Home Brew Digest: March 2009

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5534 (March 31, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5534 Tue 31 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

Sponsor The Home Brew Digest!
Visit http://www.hbd.org/sponsorhbd.shtml to learn how

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

DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a
501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the
FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations
can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250
or more will be provided with receipts. SPONSORSHIPS of any
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a business expense. Please consult with your
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available
sponsorship opportunities.
***************************************************************

Contents:
Sparge Arms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ("Williams, Rowan")
Re: Scottsdale, AZ brew pubs (zac boak)
StarSan 5.2 ("A.J deLange")

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* The HBD Logo Store is now open! *
* http://www.hbd.org/store.html *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

NOTE: With the economy as it is, the HBD is struggling to
meet its meager operating expenses of approximately $3400
per year. If less than half of those currently directly
subscribed to the HBD sent in a mere $5.00, the HBD would
be able to easily meet its annual expenses, with room to
spare for next year. Please consider it.

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

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.

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 14:40:56 +1100
From: "Williams, Rowan" <Rowan.Williams at ag.gov.au>
Subject: Sparge Arms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Thanks everyone for taking the time to reply re my question of sparge arms.
There was a lot of good sensible advice in the replies and PM's that I received
so it's great to know that the knowledge is still being shared.

What's also interesting to note is that the days of ordering locally for a
particular sparge arm to, er, phil the mashtun with sparge water are
apparently gone! I asked the usual suppliers and have been advised that
they're no longer getting them in wholesale. Fortunately, the aussie market
forces have had an impact and an aussie supplier has 24cm and 32cm diameter
copper rings in stock, just like the one's you suggested David, complete with the
holes on the upper side of the ring! And freight is nowhere near as nasty...

Cheers,
Rowan

Canberra Brewers Club, Australia
[9588.6, 261.5] AR (statute miles)

- ----------------------------------------------------
If you have received this transmission in error please
notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all
copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent
to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver
of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect
of information in the e-mail or attachments.

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 06:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: zac boak <boakis2000 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Scottsdale, AZ brew pubs

Hi everyone. I lived in Chandler, AZ for a few years.
Chandler is south of Scottsdale on the 101 freeway by about
15 miles or so if my memory serves me correctly. There are
a few good places to go.
First off there is a brew pub called "Rock
Bottom" right in Scottsdale. Good food and beer.
It is a chain, but not all of them serve the same beers as
they each have their own brew master. You can become a
member of their "Mug Club" for free and then you
receive a 1/2 liter instead of a pint for no extra charge,
and you collect points towards free beer, food, and
merchandise.
Another place that i would recommend is in Tempe. I
think they might even have a location in Scottsdale now, but
i cant remember for sure. Its called "Four
Peaks." They have a good selection of beer, and there
is nothing wrong with the food either. I can recommend
the "Kilt Lifter Scotch Ale"(very tasty) and the
"Hop Knot IPA." Both excellent brews, just
depends on what you are in the mood for.
One last place i would check out is called "San Tan
Brewing Company." They are located in Chandler, so it
may be a little bit of a drive depending in where you are
is Scottsdale. I lived in Chandler and worked in
Scottsdale and the drive never killed me. Back to beer.
They have quality beer and food. Although you may find it
similar to Four Peaks since the man who opened San Tan was
the brew master there.
Hope this helps. They all have web sites that you can
find through google. I put links in the first time I
wrote this not knowing that, that was a "no no."
Slainte
Zac Boak
Gristulin Brewing
Brookfield, WI

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

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 16:18:30 -0400
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: StarSan 5.2

In yesterday's digest I supposed (as did Calvin) that StarSan 5.2 must
be a phosphate buffer and indeed several websites/catalogues describes
it as "A proprietary blend of food-grade phosphate buffers...". I
also noted in my post of yesterday that phosphate would be a poor
choice of buffer at pH 5.2 because 5.2 is 2 pH units from the second
pK of phosphoric acid and buffering capacity is low if this difference
is greater than 1 unit. I spent some time doing some calculations and
was so surprised at how poor buffering performance of the traditional
phosphate buffer is that I felt I had to experiment to see if my model
(in the spreadsheet I use) was valid. It appears it is. The following
are some results from the calculations. I can do lots more 'gedenken'
experiments in an hour with a spreadsheet than I can real experiments
with a balance, a pH meter and glassware (and I don't have to clean up
afterwards).

At a rate of 11 grams per 5 gallons a traditional phosphate buffer
designed for pH 5.2 will show in increase in pH to 6.11 (shift of
0.91) in water, not mash, in response to a challenge of 40 mg/L
bicarbonate (this corresponds to an alkalinity of 34 ppm as CaCO3 in a
pH 7 water). The way this might be interpreted in a mash is that if
your water has alkalinity of 80 with effective (calcium plus half
magnesium) hardness of 40*3.5 = 140 then the residual alkalinity would
be 40 mg/L (80 mg/L minus the 40 mg/L acid released when the calcium
reacts with malt phosphate) which the buffer (or another source of
acid) would have to neutralize to get to a pH in the right range. It
certainly would appear that 11 grams/L of a traditional phosphate
buffer isn't going to do this. We'd expect the mash pH to be over 6 in
this example. So perhaps StarSan 5.2 isn't a phosphate buffer. It is
interesting that a citrate buffer of the same strength (4.5 mmol/L)
would hold pH to 5.37 against the same 40 mg/L bicarbonate challenge.
This is to be expected as the difference between 5.2 and the second pK
of citric acid is only 0.43. Another thing which seems a little
strange is the concept of buffering a solution with a phosphate buffer
when the solution itself already contains a lot of one of phosphate
(Calvin mentioned this). I'm not suggesting that Star San in really
citrate as I would expect that to have noticeable flavor effects on
beer made with it. Maybe the word "proprietary" bears significance
which escapes me. I guess the next step is to actually go buy some of
this stuff, hit it with bicarb and see where the pH goes. I'll report
what I find.

A.J.

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5534, 03/31/09
*************************************
-------

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5533 (March 29, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5533 Sun 29 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
sparge arm ("Darrell G. Leavitt")
RE: Sparge Arms ("David Houseman")
Starsan 5.2 ("A.J deLange")
Re: Scottsdale AZ brewpubs? (John Stewart)
Using Five Star 5.2 pH stabilizer with other water treatment (Craig Agnor)
Re: Five Star pH Stabilizer (Calvin Perilloux)

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 07:12:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Darrell G. Leavitt" <leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu>
Subject: sparge arm

Rowan;
You have most likely considered this, but how much space is under your
false bottom, and could that be a factor in your efficiency? I am not
sure what a B3 is, but I use a Polarware 10 gallon pot, and there is
nearly a gallon under the false bottom. I regularly get around 78%
efficiency, but at times when I drain the bottom, the efficiency goes up
a bit. But then I wonder if it is better to not get all the little crap
that sometimes comes with the last runnings when I do this?

Good morning.
Darrell

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 08:02:59 -0400
From: "David Houseman" <david.houseman at verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Sparge Arms

Rowan,

I did start out using a sparge are, the one from Listermann I believe. But
then came to two realizations. One was that I wanted to keep about an inch
of water on top of the grain bed to (1) maintain uniform flow and (2) float
the entire grain bed. The second was that I wanted to minimize oxidation
and spraying water is certainly more likely to absorb O2 than a simple flow.
So I stopped using a sparge arm in favor of simply placing a perforated
pizza pan on the grain bed and then laying a hose on the and just running
sparge water onto it. The pizza pan with holes keeps the water from
channeling into the grain bed. I keep 1 to 2 inches of water on the grain
bed throughout the sparge. When I new sculpture from MoreBeer it came with
a copper ring that drips sparge water, or recirculated wort, onto the grain
bed in a circular pattern. Again no spraying, but more gently laying the
wort/water onto the bed across the entire top of the bed. So I think you
were on the right track to start with. Maybe instead of aluminum foil, make
a ring to drip onto the grain bed more gently. BTW, put the holes in the
ring on the top, not the bottom and keep it level and the wort/water will be
uniform.

David Houseman

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 11:48:22 -0400
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Starsan 5.2

Starsan 5.2 is, apparently, a classic phosphate buffer. A bufffer is a
mixture of salts representing different levels of deprotonation of a
polyprotic acid and the acid itself. Phosphoric acid, H3(PO4) is an
example with 3 protons i.e. hydrogen ions to give up. The Law of Mass
Action demands that the ratios of the concentrations of the ions in
the solution be (ideally dilute solution approximation)
r1 = 10^(pH - pK1) for the ratio of monobasic phosphate (H2(PO4)-) to
phosphoric acid (H3(PO4)), r2 = 10^(pH-pK2) for the ratio of dibasic
(H(PO4)--) to monobasic and r3 = 10^ (pH-pK3) for the ratio of
tribasic (PO4)---) to dibasic where the pK's are minus the logs of the
dissociation constants for the three dissociation steps: H3(PO4) ---> H
+ + H2(PO4)- and so on. pK1 = 2.1; pK2 = 7.2 and pK3 = 12.44 for
phosphoric acid. When pH = pK the corresponding r = 1 and the two
species are present in equal concentration. Now if you have x moles/L
phosphoric acid in a solution at a given pH there must be r1*x of
monobasic phosphate, r2*r1*x of dibasic and r3*r2*r1 of tribasic for a
total of P=x*(1 + r1 + r1*r2 + r1*r2*r3). The fraction of the total
which is phosphoric is thus clearly f1 = 1/(1 + r1 + r1*r2 +
r1*r2*r3), the fraction which is monbasic f2 = r1*f1, the fraction
which is dibasic f3 = r2*f2 = r1*r2*f1 and the fraction which is
tribasic f4 = r3*f2 = r1*r2*r3*f1. At pH 5.2 phosphoric acid accounts
for 0.08% of the total (PO4), mononbasic phosphate for 98.93%, dibasic
phosphate for 1% and tribasic phosphate for so little as to be
unappreciable (which is a good thing in this case because if it
weren't it would strip all the calcium out of your water).

To make a buffer at pH 5.2 we would set up the ratios by dissolving
phosphoric acid in sufficient quantity to provide 0.08% of the total
moles of phosphate, monobasic sodium or potassium phosphate in
sufficient quantity to provide 98.93% of the moles of phosphate and
dibasic sodium or potassium phosphate in sufficient quantity to
provide 1 % of the moles of phosphate in distilled water and expect
the pH of the mix to be pretty close to 5.2. In practice we'd probably
skip the phosphoric acid and just use the salts (as I believe 5.2 is a
powder I'm sure there is no acid in it). The total amount of salts
required depends on the required "buffering capacity" i.e. how much
acid or base needs to be absorbed. As mash pH is generally in the 5's
anyway the buffer doesn't have to pull pH very far but if the
alkalinity of the liquor is high more buffer may be needed - it is
acting as a source of protons to reduce pH. A point of interest WRT
this is that the buffering capacity of salt mixtures is highest near
their pKs and worst half way in between them. pH 4.66 is half way
between pK1 and pK2 thus this phosphate buffer (which I'm only
assuming is what it is because that's what it says it is in the
WIlliams catalogue) is working fairly close to the least effective pH
for phosphate. From this point of view citrate, with pK2 = 4.77 might
be a better choice but phosphate is more flavor neutral.

The second part of your question is as to how one does mineral content
adjustments. If one is willing to make a lot of simplifying
assumptions about water chemistry this can be done with a relatively
simple Excel spreadsheet of which there are several out there. In
general you specify the parameters of the available water (you must
have an analysis) in one part of the spreadsheet and amounts of salts
to be added in another. The spreadsheet effectively adds the ions you
add as salts to the ions present in the source water and presents you
with the results which you then compare to the desired ion content
profile. This works well when neither calcium carbonate, sodium
bicarbonate or carbon dioxide are part of your formulation process and
if you do not acidify with lactic, citric, phosphoric etc acids. i.e.
it is fine for gypsum, calcium chloride, sodium chloride additions
and dilutions. To synthesize waters with high temporary hardness it is
usually necessary to add calcium and/or sodium carbonate which
requires addition of acid in some form (carbonic, i.e. carbon dioxide,
is mother nature's and my own preferred form). The simple spreadsheets
ignore this important aspect of brewing water chemistry. I offer my
own spreadsheet at www.wetnewf.org as an example of a spreadsheet
that takes acid/base requirements into account, allows the use of any
acid (not, I hope, that someone would contemplate using, for example,
Prussic acid) for pH adjustment, recognizes that brewing waters are
not "ideally dilute" solutions, considers temperature and will even
design the phosphate buffer of the first part of your question. The
downside is, of course, that it makes more demands on the user than
the simpler spreadsheets. It comes with extensive instructions and you
may want to have a look.

A.J.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 16:07:16 -0500
From: John Stewart <john at johnstewart.com>
Subject: Re: Scottsdale AZ brewpubs?

> I may be travelling to Scottsdale AZ in May/June this year and was
> hoping somebody may be able to recommend local brewpubs for a
> thirsty traveller!!

I've been to the area a few times. I'd be interested to know the answer, too.

I'm from Madison, WI, and we have a fine assortment of brewers in the
neighborhood. Lake Louie is what I was drinking tonight, their Kiss
the Lips IPA. My favorite IPA, however, is the other side of Lake
Mendota from them (and me), Hopalicious from Ale Asylum. Of course the
Great Dane provides an assortment of decent brews in 4 locations in
town, too (and sponsors the ultimate frisbee league in Madison - 2
free pitchers per team after every game!).

Anyway, I visited Tempe, AZ for work last year and I was sorely
disappointed with the local brew selections at dinnertime. Fat Tire if
I was lucky. Often not.

I complained to a colleague, who lives in the valley (a vast, vast
valley of suburbia). He said "oh, no, we've got a great local brew
pub."

On my last night there, we went, and I had the sampler of their beer.
I admit, it wasn't terrible... but only a minority of beers were
anything above "okay".

I don't remember the name of the brew pub, but I'll tell you what I do
remember: On my layover in the Minneapolis airport, as I was humping
my bag from one end of the airport to the other, covered in sweat
trying to make my connection, I whizzed by... the same brew pub.

Like everything else in the Valley of the Phoenix, it was a chain.

Good luck and let me know. I have to go back next weekend.

johnS

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:08:03 +0100
From: Craig Agnor <cragnor at gmail.com>
Subject: Using Five Star 5.2 pH stabilizer with other water treatment

Hello,

I'm an all grain homebrewer of many years that has recently moved to an area
with high alkalinity water (see below for the report) and have a question
about using Five Star 5.2 in conjunction with other water treatments.

I've recently started using Five Star 5.2 product and been immediately
impressed with how it locks in the pH and has raised my efficiency.

However, I've found the bitterness in my time tested IPA recipe to be quite
harsh, when brewed at the new house (and with the new water supply).
I suspect that this has nothing to do with using 5.2 and in doing some
reading, the homebrewing literature (Daniels, Palmer) suggests that high
alkalinity water can lead to a harshness in beers with a lot of hop flavor
and bitterness.

Other literature suggests adding various water salts (epsom salts, gypsum,
table salt) to the dry grains, both to adjust the residual alkalinity and to
achieve a desired flavor balance in the beer (Palmer). So, it appears that
I may need to do additional water treatment to improve the quality of the
beers I'm making with this water supply.

Finally, my question. If I've decided to adjust my water using a
combination of water salts and carbonate reduction (either by acid addition
or adding distilled water) when and how should 5.2 be added? Note that most
literature I've found on adding salts suggest adding the dry salts to the
dry grain, then mixing the water for mashing into the grain/water salts.

Any suggestions or advice on how to use 5.2 in conjunction with more
conventional water treatment/adjustment would be appreciated.

Thanks for your help.

Best,
Craig
Loughton, Essex, UK

PS Here's my water profile.

Water for IG10 4BS 23/01/2009

Cations: mean (min - max)

Chloride (Cl): 55.3 mg/l (51 - 61)
Alkalinity CaCO3: 212 mg/l (200 - 229)
Alkalinity HCO3: 258.5 mg/l (244 - 279)
Hardness CaCO3: 285.8 mg/l (281 - 290)
Sulphate (SO4): 55.2 (53.1 - 58.2)

Anions:

Calcium (Ca): 106.9 mg/l (102 - 111)
Magnesium (Mg): 5.4 mg/l (5.0 - 5.9)
Sodium (Na): 36.3 mg/l (34.3 - 40.9)

pH: 7.8 (7.5 - 8.2)

PPS I sent a similar inquiry to Five Star a week or so ago, but have not
heard back from them yet.

PPPS In the UK, there is a nice product available for reducing carbonate in
the brewing water from Brupaks. I believe it is a mixture of acids that
reduces bicarbonate while not throwing the water profile off terribly with
other ions. See the link below for more details (not sure if this is also
available in the states).
http://www.brupaks.com/water%20treatment.htm

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

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:36:52 -0700 (PDT)
From: Calvin Perilloux <calvinperilloux at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Five Star pH Stabilizer

My educated guess is that 5.2 Stabilizer is a phosphate buffer,
perhaps a specific mix of food grade (mono- and di-) sodium
and/or potassium phosphates. I see that A.J has a post pending,
and he probably has better information from memory than I can
do with an hour of research, perhaps including exactly how the
pK values of phosphate affect the mix of the salts in 5.2.

Now when you hear phosphate buffers, you might, if you're
not chemistry-literate, worry about "chemicals" in your beer,
but phosphates are common food additives and are actually
already present in food and needed for nutrition. (Malt
itself is about 1% phosphate.)

A tablespoon of 5.2 Stabilizer weighs 11 grams by my scale;
that's enough for a 5 gallon mix, as specified by Five Star
(the vendor). That's very roughly 0.6 grams of product per
liter of beer. I'll let someone else do the chemistry and
subsequent simple arithmetic to estimate the phosphorous
content, but a quick back-of-the-envelope calculations shows
it would be well within current dietary norms for phosphorous.
(Unless you drink several liters per day, every day, and then
you're obviously have total disregard for dietary norms anyway.)

There's a reasonably good book called "Phosphates in Food"
that shows some relevant information about phosphates, but
I don't have the $380+ for my own copy, so I can only read
snippets. Google can help a lot, though, if you want to
pursue this further and are of a technical bent.

Given enough research, you could probably in the end be able
to make your own buffer salts that are customised for your
own water and desired pH, so that you use only enough buffer
to prevent pH drift, and no more. Me, I find it easier to
just spend a few pennies and dump in the recommended tablespoon
of 5.2 Stabilizer if I feel concerned about mash pH.

Calvin Perilloux
Middletown, Maryland, USA

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5533, 03/29/09
*************************************
-------

Friday, March 27, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5532 (March 27, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5532 Fri 27 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
Scottsdale AZ brewpubs? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ("Williams, Rowan")
Sparge Arms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ("Williams, Rowan")
Five Star pH Stabilizer (Jeff Hewit)

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:56:23 +1100
From: "Williams, Rowan" <Rowan.Williams at ag.gov.au>
Subject: Scottsdale AZ brewpubs? [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi Folks,
I may be travelling to Scottsdale AZ in May/June this year and was hoping somebody may be able to recommend local brewpubs for a thirsty traveller!!

Cheers,
Rowan

Canberra Brewers Club, Australia
[9588.6, 261.5] AR (statute miles)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:33:15 +1100
From: "Williams, Rowan" <Rowan.Williams at ag.gov.au>
Subject: Sparge Arms [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Hi all,
I'm planning on picking up a sparge arm for my 10 Gal Rubbermaid Cooler, under the flimsy excuse that it's my birthday soon!

So, I would like to know from those of you who use sparge arms whether I should ensure that an inch or so of sparge water sits over the grainbed during the sparge or does it make no difference if I gently sprinkle the sparge water over an exposed grainbed?

I've been batch sparging for I don't know how many years and I rarely get better than 75 percent extraction efficiency - I want to do better than that and besides, I've tried all sorts of methods to improve the flow of the sparge liquor including aluminum foil with fork holes in it to holed plastic plates to doing a jig during the sparge - all to no avail. I've tweaked the water chemistry and messed around with my mill and I still get a consistently mediocre extraction efficiency. I get clear steady runoff through the stainless false bottom from B3 so I can't blame the mashtun itself.

So, any tips on using a sparge arm during the fly sparge would be appreciated. And please, don't bother telling me that I don't need one - I've had a gutful of inefficient batch sparging and I want to see how things go, on the fly!

Cheers,
Rowan Williams
Canberra Brewers Club, Australia

[9588.6, 261.5] AR (statute miles)

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

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:32:00 -0400
From: Jeff Hewit <bippoj at gmail.com>
Subject: Five Star pH Stabilizer

I have been reading some great things about Five Star's pH Stabilizer.
Seems like a magic bullet that will adjust any water to 5.2. However, I
haven't been able to determine -

1 - How does it work? (I did take Freshman Chemistry, but that was in
1968, and I've forgotten a lot)

2 - How do I modify the addition of gypsum, Epsom salts, etc. to get the
water profile I am looking for? Do I really need to add anything at all?

Thanks for any feedback.

Brew On!

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5532, 03/27/09
*************************************
-------

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5531 (March 25, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5531 Wed 25 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
Kolsch ("Darrell G. Leavitt")
Diesel's Brewing Spreadsheet ("Diesel's Brewing Spreadsheet")

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 06:58:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Darrell G. Leavitt" <leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu>
Subject: Kolsch

Rowan;
Thankyou for the response, and I will search to see what others have done
for the Kolsch style. I had received a couple of other responses, both
suggesting that I drop the Vienna malt in that this would make the final
product too malty for the style. I have brewed it already, but in the
next few times using this yeast (I re-use 3-5 times) I will experiment
with using no Vienna (nor Munich) then I will put it back in and see what
the differences are.
Greetings to brewers down under!

Darrell
Plattsburgh,NY 44 42 32 N Latitude
73 24 16 W Longitude

[544.9 miles, 68.9]Apparent Rennerian

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:07:38 -0400
From: "Diesel's Brewing Spreadsheet" <spreadsheet at dieseldrafts.com>
Subject: Diesel's Brewing Spreadsheet

The brewing spreadsheet that I've been building for quite some time is now
available for public download and use.

See the link below for an overview of the feature set and a link to the
guide & download page.

http://dieseldrafts.com/journal/2009/03/diesels-brewing-spreadsheet/

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5531, 03/25/09
*************************************
-------

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5530 (March 24, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5530 Tue 24 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
Re: Kolsch [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] ("Williams, Rowan")

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 10:12:02 +1100
From: "Williams, Rowan" <Rowan.Williams at ag.gov.au>
Subject: Re: Kolsch [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

G'day Darrell,
Regarding Kolschbier, I kept a lot of the old HBD content on making this wonderful beer, so a search is worth doing if you haven't already done so. I have a keg and 4 bottles of a kolsch that I made with Weyermann Pils, Munich I and Tettnanger hops. It turned out really well IMO.

I used US-05 to ferment this beer and it turned out crisp and very fresh - highly recommended if you find it hard to get your hands on German Ale yeast or prefer the relative simplicity of using commonly available dry yeast.

Cheers,
Rowan
- ----------------------------------------------------
If you have received this transmission in error please
notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete all
copies. If this e-mail or any attachments have been sent
to you in error, that error does not constitute waiver
of any confidentiality, privilege or copyright in respect
of information in the e-mail or attachments.

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5530, 03/24/09
*************************************
-------

Monday, March 23, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5529 (March 23, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5529 Mon 23 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
O2 diffusion (mabrooks)
Re: stir plate oxygen limit (Fred L Johnson)

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:31:52 -0400
From: mabrooks at vt.edu
Subject: O2 diffusion

When it comes to "oxygenation" of most liquids, there are numerous way to go
about it. The simplest way to get to O2 saturation level in a room temperature
yeast starter, assuming you have a stir plate and proper size container (large
surface/vol area) and proper size stir bar, is to simply cover the flask
loosely with foil and turn on the stir plate. The O2 transfer from air will
work wonderfully and you can assume saturation levels will be maintained fairly
well. Diffusion and transfer laws will provide all the exchange needed for this
task. I really cant see the need to go through the trouble of putting in an air
diffuser stone and using a stir plate unless for some reason the yeast O2 demand
was
really excessive? or if the container was "sealed" tight, which I don't see the
need for? If the starter is at fermentation temps the issue is even
less of a concern as O2 has a higher sat level at lower temps.

Typical situations which would necessitate the use of a diffuser stone, is if
you have a
very large yeast starter (> 3 gallons) and the surface area (volume exposed to
air) is very small and the yeast O2 demand is very high (very thick yeast
starter). Typically one would
use pure O2 for this type application. Otherwise, the natural transfer of
O2 from air into a dilute wort/yeast starter (or other liquid) being stirred is
very
efficient, especially below 60 degrees F. Its all about the "demand" for O2 in
the starter, and for starters of less then 2 quarts or so, you don't need to
use a diffusion stone, especially if you have a stir plate.

Matt B.
Northern VA.

BTW: I have an extra stir plate I bought and didn't use (still new) if anyone is
interested I would be willing to sell. Stir bars are included.

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:09:43 -0500
From: "Devonna Dieterle" <djdieterle at hughes.net>
Subject: Subject: Re: stir plate oxygen limit

Matt stated he didn't want to pump filtered air directly into the starter do
to the infection risk. Fred stated he pumps air into the starter headspace.
With a good quality inline air filter which is rated to filter to .023
micron is infection a risk and which way is more effective, pump into the
liquid or the headspace(if there is a difference in oxygen absorption)
I ask because I pump air directly into the liquid using 2 filters in series
through a stainless bubbler wand on a stir plate, with the starter vessel
sealed from the outside air and generally follow Mr. Maltys starter volume
calculator for quantities of 1.040 canned wort for stepping up.

Jeff Dieterle

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

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:19:17 -0400
From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson52 at nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: stir plate oxygen limit

Jeff asks if pumping air directly into the wort is more effective or
less effective than pumping into the head space of a stirring
starter. Undoubtedly, pumping air into the wort directly is more
effective at dissolving oxygen in the wort than pumping into the head
space, but it probably isn't much more effective if the air supply is
continuous and the starter is stirred. One only needs to dissolve
oxygen in at the rate it is used by the growing culture. When the
yeast are at their peak rate of daughter cell production, one might
see a benefit of pumping directly into the medium, but I have no data
to support this. Pumping air directly into the wort leads to lots of
foam, so one would have to turn down the air flow rate and/or add an
agent to break the surface tension to minimize foaming--something I
prefer to avoid.

Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5529, 03/23/09
*************************************
-------

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5528 (March 22, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5528 Sun 22 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
Subject: Re: stir plate oxygen limit ("Devonna Dieterle")
Kolsch ("Darrell G. Leavitt")

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:09:43 -0500
From: "Devonna Dieterle" <djdieterle at hughes.net>
Subject: Subject: Re: stir plate oxygen limit

Jeff Dieterle

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.0.0.386)
Database version: 5.12010
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

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

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 11:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Darrell G. Leavitt" <leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu>
Subject: Kolsch

Hey;
Any of you guys make a Kolsch lately? I am basing my brew today on Dave
Miller recipe. I find that his are rather straight forward: 6lb lager
malt, 1 lb Vienna, Saaz hops.

I am boosting the base malt from 6 to 8 lb, but otherwise it is the same
as Miller's.

I plan on re-using this yeast several times, so if anyone has a recipe
that they feel is really good, and in this style, please send.

Happy Brewing!
Darrell

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5528, 03/22/09
*************************************
-------

Friday, March 20, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5527 (March 20, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5527 Fri 20 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
FlavorActiV vs. Siebel sensory kits ("Stephen Johnson")
RE: Siebel Sensory Training Kit vs. the FlavorActiv Enthusiast Kit ("David Houseman")
Re: stir plate oxygen limit (Fred L Johnson)

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:10:12 -0500
From: "Stephen Johnson" <sjohnson3 at comcast.net>
Subject: FlavorActiV vs. Siebel sensory kits

Brian questions the price/value of the Siebel kit described by Keith Lemcke
in HBD #5525 and Doug wonders if anyone has compared that kit with the ones
that the AHA has been providing homebrew clubs through the FlavorActiV
company.

Over the years that the Music City Brewers have been in existence (since
1996), some of us in our club have been able to have some experiences with
both kits, or at least some one or more versions of them. Early on, one of
our local brewing community members had gone through the pro brewers
training short course at Siebel and brought back the partially depleted
sensory evaluation kit that was part of the course at the time. He felt that
we might benefit from conducting some of our own training, since several of
us were preparing for the BJCP exam at the time. One of our members was
doing post doctoral medical research at Vanderbilt, and had access to some
very finely calibrated titration pipettes and borrowed them for our own beer
evaluation research. We were able to spike several cases of beer with some
of these sensory evaluation compounds, and did them in a way that we were
able to use each compound at different levels in 3 beers, so that one beer
was at the low threshold level, one at a medium level, and a third beer at a
high level. We were able to do this with about 12 different compounds, if I
recall, and we learned quite a bit about our own unique sensitivities to
various off-flavors commonly found in beers. I learned about my own overly
sensitive awareness to DMS, and could detect it at the very lowest levels,
whereas my friends could not pick it up at all at that same level. At the
same time, I also discovered that it is hard for me to detect the aroma of
diacetyl, even at the highest of levels, but that I can detect it more from
the mouthfeel (slickness). Both of these facts helped me to be a better
judge in terms of knowing my own sensitivities and/or limitations. I also
learned that I hope I never have to judge a beer that has high levels of
isovaleric acid in it. That one just about made me throw up on the spot.

It sounds like the current kit available from the Siebel training has 24
different compounds which run the gamut in terms of flavors found in typical
beers as well as problematic off-flavors that are not very desirable,
especially at higher levels. I think there are some definite benefits to
these compounds being in liquid form in how easily they can be stirred into
a sample of beer and at different levels, which was how we used them back in
the late 90's.

More recently, our club has purchased the FlavorActiV kit through the AHA,
and while helpful, we found the kits to be somewhat limited in the scope of
the flavor compounds being sampled and the amounts of each, which limited
the number of participants we could include in our tasting session to about
12 individuals, because we opted to use them in a two-fold training process
where each sample was used during an education and orientation phase, and
then a second round was done "blind" at a lower threshold level to see how
well individuals could evaluate each of the compounds in a random order. The
kits themselves were put together well, but were limited in that only 8
flavor profiles were provided, and they apparently have been chosen as
representative if typical problem conditions in beer production (metallic,
acetic acid, bacterial growth in the mash, spoilage by wild yeasts,
bacterial growth in the fermentation, insufficient boiling of wort, poor
yeast health, and use of old or degraded hops). They are also hard to use in
that the compounds are powdered, and are "loaded" in pre-filled capsules
that basically have to be discharged into a beer pitcher and then beer
poured over the powder, and then stirred for some time to thoroughly
dissolve the granules. Thorough rinsing of equipment is required in between
each sample to prevent cross-contamination. Extra costs to these sessions
involves large quantities of sampling cups, several cases of "light"
commercial beers, and enough pitchers to be able to handle the various
samples. We also printed up color copies of handouts and other documentation
that came with the kit so that every participant came away with very helpful
information about the process and a place to write notes to refer back to in
the future. We did this as part of our club's ongoing judge training in our
efforts to provide our region with more viable and well-trained BJCP judges.

Now, as for debating the costs, I suspect there are some highly trained
chemists out there in beer digest cyberspace who can probably provide a more
informed response for Brian, but my understanding of the whole process of
isolating these chemical compounds is that it is a very complicated and
exacting process that is well beyond the means of the ordinary homebrewer. I
recall looking through some of the information from the FlavorActiV site,
and was amazed at the complexity and detail that they were involved in. Not
just beer, but all levels of food service and beverage industry evaluation
and training worldwide. These compounds are isolated and processed and
packaged in levels of purity that I suspect are similar to the precision
that is provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

Granted, it is a high price to pay, and there are certainly other ways to do
sensory evaluation training that are a lot less expensive, and some of them
have been documented by various individuals involved in the BJCP and I
believe are posted on their website. I haven't tried them myself, but I
think some in our club have done a few of those over the years.

But, like a lot of things in life, each to his own. Some may want to drive
to work in the latest model BMW sedan, while another may feel completely
satisfied getting to work reliably in a Toyota Yaris.

I think the acronym is "YMMV".

Steve Johnson
Music City Brewers
Nashville, TN

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:39:01 -0400
From: "David Houseman" <david.houseman at verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Siebel Sensory Training Kit vs. the FlavorActiv Enthusiast Kit

Doug,

I've used both kits. They were very similar. Both easy to use. Most
recently we used the kit provided by the BJCP (this is free to those giving
the BJCP exam and conducting a training class). This kit had 10 different
flavor/aroma capsules. This was well received by those taking the class.
Of course some characteristics were easier to pick out than others for some
people. The BJCP will be making an announcement about its program shortly.
My recommendation would be to wait and see if you want to participate in
that. Otherwise the new Siebel kit with 24 different samples is the most
extensive sensory evaluation kit and it would be my choice were I to pay for
one. However with 24 samples you'd probably want to use these in more than
one sitting.

David Houseman

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

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 07:40:37 -0400
From: Fred L Johnson <FLJohnson52 at nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: stir plate oxygen limit

Matt wants to increase the concentration of cells in his starters and
the total number of cells in the product. He is using a stir plate
and loose foil over the top of the culture vessel. Matt is comparing
his starters to others who report getting about twice the
concentration of cells in their starters.

In the system Matt is using, the concentration of cells will heavily
depend on the concentration of the nutrients in the wort used in the
starter (sugar, etc.). The total number of cells he gets will depend
on the concentration of the nutrients and the volume of the starter.
The cells simply stop growing when they run out of nutrients. If you
want to increase the concentration of cells in your starter, increase
the nutrient supply. If you want to increase the total number of
cells, increase the total amount of nutrient you provide the cells. I
really think it is that simple.

I typically use wort from a previous batch as the medium to which I
add Fermax at about 2 g/L. (If I brew a very large beer, I'll dilute
the wort down to a specific gravity of about 1.05 for use as a
starter.) I start from a slant and get the yeast going in about 50 mL
of dilute wort (S.G. about 1.02). As soon as I see good activity, I
transfer this to a spinner flask an add about 300 mL of wort and step
up from there twice for a 2 L starter. I pump filtered air into the
head space, so I probably do get more air into the wort than one
would get by convection in a loosly covered Erlenmeyer flask, but I
don't expect there to be a lot of difference.

For the last seven starters the gravity of my worts ranged from
1.04-1.06 and they produced 153-347 million cell per mL. The volumes
of the starters ranged from 500 mL to 1900 mL, and the total number
of cells produced was 124-470 billion cells. Of course the 500 mL
starter produced fewer total cells than did the 1900 mL starter.
There is a rough relationship between the gravity of the starter and
the concentration of cells when finished. I expect that relationship
will tighten up as I get more data points.

Please don't get me started again on the olive oil myth. If you are
willing to experiment by adding a small amount of soap (or
nonesterified fatty acids), then let's talk.

Fred L Johnson
Apex, North Carolina, USA

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5527, 03/20/09
*************************************
-------

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5525 (March 18, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5525 Wed 18 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
Siebel Sensory Training Kit ("Lemcke Keith")

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:51:41 -0400
From: "Lemcke Keith" <klemcke at siebelinstitute.com>
Subject: Siebel Sensory Training Kit

Over the last few years, the demand for sensory training has grown
dramatically. To help meet this important need, the Siebel Institute of
Technology is pleased to introduce the Siebel Institute Sensory Training
Kit.

The Siebel Institute Sensory Training Kit contains 24 pre-measured
"standards" representing some of the most important flavors and
aromatics found in beer. The standards are shipped in ready-to-use
liquid form, making them as easy to use as possible. Just open the small
vial of the sensory standard into a pitcher or measuring cup, add 1
liter of beer selected for light, neutral characteristics, and you are
ready to sample! Each kit is designed to serve up to 20 tasters,
allowing them to build their skills towards understanding beer flavor at
a truly professional level. This is a great way for homebrewers and beer
judges to learn to spot positive and negative characteristics common to
beers of all types, allowing them to more effectively assess beer from a
technical standpoint.

You can get more technical data and order information by downloading our
Product catalog in PDF format at
http://www.siebelinstitute.com/pdf/mail_order_form.pdf, and for
information on using the Siebel Institute Sensory Training Kit in your
brewery training program, contact Lyn Kruger at
lkruger at siebelinstitute.com

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5525, 03/18/09
*************************************
-------

Friday, March 13, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5524 (March 13, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5524 Fri 13 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
American Homebrewers Association 10th Annual Lallemand Scholarship! ("rob moline")
Re: Mill Gap Setting (Denny Conn)

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:37:35 -0500
From: "rob moline" <jethrogump at suddenlink.net>
Subject: American Homebrewers Association 10th Annual Lallemand Scholarship!

American Homebrewers Association 10th Annual Lallemand Scholarship!

Lallemand, the makers of Danstar dry yeasts and Servomyces yeast nutrient,
is proud to sponsor the Tenth Annual Lallemand Scholarship for the World
Brewing Academy's Concise Course in Brewing Technology. The partnership of
Lallemand and the American Homebrewers Association has provided nine
previous winners with what can best be described as a trip to 'Beer Heaven,'
the Siebel Institute! The fact that the scholarship is now ready to award
it's 10th recipient only underscores the value of the AHA/Lallemand
partnership, as both organizations continue to demonstrate leadership in
their common mission, ongoing brewer education, resulting in better beers!.

The scholarship is awarded to a member of the American Homebrewers
Association, and provides full tuition to the World Brewing Academy's
Concise Course in Brewing Technology, held at the Siebel Institute in
Chicago, Illinois, November 2 - 13, 2009, and is valued at USD $3,350. The
winner also receives a USD $1000 stipend to assist with travel and
accommodation while in Chicago, one of America's most exciting and vibrant
cities. .

The famous two-week WBA Concise Course in Brewing Technology will provide
students with a comprehensive knowledge of the brewing process, the dynamics
of brewery operations, and socioeconomic issues affecting the industry.

How to Enter
AHA members may enter the contest by filling out the online form at
http://www.beertown.org/apps/scholarship/form.aspx. You will need to know
your AHA membership number, which appears on your AHA membership card and on
the address label of your Zymurgy magazine. If you do not know your
membership number or would like to join, e-mail info at brewersassociation.org,
call 888-822-6273, or visit the membership page at
http://www.beertown.org/homebrewing/membership.html .

The contest entry forms must be submitted by June 9, 2009. Only one entry
per AHA Member will be accepted. Entries will also be accepted in
registration at the AHA National Homebrewers Conference in Oakland, CA, June
18-20, 2009.

AHA members can get an additional entry in the contest by submitting a
ballot for the AHA Governing Committee election, visit
http://www.beertown.org/homebrewing/election.html. All ballots must be
submitted no later than 11:59 pm Pacific Time, March 31, 2009.

Winner Announced
The drawing for the Lallemand Scholarship will take place at the AHA
National Homebrewers Conference in Oakland, CA during the Grand Banquet on
June 20, 2009. The winner must have a current AHA membership at the time of
the drawing to be eligible.

Scholarship Rules
Members of the AHA Governing Committee, Brewers Association Board of
Directors, staff of the Brewers Association, Siebel, Lallemand, and anyone
who has previously been awarded any scholarship to the Siebel Institute are
ineligible. Awarded courses must be completed within one year. Winners must
provide a written statement on their Siebel experiences to the AHA/Brewers
Association/Lallemand/Siebel. Rights to publication of report and
photographs of the winner are granted to the AHA/Brewers Association, Siebel
and Lallemand.

For more information on the Lallemand Scholarship, visit
American Homebrewers Association Lallemand Scholarship and Danstar, or
contact Rob Moline at danstar at mchsi.com .

More information on the WBA Concise Course may be found at
http://www.siebelinstitute.com/course_desc/concise_tech.html , and a
detailed course catalog of all offerings of the WBA is at
http://www.siebelinstitute.com/catalogs/pdfs/2009_wba_catalog.pdf .

Good Luck!
Rob Moline
Danstar/Lallemand

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

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:07:19 -0700
From: Denny Conn <denny at projectoneaudio.com>
Subject: Re: Mill Gap Setting

I have no idea what the gap is on my mill, but I've been using the same
gap for 10 years with great results. What I care about is the grist it
makes and the beer made from that. Learn what a good crush looks like
and how it acts on your system and go from there. Even if someone can
tell you what their gap is set to, it's no guarantee that the same
setting will work for you. As Dan Listermann said "you're making grist,
not gaps"!

---------------->Denny

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5524, 03/13/09
*************************************
-------

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5523 (March 10, 2009)

HOMEBREW Digest #5523 Tue 10 March 2009

FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org

***************************************************************
TODAY'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

Contents:
Water Report ("A.J deLange")
re: Mill Gap Setting (stencil)

As always, donors and donations are publicly acknowledged
and accounted for on the HBD web page. THank you

Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org

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

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

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
and Spencer Thomas

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:20:49 -0400
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Water Report

The advice I usually give in these cases (Jeff McNally's question his
water report) is to grab a copy of the spreadsheet at
http://www.wetnewf.org/Brewing_articles/BURP_OCT08

and plug in the numbers. I've done that and attached it here (not for
HBD Cc).

At the left side of the spreadsheet you'll see two red fields. The
first indicates that this water report has a serious anion/cation
imbalance of 12.6%. To put this in perspective you would need 0.825
mEq/L more anion (or less cation) to have a physically realizeable
water. Doubling of the alkalinity or an increase in sulfate to 47 mg/L
would be required. OTOH it is very suspicious that changing the
reported sodium from 42.3 mg/L to 24.3 gives a well balanced (0.7%)
profile. Is it possible that you (or the lab) fat-fingered the sodium
report? But then sodium is hard to measure and because it has a low
atomic weight sodium errors contribute a lot to imbalance. This is a
lot of ifs and so its a bit hard to draw solid conclusions from such a
report. As alkalinity and hardness are easy to measure let's assume
those numbers are good (because they are the ones responsible for
setting mash pH) and go forward but I'd contact the lab, tell them
that their report is imbalanced and ask for an explanation.

The other red field at the left of the spreadsheet is informing you
that the water is over saturated with CO2 (which you already know from
the pH of 6). This means that allowed to stand the water will lose CO2
and its pH increase. This is typical of well water in climates where
the soil contains enough moisture to support bacteria (i.e. most
everywhere except deserts).

You will note that I entered your calcium and magnesium values as
negative numbers. This tells the spreadsheet to interpret them as mg/L
values and in response to this input it calculates hardness of 88.55
ppm as CaCO3. This confirms that the total hardness value on your
report is "as CaCO3" but then again the only other units it could
reasonably be in the US is mEq/L and the number given is outlandishly
high for that. The same reasoning applies to the alkalinity number. In
the US it is almost always in ppm as CaCO3 unless it is in mEq/L and
37.5 mEq/L is outlandishly high alkalinity. Alkalinity is actually
calculated by measuring the mEq/L and multiplying by 50. People
sometimes get confused and multiply by 100. I only mention this here
because doubling the reported alkalinity would better balance the
report (though if the lab made the usual mistake the reported
alkalinity would be twice, not half).

You will see that you have a modest residual alkalinity of 14.7 ppm as
CaCO3 and that this will give you an expected mash pH 0.02 higher than
a distilled water mash IOW if your grist composition gives you a
distilled water pH of 5.7 (typical for base malt only) this water
would be expected to give you 5.72. You can now check that the pH in
cell w3 is the same as in C3 and start experimenting with calcium salt
additions in cells J22 and L22 to see what their effect is on pH shift
(cell T61). For example 200 mg/L gypsum changes the pH shift from +.02
to -.03 so that if your distilled water mash pH were 5.7 as before
your pH with this water supplemented with 200 mg/L gypsum would be
expected to be 5.67 i.e. it takes a lot of calcium to pull pH a few
hundredths of a point and you are also increasing your sulfate. Darker
malts or acids are a much better way to set mash pH (though forbidden
by Reinheitsgebot but then again so is adding gypsum).

There's obviously lots more stuff you can do with this spreadsheet
once loaded with your source water parameters. See the included
instructions (Sheet 2) for details.

As a final comment - you probably would not need supplemental
carbonate or bicarbonate in a stout if you used roast barley to a
reasonable extent. The real deciding factor should, of course, be your
test mash or what you actually measure in the mash tun. If roast malt/
barley is being used you can forget residual alkalinity. It takes 3.5
mEq of calcium to neutralize 1 mEq of alkalinity. The acid in roast
barley/malt should overwhelm this.

A.J.

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

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 20:12:43 -0400
From: stencil <etcs.ret at verizon.net>
Subject: re: Mill Gap Setting

On Fri, 06 Mar 2009 23:21:14 -0500,
in Homebrew Digest #5520 (March 06, 2009)
Josh Knarr wrote:

>
>What's everyone using for their mill gap setting?
>
>Seems like .039" seems popular (or the default).

0.080" and 0.064", in that order, in a Valley Mill. Not too
coincidentally these dimensions correspond to AWG12 and
AWG14 solid copper wire. I always mill and dough-in the
night before, usually using around half the computed
dough-in volume of water. It's my belief that the long soak
of coarse grist wets more starch than a short dip of finer
grist, and sparging is easier. Yields are satisfactory.

If I wanted to go down to 0.039" I'd use AWG18 solid bell
wire as a gage.

gds, stencil

------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #5523, 03/10/09
*************************************
-------

Home Brew Digest

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5534 (March 31, 2009)

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5533 (March 29, 2009)

Friday, March 27, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5532 (March 27, 2009)

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5531 (March 25, 2009)

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5530 (March 24, 2009)

Monday, March 23, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5529 (March 23, 2009)

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5528 (March 22, 2009)

Friday, March 20, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5527 (March 20, 2009)

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5525 (March 18, 2009)

Friday, March 13, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5524 (March 13, 2009)

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Homebrew Digest #5523 (March 10, 2009)

Blog Archive

About Me