---

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


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

                     Your Business Name Here
    Visit http://hbd.org "Sponsor the HBD"  to find out how!
			 
    Support those who support you! Visit our sponsor's site!
********** Also visit http://hbd.org/hbdsponsors.html *********

DONATE to the Home Brew Digest. Home Brew Digest, Inc. is a 
501(c)3 not-for-profit organization under IRS rules (see the
FAQ at http://hbd.org for details of this status). Donations
can be made by check to Home Brew Digest mailed to:

HBD Server Fund
PO Box 871309
Canton Township, MI 48187-6309

or by paypal to address serverfund@hbd.org. DONATIONS of $250 
or more will be provided with receipts. SPOSORSHIPS of any 
amount are considered paid advertisement, and may be deductible
under IRS rules as a bsuiness expense. Please consult with your 
tax professional, then see http://hbd.org for available 
sponsorship opportunities.
***************************************************************


Contents:
  Smoked grains (Nate Wahl)
  Re: oxygen and fatty acids and sterols for dummies ("steve.alexander")
  Brew Pub (Pete Limosani)
  RE: Duvel Yeast... (Jordan Wilberding)
  CARBOY Shamrock Open 2008 - Call for entries and judges (Mike Dixon)
  RE: Duvel Yeast... ("Tim R")
  Re: Smoked grains (stencil)
  Re: Digest #5301; Duvel yeast ("Alan Meeker")


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*           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: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:20:55 -0500
From: Nate Wahl <oogiewawa at verizon.net>
Subject: Smoked grains

Tom Puskar asked about smoking grain.  After several less than 
satisfactory attempts at it, here's what I came up with that worked.

I was after an Alaskan Smoked Porter clone and had the recipe very 
close, but I tried smoking grain in the smoker, sans anything else in 
there.  Nope, no smoke.  In a bag, on a wire mesh, in shallow pans, 
didn't seem to matter.

This last time I took one of my cheapie SS pots, the smallest, 1 gallon 
size, and put enough alder chips to cover the bottom about 1/2" deep.  I 
then made 4 layered aluminum foil "false bottoms" for it, the first two 
large enough to snugly come most of the way up the sides of the pot.  A 
fork was used to punch a bunch of holes through the foil on the bottom. 
  It got filled with 3# of dampened base malt (out of a 22# grainbill 
for 10 gallons.)

The pot went on a small propane grill, and I ran it on medium until some 
smoke started to come out from under the lid, then turned it way down 
just to keep the small whisps appearing, and held it there for about an 
hour.  When peeked at, the smoke was coming up evenly throughout the 
grain, a key effect that I hadn't gotten before any other way.

I scooped out about 3/4 of the pot until I got to where the grain had 
started to get some color, and carefully removed everything that wasn't 
beyond a medium brown; the dark brown and black bits were left behind. 
Almost no light passes through the beer the way the recipe is already, 
so I didn't need the color, and didn't want any scorched flavors.  The 
grain I lost wasn't significant.  The wood chips below were almost 
entirely consumed.

The beer finished with a nice, definitely noticable, but not over the 
top smokey aroma and flavor, perhaps just a touch more smokey than the 
target beer, but its hard to remember since we can't get it here.  I'd 
love to do a side-by-side.

I'd shy away from making the malt with anything else in a smoker. 
Wetting the grain seems to help.  Next time I think I'll somehow make 
more of a gap between the chips and the grain to keep the heat away and 
prevent scorching the bottom layer, like maybe a layer of crumpled foil 
nestled between the other layers.

Please let us know what you come up with, Tom.

Regards,
Nate Wahl
aka Oogie Wa Wa
Oak Harbor, Ohio
64.3, 145.8


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 05:33:11 -0500
From: "steve.alexander" <-s at roadrunner.com>
Subject: Re: oxygen and fatty acids and sterols for dummies

Raj B Apte notes ...


> I've been mostly tuning out the discussions of adding oil
> to higher gravity beers to provide UFAs because I thought
> that they don't apply to open fermentation.
> So, is it reasonable to assume my yeast can make what they
> need from the oxygen available at the surface of the wort?
>   

An open ferment (through the log growth period ~= krausen loss)  is a 
less problematic approach than adding oils and sterols to normal and 
modestly high grav wort.  I doubt that open fermentation would be 
sufficient for barleywine and stronger brews.

Let's keep -S's first law of fermentation in sight;   Making good beer 
and making healthy yeast are two different things !

We must always consider the flavor consequence and not just the yeast 
performance.  Open fermentation, O2 addition or the addition of UFAs  
should dramatically reduce the ester level in the resulting beer.   That 
may be good or bad depending on beer style.  The sterols&UFAs or O2 from 
open fermentation, create better cell membranes so less of certain 
fusels result, which is universally a positive thing for flavor(IMO).  
Adding much oxygen once ethanol production begins runs the risk of 
creating staling aldehydes.  Fortunately the actively fermenting yeast 
mop up residual oxygen rapidly and even drive some of the staling 
oxidation reactions in reverse.  Yeast which have access to oxygen 
rapidly convert precursors to sterol and this seems to reduce the 
storage capability of yeast - they will autolyze sooner.  I already 
mentioned that in studies yeast are very effective at mopping up fatty 
acids and n-acyl-glycerides in wort, but any residual UFAs from oil 
additions will ruin the head.

Given all the caveats, I still think that open fermentation up until the 
fermentation slows can be used very effectively with little risk.

WRT open fermentation procedures ... Wort is rapidly depleted of oxygen, 
often within minutes of pitching.  It that point the you are dependent 
on small amounts of atmospheric oxygen diffusing across the 
air/anaerobic-wort interface.  The rate is low, but this is good since 
we want the to get a little O2 to the yeast and not oxidize wort 
components.  So total O2 ingress is a function of the wort open surface 
area and the yeast content is usually proportional to volume.  For more 
O2 ingress we need to select shallower open fermenters.    I wonder if 
very strong beers could be fermented in more shallow open fermenters.


Matt Wallace (among others) ask about which sterols used to feed yeast.
> A very cursory web search shows a few different sterol tablets for
> sale, the only one I saw with a more detailed ingredient list was
> pegged as "beta sitosterol with campesterol and stigmasterol"
>   
Unsupplemented yeast contain 
<ergosterol,episterol,stigasterol,fecosterol, 
methyl-zymosterol,lanosterol> in order of concentrations.  I have a 
paper from BRI that shows that these plant sterols extracted from malt 
are largely modified by yeast before being incorporated into yeast cell 
walls.   The addition (mostly barley situsterol) resulted in yeast with 
a little situsterol (not present w/o the addition) but the other yeast 
sterol's relative concentrations were only moderately altered by the 
addition.  Total sterol level was higher.

Some true-anaerobic organisms must obtain all of their sterols from 
other oxygen consuming organisms.   Yeast are facultative anaerobes and 
can live for several generations without access to oxygen.  It makes 
sense for organisms like these to use any sterols in their environment.  
I wouldn't worry greatly about which plant source sterols you add to a 
fermenter to enhance yeast performance; yeast can *probably* use any of 
these.

> All this does put me in a mind to experiment, though.
>   
 ....
> Leave one fermenter as-is, add sterols to one fermenter, and add both
> sterols and an oil/lecithin mix to the third, and see where it gets,
> apparent attenuation wise...
>   
Great idea.  You do find similar/related experiments in the brewing lit, 
especially w/ UFA additions but you will have to determine the 
effectiveness of the specific sterol addition.

> dried out yeast husks, might these be a source of sterols for yeast in
> the wort?
>   
Freshly autolyzed yeast are a variable source, and I have doubts about 
the content in yeast hulls.

I have experimented with sterol, oil and magnesium additions to starter 
wort several years ago - and all are effective.  Also adding amino acid 
additions to aerobic cultures(which is more promising for yeast mass 
accumulation).   I would personally prefer to restrict additions of oils 
and significant amounts of free O2 to starter cultures where you can 
control the result.  I am not an avid fan of "huge" beers and rarely 
brew above 15P, but you do need extraordinary techniques to attenuate a 
20P or 35P monster.  Even so, adding lots of "fat yeast" to the hi-grav 
fermenter may be a better approach than directly adding fat.  You can do 
all sorts of things to a starter (like adding sterol, UFA, or more 
easily free-O2) that are great for making healthy yeast but potentially 
bad for beer flavor.   Then you can discard the "starter beer" and pitch 
the healthy yeast.  I am less concerned w/ the quality impact of a 
sterol or magnesium addition to a hi-grav fermenter.   I'm not 
discounting the effectiveness of oil & sterol additions to the hi-grav 
fermenter on yeast performance, but I am concerned about the effect on 
beer quality.  It requires experimentation.

Bob Hall  notes ...

> I've never been a chemist (or pretended to be one), but this thread 
> reminded me of an off-hand comment made by Dr. Keith Villa of Coors during 
> his presentation in Denver last June ... something to the effect of 'if you 
> want to kick-start your yeast, toss in a dollop of peanut butter."
 ...
> Is peanut butter a viable source of 
> fatty acids and sterols for yeast development?
>   

I see peanut butter is about 0.1% sterol and 50% fat (40% UFA) by 
mass.   So in the original ~28P, 20L~=5gal example you'd want the UFAs 
from ~100gm(3.5 oz) and the sterol from 500gm(1.1lb) of peanut butter !  
Is that why Grants PA tastes that way ?

In the dubious attempt to reduce the LDL choleSTEROL level in the human 
population,  companies like Unilever are on they verge of marketing 
margerines consisting of PUFAs with plant sterol additions.   These may 
be close to the ideal yeast supplement, tho' the  hydrogenated 
solidified  PUFAs are problematic.

 -S



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:03:55 -0500
From: Pete Limosani <peteLimo at comcast.net>
Subject: Brew Pub

Hi, Folks,
What I'm about to discuss is commercial in nature and may not fit in 
perfectly with the tenor of this forum. So, being that I've been an 
HBD'er and occasional contributor for about 10 years, I'll ask your 
forgiveness in advance and move forward. If the collective feels that 
this discussion really doesn't belong here, I'll quickly take it off 
line. However, I believe that this may be the best place to find what 
I'm looking for, and I also believe the topic may be interesting as 
many home brewers have dreamed this dream.

I'm a real estate developer in central Connecticut. Last year I 
bought a 20,000 square foot building and set out to create a 
community for performing artists, especially professional bands and 
aspiring musicians. In the building, we are creating 35 
sound-controlled studios for bands to call home and rehearse in. We 
are building out a recording studio that I've rented to a 
professional outfit. We created retail space for a music store. And 
we created a performance hall with a nice stage.

The performance hall was originally conceived as a place for young 
talent to begin their performing careers. It'll hold about 150 people 
in the audience. We started out renting for private functions, then I 
met a promoter. Now, I have three shows a week booked until 
September. Most of the shows are bands, but we also have comedy shows 
and some plays.

Right now, the shows are BYOB. I keep thinking that, if I could brew 
a little more beer, I have a captive market! The mayor likes our 
project so much he told me he'd help me get a beer & wine license. My 
posse is now trying to convince me that I should open a brew pub in 
the performance hall. Needless to say, for a long-time home brewer, 
it's a very exciting prospect.

However, I do not have the bandwidth to make that quantity of beer 
right now, nor do I have the experience to make sure that, every time 
a bartender opens a tap, great beer comes out. If I do this, I will need help.

My questions are thus:
1) Could it make financial sense to open a brew pub that serves 150 
people 3 nights a week? My insurance company has frowned on the 
prospect of putting a commercial kitchen in the building and we don't 
have a lot of space for it, so food service will be minimal. Also, my 
insurance agent has hinted that the premiums for liquor 
establishments are so high it might be tough for a place that is only 
open 3 nights a week. I asked why my premium wouldn't be 3/7ths of 
the normal premium, but I guess they don't think that way. Unlike a 
normal bar where folks come in and out all night, admission to these 
shows is with prepurchased tickets, so 150 will be the limit for 
patrons in a night, but they'll stick around for most of the night.

2) Are there home-brewers out there that took this step and 
succeeded? .. and failed? Would you be willing to tell me your story 
of why you succeeded or failed?

3) Are there Brew Masters out there who know how to make sure that 
every time a bartender opens a tap, good beer comes out? Are you 
willing to talk about your experiences with me?

Again, sorry for the commercial nature of this post, but right now 
I'm looking for advice from folks who may have done this, know 
someone who's done this, etc. and I couldn't think of a better place to start.

Thank you.

/Pete/ 



Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:31:06 -0600
From: Jordan Wilberding <diginux at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Duvel Yeast...

As far as I have found out, Duvel does indeed use a different yeast for 
bottling than for fermentation.

According to the book "brew like a MONK",  White Labs WLP570 and Wyeast 
1388 are derived from Duvel's yeast. You just need to make sure to 
ferment at the correct temperature of the yeast. It is definitely 
possible to culture the yeast from a bottle of Duvel, but most people 
recommend using one of the two yeasts mentioned above.

Also, the book mentions that the water is "quite soft and free of iron", 
which can of course also contribute to the flavor.

On a side note, would you be willing to publish your recipe? I would be 
interested in brewing it.

Thanks!
Jordan Wilberding


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:38:43 -0500
From: Mike Dixon <mpdixon at ipass.net>
Subject: CARBOY Shamrock Open 2008 - Call for entries and judges

Judging will take place in Raleigh, NC on March 15, 2008. If you can 
judge, please sign-up via the online registration form.

13th Annual CARBOY Shamrock Open
http://hbd.org/carboy/shamrock.htm
Entries are $6 and must be registered by Saturday, March 1. Entries must 
be delivered by Saturday, March 8.

Cheers,
Mike Dixon
Wake Forest, NC
http://www.ipass.net/mpdixon/


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 07:00:29 -0600
From: "Tim R" <trunnette at gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Duvel Yeast...

Wyeast 1388 got me close to Duvel.  I just did a side by side between
my Belgian Golden Strong and Duvel and the largest differences were
carbonation (Duvel at 4 volumes; mine at ~3) and mine was a little
sweeter with a slightly stronger pear note.  Could be freshness or CO2
impact or recipe/yeast of course.


Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:01:23 -0500
From: stencil <etcs.ret at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Smoked grains

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 00:03:44 -0500, 
in Homebrew Digest #5301 (February 26, 2008),
Tom Puskar wrote:

>
>
>1.  Soak some two row grain for a little while (???) in water.  I figure the
>grain would absorb more smoky flavor is it was a bit damp.
>
I would skip this.  Most bacon- and fish smokers agree that
it's essential to offer a dry product to the smoke to avoid
a harsh, acrid flavor.   It's primarily the husk rather than
the kernel that's going to take on the aroma, and you will
have more problem keeping the effect from being overdone
than otherwise (opinion\.)  If you're used to using
Bamberger Rauchmalz you know how very little is needed to
have a flavor impact;  your product will be *much* stronger.
>
>3.  Add these to my smoker the next time I'm doing some ribs or pork
>shoulder/butt.
>
It would be better to have a dedicated session;  the hot and
humid smoke of smoke cooking is inappropriate to flavor
smoking.  If you run the grain up over ca. 150F you will
degrade the enzymes;  if you're going to do that, then don't
waste good brewing grain:  use rice hulls or dried spent
grain from a previous mash.

>4.  Smoke the grains until they look dry again or until they taste smokey.
>
If you want repeatability you'd be better off setting out
tinfoil boats with 2- or 3-ounce charges of grain, and
removing them at 10- or 15-minute intervals.  
>
>[  .. ] Would I be better off just doing them on
>a gas grill and adding mesquite chips to a smoker box?
>
This would permit running a cooler drier smoke.  

The key thing is, as with everything associated with
homebrewing, to Do It and take notes.

gds. stencil



Return to table of contents


Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:46:47 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <alan.meeker at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Digest #5301; Duvel yeast

Jim asked about Duvel yeast,

I did a lot of reading years ago while trying to formulate a recipe to get
as close as I could to Duvel, one of my favorite beers. Concerning the
yeast, my recollection is that reports were mixed as to how many strains
were used, whether there was a separate "bottling yeast" and which, if any,
of the commercially available strains was authentic Duvel yeast. There were
rumors that Wyeast 1388 was the (or a??) Duvel yeast, but on the whole I
never saw anything that gave me great confidence that the answers to these
questions were really known. Perhaps someone else on the HBD has some more
solid information on this topic?

At any rate, I have a Duvel clone that I am happy with. Through a lot of
trial and error, what I now use is a blend of White Labs WLP570 (Belgian
Golden) and, believe it or not, Wyeast's 2565 (Kolsch) strain. I find that
including 2565 provides some Duvel-like characteristics that seem to me to
be missing when using just the 570 alone. 

As far as culturing yeast from bottles is concerned, I think this is a fun
thing to try but there is a possibility that you may not get what you are
looking for. Largely this is because if you do get something to grow from a
bottle sediment you have no way of knowing just what it is you have
cultured. (i) If the brewery uses multiple yeasts you may only be getting
one of them or you may get all the ones used in the blend but in the
incorrect proportion to achieve the desired flavor balance. Also, if
different strains are pitched at different times by the brewery you won't be
able to do this with your mixed culture. (ii) If the brewery uses a bottling
yeast then you may only be culturing the bottling strain, which may have
been selected for hardiness (autolysis-resistance) and the ability to
carbonate well without influencing the flavor of the finished beer. (iii)
What comes up in culture may actually be a contaminant (e.g. wild yeast, or
worse still bacteria!) from the bottle sediment or a spurious contaminant
that got in during the culturing process. While these are often easy to spot
due to their appearance or nasty aromas, this is not always true; especially
for some of the wild yeasts. The net result of all this is that whatever you
end up culturing may not give you the characteristics you are looking for
when used in the primary fermentation. If you go this route, I'd strongly
suggest doing small batch pilot fermentations to check the yeast's behavior
before committing to a large batch that just might need to be chucked.

Cheers!

Alan


Alan Meeker, PhD
Assistant Professor of Pathology and Urology
The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Department of Pathology
Division of Genitourinary Pathology  
1503 Jefferson Street
Bond Street Building
Room B300
Baltimore, MD 21231




Return to table of contents

---