HOMEBREW Digest #2805 Sat 22 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 Data (Jim Liddil)
  Keg Pressure (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson at mci.com>
  Salt in your Beer (AJ)
  Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) performance (Larry Azlin)
  froach (Aaron Marchand)
  Obvious the most casual observer ("Michel J. Brown")
  Topping/Et Vitam.. (AJ)
  cider? or not? (Jebbly)
  Beer on the History Channel ("Gabrielle Palmer")
  HSA (again?) ("Dr. Pivo")
  re: freezing yeast ("Brian J. Paszkiet")
  Statistical Significance ("Frederick J. Wills")
  Mort's Magnificent Seven (Charley Burns)
  Pump Speed Control (SBireley)
  Re: "Weakened" glass; removing mold ("John A. MacLaughlin")
  RE: Nitrogen and Refrigerators (John Wilkinson)
  RE: : Where's that infection??? (LaBorde, Ronald)
  soda pumps ("Erik Vanthilt")
  RE: Looking for a Pump (LaBorde, Ronald)
  Jalopena Beer Recipes? ("Michael O. Hanson")
  Even More Yeast (by way of Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>)

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: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 15:36:50 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: Yeast Data Mort Sullivan posted some data on yeast #'s. How was the yeast counting done? Did you dilute in water with methylene blue? Also I would find it hard to believe that 80% as in one or 98% of the yeast that were put into the wyeast package were still viable. Did you use NaOH or something similar to get rid of all the protein particles and what I would expect to be autolyzed yeast? Data on the wyeast site says that Average cell counts are 35 - 75 X 10e8/ ml for the concentrate. But the data is ambiguous since it also is the same link used for the microbrewing page. There is no indication of what is actually in the package. If we use Mort's #'s of an average of 2e5/ml at pitching and do some math we get this. At pitching 2e5/ml (assume 1% lipid) one division 4e5/ml (0.5% lipid) 2nd division 8e5/ml (0.25% lipid) 3rd division 1.6e6/ml (o.125% lipid) Note that these packages are sealed an probably have very little oxygen in them. But for arguments sake let's say there is a source of preformed lipids in the package. And let's make a leap in faith and say that the yeast will have 1% lipid content at pitching. At the fourth division the yeast have only 0.125% lipid and the cell count is very low (below a normal pitching level for normal brewery fermentations) And the package does say NOTE: A STARTER CULTURE CAN BE MADE of a pint. At 0.125% lipid the yeast are feeble at best. The take home message is that you are better of pitching a package of dry yeast (see mort's other data) than pitching a swelled pack of wyeast. And it's no wonder homebrewers end up with all kinds of off flavors using this method. Underpitching leads to high terminal gravities because the yeast is too weak to ferment anymore. The low pitching rate means that bacteria can get a foothold in the beer before the yeast consume all the oxygen and drop the pH and produce alcohol. But remember this is merely a mild suggestion. I suggest you do what works for you. But if you are going to spend a bunch of money on brewing equipment (RIMS, SABCO units, three tiered systems, decoction mashing) then spending a little money on making adequate starters might be a good idea. Then again maybe not. Quiz for the day. Reread the BT article in vol. 6 no.1 by Louis Bonham and do some math. It's no mystery to me why a 16.5 P beer stuck. :-) Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 09:58:46 -0600 From: "Wilson, Todd (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson at mci.com> Subject: Keg Pressure I have 3 kegs hanging off of a 3 way manifold in my fridge. If the pressure on my co2 is set to 15psi am I getting 15psi to each keg or am I getting 5psi to each keg? Thanks Todd Wilson Alexandria, VA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 23:06:55 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Salt in your Beer Having been thinking about Aaron Banerjee's question all day I took to the lab (my silly wife calls this facility a "kitchen") this evening to see what I could learn in the hopes of coming up with a simple method that we could use to estimate the alcohol content of our beers. At this point it looks as if I can confirm the theory but was not successful in making it work on actual beer. I made dilutions of denatured alcohol (labeled 94 - 96% which I called 95%) of 0% (i.e. no EtOH), 1%, 2%,5% and 7% with deionized water. I put 10 mL of each dilution into a 25 mL mixing cylinder and added 4 grams sodium chloride (ACS grade). As the solubility of NaCl in water is about 3.6 g in 10 mL this insured that I had an excess. I inverted the cylinder many times to insure good mixing and then let it stand for a few minutes to be sure undissolved particles had a chance to settle to the bottom. I then carefully withdrew a 1 mL aliquot with a pipetter being certain that no undissolved NaCl got transferred. The aliquot was diluted to a liter and the conductivity of the dilution measured. ABV vs. conductivity is fit quite well by a straight line (r = 0.992) which means that we can use this technique pretty effectively for finding the amount of alcohol dissolved in water. When it came to beer, however, things didn't work out so well. I measured a lager with an ABV of 5.95% using exactly the same technique as for the calibration samples. The estimate for ABV using the calibration regression was 10.5%. Not so good. Clearly there must be things in beer which suppress the solubility of salt in addition to EtOH. It might be possible to get around this by making calibration curve of solubility of salt vs ABV for beers whose ABV's are known. I suspect that the differing compositions of beers WRT things like dextrines and brewing water might make this difficult. It's still an intriqueing idea and I'm looking forward to getting more detail from Aaron. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 19:30:06 -0700 From: Larry Azlin <espresso at dsp.net> Subject: Wyeast 1098 (British Ale) performance In #2801, Dave Humes describes a problem with Wyeast 1098 not fermenting a batch of American Pale Ale to completion. I've also had this problem with 1098, though when brewing a stout. Both times I ended up with a TG of about 1.020. My procedure was somewhat different, however. In an attempt to optimize my process, I followed a suggestion from The Brewery technical library. I created a 3L batch of starter, pitched it with a smack pac, allowed it to ferment to completion, and bottled the results. These bottle were then stored in the 'fridge for way too long. The day before brewing, I created at 500ml starter using the sediment from one of these bottles in 1.040 wort. On brew day it looked, smelled and tasted fine, so I pitched it. The batch fermented like crazy for the first two days, then just stopped! This has happened twice now. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 01:41:40 -0400 From: Aaron Marchand <bd690 at sprint.ca> Subject: froach Two freinds of my father have a nusery that specialises in Heather (plants not people !) I wanted to make a Scottish heather beer like Froach and was wondering if anyone knows what kind of heather is used. Any recipe suggestions would be appreciated. thanks in advance Aaron Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 03:26:16 -0700 From: "Michel J. Brown" <homemade at spiritone.com> Subject: Obvious the most casual observer >Second - What sauce do you serve with baked bottles? Obviously, you would choose BEERNAISE sauce ;^) Dr. Michel J. Brown, D.C. {Portland, OR} 2222 miles due west of Jeff Renner homemade at spiritone.com http://www.spiritone.com/~homemade/index.html "In the field of observation, chance favors only the prepared mind" L. Pasteur Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:11:34 -0400 From: AJ <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Topping/Et Vitam.. Bruce Daniels asked for a simple method for gravity adjustment. Let's illustrate with an example. You have 4 gallons of wort at1.052 and you want 1.048. First, you need to know the amount of extract in a gallon of wort. Start by converting the specific gravity to degreed Plato. Subtract 1 from the specific gravity, multiply by 1000 and divide by 4. (1.052 -1)/1000/4 = 13P. This means that 100 grams of your wort contains about 13 grams of sugar or 1000 grams contains 130. Divide 1000 by the specific gravity to see how many mL of wort weigh a kg. (1000/1.052) = 950.57. Thus 0.9507L of wort contains 130 grams of sugar and the sugar content of the wort is 130/.9507 = 136.76 grams/liter. It is clearly simpler to just multiply 130 by the specific gravity. You have 4 gallons (4*3.78 = 15.12L) with 136.76 g/L so that the total extract is 2067.81 grams. Now calculate grams per liter for the target gravity (1.048) in the same way. SG 1.048 corresponds to 12 P. Now get the g/L by multiplying 10 times the Plato value by the SG: 120*1.048 = 125.76 grams per liter extract. You have 2067.81 grams extract in the kettle and thus would need a total of 2067.81/125.76 = 16.44 liters to hit a gravity of 1.048. You had 15.12L so you should add 1.32 liters more. You should actually add water to bring the total volume to 16.44 L but just adding 1.3L of water will be accurate enough. Don't forget to think about temperature dependency in measuring gravity. Also note that the factor of 4 relationship between Plato and SG is approximate (1.048 wort is actually 11.912% extract by weight). More exact numbers can be had from tables publised in several sources and numerous polynomial approxiations have appeared in HBD over the years. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * >What is Latin for "life with beer for ever more". >Paul Haaf .Preceded by "Credo in", there's a pleasingly familiar ring to "vitam cerevisiae venturi saeculi omnia". Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:53:06 EDT From: Jebbly at aol.com Subject: cider? or not? Many thanks to Phil and Grant for their info on increasing mash sizes. I'll be brewing some 15 gal jobs in Sep and will pass on what I learn to all in the future. I recently tasted a >>wonderful<< draft beer at Dressel's Pub (ST. Louis, MO) called Double Dragon Ale. This is a Welsh ale from the Felinfoel (sp?) Brewery. A few years ago I had a chance to try some draft Fuller's ESB at the Irish Rover in Louisville, KY. (I include the names and locations for you all as these are great places to visit!) Both ales receive high ratings from critiques. In both beers I tasted, what seems to me to be, a cidery flavor which I find quite pleasant. Additionally, this is not as prominant in the bottled versions. In my reading, however, cidery flavors are a "flaw". Maybe my definition of "cidery" is different than the books, but it confuses me. Is this fruity taste really "cidery" or is there another term for it? More importantly, where does it come from? I've tried to replicate it by fermenting at higher temps and/or adding corn sugar to the wort, but to no avail. My guess is it may be in the strains of yeast. Could that be? Dave Grommons Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 09:22:57 -0400 From: "Gabrielle Palmer" <gpalmer6 at ford.com> Subject: Beer on the History Channel Thought you might be interested... There is a one hour documentary that is being aired on the History Channel called "Empires of Industry: Brewed in America". The short description that I have about the show says "Breweries; 17th-century beer; small breweries and corporate giants; Prohibition." It will be aired twice in the next week, on Sunday, August 23 at 8:00pm and on Monday, August 24 at 12:00am. So, set your VCR! - -- Cheers! Gabrielle Palmer Ford Vehicle Operations - Die Design Standards Department Cube: GB-M71 Building: Product Development Center Phone: (313)594-2107 PROFS ID: GPALMER6 Fax: (313)322-4359 internet: gpalmer6 at be0962.pd3.ford.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 15:49:25 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se> Subject: HSA (again?) Steve in Indianapolis wrote in reponse to my preliminary HSA experiment results, which showed you can hardly create the stuff if you try..... <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...... "(snip) You might recall my opening premise.... <(I am presenting this in the perspective of the HBD tradition of <vociferously chanting the cause, of industrial brewing literature) Now Steve, I want both you and George to stand up, put your right hand on your heart, and repeat after me: "GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!". Now, I want you both to put the palm of your left hand on the back of your head, with your five fingers extended in the air and say: "Now I am a hedgehog." This last thing had of course nothing to do with anything, but can be pretty entertaining for someone sitting next to you at the moment.... especially if their sense of humour stagnated at the age of seven (like myself). These beers were sampled between 6 and 8 weeks of age. I'll go into detail about my speculations about this, and its relevance, when I post. It has been previously suggested that long term storage is when this Hydra throws its multiple heads about, but only when I have stated that I've never met the beast in my own brews, despite changing techniques back and forth, and occasionally being quite "splash happy". It's kind of interesting that this vile threat keeps getting pushed farther and farther into the future, the more often it never arrives in the present. "Staling" will not only be related to time, but temperature, and a myriad of things that can hasten beer on it's inevitable slippery road to oxidation. I think HSA is WAY down that list, and given an inordinate ammount of undeserved airtime. Since I prefer a very volatile hop flavour in my beer, I know that there is a limitation on "when it is best" already. I'm not particularly worried about theoretical stipulations about what will make a bad situation worse. I HOMEbrew, because I love those fresh complex flavours in a beer, cannot buy them in a bottle in a shop, and only find them outside of my own cellar when either: a) visiting another homebrewer, or b) traveling to areas where traditional great beer is made (England, Belgium, Germany, and the Czech Republic come to mind). Why should I think (or other homebrewer's be led to believe) that this industrial concern is also relevant to them? Whatever I get out of this, I don't think I'll be reccomending brewers to "thump the bejeezus out of it! It don't make a bit of difference!" All small streams lead to rivers. What I do think is that it is a pretty inconsequential concern, and irrelevant compared to oxidative effects induced later. The reason I took upon me to do some testing with this, is the only "practical" information I've seen previously presented, has been on the order of: "Boy, since I started gently ladleing my mash, over the back of a spoon, into the lautering tun, I've got much longer lasting beer....er, that is of the two I've done, except one of them..... which got infected", or: "Since I tightened up all of the invisable leaks in my return line, I've noticed a sharp decline in Sherry-like flavours". I suppose those sorts of comments are "food for thought", but I'd say more likely "food for plants".....and that sort of fertiliser would probably best be shoveled in the back yard, than presented as any guidelines for brewing. This stuff is really not hard to test. I don't see why it isn't done more, instead of presenting anectdotal information where the only "analysis" is purely subjective descriptions, coloured by the perceptions of people who seem very interested in having their results agree with the literature they've read. I'll try and wite this stuff up soon, promise. I don't think there are any wide reaching implications of the stuff I've done (except that it has been WAY over emphasised), and there are plenty of gaping holes in the clothwork of my methods, the ones of which I have discovered I'll point out, plus possible errors in results they would lead to. Gotta stop now before I run out of puns or biting comments, that I'd have liked to have saved for the "finished product"..... besides, I haven't time, now. I'm heading to Ireland for a bit (can't imagine WHAT I'll be doing there?). Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 08:51:53 -0500 From: "Brian J. Paszkiet" <bpaszkie at ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Subject: re: freezing yeast I wanted to comment on a recent discussion regarding freezer storage of yeast. Comments thus far have included: > 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! 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" I work in a microbiology lab, and routinely freeze yeast and bacteria with an approximately 10% glycerol solution. However, I store them in a -80 deg C freezer (or in liquid nitrogen) where the cells can remain viable for years. I didn't think a typical home freezer got cold enough to keep the cells viable for very long. I'd be curious to hear how long they are viable in a home freezer (a year sounds kind of long for those temps). Brian P. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 10:24:35 -0400 From: "Frederick J. Wills" <Frederick_Wills at compuserve.com> Subject: Statistical Significance In HBD 2804 Jim Liddil writes: "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." It was my understanding that a p-value of < 0.05 is merely an indication that the event is less than 5% probable. In effect we assign the term "statisticly significant" to anything with a better than 95% confidence level. I guess it all depends on what level of risk one is willing to take. OTOH, when using binary data sets (true/false, go/nogo, taste/no-taste, etc.) such as this it requires many more data samples to achieve a better than 95% confidence anyway. Cheers, Fred Wills Londonderry, NH Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 08:08 PDT From: caburns at egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns) Subject: Mort's Magnificent Seven Man did my brain sweat over this one. Scientific Notation and Metric systems tossed together with Degrees Plato is NOT my strong suit. But nevertheless, here's my attempt to use Mort's Magnificent Seven. Optimum pitching rate assumption: 1,000,000 cells per milliliter (ml) of 1 degree Plato of wort. 1,000 ml = 1 litre 5 gallons = 19 litres therefore 19,000 ml = 1 each 5 gallon batch In case you haven't figured it out yet, this is the long slow way to get around to final conclusion. Those of you good in this sort of math, can hit page down and go to the next post now. 1 batch of 1 degree plato wort therefore needs 19,000,000,000 (billion) cells. Assumption 2: 1 degree plato = .004 points of specific gravity (please correct me if I'm wrong here - its memory fading quickly). So, 1 batch of 1.004 (SG) wort needs 19,000,000,000 (billion) cells of yeast. 1 batch of 1.052 Pale Ale wort needs 247,000,000,000 (billion) cells of yeast! We're getting closer now. The worst case (least dense) sample out of Mort's Magnificent Seven (See hbd#2802) provided 2.0e+9 cells per gram of yeast cake. This converts to a "normal" number of 2,000,000,000. I know, you guys that are mathematically inclinded think I'm nuts for keeping all the zeros around. Well, now that I'm getting used to it, it does seem like a lot of typing for nothing, but... ok, so now we divide cells needed by cells per gram to get total grams needed: 247/2 = 123.5 grams. Mort was kind enough to provide the divisor in his follow up post to convert this semi liquid yeast cake in grams to fluid ounces: 29.5727. so, 123.5 / 29.5727 = 4.176 ounces (of yeast slurry for 5 gallon batch). 2 primary caveats: Assumes 2,000,000,000 (2.0e+9) cells per gm of yeast slurry (low density) Assumes 93 percent viability (very high). Assuming a 50% viability, we'd need to pitch 8.34 oz of slurry. Assuming a 25% viability, we'd need to pitch about a pint of slurry. My last 5 gallon batch of brown ale (sg 1.053) I pitched with about a pint of 1056 slurry (which had been in the fridge under distilled water for a couple of months). It took a good 18 hours to get action, even at 72F (ambient). Prior to that I pitched a 2 quart starter from a smakpack of 2206 into a 1.075 Bocktoberfest (layer of yeast only about 1/8" thick at bottom of starter). It took off with a krausen within 2 hours - but took 25-26 days to ferment out. So, I think both quantity of yeast PLUS state (ie active or dormant) makes a huge difference in visible lag time and the total ferment time. More active yeast makes shorter lag time, but not necessarily a shorter ferment time. The brown finished at 1.010 in 4 days (quick total time, but long lag time). Any comments from the collective. I need to go rest my brain now. Charley (measuring ounces but not counting cells any more) in N. Cal Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 11:29:37 EST From: SBireley at renex.com Subject: Pump Speed Control AC pumps can be controlled using an SCR (Silicone Controlled Rectifier) type speed control. Separate speed controls for routers and the like can be purchased from Home Depot for about $35 and should work pretty well. I built on out of an SCR type fan speed control which has been in use for 10 batches, and works great. We use it primarily for controlling the recirulation speed in the mash tun but it could be used for transfers also. Good Luck! Steve Nothern VA Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 12:47:31 -0400 From: "John A. MacLaughlin" <jam at clark.net> Subject: Re: "Weakened" glass; removing mold In HBD #2804 Rod Wellman <rmw at williams.com> asks about heat "weakening" glass. Some glassware has air bubbles trapped in its walls. When the article is heated the air expands faster than the glass, producing local stress which can cause sudden, dramatic failure of the article. Because of normal variations in how and how much we heat and cool an article it can go through many cycles before we have the bad luck to push it too far. And that can tempt us to infer a fatigue mechanism even where there isn't any. Mostly these bubbles are found in inexpensive, thick-walled containers intended for storage and display, not for cooking. - --------- Rod and Mike Allred also comment on baking bottles to remove mold. A strong chlorine bleach solution (one ounce per gallon) will cause mold to separate from a smooth glass surface in a day or two (or maybe three to five). Then you can just pour it down the drain, after shaking vigorously to get it through the bottle's neck. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 98 12:59:46 CDT From: jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com (John Wilkinson) Subject: RE: Nitrogen and Refrigerators Brent Oberlin wrote: >In order to have more room in the freezer, I would like to have the CO2 >tank outside. Is it a problem if you use a shank to go through the wall >of the freezer?? If you do not use a shank, how do you get through the wall? I drilled a hole to fit a 1/4 inch pipe nipple in the side of my beer refrigerator, screwed a 1/4 inch NPT to Firestone gas in QD post adapter to the outside end, screwed a Firestone QD gas in post to that, screwed a NPT to compression fitting adapter to the inside end, and attached my gas line to that. Both the inside and outside ends of the pipe nipple have a fender washer and nut under the fittings to keep the nipple from moving in or out. I connect my CO2 tank to the outside with its QD and can easily disconnect it for carbonating, flushing, etc. I bought the Firestone gas in QD post and adapter from South Bay Homebrew Supply, (800) 608-BREW. The adapter is not listed in their catalog but if you call them they can supply it. The other parts I bought at a local hardware store but South Bay might be able to supply them also. I have no connection with them, by the way. A freezer might be a problem doing this as I believe they may have coils in the sides. John Wilkinson - Grapevine, Texas - jwilkins at wss.dsccc.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 13:07:03 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: : Where's that infection??? >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? Yes, you have already learned that you do not have the control that you thought you had. So, I guess that would be a good test to add to your arsenal of tools. Sometimes great discoveries are made by accident. Beer may have been discovered by accident. I believe potato chips were discovered by near accident (but they may not be a great discovery). It could be used to monitor and check on any assumptions about sanitation and procedures. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 16:45:53 -0700 From: "Erik Vanthilt" <vanthilt at inetworld.net> Subject: soda pumps A buddy in the Navy came back from a cruise with a gift for me. They were throwing a lot of stuff away,(it's a lot easier to throw it overboard than to unload it off the ship!) and he was able to grab a brand new coke pump, made by Shur Flo, of Garden Grove, CA. It appears to be a set of 3 gas "powered" pumps each with 3 fittings, one for gas in, liquid in, and liquid out. The specs included contain no good information, except how to hook them up, the pumps themselves only say "heavy duty beverage pump" (we already know this...) and 70 psi max, do not run dry. It's kind of a nice set up, all the hoses are attached, food grade, etc. My question? Does anyone know about or utilize these for brewing? Anyone know the temp limits? Does it use compressed air, or CO2? Using them for a wort transfer might be nice, maybe rims? Since there are 3 of them, and I may only need 1 or 2, anyone in the San Diego CA area who's interested, I would gladly trade... Thanks, Erik Vanthilt The Virtual Brewery Http://www.inetworld.net/vanthilt/index.html Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 19:10:38 -0500 From: rlabor at lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald) Subject: RE: Looking for a Pump Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 12:00:08 -0700 From: Jack Schmidling <arf at mc.net> >I am looking for a pump to transfer wort from kettle to fermenter and >near finished beer from fermenter to keg. Many of the homebrewers in my area, and in the Crescent City Homebrewers club are using carbonator pumps. These are available from Grainger. You can buy a stainless steel (recommended) or a brass model. The motor can also be purchased from Grainger with a total cost of around $150.00. These are self priming, can move a lot of beer in a short time. They can be sanitized with caustic, or iodaphor, or whatever your favorite sanitizer is. We use the pump to move sparge water to the mash, also to move wort from the catching bowl (Grant) to the kettle. The pump is also used at the output end of the wort chiller. The pump can pull wort through a wort chiller with ease. While boiling in the kettle, we circulate sanitizer through the wort chiller, pump, and lines using a bucket of sanitizer. Then, we drain the kettle either with a stainless cane on the input hose to the chiller, or by connecting the input hose to a bottom valve on the kettle, and move hot wort through the wort chiller into the fermenter. I have 3/8 I.D. tubing and hose barbs fitted to the pump inlet and outlet threaded fittings. Use heavy wall tubing to hold up under the suction, 1/8 thick will do. Use 3/8 stainless racking canes for inlet and outlet ends, and you have a real nice setup. I haven't tried to move beer (carbonated) with a pump, I just use CO2 to push the beer under pressure into another keg. Ron Ronald La Borde - Metairie, Louisiana - rlabor at lsumc.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 20:16:54 -0700 From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson at winternet.com> Subject: Jalopena Beer Recipes? I've read discussions of jalopena mead. Does anyone have an extract-based recipe for jalopena beer they would be willing to post? Thanks in advance, Mike Hanson Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:01:08 -0700 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> (by way of Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu>) Subject: Even More Yeast Steve Alexander wrote: >For example it's been stated that 3X is >the yeast growth rate in ale breweries; perhaps this is so ( I still have >doubts) , but was the purpose to perform quicker fermentations, or to >avoid yeast growth byproducts ? If the latter why aren't they pitching a full >complement of yeast and shooting for near zero growth (because it would >cause zero fermentation right ;^) ) ? Let me start with this: "In sharp contrast to the long-held belief in brewing that the bulk of wort attenuation is done by nongrowing cells, it is now clear that the specific rate of sugar utilization by growing yeast cells in fermentation is substantially higher than that of non growing cells. Thus when the period of new cell mass production ceases during fermentation, the rate of attenuation also slows dramatically (by as much as 33-fold). It therefore follows that in high gravity brewing, both the length and level of new cell synthesis must be increased over the amount found in normal gravity brewing to have rapid fermentation." App and Env. Micro Vol 48, No. 3, pg. 639, 1984. In this context normal is 11-12 P and high gravity is 16-18 P. Keep this in mind as I look at the BT article later. "The rate of fermentation will depend on the rate and extent of yeast growth" Remember this? :-) The other day I posted a bunch of numbers from books. Now this is all fine and good and such. But for me I would prefer to do things a little differently for the beer I make and my view of the world. When I make wort I would prefer to use it to make beer ratter than grow yeast. I prefer to grow the majority of my yeast separately. When yeast is put into wort it can either ferment and make ethanol or it can grow and make more yeast. Certainly both occur at the same time but one or the other can be favor given certain conditions. In this discussion I am talking about a normal brewery fermentation with a 12 Plato wort and yeast cells that are 95+% viable by methylene blue staining. One can choose to pitch any amount one chooses. Also one can choose to oxygenate the beer at a given level to effect the amount of yeast growth. There has been much discussion about yeast and sterol levels. First we have mentioned that yeast will have a membrane lipid level that is 1% maximum. This is under normal brewing situations. With various heroics and such one can go above 1% but NOT under the situations we as brewers deal with. I'm trying to make a point so bear with me if this gets a little elementary. In this example we start with one yeast cell that has been grown under aerobic conditions so that it is at 1% lipid. The cell is then put into wort which has a level of 8 ppm oxygen (for this example). After adjusting, this cell and all the other cells have absorbed the oxygen. Yeast cells even at 1% lipid will absorb oxygen (JIB, vol 102, p19, 1996) and the wort is for all intensive purposes anaerobic. The yeast will have begun to divide. The one cell with 1% lipid becomes two cells each with 0.5% lipid. This lipid level will remain constant until the yeast divide again or are exposed to more oxygen. In this example (normal brewery fermentation) the yeast divide again and we have four yeast cells each with 0.25% lipid content. And as before this level will remain constant unless the yeast divide again or are given oxygen. These cells will then divide again to give 0.125% sterol. This is considered the minimum level for cells to simply survive. Below 0.25% they are not in very good condition. So this is the scenario I am working under for what I do. Now let's consider the two situations we as brewers deal with (1) is yeast that comes from propagation under highly aerobic and nutritionally adequate conditions and (2) re pitching yeast that has been previously used to ferment a beer. Let's look at (1) first. We have made a starter and inoculated it with yeast. This starter is 10-12 P and is all malt and has > 175ppm FAN. The starter is agitated continuously either with shaker table or via a stir plate. I am not dealing with the in between situation of some aeration, at this time. So we end up with yeast that have maximum lipid content and thus healthy membranes so they can go right to work. Because the lipid level is maxed out in the cells they won't have to mobilize glycogen to synthesize it. A point I want to make is that even though all these cells have been grown together they are not all in synchronous growth. At time X they won't all be dividing and at time Y dividing again. We then allow the yeast to flocculate and add it to the wort we have just prepared. Even though they are all at 1% lipid the oxygen is all taken up or dissipated in the space of 3 hours or so. The yeast then adapt and go about dividing and fermenting. In this case if we pitch the right amount of yeast and give the right amount of oxygen (strain dependent) we will get only 2-3 divisions before the sugars in the wort are all used up. But it is likely that we will get a full three divisions due to the high lipid level. Again this is under ideal circumstances where all the cells start out at 1% lipid. We pitch adequate amounts of yeast (1 million cells/ml/degree Plato minimum). In scenario (2) we are re pitching yeast or our yeast comes from a starter that is in reality a mini-fermentation, (i.e. put some wort in a flask throw in some yeast, swirl it a bit and put on an air lock) rather than true aerobic propagation. In this case we have yeast that is at a low lipid level (.25% or less). And depending on storage may or may not have adequate glycogen levels. Yeast will utilize glycogen when they are stored particularly in the presence of oxygen. This is also the situation many breweries are dealing with. So let's say for arguments sake that the yeast are 95% + viable. We then want to pitch them at a rate of 1 million cells/ml/degree P or more for a 12 P wort. Also for a given strain we need to adjust the oxygen level in the wort accordingly. This is where the 3X division comes in. What we are making is beer not trying to grow excess yeast. Or at least that is what many commercial brewers do and what I would like to do in my situation. Again you may all do whatever floats your boat. What one would like to do is pitch enough yeast and give just enough oxygen so that one maximizes the conversion of wort to ethanol and not yeast growth. So enough oxygen is given so that we don't really max out the lipid level in the yeast to 1%. A better level is something like 0.8%. Combined with a proper pitching rate we thus end up with the beer being properly attenuated and the minimum amount of yeast growth necessary to get the beer fermented in a timely fashion. And even though we oxygenate at a given level all the yeast are not going to be at 0.8%. some will be higher some lower. Again the yeast are not all in synchronous growth in a normal brewery fermentation. So this is what I am trying to do in my own brewing practice. If you prefer to grow yeast, that is fine with me. If you don't worry about off flavors or slow fermentations then by all means you can ignore all of this. And of course I am sure there are plenty of people out there who end up with great beer using little to no starter. This merely some ramblings. Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/22/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96