HOMEBREW Digest #2807 Tue 25 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 stirring, Barcelona (Hugh Hoover)
  RIMS v. Decoction Yeast Revisited (Louis Bonham)
  Re:  Upgrading to all-grain brewing ("Crossno, Glyn")
  Re: HSA (again?) (Steve Jackson)
  Staling of kegged beer (Ian Smith)
  Visit to Chicago (Alan Monaghan)
  Unusually long lag time ("Tidmarsh Major")
  Re: Amino acids / HSA (Mark Riley)
  Off flavor questions ("Tom Struzik")
  rehydrating Dry yeast (Badger Roullett)
  Barleywine, Infections, Re: First Batch ("Penn, John")
  Briess ESB query (Charles Epp)
  The Adaptive Significance of Excessive Beer Consumption ("Dr. Pivo")
  Experiments and Design (Jim Liddil)
  RE: Experiments and Design ("Thomas, Andrew R")
  HSA ad infinitum ("Dr. Pivo")
  Re: Even More Yeast (Scott Murman)
  Salt/Wort Dilution ("A. J. deLange")
  affects of sterol levels on glycogen uptake and it's indications through spectrophotometric measurements of fusel alcohol production (Alan Edwards)
  re: The truth about American Beers (Jonathan Edwards)
  liberty ale really uses all cascade? (Jonathan Edwards)
  AHA-Nationals Judging question (Christopher Peterson)

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: Sun, 23 Aug 1998 23:32:01 -0700 From: Hugh.Hoover at software.com (Hugh Hoover) Subject: Yeast stirring, Barcelona Stir plates. There are repeated assertions that they increase the available O2, which increases the health & growth of the yeast. Ok, but riddle me this... After fermentation starts, and a CO2 blanket covers the yeast, how does the stirring improve oxygenation? There's obviously a period when there's little CO2 production, and this should result in near continuous aeration of the wort. Is that long enough to really produce the acclaimed result, or are there other factors? - --- I got stuck being sent to Barcelona, Catalunya this week. Spain doesn't evoke many memories of classic beers -- Any recommendations anyway? Thanks Hugh Hoover PetaPint (home)Brewery, Enumclaw WA. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 05:19:10 -0500 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at phoenix.net> Subject: RIMS v. Decoction Yeast Revisited Jim Liddil posits a theory for why the bock beer in the recent RIMS v. Decoction experiment had a rather strange ferment. While Jim makes several very good points, and I agree 100% with his ultimate conclusion -- that a bigger starter and/or more aggressive aeration was needed -- a couple of his assumptions about out procedures are inaccurate. > Let's look at the BT article in vol 6 no.1 that compared > decoction and RIMS beers and experienced a stuck fermentation with the 16.5 P > bock. The text indicates that the wort was pitched with a 2 quart starter. 2 > quarts is equal to 1.89 liters. All the text says is that the > starter was made using a step up procedure and does not indicate if the > starter was continuously agitated or not. It is then likely the yeast had > a low sterol and UFA level when the went into this high sugar environment. Procedure used: fresh Wyeast pack used to innoculate 1 quart of starter, which was in a 2.5 gallon carboy (to maximize surface area and therefore aeration) and placed on a stir plate. Six quarts of aerated starter were added later, and again the stir plate was used. All indications were that we were getting lots of nice, healthy yeast. (As mentioned in the article, we used these same procedures when doing the 15P Helles and had a proper, quick fermentation). > If we do the math again this gives us a figure of 7 X10e6 cells/ml in the wort > at the start. This is the minimum level one would use for a normal gravity > beer in the range of 11 Plato. I don't have my notes handy, but I did a yeast count post-pitching and I seem to recall the count being significantly higher than this. > The beer that stuck was 16.5 P. A minimum number of cells for a beer of this > gravity would be ~17 million cells/ml and a more typical number is on the > order of 20 million cells/ml. So I feel the authors started off by > under pitching. It's certainly possible, but given my recollection of the actual count (as opposed to the theoretical one), I demur on this point. > The wort itself was aerated using air via a fish pump and > then inoculated with the starter or so the text seems to indicate. This is > another point where the authors and other brewers can do things to prevent > stuck fermentation. The rule or thumb that I have read and heard about is > that one should increase the oxygen level 1 ppm for each degree Plato above 10 > P. If air saturation gives 8 ppm then a 16.5 P wort should be oxygenated to a > level of ~15 ppm oxygen. The authors used air so the best they could get was > 8 ppm. Also wort of this gravity has a lower oxygen solubility (someone can > probably tell us what the conc. was approx) presenting another disadvantage > for the yeast. Good point. Again, however, we had used this same procedure with the Helles and had had no problems. Hindsight being 20/20, yeah, I would have used pure O2 on a higher grav beer. > The authors took gravity readings at 6 weeks and low and behold the beers had > not fermented out. hmmm. And the authors state "although significant amounts > of viable yeast were present....." My question is how did the authors > determine the yeast were viable? I would presume methylene blue was used. Yes. > Methylene blue staining really tells one nothing about the > actual state of the cells other than that they can exclude the dye. [snip] Again, good point. If the yeast were alive, they would have excluded the dye. But alive that late in the ferment doesn't necessarily mean viable. > The authors decided to pitch more yeast in the amount of "One quarter of the > cultured yeast slurry was added to the RIMS and Infusion mashes and one half > added to the decoction mash." The RIMS and infusion beer reached terminal > gravity "fairly quickly". Not sure what that is but compared to 8 weeks > anything is quick. Bear in mind that by the time I pitched the new yeast (I had to grow up two batches, because the first batch of new yeast was infected (probable vector: aeration stone)), the RIMS and infusion batches were getting pretty close to FG on their own, which was the reason why the decocted batch got a double dose of yeast. When I checked the gravity a couple of days later, the RIMS and infusion batches were at FG. > Why did the [decocted] beer not finish? It is hard to draw any concrete > conclusions based on the limited N value. But adding new yeast that may not > be at full sterol and UFA level to an environment of no oxygen, low nutrient > levels, some alcohol is a problem any one who repitches faces. Also at the > point in time the authors repitched the glucose may have all been depleted > along with some maltose. The yeast may > have been to stressed by all this. This is by no means a definitive > diagnosis since the other two beers finished "fairly quickly".. There's the rub. Since the OG on these beers was identical, and virtually all the other variables (water, yeast, hops, malt, aeration rate, temperature), were kept to a minimum, why would the decocted beer demonstrate such dramatically different behavior -- especially after having been repitched? > In general it looks like the decoction mashing did something to the wort > sugar profile and nutrient profile that lead to this slow fermentation, but > who knows. Indeed, who knows? Perhaps the decocted beer had lower lipid levels . . . > My point (and I don't mean to pick on Louis and the others) is > that here we have one guy who has a SABCO unit that was till expensive when > Louis go it a few years ago. BTW, I got my unit in a swap with the inventor. > Andy Thomas went to all the trouble to do a triple decoction. These guys put > all this time, money and effort into making these beers and even wrote an > article about it. It is my belief that they and many other could save > themselves a lot of grief by directing some of their money and efforts toward > making bigger starters. In this instance, we used pitching procedures that had worked well for us in the past (including the Helles portion of the experiment), and by all objective indications (read: yeast count) we had pitched enough yeast. Obviously, in hindsight something was amiss, and given reports I have received since this experiment I tend to suspect the particular yeast strain a bit. Perhaps we could have avoided the problem by pitching more yeast and aerating more aggressively, but perhaps not. But Jim *is* dead on in his ultimate advice. You can have all the cool brewing toys you want, and get unbelievably esoteric with your water, mills, mashing, sparging, etc., but you still won't get truly great beer (especially lagers) without taking good care of the yeast and pitching large quantities. Indeed, how does George Fix win so many ribbons? While he has a lot of cool stuff in his lab, his actual brewing setup is very simple. What George does that is unusual for most amateur brewers is pay *extremely* close attention to the condition and performance of his yeast, and grow and pitch large quantities of it; indeed, George won't brew if the yeast isn't ready. While we all don't need to go to the lengths that George (and Jim) probably do, the yeast should not just be an afterthought to the brewing day. Louis K. Bonham Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:23:51 -0500 From: "Crossno, Glyn" <Glyn.Crossno at cubic.com> Subject: Re: Upgrading to all-grain brewing Like quite a few of us I started with extract made the move (up? down? lateral?) to all grain. I started on the stove with a 5 gallon pot. Got kicked out of the house! Actually used a Coleman camp stove for a couple of batches then propane (look up burners, or poke around the web). Went to the local recycler a couple of times and got a 15.5 gallon pot, it is now any way. About this point I started seriously looking at going all grain. Picked up a couple of brass ball valves at my favorite hardware's going out of business sale :-( Just missed the 10 gallon Gott. Took our 48 quart chest cooler, and some spare copper pipe. Ok, don't tell the wife but I did have to buy some. Made a copper manifold. Not being close to any homebrew stores, and being cheap, built a mill. Checked a couple of 50 lb. sacks of grain as luggage, the shipping on that can eat you up. Put the specialty grains in the carry on, only two pieces per passenger! Long winded, not much of an answer. 1. Yes, but could be a pot on the stove. Started my partial mashes there. 2. Yes, but could be the same as one, call Jack S. Or get out the cooler. But dear, we need this 10 gallon Gott for the soccer practice and games. 3. Yes, leave LOTS of head room. I had a 5 gallon barley wine climb out of my converted keg. 4. Time, the day is a little longer. I have been happy with the 6 to 8 hour overnight, while at work mashes. Nice, but debatable: Chiller, do you know how long it takes for 11 gallons of 200+ degree beer to cool to 80? Glyn Crossno Estill Springs, TN PS. Thanks, Pat and Karl. Thanks Posters, and Homepage Publishers! Bob if you send a couple of the bottles from that case of Chimay Grand Reserve (blue), I'll test them. - --------------- "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 06:37:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Steve Jackson <stevejackson at rocketmail.com> Subject: Re: HSA (again?) In HBD #2805 (August 22, 1998) "Dr. Pivo" wrote: >>>> 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) <<<< I do recall your premise. Which is why I brought up my question. You cannot hardly have proved or disproved the validity of this particular bit of brewing literature if you did not meet essentially the same conditions. Hence, my question as to the age of the beer. >>>> 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!". <<<< No. Ken Starr might be listening. >>>> 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). <<<< I'm alone in the office today, so I can do this without fear of embarrassment. >>>> These beers were sampled between 6 and 8 weeks of age. <<<< Thank you. That helps me (and I'm assuming others) to give the appropriate consideration to your results. If the beers had only been a couple of weeks old, I would not have been inclined to consider your results as having proved or disproved anything. As it stands, I think your experience is certainly enough to warrant questioning of the conventional wisdom and further experimentation to see if the results are duplicated. >>>> I'll go into detail about my speculations about this, and its relevance, when I post. <<<< I'm looking forward to it. >>>> <snip> 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. <<<< My guess is more people aren't willing to these sorts of tests because most brewers aren't willing to intentionally do something that *may* create a bad batch of beer. I average about a brew a month, much too infrequently to make it worthwhile to do much experimentation. Since I don't test out any of these theories, etc. on my own, I have to rely on other homebrewers who are willing to do so. I very much appreciate your willingness to experiment regarding HSA and slow cooling and your report of the results. -Steve in Indianapolis _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free at yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:38:10 -0600 From: Ian Smith <isrs at cmed.com> Subject: Staling of kegged beer I recently bought a 1/4 barrel of micro-brewed beer. This is one of my favorites (Avery ESB from Boulder). My question:- The brewer keeps his kegs in his walk in refrigerator at 34 F. I took it home and put it in my 70 degree F basement. Initially the beer tasted great but within a few days I noticed it was getting darker with a definite increase in bitterness. I used CO2 to transport/transfer the beer. Could this be staling? How long does it take for a commercial beer to stale at room temperature? Cheers Ian Smith isrs at cmed.com Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:08:36 -0400 From: Alan Monaghan <AlanM at GardnerWeb.com> Subject: Visit to Chicago I am going to be in Chicago for two weeks starting the day after labor day for the big tool show. I am looking for recommendations on any Brew Pubs to visit (staying at the Drake downtown so not too far out please), home brew supply stores, or home brewers in the area. Would love to have a full two weeks of Brew Pubs to visit. Also, any local beer or specialty beer from that area would also be welcome. Thanks ever so much. vitam cerevisiae venturi saeculi omnia Alan G. Monaghan Gardner Publications, Inc. AlanM at Gardnerweb.com <mailto:AlanM at Gardnerweb.com> Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:26:24 -0700 From: "Tidmarsh Major" <tidmarsh at mindspring.com> Subject: Unusually long lag time Greetings, all. Last night I brewed an extract wheat beer, and having followed recent yeast-count discussions, pitched 3 pkgs of rehydrated Nottingham dry yeast. Surprisingly, I had the longest lag time since I quit pitching swelled Wyeast packs into unaerated wort. This morning, 12 hrs after pitching, there was slight positive pressure in the airlock, but no evident bubbling or foam on the surface of the beer. Now, 15 hrs after pitching, foam is just starting to cover the surface of the wort. On to the specifics. I boiled 6.6 lbs of malt syrup in 5.5 gals of water. It was in two pouches, presumably packaged by the homebrew shop from bulk container, and labeled Munton's wheat. The shop owner said it was Munton and Fison wheat extract, a 50/50 barley/wheat extract. I boiled 60 mins and cooled, using an immersion chiller to about 85-90F (as cool as the tap water here would get it. I got very little break, either hot or cold. I drained into the carboy though an Easymasher connected to a piece of racking cane with 4 small holes drilled in it for aeration, pitched the 3 packages of rehydrated yeast, and put it into the fermentation chamber to continue cooling. The color of the wort was much darker than I expected, more an amber or brown than what I would have expected from a wheat malt extract. I din't take a gravity reading, but estimating from the amount of syrup and water, it must have been in the 1.048-1.050 range. Unless the color of Munton's wheat extract is darker than other wheat extracts, I suspect that it was old, and the darkening was a result of that age. I'm particularly surprised at the long lag time, especially at such a warm temperature. Could this be one of those mysterious low- nitrogen malt extracts that certain researchers tested but wouldn't name? I noticed that the foam from aeration fell into the wort much more quickly than I usually see with all-barley worts I've mashed myself. I would have expected more foam stability in a 50% wheat wort rather than less. Could this seeming lack of heading proteins also indicate a lack of nitrogen? If indeed my wort is low in nitrogen (175 ppm is tha magic number, right?), could that have caused the long lag time? Tidmarsh Major tidmarsh at mindspring.com Birmingham, Alabama Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 08:40:26 -0700 From: Mark Riley <mriley at netcom.com> Subject: Re: Amino acids / HSA Steve Alexander writes: >I'm not sure if this was in a previous post of a private comm, but one term in >models for fusel production is yeast growth rate related *but* the coefficient >on the term is also dependent on the specific related amino acid - so that at >higher amino acid levels the fusel production is also moderated (and from some >research even stops). If this fusel term is the issue for reducing yeast >growth in order to prevent off flavors (and I'm not sure this is the only >factor) then adding a bit of valine, leucine and isoleucine amino acids to the ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ >wort might be a preferable solution to inducing slow fermentation and low >growth - at least on HB scale operations. I'm not stating that this is the >case - just stating that without understanding the nature of the problem that >rushing to solutions is premature. Just took a peek in the medicine cabinet, and wouldn't you know it, I'm fresh out! If'n it's decided that this would be a good idea for limiting yeast growth (and thus fusel production), how would us homebrewer types go about aquiring said amino acids? George de Piro writes: >...I agree with Dr. Pivo that with the myriad other things small brewers can >do to their beer HSA is near the bottom of things to take care of. I spent the day at one of the local brewpubs as assistant brewer for the day, and was both shocked and horrified to discover that the runoff from the lauter tun empties into the boiler by means of a curved tube that directs the flow against the side of the boiler where it dribbles the 4 to 5 feet to the bottom. With that mental image in mind, I have to say that the beers produced there are quite good and hardly reminiscent of wet cardboard. Now, the popularity of this place ensures rapid turnover, but I'd have to say the situation echoes that for many homebrewers: it's hard to keep the stuff around for over a month, let alone two. Carry on, I say, with the crusade, Dr. Pivo! Cheers, Mark Riley http://hbd.org/recipator Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 11:41:33 -0400 From: "Tom Struzik" <tom at struzik.com> Subject: Off flavor questions Hi all - I just tapped a keg of what was to be an IPA, but turned out closer to a barley wine. I believe that the OG was in the neighborhood of 1080 and the FG was around 1010. It has the slightest 'plastic' taste to it. There is also a smell that I can only describe as being rather like Gerber's Baby Custard. Any idea what caused this? Thanks. Tom Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 09:13:24 -0700 From: Badger Roullett <branderr at microsoft.com> Subject: rehydrating Dry yeast I was brewing last night, and came accross a question... the packages of dry yeast both caution me to not Over Hydrate them. i tossed it into water before reading the packages all the way, so i was wondering if my yeast is gonna take off at all? have i killed it? and why does it caution that? badger ********************************************* Brander Roullett aka Badger Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:32:40 -0400 From: "Penn, John" <PennJE1 at SPACEMSG.JHUAPL.edu> Subject: Barleywine, Infections, Re: First Batch Barleywine: Thanks to all the input on carbonating my barleywine, a question from two weeks ago. I was away for a week and its taken me 2 weeks to catch up on the HBD. Generally the suggestions were to give it a lot of time, many months. Another suggestion was to try and stir up the yeast which I did. Nottingham is very flocculant so that was a good suggestion to periodically roust the yeast into suspension just like you would do in your fermenter. Lastly, if it doesn't carbonate before I get too impatient, I will try rehydrate or make a yeast starter and put a small amount in each bottle. I guess at 10% abv, those yeasties in the bottle must be pretty worn out. As for carbonation I usually get carbonation within a month for beers in the 8-9% abv range if I pitch enough Nottingham yeast or Wyeast 1728. Also I keep the beers at about 70F so that they are warm enough to carbonate in a reasonable amount of time. Infections: The comments recently on infections led me to believe that many people cannot tell when their beer is mildly infected either because of the style of beer, personal tastes, or because they drink it before it really manifests itself. Well I've been suspicious of my beers of late but wasn't sure about the infections because it can be hard to taste. I believe I have the most common culprit identified. I did a 7 gallon batch and put 3.5 gallons in my glass carboy and 3.5 gallons in my plastic bucket. I think my 2 year old bucket is the source of my main infections though I may still have some wild yeasties floating around this summer, and there may be some other minor sources. I am very surprised by the result and I have yet to taste the two bottled versions but there was definately a layer of scum in the bottles from the plastic bucket batch. I thought that if I soaked the bucket in a weak bleach solution it would still kill everything even in those scratches that may be unnoticeable. At any rate I guess I should replace my plastic bucket. Is that what most of you do with plastic, replace every couple of years? Re: First Batch: Tim (Cosmo) asks about a stuck? first batch. With you ingredients list you should have had an OG in the high 50s assuming a 5 gallon batch, not the low 44 that you measured. If this was a partial boil extract batch then its very possible that you didn't get a good mix of ingredients which would lead to the low OG you measured. Given that expected OG, and FG in the low 20s is about right and the yeast you used is probably not a high attenuator. The easiest prevention of high FGs is to pitch enough yeast and make sure you aerate the batch well at pitching time. As for the sweet taste, that relatively high FG may seem like a thick sweet beer but that can be offset by hop balance. You failed to mention how much the boil amount was or what the AA rating was of those Hallertau hops. A small partial boil will result in less hop isomerization so it may seem sweet because you don't have enough bitterness to suit your taste. Try getting one of the formulas like Rager and try calculating your bitterness based on the AAs of hops, amount, and boil percentage/gravity so that you have a basis for comparing this batch to future batches. Hope that helps. John Penn Eldersburg, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:39:26 -0500 From: Charles Epp <chuckepp at ukans.edu> Subject: Briess ESB query Beer friends: I posted this query a couple of weeks ago and got no response; don't fail me now, oh great beer society! I'd appreciate some comments on the quality of the relatively new Briess ESB malt -- does it match British pale ale malts in flavor and performance? Private replies are fine, although I'll bet others want to hear, too, as the Briess ESB seems to be a lot less expensive than British malts. Thanks. --Chuck in Lawrence, KS Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 19:18:12 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se> Subject: The Adaptive Significance of Excessive Beer Consumption Wish I could say that I was the creator of the following, but I'm not. In spite of blatant plagiarism I'll pass it along for the edification of all.... "A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo, and when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole is maintained or even improved by the regular culling of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can operate only as fast as the slowest brain cells through which the electrical signals pass. Recent epidemiological studies have shown that while excessive intake of alcohol kills off brain cells, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. Thus, regular consumption of beer helps eliminate the weaker cells, constantly making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. The result of this in-depth study verifies and validates the causal link between all-weekend parties and job related performance. It also explains why, after a few short years of leaving university and getting married, most professionals cannot keep up with the performance of the new graduates. Only those few that stick to the strict regimen of voracious alcoholic consumption can maintain the intellectual levels that they achieved during their university years. So, this is a call to arms. As our country is losing its technological edge we should not shudder in our homes. Get back into the bars! Quaff that pint! Your company and country need you to be at your peak, and you shouldn't deny yourself the career that you could have." As once again, this represents speculative, unsubstantiated theory, I've taken it upon myself to do the testing (sample size(n) =1). (disclaimer printed in advance, in case others are planning to partake in said experiment. It would be advisable to carry the requisite accessories before joining in... one extra brain, three extra livers, one reserve peripheral nervous system, and a spare pancreas or two) Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:56:50 +0000 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu> Subject: Experiments and Design Andy Thomas wrote: > 2206 >is a wonderfully tempermental yeast, to my evaluation. I have seen one >starter blow through 10 gal of octoberfest, then stick on 5 gallons of >pilsner literally a month later (different starters, I always start from >scratch). Although I appreciate Jim's points, and his technical >knowledge is obviously good, I am happy with my present state of >knowledge. 2206 is temperamental. Some breweries use it successfully, >I have trouble with it from time to time. You guys were doing an experiment. when one does an experiment, one wants to control all the variables except one. This "experiment" was to look at the effects of various mashing methods on flavor. By you own admission the 2206 is a temperamental strain. This throws another large variable into the experimental design. Regardless of your love of the yeast it was a bad choice for this type of experiment. You would have been better off using a strain that is more consistent in behavior. One could make the arguement that this large variable from the yeast would invalidate your results. Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:14:01 -0500 From: "Thomas, Andrew R" <thomaar at texaco.com> Subject: RE: Experiments and Design I suppose so, if you wanted to be a hard ass about it. There are very few lager yeasts out there that are "munich centered", and this in my opinion is the best. As I mentioned, it often runs flawlessly, and did so in the helles experiment. Ever had a munich helles that was estery? Neither did we. So we wanted to make a great beer, in addition to make a great experiment. So invalidate them if you like, but Jim, have a great day. andy > -----Original Message----- > From: Jim Liddil [SMTP:jliddil at azcc.arizona.edu] > Sent: Monday, August 24, 1998 5:57 AM > To: post@hbd.org > Cc: thomaar at exchange.texaco.com; lkbonham at phoenix.net > Subject: Experiments and Design > > Andy Thomas wrote: > > 2206 > >is a wonderfully tempermental yeast, to my evaluation. I have seen > one > >starter blow through 10 gal of octoberfest, then stick on 5 gallons > of > >pilsner literally a month later (different starters, I always start > from > >scratch). Although I appreciate Jim's points, and his technical > >knowledge is obviously good, I am happy with my present state of > >knowledge. 2206 is temperamental. Some breweries use it > successfully, > >I have trouble with it from time to time. > > You guys were doing an experiment. when one does an experiment, one > wants > to control all the variables except one. This "experiment" was to > look at > the effects of various mashing methods on flavor. By you own > admission the > 2206 is a temperamental strain. This throws another large variable > into > the experimental design. Regardless of your love of the yeast it was > a bad > choice for this type of experiment. You would have been better off > using a > strain that is more consistent in behavior. One could make the > arguement > that this large variable from the yeast would invalidate your results. > > Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 21:01:32 +0100 From: "Dr. Pivo" <irv at wireworks.se> Subject: HSA ad infinitum I received a nice letter from George DePiro, which I see he has posted here, which gives me freedom to quote from it, as it raises some interesting points: > What about the amount of HSA in the control batch? Maybe > there is some HSA going on in both beers? It is one slippery bugger. First HSA was immediately apparent with the slightest agitation, then it only became apparent after long term storage, and now it is an "on/off" phenomenon. I sort of preferred it when it was explained by electron trading amongst amino acid-saccharide complexes, and would fall well within the kinetics of any normal chemistry. Now that it is an "all or none" phenomenon, I frankly don't know what to do with it. It must either be like an "indicator" system, or totally unlike other taste perceptual parameters. I'll grant that tasting is non-linear, and people rarely can give equivalent "numbers" of taste perception that match concentration (accomodation, receptor down-sensatising, etc. play in).... but the "on/off" thing is new. I guess once you've accidently brushed against that switch, you've turned on the irretrievable HSA production, and nothing that you do from that point on matters. It would just have to be HSA that has these previously unheard of qualities, and I have resolved myself to the fact that I'm not going to be able to grab this wiley vermin by the tail..... it's just too tricky. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 12:29:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Scott Murman <smurman at best.com> Subject: Re: Even More Yeast > (2) re pitching yeast that has been previously used to > ferment a beer. > (in this case) 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%. > > Jim Liddil So how do you monitor your yeast lipid level while you're adding O2 to the wort in order to hit the "optimum" level of 0.8%? I mean, I know how I do it, but I'm curious how you do it. SM Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 14:38:24 -0500 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Salt/Wort Dilution A couple of readers (Fred Johnson, Jeremy Bergsman) have commented on my post RE estimating alcohol in beer using salt and I am chatting back and forth with Aaron who asked the original question and forwarded me the pages from Wagner, "Chemical Technology" published in 1872 which put this bee in his (and my) bonnets originally. Both Fred and Jeremy commented on the inherent conductivity of beer. I did think of this. Nominal beer seems to have a conductivity on the order of a couple of mS/cm. This conductivity is swamped by the conductivity fom the added salt. At the 1:1000 dilution I originally tried 1mS/cm would be reduced to about (ionic strength considerations aside) 1 uS/cm. A saturated salt solution diluted by this much has a conductivity of about 660 uS/cm. In the presence of ethanol at the levels we expect to see in beer, this drops to a little under 600 uS (I'm going to drop the /cm from here on). I'm now thinking of a 250:1 dilution (requires less DI water and a smaller flask and gets conductivity up to where it can be measured with a $60 meter). Conductivity for beer at this dilution is about .004 mS and saturated salt in water only at this dilution reads about 2.5 mS. Thus, to respond to Fred's first point, I haven't been correcting for the conductivity of the beer though it would be a simple matter to do so and perhaps even necessary in, say, Burton ales. Fred's second point is that denatured EtOH solutions and pure alcohol solutions probably dissolve salt differently and this is doubtless true. What I have is 94 - 96% ethanol denatured according to DOT Formula 3, whatever that is. The rest of the stuff in the bottle is propanol, and methanol. Making a few assumptions about what this means in terms of water content of dilute solutions made from this concoction I conclude that 8 mL of it diluted to 100 mL with DI water should have a water content of 93.8% by weight. I suspect this is pretty close to the right value but it just occured to me that I can check this by measuring the density of the dilution and using the ASBC tables and I'll do tjust hat. Meausrement of the conductivity of a series of test dilutions of this denatured alcohol at 0,2,4,6 and 8 mL/100 mL by saturation with salt and then dilution of 1mL of the saturated salt solution to 250 mL reveals a very good fit with a straight line. Assuming the 93.8% number is right: Percent Water by Weight = .47407 + .21379G (i.e. grams of water per gram of solution ) where G is the conductivity of the 250:1 dilution in mS. The following procedure is my current thinking as to how one might use this scheme: 1. Place 4 g salt in a 25 mL volumetric flask (or other similar small bottle). 2. Pipet in no more than 10 mL beer. 3. Cap and shake vigorously. Allow to come to room temperature (or better yet, use a water bath). 4. Shake again vigorously for several minutes 5. Allow to stand so that all undissolved salt can settle out 6. With a pipet or syringe withdraw a 1 mL aliquot being careful not to disturb the settled salt. 7. Transfer this aliquot to a 250 mL volumetric flask being careful that no salt crystals are transferred. 8. Fill flask to reference line with deionized water. 9. Invert repeatedly. 10. Measure conductivity carefully. 11. Use formula above to calculate grams of water per gram of beer from conductivity reading. 12. Add grams of extract (Deg Plato)/100, to result of step 11. See Note 2. 13. Subtract sum in step 12 from 1.0. This is grams of alcohol per gram of beer 14. Convert to ABV by multiplying by beer SG and divding by 0.791 (density of EtOH). Thus it's Step 12 that I neglected to think of in the first experiment. I've done 2 examples. The first is a Pils with specific gravity 1.00968 and true extract 4.85 Plato. It's conductivity was 2.00 mS. This implies a water content of .90166 gram per gram (based on the 93.8% value). The true extract of 4.85P means that one gram of beer contains .0485 gram of extract. Thus the beer contains .95016 grams of things other than ethanol (the CO2 is assumed outgassed). Thus it must contain 1 - .95016 = 0.0498 grams of ethanol per gram for an ABW of 4.98%. Multiplying by the specific gravity of the beer and and dividing by the specific gravity of ethanol gives 6.36% ABV. This beer's actual acohol content is estimated at 6.21% (OK, its on the hefty side for a Pils but I brewed it and I can call it anything I want even though its color is 14 SRM). The second example is a Weizen with SG 1.01179 and TE 4.87P. It measured 2.11 mS implying a water content of .925176g/g. Adding the extract gives 0.97385g/g which, subtracted from 1 leaves 0.02615grams alcohol per gram of beer. Converted to ABV this is 3.34%. The actual alcohol content of this beer is more like 5.4% and so the method is not nearly so close in this case as in the case of the Pils. At this point I don't know why but am suspicious that suspended protein, which does enter into the TE measurement, might not effect the solubility of salt. On the other hand the method may jsut not be that accurate for a variety of other reasons. Obviously, more data is needed. I'd love to have some collaborators but based on the results of the recent appeal for pH data am not going to hold my breath. Notes: 1. Any method for determining the amount of salt dissolved will do. In Wagner a measured amount of salt is added to a measured amount of beer and the amount which settles, after shaking, into a thin, graduated tube is deducted from the original amount added. One could also measure the sodium ion concentration in a dilution using an ISE or titrate for the chloride with mercuric nitrate. I chose conductivity because I'd hope that accurate enough measurements could be made with a cheap conductivity tester and a conductivity check is simpler to do than assaying for the sodium or chloride. 2. True extract here means the fraction of the dissolved solids by weight in the beer. This is determined by boiling a sample of the beer to a fraction of its original volume thus ensuring that all the alcohol is driven off. The residue is cooled and diluted back to its original volume with deionized water and the specific gravity measured. Specific gravity is then converted to degrees Plato by use of the Tables in the ASBC pubs or HSB&Y or a curve fit to them. True Extract must be measured fairly accurately i.e. one must pay attention to temperature. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To those who thought I overkilled the dilution question I guess I should mention that I do the problem as I indicated but the implementation couldn't be much simpler. I always have a programmable calculator handy when I brew. Among other things it's programmed to do is display pounds per gallon extract as a function of degrees Plato (I have Plato hydrometers). Thus the tricky part is programmed and I don't really even have to think about what I'm doing - just enter a value for P, press a single key, read the lbs/gal, multiply by the gallons to get pounds. Dilutions are simply caluclated from there. In the example, 4 gallons of wort at 13P --> (4)(1.141) = 4.56 Lbs. 12P --> 1.049 lbs/gal. 4.56/1.049 = 4.34 gal. Add 0.34 gal. Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 13:13:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan Edwards <ale at cisco.com> Subject: affects of sterol levels on glycogen uptake and it's indications through spectrophotometric measurements of fusel alcohol production Ugh! I put yeast in malt. It tastes goooood! Ugh! -Alan Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:43:23 -0400 From: Jonathan Edwards <jdedward at us.ibm.com> Subject: re: The truth about American Beers "Robert C. Sprecher, M.D." <rcs8 at en.com> wrote: Subject: The truth about American Beers Actual quote from a patient's medical chart: "The catheter was draining urine the color of American beer" 'nuf said. ===== gee, i hope this wasn't a rogue oatmeal stout, an anderson valley stout, liberty ale, american brown ale, sierra nevada porter or bigfoot barleywine or that guy is in real trouble. maybe it should have said the color of budmillcoors beer. 'nuf said. jonathan - - Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 16:47:19 -0400 From: Jonathan Edwards <jdedward at us.ibm.com> Subject: liberty ale really uses all cascade? hey now, i'm in the process of planning a liberty ale clone. i've hear rumor that it uses all cascades. anyone know this for a fact? there's some question as to whether it really uses all cascades over on rec.crafts.brewing. any of you enlightened scienitist/brewer types know the scoop? thanks! jonathan Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 1998 17:02:46 -0400 From: Christopher Peterson <peterson at ucmg65.med.uc.edu> Subject: AHA-Nationals Judging question Beer geeks, A friend of mine and I have a question regarding beer judging (scoring) at the AHA nationals. We both entered a beer in the same category. Both made it into the finals. In both evaluations, it was unclear how the final score given to the beer was obtained. Both at the first round and second rounds, the two scores I received were averaged to give a final score (for example but not actual scores; 35 + 37 = 36 final average score). On my friends sheet, he received two scores, yet the final evluation score was not the average of the first two (for example 32 and 31 final score 38). How do they come up with these numbers? Do the judges reevaluate beers after trying the whole category? I know the finals used a two tier system to judge the beers. Do the judges re-score beers that score the highest? Just wondering. Any info would be appreciated. As always, private emails welcome. Christopher Peterson peterson at molgen.uc.edu Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 08/25/98, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96