HOMEBREW Digest #3315 Wed 03 May 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

  Yeast Q- John Palmer-On Dr. Cone's behalf ("Rob Moline")
  Water Numbers for Philadelphia? (Bill.X.Wible)
  Ringwood ale yeast & diacetyl rest (Ryan McCammon)
  Re: Wheat flour (Jeff Renner)
  Stupid Beer Tricks (RCAYOT)
  Michael Jackson in Texas ("St. Patrick's")
  Mac & Jack's African Amber (Nathan Kanous)
  Good Stuff (Epic8383)
  "spotie", "dooky-wah", and "shleb" ("Jeffry D Luck")
  Belgium visit ("Francois Zinserling")
  off flavors and possible causes (Steven Gibbs)
  wacky wort whirlers (Jim Adwell)
  Mash-hopping results ("G. M. Remake")
  Water (AJ)
  Yeast propagator ("Pannicke, Glen A.")
  Salute to a proud fellow brewer! ("Brett A. Spivy")
  non-Alienating Alliterative Alusions and dangerous peroxides. ("Dr. Pivo")
  Yeast questions (kevin m mueller)

* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy! * 18th Annual Oregon Homebrew Festival - entry deadline May 15th * More info at: http://www.hotv.org/fest2000 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, 2 May 2000 00:14:24 -0500 From: "Rob Moline" <brewer at isunet.net> Subject: Yeast Q- John Palmer-On Dr. Cone's behalf Glycogen/Trehalose Dear Rob, Could you ask Dr. Cone to explain how/what purpose glycogen (and trehalose??) is used by the yeast cell during dormancy (ie. after fermentation, after starter build-up) and how it is used during the lagtime ie. when the yeast is pitched to an oxygenated wort? And, how/when does the yeast build up the glycogen reserves during fermentation. As the gravity drops, does the yeast sense this and start diverting food to these stores? Like a bear storing fat for the winter? John Palmer Subject: Role of Glycogen in Yeast Dear Rob, I realise that this message will not contain enough information or detail for the Questioners needs but due to the CBC in Milwaukee this week Clayton, Tobias and myself have been unable to cope with questions. By chance Tobias asked me to check his mail this afternoon and in doing so we became aware of this question. However, due to his absence from our lab I have not really had the time I would have liked to provide you with the best information. Given more time I would also have been able to provide good references. At the moment I would use Walker, Yeast physiology and biotechnology (1998) or Yeast Sugar Metabolism - edited by Zimmerman and Entian 1998. The first of these references is a good general yeast book aimed at undergrad students although good also for postgrads and others. The second is for postgrads or speicific biochem types, much mor indepth and genetic. Glycogen = storage carbohydrate essential in the lag phase for sterol production. Glycogen breakdown coincides with sterol synthesis which appears to be essential for good brewing yeast, poor breakdown of glycogen or low levels of glycogen may lead to a yeast culture with a reduced sterol content and poor fermentation. Glycogen is generally accumulated in yeast while the glucose/sugar level is still significant. It's accumulation levelling off as the yeast enters stationary phase. Degradation during stationary phase is generally very slow. It is essential during yeast handling between brews that the yeast is not exposed to air. The more air the yeast comes in contact with the more glycogen is degraded. This can lead to a glycogen depleted yeast when pitched into wort resulting in a poor yeast performance. Handling should be mininmised and disturbance of the yeast also. The bear storing fat for the winter analogy is probably a fair one, but the glycogen is mainly for re-vitalising the yeast when the 'good times' roll around again. Trehalose = primarily a stress protectant or 'compatible solute' - fancy name for a compound that can act as a water replacement. Trehalose, by virtue of its ability to act like water is the best of all the natural carbohydrates at protecting organisms against stresses, particularly dehydration (dessication). In brewing the stress of high gravities, higher temperatures, ethanol etc all induce the accumulation of this disaccharide in yeast. Trehalose is normally accumulated later in the growth of yeast than glycogen, just at the deccelerating phase and should also remain in the yeast through the stationary phase. It appears to play an energy reserve roll in sporulation but I digress. Some reporters have found that yeast will actually accumulate trehalose earlier during its growth when the major sugar is maltose, relevant to brewing! However, in general the level of trehalose can often be used to determine the physiological state of the cell. Under 'normal' conditions, e.g. not high sugar, temp etc. trehalose is normally low in the cell 1-2% of the dry weight, if you get 5-10% the cell is probably a little 'uncomfortable but coping', higher than 10% generally means the yeast is stressed out. Dry yeast in home brew kits has high trehalose as this is essential in allowing the rehydration to occur successfully. I hope this can be of some use! >From Forbes, On behalf of Clayton and Tobias Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:13:25 -0400 From: Bill.X.Wible at QuestDiagnostics.com Subject: Water Numbers for Philadelphia? Hello all. Does anybody have the water chemistry numbers for the Philadelphia area water supply? I'm having a hard time getting these. Thanks in advance. Bill Wible Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:35:48 -0400 From: Ryan McCammon <mccammon at isr.umich.edu> Subject: Ringwood ale yeast & diacetyl rest A few months ago, I bought a smack pack of Ringwood ale yeast (why, I'm not sure, considering that I live less than 2 miles from a Ringwood brewpub where I assume I could just ask for some). In any case, I'm looking for advice on running a successful fermentation with this yeast. I understand that it needs a well oxygenated wort, so I wonder if it is necessary to do more than my SOP of splashing the wort around in the carboy until there is a good amount of froth. What about its high flocculation? Will I need to rouse the yeast during fermentation? Finally, what about diacetyl? Wyeast says, "Thorough diacetyl rest is recommended after fermentation is complete." What is the appropriate temperature for a diacetyl rest with an ale yeast? What's the big idea of saying "after fermentation is complete(?)" I thought that a diacetyl rest was typically carried out by allowing the last one-third of the primary fermentation to occur at a rather higher temperature than the first two-thirds. If one is to realize the benefits of the quick reabsorbtion of fermentation byproducts via a diacetyl rest, does the fermentation have to be active at the time of the rest? What sort of experiences have other had with this yeast? I suspect that it is well-suited to English style ales, but is this the style for which it was originally used? Why does Wyeast refer to it as a "notorious" yeast? What say ye, o' wise ones? Ryan McCammon Ann Arbor, Michigan I mean, this rennerian thing is cute and all, but really... Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:35:54 -0400 From: Jeff Renner <nerenner at umich.edu> Subject: Re: Wheat flour Graham Sanders <GrahamS at bsa.qld.gov.au>, using such quaint down-underisms as: >"G'day all," "Ta!" and "Shout," asks > >I simple question. Hmm, must be another quaint figure of speech. ;-) >How much wheat flour equates to a given amount of raw wheat grain or wheat >malt. I'm not sure about Australian flour, but most white flours represent about 70% of the wheat by weight. Most but not all of what is removed is the bran and germ - some of it is endosperm that is too closely attached to the bran to be removed and/or separated. This latter would still be converted if the whole grain were mashed. So I would guess that you ought to get something like 20-25% more extract than you would with whole wheat. That ought to be close enough. Of course, if you get a horribly stuck mash, all bets are off. If you have a choice, choose lower protein flour. This has two advantages - more carbohydrates, which convert to fermentable sugars, and less chance of a stuck mash from gluey glutens. Jeff 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: 02 May 2000 09:09:49 -0400 From: RCAYOT at solutia.com Subject: Stupid Beer Tricks While we are on the subject of stupid beer tricks, I would like to remind folks of the early days of (my) homebrewing. It was about 1970, some friends of mine had had some very bad homebrew, and decided they could certainly make better. They went to Hartford Ct to the nearest Wine/Beer supply store, about thirty miles away, and purchased a can of hopped malt extract, some corn sugar, and Fred Ekhardt's (sp?) book "A Treatise on Lager Beer" Well they brewed a steam beer, and the results were really quite good (honest, even by today's standards!). I joined them in their endeavors and for the next fifteen years we occasionally brewed beer, most of it was really bad! We had no information other than that little booklet, we were not satisfied with our product, and were about to give up on the hobby when I purchase Charlie Papazian's "The Complete Joy of Homebrewing" Now I really have to say, there WAS a lot of hype in that book, but for the time, it had the critical information I needed to make good homebrew, from GRAIN! Let us not forget the early days, lest we take for granted some of the sources of information we have today, such as what is available in print and on the WEB. Having seen this with my own eyes, I can only imagine the amount of information that has been disseminated in regards to other topics! It boggles my mind anyway! Recent discussions also remind me that for the most part we are homebrewers. Some of the topics (Mashout's effect on foam stand for one) may or may not have important effects for commercial breweries, but for homebrewers, it may not be. For example, a commercial brewery may save 0.1% on a particular procedural step, well when you make beer 24hours a day 7 days a week, this can add up to significant $$$. It may even have a somewhat beneficial effect on the finished product. What I am trying to get to is that most homebrewers I know have trouble making even the simplest beers the same every time. There are so many variables that I know I don't control, that trying to claim that a brewing practice has or has not an effect without laboratory type of control is really not that helpful to this discussion. As a newbie, I believed a lot of garbage that was thrown at me, now I know better. Go back and reread some of the early homebrewing books by Miller, and others, the recipies, mash schedules, etc. are WAY off of what is now commonly practiced (90 min mash minimum claimed by Miller, excessive Munich Malt in a Vienna or Pilsner style, claims of poor results with dry yeast, the necessity of decoction mashing for "true" continental character...) this leads me to a possible discussion that might help here: What are the currently "accepted" (momilies?) that will soon be, or should be discarded by the homebrewing community? How about: "Don't use bleach to sanitize stainless steel, it will corrode it?" How about it? Can we generate a list of things we should question that are now current practice? Roger Ayotte Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 09:54:20 -0500 From: "St. Patrick's" <stpats at bga.com> Subject: Michael Jackson in Texas Michael Jackson in Texas Just a quick invitation to the Michael Jackson events in Austin and San Antonio this weekend. 1. Saturday evening 6 pm at Dog and Duck Pub, Austin---free event, book signing 2. Sunday 12 noon at Blue Star Brewpub, San Antonio, beer tasting $25. about 10 tickets remaining. 3. Sunday 5 pm at Bitter End, Austin Beer Dinner $70 or $55. about 20 tickets remaining. Give us a call or call the respective brewpubs for tickets and info. Lynne O'Connor St. Patrick's of Texas Brewers Supply 1828 Fleischer Drive Austin, Texas 78728 USA 512-989-9727 512-989-8982 fax www.stpats.com Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:49:23 -0500 From: Nathan Kanous <nlkanous at pharmacy.wisc.edu> Subject: Mac & Jack's African Amber Hi All, I've got a friend that recently returned from a trip to the Pacific Northwest. It seems that he found Mac & Jack's African Amber to be to his liking. Anybody got any tips on this beer's formulation? I couldn't find a website, but if anybody's got a web address for Mac & Jack's, that would help as well. Any info would be appreciated. TIA. nathan in madison, wi Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:29:30 EDT From: Epic8383 at aol.com Subject: Good Stuff Dear Collective, There have been some great posts lately, many thanks to Dr. Cone for his time and expertise. Rich Foote's water looks pretty soft, but I'd like to see carbonate and total alkalinity numbers to be sure. John Watts points out the stupidity of the press and the neo-prohibitionist CDC in their misuse of statistics. Finally, the mental image of Doc Pivo unintentionally skiing down his staicase is just too much! Gus Rappold P.S. My idiocy was to try an all grain 5 gal. barleywine on my kitchen stove-2 mashes and many boiling pots-it took about 20 or so hours to complete and the beer was somewhat astringent. Return to table of contents
Date: 02 May 2000 09:21:33 -0700 From: "Jeffry D Luck" <Jeffry.D.Luck at aexp.com> Subject: "spotie", "dooky-wah", and "shleb" Dr. Pivo a.k.a. dp at pivo.w.se wrote: >2) It has a very good "foaming action" as the oxygen is liberated, >helping to remove "spotie", "dooky-wah", and "shleb". Ok, people, when you start using these technical terms, you have to give us new guys the definitions. ...Actually, I've been reading HBD for a year now, and I have no idea what it is that this foaming action actually removes. ...And seeing the posts from Burradoo lately, I'm not sure I really want to know. Jeff Luck Salt Lake City, UT USA Having a wonderful wine, wish you were beer. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 18:42:36 +0200 From: "Francois Zinserling" <francois at designtech.co.za> Subject: Belgium visit My wife will be visiting a friend in Belgium in June. What can she get me from there by way of yeast, hops, homebrew, else ?? If I don't come up with something, I'll be getting chocolates or a lace umbrella !!! Help, guys ! Cheers ZING (ZA) Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 09:47:16 -0700 From: Steven Gibbs <gibbs at lightspeed.net> Subject: off flavors and possible causes Bruce Taber asked: <<<<<<<< < After 10 years of brewing with almost no spoiled batches, I now find myself with a recurring problem. Every second batch over the last 6 batches has been infected. I have gone anal with my sanitizing, doing both a bleach soak and isodor on everything and I haven't changed any other procedures but I can't find the cause. I figure I may have better luck finding the cause if I could identify the type of infection. I have read the descriptions of the various types of infections (diacetyl, DMS, ester, phenolic) many times but I'm still not sure which it is (my best guess is phenolic). There are many commercial beers that have a similar flavor component to what I consider the off-flavor in my beers. It can be found in Orval as well as most of the Trappist beers, also Hoegaarden and the German Schneider Weisse to name a few. If anyone can put a name to the flavor component that I am trying to find, please let me know. And if you can give suggestions as to a cure, I would be eternally in your debt (so-to-speak). Bruce Taber Almonte, Ont. Canada bruce.taber.ca>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bruce: The same problem happened to several brew buddies and me a couple of years ago. I hope I'm not being overly simplistic, but the only real analysis is in the route of the cooled wort and the fermenter. I am assuming good heathy uncontminated yeast is being used, so I would look to the ball-lock valve on your brewing kettle and ask yourself whether or not you completely tore it apart, washed and sanitized the components, put it back together, and boil the entire valvebefor using it on the outflow line of cooled wort. What also helps is to plug the the boiling wort for 15-20 minutes. If you do all of these things aned still get an off flavor I would seriously check your fermenters and component parts. I ferment in stainless 5 gal. soda kegs and I clean and sanitize the valves on them almost as much as I said on the brew kettle valve. Let me know how it goes because the problems from the contaminated ball-valve gave me flavors like those you described. Steve Gibbs Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:30:58 -0400 From: Jim Adwell <jimala at apical.com> Subject: wacky wort whirlers Dr. Pivo scribes: "Jim Adwell made a clever little stirring device which he reported a few issues back, and wonders if it would shorten his heating times to boil, and grouses about his pecunious propane supplier (almost an alliteration... I'll give me a "2")." That would be "proximal pecunious propane provider", and I would be a "peripatetic purchaser of precious propane". ("7") But I digress... Actually my post was more about the mechanical banging together of various protein and other molecules, such as one would find in a rolling boil, say, and whether my wort stirrer would be useful as a partial or complete substitute for a rolling boil. The savings in propane would be a fortuitous side-effect. Dr. Pivo's 'mantle' is clever, and obvious in hindsight, as so many things are, and I might just try it. Without any evidence, or much thought about it, either, I would be concerned that thin aluminum sheeting would melt in use; the iron supports above my burner get red-hot in use. But we shall see... I will not recount here my stupidest brewer's trick, save to note that it involved a closet, excessive heat, enormous quantites of wort, hops, and sludge, and many, many hours of cleanup time. And a deceased mouse. Cheers, Jim Jim's Brewery Pages: http://home.ptdprolog.net/~jimala/brewery/ Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 11:30:40 -0600 From: "G. M. Remake" <gremake at gsbpop.uchicago.edu> Subject: Mash-hopping results Hello all, Recently I bottled a cream ale for which I tried mash hopping for the first time. I used only the mash hops (1.5 oz. of Hallertau and 1.5 oz. Saaz flowers) and bittering hops (0.5 oz. Perle and 2 oz. Hallertau). I went strong on the mash hop quantities to make sure I could detect the effects, and I erroneously assumed that mash hop utilization would be close to 0%. Well, the mash hops effects are certainly obvious. While there is zero hop aroma, as expected, the flavor contribution is enormous. I've never gotten that kind of flavor when I've tried to purposefully. I formulated the recipe for about 23 IBUs, but it's more bitter than that. A recent post suggested 10% utilization for mash hops, which would put the recipe at about 33 IBUs, and that seems about right. The bitterness level and particularly the flavor are not at all what I intended in this recipe, but it resulted in a wonderfully flavorful beer. Another surprise in this batch was an unexplained increase in my efficiency (80% vs. 72%). I haven't tested it yet but I suspect the mash hopping contributed to the increase, as that was my only process change. Unfortunately, I won't be brewing again until this fall, but I'm really looking forward to brewing that next IPA with mash hops (and planning for them correctly). Cheers! Greg Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:45:01 -0400 From: AJ <email at domain.com> Subject: Water Rick Foote posted "yet another water post" asking some questions about his very soft water. First comment is that Rick is the "victim" of his typical Cooperative Extension Service who just do not understand that the noblest use to which water can be put is the brewing of beer and thus report all manner of information useless to the brewer without any mention of the things which are important to us. Here is where I stick in my standard pitch about the significant seven parameters (pH, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, alkalinity, chloride, sulfate and chlorine) and how it is simple to measure all of these yourself (with the exception of sulfate) using relatively inexpensive kits. Anyway, looking at Rick's water we see that it is very soft. I assume that the Ca and Mg numbers are reported as the ion. Thus the calcium hardness is about 11 and the magnesium hardness about 7 for a total of 18 mg/L as calcium carbonate. Taking the hardness together with the sodium and potassium levels it is plain that there cannot be many anions in the water either. The sum of all the cations present in appreciable quantity amounts to 0.66 mEq/L and so the sum of all the anions must be equal to this same number. Were all the anions bicarbonate the alkalinity of the water would be 33 mg/L as CaCO3 (the bicarbonate ion concentration: 40 mg/L). This is a pretty low alkalinity but it is very unlikely that all the anions are bicarb. There is almost certainly some chloride and probably sulfate. Assuming that one third of the anions are, respectively, bicarbonate, sulfate and chloride, the alkalinity of the water would be 11, the sulfate level 10 mg/L and the chloride 8 mg/L. The chloride and sulfate are, thus, most probably at levels where they will have little or no effect on the taste of the beer and will have to be supplemented for roundness/fullness and/or augmentation of hops bitterness. WRT to the Mn - never seen it higher than Fe before but note that the limit here is the secondary limit i.e. the level above which the water may taste unpleasant, not the level at which harm will be done. Try aerating the water to oxidize the Mn to the point where it forms the brown sludge more readily. This aeration will also release CO2 which is responsible for the low pH not that this is important WRT the mash because the buffering capacity of this water is so small but the higher pH aids in the formation of the Mn sludge. Filter the aerated water. This may take care of the Mn without further treatment. Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 14:43:54 -0400 From: "Pannicke, Glen A." <glen_pannicke at merck.com> Subject: Yeast propagator On Mon, 1 May 2000 Bill.X.Wible wrote: > So the unitank or cylindroconical fermentor was invented to allow the >yeast to be removed during primary fermentation, eliminating the need for >redundant tanks. These tanks are full batch fermentors, and are not designed >specifically for starting yeast. Yeast propagation is just an additional >benefit of these systems. Understood, however we're talking two different animals here. Read the subject. It has to do with propogators, not fermenters. Propogators of a cylindro-conical design *ARE* used in many commercial and micro breweries for the continuous propogation and collection of yeasts utilized in the main fermenters. Are you saying that they are not? While it's been debated in this forum, /ad nauseum/, the general consensus (of the starter proponents) is that somewhere between a 1 quart and 2 gallon starter may meet some of these individuals' requirements for achieving a pitching rate which matches the commercial scale reccomendations. The point of this exercise is to find a cost-effective design for a yeast propogator which will allow the easy selection of the more desirable middle yeast layer for those who are of the 1/2 gal - 2 gal starter camps. A number of people have expressed their interest in this subject to me privately, so I decided to continue in a public forum. > Lastly, I was surprised by the comment that 'most of us are using bleach >as a sanitizer'. I'm not. I use Star San. Those of you who are using bleach >should reconsider that choice. Bleach requires much rinsing. And if the bugs >are in your tap water, you're putting them right back into your vessels after >sanitizing. Additionally, use of bleach for sanitizing is probably the biggest >contributor of phenols to your beer, when it is not rinsed thoroughly. Star San >is worth what it costs. OK, 'many' people use it. Hell, I don't even use it anymore except to soak my plastic stuff in after use. I agree, brewing equipment soaked in bleach and improperly rinsed can lead to some nasty stankin' brew. Personally, I switched to buffered caustic followed by iodophor since the majority of my equipment is stainless and I keg my beer. I don't know the exact chemical ingredients in Star San, but I don't trust *ANY* no-rinse sanitizer any farther than I can throw it. So I always do a rinse with boiling water. No chlorophenols in my beer! Carpe cerevisiae! Glen Pannicke http://www.pannicke.net "He was a wise man who invented beer" - Plato Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 13:13:05 -0500 From: "Brett A. Spivy" <baspivy at softdisk.com> Subject: Salute to a proud fellow brewer! I have just returned to Shreveport, LA after a five (5) day trip to the Ozark Hills. It was a great time and I'm lucky to work for a company that does a retreat for the entire "front office" like this every year, but as you know a week with the bosses morning, noon, and night is stressful under the best of circumstances. Even with the Harley riding every day, the blueberry wine, the homebrew, and the copious amounts of various brown liquors, the mental fatigue sets in from "being on" for that long of a time. Then as I rolled on home at ~ one hundred and twenty kilometers per hour (120 Kph) --bike was build for a Canadian PD before I got it -- I saw a fellow spirit. A true friend. One who thinks along the same universal lines as I. My caravan and I motored past a metallic gold (I think it was gold) Jeep Cherokee (or some similar SUV type vehicle) with the Vanity Plate: I Brew. My spirits lifted by the humor and bent of my fellow traveler, my thoughts turned to the brown ale on tap at the Stole Cactus Brewery and thoughts of home. You made my day, anonymous sojourner. Thanx . . . Brett A. Spivy Stolen Cactus Brewery PS -- If you are a member of this digest, fellow brewer / traveler, drop me a line. Return to table of contents
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 00:52:04 +0200 From: "Dr. Pivo" <dp at pivo.w.se> Subject: non-Alienating Alliterative Alusions and dangerous peroxides. I stumbled at two, but got some brilliant improvements: what say yee about: > pecunious propane purveyor >pecunious propane propietor or...my favourite... >pecunious propane peddler? (original authors names withheld, 'cause I didn't get 'round to asking them) I thumped myself mightily on the head when I read these more blessed suggestions, when I could not come up with them myself. On another note from the "Litigious Land" (I can't get a third here either, and perhaps the improvements might not be so forthcoming, but I'd love to hear them!.... just repeat after me... "Nobody said the coffee was hot, Nobody said the.... etc.") Regarding my suggestion to purchase 35 percent hydrogen peroxide and then dilute it. > Get a drop of it on exposed skin and watch your skin turn > white as it oxidizes your skin. I've noticed the same effect with "house paint". I wash them both off. The times I've spilled H2O2 on my hands (dozens); I squirt them off with water. I'm always surprised how it doesn't "burn" with that short exposure time. If my hands look like the "Leper of Calcutta", it's not because of that. I promise. But then again, one can't be too careful. I've actually read here where people are recommending "stoves" for brewing on. Those can be incredibly nasty things, and put your hand on the "burner" and you'll soon know about it! With enough sloppiness you can burn the whole house down! We've got one of these at work, and I only allow employees to approach it with a full G-suit on. No suing here, thank you. I was suggesting purchasing concentrated material, since it is cheap, and homebrewers are a renowned miserly group. You can purchase 3 percent as a standard "chemists" product for about 100 times the price if you wish to (except in Australia where it is 6 percent... sort of a "tall poppy" syndrome I guess). I think if you really want to shrink your dollar, you can buy 3 percent with a little boric acid chucked in ("soft contact lens" cleaning material with the "catalyst" system) for about 1000 times the cost. For me it matters naught. You decide where you want to spend your money, and how careful you want to be with potentially dangerous stuff. I will firmly stand by my assertion that this is nothing to either pour in your eyes or bathe your children in. Dr. Pivo Return to table of contents
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:57:11 -0400 (EDT) From: kevin m mueller <kmmuellr at engin.umd.umich.edu> Subject: Yeast questions I figured I'd better get this in as soon as possible, since May 6 is fast approaching... On Saturday (29 April) I decided to feed a large slurry of Wyeast 1056 that I had pulled from a primary and stored after washing with distilled water (similar procedure to the ones in yeast faqs). The next day when I was rousing and aerating, I put my nose to the neck of the 2.5 gal carboy that I was using and the smell nearly knocked me over. Its a hard smell to describe, but it was very sharp on my nose. So, I figure I'd better go and buy a new smack-pack and get it started. Last night I pitched it into some fresh wort (all of my sanitation has been standard, ie wash, brush, hot water and idophor). This morning when aerating, I got the same smell, although not as strong. I haven't tasted the wort/beer yet as it has quite a bit of suspended yeast in it. First question is: Can any of you guess what that smell is? I wasn't surprised that I got an infection (if thats what it is) in the first batch, as thats the first time I ever saved/reused yeast. However, I was quite surprised to get the same smell again with a fresh batch (different container too!) Or is that a typical smell (as I don't tend to take big sniffs of my yeast)? Second, and not related to this batch: While stepping up the yeast, lets say you start with a quart starter. The yeast grows till it has reaches maximum density (? is that right?), then you add more wort and it grows more... Much of what I read says to double the volume of wort that the yeast is in. Will the yeast continue to grow if I only put in half as much volume, or will they just consume the sugars? Say I start with a quart, then add half of a quart the next day versus another full quart. Thanks in advance, and personal e-mail is fine (actually preferable if I have to start another starter!) Kevin Mueller kmmuellr at engin.umd.umich.edu kmuell18 at visteon.com Return to table of contents
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 05/03/00, by HBD2HTML version 1.2 by K.F.L.
webmaster at hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96