Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #2811
HOMEBREW Digest #2811 Sat 29 August 1998
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Digest Janitor: janitor@hbd.org
Many thanks to the Observer & Eccentric Newspapers of
Livonia, Michigan for sponsoring the Homebrew Digest.
URL: http://www.oeonline.com
Contents:
The Jethro Gump Report ("Rob Moline")
Belgian Strong Ale (BrwrOfBeer)
Correction of Previous Post ("Michael O. Hanson")
Cask Conditioned Ale Conv., Chicago, Oct ("H. Dowda")
scientific brewing (Lou.Heavner)
Sanitation (JGORMAN)
Altbier Hopping (Charley Burns)
alkalinity/time vs temp (Lou.Heavner)
Re: Microwave Sanitation (Mark T A Nesdoly)
reinventing the wheel (Hans_Geittmann)
cider/mead and Andrew Krein (Jebbly)
underpitching baddddd.... (Lou.Heavner)
Faust ("arne seeger")
constant aeration of starter (Mark Bayer)
old bench cappers ("Cameron LiDestri")
Stirring starters... how does this help? ("Riedel, Dave")
Dry Yeast Observations... (Badger Roullett)
MS and Beer.. (Badger Roullett)
RE: & a couple questions (Peter.Perez)
Yeast Viability Over Time (Charley Burns)
Anchor beer and HSA - Eureka! (Herbert Bresler)
smell (Michael Lausin)
Let a good beer be the exclamation point at the end of your day as
every sentence deserves proper punctuation...
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS: hbd.org
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org.
**SUBSCRIBE AND UNSUBSCRIBE REQUESTS MUST BE SENT FROM THE E-MAIL
**ACCOUNT YOU WISH TO HAVE SUBSCRIBED OR UNSUBSCRIBED!!!
IF YOU HAVE SPAM-PROOFED your e-mail address, the autoresponder and
the SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE commands will fail!
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to brewery@hbd.org
Homebrew Digest Information on the Web: http://hbd.org
Requests for back issues will be ignored. Back issues are available via:
Anonymous ftp from...
ftp://hbd.org/pub/hbd/digests
ftp://ftp.stanford.edu/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
AFS users can find it under...
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 00:14:35 -0500
From: "Rob Moline" <brewer@ames.net>
Subject: The Jethro Gump Report
The Jethro Gump Report
>From: "Erik Vanthilt" <vanthilt@inetworld.net>
>Subject: soda pumps
>>a brand new coke pump, made by Shur Flo, of Garden Grove, CA.
>It appears to be a set of 3 gas "powered" pumps each with 3 fittings,
>one for gas in, liquid in, and liquid out.
Commonly used for "Bag in Box" post mix soda setups, these are designed
to pump syrup to the blender, either the 'cobra' head handheld dispenser, or
a 'banked' set dispenser...The 'Liquid in' is attached to the syrup bag, the
'liquid out' is attached to the product delivery line....the 'gas in' is
attached to the power source for these pumps, and that can be either CO2 or
compressed air. If you look closely, you will also see an unmarked vent for
gas out.
Essentially, it is a piston that moves back and forth, subject to a
valved switch that allows the piston to reverse direction, @ the completion
of each stroke in a cylinder.
These pumps are quite often used in the brew pub environment to pump
product (beer) from a cellar to an upstairs bar faucet, as a beer may be
carbed to desired levels, and thence pumped upstairs to the faucet without
relying on a higher pressure of CO2 to overcome the distance between the
serving vessel and the faucet.
The other alternative to the use of these pumps to overcome the 'head'
between the server and the faucet is the use of a nitrogen blend @ a higher
than normal pressure to get the beer up to the faucet, with out over
carbonating the beer.
I would not use them for pumping hot wort.
>From: "Robert C. Sprecher, M.D." <rcs8@en.com>
>Subject: The truth about American Beers
>Actual quote from a patient's medical chart:
>"The catheter was draining urine the color of American beer"
>'nuf said.
>Robert C. Sprecher, M.D.
>Pediatric Otolaryngology
>Rainbow Babies and Childrens Hospital
>Case Western Reserve University
>Cleveland, Ohio
In a pediatric unit, no less!
>From: Dean Fikar <dfikar@flash.net>
>Subject: Filter ratings for air injection into wort
>SNIP>when I came across a one micron filter that would be easy to
>splice between the pump and the wort. The device is designed to filter
>CO2 which is injected directly into human arteries ("CO2 angiography").
With access to the medical world, seek out "Transducer Protectors." See
your favorite perfusionist, dialysis or ICU nurse. The device you mention
should be fine as well, and in fact, might be a "TP."
>From: Alan Monaghan <AlanM@GardnerWeb.com>
>Subject: Visit to Chicago
My experience with Chicago BP's is very limited, but don't miss Goose
Island....or a bar called the Map Room.
>From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
>Subject: rehydrating Dry yeast
I recommend rehydrating a 5 of 7 gm sachet of dry yeast in a cup of 100F
h20, let sit for 10/60, then add a similar amount of chilled wort for 10/60
before pitching
>From: "Spies, James" <Spies@dhcd.state.md.us>
>Subject: Kick starting Big 10
>Initially, I pitched ~4.5 gallons of BW wort (OG 1.116) onto a sizable
>Edme ale yeast cake from a previous batch of 1.041 American amber ale.
>It fermented furiously for about a week (interim SG 1.058), and finally
>trickled to a halt about a month later at 1.050, where it stopped dead.
>I racked off of the yeast into a sanitized carboy, and pitched 3 packets
>of rehydrated champagne yeast. Nothing has happened at all.
IMHO, you have reached the end of the trail, mate. A 'rough' calc shows
you @ 9.12 ABV, which, without further detailed analysis of your malt
specifics, and yeast attenuation details, (which I don't have time to
tackle, maybe some of the more scientific brewers can and would) ain't bad ,
considering you started @ 29 Plato, and are now @ 12.5P.
Yes, there are all kinds of 'stuff' you could do to further ferment this
brew, including the use of enzyme additions, but @ this point, if it were my
beer, I wouldn't bother.
BTW, the use of the EC-1118 champagne yeast only gave me an additional
.25 ABV over what was provided by the Nottingham. Was it worth it? Perhaps
not, but that detail was provided for the 10/20 for the sake of accuracy in
regards to the original brew.
>From: Regan Pallandi <esb@wr.com.au>
>Subject: drifine
>I recently was given a bag of something called "Drifine" dry instant
>finings manufactured by James Vickers of the UK. There is no other
>information on the pack as to what it is, or how much to use. Does anyone
>know what this stuff is?
Hey, Regan!
DriFine is the high end of the isinglass products from Vickers and
distributed by Gusmer in the US. It is a wonderful product, though quite
dear to buy. In the state's it goes for 72 $ /lb in singles, and 55$ /lb if
you buy 5 lbs @ a time.
Preparation is as follows, manufacturer recommended; Blend @ high speed
for 2/60 in h2o below 60F, then place in cold room, or fridge for
20/60.....blend again for 2/60, then add to brew in secondary, ensuring
adequate mixing and dispersal. (Paraphrased.)
I learned of this product from Russ Levit of the Bloomington Brewery
years ago, and have followed, and even extended his recommendation, with
good effect, that is to add a third blending step. I have on occasion
prepared this product a day in advance, and found added benefits, from
multiple blend and chill steps.
In 7 US BBLs, I found that 6 teaspoons in about 3/4 gallon h20 in the
secondary, and a similar amount in serving worked great. I also added the
same amount of gelatine, (commercial Jello) to conditioning, where the beer
would sit for a minimum of 7 days. Then after a slow carb of a day or two in
the serving tank, the product would be brilliant.
@ CABCO, we use a gram or 2 in our cask ales, 15.5 US Gallons with good
effect.
I call DriFine "Filter In a Bag." It's a killer product, and I love it!
HSA....
That it exists is certain, and that a brewer's knowledge of it can be
beneficial to him is also.
In my practice, I follow the advice of those whose advice I respect, and
that is, "Reduce O2 pickup @ packaging as your prime goal, then apply the
same principle to all preceeding events in a brews life. Work backwards to
eliminate O2."
Jack's pump.....
Try throttling down the output with a butterfly or a ball valve.....
Cheers!
Jethro Gump
"The More I Know About Beer, The More I Realize I Need To Know More About
Beer!"
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:12:09 EDT
From: BrwrOfBeer@aol.com
Subject: Belgian Strong Ale
I am looking for help in brewing a Belgian Strong Ale.
Need advice on ingrediants.
e-mail ok
Thanks
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 07:55:50 -0700
From: "Michael O. Hanson" <mhanson@winternet.com>
Subject: Correction of Previous Post
I believe I indicated that I use 2 c. corn sugar at bottling to bottle
condition beer in a previous post. I should have said or c. corn
sugar.
Mike Hanson
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:50:41 -0400
From: "H. Dowda" <hdowda@scsn.net>
Subject: Cask Conditioned Ale Conv., Chicago, Oct
Anyone ever done this meeting? Is it worth while?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:58:35 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: scientific brewing
Jim Liddil writes:
>>Granted some of their stuff is valid but Ramirez, based on his CV
>>is not a brewing scientist. he is into modeling and process
>>control.
You know the diff between a scientist and an engineer, dontcha?
Put a drop dead gorgeous scantily clad babe in the end zone. Put a
scientist and an engineer on the 50 yard line (midfield for you
non-American footballers) and tell them they can make as many moves as
they want, but they may never move any more than halfway to the
goalline. The scientist gives up because he knows he will never get
there. The engineer moves double time because he knows he can get
close enough for all practical purposes. ;)
BTW, that wouldn't be Fred Ramirez of CU in boulder, would it?
now back to brewing...
Lou Heavner - Chem eng busy modelling, process controlling, and
brewing without a fully automated RIMS in Austin, TX
------------------------------
Date: 28 Aug 1998 10:18:58 -0400
From: JGORMAN@steelcase.com
Subject: Sanitation
I have heard that if you dilute bleach and iodine enough you can use it as a
no rinse sanitizer. Is this true and what are the concentrations?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 98 08:17 PDT
From: caburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: Altbier Hopping
>From the current BJCP style guidelines:
8. Altbier
A. Dusseldorfer
A copper to dark brown German ale, superficially similar to a
British pale ale. Distinctiveness derived from the use of German
malts, hops, and yeasts and a period of cold conditioning that
yields a cleaner palate, less fruitiness, less yeastiness, and less
acidity than a classic British ale.The classic brewpub versions of
altbier are coppery brown, very clear, squeaky clean, and are
assertively bitter in the flavor with very little aroma in the nose,
hop or otherwise. They also tend to have a grainy, even harsh or
astringent malt flavor.
Commercial Examples (available only in Dusseldorf): Zum Uerige, Zum
Schlussel; Im Fuchschen (sparsely imported to USA).
B. Northern German
Similar in appearance but lighter in character and less bitter than
Dusseldorf altbiers, though bitterness is still in the medium range.
Most alts produced outside of Dusseldorf are of this style.
Commercial Examples: DAB Dark, Hannen Alt (Germany); Alaskan
Amber, Widmer Alt (USA).
It would seem that either late kettle additions or dry hopping would put a
beer "out of character" per this description.
My 2nd place Altbier (wasn't bitter enough) at World Cup was all
Tettenanger, schedule was 60 minute and 30 minute additions (none late). I
haven't read the book or the article, just brewing based on style guideline.
BTW-I've had the Alaskan Amber and it is one delicious beer. I got it fresh
on tap in the Seattle Airport last year (mmmmmmm yummy). Definitely not
bitter enough to be Dusseldorfer.
Charley (with great memories of seattle) in N.Cal
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:02:46 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: alkalinity/time vs temp
AJ writes:
>>For Nathan Kanous: Bicarbonate is easily calculated from alkalinity
>>provided that the pH is less than 8.7 or so. Simply divide the
>>alkalinity by 50 ( this assumes that it is in units of "ppm as
CaCO3")
>>and then multiply by 61. Example: Water with pH 7 and reported
>>alkalinity of 80 has a bicarbonate content of 61*80/50 = 87.6 mg/L
I know there is some physical significance to both the 50 and the 61.
However, if you are not going to explain them, it might be easier to
just say "multiply the alkalinity by 1.22."
also...
A few days earlier Geo DePiro presented a fine list of factors which
will affect your beer and he even prioritized them. One thing the
other Geo (Fix) 'splained at the last Bluebonnet was how important
temperature is on beer stability. It goes downhill faster when it is
kept warmer. This seems theoretically plausible and while I have not
performed any rigorous or statistically significant experiments to
determine this, I have anecdotal experience which provides
confirmation to some reasonable if indeterminate level of confidence.
My question is for George DePiro, where would you keeping finished
beer refrigerated in your list. It is a big issue for me, because I
have limited refrigeration space and room temperature here is over 72
DegF for 10 months out of the year and over 75 DegF for at least 4
months. It would be less of a problem, if I consumed my beer within
3-4 weeks, I suppose, but I often keep some around for 6-10 weeks.
Cheers!
Lou - Austin
------------------------------
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by mail.usask.ca
From: Mark T A Nesdoly <mtn290@mail.usask.ca>
Subject: Re: Microwave Sanitation
There still seems to be some confusion over the suitability of microwave
ovens for sanitation/sterilization for brewing. Here's everything you ever
wanted to know (probably much more) about microwave ovens. Hopefully this
will clear some things up.
[brewer mode off]
[engineer mode on]
Microwave ovens operate on the principle of resonant transfer of energy to
water molecules which then sympathetically oscillate (vibrate), thus heating
both the molecules and whatever they may be in or around (the food). The
food isn't heated directly; the water is. The food heating is a secondary
effect and requires the presence of water to work.
Water has many resonant frequencies because of its rather complicated
molecular shape:
O
/ \
H H
The structure can therefore "vibrate" in many different ways, and each will
have a characteristic (resonant) frequency. Because of this, some
frequencies will be more strongly absorbed than others. A microwave oven
creates electromagnetic waves at a frequency of 2.45 GHz (one of the
resonant frequencies of water), and these waves are fairly strongly absorbed
by the water molecules inside whatever food is inside the oven. This
absorbing of energy by the water is what produces the heat. Water has other
resonant frequencies (i.e. ~ 24 GHz, ~200 GHz, ~300 GHz), but these are not
suitable for cooking food because water absorbs these frequencies *too*
readily. In other words, if using one of these higher frequencies, you'd
get food with a very thin, very burnt outer crust and a frozen core. The
standard 2.45 GHz used by microwave ovens is therefore a tradeoff between
quick cooking (which favours higher frequencies) and even cooking (which
requires lower frequencies to allow the microwaves to fully penetrate the food).
The wavelength of the microwaves inside the oven are:
wavelength = speed of light/frequency = 3e8m/s / 2.45e9 /s = 12.24 cm (4.82 in)
In order for resonant transfer of energy (cooking) to occur, the object
being cooked must be of sufficient size in relation to the wavelength of the
incident microwaves. I don't know if a single pea would be large enough to
present an adequate "target" for the microwaves (I doubt it), but I do know
that bacteria, wild yeasts, other nasties, etc. are far, *far* too small to
be affected (killed) by microwaves at 2.45 GHz *on their own*. Yes,
bacteria and yeast cells contain water, but the individual bacteria and
yeast cells are too small to absorb electromagnetic waves of that
wavelength. However, if you were to nuke a coffee cup that had some water
in it until the water began to boil, then you could be reasonably sure that
the cup itself had heated up enough to actually kill most of the wee
beasties. Again, this is a secondary effect: the microwaves heat the water
(which is a rather large target) which in turn heats the cup which kills the
bacteria resting on the cup. The microwaves themselves do absolutely
*nothing* to the bacteria.
Microwave ovens also have "dead spots" where you'll notice that food doesn't
really heat that fast if placed in a certain location. These nulls are
referred to as modes, and some ovens have turntables or "mode stirrers"
(which are hidden away in the guts of the oven) to try to offset the effect
of these nulls. To get a practical idea of modes in a microwave oven, fill
a pan or a bowl with water. Using your finger, rythmically tap the same
spot on the surface of the water near the edge of the bowl. You should
notice areas of the pan where high waves occur and areas where the surface
of the water doesn't really change height that much (or at all). This is
very similar to what is going on inside the oven: your tapping finger
represents the microwave energy going into the oven cavity, and the water
waves represent the microwaves as they bounce around inside the cavity. The
locations with high waves would be the "hot spots" and the locations with
almost no water height variation would be the "dead spots".
Someone mentioned that they heard that running a microwave oven under "no
load" conditions is bad. Indeed it is. I must qualify what is meant by "no
load". Running the microwave while it is empty would obviously be "no
load", but what about if you were nuking a bunch of beer bottles; perhaps
some brewing utensils? If those bottles were empty and dry and if those
utensils were also dry, that qualifies as no load. Remember that microwave
ovens work by the principle of resonant transfer of energy to water
molecules. It doesn't matter what you put in the oven, if there is no water
present, that's a no load condition.
What happens when you run a microwave oven under no load? Any archers in
the audience? What's the first thing that a friend will do if he/she picks
up one of your bows? That's right, they pull the string back as far as they
can. What happens if you dry fire a bow without an arrow? There's a very
good chance that the bow will break. In other words, it destroys itself.
All of the energy stored in the bow when it is pulled back is transferred to
the arrow. If the arrow is not present, then that energy must go somewhere.
It ends up going back into the bow, and in most cases will destroy it. The
same thing happens with a microwave oven. If no load (water) is present,
then that energy is reflected back into the oven's microwave tube amplifier
and causes excessive heating in that tube. Prolonged use under no load will
eventually burn out the tube.
Whew. That turned out a little longer than I wanted, but I hope that it
cleared up some of the questions. Feel free to email if you are unclear
about anything.
References: Microwave oven frequency and water resonant frequencies
obtained from _Microwave Engineering_ by David M. Pozar.
[engineer mode off]
[brewer mode on]
- -- Mark
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 09:29:11 -0600
From: Hans_Geittmann@notes.seagate.com
Subject: reinventing the wheel
Never trust an army of scientists. In science, just as in any other human
activity, there is definitely a bandwagon, and it takes a high degree of
testicular fortitude to buck the established trend. The world was once
flat, there's nothing smaller than an atom, the continents don't move,
et.c. et.c. et.c.
Now back to the point, I'm not suggesting the current wisdom on pitching
rates is incorrect. In homebrewing, though, there is frequently a trade
off between effort and taste, and where the line is drawn differs for each
and every brewer. Dr. Pivo's experiment would be a great way for
homebrewers to determine *for their own particular tastebuds* if it's worth
the time and effort to prepare a starter that's been stepped up to the
"ideal" cell count. Is it worth the extra $1 for a White Labs that can be
directly pitched? Is it worth stepping that White Labs vial up anyway?
How far should I step up a Wyeast pack? At what point do the returns on my
extra effort diminish? That's what can be learned by experimenting- not so
much fundamental scientific "fact", but how to apply that knowledge in our
own basements, garages, kitchens, or backyards.
For me personally, I pressure can 7 32oz jars of ~1020-1030 wort at a
time to use for starters. It takes me 3 hours start to finish, not intense
labor but I have to keep an eye on it. For 5 gallon bacthes, I usually
step up White Labs vials once. I always step up a wyeast pack at least
once. Do I have any clue how many cells I'm pitching? Nope. I'm doing
what's easy for me. Would it be worth the time and effort to determine how
my pitching rate affects my beer? Probably. Will I do it? Someday.
Sooner if an army of scientists tells me not to.
Hans
- --
Hans Geittmann
Seagate Technology
Hans_Geittmann@notes.seagate.com
303.684.2115
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:36:20 EDT
From: Jebbly@aol.com
Subject: cider/mead and Andrew Krein
In re Andrew Krein's questions on cider/mead:
a small digression: Although, in the purest sense of the definition, any mix
of cider and honey could be called "cyser," I think what Andrew is asking
about is really just a mead with added cider. My sources (really old
backwoods Vermonters who have been brewing this stuff since before the Dead
Sea was even sick...) advise that cyser has a more equal balance of honey and
cider. Anyways, in response to Andrew's post...
Conditioning...
My experience with cyser is that it will take a long time to peak. It is fun
to sneak little tastes along the way, however. My cyser usually begins to
flavor after about a year of conditioning. After two, the stuff is great. I
have a batch that is coming up on three years old that just seems to be
getting better. It has developed a wonderful apple aroma and flavor.
I usually take half a batch to prime and bottle; the other half I bottle still
in wine bottles. The still cyser usually-always comes out better than the
carbonated. I don't know why, but guess it may be in the level of the
carbonation. I have found that you don't want to over-carbonate it (priming
comments below). I try to shoot for something like an English Ale type of
carbonation as opposed to the typical (cheap) American level. If you brew a
big enough batch you should try splitting it just to make the comparison. You
may be surprised.
Carbonating...
Again, I have found subtle carbonation to be the best. I usually use about
2/3 cup of corn sugar for a 5 gal batch. I used to use 1 1/4 which created
quite a high level of carbonation and even crested the caps on the bottles.
There are three ways to carbonate: counter-pressure bottling (I won't go
into), priming, bottling while at the end of fermentation.
When priming, make sure the cider/mead/cyser has fermented completely. If
using a champagne yeat it will ferment below 1.010. As long as the
fermentation is complete, you won't have to worry about exploding bottles (as
long as you don't over prime). 3/4 to 1 cup of corn suger will do the job.
I have bottled cyser near the end of fermentation. I check the FG and bottle
at around 1.014 or so. Don't prime it, just bottle it. It will continue to
ferment in the bottle. This can be a bit sticky given the type of yeast
you're using.
Misc comments...
I suggest using camden tablets 24 to 36 hours prior to pitching the yeast.
This will kill off any wild yeasts in the cider.
If making cyser, a blend of about 1/2 lb of honey to each gal of cider is a
good start.
Try throwing in a hand full of raisins after the camded has done its work. I
have found that this adds a tanniny (sp?) flavor.
Be patient. It may take years to come around, but it's worth it.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:26:00 -0500
From: Lou.Heavner@frco.com
Subject: underpitching baddddd....
Greetings,
George DePiro and others have emphasized using enough (and you never
have enough) yeast. Another data point comes from the Great HBD Pale
Ale Experiment. I just got back the results from an entry in a
houston area contest. Admittedly I have not entered many beers in
competition before, but the resulting scores were the worst ever. It
was the first time that "vegetal" was ever noted. Now the beer wasn't
too bad and some of the problems were related to the recipe (too dark
from a fair amount of Munich in the grain bill) but many of the
problems were traceable directly to insufficient pitching. I don't
know how others fared, but we were all supposed to use the provided
smack pak without building a starter. Most people reported serious
lags like on the order of 36 hours. Just one more data point.
Cheers!
Lou - consuming lotsa bandwidth in Austin today
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 10:35:08 -0600
From: "arne seeger" <seeger@pdrpip.com>
Subject: Faust
Last year while in St. Louis I found a beer called "Faust", it is a beer
that Busch brewed in the early 1900's(When they still made real beer).
Anyway, the beer is one of their retro lines, and it was only brewed for a
short time. Faust is actually a very, very good beer, and I was wondering
if anyone out their got the chance to try it and came up with a recipe.
Thanks,
Arne Seeger
seeger@pdrpip.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:50:51 -0500
From: Mark Bayer <mbayer@mdc.com>
Subject: constant aeration of starter
collective homebrew conscience:
regarding the recent discussion of making yeast starters with
stir plates etc., let me ask the following questions:
is the main purpose of the stir plate to provide more aeration, or
is there something else valuable about keeping the solution in
motion? is this why jim l has recommended not using an
airlock, so that the headspace of the starter container doesn't
become low air/high co2?
how would yeast grow under the following conditions(?):
grow the culture in a flask with a double drilled stopper. in one
hole of the stopper is an airlock. in the other hole is a tube
extending to near the bottom of the flask with an airstone on the
end. this tube provides filtered air from a sterile filter/aquarium
pump setup.
i have seen dave miller recommend using some sort of carbon
filter to get rid of the "rubber" smell that comes out of an
aquarium pump. can anybody verify this necessity?
brew hard,
mark bayer
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 13:57:55 -0400
From: "Cameron LiDestri" <cameronl@wshu.org>
Subject: old bench cappers
I've run into several old bench cappers (why would anyone want to cap a
bench, anyway?) at flea markets for $5-$10. Are these any good or have
there been changes to cap sizes over the years? Will these old cappers
work on today's bottles?
-Cameron LiDestri
Grandemadaca Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:03:09 -0700
From: "Riedel, Dave" <RiedelD@PAC.DFO-MPO.GC.CA>
Subject: Stirring starters... how does this help?
In HBD #2807, Hugh Hoover asked:
"Stir plates. There are repeated assertions that they increase
the available O2, which increases the health & growth of the yeast.
Ok, but riddle me this... After fermentation starts, and a CO2
blanket covers the yeast, how does the stirring improve oxygenation?
There's obviously a period when there's little CO2 production, and
this should result in near continuous aeration of the wort. Is that
long enough to really produce the acclaimed result, or are there
other factors?"
So far as I've noticed, no-one responded. I'd like to know what the
consensus is on this, as I like the idea of the stir-plate as a cost
effective and simple alternative to direct oxygenation of starters. Does
the agitation encourage yeast growth? By stirring the wort, you
should create enough disturbance in the vessel to disrupt the C02
blanket, but I would think this only applies until the point at which
the C02 has forced all of the air out of the fermenter.
No takers on this question? Steve? AJ? Mort?
Dave Riedel, Victoria, BC, Canada
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:36:17 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: Dry Yeast Observations...
I recently made a 10 gallon batch of an Amber Wheat (recipe at the bottom
for completeness...) and have some interesting observations I would like to
share.. and get feedback on...
When I split the batch into 2 carboys, I pitched a different yeast into each
one to do a side by side comparison of tastes. I aerated by running the
tube from my kettle (15.5 golden gate converted with choreboy strainer) to
the top of the carboy, and let it pour to the bottom. lots of foam, and
bubbles. looked pretty aerated to me, at least better than I used to do.
the two yeast used were 1 pk Lallemand Nottingham for 5 gallons, 1 pk
Whitlab Australian Ale Yeast for the other 5 .
(note: when I rehydrated, it sat longer than the 15 minutes recommended by
manufacture. no one has replied to that question yet as to what happens
when you do...)
Observations:
Nottingham - Took off almost immediately. Lotsa krausen, pushed out the of
the blow off tube, and I lost about and inch of liquid from the carboy.
Color changed from the darkish brown to a much lighter brown. after two
days of intense activity, its down to 1 bubble every 5-10 seconds.
Australian Ale - Dud. nothing happened. a little bit of bubbly action in
the carboy, but not much. after a day and a half, I got concerned, and
pitched a packet (rehydrated 15 minutes) of Whitlabs Whitbread Ale yeast.
(it was all I had in the fridge..) to get that fermentation going so I
didn't get any infections.. the next day, it starts a bit of activity,
enough to show that it was working. the next day, some more activity, some
foam on top of the carboy, no blow off looking likely. so I switched the
tubes for airlocks. This morning, my airlock is full of foam, and its
almost pushed it off the neck. its krausening madly now, nowhere near as
active as Nottingham, but active. I switched back to a tube this morning.
Color is lightening up to match the other one.
Questions:
1) Why the slow start? is that a characteristic of Australian Ale yeast?
any one have observations about this type of yeast? I used this yeast a
while ago when I first started, and I remember great flavor, but I have no
idea if it was the yeast. I also don't remember it starting this slowly.
2) Why does the color change as fermentation occurs? (I can guess it has
something to do with sugars)
3) Why does the package warn against rehydrating more than 15 minutes?
what is the effect on starting fermentation?
4) Is mixing yeast like this Bad? anyone tried this before? Can anyone
hazard a guess to what the differences are in the two yeast's (Whitbread and
Australian ale)
My thanks in advance...
Badger
Ps. here's the recipe I promised..
- ---=== Baroness's Coin Amber Wheat ===---
12 lbs. Amber malt extract Syrup
6 lbs. Wheat extract syrup
1 lb. Crystal 60 LB
1 lb. Flaked Wheat
2 lb. Honey, raw natural unprocessed.
2 oz. Hallertaur Hops 5.3% boiled for 60 min.
4 oz Apricot Extract for 5 gallons (at Bottling/Kegging)
4 oz Lemon or Blackberry for the other 5 gallons (at Bottling/Kegging)
yeast:
1 pk. Lallemand Nottingham for 5 gallons
1 pk. Whitlab Australian Ale Yeast for the other 5 .
***************************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Homepage: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
In the SCA: Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 11:42:49 -0700
From: Badger Roullett <branderr@microsoft.com>
Subject: MS and Beer..
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 10:40:08 -0500
From: rlabor@lsumc.edu (LaBorde, Ronald)
Subject: Three or So Beers
Ronald La Borde said..
"See, even Microsoft can get burnt if it's not careful fooling around with
beer. :>)))"
Well, since i work here at the Evil Empire (which is actually a great place
to work, but thats my opinion :) and i can tell you that Beer figures highly
in our minds..
why in fact there are at least 5 homebrewers on my team alone.. it was a
welcome surprise when i got hired to know that my next office over neighbor,
one down the hall, my boss, and HIS boss were all brewers.. Home!
we have yet to have a brew off, but maybe as we get closer to shipping the
next release.. Hmmmm...
Badger
Aka Brander Roullet, Software Test Engineer, Microsoft Project.
*********************************************
Brander Roullett aka Badger
Brewing Page: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/badgbeer.html
Badgers Brewing Bookstore: http://www.nwlink.com/~badger/brewbook.html
In the SCA:
Lord Frederic Badger of Amberhaven, Innkeeper of the Cat and Cup Inn
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:57:34 -0400
From: Peter.Perez@smed.com
Subject: RE: & a couple questions
>"Wilson, Todd (MCI)" <Todd.W.Wilson@mci.com> writes:
>
> I have 3 kegs hanging off of a 3 way manifold in my fridge. If the
> pressure
> on my co2 is set to 15psi am I getting 15psi to each keg or am I
> getting
> 5psi to each keg?
>
>
> I'm a little behind and I'm sure this has been already answered.
> Unless there is flow induced pressure drop, the pressure will
> eqilibrate to 15 psi everywhere. Reminds me of the purchasing agent
> who ordered 2 heat exchangers rated at 75 PSIG each when the spec
> called for one rated for 150 psig. ;)
Its just like mashing isn't it? Double the temp and you can get it done in
half the time !
Seriously though,
I like Jim Liddil's comments that follow:
>So make all malt starters. Don't use an extract like Alexander that had
>low FAN. Step things up until you have 2 or more liters. cover the flask
>with foil or a sterile cotton plug not an air lock. If you don't have a
>stirrer, then swirl the flask a few times a day. In the morning. when you
>get home and when you go to bed. This helps promote air exchange and
>healthy yeast. let the starter ferment out and let the yeast flocculate.
>Don't add the supernatant to your beer. It would be great to adapt our
>yeast and re pitch like the big guys. But we don't brew 24/7. If I want
I
>can make a starter with various supplements and get 1e9 cells/ml, but this
>is expensive when air is essentially free. Just some simple advice. But
>if you want to use tween 80, ergesterol, yeast extract and YNB then be my
>guest. :-)
>
>Jim Liddil
Just wondering though Jim, Is there an extract that you can recomment with
a high FAN? Or are you saying to not use extract at all? Then what should
you use?
Also, by not adding the supernatant, are you implying to decant off the
spent wort and just pitch the slurry?
Anyone else out there: can most of the pumps that everyone uses handle
transferring hot water? Any recommendations?
Anyone using the EasyMasher made for Gott Cooler's? Curious about your
experiences? Asked Jack S. already, just curious what others have to say.
Not that I didn't like your answers Jack.
Has anyone made a homemade version of Bruheat? I would be interested to
know more!
If you can answer anyone one of these questions, that would be great.
Private email is fine unless you feel it would be better for everyone to
hear.
Thanks,
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 98 13:25 PDT
From: caburns@egusd.k12.ca.us (Charley Burns)
Subject: Yeast Viability Over Time
Searching the archives, I can't find where anyone has done any study to
determine real viability vs death rates of yeast in storage over time. In my
search for an easy method to know how much slurry to pitch, I need to know
what the death rates may be for yeast that is harvested from primary
ferments, washed and stored under distilled boiled water at about 40F
(basement refrigerator).
Has anyone done the research, or similar research that I could glom onto?
Charley (really don't want to count yeast cells) in N. Cal
Question for the day: How many yeast cells can simultaneously fornicate on
the head of a pin? Or is my lack of basic biology knowledge suddenly and
totally apparent?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 17:20:48 -0400
From: Herbert Bresler <bresler.7@osu.edu>
Subject: Anchor beer and HSA - Eureka!
Three things stuck in my memory after my visit to Anchor's brewery:
The first was the care used and the trouble that the brewers went to to use
traditional brewing processes: three vessels, all whole hops, large
fermentation rooms with shallow cool ships, natural carbonation (no added
CO2), etc. Surely, they could cut costs by changing some of their
practices, but they didn't - at least not in those areas.
The second was the fine beer that flowed freely in the tasting room at the
end of the tour. I was surprised how much better the beer was than I
remembered it being from the bottle. I chalked it up to draft vs. bottle,
but maybe there's something else...
The third was the mountain of foam at least two feet high and ten feet
across emerging from the grant during transfer of the hot wort. I was
puzzled why they used such a foam-generating grant. HSA! So much care was
(seemingly) used in the rest of the process. Why not here? I said to
myself, "I guess there really is no reason to avoid HSA."
Some weeks later I bought some Anchor beer at the store, took it home, and
it tasted stale(?). What's going on here? The beer I had at the brewery
was so good. What's the problem?
Then I read Jeremy Bergsman's post in HBD#2810:
[snip]
>Anchor uses a grant which encourages lots of HSA,
>and the fall off in taste quality is incredible.
[snip]
Gestalt! All the recent discussion about HSA clicked. It wasn't apparent
in the fresh product, but it was there in the bottle (in spades!). The HSA
beer from Dr. Pivo's experiment didn't taste bad when it was fresh, either,
but I'm betting that it will taste staler faster than the one made with
less HSA (all other things being equal). I'm sure he'll let us know. In
retrospect, my own experience (not scientifically controlled, but noted in
my log) indicates that the beers that I handled carefully to avoid HSA aged
better; most even improved with age. Those beers made from wort that I
handled less carefully and that I subjected to HSA seemed to age badly.
The take-home message I'm getting is that HSA hastens staling. It doesn't
appear right away, but shows up later, after a moth or so in the keg or
bottle.
So, it matters (for me, at least, and probably for you). I don't drink an
entire batch in a couple of weeks (and probably neither do most
homebrewers). When I go to the fridge and tap one in October, I want it to
be as good as it was in August. So I'll be careful to avoid HSA from now
on.
Good luck and good brewing,
Herb
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1998 19:38:55 -0600
From: Michael Lausin <soscc@cmn.net>
Subject: smell
greetings fellow beer lovers,
i brewed a kit beer on monday, and the yeast that came with it didn't take
off (what else is new). when i didn't see any activity on wednesday i
popped a pack of wyeast american ale II into it. thursday there was a
steady bubbling into my blowoff jug and on friday it's going great guns.
the only thing is that it smells like a bandage. i've never used american
ale II so i don't know what kind of odor it gives off when fermenting.
did i catch a bug due to long lag time or is this smell normal? i hope it's
the latter and not the former. i hate wasting what could be good beer.
tia,
- --------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lausin
Solutions Oriented Systems Computer Consulting
soscc at cmn dot net
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #2811, 08/29/98
*************************************
-------
