HOMEBREW Digest #3264 Fri 03 March 2000

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


	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		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


Contents:
  Re: Carboys for primary (KMacneal)
  Re: High FG = Low pitch? (KMacneal)
  Yeast Ranching on a larger scale (Richard_R_Gontarek)
  Palexperiment revisited (Louis Bonham)
  10-oz. Bud (mchahn)
  Bud/KISS ("A. J. deLange")
  Cider? ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Forgot to mention... ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
  Possible Problem with 1999 crop of Cascades ("Peter J. Calinski")
  re: 10 oz Budwiser? (Lou.Heavner)
  Underpitching? ("Penn, John")
  Palexperiment and underpitching ("Alan Meeker")
  Lab Work ("Paul Niebergall")
  re: pitching rates (Jeff McNally)
  a good looking temp controller (J Daoust)
  Soapy Taste (Tim Burkhart)
  damned 2-5 beer hangovers (Tombrau)
  pitching rates in the Great HBD Palexperiment (gradym)
  Need IPA Recipe (David Sweeney)
  Pet Panties/ Beer related (Paul Haaf)
  Temperature Controlled Fermentation/Lagering Chamber ("Troy Hager")

* 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, 2 Mar 2000 06:54:45 EST From: KMacneal at aol.com Subject: Re: Carboys for primary In a message dated 3/2/2000 12:17:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, Brian Myers writes: << Dave Burley says: >To "Sticky in Colorado" : As long as >you use a carboy for your primary >you will run this risk of splooge on the >ceiling. I don't agree. I like to use carboys. If I suspect a batch might climb out of the carboy, I put a piece of aluminum foil over the top rather than an airlock for the first day or so. It may overflow on to the floor, but it won't clog the airlock and then explode on to the walls or ceiling. >> I also have used carboys for primary (6 gallon carboy, 5 gallon batch). Blowoff hoses work wonders as well. Keith MacNeal Worcester, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:06:05 EST From: KMacneal at aol.com Subject: Re: High FG = Low pitch? In a message dated 3/2/2000 12:17:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, Tom Meier writes: << Last batch I used a 1/2 gallon starter on a 1.057 OG stout. I pitched the starter while the yeast was still in suspension and there was a good head of foam. Was this too early? It must have been because I aerated well and it still finished high at 1.020 FG, even after a secondary ferment. >> Other variables besides alleged underpitching/low aeration can cause high FG. If it was an all grain batch, what was the mash temperature? If it was an extract, what brand (some brands are notorious for giving high FG)? Is it a low attenuating yeast strain? Was the fermentation temperature too low causing the yeast to drop out or go dormant? FWIW, my most recent batch of stout also finished at 1.020. I pitched from a pint of starter and aerated by pouring through a strainer and stirring a bit with a spoon when I added the yeast. Mash temp was a bit on the high side so I'm not surprised at the high FG (judges have commented that my stouts have been a bit thin so I'm trying to compensate for that). Fermentation temperature was 68F and I used Wyeast Irish Ale. Keith MacNeal Worcester, MA Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 07:17:05 -0500 From: Richard_R_Gontarek at sbphrd.com Subject: Yeast Ranching on a larger scale I'd like to know if anyone can tell me how brewpubs and small micros ranch their yeast. Do they keep only a few different strains around and then re-pitch from batch to batch, or do they buy new yeast every so often? I am a homebrewer and a biologist, and as I am lucky enough to have a -80 degree C freezer and lots of other microbiological supplies at my disposal, I have been ranching my own yeast for many years now. I have become friends with a brewer at a local brewpub and I was telling him that I keep many different strains of yeast in my -80 freezer (stocks made with 15% glycerol). He was intrigued, and I told him that I could probably keep stocks of some strains for him. It would be easy enough for me to make the stocks and store them at -80C, but what about when it comes time for the brewer to use them? Would I do what I normally do and just make a small starter and inoccculate with the frozen stock anf keep stepping-up the starter volume until we get enough yeast for the brewer to use at his pub? I know that yeast can remain stable for a long time if frozen in 15% glycerol at -80C, but would the yeast remain just as viable if stored in glycerol in a conventional restaurant freezer (even if it does not freeze solid)? Or would I be better off keeping the yeast on slants so that the brewer could store them himself in a refrigerator at his pub? How long can yeast remain viable on a slant? I'd be especially interested in hearing from those of you with some larger-scale, commercial brewing experience (GeorgeD.?) I know that I am going above and beyond the call of duty in supporting my local brewpub, but this sounds like it could be fun. Plus, I might get to drink for free at their bar! TIA for any and all replies, Rick Gontarek Owner/Brewmaster The Major Groove Picobrewery Trappe, PA Richard_R_Gontarek at sbphrd.com RGontare at bellatlantic.net Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 07:28:08 -0600 From: Louis Bonham <lkbonham at hbd.org> Subject: Palexperiment revisited Hi folks: Paul Niebergall mentions the HBD Palexperiment in referring to the current discussions regarding underpitching: > What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that > clearly > (by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the > HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched. Yet nowhere > on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were > subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome of > the experiment, is there any reference to "problems" > occurring from "underpitching". Not one reference to > off-flavors, bacteria contamination, undercarbonation, > excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero. Huh? Did you even *read* the article in BT reporting the lab results, not to mention the tasting results showing large variations in flavor profiles? The LMDA tests found HUGE levels of bacterial contamination in a majority of the beers. And as to whether underpitching could have been the reason, I wrote the following in my column: 'The high degree of contamination we encountered also suggests s potential problem with the pitching rates used. In order to minimize variables, each participant was given a Wyeast XL pack . . . from the same lot and instructed to pitch directly from that pack. Despite the manufacturer's claims that these packages do not require a starter, all the participants reported lag times of 18 hours or more, and these longer lag times could have provided bacteria and other contaminants a window of opportunity to establish a significant presence. Because pitching large amounts of healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination, our findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs." BT, Vol. 7, No. 1, p. 24. As to whether underpitching creates "special" flavors, feel free to experiment with this if you wish. As for me, I intend to continue pitching at or above the recommended commercial pitching rates. Louis K. Bonham lkbonham at hbd.org Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 08:35:11 -0500 From: mchahn at earthlink.net Subject: 10-oz. Bud >Where do you get Bud in 10 oz cans? I've only seen it in 12 oz.....maybe >the occasional pony sized ones, but, never see a 10 oz can or bottle. Is >this outside the US? 10-oz. Bud is available in Louisiana, Puerto Rico, and the Eastern Shore of MD. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 14:15:09 +0000 From: "A. J. deLange" <ajdel at mindspring.com> Subject: Bud/KISS Kelly - you've drawn a none existent connection between my colleague's "Headache in a can" comment and the way in which Bud is served in the particular establishment where I drink it which is draught. Most draughts in working men's bars are still 10 oz (to the best of my knowledge). Dave - easy there. Bud is hardly "gross and disgusting". I frequently (and think I did so here recently) compare it to American movies and television: technically superb but insipid. I do like the qualities of the yeast strain of which AB is justifyably proud - the crisp fruitiness (which I'm calling acetaldehyde) is definitely pleasing to me. An interesting experiment is to "repair" a glass of Bud by putting in a couple of drops of hops extract. It isn't bad. * * * * * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Paul - I hereby acknowledge your right to brew strictly by the KISS principal (of which I am a big exponent), to discard the experience and opinions of any or all, to underpitch, to participate in the next local brewing-text burning and to practice the hobby in any way which gives you enjoyment. In return I ask for acknowledgement of the right of those of us who do study the texts, read the journals, perform experiments and do analysis to discuss what we have learned from the literature, report our experiences and those of others, and practice the hobby in any way which give us pleasure (or better beer) which, in my case, often includes lime treatment, chanting, walking around in circles and, most recently Karhunen-Loev expansion of beer absorption spectra (this is really neat). Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:04:05 -0500 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: Cider? Dick Dunn brought up ciders and mentions, >>Cider-makers take some pains to get a *slow* fermen- tation. In short, rapid fermentations produce undesirable results in cider.<< Please go into this further, our club does an annual cider pressing where we produce about 175 gallons of juice that is fermented by about 30 people with about 30 different methods. One thing that is nearly universal in all the different batches is hydrogen sulphide. The press had a spray washer on the conveyor to the chipper for removal of whatever comes off easily, this certainly wouldn't remove any oil-carried sulfur based agricultural spray. Is this one of the "undesirable results" you are mentioning? I had tried a new method this year where I added nothing and stored a cornie keg of juice at 38 degrees F and just waited; after about 6 weeks it started fermenting. Every week or so I vent the keg a bit just for fun and out of curiousity. I haven't noticed the everpresent hydrogen sulphide from this batch. So am I on the right track? Any tips and hints would be appreciated. Sipping cider in southwest PA N.P.L. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:03:56 -0500 From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew at compuserve.com> Subject: Forgot to mention... In answering Steve... << >>If your breweries are seeing those problems disappear after acid washing, then infection is the source of the problem.<< That is purely conjecture. >> I had gathered a sample from a fermenter that had the manway open for 8-10 hours waiting for clean out; upon sending a sample to Dr. McConnell, I received word from him the sample was "remarkably clean." This from a sample gathered with a quart jar that was just sitting around, then poured into a new ziplock bag before pouring into a sterile vial for shipping. Thus I will still maintain that proper pitching rates will supercede a minor contamination; rendering any effects of the wild yeast or bacteria sub-threshold. The squawk over 1 "unidentified" cell in a Wyeast pack (where this started) is only to defame Wyeast for someones personal vendetta. A totally misguided endeavor, and detrimental to the homebrew community. If we eliminated all the homebrew yeast producers that didn't deliver 100% pure yeast; what would we brew with? Who would want to be limited to brewing nothing but Plambics? 99.9% of homebrewers do not plate out their own yeasts, and wouldn't brew if that was what was necessary for the hobby. A reference was made to the PalealeExperiment in yesterdays digest. I remember reading the results where a significant number of the beers had pedio infections, and the conclusion was that these appeared to be kegged beers. Dip tubes not being scrubbed clean regularly was the suspect. Though none of the test beers displayed overt pedio symptoms. Supporting my assertion that the yeast is relatively insignificant if pitched into a improperly sanitized fermenter. Where a _minor_ contamination probably won't effect the finished beer; repitching will of course make a contamination known and the brewer will learn to keep things cleaned and sanitized. Afterall experience is the best teacher. N.P.L. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:07:45 -0500 From: "Peter J. Calinski" <PCalinski at iname.com> Subject: Possible Problem with 1999 crop of Cascades I believe this goes under the category of, "let's see if others have this problem before we say anything". I will leave out all names because they are not important. Last week I stopped by a local brewpub and had a glass of their American Pale Ale. It is normally has a very hoppy Cascades flavor and aroma. This time the hop flavor and aroma were almost absent. I talked with the operator and he said that the batch was just brought on tap that morning. He also thought that it lacked the aroma but he had a bad cold and couldn't be sure. He had questioned the brewer who insisted he followed the normal procedure. During the brewing process, they had both noticed the following: 1) This was the first hops they had used from the new 1999 harvest. (Please nobody claim this is a Y2K problem.) 2) The alpha content was higher than typical for Cascades. 3) When they opened the bag, the aroma was stronger than typical. 4) The pellets seemed to be "looser" than typical. 5) In the kettle, they seemed to "open up" more and float to the top more. 6) They didn't whirlpool the same. Well, last night, I stopped by again and the operator told me that he had called his hop supplier to discuss the problem. The supplier agreed that this crop had a lot more aroma out of the bag and didn't "pellitize" like previous crops. These differences were not confined to a single farm but present in hops from other farms also. The hop supplier was going to do some more research. I don't think this information means much right now. I need to see what develops and if I hear anything else I will post it. I hesitated to post this because I have so little information right now. If a lot of people take off from this saying the 1999 Cascades crop is bad, I am sure I won't hear anything else. However, I decided to post it so we can all watch for more information on the subject. Pete Calinski Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 09:26:50 -0600 From: Lou.Heavner at frco.com Subject: re: 10 oz Budwiser? From: "Kelly" <kgrigg at diamonddata.com> >>> Where do you get Bud in 10 oz cans? I've only seen it in 12 >>> oz.....maybe >>> the occasional pony sized ones, but, never see a 10 oz can or >>> bottle. Is >>> this outside the US? Kelly, When I lived in New Orleans, canned beer was mostly sold in 10oz cans. I seem to remember when they made the change, but I wasn't supposed to be old enough to know... ;) I think they call that the "vanishing product". They sell 10 oz beers at 12 oz prices instead of increasing the the price of the 12 oz beers. I went out of state for college and when my buddies and I returned for Mardi Gras, they were all amazed. We have our own beer issues here in Texas, but thankfully, like most things in Texas, size is not one of them. ;) Cheers! Lou Heavner - Austin, TX Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:33:37 -0500 From: "Penn, John" <John.Penn at jhuapl.edu> Subject: Underpitching? Just bottled my recent two strong beers, a scotch ale and a belgian tripel. The final gravities were lower than expected especially on the belgian ale. I had recultured some yeast from a Duvel and used it to make a Belgian dubbel following the same recipe I used about a year ago. This dubbel finished a bit higher than last year's batch and the yeast fermented quicker than last year's cultured Duvel yeast. This year's yeast also seemed to have a spicier taste. My recent tripel also finished higher than expected so I went back and checked my notes from the recent Dubbel. This tripel finished about 1.023 and I was expecting something like 1.012-15 with all the sugar I added (est. OG 1.084 of which .024 was from honey and glucose). I pitched about 2L of starter into a 4 gallon batch but my starters used malta which is probably not the best nutrient source and I didn't have any yeast nutrient to add to the starter. My starter for the scotch ale used Nottingham yeast into ~0.6 gallon starter also using malta and pitched into a 4.5 gallon batch of scotch ale (est OG 1.092 of which .007 was from a lb. of honey). I expected the scotch ale to finish a bit lower around 1.021 ish and it finished 1.026 This was only a bit higher than the previous scotch ale which used all malt (same M&F light extract). Looks like I should have carmelized the malt more on the scotch ale too, it had more aroma last time. Next time I think I'll boil the portion of malt that I"m trying to carmelize for at least two hours if I can. IT might seem that I underpitched but its hard to say what my results should have been with that cultured yeast from a bottle of Duvel . Maybe it's not as high an attenuator as I expected. With the scotch ale using Nottingham yeast, I guess I should add that last time I used a large starter of Wyeast Scottish Ale yeast and it finished only slightly higher this time so I'm not too far off base. I think I tend to see less attenuation in the winter time with ferments at 64-66F than I do in the summer with 70-75F ferments. For strong ales, it would seem that you definately will see the affects of underpitching even with a starter multiplied up 8X. Just my thoughts on underpitching based on my recent batches that finished higher than expected. John Penn Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:02:02 -0500 From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker at welchlink.welch.jhu.edu> Subject: Palexperiment and underpitching Paul Niebergall wrote in part: >What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that clearly >(by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the >HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched. Yet nowhere >on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were >subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome >of the experiment, is there any reference to "problems" >occurring from "underpitching". Not one reference to >off-flavors, bacteria contamination, undercarbonation, >excess esters, phenols, nothing, nada, zippo, zero. Huh???? There certainly was reference made to these problems: "The high degree of contamination we encountered also suggests a potential problem with the pitching rates used. In order to minimize variables, each participant was given a Wyeast XL pack (Wyeast Laboratories, Hood River, Oregon) from the same lot and package date and instructed to pitch directly from that package. Despite the manufacturer's claims that these packages do not require a starter for a 5-gallon batch, all of the participants reported lag times of 18 hours or more, and these longer-than-usual lag times could have provided bacteria and other contaminants a window of opportunity to establish a significant presence. Because pitching large quantities of healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination, our findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs. (See George De Piro's article on page 48 for information on making a starter.)" - from the Palexperiment Results Pt. 1 Yes, according to the "consensus pitch rates" these beers would have been underpitched but note also that they were using the /Extra Large/ Wyeast smack packs which would not be /quite/ as bad as simply using a small smack pack. As far as contamination goes, the authors found "... most showed clear and often dramatic evidence of bacterial contamination ..." and this included Pediococcus, Acetobacter, Lactobacillus, and Bacillus sp. It was also interesting that they found a broad /range/ of contamination levels in these beers. One interpretation of these results is that the low pitch rate left open a window of opportunity for contaminating bacteria to gain a foothold and that the observed variation in contamination levels in the final beer reflect variations in the sanitation procedures of the individual brewers. That being said, Paul does raise an interesting point, that by and large these beers apparently did not exhibit major flavor defects. While the authors say some of the beers had clearly "gone off " they also said that most tasted like "better than average all-grain homebrews" so it seems clear that there were no /major/ defects in the majority of these beers. Of course, for all we know, with higher pitch rates these may have ascended to a level higher than simply better than average but we don't really know. I think this is another example of the complexities involved in brewing. The overriding opinion among "expurts" both here on the HBD as well as professional brewers is that underpitching /can/ be a bad thing. Note the qualifier here. The contamination issue is but one possible problem and may stem from either longer lag times or incomplete fermentation. Many of the other potential negative flavor outcomes from underpitching have more to do with the health of the resultant yeast population (which may be compromised if the pitching rate is too low) during and after the fermentation. However, as with most things in brewing it is not so one-dimensional. For instance, the "evils" of a low pitch rate may be significantly ameliorated if the wort has sufficient oxygen and unsaturated fatty acids to support yeast growth such that a large and healthy population results. Paul goes on to say: >Maybe the expurts are wrong? >Maybe the expurts should stop spurting forth from >so-called text books? Maybe we should all take >a good hard look at some real data. Paul, while I agree that there are some who are willing to simply "spurt" information from texts ( I believe the proper derogatory HBD term is "librarians") I would hope that most of the discussions that occur here are geared towards ferreting out the "Truth." Text references are one source of info for this, in addition to the primary research literature (the texts are mostly syntheses of these) as well as the experience and experimentation of the countless individuals on the HBD and elsewhere. These are all sources of data and they should all be considered and given appropriate weight. 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. If you are really interested in the validity of the need for high pitch rates then I suggest you do some experiments yourself. It would be easy enough to do - just make a large batch, split it and pitch differing levels of the same yeast starter into identical small fermentations. -Alan Meeker Lazy Eight Brewery Baltimore, MD Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:11:41 -0600 From: "Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> Subject: Lab Work Not that I am trying to be contradictory or anything like that, but in light of true science and the art of brewing, I have to comment of some of what Louis wrote concerning the results of the Palexperiment (please dont take this as a personal attach, it's just the "scientist" in me speaking out): >The LMDA tests found HUGE levels of bacterial >contamination in a majority of the beers. And as >to whether underpitching could have been the >reason...... 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? What were the units and how many were actually measured? Was there any quality assurance or control built into the laboratory testing program? 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). 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 mean we are talking science here aren't we? Until we can see the actual results (number please) of the lab tests, assign a minimum level of quality to the results, and establish a level of confidence in the data, we really can't begin to interpret the results, can we? >The high degree of contamination we encountered also >suggests s potential problem with the pitching rates used. SUGGESTS a POTENTIAL problem? How does data suggest a problem? Either there is a problem or there isn't. Even if quality lab work was performed and the results are actually useable (which I seriously doubt), you could not conclude, based solely on the results of the experiment, that underpitching was the cause of the supposed huge contamination levels that were detected. At best you could maybe assume that under- was a contributing factor. The experiment was not designed to assess the cause of the contamination. >all the participants reported lag times of 18 hours or more, and >these longer lag times could have provided bacteria and >other contaminants a window of opportunity to establish a >significant presence. This is true. But remember, "could have" is the operative phrase here. This point is something that is speculated almost daily on the HBD. The Palexperiment and the results of the laboratory testing program did nothing confirm or deny this speculation. >Because pitching large amounts of >healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best >weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination, our >findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice >for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs." No, not really. The speculation that "pitching large amounts of healthy yeast minimizes the lag phase and is one of the best weapons brewers have against bacterial contamination" is undoubtably true (speculation on my part - hey, I am actually agreeing here). But the second part of the sentence, "our findings suggest that it would probably be a better practice for brewers to use a starter with the Wyeast XL packs." is not true. Pre-conceived notions, common sense, and speculation suggests that this might be true, but the Palexperiment and the results of the laboratory testing program did nothing confirm or deny this. fire away Paul Niebergall Burns & McDonnell pnieb at burnsmcd.com "Illegitimis non carborundum" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:12:46 -0500 (EST) From: mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil (Jeff McNally) Subject: re: pitching rates Hi All, In HBD #3263 Paul Niebergall posts about pitching rates and says: >I just thought that I would add a note of reality to the current >pitching rate debate. Remember the Palexperiment back in 1998? I sure do, I was one of the 45 (+/- a couple) brewers involved. You'll notice my name on the web page Paul refers to. >If I recall correctly, the ingredients list specified that a single >Wyeast Smak-Pack (1056) be used to innoculate the boiled and cooled >wort. That's right, NO STARTER!. Yes, we did'nt use a starter for exactly the reasons Paul listed. 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. >What is interesting about the Palexperiment is that clearly >(by just about anybody's account who subscribes to the >HBD expurt cult) the beers were underpitched. Yes, this is true. >Yet nowhere >on the web page nor in the hundreds of lines that were >subsequently written in the HBD concerning the outcome >of the experiment, is there any reference to "problems" >occurring from "underpitching". Most of the data provided by the brewers and Loius' lab test results are available online at: http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue7.1/bonhamtable.html This table shows that lag times ranged from 13 hours to over 60 hours. I have'nt calculated the mean, but I'd guesstimate it at around 40 hrs (which is what my lag time was). I would say that most brewers would be concerned about lag times this long. This table also shows the results of Louis' LMDA contamination tests. You will notice that very few of the beers rated "clear". Also, here is a quote from Louis regarding the LMDA test results: "Before I give you the results, a few caveats. First, while I applaud everyone who got a "clear" rating, don't get too cocky about it. The industry standard method would be to have filtered 100ml of the beer through a 0.45 micron membrane, and then grow up whatever bugs were trapped on the membrane. Ergo, this industry standard method increases the concentration of the microbes sampled by a factor of more than 100 of what we were sampling. I originally planned to use this method, but both Paul Farnsworth and Katie Kunz told me I was nuts to even think about it, as directly inoculating a plate with 0.5-1 ml of homebrew typically would give so many colonies as to make the plates nearly unreadable. This turned out to be quite true. So, while having your beer pass our little test -- especially given the stresses they were put under to get here - -- is no small feat, don't think for a minute that this proves that you're the equivalent of Bud/Miller/Coors in terms of sanitation." 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. >According to the expurts here, >the 45 batches of beer would have been "severely" >underpitched thus causing any one of a plethora >of problems that would render the beer undrinkable. 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? >Maybe the expurts are wrong? >Maybe the expurts should stop spurting forth from >so-called text books? Maybe we should all take >a good hard look at some real data. My batch of beer for the Palexperiment was the 42nd batch of homebrew that I had ever made. At the time, I was routinely stepping up Wyeast 50ml smack packs from the pack into a 1 qt starter. I was also criticly examining all of my sanitation procedures because I had a "house flavor" to all of my brews that I felt was due to contamination. Did this "house flavor" make my brews undrinkable? No. Did this "house flavor" show up in my Palexperiment brew? Yes, and to a larger degree than my other batches that used a starter. Did this amplified "house flavor" in the Palexperiment batch make it undrinkable? No, I've even won some ribbons with with this very batch. Louis' LMDA tests showed that my batch of Palexperiment brew had a "moderate" pediococcus infection. I firmly believe this bug to be the cause of my "house flavor". 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. Hoppy brewing, Jeff ========================================================================== Geoffrey A. McNally Phone: (401) 832-1390 Mechanical Engineer Fax: (401) 832-7250 Naval Undersea Warfare Center email: Systems Development Branch mcnallyg at gam83.npt.nuwc.navy.mil Code 8321; Bldg. 1246/2 WWW: Newport, RI 02841-1708 http://www.nuwc.navy.mil/ Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 09:43:05 -0800 From: J Daoust <thedaousts at ixpres.com> Subject: a good looking temp controller Unfortunately for me, I found this site after I purchased my dial operated Johnson Controls unit (A350) This unit has a Good price (99.00) and is digital , I don't know too much more about it beside what is listed on the site, but it really looks like a good unit. http://www.williamsbrewing.com/temperature.htm#Controller II Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 11:39:39 -0600 From: Tim Burkhart <tburkhart at dridesign.com> Subject: Soapy Taste I have not brewed CAPs but I did encounter soapy flavors on three consecutive batches this last summer. These were APAs... base malt was Breiss 2row (infusion mash) and hopped with Nugget (pellet) and EKG (whole). I thought it was an infection or poorly rinsed equipment at first but after researching the HBD and other resources I came up with this thought. I was still partial mashing at the time and was not whirlpooling the trub. On these batches I experienced abundant masses of flaky tan material (cold break?). I let the break settle but with each batch I carried alot of trub into the fermenter. I was pitching directly with vials of White Labs California Ale yeast. Each batch fermented at around 75F. >From my research I concluded that perhaps the break material (protein and fats... lipids?), combined with the yeast growth and temperature of the ferment caused the byproduct of a "fatty" or "soapy" flavor... it even had a soapy aroma. I must also point out that my water is carbon filtered and I made sure to thourough rinse all equipment with hot, then cold water. After I moved to all-grain, using a false bottom kettle, and whole hops as a filter bed, this problem went away. Coincidence? If someone could support or redirect my theory, in kindergarten terms, I'd appreciate it. Tim Burkhart Kansas City Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:43:42 EST From: Tombrau at aol.com Subject: damned 2-5 beer hangovers Wort Brothers Occaisonally I wake up 6, or so, hours after a few beers with a pounding headache and hot and cold sweats. My fear was a tired liver, but another culprit may be to blaim. I have noticed it is sporadically occuring from a few select pubs. I suspect dirty beer lines. This hangover is different because it happens with just a few beers and rears its head after such a long time, eyes popping open from a sound sleep to instant misery. Any thoughts? Tom Moench " we can do this 2 ways, my way or my way pissed off" Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 13:01:25 -0500 From: gradym at us.ibm.com Subject: pitching rates in the Great HBD Palexperiment In HBD #3263, Paul Niebergall points out that in the "Great HBD Palexperiment", <all> the brewers were instructed to pitch directly from a Wyeast smack pack (no starter), so <all> the beers were underpitched...yet he hasn't heard about references to problems that occurred from this underpitching. So where is the big disaster that happened from all that beer being underpitched? A couple of things...1st, the yeast used was one of the 'extra large' smack packs from Wyeast, so the beer was not as underpitched as one might imagine. Nevertheless, all brewers reported very long lag times (18 hours+). 2nd, Louis Bonham did run lab tests on the beer (as Paul mentions), and the results were not very good! More than 3/4ths of the entries had 'moderate to severe' bacterial infection. You can read all about it at http://brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue7.1/bonham.html Now, in all fairness, Paul is correct that the beers were still judged to mostly to taste good, etc. This was a very hoppy APA, so that might just mean that beers with a lot of strong flavor components can withstand a little infection without much of a detrimental effect, especially if you drink the beer young. I still think that pitching at least <some> sort of a starter is simple and effective insurance against: unwanted high finishing gravity, competition with bacteria (you want the yeast to win), batch-to-batch inconsistency We can argue about how many millions of cells per liter for what OG of wort in what styles, but I think it is hard to argue against starters and for underpitching in general. Most of us homebrewers are almost always going to 'underpitch' (by commercial standards) - we all don't have the time to grow yeast to huge volumes (except maybe when we pitch on to the cake of a previous batch). But here's something to think about along these lines - Have you ever heard an experienced brewer say, "You know, ever since I started using starters, the quality of the beer I make has really degraded"? All I ever hear is exactly the opposite, and that includes me talking! Matt Grady Burlington, Vermont Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 12:14:02 -0600 From: David Sweeney <David at stulife2.tamu.edu> Subject: Need IPA Recipe I've just finished my RIMS system. I want to brew an IPA for my first batch. I'm looking for award-winning IPA recipes as candidates for my maiden batch. Will need all-grain (of course) and 5-7 gal. Single-step infusion,if appropriate for your ingredients, is a plus (Hey, why tempt fate with the first batch, right?). Appropriate-to-style ingredients (i.e. English 2-row base, EKG, etc) will be given preferential consideration. Here's your chance! Does anyone out there have an IPA recipe that is "to-die-for"? I'll post my selection and critique with credit to the originator, of course. David Sweeney Texas A&M University david at stulife2.tamu.edu Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:04:27 -0500 From: Paul Haaf <haafbrau1 at juno.com> Subject: Pet Panties/ Beer related Before anyone complains that the pet panties was not beer related, let me suggest that this is Pat & Karl's new line of hop bags, or maybe a hot/cold break sifter. 8^) RDWHAHB. Cheers Paul "Give me ambiquity, or give me something else." ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. Return to table of contents
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 11:20:02 -0800 From: "Troy Hager" <thager at hcsd.k12.ca.us> Subject: Temperature Controlled Fermentation/Lagering Chamber About a month ago I inquired about building a temperature controlled lagering/fermenting chambers. I did get a few responses but mostly people who responded wanting to hear more about how to do this. I have just finished mine and it works great so decided to post my project. I had an old refridgerator that had a bottom drawer-type freezer section with the fridge on top. Since we were going to get rid of it, I decide to tear it apart and try to use the guts to make my own cooling chamber (this was from an idea that I got from an HBDer whose name escapes me). I worked very carefully for a long time cutting away the metal and removing the fiberglass insulation to reveal the cooling tubing and elements. I actually had to tie the tubing to my rafters to hold it upright - it is very delicate and one bad move might have bent and put a hole in it. I cut everything off but the bottom metal that encased the fan, compressor and the coils. I constantly tested it to see if it was still running. I cut the thermostat wires so now it runs all the time and I will control it with my Ranco unit from the outside. I then started in the corner of my garage and using foam and fiberglass insulation to make a box that would fit my fermentor. I used quite a bit of insulation (one side has a combination of foam/glass measuring over a foot thick!) I put a level plywood bottom on it and made a door out of two pieces of 1.5" foam. Last night I gave it a test run. I set my temp controller to 32F and in about 15 minutes it reached the temperature! It seems to work great. One thing I will do is put a double paned 3/4" plexi window in the door so that I can check the airlock without opening up the door and letting in heat. Any questions on more info I would be happy to answer in private email. Troy Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 03/03/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96