Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1207
This file received at Sierra.Stanford.EDU 93/08/19 00:30:54
HOMEBREW Digest #1207 Thu 19 August 1993
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Coordinator
Contents:
yeast FAQ comments/Zymurgy Bashing/more yeast comments (korz)
Your favorite supplier? (CCAMDEN)
Boiling (Davin Slade)
my own hops (Matthias Wrase)
C. cerevisiae taxonomy? (Tom.Weicht)
Taxonomy Debate (Tom.Weicht)
re:WORT AERATION (R.) Cavasin" <cav@bnr.ca>
strike temperatures (Paul Conti)
re: Welding Stainless (GANDE)
Yeast Culture Kit Company ("Anton Verhulst")
Bar Harbor Ale (Kristof_Mueller)
Yeast (Jack Schmidling)
Heat Capacity of Malt / Infusion Calculations (Kelly Jones)
Cold plates and wort chilling (inline)
re: Wort Aeration ("William A Kitch")
Irish Ale Yeast (Keith A. MacNeal HLO1-1/T09 DTN 225-6171 18-Aug-1993 1252)
Details re. Hard, high pH water treatment for new masher (Bill Flowers)
Beer in Portland, Maine & Spokane, WA (Jeff Mizener)
Indianapolis (Robert Pulliam)
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmi.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Archives are available via anonymous ftp from sierra.stanford.edu.
(Those without ftp access may retrieve files via mail from
listserv@sierra.stanford.edu. Send HELP as the body of a
message to that address to receive listserver instructions.)
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@novell.physics.umr.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 93 12:38 CDT
From: korz@iepubj.att.com
Subject: yeast FAQ comments/Zymurgy Bashing/more yeast comments
Patrick writes:
> a. Place the starter jars in a location where 68F (18C can be held). Aerate
> twice daily by vigorously shaking jars. 1L Erlenmeyer flasks are excellent
> for this purpose because they permit vigorous swirling without getting the
> wort up by the neck and opening.
Yes, but I've read that although fermentation may be done at lower temps,
80F is a better temperature for starters. Remember, you're trying to
increase your yeast bulk here, not make beer. Also, 1L Erlenmeyer flasks
are extremely expensive from most places, unless you buy in bulk. If you're
interested in a source for inexpensive 250ml, 500ml and 1L Pyrex Erlenmeyers
in single-quanitities, email me.
Another interesting point is that if you use a glass airlock, you can
put that in your pressure cooker or autoclave (this is definately NOT
recommended with a polystyrene airlock!). Jack Schmidling gave me a
great tip that I use when I make starters on the stovetop: put an empty
glass airlock on the flask and let the boiling wort's steam sanitize and
FILL the airlock too! Again, don't try this with a plastic airlock (YUCK!).
> d. It is also desirable to reduce the temperature to a point closer
> to the temperature that will be used in production if that is
> lower than 18 C. For example, with lagers fermented at 10 C, this
> is usually taken to be 14-15 C.
Yes and this should be done slowly. You should *slowly* lower the temperature
of the starter to the temperature of the wort into which you will be pitching.
A few degrees difference is okay, 10 degrees may increase your lag time,
20+ degrees may shock your yeast so they are never quite the same.
> a. At this time you should have a jar with about 500ml (a little more than 2
> cups) of yeast for a 5gal ale batch. I would suggest pitching before the
> krausen (foam) totally dies down so that the yeast are still in rapid growth
> phase. The total volume will vary with batch size, yeast type, and your
> personal experience/whim. Remember to keep yeast notes along with your beer
> notes so that you can learn from experience!
This goes against what I've found to be true. Pitching *just after* the
kraeusen dies down is just about ideal. Quoting Mike Sharp:
MS> what I really wanted to address was the 'you should pitch at high
MS> kraeusen' myth. Research has showed that you actually want to
MS> pitch just after the cells have entered their stationary phase.
MS> (thats the stage after high kraeusen when the yeast begings to
MS> flocculate). The reason for this relates to the glycogen level
MS> (think of it as the cell's gas tank) in the cell. During high
MS> kraeusen the cells are rather depleated of glycogen and are less
MS> able to multiply. This results in slow starts, a possible
MS> increase in sulfur dioxide levels, and a host of other problems.
MS>
MS> The reference I have at hand for all of this is:
MS> Impact of Yeast-Handling Procedures on Beer Flavor Development
MS> During Fermentation by Pickerell, Hwang, and Axcell
MS> American Society of BBrewing Chemists Journal,
MS> 49:2, 1991
> c. It is not advised that you pitch the old wort and yeast into the fermenter
> because the media has been exposed to air and oxidized, etc, etc. Therefore,
> pour off or siphon off the old media, leaving the yeast on the bottom of the
> flask. Pour this slurry into the primary or resuspend this slurry in
> sterile water and add immediately to the wort. A short exposure to water
> will not harm the yeast, although they should not be exposed to it for long
> periods or they will lyse.
I don't think the spent starter liquid should be oxidized or was exposed to
air. If you've had activity in the starter, the air in the flask has been
displaced by CO2 created by the yeast. It's not a big deal if you pour it
off or pitch it. The main reason for pouring it off is if you want to
make more yeast but you don't have room in your flask. You can then
pour off the liquid and add fresh, sterile wort.
>(v) Autoclave the tubes at 15 psi for 5 mins.
Actually, 15-20 minutes is recommended.
>(vi) Tighten the caps on the tubes, and place them at a
> 30 degree angle. Allow them to solidify at room temperature.
> Solidification should become apparent within a few hours.
> Tubes which are not solid after 24 hrs. should be discarded.
You should let the tubes cool quite a bit in the autoclave/pressure cooker
before you tighten the caps. If you tighten them when they are too hot,
they will implode. I let everything cool overnight in the pressure cooker.
>Note: Petri dishes can not be autoclaved, and so alternate procedures are
>needed for them. A common practice is to autoclave the malt/ agar solution in
No, no, no. You mean disposable, polystyrene petri dishes cannot be
autoclaved. Polypropylene and glass petri dishes can be autoclaved. I,
personally, don't like to use disposable anything, so I've found a source
for glass petri dishes. Email me for a single-quanitity source.
Gosh, I hope I don't sound too negative about Patrick's posts -- they were
a lot of work and, he has said that they are collected from various sources.
These sources are not always 100% on target and therefore some minor errors
are inevitable. Again I must tip my (HopUnion) hat to Patrick for a
well-done piece of work.
*****************************
Subject: re:Zymurgy bashing
I'm with Jim Busch on this topic -- Zymurgy and the AHA in general have
been making efforts to improve and I, for one, am glad to see that they
are soliciting more input from us.
*****************************
More from Patrick:
> Yeast are unicellular fungi. All brewing yeast belong to the genus
> Saccharomyces.
Ahem, since I occasionally brew Pure-culture Lambieks, I take great exception
with this statement. There are a great many different genus of yeast that
play a role in Lambieks, for example, Brettanomyces. See J.X. Guinard's
book Lambic for a detailed discussion of all the different microbiota that
work in concert to make this most complex of beers.
Al.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 22:17:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: CCAMDEN@delphi.com
Subject: Your favorite supplier?
OK, my first batch is busy bubbling away. (Is it normal to go in and just
look at it every so often?) And I am already looking forward to the next
time.
My local homebrew store is really just a health food store with a corner
devoted to brewing and wine making. However, not only is their stock
limited, but I question how old some of the stuff is. So I have been
calling a few mail order suppliers and requesting catalogs. In a few days I
will get 5 or 6 and then I will have to decide who to use.
So, help me out. Who is your favorite mail order supplier? Which one seems
to do the best job? I welcome any and all opinions.
Email replys welcomed. (I'm sure this would be old hat to most.)
Thanks, Cary Camden
------------------------------
Date: 18 Aug 93 13:16:13 GMT+1100
From: Davin Slade <10692851@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Boiling
I am only new to the brewing idea so please forgive my ignorance.
When people talk about boiling is this to produce the syrup that you
can buy in the can from the homebrew shop. ie to make your own taste.
If so i assume you add the yeast later after it as cooled to the
temperature for brewing.
- ------------------------------------------------------------
Davin Slade, 4th Year Civil Engineering, Monash Uni, Oz
10692851@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au or
baldrick@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
- ------------------------------------------------------------
"It was georgiousness and georgosity in the flesh"
Alexander de Large, A Clockwork Orange, Stanley Kubrik, 1971
- ------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1993 17:22:24 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Matthias Wrase <mwr@cs.tu-berlin.de>
Subject: my own hops
Howdy !
It's time to harvest hops down here in Germany, so I took a look
and found some very good looking plants in close vicinity to my
parents' house. I have two resulting questions:
1) it's most probable that these are "wild" hops. Are these
useable for homebrewing anyway ?
2) if I can use these hops - how can I measure the amount
of alpha-acid so I know how much to use of them for my
next batch ?
Thanks in advance for any response !
Matt
- --
***************************************************************************
* Matthias Wrase | *
* mwr@cs.tu-berlin.de | TU Berlin - only the fittest survive *
* mwr@marie.physik.tu-berlin.de | *
* ag729@freenet.hsc.colorado.edu| *
***************************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 07:57:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom.Weicht@arrc.ncsu.edu
Subject: C. cerevisiae taxonomy?
Respond to: deb_neher@ncsu.edu
Re: S. cerevisiae and taxonomy, 1 of 2 (The most important IMO)
I originally had this posting over 8K. If I can post more than
8K per day, the other will follow today. Other wise, the
other will follow tomorrow. There are more direct answers to
others posting on this subject in 2 of 2.
The main point I wanted to make in my first posting was that
in industrial/commercial culture collections taxonomy is often
perverted for a variety of reasons, and as a result, caution should
be used when accepting a classification as RIGHT or dismissing a
classification as WRONG. The requirements for proof of a species
may be beyond what is possible for every isolate used in
fermentation when the current genetic status of commercial yeast
cultures make this difficult at best, and impossible based on
traditional taxonomic approaches. The fermentation sciences do not
hold to the same naming convention as other practical sciences
using mycological taxonomy. This could ultimately result in few
vegetatively propagated isolates which have been in the industry
for a long time, but incorrectly classified as S. cerevisiae.
The fungi unlike other organisms can be correctly classified
under more than one latin binomial. The ideal latin binomial for a
fungus is the one reflecting the sex reproductive stage or
teleomorph. However, a fungus (or fungal culture) which does not
readily show this stage, but also, has an asexual reproductive
stage or anamorph will have a latin binomial related to this stage,
these are the Fungi Imperfecti. Therefore, in order to resolve
controversy over a yeast's teleomorphic identity, in the case of
the Saccharomycetaceae, the asci and ascospores would have to be
produced. However, many commercial isolates have lost their ability
to sporulate. This is the result of polyploidy (multiple genomes;
greater than 2x the haploid or diploid) and aneuploidy (a genome
which is not an even multiple of the haploid). This genomic status
is important to the fermenting and baking industries because of the
genetic stability and minimal susceptibility to mutation multiple
genomes confer on an isolate. Laboratory isolates of species of the
Saccharomycetaceae are often relatively stable haploids and
diploids. Because of asporogenous ambiguities many authors address
the species "S. cerevisiae (sensu lato or s.l.)"=" S. cerevisiae
(in the broad sense)" suggesting that it may be a complex of
organisms which deserve other classifications. Therefore, best
source for understanding the asporogenic brewing yeasts will be the
tools of molecular genetic: mapping, probing (genomes, mitochondria
and ribosomes), restriction fragment length polymorphism, and
random polymerase chain reaction patterns (PCR fingerprints).
Fungal genomes are large and the necessary technologies are just
becoming widespread enough so that probably much information will
be available in the next few years. Currently, most research seems
to be with laboratory isolates.
Based on classical taxonomy, the anamorph of yeasts used in
brewing may be best, or most confidently, classified as Candida
(cerevisiae??). The precedence established in the Sylloge Fungorum
by Saccardo, has the hierarchy of characteristics used to classify
the Fungi Imperfecti as follows: Conidia (spores or buds) take
precedence over mycelial structures. A description of the genus
from Barnett and Hunter, Illustrated Genera of Imperfect Fungi
reads: Mycelium not extensive; conidia (blastospores) hyaline, 1-
celled, ovoid to fusoid, forming short chains by budding. Because
of Saccardo's precedence to spores, I am ignoring mycelium in the
description. The ontogeny of blastospores is identical to budding.
The down side of this classification is that it is uninformative.
This genus is basically a trash can. Candida has members which are
both basidiosporogenous and ascosporogenous.
When addressing a fungus in standard communications, most
other sciences use a name which applies to the morphological stage
which dominates process. For instance, if a vineyard were
inoculated with Botrytis cinerea, it would be called Botrytis
(anamorph) and not Sclerotinia (teleomorph). Even in brewing, when
addressing the organisms which occur in a lambic, Brettanomyces
(anamorph) is used over Dekkera (teleomorph). That the teleomorph
Saccharomyces is used over an anamorphic classification in
commercial industries could be the result of several circumstances.
First, as stated earlier, the genus Candida is uninformative while
Saccharomyces is more informative because it is a narrower
description. In the above examples where anamorphs are used over
the teleomorph, the anamorphs are very narrow and relate directly
to one teleomorphic genus and are therefore, very descriptive and
informative. The other reason Saccharomyces may be used over an
anamorphic name may relate to a historical precedence. Almost
certainly the past fermentations would have contained asci and
selection toward asporogenous cultures occurred because of man's
selective pressure. Because of this previous association,
Saccharomyces was linked intimately with the nomenclature
surrounding the fermentation process and because changing the
nomenclature denotes less information there has been no strong
pressure to change.
However, to call an isolate Saccharomyces spp. when only an
asporogenous cultures exists has it liabilities because there is
the connotation of sexual relatedness which may be unavailable.
Further, because of the economic potential of these organisms there
is probably much information not in the public domain. To feel
secure about a particular classification of a particular isolate
used in brewing or to rule another one out is probably not wise.
Older more established collections of asporogenous yeasts are
potentially sources where a few incorrect classifications may be
found because of the fluxes which occur in the taxonomy of the
entire subfamily Saccharomycetoideae. There is no basis upon which
to classify a yeast if it only buds. Modern molecular tools and
researchers studying these yeasts will establish the new basis of
classification by comparing their results with traditional
taxonomy. I doubt any of us have access to the teleomorphs the
fungi in question or can find the appropriate citations describing
these ascii and ascospores in the detail required to make an
independent judgement, and proof if it exists in the literature is
probably buried in an article with a title like "Authentication of
ATCC Strains in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae Complex by PCR
Fingerprinting". I suspect that as more isolates are studied with
the tools of molecular genetics these organisms will be shuffled
and reshuffled for years to come.
Not all isolates are asporogenous, many are only difficultly sporogenous
and some are relatively easily sporogenous. If any body on the HBD has
information on this relative to brewing cultures I would like to know.
Tom Weicht
(respond to deb_neher@ncsu.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 07:59:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Tom.Weicht@arrc.ncsu.edu
Subject: Taxonomy Debate
REspond to: deb_neher@ncsu.edu
Re: S. cerevisiae and taxonomy, The debate, 2 of 2.
I originally had this posting over 8K. I would have preferred
some of this prefacing 1 of 2 and some of this as post script
to 1 of 2.
I would like to start by saying that I appreciate the feed
back from my original posting, and I like debate as a way to refine
my ideas; PLEASE DON'T TAKE ANY OF THIS AS A PERSONAL ATTACK or AN
OUT OF CONTROL FIRE-FIGHT; I plan to be polite. I revisited some of
the ideas and expanded on a few others in my second posting on this
subject; particularly some of the subtleties of mycological
taxonomy and certain areas of conflict and incongruities which have
shaped my thoughts and prejudices on this subject area. Unlike just
about any other area there is the potential for a great amount of
debate on taxonomy.
First off, I want to say after rereading my original posting,
I feel much of the response coming from it originates from an over
statement of my position:
"Saccharomyces delbrukii or S. cerevisiae?? I personally
believe both are technically incorrect. From the best that I
have been able to find in the mycological taxonomy literature,
the true name of this organism is Torulospora delbrukii, this
is how the American Type Culture Collection lists it which
sparked my interest and pursuit of this subject."
A more appropriate stating would have been:
"Saccharomyces delbrukii or S. cerevisiae?? I personally
believe both MAY BE technically incorrect. From the best that
I have been able to find in the mycological taxonomy
literature, the true name of this organism is Torulospora
delbrukii, this is how the American Type Culture Collection
lists it which sparked my interest and THOUGHTS ON this
subject."
Admittedly all I have ever looked up on this subject was the
description of the teleomorph (sexual reproductive stage). Like
several of the other posters (responders) both public and private,
all I have found from the standard data base literature search on
the subject was the reference to wine, and although I was tempted
to acquire the ATCC isolate, I remember refraining because this
isolate had not come from a brewing source. I suspect that if there
is a publication in support of Wyeast, it is probably in molecular
genetics article on S. cerevisiae and will take time to ferret out,
ie. Computer data based searches on the obvious are probably
incomplete. I have not prioritized this subject high enough to have
done this work yet.
By the way I was reexamining my latest Current Contents search and
found this citation.
Author JL Huffman
Title Authentication of ATCC Strains in the
Saccharomyces cerevisiae Complex by PCR
Fingerprinting (Vol16, Pg 316, 1992)
Source Experimental Mycology 17: 2 (JUN 1993)
Page 155
(It looks like there may have been two sources?? This is how
I sucked it up from the search.)
I could conclude that I fell into a Wyeast myth as some of the
posting have suggested. Admittedly, I made the assumption that
there was some truth in their classification. Although there are
fraudulent products available to the HOMEBREWER, I assumed there
was no profit motive in this and thus, no reason to deceive the
HOMEBREWER. (Antidotal reports suggest that since Siebel lost the
contract for the Witbread yeast one distributer still distributes
a yeast under that name; this APPEARS to be FRAUDULENT.) In fact,
wouldn't the market place be more receptive to classifying this
yeast as the classic weisbier yeast? HOWEVER, to base a
classification on a classification in Weihenstephan is to make the
same assumption I made. The only difference is that Weihenstephan
is more sentimentally favored over Wyeast. (See explanation about
asporogenous classification in the previous posting).
The next issue of The Yeasts a Taxonomic Study will probably
be a good source to settle some of our current issues of debate,
but as the current issue YTS III seems to already have been
surpassed by the research in the area of classification it too will
also become out dated quickly (see the second half of my first
posting where S. carlsbergensis, may be better classified as S.
pastorianus). IMO there will be a explosion in taxonomical
rearrangement as more isolates are tested with the tools of
molecular genetics.
Because of the asporogenous nature of some isolates classified
as S. cerevisiae the current status of the species is that of a
repository for many isolates which may not be proven true
members of the species. ie. S. cerevisiae has become a taxonomic
trash can to a limited extent. Essentially, this status diminishes
the information that can be concluded based on classification alone.
It maybe interesting to contact Wyeast and see if they would
share their source for classifying their isolate and if it is
related to the Weihenstephan #68. I will write them a letter when
I have time again to write some thing, and I will share this
response if I get one.
Again, if there is a source of information about which isolates
are sporogenous please inform me. I would enjoy proving the taxonmic status
of any questionable isolates, and I am happy to change my opinion about
the isolates in question.
I should include a small biography to let readers know where
I am coming from, but I written a lot and have taken more time than
I have for my brewing hobby. I'm too lazy to say much more than: I have
two degrees in Plant Pathology (under grad and masters) from UC
Davis. I have had two mycology courses in my history, an undergrad
and grad, one of which I have also TA'ed. The grad version was an
eclectic mix of every taxonomical opinion ever sustained in the
discipline for more than one author. I collect slime molds as pets
(for real) and pursue Chantharellus and other edibles in the woods
regularly. I have published one key, but to tomato diseases not
fungi, although a small fungal/pathogen key is part of the whole.
Tom Weicht
(respond to deb_neher@ncsu.edu)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 08:59:00 +0000
From: "Rick (R.) Cavasin" <cav@bnr.ca>
Subject: re:WORT AERATION
Jack,
Just a little quibble with your experiment. I wonder if there isn't
one confounding variable you've overlooked, namely, fermenter geometry.
The surface area/wort volume ratio, and the amount of head space in
the quart jar fermenters is radically different than what most people
would encounter in normal sized homebrew batches, even for people
doing open fermentations is buckets. (people using blowoff tubes
would fill their carboys near full, resulting in small surface areas
with almost no headspace). I wonder if the rate of diffusion
of oxygen from the headspace into the wort doesn't compensate for the
lack of aeration in your 'control' sample. If people were using
half empty carboys as primary fermenters (which I've done actually,
got tired of fiddling with blowoff tubes and such - just split the
batch between two carboys for the primary, then rack back into one
for secondary), the comparison would be more valid. In the case
of your lager test, is a starter/wort ratio of 1/10 typical?
(don't know, don't do lagers myself)
Cheers, Rick C.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 9:22:11 EDT
From: pconti@mercury.hyperdesk.com (Paul Conti)
Subject: strike temperatures
> Andy Phillips writes:
> Subject: Strike temperature
>
> This is probably an FAQ, but can someone tell me the
> specific heat capacity of crushed malt, so that I can
> heat my strike liquor to the right temperature (65C)? Dave Line's
> books don't seem to take the mass of grains into account when
> calculating strike temperature. Alternatively, could you tell me
> waht mass of grains you use and at what temperature, the volume of
> water and strike temperature, and the final mash temperature, so
> that I can work it out for myself.
It depends on the mosture content of the grain, but a good figure is
.4 c/gram.
You will most likely need to experiment in any case when you run your
numbers. For single step infusion using my gott cooler with slotted
copper pipes and assumming grain at room temperature (68F), and
further assuming 1qt of water per pound of grain my strike
temperatures are:
Strike Heat Mash Temp
160F (71.0C) 148F (64.4C)
162F (72.1C) 150F (65.5C)
164F (73.3C) 152F (66.6C)
167F (75.0C) 154F (67.7C)
169F (76.1C) 156F (68.8C)
172F (77.7C) 158F (69.9C)
When I do an upward step infusion I use 24oz of water per pound of
grain with a strike heat of 146F (63.3C) and I get a mash temp around
122F (50C). For the second step I add an addition 1/2 qt of boiling
water 212F (100C) per pound of grain and my mash goes to 150F (65.5C).
I find it best to add strike water at few degrees higher than I really
want. I then let it drop to the correct temperature in my mash tun
before adding my grains. This works best for me. Your mileage may vary.
- --
Paul Conti | HyperDesk Corporation | Email: paul_c@hyperdesk.com
------------------------------
Date: 18 Aug 93 14:49:04 GMT
From: GANDE@slims.attmail.com
Subject: re: Welding Stainless
In HBD1206, Brian Vandewettering asks about welding stainless steel.
A year or so ago I made a boiler out of a Sanke keg and welding a
nipple into the bottom was required. I took the keg to a
"professional" welding shop and inquired. The welders comments re
stainless were:
1. It's considered a white metal and arc welding is very difficult if
not impossible.
2. MIG welds (Metal Inert Gas) contain cadimum. Poisonous and could
leach into your brew, the welder said MIG's are never put on
surfaces to be in contact with food.
3. TIG welds (Tungsten Inert Gas) contains no toxic metals, will weld
white metals, very strong and non-toxic. This is what I had put
on my keg and it's been fine for over a year.
TIG welding is an art, apparantly, so it may cost a little more. My
job (weld 3 little legs and a nipple, 2 holes cut with a plasma
torch) ran about $45(CANADIAN).
....GA
+----------------------------------+
| Internet: gande@slims.attmail.com|
| Glenn Anderson |
| Manager, Telecom. Facilities |
| Sun Life of Canada |
+----------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 10:11:40 EDT
From: "Anton Verhulst" <verhulst@zk3.dec.com>
Subject: Yeast Culture Kit Company
Does anybody have the adderss or phone number of the Yeast Culture Kit Company?
- --Tony
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 10:45:59 EST
From: Kristof_Mueller@voyager.umeres.maine.edu
Subject: Bar Harbor Ale
I just tried a fantastic microbrew last night. It is from Bar Harbor,
Maine, my home state. They have three brews: Real Ale, Pale Ale, and Coal
Porter (a stout) They were all good, and I suggest trying some if you are
ever in the area. They also give tours of there brewery, so check that out
as well.
- --Kris Mueller
Beer, Beer
Starts with a B
Ends with a R
And has two E's
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 10:39 CDT
From: arf@genesis.mcs.com (Jack Schmidling)
Subject: Yeast
>From: Jim Griggers <brew@devine.ColumbiaSC.NCR.COM>
>Subject: Shipping live yeast
>The yeast arrived Friday in a plain manila envelope in the US Mail. My mail
box is a standard flat-black metal rural box that spends 75% of its time in
direct sunlight..... (I drive 80 miles, each way, to Charlotte, NC to buy
yeast, so I usually stockpile.)
One of the great advantages of culturing one's own yeast is that yeast
purchases become a very rare event, dictated more by wanting to try something
new than by the brewing schedule.
An obvious solution to the hot mailbox is to purchase culture yeast in cool
weather.
Actually "buying" yeast could become a thing of the past. I haven't
purchased any yeast since the last time I used EDME. They have all come via
swaps with other homebrewers.
It occurs to me that yeast swapping could be very effectively supported by
computer networks. If we can use them to find out the names of pubs in a
town to be visited, we should be able to just as effectively find a free
yeast culture we want.
ATTN: YEAST SWAP
I will start the ball rolling by offering a PU culture for a good European
red wine culture.
>I am NOT knocking the shop owner or _*deleted*_, but I am questioning their
choice of shipping.
I thought it was YOUR choice. Didn't they offer air as an option?
>From: korz@iepubj.att.com
> WYeast 2124 Bohemian Lager Yeast
> The traditional saaz yeast from Czechoslovakia. Ferments
> clean and malty, rich residual maltiness in high gravity
> pilsners, medium flocculation, apparent attenuation
> 69-73%. Optimum fermentation temperature: 48 deg. F (9
> deg. C).
<Allegedly, one of the four (?) Pilsner Urquell yeasts.
Two rumors I would like verified here....
The first is the blending of (4) different beers from (4) different yeasts by
PU. This was reported in an article I just read but do not recall where.
Nothing of this sort was reported by Daryl Richman from his visit to the
brewery.
I was told by "someone" and it may have been the owner of Wyeast that they do
not have a yeast from PU. It is similar but not one of their yeasts.
The yeast I use was obtained by Paul Farnswort from PU and in a conversation
with him, he mentioned nothing about (4) yeasts. I would not have started
using it if it was just one of four used. I will call him but would like
some backup facts/rumors first.
js
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 10:34:38 -0600
From: Kelly Jones <k-jones@ee.utah.edu>
Subject: Heat Capacity of Malt / Infusion Calculations
In HBD #1206, Andy Phillips asks about the heat capacity of crushed
malt, to be used for calculations of infusion mashes. I have found
that the number 1350 (where water is about 4200) to work well for me.
I believe the units are J/Kg/K, but this is not important.
Alternately, one could use the dimensionless number 0.32 for the malt,
where water is equal to one. Of course, this will vary somewhat
depending on the type of malt used, the moisture content of the malt,
etc. but this should be a good starting point.
For those not familiar with these calculations, I will present them
here:
First, let
Cpm= heat capacity of your malt, about 0.32
Cpw= heat capacity of water, 1.0
Mw = mass of water used
Mm = mass of malt used
Tw = temperature of strike water
Tm = beginning temperature of malt (usually room temperature)
Tf = final temperature of mixture (rest temp)
Masses and temperatures can be in any units, as long as you are
consistent.
The basic formula, then, is
(1) Tf = (Cpm*Mm*Tm + Cpw*Mw*Tw)/(Cpm*Mm+Cpw*Mw)
This can be rearranged in many ways to solve for the desired unknown.
For example, if we want to know the quantity of water to add to result
in a desired protein rest temperature, we can write
(2) Mw = Cpm*Mm*(Tf-Tm)/(Cpw*(Tw-Tf)) or, using the numbers for Cpm&Cpw,
(3) Mw = .32*Mm*(Tf-Tm)/(Tw-Tf)
SO, suppose you have 4Kg of malt at 25C, and you want to add some
quantity of water at 54C to achieve a protein rest temperature of 50C:
Mw = .32*4*(50-25)/(54-50) = 8Kg of water
These formulas can also be used to calculate additional water
quantities to raise the mash temp further. However, different
variables must be used: Instead of Mm, we will substitute Mmash, the
mass of the mash, equal to the total mass of malt and water used so
far; for Tm, we will substitute Tmash; and for Cpm, we must use
Cpmash, calculated as
Cpmash = (Cpm*Mm +Cpw*Mw)/(Mm+Mw)
Thus, the revised formula (2) is
Mw = Cpmash*Mmash*(Tf-Tmash)/(Tw-Tf)
continuing our example, we have Mmash = 4Kg +8Kg = 12Kg, Cpmash =
(.32*4+1*8)/(4+8)= .773. Suppose our mash temp is still at 50C, and
we want to raise it to 66C for a sacharification rest using some
quantity of water at 100C. Then
Mw = .773*12*(66-50)/(100-50) = 3Kg of additional (boiling) water.
Some simplifying assumptions have been made here, but they seem to work
out just fine. (So please don't get on my case about enthalpies of
mixing, non-additive Cp's, etc.) You may need to play around with the
value of Cpm to get these eaquations to work out better for you. Also
remember that your mash tun will absorb some heat, resulting in a rest
temperature slightly lower than that predicted here. You may want to
shoot for a degree or so higher to compensate. Note that your boiling
water temp may not be 100C.
Equation (1) may be rearranged, if instead it is desired to know, for
example, what water temperature should be used to obtain a given
temperature rest for a given volume of water ( if one is shooting for
some specific mash thickness).
Hope this helps (or did it just confuse the hell out of you?),
Kelly <k-jones@ee.utah.edu>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 11:35:23 CDT
From: inline@vnet.IBM.COM
Subject: Cold plates and wort chilling
With all the recent talk about cooling wort, I started wondering if
you could use a cold plate to accomplish this. If the tubing inside
the cold plate isn't SS you might get off flavors, or you might
clog the thing up with hop particles, but is it a valid idea ?
Any thoughts/experiences ?
**************************************************************
Chris Williams
inline@vnet.ibm.com
**************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 11:47:14 CST
From: "William A Kitch" <kitchwa@bongo.cc.utexas.edu>
Subject: re: Wort Aeration
A comment on Jack Schmedling's experiment on wort aeration and my
own experience.
Jack very interesting experiment. Thanks for running it and posting
results. I have two questions/concerns about the small scale of your
experiments.
1) I'm curious about the geometry of your small fermenters.
Specifically I'm wondering about the relative amount of wort
exposed to air and thereby oxygen. Let's call the specific area
exposed to air Aa: This is
area exposed to air (sq in)
Aa = ---------------------------------
volume of wort (cubic in)
For a cylindrical fermenter this number will be:
pi*radius^2
Aa = -----------------------------
(height_of_wort)*pi*radius^2
or
Aa = 1/height_of_wort
For my glass primary with wort say 20 inches deep in it Aa = 1/20in
or 0.05/in. For a mason jar with 6 inches of wort in it Aa = 1/6in
or 0.17/in. So all your small scale fermenters have access to a
lot more oxygen than my 'full scale' primary fermenter.
2) It's my understanding that oxygen is important during the inital
growth/reproductive phase of the yeast (help here from you
microbiologists). If you pitched enough active yeast that they
didn't need to reproduce (to reach the maximum number of
colonies/ml), then the amount of oxygen present may be irrelavent.
Having made all these theoretical observations here is my practical
experience: I siphon my cool wort into the primary through a aerating
tube. The aerating tube is a 6 in long plastic tube w/ 1/32" holes
drilled in the tube wall near one end. (This end is near the siphon hose
not at the end the wort exits.) It works just like your sink aerator;
air is drawn into the tube through the 1/32" holes and the wort exits
as a frothy liquid. When the siphoning is done there is 2 to 6" of
foam on top of the wort. I pitch an active starter solution. The
volume of the starter solution (wort+yeast slurry) is 2 cups. I always
see active fermentation within 12 hours, usually faster. (I don't
get up every four hours to see if my beer is working--Jack you're
dedicated.) This info is for ale yeast.
Followed this procedure last night. Pitched yeast at 11:00 pm by
8:00am this morning there was a full krausen. Bottom line: I agree
with Jack at least for ales. One doesn't need the air pump system for
ales, if you use a good active yeast starter and aerate wort going
into the fermenter.
Sante' WAK
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 12:56:58 EDT
From: Keith A. MacNeal HLO1-1/T09 DTN 225-6171 18-Aug-1993 1252 <macneal@pate.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Irish Ale Yeast
The description of Wyeast's Irish Ale yeast recently posted says that is
not very attenuative. I recently used it for an Imperial Stout (a variation
of Miller's extract/mash recipe in Brewing the World's Great Beers).
Although the OG was a bit lower than the OG in the recipe, the FG was also
a bit lower than the recipe. The stout tasted quite alcoholic when bottled.
Keith MacNeal
Digital Equipment Corp.
Hudson, MA
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1993 12:18:53 -0400
From: Bill Flowers <waflowers@qnx.com>
Subject: Details re. Hard, high pH water treatment for new masher
OK, I got the water analyses for my home and my office. When I actually had
numbers in my hand and re-read Miller's Complete Handbook chapter on water, I
finally began to understand what I was dealing with and, maybe, what to do.
I'm going to post a lot of details here and some conclusions so someone with
more experience and knowlege can double check me. Apologies ahead of time for
the length of this.
My home tap water is drawn from two wells. Unfortunately the regional lab
doesn't do a complete analysis of the well water. All I got was readings of
some characteristics for the last 7 months. The averages of the pertinent
numbers are:
pH 7.8 sulphates (ppm) 68
Total Alkalinity, as CaCO3 250 Total Hardness, as CaCO3 256
There were a few other numbers of no consequence as well.
I wouldn't know what to do with this water, but it doesn't sound great. Luckily
I've got another water source.
The analysis of my office's water was another matter. I received max, min and
average values for both the raw and treated water, and more information than I
could enter into this message (now I know how much uranium is in the water I
drink). The important things (I think) are:
Treated Water
mg/L (ppm) unless otherwise stated
min max avg
--- --- ---
pH 6.8 9.9 8.3
Total Alkalinity, as CaCO3 17.0 48.0 25.8
Total Hardness, as CaCO3 26.0 72.0 51.7
Chloride, Cl 3.5 8.0 5.3
Calcium, Ca 15.00 18.60 16.80
Magnesium, Mg 1.94 2.43 2.28
Potassium, K 0.728 0.820 0.776
Sodium, Na 2.78 3.78 3.12
Sulphate, SO4 19.60 30.50 24.00
Other values are in the parts per billions or Miller wasn't concerned with them
(or both) so why should I be. Who cares about immeasurably small traces of
Vanadium when brewing anyway?
This water seems to be rather nice for brewing. It doesn't seem too far off of
Miller's St. Louis water which he discusses in detail (actually better in some
areas such as sulphate and sodium). Although the pH is sometimes high the
buffering capacity (total alkalinity) seems low so the mash water pH should
drop. In fact, the alkalinity might be too low and I may have to add calcium
carbonate. It is always easier to add than to take away. Also, just as Miller
does, I should probably acidify my sparge water.
At least, that's how I interpret these numbers. How do they look to the
"experts"? How important is it to acidify the sparge water? What happens if I
don't? All I could find was Miller's comment: "It is desirable to keep the pH
of the runoff during sparging below 6.0."
- ---
W.A. (Bill) Flowers email: waflowers@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. QUICS: bill (613) 591-0934 (data)
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terrence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 13:41:32 EDT
From: hpfcla.fc.hp.com!scr!sead.siemens.com!jm (Jeff Mizener)
Subject: Beer in Portland, Maine & Spokane, WA
I'll be going to Portland (ME) and Spokane here pretty soon and would like
pointers to any good brewpubs or drinking esablishments.
Thanks, y'all.
Jeff
=============================================================
Jeff Mizener / Siemens Energy & Automation / Raleigh NC
jm@sead.siemens.com / Intelligent SwitchGear Systems
=============================================================
PLEASE: Reply to this address and not the one in the header.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 93 11:02:07 PDT
From: Robert Pulliam <Robert_Pulliam@rand.org>
Subject: Indianapolis
Just a short one for those in the Indianapolis area. Any good "don't
miss" watering holes there? Please reply by direct e-mail.
Thanks
Robert J. Pulliam |+|all thoughts, statements, and opinions,|+|
Los Angeles, CA. |+|demented or not, should be my own; and |+|
pulliam@monty.rand.org |+|I'm certainly not associated . . . . . |+|
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1207, 08/19/93
*************************************
-------
