HOMEBREW Digest #3265 Sat 04 March 2000

[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

  re: more pitching rates ("Paul Niebergall")
  georgia brews ("Czerpak, Pete")
  Mt  Pleasant Water (happydog)
  FWH ("Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies")
  Re: Yeast Growth ("Stephen Alexander")
  pitching and feathering. ("Stephen Alexander")
  Palexperiment Labwork (Louis Bonham)
  Acid washing+NOT ! re: Misquote or misunderstood ("Stephen Alexander")
  Starter Volume and Flavor Profile / OG (David Sweeney)
  IPA (Marc Sedam)
  Ferm chamber ("Spies, Jay")
  Re: Yeast Ranching on a larger scale (patrick finerty)
  Quick Disconnect for Sanke Co2 line (Tombrau)
  Palexperiment and underpitching ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Underpitching your belgian ale (Nathan Kanous)
  Soapy Sam ("Alan Meeker")
  RE: Underpitching your belgian ale ("Penn, John")
  Monterey (Mark Swenson)
  Palexperiment (Jason Henning)
  Throwing gasoline (Jim Liddil)
  Re: How Soapy Flavors Occur / KINETIC vs. KISS ("John Palmer")

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * AOL members: Visit the AOL Homebrewing boards before they're gone! * Go to aol://5863:126/mBLA:185893 * Entry deadline for the Mayfare Homebrew Competition is 3/15/00 * See http://www.maltosefalcons.com/ for more information 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 canoot reach you. We will not correct your address for the automation - that's your job. The HBD is a copyrighted document. The compilation is copyright HBD.ORG. Individual postings are copyright by their authors. ASK before reproducing and you'll rarely have trouble. Digest content cannot be reproduced by any means for sale or profit. More information is available by sending the word "info" to req at hbd.org. JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:19:03 -0600 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: re: more pitching rates Jeff writes: >However, the smack packs were the new (at the time) XL size ones >and were also about 2 or 3 weeks old when we received them. You would be amazed at the number of people who e-mailed me and mentioned that the Smak-Packs used in the Palexperiment were the XL size. I purposefully left that detail out of my discussion. The point was to see how many people would jump the fence and claim that since it was an XL size smak pack that is wasn't so bad. I checked the archives. Many of the people who are now claiming that the underpitching in the Palexperiment wasn't so bad because they used XL smak paks (instead of standard smak-paks) are the same people who a few years back, raked Wyeast (and others) over the coals for suggesting that the new XL size smak-paks were adequate for pitching into a 5-gallon batch. I love the way people on the HBD talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time. Shall I name names? >Most of the data provided by the brewers and Louis' lab test results >are available online ....... We should all thank Louis for the work that he did. Again, I am not trying to bag on Louis himself, but the results of the experiment did not prove anything one way or the other concerning the relationship between so-called underpitching and the production of bad home brew. I am not sure if what was done can be defined or even qualifies as an "experiment" in a scientific sense. As far as I can tell, there was no control, no QA, no QC, and no real statistical treatment of the results. What we get are some fairly generic conclusions that are pretty much in line with the prevailing theory of the day on the HBD: Underpitching leads to long lags, leads to bad beer. While this probably is true, the "experiment" does not confirm or deny this. All we are left with is a somewhat casual relationship between supposed underpitching and supposed problems with 45 beer samples. <Jens Jorgensen set up a dedicated listserve for the Palexperiment. >If you were to go back and review the archives of this listerve you >would see plenty of complaints about excessive lags times and funky off >flavors attributed to it by the brewers. Complaints, funky off-flavors, and "excessive" lag times are neither defined nor quantified. How anyone could possibly interpret these vauge qualities as scientific results is beyond me. >I've been reading the HBD for years and I don't ever recall anyone saying >that severely underpitching will cause "a plethora of problems that would >render the beer undrinkable." Paul, would you care to search the archives >and find a quote that even remotely backs up this statement? A direct quote? Sorry, I cant furnish that. Something the "remotely" backs that up? Geez, take a look at the last five years worth of HBD issues and you will find plenty of examples. I think that most would agree that hardly a week goes by were someone doesn't point out the purported woe that will be bestowed upon he is foolish enough to underpitch. >Since the Palexperiment I have taken a hard look at my yeast management >techniques. I have read the advice of the "expurts" here in the HBD and >have adapted it to my brewing at a level that I feel comfortable with. >Guess what? My "house flavor" is now below my flavor threshold and my beers >have improved quite a bit. I'll leave it to the interested readers to >figure out what I changed. Good for you. I applaud your efforts. But your actions really are not based on science or "experiments'' are they now? They are more likely based on experience and some good sound advice found in the HBD. Advice that is backed up with a lot of pseudo-science and B.S. Take the advice, leave the B.S. alone. Paul Niebergall Burns & McDonnell pnieb at burnsmcd.com "Illegitimis non carborundum" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:25:15 -0500 From: "Czerpak, Pete" <Pete.Czerpak at siigroup.com> Subject: georgia brews I am going to be in Atlanta late next week for business. Can anyone recommend some decent pubs to visit or beers to try. restuarant suggestions are welcome too. I wouldn't mind getting together for a brew session with any HBDers either afterwork or on the wkend as I'll be around from wednesday night until sunday. Thanks, Pete Czerpak Albany, NY Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 20:25:07 GMT From: happydog at nations.net Subject: Mt Pleasant Water With all the talk about water, perhaps some of you water guys in the know might that a look at my water in Mt. Pleasant SC. It can be found at http://www.cleanh20.com/wqinfo.html The first three columns (RO Plant 1 King St, RO Plant 2 7th Ave, RO Plant 3 Labor Camp) are the most important to me, However all the water is blended so I would guess I get an average of all of them (see web page) e-mails are ok Thanks Wil Kolb Happy Dog Brewing Supplies 401 W.Coleman Blvd Mt Pleasant SC 29464 843-971-0805 Fax 843-971-3084 1-800-528-9391 happydog at nations.net www.maltydog.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 15:38:02 -0600 From: "Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies" <orders at paddockwood.com> Subject: FWH Bill Bunning <bunz at pcola.gulf.net> asks how exactly do I "first wort hop"? Hi Bill, I add the hops (usually plugs for FWH) to the collecting kettle as I am doing the run-off from the lauter. Since it usually takes me about 40 minutes to do a run off, they steep for that amount of time. FWH will contribute about the same bitterness as beginning of the boil additions, since they get transferred to the kettle and boiled, but they will contribute substantially more flavour and aroma than regular boil additions. East Kent Goldings are very nice, as are Target and Challenger for British Ales. I FWH instead of dry hopping with these. Cheers, Stephen Ross -- "Vitae sine cerevesiae sugat." ______________________________________________ Paddock Wood Brewing Supplies, Saskatoon, SK orders at paddockwood.com www.paddockwood.com Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 17:04:25 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Re: Yeast Growth Richard L Scholz writes ... >So Steve, You're saying that the 9-10 generations of yeast run into >nutritional deficiencies due to the need of these growth constituents, but >not just because they are the late generations. I think you mean a 9 or 10 fold increase in yeast mass (typical ale rates ??) , not 9 or 10 generations. No ? For normal ale conditions and pitching rates yeast, the yeast hit a growth limit at around 10 fold increase in mass or cell count. On a good day lack of fermentable sugar is the limiting growth factor. On a bad day the limit is sterol or something more ominous. The limit is not directly related to the multiplicitive increase(10X). The growth limit appears as a direct consequence of the sugar or sterol disappearance. These disappear as a consequence of the sugar energy and carbon being used to build new cell mass, or sterol being used as free sterol in new cell walls (proportional to cell mass). If you vastly underpitch, then it will take more multiplications to reach the same limit. If you pitch more it will take fewer multiplications. Regardless of the multiplication factor, if the sterol growth limit is reached there are consequences which may impact flavor. >The fermentation flavor by-products are due to lack of nutrients not >the dividing of the available growth constituents? You simplify too much. Yeast have many byproducts from various mechanisms that can be related to many different aspects yeast culture. Ethanol and CO2 are directly related to fermentation. Some are proportional to cell mass growth. Some only appear when certain aspects of their metabolism are exercised (e.g. when amino acids run out and other nitrogen sources must be utilized for growth). Still other flavor consequences are due to autolysis and so relate to many factors that can affect autolysis. Basically I proposed that flavor by-products of yeast are primarily determined by their state and that of their medium and unrelated to multiplication factor or the generational number. The nutritional state of the cells and their media change over time in the case of batch fermentation, but there are many complexities to these changes. This is why chemostat continuous cultures are used for metabolic studies. Some changes are due to depletion of the media nutrients. Other complications arise such as build-up of CO2 and ethanol byproducts which impact growth and metabolism. What controls organic acid production ? That's a big flavor factor. Many others difficulties beyond our scope. >Yes, if we continually add these things we get great >yeast growth and bad flavors for other reasons, I don't understand this. Bad flavors for what other reason ? Continuous fermentation has been practiced commercially. It adds nutrients in the form of wort continuously, yet doesn't have bad flavor consequences. You essentially step-wise add nutrients when you start with a slant or a smack pack and end up with a yeast cake in your fermentor. I don't understand the harm you suggest, except that distortion of the nutrients concentrations (high or low) can affect metabolism, but this shouldn't occur in a controlled continuous condition. Oxygen and some fermentation byproducts don't mix of course. >but in "green" beer we are >limited by the original concentrations and too many generations of yeast >will deplete the available nutrients and lead to these fermentation flavor >by-products. I think you mean wort, not green [unconditioned post fermentation] beer. Otherwise I've missed your point. The amount of nutrients in the wort and also in the pitched yeast reserves together form a basis for the limits of growth of the yeast mass. This limit will be the same whether you pitch 1 cell or 10^9 cells, tho' the multiplication factor and number of generations will be vastly different. >Seem to me just about the same result. I don't think Roger A. was disputing >the mechanism, ( were you Roger?) just the implications that many >generations finally producing these flavor components from the depletion of >available resources. I think the mechanism IS truly the issue. Numerically multiplication factor cannot be directly related to the mechanism I suggested. To re-frame things, I argued that HB books that suggest underpitching causes poor flavor due to additional yeast growth mass are probably wrong. I estimated that even vastly underpitching might only cause an additional 33% yeast mass growth and that this seems insufficient to cause the pronounced effects. Roger noted that the growth MULTIPLICATION FACTOR differs vastly in the examples I gave - and stated that this correlates with the amount of flavor by-products. He proposed no mechanism, nor can I imagine any. I responded and added that *A* likely mechanism of some underpitching off-flavor is that the total potential sterol (from yeast reserves, O2 and wort sterol) is decreased by the amount of the lesser pitched yeast sterol reserves. This can limit growth and does no good for alcohol or temperature tolerance fermentation rate, attenuation and *maybe* autolysis. This cannot be interpreted to mean that multiplication factor is a direct correlate of this sterol limited growth problem. It really doesn't matter a bit whether your yeast multiply by a factor of 4 or 10 or 1000. What does matter is that when the total the potential sterol reserves are depleted, that this particular problems condition begins. It easy to understand that sterol consumption in cell membranes (as opposed to reserve sterol esters, not in membranes) is directly proportional to the amount of new yeast cell membrane and so the yeast mass growth. I find no relationship between the multiplication factor and the depletion of sterols except the trivial and indirect one - yeast growth always implies a higher multiplication factor. >Just trying to understand the whole process. Same here Richard, Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 01:29:05 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: pitching and feathering. Mark Staples writes >My reseach shows a gram of dry yeast is roughly 14,000,000,000 cells. >Based on that I calculate a rate 4 grams per gallon for 1.050 beer to >be about right. More like 1.5gm/gal, your yeast dry mass estimate is high but not out of sight. That's 7.5gm per 5gal, versus Rob Moline's 10gm/5gal suggestion. Cells weigh about 40*10^-12 gm (M&BS). Recommended pitching rate for ales is abt 10^7 cells/ml. Fix suggests 0.75*10^6c/ml^P for ales, so 0.94*10^7c/ml for your 12.5P wort, close enough. Call it 10^10cell/L 40*10^-12gm * 10^10 cell/Liter = 0.4 gram per liter, or 0.375gm/L for Fix. as a recommended rate. I'd like to know what the viable cell count for rehydrated dry yeast in order to calculate a good pitching rate tho'. Anyone with a hemocytometer care to help out ? Or perhaps Rob Moline can provide a number. ==== Paul Niebergal notes that he PA experiment pitched only a Wyeast pack. What Paul failed to mention was the experiment notes say: "new Wyeast American Ale extra large smack-pack ". These are 175ml packs (5X). Wyeast page claims: "Average cell counts are 35 - 75 X 10^8/ ml" At that rate you could hit 10^7c/ml in 5 gallons with 25-54ml of smack-pack. *If* the cell count is as claimed then the PA-exp ales are OVERpitched! Seems unlikely though - I doubt the cell count. What is obvious is that the underpicthing rate is not at all clear, and the flavor/infection consequences are not at all trivial. >Maybe we should all take >a good hard look at some real data. I did. There is something wrong with your definition of underpitching and Pivo's too. If you want to test for under vs nominal pitching, we'll have to measure viable cell concentrations. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 05:12:23 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hbd.org> Subject: Palexperiment Labwork Hi folks: Paul Niebergall has still more questions regarding the contamination data collected in the Palexperiment. While most of his questions could easily be answered by actually reading the BT article and the table summary of the lab data rather than hypothesizing about it (novel concept, no?), as this is a current topic of discussion I'll answer some of them: > HUGE? Now there is a scientific term. Can you please > quantify what you mean by HUGE. Are you talking about > colonies per milliliter or some other measurement? Again, read the article. Given that, from about 0.5ml spread plated onto LMDA, about half the plates had more than 100 colonies (and many of these were so contaminated that the plate was a continuous mass of colonies) and that the vast majority had counts well above the recommended commercial limits, there can be little doubt that the there were significant levels of contamination present. Compound this by the fact that we didn't use 0.45um membrane filtration of 100mls of beer (ASBC methodology) to concentrate the cell counts (on advice of two actual experts in this field -- Drs. Paul Fanrnsworth and Katie Kunz -- we simply spread about 0.5ml of sample on each plate), and these counts probably *understated* the contamination levels by a factor of over 100, if you want to use ASBC methodology and commercial quantification of contamination levels. While the stresses placed on the beers probably exacerbated the problem (again, read the article), I think it's safe to say the contamination levels encountered were huge, at least by commercial standards. > Was there any quality assurance or control built into the > laboratory testing program? Several blank plates were exposed in the area we were using to innoculate the plates. They came out clean (no growth). The samples were taken immediately after opening using aseptic techniques (crowns first cleaned with alcohol and bottle lip flamed, then sample poured into gamma sterilized 50ml centrifuge tubes and sealed, then 0.5 ml sample taken from tubes with gamma sterilized transfer pipettes (used once and discarded) to spread the sample onto the LMDA plates, which were unwrapped immediately before each use, opened for the absolute minimum time needed to innoculate the plate, and immediately sealed with parafilm to guard against cross contamination). The results obtained indicate that these procedures were adequate for the task. Nine of the samples showed *no* growth at all -- which to me is a pretty good indication that there was no systemic problem in our procedures. The wide range of contaminants encountered -- indeed, even the strains of pediococcus found were quite different -- also indicates that our results were not from sloppy handling. > Maybe all the samples were contaminated across the board > due to shoddy lab techniques . [snip] Again rather than guess about them, why don't you simply read the article? If you did, you'd see that such was not the case: about 25% plated out with no growth at all. As for the balance of Paul's missive, I'll leave it to the HBD collective to actually *read* the article and data and make up their own minds of whether our data and conclusions are useful. Louis Bonham lkbonham at hbd.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:49:11 -0500 From: "Stephen Alexander" <steve-alexander at worldnet.att.net> Subject: Acid washing+NOT ! re: Misquote or misunderstood NP. Lansing says ... [The point I was making was that such stringent microbiologic controls weren't a necessity for good beer.] Actually you stated that commercial concerns don't do better than the Danstar figures. Untrue. [Dr. Fix gives a spec of <50 cells per ml to be regarded as "clean", ] I agree that 50/ml is a generally acceptable limit Doesn't mean it can't be improved on. Some infections agents, like S.turbidans can have a negative impact at 0.5 cells per ml. M&BS comments that 10-40 cells is generally acceptable, but that there is no safe level of S.diastaticus or lactic bacteria. Cleaner is always better, and Danstars <16cells/ml ain't heaven. [ >>Acid washing causes problems for the cell walls of the yeast and abnormal budding - among other things. It's pretty unlikely that they could adapt to this.<< Why not? cold temperatures (approaching 32 degrees) produces "no growth" in S. Cerevisiae, yet repeated storage at these temperatures gave us a new yeast, S. Uvarum. Twenty years of repitching and acid-washing (and the occasional dumping of a "bad" batch) could select an acid tolerant strain. ] Do you hang with a guy named Jean-Baptiste de Monet de Lamarck ? Something yeast-like could evolve a greater resistance to acid washing BUT they would require a different cell wall structure. It's pretty radical and unlikely to be useful for brewing. What happens to the flocc. characteristics ? [ >>If your breweries are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then infection is the source of the problem.<< That is purely conjecture. ] Not conjecture. It's based on the fact that acid washing is only prescribed as a method of reducing non-yeast (not wild yeast) infections. Additionally it removes dead cells and trub. If you can find a reference to any other value in acid washing such as your attenuation improvement, I'd be happy review it. Acid washing does impact flocculation - by destroying the cell wall surface properties temporarily. Not good IMO. I can back up my statement see M&BS pp 767, or 'Yeast Technology', (Reed et al) pp115-116. Both sources suggest it's a poor procedural practice. There is a comment in the most recent IoB examination report (JIB v105,#6, 1999, pp338) noting astonishment that acid washing is apparently widely practiced by examinees. In the article at: http://brewpubmag.com/99sep/craftbrewer.html They note some good reasons for not acid washing regularly. / If acid washing is carried out incorrectly, yeast vitality and viability can be negatively affected, potentially causing more problems than are solved. / Highly flocculent yeast, such as ale yeast, tends to suffer a loss in flocculation. / Yeast taken from a high-gravity fermentation (ethanol content of the slurry more than 8 percent by volume) tends to suffer a loss of vitality. Yeast from beers of this gravity should not be reused. / High-gravity wort pitched with an acid-washed yeast can experience a longer lag time than the same yeast pitched in a lower-gravity wort. This occurs because of a slower uptake of glucose and maltose in the high-gravity wort, according to "Effects of High-Gravity Brewing and Acid Washing on Brewers Yeast", a report published in the American Society of Brewing Chemists journal, volume 56, number 1. The authors, S. Cunningham and G.G. Stewart, also found a small drop in viability during the first few hours of fermentation when acid washed yeast is added to high-gravity beer (greater than 14^ Plato). / Every step in handling yeast is another opportunity to introduce contamination. If acid washing it not carried out in a clean vessel and under sanitary conditions, more contamination can be introduced than will be eliminated from the process. This site and the wyeast website but give procedures, comparable to Dave Burley's method. Also see the BT article at: http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.4/allen.html for a similarly cautious (even negative) viewpoint regarding acid washing from the folks at Pike's Place Brewery. It's a bandaid IMO. It has some value as a rescue effort in commercial practice. It's more nuisance that it's worth at the HB level. Why not just spend a few days reculturing, or buy a new yeast supply and reduce the wait. Also see the water washing technique at http://hbd.org/brewery/library/yeast-faq.html Which removes trub and dead cells, but doesn't remove infection or damage your yeast so critically. BTW - this last site, 'The Brewery' is a good place to look for those intermediate level topics that constantly reappear in HBD. Steve Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 07:56:03 -0600 From: David Sweeney <David at stulife2.tamu.edu> Subject: Starter Volume and Flavor Profile / OG Am I missing something here? We've had recommendations from several people to pitch at a rate of up to 4 liters per 5 gal batch. That's approximately 15-20% of the total volume. Now, if I spend all this time brewing a wort that has just the right balance of all the right things, isn't a 10-20% increase in volume from a starter going to change the flavor profile of the batch significantly? How are you super-pitchers out there creating your starter wort? Are you using extract? DME? Mother's milk? Do you change the makeup of your starter wort based upon the beer you intend to pitch it in? And another thing - how do you calculate your OG when you pitch a gallon into your perfectly dense batch? "Let's see...hmmm...this is an IPA, the wort is at 1.050 - perfect. Now, I'll just pitch this gallon of starter in here---OOOPS! - 1.030!" (I'm using hyperbole here, guys! No flames, please.) I've made starters by stepping up a smack-pack to approximately 500mls by dissolving 1/4c of pale extract into 2 cups of H20, boiling and then using a 22oz bottle with an air-lock for a couple of days. Now I'm trying to figure out if I need to change my process. David Sweeney Texas A&M University david at stulife2.tamu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 09:53:00 -0500 From: Marc Sedam <marc_sedam at unc.edu> Subject: IPA Hey David: I'll give you mine. It's precious to me, but gets rave reviews. 9lbs Maris Otter 2-row 1lb wheat malt 1lb Victory 8oz Carapils (omit if you want) MASH Adjust water chemistry to mimic Burton on Trent. I don't know what your water looks like, but try 2-3 T of "Burton Salts". That should do the trick. If you have hard water, just add a few T of calcium sulfate. Single-step infusion at 156F. Raise to 172 at mash-out. HOPS boil for 15 minutes without hops, then add the following (time given before KO) 60 min-- 1oz EKG, 1oz N.Brewer 40 min-- 1/2oz EKG, 1 oz. N. Brewer 20 min-- 1oz EKG 5 min-- 1/2 oz EKG Run cool wort through a bed of 1-2 oz of EKG whole flower hops. Dry hop with an additional ounce of EKG if you've got it in you. YEAST Wyeast 1275 (Thames Valley) It kicks major ass. This was supposed to be the subject of a BT experiment, but they went under before I could do anything with it. The gravity should be around 1.065. Depending on your extraction efficiency, adjust low OG's with brown sugar. Trust me, it works. Enjoy! -Marc Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:59:03 -0500 From: "Spies, Jay" <Spies at dhcd.state.md.us> Subject: Ferm chamber All - Troy Hager's comments about his fermenting chamber (what a project) got me thinking again about an idea I've been kicking around for awhile. I have a small dorm-size "cube refrigerator" in the basement that I'm not using, and I hit upon the idea of making a temperature controlled fermenting chamber out of it. I already have a Johnson Controls thermostat. I would start by removing the door of the fridge, and building a heavily insulated plywood "box" that the fridge's open side would jut into by an inch or so. I would caulk around the joint to seal it up. This box would be big enough to hold four 6-gallon carboys with airlocks, and would likely open from the top so that peeking in to check activity would not dump all the cold air. I would place a thermostat controlled computer fan inside to circulate the air when the fridge is "on". I would probably use this mainly to hold ale fermentation in the mid 60's, but I'm wondering if: 1) It would be powerful enough to bring temps down into the lager range (50's - 40's). I already have a regular spare full-size beer fridge, but since the SO insisted that the freezer portion be cold enough to freeze meats and veggies and the like, I can't use it for lager *fermentation*, but I do use it for cold conditioning (it's about 36dF). 2) The computer fan would adequately circulate the air in the box. 3) It would even work at all. Thoughts would be appreciated. :) Jay Spies Wishful Thinking Basement Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:57:03 -0500 (EST) From: patrick finerty <zinc at zifi.psf.sickkids.on.ca> Subject: Re: Yeast Ranching on a larger scale Richard Gontarek asks about yeast ranching: i too keep 15% glycerol stocks in our -80C freezer. now and then i will scrape off a 'chunk' of frozen material and streak that on a YPD plate. after incubating the plate at 30C until the colonies are a reasonable size, i wrap the plate in parafilm and stick it in a light proof container in our 4C cold room. when i want to make a starter i just scrape off a section of colonies and use that to innoculate some media. in the past i've started with ~10 ml YPD but this last time i innoculated right into 250 ml and this seems to have worked just fine. the plates should be good for some time. however, i personally think it's important to keep them away from fluorescent lights. i know of phage libraries that have been killed due to storage by fluor lights in a cold box. -patrick in toronto - -- "There is only one aim in life and that is to live it." Karl Shapiro,(1959) from an essay on Henry Miller's Tropic of Cancer finger pfinerty at nyx10.nyx.net for PGP key http://abragam.med.utoronto.ca/~zinc Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 10:14:05 EST From: Tombrau at aol.com Subject: Quick Disconnect for Sanke Co2 line Wort Brothers I use both ball lock and sanke taps in my homebrewery and have grown tired of swapping co2 lines back and forth. Also having the co2 bottle "hardwired" to the tap and faucet is awkward at times. It hit me the other day. Attach a carbonater to the "in" side of the sanke tap so that my ball lock co2 fitting would plug right on. Now I don't have to swap fittings on my co2 bottle to work between tap types!!! Of course, it did not just screw on. The carbonater was to big for the beer nut threads. So I cut the neck off a pet bottle and with liberal thread tape force threaded it onto the sanke tap and then installed the carbonater. WOOHOO I love simplifying my life. Just thought I would pass on my discovery. Although I founded Liquid Bread and invented the carbonater , I sold Liquid Bread several years ago and feel I qualify for a quasi no affiliation yada yada disclaimer. One last note, I would like to make an open invite to the 11th annual Sunshine Challenge for entries, judges, sponsors and just plain old attendees. We have a weekend of fun and parties wrapped around the largest homebrew competition in the S.E. Ray Daniels and Greg Noonan are our Guest of Honor's this year. Also as a sales point to the missus the event is held across the street from Universal Studios. Mark your calender for May 19-21. For more info go to www.cfhb.org Cheers Tom Moench Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:02:40 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Palexperiment and underpitching On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 Alan Meeker wrote about underpitching: >Certainly "mommilies" exist but I doubt that this is one of them given the >sheer weight of informed opinion out there favoring larger pitch rates. >Still, this ain't religion so revision is certainly possible. Unfortunately >the burden of proof is on those who disagree with the current accepted >practice. Are you sure it isn't religion? With the fervor that some of these threads hit, I'd say it comes pretty close! We probably should shuck our red inquisitor's robes and do some real, unbiased investigations into some of these debated topics. It's probably not as much fun as participating in underpitch auto-de-fay or a FWH racking - but it *IS* more productive ;-) While I have my own convictions regarding many of these topics (either pre-formed or learned), I am still open to new ideas and theories. As ridiculous as it may sound to me (eg. Dr. Pivo challenging the commercial pitching rates) I will still listen. If someone can provide me with adequate details of their challenging process/theory and objective evidence to support their claims, I'll try it and judge for myself. My analysis will be based only upon what is in the bottle/mug. That is the ultimate result we're after now - isn't it? Until then, I too will cede to the currently accepted best practices. BTW, I give much credit to all those who perform these experiments regardless of whether they are accepted by the majority of this forum or not. Experimentation costs time and money and to sacrifice either on ANY volume of beer which has the potential to taste like crap vs. making good beer with it, deserves recognition. Maybe I should clean out those 1 gallon jugs and do a little pitching rate "spurimentation" myself - before I occupy 'em with the sake "spuriment". I doubt I'll have any trouble finding taste testers ;-) Glen Pannicke alehouse.homepage.com Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:03:17 -0600 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Underpitching your belgian ale John, et al, I recently purchased and very quickly read Michael Jackson's Great Beers of Belgium. One thing that struck me about his writings on Duvel was that fermentation was allowed to approach 81 deg F. Now, he's not a brewer, but I have no reason to doubt what he's reported in his books. My experience with a few of the belgian yeasts is that they really prefer higher temps. I'm going to ferment a triple or a strong golden this spring and whichever I do will be fermented a bit warmer than I normally would. Maybe your fermentation "environment" is a little cool resulting in the yeast pooping out early. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:17:13 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Soapy Sam I too have noticed a decidedly soapy taste in Sam Adams and have come to the conclusion that the source is the Hallertau Mittlefruh hops! Apparently this particular hop tastes soapy to me. I found this out a ways back when Hoptech offered some genuine Mittlefruh for sale which Mike Maceyka and I eagerly jumped on. But, in using these hops I always got a pronounced (and unpleasant) soapy/perfumy character - the very same character I found in Sam Adams. Interestingly, Mike did not get this soap character from the same beers. I think it is possible that the differences in perceived taste between us may represent some sort of genetic polymorphism like the well known one involving cilantro. Cilantro tastes just like dish soap to me but, as with the Mittlefruh, Mike finds it quite pleasant. This is a common phenomenon - a significant percentage of the population perceives cilantro as tasting soapy. There are similar taste perception differences for a whole host of flavor active compounds - diacetyl being a big on in brewing circles. Perhaps you remember the classic PTC taste test which was often used in grade school genetics units. Some people experience an intense unpleasant bitterness while others taste absolutely nothing. -Alan Meeker Director of Salsa Genetic Polymorphism Research Lazy Eight Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:49:34 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: RE: Underpitching your belgian ale Nathan, I agree that I think the cooler fermentation temperatures could result in a lower FG. One thing about Duvel yeast is that it isn't very flocculant, especially compared to Nottingham. I also tried to roust the yeast by shaking the carboy every day until fermentation really slowed. It seemed to ferment fairly vigorously especially compared to last year's attempt to culture Duvel yeast from the bottle. That yeast was a slow and steady fermenter and took 4 weeks to attenuate a dubbel even at 70F ish. This yeast seems faster, and spicier than the previous yeast so I have to wonder whether there are multiple strains in Duvel, a change in bottling yeast between years, or I have something wild thrown in that produces a reasonable spicey taste but doesn't attenuate as well. However it does seem to have the same low flocculation characteristics as last years cultured yeast, it just tastes and ferments differently. My estimated abv was about 8%. Thanks for the comments. John Penn > -----Original Message----- > From: Nathan Kanous [SMTP:nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu] > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2000 11:03 AM > To: John.Penn at jhuapl.edu; post@hbd.org > Subject: Underpitching your belgian ale > > John, et al, > I recently purchased and very quickly read Michael Jackson's Great Beers > of > Belgium. One thing that struck me about his writings on Duvel was that > fermentation was allowed to approach 81 deg F. Now, he's not a brewer, but > > I have no reason to doubt what he's reported in his books. My experience > with a few of the belgian yeasts is that they really prefer higher > temps. I'm going to ferment a triple or a strong golden this spring and > whichever I do will be fermented a bit warmer than I normally would. > Maybe > your fermentation "environment" is a little cool resulting in the yeast > pooping out early. > nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 11:50:52 -0500 From: Mark Swenson <swenson at aoml.noaa.gov> Subject: Monterey I am relocating to Monterey, California next month. I would appreciate learning more about the Homebrew Scene in the area. If you know the area, could you send me your impressions? Does the water need treatment? Are there homebrewers clubs and shops? Any good local beer? Personal replies are probably best. Thanks, Mark Swenson Key Biscayne, FL Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 11:56:10 -0500 From: Jason Henning <huskers at voyager.net> Subject: Palexperiment In HBD3263, Paul Niebergall sites the HBD to debunk problems with under pitching. I'll use that data from that experiment to show that there are real problems with under pitching. Paul says, "Not one reference to off-flavors, bacteria contamination, undercarbonation, excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero." First off, the flavor evaluation team wasn't asked to evaluate beers for esters, phenols and off flavors. They were asked to find the best beers for overall flavor, malt flavor and hop flavor. Each person did receive their score sheets with comments. But the comments weren't matched to the lab testing. There's only so much you can ask people to do without paying them. Of 34 sample tested for contamination, 9 were clear of contamination or 26% showed no contamination. 4 had mild contamination, 6 had were moderate and 15 were severe. A whopping 44% had severe contamination There were 30 people that reported exact lag times. The average lag time was 32 hours. The shortest was 13 hours and the longest was 62 hours. 22 people reported lag times of 24 hours or longer. 12 of those folks had lags of 36 or more hours. Now lets look at finishing gravities. Looking at the finishing gravities of 34 beers tested, the average is 1.0151. There are 5 samples that finished 1.020 or above (1.020, 1.0208, 1.022, 1.0232, 1.0233). That's 14.7% of the samples finishing 4.9 gravity points above the average. I'll leave it you to draw conclusions. I think the numbers speak for themselves. Cheers, Jason Henning Whitmore Lake, MI [0,0] Rennerian is less than a millisecond away from when I that the information super highway. Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 10:39:01 -0700 (MST) From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at VMS.ARIZONA.EDU> Subject: Throwing gasoline > > Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:11:41 -0600 > From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> > Subject: Lab Work > > Did you test control samples of similar wort that were pitched > with a supposedly "correct" amount (i.e. not underpitched) > of healthy yeast starter? Maybe all the samples were > contaminated across the board due to shoddy lab techniques > (It happens a lot more than you think). Another control not run was to actually test one of the yeast packages directly for contamination. > > What about quality criteria such as precision, accuracy, > completeness, representativeness, and comparability? > There are fairly standard procedures that have been > established to test for all of these criteria. The results > of lab blanks, equipment blanks, duplicate samples, > matrix spike samples, and matrix spike duplicates can > all be evaluated to assess the quality of the lab work. > Actual numbers can be assigned to these criteria. The > numbers can then be evaluated to get a real assessment > of the lab results. This is far superior to tossing out terms > such as "significant", "suggests", and "potential" all of which > really have know place in real science. > > Were any statistics done on the lab results? What was > the confidence level of the results? > I agree. and I did not start this whole thing (if indeed I did) wrt to one bacterial cell. 1. Wyeast labeled their 3278 as B.bruxellensis, subsequent testing showed it to be a mixture. Wyeast would not admit it. but subsequently relabeled the package. The lot of Wyeast wit yeast I got showed contmination on a level such that when the package was popped the bacteria overwhelmed the yeast. I obtained 4 packages from a given package date and all of them were the same. See your above discussion about stats, qc/qa etc.Certainly I have different standards thatn most of the world and I admit it. Oh and after moving fromt he relatively contamination free dry west to the humid east I find that my anal retnitve /obsessive complusive cleaning/sanitizing efforts have paid off. I swear in CT in the summer mold grows to visble levels in minutes. And to Dr Pivo, making fun of things like OCD isjust like making fun of someone dying of cancer. Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 09:37:55 -0800 From: "John Palmer" <jjpalmer at gte.net> Subject: Re: How Soapy Flavors Occur / KINETIC vs. KISS Tim Burkhart said he experienced soapy flavor in three batches last summer. He commented that after going all-grain (from partial mash) and switching to a false bottom boiler that the soapy flavor disappeared, and wondered what the true cause for the flavor might be. Soapy flavors are caused by fatty acids in the trub. Chemically, Soap is defined as the salt of a fatty acid. So, you are actually tasting soap in your beer. Soapy flavors are most evident when the fermenting beer has sat on the trub too long, i.e., when the beer has sat in the primary fermenter too long. "Too Long" depends on the amount of trub that is carried over to the primary. When I began brewing, and poured the whole (immersion chilled) boil into the fermenter, and didnt use a secondary fermenter, I would notice soapy flavors after about 2 weeks in the primary. Switching to the use of a secodary fermenter and racking after the krausen started to fall (about 3-5 days), solved the soapy flavor problem. I could then let the beer sit in the secondary until it fell clear (yeast dropped) and then bottle for maximum clarity. In short, I think the disappearence of the soapy flavors in your beer is due to the false bottom in your boiler and the whole hops acting as a filter to minimize trub carryover. ***** Hear Hear for AJ's post for equal rights for technogeeks! While KISS is always a good baseline philosophy, and I have advocated that position when it comes to targeting a particular beer color, I subscribe most often to the KINETIC philosophy: Keep It New, Exiciting, Technical, and an Intellectual Challenge. Because after all, we are doing this hobby for the fun of it. And Science is Fun! John Palmer Monrovia, CA Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/04/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96