(formerly Volume 02 : Number 009)



Contents:
  Re: yeast banking question
  Re: A question for the Metallurgists
  No-Sparge Confusion
  Belgian Abbey beers - part deux
  Lactic Acid at Bottling?
  RE: Belgian Abbey brews
  Jethro Lives
  Again mills
  Homebrew Digest V2 #7 -Reply


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:10:34 +0000
From: "Christopher V. Sack" <cvsack at mail.ican.net>
Subject: Re: yeast banking question

> I'm getting interested in yeast banking and I have a question that I
> can't find an answer to.  How long can one maintain a specific culture?
> The Brewtek kit (http://www.brewtek.com) mentions that yeast on slants
> will remain stable for 9 to 12 months.  What do you do after that?  Do
> you buy a pure strain to culture from or can you reculture from your
> slants that are reaching maturity?  It seems that you should be able to
> reculture since the yeast companies obviously keep one strain going for
> ages, but I'm not sure if this requires some special techniques or
> equipment (ultra sterile environment, strong microscopes, etc.) that
> wouldn't be an option for a homebrewer like me.  Yeast ranchers, I'm
> all ears!
>  Robert

A biochemist friend of mine mentioned that a slant will keep yeast 
for about six months.  After that, he advises that the yeast should 
be re-streaked (purified).  This can be done easily by  snagging a 
sample of the yeast from the old slant using a piece of thin wire with 
a loop on the end (called a loop) that has been heat sanitized.  
Spread this sample back and forth onto a new slant and allow the 
viable cells to grow on the fresh growth medium.
Chirstopher V. Sack  <cvsack at ican.net>

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 17:10:35 +0000
From: "Christopher V. Sack" <cvsack at mail.ican.net>
Subject: Re: A question for the Metallurgists

> First, the question:
> Will a 50 liter pot made of thin 304 stainless change (significantly) in
> volume over temperature?
> [snip] 
> Kent Fritz
 
The pot will expand slightly over the 60^F - 212^F temperature range. 
 But don't forget, that the volume of the water will also expand over 
the same temperature range.  As a chemist, I would suspect that the 
water would expand more than the pot so that the net effect would 
be to raise the level of the water.  Find out for sure.  Fill the pot 
almost full with cool water, measure the height/volume.  Heat it to 
boiling and measure again.
Chirstopher V. Sack  <cvsack at ican.net>

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 18:32:21 -0500
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: No-Sparge Confusion

To add confusion to my previous post, I decided to take a look at Dr Fix'
data from his original article on the topic (available at The Library at The
Brewery, http://alpha.rollanet.org/library.html).  Here's the goods:

Grain:  36.75 lb total
Mash Water:  11.6 gal  (= 1.26 qt/lb thickness)
Drained wort and then added 5.3 gal water directly to kettle to get 14.8 gal
total

So he drained (14.8 - 5.3) = 9.5 gal of the 11.6 gallons originally added.
 Therefore he left (11.6 - 9.5) = 2.1 gal behind.  So his absorption rate was
(2.1/36.75) = 0.057 gal/lb or 0.23 qt/lb.

This is MUCH less than the 0.1 gal/lb (0.4 qt/lb) figure often quoted in
brewing literature and less than *half* of Alex Santic's 0.55 qt/lb figure.
 This figures in hugely in the "no-sparge factor", since the amount of wort
retained versus that drained determines the amount of extra grain that you
need.  Uisng Fix' results, you need 33% more grain.  Using 0.55 qt/lb, you'll
need *77% more*!!!!

Moral of the story, I guess, is that one should benchmark his/her process to
determine absorption BEFORE trying to tweak in the no-sparge process.
 Absorption may be due to many factors including crush quality that may vary
greatly between brewers.  Take a certain amount of grain, mash as usual, and
measure the amount and gravity of the drained wort.  This should give you the
figures you need to calculate future batches with better accuracy.

*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 16:42:58 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: Belgian Abbey beers - part deux

I had one other thought/question about the Belgian beers that I wanted
to mention - bottling.  Al K (TM), mentioned that he was bottling an
abbey beer in old Chimay bottles, and then corking them.  This sounds
great to me, and I've been looking into doing that myself.  Are you
using regular corks, or do you use the plastic ones?  My homebrew shop
only carries the plastic mushroom style corks, so I may have to
mail-order the wooden ones.  Al also mentioned soaking the corks to
soften them up before bottling.  Any worries about infection?  Also,
will any champagne bottle do?  I can get as many of these from the
local recycling center that I want, but if memory serves (and it
usually doesn't), these only come in green glass.  Does Chimay itself
come in brown glass?  

SM

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 96 21:00:02 EST
From: "Gregory C. Furlich" <gfurlich at pen.k12.va.us>
Subject: Lactic Acid at Bottling?

	I have been working on an ESB from a recipe in a book
entitled The Homebrewer's Recipe Guide. This is to be a
Fuller's clone. It is an extract recipe. The kicker is that it
calls for two tablespoons of lactic acid to be added at
bottling. I've heard of using this stuff to adjust the ph of a
mash but never in bottling. I tried the stuff and I'm wary of
putting this stuff in without knowing why or being sure what it
will do. I've tried only one other recipe from the book, an it
came out great. Anybody have any input? Private e-mail okay,
too.

			Greg Furlich

Return to table of contents


Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 23:52:45 -0600 (CST)
From: Richard Gardner <rgardner at monarch.papillion.ne.us>
Subject: RE: Belgian Abbey brews

     I did a bit of research into "cloning" Belgian styles earlier this year
and found a plethora of contradictory information, which I've since learned
is mostly because every Belgian brewer does things slightly differently.
(thanks for the assistance from Tim Fields)
    A great reference is "The Great Beers of Belgium" by (the) Michael
Jackson, rarely available at a bookstore near you.  Latest revision 1994.  I
haven't checked www.amazon.com for it, but they probably have it if you
can't get it locally.  I picked it up last month at a specialty liquor store
for $12, ISBN 1-900131-35-8.  Beautiful printing, 327 pages.  No recipes,
but a wealth of information nonetheless. Says it was imported and
distributed exclusively by "Vanberg and DeWulf" Cooperstown NY 607/547-8184
- - who I think may be beer distributors/importers, not regular publishers.
     Spencer's Beer Page (http://realbeer.com/spencer/) has the BURP
descriptions of the Belgian styles that is fairly extensive (look under
recipes).
     Also, if you have the first printing of the Rajotte book, (and the 2nd
printing does not mention that it indeed is a 2nd printing) Rojotte posted a
list of corrections of all the typos in the Lambic Digest #558 (available in
the 1995 archives).
     I'll heed your warning about carmelizing sugar in the microwave. Does
anyone know about the yellow crystal sugar from China available in oriental
stores that is real cheap?  The source of the sugar (cane, beet, palm,
whatever) is not listed, but I thought it might do for some of the lighter
styles.
     I made a strong ale (allgrain) about a month ago using Wyeast 1388,
"Belgian Stong Ale."  Does anyone have any eperience with this yeast?  OG
1.072, tonight SG 1.016, but still very cloudy. I'm wondering how long
untill it starts clearing.  Also, any ideas on the pedigree of this yeast?
Ferment temp 60-65F (basement). This yeast is rather new on the market and I
haven't seen much on it (yes, I know I should do more yeast ranching
myself).  -- The beer did taste rather good, but young still; I think I'll
bottle rather than keg it.
     
The secret to life is to die young, but to delay it as long as possible!!!

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 00:14:32 -0600
From: rob moline <brewer at kansas.net>
Subject: Jethro Lives

                The Jethro Gump Report
        It pleases Jethro greatly to see the HBD revived...and while sad to
think that the AOB was overwhelmed by the task, I am VERY pleased to hear
the rumour that some "humourless bastard" is going to take the helm and
guide this vessel through the treacherous waters that lie ahead.....Pat, you
have my blessings!
        Fatherhood is cool, especially with Jethro Junior...he is a really
happy baby, and a delight...
        (I have been provoked by Jim Booth and/or Kathy....so, if I tick
anyone off, blame them!)
        But please accept my best wishes to the collective, and to my
friends for a very grand Holiday season and a Golden New Year.....(I wish I
was just finishing dinner at Doyle's at Watson's Bay, and making my way over
to Lady Jane for a swim......)
        Short-term reality is that a routine surgery, turned into anything
but, and Jethro had not just a disc extrusion removed, but also had a perf'd
dura, via Cobb elevator, with major CSF loss, and is only just regaining
strength. Many days FLAT on your back in hospital will drive you crazy; even
though my surgeon had written my orders to include "May drink one beer with
evening meal," I just didn't feel like it! 
        I must have been ill......
Jethro
"The more I know about beer, the more I realize I need to know more about beer!"

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:28:38 cst
From: Bill Giffin <bill-giffin at juno.com>
Subject: Again mills

Good morning all,

>> Ronald LaBorde said:
 Also, I noticed he (referring to Greg Noonan) seems to be in love with
the Corona mill. That mill picture is in two of his books, with no
mention of any roller type homebrew mills. So I guess the idea here is to
listen to what he says and consider it good advice, but not gospel.
<<

I still prefer the Corona mill over the roller mills that are available. 
Since the last go around on mills I acquired a Malt Mill, adjustable, and
used it for about five batches.  The crush was no better then the crush
that I was getting with the Corona and the extraction was not as good. 
In the same period of time I got out the Phil's mill that I had had for
some time an used that for five or six batches, while the Phil's Mill
preformed better then the Malt Mill, it didn't do any better then the
Corona.  

It is my sense that the folks complaining about the Corona don't know how
to use this piece of equipment.  As with many tools it has to be set up
properly,  

Those of you who have the small roller mills be aware the the nip of the
rollers is not correct.  The sharp knurling on the rolls cuts the husks
and truly is not suitable.  Roller mills should have at least 250 mm of
diameter, about 10 inches, to be efficient.

For you doubting Thomas' out there screen you crushed malt that you got
from you roller mill.  If 75% or more or the crushed malt don't make it
through a 0.039" screen then you are not getting anywhere near optimum
crush.  15% of the malt is hush +/-.

Bill

P.S.  I sold the Malt Mill cheap.  I am back to using the poor old Corona
with wonderful result.  Perhaps Mr. Noonan needs to have more attention
paid to his writing.

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 17 Dec 1996 09:33:50 -0500
From: Patrice Wheeler <PATRICE at ICN.COM>
Subject: Homebrew Digest V2 #7 -Reply

DanO,

And my favorite is #26     
Rice in Beer!!!!!
It sounds like I got really wasted
and drowned in my beer. Ha Ha!!!!!
Never!!!!!

Rice-Brew


>>> owner-homebrew-digest <owner-homebrew-digest at dionysus.aob.org> 12/16/96 05:17pm >>>

Homebrew Digest      Saturday, December 14 1996      Volume 02 : Number 007



1	Wort aeration and final gravity
2	SS brew kettles
3	Wort Aeration question... (fwd)
4	Re: SS brew kettles
5	Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #5
6	RE: Low Specific Gravity
7	Belgian Abbey brews
8	RE: Simple No Sparge
9	No Sparge Stuff
10	Re: Thanks for resurecting the HBD!
11	No sparge brewing
12	No sparge mashing
13	purging headspace air in secondaries
14	Re: No sparge brewing 
15	Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #3
16	Fishy taste?
17	Re: Wife Ale / Mashing Rice
18	mutiple batches
19	[Fwd: Re: Enough...]
20	Re: Apology
21	AFCHBC Competition Announcement
22	FWH,  No sparge, Autolysis
23	Kettle Volume
24	Poor Carbonation w/ Local Brewery's Yeast
25	Rice in beer
26	Rice in Beer

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:15:05 -0800 (PST)
From: palmer at San-Jose.ate.slb.com (Eric Palmer)
Subject: Wort aeration and final gravity

I'd like to pass a low-tech. tip on to the less experienced
brewers (among whom I include myself).

Tomorrow I bottle batch #4. All batches used at least 6# of
dry or liquid extract and had starting gravities in the 48-50 
range, yet for batches 1-3, I could not get a final gravity
below 20. These early batches were aerated variously with 
vigorous stirring, shaking and #3 was poured back and forth
from the boiling pot to the 7 gal fermenting bucket a couple
times plus being shaken after the lid was secured to the bucket.
In spite of the high FG, they were, however, quite good, if
a little sweet (for calibration, my favorite commercial
beer is Full Sail or Portland Brewing's IPA).

The latest batch used 7# of syrup plus 1.5# of specialty grains
resulting in an OG of 52, and I finally achieved a final gravity of
14!

This was achieved simply by an extended period of pouring the
cooled wort back and forth between the fermenting bucket and
the boiling pot over a period of about an hour. This is done
by holding one container as high as possible (I'm 6'5" which
helps) and pouring with great vigor into the other container,
then repeating the process until the froth on the fermenting
bucket extends to the top. For me, this took about 3-4 cycles.
I then laid the bucket lid on the bucket (without snapping it
down) just to keep out debris or dust, and went about the 
normal weekend chores. After about 15 min. when the froth had
settled a few inches, I repeated the process, perhaps
4-5 times.  This was all done after adding the yeast, by the
way.

The key is that when pouring, it must be very violent! Like,
perhaps, Niagara Falls.

Unfortunately, this won't work for those using a carboy as the
primary fermenter (which I don't recommend because there is
little room for the head to form). I use the carboy for the 
secondary.

I am trying to keep my brewing process as simple, basic and low
tech as possible, thus no air pumps, cooling coils, or other
gadgets.

Eric

	"Beer improves with age.
		"The older I get, the more I like it."

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 11:30:43 -0600
From: AJUNDE at ccmail.monsanto.com
Subject: SS brew kettles

     Can somebody give me a good vendor for a SS brew kettle?  I'd like one
     with either a copper or extra heavy stainless bottem like the smaller
     ones available from FaberWare for cooking non-beer related foods.  I
     like doing full 5 gal mash, so a 7.5 or 8 gal unit would be fine, and
     I'm afraid a 10 would be too big to fit on the stove.

     The enamel on my current unit is showing scorch marks on the inside of
     the pot, as well as taking a very long time to get to boil, I fear
     it's not long before mandatory retirement.

     Private email is fine!

     Thanks!

|              Allen Underdown - ajunde at ccmail.monsanto.com                 |
|       ITSS WAN Group - Monsanto World Headquarters - St. Louis, MO        |
|             Homebrewing in the Shadow of the Mighty AB, the               |
|           inventors of the Clidesdale Water Filtration System             |

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 09:59:02 -0800 (PST)
From: palmer at San-Jose.ate.slb.com (Eric Palmer)
Subject: Wort Aeration question... (fwd)

macher at telerama.lm.com  writes...

>1) should I do more to aerate the wort before dropping it into 
>the carboy? Currently I am doing little or nothing.
>
>2) Does shaking a full carboy really have any effect in aeration?

As you have read in my 2nd post, I didn't have much success
with the shaking or rocking method, not getting an FG below
20. Thus, my experimentation with the vigorous pour method
described earlier.

Curiously, however, my local brew show owner here in San Jose,
who has well over a dozen red and blue ribbons tacked to the wall
behind the counter, aerates solely by rolling the fermenting
bucket around his back yard! He swears by it, and judging by
his ribbons (no pun intended), he must be doing something right.

Eric

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 13:03:13 +0500 (EST)
From: macher at telerama.lm.com
Subject: Re: SS brew kettles

On Fri, 13 Dec 1996 AJUNDE at ccmail.monsanto.com wrote:

>      Can somebody give me a good vendor for a SS brew kettle?  I'd like one
>      with either a copper or extra heavy stainless bottem like the smaller
>      ones available from FaberWare for cooking non-beer related foods.  I
>      like doing full 5 gal mash, so a 7.5 or 8 gal unit would be fine, and
>      I'm afraid a 10 would be too big to fit on the stove.
> 
The quality is probably as good as you want, but I got a 30 qt. SS pot 
with lid from Reading China (store in local mall) for $60. Works fine for 
me, doing 5 gal. extract boils...

This at least will give you a bottom line price reference...

Bill

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:04:03 -0800
From: Carrie Landry <clandry at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #5

HOW DO I GET OFF THIS LIST!!!!!!!!!
I'VE TRIED 4X.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:09:37 -0800
From: Richard Levenberg <richardl at Adobe.COM>
Subject: RE: Low Specific Gravity

>Help!
>
>I brewed an ale this weekend and I used 6lbs. of liquid malt extract 
>(Premier) and 1lb. of dry malt extact.  The problem I am having is when 
>I took a hydrometer reading on the wort before I pitched my Glenbrew 
>secret brewers yeast, btw, it showed 1.030.  This seems very low to me 
>considering the amount of fermentables +7lbs!  I was expecting 1.050+. 

I had the same problem last weekend.  I used 6 lbs of ME and 1 lb of grain.
 I got 1.030 and was surprised.  My theory is that the paper tube inside
the hydrometer moved when I was trying to get it out of the case the first
time.  It was stuck so far down with the instructions that I had to flick
it hard many times to get it out.  I am thinking that the paper moved and
now the hydrometer is ruined.  Anyway, I didnt worry, my brew is in the
secondary, looks beautiful, smells great and I am happily awaiting my first
homebrew.

Just a theory.  

richard levenberg
richardl at adobe.com

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 10:23:53 -0800
From: smurman at best.com
Subject: Belgian Abbey brews

Back in HBD V1.2 we were having a discussion of different aspects of
Belgian style brews.  I wanted to post some follow-up.

I brewed a Chimay clone, which I fermented with the Chimay yeast
between 64-66F.  This created plenty of banana phenols, and had no
problems finishing within 4-5 days.  Dave Burley had posted that he
was fermenting with this yeast at 75F for nearly two weeks, and I
personally can't see how this could be very tasty unless the phenol
production of this yeast doesn't vary much with temperature, or there
was some type of under-oxygenation or under-pitching effect.  Dave,
have you brewed with this yeast since?  I know with some of the wheat
beer yeasts, such as Wyeast 3056, temperature changes can make a big
difference in the banana and clove tastes, with the higher temps
producing more.  BTW, the Chimay yeast is very good, and it's
especially nice to see Wyeast now offering it with their Belgian ale
series.  I don't know that I would use it for just any high-gravity
brew though, because it does produce quite a bit of banana.  I'm still
going to stick with Wy1056 for my porters.

I had posted looking for tips on how to carmelize sugar.  I got a lot
of feedback (thanks), and the majority of people said "do it in the
microwave."  This is what I did, but when I do it the next time I
won't use the microwave.  Carmelising sugar is a bitch, but it does
give you opportunity to create one of those brewing industrial
accidents that we all love.  I dissolved 1 lb. of sugar in some water,
and nuked it.  It takes about 10-15 minutes of boiling to get any
noticable color change.  The problem is that it happens quickly, and
that the boiling sugar will not cool down very quickly, so that it
continues to carmelize even after the heat is removed.  In my case
this lead to a very dark, almost scorched, liquid.  Dealing with a
pyrex glass bowl of boiling hot sugar is a challenge at best.  Do not
attempt this after having many homebrews.  Adding the liquid sugar to
a pot of boiling wort is even more fun.  Basically, the wort doesn't
want anything to do with the sugar, and spits it back at you.  Like I
said, this whole practice is ripe for an industrial accident.  If I do
it again (and I will:), I will do it on the stove-top with a teflon
coated (cheap!) pot.  I want something that has a handle, and that can
be cleaned easily.  The sugar basically ruined by pyrex dish.  A
Wal-mart pot and a pyrex dish both cost about $3, so it's maybe a
wash, but the pot has a handle which is key.  I also have a
splatter-guard which I will use when adding the sugar to the wort
(another reason to have a handled pot; to keep one hand free for
protection).  Does it make a difference to the overall brew?  I can't
really say, since I haven't tried simply dumping plain sugar into my
wort to compare.  I don't think it caused much of a color change;
you're basically adding a pint or two of sugar to 6 gallons of wort,
so let your choice of adjunct malts create your color.  It's
definately fun (read: scary), and you can tell people it's the secret
ingredient to making a true Belgian ale passed down through
generations of Abbey monks;)

SM

P.S. I still have the acronym list, and will post it occasionaly.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 96 11:42 PST
From: Charles Burns <cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us>
Subject: RE: Simple No Sparge

At 09:49 PM 12/12/96 -0500, Alex Santic wrote:
>Hi Charles,
>
>I answered your question on the HBD and then some, but forgot to CC the
>reply to you. You can read it tomorrow, but the short answer is this:

I just finished reading HBD#5 and it wasn't there.

>
>You want to calculate your final mash thickness so that you collect half the
>wort, in your case 3.5 gallons or so. You then dilute that in the kettle with
>another 3.5 gallons and boil away. I reckon that should be giving you at least
>5.5 gallons of wort at the desired OG. You can assume that the grains will
>retain at least 1/2 quart per lb of grain...I calculate on the basis of .55 
qt/lb
>absorption and that seems to come out about right.

ok. I use about 13 lbs total in this pale ale I'm doing tomorrow. These 
calcs (if I understand them correctly) would require 17.3 lbs total grain.

>
>One thing I forgot to consider in the original post is that it might be a 
hassle
>to calculate infusion mashes this way. I normally do a stovetop mash so the
>thickness stays constant from beginning to end.
>

The grain would absorb about 16 fl oz times 17.3 = 276.8 oz or 2.16 gallons.

In order to get 3.5 gallons of wort this means I need to mash with 5.66 
gallons, total. Starting with .75 qts per pound for the protein rest, I mash 
in with 3.24 gallons. That leaves me with having to add 2.42 gallons of 
boiling water to raise the temp into saccarification range. Sounds plausible 
and sounds kinda thin (1.28 quarts of water total per pound of grain).

Does this sound right? Then dilute with 3.5 gallons for a 7 gallon start of 
the boil?
- - ---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Burns, Director, Information Systems
Elk Grove Unified School District
cburns at egusd.k12.ca.us, http://www.egusd.k12.ca.us
916-686-7710 (voice), 916-686-4451 (fax)
http://www.el-dorado.ca.us/~cburns/

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:27:21 -0500
From: KennyEddy at aol.com
Subject: No Sparge Stuff

Very interesting thread on the no-sparge brewing technique.  Alex Santic did
a fine job with his original and subsequent posts on the topic, but hesitated
on the nitty-griity quantification of the process.  I thought I might be able
to help (you had to figure this was coming).

First, before I lose all but the most A-R number phreaks, a point that has
been made but seems to be missed is that no-sparge allows one to do true
all-grain brewing with no more equipment that you already own (as an extract
brewer), except for a mash-tun.  I think that's the key point for extract
brewers to take home.  Since you're collecting concentrated wort, go ahead
and use your 20-qt pot on the stovetop -- it's essentially the same thing as
doing an extract batch except for the extra couple hours of conversion and
spar--- oops, I mean draining -- time.  Even for partial-mashers, the use of
a mashtun will make the process so much easier than colanders and grainbags.

OK, down to business.  I read Mosher's article on parti-gyle brewing (BT,
March/April 1994).  Alex has correctly quoted his figures, though I'm pretty
sure that Mosher was sparging his wort.  I say this because if you no-sparge
mash, the ALL of the wort in the mashtun should be of nominally the same
gravity, for the entire runoff period, so the runnings don't change with
time.  If you're adding sparge water, then the runoff *will* thin with time.

Look at it this way.  The mashtun has a certain amount of grain in it, and
therefore a certain amount of *potential* sugar.  How much starch is
converted to sugar depends on a lot, including crush and mash conditions, but
the total we actually extract is what we refer to as *efficiency*.  Example:
 we have 10 lb of pale ale malt, with a potential extract of 1.038 (38
points) per pound per gallon.  For a five gallon batch, we would figure 38 *
10 / 5 = 76 points.  This is the *potential* yield.  In reality, our
efficiency is, say, 80%, so we actually get 76 * 80% = 61 points (1.061
wort).  Within a reasonable range of mash thicknesses, this figure won't
change much.  So if we mash thick, we get less wort but of higher gravity
than if we mash thin, where we get more of a lighter gravity.  Dilute it out
to 5 gallons and it's all the same.

If we use Alex' figure of 0.55 qt of water absorbed per pound of grain, we
can figure with some precision how much of what gravity wort we'll extract
from the tun.  If we mash in at 1.33 qt/lb, a fairly common thickness, we get
(1.33 * 10 lb) = 13.3 quarts of added water, of which (0.55 * 10 lb) = 5.5
quarts is absorbed by the grain.  Over the mash period, the sugar is
converted & extracted into the water.  The wort should be of uniform gravity
everywhere in the mashtun (right?).  So 5.5 quarts is tied up in the grain,
and the remainder, 7.8 quarts, is the wort we have available from draining.
 7.8 out of the original 13.3 is 59%, not far off from Alex's 2/3 figure.
 This means that 59% of the *sugar* is extracted.  But this changes with the
thickness/thinness of the mash!  If we mash in at 1 qt/lb (10 quarts total),
the available wort is only (10 - 5.5) / 10 = 45%, whereas at 2 qt/lb it's (20
- - - 5.5) / 20 = 73%.  Big difference.

It's all in the ratio of the sugar left behind versus the sugar drained off,
since the sugar is evenly distributed in the volume of water in the mashtun.
 For a given amount of grain, there's a fixed amount of wort tied up in the
grain; all the excess is available as runoff.  So the correct approach, as
Alex mentioned, is to multiply your "usual full-sparge efficiency" by "a
figure" as derived in the example above, to get the no-sparge "recipe
formualtion efficency".  If I usually get 80% full-sparge, and I use 1.33
qt/lb, my effective efficiency for no-sparge is 80% * 59% = 47%.  A quick
chart plots a few points and illustrates the effect:

Mash Thickness:       1       1.2     1.4     1.6     1.8     2.0
(qt/lb at runoff)

Multiplier            45%     54%     61%     66%     69%     73%
(at 0.55 qt/lb
absorbed)

Overall Efficiency    36%     43%     49%     53%     55%     58%
(assuming 80% "normal")

Now, I have a question (anyone still with me?).  Most of us measure our
"normal" efficiency based on the gravity of the brew length of wort we end up
with.  Typically I sparge with the goal of keeping the water level above the
grains, to prevent compaction, although I usually run out of water maybe a
gallon short, so the bed does drain & dry some at the very end.  However,
there's always some liquid left in the tun.  I know I'm sparging "correctly"
since the gravity of these leftover runnings is above 1.010.   But this means
that there's still some sugar left in the mash tun!!  So my efficiency is an
overall process efficiency, *not* that of the mash tun (actual *extraction*
efficiency) alone.  This means that I should expect somewhat higher yields
than I might predict using the 80% figure (in this example).  Question is,
how much difference is it, and does it matter?

If I have 10 lb grain and 3.33 gal water inthe mashtun, and maintain a
constant level throughout most of the sparge, then run down to 2.33 gal  at 
1.010 remaining at the end, that 2.33 gallons has 8% of the original sugar
still in it (see below if you're interested)!  That means my 80% process
efficiency might be more like an 86% *extraction* efficiency.  The point of
this discussion is that when no-sparging, the grain bed is run dry, so that
the entire fraction given in the "multiplier" line in the table is available,
and should be multiplied by 86% rather than 80%!

Anyhow, I'll shut up now.  Comments/challenges welcome.

*****

Ken Schwartz
El Paso, TX
KennyEddy at aol.com
http://members.aol.com/kennyeddy

* -- Where did I get 8%?  Remember the 10 lb of grain in my 80% efficient
process gives me 5 gal  at  1.061.  This means I have a liquid consisting of
water + sugar which weighs 1.061 times more than just the water.  Put another
way, it weighs 6.1% more than plain water.  If 5 gal water weighs 41.77 lb,
then 5 gal 1.061 wort weighs 44.32 lb, the difference of 2.55 lb being the
sugar.

So my mash has 2.55 lb of sugar in it.  The 2.33 gal of leftover wort, at
1.010 gravity, by the same calculation has 0.195 lb of sugar.  As a
percentage of the original 2.55 lb this is almost 8% "wasted".

This extra 8% would be available in the no-sparge technique since we run the
grain dry.  Of course, we only get 45% to 75% of this "extra" sugar out,
depending on mash thickness, but that still means 3.6% to 6% "extra" sugar,
which translates to a couple of OG points in the final batch.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 96 15:27:53 EST
From: "Michael R. Beck" <101465.1255 at CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Re: Thanks for resurecting the HBD!

	Great to see the HBD back on-line!  Couldn't imagine the homebrewers at
AOB letting this fourm die.  Thanks for the hard work and contribution of cold
cash to keep the fourm alive!  What a time for everything to go haywire, right
in the middle of brewing season.  Now if we can get some of the urinary olympics
suscribers back on line to add a little comic relief when we get too bogged down
into brewing details.  
 	I'm making a Budvar (for those stuck with American beer, that's what
Budweiser was suppose to be).  I'm using a recipie in  Mr. Wheeler's book "Brew
Classic European Beers at Home."  Anyone have any experience with this recipie?
I plan to do a double-decoction mash with Durst Lager, Saaz,  and Wyeast Czech
Pils yeast (starter already at 750 ml).  The problem is I'm a British beer fan
trying to make beer to knock the socks off my German neighbors (already there
with weizens; made with ingredients imported from the US!).  Needless to say,
I'm set up to do single step infusion mashes and concerned about properly
knocking out a decent decoction mash.  I use a 50 liter SS pot on a cajun cooker
for the boil and mash in a square 10 gallon Coleman cooler.  According to
Noonan's Brewing Lager Beer book, I'm in a little trouble.  He doesn't seem to
care for mashing in coolers, and when it comes to decoctions I can understand
why.  Any help available from the collective on how to do this with my existing
equipment?
Michael R. Beck 
Rothselberg, Germany  

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:17:59 -0500
From: Steve Alexander <stevea at clv.mcd.mot.com>
Subject: No sparge brewing

John Wilkinson asks ...

>Louis thinks I missed the point and am confusing gravity with maltiness but I
>don't think so.  My point is that if no sparge brewing really works then it
>must matter how much water is in the tun at run off.  With a tun full after
...
>If anyone knows why no sparge brewing results in more maltiness I have
>not seen the explanation.  Of course, this would not be the only thing about
>brewing that is not completely understood.  I suppose the best thing to do is
>try it and see. [...]

No sparge brewing purportedly produces beers with extraordinary
maltiness. The perception of 'maltiness' is probably mostly due to
various products of Malliard and Strecker reactions - primarily
reactions between reducing sugars and amino acids that produce an
array of flavorful compounds.  Very simple reactions between amino
acids, like valine, leucine, isoleucine, etc. and glucose can produce
a wide range of flavors and smells including 'bready', 'malty',
'violets', 'chocolate' and so on. As I recall, valine and glucose
produce flavors and aroma reminiscent of 'fine malt'.

Where do these reactions take place - mostly in the malting, perhaps
some in the boil.  Malliard reaction products are very dependent on pH
and temperature and moisture level.

So why does no-sparge produce more malty flavors ?  Good question.
Does adding 'later runnings' to the no-sparge wort actually reduce the
'maltiness' as compared to adding water ?  If so then either something
in the later runnings is effecting the malliard reactions in the boil
or reducing the amount of these flavor substances in the final beer.
Another possibility is that the maltness may be masked by harsh grainy
flavors from late runnings.

Can anyone report on their no-sparge experience and flavors ?

Steve Alexander

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 16:44:09 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Parker <parker at rcltel.eng.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: No sparge mashing

I wonder if I can help clear up the discussion between John and Louis on
no-sparge mashing. The issue seems that John's semi-no-sparge mash
(diluting first runnings with additional sparging) will lead to 1) a
higher gravity if equal wort is collected compared to true no-sparge
mashing, or 2) less volume if the same gravity is attained. To achieve the
*same* gravity and wort volume in the 2 methods, one would naturally need
more grain with true no-sparge, more fermentables would come from first
runnings, and one can see why the results might taste different.

Rob Parker
parker.242 at osu.edu

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 15:55 -0600
From: BAYEROSPACE <M257876 at sl1001.mdc.com>
Subject: purging headspace air in secondaries

collective homebrew conscience:

in the never-ending war to improve the brew, i'm going to start purging the
headspaces of my secondary fermenters with co2.

question : do i need any special type of "co2 dispenser"?  or can i just dial
up about 1 or 2 psi on the gage and use a piece of brewing hose?  i have a 
shut off valve on the keg side of the regulator.  

question : do rubber stoppers exist with 2 holes?  i checked my hb store last
weekend but they didn't have any 2-hole stoppers.  i'd like to put the gas
in one hole and keep an airlock in the other so i could see the bubbling and
have some sort of idea of the volume of gas i'm putting in.

question : are there harmful (to beer flavor/aroma) gases in the blow off
gases of a primary ferment?  if i use the blow off gases to purge (or, 
*continually* purge) the secondaries, will i injure the beer?  i know there
are other gases in fermentation blow off, but would they be significant in
terms of effect on the beer in the secondary?

gas experts, pour forth thy knowledge.

and,

brew hard

mark bayer

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 17:35:38 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Re: No sparge brewing 

>>>>> "John" == John Wilkinson <jwilkins at imtn.tpd.dsccc.com> writes:


    John>   The
    John> only thing I can think of is that sparging washes out a
    John> higher proportion of fermentable sugars than are in the
    John> first runnings, 

Alternatively, a higher proportion of the "malty" flavor compounds
come out in the first runnings than in the spargings.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 21:23:02 -0500
From: JayGT at aol.com
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #3

How do I stop getting this Homebrew Digest? I cancelled a while back and all
of a sudden it started showing up again -- AND I CAN' MAKE IT STOP!!!!

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:23:22 -0500
From: Moncsko at aol.com
Subject: Fishy taste?

Hi, and welcome back. I attempted to post this the very day the old HBD died,
so here it is finally.

Back in September I brewed a 10 gal batch of an Amaerican P/A. All went well
during primary & secondary fermentation and I had 2 corny's of a nice SNPA
clone.(yum!)  Killed one keg, (delicious) then half way thru keg #2, moved
600 miles away. (I had planned to take a full keg, but it was just too good
to stop drinking while packing) The 1/2 full keg of great tasting beer shook
in the car, upright, at ambient temp  & under pressure, for 1.5 days. Tapped
keg while unpacking the first week and it tasted fine. Week two it started
getting oxidized flavors (cardboard, metallic, uh oh) drank local brews for a
couple weeks, then tried keg 4 weeks after move - now about a gallon left.
YECCH! It tasted fishy like a dried fish on the beach smells! Not that thats
a BAD thing, but not a desired flavor in a beer, at least for me. So.... can
shaking a 1/2 keg of otherwize good homebrew for a day & a half at room temp
oxidize it to the point of getting a fishy taste? ( Dead Bass Ale?) Has
anyone ever had this happen to them? I dumped the once fine ale, but have
since made NEW BEER!!!!!! so there IS a happy ending...

Jim Moncsko, alive & well in Morrisville, NC.

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Dec 1996 23:30:18 -0500
From: nerenner at umich.edu (Jeff Renner)
Subject: Re: Wife Ale / Mashing Rice

In HBD V2, #6, I said:

>That
>nonsense about American brewers constantly lightening the flavor of their
>beers over the last 50 years is just that - nonsense.

What I meant to say was, "That nonsense about American brewers constantly
lightening the flavor of their beers over the last 50 years *to appeal to
women* is just that - nonsense."

Sheesh.


- - -=-=-=-=-
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner at umich.edu

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 10:39:49 -0500
From: kathy <kbooth at scnc.waverly.k12.mi.us>
Subject: mutiple batches

Like Al K., I brew multiple batches on brew day.  As I drink most of my
own production (wife and many friends don't drink...she says she'll only
drink beer in European beer gardens and pubs) and as I like a wide
variety of beers, I make three 5 gal batches at once to minimize the set
up/ clean up times.

I start with a 5 gal batch of a high gravity beer as bock, old ale, 
etc. and a seperate 10g batch (to be divided) of related beers.

I  make the 10g batch in my converted keg boiler and  draw off the first
five gal for say bitter, and then let the remainder and what had been
the aroma hops boil an extra 30' or so with some extract and make an IPA
(some new additions of aroma hops)  Or, 5g of a lighter, milder hopped
lager with a higher gravity, higher hopped fest lager as the remainder
batch. I add the final spargings of the initial 5 gal hi grav batch to
the boil of this residual batch.

I've never had a batch suffer from autolysis even with 3 to 6 months on
the yeast before bottling.  Again like Al K., I minimizing
racking...just once (an early from plastic primary to glass secondary
before clearing).  However I did find a 3-4 year old bottle of my bottle
conditioned ale in the back of my ale converted freezer (Yes I've a
lager freezer at 43F and an ale freezer at 50F -but they aren't
walk-ins), and the burnt rubber was vicious.     

By the way....where's jethro and the gump report?  Did the AOB not send
to Manhattan KS or are the joys of fatherhood excluding those of the
HDB?

Also, I fried a hard drive and lost my addresses. Would someone send me
how to subscribe to the Judgenet for beer judging issues.  Thanks

I don't want to rent Al K's garage but will there be organized tours?
Cheers, jim booth, lansing, mi

- ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 1996 05:54:17 -0600
From: Cuchulain Libby <hogan at connecti.com>
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Enough...]

In V2 #6 Bob Wolff writes, among other things:
 "I have a high art-I wound with cruelty those who wound me"
Well Bob,
[Holiday Mode Off]
It seems you feel guilty enough about you're post in #2280 to reply
again with a little vitriol, so I'll answer you. First of all, I replied
to HBD,(the non-existent

=========================
This message is too long to be retrieved completely in the item view.  The message was truncated.

Return to table of contents


End of HOMEBREW Digest #2289