---

	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:
  Refractometer calibration (David Edge)
  Ew: Water Analysis and a Water Profile Question (Stuart Lay)
  Water Analyses ("A.J deLange")
  re:dry yeast-one more chance (Nathaniel Lansing)
  Re:  Dry Yeast ("Kyle Jones")
  RE: Dry Yeast (Bob Hall)
  re: dry yeast starter ("Chad Stevens")


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           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!   *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 07:58:32 +0000
From: David Edge <david.j.edge at ntlworld.com>
Subject: Refractometer calibration

David Houseman asks about refractometer calibration.

The UK Midlands Craft Brewers did an experiment in the summer that 
showed for our small sample of instruments (3 refractometers, 4 
homebrew hydrometers) the dominant source of error was the people 
using them. The standard deviation for all instruments was 2-3 
brewers degrees, ie OG points, yet the average reading for each 
instrument was very close to the reading obtained in a brewery with 
decent instruments for the three test samples (1020, 1038, 1058).

I'd be inclined to trust the refractometer, but would go and talk to 
my local microbrewer if I was worried and try my instruments against 
his. I suspect that in wrong part the US you may be 500 miles from a 
micro, I've got four in walking distance.

David Edge, Derby, UK



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 05:30:57 -0600
From: Stuart Lay <zzlay at yahoo.com>
Subject: Ew: Water Analysis and a Water Profile Question

Yesterday Paul Waters asked about labs where one could get a complete 
water analysis performed.

Last April I sent Ward Laboratories in Kearney, Nebraska 
(www.wardlab.com) a sample of local spring water for analysis.  One 
phone call and a couple of days later, I had a sample bottle and a 
listing of the services they provided.  I filled the sample bottle and 
mailed it back, and they quickly returned the results.  Only after I 
received the analysis did they request payment -- $15.

The analysis they sent back included the following:

pH: 7.5
Total dissolved solids: 174.0
Electrical conductivity  .29
Cations/Anions, me/L  3.4/2.7
Na  1
Potassium K   2
Ca    52
Mg    8
Total Hardness, CaCO3    163
Nitrate   <.1
Sulfate   <1
Chloride    2
Carbonate CO3    <1
Bicarbonate, HCO3 159
Total Alkalinity, CaCO3  130

I was definitely pleased with their responsiveness and customer service 
and would recommend them.

On to my question -- with the water analysis above, what kinds of beer 
is this water well suited to?  I've been using it untreated for deep 
amber, red, and brown ales.  I'm seeing about 80% efficiency from my 
system (about normal).

Finally, we live near Hot Springs, AR, and this region is blessed with 
many, many springs.  Another  spring I use for brewing light ales 
(lawnmower beers) comes with the following, abbreviated analysis.   Any 
ideas on this one?

Ca   .3
Mg   .28
Bicarbonate   <1.0
Sulfate    .9

 From this, using John Palmer's book and chart, I calculated a residual 
alkalinity of 4, but I'm not real sure of the math.  My impression is 
this is very soft water and should be OK for light beers.

stuart
Royal, AR
741.2,226.9
Apparent Rennerian



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:07:08 +0000
From: "A.J deLange" <ajdel at cox.net>
Subject: Water Analyses

Laboratory water reports available to the public are aimed at homeowners 
and are designed to let the guy who buys them sleep soundly secure in 
the knowledge that his litttle dears will not be poisoned by dioxin and 
that his wife's whites will come out whiter than white. Now this is of 
significance to brewers too. If my well supplies water with negative 
residual alkalinity but laden with DDT I don't want to brew with it. 
Municipal water reports are designed to satisfy regulatory requirements 
imposed by federal and local regulations. If they happen to inform the 
public at the same time that is an added benefit. In neither case are 
brewers and their needs considered but usually the brewer can find what 
he needs. So what does he need? I used to refer to the "significant 
seven" being those parameters most important to the brewer in the usual 
circumstances. They are pH, calcium hardness, magnesium hardness, 
alkalinity, chloride, sulfate and chlorine/chloramine. The hardness 
numbers and alkalinity tell you whether your mash pH is likely to be in 
the right range. Chloride and sulfate are the most significant 
"stylistic" ions i.e. those that will have the most direct flavor impact 
(as opposed to the indirect flavor impact of improper mash pH) and 
chlorine/chloramine lets you know whether you have to get rid of one or 
the other or both of them or suffer potential chlorphenolics. pH itself 
is not very informative but is required for calculation of the amount of 
bicarbonate and carbonate in a sample of given alkalinity. Now if you 
happen to be in an area where nitrates are high it is important to check 
the nitrates and nitrites and if you have a deep well sodium may be a 
concern. Also iron and manganese may ruin your beer but if these are 
present you can taste them and removing them to the extent that you 
can't taste them anymore is sufficient.

Where the typical water report falls down is in not reporting alkalinity 
or reporting alkalinity as "bicarbonate" or "carbonate". If alkalinity, 
carbonate and bicarbonate are all reported then the numbers mean the 
concentrations of bicarbonate and carbonate but if only bicarbonate or 
carbonate appears it usually means the bicarbonate content which must be 
converted to alkalinity (if pH < 8.3 divide by 61 nad multiply by 50). 
Another shortcoming is listing just "hardness" i.e. not breaking it down 
into calcium and magnesium hardness. This makes calculating residual 
alkalinity hard but you can take a stab at it by assuming that 60 of the 
hardness comes from calcium and the rest from magnesium.

My personal preference is not to rely on laboratory or supplier but to 
do the tests myself. The ones for hardness (both types) and alkalinity 
are extrememly simple and inexpensive kits and even test strips which 
will give you results accurate enough for brewing are available. Check 
Hach and Lamotte web sites or try an aquarium supply store. The same is 
true for chlorine/chloramine and iron. Somewhat more elaborate kits are 
available for chloride and when you get to sulfate you run into 
difficulty though Cole Parmer still sells a drop titration kit for $60. 
For those with access to a spectrophotometer or colorimeter there are 
chemistries for all the ions I've mentioned plus dozens of others.

Sodium is in a class by itself. The most usual method for measuring it 
involves an ion selective electrode (similar to a pH electrode) which is 
expensive, finicky, short lived and difficult to use. pH and pH meters 
are a subject for a separate discussion. Every brewer should have one 
but not for checking his water.

If you receive a lab report that is pretty complete except that it 
doesn't distinguish between the types of hardness or list alkalinity in 
a form you understand you can always buy a test kit for those parameters 
and rely on the report for the rest. I like to check harndess and 
alkalinity before every brew and enter the data into my brewing records. 
It only takes a few minutes to do this.

A.J.




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 11:37:05 -0500
From: Nathaniel Lansing <delbrew at compuserve.com>
Subject: re:dry yeast-one more chance


The US 56 yeast is excellent and should give you a clean
beer.
But on making a starter one week in advance,_DON'T_!
An eleven gram pack of dry yeast would ferment a start
to completion in a day or so. After that the yeast will be starving
and depleting its' glycogen reserves. You would actually be
weakening the yeast by making a starter and waiting a week.
My recommendation is _properly_rehydrating the yeast and
pitching immediately. That is how they are made to be used.

HOW TO PROPERLY REHYDRATE DRY YEAST
 from Lallemand...
1) Sprinkle the yeast on the surface of 10 times its weight of clean,
 sterilized (boiled) water at 30-35C. Do not use wort, or distilled or
reverse osmosis water, as loss in viability will result. DO NOT STIR.
Leave undisturbed for 15 minutes, then stir to suspend yeast completely,
and leave it for 5 more minutes at 30-35C. Then adjust temperature to
that of the wort and inoculate without delay.

2) Attemperate in steps at  5-minute intervals of 10C to the temperature
of the wort by mixing aliquots of wort. Do not allow attemperation to be
carried out by natural heat loss.
 This will take too long and could result in loss of viability or vitality.

3) Temperature shock, at greater than 10C, will cause formation of petite
mutants leading to long-term or incomplete fermentation and possible
formation of undesirable flavours.

My note- Do not use a nutrient in the hydration water unless it is a
nutrient
specifically designed for yeast hydration (Go-ferm & etc).
A 10 gram pack of yeast/ 5 gallons will give you a pitching rate of 10-20 m
cells/ml.



Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 12:10:09 -0500
From: "Kyle Jones" <kjones1 at ufl.edu>
Subject: Re:  Dry Yeast

I recently tried dry yeast (US56) for the first time, and was very
pleased with the results.  I had a stuck fermentation, so I ran over
to the local homebrew store (God bless that store) and grabbed a 
pack of Safale US56.  Boiled up some low gravity wort with DME when
I got home, and pitched the yeast right out of the packet (I had to
shake
the wort a little to get the yeast out of the foam and into the wort).
Within about 2 hours, fermentation was evident, and before bed that
night, it was raging, and I probably could have poured it into my beer
then.  Waited till next morning (approx. 10 hours after pitching),
poured it in,
and when I came home from work the beer was on its way to completion.

That being said, my one experience with Safale US56 was good.  The
original
yeast I used was Wyeast 1338, and the final product turned out just as I
expected
it to, and *I* think that the US56 actually added some complexity to my
beer
(an Old Ale) that I wouldn't have had by using 1338 alone, so I may make
this 
standard practice sometimes (like I'm sure some homebrewers) already do.
I was very impressed at how short the lag time was, and at how
vigorously
the starter fermented, I've never seen anything like that with White
Labs or
Wyeast.

And on another note, Happy New Year to you, too, Pat.  Thanks for all
the
work that you do (and largely behind the scenes) to make the HBD run
smoothly.  It is appreciated, in the way many things in life are - no
one really
even notices until something happens, so I wanted to take this chance
and
verbally express my gratitude!

Kyle





Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 15:03:44 -0500
From: Bob Hall <rallenhall at henry-net.com>
Subject: RE: Dry Yeast

Greg from Chicago asks about experiences with Fermentis US-56 dry yeast. I 
have been doing side-by-side comparisons with US-56, Nottingham and Safale 
S-04 this fall. I've found them to be quite different and useful in various 
ways.

I split a batch of bitter (Gritty McDuff clone) and pitched US-56 and S-04. 
The S-04 fermented much more quickly and dropped clear immediately. It 
could have been bottle conditioning by the time that the US-56 began to 
clear. I offered blind taste tests to my visitors throughout the fall. 
During the first month or so the vote was decidedly S-04 ... "more flavor" 
was the typical comment. However, since then the votes have swung decidedly 
the other direction ... "smoother" is what I'm hearing now. US-56 didn't 
ferment as fast, clear as fast, or mature as fast in the bottle. That said, 
given a bit more time, it seems to be an outstanding dry yeast.

I also corresponded with Denny Conn regarding his experience using US-56 in 
his now-classic rye IPA. I duplicated Denny's recipe using US-56 and now 
have a very nice, clean American-style IPA that is a hit with visiting 
hopheads. As Denny suggested, I've found the characteristics of US-56 to be 
very close to Wyeast 1056.

A split batch of pseudo-lager between US-56 and Nottingham showed that, 
again, US-56 was not as fast a fermenter or clearer. However, it produced a 
softer flavor profile that was not as dry as the Nottingham. In a 
lager-like beer you may want the drier finish .... tastes may vary.

I guess my impression is that S-04 throws more esters, ferments fast, drops 
fast, and hugs the bottom of the bottle like nobodies business ... you can 
pour the entire contents without disturbing much yeast. It has it's place 
with British style ales where you may want more of a tart, fruity profile. 
US-56 seems appropriate to any recipe that calls for 1056/California ale. 
It is neutral and clean, and seems to be a favorite of my many taste 
testers over the holidays. Nottingham, a fast fermenter, is neutral and a 
bit on the dry side. If dry is to your taste, Nottingham is a proven yeast.

I have rehydrated these yeasts and also pitched directly into the wort. 
Directions vary according to manufacturer. So far, I have not noticed any 
difference in the final product. That said, I do typically rehydrate and 
aerate. Also, if I needed more cell mass for a high gravity wort I'd 
probably just pitch two 11g. packets rather than make a starter. Just one 
less step in the process.

Hope this helps. I have a feeling that US-56 will get a lot of use in my 
house ales during the coming year.

Bob Hall
Napoleon, OH
65.3, 189.7 Apparent Rennarian




Return to table of contents


Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2006 17:47:35 -0800
From: "Chad Stevens" <zuvaruvi at cox.net>
Subject: re: dry yeast starter

Regarding making a starter from dry yeast, the short answer is, you're going 
backward if you make a starter; you're depleting glycogen stores that were 
built in at the factory.

 In a UFA/FA poor starter medium, every time the yeast divide, they divide 
their available glycogen.  After the fifth generation, they are running 
dangerously low on glycogen stores.  So by making a starter with dry yeast, 
you are in effect, using up about four or five of their "nine lives" in the 
starter rather than in the wort where the cell division can be put to good 
use.  Not to mention increased possibility of contamination in the extra 
fermentation step....

Dry yeast is built incredibly well these days; don't mess with it, just 
pitch it.

You're in Chicago by the way; go see Kieth Lembke at Seible; I'm sure he'd 
be happy to give you a dissertation on the issue...especially if you buy him 
a pint!

Cheers,

Chad Stevens
QUAFF
San Diego

www.quaff.org  Now accepting entries for America's Finest City Homebrew 
Competition.  Register online now!!!  We need judges too! 



Return to table of contents

---