HOMEBREW Digest #2804 Fri 21 August 1998

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

		Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
		Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of 
		Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
				URL: http://www.oeonline.com

  Yeast Cell Counts / Starter Method (AKGOURMET)
  Harping on Harper's--Update ("Philip J Wilcox")
  Microwave for sanitation? ("Nate Wahl")
  Topping water and OG (Bruce Daniels)
  Latin 101 (haafbrau1)
  Weizen yeast ("George De Piro")
  Re: cooling/ HSA (Steve Jackson)
  First Wort Hopping (Lou.Heavner)
  Re: your last post on HBD wrt freezing yeast ("Brad McMahon")
  Re: Calculating increases in batch size ("Grant W. Knechtel")
  Some more thoughts on bottle baking ("Mike Allred")
  Where's that infection??? ("William W. Macher")
  Salt and Ethanol ("A. J. deLange")
  Looking for a Pump (Jack Schmidling)
  Re: Some more thoughts on bottle baking (Rod Wellman)
  More Yeast (Jim Liddil)
  Exponentials and Logarithmns (Jim Bentson)

Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as every sentence deserves proper punctuation... NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org (Articles are published in the order they are received.) If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!! To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word "subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org. **SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL **ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!! IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail! For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery at hbd.org Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via: Anonymous ftp from... ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer AFS users can find it under... /afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:20:33 EDT From: AKGOURMET at aol.com Subject: Yeast Cell Counts / Starter Method That was an excellent post that Mort O'Sullivan wrote to the homebrew digest concerning yeast cell concentrations by weight and volume. I know it takes a lot of time to write those, but I, for one, sure do appreciate it. I have a question, though. In the first table (gravity sedimentation), under "approx. volume for commercial pitching rate" the values range from .77 to 3.26 fluid ounces. Is this the amount for 5 gallons? It seems that everyone has a different method and theory about how to make the optimum starter. I own a homebrew supply here and I'm trying to put together an information handout that has a simple, but adequate procedure. I'm convinced that starters are important for liquid yeasts, but in order to get my customers to do it, it has to be simple and not use any equipment that is too specialized or expensive. Here is what I have come up with so far. Comments please? 1. boil a half gallon of water and 1/2 pound of dry malt extract for 15 minutes (yields 1.046 wort). 2. while still hot, pour into 2 sanitized quart canning jars, leaving any break material behind. Screw on the lids and store in the refridgerator. (question: how long can these be stored in the refridgerator? The jars are sanitized with bleach, the wort is ~200 degrees, and the lids seal air tight. A week? 2 weeks?) 3. when ready to make the starter, warm one jar to room temperature and pour into a sanitized 2-4 quart container, such as an erlinmeyer flask or glass apple juice jug. Leave any break material in the jar. Shake to aerate and pitch the swollen yeast packet. Cover with an airlock. 4. swirl the starter every day to promote yeast cell growth. (question: with starters, we don't need to worry about light, oxidation, or high temperatures too much, right? Especially since I pour off the beer in the end.) 5. After a couple of days when this fermentation starts to slow, warm the other jar of wort and add to the starter. Shake to aerate. Swirl daily. 6. When the starter begins to clear, allow the yeast to settle out. Pour off the clear liquid and pitch the yeast slurry into your main batch of beer. That's it. Simple enough for the casual hobbiest, but good enough to produce award winning beer? I'll add that the reason I store the wort in the canning jars for a few days in the refridgerater is to let the break settle out. My theory is that the cleaner the wort, the cleaner the yeast cake. Thanks for all input. Bill Wright akgourmet at aol.com Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 23:52:43 -0400 From: "Philip J Wilcox"<pjwilcox at cmsenergy.com> Subject: Harping on Harper's--Update From: Philip J Wilcox at CMS on 08/19/98 11:52 PM HBD, Since Mr. Fouch brought up the Harpers again, I'd thought I drop in there and see how things were doing under the new Head Brewer--Jim Owens. Jim's brewing experience comes from Baja California so I was hoping for a fresh new West Coast specialty selection. The standard Harpers Light and American Wheat were both there, neither of which was all that great, but combined they make up almost half the volume of beer sold on a given night. Amazing what the market can do to a perfectly good brewery. The Light was crisp, very clear, and had a distinctly bad aftertaste. What Eric might call Oxidized, I'll call astringency due to high adjunct use. And, well, maybe oxidized too. But that was the only one! The American Wheat, was well an American wheat. It tasted better with the provided lemon in the beer. Plenty of wheat character, the expected good head and little to no hop flavor. The standard Nut Brown and Java Porter were gone--replaced by an Amber and a Pale Ale. A West Coast Pale Ale was what I was hoping for, but not exactly what I got. What we did find was an excellent English Pale Ale. A very nice fruity nose with a touch of hops at the end. A crisp sharp bitterness that was not overdone or too assertive. A solid hop flavor that lasted through the finish. An Excellent Pale Ale. High thirties in my book. Next we tried the Amber. It had a nice stiff head still hanging on when we got to it. It looked a little hazy compared to the rest, but the sun was going down and we were outside testing clarity with the streetlights that had just come on. The nose was much hoppier than the Pale and so was the flavor. No sweetness till the very finish. An interesting beer. It was amber in color, light amber at that, and not amberish in any other way. Where was the caramel, or even chocolate? Nada. I did a blind taste test with my occasional brewing partner the amber vs the pale ale. As I expected he couldn't tell them apart. There is something amiss here, but wasn't a bad beer. The two specialties on tap were a Double-Berry Wheat and a Sweet Stout. After judging fruit beers at a recent competition I was looking forward to the Double-Berry. And Boy did it come through! Berries everywhere! From the aroma I was guessing Raspberries and Strawberries, which I thought was really impressive! The waitress helped us out and told us it was Blackberries and Raspberries and bittered with Orange peel. It still smelled like strawberries to me. Both of the Wheats were 60/40 barley/wheat blends. And this one was Very Very Nice. Even better than the Pale Ale and it puts Sam Adams Cherry Wheat to shame. Picking up the Stout and just admiring it, it still had plenty of head left. It gave me the feeling we saved the best for last. Rich and roasted, sweet with a tartness in the finish. This beer just plays with your tongue, playfully bouncing back and forth from sweet to sour. What a pleasure to drink. The Brussels lace went down the glass in concentric circles making me think of someone like Gandolf blowing smoke rings in an old English pub. An Outstanding Stout. A stout so nice even Larry Bell might pay to drink it. And all of us Michiganders know how Larry feels about stout. (Never made one he wouldn't sell. And he sells a lot of different stouts) Which brings me around to Eric's comparison of Kalamazoo Brewing Company's (Bell's) efforts to that of a brew pubs mash schedule and beer profiles. Even less fair!! Bells is not a brewpub! Its a Micro--and not a small one at that. Comparing Larry Bell, with an average brewpub doing single infusion single yeast brewing is only as similar as comparing the national homebrew competition with the GABF. There is an unfair technical and experience level difference. Bell's newest beer is Batch 3,000 Duly named from surpassing the 3,000 point earlier this year. I've never met a brewpub brewer that had more than 1,500 batches under his belt. I have to agree with both Eric and Scott. Too many brewpubs I've visited have "house flavors' largely from using the same yeast the same way. I've drank enough beer at my local pub to tell pick out Nottingham just about where ever else I go. Ringwood is also easy find and over used, though the Peter Austin/Puglsy brew system is a hint and a half. But it comes back to Eric's first point, it depends on the skill level of the Brewer. Really good brewers can use the same yeast at different temp and pressure profiles to achieve very different characteristics. Nottingham is Very versatile this way. Market factors may help set the standard fare, but the "Brewers Choice" is still the Brewers choice. I have yet to see a brewer "choose" to make bland beer. Ok, Adolfus Busch III, who does it on TV all the time... Scott writes: > Would it be fair to say that if >all of your beers are made with a single temperature infusion mash, >and 80% 2-row, and you use the same yeast strain for each, and the >same fermentation strategy, that you're going to end up with beers >that all pretty much taste the same? I say yes if I can replace "taste the same" with "have similar house flavor?" Phil Wilcox President-Prison City Brewers aka the Poison Frog Home Brewer Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:40:17 -0400 From: "Nate Wahl" <cruiser at dcache.net> Subject: Microwave for sanitation? I've seen threads on using Microwaved starters in the archives, but nothing on using Microwave ovens for sanitation. It seems that zapping equipment that would fit in there sure would be convenient; things like tubing, funnels, grain/hop bags, airlocks and maybe even hops that are not boiled (dry hops) for a short time . As a test, I put a short piece of tubing in there, with some water in the middle and the ends held up. The water got hot to the point of boiling over the entire length, so the microwaves do penetrate plastics. I found some info on the net with regard to cooking utinsels, and it stated that nuking them ended up with no live bacteria left on their surfaces, but not many were materials that we would use. Sponges and rags were mentioned, and came "clean" at one minute dry or three minutes wet. Curiously, it said that there was no effect on plastic cutting boards. I guess the question is how effective would this be? What "flux level" (time) would be needed? Is it the radiation, or just the heat generated that does the killing? It'd sure be easier than running idophor thru the hoses, with no residuals and such, and be safer than using boiling water (I hate starting those siphons!). Is there any more info out there? Experiences? Opinions? Thanks, Nate Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:01:04 -0400 From: Bruce Daniels <bdaniels at Hamptons.Com> Subject: Topping water and OG Is there a rough formula for topping off wort in the primary with water to get the new OG? Say I boil a little to vigorously, and only end up with 4-1/2 gallons in my primary. I check the OG and find it is a little high. I would like a way to calculate the amount of water to add to get my desired OG. Thank you Bruce Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 07:10:25 -0400 From: haafbrau1 at juno.com Subject: Latin 101 What is Latin for "life with beer for ever more". Paul Haaf haafbrau1 at juno.com _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 98 08:55:14 PDT From: "George De Piro" <gdepiro at fcc.net> Subject: Weizen yeast Hi all, Steve asks about Weizen yeasts and their tendency to autolyze (under the subject line "Weizen to live"). It's pronounced more like "Vytsahn," not "Weezen." It made it difficult for me to get your pun. Sort of a "Fuddian" play on pronunciation. The info I posted is not new to the HBD. Back in Feb. Hubert Hangofer and I were having a discussion about this stuff and he was kind enough to translate and post some relevant points from a Feb. 1998 Weihenstephan technical lecture that his son attended. I don't have it here or I'd end it on to you. Search Hubert's name in the archives. Basically it showed that a number of German Weizen brewers pasteurize their beer to avoid autolysis problems. I assumed (I know, a bad thing) that not every German brewer is using the same yeast strain for their Weizen (actually, not an assumption; I know that is a fact, but I don't know that about the ones in the paper that Hubert posted), so I lumped all Weizen strains together as having a tendency to autolyze. That could be wrong. Have fun! George De Piro (Nyack, NY) Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 06:33:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: cooling/ HSA In HBD #2803 (August 20, 1998), "Dr. Pivo" wrote: >>>> I've got some good news, some bad news, and some very bad news. (I am presenting this in the perspective of the HBD tradition of vociferously chanting the cause, of industrial brewing literature). I have been experimenting with "chilled vs. nonchilled" and "non chilled normal treated vs. non chilled intentionally created HSA" batches. I have triangle tested these (thanks for that tip Mr. Louis K. Bonham). [snip] The very bad news, was that the intentionally created "HSA" (does that stand for Heirarchically Submitted Answers?) was so far from being "significant" that it does not bear repeating in that test format. When I get my backside removed from it's comfortable position placed on my left thumb, I'll try and write up some sort of "material and methods" thing, plus a critique of possible introduced variables, confounders, and the like that have occurred in this 'spearment-- That really is the meat of doing any of this stuff (look for your errors, and you'll likely find what is valid). <<<< One thing I'd be interested in knowing is how old the beer was when it was sampled for any negative effects due to HSA. I believe it was George DePiro who posted that Seibel indicates that it typically takes a couple of months for the effects of HSA to appear, as opposed to just a couple of weeks for off flavors to appear resulting from post-fermentation oxidation (please correct me if I'm wrong, George). If you used young beer, and the information I recall is correct, it could be that your tasting attempted to detect something that wouldn't be present in the beer. But it might be present a few months from now. It would be interesting to do another tasting say three months from now to determine if any off flavors have appeared by then. -Steve in Indianapolis _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:36:24 -0500 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: First Wort Hopping Greetings: FWH has been an area of discussion on and off for a long time now. Has anybody established or agrred upon anything like a formula for calculating the affect? I know there is already some question about the validity of conventional hop bittering formulas. Maybe this is a good area for somebody like Louis Bonham to explore in his BT column. Maybe it would be a good idea for the next HBD experiment. I don't get to brew enough to develop enough data by myself in a reasonable time frame. But I do use conventional IBU calcs and find them helpful in designing recipes. I would like to do more continental style lagers in the future where FWH appears to be more appropriate. Cheers! Lou Heavner - Austin, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:14:02 +0930 From: "Brad McMahon" <brad at sa.apana.org.au> Subject: Re: your last post on HBD wrt freezing yeast > > Brad: > > Thanks for your post on your success on freezing > yeast. Could you elaborate on the details ? > How do you re-use this frozen solution ? What are > your preparation steps for actually making the > glycerine solution ? Private e-mail ok, but I'm > sure the HBD would benefit from your methods. > > Thanks > > Art Beall Oh OK then Art, I will reveal all! I'm not sure what you call glycerine, Americans do everything differently :-) You might be able to find it as glycerine,glycerol or maybe even glycol from your pharmacy or probably cheaper from the supermarket. It is used externally to soften rough skin, or used internally as a laxative. Don't worry, the amounts you are using (less than a teaspoon in my case) in a 5 gallon batch isn't going to cause your next party to move into the bathroom. To store the yeast I use 10mL plastic blood sample vials, you'll have to know a doctor or a nurse if you don't want to pay. Other than that, any small pill bottle or whatever will do. To prepare the solution mix water with the glycerine in equal proportions, boil quickly, cool and store in freezer, you will notice that it won't freeze.. aha! Just quarter fill up the vial with the yeast you are saving, and then top up with the solution, and store in the freezer, takes up no room at all! I usually bottle a few vials of each strain. The solution won't freeze so the yeast walls don't rupture. The big yeast banks, from what I've heard, store their yeast this way. I haven't tested how long they survive, but I've heard a year or so, and probably longer. To prepare, just make a small starter (200-500 mL) and then transfer that to your large (2L) starter as usual. Brad Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 10:04:14 -0700 From: "Grant W. Knechtel" <GWK at hartcrowser.com> Subject: Re: Calculating increases in batch size Dave Grommons asks in HBD2803: -snip- Can anyone give me some >>detailed<< guidance on calculating the increase in grains, hop scheduling, yeast prep and sparge time: 1. Is a one pint starter of yeast enough for a larger batch, or should I start a quart or more? One pint is under pitching for 5 gallons, and even more so for larger batches. If longer lag times and increased risk of infection are acceptable, then stick with your existing starter size. Otherwise step your starter up larger proportional to your batch increase to keep lag roughly the same. -snip- 2. How do I figure the proportional increase in grains? For a first order approximation, increase proportionally, ie if you go from 5 to 10 gallons, use double the amount of grains. You may find that a change in equipment for larger batches will also change your efficiency, so your recipes may need fine tuning later. Unfortunately, there's no way to know what these changes will be beforehand. -snip- 3. Hop bitterness doesn't seem that tough to figure out, but I could use some advice as well as for hop aroma. Again, changes in equipment such as a larger boiling pot or hotter burner causing more vigorous boil may change your utilization, but in general a proportional increase will be called for with fine tuning later. Aroma hops should also be changed in proportion, but bear in mind if you steeped while chilling before, the time spent chilling may also change. Try to keep steeping time and temperature roughly the same. Fine tuning will likely be needed. The Beer Recipator online at the Brewery website is a good place to play with recipe formulation, changing batch sizes and factors such as utilization and efficiency. Prost! -Grant Neue Des Moines Hausbrauerei Des Moines, Washington Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 11:31:00 -0700 From: "Mike Allred" <mike.allred at malnove.com> Subject: Some more thoughts on bottle baking Rod Wellman saids: >I've never covered mine while in the oven. I figure that there aren't a >whole lot of alive bacteria in an oven, anyway. The point of putting the foil on is so that when they cool, they aren't exposed to the outside air. You just put them away and not worry about it. They are not sanitized, they are sterilized (unless you use the 200 deg temp). Now, I know that as they cool, some air will be sucked passed the foil and into the bottle, but I am not that anal yet. Rod Wellman saids: >I preheat the oven to 200 degrees before placing them inside. Then I leave >them in NO longer than 15 minutes at 200 degrees. I believe 180 degrees is >the point at which bacteria dies. 200 is plenty safe. One of the reason that I bake bottles, is to kill the mold that grows in them. I have 20 cases of anchor bottles (in the shed away from my beer stuff) that I snagged from the mountain brewers beer fest last year, I have not cleaned them all which has led to the 'mold cake' on the bottom. I clean them and then bake then at 350 to make sure that they are good. Again, the point of baking is twofold, convenience and to sterilize. Adjust your method as needed. Rod Wellman saids: >I have heard that higher temperatures and longer times in the oven my weaken the structure of the glass. Once done, I let them cool in the oven for awhile I don't have any evidence except that I have never had a problem yet with bottles breaking or exploding (I have some that have been through this process 10-15 times). But you may be right. Rod Wellman saids: >, then remove >and put into my long-neck case boxes and cover the tops of the bottles with >cellophane wrap to keep air out until bottling. (Don't touch the openings of >the bottles when you remove them. I use a clean dishtowel...it also acts >as a hotpad). You can skip this step if you use foil. And how do you keep the celo from coming off the bottle? Rod Wellman saids: > I've stored them this way for up to a week, but it's >probably best to bottle sooner rather than later. I have stored my bottles for about 6 months and used them without a single bottle infection. Again, this is one of the reasons I bake, convenience. I always have bottles ready, I bake them when I'm bored and keep them until needed. I can bottle 5 gallons in about one hour. I'm not trashing your method (believe me.. allot of people disagree with mine), but we both have different reasons for doing what we do. I hope this doesn't sound like fighting words or nitpicking... just a discussion. Rod Wellman saids: >I've ever done it, but I don't think pouring 70 degree beer into a 150 degree >bottle would be good for it. I could care less about the bottle, what about your beer.. yuck. Peace to all and never stop brewing. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:32:55 From: "William W. Macher" <macher at telerama.lm.com> Subject: Where's that infection??? Greetings to the collective! About five or six weeks ago, after transferring my somewhat oxygenated wort into a primary, I had about 600ml extra, which I put into a 1 liter flask, and into the refrigerator, covered with a piece of plastic wrap held tight with a rubber band. I was thinking that I could use this wort for a starter, or whatever... You pick the excuse, but since then I have not brewed...and so, I figured I would just dump this stuff, and forget it. I took it out of the fridge, and set the flask on a shelf...and noticed the next day that there was some activity going on. I removed the rubber band, and let the plastic wrap lay on the flask opening. Humm... wonder what this thing might taste like... The next day or two, there was a nice thick inch of foam on top and the smell was not unpleasant at all. Now I am getting interested! What is this thing going to taste like? I added nothing to it... whatever is working on it had to come out of the air in the kitchen...this thing does not smell too bad! Last night was the night. My last keg ran out a couple days ago, so I knew I would be compelled to open nothing less than a can of keg-wash to "enjoy" with dinner...things were looking pretty bad at that point.... To make matters worse, my last carboy of previously brewed beer, which has been sitting in a "clearing carboy" in the beer fridge for the last month (purely due to my lack of ambition...) has yet to call loudly enough to shame me into moving it into a keg. A good beer was there... but beyond my reach if I wanted to drink it carbonated! The activity in the flask, which had been setting in a relatively dark location for those several days, had died down, and what better time to taste it than when the only alternative was...you know, that stuff... Anyway, off to the kitchen we go to grab a small glass, into which goes a taste. All the while I am mentally preparing for the worst...dredging up memories from the distant past...remember that rotten mango??? How about that raw egg you ate when showing off as a kid...those deep fried bugs you had years ago in Northern Thailand...and then there was...YUCK! Let's suppress THAT memory! Prepared for the worst, I lifted that little four ounce glass and took a sip. Surprise. Not bad at all. I called my assistant taster...away from the stove for a moment... "Umm, good!" she says... So now I am puzzled. I have read mention of wort stability tests on the HBD. Has anyone made it a habit of tasting the wort after it has done its thing during a WST? I am now thinking of taking a sample of future batches and letting them ferment on their own, like this one did, as a learning experience... would this be worthwhile, or a waste of time? My intent would be to learn more about the "bugs" that may share my living space with me...and also maybe learn what infections taste like. Is there any risk if I would do this? I mean like botch....opps! I didn't say that word, Honest! And what did I do with the rest of the stuff in that flask? The only thing a respectable HBDer would: I mixed with that bland stuff that came out of that aluminum can...Worked for me! I know we all try to make the best, uninfected brews we can. But has anyone actually made an effort to learn the tastes of infections by letting a sequence of samples do their own thing and tasting the results? Wasn't my sample ruined? Is my taste so poor that I can enjoy anything? After typing this, and reflecting upon my movements on brew day, my guess is that I probably "contaminated" the wort sample with some brewers yeast. I had dropped the wort onto the yeast cake of a previous batch, and there may have been some yeast picked up by the sanitized plastic tube if it touched the neck of the carboy... Bottom line question: Is it a bad idea to let samples of wort ferment on their own, and then taste them? Would this be a useful learning experience? Have a great day! (And many thanks to Karl and Pat....) Bill Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:58:26 -0500 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Salt and Ethanol Aaron Banerjee asks about measuring alcohol content with salt. This sounds like an idea with lots of potential and I'd love to hear more of the details (private e-mail will be fine). The simple explanation as to why this works is that salt and alcohol have marked effects upon the solubility of each other in water. Chemists frequently use "salting out" to concentrate organic substances dissolved in water. Ethanol, for example, is only "slightly soluble" in a concentrated salt solution though it is infinitely soluble in water. Conversely, salt isn't very soluble in ethanol. Thus an ethanol water solution can dissolve less salt than pure water. Food for thought. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:00:08 -0700 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> Subject: Looking for a Pump I am looking for a pump to transfer wort from kettle to fermenter and near finished beer from fermenter to keg. For years I got buy with an RV sink pump that worked well and I could easily vary the speed because it was DC. It conked out and I replaced it with a $90 AC job that is OK for the wort transfer but creates too much foam for the beer transfer and I have no way to slow it down. I guess I should have bought the DC version but didn't have the sense at the time. The major requirement that eliminates 99% of the pumps I see is that it has to be self priming as I must pump uphill in both cases. Can anyone recommend a pump and source? js - -- Visit our WEB pages: http://user.mc.net/arf ASTROPHOTO OF THE WEEK..... New Every Monday Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:34:01 -0500 From: Rod Wellman <rmw at williams.com> Subject: Re: Some more thoughts on bottle baking I've heard from a couple people on the subject of bottle baking. Most informative was an email from Spencer Thomas, who had this passage in his email to me: >Quoting from a post last year by George DePiro: > > Zymurgy Vol. 18 # 3 has a very nice article written by Jim Liddil > and John Palmer about sanitizers and their proper usage. ... > > 4. Heat. Heat comes in two forms: dry and wet. Wet heat is a > more effective sterilant than dry, but both are *sterilants*, as > opposed to sanitizers. Your oven or pressure cooker are perfect > for sterilizing heat resistant items such as glass and metal (be > careful with glass, of course: sudden changes in temperature will > crack even Pyrex, possibly causing injury). > > Dry heat can be applied as follows: 250F (121C) for 12 hours; 284F > (140C) for 3 hours; 320F (160C) for 2 hours; 338F (170C) for 1 > hour. > > Wet heat (pressure cooker) is faster: 257F (125C) at 20 psi for 20 > min. > > Jim and John point out that all of the above numbers are > conservative, so you probably won't have any problems achieving > good sanitation by following the instructions in their article. > Looks like I'll be re-thinking my procedure! It'd be just as easy to leave them in longer at higher temps...I'm still wondering about the glass issue though. Anybody know if it "weakens" it? Also, a couple of responses to Mike Allred's post are below. >One of the reason that I bake bottles, is to kill the mold that grows in >them. I have 20 cases of anchor bottles (in the shed away from my beer >stuff) that I snagged from the mountain brewers beer fest last year, I >have not cleaned them all which has led to the 'mold cake' on the bottom. > I clean them and then bake then at 350 to make sure that they are good. > Again, the point of baking is twofold, convenience and to sterilize. > Adjust your method as needed. > I got some really old Quart size Old Style bottles from a fellow homebrewer. Some had old beer inside which was more like vaporized powder caked on the bottom. I've also had a bottle or two with mold. I soak them in the kitchen sink (make sure they are submerged...that's the toughest part) in hot tap water with some dishwashing detergent for a couple of hours to loosen up the gunk. Then I use the faucent bottle washer apparatus which does a good job of "blowing out" the junk. THEN I wash with a bottle brush vigorously and rinse again with the faucet devise. I inspect carefully. Usually I can see no remnants of the gunk. I really don't want any of that stuff sitting in the bottom of my beer. I have plenty of bottles, so if one is particularly stubborn, I just toss it cause it takes too much time to clean. (The big ones I don't toss. They're way too cool!) As I said in my earlier post, it saves a lot of hassle to rinse each bottle and put upside down on a bottle tree immediately after (or at least the next morning) drinking it. >Rod Wellman saids: >>I have heard that higher temperatures and longer times in the oven my >>weaken the structure of the glass. >I don't have any evidence except that I have never had a problem yet with >bottles breaking or exploding (I have some that have been through this >process 10-15 times). But you may be right. > That's encouraging. If you've done this 10-15 times to the same bottles, then the heat must not be affecting them. Do you ever have bottles blow up? I can only remember a couple in my beer-brewing history, and I've done about 30 batches now. I guess some of that depends upon priming procedures, how much live yeast is left, how much and what kind of priming sugar is used, etc. Overall, I tend to like beers with good carbonation, even in styles where carbonation is supposed to be on the low side. Rod Wellman saids: >>, then remove and put into my long-neck case boxes and cover the tops of >>the bottles with cellophane wrap to keep air out until bottling. (Don't >>touch the openings of the bottles when you remove them. I use a clean >>dishtowel...it also acts as a hotpad). > >You can skip this step if you use foil. And how do you keep the celo >from coming off the bottle? I use two sheets of the celophane, overlapped in the middle a bit. Make it so that the sides are overlapping a bit as well. I store my bottles in the long-neck case paper boxes. When you close the lids on these boxes, it pushes down the celophane and, as long as you have some overlap, it kinda forces it to "seal up" the top of the bottles with celophane. I put the celophane on while the bottles are still a little bit warm (though not too warm as to melt it to the bottle!), and when it cools, it contracts creating a nice "stretched" seal on the top of the bottles. I'm sure foil works just as well, but it is much more expensive. >Rod Wellman saids: >> I've stored them this way for up to a week, but it's >>probably best to bottle sooner rather than later. > >I have stored my bottles for about 6 months and used them without a >single bottle infection. Again, this is one of the reasons I bake, >convenience. I always have bottles ready, I bake them when I'm bored and >keep them until needed. I can bottle 5 gallons in about one hour. I'm >not trashing your method (believe me.. allot of people disagree with >mine), but we both have different reasons for doing what we do. I hope >this doesn't sound like fighting words or nitpicking... just a >discussion. > I didn't get that impression at all. Just some good sharing of information. Maybe you'll adopt some of my ideas. Maybe I'll adopt some of yours. Sounds like we could both continue to do our own thing and probably be just fine! >Rod Wellman saids: >>I've ever done it, but I don't think pouring 70 degree beer into a 150 >degree >>bottle would be good for it. > >I could care less about the bottle, what about your beer.. yuck. > When I wrote that, I meant it wouldn't be good for the beeer...for the same reasons as pouring hot priming solution in the bottling bucket probably isn't good either. The concentrated heat may kill some of the active yeast. I don't care about the bottles either, but come to think of it, the sudden change of temperature may cause the glass to crack (see George's quote above). YIKES! That's bad for the bottle and the beer and my sanity..... >Peace to all and never stop brewing. > Been doing it for almost 2 years now, and I feel like I'm just getting warmed up! Rod Wellman Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 13:26:14 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: More Yeast >From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net >Subject: Re: Repitching 3 wk. old slurry >In HBD 2794 Dean Fikar <dfikar at flash.net asked about repitching >three wk. old slurry. >I have used ale slurry as much as eight months old, and lager slurry >as much as six months old, with good results. I take normal care >with sanitation in harvesting the slurry and store it in glass jars under >fully fermented beer at 34 to 38 degrees F. My method is not fool- >proof; I have lost an occasional jar to obvious infection. If you are talking about repitching a large amount of slurry then I personally feel this is a bad idea. Yeast that is this old will be largely dead. There fore you are dumping a large amount of autolyzed yeast and their contents into the beer. This will likely lead to various off flavors. If on the other hand you are talking about making a starter from this then this is OK, but not ideal. I would make a starter and allow it to begin fermetnation and then decant it to a new container to leave the dead yeast behind. But this is inly what I would do as governed by what I know and how I want my beer to taste. You may do waht ever works for you and you feel comfortable with. >Dead but uninfected slurry can be a very effective yeast nutrient in >a cider or a mead. All malt wort on the other hand should have plenty of nutrients. >From: Fred Johnson <FLJohnson at worldnet.att.net >Subject: Why multi-step starters? >I have read much about the need to step up starters gradually, i.e., one >should not increase the volume of the starter more than about 5-fold at >each step. I contrast this with the fact that the liquid yeast suppliers >sell their products of about 50 mL yeast cultures to be pitched into 5 >gallons of wort. Now, I'm not asking, "What's the need for a starter?". One reason to do multiple samll steps is this. By pitching a relatively large amount of yeast into a small volume of wort one ensures that the yeast utilize the sugar quickly that bacteria might otherwise use. Also the oxygen is utilized rapidly and the pH drops rapidly thus minimizing the chances that anything but yeat will gorw in the media. By scaling up no more than 1:10 the chances of bacteria growing to any appreciable extent are reduced. Also the yeast that you start with regardless of the manufacturer mya not be completley free of bacteria. Wyeast on their web site says "Bacteria ; < 1 cfu / ml" This is not zero. Thus if you put 50 ml into 3 liters of wort you run the risk of a few stray bugs growing quickly. Now if you have a laminar flow hood and start with a pure bacteria free yeast and sterile media then there is no reason not to innoculate 3 liters of wrt and put it on a stir plate and let it rip. The yeast will be supplied wiht plenty of oxygen so they are nice and happy. But again do what you feel is best. This is only what I do and what works for me. >From: "Mike Fitzpatrick" <fitzbrew at earthlink.net >Subject: Magnetic stir plates and starters >1) Will I need to use as much volume, I.e.;can I eliminate the third day of >adding wort and start a day later with it and still be ok with the yeast >count? I would stick to this volume. I'll show calculations antoher time. Let it ferment out and allow the yeast to settle and only add the flocullated yeast not the supernatant. But do what works for you. >2) Should the stir plate be left on for the duration of the starter? Also, >should it be on so that it just swirls the yeast, or high enough to really >mix it into a frenzy? (oops! two questions in one) I leave it on the whole time and yes I get a vortex going so I know the yeast is well mixed. This also keeps the wort aerated and releases CO2 from solution. They do this at you know where also. But again do what makes you feel good. I set the speed on 4, for my stir plate that goes to 11. :-) >3) What is the best way to sanitize the stir bars? Can they be boiled, or >use Iodophor or bleach solution? I prepare 3 liters in a 4 liter pyrex acid bottle via boiling. I leave the stir bar in the wort while it boils. Thus it is sterile. I use an antifoam agent so I can boil hard and also as the starter ferments it won't foam over. Stir bars are teflon coated these days, unless you have some of the homemade ones like those described in Psychedelic Guide to the Preparation of the Eucharist Dr Pivo wrote: >The good news is that there is "almost" a statistical significant Sorry but there is no almost about stat. sig. Either it is or it is not. You perform a t-test (provided you have enough data points) and at a p-value < 0.05 either it is or it is not. It's like sterile. Oh and I like to send my bottles out for gamma irradiation so they are sterile and I don't have to worry about heating up the house with the pressure cooker or oven. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 14:40:49 -0400 From: Jim Bentson <jbentson at longisland.com> Subject: Exponentials and Logarithmns Hi All: Like the chef that backed into the meat slicer, I have been getting behind in my work, so I am just reading last weeks thread on exponential growth. I think that while most comments had some facts in them, the most interesting feature of an exponential growth was missed. It is also the easiest to understand for a lay-person. A exponential growth curve has the property that the time it takes to grow by any fixed multiplier( e.g. double) is constant. For example, if you have exponential growth and have 100 little beasties initially and you find it takes 5 seconds to reach 200 beasties, then the time to double is 5 secs.You then will have 400 after another 5 sec, 800 after the next 5 sec. etc. See the trend? If you doubled in the first 5 sec., then every five sec after that you double from the previous value. The number 5 sec is just for illustration. In actual practice you normally take two measurements over a time period and then take the ratio of the larger to the smaller measurement to get the growth multiplier for the measured time interval. On last feature to mention is that there can also be exponential "decay" where something diminishes exponentially. Those who understood the above should be able to figure out that here the curve will be diminished by a constant multiplier every time a fixed interval passes ( ie you will get 1/2 or 1/3 or any fraction less than one over a fixed time interval). As far as logarithms are concerned. AJ was correct that the logarithmic phase and exponential phase are semantics. Exponential is actually the only correct one. The logarithm is actually the "inverse" function for the exponential. That is the function used on an exponential to get back the "input" to the exponential. Thus, if y=exp(x) then ln(y) = ln(exp(x)) = x. Notice that "y" was gotten by taking the "exponential" of the input x. If we take the logarithm of y we get x back again. Thus we have " inverted" the exponential operation. Here "ln" is the "natural" logarithm used in mathematics. Hope this sheds a little light on one of mathematics more interesting functions. For brewers it simply gives you a way to predict when you will reach a certain level in the future based on two measurements made in the present. Jim Bentson Centerport NY Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/21/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96