---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


***************************************************************
       THIS YEAR'S HOME BREW DIGEST BROUGHT TO YOU BY: 

                  Beer, Beer, and More Beer
      Visit http://morebeer.com to show your appreciation!

    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********


Contents:
  Re: March Fitting ("Rob Dewhirst")
  FOY 2004 - Response-yeast washing. Acid wash versus Chlorine Dioxide ("Rob Moline")
  drying yeast culture? ("Anna R. Dunster")
  FOY- 2004 -Response- Freezing Dried Yeast ("Rob Moline")
  FOY-2004-Response-Graham L Sanders ("Rob Moline")
  FOY- 2004 Response-Dry yeast rehydration conditions ("Rob Moline")
  Re: Lagering Schedule (Matthew Beck)
  Fortnight Of Yeast, 2004 - windsor/nottingham (viable cell count) + glycogen/iodine ("Fredrik")
  pre-test-simulation pics of yeast states ("Fredrik")
  Bleach questions... ("Rowan Williams")
  Cold Trub:  Good, Bad, or Ugly? (cboyer)
  S. Cerevisea v Brett ("Dave Burley")
  Re: Hops for Irish Red (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Lagering Schedule (Jeff Renner)
  Re: Electric Brew ("Pete Calinski")
  sequential sugar utilization (ALAN K MEEKER)
  Dixie Cup 2004 results are in! (Bev Blackwood II)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           The HBD Logo Store is now open!             *
*            http://www.hbd.org/store.html              *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Suppport this service: http://hbd.org/donate.shtml   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*   Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*               A Fortnight Of Yeast                    *
*  Presented by the HBD in cooperation with Lallemand   *
*      Questions submission: 10/11 - 10/22/2004         *
* include Fortnight Of Yeast, 2004 in your subject line *
* More info http://hbd.org/hbd/archive/4620.html#4620-3 *
*********************************************************
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 cannot reach you. We will not correct your address
  for the automation - that's your job.

HAVING TROUBLE posting, subscribing or unsusubscribing? See the HBD FAQ at
http://hbd.org.

LOOKING TO BUY OR SELL USED EQUIPMENT? Please do not post about it here. Go
instead to http://homebrewfleamarket.com and post a free ad there.

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@hbd.org or read the HBD FAQ at http://hbd.org.

JANITORs on duty: Pat Babcock (pbabcock at hbd dot org), Jason Henning,
                  and Spencer Thomas



----------------------------------------------------------------------


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:57:28 -0500
From: "Rob Dewhirst" <rob at hairydogbrewery.com>
Subject: Re: March Fitting


> How about this at www.morebeer.com
>
> "H618B: Stainless- 1/2'' FPT x 1/2'' Barb"

Wow, they are proud of that fitting.

I love the expanded set of plumbing that morebeer now offers (especially in 
the demise of movingbrews.com) but $16 is obnoxious considering the 
alternatives. 



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:31:43 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: FOY 2004 - Response-yeast washing. Acid wash versus Chlorine Dioxide

	FOY 2004 - Response-yeast washing. Acid wash versus Chlorine Dioxide

From: "Thomas, Chris" <CThomas at wilmorite.com>
Subject: 
I was wondering if you might comment on your opinion of acid washing
versus using a chlorine dioxide (CLO2) wash. It seems that the use of
CLO2 might be a bit easier and quicker than an acid wash based on [very
limited] reading related to this subject.
 -Is this something that might be relevant to a homebrewer?
 -If you think this is a viable option, do you have any practical hints
and/or suggestions on this method of washing yeast.
FWIW, below are some links to relevant articles.
http://www.birkocorp.com/brewing/yeast.asp
http://www.brewingscience.com/yeast_care.htm
Regards, Chris.

Chris,
To be honest we do not have much experience with yeast washing using
Chlorine Dioxide. The data from the web link you sent look impressive.
However Chlorine Dioxide is a general biocide which "attacks" all kind
of microorganisms including yeast. The trick is that you need to have a
certain concentration that kills bacteria but does not harm the yeast.
The effective concentration range is relatively narrow. 

One of the critical parameters to control the concentration of Chlorine
Dioxide in the yeast cream is the effectiveness of mixing. If the mixing
is not properly done you have too high concentration of Chlorine Dioxide
in some parts of your yeast cream which kills the yeast and you will
have parts where the concentration is too low and therefore not
effective. In small vessels with a good mixing apparatus it might work
well but in larger yeast storage vessels you probably end up with
problems.

Another parameter is the cell concentration; depending on the cell
concentration you have to adjust the concentration of your Chlorine
Dioxide to be effective. 

We know of a large industrial brewery that successfully tried this
procedure in the lab but did not implement it in their production
because it was too difficult to control.

So for home brewing applications this method probably works but you have
to be careful to look after your parameters like mixing, cell
concentration....
Regards
Forbes & Tobias

- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:49:10 -0700
From: "Anna R. Dunster" <azzacanth at livejournal.com>
Subject: drying yeast culture?

Hey all,
I know in making sourdough bread, if you have a decent yeast culture
you can make a thin 'sponge' of it and allow it to dry. What I'm
wondering is, can the same be done with beer or wine yeast and if so
how? I seem to have a real nice culture going on my apple wines (very
vigorous - poured the sediment from 3/4 gal apple wine into 5gal of
fresh sliced apple/sugar/water mixture and 24 hours later it was
bubbling happily! Plus, "apple crap 1" tastes /great/ and I am sure it
will be better yet after it ages some more. :)   I would like to
preserve this particular culture if possible.  (I suspect it may have,
in addition to the original red wine yeasts, a few wild yeasts from
the apples - but I'm sure they are a small portion of the whole if I
do - but in any case its a good set of wine!)    Saving petri dishes
in my fridge just seems unwieldy :/ 

Any help you guys can give would be great even if it's just a link to
someone elses website. :)

~Anna

PS - the brown ale ya'll helped me with three weeks or so ago is great
:) No problems at all.  Next time I can scrape up $25 I'll be starting
another batch of beer. In the meantime apples are free from our
backyard and sugar is cheap ;)




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:52:22 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: FOY- 2004 -Response- Freezing Dried Yeast



		FOY- 2004 -Response- Freezing Dried Yeast

I have always frozen my dried yeasts after purchase and before use.  I
have
not noticed any detriment to the final product, but I seem to remember
reading somewhere in that past year or so not to freeze dry yeast,
perhaps
even on a package.  Is it acceptable to freeze dry yeast or is there
some
detriment to the practice?
Cheers,
Mike Dixon

Mike,
You are right; we had stated in our old technical data sheet that dry
yeast should not be frozen. However in the last 3 years we had a project
running to optimize storage conditions for dried yeast. We stored
several lots of vacuum packed dried yeast at room temperature, in a
refrigerator and in a freezer and determined viability, vitality and
fermentation performance every 3 month for two years. The results
indicated that freezing the yeast does not harm the yeast but is even
better than storing the yeast at room temperature. BUT for all storage
temperatures it is very important that the yeast is still vacuum sealed.
Air/oxygen is doing more damage to the yeast than any difference in
storage temperature. 
Regards
Forbes & Tobias
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:01:04 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: FOY-2004-Response-Graham L Sanders

		FOY-2004-Response-Graham L Sanders

G'Day All
I have asked this in a round about way before, but I'll ask again.

With my agricultural background, one thing we learnt was always addressing
the "most limiting nutrient", when looking at the maximum growth or
productivity of whatever your endeavours.

This gets me onto yeast growth and brewing performance.  I have seen in the
past that you fellows hate generalisations, but lets assume we have a
typical 1.050 wort. And our starters are of the same level. We oxygenate
these so that oxygen is not a limiting nutrient, at least in the growth
stage of the yeast. And we are pitching recommended levels. In other words
we are good brewers that do everything right.

Now a typical wort while supplying good nutrition for yeast, does not supply
optimum levels of nutrition. There is room to feed the yeast, to increase
its mass, as well as better its brewing performance. No better example of
this is zinc. Additions of a few ppm of zinc makes a noticeable increase in
the performance of the yeast. In fact more and more brewers add zinc in some
form. So from my agricultural background (here comes the generalisation).
For my typical  oxygenated 1.050 wort.

1. Is zinc the most limiting nutrient in a typical wort.
2. if not what is, and what levels are in the wort, and what levels need to
be aimed for.

But I have more. I like many brewers add zinc, and this has shown a marked
improvement in growth and performance. Its no longer the limiting nutrient.
I have to wonder if there is now another nutrient that could be addressed.
In the unfamiliar world of generalisation, I know you will say it will
depend on the water. Let assume we have Pilsen type water, very soft. We are
good brewers and do get our Ca levels up to 50ppm, with CaCl or CaCO3 in the
mash. We might even add a touch of Epson salts, to get our Mg levels up
another 2 ppm to be safe.  And we practice all correct brewing processes, ie
pH adjustment.

So
1. what would be the next most limiting nutrient a brewer should consider in
his wort. You may wish to split this into growth nutrient and brewing
performance nutrient.  Can you give say give the next two nutrients.
2. And what levels are in a typical wort, and what should we aim for.
Thanks
Shout
Graham Sanders

Graham,
You are absolutely right... although we like generalization it usually never
works.  Typical wort...???!!!
But we will try.... zinc is definitely a limiting factor in most worts. The
zinc concentration depends on malt quality, hops, equipment used, brewing
water... Usually malt would supply a sufficient amount of zinc but more than
95% of it is lost during lautering. Zinc builds a complex with phytic acid
and this "large" molecule is held back in the spent grain during lautering.
In older literature a zinc concentration of 0.15-0.2 ppm is recommended.
More recent publications recommend higher zinc concentrations around 0.3
ppm. In trials in our lab we found improved fermentation performance with
zinc levels up to 0.5 ppm depending on the zinc source.
In propagation the zinc levels can be even higher because the each yeast
cell is divided more often and therefore the zinc pool is divided more often
as well. To maintain a sufficient zinc pool during propagation the yeast
needs to take up more zinc from the wort than during fermentation.
It is very difficult to give a typical zinc level in wort. During our
studies we found zinc levels from 0.01 ppm - 0.25 ppm in all malt worts. As
we mentioned above the zinc concentration depends on so many factors.
Now to other limiting factors. You probably want to check your free amino
nitrogen level in the wort. If you do not have sufficient amount of free
amino nitrogen you will end up with stuck fermentation and a change in your
flavour profile. This is a main concern if you brew high gravity or use
adjuncts like sugar or corn syrup which do not contain any free amino
nitrogen. All malt wort (12 P) is usually sufficient with 150-220 mg/L FAN.
You also should check the ratio of Mg and Ca ions in your wort. The ratio
should be more in Mg favor. So if you add calcium you should consider adding
magnesium as well.
Regards
Forbes & Tobias
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:06:16 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: FOY- 2004 Response-Dry yeast rehydration conditions

		FOY- 2004 Response-Dry yeast rehydration conditions

Interested in giving dry yeast a try and have a rehydration question.
>From the instructions on Danstar's website, it states that distilled
or reverse-osmosis water should not be used.
For those of us with water unsuitable for brewing, any suggestions for
a rehydration water recipe (salts, yeast nutrients) starting with RO
water?   Thanks in advance.
Joe Gibbens

Joe,
We do not recommend to use distilled or reverse-osmosis water because
the yeast would be damaged by osmotic pressure. Tap water contains
minerals which lower the osmotic pressure on the yeast. You could
rehydrate the yeast in a 0.9 % saline solution.

We have a nutrient specifically developed for rehydration of dry yeast
called GoFerm. This nutrient is widely used in the wine industry and
supplies the yeast with sterols and minerals during rehydration process.
Regards
Forbes & Tobias
- ---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.776 / Virus Database: 523 - Release Date: 10/12/2004



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:11:14 -0700
From: Matthew Beck <mcbeck at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lagering Schedule

"...I have been searching the web for a good lagering
time/temperature schedule...Also I think I got the 47 
to 52 degree F range from Noonan (BLB - 1986)
, but the label says to brew at like 55 to 60 degrees..."

I am fermenting my first lager, so bear that in mind as you read this.
 I brought my carboy down to temp (6-8 hours in chest freezer) before
pitching the starter.  I began around 55 degrees.

When my lager began to blowoff and clog the airlock, I added a blowoff
tube and small bucket of water.  I also dropped the temerature to 48
degrees to slow fermentation a bit.  I have Noonan's book, but have
not yet had the chance to read it.

I brewed a Marzen and am using a Bohemian Pilsner yeast (I know, I
know....it's the closest thing they had in stock at the LHBS).

So far so good.  Hope that helps a bit.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 08:08:22 +0200
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: Fortnight Of Yeast, 2004 - windsor/nottingham (viable cell count) + glycogen/iodine

Dr. Fischborn and Dr.Waldrop. Some time ago I was counting 
cells and then looked at the datasheets for windsor and 
nottingham and it says(among other things:):

Nottingham contains >= 5 billion viable cells / g(dw) 
Windsor contais >= 7 billion viable cells / g(dw)

This got me curious. I have come up with two interpretations 
of this, either that the nottingham cells are simply bigger and 
you only get so many into a gram, or the nottingham strain 
are more sensitivte the drying process in the sense that you 
get a little bit more dead cells per gram.

1) Can you explain why there are more windsor cells/g than 
nottingham cells?

2) Seetting aside viability, what is the typical actual total cell 
   count per gram Nottingham?

( I did a count some time ago, and though my methods are very 
crude and homemade (using estimates drop volumes), and may 
give errors, I arrived at a much higher count, around 
20 billion/g. It did only one count, so there may have been error, 
but I am doubtful that my error is that large, or if the numbers 
you guarantee are rather on the low side to be safe? I never 
repeated the experiment so I could have been in error, but it
would be nice if you can confirm what is the excepted actual
total cell count, rahter than the minimum guranteed viable cell 
count)

3) I have tried to determine the glycogen contents of yeast slurry,
by means of taking a digital picture of the idodine stained cells, 
and then translate the colour scale into a relative glycogen value 
(0-100%). Just  looking at the colour resolution I think it might 
be realistic to resolve the glycogen level to maybe 4 intervals, 
0-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%.

What do you think about this? Is the correlation between 
intensity of the staining and glycogen level good? These are one 
of the few the relatively simple methods that does seem practical 
for any homebrewer with a microscope and interest since you 
don't need any hard-to-get chemicals or other lab equipment. 
The question is, is it reliable for ballpark estimates of glycogen? 
(provide the camera exponation setttings are the same)

In my firsts tests the glycogen drop I arrived at seemed to make 
sense. It dropped from the 75-100% range to the 25-50% in two 
days starving at room temp in a closed bottle (noO2). Does this 
make sense to you?

http://hem.bredband.net/frerad/beer/modelling/pictures/glycogen.jpg
(the optics in my simple microscope is limiting, that's why it's blurry)

The pics are actually from a way outdated pack of windsor that I 
had saved for experiments. The low glycogen, left is the outdate 
pack. The right picture is how the outdated pack looks like after 
getting a little bit of sugar to eat. Once the sugar finished and 
two days later  at roomtemp (still on under the beer) the level had 
dropped significantly judging from the colour.

 /Fredrik



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:33 +0200
From: "Fredrik" <carlsbergerensis at hotmail.com>
Subject: pre-test-simulation pics of yeast states

I recalled a post yesterday when I realized I sent 3
posts in a row, which is getting ridiculous :o| I thanked
Kurt for posting that interesting article(I trust he still
got a copy). It lead me to dig up an interesting
approach. Bascially they solved the regulation
problem by trying to"kind of" reconstruct the
effect evolutionary process. By finding extreme values of
certain key properties that drives and organism, and
assuming the the optimium agrees what optimum
evolution has selected. Anyone who is interested,
please check reference (18) or (19) and look
for genome-scale reconstruction of metabolic
networks in Kurts post two threads back . Interesting
reading and the most impressive approach I've seen beofre.

But while I'm at it, here is another post to add to the model
overview just as a visualisation.

To add some visualisations to the my model-overview, here
are some more old pics showing some "pre-test simulations"
showing some of the principal yeast state machine.

http://hem.bredband.net/frerad/beer/modelling/pictures/yeast.jpg

This is from basic tests, no intelligent regulation functions are
implemented in this graph, I basically entered a some sensible
regulation functions at will and just a ran for it for a single sugar
wort and assumed full attenuation.

Similarly the principal depletion of sugars can be found easily.

So I think the basic "principal kinetics" is relatively straighforward.
The most difficult parts will be the fine structure of the graphs, the
exact point of regulations, flavour compounds etc. But once the
basic stuff is there I figure it will be easier to toy with new ideas
and improve the model from there. For example I have in mind
the ester production, these things have been well and in depth on
here and on various forums, decomposing many of the factors
that influence it. There has been much conflicting experimental
information on this out there. But even though each mechanism
is roughly defined, it is still diffucult to say what the outcome
will be when everything is put together in interaction. In these
case I think even an incomplete simulation tool may be extremely
helpful at worst. So I think of the fermentation model first of as a
tool. A tool to help understanding the fermentation process and
perhaps also to help understand how it can be tweaked?

 /Fredrik





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 06:06:16 -0700
From: "Rowan Williams" <rowan at canberrabrewers.org>
Subject: Bleach questions...

Hi all,
For a long time, I've used Sod Met and Iodophor in my never ending
quest to keep infections at bay.  Figuring that changing my
sanitising routine is not a bad thing, I bought a box of no-brand
Bleach powder from the supermarket that has bugger all info on it!
Is a 1/2 tsp for a 6 Gallon fermenter too much?  The concentrations
that Papazian lists...are they for liquid bleach or can I also use
those figures for powdered bleach?

I've also read that bleach and SS keg shaped kettles don't like each
other?  Is that folklore or fact? Don O'Connor way back in 1993
(HBD 1161) said that neither Bleach nor Iodophor pose a threat to
304 SS???  I don't mind staying with Iodophor for the SS, if I can
use bleach on the glassware and plastics...

And finally, I've run out of detergent for washing the plastic
fermenter and other gear - can I get away with washing up using
bleach, or does it only do the sanitisation part of the equation?
I find it costly and difficult to buy bottle wash powder in these
parts and I'd appreciate any advice on how I can buy cheap washing
powder that does the job before I sanitise things...We have a large
tub of commercial grade dishwasher powder (pink) that I've been 
eyeing off! ;-)

Cheers,

Rowan Williams
Canberra Brewers Club
[9588.6, 261.5] AR (statute miles)




Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:54:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: cboyer at ausoleil.org
Subject: Cold Trub:  Good, Bad, or Ugly?

A few writers have stated that cold trub (the precipitate that falls out
of wort after it is cooled and settles) is often at least partially
responsible for chill haze and instability in finished beers.  As someone
who wants to brew 1) crystal clear brews (not a problem lately) and 2)
brews that last longer on the shelf, simply because I brew so often, this
has become something of interest to me...and a reason to make my case to
SWMBO for a nice SS conical.

Here's what Ron Barchet says in BT:

http://www.brewingtechniques.com/library/backissues/issue2.2/barchet.html

BEGIN QUOTE:
"Cold trub consists of proteins, protein-polyphenol complexes, and
carbohydrates (Table I). The protein component of cold trub consists of
by-products from the breakdown of hordein (prolamin) and globulin. These
by-products are soluble in hot wort but precipitate as the wort cools.
Approximately 15-25% of these proteins bind to polyphenols, forming
protein-polyphenol complexes. Higher molecular weight carbohydrates,
called beta-glucans, make up 20-30% of cold trub (2).

As Table I shows, the composition of cold trub produced varies with the
percent difference between fine and coarse grist extract and the degree of
malt modification. Highly modified malts, for example, yield a higher
percentage of polyphenols in cold trub than do less-modified malts.
Undermodified malts yield more protein and relatively fewer polyphenols
(3).

Cold trub proteins and polyphenols begin to bind at lower temperatures,
especially when cooled to <170 dF. Consequently, as wort cools, cold trub
precipitates (see Table II). If conditioned beer or wort is reheated, cold
trub will go back into solution. Chill haze in finished beer is,
essentially, cold trub. Most beers that exhibit chill haze clarify as they
are brought to room temperature (the cold trub goes back into solution).
END QUOTE

Over at Bodensatz.com, Jeff Irvine has another interesting article on the
subject:

http://www.bodensatz.com/homebrew/columns/jirvine/trub.html

BEGIN QUOTE:
What Some People Say Is Good About Trub:

1) It provides a yeast nutrient . . .

2) It provides nucleation sites: The colloidal nature of trub provides
channels for the dispersion of carbon dioxide, thereby avoiding toxicity.
 . .

3) The products of trub metabolism provide essential products for full
lagering flavour. . .

What Some People Say Is Bad About Trub:

1) The byproducts of trub metabolism do not leave desirable tastes and are
a particular problem with regard to stability. The big ugly finger is
pointed at the lipids here, and particularly with regard to auto
oxidation. . .
END QUOTE

Seems like you could add yeast nutrient and some nucleation sites and
overcome the "good" aspects, and remove the proteins responsible for chill
haze.

Anyway, signals are mixed, but it would be interesting to discuss this and
see what some of our really advanced brewers think.

Cheers,
Charles



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 09:55:33 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: S. Cerevisea v Brett

Brewsters:

> weather ( sic - DRB) yeast >colonize and sink >(sacch), or >colonize and 
> float
>(brett), is largely a function of >cell density (specific gravity) and 
> >(incidental) ability to entrain co2 >(ale vs. lager)

Chad Stevens would have us believe that "bottom" fermeting yeast are 
S.cerevisiae and "top" fermenters are Brettanomyces.  Wrong.

S.Cerevisiae can be either top or bottom. And the fermentation does not take 
place mostly at either location. Fermentation takes place in the body of the 
wort in both cases.

In fact, Top fermenters will sink eventually, demonstrating it is not a 
specific gravity difference.  Top fermenters "float" to the top not because of 
specific gravity but because they form a flocculated mat which is floated by 
the carbon dioxide produced by their brothers still floating around in the 
wort produce.

Bottom fermenters do not produce a mat which traps CO2 so they sink, as their 
SG is greater than water just like their top fermenting cousins

Why? I'm not into yeast philosopy speculation. {8^)

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:28:01 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Hops for Irish Red

"Christian Rausch" <brewmaster at rauschbiercompany.com> writes:

>I am planning on brewing this weekend. I want to make an Irish red ale.
>Thing is I am out of Fuggles. I was going to use Willemette, but was not
>sure if this hop is the right substitute. Does anyone have any experience
>with this?  I am out of Kent Goldings as well. Maybe I should just say the
>heck with it and brew a Bock. Ideas welcome.

I really like Willamette, and have just about stopped using Fuggles 
in my British ales, preferring Willamette.  IIRC, it is a triploid 
derivative of Fuggles.  It is commonly recommended as a substitute.

When following a recipe, I think it it is important not to get too 
hung up on specific ingredients and to be willing to substitute and 
experiment.  As one who has published a number of recipes, I often 
get emails from someone who can't get an ingredient that, likely as 
not, I used simply because I had it on hand, not because it was 
magical.

But don't forget to brew the bock soon, too!

Cheers

Jeff
- -- 
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:44:04 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jeffrenner at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Lagering Schedule

"Paul Niebergall" <pnieb at burnsmcd.com> in Stilwell, Kansas asks

>Can anyone out there recommend or point me in the direction of a
>decent lagering schedule??
>
>BTW - I am using an Oktoberfest Yeast.  I cant remember right now if it
>was Wyeast or White Labs, but it came in a sodapop blank (test tube) and
>was labeled "Oktoberfest".

That's WhiteLabs' packaging.  They caution, "This yeast is much 
slower in the first generation than WLP830, so we encourage a larger 
starter to be used the first generation or schedule a longer lagering 
time."

I'm not sure why a longer lagering time would compensate for 
underpitching, I'd think it would be a longer fermentation time.  But 
perhaps it produces off-flavors that long lagering takes care of.

>The manufacture date was July 2004, the starter has been in the 
>fridge for 2 days at 47 to 52 degrees F, and I am seeing some pretty 
>decent activity in the airlock.  Roused and fed it some fresh wort 
>this morning.

It is best to ferment the starter at warmer temperatures - 82F/28C is 
none too high.  It simply gets things done faster.  My stir plate 
motor generates enough heat that the starter ends up at about that 
temperature.  You can even go higher.  It is a myth that you should 
"pre-adapt" the yeast in the starter to the temperature you are going 
to ferment at.  Just don't drop the temperature too fast as that 
might shock the yeast.

>Also I think I got the 47 to 52 degree F range from Noonan (BLB - 
>1986), but the label says to brew at like 55 to 60 degrees.  Isnt 
>that kind of warm?

WhiteLabs actually recommends for this yeast, "Optimum Ferm. Temp: 
52-58," but I think that cooler temperatures would work fine.  On the 
other hand, if this yeast tends to be a slow starter, the higher 
temperature won't hurt, although I'd stay under 55F.

I like to ferment at 48-50F/9-10C until it slows down, then, if the 
yeast doesn't require a diacetyl rest (smell and taste to see), I 
rack to the keg, seal it, and start dropping the temperature to near 
32F/0C for lagering.  Lager yeasts can continue to ferment slowly, 
cleaning up the last fermentables and, if I am lucky, the beer ends 
up just about perfectly carbonated.  Pressure lagering is also 
supposed to speed the process, although some yeasts tolerate pressure 
better than others, from what I understand.

Have fun with your first lager.  They are very rewarding.

Jeff
- -- 
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, JeffRenner at comcast.net
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 10:58:31 -0400
From: "Pete Calinski" <pjcalinski at adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Electric Brew

A few comments:

First, I think you really need two elements at 1000 watts each to get a good
boil.

Second, you need switches for each one.  Trying to control the boil by
plugging and unplugging the cable is cumbersome and will cause the plug to
wear out.  Plugs are not designed for a lot of insertions and extractions.
However, from the picture, the heater you plan to use may include a switch.

Third, for real control, I would use a variable control for one element and
just a switch for the other.  Light dimmer switches won't support the 1000
watts you need to deliver.  Perhaps a ceiling fan motor control would but
you should check that rating.  I'm using something like:

http://www.pcappliancerepair.com/cgi-bin/detail.cgi?item=WB21X5243&cart_numb
er=9430584_42188&brand=GEH

If that link doesn't work, go to:
http://www.pcappliancerepair.com/index.html

and search "part number" for:

WB21X5243

It includes a terminal for a pilot light if needed and I would recommend
one.

I'm not recommending this brand, I am sure you can find these at any
appliance parts store.

When you start to heat, you turn on both elements.  Then as the pot
approaches a boil, it will really want to boil over.  At that point, you
want to turn back the variable one to just stop the heat.  That setting is
really hard to judge without a pilot light.  It would be impossible with a
dimmer because that device reduces the power delivered.  The device I use is
an off/on device.  I turn it back until the pilot goes out.  The boil slows
almost immediately.  Then, after a few seconds, the control turns on again
(and the pilot lights tells me that) and the boil "kicks up".  I watch and
if the boil gets too vigorous, I turn the knob down a bit to get the pilot
off.  If the boil doesn't get as high as I want before the pilot goes off, I
crank the knob up a touch.  In a few cycles, I can get it set such that the
pot almost boils over then backs off, then almost boils over again.

Soon, the surface will clear and the threat of boil over is past.  Then I
put a partial cover over the pot to keep in the heat a little but still
allow the nastys to escape.  I also readjust the variable control.  Usually
no more adjustments are needed after that.

Fourth "richard" <richard_beattie at optusnet.com.au> mentions mounting the
elements in the pot.  I don't like doing that.  They really need to be
cleaned after each use.  I think that would be tough with them mounted at
the bottom.  With the "stick" configuration, you can wipe them under running
water from the immersion chiller while the pot is chilling.

Hope this helps.

Pete Calinski
East Amherst NY
Near Buffalo NY

http://hbd.org/pcalinsk


***********************************************************
*My goal:
*      Go through life and never drink the same beer twice.
*     (As long as it doesn't mean I have to skip a beer.)
***********************************************************





Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:28:53 -0400
From: ALAN K MEEKER <ameeker at mail.jhmi.edu>
Subject: sequential sugar utilization

Regarding Dave Burley's recent comment on modelling sugar utilization
Dave, the point I have been addressing is that sugars are processed
in a particular sequence, not in parallel as you repeatedly asserted
in your advice to Fredrik:

HBD# 4626 Perhaps part of the problem is /Fredrik's concept that 
somehow the yeast take in and consume carbohydrates serially. Not 
so. All the carbs are being processed in parallel. Some just 
more slowly than others.

HBD#4627 Point is, all of these carbohydrate reactions are 
proceeding at the same time, NOT serially, as you suggest
in your comments. As you commented,there are some secondary interactions
due to the "interference" of certain sugars, but the point is all of 
these reactions are going on simultaneously. 

HBD#4629 ...my point is any model (which was thesubject of my 
comments to /Fredrik) should not be serial but take into account
all possible reactions.
- ------
Again Dave, this is simply wrong. Fischborn and Waldrop confirmed this 
in their post ("Finally on the growing subject of sugar consumption; 
Kurt Thorn and Alan Meeker are absolutely correct." #4629). All sugars 
are not utilized in parallel. This is a well known phenomenon. The 
presence of certain sugars such as glucose keeps the yeast from 
manufacturing the very proteins needed for maltose and maltitriose 
utilization therefore, they will not be used until the glucose level 
drops below the inhibitory concentration. I cant put it any simpler 
than that. 

 -Alan Meeker



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 20:52:18 -0500
From: Bev Blackwood II <bdb2 at bdb2.com>
Subject: Dixie Cup 2004 results are in!

Unlike the BIG election, you needn't wait until November to get these 
results!

The 21st annual Dixie Cup in Houston, Texas judged a record-breaking 
1138 entries this year, continuing our streak as the largest single 
site competition.  Medals were awarded in 45 different Categories and 
Styles of Beer, Mead and Cider.  This year's Best of Show beer was 
awarded to John Donaldson of the Kuykendahl Gran Brewers (KGB) for a 
Premium American Lager.  Best of show Mead or CIder went to Richard 
Dobson of the Red River Brewers for his  Specialty Cider/Perry.  Foam 
Ranger Grand Wazoo, Mike Heniff was awarded the Mike Templeton award 
for most points by a single brewer in the competiiton and was crowned 
Gulf Coast Homebrewer of the Year.  The team of Jeff Reilly and Jimmy 
Paige were named Gulf Coast Homebrew Team of the Year.  The Dixie Cup 
was won by the Foam Rangers with 78 total points.

Complete results and qualifiers for the next Masters Championship of 
Amateur Brewing (MCAB) may be reviewed at:

http://www.crunchyfrog.net/dixiecup/results2004.phtml

The Foam Rangers look forward to seeing you (or at least your entries) 
at Dixie Cup 22, tentatively scheduled for October 21st & 22nd, 2005!

 -BDB2

Bev D. Blackwood II
Co-Competition Coordinator
The Foam Rangers
http://www.foamrangers.com



Return to table of contents

---