HOMEBREW Digest #4633 Wed 20 October 2004

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

		Digest Janitor: pbabcock at hbd.org


                  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 *********

  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
[Prev HBD] [Index] [Next HBD] [Back]
HTML-ized on 10/20/04, by HBD2HTML v1.2 by KFL
webmaster@hbd.org, KFL, 10/9/96