---

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


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

          Northern  Brewer, Ltd. Home Brew Supplies
Visit http://www.northernbrewer.com  to show your appreciation!
               Or call them at 1-800-681-2739

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


Contents:
  FOY, 05 - Yeast stress response question for Chris Powell ("Rob Moline")
  Response-FOY-05: Mead/Wine - Oskaar ("Rob Moline")
  Response-FOY, 05-- Commercial starters ("Rob Moline")
  Further Response: FOY, 05-Crabtree effect and Overflow Metabolism ("Rob Moline")
  Rod and Dave's Coke ("Rob Moline")
  metabisulfite and modern  Coca Cola ("Dave Burley")
  Turbid vs. Decoction step mash (Chad Bohl)
  coke taste and smell (Chet Nunan)
  coke flavors (David Scheidt)
  Coke ("larry  maxwell")


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           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!   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  Thank you, Drs. Cone, Fischborn, Waldrop, Lemcke, &  *
* Powell! Fortnight of Yeast Question Sumbission is now *
* closed.  Please save further questions for next year. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

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: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:07:38 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: FOY, 05 - Yeast stress response question for Chris Powell

A hearty welcome to Chris Powell on FOY! The descriprion of his
earlier work reminds me of a question regarding yeast stress.

Chris, I've briefly studied the literature on yeast stress
response. It appears that important stress response genes,
such as those for heat shock proteins, are under the control
of upstream Stress Response Elements (SREs) and are
co-ordinately regulated. Studies seem to indicate that this
results in cross-protection against a given type of physiological
stress following exposure to a different type of stress. So, for
example, heat shock may lead to increased resistance to osmotic
stress. The question is, can this phenomenon be exploited in
brewing in prepariong yeast for highly stressfull fermentations?
For instance, when pitching into a very high gravity ferment, such
as a mead or barleywine (high osmotic stress), could the yeasts'
performance be enhanced by a mild stress exposure during starter
production or close to pitching? I stress (pun intended) that
this would be a mild stress, just enough to start inducing the
protective systems, but well below any level that would actually
lower the yeasts' health/viability.

Looking forward to your response, Alan

Alan Meeker, PhD
Assistant Professor of Pathology and Urology
Department of Pathology
Division of Genitourinary Pathology
Bunting-Blaustein Cancer Research Building  Room 153
1650 Orleans Street
Baltimore, MD 21231-1000

Alan,
You are exactly correct in your statement regarding STRE, and I'll
attempt to answer your question specifically in due course.  However,
it's worth discussing the subject briefly to appreciate the complexity
involved.  S. cerevisiae cells generally respond to stress in several
ways which can be categorized as 'specific' and 'general' responses.
Often 'specific' responses can aid in prevention against other stresses,
but this is not their primary purpose.  For a 'general' response yeast
possess three positive transcriptional control elements (at least which
have been identified so far).  These are Heat Shock Elements (HSE's),
stress response elements (STRE's) and AP-1 responsive elements (ARE's).
The reason I mention these elements is because the three types have
overlapping but distinct functions.  Of the three types, STRE has
recently been the focus of most work due to the huge number of stresses
which can cause activation of a STRE activated 'global stress response'.
These range from temperature shock, osmotic shock, oxidative stress,
starvation, nitrogen/glucose depletion, the list goes on.  So far around
200 genes have been shown to be induced by stress purely through the
STRE promoter sequence.  The products of these genes obviously have a
variety of functions, but many of them enable the cell to protect its
organelles, membranes, produce specific proteins, lay down carbohydrate
reserves and generally prepare for the bad times ahead.  Importantly,
once a stress factor is removed the cell must revert to its previous
state in order to function efficiently.  This again is more complicated
than it sounds, as a cell must repair any damage sustained as well as
removing the (now defunct) products of the stress response.

I wanted to express the complexity of the stress response in yeast
before answering your question.  Theoretically it is possible to prepare
yeast cells for a stressful environment by applying a mild shock.
However, even though viability may not be affected, there is a strong
chance that the vitality of cells may be impaired in some way.
Starvation for example may cause upregulation of pathways which may
procure some form of osmotic protectant on the yeast cell, but
simultaneously will also lead to depleted glycogen in the yeast, which
could be disastrous for fermentation.  To simplify, there is no benefit
in increasing the levels of specific shock protectants in place of
something that would be of more use in fermentation.

Another issue that is of importance is that the response of yeast to
stress is commonly strain specific.  Subjecting one strain to osmotic
shock (for example) invariably does not produce exactly the same
response in another strain, this can be seen in brewing yeast where one
strain may ferment a high gravity wort (for example) particularly
quickly, while another may not be able to cope at all.  Consequently it
is difficult to predict how a culture (or indeed cells within the
culture) will respond to a particular stress.  However, having said that
many industries do employ mild stresses (most commonly heat) to prepare
cells in some way.  So to get back to the point, theoretically applying
stress such as a mild heat shock, by raising temperature of the yeast to
around 5 degrees C higher than 'normal' for a short period of time
(1-2hours) may procure some benefits to the yeast, however, be warned -
it could be a double edged sword !

Chris
- -- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:20:45 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Response-FOY-05: Mead/Wine - Oskaar


Subject: FOY-2005: Mead/Wine - Oskaar

Questions for the panel:

1. Relating to mead/wine:

I see that wine makers are adding their yeast inoculum through the
manway in their fermenters to give the yeast a head start on any already
present microbes/flora. Question: Does the introduction of the yeast
into the fermenter as the juice is filling the tank add value to other
roles as well such as aeration, and does it accelerate the growth
dynamics of the yeast? Would this be beneficial for smaller scale
production in the ten to twenty gallon range for us home mead/wine
makers?

Response:

You are right about adding the yeast to the fermenter ASAP to give them
a head start on the already present micro flora. This is especially true
when it takes a long time to fill the fermenter. It is not uncommon for
some wineries to take 10 to 48 hours to fill their fermenters. Some
people have proposed to add the yeast at the crusher or even in the
gondolas as the grapes are being harvested. It take most active dry wine
yeast several hours to begin their growth phase. During this lag phase
the wild micro flora are in their active growth phase. So the longer you
wait to add your yeast to the must the more spoilage organisms you have.
The yeast do benefit from the splashing and oxygen uptake. However, they
benefit from the oxygen much more at about the 36th hour.

Many of the spoilage organisms die off or at least reach their
stationary phase at 2 - 5% alcohol. So the sooner the added yeast can
get through their lag phase and start growing and producing alcohol the
sooner they will overwhelm the spoilage organisms and minimize their
production of aromas and flavors. Some of these spoilage organisms
produce compounds that add to the complexities of the wine when they are
present in trace quantities but can become off flavors and aromas and
even toxic to the added yeast if the added yeast does not over whelm
them soon enough. 

The sooner you get the added yeast through its lag phase and into its
growth phase the safer you are.  The added yeast produces 30+ times as
much alcohol per yeast cell during its growth phase than it does during
the stationary phase. You can keep it in its growth phase longer by
proper rehydration (Go Ferm), nutrient addition and minimizing spoilage
micro flora growth.

This information does not necessarily translate directly to all 5 - 10
gallon operations. However the principle of getting the adding yeast
into the must or mead ASAP holds true. With good equipment cleaning and
sanitizing practices, honey and grape concentrate offer very little
spoilage micro flora problems. However, with frozen juice and whole
berries there is always the possibility of spoilage organism problems. 

Clayton Cone


2. Relating to mead/wine:

I've been reading that yeasts like nitrogen from different sources
during different phases in the early stages of fermentation. I've seen
recommendations for using DAP at the end of the lag phase and Fermaid-K
at the 1/3 sugar depletion phase. Does this play a bigger role than
supplementing YANC and FAN already present in the must to ensure optimal
fermentation dynamics? I generally work in ten to twenty gallon batches,
what is the proper dosing of DAP to use when preparing the must for
introduction of the yeast, and at the end of the lag phase?

Response:
I wish that there was a universal protocol for the addition of nutrients
to all fermentations, but there isn't. There are too many caveats: 

1. Wild yeast spoilage organisms are the main problem that must be
addressed. They can consume many times their requirement of minerals and
vitamins during the early hours of the fermentation leaving the must
deficient  for the added yeast when they get through their lag phase an
into their growth phase. So it is not wise to add a well balanced
nutrient such as Fermaid K at the beginning of fermentation when there
is the potential for the presents of wild spoilage organisms such as you
may find in fresh crushed apples for cider and whole berries, fresh or
frozen juice. 

With good cleaning and sanitary practices, there is very little problems
of spoilage yeast with honey and concentrates. So, it is safe to add the
well balanced nutrient at the beginning of the fermentation when the
yeast needs all the nutrients and will not have to share them with
spoilage organisms. Then add DAP in increments during the growth phase
and into the beginning of the stationary phase.  Yeast like a fresh
source of nitrogen during the growth phase and will reward you with
minimum production of H2S and a healthy cell through out the entire
fermentation.
   
2. How much nutrient to add is the next problem to be addressed. For all
practical purposes, honey, apple juice, corn and cane syrup contain no
nutrients for the yeast. So, 2 pounds of a well balanced nutrient such
as Fermaid K and 2 pounds of Fermaid 2133 (autolysis yeast) and 4 pounds
of DAP / 1000 gallons of must.

Grape juice concentrate contain very little nutrients for the yeast. A
lot of the nitrogen and minerals and vitamins have been removed during
the preparation for evaporation. So for insurance, it is best to assume
that there are little to no nutrients available for the yeast and follow
the above recommendations.

 FAN or YAN in fresh grape juice can vary over a wide range depending on
the grape varietal, vineyard practices and season from 40 PPM YAN to
well over 500 PPM YAN. If you have the YAN analysis, these are our
recommendations:
http://www.lallemandwine.us/products/nutrient_strains.php

If you do not have a YAN analysis you should add 2 - 4 lbs. of DAP over
the first 1/3 of the fermentation and 1 - 2 lbs of Fermaid K after 1/3
of the sugar has been converted to alcohol.


3. Oxygen should be considered as a yeast nutrient, so make sure that
the yeast gets enough O2 near the end of its growth phase.

4. Potassium is a nutrient requirement that should be taken into
consideration in honey, corn and cane sugar and grape concentrate
fermentation. 1/2 to 1 lb of potassium carbonate should take care of
this requirement added with in the first 12 hours of the fermentation.

Clayton Cone

- -- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:27:31 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Response-FOY, 05-- Commercial starters

Subject: Fortnight of Yeast - Commercial starters

When pitchable quantities of "liquid" yeast are provided to a
commercial microbrewery by a commerical yeast producer, in what stage
of the life of the yeast is the yeast supplied? It is my
understanding--please correct me where I am wrong--that commercial
yeast producers typically propagate the yeast aerobically with constant
infusion of medium at rates that maintain very low glucose
concentrations in the culture--conditions that avoid induction of the
Crabtree effect of high glucose. At some point in the propagation, the
infusion of the medium is discontinued and the yeast are allowed to
consume the remainder of the fermentables and to flocculate. Is this
the stage in which the pitchable quantities of yeast are sold to
commercial microbreweries? If not, tell us what the yeast producers
provide to commercial breweries.
Fred L Johnson

Tobias: The method you described is probably used by some commercial
yeast producer brewing for liquid brewing yeast and we use a similar
approach for our dry yeast production. However at Siebel we produce the
yeast upon request and use very well aerated step up propagations for
that. For these batch propagations we use regular all malt brewers' wort
which is supplemented with extra nutrients, like minerals and vitamins,
to ensure optimum growth and high viability and vitality.  When all the
sugars are consumed in the last batch propagation a sample is taken for
QC and the propagation vessel is cooled to allow the yeast to settle.
The media/beer is then decanted to concentrate the yeast. Once all QC
tests are finished and the yeast meets all our specifications it is
shipped cooled to the customer. This whole process takes up to 2 weeks,
which means that the customer will receive the yeast 5 to 6 days after
the propagation is finished. That is how long it takes to complete QC
and for shipping.

- -- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:40:02 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Further Response: FOY, 05-Crabtree effect and Overflow Metabolism

		Further Response: FOY, 05-Crabtree effect and Overflow Metabolism

Brewsters:
I sent this last week or so, but realized this, like a number of other
past submissions of mine were not making it on the HBD and I was not
getting a bounce message.  So a little out of date, but here is my
question and comment for the group and those fine Gentlemen from
Lallemand.  I have modified my format for message approximately as that
fabled Janitor, Pat Babcock, instructs and we will see if this does it.

(Editorial note: It failed. I forced this on since his post is coming
through as multipart MIME with html attachments. Folks, whenever pasting
an URL, ensure your mailer hasn't converted it to an HTML tag - as
appears to have been the case here.)

Clayton Cone has explained that if have more than 0.2% glucose in our
starters that we cannot expect any cell wall improvement even in the
presence of oxygen, since the mechanism changes from a Pasteur Efftect
to a Crabtree effect.. Presumably the addition of oxygen to our wort at
the beginning of the fermentation will likewise make no sense. Does
thismean we ned to wait until the end of the fermentation? And why do it
at all?.
Response:
I am glad that you asked this question because I did not wish to imply
that there would be no cell wall improvement even in the presence of
oxygen at >0.2% sugar. When the wort has more than >0.2% sugar, the
function of the O2 is to assist the yeast in producing lipids. The
lipids in the cell wall act as a growth factor by keeping the cell wall
fluid, allowing buds to form. The production of these lipids require
trace amounts of oxygen to move the squalene to the lipid stage. With
out O2 the mother cell cannot produce any lipids and must shares her
lipids with her daughter cell. This can occur for about 3 - 4 cycles
before the cell wall becomes leathery and will not allow a new bud to
form. Active Dry Beer Yeast initially contain enough lipids in their
cell wall for 3 - 4 growth cycles. This is enough to complete most beer
fermentations.  Recycled yeast usually do not contain enough lipids for
3 - 4 growth cycles. The lipids must be replenished with fresh additions
of Oxygen.

In low gravity brewing, oxygen at the beginning of the fermentation is
usually adequate.  It is when you get into hi gravity brewing that
additional oxygen is helpful after 12 to 24 hours of fermentation. Dr.
Mike Ingledew has found that aeration at about the 14th hours is optimum
for high gravity brewing.  We have found that aeration after 36 hours is
optimum for wine fermentations. 

Clayton Cone

So we need to develop method of stirring our starters which will keep
the glucose concentration low, but allow yeast to grow more cell wall
fatty acid contaiing substances. Since few of us have the metering and
measuring equipment to do this in a strarightforward process control
way, perhaps there is another way to do it.

Response:
One of the functions of a batch starter culture is to produce alcohol
and a healthy cell mass free!free!free! of any contamination. Alcohol
produced at this stage at the sacrifice of cell mass is welcome because
it minimizes spoilage organisms. Mechanical stirring such as a magnetic
stirrer with out an airlock is great.   However, any attempt to add
nutrients or sugar during the starter stage to keep a low level of
sugar, lends itself to contamination.

Clayton Cone

1) Clayton: Any idea about how fast sucrose would be inverted e.g. if we
started with a 1% sucrose solution with appropriate nutrient levels in a
strirred, oxygenated  starter , is there any chance that the rate of
inversion would be slower than the rate of consumption (I guess this
would be yeast concentration dependent) , so we can keep the glucose (
does Crabtree also work for fructose?) concentration down and permit
good cellwall development in an oxygenated starter?

Response:
The invertase enzyme produced by the yeast converts the sucrose to
glucose much faster than the yeast can metabolize the glucose. I believe
that the Crabtree Effect is nearly the same for fructose.

Clayton Cone


2) How about the Overflow Metabolism effect?

Response:
I am not familiar with the Overflow Metabolism effect.

Clayton Cone


www.biotech.kth.se/courses/3A1308/Downloads/Overflowmetabolism.pdf

Does this affect your explanation?

Keep on Brewin'
Dave Burley
- -- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:36:43 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Rod and Dave's Coke

			Rod and Dave's Coke
     Rod jokes about the coca....although I can't locate it, I know the WSJ
had an article years ago regarding the fact that to defend the COCA-COLA
trademark, Coke has relied on a US based lab, highly regulated (and armed)
that imports coca leaf....after the leaf is treated and the active
ingredients removed for use in the medical...ENT...field.....the coca leaf,
now not much more than cellulose is shipped to the plants that engineer
syrup for Coke....thus continuing the legend, accurately, that Coke is
Coke....and supporting the "COCA-COLA" trademark.
	I'm sure Louis Bonham could add more......

	But the greatest diff is surely the presence or absence of cane sugar vs.
corn syrup. Obvious to me decades ago...get on a plane in LA, have a
Coke...get off the plane in Sydney, have a Coke. Cheese and Chalk. Oz cane
sugar wins.....
Gump

"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
- --
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 7/28/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 08:13:06 -0400
From: "Dave Burley" <Dave_Burley at charter.net>
Subject: metabisulfite and modern  Coca Cola

Brewsters:

Andy asks if metabisulfite is as effective in beer making as in wine making.
And the answer is - it all depends.

In winemaking you can generally use the metabisulfite by itself as an
antioxidant and microbe control in the wine, as wine is typically acidic and
low pH.  Beer does not always meet these requirements.  At pH = 3.3 and
below, metabisulfite is basically sulfurous acid and is at its peak
activity. As the pH goes up, the activity of the meta quickly declines, such
that about 3.7 or so it is essentially inactive as a simple sanitizing
rinse.

All those beer books which tell you to rinse with plain metabisulfite
solutions as a sanitizing agent just like you did when making wine are
wrong. In fact, in winemaking it is also wrong unless the meta solution
comes into contact with the wine or some acid. The pH of a metabisulfite
solution is above pH = 7 and the main reason metabisulfite crystals  are
relatively stable.  One of the instability factors in home winemaking is
when over-ripe grapes with a pH = 3.7 or higher are used.  These wines will
be unstable microbiologically and oxidatively.

BTW You should renew your metabisulfite supply on an annual basis, as it
does decompose, even as a crystal. 

To use metabisulfite as a vessel rinse with beer and wine, you should make
sure the pH of the solution you are rinsing with is pH = 3.3 and below by
adding acid to the meta solution. I use tartaric acid but other food safe
acids are OK.
- --------------------
Roger Burns comments about modern Coke flavor, changing taste buds with age
and believes in Coke's stability of flavor over time. 

I doubt this sincerely, as Coke has to respond to the vagaries of the
commercial marketplace (remember high fructose syrups and high priced sugar
a few years ago) just like beer brewers and other producers do. You must
remember Coke's "attempt" to match Pepsi in sweetness not too long ago.  I
suspect this was a marketing ploy to quietly introduce another sugar source
and modify the recipe.  It "failed" but the architect of this campaign at
Coke was promoted to VP. Not too shabby of a failure.

I doubt that Coke's taste is universal, planet-wide, just as I doubt that
Dutch beers taste the same here as they do in the Netherlands. I can
guarantee that the delicious full mouthed raw sugar taste that used to be a
part of the Coke flavor is gone. I do know that wonderful taste of raw
sugar, having tasted it in a South African sugar mill.  If you think what
you buy in the US as "raw sugar" even closely resembles real raw sugar you
would be incorrect. I mean we do have health laws here or is it market
control? Yes.

Dutch beers are brewed differently for the export market. Stella Artois
tastes differently in France than it does in Germany. I mean, even Guinness
is brewed differently in the tropics than it is in Ireland and has been for
decades.

Rod Prather provides a recipe for "coke" and asks me to reveal the
ingredients of the original Coca Cola recipe. Don't you remember all those
stories about only two people knowing the recipe and the original formula
being kept in a safe and all that? Well, if I could reveal them, I'd be in
business making Coke.  Imagine how complex your recipe would taste if all
natural ingredients were used as a source of the oils instead of the
chemical equivalents cooked up in a factory. And if the sugar you used was
real raw un-recrystallized sugar and not pure sugar to which molasses had
been added. 

Keep on Brewin'

Dave Burley 



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:52:37 -0500
From: Chad Bohl <spilikin at comcast.net>
Subject: Turbid vs. Decoction step mash

Greetings!

I've just read an article in a Brewing Techniques mag (May-August 1997) 
by Jim Liddil titled, 'Practical Strategies for Brewing Lambic at Home.' 
There is a table on p.28 that states, "turbid mashing is similar to 
decoction, except that it involves removing and boiling liquid (rather 
than grain) portions of the mash," and "turbid mashing results in large 
amounts of unconverted starch in the finished wort." But it's my 
understanding that when turbid mashing, one would remove some portion of 
the turbid mash liquid to boil and set aside, and add water to bring the 
mash up to the next rest temperature. Finally, one add the total boiled 
turbid runnings back to the mash to bring it to saccharification. OK, on 
to my process... when step mashing, I've either added boiling water to 
the mash to raise the temp or remove some mash liquid, boil, and add 
that back to bring the mash to the next step. I never liked the former 
because I run out of mash tun space before I can get to 
saccharification, and subsequently, mashout. I like to use the latter 
but until now I believed this to be more of a decoction mash So my 
questions are as follows and I hope someone can enlighten me: 1) Am I 
correct in my description of the turbid mashing technique? 2) Am I 
performing a turbid (or mash or a decoction mash when I remove mash 
liquid, boil, and then immediately add back to bring to the next step, 
or would this be a sort of hybrid combination of the two? 3) If a 
decoction mash always involves removing mash liquor AND grains, why 
would you want to boil the grains? Wouldn't you leech unwanted tannins 
from the husks similar to sparging too hot?

 - Chad in Minneapolis, MN


Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 07:13:08 -0700 (PDT)
From: Chet Nunan <katjulchet at yahoo.com>
Subject: coke taste and smell

It appears that the cane sugar vs. corn syrup in the
bottling may be a major factor.  In Mexico they use
the cane, and it seems to make a difference.

Here's an article on it:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041109/news_1b9mexcoke.html



Return to table of contents


Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2005 21:06:58 -0400
From: David Scheidt <dscheidt at panix.com>
Subject: coke flavors



Roger Burns wrote:
> 
> 
> My guess is that the chemicals used to make Coke here are the same as
> used to make Coke elsewhere, but freshness from a delivery standpoint
> might leave more volatile flavors intact.  It's the reason why I drink
> Coke from cans, versus plastic bottles.  It tastes spicier to me.  When
> I can find Coke in glass, it's even better.  I'd be surprised if the
> recipe was different for the different bottlers, and bottling types, as
> opposed to freshness or oxygen degradation.

There's variation in Coca-Cola from different areas.  The big
difference, both geographically and temporally, is what's used to
sweeten the stuff.  In the US, it used to be cane sugar, and is now
almost entirely high-fructose corn syrup.  Different sugars taste
different in and of themselves, but there are also changes in other
ingredients as a result.  As I understand it, the phosphoric acid needs
different amounts of different sugars to have the right bitterness to
sweetness ratio.  And the different amounts of phosphoric acid change
the solubility of carbon dioxide, which in addition to having effect
on the numbers of bubbles and the mouthfeel, also changes how sweet
stuff is perceived as.  (Flat coke is unbearably sweet to me, while
with bubbles, it's not too bad.)

Coke's flavoring, other than sugar and phosphoric acid, are oils of
citris fruits (Lemon, then lime, and then oranage, I think), oil of
nutmeg, oil of cinnamon, and of course cola.  


David



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 12:15:37 -0400
From: "larry maxwell" <larrymax at bellsouth.net>
Subject: Coke

Living here in Atlanta about a quarter of a mile from the Coca-Cola
Headquarters buildings and in fact looking out my window at them
now as I type, and knowing people who work there, and with their
museum, "The World of Coca-Cola," being less than a mile from here,
I'd like to say I have inside info on the formulation, but of course I do
not. Sometimes, when I run past the facility, I can smell that distinctive
Coke smell--highly concentrated--coming from a building that I have
to believe is an R&D lab.  They don't do any manufacturing there as
far as I know.  Although much is now publicly known about the
ingredients in Coke, they make a big deal how it's still perhaps the
world's most closely-guarded trade secret, and the official formulation
is still locked away in a vault in the Sun Trust bank building here.
Whatever.

I suppose we can all Google info about Coke and learn a lot, but 
perhaps what Dave was getting at was that there still may be 
regional variations, depending on what's available at what price.
For example, I suspect that while high-fructose corn syrup is
what's used in the US and elsewhere in the world where corn
products are economical, in parts of Europe, Africa, Asia, etc.,
they may use beet sugar. I really don't know, but that's certainly
plausible. My guess is that the concentrated oil mixtures and 
super-secret what-not are shipped to regional facilities around the
world from some centralized manufacturing facility, mixed with
sugar, phosphoric acid and whatever other (locally sourced) bulk
materials are used to make the syrup, and then the syrup is sent to
the local bottling plants to be mixed with the carbonated water and
bottled.

There are so many varieties of Coke now, it's past confusing:
Coke Classic (full sugar), Diet Coke and Coke Zero (both with
aspartame sweetener), Coke with Nutra-Sweet (I don't recall the
brand name, if any), Vanilla Coke, Cherry Coke, Coke with
Lime ....  There are probably more.  I've lost track.

Larry
Atlanta, Georgia, USA





Return to table of contents

---