HOMEBREW Digest #4337 Mon 01 September 2003

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org


          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 *********

  Bubble argumentation ("Fredrik")
  CF Chiller Storage (mohrstrom)
  re: Batch Sparge ("The Artist Formerly Know as Kap'n Salty")
  re: Electric Kettle Control ("C.D. Pritchard")
  protein and gum rests / batch sparging (George de Piro)
  Re: Batch sparge ("Adam Wead") (Denny Conn)
  Poor Dr. Kaka ("Val J. Lipscomb")
  re. Beer Haze Post ("Chad Stevens")
  RE: Bactch Sparging (g flo)
  Omega controller help ("Michael O'Donnell")
  Re: The reason for the seemingly excessive oxygen requirements? ("-S")
  Correction to info in "Compleat Meadmaker" (Ken Schramm)
  Beers and Linux Distros (Alexandre Enkerli)
  RE: packing dried hops ("Mark Kellums")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The HBD Logo Store is now open! * * http://www.hbd.org/store.html * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:50:26 +0200 From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com> Subject: Bubble argumentation I like the bubble criticts I get on here. It helps me make sure I don't underestimate things. All of you are probably more knowledgable and experienced than me, so I will postpone further defence and argumentation of the bubbles until I've make some more progress and can present some solid argumentation. Give me some time and I will show what I mean. If future investigations proves I am underestimating this I will certainly admit it :) But I won't give up before I've tried. A comment on end of fermentation bubbles. The proper way is not to look at the bubble rate as a number and wait for a treshold. The way would be to do an integration to determine the total CO2 volume produced. The last bubbles coming out of the airlock is left in solution after the activity has stopped because there is a phase shift in time since the beer buffers the produced CO2. But once the production has ceased, the shape of the graph will change in a probably quite predictable manner. This kind of dynamic are the thing I hope to decode and learn more about. I also hope to find other dynamic in the graph that can be related to fermentation activity. I am not just examining the bubble rate as numbers, the interesting thing is in the CO2 production, as a function of time. This is why I need thousands of datapoints. ...more bubbles to come in the future :) /Fredrik Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:27:06 -0400 From: mohrstrom at core.com Subject: CF Chiller Storage Rick asks: > Does anyone have suggestions for storing a CF Chiller > neatly? My problem is that it's home-made and easily > flexes out of shape. I solved this problem by forming my chiller around, and securing it to (using cable ties through holes drilled into the reinforced section), a five- gallon plastic bucket. I use the bucket to store my pump and hoses, and it has a handy carrying handle. The buckets are available for free, and you may be able to re-form your existing chiller to fit. Mark in Kalamazoo Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:29:02 -0500 From: "The Artist Formerly Know as Kap'n Salty" <mikey at swampgas.com> Subject: re: Batch Sparge > Has anyone else had good success with batch sparging? I've used this technique for years, and seen no loss of efficiency (I get around 80%-85%, depending on the brew). I usually brew in a round Gott-type 10 gallon cooler with a phils phalse bottom. The phalse bottom is weighted down with a "snake", a length of vinyl tubing filled with steel shot and sealed at both ends. This vastly improves the performance of the phalse bottom (thanks to Jay Spies for the tip). Like your friends, I drain the first runnings (after recirculating a couple of pints), then fill the tun up with sparge water, let things settle for 10-15 minutes, recirc another couple of pints, and start the sparge. One thing I particularly like about the batch sparge is that there is no need to hang around and monitor the sparge. You merely fill it up and let it drain (slowly) into your boiler or other container. Works particularly well if you don't use a pump or gravity feed for the sparge water. Hope that helps -- taFkaks ==== Teleoperate a roving mobile robot from the web: http://www.swampgas.com/robotics/rover.html Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 06:36:22 From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp at chattanooga.net> Subject: re: Electric Kettle Control Dave asked: >What is a good way of controlling your boil in an electric kettle? I was >thinking about using just a stove rheostat, or else using two switches >in line of the element. With both switches on 240 V would be supplied >and with just one switch on only 120 V would be supplied. I have heard >of some people using PID controllers, but this seems like overkill. Any >suggestions would be great though. A PID is overkill for a kettle. I used a stove element controller for years with 120 VAC. Most are rated for 1500W or less and 120 VAC and may not be able to handle 240 VAC and the wattage of your heating element. A single SPDT switch can be used by switching one side of the heating element to a neutral conductor to realize 120 VAC. 240-------0 \ Switch 0---+ | Neutral---0 heater | 240-------------+ Finally, you can build a pretty simple solid state controller that's infinitely adjustable from 0 to 100% power for $30 or so- details under "controller" at: http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/boilnew/boilnew.htm c.d. pritchard cdp at chattanooga.net http://chattanooga.net/~cdp/ Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:19:30 -0400 From: George de Piro <george at EvansAle.com> Subject: protein and gum rests / batch sparging Hi all, Chad writes in wondering why John Palmer recommends skipping protein rests. Chad notes some of the potential positive effects of protein degradation. The quick answer is that the maltster has already done the protein rest for you. With only one or two exceptions, modern malts are all quite well-modified with plenty of FAN. Yes, even the German ones. More enzymatic degradation is likely to harm head retention more than solve any haze issues. When I first started mashing, I believed that more complicated mashing schedules would make better beer. Triple decoctions were the norm in my kitchen. After reading, brewing and learning more, I came to realize that many of the reasons for using complex mash schedules no longer exist, and they might even produce an inferior result. Chad also mentions the routine use of a gum (I assume betaglucan) rest. I wonder if this is necessary for most. I routinely (commercially) produce German-style Weizen with mash rests of 145F and 160F with no problems (using 100% German malts; 65% wheat malt). If you often stick barley malt mashes, there may be other issues: 1. Milling too finely. 2. Running off (or recirculating) too quickly. 3. Overloading your mash tun (or using a mash tun that is too deep). 4. Using inferior malt. If you have addressed all of the above and still get stuck sparges when skipping the b-glucan rest, then I guess you need to do what works for you. You may be able to save some time on brew day by checking for other causes of the stuck mash. - -------------- Adam writes in to ask about people's experiences with batch sparging. This is a technique that has always made me wonder: Why do it? It is less difficult and uses no more equipment to "fly sparge." You just need a pot (for heating water) and a Pyrex cup (for dumping the aforementioned water onto the mash). If you recirculate your wort until it is clear (which you should do), than with batch sparging you need to recirculate twice during the sparge rather than just once (because draining the mash tun completely and then refilling it will disturb the draff under the false bottom). Also, if you drain your mash tun completely, you'll end up with a lot of the draff from the bottom getting into the kettle. I'd be interested in hearing the possible advantages of batch sparging. Have fun! George de Piro Head Brewer, C.H. Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station 19 Quackenbush Square Albany, NY, USA 12207 (518)447-9000 www.EvansAle.com Brewers of Kick-Ass Brown: Twice declared the Best American Brown Ale in the USA at the Great American Beer Festival (2000 & 2002)! Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 09:38:31 -0800 From: Denny Conn <denny at projectoneaudio.com> Subject: Re: Batch sparge ("Adam Wead") Adam, I've batch sparged about 150 batches now, and taught dozens of people the technique. The results always pretty much mirror what you've found. I started out by increasing the grist bill as recommended, but soon found that I was achieving an efficiency in the area of 75-80%, so the increase was unnecessary. I've taught batch sparging to people who have been fly sparging for years, and many of them have seen their efficiency increase. I belive that it's because makes sparging makes up for inefficient lauter design and eliminates the problem of low extraction rates due to channeling. Add to that the fact that I can get by with less equipment, I don't have to worry about the pH or gravity of my sparge runnings, and the fact that it's a bit faster than fly sparging. I fly sparged my first few batches, but after trying batch sparging, I never went back. The ribbons I've won with batch sparge beers are proof to me that it works and works well. ----------------->Denny At 01:48 AM 8/30/03 -0400, you wrote: >------------------------------ > >Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:50:42 -0600 >From: "Adam Wead" <a_wead at hotmail.com> >Subject: Batch sparge > >Dear collective wisdom, > >Has anyone out there in the homebrew world used batch sparging much? ><snippage> >Anyway, if somebody has some theories/experiences, I'd like to hear them. > >Until then, relax, and have a homebrew. > >Adam Wead, Bloomington, IN Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:10:19 -0500 From: "Val J. Lipscomb" <vlipscomb at satx.rr.com> Subject: Poor Dr. Kaka Having read of the sad (and repetitive) plight of Dr. Jim Kaka in HBD #4334, I can only suggest that we should band together and send the poor SOB some beer. Would a nice CACA be appropriate?? Val Lipscomb Brewing in hot,humid San Antonio Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:41:41 -0700 From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net> Subject: re. Beer Haze Post I goofed: The native LTP1 not producing a stabile foam paper is: www.mbaa.com/TechQuarterly/Abstracts/1993/tq93ab29.htm and I wrote enzymatic defragmentation; that should have been fragmentation. Get on my archaic machine and all I can think about is defrag.... Chad Stevens - --------------------------------------------------- "I am a person who recognizes the fallacy of humans." George W. Bush, September 19, 2000. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:42:20 -0700 (PDT) From: g flo <gflo77 at yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Bactch Sparging In response to Adam Wead's question about batch sparging... I havn't tried batch sparging yet, but I plan to do so later this weekend. This was a point of discussion on another forum a couple of weeks ago, and I bookmarked these two articles on the subject: http://home.elp.rr.com/brewbeer/files/nbsparge.html http://www.bayareamashers.org/BatchSparging.htm hope these helps, and after I have some personal experience on the subject I'll talk about my results. Return to table of contents
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:56:30 -0700 From: "Michael O'Donnell" <mooseo at stanford.edu> Subject: Omega controller help Hi, Are any of you out there wizards with an Omega CN9000A PID temperature controller? I am trying to use one as a simple on/off control to control my fermentation box with both a fridge and a small heater for when it gets cold at night. I think that I have all the settings correct, and it works for a while, but then it ends up with both the outputs powered up and way out of range. If anyone is familiar with them, I'll send the settings that I am using and perhaps you will have an idea. Thanks, mike Monterey, CA Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 00:37:06 -0400 From: "-S" <-s at adelphia.net> Subject: Re: The reason for the seemingly excessive oxygen requirements? Sorry for the long delay but Fredrik asked .... > I have not seen this formula before. What are the assumptions behind it? Empirically determined by Karel Josef (aka Carl Joseph) Napoleon Balling in the 19th century. You'll often see the formula recast to relate original and final extract to alcohol. > >From what I have read so far it seems a typical biomass yield in a beer or > wine batchfermentation is some 2-5% (depending on conditions). But in a > optimised starter I have assumed the yield would be higher? ... There is a bit of truth in it. What is missing is the meaning of 'optimized'. Stirring, shaking, aerating or doing the hula around your starter flask will NOT induce any additional growth unless these procedures provide a growth limiting nutrient, remove a growth preventing stressor, or improve the yeasts' environment. Yeast grow whenever their nutritional and environment requirements are met. It's really that simple. Shaking & stirring has three positive effects 1/ it removed CO2 which is a metabolic inhibitor, 2/ it increases O2 in the wort with positive effects of sterol&UFA synthesis and also respiration, 3/ it keeps the yeast in uniform contact with the nutrients. That's all good, but it ignores all the other nutrient requirements. Here is a list of ingredients that make up a complete yeast growth media: Water, fermentable sugars, oxygen, Ammonium sulphate Potassium phosphate monobasic, Magnesium sulphate, Sodium chloride, Calcium chloride, Threonine, Lysine, Leucine, Uracil Adenine, Arginine, Histidine, Methionine, Tryptophan, Boric acid, Manganese sulphate, Zinc sulphate, Ferric chloride, Sodium molybdate, Potassium iodide, Cupric sulphate, Calcium pantothenate, Nicotinic acid, Pyridoxine hydrochloride, Thiamine hydrochloride, p-Amino benzoic acid, Riboflavin 200, Folic acid, Biotin. Whew !! > Maybe some 10%? I'm not sure > what the theoretical max yield is for anaerobic growth is, I've seen > articles statee anything from 15% to 30%. Wouldn't it probably vary >between strains too? 10% is at or above an upper bound for FERMENTATIVE growth. Note that growth on a stirrer of shaker table has some degree of respiration. It's also about the upper bound for growth on wort unless nutrients are added. You simply don't have enough energy and carbon to fuel more growth unless you respire. In unsupplemented wort you have amino acid and biotin as additional growth limiting factors which will kick in at or below 10%.. To get 15-30% *requires* respiration of the carbon source and a good deal of other nutrients. With respiration and enough nutrients 50% is practical and 70% may be a theoretical optimum. Regarding growth vs yeast variety ... there will be variation *BUT* all brewing yeast have identical fermentative and respiratory energetics, so I'd expect similar growth per unit sugar. I'd expect that the different varieties might have very different requirements for other nutrients ... . >>>Respiration is one obvious >>> use for O2. > > Interesting! :) I have been a bit unclear to what extent respiration is > relevant even in the later part of fermentation. It's not negligible. When you read through data from the various studies you can easily calculate the extent of respiration by comparing the amount of alcohol produced (fermentation byproduct) with the amount of sugar consumed. I think Kirsops booklet is a source for some practical numbers there. > needed to model the O2 levels! Thanks for this idea. As for the 75% I will > try to add a "ghost variable" to balance the O2 flow. See J.Inst.of Brewing (aka JIB), v102,pp19-25 for a paper which discusses some of the fates of oxygen in yeast. > > > Oxygen induction is an active process ... > This was new to me. I thought ... > This is according to > http://www.uic.edu/classes/bios/bios100/mike/spring2003/lect07.htm > Did I miss something? The website is good generic information, but does not consider the mechanisms of specific organisms, and S.c yeast is a very specialized creature. You'll need to review some of the modern texts mentioned and also look to J.Applied Microbiology and similar journals. JIB v108,pp248-255 discusses a kinetic model of yeast propagation similar to your intention. > Are > you suggesting that O2 requires some kind of transport proteins? Yes, but I could be mistaken. I recalled reading this *somewhere* and now I can't find the source. Maybe it's just facilitated diffusion.. >Yeast I turn I will try to model like a kind of state machine. > There is 3 states, dormant, active or dead. The transitions between these > states I am trying to model by differentials. O2 is not interesting itself, > but since yeast depends on it I see no other way that I have to model it to > be able to model yeast accurately. If I find in further research that this > model isn't consistent I'll update it. I applaud your simple 3-state model as a good starting point, but take Einstein's advice; make things as simple as possible but no simpler. Let the yeast tell you how many states and factors are necessary for a decent model. >[...] I could not help asking myself if it would be possible to > predict that data. I've terrorised the guys at Brews and Views I assume that's the HBD.org forum - no ? > Primary importance variables: > Amount of yeast in each state, sugars, ethanol, dissolved Co2, wort > temp, bubble rate in airlock, ...? I think that's a good place to start. > This may be a stupid mission impossible but that doesn't bother me at > all, in fact it makes it even more interesting. [....] > I will learn a lot [...] I think you will learn a lot and have a lot of fun and I hope I haven't undermined your enthusiasm in any way. I do think you'd benefit greatly from some of the chemostat yeast studies and the JIB v108 paper I referenced. The Gee & Ramirez paper, JIB v100, p321-329 has a very nice model to start with. I'd be happy to communicate the details offline. -Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:47:52 -0400 From: Ken Schramm <schramk at mail.resa.net> Subject: Correction to info in "Compleat Meadmaker" Over on the Mead Lover's Digest, there has been some discussion that the mead starter recipe in "The Compleat Meadmaker" creates a medium with too high a gravity. The comments pointing out this error are accurate, and I would like to post excerpts from a couple of my responses to clarify my "on-the-record" stance on the issues. submitted 8/24: I am inclined to say that the information on making starters in "The Compleat Meadmaker" is not the best advice to be found. The starter recipe, prepared according to the directions in the book, yields a solution with a gravity of about 1.030. Dan McConnell does, in fact, prepare his starter cultures at about 1.020. That gravity would call for a third of a cup of honey, _not_ half a cup. That said, I have used the starter culture recipe in the book, and juice starters over 1.040, and have obtained the desired yeast population build-up without substantial adverse flavor effects. I'm not going to respond to Raj's question on monosaccharides until I can get a better understanding of whether or not the polysaccharides in malt extract are utilized by the yeast in malt extract starters. It is my understanding that the yeast will absorb oxygen and reproduce at any phase in the fermentation cycle, irrespective of gravity. In short, the best info I have indicates that 1.020 or lower, good oxygenation and sufficient nitrogen and micronutrient levels will work best to grow healthy populations fastest. Ken Schramm Most recently, submitted to MLD 8/31: Raj points out that pollen-comb is making up for the nitrogen deficiency of honey, and that would be a way to address that issue. I can't say I have any concrete information on the composition and the quantities of nutrients it adds, but if it's working for raj, they must be there. I do need to do some more research on the glucose issue raj brought up. If the Crabtree effect is based on the availability of glucose early in the yeast's exposure to a new medium, then some calculations are in order to determine if a really low gravity starter medium (as raj suggested) might be the best possible means of achieving maximum reproduction. I'm going to put the question to a few more scientifically well versed of my contacts, and see what I can come up with. Before anyone else nails me down on it, I also have to say that the starter nutrient additions are based on personal experience - and on queries to some yeast authorities, and not on the calculation of what would be optimal given the experimentally confirmed understanding of how much nitrogen and other micronutrients team up with X amount of oxygen to build the greatest possible amount of healthy yeast membrane mass. That's what we're shooting for here, and I need to get on that and ferret out some definitive info. OTOH, optimal formulations may require owning a triple beam balance, and that may be perceived as obsessive to some hobbyists. I also want to voice one philosophy I have toward the book. My hope is that, like all "knowledge" that gets put forth, it gets argued about, beat up, and in the long run, what's right gets confirmed, and what's wrong gets, hopefully, corrected. If that is the end result of having a new, slightly more complete (compleat?) book on mead in the mix, then excellent. In my mind, I was almost certainly _not_ the most qualified person on the planet to write every chapter the book. I may have an interesting blend of knowledge and experience regarding the various components of meadmaking, but I am not a fermentation scientist. But I was offered the opportunity to write the book, and my take was that my best shot at collecting the information I had would be an improvement on the then currently available literature. Only the readership can truly determine if that was the case. I will be totally willing to acknowledge errors and try to get them corrected in future editions of the book (if I am so luck as to get the chance), so that whatever reference text is available is as accurate as possible. None of the errors were intentional. Let the debate begin. Only good can come of it. If someone else decides that they can write an even better, more accurate and scientifically based book, outstanding. It furthers the cause I set out to advance, and I'll be happy when it happens. I thank raj and others for pointing this out. raj also asks whether the correct levels for a honey based starter might be much lower than 1.020, and that may be the case. I wish I had posed this starter gravity and glucose concentration question to Dr. Cone while he was aboard, but perhaps I can seek his counsel through other channels. Ken Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:58:08 -0400 From: Alexandre Enkerli <aenkerli at indiana.edu> Subject: Beers and Linux Distros I'm sure other people have seen it. But just in case, here's an article comparing Linux distros to beer brands. Shows how little people know about beer. http://articles.linmagau.org/ modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=32 4&page=1 Alex, in Montreal [555.1km, 62.8] Apparent Rennerian Return to table of contents
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:25:43 -0500 From: "Mark Kellums" <infidel at springnet1.com> Subject: RE: packing dried hops In HBD 4327 David King ask about drying and packaging homegrown hops. Since last season I've been drying my homegrown hops with a Nesco food dehydrator. The dehydrator came with four trays and I've since added two more. I can pack the trays with green hops so much so that the trays won't sit flat at first. The hops will compress and the trays will settle soon after I start the drying process. I set the dehydrator at 155 F and dry the hops for about six hours. I then let the dry hops sit at room temp for a few days to allow for some moisture to be reabsorbed. This softens them and makes them less friable. I vacuum pack the dried hops either in bags or jars and store them in the freezer. Before I purchased the dehydrator I dried my hops in the garage on screens. I got my best results on the hottest days vs. room temperature drying. The hops dried with the higher temps lacked that unpleasant grassy/chlorophyll flavor and aroma that the room temperature dried hops displayed. Hope this helps. Mark Kellums Decatur Il. Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 09/01/03, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96