HOMEBREW Digest #2986 Wed 24 March 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

  A hack enhancing... (pbabcock)
  Improved Alcohol Formula (Louis Bonham)
  Re: no break/mash questions ("Arnold J. Neitzke")
  Call for Judges -- Midwest 1st Round of the AHA Nationals ("Jim Hodge")
  Lite Amber, Is it possible ("J. Doug Brown")
  Re: Problems with the BJCP (RobertJ)
  Sam Adam's Summer Brew Recipe (TPuskar)
  re: HALF-Arsed brew shops (and pumps "p.s.") ("Alan McKay")
  Bottles styles/sizes at competitions (Joel Plutchak)
  RE: Carboy Cleaning ("King, Owen A")
  Re: Split session brewing responses (Joel Plutchak)
  BJCP exams and beer evaluation ("George De Piro")
  Closed Open Fermenter (John Varady)
  grain bags and batch sparging ("Czerpak, Pete")
  all grainers ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Hot - Cold - Hot - Cold (Shane)
  Joys of counter-flow chilling ("William W. Macher")
  open fermentors (jim williams)
  Mazer Cup: It's Official ("Ken Schramm")

Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! Madison Homebrewers and Tasters Guild's 13th annual Big and Huge - 28 March 1999: Rules and forms at www.globaldialog.com/madbrewers 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: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 21:10:13 -0500 (EST) From: pbabcock <pbabcock at mail.oeonline.com> Subject: A hack enhancing... Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager... Back in December, I made some notes on plans to further automate the Automagical Responder. The Eagle has landed (or a Unix-hack version of it anyway...). If you are receiving more than one Digest, unsubscribe. The AR can now find the mutliples, and kill all but one. It will respond that it has done so, and instruct you to send a second unsubscribe if you really DID want to unsubscribe altogether. But wait! There's more! If you attmpt to unsubscribe, but your alias is no longer the same as that with which you subscribed (or the server cannot find your address for any other reason), it will respond with information regarding how to rectify the situation. This is, however, a double-edged sword: in the past, I would manually hunt up your address, killing any logically close match. Now, you will explicitly have to send a note to the Janitor if you simply cannot conceive of what your address might have been - ie, if you don't follow the instructions in the note it sends, you may never get off the Digest list. Finally, since I am but a mere shadow compared to the powers brandished by REAL Unix hacks, keep an eye out for weirdnesses in your address. Like, say, you suddenly stop getting the Digest, or, um, something... See ya! Pat Babcock in SE Michigan pbabcock at oeonline.com Home Brew Digest Janitor janitor@hbd.org HBD Web Site http://hbd.org The Home Brew Page http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html "Just a cyber-shadow of his former brewing self..." Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:50:33 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hypercon.com> Subject: Improved Alcohol Formula Hi folks: I previously posted a formula (based on the Rasmussen regression equasion found in DeClerck, combined with Professor Siebert's Zeiss Scale - Refractive Index conversion equasion) for calculating alcohol levels given the Specific Gravity (SG) and Refractive Index (RI) of a sample: ABV = (1017.5596 - 277.4(SG) + 937.8135 (RI^2) - 805.1228(RI)) x (SG/0.79) While this formula works pretty well (tested on the data in the examples in DeClerck and Siebert's article, it consistently gets results within +/- 0.15%ABV of the given values), it's not real user friendly because most brewers' refractometers are calibrated only in degrees Brix, and thus you have to convert your Brix measurements to RI by hand using the tables in the CRC Handbook or similar reference works. Fortunately, AJ recently crunched the data from the CRC's Brix-RI table into a workable, highly accurate formula: RI = 1.3330 + 0.0014323(Brix) + 0.0000055752(Brix^2) Plugging this value of RI into my modification of DeClerck's equasion (and dropping the resulting Brix^4 term [0.0000000292(Brix^4)] as not contributing anything that's statistically significant) yields: ABV = (277.8851 - 277.4(SG) + 0.9956(Brix) + 0.00523(Brix^2) + 0.000015(Brix^3)) x (SG/0.79) (Feel free to check my math and let me know if I goofed. I checked this against the data in DeClerck and Siebert and the results are comparable to those generated by the earlier formula, so I think it's OK.) Some tips on using this formula: (1) Your SG and refractometer measurements must be *very* precise. If your gravity reading is off by 1 SG point, it skews the ABV figure by about 0.35. If your refractometer reading is off by 0.2 Brix, it skews the ABV by about 0.25. With care, however, I suspect that most of us can get results within +/- 0.3%ABV, which is close enough for our purposes. (2) For this reason, proper use of a narrow range hydrometer to assay gravity is a must (unless, of course, you use a pycnometer or digital density meter for this purpose). Calibrate your hydrometer with distilled water, degas beer samples completely, clean the hydrometer and jar before use and keep you hands off the busines part of the hydrometer thereafter, take accurate temperature readings and use the proper temperature correction charts for your hydrometer, and if your hydrometer is calibrated in degrees Plato, use the ASBC charts to convert those readings to SG -- don't just multiply by 4. (3) Unless you're using a controlled-temperature refractometer (if you are, take your measurements at 20C), calibrate your refractometer with distilled water to read 0 Brix at the ambient temperature. If your refractometer doesn't have a calibration / adjustment screw, you'll need to estimate how far above / below 0 Brix the distilled water reading is and add/subtract this value from your measurements. (4) While the RI of ethanol is significantly more temperature sensitive than water or sugar solutions over the same temperature ranges, in the %ABV and ambient temperature ranges typically encountered by brewers the differences are small enough as to be, I believe, safely ignored if the refractometer is calibrated as described above. For instance, the RI of a sugar solution of 5 Brix will read about 0.00050 RI (0.35 Brix) lower at 25C than 20 C. Pure water reads about 0.00051 RI (0.356 Brix) lower, and a 5% EtOH-water solution reads about 0.00053 (0.37 Brix) lower. However, at higher EtOH levels (and, of course, at higher ambient temperatures), the differences might become significant. Ergo, for optimal results, try to calibrate your refractometer and take your refractometer readings in a place where the ambient temperature is fairly close to 20C / 68F, especially of you're analyzing a very high alcohol sample like a barley wine. Try this out and let me know how it works for you. LKB Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:58:31 -0500 (EST) From: "Arnold J. Neitzke" <neitzkea at frc.com> Subject: Re: no break/mash questions On Mon, 22 Mar 1999, BrewInfo (Al Korzonas) wrote: <SNIP> > It's not surprising that you didn't get hot break (and probably got > pretty poor cold break too)... too low a pH will decrease break > formation. It becomes a big problem below 4.8 (according to the books) > but nothing is a step function in nature (well, maybe the impact of > your head on the exhaust hood) so you will begin to get less break > well above that 4.8... I would guess 5.2 or so. <SNIP> I guess I am confused? You say "too low a pH will decrease break" then say "you will begin to get less break well above that 4.8... I would guess 5.2 or so"????? I brewed a wheat beer this past weekend without doing any addition of brewing salts to the mash or checking the PH. When I started the boil, my curiosity got the better of me and I checked the PH in the boiler, it was ~6.0. Is this bad? What about the PH of the ferment? ( no I haven't checked, it's that curiosity thing again). _________________________________________________________ Arnold J. Neitzke Internet Mail: neitzkea at frc.com Brighton, Mi CEO of the NightSky brewing Company - --------------------------------------------------------- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:32:59 -0600 From: "Jim Hodge" <jdhodge at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Call for Judges -- Midwest 1st Round of the AHA Nationals The Chicago Beer Society is hosting the Midwest 1st Round AHA Regional Competition once again. Judging will take place on Friday 4/16 and Saturday 4/17 at Goose Island's Fulton Street Brewery (not the brewpub)in Chicago. This has traditionally been a big competition and will require the services of many, many judges, stewards, and generic volunteers. Judges, especially, are encouraged to respond early to relieve the stress levels of the organizers. All interested parties should e-mail Brad at reegleyj at aol.com to sign up. Organizers: Brad Reeg, Jim Hodge & Jeff Sparrow Recognizing that judges and stewards who don't live in the Chicago area may require some additional incentive, the 1st Round Competition has been fortuitously scheduled for the same weekend as the Beer Museum Ale Fest. This event, sponsored by Goose Island Beer Company and the Beer Museum, will be held at the Goose Island Brewpub on Sunday, April 18th from 1-5pm (Not being fools, CBS has decreed that there will be no AHA judging on Sunday). The Beer Museum Ale Fest will feature Cask Conditioned Ales and Chicagoland Beer history. Goose Island, Flossmoor Station, Glen Ellyn and Wild Onion from Illinois; 3 Floyds from Indiana; New Glarus, Lakefront, Sprecher, and Milwaukee Ale House from Wisconsin all have expressed interest in presenting cask examples of their products. Phil Pospychala, (from the Monarch Club, BCCA and the Chicago Chapter of the ABA) will be gathering Chicagoland Breweriana collectors and collections to showcase Chicago's glorious Brewing Past, while you're enjoying the taste of the Present! Bill Siebel promises a Siebel Institute historical exihibit as well! Cost is $20. A preliminary event is also planned: A 3+ hour Motor Coach touring Chicagoland's Brewing Past, hosted by Phil Pospychala..Departing from Goose Island Brewpub at 9 AM, proposed cost is $30. Interested ? Call Phil (847) 362-4016. Jim Hodge One member of the Co-organizing Triumvirate of the Midwest 1st Round AHA Competition Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 13:11:07 +0000 From: "J. Doug Brown" <jbrown at labyrinth.net> Subject: Lite Amber, Is it possible I have John Bull Lite (hopped) and Amber (unhopped) malt extracts and was wondering if I should try a batch using these two malts together. Has anybody done this and care to share the results? I have looked in various books but have not seen any recipies that use 3.3 pounds of each, or any recipe that mixes lite and amber at all. I would assume the beer would turn out OK as a lot of all grain brewers mix dark and light grains. On the Backdoor dealings and store front issue, I have a local homebrew store that is in the owners house. This isn't so bad as he has great prices, however he also has more than one other job which keeps him away from home a great deal. I like to support the homebrew shop, but it is rather inconvenient to set up a time to visit it. I would rather pay a little more for products and be able to see, pick-up and hold them rather than just order them online. The advice I get from the owner has really been helpfull, I just wish he could go to full time shop owner, or at least regular hours on a somewhat periodic basis. To a new brewer like myself, what I learn at the shop while purchasing ingredients and toys for my next batch is almost invaluable. Doug Brown jbrown at labyrinth.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:03:30 -0500 From: RobertJ <pbsys at pbsbeer.com> Subject: Re: Problems with the BJCP >From: Guy Burgess <orientalwok at fuse.com> > >Ted McIrvine writes: >> First off, it is ridiculous that a BJCP exam can use beer brewed by >>the >> exam evaluator. Several friends have been roasted >>on the exam for spotting defects in beer brewed by the evaluator. >>Yes, the beer may be brewed by the exam proctor and the examinee's score is compared to the proctor's score of the same beer. The proctor, however, does not grade the exam. When I took the exam last August, the worst of the four beers was brewed by the proctor >and after the exam he enlightened us on why it was so bad. I was >"roasted" on a score I assigned to a commercial beer. Several years ago when taking the exam to move up to National, I evaluated a beer brewed by the proctor, a bitter. Fortunateley, or unfortunately, I had just returned form London 3 weeks prior (had a few bitters). I had found many problems with the exam beer. After the exam we talked with the proctor and several other local judges about the bitter. The other judges had also evaluated the exam beers with the proctor. There was agreement between the proctor and these judges on all but the proctor's bitter. All the local judges, and most exam takers agreed with my evaluation. The proctor thought it was a perfect bitter and because of his "National" status said the lower ranked judges didn't know a good bitter. I, did get the needed score despite this difficulty, but 2 others did not pass and, as a result, will not take the test again and still judge as novices. While many judges/proctors may do as you say and be fair with their own beers (it is difficult in my opinion), others can not be. Perhaps mine was the rare the experience. I would also believe that it is easier for the proctor to be accurate if the proctor knows he has a bad beer. Bob Precision Brewing Systems URL http://www.pbsbeer.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:18:36 EST From: TPuskar at aol.com Subject: Sam Adam's Summer Brew Recipe Its time to start thinking about that summer brew again. Last year I tried to emulate Sam's Summer Brew with moderate success. I would welcome anyone who can improve on my recipe and technique. This was a last minute sort of brew so I did an extract and used a dry yeast. I'm planning an all grain this year and welcome yeast recommendations. Here's what I did last time: It was a THREE GALLON batch 3 lbs M & F liquid malt (55% wheat/45% barley) 1 lb light DME 3 grams Grains of paradise (ground with rolling pin) 3 grams cardamom (ground with rolling pin) 1 oz Hallertau pellets 3.2% alpha at 60 minutes 1 oz Saaz pellets 3.2% alpha at 15 minutes heated 4 gallon of water on stove to about 150F. Added extracts and raised to boil. Added Hallertau at start of boil and Saaz and spices after 45 minutes. Irish Moss for 15 minutes. Added zest of one lemon and juice from the lemon 15 minutes before end of boil. Cooled in water bath and pitched 14 g of Whitbread ale yeast. O. G. 1.052 Fermented at cellar temp (68F or so) for a week and racked to secondary (both glass) Fermented another 10 days (business trip!) and bottled after total of 15 days. F. G. 1.014 For a few weeks after bottling the aroma (translate smell!!!) of the spices was overpowering. It ultimately mellowed and this turned out to be a pretty good beer--not quite Sam's, but pretty good all in all. I'd like to improve on it since my son really likes Sam's and I'm trying to get him hooked on brewing! All comments welcome. Cheers, Tom Puskar Howell, NJ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:15:24 -0600 From: "Alan McKay" <amckay at nortelnetworks.com> Subject: re: HALF-Arsed brew shops (and pumps "p.s.") Hi folks, While we are on the topic (which I haven't really been following), I've got a web page dedicated to tips on how to tell if a brew shop is a good one. Mainly for newbies. But with the current thread, perhaps some of you can Email me with suggestions for additions to the page. http://www.magma.ca/~bodnsatz/brew/tips/retailer.html cheers, -Alan p.s. Yes, I will be summarizing the pump info. Meant to do it last weekend but forgot to forward all the Email from work to home. - -- Alan McKay OS Support amckay at nortelnetworks.com Small Site Integration 613-765-6843 (ESN 395) Nortel Networks Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:25:14 -0600 From: plutchak at lothlorien.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joel Plutchak) Subject: Bottles styles/sizes at competitions In HBD #2982, It Was Written: [Regarding putting strong beers into small bottles...] >OTOH, As far as I read, only traditional 12 ounce beer bottles are >allowed in competitive events. Say you produce an outstanding brew. >How can you receive recognition from brewing peers? Could you give >up 3+ bottles of a great strong ale? I know it's not standard, but in our competition we've been allowing 11-ounce to 1/2-liter bottles for normal categories. That basically covers those cute Duvel-style bottles up to "standard" German 1/2-liters. We've also been including a special No One Gets Out Alive High Gravity category, with those entries judged on a completely style-free basis. Although in the past we've just asked for one bottle, due to the large number of entries we've been getting in that category, this year we're going to ask for two bottles but allow 6- or 7-oz "nip" bottles. So, it's not *completely* out of the question to use small bottles in competition. Oh yeah, the competition is the 5th Annual Boneyard Brew-Off, held June 11-12 here in Champaign-Urbana, Illinois. It's an MCAB qualifying event (and Midwest Homebrewer of the Year, if that's still on). Watch for the whole media blitz in early April, or contact me to get put on the mail/email interest list. - -- Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu> Boneyard Union of Zymurgical Zealots Enjoying fine Spring brewing weather in east-central Illinois Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 06:34:32 -0800 From: "King, Owen A" <Owen.King at PSS.Boeing.com> Subject: RE: Carboy Cleaning Rod Prather writes: >On cleaning carboys.... >One little trick I use for scrubbing the inside of a carboy. Carboy brushes >are quite deficient on the end and you quickly end up scrubbing with the >wire tip. Take a cloth or a strip of one of those green scrubber pads and >attach it to the end with a wire tie. A tie wrap would be ok too but the >cloth needs to be removed for cleaning of the brush. It works great and you >don't take the chance of scratching the inside of the bottle. While I like the idea that Rod presents, while I can't speak for generic green scrubbies, the green scrubbies by Scotch Brite WILL scratch glass, so be careful choosing your tools. Owen King, Everett, Washington Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:35:42 -0600 From: plutchak at lothlorien.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Joel Plutchak) Subject: Re: Split session brewing responses In HBD #2984, Greg Remake wrote: >Another brewer pointed out that it took two full days to deliberately >sour a batch, so he had little concern with storing fresh wort for 8 >to 10 hours before boiling. That would be me, and I should clarify. After Dennis Davison's article on Berliner Weiss came out in _Zymurgy_ a couple-few years ago, I brewed a sour-mash wheat beer. The mash started smelling bad after 24 hours at ~110 degree F temperatures, and smelled pleasantly lactic after 48 hours. Anyhoo, I've done split-batch brewing (for the same reasons Greg has) and found no apparent off aroma after letting the wort cool down from about 160 degrees to 85 degrees during the overnight hours. I also found no problems with the finished beers. - -- Joel Plutchak <plutchak at uiuc.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:06 -0800 From: "George De Piro" <George_De_Piro at berlex.com> Subject: BJCP exams and beer evaluation Hi all, Ted writes, regarding BJCP exams: "Several of my friends at Homebrewers Of Staten Island (whose beer judging abilities I value highly) have encouraged me to take the BJCP exam, which always seems to be held when I'm working on Sunday morning." I have administered two BJCP exams in NYC (Nov. '97, Spring '98). Nov. 97 was definitely on a Saturday. The '98 exam may have been on a Sunday. I can't recall. I will be administering an exam in NYC at the end of June of this year (the 26th is the requested date). That, too is a Saturday, so you'll have no excuses... Ted also wrote: "First off, it is ridiculous that a BJCP exam can use beer brewed by the exam evaluator. Several friends have been roasted on the exam for spotting defects in beer brewed by the evaluator." To which I respond: My co-proctor and I were completely blind to the identity of the beers evaluated at both of the exams I administered. I supplied homebrew, as did some of my friends. A third party was asked to be the "beer blender." They had the option to serve straight homebrew, straight commercial beer, or blends of any of the above. I believe this to be the most fair way to administer the tasting test. The exact identities of the test beers were recorded and sent to the graders to make their jobs easier. It is a shame that the BJCP is so stingy with experience points; it would be easier to entice a person to be the "beer blender" if I could offer them a point. Also, an examinee will not be "roasted" for spotting defects that the proctor does not. The tasting portion of the exam is 30% of the total grade. Only 20% of that 30% is based on how closely an examinee's score matches the proctors, and it is impossible to get less than about half of that 20% (I think all of those figures are close to accurate). When grading the tasting portion of BJCP exams I look at the comments of all the examinees and the proctors. If a bunch of the examinees seem to agree about a beer, but the proctor is in a different universe, I will tend to believe the examinees. It is a tough job; everybody has different acuity to different chemicals, and recognizing this is an important part of exam grading (and beer evaluation). It is equally important to realize that *many* beer evaluators (especially the least experienced ones) approach beer evaluation in a way that is improper. They dig for flaws in each beer, rather than just trusting their initial impression of a beer. If you dig hard enough into any beer, you will find flaws, even where none exist. This is a lesson I learned during my study at Siebel. In the "grand finale taste panel" I correctly identified all of the flawed beers. I also said that one of the control beers was flawed (there were two controls; Ilse is a tricky devil). I had to really dig hard to find that "sourness" in the control beer that I said was flawed. Had I just trusted my initial impression (and not been psyched out by the fact that I had already labeled one beer as the control), I would have scored perfectly. To me, it is far worse to invent flaws where none exist than to miss flaws that are real. This is a lesson all beer evaluators should take to heart. It has really changed the way I approach beer evaluation, and I believe I am a better judge because of this knowledge. That got a bit off topic...oops! Have fun! George de Piro (Nyack, NY) Malted Barley Appreciation Society http://members.aol.com/MaltyDog/maltind.html Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:20:47 -0500 (EST) From: John Varady <rust1d at usa.net> Subject: Closed Open Fermenter >Maybe it's time to come up with an acronym for the "bucket with plastic wrap" >system. BWPWF? UAF(User Accessible Fermenter)? EFFRS(Emergency Fruit Fly >Removal System)? At times, I have fermented in a sanke keg with a trash bag over it. It fills up like a hot air balloon and looks pretty cool ( http://www.netaxs.com/people/vectorsys/varady/hbopferm.jpg ). What acronym would be used to describe this? I hope I didn't sound too harsh on the Brooklyn contest in my previous post...I appreciate all the time and effort given freely by the judges of any competition and realize that we are all amature judges. I am the final judge of my homebrew and regardless of the score it recieves in a competition, I like it. Marshall says: >calling him otherwise is uncalled for. and then goes on to say: >Hey butthead, Come on now Marshall, practice what you preach! Later, John - -- John Varady http://www.netaxs.com/~vectorsys/varady Glenside, PA rust1d at usa.net Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:34:41 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: grain bags and batch sparging Gary writes about wanting to use a nylon grain bag and batch sparge to enter into all-grain brewing. This is a long one so page down if you already know about batch sparging or do fly-sparging or just don't care to hear of my experiment and see my numbers. They are practical as my patience was limited and it was my first time then too. This is precisely what i spent a few hours on friday night doing using my 3.5 gall pot and oven. I brewed a 1/2 batch of pale ale with the grain bill of 6.5 lbs english 2 row and 0.25 lbs crystal in 2 gallons of mash water. I originally estimated grain using extractions of 20 and 30 points per pound per gallon as best and worst case scenarios to determine that I would get a gravity of atleast 1.050 using the above grain amounts. The grain and 150F water was mashed for about 3 hours in my oven since the water temp was originally 150F before grain addition and about 135 to 140 after grain addition. Basically I went out to dinner and left the pot to mash in the oven for a few extra hours to make up for the lower start temp. Eventually the water temp came up to about 150 to 155 though. Next time I will try using correct temp water to start with and putting the pot in the stove to mash. After the mash was through and I was full of fish-fry, I batch sparged using a grain bag and bucket arrangement. My bag touched the bottom when full so try putting a chopped up spaghetti strainer in the bucket to raise the bag and grains off the bottom. I drained the first runoff to yield just over a gallon of liquid. I then added about 1.125 gallons of 170F water and stirred the grains. Let them sit for about 10 or 15 minutes and then redrained the liquid. When I drained the liquid both times I returned the first qt or 2 to the top of the bed to try and help with reducing solids carryover. I can't tell if I only returned too little but the liquid was always pretty cloudy. Total drained was about 2 gallons out of 3.125 gallons added. I didnt drain forever though as my patience eventually got the best of me and some sugars were probably left in the grains to get tossed out. Water held up looked to be about 0.18 gallons per lb grain. The grain bag I used was a 6.5 gallon sized one with a coarse mesh as per local shop recommendation so that I wouldnt clog the mesh with fines. Well, the wort was fairly cloudly even though i returned about 0.5 gallons of runoff back to the bucket on both drains to the pot. Perhaps the fine mesh bag would be the way to go. However, in the end I got about 2 to 2.25 gall preboil, 1.75 gallons after boil, and dilution to 2.5 gallons of 1.054 beer in the fermentor. Not too bad and slightly better than I predicted on a worse case. Boiling was 60 min with 1 oz fuggles at 60 min, 0.5 fuggles at 15, and 0.5 fuggles at 3 min. The beer has finished fermenting on a cake of 1056 from a previous batch and has settled out nicely. I did end up with about 1 inch deep of sediments and break materials in my fermentor however. The beer looks clear though which I am happy about after seeing all the sediment circulating around during ferementation. My experiment is considered to be a success thus far and the finished beer will hopefully cause me to again try batch sparging and then eventually move into full allgrains when warmer weather approaches here in lovely upstate NY. Total time spent was about 5-6 hours at the most. I used data and recommendations taken from HBD from 1997, 1998, and 1999 and the searches are still there on the hbd.org site. A spreadsheet that I eventaully used was : http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/ Thanks to Ken Schwartz for this. It confirmed my numbers as being ok and gave me some starting points to shoot for in terms of sparge water additions, gravities of both runoffs, and other numbers. Get this spreadsheet to help yourself out. It will save some research too and it seems to work pretty good for my system. The predicted numbers were a bit off when I used the built in water retained and efficiency of 75% numbers. I was happy though that mine came out close and will take my corrections into account next time when calculating water and grain bill. Lower the efficiency (55-60% instead of 75%) and increase the water holdup (.18 instead of 0.13) unless I decide to drain really slowly with high patience and many a homebrew drunken. Perhaps a nap at this time would be appropriate since a watched batch sparge really trickles slowly. Much success into batch sparging and grain bag brewing. Hope you can beat about 20 to 22 pts per pound per gallon with a first time batch sparge. I look to improve my technique next time and hopefully be more patient. I did have fun though and am excited to be brewing beer a little bit more purely than before with extracts and specialties. Until then, cheers and keep brewing. Feel free to email privately if you want more info or details. Pete Czerpak Big Ring Brewing - the perfect combination of passions - bikes and beers Process Engineer by day, Brewer and cyclist by night pete.czerpak at siigroup.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:54:04 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: all grainers To all grain brewers: What type of effect does leaving a mash at low starting temp (say 135 to 140F) to eventually transition up to 150 to 155F when using long mash times? Does a long mash time hurt anything? Basically I undershot the starting mash H2O temp once grain was added and then put the pot in the oven to raise and maintain the mash temp to 150 to 155F. Total time at 135 to 155F was about 3 hrs. Also, how does allowing O2 to enter the wort during sparge and mash effect the final product (HSA???). I figure the boiling action will eliminate any O2 in solution. What are the thoughts here? Is it a chemical reaction that doesn't reverse upon boiling? I only notice cardboardy flavors when I have strained hot wort into the fermentor but not when i vigorously stirred hot wort before boiling. Thanks. I think my batch sparge from last friday evening was a success. See above post today for any info. Pete Czerpak Waterford, NY pete.czerpak at siigroup.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:07:08 -0600 From: Shane at UH.EDU Subject: Hot - Cold - Hot - Cold I brewed a batch of porter Sunday night, and got to use my newly constructed 50' immersion wort chiller. It worked like a dream. I then aerated and pitched the yeast (pint starter of 1056). My hydrometer decided to try it's hand at skydiving part way through the brewing process so I don't have gravities for this batch. It was only at this point that I realized that I hadn't boiled the rest of my water (I'm doing a partial mash with about 3.5 gallons post-boil). It was past midnight and I was tired. So I put 1.7 gal in the microwave to boil and went to bed. The next morning, the water was still very warm (>130F), so I put it in the fridge and went to work (didn't even check the fermenter - running late). That night (last night), I checked the fermenter and saw that fermentation had not begun. The wort was just under 40 degrees F. Ack! I had poured ice water into the cooler I keep the fermenter in and the ice in it had barely melted. (I had expected it to melt quickly - whoops). So, I pulled out the water I had boiled the night before and heated it up to 80 or so in the microwave, added it to the fermenter & aerated well, making sure to get the yeast all stired up again. The temp was then at approx. 60 F. This morning (8 hours later) there was still no activity. In summary: Sun 11:30pm -> Cool 3.5 gal of wort to 72 deg F, aerate and pitch 1 pt. 1056 yeast. Mon 12pm -> No activity, Wort at ~39 deg F, Added 1.7 gal of H20 at 80 F, mixed, wort now at 60 F Tue 8:30am -> No activity. What are my potential problems? There's a chance for infection b/c of the lag time - is this chance lessened because of the low wort temp, or did that not affect the bacteria, and just inhibit the yeast? Are the yeast still alive? They went through some fairly drastic changes in temperature. Right now, It's just wait and see, but how long should I wait before I pitch more yeast? It's 36 hours lag right now (I'm used to less than 8). Also, would the yeast be affected by the concentrated wort it endured for 24 hrs, or would it have just gone into hibernation? Thanks, Shane Brauner Shane at uh.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 10:32:03 From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Joys of counter-flow chilling And other odds and ends... Hi everyone! Since the queue seems short...I thought I would add something that might complement the discussion of homebrew shops and beer judging...: -) I just used my newly-built CF chiller for the first time and WOW am I pleased. Sure beats the old emersion chiller hands down. I am so happy with this thing that I though I might report my experience and perhaps encourage others to move into the world of CF chilling, if they are so inclined and just need a little nudge... : -). This chiller is made from 50 feet of 5/16 OD copper tubing, inserted inside a garden hose in the standard fashion. How come nobody told me I should *lubricate* that damn copper tubing before trying to force it through fifty feet of hose, on a cold winter day in the snow? Even with the wife at one end of the hose, pulling it as straight as possible, it was simply a NO GO (after 25 feet of tubing was down the throat of this monster) until I got the brain storm to pour some liquid laundry soap in the hose to serve as a lubricant. Soon after, I was winding the hose/tubing combo around a corny keg, into what was to become a vertical-coil style chiller. I chose this form because I wanted to be able to completely drain the chiller after use. This seems to be possible, although I have not confirmed it by blowing air through it, or anything like that. I do get a fair amount of liquid out when I drain it. Last Sunday I made a 10-gallon extract batch, using the boil kettle of my new, yet-to-be-mashed-in, steam-injected rims setup. Basically I did not want to make the first all- grain batch on this setup until I had some liquid yeast stepped up, and elected to use Danstar Nottingham dry yeast, light dry extract and some specialty grains for this first use, which leads to a couple observations and questions. At the end of the boil I threw in some aroma hops and turned off the heat. I covered the kettle with a lid, and started pumping the hot wort through the CF chiller. My flow rate is a bit over a quart a minute. I meant to time it but forgot to look at the clock at the end. It was about 30 minutes for 10 gallons, maybe a bit faster. First question: Is there any problem with keeping the kettle covered for 30 minutes while the wort is being pumped through the CF chiller? Is DMS a concern at this stage in the process? This was not a concern to me with the emersion chiller, since I was not able to cover the kettle fully when using it. And wow! CF Chillers do drop the temperature. I was able to drop the temperature of the wort into the 50s (F) without even turning the cooling water on full. Did not check the temperature of the cooling water, as I was not trying to evaluate the performance of the chiller, but I was impressed. Also, there is considerable lag between when the cooling water is adjusted and when the effect shows up on the output of the chiller. I had considerable temperature excursions while I was learning to make small adjustments to the ball valve and wait to see the effect. I am not sure how well this chiller (with 5/16 OD tubing) would work in a gravity feet/siphon application. If I were making one to use in that way I would likely increase the tubing size a bit to be on the safe side. With my pump it does not seem to be a problem. The CF chiller sure is a great improvement over the emersion chiller. No more hovering around the pot, gently moving the chiller to increase cooling rate...I should have made one sooner for use with my siphon! Live and learn... Oh, and since you are interested...hee, hee...my system is a single tier which uses two pumps, and a pressure canner as a steam source. It is fired by three natural gas WOK burners, with one under each the HLT and kettle, and one under the pressure canner. These burners are impressive. Actually the three converted kegs are on a single tier, but the pressure cooker is mounted higher, above the HLT. Piping is all soldered half-inch copper, employing cast- copper unions, in strategic locations, for ease of disassembly when desired. One of the pumps is dedicated to the mash tun for recirculation and for pumping of the wort to the boiling kettle. The other pump can move liquid from either the HLT or the boil kettle, back into either of them, and also into the mash tun or through the CF chiller. Both pumps also are able to dump unwanted liquid into the basement laundry tubs. This system is not mobile. It is built permanent next to the laundry tubs in the basement. The basement is above ground and has two doors that can be opened for ventilation. I hope to (at some future time) set up a simple web page with pictures of my system. It came together quite well. All connections into the kegs are home-made bulkhead fittings made from 3/8 brass threaded fittings and nipples. I ran a tap into the fittings so the short nipples would go in enough to make a tight squeeze possible. For gasket material, I took standard Teflon pipe tape and twisted it into a thread, which I wrapped around the pipe nipple on both sides of the stainless steel of the keg wall. This worked well in the past when I put a valve in the side of an enameled pot, and has worked fine so far in this new system. Currently I have one drain in the bottom of the mash tun, and one each in the sides of the HLT and kettle. I will install more in the HLT. I am planning on inserting a dial thermometer in the front and a sight tube in the side. All flexible tubing is high temperature silicone which I got from U. S. Plastic Corp. (1-800-537-9724). Just a satisfied customer. I have dealt with them twice and the service was good and the shipment prompt. This tubing is rated from - 100 to +500 F. and is FDA approved. Not cheap...but I can trust it to safely carry boiling wort at the pressures in my system. You might want to get their catalog. Happy brewing...Bill in Pittsburgh, PA....USA Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 08:39:15 -0800 From: jim williams <jim&amy at macol.net> Subject: open fermentors George De Piro wrote: "Over the past couple of weeks some people have talked about the joys of using open fermenters, describing them as a plastic bucket covered with plastic wrap which is secured to the bucket with rubber bands. Forgive my confusion, but how does this qualify as an open fermenter? It is sealed about as well as a bucket with a lid and an airlock, or a carboy with an airlock. A truly open fermenter is OPEN to the atmosphere! There is likely to be some mixing of air and CO2 at the surface of the fermenting beer, which may affect fermentation in ways that are desirable for certain yeasts. Covering a bucket with plastic wrap will create an atmosphere within the fermenter that is similar to that within a carboy." I agree. I'd like to hear your comments on my system: I use a ss pot as my fermenter, aerate like hell, lots of yeast. I've rigged a "cover" out of cheesecloth, and a ss ring. Keeps stuff out, llets stuff out. I used to go truly open. That room would be filled with amazing aromas. That hasn't changed a bit since I now use the "cover". Jim Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 12:11:04 -0500 From: "Ken Schramm" <schramk at resa.net> Subject: Mazer Cup: It's Official Here are the results of the Seventh Annual Mazer Cup Mead Competition: Overall: 134 Competitive Entries 3 Non-Competitive Entries Best of Show Winner: Terry Estrin Vancouver, BC "Black Currant - Fireweed Melomel" Category One: Show Mead (39 Entries) 1st Place: Micah Millspaw Oconomowoc, WI "96 Orrange Blossom" 2nd Place: Ron Barnes Abiline, TX "West Texas Special" 3d Place: Al Korzonas Palos Hills, IL "#9703" Category 2: Traditional (6 Entries) 1st Place: Ron Lunder/Mountain Meadows Mead Westwood, CA "Honeymoon Nectar" 2d Place: Jeff Rose Chelmsford, MA "Dr. Moist's Tupelo Mead" 3d Place: Claire Desrosiers/Daniel Dingras Chepachet, RI Category 3: Melomel (48 Entries) 1st Place: Terry Estrin Vancouver, BC "Black Currant - Fireweed Melomel" 2d Place: David Myers Boulder, CO "Black Raspberry Blossom" 3d Place: Ron Barnes Abilene, TX "Jamaican Joy" Category 4: Cyser (11 Entries) 1st Place: Chuck Wettergreen Geneva, IL "Custom Press Cyser" 2d Place: Bill Pfeiffer Brighton, MI "Pick Me Up and Put Me Down Cyser" 3d Place: Paul Gatza Sunshine, CO "Along Came a Spider and Sat Down Be Cyser" Category 5: Pyment (14 Entries) 1st Place: Brian Myers Beach Haven, Auckland, New Zealand "42" 2d Place: Chuck Wettergreen Geneva, IL "Fox Grape Pyment" 3d Place: Bill Pfeiffer Brighton, MI "Medoc Pyment" Category 6: Open/Mixed (6 entries) 1st Place: Bill Pfeiffer Brighton, MI "Ginger Mint" 2d Place: Ed Measom Orlando, FL "Breakfast Mead" 3d Place: Corrine Parker Reseda, CA "Apple-Cinnamon Mead" Category 7: Metheglin (9 Entries) 1st Place: Ron Lunder/Mountain Meadows Mead Westwood, CA "Spice Nectar" 2d Place: Keith Reding St Louis, MO "Cracklin Rosie Metheglin" 3d Place: Marie Verheyen Novi, MI "Bochet" Category 8: Braggot (4 Entries) 1st Place: Bill Pfeiffer Brighton, MI "Wheat Braggot" 2d Place: Stephen Rosenzweig Ontario, NY "Braggin' Braggot" 3d Place: Al Korzonas Palos Hills, IL "Smoked Braggot" Congratulations to all, and thanks for entering. We had our first "Outside of the US" winners this year! Score sheets will be going out within a week, and Mazers within the month. They are done now, and are very impressive. The caliber of entries was stunning again this year. We saw the increased and very welcome use of oak aging, very good sweetness-to-acid balance control, and a mind-boggling diversity of ingredients. We apologize to all for the delay in getting judging completed. Our number of judges and available dates was somewhat limited by circumstances beyond our control, and we refuse to do more than one round per judge per day for safety reasons. Again, our thanks. Ken Schramm Troy, MI Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/24/99, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96