---

	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:
  Re: Experience with Safale US-56? (Bob Tower)
  Re: hazy wort from maris otter? ("Thomas T. Veldhouse")
  Advanced Homebrewing Course - THANK YOU! ("Lemcke, Keith")
  Ballantine's (Jeff Renner)
  US56 Experience ("Dan Listermann")
  Response 2: FOY- 2005-Mike Racette ("Rob Moline")
  Response- FOY,05- comments & a question in dropping/rousing. ("Rob Moline")
  Fuggle Plant Has Dried Up ("Mark Wiand")
  highly attenuative yeasts, and quantity of bottling sugar? (leavitdg)
  Apple cidery taste (Ted Teuscher)


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           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: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:34:29 -0700
From: Bob Tower <tower at cybermesa.com>
Subject: Re: Experience with Safale US-56?

Thomas T. Veldhouse was wondering about the new dry version of Chico
ale yeast, Safale US-56 and how it compares to Wyeast 1056.

I have split a small batch of California pale ale into 3 samples and
pitched them with Safale US-56, White Labs WLP001 and Wyeast 1056.
With the exception of pitching rate, all other factors were kept the
same. They've been in primary for about 10 days. I'm going to drop to
temperature to 40 F. for a few days and then force carbonate the
samples. At the September meeting (Sept 13) of my local homebrew club
I will be conducting a double blind taste test with the 3 samples. I
will post here a detailed account of the brewing procedure as well as
the results of the tasting.

I am anxious to taste the results. I am keeping an open mind but if I
had to guess as to the results I would think that all 3 would taste
remarkably similar.

Bob Tower / Los Angeles, CA



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 07:10:33 -0500
From: "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy at veldy.net>
Subject: Re: hazy wort from maris otter?

Aron,

>chilled with immersion chiller (took longer than in the winter due to 
>warmer water in pipes)~20-30 minutes?
>  
>
First, I would try to decrease the chilling time.  I used to see 
problems with chill haze when I used an immersion chiller on my beers, 
especially in the summer.  I use a Therminator now and my entire wort is 
cooled in 5 minutes or so.  I think the rapid and complete cooling of 
the wort is a key factor.  It does seem that Maris Otter is more prone 
to being senstive to your cooling method.

I would also encourage you to get a complete hot break before you add 
your hops.  For me, that is an additional 15 to 20 minutes before the 
first addition of hops.  The indicator of a good hot break is that the 
foam levels suddenly receded and virtually disappear.

Tom Veldhouse


Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:24:43 -0400
From: "Lemcke, Keith" <klemcke at siebelinstitute.com>
Subject: Advanced Homebrewing Course - THANK YOU!

The staff of Siebel Institute of Technology & Fort Lewis College would
like to thank the two dozen students of the recently-completed 2005
Advanced Homebrewing Course for all their enthusiasm and support! We
hope you had a great time learning the fine art of brewing from Chris
White, Randy Mosher and Chris Graham, and that you enjoyed the
hospitality of the brewers of Durango, Colorado. A BIG thank you goes
out to all the staff of SKA Brewing, Durango Brewing, Steamworks Brewing
and Carver Brewing for once again rolling out the red carpet for our
guests, once again proving that Durango is America's most beer-friendly
town!

The next Advanced Homebrewing Course will be held in the summer of 2006,
so watch our web site for the announcement of the dates. If you want to
be informed directly of the 2006 course dates, just send an e-mail to me
at klemcke at siebelinstitute.com with your request and I will add you to
the list.  

Keith Lemcke
Vice-President
Siebel Institute of Technology



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:11:55 -0400
From: Jeff Renner <jsrenner at umich.edu>
Subject: Ballantine's

Brewers

I was just perusing my bookmarks and found this great site on  
Ballantine's Ales

http://www.falstaffbrewing.com/ballantine_ale.htm

Enjoy!

Jeff
- ---
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan USA, jsrenner at umich.edu
"One never knows, do one?"  Fats Waller, American Musician, 1904-1943
***Please note new address***



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 20:44:26 -0400
From: "Dan Listermann" <dan at listermann.com>
Subject: US56 Experience

I fermented 15 gallons of cream ale each, US56, Nottingham and Coopers in 
side by side in a room at about 75 F.  The Coopers was fine.  the Nottingham 
seems to have thrown some fusels and the US56 had a slight but noticeable 
solvent aroma.  This is just a data point.  I am using Coopers until the 
weather breaks.

Dan Listermann 





Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:15:02 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Response 2: FOY- 2005-Mike Racette

From: "Mike Racette" 
Subject: Fortnight Of Yeast, 2005

Can you please discuss the advantages/disadvantages of pitching onto an
existing yeast cake (assuming the cake, and previous beer, smelled and
tasted clean). Specifically, I have seen it argued that while there may
be
obvious advantages such as no starter prep, less cleaning, and perhaps a
shorter lag time,  there may be negative effects created due to too many
old
or dead yeast cells, or perhaps maybe even problems with over-pitching?
How
might using an existing yeast cake affect the taste and quality of the
resulting beer.



Mike,
I believe that in some instances there may be a benefit in placing fresh
wort on top of an existing yeast slurry.  You are correct in stating
that there may be an advantage in terms of lag phase, particularly if
the beer has not been sitting on top of the yeast for a long period of
time.  However, the effects that you see are likely to be dependent on
the yeast strain and the characteristics of the previous fermentation.
For example, high gravity or high alcoholic fermentations can leave the
yeast severely stressed.  Such yeast will invariable perform poorly as
there is likely to be a number of dead cells which could influence the
clarity, foam and pH of the subsequent fermentation (due to products of
autolysis).

The wort utilized in the subsequent fermentation may also need to be
adjusted to accommodate the differing population.  This may be hard to
achieve without having a detailed knowledge of the yeast strain.  For a
dried yeast inoculum the yeast is in perfect condition, highly vital and
well aerated and contains enough lipids within the cell wall to achieve
the required number of cell divisions.  Yeast which has been through a
fermentation will generally be depleted in sterols (as well as other
compounds such as glycogen) and may not be able to produce daughter
cells, or if they do, these cells may be fermentatively 'weaker' than
normal.  The wort may therefore require a higher degree of aeration to
provide enough oxygen for sterol synthesis.

The subject of cell division also raises a serious issue as yeast
generally divide approximately 3 times during a fermentation (again this
is strain specific and dependent on extrinsic factors).  Consequently,
you are correct in stating that by simply adding beer onto the yeast you
are effectively overpitching.  For example instead of starting with
15million (1.5E+07) cells/ml wort you would be adding around 120million
(1.2E+08) cells/ml.  Couple this with an additional 3 fold increase in
the new fermentation and theoretically you could end up with almost 1000
million (1E+09) cells/ml !  In practice the population is not likely to
get quite this high, but it would still lead to major flavor variations.

One other issue with reusing yeast is the possibility of transferring
contaminants.  Bacteria present in low numbers at the end of one
fermentation will rapidly overtake the yeast if pitched into fresh wort,
due simply to shorter division times.

To summarize, it is possible to achieve good, clean fermentations by
reusing yeast.  However, given the number of variables involved (not
least the strain and type of fermentation performed), it's difficult to
predict the characteristics of a beer produced by repitching a yeast
culture.  Suffice to say that without adjustments to a number of
fermentation conditions the subsequent fermentation may not be as
predictable or reliable as when using fresh yeast. 

Chris
- -- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 22:22:08 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <jethrogump at mchsi.com>
Subject: Response- FOY,05- comments & a question in dropping/rousing.

From: "-S" 
Subject: FOY, comments & a question in dropping/rousing.

Sincere thanks (in advance) for all the great info so far on FOY.  I'm
only sorry that time doesn't permit greater participation.

Hat's off  to Chris Powell and Alan Meeker - I learned something  I'll
probably be puzzling over for the next several years, and there is no
greater gift than a good puzzle.

Dave Burley brings up a point that caught my eye early on ...
> Subject: Further Response: FOY, 05-Crabtree effect and Overflow
Metabolism

DB> Clayton Cone has explained that if have more than 0.2% glucose in
our
DB> starters  [...]

CC> Response:
CC> I am glad that you asked this question because I did not wish to
imply
CC> that there would be no cell wall improvement even in the presence of
CC> oxygen at >0.2% sugar. When the wort has more than >0.2% sugar, the
CC> function of the O2 is to assist the yeast in producing lipids.
[...]
> Clayton Cone

This puzzles me.  The Crabtree effect is the repression of respiration
in
the presence of *GLUCOSE* concentration above a critical threshold.  The
reference to "sugars" generally implies that wort will supress
respiration
until the very end of fermentation however I see no evidence that the
major
wort sugars, maltose, maltotriose, can produce Crabtree effect.
Malting&Brewing Science vol2, pp593-594 dicusses Crabtree threshold as
0.4%
w/v of glucose table and  17.6 indicates that other monosaccharides
(fructose, mannose, galactose) repress respiration but less effectively
than
glucose.  Baking yeast (also a Saccharomyces cereviae which exhibit
Crabtree) is grown in an aerobic sucrose media which does not supress
respiration.

Normal 12P all malt wort has roughly 1%(1P) of monosaccharides with
glucose
as the most prominant and another roughly 7P of fermentable
polysaccharides.
I assume the Crabtree effect ceases to be a factor when the
monosaccharide
level drops below the threshold.  If monsaccharides are fermented first
then
Crabtree ceases to influence yeast metabolism after about 10% of
attenuation
has taken place for all-malt wort.  This issue has a practical brewing
consequence and leads to a question.

Homebrewers often use one of two distinct methods of yeast "rousing" to
improve attenuation with finicky top fermenting yeasts and both seem
somewhat effective.   The traditional British practice  of "dropping" or
transfer of fermenting wort at 24-36 hours into fermentation (M&BS pp
668-670) is practiced by some and this certainly causes some oxygen
inclusion.   Alternatively many Homebrewers practice some form of
"rousing"
by shaking and stirring airlocked fermenters.

My hunch is that "dropping" aeration during active fermentation improves
yeast sterol levels to some extent, but I also expect that Crabtree
repression of respiration is absent after 24 hours of fermentation, so
perhaps another impact, of "dropping" is to permit mitochondrial
development
by limited respiration for some flavor advantage.  Please comment; what
is
the expected impact of this "dropping" aeration ?

The second form of "rousing" presents another question; how does the
shaking
of  air-locked fermenters late into fermentation improve attenuation ?
A
dubious but common explanations for this are that shaking "resuspends"
flocculated yeast or else mixes the remaining fermentables bringing
these
into greater yeast contact.    Neither explanation is satisfactory.
Yeast
flocculate when growth conditions are absent and generally will not
deflocculate until growth conditions are re-established.  Also no
significant "fermentable" gradient is likely to appear in a 10 gallon
fermenter.   My hunch is that the removal of CO2 by shaking causes the
improvement attenuation.  Please comment.

p.s. The original reply by Dr.Cone regarding Crabtree included a typo
that
cell walls rather than cell membranes benefit from the oxygen product
sterols.  Cell walls are the mannose-protein "skeleton" covered with
chitinous bud scars, while cell membranes are the soft lipid-bilayer
structure that we all (should have) learned about in HS biology [ see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_bilayer ].

 -SteveA


Response:  Good points.....I do not really have any solid numbers on
this but different sugars can effect the yeasts in different ways. The
Crabtree effect is also probably better explained as the promotion of
one metabolic pathway (fermentation) over another (respiration).
Saccharomyces is a wonderful little critter in that, as far as I can
recall, it is the only yeast species which is truly fermentative, most
of the other fermentative yeasts tend to require some O2, or other
growth promoters, in order to continue fermentation.  True that
Saccharomyces needs a boost now and then but it is different.  Moreover,
most Saccharomyces ferment as fast as they can, while the other
fermentative yeasts tend to slow down when fermenting.  The Glucose
repression effect is something different from the Crabtree effect, and
also much more.  The Crabtree effect is something that happens at the
expense of respiration rather than the complete repression of
respiration as by glucose.  From an experimental point of view if you
have plenty of sugar and excess of air but the yeast still makes ethanol
then it is Crabtree positive, if ethanol is present but only in trace
amounts then Crabtree negative, if you remove the air then you find out
of the yeast can ferment.  There are genera of yeast that cannot ferment
and these really are not so interesting. 

Again this is a bit of a generalisation; everything going on is a
dynamic system so there will always be what seems to be conflicting.  

With the "dropping" you are probably right.  Once the glucose is gone
there will be modifications to the mitochondrial form and function that
allows something new to happen (including some limited respiratory
activity).  However, even when glucose repressed the mitochondria are
still functioning and play an essential role in the fermentation.
Yeasts devoid of mitochondrial input are not attractive in brewing.
"Dropping aeration" is doing what you think it is, young fresh yeast are
introduced along with air into the fermentation and things should go
well.  It is also possible to introduce this to sluggish/stuck
fermentations as a way of finishing them off properly.  It comes down to
healthy yeast, and while Saccharomyces is a wonderful hard-working,
little friend it does do better if well looked after.  

Again probably correct with the explanation of rousing effect on the
fermentation.  Release of CO2 from the liquid into the air and then out
the air-lock will help the yeast continue to ferment better.  The other
effects of mixing the yeast may also help but are probably less
important as the CO2 removal.  Industrial brewers tend to have methods
for aiding the removal of CO2 from the fermenting beer, through a
process called "nucleation".

Again most of the sterol found in yeast is located on the membranes,
both intracellular and extracellular, however sterols probably get
associated with the cell wall, again diagrams tend to do an injustice to
the dynamic nature of the beast.

Forbes
- -- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.0/63 - Release Date: 8/3/2005



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 08:34:15 -0500
From: "Mark Wiand" <mark.wiand at metc.state.mn.us>
Subject: Fuggle Plant Has Dried Up

Hello All,

One of my first year Fuggle plants has just dried up on me.  I wasn't
watering well enough, and now all of the leaves are crackled and curled
due to the dry weather here in Minnesota recently (I don't think it was
a disease).  It was about five feet tall.  I've tried watering it, but
it doesn't respond.

So is it completely dead (including the roots)?  Is there any hope that
I'll get a new shoot this year or next year?  Would it help if I cut
down the dried-up bine?

Thanks,
Mark
Richfield, Minnesota


Return to table of contents


Date: Fri,  5 Aug 2005 15:09:04 -0400
From: leavitdg at plattsburgh.edu
Subject: highly attenuative yeasts, and quantity of bottling sugar?



I have not used wlp007 (Dry English Ale Yeast) for some time,
but just noticed that both the pig and the bottles into which I
placed the the brew are both HIGHLY carbonated.  And,
this led me to wonder: when bottling with a highly attenuative
yeast, should one take this into account and use just a touch
less corn sugar?  In other words, the 3/4 cup (for bottles),
for example, may be just slightly too high for a yeast that
is going to eat proportionately more of it up, no?

BTW, I really like what this yeast does.

Darrell
Happy Brewing!



Return to table of contents


Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Teuscher <t_teuscher at yahoo.com>
Subject: Apple cidery taste

I brewed 10 gallons of an american pale ale a couple
months ago. This beer has a VERY strong apple cidery
taste to it. No signs of contamination were present
when kegging. I fermented the beer for 6 weeks at 68F
and dry hopped with cascade for 3 weeks.

I prepared my yeast starter (2 smack packs of american
ale wyeast)using some previously prepared wort with
yeast nutrient already added. I oxygenated each
addition of starter wort with pure O2 through a
stainless air stone for about 30 seconds. I built up
to about 1000 ml after a few days when I decided to
hold of brewing until the following weekend. So I put
the starter in the fridge for a few days. I pulled the
starter back out of the fridge, decanted by just
poured off the excess liquid, and added more
oxygenated starter wort over the course of a few more
days. I would also shake the starter every once in a
while to keep everything mixed up.

The starter itself smelled very strong of apples when
I pitched the yeast into the wort (which was also well
oxygenated). I would like to say it is what John
Palmer calls "acetalyhde" in his How To Brew brook.
The beer is also rather cloudy.

What did I do to cause such a strong apple cidery
smell and taste? None of my other beers have ever had
this problem. It has been kegged for 2 weeks now and
not really dissipated at all. The beer is drinkable
but is overwhelmed by the apple cidery taste.

Thanks for any ideas you might shoot my way.
Ted Teuscher
Lenexa, KS



		


Return to table of contents

---