HOMEBREW Digest #3250 Wed 16 February 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

  Continuous aeration / hot break / Vance's long ferment / Contest limitations ("George de Piro")
  Help needed on high SG ("Richard")
  secondary fermentor ("Murray, Eric")
  Capriciousness (EFOUCH)
  Yeast culturing question ("Parker, Mike")
  Re: CAP Questions (Jeff Renner)
  Re:Fermentap ("Vernon, Mark")
  Oxygenation and pitching rate Part 1 (Dave Burley)
  Oxygenation and underpitching part 2, a stirring comment (Dave Burley)
  Transporting full carboys ("Foster Jason")
  PBW concentration and expense ("Troy Hager")
  yeast mag stir starters ("Alan Meeker")
  Some info on Malted Oats and haze (from Fawcett's) (darrell.leavitt)
  Son of Pivo ("Alan Meeker")
  Did I do the right thing? ("Darrell Leavitt")
  Sundry yeast topics ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Head space speculation (RiedelD)
  Re: Re; Carboy shakers (Spencer W Thomas)
  yeast handling techniques (Clif Moore)
  Just Say No (Jim Liddil)
  re: Cleaning Spent Grains In All-Grain Brewing (cmoore)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 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: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 01:07:18 -0500 From: "George de Piro" <gdepiro at mindspring.com> Subject: Continuous aeration / hot break / Vance's long ferment / Contest limitations Hi all, Pete C. (Albany, NY) says of continuous of aeration: "in fact, the yeast are fed sugar and O2 incrementally to get them to reproduce rather than make beer. since they are continuously using the O2 when reproducing, it is best to feed them continuously in the first few hours of fermentation when they most need to reproduce to get a high cell count. if I had a pump, I would certainly use it for the first few hours after pitching." Back to me: While it is quite true that the best way to maximize yeast growth is to provide them with constant O2 and nutrients (the nutrient part is important; keep reading), you most definitely do NOT want to aerate your production wort continuously to increase cell count. Why? Yeast produce certain chemicals while they are growing that are not produced (or produced in smaller quantity) while they are fermenting. One of the more important groups of these chemicals are the fusel alcohols (aka, fusel oils, higher alcohols, or alcohols with more carbon atoms than the two in ethanol). These are not desirable in large quantity in beer because they do not taste very good. Some people also believe them to intensify hangovers (I tend to believe this myself). There are few times when one can use the word "always" in brewing, but this is one of them: high yeast growth always leads to high levels of fusel alcohols. There should be no need to grow yeast in large amounts in your production wort; you should be pitching an adequate amount of cells that were grown up before hand. As Lynn Krueger at Siebel said, "Are you trying to make beer or grow yeast?" The techniques, goals, and results are different. While continuous aeration with an aquarium pump is a good way to maximize cell growth, you must be sure that the yeast have enough nutrients while they are getting aerated. If they run out of fermentable material in the presence of O2, they will use their glycogen as fuel. This leads to emaciated yeast (these thin, weakling yeast often get ridiculed by bullies on the beach, leading to psychological problems that will effect the beer they make). If you continue to expose them to air after their glycogen is gone, they will go the autolysis route. This leads to yeast corpses that are less than useful for brewing beer (although some people like to spread them on toast). Well-financed breweries have computer-controlled machines that can propagate yeast, automatically adding fresh wort when it is needed. I would love one of these devices for Christmas one of these years. In the absence of such technology, I find it safest to not provide continuous aeration, but rather to aerate for several hours, let it ferment out, and feed and aerate again the next day. This has worked for me. Results may vary, and I'm sure their are others who will chime in with alternate techniques that provide good results. - ------------------------------------------- Troy talks about his low pH water and how it effects his mash and also talks about how he obtained a good hot break when using purified water instead of his tap water in an extract beer. He then asks some questions: 1. Is this large amount of break material beneficial? Yes. The large, coaguable proteins that comprise hot break will produce haze in beer. The flavor effects of a poor hot break are more tenuous, with some authorities claiming "reduced flavor stability," whatever that means. 2. And, if it is important, why am I not getting it in my all grain batches? If you are mashing with your tap water and the wort ends up with a pH of less than 5 at the start of the boil, you will get a poor hot break. It is hard to imagine that your water is useless for all styles of beer, though. If it is like Albany water and has a low residual alkalinity, you should be able to make light-colored beers without difficulty. Stouts and other dark beers will yield poor hot breaks, though. The pH of your water really doesn't mean a heck of a lot. It is the amount of calcium and bicarbonate that determine how it will react with your malt. AJ de Lange frequently posts oodles of good information about this stuff. Search out his old posts. - --------------------------------- Vance writes about an apparently abnormally long fermentation: "I double stepped my started to about .6 quart (567 ml). I was brewing a standard amber ale but was incorporating 2 lbs of honey so I wanted the yeast to get a good foothold from the start. Within 12 hrs I had a rolling fermentation going.... Now, 10 days later, it is still bubbling away - once about every 17 seconds out of the airlock..." Back to me: This sounds like a classic stuck fermentation caused by underpicthing yeast. Vance mentions a reasonable 12 hour lag time, but at what temperature did you pitch? If you pitched at a high temp (like in the 70's F, 21-26C) the lag could be reasonably short, but you still won't have enough yeast to ferment the wort completely and quickly. Stepping a Wyeast package up to just shy of 600 mL in two steps does not produce enough yeast for a 5 gallon batch. A standard, 50 mL Wyeast pack can be stepped up to 500 mL in the first step, then that can be stepped up to 5 L (or less; 2 L is adequate for a 19 L (5 gallon) batch). Remember the 10X rule: step the yeast up by no more than 10X the volume they are in (search for my many posts on this subject or read my BT article in the Jan. 1999 issue, if you have it). The 2 lb. of honey used in the batch is not the reason the ferment is so slow. Honey is almost all easily fermented sugars and is fermented quickly by healthy yeast. The main reason meads can take so long to ferment is because honey is nearly devoid of important nutrients. That should not be a concern when using it as am adjunct in a mostly-malt beer. - --------------------------------- John Varady asks why some contests (including my club's own Best of Brooklyn) limit entrants to one entry per subcategory. I can only speak for the BoB: We had several reasons for doing this. One was that there were certain categories that seemed to always get swamped with entries from one or two people. We felt that this was not in keeping with the spirit of competition. Another reason we limit the entries was that the competition grew larger than we wanted it to be. 400+ entries made for a bit more work than any of us wanted to repeat this year, so we took some steps to reduce the number of entries. The prizes are still fabulous, though, so we expect to get a healthy number of entries. We may use John's suggestion of limiting the number of entries per subcategory to two next year. If there is a next year...anybody want to organize it? Have fun! George de Piro C.H. Evans Brewing Company at the Albany Pump Station (518)447-9000 http://evansale.com (under construction) Malted Barley Appreciation Society Homebrew Club http://hbd.org/mbas Return to table of contents
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 22:35:26 -0800 From: "Richard" <seaotter at orland.net> Subject: Help needed on high SG I recently started my first high SG brew. It was based on a wheat doppelbock recipe from "New Joy of..". I was unable to find a good lager yeast at my local homebrew shoppe and got White Labs Trappist Ale WLP500 so I decided to go more for a "Trappist" heavy ale. I reduced the hops to a level more suitable for this style and added some coriander. For 5 gals I used (all dry malt extracts) 2lb Briess Wheat, 4lb light British, 7lb Laaglander and about 1/2lb honey (just because it was around). About 38 IBU of hops and 1/2lb 90' crystal. OG was 1.124. Aerated the cool wort for 30 min with a fish tank pump. Pitched about a quart of starter. Fermentation was very vigorous and the action began within 2 hours. Amazing to watch and it sure got warm! Slowed down after about 7 days and I racked to a secondary with a SG of 1.044. Signs of fermentation have almost stopped (a bubble every 2 minutes or so) and the brew is starting to clear after only 2 days in secondary. SG is about the same (1.044)which is what I am wondering about...seems too high and the brew tastes thick and sweet (but pretty alcoholic at 10.5%v by my calc). 1) Am I just being too anxious? Should I just let it go in the secondary a couple weeks and check it out later? Or has my yeast been overcome by alcohol level? Should I pitch in a champagne yeast to try to move it along? 2) I am also concerned that I may have underhopped for bitterness. Is it possible to increase bitterness by boiling some high alpha hops and adding that into the secondary? Can I use water or is wort actually required for the chemistry? If so, could I boil some malt extract with the hops and use that for priming at bottling time? 3)Might I need to add yeast at bottling time? I think that maybe time might solve this, but I have an unfortunate tendency to want to "monkey around" with things. Should I just keep my hands off it for a while? Rich Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:27:44 -0500 From: "Murray, Eric" <emurray at unitedcatalysts.com> Subject: secondary fermentor I have been thinking about trying out the methods of secondary fermenting. There are several things that I have been wondering. What are the advantages of doing this with ales, if you bottle or keg after 2 to 3 weeks in the carboy? If there are significant advantages, do they out weigh the risk of contamination during the transfer? At what point is it best to transfer into the second carboy and is it critical to get the timing right? And finally, I have been considering repitching yeast (since I just started using liquid yeast), how effective is this and how much does it increase the risk of ruining your second or third batch? Any help is greatly appreciated. I love my new kegging system! The only problem is the beer doesn't last near as long :) Eric Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:13:00 -0500 From: EFOUCH at steelcase.com Subject: Capriciousness Phil claims to know what "felisomoto" means, yet balks at interpreting "domo arigato" He insists in using my name in non-brewing related posts, and continues to ignore the fact that Mike *loved* my pumpkin lager (not to mention the one I tried to send to Kyle that was so delicious, the flavor burst forth from the bottle, spontaneously creating a new life form. Don't worry, the surrounding box disintegrated, satisfying the second law of thermodynamics for this closed, yes CLOSED system). Cease and desist (forthwith), or Dave's lawyer will have you on his docket. In the spirit of good brewing, has anybody attempted a braggot by blending a barleywine and a sack mead? Eric Fouch Bent Dick YoctoBrewery Kentwood MI Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:02:45 -0600 From: "Parker, Mike" <mparker at CaseServices.com> Subject: Yeast culturing question > Another thing, I would like to start culturing my >own yeast. How do I do this? What other equipment >should I buy (is there a kit)? Will I need an >Autoclave, or will something like this do? >http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=257151470 > I just purchased a microscope on ebay can I use this >for cell count? > >(http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=244285359) A home canner or a pressure cooker works fine as an autoclave, commercial utoclaves are just big pressure cookers with a fancier name and price tag :-) You don't need a microscope for counts. You pull a 1 ml sample from your starter, mix it in 9 ml of sterile water, pull a 1 ml sample from that, dilute x 10 again, and repeat for something like 6 times total. Then pour the last 10ml sample onto an agar petri dish, let it grow a day or so, then do an eyeball count. If you diluted right you should get around 10-100 colonies. Back-calculate by multiplying your count by 1x10E<#dilutions> to get your count/ml, then multiply by your starter size to get the total count. For basic culturing, you need a wire loop, some test tubes with stoppers, a bunsen burner or other decent flame source (stovetop works in a pinch, but it's handy to be able to pick the flame up and move it around. Camp cooking stoves work well. You also need some agar (available from your local scientific supply in bulk for $$$ or your local chinese grocery in more reasonable amts for $1-$2. You will need some petri dishes, available in counts of 50 or so, and you will probably need them (starter counts need about 7, strain separations can need a bunch as well, you may want to do bacterial tests, etc). You'll also need some pipettes. Ball Mason jars (home-canning jars) are handy because you can make up a 5-gallon batch of starter, and can the whole batch. Since the canning process involves pressure cooking, you'll have a whacking lot of sterile starter and culturing medium. A pretty decent setup, if you've already got a pressure cooker, probably won't run more than $100-150 or so, depending on how fancy you want to get. If all you want to do is save some of your yeast for later use, then it's *much* simpler, just a loop, a flame source, and some tubes (old White Labs tubes work well). Flame the loop, loop some yeast out of the packet, and swirl it in a tube of sterile 10% sucrose solution, and toss it in the fridge, and it'll keep for a couple of years with a little luck. A good book to get is Pierre Rajotte's _First Steps in Yeast Culture_, which covers the whole spectrum of homebrew culturing from a home- use perspective. Michael Parker Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:03:42 -0500 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: CAP Questions Edward Seymour <eseymour at yahoo.com> wrote: > Back in December Jeff Rennier was kind enough to >Post his rendition of a Clasic American Pilsner using >percentages of the grain bill. I asked the local >homebrew store if they carried the corn meal that Jeff >recommends, but the only corn product that he carried >was flaked maize I get this corn meal from a local "general store" kind of place - sort of bulk food. It is degermed like the grocery store stuff, but a bit coarser. I've also used Quaker brand, but it is mighty fine. Didn't present any problems, though. Some of it always gets under the false bottom but recirculation keeps it out of the beer. >After >lautering I found a gray crust on the top of the spent >grains. It looked like gun powder. What was that >stuff? The Germans call the stuff on top "teig," (long "i" sound, not long "e") which just means dough (sauerteig is sourdough). I think it's just coagulated protein. I can't remember a different kind of teig with corn adjunct, though. Maybe it's some of the flinty corn exterior? >Everything else >with the beer was fine (smell, color, taste, etc). Did it seem different from all malt? Did you like it? Jeff -=-=-=-=- Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, c/o nerenner at umich.edu "One never knows, do one?" Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 09:12:52 -0600 From: "Vernon, Mark" <vernonm at goportable.com> Subject: Re:Fermentap Okay, there have been a couple of questions on my previous fermentap post. There are two reasons I transfer from one carboy to another - The sides of a carboy are not quite steep enough for all of the trub/yeast sediment to fall to the bottom, so you get a layer there, and second removing trub incrementally seems to waste more beer than one transfer. CO2 is released from the system by a racking cane that penetrates the valve assembly and protrudes into the carboy, I have never had one clog up yet through 25+ batches, however I do recomment using a 6.5 gal carboy for a 5 gal batch to maximize headspace. As I mentioned before I have no affiliation with fermantap, just a satisfied customer...yada yada yada Any more questions? Send 'em my way. Mark Vernon Beer is Proof that God Loves Mankind.... Benjamin Franklin Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:33:20 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Oxygenation and pitching rate Part 1 Brewsters: Both Alan Meeker and Dr. Pivo touched on related subjects, in a way. Alan with oxygenation/steroid/population growth and Dr. Pivo encouraging ( I think) "underpitching" or at least not emulating the big boys slavishly. As I have commented in the past here and/or in private discussions, I believe that the suggested pitching rate used in commercial breweries may in fact be the <maximum>, rather than the minimum yeast pitching rate which a commercial brewery can use to still gain a uniqueness in their beer, since they are concerned about maximum number of fermentations per year. If this were not the case, then why not pitch the total quantity ( equivalent to homebrewers pitching on the yeast cake from the previous brew) needed, so as to minimize the fermentation vat occupancy by a batch? Answer: yeast growth with the associated by-products are an important part of the beer's flavor. Pitching larger and larger quantities of yeast in fact "dumbs down" the impact of the yeast growth on beer flavor, which may be Dr. Pivo's point. This may be the reason Dr. Pivo suggests we should reconsider the thought of pitching large quantities of yeast. I think the middle ground is an important place to consider as pitching a single cell ( not what DrP suggested) may be the ultimate in maximizing the growth of the yeast population and attendant flavor by-products, but is fraught with the potential for contamination. Pitching large quantities of yeast will minimize the yeast impact. If you are trying to emulate the commercial beers and pass BJCP muster, then, perhaps, this is the way to go, otherwise explore the path not often recommended of "underpitching". I would guess each yeast strain would respond differently to underpitching and provide an infinite variety to beers made from the same ingredients. Obviously lagering or not may or may not totally obviate any underpitching as these by-products of yeast growth are often consumed by the yeast as the availability of other nutrition declines. Continued in part 2 Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:47:49 -0500 From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley at compuserve.com> Subject: Oxygenation and underpitching part 2, a stirring comment Brewsters: Part 2 of Oxygenation and underpitching Alan comments that yeast multiply only to 4 or 5 times [I have read elsewhere 3 to 4] their initial population ( I presume when the recommended pitching rate is utilized) because they run out of steroids. The yeast, having utilized the available oxygen make an initial charge of steroids contnuously divide this among cells during the growth phase to the point where the minimum steroid content per cell prevents further growth. In this model it is not carbohydrate/FAN nutrition which limits population growth but oxygen/steroid content. This is a more satisfying model than earlier ones, since it explains the no growth, but continuing carbohydrate assimilation at constant population, as experienced in real yeast populations under normal fermentation conditions. I know of work in which failure to oxygenate a wort can result in the continuous decline in % attenuation from batch to batch. 5 batches in this series and the attenuation is terrible and the beer properties are poor or at least not the same as the original. So there is no doubt that oxygen is important <when the yeast is recycled>. Perhaps this is the key point here, as failure to oxygenate one batch has little impact. Most homebrewers who are making lots of different styles often do not recycle their yeast and would not find a problem with no oxygenation, as some have indicated. Others using "open" fermentation may have an automatic oxygenation if they also underpitch as oxygen will dissolve in the wort before active CO2 generation. Also, having read AJ's excellent experiments on oxygen concentration from various schemes of oxygen incorporation and knowing the concentration to be only 8 or so ppm at the beginning, I have to ponder the stoichiometry. Has anyone actually calculated if the miniscule amount ( at 10 ppm, a liter of beer only holds 0.01 grams of oxygen) of oxygen dissolved in the beer can have any real effect on the tens of grams of yeast we generate with each 20 liter fermentation? In other words, given 0.01 grams of oxygen, how many grams of steroids will be generated and from this how many grams of yeast? In a thought experiment, I believe the lower pitching rate will cause the efficiency of oxygen incorporated by the yeast to decline as CO2 should scrub the oxygen perhaps before it can be utilized. Having a high population of yeast will allow the maximum use of oxygen as a million cells per mililiter, means any cell is within a micron of an oxygen molecule and within easy reach of diffusion processes. What does become clear is that consistency in your technique as it relates to pitching volume and oxygenation is important in producing a consistent quality beer. - ---------------------------------- To the contributor who ponders how his newly acquired stirrer should be used, here is the answer. Incorporate oxygen during the starter growth by using the stirrer at a high speed and allowing oxygen to penetrate the air above the solution through sterile cotton ( or perhaps PatB's/ Williams foam stopper), pour off the starter beer after chilling overnight and pitch the yeast. This technique will incorporate the maximum amount of oxygen and generate the maximum amount of steroids in the yeast where oxygen is the limiting factor. Keep on Brewin' Dave Burley Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 07:59:16 PST From: "Foster Jason" <jasfoster at hotmail.com> Subject: Transporting full carboys Brewing comrades, I have a question for the intelligent masses. First some background. Currently I lager beers using an ice-water bath and a towel around the carboy and placing the bath in the coldest corner of my basement. I leave it for 6-8 weeks, changing the ice daily. This has three effects: 1. I can get temperatures down to about 40 degrees F, which is not optimal, but I find the results not disappointing. 2. I am limited to one or maybe two lagers a year, during our winter months (I live in Edmonton, Canada - which for you Americans is very north and can be VERY cold in the winter.) During other seasons, my basement isn't cold enough. 3. I have to tend it every day - and if I miss a day, the temperature creeps upward. I have been given the opportunity to use a spare corner of a walk-in cooler of a friend who runs a restaurant. However, there is no opportunity to actually brew at that site. Which means, consequently, that if I wished to use it, I would have to find a way to transport my carboy (I make 23 litre batches)full of wort/beer to this site. My concern is primarily oxidation from the agitation that would occur, and secondarily the risk of dropping it. My question is this: Is there a method of transporting my carboy that would minimize the oxidation risk? If not, I will have to let the opportunity pass. Any help would be appreciated. Jason Foster Edmonton, AB, Canada (where it is currently -21 degrees Celcius) ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 08:17:50 -0800 From: "Troy Hager" <thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us> Subject: PBW concentration and expense Fellow Brewers, I have been reading the high accolades that PBW has elicited in this forum and decided to order and try some myself. I read on the bottle as well as on the Five Star site to use one oz. per gallon to clean fermenters, etc. I bought a lb. for about $12 including shipping. When I realized that at this concentration my $12 will only clean about four 5 gal kegs I found that this is a very expesive product! It does do a very nice job of cleaning though and I really love the rinsablility (much better than TSP). I am wondering how others use it without breaking their bank accounts: 1. Is this the concentration you use? I notice they sell a two oz pack for homebrewers said to clean a 3-5 gal fermenter... that is not the concentration that Five Star recommends... what's up with this? 2. How long is it good for? Can I soak a keg one night, another keg the next and my fermenter the next? Will it last that long and be as effective at room temp? 3. How do breweries use it in such large quantities without going broke? Thanks for your info and suggestions, Troy Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:11:32 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: yeast mag stir starters Ed Seymour asked: - ------------------------------- Someone a few weeks back gave a heads up on magnetic stirrers under $20.00 on ebay. I was hi bidder the day before this post, when all of a sudden all of the bids jumped up over $65.00. Things have settled and I was able to purchase one for $16.50 plus shipping and handling - -------------------------------- Ooooooooppppps - that would be me. Sorry, glad to see you got one at a decent price after all! - ----------------------------------- My question to the digest is, now that I have one, what the #$! at do I do with it? I heard it told (or read it in the HBD) that I can make starters that are reported to have 10 times more yeast cells with a stirrer, but how is this done? Do I just make a starter as usual, put in a stir bar and make a nice gentle motion on the surface, or do I put it on high and make a tornado? - --------------------------------- You can pretty much make your starter as usual with the stirrer. Go for the tornado - better aeration and yeast are tough and can take it. No, you won't need an autoclave but the household equivalent (the pressure cooker) is highly reccomended! - -------------------------------- Are there any books on the subject (with lots of BIG pictures) for the science illiterate? Someone last fall was willing to write such a book if there was a need. Did they start? Do they need someone to test their process? - -------------------------------- That was me too. No I haven't started, been too busy writing my stupid thesis.... Send me your postal address and I can send you some info on culturing. -Alan Meeker Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:19:36 -0500 (EST) From: darrell.leavitt at plattsburgh.edu Subject: Some info on Malted Oats and haze (from Fawcett's) I have been using the Malted oats (from Fawcett) and thought that some of you who also use them might benefit from the following: I have had real good luck with stouts, but have found that if I use up to 50% of my malt bill as malted oats, that the lighter brews are a bit clowdy. So, I went to the Fawcett site to ask them if they thought that it had to do with protein...and whether I should do a protein rest...and the answer was "no" , but that I was probably using too much malted oats (without enough diastatic power)...Anyway, here, with permission, is James Fawcett's response: - ------------------------------ From: IN%"james at fawcett-maltsters.co.uk" "James Fawcett" 9-FEB-2000 07:47:03.42 Subj: reply [deleted header stuff] Dear Darrell thank you for your email. I am delighted that you are using our oat malt but am not so delighted that you are getting cloudy beers. It is our opinion that you are probably using too much oat malt in your grist in percentage terms. If I understood your email correctly you are currently mashing a grist containing 50% oat malt. The oats are not particularly high in nitrogen/protein and we do not believe this to be the problem.The oat malt however contains less enzymes than barley malt and therfore produces less enzymic activity in the mash tun which in turn will result less starch conversion,this in turn will leave an excess which will produce a haze. If the conversions do not occur in the mash tun then a protein stand will have little or no effect. We suggest that you might reduce the oat percentage to 25% or 30% which should allow the barley malt to achieve full conversion in the mash tun. I hope this is useful and please let me know how you get on with best wishes james fawcett - --------------- From: IN%"james at fawcett-maltsters.co.uk" "James Fawcett" 15-FEB-2000 12:36:25.43 Subj: RE: reply Dear Darrell I have no problem with you sending my thoughts on the oat malt to the homebrew digest. Have you tried my suggestion yet? If you have I hope you got a good result. regards james - -------------- Back to me: I have not yet tried the suggestion of using less...perhaps up to 30% of the malt bill...but will try...and let folks know, if they are interested. ..Darrell <Plattsburgh, NY> Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:28:12 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Son of Pivo What's up with this Dr. Pivo concept? First there is one, then there are many, then they have left the digest, now he/they is/are back! Don't know the latest post was merely baiting or not but I do have to take exception with the idea that the need for high pitching rates are some sort of myth! PIVO(S): If you search the archives, you will find that there is an "exact" recommendation of pitching rates and number of generation turnovers. You will also find that "nobody has done anything about finding out if these numbers are relevant." **Excuse me?? Have you read /any/ of the brewing basic science literature?? If you are looking to make "Budweiser", then I think that this is advice well worth heading. ** Ahhh so it's the high pitching rate that makes Budweiser so insipid eh?? If you are looking to make your "best beer", it is probably well worth ignoring. ** Or if you're looking to make the most contaminated beer you can make that doesn't ferment completely and has a generous yeast autolysis nose... My own solution was a serendipitous combination of underpitching, and lower than recommended temperatures.... made the smoothest and richest beer I've yet tasted. Since then I've consistently split my ferments, and proved to myself many times that the "minimum daily requirement" is the result of industrial brewing who has reinforced its belief in itself. ** So, you've changed at least two variables and are making anecdotal claims about pitching rates? How are you quantifying these pitch rates? How far are you "underpitching?" That this forum continually cites the information disseminated from an industry where we all know where it is heading (tasteless, and lasts forever), is a sad comment indeed. ** This forum cites /all kinds/ of information - some good some bad. If you are considering pitching rates in general, I would say, if you're a bit behind on your hygiene, a healthy pitching rate is a good way to protect against infection.... if you are looking for good beer you'll just have to play with it (one yeast strain.... lots of 'spurments"). ** protection against infection is but one (albeit an important one) reason to pitch high. Given that homebrewing is of necessity an unsterile process this alone is pretty much enough reason to do so. I am always scepitcle of the reporter who says: "Last week I brewed a Belgium wit, and English Bitter, a Czech Pilsner, and a Stout.... and they were all great!" ** Turn that healthy skepticism against yourself - why should we take your word that pitching rates don't matter? A life time is probably enough to learn two styles correctly.... in North Amerika they become "experts" on about two styles a week.... if failing to match someone else's evaluation, then there's is "more authentic". ** What is the purpose of this xenophobic non-sequitor? -Alan Meeker, Baltimore MD "Amerika" Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:06:30 -0500 From: "Darrell Leavitt" <Darrell_Leavitt at sln.esc.edu> Subject: Did I do the right thing? Ok, we had a snow day up here in Northern NY...18 inches in a day...so...time to brew. This was to be an "Irish Valenine Ale" ( Valentines day...Irish ale yeast..). the recipe was: 4 lb Optic Pale Malt 4 lb Munich 1 lb Crystal 1 lb Belgian Caravienne a touch of Torrified Wheat (1/8 lb perhaps) standard 2 step infusion, 1 hour at 148, 1 hour at 158...Well, here is the problem: after 2 hours the iodine tested positive for starch! So, I thought : maybe there wasn't enough enzyme in the batch to convert everything...so I ADDED another pound of the Optic Pale (2 row) and let it sit for another 45 minutes ,..or so. It came out ok, much too high in gravity for what I wanted to produce (1.07 OG), but beyond that seems ok..and is now bubbling away. Is this an appropriate move when one thinks that the malt has not converted itself...or what do others do in a situation like this. I know that I could have just let it sit for another hour but thought the additional malt could help...esp IF the problem had to do with enzymes.... ..Darrell Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:18:38 -0500 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Sundry yeast topics Jay Spies writes about bottle fur: >Strangely enough, the fur was all on >one side. Stranger still, careful analysis and GPS plotting revealed that >they were all oriented toward Rennerian (0,0). Perhaps the yeasties are all >longing to go back to their true home at the center of the brewing universe, >but keep *DOH!* smacking into that pesky bottle wall... Jay, thanks for investigating this phenomenon. I've heard a lot about Jeff's whereabouts and never really was able to work out a bearing to him without a suitable point of reference. I'll be keeping this bottle of barley wine in a shock-proof case so I will ALWAYS know which way it is to Rennerian North! Could these yeast be new species? S. lemmingacus? Does Wyeast carry it? Which leads to my next topic... >As for the statement that we should "stay to homebrew discussions" - Um...I >thought this *was* a homebrew discussion. Hear! Hear! As for Wyeast product quality, all I can say is that I've used their products and have made some fine beers with them. I do not have any evidence before me to the contrary, so I am reluctant to make any comments regarding their quality which might hurt their business. I do however, support Jim 100% in his statement "Learn to culture your own yeast". Now in caps: "LEARN TO CULTURE YOUR OWN YEAST!". Jim has much information listed on his web site which is helpful to those with the time and patience to dedicate. I commend him on his advocacy of yeast culturing education. While yeast culturing might not be everyone's cup of tea, I have found a number of advantages to doing this: 1. I now am more knowledgable about the little critters which have such a heavy impact upon our beer's flavor and character profiles that truly are critical to defining the style. Overall, I'd say I've even learned more about the art, science and history of brewing than I wanted to know before. And yes, my beer tastes better because of it since it matches the styles more accurately. 2. I don't ever need to make an emergency trip to the homebrew store for yeast! Hell, I'm brewing different style after style now just to collect samples so that I will NEVER need to check with my local homebrew store to see if they have the yeast I want in stock. My local store is great, but on occasion I've had to change the style of beer I planned on brewing just because the yeast happened to be really popular the previous week. 3. Better quality starters (careful here, bub). If you ever doubt the quality of the yeast, you can always buy the strain from a supplier, streak it out on a plate and pick off a few singles. While there is not a 100% guarantee that it will work every time, it does seem to work well most of the time. 4. It's fun, expands the areas of interest within the hobby and keeps me from buying the really expensive brewing toys and such. 5. Yeasts make good pets. They aren't noisy, don't shed, rarely 'bite' (haha - pun - get it?!? get it?!?). They also don't eat much, never need shots or a licence and you can drink their waste. Try that with a cat or a dog ;-) Alan Meeker wrote a short treatise on alcohol from glucose: >The overall equation for ethanol formation from glucose is: >1 Glucose (C6H12O6) ---------> 2 Ethanol (C2H5OH) + 2 CO2 >much snipped here< So Alan, basically what you're saying here is that "These animals evacuate ethyl alcohol from their bowels and carbon dioxide from their urinary organs. Thus one can observe how a specifically lighter fluid is exuded from the anus and rises vertically whereas a stream of carbon dioxide is ejected at very short intervals from their large genitals." <very wide grin> 'Nuff said. Glen Pannicke http://www.alehouse.homepage.com 5,345,341,976,234 yeast cells all agree that Jeff Renner lies due North of my location Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 13:12:43 -0800 From: RiedelD at pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca Subject: Head space speculation While we're on the subject of oxygen up-take, I've got an inquiry: I recently fermented a 7.5 gallon batch of old ale in a (gulp) 20 gallon fermenter. (I didn't realise that it was THAT big - it's not marked). I aerated with two, 2 min. bursts of oxygen through an aquarium stone. How much CO2 is produced by a 7.5 gallon batch? That is, at what point will the beer not produce enough CO2 to protect itself from oxidation? Is there a hope in hell that this batch won't be oxidized? If not, can I make malt vinegar out of it? Cheers, Dave Riedel Victoria, Canada. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:43:03 -0500 From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer at engin.umich.edu> Subject: Re: Re; Carboy shakers William Frazie writes: > batches finish up at 5 gallons +/- 1 pint so there is plenty of head space > in the big carboy to allow for some vigorous rocking Hmm. How much oxygen is in this carboy? Your "big carboy" holds 6.5 gallons, leaving about 1 gallon (6 liters) of air. 4 liters of air will contain 0.27 moles of air. Air is (roughly) 21% O2 (by mass, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it's also 21% by molecular count). So the 6 liters of air contains .054 moles of O2. An O2 mole weighs 32 grams, so there's about 1.7g of O2 in the carboy. You want 8mg/l of O2 dissolved into the wort. The 1.7 g of O2 in the carboy divides out to 90g/l, assuming 19 liters of beer in the carboy. So, yes, there is plenty of O2 in the headspace. How about that! =Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer at umich.edu) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 15:14:39 -0900 From: Clif Moore <cmoore at gi.alaska.edu> Subject: yeast handling techniques Over the years I have put out a bit of text on the subject of yeast handling techniques. The testimony may be reviewed via: HBD 2555 Yeast slants and cell viability HBD 2616 Yeast practices HBD 3181 Growing yeast starters HBD 3182 Yeast washing On the subject of cell counting, go back to ebay and start looking for a hemocytometer. It is a glass sample holder for your microscope that has a cover slide and well arrangement so that you are viewing a known volume of fluid. The viewing field is etched such that one may count cells and calculate a yeast cell density in millions of cells per ml. This can be a fun but time consuming activity, but the power of geometric growth rates is truly astounding. These things cost about $100 new so you would do well to locate a used one. Good luck. Clifton Moore Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:21:14 -0500 From: Jim Liddil <jliddil at vms.arizona.edu> Subject: Just Say No I'm flattered that Dave Logsdon think one person can bring down his company. :-) For those who are intersted search the lambic digest in 1994 and 95 for liddil, wyeast, 3278. FWIW most of all these searches have already been done so you justy need to access them. At that time Wyeast 3278 was labeled as "Brettanomyces bruxellensis". This would suggest that the package contained the pure strain. But testing on my part found otherwise. Mark Garetz at Hoptech was the only homebrew shop nationwide retailer that would even listen to me. Note that even Mr. Logsdon now admits that 3278 is a blend. In the search you willalso find postings on my findings with the wit yeast and a whole discussion on qa/qc in the yeast industry. go to http://www.wyeastlab.com/education/edyespec.htm and look carefully at what you see. One can also look at the hbd archives and search on white labs and paul edwards to see that others have come under scrutiny. In my conversations with microbiologists at brewing schools at Davis and Chicago, and with and independent testing lab, all parties had seen contamination in various cultures from commercial producers. Wyeast is the largest supplier in the US. Unfortunately most yeast producers will not send you a detailed microbiology report on a given lot, that details how all testing is done. For example on teh wyeast site the test is on 10 ml. Is this a 10 ml sample from a 100 liter bioreactor. and is only a single sample taken? Waht medias are used to perform the testing. What methodology of random sampling is used to test all the various filled packages or vials? those of you in manufacturing know what i'm talking about. I ma a trained scientist with years of experience in performing sterile work, so I am very confident in what I have seen. I have followed procedures as outlined in kreger-von rij and other manuals. And have used medies from difco, bd and biolog plates (biolog.com). I am not just a keyboard microbilogist. I have said it before. It is time that we all begin to really question all yeast suppliers about their qc/qa procedures etc. This goes for wyeast, White, rtp, lallemand and any others. Jim Liddil Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 17:07:11 -0900 From: cmoore at gi.alaska.edu Subject: re: Cleaning Spent Grains In All-Grain Brewing Steven J. Owens has been using grain and hops bags and is concerned that when he scales up to larger all grain batches he will have trouble getting a bag to work. You could probably get one to work, but it would need to be very strong. That much wet grain residue is going to weigh quite a bit. I mash in a converted keg and have found that when finished with the sparge I simply place a plastic garbage bag over the keg and tip it upside down. A few shakes and it is ready to lay down to hand sweep the last of the spent grain into the bag. Hope this allays your concerns. Clifton Moore Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 02/16/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96