---

	FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
		Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator


Contents:
  inactive liquid yeast (Joe Gabriel)
  Re:  Homebrew Digest #608 (April 02, 1991) (Darryl Richman)
  Re:  Homebrew Digest #608 (April 02, 1991) (Darryl Richman)
  Repitching (Martin A. Lodahl)
  brettanomyces? (Dick Dunn)
  How to make a sweet mead. (Carl West)
  Multiple yeast strains (question) (Carl West x4449)
  Water conserving wort chillers (T2R)
  Repitching yeast with BrewCap (BAUGHMANKR)
  St. Florian!!!??? (krweiss)
  light struck beer (krweiss)
  Mutants, slurries, and Yeastoids (FATHER BARLEYWINE)
  Unsubscribe (Mikael Jonsson  - El Loco Perro)
  lightstruck vs oxidation (C.R. Saikley)
  expellent gases (C.R. Saikley)
  Water conservation (CONDOF)
  Diggin' in the archives. ("DRCV06::GRAHAM")
  Lambic cravings                                              (DAVIDSOND)
  Coriander & orange Beer, Sweet mead, Light Struck (hersh)
  yeast mutation (florianb)
  FYI:  Large Boiling Pot (flowers)
  Smartass remarks re: Alternative Keg Gases (Ron Rader)
  light strikes (Chip Hitchcock)
  Re:  Water Conservation (Jay Littlepage)
  Yeast slurries (Norm Hardy)


Send submissions to homebrew%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com
Send requests to homebrew-request%hpfcmi at hplabs.hp.com
[Please do not send me requests for back issues]
Archives are available from netlib at mthvax.cs.miami.edu


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 00:27 EDT
From: hplabs!uunet!pdn.paradyne.com!jgg (Joe Gabriel)
Subject: inactive liquid yeast

Trying our hand at liquid yeast for the first time, I may have started the
incubation period a day too soon. I suspect this since upon pitching the yeast
at a wort chilled to 60 degrees, it has been 36 hours and no "glubs" to be
seen or heard yet. What is the recovery(if any) from this situation. 
Could the yeast be re-activated by taking some of the trub off the bottom
of the fermenter(hopefully taking some yeast with it), then boil with some 
malt, to cool, then re-pitch? Could the initial yeast pitch at a cool 60 
degrees caused the then active culture to go dormant. 
I am trying to stay relaxed, BUT, this was supposed to be our *BEST* batch 
of brew yet.

Joe Gabriel


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 06:08:21 -0800
From: darryl at ism.isc.com (Darryl Richman)
Subject: Re:  Homebrew Digest #608 (April 02, 1991)

> >From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
> Subject: Water Conservation
> Does anyone out there have a sense for how much water is required for 
> each gallon of brew produced ? I'm sure it's alot considering sterilization,
> rinsing, wort production, wort cooling, and cleanup. The amount would
> probably vary substantially depending on whether you were an extract or
> all grain brewer. I've read that very efficient commercial breweries 
> (AB etc.) are able to get their water/beer ratio down to 8/1.

The 8:1 figure is mentioned in, among other places, "Malting and
Brewing Science" by Hough et al.  My experience at Pilsner Urquell was
that they are using upwards of 20:1!  I, too, live in drought plagued
California, and my rough calculations for a batch of beer are in the
6-8:1 neighborhood as well.  For example:  15 gallons of beer, 50
gallons of cooling water, 5 gallons lost in the mash, 5 gallons to
clean fermenters, 5 gallons to clean kegs:  80 gallons to make 15 ->
5.333.  I'm sure I'm missing other miscellaneous losses.  Some of the
things I do are:

 - None of the water is dumped down the drain.  Any water I am through
  with goes into watering the plants.

 - I *do* wash my brewing utensils with the outflow from my immersion
  chiller.  In fact, I collect the first 5 gallons, which are pretty
  hot and wash from there.

 - I sterilize wherever possible with boiling water rather than bleach.
  Boiling water doesn't need several rinses.  And the rinse water can
  go back into the pot and be used to sanitize more equipment.

		--Darryl Richman

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 06:16:56 -0800
From: darryl at ism.isc.com (Darryl Richman)
Subject: Re:  Homebrew Digest #608 (April 02, 1991)

> >From: hplabs!hp-lsd.cos.hp.com!ihlpl!korz (Algis R Korzonas +1 708 979 8583)
> Subject: Re: Reusing slurry
> 
> Jay H writes:
> >2) make an all malt starter from extract (no hops so you don't have to worry
> >about it getting light struck). Boil this to insure sterility. 
> 
> Are you sure about this Jay?  I believe that getting "light struck" is
> associated with oxidation which is a problem whether or not you have
> hops in your beer or not.  Or is getting  "light struck" associated with
> the hop oils?  Anyone else care to comment?

Light struck is defect noticable by a skunky or catty aroma.  This is
brought on by a transformation in one of the hop constituants under the
influence of green light.  This compound is converted into a mercaptan,
one of a class of extremely aromatic compounds.  (Natural gas is
odorized with a mercaptan, at about 5 ppb.)

Oxidation is the trademark of an old or mishandled beer.  There are
many compnents of beer that will react with free oxygen.  The results
can include winey and sherry notes in the aroma and flavor, or a wet
cardboard taste at the back of the mouth.  Cooled bitter wort is
aerated to include O2 for yeast growth, but after that point O2 should
be prevented from contact with beer.  Racking and bottling are
especially troubling times for homebrewers in this respect, and this is
why judges are wary of beers with large headspaces (this isn't always
an indicator of an oxidized beer;  I've just been playing with my new
counter pressure bottle filler and I got a number of botles about
2/3rds full, but covered with CO2).  It is impossible to keep oxygen
out entirely, but the less available, the longer the shelf life.

		--Darryl Richman

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 8:24:17 PST
From: Martin A. Lodahl <pbmoss!malodah at decwrl.dec.com>
Subject: Repitching

In HOMEBREW Digest #608, Marc Rouleau asked:

>On Mar 29,  8:19am, florianb at chip.cna.tek.com wrote:
>> In any case, re-using the yeast should only be done for 2-3 generations.
>> After that, purchasing a new culture would be advised.
>
>I hear this a lot, but I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.
>Exactly why/how do yeast "mutate" or "weaken" over multiple
>"generations"?  Wouldn't the weaker yeast suffer a competitive
>disadvantage with respect to the stronger yeast?
>

I'll take a shot at this one.

There are two reasons for not repitching forever:  contamination,
and what is incorrectly called the "petit mutation".

The first is clear:  whenever the beer contacts air or anything
else, there is the chance that another organism could be introduced.
While the population of that organism my not be large enough to make
a significant difference in any given batch, it's likely to grow
over time, or be snuffed altogether by the yeast colony.  All
breweries have problems of this sort, sooner or later.

The other is a little less obvious.  Yeast pitched in the fermentor
first go through an aerobic phase, where they use the dissolved
oxygen in the wort, through respiration, to grow and multiply.  In
any colony, some of the yeast will be respiratory-deficient, and
will not reproduce as rapidly.  Commercial yeast production is
conducted in aerated media to maximize the reproduction rate, and
naturally, the effect of this is to give a significant "edge" to the
yeast that can most effectively reproduce in an aerobic environment.

If an agar/wort plate is thinly streaked with a yeast culture
growing in liquid media, some of the resulting cultures will grow
faster than others, even if the original culture was a pure
single-cell culture, and even if the resulting plate cultures are
also single-cell cultures.  The smaller ones are the
respiratory-deficient strain, called "petit" by Pasteur.  These will
not be at the same disadvantage in a culture that is repeatedly
repitched and therefore spends most of its life in an anaerobic
environment, and over time will become a larger fraction of the
total population.  While this behavior may have begun as a mutation,
its effect on the overall action of the culture is natural selection
in action.  What you'll notice is successively longer lag times, and
slower starts once it does begin to move.

>And how do you explain the experience of the yeast-caking guy from
>a coupla weeks back -- he was doing ten fermentations from a single
>packet of dry yeast.

	...And he was keeping the whole volume of the yeast, so his
pitching rate became successively higher.  That helps a lot.

= Martin A. Lodahl   			  Pacific*Bell Staff Analyst =
= malodah at pbmoss.Pacbell.COM       Sacramento, CA       916.972.4821 =
= If it's good for ancient Druids, runnin' nekkid through the wuids, =
= Drinkin' strange fermented fluids, it's good enough for me!  8-)   =


Return to table of contents


Date: 1 Apr 91 02:30:00 MST (Mon)
From: ico.isc.com!rcd at raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Subject: brettanomyces?

OK, so if Wyeast is going to give us a yeast which will produce Lambic-
style beers, and if they want it to live with us (!), does anyone have any
experience with what this yeast might do for bread?!?  As it is, I'm
trying for a delicate balance so that I can make sourdough when I want to
(i.e., when the culture medium is a thick glut[ie]nous mass intended for
baking) but otherwise not (i.e., when the culture medium is wort).  What
are the chances after introducing yet another strain of yeast?
- ---
Dick Dunn    rcd at raven.eklektix.com   -or-   raven!rcd


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 11:17:07 EST
From: eisen at ileaf.com (Carl West)
Subject: How to make a sweet mead.

Kent Reinhard asked about making sweet mead.

Three ways spring to mind:

1. Drink it before it's all fermented out
	(fizzy and yeasty)(not to be drunk
	at the same time as 151, oooo...bad juju)
2. Stop the yeast before it's done, Camden tablets or
	refrigeration can do the trick
	(fizzy, not so yeasty)
3. Put in so much honey that there will be sugars
	left over when the yeast stops because of
	the alchohol. Three or more pounds per gallon
	(still and sweet, A couple years of aging can
	really improve such a mead)

Carl


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 11:33:09 EST
From: eisen at kopf.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Carl West x4449)
Subject: Multiple yeast strains (question)

Not that I've read everything about brewing, but,
nothing I've read says anything about using more than
one kind of yeast at a time. How about, say, an ale
yeast with a champagne yeast? I would expect the ale
yeast to make fairly short work of most of the sugars and
poop out, whereupon the champagne yeast would be free
to continue and take the alchohol content way beyond
what the ale yeast was capable of. Is anything like
this done? Or would something _bad_ happen?

Carl


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1991 11:52 EST
From: T2R at ecl.psu.edu
Subject: Water conserving wort chillers


	On water conservation when chilling brew, it can be done.
When rinsing out stuff during the latter half of my brew (after sparge) I
collect the rinse water into a 5-gal. plastic jug. (rather than dump it down 
the drain) I then run this in combination with a gallon or two of ice through
a immertion chiller to chill the brew. I use a gravity feed setup. A large 
bucket with a spigot is placed one to two feet above the wort, a rubber hose
connects this to a copper coil in the brew. Another hose goes from the coil 
to a collection bucket two feet below the wort. About half way through the 
chill, the water in the lower bucket is dumped back into the top bucket and 
more ice is added. This setup cools the wort to around 75'F in about 25 
minutes.

				Tom Ricker (T2R at PSUECL)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1991 12:31 EST
From: BAUGHMANKR at CONRAD.APPSTATE.EDU
Subject: Repitching yeast with BrewCap

Another wrinkle in the repitching of yeast discussion is using a 
BrewCap.  After draining about a cup of yeast, you'll be into the 
clean white barm that is excellent for repitching.  Sterilize the 
valve carefully, park your new batch of beer close by and drain a 
quarter cup of barm directly into the fermenter.  No muss.  No fuss. 
No culturing.

Kinney

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 09:16:20 -0800
From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu
Subject: St. Florian!!!???

>
>	Does anybody know whether is is a coincidence that National Homebrew
>Day is the same day (May 4) as the feast of St. Florian (one of the many
patronsof brewers)?
>	Also, if anybody has a (mostly) extract recipie for Oatmeal stout,
couldyou send it to me.
>	Thanks
>	Mark Castleman, for the Big Dog Brewing Cooperative
>	MC2331S at ACAD.DRAKE.EDU

Now wait a second here. Is this the same Florian that contributes to this
journal? Is Florian the Dreamer also Florian the Holy?? I dunno -- the guy
always struck me as some kind of troublemaker...

On to my question of the day. I've been having problems getting my
carbonation consistent from batch to batch. Thanks to Pete Soper's advice
I'm no longer plagued with variations from bottle to bottle within a batch,
but I'm still getting wide variations in carbonation from one batch to the
next. How wide, you ask? 

Well, right now I'm working on an English bitter and a porter. The bitter
is *very* strongly carbonated. Way too much for the style, and for my
taste. This was primed with 3/4 cup of corn sugar in a 5 gallon batch. I
used Wyeast London Ale yeast. The porter is absolutely flat. This was
primed with 1/2 cup of corn sugar in a 5 gallon batch, and used Wyeast
Irish Ale yeast. Both batches have been in the bottle for more than four
weeks. There are no signs of infection, and both are clear. The bitter is
crystal clear, and the porter is as clear as any porter I've ever seen.

Both batches were allowed to ferment out completely in the secondary tank
before bottling. My priming technique is to make a syrup of corn sugar in
about 1 pint of boiling water. I put the syrup in the bottom of my 7 gallon
carboy and siphon the beer out of the secondary (into the 7 gallon carboy
with the priming syrup, of course). I then stir for a full minute with the
racking tube, and proceed with bottling. I use no fining agents other than
a bit of Irish Moss at the end of the boil -- nothing that might strip
yeast out of suspension in the secondary.

Suggestions? Comments?

Ken Weiss
Manager of Instruction
Computing Services
U.C. Davis
Davis, CA 95616

916/752-5554
krweiss at ucdavis.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 09:17:05 -0800
From: krweiss at ucdavis.edu
Subject: light struck beer

Al Korzonas writes:
>
>Jay H writes:
>>2) make an all malt starter from extract (no hops so you don't have to
worry
>>about it getting light struck). Boil this to insure sterility. 
>
>Are you sure about this Jay?  I believe that getting "light struck" is
>associated with oxidation which is a problem whether or not you have
>hops in your beer or not.  Or is getting  "light struck" associated with
>the hop oils?  Anyone else care to comment?
>Al.

I think Jay's correct. My (somewhat foggy) recollection is that "light
struck" beer is the result of a photochemical reaction in some component of
the hops.

Ken Weiss
Manager of Instruction
Computing Services
U.C. Davis
Davis, CA 95616

916/752-5554
krweiss at ucdavis.edu


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Apr 1991 12:36:43 EST
From: rransom at bchm1.aclcb.purdue.edu (FATHER BARLEYWINE)
Subject: Mutants, slurries, and Yeastoids


	There has been a lot of discussion recently about reusing yeast.
Several contributors have suggested bottling the cake from the bottom of 
the fermenter and using this material to pitch the next beer.
	My suggestion (HB Digest #600) is to put the next beer directly onto
the old cake.  This eliminates several problems with storing the yeast:  
there is little chance of contamination, little oxygen is introduced, and
exploding bottles are avoided.  The main question to be addressed is about
"mutants", however.
	The yeast you buy in pure form from commercial distributors is always
a distibution of various different yeast isolates, and even within a 
theoretical "pure" race of yeast there is individual variation.  When you 
brew beer, you are passing the yeast through many generations of growth under
a specific set of conditions which vary through the course of the fermentation.
The composition of the yeast changes as various isolates grow and die back as
conditions change; some isolates will prefer aerobic conditions, some 
anaerobic, some high sugar, some low, etc.  If you were able to isolate and
analyze the various different isolates present in your brew as fermentation
progresses you would see different distributions over time.
	By reusing yeast cakes you are effectively breeding for a yeast 
population that likes the conditions under which you brew.  You will gradually
eliminate populations that like conditions you never expose your yeast to, and
vice versa.  This is why I think it important to avoid culturing yeast under
odd conditions (like bottles in the refrigerator, slants, etc) because you
may eliminate isolates to the detriment of the resulting brews.
	This point is especially important when culturing out of commercially
distributed bottles.  Commercial brewers often use different strains for 
various stages of their fermentations, and in the case of the Belgian beers
sometimes brew the initial stages with yeast and the later stages with yeasts
and bacteria, or with wild yeasts.  When you pull out the culture from the 
bottle, you are seeing the final yeast distribution (at best), and may also
have the other organisms that are only used in the final stages of the 
brewing.
	Distribution also affects the yeasts, since the bottles usually are
subjected to a variety of unpleasant conditions (temperature changes, light,
agitation) which will affect the dormant yeast cells.  I find culturing out
of bottles (whether commercial or my own) to be unsatisfactory because the
conditions in the bottle are very different from the fermenter.
	Think of the yeasts as little people, eating and excreting into your 
brew (okay, maybe you shouldn't think of them as people).  As time goes by and
zoning laws change, unpleasant neighbors move in, city sanitation facilities 
degrade, and grocery stores close up, the people that thrive in adversity 
take over and the nice ones hibernate (how about bears?  hmmm, bear excreta
does bring up nasty images).  Putting the entire city in the refrigerator or
into a pressurized container is bound to affect the inhabitants.  Be gentle, 
and try not to think of bear shit when pounding back your next homebrew.

			---Laughs and Burps
				Father Barleywine

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 15:50:35 MES
From: Mikael Jonsson - El Loco Perro <emji at hexagon.se>
Subject: Unsubscribe

Can you unsubscribe me, please?

emji at hexagon.se


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 10:46:04 PST
From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: lightstruck vs oxidation


>Jay H writes:
>>2) make an all malt starter from extract (no hops so you don't have to worry
>>about it getting light struck). Boil this to insure sterility. 

>Are you sure about this Jay?  I believe that getting "light struck" is
>associated with oxidation which is a problem whether or not you have
>hops in your beer or not.  Or is getting  "light struck" associated with
>the hop oils?  Anyone else care to comment?
>Al.

I'd have to agree with Jay. Light struck requires hops, and is a completely
different spoilage mechanism than oxidation.

Oxidation is typically the result of getting too much air into your
wort/beer at the wrong stage in processing. Its taste is described as
"cardboardy".

Light struck occurs when light at ~520 nm (green) strikes the beer and causes
certain chemical changes to take place. This reaction requires hop compounds
as a precursor. It results in the formation of mercaptans, and its taste is
described as "skunky". Appropriately, mercaptans are the active ingredient in
a skunk's odor!!

However, hop resins are known to inhibit the growth of many bacteria, fungi
etc., which is certainly desireable in a yeast starter. I prefer to add hops
to my starters, and avoid the light struck problem by storing them in the
dark. (Insert IMHO's and smiley faces wherever appropriate.)

 -CR

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 10:51:07 PST
From: grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley)
Subject: expellent gases


>>Has anyone ever considered using something other than CO2 in their keg 
>>systems? 

>Have you considered using N2O?  That's what the Guiness folks use...

Hmmmm.....
I believe that N2O is what my dentist uses. The Guiness folks use N2.

 -CR


Return to table of contents


Date:     Tue, 2 Apr 91 11:24 PST
From: <CONDOF%CLARGRAD.BITNET at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
Subject:  Water conservation

grumpy!cr at uunet.UU.NET (C.R. Saikley) asks about water conservation.

On the Sierra Nevada Brewery tour (in Chico, CA), I was told that they have
always conserved water because water is one of their biggest costs. The way
they do it is that the water from the counterflow wort chiller is used to
brew the next batch.

Return to table of contents


Date: 2 Apr 91 14:30:00 EDT
From: "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet at drcvax.af.mil>
Subject: Diggin' in the archives.

Well, I'm still digging into the Homebrew Digest archives and learning a 
helluva lot.

I went back as far as the archives did, to November 1988, and started 
reading forward.

The file for January, 1989 seems to be missing part of digest 62 and all of 
digest 63.  February begins with 64 and Jan ends in the middle of 62.  I 
know this is a longshot, but could someone send those two ancient ones to 
me?

Again, I'm looking for digest numbers 62 and 63, both at the end of 
January, 1989.  I know I'll probably get several copies of both, but that's 
a lot better than not having them, especially since 62 ended right in the m 
iddle of a discussion on water treatment that I was very interested in.

Thanks in advance to any who respond.

Dan Graham


Return to table of contents


Date: 2 Apr 91 12:32 +0000
From: DAVIDSOND%AC%CSC at CSC.ISU.EDU
Subject: Lambic cravings                                             

 
NEW ENGLAND vacation notes======================
First, thanks to all who posted me info on New England breweries several weeks
ago.  In no order of preference, I can recommend the following:
   Northampton Brewery's current canine ale.  Old Brown Dog with a white pizza
     was fantastic.  Alas, the atmosphere is NOT comfortable enough.  The air
     was more 'dinner and a beer' than 'brewpub with good food.'
   Catamount's grand reopening tour (they are in open house phase after building
     on additional facilities.  Strangely, as I came into White River Jct., I
     took every turn needed to make the shortest path to the brewery (without a
     guide or map)!  As jumbled as the town's layout is, I was amazed and made
     sure to drink an extra sampler glass as an offering to the Beer God(esse)s.
   Vermont Pub was only a short mid-day stop, but the Dogbite Bitter was a
     fine ale, with all the astringency it's name suggests.  I was in Burlington
     to see grad schools, and between the campus's look and this brewery,
     I think there are few better places to be stranded for a few years.
   The Yankee Brew News (in vino veritas, in cervesio felicias): in a phrase,
     "So this is what living in an active brewing community would be like."
Again, thanks to Tom Fawcett, Chris Brown, Mark Gryska (and the Valley Fermenter
meeting invite), and Pete Davis.
 
LAMBIC RECIPES AND TIPS WANTED==================
Now, I was intro'd to Lambic's while in New England, and I simply MUST know
more!!!  Since my only clues so far include 'wild Belgian yeasts and bacteria' I
suspect I cannot make my own.  I'll name my twelfthborn (no guarantee of progeny
implied) after anyone who teaches me otherwise.  Do fruit ales and such come
close enough to these in taste?  What might?  Do they have the same aging times
as mead (and if so, can someone who drinks mead compare the quality of the 'net
sensory overload', since my first batch of mead is waiting to be started)?
 
CHAUCER MEAD?===================================
A last note: while staggering around MA, VT, NH, and NY, I found myself running
into repeated mention of 'Chaucer Mead.'  EVERYONE 'used to stock it' (except
for two who used to stock something else they couldn't remember a name for),
nearly everyone was 'going to restock some' and expected it to be available in
several weeks, and one genius in Amherst insisted that it was probably not legal
in MA due to international trade restrictions and/or alcohol content (thus sim-
ultaneously comparing mead with certain wines and Everclear).  Needless to say
I am confused, and appeal to your worthy opinions for clarification.
 
Darryl Davidson   (DavidsonD at csc.isu.edu)            

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 14:43:39 EST
From: hersh at expo.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: Coriander & orange Beer, Sweet mead, Light Struck


Bill Murphy of the Boston Wort Processors recently won 1st in the fruit beer category at
the Westport competition (and was one of the difficult to eliminate contenders for best of
show) with an Orange & Coriander Beer. I will try to get his recipe (perhaps Mike Fertsch
the Worts Newsletters Editor has it online already??) and post it here. It was a really
nice beer.

To make a sweet mead you need to use a less attenuative yeast or to go with a higher
starting gravity, or do both. Try ale yeasts instead of Champagne yeast (though I've heard
Red Star California Champagne or Flor Sherry are less attenuative than Pastuer Champagne).
A technique I used to get a medium sweet draft cider was to fortify with Cane and Brown
sugars as well as some malt extract (1/2lb, 1/4lb, 1lb respectively  in 1.5 gallon h2O) 
and use an ale yeast to ferment. This produced a nice result with 3.5 gallons of Apple
cider. I suspect that making a must with say 2-3lb honey per gallon of water and the same
1.5 gallon water with similar added sugar or malt extract mixture might acheive the same
effect. I would recommend continuing use of the sugar/malt extract or sugar only method
since honey contains a complex range of sugars and is known to take longer to ferment for
this reason, while the "fortification" sugars are simpler, will probably ferment first, and
thus will bring the alcohol content closer to the yeasts exhaustion level. Then when the
yeast subsequently consumes the honey to raise the alcohol level past its threshold the
the residual sweetness that remains will be mostly that of honey. This should give more of
the "mead" flavor and honey sweetness I think you may be looking for. All this sounds nice
in theory, but I can't swear from experience that it works. However it seems like a 
reasonable approach so perhaps you can try it and report to us on it.

One more plug for the two mail order places owned by friends of mine (nice people who
premise their operations on fair prices and satisfied customers)

Modern Brewer, Cambridge Mass.  1-800-SEND-ALE
Hennessey Homebrew, Troy, NY  1-800-HOBREWS


One more time Al, skunkiness and oxidation are 2 entirely different things
1) Skunkiness occurs as a result of light breaking a chemical bond in the acids extracted
from hops during the boil. The resulting chemicals that arise from the breaking of the bond
are chemically similar to the compound sprayed by skunks. They have the same aroma hence
the term skunkiness for the phenomena of light struck

2) oxidation however results from the introduction of oxygen into the beer. This can occur
in two places 
a) introduction of oxygen into *HOT* wort as aopposed to chilled wort. This
promotes the creation of phenolic and other off aromas and flavors. According to George Fix
this process occurrs very rapidly in hot wort. However introduction of oxygen into chilled
wort promotes yeast growth without engendering these chemical reactions

b) Introduction of oxygen into the beer after fermentation. This will lead to the
corruption of the aroma and flavor typically described as cardboardy or stale. Check the
Zymurgy troubleshooters issue for specific chemical compounds effects involved with this.

From experience I can tell you that unhopped extract in a clear glass starter container
left on my kitchen counter (not directly in sunlight but very near direct sunlight) has
never shown any signs of light damage (as evidence by skunky aromas) either in the starter
or the finished beer. If it makes you feel better though simply cover your container or get
one of those dark brown 1 gallon photography style jugs (Modern Brewer sells them for
$2.50). I reiterate I have never experienced any problems and to the best of my knowledge
know of no correlation between light damage and beer other than that which exists for the
above cited reactions of hop oils.

Jay H

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 02 Apr 91 12:35:03 PST
From: florianb at chip.cna.tek.com
Subject: yeast mutation

Marc Rouleau <mer6g at fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU> writes:

>On Mar 29,  8:19am, florianb at chip.cna.tek.com wrote:
>> In any case, re-using the yeast should only be done for 2-3 generations.
>> After that, purchasing a new culture would be advised.
>
>I hear this a lot, but I've yet to hear a satisfactory explanation.
>Exactly why/how do yeast "mutate" or "weaken" over multiple
>"generations"?  Wouldn't the weaker yeast suffer a competitive
>disadvantage with respect to the stronger yeast?
>
>And how do you explain the experience of the yeast-caking guy from
>a coupla weeks back -- he was doing ten fermentations from a single
>packet of dry yeast.

I am unable to explain the mechanisms whereby yeast mutate, since I am
not a yeast scientist.  The symptoms of degeneration include lack
of or slowed activity, turbidity, and off-flavors.  I have noticed all
three of these.

I am unable to explain the experience of the person you refer to since
I didn't do the research he/she did.  It is quite possible that since
dry yeast was used, the additional off flavors, turbidity, and slow
activity may have been masked by the natural tendency of dry yeast
to exhibit these symptoms in any case.  That is my experience, too.

The subject of yeast degeneration has been discussed in several
references.  Please refer to:

	The complete handbook of home brewing
		Dave Miller
	Brewing Lager Beer
		Greg Noonan
	The special Zymurgy issue on yeast
		Brewers Publications
	The practical brewer
		The master brewer association of the americas

In addition, I invite you to try it yourself!
Florian


Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1991 14:55:16 -0600
From: flowers at csrd.uiuc.edu
Subject: FYI:  Large Boiling Pot

I couldn't locate a large canning pot in any store, so I finally called the
company.  Here's the info in anybody is interested.

General Houseware Corp.
Terre Haute, IN
812/232-1000

33 quart, ceramic on steel canning pot with lid
16.5 inch diameter, ~11 inches high 
$33.50 including shipping

 -Craig Flowers
 (flowers at csrd.uiuc.edu)
 Subscriber since issue #444




Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 15:30:26 EST
From: rlr at bbt.com (Ron Rader)
Subject: Smartass remarks re: Alternative Keg Gases

David Arnold sez...

>>Has anyone ever considered using something other than CO2 in their keg 
>>systems? 

>Have you considered using N2O?  That's what the Guiness folks use...

  Aaaahhhhh!  So _that's_ why I get that weird head rush and start laughing
uproariously whenever I down a Guiness draught! ;)

  Or is that NO?

 - Ron (Whippet) Rader

ron rader, jr  rlr at bbt.com OR ...!mcnc!bbt!rlr = Opinions are my own and do
| |  i gotta six-pack & nothing to do...       = not necessarily reflect those
 | | i gotta six-pack & i don't need you       = of BroadBand Tech. (SO THERE!)
  *** Punk ain't no religious cult, punk means thinking for yourself - DKs ***

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 15:00:14 EST
From: cjh at vallance.HQ.Ileaf.COM (Chip Hitchcock)
Subject: light strikes

   wrt Algis Korzonas's questions about the relative effects of oxygen
and light:
  "light-struck" beer is beer in which some of the hop oil molecules have
been broken (rearranged??), usually by the effect of light around 520nm.
The result is an odor similar to skunk (slightly less pungent, but just as
unpleasant). We were shown this at the recent Dr. Beer session; bottles of
Molson's from the same suitcase, half of them left in a window for 2 days
and the other half kept in the dark. The smell was so bad when the test
bottles were opened that most of us refused to taste them.
    This has nothing to do with the presence or absence of oxygen, which (I
understand) tends to produce harsh tastes (not necessarily as much smell)
if introduced \\when the wort is warm//. (I expect that light damage could
happen even at low temperatures, since the energy is being applied directly
to the bond.)

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 15:40:37 PST
From: Jay.Littlepage at Corp.Sun.COM (Jay Littlepage)
Subject: Re:  Water Conservation

The drought is the basic reason why I haven't invested in a wort
chiller.  After all the reports of quality improvement due to
eliminating trub via cold break i've been thinking about ways to get a
cold break without wasting water.

An immersion chiller that recirculates water from an ice bath would
work, but at this point I don't want to invest in the chiller materials
and pump that would be required.

In my last batch I poured the wort on to three half-gallon ice cubes
made from milk cartons.  I let the ice melt (5 min) and then drained to
a carboy.  I was able to pitch immediately.  In my next batch i'm going
to make one gallon ice cubes by microwaving a freezer-bag full of water
then freezing.  It should be more sanitary and work pretty well.

Jay

Return to table of contents


Date: Tue, 2 Apr 91 16:53:12 PST
From: polstra!norm at uunet.UU.NET (Norm Hardy)
Subject: Yeast slurries

Two respected brewers have both commented that getting yeast slurries from
the SECONDARY fermenter is highly desirable.  George Fix of AHA fame and
Ed Tringali of the Big Time Brewery in Seattle (3 gold medals at the GABF).

With that as a clue, I have set up a scheme whereas I bottle the ale on
Saturday, save the yeast slurry from the secondary, and then brew the next
day.  After 30 minutes of boiling (before hops are added), I remove 8 to 12
ounces of wort, cool it, and pour it into the yeast slurry that has been
sitting at 65f with an airlock on top of the bottle.  This feeding of the
yeast usually results in a quick startup of less than 12 hours; often much
less than that.  Oh, there is usually around a cup of slurry collected.

How long will this work?  Who knows; to be safe I wouldn't push it past 2
repitching unless the beers are quite good.

With lagers I have to wait a week to allow a proper buildup of yeast before
repitching.  Then I have to resort to an extract starter ala Papazian.  Works
just fine.   so far....

Norm Hardy

Return to table of contents



End of HOMEBREW Digest #609, 04/03/91
*************************************
-------

---