HOMEBREW Digest #557 Wed 19 December 1990

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

		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator

  Re:  Hydrometer Use (John DeCarlo)
  stupid question (617)253-0885" <CASEY at ORYANA.PFC.MIT.EDU>
  Irish Moss, clear beer (Ted Manahan)
  Kjeldahl N, plate counts ("KBS::TONS::HOLTSFORD")
  Brewpubs - bay area, CA (sandven)
  Re: enzyme powders and extract efficiency (Glenn Colon-Bonet)
  Wyeast 1028 min. temp (krweiss)
  Packaging (Rad Equipment)
  recipes (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
  Kirin not Made in Japan ("MISVX1::HABERMAND")
  Carbonation (Mahan_Stephen)
  large amounts of malted barley(where can I get it?) (T2R)
  Many Thanks (Bill Thacker)
  A HBD FYI? (bob)
  Re: 102 on tap? (Marc San Soucie)
  Brewpubs (breweries?) in Daytona, Fla area (Tom Buskey)
  Lambic Book/NYC Breweries (Brian Capouch)
  Re: live yeasts in commercial beers (John S. Watson - FSC)
  Lambic calculation (Dave Suurballe)

Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmr at hplabs.hp.com [Please do not send me requests for back issues] Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tuesday, 18 Dec 1990 07:26:38 EST From: m14051 at mwvm.mitre.org (John DeCarlo) Subject: Re: Hydrometer Use >From: "Andy Wilcox" <andy at eng.ufl.edu> > >I wouldn't usually recommend a Hydrometer to a beginning brewer. >If your readings are off, this could be a cause of worry. >Leaving it out is also a good way to trim a little more off the >cost of startup for money-minded students and the like. Our >local store sells the hydrometer for $6. Yow! This sounds like a recipe for trouble, to me. Of the brewers I know, it is more like the reverse. Once you have made lots of observations with your hydrometer, you can start getting a *feel* for the beer and stop using it. However, I would say it is *very* important for a beginner, to learn what is happening during fermentation. As for readings, Miller has some nice tips on taking hydrometer readings. First, calibrate the hydrometer in 60 degree water. Spin the hydrometer to dislodge bubbles. He even has a picture of a hydrometer with the meniscus and shows where to read the value. Internet: jdecarlo at mitre.org Usenet: at ... at !uunet!hadron!blkcat!109!131!John_Decarlo Fidonet: 1:109/131 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:52 EST From: "JEFF CASEY / (617)253-0885" <CASEY at ORYANA.PFC.MIT.EDU> Subject: stupid question Alright, I give up, and I'm too embarrassed to ask anybody face to face now that I've let it go on this long. How do you pronounce "Wyeast", and where did the name come from? I've heard "double-u yeast", "why-yeast", and numerous other names that aren't derivative of "Wyeast", but reflect the various other names on the package. And I've never seen the name "Wyeast" on the package directly, but perhaps I've never looked hard enough. Let's not overdo this one - no speculations please (unless it is too good and your fingers itch uncontrollably). Anybody out there with authority on this? chagrined, Jeff Casey casey at alcvax.pfc.mit.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 08:23:45 pst From: Ted Manahan <tedm at hpcvcbp.cv.hp.com> Subject: Irish Moss, clear beer Full-Name: Ted Manahan A while back I posted a note that two batches in a row had _no_ head retention. I believe that the culprit was Irish Moss, as I used it only for those two batches. I used no Irish moss for my last batch, and it has much better head retention. I also used a blow-off, single stage fermentation. The beer is crystal clear; one of my better batches (Williams pale ale, using Wyeast Burton ale liquid yeast). I don't plan to ever use Irish moss again for an extract recipe. My next batch will be a small mash batch. I haven't decided if Irish moss will be used. Probably not for my first mash, but I may start to use it if mash clarity is not up to snuff. Ted Manahan Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Dec 90 11:22:00 EST From: "KBS::TONS::HOLTSFORD" <holtsford%kbs.tons.decnet at clvax1.cl.msu.edu> Subject: Kjeldahl N, plate counts Greetings Homebrewers -- Rob McDonald was wondering about the Kjeldahl test. I looked this up in a book of soil/water science methods (don't have it here but I can supply the reference if needed). This test assays TOTAL Nitrogen (not just protein as someone said in HBD 556). The sample is treated with concentrated H2SO4 so that most/all the N ends up as NH4. The NH4 can then quantified by various means. This aprroximation of total N will include, but is not limited to, complex organic N (proteins, amino acids, etc.). The complex N is inferred from the difference between Kjeldahl N and the sum of the separate assays of NO3, NO2, and ammonmia. In the Burlington, Ontario water sample the inorganic N + ammonia totalled 0.64 mg/l while the Kjeldahl N was 0.57 mg/l. This means that there is essentially no complex organic N in the sample. The negative difference of .07 (Kjeldahl N minus other N sources) is likely due to error in measurement and variation among samples. No stats are given on either of these sources of error. If your water sample showed that there was a lot of amino acids or protein then maybe you'd get more trub in your hot/cold breaks but I don't guess this would add up to much trub in any drinkable water. The plate count measures how many colony-forming bacteria, fungi etc. can be cultured from 100 ml of tap water. To the brewer this serves as a reminder that whenever you rinse your equipment with tap water (e.g. to get the bleach solution out) you will be introducing some microbes. Not that this should cause any undo worry -- just pitch with a large active starter culture and these stray microbes won't stand a chance. Happy Brewing, Tim Holtsford ***** Appendix -- data from Rob's posting ********************************* BURLINGTON ONTARIO DRINKING WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL AVERAGES FOR 1989 All results are in mG/L (parts per million) unless otherwise noted Dissolved Organic Carbon 1.65 Calcium 42.8 Nitrate 0.60 Sodium 12.69 Nitrite 0.02 Aluminum (uG/L) 148 Ammonia-Nitrogen 0.02 Iron (uG/L) 70.4 Total Inorganic Carbon 13.84 Total Plate Count (CFU/100ml) 4 Total Organic Carbon 1.65 Trihalomethane (uG/L) 31 Turbidity 0.23 pH 7.83 Conductivity (uMhos/cm) 343.7 Colour 2.4 Sulphate 30.0 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 0.57 Fluoride 1.18 Magnesium 8.0 Chloride 35.1 Lead (uG/L) 4.2 Alkalinity 94.72 Total Dissolved Solids (Residue) 174.67 Hardness 137.1 Phenol (uG/L) 0.64 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:31:08 MST From: sandven at hooey.unm.edu Subject: Brewpubs - bay area, CA Hola - I am going to be in the Bay area on the 28th of December to see the Grateful Dead up in Oakland ;^) - Can anyone suggest any breweries that I could go visit during this time. I'll be going up the coast from L.A. , So anywhere from Santa Barbara to Marin Co. would be fair game for a visit. I've been brewing for about 6 mo's and would like to tour some interesting places and toss back a few ... Thanks, Steve ( sandven at wayback.unm.edu ) Please respond directly to meeeeeeee .... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:50:09 mst From: Glenn Colon-Bonet <gcb at hpfigcb> Subject: Re: enzyme powders and extract efficiency Full-Name: Glenn Colon-Bonet In Homebrew Digest #556, Mike McNally asked about using enzyme additives to help achieve a higher extraction efficiency from mashing. I've used the enzyme powder before, but usually only if starch conversion was taking too long (4 hours). From what I have read about these enzyme powders, they are not quite as stable as the enzymes found in the grain, hence they don't work well at mashing temperatures. I haven't noticed any differences between batches in which I used enzymes and batches in which I didn't, suggesting that they probably didn't really do anything. The other problem with using these enzymes (even if they did work) is that they would eliminate much of the dextrins, which is probably not what you want. I do not use these enzymes at all anymore. The starch conversion time problem turned out to be that my thermometer was reading incorrectly, causing my mash temperature to be 10 degrees low! As far as boosting efficiency, I'd look elsewhere in your process. First, let me say that you have a pretty respectable extract right now (I assume the amounts you stated were for 5 gallons). My average yield is 5 gravity points per pound, so the 10 pounds of grain you mentioned would give me a starting gravity of 1.050 in 5 gallons, you got 1.053. You are correct that higher yields *should* be possible, but I'm not exactly sure how to get there. The things that influence yield are: - how fine you grind the grain - the types of grain used - the mash pH and mineral content - mashing technique (single infusion, step, decoction) - sparging temperature and pH - depth of grain bed in lauter-tun - sparging - amount recirculated, amount of runoff collected So take a look at this list and see what you can easily change in your process. In my process, the biggest gains were from using a finer grind and a deeper grain bed. The "Zapap" lauter tun design from CJoHB is not very good because of how wide most buckets are. I changed designs from a bucket lauter tun to a combined mash/lauter tun in a tall, thin "Coleman Water Cooler 5" with a slotted pipe bottom, and was able to boost my extract by 15%. The Coleman is nearly ideal, it has a square bottom (allowing straight pipes with elbows and tees), has a 1" screw in spigot, so you can easily change it to whatever you want, has a *recessed* drain, so you don't waste the liquid in the bottom, holds 5 gallons, and has gallon and liter markings on the inside. I've been able to mash up to 12 pounds, although it gets a little tight with that much in it. Anyhow, if anyone else has ideas on how to boost efficiency (without doubling the time and effort) I'd be very interested! It's so annoying to read recipes where they use 6 lbs of grain for 5 gallons and get gravities of 1.050. -Glenn Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 09:04:10 -0800 From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu Subject: Wyeast 1028 min. temp Yo, Brewfolks -- I made beer last weekend. Due to a slower than expected inflation of the Wyeast pouch I was forced to forego the preparation of a starter, and just pitched the contents of the packet directly into the cooled wort. The yeast used is Wyeast London Ale, #1028. The beer is in my basement, at a temperature of about 55 degrees. It's been two days, and there is no visible activity. Every other time I used Wyeast, I prepared a starter and had strong fermentation within 36 hours. Now, I'm not concerned, as the beer is safe inside a glass primary, and I can always dump in my emergency packet of dry yeast. My question is, is the long lag due to the lower than normal pitching rate, or is it just too cold for that particular yeast strain down there in the basement? Went to my wife's office holiday party last Saturday. Beer and wine only, the beer being Miller Genuine Draft :-P I did, however, score a case of empty long neck bottles :-) Why, oh why won't Sierra Nevada stop using those damn useless twist off bottles? Ken Weiss krweiss at ucdavis.edu Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Dec 89 09:23:40 From: Rad Equipment <Rad_Equipment at rad-mac1.ucsf.EDU> Subject: Packaging REGARDING Packaging Regarding John Bates' <bates at bjerknes.Colorado.EDU> problems with UPS in HBD #556 -- Sorry to hear your tale of woe Re: UPS. I have had great success with sending beer & wine via UPS to all parts of the USA. The best packege I have found is a StyroFoam shipping container, usally used to send perishables like whole blood and lab samples. There is one size which is perfect for a sixpack of Anchor size bottles. If you have a major hospital near you check with their pharmacy or blood bank. Here at UCSF we always have a few of these in the trash bin. I'll try to find a manufacturer's name and post it, the one sitting here in my office has no information on it. Another way is to pack the beer in a relatively small box, and then pack that box in a larger one (at least 2" larger in all directions). The outside box acts as a buffer for the inside one and requires that both boxes are trashed before the bottles are in danger. Of course the sturdier the outside box the better. Using sheets of foam rubber as a cushioning material is also handy, these too are often found in hospital trash (the pads are matress size, egg-crate texture, used to prevent bed sores on prolonged patients. They are not considered "biologically hazardous" and go out with the regular trash). BTW, the article Dan Fink told you about is mine and it is really geared for what not to do when sending to competitions. Many methods employed by brewers serve to cause unnecessary agitation of their entries as they are unpacked, often only a week or less prior to the judging. When you are sending to friends you can make the package as difficult to open as you want, they are not unpacking 50 or so boxes under a deadline. Russ Wigglesworth <Rad Equipment at RadMac1.ucsf.edu> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 10:33:04 mst From: hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!ihlpl!korz (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583) Subject: recipes First of all, I want to make it cleatr that I don't mean to bash Chuck's recipes, rather I'd like to start a debate about the benefits of partial mashes. Here's what I mean: if you've got 15-18 lbs of pale unhopped extract in a batch (10 gal), I question whether 1 lb of lager malt will make much difference at all. Does it? I feel that the manufacturer of the extract, i.e. the "brand," would make a much bigger difference in the flavor of the beer than the addition of a small percentage of plain malt. (I wish you had included the "brand" of extract that you used, Chuck.) Am I missing something? I don't do partial mashes for exactly this reason. I feel that the added work provides little, if any, benefit. What are other brewer's feelings on this? Al. Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Dec 90 09:57:00 PDT From: "MISVX1::HABERMAND" <habermand%misvx1.decnet at afal-edwards.af.mil> Subject: Kirin not Made in Japan All the talk about Guiness made in Canada, reminded me of an incident at a Japanese restaurant with my father. He ordered Kirin and the waitress said that they didn't serve it there because it was made in Canada. We went home and looked carefully at the bottle. Of course it says "Imported" which is a little deceiving. After close inspection, it is revealed that it is brewed in Canada by Molson under license from Kirin. So the next time you by "Imported" beer, look and see if it was made in its original country of origin. David "Stubbie" Haberman Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 11:08:00 CST From: Mahan_Stephen at lanmail.ncsc.navy.mil Subject: Carbonation Gases, in general, are soluble in liquids. The partial pressure of the gas in the liquid will eventually be equal to the partial pressure of the gas in the mixture in contact with the liquid in the absence of other factors driving the process. Nitrogen, in particular, will dissolve quite well in water. However, in water the nitrogen pressure must be fairly high (2 atm or above) and rapidly released to form bubbles. The bubbles form and burst rapidly, as is the case with most other gases. If the water happens to be inside a human body when this process occurs a condition known as the bends results (ask any scuba diver about this). Carbon dioxide (CO2) acts differently because it undergoes a reversible chemical reaction with water to form carbonic acid. This reaction has the effect of removing carbon dioxide from the water and allowing more carbon dioxide to diffuse into the water from the surrounding media. ( CO2 + 2(H2O) <-> H2CO3 + H20 <-> H30+ + HCO3-) When the partial pressure of CO2 in the gases surrounding the liquid decreases the carbonic acid disassociates and releases the CO2 back into the liquid. If the partial pressure of CO2 in the gas surrounding the liquid was greater than the total ambient pressure after the release then bubbles will form in the liquid, giving the nice foamy head we all know and love. More disconnected ramblings from: Stephen Mahan mahan_stephen at lanmail.ncsc.navy.mil Naval Coastal Systems Center Panama City, FL 32407 Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:09 EST From: T2R at ecla.psu.edu Subject: large amounts of malted barley(where can I get it?) Anyone out there in brew land know where one can send for, say, a 50lb. sack of malted barley (2R or 6R). I have been doing a lot of all grain mashing and would like to find a inexpensive source of malted barley. The local h.b. shop charges ($1.50 - $1.60) / lb. for malted barley and the cheapest I have been able to find mailorder is ($1.00 - $1.10) / lb. (20lbs. or more) + shipping. Are there any malthouses that ship direct? Tom (bud'what?) Ricker Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 16:00:46 EST From: Bill Thacker <hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!cbema!wbt> Subject: Many Thanks I just wanted to thank everyone who answered my "Beer and Cosmic Awareness" questions. I appreciate all the fine responses I received, both on the list and in mail, and regret that I was unable to respond to one of the authors due to a failed mailpath (trouble on this end). Suffice to say that even if you didn't hear from me, I'm very grateful. I'll be getting my gear early in January, and reading Papazian's book between now and then. I feel pretty confident about what I need to get now, and what to look for in terms of quality. I whould add that it makes it a lot easier to start a hobby when it's represented by such friendly and cheerful folk. Everybody, give yourself a pat on the back and have another beer, you deserve it! 8-) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker AT&T Network Systems - Columbus wbt at cbnews.att.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue Dec 18 18:34:51 1990 From: semantic!bob at uunet.UU.NET Subject: A HBD FYI? Hello Everybody, I've been reading this digest for a while now and I get to watch many of the basic questions and discussions resurface every few weeks. I don't particularly mind this but I feel sorry for the new reads asking the questions. They sometimes don't get answered or only get answered in some half-hearted way because the person posting the answer has done it five times before. I therefore propose an extension to the Digest. One which will enable the neophytes to ask their questions and get a complete meaningful response, Yet one which will lesson the repetitive burden on those who take the time to answer the questions. I therefore propose the HBD FYI. Yes, that's right, Just like the Internet ones! They could be on various basic subjects which are well defined and understood. Such topics might include: What does a new brewer need to get started? (Already written) What are the different types of hops available and what are their usual alpha-acid ratings? What types of hops are best used in Pale Ales? What are all the Wyeast strains and what are they good for? Where are the homebrew supply shops in the northeast? Where are all the good brew pubs in the Bay area? What are the laws and issues surrounding the transport of homebrew? What's the proper preparation and use of isinglass? What beer related periodicals are there? How do I carbonate my beer with a CO2 tank? What temperature controllers are available for my beer fridge? Why not make the HBD into a newsgroup? Etc ... Of course many of these questions can be answered by just saying: "Oh, go read Papazian's book pages xx through yy." or "Call the AHA". But wouldn't it be nice to have something on line, which isn't copyrighted, and could be easily e-mailed to people. Further, the index if FYIs could periodically be posted to rec.food.drink with instructions on subscribing to the homebrew digest. They could be constructed by an individual, or group of, and then posted to the digest for comments. These could be worked in and when a final draft is completed, stick it on-line with the HBD archives. As more accurate or relevant information becomes available they could be updated. I would be willing to take a stab at a couple of FYIs to get things going. And I'm sure there are others out there how would be willing to do the same. Of course, some may ask why not RFCs. RFCs tend to be more controversial in nature and need an organization to review and accept them. Sort of like the Papers given at the Annual Homebrewers Conference. This I think is a great idea but may be asking to much of the HBD coordinator. Whereas the FYI process will be on well defined non-controversial topics and will be self administering. Of course, someone will ultimately have manage the bunch of them at netlib if they are to be stored with the archive. But individual FYIs can be admistered by the authors. Comments, Suggestions and Discussion are welcome. Let's see if we can create something good here! - -- Robert A. Gorman (Bob) bob at rsi.com Watertown MA US -- - -- Relational Semantics, Inc. uunet!semantic!bob +1 617 926 0979 -- Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:46:37 PST From: marcs at SLC.COM (Marc San Soucie) Subject: Re: 102 on tap? Norm Hardy writes: > Just got back from a 4 day stint in Portland, OR. > There is a chain of brewpubs running now, with somebody called Dr. Neon > doing the brewing (or supervising). They supply different names for the > pubs so you have to know where to look. The one I went to was called > McMenamins Brewpub and Restuarant. Good stuff with their Terminator Stout > being my fave. > But, on a tip from a fellow imbiber, I headed for Raleigh Hills to a tavern > called The Dublin Pub. 102 beers on tap and although I didn't count the > taps, there was indeed many of them. > My question - how the HECK can a place possibly have that many beers and > serve them in reasonably good shape? The joint was busy not not hoppin'. > I imagine the NW ales were in okay shape, but I can get them anytime in > Seattle. 102 sounds extreme. Our local, just recently opened and owned by the selfsame McMenamin beer magnates, known as the Oak Hills Brewpub, sports about 15-20 draughts at a time. The nice thing about the McMenamin pubs is that they always have a fair selection of beer from other local brewers, which is especially nice since their own beers are not usually as good as the competition. Another item of note is that at many of the McMenamin pubs, the fermentation takes place in open vats. Lots of fun to watch whilst unstabilising oneself. > They even had the award winning Deschutes beers there. I thought > of Florian's fondness for them and let them be. Well, Florian's opinions on this matter are not universally shared. I think DesChutes produces a whomping good porter (Black Butte), and their other beers, while not magnificent, are quite good, and usually better than the McMenamin beers. Even so, the best of the Portland brewers, in my opinion, is Bridgeport. Very tasty, hearty, rich beers. Great for all these rainy days... Marc San Soucie Portland, Oregon marcs at slc.com Return to table of contents
Date: 18 Dec 90 2137 From: 12100z at D1.dartmouth.edu (Tom Buskey) Subject: Brewpubs (breweries?) in Daytona, Fla area I'm traveling to Florida in the Daytona area in a week & I'd like to sample some of the brewpubs down there if there are any. Please send replies to me & I'll summarize when I get back ( in Jan.) Thanks in advance :-) 12100z at D1.dartmouth.edu <Tom Buskey> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 22:57:22 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Capouch <brianc at zeta.saintjoe.EDU> Subject: Lambic Book/NYC Breweries In response to Martin Lohdahl's question about the Class Beer Styles book on Lambic--mine came today. I tend to agree with those who found the Miller book on Continental Pilsners to be mostly rehash. I don't think anyone will be making those accusations about this book. I haven't had a chance to delve into it yet, but from a half-hour leafing it looked like a detailed coverage of the subject. All those little subterms were discussed, as well as mashing techniques (I seem to remember decoction mashing and *very* loose mashes being something I read). Anyway, it looks like interesting reading, and I think it may provoke a lot of attempts at lambics out there in brewland. An aside: is there anyone else out there doing much decoction mashing? I've done most of my last 6-8 brews that way, and there seems to be a distinct (and wonderful) improvement in flavor in the resultant beers. Last: is there anything new brewing in NYC? I've been to the Manhattan Brewing Co., someone there told me that they were the only ones in Manhattan doing any brewing, because the costs of floorspace were so high there. I'm heading out that way just after Christmas, and will have wheels, so if there's anyone who knows of something out there, I'd appreciate the pointer. Brian Capouch Saint Joseph's College brianc at saintjoe.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 20:58:52 -0800 From: John S. Watson - FSC <watson at pioneer.arc.nasa.gov> Subject: Re: live yeasts in commercial beers A month or two ago the local Safeway supermarket started stocking 22 oz bottles of "Hubsch Brau", a German style lager from a the Sudwerk, microbrewery in Davis, CA. (I consider the beer at the Sudwerk second only to that of the Gordon-Biersch). The beer is bottle conditioned, and the yeasties seem very healthy. When I cultured it in it's own the bottle, the fermention was active enough that I had to replace the fermentaion lock with a tube and spill jar, to catch the blow-off. The winter 1990 edition of Zymurgy says Sudwerks get the yeast comes from Weihenstephan [Germany]. A week later I pitched into the primary. Almost exactly 24 hours, the fermentation took, and was continued vigorously for about a week. I just bottled it last weekend. It, a Oktoberfest (based on Charlie Papazian's in CJoHB, "Guidelines ... Traditional Beers", initial S.P 1.050, final S.P. 1.012), tasted excellent, even without the carbonation. I can't wait for New Year's Eve when I try the first fully conditioned bottle (so maybe I'll try some Xmas Eve!). John S. Watson, Civil Servant from Hell ARPA: watson at ames.arc.nasa.gov UUCP: ...!ames!watson Homebrew Naked! Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 18 Dec 90 15:20:33 PST From: hsfmsh.UUCP!suurb at cgl.ucsf.EDU (Dave Suurballe) Subject: Lambic calculation Martin Lodahl wants to translate his old French-language recipe into a modern, amateur-scale one. My method follows. First the faro. The recipe says you need 22 kilos of grain for 100 liters of beer. We want the same proportion of grain to beer, but for 5 gallons, not 100 liters. So our equation will be an equality of two proportions: 22 kg x lb ------- = ------ 100 l 5 gal To solve it, we need to make the units the same on both sides of the equation in the top of the proportions, and also in the bottom. Since we weigh in pounds, we'll turn the kilos into pounds. One kilo is 2.2 pounds, so 22 kilos is 48.4 pounds. Next we have to turn 100 liters into gallons or 5 gallons into liters (either one; it doesn't matter which). My dictionary says that 10 liters is 2.64 gallons, so we'll change the 100 liters into 26.4 gallons. Now we have: 48.4 lb x lb --------- = ------ 26.4 gal 5 gal or: 48.4 * 5 x = ---------- lb = 9.2 pounds of grain for five gallons 26.4 Now we can project the starting specific gravity, but we have to know how efficient your mash and sparge are. I don't know what that is for your brewery, but you probably get a specific gravity of 1.025 to 1.030 for each pound of grain in one gallon of water. That is, one pound of grain raises the specific gravity of one gallon of water about .025. Therefore, 9.2 pounds will raise the specific gravity of a gallon of water 9.2 times that, or .230 (9.2 * .025 = .230). But you're not brewing one gallon; you're brewing five, so we divide by five and get .046 as the starting gravity of the faro. If your efficiency is higher, you'll get a higher gravity. And if you're using extract, it'll be higher, too. (I think a pound of dry extract raises the SG of a gallon of water .045) Doing the same thing for the lambic, I get about .085 starting gravity. Then, Mike McNally is worried, or just "disturbed" about his extraction rates. An OG of 53 for 10 pounds of grain in 5 gallons is an extract rate of .0265 per pound per gallon, which is almost exactly what I get. His target of 60 for 10 pounds in 5 gallons is a rate of .030 which I have never achieved. Either he doesn't have a problem, or I have the same problem. My view is the former, but if you manage to get 30, Mike, let me know how; I wouldn't mind spending a little less money on grain. Suurb Return to table of contents
End of HOMEBREW Digest #557, 12/19/90 ************************************* -------
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 06/29/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96