Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2316
HOMEBREW Digest #2315 Sat 18 January 1997
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@brew.oeonline.com
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
Re: Simplified version of decoction?
Planar Chillers/ Koelsch yeast (Dave Hinkle)
Re:White labs, p-lambic
Easymasher Question
Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #35
Re: Kettle Mashing (Alex Santic)
University Brewing
Air Filters & AR Brewers
Continuous Fermentation, keg carbonation
Dead & Imperfect Yeast
Re: flaked, rolled, steel cut?
Sixth Annual Moon Madness Competition
re: Caustic Soda
Hose length + Air filters + LM35
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: brew.oeonline.com
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@brew.oeonline.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@brew.oeonline.com BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
you must unsubscribe by sending a one line e-mail to listserv@ua1vm.ua.edu
that says: UNSUB BEER-L
Thanks to Pete Soper, Rob Gardner and all others for making the Homebrew
Digest what it is. Visit the HBD Hall of Fame at:
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/hbd/hallofame.html
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:15:48 -0800
From: "Kevin R. Kane" <deviator@aracnet.com>
Subject: Re: Simplified version of decoction?
Phil Shick Wrote:
>
>
The idea is just to start with a very thick mash and use a
combination
of infusions and decoction to get the malty flavor from a decoction, but
to
avoid prolonged rests that might yield too much protein degradation or
too dry
a finish in the beer. I also hoped to follow George Fix's 50-60-70
mashing
regimen, but without spending all day on a double or triple decoction.
(I had
originally planned to use the 40-60-70 program, but the grist of this
lager
includes enough adjuncts that I thought the 122F rest was needed.)
Dough in
with just 8 quarts of 132F water for 10 lbs of grain, to hit 122F. Rest
15
minutes. At 15 minutes, pull about 1/3 of the thickest part of the mash
(with
a strainer) and remove to the decoction pot. Add 2+ quarts of boiling
water to
the decoction to hit the lower end of the saccharification range
(anywhere in
the 140F+ area), then apply heat to reach 158F and rest 20 minutes.
Meanwhile, about 30 minutes after doughing in, add 3+ qts of boiling
water to
the main mash to hit 140F, then rest until the decoction is ready (which
should
be about 30 minutes.) Boil the decoction vigorously for 20 minutes,
then add
it to the main mash to hit 158F. Rest about 45 minutes (if you're too
lazy
to use iodine tests, like me) or less, then mash out to 168F with direct
heat
or infusion and sparge as usual.
>
>
Phil,
I have tried similar "wanabe" decoctions before, and they seem to come
out just great. One even won a blue ribbon. I was surprised to see
that this concept didn't spark much of a talk. "Real" decoctions are
very difficult (I think) and it would be interesting to see more
suggestions on something simpler.
Kevin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 17 Jan 1997 17:37:46 -0700
From: Dave Hinkle <Dave.Hinkle@aexp.com>
Subject: Planar Chillers/ Koelsch yeast (Dave Hinkle)
Darren Scourfield questions the "planisiral chiller":
>>This means I currently have 2.3 times the amount of tube cooling the
liquid
than I could have with a "super-dooper" planispiral chiller.
Are planispiral chillers 2.3 times more efficient? I doubt it! I think
I'll stick with my old fashioned helical chiller thanks and rock it gently
from side to side.
<<
I've been having some off-line discussions about planar vs. helical immersion
chillers with a few people, and have some comments: In a moving system
(rocking the chiller), a spiral can be equated to a helical chiller with a
radius equal to the mean radius of the spiral (more or less). So if you stir
and/or plan to rock the chiller in the wort, the length of the chiller is the
determining factor, not the shape. But in a stationary system, the helical
coils block the vertical convection currents, so are comparatively less
effective. Also, in the stationary system, the planar chiller needs to be as
close to the surface of the wort as possible. The last observation is that the
height to width ration of the pot may be a factor, i.e. tall, narrow pots do
not seem to work well with a stationary, planar chiller. My theory on this is
that the convection force is only so strong, and looses strength the further it
has to travel. The thickening or layering of the wort caused by trub & hop
debris at the bottom of the pot seems to also present a barrier to the
convection currents, so cooling does not reach the bottom of the pot in all
situations. Whether or not the flow rate has the same effect in both designs
was not discussed. As for helical chillers being "old fashioned", an
engineering paper reference was found by Jim Bentson titled "Spiral
HeatExchanger Heat Transfer Characteristics" in the 1947 Chem. Eng. Prog., so
spiral planar (or "planispiral" as we've seen it called) chillers are not
neccessarily a "new" idea, just relatively new to homebrewers. My advice is if
you're happy standing by the brewpot stiring and/or rocking your immersion
chiller, don't bother trying something different.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heiner Lieth asks about Wyeast Koelsch 2565:
>>When the temperature got down to 55 F the yeast stopped (no more
airlock-action). I was surprised by this since I thought that this yeast
was supposed to be an ale/lager hybird and I figured that that meant it
would be active to temperatures significantly lower than regular ale yeasts.
<<
I'm surprised you got this behavior. I just made batch of Koelsch-style
OG=1.050 with this yeast with a 58F primary for 10 days, and it's been
"lagering" now at 48F for three weeks, yet I still get about one airlock burp
per minute. My finish SG is about 1.011, and all looks OK. I've been told the
main reason to do a cold secondary pseudo-lagering w/ 2565 is to get the yeast
to drop out. My experience seems to support this, as my beer was pretty cloudy
until I dropped the temp in the secondary. It is getting very close to bright,
so I'll bottle it probably this weekend. It's an interesting yeast: in the
primary, I could see thin wisps of pure white yeast streaking down a couple of
inches from the floating surface colony. In the secondary, the yeast is now
settled on the bottom, with an occassonal wisp going UP from the sediment
(bubble surfing, no doubt). Kind of like a lager, so maybe the hybrid
designation isn't as far fetched as it sounds. It is certainly not an ale
yeast for the impatient! Slow and a bit "dusty", but initial taste tests tell
me it is going to be well worth the wait.
Sorry this doesn't help your concerns, Heiner. This is my first time using
this yeast, so perhaps there are others who can better address your specific
problems with this yeast.
Dave Hinkle
Phoenix, AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 18:54:17 -0700
From: Jim Liddil <jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re:White labs, p-lambic
Paul Edwards Wrote:
>
> Date: 17 Jan 1997 08:23:09 -0800
> One of the local HB suppliers is touting a new product - White Labs Yeast.
>
> The info sheet says some things that got me scratching my head, so I
> thought I'd troll for information.
>
> First, the info sheet claims that the vial contains 300-500 billion (yes
> with a "b") cells. Now, it looks to me that the vial has maybe an ounce or
> so of slurry covered with some liquid. I did a little asking around, and
> came up with a density of yeast cells of about 1 million cells per
> microliter of slurry. That would make the volume of 300 billion cells to
> be 300 ml or about _ten_ ounces. My hb supplier says that White Labs uses
> a "slow speed" centrifuge at 1200 g's to compact the yeast w/o injuring it.
> 1200 g's doesn't sound like "slow speed" to me, and I still don't think
> you can get 10 ounces of yeast slurry into a one ounce vial. Or am I all
> wet here?
>
Ok let's do the math. We will round up and say an ounce is equal to 30
milliliters. And so if we divide 300 billion cells by 30 milliliters we
have 10 billion cells per milliliter. A milliliter is equal to 1000
microliters. So let us then divide the 10 billion by 1000. This gives
us (10e10/1000) about 1e8 cells per microliter. This seems awfully high
to me. The number of a million per microliter is more in line with what
I know about. I routinely spin mammalian cells at 800-1000 rpm which is
about 800 g or so so I doubt spinning at 1200Xg is going to give anyone
2 orders of magnitude more cells. Also at that density I would think
the cell pellet would be so dense as to be very difficult to pipet much
less pour out. And if indeed there are as many cells as the supplier
claims then you are also correct in assuming this is way more yeast
thany one needs for 5 gallons of 1040 wort.
Then Dion replies:
>
> Sorry, but I cannot address technical details about cell count.
Nor should you be commenting on issues which are outside your area of
technical expertise. See Below.
>
> PE> Using the widely accepted pitching rate of 5 x 10^6 cells/ml of
> PE> wort for middling gravity ales, if the White Labs vial did indeed
> PE> have 300 x 10^9 cells, then there'd be enough yeast for about 15
> PE> gallons of wort (at 100 percent viability), So, why an 8 hour lag
> PE> time?
>
> Improper oxygenation.
This is an improper response. May I suggest you go back and read the
thread in rec.crafts.brewing that I think was titled "aerator not". As
Tracy pointed out there, as the literature has shown rpeatedly and as
Micahel Gerholdt points out below, if one pitches the right amount of
yeast oxygen is essentially unecessary. I also suggest you go back and
read the long posts Tracy Aquilla that were here in the past. If indeed
the tube has as many cells in it as is claimed then very little oxygen
should be needed. One can conclude that the tube has fewer cells than
calimed either from a labeling error or numerous dead cells.
Then we have this:
> - -- [ From: Michael Gerholdt * EMC.Ver #2.5.02 ] --
>
> Dion Hollenbeck wrote:
>
> >Yes, thanks Keith, pitching adequate quantities of healthy yeast into
> >properly oxygenated wort is probably the best thing one can do to
> >avoid contamination, given that one's sanitation procedures are
> >reasonable already.
>
> I think it would be helpful to make a distinction between the "actual" truth
> and a "practical" truth here.
>
> Actual truth: If you pitch 'adequate quantities of healthy yeast' there is
> no need whatsoever to oxygenate the wort.
>
> Practical truth: A 'work-around' of sorts to pitching adequate quantities of
> healthy yeast is oxygenating the wort, which compensates for inadequate
> amounts of yeast. Since most homebrewers do not pitch adequate quantities of
> healthy yeast, oxygenating is in order.
>
> But I find something mildly oxymoronic about the concept of 'pitching
> adequate quantities of healthy yeast into properly oxygenated wort.'
> Oxygenating becomes necessary because we're pitching *inadequate* quantities
> of yeast. If one pitches adequate amounts of yeast, the 'proper' level of
> oxygenation is either none, or whatever helps a homebrewer relax.
>
> Perhaps I'm picking a nit here, since the practical reality for most of us
> is that it's generally helpful to oxygenate, and it's generally a pain to
> step up the yeast like we really should. But practical truth has a way of
> replacing actual truth in practice, and I'm not quite comfortable with that.
Very well said and *technically* correct.
> From: "Alan P. Van Dyke" <alan@mail.utexas.edu>
> Subject: p-lambic advice
>
> Howdy,
>
> I've been tossing around the idea of making a p-lambic recently, & would
> like some advice.
>
> First, how does the HBD collective feel about WYeast Belgian Lambic? Are
> there any tricks to using it? What temps does it like best?
>
A better place to ask about plambics is the Lambic Digest. I don't have
the address off hand. Also look at the archives You might also go to
The Brewery and look at the plamibc stuff there. Also some of us have
web pages about such beer :-)
I personally prefer to use pure cultures of known origin. I have my own
view of how to make such beers and don't think you should use a mixed
product like Wyeast's
> Second, how long does it usually take to ferment & age a p-lambic?
>
> Third, hops. Some of you may remember that Boston Beer Marketers, er,
> Fourth, & last, when is the best stage to add any fruit, if I decide to?
>
Again check out the LD, the archives and other stuff on the web as well
as the book Lambic by Guinard from Brewer's Publications. Essentially
the answers you want require lengthy discussions imho.
Jim
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jliddil
ghoti=fish. hooked on phonics worked for me
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:09:46 -0700 (MST)
From: Kevin Peters <kpeters@ptd.net>
Subject: Easymasher Question
I recently tried my new Easymasher to mash and sparge a pale ale. The
entire time I ran the sparge I got large bubbles coming out of the spigot
and down the tubing to the boiler. The bubbles were definitely coming
out of the spigot, and not from an air leak between the tubing and
spigot. I can't figure out how I could get bubbles out of the bottom of
a mash for about 45 minutes. Didn't this cause HSA? Any ideas on
how to prevent this next time? TIA for any help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 23:41:23 -0600
From: "Gerald S. Welker" <gswelker@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Homebrew Digest V2 #35
- ------------35B77C715CB00
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Ronald J. La Borde wrote:
>How can anyone sanitize air?.
>I certainly am no biologist, but my overall mental concept of air is
that air may >carry dust, germs, whatever, as particles suspended about
- - but air itself cannot >be unsanitized. It's just the scuzz in the air
we want to remove and we do that >with a filter.
>Now a simple analogy. Some people say they do not filter the air and
their beers >never get infections.
Well, I am a scientist...undergrad in biology, MD, and a surgeon. I
grok sanitation. And air _can_ be sanitized.
Before I tell you how (if you're interested), it is noteworthy that the
pitching of yeast in Belgian abbeys (Duval, Chimay, and the like) where
lambics and trippels are made is accomplished by...opening the windows.
The yeast, in the form of airborne spores, wafts in on the breeze via
the open cellar windows, settling lightly on the wort in open oak vats.
Nice results, too (mmmmm...think I'll go buy some!)
Now for the truly adventurous...Ron is right in principle. _Air_ is
N2O, O2, H2O, and minute amounts of CO2 and noble gasses...the
particulate matter is a contaminant. Just like the coliform bacteria in
tap water, the dust in air contains various and sundry bad actors.
Among famous airborne pathogens: fungal spores (Histoplasmosis,
Actionmyces, Mycobacteria) encapsulated bateria (N. meningitidis, S.
pneumoniae, H. influenza, M. catarrhalis, and many more) dust mites,
and should a strayTo sanitize it, you can do two things...kill the bugs
(gamma irradiation is the most practical, as air is difficult to heat)
or remove them. It's hard to irradiate rooms contiuously (especially if
you put people in them), so when surgery calls for sterile air (most
don't...prosthetic joints are the only routine situation in which this
is necessary), the patient is placed in a positive pressure clean room,
and the operating team wears isolation suits
The suits are comical...they have a plastic face shield like a space
suit, and a recirculating filter which keeps the air in the suit _in_
the suit. Certain..er..bodily functions are rather..persistent, as I
learned the hard way once. For four hours.
- --Scott Welker, homebrewer, MD
Dayton OH
"Don't drink and draw...one Picasso is enough."
______________________________________*_____________*_____________________________
- ------------35B77C715CB00
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
<HTML><BODY>
<DT> </DT>
<DT> Ronald J. La Borde wrote: </DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>>How can anyone sanitize air?.</DT>
<DT>>I certainly am no biologist, but my overall mental concept of air
is that air may >carry dust, germs, whatever, as particles suspended
about - but air itself cannot >be unsanitized. It's just the scuzz
in the air we want to remove and we do that >with a filter.</DT>
<DT>>Now a simple analogy. Some people say they do not filter the air
and their beers >never get infections. </DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>Well, I am a scientist...undergrad in biology, MD, and a surgeon.
I grok sanitation. And air _can_ be sanitized.</DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>Before I tell you how (if you're interested), it is noteworthy that
the pitching of yeast in Belgian abbeys (Duval, Chimay, and the like) where
lambics and trippels are made is accomplished by...opening the windows.
The yeast, in the form of airborne spores, wafts in on the breeze via the
open cellar windows, settling lightly on the wort in open oak vats.
Nice results, too (mmmmm...think I'll go buy some!)</DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>Now for the truly adventurous...Ron is right in principle. _Air_
is N2O, O2, H2O, and minute amounts of CO2 and noble gasses...the particulate
matter is a contaminant. Just like the coliform bacteria in tap water,
the dust in air contains various and sundry bad actors. Among famous
airborne pathogens: fungal spores (<I>Histoplasmosis, Actionmyces</I>,
Mycobacteria) encapsulated bateria (<I>N. meningitidis, S. pneumoniae,
H. influenza, M. catarrhalis</I>, and many more) dust mites, and
should a strayTo sanitize it, you can do two things...kill the bugs (gamma
irradiation is the most practical, as air is difficult to heat) or remove
them. It's hard to irradiate rooms contiuously (especially if you
put people in them), so when surgery calls for sterile air (most don't...prosthetic
joints are the only routine situation in which this is necessary), the
patient is placed in a positive pressure clean room, and the operating
team wears isolation suits </DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>The suits are comical...they have a plastic face shield like a space
suit, and a recirculating filter which keeps the air in the suit _in_ the
suit. Certain..er..bodily functions are rather..persistent, as I
learned the hard way once. For four hours.</DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>--Scott Welker, homebrewer, MD</DT>
<DT>Dayton OH</DT>
<DT> </DT>
<DT>"Don't drink and draw...one Picasso is enough."</DT>
<DT>______________________________________*_____________*_____________________________</DT>
</BODY>
</HTML>
- ------------35B77C715CB00--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 02:56:06 -0500 (EST)
From: Alex Santic <alex@salley.com>
Subject: Re: Kettle Mashing (Alex Santic)
Brander Roullett inquires as to whether he should follow Jack Schmidling's
instructions for kettle mashing to the letter, or whether he can use
temperature programs other than the one described.
The short answer is that all mashing techniques are compatible with kettle
mashing and you can do anything you want. Jack's instructions are very
good, and contain tips which might not be obvious. Some of them are
important. Use Jack's ratio of 1.5 qts of water per lb of grain. It's not
an unreasonably thin mash, but thin enough to stir without undue strain.
You will find yourself doing a fair amount of stirring. Also follow the
sparging instructions, as they work very well with this system.
The mash described is a single-temperature mash commonly used for making
ales with British pale ale malt, and also compatible with a number of
other pale 2-row malts. Jack suggests a 155F rest which is fine. In the
future you could vary the rest temperature anywhere from 149 F to 158 F to
see the effect on fermentability (dryer/thinner to sweeter/fuller). You
can also vary the mash time, and it might be better to go with a longer
one than the 30 minutes suggested (I use 90).
You can implement any multi-temperature program you want by simply adding
heat (while stirring) as required. Bear in mind that your mash will pass
through the temperature ranges relatively slowly as you add heat from the
stove, so the multiple rests may not be as necessary as they would be with
infusion mashing, where the mash temperature is adjusted fairly quickly
with boiling water. I suspect you could substitute Jack's instructions for
the ones you described from the book, but don't worry either way. It'll
work okay.
The descision to go with kettle mashing vs. some other technique is a
matter of individual preference as well as circumstance. Kettle mashing
with an EasyMasher or equivalent is an easy entre that is compatible with
space limitations, but produces results as good as any other system. It is
relatively simple, very efficient, and requires minimal recirculation to
get a clear runoff.
Hope this helps.
- --
Alex Santic - alex@salley.com
Silicon Alley Connections, LLC
527 Third Avenue #419 - NYC 10016 - 212-213-2666 - Fax 212-447-9107
http://www.salley.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 01:08:10 -0800 (PST)
From: REBECCA SUSAN MYERS <rmyers@sfsu.edu>
Subject: University Brewing
I am a student at San Francisco State University
and am trying to set up a Homebrew Club on Campus.
I'm wondering if any of you out there have undertaken
this daunting task with the following agenda.
We are interested in brewing on campus and are in
conversation with the Legal department as to whether
or not they will allow us to do so.
Do you know of any California State Universities which
allow brewing on campus? Do you have experience brewing
on other university campuses? I would be interested
in hearing how your school was able to set up such
endeavors. Perhaps it may assist me in greasing the
rails at SFSU.
TIA!
Becky Myers
rmyers@sfsu.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 10:49:53 +0500
From: Keith Royster <keith.royster@pex.net>
Subject: Air Filters & AR Brewers
Michael Gerholdt <gerholdt@ait.fredonia.edu> writes:
> Perhaps I'm the only reader who felt, upon reading Keith's
> observations on the anal retentive ways of many homebrewers, that
> his comments were unwelcome and unnecessary.
I am enjoying the conversation regarding air filters and anal
retentive (AR) brewing methods in general. I would also like to add
that, although I still don't think my note was *that* harsh, I
apologize if I offended anyone. Actually, I don't even feel as
strongly about filters as it sounded. I purposely skewed the tone
of my note to sound a little opinionated just to stir things up a
little and make for an interesting conversation.
> We're learning, and we each have our own ways, and different things
> are important to different people. If we read or are taught certain
> things that a more experienced brewer has learned aren't really so
> important, and then repeat them, does that make us AR, or just
> novices? Why is Keith so AR about my AR ways?
Nothing is wrong with novices following the advice of more
experienced brewers. But at a some point I expect that you would
stop simply mimicking a method and begin to try to understand the
"whys" of what you are doing. That was the purpose of my post, to
make you stop and ask yourself if an airfilter on your aquarium pump
is really necessary. My original question was:
> The air that you are wanting to pump into your carboy with a fish
> aeration pump is the same freakin' air you were formerly shaking
> into your carboy manually. Why do you suddently feel the need to
> filter it?
Perhaps there is a legitimate answer to this question. Perhaps it is
necessary to filter because the aquarium pump is more efficient than
shaking and you therefore are pushing more air (and contaminants)
through your wort. My experiences with air pumps don't support this,
as I have never had a contaminated batch while using my pump and I
don't filter the air, but still I agree there is room for discussion
here. I will say that I imagine that most bacteria and wild yeast
are not free floating in the air but are riding around on dust,
therefore if you are in a dusty area maybe you do need to filter. I
do raise my pump off the floor just for this reason: to avoid sucking
in a lot of nasty dust off of the garage floor.
All-in-all, I think my main point was generally understood and well
received. 'Tis better to practice reasonable sanitation and pitch an
adequate quantity of yeast than to be so uptight about making
everything that touches your wort as close to sterile as possible.
You will get the same results with less effort, less worry, less
cost, and less time envolved. I use plain water in my air locks, I
use my mouth to start siphons, I don't boil or sanitize every little
thing that touches my wort, I don't use an air filter on my aquarium
air pump. I do use iodophor in my fermenter, racking cane, tubing,
and kegs, and I send boiling water through my CF chiller prior to
use. That's it, and in about 2 years of active brewing I've had one
contaminated batch.
Keith Royster - Keith.Royster@pex.net
The Anti-Anal HomeBrewery
"Pitch well, practice *reasonable* cleanliness, and come brew day forget about
your rubber gloves, HEPA filters, laser beams, etc." ~ Eric Peters, 1/15/97
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 97 11:53:15 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Continuous Fermentation, keg carbonation
Brewsters:
Keith Hazen described a continuous, non-imbibable alcohol producing fermentaion
in the wood pulp industry. Thanks for this info Keith. Any idea why they chose
5 vessels, etc? Is this the black liquor? We'd like to hear more about this.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wilkinson says:
>Dave Burley writes of krausening with 1-2 tbsp. malt extract plus 4 oz.
>corn sugar with yeast from the secondary plus a little of the beer. Why
>not just prime with the corn sugar? I can't see that the small amount of
>malt extract adds anything
I do it to help in the transition of the yeast (from the secondary bottom) from
an alcoholic environment for the yeast ( in the finishing beer) to the corn
sugar. The hopped extract in the starter also provides nutrients for the yeast,
which are not contained in the corn sugar and some bacterial infection
protection from the hopping. My point to Al was that it didn't have a lot of
effect on the carbonation level, as you also noted. Maybe it's like chicken
soup - it can't hurt, but until I understand the reason for not doing it, I will
continue it.
> and the yeast would seem to be unnecessary.
I believe the yeast are necessary here to get a good dependable carbonation in a
short time. Sometimes, I leave my lagers long enough in the secondary that they
are very clear (read low yeast population). Putting in the yeast and seeing it
ferment the starter guarantees me that the yeast is not dormant and that I am
getting enough to do the job. The active yeast in the starter (versus the
dormant yeast in the secondary) deoxygenates the beer ( from the oxygen
incorporated during transfer) virtually instantaneously, preventing oxidation of
the beer and staling reactions at this extremely sensitive point in the beer's
life.
>Also
>. Why prime a keg at all. Forced carbonation should be sufficient and
>undetectable from primed carbonation.
Well, I and a lot of other people believe that natural carbonation produces a
finer bead in the head and a better mouth feel. That's why I do it. It also
keeps the cost of CO2 to practically zip. Carbonation with tank CO2 would cost
about $2 -3 per 5 gallons, based on what I pay for a small cylinder, were I to
fully carbonate a keg with this CO2.
>All that krausening sounds like a lot of effort for nothing in this case.
It is actually MUCH easier than shaking and rolling kegs around, carbonating
over several days, etc. Just add the krausen at kegging time and let it sit for
a week or so and refrigerate until it clears. I don't usually, but if you wish,
add some isinglass to speed up the clarification. I then have to put up with a
few yeasty pints ( which, unless you filter or clarify in the secondary before
you force carbonate, you do too) or filter through a 5 micron filter into
another keg which I do sometimes. I have also put the first 2 -3 liters of
beer in a plastic soda botttle and used the Carbonator(R) to remove the air and
pressurize with CO2, store it in the fridge until it clears.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 18 Jan 97 11:53:12 EST
From: "David R. Burley" <103164.3202@CompuServe.COM>
Subject: Dead & Imperfect Yeast
Brewsters:
Graham Stone had a chat with this local brewer and he told Graham that the yeast in
the secondary was made up of dead and imperfect yeast. He was worried that his
fermentation was too slow.
I sent this note to Graham by e-mail but it was reflected.
Graham,
Thanks for passing on the information from your chat with your local brewer.
The reason the yeasts in the secondary are not producing CO2 and are on the
bottom has to do with the fact that the sugar in the wort is all gone and not the
fact that these are inferior yeasts. Remember this apparent "real ale" type of
brewer isn't going to a secondary, really. His kegs are his secondary.. It's
all these "dead" yeast which carbonate his keg!
I can make a similar argument for the yeast in the head. What are they doing
there trapped in the froth doing nothing to consume the sugar in the wort?
Wouldn't you expect them to have a high mortality rate?
It has been practice for centuries to start a new brew with the yeast removed
from the top, because of availability, I presume. This has resulted in selection
for top fermenting behavior ( it really doesn't ferment on the top it just
flocculates even at high SG and is carried out of solution by the CO2 versus
nearly non-flocculating S. Uvarum at the same SG)) in the S.Cerevisiae. There is
a theory
that the yeast was scraped off the FV by brewery workers(in the old days) to
prevent yeast bite. I think this empirically derived practice results from
removing the yeast before it can become spoiled by bacterial activity and spoil
the beer if it falls back into the beer. The head also traps the bacteria and wild
yeast and keeps it out of
the beer. The yeast content of this head is so overwhelming relative to the
interlopers that the head does not constitute an important source of these in
the next beer, since it is pitched immediately. Unless you pitch in close
succession, I cannot recommend this practice if you use a completely open
fermenter.
In any event, what you are doing is fine if your liter of yeast slurry is really
what we mean by slurry. Slurry of yeast is the thick deposit on the bottom of
your starter after the starter beer has been removed. If that's what you mean
then you are pitching plenty. Check your sugar level ( use Clinitest from Boots
the Chemist) after three days. If it is less than 2% then your fermentation is
just as finished as your local brewer's. He kegs it while it still has sugar in
it and the fermentation finishes at the pub as in olden times - probably taking
at least a week to finish out, carbonating the keg.
Keep on brewin'
Dave Burley
Kinnelon, NJ 07405
103164.3202@compuserve.com
Voice e-mail OK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:32:21 -0500
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst@talon.net>
Subject: Re: flaked, rolled, steel cut?
Flaked and rolled oats are approximately the same thing. The grains are
soaked, rolled and dried. This exposes more surface area allowing them to
be cooked faster. Quick/instant oats are pre-cooked and dried. Steel cut
oats are basically cracked. I'd use rolled or steel cut in the mash. Both
will eventually turn to mush if cooked by themselves.
- --
"If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a
conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston
Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:40:49 -0500
From: "Mark S. Johnston" <msjohnst@talon.net>
Subject: Sixth Annual Moon Madness Competition
The Sixth Annual Moon Madness Homebrew Competition will be held on March
8, 1997, at the Pretzel City Brewing Company/Market House Pub in Reading,
PA. Entries will be accepted starting February 12, 1997, and must be
received by February 26, 1997. Fees are $6.00 for first entry and $5.00
for each additional entry.
BOS wins a complete kegging system courtesy of Brew-Ha-Ha, Ltd. of
Fleetwood, PA. A "Brewer's Choice" award will also be given out by the
PCBC Brewmaster Scott Baver. All AHA 1997 styles of beer, cider, and mead
will be accepted. Some categories may be collapsed. Prizes and ribbons
will be awarded in each category judged.
Judges and Stewards are needed, of course.
Email msjohnst@talon.net for complete details and forms.
- --
"If a man is not a liberal at eighteen, he has no heart. If he is not a
conservative by the time he is thirty, he has no mind." - Winston
Churchill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:25:58 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: re: Caustic Soda
Bramme wanted to know if caustic soda will it react with the
rubber of the o-rings and the plastic of dirty corny kegs.
Cornies with plastic? Mine (Pepsi ball-locks) don't have any. The
disconnects do but I doubt these need such a strong cleaner.
I beleive the o-rings are made of either EPDM or neoprene. The compatabilty
chart in the US Plastics catalog indicates the former is OK and the later is
variable with *concentrated* NaOH. O-rings are so cheap and so prone to
retaining odors, I'd just replace them.
FWIW, I've had very good luck with the softer, slightly larger lid o-ring
sold by Williams Brewing (std. disclaimer). A bit more expensive (at 3.95
$US) than the more widely available ones but they tolerate temp. and
pressure changes and imperfections in the lid to keg joint much better.
c.d. pritchard cdp@chattanooga.net
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 12:25:53 +0700
From: "C.D. Pritchard" <cdp@mail.chattanooga.net>
Subject: Hose length + Air filters + LM35
PgDn now if physical or electronics gives you a headache.
Re: air filters Bob posted:
>... for some reason the submicron syringe filters keep clogging on me.
>Maybe I'll try putting this <a coarse air filter> inline before my
>submicron filter, maybe it'll keep particles from clogging the filter.
The problem may be condensation. The compression of the air in the air pump
heats the air a bit. Between the pump and filter, the air is cooled and
moisture may condense and cause the filter clogging since submicron filters
are reported to be readily clogged by mositure. The closer the air you use
is to the dew point, the worse the condensation will be. An air dryer of
some sort or (if one's not worried about contamination from the air pump)
locating the air filter upstream of the pump may be solutions.
- --------------------
Re: Hose lengths, Al said (in part):
>>The longer the hose, the more pressure will drop *inside* the hose
>>and the smaller the pressure difference will be between the beer
>>AT the faucet and the room air pressure.
Dave posted in response:
> BTW the pressure at the faucet exit IS room pressure
Actually the brew exiting the tap does have pressure above ambient pressure.
It's called velocity pressure. Within the dispensing hose, total pressure
has 2 components- static and velocity pressure. Velocity pressure acts
parallel with the flow while static pressure acts in all directions within
the fluid. At the tap discharge, there's no static pressure since there are
no pipe walls. Energy must be conserved, hence, the total pressure of the
brew within the tap (i.e. immediately upstream of the discharge) is
converted to velocity pressure as the brew exits the tap. Thus
concludes Fluid Dynamics 101, lecture 1.
- --------------------
Ian had questions on using a LM35 for temp. measurement via a 'puter:
>The only LM35's I've seen have 3 legs and are in a plastic package that
>would not work in fluids ?
I have used the plastic packaged LM34s in water with good success-
mechanically, the LM35 is similiar. The meltable core heat shrink tubing
previously suggested is a good idea but it's a bit difficult to find.
Here's what I've done: Solder 28 or so gauge wire to each lead. It's VERY
important to make a good, low resistance connection since resistance will
throw the linearity off. Insulate each lead with heat shrink tubing. Smear
the chip and leads with silicone sealant then shrink a piece of heat shrink
tubing over the thing leaving most of the plastic on the LM34 exposed. I
like to mount sensors in metal tubing for ruggedness and for easy mounting
in piping systems. Here's how: Smear more silicone over the outside and
insert it into a suitably sized piece of tubing (usually 1/4" brass or
copper), fill any voids with more silicone and then gently clean the
business end of excess silicone. Let the silicone cure for a week if
possible and at least one day. Properly mounted, there's so little of the
silicone and plastic exposed that it shouldn't affect the brew.
I used this method for mounting thermistors in my RIMS system- it works well
at ~170 degF and 4+ feet of head.
The "thermal mass" of a plastic LM34 makes it pretty slow to respond to
temp. changes. I reduced this by grinding away alot of the plastic
encapsulating the die within the LM34. It ended up about the size of a
kitchen match head and made it much more responsive. Practice grinding on a
cheap transistor. The die in the LM34s I've ground down are located axially
in line with the device leads.
>Does anyone know how to get a LM34 to talk to a computer board ?
You'll need a analog to digital converter (ADC) and probably an amplifier.
The amplifier is needed to boost the small signal of the LM35 to a usable
range (0-5 volts usually being ideal). Plently of IC op-amps are up to the
task if you're handy with a soldering iron. Lots of companies make ADC
boards. The cheapest are around $100. Another way to skin the cat is to
feed the sensor's voltage to a voltage controller oscillator (VCO) chip then
use a parallel port on the 'puter to count pulses from the VCO. Linearity
is usually lost using this method with less sophisicated VCOs but is still
usable if you do some calibration and fit the frequency and temp.
measurements to a curve/equation which the 'puter can use to calculate the
temp. from the voltage.
A very promising alternative to an ADC board is the new Answer MAN module
from Micromint (www.micromint.com/ I've not connection...). I've not tried
one yet but hope to soon. It has a 4 channel, 8 bit ADC as well as up to 8
digital i/o lines which would be most handy for controlling heaters, pumps
and such on a RIMS. It also directly supports an off-module 12 bit/2
channel ADC chip and a 12 bit/ 2 channel DAC chip. It connects to a 'puter
serial port, however a $2 RS232 or LTC485 driver chip like the nice MAX232
or LTC485 may be needed distances over 2 or 3 feet). All for $49 in a 28
pin DIP package! Looks like it'd be very easy to use to boot.
c.d. pritchard cdp@chattanooga.net
http://caladan.chattanooga.net/~cdp/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2316, 01/18/97
*************************************
-------
