatic conversion and has to be limited. More on this in a bit. (Part 3 follows) - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 10:59:08 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 3/4) (Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights reserved. Here is the bottom line (the derivation of these formulae can be found at http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html ). Start with any continuous-sparged recipe, what I call a "standard recipe". In order to plan a no-sparge version, you must know a couple things first: Ra, the rate of absorption plus losses, typically 0.15 to 0.20 gal/lb, Wn, the amount of grain in the "standard recipe" you are converting to no-sparge, Vr, the final volume of wort in the "standard recipe" (typically 5 gallons), Vb, the desired initial kettle volume (can be more or less than Vr), Gr, the gravity of the "standard recipe", in points (such that 1.048 is 48 "points"), Q, the amount of space a quantity of grain occupies in a mash. This will be used to determine required mashtun capacity. This value is right around 0.08 gal/lb. Note that I say that Vb can be more or less than Vr. If it's more, you will get better "efficiency" (less grain used), but your mash must be thinner and you will have to boil off some volume to acheive Vr. So if you go this route, determine your boiling losses and add that to Vr (like you normally would) to get your Vb. For Vr = 5 gallons, Vb is typically 6.5 to 7 gallons in a continuous-sparge session. However, you can also have Vb *less than* Vr. This requires a top-off with water at the start or end of the boil (or even several times during, I suppose). This means you can use no-sparge to run off concentrated wort into a stovetop-sized kettle, which might make all-grain brewing suddenly accessible to kitchen-bound brewers who have only used extract to make concentrated wort that will "fit" their space limitations. For a 5-gallon Vr, I would try to make Vb at least 3 gallons and preferably 4 or more (the reason for this is illustrated below). >From the known factors, you will now determine: "S", the grain scale-up factor -- the extra grain required (the weight of each grain in the *standard recipe* is multiplied by "S" to obtain the no-sparge recipe), "Wg", the total weight of grain needed for the no-sparge version, "R", the required mash thickness at runoff (see below), "Vm", the total volume of mash water that has been added to achieve "R" at the first runoff, "G1", the gravity of the first runoff, "Vt", the total mash-tun capacity required to hold all the grain and water. S = Vb / (Vb - (Ra x Wn)) G1 = Vr x Gr / Vb R = Ra x S / (S - 1) Wg = S x Wn Vm = (Ra + R) x Wg Vt = Vm + (Q x Wg) These equations have proven pretty accurate based on the experiments I've done. As I mentioned, the "efficiency" of a no-sparge mash is increased by increasing mash thickness "R". For the equations to predict the no-sparge session accurately, you MUST have the required mash thickness "R" at the time of runoff. However, there are certain restrictions on how thin a mash should be for best conversion. A solution then is to mash at "conventional" thicknesses, then add more water just before runoff to achieve the required "R". This is sort of like batch-sparging except the "sparge charge" is added before the *initial* runoff, and only one runoff is performed. Be sure to allow the mash to stand a few minutes after adding the extra water, and stir gently, to allow everything to mix up to equilibrium. A quick example: "Standard recipe" calls for producing 5 gal of 1.054 wort with 10 lb of grain. Thus Vr = 5 gal, Gr = 54, and Wn = 10 lb. Assume Ra = 0.15 gal/lb (what my system yields with a reasonable runoff period), Vb = 6.5 gal, and Q = 0.08 gal/lb. S = 6.5 / (6.5 - (0.15 x 10)) = 1.30 (30% more grain required than "standard recipe") G1 = 5 x 54 / 6.5 = 41.5 or about 42 ( so SG = 1.042) R = 0.15 x 1.30 / (1.30 - 1) = 0.49 gal/lb = 1.96 qt/lb -- fairly thin (probably as thin as I'd go butI might mash thicker and add the rest of the water later, see below) Wg = 1.30 x 10 = 13.0 lb grain needed (multiply each grain in recipe by 1.30 to get no-sparge recipe) Vm = (0.15 + 0.49) x 13.0 = 8.32 gal total mash water required at runoff Vt = 8.32 + (0.08 x 13.0) = 9.36 gal mash tun space required. Since this mash is so thin, I would perhaps mash at 1.33 qt/lb (0.33 gal/lb) and add the other 0.63 qt/lb after the conversion, just before runoff. For an illustration of just how sensitive these equations ar to varying mash conditions, rerun the above example using 0.20 instead of 0.15 for Ra. The difference is amazing! Let's rerun the example using Vb = 4 gal instead. The results are: S = 1.60 (60% more grain!!) G1 = 67.5 (SG = 1.068) R = 0.4 gal/lb (1.6 qt/lb, pretty good thickness) Wg = 1.60 x 10 = 16 lb grain required Vm = 8.8 gal total mash water required at runoff Vt = 10 gal total mash tun capacity required So you can see that the "add a quarter to a third extra grain" is pretty much a SWAG without specifying the mash conditions. (Part 4 follows) - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 07 Aug 1999 11:01:05 -0600 From: Ken Schwartz <kenbob at elp.rr.com> Subject: No-Sparge and Batch-Sparge Brewing (Part 4/4) (Fine Print) This article Copyright (c) 1999 by Ken Schwartz, all rights reserved. The next case involves what is often called "batch-sparge" brewing. In this case, the first step is essentially a no-sparge session as described previously. Then, the drained mash is infused with a charge of hot water, which recovers much of the otherwise-lost extract trapped inthe grain in the no-sparge case. Another runoff is made, and brewing continues. The advantage of batch-sparge over no-sparge brewing is the increased efficiency. The time required is not much longer than no-sparge since (as we will see) you run off half the wort, twice. There is some additional time for resting the sparge charge and the second clarifying recirculation, but this might be ten or fifteen minutes, so it's not that much in the context of a five-hour brewday. Last spring I finally did two batch-sparge experiments, one collecting Vb > Vr and one Vb < Vr. I also treated the first runoff as a no-sparge session which helped verify those equations. What I found in the resulting wort still puzzles me, though I have a couple of ideas on the topic... The first runoff went pretty much as predicted by the equations. However, the second runoff CONSISTENTLY resulted in MORE gravity points than predicted, in some cases, a LOT more! Analysis of data from other brewers (by the way, THANKS to all who contributed) suggests this is not a fluke. I once speculated that this was due to some difference in diffusion of the wort out of the grain due to different gravities of surrounding free wort, but now I'm inclined to think it's simply a matter of better recovery of what are normally losses in continuous-sparge sessions (with my equipment at least). If I dig to the bottom of my mashtun after a continuous-sparge session, I often find relatively high-gravity wort trapped in the edges of the mashtun floor. Technique or equipment? Probably both. In any case, the second charge of water evenly distributes all remaining wort throughout the mashtun so that this "extra" wort I'm normally losing is recovered and ADDED to the second runoff, resulting in higher than predicted gravity. Thus the batch-sparge equations are somewhat conservative in their gravity predictions (usually a better condition than the alternative, I suppose). Another thing I discovered was that although I would have expected the second runoff to be low-pH due to the relatively high gravity, I found this wasn't true, at least using highly alkaline El Paso water (um, I didn't bother with any special water treatment for my experiments...). The second runoff pH was around 5.5 - 6.0 in the first experiment and 6.0 - 6.5 in the second, thus the risk of tannin extraction form the husks was present. I would postulate however that using soft water such as distilled or RO for the batch-sparge portion would alleviate this concern although the resulting chemistry would have to be taken into account (if one is concerned about this sort of thing). Again, the math behind all this is in the web page article, and is quite a bit more involved than for no-sparge. However, grain scale-ups are more typically 10% - 20% for batch-sparge compared with 30% - 60% or more with no-sparge. Further, mashtun volume requirements are eased due to less grain being needed. So, it just might be worth the extra math (and that's why we have spreadsheets and computers, right?). Here are the pertinent equations and quantities: R = (Vb + SQRT{Vb^2 + (8 x Wn x Vb x Ra)}) / (4 x Wn) "SQRT" means take the square root of the quantity inside the curly brackets {}. "^2" means "squared" S = 1 / (1 - (Ra^2/R^2)) Wg = S x Wn Vm = R x Wg V1 = Vb /2 G1 = S x Vr x Gr / (V1 + (Ra x S x Wn)) Vs = V1 V2 = V1 G2 = Vr x Gr x (Ra/R) x (1 - Ra/R) / (Wn x (R - Ra)) Vt = Vm + (Q x Wg) It turns out (see article) that the "most efficient" scenario is when both runoffs are of equal volume (and thus are half of your desired Vb). Thus, mash thickness R at runoff is the same for both runoffs, and the amount of "sparge water" Vs added is equal to the runoff volume. V1 refers to the volume of the first runoff, V2 to the second. Similarly, G1 and G2 refer to the gravities of the two runoffs. All the other quantities are the same as in the no-sparge equations in Part 2. I suppose a couple of examples are in order, if only to illustrate the typical results. I'll use the condidions for my experiments and then I'll share the results to illustrate the second-runoff situation. First I considered the case Vb > Vr. I picked Vb = 6.5 for this experiment. Note that I chose my standard recipe factors to make the expected results come out "even" just to simplify the measurement a bit. Wn = 8.371 lb Vr = 5 gal Gr = 1.0477 (47.7 points) Ra = 0.18 gal/lb Vb = 6.5 gal Q = 0.08 gal/lb The equations would give these results (hey, do the math yourself): R = 0.522 gal/lb S = 1.135 (13.5% more grain required) Wg = 9.5 lb (nice, round figure...see why I chose the standard recipe?) Vm = 4.96 gal (I used 5 gal...) V1 = 3.25 gal (first runoff = half of Vb) G1 = 54.6 (SG = 1.055) Vs = V1 (replace the first runoff with an equal amount of sparge water) V2 = V1 (the second half of Vb) G2 = 18.8 (SG = 1.019 -- but see actual results below) Vt = 6.67 gal (was verified in this experiment) I mashed at 0.33 gal/lb, then added the balance just before runoff #1. G1 = 1.053 (agrees well with prediction) -- I measured at start (1.055), middle (1.055), and end (1.053) of runoff to verify consistency during the runoff. Pretty consistent throughout. Differences could easily be due to equipment (standard cheap-ass hydrometer, temperature could have been off a few degrees, etc) G2 = 29 (SG = 1.029) -- wow! Quite a bit higher than expected (1.019). Two measurements during runoff were start (1.035) and finish (1.025), so there was some change during runoff. Did I not stir or rest well enough? Final wort was 6.5 gal at 1.041 which would have resulted in 5 gallons at 1.053 instead of the standard recipe's 1.048. Now for Vb < Vr. This time Vb = 4 gallons. R = 0.34 (just about "normal") S = 1.241 (24.1% more grain...efficiency drops as Vb drops...) Wg = 10.5 lb (nice round figure...) Vm = 3.575 gal V1 = 2 gal G1 = 83.6 (SG = 1.084) Vs = 2 gal V2 = 2 gal G2 = 36.9 (SG = 1.037) Vt = 5.15 (verified) Results: G1 = 1.089 -- bit higher than predicted G2 = 1.070 -- double wow! Must be a LOT of wated wort in my mashtun getting picked up second time around =====Final Thoughts===== So is the math wrong or are there just too many variables to account for? I think the latter is probably more true. Unfortunately we can't easily quantify that. We could come up with empirical correction factors I suppose, but I think the value of these equations is more about getting a relatively accurate starting point rahter than nailing things down perfectly. I hope this at least provides a starting point for further evaluation of these techniques. I think the techniques have value in homebrewing, as has been illustrated by many posts to the HBD recently and over the years. Perhaps quantifying the process to some extent as has been done here will make it easier for more people to give it a whirl. - -- ***** Ken Schwartz El Paso, TX Brewing Web Page: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer E-mail: kenbob at elp.rr.com Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 11:54:38 -0500 From: "Stan Prevost" <sprevost at ro.com> Subject: Wort Chilling Hi, y'all = In HBD #3104, Lou Heavner proposes using a stir plate during wort chilling to get some movement around the coils of his immersion chiller to speed up the cooling process. I think it would be easier and more effective to recirculate the wort using a pump (assuming you already have one for some reason). Connect the pump to the kettle drain, return the pump outlet to the top of the kettle (below the surface of the wort while hot, can be above the surface for aeration after it gets cooler). The pump and tubing should sanitize OK if you start with near-boiling wort. If your pump won't take boiling temperature, then wait until the wort has cooled a bit before starting recirculation. The first part of cooling proceeds rapidly anyway, when the temperature differential is greatest. A screen on the drain to filter out hops etc. is required. Some people recirculate wort anyway before draining to the fermenter, claiming it greatly improves clarity. Whole hops are probably required for this to work, in order to make a filter bed. Stan Prevost Huntsville, Alabama Where homebrewing is illegal. (So I obviously cannot post from experience, just theory and speculation) Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 7 Aug 1999 13:58:23 -0700 From: "Scott Church" <schurch at gte.net> Subject: To pump or not to pump Hi all, I was wondering about the use of a pump for drawing off the wort from the mash Tun. I know that many people use pumps (i.e. RIMS), but I have "read" that they may cause a stuck mash do to the suction that they create. Any comments or opinions on the matter would be welcome! Thanks, Scott .................Beer.....it's not just for breakfast anymore! Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/09/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96