---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
        http://www.northernbrewer.com  1-800-681-2739

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  Example Batch Sparging method (John Palmer)
  re. White Labs Pitchable Yeast Claims ("John Misrahi")
  Boiling hops in water ("Spencer W. Thomas")
  Thoughts on peppers ("Franklin, Victor E")
  single-step vs. multi-step mash? (Mark Beck)
  RE: Is Dry Ice Filthy? ("Mike Sharp")
  RE: Food Barley (Michael Hartsock)
  RE: Hops and head (Michael Hartsock)
  Iodine based sanitizers (Michael Hartsock)
  out of style (ensmingr)
  refractometer recommendations for beermaking??? (Donald Hellen)
  Water Analyses ("Martin Brungard")
  Actual Guinness Ingredients ("Ryan and Shelly Furstenau")
  Re. Burton Water Profile ("John Palmer")
  re: batch sparging (Rama Roberts)


*
* Show your HBD pride! Wear an HBD Badge! 
* http://hbd.org/cgi-bin/shopping
*
* The HBD Logo Store is now open!
* http://www.cafeshops.com/hbdstore
*
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
*

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!

To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
  "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org FROM THE E-MAIL
  ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!**
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, you cannot subscribe to
  the digest as we cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright 
  HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK 
  before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content 
  cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit.

More information is available by sending the word "info" to 
req at hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITOR on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)



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


Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:52:10 -0800
From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: Example Batch Sparging method


From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003  10:45:19 PM America/Los_Angeles
To: post@hbd.org
Subject: Example Batch Sparging method

From: John Palmer <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003  10:20:54 PM America/Los_Angeles
To: post@hbd.org
Subject: A suggested procedure for batch sparging.

Michael asked for some explanation on batch sparging technique, so I am 
copying this excerpt from my book here. Accordingly, I need to note 
that this excerpt is from How To Brew, 2nd Edition, Defenestrative 
Publishing Co, 2001 and that I am maintaining my copyright. Since I 
don't have the rest of the text from Chapter 18 here, I want to note 
that the equations shown below for batch (and no-sparge) brewing were 
developed by Ken Schwartz and that he has a writeup and a spreadsheet 
available at his site:
http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html

(from pages 220-222 of How To Brew)
For example, here is a comparison of the standard 5 gallon recipe 
(continuous sparging) and the batch sparge and no-sparge recipes for 
the Tittabawassee Brown Ale you brewed for your first all-grain batch:
Grainbill          Standard       Batch        No-sparge
pale ale malt       7 lbs.        7.6 lbs.      8.5 lbs.
crystal 60 malt     1 lbs.        1.1 lbs.      1.25 lbs.
chocolate malt      .25 lbs.      .3 lbs.       .5 lbs.
Total weight        8.25 lbs      9.0 lbs.      10.25 lbs.
Total mash volume   3.75 gal      4.9 gal.      8 gal.

Each method produces the same 6 gallons of 1.041 wort. The obvious 
difference is the size of the mash: 4.9 for batch sparge and 8 gallons 
for no-sparge, versus 3.75 gallons for the continuous sparge. You will 
probably need a bigger mash tun for these methods.

Batch Sparge Recipe Calculations:
Batch sparging works best when two sparge volumes of the same size are 
combined to create the wort. To keep the process simple, we want the 
first sparge volume to be what we get when we simply drain the mash. To 
do this, we need to calculate the optimum mash ratio that will give us 
that volume, including the water that will be absorbed by the grain. 
Then the batch sparge brewing process becomes as easy as conducting the 
mash, draining the first runnings to the boiling kettle, adding an 
equal volume of sparge water back to the mash, draining again, and 
boiling!

First, let's define the terms in the equations:
Inputs:
OG:      Standard recipe original gravity (just the points part i.e. 
1.049).
Gr:      Standard recipe grainbill (total pounds).
Vr:      Standard recipe batch size (e.g., 5 gallons).
Vb:      Standard recipe boil volume (e.g., 6 gallons).
Calculation Coefficients:
k:      Water-retention coefficient (0.5 quart per pound)
Outputs:
W:      Batch sparge water volume (quarts).
Rb:     Batch sparge mash ratio (quarts/lb.).
S:      Scale-up factor for grainbill.
Gb:     Batch sparge grainbill (total pounds).
Vm:     Volume of water for the mash (quarts).
BG:     Boil gravity (points).
BG1:    Gravity of the first runnings (points).
BG2:    Gravity of the second runnings (points).
Vt:     Total volume of the mash (quarts).

1.   Decide how many gallons of wort you will boil to achieve your 
recipe volume and thus your sparge volume (e.g. Vb = 6 gallons).
       W = Vb/2      (3 gallons i.e., 12 quarts)
2.   Calculate the optimum batch sparge mash ratio.
       Rb = (Vb + (Vb^2 + 2k*Vb*Gr)^.5)/Gr   (1.85 qts/lb.)
       = (6 + (36 + 1*6*8.25)^.5)/8.25 = 1.848
3.   Calculate the scale-up factor.
       S = 1/(1 - k^2/Rb^2)      (1.08)
4.   Calculate the batch sparge grainbill.
       Gb = S*Gr      (8.9 or ~9.0 lbs.)
5.   Calculate the volume of water for the mash.
       Vm = Rb*Gb = W + k*Gb      (16.6 quarts)
6.   Calculate the gravity of the first runnings.
       BG1 = 4*S*Vr*OG/Vm      (1.064)
7.   Calculate the gravity of the second runnings.
       BG2 = 4*Vr*OG*(k/Rb)*(1 - (k/Rb))/(Gr*(Rb - k)) (1.017)
8.   Verify the combined boil gravity and recipe gravity.
     BG  = (BG1 + BG2)/2  and  OG = BG*Vb/Vr   (1.040 and 1.049)
9.   Calculate the total batch sparge mash volume (quarts). The volume 
of 1 pound of dry grain, when mashed at 1 quart per pound, has a volume 
of 42 fluid ounces (1.3125 quarts or .328 gallons). Higher ratios only 
add the additional water volume.
     Vt = Gb(1.3125 + (Rb - 1))  (19.5 qts. i.e., 4.9 gallons)

John Palmer
john at howtobrew.com
www.realbeer.com/jjpalmer
www.howtobrew.com - the free online book of homebrewing



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 08:43:03 -0500
From: "John Misrahi" <lmoukhin at sprint.ca>
Subject: re. White Labs Pitchable Yeast Claims

I have seen all of the bickering over 'pitchable' yeast lately. People have
complained that White Labs supposedly states their yeast is pitchable for
any 5 gallon batch, without a starter, and that they are misleading people.
However,

I have a pamphlet caled "White Labs Beginning Yeast Basics" which states,

"If more than a pint starter is desired for pitching (for beers over 1.070
Original Gravity, COLD FERMENTED LAGERS, or homebrewers wanting a faster
fermentation), a 1-2 liter starter can be made in just one day".

So they don't claim you can cold pitch a tube into 5 gallons of fermentation
temp lager.....

I just thought someone should point this out. I'm a happy White Labs and
Wyeast customer. I use dry yeast too when it strikes my fancy ;-p

John Misrahi
Montreal, Canada

 [892, 63] Apparent Rennerian (km)

"Actually John it uses a very complex algorithm to determine your average
time between "Generate" clicks, and from that can it figures out how drunk
you are, and what styles of beer you prefer.  Obviously, you prefer obscure
Belgians!" - Drew Avis

Seen on a tee shirt - "The internet is full. Go away!"





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:27:55 -0500
From: "Spencer W. Thomas" <spencer at umich.edu>
Subject: Boiling hops in water

My good friend Jeff says that he's had good success boiling hops in 
plain water.  I must respectfully report the opposite.  I tried it 
once.  That was enough.  My attempt resulted in a green, grassy-tasting 
(and somewhat bitter) water.  My tap water has a fairly high pH (8 - 
9).  Without some acidification, all sorts of nasty tannins and other 
flavors are extracted from the hops along with the desired bitterness.  
A bit of malt extract brings the pH down to a more reasonable number and 
prevents this problem.

=Spencer in Ann Arbor, MI




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:17:12 -0600
From: "Franklin, Victor E" <Victor.E.Franklin at bankofamerica.com>
Subject: Thoughts on peppers

Although this is a little tardy I feel compelled to chime in on this.

A couple of years ago I made a pepper beer my friends still talk 
about on occasion. They absolutely loved it. The beer was a very 
simple amber recipe that I added the jalapenos to.

I have had pepper beers before that had an overpowering pepper 
flavor or nose to them. The beers seemed to be more pepper than beer.
  I wanted to avoid this.  My objective was to avoid damaging the good 
beer flavor, like over-hopping a beer would. 

So in my thoughts I likened hopping addition times and the effects on the
 flavor, the nose impact this has, and jalapeno additions. Why wouldn't
 jalapeno additions be the same?  I am sure the process is different but 
I couldn't find anything in the HBD about it at the time. I think the 
process worked.  (Although I can't be sure as I didn't put any jalapenos 
in another batch in the fermentor) The beer seemed to have a low pepper-nose
 to it with a warm back-end.  If I drank 3 of them it would start getting warm. 

Here is what I did:
I used 6 small jalapenos cut in half and cleaned. I then browned them on a 
skilled (I like to eat 'em like this raw sometimes) and dropped them in 
the boil... for 50 minutes.

Has anyone had experience with adding jalapenos to the begging of a boil 
on one batch and to the fermentor on another?
If so, was there any difference between the two?   
If this were true it would be a great way to balance the heat vs. nose effect.

In the end I would always suggest being conservative on jalapeno additions. 
I figure it is easier to add more later than to try and take some
 of the heat/ smell out. 


Victor Franklin
 Phoenix, AZ 
Already in the 80's :-)


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:35:54 -0800
From: Mark Beck <beckmk at whitman.edu>
Subject: single-step vs. multi-step mash?

I'm a relative newbie to all-grain brewing, and so far I've made some IPA's 
using single-step infusion mashes (a couple of which have turned out pretty 
darn good!)  However, soon I hope to brew a Belgian Triple, and I'm 
contemplating using a multi-step mash.  I plan to use a pilsner malt.

In the Classic Beer Styles on Belgian Ales, it says that the recipes are 
calculated for a single-step infusion mash "for simplicity", or something 
like that.  However, in the chapter where brewing details are given, a 
multi-step mash is described.

So: Do I need to do a multi-step mash?  What are some possible differences 
in flavor, attenuation, etc.?

Any hints on brewing a Triple would be appreciated.

Mark Beck
Walla Walla, WA





Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:47:07 -0800
From: "Mike Sharp" <rdcpro at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Is Dry Ice Filthy?

"FLJohnson at portbridge.com" wonders if Dry Ice Is Filthy?

The dry ice I've bought was made on the spot, in a wooden box that just they
just set on the floor.  No sanitation whatsoever, nor any cleaning that I
could see, aside from shooting a bunch of liquid CO2 into it.  If you pay
extra, they put it in an unsanitary press and compress it.  So, yes, it's
filthy, IMHO.  

But at bottling time in a bucket, I don't think you have to worry--you're
priming with sugar and getting the yeast going again...I force carbonate,
and purge the keg with CO2 prior to transferring into secondary and then
when transferring to the bright beer keg.

Regards,
Mike Sharp


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:46:05 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Food Barley

I have two questions:

1. Isn't it a huge pain in the ass to malt and kiln
your own barley?

2. How do you sparge without hulls?

mike

=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 10:52:55 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: Hops and head

I'm sure that this is not a great solution.  But I
tend to add 1/4-1/2 pound of unmalted wheat to all my
grain bills to improve head retention.  

My $0.02

mike

=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:04:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hartsock <xd_haze at yahoo.com>
Subject: Iodine based sanitizers

I just came across this product that seems like a much
better option for brewers, in terms of cost.

For $13.90 a gallon, with a no-rinse dillution ratio
of 1 oz to four gallons, Hillyard's product is FDA
approved and used in restraunts and dairy tanks.

>From their site (Hillyard.com):

H-101 (HIL0012706)  
Concentrated sanitizer/deodorizer formulated
especially for food contact surfaces. Ideal for
sanitizing food utensils, countertops, drinking
glasses, dishes, silverware and refrigerated storage
and display equipment. 1:512 dilution rate. EPA
registered and approved by NSF Category D2 for all
surfaces in federally inspected meat and poultry
establishments.

I don't work for Hillyard, or anything - but this
seems like a cost effective alternative.  Hillyard has
distributers in most major cities, and sells directly
to the public "anyone with money", so said the sales
representative I spoke with.

Mike

=====
"May those who love us, love us.
And those that don't love us,
May God turn their hearts.
And if he doesn't turn their hearts,
may he turn their ankles
So we'll know them
by their limping."



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:08:38 -0500
From: ensmingr at twcny.rr.com
Subject: out of style

There have been some recent posts in the HBD about competitions 
and 'out of style' beers.

If you're worried that your beer is out of style but you still 
want to enter a competition, you can enter it under category #24, 
"Specialty / Experimental / Historical". This category includes 
just about anything and judges look for "a harmonious marriage 
ingredients, processes and beer". See: 
<http://www.bjcp.org/styleguide24.html>.

I have the most fun judging this category, because you get some 
really interesting efforts, sometimes very good and sometimes 
very bad.

Cheerio!
Peter A. Ensminger
Syracuse, NY



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:21:24 -0500
From: Donald Hellen <donhellen at horizonview.net>
Subject: refractometer recommendations for beermaking???

Some of you use a refractometer, so this is for those of you
who have experience with them.

Are the imported Chinese-made ones worth the $60 they cost?

If not, which would you recommend? I don't want to spend
more money than necessary, but I don't want to waste money,
either.

I would use this for homebrewing beer and sometimes possibly
winemaking also.

I may not be able to check back and read your replies until
Monday (maybe, maybe not), but I assure you that I will read
them.

If you have links to places where I can buy one that you
recommend, I am interested in that (or addresses/phone
numbers). 

Thanks in advance.

Don Hellen



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:22:32 -0500
From: "Martin Brungard" <Martin.Brungard at trow.com>
Subject: Water Analyses

A number of interesting problems have been posed regarding water analyses
lately.  A bad looking Chandler, AZ water and a question regarding
bicarbonate levels in Burton water.

Mike Walker had questions about the Chandler water.  I copied the analysis
below.  

Calcium = 73 mg/L
Magnesium = 27 mg/L
Bicarbonate = 200 mg/L
Sulfate = 130 mg/L
Sodium = 200 mg/L
Chloride = 291 mg/L
Hardness (as CaCO3) = 290 mg/L
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) = 200 mg/L
pH = 7.59

He recognizes that the water is largely unsuitable for brewing and treatment.
Diluting the water is the easiest treatment option to reduce the high ion
contents.  A 1:1 dilution with distilled or RO water will still leave the
water with an excessive chloride concentration, especially if the sulfates
are going to be increased for a hoppy beer.  It appears that a 2:1 dilution
would bring the water into a pretty good range, suitable for amending into
many water styles.  

Using the dilution should be preferable for most beer styles excepting
pilsners.  Having those ions in the water saves some time and money over
using 100% distilled or RO water.  By the way, distilled and RO water is not
a good thing for water supply piping nor is it especially good for human
consumption.  My background includes substantial water supply engineering and
design.  Distilled and RO water are very corrosive for the piping.  Water
companies like the water to be a little hard and alkaline so that the
corrosivity is minimized.  For human consumption, we need a supply of these
ions to maintain our body chemistry.  Gatorade didn't make millions for
nothing!  Besides that, the ions give the water some taste.  Most water
system users prefer a little taste to their water.

David Humes found an anomaly on the makeup of Burton water.  Some resources
list the bicarb as high as 320 and others list it as 0.  I did a quick check
of the anion and cation milliequivalents to see if they balanced using some
Burton water analyses I had.  I can say with confidence that the report of 0
ppm for bicarbonate in Burton water is not correct.  I see that Ray Daniels
recently pointed out the oversight.  The anion/cation check and my review of
other sources says that the bicarbonate concentration is likely in the range
of 140 to 200 ppm.  

While I was at it, I reviewed the Burton ion concentrations shown in the
Promash program database.  It appears that at least one of the ion
concentrations in the Burton profile is incorrect.  I suggest that the
reported calcium concentration of 268 ppm is the culprit.  It appears that
the calcium should be on the order of 200 ppm.  That would bring the
calculated hardness for the Burton profile into line with the data I have.
It appears that Promash users should amend their Burton water profile.
Hopefully Jeff Donovan will review and incorporate that change into the
program database too.  

Martin Brungard
Tallahassee, FL 


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:14:23 -0800
From: "Ryan and Shelly Furstenau" <furstenau1 at cox.net>
Subject: Actual Guinness Ingredients

I have seen many formulas/recipes out there for Guinness clones.  Some 
of these perplex me.  To my knowledge, Guinness uses a British Malt, 
Roasted Barley, and Flaked Barley.  The hops type I am not certain of. 

Anyway, many of these recipes have rolled barley or black patent malt, 
or even corn sugar.  This past year I took at trip to Ireland and my 
tour of the Guinness brewery confirmed the 3 main ingredients that I 
listed above.  Can anyone else confirm that Guinness only uses these 3 
main ingredients in their beer?  If I am correct, why would any Guinness 
"clone" include ingredients that aren't in the actual recipe.  If I am 
wrong, please correct me.

Ryan
Omaha, Nebraska




Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 16:06:51 -0800
From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer at altrionet.com>
Subject: Re. Burton Water Profile

The recent discussion of Burton water chemistry reminded me of an analysis I
had obtained back in 1998.
I was researching my water chapter and, given the electrical mutual
exclusion of the ion concentrations given in Malting and Brewing Science,
Practical Brewer, et al., I thought to myself, "Hey, I will just call them!
I mean, people still live there right?!"
What I finally did was got on the UK Digest, and requested that someone call
the water dept and get an analysis. And they did, and here are the results.
Note that this analysis is for one particular source and one particular
sample. Given Ray's comments on the variability of the water with depth,
this data makes sense in view of the published profiles.

Source: Blithfield Reservoir
Date: 28/05/98 Time: 11:35

pH 8.26
Alkalinity as HCO3  152 ppm  (ie. bicarbonate ppm)
Total Hardness as Ca  83 ppm  (not sure how to use)
Perm. Hardness as Ca   33 ppm  (not sure how to use)
Calcium     57 ppm   (but since I have this I don't need those above)
Magnesium  15.8 ppm
Sodium (not reported)
Potassium  5.7 ppm
Iron   .061 ppm
Manganese .012 ppm
Chloride   26 ppm
Sulfate (not reported)

And that is why I did not use the info in my book, because the sodium and
sulfate were not reported. However, this information does give you the
residual alkalinity of the water which is 70 ppm as CaCO3. This equates to a
base-malt-only mash pH of 5.8, which suggests that the water is best suited
for an amber colored beer. Which it is, historically.
Good Brewing,
John

john at howtobrew.com



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:26:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Rama Roberts <rama at eng.sun.com>
Subject: re: batch sparging

Michael Fross asks how to batch sparge.
This page (which coincidentally is the first reference if you google for
'batch sparge') is the page I used to learn when I made the jump to all
grain:

http://www.bayareamashers.org/BatchSparging.htm

Its so simple and ideal, I've never bothered trying fly sparging.

- --rama







Return to table of contents

---