Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #3167
HOMEBREW Digest #3167 Thu 11 November 1999
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:
yeast stuff (pt2) ("Alan Meeker")
Strong Ale Homebrew Competition ("Greg Lorton")
ASBC color, Toasted Grain (Dave Burley)
Anchor Brewing Dates Demystified (Midwest Brewer)
Alternative Systems (Rod Prather)
active oxygen in PBW (Joe Gibbens)
Anchor date code (The Holders)
water woes ("kenandkim")
Winemaking/Brewing (Bob Sheck)
Star San foaming (Sharon/Dan Ritter)
Cold-side aeration (Steve Lacey)
Yeast Energizer: Wow! Unbelievable! What is it? ("Todd W. Roat")
Re: Protein Rest Side Effects (KMacneal)
Aeration-Pitching/Widgets (AJ)
Yeast Starters, oxygen and the like, Part 1 (Dave Burley)
re-winemaking ("Nathaniel P. Lansing")
Yeast starters, oxygen and the like Part 2 (Dave Burley)
Yeast Starters, oxygen and the like, Part 3 (Dave Burley)
Minor rant (Spencer W Thomas)
Anchor code, Yeast and stuff (RCAYOT)
methylene blue (Biergiek)
Unidentified Hop Pest (Dennis Himmeroeder)
Yeasty Boys (Eric.Fouch)
Brewing Poem (John Wilkinson)
Home Malting update (Clifton Moore)
* Beer is our obsession and we're late for therapy!
* The HBD now hosts eight digests related to this and a few other hobbies.
* Send an email note to majordomo@hbd.org with the word "lists" on one
* line, and "help" on another (don't need the quotes) for a listing and
* instructions for use.
Send articles for __publication_only__ to post@hbd.org
If your e-mail account is being deleted, please unsubscribe first!!
To SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE send an e-mail message with the word
"subscribe" or "unsubscribe" to request@hbd.org.
**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!
Contact brewery@hbd.org for information regarding the "Cat's Meow"
Back issues are available via:
HTML from...
http://hbd.org
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
COPYRIGHT for the Digest as a collection is currently held by hbd.org
(Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen). Digests in their entirity CANNOT be
reprinted/reproduced without this entire header section unless
EXPRESS written permission has been obtained from hbd.org. Digests
CANNOT be reprinted or reproduced in any format for redistribution
unless said redistribution is at absolutely NO COST to the consumer.
COPYRIGHT for individual posts within each Digest is held by the
author. Articles cannot be extracted from the Digest and
reprinted/reproduced without the EXPRESS written permission of the
author. The author and HBD must be attributed as author and source in
any such reprint/reproduction. (Note: QUOTING of items originally
appearing in the Digest in a subsequent Digest is exempt from the
above. Home brew clubs NOT associated with organizations having a
commercial interest in beer or brewing may republish articles in their
newsletters and/or websites provided that the author and HBD are
attributed. ASKING first is still a great courtesy...)
JANITORS on duty: Pat Babcock and Karl Lutzen (janitor@hbd.org)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:05:37 -0500
From: "Alan Meeker" <ameeker@welch.jhu.edu>
Subject: yeast stuff (pt2)
yeast post part 2
> ----------------------------------------------
> ORGANIC AND FATTY ACIDS::
>
> "The release of medium and long-chain fatty acids during fermentation is
> probably associated with some loss of yeast viability and subsequent cell
> lysis. This may also occur during the conditioning phase."
>
> "The concentration of fatty acids formed as a result of yeast metabolism
is
> inversely related to fermentation rate. Thus, those parameters that
increase
> fermentation rate, such as elevated temperature and pitching rate, result
in
> decreased accumulation of fatty acids. However the provision of oxygen
would
> appear to be of overriding importance. High concentrations favor yeast
> growth, with a concomitant requirement for increased synthesis of membrane
> lipids. This depletes the acetyl-CoA pool such that less is available for
> the formation of medium-chain fatty acids."
>
> "Pyruvate is secreted into the wort during the phase of active
> fermentation...in later stages, when yeast cell growth has ceased, it was
> re-utilized and the accumulation of acetate occurred."
>
> ESTERS:
>
> "Conditions that prolonged the period of active growth, and consequently
> lipid synthesis, such as continued low levels of aeration, reduced ester
> synthesis."
>
> "The total quantities of esters produced during fermentation are
influenced
> by the wort gravity , the availability of oxygen, and the temperature."
>
> "An increase in the concentration of oxygen supplied to the wort at the
> start of fermentation is associated with a progressive decline in the
ester
> content of the resultant beer. It is assumed that since increased oxygen
> availability promotes greater yeast growth more of the acetyl-CoA pool is
> utilized in biosynthetic reactions, thereby restricting that available for
> ester synthesis."
>
> HIGHER ALCOHOLS:
>
> "Regulation of the biosynthesis of higher alcohols is complex since they
may
> be produced as by-products of amino acid catabolism or via pyruvate
derived
> from carbohydrate metabolism."
>
> "The total concentration of higher alcohols produced during fermentation
is
> linearly related to the extent of yeast growth."
>
> CARBONYLS:
>
> "Acetaldehyde accumulates during the period of active growth. Levels
usually
> decline in the stationary phase of growth late in fermentation.beer are
not
> associated "
>
> "As with the higher alcohols and esters, the extent of acetaldehyde
> accumulation is determined by the yeast strain and the conditions of the
> fermentation. Geiger and Piendel reported that the yeast strain was of
> primary importance. However, elevated wort oxygen, pitching rate, and
> temperature all favored acetaldehyde accumulation."
>
> "...peak diacetyl concentration occurs towards the end of the period of
> active growth. The reduction of diacetyl takes place in the later stages
of
> fermentation when growth has ceased. The concentration of diacetyl present
> in fermenting wort is a function of the rate of formation of alpha
> acetolactate precursor... these reactions are influenced by the yeast
> strain, ...wort composition, the type of fermentation vessel used and the
> fermentation conditions. These complex interactions have been studied
> extensively, frequently producing conflicting results."
>
> SULFUR COMPOUNDS
>
> "The majority of sulphur compounds present in beer are not associated
with
> fermentation but are derived from the raw materials used.
> However, the concentrations of hydrogen sulfide and sulphur dioxide are
> dependent on yeast activity...primarily determined by the yeast strain
used.
> ....peak of hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide production occurs in the
> second or third day of fermentation. Presumably at this time the
> sulfur-containing amino acids in the wort have been utilized."
>
> "The formation of excessive levels of hydrogen sulfide during fermentation
> is therefore associated with conditions that restrict yeast growth. In
this
> regard, the provision of adequate oxygen at the time of pitching is a
> critical factor."
> -----------------------------------------------
> This post is getting a bit long so I'll finish up here. Overall, it looks
to
> me that there is support in the literature for both direct as well as
> inverse relationships between some of the more notorious flavor-active
> compounds and actual growth of the yeast during fermentation. Also, there
> appear to be /many/ confounding variables, not the least of which include
> wort amino acid profiles and concentrations, amount of dissolved oxygen in
> the wort, yeast health, the particular yeast strain being used,
fermentation
> temperature, etc.
>
> -Alan Meeker
> Baltimore MD
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:17:29 -0800
From: "Greg Lorton" <glorton@cts.com>
Subject: Strong Ale Homebrew Competition
Tyce Heldenbrand, organizer of the Strong Ale Homebrew Competition in San
Diego, sends the following message...
Reminder - The Strong Ale Homebrew Competition (SAHC) will be held on
Saturday, November 27th. Entry fees are $5.00 entry and the entries are due
between now and Friday, November 19th. All beers should be brewed with an
original gravity of 1.080 or higher. Please ship or hand deliver all
entries to:
SAHC
c/o Del Mar Stuft Pizza
12840 Carmel Country Rd.
San Diego, CA 92130
There are 7 categories for the SAHC and they are listed at this website
http://www.stuftpizzafran.com/sahc%20styles%20up.html
To register online go to this website:
http://www.softbrew.com/sahc/entry.html
If you are interested in judging at this event, you can register online at:
http://www.softbrew.com/sahc/judge.html
The awards ceremony will take place at the Strong Ale Festival at the Pizza
Port in Carlsbad, CA on Saturday, December 4th approximately around 7:00
p.m.
Any questions can be emailed to tyce.heldenbrand@wfinet.com
Tyce Heldenbrand, Organizer
Oceanside, CA
Cheers,
Greg Lorton, Competition Minion
Carlsbad, CA
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:21:20 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: ASBC color, Toasted Grain
Brewsters:
AJ says that the color measurements on a
Caramel No.300 couldn't have followed the
ASBC method exactly. Surely the method
prescribes the measurement using dilution
to stay within the good performance
instrumental contraints? Like maybe an
Absorbance in the range of 0.1 to 0.5 or something.
- ------------------------------------------
Maria Wehrbach asks about toasting grain.
Malt is toasted <before> crushing, normally.
Temperatures. There is no single temperature
as it depends on what you intend to make.
I use the following with pale or pale ale malt:
Crystal Malt - soak in cold water overnight,
Put it in a deep cookie sheet or similar and
cover with aluminum foil. Raise the
temperature to150- 160F for 11/2 - 2 hour and
then to 250F , uncovered, for up to 1/2 hour
with frequent color checks. Cool grain should
be crispy caramel and translucent reddish.
Crush it and compare with a commercial
product.
Munich and Vienna
Cure the lager malt at 212-225 for three hours in
the oven. Lighter lower T is Vienna style, higher
T and longer time is Munich style. I don't know
if these will have much in the way of enzymes
but should be used as adjuncts - that is with
pale malts which contain enzymes..
If you want to toast grains like barley
375F for 1/2 hour and 425F for 1/2 hour.
If you want to roast barley, 375F for
1/2 hour and then to 450F. When 10%
of the grains are very dark, this is time.
Be careful when you remove the pan
from the oven, as they will be smoking and
can ignite spontaneously. Douse the
grains immediately with water to
stop the smoke. Use within a week.
If you want more styles let me know.
- --------------------------------------------
Rod Prather calls me curmudgenly
( with his tongue in his cheek, I hope!)
for reminding readers that a carboy is not
the preferred device to carry out a primary
fermentation, IMHO. Perhaps we should
rename this method, as "open" fermenters
imply that the wort is exposed to the air.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The plastic sheet forms an airtight seal
and as the CO2 is released from the
fermentation the sheet bulges up and
excess CO2 escapes around the edges
once the pressure reaches a certain level,
controlled by the rubber bands' tightness.
As far as requiring a nice clean fermentation
area or not, the plastic sheet covered plastic
fermenter is far superior to a carboy in this
regard, since you are fermenting under a slight
CO2 pressure. This is the best condition to keep
undesirables out, as those who work in industry
know, a positive pressure is always used to
avoid contamination from dirt ( electronics)
or infectious bugs ( like Ebola pressure suits).
And as I mentioned, the ease of cleaning vs
a carboy with its bathtub ring and gunky hoses
( especially removing all that microbe hiding
gunk ) is far superior. And if you have a
runaway fermentation from the yeast,
temperature or OG there is no need for fancy foam
depressors, since the plastic sheet will do that
automatically with no mess whether you're there
or not. As the fermentation slows, no air is drawn
in or can diffuse back as the sheet just collapses,
but is still tightly held and the CO2 atmosphere
is mantained in the fermenter.
Maybe we should call it "low CO2 pressurized
fermentations" which is more to the point.
Curmudgenly? I think not! Well-intentioned?
Yes
- -----------------------------
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:48:03 -0600
From: Midwest Brewer <mgeorge@bridge.com>
Subject: Anchor Brewing Dates Demystified
Here is what I have found about Anchor Brewing's date scheme:
Anchor Brewing uses a complex coded three-character bottling date. The
first number is the last digit of the year. The next
letter is the month and the last character is the day. The months
are coded:
J = Jan, F = Feb, M = Mar, A = Apr, Y = May, U = Jun L = Jul,
G = Aug, S = Sep, O = Oct, N = Nov, D = Dec
The days 1-26 are coded A-Z while days 27-31 are coded with the
last digit of the day. Thus 9AJ was bottled on April 10,
1999.
MWB
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 07:10:41 -0500
From: Rod Prather <rodpr@iquest.net>
Subject: Alternative Systems
The SS 55 gallon drum system is curious to me. I don't think I can
comment. Who knows, it might just work. Never know.
I have also seen the three tiered "Sculpture" type brew systems. I
see no reason why the system with the Peak stand, the Peak burner
shelf, the Peak gas line and the Peak water system wouldn't work.
With the height of these towersI do believe they should add the Peak
Step Ladder to their list of available items. Looks to be difficult
to access.
- --
Rod Prather
Indianapolis, Indiana
and Jeff Renner isn't the center of the Universe
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 18:28:24 -0600
From: Joe Gibbens <jgibbens@umr.edu>
Subject: active oxygen in PBW
Hi,
Do any of the chemists out there know what the chemical compound
responsible for the active oxygen in PBW is?
Joe Gibbens
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 17:41:30 -0800
From: The Holders <zymie@sprynet.com>
Subject: Anchor date code
I forget where I got this, but its the same thing they tell you at the
brewery.
* How to read the Anchor date code:
First digit: last digit of the year
Second digit: the first previously unused letter of the name of the
month, i.e. J=jan, F=Feb, M=March, A=Apr, Y=May because M and A are
already used.
Third digit: The day, A-Z=1-26, 7=27, 8=28, 9=29, 3=30 (oh looks like
zero), 1=31
Is that confusing enough?
Wayne Holder AKA Zymie
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:57:24 -0500
From: "kenandkim" <kenandkim1@prodigy.net>
Subject: water woes
HBD water wizards-
Recently moved from Virginia where I had some of the finest brewing
water one could wish for to New Hampshire where I now have a much wider of
brewpubs to visit (Hooray!) but brew water that is lousy with sulfury,
rotten eggy, (or should I say Hydrogen Sulfide enriched) smells and from
what I've been told, a good bit of iron. The questions is, can I somehow
brew with it. From experience I know that whatever is in your water is in
your beer and if your water tastes pretty good, chances are it will make a
decent beer. Suffice to say I haven't had a glass of the stuff yet (the
water). I've got a carbon whole house filter and a counter top carbon filter
and the water still comes out with a touch of the sulfur smell. Any chance
for a brewable water here? I have not gotten a water analysis yet, but the
fine print isn't so important to me while I've got this bigger problem. TIA
for any and all advice from those more water wise than myself.
P.S. Shared knowledge and/or experience from local live free or diers will
earn you a bottle of barleywine!
Ken in Epping NH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:17:33 -0500
From: Bob Sheck <bsheck@skantech.net>
Subject: Winemaking/Brewing
> Curt Speaker (Speaker@Safety-1.safety.psu.edu) writes:
> I wonder why there is such a division between wine
> and beer. Very few people make both and yet they are
> closely related.
I make both- although I don't like tying up a carboy for
the 6-12 months for my wines. Still, I prefer drinking
beer, so that's what I make the most of. Some of my friends
enjoy wine, and I make it for gifts, mainly. As a craft, I
will try fermenting anything!
Bob Sheck
bsheck, me-sheck, abednigo! Greenville, NC
email:bsheck@skantech.net or see us at:
http://www.skantech.net/bsheck/
(252)830-1833
- -------------
"Madness takes its toll -- Please have exact change!"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:18:32 -0700
From: Sharon/Dan Ritter <ritter@bitterroot.net>
Subject: Star San foaming
I just tried Star San as a sanitizer for the first time. I have been using
Iodophor for as long as I can remember but, because I don't want to dump
any sanitizer into my septic system, I have been dumping the used Iodophor
on my driveway or in the field below my house. Star San is billed as being
more environmentally benign so I decided to try it. What's with all the
foam? It's like sanitzing in bubble bath! Has anyone been using this
sanitizer successfully without all that foam? Or should I just ignore the
bubbles clinging to the inside of my vessels after I pull them out of the
Star San?
Dan Ritter <ritter@bitterroot.net>
Ritter's MAMMOTH Brewery - Hamilton, Montana
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:44:10 +1100
From: Steve Lacey <stevel@sf.nsw.gov.au>
Subject: Cold-side aeration
Miguel de Salas at UTas replied to a thread on aeration:
>In 5 years brewing, 3 of which have been all grain and I also grow my own
>hops, I have never once gone to any greater lengths aerating my beer than
>to pour the water from a height or give it a good swirl with a long,
>plastic spoon.
Just to add substance to murmurs of a possible antipodean conspiracy, I wish
to side with my twelve-fingered friend (just kidding Miguel, I know you
weren't born down there). I am very happy with the lag times and finished
product I get from splashy splashy wort transfer or frantic spoon waggling.
Just what is this north American obsession with airstones, oxygen tanks and
hours and hours of bubble, bubble toil and trouble? Give it a rest. The beer
will taste just as good and eventually even the callouses will go away.
Steve Lacey
Brewin' under-aerated, under-pitched delicious ales and lagers in the City
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 07:04:13 -0500
From: "Todd W. Roat" <emcreg@one.net>
Subject: Yeast Energizer: Wow! Unbelievable! What is it?
Had a stuck batch of scotch ale. Yes, really stuck: no temp fluctuations,
low attenuation, 3 consecutive daily reading no change in gravity - stuck at
1.033 down from 1.050.
Anyway, threw in some Carlson yeast energizer and within 12 hours I have
this ungodly, ferocious fermentation going. Huge, foamy, knarly head blowing
handfuls out the blowoff tube. WAY, WAY better than the original
fermentation was (the original with WYeast 1056 was gentle, subtle ferment:
just a 1/2 inch of foam, steady quiet bubbling).
Im afraid to get near this new "energized" ferment - I think it growled at
me last time I approached it to take a look ;^)
Anyway, enough ranting. Im just so thrilled. My questions is "Why not use
this in every batch if it helped that much!"
Todd
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 07:13:55 EST
From: KMacneal@aol.com
Subject: Re: Protein Rest Side Effects
In a message dated 11/10/1999 12:19:50 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jdickins@usit.net writes:
<< I've got a question about mashing a wheat beer. I want to do a decoction
to get
the benefits from it, but I don't like the side effects that come with
the long
protein rest @ 50C. >>
What are the side effects that come with "the long protein rest @ 50C"?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:45:27 +0000
From: AJ <ajdel@mindspring.com>
Subject: Aeration-Pitching/Widgets
For Miguel: Try pitching properly and aerating well. You may be
surprised at the results. You have the potential to make beer that is
substantially better than the commercial stuff you have been comparing
to. American and Ozzie brewing practices are well known for producing
less than exciting beer. Most of the imports you will obtain are stale.
It doesn't take a lot of extra effort to grow up a starter and aerate.
Proper pitching is one of the "secrets" that distinguish the really good
homebrewers from the flock. I've heard so many guys say that this extra
step was the one that really moved their beer quality forward and I
number mysef among those.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Phil sent me a copy of the post you saw today so I responded directly.
Here's what I said:
I can tell you what I think happens. The widget, probably filled with
nitrogen
gas (to prevent exposure of the beer to oxygen), at ambient pressuregets
tossed
into the can which is then filled with carbonated beer. A couple of
drops of
liquid N2 are added and the can is sealed. It then goes throug flash
Pasteurization which increased the pressure in the can greatly as the
nitrogen
vaporizes. Apparantly it does not do so completely before the can is
sealed.
The high pressure forces beer into the widget (whose interior is still
at
atmospheric pressure). The can then cools and pressure equilibrates at
an
atmosphere or so above ambient with the widget containing beer. When the
top
gets popped the pressure in the headspace and the beer instantly drops
to
ambient but the pressure in widget cannot drop so fast because it
communicates
to the beer only through a tiny hole. This results in a thin stream of
beer
being forced into to can through the hole and the agitation this causes
has a
similar effect to that of the sparkler in a real draft system. The older
widgets were fixed to the bottom so the beer made a fountain up the side
of the
can. I assume the release of pressure causes the new, loose-ball widget
to
start flopping about, spinning etc.
Subsequently Phil wrote back asking how certain I was that this is the
process. I'm quite confident that the bit about the liquid nitrogen is
correct. This is documented in books like Kunze's. What happens when the
lid is pulled I'm not so sure of. I can't see through the can and even
if I could Guiness is too dark to see through!
- --
A. J. deLange
Numquam in dubio, saepe in errore.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:15:48 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast Starters, oxygen and the like, Part 1
Brewsters:
Migel de Salas considers all this aeration of worts
to be momilies since he pitches the big smack
pack from Wyeast and never purposely aerates
and he likes his beer. Kyle wants a simple rule
of thumb on how to know the pitching volume of
yeast easily. All part of the search for the optimum
flavor stability of beer, I am including both
apparently disparate subjects here because
they are definitely related,
First, Miguel, I share some of your ( and others')
scepticism based on the incredibly small amount
of oxygen dissolved even in saturated wort.
AJ DeLAnge ( see the HBD archives 2 or 3
years ago) did an experiment in which he
measured the oxygen content of wort after
pouring through air and I believe got numbers
like 60% saturation in one pour through air and
then 80% and such. So it is possible to get
oxygen into a wort, especially in the small
quantities of wort we handle, almost accidentally.
There may be no need to aerate 5 gallon batches,
but as the quantities go up, the surface to volume
ratio decreases significantly and the oxygen
incorporation with it.
AJ also did an experiment , I believe, in which
he measured oxygen content after pitching
and found that the oxygen was virtually gone
within a half an hour after pitching. Now how,
you and I and others ask can such a rapid
disappearence have any effect on future
generations of yeast when we know there
will be colony growth over the next several days?
We also know the yeast will grow by a factor of
3 to 5 times and maybe more in the case of many
homebrewers. Sounds like the amount of
oxygen is essentially insignificant, doesn't it?
Well, long before AJ and most others were
on the beer scene, Brits in M&BS did an
experiment in which they fermented successive
batches of beer in which neither yeast nor wort
were exposed to oxygen. Within five batches
a substantial decrease in attentuation was
noted, and I surmise a change in the flavor
and texture of the beer. The only change?
an "insignificant" amount of oxygen dissolved
in the wort.. This a fact. How do we rationalize it?
Other work has shown that a lack of oxygen
can cause changes in biochemical pathways
with subsequent changes in aroma ( increase
in esters, e.g.).
How can we explain these events, knowing
the effects of small quantites of oxygen are
apparently chemically insignificant and not
even around for the majority of the yeast growth?
The answer is sharing of membraneous material.
Since the majority of the chemical conversions
take place at these membranes, they act like
multipliers and affect the outcome of a chemical
reactionmany,many times compared to the small
changes in the chemical constituion of the
membranes
Mother cells bud and share some of their
hard earned sterols and other membrane
building substances with their daughters. As
the fermentaton progresses, the amount of
oxygenated material decreases on a per
cell basis. The daughter cell grows to maturity
building membranes and carrying out
biochemical reactions utilizing many sources
of ingredients from the wort ( and not needing
oxygen to do it since the wort supplies these).
During this activity many side products are
produced which flavor the beer, since in its
pure sense, sugar digestion will not produce
these small but flavorful compounds. Mother
cells have only a limited supply of these
membrane building substances ( which control
the influx of compunds form the wort as well as
the mitochondrial utilization of the substances)
and with each new daughter cell its supply
decreases. Changes in these membranes
when taken to extremes can result in a totally
different taste to beer.
Part 2 provides the guidelines
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:18:43 -0500
From: "Nathaniel P. Lansing" <delbrew@compuserve.com>
Subject: re-winemaking
Jack, you want me to send you a free bottle of wine, I have an even
_better_idea; you buy a Selections Premium wine kit and wait over a year
for it to mature and try it. I don't want to be blamed for switching a
commercial wine to a home vintner label. The data you judged concentrates
by is 20 years old, by your own words. They don't put them in cans
anymore
and the Canadian market is so large (40% of wine consumered is homemade)
the only way to a good market-share is to provide _superior_ quality
wines
in concentrate form. Some kits are concentrated only 33%; that leaves a
lot
of character compared to the 48 oz can + 8 lbs of sugar days. Oh, and I
tasted plenty of pale ales and German wheat beers from extract that
couldn't be discerned from all grain, it's a matter of process and
freshness.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:23:33 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast starters, oxygen and the like Part 2
Brewsters:
Part 2 of Yeast starters, oxygen and the like.
Now how can you maintain flavor stability in
your beer if you are going to pitch the same
yeast more than once?
1) Pitch a large enough and healthy starter
such that the desirable membrane building
substances are available. This will allow
the yeast to get through the fermentation.
How large is enough? Theoretically, a
single cell can be a source for fermentation,
but if all the nutrients are not supplied a
difference in flavor will likely be noted between
this and a recommended starter level.
So how do you get a healthy starter? Use
an OG - 1.020 to 1.040 starter of pure malt
extract or wort , stir exposed to air through
a sterile cotton ball or bubble in sterile air
at the same temperature of your fermentation.
The combination of a good wort with plenty
of FAN and oxygen will give you yeast with
the maximum of sterols and the like in the
yeast. Be sure to pour off this starter beer
or you will be adding lots of, perhaps,
undesirable flavors. You may even want
to wash this with cold, sterile water, but I
don't bother.
2) Now how much to pitch? And why not
just use all the yeast from the last batch
just by running the wort onto that? Since
the yeast generate these flavor compounds
during yeast growth, the amount of growth
affects the flavor of the beer. To get flavor
stability from batch to batch with recycled
yeast it is important to pitch the same amount
each time. With ales, usually more highly
flavored from the yeast than lagers, it is
important to use enough yeast such that
3 to 5 increases in growth will occur before
the end of the fermentation. With lager
yeasts about twice this amount of yeast will
be more appropriate which reduces this
yeast flavor component and focusses more
on the malt and hops components.
How to do this?
Part 3 answers this.
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:26:10 -0500
From: Dave Burley <Dave_Burley@compuserve.com>
Subject: Yeast Starters, oxygen and the like, Part 3
Brewsters:
Part 3 of Yeast starters, oxygen and the like
A five gallon batch of an ale will require
5 to 6 ounces of yeast slurry according to
Daniels in Designing Great Beers, I believe.
Take your empty starter vessel, pour in
6 ounces of water and mark the container.
Add 12 ounces and mark that. Now when
you do your starter buildup you will know if
the quantity of yeast slurry that settles out is
the appropriate amount and just as importantly
the same amount.
Why not pitch onto the yeast cake of a
previous batch?
1) Because these yeast are stressed having
just finished an anaerobic fermentation . My solution?
Take the appropriate amount of yeast and repitch
it to a starter and allow it to grow over night in a
stirred starter bottle exposed to air. Failing access
to a stirrer just pour the starter from vessel to
vessel occasionally. FOAM!
2) Because the yeast will not grow and produce the
appropriate level of flavor compounds.
3) more often than not, I do not want to pitch directly
with the same yeast to avoid having too much beer
of the same variety. I then wash the yeast cake to
remove any residual beer and store under sterile
water in a capped beer bottle in the fridge. I always
pitch this to a starter before utilizing it.
But is flavor stability the only factor determining the
pitching rate?, since it seems if you always pitched
the same quantity of yeast you should get flavor
stability. The answer in this practical world is, of
course, No. Pitching rate is at such a level because
there are competing microorganism like wild yeast
and bacteria which can spoil the beer by changing
the flavor due to their growth. Pitching a large quantity
of yeast will drop the pH quickly, form a CO2 barrier
and in some cases actually kill competing yeast. All
elements which allow desirable yeast to predominate.
There is also that nasty thing called "efficient capital
utilization" in the business world of brewing and a
fermentation that takes in 3 days is better than one that
takes 4 days or longer, since the fermentation vessels
will be freed up to produce more beer with the same
capital. As such they would like to maximize the yeast
pitched. Homebrewers do not need to worry about this
aspect of homebrewing.
The recommended levels of yeast are therfore
bounded by two competing principles. Maximum
yeast to prevent competiton and maximize the
fermentation rate and minimum to develop lots of flavor.
So this leads me to the surprising conclusion that
the recommended pitching rates are the MAXIMUM
that should be pitched in order to maintain a well
flavored beer from desirable yeast with
inconsequential flavor instabilities from competing
microorganisms. And why I do not recommend
directly pitching onto a previous batch's yeast cake.
Should we bother to add this much? I think so, largely
from concerns about competing micro-organisms and
especially if we recycle our yeast. Do we <need> to?
Probably not, as experience has shown.
Keeping your yeast free from competing organisms
by using a large starter is especially important if you
recycle your yeast. Past indications by brewers that
five yeast recycles was the maximum you could do
without getting "mutations" was likely due to infection
not mutation.
So how does this explain Miguel's ( and others')
observation that "underpitching" is OK? First Miguel
does not recycle his yeast, apparently. Secondly,
he does get some oxygen, even if accidentally. And
pitching the large pack he gets enough yeast to
favorably compete with other organisms. Most
importantly, perhaps is the constant amount of
yeast leads to his acceptable and stable flavor
of beer from batch to batch.
Keep on Brewin'
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:06:31 -0500
From: Spencer W Thomas <spencer@engin.umich.edu>
Subject: Minor rant
Every time I read a post that says "I've never tasted the effects of
<insert your favorite brewing practice ("bad" or "good") here> in my
beer," I want to scream. Maybe you haven't. But that doesn't mean
it's not there!
Most of us (and I include myself here) are not able to be totally
objective about our own beers. Get some other experienced beer
tasters to try it, preferably "blind" (i.e., they don't know it is
YOUR beer). Until you do so, I won't believe your unsupported
assertion.
By "experienced taster" I mean someone who has spent some time
training himself or herself to taste and identify various beer
components. "I've drunk a lot of beer in a lot of places." is not
necessarily a qualification for this "job." I don't have to know what
a Koelsch tastes like to know what diacetyl tastes like, and to
recognize it in a purported Koelsch.
(Anti-flame note: nowhere in the above did I say "BJCP." A goal of the
BJCP is to turn out experienced tasters, but not all BJCP judges are
experienced tasters, and not all experienced tasters are BJCP judges.
So let's just leave that bit of politics out of it, OK?)
(Geek disclaimer: Yes, I am aware of the desirability of controlled
experiments and triangle tests. Those require modification of the
brewing process, and incredible attention to detail which most of us
don't have. A single data point proves nothing. Your mileage may
vary. Contents may have settled during handling. The opinions
expressed here are not necessarily those of the HBD management.)
=Spencer Thomas in Ann Arbor, MI (spencer@umich.edu)
------------------------------
Date: 10 Nov 1999 09:01:06 -0500
From: RCAYOT@solutia.com
Subject: Anchor code, Yeast and stuff
Now that we all have exquisite knowledge of the Anchor Brewing's
bottling code, can we move on to other subjects? ;)
The yeast discussion is taking on classic proportions! I lets look at
the discussion, we have Miguel de Salas saying, whoa! he pitches a
stepped up wyeast pack and gets good beer, then we have others like
Alan Meeker who is researching some very interesting aspects of yeast
growth and fermentation.
To this I would add, my comments: Tweaking your homebrew process is
what most of us are discussing here. And Miguel is correct, we can
make not just good beer, but great beer by using the simplest of
techniques, to which in-line oxygen injection, and a hemocytometer are
not critical components! However, we must also understand that some
developments have helped make great improvements in our beer, to name
a few, pure yeast cultures (why didn't we just stay with Red Star?),
Higher quality malt extract (I can remember being happy to be able to
find a can of John Bull extract that was less than a year old!) high
quality malted barley (anyone ever try to brew with a sack of "brewing
grains"?) I don't know about the rest of you brewers out there but
just going to a full wort boil made huge improvements in my early
beers! Never mind the next step of going all grain (and never looked
back!)! What I am trying to bring up here is the fact that this hobby
had some very humble beginnings and we have made great gains. I
recently looked over some of my early homebrewing books, by Dave
Miller, Charlie Papazian, and others. the information in those books,
by today's standards is woefully out of date, and in a lot of cases
just plain wrong. I can imagine 10 years from now, we homebrewers
will look at some of the information we are receiving now and dismiss
it outright, like Dave Millers admonishment that mashing for at least
90 or even 120 minutes was absolutely necessary for good beer!
I guess I have been brewing long enough have confidence that I can
"monitor the situation" before adopting a new brewing practice. I
would like to advise any beginning to intermediate brewer out there
reading the HBD that Miguel is correct, great beer can be made simply
and has a lot to do with care and craft. Keep on Brewing, and Alan,
where is the second half of your post?
Roger Ayotte
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 10:34:30 EST
From: Biergiek@aol.com
Subject: methylene blue
I wrote:
>PS - on a related note, does anyone have a
>protocol for measuring
What I was trying to say: does anyone have a
protocol for measuring yeast viability using
methylene blue?
Jim Liddil gave me some instructions that I
misplaced.
Kyle
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:38:56 -0500
From: Dennis Himmeroeder <dennish@palmnet.net>
Subject: Unidentified Hop Pest
I just cut down my nearly dormant cascade hop vines down here in
Florida, and noticed that the stems were infested with some sort of
scaly bug approximatley one-eighth of an inch in length. These bugs
looked like green bumps on the stem and they were very soft, they had no
discernible legs or head. Higher up on the vines were cottony patches
also one-eighth of an inch in length. Also the vines seemed to brown
and die prematurely.
Can anyone identify these critters, and prescribe some sort of chemical
to control them in the next growing season. It would be preferable to
have an organic mix that I could formulate myself.
Thanks,
Dennis H. Melbourne Beach, Florida.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:11:00 -0500
From: Eric.Fouch@steelcase.com
Subject: Yeasty Boys
HBD-
Kyle rambles at length:
>The rule of thumb I keep reading about is to limit yeast
>growth (generations) to 3X-5X for lagers, and 8X-10X for ales.
The Sieble Educated Techno Super Brewer (I saw his cape) at Canal Street
Brewing Co (they are on Monroe Street, and make "Founders Ales"- go figure)
told me that the optimal yeast growth was 4 generations. I don't know if that
is for ales or lagers, or if it is directly scaleable. I'll try to nail him
down on this soon.
>From what I know (forgive the simpleton explations, I was educated in
>the state of Michigan) the amount of yeast to pitch is measured by the
>number of viable yeast cells. The rule of thumb is 1.5E6 cells/ml/degree P
>for lagers, 0.75 cells/ml/P for ales.
Yeah right- we have codemonkey rules about who gets into our state, and you
wouldn't make the grade.
>The problem is that the yeast will have to work so hard to
>do this (multiply several hundred generations?) that undesirable fermentation
>byproducts will be produced, resulting in a fouchian butt rot type of brew.
Two words- Darth Maul Dunkle.
>Kyle
>Bakersfield, CA
>
>PS - on a related note, does anyone have a protocol for measuring
A ruler works for me.
Eric (I have twelve inches, but I don't use it as a rule) Fouch
Bent Dick YoctoBrewery
Kentwood, MI
"Everything that can be invented, has been invented."
- CHARLES DUELL, 1899- Head of the Office of Patents
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:14:37 -0600 (CST)
From: John Wilkinson <John.Wilkinson@aud.alcatel.com>
Subject: Brewing Poem
A Brewing Poem by,
George Arnold 1834-1865 (short but happy life?)
Beer
Here,
With my beer
I sit
While golden moments flit:
Alas!
They pass
Unheeded by:
And, as they fly,
I,
Being dry,
Sit, idly sipping here
My beer
O, finer far
Than fame, or riches, are
The graceful smoke-wreaths of this free cigar!
Why
Should I
Weep, wail, or sigh?
What if luck has passed me by?
What if my hopes are dead,-
My pleasures fled?
Have I not still
My fill
Of right good cheer,-
Cigars and beer?
Go, whining youth,
Forsooth!
Go, weep and wail,
Sigh and grow pale,
Weave melancholy rhymes
On the old times,
Whose joys like shadowy ghosts appear,-
But leave to me my beer!
Gold is dross,-
Love is loss,-
So, if I gulp my sorrows down,
Or see them drown
In foamy draughts of old nut-brown,
Then do I wear the crown,
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 08:47:57 -0900
From: Clifton Moore <cmoore@gi.alaska.edu>
Subject: Home Malting update
A quick update is that I have for years played with small batch malting,
trying sizes from test tube to bucket.
Having learned the importance of a good steep and arranged for the
production of malting varieties in interior Alaska, I now have tons of
good quality barley and a garage full of malting plant.
It is your Old World floor malting utilizing plastic olive drums for
steep vesicles, 55 deg F garage temp for the germination bed
environment, and a kiln made from plywood, dimension lumber,
a honking big fan, plumed into my house hydronic heat and an
old pallet made of galvanized steel to support the "piece"
(volume of green malt).
I am at present putting 100 lb. batches through the works,
with a phase delay (start a fresh batch )of three to four days.
The dwell time end to end is 10 to 13 days.
Thus far I have been putting a large quantity of time into
building and modifying the works, but I anticipate that once
stable it will require about 30 minutes, twice daily for
routine germination bed maintenance and steep water
changes with an additional hour or two thrown in every
three days to start a new batch, and move material through the plant.
I have thus far produced volumes of slightly undermodified,
low kiln malt that extracts nicely and tastes great. I look
forward to arranging the room and the time to do some
10 gallon brewing with this malt, but for now I am limiting
this to test mashings on hand grab samples.
The most important thing I have discovered is that pumps
and fans generate a kind of noise that, while reassuring and
warm to my ear in much the way a ships motors are to a sea
captain, can be interpreted by say a wife as most disturbing.
I thus have stringent hours of allowable industrial activity
in my garage. It may be noted that the master bed room
is above the garage.
How hot is "low kiln"? The kiln takes about 10 hours to dry
and cure 100 lbs of green malt. The current max temp is
135 deg F as this is the overheat switch setting on my fan motor.
While at first bothered by this, I find that the malt is nicely
cured at this temp and has no detectable green notes. A
planned squirrel cage fan with a belt drive will allow for
the placement of the motor outside the kiln and will thus
allow for higher temp curing.
Why the undermodification? I believe this is due to not
imbibing enough water in the steep and thus water starvation
towards the end of the germination cycle. I am playing with
a variety of steeping schedules to trade off the low temperatures,
(which seem to best favor synchrony and total percentage
germinated vs. dud seeds), against the quicker water uptake
that results with warmer steeps. It should be noted that other
than loss of synchrony, higher steep temperatures foster
microbial activity of a complex and thus far indeterminate nature.
What are you going to do with all that malt? (Have you been
talking with my wife?) We have here in Fairbanks a rather
small but active home brew community and two micros.
Seems to me that I should be able to get it out there in the
market somehow. It needs to go someplace as the grain impaction
is getting to be a problem within the confines of the garage.
Mashing observations: I have found most commercial pale malts
to be much like making cake from a mix. My malt is not yet so
well behaved. I suspect undermodification in that I never can
mash to the point that doing an iodine test on the grains will
not result in a positive for starch if I crush the mash with a spoon.
The sweet liquor is clean and starch free rather quickly, but even
after 90 min. the enzymes have been unable to penetrate some
of the grain chunks. Decoction mashing would probably yield
favorable results in that I suspect decoction was first employed
to deal with this very problem in medieval malt. When I get
around to figuring out a lab method for doing a
course grind / fine grind comparison, I expect my suspicions
to be confirmed. So I am thinking that all the old rests may
serve me well in using this malt. I have yet to use an acid rest,
but it may be advisable, and a protein rest has been part of
my standard batch method for years, not that I believe it is
required in modern malts, but I find it a nice starting point
for mashing in.
It is my hope that this post will stimulate some discussion.
Have at it.
Respectfully,
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #3167, 11/11/99
*************************************
-------
